Byzantine missions among the Slavs. SS. Constantine-Cyril and Methodius
VIII. Byzantium, Rome, and the Cyrilo-Methodian Heritage in Croatia, Bulgaria, and Serbia
Slavonic liturgy in Croatia; Methodius in Dalmatia?—Byzantine intervention in Croatia—Existence of the Slavonic liturgy in Dalmatia at an early date—Its tolerance during the tenth century—Spalato against Nin; the synods of Spalato (925) did not for bid Slavonic liturgy—The Roman reformist movement and the Slavonic liturgy; the synod of 1060—Revolt of the Slavonic clergy against the synodal decree of 1060—Tolerance of the Slavonic liturgy in spite of its prohibition—St. Jerome “promoted” as the inventor of glagolitic letters and liturgy; approval of his invention by Rome in 1247—Arrival of Methodius’ disciples in Bulgaria— Boris creates a Slavonic center in Macedonia; Clement’s activity— Clement established bishop by Symeon; Slavonic schools of Ochrida and Preslav—Byzantine attitude to the Slavonic liturgy and. letters; formation of the Cyrillic alphabet; Chrabrs defense of the glagolitic alphabet—Slavonic school in Constantinople and Bulgaria—The priest Constantine; literary activity of the Preslav school under Symeon's inspiration—Latin and Greek missions among the Serbians—First Serbian bishopric of Rasa founded by Symeon—Dyrrhachiums and Ochrida’s rivalry over Serbia—Latin influence in the first Serbian state of Dioclea—Stephen Nemanja becomes orthodox and master of Rascia and Dioclea; Rome, mistaken policy—Stephen I obtains the royal crown from Innocent III; Sava consecrated by the Patriarch of Nicaea as first Archbishop of Serbia; Rome’s failure to win over the Serbians.
The connection of Slavonic Christianity among the Czechs with the Cyrilo-Methodian mission in Moravia is evident, although
the Slavonic liturgy did not find a general acceptance in Bohemia and was suppressed in the twelfth century. The origin and development of the Slavonic liturgy in Croatia is more problematical. Was it introduced into that country during the life of Constantine-Cyril and Methodius? Were those disciples of the two brothers who were expelled from Moravia responsible for its spread? What were the reactions of Rome, of the Latin bishoprics in Dalmatia, and of the Croatian bishop of Nin to this innovation?
The Slavonic liturgy first appeared in Croatia between the years 866 and 876 when Kocel of Pannonia opened his country to it. Some of the fifty young men who had been instructed by the two brothers in Slavic letters may have reached Pannonian Croatia, especially if we accept the fact that this part of the Frankish Empire was governed by Kocel himself, and that he died in 876 when leading the Frankish army against Iljko, son of Domagoj of Croatian Pannonia, who had revolted against the Franks. Kocel enjoyed a strong position until at least 873, and the fifty young Slavic clerics did not disappear without having attempted to implant the new liturgical practice in Kocel’s lands. Pannonian Croatia had been converted from Aquileia and belonged to the jurisdiction of its patriarchs.  The hostility against their liturgical innovation may not have been as pronounced in this country as it was in Upper Pannonia, which was under the jurisdiction of the Bavarian clergy. Even when the country was administered after Kocel’s death by Prince Brasla,  who was a Slav, the Slavonic liturgy could well have persisted in this land which was remote from the control of the Frankish clergy.
The fact that Methodius was Archbishop of Sirmium and Apostolic Legate to the Slavic lands makes the penetration of the Slavonic liturgy into Pannonian Croatia more probable. Even in 873, after freeing Methodius from his captivity, Pope John VIII confirmed him in his rank as Bishop of Sirmium and Apostolic Legate. The letter to Mutimir, inviting the Serbian prince to submit his land to the metropolis of Sirmium, confirms this.  After the death of Kocel all traces of Slavonic liturgy and letters may well have disappeared from Upper Pannonia, but a sporadic survival in Pannonian Croatia under a Slavic prince is quite admissible.
Dalmatian Croatia was not placed under Methodius’ jurisdiction because the country already had a bishopric, that of Nin,
founded most probably in 860 by Nicholas I,  and there were also Latin bishoprics in the coastal cities. It has not yet been satisfactorily explained how and by which means the Slavonic liturgy had penetrated into Dalmatian Croatia, where it has survived down to our own days.
Dalmatian Croats could have become acquainted with the Slavonic liturgy through the intermediary of Slavic priests from the dominions of Kocel. Some of them may have reached that country after Kocel’s death. It is admissible to imagine that St. Methodius made a short stay in that country when returning from Rome after his rehabilitation by John VIII in 880. We have seen that he seems to have reached Moravia some time after Wiching, who had accompanied him to Rome. This delay was used by Wiching to spread false rumors about Methodius and his own mission in Moravia. This is a possibility which needs more detailed examination.
* * *
Before Methodius had got as far as Rome in 880, a very important event took place in Dalmatian Croatia. The dynasty of Trpimir which ruled there was dethroned about 864 by Domagoj, who refused to recognize Frankish supremacy and ruled until 876. He was followed by his son Iljko (876-878). Trpimir’s son Zdeslav, who had found refuge in Byzantium, returned with Byzantine help in 878, dethroned Iljko’s sons and became ruler of the country. There was a danger that Dalmatia might come under the political influence of Byzantium; this would also have had repercussions in the ecclesiastical field if the Byzantines had been able to consolidate their position in that country. 
It seems, however, that this new orientation of Croatian foreign policy was not welcome to certain influential members of the Croat aristocracy and to the Croat clergy. They revolted against Zdeslav, who was killed, and Branimir assumed power.
Pope John VIII does not seem to have been aware of the danger, because in 879 he sent a letter to Zdeslav,  asking for a safe conduct for the legates he was sending to Boris of Bulgaria requesting him to return to the Roman jurisdiction. The pope was informed of the dangers and of the new situation by an embassy sent to Rome by Branimir and Bishop Theodosius. The letters
addressed to the new Croat leaders are dated June 7, 879,  about the same time as those sent to Svatopluk and to Methodius summoning the latter to Rome for his justification.  The pope expressed his lively satisfaction at the pledge of fidelity to St. Peter given by the Croat bishop and the prince. Methodius must have reached Rome in the late spring of the following year. The letter to Svatopluk announcing the rehabilitation of Methodius and the approval of the Slavonic liturgy is dated June 880. 
The anxiety of the pope to attach Croatia as intimately as possible to the Roman See must not be forgotten, nor the fact that he also invited the bishops of the coastal cities to return to the Roman obedience.  Rearing these facts in mind, we are entitled to suppose that he also tried to employ Methodius to visit the Croatian ruler and bishop on his return to Moravia. This visit could have initiated the penetration of the Slavonic liturgy into Dalmatia.
We can perhaps detect an echo of these events, and of the role played by Methodius in Croatia, in a short Prolog Vita of Methodius.  When speaking about the victory of Methodius over his calumniators in Moravia—Wiching and his followers are naturally meant—the author is inspired by the account given in chapter twelve of the Vita Methodii, where a clear allusion is made to the sedition of Dathan and Abiram against Moses (Num. 16). It is, however, curious to note that besides Zambrii (Abiram) he also mentions Sedislav “whom the earth had swallowed up” (Num. 16:32). Only Zdeslav of Croatia, called also Sedeslav, can be meant in this connection. The Prolog is, of course, of later origin—it is preserved in copies dating from the fourteenth to sixteenth centuries—but it may reflect events which happened in Croatia in 879 and the role which Methodius played in that country in 880 at the request of the pope.
* * *
There are other indications which suggest the existence of the Slavonic liturgy in Dalmatian Croatia at an early date. We have seen that lessons contained in the glagolitic breviaries copied and used in Dalmatia contained a translation of the Old Testament of Moravian origin. This fact is used as an argument that St. Methodius had really translated all the books of the Old Testament,
with the exception of the Books of the Maccabees.  How did parts of this translation reach Dalmatian Croatia? Methodius most probably finished it after his return from Constantinople. This could indicate that copies of it could have reached Croatian Dalmatia between 882 and 885.
Because, however, it seems certain that the Croatian copyists did not possess a complete copy of this translation, we should conclude that, it was partly destroyed after Methodius’ death during the persecution of Slavonic letters initiated by Wiching. Fragments of this translation may have been saved by some of the disciples of Methodius who had found refuge in Dalmatian Croatia after 885.
There is still another possibility. We learn from a Slavonic Life of St. Naum  that many disciples of Methodius were sold to the Jews as slaves, and the Jewish slave merchants brought them to Venice for sale. Fortunately, a high imperial officer, who was at that time in Venice on official business, learned about them. He bought and freed them all. Some of them were brought by him to Constantinople, where Basil I granted them all the clerical rank which they had previously held. Not all of them seem to have been brought to the capital. It is probable that some of them went to Dalmatian Croatia and continued to exercise their clerical functions there, celebrating the Office in Slavonic. This may have happened in the spring of 886, because Basil I, who is said to have reinstated in their offices the clerics brought to Constantinople, died in August of the same year.
There is still one circumstance which deserves to be stressed. It is remarkable to note that the Byzantines failed to support their protégé Zdeslav against his enemies, although he appears to have recognized Byzantine supremacy over Croatia when staying in Constantinople. This puzzling lack of interest on the part of the Byzantines over the fate of Zdeslav seems to find its explanation in the events happening in the capital in 878 and 879. The Patriarch Ignatius died October 23, 877, and Photius, who had become reconciled with his antagonist before the latter’s death, was reinstalled on the patriarchal throne. Ignatius and the Emperor Basil had already asked John VIII to send legates to Constantinople to make peace with the Church.  The legates arrived after Ignatius’ death, in 878, and were in a dilemma at finding Photius, who had been condemned by Nicholas I and Hadrian II, on the patriarchal
throne. Both the emperor and the new patriarch were anxious to effect a complete reconciliation with Rome. The legates reported to the pope at their reception, and their report was completed by a letter from the emperor asking for recognition of Photius as patriarch.  In August 879, the pope sent Cardinal Peter with new instructions to them, and these contained recognition of the legitimacy of Photius’ elevation. 
One can understand that, in those circumstances, the Byzantines did not wish to antagonize the papacy. A political and religious offensive in Croatia would certainly have alienated John VIII, who would be reluctant to accept the proffered reconciliation. It is thus most probably for these reasons that the Byzantines abandoned their plans for the political and religious conquest of Dalmatian Croatia. They left Zdeslav to his fate, esteeming more highly a peaceful solution of the Ignatian and Photian controversy.
In this light the attitude of John VIII toward Methodius, during the stay of the latter in Rome, becomes more understandable. In the peaceful atmosphere prevailing in the relations between East and West, the affairs of Methodius, a Byzantine, could be examined more sympathetically. Methodius was also pleased to learn that Constantinople and Rome were about to be definitely reconciled and that Photius, who had initiated the Moravian mission, was again recognized as a legitimate patriarch. In this situation, he would be able to accept the suggestion of the pope to visit Dalmatian Croatia, because his compatriots had withdrawn from that country, recognizing its allegiance to Rome. Also an eventual visit by Methodius to Constantinople may well have been discussed. This appears the more probable if we accept the possibility, already mentioned, that the invitation of the Emperor Basil I, suggested in all likelihood by the patriarch, had reached Methodius before his journey to Rome, in 878, or rather in 879. Such a move on the part of the emperor and the patriarch would be perfectly understandable as a reflection of the peaceful and conciliatory atmosphere which enveloped Constantinople before the opening of the Union Council in 879.
Although we cannot give an exact date for the introduction of the Slavonic liturgy into Dalmatian Croatia, there were, as we have seen, many opportunities which show that it could have been introduced there in the ninth century.
It appears that the Dalmatian priests who used the Slavonic liturgy were, during the tenth and eleventh centuries, in lively contact with the Slavonic priests of Bohemia. This seems to be illustrated by the fact that the Slavonic Life of St. Wenceslas, which was written in glagolitic letters in Bohemia in the tenth century, was preserved, not in Bohemia, but in the glagolitic breviaries of Dalmatian Croatia. It has been shown that its text contains not only some bohemisms but also archaic expressions, which betray the fact that it was composed, not in Croatia, but in Bohemia by an author familiar with the language in which the Cyrilo-Methodian literature was composed. 
The Life of Constantine must also have been known in Croatia very early. The glagolitic breviaries of Croatian origin from the thirteenth to the sixteenth century contain readings on St. Cyril, which, according to specialists, were excerpts from an original written in the ninth or tenth century in glagolitic letters. 
* * *
Although there can be no doubt about the existence of the Slavonic liturgy in Dalmatian Croatia from the ninth century on, information is lacking about its extension and development in the following centuries.  The Magyar danger forced the Pannonian Croats to enter into a political union with Dalmatian Croats during the reign of Tomislav (910-928), who had assumed the title of King of the Croats.  There is no mention of any hostile attitude to the Slavonic liturgy on the part of Croatian rulers or of the Bishop of Nin. This is the more interesting as it was the ambition of the Croatian rulers to gain control over the Latin cities of the littoral. The Latin bishops of these cities were under the jurisdiction of Rome, and until the middle of the tenth century we do not hear of any animosity on their part to the Slavonic liturgy.
The bishops of Nin would have liked to extend their jurisdiction over the bishoprics of the coastal cities, and, about 886, Theodosius of Nin also occupied the bishopric of Spalato. Stephen VI reproached Theodosius for doing so without the authorization of Rome. He also reproached him for having been consecrated bishop by the Patriarch of Aquileia, although he should have asked for consecration in Rome.  The Patriarch Walpertus of
Aquileia was also admonished by Stephen VI for having usurped a right which belonged to the Holy See when he ordained Theodosius. 
This case is not quite clear. It seems certain that Theodosius was ordained in Aquileia, but it must have been done with the approval, tacit or expressed, of Pope John VIII. The latter was evidently pleased with Theodosius’ loyalty to him, as has been mentioned before. After his consecration Theodosius must have visited the pope, because he was charged by him with a mission to Boris of Bulgaria which he seems to have accomplished with some success.  Stephen VI was displeased with the fact that Theodosius took over the administration of the diocese of Spalato without his consent, and also recalled the other incident—the consecration by the Patriarch of Aquileia—but without going into details, and this omission would alleviate the “transgression.” In any event, he saw how important it was that Spalato should be in the hands of a bishop who had always been loyal to Rome and, therefore, sent Theodosius the pallium which he had requested.
* * *
Soon, however, a counter-offensive from Spalato against Nin arose. The ecclesiastical reorganization of the whole of Croatia was effected at the Synod of Spalato in 925. Pope John X sent two bishops as his legates. King Tomislav and Michael, Prince of Hum, were also present. The reorganization of the Croat Church seemed to be necessary because of the new political situation in Croatia and Dalmatia. The Emperor Romanus I Lecapenus (919-944), anxious to assure the neutrality of the Croats in his conflict with the Bulgarian Tsar Symeon, bestowed on Tomislav the title of proconsul and entrusted to him the administration of the Byzantine “thema of Dalmatia,” together with the coastal cities and islands. Tomislav was supposed to rule over this territory as the representative of the emperor, but actually this arrangement meant the subjection of the last Byzantine possessions in Dalmatia to Croatia. 
The Bishop of Nin, naturally, defended his position, claiming the ecclesiastical primacy of Croatia for the first Croat national see. However, it was in the interest of the king to bring the coastal cities, whose possession he had coveted for so long, closer to the
rest of his realm. Tomislav was, therefore, ready to subordinate all Croatia to the archbishops of Spalato. The bishops of the coastal cities, of course, supported the king and the Archbishop of Spalato. In spite of the protests of the Bishop of Nin, the Synod confirmed the Archbishop of Spalato in his position as Metropolitan of all Croatia, subordinating to his jurisdiction all the bishoprics from Istria to Cattaro.
In the Acts of this Synod  there are two passages in the letters sent by the pope to the fathers, and to the king, which prohibited the use of the Slavonic language in the liturgy. This prohibition is also stressed in Canon Ten of the Synod. The genuineness of this Synod is frequently disputed. If the Acts are original, then they contain the first confirmation of the existence of a Slavonic liturgy in Croatia. At the same time the hostility of Rome, and of the Latin bishops in Dalmatia, to the continuation of this custom in the tenth century would be documented.
We know that Gregory, Bishop of Nin, protested to the pope. It was thought that he protested not only against the degradation of his see but also against the prohibition of the Slavonic liturgy and that, thanks to his protest, the existence of this liturgy was saved. 
This interpretation does not seem to correspond to facts. The report sent by the Synod to the pope, and his letter confirming the Canons, show that Gregory of Nin protested only against the decision which subjected his see to Spalato. The pope declared that he was ratifying all decisions except that which provoked Gregory’s protest. Archbishop John of Spalato and Gregory of Nin were invited to come to Rome so that the affair could be definitely decided.  There is no mention of a protest against Canon Ten forbidding the ordination to the priesthood of candidates devoted to the Slavonic liturgy. Moreover, neither Gregory nor John of Spalato went to Rome, and a final decision was made at the Second Synod of Spalato, which took place at the beginning of the year 928, under the direction of the papal legate, Bishop Madalbertus. 
The decisions of this Synod were again directed toward the definitive organization of the Croatian Church. The Archbishop of Spalato was confirmed in his metropolitan function, the bishopric of Nin was suppressed and its territory divided between other
Dalmatian bishoprics. Again, there is no mention of the Slavonic liturgy.
The Acts of the two Synods must be regarded as basically genuine, although they are preserved only in two seventeenth-century Vatican manuscripts of the history of Spalato by Archdeacon Thomas. However, the manner in which the Slavonic liturgy is forbidden does not accord with the spirit of the first half of the tenth century. The price which the Latin bishops of Dalmatia, led by Spalato, asked for their integration into the Croatian political and ecclesiastical framework was the suppression, not of the Slavonic liturgy, but of the bishopric of Nin. This sacrifice was heavy enough for the Croats, and it would not have been prudent to show hostility as well to the custom which was so dear to the Croat people.
It would be more logical to imagine such hostility to the Slavonic liturgy in the eleventh century when Roman reformists had initiated their campaign against national liturgies. It seems probable that the genuine Acts of the First Synod of Spalato of 925 were interpolated in order to give the anti-Slavonic propaganda more authority. 
* * *
The reformist movement in Rome was inaugurated by Clement II (1046-1047) and continued by Leo X (1049-1054) and his successors Victor II, Stephen X, and Nicholas II. It reached its peak under Gregory VII (1073-1085). The abuses which the reformists tried to eradicate—simony and the marriage of priests— existed also in Croatia. This is illustrated especially by the case of Dabral, Archbishop of Spalato (circa 1040 to circa 1059), who is said to have lived with his wife and children even after his promotion to episcopal rank.  The Synod of the Lateran (April 13, 1059) voted a series of canons condemning the main abuses, and in December of the same year Pope Nicholas II (1059-1061) sent Abbot Mainard to Croatia to initiate the reform of the Croatian Church. In March 1060 a new Synod was convened in Spalato which declared the decisions of the Lateran obligatory in Croatia and Dalmatia. An additional canon was directed against the use of the Slavonic liturgy.
This canon started with the same words as the canon believed to have been accepted in Spalato in 928: “We forbid, under the threat of excommunication, the ordaining of Slavs if they do not know the Latin language.”  This identical stylization makes it more probable that Canon Ten of the Synod of 928 is a later interpolation.
The Acts of this Synod are preserved only fragmentarily. The Archdeacon Thomas, when reporting in his Historia Salonitana  on this Synod and its decision against the use of the Slavonic liturgy, completes the synodal decision as it is preserved, adding:
“They said, namely, that the gothic [glagolitic] letters were invented by some heretic, Methodius, who had written many false things in the same Slavonic language against the rules of the Catholic faith. Because of that he is said to have been condemned through divine judgment to a sudden death.”
These words are interesting, because they show that hostility to the Slavonic liturgy was being justified by dogmatic reasons. Methodius is compared with Ulphila, who invented an alphabet for the Goths, and the Croats using the glagolitic alphabet are identified with the Goths, who were Arianists. The memory of Methodius was becoming more and more obscured.
The Synod shows also that, although the Croats had been for many centuries under Roman obedience, they were still influenced by some usages of the Byzantine Church.
When Archbishop Dabral was asked by the Apostolic Legate how he could dare to live with a wife and produce a family, he is said to have answered that he was living in legitimate matrimony according to the usage of the Eastern Church. The Croat clergy using the Slavonic liturgy also grew beards and let their hair grow long, as did the Orthodox clergy. The wearing of beards and long hair was also forbidden by the Synod.
The new synodal intervention against the Slavonic liturgy shows clearly that it was in use down to the middle of the eleventh century and was tolerated by the bishops and the rulers. It can hardly be thought that the Latin bishops were ordaining Slavonic priests, but a national Croat episcopal see was erected in Knin about the year 1040.  After the suppression of the bishopric of Nin, the titulary of this See, who was at the same time a royal secretary, most probably ordained Slavonic priests.
* * *
Pope Honorius II confirmed the decisions of the Synod of 1060 in Rome in 1063. But it was not easy to put them into practice. The Slavonic clergy protested and was supported by the laity. The introduction of the tithe, hitherto unknown in Croatia, was very unpopular. This was a new instance of Byzantine influence on the organization of the Croat Church. The extension of the prohibition on marriage to minor degrees of relationship also provoked sharp criticism. The discontent was so great that a schism arose in the Croatian Church.
The originator of the new development was a certain priest, called Vuk (Ulfus).  He advised the Slavic priests to send a delegation to the pope asking for the reopening of the churches using the Slavonic liturgy, and for the ordination of Slavonic priests. The nobles who favored the Slavonic liturgy and their priests assembled, and they sent Vuk to Rome in their name with presents for the pope. Vuk asked the pope to rescind the decision of the Synod and to re-establish in the Croatian Church the status quo prior to the Synod. The pope answered that he could not rescind so lightly the decision of bishops confirmed by his legates. He asked Vuk to present to the king, the archbishop, and the other prelates a papal letter requesting the presence of two bishops in Rome to explain the case.
Vuk, however, did not present the papal letter to the king and the prelates, but assured the Slavonic clergy and the nobles that the pope was favorably disposed to their demand and had invited them to send a priest whom he would ordain bishop. The assembly of Slavonic priests chose Zdeda, an old priest who did not know Latin, and sent him to Rome with Abbot Potepa and Vuk. The pope asked why there were no bishops in tire delegation and after expressing his surprise that Zdeda wore a beard, he cut a piece of it off, ordered him to be shorn and his beard cut off according to the Latin custom. The pope then repeated to Vuk what he had said before, namely that he could not grant this concession to the “Goths.” The memory of the Arianist Goths was again invoked, according to the report given by the Archpriest Thomas.
Vuk is said to have convinced the ignorant Zdeda that the pope, when cutting off his beard, had consecrated him as a bishop. The latter believed the story, and, with his followers, expelled the Bishop of Veglia (Krk) from his throne, and himself acted as bishop, ordaining priests and consecrating churches. This caused
great confusion in Croatia; the pope sent Cardinal John as legate to the country, who explained to the “Goths” that Zdeda had not been consecrated a bishop. He was excommunicated, and Vuk, condemned by a synod in Spalato, was punished for his treachery by imprisonment.
The account given by Thomas is certainly biased. This serious incident indicates that the Croat national party, favoring the Slavonic liturgy, was endeavoring to obtain a national bishopric such as Nin had been, which would be subordinate, not to Spalato, but directly to the Holy See. All this shows that the Slavonic liturgy had many adherents, and that even the strictest synodal decrees could not uproot it, but only increased the enmity between the Latin and Slavonic clergy and the animosity against the reformists. 
The influence of Byzantine customs on the Slavonic clergy can also be explained by the fact that Byzantium’s prestige had increased considerably in the Balkans after the destruction of the Bulgarian Empire. In 1018, even the Croat King Gojslav had to recognize Byzantine supremacy. In 1024 Dalmatia again came under direct imperial administration. Only in 1069 were the Dalmatian cities again placed under the protection of the Croat King Krešimir IV by the Emperor Romanus IV. 
These influences came not only directly from the Byzantine Empire, but also, especially in the tenth century, from Bulgaria where, as will be seen, Slavonic letters flourished. It is admitted by Slavic philologists that some Slavonic texts may have been brought to Croatia from the centers of Slavonic letters in Bulgarian Macedonia in the tenth century, and at the beginning of the eleventh. A thorough study of some of the glagolitic texts originating in Croatia has shown certain linguistic peculiarities pointing to their Bulgarian origin.  This shows that the Bulgarian priests of the Eastern Slavonic rite were in contact with the Croat priests of the Roman Slavonic rite.
The violent reaction against the decision of the Spalatan synod concerning the use of the Slavonic liturgy illustrates its popularity among the people and some of the nobility. It seems also to have slowed down the anti-Slavonic campaign. Another synod held at Spalato in 1075, under the chairmanship of Gerard, Archbishop of Siponto,  legate of Gregory VII, confirmed the restoration of the bishopric of Nin,  but did not renew the decree prohibiting the
Slavonic liturgy.  The Slavonic liturgy continued to exist through the eleventh and twelfth centuries, despite the animosity of a great part of the Latin clergy. Thomas, a thirteenth-century writer, testifies in his Salonitan history not only to this animosity, but also to the liturgy’s continued existence.
Even the Latin bishops seem to have tolerated the Slavonic liturgy, because it has survived down to our own days, mostly on the Dalmatian islands and in the neighborhood of the coastal cities. These were of course losing their Latin character as the Croat population replaced the natives. The existence of the Slavonic liturgy can even be traced in former Pannonian Croatia. After the extinction of the national dynasty, the Hungarian King St. Ladislas was elected King of Croatia. He founded a new Croat diocese in Zagreb  about the year 1093. The first bishop was Duh, a Czech. It was thought that the new bishop was a Benedictine monk who had been expelled from the Abbey of Sázava in Bohemia when the Slavonic monks were replaced by Germans. This supposition cannot be substantiated, although traces of the existence of the Slavonic liturgy in the new diocese seem to have been found. 
* * *
In the meantime a legend was developing in Croatia which was destined to save the Slavonic liturgy. The memory of St. Methodius and his brother was fading away increasingly in the minds of the Slavonic clergy. They remembered, however, that the great Latin father, St. Jerome, was a native of Dalmatia. The invention of the glagolitic letters and the translation of the Latin Mass into Slavonic was therefore ascribed to him. He was a better patron saint than Methodius, who was compared with Ulphila, the Arian bishop of the Goths, by the enemies of the Slavonic liturgy. In spite of the apparent clumsiness of such a switch in tradition, the legend took firm roots in the twelfth century and was also accepted in Rome as an historical fact.
This is shown by the rescript which Pope Innocent IV addressed to Philip, Bishop of Senj. He was sent in 1247 by Ugrin, Archbishop of Spalato, to Lyons, where the pope was staying, in order to receive the pallium for his metropolitan. The bishop profited by the occasion to obtain from the pope confirmation for
the Slavonic liturgy which was used in his diocese. The confirmation was granted in the following words: 
In the petition you presented to us, it is said that in Sclavonia there existed a special alphabet which the clerics of that land were using in the celebration of the divine office, affirming that they had it from St. Jerome. Therefore you asked and prayed our permission to celebrate the divine office in the said letters, in order to conform to these priests and to the custom of the land where you are acting as bishop. Thus, we give you through the authority of this letter the permission asked for, well aware of the principle that the letter is subject to the matter and not the matter to the letter, but only in those parts where, according to the abovementioned custom, it is observed, on condition that the meaning shall not be disturbed because of the use of different letters.
This rescript is still regarded as the Magna Carta of the Slavonic liturgy in Croatia. The contact during the Crusades of Western Christians with Eastern Christians using different liturgies in different languages helped to change the rigid mentality of the Roman Curia. Canon Nine44 of the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215 ordered that all the different rites, languages, and customs in countries where they exist side by side should be respected, and invited the bishops to provide priests who would serve the faithful according to the liturgies and languages to which they were accustomed. This was the great achievement which saved the Slavonic liturgy inherited by the Croats from SS. Constantine-Cyril and Methodius. The Slavonic liturgy, originally permissible only for the diocese of Senj, soon spread also to the ecclesiastical districts of Spalato and Aquileia. 
* * *
The cultural innovations of the two Greek brothers constituted a generous present to the Slavic nations. Rome endeavored to use this gift in order to bring the newly-converted Slavs in Central Europe closer to herself. The attempt, boldly initiated by Hadrian II and John VIII, was abandoned, and the Slavic letters and liturgy were rejected as a means of propagating the Catholic faith among the Slavs by using their language.
This was, however, not the end. The work of Constantine-Cyril and Methodius, rejected by the West, was saved by the Bulgarians,
and became a medium by which Byzantium was to tie the majority of the Slavic nations to its culture and Church. The disciples of the two brothers, exiled from Moravia, were instrumental in this operation.
The Life of Clement, the most prominent among these disciples, is the most important source allowing us to follow this transformation in its first stages. The work is attributed to Theophylactus, Archbishop of Bulgaria, and was written in Greek in the eleventh century. It is, however, based on an earlier Slavonic Vita, composed in the tenth century in Bulgaria by a disciple of Clement. 
The Vita is also often called Bulgarica, because from the beginning of his writing, even when describing the activity of the two brothers, its author only has Bulgarian interests in mind. Cyril and Methodius had invented the alphabet and translated the Holy Writ and the liturgical books only for the Bulgarians. Although the Lives of Constantine-Cyril and Methodius—which are also used by the author—do not say anything about their activities in Bulgaria, the author of Clement’s Vita attributes the conversion of the first Christian ruler of Bulgaria, Boris-Michael, to Methodius (chapter four).
We learn from the author (chapter fifteen) that one group of the refugees, consisting of Clement and his companions Naum and Angelarius, after having been expelled and deprived of everything, even of their clothing, found a temporary refuge in the house of a Moravian noble somewhere between Nitra and the Danube river. They are said to have resuscitated the dead son of their host by their prayers. The fact that they were well received by a wealthy Moravian indicates that other disciples of Methodius could also have found shelter with Moravian nobles who favored the Slavonic liturgy.
Provided with the necessary means, the three disciples continued on their way and reached the banks of the Danube. After constructing a raft, they gained the other side and were on territory which belonged to Bulgaria. Following the river, they came to Belgrade and were well received by the commander of this fortress, called Boritakan  by the author. When he learned of their fate and of their condition, the governor sent them to Boris, “knowing that Boris thirsted after such men.”
The welcome the three refugees received in Bulgaria does not
necessarily mean that Boris had met Methodius when the latter was returning from Constantinople. When the strained relationship between Great Moravia and Bulgaria is borne in mind, we can understand that any refugees from Moravia were welcome in Bulgaria.
Boritakan is said to have despatched the disciples to Boris because he knew that the latter “had very much desired to have such men” (chapter sixteen). If this report is interpreted in a strict sense, it could indicate that Boris knew about the work of the two Greeks in Moravia, and that he was well aware of the advantages which such men could bring to his country. His hesitation between Byzantium, the Franks, and Rome seems to indicate that he did not feel happy with the presence of Greek, Latin, and Frankish priests in his country. Although he must have known of the “bargain”  concluded between the Byzantines and Rome, he not only continued to retain Greek clergy, but limited himself to answering the papal exhortations to return to the Roman obedience by sending cordial greetings and assurances that he was well and hoped that the pope was too. 
* * *
In any event, the presence of three learned priests celebrating the liturgy in Slavonic must have given him the idea that they might provide the right solution for his problem: the formation of a Slavic clergy with a national liturgy. It appears that this idea also found sympathy with some of his nobles. The hagiographer reports that one of the nobles, called Eschatzes,  asked Boris to allow Clement and Naum to stay in his house. Angelarius found a home in the house of another noble, Caslav, but only for a short time, because he died exhausted by the sufferings he endured in Moravia and on the long journeys.
We do not learn from the Vita how long Clement and Naum spent in the neighborhood of Boris’ residence. We are also ignorant of the fate of Laurentius and some of the other disciples of Methodius, who must also have reached Bulgaria by another route. The refugees separated after reaching the Danube and travelled in groups. The chronicler is interested primarily in the life of Clement.
It appears that Boris soon realized that it would be better if the Slavic nucleus for the formation of a native clergy were created, not in the center of his country, but in distant Macedonia. We know that Boris still encountered opposition to his policy among his Bulgar nobles of Turkic origin. They defended their rights to a share in the government of the country. In order to strengthen his own position, Boris favored the new nobles of Slavic origin. However, he did not want to antagonize the Turkic nobles, who would be suspicious of a Slavic literary circle established in their midst. On the other hand, the Greek clergy in Bulgaria would naturally see in such activity near the residence of the ruler a threat to diminish their influence in the country. Even among the Greek clergy in Bulgaria there may have been clerics who pretended that the liturgy should not be celebrated in the vernacular. Moreover, Christianity was not yet as solidly established in Macedonia as in the center of the country. Boris could only hope that the preaching of the faith in the native language would speed up the Christianization of these remote regions.
Boris provided well for Clement in this task. The hagiographer says that he established Clement in Kutmičevitsa, which he separated from the whole district of Kotokion, and that he put Dobeta  in charge of it. The latter was most probably asked to relieve Clement of material and administrative preoccupations. Clement was given three large houses in Devol and two places at Ochrida and Glavinitsa. Devol and Glavinitsa no longer exist, a circumstance which makes difficult a more precise delimitation of the region which was entrusted to Clement’s missionary activity. 
From the description of Clement’s evangelizing missions it is clear that the region was still pagan to a great extent, and that Boris was well inspired in sending there a missionary who could preach and teach in the language of the natives. Besides preaching, Clement devoted himself to the formation of a Slavic school for native candidates to the priesthood. He started teaching at the level of primary schools, choosing more advanced students for preparatory schools for the priesthood, and encouraged the most advanced and talented to indulge in independent writing and speculation. In this way he trained about 3,500 disciples, whom he sent in groups of about three hundred into the twelve regions which were entrusted to him to instruct.
Priests, deacons, and lectors were ordained from their numbers, and many of them most probably went to other regions also. Even if the number of disciples seems to be exaggerated by the chronicler, Clement’s activity and his success were outstanding. The author also discloses that Clement had chosen from among his most advanced disciples those who became his intimate collaborators and teachers. The author of the Slavonic Life of Clement was one of them. So also was the author of the Life of Naum and Bishop Marko, the fourth Bulgarian bishop of the Slavonic liturgy. Boris exempted Clement’s disciples from all obligations to the state in order that they might devote all their energies and time to preaching and teaching.
This work lasted for seven years. According to the Greek author of the Legend, Boris died in the eighth year of Clement’s work (893) and was succeeded by his son Vladimir. After four years Vladimir was replaced by his brother Symeon. It is difficult to explain how the author could have made such an erroneous statement. Boris resigned his throne in 888-889 and became a monk. His older son Vladimir was, however, less favorable to Christianity and looked for support for his policy among the Turkic boyars who were still pagans. Boris, seeing that his son was ruining his work, left his monastery, gathered his faithful boyars around him, deposed his son, blinded him, and put him in prison. After defeating Vladimir’s supporters, Boris convoked an assembly of boyars from the whole kingdom and proclaimed his younger son Symeon as ruler over Bulgaria.  This happened in 892-893. Boris retired again to the monastery which he had built near Preslav, and there he died on May 2, 907. We can attribute this error to the Greek author of the Vita who, writing in the eleventh century, had no clear picture of the history of the Bulgarian empire before its destruction by the Byzantines.
* * *
We do not know whether the activity of Clement and of his disciples was affected during the short reign of Vladimir. In any event Symeon, the new ruler, appreciating Clement’s ability to Christianize the remote regions of Macedonia, established him as Bishop of Drembitsa and Velitsa (chapter twenty). Clement thus became the first Slavonic bishop in Bulgaria. The two localities no
longer exist, but it seems certain that the newly-established diocese comprised most of the territory of southwest Macedonia where Clement had worked. 
His see must have been at an easy distance from Ochrida, where Clement had already built a monastery during the reign of Boris and where he often stayed with his disciples, who were members of the literary school he had founded. The biographer praises Clement’s literary and pastoral activities in Ochrida, where three churches were built, and in the rest of his diocese. Anxious to help his people in their material welfare, Clement taught them how to improve their arboriculture by grafting on to their wild fruit trees good shoots brought from Greece (chapter twenty-three). Symeon refused to give him permission to retire from his episcopal office. Clement obeyed, but died soon after in his monastery in Ochrida in 916.
Clement was the most prominent among the disciples of Methodius who had sown the seed of the Gospel in Bulgaria. Another zealous worker was Naum. His short Slavonic Vita says very little of Naum’s activity before 893. It seems that he was charged by Boris to collect young Slavic men and instruct them in the monastery of Panteleimon, which he had founded. Symeon, who had been educated in Constantinople, seems also to have been a member of the academic circle formed there. Two other prominent members were Bishop Constantine and the monk Tudor. Naum himself did not develop any literary activity. He limited himself to teaching and to encouraging others to write. Until 893 his interest was limited to northeastern Bulgaria.
A change in his activity was inaugurated by Symeon. His biographer says that after Symeon had appointed Clement bishop, he sent Naum from Preslav to southwest Macedonia to replace Clement as a teacher to the natives. He taught for seven years and built a monastery of the Holy Archangels on Lake Ochrida, which is called White Lake. After these seven years he entered the monastery, where he lived for ten years, taking monastic vows at the end of his life. He died there on December 23, 906. He was buried by Clement, who died in 916. Naum was soon venerated as a saint, and the name of the monastery which he had built, and which still exists, was changed to that of its founder.
In this way two important Slavic literary schools had been formed in Bulgaria, in Ochrida and in Preslav. That of Ochrida,
founded by Clement, was the first and he was its foremost writer. He was most probably the author of the Life of St. Methodius, which he had written when still in Moravia. From this school there also emanated three original writings, the Life of Clement, now lost, the short Life of Naum, and the Defense of Slavic Letters composed by the monk Chrabr. Clement himself was anxious to provide his disciples with homiletic literature which they needed for their pastoral work. He adapted from the Greek numerous sermons for the liturgical year, in honor of the Virgin Mary, of St. John the Baptist, the Prophets, the Apostles, and the Martyrs. He also composed Lives of the Holy Fathers, translated their homilies, and wrote liturgical hymns for the divine service held in Slavonic.  The other school at Preslav, initiated by Naum, only became more productive after 893.
* * *
The question arises as to the attitude of the Byzantine Church to the massive introduction of the Slavic language into the liturgy. It is very often thought that the Greek clergy was hostile to these innovations. As an argument for this hostility the Defense of Slavic Letters by the monk Chrabr is still quoted. It seems, however, that this Defense was not addressed directly to the Greek opponents of the Slavonic liturgy. This composition appears to be connected with a great innovation which was introduced into Bulgaria in 893, namely, the replacement of the glagolitic alphabet by the Cyrillic, which is still used by the Eastern Slavs.
Before the arrival of Methodius’ disciples in Bulgaria, Greek was the official language at court and in the Church. Greek letters were used in the transcription of Slavic names. Greek letters were, however, inadequate to express all the sounds of the Slavic language. The glagolitic alphabet expressed all the particularities of the Slavic spoken language, but its letters were unfamiliar to the Bulgarian Slavs. So it came about that the Greek uncial letters were used by some Slavic writers, and the adapted Greek alphabet was augmented by new letters in order to express all the Slavic sounds, under the inspiration of the glagolitic alphabet. This transformation was worked out in the school of Preslav and found wide reception in the center of the Bulgarian Empire. It can be assumed that it was also favored by the Greeks because it presented
a kind of compromise in the revolutionary development which was going on in Bulgaria.
Clement and his school with Naum defended, however, the traditions of SS. Cyril and Methodius and insisted that the glagolitic alphabet should be kept in Bulgaria also. If this is so, then we can, perhaps, explain why Clement did not become a trusted counsellor of the new ruler Symeon, who had obtained his entire education in Constantinople and was a great promoter of Slavic letters. Because of his opposition to this innovation, Clement preferred to work in the remote part of Velika in Macedonia, where he was also joined by Naum. 
The Defense of Slavic Letters composed in Clement’s school should therefore be regarded as a defense of the glagolitic alphabet against the new alphabet which is called Cyrillic,  although Constantine-Cyril had nothing to do with its composition. It is logical to suppose that this innovation was sanctioned by Boris and the assembly convoked by him in 893. Some think that the Slavonic liturgy was imposed at the same time, throughout the Bulgarian Church. This seems, however, hardly possible. In 893 the Greek clergy was still needed in many parts of Bulgaria because the number of native clergy, although considerable thanks to the work of Clement, Naum, and the school of Preslav, was not yet large enough to replace the Greek clergy. The introduction of the Slavonic liturgy in all the Bulgarian churches could only have been realized gradually during the reign of Symeon as the number of Slavic priests increased.
* * *
This kind of compromise could be accepted by the Greeks. Seeing that it was not possible to preserve the dominant position of the Greek language in the State and the Church, the Byzantines seem to have contented themselves by attaching the Bulgars to their culture.  In this respect the Slavic school in Constantinople, initiated by Methodius and Photius in 882, most probably played an important role. The priest and deacon left in Constantinople by Methodius were most probably joined by other clerics working among the Slavs. Their number increased considerably in 886 when the imperial envoy brought from Venice other Slavic clerics freed from slavery. One can suppose that Symeon, while
studying in Constantinople, also frequented this circle. The Byzantine civil and religious authorities were determined to use in Bulgaria the members of this school who were impregnated with Byzantine culture.
There were certainly some clerics who were sent to Bulgaria soon after 886. The most prominent among them was the priest Constantine who probably came to Bulgaria in 887 with Symeon himself.  He lived in the monastery of St. Panteleimon, where he had met Naum. He confessed in the introduction to his explanation of the Gospels  that he started his literary career at the exhortation of Naum. Constantine seems to have been the main promoter of the replacement of the glagolitic letters by the Cyrillic alphabet. He most probably did so at the invitation of Symeon. The latter was thoroughly permeated with Greek culture and letters, and it was natural that he should prefer a Slavonic alphabet similar to the Greek, which was so familiar to him, and that he found the glagolitic letters too strange and difficult. Constantine also had occasion, during his stay in Constantinople, to see the advantage of inventing an alphabet similar to the Greek uncial letters. Clement and Naum lacked this experience, and they preferred to use the letters to which they were accustomed and which were invented by their beloved master Constantine-Cyril.
So it came about that both alphabets were used in Bulgaria in the ninth and tenth centuries. The priest Constantine manifested his respect for the glagolitsa when using the acrostichon of glagolitic letters in his Alphabetic Prayer. 
* * *
Constantine, who later became a bishop, was one of the most prominent writers of the school of Preslav. Besides the writings already mentioned, he translated the catechesis of Cyril of Jerusalem and the apologetic treatises against the Arians of St. Athanasius. He most probably also translated the homilies of St. Gregory the Theologian (of Nazianzus). It was perhaps in deference to the memory of his master Constantine-Cyril, who greatly venerated this saint and who is said to have memorized his writings, that Constantine chose the works of St. Gregory for his translation.
His contemporary, John the Exarch, representative of the patriarch, translated a part of the Byzantine handbook of dogmatic
theology, the Source of Knowledge of St. John the Damascene. His Hexameron reveals more originality, but even in this work he follows the composition of similar works by John Chrysostom, St. Basil, and other Greek fathers.
The priest Gregory prepared a new translation of the five books of Moses, Joshua, Judges, and Ruth. It was a kind of revision of Methodius’ translation, characterized by a Bulgarization of the Macedonian and Moravian words used in the original translation which Gregory corrected according to the Greek text.
The inspiration for this activity at Preslav was Symeon. He himself translated extracts from the homilies of St. John Chrysostom. This collection is called Zlatostruj (Gold Flow). On his orders members of the school of Preslav composed a Sbornik, a very rich collection of sayings and writings of Greek and Latin fathers and other writers, with a short chronicle.
The translation of the Chronicle of Malalas by the priest Gregory became a handbook of history for the new Bulgarian intelligentsia. The same author also translated for Symeon a romantic tale of Troy. These works of more secular taste were followed by the translation of a collection called Hellenic and Roman Chronograph, the Palaia, an abridged version of the Bible with many extracts from Apocryphal literature which was very popular in Bulgaria, and by the translation of the Physiologus, which became a popular handbook of natural science in Bulgaria, as it was also in the West during the Middle Ages.
It can be supposed with good reason that the two Slavic schools in Bulgaria, especially that of Preslav, were in touch with the kind of school which continued to exist in Constantinople. It was this center which provided the Bulgarian translators with Greek originals.
So it came about that Christianity in Bulgaria was byzantinized. It preserved its Byzantine character in spite of the introduction of the Slavonic language into the liturgy. Even in other cultural aspects Bulgaria remained in the sphere of Byzantine intellectual development. Not even the wars with Byzantium victoriously conducted by Symeon, and later by Samuel, could change this. Bulgaria was a Slavic counterpart of the Greek Byzantium, and Byzantium profited greatly from the toleration of Slavic letters and liturgy during the first stage of the Bulgarian Christianity.
* * *
As we have seen, the Serbian Slavs were converted to Christianity under initiatives coming from Byzantium. The conversion of the Slavs of the ancient Roman province of Praevalis was initiated by priests from the Latin coastal cities. Their activity extended even to Raška—Serbia proper. The Greek metropolitan of Dyrrhachium worked, on the other side, on the conversion of the Slavs in the ancient province of Epirus Vetus.  There were also two Bulgarian bishoprics which were nearest to Serbian territory—Belgrad and Morava-Braničevo. Some Christian influence might have come to the Serbians also from this side. However, among the Bulgarian bishoprics erected by the Patriarch Ignatius after 870, there was no see for the Serbians. 
The situation in Serbia proper was clarified when, after the dynastic troubles between the sons of Vlastimir—Mutimir, Strojnik, and Gojnik—Peter (892-917), son of Gojnik, had become ruler. He extended Serbian domination over the Narentans.
During the Bulgaro-Byzantine wars under Symeon the sympathies of the Serbs were rather with Byzantium. A result of this was the occupation of Serbia by Symeon. The latter, who called himself Tsar of Bulgaria and Byzantium, created the Bulgarian Patriarchate in about 925  and introduced profound changes into the ecclesiastical organization of the countries under his sway. Probably about the same time he founded for the Serbs the special bishopric of Rasa (Ras, Raška, modern Novi Pazar). It was at this time, at the latest, that the Serbs were acquainted with the Byzantine liturgy in the Slavonic language. Rasa and Braničevo remained under the jurisdiction of Ochrida even after the suppression of the Bulgarian patriarchate by Basil II and the erection of an autonomous archbishopric of Ochrida, only nominally subject to the Patriarch of Constantinople. In spite of the attempts at the Hellenization of the Bulgarian Church by the victorious Byzantines, the Slavonic liturgy could not be eliminated.
* * *
During the eleventh century the bishoprics of Dioclea, Scutari (Skadar), Drivasto, and Pulati were restored, and—as we have seen—Dyrrhachium claimed jurisdiction over them. Dyrrhachium must also have claimed jurisdiction over some of the bishoprics in the part of Bulgaria which later became a Byzantine province
after the subjection of the Macedonian Tsardom of Samuel. The Chrysobull of Basil II of 1020  confirmed the autonomous status of the Archbishopric of Ochrida, and subordinated to it all the bishoprics previously under the Bulgarian patriarchate since the reign of Symeon, Peter, and Samuel. This document contains the following “admonitions” addressed to the Metropolitan of Dyrrhachium:
“We command the Metropolitan of Dyrrhachium to be quiescent only on his throne, to be satisfied with his property and goods and not to trespass into the bishoprics of Bulgaria.” This indicates clearly that the metropolitan of Dyrrhachium wanted to “annex” to his metropolitan jurisdiction some of the bishoprics from the suppressed Bulgarian patriarchate which the emperor subordinated in this Chrysobull to the Archbishop of Ochrida.
This admonition follows the enumeration of four bishoprics subordinated to Ochrida by the emperor: Ras, Oreja, Černik, and Chimara. It seems reasonable to suppose that Dyrrhachium claimed jurisdiction over the Serbian bishopric at Ras, and the three others which should be situated in what is today Central Albania.  The claims of the metropolis of Dyrrhachium over the whole coastal region were challenged by Latin foundations on the Adriatic coast. The Latin offensive started as early as 928 when the second synod of Spalato decided to erect a new bishopric, that of Stagno. At the same time, besides the bishoprics of Iader, Arbo, Veglia, and Apsaron, those of Stagno, Ragusa, and Cattaro were also subordinated to Spalato. However, the jurisdiction of Spalato could not be extended further down the coast and into the interior of the future Serbia, because it was soon arrested by two other growing Latin Sees—those of Antibari and of Ragusa.
Dioclea, Scodra, and Dulcigno, although claimed by Dyrrhachium, were also Latin foundations, but under Byzantine supremacy. Just as, farther north, Spalato and Zara with their Latin culture attracted the Croats, so, in the South, the Latin coastal cities were an attraction for the Slavic tribes of the future Serbia and their rulers. Their importance increased when these Slavs won their independence from Byzantium.
The first attempt at the creation of a Serbian state was made
not in the interior of the future Serbia, where Serbian Župans ruled under Byzantine supremacy with their religious center in Ras, but in the south, in the land of Dioclea, Tribunje, and Zachlumja. The Župan Vojislav revolted against the Byzantines and gained independence for his lands in 1042. The Latin coastal cities were included in his new state. His successor, Michael, stabilized the situation, and Michael’s son Constantine Bodin added new territories to his realm, thus extending his sway over Rascia with its center in Ras, over Bosnia and, in the south, as far as the river Drin. Michael already called himself King of Dioclea. 
This, of course, also meant a change in the ecclesiastical policy of the new rulers. The ecclesiastical supremacy of Dyrrhachium was ended, and this situation was exploited by Antibari, the most important Latin religious center in the kingdom of Dioclea. Its Bishop Peter obtained from Pope Alexander II the promotion of his see to a Metropolis (1067) with supremacy over the bishoprics of Dioclea, Cattaro, Dulcigno, Suacia (Svač), founded about 1030, Scodra, Drivasto, Pulati, Serbia (Ras), Bosnia, and Trebinje.
The list of bishoprics enumerated in the papal bull is interesting. It reveals the progress of the Christianization of the Slavs for whom two new bishoprics were erected, those of Bosnia and of Trebinje. This was the work of Latin priests. On the other hand, the list shows that the bishopric of Ras which, according to Byzantine canon law, was subject to the archbishopric of Ochrida and was of the Eastern rite, was put under the jurisdiction of a Latin metropolitan. The Slavonic liturgy of the Eastern rite was practiced in Rascia. It may also have penetrated into the interior of the kingdom of Dioclea, because the pope made special mention in his bull that the Metropolitan of Antibari should administer all Latin and Greek and Slavic ecclesiastical institutions.
The first Serbian state was thus tri-liturgical. The Latin element, although numerically inferior to the Slavic population, predominated. It was in the interest of the Serbian rulers to support the Latins. Michael obtained his royal title from Pope Gregory VII. Michael and Bodin supported the claim of the Metropolitan of Antibari to possess jurisdiction over the coastal cities against the claims of Ragusa, which became a metropolis in 1022. Bodin obtained a new bull from the anti-pope Clement III in 1088 which confirmed the rights of Antibari.
The kingdom of Dioclea did not enjoy its freedom for long. Bodin was defeated and captured by the Emperor Alexius I (1081-1118). Bodin’s dynasty continued to govern the land, but under Byzantine sovereignty. Alexius and his second successor, Manuel Comnenus (1143-1180), also frustrated the attempts of the Župans of Rascia to lead the Serbians to independence.
* * *
However, this setback did not change considerably the religious situation in Rascia and Dioclea. This is illustrated by the fact that Stephen Nemanja (ca. 1166-1196), who became the real founder of the medieval Serbian kingdom, was baptized by a Latin priest in the former Dioclean kingdom. When he was a young man, he returned to Rascia, and the Bishop of Ras introduced him to Orthodoxy by anointing him according to the rite of the Orthodox Church.  After becoming Župan of Rascia, Nemanja occupied the territory of the kingdom of Dioclea with Ulcinium (Dulcigno), Antibari, Cattaro, and other Latin cities, with the exception of Ragusa, which resisted him successfully. 
During his struggle for freedom against the Byzantines, Nemanja needed help from the West. The Latin bishoprics could serve as useful intermediaries between his realm and the papacy, which was the leading power in the West. Unfortunately Rome failed to appreciate the new situation. The growth of Ragusa impressed the Roman See and, instead of restoring the prestige of Antibari which was in Nemanja’s realm, Popes Alexander III (1167) and Clement III (1188) confirmed the claims of Ragusa to primacy over the coastal cities, including Antibari. Clement IV introduced the Archbishop of Ragusa as Metropolitan over all bishoprics in Dioclea, Serbia, and Hum. Even the bishopric of Ras was intended to be included in this jurisdiction.
This was a gross misinterpretation of the new situation. The new rulers would have preferred the promotion of Antibari, which was incorporated in their realm, as Metropolitan over the Latin coastal bishoprics. On the other hand, the center of the Serbian state was then not Dioclea, but Rascia, where the bishopric of Ras was the national religious center.
* * *
This mistake was corrected by Innocent III at the request of Stephen's brother Vlkan, to whom the successor of Nemanja had entrusted the administration of the former kingdom of Dioclea. Vlkan even tried, with the help of the Hungarian king Emmerich, to depose his brother and to become king over the whole of Serbia. In order to win over Rome he promised to submit his country to the Roman obedience.
With the help of the Bulgarians, Stephen forced Vlkan to submit, and Sava succeeded in reconciling his two brothers. Roman prestige was, however, also very high in Stephen’s eyes. This is documented by his request to the pope to send him a royal crown; in 1218 Innocent III sent a cardinal to Serbia to perform the coronation.
In spite of this promising development, Rome lost Serbia when, in the year after the coronation, the Byzantine patriarch residing in Nicaea consecrated Sava as first Archbishop of Serbia, and the Serbian Church became autonomous. One of the main reasons for the new development was Stephen’s desire to free Ras from the jurisdiction of Ochrida, under which Ras was still placed, according to the canon law of the Eastern Church. Ochrida was, at that time, in the hands of Theodore, who established himself as Despot of Epirus after the destruction of the Byzantine Empire by the crusaders in 1204, and was on hostile terms with Stephen.
Another very important reason which explains the failure of the papacy in Serbia, despite promising developments and its prestige, was the fact that Ras was able to transmit to the Serbians Slavonic liturgy and letters inherited from Ochrida. This proved more attractive to Nemanja, Stephen, Sava, and the Serbians than the cultural influence which emanated from the Latin cities and from Rome. On this basis the Serbs were able to create in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries a flourishing national literature inaugurated by St. Sava. 
So it happened that the Byzantine Church also profited from the Cyrilo-Methodian inheritance in Serbia. Rome had rejected it, and was therefore at a great disadvantage when trying to win over other Slavic nations. If Rome had been able to offer the Serbians what SS. Cyril and Methodius had invented for the Slavic nations, it is possible that Serbia would have developed in a Western religious and cultural atmosphere.
1. See above, p. 136.
2. Cf. above, p. 174.
3. See above, p. 38.
4. Cf. above, Ch. I, p. 23.
5. For details see F. Dvornik, Les Slaves, p. 227 ff.; idem, in the commentary on Const. Porph. De admin. imperio, ed R. J. H. Jenkins, vol. 2 (London, 1962), p. 127 ff.
6. MGH Ep 7, p. 147.
7. Ibid., pp. 151-153.
8. Ibid., pp. 160, 161.
9. Ibid., pp. 222-224.
10. Ibid., p. 157. The Bishops Vitalis of Zara and Dominic of Absor are especially mentioned.
11. Published by P. O. Lavrov, Materialy, pp. 102, 103. Cf. R. Jakobson, “Minor Native Sources of the Early History of the Slavic Church,” Harvard Slavic Studies, 2 (1954), p. 64 ff.; F. Dvornik, The Slavs, p. 125.
12. See above, Ch. V, p. 175.
13. P. O. Lavrov, Materialy, pp. 180, 181. Cf. F. Dvornik, Les Slaves, p. 298 ff.
14. We learn this from the papal letter sent to the emperor in 878, MGH Ep 7, p. 67.
15. On the reconciliation between Ignatius and Photius, see F. Dvornik, The Patriarch Photius in the Light of Recent Research, Berichte zum XI. internat. Byzantinischen Kongress (Munich, 1958), pp. 34, 35.
16. This is confirmed by the papal letter of August 879, MGH Ep 7, p. 168. For details cf. F. Dvornik, The Photian Schism, p. 180 ff.
17. See J. Vajs, Charvatskohlaholská redakce původní legendy o sv. Václavu (The Croat Glagolitic Edition of the Original Legend of St. Wenceslas), in Sborník staroslov. liter, památek o sv. Václavu a sv. Ludmile (Collection of Old Slavonic Literary Monuments on St. Wenceslas and Ludmila) (Prague, 1929), p. 28 ff. M. Weingart, První česko-církevněslovanská legenda o sv. Václavu (The First Czech Church Slavonic Legend of St. Wenceslas), in Svatováclavský Sborník (Collection of Documents on St. Wenceslas) (Prague, 1934), p. 863 ff.
18. J. Vajs in J. Dobrovský, Cyril a Metod (Prague, 1948), p. 113.
19. Fragmenta Vindobonensia (The Leaflets of Vienna). Two leaves of parchment containing a part of the liturgy of the Mass, dating from the eleventh or twelfth century, and kept in Vienna, are the oldest liturgical documents in glagolitic from Croatia. Some glagolitic fragments from the thirteenth century are also preserved. The oldest glagolitic missal dates from the fourteenth century and is kept in the Vatican Library. For details, see J. Vajs, Najstariji hrvatsko glagolski misal (The Oldest Glagolitic Missal) (Zagreb, 1948). The most important inscription in glagolitic letters, mentioning King Zvonimir, dates from 1100. Cf. F. Šišić, Enchiridion fontium historiae Croaticae (Zagreb, 1914), p. 135 ff. A complete survey of the glagolitic literature is given by V. Jagić in B. Vodnik’s Povijest hrvatske kniževnosti (History of Croat Literature) (Zagreb, 1913). Cf. also R. Strohal, Hrvatska glagolska kniga (Croat Glagolitic Books) (Zagreb, 1915). On the peculiarities of glagolitic letters in Croatia, cf. J. Vajs, Rukovět hlaholské paleografie (Handbook of Glagolitic Paleography) (Prague, 1932).
20. Cf. F. Dvornik, The Slavs, p. 133.
21. MGH Ep 7, p. 338.
22. Ibid., p. 346.
23. Ibid., p. 260. On Theodosius, cf. also F. Šišić, Povijest Hrvata (Zagreb, 1925), pp. 377-391. The author gives more details here than in his Geschichte der Kroaten (Zagreb, 1917), p. 106 ff.
24. See, for details, F. Šišić, Geschichte der Kroaten, p. 129 ff.
25. F. Rački, Documenta historiae Croaticae periodum antiquam illustrantia (Zagreb, 1877), p. 187 ff. See also F. Šišić, Enchiridion, p. 211 ff.
26. Cf. S. Ritig, Povijest i pravo slovenstine (History and Justification of the Slavonie Language) (Zagreb, 1910), p. 143 ff.
27. F. Rački, Documenta, p. 193.
28. Ibid., pp. 194-197.
29. J. Srebrnić, “Odnosaji pape Ivana X prema Byzantu i Slavenima na Balkanu” (The Relations of Pope John X with Byzantium and the Balkan Slavs), Zbornik kralja Tomislava (Zagreb, 1925), pp. 128-164. Cf. also F. Dvornik, The Slavs, p. 176.
30. Thomas Archidiaconus, Historia Salonitana, ch. 15, ed. F. Rački, Monumenta spectantia hist or. Slavorum meridionalium, vol. 26, p. 46.
31. The statutes of the Synod are preserved only fragmentarily and were published in the Starine, published by the Yugoslav Academy, vol. 12, pp. 221-223.
32. Ch. 16, ed. Rački, p. 49. Cf. Ritig, Povijest, pp. 152-164.
33. Cf. Rački, Documenta, p. 47. The first titulary was Mark, called Croat bishop. Šišić, Geschichte, p. 214.
34. Historia Salonitana, ch. 16, ed. Rački, pp. 49-53.
35. The upheaval which the prohibition of the use of the Slavonic liturgy by the Synod of 1060 had created in Croatia also indicates that no such decision was made at the Synod of 925. If there was such a violent reaction against this prohibition after 1060, one would have expected similar protests after 925. This confirms the thesis that the Acts of the Synod were interpolated after 1060, perhaps in the eleventh century.
36. For details, see F. Šišić, Geschichte, p. 203 ff., p. 247 ff.
37. Cf. K. Horalek’s study in Slavic, 19 (1950), pp. 285-292: “Kořeny charvatsko-hlaholského písemnictví” (Roots of Glagolitic Letters in Croatia).
38. Historia Salonitana, ch. 16, ed. Racki, pp. 53-54. The legate also freed Vuk from prison and took him to Rome. In this way the last vestiges of the schism disappeared.
39. F. Šišić, Geschichte, p. 345 ff.
40. For details, see the study by J. Srebrnić, published in Zbornik kralja Tomislava, cited above, footnote 29.
41. L. Jelić, Fontes historici liturgice glagolito-romanae (Veglia, 1906), p. 9.
42. Cf. S. Ritig, Povijest i pravo slovenštině (Zagreb, 1910), p. 164.
43. See A. Potthast, Regesta pontificum romanorum 1198-1304 (Berlin, 1874-75), vol. 2, no. 12880, p. 1082; A. Theiner, Vetera monumenta historica Hungariam sacram illustrantia (Rome, 1859), vol. 1, no. 386, reprinted by L. Jelić, Fontes, p. 9, no. 3, and by S. Ritig, Povijest, pp. 215-224 (with a Croat translation and commentary).
44. Mansi, vol. XXII, col. 998.
45. Detailed documentation of the spread of the glagolitic Mass liturgy in Dalmatia and Istria will be found in L. Jelić, Fontes. The popularity of the glagolitic letters and liturgy in Croatia in the sixteenth century is illustrated furthermore by the fact that the Slovene reformer Primož Trubar, in his Slavic press at Urach near Tübingen, also printed Protestant literature in glagolitic letters and propagated it in Croatia and Dalmatia. His glagolitic types were brought to Rome and were used by the press of the Propaganda Congregation. The Franciscan R. Levaković was charged with the revision of the glagolitic Missal and breviary. The Czech specialist J. Vajs made a modern edition of the Missal in 1927. I. Ostojic has given us interesting material on the use of the glagolitic liturgy and letters in Benedictine monasteries from as early as the eleventh and twelfth centuries in his study, “Benediktine i glagoljaši,” Slovo, 9-10 (Zagreb, 1960), pp. 14—42. On Primož Trubar see F. Dvornik, The Slavs in European History and Civilization (New Brunswick, 1962), pp. 421-423, 427, 428.
46. The best edition of the Life of Saint Clement is by N. L. Tunickij in his Materialy (Sergiev Posad, 1918). See also PG, vol. 126 (Vita Clementis), cols. 1194-1240.
Cf. also on editions and translations Gy. Moravcsik, Byzantinoturca (Berlin, 1957), vol. 1, pp. 555-557; M. Kusseff, “St. Clement of Ochrida,” Slavonic and East European Review, 27 (1948-49), p. 198 ff.; J. Stanislav, Osudy Cyrila a Metoda a ich učenikov v životě Klimentovom (The Fate of Cyril, Methodius and their Disciples According to the Life of Clement) (Bratislava, 1950), pp. 7-62, evaluation of the authorship and Slovak translation; P. Gautier, “Clement d’Ochria, évêque de Dragvitsa,” Revue des etudes byzantines, 22 (1964), pp. 199-214; G. Soulis, “The Legacy of Cyril and Methodius to the Southern Slavs," Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 19 (1965), p. 22. The Lives of St. Naum (Nahum) were published by J. Ivanov in his B’lgarski starini iz Makedonija (Sofia, 1931), pp. 305-311 (The Old Life); pp. 311-314, the second Life, discovered by him in 1906. For commentary, bibliography, and English translation, see M. Kusseff, “St. Naum,” The Slavonic and East European Review, 29 (1950), pp. 139-152. The last critical edition of the Vita Clementis—Greek text with a translation into Bulgarian—was published by A. Milev (Sofia), 1955.
47. Takan, targan is a Turkic title of nobility. G. Fehér, “Der protobulgarische Titel kanar,” BZ, 36 (1936), p. 58, interprets this name as Bori Teken = The Prince Bori (Wolf).
48. For details see F. Dvornik, The Photian Schism, p. 212 ff. At the council of 879-80 the Byzantines seem to have recognized the supremacy of Rome over Bulgaria on condition that the Greek clergy would not be replaced by Latin clergy. Cf. the well-documented study by R. E. Sullivan, “Khan Boris and the Conversion of Bulgaria. A Case Study of the Impact of Christianity on a Barbarian Society,” Studies in Medieval and Renaissance History, 3 (Lincoln, Nebraska, 1966), pp. 55-139. The author discusses in detail the attitude of Boris toward Pope Nicolas I, Byzantium, and the Slavic Liturgy.
49. Cf. the Letter of John VIII to Boris, sent in June or July 879. MGH Ep 7, p. 158.
50. The writer gives him the title of sampses. This old Bulgar word seems to have survived in the Bulgarian language in the word sanovnik, meaning a functionary.
51. The name is a Slavic form of the Greek Dometios, Dometianos.
52. See the discussion of the different theories in F. Dvornik, Les Slaves, p. 315. I. Snegarov, “B’lgarskiat pervoučitel sv. Kliment Ochridski,” Godišnik na Bogoslovskia Fakultet (Sofia, 1926-1927), p. 276, extended the area of Clement’s activity over the whole extreme southwest of Macedonia, a territory which is today included in Yugoslavia, Greece, and Albania. On other theories, see G. Soulis, “The Legacy,” DO, 19, pp. 23, 24. Cf. V. Vangeli, “Prilog bibliografijsta za Kliment Ohridski (Contribution to the Bibliography on Clement of Ochridi),
Istorija, III, 1 (Skopje, 1967), pp. 187-197.
53. Cf. S. Runciman, A History of the First Bulgarian Empire (London, 1930), p. 130 ff. Zlatarski, Istorija, I, 2, p. 254 ff., thinks that, on this occasion, Greek was replaced by Slavonic as the official language. This is possible. Boris always favored the Slavic boyars, and such a measure would have been directed against the Turkic boyars and contributed to the slavicisation of the country. This must, however, have happened gradually, for Greek was still spoken at the court of Symeon.
54. Velitsa must have been located somewhere on the river Velika, an affluent of the river Vardar.
55. A very useful review of the early Bulgarian literature, with a bibliography, was given by M. Weingart, Bulhaři a Cařihrad před tisíciletím (Bulgaria and Constantinople before a Millennium) (Prague, 1915). On the role of Boris' son Symeon in the development of old Bulgarian literature and arts, see G. Sergheraert (Christian Gerard), Symeon le Grand (893-927) (Paris, 1960), pp. 89-117.
56. The Czech Slavic philologist V. Vondrák already suggested this solution of the problem in his Studie z oboru církevněslov. písemnictví (Studies on Church Slavonic Literature), Rozpravy of the Czech Academy, 20 (1903), p. 124. The most important recent studies on this problem are: G. Iljinskij, “Gde, kogda, kem i s kakoju celju glagolica byla zaměněna kirilicej" (Where, When, by Whom, and Why was the Glagolitic Alphabet Replaced by the Cyrillic), Byzantinoslavica, 3 (1931), pp. 79-88; B. Koneski, “Ohridska kniževna škola" (The Literary School of Ochrida), Slovo, 6-8 (Zagreb, 1957), pp. 177-194. Cf. also J. Vajs, “Chrabrova apologie o písmenech," Byzantinoslavica, 7 (1937-38), pp. 158-163. J. Vlásek, in his paper “Quelques notes sur l'apologie slave par Chrabr," Byzantinoslavica, 28 (1967), pp. 82-97, distinguishes two layers in the composition. The original, probably written in glagolitic alphabet, reflects the crisis when the Cyrillic alphabet was replacing the glagolitic. The second layer was composed by another author, who enlarged the original composition and who wrote it at a time when the Slavic writing in general had to be defended against attacks. This could have been the case during the oppression of Bulgaria by the Greeks, at any date before 1348. He praises the originality of the true Chrabr, the author of the first layer of the composition.
57. It seems to be established that the author of the Defense, who called himself Chrabr, was Naum. Cf. M. Weingart, Bulhaři a Cařihrad, p. 6 ff. Idem, “K dnešnímu stavu bádání o jazyce a písemnictví cirkevněslovanském” (Up-to-date Results of Studies on the Old-Slavonic Language and Letters), Byzantinoslavica, 5 (193334), p. 419 ff. Cf. also J. Vajs, in J. Dobrovský, Cyril a Metod, p. 197, and F. Grivec, Konstantin und Method, p. 169 ff. Because the author
of the Defense used the Moravian form Rastic instead of Rastislav, and knew Kocel and called his castle Blatensk’ kostel’, which is a Slavic rendering of the German Mosapurc, he must have worked with Methodius in Moravia. All this points to Naum as the author of the work. See also I. Snegarov, “Černorizets Khrabur,” Khilyada i sto godini slavyanska pismenost 863—1963. Sbornik v čest na Kiril i Metodij (Sofia, 1963), pp. 305-319; A. Dostál, “Les origines de l’Apologie slave par Chrabr,” Byzantinoslavica, 24 (1963), pp. 236-246; V. Tkadlčik, “Le moine Chrabr et l’origine de l’écriture slave,” Byzantinoslavica, 25 (1964), pp. 75-92. Cf. also G. Soulis, “The Legacy,” DO, 19, p. 34; J. Vašica, Literární památky, pp. 14-19.
58. The fact that the author of the Defense also mentions the argument against Slavic letters used by the “Trilinguists”—namely, the inscription on the cross in Hebrew, Latin, and Greek—does not necessarily mean that he had in mind “Trilinguists” among the Greek clergy opposing the liturgy in Slavonic. This can only be an allusion to the “Trilinguist heresy” against which Constantine-Cyril and Methodius were fighting in Moravia. If it is accepted that the author of this work was their disciple and had worked with them in that country this would be natural. On the other hand, the new alphabet was adapted from Greek letters and was thus akin to one of the alphabets used in the inscription on the cross, but the glagolitic letters could in no way be compared with the three alphabets used in the inscription. The whole tenor of the short work emphasizes that the author had in mind the defense of the glagolitic alphabet. See the latest edition of the Defense, in P. A. Lavrov, Materialy, pp. 162-164; P. Rankoff, “Die byzantinisch-bulgarischen Beziehungen,” Aus der byzantinischen Arbeit der deutschen demokratischen Republik, ed. J. Irmscher, 1 (Berlin, 1957), p. 138, still thinks erroneously that this work is directed “gegen die antislavische Propaganda der Byzantiner.”
59. Cf. V. N. Zlatarski, Istorija, I, 2, p. 347.
60. B. Angelov, M. Jenov, Stara B’lgarska literatura (Ancient Bulgarian Literature) (Sofia, 1922), p. 88. Bibliographical indications on Bulgarian writers and their works from the ninth century on will also be found there. See also I. Dujčev, Iz starata b’lgarska kniznina (Sofia, 1943), vol. 1, p. 76.
61. See the latest edition by P. A. Lavrov, Materialy, pp. 199, 200. Cf. F. Dvornik, The Slavs, p. 178 ff., on Bulgarian literature on this period. For more detailed and more recent bibliography and editions, see G. Soulis, “The Legacy,” DO, 19, pp. 33—37. Recently A. Vaillant discovered another homily attributed to Constantine the Priest: “Une homélie de Constantin le Prêtre,” Byzantinoslavica, 28 (1967), pp. 68-81, with French translation and commentary.
62. See above, Ch. III, footnote 25.
63. D. S. Radojičić, "Srpske Zagorje, das spätere Raszien," Südostforschungen, 16 (1957), pp. 271, 272, thinks that a Serbian bishopric existed, having been established at that time. His arguments are, however, not convincing. There is also no evidence that this bishopric was under the jurisdiction of Split (Spalato). The Serborum proceres who were present at the council of Spalato in 952 were refugees from Serbia, then occupied by Bulgaria. Their presence at a Latin council well illustrates the religious situation in Serbia, where Latin elements were numerous.
64. The question of the founding of a Bulgarian patriarchate is not yet definitely solved. It could have happened also during the reign of Symeons son Peter, who was on good terms with the Byzantines. The first patriarch may have been Damian, and the patriarchal see seems to have been in Dorostolon. Anyhow, the Bulgarian Church was regarded as autocephalous by the Byzantines. The Bulgarian primates had transferred their seat on the territory of Tsar Samuel, who from 976 to 1014 had reestablished the independence of the western part of Symeon's Bulgaria. But during the wars which Samuel waged with the Byzantines, the primates found it necessary to change their residence according to political and military circumstances. Their last residence was at Ochrida. Cf. the paper by P. d'Huillier, "Les relations bulgaro-byzantines aux IXe et Xe siècles et leurs incidences ecclésiastiques," published by the Faculty of Theology of Athens, Ἑορτίος τόμος Κυρίλλου καὶ Μεθοδίου ἐπὶ τῇ 1100 ἑτηρίᾳ (Athens, 1966), pp. 213-232.
65. For details, see H. Gelzer, "Ungedruckte und wenig bekannte Bistümerverseichnisse der orientalischen Kirche," BZ, 2 (1893), pp. 40-66 (text of the Chrysobull). For the passage concerning Dyrrhachium, see ibid., p. 45.
66. See the study by S. Novaković, "Ochridska archiepiskopija u povetku XI veka" (The Archbishopric of Ochrida at the Beginning of the Eleventh Century), Glas of the Serbian Academy, vol. 76 (1908), pp. 1-62. On Ras and Basil II's Chrysobull, ibid., p. 57 ff. Cf. also D. S. Radojičić, Srpsko Zagorje, pp. 274, 275.
67. Cf. for details, F. Dvornik, The Slavs, p. 279 ff.
68. We learn this from the Life of Nemanja, written by his son Stephen and St. Sava. See the German translation with commentary in S. Hafner, Serbisches Mittelalter (Graz, 1962), p. 76.
69. Cf. I. Rubarac, Raski episkopi i metropoliti, Glas, vol. 62 (1894), p. 12 ff. For details, see F. Dvornik, The Slavs, p. 89 ff.
70. For details, see F. Dvornik, The Slavs, p. 173 ff.
[Back to Index]