Urgesta
The Urgesta, also Gesta Ungarorum, Gesta Hungarorum vetera or ancient gesta are the historiographical names of the earliest Hungarian chronicle, which was completed in the second half of the 11th century or in the early 12th century. Its text was expanded and rewritten several times in the 12th–14th centuries, but the chronicle itself was lost since then and its content can only be reconstructed based on 14th-century works, most notably the Illuminated Chronicle.
Compilation, continuations and redactions
Date of the first chronicle
The Urgesta can be considered the beginning of Hungarian historiography, but there is no consensus among scholars regarding the date and circumstances of its origin.| Compilation | Historians |
| Under Andrew I | Stephan Endlicher, Ferenc Toldy, Gyula Pauler, Sándor Domanovszky, Zoltán Tóth, János Győry, György Györffy, János Horváth, Jr., Tibor Klaniczay, György Szabados |
| Under Solomon | Gyula Sebestyén, Jenő Vértesy, Géza Nagy, József Gerics, Lajos J. Csóka, Elemér Mályusz, Kornél Szovák |
| Under | Gyula Pauler, Ubul Kállay, Bálint Hóman, József Deér, Péter Váczy, Marian Plezia, Carlile Aylmer Macartney, János Bollók |
| Under Coloman | Raimund Friedrich Kaindl, László Geréb, Marian Plezia, György Györffy, Gyula Kristó, László Veszprémy, Dániel Bagi, Gábor Thoroczkay, Péter B. Kovács, Bernadett Benei |
| Under Géza II | Henrik Marczali, Imre Madzsar |
| Simon of Kéza | László Erdélyi |
Andrew I (r. 1046–1060)
was the first historian and philologist, who thought that the earliest Hungarian chronicle was written during the reign of Andrew I. Literary historian Ferenc Toldy considered that historical records were made already in the last decades of the Principality of Hungary in the 10th century, in addition to annals from the first Benedictine monasteries. Toldy argued Stephen I ordered to compile the deeds of the Hungarians by utilizing these records. He emphasized that the Illuminated Chronicle refers to "the ancient books about the deeds of the Hungarians", while Simon of Kéza's Gesta Hunnorum et Hungarorum also writes about an ancient chronicle. This work was extended into a chronicle under Andrew I, definitely before the birth of Solomon in 1053, as Toldy claimed. Historian Gyula Pauler initially considered too that the first chronicle was written under Andrew I and it narrates the history of Hungary from the rivalry between the king and his rebellious brother Béla. Later, he modified his viewpoint.Sándor Domanovszky listed three arguments why the Urgesta was completed during the reign of Andrew I. He claimed that the 13th-century historian Alberic of Trois-Fontaines utilized only the ancient gesta in his chronicle, because he draws data from the Hungarian chronicle textual tradition only up to 1047. Additionally, the anonymous author of the Gesta Hungarorum also finished his work with the beginning of Andrew's reign. Domanovszky also emphasized that the Hungarian chronicle used the data of Annales Altahenses up to 1046. Zoltán Tóth argued that the scene at Várkony reflects the coronation ordo of Ecgbert of York, which thus marks the period before the German influence that can be attributed to the time of Solomon, i.e. this chapter was written during the reign of Andrew I.
Initially, György Györffy also expressed that the ancient gesta or the Gesta Ungarorum was compiled during the reign of Andrew I, and was later expanded at the time of the rule of Ladislaus I. Györffy argued that Anonymus, Alberic, Riccardus, the Annales Posonienses and the Illuminated Chronicle all utilized this chronicle and its 12th-century continuation. Literary historian János Győry argued the influence of the Annales Altahenses can be detected within the text of the Hungarian chronicle tradition up to only 1046. Győry considered that Andrew I ordered the Urgesta to be written to reinforce his own legitimacy after a turbulent period. After 1047, the newly crowned Andrew strengthened the royal power and the later chapters of the chronicle textual tradition can no longer be linked to his name.
Classical philologist János Horváth, Jr. claimed that Nicholas, Bishop of Győr, who formulated the establishing charter of the abbey of Tihany, was the author of the Urgesta, due to stylistic similarities. Horváth analyzed that this author wrote the gesta until the death of Andrew I and frequently used rhythmic prose, which is less typical of the later parts of the chronicle text. The chronicler reports in detail on the German–Hungarian wars of the 1050s, unlike the foreign works. Horváth argued that Nicholas – beside charters and peace documents, partly edited by him – utilized oral reports for his Urgesta. He also included his own experiences, as he was a contemporary of the events. The text summarizes the events chronologically at one point, which may mark the end of the original text of the ancient gesta. János Győry sharply criticized Horváth's conclusions on several points. In contrast, literary historian Tibor Klaniczay accepted the arguments claiming that the first gesta author recorded the events from the last regnal years of Stephen I until the 1051 German–Hungarian war. After a couple of decades, György Szabados was the first scholar, who considered that the Urgesta was compiled during the reign of Andrew I. He argued already before the end of the 11th century, several stylistic changes in content can be observed, which presupposes the existence of an earlier ancient chronicle than the turn of the 11–12th centuries.
Solomon (r. 1063–1074)
Gyula Sebestyén was the first scholar, who considered the Urgesta was compiled during the reign of Solomon. Jenő Vértesy argued a national chronicle had to be born before the canonization of St. Ladislaus. He considered the rivalry between Solomon and Béla's sons was narrated by a contemporary chronicle. Géza Nagy shared this latter viewpoint. He emphasized the contemporary author spoke out against those, who claimed that Andrew, Béla and Levente were the illegitimate sons of Vazul and deliberately named Ladislaus the Bald as their father. Nagy said this Urgesta centered around Solomon and its narration lasted until 1087, the exiled king's presumed death. The second part of the chronicle lasted from the 1091 Cuman invasion of Hungary to the reign of Géza II.File:Thuróczy krónika - Salamon király.jpg|thumb|right|Solomon as depicted in the 15th-century Chronica Hungarorum
According to József Gerics, the longer version of the hagiography of St. Stephen, already utilized the text of the ancient gesta, especially regarding the narration of Koppány's revolt. The hagiography formulated its narration of the 1030 German–Hungarian war by using phrases from the chronicle's chapter which tells the 1051 German invasion of Hungary. Gerics, discovered double and mutually exclusive talk by a part of the chronicle text, which puts the monarchs under different judgments, such as Béla I and Solomon. Gerics considered the Urgesta was compiled around 1066 or 1067, and its last chapter was the consecration of the Zselicszentjakab Abbey in that year. László Veszprémy agreed with Gerics, considering that the author of the Legenda maior may have known an early version of the primary chronicle, and by the 1080s there was a written tradition of earlier German–Hungarian wars.
Elemér Mályusz considered that the first Hungarian historical summary was created sometime in the middle of the 11th century, whose ecclesiastical author had a Western education. The Urgesta's political goal was to present the legitimacy of the ruling Árpád dynasty and their role in the Christianization of Hungary. Mályusz also identified Bishop Nicholas of Győr as the author of the gesta but placed its compilation to the early regnal years of Solomon. Lajos J. Csóka considered the mid-14th century Chronicon Zagrabiense and Chronicon Varadinense prove the existence of an ancient gesta during the reign of Solomon. These works utilized the Urgesta, but later data, however, are inaccurate and superficial. Csóka argued the Urgesta was compiled by a Benedictine friar in the Abbey of Pannonhalma. Authors of the Annales Altahenses received an extract of this chronicle. According to Csóka, the Urgesta was written sometime before 1070 and its text contained the martyrdom of bishops and other clerics, the proper date of death of Stephen I. Csóka argued the lesser legend of the first Hungarian king utilized the text of the Urgesta, this is where the philological connection with the Annales Altahenses can be traced. The scholar claimed the Benedictine author compiled the gesta most likely in the late 1060s. He started his work with the 970s, the first Christian missions to Hungary, and closed his chronicle with an important event for his ecclesiastical order, the foundation of the Zselicszentjakab Abbey.
Historian Kornél Szovák argued the Urgesta was written in the early regnal years of Solomon, when his relationship with the sons of Béla I was still considered cooperative. He considered the chronicle had to be written before the Battle of Kerlés. Szovák argued the chronicler represented the legitimist standpoint, presenting that Solomon was crowned and anointed king lawfully by his father in 1057 or 1058. This author collected all myths and legends connected to the early Hungarians and the Árpád dynasty. Szovák argued the chronicler perceived the contrast between the person of Saint Stephen and the later rulers, thus made Gisela of Hungary, Stephen's wife, as a scapegoat, blaming her intrigues behind the confrontation between Stephen and his cousin. The author intentionally made Ladislaus the Bald as the father of Andrew, Béla and Levente. The author used the 7th-century Exordia Scythica and the late 9th-century Regino of Prüm's Chronicon, as primary sources.