**5. Angelus Domini?**

Even though Matthias was the last Hungarian king to be associated with the *corona angelica*, the tradition well outlived him. Shortly after Matthias' death, the officially confirmed Hartvik Legend on St. Stephen's life was published for the first time in the 1498 *Legendae Sanctorum regni Hungariae* compilation. While this edition still followed the medieval text, and used the expression *nuncius domini* for the angel directing the crown from the pope to Hungary,<sup>23</sup> a modified version was used only four years later by the distinguished Franciscan Pelbartus Ladislaus de Themeswar (1430–1504), renowned for publishing an extraordinary number of sermons among the Hungarian representatives of scholasticism. The 1502 edition of Pelbartus' *Sermones Pomerii de sanctis pars aestivalis* called the angel directing the crown from the pope to Hungary *Angelus Domini*, in a manner similar to the *Chronici Hungarici compositio saeculi XIV*. In addition, Pelbartus also used the *Angelus Domini* denomination for the angel who announced the birth of St. Stephen to his father Grand Prince Géza in the *Legenda Maior*, as though equalling the two angels.<sup>24</sup> Somewhat later a new version of the Hartvik Legend appeared which also followed suit, and swept aside any doubts concerning the identity of the messenger visiting the pope:

*Nocte enim eius diei, quo statuerat Pontifex coronam Polonorum Principi dare perferendam, apparvit ei Angelus Domini, atque ad eum: Noveris cras hora diei prima ignotae gentis nuncios ad te venturos, suo Duci coronam regiam, et Apostolicae benedictionis munus abs te expetituros. Eam ergo coronam, quam parari iussisti, illis incunctanter tribue, ad ipsorum Ducem eam absportaturis: nec dubites illi eam cum regni gloria pro vitae eius meritis deberi.*<sup>25</sup>

The earliest appearance I have hitherto found for this modified Hartvik version is the 1581 edition of *De Vitis Sanctorum* by the Venetian bishop and papal nuncio Luigi Lippomano (1496–1559);<sup>26</sup> whereas the latest comes from the 1878 edition of *Historiae seu vitae sanctorum* by Laurentius Surius (1522–78).<sup>27</sup> Both authors were among the most acclaimed hagiographers of the 1500s, equally known for a preference for sources considered reliable at the time. Lippomano was famous for seeking

<sup>22</sup> Visual and written sources differ in smaller details of the fresco, for instance there are altogether three angels or putti visible in the Eszterházy painting, where the epigram is held by two (Szentmártoni Szabó 2016, pp. 664–65, with further bibliography).

<sup>23</sup> *Legendae sanctorum regni Hungariae in Lombardica Historia non contentae*) (Venice, 1498), p. 16.

<sup>24</sup> "Ecce autem nocte praecedente papae astitit per visum Angelus Domini, dicens: "Crastina die ignotae gentis nuncii ad te venient, qui suo duci regiam coronam postulabunt. Hanc ergo coronam praeparatam illorum duci largiaris, quia sibi pro suae vitae sanctae meritis debetur cum regni gloria." Pelbartus de Themeswar, *Sermones Pomerii de sanctis II. Pars aestivalis* (Augsburg, 1502). Sermo LII., div. H. The Annunciation to Géza in div. G of the same sermon: "Cumque iam in Christo baptizatus et spiritu fervens nimis sollicitus esset de ritibus sacrilegis destruendis et rebellibus domandis, ac episcopatibus et ecclesiis construendis, ecce quadam nocte astitit Angelus Domini in specie iuvenis, aspectu delectabilis, dicens: "Pax tibi, Christi electe, iubeo te de sollicitudine tua fore securum. Non tamen tibi concessum est, quod meditaris, quia manus pollutas humano sanguine habes, sed de te filius nasciturus est, cui haec omnia disponenda commendavit Deus." "Pelbartus: Pomerium de sanctis, Pars aestivalis Sermo LXXXIV," Eötvös Loránd University Sermones Compilati Research Group, accessed on 23 August 2019, http://sermones.elte.hu/pelbart/pa/pa084.html.

<sup>25</sup> Jacques Bongars, *Rerum Hungaricarum scriptores varii, historici, geographici: Ex veteribus...* (Frankfurt, 1600), p. 272; Cardinal Roberto Bellarmino, *De o*ffi*cio principis Christiani libri tres* (Rome, 1619), pp. 348–49; Lorenz Beyerlinck, *Magnum theatrum vitae humanae ...* vol. 1 (Venice, 1707), p. 428; Johannes Georgius Schwandtner, *Scriptores rervm Hvngaricarvm veteres ac genvini...* vol. 1 (Vienna, 1746), pp. 417–18; Marianus Gerl, *Innocuum romani pontificis in elargiendis honorum titulis jus ab ineptiis...* (Regensburg, 1759), p. 94; Josephi Innocenti Desericii, *Stephanus Supremus, Et Ultimus Majorum Hungarorum: atque ad eo corona et coronis*... (Pest, 1760), p. 41; Alexius Horányi, *Memoria Hungarorum et provincialium scriptis editis motorum*, vol. 3 (Bratislava, 1777), p. 299; Ignátz Csétsény<sup>i</sup> Svastics, *Magyarok históriája* (Bratislava, 1805); 85, even the Hungarian translation "az Úrnak Angyala" differentiates this angel on page 51; Cardinal Roberto Bellarmino, *De scriptoribus ecclesiasticis liber unus* (Naples, 1862), 586; Cesare Baronio, *Annales Ecclesiastici* vol. 16 (Lyon, 1859), p. 380; Cesare Baronio, *Annales Ecclesiastici* vols. 15–16 (Lyon, 1868), p. 380.

<sup>26</sup> Luigi Lippomano, *De Vitis Sanctorum: Complectens Sanctos Mensium Iulii et Augusti*, vol. 4 (Venice, 1581), p. 266.

<sup>27</sup> Laurentius Surius, *Historiae seu vitae sanctorum juxta optimam coloniensem editionem*... vol. 9 (Turin, 1878), p. 37.

hagiographies dating from the lifetime of the author, and equally infamous for his lack of consideration for subsequent modifications thereof. Surius, in contrast, was particularly interested in changes that texts underwent over time, and put heavy emphasis on the authors' reputation (Touber 2014, p. 64). Two hagiographers of such diverse methods equally establishing a preference for the *Angelus Domini* Hartvik version suggests that this was the version they both believed to be the authentic, earliest text of the Legend.<sup>28</sup>

The fact that the *Legendae Sanctorum regni Hungariae* still contained the *nuncius domini* version allows for the consequence that the *Angelus Domini* version came into existence at some point between its 1498 date and the 1581 first usage by Lippomano. Pelbartus' intermediary version of the text further narrows the birth of the *Angelus Domini* version to the period between 1502 and 1581. It should be noted, though, that the c. 1115 *Gesta principum Polonorum* by Martinus Gallus (also known as Gallus Anonymus, 1066–1145), the earliest account of the history of Poland, also called the same angel *Angelus Domini*, being the earliest source to my knowledge to do so.<sup>29</sup> Given that it was composed only approximately 15 years after the alleged composition of the Hartvik Legend, the idea of referring to the angel directing the crown to Hungary as *Angelus Domini* may not have been alien to Hungarians even if Bishop Hartvik happened to make a different word choice in his own text. The difference may not be insignificant. According to a two millennia old tradition in angelology, the being referred to as *mal'ak YHWH* (˂ʠʔ ʬʍ ʮʔ ʤʥʤʩ) in the Old Testament and as *Angelus Domini* in the Vulgate is more than just an angel among many.

Gieschen (1998) recently provided a long-awaited overview of the *Angelus Domini* problematics in his book *Angelomorphic Christology: Antecedents and Early Evidence*. The debate proposes the denomination of a being distinct from created angels in Scriptural passages using the expression 'the Angel of the Lord' as opposed to 'an angel of the Lord'. The first generally recognized OT appearance of the phrase is the angel's apparition to Hagar in Genesis 16:7–14, the second one is the three young men visiting Abraham and Sarah in Genesis 18:1–16. Further examples include the sacrifice of Abraham in Genesis 22:11–18, the burning bush in Exodus 3:13–14, the story of the prophet Gideon in Judges 6:11–24, the Annunciation to Manoah and his wife in Judges 13:3–22, the Dream of Jacob in Wisdom 31, Balaam's donkey in Numbers 22:21–35, and Joshua before the heavenly council in Zechariah 3:1–10. There is no full agreemen<sup>t</sup> in scholarship about the exact number of *Angelus Domini* apparitions narrated in the Bible, since passages where the angel is explicitly referred to as the *Angelus Domini* have been expanded with passages where the context suggests that the angel appearing might be the *Angelus Domini*.<sup>30</sup>

The basis of the identification is the interchangeability of God and the *Angelus Domini*: while the text uses the term 'messenger,' the narrative endows the figure with divine features in these cases. The actions and visually discernible form of the *Angelus Domini* do not differentiate the being from other angels; he is endowed with the same awe-inspiring ye<sup>t</sup> appealing appearance, commands his subjects, conveys divine messages or foretells the future. Yet, the *Angelus Domini* typically appears to individuals with the aim of safeguarding the fate of the people as a whole (Garrett 2008, pp. 21, 30), and humans meeting him perceive the presence as divine. The angel speaks, acts, and is addressed as God, even an occasional variation is detectable in the text between the use of *Angelus Domini* and God to denote the same being. The *Angelus Domini* appears as a man of an imposing and distinct presence but speaks as if he were God (Gieschen 1998, pp. 62–63), at times even using the first person pronoun

<sup>28</sup> The possibility that Lippomano intentionally modified the original Hartvik text of course cannot be excluded but it seems to be rather incompatible with his characteristic *modus operandi*.

<sup>29</sup> "*Quumque in crastino legatis Poloniae dari corona debuisset; ecce eadem nocte Papae per visum Angelus Domini apparvit, et duci Stephano eam dari praecepit; quam quare duci Poloniae eam dare non praecepit...*" (Knauz 1866, p. 220).

<sup>30</sup> According to White (1999, p. 300), the phrase *mal'ak YHWH (˂ʠʔ ʬʍ ʮʔ ʤʥʤʩ))* or 'angel of the LORD', appears 48 times in 45 verses in the Bible. Among debated *Angelus Domini* passages Gieschen included, for example, the pillar of fire and the pillar of cloud leading Israel out of Egypt in Exod 14.19–24; or the angel wrestling with Jacob in Genesis 32:22–31 (Gieschen 1998, pp. 60, 78–79).

in these cases. While there is a noticeable variation in consistency (Gieschen 1998, pp. 56–57; Garrett 2008, pp. 22, 246 fn. 6, 247 fn. 12), these passages implicitly identify God and the *Angelus Domini* as the same being.

While the *Angelus Domini* has as ye<sup>t</sup> kept the secret of his or her identity, the majority of approaches nonetheless explained the being as a theophanic angel.<sup>31</sup> The *identity theory* asserts that the *Angelus Domini* is a visible manifestation of God the Father, who appears to humans in the form of an angel with regard to the impossibility of a direct encounter between God and human beings.<sup>32</sup> Perhaps a more extreme version of the same, the *messenger theory* stresses the union between sender and messenger; and the *interpolation theory* accordingly asserts that the expression *Angelus Domini* was added to the texts subsequently to soften the anthropomorphism of God appearing in the visible form of a man.<sup>33</sup> The *Angelus Domini* denomination could, along similar lines, be simply a literary device, a differentiated expression which employs tension to the text to highlight the paradox of an unmediated encounter with God.<sup>34</sup>

Another group of theories discussed the details of the *Angelus Domini*'s participation in the divine. The *l'ame exterieure theory* holds that the *Angelus Domini* is the direct manifestation of an aspect of God's personality. The *hypostasis theory* says the *Angelus Domini* is a distinct but not separate aspect of God, identifiable with His Name, Glory or Wisdom, for instance, and stemming from Jewish traditions picturing these attributes of God as independent angels. The *Logos theory* asserts that the *Angelus Domini* can be identified with various different angels and persons depending on who or which form best fulfils the *Angelus Domini*'s primary function as the Word of God, i.e., God's primary means of communication with the created world (Gieschen 1998, pp. 70–121; Garrett 2008, pp. 27, 53–57, 74).

Ideas for the identification of the *Angelus Domini* coalesced, already by Paul's day, into the theory of a chief heavenly mediator who participates in the divine in some way, from which it did not take long to interpret the *Angelus Domini* as the second person of the Trinity. Followers point out the reference to Christ's secret name in Revelations 19:12 and argue that the Hebrew word denoting angels in the Bible (*mal'ak,*˂ʠʔ ʬʍ ʮʔ) can mean not only messenger but also representative, either human or divine (Garrett 2008, pp. 26–27, 55, 67, 74, 127, 238; Gieschen 1998, pp. 23, 316, 325–27, 351; Hoffmann 2003, pp. 230–32; White 1999, p. 300). Gieschen (1998, pp. 6–8) pointed out that interest in the question was at a particular high before the 325 CE Council of Nicea, although subsequent dogmatic bounds also maintained an ontological difference between the *Angelus Domini* and created angels. While a reading of Paul with the identification of Christ as the *Angelus Domini* has also been suggested (Gieschen 1998, pp. 315–48), Justin Martyr is generally acknowledged as the starting point for the identification of Christ and the *Angelus Domini* (*Dialogus cum Tryphone* 76.3; 86.3; 93.2; 116.1; 126.6; 127.4; 128.1, 2, 4). Tertullian considered Christ to be an angel in His function as God's messenger, but not ontologically,

<sup>31</sup> Among alternative theories, Jews before and during the time of Jesus understood the *Angelus Domini* as the primary angel, who is still a being completely separate from God (Garrett 2008, p. 27). Presumably this approach lived further in the *representation theory*, which asserts that the expression denominates a created angel, Biblical or apocryphal, among them perhaps even Metatron, acting as God's ambassador (Gieschen 1998, pp. 124–51; Garrett 2008, pp. 31, 54). The proposal that the expression denotes the angel in charge of the execution of divine punishments has also found followers, not irrelevant for the understanding of angels as the Hand of God (*manus or dextera Domini*) (Gieschen 1998, pp. 313, 325–29; Garrett 2008, pp. 249, fn. 27, 191, 202, fn. 57; Eszenyi 2016; Hoffmann 2003). Vincenzo Cicogna (c. 1519–after 1596), a Church reformer priest and theological writer involved in the 1500s Catholic reform in and around Verona, identified as the *Angelus Domini* as Lucifer. Vincenzo Cicogna, *Angelorum et Demonum nomina et attributa...* (The J. Paul Getty Research Institute MS 86-A866, Fol. 97r–v)—see (Eszenyi 2014, pp. 18–179). Human figures such as prophets have also been put forward as *Angelus Domini* candidates; see (Gieschen 1998, pp. 152–86). For an overview of *Angelus Domini* theories, their origins, bibliography, and criticism see (White 1999, pp. 303–5; Gieschen 1998, pp. 53–57).

<sup>32</sup> Humans must experience the divine presence in a way suited to their limitations as finite beings whom God's unmediated holiness would otherwise overwhelm and eventually consume. The angel form creates a redaction of the divine essence and prevents an eventually fatal encounter (Garrett 2008, pp. 23–26, 38, 58, 247 fn. 15).

<sup>33</sup> In publications appearing roughly at the same time, White attributed the *interpolation theory* to W. G. Heidt, while Gieschen mentioned Heidt Gerhard von Rad as the person 'who championed this approach' (Gieschen 1998, p. 54; White 1999, pp. 303–4).

<sup>34</sup> White's (1999, p. 305) own theory.

since the Second Person of the Trinity is not a created being (*De carne Christi* 14). Philo's reading of the Logos, as an aspect of God with an independent agency identifiable as the *Angelus Domini,* has also been interpreted as a reference to Christ (e.g., *De migratione Abrahami* 174, *De Agricultura Noë* 51, *Legum Allegoriæ* 3.217–219). Origen of Alexandria identified Christ and the Holy Spirit as two supreme Angels of the Presence (*De Principiis* I.3.4); while Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 260–340) explicitly called Christ the 'Angel of the Most High his Father' (*Praeparatio Evangelica* 1.5, *Demonstratio Evangelica* 1.5).<sup>35</sup> Evidence of Christ being identified with the *Angelus Domini* can similarly be found in Pseudo-Clementine texts; as well as in the diverse second-century angelomorphic figures of *The Shepherd of Hermas* and *The Ascension of Isaiah* (Gieschen 1998, pp. 201–44).

From the point of view of the Hungarian *corona angelica* tradition, the key is the theophanic, divine essence of the *Angelus Domini*, and the fact that this angel has been considered divine since Old Testament times. As Gieschen (1998, p. 68) summarized it: "...the angel is either indistinguishable from God as his visible manifestation or the angel is a figure somewhat distinct from God, ye<sup>t</sup> who shares God's authority."

The age-old nature of the tradition distinguishing the *Angelus Domini* from other angels makes it plausible that the being was di fferentiated from created angels in Hungary, just like in other parts of Christianity. Evidence is once again provided by the arguably richest source for the *corona angelica* tradition, the *Chronici Hungarici compositio saeculi XIV*. The chronicle recounts an encounter among the afore-mentioned St. Ladislaus, his brother Géza, and a miraculous stag; at the end of which St. Ladislaus realizes the stag is an angel indicating the site where they should construct a church.<sup>36</sup> The text describes an angelic encounter, similarly to Ladislaus' vision about the angel delivering the crown to his brother, but does not use the expression *Angelus Domini* to denote the angel this time. The miraculous stag in Ladislaus' explanation is referred to as '*Angelus Dei'.* Other references to angels (disguised or not) simply use the word '*angelus'* in the compilation. The situation is similar with the 1500s modification of the Hartvik Legend, where the expression *Angelus Domini* is reserved for the angel delivering the Crown.

The possibility that Hungary, at some point, recognized the *Angelus Domini* in the angel delivering the Hungarian Crown may not be without relevance in context of the Byzantine origins of the tradition either. Váczy argued that visual representations of the *corona angelica* in Western art demonstrated a need to link the emperor's claim to the throne directly with the divinity; whereas in Byzantium, the direct heir of the Roman Empire, this need was not so urgent. This is why angels could more commonly take over the task of the coronation, which Váczy explained somewhat light-heartedly perhaps, but also in a way that is di fficult to doubt, with their gentle nature and general popularity.<sup>37</sup>

Nevertheless, the *corona angelica* is performed in the presence of the divinity in all Byzantine pictorial representations listed by Váczy, seemingly unlike in the case of the Hungarian images. Basil II is indeed being crowned by Gabriel in his psalter portrait (Venice, Biblioteca Marciana, MS Marc. gr. 17, Fol. 3r, after 1017), but Christ hands down the crown from Heaven. In the famous Liber vitae image of King Cnut and Queen Aelfgifu (London, British Museum, MS Stowe 944, Fol. 6r, 1020–1030)

<sup>35</sup> Gieschen (1998, pp. 187–98) also mentions Theophilius of Antioch, Irenaeus of Lyons, Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus of Rome, Novatian, and Lactantius in the history of the idea's formation.

<sup>36</sup> "*Et dum ibi starent iuxta Vaciam, ubi nunc est ecclesia Beati Petri apostoli, apparuit eis cervus habens cornua plena ardentibus candelis, cepitque fugere coram eis versus silvam et in loco, ubi nunc est monasterium, fixit pedes suos. Quem cum milites sagittarent, proiecit se in Danubium, et eum ultra non viderunt. Quo viso Beatus Ladizlaus ait: Vere non cervus, sed angelus Dei erat. Et dixit Geysa rex: Dic michi, dilecte frater, quid fieri volunt omnes candele ardentes vise in cornibus cervi. Respondit Beatus Ladizlaus: Non sunt cornua, sed ale, non sunt candele ardentes, sed penne fulgentes, pedes vero fixit, quia ibi locum demonstravit, ut ecclesiam Beate Virgini non alias, nisi hic edificari faceremus.*" *SRH* vol. 1, 394. The church in question is the present-day Church of the Blessed Virgin in Vác, in the vicinity of Budapest.

<sup>37</sup> Constantinos Porphyrogenitus' *De administrando imperio*, where chapter 13 declared that imperial regalia were sent from God to Constantine the Great by 'his angel', also declared that these angelic donations ought to be kept in the Hagia Sophia and used only on grea<sup>t</sup> religious holidays. The Hungarian crown was similarly kept in the Maria Church in Székesfehérvár and used only on the three major holidays, Christmas, Easter and Pentecost (Váczy 1985, p. 6; Rácz 2011, p. 12; Kerny 2003, p. 6; Bíró and Kertész 2007, p. 369).

an angel puts a crown on the king's head, but Christ is overseeing the scene above and the angel even points at Him.<sup>38</sup> Christ is similarly hovering above Emperor Constantinos Monomakhos, Empress Zoe and her sister Theodora while two angels reach down with two crowns from the sky (Sinai, Monastery of St Catherine, MS 364, Fol. 3r, c. 1042–1050). In the portrait of an unknown emperor in the Barberini Psalter (Bibliotheca Apostolica Vaticana, MS Barb. gr. 372, Fol. 5r, after 1180), the angel holds his right hand on the crown while pointing towards Christ with the left. Finally, the Bulgarian Tzar Ivan Alexander indeed receives the crown from an angel but he is standing between Christ and the chronicler Constantine Manasses in the late Manasses-Chronicle (Bibliotheca Apostolica Vaticana, MS Vat. Slav. 2, Fol. 22r, c. 1345).<sup>39</sup>

Byzantine artistic representations, therefore, support the idea that the divinity was supposed to be present at the coronation even if it was *de facto* performed by angels. Perhaps the Hungarian tradition expressed the same by choosing, from all the angels, the theophanic *Angelus Domini* to deliver the nation's Holy Crown, an angel whose presence consequently did not make it necessary to include (other) divine figures in pictorial compositions. As another consequence, this could also mean that Hungarian images representing the angelic coronation as performed by one angel as listed above, may be a characteristic regional variation of the *Angelus Domini* iconography, stemming from the chronologically earliest, c. 1360 *Chronicon Pictum* coronation portrait of Géza I.

In lack of early sources from the history of Hungarian spirituality, it is, of course, di fficult to state with certainty whether the angel delivering the Crown was ever understood to have a theophanic presence. The question might still be worth asking, perhaps. Considering the age of the tradition di fferentiating the *Angelus Domini* from other angels, it is reasonable to assume that it did not go unnoticed by medieval Hungarians who, in turn, imagined the *Angelus Domini* as a theophanic angel in charge of delivering their precious Crown. This did not necessarily have to happen before the 1300s emergence of the expression in Hungarian sources. Considering the popularity of the *Angelus Domini* version of the Hartvik Legend, the association could as well have taken place in the 1500s or later, while this version enjoyed a steady growth in popularity.

Obviously, two layers must be separated at this point: the intention of chroniclers using the *Angelus Domini* expression and the readers' understanding of the text. A similarly careful distinction must be made between the intention of the artists representing the *corona angelica* in the iconography of the four kings involved, and the viewers' interpretation of the images. If the *Angelus Domini* was indeed understood as a theophanic angel in medieval Hungary as well, the Hungarian *corona angelica* might be a step in-between the Eastern and Western tradition. In that case, the Byzantine *corona angelica* tradition was not simply copied but transformed and somewhat westernized by the time it arrived in Hungary, not only geographically but also in its ideology. Hungary received the Crown from an angel, similarly to Byzantium, but this angel was theophanic to ensure the divine presence more strongly required at the coronation in the West. As it was argued above, the angelic coronation never fully

<sup>38</sup> It should be noted, though, that while technically an angelic coronation happens in the image, Cnut receives not an actual crown but the Crown of Glory, which the king is expected to receive not on earth but upon entering Heaven. See (Karkov 2004, p. 137), I hereby thank Prof. Karkov for consultation on the topic. The situation is similar with another, non-Byzantine example brought by Váczy, the c. 1125–35 coronation miniature of St. Edmund the Martyr (New York, Pierpont Morgan Library, MS M. 736, Fol. 22v). Indeed two angels place a crown on the king's head while Edmund is surrounded by four other angels and no divine figures are present, but the miniature shows Edmund's apotheosis, therefore a heavenly and not earthly coronation. Edmund's actual earthly coronation is depicted on Fol. 8v of the same manuscript, where the crown is placed on his head by a cleric (Pinner 2015, pp. 65, 68, 72).

<sup>39</sup> The earliest example brought by Váczy is the c. 880 coronation portrait of Basil I (Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale MS Gr. 510, Fol. 14v), where the emperor is crowned by Archangel Gabriel and handed a labarum by his patron saint Elijah. While admittedly no divine figure is present in the scene, the concept of the divine is not missing if "...Elijah represents the divine force that assured Basil's rule" (Brubaker 1999, p. 161). Váczy did not mention the famous miniature showing an emperor being crowned by two angels in the c. 981–987 Benevento Exultet roll (Bibliotheca Apostolica Vaticana MS Vat. Lat. 9820). The image has been associated with Otto II but whether it is an actual portrait is questionable. Furthermore, the roll is a palimpsest, it was cut into pieces and most of the text was erased to be replaced by the Vulgate in the 1100s, which makes the presence of divinity around the coronation similarly di fficult to state with certainty (Ladner 1983, p. 320, fn. 31).

seceded from the divinity in Byzantine art either, and the divine presence the *Angelus Domini* brings to the act could offer an explanation for the absence of divine figures from Hungarian *corona angelica* images. Further examination of the written and visual source material will hopefully clear some grounds, or at least further muddy the angelic waters around the Holy Crown of Hungary.

**Funding:** This research received no external funding.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The author declares no conflict of interest.
