No More Learning

He sent an embassy to Pope Sylvester II to obtain for the
Hungarian ruler a royal crown and papal sanction for the ecclesiastical
organisation. The Pope complied with both requests, and sent to
St Stephen not only the royal crown but also an apostolic cross. Stephen
had himself solemnly crowned as king in 1001.
St Stephen only succeeded with difficulty in controlling the refractory
chieftains of the tribes. One of them, for instance, Kopány, chief of
Somogy (Shümeg) and cousin to St Stephen, headed a revolt in favour
of heathenism, but was defeated. Prokuy also, a maternal relative of
St Stephen, prince in the territories on both sides of the Theiss, belonged
to the turbulent element which hated Christianity. St Stephen sub-
dued him too, and removed him from his government. In Hungary itself,


## p. 215 (#257) ############################################

St Stephen
215
in the south-eastern corner of the land bordered by the rivers Maros,
Theiss, and Danube, and by Transylvania, there lay the principality of
Aytony (Akhtum). This small principality was also overthrown by
St Stephen about 1025.
St Stephen also organised the administration of the land after foreign
models, partly German and partly Slav. He arranged his court after the
German fashion, and divided his lands into counties (comitatus), appointing
as their governors officials called in Latin comites, in Magyar ispanok
(from the Slavonic župan). He likewise followed foreign and especially
German examples in legislative matters, endeavouring to remodel his
state entirely in a European fashion, and to make it into an orderly
land. He died in 1038. His fame as the second founder and moulder of
the Magyar kingdom is immortal. By bringing his savage barbaric nation
into the community of Christendom, he saved the Magyars from a ruin
which otherwise they could not have escaped.
(B)
CONVERSION OF THE SLAVS.
In the numerous records of missionary activity in the Christian
Church of Eastern and Western Europe there is one chapter which,
owing to special circumstances, has attained the greatest importance in
the history of the world. It deals with an incident which happened
more than a thousand
years ago, the
consequences
of which have endured
to this day, and it reveals the characteristic features of Christianity
in the East and South-East of Europe. It arose in connexion with two
brothers, Cyril and Methodius, who lived in the ninth century at Salonica,
and are still venerated by more than a hundred million Slavs as apostles
to their race and as creators of the language of their ritual, the
language which was for many centuries the medium of literary activity,
of the public life of the community, as well as of Church functions.
According to the point of view of individual scholars this historical
event has been very differently criticised and appreciated. Some modern
writers condemn it because it was chiefly the predominance of the language
of the Slav Church, based on a Byzantine model, that separated Eastern
Europe from the civilisation of Western Europe, and was principally to
blame for the unequal progress in the development of Eastern civilisa-
tion in comparison with Western. Other writers cannot praise it suf-
CH. VII.


## p. 216 (#258) ############################################

216
Sources for the history of Cyril and Methodius
ficiently because, as it led to the separation of the Slavonic East and
South-East of Europe from the Latin West, they recognise it as one of
the chief causes of the preservation of national characteristics, even
indeed of political independence.
Much has been written in modern times concerning Cyril and
Methodius. There exists a rich literature concerning them in all Slavonic
languages, in German, French, Italian, and recently also in English.
Our view of the career of the Brothers, especially of their activity
among the Slav peoples, depends on the degree of credence to be attached
to the souroes. The chief sources are the various Slav, Latin, and Greek
legends, the critical examination of which offers many difficulties. So
far, at least, no results have obtained general acceptance. Most scholars,
however, are of opinion that the two Slav (the so-called Pannonian)
Legends, Vita Cyrilli and Vita Methodii, are of great historical importance
and credible in a high degree. Where they agree with the ancient but
shorter Latin legend, the so-called Translatio S. Clementis, no doubt is cast
on the double tradition. This is the view we shall follow in this chapter.
Of utmost importance, of course, are the statements of the Popes and
of Anastasius, the librarian of the Vatican, but unfortunately they
only refer to single incidents in the life and work of Cyril and
Methodius.
All sources agree in giving Salonica as the birthplace of the two
brothers, who were of distinguished lineage. The name of their father
was Leo. He held the appointment of Drungarius. We only meet with
their mother's name, Mary, in later sources. According to the Pannonian
Legend, Constantine is said to have been the youngest of seven children.
As he was forty-two years old when he died (869), we must place his
birth in the year 827. Of Methodius we only know that he was the
elder, but no mention is made of his age in the Pannonian Vita Methodii
when the year of his death (885) is referred to. Bearing in mind the
subsequent events of his life and his relations to his younger brother, we
might be inclined to allow a difference of ten years between the two
brothers, which would therefore make 817 the year when Methodius
was born. With regard to the younger brother, all information points
to the belief that he only assumed the name of Cyril shortly before his
death at Rome. It is, however, a moot point whether Methodius did
not also bear a different name at first, which he only changed to that by
which he is known to us, when he retired into the monastery on
Mt Olympus in Bithynia.
The Latin Translatio, which treats only of Constantine, relates but
little concerning his youth. He is said to have exhibited marked talent
and as a boy to have been taken by his parents to Constantinople,
where he excelled in piety and wisdom and became a priest. We learn
a great deal more concerning the two brothers from the Pannonian Legends
which, with the exception of a few decorative details, appear quite


## p. 217 (#259) ############################################

Constantine's youth at Constantinople
217
credible, and to be based in every particular upon an intimate knowledge
of the circumstances.
The Vita Methodii tells us that he at first devoted himself to a
secular career. Of stalwart build, benefiting by the universal admira-
tion of his fellow-citizens for his parents, he is said to have gained
great esteem among the lawyers of the town of his birth, probably as
a clever jurist. In consequence of his talent in this practical direction,
he attracted the attention of the Emperor Michael III and of Theodora,
who entrusted him with the administration of a Slavonic “principality. ”
The Slavonic word kneză (prince) corresponds with the Greek ápxwv,
and Methodius was thus appointed an archon, but it is unknown where
his Slavonic government (ápxovtía) was situated, whether in Macedonia
or Thessaly. It cannot have been an important one. According to
the Legend, he administered this office for many years"; if he received
it when he was twenty-eight years of age and occupied it ten years, we
might assume that he was archon between 845 and 855, which is consistent
with what comes later. The reason given for his resolve to abandon
the secular career was that he experienced numerous difficulties. Tired
of office, he retired into a monastery on Mt Olympus in Bithynia, as is
now generally accepted, and became a monk.
Quite different, however, according to the Pannonian Legend devoted
to the life of Constantine, was the youth of the younger brother. In this
legend his preference for the study of philosophy was clothed in the form
of a poetical account of a dream he had in his seventh year, according to
which the strategus of his native town brought before him the most
beautiful maidens of Salonica, from whom he was to select a bride, and
he gave the preference to “Sophia," i. e. philosophy; that is why he was
called ó piloo odos—a title he probably received subsequently in Con-
stantinople as professor of philosophy. Legend states that he was the
best scholar in the school and conspicuous by his extraordinary memory.
Another poetic story marks his love of solitude. Once when out hawking,
the wind carried the falcon away from him. This he interpreted as an
intimation from Heaven to abandon all worldly pleasures and devote
himself entirely to study. It sounds quite credible that in his earliest
youth he preferred to read the works of Gregory Nazianzen, in which,
however, he lacked the instruction of a master. If the Legend is correct, his
father died when Constantine was fourteen; that would be in 841-842.
If this bereavement did not actually cause the youth to go to Constan-
tinople to pursue higher studies, it at least hastened his decision. The
1 It is difficult to sustain the opinion that Clement the Slav is the author of these
two legends. See my notes in the Archiv für slav. Philologie, Vol. xxvii. 1905,
pp. 384-395.
2 See Malyszevski, pp. 441-479, concerning Olympus in Asia Minor and the
sojourn there of the two brothers. This happened, as before stated, in the year 855.
If we knew that Theoctistus the Logothete was the patron of Methodius also, we
could connect his retirement from office with the death of Theoctistus in 856.
CH. VII.


## p. 218 (#260) ############################################

218
Constantine's disputations
legendary narrative connects it with his call to the capital by Theoctistus
the Logothete. Here he was to be associated with the young Emperor
Michael III; but the idea of an actual joint education is scarcely
reasonable in view of the difference in their ages of about twelve years.
Among the best masters in Constantinople are enumerated Leo and
Photius, and the chief subjects were grammar, rhetoric, dialectic, arith-
metic, geometry, astronomy, philosophy, and music. Homer is also said
to have been read. Constantine's modesty
Constantine's modesty was coupled with quickness of
perception and intense diligence. By means of these rare qualities he is
said to have gained the confidence of the Logothete to such an extent
that he introduced him into the imperial palace. The Logothete, in
fact, wanted him to marry his god-daughter and held out to him the
prospect of a brilliant career, that of strategus. But the pure asceticism
of Constantine's nature found its worthy object in a spiritual vocation.
He was ordained priest. In order, however, to chain him to Constanti-
nople, he was appointed librarian of St Sophia, under the Patriarch,
possibly Ignatius; but this post, which brought him into intimate rela-
tions with the Patriarch, was too public for him. According to the
Legend, he fled to a neighbouring monastery, where he is said to have
remained concealed for six months. When he was discovered he was
made professor of philosophy. Possibly all this happened in the year
850, or even later, as Constantine was then only twenty-three. This is
also supposed to be the date of the discussion which Constantine is said
to have had with John, who was deprived of his patriarchal dignity on
account of his iconoclastic views. This John, the Grammaticus, was
deposed in 843, but he was certainly alive in 846. In the Legend he is
represented, during his dispute with Constantine, as an old man opposed
to a young one. It is doubtful whether the disputation took place at the
request of the Emperor and many patricians in so solemn a form as
recounted in the Legend, since the latter always emphasises Constantine's
intellectual superiority in argument. As a matter of fact, shortly after-
wards, in the twenty-fourth year of his life, that is in 851–852, according
to the Legend, a new burden was imposed upon this zealous fighter for
the Orthodox faith.
This time it was a mission to the Saracens. The Translatio S.
Clementis knows nothing of it. However, although the Pannonian Legend
does not say from whom the invitation emanated and what was the
destination of the journey, whether to Melitene or to Baghdad, still it
gives some very precise particulars which seem to have an historical basis.
It alleges that Constantine was invited by the Emperor to defend the
doctrine of the Trinity in a disputation with the Saracens, and was
accompanied on the journey by two men, Asicritus and George. No other
evidence of this legendary disputation is known, but in Arabic sources
(Tabarī) mention is made of an embassy of the Byzantines to the Saracens
for the purpose of an armistice and exchange of prisoners, at the head of


## p. 219 (#261) ############################################

Relations with Photius: mission to the Chazars
219
which was a certain George, who was accompanied by many patricians and
servants, numbering nearly fifty persons. This embassy, it is true, only
took place in 855, but it is nevertheless possible that the story in the
Legend refers to this fact; only the Legend made Constantine, accompanied
by George, the principal figure and, in the interest of the disputation,
entirely omitted all the other particulars? .
On his return to Constantinople, Constantine, following the bent of
his ascetic inclinations, retired to some solitary spot and then into the
monastery on Olympus, where his brother had already taken up his abode
as a monk. Thus the brothers after long separation met under one
and the same roof in 856-858, both devoted to their pious inclinations.
It is noticeable that the Legend refers in both cases to their preference
for religious books and intellectual occupation. Concerning Constantine,
who was an old friend of Photius, an episode is related by Anastasius,
the Roman librarian, which happened about this time; indeed, some
believe that Photius was really Asicritus who, together with George,
according to the Legend, accompanied Constantine on his journey to
the Saracens. In this case, the episode related by Anastasius might
have happened about this date. Constantine criticised some remarks of
Photius, chiefly directed against the Patriarch Ignatius.
It is impossible to say how long Constantine lived in the monastery
with his brother. He now proposed to undertake a new missionary
journey, this time in the company of Methodius. Not only the Pannonian
Legend and the Translatio S. Clementis, but also Anastasius the librarian,
confirm the statement that the new journey was to be into the land of the
Chazars. They also agree that an embassy had come from that country
to Constantinople with a specific request for help in their predicament.
It
appears that they believed in God but were otherwise pagans,
being urged on the one hand by the Jews on the other by the Saracens to
accept their faith. They therefore prayed for an able missionary to
explain the Christian faith to them. The Pannonian Legend, which
again lays stress on Constantine's dialectical powers, adds at the same
time the promise that, if the Christian missionary proved victorious over
the Jews and Muslims, all the Chazars would become Christians. The
Translatio only states the final result of the mission, that Constantine was
in fact successful, and that he gained over the Chazars to the Christian faith.
The Translatio does not go into details, while in the Pannonian Legend
the principal subject is the very detailed report of the disputation. It is
said that Constantine himself wrote a treatise in Greek on the whole of
the polemical interview, and his brother is said to have divided it into
eight parts (Wóyou) and to have translated it into Slavonic. We know
1 This is the version of the Archiv für slav. Philologie, xxv. 549, in which,
however, if we believe it all, there is much of the fantastical connected with the
journey. For reference to the Greek embassy, see Vasil'ev, Vizantiya i Iraby,
St Petersburg, 1900, pp. 179-180.
and were
CH. VII.


## p. 220 (#262) ############################################

220
Discovery of the relics of St Clement
neither the Greek original nor the Slavonic version, and yet it is difficult
to regard it all as an invention. Perhaps the full text as preserved to us
in the Legend is actually an extract from the Slavonic version.
Whilst the disputation with the Jews and the Muslims takes up very
considerable space in the Pannonian Legend, the discovery of the relics
of St Clement is only mentioned with a reference to the story of their
discovery as narrated by Constantine. This reference lends additional
credibility to the Legend, as we know now from the letter of Anastasius
to Gauderic that Constantine himself really did write a brevis historia of
the incident in Greek. A full account of the discovery of the relics is
given by the Translatio S. Clementis.
The marked importance attached to the participation of Constantine
in the mission to the Chazars explains why the Legend has introduced
into the narrative all manner of incredible features to shew the ease with
which he acquired foreign languages, the irresistible power of his eloquence,
and his success in conversions. The author of the Legend in singing the
praises of his hero was led into great exaggerations. Constantine is said
to have acquired not less than four languages during his short stay in
Cherson-Hebrew, Samaritan, Chazar, and Russian. From the fact that
the last-named language is mentioned, some Russian authorities have
been led to make very bold inferences, as if Constantine in the Crimea
had not only become acquainted with Russian (i. e. the Slavonic language)
but had even derived from it his Glagolitic alphabet. The language
of the Translatio S. Clementis is more moderate on this point, and only
refers to his learning one language, that of the Chazars.
The journey to the Chazars took place probably about the year
860–861, since he must have returned home, as the Legend also says, to
make his report to the Emperor; at that time he must have written the
Brevis Historia, the Wóyos ravnyupuxós (Sermo Declamatorius), and the
Canon consisting of tropes and odes in honour of the discovery of the
relics of St Clement, all in Greek and mentioned by Anastasius in his
letter to Gauderic. There is some ground for believing that the Legend
preserved in the Slavonic language concerning the translation of the
relics of St Clement is in some way connected with the Brevis Historia
and Sermo Declamatorius mentioned by Anastasius. In addition to these
subjects, he was also engaged in learned archaeological questions, as is
proved by the interpretation, referred to in the Legend, of the Hebrew
inscription on a valuable cup in the cathedral of St Sophia. The state-
ment also seems credible that Methodius, as a reward for services rendered
to his brother on the journey, was appointed Igumen (abbot) of the rich
1 There is a considerable literature on the question. Cf. Dr Franko, St Clement
in Cherson (in Little Russian), Lemberg, 1906, and also Archiv für slav. Philologie,
vol. xxvII. , who minimises unduly the credibility of the Legends and even of
Anastasius.
2 See Bibliography to this Chapter, Sources.


## p. 221 (#263) ############################################

The invitation to Moravia
221
and important monastery of Polychronium, after having declined the
dignity of a proffered archbishopric.
The activity of the two brothers so far had no influence at all upon
the Slav peoples, except perhaps when Methodius in his younger days
was an archon. The history of the Church and civilisation of the Slavs
is affected only by the last stage of Constantine's life. The Pannonian
Legend (Vita Cyrilli), dedicated to his memory, is so little national or
Slavophil in character that it devotes only the last quarter of the whole
book to the description of a period fraught with such consequences for
the Slavs. In order correctly to gauge the historical value of the Legend
we should not lose sight of the foregoing fact. The author of the Legend
is full of admiration for Constantine as a man of great Byzantine learning,
of enthusiasm and zeal for his faith, especially in the direction of
missionary activity, and devoted to the glory of the Byzantine Empire;
he does not present him as a conspicuous Slavophil. That is also the
reason why this legend is to be preferred to many later ones which, in-
Auenced by later events, divert the activities of the two brothers from
the very beginning into Slav and especially Bulgarian channels; such are
the so-called Salonica Legend and the Obdormitio S. Cyrilli and some
others.
The Pannonian Legends place the next sphere of activity of the two
brothers in Moravia, that is to say in a Slav land in which the missionaries
from the neighbouring German dioceses of Salzburg and Passau had already
sown the first seeds of Christianity, although perhaps without much
success as yet. Indeed, according to the Translatio S. Clementis, the
Moravian prince received the news of Constantine's great success in
the land of the Chazars, and was thereby induced to address his petition
to Constantinople for a capable missionary for his own country. The
Pannonian Legend does not insist on this connexion of events, and modern
historians associate the decision of the Moravian Prince Rostislav with
the political situation of his state; after having attained political inde-
pendence, it was essential for him to avoid the influence of his powerful
East Frankish neighbour in Church matters also. According to the text
of a letter, not preserved in the original, of Pope Hadrian to the Moravo-
Pannonian princes, it would appear that before Rostislav turned to Con-
stantinople he had made overtures to Rome, but apparently without
success. If we are not to ignore the statement of the Pope entirely, we
may be able to explain the failure of Rostislav in Rome by the pre-
occupation of Pope Nicholas with events in Constantinople and Bulgaria.
All the more willing was the far-seeing Photius, who was then Patriarch
of Constantinople, and whose advice to comply with the wishes of the
Moravian prince was followed by the Emperor Michael III. All legends
agree that the Emperor induced Constantine to undertake the new
mission. The choice is well explained by his successful missions hitherto
and by his intimate relations with Photius. It must have been mooted
CA. VII.


## p. 222 (#264) ############################################

222
The invention of the Slavonic alphabet
not long after Constantine's return from his mission to the Chazars, be-
cause he himself speaks of his fatigue from that journey. We must place
this mission in the year 861, or at the latest in the spring of 862. The
Pannonian Legend relates the event in a very dramatic manner, and gives
some not unimportant details. Amongst other things, the Emperor
Michael is said to have been asked by Constantine whether the Moravian
Slavs possessed letters of the alphabet, i. e. a script for their language.
To this the Emperor is said to have replied that his father and grandfather
had already made the same inquiry, but in vain. From this anecdote we
may at least infer that previous to that time a special Slav script was
unknown. This point of view is also confirmed by the statement of the
learned monk Chrabr, who expressly declares that, prior to the invention
of the Slav script by Constantine, the Slavs were compelled to use Greek
and Latin letters when they wanted to write. In the well-known polemic
against Methodius of the year 870–871, Libellus de conversione Bago-
ariorum et Carantanorum, occurs the phrase noviter inventis Sclavinis
litteris, which does not necessarily mean that Methodius had invented
them, but that they were certainly new in his time.
To sum up, we must accept the almost contemporary tradition,
ignoring the changes introduced by later events, to the effect that Slavonic
script originated with and was fixed by Constantine. And the concrete
occasion, the expressed wish of the Byzantine Emperor and his Court
that Constantine should go to Moravia, is by no means inconsistent with
the fact that he invented an alphabet for this particular purpose. He
not only wanted to preach the Christian faith to the Moravians, but also
to offer them the written Word of God in their own language. According
to Byzantine conceptions, and in view of the many instances of Oriental
Christians who used their own language and alphabet, it was a necessary
and preliminary condition that the Slavs should in the first place possess
a script of their own. The statenient, supported by the Translatio, is
also important, namely, that the translation of the Gospels took place
at this time also. So we must allow for a period of at least one or two
years between the arrival of Rostislav's embassy at Constantinople and
the departure of Constantine, his brother Methodius, and the others who
were to take part in the new mission. The basis of the future work of
the two brothers was thus laid before they left Constantinople.
Although Constantine was the leading spirit, the Pannonian Legends
also speak of others who collaborated with him. The invention of this
script may reflect the personality and learning of Constantine, but
in the work of translation it is easy to imagine that he had others to help
him, who must have been in the first instance people of native Slav
origin with a Greek education. If we examine the oldest translations,
especially the pericopes of the Epistles and Gospels, we have the best
proof of a highly developed Slavonic sense of language, which must be
attributed to collaborators who were themselves Slavs. In all probability


## p.
223 (#265) ############################################

Constantine and Methodius in Moravia
223
Constantine must from the very beginning have contemplated establishing
Christianity in Moravia on the basis of a Slavonic liturgy. Independently
of many Oriental parallels, this is also confirmed by the Pannonian Legend
and the Translatio, both of which state that the immediate task of the
two brothers on their arrival was to instruct the younger generation in
the reading of the Word of God and the Slavonic liturgical texts which
had been translated from the Greek.
That this purpose of his was recognised at the time is shewn by the
opposition raised in Moravia, at the very outset, by those who were hostile
to the employment of the Slavonic language for the purposes of the
liturgy. The protest emanated as a matter of course from the advocates of
the Latin liturgy, who to all appearances were numerous. But the Legends
and the Translatio further prove, the former with miraculous details,
that the brothers had also to fight against various pagan superstitions.
There can be no question of a complete Church organisation during
the first period of their stay in Moravia. Constantine, compelled to bow
to the inevitable, began by educating in the first instance a sufficient
number of youths in the Slav liturgy, both written and spoken. The next
step was to obtain Slav priests. Up to this moment there was really no
one but himself to conduct the divine service in Slavonic, unless he had
been able to induce any of the priests of Slav origin, ordained before
his arrival, to go over from the Latin rite to the Slavonic-Eastern liturgy.
It was the natural desire to obtain priest's orders for their young
followers that induced the two brothers to leave Moravia. It is curious
how the various sources differ on this point. According to the Translatio,
both brothers departed from Moravia and left behind them liturgical
books, without saying whither they were going. The Vita Methodii
only mentions their departure after they had instructed their pupils,
without giving their destination. The narrative interpolated in the most
ancient Russian chronicle only mentions that Constantine came home in
order henceforward to work in Bulgaria, whilst Methodius remained
behind in Moravia. This statement has the appearance of a subsequent
invention in order not to leave Bulgaria out of the story. But the
return home, if by it we are to understand Constantinople, is also im-
possible to reconcile with their subsequent careers. The reason given by
the Vita Cyrilli, that it was a question of obtaining ordained priests, gives
sufficient ground for their departure from Moravia.
The indefinite mode of expression used by the other sources may
perhaps be explained by the fact that Constantine himself did not know
for certain where he would succeed in obtaining ordination for the elect
of his young pupils. It was out of the question to think of Passau or
Salzburg, and it may have been the internal discord of the Greek Church
which decided him against Constantinople'.
1 There is certainly no evidence that he contemplated a breach with Constanti-
nople.
CH, VII.


## p. 224 (#266) ############################################

224
Constantine and Methodius' journey to Rome
The nearest sees were Aquileia and Grado, but legend speaks instead
only of their sojourn in Venice. The object of the intercalated disputa-
tion (which is another proof of the tendency of the author of the
Vita Cyrilli to attribute such disputations to Constantine? ) was to point
to the fact that Constantine was unable to attain his desire to secure
ordination of Slav priests. But there is another conspicuous discrepancy
here between the two Pannonian Legends; while the Vita Methodiż does
not say a single word concerning the sojourn of Constantine and Methodius
in the territory of Kocel, the Vita Cyrilli cannot sufficiently praise the
friendliness of Kocel towards the two brothers. The events which followed
the death of Constantine in 869 support the credibility of the Vita
Cyrilli, as Kocel's petition to the Pope to send Methodius into his country
makes it natural to assume a previous personal acquaintance. The Vita
Methodii also knows nothing of the disputation at Venice, but only
briefly refers to one at Rome. Both the Pannonian Legends and the
Translatio agree generally that Pope Nicholas called the brothers to
Rome, but his letter, mentioned in the Translatio, has not been preserved.
According to the text, it must have reached them in Moravia or at least
in Pannonia. It would agree better with the circumstances and with the
Vita Cyrilli to assume that the news of the summons to Rome only
reached them on Italian soil, at Grado or Venice.
Curiously enough, the Pannonian Legends entirely ignore the death of
Pope Nicholas I, which happened in the meantime (13 November 867); it
is only mentioned in the Translatio, which also adds the correct date on
which the two brothers arrived in Rome with the relics of St Clement-
after the election of the new Pope Hadrian II (14 December 867), either
at the end of 867 or the beginning of 868. On their arrival in Rome
they were received in state by the new Pope, but, according to the
Translatio, the honours were, as was natural, only shewn to the relics of
St Clement.
The real object which Constantine had in view is only mentioned in
the Translatio, in which we read that the Pope sanctioned the ordination
of the young men as priests and deacons. As all these aspirants were
intended for the performance of the Slavonic liturgy, their ordination
clearly shews the Pope's approval of the innovation. But the further
statement of the Translatio that the Pope made bishops of Constantine
and Methodius is contrary to all other information, although it is accepted
as true by some historians. The Pannonian Legends, which contain
markedly detailed information concerning the honours shewn in Rome to
the Slavonic books and appear to be derived here from eye-witnesses,
would scarcely have omitted to report the personal honours shewn to
Constantine and Methodius, had they actually taken place. The Vita
Methodii only states that Pope Hadrian gave the Slavonic books his
blessing and priest's orders to Methodius; and, notwithstanding the
1 The whole story of the great disputation at Venice is merely legendary padding:


## p. 225 (#267) ############################################

Cyril's death: his literary achievements
225
opposition of some Roman bishops to the Slavonic liturgy, he selected
one of them to ordain three of the young men as priests, and two as
anagnosts (lectors).
According to the exact statement in the Vita Cyrilli, Constantine died
on 14 February 869. Both Pannonian Legends and the Translatio state
that shortly before his death he assumed the name Cyril and the
monastic garb. In close agreement with one another, the Vita Cyrilli
and the Translatio relate that Methodius first wanted to carry the corpse
to a monastery in Constantinople in order to comply with his mother's
wish. This surely implies that it was now his own intention to go to
Constantinople and withdraw into a monastery. According to the Vita
Methodii, Constantine was afraid of this wish of Methodius and therefore
begged of him before his death to abandon it. When the Pope declined
to grant Methodius' petition, it was eventually agreed that Cyril should
be buried in state in the Basilica dedicated to St Clement.
According to all credible information, Constantine's literary activity
consisted first in the invention of a script for a certain definite Slavonic
tongue. He chose the Macedo-Bulgarian dialect, called locally Slovenian,
and the script had to be accurately fitted, as it were, to this tongue; he
had a wonderful ear for phonetics, and contrived to provide a letter for
each sound in the dialect. Of the two known Slavonic scripts, that
which is recognised as the invention of Constantine by the majority of
linguists and historians is the Glagolitic script, which was formed on
the model of the Greek minuscules of the ninth century in a manner
exhibiting originality and individuality. In all probability recourse was
also had to some Latin and Hebrew (or Samaritan) signs. That the South
Slavonic dialect was used as the basis of the script is clearly apparent
from the employment of a special sign for dz as opposed to z, and of
a single sign for the vowel ea or ä, which in the Pannonian-Moravian
group of dialects had developed into two separate sounds, e or 'e and ya.
There is one obvious objection. Why was the script based on a
South Slavonic dialect, while its use was intended for a totally different
area and tongue in North Slavonia ? But this objection may be answered
by the following considerations. In the first place, the Slavonic tongues
in the ninth century were more nearly related to one another than in the
nineteenth; secondly, it is quite possible that Constantine may have
discovered from the members of Rostislav's embassy that the South
Slavonic dialect he knew was easily intelligible to the Moravians; finally,
he may have convinced himself by the comparison of the language of
Byzantine literature with the spoken language of the Greek populace
that a distinction between the literary language and the dialects of the
people constituted no obstacle to success.
The next stage in Constantine's literary activity began before his
departure for Moravia. It was in the first instance limited to the trans-
lation of the lections from the Gospels and St Paul's Epistles, with the
C. MED. H. VOL. IV, CH. VII.
15


## p. 226 (#268) ############################################

226
Methodius in Pannonia
help of his collaborators; and in Moravia, if not earlier, translations were
added from the Greek of whatever was indispensable for divine service,
especially the Psalms, the pericopes of the Old Testament, and finally
a short prayer- and hymn-book. Attempts have already been made to
separate in point of language the portions due to Constantine's initiative
from the continuations supplied by Methodius and his pupils, but the
results are not satisfactory.
While it is a matter of comparative ease to write the life of Constan-
tine or Cyril, the subsequent course of his brother's life has given rise to
many controversies, chiefly because, for the purposes of his biography,
there is no parallel source by which to test the Pannonian Legend. It is
true that we are considerably assisted during this period by the state-
ments of the Papal Curia, but however important this historical source
may be, it does not afford sufficient indications of the later life of this
great man. A recent discovery, however, of papal documents has been
very helpful in establishing the credibility of the Legend. The persecu-
tion to which Methodius was exposed at the time when he was already
archbishop, and which is mentioned in the Legend without comment,
has now been strikingly confirmed by the newly discovered London Register
of papal letters. This important evidence for the credibility of the
Legend in connexion with the later life of Methodius prevents us from
being biased against it by the legendary padding in the form of miracles
and prophecies.
Whilst Methodius remained at Rome after the death of his brother,
Pope Hadrian, according to the Legend, received Kocel's request to send
Methodius to him as a teacher. The Pope complied, and addressed to
all three princes Rostislav, Svatopluk, and Kocel, a circular letter, the
original of which has not been preserved, though the Legend repro-
duces its contents at length. The genuineness of its contents has been
disputed ; but a forgery to support the Slavonic liturgy, which we know
to have been tolerated in Rome by the Pope, would probably be totally
different in character from this simple papal epistle, in which the facts
of Constantine's life are referred to, first, to recommend Methodius to
continue the work already begun by his brother, and then to authorise
the Slavonic Mass, with the express stipulation that the Gospel must
first be read in Latin. Why should one not believe the further narrative
of the Legend that Methodius first did yeoman's work with his pupils
as priest, preacher, and teacher in Pannonia, and only returned to Rome
afterwards at the request of Prince Kocel, accompanied by a deputation
of the nobility, to receive the bishop's mitre at the hands of the Pope
for the restored see of St Andronicus in Pannonia ?
It was only now that the dissatisfaction of Salzburg was aroused, for
Pannonia had been within its jurisdiction since the days of Charlemagne.
They did not confine themselves to polemics such as the Libellus de con-
versione Bagoariorum et Carantanorum, but Methodius was cited before


## p. 227 (#269) ############################################

His imprisonment and return to Moravia
227
an assembly of secular and ecclesiastical dignitaries, presided over by
Louis the German, among whom was probably Svatopluk also, and as
he boldly defended himself against the accusation of exercising episcopal
rights in another's diocese, he was sent to Swabia and kept there in
prison for a year and a half. .
We now know from the papal Register found in London that all this
is true, and that Methodius was actually treated worse than one would
imagine from the Legend. As Methodius obtained his freedom in the
year 873 by the energetic intervention of the new Pope, John VIII, this
violence to his person must have taken place in the years 871-873. Conse-
quently he did not long enjoy in peace the episcopal dignity conferred
upon
him by the Pope. According to the Legend, the powerful enemies
of Methodius, immediately after his expulsion from Pannonia, threatened
his former patron Kocel with their displeasure if he ever received him
back again. As a matter of fact, Kocel must have recognised the supre-
macy of the Salzburg Church as soon as Methodius had been removed,
for it is known that by 874 a church had been already consecrated in
Pettau by Archbishop Theotmar; whether Kocel was then alive we do
not know.
The papal legate, Bishop Paul of Ancona, who was entrusted with
the settlement of Methodius' case, was, on the one hand, to do his utmost
to take him to Moravia to Svatopluk, and, on the other, to return to
Rome with him, together with Hermanric, Bishop of Passau, who had
treated Methodius in a particularly harsh and cruel manner. Was
Methodius at this moment in Rome? According to the text of the
Legend it is quite possible, for it relates that the news of his liberation
created such a reaction in Moravia that the Latin-German priests were
driven out and a petition was addressed to the Pope to give them Methodius
as their archbishop. The Pope complied and sent Methodius to Moravia,
where he was received with enthusiasm by Svatopluk and all the Mora-
vians, and took over the ecclesiastical administration of the whole country.
There is no reason to doubt the correctness of this
sequence
of events.
In this period, which the Legend describes as the most flourishing in
the history of the Church, the baptism of the Bohemian Prince Bořivoi
may have taken place on the occasion of Methodius' stay with Svatopluk.
Curiously enough, the Legend narrates much less concerning the sub-
sequent activity of Methodius in Moravia than do papal documents. All
it says is that a party arose against him, and his removal was expected,
but the Moravian people assembled to listen to a letter from the Pope,
which placed them in mourning because it was supposed to be unfavourable
to Methodius. But suddenly their mourning was changed into great
joy; when the papal letter was opened it was found to vindicate the
orthodoxy of Methodius and to declare that all “Slovenian lands” were
delivered by God and the Apostolic See to his ecclesiastical authority.
This narrative is obscure, and it is particularly surprising that no
CU. VII.
15–2


## p. 228 (#270) ############################################

228
Methodius' victory at Rome
mention at all is made of the crux of the whole situation, the use of the
Slavonic language in the liturgy. Only the omission of the filioque clause
from the Nicene Creed is hinted at as the reason for the accusation of
unorthodoxy brought against him by the Latin party? Is it not possible
that this obscurity in the narrative of the Legend is intentional ? For we
know that in June or July of the year 879 Pope John cited Methodius
to Rome on account of the two-fold suspicion which had fallen upon
him, first, that he was unsound in dogma in preaching the faith, and,
secondly, that notwithstanding the express order of the Pope, com-
municated to him once before by Bishop Paul of Ancona, forbidding
him to sing Mass in the Slavonic language, he had continued to do
so. This is contained in the letter of the Pope addressed to Methodius.
In a simultaneous second letter addressed to Svatopluk, the Pope only
refers to the suspicion cast on Methodius' orthodoxy, no mention being
made of the language used in the liturgy. The archbishop obeyed the
papal summons, and succeeded not only in convincing the Pope of his
orthodoxy but also in obtaining his authority to use the Slavonic
language for divine service, which was solemnly expressed in a letter
to Svatopluk in July 880: “Litteras denique Sclaviniscas a Constan-
tino quondam philosopho reppertas, quibus Deo laudes debite resonent,
jure laudamus et in eadem lingua Christi domini nostri preconia et opera
enarrentur jubemus. ” Thus ran the principal passage in the letter, which
clearly refers to the Mass, as it goes on: “nec sane fidei vel doctrinae
aliquid obstat sive missas in eadem Sclavinica lingua canere sive sacrum
evangelium vel lectiones divinas novi et veteris Testamenti bene translatas
et interpretatas legere aut alia horarum officia omnia psallere. ” There
follows Hadrian's express reservation to the effect that“propter majorem
honorificentiam evangelium latine legatur et postmodum Sclavinica lingua
translatum in auribus populi, latina verba non intelligentis, adnuntietur. ”
The difficulties of Methodius were, however, by no means at an end.
Clearly he could look for no reliable support from Svatopluk, and in his
suffragan Wiching, Bishop of Nyitra, he had an uncompromising opponent
who sought by various means to undermine Methodius' reputation and
activity, both in Moravia with Svatopluk and in Rome with the Pope.
This is apparent from the Pope's letter of 23 March 881, in which he
consoled Methodius. The Legend here tells of a journey made by
Methodius after 881, as we may certainly date it, to the Emperor Basil I
at Constantinople. According to the Legend, the visit to Constantinople
originated with Basil. This may not be correct, but it is very difficult
to ascertain the true reasons which would tempt an aged man to a
long and fatiguing journey. It was certainly not a mere ordinary
visit. As it is related that the Emperor Basil had kept back a Slavonic
יי
1 No doubt Methodius, being a Greek, did not use the filioque clause. Possibly
there was at this time an attempt to Latinise the Slavonic liturgy, while preserving
its Slavonic tongue.


## p. 229 (#271) ############################################

Opposition of Svatopluk: death of Methodius
229
priest and a deacon, as well as certain Slavonic church books, it is
quite possible for Methodius' arrival in Constantinople to have some
connexion with the Slavonic liturgy, either in the interest of the Slavs
who were under the rule of Constantinople, or of the Bulgarians who
had again sided with Constantinople in ecclesiastical matters.
According to the Legend, Methodius also continued the literary work
begun by his brother, especially completing the translation of the Old
Testament, with the exception of the Book of the Maccabees. The
time given by the Legend for this undertaking (seven months) is, how-
ever, far too short, and modern philological investigation does not bear
out the statement that the translation was carried through at one time.
The report that he also translated a Nomokanon, by which is probably
meant the digest of the Canon Law of John Scholasticus, and provided
reading-matter of an edifying character by translating a Paterikon, appears
quite worthy of credence.
Little as we know of Methodius' daily life, or of the place where he
usually resided-only later sources mention Velehrad in Moravia_we
know no more of the place of his death, which is said to have happened
on 6 April 885. The Legend relates that his pupils buried him with
solemn rites in three languages-Latin, Greek, and Slavonic.
It is certain from the Legend that he designated Gorazd to succeed
him, as Gorazd was a Moravian, a fluent Latin speaker, and at the
same time orthodox. This is also confirmed by the Greek Vita Clementis,
which, however, mentions Svatopluk as an unquestioned opponent of
Methodius, at least in his last years, so that they could not reckon on
his approval of Gorazd's candidature. But at this time a change had
taken place on the pontifical throne. The new Pope, Stephen V (VI),
was induced, probably by very unfavourable news from Moravia about
Methodius, to send a bishop (Dominicus) and two priests (John and
Stephen) to the Slavs, i. e. to Moravia, with definite orders, one of which
was to forbid distinctly the Slavonic Mass (regardless of the concession
of John VIII in the year 880), the other requiring Gorazd, who had been
appointed by Methodius as his successor, to come to Rome under ten-
porary suspension of his episcopal powers. This was clearly due to
Svatopluk and Wiching.
The Slavonic liturgy could not withstand in Moravia the attack
of the Latin liturgy, which was supported by Church and State, but
the followers of Methodius carried it to the South Slavs, where it took
firm hold in Bulgaria, Serbia, and Croatia. After the separation of the
Churches, it gave strength to the Eastern Church. In Croatia, which
was Catholic, it has remained, but only under strong opposition, until
this day, in a few dioceses of Croatia, Istria, and Dalmatia. The chief
legacy of the two brothers-of which they had no idea themselves—fell
to Russia, in whose many libraries are preserved the richest treasures of
Slavonic ecclesiastical literature,
CH, VII.


## p. 230 (#272) ############################################

230
CHAPTER VIII.
THE RISE AND FALL OF THE FIRST BULGARIAN EMPIRE
(679–1018).
כי
LIKE the Serbs, but unlike the Albanians, the Bulgarians are not
autochthonous inhabitants of the Balkan country to which they have given
their name.
It was not till 6791 that this Finnish or Tartar race, after
numerous previous incursions into the Balkan provinces of the Byzantine
Empire, definitely abandoned the triangle formed by the Black Sea, the
Dnieper, and the Danube (the modern Bessarabia), and settled between the
Danube and the Balkans (the ancient Moesia). Thus, the first Bulgarian
state practically coincided with the Bulgarian principality created 1200
years later by the Treaty of Berlin. The Finnish or Tartar invaders found
this country already peopled with Slavs, immigrants like themselves but
of different customs and language. As time went on, the conquered, as
so often happens, absorbed the conquerors; the Bulgarians adopted the
Slav speech of the vanquished; the country received the name of the in-
vaders, and became known to all time as “Bulgaria. ” Still, after the
lapse of more than twelve centuries, the “ Bulgarians," as this amalgam
of races came to be called, possess qualities differing from those of their
purely Slav neighbours, and during the recent European war Bulgarian
political writers reminded the world that the Bulgarian people was not
of Slavonic origin.
The Patriarch Nicephorus has left the earliest account of this
Bulgarian invasion and settlement. He tells how the Bulgarians originally
lived on the shores of the Sea of Azov and on the banks of the river
Kuban; how their chief, Kovrat (identified with the “Kurt” of the earliest
list of Bulgarian rulers), left five sons, the third of whom, Asparuch
(or Isparich), migrated to Bessarabia. There he and his Bulgarians
might have remained, had not the Emperor Constantine IV Pogonatus
undertaken an expedition for the purpose of punishing them for their
raids into the borderlands of his dominions. The strength of the Bulgarian
position in a difficult country and an attack of gout obliged the Emperor
to retire to Mesembria. A panic seized the troops left behind to continue
the siege; the Bulgarians pursued them across the Danube as far as Varna.
Neither Greeks nor Slavs offered resistance; the Emperor had to make
peace and pay a tribute, in order to save Thrace from invasion.
1 Professor Bury believes that the migration occurred earlier, during the reign
of Constans II (641-668). The Chronological Cycle of the Bulgarians (B2. xix. 1910).
לל


## p. 231 (#273) ############################################

Early Greco-Bulgarian Wars
231
בל
The Bulgarians established their first capital in an entrenched camp
at Pliska, the modern Turkish village of Aboba to the north-east of
Shumla. Recent excavations have unearthed this previously unknown
portion of Bulgarian history, and have laid bare the great fortifications,
the inner stronghold, and the palace of the “Sublime Khan,” as the primi-
tive ruler was called. Unlike modern Bulgaria, early Bulgaria was an
aristocratic state, with two grades of nobility, the boljarin and the ugain,
but leading nobles of both orders bore the coveted title of bagatur
(“hero”). As in Albania to-day, the clan was the basis of the social
system. The official language of the primitive Bulgarian Chancery was
Greek, but not exactly the Greek of Byzantium-a native tribute to the
far more advanced culture of the Empire. The first two centuries of
Bulgarian history down to the introduction of Christianity are an almost
continuous series of campaigns against the Byzantine Empire, for which,
with scarcely an exception, our sources are exclusively Greek or Frankish.
Justinian II began these Greco-Bulgarian wars by refusing to pay the
tribute to Isparich, and narrowly escaped from a Bulgarian ambuscade.
Yet this same Emperor, after his deposition and banishment to the
Crimea, owed his restoration to the aid of Isparich's successor Tervel.
Escaping to Bulgaria, he promised his daughter to Tervel as the price of
his assistance, and bestowed upon his benefactor a royal robe and the
honorary title of “Caesar. ” Three years later, however, in 707, he so far
forgot the benefits received as to break the peace and again invade
Bulgaria, only to receive a severe defeat at Anchialus, whence he was
forced to flee by sea to Constantinople. Once more we find him appealing,
not in vain, for Tervel's assistance, and during the brief reigns of
Justinian II's three successors hostilities were spasmodic. But when Leo
the Isaurian bad firmly established himself on the throne, Tervel found
it useless to renew the part of king-maker and attempt to restore the
fallen Emperor, Anastasius II. Indeed, after Tervel's day and the reigns
of two shadowy rulers, the overthrow of the Bulgarian reigning dynasty
of Dulo (to which Kurt and his successors had belonged) by the usurper
Kormisosh of the clan of Ukil, led to civil war, which weakened the
hitherto flourishing Bulgarian state at the time when an energetic
Emperor, Constantine V Copronymus, sat upon the Byzantine throne.
In the intervals of his struggle with the monks, the Iconoclast
Emperor conducted seven campaigns against the Bulgarians, whom he
had alarmed by planting Syrian and Armenian colonists in Thrace. He
took vengeance for a Bulgarian raid to Constantinople by invading
Bulgaria, but on a second invasion suffered a severe defeat at Veregava
(now the Vrbitsa pass between Shumla and Yamboli). Another dynastic
revolution prevented the victors from reaping the fruits of their victory.
The usurper disappeared from history, but the old dynasty did not profit
by his removal from the scene. On the contrary, a general massacre of
the house of Dulo ensued, and a certain Telets of the clan of Ugain was
CH, VIII,


## p. 232 (#274) ############################################

232
Reverses of fortune
proclaimed Khan. Telets was, however, defeated by the Emperor near
Anchialus, and his disillusioned countrymen put him to death, and restored
the dynasty of Kormisosh in the person of his son-in-law Sabin. The
latter's attempt to make peace with the Emperor was followed, however,
by his deposition, and it was reserved for his successor, Bayan, to come to
terms with Byzantium, where Sabin had taken refuge. But Bayan had
a rival in his own country, Umar, Sabin's nominee, and to support him
the Emperor invaded Bulgaria, and defeated Bayan's brother and suc-
cessor Toktu in the woods near the Danube in 765. Both brothers were
slain, most of the country was plundered, and the villages laid in ashes.
Next year, however, the Greek Heet was almost destroyed by a storm in
the Black Sea, but the Emperor routed the Bulgarians at Lithosoria
during a further punitive expedition known as “ the noble war," because
no Christians fell. These sudden reverses of fortune are characteristic of
Bulgarian history. The next Bulgarian Khan, Telerig, warned by these
events of the existence of a Byzantine party in Bulgaria, obtained by a
ruse from the Emperor the names of the latter's adherents, whom he
put to death. Constantine was in an ecstasy of rage, but died in the
course of a fresh expedition against the barbarian who had outwitted
him. Telerig, however, was obliged to seek refuge with the next Em-
peror, Leo IV, who conferred upon him the rank of patrician and the
hand of an imperial princess, besides acting as his godfather when he
embraced Christianity. Telerig's successor, Kardam, after defeating
Constantine VI, wrote to him an insolent letter, threatening to march to
the Golden Gate of Constantinople unless the Emperor paid the promised
tribute. Constantine sarcastically replied that he would not trouble
an old man to undertake so long a journey, but that he would come
himself—with an army. The Bulgarian fled before him, and for ten
years there was peace between the Greeks and their already dangerous
rivals.
In the first decade of the ninth century the first striking figure in
Bulgarian history mounted the throne of Pliska. This was Krum-a name
still familiar to readers of Balkan polemics. Krum, whose realm at his
accession embraced Danubian Bulgaria and Wallachia, “Bulgaria beyond
the Danube," coveted Macedonia—the goal of so many Bulgarian
ambitions in all ages. He invaded the district watered by the Strymon,
defeated the Greek garrisons, and seized a large sum of money
intended as pay for the soldiers. More important still, in 809 he cap-
tured Sardica, the modern Sofia, then the northernmost outpost of the
Empire against Bulgaria, put the garrison to death, and destroyed the
fortifications. The Emperor Nicephorus I retaliated by spending Easter
in Krum's palace at Pliska, which he plundered; he foresaw Bulgarian
designs upon Macedonia and endeavoured to check the growth of the Slav
population there by compulsory colonisation from other provinces. He
then resolved to crush his enemy, and, after long preparation, marched


## p. 233 (#275) ############################################

Krum
233
against him in 811. Proudly rejecting Krum's offer of peace, he again
occupied Pliska, set his seal on the Bulgarian treasury, and loftily dis-
regarded the humble petition of Krum: “Lo, thou hast conquered; take
what pleaseth thee, and go in peace. ” Kruin, driven to desperation, closed
the Balkan passes in the enemy's rear, and the invaders found themselves
caught, as in a trap, in an enclosed valley, perhaps that still called “the
Greek Hollow” near Razboina. Nicephorus saw that there was no hope:
“Even if we become birds," he exclaimed, “none of us can escape! ” On
26 July the Greek army was annihilated; no prisoners were taken ; for
the first time since the death of Valens four centuries earlier an Emperor
had fallen in battle; and, to add to the disgrace, his head, after being
exposed on a lance, was lined with silver and used as a goblet, in which
the savage Bulgarian pledged his nobles at state banquets. Yet the
lexicographer Suidas? would have us believe that this primitive savage
was the author of a code of laws—one of which ordered the uprooting
of every vine in Bulgaria, to prevent drunkenness, while another bade
his subjects give to a beggar sufficient to prevent him ever feeling the
pinch of want again. To complete the disaster, Nicephorus' son, the
Emperor Stauracius, died of his wounds.
This was not Krum's only triumph over the Greeks. In 812 he cap-
tured Develtus and Mesembria, as the war party at Constantinople,
headed by Theodore of Studion, declined to renew an old Greco-Bulgarian
commercial treaty of some fifty years earlier, which had permitted
merchants duly provided with seals and passports to carry on trade in
either state, and under which the Bulgarian ruler was entitled to a gift
of clothing and 30 lbs. of red-dyed skins. The treaty also fixed the
Greco-Bulgarian frontier at the hills of Meleona, well to the south of
the Balkans, and stipulated for the extradition of deserters. When
the Emperor Michael I marched against him in 813, Krum inflicted a
severe defeat at Versinicia near Hadrianople, and the rare circumstance
of the Bulgarians defeating the trained hosts of Byzantium in the open
country led to the suspicion of treachery on the part of the general, Leo
the Armenian.