No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 January 2017
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 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 and Method (Wiesbaden, 1960)Google Scholar. Periodical bibliographic surveys arc 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 Tomšič, F., Constantinus et Methodius Thessalonicenses: Fontes (Zagreb, 1960 Google Scholar; “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 scdem a fratre nostro Methodio recipiendam, quia profecto dignum est, ut tu, qui fuisti eius auctor 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 Historica: 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 privileges 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 liberc, que sunt episcopi, gerere“; see ibid.
8 See “Donauprovinzen,” in Reallexicon fur 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 Znanstvenego Društva v Ljubljani,” Vol. II, Historični Odsek3)
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 decretis 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§iE, p. 159.
13 Monumenta Germaniae Historica: 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 vozniknoveniia drevneishei slavianskoi pis'mennosti (Leningrad, 1930), p. 101 (“Trudy Slavianskoi 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 Franz Miklosich, Vita Sancti dementis (Vienna, 1847), and several re-editions, in, for example, Migne, Patrologia Graeca, Vol. CXXVI, cols. 1194-1222.
25 See Ignaz Zibermayr, Noricum Baiern and 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 See Zibermayr, p. 268.
30 Conversio Bagoariorum, cap. 2 and cap. 13.
31 “Vita Naumi,” in A. Teodorov-Balan, ed., Kiril iMetodi, II (Sofia, 1934), 136.
32 Povest’ vremennykh 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.