T H E A D V E N T U R E S OF

T H E HUNGARI AN CR O WN
by
GYÖRGY BÓNIS

“The crown of Hungary,” to quote Ernst Kantorowicz’s classic, The

King’s Two Bodies, "was at once the visible holy relic of St. Stephen,
Hungary’s first Christian king, and the invisible symbol and lord paramount
of the Hungarian monarchy.” Both the visible and the invisible crown,
the crown jewel and its theory, fascinated scholars and politicians for
centuries. To this day ideas have frequently changed about the diadem,
and feelings have often risen high about the idea of the crown. In surveying
the adventurous story of the “holy” crown, one must look at two separate
aspects in different ages: the fate of the visible and that of the invisible
crown.

T he royal crown

The traditional view about the origin of the Hungarian crown as an

object was expressed by the learned Jesuit, István Katona, in 1792.
According to him the two parts of the crown date back to two different
periods. The lower, open crown, decorated with enamel portraits with
Greek inscriptions, was a present from Michael Ducas VII (1071-1078), the
Byzantine emperor, to his contemporary Géza I (1074-1077), king of
Hungary. The enamel work portraying and naming both of them, together
with Michael’s son the Basileus Constantin, support this view. The upper
part, consisting of two crossed bands and displaying enamel work with
Latin inscriptions, was sent for the coronation of the Hungarian ruling
prince, Stephen, by the Pope Sylvester II (999-1003) at the time of the
founding of the Hungarian state, when he also granted Stephen the
dignity of the royal and apostolic title. The basis of this view is what
is called the “Bull of Sylvester,” supposedly dated 1000, that has long been
proved a forgery, and Bishop Hartvik’s Life of St Stephen. Thus the corona-
x 18 THE NEW HUNGARIAN QUARTERLY

tion jewel consisting of these two joined parts is traditionally called “the
crown of Saint Stephen.”
Although some demurred, this two hundred year old view continued to
be held until recently. Since the Hungarian crown and the jewels have
very seldom, and only subject to considerable restriction, been available
for direct examination, this stubborn insistence on tradition is under­
standable. The crown had to be associated with the figure of the founder
of the Hungarian state, precisely because of its theoretical and political
importance. This is why it was an almost revolutionary act when József
Deér, a Hungarian historian who died recently in Switzerland, in 1966,
after a most intensive examination came to a conclusion which fundamentally
differs from the traditional view. Although the experts have not yet come
to a final conclusion, it is quite possible that Deer’s hypothesis will stand
the test of time.
This new view also holds that the Hungarian crown consists of two
separate parts. The present form of the “Greek crown” goes back to a
woman’s crown made in Hungary in the last quarter of the 12th century,
which was only later decorated with the ten enamel pieces. The latter were
actually taken from a present—probably from the cover of a codex—given
by Michael Ducas to Géza I. The open crown, decorated in this way,
was never used at the coronation of kings and so it was never “the crown
of the realm”. The upper part, the “Latin crown” was not intended to
serve this function either. The two bands were originally made for a
different purpose and were bent much later. The crown was made in the
first quarter of the 13 th century, in Hungary. The two parts did not
gradually become one, but were joined in one act and it was attempted
at the same time to give the whole piece an archaic look. The fact that
the hole for the cross on top of the new crown was oblique, and the
Pantocrator was also damaged shows that fast work was involved.
Deér nonetheless believes, and seems to prove, that another, older
crown existed during the reign of the Árpád dynasty, a crown whose
traditional association with the figure of the first Hungarian king is more
justified, but the upper part of the present crown has nothing to do with
this. This raises a further question: when was the Hungarian crown that
we know today, assembled ? Excluding other dates by a thorough analysis,
Deér calls attention to the disturbances following the death of Béla IV
(1270). There was a long armed struggle between the old king and his son,
the future István V. On his death-bed, King Béla entrusted his most
treasured jewels to his favourite daughter, Princess Anna, so that they
would not get into the hands of István. Anna escaped to her son-in-law,
 GYÖRGY BÓNIS: ADVENTURES OF THE CROWN I 19

the powerful Czech king, Ottokar II, taking the jewels with her. In the
peace-treaty of Pozsony, in 1271, István V gave up his claim to the crown
jewels, and their fate can only be followed for one more decade. According
to Deér, the present crown was put together under the pressure of circum­
stances, for the coronation of István V, using older components. By 1290,
the year of the coronation of András III, this crown was regarded as the
Crown of St Stephen.
If Deér’s conclusions are correct, the continuity of the story of the
Crown of St Stephen was broken in the last decades of the Árpád dynasty.
But the various ideas associated with it began to develop and flourish
exactly in this period. The symbolic meaning of the crown appeared
frequently in the first product of Hungarian political literature, the
“Admonitions”, supposedly written by St Stephen. The crown appeared
as the symbol of the monarchy. This symbolism of religious origin drew
a parallel between the earthly and the heavenly crowns: if the sovereign
practises the virtues advised in the “Admonitions”, he will “glorify his
crown”, and by doing so he will be worthy of the crown of the saints.
The same parallel is repeated in the legends of Saint Stephen and in the
Hungarian historical literature of the 1 ith century (e.g. the Gesta Hungaro-
rum). According to the chroniclers it is by way of the crown that the king­
dom is transferred and, in distinction to the other princes, the crowned
member of the royal family is the king. Thus the crown is the symbol
of royal dignity and monarchic power.
In the 13 th century the theory that closely associated the crown with
one person flourished in the documents of the Hungarian chancellery. The
king regarded his position, his monarchic rights, therefore the crown, as his,
as private property inherited from his ancestors. In the terminology of his
subjects the crown was “royal”, and the monarch spoke about it as some­
thing of his own, as “ours”. Charters and documents often speak of the
honour, glory and benefit of the crown and also of its dishonour, harm
and injury. “Everything that raises the dignity of the king, enriches him
morally or legally, at the same time enhances the prestige and wealth
of the crown. And the king’s injury, everything that harms him morally
and financially, also damages and injures the crown”—wrote Ferenc
Eckhart. That is why the kings had the visible crown guarded in the
church traditionally used for coronation and royal funerals, in Székesfehér­
vár, leaving it to the care of the custodian. That is why Béla IV carried
it to safety from the Mongol invasion in 1241, all the way down to the
Adriatic and guarded it when the emergency was over, in the new fortress
of Visegrád. But in 1290, the crown that we know today, was again kept
120 THE NEW HUNGARIAN QUARTERLY

in the church of Székesfehérvár. In one respect, however, the crown began

to become distinct from the person of the king, i.e. the “inalienability”
of the landed properties needed to keep the power of the king. These
properties were part of the “crown’s estates”, estates that the king had to
keep intact as early as in the 13 th century. Naturally, it was not specified
which of the king’s estates were inalienable, but from time to time kings
took back some of their “unnecessary” grants. One such act assumed
European importance. In his decree, “Intellecto”, Pope Honorius III
called on the Hungarian King András II to take back the grants through
which he dishonoured the royal dignity even if these were affirmed by his
royal oath, because—in the pope’s opinion—at his coronation the king
took an oath to preserve the country’s rights and the “honour of the
crown” intact. This pontifical law, dated 1220 by tradition, was included
in Gregory IX’s great collection of canon law (Extra 2, 24, 33), and
thus became the classical source of inalienability. W. H. Bryson recently
pointed out that this provision of law is listed in the pontifical register
under the date of July 15, 1225 (as in the old Hungarian edition). It
should be added that its second part reflects an article of The Golden Bull
of Hungary of 1222. Pope Gregory IX reiterated the principle of
“Intellecto”, which dealt with Hungarian matters, when in 1233 and in
1235 he warned Henry III, king of England, to keep his coronation oath
to safeguard crown properties. Thus, in a way, the wasteful grants of the
Hungarian King András II contributed to the development of the crown-
theory in Europe.

T he crown of the realm

The Árpád dynasty became extinct in 13 o 1. Following this, the crown went
through the very same troubles as the country. N ot much later the pope
declared the young Caroberto Anjou to be the heir to the Hungarian
throne, and other relatives of the female line also pressed their claims.
The Czech king, Wenceslas II wanted to help his under-age son, Wenceslas,
to the Hungarian throne, but in 1304, realizing the failure of his venture,
took both his son and the crown home with him. Later he passed the
crown to another claimant on the female line, the Bavarian prince, Otto,
who was subsequently captured, together with the crown, by the powerful
Governor of Transylvania, László of the Kán clan. After he was released,
Otto quickly left the country, and the Neapolitan Anjou obtained the throne.
He was aided by the papal legate Cardinal Fra Gentile, who eventually
also secured the crown from Governor László. It shows the almost religious
 GYÖRGY BÓNIS: ADVENTURES OF THE CROWN I 2 I

regard in which the crown was held that although the papal legate consecrated
a newly made, ornate crown for the coronation of Caroberto and based
its power on the papal benediction, public opinion refused to acknowledge
this coronation and in the following year it had to be repeated with the
Crown of St. Stephen.
From this time on the Anjou kings (Caroberto and Louis the Great) did
not return the crown to the church of Székesfehérvár but kept it at Visegrád,
a place recaptured in 1316 and developed into a magnificent royal
residence. This shows that they regarded the crown as their property,
in the same way as the Árpád dynasty had done before them. When, in
1403, the pretender László came with an army to conquer the country,
Sigismund of Luxembourg, the future Holy Roman emperor, had himself
crowned at Visegrád, to demonstrate the legitimacy of his rule. But the
seat of the country’s government was transferred to Buda in the meantime,
where the crown was also taken by Sigismund once the crises which arose
at the turn of the century were over. The crown was guarded by the king’s
confident, Miklós Garai, in the treasury of the country, but under the
seal of the king. In the middle of the 1430s, on the order of Sigismund,
the guarding of the crown was taken over by the Pálóczi brothers—who
were respectively the Primate and the Chief Justice of the country. But
during the reign of his son-in-law and successor, Albert of Hapsburg,
the first signs of change began to appear. Following the death of the
Primate Palatine György Pálóczi (1439) the crown was taken back to
Visegrád and the crown-chest, as well as the room where it was kept, were
sealed with the seals of several prelates and magnates.
After the early death of Albert, his widow, Erzsébet wanted to take over
the government of the country but, with the help of the nobility, the young
Wladislaw Jagelló ascended the throne. (His coronation, as we shall see,
occasioned a further development in the theory of the crown.) Albert’s
widow, however, did not give up and after a thorough preparation, one
night in 1440, she arranged for the crown to be stolen by a lady in waiting,
Helene Kottaner. The next day her son, Ladislas V Posthumous, was born
and when he was only three months old, she had him crowned. As a
result of Wladislaw’s victories in the field, Erzsébet took refuge with her
relative, the Emperor Frederick III, taking the “holy” crown with her,
not, however, as a pledge, as was generally believed for some time. Though
in 1452 the Austrian nobility forced the emperor to hand Ladislas over
to the Hungarians, he still kept the crown. Only Matthias Corvinus, who
was elected king after the death of the young king, succeeded in getting
the crown back in 1463 by paying a heavy ransom, which was raised by
122 THE NEW HUNGARIAN QUARTERLY

levying a special tax for this purpose. On its way to Buda, the crown was
celebrated by the people of Sopron for three days “as if it had come down
from heaven”.
The events in the middle of the 15 th century show that the crown
was no longer in the sole possession of the king. It indicates the oligarchical
nature of the age of Sigismund and Albert that the right to guard the
crown was claimed by the secular and temporal lords, that is, by the members
of the royal council. In the 1440s, during the regency of János Hunyadi,
the Hungarian corporate state came into full flower and when, with a
great financial sacrifice, the diadem was recovered by Matthias Corvinus,
the guarding of it was, for the first time in Hungarian history, was regulated
by parliament. Act II of 1464 decreed that the king was to select the
suitable place and men to guard the crown, giving full weight to the wishes
of the lords spiritual and temporal. After the death of Matthias Corvinus,
the Jagelló Wladislaw II had to confirm by law that he would never
take the crown out of the hands of the lords spiritual and temporal, and,
what is more, that for this reason he would hand over the castle of Visegrád
to the guardians of the crown (1492). The laws enacted at the turn of the
century excluded the lords spiritual from the guardianship of the crown.
It was also settled that there should be two guardians. This ruling remained
in effect for many centuries. The guardians were selected by the king and
parliament. Thus, around 1500, the coronation jewel truly became the
crown of the realm.
The theory of the crown developed in keeping with social and political
changes. In vain had the papal legate, Gentile, a new crown made for
Caroberto in 1309; he had to realise that the country had as much respect
for the diadem, as if “the royal rights were embodied in it."
Caroberto and Louis both regarded the crown as their personal property,
just like their predecessors of the Árpád dynasty. According to contemporary
documents, the faithful subjects served the king and the crown, and the
faithless ones were untrue to the oath they had taken to serve the king
and crown. Examples for the separation of the two can be found only
starting with the end of the 14th century, primarily in diplomatic docu­
ments. In 13 82, in a situation of dire necessity, Venice gave up her claim
to Dalmatia in favour of King Louis and “his successors in the crown”
and committed herself to pay seven thousand golden ducats to the representa­
tives of the king and the crown. This distinction is made even more clearly
in the civil war following the death of Louis (1382).
The legislation enacted by the parliament held while Queen Maria was
in captivity made a clear distinction between the public good of the country
 GYÖRGY BÓNIS: ADVENTURES OF THE CROWN 123
( respublica) and of the holy crown on the one hand, and the person of the
king on the other. The participants of this parliament undertook to prevent
the monarch from acts that would bring harm to the public good and to
the crown.
A year later, when Sigismund was elected, the lords spiritual and temporal
included a passage in the conditions to which the elected king gave his
assent which stated that the king “shall always keep in mind the interests
o f the holy crown and the benefit of the people of the country” and regard
as void any treaty made against them. The symbol of the crown as a concept
of state, separate from the monarch, was beginning to develop. During
the few months of Sigismund’s captivity in 1401, the lords governed the
country in the name of the “holy crown”, and even had its own seal made.
This distinction is even more marked in the famous document of the
parliament of 1440. Wladislaw had to be crowned but the diadem was
not in the country. So parliament ordered that the sublime act of coronation
was to be carried out using a crown taken from St Stephen’s reliquiary.
At the same time they issued a solemn charter declaring that all the
powers of the old crown were transferred to the new, because “the corona­
tion has always depended on the will of the nation” (meaning the nobility)
“and the power and efficiency of the crown was based on their consent.”
Thus the principle of transference became part of the Hungarian consti­
tution, but the transferors were no longer only the peers of the realm but
also the nobility who were represented in large numbers in parliament.
In the fully developed corporate state, therefore, in the words commonly
used in contemporary documents—the crown was in fact the “crown of the
realm”. That is why the Estates of the Realm made such a sacrifice for it
in 1463—naturally, taking the money from their serfs. Grants were received
for services rendered firstly to the crown and only then to the king. As the
crown—mainly in international treaties—became synonimous with the
state, its theory came closer to another centuries old concept which viewed
the country as a body. Eventually István Werbőczi, the author of the
“Tripartitum” (1514), completed the task of linking the two concepts and
bringing the development of the Estates of the Realm to its logical con­
clusion.
Werbőczi, the Protonotary of the Chief Justice, was commissioned by the
king to compile a summary of Hungarian common law. In consequence his
work deals with the civil law of the Estates and legal procedure rather than
political theory. But the work opens with the—socially and politically
false—theory that lords spiritual and temporal and noblemen have identical
rights and privileges, and he also tried to prove this with a peculiar theory.
124 THE NEW HUNGARIAN QUARTERLY

He took the legend of a distant past in which idyllic equality ruled,

from the chronicle of János Thuróc2y, published in 1488, a story which
claimed that Hungarians were once all equals who chose their leaders in
free election and could also freely replace them. Only those became serfs
who refused the call to arms. But the community of equals entrusted
government and the granting of lands to St Stephen and to the crown.
The king grants titles and land but is elected by the nobility. This relation­
ship of mutuality thus makes every nobleman a member of the holy crown.
Werboczi created something new by linking the increasingly compre­
hensive theory of the crown with the conception of the organic state. His
aim was to justify his political theory: the equal status of all nobles, and
to emphasize the deep gap separating a nobleman from a peasant serf.
It should be kept in mind that the “Tripartitum” was created at the
same time when bloody sanctions were brought against the leaders
and participants of the peasant rising of the summer of 1514. The theory
of the holy crown, which played hardly any role at all in the following
centuries, was in fact only revived to reach an intensity never seen before
when the ruling class of capitalist Hungary wanted to use it to justify
the preservation of its power.

T he crown in the hands of the H apsburgs

Following the tragic defeat of Hungary at Mohács (1526), the country

had two kings. In the autumn of 1526, the powerful Prince of Transyl­
vania, János Zápolyai was elected and crowned by the nobility. Ferdinand
of Hapsburg, the younger brother of the Emperor Charles V, was crowned
by almost the very same people. His claim was based on treaties of succession.
Since the see of Esztergom was vacant, both (!) kings were crowned by the
bishop of Nyitra, in both cases with the Crown of St Stephen. Ferdinand
acquired it with the aid of King Janos’s guardian of the crown, Ferenc
Perényi. In 1529, in the course of another Turkish offensive, this same
Perényi was captured together with the crown. The Turkish supreme
commander, Ibrahim, showed it to the pashas in his camp, then sent it
back as a present to the protégé of the Sultan, King János. After the king’s
death, Buda and the central part of the country were occupied by the
Turks (1541), and his son had to content himself with Transylvania. For
a decade the crown was kept by the king’s widow, Isabella, then upon
leaving Transylvania in 1551, she delivered it to the representative of
Ferdinand. Thus the Hungarian crown fell into the hands of the Hapsburgs,
 GYÖRGY BÓNIS: ADVENTURES OF THE CROWN 125

where it remained for centuries; first it was kept in Vienna and then,
during the reign of Rudolf, in Prague.
At the beginning of the 17th century a successful uprising, led by
István Bocskai, took place in defence of the Protestant religion and for a
constitution based on the Estates of the Realm. In the Treaty of Vienna
(1606), the Hapsburgs were compelled to make some concessions. The
powerless Rudolf abdicated and in the summer of 1608 handed over the
crown to his younger brother, Archduke Matthias, who became his succes­
sor, as Matthias II. An Act declared in that year that the holy crown should
be guarded in Pozsony—the seat of the country at that time-—and by secu­
lar guardians. The two guardians were also elected. One of them, Count
Péter Révay, is remembered for his passionate devotion to the diadem.
He is also the author of the first monograph written about the crown.
The crown under his care was undisturbed for a whole decade in the keep
of Pozsony Castle. But in 1619 the Reigning Prince of Transylvania, Gábor
Bethlen, who was waging war against the Hapsburgs at the time in alli­
ance with the Protestant countries, appeared at the walls of Pozsony.
Révay’s repeated resignation was each time refused, so he stayed with the
crown, going to Kassa, Eperjes and to the castle of Ecsed, where he died a
short time before the Peace of Nikolsburg. “We must stay with the crown
till our death, we must never leave it”—he said, and so it was.
After Bethlen, the crown was seldom taken away from Pozsony Castle.
The laws of the 17th century took care of the expenses of guarding the
crown. It had more guardians, and the law stated that the crown was not to
be taken out of the country. Despite this, at the time of the last great
venture of the Turks, ending at the Siege of Vienna (1683), the crown got
as far as Linz and Passau, escorted by its guardian, Kristóf Erdody; and
between 1703 and 1712—after the burning of Pozsony Castle—it was kept
in Vienna. Though the war of independence, led by Prince Ferenc Rákóczi II
probably also played a part in this. In 1715 legislation specified the oath
of the guardians of the crown. In the same year the coronation diadem was
back, unharmed, in the castle of Pozsony. Only the rule of Joseph II brought
a new turn in its fortunes. The emperor broke with the feudal traditions
of the country and did not have himself crowned. (That is why he was
nicknamed the “hatted king” in Hungary.) In 1784 he ordered the corona­
tion symbols of the countries under his rule to be taken to Vienna. Even the
protest of the highest administrative authority of Hungary, the governing
council, was in vain and the crown was taken to Vienna. It only stayed
there for six years, however, because at the beginning of 1790—under the
pressure of the consequences of an unsuccessful war against the Turks and
126 THE NEW HUNGARIAN QUARTERLY

faced by increasing opposition—the emperor withdrew almost all his orders

and died soon after. The diadem was given back to its guardians and was
escorted to Buda in a triumphal procession. The passionate enthusiasm which
it evoked was due in part to the delight felt over the decline of German
influence. During its three days’ journey from Vienna to Buda the crown
was escorted by the banderia of the counties. In Győr it was displayed with
the herma of Saint Ladislas. In Buda it was received with great celebra­
tion. When the crown-chest was to be opened, the Chief Justice of the
country, Károly Zichy asked for the key in German. A Hungarian nobleman
spoke up: “Your Excellency, the crown is not German, and will not under­
stand you in German. You should try Hungarian and the chest will open.”
Legislation of 1791 ordered the crown, together with the other symbols,
to be guarded in Buda, the capital of the country. The law was observed,
and the crown was only taken away for coronations, which were generally
held in Pozsony. During the Napoleonic Wars the crown found refuge in
Munkács and Eger. After that it left Buda in the middle of the century
only, in quite dramatic circumstances.
The Hungarian war of independence of 1848-49 faced mounting difficul-
ties at the end of 1848. The enemy was approaching Buda. The Defence
Council, functioning as the government of the country, appointed a member
of parliament, Samuel Bonis, to be state commissioner, responsible for
taking the crown to Debrecen, or even further if necessary. The railway
line was already completed between Pest and Szolnok, but to reach the
railway station, which was in Pest, the crown had to be transported over
the Chain Bridge, which was then still under construction. The crown was
transported in Samuel Bonis’ glass coach. On the bridge the chest was
carried by the twenty four grenadiers guarding the crown. It was taken
to Szolnok in a special train, and then to Debrecen by coach. It was received
there by Lajos Kossuth. Another turn of military fortunes brought the
crown back to Pest, but during the collapse in the summer of 1849 it was
carried to a refuge again. The minister for home affairs, Bertalan Szemere
took responsibility for it. First it was taken to the temporary seat of the
government, Szeged, then to Nagyvárad, Arad and finally to Orsova, a town
near what was then the southern border where Szemere ordered his faithful
followers to bury the crown, not far from the Danube. For a long time the
search ordered by Francis Joseph, the young, victorious Hapsburg ruler,
was in vain, but in the autumn of 1853 the crown was found by a judge-
advocate, Major Titus Karger. After a short stay in Vienna it was again
returned to Buda.
The crown performed its function on only two further occasions: at the
 G Y Ö R G Y B Ó N IS : A D V E N T U R E S O F T H E C R O W N 127

coronation of Francis Joseph (1867) and of Charles IV (1916). This was,

however, the time when the “theory of the holy crown” was revived.
It is interesting to note that despite the all-important part played by the
“Tripartitum” in the civil law of the nobility, the parts of the same work
concerning public law faded into oblivion in the centuries following the
defeat at Mohács. It would be wrong to say that the “Tripartitum” was
not well-known; after its first publication in Vienna (1517) it went into
some fifty other editions and in a way it became the bible of the nobility.
But the crown-theory with its actual political function did not have a lasting
effect. The terminology of the Hapsburg era seemingly kept that of the
Middle Ages, and the crown remained the symbol of state power. When
there were talks and disputes about state borders, the crown was represented,
and losses of territory were interpreted as injuries to the crown. The ter­
ritorial significance of the crown was due to the fact that in practice since
1541 the territory of the state consisted of three parts: the “royal” Hungary,
the more or less independent principality of Transylvania and the territories
under Turkish rule. In their talks—for example—with Bethlen, the H un­
garian councillors often emphasized Transylvania’s subordination to the
“holy” crown. The only exception was the revolt led by István Bocskai,
which reflected the crown-theory of Werbőczi in order to utilize it for
their demand for freedom of religion. In their proclamation justifying the
uprising (1605) the nobility supporting Bocskai declared that every landlord
and nobleman was in the absolutely free possession of his estates and that
no clergyman was to be placed in these estates by any king or prelate. They
argued that the magnates, the noblemen and the free Hungarian towns
were all members of the crown. This was the theory of “cuius regio, eius
religio”. The grievances inflicted by the Counter-Reformation were mostly
apparent in these royal towns, thus Bocskai’s followers also included them
among the members of the holy crown. The towns also participated in the
feudal parliament, which was regulated by law in 1608, after the success
of the uprising.
The idea of the “member of the crown” appeared again in the principal
decisions of central courts in the x8th century and had a clear anti-peasantry
function. They stated that in the cases of certain lands, people who were not
members of the nobility were not entitled to sue, for they were not members
of the crown.
In the beginning of the 19th century the foreign interpretation of the
word “crown” also entered Hungarian political theories. Besides being used
as the symbol of “royal power”, as in the early Middle Ages, it was also
used—mainly in court correspondance—to indicate the monarch when direct
I 28 T H E N E W H U N G A R IA N Q U A R T E R L Y

reference to his person was to be avoided. The word “Crown” is used in

the same way in modern English. In the years of absolutism following the
downfall of the revolution of 1848, the above terminology was quite com­
mon, it even appeared in the Act I: 1875. This was also an obstacle to the
crown becoming the representative of the national state of the 19th century.
This was the time when the Hungarian word “állam” (state) began to be
used for the Latin “status”. In the parliamentary speeches of the 1830s this
new word became quite common and replaced the previously used “res-
publica”.
The generation of the Reform Era and of the Compromise of 1867
generally adopted the tradition of the crown-theory of earlier ages. The idea
of territorial integrity was especially emphasized every time a certain re­
gained part of the country was involved. The idea of the unity of the old state
territory was still symbolised by the “holy crown”. All this happened
in the century when there was an upsurge of nationalism in the Danube
valley, and its centripetal tendency threatened the framework of the “H un­
garian Kingdom—the countries of the holy Crown”. On the other hand
Hungarian nationalism, which already in the 1830s appeared quite inten­
sive, used the old theories for its own purposes.
This is how the peculiar situation arose that when the legislation of the
Revolution of 1848 abolished the main institutions of Elungarian feudalism,
and opened the capitalist period of Hungarian history, the crown-theory
reflecting the spirit of the corporate state, instead of being put aside, started
to flourish in the ideology of public law. Although the crown-theory began
to be discussed in public-law books from the middle of the 17th century,
interpreting it from the point of view of the court, or of the nobility,
its final form took shape only in the heyday of Hungarian capitalism, after
the Hungarian-Austrian compromise. The shaky building of the theory
of the “holy crown” was constructed by otherwise outstanding legal his­
torians (Imre Hajnik) and constitutional lawyers (Győző Concha), partly
influenced by growing Hungarian nationalism, partly as an ideological
struggle against the Austrian imperial theories. A historian of law at the
turn of the century, Ákos Timon, proclaimed in several languages the false
idea that the development of the Hungarian constitution—in contrast with
those of feudal Europe—was based on public law from the very beginning,
meaning that it was much more perfect, and that it had always been based
on the theory of the holy crown. The chauvinistic public opinion of the
turn of the century enthusiastically accepted this idea and the sarcastic
criticisms by Ferenc Eckhart created a “national” outcry in 1931.
 G Y Ö R G Y B Ó N IS : A D V E N T U R E S O F T H E C R O W N 129

The epilogue of the story of the Hungarian crown is a sad one. After
the abdication of Charles IV (1918) and the fall of the Hapsburg dynasty,
the crown was kept by the Regent, Miklós Horthy, in Buda Castle, as the
symbol of state power. When the old regime collapsed in October I 944 >
the Hungarian Quisling Ferenc Szálasi got possession of the crown. While
he was escaping to Austria, it was captured by the Americans. In 1951 the
crown—together with the other crown jewels—was classified to be a “prop­
erty of special status” by the State Department. It still has not been returned
to Hungary, its rightful owner: to the Hungarian nation, who consider
it one of their most precious national relics.
The crown-theory, which survived its social basis, is no longer a theory
of the Hungarian state. Hungary was declared a Republic in 1946, and
a People’s Republic in 1949. The theory is no longer a subject for politi­
cal controversy, but of historical interest only.

ACTA LITTERARIA
ACADEMIAE SCIENTIARU M HUNGARICAE
Founded in 1957
Editor in chief: Gábor Tolnai

ACTA LITTERARIA, a periodical of the Hungarian Academy

of Sciences publishes studies on Hungarian and European history of literature
with particular stress on the connections between Hungarian literature
and literatures of other European countries in the Middle Ages, during the epochs
of the Renaissance, Reformation, Enlightment, etc. The place and role
of Hungarian letters in world literature is analysed, and the latest results achieved
by Hungarian scholars are regularly published.

ACTA LITTERARIA contains book reviews too.

ACTA LITTERARIA includes articles in English, French, German, Italian,

Russian and in Spanish.

ACTA LITTERARIA is published in two issues, making

up a volume of some 400 to 500 pages yearly. Size: 1 7 x 2 4 cm

Subscription rate per volume: $24.00; D M 90,— £ 9.60

(gjjnjjj)
AKADÉMIAI KIADÓ
Budapest
Distributors: KULTÚRA, H —1389 Budapest, P.O.B. 149