Table of Contents The Significance of the Chartvirgus Pontifical.................................................................................... 3 Medieval Pontificals........................................................................................................................... 4 The History of Research and Editions ........................................................................................... 5 The Problem of Liturgical Content ............................................................................................... 8 The Problem of Genre ................................................................................................................ 11 The Extant Pontificals of Hungarian Origin..................................................................................... 22 The Esztergom Benedictional...................................................................................................... 23 The Zagreb Pontifical ................................................................................................................. 25 The Veszprém Pontifical ............................................................................................................. 27 The Durandus-Pontificals Used in the Hungarian Kingdom ....................................................... 30 Other related sources................................................................................................................... 31 The Codicological Description of the Chartvirgus Pontifical............................................................ 34 Bibliographical Data ................................................................................................................... 34 Layout, Orthography, Grammar ................................................................................................. 39 Musical Notation........................................................................................................................ 41 Decoration, Binding ................................................................................................................... 47 The History of Research................................................................................................................... 47 Franjo Fancev ............................................................................................................................. 48 Germain Morin........................................................................................................................... 48 Dragutin Kniewald ..................................................................................................................... 50 Géza Karsai................................................................................................................................. 51 Nausica Morandi ........................................................................................................................ 53 Polikárp Radó ............................................................................................................................. 54 Zoran Hudovský and Miho Demović.......................................................................................... 59 Janka Szendrei............................................................................................................................. 60 József Török................................................................................................................................ 63 László Dobszay............................................................................................................................ 64 Herbert Schneider....................................................................................................................... 65 Szilvia Somogyi........................................................................................................................... 67 Edit Madas ................................................................................................................................. 68 My Own Earlier Contributions................................................................................................... 70 Date and Origin............................................................................................................................... 72 Date............................................................................................................................................ 72 Origin......................................................................................................................................... 74 Structure and Content ..................................................................................................................... 90 Divisions and Strata of the Structure........................................................................................... 91 Genre and Context ..................................................................................................................... 94 Textual Tradition............................................................................................................................. 97 Rubrics ....................................................................................................................................... 98 Liturgical Texts ......................................................................................................................... 106 THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CHARTVIRGUS PONTIFICAL The manuscript upon which the present edition is based is a Pontifical from the end of the 11th century; the most important witness to the archaic period and early de- velopment of the chief medieval Hungarian ritual variant, the so-called Use of Esz- tergom (Strigonian Use). It contains the order of diocesan synods, the degradation from, and restitution to, the different ranks of Holy Orders, excommunication and reconciliation, special ceremonies of the liturgical year, and the sacraments of Pen- ance and Anointing. As to its origin, there is no direct historical evidence but its li- turgical content clearly identifies it as a source proper to the cathedral of Esztergom. Evidence shows that by the beginning of the 13th century it was certainly used at the cathedral of Zagreb. It seems reasonable then to suppose that soon after it was writ- ten, around the last years of the 11th century, it was taken from Esztergom to Zagreb where it is still preserved in the Knjižnica Metropolitana or Metropolitanska Knjižnica, the Library of Zagreb Cathedral under the library code MR 165. In Hungarian scientific literature, due to the uncertainty regarding the exact genre it represents and because the name of a certain bishop Chartvirgus is specifically mentioned in it, the book is known either as the Agenda of Hartwick or simply Agenda Pontificalis. Accordingly, I will henceforth refer to it with the siglum H. At the outset I feel compelled to rebut a few false, or at least implausible, hypotheses which for decades have been considered established facts by some of the studies on the subject. Among these hypotheses primarily the following should be mentioned: the provenance of H from the city of Győr, its purportedly mixed genre, and the ori- gin of the Hungarian ritual usages from Northern France. The significance of H may be summarised in two short statements: (1) From the perspective of Hungarian liturgical history the H is the first source whose material remains a stable feature in the process of transmission all the way to the 16th century. By analysing its ceremonies, it is easily discernible what was changed or preserved by the Hungarian ritual usages, that is, one can identify the ac- cidental, variable elements and what may be considered specific either to the King- dom of Hungary or to a certain period. It can also be determined whether the varia- tions in our later sources are of a historical or regional origin, and in the final analy- sis, when and how, that is, in which ecclesiastical centres, using what sources, and under what kind of cultural, socio-political impulses was the body of Hungarian rit- ual variants, or more closely the Use of Esztergom, formed. (2) From the perspective of universal liturgical history the Use of Esztergom is of paradigmatic significance. This, and the ritual family of Hungarian usages organised around it, is the only liturgical variant in the whole of Europe which remained essen- tially unified all throughout its extensive territory for 600 years. Its origin and expan- sion was a result of a well-organised effort in a large region without any pre-existent ecclesiastical structures. The H is the first representative source for the Hungarian 4 Introduction ritual use. It stands very close to the supposed beginnings of the usage; its concept is all-encompassing and cohesive. The continuity of its characteristics with Hungarian traditions of later origin is obvious, while these characteristics cannot be deduced from the traditions of any other parts of Europe. Hence the H provides an insight into the formation of a ritual use in statu nas- cendi: in a supple, plastic state when learned ecclesiastics, endowed with impressive knowledge of the contemporary practice and variations of the Roman Rite, were able to create a fresh and ambitious tradition with good taste and evident ingenuity, al- ways maintaining respect for its essentially Roman features, while never curbing their own creativity. Upon closely