« PrethodnaNastavi »
peacefully with the Greeks (καλά έζησε μετά τους Γρικούς), the text proceeds:
και οι Γρικοί ερήμωσα[ν. 1. 5 ο Μαλαμιρ [μετά του καυχάνου Ησβούλου και έπ.[2
τους Γρικούς του Προβάτου του κάστρου [... και το Βουρδιζού) 3 το κάστρον και τα χώρα των Γρικών [. [υπέρ] άπασαν φήμην εποίησεν και ήλθε εις Φιλιππόπο[λιν ..
και τόπους και καυχάνος Ησβούλης συντυχία επ[ . . 10 και το αρχαιότατον υπέρφημον προστε[ . At the beginning of l. 6 Zlatarski says that the letters
adas .. ICSIC can be plainly read, and restores καλά έζησε είς, so that the statement would be that Malamir also lived peacefully with the Greeks. But (1) if so it should precede the words και οι Γραικοί épíumoav, which mark the opening of hostilities; (2) the restoration is incompatible with the words which follow, (and) TOÙ IIpoßátov kt.. ; (3) the association of the general Isbules with Malamir in 1.5 shows that we have to do with warlike action on the part of Malamir. There cannot, I think, be the least doubt that an expedition of Malamir is recorded, as the editors Jireček and Uspenski have supposed.
In l. 6 the letters ada (or dad or dal, etc.) are fairly clear in the facsimile (Pl. xlv. in the Album to Aboba), and SiC are plain before τους. Various restorations might be thought of; e.g. alo. might be part of M]αλα[μίρ or of μετ]α λα[ού. The sign 5 may
s represent either e or kaí, so that the words might be uet[à da[oû πολκλόου] και ις τους Γρικούς. It does not seem certain (in the facsimile) whether I'pikoús is written in full or only I'pık. It looks to me as if the letters before toll were noov (no in ligature). I cannot see any trace of either åró or ék, which Uspenski gives as alternatives.
Now I have no doubt that Zlatarski is right in referring the operations recorded on this stone to the years after the termination of the Thirty Years' Treaty, i.e. to A.D. 846-849, and I therefore conclude that Malamir was then reigning. The inference is that Malamir and Presiam are one and the same person,-Presiam being his Bulgarian, and Malamir his Slavonic and official name.
The difficulties involved in this conclusion are, after all, not serious. Theophylactus is probably right in making Boris son of Zvenitsa and nephew of Malamir, and Constantine wrong in taking him for the son of his predecessor (perhaps he was adopted by 1 After these words we may perhaps
3 Burdizos is the later Bulgarophygon, restore-1. 3 [(και) οι Βούλγαροι, 1. 4 now Eskibaba, on the highroad from [κατά] το αρχαίον καλά ξζουν.
Hadrianople to Constantinople. 2 Possibly &TT 0[Xéuno e επήρε Jireček, Heerstrasse, 100. πόλεμον.
his uncle). The fragmentary inscription of Philippi cannot count largely in the question ; but if Zlatarski's plausible restoration is right, it may be supposed that Presiam or Presian adopted the name Malamir at a late period of his reign, perhaps in connexion with the extension of his power (which Zlatarski has made probable) over the western Slavs. As the inscription is probably not prior to A.D. 847, it would be one of the last monuments of Malamir under his earlier name.
ON SOME OF THE SOURCES FOR THE HISTORY OF CONSTANTINE
(See Bibliography I. 4a)
I. For Constantine the Philosopher the most trustworthy witness we have is his contemporary Anastasius, the librarian, who wrote the later biographies in the Liber Pontificalis and translated the chronicle of Theophanes. Anastasius had not only the advantage of knowing Greek, but he was personally acquainted with Constantine. Unfortunately the three texts of Anastasius which we possess tell us nothing of his work as an apostle to the Slavs. Before 1892 only two brief notices by this writer, relating to Constantine, were known, namely, (1) Praef. 6, where he records Constantine's opposition to Photius concerning the doctrine of the two souls; and (2) a letter to Charles the Bald (875 A.D.), where he mentions that "Constantinus philosophus vir magnus et apostolicae vitae praeceptor” knew the writings of Dionysius the Areopagite by heart, and used to recommend them as an armoury against all heresies ; further, that Constantine came to Rome in the pontificate of Hadrian and restored the body of St. Clement to his see.
(3) In 1892 a more important document, a letter of Anastasius to Gauderic, bishop of Velletri, was published by J. Friedrich in the SB. of the Bavarian Academy, Hist. kl., 1892. The original is in a fourteenth-century MS. (cod. 205) of the library of Alcobaza at Lisbon, and a copy made by Heine (ob. 1848) passed with other papers into the hands of Döllinger, in whose possession it remained, apparently unexplored, till it was edited by Friedrich after his death.
The subject of this letter is St. Clement, to whom the Church of Velletri was dedicated. Gauderic, since the recovery of the relics, was interested in promoting the cult of the saint, to whom he built an oratory in Rome, spending all his wealth on the work. He committed to a deacon named Johannes the task of writing the saint's biography ; and in addition to the Latin material
(diversorum Latinorum volumina) he desired to make use of any Greek sources that might be available, and for this purpose had applied to Anastasius asking him to translate into Latin any such documents. Anastasius, in response, translated two works of Constantine relating to the discovery of the relics ; namely, a brief history of the discovery (brevis historia, storiola), and a rhetorical Tóyos sermo declamatorius). The letter preserved at Lisbon is the covering letter. Anastasius mentions that Constantine also composed a hymn celebrating St. Clement, but he refrained from translating it as he could not reproduce the metre and harmony of the original.
But he also records the story of Constantine's discovery of the relics near Cherson, which he derived from Metrophanes, bishop of Smyrna, who had been banished to Cherson as an opponent of Photius, and had heard a legend current there as to the circumstances of the discovery. Anastasius was in Constantinople at the time of the Eighth Council
, and had questioned Metrophanes (curiose sciscitantibus) on the matter.
The biography of Clement was completed, and Gauderic dedicated it to Pope John VIII. In the letter of dedication (A.S. March 9, t. ii. 15) he explains its arrangement in three Books, and we learn that Book 3 contained the story of C.'s exile and martyrdom and “reversionis eius ad propriam sedem miracula.”
Now we possess a document entitled Vita cum translatione S. Clementis, which its Bollandist editor, Henschen, considered to be that portion of Gauderic's Book 3 wl ich dealt with the discovery and translation of the relics (A.S., ib.). The letter of Anastasius to Gauderic has been taken to confirm Henschen's conjecture; and it certainly proves a close connexion between this document and Gauderic's work. The nature and extent of this connexion are debatable.
The Translatio, which is reprinted in the works of Ginzel, Bil'basov, Goetz, and Pastrnek, is often called the Legenda Italica. It may
be described as a Life of Constantine, but its interest in Constantine is due to his connexion with the relics of St. Clement. His missions to the Khazars and the Moravians are subordinated to the Clement-motif, and are only introduced to supply the necessary setting and explanations.
Now in cc. 2 and 3 of the Translatio we find that the communications of Anastasius to Gauderic have been utilised; the occurrence of the same expressions puts this beyond all doubt. We must, therefore, infer that the Biography written by Gauderic (or, more strictly, by Johannes) was a source of the Transl., if the Transl. is not a part of it. Different views have beel maintained. Jagić has contended that the whole Transl. could rist have been included in the Biography, but only the episode of the discovery
of the relics and their translation to Rome; the rest is irrelevant to St. Clement. Friedrich designated cc. 2-5 and 7-9 (excepting some sentences in 2 and 9) as the parts of the Transl. which belong to the work of Gauderic. Goetz argued that cc. 1-9 are, as they stand, Gauderic's account of the Translation, admitting only that cc. 10-12 are a legendary addition. Nachtigall agrees with Goetz for the most part, but (with Jagić) thinks that c. 7 is not part of Gauderic's work. And there are other views. The simplest explanation may be that the Translatio was written, if not by Methodius, by one of his pupils, and that part of Gauderic's work was incorporated with little change.
That Constantine brought the alleged relics of Clement from Cherson to Constantinople there is no doubt, but the story of the discovery has the stamp of a legend. Moreover, the bishop George mentioned in Transl. 3 seems to have lived in the reign of Nicephorus I., long before Constantine's visit, and there is another story that the relics were discovered then (see Franko, 231 sqq.).
II. The Slavonic Vita Constantini and Vita Methodic have been much discussed as to their authorship and place of origin. Brückner thinks that the V.C. was written, and the V.M. inspired, by Methodius himself, and consequently that they originated in Moravia. Voronov contended that they were both composed in Bulgaria by the same author, a Bulgarian Slav, who wrote in Greek (our texts being translations) about A.D. 925. He made out a more plausible case for a Greek original in the case of V.C. than of V.M. The Bulgarian origin of V.C. was accepted by Jagić, and has been strongly supported by Snopek. specially be noted that the argumentation against Paulician doctrine (c. 15) would have been irrelevant in Moravia (though Brückner thinks otherwise); it was much to the purpose in Bulgaria.
One thing is clear, that the Lives have a pronounced tendency and object to vindicate the Slavonic liturgy.
On this all competent critics, including Brückner and Snopek, writing from different points of view, are agreed. The aim is “die Schaffung der slavischen Liturgie als ein gottgefälliges und rechtgläubiges Werk darzustellen" (Brückner, 208). And we must obviously connect the Lives, so far as this tendency is concerned, with the short treatiss written by the monk Chrabr (in the reign of Simeon) concerning the invention of the Slavonic (i.e. Glagolitic) script. Snopek, indeed, contends that Chrabr was the author of the two Lives, also and even taking a hint from Vondrák) identifies him with Clement, the pupil of Methodius, who became archbishop of Bulgaria (ob. A.D. 916).
It emer ges, so far as I can judge, from the voluminous discussions to it the Lives were written in Bulgaria (the V.C. certainly, and perhaps in Greek) for the purpose of defending the