The Eighth Tribe, 1978 (5. évfolyam, 1-12. szám)

1978-01-01 / 1. szám

January, 1978

THE EIGHTH TRIBE

Page 7

him to gain the dignity of hereditary Christian kingship — a goal that the neighboring Czech and Polish rulers were unable to reach until two and three centuries later, respectively.

Following the success of Abbot Astrik’s mission, Stephen was crowned the king of Hungary with the crown that Pope Sylvester II had sent him. The crowning took place around Christmas of the year 1000

A.D. (or perhaps in the early days of the following year) in accordance with the established Germanic rites of Christian crowning. Tradition has it that the crown used on this occasion is identical with the upper part of the still existing “Crown of St. Stephen,” also known as the “Holy Crown of Hungary.” (This same tradition also holds that the lower part of the above crown was given to King Géza I by the Byzantine Emperor Michael VII Ducas in 1075 A.D.) While this tradition persists relentlessly, many recent Western researchers are of a different opinion. Based on the pioneer work of Joseph Deér, the latter generally agree that the present Hungarian crown is a composite artifact, with most of its parts stemming from the late eleventh, twelfth and early thirteenth centuries. Deér also believes that the “Crown of St. Stephen” was assembled in its present form in 1270 for the coronation of Stephen V. Allegedly this occurred after Stephen V’s sister, Anna, took the original crown to Bohemia, along with many other crown jewels of the Árpád family. (Deér: Die Heilige Krone; Bogyay: Katolikus Szemle, 1971, 289-306; and Bogyay: Új Látóhatár, 1962, 135-146 and 1970, 105- 115.) Whatever the truth in this matter, there is little doubt that — at least in its present shape and form -— the upper part of the “Crown of St. Stephen” could hardly be identical with the one that Pope Sylvester II gave to St. Stephen. As pointed out by the priest-historian László Erdélyi already in 1936, the granting of such a crown would have been anachronistic, for it would have violated the relevant rules of contemporary religious and political thinking. According to these rules, a king could only be given and crowned with an “open crown,” which was basically a circular band, with perhaps a cross in the front. According to these same rules, a “closed crown” — such as the upper part of the present Holy Crown of Hungary — was reserved specifically for the Holy Roman (German) and Byzantine emperors. (Erdélyi: Magyar tört., I, 50.) And this observation is also substantiated by the medieval portrayals of the kings of Hungary, none of whom are ever depicted with a “closed crown.”

Although the lack of a direct link between King St. Stephen and the present “Crown of St. Stephen” is almost a certainty, this fact has

77

But what is even worse, many times they are forced to deny their own oppression and exploitation before various Western delegations. (There are numerous concrete examples for this, none of which can be mentioned without endangering the life and well-being of the persons involved.) Thus, there only remains the Hungarian Government. As such, the responsibility of the latter is especially great; for — as expressed by several American diplomats involved in this question — the success or failure of the struggle for the rights and well-being of the Hungarians in Roumania, Czechoslovakia, and in the other Succession States depends largely on the

attitude of the present Hungarian Government. If the Hungarian Government chooses to speak up, if instead of withdrawing from this struggle, it too will make an effort to document the systematic oppression and denationalization efforts of the Roumanian and Slovak political regimes, then the results of this struggle that had been initiated by the Hungarians in the Western World will also have a speedier and a more successful conclusion. That this is so, can easily be verified by contacting the appropriate American diplomats and civil servants.

In summary, let me again reemphasize that the present Hungarian Government and the Hungarians in the Western World (especially the Hungarian-Americans) both share the responsibility for the future and well-being of the Hungarian minorities in the Succession States. The former has to trade in its timidity for boldness and initiate some official or semiofficial steps in the direction of informing the American and other Western governments about the nature and results of the oppressive denationalization efforts of the Roumanian and the Slovak regimes; while the latter must inject a bit more political realism and rationality into their struggle for their brethren who had been thrust into a minority position.

Although the situation appears rather bleak at the moment, one should not despair. To give up hope is to accept defeat. Nor should one forget that the cause of the Hungarian minorities is not only a Hungarian concern, but also a general human concern. This fact is also being realized by a growing number of Roumanian and Slovak intellectuals, who are beginning to resent these policies, and are in-