The Reasons for the Return of Clement of Ohrid from the Bulgarian Capital to Macedonia

Од Wikibooks

Скокни на: навигација, барај

On the basis of existing sources and the extensive literature available, we have already tried to summarize some facts[1] demonstrating that prior to the Moravian mission and prior to the expansion of the Bulgarian state into this area, in the course of at least two centuries, a Slavic-Macedonian-Byzantine culture gradually devel- oped in the territory of Macedonia — a Christian civilization and culture — which differed considerably from the Proto-Bulgarian-Slavic and chiefly pagan culture created within the domains of Bulgarian khans and princes. 1. We shall now try to answer the question of why Clement and Naum abandoned the Bulgarian capital and went to the most distant area of the then vast Bulgarian state, to Macedonia? The studies dealing with this question mainly rely on what is said in the surviving hagiographies of these two Ohrid saints, in particular those of Clement, which are more extensive and detailed. Yet, even we accept that Clement’s hagiographies were written by the Ohrid archbishops Theophylact [2] and Homatian,[3] we must bear in mind that this was made (even though perhaps on the basis of Slavic sources) a whole two or three centuries after the death of this Ohrid saint,[4] in entirely new and different historical circumstances and relations,[5] long after the schism of the Eastern and Western Churches, [6] and that it was the work of high Byzantine officials, although they were based in Ohrid. [7] In spite of all this, even in this form, we find them only in late copies [8] and, inevitably, with new additions and modifications determined by the changing needs and circumstances of the time. And finally, these were literary texts (and not historical documents) intended to serve specific aims and were made in conformity with the well-known canons of the Byzantine church tradition. Regardless of whether Clement, Naum, Sava and Angelarius (as far as Sava and Laurentius, and even Gorazd, a Moravian, are concerned, we do not know very much) set off for Macedonia on their return from Moravia, as some believe, [9] or for Bulgaria, as many have written, [10] they arrived almost without clothes in Belgrade, [11] which at the time formed part of Bulgaria. It is very difficult to believe, taking into consideration the descriptions in the hagiographies, that they could have brought any books and translations from their already well-developed church and educational activity in Moravia and Pannonia, even though this does not mean that such books and copies had not already been brought to these Balkan areas — through Kocel’s Principality, [12] through the Roman missionaries in the Slavic regions [13] or, finally, through Methodius himself during his visit to Constantinople in 881. [14] We must not, however, overlook the fact that these men could have made translations with some Moravianisms even after their arrival in Bulgaria, or Macedonia, in an already canonized church language, which they had used for more than two decades. [15] Furthermore, after being brought to the court of the Bulgarian Prince Boris, the newcomers were placed in some kind of isolation. If, thanks to the haloes which they had according to the hagiographies, they could visit the homes of some Bulgarian noblemen only with a special permit from the Prince, it is clear that their freedom of movement was restricted. [16] The hagiographer says that from Moravia they departed for Bulgaria, as they hoped that “Bulgaria would give them peace of mind”. [17] Obviously, their hope was unjustified. The available sources do not say in which capital Boris received the newcomers (Pliska or Preslav), but in all probability it was Pliska. [18] In any case, it was still an unfriendly environment, still inhabited by a large number of Proto-Bulgar noble- men, where the Proto-Bulgarian language was spoken, whereas the Greek lan- guage and the Greek alphabet were still in official use in the Bulgarian Church, established a short time earlier, (as well as in the Bulgarian state itself), and even a Greek archbishop stood at the head of that Bulgarian Church. [19] Radojičić is probably right in his conclusion, making the good point that when Boris accepted Christianity and worked on the organization of the church in Bulgaria, he thought “only of the Proto-Bulgars”, [20] and hence not a single one of Boris’s 106 questions to the Pope (in connection with the acceptance of Christianity and the organization of the Bulgarian Church) was related to the Slavs. [21] It is quite understandable that in such an environment there was no place for Glagolitic, [22] and not even perhaps for the Slavonic language which they spoke. But is it possible, as suggested by VondrIk, [23] Ilyinsky[24] and others,[25] that the main reason for the departure of Clement, and later of Naum, from the Bulgarian capital could have been the question of the alphabet alone?

The hagiographies say that Clement was sent by Boris to Kutmičevica to be a teacher (even though he was given a house and rest homes). The region of Kutmičevica is described as having 10-12 eparchies and comprising almost the whole of Macedonia,[26] but nothing is mentioned as to whom Clement was subordinated to in terms of organization, and why only to Administrator Dometa (Dobeta),[27] as the state administrator. Were there not metropolitanates and metropolitans, or bishoprics and bishops?[28]

Even when Clement was appointed bishop in 893 by the prince (an act which was indeed canonically impossible), he entirely accepted the Velika Bishopric as late as the year 900, after seven whole years,[29] and once again he was subordinated to no one from the appropriate Bulgarian church authorities. During the whole period he was in Macedonia, Clement never and on no account communicated with the legally appointed head of the Bulgarian Church — the Greek archbishop in the capital — but always and only directly with the prince.[30]

Even when Clement submitted his resignation, he again went directly to the prince (who refused to accept it), and not to the archbishop, as one might expect considering the hierarchy.

Furthermore, while in 893 Simeon introduced the Slavonic language into official use by decree, and Cyrillic (already “composed”) became the state script, [31]

Clement continued to spread Glagolitic in Ohrid and created an enormous written literature for the time with an imposing number of disciples and followers, consecrating readers, priests, deacons and subdeacons, and building a special church centre[32] which a century later, under Samuel’s empire, developed into the Archbishopric of Ohrid (with the mediation of Rome) as an individual and independent Slavonic Orthodox Church, which was active in the course of the following several centuries. Here we must not overlook the fact that at the time, when there were five (or seven) bishoprics in the entire Bulgarian state, only two (or three) of them were located outside Macedonia. In fact, in the centres where ethnic Bulgars lived Christianity was still poorly developed, the church was still inadequately organ- ized — and under Greek control at that — and education was still very limited and was mainly carried out in the Greek language. As a result these two environments were fundamentally polarized, which became even more apparent in the ensuing period.[33]

Of course, it would be far from the historical truth to look for, or discover, two already established and different peoples or nationalities; these were simply two ethno-cultural entities, still in the process of formation, which became differentiated in the course of subsequent historical development. It is indeed not essential whether Clement modified Glagolitic by inventing several designs of letters (or added several letters or signs),[34] nor is it essential for our analysis that Samuel was later to accept Cyrillic as the inherited state script, tolerating Glagolitic as the sacral script (as was also the case in Moravia), although the ‘more difficult’ Glagolitic was later, gradually but steadily, fully superseded by Cyrillic. It should be noted, however, that extensive and varied literary and cultural activity developed in Macedonia at the time of Clement — to be found mainly in the churches and monasteries as the main centres.[35] It is significant that in the year 893, when Simeon replaced his blinded brother Vladimir[36] on the throne, he convened a council and appointed Clement bishop (he did not ordain him to that rank), and sent Naum to Clement (or perhaps Clement took him himself) to carry out his work. The available sources do not clarify Naum’s status in Moravia, Pliska or Ohrid.[37] We do not even know (as we do not know in Clement’s case either) when he received the name under which we know him today, and when and what schema he received. The sources are unreliable or even contradict each other. At this same period Simeon moved the capital from Pliska to Preslav and created a Slavonicized centre that built and affirmed the famous Preslav Literary School as the Bulgarian cultural and literary centre, separate from and independent of the Ohrid Literary School.[38]

This situation is reflected in the text entitled O pismeneh by černorizec Hrabar, which is considered by some to be the pseudonym of Naum of Ohrid himself, [39] but is certainly the expression of the Ohrid Literary School and the status the Macedonian eparchies enjoyed within the frontiers of Bulgaria amidst the aggravated misunderstandings and struggle for domination between the Eastern and the Western Church.[40]

2. Only those data which have suited, or at least not contradicted, the conceptions of the selectors have been singled out in the various interpretations of the hagiogra- phies and sources. This is best illustrated by the distrust shown concerning some parts of the Shorter Life of Clement. Theophylact and Homatian certainly did not write their texts without some sources available to them.[41] But they used only what suited the understanding and needs of the historical moment. Obviously, during the selection some data were omitted, and others reformulated. Hence interpretation and a search for the truth are possible only in a broader historical context and by using various comparative contemporary materials. The ordination of the Slavic enlighteners and their disciples by the Pope in Rome in 869 is an important event for our study. Thus, for example, the Life of Cyril says: “And the Pope, having received the Slavonic books, consecrated them and left them in the Church of Saint Mary (the Virgin), which is called the ‘Crib’. Then the Pope commanded the two bishops, Formosus and Gauderich, to conse- crate the Slav disciples. And when they had consecrated them, they immediately held a liturgy in the Church of the Holy Apostle Peter using the Slavonic language”[42]

In the Life of Methodius, however, the Pope is still Nicholas I, and thus it says there: “He blessed their teaching, placing the Slavonic books on the altar of the [shrine of the] Holy Apostle Peter and consecrated his beatitude Methodius into a spiritual dignitaryBut the Popecommanded a bishop who was infected with the trilingual disease to ordain three of the Slav disciples priests and two readers.”[43] The Longer Life of Clement says: “Then the Pope ordained into the priesthood some of the companions of the holy men, of whom the teachers testified that they had sufficient knowledge in Slavonic letters and were adorned by a pious life, and gave others the offices of deacon or subdeacon. And the Pope personally ordained the great Methodius Moravian Bishop in Pannonia, although he declined reso- lutely and refused to accept it”[44]

Each of the three sources interprets the same event in Rome in a different way. They only agree on the fact that the disciples, too, were consecrated. Everything else is interpreted differently. But the differences are even more pronounced in the Second Life of Naum: Pope Adrian received the Slavonic teachers and their disciples with great honours, and once “the divine liturgy” was sung, “he gave Constantine the Philosopher the tonsure of monasticism and named him Cyril, and he ordained Methodius Archbishop of Moravia and the whole of Pannonia. After the completion of the liturgy of all the books, translated from Greek into the Bulgarian language, he showed them to all, because the books themselves un- folded and revealed themselveHence he also ordained Clement and Naum, together with the others, priests and deacons, and ordered that all the ceremonies be performed, both the evening and morning, written in Bulgarian, within the great shrine of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, and indeed all this took place”[45]

After all these versions comes the Shorter Life of Clement, written by Homa- tian, which expressly states: “When the blessed Cyril moved into his better life — thenceforward conferring his apostolic services and the advancement of the talent entrusted (Matthew XXV, 15-30) to Adrian, the Pope at Rome, and Methodius was appointed Archbishop of Moravia and Bulgaria by this same Pope — then Clement, too, was raised to the bishop’s throne when he was appointed by Methodius as the bishop of the whole of Illyria and of the Bulgarian people who ruled the land.” [46]

The widely accepted view is that the latter source does not reflect the historical truth, because at that time Methodius was still not appointed archbishop, nor was Clement appointed bishop, but that he was “proposed” by Simeon as “the Bishop of Drembica and Velika”.

It is extremely difficult, however, to accept that Constantine was admitted to the monastic order [47] only shortly before his death in Rome, and that Methodius was ordained priest by the Pope as late as that, especially if we take into consideration Rostislav’s request from Emperor Michael (in the Life of Cyril): “send us such a bishop and teacher” [48] Besides, who ordained these dignitaries: the bishops Formosus and Gauderich, only one of them (Formosus), or Pope Adrian (or even Nicholas) himself? The next question is: how many and who of the disciples were ordained in the year 869 in Rome? And finally, was Methodius ordained bishop only or also appointed Archbishop of Moravia? The authors of the sources quoted must have asked themselves these and many other questions (if these versions indeed represent the authors’ authentic texts at all). But there is no doubt that the social, military, political, ethnic, religious and historical interests at the moment of writing (or copying) these texts were of crucial significance for the final formulation of the different accounts and testimonies concerning historical events and persons at the time of Clement. Hence the account given in the Shorter Life of Clement regarding the bishop’s office given to Clement by the Pope in Rome, in the light of other relevant facts, seems largely authentic to us. It can also resolve the mystery around Clement’s return to Macedonia. 3. When was Methodius appointed archbishop by the Pope? [49] If we allow the possibility that Methodius was firstordained bishop and later appointed archbishop (which is quite possible and logical), then we can assume that it was Clement who was firstordained to the office of priest. But we do not know his secular name, since he is presented under that name from the beginning.

Bearing in mind that the brothers from Salonika (together with their disciples, including Clement) brought the relics of the Roman Pope Clement on their first visit to Rome, and that Clement took the exact name of the former Pope, [50] we should allow for the possibility that he was ordained, if not at Olympus, at least as early as 869. Once Methodius became the Archbishop of the Moravian Church, he must have had bishops heading the subordinate dioceses of that church. If we take into consideration the account occurring three times in the Longer Life of St Clement of Ohrid that Gorazd and Clement were the speakers on behalf of Methodius’s disciples in the disputes with Wiching’s and Svatopluk’s oppo- nents, [51] we must accept that they were Methodius’s bishops: Gorazd as (most probably) a Moravian, and Clement as a man who had accompanied him all his life in the various Byzantine missions [52] remaining his faithful companion and fellow combatant to the end. As a matter of fact, there is proof that Clement had the bishop’s office even in Moravia in Du Cange’s list ‘The Archbishops of Bulgaria’, where Clement is (incorrectly) mentioned as one of the archbishops, but as previously appointed “Bishop of Tiberiopolis or Velika”. [53] Let us also quote the account written in the Synodicon of Tsar Boril (1211) that Clement was “the bishop of Greater Moravia”. [54] Both documents are isolated testimonies of a later date, but they must have been based on certain older sources. If we have already accepted that Clement was ordained bishop by the Pope in Rome, then we must also pose the question of his eparchy (diocese). What was its territory? Scholars have written a great deal on this question, [55] and yet only a few of them have examined the possibility that Clement’s diocese might have come under the jurisdiction of the Apostolic Seat. [56] According to the conclusions of the Photian Church Council of Constantinople, when the Bulgarian Church was established (879-880), eastern and western Illyria were still under the jurisdiction of Rome, regardless of whether they came under the authority of Byzantium or Bulgaria. As a result, a large part of Macedonia (including Ohrid) came within this territory, within that “one third of the Bulgarian Empire, i.e. from Salonika to Ierikho and Kanina or (and) Thassipiat”, which was later given to Clement to oversee it. [57] Thus it is quite possible that Bishop Clement was appointed by Archbishop Methodius “as the Bishop of the whole of Illyria and of the Bulgarian people who ruled the land”, because at that time Macedonia had already come under the control of the Bulgarian state, and Rome considered it to be under its jurisdiction with regard to ecclesiastical questions. Is it not thus logical to assume that after his arrival at Pliska, being a Moravian bishop of the Roman Church — in conditions when the church in Bulgaria was held by Greek priests and prelates, when the Greek language and the Greek alphabet were used, and Glagolitic was not accepted at the Bulgarian court — Bishop Clement came back in 886 not only (and probably) to his own people and his own homeland, but also to his own diocese? Is it not possible that Naum, who was perhaps indeed his brother in blood, [58] did the same at the moment when Simeon carried out such decisive and significant changes in the state and the church? Another element supporting this is the fact that after his arrival in Macedonia, Clement never (as might have been expected) requested anything from his superior Bulgarian Archbishop, but always and for every purpose addressed his requests to the Bulgarian Prince. [59] Clement recognized the authority of the Bulgarian state, but refused to recognize the authority of the Bulgarian church hierarchy. We find no contacts whatsoever with Greek bishops who were also active in this part of Macedonia. [60] The thesis that Clement’s diocese came outside the competencies of the Bulgarian Church is also supported by the views that there were “two fully isolated church territories, even two separate and differentiated church individu- alities”, [61] even though it was still not the time of the final and official schism between the Eastern and Western Churches. Therefore R. Ljubinković is perhaps right when he concludes: “Whereas the Preslav prelate, together with his Synod, administered the territory of his own church: two thirds of Boris’s state [?], the ruler, as the symbol of supreme state authority and state unity, also organized the religious and church life on that territory [= one third of Bulgaria] which did not come under the jurisdiction of his primacy.” [62] But, Ljubinković continues, “in order to do that, the ruler must have the appropriate authorization of the interested and competent church institution. It is known that Illyria was a territory under the jurisdiction of the Apostolic Seat.” The conclusion is that there must have been open or tacit consent on the part of the Apostolic Seat. [63] This is indeed confirmed by the relations between Rome and Constantinople at the time. Closely connected with our question is the ‘resignation’ Clement submitted to the Bulgarian Prince (and not to the Bulgarian Archbishop). The reasons for this act are completely altered in the hagiography. [64] It could be logically assumed that such an act on the part of Clement might reflect his dissatisfaction with the military actions conducted by Simeon in the territory under the jurisdiction of Clement, i.e. Rome, [65] but it could also be linked with Clement’s dissatisfaction with the policy of the Bulgarian Prince Vladimir, who tried to negotiate with the German delegates and return Bulgaria to paganism. [66] Both events were utterly unaccept- able to Bishop Clement. The dethronement and blinding of Vladimir (by his father Boris) and the coming of the young Constantinopolitan student Simeon to the Bulgarian throne created a new situation with new conditions which might also have been acceptable to the Ohrid bishop, especially when Naum, too, abandoned the Bulgarian capital to join Clement in Ohrid. [67] Thus we can assume that the main reason for Clement’s return (and indeed that of Naum) to Macedonia lies in the ordination of Clement as a bishop by the Pope and the appointment of the Archbishop Methodius as the prelate of the territory which came under the state authority of the Bulgarian Prince, but under the church jurisdiction of the Roman Pope. Only in this way can the alphabet be accepted as an additional reason and the language as the motive for the abandonment of the Bulgarian capital and church seat, and Clement’s (and Naum’s) return to Ohrid. [68]

  1. ↑ Blaže Ristovski, “Nekoi prašanja okolu pojavata na hristijanstvoto i pismenosta kaj Slovenite vo Makedonija“, in: Simpozium 1100-godišnina od smrtta na Kiril Solunski, kn. 2, Skopje, 1970, 319-337; D-r Blaže Ristovski, Makedonskiot narod i makedonskata nacija. Prilozi za razvitokot na makedonskata kulturno-nacionalna misla, I, Skopje,1983, 15-116.
  2. ↑ 58 In connection with Archbishop Theophylact of Ohrid and the various views on his authorship of the Longer [version of the] Life of Clement see: Aleksandъr Milev, Žitija na sv. Kliment Ohridski, Sofija, 1961, 29-68; Aleksandъr Milev, Dvete grъcki žitija na Kliment Ohridski, in: Kliment Ohridski. Sbornikot statii po slučajot 1050 godini ot smъrtta mu, Sofija, 1966, 143-155; Ivan Dujačev, “Kliment Ohridski i negovoto delo v naučnata knižnina. Kriti kon bibliografski pregled“, in: Kliment Ohridski, 416-424; Prof. d-r Emil Georgiev, Literatura na izostreni borbi v srednovekovna Bъlgarija, Sofija, 1966, 32-38; Branko Panov, Teofilakt Ohridski kako izvor za srednovekovnata istorija na makedonskiot narod, Skopje, 1971, 11-45; I. Snegarov, “Les sources sur la vie et l’activité de Clément d’Ochrida“, Byzantinobulgarica, I, Sofia, 1962, 79-119; I . Snegarov, “Fotokopie ot ohridskija (moskovskija) prepis na Prostranoto žitie na Kliment Ohridski “, in: Kliment Ohridski, 173.
  3. ↑ In connection with Archbishop Homatian of Ohrid and his Shorter Life of Clement of Ohrid (The Ohrid Legend) see: Ivan Dujačev, “Kliment Ohridski i negovoto delo v naučnata knižnina”, 424-428; Ivan Dujačev, “Kratkoto Klimentovo žitie ot Dimitrija Homatian“, in: Kliment Ohridski, 161-164; Aleksandъr Milev, Žitija, 121-131; Aleksandъr Milev, Dvete grъcki žitija, 155-160; Prof. d-r Emil Georgiev, Literatura na izostreni borbi, 38-40.
  4. ↑ In addition to Cyril and Methodius, Clement became the third Slavic saint of the Archbishopric (Patriarchate) of Ohrid as early as the 10th-11th centuries (Blaže Koneski, “Kanonizacija na slovenski svetci vo Ohridskata crkva“, Prilozi, I, 1-2, MANU, Skopje, 1976, 65); Božidar Rajakov, “Rannikalendarni vesti za Kliment Ohridski “, in: Kliment Ohridski, 321-325.
  5. ↑ 61 If the author of the Longer Life is Theophylact of Ohrid, it was written either at the end of the 11th century or by 1107-1108 at the latest, when this archbishop died. Homatian could have written the Shorter Life probably between 1216 and 1234. Historical circumstances at the time of Clement (AD 916) were very different from those at the time of Theophylact, when Macedonia (after Samuel) once again came under the domination of Byzantium, and even more different at the time of Homatian, when the Latins ruled in Constantinople, and the Archbishopric of Ohrid strove towards full autonomy and independence from Constantinople (Cvetan Grozdanov, “Najstarite portreti na Kliment Ohridski“, in: Kliment Ohridski. Studii, Skopje, 1986, 246).
  6. ↑ The final break occurred in 1054, after the discrediting letter from the Ohrid Archbishop Leon and the Constantinopolitan Patriarch Michael Cerularius to Pope Leo IX and the sending of papal legates for the trial of the two signatory prelates (Marinъ Drinovъ , Sъčinenija, II, Sofija, 1911, 60-61). At the council held in Dalmatia in 1060, church services using Slavonic books written by “some heretic called Methodius” were banned (ibid., 47).
  7. ↑ We must also bear in mind that at the time Macedonia was still designated as the theme Bulgaria, and that the two archbishops were Greeks who had Greek interests in mind, although Homatian wrote the text in circumstances of an increasing Latin influence in the Orthodox East. We can also assume that they used older (and probably also Slavonic) sources in writing their hagiographies.
  8. ↑ 64 We can date the Longer Life (in 5 copies) as late as the 15th (or, at the earliest, the 14th) and 16th centuries, whereas the earliest copies of the Shorter Life can be found in the 13th and 14th centuries.
  9. ↑ Uorsh Sp. Radojičić, “O Konstantinu-Kirilu i Metodiju i o počecima slovenske pismenosti“, in: Simpozium 1100-godišnina od smrtta na Kiril Solunski , 1, Skopje, 1970, 213.
  10. ↑ Aleksandъr Milev, Žitijata 95; Dimitъr Angelov, “Bъlgarskata narodnost i deloto na Kliment Ohridski “, in: Kliment Ohridski . Sbornikot statii , 19; Emil Georgiev, “Ohridskata knižovna škola“, in: Kliment Ohridski . Sbornikot statii, 55; Nadežda Dragova, Kliment Ohridski, Sofija, 1966, 68, etc.
  11. ↑ Even in Moravia, the hounded disciples “were dragged naked across thorn fields”; they crossed the Moravian-Bulgarian border “with no food and clothing” and arrived in Belgrade, crossing the Danube on “three tree trunks tied with linden bast fibre” (Aleksandъr Milev, Žitijatа, 91, 95 and 97) and were barely able to carry any manuscripts or books (Ivan Snegarov, “černorizec Hrabъr“, in: Hiljada i sto godini slavjanska pismenost 863-1963. Sborni k v čest na Kiril I Metodiја, BAN, Sofija, 1963, 318).
  12. ↑ This must have been much easier, if we take into consideration not only the closeness between Moravia and Pannonia but also the affiliation of Illyria (Illyricum) to the Roman Church, and in particular considering the fact that “Macedonia has been loyal for a long time to the Apostolic Seat”, “as late as the early 13th century” [Leszek MosziØski, “Zywy po jedenastu wiekach. W 1100 rocznice šmierci naucziela i pierwszego arcybiskupa Slowian, wspólpatrona Europy — šwi¤togo Metodego“, Gwiazda Morza, No. 7 (36), GdaØsk, 31.III and 7.IV.1985], although it came within the borders of different (mostly Orthodox) states.
  13. ↑ As the Pope probably consecrated the Slavonic books as early as 869, they could be freely transferred by the Roman missionaries not only to the western regions of what, much later, was to become Yugoslavia, but must have reached even Macedonia, which was regarded as being under Roman jurisdiction. We must also not forget the fact that it was the Roman clergy who laid the foundations of the Bulgarian Church at that time (866-870).
  14. ↑ During the visit of Archbishop Methodius and his followers to Constantinople (881-882) they must have brought some Slavonic manuscripts with them which were later to become the basic written literature for the circle frequented by the young Simeon. Considering all the circumstances and relations in Europe and the Balkans, it is indeed difficult to suppose that Methodius could have met Prince Boris (V.N. Zlatarski, “Vel’kI Morava a Bulharsko v IX ctoroči“, in: Riša Vel’komoravskI, Praha, 1933, 275-288), but there is no doubt that Constantinople was not delighted with the fact that Methodius was ordained bishop and instituted as archbishop by the Pope, and in particular with the fact that he was given “certain church rights over the Illyrian territories considered to be Byzantine” (Kliment Ohridski , Sъbrani sъčinenija, III. Prostrani žitija na Kiril i Metodi ja. Podgotvili za pečat Bonž St . Angelov i Hristo Kodov, Sofija, 1973, 210), a view put forward, for instance, by František Dvornik (Les Slaves, Byzance et Rome au IX e siècle, Paris, 1926, 271-272).
  15. ↑ Glagolitic was preserved in Macedonia up to the 13th century, when the Constantinopolitan Church finally and entirely placed this province under its jurisdiction together with “the Old-Macedonian centre of literacy in Ohrid” (Leszek MosziØski, op. cit., 5.).
  16. ↑ Haralampie Polenakovic, “Kliment Ohridski. Život i dejnost“, in: Kniga za Kliment Ohridski, Skopje, 1966, 16. Even though the hagiographer tries to present the high esteem they enjoyed at the Bulgarian Court, he nevertheless writes the following (perhaps influenced by an older source): “The Saints, avoiding the multitude of people and at the same time trying to please the prince, decided not to visit the homes of many, with the exception of those whom the pious prince permitted them to visit” (Aleksandъr Milev, Žitija, 99).
  17. ↑ Aleksandъr Milev, Žitija, 95.
  18. ↑ Aleksandъr Milev, Dvete grъcki žitija, 147 (“Pliska was probably still the capital then”); Ivan Bogdanov, Kliment Ohridski. Istoričeski očerk s naučen komentar, Sofija, 1966, 103 (“Pliska was the capital of the first Bulgarian state up to the year 893”). Emil Georgiev (“Sъstojanie na naučnata problematika okolo ličnostta i dejnostta na Kliment Ohridski “, in: Kliment Ohridski. Materiali za negovoto čestvuvane po slučaja 1050 godini ot smъrtta mu, Sofija, 1968, 54-55) is categorical in his claim that Boris received the disciples in Preslav (although this is not mentioned anywhere in the hagiographies), because “Pliska has no records of the written culture whose proponents Methodius’s disciples were” and because “the change of a capital is the result of some major event” such as the conversion to Christianity in Bulgaria. But are not the changes of 893 such an event, and could not the brief stay of the disciples in this capital have left traces of these circumstances? As a matter of fact, during Boris’s long vacillation between Rome and Constantinople, the coming of the ‘disciples’ to Bulgaria was an appropriate ‘middle-of-the-road’ solution — neither Greek nor Latin — befitting his relations with both Rome and Byzantium as well as with the Franks (František Dvornik, Byzantské misie u Slovan«, Vyšehrad–Praha, MCMLXX, 251).
  19. ↑ The first archbishops of the Bulgarian Church were the Greeks Joseph and George (R. Karolevъ, Uroci po bъlgarskata čerkovna istorija, Carigradъ , 1873, 16). This was perfectly understandable, bearing in mind that the young Simeon was educated in Constantinople, in the Byzantine spirit, even though a “Slavonic School” in the Byzantine capital is mentioned after the arrival of Archbishop Methodius (probably after 882), in which, in addition to Simeon, there were the bishop Constantine and the monk Tudor, while after the release of the Slavic disciples from Moravia and Pannonia (886), their number increased. It is believed that the Preslav Literary School was established following the arrival of Bishop Constantine in Bulgaria (together with some of his disciples); it developed the Cyrillic alphabet, to quote the view of Dvornik (op. cit., 254-257), on the basis of the Greek uncial script. He believes that Cyrillic could have been an acceptable compromise solution as a Slavonic script for Byzantium as well, as Glagolitic, although it “perfectly suited all the characteristics of the spoken Slavonic vernacular looked very complex and alien to the Bulgarian Slavs” (255). Emil Georgiev (Načalo na slavjanskata pismenost vъ Bъlgarija, Sofija, 1942, 30-32), however, points out that “the source of Cyrillic is not the Greek uncial script of the 9th century, but the Greek uncial script of an earlier date: since the earliest records, the Cyrillic script has clearly borne the characteristics of the Greek uncial script of the 7th century”, even though he allows the possibility that “the Greek uncial script of the 9th century exerted a great influence on the Cyrillic script”, and that this was owing to the increasingly strong translation activity in Greek at the time.
  20. ↑ Ûor Ÿe Sp. Radoji či ć, op. cit., 213.
  21. ↑ Ibid.
  22. ↑ This is true regardless of the fact that some traces of Glagolitic have been found at Preslav (Kr. Mijatevъ , “Simeonovata cъrkva vъ Preslavъ i nejanijatъ epigrafski materialъ“, Bъlgarski pregledъ, 1, Sofija, 1929, 112; Ivan Gošev, Starobъlgarski glagoličeski i kirilski nadpisi ot IX i X vek., Sof i ja, 1963; Ivan Gošev, “Razvitie na negrъckite Kirilometodievski bukveni znaci v t.nar. kirilica“, in: Hiljada i sto godini slavjanska pismenost, 274-286). Thus, even Emil Georgiev (Načalo na slavjanskat a pismenostъ vъ Bъlgarija, 14-15) admits the force of V. VondrIk’s view that “Clement, as a sign of protest, moved to Macedonia”.
  23. ↑ V. VondrIk, “Studie z oboru církevné-slovanského písemnictví“, Rozpravy české akademie ved, 20, Praha, 1903, 124.
  24. ↑ G.A. I lÅinskija, “Gde, kogda, kem i s kakož cel glagolica bila zamenena, kiriliceja‘“, Byzantinoslavica, III, 1, 1931, 79-88.
  25. ↑ Dvornik (op. cit., 255) also believes that the question of the alphabet was one of the main reasons for Clement’s departure from the Bulgarian capital. He points out that černorizec Hrabar, too, wrote his polemic text in or after 893 and that it was not directed against Greek influence and the Greek opponents of Slavonic literacy, but represented a defence of the Glagolitic script against Simeon and the Cyrillic he had “composed”. Dvornik (257) also writes that the priest Gregory in Preslav made a new translation of some books of the Old Testament which was actually “a revision of Methodius’s translation”, i.e. a “Bulgarization of the Macedonian and Moravian expressions used in the original translation”. Mihail Vojnov (“Promjanata v bъlgaro-vizantistskite otnošenija pricar Simeon“, Izvestija na Instituta za istorija, 18, Sofija, 1967, 151) also lucidly remarks that for the author of O pismeneh the protection of the Slavs and the Slavic world took first place and that as far as he was concerned “both the Byzantine emperor and the Bulgarian prince were still heads of the states where they, the Slavs, lived”.
  26. ↑ Aleksandъr Milev, Žitija, 100; Georgi Balasčevъ , Klimentъ, episkopъ slovõnski i službata mu postarъ slovõnski prevodъ , Sofija, 1898, HHI-HHII; Kirilo-Metodievska enciklopedija v tri toma, I, Sofija, 1985, 58. Pet’r S. Koledarov (“Kliment Ohridski , ,pъrvi episkop na bъlgarski ezik‘ na dragovitite v Solunsko i na Velikija v zapadnite Rodopi “, in: Konstantin-Kiril Filosof . Æ bi l een sborni k po slučajat 1100-godišninata ot smъrtta mu, Sofija, 1969, 141-167) stretches Clement’s eparchy as far as the West Rhodopes. The hagiographies, however, do not mention whether, or where, there was a metropolitanate, who was the bishop and what Clement’s relations with him were. Indeed, could a ‘teacher’ rule (spiritually) so many eparchies? Or perhaps “the Velika Bishopric was specially created for him”, as Ilyinsky proposes, and as accepted by Blaže Koneski (“Ohridskata knižovna škola“, in: Kniga za Kliment Ohridski , 77)?
  27. ↑ Aleksandъr Milev, Žitija, 100; Ivan Venedikov, “Kliment Ohridski i Dobet a“, in: Kliment Ohridski 916-1966, 307-319.
  28. ↑ 84 If Prince Boris built “seven cathedrals” in Bulgaria, this means that there must have been higher clergy. If there is indeed “dependable evidence for three of Boris’s seven cathedrals: in Ohrid, Devol and Bregalnica”, and it is assumed that the others may have been located at Preslav, Silistra, Belgrade and Skopje (Aleksandъr Milev, Žitija, 110) — meaning that there were possibly only two cathedrals on Bulgarian territory — which of the other five were located on Clement’s territory? On the other hand, does not the exemption of Clement’s disciples “from all the taxes to the state”, as quoted by the hagiographer, support the thesis that they were actually not regarded as coming under the jurisdiction of the Bulgarian Church?
  29. ↑ A. Milev ( Žitija, 105) translates the procedure concerning this ‘appointment’ as “he proposed him as the bishop of Drembica and Velika”, but also states that probalamai* also means ‘appoints’. If Clement accepted the whole of the Velika Bishopric as late as 900 and built himself a monastery in Ohrid, does it mean that he was only a vicar, and not a kyriarchos? And how could he have been “the Bishop of Drembica and Velica” when there had already been a bishop heading this bishopric? Was this not also a reflection of the situation of relations with Rome?
  30. ↑ 86 Even though there are certain differences in the hagiographies, it is interesting that neither of the two available hagiographies mentions any contacts with the Bulgarian archbishop or with any other dignitary of the Bulgarian Church.
  31. ↑ Perhaps František Dvornik (op. cit., 256) is right in suggesting that in 893 it was still impossible to proclaim and practise the Slavonic liturgy in the churches of Bulgaria as there was still an insufficient number of trained Slavonic clergymen. Dvornik believes that the council in Preslav was convened by Boris, and that the Slavonic liturgy was introduced gradually during the reign of Simeon. There are other scholars who assume that Clement took part in this council, but that he left it in indignation, taking his brother Naum to Ohrid with him.
  32. ↑ L. MosziØski (op. cit., 5) designates it as “the Old Macedonian centre of literacy in Ohrid”, whereas Milivoj Pavlović (“Strukturaisti l visokog ranga u staromakedonskom kwiž evnom jeziku Konstantina i Metodija Solunskih“, in: Kiril Solunski, 2, 281-288) calls the language of Cyril and Methodius “Old Macedonian” or “Slavonic-Old-Macedonian translation”.
  33. ↑ The polarization was based on the antecedent development of these two regions in the Balkans, when the predominantly Christianized Slavs in Macedonia (within its contemporary boundaries) still came within the state frontiers of the Byzantine Empire, and pagan Bulgaria lived as an independent state for the course of nearly two centuries (see: Blaže Ristovski , “Nekoi prašawa okolu pojavata na hristijanstvoto i pismenosta kaj Slovenite vo Makedonija“, in: Simpozi um 1100-godišnina od smrtta na Kiril Solunski , kn. 2, Skopje, 1970, 319-332).
  34. ↑ This is indicated only in the Shorter Life (Aleksandъr Milev, Žitija, 130). For more details concerning this question see: Geor gi Bal asčevъ , op. cit., LVIII-LXVIII; Vasilъ Sl. Kiselkovъ, Slavjanskite prosvetiteli Kirilъ i Metodija, 152-161; Petъr Hr . Petrov, “Istoričeskite osnovi na Kirilo-Metodievoto doba“, in: Hiljada i sto godini , 89; Aleksandъr Milev, Dvete grъcki žitija, 159; Emil Georgiev, Sъstojanie na naučnata problematika, 62-63.
  35. ↑ All Clement’s 3,500 disciples were in Macedonia, and even the churches and monasteries were most numerous in Macedonia (Kirilo-Metodievska enciklopedija, I, 292). In connection with the alphabets, precious information can be found in Blaga Aleksova’s work Episkopijata na Bregalnica prv slovenski crkoven i kulturno-prosveten centar vo Makedonija, Prilep, 1989, presenting the newly-discovered graphemes and letters of both the Glagolitic and Cyrillic.
  36. ↑ The hagiographer mentions the death of Vladimir after his four-year reign in Bulgaria (Aleksandъr Milev, Žitija, 104), but he does not mention that he was forcibly deposed by his father and blinded and replaced by his younger brother, Simeon. In fact four important events took place in 893: the capital was moved from Pliska to Preslav, Simeon became the Prince of Bulgaria, the Byzantine clergy began to be replaced by Slav clergymen, and Slavonic became the official language of the state using the Cyrillic alphabet as a compromise solution (Petъr Hr . Petrov, op. cit., 9). The capital was moved with the purpose, among other things, of isolating the Proto-Bulgar aristocracy and upholding the new rule after Vladimir’s deposition.
  37. ↑ Naum of Ohrid is treated only as presbyter and under the name he also retained as a monk. Ivan Snegarov (“černorizec Hrabъr “, in: Hiljada i sto godini , 309) allows for the possibility that, upon entering the monastic order, he accepted “a new name which, however, did not replace his former name, and hence the hagiographer does not mention it”. Yet if, like Cyril and Clement, Naum too chose celibacy and built himself a monastery, whose abbot he probably also was, we must assume that he had entered the monastic order earlier. Even Clement, as a bishop, could not have lived for ten years among monks without being a monk, and therefore the hypothesis seems acceptable to us that he had entered the monastic order as early as his youth, perhaps on Olympus, together with Methodius (Duš an Glumac, “Nešto za životot na Naum Ohridski “, in: Naum Ohri dski , Ohrid, 1985, 21-22).
  38. ↑ Blaže Koneski , “Ohridskata knižovna škola“, in: Kni ga za Kliment Ohridski, 69-87; Borjana Velčeva, “Glagolicata i školata na Kliment Ohridski “, in: Kliment Ohridski 916-1966, 133-141; Emil Georgiev, “Sъstojanie na naučnata problematika okolo ličnostta i dejanostta na Kliment Ohridski “, in: Kliment Ohridski. Materiali, 55-58.
  39. ↑ 95 Miloš Weingart, Bulgaoei a Carihrad poeed tísíciletim, Praha, 1915, 9; André Mazon, “Le moine Crabre et Cyrille“, in: Sbornikъ vъ čest na Vasilъ N. Zlatarski , Sofija, 1925, 119-122; Rajko Nahtigal, “Nekaj pripomb k pretresu Hrabrovega spisa o azbuki Konstantina Cirila“, Slavistična revija, Ljubljana, 1948, 5-18; Fr. Grivec, Slovanska blagovestnika sv. Ciril in Metod, 863-1963, Celje, 1963, 197; Blaže Koneski , op. cit., 80; Dušan Glumac, op. cit., 22-23.
  40. ↑ The dispute in the Bulgarian state between the ‘Hellenists’ and ‘Slavists’ was largely a dispute between adherents to the Glagolitic and Cyrillic scripts, which also had regional characteristics. The Roman Church was most probably also involved in the dispute. These ‘disputes’ continued without interruption and, in a way, have persisted up to the present day. For a certain period following the Crusades there were no significant activities of the Roman Church in Macedonia, but after the Council of Trent (1545-1563) it restored its activity and catholic archbishops were regularly appointed in Ohrid and Skopje regardless of the number of believers (Blaže Ristovski , “Unijatstvoto vo Makedonija, I. Beleški za katolicizmot i unijatstvoto vo Makedonija do polovinata na HIH vek“, Razgledi , II/III, 9, Skopje, 1960, 908-936; see also: N.I . Milevъ, Katoliškata propaganda vъ Bъlgarija prõzъ Hoe II võkъ . Istoričesko izsledvane sъ priloženija, Sofija, 1914; Jovan Radowi ć , Rimska kurija i južnoslovenske zemqe od Hoe I do HIH veka, S ANU, CLV, Beograd,1950).
  41. ↑ 97 Almost all researchers agree that Theophylact had a hagiography of Clement written by a contemporary of Clement’s at hand, as confirmed in paragraph 58 of the Longer Life (Aleksandъr Milev, Žitija, 102-103). In addition to older sources, Homatian no doubt had access to Theophylact’s Longer Life.
  42. ↑ Kliment Ohridski, Sъbrani sъčinenija, III, Sofija, 1973, 140.
  43. ↑ Ibid., 199. Dvornik (op. cit., 147) concludes that the brothers Cyril and Methodius actually did not depart for Rome but for Constantinople, taking with them “one or more of their disciples as candidates who wanted to be consecrated as bishops”.
  44. ↑ Aleksandъr Milev, Žitija, 74-75.
  45. ↑ Ivan Dujačevъ , Izъ starata bъlgarska knižnina, I. Knižovni i i storičeski pametnici otъ Pъrvoto bъlgarsko carstvo, Sofija, 1940, 62-63. The use of Bulgarian designations in this hagiography is the result of the concepts of its copier of a later date.
  46. ↑ Aleksandъr Milev, Žitija, 128. The majority of researchers agree that Constantine had the office of a priest even before the Moravian mission, but there is an interesting piece of information given by a chronicler from around 1038, where he says that St Procopius knew the Slavonic script invented by “sanctissimo Quirillo episcopo” (Emil Georgiev, Kiril i Metodi ja osno- vopol ož ni ci na sl avjanski t e l i t er at ur i , Sofija, 1956, 111). Of special significance is Methodius’s ordination as bishop and his appointment as the Archbishop of Moravia and Pannonia. Pope John VIII, in his letter to Methodius dated June 14, 879 — in which he invites him to come to Rome to answer the accusations that he taught improperly and used the Slavonic language in liturgy — uses the following words: “To the most worthy Methodius, Archbishop of the Pannonian Church (Peter Ratkoš, Pramene k dejinIm Vel’kej Moravy. Druhé opravené a rozširené vydanie, Bratislava, 1968, 174). In his letter to the Greater-Moravian prince Svatopluk (SvJtopluk, Svetopolk), bearing the same date, the Pope demands from the prince the sending of “Methodius, your archbishop, instituted and sent to you by our predecessor, i.e. Pope Adrian” (ibid., 175). If we bear in mind that Pope John VIII came to the Apostolic Seat in 872, we must assume that Methodius had become archbishop earlier, but after the death of Pope Nicholas I (November 13, 867). In all probability Methodius was ordained bishop by Pope Adrian towards the end of 869, after which he was sent “as the papal legate among all the Slavic tribes in Moravia, Slovakia and Pannonia” (Kliment Ohridski, Sъbrani sъčinenija, III, 207) . This can also be inferred from Chapter VIII of the Life of Methodius, where Pope Adrian II dispatches a special letter to Rostislav, Svatopluk and Kocel, saying that he has decided to send Methodius “ordaining him together with his disciples” (ibid., 200) which is not too different from the letter written by John VIII to the Freising Bishop Anno in the year 873 (ibid., 207). The Italian Legend says that when Cyril and Methodius received the invitation from Pope Nicholas I to go to Rome, they “set off immediately and took with them some of their disciples whom they considered worthy of the bishop’s office” (Aleksandъr Milev, Žitija, 150). F. Grivec, however, believes that the disciples who were brought to Rome were not deemed worthy of the bishop’s office and were ordained only priests and deacons, but he also allows for the possibility that the brothers took candidates for those ranks (“Vitae Constantini et Methodii“, Acta Academiae Velehradensis Olomucii, 1941, 38). If such candidates were indeed presented, is not the most acceptable hypothesis that Clement and Naum were among the first, bearing in mind, in particular, that Clement bore the name of the Roman pope whose relics had been brought to Rome on the first visit? So, if Methodius was ordained bishop during his first visit to Rome (869), and was appointed archbishop on his second visit (869 or 870), is it not possible that during his third visit to Rome, Clement was appointed by Methodius “Bishop of the whole of Illyria” and “of the Bulgarian people who ruled the land”? In this respect, the bull of Pope John VIII to Prince Svatopluk, dated June 880, is of considerable significance; there he informs him of the arrival of Archbishop Methodius in Rome and the new confirmation of his privileges as archbishop, as well as of the ordination of Wiching as “the Bishop of the Holy Church of Nitra” (whom Svatopluk had sent), and writes the following: “Et volumus, ut pariter cum ipsius archiepiscopi consensu et providen- cia et alterum nobis apto tempore utilem presbiterum vel diaconem dirigas, quem similiter in alia ecclesia, in qua episcopalem curam noveris esse necessarium, ordinemus episcopum, ut cum his duobus a nobis ordinatis episcopi prefatus archiepiscopus vester iuxta decretum apostolicum per alia loca, in quibus episcopi honorifice debent et possunt existere, postmodum valeat ordinare” (Peter Ratkoš, op. cit. 432-433). Whether a second candidate was sent to Rome as well, and whether he was also ordained bishop, is still unknown to us. But if such a candidate was sent and perhaps ordained, is it not possible that Methodius could have given Clement this honour and appointed him “Bishop of the whole of Illyria” at the moment of his departure for Constantinople (881)? Is this not possible even if we exclude the possibility of Clement being ordained bishop (of the Slavs in Illyria under the jurisdiction of the Roman Church) at the moment when the Roman envoys Euthymios and Theognostos departed for Constantinople, where they arrived on December 11, 868, and Bulgaria accepted the Greek clergy as late as 870 (František Dvornik, Byzantské misie u Slovan«, 160-161).
  47. ↑ Kliment Ohridski , Sъbrani sъčinenija, III, 159. Dvornik writes (op. cit., 155) that, according to Byzantine practice, the monk, on receiving the solemn schema, had to adopt a new name beginning with the same letter as his Christian name; hence Constantine took the name ‘Cyril’.
  48. ↑ Kliment Ohridski , op. cit., 136.
  49. ↑ In his letter to Bishop Paul of Ancona, written prior to May 14, 873, Pope John VIII writes, among other things, that the Apostolic Seat had full authority “not only in Italy and other western states, but also on the territory of the whole of Illyria”, and hence “if Alvin and Hermanrich want nonetheless to bring our Methodius to trial, tell them, says the Pope, that “Vos sine canonica sententia dampnastis episcopum ab apostolica sede missum, carceri mancipantes et colaphis affligentes et a sacro ministerio separantes et a sede tribus annis pellentes. Apostolicam sedem per ipsum triennium plurimis missis et epistolis proclamantem non estis ad iudicium convenire dignati, quod profecto semper subterfugere curasti“ (Peter Ratkoš, op. cit., 431). If we subtract the three years of the banishment of Methodius from the bishop’s throne, it appears that he was ordained bishop sometime in the spring of 870, and if we suppose that he had perhaps held that throne for some time, it is possible that Methodius was ordained bishop as early as 869, whereas soon afterwards (on his second visit of Rome) he was appointed archbishop as well.
  50. ↑ As it is not a coincidence that Constantine/Cyril wrote texts on Clement of Rome, and afterwards (on Methodius’s insistence) he was buried in the Church of St Clement in Rome, and even the cathedral church of Gauderich in Velletra bears that name (František Dvornik, op. cit., 153-157), it is certainly not a coincidence that it was for him that Clement of Ohrid wrote the largest and probably one of the bestof his works, entitled Praise for the Holy Clement, Patriarch of Rome (Kliment Ohridski, Sъbrani sъčinenija, t om pъ r vi . Obr abot i l i B.St. Angel ov, K.M. Kuev, Hr. Kodov, Sof ija, 1970, 301-304), a copy of which was recently discovered in Struga (Mi hajl o Georgievski , “Napi sano Kliment om epi skopom“, Makedonija, HHHI, 370, Skopje, 1984, 29). In connection with changing his name see: Ivan S negar ov, “černorizec Hrabъr “, in: Hiljada i sto godini , 308-309; čl .-kor . Emil Georgiev, “Sъstojanie na naučnata pr obl emat i ka okol o l i čnostta i dejanostta na Kliment Ohridski , in: Kliment Ohridski. Mat erial, 53-54.
  51. ↑ Aleksandъr Milev, Žitija, 86, 89 and 90.
  52. ↑ Aleksandъr Milev, Žitija, 107. Emil Georgiev (op. cit., 52-53) concludes that as early as the time of the Khazar Mission, when the relics of the Roman Pope Clement were found, Clement was with the brothers Constantine and Methodius — as their first assistant and interpreter. This is also accepted by Haralampie PolenakoviÎ (Haral ampi e Pol enakovi Î, “Kliment Ohridski. Život i dejnost “, in: Kni ga za Kliment Ohridski, Skopje, 1966, 11).
  53. ↑ Prof. Jordanъ Ivanovъ , Bъlgarski starini Izъ Makedonija. Vtoro dopъlneno izdanie, Sofija, 1931, 565.
  54. ↑ .G. P opr už enko, “Si nodi kъ car ja Bor i l a“, Bъl garski st ari ni, oe III, Sofija, 1928, 77.
  55. ↑ Of the extensive bibliography see: Tomo Tomoski , “Prilog kon t opogr af i jat a na Kliment ovat a epar hi jat a“, in: Kliment Ohridski. St udi i, Skopje, 1986, 204-209; čl .-kor . Emil Georgiev, op. cit., 57-58; Ivan Snegarov, “P o vъ pr osa za epar hi jat a na Kliment Ohridski “, in: Kliment Ohridski 916-1966, 291-305; Petъr Kol edar ov, “Kliment Ohridski , ,pъ r vi epi skop na bъ l gar ski ezi k‘ na dr agovi t i t e v Sol unsko i na Vel i ki ja v Zapadni t e Rodopi “, in: Konst an- t in-Kiri l Fi l osof . Æ bi l een sborni, 141-167.
  56. ↑ 112 In all probability František Dvornik (op. cit., 146-152) is not far from the truth when he supposes that in 866 Cyril and Methodius decided to leave Greater Moravia and go to Constantinople to try to secure, once again through the mediation of Byzantium, a bishop who would be independent of the Frankish church hierarchy in Rostislav’s state. This was the result of the rejection of Rostislav’s proposal for the ordination of a bishop by Pope Nicholas I. Therefore the brothers, together with their disciples, went through Pannonia to Venice and Southern Italy (which was then under the jurisdiction of Constantinople), as they could not travel via the territory of hostile Bulgaria, which at the time inclined towards Louis the German, and he had already sent the Passau bishop Hermanrich with a group of missionaries to the Bulgarian capital. Dvornik believes that in those circumstances Rostislav once again came closer to Constantinople and requested a bishop who would establish an independent church. It was at that moment that Cyril and Methodius “chose from their disciples one or several candidates whom they wanted to propose for ordination as bishops”. In order to prevent that, Pope Nicholas I, as soon as he heard that Rostislav’s missionaries were waiting for a ship to Venice, invited them to Rome (in the winter of 867). Owing to these purely political reasons, they came to Rome at the moment when Pope Nicholas I died, and the new pope, Adrian II, was enthroned at the time when changes were taking place in Constantinople — the death of Emperor Michael III and the fall of Patriarch Photius; in this way Cyril and Methodius’s mission in Rome acquired a quite different, friendly character. Hence it is not surprising that the Pope consecrated the Slavonic books (even though such books were supposed to be read in the churches in Latin), and moreover, he ordained Methodius (after the death of his brother, Cyril) as the Moravian Bishop, and Clement and the rest to other ranks. On his return via Kocel’s Principality, Methodius was summoned back to Rome and appointed Archbishop. As the Life of Cyril says that the Pope ordered the bishops Formosus and Gauderich to consecrate the Slav disciples (and we know that one bishop was enough for the consecration of a priest), we can assume that a bishop was also ordained. On the other hand, that Clement of Ohrid continued to follow the tradition of the Roman Church is confirmed by the fact that, in addition to the Joint Sermon on the Apostles Peter and Paul, he wrote a special Oration in Praise of the Apostle Paul (Kliment Ohridski, Sъbrani sъčinenija, tom vtori . Obraboti l i B.St. Angel ov, K.M. Kuev, Hr. Kodov, Kl. Ivanova, Sof ija, 1977, 416-417), thus respecting the tradition of the Roman Church for a separate celebration of the days of the two apostles.
  57. ↑ Prof. Jordanъ Ivanovъ , op. cit., 565. We should point out that at the Church Council called by Photius there were representatives of the following Bulgarian eparchies existing at the time: Ohrid, Bregalnica, Morava and Provat.
  58. ↑ Vj. Š t ef ani Î, “P r vobi t not o sl ovensko pi smo i najst ar at a gl agol ska epi gr af i ka“, in: S l ovenska pismenost . 1050-godi š ni na na Kliment Ohridski , Nar oden muzej, Ohrid, 1966, 13; Haral ampi e Pol enakovi Î, op. cit., 9 and 17; Ivan Venedi kov, “Kliment Ohridski i Dobet a“, in: Kliment Ohridski 916-1966, 309; čl .-kor . Emil Georgiev, “Sъstojanie na naučnata pr obl emat i k“, 55 (“perhaps a spiritual ‘brother’, and perhaps a ‘brother’ in blood”); Ûor Ÿe Sp. Radoji či ć, op. cit., 206.
  59. ↑ The question is still insufficiently explained as to how Clement could have founded a monastery as a ‘teacher’, giving it the same name — St Panteleimon — as Prince Boris’s Monastery in Preslav. For this monastery see: Di mče Koco, “Kliment ovi ot manast i r ,Sv. P ant el ejmon‘ i r askopkat a pr i ,I mar et ‘ vo Ohr id“, in: Kni ga za Kliment Ohridski, 129-171.
  60. ↑ There were such eparchial centres in Ohrid, Bregalnica, Skopje, Niš, Belgrade, Sredec, etc. (Kiri l o- Metodi evska enciklopedija, I, 291). If, according to František Dvornik (op. cit., 171), it was possible for Agathon to be appointed a Greek archbishop in Serbia (in the town of Morava), within the borders of the Bulgarian state — independent of the Bulgarian Archbishop and subordinated only to the Patriarch of Constantinople — why could not it have been possible for Clement to be a bishop in Macedonia (which was considered to come under the jurisdiction of the Roman Church), independent of the Bulgarian Archbishop, spiritually subordinated directly to the Pope and maintaining contacts only with the Prince as the head of the state in which he was active?
  61. ↑ Radi voje Q ubi nkovi ć, “Ordo episcoporum y Paris gr. 880 i ar hi jer eska pomen-l i st a u S i no- di konu car a Bor i l a“, in: Kiri l Sol unski, 1, 142, zab. 40.
  62. ↑ Ibid.
  63. ↑ Ibid. This was so even though, in the view of Marija Pantelić (“O Kijevskim i Sinajskim listićima“, Slovo, 35, Zagreb, 1985, 5), “the territory of Western Illyria (between Dalmatia and Macedonia with its seat at Salonika) was severed from Rome and annexed to the Patriarchate of Constantinople” as early as the middle of the 8th century.
  64. ↑ Aleksandъr Milev, Žitija, 112-114.
  65. ↑ Blaže Koneski (“Ohridskata knižovna škola“, in: Kni ga za Kliment Ohridski, 86), relying on I. Pastuhov’s writings (Bъ l gar ska i stor i ja, I, Sofija, 1942, 238-239), believes that the reason for the resignation of the aged Clement was the military actions undertaken by Simeon in the area of Salonika and Dyrrachium, as they “upset both the people and its shepherd” in the eparchy. But in the same place Koneski continues by quoting Emil Georgiev’s view (Načal o na slavjanskat a pi s- menost Å vъ Bъlgarija, Sofija, 1942, 44-45) concerning the alphabet as the main reason for the departure of “Cyril and Methodius’s disciples” for Macedonia.
  66. ↑ In 888-889 Prince Boris ceded his throne to his son Vladimir and retreated to a monastery (‘St Pan- teleimon’?), but his son began to renounce Christianity, relying above all, in the words of Dvornik (op. cit., 253), on the boyars of Turi origin, “all of whom were still pagans”, and this began to be felt in Clement’s eparchy as well, as a result of which the latter stood on the side of Boris in Vladimir’s deposition and the enthronement of Simeon (893), when his episcopal title was officially recognized and the Velika Bishopric was assigned to him for administration, after which he took his brother Naum with him to Ohrid. (Archbishop Theophylact later used older sources and data very selectively.)
  67. ↑ It is a highly curious fact that neither of the two hagiographies of Clement mention anything of Naum of Ohrid, nor do they connect him in any way with Clement’s activity. It is indeed strange how the hagiographer missed the opportunity of describing Naum’s funeral and Clement’s outstanding partici pation in it. It is, however, mentioned in both hagiographies of Naum, even though there it is treated in a different way. Blaže Koneski (“Kanoni zaci ja na sl ovenski svet ci vo Ohridskata cr kva“, Prilozi, I, 1-2, MANU, Skopje, 1976, 66) is right in pointing out that Naum’s cult had already been created in the 10th century, and yet there is no dispute around the fact that Naum is missing in the synaxarium of the Assemani Gospel (as are Cyril, Methodius and Clement), that Naum cannot be seen among the frescoes of the 1295 Church of the Holy Mother of God (‘Perivlepta’) in Ohrid, and that, according to Cvetan Grozdanov (“P or t r et i t e na Kliment Ohridski i Kliment Ri mski “, in: Kiri l Sol unski, 1, 105), the earliest “known portrait” of Naum is that in the narthex of the Church of St Sophia in Ohrid — dating from as late as the 14th century. If we also bear in mind that the earliest transcription of the Life of Naum dates from the 15th century, we must accept Koneski’s view that the cult of Naum was revived in Ohrid only after the arrival of the Turks, when St Clement’s monastery was turned into a mosque, and St Naum’s monastery came to prominence as a cult site. As a matter of fact, the hagiographies make almost no references to Clement’s activity in Greater Moravia and Pannonia, and deal with his stay in Rome in the most cursory manner; indeed, even what is said is expounded mainly from the aspect of Byzantine state policy and the policy of the Constantinopolitan Church.
  68. ↑ For more details on this subject see: Blaže Ri stovski , “Nekoi pr aš awa okol u pojavat a na hr i st i janst vot o i pismenost a kaj S l oveni t e vo Makedonija“, in: Kiri l Sol unski, 2, 319-337.
Преземено од "http://mk.wikibooks.org/wiki/The_Reasons_for_the_Return_of_Clement_of_Ohrid_from_the_Bulgarian_Capital_to_Macedonia"