Stephen

ON ST. STEPHEN, FIRST KING OF THE HUNGARIANS,

AT ALBA REGALIS IN HUNGARIA,

In the year 1038.

PRELIMINARY COMMENTARY.

Stephen, first king of Hungary, at Alba Regalis in Hungary. (S.)

BHL Number: 7920

BY J. S.

§ I. The Acts of the Saint written by Bishop Carthuitius; which are defended against the unjust accusations of a heterodox writer.

[ ] Before I begin to examine the glorious deeds of the most holy Stephen, king of the Hungarians, the Life of the Saint written by Bishop Carthuitius to King Coloman; I judge that it must necessarily be examined how much authority seems to be attributed to his Life, in which the chief of them are narrated: for the judgments of various men about this are various. The author of the Life declares his name and dignity at once in the preface, in these words: To his lord Calamannus, the most excellent king, Bishop Carthuitius, &c. But he does not add of what city he was bishop, nor is that certainly established from elsewhere: which we shall not wonder at, provided we consider that few of the bishops of Hungary of that time are known to us. The time of the writing of the Life is gathered from King Calamannus, or Coloman, as he is otherwise called: for that it was written to Coloman the successor of St. Ladislaus all formerly held, and I think that sufficiently certain, even though lately Godofredus Schwartz, a heterodox writer, wished to oppose it — who in the year 1740 published a little book under the title: The Beginnings of the Christian Religion among the Hungarians Claimed for the Eastern Church. This writer, since the glory of the converted

of Hungary he wished to be snatched from the Latins, moved every stone to make it probable that the Hungarians were first brought to the faith by the Greeks; and since the Life of St. Stephen the king could not agree with that assertion, he wished all authority to be taken from the aforesaid Life. For this cause he contends that the Life was written down at too late a date, and endeavours to show this by certain petty arguments. I shall sift his several assertions diligently.

[2] [Schwartz expounds him as king of Halicz, and would have the Life written later than it should be:] Concerning the time when the Life was composed, and concerning the king to whom it was written, Schwartz on page 57 speaks thus: Thirdly, just as our paper Chartuitius calls himself bishop of no place, so, inscribing his Legend to King Coloman, by another notable piece of raving, he did not disclose to what king; or at any rate Surius the editor nourished the monster on both sides. For Coloman, king of Hungary, who died in the year 1115, cannot be understood. For the writer calls himself decrepit in the letter to the king: hence he would have been a contemporary of Ladislaus, under whose auspices in the year 1084, or the preceding one, the body of King Stephen was raised and publicly exposed for veneration. If he was a contemporary, he wrote absurdly of Ladislaus to Coloman, his immediate successor: "King Ladislaus, who then sat at the helm of the commonwealth"; and much more absurdly would he have said of things done in his own age: "They made heaps of stones, which afterwards remained there a long time"; and, a few words later: "A wondrous thing indeed, and astounding in our times." Finally, what today we call Transylvania was by the ancient Hungarians, even in Latin writings, called Erdely; in the times of Andrew II, Ultrasilvania; and only when Bela IV was reigning, Transylvania. But our legendary already calls it Transylvania. Fourthly, if our writer is of a more recent age, which Timon acknowledges, and confesses that several pronouncements indicate this: and if therefore Coloman is to be understood not as that older king of Hungary, but as the king of Halicz, the brother of Bela IV, to whom our Legend is inscribed, then he was distant by more than two centuries from the age of St. Stephen. Thus far he, concerning the time of the composing of the Life.

[3] But Schwartz has set forth his reasons in a style far more bitter than solid, but frivolous ones and sins more against right reason in attacking Carthuitius than the latter seems to have sinned in writing the Life. He saw ravings, monsters, absurdities, where there is nothing of raving, nothing of monstrosity, nothing of absurdity. Carthuitius names himself a bishop, and does not add of what city; he calls the king Coloman, and does not add of what kingdom: if this is to rave, or to bring forth monsters, in Schwartz's judgment — that he may learn to judge more rightly, let him read the most excellent writers, ancient and modern, and when he has found the very same thing done by very many, let him correct the error more modestly. Let us meanwhile weigh whether his other points are better. Coloman the successor of St. Ladislaus cannot be understood, if we believe our critic, because in that case the decrepit Carthuitius must have been a contemporary of Ladislaus. That Carthuitius was a contemporary of Ladislaus we entirely believe. Let us even suppose that he was present at the elevation of the body made under Ladislaus, which is uncertain; what evil will arise from that? Could the author only absurdly write, King Ladislaus, who then sat at the helm of the commonwealth, because he had lived with Ladislaus? That certainly does not appear to me at all. Rather I ask for the judgment of the man who thinks this ill added: for Carthuitius was not writing to Coloman alone, but also to posterity, who were going to read the Life, and who would not all know that Ladislaus was reigning at that time. There is no more offence in those words which Schwartz would have written more absurdly: They made heaps of stones, which afterwards remained there a long time. Why, I pray, could Carthuitius not rightly write this twenty years after the thing was done? Did the stones not remain there a long time, if they remained even a single decade?

[4] Again, there is nothing absurd in the words of Carthuitius which he subjoins: these are his reasons, A wondrous thing indeed, and astounding in our times. Carthuitius could fitly write this, even if he had written the Life on the very day on which the miracle had been wrought. Indeed I think I shall not speak unfittingly if I answer Schwartz in nearly the same words: A wondrous thing indeed, and astounding in our times, that a man who desires to seem learned could hope to persuade the learned world by petty arguments of this sort that the Life of St. Stephen was written later than has hitherto been commonly believed. Nay rather, those latter words of Carthuitius suggest that the miracle of the dead man raised, of which he speaks them, happened in his own time. Take the words from the Life, num. 37: A wondrous thing indeed, and astounding in our times, the woman did not cease from praying before she received living the son whom she had laid down dead (at the tomb of the Saint). The author does not oppose the time in which he was writing to the time in which the miracle had been done; but his own time to the time of the primitive church, when the raising of the dead was less rare: and he says that the thing is both wondrous in itself and also plainly astounding, because it had happened in his own time, in which the raising of the dead was most rare. Carthuitius therefore suggests that that miracle, which was done after the body was raised under Ladislaus, happened in his own time; and thus from these words it is rightly gathered that the Life was written to Coloman the successor of Ladislaus.

[5] by which he strives to prove it: What Schwartz finally objects concerning Transylvania, which by the ancients was called Erdely, even among Latin writers, and which is sometimes read as named Ultrasilvania — this alone ought to have been brought forward, since it has at least some appearance of difficulty, although the difficulty is really not great. In the Life, num. 22, we read thus: He commanded a certain courier to hasten within a day and a night to Alba transilvana. But Surius, everywhere altering the wording, published, to Alba of Transylvania, and by that change gave occasion to the objection. For the writer really did not name Transylvania; but he surnamed Alba transsilvana to distinguish it from the other, namely Alba Regalis. Therefore, if the name of Transylvania was not yet in use in the time of Coloman, Carthuitius could surname Alba Julia transsilvana, because it was situated beyond the forests, which at length gave the name to the province itself. Next, if the writer had really named Transylvania, as Surius wrongly printed, from this word his later date could not be gathered: for that province, which even now in the vernacular is called Erdely, began by some Latin writers to be called Transylvania, by others Ultrasilvania. The name is derived from the dense forests by which it is girt. Who now, unless rashly, would determine by what writer the name Transylvania was first employed? Certainly someone was the first. Why then could not Carthuitius, as well as any other, have first used that word, if he used it at all?

[6] [and it is shown by various arguments that the Life was written to Coloman king of Hungary;] Further, just as the reasons brought forward do not prove Carthuitius to be later, so others entirely persuade us that he wrote to Coloman king of Hungary. The first reason I have already given at num. 4. The second I take from the words of Surius likewise adduced by Schwartz, King Ladislaus, who then sat at the helm of the commonwealth, for which is read in the Ms., King Ladislaus, who then administered the commonwealth, &c. He would doubtless have added of the Hungarians, or something similar, if he had written to another king than of the Hungarians. But because he was a bishop of Hungary and was writing to the king of Hungary, he calls it simply the commonwealth, meaning the Hungarian one. But he could not speak thus fitly to Coloman king of Halicz, who did not administer the Hungarian commonwealth. Moreover that Coloman, whether duke or king of Halicz in Black Russia, reigned peacefully only a few years, so that it is not probable that the Life was written to him, especially since it contains many things which hint that it was written in Hungary; but has nothing from which it could be gathered that it was composed after Coloman king of Hungary: for it mentions no person who lived after Coloman; it relates no deed which happened after him. But the elevation of the body made under Ladislaus, and the miracles wrought at that time, it relates with various circumstances in such a way that from it one may gather that the writer was either present at the event, or at least lived at that time. Now that this Life was written before the times of Coloman king of Halicz I show by another argument thus. Coloman, son of Andrew II king of Hungary and afterwards king of Halicz, was not yet born at the beginning of the thirteenth century. To him, therefore, Carthuitius could not write except many years after the canonization of St. Ladislaus, which was done in the year 1192, according to the author of the ancient Life, or in the year 1198, if the reckoning of Bonfinius is exact: these things may be seen in tome V of June, page 319. And yet Carthuitius at num. 33 adorns Ladislaus with a distinguished eulogy; but does not call him a saint, nor in any way attributes to him anything by which he hints that he had at that time been canonized, or venerated as a saint. Moreover St. Henry the emperor had been enrolled among the Saints by solemn canonization before the middle of the twelfth century, as has been shown by us in tome III of July, pages 715 and 716: and yet Carthuitius at num. 13 did not praise Henry with the title of sanctity, but only of piety. But the author would have named neither Ladislaus nor Henry without mention of sanctity, if he had written after their canonization; since he did not leave unmentioned the sanctity of all the others who before Coloman king of Hungary had been endowed with that title, wherever he makes mention of them: for he either calls them saints, or blessed, or indicates their sanctity by some circumlocution. This, then, is a manifest sign that Carthuitius wrote long before Coloman king of Halicz, and that no other Coloman is to be sought, to whom the Life was inscribed, than Coloman king of Hungary and successor of St. Ladislaus.

[7] From what has been said, the epoch of the Life's composing must be set at the beginning of the twelfth century, [at the beginning of the twelfth century, so that the author was nearly contemporary with the Saint,] since Coloman obtained the kingdom in the year 1095; and died in the year 1114, if we believe the chronology of John de Thwrocz, which it is not necessary to sift here. The author calls himself decrepit in the letter to the king, so that he could already have been born in the year 1038, in which St. Stephen died. He was therefore nearly contemporary with the Saint, and could have learned many things about his deeds from those who had been present, if as a young man he had undertaken to write this Life. John Thuroczius, just now cited, in the Chronicle of the Hungarians, chapter 27, probably cites this Life in these words: But Geycha, forewarned by a divine oracle, in the year of the Lord's Incarnation nine hundred and sixty-nine, as is written in the Legend of St. Stephen the king, begot St. Stephen the king. Ranzanus makes mention of the same, and relates many things from it in his Epitome of Hungarian Affairs, index 8. But Schwartz on page 59 says that another Life was designated by Thuroczius, because the Chartuitian Legend designates no year of birth. I answer that the Life is cited by Thuroczius not for the birth-year, which he himself added, and indeed less correctly; but only for the father's name,

and the divine oracle, by which he says he was forewarned, from the Carthuitian Life. In the same place that writer warns that he is not going to write all the things which are related of Stephen and of Emeric his son in their Lives. But, We intend, he says, to write briefly and summarily those things which have been passed over by other writers.

[8] Further, although there seems to be no room for doubt about the age of Carthuitius, yet the Life of St. Stephen written by him is not without errors, or a few blemishes: [who fell into some slight errors; but ought not on that account to lack authority:] and these have been increased by Surius the editor, when Gisela the Saint's consort is in him called the daughter of the emperor Henry, whose daughter she was not, but sister, as she is really named in the Ms. and in the older edition. There is likewise an error in the year of his death, which both in the Ms. and in Surius is said to be 1034; but this error too could easily have crept in through the fault of transcribers, who not rarely corrupt numbers. There seems also to be an error in the name of the duke of Poland, whom he relates to have sought the royal crown from the Pontiff. But those two latter errors (for the first is certainly not his error) are such as not much to diminish the authority of the Acts, especially since many things related in them are confirmed by contemporary writers, and not a few others are made probable by the same. Hence I am not displeased with Baillet's judgment about these Acts: for in the Critical Table at the 2nd of September he has in French what I render into Latin: His Life, written by a Hungarian bishop named Carthuitius, and dedicated to King Coloman, is not free from errors. Yet from other considerations it has authority enough, although the author was distant from the Saint's time. Rightly, for the rest. But when he says that he was distant from the time of the Saint, he suggests too great a distance, since he wrote only sixty or seventy years after his death. Almost the same was the judgment of other writers concerning the authority of this Life, and deservedly.

[9] Schwartz vehemently accuses the Life of St. Stephen; But Schwartz, that he might supply with bile at least what was lacking in reasons, scarcely found fit words by which sufficiently to declare his hatred of this Life. That the little work of Carthuitius, from which it clearly appears what the religion of the Hungarians was at the beginning of their conversion, was hateful to a heterodox writer, I ought by no means to wonder at; but I greatly wonder at the man's insolent bitterness, since this method of writing is everywhere disapproved at this time. Let us hear nevertheless whether he attacks Carthuitius as solidly as bitterly: But what credit, he says on page 58, is to be thought due to our legendary, a vain fabulist to the point of nausea and guilty of gross errors? "He slips," says Timon, "in certain things, yet his authority is of no small weight." This indulgence is indeed granted to very many others, that they now and then mix human slips with the truth of things done. But when a man writes in such a way that the whole matter of the narrative is one scene of manifold portents, surpassing human belief, and supported by absolutely no vote of contemporaries, the very least error makes him suspect. If Carthuitius is a vain fabulist, if he is guilty of gross errors, if the things related by him surpass human belief and are supported by no testimony of contemporaries, we shall rightly take away from him all authority. But those accusations needed to be proved, since the learned disagree.

[10] but rather by unruly clamour than by right reason, A twofold specimen, he says, of his trifling fabrications, with which, great as he is, he flows muddily, we have given above; from which you may learn that the rest are to be hissed off the stage from time to time. I could wish that Schwartz had alleged reasons instead of hisses. For in truth he had brought forward hisses rather than reasons above, where he exclaims thus: Is he then a witness firm enough in these things, which exceed the belief of all men of sense? How great and of what sort are these — that he relates that a monastery of monks was built by King Stephen at Jerusalem; a college of twelve canons, houses too and hospices surrounded by a stone wall for the sake of Hungarian pilgrims at Rome; and finally a church of remarkable workmanship at Constantinople. Could deeds so memorable remain thus unknown to all contemporaries, and buried in oblivion? These three foundations are so incredible to Schwartz that they alone are alleged as an example. But I shall show at §28 that they are not incredible, but wholly probable. As for his saying that these were unknown to all contemporaries, it is of no moment: for Carthuitius is nearly contemporary, and the first who wrote more fully the deeds of holy Stephen. But contemporaries, who in the eleventh century wrote short Chronicles, likewise omitted most of the Saint's other foundations, and indeed very many other deeds of his also, about which nevertheless there can be no doubt. And so Schwartz here indeed cries loudly, but undeservedly and without reason; as will appear more fully from what is to be said in the place already indicated.

[11] But about the errors he adds these things no more rightly: since he could point out only two errors in it; Take likewise a twofold example of gross errors. Ignorant of the name of Pope Sylvester, yet wishing to know the name of the king of Poland, who lost the crown already made ready by the Pontiff, he calls him Mieszko, dead before that time, and Boleslaus his successor as having obtained it. By a graver slip he assigned the death of Stephen to the year 1034, when the year 1038 should have been written. That there is error in these things I would not deny. But these errors are not such as cannot be pardoned: for the second is perhaps rather the transcribers' than the author's; and both are such as could easily creep in upon a nearly contemporary writer. But other errors he could not assign, even though he carps at other things too as liable to error or fiction; but these we shall examine more conveniently at their several places in the course of our work. At length Schwartz exercises his criticism, and subjoins a conjecture of this sort: To these we add, in the eighth place, our conjecture, saving the judgment of others, that our Legend seems to have been patched together by some impostor about the times of the fourteenth century, in which that controversy between the Hungarians and the Roman Pontiff was agitated with great disturbances, and to have been accommodated to the cause of the Roman curia. How inept this conjecture is can easily be shown. But first let us hear all the eloquence of the angry man: For, he says, though I would gladly admit that the writer was not wholly invented by Surius, who published him with the style changed, as he himself declares of himself, yet neither does Timon prove that he is ancient and worthy of any credit, and we, by arguments most weighty, as I think, have sufficiently overthrown the authority of an obscure, novel, insipid, and erroneous legendary. For the rest, if anyone were permitted to compare the Surian edition, from which the Bongarsian was printed, either with that older one which Schoedelius mentions, or with manuscript codices, I believe indeed that he would gather weapons with a fuller hand, with which to dispatch both Chartuitius and Surius *. Meanwhile, until that is done, let our bishop Chartuitius return to the benches of the legendaries, and let him be placed in the chair of writers of good repute only then, when the crowd of legendaries shall be freed from that common objection by which, as superstitious fabulists, corrupters of true histories, hunters after empty gossip, obscure, credulous, and untrustworthy men, they are wont to be assailed and despised by historians of a finer nose. Thus far Schwartz, who pursues this Life with such hatred that he unwittingly reckons among fabulists and corrupters of histories the most illustrious Doctors of the Church, Greeks as well as Latins, and very many other most excellent writers who have written the Lives of the Saints, that so at least he may depress Carthuitius the more.

[12] But now hear in few words how rightly Schwartz reasons. He boasts that by most weighty arguments he has sufficiently overthrown the authority of Carthuitius; and brings forward no valid argument; and yet at the same time he divines that from the older edition and the Mss. weapons could be gathered with a fuller hand, with which Carthuitius and Surius may be dispatched. If he has finished the business with most weighty arguments, why does he desire other weapons? Why does he believe that from the ancient edition and the Mss. Carthuitius can be more powerfully dispatched than from the edition of Surius? I find indeed no reason but the saying of the poet: What the wretched too much wish, that they easily believe. I shall give that edition collated with the Ms.; but from it Schwartz will gather no weapon that is valid. He himself meanwhile, while he desires weapons to be gathered with a fuller hand, abundantly hints that the weakness of his arguments is not unknown to him. Indeed, the more thoroughly I look into his whole disputation, the less of anything solid I find in it, so that it contains nothing but unruly clamours. He calls three foundations incredible, because they are omitted by contemporaries; but the same men passed over most of the other foundations of monasteries and bishoprics of Hungary, because they only touched briefly upon Hungarian affairs rather than narrated them. Next he assigns two errors, which those very men acknowledged who otherwise most of all approved the Acts of St. Stephen. He adds that by Thuroczius and Ranzanus, writers of the fifteenth century, many things are related otherwise than they are narrated by Carthuitius; many things too are added by them, and on the other hand many things omitted from those which Carthuitius has. But I shall show that the aforesaid writers everywhere agree with Carthuitius, and that their silence is not against him, since for brevity's sake they omitted, or briefly touched upon, very many things. Thuroczius, chapter 27, refers to the Lives of St. Stephen and of Emeric his son; and adds: We intend rather to write briefly and summarily those things which have been passed over by other writers. Ranzanus, moreover, wrote a brief Epitome of Hungarian affairs, and passed over many things. Their silence, therefore, cannot detract from the credit of the things related by Carthuitius, especially since the authority of those writers is slight, and Bonfinius, contemporary with the aforesaid, set forth the same things abundantly.

[13] [but a most inept conjecture about the Life having been written in the fourteenth century.] Further, the conjecture about this Life having been written in the fourteenth century has no likeness of truth, and rests on no foundation. That it is not probable is plain from the dedication made to King Coloman, who obtained the crown in the year 1095. That the Life is far more ancient is confirmed by the other things which we discussed at num. 6. The controversy also, which in the fourteenth century was agitated and settled between the Roman Pontiff and the princes of Hungary, offers no foundation for the aforesaid suspicion. Cardinal Gentilis, legate of the Apostolic See, having convoked the diet of the kingdom, settled that dispute with the Hungarians. Raynaldus, at the year 1308, num. 22, sets forth the matter summarily thus: Since the legate in his address seemed to attribute to the Apostolic See the right of imposing a king upon the Hungarians, the nobles publicly professed that they did not hold that the king was to be constituted by the legate; but that, whomsoever they themselves, according to ancient custom, should have acknowledged as king, sprung of the royal stock, it belonged to the pontifical part to confirm and anoint him. And when the legate acquiesced in these things, Charles was acknowledged by all as king of Hungary, as is more fully narrated in the instrument drawn up on this matter, which Raynaldus subjoins. From it I shall adduce some things, where I shall show in the course of the Commentary that the crown was sent to St. Stephen by the Supreme Pontiff, which is asserted in that instrument, as in several others. But of that matter there was no dispute in the diet, but of the right which the Roman Church had in the election of a new king, and which the legate claimed from the crown formerly sent to St. Stephen. That it was sent

to St. Stephen by the Pontiff was admitted on both sides. And so, since concerning the Pontiff's right in the election of a new king nothing is contained in the Life, this controversy could offer no occasion for the writing of this Life, which was always acknowledged as legitimate and by no means supposititious.

* conficiat or configat

§ II. Judgment concerning the Acts written by Carthuitius, and their various copies: other incomplete Acts; earlier writers who have treated of St. Stephen.

[ ] Carthuitius wrote in good faith, but now and then erred, I have not so undertaken to defend the Carthuitian Life of St. Stephen against the accusations of Schwartz as to wish everything that Carthuitius wrote to be held for certain and indubitable: for I have already hinted that several errors crept in upon that writer, which we shall endeavour to amend in the course of our work. Besides those few errors, which Catholic writers long ago acknowledged, certain other things occur in the same Life which indeed cannot be convicted of open error, yet are such that they ought to seem doubtful, or less rightly narrated. Certainly, since Carthuitius undertook to write his Life sixty or seventy years after the death of St. Stephen, and a whole century after his earlier deeds, it ought not to seem wonderful if in some circumstances of the facts he was mistaken; nor can the facts themselves rightly be denied, because their attendant details are set forth less accurately: for since he was writing to the king, and at his bidding, about matters the memory of which could survive at least confusedly, he could not invent the facts themselves without both provoking the king's indignation and exposing himself to men's mockery. Hence there seems no room at all to doubt that Carthuitius wrote in good faith, especially since nothing occurs in the whole Life from which it could be gathered that he asserted anything which he did not believe to be true: nay, I think also that no fact is narrated in it which did not truly happen, although in certain attendant circumstances there was error.

[15] Moreover, that Carthuitius was sufficiently learned and pious and was perhaps too credulous of popular traditions. his very little work shows. This alone can be doubted, whether, after the manner of his time, he was not too credulous of popular traditions, and whether in sifting facts he applied sufficient diligence and criticism. This defect alone could furnish the cause why he narrated certain facts otherwise than they happened, and inserted into his writings certain less certain revelations; as other writers also have done, otherwise learned and trustworthy. Further, it cannot be doubted that Carthuitius, since he wrote at the king's command, found various records of the Saint's deeds, from which he drew most things. Among the records also I suspect there was the Life of which we shall speak presently. Not a few things too he could have learned in his youth from old men who had lived with the Saint; but in relating these the danger of erring was greater. In fine, I judge that Carthuitius wrote with the best faith; but that he was a man liable to error. Hence his statements are to be admitted, where no weightier reason or authority resists; but to be abandoned or corrected where those writers contradict them whose credit can less be taken away.

[16] [The Life published by Surius with the style changed; an earlier edition and a Ms. copy:] The little work of Carthuitius Surius published in the Lives of the Saints at the 20th of August, but with the style not a little changed and polished. This edition has been reprinted among the Writers of Hungarian Affairs from page 268. The same also John Tomcus reprinted in the Illyrian Saints, page 201, with a few things nevertheless added at the beginning and the end. Not a few writers too who have adduced the words of Carthuitius have used no other edition than the Surian, nor do they seem to have known any other. Yet this Life was published at Cracow with other Lives of Saints from the year 1511, and a twin copy of that edition is at my hand. In this edition, however, the style was not changed, as may be gathered from a collation with the Ms. copy which we have from the codex of the Canons Regular at Corsendonck near Turnhout in Brabant. That codex, as is noted in the transcript, is inscribed The second part of divers legends. And this title is prefixed to the Life: The Life of St. Stephen king of Hungary, by Bishop Cartuitius. Between the Ms. copy and the Cracow edition there is no notable difference, except that a preface is added in the printed Life, as also in Surius, but is omitted in the Ms. The rest agree throughout, if we except certain slighter faults, of which neither the manuscript nor the edition itself is free: but it is clear that those faults crept into the manuscript through the negligence of transcribers; just as, partly from the Ms. itself, partly through the carelessness of the correctors, certain quite obvious ones are read in the printed Life. And so I shall reprint this ancient edition in such wise that I shall everywhere collate it with the Ms. copy, and note the various readings. I shall likewise have regard to the edition of Surius; but since the words are everywhere changed, I shall note only those differences which are of some moment.

[17] another shorter Life, which seems to have gone before Carthuitius. A certain other Ms. Life of St. Stephen, if indeed it ought to be called a Life, was transmitted to our Elders from the codex of Melk: that codex is a large one of parchment, and contains the Saints from the Kalends of July to the Kalends of September, as I find noted. Such a title is prefixed to this writing, which is anonymous and of an unknown author: The remainder concerning St. Stephen the king. These words seem to designate some imperfect Life, or some appendix: and indeed, although the Saint's birth with certain deeds, his death, burial, and the elevation of the body which followed are related in their order, yet so many deeds are omitted that it can indeed be called a Life, but a very meagre and imperfect one. Further, it seems certain that this compendium of the Life was seen by Carthuitius, since various things are related in both in the same manner and now and then in the same words, and since it is not probable that the Carthuitian Life was seen by the author of the other, as I shall presently prove. And so I judge that this shorter Life was written first, but appeared too meagre, and that therefore Carthuitius was asked by King Coloman to write the same more fully. The reason of this conjecture is that in the shorter Life various most certain facts, worthy of relation, are omitted, which its writer would at least have briefly related, if he had seen the Life of Carthuitius. Such are the war waged by the emperor Conrad, his son Emeric, most of the foundations, and many other things whose truth will be proved in the course of our work. I do not think, therefore, that I should be doing anything worth the labour if I published this writing: for its author seems to have known only those things which had been preserved in the memory of men, as he says in the preface: Because he recites what he learned by hearing from the faithful. But wherever it shall have anything by which either Carthuitius can be illustrated, or the facts to be related in this Commentary elucidated, that I shall transfer from the Ms. transcript itself to its proper place.

[18] Certain things about St. Stephen were briefly recorded by Ditmar, Other writers who have treated of St. Stephen, Hermannus Contractus, Marianus Scotus, Ademar of Chabannes, and other writers of the eleventh century, to be cited in their places. About the same, with like brevity, a few things were narrated by Sigebert and others who flourished in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. But besides the biographers cited above, none has come to my knowledge who before the fifteenth century wrote his deeds of set purpose. The fifteenth century, however, produced three Writers of Hungarian affairs, who discussed the deeds of St. Stephen more fully. These are Antonius Bonfinius, John Thuroczius, or de Thwrocz, and Peter Ranzanus, all of whom flourished in the reign of Matthias Corvinus toward the end of the fifteenth century. Bonfinius is amply praised by David Czuittinger in the Specimen of Learned Hungary, page 80 and following. He is there said to be an Italian by nation, born at Ascoli in Picenum, but conversant in the court of Matthias king of the Hungarians. He wrote various things in a style elegant enough; but only the Decades of Hungarian affairs make for our purpose, in the second of which, book 1, he narrated at length the deeds of St. Stephen. Turoczius, however, wrote a Chronicle of the Hungarians, in which at chapter 27 and following he briefly records the chief deeds of the same Saint, yet passing over many things, as I have already hinted before. Of this writer, who was a Hungarian by nation, the aforesaid Czuittinger treats more fully from page 392. Ranzanus was by country a Sicilian of Palermo, and from the Order of Preachers was raised to the bishopric of Lucera in the kingdom of Naples; and at length was sent by Ferdinand king of Naples as an envoy to Matthias king of Hungary. This author wrote various things, and narrated not a few things about St. Stephen in his Epitome of Hungarian affairs, published among the Writers of Hungarian affairs after the Chronicle of the aforesaid Turoczius. Of Ranzanus, Czuittinger page 311, and more fully James Echard in the Library of writers of the Order of Preachers, tome 1, page 876.

[19] Further, of the three writers mentioned the most diligent was certainly Bonfinius, [among whom Bonfinius, Turoczius, and Ranzanus are to be used with discrimination.] and this I affirm without hesitation, not only because he narrated more than the other two, but chiefly because I find almost nothing related by him about Stephen or his son Emeric which I cannot also point out in older records. Hence it appears that he was far from inventing facts: nevertheless he does not seem to have been equally averse from conjectures; and from that cause it comes about that he now and then pursued the attendant circumstances of the facts in a freer style, as I shall show in the course of the work. As regards Turoczius and Ranzanus, the sources from which they drew I have not always been able so to detect: nor can their age attribute much authority to them. In chronology, moreover, all those three are by no means accurate. For this cause we shall so allege the assertions of these writers that we shall at the same time examine how rightly they agree with older records, and how far from other considerations they seem certain or probable. For it is certain that these men now and then strayed from the truth; but not all is on that account to be rejected, since they narrated many true things also. Besides these we shall also consult Bohemian, Polish, and German historians, and those of other neighbouring nations, as also various moderns, whom we shall cite each in his own place.

[20] [The little work of Godofredus Schwartz on the Beginnings of the Christian Religion in Hungary,] Before all the rest, however, there will frequently come to be mentioned, and not rarely refuted, a little work very lately published by a heterodox writer under this title: The Beginnings of the Christian Religion among the Hungarians Claimed for the Eastern Church. The author is Godofredus Schwartz, who in the year 1740 had the said work printed at Halle in Saxony. He gives the reason of his undertaking in chapter 1 in these words: Since we have determined to discuss the beginnings of the Christian religion among the Hungarians, we omit all testimonies and instances in which it is easy to observe traces, and not obscure ones, of the sincere worship of God, which nevertheless cannot be understood of the Hungarians; but are to be referred to the peoples of those regions which Hungary formerly embraced within its compass. But neither, at what place

among the ancient Huns and Avars, whom almost all our countrymen reckon among the ancestors of the Hungarians, the Christian cause stood, shall we at present inquire. This indeed is shown clearly, that the ancient Huns were not wholly bereft of the light of heavenly truth, and that the Avars were flooded with its abundant radiance. But whatever be the case with either, the Hungarians nevertheless, when in the ninth century from Christ's birth they became famous in Europe, and had smitten its borders everywhere with deadly disasters, worshipped idols and the profane rites of barbarians, being utterly estranged from the doctrine of Christ and of the Christian Gospel.

[21] in which many things are rashly asserted without fit proof. At length in the tenth and eleventh centuries the whole nation, casting off superstition and deserting the shrines of its fathers, was converted to the true God, and by a divine gift gathered into the bosom of the Christian Church. And of this solemn and public passage of the Hungarians to Christ we have set out to treat: not that we should narrate in a long order all the things that were done by turns, until that harsh nation should patiently bear Christian discipline: our chief endeavour will be to set forth its genuine beginnings, and, claiming the same for the Eastern church, to purge them of doubtful and fabulous narrations. The writer's undertaking would certainly be praiseworthy, if Schwartz were led by the love of truth alone, if he strove modestly to correct others and to prove his own points solidly. Nay, in my judgment at least, his little work would be most useful, if he had dug out of the darkness as many truths as he has mingled errors with it: for I can hardly find any few pages in the whole work which are free from errors, or at any rate from inept reasonings. But I find in the whole work neither zeal for truth, nor any modesty, nor anything of new truth dug out; but many things rashly asserted, nothing solidly proved, save a few things taken from other writers. These things will appear from what is to be said, where his statements will have to be refuted. Of these I wished to warn the reader, because from the mere reading of the work they do not appear so plainly as from a comparison with the records themselves. Now, since the conversion of the Hungarians is chiefly owed to the labours of St. Stephen, and since the Christian faith never struck sufficiently firm roots either in Hungary or among the Hungarian nation before his times, I have judged that both the vicissitudes of the faith in those provinces and the origin of the Hungarians must be investigated, that from them it may appear more fully how great a benefit the Saint brought to the Church by the conversion of himself and of his people.

§ III. On the preaching of the faith in present-day Hungary, and its various vicissitudes through the various incursions of the barbarians who occupied it, down to the coming of the Hungarians.

[ ] The Christian faith in Pannonia and other parts of present-day Hungary, No doubt can arise for anyone that the Christian faith was preached in Pannonia and the neighbouring provinces, which constitute the present kingdom of Hungary, in the first centuries of the Church, before the ancient Huns poured themselves into Dacia and Pannonia and occupied those provinces. Hence various ancient bishoprics are reckoned in both the Pannonias, whose metropolitan sees were Sirmium, a city of Lower Pannonia situated on the Save, that is, in present-day Slavonia, destroyed in the fifth century by Attila king of the Huns; and Laureacum or Lauriacum, likewise destroyed, which was situated in Noricum Ripense, or in present-day Austria, and is placed by geographers generally on the Danube, where it receives the river Anisus or Anasus *. But the Christian religion in Pannonia suffered much through the incursions of the barbarians, who frequently laid waste those provinces and occupied them.

[23] Further, as various nations settled in Pannonia by turns, which, occupied by turns by various barbarians, had various names. so the name of the region was changed at various times. Marcus Hansizius of our Society observed these variations in his Germania Sacra, tome 1, and briefly records them on page 6 in this manner: As countless nations by turns tore Pannonia asunder — Huns, Goths, Gepids, Lombards, and again the Huns called Avars, with the Slavs; then the Moravians, and last of all the Hungarians — so it obtained now the name of Hunnia, now of Avaria, sometimes also of Great Moravia, and at last of Hungary. Hungary is indeed not bounded by the same limits by which Pannonia was formerly bounded, since it neither includes the whole of Pannonia on this side the Danube, and on the other hand embraces beyond the Danube a part of Dacia and the province of the Jazyges Metanastae; yet a great part of Hungary was formerly the greater part of Pannonia.

[24] The learned doubt whether the Huns and Hungarians are the same people [There is a dispute whether the Huns and Hungarians are the same people: the ancient seats of the Huns in Scythia,] or a different one. Some will have them to be different nations; others that it is the same nation, sprung from the same ancestors; but that at various times a certain part of it went forth from its seats, sought new dwellings in Europe, and settled in Pannonia and the neighbouring regions. The Hungarian origins were described toward the end of the preceding century by Franciscus Foris Otrokocsi, who does not distinguish between Huns and Hungarians, but records a threefold coming of the same nation into Pannonia. The aforesaid writer delivers these things in summary about the ancient seats of the Huns, chapter 3, num. 2: The Huns, immediately before their coming into Europe, had their seats beyond the Tanais and the Maeotis in Asiatic Scythia, far off toward the northern recesses; some of them being extended over against them, as far as the Caucasus and the Caspian sea: yet in such wise that, as a nation then widely diffused and most populous, it had not a few of its brethren of the same stock and language also on this side the Tanais in European Scythia. These things are said with probability: for Ammianus and other ancient writers whom he cites agree well enough with them.

[25] [deserting which, about the year 400 they occupied the Pannonias, to the great harm of the Christian faith,] Next Otrokocsi subjoins their first migration, which he proves from ancient writers, in these words: The Asiatic Huns therefore … resolved to desert their former seats, together with their wives, children, and herds, and to seek a better place of dwelling in Europe (leaving behind, no doubt, in their native soil those who were pleased to remain there). The first movement of these to this end happened about the year of the Lord 370. Hence, as he adds, having conquered and joined to themselves the neighbouring Alans, together with the Budini or Slavs, and having driven out the Goths and other peoples lying between, about the year 400 they wholly occupied Dacia and Pannonia. Further, how great a disaster this irruption of the Huns and of the other barbarians — whom the Huns had partly driven from their seats, partly stirred up by their example — brought upon the Christian faith, St. Jerome briefly declares in the Epitaph of Nepotian, written in the year 396, in which he has the following: The mind shudders to pursue the ruins of our times. For twenty years and more Roman blood has been daily shed between Constantinople and the Julian Alps. Scythia (European, toward the Euxine Sea), Thrace, Macedonia, Dardania, Dacia, Thessalonica, Achaia, the Epiruses, Dalmatia, and all the Pannonias, the Goth, the Sarmatian, the Quadus, the Alan, the Huns, the Vandals, the Marcomanni lay waste, drag away, and plunder. How many matrons, how many virgins of God, and freeborn and noble bodies, have been a mockery to these beasts? Bishops taken captive, presbyters slain, and the offices of divers clerics. Churches overthrown, horses stabled at the altars of Christ, the relics of martyrs dug up. Everywhere mourning, everywhere groaning, and the manifold image of death. So Jerome.

[26] which nevertheless they did not utterly extinguish in Pannonia and Dacia. Yet that the Catholic religion was not wholly extinguished under the rule of the Huns, but rather that not a few Huns were converted to the faith, we have learned from elsewhere. St. Jerome himself teaches this in the Epistle to Laeta in these words: The Armenian has laid aside his quivers, the Huns learn the Psalter, the frosts of Scythia glow with the warmth of faith: the ruddy and fair army of the Getae carries about the tents of the churches; and therefore perhaps they fight against us on equal terms, because they trust in an equal religion. Thus St. Jerome, about the year 398. Orosius too, a writer of the same time, book 7, chapter 41, hints at the conversion of not a few Huns in this manner: Although, if the barbarians had been let into the Roman borders for this alone, that everywhere through East and West the churches of Christ are filled with Huns, Suevi, Vandals, and Burgundians, and with divers and countless peoples of believers, the mercy of God would seem to be praised and extolled. Other testimonies about the conversion of certain Huns I pass over.

[27] The Goths and Gepids drove out the Huns in the same century, Further, although the Huns brought immense terror and devastation, especially under Attila as their leader, upon the chief kingdoms of Europe, yet they did not long hold rule in Pannonia: for when Attila died in the year 453, as Pagi will have it from Cassiodorus, or in the year 454, as others write, his sons, fighting among themselves, soon lost their empire. Otrokocsi relates the matter from various writers in this manner: But little by little from thence, on account of the contentions and divided minds of the Huns, the Gepids and Goths in the parts of Dacia and in Pannonia, partly by arms, partly by the favour of the Romans, came out superior for a time; so that the Gepids claimed for themselves a great part of Dacia …; and the Goths … occupied Pannonia, the old inhabitants being meanwhile everywhere left, and indeed the Huns also (no doubt), who as subjects submitted themselves to the Gepids and Goths. But the Huns, devoted to warfare and arms, partly joined themselves to the Greek Romans, and indeed many of them; partly into Lesser Scythia (situated, that is, between the Borysthenes and the Tauric Chersonese); partly also some of them … returned as far as the first shores of Asiatic Scythia on the further bank of the Maeotis, … partly betook themselves into Illyricum; partly also remained in that very southern part of Hungary, in Dacia Ripensis, as Jornandes speaks; who … confesses that Hernac, the younger son of Attila, chose seats with his people at the extremity of Lesser Scythia; but Emnedzur and Ultzindur his kinsmen in Dacia Ripensis, namely beside the Temes and the Danube, where is the present county of Temesvár, as far as Wallachia, and indeed from the year 471 under leaders of the Bulgarian nation, as he adds.

[28] Less disturbed, but not much happier, were the affairs of the Christians under the Goths in Pannonia [who were Arians, and less hostile to Catholics. These in turn the Lombards harassed more. The Avars,] and the Gepids in Dacia; for those peoples were infected with the Arian heresy, yet in such wise that they do not seem to have persecuted the Catholics. But that quiet, such as it was, was not very long-lasting: for the Lombards about the year 527, as Pagi has it, entered Pannonia, and held it for forty-two years, as Paul the Deacon testifies in his Deeds of the Lombards, book 2, chapter 7. But since the Lombards were pagans, it cannot be doubted that the Christian religion suffered much while they held rule there. Further, while the Lombards were settled in Pannonia, again a vast multitude of Huns, who called themselves Avars, advanced from Asiatic Scythia toward Dacia. Evagrius teaches these things, book 5, chapter 1, in these words: The Abari are a nation of the Scythians who live in wagons, who the plains

beyond the Caucasus inhabited. When these had been grievously damaged by the Turks their neighbours, they left their seats and came, all of them, with their wives and children to the Bosphorus. Then, leaving the shores of the Euxine Sea, where indeed many barbarous nations dwell, … they advanced further, fighting with all the barbarians who met them on the way. But at length, when they had come to the banks of the Danube, they sent envoys to Justin (the Younger). Theophylact Simocatta, book 7, chapter 8, teaches that this migration of the Avars happened under Justinian, and asserts that they were not true Avars, but that that name was fraudulently assumed by them. Further, that these Abari or Avars, whom many writers really named Huns or Chuni, are the same nation as the ancient Huns, the learned commonly hold, and Otrokocsi proves it with many arguments in chapter 5, where he also reviews the various names of the Huns.

[29] Now these Hunno-Avars, to whom not a few of the earlier Huns had joined themselves, a Hunnish nation, likewise pagans, succeeded the Lombards; easily occupied Pannonia, the Lombards yielding, who were hastening into Italy. Hear Paul the Deacon, book 2, chapter 7: Then Alboin (king of the Lombards) assigned his own seats, that is, Pannonia, to his friends the Huns, on this condition, namely, that if at any time it should be necessary for the Lombards to return, they should again claim their own fields. He says that this migration of the Lombards into Italy, where they fixed stable seats for themselves, happened when five hundred and sixty-eight years had already rolled by from the Lord's Incarnation; nor is it needful for our purpose to sift this epoch more studiously. The Huns thereafter for a long time were masters of affairs in Pannonia and certain neighbouring regions, and waged many wars with their neighbours, for the most part victorious, and remaining heathen down to the empire of Charlemagne, who both subdued the Huns and took care that the Christian faith should be preached among the people subject to him.

[30] The Hunno-Avars conquered and almost destroyed by Charlemagne, The Huns had first provoked Charlemagne in the year 788, as Pagi there narrates at num. 7, by leading an army into Bavaria against the Franks, and another into the district of Friuli; but, being defeated, they were compelled to retire. Charles returned the like in the year 791 by invading present-day Austria, which they possessed as far as the river Anisus, as Pagi shows from Eginhard at the year 791, num. 3. The end of the Hunnish war Pagi assigns to the year 799. That war Eginhard described in the Life of Charles in this manner: The greatest of all the wars waged by him (Charles), except the Saxon, followed upon this war, namely that which was undertaken against the Avars or Huns: which he administered both more spiritedly than the rest and with far greater preparation. Yet he made in person only one expedition into Pannonia (for this province that nation then inhabited); the rest he committed to his son Pippin and to the prefects of the provinces, and also to counts and legates, to be carried through. And when this had been most vigorously administered by these, it was at length completed in the eighth year. How many battles were fought in it, how much blood was shed, is witnessed by Pannonia empty of every inhabitant, and by the place in which was the palace of the Cagan *, so deserted that not even a trace of human habitation appears in it. In this war the whole nobility of the Huns perished, all their glory fell, all their money and the treasures heaped up over a long time were plundered, &c.

[31] who took care that the Catholic faith should be preached to the survivors, The disaster of the Huns was the salvation of their remnants, since not a few seem to have received the Christian faith: for the whole nation was not so destroyed that some did not survive, whom Charles took care to have instructed in the Christian faith. Alcuin, in epistle 7 to Charles, congratulates him on the subjection and conversion of the Huns in these words: Yet thy most excellent will, O lover of truth and of the salvation of many, it has pleased Christ to reward with greater glory and praise. The nations and peoples of the Huns, formidable for their ancient fierceness and courage, He has subjected to thy sceptres, warring for His honour, and by prevenient grace has bound necks long most proud to the yoke of the holy faith, and has poured the light of truth into minds blind from ancient time. He then teaches in what manner a people newly converted is to be instructed in the first principles of the faith. More about the conversion of the Huns, which was committed to Arno archbishop of Salzburg, is related by John George von Eckhart, Frankish Affairs, book 25, num. 90. The aforesaid writer, book 27, num. 28, records these things to our purpose: When the emperor had returned (in the year 805) to Aachen, by the consent of all the Annals the cagan or prince of the Huns, by name Theodore, devoted to the Christian rites, came to him and asked that a place be given him to inhabit between Sabaria and Carnuntum, because on account of the harassment of the Slavs he and his people were no longer permitted to dwell safely in their former seats. The emperor granted his prayers, and dismissed him with gifts. But King Theodore, when he had been brought back to his own people, died. Whereupon the new cagan sent one of his nobles to ask that that ancient honour, which the cagans had been wont to have among the Huns, be restored to him. The emperor assented, and ordered the cagan to have the supreme authority of the whole kingdom, according to their ancient rite. Sabaria and Carnuntum were towns of Pannonia mentioned by the ancient geographers. The Huns therefore remained in Pannonia, but subject to the emperor, and devoted to the Christian rites. Hence many churches were erected in Pannonia, or present-day Hungary.

[32] But afterwards the Slavs occupied the greatest part of those regions, [which somehow endured under the Moravian Slavs, thereafter the rulers, until the coming of the Hungarians,] and called it Great Moravia. Nevertheless the Christian religion, restored after a fashion, seems to have endured until the coming of the Hungarians, that is, until the year 889, in which the entry of the Hungarians is commonly placed, who utterly abolished all worship of the Christian religion. The Annalist of Metz, in Duchesne, tome 3, page 324, writes thus of their coming: In the year of the Lord's Incarnation 889 the nation of the Hungarians, most ferocious and more cruel than any beast, in past ages unheard of for this reason, that it was not even named, went forth from the Scythian realms and from the marshes which the Tanais spreads into immensity by its overflow. And having described the Scythian nations, he goes on thus: From the above-named places, therefore, the aforesaid nation was driven from its own seats by the peoples bordering upon it, who are called Pecinaci *, because they excelled in number and valour, and because their native land, as we have said before, with its overflowing multitude, did not suffice for dwelling in. Driven out therefore by the violence of these, in order to seek out lands which they might inhabit and to establish seats, bidding farewell to their country, they set out on their journey. And first indeed, wandering through the solitudes of the Pannonians and Avars, they seek their daily food by hunting and fishing. Then they break into the borders of the Carantani, the Moravians, and the Bulgarians by frequent assaults of invasion; they slay very few with the sword, many thousands with arrows, &c. In a Chronicle written in the thirteenth century, in Mencken, tome 1 of German Affairs, page XI, the coming of the same is thus recorded: In these days the nation of the Hungarians, having gone forth from Sicia (Scythia), came first into Pannonia, and, the Avars having been cast out thence, has remained there perpetually until today. With these others today commonly agree.

[33] In the year 893 Arnulph king of Germany made use of the aid of the Hungarians against Zwendebald king of Moravia, [who utterly destroyed it. Three migrations of the Huns or Hungarians into Hungary.] as various historians relate, who therefore inveighed against Arnulph because he had thus opened for them the way to invade the neighbouring regions, as the Hungarians afterwards did, who afflicted with immense terror and devastation not only the neighbouring provinces, but also Italy, Germany, and Gaul. For the rest, I wished to show three distinct irruptions of the Huns or Hungarians into present-day Hungary, because the Hungarian historians formerly seem not to have distinguished them rightly. For Bonfinius, Turoczius, and others who followed them, reckon only two migrations of the Huns, and say that the second happened in the year 744. But that epoch, as it is very far from the truth, so it does not agree with their own statements: for all the things which they narrate of their deeds after the entry are to be referred to the end of the ninth century, or to the tenth, as others have already shown. Moreover they reckon only four leaders before St. Stephen, as I shall show in the Saint's genealogy. But those four generations do not rightly reach from the year 744 to the birth-year of St. Stephen, which they believe to be the year 969, and which we shall set about the year 984. But four generations can rightly reach from the year 889 to the year assigned. I wished, moreover, by the same labour to exhibit after a fashion the vicissitudes of the Christian religion in present-day Hungary, that thus it may be the better known how wretched its state was. Now too it is pleasant to investigate whether the Huns, the Hunno-Avars, and the Hungarians drew their origin from the same region and nation.

* Ens

* i.e. of the king of the Huns

* by others Patzinacitae

§ IV. Are the Huns and Hungarians the same? their various names of old.

[ ] [The ancient Huns did not remain in Hungary: but it is disputed whether the Hungarians came forth from the same nation.] First, it is certain that the ancient Huns, who became most famous under Attila in the fifth century, did not remain in Pannonia down to the times of St. Stephen, with a few exceptions perhaps, who are said to have remained in a part of Transylvania and named themselves Siculi. These Siculi certainly boast that they are their descendants. Hence it also seems to be said that the present-day Hungarians, at least for the greater part, are not the descendants of those Huns, but, if they are of the same nation as they, are the descendants of those Huns who had remained in Scythia when the first went away into Europe, or of those who afterwards returned thither. Secondly, it appears certain that the Huns, who by others were named Avars, and who after a long rule were almost destroyed by Charlemagne, were partly the descendants of the first Huns, partly the descendants of those who, Simocatta says, were named Var and Chunni before they left Scythia. This alone therefore is to be investigated, whether it was the same Asiatic nation from which went forth first the colony of the Huns, secondly of the Hunno-Avars, and at last thirdly of the Hungarians, who imposed their name upon Hungary, and possessed it down to our own times.

[35] Eccard will have the Huns to be of Slavic origin: John George Eccard, Frankish Affairs, book 31, num. 82, strives to show that the Hungarians are a different nation from the ancient Huns, whom he judges to have been of the Slavic or Sarmatian nation. It is pleasant to hear the learned man discoursing, that the controversy may be the more elucidated: The opinion, he says, about the origin of the Hungarians is various. Bonfinius and the other Hungarian writers confound them with the Huns, whereas they were of an altogether different race. The Huns were peoples of the Slavic or Sarmatian nation, and used the Slavonic tongue. Priscus is a witness beyond all exception, who as an envoy of the emperor saw Attila and his court, and testifies that in it only two tongues were in use, the Gothic and the Hunnish. The Gothic is the German. But the Hunnish, unless it had been Slavonic or Sarmatian, ought also to have been employed there as a third, since Attila among the nations in the midst

of Slavonic peoples then dwelt. I could wish Eccard had shown in what manner Attila dwelt among Slavonic nations: for I do not see that the Slavs had then already advanced so far as almost to surround Pannonia on every side, as they afterwards did, when they poured themselves into Illyricum, Moravia, Bohemia, and into that part of Pannonia which today is called Slavonia. Eccard himself, treating of the Origin and migrations of the Slavs, book XI, num. XI, thinks that the first movements of the Slavs toward the Danube happened about the same time in which the Goths occupied Italy, that is, toward the end of the fifth century, when Attila had long been dead. And so that first argument in no way proves that the Slavonic tongue was in use at the court of Attila; nor would it even establish this, even if the Slavs had then dwelt on every side in the neighbourhood of Hungary; for Attila was a neighbour both of the Greeks and of the Latins, and yet their language was not in use at his court. Eccard presently adds other arguments in this manner: The very name of the Huns or Coni in the Slavonic tongue signifies horsemen, and that they always spent their life on horseback, no less than the Tartars their successors, is established from the accounts of the ancients. Jornandes, describing the funeral rites given to Attila, mentions a great strawa, that is, a banquet. But strawa among the Slavonic nations still denotes consumption and a feast; as among the Germans zehren is to consume, to eat and drink, and zehrung consumption, a feast, &c. As regards the word strawa, it is not explained of a feast in the notes to Jornandes reprinted among the Writers of Italy, tome 1, page 216, nor is it said to be a Slavonic word, but Gothic, and that of uncertain signification. But even if the things here said about the signification of the words Hunni and Strawa were true, which I leave to be judged by those skilled in the Slavonic tongue, yet nothing can be fitly concluded from these, both because most ancient idioms have been greatly changed, and because some words could afterwards have been common to both nations, which the one received from the other through mutual intercourse. Thus the Spaniards have not a few Arabic words borrowed from the Moors; we Belgians have many received from the French and Latins, even though the Spanish tongue differs by the whole heaven from the Arabic; nor less the Belgic from the French and Latin. The same may be observed in other languages. These observations therefore no more prove that the Slavonic tongue was in use among the ancient Huns than the preceding argument establishes it; and therefore what Eccard adds about the language of the Hungarians can have no force.

[36] But that the Hungarians use a dialect which agrees with the single Finnish tongue, but his reasons do not establish it. Comenius first observed. Martin Fogelius, once a philosopher and physician of Hamburg, took occasion from this to compare very many Finnish and Hungarian words, and to show their agreement, in a little book which still lies in manuscript in the royal library at Hanover. I myself with the utmost zeal compared with the same Hungarian tongue various dialects, the Finnish, Estonian, Livonian, Lappish, Samoyed, and Ostiak; and everywhere found a common harmony. When at length I had read in the account which Fabritius, once envoy of the king of Sweden to the Persians, had caused to be written of his Persian journey, that not far from the river Volga, now approaching the Caspian sea, a nation had been found which had numeral names in common with the Finns, and could be understood by a Finn; I came into this opinion, that all the North of Europe and Asia was once inhabited by a nation which was one with the Finnish, or at least akin to it. The names of rivers, most of which could be explained from the Finnish tongue, greatly confirmed me in this my conjecture. What Eccard here argues about a common harmony between the Hungarian and Finnish tongues, those skilled in both languages will perhaps not approve, nor will they find that common harmony. I certainly, comparing the Lord's Prayer in both languages, found no likeness of the two. But even if there really were as great a likeness of the Hungarian and Finnish tongues as Eccard says he found, this likeness would establish nothing, as I have already warned: since it has not been proved that the ancient Huns used a different language from that which the present-day Hungarians use.

[37] His other reasons from Jornandes, the Ravenna Geographer, and Rubruck, From these arguments, which seem almost useless to the purpose, Eccard passes to others in these words: Jornandes, Gothic Affairs, chapter V, distinguishes the Huns from the Hungarians (read Hungaros, or ab Hungaris), and relates that these, whom he calls Hunugari, dwelt in his time above the Tauric Chersonese toward the North, and says that from them comes the trade in marten skins. Whence you may conjecture that they were nearest to Siberia. The Ravenna Geographer, book IV, chapter 2, says: "Likewise, next to the Pontic sea is a country which is called Onogaria *, which Libavius the philosopher more subtly determines to be near the head of the Maeotic marsh, asserting that it has a multitude from the neighbouring places, but that, as is the barbarian custom, they enjoy the island." If you compare these words of Jornandes and of the Ravenna Geographer with one another, it appears that they confounded the Pontic sea or Maeotic marsh with the Caspian sea, and placed at the Pontic sea the Hungarians, who dwelt at the Caspian. Rubruck certainly, sent by St. Louis king of France to the Tartars, learned there that ancient Hungary was then called Pascatir, which today goes by the name of Bashkiria, and lies extended beyond the Volga above the Caspian sea as far as Siberia. From the Volga they gradually approached the Tanais, and, having crossed it, filled Lesser Tartary. Thus far Eccard, whose statements I shall weigh.

[38] but Jornandes does not distinguish the Huns and the Hunugari; First, the aforesaid Jornandes in chapter 5 does not distinguish the Huns from the Hunugari, as I shall clearly show: if therefore the Hungarians are the same as the Hunugari, they are also the same as the Huns. Jornandes had there described the western part of Scythia from the Danube as far as the Euxine Sea, above which he then places the Bulgarians, and after the Bulgarians proceeds to the Huns in these words: Hence now the Huns, as it were the most fruitful turf of most valiant nations, sprouted into a twofold madness of peoples. For some are called Aulziagri, others Aviri (another reading has, some are called Altziagiri, others Faviri), who nevertheless have different seats. Next to Cherson the Aulziagri, whither the eager merchant brings the goods of Asia, who in summer wander over the open plains, having their seats according as the pastures of their herds invite them, and in winter betaking themselves above the Pontic sea. But the Hunugari are known from this, that from them comes the trade in marten skins, whom (the Hunugari) the boldness of such great men (the Goths, of whom he presently goes on to speak) feared. So Jornandes in Muratori, tome 1 of the Writers of Italy, page 194; nor is there anything more there about the Huns or Hunugari. Now that the Hunugari are not there distinguished from the Huns I show briefly. Jornandes there reviews the various Scythian nations, and assigns their seats; but he assigns none to the Hunugari, if they are different from the Huns. Secondly, the last words, whom the boldness of such great men feared, which are to be referred to the Hunugari, clearly hint that they are the same as the Huns, for fear of whom the Goths changed their seats. This fear of the Goths Jornandes himself relates in chapter 25, where, after relating in chapter 24 the first movements of the Huns and their victories over the Ostrogoths, he subjoins thus: The Visigoths, that is, others of their (the Ostrogoths') allies and cultivators of the western soil, terrified by the fear of their kinsmen, were in doubt what to determine about themselves on account of the nation of the Huns; and after long deliberation, at length by common consent they sent envoys to Romania to the emperor Valens …, that if he would hand over to them a part of Thrace or Moesia to cultivate, they would live by his laws and submit to his commands. This was really done, Valens assenting. Jornandes therefore makes the Hunugari, whom the Goths feared, the same as the Huns.

[39] The Ravenna Geographer asserts that Onogoria is next to the Pontic sea, neither he nor others favour Eccard's opinion. or rather, from Libanius, that it is near the head of the Maeotis. In almost the same place Jornandes placed the Huns with others; but they were not circumscribed by narrow bounds. And so, if the Hungarians came from that Onogoria, they were doubtless of the Hunnish nation. Eccard saw that those writers were against him, if the Hungarians really dwelt about the Pontic sea; and therefore he desires to send them further off to the East, and says that the Euxine Sea was confounded with the Caspian. But that is in no way probable, nor does it follow from the statements of Rubruck, who would have the Huns and Hungarians sprung from the same region of Pascatir. For, as the nation of the Huns was most widely extended, it could dwell on both sides of the Volga, and have seats between the Volga and the Tanais. But if from the Volga they gradually approached the Tanais, as Eccard himself will have it, I do not see why Jornandes and the Ravenna Geographer wrongly place them above the Euxine Sea, or about the lake Maeotis. The Annals of Metz agree with these: for they have that the Hungarians went forth from the Scythian realms, and from the marshes which the Tanais spreads into immensity by its overflow. And so the writers speak in almost the same manner about the ancient seats of the Huns and the Hungarians; both of them some remove more, others less, toward the North and East. I see therefore no argument of Eccard's standing in the way of my judging the Huns and Hungarians to be colonies of the same Scythian nation, as Otrokocsi has attempted most fully to show.

[40] Not all Otrokocsi's assertions indeed are approved by me, [The Huns and Hungarians seem the same nation, first because they went forth from the same regions,] nor do I think all his arguments are to be adduced here; nevertheless his opinion is so approved by me for various reasons that I altogether judge the Huns and Hungarians to be the same nation, or at least that the Hungarians are a part of the Hunnish nation, or a colony gone forth from the rest of the Huns. The first reason is that both the older Huns and the more recent Hungarians came to the Danube from almost the same regions of Scythia. That the Huns came from the regions beyond the Tanais and the Maeotic marsh is testified by writers contemporary with their movements. Ammianus, book 31, chapter 2, has thus: The nation of the Huns, slightly known in ancient records, dwelling beyond the Maeotic marshes near the frozen Ocean, exceeds every measure of savagery. St. Jerome agrees, writing thus in the Epitaph of Fabiola: Behold, suddenly, as messengers ran to and fro, the whole East trembled, that from the furthest Maeotis, between the icy Tanais and the monstrous peoples of the Massagetae, where the barriers of Alexander confine the wild nations by the crags of the Caucasus, there had burst forth swarms of Huns, which, flying hither and thither on swift horses, filled all things alike with slaughter and with terror. More might be added, but these two suffice me. Rhegino abbot of Prüm, together with the Annals of Metz cited before, testifies in his Chronicle at the year 889 that the Hungarians came from the same region, in these words: In the year of the Lord's Incarnation 889 the nation of the Hungarians, most ferocious and more cruel than any beast, in past ages unheard of for this reason, that it was not even named, from the Scythian

realms, and from the marshes which the Tanais spreads into immensity by its overflow, went forth. From these it is clear that the same region of Scythia was inhabited by the Huns and the Hungarians, before they migrated into Pannonia.

[41] nor is it an obstacle that some say the Hungarians were previously unknown: One difficulty, however, occurs in these words of Rhegino, namely why he says that the Hungarians were previously unknown: for, since he was not ignorant of the Huns, he seems to judge that the Hungarians were distinct from them. Certainly Schönleben uses that argument in the Annals of Carniola at the year 889, where, having recited the words, he interposes this observation: If it was not named or heard of in former ages (the nation of the Hungarians), then it is different from the nation of the Huns. I answer that the Huns who had crossed into Europe were not unknown to Latin writers; but that the same men could be ignorant that so great a multitude of them still remained at that time in Asia, and that therefore Rhegino could write that the Hungarians had before been neither heard of nor named; even if after the coming of the Hungarians he had really believed them to be a Hunnish nation. Thus Luitprand in his History, book 1, chapter 2, writes of the Hungarians: The nation of the Hungarians, whose savagery almost all nations have experienced, … was at that time held by us all as unknown. The nation of the Hungarians, therefore, or that part of the Huns which had not yet left its ancient seats, was unknown before its coming, and had been unknown for many centuries in Europe, or at least to most Latins. But from this it does not follow that that nation did not spring from the ancient Huns. Rhegino indeed and other writers of that time could be of that opinion, because the manners of the Hungarians were much different from the manners of those Huns who had remained in Pannonia and Dacia, and had gradually taken on other manners and a milder way of acting; but, if they really thought so, which appears uncertain to me, their authority ought not to prevail over the various reasons which persuade us that it is the same nation.

[42] [secondly because they formerly had the same manners, thirdly because the likeness of the name indicates it:] The second reason is drawn from the manners of the ancient Huns and of the first Hungarians: for these are represented as very similar by contemporary writers. Ammianus in the place indicated describes the Huns not only as wandering, but also as wholly without buildings; likewise wandering are the Scythians described in Rhegino, from whom he says the Hungarians set out. Next both are said to be clothed in skins; to both almost the same food is attributed, to both the perpetual use of horses, and the same manner of fighting. In fine, so great is the likeness between what Ammianus relates of the manners of the Huns and Rhegino of those of the Hungarians, that you may easily recognize the same nation. But I would rather these be read in the authors themselves than repeated here without necessity, especially since the Hungarians with the Christian faith took on at the same time other manners. The third reason may be taken from the name itself, and Otrokocsi chiefly uses this argument, who inquires into the origins of all the names — with what success, let others judge. It is not necessary for us to investigate the etymology of the names Hunni or Huni and Chuni from Hebrew roots by uncertain reasoning, in order that it may appear that the word Hungari arose from them by a slight change, for the very likeness of those words suggests it. Moreover the Huns already before had various names by which they were called among ancient writers, and some were nearer to the present-day name of the Hungarians than to the ancient name of the Huns. Thus Hunugari they are once called in Jornandes, who elsewhere more often calls them Huns: Onogoria their region is called by the anonymous Ravenna writer of the seventh century: Unnuguri Simocatta reckons among the Huns, book 7, chapter 8. By other neighbouring names too others have called the Huns, until at last, after the final migration, the name of the Hungarians prevailed.

[43] Nevertheless the Hungarians were not so constantly so called after those times and the Hungarians are also now and then called Huns by the Greeks: that other names too were not given to them. Pagi at the year 896 observes the following about them: That continuator (of the Frankish Annals of Fulda in Freher, tome 1, page 55) calls the Hungarians, or Ungari, Avars (and also Ungari): which ought not to seem wonderful, since the Avars, Turks, and Hungarians were Hunnish nations; and the Hungarians inhabited the same seats at the Danube which the Avars had before occupied. Nicetas in book 2 calls the Hungarians now Ungri, now Παίονας, that is, Pannonians, from the seats which they had inhabited: sometimes he calls them Huns, as also Suidas does, by the common name of the nation. You may see from this that the Greeks did not distinguish between Huns and Hungarians: for in book 3 Nicetas says of the inhabitants of Pannonia: The Paeones, who are also called Huns and Hungarians. And Suidas in his Lexicon explains the word Οὔννοι by the word Οὔγγαροι, in Latin Hunni, Hungari. But since the Greeks were nearer to the former seats of the Hungarians, their authority ought to prevail over German writers, if these had really been of another opinion.

[44] Having observed these things, let us again hear Pagi, who goes on thus: by the same also frequently called Turks. Hepidannus in his Annals at the year 889 calls the Ungari Agarenes, and says: "In whose times (namely of Arnolf king of Germany) the Agarenes first came into these regions." But not only by the appellation of Avars, after they had subdued Pannonia to themselves, but also by that of Turks are the Hungarians designated by historians. For Porphyrogenitus makes the Turks bordering on the Patzinacites and Russians, and in chapter XII of the book On Administering the Empire says that the Turks have on the West Francia, on the North the Patzinacites, or Transylvanians, on the South Great Moravia, which they subdued: and that the Chrobati (today the Croats) are also neighbours toward the mountains. But it is established that even today Hungary is bounded by Transylvania, Croatia, Moravia, and Russia; and is divided from Croatia by the river Save. These boundaries will presently be examined. Let us meanwhile hear the rest: Luitprand, he says, chapters 2 and VIII, calls the same now Hungarians, now Turks. Zonaras in Leo the Wise mentions Turks at the Ister, who are also called Ungri: … and finally in Nicephorus Phocas the Turks, who are also called Ungri, are said to have laid waste Thrace. There might be added Cedrenus, Curopalates, and other Greeks who called the Hungarians Turks.

* Onogoria

§ V. The dukes of the Hungarians before St. Stephen, and their deeds briefly touched upon: the boundaries of the Hungarian kingdom at that time, and the disasters inflicted by them upon Christians.

[ ] The forefathers of St. Stephen, The writers of Hungarian affairs of the fifteenth century, namely Bonfinius, Turoczius, Ranzanus, and others who followed them, reckon from the entry of the Hungarians four generations before St. Stephen, whom they will have to have descended in a direct line from their chief leader. That chief leader was Arpad son of Almus. And Arpad had among his sons Zoltan; the son of Zoltan was Toxus or Toxun, and at last the son of Toxus was Geicha or Geysa, the father of St. Stephen. These four generations agree well enough with the time which is set between the first entry into Hungary and the reign of St. Stephen: for it is about a hundred and ten years. This genealogy can almost wholly be confirmed from Constantine Porphyrogenitus, who lived at that time, and recorded many things about the Hungarians, whom he calls Turks, in the book On Administering the Empire. He in chapter 40 enumerates four sons of Arpad in these words: But it is to be known that Arpad the great prince of Turcia begot four sons, of whom the first was Tarcatzus, the second Jelech, the third Jutotzas, the fourth Zaltas. This Zaltas is doubtless the Zoltan of the Hungarians, of whom the aforesaid writer presently adds: The fourth, Zaltas, had a son Taxis, the same again beyond doubt with Toxus, whom the Hungarians place third among their dukes. Further, Taxis was living while Constantine was writing, that is, a little before the middle of the tenth century, but was not yet duke of the Hungarians: for he asserts another duke of that time, as I shall presently observe. Yet that Toxus was duke the Hungarian writers commonly assert, nor is there reason why we should deny that he was afterwards made duke of the Hungarians; as it is also established that his son Geysa was duke, and that St. Stephen succeeded him.

[46] [among whom Arpad, great-great-grandfather of Stephen, who after the first migration of the Hungarians] Further, these forefathers of St. Stephen do not all seem to have had the same authority among the Hungarians. Arpad was elected their prince, and indeed the first, before the Hungarians had determined to enter Pannonia. These things the aforesaid Constantine relates in chapter 38, and says that he was elected prince by the counsel and impulse of the prince of the Chazars, with whom the Hungarians were allied against the Patzinacites, the enemies of both nations. Now these Patzinacites twice drove the Hungarians from their seats and occupied them; first indeed, before they had elected a prince, from the regions about the Tanais and the Maeotic marsh, toward present-day Moldavia and Transylvania; and then further into Hungary, which they have held ever since. Between this twofold migration Arpad was elected prince of the Hungarians, as Constantine testifies, namely while they were filling Transylvania and the regions neighbouring the Borysthenes. It is not pleasant here to inquire whether the Patzinacites formerly dwelt in that part of Asiatic Muscovy near almost the Northern Ocean, which even now is called Petzora; but it is established that they were always to the North of the Hungarians, whom they drove toward the South, and whom they so divided that one part of them went away toward Persia, and the other at length came into Hungary. It might here be inquired whether that part which withdrew to the East gave origin to the present-day Turks; but this is not the place for it. Let us hear Constantine relating the aforesaid: The nation of the Turks formerly dwelt near Chazaria, … and indeed at that time they were called not Turks, but Sabartoeasphali for a certain reason: and their nations were seven, and they never had a prince either native or foreign, but there were among them certain boëbodi … They dwelt as their helpers in wars. From the three years of cohabitation gather that the Hungarians had already before come thither from elsewhere.

[47] Presently he relates the cause of the migration from that place thus: was elected their prince, But when war had arisen between the Turks and the Patzinacites … the army of the Turks was defeated, and divided into two parts; and one of these indeed, toward the East, inhabited a part of Persia, … but the other part set its seats toward the West with its boëbodus and leader Lebedias in the places called Atelcusu, which the nation of the Patzinacites now inhabits. The Patzinacites indeed extended themselves widely from the Danube through Moldavia and Podolia beyond the Borysthenes *, at the time when Constantine was writing these things, as is gathered from chapter 17, where he describes the region of the Patzinacites. Yet I could scarcely believe that the Hungarians then occupied that whole region, but only the part nearer to present-day Hungary, namely Transylvania, and perhaps a part of Moldavia and of neighbouring Podolia, or even the whole tract as far as the Borysthenes. However that may be, Constantine relates presently after the preceding that envoys were sent a little afterwards by the prince of Chazaria to Lebedias the boëbodus of the Hungarians, that he should accept the principate of the nation. That boëbodus refused the principate, and designated another boëbodus, here called Salmutzes, in Latin Almus, to whom or to whose son Arpad the principate should be given

might be. The son Arpad was elected in preference to his father, whom also, he says, according to the solemn manner and custom of the Chazars, they raised upon a shield and made prince. And before this Arpad the Turks never had any other prince: from whose descendants also to this day the prince of Turcia is constituted. This first prince of the Hungarians was the great-great-grandfather of St. Stephen.

[48] When this prince had been elected, after some years, as Constantine goes on, [and under whose leadership, the Moravian Slavs being driven out, they occupied Hungary.] the Patzinacites, invading the Turks, pursued them with their prince Arpad. The Turks therefore, routed and fleeing and seeking a land in which to place their seats, entered Great Moravia, expelled its inhabitants, and there set their seats, and hold them even to this present day: and from that time the Turks had no war with the Patzinacites. By Great Moravia he does not mean present-day Moravia; but Hungary itself, or at least the greater part of it, which after the disaster of the Avars the Slavs had occupied and called Great Moravia. The king of Moravia was then Zwentibald, otherwise Swantoplucus, and by Constantine called Sphendoplocus, who held Hungary too under the name of Moravia. Against him the Hungarians were called in as auxiliaries, as Luitprand complains, book 1, chapter 5, that they took occasion from this to invade those regions, as was done after the death of Zwentibald, if we believe Constantine Porphyrogenitus: for he in chapter 41, having first described the power of Zwentibald, goes on thus: But after the death of this Sphendoplocus, one year having been passed in peace, and then dissension and civil war having arisen (among the sons of Zwentibald), the Turks invading rooted them out utterly, and occupied their region, which they inhabit to this present day: and what multitude survived, scattered, fled to the neighbouring nations. This cause of occupying Hungary does not conflict with the violence brought by the Patzinacites, but both concurred, as is gathered from chapter 40, where he relates that the Patzinacites with the Bulgarians laid waste the provinces of the Hungarians, when these had gone off on a military expedition, probably with Arnulf against Zwentibald. When therefore on their return they found their own region devastated, they invaded Hungary, which they gradually occupied entirely.

[49] The boundaries of the Hungarians to the East, The boundaries of the Hungarian kingdom, as also of the neighbouring nations, the same author Constantine describes in various places, who could and ought to have known them. But since he repeats many things in a slightly different manner, his statements must be diligently weighed and compared with one another. He gives the boundaries of the Hungarians in chapter 40 in these words: In this place, however, certain ancient monuments survive; among which the Bridge of the emperor Trajan at the beginning of Turcia, and Belegrada, which is distant three days' journey from that bridge, where there is the tower of the holy and great emperor Constantine, and again along the course of the river stands Sirmium, which is two days' journey from Belegrada: thence Great Moravia, lacking baptism, which the Turks laid waste, and whose prince formerly was Sphendoplocus. And these indeed are the monuments and names along the river Ister. But the further parts, which are all inhabited by Turks, now have their names from the rivers running through them. The first of them is the Timeses; the second the Tutes; the third the Moreses; the fourth the Crisus; the fifth the Titza. These are rivers of Hungary, where it borders on Transylvania, in which some of them rise. But he does not mention all the rivers of Hungary.

[50] [where their neighbours after a fashion were the Bulgarians, and the Patzinacites, otherwise placed to the North:] The nations bordering on the Hungarians he enumerates more fully in this manner: But bordering on the Turks toward the East are the Bulgarians; where the river Ister, which is also called the Danube, separates them. These words I judge are so to be understood that he means that Hungary extended itself beyond the Danube to the East as far as the western limits of Bulgaria; but that these limits of the Bulgarians were on this side the Danube. Such indeed are even now the limits of both provinces: and thus Bulgaria is to the East of Hungary, yet inclining to the South. Likewise to the East of Hungary are Wallachia and Transylvania: but those provinces at that time seem to have been inhabited by the Patzinacites, whom he places to the North on account of other provinces of theirs more to the North. Toward the North the Patzinacites are neighbours to the Hungarians, as Constantine goes on. But, as I have already warned, they were so to the North that at the same time they extended partly to the East through Moldavia certainly and Bessarabia, where they touched the Danube. Constantine himself asserts this in chapter 42 in these words: But from the lower parts of the Danube, over against Distra, Patzinacia runs forward, and it is extended as far as Sarcel, which is a town of the Chazars; namely to the North beyond the Borysthenes as far as the upper parts of the river Tanais, where he places the town of Sarcel.

[51] That the Patzinacites were also in Transylvania various writers judge, who by the Patzinacites understand the Transylvanians. [The Patzinacites also in Transylvania: the neighbouring nations to the West and to the South:] But Hungarian writers sometimes speak as if they had believed that Transylvania in the time of St. Stephen was inhabited by Hungarians. But at num. 60 and following I shall show that there was a certain prince of the Patzinacites whom Stephen conquered, and that Transylvania was then a province of the Patzinacites. The Hungarians therefore had seats in Transylvania, after they had been driven from the more northern provinces, but from these seats they were again expelled, and at length placed firm seats in Hungary. Further, as the Patzinacites were only in part to the North of the Hungarians, so he could also have named other nations to the North, and especially the Russians. But because he was writing only those things which his son needed to know for administering the empire, he did not attend to an altogether exact geography, nor does he mention all the nations, but describes chiefly those which could be of more profit or harm in wars. To the West are the Franks, says the aforesaid writer, to the South the Chrobati; comprehending under the Franks the kingdom of Germany or Bavaria, founded by them, which extended as far as the limits of Hungary, and is rightly placed to its West. Croatia even now lies with Bosnia and Servia to the South of Hungary. Constantine, however, under the Croats seems to comprehend present-day Bosnia and perhaps part of Servia, for in chapter 31 he attributes immense forces to the Croats, and reckons Belgrade also among their cities. These Croats were Christians, as he there relates; and there was at the same time another Great Croatia not baptized, namely in a part of Poland toward the mountains; but of this there is no question. All these things sufficiently show that Hungary was at that time bounded by almost the same limits by which today Hungary properly so called is bounded: and to have shown this suffices for our purpose.

[52] The Hungarians, having been established in Hungary in the manner that has been said, utterly abolished the Christian religion, [they afflict the Christians with many disasters down to the middle of the tenth century,] and brought upon their neighbours many troubles and evils, which are related by various writers. In the year 896 the Hungarians made peace with the Greek emperor, and on that occasion waged a grievous war upon the Bulgarians, by whom at length they were repulsed with great slaughter. In the year 900 they laid waste Italy, and then a great part of Bavaria, profaning all sacred things in Austria, as Pagi has it at that year, num. 17 and 25. That the same again invaded Italy in the year 902, Pagi will have it at num. 12. In the year 907 and the following they wretchedly laid waste various provinces of Germany. Having crossed the Rhine in the year 917, they invaded Alsace and Lorraine. Nay in the year 924 also, as Flodoard testifies in his Chronicle, they not only afflicted Italy, but also penetrated through the Alps into Gaul. Other disasters again they brought upon Germany and Gaul in the years 925 and 926. But in the year 934 they were afflicted with an immense disaster by Henry king of Germany; and in the same year the Hungarians began to harass the Greeks, running out as far as Constantinople. Again in the year 937 they laid waste Germany and almost all Gaul as far as the Ocean, and returned through Italy into Hungary. Having attacked the Greeks again in the year 943, they withdrew after a treaty was made. In the year 949, having again entered Gaul through Italy, they afflicted it with many disasters: as also in the year 954, when they returned through the Alps and Italy. These things briefly indicated sufficiently show how much terror and disaster they brought upon Germany, Gaul, and Italy: for, since they were hitherto pagans, they burned and destroyed monasteries, churches, and other holy places, and roamed so freely as if no one had dared to resist.

[53] under various leaders, being then without a prince. Nevertheless at that time they do not seem to have had a prince whom all were compelled to obey. This is gathered from Constantine Porphyrogenitus, chapter 40, where he speaks thus of the commonwealth of the Hungarians: But these eight nations of the Turks are not subject to their own princes, but each of them, according to the rivers by which they are distinguished, have determined by mutual compact among themselves to bring aid in common with all zeal and care to whatsoever part it may befall to be harassed by war. But they have as first leader the prince of the army from the stock of Arpad, with whom are two others, the gylas and the carchan, who fill the place of judges. And each nation has its own peculiar prince; and gylas and carchan are not proper names, but dignities. And so no one seems to have succeeded to the principate of the whole nation after Arpad, before Toxus his grandson and the grandfather of St. Stephen was elected.

* i.e. of the Hungarians

* thus they called their leaders

* the Dnieper

§ VI. Whether through the baptism of some there was any hope of the conversion of the Hungarians before the middle of the tenth century; it soon fell away.

[ ] Two dukes of the Hungarians baptized at Constantinople, as is reported, If we believe the Greek writers, before the middle of the tenth century some of the Hungarians received the Christian faith. Let us hear about these John Scylitzes Curopalates in his History, rendered into Latin by Gabius, folio 62: But the Turks (by whom he designates the Hungarians) did not cease to break into the region of the Romans (that is, of the Greeks), and to lay it waste, until Bolesodes their leader, having resolved to embrace the faith of the Christians, came to Constantinople and was received in baptism by the emperor Constantine, adorned with the dignity of the patriciate, and made master of much money, and then returned home. A little after, likewise Gylas, himself also a leader of the Turks, entering Constantinople, is baptized, and he too, endowed with equal gifts and honours, departed. But he took with him and brought back a certain monk, Hierotheus by name, who was held religious and pious, chosen bishop of Turcia by Theophylact, who, having set out thither, brought over many from barbarian error to the religion of the Christians. But Gylas remained in the faith, neither himself invading the Romans, nor neglecting captive Christians, but redeeming them for a price and taking care to restore them to liberty. But Bolesodes, having violated the divine covenant, often led his whole army against the Romans. And when he had resolved to do this against the Franks also, being taken by Otto their king, he was put upon the cross.

[55] who are also said to have brought Bishop Hierotheus into Hungary: The same things Cedrenus relates in his Compendium of Histories, tome 2, page 636 of the Paris edition. But the leader of the Hungarians, whom he calls Bolosudes, he says feigned to embrace the Christian faith: and the king of the Franks, by whom he designates the king

of Germany, he wrongly names John; whereas he should have been called Otto, with Curopalates. Zonaras too in his Annals, book 16, num. 21, narrated the same things in this manner: The Turks (that the Ungari are so called we have said above), who were wont to overrun the other Roman provinces, were quiet for a time. For their leader Bologudes, and Gylas the prince of a certain part, came to the emperor, and both, initiated in the most sacred laver of regeneration, and imbued with the mysteries of our religion, and adorned with the patrician dignity, and laden with money, returned to their own seats, having brought with them a bishop, through whom many came to the knowledge of God. And Gylas indeed remained in the faith and kept the peace. The other, having broken the covenant which he had struck with God, bore arms against the Romans; and having attempted to do the same against the Franks, was taken and put upon the cross. So he, wrapping the name of the bishop of the Hungarians in silence.

[56] Of Bologudes or Bolosudes it is to be noted that he was not of the descendants of Arpad, these were not the supreme dukes of the Hungarians, but others, nor duke of the Hungarians, even though he is called duke by the Greeks, but held only the third place of dignity among the Hungarians. The emperor Constantine, who wrote about the time in which these things are said to have been done, in chapter 40 enumerates the descendants of Arpad and certain other chief men of the Hungarians, among whom is Bultzus, whom many things persuade us to be the same as Bologudes. This Bultzus was third in dignity in the army of the Hungarians, or their carchas. Take the words of Constantine: And Tebeles (grandson of Arpad), dying, left a son Termatzus, who lately returned into favour with Bultzus the third prince and carcha of Turcia. And this Bultzus the carchas is the son of Cale the carcha; and Cale is a proper name, whereas CARCHAS is a dignity; just as also GYLAS, which nevertheless is greater than carchas. A prince, as he had said before, they had at that time none other than that of the army; and he was Phalitzis grandson of Arpad, and had joined to himself the gylas, whose name Constantine does not express, and the carchan, who was named Bultzus. And so these two princes, who are said to have been baptized truly or feignedly at Constantinople in the time of Constantine Porphyrogenitus, seem to have been second and third in dignity and command in the army of the Hungarians. As for Zonaras's saying that Gylas was prince of a certain part, it does not agree with the statements of Porphyrogenitus, who twice repeats that that name was one of dignity, not a proper name; and the emperor, to whom they are said to have come, and who diligently investigated such things, could know this more correctly than the other writers cited, who were later by a whole century.

[57] I would not indeed flatly deny that baptism was received by those two dukes of the Hungarians in the reign of Constantine Porphyrogenitus. [and their conversion does not seem to have been sincere, or at any rate lacked effect.] Nevertheless the reasons to be alleged below will in some measure compel us to doubt the whole matter. But if we are altogether willing to believe that they were really baptized, a greater doubt will arise, whether they professed the faith sincerely, or rather fraudulently feigned it. They could do such things in pretence, in order to survey Constantinople more freely, and to see for themselves whether there might not be some means of invading it. Certainly Bultzus does not seem to have embraced the faith sincerely, since he soon after deserted it, and often attacked the Greeks with all his forces, as Curopalates testifies, although he had gone away endowed with the patrician dignity and much money. Whether Gylas was more faithful I equally doubt; since by his office he had to follow the army. Those Greeks indeed, later by a whole century, assert that he remained in the faith: the same assert that many were converted to the faith by Hierotheus. But I find nowhere any mention of Hierotheus among the Hungarians, Germans, or any Latin writers; nowhere are there any traces of a conversion made by him, none of his episcopate. Rather all things persuade us that the Hungarians for many years yet were as estranged from the Christian faith as they had been before. Wherefore I strongly suspect that that Hierotheus, if he really set out into Hungary and was ordained bishop of the Hungarians, accomplished nothing there: for if by his labour the first seeds of the Christian faith had been sown in Hungary, posterity would not have been so ungrateful as to have allowed his name to be wrapped in the deepest silence. This is my opinion, which will be confirmed by more in the course of the work. But other is the opinion of Godofredus Schwartz, or at any rate he wished to instil another into his readers.

[58] Schwartz wrongly confounds that Gylas with Gyula prince of Transylvania, That writer traces the conversion of all Hungary from this baptism of the two princes. He sets forth his opinion thus. That Gylas converted at Constantinople was prince of Transylvania, and had a daughter Sarolta, who married Geysa the father of St. Stephen. Through Sarolta therefore Geysa was converted, and by his labours, as also of his son St. Stephen, the faith was promulgated through all Hungary. And so from the conversion of Gylas is to be traced the conversion of all Hungary, if one cares to believe Schwartz, who confidently affirms many things; but proves none of these by fit reasons or authorities. Let us hear then first how solidly he shows that Gylas was duke of Transylvania. That writer sins first because without foundation he supposes that Gyula the prince of Transylvania, whose daughter Geysa is afterwards said to have married, was a Hungarian by nation: for he ought to have shown this before he attempted to prove that the Hungarian Gylas, who is reported to have been converted at Constantinople, is the same as he. For it is clear that they are two different men, if the one is a Hungarian, the other of another nation. Then, relying on this false supposition, he reasons no more rightly in this manner: The whole matter comes to this, he says on page 28, that we should teach with what sound the Hungarians pronounce their Gyula. Then, having observed certain things about the double G of the Hungarians, he says that it is pronounced DIU-LA, as a dissyllable, but written Gyula: And this, he says, concerning the Hungarian word, to which the Gylas of the Greeks, so far as their manner of writing allowed, entirely corresponds. For my part I do not see it, since the Greeks did not express the word as the Hungarians write it, nor as they pronounce it. The Latin writers, who called Gyula Julus, came nearer to the Hungarians' manner of pronouncing. But there is no need to dispute about the pronunciation or writing of the word, since other arguments are at hand which utterly overthrow the gratuitously asserted conjecture. First, Gylas, as Constantine testifies, who was then reigning, chapter 41, is a name of dignity, not a proper name; but Gyula is a proper name. And so those names must be different, nor does Gylas signify the prince of Transylvania, which the Hungarians did not even possess, but a leader of the army subordinate to the supreme leader.

[59] the reasons by which he strives to prove it, Schwartz meanwhile goes on thus at num. 31: And that that Gylas of the Greeks is the same as the Gyula of the Hungarians, reasons partly chronological, partly drawn from the situation of the region whose dominion he held, do not permit us to doubt. For, as the Hungarian writers relate, he ruled Transylvania under his own auspices, and the memory of his name has been retained down to our own century by the capital of Transylvania, Alba Julia, called by the Hungarians Gyula-Fejervar, that is, the White City of Gyula: and hence the surrounding region also, distinguished by the name of the county of Alba, is called by the Hungarians Gyula-Fejer-varmegye… From Transylvania, therefore, the nearest road lay open to duke Gyula into the city of Constantine. Add that the borders of his prefecture touched the empire of the Constantinopolitans; which the words of Cedrenus and Zonaras, by which they testify that he kept peace with the Romans and abstained from all incursions into the borders of the Romans *, teach abundantly. Whence Gyula seems, moved by that very neighbourhood, first to have had more familiar dealings with the Greeks, and, having been taught sounder things by them, then to have sought Constantinople. Finally the chronological reckoning, to be made more accurately a little later, shows that our Gyula and Geysa the father of Stephen were contemporaries, so that the latter could take the former's daughter to wife and beget Stephen of that marriage. Thus he, presently bringing the chronology back to about the year 950, and subjoining: No laborious conjectures, therefore, no portents or fables are needed to explain whence that blessed light shone upon Geysa and his nation, if we affirm that Sarolta, whom Gyula begot a little before or a little after he had recovered his senses from the errors of paganism, was chosen by God chiefly for this work. And so, in place of St. Stephen and his father Geysa, by whose labours chiefly it had hitherto been believed that the Hungarians were converted, that writer thrusts upon us Gyula and Sarolta, that he may substitute the Greek Hierotheus for the Latin doctors.

[60] But how greatly Schwartz sins in these things, they are empty, first because Transylvania at that time was not the Hungarians', which he glories at num. 19 to be of his own invention, will appear in a few words. First, Gyula, who was set over Transylvania in the time of Constantine Porphyrogenitus, was not a Hungarian prince, but a Patzinacite: so that he cannot be the same as the Gylas who was baptized at Constantinople, or else this Gylas was a Patzinacite, not a Hungarian. My witness is the man most eminent in dignity and in the ornaments of letters, as Schwartz himself calls him at num. 25, and the same a contemporary, the emperor Constantine, who not obscurely attributes Transylvania to the Patzinacites. Hear him at chapter 37, where he describes the dominion of the Patzinacites: And Patzinacia indeed is divided in its entirety into eight themes (that is, provinces), which has also as many great princes. And these themes are as follows. The first is Ertem, the second Tzur; the third Gyla, &c. That that theme Gyla is Transylvania, various things indicate. For presently four provinces situated between the Borysthenes and the Danube are enumerated, and those four are described thus: Namely the theme Giazichopon borders on Bulgaria (because it is situated on the Danube in Bessarabia and Moldavia); the lower theme of Gyla is nearest to Turcia; the theme Charoboe lies next to Russia; but the theme Jabdiertim borders on the tributary villages of the Russian region, to wit the Ultini, Derbleni, Lenzenini, and the rest of the Slavs. The first province borders on Bulgaria and therefore on the Danube; the third on Russia, namely Black Russia; the fourth also on the Russians and Slavs, so that these two were in present-day Podolia: therefore the second province, called Gyla, which was nearest to Turcia, or Hungary, can nowhere more fitly be found than in Transylvania: for thus too it is understood why, as he presently adds, Patzinacia was distant from Turcia by four days' journey, namely on account of the very great mountains by which Transylvania is enclosed.

[61] Hence therefore it is more rightly understood why Alba Julia is called by the Hungarians Gyula-Fejervar, as is proved by various reasons, or the White City of Gyula, namely from the province to which that name was formerly given, unless the Hungarians so pronounce the Latin name Julia that Gyula is formed from Julia. Take another passage of Constantine, chapter 40, where he has thus: But the place which the Turks first occupied is called from the river flowing between Etel and Cuzu, in which the Patzinacites now dwell; by whom indeed the Turks, driven out and fleeing, set their seats there where they now dwell; namely in Hungary. What, I pray, province was called Etel or Atel, as he writes in chapter 38, unless Transylvania, from the river Aluta, commonly called the Alt? The Turks even now call Transylvania Ertel, with only one letter added. And so the Patzinacites then held

Transylvania, from which they had expelled the Hungarians: and this agrees with the very tradition and history of the Hungarians: for they say that their ancestors settled for some years in Transylvania, and then came into Hungary. The same is gathered from this, that not the Hungarians alone inhabit Transylvania, and that it is distinguished by name from Hungary proper: for at their coming they expelled all the inhabitants, and called their dominion Hungary; but neither of these happened in the provinces which the Hungarians afterwards added to their kingdom, among which Transylvania itself must be reckoned, subjected by St. Stephen, as we shall see in its place. Curopalates too so describes the lands of the Patzinacites that Transylvania must altogether be included in them: The nation of the Pazzinacae, he says at folio 116, is Scythian: … and they inhabit places beyond the Ister, the plains reaching from the river Borysthenes to Pannonia. Cedrenus agrees in these words, page 775: They (the Patzinacites) inhabit beyond the Ister the plains stretched out from the river Borysthenes as far as Pannonia. Suidas, at the word Daci, says that the Daci in his time were called Patzinacites, namely because they possessed almost all ancient Dacia. From these it appears how empty are the boasts of Schwartz, who seeks a Hungarian Gylas in Transylvania, and invents him as the apostle of Hungary along with his daughter Sarolta and Bishop Hierotheus, of whose labours for the faith there was nowhere any mention among the Hungarians.

[62] secondly because Transylvania was afterwards converted by St. Stephen. How improbable this is, Gyula the son of that Gyula teaches, who made war on St. Stephen because he was propagating the Christian religion in his kingdom. That war between the Transylvanians and the Hungarians is certain, and when the Transylvanian prince had been conquered, the Christian faith was received in Transylvania, as we shall see in its place. And so the Christian religion did not penetrate from Transylvania into Hungary, but Stephen first brought it into Transylvania. Let us hear about these things Schwartz himself, who at num. 34 writes thus: Two things may be opposed to what has hitherto been said. First, that Gyula, the brother of Sarolta, most addicted to pagan errors, opposed St. Stephen above all when he was endeavouring to imbue the whole nation with the knowledge of Christ, so far indeed that the holy King was compelled to lead an army against his uncle, who had first sounded the trumpet. But, God favouring the better cause, Gyula was conquered, stripped of his province, and carried off into Hungary with all his family; from which time Transylvania was joined to the kingdom of Hungary. So Turoczius, Bonfinius, Ranzanus; as also other older writers. Schwartz indeed answers that Gyula the son fell away from his father's piety; but this is said quite improbably, since he adduces no witness of the piety of the father Gyula, no indication of the son's apostasy, no trace of the Christian faith in Transylvania at that time. How too will he reconcile with his own opinion these his own words: From which time Transylvania was joined to the kingdom of Hungary? True indeed these are; but at war with Schwartz's statements. For if Transylvania was not the Hungarians', he who held it was not a Hungarian prince; therefore the Hungarian prince Gylas, who is said to have been baptized at Constantinople, was not prince of Transylvania, and so the whole machine of Schwartz, resting on this foundation, must needs collapse.

[63] But someone will say, at least the Hungarian Gylas was converted at Constantinople, [Moreover that conversion of the Hungarians rests on the testimony of three Greeks alone,] and brought with him Bishop Hierotheus, through whom many others were converted. This indeed Zonaras, Curopalates, and Cedrenus assert, for whose authority Schwartz ambitiously fights, because he was not ignorant that that conversion of the Hungarians, and Bishop Hierotheus himself, are wholly unknown to the Hungarian writers and to all other Latins, and he confesses at num. 41 that the whole matter rests only on the testimony of the Greeks, namely of the three already named, whom the Latins not only do not support, but plainly even contradict, since they place the conversion of the Hungarians both later and attribute it to others. Let us hear what he brings forward for their indubitable credit, as he calls it at num. 35, at num. 41, where he treats of them with a wonderful circuit of words: Testimonies so constituted, he says, must first of all be established, that their credit cannot justly be called in question. And although they were not present at the event, yet they were not further off than is right, being famous about the end of the eleventh century and the beginning of the twelfth. Take note, reader, how versatile in every direction is the wit of this writer. By his own reckoning these Greeks were distant from the event they narrate by about a hundred and fifty years, and yet were not further off than is right. But at num. 3 Sigebert, who lived at the same time as the aforesaid, and who is there cited about a fact later by fifty years at least, is numbered among the later writers. I would not here defend the opinion of Sigebert there rejected. But I should like to inquire why Sigebert, nearer by fifty years, is too far from the event, if the Greeks, more remote by so much time, were not further off than is right? The only reason, I think, is that Sigebert's narration displeased Schwartz, but the report of the Greeks pleased him. But it will please no man of sense that Schwartz, not here only but everywhere in his little work, exalts beyond their desert the writers who favour him, but depresses below their desert those who oppose him.

[64] He goes on in this manner: Next, as will at once appear to those who compare those writers with one another, whose authority Schwartz proclaims too ambitiously: they all transferred into their Annals one ancient record, contemporary with the events described; for they use the same sentences, nay almost the same words. And to me indeed Zonaras seems to have simply followed the first author, while Cedrenus and Curopalates each supplied from his own opinion the name of the king of the Franks, or rather of Germany, under whom duke Bulchu underwent punishment. Whence it came about that Cedrenus, a private man and a monk, so exclusively fixed on the reading of ancient codices that in the deeds of more recent times he was a stranger, fell into that pleasant error, saying John where he ought to have said Otto. But Scylitzes, living in the light of men, having discharged the honour of curopalates in the imperial court, whence the appellation clung to him, could not equally be ignorant of things done either in his own time or in a time not long past. That the author of this record, which we have affirmed those three to have used, lived about the times of Constantine, we are not permitted to doubt by the names both of the dukes baptized in the city of Constantine and of Bishop Hierotheus brought to the Hungarians; which certainly without the support of letters would not have endured a century and more. But if they did endure, the matter must have been divulged and publicly known to all, such as could not be blotted out of men's minds in the space of a century. If this is a just apology, by which the credit of those Greeks is placed in safety, any little tales whatsoever will easily obtain credit, provided their writers have expressed the names of the persons: for by the same reasons it may be contended that the account was drawn from ancient records.

[65] those three probably copied one another, Schwartz added a note, conceived in these words: Many think that Cedrenus, Scylitzes, and Zonaras copied one another's statements in good faith. This indeed is much more probable than that they all drew from the same record. Nevertheless this conjecture does not please our critic: But, he says, whether men of the same age could do that, without the most disgraceful mark of plagiarism, in one and the same place and almost at the same time, or would have borne to do it while wholly careless of their reputation, I could not easily persuade myself. For what stands in the way of their all having drawn their matter from the same sources? Whence that likeness in narrating, and yet also some, and in very many places quite conspicuous, unlikeness. Thus indeed he. But there is no doubt that Cedrenus copied his matter from Scylitzes, whom he imitated almost word for word from the reign of Michael Curopalates to Isaac Comnenus, as Oudin testifies, On Writers, tome 2, col. [ ], who cites various writers, among whom Leo Allatius, On the Georges and their writings, page 334, speaks thus of Cedrenus: He completed a work patched together out of various histories, not only in their sentiments but word for word: which, if they were reclaimed by their authors, he himself would remain as naked as that little crow. I know not with what face he sold as his own the things he transcribed, so that you would scarcely find one sentence or two in so vast a volume that is Cedrenus's own and lawful. That Zonaras too borrowed this event from Scylitzes is very probable, although Zonaras borrowed his words less. And so it is in no way probable that some ancient record went before those three writers. The only unlikeness occurs in the names, and that is to be imputed to their negligence in transcribing.

[66] nor is credit to be given them in everything, But even if Curopalates, who seems the first to have written this history, had had some older writing, and this were established for us, ought credit on that account at once to be given to his words, when all older writers, Greeks as well as Latins, are silent? Is what is found written in any scrap of paper at once to be held true? Curopalates could indeed have found some scrap in which was described the baptism of the dukes of the Hungarians, as also the mission of Hierotheus into Hungary, and thence too, or from elsewhere, have learned the apostasy of Bolosudes and his unhappy end. Let us suppose such a scrap found by him or by Zonaras; shall we thence conclude that everything happened as Curopalates narrated it so long afterwards? By no means. For the author of such a writing could believe that things were done in earnest which were done as on a stage, and rashly cast onto paper the first rumours about the conversion of certain Hungarians; and in that way draw into error incautious writers, who after a hundred and thirty years were to find that scrap, rashly written out, before the truth of the matter had been sifted and had become sufficiently known. Whether therefore the aforesaid authors wrote from an older record, or from popular report alone, they are too remote for credit to be given to their statements in a matter which from other considerations is most suspect of falsity, and which they so narrate that it is plain they were not exactly informed of the truth of the matter, since they mix in various errors, which I set forth in a few words.

[67] They err, first, when they call Bolesodes duke of the Hungarians or prince in such a way because they mixed in many errors, as if he had been prince of all the Hungarians: for Bultzus, whom Schwartz confesses to be the same as Bolesodes, was only third in the army of the Hungarians, nor was he of the descendants of Arpad, as I showed at num. 56. They err, secondly — Curopalates and Cedrenus — when they affirm that the whole army was often led by Bolesodes against the Greeks, and indeed after his baptism: for neither do they themselves record those irruptions of the Hungarians, nor are they related by others, nor are they probable, since about the middle of the tenth century the Hungarians were too much occupied in Italy, Gaul, and Germany to be able to lead their whole army against the Greeks. Hence you may gather with how great negligence in writing those Greeks proceeded, who dream of often-repeated irruptions of Bolesodes, and touch upon no skirmish of the Hungarians with the Greeks, and do not even name Bolesodes anywhere else. Zonaras a little more modestly

said, He bore arms against the Romans, suspecting perhaps that this could have been done by Bolesodes, even though he himself did not know it. They err, thirdly, when they call the other duke of the Hungarians Gylas, as if it were a proper name, whereas it is one of dignity, as Constantine Porphyrogenitus testifies, On Administering the Empire, chapter 38. Cedrenus errs, fourthly, when he calls the king of Germany John.

[68] With clear errors they mingle other things which are not probable. and many other improbable things, It is not probable that many were converted in Hungary by Hierotheus, since of that Hierotheus and of his deeds there is nowhere any memory, and many things persuade us that the Hungarians long afterwards remained in unbelief. No more probable is it that Gylas persisted in the faith, for the same reasons. But these things they could easily write for this reason alone, that they found nothing to the contrary, and knew that the Hungarians had been converted to the faith at the time when they were writing. They write that Hierotheus was ordained bishop of Turcia, that is, of Hungary, by the patriarch Theophylact; and they do not even express where he fixed his episcopal see; nor do they explain whether he had joined to himself any presbyters and other sacred ministers. Which is a manifest sign that they wrote of a matter which they did not sufficiently know. Zonaras certainly, while he cautiously passes over the names both of Hierotheus and of Theophylact and of Otto, hints that the history was suspect to him. But Cedrenus, who is deservedly called by Lipsius, cited in Oudin, a writer of old wives' tales and careless of the truth, and who copied Curopalates, expressed the names more freely than more truly. But how great authority Curopalates himself can have, if Cedrenus is a writer of old wives' tales, gather from the agreement of the two, which is very great in the deeds of the times of which we treat. Finally, that those three Greeks do not deserve credit about a matter so long past, and so awkwardly narrated, the arguments which I subjoin will establish.

[69] The first argument I take from the silence of all the Greeks because other older Greeks are silent about the whole matter, who wrote after the middle of the tenth century down to almost the end of the eleventh, in which Curopalates wrote. Within that time there were not a few Greek historians who could not be ignorant of the conversion of the Hungarians, and who do not seem likely to have omitted it, if it had been begun at Constantinople and advanced by Hierotheus. Various writers described the reign of Constantine Porphyrogenitus, who continued Theophanes, and were published by Combefis; but none of them recorded this conversion of the Hungarians, even though they seem to have written in the same century. The emperor Constantine himself wrote On Administering the Empire to his son Romanus, and indeed at that very time in which the whole business must have been transacted a little before, if it had been done. Nevertheless Constantine not only is silent about that conversion, but also testifies in express words that the Hungarians had not yet at that time been converted. Hear his words at chapter 40: Thence Great Moravia, that is, Hungary, lacking baptism. From these words it necessarily follows that what Curopalates with his followers has about the conversion of the Hungarians is fabulous, provided it can be shown that Constantine wrote after the time designated by them.

[70] among these Constantine, who wrote in the year 949, Constantine published that book about the year 950, as can easily be shown: for he wrote to his son Romanus already crowned, in order to instruct him in rightly administering the empire, and after the death of Romanus Lacapenus, of whom, as of one deceased, he speaks in chapter 14. Now Romanus Lacapenus, formerly emperor, died in the month of July of the sixth Indiction, that is, in the year 948, as Pagi there has it at num. 3. But Romanus the younger in the following year 949 was taken into partnership of the empire by his father Constantine. Let us hear about these things Cedrenus, tome 2, page 635: In the month of July of the sixth Indiction Romanus … paid the debt of nature… Thereupon Constantine Porphyrogenitus, all suspect persons having been removed, and now reigning alone, on the feast day of Easter placed the diadem upon his son Romanus. Romanus therefore was crowned in the year 949, after Lacapenus had died in the month of July of the year 948. Constantine therefore did not write that Work before the year 949; but either in the same year or the following: for in chapter 26, of Lothair king of Italy, who died in the year 950, in the month of November, as Pagi rightly proves at the said year, num. 1, he says, Who is now king of Italy. Again in chapter 27 he says that it was the seventh Indiction while he was writing. But since the seventh Indiction was in the year 949, in that year he had begun to compose his Work, and finished it in the same year or the following, 950.

[71] with whose statements the account of the aforesaid Greeks cannot be reconciled, Now let us see whether the account of the Greeks can stand with the statements of Constantine, who about the year 950 asserted that Hungary lacked baptism. Otto king of Germany and afterwards emperor, in the year 955, on the 10th day of August, won a signal victory over the Hungarians, three of whose dukes were taken and put to death by the noose. This victory many writers have narrated, and among them Pagi at the year 955. Turoczius seems to describe the same disaster of the Hungarians in chapter 25, although he strays much in chronology, since he refers the event to the reign of the emperor Conrad I. By this writer there are named among the captives and slain Leel and Bulchu, illustrious captains, and this Bulchu is believed by various men to be the same as Bolesodes, whom the aforesaid Greek writers said to have been baptized at Constantinople. Between this disaster and the baptism of the Hungarians our Greeks interpose so many things that from their statements that baptism seems to be placed before the year 950. Schwartz must acknowledge this, who at num. 39 reasons thus about the time of that baptism: Finally, it is not to be neglected that Zonaras relates that after the baptism received by the dukes, the Hungarians were quiet for a time, and that again Bulosudes, having broken the covenant, made an inroad upon the Romans. According to Cedrenus (and Curopalates) he attacked the Romans more often with the whole nation. This quiet of the Hungarians and the repeated incursions under the leadership of Bulosudes, until at length the business turned out badly for them and above all for their leader, must certainly have taken up four or five years, if not more, reckoning backwards from the fatal year of Bultzko, which was 955… Let us set therefore the year 950. Thus he rightly sets forth what lay between the baptism and the death of Bulosudes; but those things must have consumed more years, if they had happened. Indeed the quiet that followed the baptism of the dukes was of at least two or three years, or there was no quiet: the ensuing irruptions of the whole nation, often repeated, even if they had been yearly, must have occupied three years at the least. And so the baptism of the dukes of the Hungarians would have to be fixed before the year 950, especially since in the year 954 the Hungarians did not invade the Greeks, but Germany, Gaul, and Italy, as may be seen in Pagi at the said year.

[72] Wherefore that baptism must have happened although it may contain something of truth. before Constantine was writing, nor would he have said that Hungary lacked baptism, if Curopalates with his followers had narrated the truth. If their account contains at least something of truth, and the Hungarian dukes received baptism with a feigned mind (which Constantine could omit, lest he betray to posterity that he had been so deluded), that probably happened about the year 943, in which the Hungarians invaded the Greeks, and, peace having been made, returned. The Continuator of Theophanes, in Romanus Lacapenus, relates the matter in this manner: In the first Indiction, in the month of April, again the Turks (that is, the Hungarians) with vast forces invaded the borders of the Roman dominion. But Theophanes the patrician accubitor, going out, struck a treaty of peace with them, hostages having been received from the more illustrious. And hence it came about that for five years peace and truce were kept. Among the said hostages perhaps were Bulosudes and Gylas, who could feign themselves Christians by receiving baptism, in order the more easily to impose upon the Greeks and be sent back into Hungary. But if they were not among the hostages, but came of their own accord, as the Greeks will have it, they could do it in order the better to recover their hostages. However that may be, the baptism of the Hungarians can be attached to no time more fitly, since the peace lasted for at least five years, and was broken in the reign of Constantine: for the aforesaid continuator of Theophanes, in Constantine, num. 47, says that the Turks or Hungarians ran out as far as the city of Constantinople, but were repulsed by the generals of Constantine and returned home, no mention being made of a peace concluded. From what has been said this conjecture appears probable to me. The Hungarians made peace with the Greeks in the year 943, while Romanus Lacapenus was still reigning; but in the year 944, when Constantine had begun to reign alone, the Hungarian dukes received baptism, but feignedly; and they protracted that dissimulation until in the year 948 or 949 they again began to break into the dominions of the Greeks, so that Constantine could know, while he was writing his little work, that their conversion had not been sincere. These things are said on the hypothesis that Bulosudes and Gylas received baptism: for I do not think even that sufficiently certain.

[73] To a conversion of the Hungarians begun before the middle of the tenth century the Latin writers are no less contrary. [Against a conversion of the Hungarians before the middle of the tenth century stands the silence of all the Latins,] After the middle of the said century flourished Luitprand, deacon and afterwards bishop of Pavia, who frequently described the Hungarian affairs chiefly of his own time. Not many years after wrote Witikind, monk and historiographer. Toward the end of the same century the Continuator of Rhegino seems to have written, and many others wrote history in the same century and made mention of the Hungarians: but none of them mentioned this conversion of theirs. In the eleventh and twelfth centuries very many universal Chronicles were composed, in which the conversion of the Hungarians is narrated; but nowhere is it said to have had its beginning at Constantinople, or before the middle of the tenth century. Certainly, if this conversion were true, it could not be unknown to so many contemporary or nearly contemporary writers, nor ought it to have been passed over in silence, especially by Luitprand, who so often inveighs against the Hungarians, and who was Otto's envoy at Constantinople. Equally wonderful would be the silence of all the Hungarians about this conversion, if the conversion had taken place. But these arguments from the silence of all the writers, although they press hard, are by no means necessary, since there is no lack of open testimonies for this truth.

[74] the diploma of St. Stephen for the abbey of St. Martin, St. Stephen, in the diploma given for the first abbey of Hungary consecrated to St. Martin, which I shall recite in full at num. 149 and following, speaks thus: For not yet (otherwise, not even) had bishoprics and abbeys besides that place (the abbey of St. Martin, begun by Geysa and completed by Stephen) existed (otherwise, been situated) in the Hungarian kingdom. If in the year 997, of which Stephen treats, there had been no bishopric in the kingdom of the Hungarians, where could the bishopric of Hierotheus have been, where could Hierotheus himself as bishop have had his see? But if Hierotheus fixed an episcopal see nowhere in Hungary, as is established from the alleged words of St. Stephen, it follows that either he was not in Hungary at all, or did not remain there long, whether because he died, or because, the business being unaccomplished and despaired of, he returned to his own country. Piligrinus bishop of Lorch, about the year 974, concerning the beginning

of the conversion of the Hungarians wrote to the Supreme Pontiff Benedict, as of a matter very lately begun. Benedict wrote back to the archbishops of Germany and to the emperor Otto II. Both letters Lambecius published in his Commentaries on the imperial library, book 2, chapter 8, page 641 and following.

[75] and the letters of Piligrinus and Pope Benedict. Now in the letter of Benedict it is said: But now, for which cause we break forth with exulting voices into the praise of Almighty God, not only does the oft-named church of Lorch (which he had said was deserted until the victory of Otto won in the year 955), the terror of enemies ceasing, enjoy peace and tranquillity with its neighbours, but even the very men who were lately enemies now profess, being baptized, that Christ whom they persecuted after the manner of the heathen, and desire now to have priests, and, so far as ignorant men can know, venerate them, and their descendants are seen to restore certain churches in their own land which their fathers destroyed by fire. These words of the Pontiff, as also the words of Piligrinus, to be given more fully afterwards in their place, openly declare that the conversion of the Hungarians was then new, and that it was not begun until after the peace made with Otto. But in what year that peace was concluded is not altogether certain; but it is established that it was concluded after the slaughter of the Hungarians made in the year 955. More testimonies of the Latins we shall bring forward below, where we shall assign the true beginnings of the Christian religion in Hungary. Meanwhile it may safely be asserted that the Christian religion in Hungary was not begun from the baptism of Bulosudes and Gylas, whether because that baptism is wholly fictitious, or because it was received with a feigned mind, or finally because they did not constantly profess the faith.

* him

§ VII. The conversion of the Hungarians begun, in the reign of Geysa the father of St. Stephen, on the occasion of the peace made between Otto and Geysa: Piligrinus bishop of Lorch seeks the faculty of erecting bishoprics in Hungary.

[ ] [The occasion of the conversion of the Hungarians begun under Geysa the father of St. Stephen,] The first prince of the Hungarians who embraced the Christian faith was Geysa, the father of St. Stephen, as various writers testify with Carthuitius. This matter I judge by no means doubtful, even though some have so attributed the praise of Hungary's conversion to St. Stephen that they seem to exclude Geysa. But they seem to have spoken thus because the Saint completed the rude and imperfect beginnings of the faith. The first occasion of the conversion of the Hungarians seems to have arisen from the aforesaid disaster of theirs in the year 955: for, their strength and spirits broken by that immense slaughter, they began to look to establishing peace with the Germans. And the peace gave occasion to Christian preachers to approach the Hungarians and to attempt their conversion. This is not obscurely gathered from the letter of Pope Benedict just cited, in Lambecius, page 647, where these things are read about the church of Lorch, under whose province Pannonia had been while there were Christians in it: Of all the dioceses of the churches of Pannonia, this one (of Lorch) is believed to be the first in antiquity and in the dignity of an archbishopric; which now for many bygone times, deserted through the frequent ravaging of the neighbouring barbarians and reduced to a solitude, remembers no inhabitant of Christian profession, until the most unconquered Augustus and father of his country (Otto I), the begetter indeed of our pious emperor (whom the world desires still to survive and long to rule), blunted their forces by a warlike trophy. But now, &c. He adds the words given at num. 75, namely that the church of Lorch, lying on the border of the Hungarians, as he had said a little before, enjoys peace and tranquillity with its neighbours (the Hungarians), and that the Hungarians, lately enemies, are being converted to Christ. He therefore manifestly hints that from the victory of Otto came the peace, and from the peace the conversion of the Hungarians.

[77] These agree excellently with what Carthuitius in the Life, num. 2, narrates in this manner: [it seems to have arisen from the peace between the emperor Otto and the duke of the Hungarians:] For at that time in which the aforesaid nation (of the Hungarians) was laying waste the church of God, there was among them a certain prince, … by name Geysa, whom he adds to have been then still a pagan. Nevertheless, he says, at the approach of the brightness of a spiritual grace, he began attentively to treat of peace with all the neighbours of the provinces situated round about. It is not clear in what year the peace between Otto and the Hungarians was concluded, nor of the time in which Geysa obtained the principate of the Hungarians. But it is established that Bishop Bruno was sent as envoy by Otto to the Hungarians, and by his labour I plainly judge the peace was arranged; and not only the peace established, but a door also opened to the preachers of the Gospel. Worthy indeed of Otto the Great was this embassy, and worthy the matter to be more accurately sifted, since it lies wrapped in darkness and errors. Mabillon in the Acts of the Saints of the Order of St. Benedict, century 6, part 1, page 81, published from the codex of Tegernsee a letter of the emperor Otto to Piligrinus bishop of Passau, which is conceived in these words: Otto by the grace of God emperor Augustus, to Piligrinus the venerable bishop of the church of Passau, greeting and grace. We send and commit Bishop Bruno to your affection, that with whatsoever necessaries he shall need among you he may be most abundantly aided; and that both with your men and with horses and other things needful on the journey he may be conducted, as near as may be, honourably and most cautiously to the border of the Hungarians. For he is to be sent by us thither, that the king of the same may as speedily as possible be bound to our will. Let it therefore be your great care that this embassy be made most speedily: for if, as it stands with us, it shall prosper, in this both you and all yours will be greatly consulted for. Farewell.

[78] [this peace was not brought about by St. Bruno the martyr, whom Otto III would have sent,] Since there were three Ottos successively emperors, and various Brunos bishops, it must be inquired of which Otto the letter is, and who that Bishop Bruno was. Mabillon explained it of Otto the third, and of St. Bruno crowned with martyrdom among the Russians. But both our Hansizius rightly refuted in his Germania Sacra, tome 1, page 208, where he has thus: In the first place, the author of this letter cannot be Otto the third, which the very title of the letter shows: for he calls himself emperor Augustus, which Otto the third was not yet while Piligrinus was alive: for Piligrinus died in the year 991. Otto the third was created emperor in the year 996. That Bruno the apostle of the Russians is nowhere related by any of the writers, nor by Ditmar, who wrote his Life and was his familiar and, as he himself says, his contemporary and schoolfellow, to have gone off to the Hungarians, or, as Mabillon gathers, to have bestowed labour in recalling the Hungarians to the faith. Moreover that Bruno received episcopal benediction only after the death of Otto the third, in the reign of the emperor Henry the second, as the same Ditmar testifies. But the Bruno whom Otto sent to the Hungarians, and whom he commends to Piligrinus, is called Bruno the bishop. These arguments manifestly prove that Otto III cannot be understood as the author of the aforesaid embassy, nor that that envoy was St. Bruno the apostle of the Russians, of whom we treated at the 14th day of February, and again in tome VI of June, page 217, where this Bruno is shown to be the same as St. Boniface the martyr. What may be objected from Ademar, who seems to favour Mabillon, our Janninck abundantly refuted in the same place, page 221, showing that the whole passage of Ademar swarms with fables and errors, and the aforesaid Hansizius proves the same excellently.

[79] but by Bruno bishop of Verden, sent as envoy to the Hungarians by Otto I, This writer assigns another Bruno, to whom everything agrees, in these words: Indeed in all that time in which Piligrinus presided over the church of Passau, there occurs no Bishop Bruno at all, except one Bruno, from a monk of Corvey bishop of Verden, kinsman of Hermann duke of Saxony, whom Otto the Great, out of his veneration, as Ditmar writes in book 2, appointed successor to Bishop Amalong. He began to sit in the year 962, as the Saxon Annalist testifies. He died about the year 976, far more illustrious in virtues than in birth. Rightly so Hansizius. Mabillon, tome 4 of the Annals, will have it that Bruno, from a monk of Corvey bishop of Verden, was raised to the Pontificate under the name of Gregory V. But he confounds two Brunos; nor does he show, or could rightly show, that that bishop of Verden is the same as Gregory V: for Bruno of Verden died before Gregory V obtained the pontificate. That it was Otto the Great who sent Bruno as envoy to the Hungarians seems to me certain enough: for that envoys of the Hungarians in turn came to Otto we shall see below. It is pleasant on this matter again to hear Hansizius discoursing, who goes on thus: Him therefore (Bruno of Verden) I should judge to have been chosen by Otto the Great, to pave the way for religion by arranging concord with the king of the Hungarians. That was the Otto whose wonderful zeal for propagating religion writers everywhere celebrate. The Saxon Chronographer calls him the most serene mirror of divine religion, after whom there has been none who had zeal to convert the pagan, none who would compel a pagan to enter the church. To him is owed for the greatest part the bringing over of the Bohemians and the Poles to the Christian rites. Attempting therefore this very thing among the Hungarians, by the labour of the aforesaid Bishop Bruno he bent them to counsels of peace, and brought them to this, that they likewise sent envoys to him.

[80] This embassy seems to have been made about the year 972, [who in turn send their envoy to Otto: on the occasion of the peace the faith is preached to the Hungarians.] certainly not before the year 971, in which Piligrinus was made bishop of Passau, nor after 973, in which Otto the Great died. The effect of the embassy was that the Hungarians sent envoys back to Otto in the year 973 about Easter. Let us hear Lambert of Hersfeld in his Annals at the said year: In the year 973 Otto the elder emperor with the younger came to Quedlinburg; and there he celebrated holy Easter on the 10th of the Kalends of April: and thither came the envoys of very many nations, namely of the Romans, Greeks, Beneventans, Italians, Hungarians, Danes, Slavs, Bulgarians, and Russians, with great gifts. With this, says Hansizius, all the chronographers agree, of whom there is none who does not reckon among the rest the envoys of the Hungarians too. And so there is no doubt that at that time there was peace between Otto and the Hungarians. Hence also to the embassy of Otto must be attributed the edicts of Geysa duke of the Hungarians, of which Carthuitius at num. 2 has thus: He (Geysa) moreover established an ordinance that to all Christians wishing to enter his duchy the grace of hospitality and safety should be shown. To clerics and monks he granted the power of approaching his presence, to whom, gladly affording a voluntary access, he took delight that the seed of the orthodox faith, sown in the garden of his breast, should send forth a shoot. This same embassy opened the way to the Hungarians for Piligrinus bishop of Passau, whom the Hungarians of their own accord invited, as will presently appear from his letter, in which the preaching is said to have been begun by a compact of a treaty on the occasion of the peace.

[81] Concerning Piligrinus, from the Ms. catalogue of the Archbishops of Lorch and bishops of Patavia or Passau, Lambecius recites these things, book 2, chapter 8, page 641: Piligrinus bishop of Lorch begins the conversion of the Hungarians; Pilgrinus archbishop of Lorch sat at Passau twenty-two years, elected in the year of the Lord 971. He was a magnificent man, and vigorously his church both in temporal things

as in spiritual he governed: it too, having been occupied and destroyed by the Bavarians, he renewed for the better by great ingenuity and by the emperor's aid, and raised up and set free. To him Pope Benedict VI sent the pallium in answer to his writings, in which he excuses himself from a personal approach to the thresholds of Saints Peter and Paul, as he had desired, on account of the neophyte nation of the Hungarians and the work of preaching to them, and then asks that the mitre and pallium be sent to him after the manner of his predecessors, at the same time offering also a concise profession of his faith. This eulogy, written by Schreitwein in the fifteenth century, that is, in the reign of Frederick the father of Maximilian I, as Lambecius observes on page 653, not only confirms the credit of the letter of Piligrinus, but at the same time hints at the reason why he could not follow up the most joyful beginnings of preaching among the Hungarians, as will be proved below. Now I present the letter of Piligrinus itself from Lambecius, with the profession of faith cut away, which does not pertain to history.

[82] and in a letter to Pope Benedict sets forth, To Benedict, universal Pontiff of the holy Roman See, endowed with the grace of order and of name, Piligrinus the humble servant of the holy church of Lorch, fidelity of prayers and devoted service. May it be deemed worthy to be made known to you, highest Prelate of priests, that beyond every desire of my mind I should now delight both to visit the thresholds of the Apostles and to enjoy your desirable presence, and to reason face to face in the presence of your most holy Fatherhood about those things which I commit to letters and to the tokens of intermediaries, were it not that I am hindered from coming hither by the neophyte nation of the Ungri, among whom, a treaty having been made, on the occasion of peace we have taken confidence to exercise the work of preaching. For the terror of that nation for a long time closed the approach even to preachers of other provinces of my diocese, to which nevertheless the opportunity of the present time has called me to go. To whom Almighty God, who by His wonted mercy always gathers what is scattered, has deigned to open the door of their heart, long closed, so that, the veil of their hardness being torn away and their brutish cruelty laid aside, they submit their necks to the gentle yoke of the Lord.

[83] [how much he has already accomplished through his own men, and how great a hope shines forth,] By that aforesaid nation of the Ungri, therefore, I myself was invited with many prayers to come, or to direct my envoys thither for the work of the Gospel. And when I sent to them men sufficiently fit, presbyters from among monks and canons, and clerics of every ecclesiastical grade, their life and whole manner of conversation being ordered just as I had learned in the deeds of the English, so great fruit did Divine grace at once minister to their instructions that from the same nobler Ungri of both sexes they won about five thousand imbued with the Catholic faith and washed in the sacred laver. And the Christians, of whom the greater part of the people consists, who were drawn thither captive from every part of the world, and who were never permitted to consecrate their offspring to the Lord except by stealth, now eagerly, with no fear standing in the way, offer them for baptism, and all rejoice as if brought back from their pilgrimage into their native land, because after the Christian manner they dare to build oratories, and, having received leave, presume to loose their bound tongue in praise of the Saviour. For the barbarians themselves — the wondrous clemency of Almighty God working — although some of them are still held in heathenism, yet forbid none of their subjects to be baptized, nor grudge the priests going wherever they please; but the pagans are so of one mind with the Christians, and have so great familiarity with one another, that there the prophecy of Isaiah seems to be fulfilled: The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, the lion and the ox shall eat straw. It has come about, therefore, that almost the whole nation of the Ungri is inclined to receive the holy faith. But the other provinces of the Slavs also are ready to believe; and there is there indeed a great harvest, but the labourers are few.

[84] Whence also it has now seemed necessary [asking for the pallium, and at the same time that he may be allowed to institute bishoprics in Hungary:] that your Holiness should order some bishops to be ordained there, because once, in the time of the Romans and Gepids, that same Eastern Pannonia and Moesia had seven prelates of their own, subject to my holy church of Lorch, which I, unworthy, serve; four of whom also remained in Moravia until the Ungri invaded the kingdom of the Bavarians, as is known to the present age. Which is exceedingly grievous and very burdensome to me, that I alone should go about preaching to so many parishes of the pontificate, from which by necessity and the want of help I am compelled never to withdraw my presence. Behold, most beloved of lords, I am held bound by ecclesiastical duties of this kind, and, had I not caused delay to the conversion of the oft-named nation, I would not have deferred to go and prostrate myself at your most holy feet. Yet I have destined to your Serenity my envoys, namely the bearers of these presents, whom may your clemency deign to hear, I beseech, and to grant assent to their prayers and mine together, so that the pallium and pontifical mitre — which as a special gift of honour is directed from this See only to metropolitans; which also my predecessors were wont to receive from the glorious Primates of this principal chair — that this very thing you may deign to direct to me with kindly mind through them, and likewise also that the privileges of Apostolic authority of my church, presented by the same envoys to your sacred gaze, may, after the manner of your predecessors, be strengthened and confirmed, as I beseech; that, fortified by this Apostolic sanction and blessing, I may be able canonically to carry out the governance of the people committed to me, and that it may be reckoned to your account on the day of judgment that in those regions a new church has been won for the Lord from the pagans. After the confession of faith, which I omit, he subjoins these words: In what manner therefore from the aforesaid faith I ought to instruct the unlearned, and myself to conduct myself in the church of novices which I have undertaken, I beg that I may deserve to be taught more carefully by a rescript of your fatherhood.

[85] No reply of Pope Benedict to these letters has been published, the letter of Pope Benedict, although it does not seem doubtful that he answered Piligrinus. For there is extant a letter of his to various archbishops of Germany and to the emperor Otto himself and Henry duke of Bavaria, given on occasion of the preceding, from which it may be understood that he assented to the requests of Piligrinus. This therefore I subjoin in full from Lambecius. To our most beloved sons in Christ, Hrodbert * of the holy church of Mainz, and Dioteric of the holy church of Trier, and Adalbert of the holy church of Magdeburg, and in like manner Gereon of the holy church of Cologne, and Frederick of the holy church of Juvavum, and also Adaldag of the holy church of Bremen, archbishops, and likewise to our lord Otto the most glorious emperor Augustus and to his nephew Henry the most excellent duke of the Bavarians, and to all the other bishops and abbots, dukes and counts of Gaul and Germany, Benedict, endowed with Divine grace, Pontiff of the Apostolic See, but servant of the servants of God, greeting in the Lord. It behoves us always to show ourselves easy and humble toward the just petitions of suppliants, and especially when we are solicited by the brotherly prayers of religious fellow-priests; who everywhere from every end of the world obtain the tenor and rule, and the vigour of their own office, from this universal holy Roman mother Church and its Minister, namely the vicar of the blessed Prince of the apostles; to whose power and order we, though unworthy, have yet by his grace and gift succeeded, to whom it is said by the Lord's voice: Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church.

[86] [who grants the pallium to Piligrinus, and restores to his church the archiepiscopal dignity,] Wherefore we have judged it worthy to lend assent to the fitting requests of the most reverend archbishop Piligrinus, which he intimated to us through trustworthy persons, namely his two presbyters as responsals, that we should restore to him the pallium and the metropolitan honour of the chair of his holy church of Lorch, lying on the border of the Hungarians; which we altogether owe to that same church, as the most ancient testimonies of privileges brought with them testify, in which it was contained that in the age of the pontificate of blessed Symmachus, Apostolic Prelate of this kindly See, the aforesaid holy church of Lorch was held a metropolis: and so far as we can gather both from thence and also from the passions of the blessed martyrs, of whom many there in the time of persecution were punished with various torments for the faith of Christ, of all the dioceses of the churches of Pannonia this is believed to be the first in antiquity and in the dignity of an archbishopric; which now for many bygone times, deserted through the frequent ravaging of the neighbouring barbarians and reduced to a solitude, remembers no inhabitant of Christian profession, until the most unconquered Augustus and father of his country, the begetter indeed of our pious emperor (whom the world desires still to survive and long to rule), blunted their forces by a warlike trophy.

[87] and bishoprics to be instituted in Hungary But now, for which cause we break forth with exulting voices into the praise of Almighty God, not only does the oft-named holy church of Lorch, the terror of enemies ceasing, enjoy peace and tranquillity with its neighbours, but even the very men who were lately enemies now profess, being baptized, that Christ whom they persecuted after the manner of the heathen, and desire now to have priests, and, so far as ignorant men can know, venerate them; and their descendants are seen to restore certain churches in their own land which their fathers destroyed by fire. For this reason therefore urging it, that the request of the aforenamed archbishop of the holy church of Lorch is commended by ancient Apostolic authority, and moreover because, since it was just, it likewise seemed useful also that, for the making fruitful unto God of the nations from among the new cultivators of the faith of the Ungri and the Moravians, or also many other Slavs bordering on his parish, bishops being there ordained, according as they were anciently disposed, we should constitute for them this archbishop.

[88] divides between the metropolitan sees of Salzburg and Lorch, But since the metropolitan church of Salzburg has abused the subjection of the pontificate of the holy church of Lorch, its dignity being obliterated and weakened by the devastation of the barbarians, of which on that account, the Apostolic privileges having been received, we by no means suffer it to be deprived, since they are also earlier than those of Salzburg, and therefore authoritative, which condition of testimony holds good and prevails even before secular judgments; but we in a constitution of this kind, with the Lord's help, easily drive away every calumny and occasion of contention, the parishes being separated from one another by fixed limits, and yet everywhere established by Apostolic sanctions, which it is ours always to defend, and, according to the Evangelical sentence, to loose nothing of them, but to fulfil them. Whence therefore by the authority and power of blessed Peter prince of the apostles and by the example of the Pontiffs, namely our Predecessors, we absolve that same holy church of Lorch, and its rectors now archbishops, henceforth perpetually from all subjection and dominion of the church of Salzburg and its prelates, and exalt it with metropolitan honour; and as in modern times Pope Agapitus of holy memory distinguished the boundaries of those parishes from one another, so we also define, in such wise too that the holy church of Salzburg may have as suffragans the bishops of Upper Pannonia, over whom hitherto its Pontiffs were seen to preside with so great and such a diocese as they have hitherto used in Lower Pannonia: but the holy church of Lorch, in the regions of Lower Pannonia and Moesia, whose Provinces are Avaria and Moravia, in which the parishes of seven bishops were contained in ancient times, and its prelates henceforth an archiepiscopal power with so great and such a diocese as hitherto

they have used in Upper Pannonia.

[89] To whom indeed we further enjoin in our precepts that, according to the decree of blessed Pope Gregory directed to the archbishops of the English, to each with their limits assigned. whichever of them is prior in ordination, he too, as long as he lives, shall hold the priority also in order. For, the dioceses of both churches being wholly determined, and every occasion of altercation excluded, we forbid under canonical strictness that either archbishop of those churches presume to invade the parish of the other, or dare by any quarrels or disputes to solicit the one the other concerning the things now defined by us. These things therefore being settled, we have enthroned our venerable fellow-brother Piligrinus the archbishop, fortified with canonical letters, in the see of the holy church of Lorch, and have directed to him the pallium according to the ancient use of that same church of his, and in the provinces of Avaria and Moravia and the regions of Lower Pannonia or Moesia, and in the nations of the Slavs contiguous to him dwelling round about, we commit and delegate to him to exercise our apostolic authority and vice, so that there, after the manner of his predecessors, the archbishops of the holy church of Lorch, he may have power to ordain and constitute presbyters and bishops, and from the aforesaid nations by his holy preaching to prepare for the Lord a perfect people. Thus far Pope Benedict.

[90] But since to neither letter is a year found appended, It is doubted whether the letter is of Benedict VI or of Benedict VII, some doubt arises for me here, whether that Pontiff was Benedict VI or Benedict VII: for Piligrinus lived under both. I confess that the learned have commonly conspired in this opinion, that they believed Benedict to be the seventh, to whom the letter of Piligrinus is inscribed, and who wrote back to it. But I do not see that this opinion is certain; since Piligrinus could in the year 973 write to Benedict VI, who sat until some uncertain month of the year 974, and could be answered by him toward the end of the same year 973, or the beginning of the following. There seems indeed to stand in the way a letter of the same Benedict VI (in Labbe, tome 9 of the Councils, col. 711), by which he so grants his vices to Frederick of Salzburg in the whole Noric province and in all Pannonia as to exclude the bishop of Lorch from archiepiscopal dignity: but the same Pontiff could change his opinion, when he had been informed of the privileges of the church of Lorch. Piligrinus himself could be more sharply stirred by the said letters of Benedict, when the bishop of Salzburg had communicated them, so that by the exhibition of his privileges before the Pontiff he might endeavour to recover the lost dignity of his church. I do not see, therefore, why he could not have obtained the pallium from Benedict VI, since no other reason stands in the way, and in the eulogy recited at num. 81 he is said to have obtained the pallium from Benedict VI. Nay, the time too favours Benedict VI more than Benedict VII: for the preaching seems to have begun among the Hungarians in the year 971 or 972, and the letter of Piligrinus seems to have been written only a year or two after preaching was begun there. Finally, the letter of Pope Benedict which we have just recited can scarcely be deferred to the Pontificate of Benedict VII; but on the contrary nothing is read in it which does not agree with Benedict VI.

[91] and various reasons I gather my reasons from our often-cited Hansizius, who on page 215 proves evidently that the letter of Piligrinus could not have been written later than toward the end of the year 974; and the letter of Benedict not after the beginning of the year 975. This is established from the persons to whom the Pontifical letter was given: for among these are numbered Robert prelate of Mainz, Gero or Gereon of Cologne, and Henry duke of Bavaria with the emperor Otto II. But Robert, or Hrodbert, of Mainz died in the year 975, As is most certain, says Hansizius, from Ditmar, the Saxon Chronographer, the Necrology of Fulda, the Annalist of Hildesheim. The day of his death is placed at the Ides of January, that is, the 13th of January, as is clear from the Necrology of Mainz, Hildesheim, and Fulda. The same year and day of death is set and proved in the Gallia Christiana reprinted, tome 5, col. 456. Since the matter appears certain, I shall subjoin only the words of the Necrology of Fulda in Schannat, Codex of the proofs of the History of Fulda, page 475, where it stands thus: In the year 975, on the Ides of January, Ruotbertus archbishop, and there are subjoined eight others deceased in the same year. The opinion of Pagi is therefore here to be corrected, who at the year of Christ 979, num. 9, fixes the death of Robert in the year 977, content with the sole authority of Trithemius, whose authority indeed is of small moment in chronological matters. Of Gero of Cologne, Mabillon, tome 3 of the Annals, page 630, writes thus: At Cologne Agrippina Gero the archbishop is related to have died in this year (974) on the 3rd of the Kalends of July. If this is true, he died about half a year before Robert. And in fact Ditmar in book 3 puts the death of Gero of Cologne before the death of Robert of Mainz, and relates that he died on the same day and year as Mabillon. Denys de Sainte-Marthe indeed says, tome 3 of the Gallia Christiana, col. 649, of Gero: He is said to have died in the year 976, but does not name his author; nor does he adduce any record by which it may be proved that he lived after the said epoch of Mabillon. It is therefore uncertain whether Gero survived after the month of June of the year 974; nay, it is little probable, on the authority of Ditmar.

[92] chronological ones hint, In the same year 974 the gravest disturbances blazed up between the emperor Otto II and Henry duke of Bavaria, who, relying on the league of certain princes, was planning to claim for himself the kingdom of Germany, but was captured by Otto, and afterwards stripped of Bavaria itself. That war interrupted the preaching happily begun among the Hungarians, as we shall see. Its beginning must here necessarily be investigated, that we may confirm the disputation begun. Otto the Great having died on the Nones of May of the year 973, Otto II, already before crowned, was acknowledged emperor by most of the princes of the empire: Henry the Bavarian did not bear this equally well, who … in confidence of leagues seized the kingdom, as Hansizius narrates these things on page 216, going on thus: Him favoured Henry duke of Carinthia: … besides, Henry bishop of Augsburg, he who had been substituted for Udalric in the same year: there had joined the league the neighbouring kings, Boleslaus of Bohemia, Miseco or Miceslaus of Poland, finally Harald of the Danes. Of the Hungarians, although there is no mention, yet from what is to be said it will appear that they too shortly bore arms into Ostericha or Austria against the margrave and Piligrinus, who had remained constant in fidelity to Otto. Finally the duke of the Bavarians had risen so far that with counsels by no means dissembled he received also the royal unction at Ratisbon, the bishop of Freising being the minister: which being made public, Otto had to hasten to smother the fire in the ashes. An assembly of all the princes being gathered, it seemed good that Henry should be summoned; who, as he was not yet girt for arms, so, being about to redeem present destruction by speedy compliance, presented himself, being then indeed punished with this animadversion, that he was kept in the manner of a captive. Ditmar writes that in the year 975, the second of the middle (that is, the second) Otto, Henry was taken by Otto and led away to Geilheim. But Lambert and the Annalist of Hildesheim and the Saxon Chronographer refer this as done in the previous year, and for Geilheim write Engilenheim. It is certain from the diploma to be mentioned below * that Henry was not taken before the last months of the year 974. For that diploma was given on the 11th day of September, and in it Henry is called beloved nephew, and Otto confesses that he gave it at his prayers, which words do not fit a rebel. And so the writers may be reconciled by saying that Henry was summoned by Otto to an assembly about the end of the year 974, and at the beginning of the following year was led away into custody. These things I have been pleased to adduce, because they contain a brief and exact account of the event, and because from it may be gathered what stood in the way of the conversion of the Hungarians begun.

[93] Now from these let us examine whether the aforesaid letter of Pope Benedict is of the seventh or of the sixth. that the letter can with difficulty be attributed to Benedict VII, It could not be written after the death of Robert prelate of Mainz, or the captivity of Henry duke of Bavaria, had become known at Rome, and so it was not given after the month of January of the year 975. Nay, the letter could not be written long after the middle of the year 974, if the opinion of Ditmar and Mabillon about the death of Gero of Cologne, fixed on the 3rd of the Kalends of July of the same year, is true. But this opinion indeed I do not affirm as altogether plainly certain, because others disagree. Nevertheless I judge it far more probable than the opposite. Moreover from what has been said it necessarily follows that Benedict, whose this letter is, was Pontiff before the year 975, as Hansizius also observed on page 215: for the letter of Piligrinus preceded the letter of the Pontiff, nor could Piligrinus write it before he had been informed of the pontificate of Benedict. And so the letter is of Benedict VI, unless Benedict VII was Pontiff some months before the year 975. Hansizius indeed believed that the beginning of the Pontificate of Benedict VII must be placed about the later months of the year 974, because he did not doubt that the letter was of Benedict VII. But, although all the moderns commonly attribute the letter to Benedict VII, I have hitherto seen it proved by no one why it should be attributed to him rather than to Benedict VI: for all who are named in it lived under the latter; and it was attributed to him by the writer of the fifteenth century, cited at num. 81. Finally many things persuade that Benedict VII was not Pontiff before the year 975: for all writers everywhere with the ancient catalogues begin his pontificate in that year: and since he died in the year 984, on the 10th day of the month of July, as is established from the epitaph in Baronius at the same year, num. 1, the duration of the pontificate, which the ancient catalogues almost all bound within nine years and five or six months, as Pagi testifies at the year 984, num. 1, hints that his Pontificate must begin in the year 975, in the month of January or February; certainly before the 25th day of March, as Pagi shows in his Critica at the year 975.

[94] but conveniently to Benedict VI, since it seems written in the year 974. Mabillon, tome 3 of the Annals, page 627, shows that Benedict VI was still sitting in the month of April of the year 974, since in that month he gave a privilege to Hildesindus abbot of the monastery of Roda. It may be seen in Pierre de Marca, Marca Hispanica, col. 906, where it is read written in the month of April and the second Indiction. It is probable, therefore, that the same Benedict VI received the letters of Piligrinus, and wrote back for him in the same year 974, when all were alive to whom Benedict's letters were given, and when the ambition of Henry the Bavarian was not known. Thus Piligrinus is rightly said to have received the pallium from Benedict VI, nor is there need to explain in an improper sense the eulogy of him given at num. 81. Pagi at the year 979, num. 9, wrongly refers the letters of Benedict to the year 977 on one argument only, which he sets forth thus: Nay, they (the letters) were written in the year 977; since in the same place Lambecius relates the epitome of a diploma issued by Otto II, by which he confirmed the metropolitan dignity of the church of Lorch with letters in which it is said: "Given on the 3rd of the Nones of October,

in the year of the Lord 977, Indiction VI, in the 17th year of the reign of the lord Otto emperor Augustus. Done in the city of Ratisbon". Which was the effect of the commendation of Benedict VII, to whom Otto II deferred. But this reasoning cannot bring us to believe that Benedict wrote to prelates long since dead, and to Henry then an exile from his own Bavaria and an enemy of Otto. But it is probable that Frederick the archbishop of Salzburg, from whose province was taken away whatever accrued to Lorch, resisted with all his might, that the pontifical letters might not be committed to execution, and therefore, or even for other reasons, Otto II could put off so long the confirmation of the metropolitan see of Lorch, and give it at length after Bavaria was pacified, as it is established that it really was given.

* Roberto

* see it in the same place, page 217

§ VIII. Among the first preachers sent into Hungary was St. Wolfgang: why he was recalled, and why Piligrinus with his men had to break off what they had begun.

[ ] Among the first preachers of Hungary was St. Wolfgang, Among the first apostles of Hungary was St. Wolfgang, a monk in Swabia and a presbyter, who was afterwards created bishop of Ratisbon. A contemporary writer of his Life testifies this, in Mabillon, Benedictine century 5, page 817, in these words: Continually pondering with himself how he might double for the salvation of others the talent granted him; for the sake of this thing, with the leave of his abbot, deserting the monastery but not the monk, he came through Alemannia an exile into Noricum, and, proceeding to its Eastern quarter with a humble company, sought the borders of Pannonia for the sake of preaching. Where, when he was rooting out the thickets of ancient errors, and breaking up with the evangelical hoe the barren fields of squalid hearts, and labouring in vain to sow the crop of faith, he was recalled from the work he had begun by Piligrinus bishop of Passau: for that pontiff grieved that so great a husbandman should spend his labour on barren furrows. What the writer says about barren furrows does not altogether agree with the letter of Piligrinus. But neither is it repugnant, because that richer fruit could arise after the departure of Wolfgang. Perhaps the biographer said from mere conjecture that Wolfgang returned only because of the barrenness of the field, so that I should rather suspect that he was recalled by Piligrinus in order that he might inspect the man in person, and take care to have him promoted to the bishopric of Ratisbon: for, as is presently added, when recalled he received him with every zeal of kindness, kept him with him some days, and, the man's virtue being thoroughly perceived, presently took counsel to take care that he should be promoted to the chair of Ratisbon. Which also he happily accomplished.

[96] But, whatever be the case about the fruit of the preaching, more to our purpose is the time who set out into Hungary in the year 972, in which it was begun. Our Hansizius on page 204 thinks that Wolfgang set out to the Hungarians before by the embassy of Otto I free access into Hungary had been obtained, and therefore that there was no fruit of the preaching. But to me the contrary appears more probable. Mabillon published, tome 4 of the Analecta, page 479, and in century 5 of the Acts, page 845, the short Annals of Einsiedeln, in which the time is expressed in these words: 972 Wolfgang the monk was sent to the Ungri, who in the second year was ordained bishop of Ratisbon. These words, which seem clear for affixing the mission to the year 972, the aforesaid Hansizius adduced; but he sets them forth thus: Where the year 972 is to be referred to the ordination as bishop, not to the mission of Wolfgang: for it is certain from Hermannus Contractus in Canisius that Wolfgang was created bishop of Ratisbon in the year 972. Pagi had embraced the same opinion, and alleged the same reason at the year 972, num. 7, without however explaining, but charging with error, the Annalist of Einsiedeln. But to me this Annalist seems to outweigh Hermannus Contractus, especially since only one edition has the passage about the bishopric of Wolfgang; the others lack those words. Further, Pagi at the year 994, in which Wolfgang died, adds another reason from the prediction made to him, that he should become a bishop, and, twenty-two years being completed, should die. That prediction is contained in the Life of Wolfgang in Mabillon, page 817, and it came to him before his pilgrimage, which is foretold to him equally with the bishopric. It is therefore uncertain whether the twenty-two years are to begin from the bishopric or from the pilgrimage, so that that prediction proves nothing: for in my opinion, which I think certain enough, Wolfgang afterwards lived twenty-two years.

[97] and consecrated bishop of Ratisbon in the year 973: And so that Wolfgang was consecrated at the beginning of the year 973 I evidently prove from the same Life. On page 818 these things are found: The emperor Otto II … quickly sent envoys, that the same servant of God (Wolfgang) should be elected to the place of the episcopal chair; then, willing or unwilling, that he should be brought to Frankfurt, where the emperor was to celebrate the Lord's Nativity. Having received this embassy of the emperor, he set out for Ratisbon, and there was elected; then he came to Frankfurt about the Lord's Nativity, where the bishopric was committed to him. At length he returned to Ratisbon to take possession, and there after some days was consecrated by Frederick archbishop of Salzburg. From these things, which are more fully narrated there, it is established that he was consecrated at the beginning of the year, since the emperor had celebrated the preceding Nativity at Frankfurt. But from the Saxon Annalist, who begins each year from the celebration of the Nativity, it is clear that that Nativity is of the year 972, as we begin the year, or the beginning of the year 973, as he began the year. There appears therefore no doubt that Wolfgang was elected toward the end of the year 972, and consecrated at the beginning of the year 973. Hence I judge that he came into Hungary at the beginning of the year 972, and remained there some months, but not a whole year.

[98] preaching begun among the Hungarians in the year 971 or 972; but soon broken off These things I have thought must be examined more exactly, that from them the beginning of preaching among the Hungarians may be fixed at the year 971 or 972. But the richer fruit of which the letter of Piligrinus speaks seems to have been gathered in the year 973. For the rest, the monks and clerics sent by Piligrinus into Hungary, and among them Wolfgang, seem to have come thither only after the embassy of Otto, which may probably be attached to the year 971; but their names did not become known, because their preaching was soon broken off. For, as preaching was begun among the Hungarians, a treaty having been made, on the occasion of the peace between the Hungarians and Otto I, so doubtless it was broken off on the occasion of the war which Henry the Bavarian with his allies, among whom were the Hungarians, stirred up against Otto II and those faithfully adhering to him, among whom likewise was Piligrinus prelate of Lorch. For since the Hungarians were defending the party of Henry, but Piligrinus that of Otto, all who had been sent by Piligrinus into Hungary were beyond doubt compelled to change their ground, because they were held as enemies by the Hungarians. These certainly laid waste wretchedly the patrimony of the church of Lorch, or Passau, in the times of Peregrinus, as is established from the letters of Otto III, which Hansizius recites on page 225.

[99] because of the war stirred up again. The same writer on page 224 writes these things about the irruptions of the Hungarians: Bavaria being at length pacified, a time was offered to Piligrinus of resuming the evangelical harvest among the Hungarians; but the same, forgetful of the instruction lately drawn in, had returned to their nature. For, King Geisa either willing it or not daring to withstand, they invade the Eastern borders, plunder, burn. And having advanced beyond the river Erlaff, they harass with most frequent ravagings the countryfolk and settlers whom Wolfgang bishop of Ratisbon had lately brought to Pöchlarn and to neighbouring places tributary to the church of Ratisbon; and this was the reason for Wolfgang to build a fortification in the place Zwisila, where the greater Erlaff meets the lesser, that the settlers might remain there safer from the harassment of the Ungri, as Otto speaks in the letters by which he gives leave to the same bishop to construct that castle in the said place. Given in the year 979. Geisa seems then to have held the places neighbouring the river Erlaff, and among these also Melk, a castle situated on a steep rock, an old fortification of that region: for otherwise what was to be feared by the settlers of Wolfgang from the harassment of the Hungarians? The harassments of the Hungarians lasted for many years after this, so that all opportunity of approaching the Hungarians seems to have been taken away from Piligrinus. More about these things may be seen in Hansizius: for the preceding suffice for us to understand what stood in the way of preaching among the Hungarians.

§ IX. St. Adalbert intent upon the conversion of the Hungarians: Geysa converted and baptized, as also St. Stephen.

[ ] [The first conversion of the Hungarians imperfect, even after the coming of St. Adalbert,] Even though a most joyful and most abundant harvest at once offered itself to Piligrinus in Hungary, yet his effort seems to have brought salvation to not many, save in so far as preachers of other provinces were stirred by his example to bring the faith into Hungary. This is certain, that that first conversion of many Hungarians was so imperfect that for many years afterwards there was only a certain shadow of religion in Hungary, although other preachers had succeeded into the place of the first. We have this from writers of whose credit it is not permitted to doubt. A twofold Life of St. Adalbert bishop of Prague, who after Piligrinus applied himself to the conversion of the Hungarians, was published by us in tome III of April. Each has a contemporary author: but the first has nothing about the preaching of holy Adalbert among the Hungarians; the second, however, sufficiently shows that he did not accomplish so much there as he would have wished. For it has thus on page 192 of the said tome, num. 16: It is not to be passed over in silence that to the Ungri lying near he now sent his messengers, now offered himself: on whom, though little changed from their error, he impressed a shadow of Christianity. The same author at num. 22 more fully hints how imperfect the conversion of the Hungarians was almost down to the death of Geysa, when he records these things: He had sent in these days (that is, while he was staying in Poland before his departure into Prussia, or in the year 996) to the great Senior * of the Ungri, nay rather to his wife, who held the whole kingdom of her husband in her hand, and herself ruled the things that were her husband's, under whose leadership Christianity had begun, but a polluted religion was mingled with paganism, and a languid and lukewarm Christianity began to be worse than barbarism: to whom then, by messengers coming thence, he sent a letter in these words: My Papas, if necessity and use demand, keep: if not, for God's sake send him to me. But to him secretly he sent a paper with another mind, another sentence: If thou canst, he says, with good leave, well: if not, even fleeing in flight try to come to him who longs for thee with desire, thy Adalbert.

[101] because their converted duke Geysa at the same time worshipped idols, These words abundantly teach that the same happened to Adalbert among the Hungarians as happened among the Bohemians, whom he left twice or thrice, because they did not sufficiently correct their barbarous manners. Further, Papas, or, as it is written before in the same Life, Pappas, is not a proper name, but signifies a foster-son or disciple. Radla was the name of that disciple,

as is read in the same place, num. 15, and he remained in Hungary when Adalbert departed, who in the year 997 fell a martyr in Prussia. Ditmar at the beginning of book 8 confirms the preceding. I shall give the words from our manuscript Ditmar, since in the printed editions certain things have been changed: His (the Pannonian king's, as he had said before, namely Stephen's) father was Dewir by name, a cruel man, killing many in sudden fury. Who, when he was made a Christian, raged in the strengthening of the faith; and, glowing with zeal for God, washed away his ancient crime. He, serving both the true God and the various vanities of the gods, when he was rebuked for this by his prelate (Adalbert, I suppose), said: Riches abound to me, and for doing these things there is free faculty and ample power. But his wife, called Beleknegena , that is, fair lady, gave herself to immoderate drinking, and sat on a horse after the manner of a man: she also killed a certain man with the sword in the fury of anger. If we compare the words of Ditmar, which in the printed editions have the same sense, with those adduced from the Life of St. Adalbert, it must necessarily be said that both Geysa and his consort were indeed baptized, but were of little Christian manners, at least at the beginning of their conversion, although they could afterwards more amend their life and obtain a happy end of life. Carthuitius in the Life, num. 2 and 3, says that Geysa was baptized; but he does not explain from whom he received baptism.

[102] Nevertheless St. Adalbert laboured there for their conversion: John Dlugossus or Longinus, a Polish writer of the fifteenth century, records these things about the deeds of Adalbert in Hungary, book 2, col. 116: Having entered Hungary with Gaudentius and other religious men, he came to duke Geisa, to instruct him by his admonitions and preachings in the Catholic faith and its ceremonies, which he had heard that he had received some years before. And when his arrival had been announced to duke Geisa and his consort Adleida, the greatest joy being at once conceived, they loosed their instruments to the divine praises: for they understood that this was the man who had come to them who had long since been shown to them beforehand in a vision. Being therefore received with great veneration and devotion, he bestowed the character of Confirmation upon the son of duke Geisa, and preached the word of God to the Slavs and Huns, both by himself and by his brethren, for a year and more with honey-flowing speech, and, converting very many of the Slavs and Huns still given to the worship of idols, he traversed the whole region of the Hungarians, instructing indeed those who believed and confirming them with fatherly love, but bringing back the idolaters from their errors and confirming them. At whose exhortation also duke Geisa with his son Stephen and his consort Adleida founded, raised, and instituted several churches; and bestowed episcopal goods upon them. But there too, a persecution having been made, on account of the laying * of violent hands upon his person, not cursing, nor resisting, but blessing, he departed from Pannonia. Geisa duke of the Pannonians after these things dies within a few days, leaving his son Stephen his successor. Neither the baptism of Geysa nor that of Stephen does this writer attribute to Adalbert; but he brings back all the deeds of Adalbert among the Hungarians to almost the end of the life of Geysa, whereas it is more probable that Adalbert was in Hungary at various times; but never stayed there for a whole year.

[103] Ademar the monk of Chabannes, in Labbe, tome 2 of the Bibliotheca, page 168, attributes the baptism of Geysa to St. Bruno the apostle of the Russians, St. Bruno the apostle of the Russians is also said to have preached in Hungary, whom he will have to have come into Hungary in the reign of Otto III. I confess indeed that this Writer was nearly contemporary with Geysa, and contemporary with St. Stephen; but he mingles so many errors with what he there relates about St. Adalbert and Bruno, that I would not dare to give him full credit even in those things about which it is not established whether they are liable to error. Take nevertheless his assertions about the deeds of Bruno in Hungary: Following his example (of St. Adalbert going off into Poland) Bishop Bruno asked the emperor that he would order a bishop to be consecrated in his see in his stead… Which done, he too humbly went away into the province of Hungary… And holy Bruno converted the province of Hungary to the faith: … he baptized the king of Hungary, who was called Geitz, and, his name being changed in baptism, called him Stephen, whom the emperor Otto received from baptism on the birthday of the protomartyr Stephen, and permitted him most freely to hold his kingdom, giving him leave to carry the holy lance everywhere, as is the custom for the emperor himself, and granted him relics from the nails of the Lord, and from the lance of St. Maurice, in his own lance. The aforesaid king also ordered his Son to be baptized: holy Bruno imposing on him the name, as on himself, Stephen. But afterwards to that son of his Stephen the emperor Otto gave in marriage the sister of Henry afterwards emperor. I have cut away from this narration the open errors refuted elsewhere. But here I shall refute what is said about the baptism of Geysa and Stephen.

[104] Hear then the Life of Bruno written by Ditmar, who knew him familiarly, but this is from other considerations not probable: and published by us in tome 2 of February, page 798: By the third Otto therefore he (Bruno) is received as one desired. Whom leaving not long after, he sought the solitary life, and lived by the work of his hands. But when by the grace of God Henry the second was reigning after the death of the most glorious emperor, coming to Merseburg he (Bruno) sought from him the episcopal benediction with the leave of the lord Pope, and by his command consecration from archbishop Thagino, and, what he himself brought hither, received the pallium there. Bruno was consecrated in the reign of Henry, and after the death of Otto III: he could not therefore baptize Geysa as already a bishop, since Geysa died before Otto; nor indeed Stephen; for we shall see that he too was baptized while Otto was alive. Nor did Bruno perform these things before his bishopric, since he then led a solitary life. And so I wonder at Pagi, who at the year 1008 rightly admits the aforesaid things from Ditmar, and yet adduces easily ten or twelve errors of Ademar as if they were so many truths. There might be a suspicion that some other Bruno preached in Hungary, and that thence arose the errors of Ademar, in that he confounded two Brunos. But I find no sufficient foundation in the ancient historians for substituting for Bruno the martyr another of the same name, unless perhaps him whom we said was sent thither as envoy by Otto the Great; but Geysa does not seem to have been baptized so soon. Hence the baptism of Geysa cannot be attributed to anyone with certainty.

[105] it is uncertain by whom Geysa was baptized. Hansizius on page 227 reasons about it thus: Who he was who imparted baptism to prince Geisa, no one has sufficiently discovered: for Adalbert of Prague came when Geisa was already baptized. That Bishop Bruno the envoy of Otto the Great is nowhere reported by anyone as the author of that baptism: and certainly Piligrinus in the letter to Benedict VII (or rather VI), when he glories that up to five thousand of the nobler Hungarians were washed in the saving laver, would certainly not have suppressed in silence the most excellent spoil of all, the baptism of the king. It remains therefore in obscurity who performed this, save that one may suspect that it was done by some disciple of Piligrinus of Passau, yet later than the letters were written to Benedict. This conjecture is probable, both because Carthuitius narrates the baptism of Geysa before the coming of Adalbert into Hungary, and because he nowhere asserts that Geysa was baptized by Adalbert (although Pagi at the year 997 wrongly affirms that Carthuitius has this), and finally because the writers of the Life of St. Adalbert, who would not have grudged him the glory of having baptized Geysa, recorded nothing about that baptism. Further, that Geysa was baptized long before his death, but was not sufficiently instructed, is gathered from the words of Ditmar and of the Life of Adalbert, in which he is said to have worshipped idols along with the true God; and yet to have fought sharply for the strengthening of the faith. The first I suspect happened because the first preachers, by whom he could be baptized about the year 974 or 975, were a little after compelled to leave Hungary, and because Adalbert with his men could not tear a man naturally prone to anger away from inveterate custom so quickly as he would have wished. It is credible nevertheless that toward the end of his life he came to his senses, and then at last was solicitous about destroying idolatry: which his son St. Stephen effectively accomplished.

* i.e. lord

* in the printed editions Dejux

* ibid. Beleknegini

* perhaps injectionem

§ X. Whether the visions which are said to have been offered to the parents of St. Stephen are to be rejected?

[ ] The visions which are said to have been offered to the parents of St. Stephen, If the vision which Carthuitius narrates at num. 3 is true, it happened between the baptism of Geysa and the first coming of St. Adalbert to him; between which a decade might easily have run: for St. Adalbert was created bishop of Prague in the year 983, so that he does not seem to have run over into Hungary before the year 984, or 985. In either year he could come thither before St. Stephen was born, whose birth-year is not established. Take the vision itself, that we may examine more exactly whether it is as absurd as a recent heterodox writer would have it: And when he (Geysa) was exceedingly solicitous, he says, about subduing the rebels, and destroying the sacrilegious rites, and establishing bishoprics according to his own estimation for the advancement of holy church, the Lord consoled him by night with a wondrous vision. He caused to stand before him a youth delightful of aspect, who said to him: Peace be to thee, elect of Christ, I bid thee be free of care from thy solicitude. That which thou meditatest is not granted to thee, because thou bearest hands polluted with human blood. From thee shall go forth a Son who is to be born, to whom the Lord will commit all these things to be disposed by the counsel of divine providence. He shall be one of the kings chosen by the Lord, about to exchange the crown of this worldly life for the eternal. Nevertheless receive honourably the man to be sent to thee on a spiritual mission, when received hold him venerably, and lend to his exhortations the unfeigned assent of a faithful heart. Another vision also, offered to the mother of St. Stephen, he sets forth at num. 4 in these words: His (Geysa's) wife, now drawing near to childbirth, divine grace willed to console with such a vision. For there appeared to her the blessed levite and protomartyr Stephen, adorned with the insignia of the levitical habit, who began to address her thus: Trust in the Lord, woman, and be sure that thou shalt bear a Son, to whom first in this nation a crown and a kingdom are due, and lay upon him my name. And when the woman, wondering, answered him: Who art thou, lord, or by what name art thou called? I am, he said, Stephen the protomartyr, who first bore martyrdom for the name of Christ. Which said, he disappeared.

[107] These visions Catholic writers everywhere have narrated from Carthuitius without scruple. and of which the first, not rightly narrated by Bonfinius, is set forth, But Bonfinius, in Decade 2, book 1, somewhat disfigured the former, when he so narrated it as if it had been forbidden to Geysa to lay the foundations of the orthodox faith and to build churches; for this was so

far from being forbidden him, that he is even bidden to hear the messenger of God who was to come, namely St. Adalbert, and to obey his commands. But there was no doubt that St. Adalbert would exhort him to lay the foundations of the faith and to build churches in the kingdom. God's interpreter, therefore, rather bade him do those things than forbade them; but at the same time foretells that what was to be begun by Geysa was to be completed by St. Stephen. The sense of the vision is this. While Geysa was considering the vast difficulties which he would experience in subduing the heathen who opposed themselves to the Christian faith, and in destroying idolatrous rites and establishing pious ones, which had to be done by the erection of churches and bishoprics; and while he was so solicitous with this care that by excessive fear of the difficulties he might have been led into a certain despair and turned away from the faith, the divine mercy willed to drive away that excessive dread, and to teach the trembling man that things well begun are not to be abandoned, even though they cannot at once be brought to perfection. Hence the words of the most beautiful youth, who probably was an angel, are thus to be explained. Peace be to thee: I do not wish thee to be too greatly distressed, because thou seest that all things cannot be accomplished by thee which are necessary for establishing the Christian faith. It is indeed true: the Lord, whom thou hast often offended by the unjust shedding of human blood, will not bestow so great a grace upon thee that thou thyself shouldst accomplish all those things which thou believest necessary for establishing the faith, and which thou wouldst have completed but scarcely darest to undertake. This grace God will reserve for the Son who is to be born of thee. Nevertheless begin thou to do those things which God's messenger, shortly to come, shall enjoin upon thee; this one thing meanwhile the Lord requires of thee. What in the vision so set forth, as it ought naturally to be set forth, is absurd or preposterous, I certainly do not see. The following vision too has nothing absurd, and does not even need any explanation.

[108] But Schwartz, already so often mentioned, on page XI and following, on occasion of these visions, which he contends are to be reckoned among fables, attacks many Catholic writers who had narrated them from Carthuitius. Let us hear the man who is the enemy of fables: they are held for fables by Schwartz, Meaning, he says, to render individual matters more illustrious, they have brought forth fables adorned with facts that conflict and ill cohere with one another: which, since they refute themselves, we would gladly leave to their own centuries. But since they have found great patrons even in our age, we shall weigh them according to the plan of our undertaking. He confesses that those visions are defended even in this critical age by great men, and rightly indeed: for those very men who not rarely exercise a criticism severer than is just have narrated these visions without any ambiguity. Among others may be seen Adrian Baillet at the 2nd of September in St. Stephen, and Claude Fleury in the Ecclesiastical History, book 58, num. 7. Then Schwartz adduces the passage of Bonfinius, by whom I have already said the account of Carthuitius was corrupted: and from the passage of Bonfinius, already before refuted by Samuel Timon, the acute man mocks Carthuitius, and Baronius and Inchofer, who gave the words of Carthuitius: nay, he even carps at Timon, because he did not refute Inchofer as well as Bonfinius. All these undeservedly, since Baronius and Inchofer followed Carthuitius writing rightly; but Bonfinius by excessive freedom corrupted the account of the event, and therefore he alone was to be disapproved. Take, reader, the words of the heterodox man, that you may learn how insolently he insults Catholics, even though he has no foundation, save one resting on an error, as we shall presently see.

[109] [who on occasion of the former carps at Catholic writers with slanderous raillery,] Nay rather, he says, let it be permitted hence to wonder at nothing whatsoever, but to determine with certain judgment that these so insipid fabrications, which both Bonfinius and Inchofer, Baronius, and many others took from the Legend of St. Stephen, are not the description of some heavenly oracle by which the anxious mind of Geysa was really raised up, but the abortion of some worthless little friar, superstitiously busy in his cell. For what example of the divine writings he wished to imitate, that man's efforts, which he expressed with so unhappy a genius, abundantly testify the ineptitude of his wit. Which vision, not first elaborated anew in these words by Bonfinius, but, as we said, taken from the Legend of St. Stephen — if it had not escaped the keenness of the most perspicacious Timon, he would not so easily, I think, have brought his mind to CALL Chartuitius, the author of the Legend, A BRILLIANT (LUCULENTUM) HISTORIAN, when he should more truly be called MUDDY (LUTULENTUM). But alas! Cardinal Caesar Baronius had drawn from the turbid pools of Chartuitius, in the voluminous work of his Annals, the whole history of the conversion of the Hungarians, with the fables also, which Timon proscribes as ridiculously and impiously invented, inserted word for word, and hung up in the Roman sanctuary as precious tablets of the common people's worship. What of this, that Baronius adorned the legendary author with no less a eulogy: "Let us seek it, he says, from elsewhere, namely from Bishop Cartuitius to King Coloman, who pursued the cradle of the Hungarian church with a most faithful pen" &c. Wherefore, seeing and approving better things, Timon preferred to set the doubts which he felt against Bonfinius, on whom Matthew Rader of the Society of Jesus long ago branded the mark of a profane and pagan writer, rather than against the true hucksters of fables.

[110] and rashly blurts out many things, though he has no foundation, How greatly the slanderous writer sins in these things — a writer scarcely any page of whom is free of errors or inept reasonings — take note, reader. First he falsely asserts that the same things are written on this matter by Bonfinius, Carthuitius, Baronius, and Inchofer: for Bonfinius, describing now and then the circumstances of events with excessive freedom, narrated this event too in his own words and changed much. But Baronius and Inchofer gave the words of Carthuitius, as Surius had published them. Hence, secondly, he wrongly carps at Timon, because he refutes Bonfinius, not Inchofer or Baronius. Thirdly, he imposes in bad faith upon his readers, when he gives only the words of Bonfinius, and those so mutilated that they appear worse than they really are, so that others may be believed to have the same. Fourthly, all his words indicate the writer's raillery, and his bitterness against Roman rites and Catholic writers. Fifthly, in fine, he shows indeed excessive confidence, when he pretends to determine with certain judgment that these things are fictitious, even though he had said before that the aforesaid vision has great patrons even in our age. It remains that we see by what reason Schwartz proves that the aforesaid vision is the abortion of some worthless little friar. He had brought forward the words of Timon disapproving the statements of Bonfinius, which Carthuitius does not have. Then he cites the same writer, who denies that Geysa, whom he affirms to have been most zealous for peace, was a perpetrator of slaughters, and in any manner whatever bloody. And this argument he pursues thus: But besides what he observed about Geysa, most zealous for peace and quiet, we further note that rather his son Stephen, even by the admission of those very fabricators, was involved in grievous wars through almost his whole life: which certainly he did not wage without the shedding of human blood. Here you have, reader, that famous argument of that most humane man, by which he reckons Inchofer, Baronius, and above all the muddy Carthuitius among fabricators. Let us therefore sift the foundation.

[111] St. Stephen waged wars, and equally his father Geysa; unless it rests on a gross error: this indeed we do not deny. Those wars were not waged without the shedding of blood; this too is truly said. But what does Schwartz conclude from that? Either he could conclude nothing, or he ought to have reasoned thus: Therefore either Geysa did not bear hands polluted with human blood, or St. Stephen bore them too. This would certainly be a just deduction, if every shedding of blood polluted the hands equally, if nothing were to be distinguished between a just and an unjust shedding of blood. Schwartz here seems to have distinguished nothing. Yet that was most necessary, that he might reason rightly. For Stephen shed human blood, as do all princes even the most holy, when they defend themselves in a just war or punish the wicked: but by this shedding of blood the hands of princes are not polluted. But Geysa had his hands polluted by unjust slaughters, and no one could rightly deny it, since we have for this matter a contemporary witness, and one beyond all exception. What, I pray, mean the words of Ditmar adduced at num. 101? His (Stephen's) father was Dewir * by name, a cruel man, killing many in sudden fury. Will Schwartz deny that a cruel man, who killed many in sudden fury, had his hands at some time polluted with blood? Will he deny that blood was unjustly shed by him of whom it is presently added: Who, when he was made a Christian, … glowing with zeal for God, washed away his ancient crime? If he washed away his ancient crime, he had before contracted a crime by the unjust slaughter of his own people. Let us now hear also what the same Ditmar sets down beforehand about the manners of Stephen: I never heard of anyone sparing the conquered so much, and therefore in the aforesaid city, as in many diligently, God granted him victory. Of the event on whose occasion these things are said, since it is obscure and cannot be attached to a certain time, we shall treat briefly in the annotations to the second chapter of the Life, letter m. The cruelty of Geysa is acknowledged also by Carthuitius at num. 2, whose fidelity in writing is shown by that candid acknowledgment. And so nothing has hitherto been found in the vision of Geysa, as it is related by Carthuitius, that deserves censure, or makes the credit of Carthuitius suspect; and Schwartz is worthy of those eulogies with which he insolently loads Catholic writers.

[112] the same man attacks the second vision by an inept reasoning: The second vision the same writer attacks no more rightly in these words: Of the same stamp is the other portent, when Stephen the levite, and first martyr of Jesus Christ, having discharged the office of an intermediary, is said to have been offered in dreams in a levitical habit to Sarolta, the wife of Geysa, to announce the birth of a son Stephen. What honest writer has taught that the protomartyr Stephen was a levite? But let us grant that our legendary meant to signify only the office which he bore: why does he write that he appeared in a levitical habit, unless because he thought that in a cowl there was some singular ornament of sanctity? For that the protomartyr Stephen, and all the first heralds of Christ's Gospel, were distinguished from the rest of the people by a certain kind of garments, is not established. So he. But that deacons were called levites many centuries before St. Stephen, no learned man is ignorant. The sacred Scriptures therefore have taught that St. Stephen was a levite in that sense in which Carthuitius called him a levite. Nor did the latter write for any other cause that he appeared in a levitical or deacon's habit, than because he really believed that he so appeared: for we shall not believe that Carthuitius lied, because Schwartz judges wrongly of his intention. But whether the first heralds of the Gospel were distinguished from other men in dress, I do not here inquire; nor does that pertain to this matter: for St. Stephen was not bound to appear in that habit in which he was clothed while he lived on earth; but could accommodate himself to the time in which he appeared.

[113] [the testimonies of Boniface VIII and of Andrew king of the Hungarians about the visions] Both visions are mentioned by Andrew king of Hungary in his letters to Cardinal James of Palestrina, legate of the Apostolic See, which Odoricus Raynaldus recites at the year 1233, num. 51, in these words: But also to his parents

(of St. Stephen) it had been divinely revealed that a crown and a kingdom were due to him in our nation. Boniface VIII agrees, in the same writer at the year 1301, num. 8, where he has thus: It had indeed been divinely revealed that to him (Stephen) first in the Hungarian nation a crown and a kingdom were due, as these documents more fully testify, which are preserved in the archives of the aforesaid Roman church, and could have come to the knowledge of the archbishop himself. Both these testimonies Timon had brought forward, whom Schwartz, as favouring him, wonderfully praises, because he had refuted the corrupted account of Bonfinius. Hear now, reader, the answer of the heterodox man, and marvel at his impudence: But I forbear to rejoin anything else, he says, than that that testimony (of Boniface VIII) is both more recent and issued in his own cause, and will have little weight with those who are most firmly persuaded that to err is no less pontifical than human. This too raises no slight scruple in me, that Boniface appeals to documents which are preserved in the archives of the Roman Church. For although one document after another has hitherto been dug out of the Vatican for establishing the right which the Pontiffs formerly arrogated to themselves over Hungary, yet in none of them is any testimony of a divine revelation found. He adds the silence of Baronius, who, content with the testimony of Carthuitius, brought forward nothing else.

[114] For indeed I had hitherto thought that credit is not to be taken away from an honest man, impudently rejected by Schwartz. when he affirms that he has seen certain records, unless it can be shown that he could easily have been deceived, or there are clear signs of imposture. But other is the criticism of Schwartz. For he attempts to render Boniface VIII suspect of open lying, and does not believe that records of that kind are preserved in the Vatican archive, such as Boniface asserts are there. But I make Schwartz guilty not only of unheard-of arrogance, but also of stupid rashness, and at the same time convict him. He adduces in the same place the testimony of Andrew king of Hungary, which Raynaldus brought forth from the Vatican, and which is far more ancient than Boniface VIII, and yet he tries to persuade us that Boniface could find nothing similar in the Vatican archive. Who then would not perceive that the man did not even take care to calumniate cautiously? What he answers to the testimony of King Andrew is no better: but we have already protracted this disputation enough. The fair reader will pardon me if I seem more prolix than is just in refuting the objections of the heterodox man: for I judge this necessary for establishing the Saint's deeds and vindicating the authority of his biographer.

* otherwise Dejux

§ XI. Baptism more probably conferred on the Saint by St. Adalbert: the time of the baptism conferred, as also the year of his birth, is inquired into.

[ ] [Although the baptism of St. Stephen is not by all attributed to St. Adalbert, yet writers] Carthuitius at num. 3 relates that St. Stephen was born while St. Adalbert was staying in Hungary, by whom the infant was baptized. Here we have Schwartz agreeing, who on pages 6 and 7 writes thus: That he (St. Stephen) was dipped in the lustral water by St. Adalbert, afterwards bishop of Prague, besides the Hungarian writers, the Poles, Bohemians, and others report with great consent; whose constant testimony from every age it would be most unjust to blow away with a single breath. This consent, indeed, of all men from every age is not a little exaggerated. Certainly those writers did not assert that the Saint was baptized before the bishopric of Adalbert, which is not probable, as we shall see. Nevertheless we shall bring forward sufficient testimonies, that we may be able more probably to claim the baptism for St. Adalbert, and to refute the opinion of others: for here too an adversary will not be lacking. The Saxon Annalist, who was published by Eccard in the Historical Corpus of the middle age, tome 1, col. 469, has thus of St. Stephen at the year 1038: Stephen the religious king of the Hungarians died, who with all his nation had been converted to the faith of Christ: him St. Adalbert bishop and martyr baptized; and his wife, Gisla by name, was the sister of the emperor Henry of Bamberg. All these things which he relates about the year of his death, about the conversion, and about his wife, are exactly and truly related: whence it comes that that writer deserves the greater credit also about the conferrer of baptism. That writer flourished before the middle of the twelfth century, and Eccard in his preface thinks he was Eggehard abbot of Aura in the Hercynian forest.

[116] various ones, even ancient, ascribe it to St. Adalbert. In the Chronicle of Verden, in Leibniz, tome 2 of the Writers illustrating Brunswick affairs, col. 215, it is thus read: In these times St. Adelbert bishop of Prague baptized Stephen king of the Ungari with many others, which pontiff afterwards is crowned with martyrdom, when he was preaching the word of God in Prussia. Ricobaldus of Ferrara, in Muratori, tome 9 of the Writers of Italy, col. 241, assents in these words: The same king Stephen was distinguished in virtues, who was baptized by blessed Adalbert bishop of Poland, a Bohemian by nation. To these let us add most of the Hungarian, Bohemian, and Polish writers, whose names I do not review, because their age does not procure them great authority. Nay, I gladly confess that this fact does not rest on foundations so firm that I should believe it certain enough, if Carthuitius and the Saxon Annalist did not affirm it. But since these two writers are less remote from the age of St. Stephen than that we should take credit from them without just reason, and since they have very many later writers agreeing with them, and none of any weight dissenting (for Ademar of Chabannes, who alone among the ancients is opposed, heaps up so many errors that he scarcely deserves any credit in these Hungarian matters), the baptism of St. Stephen is more probably to be attributed to St. Adalbert, nor can it be attributed with equal probability to any other.

[117] But someone lately denied that St. Adalbert was ever in Hungary, There came out in the year 1738 at Danzig a little work under the title Prussia Christiana, in which the Life of St. Adalbert is illustrated with copious annotations. The author, Andreas Schottus, denies to St. Adalbert not only the baptism of St. Stephen, but at the same time his preaching among the Hungarians. Let us then hear him discoursing on page 45 and following, that we may weigh the several points: It will be needful, he says, that we explain what is to be thought about the Hungarian conversion ascribed to our martyr (Adalbert). But lest the reader wonder that we have brought nothing on that matter into the text, we warn him briefly beforehand that, although we are persuaded that his fame could have reached the Hungarians, nevertheless the following doubts do away entirely with the very presence of Adalbert in Hungary. Certainly his Hungarian journey has been obscured with such darkness of falsehoods that only by the light of true investigation are we led to clearer things. The most ancient patron of the Hungarian conversion is the author of the Surian Life, who at folio 832 narrates the following: "It is not to be passed over in silence that to the Hungarians lying near he now sent his messengers, now offered himself, on whom, though little changed from their error, he impressed a shadow of Christianity". Him follow Bishop Chartuitius in the Life of St. Stephen … in the same Surius… Cosmas of Prague at the year 996. Langius in the Chronicle of Zeitz, folio 761. Bonfinius, Hungarian Affairs, folios 199, 200. Bakschay in the Chronology of the kings of Hungary, folio 903. Dubravius, book 6, folio 46. Cureus, Silesian Annals, folio 34. Werner Rolefinck in the Fasciculus of Times, folio 70. And, to add a few, dissenters hitherto you will find none. It will indeed seem a work of rashness to contradict the common consent. Yet we shall attempt it. We shall not accuse of rashness a writer who inquires into the truth, provided he adduces arguments so weighty that they can outweigh those which he confesses to be opposed to him. But these too he could have augmented with many others, if he had had everything thoroughly examined.

[118] He begins to propose his arguments in this manner: That Sylvester the author of the Canisian Life (this was published by us in tome III of April from page 178 from a Ms. codex; whose first reasons but it probably does not have Sylvester as its author, but another uncertain one, contemporary nevertheless) keeps deep silence; whereas his age, dignity, and aim could promise, nay demand, an explanation of the matter. But how much the silence of a contemporary author avails in refuting fables, historians know. This argument would avail if all contemporary writers were silent; but it is of no moment, since the author of the other Life, published by us in the second place, who likewise is contemporary, mentions in two places the Hungarian preaching of St. Adalbert. Let us then hear other things: Besides this reason, he says, a signal wandering of the alleged authors in the matter of circumstances offers great weight. Every man indulges his own bent. Hence too a varied thread of narration is woven, differing from that of Ariadne, since by the help of hers we are led back, by his we are led astray. The Surian words did not suffice for others to extend signally the glory of so great a martyr, and seemed too general: hence arose the fabulous chaos about Stephen baptized by him, about the dream of Geysa, nay about the education of Stephen by Adalbert. Dubravius, recognizing the weakness of that ill-cohering fabrication, makes Stephen prefect, or captain, of Hungary, and speaks of his baptism with the utmost ambiguity. Bonfinius sets the year of Stephen's baptism at 909, folio 198; which blunder we gladly attribute to the printer. But even if, inverting the number, we take the year 990, yet that infancy of Stephen, since the death of his father Geysa falls in the year 997, can be reconciled neither with the beginning of his reign, nor with the words of Hermannus Contractus; who at the year 995 notes the marriage of Stephen, saying: "Gisla was given in marriage to Stephen king of the Hungarians, when he had converted himself to the faith of Christ, as if indeed according to her name a hostage of the faith (Grisset)". And even if we protract this marriage later, yet the writer of Ursperg also testifies: "That the king of the Ungari did not earn Gisela the sister of the emperor Henry until he promised that he would receive the Christian religion, which also he did". With whom agrees the ancient author of the Life of St. Henry the emperor in Canisius, tome VI of the Ancient Readings, page 390.

[119] This whole disputation has no difficulty, except at the end, are refuted, where certain writers, to whom more might be joined, seem to affirm that St. Stephen was not baptized except on the occasion of his marriage with Gisela the sister of the emperor Henry. For if the Saint was really not dipped in the lustral water before the time of his nuptials with Gisela, the baptism will be later than the death of St. Adalbert, so that it was not conferred on him by the latter. That he relies on this argument, Schottus, just cited, shows when he adds the following: What has hitherto been said comes to this, that the writers of the middle age, when they speak of the beginnings of the Christian religion in Hungary, all pass Adalbert over in silence, and throw in mention only of the marriage as the cause: whose narration demands greater credit than the confused heaping up by the cited authors of ill-connected matters. But this argument we shall resolve more fully below, where we shall sift whether the Saint was converted on the occasion of his marriage with Gisela. Let it suffice therefore to have warned here that the conversion of Hungary was not begun by the said nuptials, but advanced, as will there be proved, and that Stephen was baptized long before the death of St. Adalbert. But as for the fact that Bonfinius and other more recent writers in

chronology and other circumstances of events often turn aside from the road, we do not deny; but by that argument the authority of the older writers, on whose testimonies we rely, cannot be overthrown.

[120] and the later ones are no better, Schottus himself saw this, and therefore proceeds to another reasoning in this manner: But, that we may dry up the streams, we shall have to stop the spring. The first to sow the error was the author of the Surian Life, if those words can be attributed to him, about which nevertheless we doubt not without cause. For that the credit of Surius, on account of the emendation he employed, is not everywhere firm, we have already shown above. What he observes about the authority of Surius plainly falls to the ground, since the same Life has been published by us from a Ms. codex of Prague, and there in two places the author mentions the Hungarian preaching of Adalbert. Then Schottus tries to render the passage suspect of interpolation, going on thus: But in this place the connecting words, IT IS NOT TO BE PASSED OVER IN SILENCE, render the whole business still more suspect. For this history of the conversion, which would be a signal moment of Adalbert's life, is set forth as it were parenthetically. Wherefore we are confident that these little lines crept in through the bad faith of later men. This confidence indeed is excessive, since it must in the same way have crept into the Saxon Annalist, into Carthuitius, and others who afterwards followed. Nevertheless let us hear the reasons subjoined for this confidence: Besides the suspicion, he says, arising from the very context of the words, the circumstances too persuade otherwise. Certainly the hardness of the Bohemians, complained of in what precedes, wholly occupied Adalbert, so that it was not permitted him to put his sickle into other men's harvests. It stands in the way too that, when a second time at Rome he sought the loosing of the episcopal bond, he by no means set the readiness of the heathen Hungarians in taking up the Christian faith against the obduracy of the Bohemians, so that contraries placed side by side might shine forth the more. By this reason too he would have employed an excellent argument for procuring the dismissal which he anxiously desired. We add that the envoys too, who a second time sought a bishop for themselves at Rome, could excellently have set before their eyes the necessity of Adalbert's presence in Bohemia, by alleging such an act of conversion; since of the future longed-for progress in Bohemia of him who had happily converted the Hungarians there was by no means room for despair. And who will unravel all the minutiae? For we are persuaded that from what has hitherto been said it appears in some measure that the Hungarian journey cannot conveniently be attributed to Adalbert. Thus far Schottus.

[121] it is shown. But all these reasons could be omitted, since they do not detract even the least likelihood from the Hungarian preaching of St. Adalbert. The author reasons as if all Hungary were said to have been converted by Adalbert. But that the biographer whom he attacks does not affirm, nor even Carthuitius, or the Saxon Annalist, on whose testimony too we rely. He impressed a shadow of Christianity on the Hungarians; he did not convert them all. Now, if the hardness of the Bohemians did not hinder his journeys to Rome, if it did not hinder his Polish and Prussian journey, why must it have hindered the Hungarian? Nay rather, if the hardness of the Bohemians offered occasion and cause for the aforesaid journeys, as is certainly established, why could not Adalbert equally visit the Hungarians the more easily, the more harshly the Bohemians received his admonitions? But that the holy prelate did not remain long among the Hungarians, and did not desire more to spend his life among them than among the Bohemians, I judge to have arisen from no other cause than that the Hungarian people was no more willing to correct itself than the Bohemian: for the perfect conversion of the Hungarians and the amendment of their manners was reserved for St. Stephen, by whom at length it was effectively begun and advanced.

[122] It remains that we inquire in about what year the Saint was born and reborn in baptism. St. Stephen seems to have been born and baptized about the year 984, Carthuitius at num. 4 hints that he was born while St. Adalbert was bishop of Prague, and baptized not long after. Now St. Adalbert was created bishop in the year 983, and crowned with martyrdom in the year 997, in which also died Geysa the father of St. Stephen. He was a youth when his father died, and scarcely out of boyhood, as is gathered from the same Carthuitius. Inchofer in the Annals of Hungary writes that St. Stephen was born in the year 985, and at twelve years old brought to the kingdom in the year 997. But that birth-year rests on an uncertain conjecture, although otherwise it does not seem to stray far from the truth, nor is it repugnant to any certain record. Yet I greatly prefer the conjecture and reasoning of Hansizius, already so often cited, who on page 227 succinctly explains the matter in these words: He was baptized by Adalbert prelate of Prague… It is certain that this was not done before the year 983: for in that year first Adalbert was consecrated bishop at the city of Verona, on the feast of the apostles Peter and Paul, the emperor Otto II being present. Yet from the narration of Chartuitius it will be established that it can scarcely be deferred beyond the year 984. For Adalbert arrived about the very time of Stephen's birth. Further, Stephen, his father being still alive, was placed on the throne, after, as he writes, he had already passed the bounds of boyhood. Thence Geisa met his death in the year 997, in which Stephen was already a youth, as is there said. This observation has compelled us to place the baptism of Stephen some years before Baronius, namely at about the year nine hundred and eighty-three, in which Adalbert began to sit, or at any rate the following. For otherwise it cannot be understood how, his father being alive, he passed the bounds of boyhood, or Stephen attained youth. From the year 983, therefore, or the following, in drawing the reckoning to the year of Geisa's death, 997, some way at length appears of making up fourteen years of age at least, though incomplete. This reasoning pleases me, and therefore I judge that the birth and baptism of St. Stephen must be placed about the year 984; yet I do not think that Carthuitius by youth meant to designate fourteen years in such wise that a slightly lesser age cannot be understood. It is credible too that the conversion of the Hungarians was committed to Adalbert when he was consecrated bishop, because the Bavarians and Austrians, wars being rife, were kept from Hungary, but not the Bohemians.

[123] Ranzanus and others formerly said that St. Stephen was born in the year 969: not in the year 969, nor before the bishopric of Adalbert. but almost the whole chronology of those writers is faulty, and lacks authority. Schwartz nevertheless adduces that epoch as certain on page 7 without any proof, and from it takes an argument for himself. For this cause too he had said that the saint was baptized by Adalbert before his bishopric, which is not even probable from the Life of St. Adalbert alone, in which at num. 6 Adalbert, when his predecessor the bishop was dying, is called a youth, who in those days was a soldier given to pleasures; and who at the same time began a holier life. Further, St. Stephen himself sufficiently destroys the epoch of Ranzanus, and confirms ours, in the diploma to be recited afterwards for the abbey of St. Martin, given toward the end of the year 1001: for in it he speaks thus: For the singular help which through the merits of blessed Martin I have experienced in myself from boyhood, I have taken care to hand down to the memory of posterity. Then he relates the victory won over the duke of Simigium, which he obtained after the death of his father Geysa in the year 997, or 998, as we shall explain in its place. Now, if in the year 997 or 998 he was in boyhood, which is called earliest youth by Carthuitius, he seems to have been about thirteen or fourteen years old, and therefore the year of his birth cannot more fitly be set than about 984, so that he may also have been born in the preceding or the following. Ranzanus not only writes that he was baptized by Adalbert, but also expresses the name of him by whom he asserts that he was raised from the sacred font, calling him Adeodatus, of the family of the most illustrious counts of Sanseverino in Campania. But whence he drew this I do not know, and I leave it to his credit.

§ XII. The death of Geysa; whom St. Stephen succeeds: his mother not sufficiently known: how far religion was advanced under Geysa, and in what state it was found by St. Stephen.

[ ] Geysa the Saint's father, having died a Catholic, left a wife surviving, The death of Geysa duke of the Hungarians Carthuitius fixes in the year 997, and with him all writers of any name commonly agree. Before his death he is written to have so commended his Son to the Hungarian princes for the principate of Hungary that he even bound them by the religion of an oath. Hence Stephen, his father being dead, presently obtained the duchy, the nobles and people promoting him, as they had promised his father. That Geysa died a Catholic and piously the Hungarian writers affirm with Carthuitius. Nor do the words of Ditmar given at num. 101 stand in the way, from which there might be a suspicion that he was not sincerely converted, because he went on worshipping idols, and once so answered a bishop that he seemed to wish to remain in idolatry: for Ditmar himself hints that he was not of that mind down to his death, when he says, He washed away his ancient crime. The Hungarian writers commonly record only one wife of Geysa, and assert that she was the mother of St. Stephen and lived on after her husband. But the Poles attribute a Polish wife to Geysa, Adleida by name, and sister of Miecslaus duke of Poland, whom some write to have been Geysa's second wife. For this cause, since Carthuitius brings no light, it is obscure who was the mother of St. Stephen: for the Hungarian writers as well as the Polish are more recent and less exact than that much trust may be placed in their statements. We can therefore offer conjectures; but establish nothing certain.

[125] but she does not seem to have been Stephen's mother, In the first place it is probable that the wife of Geysa who survived him was not his first wife, nor the mother of St. Stephen. The reason is drawn from the Hungarian writers themselves, who with one voice affirm that the widow of Geysa was sought in marriage by Cupa duke of Simigium, who by that marriage was attempting to snatch the duchy from Stephen. For Geysa died an old man, so that his first wife, if she had lived, would probably have been of too advanced an age to be honourably sought in marriage: for it is not probable that Geysa was of advanced age when he took his first wife. From the aforesaid reason again it is not probable that the widow of Geysa was the mother of St. Stephen: for Cupa would not have sued for the mother's hand, that by her help he might thrust down the Son, which he could scarcely hope for. But Cupa relied on a probable hope, if the widow of Geysa was Stephen's stepmother: for, since in the year 996 she, as the Life of St. Adalbert adduced at num. 100 testifies, held the whole kingdom of her husband in her hand, and herself ruled the things that were her husband's, so great was her authority that Cupa could hope that with the marriage of this widow the kingdom would devolve upon him. But, as we have already seen, he does not seem to have been able to hope for her consent, if she was the mother of the prince who was to reign, or of too great an age: for either of these would have spurred her to reign rather for her Son than under a husband.

[126] By Ditmar in book 8 the wife of Geysa is called Beleknegena, [but Geysa's second wife: while the Saint's mother was Sarolta, daughter of the duke of Transylvania.] in the printed editions Beleknegini, that is, fair lady, where the editors add "in Slavonic." But if this wife had a Slavonic name, it is probable

that she was Polish. And so we can believe on the testimony of the Poles that Geysa's last wife was Polish: but it is not so probable that she was the mother of St. Stephen. But we can assent to the Hungarians, who unanimously assert that Sarolta, the daughter of the duke of Transylvania, was the mother of St. Stephen. For the Saxon Annalist offers a foundation for this opinion, when at the year 1003, writing that the duke of Transylvania was conquered by Stephen, he calls him his maternal uncle. But if Julus, as he is there called, or Giula, as the Hungarians prefer, was the maternal uncle of the Saint, certainly his mother was the sister of Giula, and the daughter of his father. Further, if Geysa had these two wives, and the first was the mother of Stephen, she was a pagan, as her brother still was when he was conquered by Stephen; but she was converted before her death together with her husband Geysa, who afterwards married a Christian Polish woman. But these things I confess uncertain, and I shall gladly follow if anyone, relying on better records, shall teach things more certain.

[127] Peter Ranzanus in the Epitome of Hungarian affairs, index 8, records many things about the advancement of the Christian religion under Geysa. Geysa attempted to advance the Christian religion, From these I shall transfer some hither, omitting nevertheless the faulty chronology, that by the discussion of them it may appear more fully in what state Stephen found the religion of the Hungarians when he obtained the kingdom. Having related the coming of Adalbert, he adds these things: A day was appointed on which both they themselves, and many noble men, and many others, men both of middling and of humble birth, were reborn in Christ by holy baptism. Geicha then made himself liable to a vow, and promised on oath that as soon as possible he would take pains that all the peoples obedient to his dominion should be made worshippers of Christ after his example. By every way, therefore, manner, art, and diligence he takes care to become master of his vow. Many followed him, but well-nigh countless numbers refused to imitate his holy purpose, for they preferred to serve the worship of idols. Since therefore they, taking no account of so great a prince, did not cease to abide in that error of darkness, the most prudent prince perceived that there was need of arms, by whose force both their ferocity and their abandoned boldness might be tamed. But since he had not forces so great as that what the necessity of the case demanded might easily be done by him, he secretly gives letters to several Christian princes, by which he opens his laudable and holy purpose, and therefore asks that in so great a mass of affairs each should send his fitting aid. Forces of the Christian princes are therefore sent from every side into Hungary… Within a few years so many thousands of foreign soldiers assembled that they were far superior in arms and number to the Hungarians who shrank from the worship of Christ. These things perhaps are exaggerated; but they do not seem altogether improbable, since they agree both with the manners of Geysa and with the words of Ditmar adduced before: When he was made a Christian, he raged in the strengthening of the faith. Yet by this violence he doubtless made more hypocrites than true Christians: which agrees with what has been said before from the Life of Adalbert.

[128] and he is said to have compelled very many by fear of arms and of death: In what manner Geysa then carried out the matter he goes on to narrate in a more exaggerated fashion, and in these words: And so, when he perceived that a fitting time had now come in which he might execute what he had conceived in his mind, through his herald he lays open his mind, and admonishes all the Hungarians, and commands them that, coming to their senses from the error in which they were, they should take up the religion of the true God which he himself, breathed upon by divine inspiration, had taken up: that he would no longer endure that his countrymen should wander through darkness and destroy themselves by serving the devil, with whom they were to be tortured in eternal torments: that those who despised these saving admonitions and visions should expect nothing else than to be slaughtered to a man, and that he had arms ready for that… So it was in a short time brought about that, partly through fear, partly led by wholesome counsel, all Hungary, believing in Christ, received the sacraments of the Christian faith. I should rather believe these things done at the beginning of the reign of St. Stephen, after he had been betrothed to Gisela, from whose brother St. Henry, as also from Otto III, he could receive military assistance, and probably did receive it. I should also think that all was carried out in a manner indeed effective, but less violent; and that not threats of death were held out, but of exile or another penalty. Nevertheless it is not improbable that Stephen, while his father was alive, was already betrothed to Gisela, that afterwards, being older and the kingdom brought over to the faith, he might contract nuptials with her: for thus can easily be explained various not contemptible writers who write that Hungary was converted on the occasion of this marriage, as also those who attribute that praise partly to St. Henry. The compact of the future nuptials could have been made in the year 996, or the following, and at the same time assistance could have been sent into Hungary: and these having been received, Geysa toward the end of his life could universally forbid idolatry. It certainly happened either toward the end of his life, or shortly after his death; which I would not dare to decide.

[129] but Ranzanus attributes many things to Geysa which were done by St. Stephen, It is more certain that the things which Ranzanus goes on to attribute to Geysa were only in part begun by him, and completed by Stephen. Take his words: Temples therefore were everywhere erected to God, and to blessed Mary the Virgin, and to the other Saints: prelates and presbyters of the chief churches were appointed, and priests of the other orders, who should serve the praises of God: Christian laws and rites and sacred ceremonies were introduced, the decrees of the holy Fathers began to be observed: there were moreover established those things which are necessary for the use of human life, from which the clergy might live honourably in their churches. All these things were done, but most were begun later by St. Stephen. Some churches indeed were built by Geysa, but no bishoprics were established, and only one abbey begun, as is gathered from the letters of St. Stephen for the abbey of St. Martin, given in the year 1001, in which that abbey is said to have been begun by Geysa, but completed by Stephen, and further below: Nor yet were bishoprics and abbeys besides that place (that is, the abbey of St. Martin) situated in the Hungarian kingdom, namely at that time in which Stephen conquered the duke of Simigium after his father's death. Laws too were passed by St. Stephen; and churches, whose number seems to have been small under Geysa, were established and founded in sufficient number through the whole kingdom.

[130] Of Stephen's education Ranzanus subjoins these things: and many things to Stephen before his principate, Meanwhile Stephen, by the most intent care of his parent, under a tutor provided for him who was fit for that purpose, was passing his first age innocently. He was of so excellent a disposition that he seemed to display a certain specimen of all the virtues. But when he grew up, he began so to exercise his life in works of virtue that the expectation of future probity which had been held of him deceived no one. So great was his kindness that he was dear to men of every kind, and incredibly agreeable and pleasant. By the wonderful elegance of manners in which he excelled he very easily brought it about that he turned the minds of all to admiration of himself. So great a force and dexterity of wit was in him, and so great and such a vigour of a certain incipient prudence, that every most prudent man judged him born for a kingdom. An admirable cultivator of Christian piety beyond what can be said. Of which matter it will be more than enough now to bring forward this one example, and one indeed worthy of record. As a very young man, when he had heard that very many of the Hungarians worshipped Christ feignedly, because they had received the wave of holy baptism moved by fear; he by his own diligence brought it about that most of them believed in Christ himself, all pretence being taken away. For, taking up Christian arms, namely faith and hope, and that charity which the Gospel taught, he summoned to himself now these, now those. He opened to them the meaning of the divine Scriptures, and, according to the doctrine of the blessed apostle Paul, by reproving, beseeching, rebuking, at length obtained that in all Hungary very few remained who had not been made worshippers of the true God. And so he accomplished no less than his parent; since what the one did by arms, this one did by love and by the wisdom divinely given him.

[131] His father afterwards dying piously and religiously, and with that faith toward God with which it befitted a most Christian prince to die, which he did during his principate. he himself succeeded to his resources, and administered the Hungarian state under the name of duke, as both he and others before him had done. In this whole account I see nothing straying from probability, except that many things are recorded before their time. Stephen indeed himself taught many, as is sufficiently established from elsewhere; but he did not accomplish before his father's death so much as Ranzanus attributes to him, who from a faulty chronology fell into this error. He believed that he was born in the year 969, and therefore without difficulty attributed to him before his principate what he found done by him, but which should have been placed after he obtained the principate. For since we have shown that the Saint was born about the year 984, a Youth of about thirteen years, on account of the excellence and maturity of his wit, could indeed begin the instruction of the ignorant, and show the absurdity of idolatry to the ignorant. But it is not probable that the sacred Scriptures were already at that time expounded by a Youth, and so great a work of labour done as is here described, and as he really did when more advanced in age and higher in rank. From what is to be said it is also gathered that the serious and perfect conversion of the Hungarian kingdom is to be placed only under Stephen's principate. What he finally says, that Stephen began to administer Hungary with the title of duke, will be confirmed in its place.

§ XIII. Whether St. Stephen, having obtained the principate, was converted on the occasion of his nuptials with Gisela? The writers who seem to assert it are to be explained of the conversion of the whole kingdom.

[ ] Not a few historians will have it, Various writers, even nearly contemporary with St. Stephen, so speak of his nuptials with Gisela the sister of St. Henry the emperor as to seem to attribute to them the conversion of the holy King, and his very baptism. Hence Bavarian writers strive to claim this glory for their nation. John Adlzreitter in the Annals of the Bavarian nation, part 1, book 15, num. 1, disputes on this matter in this manner: In this very year which we are describing, if Hermannus (Contractus) is to be believed, Gisela the sister of Henry, whom the same Saint (Wolfgang, of whom he had just treated) by divine instinct was wont to call queen, was sued for and obtained for the nuptial chamber by Stephen king of the Ungari. Although Cartuitus, a Hungarian bishop, will have those nuptials to have been concluded only in the year 1002; Sigebert, who is wont to follow others after a long interval, in the year 1010; John Staindel in the year 994. We have preferred to follow Hermannus, nearer to the age of Henry. Further, that Gisela did not come into Stephen's hands before he was initiated in the Christian rites, the authorities are Martin the Pole, Otto of Freising, and Conrad of Ursperg. The Hungarians indeed, taught gentler manners by the teaching of Piligrinus bishop of Passau, had somewhat abated of their native ferocity, and had taken on some bearing of Christian mildness:

but although Geisa king of the Ungari had called Adalbert to cultivate the nation, and, having received baptism, had given his name to Christ, yet he went on paying divine honours to the gods of his country, and believed that they were to be adored with a worship equal to that of the true God; and his people after his example had not sent word of dismissal to their heathen superstitions.

[133] that St. Stephen was converted on the occasion of his nuptials with Gisela: Wherefore an author contemporary with and familiar to Adalbert says in his Life that he now sent messengers to the Ungri, now offered himself, and on them, though little changed from their error, impressed a shadow of Christianity. Whence there is reason why you should charge Cartuitus, who wrote about 130 years after the birth of Stephen, with excessive indulgence toward his own nation, when he writes that the duke of the Ungri, with his Son and his household and all the men of his dominion, were cleansed by Adalbert with the saving waters, and that Geisa indeed was much solicitous about abolishing sacrilegious rites and establishing bishoprics. Certainly Sigebert expressly ascribes the conversion of Stephen and of the Ungri to Gisela, the sister of the emperor Henry. Nonnosius agrees, or whoever published the life of St. Henry, whom Arenpeck and Andrew of Ratisbon followed. But also — what is equal to all — in the Roman Martyrology Henry is said to have brought King Stephen with almost his whole kingdom to receive the faith of Christ. So it seemed good to God, to reserve the glory of this most beautiful deed to Henry and Gisela, Bavarian princes, that they should be called and be the chief authors of the reception of the divine law in Hungary. Therefore, to embrace much in few words, the son of duke Geisa, whose name before baptism is written by Ditmar as Waic, when he ardently sought the nuptials of Gisela, was not made master of his wish until, the rites of the heathen being abjured, he received the Christian rites, and promised that he would bring the whole nation of the Ungri to the same so far as he was able. The words of this writer I have adduced the more gladly because he acknowledges that the conversion of the Hungarians was begun by Piligrinus and advanced by Adalbert, and because he also confesses that Geisa was washed in the saving font. Andreas Brunner in the Bavarian Annals, part 2, book 3, page 147, disputes in almost the same manner, and confesses that it is manifest from Ditmar that Geysa gave his name to Christ. Both, however, observe that Geysa joined idolatry with the worship of the true God; which we ourselves have shown. But the same do not prove that this was continued by him down to the end of his life; and we have proved the contrary from Ditmar, to whom Carthuitius may be joined.

[134] These things being observed, it is well to recite the words themselves of the older writers, yet this is not established by the authority of Hermannus Contractus, that we may examine whether they so clearly assert that the baptism of Stephen was received on the occasion of the marriage as to leave no room for any other explanation. The first or most ancient author who wrote on this matter is Hermannus Contractus, who in his Chronicle, as it was published by Canisius, at the year 995, on occasion of the death of Henry duke of Bavaria and the succession of St. Henry afterwards emperor, writes these things about the daughter of the former and the sister of the latter: His sister Gisela, given in marriage to Stephen king of the Ungari, when he converted himself to the faith of Christ, as if truly, according to her name, a hostage of the faith, grew old there intent upon alms and other good works. On this passage some things are to be noted. First, these words are not read in the edition of Pistorius or of Urstisius, so that it is uncertain whether they are Hermannus's or another's who added them to the Chronicle of Hermannus. Secondly, whether they are Hermannus's or another's, the author did not mean to indicate that the nuptials happened in that year, but only records them on occasion of the father of Henry, whose death he assigns. But that the nuptials were contracted later, we shall afterwards prove. Thirdly, Schwartz, citing this passage on page 3, corrupted it: for in place of the words, when he converted himself to the faith of Christ, he substituted, who had converted himself to the faith of Christ: which words signify less than the preceding. These things being observed, I pass to the other passage of Hermannus, who at the year 1038 again has thus in Canisius: In that same year Stephen king of the Ungari, when many years before he had converted himself with his whole nation to the faith of Christ, and had built very many churches and bishoprics, … died. Other editions too in this place record the conversion together with the death, but a little more briefly. From which I gather that the former passage is probably not Hermannus's, but some interpolator's, since it is not probable that he in a brief Chronicle should wish to record the same thing twice, and the variety of the editions offers a suspicion of interpolation. And so neither can the time of the nuptials be settled from Hermannus, nor anything else than that he asserts that he was converted, and so supposes that he was not a Christian from the beginning.

[135] or of Marianus Scotus, who say that Stephen with his people was converted: To this opinion Marianus Scotus comes near in his Chronicle at the year 1038, where he has these things: Stephen king of the Ungari died a Christian, who with all his nation is converted to the faith. These writers indeed are not rightly adduced by Adlzreitter to prove that St. Stephen was baptized on account of his nuptials with Gisela: yet I freely acknowledge that they in some measure resist my opinion, which I have asserted as more probable, that Stephen was baptized in infancy. But I answer that their authority in these matters is not so great that it can be set on a level with the reasons that fight for the baptism of the infant Stephen. The authority of Carthuitius alone ought to outweigh these and the others that afterwards followed, since he had Hungarian records when he was writing the Saint's Life; but the others were little informed about Hungarian matters, on account of the slight intercourse which other nations had with the Hungarians before the principate of Stephen. Those writers knew that Stephen was a Catholic, and that his kingdom was converted in his time: they knew that his forefathers were pagans, and therefore could easily believe that Stephen himself was a pagan until the public conversion of the whole kingdom. Of the conversion of Geysa they seem to have heard nothing, nothing of the conversion of the Hungarians begun under him, because their age was too remote from these things for them to know them of themselves, nor did they find anything written about them in the writers whom they followed. Ditmar indeed and Ademar had recorded the conversion of Geysa; and Ademar had fixed the baptism of both, namely of the father and of the Son, at the beginning of the reign of Otto III, which agrees excellently with our chronology and with the infancy of Stephen; but at that time writers did not easily have all the books written before their times, and therefore they must be pardoned if they were ignorant of anything; but they are not to be imitated where on occasion of that ignorance they narrated some things wrongly. These things meanwhile we set against their authority, meaning to say more after we have adduced the words of those who explained their statements with a freer paraphrase.

[136] [but various writers a little more recent openly attribute the conversion to the nuptials,] Sigebert at the year 1010 clearly attributes both the King's and the Hungarians' conversion to Stephen's nuptials with Gisela, writing these things: The nation of the Hungarians, hitherto given to idolatry, is at this time converted to the faith of Christ through Gisela the sister of the emperor, who, married to the King of the Hungarians, by her urgency brought the King to this, that he sought that himself and the whole nation of the Hungarians should be baptized, who in baptism was called Stephen. Whose merits great glory of miracles commends throughout Hungary. Here the nuptials are torn far from their own time, but of these afterwards. Otto of Freising, book 6, chapter 27, of his Chronicle, has thus of Henry: And, his sister Gisela having been given as wife to Stephen king of the Ungari, he called both him and his whole kingdom to the faith. This Stephen the Ungari, keeping the Christian faith to this day, deem worthy to be venerated among the Saints as the beginning of their faith. The writer of Ursperg in his Chronicle explains his mind in Henry II in these words: Their sister, a woman of good memory, Gisela, the king of the Ungari, who was called Stephen, sought in marriage, but did not deserve to take her, until he promised that he would receive the rudiments of the Christian religion, and the sacraments of holy baptism, with all his nation. Which promise, when he had accomplished it in deed, he remained afterwards religious and devoted to God in the performance of good works: which the divine mercy after his death demonstrated by evident tokens, miracles of signs being wrought at his burial-place. These words are faithfully transcribed in the brief Chronicle of Liège in Martène, tome 3 of the Anecdota, col. [ ]. Let there be added to these Martin the Pole, and many others, who went off into the same opinion: for I would not deny that easily ten or twelve writers of the thirteenth century, or a little later, have been read by me, who besides those adduced record almost the same things; but these could increase the number, not the authority, and therefore there is no need to weave a catalogue of them.

[137] The Saxon Annalist at the year 1002 recorded the opinion of the Bavarians, [which opinion was that of some Germans, but not of the Hungarians, who asserted the contrary] but at the year 1038 says that Stephen was baptized by Adalbert, which is contrary to what precedes. Alberic the monk in his Chronicle at the year 1010 set forth both opinions in this manner: The nation of the Hungarians, hitherto given to idolatry, is at this time converted to the faith of Christ through Gisela the sister of the emperor, who, married to the king of the Hungarians, by her urgency brought the king to this, that he sought that himself and the whole nation of the Hungarians should be baptized: who in baptism was called Stephen: whose merits many kinds of miracles commend throughout Hungary. Nevertheless the Hungarians say that St. Adalbert bishop of Prague converted and baptized King Stephen; and that the King himself by his preaching converted the Hungarians, and established the greater church at Gran in honour of Adalbert: but that Queen Gisela, as they say, wrought many wickednesses in that land, and at last after the death of the holy King, as her deserts required, was slain. Whether those latter things about Gisela are more certain than the former about the conversion of Stephen through Gisela will be examined in its place. Meanwhile it will be of use from Alberic's statements to observe that the opinion of the Germans about the conversion of Stephen on the occasion of the nuptials was never admitted by the Hungarians: for the contrary opinion Carthuitius asserted about the beginning of the twelfth century, and that the same is asserted by the Hungarians Alberic testifies, who wrote at the beginning of the thirteenth century; and later Hungarians always adhered to the same; and they have as favouring them the Polish and Bohemian writers.

[138] So many reasons besides favour the opinion of the Hungarians with Ditmar, Ademar, and others: several reasons favour their opinion, that I cannot doubt that it is true. It is certain from Ditmar, Ademar, the Life of Adalbert, and Stephen's own letters for the abbey of St. Martin, that the faith was received by Geysa, which both Adlzreitter and Brunner acknowledge. Who then would believe that the father was baptized and the son not baptized, especially since Ademar affirms the baptism of the Son as well as of the parent, Ditmar asserts the faith of both, and Stephen himself acknowledges that he was aided by the benefit of St. Martin from boyhood? But, says Adlzreitter, Geysa, though baptized, worshipped idols together with his nation: and hence Brunner infers that it is sufficiently established that while Geysa lived impiety was not triumphed over. If I admit the whole, our adversaries will have nothing,

by which to prove that the baptism of Stephen must be removed from his infancy. But indeed, if we believe Ditmar that Geysa for a time worshipped both the true God and idols, and answered rather harshly a bishop who disapproved of it, as Brunner takes it for an argument, let us have the same credit for the rest of Ditmar's statements too, and by distinguishing the times let us reconcile the words of the same writer, as fairness demands. Geysa was a pagan, he worshipped idols: he was made a Christian, he went on worshipping idols; he was rebuked by the prelate, he answered rather harshly, if you will; or, if you prefer, he brought a frivolous excuse; for the words admit this sense too, as they are read in the manuscript codex; all these things we believe from Ditmar. But if we believe the aforesaid, it is fair that we should likewise believe what he wrote to Geysa's honour: and so these words too are to be admitted: Glowing with zeal for God, he washed away his ancient crime. He did not therefore go on worshipping idols to the end of his life: for so he would neither have glowed with zeal for God, nor washed away his ancient crimes.

[139] which persuade us that an error crept in upon Sigebert and others, Now that impiety was not triumphed over among the Hungarians, that is, that the whole nation, or the greater part of it, was not converted before the death of Geysa, I gladly admit. But hence it does not follow that Stephen was not baptized before his father's death, because he neither then held the principate, nor is the whole kingdom converted at once with the prince. Nay rather, if conjectures are needed, from the sudden conversion of the kingdom after the death of Geysa it might be inferred that Stephen had already before struck deep roots of piety; and that thence it came about that he converted the whole kingdom in a few years, and furnished it with churches, bishoprics, and Christian laws. This would certainly be a juster and more probable deduction; but we are not doing that in this place. It is pleasant to investigate in what manner we may acquit Sigebert and the other cited writers, if not of all error, at least of fabrication. This will not be difficult, if we show on what occasion this error could have crept in. Further, from the conversion of the whole kingdom, which seems to have been made not long before the nuptials of Stephen with Gisela, and which was not a little advanced by those nuptials, the cited writers could easily believe that the King himself was converted at the same time, since they knew that his forefathers were pagans, as I have already said at num. 135. I also think it probable that the espousal contract was entered upon on this condition, that Stephen before the nuptials should endeavour to convert the whole kingdom, and that for this Henry the brother of Gisela, then duke of Bavaria, and the emperor Otto III should bring him assistance. A compact of this kind could bring it about that some attributed the conversion of Hungary to Otto III, others to Henry; and others at last included Stephen himself in the number of the converted, because they had not been more certainly informed about the baptism received in infancy.

[140] since that error could arise from the conversion of the kingdom. Now that not without foundation some care for the conversion of the Hungarians can be attributed to Otto III as well as to St. Henry, I gather from two contemporary writers. The first is Ademar the monk, in Labbe, tome 2 of the Bibliotheca, page 168, straying indeed in many circumstances, and wrongly attributing to Bruno what in the conversion of the Hungarians ought to be attributed to Adalbert, yet rightly placing the baptism of Stephen much earlier, after relating which he adds the following: But afterwards to that son of his Stephen the emperor Otto gave in marriage the sister of Henry, afterwards emperor. These words hint that the nuptials were brought about by Otto's counsel. And Ditmar in book 4 testifies that Stephen erected episcopal chairs by the favour and exhortation of Otto III. And so, since it is established that the religion of the Hungarians and the nuptials of Stephen with Gisela were a care to Otto III, it is probable that Stephen used his aid and that of Henry for more vigorously urging the conversion of his people, and that the nuptials were put off for a while until these things had been happily accomplished. I shall therefore gladly concede to the Bavarian writers, at least as probable, that St. Henry was unwilling to give his sister to Stephen as wife unless the conversion of the kingdom preceded, and by that conversion his faith was placed in safety: but by no means shall I admit as probable that the King was converted or baptized on that occasion. Nay rather I should believe that Stephen did not will the conversion of the kingdom for the sake of the nuptials; but sought those nuptials that he might the more easily convert the kingdom. Of the time when the nuptials were contracted we shall dispute in its place; for certain other things seem to have happened before the nuptials were contracted.

§ XIV. The war with Cupa duke of Simigium, who was contriving to seize the kingdom and to cut off the Christian faith: the King's victory after vows made to St. Martin.

[ ] Cupa duke of Simigium, said by some to be Stephen's kinsman, Stephen, having obtained his father's duchy, determined studiously to observe and confirm the peace with the neighbouring Christian princes which his deceased father had arranged, that by the assistance of the Christian princes he might raise higher the standard of the faith in Hungary, and have strength enough to crush the assaults of rebels. But the Hungarian nobles who were addicted to idolatry soon raised the standard of rebellion, and attempted to thrust the young Stephen from the principate, that they might root out the sprouting seeds of the faith. The standard-bearer of this war against Stephen was the count of Simigium, who was contriving to claim for himself the duchy of Hungary, as the holy King himself testifies in his letters for the monastery of St. Martin. As a second cause Carthuitius at num. 5 assigns hatred of the Christian religion, by which he greatly strengthened his party. That count or duke of Simigium the Hungarians call Cupa, and Ranzanus says that he was a kinsman of St. Stephen. Bonfinius says that Cupa was the son of Zirind the Bald. Turoczius in chapter 27 attributes to Geysa a brother Michael, and reviews his sons Ladislaus the Bald and Vazul. This Ladislaus the Bald, then, was the cousin of St. Stephen. But Cupa does not seem to be the son of this Bald one, because thus he would probably have been younger than Stephen, and because Cupa's father is called Zirind the Bald to distinguish him, as it appears, from another. It may be that Ranzanus confounded two Balds, and thence believed that Cupa was Stephen's kinsman: which I would not dare to affirm. Nay rather that nearness of blood appears to me little probable, since Stephen speaks of Cupa, or the count of Simigium, in such a way that he does not seem to have been his kinsman.

[142] If we believe the Hungarian writers of the fifteenth century, against the young Stephen, intent on the propagation of the faith, Cupa wished to use guile, and attempted through marriage with the widow of Geysa, whom they call Sarolta the mother of Stephen, to obtain the kingdom. But that the widow of Geysa was probably not the mother of Stephen, but his stepmother, I have observed before. But what is to be believed about these nuptials sought I leave to the judgment of others. But whatever be the case about the nuptials, it is certain that Cupa wished to invade the kingdom, and that great was the danger of the young King, which he gratefully acknowledged to have been dispelled by divine protection and the patronage of St. Martin. Bonfinius, Decade 2, book 1, page 172, described probably enough how Stephen bore himself at the beginning of his principate, and what the occasions of the rebellion were. Wherefore I subjoin his words as probable: There was nothing (the young Duke) desired to attempt with greater zeal than to claim all the Ungari for the light of truth. Nor was he ignorant of this, that no prince would long reign unless he excelled in justice and religion. To this he strained all the sinews of his wit. And that he might the more easily attain these things, he applied himself to the divine books. He employed for himself teachers of sacred things, whom he used most familiarly and assiduously. In every most weighty matter he consulted holy men, lest he should unknowingly defile himself and his people with any guilt. But when he had bent his mind chiefly to the public welfare, which he could not attain without the quiet of the neighbouring peoples, first of all, peace being made and confirmed with all his neighbours, he fortified the kingdom, so that if any sedition should arise among his peoples or stubborn princes about undertaking the faith of Christ, no aid could be hoped for by these from abroad. For he feared, as presently happened, that Scythian minds would by no means easily lay aside their ancestral rites. Nay, of those too who had been washed in baptism, he perceived that many had received the Catholic faith through shame, some through the king's favour, and very few of their own accord. But on the other hand he could not endure with equanimity that the whole people should go to ruin through the pernicious opinion of the gods: nay, he was resolved either to recall it to the saving faith, or to lose at once his kingdom and his life.

[143] stirs up a rebellion, and with the rebels besieges Vesprinium: While he judges that he must act somewhat more severely against those who resisted, since very many could not be forced to repentance without violence, most of the princes with a vast multitude conspire against him, plot an internal war; and, that they may not put off Scythian ferocity, deter the rest from the religion which had been established. First they rage far and wide against the villages, lay waste the estates; then, their forces being increased, they attack the royal towns: and above all they besiege Vesprinium, situated beside Lake Balaton, a city indeed not ignoble, that they might rouse greater bile in the King, and increase the courage of those who had fallen away from allegiance to him. The author of this innovation the Annals of the Ungari relate to have been Cupa, the son of Zirind the Bald, who ruled in the district of Simigium. Since he indeed, Geysa being dead, was attempting to entice the mother of Stephen into marriage by adultery, that, having obtained her as wife, he might cut off the life of Stephen by guile, and at last master the state. And while he was expecting that an occasion of fulfilling his lust would daily be given him, in this novelty of affairs he could not be quiet; he wished not only to be present at the tumult, but to lead it. For, carried away by desire of ruling, … he exhorted villages as well as towns to fall away from royal fidelity and superstition *: with a certain abandoned boldness he professed himself the head of the conspiracy, loaded the King with charges to increase the odium; everywhere proclaiming that this man would be an enemy of his own nation more destructive than his father, since he was more zealous and more loving of a foreign nation than of his own: that he had commanded Mars, Hercules, and the gods of the fathers, by whose divinities the Hungarian state had so greatly grown, to be abolished; that he had everywhere thrown down their sacrosanct images, and was striving to introduce a foolish superstition: nay, that by leisure and idleness he was enervating a warlike nation, and proclaiming a wretched peace, whereas the Ungari had always drawn their sustenance by force and war. When he had thus stirred up almost all Lower Pannonia, he was pressing Vesprinium with a grievous siege in contempt of the King. These things indeed are set forth in a rather free style, yet in such wise that nothing seems to depart from the manners of the Hungarians of that time, nothing from probability, except that in place of Stephen's mother sought in marriage I should think a stepmother more probably to be substituted; and that he calls the nuptials sought, I know not for what reason, adultery.

[144] Vesprinium, which Carthuitius too testifies was besieged by them, but Stephen, having gathered an army, is today the capital of the county of the same name, and was among the chief cities of Hungary, not many miles distant from Alba Regalis. For which cause it is no wonder that Stephen was struck by this boldness of the rebels. His great solicitude, and the vow made on this occasion, he himself confesses in the letters to be given afterwards. But Bonfinius goes on to set forth how the pious King bore himself in this alarm, writing these things: But on the other hand Stephen, in so great a tumult by no means dismayed in mind, since under

divine protection he understood himself to be, presently with the utmost speed and prudence set everything in motion to restrain the boldness of Cupa: everywhere throughout Hungary he held a levy, above all he implored divine aid from heaven, and more earnestly besought the divine power of St. Martin not to be willing to fail his Pannonia. Likewise, vows being made, he promised the greatest part of the spoils and enemy booty, and besides these gathered a hastily-raised army, summoned the princes whom he held loyal both by his own and by his father's beneficence, and omitted nothing which he judged would be of use for the war. The army being at length assembled, he pitches camp at the river Gara: and there first the Youth, most devoted to God, compelled by the necessity of defending the public safety, girded on the sword. There he proclaimed two masters of horse eminent in fidelity and military discipline, of whom one was called Huntes, the other Paznan. These are related to have been Germans, who, since they were strong in the Christian faith, had come into Pannonia in the reign of Geysa, born of noble family: and since they had deserved well of the Ungari both in war and in peace, they always held the chief place among the nobles at Geysa's court: and they much helped the father and the Son in propagating the faith of Christ. These judged that those who resisted in the matter of the faith should be held as slaves: likewise that those of the Ungari who first flowed together into the religion should be held the more noble among them. And according to their opinion an edict was made by Geysa. After these he creates dictator Wencellinus the German, most closely joined to him by the right of hospitality: to whom he handed over the supreme command of the whole army.

[145] The leaders of Stephen here named, and other things more briefly, Turoczius records in chapter 28, and a vow having been made to St. Martin, writing thus: But holy Stephen, having called together his nobles, implored the aid of the divine mercy through the intercession of the most blessed confessor Martin. But afterwards, an army being gathered, he went to meet his enemy; and at the river Coron he was first girded with the sword: and there for the guarding of his bodily safety he appointed two princes, Hunt and Paznan. But as prince and leader of his whole army he set over it Vencellinus his guest, a German by race. The Saint himself in his letters says that he made a vow to St. Martin, with his leaders standing by, namely Poznanus, Cincius, Orthius. The name of the first agrees with one of the aforesaid: but the names of the latter differ. But perhaps not all were present with the King as he vowed, so that Wencellinus could lead the army, as Turoczius and Bonfinius affirm, whose opinion at least is not convicted of falsity. The country too which Bonfinius attributes to the aforesaid leaders hints that Geysa already had certain foreign auxiliaries, and that these were left to Stephen: which I have already said before is very probable. The river Gara or Coron, at which they say the camp was pitched, I suspect to be the one which from Upper Hungary flows into the Danube near Gran; and that the army was gathered there, so that the Danube might be left in the middle between it and the enemy's, until he could advance more safely against the enemy.

[146] after a grievous and long battle, The battle that followed and the King's victory Turoczius briefly sets forth thus: Battle therefore being joined, they fought between them long and bravely: but by the help of the divine compassion blessed Stephen the duke obtained a glorious victory. And in that same battle count Vencellinus slew duke Cupa, and was rewarded with the most bountiful benefits by blessed Stephen then duke. Bonfinius narrates the same, but pursues everything more fully in a freer style after his manner, mixing in certain uncertain things, especially about the deeds and vows of the King in the battle itself. This warning being given beforehand, I subjoin his words: When these things had been duly settled, the line being drawn up they go against Cupa. But when they had drawn near to the camp of the conspirators, they at once charge on both sides with hostile standards. Since the battle joined was an internal one, they fought on both sides the more stubbornly and cruelly, while fortune smiles now on these, now on those, and they fight with equal hope on both sides. Hence it came about that they made a long and most bloody battle. The King fought rather with divine prayer and military exhortation than with arms: he now ran along the legions, strengthened the courage of the legates and centurions, exhorted the squadrons and cohorts to fight most bravely for the love of Christ: he called back those who turned their backs, and now and then sharply rebuked the timid: sent reinforcements to those in difficulty, and omitted no duty of an excellent commander. Wencellinus, who was in command on the right wing, and had set himself in a square column against Cupa, thinking that when the leader's column was broken all the rest would easily give way, fought most fiercely. He was searching everywhere where Cupa might be, that he might fight with him in single combat.

[147] he cuts down the rebels' army, Cupa himself being slain, While the fight is everywhere of doubtful issue, the King, his hands raised to heaven, deprecates flight in these words: Most clement God, who hast willed to pour the light of thy truth into the hardest and fiercest people which thou hast committed to me, that, illumined by the rays of thy faith, it may perpetually guard the borders of the Christian Commonwealth, I beseech thee as a suppliant that thou strengthen the minds of the wavering, and send down strength from heaven upon thy people, that, fortified by heavenly aid, it may trample down thy enemies. And thou, Jesus Christ, best and greatest, under whose leadership and auspices we wage war, by thy saving passion (I pray) be nearer present to the people fighting for thee, and grant victory to thy faithful of thy clemency, and stay their foul flight. And I will dedicate the tithes of all things, to render thanks to thy most glorious name, and churches everywhere. Scarcely had he said these things, when behold a great shout arises through the legions, that Cupa's wing had been broken by Wencellinus, and that the two leaders were engaging in single combat. When he had heard this, he at once hastens thither with a most powerful column. He tramples down the enemy struggling and already broken. In the middle of the line he meets Wencellinus, and congratulates him, giving thanks to God: who had cut off Cupa's head and was bringing back rich spoils from the enemy. Which being carried about through the lines, the spirits of the enemy were so dismayed that they fled straggling. A great and pitiable slaughter arises, the princes of the conspiracy for the greatest part taken and slain in the camp, and toward the rest by the king's edict things were done more mildly. As I have already said that some of these things are uncertain, so I judge still more uncertain and less probable what he subjoins about Cupa's body, since it is little consonant with the most gentle manners of St. Stephen: Victory being won, he says, Cupa's body was cut into four parts: one was fixed to the gate of Gran, the second to that of Vesprinium, the third to that of Raab, the fourth carried into Transylvania to deter the minds of the Dacians, and fixed up at Alba Julia. Which region indeed the Ungari formerly called Kenchies Herdell from its fertility in gold. Turoczius relates the same thus: But blessed Stephen caused Cupa himself to be cut into four parts: the first part he sent to the gate of Gran, the second to that of Vesprim, the third to that of Raab, and the fourth into Erdel. Gran, Vesprinium, and Javarinum are cities not very far apart in the Western part of Hungary: it is therefore the more suspect that they say the fourth part was sent into Transylvania, especially since Transylvania does not seem at that time to have obeyed St. Stephen, who, a war having been undertaken against its prince, subjected it a few years later and added it to Hungary. Cupa's rebellion indeed deserved this ignominy, nor would I altogether deny it: yet the Saint's exceeding gentleness compels me to doubt the whole matter; and what is said about the part of the body sent into Transylvania I believe less, for the aforesaid reasons.

[148] More probable are the things which Bonfinius subjoins in these words: and he faithfully discharges his vows to St. Martin. Of the other captives, penalties were exacted according to the gravity of their crimes. But on the other hand to the soldiers and prefects who had borne themselves best in the battle, rewards according to their dignity were bestowed from the King's liberality. To the dictator many rewards and great honours were rendered: likewise they relate that he was most amply endowed by the King with towns and villages… But that due vows might be paid to St. Martin the patron of the Pannonian nation, by a perpetual edict of the King the people of Simigium, who had followed the boldness of the tyrant Cupa, were ordered to pay yearly to the church of St. Martin not only the tithes of crops, wine, and cattle, but also of their children. Besides these a third part of the booty was fixed to the doorposts of the temple. These things Turoczius too sets forth thus: For blessed Stephen the duke faithfully rendered the vow which he had then vowed to God. For he decreed by perpetual right that the whole people dwelling in the province of duke Cupan should give the tithes of their children, crops, and cattle to the monastery of St. Martin. Carthuitius agrees at num. 7; and the King himself in the letters to be given enumerates several things whose tithes he had assigned to the monastery of St. Martin; but of the tenth offspring he makes no mention there, so that this part alone seems less certain; but neither is it certainly false: for, since these Royal letters were given some years later, the monks themselves could renounce the tithes of children to avoid odium, even if they had previously been granted by the King. It could also be that that word fell out of the letters, in which several faults are found. Certainly in the letters themselves mention is made further below of the bondmen of the monastery, which do not seem to have fallen to it except by this donation of the King. Finally it may probably be said that the tenth offspring was to be given to the monastery only once by those who at the time of the rebellion had ten children: for this rightly agrees with the words of Carthuitius, who says it was decreed by the King that, if anyone (in the county of Simigium) should happen to have ten children, he should give the tenth offspring to the monastery of St. Martin.

* i.e. religion

§ XV. The foundation of the monastery of St. Martin, and of two others.

[ ] The letters of St. Stephen for the monastery of St. Martin, That the obscure and involved matters which occur in the foundation of the monastery of St. Martin may be the more rightly explained, I have judged that the often-cited letters of St. Stephen must here be set down first, by which the holy King strengthened the privileges of the said monastery. These were given toward the end of the year 1001: for so requires the epoch appended to these letters: Given in the year 1001, the second of our reign, Indiction XV. This Indiction began to run in the month of September of the year 1001, in which also the second year of St. Stephen's reign was running. The letters therefore were given in the month of September, or in another of the following months of the year 1001. These letters John Sambucus published among the Decrees of the kings of Hungary after the Works of Bonfinius and others, page XI, and the same were afterwards reprinted in various places, but not without faults. There they have this title prefixed: Privilege given to the proto-abbey of St. Martin of Pannonia. The same letters too Odoricus Raynaldus gave at the year 1232, num. 24, as they were inserted in the letters of Pope Gregory IX, who confirmed the privilege of the abbey. Since these seem a little more correct, I subjoin them from Raynaldus, noting in the margin the differences of the edition of Sambucus, where the faults are not clear. They run thus: In the name of the Lord God most high. Stephen, by the clemency of heaven * providing, king of the Ungari. We believe and truly know that, if to places consecrated to divine worship we shall have increased powers and honours, that is not only to be proclaimed with human praise, but to be rewarded with a divine recompense. Wherefore let the diligent attention of all the faithful of the holy Church of God, and of ours, present and to come, learn that we, by the intervention, counsel, and consent of the lord

Anastasius the abbot of * the monastery of St. Martin, situated on the mountain above Pannonia, begun by our begetter, which we by God's help, for the remedy of our soul and for the stability of our kingdom, have brought to its end, have granted such liberty as the monastery of St. Benedict on Monte Cassino holds, because through the holy prayers of the brethren of that same monastery, the aforesaid lord Anastasius the abbot counselling and continually aiding, we have been strengthened and crowned with laurel: for the singular help which through the merits of blessed Martin I have experienced in boyhood, I have taken care to hand down to the memory of posterity.

[150] endowed after the victory For when the storm of wars was pressing, because a very great sedition had grown up between the Germans and the Ungari, and especially when the ruin of civil war was urging, a certain county of Simigium wishing to drive me from my father's seat, what counsel I should give to my wavering mind, and whither I should turn, touched with so great shame, with my leaders standing by, namely Pagzanus , Contius , Orzius , and also the lord Dominic the archbishop, I vowed a vow to St. Martin, that if by his merits I should come forth victor over my enemies both inward and outward, I would without any delay subject the tithing of the above-named county — of all businesses, estates, lands, vineyards, crops, revenues, and the wine of guests which should grow on their estates — not so that it should seem to pertain to the parochial bishop, but rather to the abbot of that same monastery, under the testimony of the aforesaid leaders and of many counts. And when after this thought I obtained the victory, I strove to fulfil by the efficacy of the work what I had turned over in my mind. For not yet had bishoprics and abbeys besides that place existed * in the Ungarian kingdom. But if, ye faithful, it was permitted me to establish bishoprics and abbeys in what place I would, was it not permitted me to do in any place what I would?

[151] And lest the church of St. Michael should still seem to be empty, and fortified with various privileges: or the parochial bishop should suffer injuries and complaints in the collection of the tithing, I handed over to it the court which is called Cortou , with all things pertaining to the same . But if he should wish to do or acquire anything unjustly against my statutes, let him know that he will contend with me before God the judge of the living and the dead on the day of judgment. And further, adding, I say: let that same monastery be set apart from all disturbance, and let the monks, after the passing of each of their abbots, have authority securely to elect another abbot, and to have him consecrated by whatever bishop they will, and let it be lawful for them to receive orders in whatsoever place and from whomsoever, &c. The sign of the lord Stephen the renowned king. Dominic the archbishop, vice-chancellor, made it in the year of the Lord's incarnation 1001, Indiction XV. In the second year of Stephen the first king. A few things are to be observed about these letters. First, the parochial bishop of whom mention is here made is the bishop of Vesprim, and the cathedral church of Vesprim is dedicated to St. Michael. And so certain writers are deceived who believed that for the church of St. Michael here mentioned the church of St. Martin should be substituted: for St. Stephen relates what he granted to the church of Vesprim for the loss which it would otherwise suffer from the privilege granted to the abbey of St. Martin. Secondly, Dominic the archbishop, who is mentioned in Raynaldus in these letters, is not expressed by name in other editions. And indeed I know of no archbishop at that time in Hungary who was called Dominic: unless perhaps the first archbishop of Gran was of that name, which I shall examine further at §24. It is therefore obscure who he was, nay not altogether certain whether that reading is correct.

[152] These things being briefly observed, the site of the monastery must be inquired into. the aforesaid monastery situated on the Holy Mount, It is said to be situated on the mountain above Pannonia. Carthuitius at num. 7 says it was built, Beside the estate of the holy Prelate in the place which is called the SACRED MEASURE *, where St. Martin, while he was still living in Pannonia, had assigned himself a place of prayer. These words sufficiently indicate that the place was not far from Sabaria, a city of Pannonia afterwards destroyed, where St. Martin was born. And so I the more wonder at the wandering of Mabillon, who in tome 4 of the Benedictine Annals, page 115, confounds this monastery of St. Martin with the monastery of Brevnov in Bohemia, and repeats this error on page 143, calling Astricus abbot of St. Martin of Brevnov: nay, on page 470 he says that the monastery of Brevnov is twenty stades distant from the city of Prague, so that he would have the monastery of St. Martin, which St. Stephen completed, to have been in the middle of Bohemia. Errors of this kind, into which learned men now and then fall, we believe must be noted, lest they be adopted by others, as we find happens very often. Gotardus Arthus in the Chronology of Pannonia, page 9, only says: Besides this he placed the monastery of St. Martin on a very high mountain. Inchofer too at the year 999 narrates indeed the building of this monastery, but does not set forth the place more distinctly, as very many others also did.

[153] it grew into a well-fortified town between Javarinum and Alba Regalis: Nevertheless at this monastery of St. Martin there grew up a town excellently fortified, which withstood a countless multitude of Tartars, when they had intercepted almost all Hungary. For Bonfinius, Decade 2, book 8, where he had narrated the devastation of all Hungary and the most wretched disaster of the city of Gran, subjoins these things on page 300: The citadel of Gran, over which Symeon the prefect with a strong garrison then presided, after an attempt deterred the enemy. Leaving it, the barbarian hastened to Alba Regalis, … but this expectation deceived him: for, situated among marshes, it could be taken by no force or art. Presently they hastened to the monastery of St. Martin, whence they went away with their business unaccomplished. They testify, therefore, that these three places alone were free of the Tartar destruction. Yet the same town was intercepted with easy effort by the Turks in the year 1574, as Isthuanfus narrates in book 28 of his Histories, page 636, in these words conducing to our purpose: Tata having been reduced into his power, the citadel sacred to St. Martin lay in the enemy's way, distinguished by a wealthy college of Benedictine monks, which formerly St. Stephen, the first king of Pannonia, on a lofty and pleasant hill stretched out at length, (almost) 600 years before, from the spoils and booty of his rebel Cuppanus conquered at that place, … had founded, and had named the SACRED MOUNT of Pannonia. That citadel was subject to Paul Baronianus the abbot: but over the military garrison … John Zadorius presided, &c. He adds the surrender of the citadel, which is less to our purpose. The same is related by Martin Zeiller in the Topography of Hungary written in German, page 174, adding that the citadel was recovered by the Christians after three years, and afterwards retained. Further, the citadel of St. Martin is situated in the county of Javarinum not far distant from Javarinum toward Alba Regalis, from which it is much further off. Tata is a few miles away: so certainly I find it everywhere marked in the geographical maps of Hungary; and the statements of Zeiller and Isthuanfus rightly agree with these.

[154] [the first abbot of this monastery was Astricus, otherwise called Anastasius, who had before been of Brevnov.] The abbot of this monastery in the Royal letters is called Anastasius, called by another name Astricus, as Carthuitius testifies. It is probable that this Astricus had already come into Hungary while Geysa was still alive; or at any rate he was known to Geysa, since the latter began to build the monastery of St. Martin. Mabillon in the Acts of the Saints of the Benedictine Order, century 6, part 1, page 72, wove a eulogy of Anastasius from various writers, in which about the beginnings of Anastasius he has thus: He was leading the monastic life in the monastery of St. Alexius, or St. Boniface, at Rome, under the rule of the abbot Leo, at that time in which St. Adalbert prelate of Prague betook himself again into the same monastery. But when the same Adalbert, by the action of Willegisus archbishop of Mainz, had been compelled to return again into Bohemia to his church, six Alexian monks, among whom was our Austricus, joined themselves to him as companions of his journey, and followed him into Bohemia, which offered occasion for founding the famous monastery of Brevnov. Then he adduces the words of Dubravius, who affirms that that monastery was founded by Adalbert and Boleslaus duke of Bohemia, and that the first abbot set over the same monastery of Brevnov was Astricus, under whose prefecture the monastery greatly flourished, while things were tranquil in Bohemia. Rightly and probably has Mabillon thus far set forth these things; and hence Astricus is called father by Carthuitius, who was abbot when he came into Hungary. Presently he adds that Adalbert departed again to Rome, because all Bohemia was disturbed by a conspiracy of wicked men. Whose example, he says, Astricus following a little afterwards, went into Hungary with his disciples, where he was kindly received by blessed Stephen then duke; and, a monastery having been built in honour of St. Benedict, he flourished there in sanctity no less than in Bohemia. If Astricus departed from Bohemia a little after Adalbert, who departed to Rome in the year 995, he came into Hungary either in the same or the following year, while Geysa was alive, who began to build for him the monastery of St. Martin, which Stephen completed. The first abbot of this monastery was Astricus, as he had been of Brevnov.

[155] Another monastery also St. Stephen built for the monks of the same Astricus at the foot of the Iron Mountain. [Another monastery, distinct from the former, founded at the foot of the Iron Mountain,] This latter Mabillon acknowledged in the eulogy of Astricus, but did not distinguish the Martinian one from that of Brevnov, as was said before. But others do not seem to have distinguished between the monastery of St. Martin on the Holy Mount and that of St. Benedict at the foot of the Iron Mountain. Nay, I do not find this latter anywhere mentioned in the Annals of Mabillon, so that he seems afterwards to have adhered less to what he had brought forward in the eulogy of Anastasius about this monastery. Yet Carthuitius at num. 7 relates the foundation of the former, and at num. 9 the foundation of the other, distinguishing both by place and by name: for the first was sacred to St. Martin, whose name it always retained; the other he says was founded under the title of the holy father Benedict. The first was on the mountain, the other at the foot of the mountain. The Holy Mount it was called, now the Mount of St. Martin, on which the first was set; the Iron Mountain, at whose foot the other was situated. These marks of distinction scarcely permit us to doubt that the monasteries of the Holy Mount and of the Iron Mountain, or of St. Martin and of St. Benedict, are different. But no doubt at all will remain, when below we shall have assigned the place and the letters of foundation of the second.

[156] The reason for founding these and other monasteries because many presbyters and monks invited by the King's letters was the arrival of monks, who flowed together from every side to St. Stephen into Hungary. A contemporary writer testifies this, namely Maurus bishop of Fünfkirchen, in the Life of SS. Zoerardus and Benedict, given by us in tome IV of July, page 336, which he thus begins: At that time in which by the will of the most Christian king Stephen the name and religion of the Deity, still rude, was sprouting in Pannonia, the fame of the good Ruler being heard, many canons and monks from other lands flowed together to him as to a father, not indeed for the sake of any

necessity that compelled them, but that a new joy of holy converse might be fulfilled from their coming. Among whom indeed, touched by the instinct of the Holy Spirit, sprung from rusticity as a rose from thorns, one Zoerardus by name came into this country from the land of the Poles, and, having received the habit from Philip the abbot, whose monastery, named Zobor, was situated in the territory of Nitria in honour of St. Hippolytus the martyr, and being named Andrew, determined to lead an eremitical life. Here again another monastery is indicated, of which below. The cause of so great a confluence of pious men Carthuitius indicates at num. 8, writing thus: For beginning and completing this, therefore (he speaks of the conversion of the kingdom), since he had need of the counsel * of Christ's faithful, by messengers and letters he made known his desire into all parts. Hence many presbyters and clerics, pricked by the visitation of the Paraclete Spirit, leaving their own seats, chose to go on pilgrimage for the Lord: abbots and monks, desiring to have nothing of their own, resolved to live according to rule under the governance of so religious a Prince.

[157] and moved by his sanctity came into Hungary, The words of Bonfinius also deserve to be heard, which he adds after relating the victory just now told: By such success, he says, the King's mind was not lifted up, but kindled with the most ardent charity of God. Daily prostrate on the ground he besought God to accomplish for him his saving purpose by divine help, and that it might be permitted him to recall all Hungary to the true faith before he departed from human affairs. And that he might obtain this from God, he often besought Him in ashes and hair-cloth, and prayed assiduously in the temple: his laudable purpose he declared far and wide by his diplomas. Wherefore very many priests, moved by the public utility, flow together of their own accord into Hungary to preach the word of God, and are eager to go on pilgrimage for the Catholic faith. They were attracted also by the sanctity of the Prince, in whose name many were summoned into Pannonia from the most remote parts. Above all Astricus, a man conspicuous in sanctity, arrived with his disciples. Astricus we have said probably came already under Geysa; unless perhaps under Geysa he did not fix a stable dwelling in Hungary, because the monastery of St. Martin was not yet sufficiently fitted for the dwelling of monks. If the matter so stood, he came a little after the death of Geysa: for he was in Hungary with his men before the King's war with Cupa. That the monastery of St. Martin was built for this Astricus, Bonfinius seems to have been ignorant; for he mentions only the church of St. Martin, not the monastery, unless he confounded it with the following, from which it is different.

[158] [that they might instruct the Hungarians; that monastery probably begun about the year 999,] Of the second he presently writes thus: The King received Astricus and his disciples honourably, and settled them at the foot of the Iron Mountain, where he permitted the monastery of St. Benedict to be built at magnificent expense. Nay, he endowed that church with an immense donation and with many estates and villages, that the monks might more conveniently subsist in the regular life. By the company of these, when he perceived them to be excellent men, he was wonderfully delighted: by whose help and labour he claimed the Ungari, partly of their own accord, partly by force and fear, for the light of truth; he compelled all to know the commandments of the sacred law and the axioms of the orthodox faith, and appointed dire punishments for the profane. Inchofer at the year 999 refers the building of the monastery of St. Benedict at the Iron Mountain, and rightly distinguishes it from the preceding. It is probable that the said monastery was really begun from the year 999, since its foundation is related by Carthuitius before the foundation of the bishoprics, and since the King himself clearly hints in the letters given that several abbeys had been built before the time at which he gave the aforesaid letters, that is, before the end of the year 1001. Take the words: But if … it was permitted me to establish bishoprics and abbeys in what place I would, &c. Hence too I believe it began to be inhabited not long after. Yet the building seems to have been protracted for many years, at least that of the church, whose consecration was accomplished in the year 1015, as is gathered from the letters of St. Stephen given in the same year on the day of the church's consecration, which Charles Peterfy of the Society of Jesus published in the Councils of Hungary, issued in the year 1741, part 1, page 4.

[159] Those letters I transfer hither from the said Work: Stephen, by the favouring clemency of heaven king of the Hungarians, &c. We believe, but finished later, as the letters here given hint: and truly say, that if to places consecrated to Divine worship we shall have increased powers and honours, that is not only to be proclaimed with human praise, but also to be rewarded with a Divine recompense. Wherefore let the attention of all the holy Church of God and of our faithful, present and to come, behold that we, by God's help, for the remedy of our soul and for the stability of our kingdom, have diligently built the monastery of the most holy Mother of God Mary and of St. Benedict at the foot of the Iron Mountain, &c. Moreover, by the consent and confirmation of Apostolic authority, not only the aforesaid peoples, &c. By the mediation of the same Apostolic authority, we have decreed that the abbot of the aforesaid monastery shall be bound to be present at the synod of the bishop of Gran, but only at a general and solemn one, &c. Which, that it may be the more truly believed, we have strengthened this page with our own hands by the protection of our seal, on the very day of the consecration of the said monastery, by the ministry of the lord Astricus archbishop of Kalocsa, and of Paul abbot of the aforesaid monastery, all the princes of the kingdom being present there with us we have confirmed it. In the year from the incarnation 1015.

[160] From these letters we have that this abbey was at the same time sacred to the blessed Virgin Mary and to St. Benedict. the patrons and the site of this monastery, commonly called Pechvarad: Carthuitius and Bonfinius recorded only the latter name, because perhaps it began to be founded under that name. But the former name afterwards prevailed more, and by it alone it is almost always called. This abbey is situated (its Hungarian name is Pechvarad) in the county of Tolna, and is of the diocese of Fünfkirchen, between the Danube and the Drave at the foot of a mountain, rising near the river Zarwiza, as is noted in the maps of Hungary. Peter Pazmany archbishop of Gran in the second Appendix, in the aforesaid Peterfy, part 2, page 274, enumerating the abbeys of the Benedictine Order in Hungary, reckons this in these words: Pech-varad (otherwise of Varad at the foot of the Iron Mountain), of the Blessed Virgin Mary, of the diocese of Fünfkirchen, founded by St. Stephen the king in the year 1007. Inchofer at the year 1007 thinks that this monastery was founded by St. Stephen in thanksgiving for the birth of his son Emeric, writing thus: But that King Stephen might show himself grateful to God for the offspring given him, he erected a notable church to the Virgin Mother of God his patroness, with a monastery joined for the Fathers of the Order of St. Benedict, and enriched with all resources both for adornment and for convenient sustenance. It flourished long at the foot of the Iron Mountain in the diocese of Fünfkirchen, under the name of the abbey of Varad, or, as others call it, Pechvarad, until, the affairs of Hungary declining, it too submitted itself to inconstancy. The aforesaid Peterfy on page 10 enumerates many gifts of the King, granted both to the church and to the monastery itself.

[161] Among the first abbeys of Hungary too I should think was the abbey of St. Hippolytus, [another abbey also, called Zobor and sacred to St. Hippolytus, built in the county of Nitria.] called Zobor, over which Philip the abbot presided when St. Zoerardus entered it, as the words of Bishop Maurus given at num. 156 have it. For that it was founded in the earlier years of St. Stephen's rule is gathered from the time of the coming of St. Zoerardus, who is said to have come, when by the will of the most Christian king Stephen the name and religion of the Deity, still rude, was sprouting in Pannonia. This time designates doubtless the earlier years of Stephen, since religion was still rude and sprouting. Yet the said abbey had already been founded when Zoerardus arrived, who received the habit there from the abbot Philip. There seems therefore no doubt that this abbey is to be numbered among the earliest of Hungary. The territory and bishopric of Nitria, in which the abbey was built, is of Upper Hungary, not far from Austria and Moravia, from which it is separated by the intervening county of Pressburg; and the city of Nitria itself, commonly Nytra, with the county of the same name, is well enough known to the Hungarians. The aforesaid Pazmany in the catalogue of abbeys mentioned above speaks thus of this one: Zobor, of St. Hippolytus the martyr, of the diocese of Nitria, founded by St. Stephen the king. Afterwards it was applied to the bishopric of Nitria. Nevertheless in the year 1689 monks of the Camaldolese Order restored a new monastery, or hermitage, in the same place, as has already been said in the Commentary prefixed to the Acts of SS. Zoerardus and Benedict, tome IV of July, page 331. For the rest, the year of the foundation of this and of the preceding abbey cannot be exactly assigned: for the letters of the first foundation have not hitherto been produced; nor do we sufficiently trust the statements of writers who are far later.

* otherwise divis

* otherwise it is omitted

* otherwise qua

* otherwise by name Simigensis

* otherwise Poznano

* otherwise Cincio

* otherwise Orthio

* otherwise and my lord

* otherwise aut

* otherwise etiam

* otherwise sitæ erant

* otherwise Corten

* otherwise with the men of the same

* read sacer mons (holy mount)

* i.e. counsel

§ XVI. Bishoprics founded throughout Hungary, and their metropolis established at Gran: these things done by the intervening authority of the Roman Pontiff.

[ ] [It is established that various bishoprics were erected by Stephen about the year 1000,] That various bishoprics were erected in Hungary by St. Stephen is certain and indubitable. It might therefore seem wonderful that so few writers of that time made mention of them, and in words so brief and confused that we can hardly give a distinct narration of so great a matter, were it not abundantly established that the deeds of the Hungarians in the tenth and eleventh centuries were not accurately written, because the Hungarians themselves did not perform this; and other nations were not solicitous about narrating the deeds of the Hungarians. Ditmar in book 4 mentions the erected bishoprics most briefly, having thus in our manuscript codex: But by the favour and exhortation of the aforesaid emperor, Waic the son-in-law of Henry duke of the Bavarians, making episcopal chairs in his kingdom , received a crown and a blessing. These words of a contemporary writer suffice to establish that certain bishoprics were erected by Stephen before the death of Otto III. The same too we have from Stephen's own letters, in which he testifies that there were no bishoprics in the kingdom of Hungary when he overcame the count of Simigium, at the same time hinting that some had been erected before in the year 1001 he gave the aforesaid letters. From both these testimonies the time in which the erection of bishoprics was begun can in some measure be gathered: for it evidently follows from this that it was not begun before the year 998, nor after the year 1001. I should believe that the Saint in the year 999 or 1000 began to arrange the revenues and boundaries to be assigned to each bishopric; then that he also designated the persons; but that in the year 1000 he sent Astricus the abbot, designated bishop of Kalocsa, to the supreme Pontiff Sylvester II, that all those things might be ratified and confirmed by the Pontiff's authority. But of Astricus sent to Rome we shall treat more fully below.

[163] Schwartz in the often-mentioned little work reasons after his manner about the bishoprics instituted,

that is, that it was done by the King's own authority, in such a way that I can scarcely think he himself believed to be true the things which he attempts to thrust upon his readers as proved. The opinion which he strives to inculcate he declares on page 61, num. 56, in these words: The origin, accordingly, of the ecclesiastical power which the first kings of Hungary exercised, we trace also from the Greeks, by whom they were instructed in the Christian religion. To which I refer this, that King Stephen by his own counsel and his own authority founded an archbishopric, bishoprics, abbeys, and other prelacies, and endowed them with such immunities as seemed good to him. Namely because the Greeks permitted each nation to live by its own judgment, if we believe Schwartz, who had set down these words about the manners of the Greeks: On the contrary, it is established that the Greeks were of these manners, that they thought they had duly discharged their part if they could imbue any with Christian piety: those imbued they permitted to govern sacred affairs by their own laws. An excellent praise indeed Schwartz ascribes to the Greeks, when he affirms that those converted by their labour administered sacred affairs by their own laws. But he ought to have proved so wonderful a matter, which he did not attempt with even a single word. To me indeed the assertion seems not unlike a chimera: for in what manner would nations newly converted govern sacred affairs by their own laws, who never had any laws about the sacred things of Christians? Christ bade Peter feed the lambs and the sheep, John 21: the Holy Spirit placed bishops to rule the church of God, Acts 20; but nowhere did the Lord command or permit that nations newly converted should govern sacred affairs by their own laws. More rightly therefore, and more laudably than he would wish, does Schwartz speak of the Roman Church when he writes thus: But the Pontiffs carefully watched the nations then first converted, and did everything that the newly planted churches might be ordered at their discretion, and depend henceforth on their nod. So it behoved the successors of Peter to do, to whom the care of feeding the sheep of Christ had been committed. These things being briefly observed, let us hear how prettily the aforesaid writer proves that the bishoprics of Hungary were established by St. Stephen on his own authority.

[164] That the bishoprics, he says, and the metropolitan see of Gran were instituted by Stephen before he sent an embassy to Rome, Schwartz strives to inculcate: Chartuitius himself relates in the Legend. And how far those foundations of churches were made by the King without any counsel of the Pontiff, let those again who deny these rights to princes give testimony, when, following Chartuitius, they represent Pope Sylvester in his letters as calling the royal envoys THE ENVOYS OF AN UNKNOWN NATION. Therefore in a nation which the Prince of pastors did not know to belong to his fold, the Christian religion flourished, took increase, priesthoods and bishoprics were instituted. But these things are said after the manner of men (κατ᾽ ἄνθρωπον). The firmest support of our opinion we place in the diploma by which King Stephen fortified the abbey of St. Martin; for from it it shines forth both that prelacies were instituted by the King's authority alone, and that the prelates themselves were endowed with such immunities as seemed good to the King. For when the King assigned to the abbot of the monastery the tithes pertaining to the parochial bishop, lest the bishop should take it ill, he admonishes him and the others to consider by whose authority they were constituted. Nor less worthy to be weighed more anxiously are the other immunities granted to the abbots of that monastery. And this is that which, when the words of the privilege had been recited, compelled Inchofer to run a fever. So speaks the heterodox writer, because Inchofer subjoined these words at the year 1002: But there are many things in this privilege which, if they be measured by strict law, would beget wonder. But that Stephen really disposed matters concerning churches and their rights by the right of a legate of the supreme Pontiff, as we have seen above, the writers of Hungarian affairs relate: among whom Bonfinius narrates that all the King's acts, together with the bishoprics instituted, were approved by the supreme Pontiff; and moreover, to heighten his dignity, that he honoured him with the office of a pontifical legation, which it should be lawful for him and for the kings his successors to discharge in perpetuity, with the power of having the cross carried before him.

[165] but the contrary is proved by certain arguments; Schwartz brought forward nothing to show why he called these the words of a man in a fever; nothing by which to establish that they are not true. For that writer is deceived if he has persuaded himself that the statements of Catholics, resting on various reasons, are sufficiently refuted by an illiberal jest: for that is not the part of a writer investigating the truth, but of an insolent and unmannerly one. But how true Inchofer's observation is, hear in a few words, studious reader. First, Carthuitius at num. 12 testifies that the supreme Pontiff permitted the King not only to order the erected churches, but also to command a cross to be carried before him as a sign of his apostolate. Secondly, the King himself in the letters of foundation of the monastery of Beel, which Peterfy recites in the Councils of Hungary, page 5, speaks thus: So nevertheless I had authority from the supreme Pontiff of the Roman See, that upon whatever churches or monasteries I wished I might confer liberties or dignities. In the letters of foundation of the monastery of the Iron Mountain too, already given at num. 159, these words of the King are found: By the consent and confirmation of Apostolic authority; and these: By the mediation of the same Apostolic authority we have decreed. There are added the letters of the same King given for the see of Fünfkirchen, in Inchofer at the year 1009, in which it is likewise asserted that that bishopric was erected by the King with the consent of the Apostolic See. Ditmar likewise, when he says, Making episcopal chairs, he received a crown and a blessing, openly hints that this erection of bishoprics was pleasing to the supreme Pontiff. For I do not think Schwartz has so much impudence as to deny that the blessing of the supreme Pontiff is understood by Ditmar. Certainly any learned man of moderate wit will without doubt admit that Ditmar speaks of the Roman Pontiff's, or the Apostolic, blessing. But Stephen would not have received a blessing from the Roman Pontiff for the erected bishoprics, unless he had erected them with the consent of the Apostolic See, and had obtained their confirmation from it. Wherefore it is certain that nothing was done by St. Stephen in the erection of bishoprics and abbeys except with the approbation and confirmation of the Roman Pontiff; and this would have to be said even from the holy King's piety alone and his friendship with St. Henry and Otto III, even if other arguments were lacking.

[166] and it is shown how inept are the arguments, The arguments of Schwartz reported are wholly worthy of their author, that is, plainly inept. He objects first Carthuitius, and then the Epistle of Sylvester II, two records, namely, from which elsewhere he would have all authority taken away. But it is most clear that both records are utterly contrary to the opinion which he asserts: for, as Carthuitius testifies below at num. 10, Stephen sought and obtained through his envoy the confirmation of the erected bishoprics, as also of the metropolitan see of Gran. The words too of Sylvester II in the Epistle in Inchofer at the year 1000 are so clear that they leave no room for doubt: Wherefore, glorious Son, says the Pontiff, all the things demanded of us and of the Apostolic See — the diadem and the royal name, the metropolis of Gran and the other bishoprics — by the authority of almighty God and of his blessed apostles Peter and Paul, the same almighty God forewarning and so commanding, with the Apostolic and our blessing, we have gladly granted, do grant, and impart. And so Carthuitius said that the bishoprics were instituted by the King, but he did not say that this was done without the Pontiff's knowledge or without his intervention, but with him approving the King's counsels and bestowing authority. Priesthoods and bishoprics arose in a nation hitherto unknown to the Roman Church, because no envoy of that nation had before been sent to Rome.

[167] But, even though I should readily believe that the King by the counsel of his own men began to designate the revenues and boundaries of certain bishoprics before he sent his envoy to Rome, which Schwartz brought forward: because he hoped that all that he had disposed would there be approved, those bishoprics were not erected before the authority of the supreme Pontiff had been added, who not only approved and ratified what had been begun, but also permitted the rest, which remained to be ordered, to the holy King's disposition. Schwartz himself saw that Carthuitius and Sylvester II were not rightly adduced by him, and therefore he has recourse to the King's letters given for the abbey of St. Martin, in which no mention is made of authority received from the Pontiff. But not everything is to be said everywhere. He mentions the authority conferred on him by the Pontiff in three other letters of foundation already adduced. But when the Saint was giving those letters, there was the less need to mention the power received, because, having been lately obtained, it could not then be hidden from the churchmen of Hungary. That silence of the King therefore can by no means stand in the way, since in other places he explains by what power he gave immunities and privileges to churches, and by what authority he instituted bishoprics.

[168] The kings of Hungary, Stephen's successors, knew this very thing, [the kings of Hungary themselves acknowledged that these things were done by the authority of the Roman Pontiff:] whose words it will be useful to subjoin. Andrew king of Hungary in his letters to James of Palestrina, legate of the Apostolic See, in Raynaldus at the year 1233, num. 51, speaks thus of St. Stephen: Sitting therefore in the chair with David, that most wise Prince scattered by his gaze all the evil of unbelief according to those times, as we have said before, and by his midwifing hand the crooked serpent was drawn out of the Hungarian nation: but also by the authority of the supreme Pontiff, who called him the King and Apostle of our nation, he divided the provinces into bishoprics, and wonderfully enlarged the churches, &c. Bela IV, successor and son of Andrew, sought the same privilege from Gregory IX for the peoples of Bulgaria which he was attempting to subject. His words in the epistle to the Pontiff in Raynaldus at the year 1238, num. 14, are these: We ask that the office of legation be committed not to another, but to us, in the land of Assoevus (king of Bulgaria, who by others is called Asanes), that we may have the power of bounding dioceses, of distinguishing parishes, and that in this first institution we may have power to place bishops there by the counsel of prelates and of religious men, because all these things were granted to our predecessor of blessed memory St. Stephen, &c. These things manifest more clearly by what power St. Stephen erected new bishoprics in Hungary, than that a matter clear and certain need be further elucidated.

[169] The number of the bishoprics instituted by St. Stephen at this time appears to me uncertain. Carthuitius indeed says that ten bishoprics were erected by St. Stephen, ten or eleven bishoprics erected by Stephen, but not all at once. but it is uncertain whether he includes the metropolitan see in that number; nor does he say that all were instituted at once. That at the beginning the church of Gran was established as the one metropolis of all Hungary, and that the remaining bishoprics were subject to it, we have abundantly perceived; nor is it to be doubted that this was ordained the first of all. Charles of St. Paul in his Appendix to the Sacred Geography gives various notitiae of the bishoprics of the middle age, in the later of which the bishoprics of Hungary too are reckoned. In the penultimate notitia, which he published from the Royal library, page 55, the metropolitan of Gran with his suffragans is thus reckoned: The archbishop of Straigonium has these suffragans; of Agria, of Nutria, of Vatia, of Javarinum, of Fünfkirchen, of Vesprim. The same are enumerated in another order in his last notitia, page 68, where also the words

are written a little more correctly in this manner: The archbishop of Gran has these suffragans; of Agria, of Javarinum, of Nutria , of Fünfkirchen, of Watia , of Vesprim. Then in both places is placed the metropolis of Kalocsa, which at the beginning was a see suffragan to the metropolis of Gran, with four suffragans. It will suffice to recite them from the last Notitia, which has thus: The archbishop of Kalocsa has these suffragans; of Ultrasilvania , of Cenadium , of Cagabria *, of Waradinum. Besides these twelve bishoprics, ancient also is that of Bacs, which was afterwards united to Kalocsa, so that we now have thirteen ancient bishoprics of Hungary, which nevertheless I do not judge were all instituted by St. Stephen. Yet of these certainly ten or eleven are owed to the holy King's institution. Of the first bishops of some of them I shall treat below at §24.

* otherwise suimet

* otherwise ac

* Nitriensem

* Vaciensem

* Transilvaniensem

* Chanadiensem

* Zagabriensem

§ XVII. In about what year the nuptials were contracted: the Saint's wife Gisela, sister of St. Henry the emperor: the errors of some about Gisela's family.

[ ] Various opinions about the time of St. Stephen's nuptials: About the year in which St. Stephen contracted nuptials with Gisela the sister of St. Henry the emperor, writers by no means agree, who assign years much differing. The dissension of the ancients on this matter has brought it about that the moderns too have gone off into various opinions. Inchofer in his Annals attaches the nuptials of Stephen with Gisela to the year 1005; but we shall see that the nuptials were contracted earlier. Schwartz on page 7, num. 6, writes these things about the time of the nuptials: Sigebert places his nuptials at the year 1010; whose reckoning indeed is not free of fault, I confess… Nearer to the mark comes Aventinus, writing the year of the nuptials as 1005. This is by far most certain, that the marriage of the princes was not concluded before the year 1002. For all report the same, that Henry the brother of Gisela at that time held the reins of the empire: and he obtained them in the year 1002. Thus indeed he intrepidly determines; but since it is false that all assert that Henry was emperor at the time of this marriage, that opinion is uncertain to me, nay also less probable for the reasons presently to be given.

[171] More modestly and more rightly does our Hansizius discuss the time of Stephen's nuptials in the Germania Sacra, tome 1, page 235, Hansizius rightly places them between the year 1000 and 1003, where he writes these things: Already then (when he was founding the bishoprics), I believe, Stephen was destined to be the son-in-law of Henry duke of the Bavarians, which matter joined to him the zeal of Otto; so that Ditmar testifies that by the favour and exhortation of Otto the crown and blessing were obtained from the Pontiff. Gisela was the sister of St. Henry, with whom they relate that the nuptial rite was celebrated in the castle of Scheyern, in what year is uncertain. Henry the father of Gisela, duke of Bavaria, had died in the year 995, about the 27th of the month of August: he had left sons, Henry the holy, heir of the principate; and Bruno afterwards bishop of Augsburg: daughters, that Gisela married to Stephen; and Brigitta abbess of a convent of Ratisbon. The instructor of these children from their tender years was St. Wolfgang, who by frequent prophecy foretold the lots that would one day befall each. Henry he used to call king; Gisela queen. Hermannus Contractus makes mention of this marriage under the year 995 on occasion of the death of Henry the father of Gisela, yet not so as to assert that it was contracted in that year; and Geisa was then still among the living, and Stephen not yet ripe for wedlock. This is most likely, that a little after the envoys were dispatched to the city and the royal crown obtained thence, Gisela came into Stephen's hands, since the favour of Otto, bought by those nuptials, doubtless impelled him to hasten his counsels. Certainly Chartuitius makes no mention of that marriage before he had related the reception of the Pontifical gift; for then he subjoins that Gisela was taken by Stephen as consort of the kingdom, anointed with chrism, and distinguished with the royal crown. This seems certain, that Gisela was already in Stephen's house in the year 1003, since it is established from Adelbold and the Annalist of Hildesheim that Bruno the brother of Gisela about that year came as a fugitive into Hungary to his sister, as will afterwards be more fully explained.

[172] This reasoning fixes the marriage of St. Stephen between the year 1000 and 1003; [and indeed it is proved by a certain argument that the nuptials were not later than the year 1003:] and the author judges it most likely that the marriage was contracted after Stephen's envoys returned from Rome, that is, about the end of the year 1000 or the beginning of 1001; yet in such wise that he at the same time judges that the nuptials had already been decided upon before. The words of Adelbold about Bruno fleeing to Gisela are these: But the lord Bruno, finding no consolation with Bulizlaus, fled to his sister the Hungarian queen, and, coming to know himself also, implored her intercession. So Adelbold in the Life of St. Henry in our tome IV of July, page 751. But it is to be observed that these things are written among the earlier deeds of the year 1004, although they could really have happened toward the end of the year 1003, in which Bruno fled to Boleslaus duke of Bohemia, with whom he did not remain long. That Bruno came into Hungary to Gisela about the end of the year 1003, or at any rate the beginning of 1004, I gather from the time of his reconciliation with Henry the emperor his brother. For he was received into favour by Henry about the end of the month of March, as is easily gathered from the whole account of Adelbold, who has thus about it: There the lord Bruno, having come back to himself, met him with the envoys of the Hungarian King, who were coming to intercede for him, and, humbly asking pardon for his offences, moved his brother's bowels, and quickly bent him to forgiveness. These things were done about the borders of the county of Tyrol, which Henry presently crossed with his army, meaning to celebrate Palm Sunday, which fell on the 9th of April, at Trent. These things I have adduced the more gladly because from Adelbold's account we learn at the same time that not Gisela only, but Stephen also, laboured that Bruno should submit himself to Henry, and be received by him into favour.

[173] [it also seems more probable that they were contracted in the year 1000 before the crown was obtained:] Further, whether Bruno came to Gisela in the current year 1003, or at the beginning of 1004, from these it is certainly gathered that Gisela was not married after the year 1003, since before the coming of her brother she was queen. From the same Adelbold too it is gathered that these nuptials were probably concluded before the reign of Henry, begun on the 6th day of June of the year 1002: for the most diligent Adelbold would not have been silent about those nuptials in the Life of Henry, if they had fallen in the earlier years of Henry's reign, which he described exactly. And so I should not believe that Henry at the beginning of his reign, which was most disturbed, was thinking about his sister's nuptials. Moreover the words of Ditmar leave scarcely any doubt that the nuptials took place while Otto III was still alive: for Stephen is called by Ditmar the son-in-law of Henry duke of the Bavarians, at the time when he received the crown and blessing. He designates the father of St. Henry; for Stephen was his son-in-law. But a man is not called son-in-law unless joined in marriage. He hints therefore that Stephen was bound in nuptials not only before the reign of St. Henry, that is, the year 1002, but even before the crown received in the year 1000. Wherefore I judge that these nuptials can be attached to no year more rightly than the year 1000, a little before the crown and royal name were obtained; and so far I disagree with Hansizius, who rather thinks that the nuptials are to be placed after the crown obtained. Finally, that the nuptials were not contracted before the year 1000, or at least not long before, is gathered from the age of the Saint, who was then in about his seventeenth or eighteenth year.

[174] [Carthuitius indeed narrates the nuptials after the coronation, and Bonfinius is contrary to the opinion given;] Against this opinion may be objected the authority of Carthuitius, because he at num. 13, relating the nuptials of St. Stephen with Gisela, seems to place them after the crown obtained; nay, he even seems to refer the nuptials to the time of Henry's reign, since he says that Stephen joined to himself in marriage the sister of the Augustus of the Roman dignity, namely Henry. Bonfinius too on page 176 more openly removes the nuptials to the reign of Henry; for he writes thus of them: Stephen therefore, beholding the sanctity of Henry the second, the glory of his deeds and his religion, by whose help and exhortation he had claimed the Ungari for the true faith, desired to be joined with an equal probity: there was added too the emperor's dignity and power, which he understood made greatly for his own cause. But on the other hand Henry, not ignorant of Stephen's excellence and inborn sanctity, held nothing more important than to be bound to him by some affinity, by which the two nations, most hostile, which had waged most bloody wars for so many years, might be reconciled, and the sanctity of the holy King propagated, by whose wisdom and zeal it had come about that the Ungari, who had long harassed their neighbours with Scythian ferocity, being claimed for the faith of Christ, seemed likely to be salutary both to their neighbours and to the Christian commonwealth. Accordingly Henry of his own accord gave in marriage his sister, whose name was Gysle, when sought by the Pannonian King, that she might vie with her Husband in equal sanctity, and might covenant a perpetual peace between the Germans and the Ungari. That this account of Bonfinius can in no way be reconciled with the time assigned to the nuptials I gladly acknowledge; but his authority is of no weight for establishing chronology.

[175] But Carthuitius, although he calls Gisela the sister of the Augustus of the Roman dignity, but other reasons outweigh these. and narrates the nuptials after the King's coronation, does not affirm that Henry was already emperor at the time of the said nuptials: for he could call him Augustus because Henry afterwards attained that dignity, as is often done by writers. He could also invert the order of events in these matters, as he inverts the same in certain others, so that it is not necessary everywhere to affirm that the things related first by Carthuitius were done first: for we shall observe the contrary in various places in the annotations to the Life. This preposterous narration of facts is familiar to writers who do not weave an exact chronology; and in this place it is not without some reason. He had narrated the King's plan for instituting bishoprics, and the dispositions begun to this end. This account therefore he wished to carry through to the obtaining of the Roman Pontiff's confirmation, which was connected with the crown sent at the same time by the Pontiff. Following this order of matters rather than of time, he presently also subjoined the laws passed for rightly constituting the kingdom, and only then the nuptials; although the laws are doubtless later than the nuptials. Turoczius and Ranzanus assigned no time to the nuptials. The writers of Chronicles refer the nuptials to years very different, as we have seen: yet they favour our opinion more than the opposite, because most say that by these nuptials Hungary was converted, and Stephen himself as well. These indeed erred, as I have shown at §13; but they could the more easily fall into this error if the nuptials preceded the King's coronation, by which the conversion of Hungary became known, than if they had followed it. And so, all things considered, it seems to me more probable that St. Stephen's marriage preceded the coronation, and there appears scarcely any doubt that it was contracted

before the reign of Henry, since Ademar cited at num. 103 affirms this too in the clearest words.

[176] That Gisela was the sister of St. Henry the emperor, and the daughter of Henry duke of Bavaria, Gisela was the daughter of Henry duke of Bavaria, sister of the emperor Henry: so many contemporary, nearly contemporary, and slightly more remote writers affirm, that no doubt can remain about that matter. She had two brothers and one sister. To all these St. Wolfgang bishop of Ratisbon foretold their future dignities. For the writer of the Life of St. Wolfgang in Mabillon, Benedictine century 5, part 1, page 827, has thus about them: But neither do we pass this over in silence, that at times through the spirit of prophecy he saw the things that were to come as though present. Which is most manifest in the advancements of the children of the illustrious duke Henry. For when, as he often used to do, his most beautiful offspring was brought to him for the sake of a blessing, Henry, who afterwards by God's will was made king, he named beforehand KING; but his brother Bruno he called PRELATE; their elder sister (Gisela) QUEEN; and the other, whom he baptized and raised from the sacred font, he called ABBESS. These things therefore, and many others which we have heard from his mouth, we behold fulfilled just as he foretold.

[177] Further, some Hungarian writers formerly recorded another lineage of Gisela; various fabulous things some have written about her family, but in this matter they doubtless erred, as in many others. Hear nevertheless their opinion from Bonfinius, who reports it on page 176 in these words: Contrary to the opinion of the rest, the Hungarian Annals think otherwise; for they assert that holy Stephen took to wife Gysla, the daughter of duke William: that William was the brother of St. Sigismund king of the Burgundians, and after the martyrdom, not to say the destruction, of Sigismund fled to the emperor Henry, and by his command was settled at Venice, and had Gertrude the emperor's sister to wife, and by her had a daughter Gysla, betrothed to the king of Hungary: and that, Gertrude being carried off by an untimely death, he joined to himself the sister of holy Stephen, and begot of her Peter, who was raised to the summit of the kingdom. Bonfinius here gave the opinion of Turoczius, which nevertheless he does not approve. But how faulty all those things are is abundantly clear even from St. Sigismund king of the Burgundians alone, who had been slain already in the sixth century. With what appearance of truth, then, can a brother William be here set up, whom they called Gisela's father? The name of William seems as fictitious as that of Sigismund, and of the emperor Henry, which name Turoczius did not express, but only called him emperor.

[178] probably from confusion with her mother, likewise called Gisela, All the names being removed, the Hungarians could take Gisela's lineage from confusion with two other Giselas of the same time, both of whom were Burgundian. The first was the very mother of Queen Gisela, namely the wife of Henry the Quarrelsome duke of Bavaria, and daughter of Conrad the Peaceful king of Burgundy. This Gisela, mother of Gisela the wife of St. Stephen, seems to have offered the chief occasion for the confusion: for in fact Conrad her father, when as a youth he had lost his father Rodolph II king of Burgundy, came to the emperor Otto I, by whom he was detained many years, until Otto freed from the hands of Berengarius king of Italy Adelaide the sister of Conrad, whom he held captive, and took her to wife: for then he also sent Conrad back to his kingdom. It seems therefore that the Hungarians held the genealogy of Gisela's mother, and confounded it with her daughter, their own queen. I confess indeed that not all the things they say fit Gisela the mother; yet I scarcely doubt that they confounded her with the daughter, and added the remaining errors with an equal freedom of conjecture.

[179] and with a third of the same time: Stephen did not have two wives. The second Gisela was the cousin of the Hungarian queen, being born namely of Gerberga, likewise a daughter of the aforesaid king Conrad. This Gisela was married first to Ernest duke of Swabia, and, he being dead, afterwards to the emperor Conrad II, surnamed the Salic. From her too the Hungarians could mix in some things with Gisela their queen. Whatever it be that gave occasion to their errors, I am altogether displeased with the conjecture of those who attributed two wives, and indeed of the same name, to St. Stephen, that they might somehow reconcile the ancient errors of the Hungarians with the true opinion: for of a second wife of St. Stephen there exists nowhere any trace among the ancient writers. Of Queen Gisela, as also of her son Emeric, who alone among the children of St. Stephen became known, we shall now and then make mention in the course of our work.

§ XVIII. The royal name and dignity obtained, the crown sent by the supreme Pontiff Sylvester II, who also confers other privileges upon the King.

[ ] Stephen at first held the principate with the title of duke, Geysa the father of St. Stephen being dead, his Son indeed presently obtained the government of the Hungarians, but in such wise as Geysa and the other dukes had held it, namely under the name of duke, not of king. This is the opinion of Carthuitius, Turoczius, Ranzanus, and very many others, which will also be confirmed by many reasons in such a way that no doubt can remain. If some writers named Stephen king from the beginning of his obtaining the principate, they did so either because he afterwards attained the royal dignity, or because some name any powerful princes kings, or at any rate because they erred with Bonfinius, who believed that Stephen was called king from the beginning by his subjects, even though the same acknowledges that a royal crown was afterwards sent by the Pontiff. Hear the mind of the aforesaid writer. After a long speech to the Hungarian nobles, which he attributes to Geysa toward the end of his life, he narrates Stephen's election thus: In his father's presence, by the consent of all, Stephen, by a judgment not so much human as divine, is created not duke, as his father was, but king of the Ungari. The supreme power of the whole commonwealth is handed over to him; and all the nobles and commons swear into his hands that they will never refuse his commands, that they will render most acceptable and faithful obedience, and will hold him in the place of a heavenly messenger. Presently, raised up on the throne by the hands of the nobles, he is saluted king by all. Carried into the camp, he is confirmed by the same salutation by the praetorian legions. It is clear that these circumstances of the election are fabricated from the manners of the ancient Romans. But the election itself I suspect was asserted from Carthuitius ill understood. These words at num. 4 are read in Carthuitius: His father (Geysa), having called together the chief men of Hungary with the following order, by the counsel of a common conference set his son Stephen over the people to reign after him, and to confirm this exacted an oath from each. The word "to reign" could persuade Bonfinius that Stephen was created king. But that is not the mind of Carthuitius; for he was raised, as he presently adds, to his father's throne, and reigned as his father did, with the title of duke, until he obtained the royal one.

[181] Ranzanus at index 8 has thus about the royal dignity received: but afterwards obtained the royal dignity and name, Then, no long time having intervened (from the conquering of Cupa duke of Simigium), when it had pleased the chief men of Hungary that he who with the title of duke presided over so many peoples and so many men distinguished by nobility of birth and great authority should use a more honoured appellation, they chose the royal dignity. But for the rest, that no one should be raised to it but Stephen: since he had been by right the successor of his father's resources, and had so led his past life that he alone was judged by the opinion of all prudent men to have been born for a kingdom. By the wonderful consent and applause of all, therefore, he is elected and himself called king, and is endowed with a royal crown after the manner of kings. As long as he held the kingdom, besides that he ordered his life wisely and Christianly, that is, piously and holily, he also omitted nothing which befitted the office of the best of kings. This narration can so far be true, that the Hungarians themselves conferred the royal name upon Stephen before he obtained that dignity at Rome; or, as appears more probable, that they ratified and approved by their consent the royal name received by the authority of the Roman Pontiff: yet the account is very imperfect, because the chief origin of that dignity is omitted, and therefore the whole becomes suspect. Turoczius in chapter 29 touches briefly on the royal dignity received in these words: Further, blessed Stephen, after he had divinely obtained the crown of royal loftiness, &c. He indicates clearly indeed that at the beginning he was not king, for a little before he had said, by blessed Stephen then duke; but he does not relate from whom Stephen received the crown. Nevertheless by the word "divinely" he in some measure hints that he was not ignorant that the crown Stephen received was sent by the supreme Pontiff divinely forewarned.

[182] the crown sought from the supreme Pontiff through an envoy, But Bonfinius was not silent about by whose authority Stephen obtained the royal crown, but, following Carthuitius, narrated the matter at length. Nay, he also embraced the error of Carthuitius in the name of the Polish duke, calling him Misca, whom he ought to have called Boleslaus. His whole account, to be corrected in a few points and then confirmed, I subjoin. On page 174 he has thus: Him (Astricus, by another name Anastasius) in the fourth year after his father's death he judged should be sent to Rome to the supreme Pontiff, and gives him instructions to implore from the Vicar of Christ the Apostolic blessing upon the Ungari, who had lately entered upon his faith, and to number them among the sheep of Peter. After these, that he should command the church of Gran to be metropolitan. Likewise that he should confirm by his sacrosanct authority the other bishoprics lately erected in Hungary. Finally, since all power is from God, and the greatest undertakings cannot be confirmed without divine help, that he should obtain by pious prayers the royal insignia with the pontifical blessing. Astricus, hastening to Rome, that he might most diligently discharge the office of his legation, journeys day and night. What does God, who always attends the counsels and honours of the pious? Assuredly He follows them with the most favourable auspices. For in the same year Misca, duke of Poland, converted with his people to the faith, was seeking the same things from Benedict * the supreme Pontiff through envoys: wherefore the Pontiff had prepared a crown at vast expense, that, rejoicing at this accession of religion and faith, he might distinguish duke Misca, a new soldier of Christ, with a royal diadem for the good work done.

[183] and obtained with other privileges, On the day before that on which the crown destined for the Poles was to be bestowed, Astricus enters the city. Behold, in sleep on the preceding night a messenger of God appears to the Pontiff: Hail (he says), Pontiff, know that tomorrow an envoy of the Pannonian nation will come to thee, who will entreat that by thy favour and authority thou endow his Prince with a royal diadem; give to him the crown destined for the Poles, since merits so demand; therefore observe the divine commands. When he had withdrawn into the air, at the second hour of the day Astricus was admitted into the Apostolic senate. Where, when he had related the King's instructions in order, and had subjoined his most holy deeds, and had told how great an accession he had made to the Catholic faith on both sides of the Danube, which he had propagated even among the Getae and Sarmatians, he filled the Apostolic order with incredible joy. The matter being referred to the senate, according to the King's will and the envoy's request, with none opposing, it is decreed that not only should the most Christian King be endowed with a royal crown, in his kingdom by Apostolic authority

be confirmed, and all the King's acts with the bishoprics instituted be approved; but also that, because he is a true and faithful soldier of God, and an Apostle, to heighten his dignity he should be honoured in perpetuity with the badge of a Pontifical legation, which it should be lawful for him and for the kings his successors always to discharge, with the power of having the cross carried before him.

[184] When the envoy had obtained everything not only according to his wish, but beyond hope and expectation, as Bonfinius writes, straying nevertheless in certain points. filled with great joy, he betook himself into Pannonia. As he drew near Gran the King came out to meet him with a singular procession of priests and pontiffs. He received Astricus, bringing the Pontifical gifts and displaying both the crown and the cross, most honourably, giving thanks to God. The Apostolic insignia were received with the utmost reverence, since at every mention of the Roman pontiff Stephen, while the people looked on, bowed his head and knelt, that by his example he might exhort all to obedience and observance toward the Roman Pontiff and the Apostolic senate. Thus far Bonfinius, by whose error Pope Benedict was substituted for Sylvester II. Likewise what he says about religion propagated among the Getae and Sarmatians must be deleted: for Stephen had not yet done that.

[185] With the account of Carthuitius and Bonfinius the letters of Sylvester II the supreme Pontiff, given to the envoy returning to Stephen, agree excellently. The letters of Sylvester II, by which all the things requested These Inchofer published in his Annals at the year 1000 in this manner: Sylvester the bishop, servant of the servants of God, to Stephen duke of the Ungari, greeting and Apostolic blessing. The envoys of thy nobility, and above all our most dear fellow-brother Astricus, the venerable bishop of Kalocsa, have affected our heart with the greater joy, and accomplished their office with the less labour, in that we, divinely forewarned, were awaiting their coming from a nation unknown to us with a most eager mind. Happy embassy, which, anticipated by a heavenly messenger and handled by an angelic ministry, was concluded by God's decree before it had been heard by us. Truly it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but, according to the Apostle, of God that showeth mercy: who, as Daniel witnesses, changeth times and ages, transferreth kingdoms and establisheth them: revealeth deep and hidden things, and knoweth the things set in darkness, because light is with him: which, as John teaches, enlighteneth every man coming into this world. First therefore we give thanks to God the Father, and to our Lord Jesus Christ, who in our times has found for himself a David, the son of Geysa, a man after his own heart, and, irradiated with heavenly light, has raised him up to feed Israel his people, the elect nation of the Ungari. Next we praise the piety of thy sublimity toward God, and thy reverence toward the Apostolic See, over which, the divine mercy suffering it, by no suffrage of our merits, we preside. But indeed the bounty of thy liberality, by which to blessed Peter the prince of the Apostles thou hast offered in perpetuity the kingdom and nation of which thou art duke, and all that is thine, and thyself, through the same envoys and letters, we commend with worthy proclamation. For by this excellent deed thou hast openly testified, and hast in very truth shown thyself deservedly to be such, as thou hast studiously sought that we should deign to declare thee. But we forbear. For it is not necessary that we should further commend him whom so many and such deeds gloriously done for Christ proclaim with public voice, and whom God himself commends.

[186] he grants to Stephen, restores the kingdom offered, Wherefore, glorious son, all the things demanded of us and of the Apostolic See — the diadem and the royal name, the metropolis of Gran and the other bishoprics — by the authority of almighty God and of his blessed apostles Peter and Paul, the same almighty God forewarning and so commanding, with the Apostolic and our blessing, we have gladly granted, do grant, and impart. The kingdom too offered by thy munificence to St. Peter, and thee together with it, and the Hungarian people and nation, present and to come, receiving under the protection of the holy Roman Church, we render and confer upon thy prudence, and upon thy heirs and lawful successors, to be had, held, ruled, governed, and possessed. Which heirs and successors of thine, whosoever they be, after they shall have been lawfully elected by the nobles, shall be bound likewise to show due obedience and reverence to us and to our successors, by themselves or by envoys, and to show themselves subject to the holy Roman Church, which does not have those subject to it as servants, but receives all as sons, and firmly to persevere in the Catholic faith and in the religion of Christ our Lord and Saviour, and to promote the same.

[187] and creates him Apostolic legate; other letters too sent by a nuncio. And because thy nobility, emulating the glory of the Apostles, has not disdained to bear an apostolic office by preaching Christ and propagating his Faith, and has striven to supply our place and that of the priesthood, and to honour the Prince of the Apostles singularly above the rest: therefore we too, desiring to adorn thy excellence with a singular privilege besides, and, in view of thy merits, thy heirs and lawful successors, who, as has been said, shall have been elected and approved by the Apostolic See, now and in perpetual times to come; that after thou, and they, shall have been crowned with the crown which we send, duly according to the formula handed to thy envoys, thou mayest be able and have power to cause the cross, the badge of the apostolate, to be borne before thee, and that they may be able and have power; and that, according as divine grace shall have taught thee and them, thou mayest dispose and ordain the churches of thy kingdom, present and to come, in our place and that of our successors, we have likewise granted by apostolic authority, and will, and request, as all these things are more fully explained in the other letters, to be carried in common to thee, and to the nobles of the kingdom, and to all the faithful people, by our nuncio whom we direct to thee. We pray almighty God, who called thee by thy name from thy mother's womb to a kingdom and a crown, and who commanded that the diadem which had been made by us for the duke of the Poles should be given to thee, to increase the growth of the fruits of his justice, to bedew abundantly the new plantings of thy kingdom with the dew of his blessing; to preserve thy kingdom to thee and thee unharmed to thy kingdom; to protect thee from enemies visible and invisible; and after the troubles of an earthly kingdom to adorn thee with an eternal crown in the heavenly kingdom. Given at Rome on the 6th of the Kalends of April, in the thirteenth Indiction. On these letters Inchofer rightly observes that other letters too, by which everything was more fully explained, were sent by Sylvester through a nuncio. And indeed the King's dignity required that the Pontiff should send a nuncio, who could also be at hand to counsel the King, and to help him in erecting churches and in framing laws pertaining to the Church. In the letters which in the year 1009 Stephen gave for the bishopric of Fünfkirchen instituted, he makes mention of the Pontifical nuncio in these words: With the consent of the most holy Apostolic lord, and in the presence of his nuncio. Further, the epoch of the letters designates the year 1000, as is clear from the thirteenth Indiction, which was running in that year. The letters themselves agree excellently with the accounts of Carthuitius and Bonfinius, and contain absolutely nothing which will not be confirmed from elsewhere. Schwartz nevertheless strives to render these letters suspect of forgery; but we shall sift his petty arguments below, where his other arguments too will be answered. First I proceed to confirm with solid reasons the several heads which that heterodox writer wished to deny.

* rather Sylvester

§ XIX. The chief heads which are asserted in the account of Carthuitius and Bonfinius and in the Pontifical Letters are confirmed by other authorities and reasons.

[ ] That a crown was sent to St. Stephen by the Pontiff is proved from Ditmar, The aforesaid writers with the letters of Sylvester II assert, first, that the royal crown was sought from the Roman Pontiff through St. Stephen's envoy and obtained, the Pontiff having been previously warned by a revelation. I have hitherto seen no Catholic writer who denied this fact; none who seems to have doubted of it. And indeed it rests on reasons so firm that it ought not to be liable to doubt. Ditmar bishop of Merseburg, who lived at the same time, and who touched on the affairs of the Hungarians only briefly, so far as they were connected with the deeds of the emperors which he was narrating, offers indeed a brief but a shining testimony to this truth, which even alone suffices to remove all doubt. His words, already given before on another occasion, in book 4 are these: But by the favour and exhortation of the aforesaid emperor (Otto III), Waic the son-in-law of Henry duke of the Bavarians, making episcopal chairs in his kingdom, received a crown and a blessing. It is established that Stephen was the son-in-law of Henry the Quarrelsome duke of Bavaria; it is established that the erection of bishoprics was begun by him about the year 999 or 1000; it is established that at the same time Otto III was reigning, and did not die before the year 1002; and so it is certain that by the vernacular name Waic no other is designated, who received a crown and a blessing, than St. Stephen; nor will anyone, I think, deny this. Now that Stephen received the crown from none other than the supreme Pontiff is again clear, because he is said to have received at the same time a crown and a blessing, because he is said to have received it by the favour and exhortation of the emperor, and because he is asserted to have obtained the crown while making episcopal chairs, by which words it is hinted that the crown was granted as a reward for the advancement of the Christian cause. And so Schwartz must impudently charge Ditmar with lying, or admit that the crown was granted to St. Stephen by the Roman Pontiff.

[189] The second reason I take from the epoch of the letters of St. Stephen for the abbey of St. Martin, from Stephen's letters, from Turoczius, which are read as given, in the year of the Lord's Incarnation 1001, Indiction XV, in the second year of Stephen the first king. These letters Schwartz admitted to be authentic, thinking they would greatly profit him. First, since these letters were given in the year 1001, in the month of September or another later one, the epoch of these letters agrees exactly with the time which the Pontifical letters express, and which Carthuitius and Bonfinius assign. For these say that an envoy was sent by Stephen in the fourth year after his father's death, that is, in the very year one thousand, in which the Pontifical letters are read as given on the 25th of March. But if the crown was sent in the year 1000, the second year from the receiving of the crown was running toward the end of the year 1001, in which Stephen gave his letters marked in the second year of his reign. This so exact agreement of the epochs of all the said instruments wonderfully commends their credit. Moreover, since Stephen had presided over the Hungarians from the year 997, he would not call the year 1001 the second of his reign, unless to his first dignity another had been added, from which he wished thenceforth to number his years. The Saint therefore numbered his years from the time of the crown received; and since Turoczius says that this was divinely obtained, he hints that it was received in the manner in which the Pontiff himself, with Carthuitius and Bonfinius, relates that it was given, namely because Sylvester had been forewarned by a divine oracle through an angel: and this seems to be the reason why that crown is called angelic. From the example too of Boleslaus duke of Poland, whom we shall see to have sought a royal crown from the Roman Pontiff, it may with probable reason be concluded that Stephen sought and obtained the crown from none other than the Roman Pontiff. But we do not need arguments of that kind, since there is no lack of other testimonies confirming the same truth.

[190] from the authority of Andrew and Ladislaus kings of Hungary, Andrew II king of Hungary in the year 1233, to James of Palestrina legate of the Apostolic See, in Raynaldus at the same year, num. 51, speaks thus: With the constancy of sincere love the king who sits on the throne of judgment, as king Solomon witnesses, scatters all evil with his gaze. By this king of holy and venerable memory we understand the most blessed Stephen, the first king of the Hungarian nation, who would not be raised to the throne of the kingdom by his own authority, knowing that it is written that no man taketh the honour to himself, but he that is called by God: and therefore not from anyone whatsoever, but from the Vicar of Jesus Christ and the successor of the most blessed Peter, by a divine revelation made to the supreme Pontiff, he took up the diadem of the kingdom… But also by the authority of the supreme Pontiff, who called him the King and Apostle of our nation, he divided the provinces into bishoprics, &c. These words not only confirm that the crown was sent by the Pontiff, but at the same time prove the revelation of the same Pontiff asserted in the several records which we are defending. Ladislaus likewise, king of Hungary, professes that the crown was given to Stephen by the supreme Pontiff, in his letters in Raynaldus at the year 1279, num. 31, in these words: The beginning of the divine visitation, by which the Lord, the true Dayspring, visited us from on high, whereby we are united to the bowels of holy mother Church, illumined with the light of the Catholic faith, we acknowledge, as we ought, in our forefather, the holy king Stephen, from the sacrosanct Roman Church. For in him, the divine clemency breathing upon him, the sacred ointment of the orthodox faith gave forth its fragrance; in him, the flood of heavenly grace sprouting forth, together with the other most serene kings of Hungary descending from an illustrious stock, we receive from the same the helm of the kingdom, and the crown. And that he might more brilliantly show that the primacy of the faith consists in the sacrosanct Roman Church, and that the same is the bridal chamber of Christ and the lodging of the Trinity, not from himself, nor from another, but from the same Roman Church, the mother and mistress of all, he deserved by divine revelation to obtain the diadem of the kingdom.

[191] Pope Boniface VIII in the year 1301, in the aforesaid Raynaldus, num. 8, agrees with the aforesaid kings, of Pope Boniface VIII, writing thus in letters to Nicholas of Ostia, legate of the Apostolic See in Hungary: Besides this we will not have it hidden from thee, or called into doubt, that the aforesaid kingdom of Hungary was devoutly offered and reverently handed over to the sacrosanct Roman Church by blessed Stephen, the first Christian king of Hungary, with all its right and power: who also would not be raised to the throne of that kingdom by his own authority, knowing that no one ought to take honour to himself but he who is called by God: and therefore not from anyone whatsoever, but from the Vicar of Jesus Christ and the successor of Peter, he took up the royal diadem. It had indeed been divinely revealed that to him first in the Hungarian nation a crown and a kingdom were due, as these documents more fully testify, which are preserved in the archives of the aforesaid Roman Church, and could have come to the knowledge of the archbishop himself. The same Pontiff wrote thus to Wenceslaus king of Bohemia, whose son Wenceslaus was seeking the kingdom of Hungary, in the same place, num. 10: Nor ought the Apostolic See, the mother and mistress of all, to have been despised, so that at least in doubtful and greater causes recourse should have been had to her: without whose authority too Stephen of holy memory, king of Hungary, forewarned by a divine revelation, would not be raised to the throne of that kingdom: but, like Aaron called by God, humbly received from that See the crown and the kingdom. This Stephen God snatched from the darkness of unbelief, and called into his marvellous light; who was the first Christian king of Hungary. These testimonies of Boniface at the same time confirm the revelation, which has now been confirmed by so many and so illustrious testimonies that no one can doubt either of the crown sent by the Pontiff, or of the revelation itself, who prefers to acknowledge the truth than to fight with useless labour against manifest truth.

[192] Yet there is no lack of other testimonies too, by which the same may again be pressed home even upon the contentious and stubborn. and of Cardinal Gentilis, the Pontifical legate in Hungary. In the record of the agreement between Cardinal Gentilis the legate and the Hungarian nobles, in Raynaldus at the year 1308, num. 25, these things are said: The same lord legate set forth the word of God, taking that Evangelical theme, Lord, didst thou not sow good seed in thy field? &c., seriously recounting the seeds of the field, that is, of the kingdom of Hungary, which the Lord had sown in it, from which Catholic kings came forth, conspicuous with so great brightness of sanctity and life that they deserved to be enrolled in the catalogue of the Saints; and that the crown of the kingdom the first king of Hungary, holy Stephen, received consecrated from the Roman Pontiff, as the Histories * of the Ungari, which the legate himself had known beforehand, he asserted testify. These things said in the public assembly of the nobles no one is read to have denied; but a murmur arose from those who said that they were unwilling that the Roman Church, or the lord legate himself in her name, should in any way provide the oft-named kingdom (of Hungary) with a king; but it pleased them that him whom they themselves according to the ancient and approved custom of the same kingdom had called and taken up as king, the aforesaid lord legate should confirm in the name of the same Roman Church as true king of Hungary; and that also in all future times the true supreme Pontiffs and the Roman Church herself should have the right of confirming and crowning the kings of Hungary, sprung of the true royal line, whom they unanimously and concordantly should judge should be elected from the said line. In this manner the controversy was ended, Charles being received by the Hungarians as king, about whose cause there had long been dispute. But these latter words I have adduced only that answer may be made to Schwartz, who objects this dispute, as we shall see: for I would not dispute about the manner or right by which the kings of Hungary were formerly elected. About the crown sent to Stephen many testimonies of more recent writers might be added, which I silently pass over, since those adduced abundantly suffice, and the same truth is again to be elucidated in the answer to the objections of Schwartz.

[193] [Carthuitius and others erred in the name of the Polish duke from whom the crown was sought,] The second thing which Carthuitius and Bonfinius with Sylvester II assert, and which some have thought must be denied, is the petition for the crown by the duke of Poland, whose name Sylvester does not express. And by this silence of the Pontiff it seems to have come about that Carthuitius erred in the duke's name, and led into the same error Bonfinius and some Polish writers who followed his authority. That duke of the Poles Carthuitius named Myscha (by others called Miseco, Miesco, or Miecislaus). He was indeed the first Christian duke of the Poles: but he had already been dead some years, and had left the duchy to his son Boleslaus, before St. Stephen obtained the crown. And so the duke of the Slavs in Poland at that time was Boleslaus, and he had sought the crown, as Baronius long ago observed in the Annals at the year 1000. This matter is certain from various writers: for in the Life of St. Adalbert the martyr, in our tome III of April, pages 194 and 195, mention is made at various times of Boleslaus duke of the Poles, while Adalbert was alive, who was crowned with martyrdom in the year 997, so that Miseco died before this year. Ditmar in our manuscript codex, book 4, has thus of his death: But in the year of the Lord's Incarnation eight hundred * ninety-two, and in the eighteenth of the reign of the third Otto, on the Kalends of June, the aforesaid duke (Miseco), now an old man and feverish, passed from this exile to the heavenly country, leaving his realm to be divided among very many; which afterwards Bolizlaus, having driven out his stepmother and three brothers, … by fox-like cunning gathered into one. In the printed editions it is read, and in the eighth of the reign of the third Otto, without the day added. Pagi at the year 991, num. 3, will have it that we should read "ninth", since he had begun his reign at the Lord's Nativity, in the year 983, and so the ninth year would really be running. Perhaps it should be read, in the year … tenth, on the eighteenth of the Kalends of June. Whatever fault lurks here in the emperor's year, the Annalist of Hildesheim too attaches the death of Miseco to the year 992. Wherefore I gladly confess that Carthuitius erred in the name of the duke of Poland, when he called him Myscha. But we can wonder at this the less in a Hungarian bishop, who wrote a whole century later, and who did not find the duke's name in the Pontifical letters which he was following, especially because Miseco preceded Boleslaus and first received the Catholic faith. It may also be that Miseco had already begun to ask for the crown, and afterwards continued the same request: and thus both Carthuitius and the Polish writers who also attribute that petition to Miseco, or Miecslaus, might in some measure be excused.

[194] Further, the fact itself the Polish Historians admit — John Dlugossus, Michael of Michovia, Martin Cromer, and others — confessing that the crown was sought by the duke of the Poles, but denied him by the supreme Pontiff. as the Polish historians acknowledge, and among them This consent of both nations in the same history makes it that we ought not to doubt of the fact itself; especially since Dlugossus is older than Bonfinius, and narrated the matter with such circumstances that it clearly appears that he did not draw from Carthuitius or other Hungarian sources, but from Polish records. For which cause it pleases me to subjoin his whole account, though it appear rather prolix. In book 2, col. 121, he has thus: Miecslaus meanwhile, duke of the Poles, persuaded by the diligent admonition and counsel of the prelates and barons of Poland, to send envoys to the supreme Pontiff Benedict VII, and to ask that a crown be given to him and to the regions of the Poles. For there was then held to be such opulence and abundance both of men and of riches in the provinces of Poland, and such justice in duke Miecslaus, that Poland seemed worthy to be added to the number of Catholic kingdoms. And for undertaking and carrying out this so arduous a matter Lampert the pontiff of Cracow was chosen, a man notable in learning and eloquence.

[195] Who, when he had come to the supreme Pontiff Pope Benedict, Dlugossus sets forth, asserting that the crown was promised to the Polish duke, and, setting forth eloquently and gravely the commands of duke Miecslaus and of the Poles, had asked that to duke Miecslaus and to the regions of Poland he would give a crown for the greater strengthening of the holy Catholic faith received by them, which he showed had germinated in a wonderful manner by the foundation of nine cathedral churches and other sacred places, and also for the bringing back and extermination of the unbelieving and schismatic nations neighbouring Poland, showing that Miecslaus duke of Poland was a true Catholic and a most fervent zealot for the Christian religion, his works testifying it, vigorous and noble in arms and military deeds, glorious in the abundance of many peoples. But when the supreme Pontiff Benedict VII, the counsel of the Cardinals having been taken, had answered Lampert bishop of Cracow that he would with paternal kindness give a crown to Miecslaus duke of the Poles for the increase and spread of the Catholic faith and the glory of the nation of the Poles, the envoys of Stephen duke of the Hungarians, the nephew by his sister Aleida of Miecslaus duke of the Poles, who in the same year, his father

Geisa being dead, had undertaken to rule the duchy of Hungary, arrived at Rome — the envoy being Austricus *, abbot of the monastery of St. Benedict of the Order at the foot of the Iron Mountain, and afterwards promoted to be archbishop of Gran, although by anticipation he is entered in the Annals as archbishop of Gran — and began to ask a crown from the supreme Pontiff for his duke Stephen of Hungary.

[196] And although Pope Benedict was disposed to give a crown to each duke, [but afterwards that it was denied him by the Pontiff, divinely warned, and handed over to Stephen;] namely of the Hungarians and of the Poles, understanding that the bestowal of a crown for each was prejudicial to neither, and could bring great advancement to the affairs of the faith and of the Christian religion; yet meanwhile Pope Benedict is reported to have been admonished by an angelic vision to rescind the promise made for Miecslaus duke of the Poles to Lampert bishop of Cracow, and to confer the crown only on Stephen duke of Hungary and on his envoy Austricus, adding that the Poles were more given and intent upon blood, slaughter, and hunting than upon devotion and works of mercy; more upon the oppression of their subjects and upon rapine, more upon lying and guile, than upon truth; that they took greater care of beasts and dogs than of men, and, prone to the shedding of human blood, were not yet worthy that a crown should hitherto be conferred upon them. But in the near future, if God shall be appeased toward that nation, I will have mercy, and the crown , which now I deny it, I will glorify and exalt; for there are in that nation many thousands of men walking in my law without offence, by whose merit and supplication I will have mercy upon the rest, and neither shall I be able to forget the many good works in the erection and endowment of very many churches, and the other worship with which I am venerated by it. Moved therefore by a vision of this kind, Pope Benedict bestows the crown which he had prepared for duke Miecslaus, to be handed over to Stephen duke of Hungary, upon his envoy Austricus.

[197] [but that the Polish envoy was dismissed with the hope of obtaining a crown afterwards.] But Lampert bishop of Cracow, though sending him back into Poland sad and mournful, he bade to hope well, asserting that after no long time had run its course the duke and the Poles, after they had cast off the filth and foulness of the crimes by which they had hitherto displeased God, and, exercised in virtues, had striven to cultivate justice and equity, would most abundantly obtain God's kindness for their wishes. But Benedict the Apostolic fearing lest, on occasion of the crown given to duke Stephen of Hungary but denied to Miecslaus duke of Poland, between the uncle and the nephew, the aforesaid dukes of the Hungarians and of the Poles, execrable wars and stirrings of conflict should arise, having called both envoys, he exhorts, admonishes, and commands that they should keep and guard indissoluble the peace and charity contracted by the right of affinity and neighbourhood, and permit it to be shaken by no consideration or occasion: that whichever of them should be the cause that the peace was not kept, him he would censure with the censure of anathema.

[198] [That writer, carping undeservedly at the Hungarians, shows that he narrated these things from the love of truth alone,] But the assertion of some has it that the supreme Pontiff, not moved by an angelic vision, but from the certainty by which he had been informed that Miecslaus duke of Poland had died, did not give him the crown, which I too remember to have read in some Annals of the Poles; but that the angelic apparition was invented and dreamed by the Hungarians, that the sending of the crown made to them by Pope Benedict might be the more famous, which even to this day with a little unjust appellation they call holy, whereas no metal can include in itself sanctity, unless usurped or falsely claimed. Thus far Dlugossus, whose latter words sufficiently indicate that he, overcome by truth, wrote these things candidly, as he believed they happened, since otherwise he by no means favours the Hungarians, and carps at them undeservedly for having called their crown Holy. For why can a crown not be called holy which was obtained and first worn by a holy King? Nor is there need for this that the metal itself should contain anything of sanctity.

[199] [certain reasons for the crown's denial alleged by others are not rightly alleged.] Moreover that account of others, who said that the crown was not given to the envoy of the Polish duke because the latter had meanwhile died, would be very probable if Miecslaus had really died in the year 999, in which Dlugossus believed he died: and yet he brings forward another cause for the crown's denial, and one little honourable to his own nation, which he had found neither in Carthuitius nor in other Hungarian writers, but either in the records of the church of Cracow, of which he was a canon, or in other Polish ones, which he preferred to those Annals in which the death of Miecslaus was alleged as the cause. These things I observe, that it may appear that these things were not written without discrimination. But the duke's death could not be the cause of the crown's denial in the year 1000, since he had already died in the year 992. Stanislaus Sarnicius in the Polish Annals, book 6, chapter 5, brings forward another reason for the crown's denial, writing thus: Yet the History of the Bald Mountain asserts this for certain, that the Roman Pontiff Benedict at that same time had already then decreed in his senate that Boleslaus duke of Poland, surnamed Chobri, should be crowned king, and had already a crown prepared of the purest gold for this, that if perchance Boleslaus should wish, he might send it to him: but when he heard that Boleslaus had preferred to be crowned by the emperor rather than by the Pope, being admonished by an angel, he sent the same to holy Stephen king of Hungary. These things are read, as I said, in the History of the Bald Mountain. But this reason is no more probable, since it does not seem true that Boleslaus received a crown from Otto III, as we shall see: nor did Pope Benedict deny the crown, but Sylvester.

[200] Further, Dlugossus erred indeed through defect of right chronology, It is shown that the account of Dlugossus is not to be cast away, but corrected: when he named Miecslaus and Benedict VII, and connected them with the time of the crown received by St. Stephen: for both had died many years before. But that error of chronology reigns in his other writings too, and namely in those things which he narrates a little before about St. Adalbert, whose second departure he places under Benedict VI, dead many years, and refers his coming into Poland and his journey into Prussia also to the times of Benedict VI, dead more than twenty years, and says he came to Miecslaus into Poland, although that duke had then been dead four years. Shall we then hold St. Adalbert's Roman, Polish, and Prussian journeys, and his dealings with the Pontiffs and the duke of Poland, for fables, because Dlugossus assigns other Pontiffs and dukes? By no means. But we shall correct the errors of a writer who strays and designates persons too freely, since from elsewhere it is established that the facts themselves happened most truly, but neither with those persons nor at those times which Dlugossus assigned. The same must be done in the fact about which we are disputing. The fact itself, which he drew from ancient records, must altogether be asserted; and it must be said that the crown was sought by the Duke of the Poles, and that it was prepared for him by the Pontiff; but afterwards denied, that it might be sent to Stephen. Now that that duke was Boleslaus, and the Pontiff Sylvester II, a rightly ordered chronology teaches. Lambert too, the prelate of Cracow, coheres excellently with this chronology, but not with the other, if the Poles have rightly reckoned his years: for Dlugossus sets him as having died in the year 1014 after a bishopric of nineteen years, so that this reckoning brings back the beginning of his bishopric to about the year 995.

[201] Moreover it is established from elsewhere that the Polish dukes in those times laboured to obtain a royal crown from the supreme Pontiff. Boleslaus, in the reign of Henry, wished to seek a crown from the Pontiff. Blessed Peter Damian in the Life of St. Romuald, given by us in tome 2 of February, page 114, narrates that by Boleslaus duke of the Poles, whom he names Busclavus king of the Slavs, some Camaldolese monks were sought for preaching the faith in Poland, and that SS. John and Benedict, afterwards made martyrs, were sent to him, whom after some years he endeavoured to send to Rome, that they might obtain a royal crown from the Pope. Take the words of Damian: But Busclavus, wishing to receive the crown of his kingdom from Roman authority, began with earnest supplication to demand of the aforesaid venerable men that they should carry very many of his gifts to the Pope, and bring back for him a crown from the Apostolic See. Who, utterly denying assent to the royal petition, said: We are placed in a sacred order, it is by no means lawful for us to handle secular business: and so, leaving the king, they returned to their cell. As the same writer testifies, the emperor Henry was opposed to Boleslaus's plan, of which at num. 52 we read thus: But the emperor Henry, not ignorant of Busclavus's plan, had commanded that the roads be watched on every side, so that if Busclavus should send envoys to Rome, they should at once come into his hands. It is not to be doubted that Boleslaus had already attempted this before, since the matter had been reported to the emperor Henry. And so Boleslaus wished to attempt through monks what he had before vainly endeavoured to accomplish through a bishop. Baronius at the year 1000 infers from these that Boleslaus did not obtain the crown from the emperor Otto III, since he sought it from the Pontiff, when Henry was reigning and opposing him. This very thing at the same year, num. 5, Pagi confirms from Wipo in the Life of Conrad the Salic. There may be added the Saxon Annalist at the year 1030, where he likewise asserts that Miseco duke of the Poles usurped the royal name by his own authority. But I would not here examine at what time the royal dignity was given to Poland; and I proceed to the objections of Schwartz, that the remaining things which are asserted in the letters of Sylvester may at the same time be confirmed.

* historias

* in the printed editions rightly nongentesimo (nine hundred)

* Astricus

* debeat

* corona

§ XX. The reasons are sifted by which Schwartz strives to prove that the crown of the king of the Hungarians was given by the Greek emperor.

[ ] Schwartz, attacking the constant tradition of the Hungarians, Schwartz at num. 43 lays down this as a kind of law: A constant tradition of the Hungarians is not to be torn up for whatever difficulty. But if there is any constant tradition of the Hungarians, that certainly is most constant which relates that St. Stephen received the royal crown from the supreme Pontiff; since it has been handed down by contemporary authors and confirmed by the writers of all following centuries. Yet this tradition, no less certain than constant, that same heterodox writer attempted to tear up, that he might build up an opinion clothed in itself with no appearance of truth, resting on no authority, and asserted by no one, so far as I know. Certainly for that paradox of his he cites not only no ancient record, but not even any modern writer. Nevertheless he propounds his petty arguments so intrepidly, affirms his conclusions with such boasting, that an incautious and less critical reader might easily think that something at least must be granted to his reasonings, and on that occasion might conceive some doubt. For this cause I shall weigh the arguments of Schwartz more diligently than reasons so frivolous would otherwise deserve to be weighed, and shall adduce his very words, that the reader may more clearly understand by what engines the truth is attacked, and how useless they are against its force.

[203] contends that the Hungarian crown is of Greek workmanship, The aforesaid writer at num. 44 speaks thus: That diadem, or, if you prefer, crown, with which the kings of Hungary — as far back as it is possible to look, and to recall their remotest memory — were all in a long succession distinguished, so far that he was not held a lawful king whose august head this sacred weight had not pressed, we do not doubt to affirm to be of Greek fashion. For if you look at its form, it is of the number of what are called closed crowns, such as three centuries ago were not in use as crowns for the kings of Europe. The emperors alone claimed as their own closed crowns of this kind: but the other kings used diadems formed of a golden circlet, from which certain points of ornament flowered out, the top nevertheless being open. The Greek manner especially is reproduced by the eight little golden chains, ending in as many gems, and hanging on either side beside the ears, four on this side, four on that, with a ninth besides flowing down at the back. But the greatest argument for us for attributing the birth of the Hungarian crown to the Greeks is that the most illustrious count Peter de Rewa, once one of the two keepers of that sacred treasure, who looked at it with intent eyes and carefully described it, reported that besides the images of the Saviour of the world, of the most blessed Virgin Mary, and of the holy Apostles, there are on it also images of Constantine the Great and of other Greek emperors, and, what is the head of the matter, that they are marked with Greek letters. These things seemed so great to the most illustrious count de Rewa, that he too referred the origin of the sacred diadem to the Greeks. Then he adduces the words of the said count, of which these will suffice: But our crown seems to be of Greek workmanship, not only from the said images and letters, but also from the pendent little chains, which are found in the same places in the portraits of the Greek emperors.

[204] We do not deny that count de Rewa thought that the Hungarian crown was made long before Sylvester II, which count de Rewa too believed, though otherwise contrary to Schwartz: and is of Greek workmanship. But that the aforesaid count does not for that reason favour Schwartz will abundantly appear, and he himself acknowledges it, when he goes on thus: And this Rewaian testimony is to be valued the more strongly, the less any suspicion falls upon its author, as if he had wished to invent something for anyone's reproach. For he follows without any scruple the common opinion of historians, who believe and write that the kings of Hungary received the diadem from the Roman Pontiff, and comments elaborately on very many things, meaning to show how it came about that that golden work of Greek workmanship and genius was transmitted to the kings of Hungary from Rome by the Pontiff. He judges, therefore, that our diadem is that same one which the emperor Constantine the Great gave to Sylvester I the Roman Pontiff, and which down to this time lay hidden in the Pontifical treasures: and he records that Platina was his author for that opinion: namely because Platina in Sylvester I writes these things of Constantine: For he granted to the Pontiffs also a golden diadem set with gems: which indeed Sylvester spurned, as by no means befitting a religious head, and was content only with the Phrygian mitre and the white. This opinion of count de Rewa Schwartz then attacks. But since I would neither examine nor defend the Rewaian opinion, those words of Schwartz do not belong here. This only I observe, that the words of count de Rewa are adduced by Schwartz in order that from the Greek workmanship of the crown he may conclude, against the common opinion, that that crown fell to the Hungarians not by the gift of the Roman Pontiff, but of the Greek emperor.

[205] For presently at num. 47 he reasons from that opinion thus: And indeed those who report that Stephen obtained the diadem from the Pontiff confess with one mouth that it was all the work of Sylvester, reasons are given for the Greek workmanship of the crown which he had first destined for the duke of the Poles, before, warned by a divine oracle, he sent it to Stephen. This very thing the Charter of Sylvester, which together with the crown was, if the gods please, transmitted to Stephen, hints to us. For thus the Pontiff in it: "We pray almighty God (he says) … who commanded that the diadem which had been made by us for the duke of the Poles should be given to thee," &c. But here let us hold Inchofer, the author of the Pontifical diploma, and his associates, the defenders of the diploma, shut up, that they may extricate themselves if they can, and tell us why Sylvester wished that not only the images of Constantine the Great but also of other Greek emperors should shine in the treasure of his own work? Why did he distinguish them with Greek letters? Why did he fashion the whole form of the crown, against the manner of the Western kings, in rivalry of the Greeks? Let them answer the most illustrious count de Rewa, discoursing on that matter significantly and without any disguise: "But if the Pontiff," he says, "whether it were Benedict VII or Sylvester II, had caused the said diadem to be made, then he would have had a reason for shrinking from characters of the Greek tongue in his own work. For he grievously hated the Greek nation, nay their land and their tongue, on account of the schism and separation made from the Roman religion, the more because, concord having so often been attempted by the Pontiffs, they could by no means be brought back to conformity of faith. Rather the Pontiff would have adorned it, as his own work, with Latin letters and Roman names and images, whereby the benefit and gift would have been the more illustrious as conformable to the Roman power and nation. Especially since the Romans, with their inborn ambition and love of glory, temples, columns," &c. And what is more evident for proving the truth of the matter than the common discrimination of things by marks proper either to the possessor or to the maker; seeing that here there is both an image of Constantine, and his badge, the cross, is found.

[206] alleged from count de Rewa, in which Schwartz exults, "But if the crown were of the Pontiff's invention and workmanship, then without doubt it would firmly display the Pontifical badge, impressed on its body, so that a monument so excellent might without hesitation be ascribed to its author. Yet such marks of the Pontifical dignity are nowhere seen on the crown: as one may find them on the orb, the jewel joined to the crown, on one side, and on the other the arms of the Hungarian kingdom. And so, if both, the crown and the orb, be imputed to one and the same author, then there is no doubt that on the nobler work, which confers majesty on kings, the Pontiff would have caused his own badge to be expressed." The latter words of the count confirm the common opinion, as we shall see. Schwartz nevertheless, having recited them, exclaims with Thrasonic vanity: Let this be a wall of bronze, which Baronius, Inchofer, and all like them, who buy the kingdom of Hungary for a weight of gold, and consign the kings themselves to the servitude of the Roman curia, may try to batter — let them try, I say. But it will presently appear that by boastful words it cannot be brought about that a wall of bronze be built out of chaff: but first let us hear whence Schwartz fetches the crown of the Hungarians, who presently subjoins his opinion, or rather his conjecture, propped by no authority.

[207] But someone may ask, he says: Whence to the Hungarians that diadem of Greek work? If we can attain anything by conjecture, it was a gift of the emperors of Constantinople, [and from that uncertain opinion he strives to infer that that crown was given to the Hungarians by the Greek emperor,] which they conferred upon the Hungarians for some faithful service, above all useful to the Roman empire. For foreign nations were wont, if they had rendered any signal service to the emperors of the Greeks, to demand crowns too among other gifts from them. Constantine Porphyrogenitus at last, thinking it unworthy to confer that gift upon Barbarians, suggested to his son Romanus a witty counsel by which he might elude the prayers of those demanding. He then recites the words of Constantine in the book On Administering the Empire, chapter 13; but not all which are read there to our purpose, and which are so opposed to his conjecture that they alone suffice utterly to destroy it. These therefore I transfer hither: If ever either the Chazars, or the Turks *, or the Russians, or any other northern and Scythian nations, as often happens, demand that imperial robes, crowns, or stoles be transmitted to them for the sake of some service rendered, thus must thou excuse thyself: Such stoles and crowns, which we call CAMELAUCIA, were neither made by the work of men nor devised by human industry. But as we find written from ancient history in secret books, when God made that Constantine the great emperor, who first held the empire of the Christians, he sent to him by an angel such stoles and crowns, which we call camelaucia, and commanded him to lay them up in the great holy church of God, which from the name of the substantial wisdom of God is called SANCTA SOPHIA; nor did he command that they be used daily, but only on a public and great feast of the Lord: wherefore by God's command these have been laid up, and remain hung above the sacred table at the altar of that temple, and are appointed for the adornment of the church. But the rest of the imperial garments and cloaks lie spread above this sacred table. Further, when a feast of our Lord and God Jesus Christ falls, those of these stoles and crowns are taken by the patriarch which are then fitting and suitable, who sends them to the emperor, and he is clothed in them, as a minister of God, only in procession; and again, after he has used them, he sends them back to the church, where they are laid up as is customary.

[208] Nay, there is also written on the sacred table of the church of God the curse of holy and great Constantine, [alleging only the words of Constantine Porphyrogenitus, who directly contradicts him,] as God commanded him by an angel: that if any emperor for whatsoever necessity or condition of affairs, or out of untimely desire, should take away any of these, and either use them himself or dare to give them to others, he should be smitten with anathema as an enemy and a foe of God's commands, and be expelled from the Church. But if he himself should wish to make other things like them, the Church itself should receive them too, all the bishops and the senate asking with free voice: nor let there be power for the emperor or the patriarch or any of men to carry out any thing of this kind from the holy church of God, whether they be stoles or crowns. Indeed a great terror hangs over those who would overthrow anything of these commands of God. For a certain emperor, he was called Leo, who had also taken a wife from Chazaria, when with inconsiderate daring he had taken away one of these diadems, though no feast of the Lord occurring, and that against the patriarch's will, he placed this ornament upon himself: and, a carbuncle suddenly bursting out on his face, tortured thence by great pains, he perished miserably, and hastened his death before its time. And from that sudden vengeance upon such boldness, that custom was thence introduced, that an emperor about to receive the crown should swear and profess that he will attempt or contemplate nothing contrary to such commands and ancient customs; and so be crowned by the patriarch, and perform and complete the things befitting the appointed solemnity. Thus far Constantine.

[209] [whereas, on his own testimony, the Greek emperors of that time swore that they would not give such things even to the Hungarians,] Since Schwartz could adduce no one supporting his conjecture, at least

he wished to recite some words of a writer directly contradicting him. The Greek emperors swear, as Constantine, emperor of that same time, testifies, that they will do nothing of the kind; and yet the testimony of Constantine is brought forward to prove that a thing was done which no one ever said was done, and which he himself affirms was forbidden by oath. I would not indeed defend as true everything that Constantine asserts; but certainly he knew the custom of his own time, and would not lie to his son, since he himself would have to take that oath. Schwartz nevertheless, having recited certain words of Constantine, as if the business were well done, adds the following: Note what he says: He sent to him BY AN ANGEL such stoles and crowns. For see whether from this scattered rumour there did not arise among the Hungarians the opinion that they should call their crown, brought from Constantinople, ANGELIC, and venerate it as holy? It was not from this scattered rumour that it was called angelic; but because it was sent to St. Stephen by the command of an angel: for that it was sent from Constantinople no one before ever dreamed: nor could our excellent critic, forsooth, show any probable occasion on which it might have been sent — who adds only this: But when, by whom, and to whom — was not this crown given to Bulosudes, or to Gylas, among the other gifts with which the emperor endowed them when baptized at Constantinople? Conjectures out of conjectures we do not wish to carve. So indeed he speaks; but meanwhile he brings forward nothing but conjectures deduced from conjectures.

[210] and so Schwartz brings forward nothing but conjectures out of conjectures It is an uncertain conjecture that the crown is of Greek work: for neither the Greek emperors depicted on it with Constantine, nor the Greek letters, nor the pendent fillets, certainly establish this, since the Romans shrank neither from Greek letters nor from the Eastern emperors, among whom some are found eminent in piety; and since the fillets are found not only in the diadems of the Greek emperors, but also in those of certain Westerns. Indeed so great a diversity of crowns is found in the coins of the emperors that from the crown's form alone no valid argument can be drawn: nor was the variety less among the Greeks than among the Latins; for not all Greek emperors are represented with fillets hanging from the crown; some have a closed diadem without fillets, others a circlet or an open crown. In fine, so great is the diversity that you will scarcely find a few diadems of the same form, and none at all, I think, which is of the same figure as the Hungarian crown. Who then would from this certainly infer that it is of Greek workmanship, or was not made at Rome? Yet on this so fragile a foundation the whole structure of Schwartz rests, which moreover could not stand even if the foundation were sound. For from this first conjecture about Greek workmanship he carves out other conjectures, which have no likelihood.

[211] deduced with no likelihood and with the utmost rashness. His whole reasoning comes down to this: The Hungarian crown is of Greek fashion: therefore it was given to some Hungarian by a Greek emperor. The antecedent proposition is uncertain, as we have seen: but let us for a while suppose it true, and sift the conclusion which he deduces from it. The crown is of Greek fashion; did Stephen therefore receive it by the favour and exhortation of Otto III from the emperor? Did he receive a blessing too from the same Greek emperor? Or did Ditmar rather lie, who asserted that the crown and the blessing were so received by Stephen? Did the kings of Hungary and the supreme Pontiffs likewise lie, who wrote that the crown was sent to Stephen by the Roman Pontiff? Certainly Schwartz has charged all these with lying, or with the basest error, when he throws in a suspicion about the crown as given not to Stephen, but to Bulosudes or Gylas, whom no one ever imagined to have been endowed with a crown. Let him see how he consults the honour of his own nation, when he prefers to suspect that that crown, which the Hungarians hold in so great price that they call it holy and angelic, was given to a heathen man who ended a badly spent life on the cross, rather than to the most holy King and founder of the Hungarian kingdom: when he tries by frivolous petty arguments to press home that the crown was rather given by a Greek emperor, who could not give it without perjury, than by the Roman Pontiff, from whom Charlemagne and the following emperors of the West received their crown. This indeed is to carve conjectures out of conjectures with the utmost rashness, and conjectures deduced no less inconsiderately than illegitimately. But on the contrary, those who follow the received and certain opinion about the Hungarian crown attribute to it an origin no less honourable than true, when they write that it was transmitted to the holy King by the supreme Vicar of Christ on earth.

[212] This true opinion can receive light from the very words of count de Rewa [From the adversary's words adduced the common opinion is confirmed, and it is shown that the Greek workmanship] which the rash writer adduced. He says: Yet such marks of the Pontifical dignity are nowhere seen on the crown: as one may find them on the orb, the jewel joined to the crown, on one side, and on the other the arms of the kingdom of Hungary. Who, I pray, engraved the arms of the supreme Pontiff on the orb, unless he who by his command made it? And what is more evident for proving the truth of the matter than the common discrimination of things by marks proper either to the possessor or to the maker? says Schwartz again out of Rewa. Since therefore we have here marks proper to the Roman Pontiff and to the Hungarian kingdom, what do the former designate but the maker, as the latter hint the possessor? Nor does the said count doubt that the maker of the orb was the Pontiff; but he denies that he was the maker of the crown, because he does not find on it the Pontifical arms, thinking that the Pontiff sent an ancient crown found in the treasury of the Roman Church, and to that tend all his reasons: which Schwartz wished to make his own, that he might prove a paradox asserted by no one. Further, the opinion of the most illustrious count appears in part true, or at any rate probable: for I could readily believe that certain parts of an ancient diadem were used by the Pontiff, that from them he might make the Hungarian crown in that form in which it was sent to St. Stephen. Thus we shall easily understand why Greek letters, why images of Greek emperors were represented on the crown, why also precious little chains were hung upon it; and finally, why the form agrees in part with the crowns of the Greeks, but in part differs from them. Namely the Pontiff took an ancient closed diadem, on which all the aforesaid were seen, and added to it those new ornaments by which it would be made more like the crowns of Western kings; and so fashioned the Hungarian crown, which should have something of the Greek diadems, something of the Latin, as the Hungarian kingdom was midway between the two empires.

[213] [does not stand in the way of its being held that the crown was sent by the Pontiff.] It is also certain that there was no lack in the treasuries of the Roman Church of ancient diadems, which could serve for such a use. Anastasius the Librarian in Hormisdas, about the crown which Clovis king of the Franks had received from the emperor Anastasius, and which he offered to blessed Peter, has thus: At the same time there came a kingdom (so he calls the crown) with precious gems from the Christian king of the Franks Clovis, as a gift to blessed Peter the Apostle. Sigebert at the year 510 writes the following about this matter: King Clovis received from the emperor Anastasius the codicils of the consulship, and a golden crown with gems, and a tunic of gold thread, and from that day was called consul and augustus. But the king himself sent to Rome to holy Peter a golden crown with gems, which is wont to be called REGNUM. Du Cange in dissertation 24 to the Life of St. Louis the king exhibits thirty-four crowns or diadems of princes, and thinks on page 293 that this was a crown closed above. The same on page 291 affirms that Theodebert king of the Franks used a closed crown, such as the Greek emperors of the same time used. The same again attributes a closed diadem to the Anglo-Saxon kings, and on page 294 to Theodatus king of Italy, who is so represented in Octavius Strada, as also several others. Finally, to omit others, Du Cange testifies on page 299 that a closed crown was in use for the kings of England for many centuries. And so neither did emperors alone of old adorn their head with a closed crown, as Schwartz too generally asserts; nor was the Roman Pontiff forbidden to send to St. Stephen such a crown as the saint really received: nor was he without crowns from whose parts he could put together a similar one, or fashion one after their figure; and finally that bronze wall of Schwartz can in no way stand, lacking all foundation, save to confound its author, provided he knows how to blush.

* i.e. the Hungarians

§ XXI. Those things are sifted which Schwartz objected against certain other matters asserted in the letters of Sylvester, or in the Life.

[ ] The wretched reasoning of Schwartz, who the Hungarian cross Sylvester II granted to St. Stephen in the letters given, that to him and to his successors the kings, who should be lawfully crowned with the aforesaid crown, it should be lawful to have a cross borne before them as a sign of the apostolate. This very thing Carthuitius, Bonfinius, and others narrate, and custom abundantly confirms their account. Yet this truth Schwartz, like himself, dared to attack; but rather with words than with any reason. Hear the words of the rash writer at num. 49: Another example, he says, of Greek custom the Hungarian cross with a double transverse bar supplies to us, which is the badge of our kings, and is today borne before them at the solemnities of coronations. For that the cross was always most dear to the Greek emperors, and was wont to be borne by them in place of a sceptre, those curious in Byzantine Histories are not ignorant. Of Justinian the most illustrious lord de Ludewig hence says, "There follows for Justinian the Great almost the proper image of the holy cross, reproduced everywhere on his coins," &c. With like custom the kings of Hungary marked their coins with a cross. I have seen little silver coins of Stephen, Andrew, Bela, Ladislaus, marked with the image of a double cross, which could without difficulty be proved by various reasons to reach the age of holy Stephen. And whereas in a more recent age the Hungarian coins represent a cross set in a shield, in antiquity on the silver ones one single cross occupied the whole reverse face. What of the Byzantine coins does Charles du Fresne say indiscriminately? "But now," he says, "the chief argument of the piety of the Byzantine emperors, if there was any, … was that they frequently inscribed the cross, or the monogram of Christ, on their coins, and caused images even of Christ himself, sometimes also of the Mother of God, and indeed of the Saints, to be fashioned." Nor is there reason that on the coins of Justinian and of the older Greek emperors only a simple cross appears; for it is certain and ascertained that it was changed by the later ones to a double one, and that this was already more frequently used in the tenth century. Especially worthy of view is that which Charles du Fresne brought forward among the coins of John Zimisces, in which a double cross alone fills the reverse field, just as on the Hungarian silver coins, yet raised upon a flowering branch.

[215] I would certainly not deny that the cross was familiar and customary to the Greeks, with no authority, with no reason, traces back to the Greek emperors; even on coins. But since it was equally customary to all Latins,

what can be inferred from this discourse? how can it be concluded hence that the Hungarians received their cross from the Greeks? and that a doubled cross is borne before the king of Hungary because the emperor of the Greeks granted it? For not only is it not read that he granted this to St. Stephen, but not to anyone else anywhere. Schwartz nevertheless concludes in these words: Wherefore, since the crown of Hungary indubitably approaches the manner of the emperors of the East, what forbids us to derive the badge of the cross too from the same source? For as to the fact that almost all trace back that badge again to the Roman Pontiff, when asked to give a reason they can no more defend this than the former opinion about the crown. The writer's words may rightly be inverted in this manner: Since the Hungarian crown is indubitably such as no emperor of Constantinople ever wore, or at any rate such as is represented on none of their coins, and therefore since the origin of this crown can be attributed to the Greek emperors not only with no authority or foundation but even with no probable reason, and since the cross was granted together with the crown to the kings of Hungary; this reason alone can suffice for our not tracing back its origin to the custom of the Greeks. Next, since it is the common opinion that that privilege was granted to St. Stephen by the Roman Pontiff, and it rests on ancient records which we shall defend against the accusations of Schwartz, no writer of sound judgment will doubt that St. Stephen received the privilege of having a doubled cross borne before him, as well as the crown and the royal name, from the Roman Church.

[216] I would like only to add one argument from the words of count de Rewa, [although reason itself, with the authorities, cries out that it was granted by the supreme Pontiff,] which Schwartz himself adduced: for that little work of the said count is not at my hand. He says that the marks of the Pontifical dignity, or the arms of the Roman Pontiff, are found represented on the orb, the jewel joined to the crown, on one side; and on the other the arms of the kingdom of Hungary, that is, the Hungarian cross with a double transverse bar. This conjunction of two badges, namely of the Pontiff and of the Hungarian kingdom, clearly hints that Sylvester together with the crown gave to St. Stephen as a badge the cross doubled in the aforesaid manner, and that it has been retained ever since. Further, the cross borne before the King signified the Apostolic legation, which was committed to him at the same time, that he might order the churches of his kingdom and institute bishoprics. This legation Catholic writers commonly acknowledge, and among them Thomassin, who in the Old and New Discipline of the Church, part 1, book 2, chapter 58, num. 6, inquires into the origin of that custom by which a cross is borne before Popes, Apostolic legates, and metropolitans; and, having related some examples, briefly explains his opinion in these words: From these it is not rashly concluded, first, that crosses were borne before the Roman Pontiffs first, then before the Pontifical legates, and finally before archbishops, because everyone was most persuaded that they nowhere went forth, nowhere advanced, except to establish or to propagate the cross and the rule of Christ: secondly, that the beginning was taken from the Roman Pontiffs, who adorned their legates with the same honour, from whom at length the custom crept to metropolitans. He disputes more about these again in chapter 59, which may be seen.

[217] The name of Apostolic King seems to have been given by private authority, There can be no doubt that from the Apostolic legation committed to Stephen there afterwards clung to him the honourable name of Apostolic King. I do not deny that the Saint deserved that name also by the conversion of his people: nor do I contend that the King or his successors used that title or received a privilege from the Pontiffs to use it: but I only affirm that this is the just reason of the aforesaid surname, and that no other juster can be given, in whatever manner or at whatever time such a surname was given to the King. Schwartz at num. 20 disputes much against the surname of Apostolic King, and will have it to have been of private origin, and to have begun to be used long after the death of the Saint. Both seem probable to me, yet in this sense, that the Hungarians attributed that surname to Stephen and to the later kings, taking occasion both from the Apostolic legation of St. Stephen, and from his Apostolic deeds, and from similar titles given to Stephen by Sylvester II and other Pontiffs. Wherefore what Schwartz subjoins in this manner is partly true, partly to be corrected: Wherefore, although the title of Apostolic king belongs to Stephen with the best right, yet from what we have hitherto disputed it is more than sufficiently made out that he began to be distinguished by it not by public but by private institution, and not before the Hungarian nation, confirmed in the Christian religion, acknowledged day by day more the very great benefits of the best of Kings, and laboured to declare a grateful mind by such encomiums as it could. Stephen's successors too, the illustrious kings of Hungary, who would deny that they are worthily called Apostolic kings? since they duly succeeded to all the rights which Stephen, on account of the Christian religion propagated and established in the kingdom under his sole auspices, acquired for himself and his. Correct the latter part thus: Since the privilege of St. Stephen of having a cross borne before him as a sign of the apostolate was extended to his successors also. Schwartz goes on: Yet that they were adorned with that title by the Roman Pontiffs, you will not easily find; a shining sign that the Pontiffs so far from conferring that title upon our kings that they even grudge it. Nay rather, it is a sign that the Pontiffs neither gave that name directly to the kings of Hungary; but no more grudged it, since they conferred such a privilege as fits the surname of Apostolic king.

[218] The true reason why the Pontiffs did not distinguish the kings of Hungary by that name but on occasion of the Apostolic legation granted by the Pope: seems to be this alone, that they themselves did not solicit it or begin to use it, as Schwartz acknowledges, going on thus: But the kings of Hungary too preferred to exercise the rights which came to them through Stephen (the Pontiffs granting them) in ordering the affairs of the Church, by royal power at all times, rather than to veil (or rather, to signify) them by the adventitious surname of an Apostolic office. Hence it is that nowhere abroad, nor even at home lightly, are they read to have used that title, or are they even now wont to use it; although they readily accept the devout acclamations of their citizens. What support, then, from the surname of Apostolic king accrues to those who think that the doubled cross was granted to the kings of Hungary by the Pontiff? I answer that by that surname the common tradition, which has been proved from elsewhere by sufficient authority and reason, is the more elucidated, and, if there were need, confirmed, since no reason for that surname can be given so fitting as that the Apostolic legation was committed to Stephen. For many other princes and kings are found who excellently advanced and propagated the Catholic faith by royal authority: and yet neither they nor their descendants had the name of Apostolic king, namely because they did not do it by Apostolic authority, as St. Stephen did. Hence Werböczy rightly says of Stephen, in the first part of the Tripartite Work, title XI: Whence also he deserved to be called King and Apostle, because he discharged the office of the Apostles on earth by preaching and by the showing forth of good works and examples. And therefore he also worthily deserved to have two crosses by the grant of the supreme Pontiff, as a sign of his sanctity, namely that he was justly called King and Apostle, for the arms of his shield. Whence from his time the Hungarian nation has been wont alike to have and to bear a doubled cross for its arms and badge. For the rest, how far the power conferred upon the holy King by the supreme Pontiff in ecclesiastical matters extended cannot be exactly determined, because Sylvester in his letters remits the further exposition to other letters which we do not have. For the Pontiff says that he wills and asks that he should dispose and ordain the churches of his kingdom, as all these things are more fully explained in the other letters to be carried … by our nuncio.

[219] Of the Apostolic legation of the holy King some things have already been said at §16 on occasion of the bishoprics erected in Hungary, from which legation many other things flowed which less pertain to this, which the heterodox writer whom we are refuting wrongly asserted were instituted by the King's own authority. The same author at num. 58 discusses many things about the election and investitures of prelates in Hungary: but those pertain rather to the later kings than to St. Stephen, and therefore do not belong to my undertaking. No more rightly does he dispute at num. 60, where he traces from the institution of the Greeks that Stephen and other kings of Hungary convoked Synods, and that the Saint framed laws for ordering ecclesiastical affairs: for from the same source flowed that power of framing ecclesiastical laws. Hence those laws were so framed that ecclesiastical matters are left to the judgment of the bishops, as may be proved from various things. But for me one example will suffice. In book 2 of the Decrees of St. Stephen, chapter 12, whose title is On observing Christianity, these things are established: If anyone, neglecting the observance of Christianity, and puffed up with negligence and stupidity, shall have committed anything against it, let him be judged by the bishop according to the quality of the offence by the discipline of the canons. But if, stirred by rebelliousness, he shall refuse to bear equally what is imposed on him, let him likewise be restrained by the same judgment, and that even up to seven times. At last, if in all things he shall be found resisting and refusing, let him be handed over to the royal judgment, namely to the defender of Christianity.

[220] [which Schwartz, against the common sense of the Hungarians, refers to Greek customs.] It might here be added that St. Stephen in his admonitions to his son Emeric acknowledges that Peter was set by Christ as guardian and master of the Church, so that from his own words it is utterly improbable that anything was done by him which pertained to ecclesiastical affairs without the authority of him whom he himself professes to be the master of the Church. But, lest I be here more prolix than is just, it will suffice to show by one example whence the Hungarians themselves long ago traced such customs. Werböczy, just cited, disputing about the right of conferring ecclesiastical benefices, does not have recourse to the customs of the Greeks, but alleges other reasons by which he endeavours to claim the right of collations for the kings of Hungary; namely the foundation of the churches, the conversion of the nation, lawful prescription, and the authority of the council of Constance. And the second reason he explains in these words: Because the Hungarians were converted to the Catholic faith not by apostolic preaching, or that of the Apostles, whose Prince's place and person the Pope bears on earth, but by the instruction of their own king, namely the most holy king Stephen, of whom I have made mention above also, who first of all founded bishoprics, abbeys, and provostships in this kingdom, and conferred the prelacies and benefices of all these churches himself alone, at the nod of the supreme Pontiff, upon whomsoever he preferred (yet fit men and distinguished by the virtues of probity), as the Church solemnly sings of him: He (namely holy Stephen) after the likeness of Solomon builds temples, enriches them with gifts, adorns them with gems, and with crowns crosses at the altars. And presently is added: To rule these he sets prelates, lettered men, just, faithful, and approved, for the strength of the faithful. Thus, rendering to God the talent given him doubled, he ascends the throne prepared for him from eternity.

Behold, it is openly described that he, and no other, set just and faithful prelates to rule the temples built by him and enriched with gifts, as also from his history, and from his several privileges drawn up concerning the foundations and endowments of churches, clearly appears. Likewise most interpreters of imperial and Pontifical law have set forth the same in their commentaries in writing. To these are subjoined the words given above at num. 218. And all these hint how far the paradoxes of Schwartz are from the common opinion of the Hungarians.

§ XXII. Those things are refuted which Schwartz reasons against the offering of the kingdom to St. Peter.

[ ] Sylvester II asserts that the kingdom was offered by St. Stephen to St. Peter: Sylvester II in the letters given before addresses St. Stephen thus: But indeed the bounty of thy liberality, by which to blessed Peter, prince of the Apostles, thou hast offered in perpetuity the kingdom and nation of which thou art Duke, and all that is thine, and thyself, through the same envoys and letters, we commend with worthy proclamation. And further below: The kingdom too offered by thy Munificence to St. Peter, and thee together with it, and the Hungarian people and nation, present and to come, receiving under the protection of the holy Roman Church, we render and confer upon thy Prudence, and upon thy heirs and lawful successors, to be had, held, ruled, governed, and possessed. Which heirs and successors of thine, whosoever they be, after they shall have been lawfully elected by the nobles, shall be bound likewise to show due obedience and reverence to us and to our successors, by themselves or by envoys, and to show themselves subject to the holy Roman Church, which does not have those subject to it as servants, but receives all as sons, and firmly to persevere in the Catholic faith and in the religion of Christ our Lord and Saviour, and to promote the same. I find indeed nothing in these things unworthy of the exceptional piety of St. Stephen; nothing contrary to the gravity and prudence of the supreme Pontiff. Moreover Stephen's offering is confirmed not only by the authority of Gregory VII, who ruled the Church in the same century, but also by that of other Pontiffs, as will appear in the course of our work.

[222] Schwartz nevertheless dares to call this offering the flimsiest fable of all fables, which offering Schwartz traduces as a fable, and attempts to defend a most unjust censure with many words. I shall follow the man, more remarkable for raillery and slander than for learning or erudition: But someone may object, he says at num. 64, that, the Christian religion flourishing among the Hungarians, so great was the reverence of St. Stephen the king toward the Roman Pontiff that he handed over himself and his nation and the whole kingdom into the clientage of the Roman curia. Unless we shall have dispatched this fable, the flimsiest of all fables, we might deservedly be judged not to have satisfied our undertaking. The chief prop indeed of that Royal liberality, truly more than enormous, the diplomatic letters of Pope Sylvester II, we have already broken. But so far is he from having broken those letters that we shall show below the emptiness of his arguments, and shall prove no less the letters themselves than the several assertions of the letters. Let us hear then the other answers of the heterodox writer.

[223] But before, he says, those letters were thrust upon the world by Inchofer, [although he confesses that it was asserted by Gregory VII, to whom he falsely attributes] most men displayed the epistles of Gregory VII, Hildebrand, written to Salomon and Geysa kings of Hungary, as witnesses of that prodigious donation. These therefore let us sift. In them the Pontiff rebukes Salomon because he received again the kingdom, from which he had been driven, from the German king, not from the Roman Pontiff. And he inserts this reason, "that the kingdom of Hungary is the property of the most holy Roman Church, offered of old by king Stephen to blessed Peter with all right and power, and devoutly handed over." And he records that the emperor Henry himself acknowledged the Pontifical right: for when he had obtained a victory over the Hungarians, "he transmitted to the body of blessed Peter the lance and crown of the king, and for the glory of his triumph directed thither the insignia, where he knew that the principate of that dignity pertained." These words of Gregory VII, rightly adduced, how great force they ought to have I shall show below. But, as the heterodox writer goes on, either in bad faith or through gross ignorance, he foists upon Pope Gregory what is not Gregory's, but another's: But in a second epistle to Salomon the same Gregory, he says, places the prop of the Pontifical right over Hungary in this, that, when that kingdom "had been occupied by barbarians … after the times of Constantine, and torn from the Roman empire, to which the Church succeeded as heir, it was restored by Christian kings to the Roman Church, to which it was due. Which," he says, "is clearer than light concerning Spain," &c. Thus Hildebrand to Salomon. He assigns the place of these fragments in these words: These fragments of Gregory's letters, namely of the later one to Salomon, and of both to Geysa, John Bodin adduces in his De Republica, chapter IX. From Bodin they are alleged by Schoedelius in the Historico-political Disquisition on the kingdom of Hungary, page 147, of the Behamp edition. Who would not believe that they are truly the words of Gregory, which are alleged and assigned with such confidence?

[224] the words of Eugubinus, who cites Gregory and adds his own reasons, But it has fallen out conveniently that the Notitia of Hungary of John Ferdinand Behamp came to my hands with the Disquisition of Schoedelius: for there on page 147 are read all the things which Schwartz alleges from the same place: but it is clear that the words are not Gregory's, but those of Augustinus Steuchus of Gubbio, book 2 against Lorenzo Valla On the false Donation of Constantine, whose words are there alleged as follows: Nearly the same or a like reason holds concerning the kingdom of Hungary, of which the same Gregory, bishop, servant of the servants of God, to his beloved son Salomon king of Hungary, greeting, &c. Then he adduces the words of the Gregorian epistle, which in Harduin, tome 6 of the Councils, col. [ ], are read thus: As thou canst learn from the elders of thy country, the kingdom of Hungary is the property of the holy Roman Church, offered of old by king Stephen to blessed Peter with all his right and power, and devoutly handed over. Moreover Henry of pious memory the emperor, storming that kingdom to the honour of St. Peter, the king being conquered and the victory won, transmitted the lance and crown to the body of blessed Peter, and for the glory of his triumph directed thither the insignia of the kingdom, where he knew that the principate of that dignity pertained. These things being recited with a slight change in Behamp, Eugubinus, about to set forth the reason of this and like donations, adds the following: Thou shouldst know concerning this kingdom that, when it had been occupied after the times of Constantine by barbarians, non-Christian Scythians and Pannonians, and torn from the Roman empire, to which the Church succeeded as heir, it was restored by Christian kings to the Roman Church, to which it was due. Which is clearer than light concerning Spain, which too, when it had been occupied by barbarians, was restored to the Church by its kings.

[225] as is shown from the distinct words of each: These things being observed, Eugubinus adds: The same Gregory concerning the same kingdom to Geysa king of Hungary, in the same book, but not in the same chapter, citing epistle 63 in the aforesaid Harduin, col. [ ], where the cited words are read thus: But we believe it is known to thee that the kingdom of Hungary, like other most noble kingdoms, ought to be in its own state of liberty, and to be subject to no king of another kingdom, save to the holy and universal mother the Roman Church, which does not have those subject to it as servants, but receives all as sons. Because thy kinsman obtained it usurpingly from the German king, and not from the Roman Pontiff, the divine judgment, as we believe, has hindered his dominion, &c. After these words adduced, with a slight change nevertheless, Eugubinus again goes on in this manner: Concerning the same kingdom likewise, to the same king of Hungary, the same supreme and holy Pontiff wrote thus in the seventieth chapter. He indicates epistle 70 of book 2 to Geysa, in Harduin, col. [ ], where the passage adduced by Eugubinus is expressed thus: But when he (Salomon king of Hungary), despising the noble lordship of blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, whose kingdom it is — we do not believe it is hidden from thy prudence — the king subjected himself to the German king; and obtained the name of a petty king. But the Lord, foreseeing the injury inflicted on his prince, transferred the power of the kingdom by his judgment to thee: and so, if he had before any right in obtaining the kingdom, he deprived himself of it by sacrilegious usurpation. For Peter is named from a firm rock, which has shattered the gates of hell, and with adamantine rigour destroys and scatters whatever withstands it. Eugubinus adds: These things that great Pontiff.

[226] From all these let the studious reader perceive the notable rashness of Schwartz. [he seems to have used this fraud in order that the irrefragable authority of Gregory VII,] Gregory VII affirms that the kingdom of Hungary was offered by St. Stephen to St. Peter, and that for this cause the lance and crown of the king of Hungary were sent to the body of blessed Peter by the emperor Henry. This epistle of Gregory is marked as given at Rome, on the 5th of the Kalends of November, in the thirteenth Indiction, that is, in the year 1074, in which the thirteenth Indiction began to run from the month of September. And so this witness is so near to the time in which the kingdom was offered, and in which the lance and crown were afterwards transmitted by the emperor Henry III, that it is utterly rash to wish to take credit from him; especially since he writes to a king who could easily inquire into the truth of the matter, and since he appeals to the elders, or princes of Hungary, who could not be ignorant of those facts. When Schwartz saw that it was dangerous to set himself directly against so great an authority, which will be confirmed by the consent of others too, he preferred to foist upon Gregory the words of Eugubinus, and by the latter's opinion, which would not please many, to weaken the authority of Gregory. Certainly it is so clear in Behamp, whom he alleged, that only three epistles of Gregory are cited, and that the words which Schwartz gave for the words of Gregory are those of Eugubinus, that he must charge himself with gross stupidity if he should wish to contend that he did not see this, and did not follow that maxim of certain politicians: Calumniate boldly, something always sticks. These things being observed, let us weigh what by-ways he used to elude the force of the authority.

[227] These, he says, are the chief supports Gregory uses: which he grievously calumniates, he might indirectly weaken: for the rest of his letters are only the utterances of a dictator, and the ghosts of a pious fraud. But I have something to warn of, before we test the Pontiff's reasons. You will find here no mention of a crown sent from Rome into Hungary, none of the royal eminence to which the Pontiff raised Stephen, none of the surname of Apostolic King, and of the cross, as a symbol of the apostolate, conferred on the kings of Hungary. But would Gregory, out of loftiness of mind, have kept silent about benefits so enviable in a place so convenient, where above all they were to be cast in their teeth, if in his own age the fable had already been born and believed? By recording those benefits he would certainly have convicted more strongly the kings who had forgotten their duty, than by holding out the inheritance of the Roman empire. A vain and ridiculous persuasion! As if he must be the same lord of the empire who is lord of the City: and heir of the empire who to the City's

lordship has made his way by a thousand arts. Thus first Schwartz, whose stupidity, if it were so great that he could not distinguish between the words of Eugubinus and of Gregory, at least calumniates boldly here, that something may stick. Neither did Gregory call the Church the heir of the empire, nor was he of such loftiness of mind as to judge that the benefits of the Roman Church should be cast in kings' teeth without necessity: nor was there any necessity of such reproach, since Gregory's sole endeavour was that those kings should acknowledge the right of the Roman Church, which had been acquired not by benefits of the Church, but by the donation of St. Stephen, which he alleged. In vain therefore is Gregory's silence here objected out of place against facts already abundantly established. But meanwhile Schwartz has thus drawn the reader's attention elsewhere — who, if he desires to learn the virtues and Sanctity of Gregory VII, and rightly to perceive the gravity of the calumnies with which he attacks that most holy man, let him go to our Acts at the 25th day of May, where St. Gregory VII is fully discussed.

[228] [for the silence of Carthuitius cannot prevail against the authority of Gregory, with whom several others agree.] He then goes on to attack the donation of St. Stephen thus: The right carved out of Stephen's donation is precarious. The legendary Chartuitius himself, composing his fables to the palate of the Roman curia, does not mention that donation even by a hint. Why, I pray, should Carthuitius have written to the palate of the Roman Church, who at king Coloman's bidding composed the Life and dedicated it to him? Might not a juster suspicion be that Carthuitius wrote to the king's palate, and therefore was unwilling to record something which he believed would displease him? Schwartz would certainly presently affirm this after his own licence, if he were defending the donation; unless he preferred to say that the passage was afterwards cut out. But, whether for these causes or for others, that donation is not read in the little work of Carthuitius; the silence of one man cannot be of great moment when several, and those more ancient, speak, and later men agree with the more ancient, as we have seen them agree in this matter. The words of Boniface VIII, asserting the donation of St. Stephen, I gave at num. 191. Nicholas IV in Raynaldus at the year 1291, num. 47, writes these things to John bishop of Iesi, his legate: Since therefore that kingdom (of Hungary) is known to pertain in manifold ways to the apostolic See, &c. The same he asserts in letters to the emperor Rudolph, in others to Albert duke of Austria, and finally in others to the archbishop of Gran, as may there be seen. More testimonies of this kind of later Pontiffs I gladly pass over, that I may briefly show that the Hungarians themselves favour our opinion.

[229] [Some right of the Roman Church, which was sought from the donation of St. Stephen,] That famous controversy agitated between the Hungarians and the Pontifical legate in the year 1308, and ended in the diet near Buda, is read to have been settled in this manner: After which, under the appearance of guarding the liberty of that kingdom, there arises among the barons and nobles themselves a murmur, which reached the ears of the lord legate, brought into the open by a manifest complaint: namely, that they were unwilling, nor was it in any way their intention, that the Roman Church, or the lord legate himself in her name, should in any way provide the oft-named kingdom with a king; but it pleased them that him whom they themselves according to the ancient and approved custom of the same kingdom had called and taken up as king, the aforesaid lord legate should confirm in the name of the same Roman Church as true king of Hungary; and that also in all future times the true supreme Pontiffs and the Roman Church herself should have the right of confirming and crowning the kings of Hungary, sprung of the true royal line, whom they unanimously and concordantly should judge should be elected from the said line. But the lord legate himself, fervently panting for the happy consummation of what he had begun, at the supplication, petition, and express consent of the same prelates, barons, and nobles, confirmed with due solemnity, in the name of the Roman Church, the aforesaid lord Charles — sprung of the true line of the aforesaid kings of Hungary through the most serene lady, the lady Mary illustrious queen of Sicily and Hungary, daughter of Stephen of famous memory king of Hungary; and whose lawful succession in the same kingdom had been declared by the same Church, and that such a kingdom was owed to him by right had been defined — as true king of the same kingdom, and accepted him in the name of the aforesaid Roman Church.

[230] And subsequently all unanimously and concordantly after this confirmation, the magnates of Hungary themselves acknowledged, both those adhering hitherto and those opposing the same lord Charles, received and recognized singly and severally the lord Charles himself as true king and successor of the kingdom of Hungary, and that they were bound to serve and obey him as lawful and faithful vassals their natural lord. And for the firm fulfilment and inviolable observance of these things by them, placing their joined hands, as is wont to be done by those professing rules, within the hands of the oft-named lord legate, they gave their oath and faith upon the Wood of the true Cross, and gave the kiss of peace singly to him and to the said lord king. From these it is clear that the nobles of Hungary acknowledged some right of the Roman Church, since they decreed that the king should be confirmed in the name of that Church. But that right Gregory VII, Nicholas IV, and Boniface VIII traced from nowhere else than from the donation of St. Stephen, about which alone I dispute: for what, or of what kind, that right was, I would not sift.

[231] The same long before seems to have been acknowledged by St. Ladislaus, created king of Hungary in the time of Gregory VII. and long before that St. Ladislaus. Hear Baronius in the Annals at the year 1077: In this same year, he says, Hungarian affairs having long been in flux, king Geisa being dead, Ladislaus is elected, of whom the same Pope Gregory, writing in this year to Nehemiah bishop of Gran, has these things among others: "We admonish thy fraternity that thou address the king who has been elected among you, with thy other fellow-brethren and the princes of the land, making known and counselling him that he should more openly declare to us his will, and his devotion toward the reverence due to the apostolic See, by fit envoys: and so at last, as far as concerns us, to the honour of Almighty God and of blessed Peter Prince of the Apostles, we shall answer him kindly," &c. This the same king performed abundantly, when he sent a repeated embassy to the same Pope Gregory, as the letters of Gregory himself afterwards returned to him show. Thus Baronius. Further, it cannot be doubted that Gregory demanded of Ladislaus the same which he had before wished to be performed by Salomon and Geysa his predecessors. But that Gregory obtained what he desired, not only the words of Baronius indicate, but still more the very epistle of Gregory, which he recites at the year 1079, num. 19, in this manner: Gregory the bishop, servant of the servants of God, to Ladislaus king of the Hungarians, greeting and Apostolic blessing. As we have learned by the frequent report of thy faithful *, and hold the same ratified by the testimony of our own, thy excellency is prepared with all affection and intention of heart to serve blessed Peter, as a religious power ought, and to obey us, as becomes a generous son. Whence indeed we not undeservedly praise the devotion of thy mind in this zeal, and sincerely congratulate thee upon it, since indeed, following the footsteps of the best kings, thou dost illustrate by keeping both in manners the rule of justice, and also the line of nobility in blood, &c. From what has been said we see that the Pontiffs asserted the donation of St. Stephen; and the kings did not deny it, nay even acknowledged it; but some of them disputed about the right which the Pontiffs attributed to themselves from that donation. But that I do not dispute about this I have already warned before.

[232] Another objection from the words of St. Stephen Schwartz from the silence of Carthuitius passes to other things in these words: Nowhere does so great an observance of Stephen toward the Roman Pontiff shine forth, at whose impulse he should have devoted himself and his to him. But the observance of Stephen toward the Roman Pontiff, whom he acknowledged as the visible head of the Church, is gathered from the embassy sent to him, from the blessing sought from him, from the crown sought rather from the Pontiff than from the emperor; and finally from many other things which will be related in the course of our work. Nevertheless Schwartz strives to prove his statements in this manner: But king Stephen, expressly exhorting his son Emeric in the Royal Institution to impart honour to the pontiffs of his kingdom, does not mention the Roman Pontiff by so much as a little word. Enjoining upon him the observance of the Catholic faith, and explaining that saying of Christ to Peter the apostle, Matth. XVI, to which, as to a sacred anchor, it is customary for Pontiffs to flee — which Gregory too does in the other epistle to Geysa with jesting argumentation — he means that "by the ROCK Christ, by the Church built on the rock, an elect and divine nation" is understood, not the hierarchy flourishing under one visible head with its visible members, powerful, splendid, and lording it. Here we must pause a little: for our disputant tries to make St. Stephen not only little observant of the Roman Pontiff, but even a favourer of Luther. But the words of the holy King adduced will easily establish that Schwartz is no more successful in dogmatic matters than in historical.

[233] ill expounded: Stephen in the said Institution exhorts his son in chapter 1 to the observance of the Catholic faith, in chapter 3 to bestowing honour on the pontiffs, or bishops, of his kingdom; nor does he there speak of the Roman Pontiff, of whom he had treated in chapter 2, as we shall see, although at the same time, and chiefly, he treats of the Church. He there exhorts his son to take care lest the Church, which is spread through the whole world, and which in certain places is held as it were ancient, but in Hungary is still preached as it were young and new, … be destroyed and annihilated, adding this reason: For he who lessens or defiles the dignity of the holy Church strives to change the body of Christ. For the Lord himself said to Peter, whom he set as guardian and master over that same holy Church: "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church." He indeed named himself the ROCK; he did not call the Church built upon himself one of wood or stone, but a people of acquisition, an elect nation, a divine * flock, taught in faith, washed in baptism, anointed with chrism, HOLY — this he called and calls the Church built upon himself. These are the words from which the heterodox disputant would have it follow that St. Stephen did not understand by the rock St. Peter, but Christ himself: which, even if it were true, would establish nothing; since the Saint says that Peter was appointed by Christ as master of the Church. He contends likewise that Stephen did not understand by the Church the hierarchy, but an elect and divine nation. Let us then examine whether this is a just deduction.

[234] Stephen says, He indeed named himself the rock. the true meaning is assigned If we wish to consider this phrase according to grammatical rules, Schwartz rightly understood the passage, and Stephen understood by the rock Christ himself, as St. Augustine too once explained the passage, as I shall say at num. 353. But if we attend to how St. Stephen, with many other writers of the middle

age, uses the reflexive pronoun, we shall easily perceive that by the rock he understands St. Peter the prince of the Apostles, whom he designates by the pronoun "himself", because the discourse had been of Peter as well as of Christ. Take other similar phrases of St. Stephen. In book 1 of the Decrees, chapter 3, he uses in the same way "sibi" for "ei" in these words: If then he shall secretly refuse to hear admonitions, public ones must be applied to him (sibi, that is, ei), &c. In book 2, chapter 7, he has thus: If therefore any presbyter or count, or any other faithful person, shall on the Lord's day find anyone working, let him be driven off; but if with oxen, let the ox be taken from him (sibi), &c. "Sibi" is here clearly put for "ei" or "ipsi". Chapter 22: If anyone receives a guest with benevolence, and honourably bestows nourishment on him (sibi), &c. "Sibi" again for "ipsi". Such a misuse of the same pronoun recurs in chapters 24, 25, 28, and 33. And so from the context we must gather whether the word "himself" is here to be taken in its proper signification, or is put for "that same man". But the words added, For the Lord himself said to Peter, whom he set as guardian and master over that same holy Church: Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, sufficiently hint that Stephen by the rock understands St. Peter: for by the words of Christ he intends to prove what he asserts, that Peter was set as guardian and master over the Church. But the cited words of Christ would not prove this if they were understood in another way. Next, that exposition by which St. Peter is designated by the rock is so natural, and was so received and common in the time of St. Stephen, that it is not probable that he departed from it.

[235] These things only I wished to observe, that I might show what is the genuine sense of the words of St. Stephen: the sense of those words. for otherwise it matters little in what way the Saint understood the words of Christ, since he admits that Peter was appointed guardian and master of the Church, and that suffices for him to have believed that Peter's successor was to be honoured with the greatest honour. The second inference of Schwartz is far more absurd, and has no foundation in the words of St. Stephen. The Saint says that that Church which is built upon the rock is neither of wood nor of stone, but is the gathering of men belonging by faith and baptism to the Church. He does not call it the hierarchy, but hints that the hierarchy flourishes under one visible head, when he says that it is built upon the rock, when he affirms that Peter was set as guardian and master over that same holy Church. He calls the Church an elect nation, and a divine flock: will the disputant thence conclude that only the elect, or only the perfect, belong to the Church, and that St. Stephen meant this? But St. Stephen did not even think, I suppose, of such assertions of heretics when he wrote these things. But since these do not belong to the controversy which we are handling, the Decrees themselves of the holy King may be seen below, which we shall give in their place and illustrate with various annotations.

[236] Another argument of the same writer, I return therefore to Schwartz, who with his usual rashness strives to convict Gregory VII of lying, attacking his words directly thus: Falsely does Gregory accuse king Salomon of defection from the Roman curia, and much more falsely does he blame him for having fled to the aid of the Roman emperor. For before Salomon the same was done by king Peter, driven out of Hungary by his own people, who covenanted tribute to the emperor if he would restore him to the kingdom. In which compact the Pontiffs of that time found so nothing to blame that even Leo IX carefully admonished king Andrew, by whom Peter was again stripped of the kingdom, through envoys, that he should not refuse to pay tribute to the emperor. The Pope himself too, to persuade the king of this, set out first into Germany; thence, the emperor accompanying him, even to the borders of Hungary. But he told his tale to a deaf Andrew, and the emperor and Pontiff returned with the business unaccomplished. Behold a specimen of the obedience rendered by the ancient kings of Hungary to the Roman Pontiffs! Wherefore by these contrary facts the letters of Gregory are convicted of falsehood and empty talk more clearly than the noonday sun, as was most truly written by Frederick Spanheim: "But that story about the kingdom received from the Roman See was spread abroad about the times of Gregory VII, when this Pontiff wrote … that by king Stephen the kingdom of Hungary, as the property of the holy Roman Church, was offered and devoutly handed over to blessed Peter with all his right and power."

[237] which touches the state of the question less, Here again the rash disputant sins in many ways, who boasts that he has convicted Gregory's letters of falsehood, and indeed more clearly than the noonday sun. What assertion of Gregory, I pray, has he convicted of falsehood? Is it false which Gregory reprehends in Salomon in these words: Since these things are so, thou nevertheless, departing far in other things too from royal virtue and manners, hast, so far as in thee lay, diminished and alienated the right and honour of St. Peter, in that thou hast received his kingdom in fee from the German king, as we have heard? Gregory does not reprehend Salomon because he had fled to the emperor's aid, as Schwartz falsely says; nor because he paid tribute, as he seems to suppose; but solely because he had received the kingdom in fee from him, that is, because he had sworn clientage to the emperor in such a manner as if the kingdom of Hungary depended on the emperor. It is one thing indeed to seek another's aid, another to profess oneself his client or subject. Again it is one thing to pay tribute to someone, another to subject oneself to him by sworn clientage. Gregory speaks neither of tribute, nor of aid sought, but of the subjection of the kingdom by clientage, which he disapproves, because he affirms that it pertains to the Roman Church by the donation of St. Stephen. That Gregory is deceived in this matter neither the deed of king Peter shows, nor the counsel of Leo IX, even if the things which Schwartz affirms without proof about kings Peter and Andrew, and about Leo IX, were plainly true. If that writer would distinguish things which in themselves are distinct, he would reason more rightly, and stray less from the truth.

[238] It is false too that he says that king Andrew did not acquiesce in the counsel of Leo IX. nor is it in every part true, For the plain contrary is asserted by Wibert, Leo's archdeacon, who could best know by whose fault peace had not been concluded, and who in the Life of Leo in our tome 2 of April, page 661, writes the following: No small fervour too was in him for enlarging the commonwealth. Therefore he had approached the princes of Hungary, lately at variance with the Roman empire, by manifold envoys, that they should not refuse to pay the ancient tributes to the emperor with the accustomed subjection: to which they had consented, if pardon for their past offences were granted them. Wherefore, admonished by holy piety, he was compelled a third time to seek again his ancient homeland, and, out of compassion for the guilty, who had waged war against the empire, to appeal to the imperial ears with persuasive prayers. But because by the faction of certain courtiers, who envied the happy deeds of the holy man, the ears of Augustus were stopped against the prayers of the lord apostolic; therefore the Roman commonwealth lost the subjection of the kingdom of Hungary, and still grieves that the neighbouring lands are laid waste with plunderings and burnings. And so king Andrew did acquiesce in the counsel of Leo IX; but the emperor was unwilling to do the same, and for this cause peace was not concluded. This alone I wished to observe, that it may appear how rashly Schwartz asserts many things: for otherwise it matters little which of them refused to consent: for the Pontiffs did not require that the affairs of the kingdom should be administered by the kings of Hungary at their discretion.

[239] Further, it is true that Leo IX urged king Andrew nor would it establish anything even if the whole were true. to pay tribute to the emperor; is he therefore contrary to Gregory VII, who disapproved that Salomon had received the crown in fee from the emperor? Not at all. Tributes are paid for various causes by compact. Some princes pay tributes on account of a benefit or aid rendered them. Thus king Peter is said to have paid tribute to the emperor because by his help he had been restored to the kingdom. Others pay tribute to buy off a war with which they would otherwise be assailed by some more powerful prince. For this cause Andrew would have paid tribute, at Leo IX's persuasion, if the emperor had been willing to desist from war and to leave Andrew peaceful possession of the kingdom, as he afterwards had to do without tribute. But those who pay tribute in these ways do not on that account profess themselves vassals of the prince to whom they pay it. Salomon wished to go further, whom Gregory reprehends because he had received the kingdom in fee from the German king, or because he had professed himself the emperor's vassal. All these clearly establish that Schwartz is rashly impudent, when from certain facts which do not touch the state of the controversy he undertakes to charge a most holy Pontiff with lying. Not even this conclusion could be rightly deduced, even if Leo IX had urged upon Andrew the same which Gregory disapproved in Salomon: for it would only follow that Gregory was more attentive than Leo to preserving the rights of the Church.

[240] The adversary then makes his last effort in these words: Finally, Gregory, writing that the emperor Henry, after Peter had been restored to the kingdom by force and arms, Schwartz's last argument transmitted a crown and lance to the body of blessed Peter, speaks of things unknown to all contemporaries. Whence even Inchofer himself says, "Yet no one, unless we are mistaken, mentions the lance and crown sent to the body of blessed Peter; so that on that account, in a place so remarkable, the authority of the Pontiff remains to be weighed at greater length." But most freely Hermann Conring says, "That the emperor Henry III, Ovo being conquered, sent his lance and crown to Rome out of pious affection, I would not deny. But that he judged that the kingdom of Hungary was owed to the Popes, this indeed is repugnant to all that," &c. These are the fabrications of a man who believed that this alone had been given him as his business, to overturn the empire of the Germans, and to procure for himself and his posterity and successors a certain divine dominion over the whole world. Accordingly he invented very many such things about almost all kingdoms without blushing. Thus far Schwartz, calling to his aid Inchofer and Conring, who both nevertheless admit the words of Gregory which he here attacks from the silence of contemporaries. For indeed Gregory speaks of things passed over indeed by most, but not unknown to all contemporaries, since he himself was contemporary with the fact which he narrates to men who could presently learn the truth of the matter: for from the fact itself to Gregory's epistle not even thirty years intervened. Conring considered, I suppose, this nearness of the times, and therefore dared not deny that the lance and crown were sent by Henry to the Roman Church.

[241] is of no moment. But since that same writer, after the manner of heretics, was unwilling to favour the honour of the Roman Church, and was of embittered mind toward Gregory VII, he preferred to attribute another intention to the emperor Henry, and said that Henry did it out of pious affection. But I answer that this is the fabrication of a man,

who saw that the fact could not be denied without rashness, and who was of too little pious affection toward the Roman Church to be willing to admit it uncorrupted. Schwartz, bolder than Conring, attempted to call the fact itself into doubt: but he ought to have been more cautious than to cite the words of one who, however greatly he swells with bile against Gregory, did not undertake to deny the fact. Now the matter itself cannot be denied, unless one imagines that Gregory was not only wicked, but also most rash, imprudent, and prodigal of his own reputation, in wishing to write falsehoods to a king to whom the falsity itself could at once become known. No better is that pious affection invented by Conring; for the lance and crown were not sent to Rome to be kept there as relics; but to be sent back to the lawful king of Hungary. And so Henry directed to Rome the insignia of the Hungarian kingdom, that the Pontiff might restore them to him whom Henry himself had brought back to the kingdom by arms.

* i.e. of the envoys

* divinum

§ XXIII. The letters of Sylvester II are defended against the objections of Schwartz.

[ ] [The very slight and worthless arguments of Schwartz against the letters of Sylvester II:] Since the chief heads of the Epistle of Sylvester II have now been so defended that they ought to be held for true, and were sufficiently proved even if the said epistle did not exist, since each is asserted by some contemporary or at least nearly contemporary author, and confirmed by several, it will not be difficult to defend the epistle itself. Schwartz indeed discourses at length against these letters at num. 51 and following, but what he brings forward is almost only words. Wherefore, since this disputation would grow too great if I recited his every word, I shall review only the chief arguments, and weigh them briefly. He says, first, that the actual document, written out and confirmed by the Pontiff's hand, is not produced; but another, transcribed in past centuries, and handed on like a torch through various men. But if this argument availed, credit would have to be taken from almost all ancient letters: for of few can the authentic documents be shown. He says, secondly: No one, so far as is established, for six hundred and forty years read that diploma of the Pontiff before it was made public and brought to light by Inchofer, no one saw it, no one reported that it existed anywhere. It is true that this epistle long lay in darkness; but the same has again happened with countless others, of whose credit there is no doubt. Moreover we shall show below that it can scarcely be doubted that the epistle was seen by various men in the eleventh century. With these petty arguments alone, which are certainly of no moment, Schwartz uses against the credit of the epistle: for although he brings forward more, they serve only to answer the arguments on which the credit of the epistle rests.

[243] Inchofer in the Ecclesiastical Annals of the kingdom of Hungary at the year 1000 teaches whence he received the copy of that Epistle, it is set forth whence these letters were received; writing thus: And when the argument of this first tome was already finished, and a great part of the sheets released from the press, when the history of this thousandth year was nearly to be subjoined, unexpectedly, but very opportunely, the reverend brother Raphael Levacovicz, a Croat, of the Order of Minors Observant, Lector of sacred theology, and in the City corrector of the sacred codices of the Illyrian church, suggested that he had with him a copy of the letters of the Pontiff Sylvester, which, delivered to the envoys of Stephen, then still duke of Hungary, soon to be inaugurated king, together with the sacred crown, contained not only the singular prerogatives granted to him, but also exactly the sum of the matters pertaining to this history. And lest scruple should arise about its credit, although the style speaks abundantly for itself, authority is given by what the same man, worthy of his Order, added with his hand. Antonius Verantius, a Dalmatian, in the last century famous for the praise both of great learning and of prudence, and on that account having discharged more than twenty embassies to the greatest princes; at last with Ferdinand and Maximilian, emperors of the Romans, enjoying such favour that he added to his dignity the archbishopric of Gran. He indeed, when in the archive of the church of Trogir he was intent on examining and collecting the monuments of antiquity, came by chance upon these letters too in the fiftieth year of the century; and, as a worthy reward of his study, transcribed it with his own hand into a notebook to which he had prefixed the title of a memorial. He having departed this life three and twenty years afterwards, it was received, handed on like a torch through various men, by Athanasius Georgier, likewise illustrious by birth and by the provinces of his embassies; by whose exceptional kindness toward the learned brother Raphael obtained it at Vienna in Austria, when he was lately transacting with the emperor Ferdinand III the business of the Holy Land given him by the supreme Pontiff Urban VIII. From him at last, having obtained them on the occasion we have said, lest they should any longer lie hidden in private cabinets, and so in darkness, to the longing and error of many, not to say to the notable damage of the church, we have wished to insert them in these Annals, and to make them public and to bring them to light; he too desiring it, who wished them to stand in our lucubrations as a kind of pledge and deposit of his own argument, about the Vineyard of the Lord in Illyricum.

[244] the empty cavilling of Schwartz against this exposition, I do not wonder that Schwartz here labours to render the credit of Inchofer suspect. For since he does not blush to accuse Gregory VII the supreme Pontiff, writing to the kings of Hungary about a fact not even thirty years past, of lying, it would rather be a wonder if he spared a private writer. Let us hear then his very words here: The first of all, he says, to have transcribed into a notebook with his own hand that which was found in the archive of the church of Trogir is reported to have been Antonius Verantius, afterwards archbishop of Gran. As if indeed it were enough to have been found in an archive somehow or other, and much more had not had to be settled to show that the writing was authentic. Let the fair reader pause here a while, and weigh with me whether our heterodox writer weighs in an equal balance the records which he believes favourable to himself, and those which he hates as contrary to himself. Of the Diploma of St. Stephen for the abbey of St. Martin he says on page 7, Whose αὐθεντία we shall establish below. This he does on page 62 in these words: As regards the Privilege of Stephen bestowed on the abbey of St. Martin, Peter Pazmany Cardinal and archbishop of Gran testifies that he himself saw that very thing with the abbot. Then, the words of the said Cardinal having been adduced, he adds these: We especially look to the style of the diploma, and from it make our judgment about the credit and antiquity of the document. The testimony of one man, and the style, there suffice Schwartz. Inchofer likewise observed that in the letters of Sylvester the style speaks abundantly for itself, and brought forward the testimony of an illustrious man. Yet much more must be settled for authenticity to be proved, if we believe our disputant, who would more rightly, after the manner of the Academics, pour out words on either side, than handle historical events, in the sifting of which truth must be investigated in good faith.

[245] another objection of the same man against the credit of Inchofer, He goes on in this manner: But neither is that to be reckoned of any account which is asserted to have been found in the archive of Trogir. Inchofer himself puts the noose about his own neck, affirming that it was transcribed by Verantius, not taken away from the archive. And certainly, if it had been taken away, it could as prettily have been thrust into the archive as it was taken away; for which nothing would be more convenient for diminishing the credit of the archive. But since it was not taken from the archive, the diploma's patrons cannot elude the charge which the most learned and skilful investigator of ancient records, John Lucius, drove home against Inchofer, not without a sharp sting. For Lucius, disputing about the native country of Jerome against Inchofer, and observing Jerome to have been wrongly alleged by him, presently subjoins this second falsehood, although wholly foreign to the argument he was handling, doubtless with this mind, that he might make plain what is the habit of Inchofer in alleging ancient records. Thus indeed Lucius: "Whence Inchofer took the words of Jerome on Habakkuk, since they are not found among his Works, I have not ascertained. Yet it is ascertained by me and most well known that that Epistle of Pope Sylvester which he reports, written in the year 1000 to Stephen duke of Hungary, is not found in the archive of the church of Trogir; since it was most diligently gone through by me, nor did I find in it any writing older than the year 1185." Certainly there is plainly no reason why it should have lain rather in the archive of Trogir than in the archives of Hungary. Thus far Schwartz, whose this one argument is worthy of some consideration.

[246] The whole force of the argument consists in this, that the epistle is said to have been transcribed from the archive of Trogir, which is weighed, and establishes nothing and that Lucius on the contrary testifies that he searched that archive diligently and did not find it there. But the epistle, says Schwartz, was not taken away from the archive. It is necessary therefore that it was not found there. I ask first, why he thinks Lucius rather to be believed than Inchofer; if he really judges that both cannot be believed? He will give no fit reason here: for either could have been mistaken. Nor does it matter that Lucius asserts that the matter is most well known to him, and alleges his own diligence: for I know how some slight record hidden among papers sometimes eludes all the anxiety of a searcher; and this I have learned by my own experience repeatedly, even where I was certain that I had seen and handled with my hands some paper which I sought in vain. If this can happen where only one paper is deliberately sought, how much more easily can it befall him who investigates in the same labour many things likely to profit him, as Lucius doubtless did? He therefore trusts his own industry too much, who persuades himself that nothing was hidden from his diligence in searching. Wherefore, if of two men at the same time the one should affirm to me that he saw some record in a certain archive; but the other after diligent investigation should deny that it is found there; I shall believe the one who affirms, but shall not accuse the one who denies of lying, but shall hold him suspect of error.

[247] But here the case is different: both can here be believed, against the credit of Inchofer, much less against the epistle itself, since their statements do not conflict. Antonius Verantius found that Epistle in the archive of Trogir in the year 1550. Then, a whole century or thereabouts having rolled by, John Lucius, having searched the same archive, found no record older than the year 1185. For my part I do not see why both cannot be true at once, since in various ways it could have been carried off in that intervening time; if Verantius himself left the epistle there when found: which is neither denied nor indeed affirmed by Inchofer. And the archive of Trogir could be deprived of that record the more easily, the less useful it was to the church of Trogir, to which not a word of this epistle pertained. I forbear to review the very many ways in which the archive of Trogir could suffer such a loss, lest I be more prolix than is just without necessity: for the Epistle itself speaks so manifestly for itself that it ought to be held authentic, even if it were not established where it was once found. Finally, what Schwartz says, that there is no reason why the Epistle should have been found rather in the archive of Trogir than in those of Hungary, by no means presses: for it is not

established whether it may not lie hidden in some archives of Hungary; but if that were established, there is no lack of a reason for the difference, since all Hungary was laid waste by many plunderings of Tartars and Turks and others, but not so Trogir, to whose archive the epistle could have been communicated while it was under the dominion of the Hungarians. Thus the Carthuitian Life of St. Stephen has not yet been brought to light from the cabinets of Hungary; although it was published in Poland and in our Belgium, where it is even now preserved in manuscript.

[248] Now, further discussion about the place where the epistle was found or preserved being dismissed, let us inspect it itself, and show that it is such that it not only contains no indication of forgery, which could not have been so aptly feigned by a most skilful impostor, but at the same time so many marks of truth that it is neither probable nor credible that it could have been so composed by an impostor. First, so great is the conformity of style between this epistle and the rest of Sylvester II's, and those of other Pontiffs of that time, that no greater could be desired, and Schwartz did not dare even to mutter about the style of the epistle. Secondly, all the facts which are narrated in the epistle we have so confirmed from elsewhere that their truth is solidly established without this epistle. This argument presses the more strongly, the more of those same facts had been wrongly related by later writers: whose errors, when this epistle came to light, no one had so corrected that all these things could have been so aptly feigned by a man even most skilful. Let us begin with the epoch. The epistle is read as given at Rome on the 6th of the Kalends of April, in the thirteenth Indiction, that is, in the very year one thousand. This epoch agrees with Carthuitius, who at num. 10 says that the envoy was sent to Rome by St. Stephen in the fourth year after his father's death, which was the year one thousand: for he had already said before that Geysa died in the year 997. It agrees likewise with Ditmar, who says that the crown and blessing were received by Stephen in the reign of Otto III. It agrees finally with the diploma of Stephen for the abbey of St. Martin, which is read as given in the year 1001, the second of our reign, Indiction XV, that is, in the month of September or some later month of the year 1001, in which, according to the letters of Sylvester II, the second year of Stephen's reign was running. Inchofer was not so accurate in chronology that anyone could believe that this epoch, cohering so neatly with all the records, was invented by him; especially since he wrongly thought that the said diploma for the abbey of St. Martin was given in the year 1002, because he did not understand that the fifteenth Indiction begins from the month of September of the year 1001. Still less can the suspicion of an invented epoch fall upon those who had the epistle before; since the aforesaid records were not so known at that time, and there then prevailed more the errors of those writers who had substituted Benedict VII for Sylvester II.

[249] and whose likeness in various phrases with Carthuitius Samuel Timon, whose little work I could not obtain in time, has already attempted to show that Carthuitius had the epistle of Sylvester II, as I learn from Schwartz, who answered some of his arguments. But since I do not have that little work, and cannot gather all his arguments from Schwartz, I shall adduce similar ones, but in my own words. Carthuitius testifies at num. 13 that Astricus, the envoy of St. Stephen, returned not only with the crown and cross, but also with letters of Apostolic blessing. And that these letters of Sylvester II are those which Astricus brought, Carthuitius makes probable, because he uses certain of their expressions. The envoys of St. Stephen, where their coming is foretold, Carthuitius names messengers OF AN UNKNOWN NATION. Indeed I do not see whence Carthuitius drew that quite remarkable phrase (since the Hungarians were not altogether unknown at Rome, where their conversion had doubtless begun to become known), unless from the Sylvestrine letters, which have thus: The envoys of thy nobility … have affected our heart with the greater joy, … in that we, divinely forewarned, were awaiting their coming from a nation UNKNOWN to us. Carthuitius at num. 12 says that the churches of Hungary are left to Stephen to be ordered, as divine grace instructs him; and Sylvester says that he leaves them to him to be ordered, according as divine grace shall have taught thee. Two other passages the said Timon adduced, and Schwartz does not deny the likeness of the expressions. But omitting these, I add another passage whose likeness is more to be wondered at. When Carthuitius writes at num. 10 that confirmation of the bishoprics of Hungary was sought by Stephen, he expresses only that the church of Gran was to be confirmed as metropolis, and the remaining bishoprics. And Sylvester in the letters confirms in the same manner the metropolis of Gran and the remaining bishoprics.

[250] This likeness of expressions, which could be pointed out in more places, shows that the latter drew from that epistle: for what the adversary objects, shows that Carthuitius had the letters of Sylvester II, and drew from them all that he relates about St. Stephen's Roman embassy. For, as Timon says in Schwartz, the sayings of two men, separated by an interval of times and places, could not concur by chance and accident. Schwartz answers at num. 54 in these words: We freely grant this to Timon, that the sayings of two men, especially such doubtful ones as that OF AN UNKNOWN NATION — so indeed the Pontiff calls the Hungarians — separated by an interval of times and places, could not concur by chance and accident. But when he concludes that Chartuitius drew those formulas from the letters of Sylvester, his argument labours under the fault which in the schools of philosophers is called begging the question. For he assumes that the letters of Sylvester were read by Chartuitius, and therefore that they are genuine and ancient. But this is the very thing which is called into question; and ought to have been proved by Timon before it was assumed. So he. But if Timon assumed any principle as certain — which I do not find from the words adduced by him — certainly he did not assume that which Schwartz says, that the letters of Sylvester were read by Carthuitius: for he proves this by this reasoning: Many sayings of Sylvester II and of Carthuitius concur: this could not happen by chance and accident; therefore Carthuitius read the letters of Sylvester, and drew from them. I confess indeed that from the two former propositions it can only be gathered disjunctively: therefore either Carthuitius read the letters of Sylvester, or the author of these letters read Carthuitius. But I suspect that Timon sufficiently proved that the Sylvestrine letters could not be feigned from Carthuitius, and therefore that his reasoning is legitimate. But if he perhaps believed this certain without proof, as indeed it may be held for certain on account of the exact truth of the letters, I have already begun to show it, and shall go on to show it so manifestly that this reasoning may be clearly framed: The sayings of two men here could not concur by chance: those of Sylvester II and of Carthuitius do concur; therefore the author of one of the two records drew certain things from the other. But the epistle of Sylvester could not be composed from Carthuitius, even with other helps added: Carthuitius therefore drew from the letters of Sylvester, and held them for genuine.

[251] Schwartz reasons on the contrary in this manner: But if you do not assume what is at issue, that the epistle of Sylvester could be feigned from Carthuitius, the first editors of the letters of Sylvester, since they had handled the Legend of Chartuitius, could no less have drawn those formulas from Chartuitius, than Chartuitius from the letters of Sylvester. If Chartuitius drew from the Sylvestrine letters, could he, I ask, have been ignorant of the name of the Pontiff which is read at their head, and utterly have forgotten it in his Legend? I answer that many names were passed over by Carthuitius which he could not have been ignorant of. Thus at num. 33 he omitted the name of that Pontiff who ordered the bodies of those Saints to be raised who had laboured for the conversion of the Hungarians. But his name could not be unknown to a writer who lived at the same time. The name too of St. Stephen's mother he nowhere records, although he does not seem to have been ignorant of that either. In fine, the names of many others which could have been recorded he wraps in silence, as will appear to those who go carefully through his little work. Hence from the silence about a name it is not rightly inferred that the Pontiff's name was unknown to Carthuitius: for it is not credible that in Carthuitius's time the Pontifical letters, which he asserts were brought from Rome, no longer existed: but if they existed, he doubtless sought them, that from them he might understand what and of what sort the Saint had obtained from the Roman Pontiff.

[252] when compared with the epistles of Gregory VII, Nay, Schwartz goes on, all writers were ignorant of the name of Sylvester, before more recent ones, among whom Baronius leads the family, by drawing up a reckoning of the times, had carved it out. For formerly some named Boniface VII, others Benedict VII, others Gregory V, by whom Stephen was endowed with the diadem and with august privileges in ordering the church of his nation. Whence it comes that neither in fixing the year do the ancients conspire with the moderns, but they differ among themselves in a wonderful manner. It is certain that the writers of the fifteenth century, and others before Baronius, differ wonderfully in assigning the time and the Pontiff's name, because not only the letters of Sylvester but also the Carthuitian Life lay in darkness. But so much the less could the said epistle be feigned, agreeing so aptly with the ancient records that not even a word can be convicted of falsehood. For this cause again the conclusion which he deduces from these is inept, in these words: Therefore, since it is by no means probable that Chartuitius received those sayings from the letters of Sylvester, and yet the sayings of two men, separated by an interval of times and places, could not concur by chance and accident, it follows that the first editors of the Sylvestrine letters filched these sayings from the Legend of Chartuitius by a pious fraud. And this very thing destroys the whole case of the letters of Sylvester: which, if anyone shall compare not only with the Legend of Chartuitius, but also with the epistles of Gregory VII, written to Salomon and Geysa kings of Hungary, he will easily perceive whence both their subject matter and their more unusual turns of phrase were drawn. It does not please us to dwell on those; for the chief points of the letters we sift from elsewhere in this whole chapter, as also in the following, nor would it be worth the labour to weigh the subject matter of a writing spurious in itself and supposititious.

[253] it is shown that it could not have been done. What Schwartz here confesses about the epistles of Gregory VII shines forth wonderfully from one passage. For in the Epistle to Geysa, in Harduin, tome 6 of the Councils, col. [ ], Gregory speaks thus of the Roman Church: Which does not have those subject to it as servants, but receives all as sons. These very same words are plainly read in the Epistle of Sylvester II, from which Gregory seems to have set down those very words, to show that he had the epistle of Sylvester II. The rash Schwartz hints that the Sylvestrine letter was compounded also from the epistles of Gregory VII. But this epistle of Gregory VII was not even known to Inchofer, which was published later by the collectors of the Councils: in what way then could the said words have been taken from it? The epistle of Gregory VII to Salomon Inchofer knew, because he had found it in Baronius; but those written to Geysa the same Baronius indicated in a few words, but of their

context he did not recite: and hence it came about that Inchofer was ignorant of them, to whom access to the Vatican library did not lie open. And so the adversary rightly does not dwell on these: for he would with difficulty prove that the epistle could have been composed from unknown records; nor would he better persuade us that all the heads of the epistle were so feigned by an impostor that each exactly agrees with the ancient records, and yet Carthuitius's error about the crown sought by Myscha duke of the Poles is not found in the epistle.

[254] Indeed, if Inchofer, whom Schwartz above all attempts to render suspect of that impious fraud — [Inchofer could not have feigned this epistle, against which he had written many contrary things,] if Inchofer, I say, had himself composed the epistle, why would he not have inserted into the epistle from Carthuitius the name of Myscha, or Miecslaus, duke of the Poles, to whom he wishes to prove against Baronius that the crown was denied? On the contrary, why would he have augmented the epistle with certain words in the explanation of which he himself labours somewhat, and namely these, "of an unknown nation"? Certainly not only does he labour in explaining those words, but they also cannot be reconciled with so great a conversion of the Hungarians under Geysa as Inchofer wrongly described; nor with his own words at the year 990, where he says that many preachers came into Hungary, chiefly by the authority of the Roman Pontiff, an indulgence for sins being proposed, and many spiritual graces granted. Moreover, if before the death of Geysa, as he writes at the year 996, very few were wanting who had not given their hands to Christ; if so great a conversion had been made by preachers flowing in by the authority of the Roman Pontiff from the year 990, then, in Inchofer's own judgment, the nation of the Hungarians was not so unknown to the Roman Pontiff that he should have expressed in the epistle those words of Carthuitius. Again, since he believed Geysa, as he writes at the year 997, to have been divinely prepared for this, through whom they (the Hungarians) first received the light of the faith, how in the epistle does he attribute all the praise, by the Pontiff's mouth, to St. Stephen, and keep entirely silent about the deeds of Geysa? Finally, to omit other things, if the Hungarians, as Inchofer wrongly will have it, in the year 997 proclaimed Stephen not duke but king of the Hungarians, why does he feign that the royal name was given with the crown by the Pontiff, which he did not take from Carthuitius? These and other things show that the epistle of Sylvester II is not conformable to many things faultily related by Inchofer, so that there can be no probable suspicion that it was invented by him.

[255] Now, lest anyone think that some other person could have feigned the said epistle and thrust it upon Inchofer, let him diligently consider the following. [nor could it have been so accurately feigned by another, and therefore it is to be held true;] First, all the heads of the epistle are consonant with exact truth; and this is shown from ancient records, of which some were not yet published, others not sufficiently weighed, when the epistle of Sylvester II first appeared. Secondly, when this epistle was published, Hungarian history laboured under various errors, and those were quite common, as may be gathered from Inchofer, who adopted not a few of them, and some contrary to this epistle, because he received it later. And so it is neither probable nor credible that the epistle could have been so feigned by an impostor as at the same time both to relate more about St. Stephen's embassy than Carthuitius himself, and that exactly true; and yet not to mix his error, or other errors of Hungarian history, with the truths, especially since the records from which the truth appears became known later. There can therefore be no just suspicion about the authentic credit of the epistle; and anyone not contentious ought to hold it for a true and legitimate epistle of Sylvester II.

[256] nor is it a dishonour, but an honour, to the kings of Hungary. And this is so far from being unworthy of the majesty of the most serene kings of Hungary, that it is rather most honourable to them, and procures the utmost veneration for the Hungarian crown. It also teaches by how lawful an authority St. Stephen ordered ecclesiastical affairs and granted various privileges to churches. The Saint indicates this very thing more briefly in the letters for the monastery of Beel, given in the year 1037, which Peterfy recites in the Councils of Hungary, page 5, where the King speaks thus: So nevertheless I had authority from the supreme Pontiff of the Roman See, that upon whatever churches or monasteries I wished I might confer liberties and dignities. That Schwartz should think the aforesaid epistle unworthy of the august glory of the kings of Hungary arises from the same source as his whole booklet, namely from the hatred with which he pursues the Roman Church. Impelled by the same hatred, he contends to attribute the conversion of the Hungarians to the Greeks, and imagines the Hungarian church to have been a monster without a head. Hear, reader, the excellent utterance of the man on page 72: Whence, he says, we judge that the Hungarian church at the beginning was altogether ἀκέφαλος, bound by no law either to the Roman Pontiff or to the patriarch of Constantinople. That he may clothe such monstrous utterances with certain improbable conjectures, he decrees that all contrary records are to be held fabulous or supposititious: and what he cannot establish by reasons, he tries at least to press home by abuse. But let us, dismissing this heterodox writer, return to the deeds of St. Stephen.

§ XXIV. Bishops appointed throughout Hungary, of whom some are reviewed: how great diligence the Saint used in choosing them, and with how great care he with queen Gisela provided the necessities for God's ministers: his son Emeric born.

[ ] The first archbishop of Gran is said to have been Sebastian, It cannot be doubted that St. Stephen, having received most ample power from the supreme Pontiff to order bishoprics throughout Hungary and to designate bishops for each, presently set his hand to the work, and within a few years divided almost all Hungary among learned and pious pastors. Yet the names of the first bishops of Hungary and their deeds are very obscure through the lack of writers, and very few things about them all have come down to us. To the metropolitan see of Gran the first raised by the King is said to have been a man eminent in piety, and a monk of the monastery of St. Martin, Sebastian by name, as Carthuitius has it at num. 15. Of his election Bonfinius on page 177 records the following: They relate that it was his (St. Stephen's) chief care to set over sacred matters everywhere men most approved in manners and learning. When in the monastery of St. Martin Sebastian was endowed with a singular life and no mean wisdom, he was embraced by the King with wonderful love, and, by his love and authority raised so far as to be created metropolitan of Gran, having attained the supreme dignity in Hungary, by I know not what fate he was presently made blind. And when the misfortune of blindness had hindered him from the exercise of his sacred office, Astricus bishop of Kalocsa, summoned by Apostolic permission, so filled his office as if he seemed to have been substituted in his place. In the third year of his blindness, his sight being restored, he was restored by the Roman Pontiff to his former dignity.

[258] These words at the same time assign the first bishop of the church of Kalocsa, [Anastasius the first prelate of Kalocsa administers the church of Gran for three years:] which afterwards was raised to metropolitan dignity. That was Astricus, called by another name Anastasius, first abbot of Brevnov in Bohemia, then of St. Martin in Hungary, and designated bishop of Kalocsa when he was sent as envoy by the King to the supreme Pontiff. He, on occasion of Sebastian's blindness, administered the metropolitan see of Gran for three years, and at last returned to his own church, retaining the pallium which he had received from the Roman Pontiff when he came to the administration of the church of Gran. Inchofer at the year 1002 suspects that that blindness of Sebastian happened about the said year, which is uncertain. Then, having related the administration and the return of Astricus or Anastasius, he observes the following: Hence it came about that Anastasius is generally called archbishop of Gran; by which name too he is noted in the Martyrology of Menard, although he administered the church of Kalocsa to the end. Further, from the fact that he returned with the pallium, it is easy to gather that he retained the title of archbishop once obtained, or at any rate transferred it on that occasion, so that from this time this church of Kalocsa too, second after Gran, rejoiced in being erected with that title and privilege. But hence moreover we gather that the privilege of king Stephen about ordering churches was not so arbitrary that he did not have regard to the Roman Pontiff; since he could not substitute Astricus of Kalocsa for Sebastian * deprived of his eyes, save with the Pontiff's assent; nor again could the latter, his sight recovered, resume the office of bishop in the church of Gran, save with the same Pontiff's approval. And still further we gather that those writers erred who, in weaving the catalogue of the archbishops of Gran, not only place Astricus or Anastasius before Sebastian in order, &c.

[259] These observations do not displease me. Yet the last, Perhaps Dominic sat first at Gran before Sebastian. although conformable to the common opinion about the archbishops of Gran, I do not judge altogether certain, because, all things being attentively considered, some doubt arises for me whether Sebastian was really the first prelate of that metropolitan see. The first and chief reason for doubting arises from the privilege of St. Stephen for the abbey of St. Martin: for there, as we have given it from num. 149 out of Raynaldus, Dominic the archbishop is mentioned, and the same again at the end is called Dominic the archbishop, vice-chancellor. Here the archbishop of Gran seems plainly to be designated, and indeed the first, since the privilege is of the year 1001. Next, Carthuitius does not assert of Sebastian that he was the first archbishop; but, since he relates his promotion long after the erection of the metropolitan see of Gran, and interposes many other things, he rather hints that he was not the first, especially since he says: At the same time in the monastery of St. Martin there was a certain monk, Sebastian by name… Him the venerable King began to love with wonderful affection, &c. For these things hint that he was promoted to the metropolitan see after the King had thoroughly perceived his virtues by a long enough acquaintance. There is added another reason too: for I do not sufficiently see why St. Stephen would have set Astricus, the abbot of that same monastery, whose virtues and prudence he seems to have esteemed most highly, after Sebastian the monk, if he had promoted both at the same time. And so I strongly suspect that that Dominic, of whom in the said letters of Stephen, was the first archbishop of Gran, and that upon his death Sebastian was substituted for him: for thus it will be no wonder that Sebastian rather than Astricus was set over the church of Gran, because the latter had already taken the bride of Kalocsa. These things appear probable: I shall gladly follow more certain ones, if anyone shall adduce them.

[260] The first of Vesprim was Stephen; of Fünfkirchen, Bonipert, That the first bishop of the church of Vesprim was called Stephen I gather from the letters of donation of St. Stephen, which are marked as given in the year 1009. These the often-cited Peterfy partly recited on page 6, where these things are read: If anyone therefore shall attempt to break the page of this our precept, or shall endeavour to trouble Stephen the magnificent bishop of the aforesaid church of St. Michael of Vesprim, and his successors, in all the aforementioned things, churches, and also endowments, &c. Of the deeds of this Stephen I find nothing anywhere. In our manuscript catalogue of the bishops of Fünfkirchen the first placed is Bonipert, chaplain of the lord king Stephen. In the letters of foundation of the same church, in Inchofer at the year 1009, it is written Benipert, perhaps faultily. Take the beginning of these letters: Let all our faithful know, both present and to come, how

we, with the consent of the most holy Apostolic lord, and in the presence of his nuncio bishop Anno, and of all our other faithful bishops, margraves, counts, and also lesser persons, have established the election (otherwise the erection) of the bishopric which shall be called of Fünfkirchen, in honour of God and of all the Saints, Benipert having been made bishop there, and have ordained and confirmed it with privileges and boundaries… Given on the tenth of the Kalends of September, in the seventh Indiction, in the year of the Lord's Incarnation one thousand and nine; in the ninth year of the reign of the pious Stephen. Done in the city of Jauryana.

[261] the letters of foundation of this church, ineptly attacked, are vindicated; The oft-mentioned Schwartz attacks these letters from the last word thus, on page 63: For when at the foot of it (the diploma) is read, Done in the city of Jauryana, that is a novelty. For Gewr — or, as the most celebrated historian of our country, the most reverend Matthias Bel, prefers, Geuru and Geveverinum — was the way the name of the city was written which only in the age of king Bela IV began to be written and called in Latin Jaurinum. To the ancient writers of German affairs it is Raba, to our Germans too Raab. I do not know whether Schwartz here feigns ignorance, for he cannot be ignorant that Jaurum and Jaurinum are derived from the word Gewr or Geuru; and therefore he ineptly says that that city was never called Jaurum or Jaurinum before the times of Bela IV, since he acknowledges that it was called Gewr or Geuru by the ancient Hungarians. Bonfinius, Decade 1, book 1, describing Hungary, on page 25 speaks thus of this city and its territory: If you turn aside to the Danube, the assembly of Jaurinum occurs, which is named from Jaurum a most fertile city, which the river Arabo washes. He derives the county of Jaurinum from the city Jaurum, and does not complain of the novelty of the word; and so neither ought Schwartz to complain of it, whether he prefers that the city was then called Jaurum or Jaurinum: for either word fits excellently the Hungarian words Gewr and Geuru; nor was the bishopric of Jaurinum, probably instituted by St. Stephen with the others, ever known by any other name than the bishopric of Jaurinum. There is therefore no reason why the words "city Jauriana" or "Jauryana" could render suspect a diploma whose latter part Peterfy lately reprinted on page 6.

[262] Among the epistles of Fulbert bishop of Chartres the fifth is inscribed: the letter of Fulbert of Chartres to Bonipert. To his holy and venerable arc. (that is, archbishop) Bonibert. Mabillon, tome 4 of the Annals, page 144, thinks it was written to Astricus or Anastasius of Kalocsa, because it is inscribed to an Archbishop. I should rather believe that that epistle was given to Bonipert of Fünfkirchen, since it was doubtless written to some bishop of Hungary, and he alone is known by that name. Certainly the words of Fulbert hint that he was a man conspicuous in sanctity and learning, beginning his epistle thus: First indeed we bless the Lord the unbegotten Father, and his only-begotten Son Jesus Christ our Lord, and the Holy Spirit the Paraclete, one true Lord, who created all things, who has also illumined thee, most beloved father, with much wisdom, to teach his people, and has fittingly adorned thee with the comeliness of sanctity to afford an example of a good life. The same concludes the epistle with these words, which brilliantly show how great was the fame of St. Stephen even in Gaul: Lastly, he says, we wish thee ever well, praying that thou greet that new and glorious offspring of adoption of the highest King, namely king Stephen, intimating to his excellence, on our part and on that of all the congregations which are in our bishopric, namely of canons and of monks, the faithful pledges of our prayers. The time of the epistle's writing is not added. Nor is it clear for what cause Bonipert is called archbishop, unless perhaps he received the pallium, as it was now and then sent to some bishops, among whom the bishop of Fünfkirchen is reckoned in Du Cange's Glossary at the word pallium: or unless he was archbishop of Gran after Sebastian, or administered the church of Gran for a time. However that may be, whether Fulbert wrote to this Bonipert, or to another archbishop of Gran after Sebastian, it is certain that that excellent prelate was promoted by St. Stephen, for whose sake I have adduced these things, that it may namely appear what distinguished men he promoted to bishoprics.

[263] Further, how diligent the holy King was in examining those Stephen, king and apostle of the Hungarians, whose sanctity he heard commended, that he might promote them to episcopal dignity, appears from various facts to be narrated in the course of our work, of which I shall transfer one hither from the Life of St. Emeric. Surius published this Life at the 4th of November, with the style not only changed, but also truncated, as I gather from a twin manuscript transcript preserved in our cabinets, and from the Cracow edition of the year 1511. Its author prefaces some things about the conversion of Hungary by Stephen the father of St. Emeric, which, as most pertaining to our purpose, take first: After the only-begotten Son of Almighty God, after his Ascension, bestowing through the words of Apostolic preaching the solace of his visitation upon all nations, had called them from darkness to the light of faith, in the latest times, so to speak, through the honey-flowing providence 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 too led those snatched from the right of diabolical power to the knowledge of the true God. Almost the same he repeats below in these words: But Pannonia came to the faith almost in our own times, and, having until then been defiled with the foul rites of paganism, by the exhortation and exceptional merits of its most Christian king Stephen it advanced in the strength of faith and in the increase of divine worship. These things confirm our statements about the kingdom converted by Stephen, and at the same time show that the author of this Life was nearly contemporary with the Saint.

[264] hearing from his son Emeric of the holy life of Maurus the monk, Now take the wonderful event which is presently subjoined: At a certain time, therefore, when blessed king Stephen came with his son for the sake of prayer to the church of blessed Martin, which he himself had begun on the holy mount of Pannonia (rather, had completed when begun) and had adorned with an excellent congregation of monks, the King, knowing the boy's surpassing merit, bestowed on his son the honour which befitted him: for when the aforesaid Brethren, the procession being over, had approached to salute the King, out of reverence he sent his son forward to salute them. But the boy Emeric, filled with the Holy Spirit, according as by divine grace revealing it to him he knew the merits of each, distributed kisses unequally to each: to some indeed one, to others three, to others five, and lastly to one he gave seven kisses in succession. At which thing, the others too looking on, blessed king Stephen silently wondered. Familiar conversation and Mass being ended, he diligently inquired of him why he had distributed the kisses unequally to them. Blessed Emeric therefore, going over the merits of each before his Father, namely for how great a space of time each had persisted in the virtue of continence, taught that in that consideration he had given more kisses to some and fewer to others; and asserted that he to whom he had multiplied seven kisses had led a virginal life…

[265] he explores his virtues, And a few days having intervened since blessed Stephen had departed from the holy Mount, taking with him only two attendants, returning thither by day, he had secretly explored the vigils and prayers of the Brethren. And when the office of Matins was now completed, and the rest were laying themselves in bed, those alone to whom blessed Emeric had multiplied kisses were persisting in the church, and, divided in the more secret corners of the church, were keeping vigil in the sight of God in chanting psalms. And when the holy King approached each separately, he showed them his face and greeted them with a word of blessing. But while each, breaking silence, venerated the Royal majesty, he coming last to the brother named Maurus, whom blessed Emeric had commended with seven kisses, could extort no answer from him either by the blandishments of greeting or by words of royal commendation. But when morning came, when the Brethren were holding chapter, the King himself was present: and, that he might test brother Maurus's mind in the virtue of humility, in the common hearing he laid to his charge very many things contrary to religion: to whose assertion Maurus made no contradiction; but, persisting humbly, fled in hope to God, who is the inspector of the human mind.

[266] and afterwards promotes him to a bishopric; Then indeed blessed Stephen knew that his son's words were true: and, the order of the matter being narrated, he extolled Maurus with praises, and, that the pontifical place might be adorned by him, a little after raised him to the bishopric of Fünfkirchen. Thus far the writer of the Life of St. Emeric; from whom doubtless Bonfinius drew, who on page 177 narrates the same, yet with a slight change of certain circumstances. But this Maurus is the writer of the Life mentioned before of SS. Zoerardus and Benedict, in which at num. 4 he indicates that he was abbot before he was made bishop. And so those words, a little after he raised him to the bishopric of Fünfkirchen, are to be understood more broadly, since he was first abbot for some time, and then was made bishop, probably after Bonipert cited before. Of Maurus more in the Commentary to the Acts of SS. Zoerardus and Benedict, §4, where it is shown that these things could have happened about the year 1025, yet in such wise that it is not denied that they were done some years earlier or later.

[267] From what has been said we can gather that what Carthuitius writes at num. 14 is true, about the King's care and diligence in exploring the life even of monks, always taking care to promote the best. His son Emeric born and that he doubtless did this not only to rouse the sluggish, but above all to set the most choice men over abbeys and bishoprics. It was also the holy King's utmost endeavour that all, both clergy and monks, should have sufficient revenues, so that nothing should be lacking to them or to their churches, Gisela cooperating to the same end, as the biographer there again testifies, who asserts that by the queen's liberality it came about that the episcopal house of Vesprim was built and abundantly enriched with all necessaries; while the King meanwhile bore the chief care of the metropolitan see of Gran and of almost all the other churches. But while the King with the queen was skilfully intent on pious endeavours of this kind, divine bounty granted them a son, born probably about the year 1003 or 1004 (for the year of his birth is nowhere expressed), whom he named Emeric. Of this holy son I have already said a few things, and shall say more where his premature death is to be treated.

[268] All these things Bonfinius on page 176 narrates in this manner: of his wife Gisela, who vies in equal zeal with the King, Of this wife (Gisela) they relate that the holy King had several sons, and above all Emeric, to say nothing of the rest, whose names are not handed down, imbued with so many divine gifts that he seems to have sprung from divine parents also. Besides a chaste and most temperate life, he showed so great piety toward the gods * and men that Gysla is reckoned to have been joined to Stephen by divine rather than by human consent. On both sides most holy deeds vied with one another, neither suffered with an equal mind to be surpassed in divine charity, and, joined in Christ, they renewed their conjugal love. Although in

all things most pious, yet she used chief beneficence toward the wretched and afflicted, toward priests, and toward churches. She followed all the basilicas with lavish liberality, lest anything should seem lacking to the ornaments of divine things, and dedicated many images of the gods * when asked for, in silver and refined gold. Likewise she often distributed among the colleges of priests jewelled chalices and sacred vestments woven of gold, made at extravagant cost. She built the church of Vesprim at her own expense, and abundantly endowed it with all things which are wont to be of use for divine worship, and added most abundant revenues, from which the prelates and the other colleges of priests might live according to their dignity.

[269] With like diligence too her Husband, that he might not yield to the woman, that nothing should be lacking to the churches and their ministers. so abundantly provided for the metropolitan church and the other bishops that nothing seemed left over to himself, so that he seemed to have devoted to God and to divine worship not only himself but also all his goods. Nay, he had endowed these with fields, villages, towns, and tolls: he ordered an increase of them to be made yearly, lest he should suffer anything to be lacking to God's worshippers. Yearly too he went round the monasteries, churches, and sacred buildings, that he might provide for the buildings and the men: while going round he examined by exact investigation the manners not only of the priests but also of the pontiffs: he rebuked those guilty of negligence, loved and observed every most zealous man. And by his officers almost every month he strove to review the urban and rural prelates * and all the colleges of priests, to examine their lives, and to weigh more diligently the words and deeds of each, lest anything of guilt should be committed publicly or privately, or aimed against the faith of Christ.

* Stephano was faultily printed

* suæ, I suppose

* i.e. God and the Saints

* i.e. of the Saints

* i.e. priests

§ XXV. The war of St. Stephen with the prince of Transylvania, which he subjects and makes Christian: the Bulgarian war: the church of Alba Regalis founded and endowed, and the King's piety toward the blessed Virgin.

[ ] St. Stephen assailed by war by the prince of Transylvania, Before I go on to review the other deeds of the holy King for religion, it pleases me to interpose here the Transylvanian war, which likewise the pious Prince sustained for religion, and finished with wonderful success. That war the Hungarian writers, whose words I shall presently give, attach to the year 1002. The Hungarians Baronius followed, in tome XI of the Annals at the year 1002, num. 17, where he expressed the whole matter in a brief compendium in this manner: He indeed (Stephen), so notable in piety, is reported to have been no less so in military valour. For in this year, provoked by Giula prince of Transylvania, his maternal uncle, on account of the difference of religious worship, since he bore it ill that Stephen was so devoted to the Christian worship; although he was drawn to war under compulsion by his uncle, yet unwilling and compelled by necessity, when he was assailed with arms, having got together an army, he sought Transylvania, and, the enemy being routed and led away captive together with his men, subjugated that province to himself and joined it to the Hungarian kingdom: which he also made Christian. And at the same time prince Giula himself with his wife and sons, released from his bonds, embraced the faith of Christ, although unwillingly, as is asserted, and, all the reproach of servitude being shaken off, was treated by the same King after a royal manner. Thus Baronius. But Pagi at the same year, num. 8, prefers to remit that event to the following year.

[271] which happened in the year 1002 or 1003, or in both, For a reason for this correction Pagi alleges the Chronographer of Hildesheim, who in Duchesne, tome 3, page 517, has thus at the year 1003: Stephen king of Hungary came with an army against his uncle king Julus: whom, when he had seized him with his wife and two sons, he compelled his kingdom by force to Christianity. Plainly the same words at the same year the Saxon Annalist has in Eccard, so that the one transcribed the other. Ademar of Chabannes in his Chronicle, in Labbe, tome 2, page 170, having related the death of Otto III and the succession of St. Henry to the empire, which happened in the year 1002, presently subjoins the following words about this war: Stephen also king of Hungary, assailing Black Hungary with war (so he names Transylvania), deserved to convert that whole land to the faith of truth, as much by force as by fear and love. All these compel us to doubt about the year of this war: but it matters little whether the thing happened in 1002 or in the following year. Perhaps in the year 1002 the war was begun by the irruption of the Transylvanian prince into Hungary, and finished in the year 1003 by St. Stephen's expedition into Transylvania: for it is probable that Transylvania was not subdued in the same year in which Giula began to harass Hungary; and this appears certain enough from the account of the Hungarians.

[272] These things being observed, take the words of Thuroczius, describing that war in chapter 29 in this manner: and which was waged for religion's sake, Further, blessed Stephen, after he had divinely obtained the crown of royal loftiness, waged a famous and profitable war against his uncle, by name Gyula, who at that time held the helm of the whole realm beyond the forest. And so in the year of the Lord one thousand and two blessed king Stephen took duke Gyula with his wife and his two sons, and sent them into Hungary. And he did this because, though most often admonished by blessed king Stephen, he neither was converted to the faith of Christ, nor ceased from inflicting injury upon Hungary. But his whole realm, most wide and most opulent, he joined to the monarchy of Hungary. And that realm is called in Hungarian Erdeeln, which is watered by very many rivers, in whose sands gold is gathered: and the gold of that land is the best. Ranzanus at index 8 records the same war in these words: He undertook and waged war against Giula his uncle, not only because he was harassing the borders of Hungary, but also because he shrank from the worship of Christ. And although he had very often admonished and asked him patiently to lend his ear to the teachings of salvation, by which he could most easily recognize the truth, yet he both derided the King and despised his pious admonitions. He was duke of the region which they call Transylvania, because those who go to it from Hungary must make their journey through wooded places and over steep mountains. And since that region abounds with a very great store of prized things, especially of silver and gold, it came about that Giula's resources were not to be lightly esteemed, and therefore he was so powerful that he dared easily and proudly to despise the new King of the Hungarians. But Stephen, relying first on Christ's arms, then on temporal ones, with great courage penetrates those places difficult of access, and at last, the standards being joined and battle engaged, overcomes and takes him: and with his wife and two sons sends him into Hungary, to be kept in prison. And Transylvania itself he not only compelled to obey his rule, but willed also that from that time it be subject to those who should thereafter succeed to the kingdom of Hungary.

[273] Bonfinius on page 181 adds some things, and explains the deeds done in this war a little more fully, when he conquers, takes, and transfers him into Hungary, writing thus: Likewise other wars followed, which by divine kindness he waged prosperously. From the year of salvation one thousand and two, internal wars arise between Stephen and his uncle Gyula. For he bore with a most hostile mind his nephew's being initiated in the Christian faith and falling away from the Scythian religion. Wherefore not only had he often most sharply rebuked the King with words, but he even strove to provoke him with arms, that he might recall him to his fathers' ceremonies. When he understood that he could accomplish nothing with words, from the mountains of Transylvania, over which he presided, he harasses Hungary with daily incursions and plunderings. On the other hand the most pious King, that he might not be compelled to join hands with his own blood, admonished and most often besought him through envoys and heralds not to persist in Scythian ferocity, but to acknowledge his God and Saviour: yet all his labour was eluded. Accordingly he is compelled to restrain by arms the man daily insulting the Ungari and inflicting various losses. An army by no means moderate being got together, they press into Transylvania, and in a few months the whole is taken. Gyula with his wife and two children was at last captured and led into Pannonia.

[274] and subjects all Transylvania to himself, and makes it Christian. A most precious region, and most fertile in gold, wine, corn, cattle, and all things, was from that time added to the kingdom of Hungary. All the peoples who inhabited that tract of Dacia were claimed for the Christian faith, partly by force, partly of their own accord. In the uncle's palace an immense store of gold and silver was found, most wickedly acquired. From it the king erected at Alba a most excellent church, which, since it has often been liable to fire, hence a public opinion arose, and an ascertained belief, that the temple often suffered from dire fire because it had been built from money most wickedly gained. Gyula with his children and wife unwillingly submitted to the orthodox faith: cleansed by baptism, they were freed from their bonds by the King, and treated according to their dignity. Some things here seem said a little too freely, especially what he says about an army by no means moderate being got together: for although this war is everywhere related only briefly, yet I should think it was of no small magnitude on account of the excellence of the province, and the authors cited before hint this sufficiently. Next, what he says about Giula's money perhaps lacks foundation, and will presently be further sifted: for others will have it that the church of Alba was founded from the spoils of the Bulgarian war.

[275] The duke of the Bulgarians hostile to Hungary Certainly to the Transylvanian war the aforesaid Hungarian writers presently subjoin another war, waged successfully against the Bulgarians, in such a way that I have a strong suspicion that this Bulgarian war arose out of the Transylvanian, and that the duke of the Bulgarians was either allied with the Transylvanian, or at any rate came to his aid. Thuroczius in chapter 30 has thus about this war: But after these things he moved his army against Kean duke of the Bulgarians and Slavs, which nations inhabit places most strongly fortified by their natural situation. Whence too with many labours and warlike sweats he at length with difficulty conquered and slew the aforesaid duke, and took an inestimable store of treasures, and especially in gold and gems and precious stones: and he placed there one of his great-grandfathers, by name Zoltan. For he was very aged, who had lived to the times of the holy King: and therefore he wished him to be over those opulent nations. So this writer speaks, as if he would have it that all Bulgaria was subdued by Stephen. But that is not probable, since it can be proved from no records that Bulgaria was at that time subject to the Hungarians. What he added about his great-grandfather Zoltan is also not free from error, as I shall show after giving the words of Bonfinius, who adopted that error. Ranzanus records the same war more briefly in this manner: Then he had another war against Ceanus, most powerful duke of the Bulgarians and Slavs, who, daring to enter the borders of Hungary in hostile fashion, laid waste the fields of many towns. He conquered and slew him in battle, lest a man of abandoned boldness should afterwards, if he lived, attempt something similar. And of the treasures which had been his, most precious, he gave the greatest part as a gift to the churches which he himself had magnificently founded and splendidly adorned in various places of his kingdom.

[276] Bonfinius pursues the same more fully; but

not without some errors, he conquers and slays him in battle; which I shall presently endeavour to correct: A little after, he says, a great war arises from the Bulgarians, sprung of the Slavic race. For they, having once got possession of Lower Moesia, which is spread out on both sides of the Ister as far as the Euxine Sea, now these same, under duke Cea, attack their neighbours, drive off vast booty, and, ranging far and wide with robberies and incursions, harass all as far as they are able, and strive now to plunder Transylvania, now Hungary. To restrain their boldness the King is compelled to hold a great levy everywhere: for he was going to encounter enemies not only powerful in number and strength, but also inaccessible from the difficulty and fortification of their places. Having therefore got together great forces, he enters Lower Moesia, finds a hard enemy: they engaged hand to hand rather often with equal fortune. The Bulgarians at length in the last battle turn their backs, and are widely routed and put to flight. Ceas their prince was slain in the fight, and the camp plundered, from which so great booty was taken that no one went away unladen with the spoils of the enemy, and so great a store of gold, silver, and jewels was found that whatever they had heaped together in all those wars they lost in one battle: and since the fight was waged in further Dacia, which they call Transylvania, he set over that richest region his great-grandfather, whom they named Zoltan. The enemy's booty was turned not to human but to divine use, gold and silver with gems being spent upon crosses, chalices, bowls, and pontifical vestments: whence so many ornaments of churches were made that not even the smallest chapel of Pannonia was without a share of so pious a prodigality.

[277] In these correct first what he says about Lower Mysia or Moesia, [but by this war nothing seems to have been added to Hungary, but perhaps Transylvania was secured.] which, like the Bulgarians who got possession of it, he wrongly places on both sides of the Danube: for Moesia, even Lower Moesia, which afterwards was called Bulgaria, extends only to one side of the Danube, and is separated by the said river from Dacia, which now about the Danube is Wallachia and a part of Hungary, that is, the county of Temesvár. Secondly, he probably strays when he says of the King: He enters Lower Mysia. Certainly he then says: And since the fight was waged in further Dacia, which they call Transylvania, &c. But these words openly indicate that the fight was in Transylvania, or in neighbouring Wallachia, so that Stephen does not seem to have entered Bulgaria itself with his army. Thirdly, Zoltan the son of Arpad was really the great-grandfather of St. Stephen, as I showed at num. 45: and Bonfinius with Thuroczius designates this very man. But, since he must have been born about the time of the Hungarians' entry into Pannonia, or before the end of the ninth century, he would already have been more than a hundred years old when these things happened. I should therefore rather think that another of the descendants of the earlier Zoltan, whether his son or his grandson, who could also be named Zoltan, was endowed with that prefecture by the Saint. Further, it may here be asked over what province Bonfinius and Turoczius would have that Zoltan set. I answer that Transylvania itself seems to be understood, which Stephen joined to the Hungarian kingdom, and which he afterwards administered by a prefect. For I have not at hand fit records by which to show that by that Bulgarian war anything else was added to Hungary; nay, I do not even find Ceanus among the kings of Bulgaria. For these causes I much doubt whether this war is other than the preceding: for it is probable that the Bulgarians, under duke Ceanus, came only to bring help to the prince of Transylvania, and that their army was cut down by Stephen: by which disaster of theirs the possession of Transylvania was secured to Stephen.

[278] The wealth acquired in these wars the Saint spends on pious works, But whether this was a continuation of the former war or a distinct war, the Hungarians agree that vast spoils fell to Stephen by these victories, and that the Saint used them for advancing Christian piety, and namely for adorning the church of Alba. Thuroczius writes the following about these: From this manifold treasure, therefore, king Stephen the second, being greatly enriched, endowed the church of Alba, which he himself had founded, with golden altars, with crosses too and chalices, and with pontifical vestments woven of purest gold and most precious stones: he also gave with royal bounty vessels for the ministry and other utensils necessary for that same church, and to other churches of God as well. But among the rest he gave to that same church of Alba certain gifts worthy of everlasting memory, namely two rationals, each of which had a border woven with seventy-four marks of purest gold and with precious stones, which Benedict Pontiff of the holy Roman Church, at the prayers of the holy king Stephen, distinguished with a privilege of such authority that whoever in celebrating Mass should lawfully use them might anoint, crown, and gird with the sword a King. And because the money of that Giula was ill acquired, therefore that church has frequently suffered fire. And in that same church he compelled his uncle with all his family to be baptized against their will; but afterwards he treated him honourably as a father. But queen Keisla, the wife of the holy King, enriched the said church beyond measure with golden crosses, ewers, tablets, chalices, gems, and ornaments. Two things in these are to be corrected: first, what he says about the cause of the fires of the church of Alba: for whence could he know that those fires arose because Giula's money had been ill acquired? Secondly, it is not even probable, what he imputes to St. Stephen, as if he had compelled Giula plainly unwilling to baptism: for the Saint knew that baptism would be useless unless it were received by one willing. And so Stephen would have laboured by all means that Giula might be willing to receive the Catholic faith and baptism, and thus at last from unwilling made him willing.

[279] and especially on the church of Alba, Ranzanus relates the pious use of the booty obtained in these words: But among the other churches, he endowed that of Alba with far more and more exceptional and more valuable gifts; because before that victory he had caused it to be consecrated in the honour of her whom it is agreed is the Most Blessed of all the Saints. Besides he distributed much from those spoils to the poor of Christ. For of the needy and orphans, of widows and virgins, he was, while he lived, a consoler, patron, helper, protection, refuge, and singular relief. For the sake of men of this kind he himself was wont to carry little bags full of coins, that he might have them ready whenever, as he went forth anywhere, anyone met him to whom alms should be given. With these statements Bonfinius agrees, who after what was recited at num. 276 goes on thus: And to the church of Alba especially he dedicated two gifts, which they now call rationals, of each of which one could see the border, consisting indeed of seventy pounds of refined gold, where jewels sparkled widely. Which when Benedict the supreme Pontiff had beheld, he judged it should be endowed with this privilege, that whoever should use them in performing the sacred rites should know that he had full power of crowning the king of Hungary. Many ornaments were added to this by Gysla, so that no one can behold them without the greatest admiration. A few things are here to be observed. The rational is an episcopal vestment not unlike the pallium which metropolitans use on the chief festivals. I should believe those rationals were given by Stephen to the church of Alba, that the archbishop of Gran might use them at the coronation of kings, which took place at Alba Regalis. But the Pontiff who is said to have confirmed their use at the King's request was doubtless Benedict VIII, who entered on the pontificate in the year 1012: whether he beheld them may be doubted, but the matter is of small moment. The weight of gold spent on those ornaments Bonfinius too seems to have increased not a little, although otherwise there is no doubt that this gift was magnificent and truly royal.

[280] Of this church, built, adorned, and enriched in a wonderful manner, sacred to the blessed Virgin, to whom the King was most devoted: which was a secular provostship and a royal chapel, Carthuitius treats at num. 16 and 17, celebrating the exceptional piety of the holy King toward the most blessed Virgin Mary. With Carthuitius Bonfinius almost agrees, writing thus of the same on page 178: With assiduous prayers he besought the holy Virgin that the great Mother would guard him and his kingdom with perpetual patronage, to whose protection and power he had devoted himself and all the Ungari, and had dedicated all the zeal and fortunes of his people. Nay, he even promulgated that solemn edict, that all should hold the day of the blessed Virgin, on which she was reckoned among the Divine ones, among the most celebrated, and should call it Our Lady's day, and should pass her other feasts with fasts and singular solemnity. That in fine they should hold her as their own peculiar goddess and most pious patroness in heaven and on earth. The words of this writer must be understood in a convenient sense, who now and then borrows words from the pagans, and uses them in an improper signification, or at any rate one unusual in the Catholic Church. So here "goddess" is read for "Lady", and below "numen" for "power". And by the day on which she was reckoned among the Divine ones, or Saints, he designates the day of the Assumption. Further, this piety of the King toward the Mother of God will be more declared from the Life of St. Gerard the martyr, of whose coming to the King we shall treat in the following §.

[281] Here meanwhile I subjoin the foundation of the said church, the Saint built that church most elegantly, or of the royal chapel of Alba, of which the said Bonfinius has thus: Nay, moreover, that he might always render her divine power most favourable to the Ungari, he dedicated at Alba Regalis a most celebrated church, where the bodies of the kings are laid up, and there by ordinance the kings when created receive the diadem. It is a work of wonderful cost, shining with marble incrustations, where one may see tessellated pavements; magnificent columns, altars, some wonderfully adorned with images and panels, cast of purest gold or silver, likewise royal chapels, and very many monuments in the fashion of mausoleums: besides there are certain statues and tablets carved with stones and gems, and moreover above the table of Christ a pointed vault wrought at extravagant cost of jewels and gold: nor are there lacking various kinds of vessels, many of crystal, very many of murrhine, many of onyx, several of porphyry and alabaster set with gems; some in which one may see nothing cheaper than gold and silver: of the vestments and sacred furniture nothing need be said, since there is a wonderful abundance of all things which are of use for divine worship.

[282] and adorned it with many privileges, and chose it for the royal chapel. When he ordained that this should be the peculiar house of the kings, he endowed it with such immunity and privilege that its prelate should be subject to no bishop but the Roman Pontiff. Nay, and that the kings should have the right, at the time of any purification or consecration, to choose a bishop at their discretion, and to send him thither to administer the sacraments. He endowed the church with every liberality and power that he could: that whether the king were present or absent it should be neither right nor lawful for any Pontiff to perform sacred rites there, save for him to whom the king or the prelate of the church should commit it, whom they call the provost. Nay, the people also is ordered to pay tithes to no pontiff but to him and his college. Likewise no king or queen of Hungary could be instituted and endowed with the royal insignia without the presence of this prelate. A few things again are to be observed here. First, although the head of this church is called antistes and praesul

by Bonfinius, who not rarely changes the signification of ecclesiastical words, yet he is not a bishop, but is called provost, as Bonfinius himself also testifies, and as is certain from elsewhere. The aforesaid Pazmany, in Peterfy, part 2, page 276, reckons this in the first place among the secular provostships in these words: The secular provostship of St. Mary the Virgin at Alba Regalis; in the diocese of Vesprim, founded by St. Stephen the king. Secondly, that the provostship was subject to the Roman Pontiff alone, not to the bishop of Vesprim, although the city of Alba Regalis is in his diocese, on the testimony of Bonfinius, and of Carthuitius num. 16 and [ ]

[283] it is uncertain whether he also built the city of Alba Regalis. Further, Bonfinius and Turoczius write that the city itself too was founded by St. Stephen. The former on page 134 has thus: Arpad among the rest obtained the principate, the inhabitants being routed; and, the Danube having been crossed, on the mountain whose name is Noah he pitched camp, not far from Alba, which the holy Stephen, king of the Ungari and by Hercules most holy, and born of Arpad's stock, not unmindful of his nation which under good auspices had settled in this place, built. Turoczius agrees in chapter 4 in this manner: Arpad with the other Hungarians fixed camp on the mount of Noah near Alba: and that is the first place which Arpad chose for himself in Pannonia: whence also the city of Alba was founded near there by the holy king Stephen, who was descended from him. Ranzanus at index 1, page 205, briefly describes Alba Regalis, and relates that a most noble church was founded there by Stephen; but asserts nothing about the city itself. Wherefore, since Carthuitius too and the older records are silent, I would neither dare to affirm the matter, nor altogether deny it, since I find nothing about a greater antiquity of the city, and nothing stands in the way of the holy King's having been the first to build it.

§ XXVI. The mercy and liberality of the Saint toward the poor: his dealings with SS. Gunther and Gerard, and the monastery of Beel founded.

[ ] Notable care of the poor, and an insult on this occasion most piously borne: Of the King's notable mercy something has already been said from Ranzanus at num. 279. But Carthuitius has more at num. 19 and 20, which brilliantly declare a plainly exceptional liberality and no ordinary care of the poor. Bonfinius on page 180 sets forth the same in these words: Whence what he was toward all, and above all toward the poor and afflicted, can easily be conjectured. He furnished daily expenses to the needy and to beggars. He passed many sleepless nights, that he might dispense secret alms to the wretched, and free the faithful of Christ from misery by his beneficence. But they relate this as most worthy of admiration: for on a certain night, stirred by a heavenly impulse, he went out secretly from the palace without a companion, carrying bulging purses of coins, which he might distribute to the most wretched little people of Christ. And when he had come thither, and was giving alms man by man, a riot presently arose among the wanton askers, and the King's beard was pulled by way of insult by very many of the more greedy, and torn out in no small part: and he, by no means inflamed at this, nay stirred by a certain solid joy, hastened to the church of the Mother, and presently, falling to the ground before the altar, gave great thanks to the holy Lady: Queen of heaven (he said), and great Parent of the Divine ones, sole patroness of the Hungarian nation, I give thee immortal thanks that me, whom thou hast willed to be king, thy soldiers have treated and honoured in this manner: if I had received these injuries from enemies, I would avenge them with thy aid. Accordingly I take from this the auspices of future happiness, and I know that the words of thy Son will not be void, when he promised to his Apostles that not even the least hair of their head should perish. By no means did that mishap interrupt the office of piety, nay he used thereafter a more abounding beneficence: and since he could not himself suffice, he added household servants, monks, priests, and certain secret dispensers.

[285] Of which matter indeed Gunther, the Bohemian hermit, is a most weighty witness, Gunther the hermit comes to the King, and afterwards Gerard: who, drawn by the prince's liberality, often came into Hungary, and by his admonition a monastery was built by the king in the region which they now call Beel and amply endowed, where Gerard the monk, a man indeed most religious, is reported to have led the contemplative life: whom they relate to have been raised to the pontificate after the King's death, but, the Christian faith wavering in Pannonia, they affirm that he was overwhelmed with stones and reckoned among the Divine ones. What is here said of Gunther the hermit and of Gerard the Venetian, Carthuitius too has at num. 21, except however the error of Bonfinius, who wrongly asserts that Gerard was created bishop after Stephen's death: for we shall presently see that he was promoted to the bishopric by Stephen himself. At about what time Gunther began now and then to visit the King, we can in some measure conjecture from the time of his conversion, which the Saxon Annalist records at the year 1006 in these words: Gunther, a noble and powerful man of Thuringia, by the counsel of Godehard the abbot renouncing all that he possessed, was made a monk at Altaich. The same again at the year 1008: Gunther the monk of Altaich, approved in the monastery by his holy manner of life, was made a hermit.

[286] [the former having first been made a monk in the monastery of Altaich, then a hermit] The monastery of Altaich, where Gunther was made a monk, is situated in Bavaria on the bank of the Danube which looks toward Bohemia, not far from the town of Deggendorf, and is called Lower Altaich, commonly Nider Altaich, to distinguish it from the other, which is situated near Straubing. So much for the place where Gunther was a monk. But of the place in which he afterwards lived as a hermit, Wolfer, a contemporary writer, in the Life of Gunther, in Mabillon, century 6, part 1, page 482, has thus: But the servant of God, seeking rather to suffer the evils of the world than its praises, … sought with some who clung to him from Altaich the retirement of a desert place in a certain Bohemian forest, by the permission of his abbot the lord Godehard, and there built a little cell in honour of St. John the Baptist, and called that place by its proper name Rinchnach, in which for thirty-seven years he lived in the zeal of holy religion, and in the utmost strictness of voluntary poverty, with those who remained with him.

[287] he lived in two different places, The place Rinchnach is in present-day Bavaria toward the borders of Bohemia, as is noted in various geographical maps. Of it Mabillon notes on page 479: The monastery of Rinchnach, founded by Gunther, was always subject to the monastery of Altaich, and is distant from it three miles, as Stengelius asserts in the German Monasteriologium. Many things were given to this monastery by the emperor Henry, whose diploma Mabillon recites on page 480: and from it it is understood that the place was within the limits of Bavaria, even such as they were at that time. Not rightly, therefore, would Carthuitius say that Gunther came from the land of the Bohemians, if he had remained there to the end of his life. For this cause I judge that he afterwards withdrew further, and penetrated into Bohemia itself, as Arnold, a contemporary monk of Ratisbon, a fragment of whom Mabillon there recites on page 476, clearly says, that he remained nearly three years in that first hermitage, and adds: Then he, fearing lest the throng of people and the petty glory of the world should steal from him or diminish something of his true goods under the appearance of religion, fleeing thence withdrew into the desert which is called the Northern forest. Wolfer himself too sufficiently hints that St. Gunther did not remain in his first hermitage with the others until his death: for at num. 9 and 10 he narrates that he was found alone in a cell by Bretislav duke of Bohemia, while the latter was intent on hunting in the forest about the city which is called Prahen. That city, afterwards destroyed, gave its name to the province of Prachen, which is in Bohemia on the borders of Bavaria. These suffice for us to understand that Gunther was a hermit in Bohemia, and therefore that Carthuitius did not err in this matter. But that place may be further investigated where the deeds of Gunther himself are to be examined.

[288] and, often invited by the King, came to him; Now the first meeting of Gunther with Stephen the aforesaid Wolfer in Mabillon, page 482, narrates thus: And when he persevered in austerity of life, and by his example incited very many to the way of truth, like a lamp set upon a candlestick, his fame, sprinkled with a good odour, flowed to the ears of blessed Stephen king of the Ungari, the kinsman of that venerable man, whose mind it stirred with a great love of affection, that he might see face to face him whom frequent report proclaimed thus to advance from virtue to virtue. Whence it came about that he sent messengers to him, and with all zeal requested that he would not refuse to come to him. But the man of the Lord, not unmindful of his own conversion, answered that these things which the pious King requested were by no means lawful for him. Which the King having heard, he is inflamed with a love of greater charity, and, as before, sent messengers. But he a second time refused to come. A third time therefore he sent to him as at the first and second, and humbly requested that he would lend assent to his petition. Therefore holy Gunther, overcome at length by the King's prayers, though unwilling assented to his petition, and, the blessing of the abbot and the brethren being received, came himself to the King together with the envoys sent. And the King, having seen holy Gunther, rejoiced, and, as he loved him the more closely as a just and holy man, so he busied himself to have greater care about him.

[289] But it came to pass that, when at the hour of dinner holy Gunther had sat down likewise at the King's table, the prodigy which is said to have happened at table at that meeting: the King set before him a roasted peacock, and began earnestly to urge him to eat of the flesh. But the holy man, living under a regular manner of life and abstaining from foods of this kind, utterly refused, and asserted that he was unwilling to be defiled with unlawful foods: to whose will the King no less resisted, and laboured, not only by asking but even by commanding, that he should eat what was set before him. What could he do? He promised to obey the King's command, but kept his confidence in divine help. Wherefore it came to pass that among those dining he persisted in prayer after his wonted manner, bowed his head upon his hands, and with flowing tears implored the divine clemency that he might not be polluted with unlawful food. A wondrous and astounding thing! His prayer being completed, the servant of God raised his head from his hands, and the roasted bird, set upon the table, being restored to its former life, flew away, and the divine grace freed the man from using it. Which unheard-of miracle being seen, all gave thanks to God, and no longer resisted the holy man's will. A wondrous deed indeed, which perhaps for that reason will appear little credible to some. But I would not deny the miracle itself, since other things no less wondrous are read in trustworthy records, and it is no more difficult for God to restore life to a roasted bird than to preserve life to us. Nevertheless I doubt whether all the circumstances are rightly set forth, since I can scarcely believe that St. Stephen seriously asked, much less commanded, that Gunther should eat flesh. I should rather think that the holy

King, as he now and then did certain things in order to have thoroughly perceived the virtue of men distinguished by sanctity, acted similarly here, that Gunther might afford to those present an example of constant abstinence. It may also be that others present urged Gunther more vehemently to eat the flesh offered by the King, and that Wolfer wrongly attributed this to the King himself.

[290] Further, this writer narrated only one meeting of Gunther with Stephen, [the same afterwards came more often to the King. But Gerard, on his way to Jerusalem, in Hungary] and placed it at that time in which Gunther was living in the monastery of Altaich. But Carthuitius and Bonfinius testify that Gunther came more often to the King while he was living in the hermitage, and that at his exhortation Stephen founded the monastery of Beel, in which lived St. Gerard, afterwards bishop. The Life of this holy Gerard Mabillon gave from Surius, century 6, part 1, from page 628, but with the style changed by Surius. The same Life was printed in the year 1511 at Cracow, and I shall use this edition, because in it the style is not changed, as I gather from our manuscripts. The occasion on which St. Gerard came into Hungary was the journey to Jerusalem which he had undertaken, after he had for some years led the monastic life holily at Venice. These things being said in summary, I subjoin the words of the biographer: He came at length to the parts of Pannonia, whose rein the most Christian king Stephen then governed: whom the man of God approached humble and suppliant, and, opening the cause of his journey, was received by him with the greater delight. And when the King understood that he breathed the good odour of Christ by his manners and by the proofs of his learning, secretly dismissing the companions of his journey, he retained this man alone, unwilling, and set a guard. After the servant of the Lord found himself alone, clinging (grieving), avoiding the tumult of the people, he sought in that same region the hermitage which is commonly called Boel , where for seven years, given to fasts and to the exercises of prayer, he dwelt alone, save for Maurus the monk.

[291] is detained by Stephen, and begins to lead the eremitical life there This detention of St. Gerard teaches with how great diligence Stephen strove to detain holy men in Hungary, or to draw them thither. Yet I should not believe that Gerard was detained there plainly unwilling; but I judge that Stephen used art, and took care that the companions of his journey should depart without his knowledge, and that meanwhile he should be detained with many offices of courtesy, until he could not overtake them. But that afterwards he disclosed their departure, and persuaded him to remain in Hungary. The holy King doubtless did this that Gerard might by preaching teach the Hungarians; but he could not at once persuade this to a man devoted to contemplation and ignorant of the Hungarian tongue. And so Gerard, that meanwhile he might profit the Hungarians in another way, began there the eremitical life, and offered the King an occasion for building a monastery. Inchofer places the coming of St. Gerard in the year 1030, and records some things about it which do not altogether agree with what has been said above: Toward the end of this year, he says, there befell king Stephen also that solace in his grief (over the death of his son Emeric), that Gerard the monk, illustrious for holiness of life, came from Italy into Hungary… He came into Hungary, not sent by Pope Benedict IX, as some think, … but meaning for devotion's sake to seek Jerusalem, leave having been given by his abbot, with some companions, and especially with Maurus the monk, in this year he made his journey through Hungary. Here he fell in with Gunther, of whom we spoke above, known to him both by profession and by fame; and perhaps he found him on an occasion deliberately sought, and, being commended by him to the King as of the best repute, was not permitted to go further, but was detained for the sake of his example and preaching. Wherefore, hiding himself in the monastery of Beel in the district of Buda, which Stephen had built at Gunther's nod and endowed with revenues, for the space of seven years he gave himself to the contemplation of divine things; not alone, as some write, and known only to Maurus, but with other monks with whom that monastery was filled, Gunther especially guiding them, when he could be present.

[292] in the desert of Beel, where Stephen afterwards erects a monastery. Various things are here said, some of which need correction. First, from the seven years' dwelling in the hermitage, and from the Saint's other deeds while Stephen was alive, it is clearly gathered that Gerard came into Hungary long before the year 1030. Secondly, it is not probable that Gerard dealt with Gunther when he came into Hungary, unless perhaps Gunther had then come thither to the King. Thirdly, the monastery of Beel had not yet been built when Gerard came; but his coming offered the occasion for the monastery to be built, because he chose that place for leading the eremitical life. Fourthly, I should not think it true, what he says, that Gunther presided over the said monastery. It is uncertain too whether Maurus came from Italy with Gerard, since he could have joined himself to him in Hungary itself. But the deeds of St. Gerard may be more exactly sifted at the 24th of September, on which he is venerated. Here I examine only those things which pertain to Stephen. Thuroczius at chapter 40 says of Gerard: Who, coming into Pannonia, first leading the eremitical life at Beel, was at length transferred to the see of Chanad as bishop. Whether for the whole seven years Gerard lived alone with Maurus, or with others too after the monastery was built, I do not here determine. But that the King built a monastery in the place, or near the place, in which holy Gerard was living, I judge sufficiently certain, since in the letters of foundation too, in Peterfy page 5, it is said: In which Gerard the monk, coming from Venice, first began to dwell. The place Inchofer above assigns to the district of Buda. Peter Pazmany, already cited before, has thus of the same monastery in Peterfy, part 2, page 273: Bakon-Beel, of St. Maurice, in the diocese of Vesprim, founded by St. Stephen the king, about the year of the Lord 1030. The King himself in the letters just mentioned speaks thus: Therefore among other things in that place which is called Beel in the forest of Bakony, because it seemed very fit to be consecrated to divine worship, I began to build a monastery under the title of blessed Maurice the martyr of Christ, which also by God's help I completed: and I enriched it with royal munificence, as far as I could, &c. The letters are marked as given in the year 1037; but the foundation is far earlier; and perhaps rightly placed about the year 1030, if it is not to be placed earlier: for, since the letters were written rather to give a privilege to the abbey than to establish the foundation itself, from their epoch the time of the abbey's foundation cannot be gathered. Now, disregarding somewhat the order of time, which cannot be exactly kept in the deeds of St. Stephen, I shall pass to the other things which the Saint did with Gerard.

* perhaps mœrens

* Beel

§ XXVII. Other deeds of the Saint with Gerard, whom he promotes to the newly erected bishopric of Morisena, now Chanad: a monastery founded in the territory of Ravenna.

[ ] It is doubtful whether Gerard presided over the monastery of Beel as abbot: Neither in the Life of St. Stephen nor in the Acts of St. Gerard is it expressed whether this Saint before his bishopric ruled the monastery of Beel; although this otherwise appears probable enough, since Stephen frequently promoted men approved in the government of monks to the headship of sees. Gerard is indeed said to have been called from the hermitage, as we shall presently hear, but that expression does not stand in the way of a suspicion about the government of the monastery, since below in the same Life it is read: Although he governed the episcopal dignity with the greatest prudence, yet he did not desert the hermitage: but near the cities to which he came to preach he had built himself a little cell in a more secret place of the woods, in which he is recorded to have passed the night bound, and to have endured many sufferings which are known to God alone. And so, if Gerard in some way dwelt in the hermitage while he exercised Apostolic works, he could doubtless the more join it with the government of a monastery. This however, as needing more sifting, I remit to the 24th day of September, on which this holy bishop and martyr is venerated. But now from the words alleged, and still more from those to be alleged, it seems to be gathered that Gerard at first was an Apostolic bishop, and preached in the Eastern part of Hungary about the borders of Transylvania, until the bishopric of Chanad was erected, which he first held.

[294] [but, called from the hermitage to the bishopric by the King, he with him erects the church of Morisena,] Hear the aforesaid Life of St. Gerard: Meanwhile the aforesaid king Stephen, like a most mighty Joshua, destroyed the impiety of the nations, and overcame the cruel manners of the pagans, and prepared the hearts of very many for receiving the seeds of the holy faith. But the King, seeing his kingdom to have attained the tranquillity of peace, recalled the servant of the Lord from the hermitage, and, adorning him with the pontifical mitre, destined him to preach to his people. On whom heavenly mercy conferred so great grace that all the inhabitants of that place loved him uniquely, and honoured him as a father, and now he was held the father of many, like the patriarch Abraham. And, the number of the faithful increasing, he built churches to God in each of the cities. But the principal church he founded in honour of St. George, the most precious martyr of Christ, on the bank of the river Morisius; whence also he called it the see of Morisena *, which blessed king Stephen nobly enriched with dowry gifts. We have here the erection of the see of Chanad, which from the river Morisius was at first called the bishopric of Morisena, and hence Gerard himself is called bishop of Morisena. Further, since the writer of this Life testifies that the name of the see flowed from the river, I do not see why Mabillon in his notes on the same Life doubted about that matter: The episcopal see, he says, was formerly called Morissena, either from the river which gives its name to the region, or from the city Morsenes, which is situated between Chanad and Cibinium. But the city Morsenes is situated in Transylvania, and does not lie near the river Morisius, so that it is in no way probable that the see was erected in that city. Further, the river Morisius, otherwise Marisus in Strabo, and Marus in Tacitus, called Maros by the Hungarians and Merisch by the Germans, flows from Transylvania into Hungary, where, running through the county of Chanad and washing Chanad, it mingles with the Theiss.

[295] which was afterwards called of Chanad: Although further I do not doubt that that church of St. George at Chanad was built by St. Gerard, St. Stephen supplying the means, yet a doubt arises from elsewhere whether this very one was the cathedral church, as the writer of the Life seems to say. For Peter Pazmany, enumerating the monasteries of the Order of St. Benedict, in Peterfy, part 2, page 273, reckons among them the abbey Of Chanad, of St. George the martyr, which, he says, was founded under St. Stephen the king by St. Gerard, the first bishop of Chanad. But these things seem to be understood of the church of which we are treating. And so I leave it to the Hungarians themselves to inquire whether that church was cathedral, or rather monastic, and St. Gerard meanwhile chiefly used it, until the see was fixed in a certain place: for from the very name of the bishopric, which was called of Morisena while Gerard was alive, it becomes very probable that the city of Chanad was later chosen for the fixed seat of the bishopric. For the rest, Chanad,

or Chonadium, commonly Chonad, which some prefer to call in Latin Genadium, is the capital of the county of the same name, which has on the East Transylvania, on the South the county of Temesvár, on the West the river Theiss, on the North the county of Orod. But from the arrangement of the bishoprics of Hungary I suspect that this one extended through the counties of Temesvár, Chanad, and perhaps Orod, that is, from the river Theiss to the borders of Transylvania and Wallachia, and from the Danube northward to the neighbouring bishopric of Varadinum. But I nowhere find its determined limits; nor do I record them as assigned for any other cause from conjecture, save that the reader may perceive that the Christian religion at that time was propagated even to the furthest places of the Hungarian kingdom. Of the time at which Gerard was promoted to the bishopric nothing certain can be established; but from the Life it is sufficiently gathered that it was done many years before the death of Stephen.

[296] Further, the said Gerard is related to have been the adviser to St. Stephen [with the same Gerard the King advances piety toward the blessed Virgin among the Hungarians.] that he should advance among the Hungarians piety toward the most blessed Virgin and Mother of God Mary, and he himself advanced it by his own efforts as much as he could. Take the words of the biographer, who after the account of the church built presently subjoins the following: In which church he (Gerard) erected a venerable altar to the honour of the Mother of the Lord Saviour; before which he fixed a silver censer, for whose ministry he employed two men of advanced age, who should continually watch there, so that not for one hour should the odour of incense be lacking: on each Sabbath too he there fulfilled the office of his devotion with nine lessons, as on the day of the Assumption of the Mother of the Lord, and with great proclamations of praise: he gave still more effort to mercy. And on other days, Matins and Vespers being finished, he was wont to come thither twice with a procession: which custom still endures. Further, he knew how to submit himself to the praises of the holy Mother of God with so great a homage of humility: for when any guilty man, secretly instructed by the holy man's household, entreated pardon by the name of Christ's Mother, at hearing the name of the Mother of mercy the holy father was at once bathed in tears, and, as though he himself were the guilty one, asked pardon of the guilty. He affirmed too that that man would be his son, if he rightly believed her to be the Mother of God. By his judgment the name of the Mother of Christ is not heard from the Hungarian race: only "Lady" resounds: but if it is heard, at once with bent knees and heads lowered to the ground they bow themselves. For Pannonia too was called by its holy king Stephen the household of holy Mary. O praiseworthy prudence of men, who by attending to this Star of the sea directed the course of their life, so that by regard to that example they might, rowing among the waves of this world, avoid the desires of pleasures as a Scyllaean whirlpool, and reach the port of eternal salvation. Then, not a few other things being interposed, the same author again speaks thus of Stephen, to our purpose: After blessed king Stephen had converted all Pannonia to the true light of Christ, he entitled it under the patronage of the holy Mother of God and ever Virgin Mary; and he himself on the day of the Assumption of the Mother of the Lord, loosing the microcosm *, was taken up to eternal rest. Thus far of the Saint's exceptional piety toward the Mother of God, which even now laudably endures among the Hungarians.

[297] Hieronymus Rubeus in the History of Ravenna, book 5, page 260, at the year 963 has thus: In the territory of Ravenna about these times a church and house of St. Peter ad Vincula are built by the lord Stephen king of the Ungari; [Founded in favour of those going on pilgrimage to Rome, in the territory of Ravenna] it is consecrated by Gerard bishop of Morisena, and a little after a martyr. The holy King added a revenue by which not only the monks there established by him might be fed, but sustenance also be supplied to all Hungarians setting out for Rome for religion's sake. And, the diploma of foundation having been recited, he subjoins these things: For great was the number of the Ungari … who came yearly to Rome to visit and kiss the thresholds of the Apostles. And this was preserved as a religious custom down to the age of our grandfathers, who saw them too passing in great numbers through Ravenna, and venerating with the utmost devotion the relics of holy men and the sacred buildings of Ravenna. Further, Rubeus indeed strays much from right chronology, when he will have this monastery founded about the year 963 by St. Stephen, who was not yet born; but of the matter itself he leaves no doubt, since he subjoins the holy King's diploma itself, conceived in these words: Stephen by the grace of God king of Hungary, to the venerable men, the abbots and convent of the monastery of St. Peter ad Vincula, which is situated in the territory of Ravenna, and to their successors for ever. Since, by the illumination of that Lord who enlightens every man coming into this world, we have caused your aforesaid monastery to be built by our help, at the counsel of Gerard, the venerable bishop of the church of Morisena, our faithful servant, together with the noble man Roman duke of Ravenna, and to be consecrated by the proper hands of the aforesaid Gerard and by the authority of the Roman Church: therefore it becomes us to honour it with royal munificence, and to provide for you and your successors, that thereby you may be able to serve in that monastery, and may be able charitably to treat Hungarian pilgrims and our envoys.

[298] the monastery of St. Peter ad Vincula, Wherefore of our own motion, and by royal liberality, we grant and give to you and to your successors for ever, for our soul and for those of our parents, both preceding and following, that God and blessed Peter the Apostle of the Lord may loose us from every bond of sins, twenty-five marks of pure silver from our chamber: which you are to receive by yourselves or by your envoy, on account of the fitting expenses which will always be given yearly to you or to your envoy from our same royal chamber for making such a journey, together with the aforesaid twenty-five, this year as our alms, which we make to you and will to be made for ever, for repairing the church when it shall be necessary: let the remainder be for your clothing. And we and our successors shall always be commended to your prayers: this too we establish by royal authority, and firmly command and pronounce, that neither we in any way go against the aforesaid, nor our successors, and let no chamberlain or counsellor dare to concede this.

[299] about which some things are observed. The year is not added to the diploma; and therefore neither can the time of the foundation be exactly determined. Yet from the bishopric of Gerard we can easily conjecture that this foundation must be placed in the later years of St. Stephen's life, and probably between the year 1030 and 1038. This foundation from Rubeus John Tomcus also narrated in the Work whose title is The Royal Fruitfulness of Illyrian Sanctity, in St. Stephen, page 225, where he testifies that he was informed of that matter by the Most Eminent Cardinal Francesco Barberini, to whom the abbey was then commended. Mabillon in the Annals, tome 4, page 144, relates the foundation of the same monastery, and subjoins about it: In process of time this monastery was given to the Camaldolese, of which now only the ruins remain. Someone might here ask who is that Roman duke of Ravenna mentioned in the letters of Stephen? I confess that this is unknown to me; but the diploma itself cannot for this cause be rendered suspect, since several at that time enjoyed the title of dukes of Ravenna, as Muratori observed, tome 4 of the Antiquities of Italy, on a certain diploma of donation given at Ravenna in the year 896, where various dukes and duchies are mentioned, which when he had reviewed he thus gathers: All which show that in the exarchate, and chiefly at Ravenna, several dukes flourished at one time… Nay, from the comparison of records it seems it may be deduced that a title of this kind was formerly hereditary in some most noble family of Ravenna, which, as I have understood from two parchments of the archive of Este, at last failed about the year 1180, John the duke having been taken from among the living without offspring, &c. These things briefly, lest anyone hold the diploma suspect on account of the Roman duke there mentioned.

* Morisenam

* i.e. the body

§ XXVIII. The King's benevolence toward pilgrims: a monastery built at Jerusalem: likewise a church at Constantinople; and a college of canons at Rome: whether he too went on pilgrimage to the holy places?

[ ] The King's exceptional kindness toward those going on pilgrimage to Jerusalem: Rodulphus Glaber, monk of Cluny, in book 3 of his Histories, chapter 1, having briefly recorded the conversion of the Hungarians and the nuptials of St. Stephen, writes thus of the kindness and liberality of the holy King toward those going on pilgrimage to Jerusalem: At that time almost all who from Italy and Gaul desired to go to the Lord's sepulchre at Jerusalem began to leave the accustomed route, which was by the strait of the sea, and to make their passage through the country of this region. And he (Stephen) established a most safe way for all: he received as brethren all whom he saw, and gave them immense gifts. For which cause an innumerable multitude, both of nobles and of the common people, being stirred, went away to Jerusalem. Ademar the monk, likewise contemporary, as he is published in Labbe, tome 2 of the Bibliotheca, page 182, agrees with the aforesaid, writing these things: At that time (about the year 1027) William count of Angoulême made his journey through Bavaria to the Lord's sepulchre. There accompanied him Odo of Bourges prince of Déols, Richard abbot of Verdun, Richard abbot of St. Eparchius of Angoulême and his prince and his counsellor Giraldus Fanesinus, and Amalfredus afterwards abbot, and a great throng of nobles. Stephen king of Hungary received him with all honour, and enriched him with gifts.

[301] This exceptional liberality of the holy King toward those going on pilgrimage to Jerusalem, which likewise shines forth in what has been said above about St. Gerard, can confirm, or at any rate elucidate, the three foundations which Carthuitius relates were made for the convenience of pilgrims at num. 18: three foundations for the convenience of pilgrims, and about which Bonfinius on page 180 writes the following: Likewise, lest he should be forsaken by any ingratitude by the divine beneficence which he had found most indulgent toward himself, he founded at Jerusalem a notable monastery of monks, who at the most holy monument of our Saviour should daily perform the Sacred rites for the public welfare: and he endowed it abundantly with estates. At Rome too he dedicated a church to Stephen the protomartyr with a college of twelve priests: likewise he added a hospice where the Ungari who should visit the church of Peter and Paul could conveniently and freely be received, and to both he assigned villages and most abundant revenues, lest they should suffer from any lack of things. At Constantinople too he set up a by no means ignoble church, endowed with equal liberality. He left many monuments of his piety and clemency: whence what he was toward all, and above all toward the poor and afflicted, can easily be conjectured.

[302] which Schwartz attacks without any fit foundation. There is absolutely no reason why we should take credit from these foundations. Yet the oft-mentioned Schwartz on page 58 strives to traduce these facts as incredible, and exclaims: Could deeds so memorable remain thus unknown to all contemporaries, and buried in oblivion? This is no argument, and yet on it alone that heterodox writer relies: for other

deeds of St. Stephen, and indeed more memorable ones, such as the erection of so many abbeys and bishoprics in Hungary itself, are wrapped in almost the same silence; nor recorded by any writer before Carthuitius, save in three words and in general terms by Ditmar. Nevertheless it is certain and indubitable that all Hungary was filled with bishoprics, monasteries, and churches by Stephen. The reason for that silence I have already given before, namely that the Hungarians themselves did not write the deeds of their King, and that German, French, Italian, and other writers touched upon the deeds of the Hungarians only lightly. No fit reason therefore can be given why for these facts the authority of Carthuitius should not suffice, who is later than they by not even a whole century; since no writer known before him had it in his purpose to relate the aforesaid foundations; and since the things themselves become very probable from elsewhere.

[303] [The persecution of Hakem, by which the churches in Syria and Egypt were destroyed,] Glaber in book 3, chapter 7, writes these things: At that time too, that is, in the ninth year after the aforesaid thousandth, the church which at Jerusalem contained the sepulchre of our Lord and Saviour was utterly overthrown by the command of the prince of Babylon … Then too they likewise overthrew the church of the blessed martyr George at Ramla, &c. The same and other like things Ademar, cited before, relates on page 175. But the prince by whose command these things were done was the caliph Hakem, whom Syria as well as Egypt obeyed. The cause of the persecution Glaber and Ademar attribute to the guile of the Jews, and teach that the church of the holy sepulchre was afterwards restored. But this whole persecution Eusebius Renaudot relates more exactly in the History of the patriarchs of Alexandria, where on page 391 he has thus: At the same time Hakem ordered a decree to be issued that at Jerusalem the church of Calvary should be destroyed… It was commanded moreover that all churches should be destroyed, and their goods assigned to the treasury; that gold, silver, and furniture should be carried to Misr. It was forbidden for Christians to migrate from one place to another: they were not permitted to sell or to buy the necessaries of life: bishops were everywhere arrested. After many other things about this persecution he again writes thus on page 395: But this befell the Christians as the gravest of all, that Hakem by his edict forbade the public assemblies for the liturgy and the supplications which were made on Palm Sunday, at the Epiphany, and on other solemnities; and then that he ordered all churches, not only in Egypt but also in Syria, to be overthrown. Makrizi testifies that the number of those which were destroyed from the year of the Hegira 403 to the year 405, that is, from the year of Jesus Christ 1012 to 1014, was thirty thousand and more. And all the sacred vessels, crosses, censers, hangings, and other garments belonging to the furniture of the churches, timber, brass, iron, revenues, possessions, he either assigned to the treasury, or left to the Muslims to plunder.

[304] How long that persecution lasted the same writer explains on page 393 in these words: and the peace that followed, by which the Westerns being stirred, For nine years the Christians were in the utmost calamity, which in the last three years was altogether greater still. And, having related the occasion on which the persecution ceased, he again says on page 394: The churches had been destroyed in the year of the Martyrs 727, they were restored in the year 737, that is, of Christ 1021. Then, as the same testifies in the same place, Hakem produced a seal or imperial letters by which not only was it permitted to restore the destroyed churches, but there was also a command that the timber, stones, columns, and finally all things which had been taken away thence should be restored: the fields too and gardens attached to the churches were restored throughout all Egypt and the other provinces established under Hakem's rule. Thus Renaudot from Eastern records, asserting on page 399 that Hakem's edict about restoring the churches was not repealed after his death, and that the peace of the Christians lasted at least to the year 1051. Now that recorded calamity of the Eastern Christians, and the peace that followed, offered the Westerns an occasion for showing their charity and liberality.

[305] Hear Glaber, book 3, chapter 7, at the end, where, having related the destruction and restoration of the church of Jerusalem, they bore gifts to Jerusalem for restoring the holy places, he subjoins these things: Then too from all the world an incredible multitude of men, going exultantly to Jerusalem, brought very many gifts for the restoring of God's house. Who then would not see that nothing wonderful was narrated by Carthuitius, when he said that a monastery was built at Jerusalem by an apostolic and most liberal King at that time when an incredible multitude of men was running thither to bring a contribution for repairing the holy places which barbarian fury had destroyed? Nay, it would rather seem a wonder if Stephen, who gave immense gifts, as we have seen before, to those going on pilgrimage to Jerusalem, had suffered his liberality to be missed in repairing the holy places there. Hear the same Glaber speaking of these again in book 4, chapter 6: About the same time (about the year 1034) from all the world so innumerable a multitude began to flow together to the sepulchre of the Saviour at Jerusalem as no man before could have expected. First indeed the order of the lower people: then the middling; after these the very greatest, kings and counts and prelates. But at last, what had never happened, many noble women with poorer ones went thither… Then too among the rest Robert duke of the Normans, setting out for Jerusalem with a vast multitude of his nation, carried with him very many gifts of gold and silver, for the sake of distributing them.

[306] These and other things about them Glaber, then living; nor is it to be doubted that the wondrous liberality of St. Stephen much advanced that piety, could offer occasion for building a monastery at Jerusalem: because he received those passing through Hungary as brethren, and gave them immense gifts. But if Robert duke of Normandy, who died at Nicaea on his return, himself carried his treasures to Jerusalem, will it seem a wonder if the holy King, who in the number of pious foundations seems to have surpassed all princes, is read to have founded one monastery there, which could both serve for the convenience of pilgrims, and certainly for the solace of the Christians of Palestine? The same reasons also make it that we can easily believe Carthuitius when he asserts that a church was erected by Stephen in the city of Constantinople. For, as he built a monastery at Ravenna for the convenience of those going on pilgrimage to Rome, so this church of Constantinople could be built for the use of those going on pilgrimage to Jerusalem; although I shall presently allege another reason for the Constantinopolitan foundation, where I shall treat of it.

[307] yet it does not seem to have been built about the year 1010, Inchofer in his Annals refers the Jerusalem foundation to the year 1010, and writes the following about it: Among these (who carried gifts to Jerusalem) not the least was Stephen, who not only sent royal gifts to the sacred temple, but, striving to increase the religion of the faithful, put into effect what he had resolved in the previous year. And so he founded there at magnificent cost a notable monastery of monks, with a church added… The church is sacred to George the great martyr, whether that he might renew the memorial of the same martyr at Ramla overthrown by the Saracens, or that he might restore that same church to its former splendour. There were added moreover houses and hospices for pilgrims of the Hungarian nation, whose care was with the said monks; who, whether they were Carmelites or Basilians, is an open question: some plausibly affirm one or the other. I read too that revenues were not sent to them from Hungary, but were provided by estates and vineyards bought in that very territory of Jerusalem, whence a supply of daily sustenance might be at hand: which for me indeed, in that vicissitude of affairs, is hard to believe. He cites in the margin manuscripts for estates and vineyards bought near the monastery itself; but he prefers to believe that they were bought in Hungary. But the distance of the places makes me believe this the more difficult; nor does anything stand in the way of our believing that they were bought in Palestine.

[308] but after 1022, and for men rather than for nuns. Further, the year assigned by Inchofer from mere conjecture, I suppose, is less probable, since Stephen at that time seems to have been more intent on founding churches in his own kingdom, and especially because about that time the persecution of Hakem began: at whose ending I judge that monastery was founded by Stephen, that is, between the year 1022 and 1038, in which the Saint died. In the Melk Ms., of which I spoke at num. 17, it is thus read on this matter: At Jerusalem also, in the monastery which he had built, he appointed a community of nuns, for whom by a like disposition he provided the necessaries. That about nuns does not agree with Carthuitius, who calls it a monastery of monks, unless it was a double monastery, in which monks and nuns lived in separate buildings; or unless he took care to have two different ones built. But these things I would no more dare to affirm than what Inchofer asserts, that that monastery was destroyed in the year 1018 and restored again after thirty-seven years: for, as I have already said, it does not seem to have been built before the year 1022, whether it was of monks, as Carthuitius will have it, and therefore I rather believe; or of nuns, as the anonymous has it; or whether it was even double, none of which do I affirm as certain.

[309] The Constantinopolitan foundation, briefly asserted by Carthuitius and Bonfinius, Very probable too is the Constantinopolitan foundation, Inchofer sets forth more fully at the year 1007 in this manner: Another church, of wonderful workmanship, Stephen founded in this same year in the royal city and second Rome, Constantinople, and established it with all necessary things; Basil the emperor especially approving it, who eagerly courted Stephen's friendship, and, glorious with recent victories over the Bulgarians, emulated his religion, so that for paying vows to the Mother of God he went as far as Athens, and adorned the sacred building with many precious gifts. Nor did it make a little toward the winning of that friendship that at this time, as Peter bishop of Antioch relates in a letter to Michael Cerularius written forty-seven years afterwards, the church of Constantinople was joined in communion with the Roman; so that not undeservedly he greatly desired that a King whom Basil had learned to be most devoted to the Roman Church should be a friend to him also. Further, in that church, sacred to the Prince of the Apostles, the Hungarian nation ministered by the Latin rite, a fixed number of priests and clerics being determined; whom, at the King's nod, others supplied, as often as it befell others to die or to return to their own country. Stephen's chief aim in that matter was indeed the propagation of divine worship; but he also longed to make Hungary illustrious by his own people learned in Greek letters, no otherwise than by those in Latin who studied at Rome. How many illustrious men came from these will have to be treated in a special place, that we may claim for the Hungarians their own citizens, who by the art of certain boasters have been drawn off to strangers.

[310] The year assigned to the foundation I again cannot approve, on account of Stephen's friendship with the emperors; since I can scarcely doubt that the thing happened not a few years later. But what is asserted about the friendship of the Greek emperor with Stephen is very probable, since no discord is anywhere read to have come between Stephen and the Greeks, and since we read elsewhere an indication of that friendship. Certainly Dlugossus, in the Polish History,

book 2, col. 149, narrates that by Emeric, the son of St. Stephen, there was given to the church of the Holy Cross in Poland, which he asserts was built with a monastery at his prayers, a forked cross containing a notable portion of the Lord's wood, covered with a little silver, sent from Constantinople as a great gift by the emperor of the Greeks to his father Stephen king of the Hungarians, which the man of God (Emeric) had been wont to wear on his breast by his Father's bounty. Inchofer refers the donation to the same year 1007, and says that this cross was sent to Stephen by the emperor Basil. Basil could indeed do this, since he reigned long before Stephen, and died in the year 1025; but the same could have been done by Constantine, Basil's brother and colleague, who survived him to the year 1028, or by his successor Romanus Argyrus: for it is not to be doubted that all of them cultivated St. Stephen's friendship. Finally, that during the whole time of Stephen's reign there was concord between the Roman and the Constantinopolitan Church is most true, and this is sufficiently gathered from what is said by us before tome 1 of August in the Chronological History of the patriarchs of Constantinople from page 122 to 124; and could be proved by more, if it were necessary.

[311] The aforesaid Inchofer at the same year 1007 also discusses the Roman foundation, The twofold Roman foundation, known even now, likewise to be placed later, as I think. When he had said that the Hungarian pilgrims were kindly received by the Romans, he adds the following: And when the holy King had understood this, he did not suffer his own piety to be missed; and, that the pilgrims of his nation might stay more conveniently in the City and have leisure for their religion, he built for them houses and hospices near the church of the Prince of the Apostles, with an oratory added, which afterwards was called of St. Stephen of the Hungarians, and of St. Stephen the Less; whose memory nevertheless, on account of the structure crumbling with age, had gradually been abolished, had it not, about the year one thousand four hundred and ninety-seven, affairs flourishing again under king Matthias, been restored by the labour of some Hungarian pilgrims, all being repaired; although today, the prosperity of Hungary being afflicted, and on account of the less frequent concourse of Hungarians, it preserves only its site, scarcely its form and splendour. Not content with these, king Stephen, that the kingdom of Hungary might continually have men whom, instructed in letters and religion in the City, it could employ for propagating and adorning the worship of Christ; for that cause founded under the title of Stephen the protomartyr a college of twelve canons, with whom the rest might be instructed and maintained, and established it with things necessary both for sustenance and for the adornment of the church. That place is called St. Stephen in Piscina, which after some centuries, the canons and students failing for whatever cause, passed into the Parish which survives today.

[312] afterwards joined with the German College; There are those who think that king Stephen instituted that college in the place which today is called St. Stephen on the Caelian Hill, commonly Rotundo, and call the same church St. Stephen the Less, the comparison being made not with the former in Piscina, than which it is far greater, but with king Stephen, who is younger than the protomartyr. Whose name nevertheless could not be imposed except in later years, after he had been reckoned among the Saints and began to be venerated universally by the Church. But it stands in the way that that church was built long before king Stephen, namely about the year seven hundred and seventy-two, by Pope Hadrian the second *; although it is probable that it was afterwards granted to the devotion of king Stephen for founding there a college for his nation; which is contained not more by tradition than also by authority. This is more certain, that, the House of St. Stephen in Piscina being changed, the Hungarians migrated to this one on the Caelian Hill, and that to them were joined by Nicholas the fifth the Brethren of the Order of St. Paul the first hermit, fugitives when affairs in Hungary were disturbed; where down to the times of Gregory the thirteenth, for a hundred and seventeen years, they dwelt together, until he, meaning to provide for the conversion of unbelievers and heretics with new colleges everywhere, united the said college of the Hungarians to the German one, and ordained that as many students as there had before been canons should be maintained together from the same revenues; and not only so, but he decreed that among the Hungarians three Brethren of the said Order of hermits should continually be numbered. Further, that first college too flourished for many years, so long as the kingdom of Hungary flourished, not a few eminent men emerging thence, who, taken into various sees and offices in their country, excellently defended religion and their country's honour. But, as are the vicissitudes of human affairs, the kingdom gradually declining, and the canons too failing, matters fell back into the state which we have described.

[313] Bartholomew Piazza in his Italian Work whose title is Opere pie di Roma, namely the hospices of Hungarian pilgrims near the church of St. Peter, treatise 2, chapter 4, treats of the hospice of the Hungarians near St. Peter's, and believes it was erected by St. Stephen. He testifies that on the door of the church this inscription is read, page 98: Church of the hospital of St. Stephen king of the Ungari. And he asserts that this is on the wall of the adjoining house: House of the Hungarians renewed by the lord Philip de Bodrag, proctor of the most serene lord king Vladislaus, from the alms of pilgrims, Alexander VI being Pope, 1497. This same church of the Hungarians Martinelli records in his Roma sacra, page 309, in these words: Of the Hungarians in the borgo near St. Peter's, dedicated to St. Stephen king of the Hungarians, under the care of the German College. These hospices, which St. Stephen erected in favour of those going on pilgrimage to St. Peter's tomb, I judge with Inchofer and Piazza to have been different from the college of canons, from which Bonfinius after Carthuitius obscurely distinguishes them. And the said Piazza says that that hospital church, together with the church of St. Stephen on the Caelian Hill, after the kingdom of Hungary had lost its former vigour, was administered by Hungarian Religious of the Order of St. Paul the first hermit; and that both with their revenues were afterwards joined to the German College; adding these things: But lest the memory perish of the worship due to the glorious Saints, Stephen the protomartyr and Stephen king of Hungary, who deserved so well of the holy Apostolic See, the same students (of the Hungarian nation) of the German College go to the Caelian Hill on the 3rd day of August, of the Finding of St. Stephen, to perform the Office there; and on the 20th day of the same month, which is sacred to the aforesaid holy King, to his own church near St. Peter's.

[314] The same writer then goes on thus about the collegiate church erected by St. Stephen: and the college of canons, where now is the parish church in Piscina. The same most holy Prince built another church at Rome, which he made collegiate, and took care to have dedicated to the same St. Stephen the protomartyr, to whom he was most devoted. This, very probably, all ecclesiastical writers who treat of Roman matters believe to be the church now parochial, today called St. Stephen in Piscina. These statements agree with the opinion of Inchofer, who thinks that the college of canons was transferred from the House of St. Stephen in Piscina to the Caelian Hill. The Melk Ms. has thus about these things: And he chose certain of his household to go to Rome, entrusting them with very great resources, that there a church should be founded in honour of the protomartyr Stephen: which also was so done. After these things he apportioned other funds, with which houses, farms, possessions, and other such things should be acquired, which pertain to the expenses of the ministers of the Church. Thus far concerning the foundations of St. Stephen for the convenience of those visiting the holy places.

[315] Ranzanus at index 8 affirms that Stephen himself once went on pilgrimage to Rome, Some will have it that the Saint himself once went to Rome; which is uncertain. writing these things: Being in the thirty-third year of his age, he sought the city of Rome, that he might visit the sacred relics of the blessed apostles Peter and Paul and of the other martyrs of Christ, and that he might show to the supreme Pontiff the reverence and obedience by which he was rightly bound to him. Thuroczius too in chapter 31 affirms that Stephen was at Rome. Piazza, cited before, relates from the tradition of the Hungarians that he went on pilgrimage not only to Rome but also to Constantinople and Jerusalem, for which nevertheless he does not fight vehemently. But the silence of all the ancients about the pilgrimages of St. Stephen makes me not judge the Roman pilgrimage to be held as certain, and by no means believe that Stephen set out for Constantinople and Jerusalem, whom the advancement of the faith and the business of the kingdom occupied more usefully in Hungary. The Roman pilgrimage indeed would be less to be wondered at, if it were established that the cited writers learned it from ancient records: for Robert king of the Franks also set out for Rome in the time of St. Stephen: but I would not relate anything as certain without fit authority.

* rather the first

§ XXIX. Gifts sent to various persons: a monastery with a church founded in Old Buda: various works of mercy: certain less known foundations.

[ ] A precious chasuble given by Stephen to the supreme Pontiff. The munificence of St. Stephen the foundations already related brilliantly show, and very many other benefits bestowed not on Hungarians only, but also on foreigners. Yet various things of the same kind remain to be related, which it pleases me to gather here, since they cannot be attached to a determined time. Mabillon in the Annals, tome 4, page 206, records these things to our purpose: There followed (in the year 1009) the death of Pope John XIX (rather XVIII), whose surname was Phasianus… To the aforesaid John I think there was sent by Stephen king of the Hungarians and Gisla his consort a precious chasuble, which now is preserved in the church of St. Arnulf at Metz, from the gift, as is believed, of Pope Leo IX: on the hinder part of which these words are inscribed in golden letters in woven work: S. of the Ungri K. and Gisla his beloved consort send these gifts to the lord apostolic John. A quite similar pall of Gisela, brought in our age to the emperor Ferdinand among the insignia of Pannonia, Brower (Annals of Trier, tome 1, page 501) records, on whose border the name of Gisela was inscribed. This monument of St. Stephen's munificence toward the Roman Pontiffs is known from the inscription alone; but we should doubtless have more of this kind, if such things had been committed to writing. But since three Pontiffs of the same name lived while Stephen was reigning, it is uncertain to which Pope John the gift was sent.

[317] gifts sent to St. Odilo, and prayers begged, The holy King's care extended also to men illustrious for the fame of their sanctity, whom he both honoured with gifts and asked for prayers. An example is supplied by the Life of St. Odilo abbot of Cluny in our tome 1 of January, page 67, where, having related Odilo's favour with certain princes, the writer of the Life goes on thus: What too of Stephen king of the Hungarians, or Sancho king of the Western peoples? Who, although they did not see him in person, yet at the fame of his sanctity, with envoys passing to and fro and letters exchanged, bound him to themselves with benefits and abundant gifts, humbly commending themselves to his prayers and suffrages. If the distance of the places did not prevent St. Stephen from sending envoys and gifts as far as Cluny, we can by an easy conjecture gather that he no less

was solicitous about other holy men who were in nearer places, as we have already seen of Gunther.

[318] Take another specimen of the royal liberality toward those far distant from the Chronicle of Monte Cassino, a golden cross sent to Cassino, and monks asked for: in which, in book 2, chapter 78, Leo of Ostia narrates the following: About this time Stephen of holy memory, king of Hungary, who, his nation having been converted to the faith of Christ, was after his death famous for many miracles, sent to the holy father Benedict a golden cross exceedingly beautiful, entreating the abbot with many prayers not to delay to send him some of the Brethren of this place for ordering a monastery in those parts. To whom, when the abbot, by no means negligent, had sent two of the senior Brethren of this monastery, he being now dead, Salomon his son, who had succeeded him in the kingdom, received them most honourably, and, rewarding them with five excellent copes and with other not few gifts, sent them back to the abbot. From the last words we gather that these things were done toward the end of Stephen's life, and that he did not before his death lay aside the desire of founding new monasteries. But Leo erred about Stephen's successor: for Peter his sister's son succeeded him, not Salomon, who was not Stephen's son but Andrew's, and reigned long after. Now if this error could creep in upon Leo, there is no reason why we should wonder that a like one crept in upon Carthuitius in designating the duke of Poland who sought the crown: for both lived at the same time.

[319] An excellent foundation of St. Stephen, which he left unfinished by his death, a monastery with a church begun to be built magnificently the Hungarian writers narrate, Ranzanus briefly, but more fully Thuroczius and Bonfinius. Thuroczius in chapter 31 has thus: Then the holy King came into the city which is called Old Buda, together with his son the holy Emeric and the queen. And when he had found there no pious work in Christ in which the Creator of all could be praised, at once the most holy King from the treasure of the aforesaid Kean duke of the Bulgarians and Slavs, whom he had slain, began to build in the midst of the city a great monastery in honour of the apostles Peter and Paul: enriching it with many estates and supporting it with a liberty like that of the Roman Church, in memory and honour of the Roman curia, which he had visited in the body. While therefore it was being built, master stone-cutters had been brought from Greece: and the most holy King with the queen dwelt there for devotion's sake. And the queen procured crosses, tablets, and ornaments. But because that great work begun had taken many years, therefore in the lifetime of the holy king Stephen that monastery could not be completed: but by God's will after much time the most holy king Ladislaus, the nephew of the same blessed Stephen, completed that work: namely that he might fulfil the vow of his great-grandfather, as will be more fully declared below.

[320] Bonfinius on page 182 writes these things about that monastery erected: in the city which is called Old Buda. Moreover, since the Bulgarian war is related to have been waged before the death of blessed Emeric, to Old Buda — once a German legion, and in the times of Antoninus and Severus placed there to restrain the assaults of the Barbarians, which before the appellation of Buda they called Sicambria — the King and queen came with their son, where, when they beheld no temple of the true God in which they might perform pious rites, they at once resolved that a monastery with a church should be built and amply endowed, which they dedicated to holy Peter and Paul. All the craftsmen were summoned from Greece, that they might make a memorable work, statuaries and modellers being hired from every side at great pay. That the work might go on more warmly, Stephen and Gysla had settled at Buda. But while he applied himself to the work, and she to the statues, tablets, and ornaments, neither could obtain their wish. For since before their death so great a mass could not be finished, it is at length completed by Ladislaus the most holy king, his great-grandson. Thus far they. Further, Old Buda is different from the city of Buda, which afterwards was the metropolis of Hungary: but it is near to it, and situated on the Danube toward Gran, called by the Germans Alt Offen. Further, Stephen was not the great-grandfather of St. Ladislaus, who completed this work, as Thuroczius said before: but he was of the descendants of Michael, Stephen's uncle, and he was the great-grandfather of Ladislaus.

[321] The King's care of visiting Of the care of all the churches Bonfinius adds these things to the foregoing: They relate that this was a perpetual practice of holy Stephen, to be wont three times a year to revisit the churches and monasteries which he had founded: that first at all the altars he made pious prayers and performed the sacred rites, that he might seem to pay the due supplications to the great Divine Powers *: then that he went round the churches one by one, lest anything should fall into ruin through any negligence; if he observed any fault or impending ruin in the roofs and walls, he immediately repaired it: that he always carried special purses at his side, and from these with his own hand dispensed money to beggars and the needy: that Emeric too, clad in royal dress, when he went round the churches with his Father, always stripped himself before the altars, that he might adorn the altars. Gysla too used equal zeal, to whom nothing was more important than to vie with her Husband's uprightness, to examine most diligently the sacred vestments and ornaments of the priests, that she might renew what was worn out, or mend what was torn.

[322] and of adorning churches, Things agreeing with these Thuroczius has in chapter 31: But this, he says, was the greater custom of the holy king Stephen, that he should visit all the churches which he himself had founded at least three times in every year, and when he had come to those churches, he first went to all the altars, and poured out several prayers to each. Then, going out, he went round that whole church, and with sharp eyes and lingering inspected the fractures or cracks of the walls and roofs; and at once took care that they should be improved: nor did he depart from the place of that city or village unless he had first seen them renewed. Which being learned by experience, queen Keisla, when she had come to any churches in Hungary, caused all the furnishings existing in the house of the Lord to be presented to her; and renewed each year what needed renewing, both in linen and in fine cloth. And their son blessed Emeric laid down his own purple garments before the altar, for the clothing of the altars: as appears in the royal churches even to this day. But the most holy Father carried a golden purse at his loins, filled with pence of pure silver, and when he had seen the poor, he presently went thither: and provided for them with his own hands. Therefore his right hand is merciful in his body outwardly before the eyes of Hungary to this present day.

[323] to all of which he assigned sacred vestments: the foundation of two: What is here said about the King's incorrupt right hand will be confirmed at greater length in its place. But the holy King's care about sacred vestments is abundantly confirmed by his own laws: for in book 2 of the Decrees, chapter 34, the King thus establishes: Let ten villages build a church, which they shall endow with two dwellings (otherwise mansi) and as many bondmen, with a horse and a mare, six oxen, and two cows, thirty-four small beasts. But let the king provide the vestments and corporals and coverings; the bishop the priest and the books. Since the King decreed that sacred ornaments were to be procured at his own expense, we can by no means wonder that he took care to have them frequently inspected. But that the queen should do the same, and that the King himself should visit the churches built by him, is to be attributed to their exceptional piety and to their care for advancing religion. The adduced words also show that the Saint did not indeed build all the churches at his own expense; but had the care that they should be built everywhere throughout the whole kingdom, and gave sacred vestments to all. Nor is it to be doubted that the King himself founded many more than those of which knowledge has come down to us. Certainly Pazmany in Peterfy enumerates very many ancient monasteries whose founder is unknown: and I should believe that not a few of them were built by Stephen. Among the Benedictine abbeys the same author attributes one not yet mentioned to St. Stephen, on page 274, in these words: Szala, of St. Adrian the martyr, of the diocese of Vesprim, founded by St. Stephen the king. Stephen Damalevicius Varta in the Series of the archbishops of Gniezno, page 64, in St. Adalbert the martyr, has thus to our purpose: The slaying of the martyr having been heard, Stephen the first king of Pannonia founded in his honour a church in the citadel of Gran. Alberic the monk in his Chronicle at the year 1010 writes these things about the same foundation: The Hungarians say that … the King … established the greater church at Gran in honour of Adalbert.

[324] Finally, the Saint's exceptional mercy, briefly asserted above, his mercy toward all. and already before more fully recorded from other writers, can likewise be brilliantly proved from the holy King's own words. For in the Admonitions to his son Emeric, chapter 6, he presses various things to persuade his son to a signal kindness toward all guests. But it cannot be doubted that he wished his son to be such as he himself was. Let us hear then the words of the most pious King in chapter 10, where he speaks of mercy in this manner: A king ought to be pious, merciful, and imbued and adorned with the other virtues: for a king defiled with impiety and cruelty vainly claims for himself the name of king, since he must be called a tyrant. For this reason therefore, my most beloved son, sweetness of my heart, hope of my future offspring, I pray, I command, that, supported by piety in all things and in all men, thou be favourable not only to thy kindred and relations, or to princes, or dukes, or the rich, or to neighbours and inhabitants; but also to strangers, and to all who come to thee. For the work of piety leads thee to the highest blessedness. Be merciful to all suffering violence, always having that example of the Lord in thy heart: I will mercy, and not sacrifice.

* i.e. the Saints

§ XXX. The incursion of the Bessi into Transylvania, of which the King is said to have been divinely informed: a notable example of severity.

[ ] The King seems to have waged more wars than are known, or If we attentively consider the words of St. Stephen in the preface to his son Emeric, we shall not be able to doubt that he sustained more wars than were consigned to writing. For he addresses Emeric in these words: Obey me, son, thou art a boy, … and brought up in all delights, without experience of all the labour of expeditions and of the incursion of divers nations, these were more lasting: in which I have now worn away almost my whole age. The holy King here hints at wars graver and more lasting than those seem to have been which have been recorded: for all these together scarcely occupied five or six years, if they were finished with as easy a business as the words of the writers who related them suggest. It is necessary therefore that we say either that certain others were passed over, or that those very ones which are known were more lasting. Of the incursion of the Bessi Carthuitius writes briefly at num. 22, and only for this cause, I think, that he may relate that Stephen was divinely warned of the danger of his subjects. But, when he calls them the enemies of Christians, namely those who were then hostile to the Hungarians, the Bessi, he sufficiently hints that they

had rather often made incursions into the territories of the Hungarians, whether from hatred of the Christian name, or from love of booty, or for both causes. Again, what he relates at num. 25 about the coming of sixty Bessi to the King in some measure hints that the ferocity of that barbarous nation had been crushed by the Hungarians.

[326] he is divinely admonished of some irruption of the Bessi, Take what Bonfinius delivers about these things on page 180: Now, he says, let our discourse be recalled to the holy King. He so excelled in his piety toward God that experience declared that his kingdom was carried on under divine protection and auspices. On a certain night, admonished from heaven in sleep, he at once awoke and leaped from his chamber. Summoning immediately a courier, the prefect of a legion, he bids him hasten into Transylvania, the further part of Dacia, to warn the peoples dwelling in villages, and to command them to gather all their goods into towns and most fortified places; since the Bessi, who dwell on the banks of the Ister, estranged from all religion and most bitter enemies of the Hungarian nation, were threatening the borders of the kingdom. Scarcely had the courier discharged his commands, and they gathered their goods into safety, when behold the fierce barbarians arrive, range over the fields everywhere, lay waste all with fire and sword, and slay those whom they find — though very few — without any regard of sex or age. They found only some sluggards, and these paid the penalty of their sloth, and unless by this warning he had himself provided for his affairs, it would already have been all over with Transylvania. These things are taken from Carthuitius, and seem amplified a little too freely, so that some need correction, or at least all are not to be held as certain: such as those about the goods brought into towns, which could not be done so quickly; about the indiscriminate slaughter of all, about some being overwhelmed, and about the danger of all Transylvania, which are less certain and somewhat exaggerated from conjectures.

[327] and sends a messenger to the prefect of the place, The same event is narrated more fully in the Melk Ms., and probably more exactly. Wherefore I transfer that account hither: The holy Church of God being settled in peace, and rightly ordered by Roman authority, the nation of the Bisseni, far estranged from the faith, and like beasts wanting understanding through folly, undertook to destroy the borders of his country. But the King in the days before was engaged in hunting in remote parts, that at least after the many cares by which he was oppressed his weak limbs might for a little be relaxed. When therefore about the middle hour of the day he yielded to sleep, by the will of God, who shows things that are to come, manifest and known to his faithful, by the spirit of his vision, he seemed to those standing by to speak fatherly to the enemies as though present, and as it were to threaten them terrifyingly: Why with your empty band do you wish to break into the enclosures of the holy Church? Why have you come to lay waste the flock of the great Shepherd, and his folds? Depart, depart, for I have obtained from my Emperor a defender and my leader, namely Martin, who will not suffer the pastures of the just to be torn by your bites. And awaking with a lively countenance, he ordered him who should bear his messages to be present. To him standing by he said, Thou shalt not be able to fulfil the causes of my mission: but let another come, who may be found more trustworthy. And him presented he ordered to return with the same words. And a third being brought forward, Go, he says, hasten quickly to depart *, and, taking my commands, tell the tribune of the people staying in the further parts that he should provide, choose men for battle, and drive back the wedges of the enemy making war upon me.

[328] He mounted swiftly, flew to the place, who puts the enemy to flight. and declared what he had received: and the same was diligently done. Already the enemy was nearer, already he had walled in the ramparts of the city: so unlooked-for was the incursion. The tribune with his forces attacked * him. Then there was fighting on both sides: these, strengthened by God's protection, gird themselves; those, bound by their own madness, are scattered; at last they turned their backs in flight. And many of them fell, many were led into captivity. The slaughter accomplished, he who had come returns to the King, to announce it to him. The King, having heard the outcome of the war, gave thanks to the Almighty, who gave victory to his faithful over their enemies. Indeed we believe that he was visited by heavenly mercy, who, lest he should be surrounded by enemies, deserved to have a deliverer from heaven, to go before and guard him: for as God once delivered his anointed David from the face of the Philistines, his angel protecting him, so he also snatched this man from the hand of his pursuers, leading him out and bringing him back into salvation. From this account it cannot be gathered whether this incursion of the Bessi, or Bisseni, as they were otherwise called, was into Transylvania, or into other borders of the kingdom. But Bonfinius clearly affirms that the Bessi made incursion into Transylvania, Carthuitius agreeing, and that this is probable may in some measure be gathered from the places which the Bessi at that time inhabited, of which presently, when I shall have transferred hither the rest that pertains to them.

[329] Bonfinius on page 184 relates to our purpose a notable example of severity, When the Bessi hastening to the King had suffered injury on the way, which St. Stephen gave on occasion of the aforesaid Bessi, to whom he joins the Bulgarians. But of these Carthuitius does not speak, nor the author of the Melk Ms., so that what is said about the Bulgarians is to be held only as a conjecture. Take the words of Bonfinius: From the Bessi and Bulgarians, whom he had subdued in a grievous war, about sixty men, and those not ignoble, kindled by his fame, had come into Pannonia to do homage to the King. They led many carts, on which they had placed a great store of gold and silver and their other fortunes, that they might not only pay him reverence, but also insinuate themselves for ever among the royal servants. When they had reached the borders of Pannonia, very many servants of a certain most wicked tribune, drawn by desire of the gold, attack them from ambush: they slay many, leave some lifeless; and, the rest being routed and put to flight, they plunder the laden waggons, and, enriched with money, betake themselves into the woods. Those who survived from this company of the Bessi come at length to the King, and relate in order the slaughters and robberies inflicted on them, and likewise the cause of their journey. The King, having consoled the wretched men, at once and secretly orders the tribune by an officer to come to him with all his household as quickly as possible: and unless he do it immediately, he pronounces the penalty of treason. The tribune, presently informed, having gathered his household, arrives more quickly than expected. Before the King's sight he draws out the throng of his servants.

[330] he punishes the authors of the crime with a grievous penalty. When, conscious of their evil mind, they betrayed by their countenance the crimes which they had very lately perpetrated, he said: Why, despising the Divine Powers and the divine law, have you, dire brigands, contrary to right and duty stained your hands with the blood of guests? why have you raged so impiously against the human race, and against those who make a journey abroad from desire of true wisdom? why have you punished most innocent men with death? Accordingly, as it was done by you to others, so now God shall deal with you in my sight. Presently he pronounced them capital criminals. At all the approaches of the kingdom he ordered pairs of them, since they were many, to be fixed to crosses, that he might signify that the journey into Pannonia, once hospitable to all, would be free for pilgrims. Wherefore it came about that as long as he lived he knew of not even the least robbery thereafter perpetrated in Hungary. For by this example of severity he so restrained the boldness of criminals that no one laid a hand on pilgrims. And those who had been injured and despoiled he rendered not only unharmed, but most abundantly endowed and possessed of their wish. With all these Carthuitius agrees well enough, as also the Melk Ms., which here so agrees with Carthuitius that there is almost no difference save in the words alone. I do not think it necessary therefore to transfer that account hither from the Ms., since Carthuitius may be seen at num. 25, and there I shall observe in the annotations those slighter matters which stand otherwise in the Ms.

[331] Those Bessi at that time were subjects or friends of the Bulgarians, Further, of the province from which the Bessi, or Bisseni, are said to have come, in the Melk codex it stands: Having gone forth from the parts of the Bulgarians. But in Carthuitius it now reads, from the parts of the Hungarians. I think we should read of the Bulgarians, and that Bonfinius so read in Carthuitius himself, and for that cause joined the Bulgarians to the Bessi, and indeed probably enough, as we shall see. But the Bulgarians at that time held Servia subject: for in Pagi at the year 1027, num. XI, the Chronographer of Verdun says that Belgrade, otherwise called Alba Graeca, situated on the borders of Servia and Hungary, is on the frontier of the Bulgarians and Hungarians. These things joined together in some measure hint that the Bessi or Bisseni at that time came from present-day Bosnia, which by Constantine Porphyrogenitus, chapter 32 of the book On Administering the Empire, is called the district of Bosona, and was a part of Servia, which we have already said was then under the rule of the Bulgarians. With this opinion Bonfinius agrees, Decade 2, book 10, page 330, where about the Bessi, who formerly are known to have dwelt in Thrace about mount Haemus and the river Hebrus, he sets forth his mind thus: The ancient Bessi, as we said at the beginning, were peoples whom the Greeks often called Bessi. These, driven by the Bulgarians out of Lower Mysia, migrated into Upper Mysia, and inhabited the region nearest the Save, which, a letter being dropped, they called Bosnia from the Bessi. Further, that the Bessi and Bulgarians were friends, or that the Bessi with their prince were under the rule of the Bulgarians in those times, can be gathered from the same writer, Decade 2, book 3, page 209, where he narrates the war of the Bessi and Bulgarians against Salomon king of the Hungarians, and the capture by Salomon of Alba Graeca, or Belgrade.

[332] and inhabitants of present-day Bosnia, Take what he there has about their incursion: The Bessi and Bulgarians, who dwell in Lower Mysia and at the mouths of the Danube … (nay, and in Upper Mysia, and the Bessi also in a part of ancient Pannonia), the Save being crossed at Taurunum, which they now call Alba Graeca, pouring into Sirmium and Lower Pannonia, plunder all things, drive off cattle with men: and, recrossing the river, laden with plunder betake themselves into Bulgaria. These things, which were done about the year 1070, and other like things related in Bonfinius, hint that those Bessi were inhabitants of Bosnia, who from desire of booty now and then made incursions into Hungary. But since these things are said to have been done in Transylvania, it can scarcely be doubted that the Bessi, having crossed Servia which was subject to the Bulgarians, and having crossed the Danube, poured through the county of Temesvár into Transylvania, that they might overwhelm men incautious and fearing nothing of the sort, and at length, enriched with much spoil, return to their country. At about what time that irruption happened no one has expressed. It is probable that the Bessi, gaping after booty, often attempted such things; but that at last they were more quiet is gathered from the coming of those about whose injury we have treated above.

* perhaps quia

* perhaps patietur

* perhaps abire festina

* read invadit

§ XXXI. The war with the emperor Conrad, and peace obtained in a wonderful manner: the virtues of the Saint, his contemplation and ecstasy.

[ ] The emperor Conrad, the peace being broken, makes war on Stephen, Various German Writers briefly narrate the war which in the year 1030 the emperor Conrad made upon St. Stephen, and which had an end

in the following year 1031 through the peace that followed. Carthuitius at num. 23 treats of it in so few words that it sufficiently appears that he did not undertake to set forth military matters exactly, but to touch on them only so far as they offer occasion for declaring the King's exceptional sanctity, or certain wonderful events which seem to have happened by the singular providence of God protecting him. Carthuitius Bonfinius followed in those things which more nearly pertain to Stephen's sanctity and to the end wonderfully put to the war, as his words to be given below will show. The cause of the war the same writer openly attributes to Conrad, who has thus on page 182: While the most holy prince Henry lived, peace was kept far and wide by equal zeal on both sides, and all things among the Ungari were carried on according to their wish. Afterwards, when that best of emperors was reckoned among the Divine ones, Conrad … designated emperor … broke off the established peace, exceedingly salutary to both nations. After several things about Conrad, not without some errors, which for brevity's sake I have preferred to omit rather than to correct, he says that the first cause of the war was that the Hungarians had promised aid to the Italians, whom at the beginning of his reign Conrad subdued: or at any rate that Conrad believed it. But the second cause he sets forth in these words: Very many have reported that, Henry the author of concord and peace being dead, the inborn hatreds of the Germans and Ungari could no longer be restrained.

[334] Wippo, writing about this war in the Life of Conrad the Salic, teaches that dissension long flourished between the Hungarians and Bavarians, and candidly ascribes the blame to the Bavarians. after some quarrels arisen by the fault of the Bavarians, Over Bavaria presided Henry the son of Conrad and afterwards his successor in the empire; and hence it came about that the holy King had to deal with both; and Conrad afterwards wished to crush Stephen with all the forces of the empire. But already before St. Stephen had refused passage through Hungary to an envoy of Conrad. Take the words of the aforesaid Wippo in Pistorius, page 435: At the same time (in the year 1027) Werinharius bishop of the city of Strasbourg is sent by the emperor (Conrad) as envoy to Constantinople. Who, while he feigned that he was going to Jerusalem for the sake of prayer, … was wonderfully prevented. For while he led with him a great company of men, and a greater one of dumb animals — horses, oxen, sheep, swine — and many worldly luxuries beyond measure, coming into Hungary, the way was refused him by king Stephen, which at that time befell no pilgrim. These things sufficiently hint that there were quarrels between Conrad and Stephen from the year 1027, and that Conrad's envoy was suspect to Stephen. But the first cause of the dissension these do not disclose; nor do those which he writes on page 436 in this manner: At the same time (in the year 1030) many dissensions were made between the Pannonian nation and the Bavarians, yet by the fault of the Bavarians; so that Stephen king of the Ungari made many incursions and plunderings in the kingdom of the Norici, that is, of the Bavarians. Whereupon the emperor Conrad, stirred, came against the Ungari with a great army.

[335] and not because Stephen sought the duchy of Bavaria for his wife and son: Hermannus Contractus at the year 1030 briefly wrote these things: The emperor Conrad attacks Stephen king of Pannonia with an army. The same brevity is used by Lambert of Hersfeld, Marianus Scotus, Albert of Stade, and not a few other writers of Chronicles, whom it is not necessary to review: nor do I find any among the ancients who assigns the true and certain cause of the war. Wherefore I trust little John Aventinus, who in book 5 of the Bavarian Annals, page 314, writes that Stephen sought the duchy of Bavaria for his wife Gisela and his son Emeric, and, irritated by the refusal, made war on the Bavarians. Martin Hoffmann in the Annals of Bamberg, in Ludewig, tome 1 of the German Writers, col. 59, almost expresses Aventinus's mind, writing thus: In the following year (1028) Conrad held a solemn assembly of the princes at Ratisbon. To him Stephen king of Hungary, having sent envoys, demanded that the duchy of Bavaria, hereditary to his consort Gisela and to his son Emeric, be restored to him. And when Conrad denied that this could be done, a grievous discord arising between the two broke out into open war. This reason for the war, wholly unknown to the ancients, Brunner in the Bavarian Annals, part 2, book 5, deservedly explodes in these words: Aventinus, since he could find no cause for this war, invented an unskilled fable, and wrote without a witness that the kingdom of Bavaria was demanded back by Stephen for his son Emeric, which his uncle, grandfather, and great-grandfather had held, with his wonted vanity, which, although we care nothing for it, yet it is fair now and then to blow away and overturn with a light arm. We therefore shall leave the cause of the war uncertain.

[336] [Conrad invades Hungary; but the duke of Bohemia does not seem to have done so at the same time,] The progress and end of the war Hoffmann again explains with Aventinus, going on thus: When Conrad applied himself to it with all his might and zeal, in the following year (1029) he advanced with an army into Hungary, and laid waste with sword and fire all that met him, advancing plundering as far as the Raab, none resisting. That quarrel at length was broken off by the death of Emeric, and the emperor Conrad most willingly granted to king Stephen, who demanded it, the renewal of the treaty which had been with the emperor Henry his kinsman. The cause of the war's ending we shall presently see. Meanwhile another enemy also of St. Stephen, namely the duke of Bohemia, the Saxon Annalist suggests with little probability at the year 1030, writing the following: In this year Bracilaus duke of Bohemia laid the Ungari low with great slaughter, and devastated their land as far as the city of Gran. Which Bracilaus is otherwise called Brzetislaus and Praedislaus: but I would not dare to assert that these things are true, since I do not find that expedition of his against the Hungarians elsewhere. Nay rather they seem fictitious, unless perhaps they happened some years later: for Praedislaus did not obtain the duchy of Bohemia until about the year 1034, as Pagi has it at that year, num. 16. The Saxon Annalist himself too, openly contradicting himself, at the year 1032 still makes mention of Praedislaus's predecessor Udalric, whom he calls Odalric, and there sufficiently hints that he was not in the year 1030 allied with Conrad, who sent Udalric into exile when he had confessed the plots which two years before he had made against the emperor himself. That victory therefore of the Bohemians over the Hungarians I judge to be wholly fictitious, or to have arisen from an error.

[337] That not even Conrad could accomplish much against Stephen, fortified by God's protection, and Stephen fleeing to God's help, Conrad returns, Wippo sufficiently declares, when after the words given at num. 334 he goes on thus: But king Stephen, being by no means sufficient against the emperor, prayers and fasts being proclaimed throughout all his kingdom, entreated the Lord's protection only. The emperor, unable to enter a kingdom so fortified by rivers and woods, yet sufficiently avenging his injury with many plunderings and burnings about the borders of the kingdom, returned, wishing at a more opportune time to carry through what he had begun. But his son king Henry, still a little boy, entrusted to Eigelbert bishop of Freising, having received an embassy of king Stephen asking for peace, by the single counsel of the princes of the kingdom, his father not knowing, granted the favour of reconciliation; acting justly and wisely, in that he received into friendship a King unjustly injured, who of his own accord sought favour.

[338] Wippo does not express whether the peace was renewed in the same year 1030, and peace is restored, as it seems, in the following year, or in the following. The fuller Chronicle of Hermannus Contractus in Canisius refers all to the same year 1030 in these words: The emperor Conrad, enmities having long since been kindled with Stephen king of the Ungari, sought Pannonia, and, as far as he could, the rivers and marshes not hindering, devastated the Raab. By the Raab I understand the river Arrabo, called by the Germans Raab, not Jaurinum, the city situated beyond that same river, although it too is called Raab by the Germans: for Conrad was probably prevented from crossing the river. Further, it is added a little after in the same place: Peace with Stephen king of the Ungari is renewed. But since this edition of Hermannus is suspect of interpolation, and we can more trust the edition of Pistorius, where Hermannus with most other Chronographers attaches the restored peace to the year 1031, I judge this year is to be preferred, unless perhaps someone would so reconcile all as that we believe that the war was broken off and peace made with king Henry in the year 1030; but that in the following year the same concord was established through envoys sent by Stephen to Conrad, who ratified and confirmed the peace made by his son.

[339] But whatever be the case about this slight difference of time, Wippo candidly confesses that the blame for beginning the war lay with the Bavarians, and at the same time sufficiently hints that St. Stephen enjoyed a singular protection of the Divine Power against a most mighty enemy; the wondrous providence of God protecting Stephen: and so far he agrees excellently with the accounts of Carthuitius and Bonfinius. But what these write about that messenger who came into the camp of the Germans as if sent by Conrad, and who brought to the leaders orders to withdraw, neither Wippo has, nor other German writers. But it is equally wonderful, what Wippo asserts, that peace was made with Stephen by king Henry, a boy, without Conrad's knowledge: and this deed of Henry's, which can in no way be called in doubt, brings in a suspicion that either Henry himself, or some other of those who were the authors of the peace for Henry, took care that the aforesaid messenger should be sent, whether this was done after the peace had been secretly concluded, or before, from hatred of the war alone, that peace might the more easily be restored.

[340] an account of the same matter Take then the whole account of the matter from Bonfinius, who can afterwards be corrected where he shall seem to have indulged conjectures a little too freely: Stephen, he says, when he understood that Conrad was rushing into Pannonia with all the forces of Germany, judged that an assembly of all the Pontiffs and nobles must at once be held: he taught them how great a danger threatened from Germany. He held a levy far greater than ever before: the Pontiffs, priests, likewise all, sacred and profane alike, decree that arms must be taken up, that a readier means of resisting might be given. They understand that they have to do with a most powerful enemy. After, a most powerful army having been got together, he began to pitch camp, he first of all implored divine help in these brief words, although in beseeching and appeasing the Divine Powers he seemed never to cease day or night: If it please thee, Queen of heaven and patroness of the Hungarian soil, that this kingdom, bequeathed to thee by hereditary right, should be laid waste by the enemy with fire and sword, and that the faith of thy Son, very lately planted in Scythian breasts, should straightway be rooted out, let it (I pray) be attributed not to my sloth but to thy will: if anything has been done through the fault of the King, to whom thou hast committed thy people, suffer him (I beseech thee) to pay the penalties, spare the innocent, and guard thy new inheritance with thy wonted kindness. Presently, having burst into tears and been strengthened by the divine power of the holy Mother, he orders the standards to be moved against the Germans, since the pious Divine Powers never fail the faithful. A thing most worthy not so much of record as of admiration is said to have happened on the day before that on which he was to be in sight of the enemy. For a certain orderly ran through all the quarters and tents of the soldiers, who by the emperor's edict bids every German break camp and return home.

[341] from Bonfinius, who needs some correction: On the following night before daylight Conrad

found the camp broken up, and sees every man hastening home. Struck by the novelty of the thing, he inquires the cause: all with one mouth report that by the orderly's voice they had been granted discharge. The orderlies being summoned, he finds no one who had carried round the edict of discharge. Presently the ascertained sanctity of Stephen comes into Conrad's mind, for whose sake he reckoned that a heavenly messenger under the appearance of an orderly had broken up the camp, lest the people of the holy King should be assailed, lest any sedition should arise between older and younger Christians through defection. The emperor approved the edict of the divine mission, and, peace being restored, betook himself into Germany, having promised with a most solemn asseveration that he would perpetually keep his hands from the Pannonians, whom he understood to be under divine protection. But the King forthwith, when he perceived that the patronage of the holy Mother had been present to him in his labour and to his Hungary, prostrate on the ground gave thanks to the most clement Divine Power, and proclaimed that at all the altars sacred rites should everywhere be performed to the Pannonian Goddess *. So Bonfinius narrates the departure of the Germans, as if they had departed while Conrad was present in the camp. But it is more probable that this happened in his absence, not by an orderly running through the camp, but by a messenger come into the camp from elsewhere, as if he had been sent by Conrad. Whether that messenger was suborned by human deceit, or directed thither by God's providence alone, I shall leave undecided. For this cause too it is uncertain whether Conrad here acknowledged something greater than human industry, and therefore put an end to the war, although the Hungarians believed this, and not wholly undeservedly, on account of Stephen's exceptional sanctity and the singular protection of God, which the Saint experienced in other cases too. Baillet at the 2nd of September in Stephen writes that at Conrad's command the Germans withdrew so quickly that they seemed to flee. It could indeed have happened that Conrad's army suffered no small losses from skirmishes and from lack of provisions before the river Arrabo, and for that cause he did not dare to await the growing army of the Hungarians; but I would not assert without a witness what neither the Hungarians nor the Germans have handed down, nor would Baillet have affirmed it so confidently, but would only have given it as an uncertain conjecture, if he had been willing to follow the ancient records closely.

[342] After relating that war, Carthuitius at num. 24 records some things about the virtues of the holy King, the virtues and frequent prayer of the Saint, and especially about his perpetual habit of praying and contemplating. The same Bonfinius expressed on page 183 in these words: Then the more ardently, for the divine clemency's grace which he had proved, he remained in the love of God: whom they relate to have used such a rule in dividing his time, that by day he applied himself to giving judgment and to royal offices and business, and passed the nights almost without sleep, engaged in divine contemplation, entreating with continual tears for the public and private welfare, rendering the Divine Powers more favourable by pious prayers, and sometimes being carried up into divine contemplation so far that, lifted from the ground, he seemed to hang in the air: for when he had withdrawn into a certain remote church (rather, when he was far from any church, as Carthuitius has it at num. 25) for the sake of beseeching the Divine Power, tents being pitched round about, he passed the night: in the dead of which, when in his tent he was roused to contemplate, he was so far carried away in the contemplation of the Godhead that his body followed his mind lifted into the air.

[343] Nay, they relate that the tent too, lest it should interrupt his most vehement contemplation, or hinder his body from being carried into the air with his mind, was drawn up along with him, and hung long in the air. [who, while he persists in contemplation in his tent, the pavilion is lifted into the air.] When he learned that the miracle had been disclosed to a certain holy man, he presently both admonished him and threatened him that he should betray nothing of this matter while he lived. Yet the fame of the King's sanctity spread so widely abroad that from the most remote shores many plainly flowed together to venerate the Man. These and many like things which we have recorded in various places about the exceptional virtues of Stephen will not seem incredible to prudent men, who shall have attentively read through the most holy Admonitions of the same King, to be given at §33; and shall at the same time have considered how great is God's bounty toward those who with pure and sincere love seek and love him alone. Nevertheless Bonfinius, when he says above that the Saint's body was carried into the air, ill understood Carthuitius, who did not assert this, but spoke only of the pavilion suspended in the air; and therefore his account must so far necessarily be corrected.

* i.e. Patroness

§ XXXII. Whether he gave a wife to his son Emeric? Whether he thought of abdicating the kingdom to him? the death of holy Emeric: whether the disease from which the King suffered for three years was contracted from his son's death?

[ ] Writers relate that Stephen gave a wife to his son Emeric, Although it is not probable, nor can be proved by any authority, that peace between Stephen and Conrad was concluded through the death of Emeric, who alone of his sons survived to St. Stephen, yet the death of that prince seems to have followed not long after. In this place, therefore, all the remaining matters about Emeric must be settled which at the same time pertain to his father Stephen: for his other deeds will be sifted in their place. The Life of Emeric cited before has to our purpose these words: When by his father's disposition a noble virgin, as one sprung of royal stock, had been betrothed to blessed Emeric, &c. The Life adds that Emeric preserved virginity with his bride, and had made a vow of chastity. This Life, I suppose, Bonfinius followed, who narrates the same about Emeric, and, having related the vow of virginity which he had revealed to no one, writes thus of his marriage on page 178: After these things the Father, that he might provide for the public welfare with a successor, judged that Emeric, being by no means too young for begetting children, must be bound in a worthy marriage, thinking that none would be more suitable for the kingdom if he lived: but if not, that a most holy offspring might thence be hoped for, and most fit for ruling the Ungari. Wherefore a virgin most excellent in beauty and virtue, and born of royal stock, the Father betroths to him, and teaches him that at some time effort must be given to children, lest a lawful and at the same time excellent successor be lacking to the kingdom of Pannonia. Although he could not easily bring this about, since he had brought his son to it only with many prayers; yet he found him most obedient, and, though already bound in a fitting marriage, never to have consummated the matter with his wife, but to have kept a greater chastity (if it can be so said) than before.

[345] [and this is probable enough from elsewhere, although he made a vow of virginity, which he kept:] The same things too about Emeric's marriage and virginity Dlugossus asserts in the Polish History at the year 1006, and again at the year 1022. Nay, John Tomcus in Emeric, after giving the Life from Surius, subjoins these things: That the wife of St. Emeric was the daughter of Cresimir king of Dalmatia, Dalmatian records testify, and that she professed virginity to the very end of her life. Further, this virginity preserved in marriage is from elsewhere credible and probable enough on account of the very recent example of St. Henry the emperor, who was Emeric's uncle: for Henry had before his death made known the virginity preserved with St. Cunegund, and had died in the year 1024, in which Emeric was probably not yet bound in nuptials. Yet some scruple arises both from the silence of Carthuitius and from the vow of virginity made already before the nuptials, if all things are exactly narrated in the Life. But Carthuitius could omit the matter, because it pertained rather to Emeric than to Stephen: and the King could by paternal authority make void his son's vow, which was probably uttered before puberty. The son on the other hand, even if he were freed from the obligation of the vow by his Father's authority, and had obeyed him by taking a wife, could nevertheless, provided he drew his bride to consent, persist in that purpose of preserving virginity, and imitate the example of his uncle St. Henry. Nothing therefore stands in the way of the nuptials of Emeric being true, of which there may be a fuller treatment in his own Life.

[346] The aforesaid Dlugossus at the year 1022 writes [he is also said to have wished to abdicate the kingdom to his son, but that is less certain:] that Stephen thought of transferring the administration of the kingdom to his son. Ranzanus has the following on this matter at index 8: For he (Emeric) was excellent in such integrity and holiness of life that in every kind of virtue he was most like his parent. For this cause blessed Stephen embraced him with such love that nothing greater could easily be said. The most religious King had determined to abdicate his kingdom and to separate himself from the throng of men, that he might be able the more freely to devote himself to the meditation of divine things. But he had resolved to commit the cares of the kingdom to Emeric: yet while he turns such things over in his mind, by divine counsel it is decreed otherwise. For suddenly Emeric fell into ill health, and, seized by it, a few days afterwards dies, plainly piously, as it is fitting to believe of a man who had passed his life most holily. Thuroczius in chapter 33 delivers the same in these words: But after the Lord had magnified his mercy with blessed king Stephen, by turning the backs of kings in flight from the face of his sword, and by subjecting to his dominion the principalities and powers of all the surrounding foreign nations, the holy king Stephen deliberated and firmly determined that, all the pomps of worldly glory being trodden under foot and the diadem of a temporal kingdom laid aside, he would devote himself to the service of God alone: and, freed from outward cares, would lead a contemplative life and tranquil peace. And the crown of royal loftiness he disposed to give to his son duke Emeric, divinely instructed in most holy manners. For blessed Emeric was in the first flower of youth exalted above the common nature of men by a divine gift; armed with justice, prudence, fortitude, temperance, wisdom, knowledge, meekness, mercy, kindness, bounty, humility, and patience: and adorned with the other Catholic and political virtues; just as St. Stephen his father. When therefore the most holy Father was intending to commit to his most holy son the care of the administration and the solicitude of governing the kingdom, blessed duke Emeric was forestalled by his own death. Thus far they: but since Carthuitius has nothing about this thought of the King, nor even Bonfinius, that desire of abdicating the kingdom (although it is neither incredible nor improbable on account of the diseases with which the most holy King was afflicted) I would not affirm as plainly certain.

[347] Still less certain, and less probable, is but what some write about a disease contracted from grief at his son's death, what the same writers asserted about the disease of St. Stephen, or rather about the cause of the disease, which the aforesaid Thuroczius expressed thus by divination: But the holy king Stephen and all Hungary wept for him inconsolably with very great lamentation. And the holy king Stephen, embittered by so great a bitterness of grief, fell into a most grievous infirmity. And after many days he scarcely recovered any repair of life at all: but he could never be fully restored to his former health. For he was both pressed by pains of the feet, and afflicted with sadness and groanings; especially because none of his kinsmen seemed fit for this, that when he was dead he should preserve the kingdom in the faith of Christ. For the Hungarian nation was more prone to incline to the pagan rite than to the Christian faith. Ranzanus almost agrees, writing thus: His (Emeric's) death the King bore so ill that he himself contracted a most grievous disease, from

which he laboured very long, and not without the greatest peril of life. The cause of his grief was that he perceived that none could be found among his own to whom the administration of his most ample kingdom might be committed. But he was chiefly distressed by this, that no way occurred to him by which he might obtain some man by whom the Christian worship, lately received by the Hungarians, might be preserved by persevering effort. But it pleased the immortal God to allow the King himself to live so long, and to hold the kingdom, until the new Christians should be sufficiently confirmed in the faith which they had received: yet as long as he was in life, he was harassed by manifold diseases.

[348] appears false, since a three years' disease seems to have preceded, Bonfinius on page 184 set forth his conjectures about these things thus: A few years afterwards, since virtue is perfected by adversity, and whom God loves he corrects (as they say) and chastises; when the King was tormented with great grief, because, bereaved of Emeric, he had no grandson or kinsman to whom he might safely commit the kingdom and the preservation of the Hungarian faith, and when he understood that the Scythian nation, the guardianship of divine worship and faith being interrupted, would at once fall back into its former folly, he was compelled to undergo various diseases from this. That Emeric died from the year of salvation one thousand and thirty-one some have written. He himself was seized with such a languor of body that he could not even stand upon his feet. In these accounts truths seem mixed with falsehoods, or at least certainties with uncertainties, and not a few things therefore to be corrected. First, it is certain enough that the Saint laboured under various and long-lasting diseases; but it seems false that the first cause of his diseases arose from grief at Emeric's death: for already before his death he laboured under a three years' infirmity, which certainly could not arise from that cause. Let us hear about these things Carthuitius, who began to live about that time. He at num. 26 says that the King was sick for three years; and then goes on thus to the death of his sons: After he had recovered thence by the healing of God's propitiation, yet by the judgment of the eternal and most secret counsel he felt a certain examination sent upon him, the stripes in the death of his sons, whom in the very steps of infancy He who gave them as infants took away. The Begetter checked the sadness that arose from their death, on account of his love for the surviving son, the boy Emeric of good disposition, &c. These words not only place that first disease of the King before the death of Emeric, but also before that of his other sons, so that it seems to have happened long before; and it is certain that this disease did not arise from grief at his son's death.

[349] and since he grieved indeed grievously, but not too long, at his son's death. Secondly, it is likewise indubitable that the King grieved grievously at the death of his son, and not undeservedly; nor is there any reason why we should remove that death from the year 1031, to which Carthuitius and Bonfinius attach it. But it appears false, or at least is not probable, that from that grief there arose the disease from which the Saint thereafter laboured until his death in such a way that he never fully recovered. Grief, and that a grievous one, Carthuitius testifies at num. 27; but he at once also subjoins that this grief was not long-lasting, and that the King, his mourning being laid aside, gave himself wholly to pious works, by which he both advanced religion and generously succoured every kind of men. But his last disease he records after not a few other things, and asserts indeed that it was grievous and long-lasting; but in no way hints that he laboured under it for the whole seven years which intervened between the death of Emeric and that of Stephen. And not Carthuitius alone opposes so long and grievous a grief, from which the disease was contracted; but also the Life of St. Emeric, which teaches that the grief was soon driven away by the miracles that followed after Emeric's death, of which it has thus: And since miracles are necessary where human weakness is slow to believe, the thirtieth day of his death flashed with so many and so great signs of virtues that to all dwelling in the royal city, where his holy body was buried, it was not a day of mourning but of joy, since not even his Father was distressed by mourning for his son's death; but full gladness suffused him for the crown of eternal life undoubtedly conferred on his son. For the rest, what they assert, that the King grieved because he did not sufficiently see to whom he could safely commit the religion established in the kingdom, is very probable: for his diligent care that religion should go on flourishing after his death will be more fully declared by what is to be said below.

§ XXXIII. The Admonitions by which Stephen instructed his son Emeric, that he might rightly and piously administer the kingdom.

[ ] [The Admonitions of St. Stephen to his son Emeric published by various men: in the preface] Although I have said that it is uncertain whether St. Stephen wished to abdicate the kingdom in favour of his son Emeric, yet this is certain, that he destined the kingdom for his son, and omitted nothing by which to instruct him for the right and pious administration of that kingdom. The teachings given to his son, which Carthuitius recorded in a very brief compendium at num. 26, afford a brilliant testimony of that pious care; and at the same time show what Stephen himself was, since it is not probable that he neglected those things which he diligently pressed upon his son. Those Admonitions have been published by various men, and by Werböczy indeed in the Tripartite Work, tome 2, from page 1, under this title: The first book of decrees of St. Stephen the first king of Hungary to the holy duke Emeric. For they are reckoned among the decrees or laws of the kingdom of Hungary, although properly they are not laws, but admonitions given to kings for administering the kingdom excellently. These I shall transfer hither from the said edition, as they are divided into a preface and ten chapters; and I shall give the variant readings in the margin from the edition of John Sambucus, who gave the same after the Works of Bonfinius and others. But if any shall seem more obscure, I shall endeavour to explain them briefly after each chapter. Preface, in which the King exhorts the duke to take up his father's admonitions and precepts. This title of the preface is omitted in Sambucus, and is certainly not St. Stephen's; likewise there is omitted the invocation of the most holy Trinity, which probably is the King's, whose words follow: In the name of the holy Trinity and undivided unity. Since I perceive that all things stirred by God's nod, and disposed by his most evident preordination, both in the breadth of heaven and in these most ample regions of the earth, thoroughly flourish and subsist by the reason of intelligence: and since I see that all the things abundantly granted by God's grace for the usefulness and dignity of this life, namely kingdoms, consulships, duchies, counties, pontificates, and the other dignities, are ruled, defended, divided, and united partly by divine precepts and institutions, partly by legal, partly by juridical , partly by civil ones, and by the counsels and persuasions of nobler men advanced in age: and since I know for certain that all orders everywhere on earth, of whatever dignity they be, give commands, counsel , and persuasion not only to their attendants, friends, and servants, but also to their sons: then it does not irk me , most beloved son, while this life accompanies me, to prepare * for thee teachings, precepts, counsels, and persuasions, by which thou mayest adorn the manners of thy life and of those subject to thee, when, the highest Power granting it, thou shalt reign after me.

[351] he exhorts his son to obey his precepts. But it befits thee zealously, giving ear, to observe thy Father's precepts, according to the persuasion of divine wisdom, which says through the mouth of Solomon: Hear, my son, the discipline of thy father, and forsake not the law of thy mother, that grace may be added to thy head, and the years of thy life be multiplied unto thee. From this sentence therefore thou shalt be able to perceive that, if thou shalt despise those things which by paternal love I enjoin upon thee (which God forbid), thou wilt no longer be a friend of God and of men. But hear the fall and downfall of the disobedient transgressors of the precept. Adam indeed, whom the Lord the founder and fashioner of the whole creation formed to his own likeness, and made the heir of universal dignity, broke the bond of the precepts, and at once lost the loftiness of dignities and his dwelling in paradise. The ancient people too, chosen and beloved by God, because it cast away the bonds of the commandments, framed by the fingers of God, therefore perished in divers ways: a part indeed the earth swallowed up, a part the destroyer slew, and a part killed one another. The son of Solomon too, casting away his father's peaceable words, and lifted up with pride, threatened the people with strokes of the sword in place of his father's scourges , and therefore suffered many evils in his kingdom, and at last was cast down. That this may not befall thee, obey me, son. Thou art a boy, a home-born slave of delights , a dweller upon cushions, cherished and brought up in all delights, without experience of expeditions, of labour , and of the incursion of divers nations, in which I have now worn away almost my whole age. Now the time is at hand in which the softness of cushions * is not always to be afforded thee, which would render thee dull and delicate, which is the dissipation of virtues and the fomenting of vices, and the contempt of the commandments: but sometimes hardness must be given, which may render thy understanding attentive to those things which I enjoin. These things therefore being said by way of preface, let us return to our purpose. After this preface follow the Admonitions, divided by the Saint himself into ten chapters, whose titles I shall note in the margin.

[352] But he gave these Admonitions. On observing the Catholic faith. Chapter I. Since to the rank of royal dignity none ought to come but the faithful and those imbued with the Catholic faith; therefore in our commands we give the first place to the holy faith. First of all I enjoin, counsel, and persuade thee, dearest son, if thou desirest to do honour to the royal crown , that thou preserve the Catholic and apostolic faith with such diligence and guardianship that thou mayest afford an example to all subject to thee by God, and that all ecclesiastical men may deservedly name thee a true man of the Christian profession; without which, know for certain, thou wilt not be called a Christian, or a son of the Church. For those who believe falsely, or do not fulfil and adorn their faith with good works (since faith without works dies), neither reign honourably here, nor share in the eternal kingdom or crown . But if thou holdest the shield of faith, thou hast also the helmet of salvation. With these armaments indeed thou wilt be able lawfully to fight against invisible and visible enemies. For the Apostle says: He shall not be crowned, save he who has striven lawfully. The faith, therefore, of which I speak is this: that thou firmly believe, and hold without any ambiguity, that God the Father almighty, maker of the whole creation , and his only-begotten Son, our Lord Jesus, born of the Virgin Mary at the announcement of an angel, and suffering on the gibbet of the cross for the salvation of the whole world, and the Holy Spirit, who spoke through the Prophets and Apostles and Evangelists, are one Godhead, perfect, indissoluble, undefiled. This is the Catholic faith, which (as Athanasius says) unless a man faithfully and firmly believe it, he cannot be saved. If at any time there be found within thy power (which God forbid) those who shall attempt to divide, or to lessen, or to increase this conjunction of the holy Trinity *, know that these are servants of the heresiarch, and not sons of the holy Church. Such indeed neither nourish nor defend,

lest thou too seem their friend and favourer *. For men of this kind render the sons of the holy faith altogether diseased, and wretchedly destroy this new people of the holy Church, and will also scatter it. Take care above all that this may not happen.

The learned now dispute whether the Creed which is above cited under the name of St. Athanasius was composed by that holy Father. But that dispute had not yet arisen in the time of St. Stephen.

[353] Chapter II. In the royal palace indeed after faith the Church holds the second place, On the Church, and on maintaining the ecclesiastical estate: first sown by our Head, namely Christ; then transplanted through his members, that is, the Apostles and holy Fathers, and firmly built, and spread through the whole world. And although it always brings forth new offspring, yet in certain places it is held as it were ancient. But this, dearest son, in our monarchy is still preached as it were young and new; and therefore it needs more cautious and more conspicuous guardians; lest the good which the divine clemency by its immense clemency has granted to us, unworthy, be destroyed and annihilated by thy sloth and laziness and negligence. For he who lessens or defiles the dignity of the holy Church strives to mutilate the body of Christ. For the Lord himself said to Peter, whom he set as guardian and master over that same holy Church: Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church. He indeed named himself the rock: but he did not call the Church built upon himself one of wood or stone, but a people of acquisition, an elect and divine nation, a flock taught in faith, washed in baptism, anointed with chrism, holy — this he called and calls the Church built upon himself. If any unhappy man scandalizes the members or the little ones of this holy Church, according to the precept of the Gospel he is worthy that an ass's millstone be hung about his neck and that he be plunged into the depth of the sea, that is, that he be cast down from the dignity of power, and remain outside the Church of the just, in that worldly misery, like a heathen and a publican. And by this, my son, thou oughtest with fervent zeal to watch over the holy Church from day to day, that it may rather take increase than suffer loss. Hence too * the first kings were called Augusti, because they augmented (augebant) the Church. Do thou also this, that thy crown may be held more praiseworthy, and thy life more blessed and longer.

[354] certain observations concerning the Saint's words about St. Peter, A few things are here to be observed. I have shown at num. 234 that the words of St. Stephen, "he indeed named himself the rock", can probably be referred to St. Peter, and yet that it matters little whether he understood the passage in this way or in another. St. Augustine in Retractations, book 1, chapter 21, writes that he once understood by the rock Christ, at another time Peter, adding: But which of these two opinions is the more probable, let the reader choose. These words of the highest Doctor show the doubt in which he was about the genuine understanding of the passage. The same words too establish that St. Augustine acknowledged that not Christ only is the rock of the Church, but that Peter also is a rock of the same Church, subordinate namely to Christ: for unless he had acknowledged this, he would not have left it free to each to understand the passage either of Christ or of Peter. This appears too from the verse of St. Ambrose which he there recites: At his (the cock's) crowing the Rock of the Church itself washed away its fault. The natural exposition about Peter, whom he called the rock, the holy Doctor had first embraced, as he says. Yet afterwards he slipped into another, from ignorance, I suppose, of the Hebrew and Syriac tongue alone. That ignorance the holy Doctor's own words show: for in favour of the exposition about Christ he there alleges this reason alone: For it was not said to him (Peter): Thou art the Rock, but Thou art Peter. But Christ spoke in Syriac, and used twice the same word Cepha or Kepha, and the same word is repeated in the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew which Münster published, as if it were said in Latin: Thou art the Rock, and upon this Rock: as many Catholic interpreters have already shown, and various heretics have admitted. The whole reasoning of St. Augustine therefore falls, who would doubtless have followed only the common exposition of the passage, the other being wholly abandoned, if he had known that the same word was twice repeated in Syriac. These things I have thought must be briefly observed, because that passage was abused by Schwartz, cited at num. 232.

[355] and about the ecclesiastical hierarchy. More frivolous, nay plainly ridiculous, is what the same heterodox writer wished to infer from the words of St. Stephen, that he understands by the church built on the rock an elect and divine nation, not the hierarchy flourishing under one visible head, with its visible members, powerful, splendid, and lording it. For St. Stephen here teaches solely that by the church is not here understood some house, or some building constructed of timber and stones, which otherwise too is called a church in a much different sense; but that by the church Christ designates the assembly of all the faithful, which really is a people of acquisition, an elect and divine nation, a flock taught in faith, washed in baptism, anointed with Chrism. Over this assembly Christ set as guardian and master St. Peter, as St. Stephen testifies. And so the holy King not only does not by his words oppose the hierarchical order of the Church, but clearly establishes it; when he asserts that Peter was appointed by Christ guardian and master of the Church, and indeed of that same Church which, as he said before, was first sown by our head, namely Christ, then transplanted through his members, that is, the Apostles and holy Fathers, and firmly built, and spread through the whole world. He asserts that Peter was set as guardian and master of the Church spread through the whole world. He therefore acknowledges in the clearest words the hierarchy of the Church under a visible head. These things are said briefly about these matters, that it may appear with how frivolous petty arguments the heterodox attempt to drag the words of St. Stephen to their false dogmas, although from all his deeds they might abundantly learn that they have departed far from the faith of the first Hungarians. For the rest, what is said at the end about the etymology of Augustus is merely accommodated: for the emperors were called Augusti from the emperor Augustus, as they are called Caesars from Julius Caesar.

[356] Chapter III. The order of pontiffs adorns the royal throne; The bishops' designation, and on bestowing honour on the pontiffs and by this the pontiffs possess the third place in the royal dignity. Dearest son, guard those elders as the pupils of thine eyes. If thou shalt have their goodwill, thou shalt fear none of thine adversaries. If they indeed watch over thee, thou wilt be safe in all things, and their prayer will commend thee to Almighty God. For God appointed them guardians of the human race, and made them watchmen of souls, and dispensers and givers of all ecclesiastical dignity and of the divine Sacrament. For without them neither kings nor principalities are constituted. By their intervention men's offences are blotted out. If thou lovest them perfectly, without doubt thou healest thyself, and governest thy kingdom honourably. For in their hands is placed the power of binding us in our sins, and of loosing us from our sins. For God established an everlasting covenant with them, and separated them from men, and made them partakers of his name and of his holiness, and forbade them to be reproved by men, through David the God-inspired king: Touch not my anointed, &c. But he * touches God's anointed who, against the divine and canonical institution, defiles men of the sacred order with false charges and drags them into public. Which I altogether forbid thee, my son, to do, if thou wishest to live blessed and to do honour to thy kingdom. For in these things God is chiefly offended. If by chance a fault worthy of reproof shall fall upon any of these of whom we speak (which God forbid), rebuke him three or four times between thee and him alone, according to the precept of the Gospel. If then he shall secretly refuse to hear admonitions, public ones must be applied to him, according to this: If he will not hear thee, tell the Church. For if thou shalt keep this order, thou shalt thoroughly exalt thy glorious crown.

[357] Chapter IV. The fourth ornament of government is the fidelity, fortitude, On the due honour of princes and barons. activity, courtesy, and trustworthiness of the princes , barons, counts, soldiers, and nobles. For they are the defenders of the kingdom, the protectors of the weak, the vanquishers of adversaries, the increasers of monarchies. Let them, my son, be to thee fathers and brethren. And of these reduce none to servitude, or name him a slave: let them serve thee as soldiers, not as slaves: rule over them all without anger and pride and envy, peaceably, humbly, meekly, always keeping in memory that all men are of one condition; and that nothing exalts but humility, and nothing casts down but pride and envy. If thou shalt be peaceable, then thou shalt be called a king and a king's son, and shalt be loved by all thy soldiers. If wrathful, proud, envious, unpeaceable, and if * thou shalt raise thy neck over the counts and princes, without doubt the strength of the soldiers will be the dulling of the royal dignities, and they will hand over thy kingdom to strangers. Fearing this, direct the life of the counts by the rule of virtues, that, cornered by thy love, they may always cleave unoffended to the royal dignity, and that thy kingdom may be peaceable in all things.

[358] On preserving the virtue of patience, and on rendering judgment. Chapter V. The observance of patience and of judgment is the fifth adornment of the royal crown. David the king and prophet says: God, give thy judgment to the king. And the same elsewhere: The honour of the king loves judgment. Of patience Paul the apostle speaks: Be patient toward all. And the Lord in the Gospel: In your patience you shall possess your souls. To this bend thyself, my son: if thou wishest to have the honour of a kingdom, love judgment: if thou wishest to possess thy soul, be patient. As often, dearest son, as a cause worthy of judgment shall come to thee, or someone guilty of a capital sentence, do not bear it impatiently, or confirm with an oath that thou wilt punish him, which ought to be unstable and frail, since foolish vows must be broken; nor judge it by thyself, lest thy royal dignity be defiled by the usurpation of inferior business: but rather send business of this kind to the judges to whom it has been committed, that they may decide it according to their own law. Fear to be a judge, but rejoice to be and to be called a king. Patient kings reign, but impatient ones play the tyrant. But when anything shall come to thee which befits thy dignity to judge, judge it with patience and mercy or compassion, that thy crown may be praiseworthy and comely. In this place the edition of Sambucus has various faults from those words, Fear to be a judge, as the studious reader will easily observe. I have not therefore thought that they should be noted one by one.

[359] On the reception of strangers and the sustenance of guests. Chapter VI. In guests and men coming from abroad there is so great usefulness that they may worthily be placed in the sixth place among the royal

dignities. Whence in the first place did the Roman empire grow, and the Roman kings become exalted and glorious, but that many noble and wise men flowed together thither from divers parts? But Rome would to this day be a handmaid, had not the sons of Aeneas made her free. For as guests come from divers parts of the provinces, so they bring with them divers tongues and customs, and divers teachings and arms, all which adorn and magnify the royal court and terrify the arrogance of foreigners. For a kingdom of one tongue and one manner is weak and frail. Therefore I bid thee, my son, to nourish them with good will, and to keep them honourably, that they may more gladly dwell with thee than live elsewhere . For if thou shalt strive to destroy what I have built, or to scatter what I have gathered, without doubt thy kingdom will suffer the greatest damage. Lest this happen, daily increase thy kingdom, that thy crown may be held august * by all. What is said about the coming of many guests into the city of Rome may be seen in Livy, book 1, where it is narrated by what arts Romulus, called above the son of Aeneas, used that he might fill Rome with a multitude of people.

[360] On the greatness of counsel. Chapter VII. In the tribunals of kings counsel claims for itself the seventh place. For by counsel kings are constituted, kingdoms governed, the fatherland defended, battles arranged, victory taken, enemies driven off, friends called in, cities built, and the camps of adversaries destroyed. But usefulness is in counsels only when. For by crafty and arrogant and mediocre men (as it seems to me) they cannot be framed, but they must be expressed and polished by greater and better and wiser and most honourable elders. Therefore, my son, take not counsel with the young and less wise, nor seek counsel from them; but from elders, to whom that business is fitting by reason of age and wisdom. For the counsels of kings ought to be shut in the breasts of the wise, not spread abroad by the windiness of fools. For if thou shalt walk with the wise, thou shalt be made wise: if thou consortest with fools, thou shalt be made their fellow, as the Holy Spirit declares through Solomon: He that walketh with the wise shall be the friend of the wise, nor shall he be like the fools. And David sings: With the holy thou shalt be holy, and with the innocent man thou shalt be innocent, and with the elect thou shalt be elect, and with the perverse thou shalt be perverted. To this, let each exercise himself in whatever business befits his age, namely the young in arms, the senators in counsels. Yet the young are not altogether to be excluded from counsels. But as often as thou shalt enter upon counsel with them, even if it be apt, yet always refer it to the elders, that thou mayest measure all thy acts by the rule of wisdom.

[361] Chapter VIII. The imitation of one's elders holds the eighth place in the royal dignity. That they ought to imitate their elders, and sons to obey their parents. Know it to be the greatest royal ornament to follow the preceding kings, and to imitate honourable parents. For he who spurns the decrees of his forefathers, and does not attend to the divine laws, shall perish. For fathers are fathers for this, that they may nourish their sons, and sons are sons for this, that they may obey their fathers. He who resists his father is an enemy of God. For all the disobedient are resisters of God. For the spirit of disobedience scatters the flowers of the crown. For disobedience is the pestilence of the whole kingdom. Therefore, dearest son, let thy Father's edicts always be ready to thee, that thy prosperity may everywhere be directed by royal reins. My manners indeed, which thou seest to befit the royal dignity, follow without the bond of any ambiguity. For it is hard for thee to hold the kingdom of this region, unless thou shalt be an imitator of the custom of the kings who reigned before. What Greek would rule Latins with Greek manners? or what Latin would rule Greeks with Latin manners? None. Therefore follow my customs, that thou mayest be held chief among thine own, and praiseworthy among strangers.

[362] Chapter IX. The observance of prayer is the greatest acquisition of royal salvation, That one must pray, and how. and therefore the ninth; and the ninefold rule of royal dignity sings it. Continual prayer is the washing away and remission of sins. But thou, my son, as often as thou runnest to the temple of God to adore God, say always with Solomon the son of a king, and himself a king: Send, Lord, wisdom from the seat of thy greatness, that she may be with me and labour with me, that I may know what is acceptable before thee at all times. And again: Lord Father and God of my life, leave me not in an evil thought, give me not haughtiness of my eyes, and turn away from me evil desire, Lord; take away from me concupiscence, and deliver me not, Lord, to an irreverent and insatiable mind. With this prayer therefore the ancient kings used. Do thou too use this same, that God may deign to take all vices from thee, that thou mayest be named by all the most unconquered king. Pray too that he may drive away from thee sloth and dullness, and bestow on thee the supply of all virtues, by which thou mayest conquer visible and invisible enemies, that, safe and free from every assault of adversaries, with all subject to thee, thou mayest be able to finish the course of thy life in peace. After the words given above, and therefore the ninth, add, or understand, it obtains its place. That phrase is plainly faulty in Sambucus.

[363] Chapter X. The measure of virtues adorns the crown of kings, and is set tenth among the precepts: for the Lord of virtues himself is the King of kings. On piety and mercy, and the other virtues. As therefore the fullness of his heavenly host consists in ten choirs, so let the conversation of thy life persist in the ten commandments. A king ought to be pious, merciful, and imbued and adorned with the other virtues. For a king defiled with impiety and cruelty vainly claims for himself the name of king, since he must be called a tyrant. For this reason therefore *, my most beloved son, sweetness of my heart, hope of my future offspring, I pray, I command, that, supported by piety in all things and in all men, thou be favourable not only to thy kindred and relations, or to princes, or dukes, or the rich, or to neighbours and inhabitants; but also to strangers, and to all who come to thee. For the work of piety leads thee to the highest blessedness. Be merciful to all suffering violence, always having that example of the Lord in thy heart: I will mercy, and not sacrifice. Be patient toward all, not only toward the powerful, but also toward those who lack power. Be finally brave, lest prosperity lift thee up too much, or adversity cast thee down. Be also humble, that God may make thee high, here and in the future. Be moderate, and punish or condemn no one beyond measure. Be gentle, that thou mayest never resist justice. Be honourable, that thou mayest never wilfully bring disgrace on anyone. Be chaste, that thou mayest avoid all the stenches of lust, as the sting of death. All these things touched upon above compose the royal crown, without which none can reign here, nor attain to the eternal kingdom. What is said above, that the fullness of the heavenly host consists in ten choirs, appears strange, since only nine choirs of angels are reckoned: but I suspect that the Saint by the tenth choir understands all men exalted to heavenly glory. Here thou hast, reader, the Admonitions of the holy King, which brilliantly show how great he was, not only in Christian virtues, but also in the art of reigning. Worthy indeed are these to remain deeply engraved in the minds of princes. Now likewise I shall give the laws which the same King prescribed for his subjects, that from all it may appear what and how great he was, and how much Christian Hungary owes to its Apostle and Lawgiver.

* otherwise aptissimis

* otherwise juridicialibus or jurisdictionibus

* otherwise conciliari or consulere

* otherwise ne pigeat

* otherwise proponere

* otherwise quod jam amplius

* otherwise, faultily, inobedientiam

* otherwise ligamina

* otherwise patris is omitted

* otherwise divitiarum

* otherwise totius expeditionum laboris

* otherwise pulvinar mollitiei

* otherwise curiam

* otherwise filii

* otherwise participantur

* otherwise statum

* otherwise facturæ

* otherwise sic

* otherwise conantur

* otherwise inimicus & ultor

* otherwise habeat

* otherwise misericordiam

* otherwise verum is omitted.

* otherwise doctam &c., faultily.

* otherwise quidem

* otherwise habes

* otherwise divini

* otherwise dispositores

* otherwise principantur

* otherwise vero

* otherwise ab humano die

* otherwise enim

* otherwise principum is absent, and presently nobilium.

* otherwise propugnaculum

* otherwise ac is absent

* otherwise mortalis

* otherwise alibi

* otherwise augusta is absent

* otherwise jam

* otherwise quære

* otherwise exerceant

* otherwise differas

* otherwise executio

* otherwise consistit

* otherwise abolitio

* otherwise infrenato

* otherwise ego

§ XXXIV. The laws given to the Hungarians.

[ ] The Saint framed laws, which were all afterwards promulgated together, Carthuitius at num. 13 treats briefly of the laws which St. Stephen framed with the bishops and chief men of Hungary, and in which, he says, he prescribed the contrary antidote for each fault. Indeed these laws are such as befitted a rude people, which had partly embraced Christian discipline, partly turned away from it; and it is probable that by these laws no small strength was added to the preachings of the bishops and other churchmen who instructed the people. For it is natural that a desire should arise of knowing that which one dares not neglect. In what year these laws were first passed, and whether all were decreed at once, I do not find. Yet all were promulgated together in some council of the bishops and nobles of Hungary, and about this promulgation the edition in the Tripartite Work has thus: Here ends the decree of St. Stephen the king, promulgated at Gran (otherwise at Tolna) in the year 1035. The often-cited Peterfy, about to publish certain of these laws, speaks thus of their promulgation: Which (injunctions and admonitions) afterwards obtained the force of statutes, and only in the year 1016 were promulgated at Tolna or at Gran.

[365] Inchofer at the year 1016 writes thus of the laws framed by Stephen: but some of them decreed earlier and received into use: King Stephen for the ordering of the kingdom frames in this year salutary laws by the intervention of his nobles of both estates. These are contained in fifty-five chapters, so arranged by some that they are thrown into the second book of the Decrees which are ascribed to king Stephen. In which matter, however, neither order nor reckoning of time has been kept: for the things contained in the first book are not properly Decrees, but Admonitions composed separately for instructing his son Emeric, and published later; and the Decrees themselves are falsely marked by some as framed in the thirty-fifth year of his reign, not a few of which are known to have been in force by use long before: although certain ones pertaining to political government were afterwards added later.

It is better in this matter to follow the credit of the manuscript codex, which refers the laws sanctioned by Stephen to this year: for it is not probable that Stephen, reigning piously and happily for so many years, should at the last period of his life, entangled in cares and sicknesses, have wished to form his kingdom by law, but before that should have passed so great a space of time in government without law. These reasons very probably persuade us that most of the laws were framed and promulgated much earlier than some have wished, but that others were added in course of time. But whether the promulgation of all was made in the year 1035, or earlier, cannot be certainly determined.

[366] Inchofer subjoins: But as regards these Decrees, some of these laws were afterwards corrected or abrogated; some of them later kings corrected, some they abolished, most they confirmed. What Stephen's decrees are like, and why afterwards some of them were corrected or abrogated, is explained in the preface to the Decrees of king Coloman, written to Seraphinus archbishop of Gran, in the aforesaid Werböczy, tome 2, page 28, in these words: For who would doubt that by our holy father Stephen, an apostolic man indeed, a law was given to our people, in some things more severe, in some more tolerable, in these too more intensely avenging, and in others more mildly indulging; and yet dismissing no one without the scourge of discipline, since the time of predestination had not yet brought forward any true sponsor of the faith: nor is it unlawful to believe that this was not without regard to the divine dispensation. For since in the time of the aforesaid King his whole kingdom served barbarous cults, and the rude and constrained Christian still kicked against the goad which admonished him of the holy faith, still bit back against the penitential strokes of the avenging rod, it was worth the labour that the constraint of holy discipline should be for the unbelieving unto conversion of faith, but for the converted unto the justice of penance. But our most Christian king Coloman, endowed with the simplicity of dove-like grace and with all discretion of virtues, after he saw that the grown faith had received the strength of perfect religion, prudently thought to relax the bond of the legal chain, &c.

[367] Further, it cannot be doubted that the most prudent King in framing the laws accommodated himself to the ancient manners of the Hungarians [because St. Stephen had prudently adapted himself to the ancient manners of the Hungarians.] so far as could be done without injury to the Catholic religion and to Christian virtues. He himself sufficiently hints this in the preface in these words: Since every nation is ruled by its own laws. And above to his son, chapter 8, num. 361: For it is hard for thee to hold the kingdom of this region, unless thou shalt be an imitator of the custom of the kings who reigned before. What Greek would rule Latins with Greek manners? or what Latin would rule Greeks with Latin manners? None. This prudent caution was needful, that the laws might the more easily and gently be received into use: and from it I judge it came about that for certain graver crimes penalties not so grave were decreed by Stephen as later kings afterwards established for them; namely because the Hungarians formerly either paid no penalties for them, or only lighter ones, and because the crimes themselves did not appear so grave to them before the faith was received. There pleased Stephen, I suppose, the counsel of the Apostle, who adapted himself to the capacity of each, writing thus in 1 Corinthians, chapter 3: And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual, but as to carnal. As to little ones in Christ, I gave you milk to drink, not meat: for you were not yet able. These things being premised, I subjoin the laws themselves from the aforesaid Tripartite Work, the variant readings from Sambucus being noted where it shall seem worth the labour. This title is prefixed: The second book of the decrees of St. Stephen the king. The titles of the several chapters I shall give as marginal additions, or only a part of them, when they are longer.

[368] The reason for the laws given is set forth in the preface. Preface. The divine clemency reigning, the Work of royal dignity, enlarging more solidly the effect of the nourishment of the Catholic faith , is wont to be present to the works of another dignity: and since every nation is ruled by its own laws, therefore we also, governing our monarchy by God's nod, imitating the ancient and modern emperors, have by our decretal meditation established for our nation in what manner they should lead an honourable and inoffensive life, that, as they are enriched with divine laws, so likewise they may be bound by secular ones, that as much good as they are enlarged with in divine things, so much of evil and of guilt may be made cheap in these. But what we have decreed we have noted down in what follows. The sense of this preface is at the beginning rather obscure, because it can be variously punctuated. To me it seems that it should be read and punctuated as I have given the phrase, although others have punctuated it otherwise. The sense is: The work of a king, which by nourishing the Catholic faith more solidly advances it, is wont to be present to, or to assist, others who work toward the same end.

[369] On the ecclesiastical estate and the veneration of the house of God. Chapter I. Whosoever, lifted up with the arrogance of pride, holds the house of God contemptible, and shall have treated dishonourably, or presumed to violate, the possessions consecrated to God and established for the honour of God under the defence of royal immunity, let him be excommunicated as an invader and violator of the house of God. For it is fitting that he should feel the indignation of the lord king himself, of whose benevolence he has shown himself a despiser and of whose ordinance a transgressor. Nevertheless let the king command that the immunity of his grant be preserved unharmed by the men subject to his dominion; but let him not lend assent to those who improvidently affirm that things belonging to the Lord, that is, delivered to the Lord of lords, ought not to be so. Therefore let it be under the king's defence, and let him attend to it as to his own inheritance, and more. Because as much as God is more excellent than man, so much is the divine cause more excellent than the possession of mortals. Wherefore whosoever glories more in his own things than in the Lord's is deceived: of which, being appointed divinely * defender and guardian, he ought with diligent care not only to preserve them but also to multiply them, and he ought rather to defend and increase those things which we have said are more excellent than his own. If therefore any madman shall by his importunity and wickedness attempt to pervert the king from his right purpose, and shall seem able to be softened by no remedies, although he be necessary for some services and transitory ones, he must be cut off from him and cast away, according to that Gospel saying: If thy foot, hand, or eye scandalize thee, pluck it out and cast it from thee. This whole chapter, as also the following, is taken from the council of Mainz of the year 847 under Rabanus, where this is canon six, and the following seven, as may be seen in Labbe, tome 8, col. 44. From it is corrected that fault above, where in all copies "divinitatis" is read for "divinitus", as it is in Labbe.

[370] Chapter II. That the bishops may have power to provide for, rule, govern, On the power of bishops over ecclesiastical matters. and dispense ecclesiastical matters according to the authority of the canons; we will that the laity obey their ministry, for governing the churches, for defending widows and orphans, and that they be obedient to them for preserving their Christianity, and that counts and judges be consenting to their prelates for doing justice, according to the precepts of the divine law, and that in no way by anyone's lies, or by false testimony, or by perjury, or by a bribe, may just law be in any point depraved. More rightly in the Mainz council the words above, "that the laity, &c.", are read thus: And that the laity in their ministry obey the bishops.

[371] Chapter III. But let witnesses and accusers be without any infamy, What accusers and witnesses ought to be, &c. having wives and children, and altogether professing Christ. Let no one receive the testimony of a layman against a cleric: let no one either presume to examine * any cleric in public, save in church.

[372] Chapter IV. Know, all ye brethren, that priests labour above all, for each one of you bears his own labour: On the constant and heavy labour of priests. but they * bear both their own and that of each. Therefore, as they labour for all of you, so ought you all to labour for them to the utmost, so far that, if there be need, you should lay down your lives for them.

[373] Chapter V. We have decreed by our royal power that each may have the faculty of dividing his own goods, On the royal grant concerning one's own property. of giving to his wife, sons, and daughters, and to his kinsmen, or to the Church, and let no one after his death dare to destroy this. The title placed in the margin can more clearly be set forth thus: On the grant of bestowing one's own goods.

[374] Chapter VI. We will indeed that, as we have given to others the faculty of disposing of their own goods, Let the royal rights and the treasury's property be untouched. so also the property, soldiers, servants, and whatever pertains to our royal dignity, ought to remain immovable, and that nothing thence be seized or withdrawn by anyone, nor let anyone dare to acquire favour for himself in these aforesaid things.

[375] Chapter VII. If therefore any presbyter, or count, On the observance of the Lord's day, &c. or any other faithful person, shall on the Lord's day find anyone working, let him be driven off. But if with oxen, let the ox be taken from him and given to the townsmen to eat. But if with horses, let the horse be taken, which its master may redeem with an ox if he will; and let that same ox be eaten, as has been said. If any with other implements, let the implements and garments be taken: which, if he will, let him redeem with his skin.

[376] Chapter VIII. Let it be commended by priests and counts to all bailiffs, That on the same Lord's day, &c. so that at their command all may come together on the Lord's day to church, greater and lesser, men and women, except those who guard the fires *. But if anyone shall obstinately remain behind, let him be beaten and shorn. In the other edition the penalty is thus expressed: For their negligence let them be beaten and shorn.

[377] On the days of the four seasons let flesh not be eaten. Chapter IX. If anyone shall violate the fasts of the four seasons, known to all, by eating flesh, let him fast shut up for the space of one week.

[378] Chapter X. If anyone on the sixth day of the week, observed by all Christendom, Let flesh not be eaten on the sixth day of the week. shall eat flesh, let him fast shut up for one week. Otherwise, let him fast shut up in the light (or in darkness).

[379] On those who die without confession. Chapter XI. If anyone is so obstinate (which be far from every Christian) that he will not confess his crimes according to the persuasion of the presbyter, let him lie without any divine office and alms, like the unbelieving. But if his kinsfolk and neighbours have neglected to call the presbyters, and so he be subjected to death without confession, let him be enriched with prayers and consoled with alms; but let his kinsfolk expiate their negligence with fasts, according to the judgment of the presbyters. But those who perish by sudden death, let them be buried with all ecclesiastical honour. For hidden and divine judgments are unknown to us.

[380] On observing Christianity. Chapter XII. If anyone, neglecting the observance of Christianity, and puffed up with the stupidity of negligence, shall have committed anything against it, let him be judged by the bishop according to the quality of the offence by the disciplines of the canons. But if, stirred by rebelliousness, he shall refuse to bear the penalty imposed on him, let him again * be restrained by the same judgment, even up to seven times.

At last, if in all things he shall be found resisting and refusing, let him be handed over to the royal judgment, namely to the defender of Christianity.

[381] On homicides, and first on accidental homicide. Chapter XIII. But if anyone shall by chance kill someone, let him pay twelve pensae of gold, and let him fast as the canons command. But if a free man shall kill someone's slave, let him give another slave, or make composition by price: and let him fast according to the canons. A pensa of gold is a coin, of whose value I have found nothing proved with sufficient certainty.

[382] On those who kill their wives. Chapter XIV. If any of the counts, hardened in heart, neglecting his soul (which be far from the hearts of those who keep fidelity ), shall be polluted by the homicide of his wife, according to the decree of the royal senate, let him be reconciled with the woman's kinsfolk with fifty heifers, and let him fast according to the commands of the canons. But if a soldier of any rank shall fall into the same fault, according to the same senate, let him pay to the kinsfolk ten heifers, and let him fast, as has been said. But if a common man be found in the same crime, let him be reconciled with the kinsfolk with five heifers, and be subjected to the aforesaid fasts. This is a light penalty for so enormous a crime; but see what is said at num. 367: which I would have observed likewise for the various following laws.

[383] On perjuries. Chapter XV. If any of the powerful , stained in faith, polluted in heart, an oath-breaker, addicted to perjury, be found, let him expiate his perjury by the loss of his hand , or redeem his hand with fifty heifers. But if a common man shall be a perjurer, he shall be punished by the cutting off of his hand, or shall redeem it with twelve heifers, and let him fast as the canons command.

[384] On voluntary homicides. Chapter XVI. If anyone, kindled with anger and lifted up with pride, shall commit a voluntary homicide, let him know that according to the decree of our senate he shall give one hundred and ten pensae of gold. Of which fifty shall be carried to the king's treasury, and fifty others given to the kinsfolk, and ten bestowed on the arbiters and mediators. And the homicide himself shall fast according to the institution of the canons. The editor observes that this law is obsolete.

[385] Chapter XVII. If anyone, led by mercy, shall have given liberty to his own male and female slaves with testimony: On the liberty of slaves. we have decreed that after his death no one, touched by envy, may dare to bring them back into servitude. But if he shall have promised liberty, and, death preventing him, shall not have made a will, let his widow and his sons have power to bequeath the same liberty, and to make an agape for the redemption of the soul of her husband, in whatever manner she will. This law is published very faultily in Sambucus. To make an agape seems here to signify to perform a work of charity.

[386] Chapter XVIII. If any coming to church to hear the divine office On the assembly at church, and on those who murmur at the hour of Mass, &c. there at the hour of the solemnity of the Masses murmur among themselves, and disturb the rest, setting forth idle tales, and not attending to the divine lessons with ecclesiastical nourishment: if they are of the greater sort, let them be rebuked and expelled with disgrace from the church: but if of the lesser and common sort, let them, for so great a rashness, be bound in the porch of the church before all, and be chastised with scourges.

[387] Chapter XIX. That the people of this monarchy may remain removed and quiet from every assault and accusation of male and female slaves, On not receiving slaves … in testimony against their masters, &c. according to the decree of the royal * council it is utterly forbidden that they receive any servile person, for the cause of any fault, in accusation and testimony against their masters or mistresses.

[388] Chapter XX. Since therefore it is worthy of God, Let no one reduce a free man to servitude. and best for men, that each should lead the course of his life in the liberty of his own industry, according to the royal decree it is established that no one of the counts or soldiers may henceforth dare to subject any free person to servitude. But if, spurred by the daring of his pride , he shall have presumed it, let him know that he shall make composition of as much from his own property: which composition shall be divided between the king and the count , and so forth. But if anyone hitherto held in servitude, seeking * the royal judgment for the defence of his liberty, shall have been made secure, let him only enjoy his liberty, and let him by whom he was held in servitude render nothing.

[389] Chapter XXI. We will that each lord (or master) have his own soldier (that is, servant), and that no other persuade him to desert his old lord On those who entice away another's soldiers or servants. and come to him. For thence quarrelling has its beginning.

[390] Chapter XXII. If anyone receives a guest with benevolence, On receiving guests. and honourably bestows nourishment on him, as long as he is nourished according to agreement, let him not desert his nourisher, nor carry his hospitality to any other.

[391] Chapter XXIII. If anyone's soldier or slave shall flee to another, On those who are scourged while seeking their own. and he whose soldier or slave has escaped by flight shall send his envoy to bring him back *, and that envoy shall there be struck and scourged by anyone, we have decreed, in the assembly of our chief men, that that striker shall pay ten heifers.

[592] Chapter XXIV. We will indeed that widows and orphans be sharers of our law, On widows and orphans. on this condition, that if any widow shall remain with sons and daughters, and shall promise to nourish them and to remain with them as long as she lives, she shall have power granted her by us to do this, and let her be compelled by no one to marry again. For if, her purpose being changed, she shall wish to marry again and to desert the orphans, let her claim nothing at all for herself of the orphans' goods, but let her take only garments suitable for herself. But if the widow shall remain without offspring, and shall promise to remain unwed in her widowhood, we will that she have power over all her goods, and let her do whatever she will therewith. And after her death, let the same goods return to the kinsfolk of her husband, if he has kinsfolk : but if not, let the king be heir.

[393] Chapter XXV. If any of the soldiers, defiled with unchastity, On the rape of maidens. shall have carried off any maiden to be his wife without the consent of her parents, we decree that the maiden be restored to her parents, even if some violence has been done to her by him, and that the ravisher pay ten heifers for the rape, though he be afterwards reconciled with the maiden's parents. But if some poor or common man shall undertake to do this, let the rape be compounded with five oxen. It should be read, I think, "let him compound the rape".

[394] On free men fornicating with another master's bondwomen. Chapter XXVI. That free men may keep their liberty undefiled, we will to set a caution for them, that they fornicate not with others' bondwomen. But if any improvident man, transgressing this caution, shall fornicate with another's bondwoman, let him know that he is guilty of a crime, and for that same crime let him first be shaved and shorn . But if a second time he shall have fornicated with the same, let him again be shaved and shorn. But if a third time, let him be a slave together with the bondwoman, or let him redeem himself. But if the bondwoman shall have conceived by him, and cannot bear, but shall die in childbirth, let him make composition for her with another bondwoman. Anyone's slave too, if he fornicates with another's bondwoman, let him be shaved and shorn: and if the bondwoman shall have conceived by him, and die in childbirth, let the slave be sold, and half the price be given to the bondwoman's lord: but let the other half always remain to the slave's lord.

[395] On those who ask others' bondwomen in marriage. Chapter XXVII. That none of those who are reckoned by the name of free may dare to do injury to anyone, we have imposed terror and caution. Because in this royal council it has been decreed that if any free man shall choose marriage with another's bondwoman, with the knowledge of the bondwoman's master, having lost the industry of his liberty, he shall be made a perpetual slave.

[396] Those who flee from their wives out of the kingdom. Chapter XXVIII. That the race of both sexes may remain and flourish by fixed law and without injuries, in this royal decree it is established that if anyone endowed with wantonness shall flee his country out of loathing for his wife, the wife shall possess all things which were in her husband's power, so long as she will wait for her husband; and let no one presume to force her into another marriage. But if she shall of her own accord wish to marry, let it be lawful for her, taking suitable garments and leaving the other goods, to go to marriage. And if the husband, hearing this, shall return, let it not be lawful for him to take another, on account of his own fault *, except by leave of the bishop. This law must be cautiously understood of the marriage of heathens, whose bond can be dissolved if the wife be converted and the husband therefore depart, according to the Apostle, 1 Cor. 7, verse 15: but not of a marriage of Christians validly contracted and consummated, which cannot be so dissolved that before the death of the spouse one may validly proceed to another marriage. These things needed to be observed in few words: but Theologians and canonists will give more about these matters. It may also be that certain faults have crept into the words of the law.

[397] On the theft of married women. Chapter XXIX. Since therefore it is dreadful to all, and abominable to all, that the male sex should be found to have committed theft, and much more the female sex: according to the royal senate it is decreed that if any married woman shall commit theft, she shall be redeemed by her husband: and if a second time she shall fall into the same fault, let her likewise be redeemed: but if a third time, let her be sold.

[398] Chapter XXX. If anyone from enmity shall have burned another's buildings with fire, On the burning of dwellings. we have decreed that he restore the buildings, and pay for whatever furniture was burned, and besides sixteen heifers, which are worth sixty shillings.

[399] Chapter XXXI. If any witch be found, let her be led * according to the judicial law to the church, On witches. and be commended to the priest for fasting and for learning the faith; but after the fast let her return home. If a second time she be found in the same crime, let her undergo a like fast: but after the fast, being branded in the form of a cross on the breast and on the forehead and between the shoulder-blades with a church key made red-hot, let her return home. But if a third time, let her be handed over to the judges. The word striga, otherwise strix, here designates a poisoner or worker of evil arts. Greater punishments were afterwards established for these, as also for other crimes.

[400] Chapter XXXII. That the creature of God may remain removed from the injury of all evil men, On workers of evil arts and diviners. and suffer loss from none but from God, by whom it is increased: according to the decree of the senate we have established, for a caution of great terror to poisoners and workers of evil arts , that no person dare by evil art or poison to overthrow any man from his state of mind, or to kill him. But if any man or woman shall henceforth presume this, let him be handed over into the hands of the one injured by the evil art, or into the hands of his kinsfolk, to be judged according to their will. But if any be found * using divination, as they do with ashes and such things, let them be corrected with scourges by the bishops.

[401] Chapter XXXIII. We will that there be firm peace and unanimity between greater and lesser, On the invasion of houses, and on the fighting that follows there. according to the Apostle: Be ye all of one mind, and let no one dare to assail another. For if any of the counts, after the determination of this common council, shall be so contumacious as to seek another at his house to destroy him and to scatter his goods; and if the master be at home, and if he fight with him or kill him, let him pay according to the law made concerning the unsheathing of the sword. But if that same count shall fall there, let him lie without composition. But if any soldier shall invade the court, or tower, or house of another soldier, let him compound the invasion with ten heifers. But if he shall not have come himself, but shall have sent his soldiers, let him compound the invasion with a hundred heifers. But if a common man shall invade the little dwellings of another like himself, let him pay for the invasion with five heifers.

[402] Chapter XXXIV. Let ten villages build a church, which they shall endow with two dwellings On the building and endowment of a church put together by villages. and as many bondmen, with a horse and a mare, six oxen, and two cows, thirty-four small beasts. But let the king provide the vestments and corporals and coverings, and the bishop the priest and the books. For "mansionibus" in Peterfy is read "mansis", and in Sambucus, faultily, "mensis". Villages, or country estates, are designated.

[403] Chapter XXXV. We have therefore assented to the petition of the whole senate, On the donations of kings, and on the possession of one's own property that each may be master of his own goods, and likewise of the king's gifts, while he lives: except what pertains to a bishopric and a county, and that after his life his sons succeed to a like lordship, and that for no cause of guilt let anyone suffer loss of his goods, unless he shall have plotted the death of the king, or effected the betrayal of the kingdom, or fled into another province. Then indeed let his goods come into the royal power, and let him undergo sentence, his sons remaining innocent.

[404] On a slave killed by another slave. Chapter XXXVI. If anyone's slave kills another's slave, let the homicide's lord make composition of half the slave to the lord of the slain, if he can: but if not, one forty-day period being completed, let the slave be sold, and the price divided. It is not sufficiently clear what those words "one forty-day period being completed" mean. Yet I suspect that the slave's punishment, to be continued for forty days, is designated, whether it were a fast or another punishment at the master's discretion.

[405] On the redemption of a slave who is a homicide. Chapter XXXVII. A free man's slave who is a homicide, if it please his lord, let him redeem with a hundred and ten heifers, or hand him over. No penalty is added: because, I suppose, it could be inflicted by the master at his discretion.

[406] On the punishment of those striving to obtain liberty for others' slaves. Chapter XXXVIII. If anyone shall strive to obtain liberty for others' slaves, let him pay as many bondmen as there shall be slaves. Of which two parts shall be given to the king, the third to the lord of the slaves. And let the king from his part give a third to the count.

[407] On theft committed once by a slave. Chapter XXXIX. If any of the slaves shall have committed theft once, let him restore the theft, and redeem his nose with five heifers, if he can: but if not, let it be cut off. Graver punishments for the theft of slaves and free men were afterwards established by St. Ladislaus in book 2, chapter 12 and following: and in other places.

[408] On the penalty of one committing theft a second and a third time. Chapter XL. If one whose nose has been cut off shall commit theft, let him redeem his ears with five heifers, if he can: but if not, let them be cut off. If a third time he shall commit theft, let him lose his life.

[409] On the theft of free men, &c. Chapter XLI. If any of the free shall have committed theft, we have decreed to frame * this law, that once he may redeem himself, if he can: but if not, let him be sold. If the same, when sold, shall commit theft, let him be subject to the laws of slaves. If a second time, let him be subject to a like law. But if a third time, let him be adjudged to the loss of his life.

[410] Let counts not keep with themselves what belongs to the king. Chapter XLII. If any of the counts shall have defrauded the king's part, let him restore the fraud, and make composition twofold. This law, whose penalty is indeed lighter than is commonly inflicted for a like crime, is not exactly set forth in the title given in the margin.

[411] On the contempt … of the count's just judgment. Chapter XLIII. If any of the soldiers, spurning a judgment rightly judged by his count, shall appeal to the king, desiring to render his count unjust, let him be debtor of ten pensae of gold to his count.

[412] On restoring property to soldiers, &c. Chapter XLIV. If any of the counts, some occasion having been found, shall have taken anything unjustly from a soldier, let him restore it, and besides pay as much from his own.

[413] A promise falls into a debt. Chapter XLV. But if any of the soldiers, saying that his voluntary gift was taken from him by force, shall prove a liar, let him both lose this and besides pay as much. The title placed in the margin does not sufficiently explain the aim of this law, since it is rather the penalty of liars or calumniators.

[414] On those who kill a man with a sword. Chapter XLVI. If anyone shall kill a man with a sword, let him be slain with the same sword. To this and the following laws chapter 33 refers: from which we understand that these were probably framed earlier.

[415] On the maiming of limbs done with a sword. Chapter XLVII. But if anyone with a drawn sword shall have maimed any other, either in the eye, or in the foot, or in the hand, let him suffer a like damage of his own body.

[416] On him who, struck with a sword, received a wound. Chapter XLVIII. But if anyone has wounded another with a sword, and the wounded man has escaped from that same wound sound and whole, let the inflicter of the wound pay the composition of a homicide.

[417] Chapter XLIX. If anyone filled with fury shall have unsheathed a sword, and yet has not wounded, for the mere unsheathing let him pay half the composition of a homicide. On the unsheathing of a sword without a wound. In the edition of Sambucus the penalty stands thus: Let him pay the composition of a homicide, the word "half" being omitted.

[418] Chapter L. If any of the slaves is set over the royal court or a count's, On the testimony of slaves … set over a court. let his testimony be received among counts, if a slave has killed his lord, or a servant his count. On this the editor says: That the officials of lords and nobles are made equal to nobles in bearing testimony has flowed from this.

[419] Chapter LI. If anyone shall have conspired against the king or the kingdom, On conspiracy against the king and the queen. let him have no refuge in the church. If anyone shall in any way have conspired anything against the king's safety or dignity, or shall have attempted to conspire anything, or shall knowingly have consented to one attempting it, let him be anathematized, and deprived of the communion of all the faithful. Or if anyone shall have known any such man, and, being able to prove it, shall not have disclosed it, let him be subject to the aforesaid condemnation. In the title in the margin, instead of "and the queen" it would be more rightly read "and the kingdom", as appears from the law itself, and the edition of Sambucus agrees.

[420] Chapter LII. If to anyone God has given ten in a year, On tithing. let him give the tenth to God. And if anyone hides his tithe, let him pay nine. And if anyone hides his tithe, let him pay nine. And if anyone shall have stolen a tithing set apart for the bishop, let him be judged as a thief, and let the whole composition of this kind pertain to the bishop.

[421] Chapter LIII. If any crafty man shall say to any of the counts, or to another faithful person, On calumniators of the court. I have heard the king speaking to thy destruction, and he shall be found out here, let him perish.

[422] Chapter LIV. If anyone shall have uttered lies between two counts, On those who build up lies between two members of the court. and shall have entreated them to keep silence, so that by the devil's cunning he might separate them from one another, let him pay two compositions of a deceitful tongue for the guilt of lying. If he shall have flattered one only, let him be deprived of his tongue.

[423] Chapter LV. If any of those who are commonly called Uduornic shall have committed theft, On the theft of the Uduornici, that is, freedmen. let him be judged by the law of free men. But let his testimony not be received * among them. The word Vduornic in Sambucus is written Vdwornyck. As an interpretation there is noted in the margin, a noble freedman holding an estate. To these at last is added: Here ends the Decree of St. Stephen the king, promulgated at Gran (otherwise at Tolna) in the year 1035. But that the year of the promulgation is not certainly established I have already warned before. And so I proceed to the last deeds of the Saint and his blessed death.

* otherwise amplius ac solidius

* otherwise esse

* otherwise agitur

* otherwise quæ

* otherwise there is added divinarum rerum

* read divinitus

* otherwise excommunicare

* otherwise ille, as also below

* otherwise custodiant

* otherwise disciplinam

* otherwise impositum æque

* otherwise item

* otherwise observantibus

* otherwise vir ubertatis

* otherwise, better, fallentium

* otherwise perditas manus

* otherwise regale

* otherwise elevationis

* otherwise comites

* otherwise emenda

* otherwise eos

* otherwise nunc

* otherwise præsentes

* otherwise fornicatur

* otherwise pro eodem crimine decoriari

* otherwise decorietur

* otherwise decorietur

* otherwise ut

* otherwise &

* otherwise præter suam

* otherwise ducant

* otherwise there is added &

* otherwise veneficiis & maleficiis

* otherwise invenirentur is absent

* otherwise comparere

* otherwise recipiant

§ XXXV. The Saint's last illness: a conspiracy against his life discovered: his last admonitions, pious death, and burial.

[ ] [The Saint, seized by illness, discovers and punishes a conspiracy of certain men:] Carthuitius at num. 29 describes the last illness of the holy King, and narrates the plots laid against his life at that time. The same things Bonfinius records on page 184 in these words: He himself was seized with such a languor of body that he could not even stand upon his feet: wherefore he seemed to carry on the kingdom somewhat more remissly. Hence boldness is roused in four nobles, who still laboured under the profane perfidy of heart, and they enter upon a plan of assailing the king, thinking that by the king's death they would not only recall the Ungari to their former savagery, but also easily attain tyranny. By agreement one of these, evening being at hand, before the lamps were brought, enters secretly into the king's chamber with a hidden sword. While with cautious step he was searching in the darkness where he might be lying, by I know not what carelessness the sword fell and made no small crash. The King at once inquired the cause of this fall, although, divinely admonished, he was not ignorant of it: yet he summons the assassin. He asks what he means. But he, presently seized with immense repentance and a candid confession, discloses the whole matter, his body prostrate before his feet: and, embracing his knees, prays with many tears for pardon. The King, overcome by his entreaty, granted him impunity and dismissed him. By his edict the conspirators were presently sought out, and, the matter about them being ascertained, the lawful penalties were exacted.

[425] [he gives his last admonitions to his subjects, and commends the kingdom to the blessed Virgin,] The admonitions given toward the end of his life, the nobles having been called together, Bonfinius after Carthuitius sets forth on page 184 in this manner: His sickness growing worse day by day, an unlooked-for fever came upon him, which when he understood would shortly take away his life, he orders all the pontiffs and nobles to be summoned. To whom first about electing a king, then about the faith

to be preserved he spoke: nay, he instructed all with a most pious admonition, that they should most stubbornly retain the faith of our Saviour which they had entered upon, cultivate justice, love concord and peace together, vie with one another in mutual charity, and hold nothing more important than to abide in the Christian faith, to guard it by holiness and by arms, and to prefer to die rather than to worship false and vain divine powers; that they should keep their hands from human blood, likewise from thefts, robberies, and in fine from all violence, and should observe the divine precepts with the utmost zeal; that they should so live that they held nothing dearer than God, and that each should always give his effort so far as in him lay, that they might not injure God and man by any capital wrong, that they should live quietly with their neighbours, and should render obedience to the edicts of kings and the decrees of pontiffs. Last of all, the churches and all the colleges of priests, likewise the kingdom and his own soul with the whole multitude of the faithful, with flowing tears and hands raised to heaven, he in the assembly most earnestly commended to the holy Mother, the perpetual Virgin, and sole lady and goddess of the Ungari.

[426] he dies piously on the very festival of the Virgin's Assumption, Then the same writer records the Saint's pious death in these words: There was at hand the day of the august Virgin, on which we say she was reckoned among the Divine ones. This last day of his life Stephen had desired by vow, and had implored of the Divine Powers with the utmost earnestness, that he might seem to be carried into heaven on the same day with her. Having at length obtained his wish, amid an assembly of pontiffs and priests and a circle of nobles, the sacred rites being duly performed, in the thousand and thirty-fourth year from the year of Salvation, but the thirty-seventh of his reign, he breathed forth his soul, mourned by all with perpetual longing. This year of his death Bonfinius doubtless took from Carthuitius, and followed him in error, as elsewhere he follows him writing rightly. More rightly did Thuroczius express the year of St. Stephen's death, writing thus in chapter 34: But blessed king Stephen, full of holiness and grace, according to some in the forty-sixth, but according to the truth of the History published by the Church in his praise, in the thirty-seventh year of his reign, and in the thousand and thirty-eighth year of the Lord's Incarnation, on the feast of the Assumption of the most blessed Mary ever Virgin, is snatched from this present wicked world and joined to the fellowship of the holy angels. The same year of his death Ranzanus assigns, who has thus: At last, all the troubles and pains of his sicknesses being overcome with great courage and wonderful patience, in the thousand and thirty-eighth year of human salvation he died most piously, on the 18th of the Kalends of September: on which day is celebrated by the Christian Church the solemnity of the Assumption of the blessed Virgin Mary.

[427] Further, that Stephen died in the year 1038 various contemporary or nearly contemporary authors have unanimously handed down, in the year 1038, when he had presided over the Hungarians namely Wippo in the Life of Conrad, and in their Chronicles Marianus Scotus, Hermannus Contractus, Albert of Stade, the Saxon Annalist, and several others, whose catalogue it does not please me to weave. With these the Melk Ms. too agrees, relating his death in these words: In the year of the Lord's Incarnation 1038, in the sixth Indiction, Henry being Augustus of the Romans, and in the 38th year of his reign, on the Kalends of September he died. Two things in these are to be corrected: first, Henry was not reigning at that time, but Conrad, who was between the two Henries. Secondly, the day of his death is not rightly assigned, and this happened probably by the fault of the transcribers, who omitted the number XVIII before the word "Kalend.": for not a few other faults too are found in the same transcript. But the year of his death and the Indiction are rightly designated. As regards the years of his reign, how variously and faultily they are reckoned appears sufficiently from what has been said. This happened both because the Hungarian writers whom we have cited are not accurate in chronology, and because the years of his reign can really be begun variously; namely first from the death of Geysa, which fell in the year 997, and thus Stephen died in the forty-second year of his principate, if Geysa died before the 15th day of August of the year 997; but if Geysa died after that day, Stephen died in the forty-first year of his principate, and that almost completed.

[428] Secondly, those years can be reckoned from the royal crown received through his envoy Astricus, for about 41 years, and had reigned for almost 38. which happened in the year 1000, on the 27th day of March; and thus the thirty-ninth year of his reign was running when the Saint died. Thirdly, the number of the years of his reign can begin from the day of his solemn coronation in Hungary. And this coronation Inchofer at the year 1000 attaches to the 15th day of August, that is, to the festival of the Virgin's Assumption into heaven. If this opinion is true, he is rightly said in the Melk Ms. to have died in the thirty-eighth year of his reign, which was completed on the same day from his coronation. I do not know indeed whether Inchofer, relying on some ancient record, or on mere conjecture, assigned the aforesaid day to the coronation. But, since Astricus had to return from Rome into Hungary, and thence the nobles of Hungary had to be called together, and the rest arranged for the solemnity, it is credible that the coronation was not performed before the month of August; and since the holy King was most devoted to the Mother of God, it is not improbable that her chief festival was chosen by Stephen, that on it he might receive the royal crown with solemn rite. Nevertheless neither Inchofer's authority nor the reasons brought forward suffice for me to establish anything certain. This alone therefore can be said for certain, that the Saint presided over the Hungarians about forty-one years, but reigned about thirty-eight years; and altogether lived fifty-four or fifty-five years. Certain chronologers a little more remote, who do not agree with what has been said, are here rather to be despised than refuted at greater length.

[429] Of his burial the Melk Ms. briefly subjoins these things: He was buried with great honour in the church of Alba Regalis, And in the church of the Virgin Mary, which he completed with precious workmanship, he was honourably buried. Bonfinius writes the following more fully about the funeral rites on page 185: To celebrate the funeral rites of the holy King not only from all Pannonia and Dacia, but also from the neighbouring peoples many came together, that the funeral might be borne forth with singular pomp. The body, the pontiffs and the highest magistrates bearing it on their shoulders, was carried to Alba. Since the church of the holy Mother had not yet been duly consecrated, the metropolitan with the pontiffs and the colleges of priests first dedicated it after the custom. Presently they laid him in a marble tomb in the middle of the church, and duly reckoned him among the Divine ones. Scarcely was the body laid there when a countless multitude flowed to his altar of those making vows and of those grievously sick: yet many, to the wonder of all, returned possessed of their wish and singing thanks to God. Very many miracles were long wrought at his altar: there concerts of angels were often heard by night. The rest is rightly expressed; but two things must be corrected: for when he writes that the people flowed together from all Dacia, not all Dacia is to be understood, but Transylvania and a part of Hungary, not Wallachia or Moldavia. The other is a graver slip: for it is in no way probable that Stephen was presently reckoned among the Saints, as this writer asserts, who is freer than is just in such matters. Neither is in Carthuitius, who at num. 32 agrees about the rest.

[430] dedicated to the blessed Virgin, which he himself had built. Ranzanus has thus about the burial: He was buried in that church of Alba, which he himself, as was said before, had erected in the honour of the same blessed Virgin, where he had also caused blessed Emeric his son to be buried, a tomb of royal workmanship having been built for him, in which he rests. He was famous after his death for countless miracles, which to record is not part of my undertaking… On account of his death all Hungary for many years was affected with incredible sadness: for those who under so great a King boasted that a golden age had returned to Hungary, before he was taken away, afterwards fell into many perils of affairs. Of the burial, the miracles, and the mourning of the Hungarians, Thuroczius at chapter 34 speaks thus: But he was buried in the church of Alba, which he himself had built in honour of the most holy Mother of God ever Virgin Mary; where many signs and miracles are done, by the intervening merits of the same most holy King Stephen… Straightway too the harp of all Hungary was turned to mourning; and all the people of the kingdom, both noble and ignoble, rich and poor together in one, mourned over the death of the most holy King, the most pious Father of orphans, with most abundant tears and very many wailings: young men and maidens, clothed in squalid garments for grief and sorrow, led no dance for three years; and all kinds of sweet-sounding music were silent; and they mourned him with the mourning of a most faithful heart; and there was great and inconsolable mourning. Thus far he about the mourning, perhaps not without exaggeration: for I should easily believe that the mourning was very great; but that it lasted with the said ceremonies for three years I cannot persuade myself.

§ XXXVI. Stephen's successor Peter, his nephew by his sister: the calumnies cast on this occasion upon queen Gisela are sifted, and the rest about Gisela is investigated.

[ ] Stephen himself wished Peter for his successor: Carthuitius testifies at num. 30 that Stephen in his last illness treated with the nobles of the kingdom about substituting a king in his place; but he does not indicate whether the Saint's will prevailed in the election of a successor. But the Melk transcript, recording out of order and before the preface itself certain things about the King's last sickness, clearly indicates whom the Saint desired as his successor: for, having related the convocation of the bishops and nobles, with them First, as is there read, he treated of substituting a king in his place, namely Peter the son of his sister, whom, born in Venice and called to him, he had long since set over his army as leader: then he admonished them in fatherly wise to keep the orthodox faith. From these words it manifestly appears by whose counsel chiefly Peter, Stephen's nephew by his sister, was raised to the kingdom, about whose election other writers too agree. Wippo, a contemporary writer, in the Life of Conrad the Salic at the year 1030 has briefly thus: In the same year Stephen king of the Ungari died, leaving his kingdom to Peter the son of his sister. In the fuller Chronicle of Hermannus Contractus at the same year these things are read: In that same year Stephen king of the Ungari, … appointing Peter the son of his sister, born in Venice, king in his place, died. All these hint that Stephen himself was the author of Peter's being chosen as his successor. This is probable from elsewhere too, both because he was the Saint's nephew by his sister, and because he was born of a Christian father, so that the religion lately planted in Hungary could be more safely committed to him than to the Hungarians themselves, of whose constancy in the faith the Saint perhaps had less confidence.

[432] Nevertheless Thuroczius at chapter 34 attributes the promotion of Peter to the evil arts of queen Gisela, Thuroczius attributes the promotion of Peter to the evil arts of Gisela, and at chapter 33 asserts that St. Stephen wished to promote to the kingdom his cousin Vazul, whom the Hungarians say was the son of Michael, who was the brother of Geysa. Hear his very words: But meanwhile he (Stephen) began to be forsaken by his bodily strength, and, feeling himself burdened with a most grievous languor, sent hastily a messenger, namely Buda the son

of Egruth, that he should bring out from the prison of Nitria the son of Vazul his cousin, whom the king had shut up on account of his youthful wantonness and folly, that he might be corrected; and lead him to himself, and before he died make him king. But queen Keisla, hearing this, took counsel with Buda *, a wicked man. And she sent with the utmost haste a messenger, by name Sebus, the son of that same Buda, to the prison in which Vazul was detained. Sebus therefore, forestalling the king's messenger, dug out the eyes of Vazul, and stopped up the hollows of his ears with lead, and withdrew into Bohemia. But after him the king's messenger, coming, saw Vazul deprived of his eyes, and led him with those same wounded eyes to the king: whom the holy king Stephen, seeing him so wretchedly destroyed, burst into excessive tears: but, the trouble of his sickness hindering him, he could not inflict due punishment on the evildoers. Having therefore called together the sons of Ladislaus the Bald his uncle, namely Andrew, Bela, and Leventa, he counselled them to flee as quickly as they could, that so they might preserve their safety and the wholeness of their bodies. They therefore, acquiescing in the wholesome counsel of the holy King, fled from the face of evils and sorrows into Bohemia. The inconstant author here commits two genealogical errors: for by his own words at chapter 27, Michael (the brother of Geysa) begot Ladislaus the Bald and Vazul. And so Vazul was Stephen's cousin, not the son of his cousin; and Ladislaus the Bald likewise was his cousin, not his uncle.

[433] about which Bonfinius, doubting, invents two Giselas: No less bitterly does the same author inveigh against queen Gisela, whom he names Keisla, at chapter 34, where after relating the King's death he subjoins these things: But queen Keisla with Buda the accomplice of her crimes determined to set over them Peter the German, or rather the Venetian, the queen's brother: aiming at this, that queen Keisla might be able to fulfil the impulses of her will at her pleasure, so that the kingdom of Hungary, its liberty lost, might be subjected to the Germans without hindrance. Bonfinius was not ignorant that such things were written in the Annals of the Hungarians, but did not give them full credit, nor yet did he cast them away as wholly false. Hear him on page 185: But before our discourse turns to other matters, I think that must be inserted which the Hungarian Annals relate about the substituting of a new king, passed over by the other writers. And then, having narrated plainly the same things about Gisela's arts which I have just given from Thuroczius, he thus expresses his doubt: And very many wonder that the Annals of the Ungari relate that Gysla dared so great a crime; since plainly all writers affirm that she was a most holy woman, and not unworthy of the holy King and of her brother the emperor. Wherefore, if we wish to defend the writings of both, we are compelled to affirm that Stephen took two wives, and that both had the name Gysla: one, and she the sister of the most holy Henry: the other the daughter of William, who was the brother of St. Sigismund and came forth from the family of the dukes of Burgundy: and we shall assert that each was of different manners, &c. So Bonfinius, doubtfully, that he may reconcile the statements of Thuroczius with true history.

[434] [but a twofold queen Gisela is ineptly invented, and the whole account of Thuroczius is incredible,] But this reconciliation is neither true nor skilfully devised, since St. Sigismund had been dead many centuries, and that William the Burgundian is unknown, as I said at num. 177. But the account of Thuroczius itself cannot be true, since it has been sufficiently shown at num. 431 that by Stephen's own counsel Peter was elected, not by the fraud or guile of Gisela. Nay, Thuroczius does not even narrate probable things: for first it is not probable that the holy King wished Vazul to be promoted to the kingdom, if he was keeping him shut up on account of his youthful wantonness and folly. No more probable is it that Gisela was of so great power and authority that she would dare or be able to have the eyes torn out of him whom the King himself desired as his successor. Again it is incredible that the Hungarians would have consented to the election of Peter, if the crown of Hungary had been sought for him by so great a crime: for, Vazul being deprived of his eyes, there survived others of the descendants of Michael, namely Andrew, Bela, and Levanta, of whom the first two afterwards obtained the kingdom. Yet Peter obtained the kingdom peacefully, nor does any of the Hungarian nobles seem at first to have opposed himself to his election, as I gather not only from the testimonies adduced, but also from the Life of St. Gerard cited before, in which after relating Stephen's death these things are read: King Peter succeeded, to whom, when all the princes of Pannonia had sworn fidelity and love, one of them (after three years), the king being cast down, wrongfully usurped the royal chair: in whose reign, as the Prophet says, Blood touched blood, sin was heaped upon sin.

[435] And so I am wholly persuaded that what Thuroczius narrated about the blinding of Vazul is either sheer fiction, so that it is either wholly fictitious, or arisen from errors. or wrapped in gross errors; even though I am not ignorant that almost the same is read in Dlugossus at the year 1038. If Vazul was deprived of his eyes in prison while Stephen was alive, I cannot doubt that he incurred that penalty for some grave crime, and by Stephen's own command, either because he had conspired against his life with those palatines whose crime Carthuitius narrates at num. 29, or because he had wished to restore the rites of the pagans in Hungary. But if Vazul, innocent, suffered that calamity, I should rather believe that it happened under one of the later kings, under whom much innocent blood was shed. Yet of these things nothing certain can be established, save this one thing, namely that what the later Hungarians handed down about Gisela's machinations is not credible, and does not at this time seem probable even to the Hungarians themselves, so far as I judge. Brunner in the Bavarian Annals, part 2, book 5, at the year 1038, having likewise refuted the statements of Thuroczius about Gisela, subjoins: The father (of Emeric, Stephen), dying, appointed as heir Peter the son of his sister, born among the Venetians. Gisela's fortune from that time is more obscure: what we have ascertained and can attest we shall set forth in its place.

[436] Then, about Gisela's being harassed by king Peter, at the year 1042 he has thus: Brunner writes that Gisela was harassed by king Peter, That was the Peter whom Stephen king of Hungary had while still alive set over the kingdom, and, for the sake of confirming his possession, had punished with the loss of his eyes the son of his brother * (he means Vazul) who threatened him, and had punished his sons with exile; demanding for these so signal proofs of benevolence no other return than that he should have such regard as was fitting for Gisela his consort, if anything human should befall himself, she surviving … Peter, having promised all things lavishly, scarcely a year having elapsed from Stephen's death, with feigned mourning laid aside his fidelity and care for Gisela; and, from guardian made robber, took from the wretched woman the state left her by her Husband, and not only the ornaments but even the supports of life; and, having hemmed her within the narrows of free custody, was not content to keep her from the public, but also excluded her from the meeting and conversation of her household. The nobles, pitying the queen's unworthy lot, admonished the king of his duty and of the pledge given … Cursing him as deaf to these voices, since they knew well enough that his ears were beset by Budo the most wicked of the palatines, they demand him for death, and, the king not daring to open his mouth against it, they cut him in pieces: and they put out the eyes of his children. The king, fearing that he was next, against whom their anger would turn, since he saw nothing else remaining, consults his safety by flight. These things indeed differ much from the statements of Thuroczius; but I confess that I do not know how certain they are; since he cites in the margin the Chronicle of Altaich, plainly unknown to me.

[437] The same writer at the year 1045, having narrated the bringing back of king Peter into Hungary by the emperor Henry, [and that therefore she went out of Hungary: others will have it that she was made abbess at Passau and buried there:] adds these things about Gisela: That Gisela the widow of king Stephen clung to him (Henry) as he departed from Pannonia, Aventinus wrote: that she wished to place the remainder of her age in safety, and, having been struck twice, to escape a third thunderbolt, becomes credible; and her mausoleum, which is shown at Passau, is an argument that she died in Bavaria. Aventinus, Annals of the Bavarians, book 5, page 324, has thus of Gisela: The emperor (Henry the son of Conrad), returning from Hungary, … carries off with him queen Gisela, the wife of the holy Stephen; and settled her at Passau *, where in the church of the consecrated women her mausoleum is shown (and) is visited by reverent Ugri (that is, Hungarians). Hundius in the Metropolis of Salzburg, tome 2, page 585, treating of the monastery of Niederburg at Passau, delivers the following about Gisela's last deeds and place of burial: There in the year 1095, on the Nones of May, died Gysala, the sister of St. Henry the emperor, wife of Stephen king of Hungary, the second abbess of this place, buried here at the right side of the entrance, who, bereaved both of Husband and of son, came to Passau into this monastery, in which she first took the monastic habit, and, a little after being designated abbess, illustriously adorned and increased the monastery. Gewold, who published and illustrated with notes the Work of Hundius, on page 588 doubts whether Gisela was abbess there, and adduces the words of Aventinus just given. Mabillon, tome 4 of the Annals, page 422, declares his judgment about these things in these words: For the rest, Gisla or Gisala, the most pious consort of Stephen, sister of the holy emperor Henry, … is said to have put on the monastic habit at Passau in the Bavarian convent of Niederburg, and there to have discharged the office of abbess after Heilka, the aunt of the holy emperor Henry, and to have administered, illustrated, and increased that monastery excellently: but that she is said to have died in the year 1095 is beyond belief; otherwise she would have been more than a hundred years old. This correction is certain enough, provided the rest does not waver: for some have written that Gisela died in Hungary, as Hansizius acknowledges, tome 1 of the Germania Sacra, page 245, yet rejecting their opinion.

[438] her memory added to more recent Calendars; but her cult by no means approved. For the rest, since the memory of Gisela has been inserted in the sacred Calendars by certain moderns, it may here be asked whether she has been adorned with ecclesiastical cult. Our Elders in the Praetermissa at the 7th day of May recorded the following: Gisala, sister of St. Henry the emperor, queen of Hungary, wife of St. Stephen, mother of St. Emeric, kings, is recorded with the title of SAINT by Ferrarius in the General Catalogue, and by Arthur du Monstier in the Sacred Gynaeceum; but with the title of BLESSED by Dorganius and Bucelinus, because after her husband's death she was an abbess of the Benedictine Order. Meanwhile by Menard she is called only VENERABLE, and by Rader she is set forth in Bavaria Pia. Of her there will have to be treatment in the Life of St. Stephen the king, her husband. Thus Henschen, reporting their words, but not approving them, and at the same time sufficiently hinting that he was not satisfied about a lawful veneration, about which no more has been ascertained by us even today. Nay rather Mabillon in the Benedictine Acts, century 6, part 2, page 894, having reported the same martyrologists, to whom he adds Wion in the Tree of Life, concludes the eulogy of Gisela with these words: This one thing is certain, that no

public cult was ever decreed her by the Church, although from the passage of Aventinus cited above it appears that her tomb was frequented by the faithful for the sake of devotion. I doubt whether that very frequenting of her tomb is sufficiently certain, although it has been handed down by Aventinus: for that others are of another opinion I have observed above.

* Buda

* patrui (uncle's)

* Passau

§ XXXVII. The elevation of the body, made in the reign of St. Ladislaus; and many miracles wrought about the same time.

[ ] [The Saint's body raised by the Pontiff's command, and in the presence of St. Ladislaus,] If the epoch of Carthuitius and Bonfinius is exact, the body of St. Stephen lay buried without ecclesiastical cult for forty-five years, and was then honourably raised, the supreme Pontiff commanding it, and St. Ladislaus king of Hungary being present, as also the bodies of certain other Saints of Hungary were likewise raised under the reign of the same Ladislaus. Further, what Carthuitius and Bonfinius assert, that the body of St. Stephen and of others was raised by the command of the Roman Pontiff, is confirmed from the Life of St. Gerard the martyr, in which toward the end the following are read: Where (at the tomb of Gerard) many graces were obtained by Catholic men; yet not evidently until the times of king Ladislaus and of the pontiff Lawrence, who was the fifth to receive the see from that great man (Gerard). And in the time of the aforesaid king it was determined by a synod of the holy Roman Church that the bodies of those who had watered Pannonia with the preaching of the faith ought to be venerated with the highest honour, and to be placed in worthy seats. And, a legate of the Apostolic See coming, and an assembly of the nobles of Pannonia being held, the holy body was raised. What is here said of the Apostolic legate is omitted by Carthuitius and Bonfinius; yet it does not seem to be doubted that the same legate was present at the elevation of the body of St. Stephen, and of his son St. Emeric, whose body was raised in the reign of the same Ladislaus, as his Life testifies at the end.

[440] The year of the elevation may not be far from the truth, about the year 1083: if we set about the year 1083, in which the forty-fifth year after the Saint's death was completed. For the elevation was made when Salomon, formerly king and afterwards stripped of the kingdom, was on that occasion released by St. Ladislaus from the prison in which he had been detained. This not only Carthuitius and Bonfinius affirm in two places; but also Thuroczius at chapter 56 narrates the imprisonment of Salomon and his release thus: He therefore (Salomon), raging, began with seething mind to contrive plots for the destruction of the innocent blood of Ladislaus: but he fell into the pit which he made… But king Ladislaus, the crime being discovered, seized Salomon, and thrust him into prison at Visegrad… And although Salomon had been in prison, Ladislaus much more grieved for him. But afterwards king Salomon, released from prison at the elevation of the body of the holy king Stephen (and) of blessed Emeric the confessor, &c. But that this release happened about the year 1083 is gathered from the things which preceded. Ladislaus, Salomon having been excluded by the Hungarians, is said to have obtained the kingdom after the death of his brother Geysa in the year 1077, and in the fourth year of his reign he was reconciled with Salomon, giving him allowances sufficient for royal expenses. That was the year 1080 or 1081, in which Ladislaus was planning to hand over the kingdom itself to Salomon, if the Hungarians had not prevented it. Then followed the machination of Salomon against Ladislaus, and his imprisonment; which together could take up two or three years, so that it can easily be believed that the elevation of the body of St. Stephen happened in the year 1083, that is, forty-five years after his death, or at least about the year 1083.

[441] a brief account of the miracles, Our Melk transcript too has the elevation of the body, but with no other note of time than that it happened under St. Ladislaus. The miracles too are there narrated only in general terms, and the other circumstances are omitted. Nevertheless this Ms. account confirms the fuller narration of others, to which it is in no way repugnant. Take then the words of the manuscript: Many years therefore passing in their course, whether because of the overflowing malice of the people, or because of some division in the Church, the treasure of so great a wealth lay hidden meanwhile, and, hidden from the knowledge of mortals, appeared to the eyes of the Lord alone: but his incomprehensible goodness, wishing to reveal how great a reward he was with God, gave him glory in the sight of men, the frequency of miracles growing bright: and as with praise and song he stood before Him in heaven, so with praise and song He worthily and memorably adorned him in his Church on earth. For like the beam of a new light his sanctity shone in all the region round about; and like the sweetness of a fragrant ointment it filled the hearts of those who heard. There flowed all men of divers infirmities, who, touched by the antidote of his piety, were healed: and those who had almost failed through the stroke of corruption returned made whole and firm.

[442] and the narration of the elevation. Ladislaus, king of pious memory, presiding on the throne of the kingdom, the bishops and abbots and those who were set over the government of the holy Church, perceiving his sanctity by the witness of signs, by common decree proclaimed the affliction of a three days' fast: the bishops, giving themselves to prayers, awaited the visitation of the heavenly clemency upon the people. Afterwards, lifting their hearts to God, they resounded with the voices of hymns in the confession of His name; and so they came to the place where the most holy body was enclosed: which, loosing it, they opened; and so great a diffusion of odour arose as never appeared to those standing by: and the limbs of all the sick who had run thither were healed: the blind obtained light, the lame soundness of their feet, the lepers a clean skin, the paralytic health, and all who were held by whatever besetting pain deserved a cure. Taking up the burden of inestimable price, they gave thanks to Almighty God, and, carrying it into a silver casket, sealed it. Thus far briefly the author of that writing, omitting the particular deeds which Carthuitius pursues, and, partly from him, partly from others, Bonfinius.

[443] Another account from Bonfinius: the elevation made by the Pontiff's command: He on page 186 relates all in these words: His body, before it was raised by Pontifical sanction, or rather by divine declaration, lay there forty-five years. At length, after Ladislaus, a man most devoted to God, obtained the kingdom, this was sanctioned by Apostolic authority, and a diploma was so sent into Pannonia, that whosoever first laid the foundations of the Christian faith in Hungary, lest they should be defrauded of lawful honour, all their bodies should be displayed in a semblance of glory with solemn celebration, that men might here believe them to have been reckoned among the Divine ones. The diploma being received, Ladislaus his great-grandson, an assembly of the nobles and prelates being held, proclaimed a three days' fast for all: exhorting all that by prayers, fasting, supplications, and alms they should seek divine auspices, by which they might understand the divine will. The time of the fast being finished, they came to the tomb of the holy King: whose stone, when they strove to move it, they could by no force stir from its place. This portent came about at that time in which, a quarrel having arisen between Ladislaus and Salomon his brother, the one was confined by the other's command in a grievous prison. The immense effort, frustrated, drove the king into the utmost astonishment: and by such a sign he deterred all, who took it as an omen that the Divine Power was angry. Then a certain virgin, called by the name of Charitis, who was living most holily not far from the church in the house of the Saviour, suddenly admonished Ladislaus that he was striving in vain, and that the stone could not be moved from the tomb until his brother was brought out of prison. The king, admonished by the oracle of the holy virgin, at once orders Salomon to be freed from his chains: he proclaims a three days' fast again: on the third day, the sacred rites being duly performed, in the sight of a most numerous multitude of peoples, the huge stone was most easily removed. Thus far the author agrees well enough with Carthuitius. But what he adds about the body being brought out of the tomb and carried round the church seems an addition, and is not probable, since the elevation is narrated afterwards.

[444] The body of the holy King, brought out of the tomb, and, all crying out, carried round the church, the tomb being opened, very many miracles wrought, was presently laid up according to its dignity: and by the most evident kindness of the Divine Power so many miracles were wrought that no one maimed in body, or languishing with sickness, went away without his wish. There in so great a multitude one could see the lame walk, the blind see with their sight restored, the dumb speak, lepers and paralytics healed, minds wavering in the faith confirmed: in fine, all sicknesses of body and mind driven away. Nay, a young man who for about twelve years, loosened by paralysis, lacked the use of hands and feet, having been brought hither in a cart, the aid of the Divine Power being implored, suddenly leapt down: and, giving thanks to God and proclaiming the praises of Stephen, ran suddenly to the altar through the midst of the multitude. A boy of seven years, seized by a contraction of the sinews, being brought to the tomb, presently, his arms and feet being stretched out, walked freely. But king Ladislaus, turned to amazement by the success of so many miracles, placed him upon the middle altar, and endowed him with a most elaborate chapel. Already the fame of so great a divine power spread abroad so that from all the borders of Hungary throngs of the sick hastened. Of these, those who laboured more grievously and were compelled to come more slowly, earnestly beseeching the holy King, recovered on the way, and in token of testimony had there plainly gathered stones into heaps.

[445] But this surpasses belief: a woman had an only boy, [among which a dead boy was restored to life: the coffin being opened, a most sweet odour perceived,] who, seized by a sudden death, breathed out his soul: the mother, relying on the patronage of the Divine Power, with an immense affection of heart carries her dead son into the chapel of the holy King, and that indeed with this mind, that she would never move from the place until according to her vow He should call back the soul into the boy. Of the woman's purpose not to go away unless she recovered her son Carthuitius has nothing: and therefore what he adds about the woman's boldness is groundless, going on in these words: Nor indeed did faith and hope itself deceive the bold little woman: having entered the chapel, she besought the Divine Power with so vehement an entreaty that, in the sight of a most numerous crowd of men, while the woman bewailed her bereavement, the boy stretched on the ground leapt up, and poured himself into his mother's embrace. How great glory hence accrued to the holy King, and how great amazement seized all on account of the report, each will easily conceive for himself. Likewise on the fifth day after the raising to heaven of the august Virgin all the princes of Hungary, and besides the pontiffs and the colleges of priests, with Ladislaus the most religious king came together at Alba, that they might perform solemn rites in the church, and make offerings for the dead: the funeral rites being presently celebrated, they came to the monument of the holy King. Which when by the king's command it was most reverently opened, the Divine Power having first been besought, so great a fragrance of odours flowed forth from it that it filled the whole church as with a certain heavenly dew. Then, when they handled the bones, they found them anointed and moist with a certain balsam.

[446] [and the bones anointed with balsam and much liquid: the ring, when it had been sought in vain,] The bones being presently gathered and laid up in fine linen, they began to search in the liquid for a golden ring, his old ornament: which, when by no inquiry they could obtain it in the marble chest, they thought of drawing off the liquid: which, when it began to be drawn off, very many phials and casks being filled, could never be wholly emptied out. For at each drawing this liquid was renewed by the power of the Divine Power. And when this was ascertained, what had been drawn off they at once poured over the bones laid up, and after the pouring that liquid neither

seemed to have increased nor to have diminished. From the treasure found there the altar of the holy Virgin was renewed. Nay, a short time after, the wife of an eminent prince, whose name was Mathilda, and whom a pain of the bowels had assailed for three years, moved by his fame journeys into Hungary, and, having entered the chapel, was presently freed from her inmost torment. But we are compelled to return to the ring on the right hand.

[447] [It is wonderfully handed over to Mercurius the monk with the Saint's whole right hand;] Mercurius, born of Hungarian stock, and father of Albert the provost of Cathinan, and sacristan of the church of Alba, who had once renounced the political life that he might more freely serve religion, when king Ladislaus had commanded the tomb to be opened, lest anything should be taken away from the holy King's relics, was with very many others who had clung to the tomb removed far off by the king's command. He went away rebuffed with sad countenance, and, since he was a monk, betook himself into the sacred choir, where, when, suffused with shame, he was grievously distressed because he had been able neither to see the most holy body nor to touch it with kisses, behold a certain young man in the dead of night stood before him, of incredible form, with a noble face and a most white garment, bearing I know not what wrapped in fine linen. Take (he said), Mercurius, what thou hast desired, and hold most commended this most precious gift which is committed to thy fidelity, keep it most diligently, and when time shall be given, bring it forth thyself. The nocturnal rites being duly performed, Mercurius, having sought a hiding place, unwraps the thing delivered, finds the holy King's right hand and the ring, and both wonders and gives thanks to the Divine Power.

[448] as he afterwards makes known: He withdrew to the foot of the Carpathian mountain, which divides Transylvania from Hungary, and formerly divided Dacia Ripensis, or hither Dacia, from the further and Transalpine, where he was to govern a certain monastery constructed of timber. He kept the hand with so great zeal that he dared not entrust it either to himself or to another. Judging it better to commit it to the earth, he buried it, and appointed daily watches of the monks, lest in any way it could be stolen: from day to day he awaited the time of bringing it forth to be given, and moreover he admonished the founders of the monastery about this matter, that they should care for it with equal zeal: at length he disclosed it in order to king Ladislaus, whom he understood to be a most holy man. Presently by the king's edict an assembly of Pontiffs and nobles is held, where a solemn day of the Royal right hand is at once decreed. Then Ladislaus with the whole college of priests showed the right hand of holy Stephen laid up, and brought it into the church, which he afterwards restored at great cost and with most rich furnishing, and endowed with many villages, towns, and revenues. And that this happened in the one thousand and seventy-eighth * year of salvation, the writings and privileges of that monastery indeed testify, and they now call it the abbey of the Royal Right Hand. Over which in our time Antonius Salonensis presided, a man of great wit and no mean learning in sacred Letters, and showed us the privileges, whence we received these things. So Bonfinius; whom I should believe drew the rest indeed from the privileges; but not that which against probability he asserts about the right hand buried in the earth. Nay rather I should believe that he wrongly delivered this from a passage of Carthuitius ill understood, where it is said: There he long resolved alone upon the guardianship and watch of a treasure hidden in a field. Carthuitius did not mean by these words to indicate that the King's right hand was hidden in a field, but that it is like the Gospel treasure which is said to be hidden in a field.

[449] But all could not sufficiently wonder at this, why the right hand should appear whole, while the rest of the body was consumed: that Stephen's body had been reduced to dust, that nothing survived but the bones, and those already consumed by decay: but on the contrary that the right hand, adorned with the wearing of the ring, had remained whole, and had been subject neither to worms nor to livid age. For what cause ought the right hand rather than the head, and the heart most devoted to God, to have claimed itself from decay? Assuredly because it was the right hand of piety and mercy, which from special purses dispensed alms to every most afflicted person, all confirm that this miracle happened. For who will deny that this flowed from the divine mouth of our Saviour: Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy. Deservedly therefore ought that hand to be free of corruption, which suffered no one to beg, to hunger, or to lie in captivity or in any misery whatsoever. Accordingly all with one voice repeat and venerate the holy Stephen, and not unjustly, as the first father of his country. Thus far Bonfinius, in most things faithfully following Carthuitius.

[450] For the rest, of the Saint's relics I find almost nothing written afterwards. besides the Saint's other relics, his crown too diligently preserved. Yet I cannot doubt that some of them were transmitted to other places. Certainly among the very many relics which the emperor Charles IV took care to have transferred to Prague there is numbered also a finger of St. Stephen king of Hung[ ], as may be seen in our tome 1 of January, page 1084, in the catalogue of those relics there given. Among the relics of St. Stephen may also be reckoned the sacred crown, which has always been most diligently preserved by the Hungarians; and sought back with the utmost zeal when it was lost, as twice happened. Of it Thuroczius and Bonfinius treat in various places, and others have written more about the same: but a few things here will suffice for our undertaking. Gretser in the Syntagma on the insignia of the empire, chapter 14, speaks thus to our purpose: Other kingdoms too have had, and even now have, their own royal ornaments, which they used at the inauguration or coronation of their kings, and which they use in this age also. To the Hungarians certainly the royal crown, received from St. Stephen, is so sacrosanct that when at one time it had been lost, immense mourning seized all the inhabitants of the kingdom, &c. Again below: When Vladislaus the Pole was to be inaugurated as king, and yet the sacred crown was not at hand, having already been carried off into Austria, lest anyone should seem to be created king of Hungary without some crown of St. Stephen, they crowned Vladislaus with that crown which had formerly been prepared with wonderful artistry of workmanship for the adornment of the relics of the holy King's head, as Turoczius says at chapter 31. Yet the crown was afterwards recovered, and has been guarded with the utmost diligence to this day. From these it sufficiently appears in how great price the crown of St. Stephen is held by the Hungarians.

* of so great price

* they flowed

* the year seems faulty

§ XXXVIII. St. Stephen enrolled in the number of the Saints at the time of the aforesaid elevation of the body: his cult from that time most celebrated throughout all Hungary: the festival of the Finding of the right hand.

[ ] A doubt raised about the formal canonization of St. Stephen: The Most Eminent Lambertini, today happily presiding over the universal Church as Benedict XIV, in the Work on the beatification and canonization of the Servants of God, book 1, chapter 41, §8, relates that the aforesaid elevation of the body is narrated in the Life by Surius, and doubts whether it was a simple beatification or a solemn canonization. Take the words of the most learned Cardinal: In the same (Life) it is moreover related that the body of St. Stephen, forty-five years having elapsed from his death, was raised under Ladislaus king of Hungary, the authority of the supreme Pontiff intervening. But however it be about that elevation, and whether it implied a simple beatification or a formal canonization, which is indeed still uncertain, since neither about its substance nor about its manner is anything established; yet about the sanctity of St. Stephen, and about his equivalent canonization, no room for doubt remains, from the decree of the supreme Pontiff Innocent XI, issued on the 28th day of November. The decree of Innocent XI, by which the Saint's festival, which until then had been celebrated with a simple rite through the whole Church, is raised to a semi-double rite, we shall give in its place. Meanwhile, however, I observe that the equivalent canonization was already beyond all doubt as soon as the Saint's festival was inserted with a simple rite in the Roman Breviary. But the doubt about a formal canonization, which the Most Eminent Cardinal could not settle from Surius alone, I shall endeavour to remove by employing other records.

[452] but since all seems to have been done by the Pontiff's command, First, those things seem to have been done when the body of St. Stephen was raised which in that century were wont to be done by the Apostolic See in order that some servant of God should be numbered among the Saints by formal canonization. For the Life at num. 33 has thus: By an institution of the Roman See it was sanctioned by Apostolic letters that the bodies of those should be raised who, sowing in Pannonia the seeds of the Christian faith, had converted it to the Lord by their preaching or teaching. And when the time of his declaration came, … king Ladislaus, … counsel having been taken with the bishops and chief men, … proclaimed a three days' fast for all, so that what should seem to be profitable to the common utility of Catholics … should be sought by the common entreaty of all, founded on fasts and alms, through the manifestation of signs. Bonfinius, cited at num. 443, asserts the canonization more clearly in these words: This was sanctioned by Apostolic authority, and a diploma was so sent into Pannonia, that whosoever first laid the foundations of the Christian faith in Hungary, lest they should be defrauded of lawful honour, all their bodies should be displayed in a semblance of glory with solemn celebration, that men might here believe them to have been reckoned among the Divine ones. From the Life of St. Gerard already cited we understand that that elevation was decreed in a synod of the Roman Church: for these things are there read: And in the time of the aforesaid king (Ladislaus) it was determined by a synod of the holy Roman Church that the bodies of those who had watered Pannonia with the preaching of the faith ought to be venerated with the highest honour, and to be placed in worthy seats. And a legate of the Apostolic See coming, &c.

[453] From what has been said we have that a synod of the Roman Church was gathered, which were wont to be done in the eleventh century in which the cause of St. Stephen, of St. Gerard, and probably of St. Emeric, as we shall gather from what is to be said, was examined. But it is established that canonizations in the tenth, eleventh, and twelfth centuries were frequently decreed in councils. Various examples the Most Eminent Lambertini heaps together in book 1, chapter 20, namely of St. Udalric bishop of Augsburg canonized by John XV in a Lateran council; of St. Gerard of Toul by Leo IX in a Roman council; of St. Godehard of Hildesheim by Innocent II in the council of Rheims, and of St. Sturmius abbot of Fulda in the second Lateran. Secondly, from the same we understand that not only was the elevation of the body permitted by the Pontiff; but it was sanctioned that the body should be raised, and that the diploma of that decree, or Apostolic letters, were sent into Hungary. But at that time the Pontiffs were not wont to command the cult of any Servant of God except by formal canonization: for although a like command of a Pontiff is sometimes found in a mere beatification, as the said Cardinal shows in chapter 39, num. 8, yet this was done more rarely, and almost only in later centuries. Thirdly, we see an Apostolic legate sent into Hungary for this cause: from which we understand that a matter of graver moment was treated of than at that time the elevation of the body of some Blessed was reckoned, whose cult the Roman Pontiff had merely permitted. Bonfinius too expresses the canonization in clear words: That men might here believe them to have been reckoned among the Divine ones.

[454] All these things seem to persuade that St. Stephen with others was at that time enrolled in the number of the Saints by a definitive

sentence of the Roman Pontiff, in favour of a formal and solemn canonization, pronounced after mature examination in a council, and with that solemnity which was customary in the eleventh century. Among the things which then belonged to the solemnity in a canonization was the elevation of the body, of which the Most Eminent writer has thus in chapter 36, num. 16: The bodies also of those Blessed whom they enrolled among the Saints the supreme Pontiffs commanded to be raised on occasion of the canonization; or themselves, if the bodies were in the place in which the canonization was made, raised them with due reverence and honour. These things are there proved by examples of the supreme Pontiffs Leo IX, Alexander III, Celestine III, and Gregory IX. But it is manifest that the same was done concerning St. Stephen and the others whose bodies were raised at the same time. Further, if this elevation happened by Pontifical command forty-five years after the Saint's death, it was St. Gregory VII who sent the aforesaid commands into Hungary. By the command of the same Gregory the body of St. Paschasius Radbertus abbot of Corbie is said to have been raised, although the diploma of that elevation is no more preserved than that of the elevation of St. Stephen. But several diplomas of this kind have not come down to our memory.

[455] Finally, about the canonization of SS. Stephen, Emeric his son, and Gerard bishop of Chanad and martyr, and since his festival in the same century I am not permitted to doubt by those things which in the year 1092 were decreed in the synod of Szabolcs, at which with St. Ladislaus the king and Seraphinus archbishop of Gran there were present all the bishops, abbots, and nobles of Hungary. For in it, in Peterfy, page 33, chapter 37, it is read established that the vigils of blessed Stephen the king and of Gerard the martyr be celebrated, on the day on which he suffered, &c. And in chapter 38, concerning the festivals to be celebrated through the year, these things are decreed: But these festivals are to be kept through the year: the Nativity of the Lord, St. Stephen the protomartyr, St. John the evangelist, the Holy Innocents, the Circumcision of the Lord, the Epiphany with its vigil, the Purification of holy Mary, at Easter four days, St. George the martyr, Philip and James with the vigil, the Finding of the Holy Cross, the Ascension of the Lord, at Pentecost four days, St. John the Baptist, Peter and Paul on one day, St. James, St. Lawrence, the Assumption of St. Mary, holy king Stephen, St. Bartholomew, the Nativity of St. Mary, the Exaltation of the Holy Cross, St. Matthew the apostle, St. Gerard the bishop, St. Michael the archangel, SS. Simon and Jude, All Saints, St. Emeric the duke, St. Martin, St. Andrew, St. Nicholas, St. Thomas the apostle. And let each parish celebrate its own patron and its dedication. It is not indeed added in express words that these festivals are prescribed to be celebrated with cessation from work; but this is sufficiently gathered from the festivals themselves maturely considered; since otherwise doubtless more memorials of Saints would have had to be kept through the year.

[456] was reckoned among the chief festivals of Hungary Moreover in the synod of Gran held in the year 1493 a like catalogue of festivals is woven, and indeed a much fuller one, many festivals afterwards instituted being added. But there on page 232 it is clearly said: We establish that on the days written below clerics and laity ought to abstain from servile works. There is found in the same catalogue Stephen, as also Emeric, but not Gerard, who almost alone is omitted for the many others substituted, because his feast was no longer celebrated with the same solemnity. And so already in the same eleventh century the Saint's festival was celebrated throughout all Hungary with cessation from servile works. But so great a solemnity, likewise prescribed for SS. Emeric and Gerard, whose bodies were raised by the same Pontifical decree, seems to leave no doubt that the canonization preceded or accompanied the elevation, as Bonfinius asserts. Coloman the successor of St. Ladislaus, to increase the solemnity of St. Stephen, established these things in book 2 of the Decrees, chapter 1: That yearly on the feast of the holy King, unless we be prevented by pressing business or by infirmity, we be bound to solemnize at Alba: and if we cannot be present, the palatine without doubt shall be there for us.

[457] it seems it must be said, Among the Statutes of the Cistercian Order, which Edmond Martène published in tome 4 of the Thesaurus of Anecdota, col. [ ], he reckons a decree of the year 1486: It is granted to the abbots of Hungary that they may keep the feast of St. Stephen king of Hungary on the morrow of St. Bernard (that is, the 21st of August), and the feasts of St. Ladislaus and St. Elizabeth with their proper histories, all other histories, chants, and feasts unusual in the Order being utterly rejected. That the veneration of St. Stephen was famous throughout all Hungary foreign Writers too have known, of whom I adduce only one, Godfrey of Viterbo, who in part 17 of his Chronicle, in St. Henry the emperor, has thus of it: This Stephen all the Ungari venerate as a saint, because through him they received the beginning of the faith. These last words, like which are found in other writers, at the same time hint that not yet at the time in which Godfrey was writing, that is, in the twelfth century, was the festival of St. Stephen celebrated through the whole Church. But from that no one would rightly argue against his canonization, sufficiently proved above: for this is common to St. Stephen with almost all the Saints, and with those canonized even most solemnly: and that usage prevails even in this time, in which we see many enrolled in the catalogue of the Saints, and yet not for all of them is an Office at once composed which should be prescribed on their festival to all who recite the canonical Hours.

[458] From what has been said therefore I conclude that St. Stephen by decree of the supreme Pontiff, that he was canonized, and indeed the first of kings. that is, by formal canonization, was enrolled in the catalogue of the Saints, just as there was enrolled in the same catalogue St. Ladislaus his great-grandnephew by his brother, St. Henry the emperor, St. Edward king of the English, St. Louis king of the French, and afterwards several others. Wherefore of St. Stephen and St. Ladislaus I so understand the words of Cardinal Gentilis, legate of the Apostolic See in Hungary, which I gave more fully at num. 192, and of which these belong here: From which (seeds of the Hungarian kingdom) Catholic kings came forth, conspicuous with so great brightness of sanctity and life that they deserved to be enrolled in the catalogue of the Saints. No other kings of Hungary could at that time be understood than Stephen and Ladislaus, of whose canonization it was established, when at the beginning of the fourteenth century the Pontifical legate said these things. This too it is pleasant to observe to the glory of St. Stephen, that he seems altogether the first of kings on whom that honour was bestowed by the oracle of the supreme Pontiff. The Saint's chief festival was celebrated on the 20th day of August, which the universal Church too adopted, as we shall see. But besides that festival another too was celebrated, at least in certain places: for Peterfy in his annotations adduced on page 34 the Calendar of a certain ancient Breviary, in which these things are read: The 30th of May, the Finding of the right hand of St. Stephen. Thus far concerning the cult throughout Hungary.

§ XXXIX. The Saint's cult received in Sweden, and at length through the whole Roman Church, first with a simple rite, then with a semi-double one with a proper Office, from which the lessons of the second nocturn are given.

[ ] The Saint's cult in Sweden, from whose Missal three prayers are given: The cult of St. Stephen was not so confined in Hungary that it did not extend itself to other regions, and those most distant. For in the Votive Missal of the kingdom of Sweden, printed two hundred and sixty years ago or more, of which mention has already been made in St. Ladislaus, tome V of June, page 316, there is a Mass of St. Stephen, from which I transfer hither three prayers. The first is this: O God, who hast crowned blessed Stephen thy king and confessor with the glory and honour of an earthly rule, and hast exalted him with the fellowship of thy Saints; grant, we beseech thee, that him whom Pannonia had as a teacher of divine religion on earth, thy Church may now deserve to have as a defender in heaven. Through our Lord, &c. The second is this: Look with kindly countenance, Lord, upon the sacrifice which we offer to thy Majesty, and by the intercession of blessed Stephen thy king and confessor defend us from the snares of all enemies, and grant us the rewards of eternal life. Through, &c. The third at last: Guard, we beseech thee Lord, thy household; and her whom by the teaching of blessed Stephen thy king and confessor thou hast turned from darkness to the true light, mercifully lead, after the course of this time, by the protection of the Sacrifice offered, to the kingdoms of heaven. Through, &c. The Mass begins, Os justi, and all the rest is fittingly adapted from the Sacred Scriptures to the holy King.

[460] his memory in more recent Calendars on the 20th of August, The memory of St. Stephen was afterwards inserted in various more recent Calendars, and received into the Roman Martyrology and Breviary. A Belgian author, who in the fifteenth century put together the Florarium of the Saints, in manuscript with us, has thus of St. Stephen at the 20th of August: In Hungary, of holy Stephen the king and confessor, the first Christian of that nation: whom holy Adalbert bishop of Prague by his saving preaching converted to the faith of Christ and baptized. And the King himself by his preaching converted the Ungari, and established the greater church at Gran in honour of St. Adalbert after his martyrdom. And he governed the kingdom of Hungary happily for 35 years. And at length he passed to the Lord, whom with all his mind he had loved in life, in the year of salvation 1040. That his death was precious in the sight of the Lord, frequent miracles testify, which the Lord displayed to glorify his Saint. The editors of Usuard — Belinus, Grevenus, and Molanus — likewise added the memory of the same Saint to their editions, as may be seen in the Usuard of our Sollerius at the 20th of August, where the first records him thus: In Hungary, in the royal city, Alba Regalis, of holy Stephen the king, who first converted the Ungari to the faith. Maurolycus almost agrees, in these words: At Alba Regalis in Hungary, of holy Stephen the king, who first converted the Ungari to Christ.

[461] as formerly in the Roman Martyrology and Breviary: Galesinius at the same day adorned this Saint with this eulogy: At Alba in Pannonia, of holy Stephen the king: who, cultivated in divine virtues and famous for the religion of his life, with God's help brought it about that, the worship of demons being repudiated, the Ungari embraced the faith of Christ Jesus. A little more briefly Baronius in the Roman Martyrology, using these words: At Alba in Pannonia, of holy Stephen the king, who, adorned with divine virtues, first converted the Hungarians to the faith of Christ. He adds this note: On this day (the 20th of August) his body was translated: but he passed from this life on the 18th of the Kalends of September. This day of his death is certain from the Life: and from the same at num. 38 Baronius rightly gathered that on the 20th day of August the body was translated. Antonius de Balingem in the Calendar of the Most Holy Virgin Mary at the 20th of August followed Baronius, writing thus: The Translation of St. Stephen, first king of the Hungarians, &c. Further, at the same day the Commemoration of St. Stephen was inserted in the Roman Breviary

with a ninth lesson, in which about the translation it is thus read: His sacred body, fragrant with a most sweet odour, welling with a heavenly liquid, amid many and various miracles, was on this present day, by command of the Roman Pontiff, translated to a nobler place and more honourably laid up. The day of the translation therefore was chosen by the Hungarians, because the day of his death was blocked by the most solemn festival of the Virgin's Assumption: and the same day the whole Roman Church adopted, so long as the Saint's festival was celebrated with a simple rite. But another day had to be chosen when a semi-double rite was prescribed, because that could not coincide with the feast of St. Bernard, which is celebrated on the same day.

[462] [but now the festival to be celebrated with a semi-double rite on the 2nd of September:] That greater solemnity for the festival of St. Stephen the emperor Leopold, and king of Hungary, obtained in the year 1686 from Innocent XI, after very many victories won over the Turks and the storming of Buda, as appears from the Decree of the sacred Congregation of Rites, which was given on the 28th day of November and printed in the same year at Rome, as follows: The pious prayers of the Most August Emperor Leopold, presented by his letters to our Most Holy Lord Pope Innocent XI, and remitted to the Sacred Congregation of Rites, in which it was besought that his Holiness would deign to lend assent and to command that the Office of the holy Stephen King of Hungary, which hitherto has been recited by the universal Church under a simple rite, should henceforth be recited by all of both sexes who are bound to the canonical Hours under a semi-double rite by precept: the same Sacred Congregation, held on the 23rd day of November 1686, the matter being maturely weighed, judged that the grace sought, if it should please our Most Holy Lord, ought to be granted, and that also the second day of September could be assigned for the celebration of the above-said feast, in perpetual memory of the signal and glorious victory obtained by the imperial arms against the Turks by divine help in the vigorous storming of the fortress of Buda, formerly said to be the Saint's residence. Report of which being made to his Holiness by the Most Eminent and Most Reverend Lord Cardinal Cybo, his Holiness kindly assented, and commanded that a decree of this kind be issued. On this 28th day of the same month of November, and of the year 1686. N. Cardinal Ludovisi. In place of the Seal †. Bernardinus Casalius, Secretary of the Sacred Congregation of Rites.

[463] This decree having been issued, care was taken that a proper Office of St. Stephen should be composed. The Office approved by the sacred Congregation of Rites, whose prayer And this, neatly and exactly composed, the Sacred Congregation of Rites approved by the following decree: Whereas the sacred Congregation of Rites, held on the 23rd day of November 1686, the Most Holy Father also assenting, commanded that the Office of St. Stephen king of Hungary, which hitherto has been recited by the universal Church under a simple rite on the 20th day of August, should henceforth be recited by all of both sexes, both secular and regular, who are bound to the canonical Hours, under a semi-double rite by precept, yearly on the 2nd day of September; the same sacred Congregation approved the above-written lessons and the rest, as they stand, diligently revised and reported by the most eminent and most reverend Lord Cardinal Colloredo, and granted that they might be printed. On this 19th day of April 1687. There was subscribed A. Cardinal Cybo. And below, after the place of the seal: Bernardinus Casalius, Secretary of the Sacred Congregation of Rites. The Office was printed in the same year at Rome, and afterwards inserted in the Roman Breviary. It has this prayer: Grant, we beseech thee, to thy Church, almighty God, that it may deserve to have blessed Stephen thy confessor, whom while reigning on earth it had as a propagator, as a glorious defender in heaven. Through our Lord, &c. The three lessons of the second nocturn contain an elegant summary of his Life, except however his warlike deeds. Wherefore I transfer them hither.

[464] as also the lessons of the second nocturn, Lesson IV. Stephen brought into Hungary the faith of Christ and the royal name, the royal crown having been obtained from the Roman Pontiff, and by his command being anointed as king, he offered his kingdom to the Apostolic See; he founded various homes of piety at Rome, Jerusalem, and Constantinople: in Hungary the archbishopric of Gran and ten bishoprics, with admirable religion and munificence. Equal was his love and liberality toward the poor, whom, embracing them as Christ himself, he never dismissed from him sorrowing and empty; nay, besides bestowing most ample resources for relieving their need, he frequently distributed with exceptional kindness his household furniture also: moreover he was wont to wash the feet of the poor with his own hands, to frequent the hospitals alone by night and unknown, to serve those lying sick, and to perform the other offices of charity: by the merit of which virtues his right hand, the rest of his body being dissolved, remained incorrupt. But thou, &c.

[465] containing a summary of his life, Lesson V. Through zeal for prayer he passed almost whole nights sleepless, and, fixed in the contemplation of heavenly things, sometimes rapt out of his senses, he was seen borne aloft into the air. The conspiracies of traitors and the assaults of powerful enemies he more than once avoided in a wholly wondrous manner by the protection of prayer. His son Emeric, whom he had by Gisela the Bavarian, sister of St. Henry the emperor, whom he had joined to himself in marriage, he brought up with such discipline of manners and such piety as his sanctity afterwards declared. And the affairs of the kingdom he so ordered that, most prudent and most holy men being summoned from every side, he never undertook anything without their counsel. Meanwhile with most humble prayers in ashes and hair-cloth he besought God that he might deserve to see the whole kingdom of Hungary Catholic before he departed this life. Truly on account of his immense zeal for spreading the faith he was called the Apostle of that nation, the power of having the Cross borne before him being granted him and the succeeding kings by the Roman Pontiff. But thou, &c.

[466] are here recited: Lesson VI. The Mother of God, whom he venerated most ardently, a most ample temple having been built in her honour, he appointed Patroness of Hungary; and by that same Virgin was in turn received into heaven on the very day of her Assumption, which the Hungarians by the holy King's institution call the day of the Great Lady. His sacred body, fragrant with a most sweet odour, welling with a heavenly liquid, amid many and various miracles, was by command of the Roman Pontiff translated to a nobler place and more honourably laid up. But his feast Innocent the Eleventh, Supreme Pontiff, appointed to be celebrated on the fourth of the Nones of September, on account of the signal victory won on that same day from the Turks by divine help by the army of Leopold the First, elected emperor of the Romans and king of Hungary, in the storming of Buda. But thou, &c.

[467] his memory afterwards inserted in the Roman Martyrology in two places, By force of the above-said decree too the memory of the Saint was omitted on the 20th day of August in the Roman Martyrology: and inserted in two other places, namely at the 15th of August briefly in this manner: At Alba in Pannonia, the birthday of holy Stephen king of the Hungarians, whose feast is celebrated on the fourth of the Nones of September. But a fuller eulogy was inserted at the 2nd day of September, which I subjoin: At Alba in Pannonia, of holy Stephen king of the Hungarians, who, adorned with divine virtues, first converted the Hungarians to the faith of Christ, and was received by the Virgin Mother of God on the very day of her Assumption into heaven: yet his feast, by the constitution of Pope Innocent the eleventh, is chiefly kept on this day, on which the most strongly fortified citadel of Buda was vigorously recovered by the Christian army by the help of the holy King.

[468] For the rest, it is pleasant here to observe that the author of the Parisian Martyrology wished to correct the eulogies of almost all the martyrologists and rightly announced at Alba, which a modern wished wrongly to correct. who announce Stephen at Alba in Pannonia, because it is established that he was buried there: for he himself at the 15th of August has thus: At Buda in Pannonia, of holy Stephen the first king of the Hungarians, who converted that nation to Christ: whose body was translated to Alba Regalis. But that correction was neither necessary nor is it certain: nay, it is little probable that the Saint died at Buda, of which not even a word occurs in the Acts. He is indeed said by the writers cited at num. 320 to have stayed at Old Buda while he was there founding a monastery, which he left unfinished at his death: but Old Buda is not the same as the present-day city of that name, nor can it be rightly gathered from the aforesaid that the Saint remained at Old Buda until his death. Yet I suspect that the author of the Parisian Martyrology had no other reason for substituting Buda for Alba Regalis than the conjecture just mentioned, by which he confounded the two Budas, and by which he wrongly attached his death to that place in which he is said to have stayed for a time, namely for a time, but not until his death; since it is not asserted that he wished to remain there until he should see the monastery finished, whose building could not be completed in a few years.

§ XL. The rest concerning the Saint's miracles.

[ ] The Saint was famous after his death for miracles: Of the miracles of St. Stephen many writers have made mention, but almost only in general terms, except Bonfinius and Carthuitius and others who followed these. The words of some I have already given on other occasions in the course of this work: but here I shall add a few out of many. Hugo abbot of Flavigny in the Chronicle of Verdun, in Labbe, tome 1 of the Bibliotheca of Mss., page 174, has thus to our purpose: But indeed Stephen king of the Ungri, called to heavenly things at the approaching time of his summons, now in the church in which he lies buried is famous for excellent miracles. Ricobaldus of Ferrara in the History of the emperors, in Muratori, tome 9 of the Writers of Italy, col. 119: Which king Stephen was of such virtue that God rendered him illustrious with many miracles. Jacobus Philippus of Bergamo, book 12, at the year 983, has thus of the miracles of Stephen and other matters: Stephen likewise, the first king of Hungary, converted and baptized at that time by the preaching of the aforesaid Adalbert bishop of Prague, was also famous for many signs, &c. Finally Cuspinian, On the Emperors, in Henry the second, affirms these things about Emeric and Stephen: He was thereafter reckoned with his Father in the number of the Saints, as the Annals of the Hungarians testify: for neither lacked the glory of miracles.

[470] Wonderful is a particular event which is narrated in the Life of St. Emeric, among these there occurs a wonderful event, whose author testifies that it happened in his own time, that is, about the beginning of the twelfth century, in which he is gathered from that same event to have written. Take the matter in summary. A certain man of German nation, by name Conrad, on account of enormous sins of which he repented, having set out for Rome, had been ordered by Gregory VII the supreme Pontiff, as a penance, to gird himself with a cuirass, bound firmly to his body with five iron chains, until by the patronage of some Saint, the chains being broken, the cuirass should fall off of its own accord. He traversed many holy places before he obtained mercy: Meanwhile, says the author, the fame of blessed Stephen king of Pannonia, at whose tomb daily miracles were done, was held distinguished: and, the journey being completed, the man above mentioned came to Alba, where the body of St. Stephen, laid up, was venerated. And when in others the power of God and the intercession of the excellent King was revealed by famous miracles, yet that man was more tightly distressed in the bonds of his cuirass, and confirmed with himself by an oath that he would not remove himself from the place of the church until the Lord should show in him how great was the merit of blessed Stephen with him. It came to pass

that, when it was about the sixth hour of the day, from the excessive weariness of his body and the contrition of his heart he fell asleep in the church. And blessed Stephen was present to him in his sleep, saying in this manner: Rise now, and presume not upon my merits with God, since I do not suffice to intercede for thee. Go therefore to the tomb of my son blessed Emeric, &c. There is presently subjoined the deliverance of that same man at the tomb of St. Emeric.

[471] about a certain Conrad, condemned to a most grievous penance, The same event Bonfinius relates on page 178, setting forth thus what happened at the tomb of St. Stephen: At length, led by the fame of the holy King Stephen, he (that Conrad) betook himself into Pannonia: he came to Alba Regalis, where his body was laid up in a magnificent chapel, and that indeed with this mind, that he would never withdraw thence until, the chains being loosed of themselves and the tablets blotted out of their own accord, he should know himself expiated: nay, he had confirmed his purpose by an oath. Having presently entered the church of Alba, he placed himself before the altar of the holy King, wears himself out with immense repentance for the deeds most wickedly done by him, and solicits the Divine Power with most vehement prayers, that by his patronage he might obtain pardon of all his crimes. When from the first hour of the day to the ninth he had applied himself to entreaties, wearied in body and mind, before the altar he was presently seized by a heavy sleep. Behold, while he slept, the holy King appears to him: Rise at once, he says, friend, and know that not even in my merits or help must thou trust before the tribunal of the divine Majesty, since for so great a mass of crimes my patronage cannot suffice even for thee to obtain impunity for thy offences. Accordingly go to the monument of my Emeric, which is near, who, since by reason of his virginity he has deserved a special grace with God, if he be employed as advocate, thou shalt (believe me) be granted impunity for all thy crimes, &c.

[472] until he should obtain indulgence by the patronage of some Saint: Certain wonderful things occur in this history, which, lest they should seem even incredible, a few things are to be observed. First, it cannot be doubted that that Conrad was guilty of so many enormous crimes that he could not have completed before death the penance wont to be inflicted for them according to the canons. This could happen not rarely, since for single enormous sins a penance of some years was imposed, and therefore now and then, because of the multitude of crimes, the time of that penance so grew that it far exceeded a man's lifetime. But that Conrad probably could not satisfy the rigour of the canons in his life; and perhaps too he had committed crimes for which the manner and time of penance had not been ordained by the canons, as the Life of Emeric hints in these words: But the Pope, astounded at the quantity of his sins as unheard of before, deliberation being held, did not cure his wounds by an enjoined penance; that is, I suppose, he did not prescribe him any fixed time of penance, because his sins were so unusual that nothing had been decreed about them by the canons. And so, since that sinner had deserved a penance to be ended only with his life, and the Pontiff nevertheless wished to leave him some hope of at some time ending it, he permitted and persuaded him to endeavour to obtain indulgence by the patronage of the Saints, and, that being obtained, to know himself canonically absolved. Further, that rigour of the canons for public and enormous crimes was in force in the eleventh century. But the case was not the same for hidden sins, for which confessors imposed arbitrary penances, as Thomassin observes in the Old and New Discipline of the Church, part 1, book 2, chapter 16, num. 5.

[473] The second thing which I would have observed here concerns the words whom Stephen, appearing, is said to have sent to his son St. Emeric. which the writer of the Life of St. Emeric attributes to St. Stephen, "I do not suffice to intercede for thee," and which Bonfinius somewhat altered. It is certain and indubitable that many obtain some favour through the patronage of a certain Saint, after they had hoped for it in vain by invoking some other Saint. Not a few examples too are found in Lives of Saints of the best repute which are similar to the event here related, at least as to substance. Nevertheless the words just given must be read cautiously, since we do not know whether they are the very words of St. Stephen, or altered or invented by the writer, and a slight change at once introduces another meaning. Perhaps the Saint only admonished the penitent to invoke St. Emeric, indicating that the desired grace was to be obtained by his patronage: for some writers are freer than is just in narrating the circumstances of events. Next, even if it were certainly established that they are the very words of St. Stephen which the author expressed, even so the greatest care must be taken lest anyone should wish to infer from those words that St. Emeric is of greater merit with God than St. Stephen: for that does not lawfully follow, since some graces are wont to be more easily obtained through one Saint, others more easily through another. And hence it comes about that there are many Saints who are chiefly invoked, and held as patrons, for averting some certain evil, or obtaining some certain grace. For the rest, I find nothing more about the Saint's miracles, because either they were not written down afterwards, or those writings, if they ever existed, have perished. Wherefore I set an end to this Commentary, and subjoin the Acts illustrated with annotations.

VITA

By Carthuitus or Carthuitius the bishop as author

From the Cracow edition, collated with the Corsendonck Ms. and the edition of Surius.

Stephen, first king of Hungary, at Alba Regalis in Hungary. (S.)

BHL Number: 7921

By Bishop Carthuitius.

PREFACE.

The author says that he writes this Life by the king's command. To his lord Calamannus ^a the most excellent king, Carthuitus the bishop, having obtained a spiritual office by the mercy of God, wishes after the end of this life that happy and everlasting "Well done." About to begin the work, my Lord, renowned king, which by your royal command you have powerfully enjoined upon me concerning the good life of king Stephen, I long endured the rebellious ignorance of my little wit, chiefly for this reason, that Priscian ^b, the author of the art of Grammar, once known to me to the marrow, having withdrawn far off, makes his face most obscure to me, now decrepit, as if flowing round with a certain mist. Nevertheless on the other part, while I was burdened with uncertain deliberation as I regarded the reverence of your dignity, at length obedience, the light and gem of all virtues, overcame the doubt of my anxious mind, and, seeing my strength fail in me, by its strong protection it receives the confidence of beginning the work ^c. But since a thing done confidently often begets the tinder of envy, I pray on bended knees the loftiness of your triumphal excellence, that you receive this little Work with the hands of royal defence, lest the arrangement of ill-sounding phrases or the enormity of confused order should offend your eye when you read. But if any unworthy stumbling-block shall occur, I had rather the burning of fire should consume the book than that envy should come at the full to the eye. Therefore, since whatever is good flows from the mercy of the Creator, by his gift the discourse begun sounds forth such things ^d.

ANNOTATIONS.

CHAPTER I

The Saint's father, his birth illustrated by foregoing visions, his baptism, the beginnings of his reign and his care for propagating religion: victory over the rebels and hence the monastery of St. Martin founded by vow.

The Saint's father kindly toward Christians, Every best gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights. The best gift and perfect gift of this Father, coming forth abundantly upon all, because he spurns none, but wills all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth, was diffused even to the Hungarians, who, it is established, were once the scourge ^a of Christians. How and when this was done we have judged it fitting to commend to memory by the office of the pen. For at that time in which the aforesaid nation was laying waste the Church of God, there was among them a certain prince, the fourth from him who first was leader of the entry of the Hungarians into Pannonia, (his name ^b Geysa), severe indeed and cruel, as acting by his power, toward his own people, but merciful and generous toward others, and especially toward Christians, though the pagan rite

still indeed enwrapped him: nevertheless, at the approach of the brightness of a spiritual grace, he began attentively to treat of peace with all the neighbours of the provinces situated round about, so that already in him it could be recognized whose son he desired to become, according to the saying of our Saviour, who says in the Gospel: Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the sons of God. He moreover established an ordinance that to all Christians wishing to enter his duchy the grace of hospitality and safety should be shown ^c. To clerics and monks he granted the power of approaching his presence, to whom, gladly affording a voluntary access, he took delight that the seed of the orthodox faith, sown in the garden of his breast, should send forth a shoot.

[3] [and at length himself a Christian, is instructed by a wondrous vision about the Son who was to be born:] What more? The time divinely appointed is at hand: he himself believed with his household, and was baptized; and he promised that he would bind all subject to his dominion to the Christian name. And when he was exceedingly solicitous about subduing the rebels, and destroying the sacrilegious rites, and establishing bishoprics according to his own estimation for the advancement of holy Church, the Lord consoled him by night with a wondrous vision ^d. He caused to stand before him a youth delightful of aspect, who said to him: Peace be to thee, elect of Christ, I bid thee be free of care from thy solicitude. That which thou meditatest is not granted to thee, because thou bearest hands polluted with human blood. From thee shall go forth a Son who is to be born, to whom the Lord will commit all these things to be disposed by the counsel of divine providence. He shall be one of the kings chosen by the Lord, about to exchange the crown of this worldly life for the eternal. Nevertheless receive honourably the man to be sent to thee on a spiritual mission, when received hold him venerably, and lend to his exhortations the unfeigned assent of a faithful heart. The prince, awakened and astounded at the vision, pondering it first with himself, then with the faithful of Christ and his own men, humbly gave thanks to God, clinging to the pavement with hands outstretched, and with flowing tears commended himself and his principate, with the Son to be born, to the guardianship of Him who neither sleeps nor slumbers.

[4] [St. Adalbert comes to preach to the Hungarians, and, his mother's vision going before, baptizes Stephen,] While therefore he wonders about the man divinely foretold, it is announced to him that blessed Adalbert, pontiff of the church of Bohemia, would come to him for the sake of his conversion and the advancement of an unfeigned faith, and would offer to the Lord God a sacrifice of praise. An unspeakable gladness arises among the new soldiers of Christ: the duke goes forth with all the faithful to meet the recruit ^e of Christ, receives him honourably, and, as he had been warned by the vision, showed himself in all ways a son of obedience. Therefore, by the prince's command, there is everywhere a gathering of the untamed nation f and by the holy bishop it was ^g, and by his exhortations the natives of the country are continually converted and baptized, and churches are established in many places: for the light which enlightens every man, the darkness being driven out, began to shine in Hungary, and there were fulfilled in it the words of the prophecy which says: The people of the nations, which walks ^h in darkness, saw a great light. The light of invisible light is Christ, whom the nations then deserved to see, when, recalled from darkness, they perfectly believed him to be true God and true man ⁱ. Nor is this to be passed over in silence, that, so that all ambiguity might be removed from the midst, lest perhaps the aforesaid vision of the man alone should seem to have too little credit, divine grace willed to console his wife, now drawing near to childbirth, with such a vision. For there appeared to her the blessed levite and protomartyr Stephen, adorned with the insignia of the levitical habit, who began to address her thus: Trust in the Lord, woman, and be sure that thou shalt bear a Son, to whom first in this nation a crown and a kingdom are due, and lay upon him my name ^k. And when the woman, wondering, answered him: Who art thou, Lord, or by what name art thou called? I am, he said, Stephen the protomartyr, who first bore martyrdom for the name of Christ. Which said, he disappeared.

[5] Meanwhile the Son foretold by the Lord is born to the prince, Stephen, carefully brought up, is designated his father's successor; whom, according to the prophet, before he was conceived in the womb the Lord knew; and to whom, before he was born, he gave a name through his protomartyr. Him Adalbert the bishop, beloved of God, dipped in the baptism of chrism according to the truth of his belief ^l. The name imposed on him was Stephen, which we do not believe to have been foreign to God's counsel. For Stephanus in Greek sounds Corona (crown) in Latin. Him indeed God willed both to crown in this world for the power of a kingdom, and in the future decreed to encircle with the crown of an ever-abiding blessedness, for receiving the unfailing glory of perpetual life. And he had the beginning of his birth in the town of Gran ^m; and while still a boy ⁿ he was fully imbued with the knowledge of the art of grammar. The Infant grew, nourished by diligent upbringing, who, boyhood being passed, after he had ascended the first step of youth, his father, having called together the chief men of Hungary with the following Order ^o, by the counsel of a common conference set his son Stephen over the people to reign after him, and to confirm this exacted an oath from each.

[6] After these things, full of days, in the year of the Lord's Incarnation nine hundred and ninety-seven [p], he exchanged the hardships of this wicked world for heavenly joy. [and, his father being dead, he obtains the principate: presently solicitous about propagating religion,] And in that same year blessed bishop Adalbert, having entered Prussia for the sake of preaching the word of God, was there crowned with the palm of martyrdom. But after his father's death Stephen, still a youth, having laudably advanced * to his father's throne by the favour of the princes and the people, began with a more ardent mind to be a propagator of the truth, because, although he flourished in the years of youth, yet he had not his heart in his mouth, but his mouth in his heart. Not unmindful of the divine Scriptures, with which he especially burned, he set judgment and justice before his eyes, and according to that saying of Solomon: He that heareth wisdom shall be wiser, and he that hath understanding shall possess the helms. Being therefore a faithful dispenser in all the commandments of God, he began to meditate with himself how he might bind the people subject to him to the worship of the one God. But because he weighed that this could by no means be done without regard [q] to the neighbouring nations, having peace with the peoples of foreign provinces [r], he also strengthened the faith that had been faithfully established, that the more securely he might be able to fulfil what he was turning over in his mind, and that in the new planting of Christianity. But the adversary of all goodness, full of envy and malice, the devil, that he might disturb the purpose of Christ's holy Recruit, stirred up internal wars against him, since at his instigation the heathen people, refusing to submit their necks to the yoke of the Christian faith, with their princes were contriving to withdraw themselves from his lordship [s].

[7] he conquers the rebels and enriches the monastery of St. Martin. For they began to lay waste his cities, to devastate his estates, to plunder his possessions, to slay his servants, and, to be silent about the rest, to insult him himself. And when they were unwilling to turn aside from their perverse way, nor was their fury sated; the Duke himself, trusting in the eternal power, went forth with the multitude of his army under the banner of Martin the pontiff beloved of God and of the holy martyr George, to overcome the madness of the enemy. In those days by chance they besieged the city which is commonly called Vesprim [t], and this to stir up insults against him, namely because there * the ducal court had its residence, and that they should sit down there, whereby an easier entrance might be found for seizing the other strongholds. But he, the divine clemency going before, rose up against them, and, he trusting in faith, but they only in arms, they fought on both sides. At length, the enemy being conquered and partly slain and partly taken and bound, the Duke as victor with his men carried off the gifts of victory. Wherefore he wisely judged concerning their possessions, both in fields and in villages, not like Saul of old, who, Amalek being conquered, had chosen the better of its spoils, the Lord forbidding; but, since Pannonia glories in the birth of the blessed pontiff Martin, by whose patronizing merits also the Man faithful to Christ, as has already been said, had carried off victory over his enemies, reserving nothing of their goods for his own use, deservedly [u] by counsel with men beloved of God, beside the estate of the holy prelate in the place which is called the sacred measure [x], where St. Martin, while he was still living in Pannonia, had assigned himself a place of prayer, he began to build a monastery under his title, enriched all sufficiently with possessions and revenues, and by his suffrage did the like for the bishops, ordaining that from all their goods tithes so strict should be given, that if anyone should happen to have ten children, he should give the tenth offspring to the monastery of St. Martin.

ANNOTATIONS.

p. About this year of Geysa's death, as also of St. Adalbert's, the writers agree. Of the death and last deeds of Geysa more has been said at §12. That Stephen was then about thirteen or fourteen years old has been said at num. 122.

q. Surius has "confœderatione", in which sense the author is to be understood.

r. Surius, "he made peace", straying from the mind of Carthuitius, I think: for I judge that he meant only that Stephen strengthened the peace made by his father with his neighbours.

s. In the edition which I otherwise follow it reads "divino". But since it is a clear fault, I have substituted from the Ms. the word "dominio".

t. Of this whole war we have treated in the Commentary, §14, and there of Vesprinium at num. 144.

u. Surius, "by the counsel of those who love God". The author perhaps wrote, "counsel having been entered upon with the theophili", that is, with those who love God.

x. "Sacer modus" is also in the Ms., but more rightly in Surius "Sacer mons": for so is called the monastery of St. Martin founded there, of which I have treated at length in the Commentary, §15, where the reader will see that that monastery had already begun to be built before this victory.

* in the Ms. provectus

* perhaps ubi

CHAPTER II

His care for advancing religion, and the coming of many into Hungary: a monastery built, bishoprics erected: an envoy sent to Rome, who obtains the royal crown and many privileges from the Pontiff: his nuptials with Gisela and the pious works of both.

[ ] The King's exceptional piety: the coming of holy men into Hungary: The enemy therefore being conquered, the Soldier of Christ, filled with spiritual * joy, decreed that the counsel of his whole wit should be a receptacle of the evangelical seed, giving himself to alms and prayers, frequently clinging to the pavement of the holy house, and with flowing tears committed the completion of his purpose to God, who wills it, so that he who could do nothing without him might, by the fulfilment of his disposition helping the good which he had conceived, be able with the beginning of virtues to bring it to its end. For beginning and completing this, therefore, since he had need of the counsel of Christ's faithful, by messengers and letters he made known his desire into all parts. Hence many presbyters and clerics, pricked by the visitation of the Paraclete Spirit, leaving their own seats, chose to go on pilgrimage for the Lord. Abbots and monks, desiring to have nothing of their own, resolved to live according to rule under the governance of so religious a Prince. Among whom Astricus, a father of the regular life, arrived with his disciples, of whom one, by name Boniface ^a, being afterwards appointed abbot in the father's place, when he had been sent by the blessed King for the sake of preaching into the lower parts of Hungary, being struck on the crown of the head with a sword, although he afterwards survived, was not deprived of martyrdom. There came also two others from the land of the Poles ^b, choosing the eremitical life for the sake of contemplation, of whom one, Andrew by name, by the merit of confession was associated with the choirs of angels, the signs of miracles wrought through him by the Lord bearing witness: the other, Benedict, was mercifully crowned with laurel, his blood being shed for Christ.

[9] a monastery founded at the foot of the Iron Mountain, Astricus the abbot, honourably received with his men, built at the foot of the Iron Mountain a monastery under the title of the holy father Benedict ^c, and there to this day a congregation, strong in monastic discipline according to rule, abounding in the sustenance of temporal supplies from the gifts of the holy Duke, lacks nothing, save to wash its own feet and those of others, according to the Gospel, with daily prayers and tears. With these the servant of God, the most Christian Prince, holding converse sometimes courteously with all, sometimes singly with each of them, rendered himself so approved in such divine sight that he converted all the companions of his warfare to the worship of the true God. But those whom he found followers of another way he subjugated by threats and terrors; and, instructing them according to ecclesiastical doctrine, applied the yoke and law of discipline to necks brought under ^d, and utterly destroyed all the uncleannesses of evils.

[10] After these things, having divided the provinces into ten bishoprics, he ordained that the church of Gran should be the metropolis and mistress ^e of the rest. Hungary divided into ten bishoprics; an envoy sent to Rome, who the crown, But the prudent Duke, recognizing the religion of the aforesaid Astricus, adorned him with the mitre of pontifical dignity, exalted him by canonical election, and conferred on him the dignity ^f of the bishopric of Kalocsa. In the fourth year after his father's death ^g, the divine clemency admonishing him, he sent the same prelate Astricus, who by another name was called Anastasius, to the thresholds of the holy Apostles, that he might request from the successor of St. Peter the Prince of the Apostles that * he would extend a bountiful blessing to the new Christianity arisen in the parts of Pannonia, would sanction the church of Gran as a metropolis by the authority of his subscription, and would fortify the remaining bishoprics with his blessing, and would also deign to strengthen him with a royal diadem, so that, supported by that honour, he might be able more solidly to establish what had been begun by the grace of God.

[11] At the same time by chance Myscha ^h duke of the Poles, having embraced the Christian faith with his people, before promised to the duke of the Poles, the Pontiff being divinely admonished, having sent envoys to the Prelate of the Roman See, had asked to be supported by the Apostolic blessing, and to be encircled with a royal diadem: to whose petition the Pope assenting, he had already caused a crown of excellent workmanship to be made, which he had determined to send him with a blessing and the glory of a kingdom. But because the Lord knows who are his, who preferred to two Matthias, chosen by lot through the Apostles into the order of the Apostolate, and made him fill up the Apostolic number, he adorned him with that crown, being afterwards to adorn the same more happily with the eternal one. And so, on the day appointed on which the crown already prepared was to be sent to the aforesaid duke of the Poles, on the night which preceded, a messenger of the Lord stood before the Pope in a vision, who said to him: Tomorrow, at the first hour of the day, thou shalt know that envoys of an unknown nation ⁱ will come to thee, who will demand of thee a royal crown for their Duke with the gift of the Apostolic blessing. The crown therefore which thou hast caused to be prepared, take care to bestow without contradiction ^k upon their Duke, as they shall ask: for know that it is due to him with the glory of a kingdom for the merits of his life.

[12] According to the manner of this vision, therefore, at the prescribed hour of the following day the prelate Astricus came to the Pope, obtains for Stephen with other privileges: who, prudently discharging the duty enjoined upon him, and relating in order the deeds of the holy Duke, most promptly asked the insignia from the Apostolic See ^l, showing that he was worthy of such honour and dignity *, who had subjugated many nations ^m to himself by God's help, and had by his power converted many unbelievers to the Lord. Which having been heard, the Roman Pontiff, greatly rejoicing, kindly granted all things as they had been requested. He sent moreover a cross to be borne before the King, as a sign of the apostolate ⁿ; saying, I am Apostolic, but he is by merit an Apostle of Christ, through whom Christ has converted to himself so great a people. Wherefore we leave to his disposition, as divine grace instructs him, the Churches of God together with their peoples, to be ordained by right in life ^o. All things therefore having been obtained as he asked, the prelate Astricus returned joyful to his own people, bearing with him that on account of which he had prosperously accomplished the journey he had begun.

[13] The letters of Apostolic blessing therefore being brought together with the crown and cross, the King crowned with the crown brought: laws passed: the prelates with the clergy, the counts with the people, acclaiming fitting praises, Stephen the king beloved of God, anointed with the anointing of chrism, is happily crowned with the diadem of royal dignity. a wife taken; her piety: After receiving the sign of royal excellence, of what life and discretion the man [p] was, he made manifest by the Decree [q] established by him with the bishops and chief men of Hungary. In which namely he prescribed the contrary antidote for each fault, and, that he might prove himself to be [r] a son of the peace by which Christ united the world, he left established for his posterity by the subscription of an unperishing covenant that no one should assail another in hostile fashion, that no one should injure his neighbour without the examination of judgment, that no one should oppress widows and orphans. But for a consort, chiefly for the sake of propagating offspring, he joined to himself in marriage the sister [s] of the Augustus of the Roman dignity, namely Henry, who for the gentleness of his manners was called the Pious, by name Gysla [t], whom, anointed with the anointing of chrism and wearing a crown, he appointed to be his consort of the kingdom. And what she was toward the worship of God to be prayed to [u], how [x] frequent and blessed she appeared toward the congregations of those serving God, the crosses of many churches, or the vessels or ornaments, made or woven with wondrous workmanship, testify to this day. Above all, however, the house of the bishopric of Vesprim, which she herself, begun from the foundation, nobly adorned with all sufficiency for the service of God in gold and silver and manifold vestments [y].

[14] the King's care about his foundations, and about the life of the clergy: But the King himself royally furnished the bishoprics lately begun, namely both the archiepiscopal and all the episcopal churches, assigning to each a most ample diocese, and always setting over each a fit prelate [z], and at the same time the abbeys, with estates, courts, households, and revenues, and sufficiently adorned them with crosses and vessels and other furnishings pertaining to the ministry of God, according as each had need; and every year, as long as he lived [aa], he always increased the gifts and offerings, lest those who were set over the office of the sanctuary should seek anything from outside. The life and manner of life of the monks he diligently examined by exploring, now through others, now by himself, rebuking the sluggish, appointing the vigilant with love: the ministry of canons he commended to the providence of the bishops under the testimony of Christ and of the Church, being, according to the Apostle, all things to all, that he might gain all.

[15] [Sebastian appointed prelate of Gran, and Anastasius substituted for him when blind for three years.] At the same time in the monastery of St. Martin there was a certain monk, Sebastian by name, whose life was held praiseworthy, and his religion devout in the service of God: him the venerable King began to love with wonderful affection, because the more religious anyone was, the more acceptable he was to him. Judging him therefore worthy of pontifical honour for the merits of his life, he set him over the archbishopric of Gran to govern it. And since God scourges every son whom he receives, the aforesaid Sebastian, to prove his patience, he deprived for a time of the light of his bodily eyes [bb]. But lest the flock, new in the faith, without a shepherd's rule should stray from the purpose of the right path, by the consent of the Roman Pontiff he substituted in his place the oft-named Astricus bishop of Kalocsa. Then, the circles of three years having rolled by, Sebastian, having by God's mercy recovered his sight, was again restored to his see by the Apostolic lord's counsel: and Astricus returned to his own church, namely [cc] that of Kalocsa, with the pallium.

ANNOTATIONS.

the same as St. Boniface the martyr, the disciple of St. Romuald, who is contained in the Roman Martyrology on the 19th day of June, and says that he is without doubt different; which seems certain enough, since the other was a bishop and was crowned in Russia; but this one an abbot and slain in Hungary. Yet he is confounded with him in a little book published at Trnava in the year 1692, whose title is: Marks of Hungarian Sanctity: for there on page 127 is woven a brief eulogy of Boniface abbot of St. Martin, who in the accompanying picture is said to have been slain by the Prussians about the year 1007, but without probability.

p. In the edition it is read, faultily, "vix". Therefore I have borrowed the word from the Ms., where "vir" rightly stands.

q. He speaks of the laws passed by Stephen, which I have given in the Commentary, §34.

r. In the Ms. "forte", less rightly, and presently "qui" for "quod".

s. "Sister" this edition has, as well as the Ms. Surius wrongly published "daughter". But that error is Surius's, not Carthuitius's, to whom some have attributed it, because they had seen only the edition of Surius.

t. "Gyslam" again the edition has with the Ms. Surius published "Giselam", as the moderns commonly call her. Of the time of the nuptials, of Gisela and her family, consult the Commentary, §17. Of Gisela's piety and deeds certain things too have often been said in the Commentary.

u. Surius here more rightly "ornandum" (to be adorned), as I think the author wrote.

x. In the Ms. "quasi" for "quam"; and presently "benedica" for "benedicta" and "Deo" for "Dei", in this manner: "How frequent and blessed toward the congregations of those serving God," &c. Again a little after, less rightly in the Ms., "usque die" for "usque hodie".

y. The same has the Commentary at num. 268.

z. With how great care Stephen chose the best prelates has been said at §24.

aa. These two words are taken from the Ms.: for in the printed edition there stands, faultily, "quo aduitrix".

bb. After this word there is added "eum" in the printed edition, which is redundant, nor is it in the Ms.

cc. In the Ms. "scilicet". Of Sebastian and the other things here related there is treatment in the Commentary, §24.

* in the Ms. speciali

* in the Ms. qui

* otherwise dignitati, faultily

* Ms. scilicet

* Ms. matrimonio without "in"

CHAPTER III

Piety toward the blessed Virgin: the church of Alba Regalis built and adorned with gifts and privileges: pious foundations at Jerusalem, Rome, and Constantinople: the King's mercy and liberality, and his wonderful deeds.

[ ] [Exceptional piety toward the blessed Virgin, for whom he builds the church of Alba,] Meanwhile the same King was faithful in all his acts, perfectly given over to God by vow and offering, placing himself with his kingdom under the protection of the perpetual Virgin Mary the Mother of God by assiduous prayers, whose glory and honour is held so famous among the Hungarians that even the festival of the Assumption of the same Virgin, without the addition of her proper name, is in their tongue called the day of the Lady ^a. And that he might be able to obtain a greater mercy of protection, in the very city of the royal seat, which is called Alba, under the praise and title of the same perpetual Virgin he began to build a famous and great church of wondrous workmanship, with carvings set in the wall of the choir, and the pavement laid with tablets of marble: which he who has seen bears witness to the truth of our words, that there are there innumerable kinds of palls [and] ornaments, several tablets about the altars made of purest gold, containing in themselves rows of most precious stones, a ciborium of wonderful art raised above the table of Christ, a chamber fully filled with every kind of crystal , onyx, golden, and silver vessels.

[17] The King, keeping the above-written church of so great beauty for his own chapel, which he retains for himself as a chapel and adorns with privileges: endowed it with such liberty that none of the bishops should have any right in it. On the day too of absolution and of the consecration of Chrism, whatever bishop either the King present there should enjoin, or should send thither when absent, he should absolve the penitents in it and consecrate the chrism: and the divine solemnities of Masses, if it should happen that the King was present there, that bishop only * should celebrate to whom the King, the provost with the brethren consenting, should command to celebrate. But in the King's absence, without the leave of the provost and brethren, a bishop should not usurp to himself leave either of celebrating Masses or of exercising any episcopal office. Moreover he appointed that the people of the same church should be so free that they should give nothing of tithes to any bishop; but should render service to the provost alone and the brethren, as was appointed by him ^b.

[18] foundations at Jerusalem, Rome, and Constantinople: Then the servant of God strove to confer on Christ all that he could then acquire, which had flowed from his gift, and * that He who had made him worthy of the glory and honour of this present world would mercifully deign to associate him with the citizens of the heavenly country. We read written in the prophecies about the Apostles that their sound went forth into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world. That this was said not only of the twelve, but of all sent by God to preach the Gospel, is proved, by whose faith, words, and manners the Church brings forth increase. Of whom this most Christian King is proved to have been not the least, who had scattered into lands far distant and into most famous cities the fame of his good will and work, which he had exercised in building churches within the breadth of his own dominion ^c. For he built in the very city of Christ's conversation according to his humanity

Jerusalem ^d a monastery of monks, which he enriched with estates and vineyards supplying abundance for daily food. In the head of the world too, Rome, under the title of Stephen the protomartyr, he established a congregation of twelve canons, abounding in all appurtenances, and founded a fabric round about walled with stone, with houses ^e and hospices of the Hungarians who for the sake of prayer seek the thresholds of blessed Peter the Prince of the Apostles. The royal city of Constantinople too he did not deprive of the gift of his benefactions, which he endowed with a church of wondrous * workmanship, with all its necessaries. Deservedly therefore within the bounds of his dominion he obtained the name of an Apostle, and although he did not take upon himself the office of preachers to preach the Gospel, yet as their leader and master he established the solace of protection and sustenance.

[19] the Saint's exceptional mercy, Among all the benefits of the heavenly mercy divinely granted to the blessed King, those are above all to be wondered at and to be commended to writing which hold the first place for meriting the joys of eternal life, namely mercy and truth. For in all his happy deeds he intended this to be chief, which from the Gospel he contemplated with the sight of a faithful breast, above the testimony of Truth itself ^f, which says: Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy; and in another place: Give, and it shall be given to you. With so great compassion, therefore, and with the arms of piety he embraced the poor of Christ, nay Christ himself, that no guest and pilgrim ^g ever departed from him sad without some solace of his kindness. For the relief of the needy he appointed daily expenses to be made unfailingly, and was wont to pass the night watches nimbly and cheerfully in washing the feet of Christ's faithful and in hiding alms in the bosom of the poor, resolving to console Christ needy in his members temporally, that he himself, finding the chamber of heavenly life filled with all delights, might deserve to rejoice eternally.

[20] But on a certain night, touched by a spiritual admonition, no one knowing it, an insult on that occasion cheerfully borne. the Man of God alone, carrying a full purse, went out after his wonted manner to visit the little flock of Christ; and at once the poor, disturbing the beginning of the heavenly treasure of money to be distributed, bore witness to the merits of the Man of God by the plucking of his beard. Whereat, suffused with the greatest joy, the Soldier of Christ betook himself to the most blessed Mother of the Creator of all, and, prostrate on the ground giving thanks, cried out thus: Queen of heaven and mine, thy soldiers have thus honoured him whom thou hast appointed King. If this had been inflicted on me by some adversary, I would avenge my injury with thy help. Knowing therefore, Lady, that by this eternal happiness is granted me, I exceedingly exult, giving thanks with the consoling words of the Saviour, with which he consoled his disciples, saying: A hair of your head shall not perish. These things said, the Man of God, perceiving himself visited by heavenly grace and suffused with a spiritual chrism, resolved never to close the doors of his heart to those believing (perhaps: asking) for help, but thenceforth by himself and by others, but chiefly through the servants and household of Christ, namely clerics and monks, caused the resources given him from heaven to be laid up in eternal treasures through the hands of the poor.

[21] Of this matter very many bear witness, but of these one, a sharer with him for ever of heavenly life, Gunther and Gerard received in Hungary, and the monastery of Beel founded: a monk converted from secular nobility, and a hermit, blessed Gunther ^h, who, drawn by this liberality of the charitable Prince, more often visited him from the land of the Bohemians. For as often as he lighted up his court with the brightness of his coming, the care of the kingdom being placed under his hand, the goods which it contained * being distributed to pilgrims and natives, widows and orphans, monasteries and churches, it was in a short time examined ⁱ. At the nod too of the same servant of God the King devoted to God, beginning the monastery which is called Beel ^k, enriched it with men: where Gerard the monk, coming from Venice, began to lead a contemplative life, who, being by divine ordinance elected pontiff, after the death of the holy King, in the pressing disturbance ^l of Christianity, being stoned, by the gift of spiritual grace was made worthy of the fellowship of the Martyrs.

[22] Nor do I think this should be passed over, that in the Man of God the divine power willed to show in his life of how great merit he would be after death. health bestowed on the sick; the incursion of the Bessi foreknown. For as often as the infirmity of any man was reported to his ears, he sent him for a medicine, whatever he could have then at hand, a little piece of bread, of an apple ^m, or of a fragrant herb, commanding that he should rise up whole, and, God's favour accompanying his word, he at once received soundness. After his glorious Ascension into heaven, and his wonderful profession at the Father's right hand, our Saviour is reported to have appeared bodily to few, but by a vision to have consoled many and to have taught them to be foreknowing of things to come: which happened to this holy King also. For on a certain night, suddenly awakened by a certain revelation, he commanded a certain courier to hasten within a day and a night to Alba transilvana ⁿ, and to gather all who dwelt in the country into the fortifications of the cities as quickly as he could. For he foretold that the enemies of Christians would come upon them, namely those who were then hostile to the Hungarians, the Bessi ^o, and would plunder their possessions. Scarcely had the messenger fulfilled the King's commands, and behold the unlooked-for calamity of the Bessi laid all waste with burnings and plunderings, the lives of all being saved by the shelters of the fortifications through God's revelation granted by the merits of the blessed Man.

ANNOTATIONS.

* otherwise, faultily, lapidis

* otherwise crystallorum

* otherwise tamen

* Surius ut

* in the Ms. duodecimam

* otherwise abundantem

* otherwise, faultily, mirifice

* in the Ms., faultily, Creatorem

* perhaps petentibus

* add with Surius solebat

* in the Ms. etiam

* in the Ms. consentiebat

* read consessionem

* in the Ms., faultily, quidam

CHAPTER IV

The war brought on by the emperor Conrad quickly ended by God's wondrous providence: the Saint's frequent prayer and rapture: a notable example of severity: the King's illness and the death of his sons: his various virtues.

[ ] [Assailed with war by the emperor Conrad, he experiences God's wondrous protection:] It happened after this, the blessed King's friend, Henry the Pious ^a, Augustus of the Roman dignity, being dead, that Conrad took up the crown of the imperial dignity by the election of the Germans: who, the tranquillity of peace being destroyed, the forces of all Germany ^b being gathered, endeavoured to invade in hostile fashion the borders of Pannonia. Against whom the King, having taken counsel of the bishops and princes, drew out the armed men of all Hungary to defend his country. Yet first, recalling that he could do nothing without the help of Christ, lifting his hands and heart to heaven, and commending his injuries to his Lady, the perpetual Virgin, Mother of God, he broke forth into such a voice: If it please thee, Lady of the world, that a part of thy inheritance be laid waste by enemies ^c, and the new planting of Christianity be abolished, let it not, I pray, be imputed to my sloth, but rather to the disposition of thy will. If the Shepherd's fault deserves anything, let him himself pay it; spare, I pray, all the guiltless. These things being said, as if consoled by her, he confidently took the road against the enemy. Presently on the next day a messenger came to each leader of the Germans, and into the camp of the Germans , from the emperor ^d, who brought them the command to return. The adversaries returning ^e, the holy Man understands that he has been visited by the regard of God's mercy, and, prostrate on the ground, gave thanks to Christ and his ^f Mother: to whose protection he commended himself with the governance of the kingdom by assiduous prayers. But the emperor, terrified at so sudden a defection of his men, inquiring how the matter had come about, since he truly knew that the message of their return had not been his; did not doubt that it had been done by the counsel of the Godhead, to strengthen the hope of the most faithful King, and thenceforth, restrained by fear of the eternal Judge, abstained from invading his kingdom.

[24] The same King too, occupied with blessed solicitude in the disposing of royal affairs, when he persists in contemplation in a tent, it hangs aloft in the air; passing the daytime in conferences and counsels, gave his effort through the silence of the night to persist in vigils and prayers, to give himself to contemplation, to shed tears, to address God with prayers, and besought that the moderation of the just Judge might mercifully come down upon the daily discussions of judgments. And when he frequented this diligently with the office of spiritual desire, on a certain night, far removed from a temple of God (for he had come down with that great and noble company of his, tents being pitched in a place of open plain), while the rest were sunk in sleep, rising from his bed and entering the chamber of his heart, on bended knees with the mere movement of his lips he knocked with groans and tears at the door of eternal mercy. And when he persisted longer in his entreaties, of the Lord

his eternal King the ministers coming together to take up his prayers, the pavilion stretched above him, lifted from the ground, began to hang so long in the air until the Man of God, returning to himself from contemplation, relaxed his spirit from prayer. Which, although it was invisibly known to Him alone who knows things before they are done, and to the angels privy to his secret, yet it was made manifest to a certain man of great simplicity and innocence *, who then perhaps was engaged in a like work: whom the holy King, taught by the Holy Spirit that he was likewise privy to his secret, having called him to himself, first asked with kindly words what he had seen. Afterwards he threatened him not to disclose it to anyone so long as he himself lived.

[25] [he punishes with a grievous penalty an injury inflicted on those entering the kingdom:] The fame of his name being spread abroad in the ears of many secular nations, and the judgments of his mouth ^g becoming everywhere known with famous praise, sixty men of the Bessi, of whom we made mention above, with all their equipment, namely an abundance of gold and silver, and a great variety of ornaments, with laden waggons, having gone forth from the parts of Hungary ^h, wishing to come to the King, drew near to the borders of the Pannonians. But many of the servants, whose mind is waxen to be bent to vice, kindled with the torch of their malice , went out to meet them: some they struck with the sword, and, taking away all that had been theirs, left them empty and half alive. But they, reserving for the King what had been done and what they had suffered, accomplished the journey which they had begun, and, hastening to him, threw themselves at his knees. Seeing whom, he said, What is the cause of these evils? My Lord, they answer, we thy servants, contriving no evil, were coming to hear the discipline of thy judgments, and by the hands of certain men the money which we bore with us was taken from us without offence of any of us. Moreover they seized some and beat them, and we have come with life scarcely accompanying us, to announce it to thee. The King, as he was of a more prudent mind, threatened them * neither with countenance nor with words; but forbearing, as it is written, The prudent man reserves his Spirit ⁱ for hereafter, sent quickly to the tribune under whom they served, and on an appointed day commanded all the men of perdition to be presented before his eyes. It was done as he had commanded; and they were set before him for examination. Addressing whom, he said, Why, transgressing the law of God's precepts, did ye not understand mercy, and condemned men of innocence? As ye have done, so shall the Lord do to you before me this day: for transgressors of the law must be smitten. The sentence being received, they were led out, and two by two throughout every entrance of the kingdom perished by hanging ^k; which it must be believed he did out of zeal for justice, to strike terror into the rest; so that, since he wished the kingdom to be a powerful asylum for all guests, so free an entrance should be for all that no one should injure any comer in anything, or presume to trouble him, which also came to pass. For as long as he lived, no one presumed to inflict any trouble on any guest.

[26] [he is afflicted with a long illness and the death of his sons; and of that one too whom he had excellently instructed,] In the blessed King too it is established that that Apostolic saying was fulfilled which is read: Because through many tribulations we must enter into the kingdom of heaven; and in the book of Wisdom: Whom God loves he chastises; and a father scourges every son whom he receives. For in many ways he submitted to divine correction, for three years enduring the labour of continual infirmity ^l. After he had recovered thence by the healing of God's propitiation, yet by the judgment of the eternal and most secret counsel he felt a certain examination send upon him the stripes in the death of his sons, whom in the very steps of infancy He who gave them as infants took away ^m. The Begetter checked the sadness that arose from their death, on account of his love for the surviving son, the boy Emeric of good disposition: whom, as if now his only solace, loving with dear affection, he commended by daily prayers to Christ and to his Mother the perpetual Virgin. That he should survive him, that he should be the heir of the kingdom, he desired with all his prayers; and that he might become effective for holding the helms of so great a government, he caused him to lend both his hearing ⁿ to the teachings of orthodox men and to the practice of daily reading. He himself too, pricked by the ardour of paternal love, composed for him a little book ^o on the instruction of manners, in which faithfully and diligently he addresses him with words of spiritual admonition, instructing him how before all things he ought to observe the Catholic faith, to confirm the ecclesiastical estate, to bestow honour on the dignity of the pontiffs, to love the princes and soldiers, to observe judgment, to have patience in all his acts; to receive guests kindly, to nourish them more kindly *, to do nothing without counsel, always to set his elders before his eyes for an example, to frequent the office of prayer, to possess piety and mercy with the other virtues.

[27] Instructed with such and like disciplines, the excellent youth, Emeric: but he soothes the grief thence arising by works of mercy: obeying the nod of the eternal disposition to which all things are subject, in the year 1031 [p] of the Lord's Incarnation exchanged this deadly life, being joined to the everlasting fellowship of the citizens above, whose soul, at the very hour of his passing, it was revealed to a certain bishop of the Greeks [q], a man of holy manner of life, was borne by angels to the palaces of heaven. But since for the merits of his sanctity he was loved by all with the highest affection, there arose a great mourning of all; but chiefly of the princes, among whom the desolate Father drew a heavy sigh: for, seeing himself left alone without hope of posterity, he grieved in the affection of piety: but knowing what is written, There is no wisdom, no prudence, no counsel against the Lord; and that in the canons, that no one ought to be too much saddened on account of the death of those dear to him; his greater [r] grief being laid aside, he betook himself wholly to seeking the bounty of divine mercy, consoling the ministers of monasteries and of the Church, monks and clerics, with various gifts of alms, and he bestows the expenditure of all the outlay which he could then have upon pilgrims, widows, and orphans. The monasteries too of foreign [s] provinces he often visited by his envoys with countless gifts of royal munificence.

[28] The gravity [t] of manners which he had received in his youth he held to the end of his life. the Saint's exceptional sanctity. Scarcely ever did he move his lips to laughter, recalling what is written, Laughter is mingled with sorrow, and mourning takes hold of the ends of joy; always appearing as if he stood before the tribunal of Christ, beholding with the eyes of his inner [u] man His presence with a serene countenance, he showed that he bore Christ in his mouth, Christ in his heart, Christ in all his acts . Setting his last day always before the eyes of his heart, with all the desire of his mind he longed to dwell among the citizens of the heavenly country, as it were with a certain habit of angelic converse. Adorned with all kinds of virtues pleasing to God, he resolved to walk before him in holiness and justice all the days of his life, so that in him there already seemed to shine forth as it were a certain semblance of his future glorification.

ANNOTATIONS.

p. That there is no reason why we should remove his death from this year I have already said in the Commentary, num. 249, where also a few things about his miracles.

q. The same is more fully related in the Life of St. Emeric, where that bishop is called Eusebius metropolitan of Caesarea in Palestine. It is added in the same place that the fact became known to the Hungarians from the report of a certain canon of Caesarea, who told it at Constantinople, where he was an envoy. There were at that time bishops at Caesarea and in other places of Palestine, and they communicated with the Roman Church, but they are less known. But since the matter pertains more to Emeric than to Stephen, it may be more fully sifted at the 4th of November, on which day the memory of Emeric is inscribed in the Roman Martyrology.

r. That the mourning was not too long-lasting, much less that a disease was contracted from it, as others would have it, I have proved in the Commentary, num. 349.

s. Certain specimens of this munificence I have alleged at §29.

t. He means gravity of manners.

u. "Interioris", that is, with the eyes of the mind.

* in the Ms. consilium

* Ms. Teutonicorum

* in the Ms. innocenti

* otherwise, faultily, succensæ

* "tuorum" is not in the Ms.

* "eis" is absent from the Ms.

* in the Ms. mittere

* Ms. specialis

* otherwise benignus

* otherwise, faultily, sempiternam

* Ms. contraxit

* perhaps affectu

* perhaps consolatis

* "se" is absent from the Ms.

* otherwise quoncam

CHAPTER V

His illness, and the conspiracy of certain men discovered in it: his blessed death, burial, the elevation of the body decreed, and the wonders wrought at the opening of the tomb.

[ ] The King, being sick, is assailed by a conspiracy, which he discovers: After no long time he fell into a sickness by which he afterwards departed the body, and, the long trouble of his languor growing worse, he could not stand on his feet. But four of the noblest of the palatines, seeing him long and grievously suffering

(for they, still erring in the perfidy of their heart, took counsel of iniquity, and attempted to contrive his fall unto death), the day now growing toward evening, before a lamp was lighted in the house, one of them boldly entered in the darkness, and hid a naked sword under his cloak to cut the King's throat. While he held back his foot where the King was resting, truly by a heavenly impulse the sword fell, and, being struck, the ground ^a gave back a ringing sound. At once the King, hearing it, asked the cause, although he foreknew what it had been. But he in his anguish fell down, acknowledged the counsel of his fury, grieved, drew near, prostrated himself, embraced his feet, confessed that he had offended, and prayed that he might be pardoned. To him seeking pardon he did not turn away his face, but readily dismissed him. At length by the King's command those murderers were found, and, having spoken against them in judgment , he punished them with a worthy sentence.

[30] At length by the mercy of God worthy to be repaid a hundredfold with the prize of recompense, [he gives excellent admonitions to his people, and commends the kingdom to the blessed Virgin,] being touched by a fever, when he did not doubt that the day of his passing was at hand, having summoned the bishops and the chief men of the palace who gloried in the name of Christ, he first treated with them of substituting a king in his place. Then he admonished them in fatherly wise to observe the Catholic faith which he had received, to love justice, to cherish the bonds of heavenly charity, and to give their effort to charity, to watch with zeal for humility, but above all things to keep guard over the new planting of Christianity. These things said, lifting his hands and eyes to the stars, he cried out thus: Queen of heaven, renowned restorer of the world, to thy patronage I commit the holy Church, with the bishops and clergy, and the kingdom with its chief men and people, under thy prayers: to whom bidding a last farewell, into thy hands I commend my soul.

[31] There was then at hand the chief solemnity, famous to angels and men, and, the last Sacraments being received, he dies piously. the day of the Assumption of Mary, in whose joy the dissolution of his body should take place, hoping that he would have a hope of greater * mercy by her prayers ^b: these things he sought with spiritual sighs, and obtained with tears. That happy day therefore was at hand, soon to be happier through his death: there stood about him the fatherhood of the bishops with the clergy, the chief choir of counts with a band of ministers: where the beloved King, lying in the midst, having received the anointing of the spiritual Sacrament, gave up his holy soul, refreshed with the viaticum of the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, in the year of the Lord's Incarnation one thousand and thirty-four ^c, into the hands of the perpetual Virgin and of the holy angels, to be brought to the blessedness of eternal rest. There was the greatest mourning of his own people, joy of the angels: but this mourning was afterwards turned into everlasting gladness ^d, both of the peoples being born and of those living.

[32] The body honourably buried in the church of Alba: To his funeral rites there was a concourse from all the regions of Pannonia, and the body is brought to the royal seat, namely the city of Alba. And since the church of the most blessed Virgin, built by him, had not yet been dedicated, by deserved counsel it was established ^e that the pontiffs should first sanctify the church, and then commend the body to the earth. The solemnity of the dedication being completed, the holy body is placed in the midst of the house in a sarcophagus of white marble, where for several years the Lord through his merits bestowed countless benefits ^f upon many suffering troubles, upon the fevered, upon those proclaiming their affliction and misery, and upon those bearing judgment. Often by night a melody, angels singing, was heard by many: frequently the sweetness of a most sweet odour was diffused through the sides of the temple. Who ^g, when the blessed body was thus in the same place for forty-five years by the secret of a wondrous disposition — He who is proclaimed wonderful in his saints — pressed with heaviness, and reduced to dust. And at this predestined time he is worthy to be declared, and on the day of resurrection deserves to be gloriously renewed; this his heart recovered its sense; what it may signify it is a delight to attend to with spiritual eyes, which we do not judge to have been done without the divine affection of the day of preordination. Perhaps something had remained in him, by the sprinkling of earthly dust, to be purified by the fire of divine examination , without which * those who reign, as it were by a certain right of power, can scarcely or by no means lead the present life.

[33] Forty-five years therefore having intervened ^h, when ⁱ God now willed to declare the merits of his Saint, [when the elevation had been decreed by the supreme Pontiff, a fast is proclaimed,] for bestowing through him upon mortals the benefits of his mercy, by an institution of the Roman See it was sanctioned by apostolic letters that the bodies of those should be raised who, sowing * in Pannonia the seeds of the Christian faith, had converted it to the Lord by their preaching or teaching: and when the time of his declaration came, and of the praises of his grace, which through him the Hungarian nation earned, to be published in the world, king Ladislaus ^k, who then administered the commonwealth, held illustrious for all uprightness of manners, and conspicuous with the brightness of virtues, perfectly given to the praises and service of God, touched by the illumination of the Paraclete Spirit, having taken counsel with the bishops and chief men and the wise men of all Pannonia, proclaimed a three days' fast for all, so that what seemed to be profitable to the common utility of Catholics, the gifts of the Holy Spirit working the salvation of souls and bodies, should, by the common entreaty of all, founded on fasts and alms, [and the elevation is attempted, but in vain, until Salomon, formerly king, has been let out of prison.] be sought through the manifestation of signs.

[34] But that the Lord might show of how great mercy the holy King had been while yet living in a mortal body, which he was showing that he had already reigned * with Christ, to approve ^l this above his other works, when for three days they busied themselves to raise his body with all their strength, it could by no art be moved from its place. For at that time, their faults requiring it, a grievous quarrel had arisen between the aforesaid king Ladislaus and his brother ^m Salomon, on account of which Salomon, having been taken, was held in prison. When therefore they strove in vain to raise the body, a certain recluse near the church of the holy Saviour "sumlui" ⁿ, by name Charitas, of whose life a famous report was then borne, by a revelation made to her from heaven sent word to the King that they were striving in vain, and that they could not translate the pledges of the holy King until a free pardon should be afforded to Salomon, released from the custody of the prison. And so, he having been brought out of prison, and a three days' fast repeated, when on the third day they had come to translate the sacred relics, the huge stone set above the tomb was lifted with such ease as if it had had no weight before.

ANNOTATIONS.

* Ms. statimque

* perhaps judicia

* Ms. pro

* otherwise plantationem

* Ms. majorem

* Ms. supernaturalibus

* Ms. qui

* Ms. quemdam

* Ms. excommunicationis

* Ms. quo

* otherwise, faultily, jacentes

* perhaps regnans

CHAPTER VI

The elevation of the body and the miracles: the wondrous finding of the right hand, and its wholeness.

[ ] The tomb being opened, many miracles at once wrought, The evening Office of the third day therefore being completed, all awaiting the benefits of the divine mercy through the merit of the blessed Man, suddenly *, Christ visiting his people, signs of miracles are poured forth from heaven through the breadth of the holy house: whose multitude, since on that very night it had exceeded number ^a, it is well here to introduce that saying of the Gospel which the Saviour sent as an answer to John, inquiring by messengers whether he was he who was to come: The blind see ^b and the lame walk, the deaf hear, the lepers are cleansed, the evil are corrected, the paralytic are healed: of which nevertheless we take pains to make some known, since we cannot make all. A certain young man, loosened in all his limbs, having suffered paralysis for twelve years, lacked the use of hands and feet, who, being carried thither by the help of his kinsfolk, and having received the soundness of his whole body, made the beginning of the signs, and, running not slowly to the altar, increased the joy of all who cried praises to Christ.

[36] Another boy too of seven years, whose sinews were contracted from birth, was carried back ^c upon his knees and hands: whom his parents, full of faith, bringing him to the suffrage of the blessed Man, of which some are related one by one, prostrate beside the tomb, laid down with them, about to seek the grace which, having presently obtained, they wondered that the contraction of the sinews in their son was stretched out, and, his knees and soles being made firm, all who saw him walking ^d glorified the name of Christ in the merits of the blessed Man with a praiseworthy shout. Whom the king devoted to God, weeping for exceeding joy, lifted from the ground with his hands and carried to the altar, where, a great ^e (hymn) of praise being uttered, he gave thanks to God with favour, together with all who were present, for the benefits bestowed in the boy's health. Thus God, out of veneration ^f for his Servant, wondrously illumined the whole night with the brightness of many signs; and the people, intent on vigils and prayers, ceased not to make each miracle manifest with shouts of praise.

[37] To these it seems this too must be added, that not only those present there, among which a dead boy restored to life. but also those placed far off, by the suffrage of his merits obtained a famous effect of salvation. For when the fame of his elevation had begun to grow famous on every side; those beset by various infirmities from all the borders of Hungary began to hasten to the holy tomb in whatever way each could. But when, some going before, others, hindered by graver weakness, could not arrive together, yet by a like mercy countless numbers were healed on the way. Whence, for an abiding memory ^g of the benefits of the holy King, very many healed by him, being restored, in the same place of the journey where they were healed gathered great heaps of stones, which remained there long afterward *. Moreover a certain woman, when meanwhile her son had breathed out his spirit, who had been her only one, laid the body of the lifeless boy beside the King's tomb, about to implore over him the comfort of God and of his Saint. A wondrous thing indeed, and astounding in our times: the woman did not cease from praying before she received living the son whom she had laid down dead.

[38] Morning being come, on the fifth day after the Assumption of the most holy Virgin Mary, [But the sarcophagus being opened, a most sweet odour perceived, and water like balsam found:] the princes with the king and the pontiffs with the clergy coming together into the church, first a Mass for the dead was celebrated; then, the marble slab which stood above the pavement being lifted, after they had come to the tomb, so great a fragrance of a sweet-smelling odour at its appearing surrounded all who were present, that they thought themselves rapt into the midst of the gift of the delights of paradise. The tomb too was full of water somewhat reddish, as if mixed with oil, in which, as in liquefied balsam, the precious bones rested. Which, having been gathered in a most clean linen cloth, in that very liquid the ring was very long sought which had been placed on the right hand ^h of the blessed Man. Which not being found, certain men by the King's command began to pour out the water into silver cauldrons and casks, that i the sarcophagus being emptied, the finding of the ring might be made more certain. But in a wondrous manner, the more the liquid was poured out, so much the more, it increasing, was the tomb filled. Which miracle being seen, they restored the water drawn off to its place: nor yet, it being poured back, was the tomb the more filled on that account.

[39] Then, the tomb being covered, proclaiming praises and thanks to the divine mercy, other miracles again continued long: while from the treasure found they repaired the altar of the most blessed Mother of God and perpetual Virgin, meanwhile God, who is wonderful in his Saints, pouring forth the benefits of his bounty, made known to those asking that he was present by the signs of his miracles ^k so far that that time of the Lord's converse among men seemed to have returned, of which it is read: All ^l who had sick with divers infirmities brought them to Jesus, and they were healed. All these things the divine power deigned to work not only on that day, but long afterward ^m, through the merits of his Servant, so that also from other regions, the fame of God's benefits being heard, those labouring with the diseases of divers sicknesses ⁿ flew with great desire to the suffrages of the blessed Man, to recover their health. And a certain countess of exceptional nobility, a matron by name Mathilde ^o, burdened for three continuous years with a pain of the bowels, was already near to death: who, being carried by her people on a litter, presently on the very day on which she touched the holy Man's tomb, felt herself little by little bettered, and in a short time, the soundness of her former life being recovered, published abroad the mighty works of God rendered upon her through the merits of his Servant.

[40] [The Saint's whole right hand with the ring divinely handed over to someone and afterwards shown:] But the other prodigies of God's miracles, shown from heaven for the love of his Servant, I have left unwritten not because I disdain them; but because the Lord does not rain upon me alone, who makes his sun shine upon the good and the evil, by the manifoldness * of his benefits I, consulting the profit [p] of all, have committed them to be declared with the pen by the countless wise men whom Hungary cherishes and embraces. But this only at the end of the book I have determined to attach, since by the wondrous gift of God's mercy the ring, long sought and not found, together with the very right hand of the blessed Man, was made manifest after the end of his translation. A certain monk, by name Mercurius, who in the order of the clergy had been the guardian of the treasure of the perpetual Virgin, and had already [q] for love of the heavenly country renounced the world, at the very hour in which the tomb had been opened, lest he should snatch any of the holy relics, was by royal rebuke removed far off from thence. To whom, sitting in the choir with sad countenance, a certain youth clothed in white handed a cloth wrapped up, saying: This I commend to thee to keep, and, when the time shall be, to make manifest. After the completion of the sacred Office the monk spread out the cloth in a corner of the house, and, beholding the whole hand of the Man of God with a ring of wondrous workmanship, was struck with awe: and carried it away with him, no one knowing, to the monastery which had been committed to his rule, about to await from Christ the time foretold him by the youth, and there long resolved alone upon the guardianship and watch of a treasure hidden in a field [r]. Afterwards he made the founders of that monastery privy [s] to it, and at last, the time approaching for the matter to be declared, he brought it to the King's knowledge. Who presently, the bishops and chief men of Hungary being gathered, many benefits of miracles being bestowed by Christ [t], appointed a day of solemnity for raising the right hand of the Man of God.

[41] [the author, inquiring why the King's right hand remained incorrupt, commends his mercy.] What is it, brethren, that, the other limbs being dissolved and the flesh reduced to dust, and wholly dead, the right hand alone with its bones, the skin clinging with the sinews, God preserved in its wholeness [u]? I judge it to be nothing else than that by the depth of the divine counsel He willed to declare in the excellence of this Saint the work of dissolution [x], and that almsgiving ascends all the steps of the virtues. Whence the truth says in the Gospel: Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy. And likewise: Give, and it shall be given you. Likewise in another place: As water quenches fire, so almsgiving quenches sin. Deservedly therefore was the right hand of the blessed Man a stranger to rottenness, which, always reviving with the flower of piety, was never empty of the gifts of bestowal in feeding the poor. It succoured those placed in need, freed the oppressed from the yoke of captivity, afforded garments and hospitality to pilgrims, reckoned the miseries and wants of widows and orphans as its own: it daily renewed the Lord's supper [y] and mandate in washing the feet of the needy. It made alms flow not from rapine or the loss of others, but from its own resources. That it might make the houses of God rich, it withdrew from itself the will of possessing: and thus, advancing in all things to the nod of dignity, he crucified his flesh with its vices and concupiscences. Hence is the delightful and wondrous veneration of his body and right hand: hence the sweet and happy recompense of eternal life: hence the desirable dwelling together with the citizens above, where there shines forth * the ever-shining and unfailing splendour of the one and highest Godhead, of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, through the infinite ages of ages. Amen.

ANNOTATIONS.

p. Perhaps it should be read "proficuo", that is, for the profit, the advantage. This whole period is somewhat dislocated. Surius expressed it in this manner: The other miracles wrought from heaven I have not therefore passed over because I disdain them: but since the Lord does not rain on me alone, who makes his sun rise upon the good and the evil, so great an abundance of his benefits, desiring to consult the profit of all, I leave to be pursued with the pen by the countless wise men whom Hungary cherishes and embraces.

q. In the Ms. it is read "ecclesiæ", but faultily: and in the edition too as a single word, which I have divided into two, as Surius has, since thus the sense is more complete.

r. Concerning this place, wrongly understood by Bonfinius; see the Commentary, num. 448, as also concerning the fact itself.

s. In the Ms., consocios. Each of these words requires that fundatores be read before it, where the printed text had fundatoribus: a like error was presently corrected from Surius, and for temporis, as it had been badly printed, tempore has been put.

t. Here again everything alike is faulty. For in beneficiorum I suspect that interim beneficiis should be read, and presently for elevare, elevandæ. Hear Surius:

But he, having presently summoned the bishops and the foremost men of Hungary, while

Christ meanwhile displayed many benefits of miracles, appointed a solemn

day for the raising of the blessed King's right hand.

u. This phrase

has been dislocated in the printed edition as much as in the Ms., as I have already

observed in several places toward the end of this Vita. Surius presents it whole, whether because

he found it such in his own Ms., or because he corrected the errors. Take his own

words: But what does it mean, my brethren, that when the other members were

dissolved, and the flesh reduced to dust, God preserved the right hand alone entire, with its

skin, bones and sinews?

x. This word again seems dislocated; unless dissolutio captivorum be understood, or dissolutio be taken for remissio. Otherwise one must read distributionis, pietatis, misericordiæ, or something similar, as the sequel suggests.

y. The word cœnam is joined in the Ms. with what follows, as I have set it. By mandatum Dominicum he presently means the words of Christ, John 13 v. 14: If then I, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another's feet, etc.

Since the Lord enjoined these things upon his disciples at the Last Supper, and the Saint

practised them, the author says that the Supper and the mandate of the Lord were renewed.

elsewhere subdito*, erroneously

perhaps postmodum*

read multiplicitatem*

Ms. nil*

Ms. verum*

Ms. vero*

Ms. facultatem*

Ms. radiat*