No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 July 2009
In order to write about the relationship of four Hungarian kings with the Holy See during the eleventh century, one must first make acquaintance with the ecclesiastical policy of King Stephen I (ob. 1038), who established the political and religious unity of the country. One must also consider the relations with Rome and with the German court of Kings Andrew I (ob. 1060) and Solomon (1063–1074) in the 1050s through the early 1070s. Finally, it is important to point out that only Ladislas I, who reigned during the last quarter of the century and died in 1096, had shown a firm attitude toward Rome, though his policy went too far and, in the view expressed by Urban II to Coloman the Learned of Hungary (ob. 1116), led to a rapture of relations with the Holy See.
1. See Hóman-Gy, B.. Szekfü, , Magyar történet [Hungarian history] 5 vols., 6th ed. (Budapest, 1939), 1: 176 ff.Google Scholar, for background, and 1: 642 ff., for bibliography; Hóman, B., Geschichte des ungartschen Mittelalters, 2 vols. (Berlin, 1940–1943), 1: 173 ff.Google ScholarVáczy, P. v., Die erste Epoche des ungarischen Königtums (Pécs, 1935), pp. 50 ff.Google Scholar; Fraknói, V., Magyarország egyházi és politikai kapcsolatai a római Szentszékkel [Hungary's ecclesiastical and political relations with the Holy See] 3 vols., (Budapest, 1901–1903), 1: 3 ff.Google Scholar; Mályusz, E., Egyl ázi társadalom a középkori Magyarországon [The ecclesiastical society in medieval Hungary] (Budapest, 1971), pp. 13 ff.Google Scholar
2. See Pope Innocent III in Migne, , Patrologia Latina 215. 413aGoogle Scholar (hereafter PL); P., “A királyság központi szervezete szent István korában’ [Centralized royal government in the times of King Stephen], Szent István Emlékkönyv [Memorial volume to the 900th anniversary of the death of King Stephen], ed. Card, J.. Serédi, 3 vols. (Budapest, 1938), 2:33 ff.Google Scholar; Györffy, Gy., “A magyar egyházszerevezés kezdeteiröl újabb vizsgálatok alapján” [The beginnings of ecclesiastical organization in Hungary in the light of latest research], Proceedings of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, class 2 18 (1969): 199 ff.Google Scholar; Moór, E., “Az árpádkori monarchia keletkezéséhez” [Essay on the origins of the Árpád monarchy], Századok 104 1970): 350 ff.Google Scholar
3. Chronicle, cc. 88–123.
4. See Migne, , PL 151. 481b.Google Scholar
5. Ibid. 215. 481ab; 216. 51a.
6. MGHSS, 4: 607.Google Scholar
8. Ibid., 3: 753.
9. Marczali, H. et al. , eds., Enchiridion fontium historiae Hungarorum (Budapest, 1901), pp. 57 ff.Google Scholar; Hilsch, P., “Der Bischof von Prag und das Reich in sächsischer Zeit,” Deutsches Archiv für Erforschung des Mittelalters 28 (1972): 1 ff.Google Scholar; Csóka, L. J., “Wolfgangus monachus ad Ungaros missus est,” Vigilia 37 (1972): 701 ff.Google Scholar
10. Cf. Hóman-Szekfü, I: 168.
11. See Migne, , PL 135. 1080 f.Google Scholar; Schnürer, J., Kirche und Kultur im Mittelalter, 3 vols., 2nd ed. (Paderborn, 1927), 2: 135.Google Scholar
12. See MGHSS, 4: 607.Google Scholar
13. SSH, 2: 394, 13.Google Scholar
14. Ibid., 2: 394, 14–15.
15. Ibid., 2: 394, 19–21; Hóman-Szekfü, 1: 174.
16. MGHSS, 3: 784.Google Scholar
17. See Holtzmann, R., Geschichte der sächsischen Kaiserzeit (Munich, 1941, repr. 1967), pp. 359 ff.Google Scholar
18. Manitius, M., Geschichte der lateinischen Literatur des Mittelalters, 3 vols. (Munich, 1911–1931), 2: 394 ff.Google Scholar; Horváth, C., A régi magyar irodalom története [History of old Hungarian literature] (Budapest, 1899), pp. 18 and 26 f.Google Scholar
19. See Jaffé, Ph., ed., Bibliotheca rerum Germanicarum, 6 vols. (Berlin, 1869–1873, repr. 1964), 2: 127,Google Scholar or Migne, , PL 148. 375Google Scholar
20. This may be the reason why Stephen, “verba vite predicaret et Hungaros baptizaret;” SSH, 1: 117.Google Scholar
21. Ibid., 2: 412 ff.
22. Ibid., 2: 414, 9–11; the papal writ cited in the record failed to survive (text in Migne, , PL 139. 274 ff.Google Scholar; Lattin, H. P., ed., Letters of Gerbert (New York, 1961), p. 374, n. 34).Google Scholar The document registered as such proved to be a seventeenth century forgery; see MGHSS, 11: 233,Google Scholar n. 35, and Böhmer, J. F., ed., Regesta imperii: Papstregesten, 911–1024 (rev. repr. Vienna-Graz, 1969), 374,Google Scholar no. +943; Schramm, P. E., Kaiser, Rom und Renovatio, rev. 3rd ed. (Bad Bomburg, 1962), pp. 152 ff.Google Scholar, provided a rather tendentious interpretation. See his reaction to Hungarian criticism, Ibid., p. 351.
23. Ullman, W., The Growth of Papal Power in the Middle Ages, 2nd ed. (London, 1965), p. 241, n. 3.Google Scholar
24. See supra, n. 19.
25. Migne, , PL 151. 480 ff.Google Scholar; Jaffé, Ph., ed., Regesta pontificum Romanorum, 2 vols. (Leipzig, 1885), 1, no. 5662.Google Scholar
26. Migne, , PL 215. 413 ff., and 216.,50Google Scholar f.; Potthast, A., ed., Regesta pontificumRomanorum, 2 vols. (Berlin, 1875), 1, no. 3725.Google Scholar
27. Theiner, A., ed., Vetera monumenta historica Hungariam sacram illustrantia, 2 vols. (Rome, 1859–1860), 1: 388.Google Scholar
28. Ibid., and Migne, , PL 216. 50a.Google Scholar
29. Text in St. Endlicher, L., ed., Rerum Hungaricarum monumenta Arpadiana, 2 vols. (Sangalli, 1849Google Scholar; one-volume repr. in Leipzig, 1931), 2: 310 ff., aa. 1:1–13 (hereafter RHM), preserved in a twelfth century MS (712) of the Admont Stiftsbibliothek, ff. 119–26, now Clme 433 of the Széchenyi Library of the Hungarian National Museum; Marczali, , Enchiridion, pp. 69 ff.Google Scholar, or Migne, , PL 151. 1243 ff., cc. 1–12 (!).Google Scholar
30. Horváth, J., Arpád-kori latinnyetvü irodatmunk stilusproblémái [Some stylistic questions concerning the Latin literature of the Arpadian age] (Budapest, 1954), pp. 111 ff.Google Scholar; text in SSH, 2: 619 ff.Google Scholar; Migne, , PL 151. 1235 ff.Google Scholar; mentioned by Hartvic, c. 19 (SSH, 2: 428,Google Scholar or MGHSS, 11: 238,Google Scholar c. 16); Pintér, J., Magyar irodalomtörtnet [A synthesis of Hungarian literature], 8 vols. (Budapest, 1930–1941), 1: 146 ff.Google Scholar; Tarnóczy, J., Szent Istaván életmüve és lelkivilága [The achievements and spirituality of King Stephen] (Budapest, 1971), passim.Google Scholar
31. See Leges, a. I: 1 (Migne, , PL 151. 1245cd).Google Scholar
32. Leges, a. I: 2Google Scholar (Ibid., 1246ab).
33. Szentpétery, E., ed., Regesta regum stirpis Arpadianae critico-diplomatica, 2 vols. (Budapest, 1923–1961), 1,Google Scholar nr. 5. Petrovich, E., “Szent Mór pécsi püspök” [St. Maurus, bishop of Pécs], Vigilia 36 (1971): 85 ff.Google Scholar
34. SSH, 2: 396, 16–17Google Scholar; the Chronicle reported a visit of King Stephen to Rome (ibid., 1: 317, 7), and the fifteenth-century Bishop Ranzano, Neopolitan ambassador at the court of Matthias Corvinus, recorded in his Epitomae Ungaricarum that Stephen was about thirty-three years old when undertaking that journey. See Schwandtner, I. G., ed., Scriptores rerum Hungaricarum veteres as genuini, 3 vols. (Vienna, 1746–1748), 1: 322 ff., esp. 593.Google Scholar
35. SSH, 2: 395, 5–6.Google Scholar
36. Vita minor, c. 3; Hartvic, cc. 6–7.
37. SSH, 2: 489 ff.Google Scholar
38. Annales Hildesheimenses, a. 1031 (MGHSS, 3: 92)Google Scholar; Hartvic, c. 19 says he died during a “hunting accident.” The Hungaro-Polish Chronicle, c. 9, reported that since Emery was married to a Polish princess the accident must have taken place in Poland (SSH, 2: 314 ff.)Google Scholar; William II Rufus of England died on a hunting accident; see Roger of Hoveden in the Rolls Series (London, 1868), 1: 155 ff.
39. Vita minor, c. 7; Hartvic, c. 21.
40. SSH, 1: 173, 6–15.Google Scholar
41. Ibid., 2: 392, 17–18.
42. Keza, c. 46; Chronicle, c. 72.
43. In spite of the threat of Pope Benedict IX to excommunicate anyone who dared to remove the Orseolo from power (MGHSS, 20: 800, 13–17).Google Scholar
44. SSH, 1: 325 f.Google Scholar
45. Ibid., 1: 321 f.
46. Ibid., 1: 333 f.
47. Ibid., 1: 333, 10–16; the Annales Altahenses (MGHSS, 20: 800Google Scholar) spoke of German laws, “scita Teutonica,” while Hermann Contractus mentioned Bavarian laws (ibid., 5: 125, 6). Keza, c. 51, ignored the significance of the event.
48. The termination of the Orseolo's reign enabled the relatives of King Stephen to return home from exile and to succeed to the throne; see SSH, 1: 177, 23–25, or 1: 337, 4–11.
49. “In fide et ueritate fateor, quod ui compellebantur intolerabilia mendatia in dei expendere sacerdotes. Diaboli autem iniquitas unum quod potuit, fecit, nimirum quicquid ex lege dei nouiter uenientes ad beatissimam illuminationem docuimus, abstulit… Prohibemur iam loqui, et episcopi nominamur, constituti etiam sub tributo humano, quibus totus comittitur diuino imperio mundus. Nam quorumdam nisi fallor intentio est quo ecclesiastica uirtus suffragantibus methodianistis atque dignitas apud nos circa hereticorum libitum tota quandoque infirmetur;” see Gerard of Csanád's Deliberatio supra hymnum trium puerorum libri octo, preserved in the late eleventh-century MS (6211) of the Munich Staatsbibliothek, f. 46', 5–23. On Gerard, see Manitius, 2:19 and 74 ff., and Banfi, F., “Vita di s. Gerardo da Venezia nel codice 1622 della Bibliotheca Universitaria di Padova,” Benedictina 2 (1948): 262 ff.Google ScholarLhotsky, , Europäisches Mittelalter (Vienna, 1970). p. 336,Google Scholar mistakenly referred to Gerard of Csanád as “ein gebürtiger Franzose.”
50. SSH, 1: 177, 13–24.Google Scholar
51. Chronicle, c. 82.
52. Annales Altahenses, a. 1046; SSH, 1: 177 f.Google Scholar
53. Ibid., 1: 178, 1–3; 1: 338, 19–24.
54. Ibid., 1: 338, 24–28.
55. Ibid., 2: 501 f.
56. Györffy, Gy., “Dem Gedächtnis Stefans, des ersten Königs von Ungarn,” Acta historica 17 (1971): 1 ff.Google Scholar; my essay, “The 1046 Csanád Assembly and the Unforseen Consequences of the Assassination of Gerard of Csanád,” Proceedings of the Árpád Academy and the XlVth Hungarian Convention, 1974 (Cleveland, Ohio, 1975): 150 ff.Google Scholar
57. Chronicle, c. 83 (SSH, 1: 339 f.).Google Scholar
58. Ibid., 2: 502 f.
59. Ibid., 2: 503, 7–8.
60. Ibid., 2: 503, 23–28; 1: 343 f., c. 86.
61. Ibid., 1: 344, 1–10; Mansi, , Concilia, 19: 631 f.Google Scholar; on the changes made by Andrew, see SSH, 2: 503, 23–26.Google Scholar
62. “Catholicus est Andreas vocatus;” ibid., 1: 334, 23–24.
63. Chronicle, cc. 89–90; Contractus in MGHSS, 5: 127,Google Scholar a. 1047.
64. Keza, c. 46; Chronicle, c. 90–91.
65. MGHSS, 4: 509.Google Scholar
66. Ibid., 30: 854, c. 32; Eckhardt, S., “I Endre francia zarándokai” [French pilgrims at King Andrew's court], Magyar Nyelv 32 (1936): 38 ff.Google Scholar
67. See the pedigree in Cross, , Russian Chronicle, p. 298.Google Scholar
68. Moravcsik, Gy., Byzantium and the Magyars (Amsterdam-Budapest, 1971), pp. 61 f.Google Scholar; SSH, 1: 345, 17–19.Google Scholar
69. Marczali, , Enchiridion, p. 85.Google Scholar
70. SSH, 1: 173, 22.Google Scholar It should be noted that the name Tihany is of Slavic origin (tichij hod, quiet place) and that it is possible that a Byzantine monastery had previously existed there from the ninth century until perhaps the very days of King Stephen; cf. Tautu, A., “Residui di rito bizantino nelle regioni balcano-danubine nell'alto medioevo,” Orientalia Christiana periodica 15 (1949): 41 ff.Google Scholar; Csemegi, J., “A tihanyi barlanglakások” [Cave dwellings at Tihany], Archeológiai értesitö 3, nos. 3–9 (1946–1948): 396 ff.Google Scholar
71. Moravscik, Gy, “Görögnyelvü monostorok Szent István korában” [Byzantine monasteries in Hungary in the times of King Stephen], SIE 1: 387 ff.Google Scholar
72. See MGHSS, 4: 509.Google Scholar
73. In Migne, , PL 159. 864cd,Google Scholar and the statement by Hildebert, , Vita Hugonis ii: 7Google Scholar; the remark of Contractus, “imperator pactum Andreae regis ut per legatos offerebatur, accipere contemnens, Pannonias petiit” (MGHSS, 5: 130),Google Scholar may refer to this; Hullier, L., Vie de s. Hughes (Paris, 1888), pp. 68 f.Google Scholar
74. Fraknói, 1:21.
75. “In finibus Hungariae;” see Divonensis, Chronicon s. Benigni (MGHSS, 7: 237)Google Scholar; Jaffé, , Regesta, 1, nr. 4279,Google Scholar third entry, recorded that “Papa Leo per Pataviensem civitatem in servicium s. Petri apostoli ad subiugandum, non hostiliter videlicet, sed illorum sponte, Ungaricum sibi regnum, iter arriperet.” The bull may be spurious, but its contents are authentic; see Fraknói, 1: 360, n.58.
76. Wibert's Life of Leo IX, ii:8 (Migne, , PL 143, 496b)Google Scholar; Contractus, a. 1052.
77. Annales Altahenses, a. 1052.
78. Migne, , PL 143. 496c.Google Scholar
79. Contractus, a. 1052.
80. SSH, 1: 349, 2–23Google Scholar; MGHSS, 20: 809.Google Scholar
81. SSH, 1: 361 f.Google Scholar; Kristó, Gy, “Legitimitás és idoneitás” [Legitimacy and aptness: some remarks on the intellectual climate of the Árpádian age], Századok 108 (1974): 591 ff.Google Scholar
82. SSH, 2: 419.Google Scholar
83. Fraknói, 1: 401 ff.; Stephen's, Vita major, c. 11,Google Scholar reported that the Roman house, in capite mundi, housed twelve canons (?); see SSH, 2: 386.Google Scholar
84. Gaufredus Malaterra, i: 14 etc., in Muratori, , Scriptores, 5: 547 ff.Google Scholar, and Leo Marsicanus, ii:81 etc., in MGHSS, 7: 534Google Scholar; Herde, P., “Das Papsttum and die griechische Kirche im Süditalien vom 11 bis zum 13 Jahrhundert,” Deutsches Archiv für Erforschung des Mittlelalters 26 (1970): 1 ff.Google Scholar
85. Dolger, F., “Ungarn in der byzantinischen Reichspolitik,” Archivum Europae centro-orientalis 8 (1942): 315 ff.Google Scholar
86. SSH, 1: 350, 7–9.Google Scholar
87. Ibid., 1: 349, 11–23.
88. Ibid., 1: 352, 13–19.
89. Ibid., 1: 353, 16–19; Kristó, in Századok (1974): esp. 591 f.Google Scholar
90. SSH, 1: 341 f.Google Scholar
91. Ibid., 1: 345, 7.
92. Chronicle, cc. 89–9 1.
93. SSH, 1: 359.Google Scholar
94. Ibid., 1: 359, 29–33.
95. Ibid., 1: 365, 9–10.
96. Chronicle, c. 110.
97. Chronicle, cc. 102 and 104.
98. Chronicle, cc. 121–122.
99. Jaffé, , Bibliotheca, 2: 77 f.Google Scholar; Migne, , PL 148. 335 f.Google Scholar
100. Keza, c. 60; Farkas, Gy., “A mogyoródi csata” ]The battle of Mogyoród], Vigilia 39 (1974): 249 ff.Google Scholar
101. Chronicle, cc. 124, 126; Hóman-Szekfü, 1: 271 ff.
102. Jaffé, , Bibliotheca, 2: 183 f.Google Scholar; Migne, , PL 148. 414c.Google Scholar
103. Jaffé, , Bibliotheca, 2: 127 f.Google Scholar; Migne, , PL 148. 373.Google Scholar
104. SSH, 1: 403.Google Scholar
105. RHM, 2: 334 ff.; 340 ff.Google Scholar
106. Ibid., 2: 334, a. 1.
107. Jaffé, , Bibliotheca, 2: 279 ff.Google Scholar; Migne, , PL 148. 481f.Google Scholar
108. Jaffé, , Bibliotheca, 2: 361 f.Google Scholar; Migne, , PL 148. 534 f.Google Scholar
109. SSH, 1: 404 f.Google Scholar; 2: 5 18, 8–9.
110. MGHSS, 5: 311.Google Scholar
111. The Roman synod authorized the canonization of the first Hungarian saints, and dispatched a delegate to Hungary to participate in official procedures; see Bernoldi Chronicon, a. 1083 (Ibid., 5: 438 f.), a. 1083; Balanyi, Gy., “Magyar szentek, szentéletü magyarok” ], Katolikus Szemle 15 (Rome, 1963): 100 ff.Google Scholar
112. MGHSS, 5: 446Google Scholar, a. 1087.
113. Ibid., 6: 364; Jaffé, , Bibliotheca, 2: 682;Google ScholarHaller, J., Das Papsttum, Idee und Wirklichkeit, 5 vols., 2nd rev. ed. (Esslingen am Neckar, 1962), 2: 415 ff.Google Scholar; Seppelt, F. X., Geschichte der Päpste, 5 vols, 2 nd rev. ed (Munich, 1952–1959), 3: 92 ff.Google Scholar
114. Szentpétery, , Regesta, 1,Google Scholar nr. 24, and Marczali, , Enchiridion, pp. 101 ff.Google Scholar, to the effect that “sicut regales est monasterium, ita omnium bonorum consensu est prohibitio.”
115. Erdmann, C., ed., Deutsches Mittelalter: die Briefe Heinrichs IV (Leipzig, 1937), pp. 32 ff.Google Scholar; Langosch, K., ed., Die Briefe Kaiser Heinrichs IV (Munster-Cologne, 1954), pp. 66 ff.Google Scholar; Bensen, R.L., ed., Imperial Lives and Letters of the Eleventh Century (New York, 1961), pp. 170, n. 105,Google Scholar and 171, rendered the wrong translation: Prince Almos was the nephew and not the son of King Ladislas. “Ladislao autem migrato regnavit post eum filius Geichae regis, Kolomannus.” Cf. Keza, , c. 64 (SSH, 1: 182).Google Scholar
116. Hóman-Szekfü, 1: 358; Sisic, F., Geshichte der Kroaten, vol. 1 (Zagreb, 1917), pp. 257 ff.Google Scholar
117. Fraknói, 1: 27.
118. MGHSS, 5: 453Google Scholar; it should be Christmas, 1091 in our time reckoning; see Brandt, A. v., Werkzeug des Historikers, 2nd ed. (Stuttgart, 1960), p. 39.Google Scholar
119. The king mentioned the delegates he dispatched to Rome: “capellaneous meos et Sorinem nostrum militem, quos V (=Urbano?) apostolico mitto.” Fraknói, 1: 404, dated it 1091.
120. RHM, 2: 325 ff.Google Scholar; Mansi, , Concilia, 20: 757 ff.Google Scholar
121. See Mirbt, C., ed., Dis Publizistik im Zeitalter Gregors VII (Leizpig, 1894), pp. 266 ff.Google Scholar, and 326 f. Or, the writ of Pope Gregory to the Archbishop of Mainz, dated March, 1074 in Jaffé, , Bibliotheca, 2: 523 ff.Google Scholar, and Marianus Scotus, Chronicon, a. 1074 (MGHSS, 5: 560 ff.).Google Scholar
122. RHM, 2: 327, a. 3.Google Scholar
123. Ibid., 2: 329, a. 18.
124. Ibid., 2: 326.
125. SSH, 1: 408, c. 134.Google Scholar
126. Ibid., 1: 412 f., c. 137; Hóman-Szekfü, 1: 276 f.
127. RHM, 2: 333, aa. 42–43Google Scholar; compare with Decretum II of King Ladislas (Ibid., 2: 338, a. 11), and with his Decretum III, a. 15 (Ibid., 2: 346).
128. Migne, , PL 151. 481bc.Google Scholar
129. Ibid., 163, 198; Jaffé, Regesta, 1, nr. 6098. Indirectly, Bónis, Gy., A jogtudó értelmiség a középkori Nyugat és Közép-Európában [The law-trained intelligentsia in medieval western and east-central Europe] (Budapest, 1971), pp. 16 ff.Google Scholar