Actions
(1.15 MB, 1296x1936)
As promised. now about Révay Péter, crown guard. Briefly I wrote about who he was and for our purpose I don't think we need much more. For a reminder this his book about the Holy Crown and related topics: De sacrae coronae regni Hungariae ortu, virtute, victoria, fortuna, annos ultra DC clarissimae brevis commentarius. Augsburg, 1613. Second edition: couldn't find data - third, extended edition: 1659, by Nádasdy Ferenc justiciar (judex curiae regiae) - later editions (based on extended): Nagyszombat, 1732, 1735, 1749 One central question in the Crown-research is the three ruler icons on the back of the rim, them: >>/26892/ and their authenticity: if they are original to the Crown and if not when they were placed onto it. We saw here >>/26893/ and here >>/26989/ that the Doukas icon doesn't fit at all and in general those researchers who question that those plates were on the Crown put Emperor Michael on the first place to be a suspect of a secondary addition. He is followed by Konstantine/Konstantios and Geobitzas is the third. This is where Révay comes in the picture. In his book - as I mentioned - he gives a vague description of the Crown and a generalized list whose pictures can be seen on it. He finishes this list with a very interesting item: he says at the back of the crown on the rim above (where Doukas resides) the makers of the Crown put the depiction of Virgin Mary. For a while now the "offical" line just waves away the problem this report represents, caliming that Révay wrote a bunch of nonsense, usually taking the image from his book (here: >>/27629/) and say: see how could we believe to Révay even his drawing looks nothing like the real Crown. So when they want to do a short job on this, they pull ad hominems instead of addressing the question. Ofc there are some real arguments against it why the Virgin Mary couldn't be there, or how he could make the mistake to "put" her there even tho he saw several times the Crown, he could hold it in his hand observe it if it needs reparing (twice before the first publishing of his book and 3-4 times later). There are also questions that how, when and who would have changed Mary to Michael who in 1790 was doubtlessly in his place, and those who accept Révay's report blindly usually blame Emperor Joseph II with the "vandalization" of the Crown who didn't even bothered to get crowned as a Hungarian king and tried to rule us as emperor. But where did he get that Byzantine icon which is more or less similar to the others? Or where he got a goldsmith who could make a fake one? Or why would he even cared to act so? Much more likely this explanation here: >>/26895/ how Doukas get on the Crown. Anyway, the Virgin Mary is/was very important to Hungary. According to the legend, Saint Stephen just before he died offered the Crown and the Country to Virgin Mary and among Catholics the kingdom was called Regnum Marianum for a long time. In this tradition Révay's report would fit splendidly, in a kinda poetic way to be honest.