sign in sign up
<<
Home , Byzantine navy, De Administrando Imperio, Gorazd (Pavlík), Moravia, Moravians, Moravians (tribe)

The Byzantine Mission to

FRANCIS DVORNIK

Before trying to trace the origin of the Moravian State, let us recall one of the most perilous years in the history of Byzantium - the year 626, in the reign of the Emperor . was then in mortal danger. The Persians, who had allied themselves to the Avars, a Turkic tribe which at that time occupied the Old and , sub- jugating the , the , and the settled there, together with the Slavs of , Moravia, and , besieged the city by land and sea. The Patriarch Sergius kept high the morale of the anguished people by holding all-night vigils and processions, while the garrison was manning the walls and repulsing the attackers.1 The City was saved by the defeat of the Slav fleet by the Byzantine ; this defeat later enabled Heraclius to pursue the Persians to their own territory and to secure one of the greatest triumphs ever won by a Byzantine Emperor. It was about the same year 626 that Heraclius, fearing an attack from two sides - from the Persians and from the Avars - was looking for allies who would, in particular, remove the danger from the Avars. He con- cluded an alliance with the Bulgar Khagan Kuvrat,2 and it was most probably about this time that he invited the , a Slavicized Sarmathian tribe settled on the territory of present-day , to expel the Avars from Dalmatia, offering them new habitats in that province. Constantine Porphyrogenitus has recorded this invitation.3 It appears that the movement of the Croats speeded up the retreat of the Avars from the Byzantine territory. It is most probable that the new allies

1 See for details: G. Ostrogorsky, History of the Byzantine State (New Bruns- wick, 1957), p. 92. 2 Cf. ibid., pp. 93, 94; F. Dvornik, The Making of Central and Eastern (, 1949), p. 287. 3 Constantine Porphyrogenitus, , chs. 29-36, Ed. Gy. Moravczik and R. J. H. Jenkins (Budapest, 1949) vol. 1, with English translation, p. 123 ff. See especially the commentary on these chapters by Dvornik in the second volume, Ed. R. J. H. Jenkins (London, 1961), p. 93 ff. 1108 Francis Dvornîk appeared in about that same fateful year, and pushed on from there to ; joined here by the , they started to force the Avars out of Dalmatia and the southern part of the Pannonia. Thanks to this diversion, the Byzantines were able to push towards the and to reoccupy Singidunum-.4 The defeat of the Avars in Dalmatia also marked the beginning of two new Slavic political formations - and . The same fateful year of 626 seems also to mark the origin of yet another Slavic political grouping, on the northern boundary of the Avar Empire. The Frankish chronicler Fredegar reports that about this time the Slavs revolted against their masters, and under the leadership of a Frankish merchant, , who happened to be in their country when the revolt broke out, defeated the Avars and elected Samo as their ruler.5 This revolt seems connected in some way with the defeat of the Avars under the . The question has even been asked whether was not responsible for the insurrection. This cannot be proved, although Fredegar speaks in his chronicle of embassies between the Byzantines and the Franks. The threat from the Avars may well have been the object of these embassies, because the Avars were making devastating incursions also into the Frankish territory. Specialists have for several decades been debating the question of where the center of Samo's realm lay. Recent archeological discoveries in Moravia and have shown that these two countries were at the center of this political formation. One Austrian archeologist has even suggested that Samo's residence was in Vienna. Samo extended his sway over Bohemia and over the in what is now Saxony, and he was able to defend the independence of his empire not only against the Avars, but also against the Franks and their King Dagobert. This political formation cannot be called a state in the proper sense of • This detail has, so far, been overlooked by specialists. Constantine Porphy- rogenitus mentions, however, that the (commander) of Singidunum had convinced the Serbs to settle down in Macedonia. This indicates that the By- zantine army had chased the Avars beyond the rivers and Danube. De administrando imperio, ch. 32, my commentary, vol. 2, pp. 133. 5 Fredegarius Scholasticus, Chronicon, Monumenta Germaniae Historien, Script, rer. Meroving, vol. 2. The problems of authenticity of this chronicle were dis- cussed by G. Labuda in the Polish work, Pierwsze Panstvo Slowianske (Poznan, 1948), pp. 52-93, 296-320. The author comes to the conclusion that the chronicle was written about 660 in Burgundy. See also V. Chaloupecky, "Considérations sur Samo, le premier roi des Slaves", Byzantinoslavica, 11 (1952), pp. 223-239. See also the remarks by W. Goffart, 'The Fredegar Problem Reconsidered", Speculum, 38 (1963), p. 206 ff. The Byzantine Mission to Moravia 1109 the word. Rather, it was a federation of Slavic tribes and it disintegrated after Samo's death, about the year 658. However, this short episode left permanent traces in Moravia, which was at the center of Samo's empire. When the name of Moravia is for the first time mentioned in Frankish annals in 822, the chroniclers call the Slav inhabitants of that country . We are not told about the presence in Moravia of any other tribe, contrary to what we hear about Bohemia, where the existence of different tribes is attested to as late as the tenth century. This indicates that even after Samo's death, the grouping of tribes brought about in the seventh century continued to exist in Moravia, perhaps under the leader- of one of Samo's numerous sons. The Avars were still dangerous neighbors in Pannonia and in the Danubian basin, and their presence prevented the disintegration of this nucleus of a political organization into independent tribes, such as existed before the Slav revolt of 626. The Moravians were finally liberated from this menace by the victo- ries of over the Avars at the end of the eighth century - between 791 and 796. Their anonymous ruler is supposed to have supported Charlemagne and his son Pippin in their campaign, and to have accepted Frankish supremacy. The first Moravian ruler whom we know by name is Mojmir, and he appears on the historical scene in about the year 830.6 He must have already been a Christian at that time, because when he decided to expel from modern Pribina, the Prince of , who was still a pagan, the Franks did not intervene in Pribina's favor; yet the resultant annexation of territory meant a considerable extension of Mojmir's power. This is all the more remark- able since it seems, according to recent investigations, that this event cannot be regarded as marking the end of a tribal unification process. In present-day Slovakia this unification process had come to an end long before 830, and the Prince of Nitra appears to have been the head of yet another incipient Slav state.7 Again thanks to new archeological discoveries in Moravia and Slovakia, we are now better informed about the penetration of into these two countries. So far it has generally been believed that it was Constantine-Cyril and Methodius who were mainly responsi- ble for the of Great Moravia. This opinion must now be

6 See L. Havlik, Velkd a stfedoevropsti Slovane [Great Moravia and the Slavs of ] (, 1964), p. 186 ff. 7 On Pribina see Conversio Bagoariorum et Carantanorum, chapter 10, Ed. M. (Lubljana, 1936), p. 135. Cf. the most recent study by J. Sieklicki, "Quidam Pribina", Slavia occidentalism 22 (1963), pp. 115-145. Ilio Francis Dvornik definitely abandoned: there have been found in Moravia the foundations of stone churches built before 863,® the year of the Byzantine mission's arrival in Moravia, which at that time comprised also a part of present- day Austria as far as the river Danube; it is probable, too, that Southern Slovakia may have been visited by Frankish missionaries as early as the end of the eighth century. It has even been suggested that the first missionaries on the territory of Moravia were Irish and Scottish monks from the Irish Bavarian monasteries.9 Salzburg even had an Irish , Virgil, from 745 to 784. At the same time, another Irish bishop, Sidonius, was in . It is true that the Irish monks were spreading Christianity among the in former Noricum in the Alpine , but after the death in 784 of St. Virgil, Charlemagne appointed a Frankish bishop, Arn, to the See of Salzburg, and ordered the remaining Irish monks to accept the Benedictine monastic rule. From that time on, missions in Slavic lands neighboring on were led by the Franks. It was Arn, Archbishop of Salzburg, who consecrated a church in Nitra in present-day Slovakia in about the year 828.10 The Frankish bishop of Passau regarded Moravia as his missionary field. But among the missionaries in that country there were also from , as we learn from the Life of Methodius, and from . The priests from Greece may have been priests from the Dalmatian coastal cities, which were part of the . The priests from Italy could have been missionaries from Istria and also from Italy proper. Later, I will show that we must change our views on the Christianization of the Croats and on the role of Italy and the Byzantine and Dalmatian cities in this process.11 If we admit that the Croats were Christianized during the eighth century, the presence in Moravia of priests from Dalmatia in the first half of the ninth century can be easily explained. The priests from these countries were looking for new fields

8 This can be said with certainty, at least concerning two churches near Staré Mèsto (Sady and Modrä) on a basilica with three naves and a rotunda with two apses in Mikulcice. A detailed description of the recent archeological discoveries made in Moravia is given by J. Poulik, Stari Moravané buduji svùj stdt [The Early Moravians Are Building their State] (Gottwaldov, 1964), with a long résumé in English. 4 J. Cibulka, Velkomoravsky kostel v Modré u Velehradu a zacdtky kfest'anstvi na Morave (Prague, 1958) with a résumé in German. Cf. the critical remarks by H. Preidel, "Archäologische Denkmäler und Funde zur Christianisierung des öst- lichen Mitteleuropas", Die Welt der Slaven, 3 (1960), p. 62 ff. 10 We learn this from the Conversio Bagoariorum et Carantanorum, quoted above. 11 I discuss these problems in my book, Byzantine Slavic Mission, now in pre- paration. The Byzantine Mission to Moravia 1111 of activity for their missionary zeal, and they, of course, knew the Slavic language. The bishop of Passau is said even to have held synods in Moravia with his own priests and priests from foreign lands. It has now been established that some rudimentary ecclesiastical organization had been introduced by him to Moravia. The author of the Life of Constantine- Cyril speaks about archiereji among the Frankish ecclesiastics who were opposed to the liturgical innovations of his hero. Contrary to what has been so far believed, this word does not mean , but archpriests, who were being established by the Bavarian bishops as their representa- tives in the lands of their missions.12 Thus, we must admit that Moravia was already Christianized to a great extent during the first half of the ninth century. What was, then, the role which a Byzantine mission could play in Moravia, and how did it happen that the Moravians appealed to Byzantium for more mis- sionaries? The initiative in this respect was taken by Mojmir's successor, his nephew Rastislav. Although installed on the Moravian throne after Mojmir's death, about 845, by King , Rastislav broke away from the pro-Frankish policy of his uncle, and after having consolidated his power, he gradually loosened his ties with the Franks, until, in about 850, he could regard himself as independent of the Frankish Empire. He even expelled most of the Bavarian priests from his lands, keeping only those who were acceptable to him or priests of other nationalities. He wanted to complete his political independence by the establishment of a Moravian hierarchy and, about the year 861, he sent an embassy to , asking Nicholas I to appoint a bishop for his lands.18 However, the Pope at that time needed the support of Louis the German, King of the Eastern part of the Frankish Empire, which comprised present-day , to counterbalance the tense atmosphere prevailing in the Western part of the Empire, after the Pope's disciplinary measures against King Lothair of Lorraine and his contro- versy with Hincmar, the Bishop of Reims. When the Pope refused to

12 Cf. F. Dvornik, "The Significance of the Missions of Cyril and Methodius", Slavic Review, 23 (1964), p. 196. The archpriests were probably sent to Moravia by the Bishop Reginhar (818-838). See F. Dvornik, "Die Bedeutung der Briider Cyrill und Method fiìr die Slaven- und Kirchengeschichte", Prolegomena ad Acta congressus historiae Slavicae Salisburgensis Wiesbaden, 1964, p. 18. 13 We learned this from the letter of Pope Hadrian II to Ratislav which is pre- served in Slavic in The Vita Methodii, Ed. P. A. Lavrov, "Materialy po istorii voznikovenija drevnejSej slavjanskoj pismennosti", (Leningrad, 1930), p. 73. 1112 Francis Dvornik accede to his desire, Rastislav saw that the only way of obtaining what he needed was to turn with his request to Byzantium. We learn some details about his embassy to Constantinople from the Lives of Sts. Cyril and Methodius. The authors of these Lives allow Rastislav to say that his subjects were already Christians, but that they lacked a good leader who would coordinate the different teachings brought to Moravia by priests from Germany, Italy, and Greece. "Send us such a bishop and teacher, because you are spreading the good law to all sides." 14 These words have, so far, been interpreted in various ways by differ- ent scholars. But in general, they have taken them to mean a request for missionaries who spoke the Slavonic tongue. Such an interpretation cannot, however, be accepted. The priests who were preaching in Moravia must have known the local tongue. This is obvious with regard to priests from Dalmatia and Istria: there were Slavic settlements in both these countries, and they surely had to learn the language, even if they were not themselves of Slav origin. But the Bavarian clergy, too, must have had to preach in Slavonic. It seems that Hermanrich, the bishop of Passau, himself knew it, for when, in 866, the Bulgarian Khagan Boris-Michael asked Louis the German to send him Frankish priests, the King chose Hermanrich to lead the mission to the . This indicates that Hermanrich must have had some knowledge of Slavonic. The Bavarian missionaries translated from Latin and German into Slavonic some commonly-used prayers and instructions for con- fession. Some of their translations have been preserved in the so-called Fragments of Freisingen.15 Although these translations were done for the benefit of the Slovenes, among whom the Bavarian missionaries were primarily working, it seems that they were also known to the Moravians and that the Byzantine mission continued to make use of them. We have, therefore, to look for another interpretation. Although Rastislav's request for a bishop is recorded only by the author of the Life of Constantine, we have no reason to doubt his statement that Rastislav did, in fact, ask for the establishment of a hierarchical organi- zation in his country. This would be logical. If Rastislav wanted to strengthen the political independence of his country, he could not allow the Frankish hierarchy to exercise ecclesiastical supremacy in Moravia.

" Ibid, pp. 26, 60, 72. 15 Cf. A. Kuhar, Slovene Medieval History (New York, Washington, 1962), p. 114 ff; F. Grivec, Konstantin und Method, Lehrer der Slaven (Wiesbaden, 1960), pp. 160, 207. The Byzantine Mission to Moravia 1113

And Rastislav went further. Political and ecclesiastical independence of his realm meant also the replacement of the cultural influences which penetrated into his land from the Frankish Empire by influences coming from a center which could not use them to undermine the independence of his country. There was only one center where he could find what he needed in this field, and that was Byzantium. It seems that the Byzantines appreciated the meaning of Rastislav's request. The first question which Constantine is said to have asked when he was urged by the Emperor to accept this new mission was whether the Moravians had their own alphabet. After inventing an alphabet suited to the peculiari- ties of the Slavic tongue,16 Constantine started to translate the Sabbath readings of the Gospel into Slavonic. The seed for an independent cultural development of Rastislav's realm was thus sown. The Moravian prince also needed a solid legal foundation for his state. He expected to obtain it from Byzantium. This seems to be indi- cated in the request addressed by his embassy to the Emperor. The author of the Life of Constantine has the envoys declare: "From you is spreading the good law to all sides." According to the author of the Life of Methodius, the envoys asked for a man who would teach them all justice. The word which we read in this Life, i.e., pravda, used to be translated as truth, in the sense of a religious truth. The word zakon - law, as used by the author of the Life of Constantine, was generally taken to mean divine law. There are still some scholars who give preference to this translation and this interpretation. It appears, however, that these words must be understood as meaning civil law and justice. A Czech scholar, Father J. Vasica,17 has found that the oldest Slavic legal code, called Zakon sudnyj ljudem, is a translation and an adaptation of the Byzantine handbook of civil law, Ecloga, which was introduced into Byzantine jurisprudence by the iconoclastic Emperor Leo III and was still used as an official handbook in Byzantine courts in the year 862 when Rastislav's envoys appeared in Constanti- nople. Moreover, the same scholar has shown that this translation and adaptation of the Ecloga could have been made only by Constantine, because of its stylistic and verbal affinity to other works known to have been composed by him. This first Slavic code of law, prepared for

" The alphabet invented by Cyril was glagolitic and not the alphabet used by the Orthodox Slavs, which is called Cyrillic. 17 J. VaSica, "Origine Cyrillo-Methodienne du plus ancien cod slave dit Zakon Sudnyj", Byiantinoslavica, 12 (1951), pp. 154-174. Cf. also his linguistic study of the Zakon in Slavia, 27, (1958), pp. 521-537. 1114 Francis Dvornik Moravia, was brought by Methodius' disciples to and from there to Kievan Russia. We find it in the oldest editions of the Russian canon law called the Pilot's Book - Kormcaja kniga. The Byzantines did not send a bishop to Moravia. This, however, does not mean thatRastislav's request was rejected. Two such prominent men as Constantine and Methodius, together with some other Byzantine clerics who spoke Slavonic, were sent to Moravia in order to train a sufficient number of native young men for holy orders and so lay the foundations for the growth of the young Church. Such practice seems to have been customary in Byzantium, at least until that time. After the conversion of the Bulgarians in 864 and 865, Photius also had confined himself to sending priests only to Bulgaria. The fact that the two brothers took with them to Moravia the relics believed to be those of St. Clement surely indicates that the Byzantines regarded the Moravian mission as a very important enterprise. I think that the relics were meant to be a guarantee to Rastislav that all his requests would be granted. The brothers did not bring a bishop with them, but they brought the relics of a Pope, the third successor to Saint Peter. Rastislav seems to have had in mind yet another problem when sending the embassy to Constantinople. Louis the German, unable to crush Rastislav by military force, was looking for an ally. This ally he found in Boris, the Khagan of Bulgaria. We learn from the Annals of Fulda that Louis invited Boris to come to Tulln on the Danube, in order to confirm their alliance and to prepare for the Christianization of Bulgaria by Frankish missionaries. He was planning a campaign, with the help of Boris, against Rastislav in 863, for which Pope Nicholas I sent him his blessing. Although Bulgaria had a common frontier with Moravia on the river Tisza, having occupied the territory of the former Dacia after the defeat of the Avars, the Bulgarians had never been allies of the Moravians against the Franks, as is sometimes thought. On the contrary, Boris of Bulgaria, afraid of Byzantium, was always well- disposed toward the Franks. Rastislav must have been aware of this fact, and also of the uneasy relations between Byzantium and Bulgaria. He could not have expected any help from Byzantium against Louis the German, but he could hope that Byzantium would prevent the Bulgarians from helping Louis in his campaign against Moravia. We have no documentary evidence to show that any Moravo-Byzantine alliance was ever concluded, but the invasion of Bulgaria by the Byzantines in 864, which brought about Boris's capitulation and the Christianization of his land - not by the Franks as he had planned, but The Byzantine Mission to Moravia 1115 by the Byzantines - is perhaps an indication that some kind of under- standing between Byzantium and Moravia existed even in this respect.18 Thus, the Byzantine mission to Moravia had, besides its religious purpose, a cultural character with a political undertone. Besides their work in instructing their disciples and preparing them for priesthood, both brothers continued to labor at the translation of the Gospel and the liturgical books into Slavonic. Their main innovation was the introduc- tion of a Slavonic liturgy.19 Constantine defended their innovation against the criticisms voiced by the Bavarian clergy. The Frankish clergy reappeared in Moravia soon after the arrival of the Byzantine mission, which dates most probably to the summer or fall of 863. In 864 Louis the German attacked Rastislav with all his military power and forced him to recognize the supremacy of the Frankish Empire. One of the conditions of the peace treaty was the granting of free access to Moravia to Frankish missionaries, a condition which explains their presence in that country. The brothers stayed in Moravia for over three years - forty months,

18 For details see F. Dvornik, Les Légendes de Constantin et de Méthode vues de Byzance (Prague, 1933), p. 228 ff. 19 Apparently the brothers introduced into Moravia the Eastern liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, translated into Slavonic. A part of this translation is preserved in the so-called Fragments of Prague, which seem to be a part of the Eucholo- gium Sinaiticum containing the Slavonic translation of the liturgical prayers of the Eastern Church. The Fragments of Kiev contain, however, a Slavonic trans- lation of the Roman mass formulay. Many specialists think that the Fragments of Kiev contain a translation of a Roman mass formulary from Greek. We know that a Greek translation of the Latin mass formulary had existed. It was called the liturgy of St. Peter. The translation in the Fragments of Kiev is sup- plemented with parts of Latin formularies in Slavonic which were used by the Frankish missionaries in Moravia. This translation was attributed to St. Cyril, who had seen that the Moravians were accustomed to the Roman mass liturgy. See J. M. Hanssens, "La liturgie romano-byzantine de Saint Pierre", Orientalia Christiana Periodica 4 (1938), pp. 234-235; 5 (1939), pp. 1-151; and J. VaSica, "Slovanskà liturgie sv. Petra", Byzantinoslavica, 8 (1939-40), pp. 1-54, with a résumé in Latin. Cf. also Dvornik, Die Bedeutung, op. cit., p. 31. It is not im- possible that the translation of a Roman mass formulary was made by the two Kiev do not seem to reflect the linguistic character of works of which Constan- tine was undoubtedly the author. Some Slavists think that this translation was made rather by the disciples of the brothers in Moravia or, in the tenth cen- tury, in Bohemia. The problem can be solved only when the Slavists make more thorough philological studies of Cyril's works, of the two Fragments, and of the Euchologium Sinaiticum. See, on these problems, A. Dostàl's paper "The Origins of the Slavonic Liturgy", published in Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 19 (1965), pp. 67-87. 1116 Francis Dvornik according to the Vita Constantini. Both the Legends make it quite clear that when they went, they were leaving Moravia for good and had no intention of returning. On their journey, they were accompanied by some of their disciples whom they selected to be ordained priests and bishops. They stopped in Pannonia, in the land which Louis the German had entrusted to Pribina after his expulsion from Nitra and which at that time was administered by Pribina's son Kocel. His Slav subjects had already been Christianized by Irish and Prankish missionaries. The archbishop of Salzburg had appointed there, as his representative, an archpriest who lived in Blatnograd, Kocel's residence on , which is in present-day . Kocel received the two brothers with open arms and showed such enthusiasm for the Slavic liturgy and the Slavic letters that he asked the brothers to instruct in them fifty young candidates for priesthood. Once more, the author of Constantine's Life makes it clear that when he and his brother bade farewell to Kocel, and departed from Pannonia, they were leaving it for good. Next, the biographer describes a disputation which Constantine had in Venice with "bishops, priests and monks" who were voicing objections to his liturgical innovations, and pretended that the Holy Liturgy should be celebrated in three languages only: the languages in which was written, on the order of Pilate, the inscription on Christ's Cross, namely, the Hebrew, the Greek, and the Latin. Constantine called them disciples of Pilate and defended his innovation with quotations from the Holy Writ, also enumerating other nations which were saying Mass in their own languages. It seems that before he left Moravia, Constantine had composed a defense of the use of Slavic liturgy for the benefit of his disciples, and that he now made use of this apology in Venice, as he was also later to do in Rome. The reason for the stay of the Greek brothers in Venice is still debated by scholars. It has been established that they were accompanied by some of their disciples, whom they wished to present as candidates for as priests and bishops. Why did they then stop in Venice? Were they intending to sail for Constantinople? Or were they determined to go to Rome and to ask the Pope to ordain their disciples? Did they try to obtain this from the Patriarch of Aquileia? This last suggestion must be discarded at once. The Patriarch of Aquileia had no more authority than an ordinary archbishop and metropolitan. The knew well that there were only five real patriarchs, those of Rome, Constantinople, , Antioch, and Jerusalem. Photius himself, in a letter to one of the Patriarchs of Aquileia, addresses him as The Byzantine Mission to Moravia 1117 Archbishop and Metropolitan.20 And even if we were to accept the suggestion that some priests from Aquileia were at that time still working in Moravia, this fact would not have given the Patriarch the right to establish a bishop and send priests to that country. He would never have dared to do such a thing, for fear of antagonizing the Frankish episcopate and Louis the German. If we were to believe that the two brothers intended all the time to go to Rome, it would follow that the statement which we find in their Lives that they received in Venice an invitation from the Pope to visit him in Rome must be an interpolation or a hagiographical topos. But such a conclusion would be but a cheap means of explaining away a difficult passage which may contradict a hypothesis put forward by some scholars. Moreover, let us not forget that Pope Nicholas I had refused Rastislav's request for a bishop. Rastislav must have informed the two brothers about this. He must have been aware also that the Pope had given his blessing to Louis the German's campaign against Moravia. Probably we shall never see quite clearly into this and some other problems connected with the activity of Cyril and Methodius, because of the lack of relevant sources. The safest and the most probable explanation for their stay in Venice is to suppose that they were on their way back to Constantinople, where they wanted to obtain the ordination of their disciples. This would correspond to the terms of the agreement concluded in Constantinople in 862 before the Byzantine mission's departure. Their choice of a route via Venice is explained by the fact that this was then the safest way. In the second half of 866, Boris-Michael of Bulgaria, dissatisfied with the Byzantine priests, had turned from Byzantium to Louis the German. Before the end of that year, two bishops sent by Rome had made their appearance in Bulgaria. By taking a boat in Venice the two brothers could reach Dyrrhachium and travel from there along the famous Via Egnatia to Thessalonica and to Constantinople. It is quite probable that their stay in Pannonia was longer than they had intended and that they did not reach Venice before the late fall, when travel by sea would not be safe. Therefore, the invitation from the Pope, which reached them in Venice, must have been rather welcome. They could make a pilgrimage to the Apostolic relics in Rome, venerated by all the Byzantines, and could go back to Constantinople in the spring.

20 Migne, Patrologia Graeca, vol. 102, cols. 793 ff. 1118 Francis Dvornik The brothers arrived in Rome probably before Christmas of 867 and were received with great honor by Pope Hadrian II, who had been elected Pope on December 14th, following the death of Nicholas I on November the 13th. The relics of St. Clement which they had with them opened to them the hearts of the Romans. The Pope gave his approval to their liturgical innovations and ordered the elevation of Methodius and of their disciples to priesthood. We must not forget that, at the beginning of 868, the events which had in the meantime taken place in Constanti- nople were not yet known in Rome. The news about the Synod which had condemned Pope Nicholas I, about Michael Ill's assassination by the new Emperor , his deposition of Photius, and the elevation of Ignatius to the Patriarchate of Constantinople, did not reach Rome before the beginning of the summer of 868, when Basil's embassy ap- peared in Rome. However, even before the arrival of this embassy, the brothers had lost the patronage of two influential Roman friends: Bishop Arsenius and his nephew Anastasius, the bibliothecarius or secretary of the Pope, were always ready to support them and their work. But tragic events intervened. Before their ordination, both Arsenius and Pope Hadrian had been married. Arsenius had a son, Eleutherius, who abducted and then murdered the Pope's daughter and also the Pope's former wife. Eleutherius was executed for this crime, but Arsenius had to flee from Rome and died in March 868. His nephew, Anastasius, although not involved in this drama, lost the Pope's favor, and in October 868 he was excommunicated.21 These incidents - the loss of their two friends, the arrival of Basil's embassy, and probably also the illness of Constantine - delayed any decision of the Pope regarding the ordination of a bishop for Moravia. Foreseeing that he would not recover from his illness, Constantine be- came a monk in a Greek monastery in Rome, and adopted the name of Cyril; he died on February 14th, 869. Methodius was determined to carry the body of his brother back to Byzantium and take it to his own monastery, but yielded to the request of the Pope and of the Roman people whose respect and admiration Constantine had won, and placed the body of his brother in the church of St. Clement in Rome. The death of Constantine-Cyril augured a tragic end for the Byzantine mission in Moravia. Methodius delayed his departure for Constantinople because it was very uncertain what would be the attitude of the new

81 I have discussed these details and their importance for the two brothers in my paper "St. Cyril and Methodius in Rome", St. Vladimir Seminary Quarterly, 7 (1963), pp. 20-30. The Byzantine Mission to Moravia 1119 Patriarch and the Pope towards the mission, as the result of the un- expected changes in the situation which had taken place both in Constantinople and in Rome. The intervention of Kocel, Prince of Pannonia, produced an unexpected reaction. When the Pope heard from his envoys that Kocel wanted Methodius to be the religious leader of his country, the Pope conceived a bold plan in line with the policy of his predecessor. Nicholas I had been determined to obtain the direct juris- diction over Illyricum, comprising all the lands from Pannonia to the Peloponnesus which were detached in 732 from the Patriarchate of Rome and put under Constantinople. The Byzantines remained deaf to his demands, but at least he had won Bulgaria, a part of Illyricum, and added it to his jurisdiction. In Kocel's message Hadrian saw the op- portunity of adding Pannonia to his direct jurisdiction. He despatched Methodius to Kocel, Rastislav, and his nephew Svatopluk as a special legate with a Bull approving the use of a Slavonic liturgy. When Methodius reported to the Pope that the three Slavic rulers were ready to welcome his plan, Hadrian II ordained Methodius as Archbishop of with jurisdiction over the whole of Pannonia and Moravia. Methodius abandoned his intention of returning to Byzantium, where he might be involved in religious and political quarrels, and placed his services at the disposal of the Pope. Hadrian's plan was bold and grandiose, but it had its weakness. The Pope underestimated the power of the Frankish hierarchy and overrated the might of the Slavic princes. The Bavarian bishops had worked in Pannonia for over seventy years, and they also had important economic interests in Kocel's country. In a biased but very significant memo- randum to Louis the German,22 they protested against the papal decision; when Methodius arrived in his new archdiocese, they seized him, accused him in a Synod of being an intruder in their domain and, regardless of the papal decision, condemned him to imprisonment in a monastery in Suabia. A change in the political situation helped them to execute this maneuver. Rastislav, betrayed by his nephew Svatopluk, was taken prisoner by Louis the German and died, blinded, in a Bavarian prison; Svatopluk himself was taken into custody, and for a time Moravia was governed by Frankish barons.28

M It is the famous document, Conversio Bagoariorum et Carantanorum, men- tioned above. In spite of its tendentious character, it is an important source for the history of the conversion of the Slovenes. 24 For details, see F. Dvornik, Les Slaves, Byzance et Rome au lXe siecle (Paris, 1926), pp. 209 ff. 1120 Francis Dvorník Almost three years went by before Pope John VIII learned what had happened to Methodius. In scathing letters he ordered the Frankish bishops to free Methodius and forbade them to exercise their functions.24 Svatopluk, once more the ruler of Moravia after he had defeated, at the head of the Moravian rebels, the Frankish armies, received Methodius with honor. Svatopluk was able to achieve what Rastislav had so much desired - the political and ecclesiastical independence of his country. Svatopluk revealed himself a talented ruler and a good general. He extended his rule over Bohemia and over the Sorbs in what is now present-day Saxony. Thanks to Methodius's disciples, Christianity was put on a firm footing in Bohemia. Svatopluk also subjugated a Slavic prince of the Vistulanians who lived on the territory of modern Galicia, near Cracow, and added their land to his realm. Finally, after fierce battles with the Franks, he devastated the whole of Pannonia and annexed it to his rule.25 Unfortunately, Svatopluk was less provident in matters of faith. Al- though he was not hostile to the use of the Slavic liturgy and supported his Archbishop, personally he appears to have favored the Latin liturgy; he weakened Methodius' position by asking Pope John VIII to ordain, as bishop of Nitra Wiching, a German from Swabia, who was his counsellor. The latter intrigued against Methodius, although John VIII had rejected all the accusations launched again Methodius' orthodoxy and once more gave his approval to the Slavonic liturgy. In spite of these difficulties, Methodius continued the literary work of his brother. It is now accepted by Slavic philologists that Methodius translated into Slavonic the whole of the Old Testament with the ex- ception of the books of Maccabees.26 In order to give the a good handbook of canon law, he translated and adapted the Byzantine collection of JohnScholasticus which is called the Synagoge of Fifty Titles.27 He also translated a Greek Patericon, The Books of the Fathers, and wrote numerous homilies, one of which is still preserved.28

S4 The letters are published in the Monumenta Germaniae Histórica, Epistolae, vol. 7. 25 On the extention of Svatopluk's empire see the most recent publication by L. E. Havlík, Velká Morava a stfedoevropStí Slované [Great Moravia and the Slavs of Central Europe] (Prague, 1964), pp. 263 ff. With a résumé in English. M This has been shown by J. Vajs in his edition of Dobrovsky's biography of Cyril and Methodius (Prague, 1948), pp. 143-153. 87 H. F. Schmid, Die Nomokanonübersetzung des Methodius (, 1922). 88 A. Dostál, Clozianus (Prague, 1959), pp. 124-144. The Byzantine Mission to Moravia 1121 He renewed relations with Byzantium, and when in 882 he paid a visit to Basil I and Photius in Constantinople, he left there, at the Patriarch's request, copies of Slavonic books, as well as a priest and a deacon. He completed Constantine's cultural work and left a rich heritage to his Slavs. Unfortunately, the Moravians were not to enjoy this heritage. Methodius died on April 6th, 885, and his work in Moravia was almost completely wrecked by the intrigues of Wiching. The latter, who had been excommunicated by Methodius, went to Rome and under false pretenses obtained from Pope Stephen V the condemnation of the use of the Slavonic liturgy. After his return to Moravia, Wiching succeeded in imprisoning all the principal disciples of Methodius. Some of them were sold into slavery, but were freed in Venice by a high dignitary of Basil I and sent to Constantinople. Those of the disciples who were Byzantine subjects were expelled from Moravia and found a refuge in Bulgaria. The death (in 894) of Svatopluk, who had seen too late through the disastrous intrigues of Wiching and expelled him in 892, did not bring about the end of the Moravian state.29 Although diminished in size, Moravia found a good ruler in the person of Mojmir II, who had even managed to obtain from the Pope the reestablishment of a native hier- archy in Moravia. Papal legates consecrated in 900 an Archbishop - probably , who had been recommended for that function by Methodius - and three bishops.30 An unhappy end, however, was put (about 906) to Mojmir's hopes by the Magyars, who had established themselves in what is today modern Hungary. The ruins of Moravian castles and churches have been discovered by archeologists only quite recently.31 Nevertheless, the heritage of the two brothers was saved by their disciples and further developed by the other Slav nations - the Bulgarians, the Croats, the Serbs, and the .32

The Greek Life of St. Clement is the main source for these happenings, Migne, Patrologia Graeca, vol. 126, cols. 1192 ff. 3» We learned this from a letter of the Bavarian bishops in which they protested against this measure to Pope John IX. See the document in Migne, Patrologia Latina, vol. 131, cols. 34-38. 31 A concise account of those discoveries is given by J. Poulik in his book, Stati Morované buduji svàj stàt [The Early Moravians are Building their State] (Gottwaldov, 1960), with a long résumé in English. 32 Cf. F. Dvornik, "Les Slaves", Byzance et Rome au IXe siecle, (Prague, 1926), p. 283 ff. The Slavs - Their Early History and Civilization (Boston, 1956), p. 147 ff. G. Soulis, "The Legacy of Cyril and Methodius to the Southern Slavs", Dum- barton Oaks Papers, 19 (1965), pp. 19-43. D. Obolensky, "The Heritage of Cyril and Method in Russia", ibid. pp. 45-65.