Budapest Régiségei 18. (1958)

TANULMÁNYOK - Vattai Erzsébet: A margitszigeti korona 191-210

the 13th century. Further, the nunnery which stood on the island used to be closely connected with the Árpád dynasty and was repeatedly the scene of historical events, to lose its former significance during the reign of the Anjous in the 14th century. Therefore, considering also the size of the crown and the nature of the objects with which it was discovered, it seems safe to assume that it belonged to a female member of the Árpád dynasty. Information regarding the burial of the members of the royal family is regrettably scanty. One could think of Elisabeth, the wife of Stephen V, who — in accordance with the custom prevailing at the time — may have been entombed in the same church as her husband. A document from 1295 mentions her as having deceased, but we possess no document regarding her burial. The National Museum in Budapest possesses also a portion of a golden crown and the fragment of a clasp from the first half of the 13th century (Fig. 7). They were purchased in 1897 by the Museum of Industrial Arts from the Paris collection of Jerome Pichon and — as Hungarian relics — transferred subsequently to the Historical Museum. However, we have no reliable data concerning their origin. The style of the crown is akin to that of the crown of Namur. It is still more closely related to that crown-fragment in the British Museum which consists of a single jointed member. (It was first published by A. Mihalik in 1940.) The London fragment is stylistically akin to the crown of Namur and is believed to be the work of a French goldsmith. It is quite probable that our crown, too, was made in France which supposition seems to be substantiated by the fact that it was bought from a French collection. Of a later origin than that of the Margaret Island is a silver-gilt crown (Fig. 8) found in 1755 in a tomb situated in the centre of the pentagonal square of the citadel, on the site of the former cathedral at Nagyvárad (now Oradea, Roumania). The crown and an orb discovered with it came from Vienna to the Budapest National Museum in accordance with the Venice convention of 1933. The commander of the fortress who presented a report on the find to Maria Theresa direct, believed the tomb to have been that of Maria (f 1395), daughter of Louis the Great, and it figured for a long time as such at subsequent exhibitions. Varju was the first to suggest that the crown found at Nagyvárad may have been that of Sigismund (t 1437) who had specially desired to be laid to rest in that town near the tomb of St. Ladislas. To wit, the tomb contained also a golden clasp representing a dragon which has Since been lost, and Varju believed it to have been the emblem of the Order of the Dragon. The presence of the orb in the tomb is a sure indication that it was used for the burial of a royal personage. Apart from Sigismund and Maria, Stephen II (t 1131) and Beatrix (f 1319) daughter of Emperor Henry VII, second wife of Charles Robert, were buried in the cathedral of Nagyvárad. Stylistic and historical considerations suggest Sigismund and Maria as the most probable owners of the crown. It is unfortunately too much of a fragment to admit conclusions as to the number of members of which it was originally composed. It is also impossible to tell whether it was provided with arch, a characteristic feature of imperial crowns. As Sigismund has always been represented as wearing a crown of this type it is safe to assume that he was buried with such a crown. It was only later, by the end of the 15th century, that the arched form had become general for kings' crowns, as is evidenced also by Hungarian representations. A cross, similar to, but stockier than that of the orb of Nagyvárad, is seen on top of the golden crown of Prague made at the order of Emperor Charles IV, father of Sigismund (Fig. 10). This cross, the type of which occurred both in the 14th and 15th centuries, bears the closest resemblance to the cross of the Teutonic Knights. Although there exists no direct stylistical affinity between the crowns of Nagyvárad and Prague they are, nevertheless, somewhat similar as regards the arrangement and choice of the precious stones. The back part of the crown of Prague, too, is set with larger stones in the middle of the arch and smaller ones on both sides. The gems of the Prague crown are ruby, emerald and sapphire, those of the Nagyvárad crown are second rate ruby and emerald. It is more probable that the crown of Nagyvárad belonged to the Queen Maria and not to the Emperor Sigismund. Namely there are some data indicating that the tomb of Sigismund was opened earlier. Crowns brought to light from tombs in various parts of Europe make it evident that also crowns made of less valuable metal were used for burials in the Middle Ages. It is, for example, obvious that the simple silver crown found in the tomb of Béla III (f 1196) and his wife (f 1183) at Székesfehérvár was made for the burial. This is substantiated by the fact that the crown of Béla III was not even gilded. The original rich precious-stone and pearl ornamentation of the crowns found on the Margaret Island and at Nagyvárad shows that neither of them could have been made fór the special purpose of a burial : in both cases crowns were used that had existed already, crowns which though richly adorned were studded with stones of but moderate value. 14 Budapest régiségei 209