Byzantine missions among the Slavs. SS. Constantine-Cyril and Methodius
VII. The Cyrilo-Methodian Heritage in Poland and Bohemia
Moravian hierarchy reestablished, end of Great Moravia— Gorazd and Slavonic bishops in Poland?—Slavonic liturgy and hierarchy in Poland?—The problem of two metropolitan sees in Poland—Wiślica a metropolitan see?—Casimir the Restorer, Boleslas II, disappearance of the Slavonic hierarchy and liturgy in Poland—Archaeological evidence for cultural influence of Great Moravia on Bohemia—Bořivoj and Ludmila; churches at Levý Hradec and Prague—The chronicler Christian on Slavic liturgy —his sources—Privilegium moraviensis ecclesiae: Latin defense of Slavonic liturgy, written in Moravia—Epilogus terrae Moraviae composed in Latin by Moravian refugee priest—First Slavonic compositions in Bohemia—Tolerance of Slavonic liturgy and letters—St. Adalbert and Slavonic liturgy—Foundation of Slavonic Abbey Sázava by St. Procopius—Cult of Cyril and Methodius in Bohemia?—Translation of Latin Legends into Slavonic; Czech Benedictins and Slavonic letters—Invocation of Western Saints in Slavonic translations of Latin prayers—Relation between Kiev and Bohemia through Sázava—King Vratislav II, Gregory VII and Slavonic liturgy—End of Slavonic center in Sázava, disappearance of the Slavonic liturgy, memory of the Slavonic past under Přemysl II and Charles IV.
Although Wiching’s persecution inflicted a serious setback to the Slavonic liturgy in Moravia, it did not mean that all Methodius’ disciples were expelled from the country. The main blow was dealt to those priests who were Byzantine subjects—Clement, Angelarius, Naum, and Laurentius—and to the native Gorazd who
was particularly dangerous to Wiching, because he had been chosen as Methodius’ successor and had been summoned to Rome to justify himself. There were other disciples who failed to escape from Wiching’s clutches, but many must have found refuge in the castles of Slavic nobles who favored the Slavonic liturgy.
We can hardly accept the idea that Svatopluk gave permission for the expulsion of all his Slavic clergy. Even the author of Clement’s Vita excuses him, saying that such things would not have happened had Svatopluk been present. Although he favored the Franks, he “respected the virtue of such men.”  We may also suppose that Slavonic literature was not entirely destroyed. A complete elimination of the Slavonic liturgy may be thought to have been achieved only in the diocese of Nitra, where Wiching was in absolute control.
Svatopluk continued his pro-Western policy even after Arnulf had revolted against Charles III in 887, and had become emperor and ruler of Germany. He met Arnulf in 890 and presented him with Stephen V’s invitation to come to Italy as protector of the Church in order to help the pope in a difficult situation. On that occasion, Arnulf seems to have confirmed Svatopluk in possession of Bohemia, but the situation soon changed, and in 892 Arnulf made an unsuccessful, although devastating, invasion of Moravia. 
In order to break Svatopluk’s resistance, Arnulf renewed his alliance with the Bulgarians in the same year. He sent a special embassy to the Bulgarian ruler Vladimir, who had succeeded Boris, especially requesting his ally to cut off the export of salt to Moravia. Because Pannonia was still in Svatopluk’s possession, the embassy had to cross lower Pannonia and reach Bulgaria by travelling along the river Sava. In spite of the renewal of the Franko-Bulgarian alliance, Svatopluk in 893 was able to defend his possessions and independence against Arnulf.
In the same year, however, Svatopluk realized that the hopes he had entertained concerning the usefulness of Wiching in his plans for expansion in the West were vain. For Wiching, seeing that Germany again had an energetic ruler, thought it more profitable for himself to change sides, and he fled to Arnulf, who appointed him as his chancellor. In 894 Svatopluk died.
His son and successor Mojmír II made peace with Arnulf in the same year. A fresh danger emanating from the new invaders of the Danubian basin forced him to cease hostilities with the
Franks. In 892 the Magyars had already made a devastating invasion of Pannonia, then still in the hands of Svatopluk. There was the danger that they might invade the territory of Moravia proper. In order to avoid a war on two fronts, Mojmír II ceded Pannonia to Arnulf. He suffered another loss in 895. The Bohemian princes, led by Bořivoj’s successor Spytihnĕv, appeared at Regensburg and became Arnulf’s vassals. In 896 Arnulf was crowned emperor, and in 897 even the Sorbs of modern Saxony became his subjects.
In spite of these losses, Mojmír’s Great Moravia was still a powerful state. The young ruler even tried to restore his rule over Bohemia, and, in spite of the hostility of his brother Svatopluk, who allied himself with the Bavarians, he was able to withstand Arnulf’s attacks in 898 and in 899. His defeated brother Svatopluk left Moravia with the enemy.  Arnulf died in the same year, leaving one illegitimate son, Louis the Child.
This gave Mojmír II the opportunity of reorganizing his state and of renewing its ecclesiastical independence. We learn that he sent an embassy to Rome, probably in 899, asking for bishops. Because Great Moravia had once had an archbishop, it was not difficult for John IX to fulfill his request. Archbishop John, and the Bishops Benedict and Daniel, were sent to Moravia with the task of ordaining bishops for Mojmír’s realm. We learn this from a letter which the Bavarian higher clergy, led by Theotmar, Archbishop of Salzburg, addressed to John IX in 900.  It is an astonishing document, which reveals that the Bavarian episcopate of this time was not so much interested in the progress of Christianity in the newly-converted lands as in the extension of their power and material profit.
There is no mention of Archbishop Methodius. Moravia is presented as having always belonged to the diocese of Passau. Not even Wiching’s consecration by John VIII had reduced Passau’s rights.  The Moravians are presented as barbarians, allying themselves with the pagan Magyars. When the latter invaded Italy in 898, the Moravians are said to have refused to conclude peace with the Empire and thus to have prevented the king from helping Italy. All this is false, and one can only marvel how such a complaint, which ignored the former decisions of the Holy See and was so full of bias and false assertions, could ever have been written. It throws a sharp light on the manners of the period.
One assertion, however, can be accepted without hesitation. The bishops complained that the legates had consecrated an archbishop
and three suffragan bishops. This was the main object of their intervention in Rome. The pope had sent three bishops to Moravia, as, according to canon law, such a consecration must be performed by three bishops.
The new Moravian hierarchy was able to function for a short time. Mojmír II, who had repulsed a Bavarian attack in 900, concluded a solemn peace treaty with the Empire in 901, in order to face his new invaders, the Magyars. He defeated them in 902, but their repeated assaults increasingly weakened his people. The peace with the Empire seems to have been kept, since the Bavarian chronicles do not report any armed conflict with Mojmír II. Finally the Moravians proved unable to stop the waves of invaders and their empire was finally destroyed, probably between 905 and 908. 
Even this destruction does not seem to have stopped all religious life in the invaded country. Some of the churches and cemeteries, the existence of which have recently been discovered, appear to have continued to serve their purpose during the first half of the tenth century. There must thus have been some priests who survived the catastrophe. But all cultural and political activity was stopped.
There are no reports extant on the work, or the fate, of the archbishop and bishops ordained by the papal legates. Their presence in Moravia before the catastrophe was, however, not forgotten. As late as 973, Pilgrim, the Bishop of Passau, recalls their existence in the document addressed by him to Pope Benedict VII.  He renewed the pretensions of the see of Passau over Moravia, pretending in the forged bull that the pope had raised his see to an archbishopric with jurisdiction over both Moravia and Pannonia.
It is quite probable that the archbishop in question, who was ordained by the legates, was in fact Gorazd himself. Mojmír II had plenty of opportunity to inform the legates of the duplicity of Wiching, and the wish of St. Methodius that Gorazd should succeed him was still well remembered. Wiching imprisoned Gorazd, but he could hardly expel Gorazd because he was a native and of noble origin. The Life of Clement does not include him with those other disciples who had found refuge in Bulgaria. Most probably Gorazd sought refuge in the castle of a Moravian noble after being released from prison.
Because Nitra was already a bishopric, one of the suffragans
was certainly ordained for that see. Another suffragan may have been installed in Olomouc or in southeastern Slovakia,  and the third was sent to the Polish Vistulanians. We do not hear of this part of Great Moravia seceding from Mojmír II, as did the Czechs of Bohemia and the Sorbs. This part of Great Moravia seems to have retained a certain independence after the catastrophe, probably as a Magyar tributary. 
* * *
The discovery of a Polish calendar dating from the fourteenth century has thrown more light on the fate of Gorazd.  According to this, his feast was celebrated in southern Poland on the seventeenth of July. The calendar was in use at Wiślica, in Little Poland, and was a copy of an older manuscript. This is the only evidence for the veneration of Gorazd in the Western Church.  This discovery entitles us to suppose that Gorazd had found refuge in the territory of the Vistulanians. He does not seem to have been alone. The catalogue of the bishops of Cracow contains the names of two bishops who are said to have occupied the see before the year 1000, namely, Prohorius and Proculphus. The names are unfamiliar in the Latin West, but were common in the Greek Church. This circumstance suggests the possibility that they were bishops from Great Moravia who had found refuge with Gorazd in this part of modern Poland. An annalist of the thirteenth century suggested specific dates for both of them—970 for Prohorius, and 986 for Proculphus—and he adds to them a third bishop, Lampertus (995).  These dates may not be exact, but the annalist must have based his testament on an old local tradition.
There is sufficient evidence to show that the Slavonic influences penetrating from Moravia into southern Poland were considerable, and were felt during the tenth and eleventh centuries. Both the Polish and the Czech religious terminology betray Old-Slavonic roots.  The oldest Polish composition, a hymn in honor of Our Lady—also shows clearly that its original version was composed in Slavonic. 
There are certain other indications, such as the Slavonic inscriptions on the denarii of Boleslas the Great, and the testimony of the first Polish chronicler, called Anonymus Gallus, stating that
Boleslas was mourned by the whole Polish population—both Latins and the Slavs—meaning Poles of both the Latin and the Slavonic rites. There is, moreover, the letter of Matilda of Swabia to Mieszko II praising him for his worship of God in Slavic, Latin, and Greek. 
The most recent archaeological discoveries in Moravia add new evidence. The small, round churches which were so popular in Bohemia in the tenth and eleventh centuries had their prototype in Moravia, as is shown by the discovery there of round churches dating from the ninth century. This style was also popular in Poland in the eleventh century, as is evidenced by a church built on the Wawel, in Cracow, and another at Teschen in Silesia. In Polish Wiślica the foundations of a small church were discovered, which seems to have had its prototype in ninth-century churches with a semi-circle apse in Moravia.  Possibly, further evidence of this kind will be found by Polish archaeologists. It should also be noted that many churches in the region of Cracow were dedicated to St. Clement. Although of later origin, they show that the cult of the favorite saint of Great Moravia, which was introduced into Poland by Slavonic priests from Moravia, had struck root there. 
All this makes more plausible the recently suggested thesis that the Slavonic hierarchy continued to exist in Poland from the beginning of the tenth down to the end of the eleventh century. Southern Poland, or the lands of the Vistulanians, was a part of Great Moravia, and it was thus natural that the bishops who had been ordained by the papal legates and had survived the catastrophe should take refuge in this part of Great Moravia and continue their work there. One of them was most probably already there after being ordained in 900, and was joined by Archbishop Gorazd and one or two other bishops. It is less probable that one of the bishops fled to Bohemia, since that country ceased to form part of Great Moravia, and had not enjoyed friendly relations with Mojmír II before the Moravian catastrophe, but it is not absolutely impossible.
The existence of the Slavonic liturgy in Poland is also confirmed by other testimony. The first Polish chronicler, Anonymus Gallus,
probably a Walloon priest, affirms that under Boleslas the Great (992-1025) Poland possessed two metropolitans. This can only mean the one in Gniezno (Gnesen), of the Latin rite, whose see was founded in 1000, and the other in southern Poland, a successor of Gorazd. The hierarchy of the Slavonic liturgy could have been continued, if as many as three bishops escaped to Poland, as they could ordain their successors. This information given by the first Polish chronicler is confirmed in some ways by the thirteenth-century writer Vincent Kadlubek, Bishop of Cracow.  Speaking of Boleslas the Great, he praises his tender concern for the infant Polish Church, and the maturity of his judgment when he created twin metropolitan sees, providing each with suffragans and clearly establishing the boundaries of their dioceses.
The existence of two metropolitan sees in Poland in the twelfth century would also seem to be indicated by two entries in the Year-book of the Chapter of Cracow,  which disclose that during the years 1027-1028 three Metropolitans held office—Hippolitus, Bossuta, and Stephen. It is hardly possible that three archbishops held office in one year in Gniezno alone. One or two of them must have held another metropolitan see. It seems logical to admit that the other see must have been the heir to the Moravian archbishopric transferred to the land of the Vistulanians. The name of Hippolitus recalls those of Prohorius and Proculphus because his namesake—martyr, theologian, anti-pope—was more popular in the East than in the West at that time. These names were all current in the East, but not in the West. Bossuta is certainly a Polish name. It is also noteworthy that the province of Gniezno, founded in 1000, comprised only the western part of Poland together with the bishoprics of Cracow, Wroclaw (Breslau) in Silesia, and Kolobrzeg in Pomerania. The bishopric of Poznań was directly subject to Borne.  It is highly improbable that the eastern part of Poland remained pagan at the time of the ecclesiastical organization of the country. Pomerania was barely touched by Christian influences and yet a bishopric was founded in that province. Would it not have been expected that bishoprics would be founded also for the expansion of Christianity in the eastern half of Poland?
In order to answer this question, S. Kętrzyński  advanced the theory that Boleslas the Great intended to reserve the foundation of the second metropolitan see for the time when Bruno of
Querfurt, the great admirer of St. Adalbert, over whose tomb the metropolitan see of Gniezno was erected, should reach Poland. He thought that the second metropolitan see was erected, or was intended to be erected, in Sandomierz with bishoprics in Plock, Kruszwica, Łęczyca, and perhaps also in the province of Chelm. He did not touch upon the question of rites, thinking that both metropolitan sees would be of the Latin rite.
This proposition, however, does not offer a solution to all problems. First, Bruno of Querfurt did not desire to become a diocesan bishop or archbishop. His idea was to spread the faith among the pagans and to die as a martyr. Even in this he followed his ideal— St. Adalbert. There is no clear evidence that he really resided in Poland as archbishop. On the other hand, the supposition that both metropolitan sees were to be of the Latin rite leaves unanswered the question of how to explain the many traces of the existence of a Slavonic rite in southeastern Poland.
The solution proposed by H. Paszkiewicz, namely, that Poland had two metropolitan sees, one of the Latin and the other of the Slavonic rite, seems more adequate.  The Slavonic metropolitan see may have embraced the regions of Sandomierz, Przemysl, Halicz, Lublin, Mazovia, and later the land of the Buzhians. The seat of the Slavonic archbishop is placed by him in Sandomierz. The author takes at face value the information given by the annalist Vincent, and attributes the foundation of the Slavonic metropolitan see to Boleslas the Great, who endowed it with a political aim. This was to counterbalance the Slavonic influence emanating from Kiev, where a bishopric was established about the year 988. There was competition between the Poles and the Russians for the possession of the Red Cities (modern Eastern Galicia). This part of Galicia was occupied by Mieszko after the final defeat of the Magyars by the Emperor Otto I in 955. In 981, however, Vladimir of Kiev regained the Red Cities. There seems to have been another clash between the two nations in 992.  All this could have inspired Boleslas to create a Slavonic metropolis for that part of his realm which might be attacked by Kiev.
Even this proposed solution does not explain everything. Anonymus Gallus does not attribute the foundation of the Slavonic metropolitan sees. His and Vincent’s statements indicate only that Boleslas had something to do with the Slavic see.
It is more natural to accept the existence of a kind of Slavonic
ecclesiastical organization in eastern and southern Poland from the beginning of the tenth century which was a continuation of the Moravian metropolis re-established in 900, as has recently been suggested.  In this case, Prohorius and Proculphus, who are listed as among the first bishops of Cracow, may have been successors of another Moravian bishop. Prohorius may also have been ordained by a Slavonic metropolitan, who had succeeded Gorazd.
* * *
It has been suggested that the Slavonic metropolis was established in Cracow. Both the above-mentioned bishops are called archbishops in the catalogues and listed by the editor as IV and V, but these catalogues give this title to all the bishops of Cracow down to Lampertus Zula, predecessor of St. Stanislas, who was executed in 1079. Three shorter catalogues, which also start with Prohorius and Proculphus, list only bishops in Cracow. It would thus be too daring to place the see of the Slavonic metropolis in Cracow on this basis only. 
If Cracow was only the see of a Slavonic bishop, the metropolitan must have resided elsewhere. The most logical place would be Sandomierz, although in 1030 only a bishop seems to have been mentioned as having died in this city.  These data are not quite reliable, but they must be founded on some facts.
If there was a metropolitan see, the heir of the Moravian archbishopric, it must have possessed several suffragans. Wiślica would appear a logical choice for a Slavonic episcopal if not metropolitan see, and perhaps Zawichost, and one see in Mazovia. Leczyca, Sieradz, and perhaps also Przemyśl are other possibilities.  As long as no further evidence is available (the archaeologists may discover some as they did in Moravia), this is only guesswork resting on fairly reliable suppositions.
One thing is certain. A Slavonic metropolis with several episcopal sees did exist in Poland, in continuation of the Moravian hierarchic order established in 900 by Pope John IX. We are unable to learn anything of the attitude of Rome toward Slavonic liturgy on that occasion. However, we may suppose that after the departure of Wiching from Moravia, and after the disclosures made by the remaining Slavonic clergy and by Mojmír II to the legates,
the native clergy were allowed to proceed as they did during the lifetime of St. Methodius.
The existence of the Slavonic rite in southeastern Poland was not affected by the conquest of this country by Boleslas I of Bohemia, which occurred after the defeat of the Magyars in 955 by Otto I, whom he had supported in his campaign.  The Slavonic liturgy had spread also into Bohemia, as will be described later. This country was bi-liturgical down to the end of the eleventh century, and the two dynasties which existed in Bohemia at that time, the Přemyslides and the Slavníks, were not hostile to the Slavonic liturgy. Although the episcopal see founded in Prague in 973 was of the Latin rite, many native priests continued to celebrate the liturgy in Slavonic. The foundation of a Polish bishopric in 968 in Poznań  did not alter the situation, because Mieszko I, the first Christian Polish Duke, was not yet master of Cracow. He seems, however, to have occupied the region of Sandomierz and the rest of modern Galicia and the Red Cities.
Even the transfer of this former part of Great Moravia to the rule of the Polish Duke did not affect the existence of the Slavonic liturgy and hierarchy there. Like his father-in-law, Boleslas I of Bohemia, Mieszko had to deal with the Empire and to accept the Latin influences emanating from there. Because the Czech dynasties, as we will see, were not hostile to the existence of the Slavonic rite in Bohemia, we can suppose that even Boleslas’ daughter Dubravka knew about it. It is thus quite possible that Mieszko was also acquainted, through his Czech wife, with the Slavonic liturgy, and tolerated and favored both Latin and Slavonic priests.  After he had taken Silesia and Cracow from Boleslas, between 987 and 990, he became master of all the territories where the Slavonic hierarchy continued as the spiritual heirs of Great Moravia. He probably recognized the necessity for reform of the ecclesiastical situation in his vast realm. However, this was done, not by Mieszko, but by his son and successor, Boleslas the Great. He obtained from Otto III permission to found an independent metropolitan see in Gniezno, the site of the tomb of St. Adalbert.  St. Adalbert, with whom the emperor had been friendly, was the second bishop of Prague, and was martyred while preaching to the Prussians. The western part of Poland, still more or less pagan, was given over to the care of Latin bishops
and priests, but Boleslas the Great must also have intervened in the eastern and southern part of his realm, and reorganized the Slavonic metropolis and bishoprics. In this way we can explain why Vincent attributed to him the foundation of two metropolitan sees and the delimitation of the dioceses which were placed under the two metropolitans.
* * *
The disappearance of the Slavonic hierarchy and liturgy from Poland should be attributed to the reorganization of Polish religious life by Casimir the Restorer after 1038. This was preceded by the pagan protest in western Poland after the death of Mieszko II (1035). There is some evidence showing that this protest was confined only to the western part of Poland, and was followed by a struggle between the partisans of the Latin rite and those of the Slavonic rite. Casimir, who returned to Poland with the help of Germany, wished to impose the Latin rite in the eastern part of his realm also. The defender of the Slavonic rite, Maslow, Prince of Mazovia, was defeated by Casimir, who was supported by the Germans, and the sons of Vladimir the Great of Kiev, to whom Casimir had to cede the Red Cities. Casimir regained possession of the whole country and imposed the Latin liturgy in the eastern and southern part of the country. Cracow’s Latin bishop extended his jurisdiction over most of the territory which had belonged to the Slavonic metropolitan see. 
The question arises whether Casimir’s successor, Boleslas II the Bold (1058-1079), changed the religious policy of his father. There is a letter sent by Pope Gregory VII to Boleslas the Bold which seems to indicate that the latter had asked for the creation of more bishoprics.  The Cracow Capitular Calendar  attributes to Boleslas the Bold the raising of new bishoprics in Poland. Lambert of Hersfeld  says that fifteen bishops took part in the ceremony of Boleslas’ coronation in 1076. This could mean that the king had reversed his father’s policy and renewed the Slavonic metropolis with its suffragan sees. If this is so, the conflict between the king and Stanislas, Bishop of Cracow, which ended so tragically for the prelate and resulted in the expulsion and death of Boleslas, could have been provoked by the opposition of Stanislas to the curtailment of his jurisdiction and to the reintroduction of
the Slavonic liturgy. Of course, there must also have been other reasons which compelled the king to impose on Stanislas the punishment of dismemberment, a sentence generally pronounced against traitors.  In any event, the end of Boleslas’ rule in Poland also marked the end of the Slavonic hierarchy, if it really was reinstated by the energetic and unfortunate king. 
* * *
It seems logical to suppose that a few Slavonic priests also found refuge in Bohemia during the persecution by Wiching, and especially after the destruction of Great Moravia. Recent archaeological discoveries in Bohemia show that this country was under the direct cultural influence of Great Moravia. It appears that the Bohemian tribe of the Zličans in northeastern Bohemia was most open to these influences. The excavations made in the residence of their chief, Kouřim, and in cemeteries in its neighborhood revealed that this region was in lively commercial contact with the industrial centers of Great Moravia.  Numerous decorative objects—earrings, buttons, and other objects—were imported from Moravian workshops. Also, battle axes, so characteristic of Moravian warriors,  were found with other objects which are definitely of Moravian origin. Other finds testify that Kouřim had become an important industrial center producing its own wares on Moravian models. Some of these workshops may have been erected by Moravian artisans who were looking for more business or who had escaped the catastrophe which had befallen their country.
These workshops were active also after Bohemia had separated itself from Moravia and when Moravia had been destroyed. Bohemian artisans had even improved on the technique and the decorative types which they had learned from their Moravian colleagues. We find proof of it in the tomb of a princess of Kouřim from the tenth century, with such objects as a silver reliquary, silver harnesses for three horses, large silver buttons, and a splendid silver earring with a lamb (or horse).  The workshops of Kouřim seem also to have provided silver ornaments for neighboring communities. The Moravian cultural influence also reached the central region of Bohemia, which was settled by another Bohemian tribe—the Czechs—who, toward the end of the ninth
century, had already assumed a dominating position over several other Bohemian tribes. 
The first prince known in central Bohemia was Bořivoj, whose Christianization is mentioned in the Life of St. Wenceslas attributed to Christian.  He reports that Bořivoj was baptized in Moravia in the residence of Svatopluk. He returned to Bohemia accompanied by a priest called Kaich. Although only Kaich is mentioned at this occasion, it would be preposterous to suppose that, because his is the only name mentioned, he was the only Slavic priest who joined Bořivoj and his wife Ludmila at their residence at Levý Hradec.  It was an official mission in which even Svatopluk, the ruler of Moravia, was interested, because the spread of Moravian Christianity in Bohemia would have strengthened his sovereignty over Bohemia. Let us recall that, for example, the author of the Life of Constantine mentions his hero as chosen by the Emperor Michael III for the Khazarian and Moravian mission. We learn that Methodius had accompanied his brother on both missions, but only from a casual reference to Methodius in chapter twelve and in the last chapter, when the writer describes how Methodius wanted to take his brother’s body back to Constantinople. If the Vita Methodii and the papal documents had not been preserved, our knowledge of Methodius’ life and activities would have been very slight indeed. Sometimes we expect too much from the biographers of saints. They often leave out in their descriptions circumstances and facts which they regard as self-evident or which were known to their contemporaries—this may be applied in the case of Christian mentioning only Kaich— and omit things which we wish they had mentioned, but which they regarded as unimportant in the lives of their heroes. We are forced to condone their inaccuracies; for they were not historians trained in seminars at modern universities. With regard to the Kaich case, let us remember that the description of St. Ludmila’s martyrdom speaks of another priest from Ludmila’s court at Tetin —Paul.  Another priest, Krastej, is said by the author of the first Slavonic Legend of St. Wenceslas  to have taken the body of the murdered Wenceslas, put it in front of the church in Stará Boleslav, and covered it with a white sheet. This priest must have
been friendly with the priests from the circle around Ludmila and Wenceslas, although this does not show that he was favorable to the Slavonic liturgy. Anyhow, he cannot be identified with another priest of Stará Boleslav who, according to the second Slavonic Legend of St. Wenceslas,  had started the bell ringing in the church earlier, as was the custom, in order to confound Wenceslas' companions and prevent them from helping their master when he was about to be attacked by the conspirators.
The fact that a church dedicated to St. Clement was built at Levý Hradec indicates clearly that the Moravian mission had worked there. It is true that St. Clement was venerated in the whole Western Church long before Constantine had discovered the relics which he believed to be those of Clement, thanks to the legend composed by an anonymous author in the fourth century, which had become very popular. It was this legend which inspired Constantine to look for the saint’s relics. Churches dedicated to St. Clement in western Europe cannot be regarded, therefore, as pointing to a Cyrilo-Methodian tradition in the lands which were not touched by the work of the two brothers or of their disciples.  But this is different for the Slavic lands, where the echo of their activity had sounded. St. Clement was a patron saint of the Cyrilo-Methodian mission. Bohemia was touched by this mission; thus the building of a church dedicated to St. Clement at Levý Hradec testifies that this church became a small center of Slavic liturgy in Bohemia. Christian informs us further that this first introduction of Christianity into Bohemia had provoked a pagan revolt, and Bořivoj was forced to take refuge in Moravia.  This report is quite plausible. A similar reaction took place in Bulgaria and in Kievan Russia, first when Kiev was conquered by Oleg, and again in the reign of Svjatoslav and also under Vladimir, whose Christian policy was opposed in Novgorod.
Bořivoj, while staying in Moravia, is said to have made a promise to build a church to “the blessed mother of God, the immaculate Virgin Mary,” after his return to the throne. When his supporters had overcome the pagan reaction and had brought him back, Bořivoj fulfilled his promise and built a church at his castle in Prague. The reinstallation of Bořivoj in Bohemia could not have been achieved without the help of Svatopluk. This again means that more Slavic priests had come with Bořivoj in order to strengthen Christianity in his dukedom. The choice of Prague as
his residence does not mean that Levý Hradec had lost its importance;  on the contrary, another small Slavic center was created around the new church in Prague. This is logical, and there is no reason to deny the Slavic character of these two first Christian centers built by Bořivoj. 
These Slavic centers found a zealous protectress in Ludmila, the wife of Bořivoj, who is said by the anonymous author of the first Slavonic Legend of St. Wenceslas.to have instructed her grandson in Slavonic letters. 
* * *
These are direct arguments pointing out that Slavonic liturgy and letters were introduced into Bohemia. Christian also offers an indirect argument when speaking about the Christianization of Moravia. He has a hazy knowledge of the origins of Christianity in that land, dating its origins to the time of St. Augustine and believing that the Bulgarians were converted before the Moravians.  But when describing the activity of Cyril in Moravia, he relates in an unbiased way that Cyril had invented an alphabet for the Moravians and that he had translated the Holy Writ and other texts from Greek and Latin. Then he says, “Besides that he ordered that the Mass and other canonical hours should be sung in churches in vernacular language, as it is done till today often in Slavic lands, especially in Bulgaria, and many souls are gained for Christ in this way.”
These words are significant. The fact that Christian omits to mention Bohemia does not mean that, in his time, the Slavonic liturgy was unknown in that land. After all, Bohemia was a Slavic land. It is also to be stressed that, after this passage, Christian describes in detail how Cyril had defended his liturgical innovation in Rome. He quotes also two scriptural arguments in favor of the innovation, used by Constantine-Cyril in Venice, namely, the Psalm 150:6, “Let everything that has breath praise the Lord,” and I Cor. 14:39, “Do not hinder the gift of speaking in tongues.” “Convinced by Cyril’s argumentation, the director of the Church decided and confirmed by letters that in those lands it was allowable to sing the Mass ceremonies and other canonical hours in the aforementioned tongue.” It is generally accepted that Christian used in his description a Latin document.  It is important
to note that this Latin defense of Slavonic liturgy existed in Bohemia and that Christian had used this in his work. The quotations given above point out that the author of this defense was inspired by the Vita Constantini, even though some of the inaccuracies contained in it reveal that Christian was unfamiliar with the original Vita.
* * *
What was the Latin source used by Christian? Was it the Privilegium moraviensis ecclesiae or Epilogus Moraviae et Bohemiae, two writings known to the first Czech chronicler Cosmas?  The chronicle quotes them as the two main sources of Czech religious history, together with the Life and Martyrdom of St. Wenceslas. The Privilegium is regarded as a defense of Slavonic liturgy and letters which, according to V. Chaloupecký,  began to be in danger after the establishment of the bishopric in Prague in 973. Chaloupecký tried to reconstruct this document by analyzing four Latin legends on the conversion of the Czechs. In his analysis he made a basic error when dating the Legend of St. Ludmila, starting with the words Diffundente sole before Christian's composition. The contrary is true. The Ludmila Legend is based on the narrative contained in Christian's work. Because of this error his reconstruction of the document is faulty.
R. Jakobson proposed another solution. He supposes the existence of a Slavonic prototype of the Privilegium which originated in Moravia during the reign of Mojmír II.  If this were true, then a Latin translation could have been made in Moravia, or in Bohemia. In spite of all attempts at its reconstruction and dating, it has not yet been established what it contained or when it was composed. I would rather be inclined to see in this document a work compiled in Moravia on the basis of the two papal bulls permitting the use of the Slavonic language in the liturgy, the bull issued by Hadrian II starting with the words Gloria in excelsis, and especially that issued by John VIII starting with the words Industriae tuae, addressed to Svatopluk.  This latter contained not only the confirmation of the Slavonic liturgy but also an authentic declaration that Methodius’ teaching had been examined in Rome and found to conform to the Creed accepted by the Roman Church. This was the Privilegium of the Moravian
Church confirmed by Rome and it would be quite logical to suppose that on this basis a work was composed in Moravia after the death of Methodius. It was intended to dispel all doubts being spread in Moravia by Wiching and the German priests about the orthodoxy of Methodius and his disciples and the legitimacy of the use of Slavonic in the liturgy. It was vitally important for Methodius’ disciples to show that their practice had been sanctioned by the pope, that they professed the same Creed as Rome, and were not hostile to Roman liturgical practices. This tendency is shown also by the author of Methodius’ Life. He stressed the fact that Methodius recommended Gorazd as his successor because he was a native, a free man, orthodox, and well versed in Latin books. He emphasized also that the funeral service for Methodius was celebrated not only in Slavonic and Greek, but also in Latin rite. The Latin rite is mentioned first; therefore I think that the Privilegium was written only in Latin soon after Methodius’ death and was destined rather for the Latin enemies of the Slavonic liturgy. Its defense in Slavonic was contained in the Lives of both brothers. The refugee priests brought this Latin document into Bohemia, and so it happened that it became known also to Cosmas.
As the two Latin bulls which formed the basis of the document contained a papal approval of the Slavonic liturgy, this fact would explain why Cosmas did not give any details of the contents of the Privilegium, because of his hostile attitude to the Slavonic liturgy.
However, the fact that Cosmas knew it and regarded it as a source for the early history of Christianity in Moravia is important. It is most probable that Christian got his information on Cyril and his defense of the Slavonic liturgy from this document.
* * *
The contents and the composition of the Epilogus terrae Moraviae et Bohemiae is still debated. R. Jakobson  thinks that it was an Old Slavonic composition made in Bohemia at the beginning of the tenth century. The original is lost. Christian, however, knew of a Latin translation of that document and incorporated most of it into his history of the end of Moravia, and on the Christianization of Bohemia.
I do not think that the Epilogus was written first in Slavonic. I would like to attribute its composition perhaps to some refugee priests who had found asylum in Bohemia after the destruction of their native country. It was in their interest to win the sympathies of their hosts and to show the merits of their master Methodius in the introduction of the Christian faith into the country which had become their second fatherland. They had good reason to include detailed descriptions of how Bořivoj became a Christian and what Methodius had done for him, because in the Life of Methodius the baptism of Bořivoj was not even mentioned.
This circumstance can be perhaps explained in the following way. We would expect the description or at least a mention of it in chapter eleven of the Life, where the author speaks of the defeat of the Vislanian prince, and of his baptism in the land of his victor. The author speaks of this incident in order to show that Methodius had a prophetic gift. This and the two other cases are, of course, prophecies post eventum. Such utterances are characteristic of hagiographical writings, but in Bořivoj’s case there was no basis for a prophesying of the event because Bořivoj was baptized voluntarily in Moravia, after submitting to Svatopluk. It is also no wonder that the author of the Life is silent about the expulsion of Bořivoj from Bohemia by his enemies, on his flight to Svatopluk’s court, and on his return to Prague. These were political events and had no connection with Methodius. Mentioning them would be rather harmful to his hero’s prestige.
The author of the Epilogus had first to explain why his country, Moravia, encountered such a tragic end, and who was responsible for it. Of course it was Svatopluk, and in this respect the author again completes and almost corrects the Life of Methodius, which treats Svatopluk with respect and a certain sympathy. To show how things had happened he first describes the usurpation of power by Svatopluk from his uncle (Rastislav),
“Consumed with arrogance, Svatopluk scorned, together with the courtiers devoted to him, the mellifluous preaching of Archbishop Methodius, nor did he follow fully his most revered admonitions, but let his members, namely his subjects, and his folk to serve partly Christ and partly the devil.”
We perceive in these words the great disappointment of Methodius’ disciples with Svatopluk’s religious policy favoring Wiching and the Latins. The lives of Naum and of Clement contain even more violent outbursts condemning Svatopluk.
Christian, following the author of the Epilogus, continues:
“Because of that his land and country, with its inhabitants, were anathematized by the above mentioned pontife of blessed memory, were crushed by different disasters on field and their produce, and are suffering to our days. For it was given to plunder and bond, to booty and derision, desert and mockery to all bodies travelling through it, because there cannot be communion of light with darkness, nor peace between Belial and Christ.”
To these descriptions, taken from the Epilogus, Christian adds his own reflections and warning to his compatriots: “And these examples concern also those of us who are trying to follow in the same paths, because the man who sees the house of his neighbor burn has to take care of his own.”
The second part of the Epilogus was devoted to the description of Bořivo’s baptism at the court of Svatopluk. Invited to a banquet by the latter, Bořivoj is said to have been seated not with the nobles but outside the hall, because he was still a pagan and unworthy to be in the company of Christian nobles. Methodius, regretting that such a great prince was so humbly treated, exhorted him to become a Christian, and promised him in a prophecy that he would become master of all masters, and victorious over all his enemies.  Then follows the description of his instruction in the faith, his baptism, return to Bohemia, the pagan revolt under Strojmir, Bořivoj’s return to Moravia, and his victorious reinstatement in Prague. In describing these events, Christian may have used other sources, or oral tradition, but the role of Methodius in the history of Bořivoj’s baptism must have been taken from the Epilogus, and reveals the tendency of its author to enhance the memory of Methodius and the connection of Bohemian Christianity with Moravia. Let us point out that the author of the Epilogus stresses also Methodius’ prophecies concerning Bořivoj’s victories over all his adversaries—again prophecies post eventum—but also faithfully copied by Christian.
* * *
We have seen that Slavonic priests were active in Bohemia, at least, in two places—at Levý Hradec and in Prague. In this milieu originated the first Slavonic writings in Bohemia—the Legend of St. Ludmila, who was murdered at the instigation of her daughter-in-law
Drahomíra and was venerated as a martyr. The Slavonic legend is lost, but a part of it survived in a Russian liturgical prologue read in the office of her feast. 
The Slavonic priests of these two “centers” are authors also of the Slavonic Life of St. Wenceslas;  he was murdered at the instigation of his brother Boleslas in 929.  Weingart's edition is, at the same time, a reconstruction which seems reliable, in spite of some criticism by Slavic philogolists. It should be stressed that Wenceslas’ mother, Drahomíra, is placed in a much more favorable light by the author, as is done in a later Latin Vita of Wenceslas. Boleslas is not presented as a cruel murderer, the responsibility for the crime being put on Boleslas’ companions. We learn also from this Vita that Wenceslas had to contract a marriage—other legends stress his virginity—but lived separated from his wife after she had borne him a son. All these details show that the Vita must have been composed soon after the death of Wenceslas, during the reign of his brother Boleslas, whose responsibility for Wenceslas’ tragic end is downgraded on purpose.
This might, however, also signify that the small group of Slavonic priests was afraid that their situation would be endangered after the loss of their two protectors—St. Ludmila and St. Wenceslas. It was the position of the Slavonic priests which in reality was in danger. Bohemia had become a part of the bishopric of Regensburg and, as the Slavonic Vita has it, Wenceslas invited a great number of Latin priests from the neighboring German lands to strengthen and spread the Christian faith in Bohemia.
This report of the Vita confirms also that, at the beginning of the tenth century, the number of priests in ecclesiastical administration in Bohemia was rather small. This scarcity of priests explains why the Slavonic priests brought by Bořivoj and the refugees from Moravia were welcomed. The question of liturgy had lost its importance after the disappearance of Moravia. The devastated land was no longer considered important for Passau’s jurisdiction. On the other hand, Regensburg was firmly established in Bohemia and no one, the Slavonic priests not excepted, opposed its claims to jurisdiction over the land. The German priests had to acquire the native language if they wished to be successful in their pastoral activities. It was not in the interest of the princes and the bishop to discard priests who spoke the language, were loyal to both authorities, and were liked by the people. Although no
Slavonic school is known to have existed—only a Latin school at Budeč, where Wenceslas was educated, is mentioned in the old Slavonic Legend—we should not exclude the possibility of the Slavonic priests having occasion to instruct the young Czechs in Slavonic letters and liturgy. As for the ordination of priests,  the decision was in the hands of the prince, who presented the candidates to the bishop in Regensburg or when the bishop was on visit in Bohemia. Thus it could happen that new Slavonic priests were ordained. We do not hear of any opposition to the Slavonic practice from Regensburg. When Boleslas had succeeded in obtaining a bishopric in Prague (973), the first bishop was naturally a German named Thietmar, who spoke the Slavic language. I have explained on another occasion that, at the same time, a bishopric for Moravia was founded.  Moravia was a land of missions, and any priests, Latin or Slavic, were welcomed by the new bishop, whose name we do not know. Both bishoprics were subordinated to the Archbishop of Mainz. This again was favorable to the prince and the bishops, as it assured them of greater freedom in the administration than if the new bishoprics had been subjected to Salzburg, or to Magdeburg.
The foundation charter of the bishopric of Prague, preserved in Cosmas’ chronicle,  offers another indirect argument for the survival of Slavonic liturgy in Bohemia. Pope John XIII, after giving his approval to the erection of a bishopric in Prague, at the church of St. Vitus and St. Wenceslas, and of a Benedictine Abbey at the church of St. George, under the Abbess Mlada-Mary, is supposed to have added:
“However, not according to the rite or sect of the Bulgarian or Russian nation, or of Slavonic language, but, following rather the institution and decrees of the apostles, you should choose rather, according to your will, for this work a cleric who would be well trained in Latin letters.”
If these words are genuine, they show that Slavonic liturgical practice still prevailed in Bohemia in 973. Otherwise why should the pope be so outspoken concerning the danger of introducing Slavonic liturgy in the new see? We know that this charter was interpolated by Cosmas himself. He was very hostile to the Slavonic liturgy. If there had been no traces of the Slavonic liturgy in Bohemia at his time (1045-1125), why should he have taken so much trouble to insert these words into the charter?
* * *
The second bishop of Prague was St. Vojtĕch-Adalbert.  He was not a scion of the Přemyslide ruling house in Prague, but of the Slavník dynasty which ruled over northeastern Bohemia from its center of Libice. Vojtěch studied in Magdeburg and was, of course, of the Latin rite. There is a late tradition preserved in a Russian manuscript that Vojtěch was a forceful enemy of the Slavonic liturgy, which he exterminated.  This tradition is biased, and originated in the atmosphere of enmity of the Russian orthodox against the Latins, which increased after the rupture between Rome and Byzantium in 1054. There is, however, another and earlier tradition which counts Vojtěch among those saints whose names are invoked in two prayers preserved in Russian manuscripts, but probably translated into Slavonic in Bohemia.  On the other hand, Adalbert was fully conscious of his Slavic origin, and when he left Prague because of political tension between the two dynasties, he went to Italy and visited the great Greek ascetic, the Abbot Nilus. He was so impressed by him and by Greek religiosity that he wanted to become a monk in Nilus’ monastery. On the advice of his hero he went to Monte Cassino.  Such an experienced man cannot be thought of as fiercely opposed to the Slavonic liturgy and its priests.
It was to him that Christian, his uncle, dedicated his Latin Life of St. Wenceslas. We have already seen that Christian regarded the Slavonic liturgy as permissible. Adalbert certainly read this passage. Although faithful to the use of Latin in liturgy, he had, at least, an appreciation of the use of the vernacular in worship. He is supposed, with good reason, to have played a part in the composition of the first Czech hymn—Hospodine pomiluj ny (Lord have mercy on us), which is a version of the Kyrie eleison. Some Slavic philologists see in the first and oldest strophe of this hymn Church Slavonic elements.  He is also supposed by many to have initiated the first Polish religious song “Bogurodzica,” as we have already seen.  Let us remember that Libice had become heir to the castle of Kouřim, the former center of the Bohemian tribe of Zličans. We have seen that this region was under a strong cultural influence of Moravia, especially toward the end of the ninth and the beginning of the tenth century. If Moravian artisans had reached this territory, one can also suppose that some Moravian priests had found refuge in the territory ruled by the Slavníks.
So it is possible that Slavonic liturgy did survive in Bohemia in
the tenth century, tolerated by ecclesiastical leaders for pastoral reasons. There was no Slavonic center at this time in Bohemia, in the proper sense of the word, but we cannot exclude the possibility that the Slavic priests who came from Moravia may have formed small circles of religious men to whom the Slavonic liturgy and letters appealed. In such circles were preserved remnants of the Moravian missal such as the Leaflets of Kiev and Prague. Of course, we have no documentary evidence for the existence of or copies of such liturgical books in Bohemia, but how will an historian determined to admit only direct evidence explain the Bohemianisms which have been detected in the Leaflets of Kiev?
* * *
How can an historian who is too selective in his evidence explain the appearance of a Benedictine Abbey of the Slavonic liturgy founded around 1032 in Sázava by St. Procopius, and generously endowed by Břetislav I, Duke of Bohemia? It is easy to say that Procopius became acquainted with the Slavic liturgy somewhere outside Bohemia, but where?  The specialists who reject the possibility of the existence of Slavonic liturgy in Bohemia agree that the Moravian religious centers were all destroyed by the Hungarian invaders. Should we thus admit that at least one of them had survived? Where? Perhaps one could think about Visegrad in Hungary, which had been a part of Moravia, but again we have no “documentary” evidence for it. There existed a monastery in Visegrad. It was founded by the Hungarian King Andrew I (Endre) (1047-1061). He had taken refuge in Kiev where he was baptized. The Grand Duke Jaroslav (1036-1054) gave him his daughter Anastasia as wife. When he returned to Hungary Andrew founded two monasteries, one at Tihany in honor of St. Anianus, the other at Visegrad in honor of St. Andrew.  This monastery was, however, settled with Russian monks who practiced not the Moravo-Slavonic but Byzantine liturgy in Slavonic.  Could Procopius have learned there about the Slavonic liturgy of Roman rite? Or did there exist another center which had survived in Hungary? Where?
Supposing Procopius learned about Slavonic liturgy somewhere outside Bohemia, where did he find monks for his Slavonic monastery if there was no continuation of Moravian liturgical practice in Bohemia? And why would Břetislav I have given his per
mission for this foundation if all his predecessors on the Bohemian throne had been unfavorable to the Slavonic liturgy, as is supposed? No religious foundation could have been put into existence without the consent of the prince. He must have obtained also the consent of the bishop, who had to consecrate the abbey and the abbot. How could he have obtained it if there was declared hostility to anything Slavonic in leading religious centers in Bohemia? Or should we admit that a Slavonic religious center had survived in the land of the Vislans where Procopius had stayed and had become acquainted with the Slavonic liturgy and letters? Such an occurrence should not be completely out of the question when we take into consideration that Boleslas I had occupied this region as far as the rivers Styr and Bug, together with Moravia and Silesia, after the defeat of the Magyars in 955 by Otto the Great.  We have seen that some of the Moravian bishops ordained in 900 had taken refuge in the land of the Vislans, which had not been touched by the Magyar invasion.  However, if we accept this possibility, we have to admit that contacts between Bohemia and the land of the Vislans could have existed even during the tenth century, and that priests of Slavonic liturgy could have been ordained and sent to Bohemia by the refugee Moravian bishops. These are the complicated problems which face the historians who reject the continuation of the Slavonic liturgy in Bohemia after the collapse of Moravia.
* * *
It is said that the continuation of Slavonic liturgy and letters in Bohemia should have been based on the cult of their originators— Constantine-Cyril and Methodius. This need not necessarily be so. The cult of a saintly person is based on official sanction by an ecclesiastical authority, and the veneration of his contemporaries who were convinced that the person had led a saintly life. The cult was promoted if there were relics of that person available. We do not know of any official canonization of the two brothers. As concerns Constantine-Cyril, his burial in the basilica of St. Clement in Rome could be regarded as a translatio or canonization, but it should be noted that the author of his Life never calls him saint, and the so-called Italian Legend gives him the epithet vir sanctus only once. His relics remained in Rome. His brother
visited his tomb during his stay in Rome, but no part of his relics was brought to Moravia. He was certainly venerated by his disciples in Moravia, but Rome was far away from Bohemia and the main incentives for the spread of his cult were missing. Was Methodius canonized by the bishops who went to Moravia in 900? We do not know anything about such an act. His disciples certainly venerated him as a saint, but the catastrophe which had befallen Moravia soon after his death put an end to the spread of his cult. The church in which he was buried was destroyed, his relics disappeared and have never been found. Even the place of his burial remains unknown.
Thus was left only the veneration by his contemporaries, who were soon scattered to the four parts of the world. In spite of the unfavorable circumstances hampering the spread of his devotion, Christian is again witness to a cult of the two brothers in Bohemia.  He gives Cyril the epithet beatus and Methodius pontifex beatae memoriae. It is true that the epithets beatus and sanctus were often given, at that time, to persons who were not regarded as canonized saints,  but I would not make light of this attitude of Christian’s to the memory of the brothers as insignificant. Christian probably found this designation of the brothers in the Latin documents which were his main source for his account of their activities.
This can be regarded, at least, as a proof that the brothers were venerated by their disciples as saints. As concerns the spread of their cult in Bohemia, this is another question. Let us not forget that only success is most successful. The Moravian period was not a permanent success. Moravia disappeared from the horizon of contemporary Europe and of the Church too suddenly and too early. Regensburg was more successful in Bohemian religious life than Moravia. When Regensburg had taken over, new cults penetrated Bohemia, especially that of St. Imram and Saint Vitus. Soon Bohemia had its own saints—Ludmila and Wenceslas. They are called by Christian “our only saints” —they really were the only Czech saints—and his work was written to celebrate their memory, not that of Cyril and Methodius, or of Imram and Vitus.
This introduction of new cults explains, for example, why even Procopius—this name heralds eastern influences from Moravia— had called his son Imram, why Wenceslas had dedicated the church built by him in Prague to St. Vitus, and why the successor
of Abbot Procopius was called Vitus. This does not mean that the memory of SS. Cyril and Methodius was forgotten in the Abbey of Sázava. One would rather expect that Procopius would give to his son the name of Wenceslas, or that his successor would have adopted the name of this Czech saint. Can this be regarded as a proof that the cult of Wenceslas did not exist in Sázava? This simply means that Procopius and his successor followed the new vogue introduced by the German Church through Regensburg and Saxony. One can also deduce from these two examples that the Slavonic priests were not hostile to the Latin liturgy and the cult of Latin saints. As they themselves adhered to the Slavonic liturgy, this shows that a kind of symbiosis of the Latin and Slavonic liturgies and traditions existed in tenth- and eleventh-century Bohemia.
Were the Lives of Constantine and Methodius known in Bohemia? R. Večerka pretends to have discovered in the Old Slavonic offices to the honor of Cyril and Methodius and to St. Wenceslas, preserved in two glagolitic breviaries—one from the fourteenth and the second from the fifteenth centuries —numerous Bohemianisms which seem to show that the offices were composed in Bohemia, and that the Life of Constantine and perhaps also that of Methodius were known in Bohemia.  It is for the Slavic philologists to decide if these deductions can be accepted. But, if the Lives were unknown in Bohemia, how can we explain that the Life of Methodius is preserved only in Russian manuscripts? The philological examination of these manuscripts shows that the Life did not reach Kiev from Bulgaria, but from Bohemia. As we have seen, the report on the origin of Slavonic letters continued in The Russian Primary Chronicle is based on the Vita of Methodius and perhaps on one Russian liturgical prologue on Methodius. The author of the Chronicle does not seem to have known the Vita Constantini. Could this indicate that this Vita had reached Kiev, not from Bohemia, but from Bulgaria, only after the composition of this part of the Primary Chronicle?
* * *
What about the continuation of Slavonic literature in Bohemia during these two centuries? The Russian scholar Sobolevskij had discovered a certain number of Slavonic translations from Latin
literary documents in Russian manuscripts. The style of these translations suggests that they were translated in Bohemia, whence they reached Kiev.
The most particular of these translations is that of the Life of St. Benedict.  It was in the interest of the Benedictines to have this document translated into Slavonic. This could have been done by the monks of Sázava, but it could also have been done by a monk from the first Benedictine Abbey in Bohemia, which had been founded by Bishop Adalbert and the Duke Boleslav in 992 at Břevnov, near Prague. The Life of St. Stephen was also translated into Old Slavonic from a Latin original. It should be noticed that St. Stephen was especially venerated in Czech Benedictine oracles. An altar was dedicated to him at Břevnov, and the Benedictine Abbey of Hradiště in Moravia, founded in 1078, had St. Stephen as its patron. This translation could also have been done in Sázava, but if Procopius had lived for some time at the Abbey of Břevnov, he may have educated some of the monks of this abbey in Slavonic letters.
Procopius must have become acquainted somewhere with the rule of St. Benedict. In his oldest Latin Vita (Vita antiqua) which appears to have been composed in Sázava between 1061 and 1067 and which was dedicated to the Bishop of Prague Šebíř, we read  that Procopius, after constructing a church to the honor of the Mother of God and of John the Baptist, and after gathering around some brothers, had chosen to observe with them the rule of St. Benedict. This information is repeated in the Vita Minor,  based on the oldest legend, and is amplified in the Vita Maior composed in the fourteenth century. There we read that when Procopius decided to embrace the monastic life, “he accepted the rule of St. Benedict from a certain monk, and, after being well instructed by him, he returned to his homeland” looking for a place where he could live as a hermit. He is said to have presented himself to Prince Oldřich (Udalrich), who had discovered his cavern, as “God’s servant,” living according to the rule of St. Benedict. 
The author of this late legend was convinced that Procopius had been instructed in the monastic rule by an experienced monk, although the author of the oldest Vita limits himself to saying that the rule of St. Benedict was accepted by Procopius and his disciples. This information presupposes that Procopius must have
become acquainted with the rule of St. Benedict somewhere where it was practiced. This could have been at the monastery of Břevnov, or of Ostrov, founded in 999. Although this monastery was of Latin rite—the monks came from Altaich in Bavaria—some glosses in Slavonic were found in Latin manuscripts deposited in its library.  Even if the monk who wrote these glosses was one of the Slavonic monks who had found a refuge in this monastery after they had been expelled from Sázava in 1094, this would show that in the Benedictine circles in Bohemia a kind of symbiosis of the Slavonic rite and literature with Latin uses was tolerated. Such a situation may have existed also in the monastery of Veliš, erected in 1003 as a dependency of the Abbey of Ostrov. Slavonic glosses were also found in the Abbey of Rajhrad in Moravia, which was founded about 1045. 
It should be stressed also that, according to the first Life of Procopius, the Abbey of Hradiště, near Olomouc, was founded in 1078 by Prince Otto, brother of the first Czech King Vratislav, who is known to have favored the Slavonic liturgy.  Otto’s wife was Euphemia, daughter of the Hungarian King Andrew and of his Russian wife Anastasia, who was the daughter of Jaroslav the Wise of Kiev. With regard to the mentality of the founders, one can scarcely imagine that this new foundation was hostile to the Slavonic liturgy and letters, although the monks were of Latin rite. This symbiosis of the Slavonic and Latin rite is indicated also by the report that Bishop John of Olomouc, of course of the Latin rite, and Abbot Vitus of Sázava, of the Slavonic rite, were present at the dedication of the Abbey.  This attitude of the Czech Benedictines has, so far, not been brought out. This, of course, does not mean that the Benedictine foundations had become centers of Slavonic liturgy, but it does show that monks favoring Slavonic liturgy and letters were not excluded from the Latin Benedictine communities. We can conclude from these observations that Sázava was not necessarily the only place where Slavonic letters were cultivated and where new translations into Slavonic from Latin originals were made.
We must look also to these Latin circles for the continuation of Slavonic literary activity in Bohemia in the tenth and eleventh centuries. Let us review some of the works which could have been produced in these circles. There must have existed in Bohemia a Slavonic translation of the Latin Life of St. Vitus. It is preserved
in a Russian manuscript from the twelfth century.  It could have been made only in Bohemia, probably by a priest from the Ludmila-Wenceslas circle after Wenceslas had obtained a part of Vitus’ relics from the monastery of Corvey, a center of the Vitus cult in western Europe; this occurred after Wenceslas had decided to dedicate the church to St. Vitus, although he had first intended to dedicate it to St. Emmeram. This change illustrated also a change in Bohemia’s political relations with Saxony.  The dating of the translation from the tenth century would seem logical. But Vitus was venerated also in Sázava. Procopius’ nephew and his successor in the direction of the Abbey was called Vitus, as already mentioned. Anyhow, the Bohemian origin of this translation cannot be doubted. It is true that Olga and her son Jaropolk had approached Otto I, but this contact with the Saxon dynasty of which Vitus was the patron saint was minimal and without any consequence for Russia’s conversion.  There could hardly have been any interest in Russia in St. Vitus and his Latin Legend.
The cult of St. Apollinaris of Ravenna, of Saint Anastasia of Sirmium, and of St. Chrysogonus, who was believed to have been Anastasia’s teacher and who was martyred under Diocletian in Aquileia, might already have been introduced into Moravia by priests from Dalmatia and Aquileia. Their cult was well established in the Western Church—the names of Anastasia and Chrysogonus are mentioned in the Mass canon; it could thus have penetrated into Bohemia without the intermediary of Moravia. Their Latin legends must also have been translated in Bohemia, probably in the eleventh century, and are preserved in late manuscripts in Russia. 
An important work was the translation of the Latin homilies of St. Gregory the Great, again preserved in a Russian manuscript.  The Bohemian origin of this translation was recently demonstrated beyond any doubt.  A similar case is presented by the translation of the Pseudo-gospel of Nicodemus from the Latin.  Among other translations, two are particularly interesting, that of the martyrdom of Pope Stephen I and of St. George. Both saints were venerated in the Western and Eastern Churches, and there exist legends describing their martyrdom in Greek and in Latin. The Slavonic translations which are preserved, again in Russia, were made from Latin texts.  This shows that such translations must
have originated in Bohemia, since a Russian translator would have chosen a Greek original.
* * *
Even more important are two documents, preserved in Russian manuscripts, which are certainly of Western origin and translated from Latin into Slavonic, namely, the prayers to the Holy Trinity and for protection against the devil.  I have dealt with these documents on other occasions,  and therefore I will limit myself to some general observations. What makes these prayers interesting are the lists of saints invoked in them. Besides saints venerated in the Eastern Church, many names of Western saints are mentioned. The prayer to the Holy Trinity invoked St. Magnus, founder of the Swabian monastery of Fuess; St. Canute of Danemark; St. Olaf, King of Norway; St. Alban, patron saint of Mainz; St. Botulf, the Anglo-Saxon Abbot of Ikanhoe; St. Martin of Tours; St. Victor, a martyr venerated in Switzerland; the Popes Linus, Anacletus, Clement, and Leo; the brothers Cyril and Methodius; St. Wenceslas; and St. Adalbert (Vojtěch). The prayer could have been composed and translated at the end of the eleventh century, since St. Canute and St. Olaf died in 1086 and 1070 respectively. The cult of Scandinavian saints could have penetrated into Russia independently, but when we bear in mind Bohemia’s relations with Saxony, Mainz, and Regensburg—where these saints were also venerated—we may conclude that such a selection of Germanic and Slavonic saints could have been made only in eleventh-century Bohemia where this prayer was translated because, as A. I. Sobolevskij points out, it has retained words betraying its lineage from the Old Slavonic period.
It should be pointed out that the list contains several saints of the Benedictine order—Magnus, Botulf, and two Benedicts. The first is listed between Canute and Alban. Probably he should be identified with St. Benedict of Aniane (750-821), the abbot who worked for the reform of Frankish monachism under Charlemagne and Louis the Pious. One also might think that the author of the prayer had in mind St. Benedict Biscop (628-689). This Benedictine was an Anglo-Saxon, became a monk in the Abbey of Lerins, and accompanied Archbishop Theodor of Canterbury in England, where he had founded the Abbeys of Wearmouth
and Yarrow. The second Benedictine is listed at the end of the series of oriental monks and ascetics—Paul the Hermit, Anthony, Macarius, Ephrem the Syrian, Sava, Hilarion, Euthymius the Great, Pachomius, Arsenius, Simeon the Stylitě, Andrew the fool for Christ, Achatius of Sinaj, Cyril, and Methodius. This Benedictine can only be the founder of Western monachism. The mention of his name fits well with the monks and ascetics venerated in the East. The list of holy women also contains names of saints venerated in the West—Anastasia, Christina, Agriffina, Victoria, and Lucia. Others mentioned in the prayer were venerated in both Churches (Thecla, Barbara, Marina, and Matrona).
The other Old Slavonic prayer, for protection against the devil, also has a list of Western saints, some of them taken from the prayer to the Holy Trinity. The list contains the names of St. Vitus, St. Florian (who is still popular in Austria and in the Czech lands), the Popes Clement and Sylvester, St. Ambrose, St. Martin of Tours, St. Emmeram, and St. Cyprian. St. Benedict is also listed among the monks venerated in the East. Among the holy women one finds Lucia, Agatha, Cecilia, and the famous Abbess Walburga of Heidenheim. Other saints were venerated by both Churches.
The manner in which the popes are listed in the prayer to the Holy Trinity—they are placed immediately after the Apostles and Evangelists as “the holy order of the popes”—seems to indicate that the prayer and its translation must have originated in a land of Roman obedience. One also reads there a Latin homage to the popes—ave papa—written in Cyrillic letters. The same can be said concerning a prayer book (molitvenik) from the thirteenth century found by Sobolevskij in a monastery of Jaroslavl.  Some prayers are taken from the homilies of St. Gregory the Great, one attributed to St. Ambrose. The invocation of St. Peter could hardly have been composed by a member of the orthodox faithful of that period.
All this tells us is that the translations of these prayers were made in Bohemia in the eleventh century, probably in Benedictine circles. It is, of course, possible that some names, especially of the oriental saints, were added later in Russia by the copyists, but the names of Slavic saints—Cyril, Methodius, and Vojtěch— and of other Western saints—especially St. Vitus—were already there in the original.
Let us recall, moreover, that some of the saints whose names are invoked in those prayers are mentioned in the canon of the Latin Mass: Chrysogonus, Agatha, Lucia, Cecilia, Anastasia, Linus, Cletus, Clement, Xystus, Leo. This points out that the origin of the prayers and their translations should be sought in a Slavic land using the Latin rite.
On the other hand, if the prayers in question had been composed and translated at the end of the eleventh century, the invocation to Cyril and Methodius in those prayers would show that some traces of the cult of the brothers must have existed in Bohemia at that time.
Again it will be the duty of Slavic philologists to determine which part of these documents originated in Bohemia and what, if anything, was added to them in Russia.
* * *
In order to reduce the amount of literary activity credited to Bohemia, it has been suggested that Slavonic priests may have accompanied the two Czech wives of Vladimir to Kiev (as well as other princesses who married Russian princes), have learned Slavonic in Kiev, and thus have written the works mentioned.  But even if this theory could be accepted, it presupposes that there must have been priests in Bohemia in the tenth and eleventh centuries who were familiar with Slavonic letters. Moreover, there were not many intermarriages between the Ruriks and the Přemyslides during the tenth and eleventh centuries, as far as we know. 
More frequent relations between Kiev and Bohemia began after 981, when Vladimir  conquered the Red Cities as well as Přemysl in modern Galicia, and when his realm became a neighbor of the Přemyslide State, which at that time contained not only Bohemia but also Moravia, Silesia, and the region of Cracow as far as the rivers Bug and Styr. The main channels of intellectual intercourse were the Slavonic monks, especially from the Abbey at Sázava. We do not know when and how these relations had begun. It is quite possible that the year 1057 had stabilized their contacts. When the monks of Sázava were expelled from their abbey by the Czech Duke Spytihnĕv, with their Abbot Vitus, they found refuge in Hungary, as is attested by the Chronicle of Sázava. 
It seems most probable that they were received by the russophile King Andrew, and that for six years they were guests of the Russian monks from Kiev for whom Andrew had built a monastery at Visegrad. As we have seen, evidence from the thirteenth century shows that, up to 1214, this monastery was occupied from its foundation by Russian monks of the Byzantine rite. We do not know of any other place in Hungary using the Slavonic rite where the monks from Sázava could have taken refuge. If they stayed for six years with Russian monks, who certainly were in touch with their monastic centers in Kiev, the intellectual contact between Bohemia and Kiev must have been strengthened.
The most eloquent proof of lively communication by the Slavonic monks of Sázava with Kiev is the deposition of the relics of two Russian saints, the Princes Boris and Gleb, who were canonized by the Russian Church in 1072, to one of the altars of the abbey in 1093.  The relics were most probably brought by Slavonic monks from Kiev. This contact of Sázava, under Latin obedience of the Bishop of Prague, with the orthodox monks of Kiev is the more important as it continued after 1054, the year which is regarded as the beginning of the schism between Rome and Constantinople. The cult of the two Russian saints may have been quite lively in Bohemia, and a short biography of the saints may have been composed at Sázava. There exists, at least, a short account of their life and death which, in the opinion of Sobolevskij,  reveals certain Western hagiographical features. At least, the name of Boris appears quite frequently in Czech medieval documents. The same could be supposed concerning the cult of Olga, the first Russian Christian princess.  Her name was frequently given at baptism to girls in Bohemia during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. All this indicates how certain Slavonic writings, which had originated in the tenth and eleventh centuries in Bohemia, were so readily accepted in Kievan ecclesiastical circles and have been preserved to our time.
* * *
These contacts must have been looked upon with favor by the first Czech King Vratislav II (1061-1092), who had also taken refuge in Hungary at the same time as the monks from Sázava.
After he returned to the ducal throne following the death of his brother Spytihnĕv, he called back the exiled monks and settled them once again in their monastery. He became a zealous supporter of the Slavonic Abbey and of the Slavonic liturgy. He went even further, and tried to obtain permission for the use of the Slavonic liturgy in his kingdom. He addressed himself some time before 1080 to Pope Gregory VII (1073-1085) with such a demand. We can reconstruct the main points of his request only from the pope’s letter to the king in 1080;  the pope rebuked him sharply for his support of the Emperor Henry IV, whom the pope had excommunicated in the famous struggle for investiture, and to whom the Czech king had remained faithful. After this reproof the pope continued:
While, however, your grace demanded our permission to celebrate the divine office in your country in the Slavic language, be informed that we can in no way favor such a petition. It is truly clear . . . that it pleased the omnipotent God to keep the holy scripture in darkness in some places, since, if all were clear to everyone, it might become villainous and be despised, or, if misunderstood by men of little ability, could induce them into error. Nor can you resort to the excuse that this is the demand of simple people and that certain religious men had patiently tolerated this use and left it uncorrected, since the primitive Church left in darkness many things which, after Christianity had been firmly established and the religion was growing, were corrected after a profound examination by the holy fathers. Therefore, by the authority of St. Peter, we forbid the accomplishment of your unwise demands, and we order you to resist, in honor of the omnipotent God, this vain temerity with all your strength.
This sharp refusal and rebuke, of course, was a mortal blow to the Slavonic liturgy in Bohemia. Some think that the king had in mind only the continuation of the Slavonic liturgy at Sázava. His demand, however, cannot be explained in this way. Sázava had practiced the Slavonic liturgy for many years and, because the king favored it, did not need further confirmation of its practice. It seems that the king really had in mind the authorization of its use in his kingdom, without, of course, excluding the Latin liturgy.
He hoped that such a symbiosis would continue as it was done in the past. The words pointing out that "religious men [this can
only mean the bishops] had patiently tolerated [the Slavonic liturgy] and left [this use] uncorrected,” are very important, as they reveal that the Czech religious authorities in the past had admitted or tolerated this practice.
* * *
The pope’s refusal might have been expected. Hostility against the Slavonic liturgy was growing among the reformers, who were not only opposed to the practice of royal investiture, but anxious to eradicate every liturgical practice which did not correspond to the Roman and Latin tradition. This movement had gained solid ground in Bohemia under Spytihnĕv; the first expulsion of the Slavonic monks from Sázava, which abbey had been given to Latin monks, must be attributed to the pressure that these reformers exercised on the prince. It may be also that the special character of the abbey contributed to it, for it was not only founded by the Duke Břetislav, but also by the family of Procopius. His family seems to have claimed certain rights which were regarded unfavorably by both the prince and the bishop. This would explain why Procopius’ successor was his nephew Vitus, who was followed by Procopius’ son Emmeram.
In spite of all this, Vratislav II continued to support the abbey and the Slavonic liturgy. His successor Břetislav II yielded at last to the growing pressure from the reformers and enemies of the Slavonic liturgy—the first Czech chronicler Cosmas, dean of the chapter at St. Vitus Cathedral, was one of them—and in 1096 drove the Slavonic monks from Sázava, and settled Latin monks in the abbey. The Slavic monks were scattered and their Slavonic books destroyed. It is possible that some of them found refuge in other Czech abbeys and that others emigrated to Kiev. Most of them later returned to Sázava and were accepted by the new Latin abbots. This was a mortal blow to Slavonic liturgy and letters in Bohemia. At the beginning of the twelfth century the last vestiges of the Slavonic practice disappeared definitely from Bohemia.
The Slavonic past was not forgotten, however. The memory of St. Procopius and of his work was revived in 1204 when King Přemysl Otakar I obtained from the pope the canonization of the founder of Sázava. In 1268 King Přemysl Otakar II asked Pope
Clement IV to elevate the bishopric of Olomouc to archepiscopal rank, arguing that Moravia had once been honored with this distinction. The memory of St. Methodius was evidently recalled. Although the pope was not unfavorable to this request, the creation of an archbishopric for Bohemia and Moravia was only realized by Charles IV in 1344.
The memory of the Slavonic past was revived during his reign and new compositions celebrating the Czech national saints were written. The Emperor Charles was so enthusiastic about the Slavonic liturgy that he asked Pope Clement VI to renew this privilege for the Czech lands. In 1346 the pope gave permission for the erection of one abbey where the Slavonic liturgy should be celebrated. Charles IV built the Abbey of Emaus in Prague, and invited thither Benedictine priests and brothers from Dalmatia, where the Slavonic liturgy was still celebrated and the glagolitic alphabet, invented by St. Cyril, was still used. 
The Hussites also recalled the old privilege and introduced the national language into their liturgy.
1. PG, vol. 126, col. 1217; Tunickij, Materialy, p. 108.
2. The main source for Svatopluk’s relations with Arnulf is the Annals of Fulda, MGH Ss 1, p. 399 ff., years 884, 885, 890-895. Cf. also Regino's Chronicle, ibid., p. 601.
3. Annals of Fulda, ibid., pp. 413-415.
4. The most accessible edition is in PL, vol. 131, cols. 34—38.
5. J. Widajewicz in his study Państwo Wislan (The State of the Vistulanians) (Cracow, 1947), p. 46 ff., deduces wrongly from this passage that Wiching was sent by the pope to the Vistulanians. The Bavarian bishops wished to stress that even John IX’s predecessor had respected Passau's rights and, in order to protect Wiching, said that he was sent to a newly converted nation, subjected and Christianized.
6. The destruction of Moravia by the Magyars is reported especially by Regino’s Chronicle, MGFI Ss 1, p. 611 (ad annum 894), and by Constantine Porphyrogenitus in his De administrando imperio, ed. G. Moravcsik, R. Jenkins, p. 180. Cf. F. Dvornik, The Making, pp. 19-22, 292 ff. Recently, P. Ratkos, “Die grossmährischen Slawen und die Altmagyaren,” Das Grossmährische Reich (Prague, Academy, 1966), pp. 227-255.
7. See the most accessible edition in PL, vol. 137, cols. 315-317. On Pilgrim’s pretensions, see F. Dvornik, The Making, p. 150 ff., and recently I. Zibermayr, Noricum, Baiern und Österreich, 2nd ed. (Horn, 1956), pp. 378-404. In his letter to the pope, Pilgrim says
“during the time of the Romans and the Gepides Eastern Pannonia and Moesia had their own seven bishops who were subjected to my holy Church of Lauriacum of which I am now an unworthy servant. Of these remained also four in Moravia, as it is known in present time, before the Hungarians had invaded the land of Bavaria.”
See for details E. L. Dümmler, Piligrim von Passau und das Erzbistum Lorch (Leipzig, 1854), pp. 38-43, with a German translation of this passage on p, 41. In the bull of Benedict VII falsified by Pilgrim we read: “Sancta autem Lauriacensis ecclesia in inferioris Pannoniae atque Moravia, in quibus septem episcoporum antiquis temporibus continebantur, suique antistites archiepiscopalem deinceps habeant potestatem.” Ibid., p. 125. It should be stressed that Pilgrim distinguishes the seven bishoprics of the time of the Romans from the four in Moravia. Cf. PL, 137, cols. 315-318.
8. It has been shown that the Sloveni, modern Slovaks, spread not only as far as the Middle Danube, but also east beyond the river. See J. Stanislav, Bolo južne Slovensko bulharské? (Was Southern Slovakia Bulgarian?) (Bratislava, 1944).
9. Cf. F. Dvornik, The Making, pp. 251, 296, 297.
10. It was found by J. Zathey on the binding of a manuscript and published by him in Studia z dziejów kultury polskiej (Warsaw, 1949), pp. 73-86, under the title “O kilku przepadlych zabytkach rękopiśmiennych Biblioteki Narodowej w Warszawie” (Remnant of Some Lost Manuscripts in the National Library in Warsaw). Cf. also F. Dvornik, The Slavs, p. 172 ff.
11. Gorazd was venerated in Bulgaria as one of the seven Bulgarian Patron Saints, together with Cyril, Methodius, Clement, Naum, Boris, Angelar. The tradition is, however, not well established and is of later date.
12. Annals of Troska, Monumenta Poloniae Historica, vol. 2, p. 828 ff.
13. Cf. B. Havránek, “Otázka existence cirkevní slovanštiny v Polsku” (The Problem Concerning the Existence of Old Slavonic in Poland), Slavia, 25 (1956), pp. 300-305 with bibliography.
14. See the bibliography in the new work, Bogurodzica, by J. Woronczak, E. Ostrowska, H. Feicht (Warsaw, 1962). Cf. especially R. Jakobson, “Český podíl na církevněslovanské kultuře (The Czech Contribution to Slavonic Church Culture) in the Symposium Co daly české země Evropě a lidstvu (What Had the Czech Lands Given to Europe and Humanity) (Prague, 1940), p. 18.
15. For the details see F. Dvornik, The Making, pp. 249-253.
16. K. Lanckoronska, Studies on the Roman-Slavonic Rite in Poland (Orientalia Christiana periodica, vol. 161 [Rome, 1961]), p. 168 ff. See Z. Wartolowska, “Osada i gród w Wiślicy w świetle badań wykopaliskowych do 1962 r.” (The City and Castle of Wiślica in the Light of Excavations Made to the Year 1962), in the Symposium Odkrycia w Wiślicy (Discoveries in Wiślica), published by the Polish Academy (Warsaw, 1963), pp. 33-45. Although nothing has been found in or near the foundations of the church which would point to the date of its establishment, the church can be dated from the tenth century. The west side of the foundation is an opus spiccatum construction made from fragments of quarry stones, as in the rotunda discovered at Staré Město (see above, p. 84). On one side of the little church are foundations of a quadrangular building, the use of which is not known. The foundations have been excavated on the main street of the city. On the same street was found also a baptismal font 4 m., 20 cm. in diameter, made of limestone, which must have served for mass baptism. The reproduction in Wartolowska, p. 34, the little church on table II. Cf. also J. Golos, “Traces of Byzantino-Slavonic Influence in Polish Medieval Hymnology,” The Polish Review, 9 (1963), pp. 73-81.
17. It is also remarkable that the Calendar of the Chapter of Cracow which was recopied in the thirteenth century, when any trace of the Slavonic liturgical past had been eliminated, should still register the feast of St. Demetrius on the eighth of October. The veneration of Demetrius, Patron Saint of Thessalonica, the favorite Saint of Cyril and Methodius, could have penetrated into Poland only from Great Moravia.
18. Monumenta Poloniae Historica, vol. 2, p. 276. Anonymus Gallus, Chronicon, ibid., vol. 1, p. 407.
19. Ibid., vol. 2, p. 794.
20. See F. Dvornik, The Making, p. 147 ff.
21. S. Kętrzyński, O zaginionej metropoli czasów Bolesława Chrobrego (On the Metropolitan See of the Time of Boleslas the Great, which had Disappeared) (Warsaw, 1947). Cf. also my review of this study in Teki historyczne, no. 2 (London, 1947), pp. 140-144.
22. H. Paszkiewicz, The Origin of Russia (London, 1954), pp. 381-404.
23. See for details, F. Dvornik, The Making, pp. 88 ff., 298 ff.
24. Karolina Lanckoronska, “Studies on the Roman-Slavonic Rite in Poland," Orientalia Christiana Analecta, no. 161 (Rome, 1961), pp. 21-29.
25. See the catalogues with commentary by W. Kętrzyński in Monumenta Poloniae Historica (Lwów, 1878), vol. 3, pp. 313-376. See the editors commentary (p. 324 ff.) on the false bull of Benedict IX promoting Aaron of Cracow as archbishop in 1046, and on the request to Rome in 1229 by Ivo to promote Cracow to a metropolis, as it had lost this status because of the negligence of his predecessors. One can see in this claim an echo of the fact that there had been a metropolitan see in this part of Poland. This see, however, cannot have been in Cracow, because the first bishop Prohorius is said to have been ordained in 969 only, and was succeeded by Proculphus in 986. The Moravian archbishop was in this part of Poland from about 908 on.
26. K. Lanckoronska, “Roman-Slavonic Rite,” p. 46. The name of this bishop seems to have been Romanus, according to the reading in one manuscript of Dlugosius’ Polish history. The author identifies him with Bishop Romanus who died in 1030, according to the entry in Rocznik Kapitulny (Monumenta Poloniae Historica, vol. 2, p. 794). He is associated there with Lampertus, also called a bishop, and identified by the author with Lampertus of Cracow. In accordance with Lanckoronska’s theory that Cracow was a metropolis, Lampertus should have been an archbishop.
27. Ibid., p. 44 ff. The author has tried to find some traces of this bishopric in the history of archdeaconries in Poland (p. 71 ff.). This is
a new and interesting attempt which deserves attention by Polish historians.
28. See F. Dvornik, The Making, p. 71 ff.
29. K. Lanckoronska, “Roman-Slavonic Rite,” p. 31, misunderstood my statement in The Slavs, p. 112, that there was a close connection between the foundations of bishoprics in Prague and Poznań. I explained the moves of Mieszko I and of Boleslas I in Rome in my book The Making, p. 75 ff., showing that both princes turned to Rome in 967. Boleslas I sent his daughter Mlada to Rome, and Mieszko’s wife Dubravka was Mlada’s sister. A common intervention by the two closely related princes is, if not certain, at least very likely. Mieszko’s position was much stronger, because his land was not a part of the Empire. The pope could therefore proceed more freely, and subordinated the new Polish bishopric directly to Rome. However, the pope’s consent to the foundation of the bishopric of Prague was brought there by Mlada in 968, after the death of her father in the previous year. Lanckoronska also overlooked my explanation of the political reasons why the erection of the bishopric of Prague could only be effected in 973. A more extensive study of my book The Making would have helped her to see some problems more clearly. She probably quotes it only indirectly from Paszkiewicz. It was published in 1949 and not in 1947.
30. K. Lanckoronska, “Roman-Slavonic Rite,” pp. 25, 171, would like to have some documentary evidence showing that Dubravka brought priests of the Slavonic rite to Poland. There is no direct evidence, but everybody who knows the cultural and political situation in Bohemia in the tenth century, and the attitude of the reigning dynasties to Slavonic culture, will admit the possibility that, thanks to the friendly relations between Mieszko and Boleslas I, some Slavonic cultural influences inherited by Bohemia from Moravia could have reached the court of Mieszko through the intermediary of Dubravka.
31. K. Lanckoronska, “Roman-Slavonic Rite,” pp. 55, 56, 111, expressed unreasonable doubts about Adalbert’s favorable attitude to the Slavonic rite. Cf. F. Dvornik, The Making, pp. 124—126, 250. R. Jakobson found in the first Polish hymn Bogurodzica an old Slavonic linguistic shift, and he even attributed this oldest part of the hymn to St. Adalbert. Cf. his study in Slovo a Slovesnost (Prague, 1935). Cf. also F. Dvornik, Sv. Vojtěch (Chicago, 1950; 2nd ed., Rome, 1967).
32. For details and documentary evidence which seems sound, see H. Paszkiewicz, The Origin of Russia, p. 390 ff. However, the Slavonic metropolitan see was not founded by Boleslas the Great against Kiev. Cf. K. Lanckoronska, “Roman-Slavonic Rite,” pp. 113-132.
33. Gregorii VII Registrum, MGH Ep selectae, pp. 233-235. There is, of course, a serious objection to the interpretation of this letter
which reads into it the consent of the pope to the réintroduction of the Slavonic liturgy. This is contradictory with the centralization and latinization tendency of Gregory’s policy. It might, however, be thought that Gregory made an exception here in order to find favor in Kiev. Here Duke Izjaslav, expelled from the city, turned to Rome and was supported by Boleslas the Bold. Cf. F. Dvornik, The Slavs, p. 213 ff.
34. Monumenta Poloniae Historica, 2, p. 918.
35. MGH Ss 5, p. 255.
36. On the relations of Boleslas the Bold with Gregory VII see F. Dvornik, The Slavs, p. 271 ff.
37. See for details H. Paszkiewicz, The Origin of Russia, p. 396 ff. and K. Lanckoronska, “Roman-Slavonic Rite,” p. 62 ff. On pp. 132-145 the author gives some interesting details on the survival of the Slavonic past in Poland.
38. Published by M. Solle, Stará Kouřim a projevy velkomoravské hmotné kultury v Čechách (Ancient Castle of Kouřim and the Influence of Great Moravian Material Culture in Bohemia) (Prague, Academy, 1966).
39. Ibid., p. 35 ff., 126 ff, 147 ff.
40. Ibid, tables 46-50 and no. 116, p. 156 ff.
41. For example, Levý Hradec, Žalov, Budeč, castle of Prague, its neighborhood, Libice, Kolín, and several other places. Seea complete list and documentary evidence in Solle, ibid., p. 166 ff. Cf. also a short account of archaeological evidence of Moravian influence on Bohemian cultural development in R. Turek’s paper, “Die grossmährische Epoche in Böhmen,” Das grossmährische Reich (Prague, Academy, 1966), pp. 85-87. Cf. also idem, “Velkomoravský horizont v českých mohylách” (Great Moravian Horizon in Bohemian Tombs), Památky archeologické, 54 (1963), pp. 224-233; idem, Čechy na úsvitu dějin (Bohemia at the Dawn of History) (Prague, 1963), p. 149 ff.
42. See the edition by J. Pekař, Die Wenzelsund Ludmila-Legenden und die Echtheit Christians (Prague, 1096), ch. 2, p. 93:
“tribuens ei [Bořivoj and to his companions] venerabilis vitae sacerdotem Caich. Quique reversi in sua, in castello, cui vocabulum inerat Gradic supradictum sacerdotem statuunt, fundantes ecclesiam in honorem beati Clementis papae et martyris . . .”
The first Czech chronicler Cosmas states that Bořivoj was baptized “a venerabili Metudio episcopo in Moravia sub temporibus Arnolfi imperatoris et Zuatopluk eiusdem Moraviae regis . . .” MGH Ns 2 (Berlin, 1923, ed. B. Bretholz), book 1, ch. 10, p. 22. In the same book, ch. 14, p. 32, Cosmas dates the baptism of Bořivoj “primus dux sanctae fidei catholicae” in 894. This dating is erroneous, because at that time Methodius was already dead. The chronicler confuses with this date the disappearance of Svatopluk,
repeating the legendary tradition that the prince had that year disappeared and had later joined the hermits on the mountain of Zobor. It is evident that the first tradition concerning Bonvoj’s baptism by Methodius during Svatopluk’s life is correct.
43. F. Graus, in his paper “Slovanská liturgie a písemnictví v přemyslovských Čechách 10. století” (Slavonic Liturgy and Literature in Bohemia under the Dynasty of the Pzemyslides in the Tenth Century), Československý časopis historický (The Czechoslovak Historical Review), 14 (1966), pp. 473-495, esp. p. 484.
44. It is the first Latin Legend of St. Ludmila based on the old Slavonic original, preserved only partly in a Russian Prologue. The Legend starts with the words “Fuit in provincia Boemorum.” See the edition by V. Chaloupecky in Svatováclavský Sborník, II, 2, Prameny Století (Sources of the Tenth Century), pp. 459—481, ch. 6, p. 474. The Legend was written during the first half of the tenth century. The priest Paul is mentioned also by Christian, ed. J. Pekař, Die Wenzelsund Ludmila-Legenden, pp. 97, 98, 105. Cf. also the second Slavonic Legend of St. Wenceslas, chs. 9, 10, ed. J. Vašica, pp. 98, 99. On this edition see footnote 46.
45. Ed. M. Weingart, “Prvni česká církevně slovanská legende o sv. Václavu” (The First Czech Church Slavonic Legend of St. Wenceslas), Svatováclavský Sborník, I, pp. 862-1115, ch. 8, p. 981.
46. Ed. J. Vašica, in Sborník of Old Slavonic literary documents on St. Wenceslas and St. Ludmila, ed. by J. Vajs (Prague, 1929), ch. 19, p. 110. This legend is a Slavonic translation, with some additions of the Latin Legend of St. Wenceslas, written by Bishop Gumpold of Mantua on the order of Otto II, about 980. The Slavonic adaptation was made in Bohemia around 1000. This adaptation was discovered by N. Nikolskij in 1909 in two Russian manuscripts from the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. See for details J. Vašica, ibid., pp. 72—83. The Slavonic text with a Czech translation, ibid., pp. 84-124. Gumpold's Legend (MGH Ss 4, pp. 213-223) is based on the Legend, starting with the words Cres cente fide, dated from the second half of the tenth century. Gumpold used a Bavarian copy from the end of the tenth century. For details, see J. Pekař, Die Wenzelsund LudmilaLegenden, pp. 24-38 and V. Chaloupecky, Svatováclavský Sborník, p. 27 ff.
47. This is rightly pointed out by F. Graus, Slovanská liturgie, p. 481. I. Kniezsa, “Kyril und Method-Traditionen in Ungarn,” Cyrillomethodiana (Köln, Graz, 1964), pp. 199-209, also rightly rejects some suggestions made by J. Stanislav, “K otázce učinkovania Cyrila a Metoda na Slovensku” (The Question of the Activity of Cyril and Methodius in Slovakia), Kultura, 15 (Bratislava, 1943), pp. 449-466, 520-539, concerning the cult of Clement and Demetrius in Hungary.
48. Ed. J. Pekař, Die Wenzelsund Ludmila-Legenden, ch. 2, pp. 93, 94.
49. As suggested by F. Graus, Slovanská liturgie, p. 481.
50. The remnants of the church of Our Lady built by Bořivoj in Prague were excavated by I. Borkovský in 1950: “Kostel Panny Marie na Pražskem hradě” (The Church of the Virgin Mary in the Castle of Prague), Památky archeologické, 43 (1953), pp. 129-200. Another tradition quotes his son Spytihněv as builder of this church. The excavator found an older construction with an apse, which seems to have been destroyed and replaced by another construction of similar style, and with the tomb of Spytihnev and his wife. He thinks that the sanctuary built by Bořivoj was destroyed during a further pagan revolt after Bořivoji death, with the intention of removing anything that reminded them of Bonvoj’s acceptance of Christianity. Borkovsky admits that this church had been built by architects brought by Bořivoj from Moravia. Spytihněv built another sanctuary on the ruins of the first one, and a tomb in which he was later buried. However, we know of only one pagan reaction which chased Bořivoj from Bohemia to Moravia after his conversion. A further efflorescence of such a protest after his death could hardly be expected. The church could have been destroyed or damaged by a natural incident. The other explanation by the excavator for the existence of the two constructions—that the church built by Bořivoj was for priests of the Slavonic rite, but that Spytihnev’s construction was meant for priests of the Latin rite (I. Borkovsky, “Kostel Panny Marie,” pp. 177, 178)—cannot be accepted. It is true that Spytihněv is regarded by Bavarian tradition, as expressed in a manuscript of the legend Crescente fide, as the first Christian prince of Bohemia, but this can be explained by the anxious efforts of Regensburg to affirm its right of jurisdiction over Bohemia. Bořivoj had accepted the jurisdiction of the Moravian archbishop, and therefore his name had to be omitted. Spytihněv definitely accepted Regensburg’s claims. As we shall see further, hostility against the Slavonic rite in Bohemia does not seem to have existed that early. Regensburg was satisfied with the recognition of its rights over all ecclesiastical foundations in Bohemia. It should also be stressed that the architecture of both buildings recalls that of Moravia introduced by the Byzantine mission. Also, the ornaments found in the graves around the church are similar to those found in Moravia. Cf. also V. Richter, “Die Anfänge der grossmährischen Architektur,” Magna Moravia (Brno. 1965), pp. 173-175.
51. Ed. Weingart, Svatováclavský Sborník, p. 975. The author of the legend says that Wenceslas was also instructed in Latin. Wenceslas learned Latin at the Latin school in Budeč. This is confirmed by the second Slavonic legend of Wenceslas (ed. J. Vašica, in J. Vajs, Sborník, p. 90),
but the same author attributes a knowledge of Latin and Greek writings to Wenceslas (ibid., p. 94), This affirmation is characterized by F. Graus (“Slovanská liturgie,” p. 485) as a hagiographical topos. I would not go that far, the less so, as the examples of this kind quoted by him do not fit well this case. If we admit that in the circle of Ludmila were priests from Moravia, the declaration of both legends may have some solid basis. Wenceslas may have obtained from them a certain basic knowledge of Greek. However, the authors have magnified the extent of his knowledge, which could hardly have been profound. This exaggeration can be characterized as a hagiographical topos, and in this respect F. Graus is right.
52. Ed. J. Pekař, Die Wenzelsund Ludmila-Legenden, ch. I, pp. 89-91. As concerns Christian's dating the Christianization of Moravia from the time of St. Augustine, F. Graus sees in this exaggeration a hagiographical topos found in many works of early medieval writers anxious to date the Christianization of their lands or the foundation of their dioceses from the earliest period. F. Graus, “ Velkomoravská říše v české středověké tradici” (The Great Moravian Empire in the Czech Medieval Tradition), Československý časopis historický, 11 (1963), p. 292.
53. This is rightly admitted also by F. Graus, “Slovanská liturgie,” p. 489.
54. Book I, ch. 15, ed. B. Bretholz, p. 35.
55. V. Chaloupecký, Prameny X-stoleti, 80-91. Cf. J. Ludvikovský, “Great Moravian Tradition in Tenth Century Bohemia and the Legenda Christiani,” Magna Moravia (Brno, 1965), p. 552.
56. R. Jakobson, “Minor Native Sources for the Early History of the Slavic Church,” Harvard Slavic Studies, 2 (1954), pp. 55-60.
57. See pp. 166, 192, 210.
58. Ibid., pp. 57-60. I do not think that the last redactor of the Russian Primary Chronicle, when describing the origin of Slavonic letters, found it necessary to use the Slavonic originals of the Privilegium and of the Epilogus. His account is based on the Vita Methodii which was brought from Bohemia to Kiev. Even his insistence that Methodius was a successor of Andronicus, and that St. Paul is said to have preached in Illyricum and therefore should be regarded as the teacher of the Slavs, is based on the Vita, where Methodius is also compared with Paul. The Russian Primary Chronicle, years 6396 6406, ed. D. C. Lichačev (Moscow, 1950), pp. 21-23. English translation by O. P. Sherbowitz-Wetzor (Cambridge, Mass., 1953), pp. 6264. Cf. below, pp. 275, 276.
59. Cf. what J. Ludvikovský, “Great Moravian Tradition,” p. 541, has to say on the substantiation of the Christmas story concerning Bořivoj who, as a pagan, was not invited to sit at table with a
Christian ruler, and about the three-stage conversion of Bořivoj, which seems to agree fully with Alcuin's missionary method (750-804). Bonvoj’s case finds an analogy in the episode which relates how the Carinthian Duke Ingo replaced pagan nobles at his table with Christian subjects. See Conversio Bagoariorum at Carantanorum, ch. 7, ed. Kos, pp. 132, 133. Cf. V. Vavřínek, “Die Christianisierung und Kirchenorganisation Grossmährens,’' Historica, 7 (1963), pp. 11, 12. On the different stories concerning the end of Svatopluk and on the different interpretations of the history of Svatopluk in Medieval Czech chronicles, see the paper by F. Graus, Velkomoravská říše, pp. 299-303. The author is right when rejecting the so-called theory of translation of the kingship from Moravia to Bohemia. Neither the Privilegium nor the Epilogus authorizes such an interpretation. Both authors were only anxious to show the connection of Bohemian Christianity with Moravian and with St. Methodius.
60. Published by J. Vašica, in J. Vajs, Sborník, pp. 64, 65.
61. Published by M. Weingart, Svatováclavský Sborník.
62. The date 929 is generally accepted on the basis of Christian's indication. Cf. F. Dvornik, The Making of Central and Eastern Europe (London, 1949), p. 28 ff. There is, however, a statement by Widukind in his Saxon Chronicle (MGH Ss in us schol), p. 50, which could be interpreted in the sense that Wenceslas, not Boleslas, had remained faithful to the German king Henry I up to his death (936). If this reading is accepted, Wenceslas’ death should be dated in 936 and Boleslas’ reign should begin at that date. This interpretation is favored recently by Z. Fiala in his study “Dva kritické příspěvky ke starým dějinám českým” (Two Critical Contributions to the Ancient History of Bohemia), Sborník Historický, 9 (1962), pp. 5-40. If this later date should be accepted, then the Slavonic priests favored by Wenceslas had a longer period of quiet activity.
63. F. Graus, Slovanská liturgie, p. 491, rightly pointed out this difficulty. We may recall here the practice followed in Dalmatia, at the same time (see below, p. 242 ff). The Latin bishops were allowed to ordain priests on the condition that they knew Latin. A similar situation could have developed in Bohemia. It is quite possible that among the refugee priests from Moravia were some who were educated by Latin missionaries.
64. F. Dvornik, The Making, p. 77 ff.
65. Chronica Bohemorum, book 1, ch. 21, ed. B. Bretholz, MGH Ns II (Berlin, 1923), p. 43.
66. On Adalbert, see F. Dvornik, The Making, pp. 95-135.
67. See A. V. Florovskij, Cechi i vostočnyje Slavjane (The Czechs and the Eastern Slavs) (Prague, 1935), p. 147. We find this information in a late chronicle written in 1494 in Pskov.
68. See below, p. 223.
69. See for details, J. Canaparius, Vita et Passio St. Adalberti, Fontes rerum Bohemicarum, vol. 1, pp. 235-265; cf. eh. 15, p. 248, the praise of Adalbert by St. Nilus. F. Dvornik, The Making, pp. 104, 105, 120, 125.
70. Cf. The Making, p. 125. See especially the recent study by J. Racek, “Sur la question de la genèse du plus ancient chant liturgique tchèque Hospodine pomily ny,” Magna Moravia (Brno, 1965), pp. 435-460. He dates the origin of the chant to the end of the tenth, or the first half of the eleventh centuries in Bohemia. This chant is attributed to Adalbert in 1260 by the continuator of Cosmas. A complete bibliography of the problem will be found in J. Racek’s study. Cf. also J. Fukáč, “Über den musikalischen Charakter der Epoche von Grossmähren,” Magna Moravia (Brno, 1965), pp. 417-434.
71. See pp. 198, 215.
72. F. Graus, Slovanská liturgie, p. 492. The earliest Lives of Procopius, Vita antiqua and Vita minor, say simply: “Procopius, nacione Boemus, slavonicis apicibus a sancto Cyrillo, episcopo [Willegradensi] quondam inventis at statutis canonice, admodum imbutus. . . .” See V. Chaloupecký, B. Ryba, Středověké legendy prokopské (Medieval Legends on Procopius) (Prague, 1953), pp. 112, 132. Cf. also the Latin translation of the older Czech Legend, ibid., p. 171. The so-called Vita Maior, p. 247, pretends wrongly that Procopius had learned his Slavonic in Vyšehrad (near Prague), which is said—again wrongly—to have been a center of Slavonic letters. Let us remember that Procopius was a native of Chotun, a locality near the castle of Kouřim (B. Ryba, Středověké legendy prokopské, p. 176, according to the chronicle of Sázava). All Lives stress that the hermitage of Procopius was not far from the castle of Kouřim. We have seen (see above, p. 205) that Kouřim was an important transmitter of Moravian material culture to Bohemia. It is most probably in this region, where Slavonic liturgy was preserved, that Procopius—ordained priest for Slavonic liturgy—had found novices for his monastery. Cf. Solle, Stará Kouřim, p. 229.
73. I. Kniezsa, “Kyril und Method-Traditionen in Ungarn,” p. 206.
74. Cf. the letter of Honorius III from 1221 where we read: “abbatia de Wissegrade . . . graecos habet monachos et habuit ab antiquo,” in A. Theiner, Vetera monumenta historien Hungariam sacram illustrantia, vol. 1 (Rome, 1859), p. 29.
75. F. Dvornik, The Making, pp. 53, 72, 78-81, 292.
76. See above, p. 198.
77. Cf. J. Ludvikovský, Great Moravian Tradition, p. 550.
78. This is rightly stressed by F. Graus, Slovanská liturgie, p. 490.
79. Ed. J. Pekař, Die Wenzels- und Ludmila-Legenden, p. 89: “At nos horum carentes sanctorum nos, ut ita fatear post Deum solos habentes. . . .”
Besides these reservations, I share F. Graus’s skepticism concerning the spread of the cult of Cyril and Methodius in Czech lands before the fourteenth century.
80. Published by P. A. Lavrov, Materialy (Leningrad, 1930), pp. 128-145.
81. R. Večerka, V elkomoravská literatura v přemyslovských Čechách (Great Moravian Literature in Bohemia under the Dynasty of the Przemyslides), Slavia, 32 (1963), pp. 398-416; idem, “Cyrilometodějský kult v české středověké tradici” (The Cult of Cyril and Methodius in the Czech Medieval Tradition), Československý časopis historický, 12 (1964), pp. 40-43. F. Graus rejected in a postscript (ibid., p. 43) Večerka’s conclusion. I do not share Graus’ disesteem of certain philological arguments, but, in this case, I would like to be given more solid evidence. A historian would like to find out which kind of relations had existed between Bohemia and Dalmatia in the tenth century, where the glagolitic Slavonic rite prevailed.
82. A. Sobolevskij, Žitie prep. Benedikta Nursijskogo po serbskomu spisku XIV. veka (The Life of the Blessed Benedict of Nursia in a Serbian Version of the Fourteenth Century), Izvestija Otdelenija russk. jazika i slovesnosti, Akad. Nauk, vol. VIII, 2 (1903), pp. 121-137. So far no Russian manuscript has been discovered. Sobolevskij, however, notices (p. 122) that the name of Benedict in its Latin form—the Russian transliteration should be Venedikt—is found in some ancient Russian documents: in the canon law book (Kormčaja) of Rjazan of 1284; in a gloss of the fourteenth century of a Galician book of Gospels from the year 1144 and in a Russian Prologue from 1400 where Benedict is called Roman archimandrite. This seems to indicate that Benedict was popular among Russian monks and worshipped. See also idem, Žitija svjatych v drevnem perevode na tserkovno-slavjanskij ot latinskogo jazyka (Life of Saints Translated into Church-Slavonic from the Latin) (St. Petersburg, 1904), the same edition of the Serbian version.
83. Ed. V. Chaloupecký, B. Ryba, Středověké legendy prokopské, pp. 44 ff., 112, 113. The editors think (p. 42) that this Vita is a Latin translation of a lost Slavonic Vita. This may be so, but it is rather doubtful.
84. Ibid., p. 135.
85. Ibid., pp. 249, 250.
86. See M. Weingart, “Hlaholské listy vídeňské” (Glagolitic Leaflets of Vienna), Časopis pro moderní filologii, 24 (1938).
87. The Glosses, however, are written with the Cyrillic alphabet, not glagolitic. See K. Horálek, “K otázce české cyrilice (Apropos of Czech Cyrillic letters), Listy filologické, 66 (1939).
88. V. Chaloupecký, B. Ryba, Středověké legendy prokopské, p. 119.
89. G. Friedrich, Codex diplomaticus et epistolaris regni Bohemiae (Prague, 1904-1907), vol. 1, pp. 82-84, no. 79, the foundation charter by Otto; no. 80, confirmation of the foundation and addition of a village to Otto’s donations by the King Vratislav. The first document is dated February 3, 1078, the other February 5 of the same year. John and Vitus are mentioned as witnesses in both documents.
90. A. I. Sobolevskij, Žitija svjatych, pp. 1-19, cf. also idem, in Izvestija, vol. VIII, 1 (1903), pp. 278-296.
91. See F. Dvornik, The Making, pp. 25, 26.
92. See below, p. 269.
93. A. I. Sobolevskij, Žitija svjatych, pp. 20-38 (Apollinaris), pp. 5562 (Anastasia, Chrysogonus).
94. A. I. Sobolevskij, “Cerkovno-slav. texty moravskogo proischoždenija” (Church-Slavonic texts of Moravian Origin), Russkij filologiskij vjestnik 9, vol. 43 (Warsaw, 1900), pp. 153-217.
95. V. Mareš, “Česká redakce církevní slovanštiny v světle Besed Řehoře Velikého” (The Czech Redaction of Church Slavonic in the Light of Gregory the Great’s Homilies), Slavia, 32 (1963), pp. 417451.
96. Published by A. I. Sobolevskij in Sbornik otdelenija russk. jazyka i slovesnosti, vol. 88, 3 (1918), p. 36 ff.
97. Ed. by A. I. Sobolevskij in Izvestija, vol. X, 1 (1905), p. 113 ff. (martyrdom of St. George), ibid., p. 105 ff. (martyrdom of St. Stephen I). See also Sobolevskij’s edition of the Life of Pope Clement in Izvestija, vol. XVIII, 3 (1912), p. 215 ff. Let us also remind ourselves that the Slavonic redaction of the Life of St. Wenceslas, written by the Bishop Gumpold of Mantua, was discovered by N. Nikolskij in 1909 in two Russian manuscripts. See the edition by J. Vašica in J. Vajs’ Sborník staroslov. liter. památek, pp. 71-135.
98. Published by A. I. Sobolevskij in Sborník, vol. LXXXVIII, 3 (1910), pp. 36 ff., 41-45.
99. F. Dvornik, “The Kiev State and Western Europe,” Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 4th series, vol. 29 (1947), pp. 38-40; idem, The Making, p. 242 ff., and especially in my paper “Les bénédictins et la christianisation de la Russie,” L'Eglise et les églises (Chevetogne, 1954), pp. 326-329.
100. “Njeskol’ko rjedkich’ molitv’ iz’ russkogo sbornika XIII vjeka” (Some Rare Prayers from a Russian Collection of the Thirteenth Century), Izvestija, vol. X, 4 (1905), pp. 66-78. Cf. A. V. Florovskij, Čechi i vostocnye Slavjane (The Czechs and Eastern Slavs) (Prague, 1935), vol. 1, pp. 110-114, a review of Slavic philologists who had accepted or criticized Sobolevskij’s discoveries. Cf. also R. Večerka, Slovanské počátky české knižní vzdělanosti (Slavonic Origins of Czech Literary Culture) (Prague, 1963).
101. J. Hamm, “Hrvatski tip cerkvenoslovenskog jezika” (Croat Type of the Church-Slavonic Language), Slovo, 13 (Zagreb, 1963), pp. 43-67.
102. Cf. Florovskij, Cechi i vostočnye Slavjane, pp. 14-21, 41-43, on the two wives of Vladimir who are supposed to have been Czech princesses, and their sons, and their influence on Vladimir. On pp. 8392, political relations between the Czech and Russian dynasties.
103. Cf. F. Dvornik, The Making, pp. 90, 91.
104. Fontes rerum bohemicarum, 2, p. 246.
105. Ibid., p. 251 ff.
106. A. I. Sobolevski], in Izvestija, vol. XVII, 3 (1912), p. 222.
107. Cf. R. Jakobson, “The Kernel of Comparative Slavic Literature,” Harvard Slavic Studies, 1 (1953), p. 48.
108. E. Caspar, Das Register Gregors VII, MGH Ep selectae (Berlin, 1920), vol. 2, book VII, 11, pp. 473-475.
109. F. Dvornik, The Slavs in European History and Civilization (New Brunswick, 1962), p. 160; cf. also pp. 204, 207.
[Back to Index]