1 Ilinski, G. A., Opyt siskmatičeskoi Kirillo-Mefodjevskoi bibliografii (Sofia, 1934)Google Scholar.

2 The most important is that of F. Dvorník, Les Légendes de Constantin et de Méthode vues de Byzance, Byzantinoslavica, Supplementa, I (Prague, 1933); see the (unfavorable) review of A. Brückner, “Cyrill und Method,” Zeitschrift für osteuropäische Geschickte, N. F., v (1935) 184–199. In a careful study P. Duthilleul, “Les sources de l' histoire des saints Cyrille et Méthode,” Echos d' Orient, XXXIV (1935), 272–306 criticized the sources, especially the papal letters, and H. Schaeder, “Geschichte und Legende im Werk der Slavenmissionare Konstantin und Method,” Historische Zeitschrift, CLII (1935), 229–255 emphasized the legendary or allegorical elements in some of our Slavic sources. P. Lavrov, “Materialy po istorii vozniknovenija drevneišei slavjanskoi pismennosti,” Trudy slavj. komissii, I, Akad. Nauk SSSR (Leningrad, 1930), was not available to the writer. See also H. Weidhaas, “Methodius und die Mährer,” Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas, II (1937), 183–200.

3 They are used in the edition and translation of F. Pastrnek, Dêjiny slovanských apoštolů Cyrilla a Melhoda etc. (Prague, 1902); I can use only the sources printed in this book as I do not read Czech. French translation by Dvorník, Légendes, pp. 349–393.

4 Dvorník's book centers around the reliability of the Pannonian Legends, whereas Duthilleul's important contribution is particularly instructive on the Latin side. The present writer cannot help feeling that (pace Brückner) Dvorník has succeeded in vindicating the historicity of the Pannonian Legends and that these remarkable documents, so full of historical information for many sections of the medieval world, are easily among the best hagiographical writings. In fact one need only read the sixth and seventh volume in the Epistolae series of the Monumenta Germaniae Historica (henceforth abbreviated Epistolae vi and vn) to realize the excellence of the Pamtonian Legends. This impression does not preclude (it even requires) a literary analysis of the Legends such as outlined by Miss Schaeder.

5 Short resumés of the Pannonian and Moravian missions may be found in almost any general history of the Carolingian Period or of the Church in this period. Of them I have Used particularly Hans von Schubert, Geschichte der christlichen Kirche im Frühmittelalter (Tübingen, 1921), and E. Amann, L'Epoque Carolingienne, in A. Fliche, and V. Martin, Histoire de l'Eglise, etc., VI, 1937. — For the following narrative I shall use only those Western documents, especially papal letters, the authenticity of which has never been questioned. This does not imply that I consider other documents spurious.

6 V(ita) C(onstantini), ed. Pastrnek, ch. 2, p. 155; V(ita) M(ethodii), ch. 2, p. 223; Anastasii Bibliothecarii Epistolae she Praefationes, recc. E. Perels et G. Laehr, Epistolae VII, no. 15, p. 436 (A.D. 875): Constantinus Thesalonicenus philosophus.

7 V. C, ch. 4, p. 160. “Et didicit… apud Leonem et apud Photium dialecticam et omnes philosophicas disciplinas etc.”; V. M., ch. 4, p. 225 (the Emperor Michael and the Patriarch (Photius) try to make Methodius an archbishop and when he refuses they appoint him abbot in the monastery of Polychron). Anastasii Epistolae, no. 5, p. 407 (Photius is chided by his friend (eius amico) Constantine for having set forth the view that every man had two souls). — Constantine may even have succeeded Photius at the newly founded University of Constantinople (Dvorník, Légendes, p. 79 sq.)

8 V. C., ch. 4, p. 162. Cf. Dvorník, Ligendes, pp. 49–68 (where it is shown that bibliothecarius was the Latin equivalent of . See, however, the “Older List of Papal Judjes” edited by P. E. Schramm, “Studien zu frühmittelalterlichen Aufzeichnungen über Staat und Verfassung,” Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte, Germ. Abt., IL (1929) 203: “Bibliothecarius aput Grecos logothetio et referendarius interpretatur etc.”

9 Dvorník, Légendes, pp. 135–147, 210. See the review by H. Schaeder, Jahrbücher für Kullur und Geschichte der Sloven, N. F., X (1934), 589.

10 Both embassies are mentioned in the Legends only, but without a previous Moravian mission one fails to understand why Pope Hadrian made Methodius archbishop of Sirmium.

11 V. C, ch. XVII, p. 211 (Anastasius “helps” when the Slavonic liturgy is sung at the sepulchre of St Paul); Epistolae VII (Anastasii Epislolae), no. 5, p. 407: “a Constantino philosopho magnae sanctitatis viro fortissimo,” ibid., no. 13, p. 433: Constantine apparently had “lectured” at Rome on the usefulness of St Clement's relics (“quantum utilitatis medulla eius habeat, auditoribus commendabat”), and Anastasius even takes the trouble of enlightening Charles the Bald as to the ambiguity of a Greek word which Constantine had used on such an occasion “oxy quippe et acutum signat et velox”; see also no. 15, p. 436 sq. — The brothers had come to Rome under Hadrian II (ibid., p. 433: “Constantinus philosophus, qui Romam sub venerabilis memoriae Adriano iuniori papa veniens etc.”) and if we may believe the Legends he has been called there by Hadrian's predecessor, Nicholas I (V. M., ch. 6, p. 226).

12 V. C., ch. 18, p. 215. On the result of the excavations, see Wilpert, G., “Le pitture della basilica primitiva di S. Clemente,” Melanges d'archéologie et d'histoire, XXVI (1906) 251–303 and the important review by M. Rešetar, Archiv für slavische Philologie, XXVII, (1906), 421–429.

13 V. M., ch. 8, pp. 228–230 = Epistolae VI (Hadrian), no. 43, p. 763.

14 V. M., ch. 8, p. 230; Epistolae VII (Johannes VIII), frgrn. 22, p. 286 (A.D. 873): “O episcopum episcopo talia inferentem et ad hoc apostolice sedis manu sacrato et (e?) latere destinato; ibid., frgm. 23 (A.D. 873): “Methodium, Pannonicum archiepiscopum legatione apostolice sedis ad gentes fungentem”; ibid., no. 200, p. 160 (A.D. 879): “Methodius vester archiepiscopus ab antecessore nostro, Adriano scilicet papa, ordinatus vobisque directus.”

15 V. M., ch. 9, p. 230–231; Epistolae (Johannes VIII) VII, frgms. 15–23 (all of A.D. 873).

16 V. M., ch. 12, p. 234; Epistolae VII, nos 200, 201, pp. 160 sq. (A.D. 879); no. 255, pp. 222–224 (A.D. 880, authenticity uncertain); no. 276, pp. 243 sq. (A.D. 881).

17 Epistulae (Stephen V) VII, frgm. 33, p. 352 sq. and no. 1, pp. 354–358 (both of A.D. 885, but the authenticity of the latter document is uncertain, see Laehr, G., “Das Schreiben Stephans V. an Sventopulk von Mähren,” News Archiv der Geselhchaft für Mere dcutsche Geschichiskunde, XLVII (1927–28), 159–173 Google Scholar.

18 Methodius’ relations to Photius are only of secondary importance in this connection. If Methodius was a follower of Photius, this did not mean at the time of his departure that he did not recognize the Pope ( Dvorník, F., Les Slaves, Byzance et Rome au IX^e siecle, Paris, 1926, pp. 174–183 Google Scholar). The main provocation for the Frankish clergy was that he was a Byzantine.

19 This interpretation has been touched upon by the scholar who has written by far the most penetrating study on the Slavonic Apostles from the Western point of view. H. von Schubert, “Die sogenannten Slavenapostel Constantin und Methodius. Ein grundlegendes Kapitel aus den Beziehungen Deutschlands zum Südosten,” Sitzungsberichte der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-Hist. Kl., 1916, Abh. 1, p. 12 writes: “Der Gegensatz der beiden Systeme trat immer wieder scharf zutage: die germanisch-landeskirchliche und die römisch-universale Fassung des Problems von Staat und Kirche.” See also Dvorník, Légendes, p. 271 (following von Schubert); Laehr, Schreiben Stephens V, 170 sq. — It is due to Dvorník's studies that we now realize the importance of the papal claim on Illyricum for the problem of the Slavonic Apostles. Yet it remains to be explained why this claim was asserted so vigorously at this moment when this assertion meant a clash with the Frankish clergy.

20 J. Calmette, La diplomatic carolingienne du Traitt de Verdun à la mort de Charles Le Chauve (843–877), Bibliothèque de l'Ecole des Hautes Etudes, fasc. CXXXV (Paris, 1901), p. 1 and passim.

21 On the following, see the excellent book of Lesne, E., La hiérarchie èpiscopale. Provinces, mètropolitains, primats en Gaule et Germanie depuis la reforme de saint Boniface jusqu'à la mort d'Hincmar, 742–882 (Lille and Paris, 1905)Google Scholar.

22 Lesne, Hiérarchie, pp. 62 sq., followed by P. Fournier and Le Bras, G., Histoire des collections canoniques en Occident depuis les Fausses Décrétales jusqu'au Décret de Gratien, I (Paris, 1931), p. 97 Google Scholar. Is it not more probable that Charlemagne realized that metropolitan archbishops would allow the Emperor to exercise a firmer control over the clergy?

23 Einhart, Vita Caroli Magni, ed. W. Wattenbach, Berlin, 1876, ch. 33, pp. 53 sq.

24 On the many problems connected with Pseudo-Isidore, sec for instance Amann, L'Empire carolingien, pp. 352–366; von Schubert, Geschichte, II, 415 sq; Fournier et Le Bras, Collections Canoniques, pp. 127–233.

25 For the following, see Lesne, Hiérarchie, pp. 187–193; Fournier et Le Bras, Collections Canoniques, p. 132 sq.

26 It hardly needs mentioning that in a good many cases the Popes urged the clergy to obey their archbishops. See for instance, Epistolae VI, no. 14, p. 281; no. 107, pp. 619–622 (both letters of Nicholas); no. 30, p. 734 sq. (Hadrian) etc. This is the rule which makes the exceptions mentioned in the text all the more remarkable.

27 For this conflict, see Perels, E., Papst Nikolaus I. und Anastasius Bibliolhecarius. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Papsttums im neunten Jahrhunderi (Berlin, 1920), pp. 44–52 Google Scholar. — There exists a more recent biography of Pope Nicholas I, that by Haller, J., Nikolaus I und Pseudoisidor (Stuttgart, 1936)Google Scholar. The value of Haller's book lies in its general thesis which is opposed to the traditional view. In his attractive style Haller argues that however high the ambitions of Pope Nicholas may have been, he was unable to carry into effect most of his program. There is some truth in this contention, but one need not follow Haller in his further conclusion that because of this the personality of Nicholas has been overestimated — “magnis tamen excidit ausis.” See the reviews in Vergangenheit und Gegenwart, XXVII (1937), 451 sq. (P. E. Schramm); Historische Zeitschrift, CLIX (1938/9), 340–342 (Tellenbach); Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte, LV (1936), 688 ssq. (H. Koch); English Historical Review, LIV (1939), 162 sq. (not available). As for the present purpose it is immaterial whether or not Nicholas achieved any given purpose (as long as this purpose itself is certain) and as in most other respects Haller's book is hardly an advance over the careful analysis of Perels, the latter's work will be used in the following discussion.

28 Liber Pontificalis, ed. L. Duchesne, II, p. 155: (John of Ravenna) “quosdam temere excommunicabat, quosdam autem a visitatione sedis apostolicae avertebat, et quorundam res sine legali iudicio occupabat; necnon et sanctae Romanae aecclesiae plurima praedia auferebat, missos illius spernebat, et gloriam beati Petri apostoli, quantum in se erat, evacuabat.”

29 Epistolae VI, no. 105, p. 616.

30 On this complicated affair as a whole, see Perels, Papst Nikolaus I, p. 53 ssq.

31 Liber Pontificalis, ed. Duchesne, II, p. 160.

32 Epislolae VI, no. 18, p. 284. See also no. 22, p. 287: “Probat hoc Theutgaudi et Guntharii dudum episcoporum legitimus casus, qui pro eo, quod te minime competenter erudiemnt, quin immo, quia praevaricationem tuam tegere argumentis suis et sub quadam ‘usticiae specie fucatis quibusdam exquisitis adinventionibus aequitatem obstruere stuuuerunt, nostra sunt apostolica auctoritate depositi et ab omni episcopatus regimine regulariter sequestrati.”

33 Ibid., p. 285.

34 Ibid.: “Ceteri autera episcopi, qui complices horum, Teutgaudi scilicet et Guntharii, vel sectatores esse feruntur, si cum his coniuncti seditiones, coniurationes vel conspirationes fecerint vel si a capite, id est a sede Petri, illis haerendo dissenserint, pari cum eis damnatione teneantur obstricti. Quodsi cum sede apostolica unde eos principium episcopatus sumpsisse manifestum est, sapere de cetera per semetipsos vel missis ad nos legatis cum scriptis suis se professi extiterint, noverint sibi a nobis veniam non negandam. See also, for the meaning of the argumentum ad hominem, no. 57, p. 360 (A.D. 863): “Nam quod Rothado hodie contigit, unde scitis, quod eras cuilibet non eveniat vestrum?”; no. 58, p. 363 sq. (A.D. 863), directed to Hincmar of Rheims in the affair of Rothad of Soissons): “Privilegia praeterea ab apostolica sede vestrae ecclesiae confirmanda deposcitis, qui tamen nostra privilegia, quantum in vobis est, infirmare satagitis. Portum salutiferum sanctam Romanam ecclesiam appellatis, qui tamen, ne in eo aliqui salventur, quantum potestis, satagere procuratis. Quomodo ergo privilegia tua stare proterunt, si ita privilegia ilia cassentur, per quae tua privilegia initium sumpsisse noscuntur? Aut cuius momenti erunt tua, si pro nihilo nostra pendantur? Si namque sal infatuatum fuerit, in quo salietur?; no. 71 p. 398 (A.D. 865, same affair): “Neque enim tam stolidus tamve poterit a rationis tramite devius inveniri, qui ceteris ecclesiis privilegia servari et soli Romanae ecclesiae adimi debere perhibeat, quae omnium ecclesiarum magistra, mater et caput est.” Perels, Papst Nikolaus I, p. 252, has shown that such passages were dictated by Anastasius Bibliothecarius.

35 Epistolae VI, no. 23, p. 288 (A.D. 863), to Lothar II: “Porro scias, quia relatum est nobis, quod, quicumque ad episcopatum in regno tuo provehendus est, nonnisi faventem tibi permittas eligi. Idcirco apostolica auctoritate sub divini iudicii obtestatione iniungimus tibi, ut in Treverensi urbe et in Agrippina Colonia nullum eligi patiaris, antequam relatum super hoc fiat nostro apostolatui.

36 Reginonis Abbatis Prumiensis Chronicon, ed. Kurze, F. (Hannover, 1890), anno 865, p. 83 Google Scholar.

37 Annales Bertiniani, anno 864, ed. G. Waitz, p. 68: “domnus Nicolaus, qui dicitur papa et qui se apostolum inter apostolos adnumerat totiusque mundi imperatorem se facit etc.”

38 Ibid., p. 69 sq.; Annales Fuldenses, ed. F. Kurze (Hannover, 1891), anno 863, p. 61.

89 Ibid., “nee nostrae vilitatis personam attendentes, sed omnem nostri ordinis universitatem, cui vim inferre conaris, prae oculis habentes.” Ruodolfus, the author of the part of the A nnales Fuldenses, copies a somewhat more elaborate version of the manifesto where they accuse Nicholas of favoring their enemies and adds this characteristic clause: “sciesque nos non tuos esse, ut te iactas et extollis, clericos quos ut fratres et coepiscopos recognoscere, si elatio permitteret, debueras.”

40 See the preface to the manifesto preserved in the Annales Bertiniani, loc. cit., p. 68 sq.

41 Upon his return from Rome, Gunthar ignored the deposition and continued to act as archbishop of Cologne (Epistolae VI, no. 26, p. 291; no. 39, p. 313) whereas Thietgaud and the other participants in the synod of Metz submitted to the Pope. A.D. 864 the two archbishops proceeded to Rome in the hope of being restored, but they did not achieve anything (Annales Bertiniani, anno 864, p. 74). In 867 Lewis the German intervened in their favor, but Nicholas remained adamant (nos. 52 and 53, pp. 338–351). It would seem that Pope Hadrian II was contemplating a restoration of Gunthar, but nothing came of it (Epistolae VI, no. 25, p. 731, with the notes of the editor) and in 870 the old archbishop wrote a pitiful letter to the Pope in which he regretted his former actions (“considerans meorum multitudinem delictorum”) and asked the Pope to confirm a certain Willibert as his successor (Epistolae VI, no. 5, pp. 246–249).

42 Epistolae VI, no. 31, p. 300.

43 Above notes 37, 38; Rudolf us of Fulda who wrote the pertinent chapter in the year 863 itself (cf. the edition of Pertz and Kurze, p. 57, note 2) leaves it to his readers to decide whether the Pope or the deposed archbishop were right. His neutral attitude probably reflects that of the court at Regensburg.

44 Epistolae VI, no. 52, p. 339 (A.D. 867, to Lewis the German): “Sed nunc pro reconciliandis Theulgaudo et Gunthario, totius huius mali fabricatoribus, satagitis, curritis, anxiamini et nobis crebro id ipsum mittere minime recusatis; quosque nescio quomodo amaricatos appelletis, dum certe illi pene cotidie potum amaritudinis propinare nobis non desinunt; nam quotiens eorum facti memoria inter aliorum dura quaeque nobis ingerentium infert, totiens nos absque multi meroris amaritudine remanere nequimus.” The words “eorum facti memoria inter aliorum dura quaeque nobis ingerentium” might be taken to refer to Lothar II and Waldrada, but the parallel letter to the German bishops makes it probable, I think, that the alii dura guaegue nobis ingerentes are members of an ecclesiastical opposition, cf. ibid., no. 53, p. 348: “Sint (i.e., Gunthar and Thietgaud) interim in signum et in portentum omnibus, quos vel ipsi deceperunt vel quibus audatiam persistendi in nequitia praestiterunt.” It could hardly be said that Gunthar and Thietgaud gave Lothar and Waldrada “audatiam in nequitia persistendi.”

45 Epistolae VI, no. 53, p. 346 (A.D. 867): “vel qualiter ordinationi Dei in beato Petro ecclesiae Romanae collatae restiterint et contra privilegia sedis eius capitula obtrectationum conscripserint et per totum pene occidentale clima disseminaverint.”

46 Migne, Patr. Gr., CII, col. 737 C and D (see V. Grumel, Les Regestes des actes du patriarcat de Constantinople, I, fasc. II (Chalcedon, 1936), no. 481): .

47 On this case, see Perels, Nikolaus I, 99–113, and the important memoir of Hincmar concerning the privileges of metropolitan bishops edited for the first time by E. Perels, ‘Eine Denkschrift Hinkmars von Reims im Prozess Rothads von Soissons,” Neues Archiv, XLIV (1922), 43–100 = M. G. H., Epislolae, VIII, no. 160, pp. 122–140.

48 See for instance Epistolae VI, no. 55, p. 354; no. 58, p. 363; no. 64, p. 376 (all these letters date from A.D. 863).

49 The Liber Pontificalis (II, p. 163) says that Rothad was restored “ne talia sacerdotes et maxime sedem apostolicam appellantes ultra discrimina paterentur.”

50 I am using Hincmar's letters in the hitherto anonymous edition which has begun to appear in M. G. H., Epistolae, VIII, fasc. 1 (Berlin, 1939) no. 169 (A.D. 864) pp. 157 sq.

51 Perels, Nikolaus I, pp. 132–141.

52 Hincmar instructs his emissary, the archbishop Egilo of Sens, to point out to the Pope that his policy of invalidating earlier decisions and of humoring the secular powers will weaken not only the bishops but also the Apostolic See; the Pope is also to be reminded of the way in which Gunthar of Cologne had taken his excommunication (Hincmar of Reims, Epistolae VIII, no. 186, p. 193).

53 Mansi, XV, col. 795 D: … “exoramus magnificam beatitudinem, ut sapientissima indagine consideratis utriusque partis relatis, more beatissimorum praedecessorum vestrorum, quae de statu sacri pontificalis ordinis ab eis statuta et impraevaricabili auctoritate firmata sunt, ut immota de cetero maneant, mucrone apostolico quorumcumque metropolitanorum temeraria praesumptione suppressa, quin etiam reliquorum episcoporum quorumcumque, seu quantorumcumque, audaci conniventia penitus summota, privilegia et decreta servari innovata constitutione decernatis: ita ut nee vestris nee futuris temporibus praeter consultum Romani pontifici de gradu suo quilibet episcoporum deiciatur etc.”

54 Heinrich Schrörs, Hinkmar, Erzbischof von Reims, Freiburg i. Br., 1884, p. 288, note 74: “Haec quidam episcopi conscientia sua mordente inseri fecerunt, quod sincere Byzanpropter scandalum penitus non reiecerunt.” This is one of the famous marginal notes in the Cod. Laudun. 407 which may go back to Hincmar himself, see E. Perels, “Die Briefe Papst Nikolaus I,” Neues A rchiv, XXXVII (1912), esp. 557–562. However that may be, this complaint seems to show that its writer considered the passage as a genuine (though regrettable) utterance of the Synod of Troyes. It has not been noted, however, that in his confirmation of the Synod of Troyes Pope Hadrian n does not mention our passage (Epistolae VI, no. 3, p. 699 sq.). On this problem, see Amann, Epogue Carolingienne, p. 393.

55 Perels, Nikolaus, p. 140.

56 Annales Bertiniani, anno 867, p. 89: “Nicolaus vero papa gratanter suscipiens quae Hincmarus scripserat ei, de omnibus sibi satisfactum esse rescripsit.”

57 Perels, Nikolaus, pp. 166–169.

58 This is said against Haller, Nikolaus, p. 123.

59 Good resumé in Amann, Epogue Carolingienne, pp. 465–483.

60 Epistolae VI, no. 100, p. 601, Cf. also ibidem, no. 90, p. 509 (A.D. 866); no. 98, p. 563.

61 Ibidem, no. 88, p. 475 (see the parallel passages in the note). Constantinople has not even the same rank as Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch, which are the tres praecipuae ecclesiae (ibidem).

62 Ibid., no. 82, p. 434: “absque Romanae sedis Romanique pontificis consensu nullius insurgentis deliberationis terminus daretur” (for parallel passages from the Frankish letters, see the note ad locum).

63 In the East Nicholas carried out what he had intended to do, it would seem, in the Western Frankish Kingdom. If the Pope had actually investigated into the validity of Hincmar's election (above note 55) and deposed him, the case would have been very much the same. The difference was that Ebbo was dead whereas Ignatius was still alive.

64 Haller, Nikolaus, p. 127, speaks of Nicholas’ successor as of “ein Glückstreffer, der nicht seiner Kunst zu danken war.”

65 Epistolae VII, no. 3, p. 400 sq. On this letter, cf. W. Kremers, Ado von Vienne. Sein Leben und seine Schriften, Diss. Bonn (Steyl, 1911), pp. 43–45.

66 Ibid., p. 401: “Adiuro autem, ut omnibus metropolytis Galliarum haec intimetis, ne, si hie factum fuerit concilium, sic q(uidam?) recuperationem sui status assequantur, ut in derogationem defuncti praesulis prosiliant, etc.”

67 It is with Anastasius’ letter to Ado of Vienne in mind that we ought to read the account of the curious scene Liber Pontificalis, ed. Duchesne, II, 176 sq. When Hadrian thanked God that he had given the Church a man such as Pope Nicholas, the audience praised him for fulfilling, not tearing up the will of his father (Nicholas) and for following his decrees.

68 Epistolae VI, no. 3, p. 700. Part of this letter agrees word for word with the above mentioned letter of Anastasius to Ado.

69 Ibid., no. 13, pp. 713–715 (A.D. 868). Same attitude in Photian affair, see ibid., no. 37, P. 747; no. 38, p. 749; no. 39, p. 751 (all of A.D. 868); no. 41, p. 761 (A.D. 871).

70 When Hadrian II (Epistolae VI, no. 7, p. 705, A.D. 868) refused to take up the case of the deceased Ebo of Rheims — a case which might have led to the deposition of Hincmar of Rheims — he was following the policy of the late Nicholas (above p. 279).

71 On this affair, see Schrörs, Hinkmar, pp. 315–353.

72 Epistolae VI, no. 14 and 15, pp. 715 sq.

73 Only fragments of these letters are preserved, see ibid., no. 20, p. 724 (A.D. 869) and the King's indignant references to papal letters quoted in the note ad locum.

74 Epistolae VI, nos. 29, 30, p. 734 sq. (A.D. 871).

75 Ibid., nos. 34 and 35, pp. 739–742 (A.D. 871).

76 Ibid., no. 36, p. 745 sq. (A.D. 872).

77 One cannot help wondering whether this is not an invitation to make Hincmar of Laon refuse to come. The secret instructions mentioned in the next sentence of the letters must have reassured the King even further that Hadrian had dropped Hincmar of Laon.

78 Annales Fuldenses, anno 871, p. 74. See Calmette, La Diplomatic Carolingienne etc., pp. 134–143.

79 German and French scholars disagree (and will always disagree) as to the reason of preferring Charles the Bald to a member of the Eastern branch. For the German side, see Dummler, Geschichte des Ostfränkischen Reichs (2nd ed.), II (Leipzig, 1887) 349 sq.; for the French side, A. Lapôtre, L'Europe et le Saint Siège à l'époque carolingienne, premère partie: Le Pape Jean VIII (872–882) (Paris, 1895), ch. v.

80 Lapôtre, Europe, p. 259, speaks of “l'alliance de l'Empire et de la papauté”

81 Epistolae VII, no. 3, p. 315 sq.

82 For details, see Schrörs, Hinkmar, pp. 358–376.

83 The first real conflict between Papacy and Eastern German church occurred i n 866–67 when a papal mission ousted the Bavarians from Bulgaria. Why were there no clashes before and why did they happen then? Lewis the German had been the ally of the Emperor, Lewis II, from 857 on (Calmette, Diplomatic Carolingienne, p. 34) and the Pope could hardly afford to offend the ally of his protector. It seems furthermore that the long and prosperous reign of Lewis the German had unified the Eastern Kingdom to such an extent that the Pope realized the difficulty of an attack against the Eastern Frankish Church. Since 865, however, papal relations with Lewis the German had deteriorated (von Schubert, Die sogenannien Slavenapostel, p. 11) and there is a possibility that already in 867 A.D. Pope Nicholas had considered the transfer of the imperial dignity to Charles the Bald (Perels, Papst Nikolaus, p. 148).

84 For the Anglo-Saxon mission, see von H. von Schubert, Geschichte, I, 263–287; Caspar, E., Geschichle des des Papsttums von den Anfängen bis zur Höhe der Weltherrschaft (Tübingen, 1933), II, 676–688 Google Scholar; R. Aigrain, in A. Fliche, and V. Martin, Histoire de l'Eglise V (Paris, 1938), 277–328.

85 Caspar, Papsttum, p. 862, and note 1.

86 On St. Boniface, see Schubert, Geschichte, I, pp. 299–305; Caspar, Papsttum, II, pp. 694–723.

87 von Schubert, Geschichte, II, pp. 501–510; Amann, Epoque carolingienne, pp. 247–255, 447–150.

88 Epistolae V, no. 11, pp. 68–70 (ca. A.D. 822). See von Schubert, Geschichle, II, p. 504.

89 Curschmann, F., Die älteren Papsturkunden des Erzbistums Hamburg, etc. (Hamburg und Leipzig, 1901), p. 13, no. 1aGoogle Scholar.

90 Vita Anskarii, ed. G. Waitz (Hannover, 1884), ch. 23, p. 48 sq.: “Qui primo quidem fortiter his reniti coepit, iustum non esse multipliciter asserens, ut scdes suffraganeain archiepiscopalem verteretur, nee se debere honorem sedis sui (sic!) in aliquo minuere.”

91 Ibidem, p. 49: “postremo tamen, et ipsis regibus et cunctis simul episcopis ibi aggregatis, pro hoc ipso eum rogantibus et omnino causa necessitatis id licitum fore dicentibus, respondit, si apostolica auctoritate firmaretur, ex se quoque ratum esse.”

92 On this point, see Hauck, A., Kirchengeschichle Deulschlands (Leipzig, 1890), II, pp. 625 sq., note 6Google Scholar.

93 Epistolae VI, no. 26, p. 291 sq. (A.D. 864): “Ut episcopus Bremonensis, licet a Gunthario hasc non potuerit dari licentia nee ab eo tale quid peti debuerit, tamen pro amore domni regis, quia pia est eius petitio, cum nostra auctoritate in praedicto loco Bremon potestatem et honorem archiepiscopatus super Danos et Swevos habeat et simili modo sui successores per tempora futura perpetualiter teneant atque possideant.”

94 It might be argued that in 864 the Pope deposed Gunthar of Cologne and that this circumstance would explain his remark. I grant that in 864 Pope Nicholas would have used almost any argument to slight Gunthar, but even then he can hardly have blamed the archbishop of Cologne for an action which he had taken when he was still archbishop, and Ansgar and Lewis the German for requesting such action, unless this action itself, in the view of the Pope, lay outside the reach of an archbishop of Cologne.

95 Curschmann, Die älteren Papsiurkunden, no. 4a, p. 21: “magnorum principum uotum Hludouuici, uidelicet diuae recordationis augusti et aequiuoci eius filii excellentissimi regis, tarn huius apostolicae auctoritatis praecepto, quam etiam pallii datione, … roborare decreuimus.” The word uotum is used again with regard to the royal decision, see p. 22: “nostro hoc uotum roborante decreto,” p. 23: “secundum reuerendissimi regis Hludouuici uotum.”

96 Ibidem, p. 23: “Nullus uero archiepiscopus Coloniensis ullam sibi deinceps in eadem diocesi uindicet potestatem … . Itaque omnia a dilecto filio nostro, rege Hludouuico, ad hoc deo dignum oflicium deputata, nostra etiam pia eius vota auctoritate firmamus. Et quia casus praeteritorum nos cautos faciunt in futurum, omnem quoque adversantem uel contradicentem atque piis nostris his studiis quolibet modo insidiantem, anathematis mucrone percutimus atque perpetuae ultionis reum diabolica sortedamnamusetc.” The first part of this document (down to muniamus) is genuine, Schmeidler, B., Hamburg-Bremen und Nordost-Europa vom 9. bis 11. Jahrhundert etc. (Leipzig, 1918), pp. 128–159 Google Scholar.

97 The existence of this letter, of which only a fragment is preserved, has been proved by Schmeidler, Hamburg-Bremen, pp. 143–151, 248 sq.; see Curschmann, Die älteren Papsiurkunden, no. 4a, p. 23: “Ueruntamen ista omnia superius annexa ab apostolica sede beatitudini tuae indulta agnosce, si a fide et decretis sanctae catholicae et apostolicae Romanae ecclesiae in nullo penitus declines. Quod si a fide et institutis aut sanctionibus te tanto sublimantis honore sedis apostolicae declinare studiose praesumseris, his nostris tibi collatis careas benefeciis.”

98 For details, see Lapôtre, L'Europe et It Saint-Siège, pp. 47–58; von Schubert, Geschichtt, II, 514–518; Amann, Epoque Carolingienne, pp. 476–482; Perels, Popst Nikolaus, pp. 160–164; Dvorník, Slaves, ch. VI, pp. 184–195.

99 On the date, see Ostrogorsky, G., Geschichte des Byzanlinischen Staatcs, ein Byzanlinisches Ilandbuch im Rahmen des Handbuches des Altertumswissenschaft (Munich, 1940), p. 161 Google Scholar, note 1, and the references.

100 Annales Bertiniani, anno 866, ed. Waitz, p. 85 sq.; Annales Fuldenses, anno 866, p. 65.

101 Liber Pontificalis, ed. L, Duchesne, II, 164. The demand for bishops is mentioned Annales Bertiniani, loc.cit

102 Annales Bertiniani, p. 86; Annales Fuldenses, p. 65.

103 Epistolae VI, no. 99, pp. 568–600.

104 Liber Pontificalis, loc. cit.

105 It is probable that this humiliation in Bulgaria made Ermenrich of Passau particularly violent when he tried another papal missionary who had interfered with a Bavarian mission, Methodius.

106 Caspar, Geschichte, II, 691–694, 703–706; H. Löwe, Die karolingische Reichsgründung und der Südoslen. Sludien zum Werden des DeutsMums und seiner Auseinandersetzung mit Rom, Forschungen zur Kirchen- und Geistesgeschichte XIII, Stuttgart, 1937, esp. ch. I (see the review by H. W. Klewitz, Historische Zeitschrift, CLXI [1940], 341–344).

107 Hauck, Kirchengeschichte, I, 336.

108 Hauck, Kirchengeschichte, I, 337–343; Caspar, Geschichte, II, 692; Löwe, Karolingische Reichsgründung, p. 6.

109 Migne, Patr. Lat., LXXXIX, 332 B.C. See Brackmann, Germania Pontificiia, I, pt. 2, p. 387, note 1; Caspar, Geschichte, II, 692–694. Against Caspar who states that “dieses Reorganisationsstatut für die bairische Kirche ging mit Schweigen über alle bisher dort tatigen wanderbischöftichen Kräfte weg,” I should like to point out that by considering the possibility of finding a suitable candidate for the future Bavarian archbishopric in the Duchy itself the Pope must have thought precisely of these Wanderbischöfe.

110 This development is well described by Löwe, Karolingische Reichsgründung, pp. 9–71. See also a very important article of A. Brackmann, “Die Anfänge der abendländischen Kulturbewegung in Osteuropa und deren Träger,” Jahrbücher für Geschichle Osleuropas, III (1938), 185–215, esp. pp. 187 sq.

111 Caspar, Geschichte, II, 704–706. Later attempts of the same type, ibid., pp. 710 sq., 714.

112 Löwe, Karolingische Reichsgründung, pp. 60–72.

113 The extent of Bavarian missionary activity has been exaggerated by Löwe, Karolingische Reichsgründung, pp. 51–55, 73, see Brackmann, Abendländische Kulturbewegung, p. 188 sq.

114 See the articles of A. Brackmann, “Die Anfänge der Slavenmission und die Renovatio Impcrii des Jahres 800,” Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-Hist. Klasse, 1931, IX (brief résumé in his “Reichspolitik und Ostpolitik im frühen Mittelalter,” ibid., 1935, XXXII, csp. pp. 946–949) and the other article quoted above note 110. In this last article Brackmann has refuted the objections of Löwe, Karolingische Reichsgründung, pp. 72–86.

115 It will be remembered (above note 95) that in A.D. 864 Lewis the German was to submit a mere votum (not a mandalum) that Pope Nicholas confirm the archbishopric of Hamburg. This change from mandatum to votum characterizes the shift which had taken place in the relations between Papacy and Franks since the time of Charlemagne.

116 Epistolae V, no. 4, p. 59 sq. = W. Hauthaler, and F. Martin, Salzburger Urkundenbuch, II, fasc. 1 (Salzburg, 1910), no. 2 b, p. 4 sq. (Brackmann, Germania Pontificia, I, pt. 1, p. 9, no. 9): “ … vestra a Deo protecta regalis excellentia mandasset nobis per ipsum [Fardolf, abbot of St Denis], quod Arnono episcopo [of Salzburg] pallium tribueremus et in provincia Baiowariorum archiepiscopum constitueremus.”

117 Salzburger Urkundenbuch, pp. 2–4, no. 2 a (Brackmann, Germania Pontificia, I, pt. 1, p. 8 sq., no. 8).

118 Brackmann, Slavenmission, p. 79; Löwe, Karolingische Reichsgründung, p. 84; Brackmann, Abendländische Kulturbewegung, p. 204.

119 Löwe, Karolingische Reichsgründung, pp. 83–86.

120 Brackmann, Abendländische Kulturbewegung, p. 204: “Sein (the Pope's) Schweigen Uber die Mission als eine der künftigen Hauptaufgaben des neuen Erzbistums erklärt sich aber unschwer aus der politischen Lage. Nach den glänzenden Erfolgen Karls im Avarenlande konnte er nicht gut Wünsche und Rechtsansprüche auf dieses Gebiet äussern.”

121 Epistolae V, no. 5, p. 61 =Salzburger Urkundenbuch, no. 2 d, p. 8 (Brackmann, Germania Pontifica, I, pt. 1, p. 9, no. 10): “Sicut enim a sanctorum patrum (sic!) sancta catholica et apostolica Romana ecclesia auctoritatem suscepit, ut in provintia, que Deo auspice in christianitatis more amplicata et dilatata est, licentiam habeat eiusdem ecclesiae apostolicus et vicarius beati Petri apostolorum principis constituere metropolim et ordinare archiepiscopum, ita et in partibus fecimus vestris.” It is curious that Brackmann overlooked this passage: it is the strongest support for his thesis. Löwe, Karolingische Reichsgründung, 85 discusses this letter but does not mention our passage. — It is not impossible that we owe the only independent manuscripts of this letter, the “Rotulus” of the Vienna Haus-, Hof- und Staatsarchiv, to the desire of collecting the evidence against Methodius, see Brackmann, Germania Pontificia, I, pt. 1, p. 5; Salzburger Urkundenbuch, II, fasc. 1, first page of the (unpaginated) introduction.

122 Brackmann, Slavenmission, pp. 80–82; Abendländische Kulturbewegung, pp. 205–208.

123 Conversio Bagoariorum el Carantanorum, ch. 6, M.G.H., SS., XI, 9. On the date, see Dümmler, Ostfränkisches Reich, II, 376, note 1; Wattenbach, W., Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen im Mittelalter etc., I, ed. 7, (Stuttgart and Berlin, 1904), 291 Google Scholar.

124 Ibid., chs. 8–14,, pp. 9–14. The Conversio is a legal plea rather than an historical work (Wattenbach, Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen, p. 291), but the opposition which Methodius found in Pannonia shows that the general thesis presented by the Conversio is correct. See also von Schubert, Die sogenannten Slavenapostel, pp. 15 sq.

125 Above p. 285 f., and Brackmann, Abendländische Kulturbewegung, 208 sq.

126 Above p. 287.

127 See the commonitorium, Epistolae VII, no. 33, p. 352 sq.; it is unquestionably genuine. I abstain from relying on Pope Stephen's letter Quia te zelo (ibidem, pp. 354–358) as its authenticity is doubtful.

128 Dümmler, Ostfränkisches Reich, III, 256–258.

129 Ibid., 362.

130 Ibid., 390–392.

131 Brackmann, Germania Pontificia, I, pt. 1, p. 163 sq., no. 14. I am using the edition of H. Bresslau, in Historische Aufsätze Karl Zeumer … dargebracht, Weimar, 1910, pp. 22–26. German translation of large extracts in Dümmler, Ostfränkisches Reich, III, 510–515. The importance of this document for the papal policy has been emphasized by Laehr, G.,“Das Schreiben Stephans V.an Sventopulk von Mähren,” Neues Archiv für ältere deutsche Geschichtskunde, XLVII (1928), 172.