Saint Ladislas

This research analyzes from an iconographic perspective the mural representations of the three holy kings of Hungary – St. Stephen, St. Emeric, and St. Ladislas – which were depicted as a collective in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Previous scholars have considered that this iconographic theme emerged generally in the Angevin age without an attempt at its precise identification; the meaning of the sancti reges Hungariae iconography has been interpreted as the expression of the national values that the holy kings had embodied since the beginnings of their depiction as a trio. The goal of the thesis is to identify a more precise time for the concept’s emergence, to emphasize the iconographic similarities and differences of the separate and collective depiction of the three holy kings, and to recover the meaning that the frescoes had when they were created. The conclusion is, first, that the occurrence of the holy kings’ trio in the second half of the thirteenth century belongs to the beata stirps Arpadiana context, which also included the female sacred representatives of the dynasty, but the exclusive and politically charged concept of the sancti reges Hungariae is the result of the consistent strategy of King Louis the Great and his influential mother to promote the royal trio around the mid-fourteenth century. Second, I conclude that, although he was only a prince in his real life and separate iconography, St. Emeric finally became king in the sancti reges Hungariae iconography, where he is depicted with the royal dignity’s attributes (crown, scepter, and crucifer orb). Third and most significant, not all extant mural representations of the holy kings of Hungary should be judged as being the result of a political decision despite the common conceptual association of St. Stephen, St. Emeric, and St. Ladislas. As indicated by their dating and extrinsic characteristics (iconographic context and low visibility), the depiction of the holy kings on the pillars of the triumphal arch pre-dates the mid-fourteenth century and has an exclusively theological meaning: it emphasizes the role of St. Stephen as the apostle of the Hungarian Church (sanctissimus rex Stephanus ungarorum apostolus) and St. Ladislas as its defender (columpna milicie christianae). Political aspects began to pervade this type of representation in the first decades of the fifteenth century, when King Sigismund of Luxemburg made St. Sigismund, his personal Bohemian patron saint, the companion of the Hungarian royal saints, St. Stephen, St. Emeric, and St. Ladislas.

In the murals painted before 1404/5 in the sanctuary of the church in Mălâncrav, there is a group scene composed of five saints: the three holy kings of Hungary (i.e., Stephen, Emeric, and Ladislas), St. Sigismund of Burgundy, and a holy bishop without defining attributes. Rejecting previous identifications (St. Gerard of Cenad or St. Nicholas) for the holy bishop in Mălâncrav, the article establishes a new identity by focusing on hagiographic, liturgical, and historical texts, and by analyzing a series of images of saints. After placing the representation in Mălâncrav against the background of the cults of saints popular in medieval Hungary, the author identifies the holy bishop in Mălâncrav as St. Adalbert, the patron saint of the Archbishopric of Esztergom and one of Hungary’s holy protectors.

Since the antiquity the preservation of the saint’s earthly remains and their brandeums was a key element in their developing cults, likewise in the case of Ladislaus I of Hungary (also Saint Ladislaus), whose body was raised after 1192, and the remains of the head and arms were placed in an ornate relic, which in time became the centre of devotion of the holy king. During the Anjou’s in due to the representation of power St. Ladislaus's first gilded bust was completed, as well as two ornate relics for the arms. However these relics were destroyed around 1403 as a result a fire accident in the cathedral of Várad. Like Louis I of Hungary, Sigismund of Luxembourg himself paid his respects to the Holy King and for this reason he has renewed the cathedral of Várad – which was under construction at that time – while also developed new relics for the remains of Saint Ladislaus. Although the historical sources from Sigismund’s period didn’t mention the relics, it is suspected that the brandeums discussed in inventories dated in the following century could have been made under the reign of Sigismund. The purpose of the present study is to investigate the primary and secondary artifacts of Saint Ladislaus appearing after 1403, and to define what time the busts of Saint Ladislaus were made, as well as to explore the role played by Saint Ladislaus's relics in the monarchic and baronial representation during the Sigismundian age.

Examining both written and pictorial evidence, this study addresses the diffusion of the cult of St Sigismund from Bohemia to Hungary during the late fourteenth century and the saint's subsequent transformation during the fifteenth century into one of the Hungarian kingdom's patrons. In doing so, it assesses the significance of the actions that King Sigismund took to promote Sigismund of Burgundy, his personal patron, in Hungary and shows that the king emulated the model of his father, Charles IV of Luxemburg. King Sigismund promoted his spiritual patron within his kingdom and associated him with the traditional Hungarian patrons, the sancti reges Hungariae. The king thus succeeded in accommodating the foreign saint to a new home and transforming him for a short interval into one of Hungary's holy protectors. The natural consequence of this " holy and faithful fellowship " was the transfer of the cult from the royal milieu to the nobility of the kingdom. Willing to prove their loyalty to the king, Hungarian noblemen decorated their churches with St Sigismund's image and depicted him in the company of the saints Stephen, Emeric, and Ladislas. The study's larger aim is to illustrate how the political transformations of a certain period could facilitate the spread of a new saint's cult from the cult center to another region and that a saint's veneration could sometimes be politically motivated.

During the 1401–1403 political crisis in the Kingdom of Hungary, the magnates who were hostile to the ruling King Sigismund of Luxemburg and supported instead the Angevin King Ladislas of Naples deployed a wide range of propaganda tools for proving the legitimacy of their political cause. In a previous study published in this journal (Vestnik of SPbSU. History, 2021, vol. 66, issue 1, рp. 179–192), I have focused on the Hungarian noblemen’s anti-royal propaganda through the utilizing of political and spiritual symbols (i. e., the Holy Crown of Hungary and the cult, relics, and visual representations of St. Ladislas), symbolic actions (coronations and oath-swearing on holy relics), and heraldic self-representation (the Árpádian double cross). The present study approaches the same topic of anti-royal propaganda in the troubled political context of the early 15th century, but from the perspective of the elites’ self-representation strategies via the cult of Hungarian royal saints, artistic patronage, and heraldic self-representation. The two leaders of the anti-royal movement, Archbishop of Esztergom John Kanizsai and Palatine of Hungary Detre Bebek, repeatedly commissioned works of art (i.e., seals, stained-glass windows, and wall paintings) which featured prominently the images of the three Holy Kings of Hungary (Sts Stephen, Emeric, and Ladislas) or displayed the realm’s coat of arms (the Árpádian two-barred cross). The reliance of John Kanizsai and Detre Bebek on the cults and images of the patron saints of the country blended harmoniously the commissioners’ personal piety with their political ambitions. In the context of the early-15th century political crisis, the appropriation of the ideal figures of the sancti reges Hungariae became the driving force behind the Hungarian noblemen’s political cause.

In the murals painted before 1404/5 in the sanctuary of the church in Mălâncrav, there is a group scene composed of five saints: the three holy kings of Hungary (i.e., Stephen, Emeric, and Ladislas), St. Sigismund of Burgundy, and a holy bishop without defining attributes. Rejecting previous identifications (St. Gerard of Cenad or St. Nicholas) for the holy bishop in Mălâncrav, the article establishes a new identity by focusing on hagiographic, liturgical, and historical texts, and by analyzing a series of images of saints. After placing the representation in Mălâncrav against the background of the cults of saints popular in medieval Hungary, the author identifies the holy bishop in Mălâncrav as St. Adalbert, the patron saint of the Archbishopric of Esztergom and one of Hungary’s holy protectors.

When examining the cult of Saint Ladislaus within the power representations of Sigismund of Luxemburg, King of Hungary and Holy Roman Emperor, the most often reminisced memory is the pious donations that the ruler made in 1406 in favor of the Blessed Mary cathedral of Várad. With these, the king designated the cathedral as his final resting place, alongside the tomb of the king. Yet sources reveal that the restructuring of the dome, the formation of its internal structure, the church services ordered to be made at the future tomb, and the several royal grants together followed the models of Aachen and Prague in laying the foundations for an imperial cathedral to eventually serve as a site for the cult of Sigsmund himself. The present paper examines the way in which Sigismund prepared his future resting place, and how the tradition of the chronicles preserved the circumstances of the emperor’s death and his pompa funebris. It also addresses the question of whether the ostensio corporis, that is, the special exposition of the imperial body could be interpreted as part of Sigismund’s effort at canonization.

The author analyzes the cult of St. Ladislas that started to flourish in the late thirteenth century under the last Arpadian rulers. It was especially intense at the time of the new Angevin kings in the fourteenth century. The new dynasty adopted it and expanded this tradition in order to emphasize its legitimacy. The figure of Ladislas successfully represented the ideal knight and it was also an important propaganda tool for the legitimacy of the Angevin dynasty. The topic is presented through the cycle of wall-paintings of the legend of St. Ladislas in the church of St. Peter in Novo Mesto Zelinsko. The legend can be also found all across the Lands of the Crown of St. Stephen. In this context the presence of the churches dedicated to St. Ladislas in Croatia (also of St. Stephen the King, and St. Emeric), as well as an interesting late medieval appearance of St. Ladislas on the Dalmatian coast are also explored.

On Christmas Eve 1402, Hungarian noblemen gathered in the Cathedral of Nagyvárad, where St. Ladislas’ tomb was located, and swore an oath on the holy king’s relics. They proclaimed thus their allegiance to King Ladislas of Naples and conspired against the ruling King Sigismund of Luxemburg. By swearing an oath on St. Ladislas’ relics, the conspirators united their minds and forces around the ideal figure of the holy king and knight who became the symbol of a political cause and the embodiment of the kingdom which King Sigismund was no longer suited to represent. The symbolic gesture of oath-swearing on St. Ladislas’ relics took place in the midst of a three-year political crisis (1401–1403) that seized the Kingdom of Hungary as a consequence of the barons’ dissatisfaction with King Sigismund’s measures, which jeopardized their wealth and political influence. By relying on both written accounts and visual sources, the present paper examines the utilizing by Hungarian noblemen during this political crisis of important political and spiritual symbols associated with the Kingdom of Hungary. These included: the cults, relics, and visual representations of St. Ladislas, the Hungarian Holy Crown, or the kingdom’s heraldry. The propagandistic usage of these spiritual and political symbols was reinforced by their insertion into elaborated rituals and symbolic actions, such as coronations or oath-swearing on relics. By activating the link between secular and religious spheres through these rituals and symbolic actions, their performers hoped to attract the divine approval. By discussing such instances, the present paper seeks to illustrate how the ideal figure of St. Ladislas became the catalyzing force behind a political cause.

В канун Рождества 1402 г. венгерские вельможи собрались в соборе города Надьварад, где находилась гробница Св. Ласло, и принесли клятву на мощах святого короля. Таким образом, они объявили о своей верности королю Неаполя Владиславу и организовали заговор против правящего Сигизмунда Люксембурга. После присяги, принесенной на мощах Св. Ласло, заговорщиков объединила символическая фигура святого короля и рыцаря, ставшего эталонным воплощением политических идеалов и самого королевского титула, которому правящий Сигизмунд Люксембург больше не соответствовал. Символический жест принесения присяги на мощах св. Ласло был предпринят в разгар трехлетнего политического кризиса (1401–1403), охватившего Венгерское королевство вследствие недовольства баронов курсом короля Сигизмунда, ставившим под угрозу богатство и политическое влияние этих магнатов. Опираясь как на письменные, так и на художественно-изобразительные источники, настоящая статья исследует феномен использования дворянами важных политических и духовных символов, связанных с Королевством Венгрии, в ходе описанного политического кризиса. К таким символам относятся: культ, реликвии и изображения св. Ласло, венгерская Священная корона и государственная геральдика. Использование этих духовных и политических символов в качестве инструментов политической пропаганды сопровождалось и усиливалось их включением в тщательно продуманные социальные, публичные и политические ритуалы и символические действия, такие как коронация и принесение клятв. Таким образом, эти церемонии и символические акты были призваны установить связь между светской жизнью общества и сферой сакрального. Их участники видели в использовании священных предметов свидетельства участия бога в политических процессах королевства, а успешное проведение и завершение таких церемоний понималось как одобрение выбранного политического курса со стороны небесных сил. Рассматривая данные примеры, статья анализирует популяризацию св. Ласло в качестве образа идеального правителя и значение этих идей в политической практике.

Throughout the Middle Ages, Orthodox and Catholics had a common veneration for an important number of saints that have appeared in the Christian calendar before the separation of the two Churches as a consequence of the Great Schism (1054). Cults of saints such as that of the holy warrior George (d. 303), holy virgin and martyr Catherine of Alexandria (d. ca 305), or holy bishop of Myra Nicholas (d. 343) were highly popular both in the East and West, whereas other cults enjoyed a far greater veneration within one of the two churches and only a limited one within the other. For instance, pre-Schism saints such as the holy popes Clement I (d. 99) and Sylvester I (d. 335) or the founder of the Western monastic order St. Benedict of Nursia (d. 547) were highly revered within the Church of Rome; even though recognized by the Church of Constantinople, these saints received only an occasional veneration among the Orthodox. The Great Schism did not mean only the theological and institutional separation of the two Churches, but usually also the segregation of devotion: from that moment on, newly-canonized holy men and women were exclusively venerated by the faithful belonging to the respective Church which proclaimed them as saints.
On the basis of both textual and visual evidence, the present paper examines those cases of cross-credal devotion of post-Schism, Catholic saints by the Orthodox occurring during the Late Middle Ages in cultural contact zones, such as the Holy Land, Cyprus and Crete, Southern Italy, Dalmatian coastal towns, or Transylvania. In these territories found under foreign rule, the local Orthodox were greatly exposed to the dominant cultural model of the Latins, their response to it being sometimes reflected also in the religious and devotional sphere. Such trans-confessional forms of faith include: the Orthodox relevance of the cults of local – Venetian (St. Fosca of Torcello, d. 250/1), Sicilian (St. Catald of Taranto, canon. ca 685), or Limousin (St. Leonard of Noblac, d. 545) – saints in the Nativity Basilica in Bethlehem; the Slavic connection of the cult of St. Vitus (d. 303) and its ideological significance for medieval Serbia; the consequence of Franciscan and Dominican presence in Crete for the Orthodox veneration of St. Francis of Assisi (canon. 1228) and St. Peter of Verona (canon. 1253), respectively; or the assimilation of the cults of the holy kings of Hungary – Sts Stephen, Emeric (both canon. 1083), and Ladislas (canon. 1192) – by Romanian Orthodox noblemen in Transylvania.
In these instances of shared devotion by Catholics and Orthodox in medieval cultural contact zones, the Latin saints either preserved their Catholic devotional features within new, confessional contexts (i.e., Orthodox) or their cult was enriched with additional traits that were relevant from the point of view of Orthodox religious practice.

This paper analyses the changes that followed the arival of new beneficiaries at the church of St Peter. At first it was a part of a Templar estate on the Lands of St Martin. With the abolition of the Templar order most of the Templars joined the Hospitallers. Upon their takeover of the church, the existing architecture was used as a medium for the expression of the new owner’s ideas mostly through the legend of St Ladislas represented on the north nave wall. The architecture and architectural sculpture were retained as a framework for the display of the ideas of the new owners closely cooperating with the new rulers of the country and their interests. The church, built with one purpose in mind, was reused for a new ideological and artistic display – from the Romanesque to the Gothic, from the plain (or plain decorative) to figurative representation, from the Templars to the Hospitallers, from the Arpadian to the Angevins.

Around Christmas 1402, Hungarian noblemen gathered in the Cathedral of Oradea where the tomb of St. Ladislas was located, and swore an oath on the holy king’s relics. This way, they proclaimed their allegiance to King Ladislas of Naples (1386-1414), a claimant to the Hungarian crown on the basis of his Angevin lineage. Led by Prior of Varna Emeric Bebek, the Hungarian noblemen conspired against the ruling King Sigismund of Luxemburg (1387-1437). By swearing oath on St. Ladislas’ head reliquary, the conspirators united their minds and forces around the ideal figure of the holy king and knight, who became thus the symbol of a political cause and the embodiment of the kingdom which, according to the rebels’ views, King Sigismund was no longer suited to represent.
The symbolic gesture of oath-swearing on St. Ladislas’ relics took place in the midst of a three-year political crisis (1401-1404) that seized the Kingdom of Hungary as a consequence of the barons’ dissatisfaction with King Sigismund’s measures which put at risk their wealth and political influence. The political crisis started with the king’s four-month imprisonment in the Castle of Buda (28 April – 31 August 1401) and the forming by Archbishop of Esztergom John Kanizsai and Palatine Detre Bebek of a council that governed the country in the name of the Holy Crown (regarded now as vacant). The troubled times culminated on 5 August 1403 with the coronation in Zadar of Ladislas of Naples as King of Hungary. However, this symbolic act came too late and the anti-Sigismund coalition failed to attain its goal: by the Spring of 1404, the contested King Sigismund managed – with the help of his own barons and household and the support of the towns and the lesser nobility – to secure his complete victory, to restore the order, and to pacify the whole country.
By relying on both written accounts and visual sources, the present paper examines the utilizing by Hungarian noblemen during the political crisis of 1401-1404 of important political and spiritual symbols associated with the Kingdom of Hungary. Such symbols included: the cults, relics, and visual representations of St. Ladislas and the other sancti reges Hungariae (i.e., Sts Stephen and Emeric), the Hungarian Holy Crown, or the kingdom’s heraldry (i.e., Árpádian stripes, Hungarian double cross, or Angevin fleur-de-lis). Some of the high prelates and barons that were directly involved in the anti-Sigismund movement of the early-15th century (e.g., Archbishop Kanizsai, the Bishops of Győr and Nagyvárad John Hédervári and Lucas Szántai, or Palatine Bebek and his son Emeric) relied constantly on the cults and images of the sancti reges Hungariae for expressing political and propagandistic messages or made frequently use of the realm’s heraldry for self-representational purposes. By discussing such instances, the present paper seeks to illustrate how the Hungarian holy kings’ ideal figures became the catalyzing force behind a political cause, and how the appropriation by these noblemen of the kingdom’s heraldry became a means of self-identification with the realm and its envisaged fate.

Starting with the second half of the 14th century and throughout the 15th century, the collective depiction of the three sanctified Hungarian kings was one of the most popular themes of Catholic church decoration across the Kingdom of Hungary. Portrayed at the three ages of kingship and equally invested with attributes of royal power (i.e., crown, scepter, and orb), this image gathered within a single composition the three holy kings of Hungary, namely: St. Stephen (r. 1000/1-1038), the first Christian King of Hungary, Apostle of Hungarians, and a wise and righteous ruler; St. Emeric (1000/7-1031), the former’s son, a pious and chaste prince, who did not succeed to become king because of his early death; and St. Ladislas (r. 1077-1095), ideal ruler and knight, the country’s defender against pagan enemies, and athleta patriae.
Having emerged around mid-14th century in the Angevin royal milieu, the joint cult of the three sancti reges Hungariae spread rapidly among the Catholic noblemen of the kingdom, who found in this cult and its associated iconography a way to express their political allegiance to the king or – whenever the king’s person was considered unsuitable to rule – directly to the kingdom and against the king himself. However, the collective image of these Catholic saints is encountered also in a couple of Transylvanian Orthodox churches (Crişcior and Ribiţa), which were founded by Romanian/Vlach Orthodox noblemen and were decorated with murals sometime during the first decades of the 15th century. In the nave of these Orthodox churches, the iconic depiction of the Catholic holy kings of Hungary is placed in the proximity of the ktetors’ votive composition shown offering the model of the church, the scene of the Discovery of the Holy Cross by St. Helena, and the figures of military saints on horse. The images’ spatial arrangement and iconographic relationship recall those present in Byzantine and Byzantine-Slavic church decoration, where the ktetors are often depicted in the company of the country’s rulers (represented as legitimating sources of power), the Holy Emperors Constantine and Helena flanking the Holy Cross (portrayed as paradigms of ideal rulership), and the holy warriors on horse (an allusion to the ktetors’ military role and expression of their social status).
The symbolic presence of Hungary’s Catholic holy kings alongside the Orthodox ktetors, the Discovery of the Holy Cross, and the military saints on horse, respectively, evokes an iconographic thinking that finds its echo in Byzantine visual tradition and political-theological reasoning. The complex mise-en-scène of the Hungarian holy kings’ images in these Orthodox churches reflects the complex social, political, and spiritual reality of the founders, who were Orthodox noblemen living in a Catholic kingdom and strived to achieve a higher social position and the acknowledging of their rights by the actual sources of power.

En examinant le contexte politique et les détails iconographiques de la fresque des saints rois de l’église de Mălâncrav, cet article propose une nouvelle interprétation de ce thème iconographique, qu’on retrouve dans différents milieux sociaux. Si à la cour des rois angevins d’Hongrie la représentation des rois saints hongrois (Etienne, Emeric et Ladislas) est utilisée pour rehausser l’image du roi en fonction en tant que successeur de ces figures de prestige, cet article propose une interprétation différente du même thème dans les église nobiliaires comme celle de Mălâncrav. Le contexte de production et les détails de cette image suggèrent qu’elle fonctionne comme représentation iconographique de la royauté idéale, opposée au pouvoir royal en place au moment de la réalisation de la fresque. Nous proposons d’interpréter cette image comme un instrument par le biais duquel le commanditaire exprime son opposition au pouvoir royal qui lui est contemporain.

Sigismund of Luxemburg (1368-1437) had a high devotion for his personal patron saint, the first royal martyr Sigismund of Burgundy, medieval artists going as far as to depict the saint under his protégé’s appearance. Whereas Sigismund of Luxemburg’s devotion for his namesake protector received attention from scholars, it has become apparent only recently that the new King of Hungary (1387-1437) promoted his personal patron and one of Bohemia’s holy protectors within his new kingdom. By examining the surviving written and pictorial evidence, the present paper will address the diffusion during late-14th century of the cult of St. Sigismund from Bohemia to Hungary and the saint’s subsequent transformation into one of the patrons of the Hungarian Kingdom. It will assess the significance of King Sigismund’s efforts to promote his personal patron saint in Hungary and show that he emulated the model of his father, Charles IV of Luxemburg, a fervent supporter and promoter of the cults of saints, avid collector of relics, and great patron of the arts. King Sigismund not only promoted his personal patron saint within his country, but by associating him with the traditionally-accepted Hungarian patrons, the sancti reges Hungariae, he managed to accommodate this new, foreign saint to a new home and to transform him into one of the country’s patron saints. The natural consequence of this “holy and faithful fellowship” was the transfer of the new cult from the royal milieu to the aristocracy of the kingdom: willing to prove their loyalty to the king, Hungarian noblemen decorated their churches with the image of St. Sigismund and depicted him in the company of Sts Stephen, Emeric, and Ladislas. This paper’s larger aim is to illustrate through a less known case how a certain period’s political transformations could facilitate the transfer of a new saint’s cult from his cult center to another region, and that the veneration of a saint could be sometimes motivated politically.

Although the 6th-century holy martyr and king Sigismund of Burgundy was found in the earliest Hungarian calendars, his presence being owed to a Benedictine-Frankish layer of influence, the cult of the Burgundian saint was not at all popular in medieval Hungary, a fact indicated also by the absence from pictorial media of St. Sigismund’s representation. This changed at the end of the 14th century and beginning of the following one, when a series of depictions of St. Sigismund of Burgundy occurred in a number of churches, such as those in Bădeşti, Mălâncrav (both in Romania), Štítnik, Žíp (both in Slovakia), Lónya and probably Keszthely and Ozora (all in Hungary). Here, he is depicted not as martyr, but as royal saint and in the company of the holy kings of Hungary, i.e. St. Stephen, St. Emeric and St. Ladislas. By examining both visual and written evidence and looking closely at various historical events, the present paper offers an explanation for the emergence of such an iconography precisely during this period which coincided with King Sigismund of Luxemburg’s rule in Hungary. It also tries to understand the ideological meaning behind the association of the king’s personal patron with the kingdom’s patron saints, and to suggest possible ways of the spreading of St. Sigismund’s cult from the royal milieu to the kingdom’s nobility.

A significant number of fourteenth- and fifteenth-century churches, scattered throughout the medieval Hungarian Kingdom, is characterized by a common iconography of the triumphal arch: on its pillars, there are depicted the standing figures of the holy kings of Hungary – initially, only St. Stephen and St. Ladislas, but later also St. Emeric and St. Sigismund. Previous scholars have focused on the collective representation of the Arpadian holy kings, considering this iconographic theme as an expression of the national values they embodied, but no study deals with the individual depiction of the royal saints on the pillars of the triumphal arch. The goal of the paper is to briefly emphasize the two different strategies of conveying meaning by emphasizing the iconographic similarities and differences of the separate and collective depiction of the holy kings and to recover the initial meaning of the frescoes by examining the extended iconographic program of the altar and looking at the liturgical texts of the time.
The conclusion is, first, that not all extant mural representations of the holy kings of Hungary should be judged as having, as thought until now, exclusively a political meaning, despite the common conceptual association of the Hungarian Kingdom’s pillars, namely, St. Stephen, St. Ladislas, and St. Emeric. As indicated by their dating and extrinsic characteristics (iconographic context and low visibility), the depiction of the holy kings on the pillars of the triumphal arch pre-dates the mid-fourteenth century, when the collective representation occurred, and has an exclusively theological meaning: it emphasizes the role of St. Stephen as the apostle of the Hungarian Church (sanctissimus rex Stephanus ungarorum apostolus) and St. Ladislas as its defender (columpna milicie christianae). Political aspects began to pervade this type of representation in the first decades of the fifteenth century, when King Sigismund of Luxemburg made St. Sigismund, his personal Bohemian patron saint, the companion of the Hungarian royal saints, St. Stephen, St. Emeric, and St. Ladislas. Consequently, the paper argues that the materiality of the holy kings’ triumphal arch representation is a two-fold metaphor of the Hungarian Church and Kingdom, highlighting the main stages of their existence.