« PrethodnaNastavi »
peacefully with the Greeks (καλά έζησε μετά τους Γρικούς), the text proceeds :
και οι Γρικοί ερήμωσα[ν. 1. 5 ο Μαλαμίρ [Α]ετά του καυχάνον Ησβούλου και έπ. [.
τους Γρικοι του 1Προβάτου του κάστρου [... και το Βουρδιζού) και 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 1. 6 Zlatarski says that the letters
ICSIC can be plainly road, and restores .. mudà išvere eis, so that the statoment would be that Malamir also lived pencofully with the Greeks. But (1) if so it should precoce the words kui oi luckol épípunsur, which mark the opening of hostilities; (2) the restoration is incompatible with the words which follow, (utiù) TOû IIpoputov atd.; (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 1. 6 the letters adue (or lud or dud, etc.) are fairly clear in the facsimile (Pl. xlv. in the Album to Abobu), and SiC are plain before tuis. Various restorations might be thought of ; (.). ada might be part of l Judu[zip or of het die dubon. The sign s
may represent either or nuého that the words might be petii dului Todon kui is tuis Iperurs. It does not seem certain in the facsimile) whether I'peror's is written in full or only I'pux. It looks to mo as if the letters before tuê were veror (var in lig:iture). I cannot see any trace of either úró 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 Year's' Trenty, i.e. to A.D. 846-819, and I therefore conclude that Malamir was then reigning. The inference is that Malamir ind Presiam are one and the silme person,-Presiam being his Bulgarian, and Malamir his Slavonic and official name.
The difficulties involved in this conclusion are, after all, not serious. Theophylactis 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 no mily perhaps
3 Burilizon is the later Bulvaroplygall, restore.-I. 3 [(xal) oi Bor'lgapou, I. 1 NOW Eskibalon, on the highroad from [κατά] το αρχαιων καλά ζουν.
Hadrianople to constantinople. 2 Pussilly επο[λίμησε πήρε
Jiručuk, lleerstrasse, 100. πόλεμον.
his uncle). Tho fragmentury inscription of Philippi cannot count
) largely in the question ; but if Zintitruki's plausiblo rostoration in right, it may be wipposoul that Presiam or Presian adoptod the nilmo Malamir ant it late period of his reign, perhaps in connexion with the extension of his power (which Zlatarski has mado probable) over the western Slava. As the inscription is probably not prior to A.1), 817, it would be one of the last monuments of Malimir under his earlier Dame.
ON SUME OF TIIE SOURCES FOR THE HISTORY OF CONSTANTINE
(See Bibliography I. 4u)
I. For Constantino the Philosopher the most trustworthy witness wo hnvo is his contemporary Annstusins, the librarian, who wrote the Inter biographies in tho Liber l'ontificulis and translated the chroniclo of Theophanos. Anastasius had not only tho advantage of knowing Greek, but he was personally acqnainted with Constantine. Unfortunately the three texts of Anastasius which we possosu tell us nothing of his work in an apostle to the Slavs. Before 1892 only two brief notices by this writer, relating to Constantino, were known, bitmely, (1) Praef. 6, where he records Constantino'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 apostolicne vitilo pracceptor" knew the writings of Dionysius the Areopagite by heart, and used to recommend them it's all armoury gainst all heresies ; further, that Constiintino came to home in the pontificato of Laurin in restore the body of St. Clement to his sec.
(3) 11. 189? il more important document, in letter of Anastasins to Ciancleric, bishop of Vollotri, wils published by J. Hricelrich in thu SB, of the Bavarian Aculemy, llist. kl., 1895. Tho original in ini at fourteenth-century MS. (col. 20.5) of the library of Alcohitz: at Lisbon, il a copy maule by lleine (ob. 1818) pissed with other piper's into tho hims of Döllinger, in whose possession it remained, apparently unexplored, till it was cilited ly Fricilrich after his deitth.
The subject of this letter is St. Clement, to whom tho Church of Velletri was dedicated. Cruderic, since the recovery of the relics, wils 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 it deacon named Johannes the task of writing the saint's biography ; ind in addition to the Latin material
(licersorum Latinorum rolumina) he lesired to make use of any Greek sources that might be available, and for this purpose haul applied to Amistasius isking him to translate into Lutin any such documents. Aulstasius, in response, translated two works of Constantine relating to the discovery of the relics ; namely, a brief history of the discovery (brrris historia, storiola), and a rhetorical dúyos srwydeclamatorin). The letter preserved at Lisbon is the covering letter. Anastasius mentions that Constantine also composed it hymn celebrating St. Clement, but he refrained from translating it its he could not reproduce the metro 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 Smyrnis, who had been binished to Cherson as an opponent of Photins, and hand heard it legend current there is to ile circumStillices of the discovery'. Anastasins wits in Constantinople at tho time of the Lighth Council
, and haud questioncal Metrophanes (curiosi scivitantibus) on the matter.
The biography of Clement was completed, and Gameric delicated it to l'ope John VIII. In the letter of lelication (-1.9. March 9, i. ii. 15) he explains its rangement in three Books, and we learn that Book 3 contained the story of C.'s exilo and martyroom and "reversionis eins au propriam sedlem miracula.”
Now we possess it document entitled l'ilu cum translatione S. Clementis, which its Bollandist culitor, llenschon, considered to hoe thill portion of lianderic's Book 3 which lealt with the discovery and translation of the relics (A.S., il.). The letter of Anastitsins to (ilderic has been taken to contirm llenschen's conjecture; and it certainly proves it close connexion between this document and limeric's work. The nature and extent of this connexion ille debatable.
The Translativ, which is reprinted in the works of Ginzel, Bil'lesox, Goetz, iind l'astrnek, is often called the Legenda Italicu. It may be described as a Life of Constantine, but its interest in Constantine is clue to his comexion with the relics of St. Clement. llis missions to the Khiv:11's and the Molivians are subordinated to the Clement-motif, and are only introduced to supply the necessitry setting and explanations.
Now in ac. 2 and 3 of the Translatio we find that the communications of Anstilsius to Gauderic have been utilised ; tho occurrence of the silme expressions puts this beyond all doubt. We must, therefore, infer that the Biography written by Ganderic (or, more strictly, by Johannes) wils a source of the Transli, if the Tinus! is not in part of it. Diilerent views live been maintainel. Jagé his contended that the whole Transl. could not 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. Clomont. Fiiodrich designated cc. 2-5 and 7-9 (excepting sono sentences in 2 and 9) as tho parts of the Transl. which belong to the work of Gandoric. Gootz argued that cc. 1-9 are, as they stand, Gauderic's account of the Translation, admitting only that cc. 10-12 are a logondary addition. Nachtigall agrees with Goetz for tho most part, but (with Jugić) thinks that c. 7 is not purt of Gauderic's work. And there are other views. The simplest explanation may be that the Translatio wils written, if not by Methodius, by one of his pupils, and that part of Ganderic'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 Georyo inentioned in Transl. 3 scems to have lived in the reign of Nicephorus I., long beforo Constiintine's visit, and there is another story that the relics were discovered then (sco Franko, 231 s.).
II. The Slavonic Vitu Constantini and Vila Netherlii have been much discussed ils to their anthorship ind place of origin. Brückner thinks that the V.C, was written, and tho V.1. inspired, by Methodius himself, iind conscquently 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 luxts being translations about A.1). 9-25. Ho mado out it moro plansible cilso for it Circek original in the case of V.C. than of V.M. Thu Bulgarian origin of V.C. was increpted by Jagić, and his been strongly supported by Snopek. It may specially bo note that the argumentation against l'auliciiun doctrine (c. 15) would have been irrelevant in Moraviit (though Brückner thinks otherwiso); it was much to the purpose in Bulgarist.
One thing is clear, that the Lives have it pronounced tonleney and object to vindicate the Slavonic liturgy. On this all compotent crities, 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, 20%). And we must obviously comect the Lives, so far as this tendency is concerned, with the short treatise written by the nouk Chrabr (in the reign of Simeon) concerning the invention of the Slavonic (i.e. Glagolitic) script. Snopek, indeed, contends that Chrabr was the anthor 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 (ub. A.D. 916).
It emerges, so for its I can julye, from the voluminous discussions that the Lives were written in Bulgaria (the 1.C. certainly, and perhaps in Circek) for the purpose of defending the