József Gerics - Erzsébet Ladányi: King's ideal - Saint Stephen - Europe

The domestic significance and European background of the coronation ceremony of Saint Stephen as
king

The ceremony of transferring the royal power to St. István is a pivotal element of the history of ideas in
Hungary in the 11th century. Coronation parades not only describe the basic badges and insignia that
are used at the coronation ceremony as visible signs of the transfer of royal dignity, but also include the
deeper, theological foundation of this dignity. That is why we consider it absolutely important to give a
brief overview of coronations, followed by a detailed discussion of the theological explanations, and
from God.

From a domestic point of view, this can also explain why István's coronation ceremony is closely related
to the world of thought and ideas of the early Christian Hungarian kingdom, it lays the foundation for it,
and how it also becomes a standard for judging the royal successors of the 11th century. According to
our understanding, in addition to the crown of the helmet, the spear was also one of the essential tools
of István's coronation ceremony. The spear also played a central role in the coronation of István's
brother-in-law, Henrik, as German king in 1002. In fact, according to the note of Thangmar, the
biographer of the Bishop of Hildesheim, in this year, the Archbishop of Mainz and the Bishop of
Hildesheim "led Henrik [...] to Mainz and [...] handed over the government and royal power to him with
the spear of the Lord (regimen et regiam potestatem cum dominica hasta illi tradiderunt) and then,
having done everything in accordance with the order, they anointed (unxerunt)."1

The express transfer of the German royal power to Henrik by the archbishop of Mainz with the holy
lance is bound to cause puzzlement for connoisseurs of medieval coronation texts. 10–11. in 19th-
century ordos, that is to say, the sword most often and generally took on the privileged role of
transferring power. This circumstance is the so-called early German ceremonial order and the so-called
Both (Roman and German) versions of the Mainz Ordo say it in these words: at the inauguration, the
king "receives the sword from the bishops, so that he knows: with the sword they handed over to him
[...] the entire kingdom to govern faithfully. (Potestea ab episcopis ensem accipiat, ut cum ense totum
regnum sibi fideliter ad regendum […] sciat esse commendatum)”. According to Widukind, Otto the
Great was told the same thing by the archbishop of Mainz during his coronation in 936: "Take this sword
[…] the full power of the entire Frankish empire is given to you by divine authority. (Accipe […] hunc
gladium […] auctoritate divina tibi tradita omni potestate totius imperii Francorum.)”

In 1002, Henrik was indisputably invested with royal power by means of a holy spear instead of a sword
during a church ceremony. But we don't know of a ceremonial order that directly and specifically
transfers royal power with a spear. Among the few liturgical texts that clearly and definitely do not
transfer royal power by the sword, the text dated by Schramm between 880 and 960 and called the
Erdmann-ordo is the first to be mentioned. The admonition of the attendant handing over the scepter
reads as follows: "Take the scepter, the insignia of royal dignity, i.e. the straight rod (virgam) of the
kingdom, the rod of power (virgam) to guide yourself correctly, the mother church, i.e. from God
protect the Christian people entrusted to you with your royal strength from the wicked, correct the
sinners, and guide the righteous with your help so that they can keep the right path."

The same order of ceremonies expresses precisely the close relationship of the baculus (staff) with the
shepherd's staff, also mentioning the king's pastoral status: "Take the baculus, the sign of holy rule (sacri
regiminis signum), to strengthen the weak, to strengthen the wavering, correct the bad, guide the
righteous to the path of eternal salvation (rectos dirigas in viam salutis aeternae)".3

The text of the Erdmann-ordo has a serious meaning. Not only because the scepter is an insignia that
confers kingship. The person who edited this text was sure that "sceptrum" could be justifiably replaced
by "virga". In the text, the royal dignity encompasses both the monarch's power and the protection of
the Mother Church. The king's pastoral status is clearly expressed by the handing over of the bakulus,
and here also the close connection of the bakulus with the bishop's shepherd's staff.

The same order also knows the sword, but only as a tool of disciplinary power: in a general sense, as it
stands before us in the letter of the apostle Peter (1 Pt 2, 14). The ordo carefully formulates God's will
for the exercise of royal power. The king is the protector of the Christian people entrusted to him by
God, and the bakulus handed over to him is the symbol of "holy rule". In terms of royal dignity, the
scepter (virga) and the baculus (sacri regiminis signum) have the same value. The order in which the
ordo contains the relevant texts does not change this either: since the protection of the church, that is,
God's entrusted people, and the king's pastorship are equally part of the royal dignity. This line of
thought is confirmed by the following. The place of origin of the Erdmann order is the diocese of Sens,
and the so-called Sens formulas. Schramm attributed them to the 10th century. In them, the prayer to
be said when handing over the royal baculus declares: "Under this baculus we entrust to you the
government of the kingdom of the Franks (gubernaculum regni Francorum) in the name of the Father,
the Son and the Holy Spirit, so that you may govern the people of the Lord justly and govern the
churches of the saints well ( road populum Domini iuste regas et ecclesias Sanctorum bene disponas).”4

In domestic historical research, Zoltán Idestova Tóth has been trying to attract the attention of
specialists to the so-called island origin for seven decades. To direct it to Egbert-ordo, as the order of
the coronation ceremony of St. Stephen. 5
 This ordo mentions three insignia at the coronation: the helmet (galea), the scepter and the baculus.6
This helmet mentioned in the Egbert ceremony is the predecessor of the helmet crown (Helmkrone),
also known as the strapped crown (Bügelkrone) known from the Middle Ages. In the case of the latter,
according to Schramm's statement, "technically, it is the frame of a strapped helmet in which the
insertion of the roof parts of the vaulted intermediate surfaces was abandoned." The essence of this is
therefore: "two straps applied smoothly to the head overlap each other at right angles". Two decades
before Schramm's position, András Alföldi reached a similar conclusion. The cross-strap crown
(Bügelkrone) appears III. One of Ottó's coins from the royal era had a slanting cross on its nose in a
manner similar to our findings in the local corona Latin. The Bügelkrone without a cross is worn by
David and Solomon depicted on the German imperial crown, and is known by II. Henrik's two pictures in
the sacramentary and II. Also about Konrád's seal printer. 7 The imperial crown itself is a special case of
the cross-strap crown, viz. instead of a cross strap, only a strap crosses over it to make room for the
royal miter to be worn underneath. The representation of the single-strap crown was very rare: in the
Carolingian era, Emperor Lothar is depicted in this way in his evangelium made between 849 and 851,
and Károly the Bald in the Codex Aureus made in 870. It shows II. Henrik's sacramentary kept in
Munich.8 All these depictions of the banded (=helmet) crown can with good reason be named after the
insignia of the Egbert order designated as galea, as well as the "Latin crown" of the Hungarian holy
crown.

The III. The slanted cross crown seen on Otto's royal money (called doppelte Bügelkrone by Schramm)
and the crown depicted with a slightly slanted cross on the nose of the imperial seal of 997 confirm that
the slightly slanted cross of the closed crown shown in space on the best examples of István H2 denarii is
also modern.9 The same, i.e. the III. Correspondence to Otto's age must also be established with full
emphasis on the slightly inclined cross on the top of the Latin crown, the upper part of the holy crown.
The shape of István's (supposed or real) crown cannot be III. Contrast with Otto's time. This
circumstance corresponds to the contemporary report of Bishop Thietmar of Merseburg (†1018) that
István III. Ottó "gained a crown and a blessing as a king by his grace and prompting (gratia et
hortatu)."10 He extends the royal lance (lancea regis) shown on the mentioned denarius with his fingers
extended horizontally, supported by the thumb of one hand. It is important to emphasize that this hand
does not grasp the spear, does not hold it between its fingers, but makes a handing gesture, that is, it
wants to represent the hand of God handing over, and not the receiving right of an earthly king. The
fact that the hand on István's denarius does not extend from clouds, but from a sleeve, does not prevent
us from seeing the manus Dei in the depicted hand. The manus Dei, e.g. II. Henrik's sacramentary,
made between 1002 and 1014, shows him reaching up from his sleeve above the German king.11

On the denarius, the hand holding out the "king's spear" is God's right hand performing the heavenly
investiture of the king. In our opinion, here the denarius gives a pictorial representation of the Egbert
order's prayer (Post communionem): "Give (variant: Give) Lord to Your servants, to our princes a
heavenly weapon (variant: the heavenly weapon of justice)". As we established more than a decade
ago, it is also a definite demonstration that the owner of the spear is not subject to anyone but the
heavenly Power.12 Knowing the royal insignia on the denarius, i.e. the closed crown and the staff-
handled spear provided by God, we consider István to be sufficiently justified His coronation as king
based on the order of Egbert, identifying the helmet mentioned in the order of ceremonies with the
closed crown depicted on the denarius, the scepter and staff (bakulus) of the order of Egbert with the
lancea regis handed over by the denarius God. The replacement of the holy spear with the king's
baculus II. Henry's age in representation undoubtedly did. In the image of Henrik's sacramentary
mentioned several times, the angel places a roughly grounded, wooden-handled spear in the hand of
King Henrik, according to the inscription "the angel gives him a spear (hastam)."13 From an objective
point of view, dean István is: the tilted cruciform, closed crown and the spear extended from the hand of
God demonstrates the application of the Egbert ceremonial order during the coronations of kings in
Hungary. In the same way, it supports the data of the contemporary chronicler Ademarus Cabannensis
(† around 1035) (this work is the only written source of the spear of the first Hungarian king): according
to this, III. Otto "allowed the lord of the Hungarians to have his kingdom with complete freedom (or:
generously allowed him to have his kingdom), giving him permission to carry a holy spear everywhere,
as is the custom of the emperor himself, and from the nails of the Lord and the spear of St. Moritz, his
own he gave him relics on his spear."14

In the presentation of the chronicle, we can read impeccable proof of the use of the Egbert order at
Solomon's coronation. We can not only refer to the fact that at the coronation of the child king, the
biblical fragment "Be your lord to your brothers (Esto dominus fratrum tuorum)" repeated in the Egbert
ordo, but also to the fact that this ceremony is the only ordo that does not contain the power-
transferring and therefore the sword among the badges to be handed over to the king. According to
the chronicle, the sword is the most important symbol of the duke's dignity in the famous scene in
Várkony, and by choosing the sword, Béla expresses to András that he claims princely power instead of
the kingdom. We know about András from the news of the bishop of Bihar that he wanted to legitimize
his rule against Peter, whom he had overthrown, by having István (supposed or real) "search for his
ornaments and royal insignia (anteccessoris inquireret ornamentum, supperlectilem regiam)".15 This act
of András is the Frankish and it was based on (or corresponded to) a German conception and procedure
that the possession of the royal insignia of the predecessor was an essential requisite for the legitimacy
of the successor's rule. The possession of these logically required that the successor be given its insignia
in the context of a ceremony also used in the case of the predecessor taking the throne. In the case of
András, this conclusion is emphasized by the fact that Solomon was made king according to the Egbert
ceremony, since he was crowned despite his father Béla's promise to inherit the throne. For this reason,
András had to make sure that the coronation of Solomon took place according to the traditional
ceremony already used in the past. In other words, András had to prevent Béla and his followers from
attacking or doubting the legality or validity of Solomon's coronation, relying on the newly introduced
ceremony as a serious formal and liturgical error.

The details of the Egbert ceremony, as texts most likely spoken at the coronation of István, can be
attributed special importance from the point of view of legal and ideological history. When the scepter
is handed over, the following blessing is said over the king: "Bless our lord this high priest-prince
(presulem principem), You who govern the kingdom of all kings from eternity."16

Around 1100, the so-called Normann (aka York) Anonymus. This investigation was carried out within a
broad framework both from the theological point of view (holy trinity, Christology, sacramentology) and
in terms of eras: with a rich collection of examples of biblical antecedents and foreshadows, the author
proves that the position expressed and the ancient, divine determination prevailed in everything.
Among the sources of his thinking are therefore St. Augustine, Pope Gelasius, Gregory I. (Saint) Gregory
I, many relevant passages of the Old and New Testaments, as well as the decisions of the Western
Gothic councils from Pseudo-Isidorus. An important moment in his thought process is the relative
interpretation of God and the Lord's Anointed One. That is why we consider it essential to present the
following details. 17

According to Normann Anonymus, "the Mother Church is the betrothed of Christ, who is a true king and
priest (verus rex et sacerdos), but [the church] is not said to be his betrothed because he is a priest, but
because he is a king. They call her a queen because it is written: 'The queen (regina) stood on your right
hand in a gilded garment' [...] (Ps. 44, 10) — St. Augustine also [...] clearly calls her a queen (reginam) in
his speech" [...] "Kings in the church of God are consecrated by divine authority and by the action of the
holy fathers [...] and they are consecrated with the holy anointing and blessing, so that they have power
to govern the Christian people [...] which is the holy church of God (ut habeant potestatem regendi
populum christianum [...] qui est ecclesia sancta Dei).” "The episcopal order is also established and
receives a holy anointing and blessing to also govern the Mother Church according to the teaching
handed down to it from God. […] [Pope Gelasius] calls the world (mundus) the holy church that wanders
in this world. In this world, the priestly authority of the holy government and the royal power
(sacerdotalis auctoritas et regalis potestas) have the ruling power (principatum). Some divide this
sovereign power by asserting that the priest has the power to govern souls, and that of the king to
govern the body, as if souls could be governed without the body, and the body without the soul.
However, this is by no means possible.” [...] "These two persons, that is, the priest and the king, we see,
fulfill the role of Christ and bear his image (vices Christi tenere videtur et imaginem). According to St.
Augustine […] Jesus Christ is the only true king and the only true priest: one in order to govern us, the
other in order to propitiate God for us. [...]"18"

"In the Old Testament, the Holy Spirit descended upon the anointing and divine blessing (on the high
priest and the king) and the deifying power (virtus deificans) so that they were the type and
representation of Christ (Christi figura [...] et imago), and this [the power] change them into other
people [...] In person, for example, this was Aaron, and that was Saul, but not in spirit and strength at all,
but the Lord's anointed (christus Domini). Therefore, it can be recognized that there were two persons
in each of them, one according to nature (ex natura), the other by grace (ex gratia). […] In one,
indivisible man by nature (naturaliter individius homo), the other by grace is Christ, i.e. God-man (id est
Deus-homo). [...]" The Lord's anointed "has the spirit and power of God in him". [...] "The Lord anointed
Saul and anointed David, but through Samuel, who was a faithful prophet in the house of the Lord [...]
Both of them (Saul and David) were rightly called therefore the anointed of the Lord and possessed the
spirit of the Lord, and this is how they were connected with the Lord, they were one soul with him. (1
Cor 6, 17). That is why they are also called gods in the law (in lege etiam dii vocati sunt. Ex 22, 28) [..]
And in another place: 'I said: you are gods (dii estis'. Ps 81, 5)" [...] "The the king and the priest (the
name and nature of God) really possess and are part of it, but not by nature, but by grace (non per
naturam, sed per gratiam)". [...] "And that king (Saul or David) and that priest (Aaron) who were the
likeness and image of this Christ, that is, God and man, since both were fully human, through the grace
of anointing and the consecration of blessing completely deified and sanctified (totus deificatus erat et
sanctificatus).”

[...] "If [...] you use the Greek etymology, then sanctification, i.e. apotheosis, will sound to you like
deification (consecratio id est apotheosis sonabit tibi deificatio). If, therefore, both: the king and the
priest are God and the anointed of the Lord by grace, whatever they do and do according to this grace, it
is no longer done and done by man, but by God and the anointed of the Lord (iam non homo agit et
operatur, sed deus et christus Domini). And whatever happens to him, it no longer happens to man,
but to God and the Lord's Anointed." [...]19 "The priest symbolically represented one of the natures in
Christ, that is, that of man, the king the other, that is, that of God. […] It was therefore just that King
[David] had both power and sovereign supremacy (et potestatem et imperium) over the priests.” [...]20
"The priests have a kind of communion with them (kings) in governance (regiminis communionem) and
certain common symbols of this governance, such as the shepherd's staff (virga pastoralis) and the king's
staff (virga regia). Both belong to the same mystery, to the same power, and share the sacrament they
possess (unius misterii, unius virtutis et commune optinent sacramentum).” [...]21 "Let's say one of the
following two things: either the priest is also the king, or the king is also the priest in this respect. But
either of these (propositions) is true, or even both, we cannot deny that in this respect both have the
same power, and in the whole mystery and power the royal and episcopal wands are one."

His replacement and kingship are deigned to be entrusted to the true Christ [the king]. Therefore, the
one who comes (into the church) on behalf of the king […] is the shepherd of the sheep.” [...] "If it had
not been so, Pope St. Gregory would not have been a holy pope, [...] since the emperor ordered him
(iussi) to be pope [in 590] and entrusted him with the service of this dignity, as he himself [ Gergely]
testifies in his letter to the emperor's sister [...]." [...]22 "If, therefore, the emperor, who was the pope,
entrusted the service of this dignity, i.e. the bishopric, to him, [...] and this did not contradict the rule of
justice, then the bishops of a lower rank than the pope must be judged similarly, with whom the same
happens the thing." [...] "In addition, the extent of the power of emperors or kings to convene councils
and to lead them is testified by the example of holy fathers and priests, which applies to the four main
holy councils [...]:23 under the Emperor Constantine of Nicaea [...] (the Great) [ 325], the second of
Constantinople under Theodosius the Elder [381] […] the third of Ephesus under Theodosius the
Younger [431] […] the fourth of Chalcedon […] under Marcianus [451].” [...] "It is about the fact that [...]
these councils were led by the mentioned emperors, convened by their authority, and they were
present at them, as can be read in the introduction (decisions) of the councils in question." [...] 24 "And
this is the order of this introductory text. From this you can see how the providence of God placed the
emperor at the head of the high priests and raised him to heaven to call the bishops of the world to a
council. […] “There is no power closer to God that is more majestic than that of the emperor, but
everything else is lower than his. Since the highest is the heavenly emperor, and the second, the
earthly, has one and the same power, but the heavenly is first, and the earthly second." [...] "And if
anyone wants to turn the pages of the Gothic councils held in Toledo, he will find that Rekkared [...] and
[other] glorious kings, by divine providence and provision, gave dominion, government and sovereign
power (regimen, et potestatem) over the bishops et dominationem), they were called to councils by
their decisions, they were present at these councils and led them, they held speeches on the sacraments
of the Catholic faith, they discussed heavenly things and church governments with grace and faith,

This triple obligation of István, recorded in his larger legend, is an interesting argument for the influence
of the Order of Egbert beyond the coronation ceremony in the fundamentals of our first king's state
governance. Pleading with God, one of the prayers of the ordo included the basic requirement for the
Christian king: "Give your servant to remain always competent in governing the country (in regni
regimine maneat semper idoneus), and by your grace, in his time, the security of the church prevails and
the Christian remains in peace." zeal, so that by persevering in good deeds, under your leadership, he
can reach the Eternal Kingdom."35

These thoughts are the basis and at the same time serve as the starting reason for the construction of
the essential words of Intelmei to István's son. He worriedly warns his son: "If you disregard what I
leave you with paternal kindness (may God forbid), you will notice that you will no longer be a friend of
God or man." In case he rejects his advice, he admonishes him with the story of the Old Testament:
"God's chosen and dear old people" also fell victim to destruction due to transgressions.36 In the creed
written by Athanasius, he presents Imre with the basic tenets of faith and calls on him to follow them
with actions, without which the faith is dead. Without this, he loses not only his earthly kingdom, but
also his personal salvation, the Eternal Kingdom, i.e. crown (eterno regno vel corona).37

István ends his advice like this: "The greatness of the virtues crowns the crown of the kings and among
these rules is the tenth. The Lord of the Virtues is the King of Kings, and just as the entirety of his
heavenly army is made up of ten arms, so the course of your life should be formed by ten laws. A king
should be gracious, compassionate, and partake of and adorned by the other virtues. For that king, who
is defiled by ruthlessness and cruelty, demands the title of king in vain, because only the tyrant deserves
it".38

István laid a foundation that determined the future and the perception of many subsequent kings.
Suitability, the existence and lack of idoneitas, therefore became a standard for quite a few 11th-
century Hungarian kings. This idoneitas was also independent of who thought "suitability" was correct.
After István's death, idoneitas and legitimatis are often considered. The historiography of the time
reflects this fact, but it could never affect the light and integrity of St. István's figure.

THANGMAR: Vita Bernwardi. MG Ss IV. 775.

A bemutatott szövegeket idézi: GERICS JÓZSEF: A magyarországi királykoronázás szertartásáról az 1050-

es években. GERICS JÓZSEF: Egyház, állam és gondolkodás Magyarországon a középkorban. Bp., 1995.
(METEM könyvek, 9.) 126. (Első megjelenés: Eszmetörténeti tanulmányok a magyar középkorról.
Memoria saeculorum Hungariae. Bp., 1984. IV. köt. 243–254.)
A sceptrum átadásakor mondott imát közli SCHRAMM, P. E.: Die Krönung bei den Westfranken und
Angelsachsen von 878 bis um 1000. Zeitschrift der Savigny- Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte. Kan. Abt.
1934. 205. A bakulus átadásakor mondott ima ugyanott.

SCHRAMM, P. E.: Die Krönung, i. m. 208.; A Sens-i formulák rendeltetéséről l.: SCHRAMM, P. E.
megjegyzéseit: Archiv für Urkundenforschung. Bd. 16. 1939. 181.

TÓTH ZOLTÁN: A Hartvik-legenda kritikájához. Bp., 1942.

SCHRAMM, P. E.: Die Krönung, i. m. 215.; 217.

SCHRAMM, P. E.: Herrschaftszeichen und Staatssymbolik. Bd. II. Schriften der MGH 13/II. Stuttgart, 1955.
396–397.; ALFÖLDI, ANDRÁS: Eine spätrömische Helmform und ihre Schicksale im germanisch–
romanischen Mittelalter. Acta Archeologica, V. Kjöbenhavn, 1934. 99–144.; A Bügelkrone-ról:
SCHRAMM, P. E.: Die deutschen Kaiser und Könige in Bildern ihrer Zeit 751–1190. Neuauflage. Hrgg. von
MÜTHERICH, FLORENTINE. München, 1983. 351. 8. sz. (Dbg. 936). „Doppelte Bügelkrone von vorn” —
írja erről a képről a 201. oldalon. Mindezekre vonatkozóan vö.: GERICS JÓZSEF–LADÁNYI ERZSÉBET: A
Szent István lándzsájára és koronájára vonatkozó források értelmezése. Levéltári Szemle, 40. (1990) 2.
sz. 3–12.

SCHRAMM, P. E.–MÜTHERICH, F.: i. m. 291. Abbildung 21. és 312. Abbildung 40. II. Henrik az egy pántos
koronával: i. m. 376. Abbildung 124.

SCHRAMM, P. E.–MÜTHERICH, F.: i. m. 348. Abbildung 99. Korhoz kötése: 199.; István említett
dénárjának elő- és hátlapján a korona és lándzsa ábrázolását l. GERICS J.–LADÁNYI E.: A Szent István
lándzsájára, i. m. 4. 1. ábra

Thietmari Merseburgensis Episcopi Chronicon… Recognovit: KURZE, FRIDERICUS. Hannoverae, 1889. 97.
A forráshelynek és a dénárleletnek új szempontok érvényesítésével való tárgyalásáról l.: GERICS JÓZSEF–
LADÁNYI ERZSÉBET.: Források Szent István királlyá avatásának történetéhez. Magyar Könyvszemle, 118.
(2002) 3. sz. 213–223.

SCHRAMM, P. E.–MÜTHERICH, F.: i. m. 377.

GERICS J.–LADÁNYI E.: A Szent István lándzsájára, i. m. 11.; Az ordo imaszövege: SCHRAMM, P. E.: Die
Krönung, i. m. 220.

SCHRAMM, P. E.–MÜTHERICH, F.: i. m. 376. Abbildung 124.

„… regnum ei liberrime habere permisit, dans ei licentiam ferre lanceam sacram ubique, sicut ipsi
imperatori mos est, et reliquias ex clavis Domini et lancea sancti Mauricii ei concessit in propria lancea.”
Ademari Cabannensis Chronicon. Cura et studio: BOURGAIN, P. Turnhout, 1999. III. 31.; 153.; Az
elbeszélés kortársi eredetéről l.: GERICS J.–LADÁNYI E.: A Szent István lándzsájára, i. m.;: GERICS JÓZSEF–
LADÁNYI ERZSÉBET: A birodalmi szent lándzsa és Szent István lándzsája. Unger Mátyás Emlékkönyv. Bp.,
1991. 7–14. A III. Ottó lándzsaadományáról szóló Ademarus-helyre vonatkozó álláspontunkat helyesli a
krónika idézett kiadása a Notes Critiques-ben, 283. (III. 31. 57.)

Salamon koronázásán az Egbert-ordo alkalmazásáról l. GERICS J.: i. m. 112.

SCHRAMM, P. E.: Die Krönung, i. m. 215. Az imát más szertartásszövegek is tartalmazzák pl. az ún.
Edgarordo, amely szerint 973-ban Edgart angol királlyá kenték.

Az Edgar-ordo szövegét l.: SCHRAMM, P. E.: Die Krönung, i. m. 222–230.; A Normann (York-i) Anonymus
előadása során ennek a szertartásrendnek a részleteit tartotta szem előtt (SCHRAMM, P. E.: Geschichte
des englischenKönigtums im Lichte der Krönung. Weimar, 1937. 35.); A praesul princeps előfordulása az
Edgarordoban: SCHRAMM, P. E.: Die Krönung, i. m. 228. (Az ima szövege azonos az Egbert-szertartásban
olvashatóval!)Az Egbert-ordo-val végzett koronázás a királynak a szertartással adta meg mint „főpap–
fejedelemnek” azokat, az egyházra vonatkozó jogokat, amelyeket a Hartvik-legendának a Pseudo-
Isidorus és az ún. ravennai hamisítványok felhasználásával szerkesztett előadása szerint István számára
„mindkét jogon” (utroque iure)II. Szilveszter (?) állítólagos pápai kiváltsága biztosított volna.Die Texte
des Normannischen Anonymus. Herausgegében von PELLENS, KARL. Wiesbaden, 1966. 196–199.

PELLENS, K.: i. m. 129–131.

PELLENS, K.: i. m. 132–133.

PELLENS, K.: i. m. 150.

PELLENS, K.: i. m. 151. A normann névtelen szó szerint idézi I. Gergely levélrészletét. A levelet egészében
közli MIGNE, J-P.: Patrologia Latina. 77. köt. 450 hasáb. (Itt olvasható a terjedelmes szövegből az
Anonymusnál hozott részlet). Gergely szóhasználatához hasonlóan a jubere igét használja a Liber
pontificalis az 526. évre nézve. Eszerint akkor IV. Félix pápát „felszentelték Theoderik (gót) király
parancsára (ex iusso)”. Libri Pontificalis pars prior. Vol. I. Ed.: MOMMSEN, TH.. Berlin, 1898. 138. (MG
Gesta Pontificum Rom.)

Ti. a Gergely koráig (590–604) tartott egyetemes zsinatok.

PELLENS, K.: i. m. 152. A zsinatokról: HINSCHIUS, P.: Decretales Pseudo-Isidorianae et capitula

Angilramni. Lipsiae, 1863. Praefatio C. XI. 20.

PELLENS, K.: i. m. 156. Rekkared király 589-ben térítette át a nyugati gótokat az arianizmusról a
katolicizmusra. A 7. századi katolikus toledói zsinatok anyagát és a bragai zsinatokat l.: HINSCHIUS, P.: i.
m. 354–420.; 420. és. köv. o.

PELLENS, K.: i. m. 156.

PELLENS, K.: i. m. 158.

PELLENS, K.: i. m. 159–160. Az Egbert-szövegében is feltalálható kifejezések!

PELLENS, K.: i. m. 161.

PELLENS, K.: i. m. 132.

Liber gratissimus c. 10. MIGNE, J-P.: Patrologia Latina. 145. köt., 103. hasáb.

PELLENS, K.: i. m. 134.

SZENTPÉTERY, EMERICUS.: Scriptores rerum Hungaricum. II. köt. Bp., 1938–37. 384.; TÓTH ZOLTÁN: i. m.
79–83.

SCHRAMM, P. E.: Die Krönung, i. m. 220.

SCHRAMM, P. E.: Die Krönung, i. m. 213.

SZENTPÉTERY, E.: i. m. II. köt. 619–620.

SZENTPÉTERY, E.: i. m. II. köt- 621.

SZENTPÉTERY, E.: i. m. II. köt. 627.

A „virtus” több jelentését alkalmazva, szövegezte mondanivalóját a szerző. A szó egyik jelentése „erény”
mint „a megszentelő kegyelem velejárója” (ELŐD ISTVÁN: Katolikus dogmatika. Bp., 1978. 426.). Ezen
kívül a Bibliában „mennyei seregek” értelemben (pl.: Ps 83,2,9 és 13, Ps 102, 21) is nem egyszer szerepel.
Az Istenre vonatkoztatott Dominus virtutum jelentése: „Seregek Ura”. (pl.: Ps 83,2,9 és 13) Az angyalok
egyik karának bibliai elnevezése szintén „virtutes”, azaz mennyei „erősségek”. Az Intelmek tárgyalt
helyén tíz angyali karról van szó. „Az angyalvilág egyes karait a Biblia számos helyen, sokféle
felsorolásban, váltakozó összeállításban és sorrendben említi. Kilenc angyali kart nyugaton Ambrosius
[…] keleten Cyrillus Hierosolymitanus […] nevez meg […] Pseudo-Dionüsziosz Areopagitész […] (élt 5.
század vége, 6. század eleje) keresztény angelológia egyik legnevezetesebb alkotása, az angyalvilág
kilenc karba, ezeknek pedig három rendbe sorolása mindenekelőtt az ő nevéhez fűződik […] Ez a 3x3-as
felosztás nagy hatással volt a skolasztika angelológiájára. Ezt az elvet követi Petrus Lombardus […] és
Aquinoi Szent Tamás. Mindazonáltal a Dionüsziosz-féle felosztás nem vált teljesen elfogadottá s főleg
nem lett kötelező dogmatikus érvényűvé. Ismert nézet a patrisztikában, hogy lehetséges olyan további
karok létezése is, amelyekről nem szól a kinyilatkoztatás […].” PSZEUDO-DIONÜSZIOSZ AREOPAGITA: A
mennyei hierarchiáról. Ford.: ERDŐ PÉTER. Az isteni és emberi természetről II. Bp., 1994. 336. 37.