« PrethodnaNastavi »
1 ON SOME OF THE SOURCES FOR THE HISTORY OF CONSTANTINE
(Sre Bibliography I. 40).
il 1. For Constantine the l'hilosopher the most trustworthy witness we have is his contemporary Anistasius, the librarian, who wrote the later biographies in the Liber l'ontificalis and translated the chronicle of Thcophanus. Anilstasius had not only the advantage of knowing Cireek, but he was personally acquainted with Constantine. Unfortunately the three texts of Anastasius which we possess
tell is nothing of his work is an apostle to the Slavs. Before 1892 only two brief notices by this writer, relating to Constantine, were known, nimely, (1) Pracf. 6, where he records Constantine's opposition to Photius concerning the doctrine of the two souls; and (3) il letter to Charles the Bald (875 A.1).), where he mentions that "Constantinus philosophus vir magnus et apostolicae vitilo prileceptor" knew the writings of Dionysius tho Areopagite by heart, iuvid used to recommend them its illl armoury against all heresies; further, thitt Constantine came to home in the pontificate of Hiirin und restoreil the body of St. Clement to his sec.
(3) 1,1 1892 it more important document, it letter of Anastasius to Canderic, bishop of Velletri, was published by J. Friedrich in the Sli, of the Bavarian Academy, Hist. kl., 1892. The original is in il fourteenth-century MS. (cod. 20.5) of the library of Alcobazit itt Lisbon, and it copy maile by Hleine (ol. 1818) pressed with other papers into the hands of Döllinger, in whose possession it remaineol, ieppilrently inexploreil, till it was ciliteid loy Friedrich after his death.
The subject of this letter is St. Clement, to whom the Church of Velletri was delicate. Cinderic, since the recovery of the relies, was interested in promoting the cult of the saint, to whom he built in oratory in Rome, spending all his wealth on the work. The committed to it deacon named Johannes the tilsk of writing the saint's. liography ; ind in audition to the Latin material
(ilirersorum Latinorum rolumina) he desired to make use of any Greek sources that might be available, and for this purpose had applied to Anistasius asking him to translate into Liitin any such documents, Anastasius, in response, translated two works of Constantinc relating to the cliscovery of the relics ; namely, a brief history of the discovery (lucris historia, storiola), and it rhetorical drsyes perno declamalurins). The letter preserval at Lisbon is the covering lotter. Anastasius mentions that Constantino also composeel o hymn celebrating St. Clement, but he refrained from trinslating it its ho could not reproduced the netre and harmony of the original.
But he also recorris the story of Constantine's discovery of the relies near Cherson, which he derived from Metrophanes, bishop of Smyrna, who had been banished to Cherson as an opponent of Photins, and had hcard a legend current there is to the circumstances of the discovery. Anastasius was in Constantinople at the time of the Eighth Council, and had ynestionel Metrophanes (curiose scisrilantibus) on the matter.
The biography of Clement was completed, and Ganeric célicated it to l'ope John VIII. In the letter of clc.lication (4.8. 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 ind "reversionis cius uc propriam scilem miracula.”
Now we possess, il document entitled ritu cum translationc S. Clementis, which its Bollandist clitor, llenschen, considered to lic that portion of Ganderic's Book 3 which dealt with the discovery and translation of the relies (ul...., il..). The letter of Anastasins to (iairleric has been taken to contirm llenscheni's conjecture; and it certainly proves it close connexion between this document and (ianderic's work. The nature and extent of this connexion are dcbatabile.
The Translatio, which is reprinted in the works of Ginzel, Dil'busov, Goctz, and l'ilstrnek, is often called the Legena Ilulirui. It may be described as a Life of Constantine, liut its interest in Constantine is due to his connexion with the relics of St. Clement. llis missions to the Khazar's and the Moravians are subordinated to the Clement-motif, ind are only introduccil to supply the necessary setting and explanations.
Vow in cc. ? and 3 of the Translatio we find that the communications of Anastakills to Canleric have been utilixeil ; the occurrence of the Kilme cxpressiona piits this beyond will doubt. We mixt, therefore, infer that the Biography written by (anderio (or, more strictly, by Johannes') was a source of the Truvisl., the Truns!. is not it part of it. Different vicw's have been maintaineil. Jarić has contended that the whole Transl. could not have been included in the Biography, lolit 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 Ganderic. Goetz argued that cc, 1-9 are, as they stand, Gauderic's account of the Translation, admitting only that . cc, 10-12 aro a logendary addition. Nachtigall agrees with Goctz for the most part, but (with Jogie) thinks that c. 7 is not part of (innļoric's work. And thero nro other viowa. Tho simplest oxplanation may be that the Translatio with writton, if not by Methodling, by one of his pupils, and that purt of Cinnuleric's work wils incorporated with little change.
That Constillitino bronght the alleged relics of Clement froni Cherson to Constantinople there is no doubt, but the story of the discovery has the stamp of it legend. Moreover, the bishop Gieorye mentioned in Fransl. 3 scenis to have lived in the reign of Nicephorus I., long before Constantine's visit, and there is ilnother story that the relics were discovered then (see Franko, 231 899.).
II. The Slavonic Vitu Constantini and Vilu Methalii have been much discussed is to their authorship and place of origin. Brückner thinks that the 1.C. was written, and the V.NI. inspired, by Methodius himself, ind 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) : bout A.I). 925. Ile made out it more plansible cilse for a (ireek original in the case of V.C. than of 1'.M. The Bulgarian origin of V.C. wils accepted by Jayic, and has been strongly supported by Snopek. It may specially be noted that the argumentation against Paulician doctrine (c. 15) would have been irrelevant in Moravia (thongh Brückner thinks otherwise); it was much to the purpose in Bulgaria.
One thing is clear, that the Lives have it pronounced ten:lency and object to vindicate the Slavonic liturgy. On this all conpetent critics, including Brückner and Snopek, writing from different points of view, are agrecil. The aim is “die Schaffung der slavischen Liturgie als ein gottgefälliges und rechtgläubiges Werk darzustellen” (Brückner, 208). And we nust obviously connect the Lives, so far as this tendency is concerned, with the short treatise written by the mouk Chrabr (in the reign of Simcon) concerning the invention of the Slavonic (i.e. Glagolitic) script. Snopek, indicel, contenes that Chralıp was the author of the two Liven, also an oven (ticking it hint from Mondrak) identifies him with C'lement, the propil of Methodius, whu becimo archbishop of Bulgaria (ob. A.1). 916).
It emerges, so far ils I can judyc, from the voluminous discussions that the Lives were written in Bulgaria (the 1'.C. certainly, and perhaps in Circck) for the purpose of vlefending the liturgy against the (iricks, loy disciples of Mcthodlius, who utilised facts which they had letrnice from him. The Lives were also intended to serve theological instruction ; to teach the Bulgarians mcthods of pologetic and controversy (against Jews, Saracens, and the Latin Church). We cannot regard its historical the disputations (in I'.(.) with John the ex-Patriarch or with the Muhammaulans ; and the arguments against the Jews and Khazars are the work of the biographer. Brückner dwells on what he calls schematism in the missions to the Mohammadiuns, the Khazırs, and the Moravians; in cach case Constantine is represented as being sent by the Emperor. The Mohammadin episode is unhistorical, the others are historical; but the part assigned to the Byzantine government is probably : misrepresentation of fact.
But incidental bits of information, not necessary to the writer's pragmatical purposes, are trustworthy with some reservations. We may accept the statement about the parentage of the apostles, the patronage accorced to Constantine bi the logothe:c
c (Theoktistos), his appointment as librarian of the Patriarch. llis friendship with Photius is known from Unitstisins. If he wils appointed librarian bx Photius, the date could not be earlier than 859, and it would follow that, if the order of events in I.('. is correct, the visit to the Khazais could hardly have been carlier th:111 860. But we can harilly accepit the statement that he was educated with the son of Thcophilus, for he was itt least ten years oller than Michael III.
I Leger (Cyrillery Vilhele, "S) sugo meant. But his death occurred fir gests that constantine, the Empiror's tro carly to suit the dates impliced loy son who died in childhood, may lue the narrative in 1'.1'.
1. Date of the Sciorul Magyar Migration (to Atelkuzu) WESTBERG has put' forward a new view as to the date of the migration of the Hungarians to Atelkuzu (in K anal. ii. 49-51) which he places C. A.1). 825. His argument is based on a pilssage in Constantine, De arm. imp. 175, relating to the four sons and four grandsons of Arpiul. The olescent may conveniently be represented in a table.
When Constantine was writing (A.D. 950-952), Phalitzis was the Hungarian king (tùy rovi úp xortu), Tebeles was dend, and his son Termaltzus was adult and had recently visiteul Constantinople on an embassy (o uprios uvedbòr didos mistranslated by Westberg, as by most others). ? Westberg infers that Tcheles did not later than 9415, and that the surviving grandsons of Arpadl, l'halitzis and Tixin,? were ulvilneed in yellra. Rieckoning thirty yours to il generation, he goes on to place the enth of Turkitzin about 915, that of Arjuillr. 88.7, that of Silmutzes C, 85.1. At the time of the elevation of Arpadl, Silmutzes was alive and considered (by Lebedins) capable of ruling the Magyar nation. Therefore the election of Arpad must belong to the second quarter of the ninth century, not later than A.1). 850. But the migration to Atelkuzu occurred not long before Arpad's election (Deum. imp. 169,4); so
"I have pointed this out in 1.2. xv. wlio, lie thinkis, wils the elelest son of 562.
Arpaul (15.2. vi.587-88). But the passiege 2 I assume that Taxis and Tasos are implies that lieses has been already mere the sale. l'econ, liowever, has conjectiireid tioneel, and thie jelentitie..i jon with. T:xis that Taasis was it 500l of Linntis or Levante, seems inevitable,