Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T22:18:23.588Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Church and Béla III of Hungary (1172–1196): The Role of Archbishop Lukäcs of Esztergom

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2009

Zoltan J. Kosztolnyik
Zoltan J. Kosztolnyik
Affiliation:
associate professor of history in TexasA & M University, College Station, Texas.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The purpose of this article is to review the relations of Béla III of Hungary with the papal curia and the role Lukács, archbishop of Esztergom, played in the development of those relations. To do this, one must first direct one's attention to politics at the Byzantine court, where Manuel Comnenus succeeded to the imperial throne in 1143. Because Emperor Menuel regarded himself as heir to the territorial and intellectual integrity of old Rome and of the crown of Constantine the Great, he let it be known that he had in mind a role for the Hungarian court to play in his policies. He was the grandson of Ladislas I, the Saint of Hungary (1077–1095)—his mother, Pyrisk (Iréne) was the daughter of Ladislas—and looked. upon Hungary as an integral part of the former province(s) of (Upper and Lower) Pannonia. Emperor Manuel decided to have Béla III, educated at the imperial court.

Type
Research Article
Information
Church History , Volume 49 , Issue 4 , December 1980 , pp. 375 - 386
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Church History 1980

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. “… cujus mensa communis fuit sibi cum pauperibus, ut viderentur invitati convivae non alimoniae quaestores.” Wright, Thomas, ed., Gualteri Mapes: De nugis curialium distinctiones quinque (London, 1850), p. 73,Google Scholar distinctio 2:7. The Comments of Map ought to be regarded as a Compliment because, as Friedrich Heer remarks in Europäische Geistesgeschichte, 2nd ed. (Stuttgart, 1965), p. 67,Google Scholar “die Satire wider die ganze ‘weltliche” Fest- und Feierkultur hier und im alten Klerus zeigt im 12 Jahrhundert mit den Worten des Walter Mapes dieselbe Situation auf, gegen die Petrarca, Erasmus und die Reformer bis zum 19 Jahrhundert ankämpfen!” Sayles, George O., The Medieval Foundations of England (London, 1948), p. 369,Google Scholar says that Walter Map [d. 1220], a Welsh student at Paris, was later an itinerant justice, ambassador to France and envoy to a papal council, while Poole, Austin L., From Domesday Book to Magna Carta, 2nd ed. (Oxford, 1955), p. 239,Google Scholar describes him as “Edmund Rich as he is commonly called, Walter Map,” and places him among the distinguished teachers at Oxford in the early days.

2. See August Meineke, , ed., loannes Cinnamus: Epitomae rerum ab Ioanne et Alexio Comnenis gestarum (Bonn, 1836), 1:4Google Scholar (hereafter cited as Cinnamus), or the writ of Manuel to Stephen III of Hungary, Cinnamus, 5:6. On Cinnamus, see Krumbacher, Karl, Geschichte der byzantinischen Literatur, 2nd ed. (Munich, 1897), pp. 279–286;Google ScholarMoravcsik, Gyula,Byzantinoturcica, vol. 1, Die byzantintschen Quellen der Geschichte der Türkvölker (Budapest, 1942), pp. 180–189;Google Scholaridem, A magyar történet bizánci forrásai [Byzantine sources of Hungarian history], (Budapest, 1934), pp. 189–194 (hereafter cited as Moravcsik, Bizanci források); idem, “Les sources byzantines de l'histoire hongroise,” Byzantion 9 (1934): 663–666; Marczali, Henrik, Ungarns Geschichtsquellen im Zeitalter der Arpáden (Berlin, 1882), pp. 130–140;Google ScholarGyóni, Mátyás, Magyarország és a magyarság a bizánci forräsok tükrében: Ungarn und das Ungarntum im Spiegel der byzantinischen Quellen (Budapest, 1938), pp. 114–121.Google Scholar Or, see the Chronicon pictum, c. 156, in Szentpétery, Emericus, ed., Scriptores rerum Hungaricarum, 2 vols. (Budapest, 1937–1938), 1:439 (hereafter cited as SSH).Google Scholar On the Chronicon pictum, see Macartney, C. A., The Medieval Hungarian Historians (Cambridge, 1953), pp. 133–142;Google ScholarKristó, Gyula, “Anjou-kori krónikáink” [Hungarian chronicles of the Anjou age’, Szhzadok 101 (1967): 457–468.Google Scholar For background, compare George Ostrogorsky, Geschichte des byzantinischen Staates, 2nd ed. (Munich, 1952), pp. 298–305;Google ScholarHöman, Bálint, Geschichte des ungarischen Mittelalters, 2 vols. (Berlin, 1940–1943), 1:387–389;Google ScholarElekes, László and others, Magyarország története 1526–ig [Medieval Hungarian history], (Budapest, 1961), pp. 98–103;Google ScholarMoravcsik, Gyula, Byzantium and the Magyars (Amsterdam-Budapest, 1970), pp. 85–88.Google Scholar

3. See Manuel Cornnenus: Novellae constitutiones, in Migne, Jacques P., ed., Patrologiae cursus completus, series graeca, 161 vols. (Paris, 1857–1866), 133,Google Scholar col. 773 (hereafter cited as Migne, PG); or see the second writ of Manuel to Stephen Ill of Hungary, , in Cinnamus, 5:10.Google Scholar Compare Decker-Hauff, Henrik, “A legrégibb magyar-bizánci házassági kapcsolatok”. [The earliest Hungaro-Byzantine marriage contacts], Századok 81 (1947): 95–101,Google Scholar and Gybni, Mátyás, ‘A legkorábbi magyar-bizánci házassági kapcsolatok kérdéséhez” Századok 81 (1947): 212–219.Google ScholarEnsslin, Wilhelm, “The Emperor and the Imperial Administration in Baynes, Norman H., ed., Byzantium (Oxford, 1947), pp. 268–280.Google Scholar

4. Hóman, Bálint and Szekfü, Gyula, Magyar történet[ Hungarian history, 6th ed., 5 vols. (Budapest, 1939), 1:371–374.Google Scholar

5. Compare Immanuel Bekker, , ed., Nicetas Choniates, Historia: De rebus gestis Manuelis Comneni libri VII (Bonn, 1835), 2:7Google Scholar (hereafter cited as Choniates: Manuelis Comneni); Krumbacher, , Geschichte der byzantinischen Literatur, pp. 281–284;Google ScholarMoravcsik, , Bizánci források, pp. 195–200,Google Scholar named him Niketas Akominatos, but following Choniates's own testimony (Choniates: Manuelis Comneni, pp. 230, 22), corrected himself: “es war irrig, ihn, wie es früher üblich war, Niketas Akominatos zu nennen”; see Moravcsik, , Byzantinoturcica, 1:270;Google ScholarMarczali, , Ungarns Geschichtsquellen, pp. 148–138.Google ScholarMügeln's, Heinrich vonUngarnchronik, c. 53 (SSH, 2:199–200),Google Scholar mentions mostly military action, though the author relied upon Hungarian sources; compare Horváth, János, Árpád-kori latinnyelvü irodalmunk stilusproblémái [Stylistic questions of the Latin literature in the Árpádian age] (Budapest, 1954), p. 279;Google ScholarLhotsky, Alphons, Quellenkunde zur mittelalterlichen Geschichte Osterreichs (Graz, 1963), p. 311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6. Cinnamus, 3:7–9; Mügeln, , Ungarnchronik, c. 53.Google Scholar Manuel fought a duel with Bacchinus, the Hungarian commander; Choniates: Manuelis Comneni, 2:7, and Cinnamus, 3:9.

7. Choniates: Manuelis Comneni, 2:7; Cinnamus, 3:10; Manuel attacked the Hungarian “water bastion”; compare Dölger, Franz, ed., Regesten der Kaiserurkunden des oströmischen Reiches, Reihe A Abt. 1–2 (Munich-Berlin, 1924–1965), 2, no. 1383.Google Scholar

8. See Cinnamus, 3:11, and Chronicon pictum, c. 166, on Borics during the second crusade; also, Odo de Deogilo, De profectione Ludovici VII regis Francorum in Orientem, c. 2 in Pertz, Georg H., ed., Monumenta Germaniae historica, Scriptores, 30 vols. (Berlin, 1826–1834) 26:62–63 (hereafter cited as MGHSS);Google Scholar Otto of Freising, , Chronica de duabus civitatibus libri octo, 7:34,Google ScholarMGHSS, 20:266.

9. Cinnamus, 3:19, and Choniates: Manuelis Comneni, 3:1, report that earlier Andronicus, nephew of Manuel, had entered into an alliance with the Hungarians, and Manuel had Andronicus removed from the scene. The Chronicon pictum speaks briefly of the brothers of Géza II; SSH, 1:460.

10. Choniates: Manuelis Comneni, 4:1.

11. Cinnamus, 5:1, or Jakubovich, Emil and Pais, Dezsó, eds., Ó-magyar olvasókönyu [Old Hungarian reader], (Pécs, 1929), p. 50;Google Scholar previously, Cinnamus, 1:4, made a similar statement.

12. Compare Keza, Simon de, Gesta Ungarorum, cc. 58–59,Google Scholar 63 in SSH, 1:180, 31–32; Chronicon pictum, cc. 92, 131 in SSH, 1:353, 16–19; 1:403, 29–30. On Keza, see Macartney, , Medieval Hungarian Historians, pp. 89–109.Google Scholar

13. Choniates: Manuelis Comneni, 4:1, registers an angry reaction; compare Chronicon pictum, c. 169, in SSH, 1:461. Pope Innocent III in his writ to Archbishop John of Esztergom, dated 15 May 1209, mentions the “apostolic authority” of the Hungarian primate; see Migne, Jacques P., ed., Patrologiae cursus completus, series latina, 221 vols. (Paris, 1844–1855), 216,Google Scholar col. 51a (hereafter cited as Migne, PL); Kempf, Frederick, Die Register Innozenc III: eine poläographisch-diplomatische Untersuchung (Rome, 1945), 87–92.Google Scholar Walter Map says that Lukács had crowned Stephen III king-see Wright, ed., Gualteri Mapes, p. 73, distinctio 2:7.

14. Wright, , ed., Gualteri Mapes, p. 73.Google Scholar

15. As it may be concluded from Choniates: Manuelis Comneni, 4:1.

16. Wright, , ed., Gualteri Mapes, pp. 73–74;Google ScholarMügeln, , Ungarnchronik, c. 54, in SSH, 2:200;Google ScholarGábriel, Asztrik, “Angol-magyar kultúrkapcsolatok a párizsi egyetemen” [EnglishHungarian cultural ties at the University of Paris], Uj Hungária Evköayu, 1959 (Munich, 1958), pp. 73–76.Google Scholar Lukács was born “de gener Gutkeled” of the Bánffy family at Alsó-lendva—see Knauz, Ferdinandus, ed., Monumenta Ecclesae Strigoniensis, 2 vols. (Strigonii, 1874), 1:214Google Scholar—Bánffy had only later become a family name. See Balics, Lajos, A római katholikus egyház története Magyarországon [History of the Roman Catholic Church in Hungary], 2 vols. (Budapest, 1887–1889), 2:127.Google Scholar

17. The Chronicon pictum says that Prince Ladislas had usurped the throne for half a year and died—in 1172! Chronicon pictum, c. 169, in SSH, 1:461, n. 3; József Gerics, “Az államszuverenitás védelme és a két jog alkalmazásának szempontjai Xll-XIII századi krónikáinkban” [Defense of the statehood-concept according to both laws in the 12th–13th century Hungarian chronicles], Történelmi Szemle, 18 (1975): 353–372, esp. 362–363.Google Scholar

18. Choniates: Manuelis Comneni, 4:1.

19. Cinnamus, 3:19, though earlier, in 5:1, he presents a different argument; Choniates:Manuelis Comneni, 4:1.

20. These circumstances are evident from the papal writ published by Holtzmann, Walter from codex 144, fol. 24 of the Tortosa Kapitelbibliothek, in his “Papst Alexander III und Ungarn”, Ungarische Jahrbücher, 6 (1926): 397–426.Google Scholar

21. Ibid., pp. 401–402, third letter. Rome had to intervene—see the letters of Innocent III to the Esztergom archbishop and chapter, dated 15 September 1204, 9 and 15 May 1209, respectively, in Migne, PL, 215, col.413–416 216, col. 50–52.

22. Cinnamus, 5:5; Choniates: Manuelis Comneni, 4:1; Dölger, Regesten der Kaiserurkunden, nos. 1440, 1441 and 1452.

23. Chronicon pictum, c. 170.

24. Cinnamus, 5:5; Choniates: Manuelis Comneni, 4:1; Dölger, Regesten der Kaiserurkunden, no. 1455; George Palaeologus was the imperial ambassador.

25. Cinnamus, 5:6; Dölger, Regesten der Kaiserurkunden, no. 1458; Ostrogorsky, George, “Urum-despotes: Die Anfänge der Despotenwürde in Byzanz” Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 44 (1951): 448–454;CrossRefGoogle ScholarMoravcsik, , Byzantium and the Magyars, p. 89.Google Scholar

26. Cinnamus, 5:1.

27. Cinnamus, 5:6.

28. Cinnamus, 5:6–8; Choniates: Manuelis Comneni,4:3.

29. Cinnamus, 5:10; Dölger, , Regesten der Kaiserurkunden, no. 1462;Google ScholarHóman, , Geschichte des Ungarischen Mittelalters, 1:396–400.Google Scholar

30. Cinnamus, 5:8; Dölger, , Regesten der Kaiserurkunden, nos. 1472–1475.Google Scholar Byzantine monks occupied the nearby monastery at Sremska mitrovica (Szávaszentdemeter) as late as 1344; see Theiner, August, ed., Vetera monumenta historiam Hungaricam illustrantia, 2 vols. (Rome, 1859–1860), 1:667–668.Google Scholar

31. Cinnamus,6:11; Choniates: Manuelis Comneni, 5:8; Hóman, , Geschichte des Ungarischen Mittelalters, 1:400–401.Google Scholar

32. Bogyay, Thomas von, “L'iconographie de la ‘Porta speciosa’ d'Esztergom et ses sources d'inspiration” Revue des tudes byzantines, 8 (1950): 85–96,CrossRefGoogle Scholar in reference to Cinnamus, 6:11.

33. “puerumque iustum haeredem cum omni solemnitate iniunxit”; Wright, , ed., Gualteri Mapes, p. 74.Google Scholar

34. “Ungariorum regem elegistis; … ei obtentu cuiusdam palli, quod nuncio tuo de mera liberalitate donauerat, quantumque districtum a nobis mandatum receperis, coronam imponere noluisti”; Holtzmann, , “Papst Alexander III und Ungarn” pp. 401–403 and 404–405,Google Scholar plus note on p. 401, and compare the message of Pope Innocent III in his letters of 15 September and 22 November 1204, respectively (Migne, PL, 215, col. 413ab and c; 215, col. 464bc); Wright, , ed., Gualteri Mapes, p. 74.Google Scholar

35. Migne, , PL, 215, col. 413c.Google Scholar

36. Béla had shown “specialis dilectionis sinceritatem” toward Rome—see the letter of Innocent III to King Emory of Hungary, ibid., 214, col. 227a; he behaved properly toward the Holy See—“illustris recordationis B. quondam pater tuus Ecclesiae Romanae devotior exstitit,” ibid., 214, col. 227c, dated 15 May 1198.

37. Innocent III to Archbishop John of Esztergom, ibid., 216.50c.

38. Innocent III to the Esztergom chapter, ibid., 216.51c.

39. Lukács to Eberhard of Salzburg, Fejér, Georgius, ed., Codex diplomaticus Hungariae ecclesiasticus et civilis, 42 vols. (Budae, 1829–1844), 2:161,Google Scholar dated 1161; Pauler, Gyula, A magyar nemzet története az árpádházi kiráyok alatt [Hungarian history under the Árpáds], 2 vols. (Budapest, 1893–1895), 1:295–299.Google Scholar

40. MGHSS, 9:161 and 17:679, 25–28.

41. Géza II to Louis VII of France, in Szentpétery, Emericus, ed., Regesta regum stirpis Arpadianae critico-diplomatica, 2 vols. (Budapest, 1923–1961), 1:33, no. 95;Google ScholarFejér, , Codex diplomaticus,2:163;Google ScholarBouquet, Martin, ed., Rerum Gallicarum et Franciarum scriptores, 23 vols. (Paris, 1738–1876), 16:27,Google Scholar n. 89; Seppelt, Franz X., Geschichte der Pápste, 5 vols. (Munich, 1952–1959), 3:240–247,Google Scholar on the Council of Tolouse; also, Classen, Peter, “Das Konzil von Tolouse, 1160: eine Fiktion”, Deutsches Archiv, 29 (1973): 220–232;Google Scholar on Pavia, see Jedin, Hubert, ed., Handbuch der Kirchengeschichte, vol. 3, part 2: Vom kirchlichen Hochmittelalter bis zum Vorabend der Reformation (Freiburg-Vienna, 1973), pp. 77–79.Google Scholar

42. Szentpétery, , Regesta regum, 1:33,Google Scholar no. 96.

43. See Jaffé, Philip, ed., Regesta pontificum Romanorum, 2 vols. (Leipzig, 1885), no. 10869.Google Scholar

44. Otto of Freising, , Gesta Friderici imperatoris, 4:7 in MGHSS, 20:447–448.Google Scholar

45. “cumque per electionem principum a solo Deo regnum et imperium nostrum sit,” Monumenta Germaniae historica, Leges, sectio IV, vol. 1, Weiland, Ludwig, ed., Constitutiones et acta publica imperatorum et regum inde ab a. DCCCCXI usque ad a. MCXCVII (Hannover, 1893): 231.Google Scholar

46. See Otto of Freising, , Gesta Friderici, 4:64 in MGHSS, 20:479;Google Scholar“der Kaiser leistete ihm, als dem rechtmässigen Papst die übliche Huldigung”; compare Georg Hahn, Die abendländische Kirche im Mittelalter, 2 vols. (Freiburg, 1942), 1:276.Google Scholar

47. “luna semper a sole sortitur”, Migne, , PL, 214,Google Scholar col. 377.

48. John of Salisbury to Ralph of Sarre, Millor, William J., ed., The Letters of John of Salisbury (London, 1955), p. 208,Google Scholar no. 124.

49. “ut Alexander verus papa in toto regno sit agnitus et receptus”; See Szentpétery, Regesta regum, 1,Google Scholar no. 95; Fejér, , Codex diplomaticus, 2:161.Google Scholar

50. “Lex omni inventio est donum Dei,… secundum quam decet vivere omnes in politicae rei universitate versantur”. See John, of Salisbury, Policraticus, 4:2Google Scholar in Migne, PL, 199, col. 514d-515a.

51. Choniates, Manuelis Comneni, 5:8: “postea regnavit Bela frater eius”; Chronicon pictum, c. 171,Google Scholar in SSH, 1:462.

52. Cinnamus, 6:11; Dölger, Regesten der Kaiserurkunden, no. 1465.

53. Cinnamus, 6:11.

54. Cinnamus, 4:15; Choniates: Manuelis Comneni, 5:8.

55. “Deus per imperium exaltavit ecclesiam”, Otto of Freising, , Gesta Friderici, 3:13 and 3:16Google Scholar in MGHSS, 20:424 and 20:426, 47–49. Hampe, Karl, Deutsche Kaisergeschichte in der Zeit der Sailer und Staufer, 12th rev. ed., Baethgen, Friedrich, ed. (Heidelberg, 1968), pp. 148 and 161.Google Scholar

56. Otto of Freising, , Gesta Friderici 3:12,Google Scholar in MGHSS, 20:424; Hóman and Szekfü, Magyar történet, 1:375.

57. Hampe, , Deutsche Kaisergeschichte, 148,Google Scholar note 2, in reference to Otto of Freising, , Gesta Friderici, 3:6 and 20Google Scholar (MGHSS, 20:419 and 428).

58. Gerhoch, of Reichersberg, , De investigatione antichristi, in Ernst Dümmler, ed. Monumenta Germaniae historica, Libelli de lite, 3 vols. (Hannover, 1891–1897), 3:385,Google Scholar of which the text published by Migne, PL, 194, cols. 1445–1480, is restricted to the part dealing with investiture. On Gerhoch, see Classen, Peter, Gerhoch von Reichersberg (Wiesbaden, 1960), 137–141.Google ScholarDempf, Alois, Sacrum imperium: Geschichts und Staatsphilosophie des Mittelalters und der Neuzeit, 4th ed. (Munich, 1973), p. 252,Google Scholar speaks highly of Gerhoch: “der Ruhm den Otto von Freising besitzt, gebührt eigentlich seinem Zeitgenossen und Lands-mann Gerhoch von Reichersberg”. Gerhoch did visit Hungary and Kiev; see his own remarks in MGH, Libelli de lite, 3:493, 15–24.Google Scholar

59. Map's remark in Wright, , ed., Gualteri Mapes, p. 74.Google Scholar

60. See Péterfly, Carolus, ed., Sacra concilia Ecclesiae Romano-Catholicae in regno Hungariae celebrata, 2 vols. (Vienna, 1742), 1:63;Google ScholarMansi, Joannes D., ed., Sacrorum conciliorum collection, 31 vols. (Florence and Venice, 1759–1798), 21,Google Scholar col. 35; Knauz, , Monumenta Ecclesiae Strigonlensis, 1:120;Google Scholar introductory paragraph to Stephen III's Constitutio ecclesiastica (1169) in Marczali, Henrik and others, eds., Enchiridion fontium historiae Hungarorum (Budapest, 1901), pp. 122–124.Google Scholar

61. The letter of Stephen III to the archbishops of Esztergom and Kalocsa and the other bishops confirmed the promise made by Géza II to Alexander III that he would neither appoint nor transfer bishops in the realm without the approval of Rome; Szentpétery, Regesta regum, p. 1, no. 118; Fejér, , Codex dipiomaticus, 2:180,Google Scholar dated the letter 1169.

62. “… quod nuncio tuo de mera liberalitate donauerat”, letter of Alexander III cited by Holtzmann, , “Papst Alexander III und Ungarn,” p. 402.Google Scholar

63. Ibid., letter two.

64. Innocent III to Leo, Migne, , PL, 215,Google Scholar col. 413c.

65. “Strigoniensis ecclesiae praeiudicium fieret quominus Hungarici reges ab archiepiscopis eiusdem ecclesiae semper debeant coronari”, with the privilege originated in Rome, “salva semper apostolicae sedis auctoritate, a qua Hungarici regni corona processit”. Migne, , PL, 216,Google Scholar col. 51a; 216, col. 50c, a and d.

66. Szentepétery, , Regesta regum, p. 1, no. 131 (1181);Google Scholar in no. 126 (1174–1178), Szentpétery mentions Lukács by name, but with a question mark.

67. “IIIa semper dilectionis sinceritas Ecclesiam eidem regno coniunxit, quam in temporibus paternae sollicitudinis affectum circaverit”; Migne, , PL, 214,Google Scholar col. 227c; also, 215, cols. 412c and 413ab.

68. Hampe, , Deutsche Kaisergeschichte, pp. 193–220,Google Scholar says that Frederick Barbarossa spent the last twelve years of his reign too preoccupied with domestic problems.

69. Bekker, , ed., Nicetas Choniates, Historia: De imperio Alexii Comneni, c. 17.Google Scholar

70. Ibid.; Gyula Moravcsik, “III Béla és a bizánci birodalom Mánuel halála után” [Béla III and Byzantine policies after the death of Emperor Manuel], Századok 67 (1933): 513–530; idem, Byzantium and the Magyars, pp. 91–92.

71. Compare Bekker, , ed., Nicetas Choniates, Historia: Isaaci Angeli libri tres, 1:4Google Scholar (hereafter cited as Choniates: Isaaci Angeli); Gyóni, Mátyás, “Niketas Akominatos lakodalmi költeményc” [The wedding poetry of Choniates], Egyetemes Philológiai Közlöny 47 (1923): 79–82;Google ScholarBekker, , ed., Nicetas Choniates, Historia: Andronici Comneni libri duo, 1:1,Google Scholar also reports on the interference of Béla III in Byzantium.

72. Choniates: Isaaci Angeli, 3:4.

73. Migne, , PL, 216,Google Scholar col. 61cd; Magnus, of Reichersberg, , Chronica (1176), MGHSS, 17:501–502.Google Scholar7,

74. See letter four in Holtzmann, , “Papst Alexander III und Ungarn,” p. 403.Google Scholar

75. MGHSS, 22:217.

76. Ibid., 17:509–510 (1189).

77. Ibid., 22:339.

78. Lubecensis, Arnoldus, Chronica Slavorum, libri septem, 4:8–9,Google Scholar in MGHSS, 21:171–172, 4:8–9; on Arnold see Marczali, , Ungarns Geschichtsquellen, pp. 149–150;Google ScholarChronicon pictum, c. 171; Keza, Gesta Ungarorum, c. 69.

79. See Status regni Hungariae sub Béla III rege, preserved in a twelfth century MS of the Paris Bibleothèque Nationale, in Endlicher, Stephanus L., ed., Rerum Hungaricarum monumenta Arpadiana, 2 vols. (1849; one-volume reprint ed., Leipzig, 1931), 1:245–246.Google Scholar

80. SSH, 1:183, 23–26; Lajos Thallóczy, “III Béla magyar birodalma” [The realm of Béla III], in Forster, György, ed., III Béla emlékezete [In memory of King Béla III] (Budapest, 1900), pp. 57–80;Google ScholarMoravcsik, Gyula, “Die byzantinische Kultur und mittelalterliches Ungarn” Sitzungsberichte der Deutschen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, Klasse für Phil.-und Geschichte, 1955 (Berlin, 1956),Google Scholar no. 4.

81. Bogyay, , “L'iconographie de la ‘Porta speciosa’”, pp. 85–96.Google Scholar

82. SSH, 1:462, 14–16; Szentpétery, , Regesta regum, p. 1,Google Scholar nos. 130–131; for a counterargument, compare György Györffy, “A magyar Krónikák adata a III Béla-kori peticióról” [Entries in the Hungarian chronicles concerning petition to the King in the times of Béla III] in Kovács, Sándor V., ed., Memoria saeculorum Hungariae (Budapest, 1974-),Google Scholar vol. 1, Horváth, János and Székely, György, eds., Középkori kütföink kritikus kérdései [Problems in medieval Hungarian historiography], pp. 333–338Google Scholar and my review of this volume in Austrian History Yearbook, 12–13 (1976–1977): 494–496.Google Scholar

83. “non sicut viro mediocri aut sacras scripturas ignoranti, sed tam divinis quam humanis scripturis plenius eruditio et ecclesiae doctori”, Holtzmann, , “Papst Alexander III und Ungarn” p. 409.Google Scholar