The Significance of the Missions of Cyril and Methodius, 1964

8/13/2019 The Significance of the Missions of Cyril and Methodius, 1964

1/18

The Significance of the Missions of Cyril and MethodiusAuthor(s): Francis DvornikSource: Slavic Review, Vol. 23, No. 2 (Jun., 1964), pp. 195-211Published by:Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2492930.

Accessed: 31/03/2013 00:07

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studiesis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve

and extend access to Slavic Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 96.242.60.235 on Sun, 31 Mar 2013 00:07:32 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2492930?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2492930?origin=JSTOR-pdf


2/18


3/18

196 SlavicReviewthe Moravians should be dated from the second half of the eighthcentury,when the Iro-Scottishmissions flourishedunder the directionof St. Virgil, the Irish bishop of Salzburg (745-84). At that time Passaualso had an Irish bishop, Sidonius. After Virgil's death, however,Charlemagne appointed as bishop of Salzburg the Benedictine AbbotArn and ordered the Iro-Scottishmonasteries to accept the Benedictinerule. The missionsamong theSlavswere thenceforward irected not byIro-Scottishbut by Frankish clergy.Although it is possible that Christianity had already penetratedsporadically into southern Moravia and the southern part of modernSlovakia at the end of the eighth century, t did not take firm rootamong the Moravians until the first alf of the ninthcentury, speciallyafter the conversionof Rastislav's predecessor Mojmir, which could bedated around 822.4 The biographerof Methodius mentionsthat amongthe Moravian missionaries therewere priests from Italy, Greece, andGermany.Moravian Christianityeven had a species of ecclesiastical organiza-tion before the arrival of the Greek brothers. The biographer ofCyril, when speaking of the Saints' opponents in Moravia, mentionsarkhierei 5 and their disciples. The Slavic word arkhierei wvasgen-erally translated bishops. However, when the biographersof the twobrothers speak of bishops, they use the words episkup- and arkhiepis-kup-s. It is therefore vident that the author of Cyril's life did not onthis occasion have bishops in mind. He was speaking of archpriests,whom the Frankish bishops used to appoint in missionaryterritories.They represented the bishops and directed the organization of thenew ChristianChurches. Archpriestswere most probably instituted nMoravia by the bishop of Passau, who seems to have been most activein the conversionof the Moravians.All this shows that Christianitywas already well established in Mo-ravia in the first alf of the ninth century thanks to Frankish mission-aries. The conversion of pagans could not thereforehave been themain aim of the Byzantine mission in Moravia. Rastislav desired morethan new missionaries. This is also indicated by the biographer ofCyril,who reveals that Rastislav asked for thesending ofa bishop.The new discoveries made in Moravia concerning the spread ofChristianityrender this demand understandable. The young Churchof Moravia had grown,and the Moravian ruler thought that the mo-ment had come when he should have an episcopal organization in hislands. We can deduce froma bull of Hadrian II that Rastislav had

4 We do not know the date of his conversion. In 822 Louis the Pious received envoysfromBohemia and Moravia in Frankfurt Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores, ,209). The submissionofthe Moravians should be dated from he end of the eighthcenturyor the beginningof the ninth. In 805 an expeditionwas made against Bohemia (ibid., p.192). The Moraviansare not mentioned. Submission mpliedChristianization.5 JaaBpOB, op. cit.,p. 28.

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


4/18

The Missions f Cyril nd Methodius 197first pproached Rome with the same request.6Nicholas I (858-67),however,was too dependenton the support of the Franks, nd herejected Rastislav's equest. It was evidentthat the Moravianruler,afterhavingfreedhimself rompolitical dependenceon theFrankishEmpire, ould not tolerate rankishdirection f the young Church.7Rebuffed y Rome, Rastislav urned owardByzantium.The Byzantines id not senda bishopto Rastislav, ut onlyConstan-tine-Cyril,alled thePhilosopher,ne of thebest cholars n Byzantiumat that ime, nd his brotherMethodius, ormerlyn administratorf aSlavicterritorynd thena monk at Mount Olympus n Asia Minor.This, however, oes not mean that Rastislav'sdemand was rejected.The establishmentf a bishopricn Moravia was only postponed ntiltheperiodwhen the new Church hould possess n independent tatuswith tsown iturgy nd a satisfactoryumber f nativeclergy rainedby the cultural mission headed by the two brothers.8 n order toachieve this, Constantine-Cyrilomposed a special alphabet fortheSlavs-called Glagolitic.9 While still in Constantinoplehe began totranslateiturgical ooks nto theMacedonian Slavic idiom,whichhehimself poke nd which ouldbe easilyunderstood t thattimeby allother lavic nations. He continued his ctivity n Moravia,wherehealso trainedyoungmen in Slavic letters.Rastislav eemsto have addressedyet another equest to the Byzan-tines. He musthavebeen aware that fhe wantedto consolidatehisstate further, e mustgive it a good legal code to make possibleitssocial and juridical development.Afterhis break with theFrankshedid notwantto introduceFrankish egal customs nto his land andseems hereforeo haveappealedto theByzantinesor legalcode.There is in Rastislav'smessage o theemperor n indication hathedid this. In theLegendofConstantine-Cyrilchap. 14) he is said tohave asked for the sendingof a good teacher because fromyouthegood law (zakon6) is spreading o all sides. The biographer fMethodiususes insteadof zakon6 the wordpravbda.10his word has

6The Latin textof this bull is not preserved. We have only a Slavonic versionof thedocumentin Methodius' biography (ibid., p. 73). Its genuineness is, however,generallyacceptedby specialists.7 Rastislav could regardhimself as a ruler independentof the Frankish Empire from850 on.8 It can also be imaginedthatPatriarchPhotius postponedsendinga bishop to Moraviain ordernot to alienate even more Pope Nicholas I, who was hesitatingto recognizehimas a legitimatepatriarch. Moravia was a missionary and, but had hithertobeen evange-lized mostlyby clergyof the Roman obedience. The relics believed to be those of St.Clement,the third uccessorof St. Peter in Rome, which the brotherswere bringingwiththem,were calculated to enhance the importanceof the mission and to assure Rastislavthat his demandswould be fulfilled.9The specialistsare now almost unanimous in accepting the thesis that the alphabetinventedby Cyrilwas Glagolitic and not the alphabet used today by the Orthodox Slavs,which s called Cyrillic.10 JJaBpOB, op. cit., pp. 26, 60, 72.



5/18

198 SlavicReviewtraditionally been understood as meaning divine law or doctrine, butit has been shown recently that Rastislav had in mind a handbook ofcivil law as a basis forhis own legislative work. It has also been shownthattheoldest Slavic manual of civil law called Zakon6 sudnyjb 1judem,bis a translation and adaptation of the Byzantine handbook Ecloga andthat the author of this Slavic handbook of civil law was Constantinehimself. 'In this way, therefore, he request of Rastislav was fulfilled. TheByzantinemission seems, however, also to have had a political aspect.Unable to arrest the growth of Rastislav's power, Louis the Germansaw himself forced to seek an ally against the mightyMoravian ruler.He addressed himselfto Boris, the khagan of Bulgaria, who was alsojealous of the growing influence of his neighbor Rastislav. There islittle information vailable about the negotiations between Louis andBoris. They must have started in 862 if not earlier. We learn from aletter sent by Pope Nicholas I in 863 to the bishop of Constance12thatthe Bulgarian khagan was to come to Tulln in order to make arrange-ments for the campaign against Rastislav and that he promised toaccept Frankish missionaries.It seems natural that Rastislav also saw himself forced to look foran ally, not against Louis but against the Bulgars, who had becomeallies of Louis in his anti-Moravian campaign. He must have knownabout the somewhatstrainedrelations between the Bulgarians and theByzantines, who wanted to extend their political and religious in-fluence over Bulgaria. The biographers of the two brothers do notmention the political background of Rastislav's initiative, but this isunderstandable. Byzantine hagiographers were only interested in thereligious deeds of their heroes.It appears that the political aspect of the Moravo-Byzantinealliancewas not forgottenby the Byzantines. Greek chroniclers report that,profiting y difficultieswhich beset Bulgaria because of a bad harvest,a Byzantine armyinvaded the countryand the Byzantine fleet made ademonstrationon the Danube. The result of this interventionwas thecapitulation of Boris. He was forced to abandon the Franks andpromised to accept the Byzantineformof Christianity.13

11For details see J. Vasica's study Origine Cyrillo-Methodiennedu plus ancien codeslave dit Zakon sudnyj, Byzantinoslavica,XII (1951), 154-74; idem, JazykovapovahaZakona sudn6ho, Slavia, XXVII (1958),521-37 a linguistic tudyof the document).12 MGH, Epistolae, VII, 293.13 See F. Dvornik,Les Legendes de Constantinet de Methode vues de Byzance,Supple-

mentI of Byzantinoslavica Prague, 1933), pp. 228 if.; J. Dekan, Zaeiatkyslovenskych ejina Rita vel'komoravskd Bratislava, 1951), p. 80; Franz Grivec, Konstantin und Method:Lehrer der Slaven (Wiesbaden, 1960), p. 55; Zdenek R. Dittrich, Christianity n Great-Moravia (Groningen, 1962), pp. 98 if.,rejectsthe political aspect of the Moravo-Byzantinealliance without giving any reason. His presentation f Rastislav's initiative n Byzantiumcannot be accepted. He minimizesthe results,presenting he Byzantinemission as a greatdisappointment or Rastislav.



6/18


7/18

200 Slavic Reviewtine subjects. The Life of Clement20mentions especially Clement,Laurentius, Angelarius, and others. These clerics probably assistedConstantine-Cyril n the composition of the Slavic alphabet.21 More-over, it was not the custom in Byzantium to send clerics alone on im-perial missions. Some high functionaries usually led the embassy andcared for the security of its members. They would have been chargedto discuss with Rastislav other mattersconsequent on the conclusion ofa kind of alliance. We can imagine that some Byzantine artisans andmerchants lso joined or followed theembassy to the new land.From the description of Constantine's activity n Moravia, it seemsevident that the main object of the Byzantine mission was not conver-sion but rather nstruction. Rastislav is said to have gathered discipleswhom he entrusted to Constantine for instruction. This shows thatChristianitywas well advanced in Moravia, because there were alreadynumerousyoung natives preparing themselvesfor the priesthood.Besides giving instruction,Constantine with his brother and otherassistants ontinuiedhis literary ctivity.Their first im was to give theyoung Church liturgical books in the Slavic language. The Legend ofConstantine reports that Constantine translated the whole Office andMass formulary.This statementopens a problem which is still debatedamong specialists, namely, whether this translation was made fromliturgicalbooks of the Byzantine or Roman rite.The Slavonic text of the Life ofConstantine suggeststhat the Office,thebreviaryfor the clergy,was translated from the Greek original. Thelast part of thebreviary t least is designated by a word (povechernitsa)which is a translationof the Greek term apodeipnon). The problemofthe translationof a Mass formulary s more complicated. The Mora-vians were already accustomed to the Roman Mass formularywhichwas used by the Frankish clergy. It seems that it would not have beengood policy to impose the long Byzantine Mass formularyon nativepriestsand people who were not used to it.We know now that there existed a Greek translation of the LatinMass formulary,which was called by the Greeks the liturgy of St.Peter.22 Some prayersfromthe Byzantinerite were added to this trans-lation. Although the manuscripttradition of this translationcan so far

20 Vita S. Clementis, n Jacques P. Migne, ed., Patrologiae ctursus omnpletus: eriesgraeca (166 vols.; Paris, 1857-66),Vol. CXXVI, col. 1216 (hereafter ited as Mignle,PG).Modern edition by H. H. TyHHu,dii,MaviepiaUmtARUcmPlopiu,U3fU U &lmxbtesUtUocmnuylteitumo06c. Kupupwa Meoodin SergievPosad, 1918), p. 104. A. MaJIeB, d., Teof(6u.zamn:KEzu.teunnxpu0cKuSofia, 1955), p. 60.21 The biographerof Constantinlepeaks of him onlyas the invenltorf the new letters.Both biographersof the brothers mention, however,that other companions lhad joinledConstantine in his prayerfor inspiration. This indicates tlhat there were many younlgclerics n Con-stantinople ho were nterestedn such an enterprise.22 H. W. Codrington-,he LiturgyofSaint Peter (Miinster n W., 1936); J. M. Hanssens,La liturgieromano-byzantine e Saint Pierre, Orientalia ChristionaPeriodica, IV (1935),234-55;V (1939), 103-51. Most important s the study byJ. Vasica, SlovanskA iturgiesv.Petra, Byzazntinoslavica,III (1939-40),1-54,with a resum6 n Latini.



8/18

The Missions f Cyril nd Methodius 201be traced nly o thefirst alfof theninth entury,t is quite probablethat t was alreadyknownduringthe first alfof theeighth enturyamongtheGreeks f outherntaly nd of theeastern artof llyricum.We mustnotforgethat he whole of Illyricumwas,downto theyear732, underthe urisdictionfRome. We can supposethatthis iturgywas known n Thessalonica and thatboth brotherswere acquaintedwith t.It could have been this Greektranslationf the Latin Mass whichwas adapted by Constantinento Old Slavonic. The brothersupple-mented heir ranslationrom he Greekwith thetranslationf partsofa Latin formulary.We come to thisconclusionby comparing heFragments f Kiev, 23 he oldest monument f Slavic liturgy o farknown,with theMass of St. Peter and with Latin formularies hichwereusedby theFrankishmissionariesn Moravia.Further rogress as beenmade in determininghe Latin formularyused by the brothersn theiradaptation.This wvas ot the so-calledSacramentar of Padua, as has been thought,24 ut perhaps rathera for-mularyof Salzburg25which may have been composed by Paulinus II,patriarchof Aquileia. This was used in Salzburg and by the mission-aries in Pannonia and Moravia.

The Byzantineorigin of the translator f the Latin formulary s pre-served in the Fragmentsof Kiev, can be detected in the use of someexpressions current only in the Byzantine liturgy. It has also beenshown26 hat in theGlagolitic Missals still used in some places in Yugo-slavia thereare manyvestigesthat betraythat a greatpart of the Missalwvasranslatedfrom Greek original. The Missals are not ofMoravianorigin,of course, but these vestiges seem to indicate that the Slavonictranslation of the liturgy of the Mass was already known in Dalmatiain the ninth century.There is another problem which preoccupies the Slavic philolo-gistsand historiansof this period. Some think that the brothersonlybecame acquainted with the Greek translationof the Latin Mass-theliturgy fSt. Peter-in Rome in 868. They are supposed to have foundit in Greek monasteriesin Rome, where this liturgywas in use besidethe Byzantine liturgy. The Latin formularywhich theyused in theiradaptation is said to have been found in Veenice,where they stopped23 Cf. V. Jagic,Glagolitica Vienna,1890).24Especially by K. Mohlberg, II messale glagoliticodi Kiev ed il prototipo Romnano,Atti della PontificiaAccademnia omana di Archeologia,Series3, II (Rome, 1928),207-320.25 It is preserved n manuscripts,Munich, Clm 15815a; Vienna, Cod. Vind. Ser. nov.4225; Salzburg Studienbibliothek,Cod. MII, 296. The lattermanuscriptwas published byA. Dold, Neue Blatter des Salzburger Kurzsakramentar, Texte und Arbeiten, XXV(Beuron,1934), 35-48. Idem, Abermalsneue Fragmentedes SalzburgerKurzsakramentars,ibid.,XXVI-XXVIII (Beuron, 1936), 71-98. A new edition is being preparedby K. Gamber.26 Especially by J. Vajs, in his study Mesni Xa'd charvatsko-hlaholskf atikansk6homisalu, Acta Academiae Velehradensis,XV (1939), 89-141. See also Vasica, SlovanskalituLrgie. . Byzantinoslavica, p. 5-10.



9/18

202 Slavic Reviewaftertheirreturn fromMoravia. The translationwould thus have beenmade in Rome.27This theory annot,however,be accepted. The existence of a Greekliturgy of St. Peter is traceable in manuscript tradition at least as farback as the firsthalf of the ninth century. The discovery of the Massformulary fSalzburg showsthat such a formularywas used byFrankishpriests n missionary ands. It originated in Aquileia, it is true, but thisdoes not mean that the brothers could only have found it in the terri-toryof the patriarchate ofAquileia. Moreover, when the brothers eftMoravia after activities there lasting about three years, they did notintend to return to that country. They left Moravia because theyhadgiven theyoung Church there all she needed for an independent exist-ence. This means that theyhad translatednot only the Office nd theGospels but also the Mass into Old Slavonic. How can it be imaginedthat this translation,made in Rome, could have been introduced intoMoravia in the absence of the two brothers? The opposition to theseinnovations which they encountered in Moravia on the part of theFrankishclergy nd in Venice can only be fullyexplained if we acceptthe fact that their opponents knew about the use of the Slavonic lan-guage in theMass. The objection that thebrothers ould not introducesuch an innovation without the consent of Rome is valueless. Thebrotherswere not of the Roman but of the Byzantine obedience andwerefollowing, n their nnovations,the custom of the Eastern Church.This was to give to the nations convertedby Eastern missionaries litur-gical books in theirown language.It is also unwarranted to think that consent to this innovation wasonly given toward the end of 869 by Pope Hadrian II in the bull sentto the Slavic rulers Rastislav, Kocel, and Svatopluk.28 Already in 868the Mass was celebrated in Slavonic in Rome by Methodius and hisdisciples, newly ordained as priests,on the orders of the Pope.29 Thebull only confirmed olemnlywhat had already been approved by thePope at the end of867, when the brothersreached Rome. At that time

27 Cf. F. Zagiba, Neue Probleme in der Cyrillomethodianischen orschung, Ostkirch-liclhe tudien, XI (1962),pp. 112 if. More bibliographical ndications will be found in thisstuidy. See also K. Gamber, Das glagolitischeSakramentarder Slavenapostel Cyrill undMethod und seine lateinischeVorlage, ibid.,VI (1957), 165-73.28 Vita Methodii, chap. 8, in JiaBpOB, op. cit., p. 73.29 Vita Constantini, hap. 17, ibid., pp. 33, 64. It is thus quite possible that the Masswas said by the ordained disciples according to the Roman rite as translated by thebrothers. It seems,however,that Constantine also translated the ByzantineMass formu-laryof St. JohnChrysostom,nd that the so-calledFragmentsof Prague contain a part ofthis translation. The Fragments are now believed to be a part of the EuchologiumSinaiticum comprisingthe liturgical prayersof the Eastern Church. If this is so, thenwe must suppose that the brothers had intended to introduce the whole of the Easternliturgy nto Moravia. Even in this case we are entitled to assume that the translation ofthe liturgy f St. Peterwas made by Constantinebefore he eftfor Rome. This problemwill niot be definitely olved until a new philological examination of the FragmentsofPrague, of the Euchologium,and the Fragmentsof Kiev is made.



10/18

The Missions f Cyril nd Methodius 203he is said to have acceptedthe Slavic liturgical ooks,to haveblessedthemand deposited hem on the altarin the churchof Santa MariaMaggiore.The biographiesf thebrothersayvery ittle bout their ctivitynMoravia. The biographerfConstantine,ftermentioningheopposi-tionof theLatin clergyn Moravia to the iturgical nnovationsnd thevictorious efense f his hero, peaks fConstantine'sffortsoeradicatesome bad pagan customswhich he Latin priests ad leftunchallengedand of hisvindication f the ndissolubilityf Christianmarriage. othbiographersay that hey eftMoravia after stay f fortymonths-theVitaMethodiieduces histo threeyears-in orderto have theirdisci-ples consecrated. hey stopped n the ter-itoryf Kocel, n Pannonia,at his residence t Blatnograd n Lake Balaton. Kocel was the son ofPribina,who had been expelled by Mojmir fromNitra and to whomtheFrankshad entrusted headministrationf this erritory. he pop-ulation,mostly lavic, had alreadybeen converted o Christianity ythe Frankish riests f Salzburg. Pribina and his son had showntheirzeal for he spreadof Christianity y constructing umerous hurches.Kocel becameenthusiasticbout the Slavic iturgy nd letters nd com-mitted boutfiftyoungmen to thebrothers or nstruction.

FromPannonia they eachedVenice,probably n the ate autumnof867. There again Constantine ad to defendhis nnovations gainst hecriticismsoicedby the Latin clergy.Whydidthey top nVenice? Many pecialiststillcontinue ointer-pret heir tay n this ity s a mere topover n their ourney o Rometo obtainfrom hePope sanction or heir nnovationsnd theconsecra-tionoftheir isciples.30 ome think hat hey ried o obtainthisfromthepatriarch fAquileia.31 This interpretation oes not correspondwithwhatwehave earned boutthesending f a Byzantinemission oMoravia.Rastislavhadcertainlynformed he brothershatRomehadrejectedhis requestfor bishop, nd therewas, n 867, no special rea-son whyhe should hope thatRome would be more favorable o his re-neweddemand. He could hardlybe encouragedby the attitudeofNicholas in 864,theyearhe was attackedbyLouis theGerman ndforced o recognizehis sovereignty. he Pope had senthis apostolicblessing o Louis wishinghim success n hiscampaign.32The patriarchfAquileiawasalmostndependentf theFranks, uthecertainly as notcompetento consecrate bishopforMoravia.Thiscouldhave been doneonlybythe Frankish ishopsorbyRome. Thepatriarchouldnot afford o become nvolved n anyconflict iththeFrankishlergyndLouis theGerman.

30 See especiallyGrivec,op. cit., pp. 68 ff.31RecentlyDittrich,op. cit., pp. 151 fF., nd V. Vavfilnek,Die Christianisierung ndKirchenorganisation rossmahrens, istorica,VII (1963),42.32 MGH, Ep., VI, 293.



11/18

204 SlavicReviewIt is more logical to see the stayof the brothers n Venice as beingmotivated by their desire to return to Constantinople by boat. Itseemed an easier route than to travel across the Bulgarian lands. It isalso possible that the news which had reached Moravia from neighbor-ing Bulgaria decided them to avoid a passage through this territory.Boris-Michael,dissatisfiedwith theByzantine missionaries, urned againto the West and, in the second half of 866, sent embassies to Louis theGerman and to Nicholas I with a request for Latin clergy. Before theend of thatyear two bishops, sent by Nicholas, appeared in Bulgaria,and Boris was so well satisfiedwith them that he even sent back the

bishop ofPassau with his priestswho had been dispatched by Louis theGerman.33 By taking a boat in Venice the brothers could reach Byzan-tine territoryn Dyrrhachium, whence they would be able to travelalong the Via Egnatia to Thessalonica and Constantinople.As has been shown,the Byzantineswere willing in 862 to consecratea bishop for Moravia, afterthe mission led by the twobrothershad laidthe foundations for an independent life of this young Church. Thisaim was achieved as a result of theircultural and liturgicalwork duringthree years. They were also able to choose among their Moraviandisciples some who could become religious leaders of that country.After chieving these objects the brotherswere now on their way backto Constantinople.It appears, however, that the eagerness of Kocel to introduce thesenovelties into his country had also interfered with their planning.34They stayed much longer in Pannonia than they had planned andreached Venice in late autumn, when shipping in the Adriatic Seabecame dangerous and was often suspended.35The invitation of the Pope most probably reached them in Venice.It can be imagined that their stay in that cityand the rumor of theirliturgical innovations had stirred the interest of the Italian clergy.Many may have heard of their activities in Moravia from their com-patriotswho had worked there as missionaries. The Vita Constantinimentions the invitation after the account of the disputation wsTithhetrilinguists, the Latin priests who reproached Constantine for hiisinnovation, arguing that holy books should be writtenonly in threelanguages, Greek, Latin, and Hebrew. The Vita Methodii does notspeak about theirstay n Venice and places such a disputation in Rome.Nothing in these most importantsources indicates that the invitationhad reached them in Moravia, as is believed by some historians of the

33 For detailssee Dvorniik, es Slaves, Byzanceet Rom>1e. ., pp. 183 ff.deiiz, The Slays,Their EarlyHistory nzdCivilizationzBoston,1956),pp. 118 if.34 Vita Coanstantinii,hap. 15, n JJaBpOB, op. cit.,pp. 29, 62.33 On the dangers of sea voyages in the Adriatic in the winter see F. Dvornik, ThePhlotian chism Cambridge,Enig., 948), pp. 139,140.



12/18


13/18

206 Slavic ReviewRome when his son Eleutherius abducted and then murdered thePope's daughter and her mother; forHadrian had also been marriedbefore becoming Pope. Arsenius died in March, 868, and Anastasius,although not involved in the affair, ost the favor of the Pope and wasexcommunicated in October, 868. At thebeginning of the summer ofthat year a Byzantine embassy arrived in Rome with the news thatMichael III had been murdered by Basil I, who, on becoming emperor,deposed Photius and reappointed his rival Ignatius as patriarch.These were the troubleswhich obsessed Constantine according to hisbiographer (chap. 18).40 He became ill, took the solemn vows of amonk, adopting the name of Cyril, and died on February 14, 869.Methodius was determinedto return to his monastery n Mount Olym-pus with the body of his brother, but the Pope persuaded him to de-posit the remains in the church of St. Clement.The death ofConstantine-Cyril mplied almost a catastrophefor theByzantine mission in Moravia and Pannonia. What made the situationforMethodius and his disciples even more desperate was their uncer-tainty s to the degree to which the unexpected changes in Byzantiummight nfluencetheattitudeofthe Pope or ofthe new patriarch to theirmission. All decisions seem to have been postponed. Constantine mostprobablydied beforethearrival of the new imperial embassy. This wasto bring the representativesof the rival patriarchs who would appearbefore the Pope for his final decision. They did not arrive until theearly spring. Methodius postponed his departure and awaited furtherdevelopments.41The situation was saved by the direct interventionof Kocel, the Pan-nonian prince. The brothersmust have been in touchwithhim duringtheirstay n Rome. He seems to have learned about the death of Con-stantine-Cyril, ecause thebiographerof Methodius says chap. 8)42 thatKocel dispatchedan embassyto the Pope askinghim to send Methodiusback tohim.Kocel's initiative clarifiedthe heavy atmosphereof uncertainty.ThePope saw in Kocel's readiness to accept Methodius as spiritual head ofhis countryan opportunityof advancing further he realization of thedaring plan of his predecessorNicholas I. This concerned the subordi-nation to direct papal jurisdiction of all lands which had been lostthroughbarbarian invasion or imperial intervention.43Pannonia had

40 Ibid., pp. 34, 65.41 Many studentsof theseevents came to unrealistic conclusionsconcerningthe history

of the two brothersbecause theydid not pay sufficientttentionto eventsin Rome andConstantinople n 868 and 869 and to the dates when the news from the East reachedRome. I tried to clarify his in the shortstudy Sts. Cyril and Methodius in Rome, St.Vladimir'sSeminaryQuarterly New York), VII (1963), 20-30.42 JaBpOB, op. cit., p. 73.43 See for details Dvornik,Les Legendes. . 'pp. 248 ff.; dem, The Photian Schism, pp.91ff.



14/18

TheMissionsf Cyrilnd Methodius 207formed part ftheRoman province f llyricum, hichwas underthedirect urisdiction f Rome before hebarbarian nvasions nd the m-perial decreeof 732. The Greekprovinceswere ost toByzantium,ndPannonia with Noricum was assigned by Charlemagneto Frankishclergy.The Pope sawin Kocel's message heopportunityfregainingPannonia.The plan was discussedwithMethodius. he latter awthat hePopewasready osaveand to promote hefruits f the workofhisbrother,and abhorred he prospect f being nvolved n religious nd politicalmachinations f he should return to Constantinople.He thereforeabandoned the dea of returning omeand put himself t the disposalof thePope to promote is policy.So it happenedthat Methodiuswas sent as papal legate to Kocel,Rastislav, nd his nephew Svatopluk with the famous papal bull44approving he Slavic iturgy, hichwas intended o act as a bond tyingtheir ountries ogethernd to Rome. He disclosedto them also thePope's plan to erect new hierarchical rganizationn their ountriesindependent f the Frankish ishops nd directly ependent n Rome.After ecuring he approvalof the papal plan from he Slavic rulers,Methodius eturned o Romeandwasordained rchbishop f Sirmium(Srem),whichhad been the see of themetropolitanfWestern llyri-cum beforethebarbarian nvasions. Methodius' urisdictionwas ex-tended verPannoniaandMoravia.In making uch a sweeping ecisionHadrian II seemsto have over-estimatedhe powerof the Slavic princes. At the same time he under-estimated he powerfulposition of the Franks n Pannonia and thedetermination f the Frankishhierarchy o defend their rights verthat erritory. e can detect he echowhich his nterventionrovokedamong the Frankishhierarchyn the documentwhich theypresentedto Louis theGerman n 870.45 It gives clearpicture f the progress fChristianitynPannoniaunderthedirection f the Frankish ierarchyduring heprevious eventy ears, nd, in spiteof some exaggerations,itconstitutesmostmportant ocument or hehistory f this ountry.At the same time the Frankishbishopsmade a direct attack onMethodius. He was seized when he entered Pannonia or Moravia,accusedofbeingan intruder, ondemned ya local synod f the Frank-ishbishops, nd interned n a monasteryn Swabia.46Political compli-cationsfacilitatedheirbrutal ntervention.vatopluk, esirous f be-coming ulerofGreatMoravia,madean alliance with the Frankswho

44 VitaMethodii, n JaBpOB, op. cit., p. 73.45 It is the famous ConversioBagoariorum et Carantanorum, ed. M. Kos (Ljubljana,1936). See also thestudyof Paul J. Alexander, The Papacy, the Bavarian Clergy, nd theSlavoinic Apostles, The Slavonic Year-Book,Vol. XX (1941) of The Slavonic and EastEuropean Review, pp. 266-93.46 It seems to have been the monastery at Ellwangen. See the bibliography on thisproblem n Grivec,op. cit.,p. 100.



15/18

208 Slavic Reviewseized Rastislav. Deprived of his sight and condemned by Louis theGerman, the unfortunateprince died in a Bavarian prison.Only in 873 was the next Pope John VIII able to learn what had hap-pened. Thanks to his interventionMethodius was freed47 nd receivedby Svatopluk, who, after betrayinghis Frankish allies and annihilatingtheir army,had become once more an independent and powerful ruler(871). Although the Pope continued to regard Methodius as archbishopof Pannonia and Moravia, his jurisdiction was practically limited toMoravia, especially after the death of Kocel (probably in 876).It was possibly the opposition of the Frankish clergy against theSlavic liturgy hat nfluencedSvatopluk's attitude. Although he allowedthe Slavic liturgy to spread, he himself preferredthe Latin Mass, andhe weakened the position of Methodius by asking John VIII to ordainone of his councilors, the German Wiching, as bishop of Nitra.In spite of these difficulties, hich were aggravated by the intriguesof Wiching, who had accused him in Rome, Methodius did not aban-don the practice of the Slavic liturgy-again confirmedby John VIII in880-and he continued the literary activity of his deceased brother.Methodius' biographer (chap. 15) and John the Exarch, a Bulgarianecclesiastical writer of the tenth century, sserted that Methodius hadtranslated all the books of the Old Testament, with the exception ofthe books of Maccabees. This report, although doubted by many spe-cialists, s now confirmedby the research of J. Vajs,48who has found inthe Glagolitic breviaries used in Dalmatia, lessons from the Old Testa-ment which show that a Slavonic translationof the Old Testament fromthe Greek made during the Moravian period did in fact exist.In order to give his Church a handbook of canon law, Methodiustranslatedthe Byzantine collection of John Scholasticus, called Syna-goga of FiftyTitles. 49 According to his biographer he also translateda Greek patericon, The Books of theFathers, and composed homilies,one of which seems to be preserved in the collection called GlagolitaClozianus.50 Thus Methodius completed the cultural and religiousworkofhis brotherand left rich cultural inheritanceto his Slavs.These cultural treasures, lthough intended in the first lace fortheMoravians, could not be enjoyed and further cultivated by them.Methodius died April 6, 885, and his work in Moravia was almostentirely destroyed by the intriguesof Wiching. The latter, probablyexcommunicated by Methodius on account of disobedience to his

47 Cf. the letters ent byJohnVIII to the Bavaarian-lishops thlough a legate in AIGH,Ep., VII, 280-81.48 For dletails ee J. Vajss edlitionof Dobrovskf's biograplhy f the brotlhels,Cyril aMetod (Prague, 1948),pp. 143-53.49 H. F. Schmid,Die Nomnokanonuibersetzunges Methlodius Leipzig, 1922). pp. 47 ff.,89, 114; W. Lettenbauer, Eine lateinischeKanonensammlung n MThrell im 9. Jahrhull-dert, Orientalia ChristianaPeriodica,XVIII (1952),246-69.50 See A. Dostal, Clozianus (Prague, 1959),pp. 124-44.



16/18

The Missions fCyril nd Methodius 209metropolitan, eached Rome and succeeded n obtainingunderfalsepretences romPope StephenVI the condemnation f the use of theSlavicliturgy.He didnot obtainfrom he Pope his own appointment s archbishopofMoravia,but actedas suchwhenhe returned o that ountry.Thereisa strong robability hathe useda forged apal bull in orderto winoverSvatoplukfor hostileactionagainst the disciples of Methodius,especiallyGorazd,whomMethodiushad recommended s his successor.Profitingn all probability y theabsence of Svatopluk,who may havebeen on a military xpedition,Wiching mprisoned he most promi-nent disciples of the late archbishop before the papal legate hadarrived. We learn on thisoccasion that Svatopluk's rmy ncluded acontingent f Germanmercenaries ho, on Wiching's rders, xpelledfromMoravia the disciplesofByzantine rigin-Clement,Angelarius,Laurentius, nd others.51The Lifeof one of these,Naum, relateshowsome Slavic clericshad even beensold into slavery n Venice and werefreedby a high official f the Byzantine mperor,who had learnedabout their ad fate.In spite of this persecution t cannot be supposedthat all tracesofMethodius'work n Moraviahad vanished. ManySlavic clericsmayhave survived he persecution,rotected y nobleswho favored heuseof theSlavic iturgy.There was stillhope thatMethodius' nheritancecouldbe preservednd cultivatedn Moravia. Wichingwasfinallyx-pelled by Svatopluk 892) and MojmirII, Svatopluk's uccessor 894),obtainedfrom ope John X theordination fan archbishopnd threebishops. t is mostprobablethatGorazd, Moravianby birth,whohadbeen educated first y the Frankishmissionariesnd then by Metho-dius, ndwhohadsurvivedhepersecution, ecame the successorf hismaster.The invasion f theMagyars,whohad established hemselvesinmodernHungary nd hlad verrun annoniaand Moravia,however,putan unhappy nd (about 906) to thehopeswhich he newecclesiasti-calreorganizationfMoraviahadprovoked.This was,however, ottheend. The realsignificancefthemissionofSS. Constantine-Cyrilnd Methodiusforthe culturaldevelopmentoftheSlavsbecameapparent nly fter he Moraviancatastrophe.hedisciples of the tw7o rothers,expelled fromMoravia, found a cordialreception n Bulgaria. They saved mostof the cultural treasuresn-herited rom he twobrothersnd continued oadd to themnumerousotherworks n Slavic. The BulgariankhaganBoris-Michael sed theSlavonic iturgy o strengthenhe independence f his Church. TheByzantinesnderstoodts mportance etter hanRome.When Metho-

51 For dletails ee Dittrich, op. cit., pp. 270 ff. However, not all of his presentationofthis affair an be acceptecl. The Greek Life of St. Clement is the main source for thesehappenings, Migne,PG, Vol. CXXVI, cols. 1192 ff.Modern edition by TynHicAKii, op. cit.,pp. 1-144. Edition by MH.ies, op. cit., pp. 54 ff. The Life of Naum was published byJanpOn, op. cit., pp. 183 ff.



17/18

210 SlavicReviewdius visited Constantinople in 882, he was asked byPatriarch Photius toleave in the capital copies of Slavic liturgical books and a Slavic priestwith a deacon. This small Slavic center in Constantinople was rein-forced n 885, when otherdisciples of Methodius, freedfromslaverybya Byzantine official, eached Constantinople. It can be imagined thatthis kindof Slavic centersupplied Greek religious literature to Clementand his companions fortranslation nto Slavic with the encouragementof Byzantine political and religious authorities. The Byzantines,neverhostile to the introduction of national vernaculars into the liturgy,understood only too well how to utilize the fruits f Cyril's and Metho-dius' mission in Moravia for their own advantage. Seeing that for thetime being at least they could not extend their political dominationover Bulgaria, they did however bring the new Christian nation undertheircultural influence.So it happened that the golden age of Slavonic literature was thereign of Boris' successor,Tsar Symeon in the tenth century. Symeon,who was educated in Constantinople, wanted to have most of the Byzan-tine literature with which he became acquainted translated into Sla-vonic. The two Slavonic schools in Preslav and Ochrida rivaled eachother in producing Slavic treatises and translations from the Greek.The Byzantine mission to Moravia had brought forthprodigious fruitin Bulgaria.52 The Bulgarians were also to transmit this cultural in-heritance to Serbia.It seemed, in the tenthcentury,that similar fruitswould also ripenin Bohemia. Many Slavic clerics found refugein that country aftertheMoravian catastrophe. Slavonic literature continued to be cultivatedin Bohemia and some of the best works of the Moravian period-espe-cially the Lives of Constantine-Cyril and Methodius-were saved.Other original works were produced in Slavonic-the Lives of St.Wenceslas,St. Ludmila, and St. Procopius-and translationswere madefrom the Latin-the Lives of SS. Guy, Benedict, Apollinaris, PopeStephen, and others. Unfortunately, he centralizingtendencieswhichmanifestedthemselves n Rome, especially under GregoryVII (1073-85), put an untimely end to this development. At the end of theeleventh centurythe Slavonic liturgy,which existed in Bohemia sideby side with the Latin, disappeared, and only Latin continued to beused by Bohemian writers.At the same time there disappeared also thelast traces of the Moravian Slavonic inheritance in southern Poland,whichhad been part of Great Moravia. Gorazd with some of his clergyseems to have taken refugethere. His name at least was found in theremnants of a calendar in Wislica, where he is marked as a saint.The greatest profitfrom the Moravian Bulgarian and Bohemian in-heritancewas realized by the Eastern Slavs. Almost all Slavonic literary

52 I have given a review of literary ctivityn Slavic lands to the end of the thirteenthcenturyn mybook The Slays,Their Early History nd Civilization,pp. 147 ff.



18/18

TheMissionsfCyril ndMethodius 211products f Bohemia n the tenth nd eleventh enturies re preservedinRussianmanuscripts.53his indicates hat t thatperiod the contactbetween the Slavic clergy f Bohemia and of Kiev must have beenlively. Books written n Slavonic had reached Kiev soon after thebaptism of Vladimir (989). The ByzantineChurch used the samnemethodsn theChristianizationf the EasternSlavsas it used in Bul-garia.When this atter ountry adagain become Byzantine rovince,manySlavic clerics ettled n Kiev,bringingwith them books in Sla-vonic. These laid the foundationsn which he Russiansof Kiev builttheirmposing iterarymonuments. hey excelledmainly n historicalcompositions.The PrimaryRussianChronicle howsthat n this re-spect heywereable even to surpass heirByzantinemasters.Veryfewnationspossess s manymedievalchronicles nd annals as the EasternSlavs.The Igor Tale also showshow well Slavonicpoetry ould develop.This short ketch f the culturaldevelopment f theSlavicnationsin the Middle Ages seemsnecessary o show the real significancef themission f thetwo Greekbrothers. ts aim in Moraviawas,above all,cultural. n spiteof so many etbacks he workofthebrothers id notperishntheruins ftheGreatMoravianEmpire. Itwas savedbytheirdisciples nd became the basis onwhich he eastern nd southern lavswereto build their iteraturend cultureunderByzantine nspiration.

53 Cf. F. Dvornik, Les Benedictins et la christianisation e la Rtussie, L'Eglise et lesLglises (Clhevetogne,954), pp. 323-49.

Documents

The Significance of the Missions of Cyril and Methodius, 1964