The significance of the Sirmian andapostolic tradition in shaping Moravian

episcopal organizationemed_277 268..285

D!"#$ K!%&'()

Based on an analysis of papal documents as well as the Vita Methodii, thiswork examines shifts in Methodius’s status. The text analyses the significanceof his titulature by a comparison with other eighth- and ninth-centurymissionaries, and examines the way his new diocese was legitimized throughlegal and historical fictions dealing with the restoration of a long-lost see andits apostolic origins. Finally, the article draws a comparison between thesituation in Moravia and the importance of apostolic tradition in Rome,Constantinople, Metz, Compostela and Venice.

As a source, the papal documents from which we learn of Methodius’schanging status are neither numerous nor in ideal condition. They are,however, considered to be relatively reliable. The bull of Pope Adrian IIhas been preserved in two versions; in the Vita Methodii and in thepanegyric for Sts Cyril and Methodius, respectively. Although its reliabil-ity was disputed in the past, on the basis of several formulations typicalfor the papal office the content of the bull has been found to be genuine.*However, the parts concerning Methodius may be interpreted in twoways: while the longer version included in the Vita Methodii notes thatthe pope dispatched Svatopluk and Kocel’ to Rastislav, and ‘ordainedMethodius and his followers’,+ the shorter version found in the panegyricof Sts Cyril and Methodius specifies Methodius as an archbishop., Twoother papal documents signed by Pope John VIII and originating in -.,are only known from a relatively late transcription, from the collection of

* The study is part of the research project MSM //+*0++1+0 organized by the Centre for Studiesin Central European History: Sources, Countries, Culture and funded by the Czech RepublicMinistry of Education, Youth and Sports.

* Codex diplomaticus Slovaciae, vol. *, ed. R. Marsina (Bratislava, *2.*), no. *0, pp. *+–*1.+ Codex, p. *,: ‘mittere Methodium consecratum cum discipulis, filium quidem nostrum’., Codex, p. *,: ‘mittimus fratrem nostrum venerabilem Methodium consecratum in archiepisco-

patum’.

Early Medieval Europe +//2 !" (,) +0-–+-3© +//2 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 20// Garsington Road, Oxford OX1 +DQ, UK and ,3/Main Street, Malden, MA /+*1-, USA

Cardinal Deusdedit, compiled in the late eleventh century. However,neither of these documents, directed at King Louis and his eldest sonCarloman, specify Methodius’s status, though they all inform the readerof the papacy’s great interest in the lands of former Pannonia, andmention Methodius’s ordination as bishop.1 The Pannonian diocese isalso mentioned in a letter of -., from John VIII to the Croatian dukeMutimir, which is also known from the Deusdit collection.3 A note aboutMethodius being ordained bishop may be found in three other docu-ments issued by Pope John VIII and preserved in a twelfth-centurymanuscript.0 Methodius’s status is only specified in a letter of John VIIIdated to the summer of -., and likewise preserved in the same twelfth-century manuscript. In that letter, Methodius is given the title of ‘arch-bishop of the Pannonians’ and entrusted with legation among pagans..Six years later, in late June or early July -.2, Methodius is again men-tioned in a letter from John VIII to Svatopluk, preserved in an eleventh-century Vatican transcript of papal registers. He is referred to as ‘your[Svatopluk’s] archbishop, ordained by our predecessor Pope Adrian anddispatched to you’.- Later that same year John VIII addressed Methodiusas the ‘revered archbishop of the church of Pannonia’,2 and one year later,in June --/, in a letter to Svatopluk, the pope described him as ‘ourrevered brother archbishop of the church of Moravia’.*/ A further yearlater, in a different letter known from the same source, John addressedMethodius as an ‘archbishop of faith’, which, judging from the context,seems to indicate a missionary archbishop.**

Only after the death of Methodius, i.e. after --3, did his followerscompile the so-called Vita Methodii in defence of his work.*+ According tothe Vita Methodii, ‘he [Methodius] was admitted by Kocel’ in great

1 Codex, no. *., pp. *1–*3: ‘Pannonicam diocesim ab olim apostolice sedis fuisse privilegiisdeputatam’; and no. *-, p. *3: ‘reddito et restituto nobis Pannoniensium episcopatu, liceatpredicti fratri nostro Methodio, qui illic a sede apostolica ordinatus est, secundum priscamconsuetudinem libere que sunt episcopi gerere’.

3 Codex, no. +/, p. *0: ‘ad Pannoniensium reverti studeas diocesin. Et quia illic iam deo gratis asede beati Petri apostoli episcopus ordinatus est, ad ipsius pastoralen recurras sollicitudinem.’

0 Codex, no. ++, p. *.: ‘a fratre nostro Methodio’; no. +,, p. *-: ‘vel fratrem nostrum Methodium’;no. +,, p. *-: ‘cum episcopo nostro Methodio’; and no. +1, p. *2: ‘fratrem et coepiscopumnostrum Methodium’.

. Codex, no. +0, p. +/: ‘fratrem tuum Methodium, Pannonicum archiepiscopum, legationeapostolice sedis ad gentes fugentem’.

- Codex, no. +-, p. ++: ‘Methodius, vester archiepiscopus, ab antecessore nostro, Adriano scilicetpapa, ordinatus vobisque directus’.

2 Codex, no. +2, p. +,: ‘Reverentissimo Methodio, archiepiscopo Pannoniensis ecclesie’.*/ Codex, no. ,/, p. +,: ‘confratre nostro Methodio, reverentissimo archiepiscopo sancte ecclesie

Marabensis’.** Codex, no. ,,, p. +0: ‘Methodio, archiepiscopo pro fide’. For the idea of a missionary arch-

bishop, see F. Dvorník, Les lègendes de Constantin et de Méthode vues de Byzance, +nd edn(Hattiesburg, *202), p. +.3.

*+ V. Vavrínek, Staroslovenské !ivoty Konstantina a Metodeje (Prague, *20,), esp. p. 20.

The Sirmian and apostolic tradition in Moravian episcopal organization 269

Early Medieval Europe +//2 !" (,)© +//2 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

respect and then dispatched again to the pope in the company of twentynoblemen, to have him ordained a bishop in Pannonia at the see ofApostle Andronicus, one of the Seventy. And so it came to be.’*, Thisposition was also adopted by the unknown author of the so-called Ska-zaniia o prelozhenii knig – one of the sources the Rus’ monk Nestor usedfor his Russian Primary Chronicle (c.**+/) – who expanded the argumentand added St Paul to the previously mentioned St Andronicus.*1

Although medieval authors never actually mentioned Methodius’sPannonian diocese as being heir to the ancient metropolis of Sirmium,historians have traditionally assumed the alleged restoration of the Pan-nonian diocese indicated an endeavour to legitimize papal rights in theregion by means of a fictitious renewal of this nearby metropolis, as wellas an attempt to strengthen the position of the Great Moravian church.Historians have also pointed out the connections between changes inpapal policy towards Methodius and towards other powers, such as theFrankish rulers, Byzantium and Bulgaria. The most recent attempt atinterpreting the changes which Methodius’s titulature underwent, is thatby Libor Jan.*3 According to Jan, Methodius was first appointed bishop ofSirmium, a papal legate to Pannonia and a missionary archbishop.*0 Onlyin the late -./s and early --/s did the pope begin to refer to Methodiusas archbishop of Moravia, most likely in order to accommodate the actualstate of affairs. Efforts at creating a real metropolis complete with suf-fragans may also be dated to that period.*. According to Jan, oldergenerations of historians were right in assuming that the episcopal orga-nization simply dissolved upon the death of Methodius and the departureof Wiching, bishop of Nitra, to King Arnulf’s court. The papal legaterestored the archdiocese with three suffragan bishoprics only in -22/2//.*- Despite Jan’s endorsement of the older historiography, his mentionof the papal refusal to associate the archdiocese of Methodius with theSirmian tradition is certainly worth a closer examination.*2 In order toagree with Jan’s interpretation it is absolutely necessary to accept at face

*, Zhitiie Mefodiia, c. -, ed. R. Vecerka, Magnae Moraviae Fontes Historici + (Brno, *20.), p. *3/.*1 D. Kalhous, ‘Christian und Grossmähren’, in P. Kouril (ed.), Die frühmittelalterliche Elite bei

den Völkern des östlichen Mitteleuropas (Brno, +//3), pp. +3–,,.*3 L. Jan, ‘Stará Morava mezi V!chodem a Západem’, in P. Sommer (ed.), Svat" Prokop, Cechy a

strední Evropa (Prague, +//0), pp. +3*–01, esp. p. +3,.*0 Jan, ‘Stará Morava’, pp. +3,–1.*. Jan, ‘Stará Morava’, p. +31.*- Jan, ‘Stará Morava’, p. +33.*2 The idea of continuity of Great Moravian church organization has been disputed ever since the

inception of the critical school of Czech historiography in the late nineteenth century. Thesignificance of the changing title bestowed upon Methodius was also pointed out at a relativelyearly date. See for example Dvorník, Les lègendes, pp. +00–., +.,–3, who placed great emphasisupon clarifying the development of church organization in the early medieval Balkans. Bycontrast, much older or more recent studies of the Cyrillic-Methodian mission have system-atically neglected the history of the Sirmian diocese.

270 David Kalhous

Early Medieval Europe +//2 !" (,)© +//2 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

value a proposition, for which no sufficient demonstration has been so farput forward, namely that during the ninth century the papacy, as well asMethodius himself, had actually attempted to restore the Sirmian met-ropolitan tradition. The examination of this thorny problem involvesthree separate issues: the status of Sirmium within the church structureof late antiquity; the shifts in Methodius’s titulature; and the analysisof the passage in the Vita Methodii which mentions the apostolicorigin of the ‘Sirmian’ (read: Pannonian) diocese.+/ A comparison ofeach separate issue with analogous instances will contribute to theclarification of the problem and of its significance and function in theVita Methodii.

The rise of an epispocal organization was apparent as early as lateantiquity. On the basis of the tradition linking them to significant eventsin the history of Christianity, patriarchates emerged at a slightly laterdate. The fourth century also witnessed the beginnings of the metropoli-tan organization, in which the bishop of a capital city gained rights overbishops in the corresponding province.+* Despite occasional criticism,particularly from popes, of the tight association of church and stateadministration, the metropolitan organization was quickly adopted inthe eastern provinces of the empire,++ although it took much longer forthe western provinces to accept the structure. In the east, the first arch-bishops appear in sixth-century sources, though the title had already beenused for some time honorarily. When used in the sixth century, the titlewas clearly connected to structures that had been long associated with themetropolitan organization. Soon, however, the title of ‘archbishop’ began

+/ A search in Index generalis tomorum I–IIII: Index geographicus, Acta conciliorum oecumeni-corum 1.,, ed. R. Schieffer (Berlin, *221) unfortunately yielded no results. For older studies, seeL. Duchesne, ‘L!Illyricum ecclésiastique’, Byzantinische Zeitschrift * (*-2+), pp. 3,*–3/; J. Zeiller,‘Une ébauche de vicariat pontifical sous le pape Zosime’, Revue Historique *33 (*2+.), pp.,+0–,+; I. Zibermayr, Noricum, Baiern und Österreich. Lorch als Hauptstadt und die Einführungdes Christentum, +nd edn (Horn, *230); J. Zeiller, Les origines chrétiennes dans les provincesdanubiennes de l’Empire romain (Paris, *2*-; repr. Rome, *20.); F. Dvorník, Les lègendes. But seealso V. Popovic, ‘Le dernier éveque de Sirmium’, Revue des études augustiniennes +* (*2.3), pp.2*–**/; V. Popovic, ‘Episkopska sedi"ta u Srbiji od IX do XI veka’, Godi#njak grada Beograda +3(*2.-), pp. ,,–1/; and V. Popovic, ‘L’évêché de Sirmium et l’église médiévale dans les Balkans’,in D. Minic (ed.), Le site d’habitation médiéval de Macvanska Mitrovica (Belgrade, *2-/), pp.i–ix. Jan, ‘Stará Morava’, p. +0* with n. ++, cites H. Wolfram, Die Geburt Mitteleuropas.Geschichte Österreichs vor seiner Entstehung !"#–$%# (Vienna, *2-.), pp. 12–3/, whose work,however, does not handle the issue of Sirmium as such but instead focuses on researching thequestion of which metropolis was superordinate to dioceses in present-day Austria.

+* J. Gaudemet, L’église dans l’Empire Romain (IV e–V e siècles) (Paris, *23-), pp. ,-/–2. See also themore recent F. Kempf, ‘Primatiale und episkopal-synodale Struktur der Kirche vor der grego-rianischen Reform’, Archivum Historiae Pontificum *0 (*2.-), pp. +.–00.

++ Gaudemet, L’église dans l’Empire Romain, p. ,-+: the protocols of the Council of Sardica (,1,)speak of metropolitans in the Greek version, while the Latin text features episcopi finitimi. Therole of these documents in studying the Christianization of the Danube region is prominent inL.W. Barnard, ‘The Council of Serdica: Some Problems Re-assessed’, Archivum HistoriaeConciliorum *+ (*2-/), pp. *–+3, esp. pp. *3–*0.

The Sirmian and apostolic tradition in Moravian episcopal organization 271

Early Medieval Europe +//2 !" (,)© +//2 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

to be bestowed on bishops with little or no connection with the metro-politan system. In the west, the association between the use of that titleand the metropolitan organization is first attested in the seventh-centuryAnglo-Saxon milieu. The activity of the Anglo-Saxon missionaries Willi-brord and Winfried (Boniface) on the Continent, as well as the strongsupport they received from Carolingian mayors and kings, made a greatcontribution to the implementation of the metropolitan organizationwithin the Frankish kingdom and, later, empire. In the west, therefore,the metropolitan system is an eighth-century phenomenon. With thedecline of Carolingian power, metropolitan archdioceses lost much oftheir importance; and the organization was revived only in the eleventhcentury. This does not contradict the fact that throughout the fourthcentury a metropolis was the equivalent of an appellate see, and that ametropolitan bishop already exerted a number of rights over otherbishops of a given province.

Libor Jan is therefore right when claiming that Sirmian bishops ‘couldhave held the title of episcopus metropolitanus, which followed howeverfrom the extraordinary importance of the city’, the capital of PannoniaSecunda, and not of all Pannonias (Prima, Secunda, Valeria Prima andSecunda) created by Diocletian’s administrative reform of +20.+, Giventhe position of the bishop’s seat within the civil administration of theempire (the metropolitan was the bishop of a provincial capital), Jan’sassertions should not surprise anyone. Older advocates of the continuityof the Sirmian diocese seem to have neglected the important fact thatauthority over the Pannonian lands and Methodius’s see was directlydependent upon the attempts to find a justification for Methodius’s workof evangelization. In other words, at stake was not a restoration of a lateantique church organization, but the rationalization of a ninth-centurysituation. As a consequence, the debate over whether Sirmium was thecapital of all Pannonias (a status the city never had in late antiquity) orsimply the capital of Pannonia Secunda, completely misses the historicalsignificance of the problem. At any rate, any one of the late antiqueprovinces could have been used as the basis for Sirmian claims to themetropolitan see.

In late antiquity, Sirmium was a relatively important city, especiallyduring the fourth century, when it served first as imperial capital, then asthe seat of the Illyrian prefecture.+1 Similarly, Sirmian bishops played amajor role in the fourth-century Christological debates, and the city was

+, Jan, ‘Stará Morava’, p. +3,.+1 J. Fitz, Die Verwaltung Pannoniens in der Römerzeit, vol. , (Budapest, *221), pp. **.3–*1/0; M.

Mirkovic, ‘Sirmium: Its History from the *st Century A.D. to 3-+ A.D.’, in V. Popovic, E.L.Ochsenschlager, and –D. Bo"kovic (eds), Sirmium. Archaeological Investigations in SyrmianPannonia (Belgrade, *2.*), pp. 3–2/.

272 David Kalhous

Early Medieval Europe +//2 !" (,)© +//2 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

one of the strongest bastions of Arianism.+3 No fewer than five churchcouncils took place in Sirmium throughout the fourth century.+0 There is,however, no contemporary source explicitly referring to Sirmium as ametropolis. Instead, the highest-ranking churchmen in the city areconstantly referred to as bishops, much like other metropolitans at thattime. The importance of Sirmium as a centre of church administra-tion is therefore indirectly reflected in only two sources: Justinian’snovel XI of 3,3, and the acta of a late fourth-century synod ofAquileia.+.

The purpose of Justinian’s novel was to entrust the archbishop ofThessalonica with judiciary rights in the province of Justiniana Prima aswell as in other neighbouring territories. The text, therefore, elaborateson developments that had taken place in Illyricum before Attila. Accord-ing to the novel, the raids of the Huns had caused the prefect to movefrom Sirmium to Thessalonica, and his office moved with him. The cityalso served as a fastigium, i.e., as a significant centre or safehold, inmatters of church administration.+- Since the purpose of Justinian’s novelwas not to stress the importance of Sirmium, what its text has to sayabout that city must therefore be regarded as reliable information. In theearly sixth century, Sirmium was clearly considered to be a key centre ofchurch administration. Justinian’s novel XI may therefore be regarded asan indirect testimony of the metropolitan character of the Sirmiandiocese.

The acta of the synod of Aquileia offer several pieces of further evi-dence. The signature of Anemius, the bishop of Sirmium, is placed abovethose of the bishops of Iader (Zadar) and Siscia (Sisak).+2 However, thesignature hierarchy is no proof of a metropolitan status, since Anemiusmay have been allowed to sign first because of seniority. During theproceedings of the synod, Anemius was the only one to react to the

+3 Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History IV.*3, ed. J. Bidez and G. Ch. Hansen (Berlin, *223), p. *3-;Ambrosius, De spiritu sancto III.32, ed. V. Faller, CSEL .2 (Vienna, *201), p. *.1: ‘Eo enimtempore, quo in imperae infidelitatis Auxentius Mediolanensiem ecclesiam armis exercituqueocupaverat vel a Valente adque Ursacio nutantibus sacerdotibus suis incursabatur ecclesiaSirmiensis, falsum hoc et sacrilegium vestrum in ecclesiasticis codicis deprehensum.’ SulpiciusSeverus, Chronica II.,-, ed. K. Halm, CSEL * (Vienna, *-00), p. 2* only mentions briefly that‘. . . nam omnes fere duarum Pannoniarum episcopi . . . in perfidia eorum (Arianorum)coniuraverant’.

+0 For Christianity in Sirmium and the first known bishops, see Zeiller, Les origine, pp. +32–-*;Zibermayr, Noricum, pp. ,3–2.

+. Corpus iuris civilis, vol. ,, ed. R. Schoell and W. Kroll (Berlin, *231), p. 21: ‘Cum enim antiquistemporibus Sirmii praefectura fuerat constituta, ibique omne fuerat Illyrici fastigium tam incivilibus quam in episcopalibus causis, postea autem Attilanis temporibus eiusdem locis dev-astatis Apraemius praefectus praetorio de Sirmitana civitate in Thessalonicam profugus venerat,tunc ipsam praefecturam et sacerdotalis honor secutus rogativam.’ See Acta concilii Aquileiensis,ed. M. Zelzer, CSEL -+ (Vienna, *2-+), pp. ,+3–0-.

+- Corpus iuris civilis, p. 21: ‘fastigium tam in civilibus quam in episcopalibus causis’.+2 Acta concilii Aquileiensis, p. ,+3. See also p. cliv for the identification of other Illyrian bishops.

The Sirmian and apostolic tradition in Moravian episcopal organization 273

Early Medieval Europe +//2 !" (,)© +//2 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

position of his colleague Valerian, the metropolitan of Aquileia.,/ Oneis almost tempted to believe, therefore, that he too was a metropolitan,although such an interpretation is based on circumstantial evidencealone. Of much greater significance are Anemius’s recorded words:‘Sirmium is the head of the province of Illyricum, I am its bishop.’,*

Since there were many other dioceses in Illyricum, Anemius’swords must indicate that, at least in his eyes, he had the standing of ametropolitan.

When taken as a whole, the evidence in Justinian’s novel and in theacta of the synod of Aquileia is fragmentary and, as a consequence, notvery clear as to the metropolitan status of Sirmium in late antiquity. Themore important of the two sources is of course Justinian’s novel, but theterm fastigium it uses in reference to Sirmium is ambiguous. The fact thatSirmium was a provincial capital implies that its bishop was also ametropolitan. However, Sirmium lay on the very edge of the regionbeyond which no metropolitan organization is known to have existed.The synod protocol declaration attributed to Anemius does document acertain claim, but cannot be considered as evidence for the fact that thesupposedly metropolitan status of the bishop of Sirmium was alsoaccepted by other bishops.

Zibermayr therefore rejected the idea that Sirmium had a metropolitanbishop and proposed instead that its bishop was a suffragan of Milan.,+

However, he failed to produce any substantial evidence to back up hisclaims. Jacques Zeiller, on the other hand, looked for the seat of theIllyrian metropolis in Salona. According to him, this is the only possibleinterpretation of a papal document appointing the bishop of Salona as ‘avicar to the bishops of the province, as well as those of neighbouringlands’.,, This was to prove that connections existed between Illyricum andSalona.,1 Zeiller also maintained that a papal vicariate seat in Sirmiumwould have been in a very endangered and eccentric position given theregion which it was supposed to control.,3 Whether or not Zeiller wasright, his hypothesis does not actually disprove the existence of a metro-politan in Sirmium, who could have just as well been a suffragan of thepapal vicar in Salona, together with other bishops in the region. Such a

,/ Acta concilii Aquileiensis, c. 31–3, p. ,32.,* Acta concilii Aquileiensis, c. *0, p. ,,3: ‘Anemius episcopus dixit: “Caput Illyrici non nisi

civitas est Sirmiensis, ego igitur episcopus illius civitati sum.” ’ F. Dvorník, Les légendes,pp. +3*–+ naturally interprets Anemius’s words as proof of his intention to defend Sirmianrights.

,+ Zibermayr, Noricum, p. ,-.,, PL +/, col. 0.+: ‘non tantum eorum qui in ea provincia sunt, sed etiam qui in vicinis dilectionis

tuae provinciis adiunguntur’.,1 Zeiller, ‘Une ébauche’, pp. ,+-–,/.,3 Zeiller, ‘Une ébauche’, pp. ,,/–+.

274 David Kalhous

Early Medieval Europe +//2 !" (,)© +//2 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

possibility is by no means ruled out by the documented appointment in1/+ of Acholius, bishop of Thessalonica, as vicar of Illyricum.,0 Zeiller’sobjections do not therefore constitute convincing evidence of the absenceof a metropolitan see in Sirmium. Although the question of the city’seccelesiastical position remains unanswered, the evidence discussed so fardoes strongly suggest that Sirmian bishops had metropolitan status. Thisin turn would explain the interest ninth-century popes took in restoringthat metropolis, a restoration that would reinforce papal influence in theregion.

It is now necessary to examine contemporary analogies for the shiftsin Methodius’s status and title. The best parallels in this respect areWinfried (Boniface) and Anskar. Throughout the first half of the eighthcentury, Boniface enjoyed constant support from the papacy, but notalways from the Frankish mayors.,. In .++ he was only appointed mis-sionary bishop.,- Ten years later, however, Pope Gregory III conferredupon him the title of archbishop.,2 In .,2 he was made papal legate andin .13 he received the right to occupy a see of his choosing, thus turningit into an archdiocese.1/ He therefore never held the offices of missionarybishop, archbishop and legate simultaneously. On the contrary, the officeof archbishop was soon to include the right to elevate a selected see toarchiepiscopal status.

There are contrasting views in the sources regarding Anskar’s legation.Papal documents attest the fact that Pope Nicholas I appointed Anskararchbishop of Bremen and entrusted him and his successors with author-

,0 Zeiller, Les origines, pp. ,03–2, esp. p. ,02.,. H.J. Schüssler, ‘Die fränkische Reichsteilung bon Vieux-Poitiers (.1+) und die Reform der

Kirche in den Teilreichen Karlmanns und Pippins. Zu den Grenzen der Wirksamkeit desBonifatius’, Francia *, (*2-3), pp. 1.–**+.

,- Die Briefe des heiligen Bonifatius und Lullus, ed. M. Tangl (Berlin, *233), pp. ,*–+.,2 Die Briefe, ed. Tangl, p. 12: ‘Hinc iure tibi sacri pallei direximus munus, quod beati Petri

apostoli auctoritate suscipiens induaris atque inter archiepiscopos unus Deo auctore precipimusut censearis.’

1/ Die Briefe, ed. Tangl, pp. .*–1 and */-: ‘Et non solum Baioariam, sed etiam omnem Galliarumprovinciam, donec te divina iusserit superesse maiestas, nostra vice per predicationem tibivindictam, que reperreris contra christianam relegionem vel canonum instituta, spiritualiterstude et normam rectitudinis reformare.’ See also Die Briefe, pp. *+,–1: ‘De eo namquesuggesisti, quod elegerunt unam civitatem omnes Francorum principes coniungentem usque adpaganorum fines et in partes Germanicarum gentium, ubi antea predicasti, quatenus ibi sedemmetropolitanam perpetuo tempore habere debeas et inde ceteros episcopos ad viam instrueresrectitudinis et post tui successores perpetuo iure possideant: hoc, quod decreverunt, nos laetosuscepimus animo, quod ex Dei nutu factum est . . . De civitate namque illa, quae nuperAgrippina vocabatur, nunc vero Colonia, iuxta petitionem Francorum per nostrae auctoritatispreceptum nomini tuo metropolim confirmavimus et tuae sanctitati direximus pro futuristemporibus eiusdem metropolitane aecclesiae stabilitatem.’ For Boniface’s career, see alsoWillibald, Vita Bonifatii, cc. 0 and -, ed. W. Levison, MGH SRG 3. (Hanover and Leipzig,*2/3), pp. +2–,0 and 1*. For the titulature of Willibrord, Boniface’s predecessor, see A.Angenedt, ‘Willibrord im Dienste der Karolinger’, Annalen des Historischen Vereins für Nieder-rhein *.3 (*2.,), pp. 0,–**,.

The Sirmian and apostolic tradition in Moravian episcopal organization 275

Early Medieval Europe +//2 !" (,)© +//2 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

ity over the Danes and the Swedes.1* The pope also made a point ofcriticizing Gunther, archbishop of Cologne, who allegedly refused toagree to a separation of the new archdiocese from the diocese of Cologne.This, criticism, however, was designed to humiliate an adversary who washindering Pope Nicholas in the case of Lothar II’s divorce. Rimbert, theauthor of the Life of Anskar, placed the new archdiocese in Hamburg andadded to that a papal legation among the Danes, the Swedes and theSlavs. He also noted the conditional affirmation of the metropolitan ofCologne regarding its establishment.1+ In each case missionary delegationwas linked to the office of archbishop. It may be worth noting that nomention whatsoever is made of Anskar’s potential suffragans.

These comparisons demonstrate that the creation of a missionaryarchdiocese without suffragans was not impossible and that on achievingarchbishop status, a bishop’s diocese automatically became an arch-diocese.1, However, there is no known case of an individual being atthe same time a missionary archbishop and bishop, a situation LiborJan assumed for Methodius.11 But the possibility that Methodiuswas appointed archbishop without suffragans cannot be ruled outcompletely.

The idea that Methodius’s missionary archdiocese was turned into aproper metropolis c.--/ is further contradicted by the fact that after --*(i.e. after the Industrie tue bull mentioning Methodius as ‘archbishop ofthe Moravian church’), the pope addressed Methodius as a ‘missionary’

1* Nicholas I, Ep. +0, ed. E. Perels, MGH Epistulae Karolini aevi 1 (Berlin, *2+3), pp. +2*–+: ‘Utepiscopus Bremensis, licet a Gunthario haec non potuerit dari licentia nec ab eo tale quid petidebuerit, tamen pro amore domni regis, quia pius est eius petitio, cum nostra auctoritate inpredicto loco Bremon potestatem et honorem archiepiscopatus super Danos et Swevos habeatet simili modo sui successores per tempora futura perpetualiter teneant atque possiderant.’ Seealso R. Drögereit, ‘War Ansgar Erzbischof von Hamburg oder Bremen?’, Zeitschrift der Gesell-schaft für niedersächsische Kirchengeschichte ./ (*2.+), pp. */.–,+; and R. Drögereit, ‘Missions-bischof, Bischof von Bremen, Missionserzbischof für Dänen und Schweden’, Zeitschrift derGesellschaft für niedersächsische Kirchengeschichte ., (*2.3), pp. 2–13.

1+ Vita Anskarii, c. +,, ed. G. Waitz, MGH SRG 33 (Hanover, *--1), pp. 12–3/ mentions thatGunther finally (-3-) conceded on the sole condition of the pope’s agreement: ‘Quatinus tantafundatus auctoritate praenominatus Anskarius, primus Nordalbingorum archiepiscopus, et postipsum successores eius, lucrandis lucibus plebibus insistentes, adversus temptamenta diabolivalidiores existant. Ipsumque filium notrsum iam dictum Anskarium legatum in omnibuscircumquaque gentibus Sueonum sive Danorum necnon etiam Slavorum, vel in ceteris ubi-cumque illis partibus constitutis divina pietas ostium aperuerit, publicam euangelizandi tribui-mus auctoritatem. Ipsumque sedem Nordalbingorum Hammaburg dictam, in honore sanctiSalvatoris sanctaeque eius intermaratae genitricis Mariae consecratam, archiepiscopalem dein-ceps esse decernimus.’

1, Boniface provides a particularly good comparison with Methodius, because of the changingrelations both men had with the princes whose support they courted. The comparison may alsobe useful when considering the importance of church organization for the power of medievalrulers in Bavaria and Great Moravia, respectively. I plan to pursue this comparison in a futurestudy.

11 Jan, ‘Stará Morava’, pp. +3,–1.

276 David Kalhous

Early Medieval Europe +//2 !" (,)© +//2 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

archbishop.13 Changes in Methodius’s titulature as reflected in the papalcorrespondence may therefore be a reflection not of a change in his status,but, as Francis Dvorník has long noted, of a changing papal policy.Appointing new bishops c.--/ was not necessarily an attempt to grantMethodius’s see a metropolitan status, but simply a new policy designedto match the increased political stability in the region and consolidateexisting church structures.

It is therefore not inconceivable that Archbishop Methodius was tobecome a successor of the metropolitan of Sirmium. It is even possiblethat his claim to metropolitan status was supported by such documentsas those mentioned above. This is particularly relevant in light of thepolitical configuration in the area during the second half of the ninthcentury. The issue of who at that time actually controlled the region ofSirmium (in all probability neither one of the two parties involved) wasirrelevant. It may worth noting in this context that, according to FrancisDvorník, Sirmium came under Bulgarian rule shortly after -./ andallegedly served as the seat of Bishop Ignatius.10 Claims to metropolitanrights, and not ‘rights of rule’ were the main issue, and it is in connectionwith the metropolis that the ‘historical’ line of argument was developed.According to the papal claims, the tradition of the Sirmian metropolitanshad never been interrupted and, as a consequence, Rome could havenever relinquished rights of ecclesiastical jurisdiction in the area: onceestablished, the diocese of Sirmium never ceased to exist, despite allhistorical vicissitudes. The reference to historical precedent served thepapacy in protecting Methodius’s rights against the rival claims of theArchbishop of Salzburg and his suffragans.1. Methodius could have relied

13 Codex, no. +2, p. +,: ‘Reverentissimo Methodio, archiepiscopo Pannoniensis ecclesie’. Codex,no. ,,, p. +0: ‘Methodio archiepiscopo pro fide’.

10 Dvorník, Les légendes, p. XXXV.1. That approval of the most important archbishop in the area was necessary for the establishment

of a new metropolis is mentioned by Rimbert, Vita Anskarii, c. +,, pp. 1-–2: ‘Porro, cum haecageretur, Colonia civitas, ad quam Bremensis parroechia suffraganea erat, eo tempore absquebenedictione episcopali degebat. Quod quia diuturnum extitit, istud etiam sine illius locipontificis praesentia necessario fuit. Postea tamen, consecrato ad eundem locum venerabilipraesule Gunthario, hoc ipsum dominus et pater noster ei suggerere studuit, ut sua quoqueauctoitate firmaretur. Cui tamen rei ipse admodum contrarius extitit. Que de causa postmo-dum, in Vurmacia civitate positis duobus regibus, Hludowico scilicet et Hlothario, corammulta episcoporum utriusque regni frequentia, praesente venerabili patre nostro, haec eademres exposita est. Quod cum ab omnibus bene ita ordinatum probaretur, ut praedictus pontifexGuntharius hoc ipsum sua auctoritate firmaret, cuncti rogaverunt. Qui primo quidem fortiterhis remiti coepit, iustum non esse multipliciter asserens, ut sedes suffraganea in archiepisco-palem verteretur, nec se debere honorem sedis sui in aliquo minuere; postremo tamen, et ipsisregibus et cunctis simul episcopis ibi aggregatis pro hoc ipso eum rogantibus et omnino causanecessitatis id licitum fore dicentibus, respondit, si apostolica auctoritate firmaretur, ex sequoque ratum esse.’ Examples from the Ottonian era have been compiled by E.-D. Hehl, ‘Derwiderspenstige Bischof. Bischöfliche Zustimmung und bischöflicher Protest in der ottonischenReichskirche’, in G. Althoff and E. Schubert (eds), Herrschaftsrepräsentation im ottonischen

The Sirmian and apostolic tradition in Moravian episcopal organization 277

Early Medieval Europe +//2 !" (,)© +//2 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

on the pope for support, as Pannonia, or perhaps more specificallyIllyricum, was of great interest to the papacy for being a bone of conten-tion between it, the Byzantine emperor, and the Bavarian episcopate.1-

Even the author of the Vita Methodii was aware of that, noting, mostlikely on purpose, that Cyril and Methodius themselves had recognizedthat the region in question was subject to Rome and, as a consequence,that they would not venture to go against the canons, but instead decidedto seek the approval of the pope.12 Methodius’s status and relation to thepope are unequivocally described in a letter of John VIII dated to -.,; heis mentioned as ‘archbishop of Pannonia and papal legate to thenations’.3/ The pope, however, was in many ways dependent upon theFrankish kings, while Methodius relied on Svatopluk and other Moravianprinces. Changes in relations between different actors may have influ-enced the changes in Methodius’s titulature. From a methodologicalpoint of view, it is important to keep in mind Herwig Wolfram’s distinc-tion between intitulatio (as Fremdbezeichnung) and titulature (as Selbs-taussage).3* Intitulatio was the form of address used for Methodius by thepapal court at a particular moment in time, and cannot be regarded asneutrally mirroring an independently determined legal situation (soLibor Jan). Instead, it is itself a political act reflecting a shift in thedistribution of power among individual participants: the pope, the Bavar-ian bishops, Svatopluk, and the Frankish king.3+

Be that as it may, instead of debating the existence of a late antiquemetropolis of Sirmium, it is perhaps more fruitful to examine the argu-ments employed by the unknown author of the Life of Methodius tojustify its restoration: ‘Kocel’ admitted him [Methodius] in great respectand then dispatched him again to the pope in the company of twentynoblemen, to have him ordained a bishop in Pannonia at the seeof Apostle Andronicus, one of the Seventy. And so it came to

Sachsen (Sigmaringen, *22-), pp. +23–,11. For the situation in Poland and Bohemia, see D.Kalhous, ‘Legenda Christiani and the Beginnings of Political Thought in Bohemia andMoravia’, Ph.D. dissertation, Masaryk University (+//3). For legitimization strategies of thearchbishop of Salzburg see M. Diesenberg, ‘Sammeln und gestalten – erinnern und vergessen.Erzbischof Arn von Salzburg und die Ursprünge des Salzburger Episkopats’, in W. Pohl (ed.),Die Suche nach den Ursprüngen, Forschungen zur Geschichte des Mittelalters - (Vienna, +//1),pp. *.*–-2.

1- See especially Codex, no. *-, p. *3 from before *1 May -.,, which defends papal rights inIllyricum and which mentions the ‘restituto nobis Pannoniensium episcopatu’.

12 Zhitiie Mefodiia, c. -, p. *12. The remark is made in a letter of Pope Adrian II.3/ Codex, no. +0, p. +/: ‘Methodium, Pannonicum archiepiscopum, legatione apostolice sedis ad

gentes fungentem’. Earlier documents emphasize the restoration of papal sovereignty over thePannonian diocese.

3* H. Wolfram, Intitulatio, I. Lateinische Königs- und Fürstentitel bis zum Ende des ". Jahrhunderts(Vienna, Cologne and Graz, *20.).

3+ Similar remarks in Dvorník, Les légendes, pp. +00–. and +.,–3.

278 David Kalhous

Early Medieval Europe +//2 !" (,)© +//2 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

be.’3, The unknown author thus points out that dioceses and archdiocesesconsidered it necessary to seek for, and subsequently incorporate, earlychurch origins and traditions. He himself employed an interesting strat-egy by referring to one of the apostolic disciples.31 It is necessary, there-fore, to now examine the significance of that argument at the time it wasformulated, as well as to search for the source of inspiration used byMethodius and his followers.

There is, however, only a very small amount of comparative evi-dence. In the west only the Church of Rome had systematically usedthe apostolic tradition as an argument. This tradition emerged onlygradually, for Irenaeus of Lyon (who died in +/+) still viewed Peter andPaul as founders of the church, and not as apostles pre-eminentlylinked to Rome.33 Even at that early stage, however, the bonds betweenSt Peter and the Roman diocese were apparently gaining strength. PopeCallixtus I (+*.–++) was the first to mention and make use of thefamous passage in Matthew XVI.*-, which was interpreted as meaningPeter was the rock on which Jesus decided to build His church.30 None-theless, the apostles were not recorded in diocesan registers as founders,not even in the diocese of Rome.3. The decisive step in that directionis attributed to Eusebius of Caesarea. By the late fourth centurythen, Rome was considered to be a sedes apostolica, the diocese ofSt Peter.3-

Although such concocting of history was seldom to be found in thewest despite the unquestionable significance of Rome, it seems to havebeen a common practice in the east.32 Incidentally, this higher

3, Zhitiie Mefodiia, c. -, p. *3/. The argument was taken up almost verbatim by the author of theso-called Skazaniia o prelo!enii knig. For the complex relations between all those sources andtheir interpretation, see Kalhous, ‘Christian und Grossmähren’, pp. +3–,,.

31 See W. Levison, ‘Die Anfänge rheinischer Bistümer in der Legende’, Annalen des HistorischenVereins für Niederrhein **0 (*2,/), pp. 3–+-, 0–*/. For later periods, see E. Boshof, ‘Köln, Mainz,Trier: Die Auseinandersetzung um die Spitzenstellung im deutschen Episkopat in ottonisch-salischer Zeit’, Jahrbuch der Kölner Geschichstvereins 12 (*2.-), pp. *2–1-. R. Micha#owski, Zjazdgnieznienski. Religijne przes$anki powstania arcybiskupstwa gnieznienskiego (Wroc#aw, +//3),shows how St Adalbert was fashioned into an apostle as a strategy designed to justify thecreation of the archdiocese of Gniezno. Other relevant sources may be found in the followingfootnotes.

33 E. Molland, ‘Irenaeus of Lugdunum and the Apostolic Succession’, The Journal of EcclesiasticalHistory * (*23/), pp. *+–+-. In the case of Irenaeus continuity guarantees authenticity and theapostolic succession of bishops and priests is therefore the only legitimate form of succession.Keeping lists of bishops therefore made sense: they were a token of the preservation of apostolicteaching. See F. Dvornik, The Idea of Apostolicity in Byzantium and the Legend of the ApostleAndrew (Cambridge, MA, *23-), pp. ,2–1*.

30 Dvornik, Idea of Apostolicity, p. 1*.3. Dvornik, Idea of Apostolicity, pp. 1*–+.3- Dvornik, Idea of Apostolicity, pp. 1+–0.32 Dvornik, Idea of Apostolicity, pp. 10–. refers to Sirmium, but the only source documenting that

specific tradition is that of the rather later Vita Methodii.

The Sirmian and apostolic tradition in Moravian episcopal organization 279

Early Medieval Europe +//2 !" (,)© +//2 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

frequency diminishes the importance of similar lines of argumentand foregrounds other causes, e.g. the significance of a given seatfrom the perspective of the civil administration.0/ Similar reasonsmay be advanced for Roman agitation not eliciting the desired responsein the east owing to deeply rooted notions of a pentarchy of equalpatriarchates: Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem and Constanti-nople.0*

However, the apostolic cult was not that important in Constanti-nople. Though the existence of a fifth-century cult of St Andrew isattested,0+ the saint was of greater significance in the west – in Gaul andItaly, and especially in Rome.0, The relics of St Andrew had been trans-lated by Constantius a century earlier, though not as a prestige-seekingact on the part of the patriarchate, but rather in honour of the emper-ors whose tomb they were to adorn.01 Only in the late eighth centurydid St Andrew gain greater importance for the patriarchate in Con-stantinople. The subsequent period witnessed the emergence of a list ofpatriarchs assembled by the so-called Pseudo-Dorotheus, as well as anindependently formed legend of St Andrew.03 St Andrew is mentionedin the Chronicon syntomon of Patriarch Nicephorus (-/0–*3), whilean account was used by an anonymous author in a work known asLaudatio.00 This author mentions Andrew and Peter as the greatestof all apostles, and goes as far as to divide Christianity between thetwo of them. Although Peter is given the pre-eminent position,the author of the Laudatio also highlighted their mutual bonds ofbrotherhood, as well as the high esteem in which Andrew held Peterfor leading him to Christ.0. Neither the cult of St Andrew nor theemerging veneration of St John0- were decisive for the patriarchate,though Constantinople was by then already regarded as an apostolicsee. In fact, the argument of an apostolic tradition was not used at anypoint in the polemic against the pope in order to humiliate Rome.02

Changes of a more significant nature came about only in the tenth

0/ Dvornik, Idea of Apostolicity, pp. 1.–3/.0* Dvornik, Idea of Apostolicity, pp. 3*–*/3.0+ Dvornik, Idea of Apostolicity, pp. *31–-/.0, Dvornik, Idea of Apostolicity, pp. *10–31.01 Dvornik, Idea of Apostolicity, pp. *,-–10.03 Dvornik, Idea of Apostolicity, pp. ++,–1 and ++3–0.00 Dvornik, Idea of Apostolicity, pp. ++1 and ++0–,.. Nicephorus’s Chronicon syntomon was known

to Anastasius Bibliothecarius in Rome as early as -./. Laudatio has been dated after -1,,perhaps around --/, the year of the reconciliation with Rome. The work was used by followersof Patriarch Photius.

0. Dvornik, Idea of Apostolicity, pp. ++0–,1.0- Dvornik, Idea of Apostolicity, pp. +,-–11.02 Dvornik, Idea of Apostolicity, pp. +13–3..

280 David Kalhous

Early Medieval Europe +//2 !" (,)© +//2 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

century, once the writing of Pseudo-Dorotheus began to gain accep-tance../ Although during Methodius’s lifetime Constantinople was wellacquainted with apostolic tradition, there seems to have been nonotable use of that tradition for the purpose of legitimizing the localpatriarchate.

Paul the Deacon, on the other hand, alludes to the apostolic traditionin his late eighth-century Book of Bishops of Metz..* The narrative beginswith a depiction of Peter’s arrival in Rome and his missionary efforts,namely his sending of disciples to such major cities as Ravenna, Brindisi,Aquileia and Milan..+ At the end of the paragraph one reads of Clement,whom Peter entrusted with the diocese and the task of evangelizingMetz.., St Peter is also credited here with saving Bishop Auctor and thecathedral of St Stephen..1 Paul the Deacon stresses the links betweenMetz and Rome, especially by alluding to Bishop Chrodegang’s efforts torestore the church in Metz through the introduction of the Romanliturgy. But he also points out parallels between the history of the dioceseand that of Charlemagne’s family..3

A recent study by D. Kempf makes a strong case for the Book of Bishopsof Metz being an unusal work within its own genre, especially whennoting that no more than four of these bishops are mentioned in the

./ Dvornik, Idea of Apostolicity, pp. +3.–0*. See also J. van Herwaarden, ‘The Origins of the Cultof St. James of Compostela’, Journal for Medieval History 0 (*2-/), pp. *–,3, esp. pp. .–*-, whorefers to the eastern origin of the apostolic tradition and in connection with St Andrew indicatesthat the tradition was used to fight heresy, not Rome.

.* Paul the Deacon, Liber de episcopis Mettensibus, ed. G.H. Pertz, MGH SS + (Hanover, *-+2), pp.+0/–./. See K.-U. Jäschke, ‘Zu Metzer Geschichtsquellen der Karolingerzeit’, RheinischeVierteljahresblätter ,, (*202), pp. *–*,, esp. pp. **–*,, who does not accept the documents asbeing connected to the Versus.

.+ Paul the Deacon, Liber de episcopis Mettensibus, p. +0*: ‘Igitur cum Romam pervenisset (StPeter), illico qui summas quasque urbes in occiduo positas Christo domino per verbum fideisubiugaret, optimos eruditosque viros ex suo consortio direxit. Tunc denique ApollinaremRavennam, Leucium Brundisium, Anatolium Mediolanum misit. Marcum vero, qui praecip-uus inter eius discipulos habebatur, Aquilegiam destinavitm quibus cum Hermagoran, suumcomitem, Marcus praefecisset, ad beatum Petrum reversus, ab eo nihilominus, Alexandriammissus est.’

., Paul the Deacon, Liber de episcopis Mettensibus, p. +0*: ‘Ea igitur tempestate cum apudGalliam Belgicam Mediomatricam, quae etiam Mettis apellatur, civitas in ipsa Mosellaeamnisripa posita, copiosis populorum turbis abundaret, ad eandem beatus Petrus urbemClementem nomine, virum egregium ac meritis probatum, sublimatum pontificali dignitatidirexit, cum quo pariter, sicut antiqua tradit relatio, ad eas quae precipuae erant Galliarumurbes verbo fidei obtinendas, alii quoque religiosi doctores ab eodem apostolorum principemissi sunt.’

.1 Paul the Deacon, Liber de episcopis Mettensibus, pp. +0+–,.

.3 Paul the Deacon, Liber de episcopis Mettensibus, pp. +01–3. Paul links the dynasty’s originto Troy; the roots of the Frankish ‘Trojan tradition’ are, however, of a much earlier date.The Trojan myth is first mentioned in the so-called Chronicle of Fredegar, for which see E.Ewig, ‘Zum Geschichtsbild der Franken und den Anfängen der Merowinger’, in J. Petersohn(ed.), Mediaevalia Augiensia: Forschungen zur Geschichte des Mittelalters (Stuttgart, +//*),pp. 1,–3..

The Sirmian and apostolic tradition in Moravian episcopal organization 281

Early Medieval Europe +//2 !" (,)© +//2 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

entire work..0 Paul the Deacon apparently drew on the Liber pontificalisfor inspiration and the resulting work constitutes yet another attempt atfashioning the history of the church in Metz according to Roman mod-els... Paul’s narrative actually employs strategies conspicuously empha-sizing the role of Rome, e.g., the interventions of St Peter on behalf ofBishop Auctor..- Kempf also notes that attempts to match the prestige ofthe Italian diocese are to be found in the various references to Peter’sdisciples being commissioned to establish the diocese on his behalf,similar to the way Peter dispatched St Clement to establish the diocese inMetz..2 The Book of Bishops of Metz was therefore concerned not so muchwith the apostolic origins of the diocese, as with emphasizing its connec-tions with Rome.

Ninth-century Venice also made use of the apostolic cult.-/ Around-,/ the unknown author of the Translatio s. Marci wrote of the abductionof the relics of St Mark from Alexandria.-* The doge, the people, and thebishop of Venice received the successful abductors in ceremonial fash-ion.-+ Initially the doge had the relics exhibited in his palace,-, but severalyears later he had a crypt and cathedral erected over the remains.-1 TheTranslatio as well as later documents show that the cult of St Mark was

.0 D. Kempf, ‘Paul the Deacon’s Liber de episcopis Mettensibus and the Role of Metzin the Carolingian Realm’, Journal of Medieval History ,/ (+//1), pp. +.2–22, esp.pp. +2*–,.

.. Kempf, ‘Paul the Deacon’s Liber’, pp. +23–..

.- Kempf, ‘Paul the Deacon’s Liber’, pp. +2,–3.

.2 Kempf, ‘Paul the Deacon’s Liber’, pp. +2*–,.-/ R. Denning and A. Zettler, ‘Der Evangelist Markus in Venedig und in Reichenau’, Zeitschrift für

Geschichte Oberrheins *11 (*220), pp. *2–10.-* For the Translatio, see R. Denning-Zetler, ‘Die Translatio S. Marci. Ein Beitrag zu den Anfängen

Venedigs und zur Kritik der ältesten venezianischen Historiographie’, Ph.D. dissertation,University of Freiburg (*22*), pp. .0–**/.

-+ Denning-Zetler, ‘Die Translatio S. Marci’, p. ++, points out the similarities between salutingrelics and saluting a ruler, which for that matter is not an uncommon feature of the hagio-graphic texts.

-, Denning-Zetler, ‘Die Translatio S. Marci’, p. **/: ‘Olivolensem sanctum corpus venisset,egressus cum crucibus Ursus episcopus loci illius et omnium ministrorum ordinibus undutisacerdotalibus tunicis reverentissimo corpori obviant. Suscipientesque illud adduxerunt adducis palatium. Accepto igitur corpore dux posuit illud in cenaculi loco, qui apud eius palatiumusque in presens tempus monstratur. Ordinatis cantoribus ac ministris, qui ibid. deo laudesofferent, inter quos custos ille Stauratius primus erat. At vero dux Iustinianus cum supra beatumcorpus ecclesiam vellet construere, morte preventus est. Cuius germanus Iohannes ducatumsuscipiens vicem eius explevit. Construxit namque iuxta palatium elegantissime forme basili-cam ad eam similitudinem, quam supra domini tumulum viderat Iherosolimis.’ See alsoDenning and Zettler, ‘Der Evangelist Markus’, p. +0.

-1 Denning-Zetler, ‘Die Translatio S. Marci’, p. **/: ‘Cuius germanus Iohannes ducatum suscipi-ens vicem eius explevit. Construxit namque iuxta palatium elegantissime forme basilicam adeam similitudinem, quam supra domini tumulum viderat Iherosolimis.’ See also John theDeacon, Chronicon Venetum et Gradense, ed. G.H. Pertz, MGH SS . (Hanover *-10), p. *.:‘Isdem vero domnus Iohannes dux sanctissimi Marci euangeliste ecclesiasm consecrare, et dignebeatum corpus in eadem collocare procuravit.’

282 David Kalhous

Early Medieval Europe +//2 !" (,)© +//2 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

associated not with the interests of the local bishop or patriarch,-3 butwith the power of the doge and with Venice in general.-0

The last saint and apostle whose posthumous history must be exam-ined here is St James. Seventh- and eighth-century writers had previouslylinked St James to Spain but the Visigothic church had not yet made useof his legitimizing potential. No documents of an earlier date place hisburial in Spain.-. Not until the Martyrologium Usuardi (and even in thatcase, only in a few manuscripts) is the translation of James and Bartho-lomew from Jerusalem to Spain mentioned.-- However, most documentsconcerned with James’s connection to Spain, among them the notewor-thy Commentary on the Apocalypse-2 by Beatus of Liébana (d. .2-), areconcerned with Asturias. According to royal documents, as early as theninth and tenth century the cult of St James represented a significant

-3 This despite the fact that the presence in the vicinity of a patriarchal see is perceptiblethroughout the legend about the translation. According to the account, the patriarchate hademerged in the region where St Mark had been preaching and was subsequently transferredaccording to the law (i.e. by the decision of the pope and the synod), from Aquileia to Gradoand designated a metropolis for Venice. The translation of the relics of St Hermagor and othersaints was also a factor, see Denning-Zetler, ‘Die Translatio S. Marci’, p. .0: ‘Siquidem Veneciaeduae sunt. Prima est illa, que in antiquis tantum istoriis continetur, que a Pannoniae terminousque ad Adam fluvium protelatur. Cuius et Aquileia civitas extitit capud, in qua beatum idemeuuangelista (Marcus), divina gratia perlustratus, Christum Ihesum dominum predicaverat.’Denning-Zetler, ‘Die Translatio S. Marci’, pp. -+–1: ‘Eodem tempore romanam ecclesiam virsanctissimus Benedictus regebat, Aquileiensi quoque civitati eiusque populis beatus Pauluspatriarcha preerat. Qui Langobardorum rabiem metuens ex Aquileia ad Gradus insulam con-fugit, secumque beatissimi martiris Hermagore et caeterorum snactorum corpora, que ibihumata fuerant, deportavit. Et apud eundem Gradensem castrum dignissimo honore condiditipsamque urbem Aquileiam novam vocavit. In quo aetiam loco post paucum tempus Heliasegregius patriarcha, qui tercius post Paulum regendum suscepit aecclesiam, ex consensu beat-issimi pape Pelagii, facta synodo viginti episcoporum Gradensem urbem tocius Veneciemetropolim esse instituit. Ad cuis robor Eraclius post haec augustus beatissimi Marci sedem,quam dudum Helena Constantini mater de Alexandria detulerat, sanctorum fultus amoredirexit, ubi et actenus veneratur, pariter cum cathedra, in qua beatus martir sederat Hermago-ras.’ For the interpretation of this passage, see Denning-Zetler, ‘Die Translatio S. Marci’, pp.*-1–+/3.

-0 Denning and Zettler, ‘Der Evangelist Markus’, pp. ,2–1/.-. The sources for St James are compiled in Herwaarden, ‘Origins of the Cult’, pp. ,–.. Interre-

lationships among the Breviaria apostolorum manuscripts are explored, especially with regard toissues of interpolation, by B. de Gaiffier, ‘Le Breviarium Apostolorum’, Analecta Bollandiana -*(*20,), pp. -2–**0.

-- Herwaarden, ‘Origins of the Cult’, pp. *-–+,. See also B. de Gaiffier, ‘Notes sur quelquesdocumentes relatifs à la translation de St.-Jacques en Espagne’, Analecta Bollandiana -2 (*2.*),pp. 1.–00; O. Engels, ‘Die Anfänge des spanischen Jakobusgrabes in kirchenpolitischer Sicht’,Römische Quartalschrift .3 (*2-/), pp. *10–./.

-2 Beatus Liebanensis, Commentarius ad Apocalypsin, c. *, ed. E. Romero Pose (Rome,*2-3), p. *2*:‘Hi duodecim sunt Christi discipuli, praedicatores fidei et doctores gentium . . . ad praedican-dum in mundo sortes propria acceperunt, Petrus Roma, Andreas Acaia, Thomas India, IacobusSpania.’ For an assessment of the older tradition, see K. Herbers, ‘Politik und Heiligenvere-hrung auf der iberischen Halbinsel. Die Entwicklung des “politischen Jakobus” ’, in J. Peter-sohn (ed.), Politik und Heiligenverehrung im Hochmittelalter (Sigmaringen *221), pp. *..–+.3,esp. pp. *2+–..

The Sirmian and apostolic tradition in Moravian episcopal organization 283

Early Medieval Europe +//2 !" (,)© +//2 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

supportive element for the royal court.2/ Later, in the eleventh century,the apostle was invoked in battle, as patron of the king, of the reconquistaand even of the country as a whole.2* It was not until the late eleventhcentury that Diego Gelmírez, bishop of Compostela, attempted, in tem-porary association with the king,2+ to turn the bishopric from a simplesuffragan into an apostolic see, and elevate its status to that of an arch-bishopric.2, The number of canons was consequently raised to seventy-two in order to reflect the number of apostolic disciples, and variousRoman customs, including the Roman liturgy, were adopted.21

When combined, the various component analyses show that in thewest, although the apostolic cult and, in particular, the figure of anapostle did represent a considerable symbolic capital, it was put to sys-tematic use only by the Roman papacy. Indeed, the primacy of theRoman patriarch was accepted even in Constantinople, where the ties toSt Andrew were quite weak and not meant as a threat to the tradition ofSt Peter. The work of Paul the Deacon certainly can not be interpreted asan attempt to undermine papal claims. His contrasting history of thediocese in Metz was meant, on the contrary, to underline Romanprimacy. Paul used the close bonds with Rome to explain his notion ofthe prerogatives of Metz. A certain, though rather weak, anti-Romansentiment was at times perceptible in the promotion of the cult of StJames. However, St James was initially perceived as the country’s patronsaint providing support in battle, rather than as an apostle responsible forthe establishment of a diocese. St Mark was likewise more useful to theVenetian doge than to local patriarchs and bishops.

In sharp contrast with all these examples, the tradition mentioned inthe Vita Methodii accounts for the existence of a Pannonian diocese byreferring to its apostolic founder. This argument is not anti-Roman assuch, in point of fact papal consent represents a major legitimizing factorin the context of the legend,23 but it does point out that the diocese wassomewhat self-confident,20 though simultaneously conscious of its weak-nesses, which induced the need to search for such arguments in the firstplace.2. The Great Moravian St Andronicus ‘tradition’ also resemblespapal tradition with regard to the manner in which arguments are pre-

2/ Herbers, ‘Politik und Heiligenverehrung’, pp. *23 and *2-–+/+.2* Herbers, ‘Politik und Heiligenverehrung’, pp. +/,–2.2+ Herbers, ‘Politik und Heiligenverehrung’, pp. +*.–*2 and +*2–+0.2, Herbers, ‘Politik und Heiligenverehrung’, pp. +/2–*1.21 Herbers, ‘Politik und Heiligenverehrung’, pp. +*1–*..23 Vavrínek, Staroslovenské !ivoty, pp. 2*–+ and */0–..20 Unlike Paul’s history of the bishops of Metz, the author of the Vita Methodii does not mention

the option of Andronicus being dispatched by someone else, e.g. St Peter.2. Unlike Metz, which had relied on several very powerful archbishops and could therefore boast

of close ties to the Carolingians, or other dioceses that had also gone in search of ancient rootsfor the purposes of advancement, and not for the sake of defence.

284 David Kalhous

Early Medieval Europe +//2 !" (,)© +//2 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

sented: both were based on a founding apostolic figure. The term used forthe Pannonian diocese, i.e. the see of St Andronicus, only differed fromthe Roman see of St Peter in one aspect: that is, the name of the saint.2-

It was the Roman example, therefore, that was the source of inspirationfor the apostolic tradition mentioned in the Vita Methodii. By alluding tothe pope and to an allegedly ancient tradition, its unknown author stroveto defend the antiquity of Methodius’s archdiocese and thus its right toexist.

Masaryk University, Brno

2- A similar line of thought may have prompted the use of the title ‘archiepiscopus s. Adalberti’,which was bestowed upon Adalbert’s brother Radim, the future archbishop of Gniezno, byPope Sylvester II in 222. See Michalowski, Zjazd gnieznienski.

The Sirmian and apostolic tradition in Moravian episcopal organization 285

Early Medieval Europe +//2 !" (,)© +//2 Blackwell Publishing Ltd