Emeric

ON ST. EMERIC, OR HENRY, DUKE, SON OF ST. STEPHEN, KING OF THE HUNGARIANS,

IN THE YEAR 1031.

COMMENTARIUS PRAEVIUS

Emeric, duke, son of St. Stephen, king of the Hungarians. (S.)

BY A. P.

§ I. Of the antiquity and authority of the anonymous Vita of St. Emeric.

[1] To this day From a holy stock came forth that devout youth, the lovely flower of the noble and religious Hungarian tree, but cut off by an untimely death. Although the Hungarians have honored and do honor him on other days, namely 2 September and 5 November, nevertheless we must treat of him now because he is read inscribed at the 4th of November in the Roman martyrology, and our predecessors promised Acta Sanctorum, September vol. I, p. 339 F., p. 601 F. that his Vita would at some time be given on that very day.

[2] of St. Henry That that holy prince took his name from his maternal uncle, the divine emperor Henry II, was handed down by Aventinus and after him by most of the more recent writers. So, namely, Aventinus Bayerische Chronik, book V, chap. 20, ed. M. Lexer, vol. II (1884), p. 287.: Der ungerisch künig sant Steffan und sein gemahel frau Geisl, sant Hainrichs swester, hetten einen sun miteinander elich erworben, nenten in nach seinem veter, sant Hainrich dem kaiser, auch Hainrich, den die Ungern sant Emrich ir sprach nach haissen. [The Hungarian king St. Stephen and his consort Lady Gisela, St. Henry's sister, had lawfully gotten a son together, and named him after his uncle, St. Henry the emperor, also Henry, whom the Hungarians call St. Emrich after their language.] Which thing, although it is passed over in silence by the older writers, is nevertheless not improbably conjectured. or of Emeric The name of the holy prince is indeed given otherwise in other monuments, and now the form Emeric or another similar one has for the most part been received in use. But in the most ancient sources that name is written Henricus or Heinricus or Hainricus [See M. Florianus, Historiae hungaricae fontes domestici, scriptores vol. I (1881), p. 234–5; add the older codex A1 of the Vita to be published below, and cf. Pray, in the work to be cited shortly, p. 73.]; about the beginning of the thirteenth century, however, it passed into the form Hemericus [Florianus, in the volume cited, p. 235; cf. codices B 4 and C of the praised Vita.], and soon into Emericus Florianus, ibid.; cf. codices A2, B 1, 2, 3, 5.; which, however, was often pronounced or even written Emricus Florianus, in the volume cited, pp. 148, 235–6.; hence the Hungarian names, the older indeed Emreh, the more recent Imre Ibid., p. 148.. The Illyrians corrupted the form of the name into Myrcus; afterwards, carried away by zeal for the glory of their fatherland, they contended that this had been the original name of the blessed youth, whom they said had been of their own nation Joannes Tomcus, Regiae sanctitatis Illyricanae foecunditas (1630), p. 227..

[3] We put forward the Vita, Further, there has come down to our memory a certain Vita of this saint written long ago; of which we must treat first of all. The most ancient copy of it which survives is preserved by the library of the monastery of Rein in Styria: it is namely the Rein codex 69 (= A1), in which, fol. 38–41, is read the text of the Vita of St. Henry, written about the middle of the thirteenth century by a scribe diligent indeed, but very ignorant. Fortunately, however, it happened that a certain almost contemporary corrector emended most of the faults [We shall review only a few faults of this kind, as being too manifest, by way of example, in noting the variant readings.], though not all, using, as it seems, the exemplar itself. Further, that we might obtain the original text of the Vita more surely, we used the codices Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, lat. 8879 (= A2), of the fifteenth century, which for the most part agrees with A1 [This is a certain breviary of Esztergom, very beautifully written and adorned with pictures. There, in the office of St. Emeric, fol. 451–2vo, part of our Vita is read, namely the preface, chap. 1 up to: postulabat, and again from: In his omnibus up to: divitias, chap. 2 up to: O excitatrix, and besides a few words from chap. 5.], likewise Paris, Bibliothèque Mazarine 1329 (= B1), formerly of the monastery of Korsendonk, fifteenth century, fol. 414–7 [A transcript of the Korsendonk codex is preserved in the Brussels codex, Royal Library 8932, fol. 181–4.], and the transcript of the codex formerly of Mondsee R. 239 (= B4), of the beginning of the fifteenth century, which transcript is now kept among the Bollandian collections in the Brussels codex, Royal Library 8932, fol. 186–9 [At the head are inscribed these words: Life of St. Emeric from the paper codex of Mondsee in Upper Austria, marked letter R. no. 239, written at the beginning of the fifteenth century; similar words are read on fol. 189. A copy of this text was furnished to our predecessors in the year 1782 by Mathias Rieberer, as is established from his letter given at Regensburg on 29 September of this year (ibid., fol. 190).]. In this codex B4 the prologue Postquam Unigenitus, which is prefixed to the Vita in A1, 2, B 1, is not read, but in its place appears the prologue which begins Inclitus dux, and which a certain smatterer borrowed for the most part word for word from the Greater Vita of St. Stephen the king, chap. 16 MG., Scriptores vol. XI, p. 238, line 6 ff.. With the same prologue too the Vita begins in two other copies, namely in the Munich codex lat. 18624 (= C1), formerly Tegernsee 624, fifteenth century, fol. 26–31, and in the Vienna codex of the Palatine library lat. 3362 (= C2), formerly of Mondsee "f. 186", fifteenth century, fol. 90vo–92vo. The same Vita begins otherwise in the codex of Lviv (Lemberg), Ossolineum library 1944 (= D), fifteenth century, fol. 375–77vo; in which is presented a very badly depraved text, which comes close now to the readings of codices A, now to B or C. Finally, the Vita of Emeric was formerly read in the Melk codex M. 5, fifteenth century, or

at least in its prototype Cf. Pertz's Archiv, vol. X, p. 651.; but today it is certainly no longer found in the Melk codex.

[4] which has already often been printed, This Vita first came out in print in a little book whose title is Legende sanctorum regni Hungarie in lombardica historia non contente; the first edition of which little work seems to have been published before the year 1484, though with no year, place or name of printer written on it Cf. Hain, Repertorium, no. 9996.. This very rare little book was kindly communicated to us by the most courteous men in charge of the Bern library; in it the Vita of St. Emeric is found, fol. 27–29 (= B2), taken from a codex which agreed very much, though not everywhere, with our B1. But from another codex, whose readings nevertheless also came very close to the readings of codex B1, the same Vita was reprinted in a certain Kraków edition of the already praised Legends (= B3), in the year 1511 [This comprises much more, and is entitled: Vita beatissimi Stanislai Cracoviensis episcopi. Necnon legende sanctorum Polonie, Hungarie, Bohemie, Moravie, Prussie et Slesie patronorum. In lombardica historia non contente.], fol. 125–27vo. For preparing the Venetian edition of the Legends in the year 1498 (= B5) [Cf. Hain, no. 9998. The edition which came out at Strasbourg in the year 1486 I have neither seen nor known from elsewhere.], yet another codex was used, which not seldom seems to have been more similar to our codex B4.

[5] but for the most part But afterwards the genuine text of the Vita began to be neglected by learned men. For Antonio Bonfini († 1502) had read it, and, having taken from it the material of the narrative, had related in his Decades the deeds of Emeric on his own strength, or, as they say, in his own style [Antonii Bonfini, Rerum Ungaricarum decades, ed. Mart. Brenner, Basel, 1543, dec. II, book I.]. Whence it came about that when Laurentius Surius was preparing the Vita of the holy youth to be inserted in his hagiological work, he presented its original text partly word for word, partly polished by himself, often also entirely changed according to the narrative of Bonfini De probatis sanctorum historiis, vol. VI (1575), at 4 November.. This adulterated recension was received into their collections in the year 1600 by Jacques Bongars Rerum Hungaricarum scriptores varii, p. 281–3., in the year 1744 by Joh. Bapt. Prileszky Acta SS. Ungariae, vol. II, p. 307–13., in the year 1746 by Joh. Georg Schwandtner Scriptores rerum Hungaricarum, vol. I, p. 429–32.. But in the same year 1746 our predecessor Joh. Stilting put forward some part of the genuine text in his commentary on St. Stephen [Acta Sanctorum, September vol. I, p 523, nos. 263–6; p. 543, no. 349; p. 561, no. 470], using the copies B1, 3, 4. The genuine text too, namely the edition B4, was reprinted in the year 1777 by the care of György Pray [Dissertationes historico criticae de SS. Salomone rege et Emerico duce Hungariae, p. 87–100; cf. p. 86.]. Finally, in our own century the Vita of Emeric has been printed twice, namely in the year 1849 by Steph. Lad. Endlicher Rerum Ungaricarum monumenta Arpadiana, p. 193–201. from codex C2, and in the year 1881 by Mátyás Florianus Historiae Hungaricae fontes domestici. Part I, scriptores, vol. I, p. 129–39. from the copies B3, 5 and C2.

[6] very carelessly. Of the copies which we ourselves found by diligent inquiry, there is none indeed which presents the genuine words of the author everywhere; but with all of them used together, there is hope that the original text will be established quite exactly. I should like it noted, however, that by the letters A, B, C, D I have wished not so much to designate certain so-called families of codices as to make the annotation of the variant readings shorter and more expeditious. There are namely about ninety places in which all the copies B depart from the two copies C; elsewhere, however, one or another among the copies B, but especially B4, present readings proper to the codices C. It seems that in the book from which the copies C1 and C2 were copied out, the text of the Vita had been somewhat reworked; for I cannot be brought to believe that the original words of the Vita are found there. Which was not useless to say, since in certain places these codices C differ somewhat from the rest not only in words but also in the things narrated. But now we must treat of the writer himself and of the authority of his little work.

[7] A certain Hungarian cleric wrote this Vita That the author of the Vita was of the Hungarian nation he himself makes manifest, when with a certain emphasis at the very beginning he puts forward these words in the preface: … through the honey-flowing providence of blessed Stephen, our first king… For he is our king and apostle… That the same belonged to the ecclesiastical order, both his manner of estimating things, which plainly savors of asceticism, and his manner of speaking, filled with biblical shreds, do not allow us to doubt; I suspect, moreover, that he was a cleric of the church of Székesfehérvár, in which the body of blessed Emeric had been entombed Cf. Vita, chap. 6, 7.. anonymous What his name was, however, he himself nowhere hints, nor can it be learned from elsewhere. For I cannot agree with Georg Jer. Haner Adversaria de scriptoribus rerum Hungaricarum et Transsylvanicarum (1774), p. 8., who, with the approval of István Katona Historia critica regum Hungariae stirpis Arpadianae, vol. II (1779), p. 477–81. and Árpád Kerékgyártó Magyarország müvelödésének törnénete, vol. II (1866), p. 50 f., supposed on a quite slippery conjecture that the Vita of Emeric was written by the same Hartvic who, at the command of King Coloman (1095–1114), committed to writing the Vita of St. Stephen the king. For the arguments by which they strive to prove this are, to speak more mildly, very slight; which besides tend for the most part only to show that there is nothing which manifestly prevents Hartvic from being asserted as the author of our Vita. They put forward only one positive reason, if it is permissible to speak so, namely that "that phrase familiar to Hartvic, which he uses again and again in the Vita of St. Stephen the king: Nor is this to be passed over in silence… Nor do I think this to be passed over…, occurs also in the Vita of St. Emeric in these words: Nor do I think this is to be passed over" Katona, in the place cited, p. 478.. Of how very little weight this reason is, there is no need to declare at length, since this is a most hackneyed expression, used here and there by a great many writers. Nay rather, to omit other things, this stands in the way of the proposed conjecture, that our author, as we have noted, was Hungarian by nation, but Hartvic, as it altogether seems, by no means so Cf. MG., Scriptores vol. XI, p. 223..

[8] at the beginning of the twelfth century, About the time, however, at which that author wrote, different men have thought differently; but the Vita itself supplies the indications from which we may conclude that it was composed a little after the beginning of the twelfth century. That it is not older is certainly shown by the fact that not only does it seem to speak of Pope Gregory VII († 1087) and of King Ladislaus († 1095) as of those who were no longer among the living [Chap. 7 near the beginning: to the vicar of blessed Peter, Hildebrand, who then presided over the Roman see; ibid. toward the end: to King Ladislaus, who at that time presided over Pannonia.], but most of all because it mentions a certain journey of Duke Álmos to Constantinople, which journey he undertook about the year 1109 Cf. Kerékgyártó Árpád, op. cit., vol. II, p. 50.; and the author hints that some time had already passed since then [Chap. 6. Nor do I think this is to be passed over, that once at Constantinople a certain religious monk … related to me while I was staying with the lord Duke Álmos. Cf., however, below, no. 10, note 4.]. Nor yet was that time long; for in chapter 7, about to narrate a certain miracle which had happened in the time of Pope Gregory VII (1073–1085), or at any rate before the last decade of the eleventh century [Namely when Fabian the chancellor was still holding the provostship of the church of Székesfehérvár; cf. chap. 7 at the end: From Fabian the chancellor, ruler of the same church (of Székesfehérvár). He, however, about the year 1091 was made archbishop of Bács; cf. Florianus, in the volume cited, p. 233.], the writer of the Vita teaches that this thing happened in his own time [But one of the outstanding miracles which afterwards in our days … God deigned to reveal.]. The same is shown to some extent by those words of the prologue by which the author testifies that in the newest times, so to speak, through the honey-flowing providence of blessed Stephen, the kingdom of all Pannonia had come to know the light of truth [Pray, op. cit., p. 85, and Florianus, in the volume cited, p. 232, press this passage for assigning the age of the Vita.]; although this argument is not so perspicuous, since "those newest times" are named by the author in comparison with the apostolic age, that is, with a most remote time.

[9] but not before; Much less can that passage be used to determine the age of this Vita which in the same prologue immediately follows the words just praised: And since his deeds (namely those of St. Stephen the king) are beyond telling, and it does not befit the smallness of our wit, it has seemed more just and more useful that we should set forth the signal deeds of his son… From this, of course, Florianus Ibid. concluded that the legend of St. Stephen had not yet been published at that time, and that consequently the Vita of Emeric was composed at the end of the eleventh century; but in this he was mistaken. It is certain indeed that none of the three Vitae of St. Stephen which have been preserved for us was read by our biographer. But besides the fact that the more recent authors by no means agree in assigning the age and mutual relation of those three Vitae [After our Stilting, when he was illustrating the history of St. Stephen in these Acta, put forward a few things about his Vitae (September vol. I, p. 456–61), many have written about them, and in a wonderful way differing among themselves. It will be well to name the more recent ones, so that we may thus provide at least some supplement to Stilting's commentary: W.

Wattenbach in MG., Scriptores vol. XI, p. 222–4 and Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen, 5th ed., vol. II, p. 185–6; Kerékgyártó Árpád, op. cit., p. 41–9; Florianus, op. cit., vol. I, p. 162–220; cf. J. Városy? in the periodical fascicles Századok, vol. XV (1881), p. 692–702 and Florianus, vol. III, p. 303–315; H. Marczali, Ungarns Geschichtsquellen im Zeitalter der Arpaden, p. 13–21; cf. A. Huber in Mittheilungen des Instituts für oesterr. Geschichtsforschung, vol. IV, p. 130–1; J. Pauler in Századok, vol. XVIII (1884), p. 739 f. and in Ungarische Revue, vol. V (1885), p. 62–72. M. Rosenauer, Studien zur Kritik ungarischer Geschichtsquellen für die Zeit Stephans des Heiligen (Programm Mediasch, 1885/86), p. 8–23; J. Karácsonyi in Századok, vol. XXVI (1892), p. 23–41; J. Pauler, ibid., p. 280–96. R. F. Kaindl, Beiträge zur älteren ungarischen Geschichte (1893), p. 79, note 21, promised that he would shortly treat of the mutual relation of the same Vitae.], besides, to account for the words copied out above, it is plainly enough if we establish that the Vita of Stephen was not yet known to the author when he wrote this. Nay even if he had known one of these three, it is by no means evident that he could not have written the same words.

[10] and was composed in its entirety From what has been said, further, it seems altogether established that the Vita of Emeric was composed after the year 1109, yet not so very long after. The above-praised Florianus, however, hesitates and hangs back: for he presses what the author writes in chap. 7, where he asserts that a miracle which happened a little before the year 1091 was done in our times; whence Florianus at once concludes that the author was present at this miracle. But at the same time he notes that the things related in chap. 6 belong to about the year 1110, and that the narrator, by inserting the word once, hints that he set his hand to writing the work some while after the events. These things premised, he conjectures that the first part of chap. 6 (up to the words: Et quoniam in ecclesia) did not belong to the first writing of the work, but is perhaps an addition by one author. which was inserted by some smatterer into the work already published Op. cit., vol. I, p. 234, cf. p. IV.. This conjecture he strives to confirm by two reasons, both that that added chapter is introduced by this hackneyed expression: Nor do I think this is to be passed over in silence, which formula smells of an interpolator, and that "the style too differs" in that chap. 6 from the style of the rest of the Vita. Of the latter point he puts forward this egregious proof: "For," he says, "Stephen, both in what precedes and in what follows, is called blessed, once most Christian, nowhere saint. But here is read: Of St. Stephen, first king of Pannonia, which we suspect was put in imitation of the sentence in the prologue: Through the honey-flowing providence of blessed Stephen our first king." I prefer to abstain from sifting these arguments; for they are too futile. To the other things which Florianus has put forward I answer that neither by the adverb once is so remote a time designated, nor by the expression in our days so near a time, as he thinks. For the meaning of the word once is very indeterminate; nay, elsewhere it indicates not only past but sometimes also present or future time. In chapter 7, moreover, in which it is said that the miracle of the year 1091 happened afterwards in our days, this is referred by way of contrast to what immediately precedes, in which the author had treated of things done in the year 1031, namely on the thirtieth day after the death of St. Emeric [In the same way in the preface the words in the newest times, so to speak, are not to be so understood as if Pannonia had come to the faith of Christ in the author's own time, but because the time of that conversion is compared with the time of the Lord's ascension and of the apostolic preaching, and so it must be esteemed as recent.]. Otherwise nothing prevents the author from having been alive in the year 1091, or even from having been of not a few years of age, who nevertheless wrote the Vita of the saint only twenty and more years afterwards.

[11] This author related what he had learned by common report, That author, then, who about eighty years after Emeric had died committed to writing the deeds of the holy youth, himself teaches from what source he received the material of his narrative, chap. 4: Let us diligently relate, however, the few things which we have heard of his deeds. Which passage Florianus explains thus Vol. I, p. 233.: "(The author) narrates the deeds of blessed Emeric from hearsay, informed, as it appears, by eyewitnesses. These witnesses, as he writes in §6 (that is, our chap. 5): His bride, and an intimate servant, who had seen and heard, after the death of the blessed man no longer concealed it." By what right Florianus believes he can affirm this, I do not follow; for it is by no means clear that those from whom he heard the things he related were eyewitnesses; by no means does he write that those witnesses whom he himself heard narrating were the bride or the servant of the blessed youth; to omit that it is very doubtful whether either of these was still surviving when our writer was born. Nay, it seems much more probable that our writer committed to writing the things which were carried by common report, and which had been handed down to him by someone.

[12] or had rashly believed when narrated by a petty Greek, In one matter, however, he names his authority more explicitly, namely in chap. 6: Nor do I think this is to be passed over, that once at Constantinople a certain religious canon of the church of Caesarea related to me, as I was staying with the lord Duke Álmos, … that he had read in the deeds of St. Eusebius; which Eusebius he says a little later was St. Eusebius, metropolitan of Caesarea in Palestine. Now it is plainly manifest that that petty Greek whose testimony is invoked in this place deceived [It is not indicated clearly, indeed, who that man was who stayed with Duke Álmos at Constantinople; whence it comes about that it has left room for a twofold interpretation, namely to me staying or to a certain man staying. The former, however, has pleased all but everyone and is more likely to be true.] our writer. For not only is no bishop of Caesarea named Eusebius recorded besides that most celebrated ecclesiastical writer who flourished in the fourth century; but besides it could not at all have happened that the fictitious Eusebius whom ours names should walk in procession at Caesarea in the year 1031 together with clergy and people. For Caesarea at that time was under the power of the infidels, nor was a Latin metropolitan established there before the year 1101, namely after Baldwin I, king of Jerusalem, had stormed the city. Here, then, our simple author has candidly betrayed his credulity; whence it comes about that his authority, even as regards the rest of the narrative, is not a little lowered.

[13] he related them in such a way that not faithfully enough, But we must also count it a fault in him that he did not express faithfully enough the genuine, or at least the entire, likeness of St. Emeric. For while he applies himself wholly to extolling the virtues of the holy youth, he scarcely touches his history, so that the reader would believe he had in hand the Vita of a monk rather than of a royal youth. That the most devout son of a most devout father was outstanding in his inclination toward divine things we are very far from calling into doubt; and what ours relates of the exercises of piety and penance practised by Emeric plainly agrees with the mystical and ascetic temper both of the men of the eleventh century and of the Hungarian nobles of that time Cf. Marczali, op. cit., p. 22–3.. But I can hardly bring myself to believe that there were no other deeds of Emeric which were passed over in silence by the writer of the Vita, whether he did not know them, or rather made little of them and thought they should be neglected, as one who intended not to compose a historical work but to offer devout readers some things conducing to the edification of the soul. I omit indeed the things which are read in the Libellus de institutione morum addressed to Duke Emeric, which are not so easily brought into agreement with the narrative of our biographer, as when the author of the little book hints that the holy prince was delicately brought up Cf. Florianus, in the volume cited, p. 229, no. 8, p. 230.. But I do not press these things; for what credit that little book deserves, and whether it was written by St. Stephen himself, or in his name by St. Gerard of Csanád, or even by some more recent author, is not clear [Cf. Florianus, p. 220–32; Karácsonyi János, Szent Gellért Csanádi püspök élete es müvei (1887), p. 259–308.].

[14] nor entirely Of greater weight, however, is what we read recorded in the Annals of Hildesheim at the year 1031: And Henry, son of King Stephen, duke of the Ruizi, torn by a boar in the hunt, perished, dying lamentably [MG., Scriptores vol. III, p. 98; G. Waitz in Scriptores rerum Germanicarum: Annales Hildesheimenses (1878), p. 36.]. Now these things are not only passed over in silence by the author of the Vita, but are also quite foreign to everything he puts forward about the character of Emeric. Nor for any other reason have some more recent writers refused to receive the testimony of the said Annals; so for example the diligent historiographer of Hungarian affairs György Pray: "Since it is likely that the character of Emeric almost shrank from delights of this kind" (namely from hunting), "as is clear from those who have written about him, and since besides no one else has recorded in writing a kind of death unheard of up to that point, it is credible that the writer was either deceived by malicious report, or committed an error in the name, while besides by a new error he invents Emeric as duke of the Russians" [Annales rerum Hungariae, part I (1764), p. 39; cf. his Dissertationes (1774), p. 56–7. Katona agrees with Pray, op. cit., vol. I, pp. 386, 388–9, and other moderns.]. Nay rather, from what has been said the plainly opposite opinion is to be concluded [On the title duke of the Ruizi see below, no. 18. A certain memory of the hunting sports of Emeric, in which men of such condition take especial delight, is to be found in those Polish fables of which see below, nos. 23–25.]. For the annalist of Hildesheim is the most ancient of all who have written about St. Emeric; since the part of these Annals which begins from the year 1000 and ends in the year 1040 is written in the surviving codex by one pen in the eleventh century, and was copied entire from an older and fuller exemplar, of which remains exist elsewhere Cf. Waitz, in the place cited, p. VII and the authors cited there.. It is easy, then, to conclude that credit is rather to be given to that almost contemporary annalist, especially since it is not hard to understand why the writer of the Vita, in praising the virtues of Emeric

and wholly intent on his ascetic character, should have preferred to keep in silence such an end of the outstanding prince, if indeed he was not ignorant of it.

[15] of the holy prince Elsewhere, however, the same György Pray gathers other reasons why he hesitates to give credit to the narrative of the Annals of Hildesheim [Dissertationes, p. 57. He had indeed rightly written (ibid., p. 43) that more authority is to be attributed to the Hildesheim chronographer, as one who, if not contemporary with the age of Emeric, was certainly nearest to it, than to domestic writers far removed from those times. But the distinguished man was not consistent enough with himself.]. "I greatly fear," he says, "that the kind of death by which he reports that Emeric was taken away, and of which no one else makes mention, has been rightly recorded, especially since there are not lacking those, among whom is Ranzano, who have written that Emeric was attacked by disease before he died, which is greatly at variance with that butchery of the Hildesheim chronographer. If this matter were consonant with the truth, I should not doubt that Alold, a writer nearly contemporary and near to our people, for he had written in Austria, would have made mention of this pitiable death…" Now these things have a very easy answer. Namely, the fact that the authors later than the Annals of Hildesheim are silent about the bloody death of Emeric is an argument only that the praised Annals were not read by them; it is to be noted, moreover, that authors of this kind almost all follow, in narrating this death, the Vitae either of Emeric or of his father Stephen [So the work compiled, as it seems, at the end of the thirteenth century, whose title is Cronica Ungarorum iuncta et mixta cum cronicis Polonorum et Vita S. Stephani; in which these words are to be read in chap. 9: Soon falling into sickness, Henry, the noble duke of Slavonia, languished for 8 days, and on the ninth day at the ninth hour gave up his spirit (A. Bielowski, Monumenta Poloniae historica, vol. I, p. 508). But besides the fact that these things in no way contradict the Annals of Hildesheim, that chronicle is of no weight, as being an insipid hodgepodge stuffed with the most foolish fables. See H. Zeissberg, Die polnische Geschichtschreibung des Mittelalters (1873), p. 87, note 1; cf. his Miseco I in Archiv für oesterr. Gesch., vol. XXXVIII, p. 114; Marczali, op. cit., p. 156.]; all of which are not a little more recent than the Annals of Hildesheim. That the authority of Pietro Ranzano, who was writing at the end of the fifteenth century, is invoked by Pray in this cause, I wonder. As regards Alold of Pöchlarn, it is now established that the fragments of the chronicle attributed to him [They are published in Chr. Hanthaler, Fasti Campililienses, vol. I (1747), p. 1276–85.] are a spurious work concocted by a bold forger of the eighteenth century [Cf. Marczali, op. cit., p. 161–2; Wattenbach, Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen, 5th ed., vol. II, p. 474.].

[16] should set forth the history. Further, to sum up in a few words what has been said so far, it must be confessed that, on account of the writer's age, which is not ancient enough, his credulity, and his mind not altogether free from other interests, no special authority is to be attributed to the Vita of St. Emeric composed by him, nor can it rightly be counted among historical sources in the true sense of the name.

§ II. Of the things which are read about St. Emeric in other historical monuments.

[17] Certain other things about St. Emeric have been handed down by The less weight, then, the Vita of Emeric has, the more necessary it is that we seek out the other ancient writers who have written about him. First in order of time comes the annalist of Hildesheim, whose testimony we have just weighed and proved in some part. He relates that Emeric died in the year 1031; with this agree the Vitae of St. Stephen to be praised below, and also the old Hungarian Annals copied at the beginning of the thirteenth century [Ed. Endlicher, op. cit., p. 55 ff., as the Chronicon Posoniense; W. Arndt in MG., Scriptores vol. XIX, p. 571 ff., as the Annales Posonienses; W. Wattenbach in Archiv für oesterr. Gesch., vol. XLII (1870), p. 502 ff., as the Annales veteres Ungarici; M. Florianus, op. cit., vol. III, p. 208 ff., as Adnotationes chronologicas saeculi XII et XIII (cf. p. III). See Marczali, op. cit., p. 107–9; Wattenbach, Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen, 5th ed., vol. II, p. 186, note 2.]. That the Annals of Niederaltaich [MG., Scriptores vol. XX, p. 791; cf. the Annales Altahenses minores, ibid., p. 775.] and the Niederaltaich Auctarium of Ekkehard MG., Scriptores vol. XVII, p. 363. record the death of Emeric only at the year 1033 gives us no trouble; for the compiler of the Annals of Niederaltaich, who made very great use of the Annals of Hildesheim, used them wrongly in this place, and above all in assigning dates he manifestly confused everything [Cf. W. Giesebrecht, Geschichte der deutschen Kaiserzeit, vol. II (4th ed.), p. 587; the same in MG., Scriptores vol. XX, p. 777–8; E. Steindorff, Jahrbücher des deutschen Reichs unter Heinrich III, vol. I (1875), p. 437.]. But where certain more recent writers have established that the year 1030 was the year of Emeric's death, they did so with no testimony brought forward and no reason proposed [Cf. Pray, Dissertationes, pp. 43, 56. Baronius designated the same year (Annales ecclesiastici at the year 1030, no. III), deceived by a false reading of the Vita of Stephen by Hartvic, in which he read the year "one thousand thirty," the word "first" being omitted or neglected.]. It is established, therefore, that our saint departed this life in the year 1031. In what year, however, the same was born is nowhere handed down. György Pray Ibid., p. 43. Cf. Katona, op. cit., vol. I, p. 130. had indeed read "in certain very ancient breviaries" that he departed from life in the twenty-fourth year of his age; from which it would have to be concluded that he was brought into the light in the year 1007. But that little credit is to be given in matters of this kind to the lessons which are read in breviaries, Pray himself readily acknowledged elsewhere Op. cit., p. 67..

[18] the Annals of Hildesheim, But to return to the Annals of Hildesheim, we have already heard György Pray carping at them Annales rerum Hungariae, part I, p. 39. because they had called Emeric duke of the Ruizi; which censure he strove to confirm at length in another work Dissertationes, p. 57–70.; in which, after he contends with much apparatus of learning that "Emeric scarcely bore the title of duke of the Russians, much less was duke of Slavonia; and that those err most gravely of all who make him duke of Sirmium," he at length conjectures that the same was either duke of Transylvania Ibid., p. 60. or was simply called duke of Hungary Ibid., p. 70.. I should believe this conjecture unhappy and by no means founded, since under neither title does Emeric appear in the ancient monuments. Nor yet is he anywhere called in them duke of Sirmium, which title we readily grant is rightly denied to the holy youth by Pray, both for this and for other reasons. Whether, however, the praised author rightly denies him the title of duke of the Ruizi, which the Annals of Hildesheim attribute to him, or of duke of Slavonia, which the already cited Cronica Ungarorum composed in the thirteenth century attributes to him [Cf. above, no. 14 and no. 15, note 5. Emeric is also called duke of Slavonia in certain liturgical books of Zagreb; cf. Pray, Dissertationes, p. 67; I. Dankó, Vetus hymnarium ecclesiasticum Hungariae, p. 83 and p. 236, note 3.], I hang in doubt. That by one or the other of these, or even by both, a special dominion of Emeric over the Pannonian Slavs is not unaptly designated, certain learned men among the more recent have understood [M. Büdinger, Oesterreichische Geschichte, vol. I (1858), p. 426, note 6; E. Steindorff, op. cit., vol. I, p. 149, note 1.]. I know indeed that that region which afterwards bore the name of Slavonia, and which extends below Hungary between south and west, namely beyond the rivers Danube and Drava, became wholly of Hungarian right only after the beginning of the twelfth century. But whether, and how great a part of it, especially that which was called Pannonia Savia, or even a small portion of this Pannonia, was comprised within the borders of the Hungarian kingdom in the time of St. Stephen, Hungarian, Austrian and German authors have disputed at length; while, then, the matter remains doubtful, it is not the part of a wise critic, I do not say to reject as false, but even to neglect in sifting this matter, the testimony, however obscure, of an ancient writer, nay even a contemporary or almost contemporary one, namely the author of the Annals of Hildesheim. And let this suffice; for to move this controversy again and to inquire into the borders of the Hungarian kingdom in the time of St. Stephen is foreign to the present purpose.

[19] the Greater Legend of St. Stephen, In the Vitae of this holy king which have been preserved, it was consistent that the outstanding gifts of his son Emeric should be mentioned. The so-called "Lesser legend" of St. Stephen, however, which seems older than the others, is silent about him. But in the "Greater legend," which some think was written in the eleventh century, others in the twelfth more or less advanced, we read these things in chap. 16: Through the examination of the secret counsel of the eternal Judge he (Stephen) felt the scourges impending upon him in the death of his sons, whom, innocent in the very steps of infancy, he who gave them took away. The sorrow arising from their death the father checked with consolation on account of his love for the surviving son, the boy Henry of holy disposition; whom, loving him with fleshly affection as now his only one, he commended with daily prayers to Christ and to his mother, the perpetual virgin. Him, then, he desired with all his wishes to survive, him to be heir of his kingdom, and that he might become more efficient in holding the helm of so great a government, he made him lend both ears to the teachings of orthodox men by the practice of daily reading. He himself too, pricked by the ardor of paternal love, composed for him a little book on the instruction of character, in which he addresses him faithfully and in a friendly way with words of spiritual admonition, instructing him how… Instructed by such and similar disciplines, the illustrious youth, obeying the eternal disposition to which all things are subject, in the year of the Lord's incarnation 1031 exchanged this deadly life for the everlasting one, joined to the fellowship of the citizens on high. O how great was the mourning of all, but especially of the princes, among whom the desolate father drew a heavy sigh MG., Scriptores vol. XI, p. 237–8; Florianus, vol. I, p. 25–6 (chap. 15).. These things were transcribed in so many words in the Vita of St. Stephen by Hartvic MG., in the place cited, p. 238, annotation *; Florianus, p. 57–8., Hartvic in the Vita of the same, except that toward the end a certain little narrative manifestly taken from the Vita of Emeric itself has been inserted. Namely, after the words joined to the fellowship, Hartvic goes on thus: Whose soul, at the very hour of his passing, it was revealed to a certain bishop of the Greeks, a man of holy life, was being carried by angels to the palaces of heaven.

[20] the Libellus de institutione morum addressed to Duke Emeric, Very few things indeed do we learn from this which had not been mentioned in the Vita of Emeric, and those of no great weight. We have already mentioned above in passing that little book which is said to have been written by the holy king for the sake of his son, and we noted that its authenticity is not established. But this does not much concern us. That little book, often printed It is found also in our Acta, September vol. I, p. 543–6., presents indeed teachings full of piety and wisdom; but scarcely anything is read in it which illustrates the history of St. Emeric Cf. above, no. 13.. What the Vita of Stephen relates, however, that the holy king vehemently desired that that now only son should survive him and succeed in the kingdom, was easy to understand. Yet these things were not enough for the writers of a later age; the more recent Hungarian chronicles, if you give credit to them, he (Stephen) had resolved to renounce the pomps of this world, laying aside the royal diadem, and, freed from outward cares, to be devoted to the service of God alone. He had arranged, moreover, to give the crown of the kingdom to Duke Emrich his son; … (but) when the most holy father intended to commit the care of the administration of governing to his most holy son, the duke himself was overtaken by death. So at the end of the thirteenth century Simon of Kéza in the Gesta Hungarorum [Florianus, vol. II, p. 78. Nay, someone was even found who invented that Emeric reigned after his father (cf. Pray, Dissertationes, p. 56).], which narrative passed both into other works and especially into most of the Hungarian chronicles and histories which were written afterwards. It is presented, namely, in more or fewer words, in the fourteenth century by Andrea Dandolo in the Venetian Chronicle Muratori, Rerum italicarum Scriptores, vol. XII, col. 234., the so-called Illuminated Chronicle of Vienna, chap. 41 Florianus, vol. II, p. 143., the rhyming Chronicle of the Hungarians I. Chr. Engel, Monumenta Ungrica, p. 33–4. composed, as it seems, by Heinrich von Mügeln [Cf. W. Wilmans in Zeitschrift für deutsches Alterthum, vol. XIV (Neue Folge II), p. 155 ff.; G. Roethe, ibid., vol. XXX (N. F. XVIII), p. 345 ff.], the Buda Chronicle Edited by I. Podhradczky, p. 70–1.; and in the fifteenth century the Dubnica Chronicle Florianus, vol. III, p. 47–8., the so-called Munich Chronicle, no. 28 Ibid., p. 225., János Thuróczy in the Chronica Hungarorum, part I, chap. 33 Schwandtner, op. cit., vol. I, p. 97., Pietro Ranzano in the Annals, book 61, index 9 Florianus, op. cit., vol. IV, p. 191. and many others Cf. also Acta Sanctorum, September vol. I, p. 542, no. 346..

[21] But, to speak with our Stilting, since the ancient sources have nothing about this royal resolve, that desire of abdicating the kingdom, although it is not incredible, I nevertheless would not wish to affirm as plainly certain Ibid.. For grant, what has only lately been recognized and approved by most learned men, that the more recent Hungarian writers whom we have praised by no means drew what they put forward from Simon of Kéza alone, but that both they and Simon used an older source, namely a certain native chronicle, which some copied more freely, others sometimes word for word; nevertheless that original chronicle was by no means such as to deserve full credit in narrating things done at the beginning of the eleventh century. For he who judged of it most kindly of all, H. Marczali, thought that it was written about the year 1150; and yet it has been shown that the same was composed only in the thirteenth century, and that perhaps already somewhat advanced [See on the whole matter Zeissberg in Zeitschrift für oesterr. Gymnasialwesen, 1875, p. 491 ff.; Marczali, op. cit., p. 41 ff., cf. p. 80; A. Huber in Mittheilungen des Instituts für oesterr. Geschichtsforschung, vol. IV, p. 131 ff.; O. Rademacher, in Forschungen zur deutschen Geschichte, vol. XXV, p. 381 ff. (see pp. 388, 391); O. Lorenz, Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen, 3rd ed., vol. I, p. 336 ff.; L. von Heinemann in Neues Archiv, vol. XIII, p. 61 ff. While these things were being printed, there came into my hands a little book very recently published by the distinguished R. F. Kaindl: Beiträge zur älteren ungarischen Geschichte; in which, p. 45–54, the author brings forward certain reasons for believing that that older document, from which the later Hungarian chroniclers drew, was written at the end of the eleventh century (cf. ibid., p. 53). He does not, however, altogether settle the matter, and has it in mind to examine it more fully afterwards. And if the learned man should fully prove his opinion, our conclusion will nevertheless stand, that this narrative which is in question is to be received with caution.]. Further, it will be safer and wiser to receive with caution the testimony of this chronicle, now lost, which was not so ancient and all of whose offshoots are by no means free of fables. Pelbart of Temesvár, Pelbart of Temesvár at the end of the fifteenth century not only received it, but did not hesitate even to add a little flower, when in his Sermon on St. Emeric the duke Pomerium sermonum de sanctis. 1489. he wrote: His father, blessed King Stephen, having called together the barons of Hungary, exacted an oath from each of them that after him they would set him over them to reign and would adorn him with the diadem Cf. Florianus, vol. I, p. 141, no. 6.. Let the credit for this rest with the preacher [Someone might not unaptly conjecture that these things were incautiously transferred to St. Emeric by Pelbart, which the author of the Cronica Ungarorum, chap. 10 (Endlicher, op. cit., p. 77), relates of King Aba, the nephew of St. Stephen and successor after King Peter; whom that very bad fabulist names Alba and calls the son and next successor of St. Stephen.].

[22] the Vita of St. Gerard of Csanád, We shall more readily lend our ears to another Hungarian writer, although he narrates things hitherto unheard, namely him who wrote the Vita of St. Gerard, bishop of Csanád. Although this was composed at a fairly recent time, namely in the fourteenth century, and is by no means free of blemishes, it nevertheless offers some things not to be spurned and not unworthy of being known [Cf. E. Dümmler, Piligrim von Passau, p. 165, note 11; M. Büdinger, Oesterr. Geschichte, vol. I, p. 424–5, note 2; Kerékgyártó Árpád, op. cit., vol. II, p. 52–5; Marczali, op. cit., p. 24 ff.; A. Huber, in the volume cited, p. 131; L. von Heinemann, in the volume cited, p. 70; Wattenbach, Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen, 5th ed., vol. II, p. 185.]. Its author relates, further, that Gerard, when, having set out from Venice, he had come into Hungary in order to hasten by this way to Jerusalem, was detained by St. Stephen; of whom he adds these words in chap. 9: The king kept Gerhard with him, … and made him the master of his son Hemeric for many days. It came to pass, however, when he saw the blessed duke Hemeric growing in virtue and manfully overcoming the enemy of the human race with Christ's help, that, fleeing the tumult of the people, he sought the hermitage which is commonly called Beel, where he remained for seven continuous years … building himself a cell in which he dictated books, which he wrote with his own hand [Endlicher, op. cit., p. 213–4. We cite this Vita alone; for from this, or rather from a certain more recent recension of it, was taken by way of abridgment the Vita which our Stilting published in Acta Sanctorum, September vol. VI, p. 722–4, and which he thought was written by a nearly contemporary author. A copy of that more recent edition which we have named was printed by Arn. Wion (S. Gerardi Sagredo … Vita, 1597, fol. 1–21), who however "here and there sometimes changed the style and barbarous words, where it was necessary."]. Among these books, moreover, there are some, as we have already noted, who think the Libellus de institutione morum addressed to Duke Emeric is to be counted.

[23] the Polish annals of Holy Cross, Somewhat before the time when this Vita of Gerard was being written, however, other things about our saint were being handed down to memory in Poland, which afterwards offered a handle for adding and peddling other fictions. In the Polish Annals of Holy Cross, namely, which are thought to have been written for the first time in the year 1270 MG., Scriptores vol. XIX, p. 677., we read these things at the year 966: King Stephen begot a son called Emrich, and after ten years contracted friendship with Meszko, king of Poland, so that Emrich married the daughter of Meszko, as though compelled by force by his father and by the nobles of the land; who, coming to Gniezno and Poznań, remained This word is redundant in the published texts. with his virgin wife remained a virgin until death per votum per ipsos emissum adds a certain codex. At length, going from Poland, conversely, to Hungary, they came with Meszko into Cilicia for the sake of hunting stags; who on the next day, by the prompting of the Holy Spirit and an angelic vision, coming in person to the Bald Mountain [Liszecz, Łysiec (= Łysa Góra, Calvus mons), situated in the palatinate of Sandomierz, on whose summit stand out the church and monastery which from that time have been called of the Holy Cross (cf. MG., in the volume cited, p. 577).], gave the holy cross, which he carried on his breast, to that church and to the brothers of St. Benedict [MG., in the volume cited, p. 678; Monumenta Poloniae historica, vol. III, p. 60–1; cf. Bielowski, ibid., vol. I, p. 508, note 43.]. Now how far the things here related of Emeric are from the truth there is no need to show at length. For this is manifest even from the fact that not a little time after that Miseco I, duke of Poland, had died [Namely in the year 992; cf. the Annals of Hildesheim at this year (MG., Scriptores vol. III, p. 69), Thietmar's Chronicle, book IV, chap. 37 (ibid., p. 784; see there note h and cf. Zeissberg, Miseco I in Archiv für oesterr. Gesch., vol. XXXVIII, p. 98, note 4).], Emeric's parents Stephen and Gisela entered into marriage [Nor would I wish you to take the annalist's testimony in such a way that you keep the name of the Polish king but correct the time, and say that the daughter not of Miseco I but of Miseco II married Emeric. For Miseco II seems to have taken a wife only in the year 1015, or rather 1018, and to have had Casimir, his first son, in the year 1016 or rather 1019. He could not, then, have had a marriageable daughter whom with

Emeric († 1031) he might join in marriage. Cf. Roepell, Geschichte Polens, vol. I, p. 662; L. Grünhagen, Regesten zur schlesischen Geschichte, vol. I, p. 6–7.].

[24] a certain more recent Polish chronicle, The Annals of Holy Cross were read and in part copied out by the author of a certain more recent Polish chronicle, who, however, transferred to Emeric certain things which the said Annals had narrated of Miseco, namely the holy cross given by him to the monks of the Bald Mountain [So the passage of the Annals just cited seems to be understood; so too Roepell understood it (MG., Scriptores vol. XIX, p. 677).]: Stephen, he says, at length joined to himself in marriage the sister of Henry, king of the Romans …, and from her received a son, Everic by name. He, after he was grown in age, compelled by his father's will, celebrated the nuptial pomps with the daughter of the aforesaid duke of Poland (namely Miseco I), but thereafter never touched her carnally, remaining a virgin with a virgin, leading a most chaste life for a time in Gniezno and Poznań. Then, having returned to his son-in-law [Rather to his father, as the editor rightly noted, or rather even to his father-in-law.], one day, intent on hunting with him, by the will of those above s. v.; wrongly corrected by the editor: super voluntatem. he was carried to a certain mountain, to which he gave the name Calvary, and assigned the same to the brothers of the divine Benedict by right of property [The same is read not of Emeric but of his father Stephen in a certain codex of the Annals of Holy Cross (MG., Scriptores vol. XIX, p. 678, note *).], raising on it from the ground a most celebrated monastery with the buildings of the divine Cross, and at once liberally bestowing on it a notable portion of the wood of life, as much as he carried hung on his neck Monumenta Poloniae historica, vol. III, p. 300.. It is irksome indeed to dwell on trifles of this kind; but they seemed worth mentioning, that the origin might be indicated of the little narratives which afterwards were imprudently repeated by many modern writers.

[25] Jan Długosz, For it is wonderful how many other fables those who wrote afterwards, Polish or Hungarian historians, built upon these fabulous narratives. So, to adduce one out of many, Jan Długosz († 1480) in his Polish History Book II, Leipzig edition of the year 1711, col. 148–9. narrates at length things done by St. Emeric in Poland; he indeed names Boleslaus instead of Miseco, nor does he relate that the daughter of the king of the Poles married Emeric; but he repays the fictions omitted with new fictions: The man of God Emeric, he says, had been accustomed to visit very frequently his stepson and kinsman [A little later (col. 149) Długosz says that Boleslaus was Emeric's paternal uncle and relative by marriage. The Poles relate, namely, that the mother of St. Stephen was the daughter of Miseco I and consequently the sister of Boleslaus. Cf. H. Zeissberg, in the volume cited, p. 114–5.] Boleslaus, king of Poland, leaving the royal palace, and to spend much time in Poland, so that, separated from the sight and company of his parents and wife, he might more easily extinguish diabolical suggestions and the stings of the flesh and give his attention to his devotion. Then he relates among other things that Emeric gave himself to hunting with Boleslaus, and was the author to him of founding the monastery of Holy Cross on the Bald Mountain; and that he gave to that monastery a forked cross containing a notable portion of the Lord's wood, overlaid with a little silver, sent from Constantinople by the Caesar of the Greeks to his parent Stephen, king of the Hungarians, as a great gift, which the man of God had been accustomed to wear on his breast by his father's largess. Others add that this particle of the wonderful cross was sent as a gift to Emeric himself, when newly born, by Basil, emperor of the East Inchofer, Annales ecclesiastici at the year 1007.; others meanwhile that not Boleslaus I, but either Miseco I or King Stephen Cf. above, no. 24 and ibid., note 9. or Boleslaus III [The Chronicle of Poland attributed to Bishop Boguphal (Monumenta Poloniae historica, vol. II, p. 158); cf. R. Roepell, Gesch. Polens, vol. I, p. 161–2, note 25.] founded the monastery of Holy Cross. All of which, although they have no foundation in ancient and trustworthy monuments, and are entangled in more than one error, especially in chronological matters, were nevertheless for a long time incautiously received by historians; although there were not lacking those who censured them severely For example Pray, Dissertationes, p. 43–4..

[26] the Illuminated Chronicle of Vienna There are certain other things related of our holy youth which, although they lack the warrant of antiquity, are nevertheless not to be rejected forthwith, since they neither present indications of manifest error, as do those noted above, and are otherwise not improbable. So that which the Illuminated Chronicle of Vienna narrates Chap. 39; in Florianus, op. cit., vol. II, p. 142. plainly agrees with the devout character of the outstanding prince: This was the greater custom of holy King Stephen, that he visited all the churches which he himself had founded at least three times in each year… Their son, moreover (that of Stephen and Gisela), blessed Emeric, laid down his own purple garments before the altar for clothing the altars, as is plain in the royal churches until now Cf. Acta Sanctorum, September vol. I, p. 536, no. 322..

[27] Aventinus Much more willingly still should we give credit to what Aventinus, a most diligent investigator of ancient monuments, committed to memory in his Annals: Bruno, brother of the divine Henry the second, bishop of Augsburg of the Rhaetians, flamen augustalis, departed from life there. The envoys of Stephen, king of the Hungarians, and of Gisela his wife, are present, and claim from Conrad by hereditary right, for their son Henry, the kingdom of Bavaria, which his ancestors, great-great-grandfather, great-grandfather, grandfather and maternal uncle, had held. When this had been refused, they declare war on the emperor and king and depart homeward [Annales ducum Boiariae, book v, chap. 6 (Johannes Turmair's genannt Aventinus sämmtliche Werke, vol. III, 1884, p. 38); cf. his Bayerische Chronik, book v, chap. 21 (ibid., vol. V, p. 287).]. This narrative Andreas Brunner indeed condemned in the harshest words Annales Boici, part II, book 5, Frankfurt ed., 1710, p. 209., and our Stilting showed that he had little trust in it Acta Sanctorum, September vol. I, p. 539, no. 335.. But after it was recognized with how great diligence Aventinus often collected ancient sources, even those which we now lament as lost, the moderns began to speak much more fairly of him; and among the more recent historians many judged the things which we have just recited to be entirely worthy of attention, and showed it with many weighty reasons brought forward [S. Hirsch, Heinrich II, vol. I (1862), p. 66, note 5; E. Steindorff, Heinrich III, vol. I (1874), p. 20, note 2; S. Riezler, Geschichte Baierns, vol. I (1878), p. 442; H. Bresslau, Konrad II, vol. I (1879), p. 296–7; G. Richter–H. Kohl, Annalen der deutschen Gesch. im Zeitalter der Ottonen und Salier, vol. I (1890), p. 292.].

[28] and I. A. Fessler. On the other hand, plainly false are the things which a certain modern author, I. A. Fessler, relates to have been done by St. Stephen in a not dissimilar cause Geschichte der Ungern, 1st ed., vol. I, p. 399–400.. He had read, of course, in a certain Vita of St. Henry II the emperor that Bruno, bishop of Augsburg, when he was urging the emperor Conrad II to destroy the bishopric of Bamberg, promised his sister Gisela, queen of the Hungarians, to hand over to her son Henry all the estates belonging to himself by hereditary right [Fessler cites the Vita of Henry published in Canisius–Basnage, Thesaurus monumentorum, vol. III, part II, p. 32.]. Fessler further adds that King St. Stephen, as soon as he learned of these things, sharply opposed that deed and brought it about that it was not committed. Now not even the name of Stephen is uttered by the author of the Vita of Henry, whom he calls to witness, and the outcome of the matter is narrated altogether otherwise. Besides, both in the genuine text of that Vita [Vita of Henry II by Adalbert, book II, chap. 1 (MG., Scriptores vol. IV, p. 811).] and in the older work [Namely the Universal Chronicle of Ekkehard of Aura at the year 1025 (MG., Scriptores vol. VI, p. 194).] which the author of the Vita copied word for word in this place, there is written not to his sister Gisela, queen of the Hungarians, but simply to Queen Gisela; and it is manifest that the discussion here is of Gisela, the consort of the emperor Conrad II, and of her son, who was afterwards called the emperor Henry III, and by no means of Gisela the consort of St. Stephen and of our Emeric.

§ III. Of the ecclesiastical cult of St. Emeric.

[29] The honors of public cult That Emeric was enrolled in the catalogue of the saints "by Pope Benedict VIII, who was called IX" (1033–1045) "together with St. Stephen his father" was written by Baronius In the notes to the Roman Martyrology, 4 November., and after him by some. Most have contradicted it, rightly and deservedly, since no monuments can be brought forward which favor this opinion even in the slightest; nay St. Emeric first obtained as many as speak of the first ecclesiastical honors conferred on St. Emeric all designate a far later time. It is read indeed in the Annals of Niederaltaich at the year 1033: The son of Stephen, king of the Hungarians, who had been called Henry, died after no long time, and is canonized MG., Scriptores vol. XX, p. 791.. But not only is this testimony by no means clear — for it is not asserted that Emeric was canonized in this year — but even if it were clear, it would have no weight, since in this place above all the chronological notes in those Annals are confused Cf. above, no. 29..

[30] through the care of King Ladislaus, It will be better, then, to adhere to the testimony of the other monuments, which teach that the first beginnings of the cult shown to St. Emeric were made in the reign of King Ladislaus (1077–1091). In the old Hungarian Annals, namely, which we have already cited above No. 17., these words are written at the year 1083: And the lord king Stephen and Henry his son and Bishop Gerard are revealed. This elevation or solemn translation, which the author of the Annals calls by the unusual word revelation [Arndt, who had not seen the codex in which those Annals are written, corrected the text by conjecture and wrote relevantur.], is narrated also in the Vita of St. Emeric, chap. 7: King Ladislaus, therefore, … having called a council and proclaimed a three-day fast, on the nones of November raised the body of blessed Henry with honor; with which agrees the sacramentary of Boldva copied at the beginning of the thirteenth century, in which the text of the praised Annals was added about the year 1210; for in its calendar, at the 5th of November, is read written: Elevation of Henry

duke and confessor Wattenbach, Archiv für oesterr. Gesch., vol. XLII, p. 498.. Similarly, that the body of St. Stephen was raised while King Ladislaus presided on the throne of the kingdom and after the affliction of a three-day fast had been premised, is taught by his Lesser Vita Chap. 8 (MG., Scriptores vol. XI, p. 229).; and the same matter is pursued at greater length by his Greater Vita Chap. 20–22 (ibid., p. 239–41)., in which besides the translation is said to have been made in the year 1083 (chap. 20), on 20 August (chap. 22), and indeed by the institution of the Roman see (chap. 20); of which matter the discussion will recur below.

[31] in the year 1083, Further, from what has been said scarcely any doubt remains that the bodies of Sts. Stephen and Emeric were raised in the year 1083. By this elevation, or, so to speak, apotheosis, it came about, according to the custom of those times, that the devout princes were numbered among the blessed inhabitants of heaven, if not by a solemn judgment of the Church, at least by popular opinion. Whether, however, "that elevation imported a simple beatification or a formal canonization, since neither its substance nor its manner is established, is certainly uncertain," was pronounced by a man supreme in this matter, Benedict XIV [De servorum Dei beatificatione et canonizatione, book I, chap. 41, §8 (Venice ed. 1788, vol. I, p. 132).]. Whether St. Gerard too was raised together with Stephen and Emeric is also uncertain to us. For although the "Old Hungarian Annals" assert it, with which certain more recent documents agree [Vita of St. Ladislaus, chap. 6, and to some extent the Vita of St. Gerard, chap. 22. Of these below.], yet there stands in the way what is related in the Vita of St. Gerard, chap. 21, namely that already in the year 1053 the body of the holy prelate had been solemnly translated Endlicher, op. cit., p. 230–1.. For I cannot agree with our Stilting Acta Sanctorum, September vol. VI, p. 720, no. 32., according to whose conjecture, if you believe it, Gerard was translated on that occasion not as a saint, but as a bishop and venerable man to his own church; whence he concludes that this translation did not import the public cult of a saint [Ignác Batthyány also rightly corrected Stilting in this matter, Leges ecclesiasticae regni Hungariae, vol. I, p. 414–5, note a.]. Otherwise we do not deny that it could have happened that the sacred relics of Gerard were translated again in the year 1083. But to inquire into these things more fully is not the business of the present place. I leave in doubt also whether the elevation of Sts. Stephen and Emeric was made on one and the same day [Cf. the Illuminated Chronicle of Vienna, chap. 62: But afterwards King Solomon, released from prison, at the elevation of the body of St. Stephen and of blessed Emeric the confessor, stood by the king for a few days… (Florianus, op. cit., vol. II, p. 194).], or on different days; that it was made on different days is both related in some of the documents cited above See above, no. 30. and certain men have concluded Ign. Batthyány, in the volume cited, p. 169; cf. Pray, Dissertationes, p. 71–2. from the fact that the commemoration of each elevation is announced on different days in the liturgical books.

[32] not, however, as it seems, But it is of greater weight to inquire whether the elevation of St. Emeric was decreed by pontifical authority. This seems to be denied. For the Vita of Emeric is entirely silent about any pontifical decree, attributing the whole course of the affair to King Ladislaus alone and to the council of bishops [Likewise the legend of Stephen, both the lesser and also, at least if we follow the edition of Florianus, the greater (Florianus, vol. I, p. 10, 28; cf. p. 214).]. The other sources too, at least those which deserve credit, are silent; since of no authority is the testimony either of the Vita of Ladislaus, whose author narrates these things quite crassly in chap. 6: Therefore, having obtained the authority of the supreme pontiff, (Ladislaus) caused the bodies of the saints, namely of blessed Stephen the king and of his son St. Hemeric …, the bodies of St. Gerhard the martyr and of the blessed Andrew and Benedict, to be wondrously canonized Endlicher, op. cit., p. 240.; or of the Vita of Gerard, chap. 22, in whose narrative the reader will readily note both a shameful chronological error and some other things unknown to the ancients: In the time, moreover, of the aforesaid holy king (Ladislaus) it was decreed by the most holy Roman church that the bodies of the saints who had converted Pannonia to Christ by their preaching should be venerated with the highest honor. When, then, the legate of the apostolic see came, an assembly of the nobles of Pannonia took place, the body of the holy martyr was canonized by the holy king Ladislaus in the year of the Lord one thousand sixty-eight And yet Ladislaus began to reign in the year 1077., and it was carried by the hands of the king and the dukes … Endlicher, p. 233..

[33] by a decree of the Roman Pontiff. The author of each Vita, namely, used that passage of Hartvic's legend of St. Stephen in which it is said that by the institution of the Roman see it was sanctioned by apostolic letters that the bodies should be raised of those who, sowing the seeds of the Christian faith in Pannonia, had converted it to the Lord by their preaching or instruction [Chap. 20 (MG., Scriptores vol. XI, p. 240; cf. by all means ibid., p. 239, note l); in Florianus's edition (vol. I, p. 28) these words are omitted in the greater legend and are put forward as proper to Hartvic's legend (ibid., p. 63).]. That Emeric cannot be numbered among those saints, "inasmuch as he converted his nation neither by preaching nor by instruction," Ignác Batthyány pronounces a little too severely In the volume cited, p. 169.; but I agree with him when he condemns and strives to refute the opinion of our Stilting, who, giving credit to Hartvic's legend, thought he had shown that St. Stephen "was inscribed in the catalogue of the saints by decree of the supreme pontiff, or by formal canonization," and added that St. Emeric was canonized by the Roman pontiff at the same time Acta Sanctorum, September vol. I, p. 557–9, nos. 451–8.. For everything suggests [Cf. Florianus, op. cit., vol. I, p. 214–8; vol. II, p. 307–9; where among other things this is notable, that King Stephen is not seldom named in pontifical documents of the eleventh and twelfth centuries, but is not distinguished in them with the title "saint" before the year 1187, whereas on the contrary in many Hungarian charters and monuments of the eleventh and twelfth centuries he is called "saint" and "most holy."] that Benedict XIV rightly showed himself doubtful of the truth of this matter, and that Gregory VII, who at that time held the Roman see, had no part in it.

[34] The feast days of St. Emeric; Scarcely a few years had passed since this elevation, when "all the pontiffs and abbots of the kingdom of the Hungarians and also all the nobles," gathered in the synod of Szabolcs, listed the festivity of St. Emeric among those which were to be kept every year. In decree 37, namely, of that synod Ign. Batthyány, vol. I, p. 440; cf. Endlicher, op. cit., p. 332, no. 39. celebrated in the year 1092, Emeric is named after "the festivity of All Saints" and before St. Martin Wrongly "Mauricium" in Endlicher., that is, between the first and the eleventh days of November. This is namely the feast of the translation or elevation of St. Emeric, which we see announced on the 5th of November in the liturgical books from the twelfth century onward [Cf. Pray, Dissertationes, pp. 67, 71 (breviaries and missals of Zagreb from the twelfth to the sixteenth century); Wattenbach, Archiv für oesterr. Gesch., vol. XLII, p. 497 (sacramentary of Boldva, thirteenth century); Paris codex, Bibliothèque nationale, lat. 8879, fol. 7, 450–2 (breviary of Esztergom); I. Dankó, Vetus hymnarium ecclesiasticum Hungariae, pp. 236, 454, 458, 482, 568, 585, 586.]. At the same time, or at any rate not much after [Pray writes ibid., p. 72, that the feast of the deposition of St. Emeric was added in the fourteenth century; but the calendar of the sacramentary of Boldva shows that that feast was already celebrated in the thirteenth century; besides, Pray himself, pp. 57, 67, presents the things by which he himself may be corrected.], another feast day was established for St. Emeric, namely the fourth day before the nones of September, which day "the calendars of the missals of the thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth and sixteenth centuries constantly and uniformly express as the day of the deposition" [So Pray, Dissertationes, p. 67; cf. Wattenbach, in the place cited, p. 498; Acta Sanctorum, September vol. I, p. 339 F, p. 601 F; Paris codex 8879, fol. 6, 412; I. Dankó in the places cited.]; whence it can probably be concluded that the blessed youth died on this day.

[35] his memory announced in the martyrologies There is one ancient martyrology, however, in which mention is made of St. Emeric, namely the enlarged recension of the martyrology of Hermann the Lame; which work was itself a certain reworking of the martyrology compiled by Notker Balbulus. In this recension, which was published about the middle of the twelfth century [Cf. E. Dümmler, Das Martyrologium Notkers und seine Verwandten, in Forschungen zur deutschen Geschichte, vol. XXV, p. 214], these words are read at the 5th of November: Likewise of St. Henry the confessor, son of St. Stephen, king of the Pannonians, who, for a long time making a show of marriage, remained a virgin Ibid., p. 219.. On the same day our saint is announced in certain interpolated codices of the martyrology of Usuard Sollerius's edition, p. 653. and in its Cologne editions of the years 1515, 1521, etc. Meanwhile Belinus, in his Martyrology according to the custom of the Roman curia, first published in the year 1498, had transferred Emeric to the 4th of November; in which place he remained inscribed in Molanus's edition of the martyrology of Usuard, then in most other more recent martyrologies, and above all in the Roman martyrology from its first edition of the year 1583. By which Baronius was led into error, so that he wrote that St. Emeric died on this day, 4 November Annales ecclesiastici, at the year 1030, no. IV.. Meanwhile the Hungarians continue to honor their holy prince on 5 November.

[36] and very much celebrated among the Hungarians. The memory of the divine youth, namely, has remained celebrated among his fellow citizens; concerning which the learned man who has deserved well of our work, the Most Illustrious and Most Reverend József Dankó, provost of St. Martin of Pozsony, lately wrote to us "that St. Emeric is honored far and wide through all Hungary; that his name is very frequently given in the sacraments of baptism and confirmation in the vernacular tongue as Imre; that the Catholic schools sing songs about him; that unions of young men bear the name of the holy patron; that here at Pozsony a seminary of clerics was founded by Emeric Losy, archbishop and primate, on 26 June 1642 under the title of the holy prince, on whose gate is inscribed:

Est virgo lilium, ast Emericus ut esset A virgin is a lily, but that Emeric might be

Dux illi lilium Virgo Maria fuit. Hoc, Emerice Losy, plantasti lilia fundo Liligeraeque matri, liligeroque duci. Ergo Emericani hic crescant virtutis alumni, Quos Deus et Virgo, quos Emericus amat.

[the Virgin Mary was his guide to the lily. On this ground, Emeric Losy, you planted lilies both for the lily-bearing Mother and for the lily-bearing duke. Therefore let Emeric's nurslings of virtue grow here, whom God and the Virgin, whom Emeric loves.]

Matthaeus Uzeróczy, at that time prefect of this seminary, sang this in 1724."

It is scarcely necessary to add that churches or chapels dedicated to our saint were long ago built here and there in Hungary [He will find the names of very many who turns over, for example, the Rationes collectorum pontificiorum in Hungaria published in Monumenta Vaticana Hungariae, series I, vol. I.]; among which, however, it is pleasing to name the college of priests at Székesfehérvár built in honor of the divine prince by Euphrosyne, mother of King Béla III [Pray, Dissertationes, p. 79; cf. also p. 804 on the provostship "of St. Emeric of Tutul."].

[37] Of his relics Concerning his relics, since I myself have been able to find out scarcely anything, I prefer to adduce György Pray discussing them: Whether, says that learned man Ibid., p. 77–9., notable relics of the most holy youth exist elsewhere than at Aachen [They are still kept in this church; cf. Bock, Der Reliquienschatz des Liebfrauen-Münsters zu Aachen (1860), p. 25.] and Passau, I have nothing which I may state as ascertained. To the former Louis I, having founded a chapel for the Hungarians, had sent a part of no contemptible size; which I think likewise of Passau. For the arm of St. Emeric which Georg Hohenlohe brought into Hungary under the emperor and king Sigismund, and which Albert afterwards restored to the people of Passau, will have been none other than the gift of King Louis, as I have already treated in the matters of St. Ladislaus. That the greater part of the body, however, existed in Hungary is declared not obscurely by a stone dug up at Székesfehérvár in the year MDCCXXXIV. Its inscription, so far as could be gathered from the fragments, for through the carelessness of the workmen it had been broken into several parts, was this

In another work (Diatribe in dissertationem hist.-crit. de S. Ladislao, 1777, p. 121 note), G. Pray fills the gaps thus:

HIC DIVI STEPHANI CondAM SanCtiSSIMA PROLES

DUX EMERICUS noscitUR ESSE SATUS.

He adds, however: "perhaps instead of satus it would be better rewritten: situs."

REVERĒN … PATR … OMINICI PREPOSITI

HIC DIVI STEPHANI C … Ā … SCISSIMA PROLES

DVXEMERICVS … VR ESSE SATVS

[… of the reverend father … Dominic the provost … here the … most holy offspring of the divine Stephen … Duke Emeric … to be sown]

Without doubt the tomb of the divine Emeric will have been restored by the work of Dominic, provost of Székesfehérvár; and if he is not other than the one whom I found to have presided over the church of Székesfehérvár at the year MCCCXLIV, it is clear that Székesfehérvár constantly cherished this treasure in its bosom, nor is there any reason why we should doubt that these sacred remains were preserved there until the disaster of Mohács. Where they went from there, whether they lie hidden underground there, or were carried away elsewhere for the sake of avoiding danger, is not ascertained; although the last seems to me most likely. For it is established that Mary, the consort of Louis II, when the report of the most unhappy disaster, her husband's death and the fear of the approaching Suleiman spread abroad, having loaded onto ships a great part of the treasure, which had been brought over from Székesfehérvár to Buda, came up the Danube to Pozsony, then to Vienna and finally into Belgium. That on this occasion the relics of St. Emeric were withdrawn from danger out of Hungary and given as a gift to the nuns of the monastery of Niedernburg, or deposited there for the sake of security, I have, to suspect it, certain reasons which I would rather have one day confirmed by the event itself than brought forward by me in this place. This conjecture, however, Pray himself afterwards retracted, after he learned from authentic acts that among the things which Queen Mary had deposited at Passau there were no relics of St. Emeric Cf. Diatribe … p. 204–5, note a..

[38] which scarcely survive still; It is pleasing to add what the above-praised József Dankó lately wrote to us: "The metropolitan church (of Esztergom) formerly held relics of St. Emeric. In the most ancient inventories which we have of the treasury of the aforesaid church, made in the sixteenth century and published in print by me, we read: The hand of St. Emeric the duke, of silver gilt Cf. J. Dankó, Die Kunstschätze Grans (1880), p. 141.. In the year 1553, moreover, in three inventories are listed: two little arms, gilded, of silver, of Sts. Stephen the king and Emeric the duke. These, however, alas, are no longer kept entire today; for, diminished, they are guarded placed in one vessel with the relics of St. Ladislaus the king, and are venerated on the days proper to these holy patrons."

[39] of the little books and poems written in his praise. The Hungarians have never ceased to celebrate the praises of the holy prince both in prose and in verse. For, to omit those who, when they were weaving the history of a most noble people and unrolling its annals, on occasion willingly dwelt on proclaiming his virtues, the history of Emeric has also often been narrated separately for the sake of devout faithful and printed [See U. Chevalier, Répertoire, col. 638, and De Backer, Bibliothèque des écrivains de la Compagnie de Jésus, vol. I, col. 1682; vol. III, 1062. Add the work of Leon. Bachin, S.J., Corona mariana, on which cf. C. Sommervogel, Dictionnaire des ouvrages anonymes …, col. 171, and Bibliothèque de la Comp. de Jésus, vol. I (1890), col. 755.]. It was sung in verse by Emericus Dugovics and Stephanus Tarnóczy Cf. De Backer, in the places cited., but especially by ecclesiastical poets, who long ago wrote ecclesiastical hymns, nay even a whole metrical office, in praise of our saint. Most of these poems [The distinguished Ulysse Chevalier, in the part of the Repertorium hymnologicum printed so far, lists some of these under nos. 1795, 2800, 10004, 10071, 10580, 15049.] will be found by whoever is curious about such things in G. Pray Dissertationes, p. 75–7., G. M. Dreves [Analecta hymnica medii aevi, vol. IV, pp. 122, 123; vol. V, p. 166–8; vol. VIII, p. 123–4; vol. IX, p. 147–8.], M. Florianus Op. cit., vol. I, p. 145–9. and above all in the excellent volume which the distinguished I. Dankó lately published and to which he gave the title: Vetus hymnarium ecclesiasticum Hungariae Budapest, 1893, p. 228–52.. A certain image of Emeric was drawn in the sixteenth century by Leonhard Beck, which was cut in wood and published several times [Recently in the excellent work Jahrbuch der kunsthistorischen Sammlungen des allerhöchsten Kaiserhauses, vol. IV (Vienna, 1886), image 30a; cf. vol. V (1887), pp. 174, 207.]; another was published by Matthäus Rader Bavaria sancta (1704), vol. II, p. 191..

LIFE OF ST. HENRY, DUKE.

Emeric, duke, son of St. Stephen, king of the Hungarians. (S.)

BHL Number: 2528

[Title: Vita beati Henrici filii eiusdem A1 (namely the Vita of St. Stephen precedes); V. S. Emerici confessoris filii sancti Stephani regis B1; V. S. E. B4; De S. Hemerico filio S. Stephani regis Ungarie C; Hemerici regis Ungarie legenda D.]

Edited from the Rein codex 69, thirteenth century (= A1), collated with the Paris codex of the Bibliothèque nationale 8879, fifteenth century (= A2) and with five other copies (= B), namely with the codex formerly of Korsendonk, now Paris, Bibliothèque Mazarine 1329, fifteenth century (= B1), with the first edition (= B2), with the Kraków edition of the year 1511 (= B3), with the transcript of the codex formerly of Mondsee R. 239, beginning of the fifteenth century (= B4), and with the Venetian edition of the year 1498 (= B5); likewise with the twin codices (= C) Munich lat. 18624, formerly Tegernsee 624, fifteenth century (= C1) and Vienna, Palatine library 3662, formerly Mondsee f. 186, fifteenth century (= C2); finally with codex 1944 of the Ossolineum library, fifteenth century (= D). On these cf. above, nos. 3, 4. The readings of codex C2 I took from the editions of Endlicher and Florianus; the edition B5 I have not seen, but I knew its text from György Pray, who had it reprinted; codex D was collated out of his exceptional courtesy by the distinguished Dr. Adalbert Kętrzyński, director of the Ossolineum library; of this faulty codex I have given all the variant readings in the prologue and in chap. 1; in the other chapters I noted them only where they agreed with the variant readings of another copy. Transpositions of words I noted only from time to time, namely to make manifest the affinities of the codices.

Prologue. After the only-begotten Son of almighty God (D. f. o.) omnipotens D. f. A 1.2., after his ascension, bestowing on all nations through the words of the apostolic preaching the solace of his visitation, had called them back convocaverat B1.2.3.5. from darkness to the light of faith, in the newest times, so to speak, through the honey-flowing providence prudentiam A1.2, D. of blessed Stephen, our first king, the kingdom of all Pannonia came to know the light of truth. For he is our king and apostle; he also led to the knowledge of the true God those rescued exeptos (sic) B3. from the right of diabolical power (d. p.) vel a diabolica potestate D. ^a. And since his deeds are beyond telling, and it does not befit the smallness of our wit, it has seemed fuit B5. more just and (i. et) omits A1.2, D. more useful nobis adds D. that we should set forth, according to the measure of our ability, the signal deeds of his son blessed b. H. omits D. Henry [thus A1 and so thereafter; Emerici A2, B1.2.3.5 and so thereafter; B4, C and D have Hemericus everywhere.] [In B4 and C not this prologue but that other one is read: The renowned Duke Hemeric (i. d. H. omits C1), sprung from an illustrious lineage, like a cedar from Lebanon, from blessed Stephen, first king of Hungary, shone most brightly, greatly adorned with virtues. Nurtured as a boy also under diligent guard, he was first imbued with all knowledge (omnium B4) of the grammatical art (artus C1). Blessed King Stephen, therefore, pricked by the ardor of paternal love (dilectione C1), composed for his son blessed Hemeric a book on the instruction of character; in which, faithfully and in a friendly way admonishing him with spiritual words, he addresses him, instructing him how before all things he ought to observe the Catholic faith, strengthen the ecclesiastical state, pay honor to the dignity of the pontiffs, love the princes and knights, observe just judgment, have patience in all his acts, receive guests kindly, treat them more kindly still, do nothing without counsel, always set his ancestors before (ob B4) his eyes as an example, frequent the office of prayer, possess with watchful care piety and mercy together with the other virtues for his advancement. In D, in place of the first sentence (Postquam-agnovit), these words are written: The glorious king Stephen the first held the duchy of Hungary for eight years, and reigned thirty-three years, seven months, fourteen days;

and he departed to the Lord in the year of the incarnation of the Lord m° ccc° IIII° (sic), on the eighteenth day before the kalends of September, on the fifth weekday; whose venerable body was laid away at Székesfehérvár; through whose honey-flowing prudence in the newest times, so to speak, the kingdom of all Pannonia came to know by the light of truth.].

[1] The holy boy Blessed Henry, then, content with little sleep sapore A1. every night, when all were settling themselves in bed, gives himself to vigils and prayers; and, as befits decebat B4. royal regina D. offspring Salomonem D., with two candlesticks shining lucencia B1. before him, kept vigil invigilabat B. singing decantantibus D. psalms to God, and at the end of each psalm asked pardon of God (a D.) omits A1. with contrition of heart. This cum adds C. his father nosset adds C. cautiously, nay omits D. even secretly occulto B1., often watched through a chink in the wall, yet he would not make it known (m. v.) manifestavit D. to any of his people. In all these things we must consider nolebat enim adds D. how lovingly (q. p.) omits C2., how que adds A2, B. mercifully God has provided for esse D. our weakness, since quod A1. not only is the rule of justice milicie B1.2.3.5. instituted for us in word, but also the life omits D. of holy men (s. v.) beati viri huius B4, C; virorum omits A1, B5. is set before us for imitation as a direct way (d. v.) preclarum speculum ad spectaculum B4, C.. Let poverty, then, be burdensome to no one, since the Lord has chosen the poor, of whom he says: Blessed are the poor in spirit omits C2., for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Matth. 5:3. Nor let anyone contend that the rich are to be excluded esse adds C2. from the kingdom of God celorum D, nec adds D. namely those who possess riches without cupidity. Whence the holy Church is splendidly clare D. described, to its own praise and adornment, as terrible as an army set in array, which in C2; omits D. shines with such quanta C1; omits D. eminence of virtues, and is surrounded by such variety of believers, that the divine visitation is not lacking even to barbarous nations, since the word which the Lord omits B1. commanded to a thousand generations the whole world mundus C. has now received. Cant. 6:3. & Ps. 105:8. Pannonia, moreover, came to the faith almost in our times et adds B., which until then hactenus C. had been befouled by the foul rites of paganism omits B.; by the exhortation and outstanding merits of its most Christian king Stephen scilicet adds C. it advanced acrevit D. in the virtue of faith and omits D. in the increase of divine worship.

[2] the monks of the abbey of St. Martin, At a certain time, then, when blessed King Stephen had come advenit A2, B; advenit. Sed A1, C. together with his son, for the sake of prayer (c. o.) o. c. B., to the church of blessed Martin, which he himself had begun on the Holy Mountain of Pannonia and had adorned with an outstanding congregation of monks ^b, the king, knowing the surpassing merit et adds the corrector A1 above the line. of the boy, paid his son the honor which quem A1. befitted him. For when the aforesaid brothers, the procession having been completed, had come up to greet salutare C. the king ^c, out of reverence he sent his son ahead to greet them. The boy Henry, filled with the Holy Spirit, by the revelation of divine grace, according as he knew by the revelation of divine grace the merits of each, distributed kisses unequally to each; to one indeed one, to others three, to others five, and lastly to one he gave seven omits B4.5. kisses in succession. This thing, while the rest que adds B1.2.3; quoque B4.5. looked on, blessed King Stephen silently wondered at; and in familiar conversation (fa. c. fi. m.) c. familiari missaque fi. B; fi. vero m. A2., when Mass was finished insaera A1; missa corrected A1 above the line., he diligently inquired added by the corrector A1 above the line. of him why added by the corrector A1 above the line. he had distributed kisses to them unequally. he honors them according to the merit of their chastity; Blessed Henry, then, going through the merits of each before his father, namely for how long a space of time each had persevered in the virtue of continence, taught him that under that consideration he s; A1. had given more kisses to some and fewer to others, and asserted edocuit C2. that he (eumque — asseruit) omits C1. to whom he had multiplied seven kisses had led a virginal life. O grace, awakener of all virtues, who quam B4.5. abundantly surpass the narrownesses of our nature, who quam B4.5. reveal deep mysteries to little ones; you enim adds B1.2.3.5. were present as mistress in gracia B1.2.3.5, C1. to blessed Henry, you conferred on him free understanding of the hidden things of others. Matth. 11:25. The truth of this inner revelation in him was found out comparata B3; comprobata B4.5. in this way omits B1..

[3] especially, however, Maurus, For a few etiam B1.2; vero C. days having intervened since he had left the Holy Mountain, blessed Stephen, with only two servants brought along, returning there [(e. r.) eo die r. A1, B1.2.3, D; eo regressus B4.5; eodem ingresso C1; eodem ingressu C2.], secretly explored exploraverat B. the vigils and prayers of the brothers. And now thus A1 on an erased place, B1.2.3.4; itaque B5; iam C., when the office of Matins had been completed, while the rest were settling themselves in bed, those alone on whom blessed Henry had multiplied kisses persisted in the church, and, separated (divisi — vigilabant) added in the margin by the first hand A1. in the more secret corners of the church, kept vigil in the sight of God singing psalms (d. v.) decantabant A1; vigilabant A1 corrected; d. invigilabant C.. And when que omits C. the holy king approached each one separately divisum A1 before correction, he showed them eius A1. his face, and greeted them with a word verba A1. of blessing. While each, breaking silence, venerated the royal majesty, a holy man, he coming last to a brother named Maurus, whom blessed Henry had commended with seven kisses oculus A1 before correction, could extort an answer from him ipso Florianus. neither nunc A1 before correction; ne B1; ut C1. by the blandishments of greeting nor by the words of royal threatening (n. v. r. c.) omits B1.. When morning came, as the brothers were holding chapter capitulum C1; alias conventum adds another hand in the margin C1., the king himself (r. i.) i. r. B. was present, and, to test the mind of brother Maurus in the virtue of humility (v. h.) humilitate C2., in the common hearing he objected to him et adds B. very many things contrary to religion: to whose assertion Maurus made no contradiction, but, humbly standing residens C., took refuge by hoping in God, who is the inspector of the human mind. Then indeed blessed Stephen knew that the words omits C. of his son were valid, and, having narrated the matter in order [(et re o. n.) o. et re n. A1; et rei o. narrata (sic) B1.2.3, D; rei o. narratio B4.5.], he extolled Maurus with praises (l. e.) e. l. B., and that the pontifical see might be adorned by him, who afterwards was made bishop. a little after eum adds B. he raised him ^e to the bishopric eum adds D. of Pécs (e. Q.) episcopum Quinque ecclesiis C, D; quinque omits B1; eum adds A1. [d].

[4] After this hoc C2, D;, blessed Henry, advancing proficiscens B1.2.3. in age, always increased his distinctions by the glorious merits of his virtues (p. v. m. g. s.) p. v. s. (suarum B4.5) m. g. B.; which although we cannot possimus C. set out for you nos C2; nobis D. in all respects, yet let us diligently relate referemus B4.5, D. the few things which we have heard of his deeds, lest it be imputed deputantur C1; deputentur C2. to negligence. It happened, moreover, that omits C., The virginity which he had vowed to God, when de B1; omits B.4.5, C. one night, for the sake of prayer, secretly, content with only totum A1. one servant, he entered the most beautiful vetustissimam A, C; mestissimam D. and most ancient church which was built in the city of Veszprém [thus A1, D; Vuespriniensi B1; Wesprimiensi B2.3; Vesprimiensi B4.5; Vesprimie C1 after correction, C2.] ^f in honor of the most precious martyr (Ch. m.) m. Ch. B; martyris omits A1. of Christ, George, and there ubique A1 before correction, giving himself to prayer cum adds C., was considering retractaret A1. within himself what more acceptable thing he might offer to God omits C., suddenly a light with immense brightness shone round the whole building of the church; in which a divine voice from de B. on high sounded intonuit B, D; O quam adds B3. thus: Virginity is glorious; I require of you (m. et c. a te) a et m. et c. B. virginity of mind and body; offer this et adds B, D., persevere presta C1. in this purpose. He, not presuming on de C2. himself, but fleeing to grace as to the true medicine, said: Lord God, inspector of the universe and helper of human weakness, who take away the spirit of princes, who et B. are terrible with the kings of the earth, accomplish your good pleasure in me, and (et noxios-exstingue) omits C2. extinguish with the dew of your mercy the harmful motions which war against the soul et adds A1 above the line.. Ps. 75:13. & 1 Pet. 2:11. And so blessed Henry, strengthened in that same hour by the word of divine consolation, kept this secret with himself, and by entreaty forbade that servant, who alone was present at this divine colloquy and at others for the most part, to nec A1. disclose a thing of this kind to anyone until his death. These He A1 after correction and very many signs insignia B4, C. of virtues were kept with St. Henry as though shut up in the secret chamber of his mind, and were disclosed to no one absconditaque C. until the flask was broken facta B1.2.3, D. and the fragrance of the ointments was poured forth.

[5] he keeps it intact even in marriage. Meanwhile, when dum B. by his father's arrangement a noble maiden, as one sprung from royal lineage ^g, had been betrothed and brought to blessed Henry, so that et A1; et ut B1.2.3. from both royal lines a royal posterity potestas A1. might succeed in the future, he, putting carnal generation, which is corruptible (q. c. e.) quia corruptibilem B4.5; que corporis cibus D., after the spiritual purpose of virginity, macerated macerabat B. his body with fasts, his soul

he satisfied saturabat B. with the bread of the word of God, and omits A, C, D., lest any tickling of the flesh should master him, et adds A, B1.2.3, C2, D. he preserved the incorrupt virginity of his untouched wife ^h. O wondrous continence of the youth, which qui C2. quenched restrinxit A1, C1; exstinxit B; strinxit D. the fires of love with a fountain of tears, and, carrying a flame in his bosom, was not burned by its fire. For it is a great thing, and almost beyond mortal mortalium B1.2.3.5; omits B4. nature, to lull bodily lust and to quench exstinguere A1; restringere B1.2.3.5, C1, D. by the virtue of the mind Domini B4, C2. the flame of concupiscence kindled by the torches of youth, and by spiritual effort to shut out the force iura B4, C2. of twofold omits B4; genuine A1 first hand. delight, to live (v. c. g. h. m.) omits B5. against the custom of the human race, to despise the solaces of wives, to scorn the sweetness of children, and to count as nothing, in hope of future blessedness, whatever can be the advantages of the present life. Great, as I have said, and admirable is this virtue omits B4.5., and not undeservedly destined, for the greatness of its labor, to an immense reward. Great indeed is the labor of chastity, but greater the reward; temporal temporali A1. the guarding, but omits A1. eternal the recompense. Of whom John in the Apocalypse says: These follow the Lamb whithersoever he goes; 14:4. which I think .\· adds C1. is to be so understood, that no place in the heavenly court is to be shut to them eius A1. and at B. all the dwellings of the divine mansions are to be opened to them eius A1. sunt adds B.. But that the merit of virginity may shine more illustriously, and that it may be understood more manifestly how worthy of God it is, let this be reflected on, that our Lord and Saviour omits B1., when for the salvation of the human race he deigned to assume flesh, chose eligeret B; elegit C1, D. no other than a virginal womb, to show that a virtue of this kind is most pleasing to him, and omits A1., to make known et adds B1.2.3.5. the good of chastity to both sexes, he had a virgin virtutem B1. mother; he himself ipsa B1.2.3. about to remain a virgin, he furnished in himself to men and in his mother to women an example of virginity virginis B1.2.3.5., by which it might be shown Dei monstraretur B1. that in both sexes the blessed and entire plenitude of the Godhead had merited to dwell omits C., since whatever dwelt in the son was wholly in the mother. Col. 2:9. But when, his body being dissolved, while still in the age of youth, an inheritance was given him in the land (in t.) interna Florianus; omits D. of the living, his bride bore prebuit B5. him testimony of his virginal life (v. v.) virginitatis B1.2.3.5., and that intimate (f. i. m. q.) et familiaris m. qui C. servant no longer concealed what he had frequently seen and aut A1. heard.

[6] Certain wondrous things are related at his death Nor do I think this is omits C. to be passed over praetermittendum B., that once at Constantinople Constantinopolim B1.2.3, C1, D. a certain religious canon of the church of Caesarea, sent to the emperor of the Greeks, related narrat B. to me as I was staying commorante A1 before correction, B. with the lord omits C2; (c. d.) omits D Duke Álmos (A. d.) alme drice A1; alio duce D., that he had read in the deeds of St. Eusebius ⁱ that quod C2, D. in the same hour in which blessed Henry was dissolved, St. Eusebius, metropolitan of Caesarea in Palestine, when he was walking in procession together with clergy and people, heard on high excelsis B. a sound of angelic sweetness, and, the eyes of his heart added by the corrector A1 above the line. having been opened, saw perspexit B4.5, C2. the soul of blessed Henry, son of St. Stephen, first king of Pannonia, being borne transferre C1. upward. There was present also a multitude of demons, as though they might detect deprenderent A1; deprehenderet C2, D. something in him et adds B. by which they might aim intenderet A1 after correction, C, D; intendere A1 before correction. a stumbling-block at so great a confessor ^k; and when St. Eusebius was astonished at this vision, he heard from above in the same hour that this very soul of blessed Henry was being borne with jubilation to the supernal seat. The same vision too and the sweetness of the melody were revealed through the prayer of St. beati C. Eusebius to a certain archdeacon. And since quā A1 miracles are necessary in ecclesia C2. where human humano B3. weakness is slow to (ad c. e. t.) t. e. ad c. B. believe, the thirtieth day after his death shone with so many and such great (t. t.) t. tantis B1.2.3.; t. et t. B4.5. signs of power that for all who were staying in the royal city ^l, where his holy body was buried, it was not a day of mourning but of joy, since not even grief over the death of his son tormented ageret A1 before correction the father himself, but gladness filled him to the full at ob C2, D. the crown of eternal life undoubtedly conferred on his son ^m.

[7] and after death One, moreover, of the outstanding miracles which afterwards in our days God deigned to reveal for ipso adds B. his confessor, we take into our narrative ⁿ; although in this and in the rest all things are sint C. so famous without writing that omits B4.5. even in B1. the children that shall be born and shall rise up will know them and tell them to their children. Ps. 77:6. There was, then quoque B1; ergo B2.3.4.5., a certain omits A1. man named Conrad Conrardus B1; Conradus B2.3.4.5, C., and he a German theutonicus B1.2.4.5; thewtonicus C. by nation, so ade B1. burdened with the abominable pressure pressione C2. of sins and affected with such ignominy that he stank like one four days mortuus adds C. in the tomb esset fetidus C.. John 11:39. But since he who raised resuscitavit B. Lazarus in the body daily raises again suscitat C. sinners in the mind, he did not leave the aforesaid sinner in the depth of sins either; but (sed-aperuit) added in the margin by the first hand C1., that he might know agnosceret A1, D. by how great miseries he was surrounded, he opened the eyes oculis A1; oculus B1.2.3. of his mind through compunction. He, therefore (il. it.) predictus it. Conradus C., coming to the vicar of blessed sancti C. Peter, Hildebrand omits B4, C., who then presided over the Roman Roma A1; Rome A1 corrected see qui adds A1, but deletes with dots., uncovered the wounds of his offense, and omits C1., having asked for the imposition of satisfaction satisfactione A1, C1., sought the medicine of the soul. The pope, however, astonished at the quantity of his ipsius B. sins, as though unheard of before antea B, C., having deliberated, did not cure the wounds by an imposed penance; but lest despairing he should waver, he strengthened the sinner with counsel. And so he put a breastplate around him, and, that it might cling more firmly to the body, he girded it round with five iron chains after (ad m. q. p. Ch.) omits A1, D. the manner of the five wounds of Christ, and handed him a charter inscribed inscripta A1. with his confession thus A1 after correction, C; confessionis B; confessionem D. and surrounded with wax and sealed with his own que omits B, D. ring et addidit adds C., admonishing que adds B1.2.3.5, D. and exhorting him to go round all the places in which the saints have slept dormiunt C, D., if anywhere divine grace might visit him through the intercession of the saints; and this would be the sign of the divine visitation, if at any time qm̄ B1. the breastplate, its chains broken, should leap apart persaliret C2. into pieces and the charter should contain nothing inscribed scriptum B, C.. He, then, going away, traveled through the places of very many plurima B. saints; last of all, coming to in adds C. Jerusalem to the sepulcher of the Lord, there he awaited mercy (i. m.) m. ibi C. from him who heals the contrite of heart and binds up their bruises omits B1.. Ps. 146:3. But the Lord did not omits B5, D. show his power in him (in i. v.) illi misericordiam B1.2.3.5. in the fortified city (s. in c. m.) omits B4., that he might be reserved for the praise eandem B5. and glory of blessed Henry. Ps. 30:22. Meanwhile the fame of blessed Stephen, king of Pannonia, at whose tomb daily miracles took place, was held distinguished; and, his journey completed, the above-mentioned man came to Székesfehérvár ^o, where he venerated the body of blessed sancti B. Stephen laid away there. And while in others the power of God and the intercession of the eminent king were revealed largius attingeret C. by frequent celebris B. miracles, yet (ille-angeretur) omits C. that man in adds B. was more tightly constrained by the bonds of the breastplate; he confirmed within himself with an oath that he would not remove (se n. a.) n. amoveretur B4.5. himself from the place of the church until the Lord should show in him of how great merit blessed Stephen was with him. And it came to pass, when it was about the sixth VI A1; sexta B1.2.3.5; XII B4, C. hour of the day, that from excessive fatigue of body (c. f.) f. c. B. and contrition of heart he fell asleep (in e. i.) i. in e. B. in the church. And blessed Stephen was present to him in his sleep (in s.) ex supernis B4, C., speaking (ad h. m.) omits C; struck out with a little line in B4. in this manner: Rise, and do not nc A1; nec A1 corrected; nunc B1; nunc nec B2.3.4.5. presume on my merits with God, since I do not suffice to intercede for propter A1. you; go, then, to the tomb of my son blessed Henry; have him as intercessor et adds B.; he it is who pleased God in a virginal life (v. v.) virginitate B4, C., whose garments are not defiled, and hic C. he follows sequi B1. the Lamb whithersoever he goes; he is also of the number of those who before the throne of God sing a new song which no one can sing cantare B1.2.3, C. except one who is a virgin. Apoc. 3:4. & Ibid. 14:4. & Ibid. 14:3. happened at his tomb. In the same hour, then, he, rising from sleep, hastened to the tomb of blessed Henry situated statim C. in the same church, and when, prostrate there, he was praying, suddenly the breastplate, its chains broken, divided into very many pieces, leapt prosilivit B. to the ground, many in the church wondering whence so great tantam B1.2.3; tantum B5. a shaking of iron had given out the sound sonitum C.. When the matter had been declared, the clergy and people coming together, by ac B4, C. Fabian the chancellor, ruler que adds B. of the same church [p], the seal of the pope omits C.,

which that man had long borne intact, was broken, and the charter within was loosed dissoluta B; disoluta D., and not omits C. a trace of letters appeared non adds C. in it. Then indeed all who were present burst out in praise of God and et A1. of blessed Henry, and, that so great a benefit might be held in memory, they made known to King Ladislaus Ladislao B, C, D., who at that time presided over Pannonia, and to all the bishops and princes of the kingdom, what quod B4.5, C2; qui D. they had seen and heard concerning this matter. King Ladislaus Ladislauus A1 after correction; Ladislaus B, C, D., therefore, as a worshipper eximius adds B4, C. of divine religion, having called a council and proclaimed a three-day fast, His body is solemnly raised. on omits B4, C. the nones of November raised the body of blessed Henry with honor [q]. On that day and omits A1. afterwards, in many acts of miraculous power et adds B1., Jesus Christ our Lord declares declaravit B4, C, D. the merits of his confessor, who with God the Father and the Holy Spirit (et S. s.) omits A1. lives vivat B1. and reigns Deus adds B, D. for ever and ever. Amen Explicit vita beati Henrici filii beati Stephani regis Ungarorum adds A1..

ANNOTATA.

d. Fünfkirchen.

p. Cf. Commentarius praevius, no. 8, note 10.

q. Cf. ibid., no. 30 ff.