Talk:Holy Crown of Hungary

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to build a more detailed guide on Wikipedia's coverage of the history of Europe. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B	This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.

Contents 1 Location of the Crown 2 Bent cross 3 About the loss of the Holy Crown 4 Legal personhood 5 The icons on the crown 6 Before destroying, please ask / comment 7 The King's Socks 8 Requested move 9 An image speaks more than a thousand words 10 Energy 11 30 years after 12 Edits of Abdulka

[edit] Location of the Crown

In 2005 I saw the Holy Crown in Matthias Church, however, the article claims the crown has been in the Hungarian Parliament building since 2000.

The crown in Matthias Church is an exact copy of the Holy Crown. /Joseph

Yes, the Parliament building has all the original regalia (except the all too delicate Mantle remained in the National Museum glass vault). There are several copies of the Holy Crown, of various quality. They are required by law to be of slightly different size to prevent frauds. A golden copy of the Holy Crown was prominently featured this august 20 during the pompous sworning-in ceremony of young military officers at the Budapest Hero's Square.

The governing ex-communist and ultra-liberal coalition was much enraged about this and scorned its own defence minister. They are very hostile towards the role of the Holy Crown, sometimes informally call it "clown's hat" or "dirt crown" and wish to send it back to the museum. 91.83.19.70 (talk) 21:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bent cross

I was wondering how the cross came to be bent, but some quick googling seems to show the matter is subject to some controversy, eg. http://www.flag.de/FOTW/flags/hu)1.html Still it seems to be a question that has interested more than just myself, and it is even officially depicted this way on the coat-of-arms, so perhaps some knowledgeable person could at least canvas the theories? -- Securiger 11:25, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I found that it is bent because of an accident on February 14, 1638, when the crowning ceremony of queen Maria Anna (the wife of Ferdinand III) was at hand, but due to the wrong key the seneschal brought, they couldn't open up the chest containing the crown and the other royal insignia, so it was opened up by force. Moreover, the crown got jammed so much into the smaller copper box inside that it could only be taken out from there with a knife. – They tried to straighten again the cross, but it was not possible, since its hole widened out and the cross would have slipped back to the crown. It cannot be welded, either, because the enamel plate would be damaged. (Source in Hungarian: [1].)-- Adam78 14:03, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

PS: I heard from a historian acquaintance of mine that there are several other theories as well, and this above is not more certain than the others.

[edit] About the loss of the Holy Crown

Lajos Csomor, master goldsmith, scholar and member of the scientific group which obtained permission to examine the Holy Crown (1988?) has some interesting facts to give us.

The once held date of 1074-77 was untenable and the loss of the Crown cannot be substantiated. Excavations from the grave of an Avar goldsmith in Kúnszentmárton, Hungary, show us what kind of tools were used to decorate a golden object during the Avar period. The result of the technical examination of the Hungarian Holy Crown shows that its technical goldsmith parallels were all prepared in the Avar age using the tools of Avar goldsmiths. Objects parallel to the Crown, such as the Little Pipin bursa, the Charlemagne vessel, the Charlemagne talisman, Charlemagne's alfa, the St. Fides statue/ St. Fides book-cover all show such a technical relationship with one another, that we have to consider them coming from the very same workshop.

"We have to emphasize the fact that these workshops were situated in the Carpathian basin and the tools employed by the above techniques were also excavated in Hungary. We can surely conclude that all objects that bear a technical relationship to the Crown arrived to Western Europe as a result of the plunderings of Charlemagne's armies and were put to different uses in his court at a later time."

In addition, the examination shows that there is no difference between the top cross section and the bottom band as far as workmanship, material or any other aspect. The whole crown was made in one workshop at the same time.

Please read these very interesting articles!

http://www.acronet.net/~magyar/english/96-07/csmrcrwn.html

http://chicagohungarians.com/radics/Origin2f.htm

This is another lost article. It is not "said" that the crown was lost, it is a fact that it got lost. I am not going to correct this article, write any non-sense ("theory") you can find, I already got used to it from Hungarian contributors in this wikipedia...For your information, there is a "theory" for anything you can imagine. Juro 22:44, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

If you "Juro" would have read the article, it would have been clear to you that the "loss of the crown" only remains as a theory. My changes contribute to an article about the Holy Crown of Hungary that is simply open to other theories. The loss of the crown CANNOT be substantiated, neither can the theory of the "two" crowns. You must understand that I am open to all kind of theories. I/we can never know if the crown was lost or not. We don´t know if St. Stephen was crowned with "the present crown" or not. What we do "know" is that the crown most probably was manufactured during the Avar period, using Avar technology. It was according to Lajos Csomor made in the same workshop, at the same time. Although, all this still remains as theories.

/Joseph

Looks like we lost the crown (again) - then got a different one (again) ;-) It seems the previous image's poster (Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )) is involved in some alleged copyvio issues and the bots are out to take down everything he's posted. (the old image is still up on the Hungarian site) I pulled the new one from the German site - admittedly its not as nice as the previous one, so lets consider it a placeholder until someone either reformats this one (Im no good at that) or if you can find a better one, please put it up- kalappal! Istvan 16:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Legal personhood

"Szent Korona Állameszmény" is a phrase that doesn't show up in the hu.wp article, and indeed only occurs three times on the Internet - once in a translation of this article and once in a mirror. It strikes me as a very elegant idea, but also one that seems a little implausibly elegant - do we have a cite for it? It was addeed back in 2005, before we were strict on sourcing... Shimgray | talk | 01:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it exists. "Szent Korona Állameszmény = Holy Crown Ideal of Statehood. Also known as "Szentkorona tan" = Doctrine of the Holy Crown, which may be a more often mentioned form on the net or Google.

The need for this theoretical construction emerged when late medieval Kingdom of Hungary was under ottoman occupation for 150 years and the remaining little unconquered land was diveded between two or three rulers (austrian Habsburg emperors, polih-hungarian princes and the Duchy of Transylvania). Even if there was no living king or there were several competing self-styled kings, the heavenly authority of the Holy Crown still kept the country in one, or at least the hungarian people could believe so.

According to ancient hungarian legend, Pope Sylvester in A.D. 999 / 1000 had seen an angel of God in his dream, which instructed him to send a king's crown to a recently baptised young "barbaric" prince, whose messengers arrive the next day. It was Stephen of Hungary and so hungarians believed this Holy Crown was direct gift from the Holy Trinity to the hungarians. It is easy to understand how this led to seeing the materially existing Holy Crown also as an immaterial source of heavenly authority on statehood.

(Had the Pope refused or neglected to send a crown direct to Istvan, the country of Hungary could not be recognized fully independent under european feudalism era rules, rather become, at best, a vassal or even an outright colony of the neighbouring and very mighty Holy Roman Empire, which consisted of todays' German and Austrian territory. By the time King Stephen I died and the holy roman empire marched on Hungary, the young country had grown strong enough to repel their attack.) 91.83.19.70 (talk) 20:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

This is absolutely not true. Pls check your sources before writing.

1., The Doctrine of the Holy Crown was existing before King I. Stephan, as some roots were coming from this period, however, the doctrine was compiled by Stephan. There is no connection with Ottoman period.

2., The gift from Pope Sylvester II was written in Hartwick's legend, and recompiled in XVIII century so it is not authentic. Secondly, if a Pope is giving a "holy" crown, then surely there should be a document in Vatican, but did you see any relating document on this? The truth is we do not know where the crown is from.

it is well-known that the original crown of St. Stephan was returned to the Vatican after his death in 1038. The currently venerated "Holy Crown" of the hungarians is not I. Stephan's crown, it is a later creation, possibly made using parts from a queen's crown (possibly of Gizella, I. Istvan's wife) and some byzantine additions.

It is not well known! pls cite your sources!

3., Hungarians were not "barbaric", but Christians before 10th century, although not Judeo-Christians. This is a fact you can see from tombs before 10th century in Carpathian Basin, they all hold a (double) cross on their chest.

Totally false. Hungarians who invaded the carpathian basin in 895-896 AD were pagans. They sacrifed horses, prayed to boulders and streams and participated in uralic shaman-drumming rituals. They venerated the "Boldogasszony" (Blessed Lady, a kind of nature goddess) and "Ukko" (the male deity), who is also known as "Hadur" (Warlord God). A small minority of hungarians were on jewish faith and a few of the top leadership (like warchief Geza, father of King Istvan I.) had taken on byzantine christianity nominally. The mass conversion of commoneer hungarian to christianity was a forced one after King Istvan I. used german knights' help to defeat and execute pagan warlord Koppany's army. After I. Istvan died in 1038 there were pagan widespread uprisings, for example bishop St. Gellert was captured by insurgent pagans in 1046 and martyred by rolling him down a hillside in a nail-studded barrel. Even in the 1080's new laws had to be made about punishing pagan tree-worshippers.

Same here, where are your sources? Sacrificed horse is pagan? they did it in funerals, but its not pagan, it is ancient heritage. Uralic drumming rituals? You mean táltos rituals? We know very small on these rituals, so pls do not state it is pagan. "Boldogasszony" is the Holy Virgin, what are you talking about? This is one proof that Hungarians were pre-Christian. I know nothing about veneration of "Hadur"- let me know details, I am interested! Forcing of Christianity does not mean repelling paganism, but mean forcing of Pre-Christianity (based on teachings of bishop Mani) to Judeo-Christianity we know today. Please admit you get your sources from 1980 history book, wkae up, there are new findings! There is no evidence Koppany was pagan, or maybe you have??

Even today, after a 1000 years, catholic priests in Hungary openly admit that church-going villagers are pretty much "pagans" if we take the Vatican's definition strictly. The veneration of Mary, mother of Jesus is so excessive, that it is indistinguishable from veneration of the Trinity. This is heresy, since veneration levels of saints ( called "dulia"), veneration of Mary (hyperdulia) and adoration of the Holy Trinity (latria) are strictly differentiated. Virgin Mary, mother of Jesus has taken the place of the "Boldogasszony" nature goddess in the hungarians' minds. In fact there is official church feast for "Gyumolcsolto Boldogasszony" (Fruit-grafting Blessed Lady), which is quite obvious replacement for a pagan fertility ritual.

Yes this is what I read in history books, but I would argue on Holy Virgin = Boldogasszony, which one was first? The egg or the hen? Gyumolcsolto Boldogasszony is a heritage of our Pre-Christian religion! What about points 4-5? you have nothing to criticize? Before writing, pls see some pictures of tombs from the time of "ingressus" (incoming, entering, "honfoglalas"), you will see some crosses on the bodies. Interesting, how could they get there? Why it is not propagated by Academy of Science? Maybe they need to revise their vision? (I am not insisting on theories to destroy...) Abdulka (talk) 16:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

4., It is also fake to think that the gift of crown was to accept Hungarian statehood. Kingdom of Hungary was "apostolic" meaning higher in hierarchy than "holy". This meant that there are no feudal relation between Hungary and Vatican (unlike Vatican with German-Roman Empire). The King could make somebody saint without approval from Vatican, the king could choose bishops without approval. This was the main reason why Habsburgs like Maria Theresa wanted to have the crown for herself.

5., You need to understand that the most important act of King St Stephen was to set the base of Kingdom of Hungary, and not the preservation of the nation. The nation was one of the most powerful at that time, it needed not to be preserved.Abdulka (talk) 15:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The icons on the crown

The icons should be discussed also, as they all have a meaning. This may also lead to dispute, as if we take the icons, then the Byzantine Duchas picture (and the two next to them) do not fit, which means they were inserted later (probably when it was lost), also, means that the complete crown was created as one, it is complete entity, and therefore, it is not coming from Byzantine but from much earlier times. Even though I agree the majority of historians believe that it was made from two parts, it makes sence to put it into the article, as this is not finished dispute. Abdulka 12:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Before destroying, please ask / comment

Dear Lastochka! 1. "Sacred" is better than "holy" as this crown is always written "sacra corona" in the chronicles. In fact, it is apostolic, which is higher in hierarchy, but never mind. 2. Please check your latin: "corona" can also mean "border", and is ALWAYS meaning Carpathian basin. 3. The crown is NOT ASSEMBLED from two parts! I ALREADY put refernces into the article, why you are asking? The people mentioned have published their findings. I am really sorry that Hungarian authorities are not taking this and they are still teaching "old scrap"! The time has changed, we need to be updated! One example of Hungarian tradition of being dualistic Greco-Latin is the name Ladislau, which is half Greek half Latin! Yet in one word! 4. Don't forget this is the only surviving imparting (beavató korona) on earth, don't delete this, this is important.

I will revert (except the last Hun section on the bottom of page, I do not have refernce on that, true) I have more surprises for this crown, so you can delete, but I will revert, sorry, c'est la vie.

I was testing Wikipedia, it failed! I am putting something recently found, let's be up to date. Abdulka 12:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Sheesh, sorry. I wasn't intending to "destroy" anything. I'm not going to bother arguing about "Holy" vs. "Sacred" or anything like that because I have neither the time nor the patience--however, you need to cite your references properly. See WP:CITE for how to do that. K. Lásztocska 20:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The King's Socks

The bit about the King's socks being burnt has to be vandalism, hasn't it? It's been in the article so long that I didn't dare change it though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Se16teddy (talk • contribs) 00:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The Holy Crown and the accompanying regalia were buried in marsh for months on at least two different occasions, in 1849 (loss of hungarian independence war against Austria) and 1945 (collapse of WWII nazi hungarian state). The textiles rot away due to ground water, the socks were a total mess of pulp and were indeed burned. (What else respectful could you do with them? If I understand correctly it is common habit to burn badly degraded flags in the US, the scouts do that, ain't?)

The big coronation mantle was still in one, but lost almost all red colour due to groundwater, yet it was too important to destroy. Today it is still preserved in the National Museum at Budapest, in a low-light room inside a neutral gas vault. It is so degraded that in year 2000 it was not possible to move it to the building of Parliament alongside the rest of the regalia. 91.83.19.70 (talk) 21:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

The name of the crown accepted in the English language publications of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences and the Hungarian Catholic Episcopal Conference is: Holy Crown (of Hungary). This name is however occupied by previous naming. When trying to rename it now, I committed a spelling error (capital U in Hungarian). So the renaming was accepted, but now it has a spelling mistake in it.--Szilas 05:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - This page should be moved to "Crown of St. Stephen", the name most frequently used for it in English-language scholarship. Here are the results from a Google books search:

"Crown of St. Stephen" 714 results

"Crown of Saint Stephen" 269 results

"Holy Crown of Hungary" 434 results

The usage of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences and the Hungarian Catholic Episcopal Conference doesn't overrule the usage by others. Noel S McFerran 14:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - these above differences are not so great as to justify the use of an obviously mistaken definition.--Szilas 09:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

By describing the common English name (used twice as frequently as the other name) as "mistaken" and then purposefully not using it, you are trying to CHANGE scholarship. Wikipedia summarizes what has been written; it doesn't "correct" it. Noel S McFerran 16:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy rename for typographic error. As for Crown of St. Stephen, that can be another move request. 132.205.99.122 19:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An image speaks more than a thousand words

There is a photo we could add at the top of this article, please see here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Istvan.jpg

[edit] Energy

Re 'the function of the pendants is to "ground" the energy which the crown body transferred', am I the only one to see a problem with this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.232.162.195 (talk) 19:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The references to the cross as antenna and the pendants as grounding are just some of the traces of the widespread Hungarian obscurantist cult of the crown that should not show up in an encyclopedia. Since there are no mainstream references for that whatsoever, I shall just remove them. I expect some of the believers to revert though... varbal (talk) 01:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand your views. Pls do not revert it yet! Even if it is a view of "obsurantist cult" it is still in the chronicles!I am checking in my references, ie. "The crown for the Hungarians is like the Lost Arc for the Jews" (I forgot who wrote it, when, I suppose Peter Revay in 16th century, but need to check). Also there are some references where the crown "killed" somebody, as he was not treating it. I understand that this is weird to put it to an encyclopedia, but it should be mentioned!

Let me also add reference from Gabor Pap, Tibor Varga and others (all professors). Abdulka (talk) 11:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 30 years after

There is a specific anniversary for the Holy Crown, as it was returned from the USA (Fort Knox) exactly 30 years ago during the Carter presidency. 82.131.210.162 (talk) 13:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edits of Abdulka

Abdulka confesses openly on his user page that he has missionary feelings. Obviously it is his right, but the Wikipedia is not the place to develop own theories.

He has completely ruined this article, deleted the scientifically accepted facts in the name of his private convictions. If he does not accept the opinion of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences and the Hungarian Catholic Episcopal Conference, he can write a new story about this subject somewhere else, but the Wikipedia is not the place for that in my humble opinion.--Szilas (talk) 14:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Szilas, you have the right to criticize, however, my edits were not totally reverted, so some parts should be true, hm? Just wait till I compile some facts and MTA can do me a favour. Szilas, MTA is washing your brain, driven by political interests. Just one example: have you ever seen a reliable picture on the cross? If you did, you could see it was not drilled inside. This picture is quite difficult to get. The holy crown is the key to ancient Hungarian heritage, so it is quite crucial in the history of Carpathian basin.

One more: of course these ideas are not coming from my mind, but I took it from some authors.

Last: I am open to any arguement in the future!

Abdulka (talk) 16:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Abdulka, the Wikipedia is the place for the generally accepted, mainstream scientific results. Of course you can find sources in such widely debated issues for everything, and for the contrary of everything, but we have to stick to the main lines. You can't have better source than the official publication for the 1000. anniversary of the Hungarian statehood, created on the basis of consensus of many Hungarian scientists, officially presented by the Hungarian Prime Minister for a great exhibition in the Vatican.--Szilas (talk) 16:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

PS: I didn't revert all your edits because I couldn't yet check the validity of all your facts, and I didn't want to be too harsh. But I don't think that they are all up to scientific standards. I sincerely propose to you to turn to the Metapedia [2] with your creative ideas.--Szilas (talk) 07:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)