Cyril and Methodius, Slavic enlighteners

Cyril and Methodius, educators of the Slavs, siblings, were the children of the Thessalonica nobleman 1. Constantine (in monasticism Cyril), younger in years, with education and exploits ripe for heaven before Methodius (from 842), was brought up at the Court in Constantinople, together with the young Ts. Mikhail; From the famous Photius he studied verbal sciences and logic, then listened to philosophical and mathematical sciences. Talents, education, and patronage at the Court opened the way for Constantine to brilliant honors in the world. But he entered the clergy and was a librarian, then he soon disappeared into the desert and, only at the insistence of others, returned to the capital to accept the position of teacher of philosophy 2. Methodius, after being raised at home, was in military service and for several years ruled the “Slavic principality”, or, what is the same, was the ruler in the Slavic-Greek region 3. In 851, Cyril went to the emir of Militene to fight Mohammedanism and completed his assignment with success. Upon returning from this mission, Cyril retired to Olympus, where, together with his brother, who also left the world, he spent time in fasting and prayer. In 858, “the Khazar ambassadors asked the emperor to send to them some learned man who would teach them the true faith, since, they added, either the Jews or the Saracens were trying to convert them to their faith.” As a result of this, the philosopher Constantine, a friend of Photius, was sent to them with his brother Methodius. Cyril, with his instructions, managed to do at least so much among the Khazars that everyone was allowed to turn to the Christian faith, and the Greeks who lived there were forbidden, under the death penalty, to convert to Judaism or Islam; at the same time, the Khazars were exposed to the emptiness of Muslim and Jewish teachers 4 . The St. had barely returned. brothers from this mission 5, as at the end of 862, the Slavic-Pannonian princes, Rostislav, Svyatopolk and Kotel, “not having a true teacher for their people” (although they had Latin priests 6), and even moreover, feeling the need to hear worship and teaching about the faith in their native language 7, asked Emperor Michael and St. Photius to send them the teachers they needed 8 . Who could be chosen for this if not the pious and educated natives of Thessaloniki? St. Cyril, understanding both the importance of translating holy books into the popular language and the difficulty of the matter, made his first attempt at translation with reverent preparation. The Tsar and Patriarch rejoiced at the determination of the pious brothers for a great feat and hastened to send them 9 . On this path, Methodius managed to make a change in the Bulgarian king, Boris, so that he not only accepted baptism himself, but also decided to fight the pagan stubbornness of his people 10. In Moravia, Cyril and Methodius, with apostolic zeal, accomplished the work for which they were called - they taught children, organized divine services, both in the Slavic language. They had to fight both the remnants of paganism and the ignorance of Latin Christianity 11 . Inspired by zeal, they moved from the region of one prince to another, preaching about the truth in a language understandable to everyone. For four and a half years (from 862 to 867) Cyril and Methodius carried out the apostolic order of the Eastern Patriarch for the glory of the name of Christ 12. “And for the sake of Slovenia, he hears the greatness of God with his own tongue” 13. But the pupils of Rome, the German bishops, were not too happy about this. They showered abuse on Slavic preachers for Slavic worship and for teachings that did not agree with their ignorance. The Pope, like Nicholas, could not like the fact that preachers of pure faith, conquering hearts to Christ, did not mean vapas. The unfortunate war of Rostislav with the Germans 14 and the deposition of Photius opened up the long-desired space for Nicholas to demand Greek preachers to Rome. On the road, in Venice, the enlighteners of the Slavs again had to endure a fierce dispute about the justice of the case 15. However, P. Adrian (from 4 Dec. 867), successor of Nicholas (†31 Nov. 867), fearing to lose all influence on Moravia and Pannonia, as it was lost before 16, and at the same time caressing himself with hopes for Bulgaria, he was forced to remain satisfied with the enlightened brothers, and especially since his love of power on the part of Greece was calmed in Constantinople, and the pious brothers, out of reverence for the place of the apostolic exploits and according to their position in Moravia, appeared with a sacred gift, with the relics of St. Clement, seemed to the pope to be submissive to the pope. Adrian considered it necessary to justify the Slavic service even with a special message 17. St. Cyril died in Rome, having adopted schema 18. Fulfilling his brother's will, Methodius returned to the Slavs. But the Germans agitated the Slavs with civil strife (869–701) and destroyed Rostislav. Methodius, avoiding political storms (in 870), arrived with his disciples in Pannonia and the prince favorably received him in Moosburg (Salavar Castle). Kotel asked the pope to consecrate Methodius as Archbishop of Pannonia, and his wish was fulfilled. But the German clergy (in 872) became even more irritated by this; it began to pursue Methodius with all its bitterness. It raised the German emperor and the Moravian prince Svyatopolk against him; the matter reached the point that Methodius was sent into captivity, where he remained for two and a half years. Pope John VIII returned (874) to Methodius his power, wrote in his defense to Louis and Carloman, and declared a ban on the willful bishops from performing services. 19 Finally, the Moravian Slavs saw that the German bishops thought little about the power of the truth of Christ, but sought power only for themselves over them, suppressing Slavic worship among them. They drove them away and asked the pope to send them Archbishop Methodius. And Methodius was declared archbishop of the Moravian state. “From that time,” says an eyewitness, “the divine teaching quickly began to spread, paganism and superstitions disappeared,” and the state of Svyatopolk itself grew and flourished 20 . But the Germans did not care about the successes of faith or the successes of the state. They could not forgive Methodius for the loss of power and their income. They rushed to Rome and there they reported that Methodius, an apostate from the faith, does not profess the origin of the Holy Spirit and from the Son, does not preach not only the universal power of the pope, but even his dependence on the pope, and that is why he is spreading the Slavic service. P. John could not be alarmed by the denunciation of Methodius’s disagreement with the Germans in the dogma of the Holy Spirit, because he himself confessed this dogma in accordance with P. Photius and St. Methodius. But he, as a pope, was greatly alarmed by fears for his power over Moravia: in 878, contrary to his previous will, he banned the Slavic service, and the next year, repeating the ban, summoned Methodius to Rome. The Germans were triumphant; they appeared in Moravia and announced that Methodius had been deprived of power and Moravia had been transferred to them 21. But P. John was not P. Nicholas. The defender P. Photius found (in 880) at the Roman Council that St. Methodius is Orthodox in everything. Methodius returned to Moravia, authorized by the pope over the entire Moravian church 22. Then German ingenuity invented a rumor that the patriarch and emperor of Constantinople were angry with Methodius for his rapprochement with the pope. When this rumor turned out to be a lie, they turned again to Svyatopolk to arm him against Methodius. Amazing persistence in desires that are openly dishonest! Svyatopolk did not know how to conquer his passions, although he extended his power to neighboring princes. He reluctantly listened to Methodius's apostolic denunciations of his weaknesses; and the Germans always flattered his weaknesses; now they began to flatter even more. From now on, Svyatopolk began to clearly show dislike towards Methodius and favor towards the flatterers - the Germans, not excluding their delusions. So until his grave, Methodius endured sorrow for his apostolic labors. 23 With all the opposition of German greed for self-interest and power, with all the opposition of the ignorance of the Pilates, all Slavic tribes, from Croatia and Dalmatia to the borders of Poland, listened to the Slavic service of Methodius. Those of them who had not been baptized before that time, such as the Czech Republic with its prince Borzhivoj, received St. baptism by order of St. Methodius; the Moravian state itself, widely expanded by Svyatopolk, included within its borders several Slavic tribes; and with the spread of the state, Methodius also spread St. faith 24. Unfortunately, what the Germans did not manage to do during the life of Methodius, who blissfully reposed on April 6, 885 25, after his death they expelled Methodius’ disciples to Bulgaria 26. The seeds of reasonable piety and Orthodoxy, generously sown by Cyril and Methodius in the vast southwestern Slavic settlements, after them gradually died out under the barbarity of Latin ignorance. Only Bulgaria, under the peaceful roof of the Eastern Patriarch, had the happy fate to flourish in education and piety in order to convey to Russia the fruits of the labors of the Slavic enlighteners. 27 If we then want to talk about the written works of the Slavic enlighteners, we will not talk about a well-known matter, about the image of St. Kirill Slavic alphabet 28; Let us only note that this work, important in itself, receives special importance in connection with the work of faith; in this last form it is the fruit of that apostolic wisdom by which the orders of the Eastern Church were and are distinguished; this is the first step towards the great work of preachers, but which already proves what kind of spirit the preachers are. Let us follow further the action of the preachers and consider which books were translated into the Slavic language. Did they not leave any of their own compositions that would accurately express their spirit? In his own writing, St. Cyril had a confession of faith, proposed by him on his own behalf and on behalf of his brother. The confession contains three parts and a conclusion. The first part sets out the confession of the dogma of the Holy Trinity; in the second there is a lengthy confession of the incarnation of the Son of God; in the third, quite briefly about the veneration of St. icons “I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, of all invisible and visible Creator and Lord, without beginning, invisible, unpossessed (immense), immutable, infinite, and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son, without beginning, and timeless, and before all ages from the Father, a being who shone forth (shone), and in one Holy Spirit, proceeding from God the Father One, and with the Father and the Son, blessed and glorified.” Then setting out the confession of the dogma about the difference and mutual relationship of divine persons, he says: “It is characteristic of the Father to be unborn and to be the wine of Him, the Son is characterized by birth, and the Spirit is characterized by procession. And as soon as what was born and proceeded from the Father shone forth, like light, both came from light: then there is one light over the whole world, trilunar, trisolar.” Explaining then that neither the trinity of persons destroys the unity of the Divinity, nor the unity of the trinity, St. Cyril, finally, adds: “Yes, I will calm down the Arian fury; it is from him and to him that we are fighting today.” Thus, the confession of the dogma of the Holy Trinity contains all parts of this dogma in their clear, precise and definite form. At the same time, in the confession of St. Cyril we encounter something that is not visible in the Eastern confessions that preceded him; St. Cyril says that “the Holy Spirit comes from one Father.” This confession most accurately shows that the enlighteners of the Slavs follow the spirit of the right and glorious Eastern Church, which at this very time had the need to admonish the West in arbitrarily introducing the word Filioque into the doctrine of the personal property of the Holy Spirit. It also brings to the conclusion that the enlighteners of the Slavs had the need, due to the circumstances of their personal ministry, to make a special note about the origin of the Holy Spirit. Confidence in this latter is fully confirmed by the subsequent words of the confession about Arianism: “from him and to him we are fighting today.” We have already seen that St. Slavic enlighteners had to justify their Orthodoxy before P. Hadrian orally and in writing (verbis et litteris) and that the explanations against them related to the dogma of the Holy Spirit. In the confession of St. Cyril says that his abuse is from Arianism and with Arianism. But in reality they mean the same Germans. We have already seen how much struggle the Slavic preachers experienced in their lives with the Jopator heresy of the Germans. The preachers of the German government thought about the procession of the Holy Spirit, and from the Son to exalt the dignity of the Son of God, and accused their opponents of Arianism. It is known that the Council of Toledo, which introduced the Filioque into the symbol for the first time (589), acted against the Arians. Under Charles Vel. Alcuin wrote in Lyon: “Beware of new sects of the Spanish heresy and do not add anything new to the creed,” that is, he directly condemned the addition of Filioque 29. But then a dispute arose with the Adoptians. Elipandus, Archbishop of Toledo, and Felix, Bishop of Urgol, wrote that Jesus Christ only by divine nature is the Son of God, and by humanity He is the Son by grace of adoption (gratia adoptionis). They presented the Spanish Filioque as the distinction of their Orthodoxy, and called their opponents Arians. Charles's dogmatists did not understand Elipandus well and were not able to defend themselves with sound thinking, since it remained motionless under the yoke of ignorance. They were left mechanically repeating the words of others, and they began to repeat in books and in the Symbol the Spanish: Filioque. Alcuin, touched to the quick by Elipandes, hastened to write a book: de processione Spiritus S. The book turned out to be bad: but what about that 30? Charles's pride, which had spent his whole life trying to place himself in the Christian Church on the same level as piety had placed the Greek emperors, did not allow him to come into contact with the Greek Church on this subject. On the contrary, Charles decided to assert his power: Filioque. He wrote to dad. The prudent Leo strictly forbade the damage to the Symbol and ordered the Symbol of Faith in its ancient form to be carved on the boards. But Charles listened to the pope only when the pope helped his power-hungry species. 31 From that time on, the Western clergy made it a rule to call the Orthodox Slavs by the name of the Aryans. Saint Cyril says that he himself wages war against Arianism when he confesses the consubstantiality of the Son of God with the Father, but is not afraid to assert that it is from Arianism that the war is against him; St. Kirill is right about the latter as well. The uncalled defenders of the glory of the Son of God, driving the Holy Spirit from and from the Son, thereby rather lower the Son of God to some lower degree of Divinity, and the Holy Spirit to a lower level than the Son himself, than elevate the Son of God, since two principles - two equal Gods are not possible, and the humiliation of one before the other is possible only in Arianism. “I believe in One Holy Spirit, who proceeds from one God the Father, and is theologized and glorified with the Father and the Son.” In the second part, briefly outlining the dogma of the incarnation of the Son of God, St. Cyril says: “if there is a need that is more expansive, how can we embrace this (explain in more detail about this) for the one who is in charge and erase the vanity that is now being accepted (for the sake of the heresy that is arising and now inventing certain idle talk) so we speak.” And he expounds at length the dogma of the incarnation. What kind of teachers are these who invent vanities now, in the time of St. Kirill? All the same preachers of Charles, who consecrated for German ignorance: Filioque. Just as in the Adoptians, they saw the Nestorians and in defense against them they were able to do only what they sanctified: Filioque - by right of the same wisdom they began to call those who rejected: Filioque, Nestorians; - otherwise for them everyone became both an Arian and a Nestorian, who did not share their ignorant thought about the exaltation of the Son by the procession of the Holy Spirit and from the Son. The fathers of the Frankfurt Council themselves, who condemned (in 799) Elipandus, apparently poorly understood both Elipandus and the dogma of the incarnation of the Son of God 32 . Even less clarity and distinctness of thought could be seen in the disciples of the Council. And so it was necessary to put aside idle talk and enlighten ignorance. St. Cyril excellently expounds the dogma of the incarnation of the Son of God - clearly, definitely, distinctly. “God by nature,” he says, is the only begotten Son and Word of God the Father, born of Him before the ages, ineffable and seedless, without ceasing to be what he was, God by nature, in recent times he took on human nature and fully partook of our flesh and blood, the Word became Flesh (John 1:14), and took on not simple flesh, but animated by a rational soul and thinking. He is the same one Son and after the incarnation, consubstantial with God and the Father in divinity, and one-child with us in humanity, he also preserves in union the natural differences inherent in each - inviolably and immutably. For the Word, being perfect God, was united with perfect man - in one body; why we appropriately call the one who gave birth to Him the Mother of God,” etc. In the third part of the confession, St. Kirill briefly explains that he honors St. icons, as betrayed by the “Holy and Great Council of Nicea”, in accordance with the teachings of the ancient church. And about this St. Kirill also had a need to speak for the Germans. Despite the fact that the Western patriarch gave his voice to condemn iconoclasm at the Nicene Ecumenical Council, Charles wanted to become higher than Greece in this case - he convened the Council to suspect idolatry in icon veneration. Cyril, dealing with the preachers of Charles, shows for them the meaning of icon veneration. “We also honor and kiss the holy images and signs, in images showing us all the Gospel stories and reminding us of what the Savior has done for us.... All, taught by the Spirit of God, see the difference in honor - what honor, what worship should be given to Christ, and what honor is due to St. icons." In conclusion, St. Cyril writes: “So I confess my faith with Methodius, my close brother and assistant in the service of God. In this faith lies salvation and hope, and we both commit this to our disciples, so that by believing they will be saved,” etc. In conclusion, it again shows that the confession is written in the form of an apology. As for the authenticity of this confession, suffice it to say that it is confirmed by the lives of Slavic preachers. And P. John wrote about his brother St. Cyril that he expounded his faith in Rome verbis et litteris; the very language of the confession is very ancient, similar to that preserved in the Ostromir Gospel and in the Izbornik of Svyatoslav. Pannonian biography of St. Cyril, describing the debate of St. Cyril among the Khazars with the Mohammedans and Jews, concludes his news as follows: “And whoever wants to seek the perfect conversations of these Saints: in the books of him (Constantine) you will find me, which our teacher Archbishop Methodius, brother of Constantine the Philosopher, divided into eight words.” In the old days, we used to put the book “Cyril of Slovenia” 33 between soul-helping fatherly works. But we can no longer find a monument to Kirill’s art in disputes with the enemies of the faith. We are left with only some extracts from the words of Cyril 34 and also the sayings of Constantine, Cyril the Philosopher, worthy of a Slavic enlightener 35 . The most important feat of the Slavic enlighteners was their feat in translating St. books from Greek into Slavic, a feat that cost them so much sorrow brought them closer to the ranks of the apostles. St. Cyril, together with Methodius, according to the testimony of the Exarch of Bulgaria, worked, “making a choice from the Gospel and the Apostle.” This means that the Slavic enlighteners first of all translated a selection from the Gospel and the Apostle for the day's readings. Such is the ancient Ostromir Gospel, such are the ancient lists of readings from the acts and epistles of the Apostles! This work is adopted by Cyril and Methodius and other ancient monuments 36. The Pannonian life description speaks of St. Methodius: “The Psalter and the Gospel with the Apostle and selected church services with the philosopher were the first.” According to Pan. lifeop. Cyril, Cyril, while still with the Moravians, “I taught Matins and the Years of Mass and Vespers and Compline and the Secret Service.” 37 Nestor, repeating the news of the biographer of Methodius, instead of the words: “selected services”, puts: “(transferred) octoi and other books.” The “Italian Legend” says: “with zeal they began to do what they came for, began to teach children, organize church services .... They spent four and a half years in Moravia and confirmed the people there in the Orthodox faith, and left all the scriptures that seemed necessary for worship services." Pope John wrote to Svyatopolk: “nothing prevents either sound faith or sound teaching, singing the liturgy in the Slavic language, or reading the Holy Gospel, or divine readings from the New and Old Testaments.” Other ancient news agrees with this. 38 In addition, the monuments show that the Greek rites of initiation into the priesthood, marriage, baptism and burial were translated 39 . According to all these reviews, Cyril and Methodius translated the books most necessary for worship. Some of these necessary books are directly named, or clearly indicated. These are: selected readings of the New Testament, the Book of Books, the Psalter, the Book of Hours, the Service Book, the Rites of the Sacrament with the Rite of Burial, the Octoechos of Damascus. Has anything else from the liturgical works been translated? First of all, we note that during St. Cyril and Methodius and the Church of Constantinople did not yet have many songs applied to the meaning of divinely inspired songs, and it was the stichera of Anatoly and Sophronius, the kontakia of Romanus, the canons with the stichera of Damascus and Cosmas, the tripesitsa and stichera of Theodore and Joseph the Studites that were in use. But the canons of Theophanes were hardly in use, much less the canons of the hymn writer Joseph, and with these two as much was written in song as was not written by all the others together. We are not talking about the works of the imp. Leo and Constantine, P. Philotheus and Clement, John Mauropus and Nicephorus, who lived later than the Slavic teachers. Thus, the Octoechos itself, translated by Cyril and Methodius, was not the one that is known today. 40 And if we said that the rites of the sacraments were translated, this does not mean that the Trebnik 41 was translated. The same must be said about the Psalter, into which songs of magnification and prayer, with troparia following the kathismas, were included after Methodius 42. Meanwhile, the Pannonian biographer of Methodius writes: “The Holy One offered the secret holy offering with his choir to the memory of the Holy One. Demetrius." Так как по греческому чину память Святых прославляется песнями, стихирами, кондаками и, со времени Дамаскина, канонами, то имеем право думать, что если не при Кирилле, то при Мефодие были переведены песенные службы на праздники . We will not say that the general Menaion was translated: there are no traces of it among the Slavs even in the 11th century. But just as much is known that under St. Methodia did not know the name: the festive Menaion. In accordance with the general history of church songs and with the Slavic lists of them, we can rather agree that the Stichirarion and, perhaps, some canons of Cosmas and Damascus were translated. About the works of St. Methodius John the Exarch writes: “and the great Archbishop of God Methodius, this brother, transposed the statutory books 60 from the Hellenic language ... to Slovensk.” Since it is undoubtedly known that for a long time the Greek Church counted exactly 60 canonical books of the V. and N. Testaments (33 books of the V. 3. and 27 of the New), then it is also certain that the Exarch, speaking about the 60 statutory books translated by St. Methodius, means the translation of the canonical books of Holy Scripture 43. The news of the Pannonian biographer Methodius, Pr. Nestor, ancient Prologue 44, as well as other evidence of antiquity. 45 All of them attribute the translation of canonical books to the first times of Slavic Christianity, and the translation of apocryphal books to a later time 46 Finally, the Pannonian biographer of Methodius says that St. Methodius, after the death of St. Kirill, also translated “Nomocanon and Books of the Fathers,” but does not determine which ones. To explain the history of Blessed. works of Slavic enlighteners, the following must be said: a) The Slavic-Bulgarian language could have been well known to Cyril and Methodius, natives of Thessalonica, despite their Greek education, since Moisia had been inhabited by Slavs since ancient times. The Bulgarians, having occupied it and part of Macedonia, began to speak the Slavic language themselves; Macedonia, and especially the surroundings of Thessaloniki, during the time of Cyril and Methodius, and long before them, were also occupied by some Slavic tribes, and Thessaloniki was the main trading city for the Mysian and Macedonian Slavs 47 Therefore, the biography of St. Clement, a disciple of Methodius, calls the Kirillov letters either Slavic letters (τὰ σθλοβενῶν γράμματα), or letters invented for the Slavic or Bulgarian people (τὰ τῶν σθλοβενῶν εἶτουν Βουλγαρῶν γένος). b) The same biography of Clement writes: “among those who drew from the source of their teachings (Cyril and Methodius) were the leaders of the clique (τοῦ χοροῦ Κορυφαίοι) Gorazd, Clement, Naum, Angelar and Savva.” He, calling Gorazd a natural Moravian, says that he was “skilled in both languages, Slavic and Greek,” and calls Clement “eloquent” 48. It is therefore clear that in translating Greek books into the Slavic language, the enlighteners of the Slavs were not left only to themselves, but they were helped by selected students. This is all the more certain since the students, following the thoughts of their teachers, continued to study St. the work of their teachers. The following are known to this day: a) translations of the words of St. Gregory of Nazianzen and Theodoret's interpretations of the Psalms, which belong to the language of the first times of Slavic writing 49. Translation of 4 words of St. Athanasius against Apian, made in 906 by Constantine, Bishop of Bulgaria, “disciple of Methodius.” c) Selection of teachings for the weekly days of the year from the interpretations of St. Chrysostom on the Gospel (37 conversations) and particularly from the letters of Isidore (5 conversations), compiled by the same Constantine, moreover, with his own introductions and conclusions, with one whole teaching and with prefaces. In all likelihood, this Constantine is the same person as St. Clement, Archbishop of Bulgaria or Velich, who died in 916. Biographer of St. Clement writes about him that he started an extensive school, in which he himself, from time to time, taught, thus wanting to prepare the best shepherds, and for the people he wrote an annual series of conversations, simple and understandable for everyone. Nowadays, some more words of Clement on holidays 50 are unknown. We are not talking about the well-known works of the enlightened presbyter John, who was also a collaborator with the Methodius disciples in Bulgaria 51 . This is how the saints acted. enlighteners of the Slavs themselves and through their disciples! In conclusion, let us present the thoughts of the West, which persecuted the works of Slavic teachers. Pope John, defending St. Methodius from his enemies, wrote: “It does not interfere with sound faith or teaching, or singing the Missa in the Slavic language, or reading the Holy Gospel, or readings from the N. and V. Testament, well translated, or singing all other services of the hours.” And another pope, banning Slavic books, wrote: “It is not in vain that God is pleased that Holy Scripture in some places should be hidden, lest otherwise, if it were completely clear to everyone, it would not be humiliated and subjected to contempt.” Not like the late pope, the luminous east in the person of St. philosophized. Cyril and Methodius! John the Exarch says that St. Methodius translated into Slavic "all the statutory books of the 60 Hellenic language." M. Eugene believed that this meant 60 books of the church charter - books of liturgical services, somehow Octoechos, etc. Novitsky guessed that St. Methodius translated only the canonical books of Holy Scripture. Father Macarius took great pains to prove that not only canonical, but also apocryphal books of Holy Scripture were translated. O. Macarius is fair in saying that the exarch who translated Damascus naturally had in mind the count of books that Damascus accepted. But the fact is that there is an essay by Damascus, which solves the matter differently from what was thought. Damascene, in a special work, counts 60 canonical books and excludes apocryphal books from this count. This work of Damascus remains in Greek manuscripts, among other things in the Coalene Library (see Monfaucomi Bibliothec. Coisliana). It also exists in the ancient Slavic translation. The translation language is so ancient that the translation must be attributed to the first times of Slavic Christianity. An article about books is already in Svyatoslav’s Izbornik of 1073 (Kalaidovich Exarch, pp. 127, 136); both from the language and from the exarch's studies of the works of Damascus, it is more than likely that the translation belongs to the exarch himself. On the other hand, the work of Damascus, which we are talking about, compiling a brief extract of what is needed for reference, by its very composition shows that the exarch could have had it in mind much more likely when he spoke about 60 books than a lengthy exposition of the faith, where it is not so easy to find an article on books and therefore not everyone can point it out. Kalaidovich published part of the work we are talking about (exarch p. 134), under the title: “The Theologian from Words. “But this title does not belong to what is printed, but to the preceding verses of St. Gregory the Theologian on the canonical books. According to the Greek and Slavic lists, this is the order of the articles of Damascus, among which there is an article about the books: 1. “John of Damascus about the Macedonian months, according to church tradition,” then “the months of the Romans” and others. 2. “The same John about deliberate books: a) Let it be known that there are 22 books of the Old Testament according to the composition of Jewish speech,” etc. b) “The theologian from the words: Let them not be attracted by the books of strangers: for there are many frantic tales,” etc. c) About sixty books: 1. Genesis; 2. Outcome; 3. Leviticus; 4. Numbers; 5. Second Law; 6. Jesus; 7. Judges and Ruth.... 34. Daniel; 35; Gospel of Matthew.... 60. His same to the Jews.” (List of 60 canonical books, which was printed by Kalaidovich). d.) Περι των εξω βιβλιων - “about the books standing outside” of the Canon (according to the Slavic translation: “there are things outside”). Under this title are listed: “a) The Wisdom of Solomon; b) Wisdom of Sirach; c) Maccabees; d) Maccabees; e) Maccabees; f) Maccabees; g) Esther; h) Judith; i) Tobit. e) apocrypha (according to the Slavic translation “of the blood”): 1. Adam; 2. Enoch; 3. Lamech; 4. Patriarchs; 5. Joseph's Prayer: 6. Eldad and Modad; 7. The Covenant of Moses (8 in the Koalene Greek list is omitted, but in the Glorious list it is written: “The rise of Moses:”); 9. Psalms of Solomon; 10. Apocalypse of Elijah; 11. Vision of Isaiah; 12. Revelation of Zephaniah; 13. Revelation of Zechariah; 14. Revelation of Ezra; 15. History of Iyakovlev; 16. Revelation of Petrovo; 17. The treatment and teaching of the Apostles; 18. Epistles of Barnabas (επιςολια); 19. Acts of Paul; 20. Revelation of Paul; 21. Teaching of Clement (Διδασκαλία); 22. Teachings of Ignatius; 23. Teachings of Polycarp; 24. Gospel of Barnabas; 25. Gospel of Matthew. So, after this, the question about the 60 books translated by St. Methodius, of course, will be considered definitively decided, and we will certainly not hear any appeals against the decision. St. Methodius translated the canonical books of Holy Scripture, but did not translate the apocryphal books. This is what John, Exarch of Bulgaria shows, who saw the disciples of St. Methodius and his works. Let us also add that the same Damascene list of canonical, non-canonical and forged books also explains the words of the biography of Methodius about the translation of the books of St. Methodius. The Maccabean books make up the majority in the list compared to other non-canonical ones, these 4 and these 3. This list, of course, was known to the biographer Methodius. And therefore, when he says that St. Methodius translated the books of the V. and N. Testaments, then he calls non-canonical books by the name of those books that in the known list of books constituted the majority among the non-canonical ones. And therefore, he says the same thing, that non-canonical books were not translated by St. Methodius. Sources of information A. Greek: Life of St. Clement, disciple of Methodius, ed. Ab Ambrosio Pampereo. Vien. 1802. B. Pannonian: aa) Life of St. Methodius, described by one of his disciples; bb) Life of St. Kirill, described at a time close to Kirill (the contents of both, with critical remarks, in Moskvityanin 1843). V. Russian-Bulgarian: aa) News of the Nesterov Chronicle, taken almost literally from the Pannonian Lives; bb) Exarch of Bulgaria (ed. Kalaid. 1825 M.); cc) Life of St. Kirill, ed. Hiland. Bibl., 13th century. (from Matsievsky); d) Life of Methodius; in the Prologue of the 13th century. (ed. Kalaid. p. 90); dd) News of the 15th century, ed. Pogodin (Cyril and Methodius, M. 1825); her) Chet-Minea May 11. G. Dalmatian: aa) (Italian) The legend of Constantine, taken from the news of a contemporary Bp. Gauderica (Act. Sanct. Ad 9 Martii); bb) Presbyter of Diocles (c. 1161): On the Kingdom of the Slavs (ed. In Lucii de regno Dalmatorum. Amstel. 1666, in Schwandtneri Script. rec. Hungar. T. 3. Vindob. 1748 p. 479, in Schletzer Nestor). D. Czech-Moravian legends: aa) Vita S. Ludmillae; bb) Vita S. Ludmillae et S. Wencesai, auctore Christanno (extracts in act. Sanct. Ad 9 Martii, p. 24; in Dobrovsky: Cyril and Methodius M. 1826); d) Vita S. Cyrilli et Methodii) in Actis SS. ad 9 Martii, or rather from Dobrovsky: Mahrische Legende v. Cyrilli u Methodius. Prag, 1826) f) Unknown modern German: de conversion Boioariorum et Carantaorum (ed. in Varquardii Freheri Rerum Bohemia. Script. Hannov. 1602.; extracts from Dobrovsky, see. Roman Epistles of P. Hadrian and John VIII, Bibliote. Anastasy. Dobrovsky’s reviews about the life of Clement, about Nestor and about the Moravian legend (in Pogodin, pp. 4, 18, 29), without a doubt, would have been completely different in many ways if he had known the Pannonian lives. Pannonian life of St. Kirill. In terms of content they say the same: The story of St. Clement, Presbyter of Diocles, Legend of Lyudmila, both Legends. Bible Anastasius calls Constantine a Philosopher, a man of excellent holiness, the most sincere friend of Photius (fortissimus amicus); but the fact that Anastasius tells Photius about the reproach from Cyril requires a witness more truth-loving than Anastasius; There is nothing incredible in that Photius made P. Ignatius feel the carelessness of his contemporaries towards the Paulicians, whom no one touched with a thorough word of reproof, but only drove them with the sword; but the wise Constantine, of course, could not blame Photius for this, and especially could not blame his friend and teacher in the way Anastasius imagines, who in other cases is known as Photius’s sworn enemy and a liar with little conscientiousness. Praefat. ad Concil. 4 Constant. Epist. ad Carolum Calvum (extract from Pogodin’s preface). Pan. life of Methodius; Prologue 15th century says that Methodius was famous. ruler for “10 years,” (Pogodin has 10–1). Life of St. Clement, §. 16. Briefly both Legends of St. Kirill, Prologue and Chronograph at Pogodin, pp. 103 – 120; more details of all Pann, life of Cyril. According to Elmatsin (1273), Hist. Saracen. p. 62, The Arabs, having defeated part of the Khazars, in 690 forced them to convert to Islamism. Ibn-Ul-Azik dates the appearance of Judaism among the Khazars to the time of Arun-al-Rashid (786 - 806), while the conversion to Mohammedanism dates back to 868. Ibn-Fotslan in 921 saw Christians, Jews, Mohammedans, and even pagans among the Khazars. (See Frena in Memories de I'Academie de Sciences de S.-Peteresb. T. 8 1822). Next, the “Italian Legend” says more than it should, saying that Cyril converted all of Khazaria to faith. About the Khazars - Defense Nestor. Chronicles, approx. 28, 365. On his Khazar journey, Cyril, being in Kherson, prompted the Kherson archbishop to find the relics of St. Clement, Bishop of Rome: this is said in almost all news about the life of St. Kirill. In the eyewitness account of the discovery of the relics (Rkn. Min. Genvar. in the Bible. M. Spiritual Acad.) it is said that this discovery happened on January 30, 6369–861. In the Ostromir and Asseman Gospels of the 11th century. finding the relics of St. Clement was placed on January 30th (Kopitar Hesychius p. 41). According to the Pannonian life of Cyril, it is clear that he spent a lot of time in Kherson, studied here the Jewish and Samaritan languages; according to the “Italian Legend”, he “stayed for some time to learn the language of that people (Khazars).” Martin of Fulden (Chironicon in Eccardi corpore hist. Vol. 1.) dates Constantine’s preaching to the Khazars to 856. See History of the Primitive Church among the Slavs, op. Matsievsky, pp. 37, 40. Dobrovsky 65 and 66. In the “Italian Legend” the ambassadors say: “they do not have such a true teacher who would teach them to read and the perfect law.” In the Moravian: “Rogans (Rastislaves), quatenus genti suae rerum doclorem dirigat” What the Latin Christians were like, see pr. 10, 23. Pan. life of Cyril: “Rostislav, Moravian prince, create a council with your princes and with the Moravlevs, ambassadors,” etc., with the exception of what she says. It is now clear that if the “Italian Legend” speaks of Rostislav alone, without mentioning Kotel and Svyatopolk, it is because Rostislav was the soul of the enterprise both in his jealousy and in his political significance. Kotel, Prince of Pannonia of Sheba (Slavonia, Croatia, Styria), was completely dependent on the favors of Rostislav; Svyatopolk, at that time the appanage prince in Moravia, was Rostislav's nephew. Rostislav, according to Christian, institutor et rector totius Christianitatis. About the coin of Rostislav in Moskvityanin for 1841, part 4, no. 8. Pan. life of Kirill, “Italian. Legend". Nestor does not speak as a historian when he writes that the king ordered to send for the brothers to Solun to their father. He was seduced by the phrase: “calling.” And Dobrovsky asked: where did you call from? Where were the brothers? According to Mr. According to the Lives, the father died a long time ago, and the brothers lived at that time, Constantine - at the church of St. Apostles, and Methodius - in the Poliyaron monastery, with the rank of abbot. The Chetya-Minea says that Cyril was ordained a bishop in Constantinople. But neither sir. Lives, neither Clement’s biographer, nor the “Italian Legend” talk about this. Only the Moravian Legend seems to hint at the episcopal rank of Cyril: it says that Cyril is in Rome: Episcopatui renuncians habitum induit monachalem. Otherwise, in the Ostromir and Asseman Gospels of the 11th century. it is said: Our Holy Father Cyril the Philosopher.” In the Prologue of the 13th century. in the reading itself “Methodius, Archbishop of the High Morava, brother of the Venerable Cyril the Philosopher.” On the contrary, in the Prologues of the 15th century. They also found a place for Kirillova’s department - some kind of Kakaon. Mr. Shevyrev writes that the first words translated into the Slavic language were the words of the only Theologian: From the beginning was the Word, and the Word was from God, and God was the Word (John 1:1). To this someone made several exclamations, rather immodest. But a) Mr. Shevyrev repeated the words of Mr. biographer Kirillov; b) Anyone who understands the matter, who understands Christianity, knows that the translation began with the “Selection” of the Gospel readings, and in this case they could not help but begin with the words: From time immemorial was the Word. Biorpaph of Clement, Legend of Ludmila, Diocleets, Moravian Legend attribute the conversion of Boris to Methodius, brother of St. Konstantin. Imp. Constantine and Kedrin attribute this to the Greek monk Methodius and, without calling him Constantine’s brother, bring Methodius’s case in Bulgaria closer to 861. According to Greek The writers also see that Methodius, who converted Boris, did not remain in Bulgaria for long and others were sent in his place; and the work of the Moravian preachers required that the preachers quickly arrive in Moravia. Nestor says: “The books of the Moravians were first laid down, and there is also a charter in Rus' and in the Danube Bulgarians.” That's how it was. The translation was assigned and completed for the Moravians. Mr. Shevyrev writes: “The news that the Bulgarian Slovenes used Slovenian worship before the Moravians belongs to the Greek. biographies of Bulgarians. archbishop. Clement." No, such news does not belong to the biography of Clement. It only says here that before arriving in Moravia, Methodius “made the Bulgarian ruler, Boris, his student.” About the translation of St. Scripture in the Slavic language says that it was accomplished when the Bulgarian people turned to Christianity, and this conversion took place, as the biographer himself says, in 865. Here is the Slavic addition to the Greek. news of the baptism of Bulgaria! In the Prologue of the 13th century. (rkp. Sergius Lavra No. 3.), under November 26 we read the following story: “I am from the language of the newly enlightened Bulgarian, God enlightened him with Holy baptism this year by his chosen one Boris, who was named in the Holy baptism of Michael, who by the power of Christ and the sign of the cross defeated the chained, rebellious generation of the Bulgarians .... Bring St. Osif the Archbishop, other teachers and punishers, and create churches and monasteries and install bishops, priests, abbots, and teach. And I still live for him, existing in the monkhood, and in his place, Volodimer, his first son, received the blessing of God and Michael on Semeon and took the table, deposing his brother.” Miracle VM. George, which happened to this Bulgarian, dates back to the time of the war between the Bulgarians and the Ugrians, in 904. “Italian Legend”: “Ceperunt itaque id, ad quot venerunt peragentum, studiose instituere et parvules eorum litteras edocere, oficia ecclesiastica instituere et ad correptionem diversorum errorum, quos in populo illo repererunt, falcem eloquoirum inducere.” The sir says the same thing. life of Kirill. It says here that Latin teachers taught the people that all reptiles are the work of the devil, and did not prohibit either polygamy or pagan sacrifices. Prince Kotel himself was still a “poganesk” pagan. According to Mr. According to the life of Methodius, Methodius, even after his brother, had to fight the Padvislian prince, who stubbornly adhered to paganism, and Svyatopolk fought with the filthy, with the pagans. According to Moravian legend, Cyril baptized the Moravian prince. Hilandar’s biography of the Kotel: “Honor to him (Kirill) having created and loved Slavic books.” “To Pan. In the life of Cyril it is also said that Kotel himself began to study the Slavs. in writing and gave Cyril 50 students. "Italian Legend": "Manserunt ergo in Moravia per annos quatuor et diimdium." According to Pan. According to the life of Cyril, the preachers stayed in Moravia for 40 months, or as it is said in the life of Methodius, three years, and then went to Pannonia to Prince. Kotelu. So 4.5 years were spent in general among the Moravian-Pannonian Slavs. History of the Primitive Church among the Slavs, p. 48. Legend of Ludmila, Moravian Legend of St. Kirill, - in Pogodin pp. 53,15,16. Dobrovsky, and after him Neander and Gieseler, say that the Legends transferred the situation that existed under St. John to the reign of Nicholas. But a) such an opinion had to be confirmed by something; b) P. John in 879 wrote to Tuventar (Zhupan) of Moravia: “Audivimus Methodius vester Archiepiscopus, ab antecessore nostro, Adriano scilicet Papa, ordinatus vobisquc dileclus, aliter doceal, quam eorum sede Apostolica se credere verbis et littteris professus est.” In Dobrov., p. 70. And Adrian Methodius was with Cyril; c) according to Pan. Life of Cyril “Roman Pope of the Ambassador for him; "according to Pan. in the life of Methodius - too, “an ambassador for him.” True, they do not say, as the Moravian Legend says, that “The Apostles and other rulers of the church condemned St. Cyril.” But even in the Pan. Life of Methodius, the preachers maintain a dispute in Rome in defense of the Slavic services. Adrian in his letter directly writes about the desecrators of the glorious service; d) the confession of St. Clement by its content clearly shows that it was presented on the occasion of some complaints, and the German clergy had one complaint - a complaint about the glorious service and the confession of the Holy Spirit (see pr. 20, 18) d). even the “Italian Legend,” which Dobrovsky considered to be the only source for the first part of the Moravian legend, but without foundation (see pp. 8, 9), says about Nicholas: “mandavit et invilavit ad se venire.” And could a pope like Nicholas act differently than what the two Legends say? f) On the justification of glory. services by P. Adrian and Nestor by Laurus. and Koenigsb. list About the struggle of the pope and his clergy with the German emperor and clergy for Moravia and Pannonia, see Maciejewski, pp. 38–40. Pann. the lives of Cyril and Methodius; biography of Clement, Nestor, Prologue about Methodius. That P. Adrian, in the matter of the Slavic preachers, was most occupied with worries, lest he should lose Moravia and Pannonia from his hands and take Bulgaria into his hands, he himself expresses this in his message to the Slavic princes. He writes that it was as if the princes “asked for a teacher at the Roman holy table before they asked the pious c. Michael,” and that it was as if Cyril and Methodius were sent from Constantinople only because “we did not (send) with armor; “he rejoices” that Cyril and Methodius turned not to Constantinople, but to Rome, and did not omit to say, “your countries are worthy of the Apostolic Table.” Letter from the Pope in the Pannonian Life of Methodius. The Hilandar Life says that St. Cyril died in Rome in 868 February. 14th day, being 42 years old. But the year is more accurately shown in the Pannonian Life - 869. After the 14th of December. Cyril’s illness alone lasted 50 days, as the Legend and Pan speak about. hagiography Therefore, February 14th. 868 could not have been the day of Kirill’s death. And in ancient Latin and Greek monuments, in the Ostromir Gospel, in the Asseman Gospel of the 11th century, in the Prologues (Dobrovsky 54, 57, 58. Kalaid. 90. Kopitar-Hesychius p. 41), the memory of St. Kirill is due on February 14th. *The name of Methodius is included among the priests of the Salavar Abbey in the chronicle of this abbey, and precisely after Richbald, mentioned in the German’s complaint. See about this, as well as about the place of Moosburg, Kolar (Moskvit. 1844. No. 3.). Pan. life Methodius, German: de conversion Boioariorum et Carantanorum at Dobrovsk. pp.65,68. Mahrishe Legende S.57. On political revolutions, see Maciejewski, pp. 51–53. Letters from the Pope in Dobrovsky, pp. 68,69. To Carloman: “reddito et restitulo nobis Pannoniensium Episcopatu liceat praedicto fratri nostro Methodio, qui illic a sede Apostolica ordinatus est, secundum priscum consvetudinem libere, quae sunt Episcopi, gerere.” Pann. life of Methodius. The Pope wrote to Methodius in 879: “By this letter of our Apostleship we demand that you leave everything and try to come to us now.” (Mansi T. XVII). In 880, the pope wrote to Svyatopolk: “We asked before our brothers: does he (Methodius) accept the Symbol of the Orthodox Faith in the same way and sings it during the liturgy in the same way as the Holy Roman Church and as promulgated and transmitted by six Ecumenical Councils.” And further he says: “We found him Orthodox in all church teaching.” These words clearly show that John agreed with St. Methodius regarding this dogma. It also speaks about the subject of the denunciation of Pannon. biographer Methodius, who writes that Methodius was persecuted by those who suffered from the Jopator heresy, that is, the doctrine of the origin of the Holy Spirit from the Son and Father. The same is shown by the complaint of the German Richbald, the biography of Clement and the Prologue of the 13th century. (note 22). From the work of St. Photius we undoubtedly know that St. John at the council of 879 “no other than the Orthodox Church and its predecessors, the high priests, having accepted the creed, and with the thoughts and sacred hands of the pious legates (Paul, Eugene and Peter), signed and sealed it.” (Rkp. “The Book of the Holy Spirit to Bishop Bede,” extract from Mayo Coll. vet. aucf. T. S. Praef. p. 23–28). If the pope himself agreed with Methodius and Photius in the dogma of the Holy Spirit, then, without a doubt, it was not this point that made him contradict himself about glory. service and call Methodius to Rome. The reason is an illness from which John was not free. The pope, in a letter ad Tuventarum or, according to another list, Zvuentapu de Woravna, that is, to the zupan of Moravna, a city lying on the edge of Pannonia, too clearly expressed his fear that the zupan, with the adoption of Greek rites, would leave the pope. Epist. 194. That is why, when Methodius personally explained himself to John, the Germans began to disturb Methodius with rumors that Constantinople was angry with him. P. John was not averse to that system in order to keep minds in slavish obedience to the pope through the unity of the Latin rite. Both he and Adrian firmly held that Latin should be mixed into the Slavic service. But the Germans went much further: with open impudence they sought power over the Slavs through the Latin service. While they allowed German preaching for the Germans and translated some of the Bible into German, for the Slavs they stubbornly demanded a Latin service, although they themselves did not understand it well. "Pan. life of Methodius; n. John Er. 247 ad Sventopulcum an. 880 (pr. 20). Here the pope writes: “We also ordained even a presbyter named Vihinga, whom you sent as elected bishop of the Nitra church; we command that he obey his archbishop in everything, as the saints demand. canons." This insidious German had barely returned from Rome when he began to act to the detriment of St. Methodius, referring to the secret commission of the pope. The Pope wrote to Methodius in 881: “neither openly nor secretly did we instruct him to do anything other than what we determined for you to do.” Epist. 268. Through the labors of Methodius, a pulpit was prepared for the treacherous German, since until that time there were many pagans near Nitra. Theotmir of Salzburg wrote in 900 “Wichingum consecravit in quandam neophytam gentem, quam ipse dux (Svyatopolk) domuit bello et ex paganis christianos esse patravi.” His biographer speaks about Methodius’s labors to educate the pagans. After the convictions of St. Methodius sent to tell the prince of Visla: “It would be good for you to baptize your son, by your will, on your own land, so that you are not captured, but you will be baptized on a foreign land, and remember me. It’ll be quick,” adds the sir. biographer. Dobrovsky (p. 78) considers the news of Lyudmila’s Legend about the seven vicars of Methodius as a consequence of “an ignorant confusion of times” Hardly so! In addition to Viching, the pope promises to consecrate another bishop and mentions bishops subordinate to Methodius (Er. 190, 247). According to the biography of Clement, the teachers of the presbyters are Gorazd, Clement, Naum, Lavrentiy, Angelyar (pr. 25). At the Council of Constantinople in 879 there was Agathon, Archbishop of Moravia. The field where St. worked. Methodius, it was too extensive: now there are up to 20 biskupi on it. Biographer of Clement: “The Franks (elsewhere, the Germans) through their insidious machinations made Svyatopolk a follower of their teaching: corrupted by them, who allowed him everything, Svyatopolk did not pay attention to the words of Methodius, and acted with them as an enemy.” It is directly stated here that the Germans instilled in Svyatopolk their teaching about the procession of the Holy Spirit and from the Son. The news of the Legends and the Prologue of the 13th century fully agree with this news about the situation of Snyatopolk. Who would have thought that in the 19th century. can one be so carried away by devotion to Rome and Latin as to write about the Slavic service: “in present-day Moravia, the Czech Republic and Poland it has never been in force (viguisse)?” And this is written by the scientist Kopitar and claims that the Slavic service existed only in Pannonia and, moreover, for a very short time, precisely from 870 to 895 (Kopitar Hesychius glossographus p. 54, 49 - 57). What does the testimony of Methodius’s contemporaries mean after this? Or is it just as possible to be a pilatnik now, as under Methodius? We do not want to claim that Maciejewski is right in everything. Kopitar is right in his particular comments about Maciejewski (Hesychius p. 56 – 58). But Kopitar has gone too far, so that he becomes ridiculous (pp. 38 – 54). Regarding Dalmatia, Diokleets: “missam eis (Methodius) ordinans more Graecorum.” Schwadn. 3, 480. Its bishops, Jezersky and Dragovitsky, were present in 877 and 879 at the Councils in favor of P. Photius. At the same time, her princes, Zdislav and Bronimir, refused the power of the pope. Mahrische Legende S. 59, 60. About the events after the death of Methodius approx. 26. About the Czech Republic Kozma in Dobrovsky 80, in Mencken: Script, rer. German. T.I.r. 1967. Vostokova Description. Music 778. Czech Legend of the 10th century. about St. Vyacheslav: “Vda and (Vyacheslav’s) woman Lyudmila (baptized by the priests of Methodius, says Kozma) teach the Slovenian books following the priest’s footsteps,” (Journal of Min. Nar. Prosv. 1839). In 967, the pope, establishing the Latin See in Prague (Czech), decreed that the divine service should be performed “not according to the rites of the Bulgarian or Russian people, or the Slavic language, but according to the statutes of the Roman Church (Cosma).” Dobrovsky believes that Borivoi was baptized between 870 and 880. About the subsequent approx. 26. O. Poland, where Prince. Mieczyslaw was converted by the Czech-Moravian disciples of Methodius, Dietmar Chronicon lib. 4. 359 (Scrip, rer. Brunsv. T. 1), Martin Gall Chronicon lib. 1. p. 5. (ed. Bandtke, Yarsav. 1824). But even under Zimovit, Mieczyslaw’s grandfather, there were Christians in Poland. According to the biographer Methodius, Methodius exhorted the Trans-Vistula prince to accept Christianity, and he accepted (pr. 21). See about the Polish church in Zhurn. Min. Enlightenment 1842. Friese Kirchengesch. Polens. Breslau 1786. However, in Poland approx. 1010 The Latin Service took power (Dietmar lib. 6. T. 1. R. 397). All doubts about the time of death of St. Methodius allows Pannon. Life of St. Methodius. On Palm Sunday, Methodius for the last time, already sick, talked with his flock and then said: “Take care of me, children, until the third day,” and on the morning of the third day, April 6, 885, he died. So says the biographer. Easter 885 was April 11, Palm Sunday April 4. Next, third day after April 4th. was 6 Apr. 885 Clement's biographer speaks of 24 years of Methodius's archbishopric; This is a slip of the tongue; it should have been said that Methodius worked with the Slavs for only 24 years. The abbot of Rajhrad reported in 1062 that Methodius consecrated the Bernen church on June 2, 884 (Kopitar, Glagolita § 36). In the Ostromir and Asseman Gospels of the 11th century. memory of St. Methodius April 6; the same in the Prologue of the 13th century and the Apostle of the 14th century. But in the late May 11th. Biographer of Clement: “there were up to 200 occupants of church positions, including teachers Gorazd, a natural Moravian, skilled in both languages, Slavic and Greek, the eloquent Clement, Lawrence, Naum and Angelar.” The Pope writes: “We command the presbyters, deacons, and other clergy, of whatever rank, whether they are Slavs or any other tribe, who are in that region to be subordinate and obedient in everything to our mentioned Brother. To our Archbishop." Er. 247, ad Sventopulcum an. 880, ff. Er. 190, 194. In Dalmatia, a council in 925 prohibited Slavic service. The Council of 1059 declared “in the future, no one should dare to perform mysteries against the Slavs. language, but only in Latin and Greek; none of the people of that language (Slavic) should be elevated to sacred degrees.” To justify this, they said that “gothic letters were invented by a certain heretic Methodius, who wrote a lot in the same Slavic language (in eadem Slavonica) against the rule of the catholic faith” of the Slavs. The priests, for whom the churches were closed, brought a complaint to P. Alexander. He answered: “for the sake of the Arians, the inventors of this writing, I cannot allow a service in their language.” (Thomae archid. Spalat. + 268 hist. Salonit. Episc.). Why did they call Methodius and the Dalmatian Slavs Arians? From the same point as back in the 9th century. The Slavic enlighteners were called Arians, that is, for the dogma about the origin of the Holy Spirit. However, in the Metropolis of Dioclea, due to its proximity to the Greek Church, the papists for a long time could not overcome the Slavs. The same P. Alexander (Epist. 4 ad Petrum Dalmatiae et Slavoniae Archiep.) wrote in 1062: “take care of the monasteries of both the Latins and the Greeks or Slavs: you know that this is one Church.” The Moravian kingdom has been divided since 904 between the Ugrians and Czechs. The first were pagans until 982, then the papists. In the Salavarian Pannonian church cor. Stephen, Voic, in 1019, introduced the "Latin abbot". However, the Slavs still dominated for a long time under the Ugrians. See Travel of Kolar, in Moskvityanin, 1844 No. 3. Looking at the bull of John XIII (note 23) of the Czech Republic Pr. Procopius, ca. 1035, founded the Slavan Sazavsky monastery; in 1052 they managed to slander before Prince Spitignev that Slavic writing “introduces heresy,” and therefore they introduced Latin monks. Cor. Vratislav, 1063, sought the freedom of the Slavs. worship. Proud Gregory VII wrote in 1050: “Your Highness asked that you perform a service for the Slavs. language; we cannot in any way be favorable to your request.... By the authority of the bl. We command Peter that what you foolishly seek does not happen.” Mansi T. 20. b. 296. In 1092 Slavs. the monks and the service were expelled from Sazava. However, the Slavs. Even after that, the service found shelter in places. Cosmae cbron. ]ib. I. in Mencenii Script, rer German. T. 3. p. 1382; more details Maciejewski. P. John, a contemporary of Photius and Methodius, in a letter of 880, calls Constantine the inventor of Slavic writing: “litteras Slavonicas a Constantino quodam philosopho repertas, quibus Deo laudes debite resonent, jure laudamus.” Epist. 247 ad Stentopulcum comitem. Moreover, if it is necessary to read a Constantino quodam from the pope, then this is not surprising in the mouth of the pope, who is not free from the infirmities of the pope. Other evidence from Dobrov, pp. 27 – 36. Read. G. Shevyreva. Concilium Toletanum 3 are. Mans. T. 9. r. 981. Alcuin Epist. 75 ad fratres Lugdunenses. Hispanici erroris sectas tota vobis cavete intentione et Symbolo catholicae fidei nova nolite inserere. Alcuin then wrote Libbelum de procession Spiritus S. (Op. T. I. ed Froben). Here he, in proof of the origin of the Holy Spirit from the Son, pointed to the words: for all power came from Him and healed. What exegesis! In all likelihood, Alcuin was summoned to this essay by a letter from Elipandus. He signed his letter like this: “To the most venerable brother, Deacon Alcuin, a servant not of Christ, but a disciple of the vile Antiphrasius Beatus, born within Austria during the time of the glorious prince, the new Arius, an opponent of the teachings of St. Fathers Ambrose, Augustine, Isidore, Jerome, - if he turns from his error, salvation is in the Lord, but if he does not want, there is eternal damnation "(Elipandi lib. Ad Alcuinum an. 899) Walafrid Strabo: "Apud Gallos post dejectionem Felicis haeretici sub gloriossisimo Carolo Francorum rectore damnati, idem Symbolum latius et crebrius in missarum coepit officiis iterari." Charles wrote to St. Leo: “Quastio de Spiritus S. processione est nuper exorta,” and asked that it be allowed to sing the Symbol with the addition of Filioque. The Pope condemned the addition to the Symbol. This was in 809 (See Abbot Smagard's protocol of the Council of Aach 809. Harduini Concil. T. 4. f. 970. Ado Viener. Chronic. Ad an 809. Aimonii lib. 4. De gestis Francorum. cap. 97). Anastasius also writes about Pope Leo: “Hic vero pro amore et cautela orthodoxae fidei fecit in basilica S, Petri scula argentea duo, scripta utraque Symbolo, unum quidem litteras Graecis, et aliud Latinis.” P. Photius wrote more and more accurately in his letter to the Archbishop of Aquileia and in his book on the Holy Spirit to Bishop Bede. At the insistence of Charles, the teaching of Elipandus was condemned at the Council of Frankfurt in 794 and at Aachen in 799. Acta Concil. Francof. ar. Mans. T. 13. p. 863 f. Cone. Aqnisgran. p. 1035 s. News about apocryphal books from Kalaidovich, pp. 109. 209. Extracts placed in chronographs. ed. Pogodin: Cyril and Methodius, pp. 110–115. The contents of the same conversation, placed in a pannon. zhzneop. moved to Chetii-Minei. The sayings of Cyril the Philosopher are already cited by Cyril of Turov. (Memorial of the 12th century, p. 32) In the RCP. Rumyantsev read the sayings of Konstantin the Philosopher, Kirill the Philosopher, Kirill Slovensky (Description of Music. 230. 238. 240.627. 731). Preface by the Exarch to the book: Heaven, among the Kalaids. p. 129. “Italian Legend” (about Cyril) talks about Cyril’s translation of the Gospel; also a Diocleian. Pan. Kirill's biographer also says that when St. the brothers arrived in Rome, then “let us accept the Slovenian book, consecrate it and put it in the Church of St. Mary... walking with them (with books) Liturgy... in the Church of St. Peter in the Slovenian language.” According to the Methodius biographer, the pope “placed the Holy Gospel (Slavic) on the altars of St. Apostle Peter." Finally, according to Kirill’s biographer, “with the great pagan teacher, Paul the Apostle, in the Church from the night writing the Holy Slovenian Liturgy over the Holy Sepulchre” Czech-Moravian Legend. about Cyril and Methodius he says that the pope (Adrian) “was amazed at how the priests of God, Cyril and Methodius, dared to establish the singing of the canonical hours (i.e., the daily service) for the Slavs. language." The legend of Lyudmila informs that Cyril, in addition to the readings from the New Testament, “plura alia, missas caeterasque horas canonicas resonare publica voce in Ecclesia statnit.” The German Richbald, as soon as Methodius appeared in Pannonia, raised a complaint that Methodius, “inventis Slaveis litteris vilescere fecit, cuncto populo ex parte missas et Evangelia Ecclesiasticumque officium, qui hoc latine celebraverunt.” De convers. Boioariorum. The letter of Pope John in 879 to Methodius shows the same thing. Ordination to the priesthood, marriage and baptism are mentioned in the Pannonian biography of Methodius. “From that same day, the great people should begin to grow the teaching of God and the swifts to multiply in all cities, and the trash to believe in the true God.” “It would be good for you to baptize yourself, son, according to your will.” Regarding marriages, Methodius found many abuses among the Slavs and corrected them. The same biographer says that “Latin, Greek and Slovenian” services were performed over the deceased Methodius. P. Adrian wrote to the Moravian princes about St. Methodius: “Let you teach as you naturally asked, speaking in a book in your tongue, to fulfill all the Church rites, and with the Holy Moss, including with service and baptism.” The late Slavic Octoechos contains the stichera of the imp. Leo (886–911), exapostillaria imp. Constantine (10th century), canons of M. Mitrofan, the enemy of Fotiev, daytime services of Theophanes and Joseph. The latter, introduced into glory. Octoechos are not part of the Greek Octoechos, but are part of Paracliticus. The current Slavic Trebnik, as well as the Greek, already contains the works of P. Callistus and Philotheus (XIV century). Arseny's canon for the blessing of oil, although it was not written in the 11th century, as, on the contrary, Fr. Macarius (Christ. Read. 1845. Part 3, p. 273), however, he belongs to Arseny, Bishop of Corfu, a friend of P. Photius, and under Methodius he was hardly in the rite of the Blessing of Anointing of Constantinople. Writer Review. Theologian books, and after him O. Macarius, are even convinced that the Following Psalter was compiled by Methodius. In vain! Even among the later Slavic manuscripts, it is impossible to point out a single Collection that would be in every way similar to the printed Followed Psalter. Almost everyone contributed whatever they wanted to this collection. The Jews counted 22 books in their canon; but the teachers of the church, having separated the 12 lesser prophets for a special account, believed 33. Thus, in the article of the Izbornik, extracted from the work of Gregory the Theologian, the number of canonical books extends to 60, and it is the 12 lesser Prophets that make up not one book, but twelve separate ones. After the 18th book. Ezra follows: 19 Hosea, 20 Amos, 21 Micah, etc. (Kalaidovich about the exarch, p. 136). Antiochus (at the beginning of the 7th century) in the preface to the Pandect says: “We, in our understanding, understand by queens (Song of Pes. 6, 7) the canonical books, that is, the sixty bequeathed in the Old and New Testaments.” Philip the Hermit in his Dioptra (1095) wrote: “With them (the Holy Spirit) these and those (Apostles and Prophets) wise wrote a total of 60 books, 33 books of the Old and 27 of the New Testament.” At the same time, we must firmly remember that a) did the Fathers, following the example of the Jews, count the 22 books of the Eastern Testament (like Cyril of the Council of Laodice in the book of 60, Athanasius in the Passover last), or, separating some books in the Jewish count, counted 27 (like Epiphanius in the book of the scales and Damascene in the book of about faith), apocryphal books were never included in this regard; the count was not the same, but always the same books - canonical books, but apocryphal books were not counted; b) The Fathers of the Church strictly forbade including into the canon such books as the Son of Sirach, the Wisdom of Solomon, etc. “Even if they are good, they are not counted with them, but they are found in the ark,” says Damascene (Says this for Father Macarius: Christ. Read. 1845, 3. pp. 300–303). Prologue: “come to the lands of the Moravians (Methodius), transpose all 60 books of the Old and New Testaments from Greek to Slovenian.” Pannon. biographer of Methodius: “from your disciples, plant two priests, cursive writers, put all the books in a greyhound, except Maccabees, from the Greek language to Slovensk, the sixth month, beginning from the month of March until the two-decade and six days of the month of October. Having passed away, he will give worthy praise and glory to God, who gives such grace and haste, and he offered a secret holy offering with his choir, create the memory of Saint Demetrius.” Nestor literally repeats the words of the Pannonian biographer with the exception of two remarks; a) that the Maccabees books were not translated along with the others; b) the translation was completed by the day of Dmitry of Thessalonica, which was remarkable for Methodius, a native of Thessalonica. Previously they doubted whether Nestor’s word meant: transpose - rewrite. But the Pannonian biographer has no such meaning: he uses the same word in the sense of translation several times. About the Novgorod Pentateuch of 1136, about the Psalter of the 11th century. see Kalaidovich about the exarch, p. 97. In the bibliography. M.D. Academy's list of 16 prophetic books with interpretation, and in some places without interpretation, copied in 1490 from the list written under Prince Izyaslav; another list in the library. Sergius Lavra with the afterword: “in the summer of 6927–1490 the book was written in Kirilovitsa - by the permission of Abbot Joseph in the monastery of the Assumption.” In the same monastery, Bible. in perg. hands the book of Joshua, Judges, Ruth and then a short calendar... “from Volodymyr to Vsevolod Guryevich 200 years;” next, the chronology ends in 1193 and, next, the existence of a translation of the mentioned canons must be attributed to the same time. books. Kirill of Turov cited passages from Hosea 6, 23. Zeph. 3.8. Isaiah 66, 18–20, 7, 14, 50, 5, 6. 53, 1–11. Zech. 9, 11. Ref. 23,15,13. 13. Deut. 18,15,32, 28,28, 66. Kings. 2, 30. Jer. 12, 10, etc. Nestor cites Proverbs and Psalms, passages from all the Prophetic books, from the Pentateuch of Moses, from Job, from the New Testament. (Collected years. I. pp. 27, 34, 35, 42, 43, 51, 55, 58, 72, 73, 95). Polycarp says about the recluse Nikita, who lived under Abbot Nikon (from 1078): “no one can compete with him with the books of the Old Testament: he knew everything from his mouth - Genesis, Exodus, Levites, Numbers, Judges, Kingdoms and all the Prophecies in order and all the books of the Jews.” (Rkp. Pater.). As for the apocryphal books of the V. Testament, then: a) they are also translated from the Vulgate in the Joachim copy of the Bible (1538); Even Prince Ostrozhsky did not find the Third Book of Maccabees on the Slavs in his time. language and the books of Tobit, Judea and the 3rd book. Ezra was translated from the Vulgate; b) pann. the biographer directly says that it is apocryphal. The Maccabean books were not translated and, having spoken about one, he also makes it clear about the others; c) o. Macarius (Christ. Read. 1845, 3, pp. 297–306) struggles with all his might to prove that Methodius also translated the Apocrypha. Oleum perdidit et laborem! He says that Nestor cited passages from the Wisdom of Solomon and the son of Sirach (p. 292). This is completely untrue! If any of our ancient writers had found some passages from apocryphal books, then these would have been references to the Parameinik, and nothing more. Let us also note that the Izbornik Svyatoslavov should not be cited in the present case, as Fr. Macarius, because this is not a Russian work, but a translation of Greek. essays." About the account of books translated by St. Methodius, approx. 43. In Ducange's dictionary: Σκλαβόνια η Βουλγαρία. Glossarium med. liugu. 2, 1392. Abulfaraj calls Simeon the prince of the Bulgarians and Slavs. Histor. dynast, p. 161. Chronic. Syriac, p. 178. Much is said in Greek about the Slavs who surrounded Solun at least from the 6th century, if not earlier. descriptions of the miracles of St. Dimitri. Vila S. Clementis. Viennae. 1808. Words by Gregory Naz., preserved in the RKP. XI century, and Theodoret’s interpretation of the psalms, which in terms of language is recognized as a contemporary translation of Gregory’s words, cannot belong to the XI century,” and therefore already in the XI century. Bulgaria had no time for translating books. Synod. RKP. No. 262. “The prologue about Christ is based on the story of the Holy Gospel, created by Constantine, and he also translated the same story from the Gospel.” The poems that follow are the same ones that were published by Mr. Pogodin during the composition of Dobrovsky; only here there are extra ones, but characteristic ones. “We will perceive the power of hexacrylate, I am now following in the footsteps of the teacher, Following her name and deeds,” and so on. Constantine says that he began his work at the request of Nahum and others; this Nahum, of course, was his fellow student under Cyril and Methodius (pr. 21, 25, 48). The conversations are followed by: a) a brief explanation of church actions and things (namely St. Herman P.); b) a brief chronology, where at the end: “all the years from the crucifixion of Christ to the present Leo the King are nine hundred and eighteen. All these circumstances of Constantine, with the identity of the writings of Constantine and Clement, represent more than probable the idea that Constantine is one and the same person with St. Clement, about whom the Greek biography speaks. Constantine could take the name Clement in monasticism, following the example of St. his teacher, and just as he, although right before his death, received the name Cyril instead of Constantine, is better known from monuments with the name Cyril, so is his student. In the Asseman Gospel of the 11th century, on July 27, the memory of “Our Holy Hierarch Clement, Bishop of Velichsk (Kopitar Hesychius p. 42.)” was commemorated. In addition and confirmation of Kalaidovich’s research, we note: in his Shestodayev, the exarch writes that a) the Bulgarians are ruled by their own princes, and not kings, and that their princes, just like the Khazars, are inherited by son to father, brother to brother, according to ancient custom (Sl. 5). And Boris’s family was deprived of inheritance rights under Boris’s great-grandson, at the end of the 10th century. b) he represents the court of the Bulgarian prince in such a magnificent form, in which it was only under the prince. Simeon, son of Boris (Homilies 3 and 6); c) makes it clear that in his time there were still many pagans among the Slavic tribes “Yes, all the bruises and defilements of Minichen and all the abominations of Slovene, and all the pagans of evil faith (4 Word) disgrace us.” The Sixth Day of John contains three interpretations: by Severian of Geval, the unknown and Basil, and in the part of it that does not belong to either Severian or Basil, there are both the mentioned remarks about the Bulgarians, and also philological remarks about the attitude of the Slavs. language to Greek (see Kalaid. p. 154), and this shows that this part belongs to John himself. Thus, the very content of Shestodnev shows that the translator and author of Shestodnev lived under Prince Simeon. The fact that John the Exarch had assistants in translating Greek. works, says the afterword of Athanasius’s biography. Anthony: “I didn’t dare to do this, it’s a great thing, but the Bulgarian lands were forced from the builder of the church John. “Not exactly the life of Anthony the great was commanded to be translated, but also of Peter’s wonderful disciple, Pankratius, as if he had not been translated by anyone before us.” This afterword also shows the importance of the exarch; John was the representative of the patriarch to resolve church doubts, maintain the order outlined by the rules, and especially protect the Bulgarian church from the violence of papal lust for power and self-will.