Byzantine missions among the Slavs. SS. Constantine-Cyril and Methodius

Francis Dvornik


IV. The Byzantine Mission in Moravia


Reasons for not sending a bishop to Moravia—Byzantine liturgy in Moravia—The Three Folios of Sinai and the Euchologium of Sinai—The Leaflets of Kiev—The liturgy of St. Peter—The Leaflets of Vienna and of Prague—When did the liturgy of St. Peter replace the liturgy of Chrysostom?—Character of the Slavonic translation of the Euchologium—Constantine’s method in the translation of the Gospels—Constantine’s Proglas to the Gospels—Pastoral activity of the brothers—Moravian churches with semi-circular apses built by the Byzantine mission?—Development of “missionary” churches during the conversion of the Slavs in Greece and of the Alans; their introduction into Moravia?—Conversion of the Bulgars and the Russians—The brothers in Pannonia and in Venice.



Constantine’s biographer describes very simply (chapter fifteen) how the emissaries were received by Rastislav. A more enthusiastic description is to be found in the Italian Legend. Its author says that when the Moravians learned that the new missionaries were bringing the relics of St. Clement—he was particularly interested in their discovery—and that Constantine had translated the Gospel into their language, they went to meet them and “received them with honor and great jubilation.”


From the description of Constantine’s activity in Moravia, it seems evident that the main object of the Byzantine mission was not conversion but instruction. Rastislav is said to have assembled disciples whom he entrusted to Constantine for instruction. This shows that Christianity was well advanced in Moravia because there were already numerous young natives preparing themselves for the priesthood. [1]







It should be stressed that the Byzantine missionaries were not led by a bishop, although, according to Constantine’s biographer, Rastislav asked for a bishop and priests. In this respect the emperor and his prime minister Bardas—he is also mentioned in chapter fourteen—did not fulfill Rastislav’s request.


The following reason could explain this omission. Moravia had been the object of missionary work by Latin priests and could be regarded as belonging to the sphere of the Roman patriarchate. The relationship between the Patriarch Photius, who was certainly one of the organizers of the mission, and Pope Nicholas, who was hesitating whether to recognize the legitimacy of Photius’ patriarchate, was extremely delicate. However, after the synod of 861, Photius could assume that the situation had improved, and in 863, when the embassy left Constantinople, he was unaware that the pope had refused to recognize the decision of the Synod, had condemned his legates, and excommunicated him. It is thus possible that the patriarch did not wish to deepen this misunderstanding by sending a bishop to a country where Latin missionaries had hitherto been working.


On the other hand, however, the Byzantines were perfectly entitled to send missionaries to a land in which there was no hierarchical organization, the more so as it was done at the request of its ruler. Moravia was still a missionary land, and, besides Latins, Greeks are also said to have been working there. Thus it seems more natural to suppose that Photius was putting into practice here a method which he later applied also to the Bulgarians. After the conversion of Boris, he did not establish a hierarchy in Bulgaria, but sent there priests to give religious instruction to the boyars as well as to the people. He intended to introduce a hierarchical order in Bulgaria after the missionaries had prepared the ground. As concerns Moravia, it could have been presumed that the preparation for an ecclesiastical organization would take some time, because of the innovations in the missionary practice which Constantine was about to introduce. The first object of the mission was instruction in the Slavic language, the translation of liturgical books into Slavic, and the education of a native clergy in the reading and understanding of the translated liturgical texts. It was assumed that the introduction of a hierarchical organization would be delayed until after this first task was completed. It was well meant, but Photius later most probably regretted that





he had not strengthened the position of Byzantium in Moravia and Bulgaria by sending them bishops.


*  *  *


In Moravia Constantine, with his brother and other assistants, continued his literary activities. The question arises as to whether the Byzantine or the Roman liturgy was used and translated by the brothers after their arrival in Moravia.


It is natural to presume that the members of the Byzantine mission continued to celebrate the liturgy according to their own rite. Methodius was only a deacon and we are uncertain as to whether Constantine had been ordained a priest, but even so we are entitled to assume that there were some priests among their companions. This would rather imply that the liturgical books translated by Constantine were of the Byzantine rite.


Specialists in Slavonic liturgy point out that in reality there exist Slavonic translations of almost all the liturgical books used at that time in Byzantium. Many of the manuscripts containing the translations are from the tenth century, which shows us that the translators were anxious to give to the Slavs the whole body of Byzantine liturgical texts in their own language. This seems to be suggested also by the author of the Life of Constantine when we read (chapter fifteen) that Constantine had soon translated the whole ecclesiastical order into Slavonic.


We can deduce from this that the author of the Life had in mind the Greek liturgical order. After that we read: “He taught them (his disciples) the office of matins and of other hours, of vespers, of complete and of the holy liturgy (Mass).” For the complete he uses the word navečernica which is a translation of the Greek term apodeipnon, not of the Latin completorium. This suggests that at least the Office, or the breviary for the clergy, was translated from the Greek original. Some specialists have read in this passage instead of přelož (translated), priim (accepted), [2] and deduced from this reading that Constantine accepted the Roman rite. However, the reading přelož is preferable according to the manuscript tradition. The variant priim can, thus, not be used as a proof that the brothers accepted the Latin rite after their arrival in Moravia.


Of the manuscripts containing these translations there are two





which seem to be most important for the appreciation of what Constantine had really done. One is the so-called Euchologium of Sinai [3] containing non-liturgical prayers (trebnik), and the other is Three Folios of Sinai [4] which were primitively a part of the Euchologium and which contain a considerable section of the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. Some prayers of the Euchologium reveal great similarity with the style and vocabulary used by Constantine. This would imply that the brothers had translated into Slavonic a Byzantine Euchologium as well as the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, which had become more popular in Byzantium in the ninth century than had the liturgy of St. Basil. [5]


The first folio of the Leaflets of Sinai is of special interest. It contains some of the prayers which precede the Byzantine Mass— the proskomidion—which are common to the Liturgies of St. Chrysostom and of St. Basil. These prayers of the proskomidion have their own history. They presented many variations and were changed from time to time. The proskomidion in its present form was definitely stabilized only in the fourteenth century by the Patriarch Philotheus (1354-1376) and it was soon translated into Slavonic in Bulgaria and in Russia. However, the prayers of the Leaflets of Sinai do not correspond to the liturgical tradition of Byzantium or of the Slavic Orthodox Church. They reveal some western features and seem to be an original creation of the translator. Did Constantine intend to adapt these Byzantine prayers to the western atmosphere in which his mission had to work? As these prayers were not yet stabilized in Byzantine liturgy, he could regard himself as entitled to an original interpretation which would be more congenial to the new environment.


The Leaflets of Sinai do not give the whole text of Chrysostom’s liturgy. Three double folios which would have contained the text of the main parts of the Mass are missing.


The third folio contains the final prayers recited by the priest at the end of Mass. Another characteristic feature of Constantine’s translation should be pointed out. As some of the prayers used to be loud-voiced or chanted, they were composed according to certain prosodic rules. Constantine, respecting this custom, arranged his translation of the prayers in syllabic units of sentences (kola) with a syllabical structure. Some specialists see in this device the first poetic attempts of Constantine in the Slavic





language. [6] We have seen that he had composed several poetical works in Greek. [7]


The translation of the Byzantine liturgy of St. John Chrysostom can thus be attributed without hesitation to Constantine. As concerns the Euchologium of Sinai, it should not be overlooked that many prayers have a vocabulary pointing to the post-Moravian era. We must deduce from this that the brothers may have had the intention to translate the whole Euchologium, but first chose the formulars and prayers which they regarded as the most important for their mission in Moravia. Their disciples completed the work in Bulgaria after the destruction of Great Moravia.


The attempt to introduce the Byzantine liturgy into Moravia seems logical and may have been welcomed by Rastislav, who had broken with the Franks and who wished to preserve his land from any political and cultural influence coming from them. If he had accepted Byzantine missionaries, why could he not accept the Byzantine rite, not in Greek, but in the language of his people? All this gave him and his people more self-confidence. It should also be noted that the Byzantine Mass liturgy was, at that time, much shorter than it is today. Additions to it began to be made at the end of the ninth century [8] and were later translated into Slavonic by St. Clement, the disciple of the brothers in Bulgaria, and by orthodox priests in Russia. We can thus conclude that the brothers did introduce the Byzantine liturgy into Moravia and did translate into Slavonic the most important Byzantine liturgical books—selected formulars and prayers from the Euchologium and the Mass liturgy of St. John Chrysostom.


*  *  *


On the other hand, the brothers must have learned already from Rastislav’s envoys that the Moravians were accustomed to the Roman rite which had been introduced there by Frankish and Latin missionaries. Because of this many specialists think that it would not have been good policy to impose the Byzantine Mass formulary on the native priests and people, who were unaccustomed to it. They, therefore, see in the so-called Leaflets of Kiev the oldest known old Slavonic manuscript, which has been found in Jerusalem, and which on its seven folios contains the translation





of a fraction of a Roman Mass formulary, a kind of Mass order introduced by Constantine in Moravia. [9] This is regarded as proof that the brothers had accepted the Roman liturgy. However, the Leaflets do not contain the whole Mass formulary and cannot even be regarded as a part of a Roman sacramentary. They present a complete section of the category called libelli missae, extracts from Latin sacramentaries which were used by missionaries and chosen according to the liturgical needs of their missions. [10] They are translated most probably from a Latin original, and contain ten Mass formulas, altogether thirty-eight prayers. C. Mohlberg devoted a special study to the Leaflets and discovered a sacramentary dated by him from the sixth or seventh century, in a manuscript belonging to the chapter of Padua (Codex Padovanus D47) which seems to have been the prototype of the Slavonic translation.


There is still controversy among Slavic philologists concerning the author of this translation. Because in the translation can be detected the use of some expressions current only in the Byzantine liturgy, it is thought that the translator must have been a Byzantine. [11] Since some of the vocabulary of the Leaflets is similar to that found in other translations made by Constantine—especially in the Gospels—it is assumed that the translator of the Leaflets was Constantine himself. [12] The manner in which the translation was made is also regarded as pointing to him. It is rather a free translation, partly paraphrasing the original text, especially in the prefaces, revealing in its rhythmic flow the poetic nature of Constantine. [13]


There are, however, serious objections to this attribution. The similarity of certain vocabulary with that used by Constantine cannot be regarded as proof of his authorship. [14] Moreover, the Leaflets contain also words and expressions which could not have been used in ninth-century Moravia, but only in Bohemia in the tenth century. [15] Of course, this latter objection could be eliminated by the admission that the Leaflets were copied in Bohemia in the tenth century from an original brought from Moravia. The scribe could have replaced some of the words which sounded strange to him by others which were more familiar. One can also ask how could the Sacramentary of Padua have become known in Moravia. Therefore, K. Gamber [16] thought that Constantine had used a formulary of Salzburg which may have been composed by





Paulinus II, Patriarch of Aquileia, and which may have been used in Salzburg and by the Bavarian missionaries in Pannonia and Moravia. [17]


Gamber’s theory has, however, its weakness. He tries to minimize the similarity of the Kievan Leaflets to the Paduan Sacramentary, but he cannot deny it. He does not pay sufficient attention to the fact that not only Bavarian priests were working in Moravia but also priests from Italy. It is quite possible that some of them had brought the copy of the old Sacramentary from the sixth or seventh century which is preserved in the Paduan manuscript. Thus, the Kievan Leaflets could present a Slavonic translation of a part of this Sacramentary.


In spite of this, however, it is not proved that this translation was made by Constantine. A more thorough philological study of this document and a more critical examination of the similarity of its vocabulary and style with that of other works of Constantine is necessary in order to solve the problem of its authorship. But there is another piece of important evidence concerning the liturgy introduced into Moravia which calls for our attention.


*  *  *


The Leaflets of Kiev do not contain the most important part of a Mass formulary, i.e. the canon. J. Vajs has shown in two studies that the glagolitic missals used in Dalmatia and especially that contained in a Vatican manuscript from the early fourteenth century which reproduces a Roman Mass order, reveal, especially in the canon, many lexical and morphological archaisms echoing forms and words of the oldest Slavonic period in Moravia. [18] He saw in these findings a proof that a translation of a Roman Mass liturgy must have existed in Moravia in the ninth century, from where it was brought by Methodius’ disciples into Dalmatia where this glagolitic Missal is still in use. Because some of the expressions did not conform to the Latin norm of the canon and sounded like translations from Greek, J. Vašica came to the conclusion that the canon was translated not from a Latin original but from a Greek translation of the Roman Mass liturgy. [19]


It has been found that there existed a Greek translation of the Latin Mass order which was called by the Greeks the Liturgy of St. Peter. [20] The manuscript tradition of this translation can so far





be traced only to the eleventh century. Some Byzantine prayers were added with time to the primitive translation, as is witnessed by the oldest manuscripts from the eleventh and twelfth centuries. The original Greek translation seems to be reflected in the Georgian version of the Peter liturgy, [21] made from the Greek most probably by St. Hilarion (822-875), a Georgian monk who had spent six years in a monastery of Olympus in Bithynia, and two years in Rome. He died in Thessalonica. The Georgian version gives a short account of liturgical actions from the reading of the Gospel up to the confession of faith. It appears to follow the Greek archetype which reflected its Latin original. In preserved Greek manuscripts a longer text from the liturgy of St. James was added to this part of the Peter liturgy. The main part of the Peter liturgy is the Mass canon, translated from a Roman Sacramentary. All Greek manuscripts have a common Latin basis and must have followed the copy of the first original translation. [22]


A Slavonic translation of the Peter liturgy was discovered in the monastery of Chilandar on Mount Athos by P. Uspenskij in a manuscript of the eighteenth century. [23] It shows many Byzantine features, reflecting the process of gradual Byzantinization of the primitive text in preserved Greek manuscripts. It is a copy of an older Slavonic manuscript which, however, has not yet been traced.


As we have seen, the Greek manuscript tradition of the Peter liturgy can be traced so far only to the eleventh century, but the Georgian translation presupposes its existence in the first half of the ninth century. It is, however, quite probable that it was known in the eighth century or earlier among the Greeks of southern Italy and of the eastern part of Illyricum. We must not forget that the whole of Illyricum was, down to the year 732, under the jurisdiction of Rome. Because the metropolitan of Thessalonica was the pope’s vicar for the Greek part of Illyricum, we can assume that the liturgy of St. Peter was known, and perhaps also used on some occasions, in that city. If this was so, it would indicate that the two brothers were acquainted with this liturgy. It could be also presumed that they took a copy of this liturgy with them to Moravia and translated it for the Moravians.


The archaic language of some parts of the canon in the glagolitic Missal from the fourteenth century and its linguistic character revealing that it had been translated not from the Latin but from





the Greek, show that the main part of the Peter liturgy—the canon or anaphora—was known in Moravia in the ninth century and was translated into old Slavonic. The canon must have been contained in a kind of libellus Missae as were the Leaflets of Kiev.


*  *  *


It should be stressed that there must have been used in Moravia another libellus which seems to be preserved in two glagolitic folia, called the Leaflets of Vienna. [24] They were copied in Dalmatia in the eleventh or twelfth century and contain fragments of prayers from a Mass in honor of one or two Apostles called in the Roman Missal commune apostolorum. Although they are of Croatian origin, they betray a very archaic prototype. This indicates that they were translated in Moravia in the ninth century and shows at the same time that a Slavonic Mass liturgy was used in Dalmatia in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. This supposes also the use of the canon which is preserved in the glagolitic manuscript from the fourteenth century and which also betrays its Moravian origin.


There exists yet another old Slavonic document written in the glagolitic alphabet—the so-called Fragments of Prague. They contain only two folia which were discovered in the library of the chapter of Prague in 1885. [25] It contains a part of the Kalendarium, indicating the festivals from the twenty-fifth day after Easter to the Assumption of the Virgin Mary. It is an old Slavonic translation from a Greek original, according to all the specialists who have studied this document. The language, however, does not reveal such an archaic character as do the Leaflets of Vienna, of Kiev, and of Sinai. It might have been copied from a prototype in Bulgaria or in Russia, but the Moravian origin of the prototype is more than doubtful. It contains also a Byzantine prayer called lychnikos which cannot be traced in any Western Mass formular. The Greek original of this translation has not been found. Was it another libellus which may have been brought in connection with the Peter liturgy? This does not seem likely, and the Fragment of Prague can hardly have been a part of the liturgy introduced into Moravia by the two brothers. [26]


In resuming the discussion concerning the liturgy introduced into Moravia by the two brothers, we have to conclude that they





had first translated the Byzantine liturgy of John Chrysostom and parts of the Byzantine ritual, the Euchologium. On the other hand, however, the glagolitic missals used in Dalmatia testify that a translation of the most important part of the Roman Mass order— the canon—must have existed in Moravia in the ninth century. It is probable that this translation was made from the liturgy of St. Peter, a Greek translation of the Roman Mass order. The Slavonic translation of this part of the Missal could be attributed to Constantine.


What about the Leaflets of Kiev? Is it possible that they originated in Moravia? We should not exclude the possibility that the translation was made by Constantine, but his authorship is questionable. This problem calls for a more thorough investigation by Slavic philologists, as we have seen.


*  *  *


Supposing that the brothers did translate the Greek liturgy of St. Peter, when did they decide to introduce the Roman Mass liturgy in Moravia? Some think that the brothers became acquainted with the Greek translation of the Latin Mass—the liturgy of St. Peter— only in Rome in 869. They are supposed to have found it in Greek monasteries in Rome, where this liturgy was in use as well as the Byzantine liturgy. The translation would thus have been made in Rome. [27] This theory cannot, however, be accepted. When the brothers left Moravia, after activities there lasting about three years, they did not intend to return, as we shall see, to that country.


They were leaving Moravia for good because they had done all that was necessary for the young Church there to carry on an independent existence. This means that they had translated not only the Office and the Gospels, the ritual (Euchologium), but also the Mass in Old Slavonic. If the Latin liturgy was also among these translations, then it must have been done before they had left Moravia. How could one imagine that this translation, made in Rome, would have been introduced into Moravia in the absence of the two brothers?


If the translation of a Roman Mass formulary was made by Constantine, when was it done? We have seen that the brothers had first translated the Byzantine liturgy of St. Chrysostom and a





Byzantine Euchologium. Thus the Byzantine liturgy was celebrated in Moravia from 863 to the year 865. It was in August 864 that Louis the German carried out his previously planned Moravian expedition, perhaps in agreement with Boris of Bulgaria. This time Rastislav was unable to repulse the massive Frankish attack. Surrounded by the Frankish army in the fortress of Dovina, he submitted to Louis the German, recognizing the supremacy of the Empire, and gave hostages to the King. [28] One of the conditions imposed on his surrender must have been the readmittance of Frankish priests into Moravia. The latter naturally restored the Latin liturgy and began to criticize the liturgical novelties introduced by the brothers.


Constantine is said to have carried on polemics against his opponents who declared that the liturgy could be performed only in the three ancient languages, Hebrew, Latin, and Greek, in which Pilate had ordered the composition of the inscription placed on Christ’s Cross. [29] Constantine called them Pilate’s disciples.


The biographer’s mention of “archpriests, priests, and disciples” opposing the Byzantines is important. It reveals an ecclesiastical organization introduced into Moravia by the Franks before the expulsion of their missionaries. Archpriests were appointed by Frankish bishops in missionary territories when Christianization had made a certain progress. They represented the bishops to whose dioceses the new lands belonged, and the missionaries were subject to them. We know of some cases of this kind in the lands of the Slovenes under the jurisdiction of the archbishop of Salzburg. [30] The passage of the Vita in question suggests that Moravia had its archpriestly ecclesiastical organization before the arrival of the Byzantines and that this system was renewed in 864.


It would seem a good policy if Constantine, in order to thwart these attacks and confuse the new “invaders,” had decided, at that moment, to introduce the Roman Mass formulary, translated into Slavonic, and abandon the Byzantine liturgy of St. Chrysostom. In this way a certain uniformity in liturgical practice would have been introduced in Moravia, and the activity of the Frankish clergy would have been dampened, since the people were more attracted by the Slavic than the Latin Mass, both celebrated according to the same Roman rite. This supposition seems to be probable, and in this case the translation of the Roman Mass formulary contained in the Greek translation called the Liturgy of St. Peter





should be attributed to Constantine himself. Of course, as we have mentioned several times, his authorship of the translation of the Leaflets of Kiev can be proved definitely only by a more thorough investigation by Slavic philologists. In his translation Constantine could have used another Mass Libellus which is unknown.


*  *  *


The change from the Byzantine Mass liturgy of St. Chrysostom to the Latin one of St. Peter, however, does not mean that all Byzantine ritual was abandoned by the missions. Some prayers and formulars of the Byzantine Euchologium almost certainly continued to be used in Moravia, This seems to be shown by the fact that one of these prayers was known and used in Bohemia in the tenth century, namely the prayer recited by the priest when cutting the hair of a boy who was, by this ceremony, initiated into manhood. Such a ceremony was performed in Prague on the young prince St. Wenceslas (died in 929). Although there existed a Latin prayer for such an occasion, the ceremony for St. Wenceslas was performed according to the Byzantine rite, as we find it in the Euchologium Sinaiticum. [31] As the Czechs of Bohemia have inherited Slavonic books from Moravia, the Euchologium appears to have been introduced and used also in Bohemia.


The Euchologium in its Slavonic translation contains also a formular of confession (or de poenitentia) which must have been used in Moravia before the arrival of the Byzantine mission.


Although no Latin parallel has been found so far to this formular, it reveals an obviously western character. [32] Only one part of this formular, called the Prayer of St. Emmeram, is preserved in manuscripts in the Old High German dialect. [33] A similar prayer was preserved in the so-called Fragments of Freisingen, translated for the use of Slovene converts. [34] This shows that the brothers also used prayers and formulars translated into Slavonic by Frankish missionaries, which were popular among the Moravians. But even here, the originality of Constantine is to be seen. Into this formular are inserted prayers and psalms taken from a Byzantine prototype. Thus, even in the translation of the Euchologium Constantine manifested his creative thought. His translation is in many ways an adaptation to the particular genius of the Slavic idiom,





elevated to a literary language and to the needs of the young Moravian Church. He also adapted to his purpose prayers translated from the Old High German and the Latin by Latin missionaries. [35] We can, thus, characterize the liturgy introduced by the brothers as a combination of the Byzantine and Roman liturgical practices.


*  *  *


The translation of liturgical books was soon followed by the translation of the four Gospels. In Constantinople Constantine had already translated these parts of the Gospels called aprakos or evangeliar read during the liturgical action. Constantine tried to justify the translation of the Gospels into the Slavic language and to explain the method which he intended to use in his translation in a special treatise composed originally in Greek, of which, however, only one folio in the Slavonic translation is preserved, unfortunately in a very corrupt state. The Bulgarian ecclesiastical writer John the Exarch quoted a part of Constantine’s treatise in the introduction to his translation of the work of True Faith by St. John of Damascus. [36] Using this quotation A. Vaillant was able to reconstruct partially the corrupted text of the folio which was written in Macedonia in the eleventh or twelfth century. [37] We can gather from this reconstruction that Constantine was well acquainted with the translations of the Gospels into other eastern languages. He seemed to have in mind especially the Syriac translation used by the Nestorians, thus justifying his translation into the Slavonic language. He stressed his intention of translating the Gospels as accurately as possible, respecting, however, the differences in expression and in meaning of certain words of both languages. In such cases he thought himself entitled to a more independent rendering of some of the passages in order to be able to explain the true meaning of the original.


In his translation Constantine followed the principles expounded in his treatise. Slavic philologists recognize the excellent qualities of his translation, which reveals a very deep knowledge of the Greek and Slavic languages and of their character. The translation is sometimes not verbal, as Constantine tried to make the Greek expressions more understandable to the Slavic Christians. [38] The original text he had used seems to have been copied from a





Greek codex of Lucian’s recension common in Constantinople which, however, contained some variants used in the West and in Palestine; some of these variants were taken also from the Alexandrian recension. [39]


Constantine introduced his translation of the four Gospels in a special poetic composition, called Proglas. Its text was discovered in 1858 in a Serbian parchment manuscript from the fourteenth century where the composition is ascribed to Constantine the Philosopher. [40] Later it was found to have a special rhythmic character and is really a poem. Although some specialists were inclined to attribute this composition to a disciple of the brothers, especially to Constantine the Bulgarian, [41] it was shown recently that it is a very characteristic poetical composition of great value, reflecting very well the main ideas which had inspired Constantine. We read there a passionate appeal to the Slavs to cherish books written in their own language. [42] This appeal is all the more pathetic, since this was the first translation of the Gospels into a vernacular language to appear in the West. [43]


*  *  *


The authors of the Lives do not give us much information on the activities of the brothers in Moravia. They are said to have found it necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage and to combat certain pagan customs and usages which the Latin priests were unable to exterminate. Among the false teachings, belief in the existence of antipodes with large heads is especially singled out. This doctrine was propagated by the learned Bishop of Salzburg, St. Virgil, who taught that the earth was of spherical shape, which naturally presupposed the existence of antipodes. It is possible that in Bavaria this was combined with an old Germanic pagan belief in the existence of an underworld in the environs of Salzburg (Untersberg). St. Boniface may have seen that Virgil’s teaching gave new support in the eyes of many to this old pagan belief and, as he was anxious to exterminate all pagan customs, he threatened Virgil with an accusation of heresy. [44]


The spread of such a belief in Moravia can hardly be regarded as proof that the Irish missionaries, disciples of Virgil, had been preaching in Moravia. Frankish missionaries from Bavaria could also have held similar ideas. In any case, this passage is rightly





regarded as a confirmation of the historical reliability of the Life of Constantine. [45]


The question arises whether the Byzantine mission had also initiated a new style in ecclesiastical architecture. We have seen that a number of churches were constructed before the arrival of the Byzantine missions.


There is, however, another group of churches discovered in Moravia, of different architecture from the churches we studied before. These buildings are characterized by elongated semicircular apses. In 1949 the foundations of a small church were unearthed at Valy, near Staré Město, revealing an oblong nave whose internal dimensions were 8.50 X 7.25 meters. The apse in the shape of a horse-shoe was separated from the nave by a triumphal arch. It was most probably a burial church, because 954 graves were unearthed around it. A great quantity of richly ornamented gold and silver jewelry was discovered, together with vessels, knives, spears, and iron axes. This archaeological material permits us to date the construction of this church to the second half of the ninth century. [46]


The same year another and much larger church was discovered, but unfortunately not until a mechanical excavator had destroyed half of its foundations. The apse had an outside diameter of approximately three and a half meters. It was attached to the oblong nave by a transept. In the nave three piers were discovered and a screen partition separating the narthex from the nave. Part of the exterior surface was made of rods and wattles. It was roughcast on the inside, and there were traces of wall paintings. The reconstruction of this church presents great difficulties. We cannot definitely say whether there was a dome or a barrel-vault. Only forty-two graves were discovered near this church. It seems most probable that members of the early feudal upper class were buried in its narthex. The construction dates from the last quarter of the ninth century. A wooden annex seems to have surrounded the church. The building was destroyed by fire in the first years of the tenth century. [47]


A very interesting find was made in 1957 in Mikulčice. The foundations of what is now known as the Third Church of Mikulčice were discovered, with a long apse, three naves, and a narthex. The church had a total inside length of 34 meters, and the nave was 9 meters wide. The narthex was partitioned probably sometime





after the completion of the building. The archaeological finds in the 350 graves—some of the stone tombs were built inside the church—permit us to conclude that the church, the largest so far discovered in Moravia, was built soon after the arrival of the Byzantine mission. [48] Another church which has been excavated, known as the. Fifth Church of Mikulčice, also has an apse and resembles in shape the first church in Staré Město. [49]


Similar in style was yet another church, the foundations of which were uncovered in Pohansko near Břeclav in 1959. It is 20 meters long and seven and a half meters wide. It has a hemispherical apse and a rectangular sacristy. The oblong nave shows traces of having been divided by a transverse partition: this may represent a wall which was added to the nave to provide a narthex; or it may be the remains of a west wall knocked down at a later stage to extend the original nave. [50] We have to add to these structures also the presbytery of the Church of St. Clement in Osvĕtimany. [51]


The above dating of the churches with apses was proposed by the archaeologists who had excavated their foundations, and is based on the nature of the jewelry and other objects found in the graves in the vicinity of these sanctuaries.


The accuracy of their conclusions has been questioned by the Czech art historian J. Cibulka. He thinks that these churches belong to the second stage in the development of Great Moravian architecture and were all constructed before the arrival of the Byzantine mission. [52] One of his arguments against Byzantine influence on Moravian ecclesiastical architecture is the fact that none of the discovered churches possessed a pastoforium, the small additional building in which the Greek priests prepared the offerings for the liturgy and whence the procession with the offerings to the altar began. [53] However, this argument has no solid ground. It is natural that the churches built by Latin missionaries and their architects did not have pastoforia because the Roman liturgy does not require it. When the Byzantine mission arrived, its priests naturally celebrated their liturgy in the existing churches, accommodating their liturgical customs to the available facilities. This possibility is also admitted by J. Cibulka. When we accept the proposed solution that the liturgical change to the Roman rite was inaugurated by the brothers after 864, then in the ecclesiastical constructions which they may have initiated there was





no need for pastoforia. At the same time the fact that no Moravian churches had this special additional construction cannot be used as an argument that the Byzantine liturgy could not have been introduced into Moravia.


In order to explain the existence of churches with rounded apses, J. Cibulka looks for prototypes in Bulgaria, pointing to the small apsidal church of Hagia Sophia discovered under the present Cathedral in Sofia.


According to his theory, this kind of early Christian architecture had survived in Bulgaria and Pannonia and was imported into Moravia by Greek and Latin priests who had taken refuge in Moravia during the persecution of Christians by the Khagan Omortag (814-831). [54] However, the church of Hagia Sophia was from the fourth century, and no such constructions are known to have been erected in Bulgaria in the first half of the ninth century. We have seen that the theory attributing the importation of such a church style into Moravia by Greek priests escaping the persecution of Omortag is preposterous [55] and cannot be accepted.


Another specialist, the architect J. Pošmourný, thinks that these churches were built with the use of a common unit of measure— i.e. the antique Roman modulus—and sees in them an example of simple missionary churches of the type introduced to Moravia by the Byzantine mission. [56] Even this theory, although more probable, has its weak point. The system of modulus originated in antiquity and no proof has been put forward to show that it was ever introduced into Moravia from Byzantium. [57]


In one matter Cibulka is right, when he points out that this church style is connected with early Christian architecture and that it was imported from the East, However, it did not come from Bulgaria, but from Byzantium. We are able to point to some indications which show that this new type of church was inspired by early Christian architects, and that it was adopted by Byzantine missionaries among the Slavic people in Greece at the end of the eighth and the beginning of the ninth century.


We have seen how important it was for Byzantium to rechristianize the Greek provinces occupied or at least infiltrated by the Slavs. Great progress was made, especially in the first half of the ninth century, in the political and ecclesiastical reorganization of Greece and the Peloponnesus. The most telling example of how the Byzantines reconstructed the churches destroyed by the invaders





can be found in Epidaurus. This city, famous in the classical time for its cult of Asclepius, must have kept some importance also after the Christianization of Greece. The catalogue of Greek bishoprics dating from the iconoclastic period counts Epidaurus among the six episcopal sees of Argolis under the metropolitan of Corinth. [58] The information given by the author of these Notitiae is not reliable, as is well known. Anyhow, Epidaurus had an early Christian basilica which can be dated from the end of the fourth century. [59] For its construction material from the temple of Asclepius was used. This basilica was destroyed during the Slavic invasions. Its apse survived the destruction, and in the Byzantine period was used for the construction of a small church dedicated to St. John. This could have happened only when the danger from the Slavs had subsided, perhaps after their defeat at Patras. The building of a new church inside the ruins of an early Christian basilica shows that the rechristianization of the Peloponnesus had begun. It illustrates, at the same time, the method used during this process—rebuilding the ruined sanctuaries from the early Christian period, although in a more modest way—and accommodating the new constructions to the style of early Christian architecture.


The Greeks of Epidaurus were not alone in following such practice. We find another example in Eleusis. [60] The basilica was constructed in the fifth century. On the ruins, inside the presbytery, was later built a small church dedicated to St. Zacharias. It had an oblong nave with an apse similar in form to the apse of the destroyed basilica.


On the island of Lemnos [61] two early Christian basilicas had existed dating from the fifth or sixth century. Over the ruins of the second basilica another church was constructed during the Byzantine period, again with three small apses. Special attention should be called to the little early Christian basilica of Alimountos, near Athens. It was built in the fifth century, and was one of the few churches which had survived the troubled times. Probably in the sixth century it was enlarged and readjusted. Its apse was left untouched, but no other apse was added to the diakonion at that period. The diakonion was adorned with an apse sometime during the Byzantine period. [62]


Perhaps we could add to these examples also that of the ruins of the old Christian basilica of Thebes in Thessalia. Soteriou, who





describes the ruins of the basilica which must have been destroyed by the Slavs during their siege of Thessalonica, shows that a great part of the building was occupied by the Slavs who had constructed their small dwellings nearby, but he admits that a part of the basilica may have been used for worship in the Byzantine period. His plan of this part of the basilica, with a new construction inside the old building, using its apse and columns for a small nave, recalls that of Epidaurus. The Slavs who conquered and occupied Thebes were the Velegezites, subjected during the reign of Irene, whose General Stauracius had defeated them in the neighborhood of Saloniki, and in Hellas. If there was any new use of this part of the old basilica, it should have been after this period, in connection with the Christianization of the Velegezites. [63]


We can quote a similar case from Macedonia. Between the years 1931-1937 the ruins of an old Christian basilica were discovered in Suvodol, near Bitolj. The basilica seems to have been built at the end of the fifth, or at the very beginning of the sixth century. It was destroyed during the Slavic invasions, probably at the end of the sixth century. Later, after or during the Christianization of the Slavs, the church was readapted for worship in a diminished form. Only the middle nave was used with the bema and the septum. The partitions between the columns were filled in with the ruins of the old basilica and a small apse seems to have been added in imitation of the apse of the old basilica. Even this church was destroyed during the Turkish invasion, and only a small modern chapel recalls the existence of an old Christian basilica of the past. [64]


The excavation of a church with an apse and one small nave, near the confluence of the river Giljac with the river Kuban in the Caucasian region, shows clearly that Byzantine missionaries actually used this new style in the lands of their missions. T. M. Minajeva, who excavated its ruins, [65] shows clearly that this kind of architecture was used in the construction of small churches in this region from the ninth to the eleventh centuries. The small church should be dated from the ninth century; its discovery shows that at the same time the Byzantine Church had expanded its missionary activity as far as the Caucasus to the Alanic population, reviving an interest in these countries which earlier had been manifested by Justinian. [66] Kulakovskij has shown that the





whole nation was Christianized in the tenth century by the monk Euthymius and Bishop Peter under the Patriarch Nicholas Mysticus. [67] He admits, however, that sporadic Christianization had begun earlier. The first attempts can be attributed to the initiative of the Patriarch Photius, and his disciple Nicholas Mysticus successfully concluded that which his master had started.


These few examples which have so far been unnoticed are of great importance. They show that the missionary activity among the Slavic population in Greece started to develop after their pacification, and that the missionaries and their architects were following the traditions of early Christian architecture in the building of new churches. They were unable to build great monuments such as those whose ruins were to be seen in their cities, but the modest sanctuaries which they constructed were serving the new faithful and the native population, who had survived the storm as well as could be expected.


The examples quoted above were hardly exceptions. They reveal a method which was most probably also accepted in other places in Greece, and show the emergence of a new type of Byzantine missionary architecture. Because of its simplicity, this architecture was best fitted for the mission lands and, at the same time, kept a link with early Christian artistic traditions.


All this entitles us to presume that this type of architecture was brought into Moravia by the Byzantine mission. There is no reason why churches with an apse—the church of Pohansko included —should be dated from the period before the arrival of Constantine and Methodius, the less so as the archaeological findings discovered in the burial grounds surrounding those churches should be dated, with some exceptions, from the second half of the ninth century.


These observations also help to solve the problem concerning the largest church, the third of Mikulčice. J. Cibulka [68] saw in this structure a partition-wall church, a kind of église cloisonnée. He compared it rightly with the Greek church at Skripou. This church was built in 873-74 in the reign of Basil I, when his sons Alexander and Leo had become co-emperors, and is still in use. Its construction shows that this kind of architecture, related to early Christian types, was known in Byzantium certainly before the church was constructed, and could have been imported into Moravia after 863.





Besides these constructions, we can also date from the Byzantine period in Moravia the addition to the cruciform church of Sady, which is one of the oldest sacral constructions in that region. [69] This apsidal addition may have also served as a school for catechumens or for the instruction of clerics. We have seen that theological schools were often erected in Byzantium in and outside the churches. [70]


There are points in his review of Moravian architecture on which Cibulka is right. Not one of the discovered churches resembles the monuments which adorned Constantinople and Thessalonica at that period, but this does not mean that the Byzantine mission could not have used simpler architectural types better suited to a newly converted land. He also rightly points out the difference in building material used in Byzantium and in Moravia. But it was certainly more practical for the architects who came with or after the Byzantine mission to accommodate themselves to the material used in local construction—ashlar and mortar— than to teach the primitive workers how to cut stone blocks or to fabricate bricks, the current material in Byzantine architecture. It is also true that Moravians could have learnt the basic principles of old Roman architecture from ruins of Roman constructions. They did not, however, have to go to Pannonia. They found ruins of Roman forts in their own country. They also used bricks from these ruins for their own constructions. Cibulka is also right in admitting that the Moravian architects often had their own ideas, and changed the types imported by foreign builders to their own taste. In this way, the forms of Moravian apses and narthexes could perhaps be explained. He is also right in saying that Moravian architecture was influenced by that of the limitrophe countries; but why go as far as Bulgaria in imagining a continuation of the early Christian type represented by the church of the Holy Wisdom in Sofia in Bulgaria, and the Danubian region? When Bulgaria became Christian, the first churches were built in that country not by native, but by Byzantine architects. If it is true that this Bulgarian architecture came back to the local forms of the late Roman period, thus erecting churches with apses of the same breadth and depth, then this adaptation was made by Byzantine architects. Let us remember here the attempts of Greek missionaries to adapt the ruins of old Christian basilicas with apses for the worship of their new converts, simply by the addition





of a nave. Why exclude the possibility that this new simple style was introduced into Moravia by Greek artisans? On the other hand, why not take into consideration a similar development in another former Roman province—Dalmatia? There, too, we see that the building activity in the ninth century was inspired not by Byzantine models, but rather that the builders went back to late Roman and early Christian traditions. Let us recall, also, the remnants of the small church in Ulcinj, very similar to Moravian churches with an apse. The artisans who came to Moravia from the South remained in that country after the arrival of the Moravian mission, and continued their building activity with or without the inspiration of their colleagues from Byzantium.


It will be the task of art historians to compare these affinities and differences in order to present a clearer picture of the development of Moravian architecture. However, to exclude the possibility of any architectural activity by the Byzantine mission in Moravia is preposterous.


The question has been raised as to whether the Byzantine mission had introduced monachism into Moravia. This is possible. Methodius was Abbot of Polychron on Mount Olympus in Asia Minor and, as we will see, he certainly intended to return to his monastery. There seems to be some indication that the settlement of Osvĕtimany, near Staré Město, was chosen by Methodius for a monastic institution. [71] This is possible, but we have to wait for more archaeological evidence to verify this supposition.


*  *  *


The situation of Rastislav and the chances for the success of his Byzantine project were improved by events in Bulgaria. It appears that the political aspect of the Moravo-Byzantine alliance was not forgotten by the Byzantines. In the same year that the Franco-Bulgarian alliance was due to show its first positive results, a Byzantine army invaded Bulgaria and the fleet made a demonstration on the Danube. The Bulgarian people were starving because of a bad harvest and tried to get provisions by invading the Byzantine territory. Boris himself seems to have been making preparations to join Louis the German in the campaign against Rastislav, which had been jointly planned. The reaction of the Byzantines was swift and unexpected. Boris capitulated, abandoned





the Franks and promised to accept the Byzantine form of Christianity.


It has been believed hitherto that all this happened in 864, and that Boris’ envoys were baptized in Constantinople in that year, and Boris himself in 865. [72] It appears that these dates should be changed, as has been shown by A. Vaillant and M. Lascaris. [73] A new examination of sources by them shows that the defeat of the Bulgarians should be dated after the decisive victory of the Byzantines over the Arab army in Asia Minor which took place on September 3, 863. Boris’ envoys were baptized soon afterwards and Boris himself became a Christian in 864. In the light of this new evaluation, the effectiveness of the Moravo-Byzantine alliance very soon became evident. Louis the German was deprived of his ally and had to postpone his planned attack until 864.


Boris took the Christian name of Michael, that of his imperial godfather. As a present from his godfather Boris most probably obtained the recognition of his former conquests in Byzantine Macedonia, including the territory around Lake Ochrida and Lake Prespa. [74]


The news of Boris’ conversion caused a great sensation in Byzantium. Different stories circulated in attempts to explain its sudden occurrence. [75] The story of the monk Methodius and his pictorial representation of the last judgment, which was reputed to have frightened Boris, [76] is certainly apocryphal. There may be, however, some truth in another story of the influence of a Greek slave Capharas on Boris, and of Boris’ sister who, according to the Continuator of Theophanes, had become a Christian during her captivity in Constantinople. After being exchanged for Capharas, she persuaded her brother to follow her. This story may contain a grain of truth, although it resembles too closely the genuine story of Cinamon and Enravotas.


This important victory of the Empire and its Church, strengthened considerably the position of the Byzantine mission in Moravia. Rastislav also became bolder in supporting the two brothers and their work.


It appears probable that, during their stay in Moravia, the brothers learned of a further success of their Mother Church, namely, the conversion of the Russians of Kiev. This happened between 864 and 866. We learn about it from the encyclical letters sent by Photius to the oriental patriarchs to convoke a council for 867. [77]





This first Christianization of Kievan Russia did not last. However, this could not have been anticipated in 864-866, and the news of this further success must have inspired the Byzantine missionaries in Moravia to new deeds. These events may have enlivened the hope expressed by Constantine’s biographer in his version of Rastislav’s letter, “that also other nations, seeing it, imitate us.”


So it happened that, in spite of the setback suffered by Rastislav in 864, the Byzantine mission was able to work in Moravia for three years and four months, according to Constantine’s biographer. Having laid the foundation for a Moravian Church with its own Slavic liturgy and religious literature, and having formed a new school of disciples, the brothers could plan the fulfillment of the second stage of their missionary operations, which was the ordination of their disciples to the priesthood and the establishment of a hierarchy.


*  *  *


After leaving Moravia with some of their disciples, they stopped in Pannonia where they were well received by its ruler Kocel, the successor of Pribina, who certainly knew of their presence and work in Moravia. Their hopes of spreading the faith among other Slavic nations using the new medium of Slavic literature, as expressed by Constantine’s biographer, found their first fulfillment here. Kocel was so much interested in Slavic letters that he himself learned them and entrusted about fifty disciples to the brothers for instruction in Slavic letters. We are well informed about the religious situation in Kocel’s land thanks to the document called Conversio of the Bavarians and Carantanians. Pribina had been very active in founding churches and Kocel continued his work. The Conversio enumerates thirty churches and priests in Kocel’s land. [78] The missions were directed by an archpriest who resided at Mosaburg, near Lake Balaton, the administrative center of the Mark. The Archbishop of Salzburg was a frequent guest at Mosaburg. He probably increased his activity after 863 when he learned about the Byzantine mission in Moravia. It was, thus, rather a daring gesture on the part of Kocel, a subject of Louis the German, to manifest such an interest in Slavic liturgy and letters.





The Frankish missionaries who worked in his lands must also have spoken the Slavic language and had certainly educated a considerable number of native clerics. The fifty disciples entrusted to the brothers were without doubt Slavs. The first attempts at the translation of some liturgical prayers into Slavic were done in Pannonia by the Frankish, or perhaps also the Irish missionaries, before the arrival of the Byzantine missionaries. As we have seen, the so-called Fragments of Freisingen have preserved some of these first attempts, mostly prayers connected with confession.


One of these documents, a kind of sermon for which no Latin or Greek original has so far been found, and called by the specialists adhortatio, seems to testify to the activity of the brothers in Pannonia. It presupposes an original connected with the preaching of the Byzantine missionaries in Moravia. [79]


The two brothers, with their companions, must have spent several months in Kocel’s lands [80] and their activity must have been very successful, as later events were to show. The biographer stresses that Constantine did not accept any material compensation for his work from Rastislav and Kocel. He asked in exchange nine hundred prisoners, whom he freed.


Then, without any explanation as to why the brothers took this course, the biographer presents them in Venice facing an assembly of bishops (jepiskopi in the text), priests, and monks who attacked their liturgical innovations, maintaining that the liturgy should be performed only in three languages. None of the great Fathers had dared to invent an alphabet for the Slavs.


Constantine is said first to have pointed out how many other nations, besides the Hebrews, Greeks, and Latins, had their own alphabet. He enumerates the Armenians, Persians, Basques, Iberians, Suzdalians, Goths, Avars, Turks, Khazars, Arabs, Egyptians, Syrians, and many others (chapter sixteen). [81]


Constantine also used many quotations from Holy Writ in order to defend the right of every people to glorify God in its own language. The longest quotation is from chapter fourteen of the First Letter to the Corinthians. The biographer quoted it from the Old Slavonic translation made by the two brothers. [82]


When reading this chapter one has the impression that Constantine has already composed, in Moravia, a short apology for his innovation, choosing from the Bible some passages which could





be used by his disciples against the attacks of the Trilinguists. He probably used this apology in Venice and later on also in Rome.


It is interesting to compare the fourteen scriptural quotations used, according to the biographer, by Constantine in defense of his innovation in Venice with the quotations used later in the bulls of Hadrian II and John VIII, approving the Slavonic liturgy. One has the impression that both popes knew of Constantine’s apology and used some of his scriptural quotations in their bulls. [83] It is probable that Constantine wrote his apology in Greek and that it was translated into Slavonic by Methodius before the departure from Moravia. The Greek text was probably presented in Rome to Anastasius the Librarian, who was a fervent supporter of the brothers. The latter was able, in his capacity as director of the papal chancery, to instruct the popes and to insert into the bulls some of Constantine’s scriptural arguments.


The disputation in Venice, if there was one, could have been held in Greek with Latin interpreters. The biographer, when describing it, was using the Slavonic translation of the apology which, probably, was much longer than the excerpt given by him.




1. It is true that the Frankish bishops assembled in 852 at a Synod at Mainz spoke about the “rudis adhuc christianitas gentis Maraeensium” (Capitularia regum Francorum, ed. V. Krause, MGH Leges, 2, no. 249, p. 189), but this does not mean that Christianity in Moravia was in its very beginnings. The bishops were prejudiced against Rastislav of Moravia because of an incident very embarrassing to them. The Count Albgis had abducted the wife of another lord and had taken refuge in Moravia. The bishops condemned the action, but Albgis was safe at the court of Rastislav, who refused to extradite the culprit.


2. Cf. P. A. Lavrov, Materialy, pp. 61, 134. The reading přelož is also to be found in the glagolitic Office to the memory of the brothers, which is older than the manuscripts of the Life written in the Cyrillic alphabet. See I. Berčic, Dvie službe rimskoga obreda za svetkovinu sv. Cirila i Metoda (Two Offices of the Roman Rite to the Honor of Saints Cyril and Methodius) (Zagreb, 1870), p. 59.


3. It was edited first by L. Geitler, Euchologium. Glagolski spomenik monastira Sinai brda. (Euchologium. A Glagolitic Document from a Monastery on Mount Sinai) (Zagreb, 1882). It was re-edited in the Cyrillic alphabet with a French translation, and a Greek text and commentary by J. Frček, Euchologium Sinaiticum, Patrologia Orientalis, vol. 24, fasc. 5 (Paris, 1933) and vol. 25, fasc. 3 (Paris, 1939). A new edition, with a photographic reproduction of the original and a commentary was published by R. Nachtigal, Euchologium Sinaiticum, 2 vols. (Ljubljana, 1941, 1942).


4. Ed. by J. Frček, Euchologium Sinaiticum, vol. 25 (1939), pp. 602611; ed. by R. Nachtigal, Euchologium Sinaiticum, vol. 2, pp. 337-345. NachtigaLs edition is reproduced by M. Weingart, J. Kurz, Texty ke studiu jazyka a písemnictví staroslověnského (Texts on the Study of Old Slavonic Language and Literature) (Prague, 1949), pp. 142—145.


5. On the origin of the liturgy of John Chrysostom, see A. Baumstark, “Zur Urgeschichte der Chrysostomusliturgie,” Theologie und Glaube, 5 (1913), pp. 299-313 and 394—395; Pl. de Meester, “Les origines et les développements du texte grec de la liturgie de St. Jean Chrysostom,” Chrysostomica: studi e ricerche intorno a S. Giovanni Crisostomo (Rome, 1908), pp. 254-357. On the symbolism of the Byzantine Liturgy, see Hans-Joachim Schulz, Die byzantinische Liturgie. Vom Werden ihrer Symbolgestalt (Freiburg i.B., 1964), Sophia, vol. 5.





6. R. Jakobson, “The Slavic response to Byzantine poetry," XIIe Congrès international des etudes byzantines. Rapports III (Ochrida, 1961). See also J. Vašica, Literární památky epochy velkomoravské (Literary Monuments of the Great Moravian Epoch) (Prague, 1966), pp. 33-37.


7. A short prayer in verse form to St. Gregory of Nazianzus is preserved in Slavic in the third chapter of his Life. The hymn composed by Constantine in Greek in honor of St. Clement seemed to Anastasius the Librarian to be of such high poetical quality that he did not dare to translate it into Latin. See Anastasius’ letter to Gauderich, MGH Ep 7, pp. 437, 438. It seems that the author of the Vita Constantini was also an admirer of St. Gregory of Nazianzus. He seems to have used some parts of the panegyric composed by Gregory on Basil the Great. This has been shown by V. Vavřínek in his study “Staroslověnské životy Konstantina a Metoděje," Rozpravy Čsl. Akademie věd, vol. 73 (1963), p. 57 ff. However, he stresses that the author of the Vita Constantini uses his source very independently. Gregory’s panegyric on Basil was used also by the author of the Vita Methodii who, however, translated verbally and slightly adapted some passages to his pattern. See V. Vavřínek, ibid., p. 93 ff. For details, cf. idem, “Staroslověnské životy Konstantina a Metoděje a panegyriky ftehoře z Nazianzu” (The Old Slavonic Lives of Constantine and Methodius and the Panegyrics by Gregory of Nazianzus), Listy filologické, 85 (Prague, 1962), pp. 96-122.


8. See the study by I. Gošev, “Svetite bratja Kiril i Metodij” (The Holy Brothers Cyril and Methodius), Godisnik na Sofij. univ. VI, Bogoslov, fak., 15 (1937-38), pp. 56-69. The author gives useful indications as to the development of the Greek Euchologia which contained both the holy liturgy (služebnik) and the ritual (trebnik) and of other liturgical books.


9. Edited first by V. Jagić in his Glagolitica (Vienna, 1890). See especially the edition by C. Mohlberg, Il messale glagolitico di Kiew {sec. IX) ed il suo prototypo Romano del sec. VI-VII, published in Atti della Pontificia Academia Romana di archeologia (serie III). Memorie, vol. 2 (Rome, 1928), pp. 207-320. The text in Cyrillic alphabet and the Latin formulary was reproduced by M. Weingart, J. Kurz, Texty, pp. 114-138.


10. Cf. H. W. Codrington, The Liturgy of Saint Peter (Münster i.W., 1936), Liturgiegeschichtliche Quellen und Forschungen, vol. 30, p. 101. L. Pokorný, “Liturgie pěje slovansky”, (The Liturgy Chanted in Slavic), Solunsti bratři (Prague, 1962), pp. 131-166; idem, “Die slavische Cyrillo-Methodianische Liturgie” in the symposium Sancti Cyrillus and Methodius (Prague, 1963), pp. 118-126.


11. J. Vašica, “Slovanská liturgie nově osvětlená kyjevskými listy”





(The Slavonic Liturgy Newly Clarified by the Kievan Leaflets), Slovo a slovesnost, 6 (Prague, 1940), pp. 65-77; idem, Literární památky, p. 45.


12. J. Vajs, “Kyjevské listy a jejich latinský (římský) original, stol. VI-VII,” Bratislava, 4 (1930), pp. 521-527.


13. Cf. R. Jakobson, “Český verš před tisíci lety,” Slovo a slovesnost, 1 (1935), pp. 50-53; idem, The Slavic Response, pp. 258-259; idem, “Tajnaja služba Konstantina Filosofa i dalnejšie razvitie staroslavjanskoj poezii” (The Holy Office of Constantine the Philosopher and the Further Development of Old Slavonic Poetry), Zbornik radova Vizantološkog Instituta, 8 (Beograd, 1963), pp. 161-166.


14. Cf. A. Dostál, “Origins of the Slavonic Liturgy,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 19 (1965), pp. 76, 77; see also idem, “L’Eucologe Slave du Sinai,” Byzantion, 36 (1966), pp. 41-50.


15. Already A. I. Sobolevskij had pointed it out in his Materialy i izsledovanija v oblasti filologii i archeologii (Material and Studies in Philological and Archaeological Fields) (St. Petersburg, 1910), p. 92 ff.


16. “Das glagolitische Sakramentar der Slavenapostel Cyrill und Method und seine lateinische Vorlage,” Ostkirchliche Studien, 6 (Würzburg, 1957), 165-173.


17. It is preserved in manuscripts Munich Clm. 15815a; Vienna, Cod. Vind. Ser. nov. 4225; Salzburg Studienbibliothek, Cod. MII, 296. The latter manuscript was published by A. Dold, “Neue Blätter des Salzburger Kurzsakramentar,” Texte und Arbeiten, 25 (Beuron, 1934), pp. 35-48; idem, “Abermals neue Fragmente des Salzburger Sakramentars,” ibidpp. 26-28 (Beuron, 1936), 71-98. A new edition is being prepared by K. Gamber.


18. J. Vajs, “Kanon charvatsko-hlaholského misálu Illir. 4. Protějšek hlaholských listů Kijevských” (The Canon of the Croato-Glagolitic Missal Illir. 4. Counterpart of the Glagolitic Leaflets of Kiev), Časopis pro moderní filologii, 25 (Prague, 1939), pp. 113-134; idem, “Mešní řád charvatsko-hlaholského vatikánského misálu Illir. 4 a jeho poměr k moravsko-pannonskému sakramentáři stol. IX” (The Mass Order of the Croatian Glagolitic Missal of Vatican Ill. 4 and Its Relation to the Moravo-Pannonian Sacramentary of the Ninth Century), Acta Academiae Velehradensis, 15 (1939), pp. 89-156. A résumé in Italian of Vajs’ discoveries will be found in his paper “II canone del piů ant'ico Messale croatoglagolitico sec. XIV (Codice Vaticano, Sign. Illir. 4),” Studi e testi, 125 (Cittá del Vaticano, 1946), Miscellanea Giovanni Mercati, vol. 5, pp. 356-362.


19. Especially in his study “Slovanská liturgie sv. Petra” (The Slavonic Liturgy of St. Peter), Byzantinoslavica, 8 (1939-1946), pp. 1-54.


20. Published by H. W. Codrington, The Liturgy of St. Peter; see also J. M. Hanssens, “La liturgie romano-byzantine de Saint Pierre,”





Orientalia Christiana periodica, 4 (Rome, 1938), pp. 234-258; vol. 5 (1939), pp. 103-150.


21. M. Tarchnisvili, “Geschichte der kirchlichen georgischen Literatur,” Studi e testi, 185 (Gitta di Vaticano, 1955), pp. 39, 176, 445; idem, Liturgiae ihericae antiquiores, Corpus scriptorum christianorum orientálním, vol. 123. Scriptores iberici, series I, tome I (Louvain, 1950); pp. 64-83, Latin translation; pp. 84-92, original text.


22. H. W. Codrington, The Liturgy of St. Peter, p. 28. It should be noted that two so-called bilingual fragments of the Liturgy, presenting the Greek text and the Latin original, but written in Greek letters, reveal very little of a Byzantinization which is prominent in other manuscripts. Cf. H. W. Codrington, pp. 116-129.


23. It was republished by P. A. Syrku, K istorii ispravlenija knig v Bolgarii, vol. I, Liturgiceskie trudy patriarcha Evthimija Tarnovskago, vol. 2 Teksty (Regarding a Revised Edition of Books in Bulgaria. The Liturgical Works of the Patriarch Euthymius of Trnovo) (St, Petersburg, 1890). The editor wrongly attributed the work to the Bulgarian Patriarch Euthymius.


24. Cf. M. Weingart, “Hlaholské listy vídeňské. K dějinám staroslověnského misálu” (The Glagolitic Leaflets of Vienna. Contribution to the History of the Old Slavonic Missal), Časopis pro moderní filologii, 24 (1938), pp. 105-129, 233-245, reprint of the Leaflets on pp. 111-114. First published by V. Jagić in his Glagolitica, pp. 10-14. Reprinted also by M. Weingart, J. Kurz, Texty, pp. 139—141.


25. Published by V. Vondrák, O původu kijevských listů a pražských zlomků (On the Origin of the Leaflets of Kiev and of the Fragments of Prague) (Prague, 1904), pp. 87-90. Reprinted by M. Weingart, J. Kurz, Texty, pp. 146-149.


26. L. Pokorný, “Liturgie pěje slovansky” (see note 10 above), disagreeing with J. Vajs and J. Vašica, thinks that the Fragments of Prague are older than the Leaflets of Kiev and of Vienna. He thinks that the Fragments presuppose the existence of a western liturgy which was used between Milan and Constantinople (sic!) and which the Iro-Scottish missionaries had brought to Moravia. The Fragments should be a part of the translation of this liturgy made by the two brothers. There is no evidence for such a daring conclusion. See A. Dostál, Origins of the Slavonic Liturgy, pp. 79, 80, who gives decisive arguments for rejecting this attempt at the reconstruction of the Slavonic liturgy.


27. F. Zagiba, “Neue Probleme in der Kyrillomethodianischen Forschung,” Ostkirchliche Studien, 11 (1962), pp. 103, 119. The author thinks that the translation of the Latin sacramentary and of the “Missa graeca” was made by the brothers during their stay in Rome in





869-870, although he admits that they knew the “Missa graeca” from their homeland.


28. Annales Fuldenses, MGH Ss 1, p. 378; ed. F. Kurze, p. 62.


29. On the origin of the theory that the liturgy could be celebrated only in these three languages, cf. F. Grivec, Konstantin und Method (Wiesbaden, 1960), pp. 76, 77. It was based on misinterpretations of expressions used by some Holy Fathers in the West, especially that of Isidor of Sevilla. It should be noticed that in their anti-Latin controversies some Greek polemicists counted among their objections to Latin usages also the trilinguistic theory. See the anonymous writing Contra Francos which dates most probably from the second half of the eleventh, or of the twelfth century, published by J. Hergenröther, Monumenta graeca ad Fhotium eiusque historiam pertinentia (Regensburg, 1869), pp. 62-71, ch. 19, p. 68. The same author wrongly attributes the writing to Photius. He goes so far as to suppose that Photius could have learned about the opposition of the Frankish clergy to the Slavonic liturgy in Moravia. J. Hergenröther, Photius, Patriarch von Constantinopel (Regensburg, 1869), pp. 206-208. It should be stressed, however, that the Synod of Frankfurt of the year 794 in Canon 52 protested against similar teaching: “Ut nullus credat quod nonnisi in tribus linguis Deus adorandus sit. Quia in omni lingua Deus adoratur et homo exauditur si justa petierit.” Concilia aevi Carolini 2 MGH Leg sectio 3, p. 71. Even if the bishops had in mind only private prayers in the vernacular, such a stressing of the vernacular when addressing God, made by a Frankish Synod, is important.


30. Conversio, MGH Ss 2, p. 12; ed. M. Kos, p. 138; archpriests Altfridus and Rihpaldus, in Kocel's Pannonia. The word archierjei (ed. P. A. Lavrov, p. 28) is translated by F. Grivec and J. Bujnoch as bishops. J. Vašica, T. Lehr-Splawiński, and J. Stanislav translate it correctly as archpriests. This word is found only once in this connection, in the Legends. Whenever they speak about bishops, the authors of the Legends use the word episkop’ (Vita Const., ch. 23), episkup’ (ibid., chso 14, 16, 17, 18; Vita Meth., chs. 6, 8, 9, 10; ibid., episkop’stvo, ch. 8). Three times in each Vita we read the word archiepiskup’ for archbishop (Vita Const., chs. 8, 10, 12; Vita Meth., chs. 1, 4, 10). It is evident that the author of Constantine’s Life did not on this occasion have bishops in mind. He certainly knew of the institution of archpriests, if not from Moravia, then from Pannonia. The brothers did not meet bishops in Moravia, but Bavarian archpriests, and that after 864. Cf. also my paper, Die Bedeutung der Brüder Cyrill und Methodius für die Slaven und Kirchengeschichte, Prolegomena ad Acta Congressus historiae Slavicae Salisburgensis (Wiesbaden, 1964), p. 18. The ecclesiastical organization of Moravia before the arrival of the





Byzantine mission is well outlined by V. Vavřínek in his study, “Die Christianisierung und Kirchen-organisation Grossmährens,” Historica, 7 (Prague, 1963), pp. 5-56.


31. The first Slavonic Life of St. Wenceslas reports that his father invited a bishop called Notarius, with his clergy, to perform the ceremony; M. Weingart, První česká církevně-slovanská legenda o sv. Václavu, Svatováclavský Sborník, vol. 1 (Prague, 1934), pp. 974, 975. The prayer recited by the bishop is translated into Latin by Weingart: “Domine Deus, Jesu Christe, benedic puero huic, sicuti benedixisti omnibus iustis tuis.” In the Euchologium Sinaiticum there are three different prayers which the priest must recite during this ceremony. The above would seem to be an abbreviation of the second prayer of the Euchologium; cf. J. Frček, Euchologium Sinaiticum, vol. 24, pp. 654, 656. On the problem, cf. V. Chaloupecký, Prameny X. století legendy Kristiánovy o sv. Václavu a sv. Ludmile (The Tenth Century’s Sources on Christian’s Legend on St. Wenceslas and St. Ludmila), Svatováclavský Sborník (Prague, 1939), pp. 414, 415. It is possible that the bishop in question was one of the three ordained for Moravia after 900; see below, p. 196. Cf. also J. Dostál, Origins of the Slavonic Liturgy, p. 80 and especially J. Frček, “Byl sv. Vaclav postřižen podle ritu východního či západního?” (Was the Ceremony of Hair Cutting Performed on St. Wenceslas According to Eastern or Western Rite?), Slovanské Studie, Vajs’ Festschrift, ed. J. Kurz, M. Murko, J. Vašica (Prague, 1948), pp. 144-158. On p. 153, J. Frček quotes some other echoes of the prayer contained in the Euchologium of Sinai in this first Slavonic legend on St. Wenceslas, especially in the prayer for the soul of the murdered prince.


32. It is contained on folios 66b-80a. In Frček’s edition, Euchologium Sinaiticum, vol. 25, pp. 490-523. Cf. J. Vašica, Literární památky, pp. 48-51.


33. It is reprinted in the original language in Frček’s Euchologium Sinaiticum, vol. 25, pp. 499-501 with indications of other editions. The original is preserved in a manuscript retained at the monastery of Teplá in Bohemia, written between 828-876, and in two manuscripts, one in Munich, the other in Orleans, from the tenth or eleventh century. It was the Czech philologist V. Vondrák who, in his study, Studie z oboru církevně-slovanského písemnictví (Studies from the Field of Old Slavonic Literature) (Prague, 1903), pp. 23 ff., 153 ff., discovered this old Germanic element in the formular.


34. Published by F. Rarnovs and M. Kos, Brizinski spomeniki (The Documents of Freisingen) (Ljubljana, 1937), reprinted in M. Weingart, J. Kurz, Texty, pp. 150-160. Cf. also F. Grivec, Zarja Stare Slovenske književnosti (Dawn of the Old Slovene Literature) (Ljubljana, 1942); A. V. Isačenko, Jazyk a povod frizinských pamiatok (The Language





and the Origin of the Documents of Freisingen) (Bratislava, 1943). The first and third texts are related to the so-called prayer of St Emmeram, the second is a fragment of an exhortation which has no connection with an old German prototype and which should be scribed to Constantine or Methodius.


35. The brothers also seem to have accepted some religious terminology formed under the influence of the Old German language used by the Frankish missionaries. This seems to be shown by the translation of the prayer Our Father (Matt. 6). Although the Gospel was translated by Constantine from the Greek original, the translation of the prayer differs from the Greek text. This does not mean that Constantine followed here the text of the Latin Vulgate. He simply accepted the translation of this prayer made by Frankish missionaries with which the Moravians were already familiar. Cf. J. Cibulka, “Epiusios," Slavia, 25 (1956), pp. 406—415. Other words, really of old German origin—for example, pop' (priest), post' (fasting), oltar (altar), neprijazn' (devil)—were accepted by the brothers in their translations of ecclesiastical texts because they were already in use in the language of the Moravians.


36. Cf. K. Kalajdovič, Ioann, eksarch bolgarskij (Moscow, 1924), pp. 129-132.


37. A. Vaillant, “La préface de l'Evangeliaire vieux-slave,” Revue des etudes slaves, 24 (1948), pp. 5-20. Cf. M. Weingart, J. Kurz, Texty, pp. 108-110, the reprint of the text from the first edition by A. Iljinskij, Makedonskij listok (St. Petersburg, 1906), pp, 7, 8.


38. F. Grivec, in his book Konstantin und Method, pp. 197-209, gives some interesting examples which characterize very well the ingenious techniques of the translators.


39. Such is the result of the research made by the leading specialist in this field, J. Vajs, who edited the translation of the four Gospels, with the parallel Greek text adding to his edition a rich critical material. J. Vajs, Kritické studie staroslovanského textu biblického (Critical Studies of the Old Slavonic Biblical Text) (Prague, 1935, 1936). Cf. also two studies published in Vajs' Festschrift Slovanské studie: F. Pechuška, “Řecká předloha staroslověnského textu skutků apoštolských" (The Greek Prototype of the Old Slavonic Text of the Acts of the Apostles), pp. 60-65; J. Laurenčík, “Nelukianovská ctění v Sinajskem žaltáři" (Readings in the Slavonic Psalter of Sinai not Corresponding to Lucian’s Redaction), pp. 66-83.


40. The best edition is given by R. Nachtigal, “Rekonstrukcija treh starocerkvenoslov izvirnih pesnilev" (Reconstruction of Three Old Church Slavonic Original Poems), Razprave Akademije znanosti i umetnosti v Ljubljane (Ljubljana, 1943), pp. 43-156, esp. p. 89 ff. The Proglas contains 110 verses and is preserved in three manuscripts of





the Gospels of Serbian origin dating from the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. It is also partly preserved in a manuscript composed in Russia in the sixteenth century.


41. Cf. A. Vaillant, "Une poésie vieux-slave: la préface de l’Evangile,” Revue des études slaves, 33 (1956), pp. 7-25.



E. Georgiev, Dve proizvedenija na sv. Cirila (Two Works on St. Cyril) (Sofia, 1938);

the review of this work by J. Vajs in Slavia, 17 (1939-1940), pp. 602-611.

Cf. F. Grivec, "Vitae Constantini et Methodii,” Acta Academiae Velehradensis, 17 (1941), pp. 1-127, 161-277, esp. pp. 272-275;

R. Jakobson, Moudrost starých Čechů (The Wisdom of the Ancient Czechs) (New York, 1943), pp. 14-18;

idem, "St. Constantin’s Prologue to the Gospels,” St. Vladimirs Seminary Quarterly, 1954, pp. 19-23, with an English translation;

idem, "The Slavic Response to Byzantine Poetry,” XIIe Congrès international des etudes byzantines, VIII (Belgrad-Ochrid, 1961), p. 264.


43. It is quite possible that the famous Otfrid von Weissenburg, who had composed a versified epical harmony of the Gospels in south-Rhine-Frankish idiom, was inspired by the example of Constantine in Moravia. At least he says in the introduction to his compilation: "in our time many are trying to do so, writing in their own language, endeavoring to glorify their nation. Why should the Franks neglect such things and not start to chant God's glory in the language of the Franks?” The editor of this work, E. Schröder, thinks that Otfrid had in mind the work of the Byzantine mission in Moravia, as he was a contemporary of Constantine. He wrote his work between 863-871. See Evangelienbuch, ed. O. Erdmann (1882), 2nd ed. E. Schröder, 3d ed. L. Wolff (Tübingen, 1957), Altdeutsche Textbibliothek, vol. 49.


44. See the letter of Pope Zacharias (741-752) to St. Boniface, in which this doctrine of which Virgil was accused by Boniface, is condemned by the pope, PL, 89, cols. 946, 947.


45. See F. Repp, "Zur Erklärung von Kap. XV der Legende von Konstantin,” Zeitschrift für slavische Philologie, 26 (1958), pp. 114118. I. Dujčev treated this problem more thoroughly in his study, "Un episodio dell’ attivita di Costantino Filosofo in Moravia,” Ricerche Slavistiche, 3 (1954), pp. 90-96. Cf. also his review of F. Repp’s study in Byzantinoslavica, 19 (1958), p. 323 ff. He rejects Repp’s suggestion concerning the old Germanic pagan belief without any valid reason. The combination of those two beliefs would explain better Boniface’s reaction. See also J. Vašica’s review of Dujčev’s study in Byzantinoslavica, 20 (1959), p. 97. In my book Les Slaves, p. 167, I saw in this doctrine a superstition of Latin priests. It should be concluded from this that the two brothers did not share the belief in the doctrine, not uncommon in the classical period, on the spherical shape of the earth. When commenting on the studies by Repp, Dujčev, and Vašica on





this problem, V. Vavřínek rightly points out that Virgil's idea of the antipodes could have been introduced into Moravia by Bavarian missionaries who had no connection with the Iro-Scottish monks, because even other ideas contained in Virgil's cosmographical work were accepted in Bavaria. “Christianisierung und Kirchenorganisation Grossmährens," Historia, 7 (Prague, 1963), p. 30. On the authorship of this work, see H. Löwe, “Ein literarischer Widersacher des Bonifatius Virgil von Salzburg und die Kosmographie des Aethicus Ister," Abhandlungen der Akademie zu Mainz, no. 11 (1951). On Virgil's cosmological doctrine, see ibid., p. 40 ff.


46. The results of the excavation were published by V. Hrubý, “Základy kostela na staroslovanském pohřebišti ve Starém Městě ‘Na Valách,' " (The Foundation of a Church on the Old-Slavonic Cemetery in Staré Město “Na Valách"), Památky archeologické, 46 (1955), pp. 265-308; idem, Staré Město, pp. 280-290.


47. Published by J. Poulík, “Nález kostela z doby velkomoravské v trati ‘Špitálky' ve Starém Městě" (The Discovery of a Church from the Great Moravian Period in the Zone of “Špitálky" in Staré Město), Památky archeologické, 46 (1955), pp. 307-351.


48. J. Poulík, “The Latest Discoveries from the Period of the Great Moravian Empire," Historica, 1 (1959), pp. 7-70; idem, Staří Moravané, pp. 97-102. In his later publication Staří Moravané, pp. 101 and 149, however, he dates the construction of the eastern part of this church from the first half of the ninth century, but the construction of both the narthexes from the last third of the same century. Neither report can be regarded as definitive because no detailed description of the exploration of this object or of the archaeological material found around it has yet been published. Cf. also the critical remarks by V. Vavřínek, Study of the Church Architecture, p. 296. In the mouth of the corpse of a lord buried near that church was found a gold coin of the reign of Emperor Michael III. This find cannot, naturally, be regarded as proof that Church Number Three was built after the year 863. We should, however, bear in mind that the Byzantine emperors often used to present gold coins to prominent persons. On the finding of this coin see J. Poulík, The Latest Archeological Discoveries, p. 39, table IX. Cf. also V. Vavřínek, “A Byzantine ‘Charon's Obol' in a Great-Moravian Grave," The Numismatic Review of the Coin Galleries, VIII (New York, 1967), pp. 50-53. The objects found in the tombs near that church, which should be credited to Moravian workmanship, reveal a very advanced artistic performance that was attained only in the second half of the ninth century. Cf. J. Poulík, Staří Moravané, pp. 100-103, tables 27, 28.


49. Cf. J. Poulík, Staří Moravané, p. 103. The details concerning this discovery are not yet published.





50. See especially F. Kalousek, Velkomoravské hradištní město Břeclav-Pohansko (Břeclav-Pohansko, a Townlike Hill-fort from the Great Moravian Period) (Břeclav, 1961). The author gave the preliminary information of his discovery in the Czech archaeological review, Archeologické rozhledy, 12 (1960), pp. 496-530. Cf. above, Ch. III, p. 120. Cf. also J. Poulík, Staří Moravané, pp. 116-120; V. Richter, Die Anfänge der grossmährischen Architektur, pp. 193-195.


51. Its Great Moravian origin was shown by excavations made by V. Hrubý in 1958 and 1961. He describes his findings in his book Staré Město, Velkomoravský Velehrad (Prague, 1965), pp. 206-209. For more details see his study "Velkomoravské hradisko sv. Klimenta u Osvétiman,” Časopis moravského musea (Review of the Moravian Museum), 44 (1959), pp. 19-70, with a résumé in German. On pp. 63 and 64 he describes the find of a Byzantine coin from the reign of Theophilus (829-842) at Osvetimany.


52. J. Cibulka, "Grossmährische Kirchenbauten,” in the Symposium Sancti Cyrillus et Methodius, Leben und Wirken (Prague, 1963), pp. 107-111.


53. Ibid., p. 107.


54. See J. Cibulka, "Zur Frühgeschichte der Architektur in Mähren (800-900),” Festschrift Karl M. Swoboda (Wiesbaden, 1959), pp. 69-73.


55. See above, p. 121. V. Vavřínek, "Study of Church Architecture from the Period of the Great Moravian Empire,” Byzantino slavica, 25 (1964), pp. 293-301 is rightly discarding Cibulka’s theory. "It is not possible to accept Cibulka’s claim of autonomous architectonic development in this area. For Cibulka does not take into account the great disparity of time between the early Christian buildings and the later Bulgarian churches which he refers to. These were all built at the end of the ninth or at the beginning of the tenth century, i.e. during the time when Bulgaria had already been Christianized by an official Byzantine mission.” See also the critique of Cibulka’s theory by V. Richter in his study, Die Anfänge ..., pp. 198-223.


56. "Stavební umění Velkomoravské říše” (The Architectural Art of the Great Moravian Empire), Architektura ČSSR, 20 (1961), pp. 129135, esp. p. 134; cf. also his previous study, "Chrámy cyrilometodějské na Velké Moravě” (Churches of the Time of Cyril and Methodius in Great Moravia), Umění, 1 (1953), pp. 42-60.


57. Cf. V. Vavřínek, "Study of Church Architecture,” p. 294.


58. C. de Boor, "Nachträge zu den Notitiae episcopatuum,” Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte, 12 (1891), p. 533. Cf. F. Dvornik, Les Slaves, Byzance et Rome, p. 241.


59. P. Kabbadia, "Ανασκαφαὶ ἐν Ἐπιδαύρῳ (1918, 1919),” Ἀρχεολογικὴ Ἐφήμερις (Athens, 1918, part 4), pp. 115-154, esp.





G. A. Soteriou, Αἰ παλαιοχριστιανικαὶ Βασιλικαὶ τῆς Ἑλλάδος (Early Christian Basilicas in Hellas), ibid. (Athens, 1929), pp. 198-201. I express my thanks to my colleague Professor Ernst Kitzinger who called my attention to this problem.


60. G. A. Soteriou, Αἰ παλαιοχριστιανικαὶ Βασιλικαὶ ... , pp. 183, 184.


61. Ibid., p. 194.


62. Ibid., p. 195.


63. Ibid., p. 9, planche 17. Cf. also J. Werner, "Slawische Bügelfiebeln des 7. Jahrhunderts," P. Reinecke Festschrift (Mainz, 1950), pp. 150-172, esp. p. 171. The presence of Slavs in this environment is attested also by archaeological finds.


64. See France Mesesnel, "Die Ausgrabung einer altchristlichen Basilika in Suvodol," Bulletin de l'Institut archéologique bulgare, 10 (1936), Actes du IVe Congrès international des études byzantines, pp. 184-194. A. H. S. Megaw in his paper, "The Skripou Screen," The Annals of the British School of Archaeology at Athens, 61 (1967), pp. 20-25, when describing the historical setting of the construction of the church of Skripou, built in 873-874 by the Protospatharius Leo, rightly connects its foundation with Basil I's policy of re-christianizing and re-hellenizing Hellas.


65. T. M. Minajeva, "Archeologičeskie pamjatniki na r. Giljac v verchovijach Kubani" (Archaeological Monuments on the River Giljac on the Riverhead of Kuban), Materially i issledovanija po archeologii SSSR, 23 (1951), pp. 273-301. The plan of the church is on p. 293. On p. 300 the author enumerates ruins of several other churches of the same type in the region of Kuban. Cf. V. Hrubý, Staré Město (1955), p. 288.


66. Cf. F. Dvornik, Les Slaves, p. 288.


67. J. Kulakovskij, "Christianstvo u Alan" (Christianity among the Alans), Vizantijskij Vremennik’, 5 (1898), pp. 1-18, esp. p. 7.


68. J. Cibulka, "První tři velkomoravské kostely" in the symposium Soluňští bratri, p. 153. He quotes as another example the church of Mesembria, meaning the old cathedral church whose construction is generally dated from the tenth century. This dating is questioned, however, by several specialists. Some date its construction from the beginning of the sixth century. See for details and bibliography, Dj. Stričević, "La renovation du type basilical dans l’architecture ecclésiastique des pays centraux des Balkans au IXe-XIe siècles," XIIe Congrès international des études byzantines, Ochride 1961 (BelgradeOchrid, 1961), rapports VII, p. 179. Mesembria was taken by Krum and, if the church was already standing, it was probably greatly damaged by the victor. On the Panaghia of Skripou, see also R. Krautheimer, Early Christian and Byzantine Architecture (Baltimore, 1965),





pp. 223, 224. He compares this church to the cathedral of St. Sophia in Ochrid. On the dating of the construction of the Third Church in Mikulčice, see above, footnote 48.


69. See above, p. 84.


70. Cf. what was said above, p. 71, concerning the church of the Holy Apostles in Constantinople.


71. V. Hrubý, who is leading the excavations made at Osvetimany, favors this supposition.


72. See F. Dvornik, Les Slaves, Byzance et Rome, p. 186 ff., and Les Légendes, p. 228 ff.


73. A. Vaillant, M. Lascaris, “La date de la conversion des Bulgares,” Revue des études slaves, 13 (1933), pp. 5-15. The victory of the able general Petronas over the army of Omar, the emir of Melitene, made the rapid move possible. It was not only the invasion of Byzantine territory calling for revenge, but rather the alliance of Boris with the Franks which initiated this intervention. The mild conditions imposed by the Byzantines on the defeated Boris show that the prevention of a Bulgaro-Frankish political and cultural alliance was the main reason for this intervention. Cf. G. Ostrogorsky, History of the Byzantine State (1969), p. 227, on the Arab defeat; cf. also Christian Gerard, Les Bulgares de la Volga et les Slaves du Danube (Paris, 1939), p. 199 ff.


74. The surrender of the territory of Zagorja, including the ruins of Anchialus and Develtus, should be attributed to Theodora in 852. Theophanes Continuatus (Bonn, pp. 162—165) attributes it to the empress, but connects it wrongly with Boris’ conversion. Cf. V. N. Zlatarski, Istorija, I, p. 2 ff., and S. Runciman, A History, pp. 90, 91.


75. See the bibliography in my book, Les Slaves, p. 186. ff.


76. Theoph. Contin., pp. 162, 163.


77. PG, vol. 102, cols. 736, 737. For details, see below, Ch. VII, p. 267.


78. Conversio, ed. M. Kos, p. 136 ff.; cf. also the report by T. Bogyay on the excavations made at Mosaburg, “Mosapurc und Zalavár,” Südost-Forschungen, 14 (1955), pp. 349-405. For more details, see A. Sos, Die Ausgrabungen Geiza Féhers in Zalavar, Archeologia Hungarica, series nova, vol. 41 (Budapest, 1963).


79. See the important monograph by A. V. Isačenko, Jazyk a povod Frizinských pamiatok (The Language and the Origin of the Documents of Freisingen) (Bratislava, 1943, with a long résumé in German); idem, “Nachträgliche Bemerkungen zur Frage der älteren deutsch-slavischen literarischen Beziehungen,” Zeitschrift für slavische Philologie, 19 (1944-1947), pp. 303-311. Cf. also F. Zagiba, “Zur Geschichte Kyrills und Methods und der bairischen Ostmission,” JGOE, 9 (1960), p. 268 ff., for other references.


80. The Italian Legend estimates their stay in Moravia, Pannonia, and Venice at four years. The Life of Constantine (ch. 15) let them





stay in Moravia forty months, and the Life of Methodius (ch. 5) three years.


81. See the explanation of these names in my book, Les Légendes, p. 207. The list of nations is rather arbitrary. Some of them had had only a few books of the Holy Writ translated into their language. The Basques and Iberians should be Georgians, the Suzdalians were probably an Alanic tribe in the Crimea, the Khazars may have used the Hebrew Old Testament. The Avars could hardly have any religious literature. The Tursi in the original are unknown, perhaps a Turkic tribe, or Huns and Magyars.


82. F. Grivec, Žit ja Konstantina in Metodija (Ljubljana, 1951), p. 101, rightly thinks that Constantine did not quote the whole passage as we read it in the Legend. The biographer copied it without regard to whether it fitted the occasion or not. Other quotations were taken from Ps. 95:1; 97:4; 65:4; 116:1; 150:6; John 1:12; 17:20-21; Matt. 28:18-20; 23:13; Mark 16:15-17; Luke 11:52.


83. It was done by V. Vavřínek, Staroslověnské životy, p. 76 ff. He gives also a short review of works in which some specialists have discussed the historicity and reliability of the disputation and of the reports given by the biographers.


[Previous] [Next]

[Back to Index]