Die slawischen Sprachen

Hegausgeber Otto Kronsteiner


vol. 8, 1985

Referate des 4. SALZBURGER SLAWISTENGESPRÄCHS ”Method und die alten slawischen Kirchen sprachen” (Salzburg, 28. November - 1. Dezember 1985). Teil 1



Imre BOBA (Seattle/Washington)



Despite a continuing interest in Moravian and Methodian studies little progress, if any, has been made with regard to some basic issues. There is still a diversity of scholarly opinion as to the very nature of Methodius’s episcopal dignity, as well as to the location - or even the existence - of his episcopal see. Methodius has been considered by various scholars in turn to have been a bishop ”at large” without a permanent residence, a missionary bishop, a land-bishop (chorepiscopus) , or, finally, a titular bishop of Sirmium on the River Sava who was active mainly in Prince Sventopolk’s domain north of the Danube with a see either in Nitra, Velehrad, or elsewhere. Thus, on the one hand, we have differences of opinion on the nature of Methodius’s episcopal dignity and, on the other, a general scholarly agreement that he had the function of archbishop of Moravia. The persistence of conflicting interpretations of the episcopal dignity of Methodius and the acceptance of the notion that he was archbishop of Moravia, a title for which there is no evidence in the sources, warrant a reexamination of the Methodian problem in an attempt to eliminate some of the contradictions. [1]


Both the episcopal dignity and the archiepiscopal function of Methodius are adequately defined in contemporary papal letters as well as in hagiographic writings of later origin. For instance, we have the letter of Pope John VIII to Adalvin, archbishop of Salzburg, in which Methodius is referred to as ”frater” of the Pope. [2] The term ”frater” is employed in papal usage only in respect to bishops - the sacerdotal dignity of the pope is also only that of a bishop. From a letter by the same pope to Sventopolk, it is evident that Methodius was ordained in Rome, during the pontificate of Pope Hadrian II, as "archbishop to Sventopolk”. [3]





Since the earliest recorded synodal decisions a fully ordained bishop has been the leader of a community of believers in an urban settlement. The ordination of a bishop consists today, as it did in the ninth century, of a mystical marriage ceremony between the bishop-elect and the church to which he is assigned. As early as 451, Canon 6 of the Council of Chalcedon (Fourth General Council) decreed that "no one is to be promoted to the priesthood or diaconate or to any other ecclesiastical order, unless the one to be promoted is specially affiliated with a church of a city or that of a village, or a martyry or a monastery. In regard to those who have been ordained absolutely [that is, without a titulus], the holy council decided that such ordination is invalid, and that they can function nowhere, to the disgrace of the one who ordained them.” [4]


Clerics or bishops who abandoned their church or were ordained without a titulus were considered clerici vagi or acephali and were subject to disciplinary censure. The Synod of Arles (314) formulated the rule that "ubi quisque ordinatur, ibi permaneat.” Similarly, Canon 15 of the First Council of Nicaea (First General Council, 325) and Canon 20 of the Council of Chalcedon (451) remind clerics that they should not pass from one church to another. In the ninth century the popes and some of the provincial synods were concerned with vagrant bishops and clerics. Consequently Methodius, ordained by Hadrian II, must have been fully intitulatue, that is, ordained to a cathedral church from the income of which he received his subsistence and at which he had to establish his residence. He was obviously not an episcopus vagus, but neither was he a titular bishop (of a defunct see) , as is frequently assumed - this institution came into existence only in the wake of Muslim conquests and especially after the collapse of the Crusades.



The diocese of Methodius is frequently mentioned in contemporary ninth-century documents because of a legal dispute between the papacy and the archbishop of Salzburg over jurisdictional authority in parts of former Pannonia. In the late eighth century large areas of Pannonia came under Frankish-Bavarian control, and parts of that territory were entrusted by the decision of Charlemagne





to the pastoral care of the bishop of Passau, the archbishop of Salzburg, and the patriarch of Aquileia. Pope John VIII wished to restore the former church province of Pannonia to Roman authority. As a result of the ensuing conflict of interest between the papal claim for primacy and the Frankish proprietary church, Methodius, active in Pannonia, was detained, probably in territory controlled by the Bavarians, and then held in Swabia for some three years.


Pope John VIII, in his letters to King Louis the German, his son Karloman, and the Bavarian bishops, [5] insisted upon the release of Methodius and upon the restoration, directly to Methodius and indirectly to the papacy, of the ecclesiastical rights over parts of Pannonia. In the papal letters the disputed territory is referred to as diocesis Pannonica, which was once given to papal care by synodal decisions, "as written histories show." [6] From the letter of Pope John to Karloman, who was at that time in control of Carinthia, it is evident that the Pannonica diocesis, and only that diocese, was claimed for Methodius. [7]


The diocese in question is repeatedly defined by the adjective "Pannonica," and this would seem to be sufficient evidence for the view that the diocese formed part or the whole of former Pannonia. Although no scholars have yet attempted to prove that Pannonia ever extended north of the Danube, it seems appropriate to show that the disputed Pannonica diocesis once formed, in fact a part of the Roman Empire and thus was located only south of the Danube. Regions north of the Danube could not have been subject to synodal decisions in a remote historical past, before the destruction an evacuation of the Pannonian bishoprics once under Roman control. It was only the provinces of Illyricum, including Pannonia, that were affected by such synodal decisions. [8]


That the papacy was the legal heir to the diocesis Pannonica is indicated also by another fragment of the papal letters, in which the fact was stressed that the rights of Rome were not subject to the legal rules of forfeiture. The reference to forfeiture seems to be an answer to arguments used by the archbishop of Salzburg in support of his own claim for jurisdiction over parts of Pannonia. The plea of Salzburg was included in the memorandum Conversio Bagoariorum et Carantanorum. [9] The memorandum itself, or





its contents, must have been communicated to the Pope, as it seems to represent an integral part of the dispute. The document claimed that Salzburg had been in ecclesiastical control of "orientalis Pannonia" for seventy-five years before Methodius appeared on the scene. The Pope seems to have repudiated these claims by referring to the Justinian Code and to the perpetual rights of the papacy.


The same legal and historical reasoning was used by Pope John in drafting instructions for Bishop Paul of Ancona, his legate dispatched to Germany to secure the release of Methodius from detehtion in Bavaria and the restoration of the diocesis Pannonica to papal ecclesiastical jurisdiction. The instructions, which are very precise and leave no room for misunderstanding, define the diocese of Pannonia as former papal jurisdictional territory, temporarily detached because of wars and occupation by the enemy. Reference is again made to forfeiture, another indication that Rome had once been in possession of the diocese. Finally, the papal claim is supported by reference to former papal jurisdiction over Illyricum, of which Pannonia was a part. [10]


At the same time as the letters of Pope John were being sent to Louis the German and to Karloman and Bishop Paul of Ancona was securing the release of Methodius, a South Slav prince by the name of Montemer was exhorted in a letter by the Pope to return to the fold of the Pannonian diocese, which now had a bishop ordained by Rome. This letter renders further evidence not only that Methodius was a diocesan bishop, fully ordained to a definite episcopal see, but also that his diocese had once been in existence before his ordination and intitulation to its see. [11]


In all sources analyzed the diocese claimed for Methodius is repeatedly and unequivocally defined as a territory formerly under papal jurisdiction, part of Illyricum. It may well be of importance that the archbishop of Salzburg did not deny Rome's claims but counted on the law of forfeiture. Finally, the dispute could not have involved regions north of the Danube, because in 798 the archbishop of Salzburg had received for ecclesiastical care only areas south of the Danube.


Further accumulation of evidence in support of our observations would be redundant. However, for the sake of testing our conclusions,





we should quote Vita Methodii, an independent Church Slavonic source. According to this source, Methodius, when answering the accusations of the Bavarian bishops that he had trespassed upon their jurisdictional territory, said in his defense:


"Had I known that this [territory] belonged to you, I would have avoided it. But it belongs to St. Peter. Indeed, if you, guided by conceit and greed, do transgress the old boundaries in violation of the canonical decisions ... be on guard." [12]


No old boundaries, no canonical decisions, no rights of St. Peter’s patrimonium would have been mentioned by Methodius if the transgressions had taken place north of the Danube, a region which at that time could not yet have been part of the Roman hierarchical organization.


A more precise delimitation of the diocese of Methodius is possible but, at this stage of our investigation, not necessary. It would require a rather lengthy scrutiny of sources relevant to the political and ecclesiastical history of the whole region - a topic for separate consideration. It may be pertinent, however, to reiterate our main observation, namely, that the diocese of Methodius, the diocesis Pannonica, was located south of the Danube. The same conclusion can be derived from an analysis of Greek, Church Slavonic, and Old Russian sources relating to Methodian studies.



Our conclusion that the diocese of Methodius must have been south of the Danube is at variance with the generally accepted notion that Methodius was "archbishop of Moravia" (north of the Danube). The key to this problem seems to be a proper understanding of the episcopal title of Methodius. Canon law and ecclesiastical practice fail to make provision for such titles as "archbishop of Moravia" or "archbishop of Poland." There is no such title or function, although Methodius, a city-based bishop, in charge of his own diocese, had nonsacerdotal, supervisory functions over the ecclesiastical organization of a larger territory, the entire principality of Sventopolk. Moreover, as mentioned earlier, none of the sources which refer to the episcopal dignity and ecclesiastical functions of Methodius identifies him as "archbishop of Moravia."





The official title of a bishop, as a rule, is formed from the name of the cathedral church or the city of his residence, for example, "Maxentius, sanctae Aquilegensis ecclesiae episcopus,“ [13] "Theotmarus Iuvavensis ecclesiae archiepiscopus,[14]" ”bishop of Rome,” or ”patriarch of Constantinople.”


The only expression resembling the Latin form ”Moravia” in the title used for Methodius in ninth-century official documents is in a letter of Pope John VIII: "Methodius reverentissimus archiepiscopus sanctae ecclesiae Marabensis.” [15] This is the title which gave rise to the assumption that Methodius was archbishop of Moravia. This title, however, connects Methodius not with Moravia but with the church of his residence and with the city named - correctly or corruptly - Maraba. The expression ”Maraba/Morava” certainly refers to a city, because the title of a bishop, as already indicated, expresses the fact of intitulation to a cathedral church defined by the name of the city.


Decisive for our investigation, however, is the fact that, in the same letter in which Pope John VIII named Methodius ’'archiepiscopus sanctae ecclesiae Marabensis,” there is reference to another bishop in the principality of Sventopolk - Wiching - who is named "episcopus sanctae ecclesiae Nitrensis." Thus, the realm of Sventopolk in June 880, the time at which the letter of Pope John VIII was written, must have consisted at least of two dioceses: the diocese of Wiching and the (arch)diocese of Methodius. The formal titles of Methodius and of Wiching used in the same document, irrespective of their canonical exactness, imply through their parallel construction that the forms '’sanctae ecclesiae Marabensis” and '’sanctae ecclesiae Nitrensis” can refer to cities only. As an argument from philological analysis of the text, one should note that in the forms ”Marabensis” and "Nitrensis” there is an adjectival ending, -ensis, which is used in Latin, as a rule, in conjunction with names of places - in our case, to form adjectives from cities named Nitra and Maraba.


To test our observations made on the basis of the letter of Pope John VIII, we may submit for analysis any of the Greek or Old Slavic hagiographic writings in which references are made to the episcopal function and territorial jurisdiction of Methodius.





Thus, in the so-called Proložnoe žitie Mefodija we read that Methodius rests in the cathedral church of Morava, on the left side, in the wall behind the altar (лежить же вь велицѣи црькви Моравьстѣи ѡ лѣвѫѭ странѫ вь стѣнѣ за ѡлтаремь. . . . . .). [16] The meaning of the texts is unequivocal:


Methodius was buried in his cathedral church, in a city named Morava or Moravsko.


Inasmuch as at the time of his death there were at least two cathedral churches in the realm of Sventopolk, Methodius’s own cathedral church could not have been referred to as the cathedral church of the whole of Moravia. In the light of the stipulations of canon law and of the philological and internal analysis of contemporary documents and hagiographic writings, the title of Methodius used in his Vita, архиепископъ моравьскъ [17] should be interpreted also as referring to a city named Morava or Moravsko.


For the conclusions reached so far more evidence is readily available.



The sources for Methodian studies provide sufficient material to locate the sedes episcopalis, defined so far as "sancta ecclesia Marabensis." The location of the city named Maraba/Morava can be determined, for example, from the Church Slavonic Vita Methodii. It was composed shortly after the death of Methodius, and, although the text of it is preserved in late copies, few distortions of fact can be detected. What is more, the biographer of Methodius seems to have had access to some papal letters which he used partly in the form of direct quotations and partly in digested form. We may be allowed to extract from it some facts pertinent to the problem of the episcopal see of Methodius as a Basis for our subsequent observations.


The author, or the transcriber, of the Vita gave the work the title памѧть и житиѥ блаженаго отьца нашего и оучителѧ Меѳодиı-а арьиепискоупа моравьска . . . . . . . [18] From the text we learn that Kocel, prince of a region around Lake Balaton, requested the Pope to send Methodius to him as a teacher. Subsequently, Kocel made a new plea to the Pope that


Methodius "be ordained as bishop in Pannonia to the see of St. Andronicus ... and so it happened." [19]


According to early church tradition, St. Andronicus, whose successor was now Methodius, had been bishop of Sirmium, once the





capital city of Pannonia Secunda and of Western Illyricum.


The observation which can be derived from the Vita for the purpose of placing the episcopal see of Methodius is that Methodius was made bishop of the see of Andronicus (Sirmium) and that the title of the vita refers to Methodius as Мѳодии архиепискоупъ моравьскъ . We must stress that the source does not know the classical names of the city where Andronicus and Methodius resided (Sirmium or Civitas Pannonia). In the Vita one reference to the bishopric is specific and formal (”archbishop of Morava”) and the other, oblique (”bishop in Pannonia to the see of St. Andronicus”). Neither the author of the Vita nor any of the later copyists saw a contradiction between the two definitions of the bishopric, obviously because for them they were synonymous. Therefore, we should not be surprised when, in place of Мѳодии архиепискоупъ моравьскъ (in Vita Methodii) , we read in the Pochval 'no Slovo (another Life of the Saint) на памѧт .... архиепискоупоу Паноньскоу Меѳодию . . . [20] The two definitions of the title of Methodius are definitely synonymous. In the Pochval'no Slovo the term Panon'sk is the equivalent of Civitas Pannonia and not of the province Pannonia.


There is no evidence in the various versions of the vita Methodii or in any other source that Methodius ever changed his episcopal see, a very unlikely possibility because of the obstacles imposed by canon law. Bishops are ordained to a specific see for life, and any exception to the rule in the form of disciplinary removal or transfer would have been reflected in the numerous sources.


Furthermore, the continuity of Methodius’s episcopal function at the see of St. Andronicus is the more likely because of his temporary detention in Bavaria. Explicit and precise instructions to the papal legate, Bishop Paul of Ancona, specified the conditions of Methodius’s release from Bavarian captivity. Methodius, ordained to the see of Andronicus, and detained illegally for some three years, had to be returned to his original residence at least for a period equal to the duration of his detention. Only then would the bishops of Bavaria be in a legal position to bring a complaint against Methodius to a higher ecclesiastical authority. [21]





No doubt the papal intervention was successful. Methodius, after his release in 873, returned to the see of his original ordination (Pannonica diocesis) not only for a three-year period but apparently for the rest of his life; in 879 Pope John VIII still named him "archiepiscopus Pannoniensis ecclesiae.” [22]


The same conclusions result from analysis of an independent Greek source, the Vita Clementis, an extensive and highly valued text for the study of Cyrillo-Methodian tradition. This work provides the following fragments on Methodius’s episcopacy:


(2) ... Methodius, who was the glory of the eparchy of Pannonia, became the archbishop of Morava.


(3) ... Pope Hadrian ... ordained Methodius bishop of Morava of Pannonia (Μοράβου τῆς Πανονίας).


(6) ... Gorazd ... was assigned to be archbishop of Morava.


(12) ... Gorazd was from Morava and was fluent in both Slavic and Greek languages, and he was designated by Methodius to the episcopal see. [23]


We have here again a definition of the jurisdictional territory of Methodius in the term "eparchy of Pannonia“ and also a confirmation of our earlier observation that the episcopal see of Methodius was a city named Morava. The city was obviously located in Pannonia. Pope Hadrian ordained Methodius to the see of Andronicus, as we know from Vita Methodii; hence Morava of Paragraph 2 of the vita Clementis must be identical with Sirmium, formerly the see of Andronicus.


For the proper interpretation of Vita Clementis and of many other Methodian sources, we should note here that the Greek form "ἐπίσκοπος Μοράβου τῆς Πανονίας” (bishop of Morava of Pannonia) is an official form of a bishop’s title referring both to the episcopal see and to the diocese. This extended form of titulature is still commonly used in the Orthodox Church.


It seems probable that some of the misconceptions in modern historiography concerning Methodius’s episcopacy can be traced to the fact that the Greek text was made accessible in Latin translation in the Patrologia Graeca. The translator emended the original text "Μοράβου τῆς Πανονίας" (of Morava of Pannonia) to read ”Moraviae et Pannoniae” (of Moravia and of Pannonia). The name of the city Morabos was arbitrarily made into the name of a country, Moravia.





The main cause of current misinterpretations, however, is the fact that, in addition to the two definitions of Methodius‘s episcopal see, "bishop to the see of St. Andronicus" and "archiepiscopus sanctae ecclesiae Marabensis," we have also a third form, already mentioned, namely, "archiepiscopus Pannoniensis ecclesiae." Hence, a more detailed analysis of the two Latin titles is justified.


What seems to us to be a contradiction was not necessarily a contradiction to the man of the ninth century. In Roman times it was customary to name a province after the capital city or to use the name of the province for its metropolis. Thus we have the name Civitas Noricum for Lauriacum, the capital of Noricum, and Civitae Valeria for both Sophiane and Aquincum, the two metropolitan cities of Valeria. [25] Similarly, we have the form Civitas Pannonia for Sirmium, the capital city of the province Pannonia Secunda. The bishop in the metropolitan city of Pannonia (Secunda) would have had the title "episcopus Pannoniensis ecclesiae" - indeed, the classical form used by Pope John VIII. [26]


The concurrent use of two names for the episcopal see of Methodius does not represent an isolated case in ecclesiastical nomenclature. In fact, there was no consistency throughout the Middle Ages in the application of topographic names. The sources reflect a variety of vernacular, classical, and classicized names for the same city or region. In the ninth century we have for the bishops of Passau such titles as "Pazzowensis civitatis episcopus" [27] and "Patavensis ecclesiae episcopus." [28] For the city and bishopric of Salzburg we have the following forms: "Arno, Petenensis urbis episcopus, que nunc appelatur Salzburgh," "Ecclesia Iuvavensium, que et Petena nuncupatur," and "Ecclesia Petenensis." [29] In the single source Conversio, we read two forms used concurrently: "Archiepiscopus Iuvavensium" and "Episcopatus Salzburgenses." [30]


The episcopal titles of Methodius which connect him with Morava, as well as with Civitas Pannonia, are used by the same pope, John VIII. The form "archiepiscopus Pannoniensis ecclesiae" appears to be the classical and ecclesiastical form used in a letter directed to Methodius, whereas the form "archiepiscopus sanctae ecclesiae Marabensis" reflects the vernacular name of the





episcopal city and is used only in the letter to Sventopolk. It should be noted that both papal letters are authentic, that the two different forms of titulature are used by the same chancery for two different addressees, and that the span of time between the writing of the letters is not more than one year (summer 879 - summer 880), during which period no detectable change occured in the episcopal status of Methodius and definitely no relocation of his see took place. On the contrary, the continuity of the episcopal function of Methodius is again evident in letters from Pope John VIII to Sventopolk in 879 and 880. In both cases Methodius is called Sventopolk‘s archbishop ("vester archiepiscopus").


The sources analyzed thus far for this paper are those most frequently used in studies presenting Methodius as archbishop of Moravia, north of the Danube. There are, however, sources utterly neglected in Methodian studies which give a directly simple answer to the question of the location of Methodius‘s episcopal see and of his diocese, and which make any further argumentation in favor of my contention superfluous. The Church Slavonic Vita Naumi states among other things: Меѳодии архиепискоупъ Моравоу и всѧ Панониѩ. [31] This is a precise title of a city-based bishop with definition of his jurisdictional territory, a title-form still used in the Orthodox Church and, in fact, an equivalent of the Greek phrase used in the Vita Clementis: "bishop of Morava of Pannonia." Furthermore, the Vita Naumi knows that Methodius, after the death of his brother Cyril in Rome, отиде в Панонию в градъ Моравоу. According to the Russian Primary Chronicle, Methodius remained in Morava (оста в Моравѣ) and was appointed "bishop in Pannonia (в Панонии) at the see of St. Andronicus." [32]


All references to the diocese and the episcopal see of Methodius in all sources point toward Pannonia and a city in Pannonia named Morava, the vernacular equivalent of Civitas Pannonia (Sirmium), formerly the see of St. Andronicus.






1. This study is an attempt to coordinate the testimony of sources only. The authorities who have concerned themselves with Methodian problems are conveniently listed in the bibliography to Franz Grivec, Konstantin und Method (Wiesbaden 1960). Periodical bibliographic surveys are offered in the journal Byzantino-Slavica. For a recent survey of Cyrillo-Methodian problems see Slavic Review, XXIII, No. 2 (June 1964), 195-238. The sources for Moravian and Methodian studies are available in several collections, the most recent being F. Grivec and F. Tomšič, Constantinus et Methodius Thessalonicenses: Fontes (Zagreb, 1960; "Radovi Staroslavenskog Instituta," Vol. IV), which lists and comments on earlier editions. The spelling of names follows the usage of the ninth century in Latin sources (for example, Sventopolk, instead of the commonly used Svatopluk, and Montemer, instead of Mutimir).


2. "Ne mireris, quia diximus te agente sedem a fratre nostro Methodio recipiendam, quia profecto dignum est, ut tu, qui fuisti eius auçtot deiectionis, sis officii conmissi causa receptionis"; see Grivec and Tomšič p. 67.


3. "Methodius vester archiepiscopus ab antecessore nostro, Adriano scilicet papa, ordinatus vobisque directus"; see ibid., p. 71.


4. The canonical decisions are quoted from Disciplinary Decrees of the General Councils, ed., trans., and with commentary, by H.J. Schroeder (St. Louis and London, 1937).


5. A critical edition of the papal correspondence is in Monumenta Germaniae Histories: Epistolae, Vol. VII. Excerpts from Pope John's correspondence are included in Grivec and Tomšič.


6. "Multis ac variis manifestisque prudentia tua poterit indiciis comprehendere Pannonicam diocesin ab olim apostolicae sedis fuisse privilegiis deputatam, si apud excellentiam tuam iustitia Dei locum, sicut decet, invenerit. Hoc enim synodalia gesta indicant, hoc ystoriae conscriptae demonstrant"; see Grivec and Tomšič, p. 67.


7. "Itaque reddito ac restituto nobis Pannoniensium episcopatu liceat predicto fratri nostro Methodio, qui illic a sede apostolica ordinatus est, secundum priscam consuetudinem libere, que sunt episcopi, gerere"; see ibid.


8. See "Donauprovinzen," in Reallexicon für Antike und Christentum, Vol. IV (1959), esp. cols. 175-76.


9. The best edition of this source is by M. Kos, Conversio Bagoariorum et Carantanorum (Ljubljana 1936; "Razprave Znanstvenega Društva v Ljubljani," Vol. II, Historični Odsek 3).


10. "Ipse nosti o gloriosissime rex, quod Pannonica diocesis apostolice sedi sit subiecta, licet bellica clades earn ad tempus ab ilia subtraxerit et gladius ad horam hostilis subduxerit. Verum reddita aecclesiis pace, reddi debuerunt et iura ... id ipsum sancto papa Leone in deeretis canonicis cum de reintegrando nuptiarum federe scriberet"; see Grivec and Tomšič, p. 68.


11. "... Ammonemus te, ut progenitorum tuorum secutus morem quantum potes ad Pannonensium reverti studeas diocesin. Et quia illic iam Deo gratias a sede beati Petri apostoli episcopus ordinatus est"; see Grivec and Tomšič, p. 71.


12. Vita Methodii, cap. 9; see Grivec and Tomšič, p. 159.


13. Monumenta Germaniae Histories: Epistolae, IV, 537.


14. Codex Diplomaticus et Epistolaris Regni Bohemiae, I, 29.


15. Grivec and Tomšič, p. 72.


16. P.A. Lavrov, Materialy po istorii vozniknovenija drevnejšej slavjanskoj pis‘mennosti (Leningrad 1930), p. 101 (Trudy Slavjanskoj komissii, Vol. I)





17. Grivec and Tomšič, p. 147.


18. Ibid.


19. Vita Methodii, cap. 8; see Grivec and Tomšič, p. 158.


20. See Lavrov, p. 79.


21. "Et certe secundum decretalia instituta prius eum reinvestiri convenit episcopi et postmodum ad racionem adduci ... et ipse tanto tempore credito sibi episcopatu inconcusso ac sine questione fruatur, quanto constat ilium vobis facientibus eo fuisse privatum"; see Grivec and Tomšič, p. 68.


22. See ibid. , pp. 71-72.


23. "Vita Clementis," in Fontes rerum Bohemicarum (Prague, 1873), I, 77, 79, 85, and 90.


24. Migne, Patrologia Graeca, Vol. CXXVI, cols. 1194-1222.


25. See Ignaz Zibermayr, Noricum, Baiern und Oesterreich (Horn. 1956), pp. 52-53.


26. Grivec and Tomšič, pp. 71-72. The ending -ensis presupposes a Civitas Pannonia.


27. Monumenta Germaniae Historica: Epistolae, VI, 292.


28. Codex Diplomaticus et Epistolaris Regni Bohemiae, I, 29.


29. See Zibermayr, p. 268.


30. Conversio Bagoariorum, cap. 2 and cap. 13.


31. "Vita Naumi," in A. Teodorov-Balan, ed., Kiril i Metodi, II (Sofia 1934), 136.


32. Povest‘ vremennych let, ed. V.P. Adrianova-Peretts (Moscow and Leningrad, 1950), I, 22-23 (s.a. 898). For an English rendering see The Russian Primary Chronicle, trans. and ed. Samuel Hazzard Cross and Olgerd P. Sherbowitz-Wetzor (Cambridge, Mass., 1953) , pp. 62-63.



NACHDRUCK AUS: SLAVIC REVIEW, Vol. 26, No. 1; March 1967: 85-93


[Previous] [Next]

[Back to Index]