INrnRNanroNAL ScrnNrrr.rc CoNr.rnnucn Cynr MErHoDrus: ByzeNuuM AND AND THE SIONLO OF THE SLAVS TnEssaroNrrr 2015 MO}2EIO nomMoY z:G, dffiHrh $ffisu -qailIyz MUSIiUM OFSHI}NE KF]NTPO MEALI'H: NOAIIIITIKI]: KAI{PONOMIA: KYPIAAOY KAI MHOOAlOY 1 cYRII-'\r"l)\'rt:ilr{)t)iliS: llYZ:\N}'tL\'i,\NDilrir\{,oRl t)of tiilrSt_r\\S(.IIilrssAt_oNfKt -..\J15,:t\) iu :t,t TrrE CrruRcH rN SEnnra AT THE Trun oF CYRILo . MprrroDIAN MrssroN IN MoRAVIA* Predrag Komatina, phD, Research As.sociate Institute Jbr Byzantine studies of the serbian Acaclemy of sciences arur Arts Belgrade, Serbia he two accounts of Porphyrogenitus on the christianization of the Serbs. As il is well known, there are conflicting data in the sources about the Christianization of the Serbs. The very same author and the principal source for that question, the VII Porphyrogenitus (913 959), gives two different accounts on how Emperor Constantine were baptized. One account states they were baptized at the time of the Emperor Heraclius (6 I 0-64 I ) by the priests that the Emperor brought from Rome,r another the Serbs states that they were baptized at the time of the Emperor Basil I (s67-886) by the priests that he sent from Constantinople.2 * This articlc is part of the project "Tratlition, innovation and identity in the Byzantine rvorld,, (no. 17./032). supported by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological development of the Republic of Serbia. I Constantine Porph,-rogenitus, De uclm.inistrarulo imperio I, edd. Gy. Moravcsik, R. J. H. Jenkins, Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzanrinae (CFHB) I , Washington I 967r, $ 32.21_29. 2 De adtninistrttndo imperb I, $ 29.-54-84; Chronogruphiae quae Theophanis Contintuti nomine fertur liber quo vita Basilii Imperutoris arnplectitttr, ed. I. Sevdenko, CFHB 42, Bcrolini 2011, $ 54.1_35. On Porphyrogenitus' acounts on the Christianization of the Serbs and Croats, *ith l-el"uant bibliography, cf' P Komatina, Crkvena potitika Viz.antiie od kraja iktnoborstva clo smrti cttra Vasili.jal, Beograd 2013, 261 285;T'Zivkovid,<OntheBaptismoftheSerbsandtheCroarsintheTimeofBasil Slavica et Balcanica Perropolitana l/13 (2013) 35_3S. I(867-8g9)>,Studia l)l{LI)R\l; KOVlArl\-A:flll,(llt.R('il1\stjlll}lAi\l lllfrTl\1|()t,tYRlL()-\'{tr'Tll{)t)t\Nt\,ilSSI()Nt\''t\,t{)R.\\1,\ The time of the conversion of the Serbs according to the second account is the time of the Cyrillo-Methodian mission in Moravia. But, my oppinion is that there was no mission sent by the Emperor Basil I to convert the Serbs. The whole story on that, which is to be found in the 29'h chapter of the De administrqndo imperio and the 54th chapter of the Wta Basilii, Porphyrogenitus based on the story he found in the Tactica of his father Leo VI (886 912), that Basil I graecized and baptized the Slavs.3 Porphyrogenitus misunderstood and misinterpreted the story, for it dealt with the Slavs of Greece, and used it in the context of the Serbs and Croats.a On the other hand, there are traces that suggest a strong influence of the Church of Rome among the Serbs in the earliest times of their history as Christians. These traces are reflected primarily in the Latin origin of some of the most important terms of Christian terminology in the Serbian language, in Latin architectural features of the oldest known Serbian churches, well as in toponymy.s We should also add something that has not been noted in historiography so far - there are remains of some of the Latin holidays in the Serbian folk calendar, as such as Vidovdan - St. Vitus'Day (June l5), Miholjdan - Michaelmas (September 29) and Mratinjdan St. Martin's Day (November 1 I ), which the Serbian Orthodox church doesn't celebrate today, and which in the Middle Ages were not part of the liturgical practices of the Byzantine church.6 3 The Taktika oJ Leo VI, ed. C. T. Dennis, CFHB 49, Washingron 2010,19.453457. Komatina, Crkverut politika, 283-285. 5 K. Jiredek, J. Radonii, Istorija Srba I, Beograd 1952,98; K. Jiredek, Romani u grudovima Dalmacije, Zbomik Konstantina Jiredeka II, Beograd 1962,4l; F. Dvornik, Byzantine Missions among the S/avs.,SS Constantine-Cyril and Methodizs, New Jersey 1970, 31-39; J. Kali6, <Crkvene prilike u srpskim zemljama do stvaranja arhiepiskopije 1219.>, Evropa i Srbi. Srednji vek, Beograd 2006, ll4-ll5; Istorija srpskog naroda I, Beograd l98l , 152 (S. Cirkovii); A. Loma, <Sutelica toponomasridki tragovi latinskog hri5ianstva u unutralnjosti prednemanjiike Srbije>, Istorijski glasnik l-2 (1987) 7-28; Iclem, <Rani slojevi hriiianskih toponima na staroslpskom tlu>, Onomatoloiki prilozi ll (1990) I-18; Idem, <podunavska prapostojbina Slovena: legenda ili istorijska realnost>>, JuZnoslovenski filolog 49 (1993) lB':,-220; Lj. Maksimovii, <Pokritavanje Srba i Hrvata>, Zbomik radova Vizantololkog instituta 35 (1996) 163; T. Zivkovi(, Crkvena organiz.acijtt u srpskint T.eml.jama (rani srednji ueft), Beograd 2004, l3l-l3g; N. Gilbetii, <Early Liturgical History of the Serbs>, Bollettino della Badia Greca di Grottaferrata, III serie, i (2010) 87-101. 6 For those hol idays i n the Latin Martvrol ogia of the 9'h century, cf. S. Adonis archiepiscopi Viennensis Martyrologium cum additamenrls, Patrologia Latina I 23, 287,368-369,393; Itsuardi monachi Sangermanensis Manv*rologium I,PL 124, l5-5 156, -5 l7-5 18, 681-682; Le Martyrologe d'IJsuartl, ed. J. Dubois, Subsidia Hagiographica 40, Bruxelles 1965, 247 , 3 I I , 340; S. P. N. Notkeri, cognomento Batbuti, monachi Sancti Galli Martyrologium per anni t'in:ulum, PL l3l, ll54-1155. On the other hand, the Byzantine Synararia and Menologia of the time do not contain any of those memories on the said dates, cf. Synaxarium ecclesiae Constantinopolitanue, ed. H. Delehaye, Bruxellis 1902,81 .21 90. 19, 211.16 216.8, :,49.26-j52.ll: Menoktgium Basilii II, Patrologia Graeca I l'7,7'1 ,153.156, 500. The memory of St. Vitus is to be found only in Sicilian and South Italian recensions of Byzantine Synaxaria and Menologia, Synaxarium Cp,751.4243, cf. also LVII-LX; M. Markovi6, <Kult Svetog Vita (Vida) kod Srba u srednjem veku>, Zograf 3l (200G 2007) 38-39, the memory of St. Martin is linked to November l2rh, and not November l1th, SyntLrarium 4 a\itlt.ANI)\{trllJOl)l( jS: IIY;/ANlltl\1 ,\NI) lllf:\\ORi-l)ot- Itlt,Sl.AVS{tlttjSSALONIKt:015): pt 7n,1t8 Evidence from some contemporary sources also gives some information on the influence of the Roman Church among the Slavs on the Eastern side of the Adriatic from the 7th to 9th In a letter addressed to the Emperor Constantine IV (668-685) concerning the Council of 680/68 l, the Pope Agatho (678-68 I ) stated that many of (his) fellow servants (ie. the Bishops of the Roman Church) are in the middle of the barbarians -the Lombards and Slavs, as well as the Franks, Goths and Britons.l An episcopal notitia centuries. Sixth Ecumenical from the mid-8'h century a rare one that describes the territorial jurisdictions of all the five Patriarchates, counts the s/avs, along Arabs, Avars, Scythians, as with the Saxons, Gauls, Franks, Illyrians, Lombards, part of the territory under the jurisdiction of the Apostolic See of Greater Rome.8 the The papal letter in the of873. Yet the strongest evidence on the influence ofthe Roman Church early medieval Serbia could be found in a well known letter of Pope John Serbian Prince VIII to the Mutimir in 873. In that letter the Pope wrote the following: (l) Presbiteri illic absoluti et vagi ex omni loco adventantes quaedam ecclesiastica contra canones oficia peragunt, immo numerosa, cum sint ascephali, scelera contra Dei precepta committunt. (2) Quapropter ammonemus te, ut progenitorum tuorum secutus morem quantum potes ad Pannonensium reverti studeas diocesin. Et quia illic iam Deo gratias a sede beati Petri apostoli episcopus ordinatus est, ad ipsius pastoralem recunas sollicitudinem.e That is: The priests there loose and wandering, comingfrom all sides, occupy some church services against canons, certainly commit many wicked acts against God s rules, That is why can I warn you that you, following for being acephali. the customs of your ancestors, as much as you tty to get back to the Pannonian Diocese. And since there has just been ordained a bishop, thanks to God, by the See oJ'the Blessed Apostle Pete4 place yourself back under his pastoral care. CP,21'7 .30-218.28; MenoLogium Basilii 11, 156; Ch. Waller Warrior Saints in Byzantine Art antl Tradition, Ashgate 2003,200-206, while there is not any trace of commemorating St. Michael the Archangel on September 29'h. 7 S. Agathonis papae epistolae, Patrologia Latina 87, 1226 A; Maksimovii, <Pokritavanje>, l7l. Synecdemus et Notitiae Graecae episcopatuum, ed. G. Parthey, Amsterdam 1961,, no. 5.2-20, 8 Hieroclis esp. l. 13. 9 Johannis VIII papae eppistolae, ed. E. Caspar, Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Eppistolae VII, Eppistolae Karolini aevi V, Berolini 1928, 282.25-30. On the letter, cf. Komatina, Crkvena polirika,2'76-2'78, with relevant bibliography. The subject has been discussed in another paper recently, Zivkovi6, <On the Baptism', 44 46,bur with the results with wich I cannot asree. Pl{il)R\t; KOllr{l lN:\: l'ilil tliLR(tlI\SLRI}l;\,{l lllf fll\{l:OF(\'Ril-() \'lhIllODlANNllSSI0\INN,lolt,\\'1.\ of the acephall priests in the then Serbia testifies about good links that it had with other countries under the spiritual authority of the Roman Church at that time, The presence and its involvement in religious affairs of Westem Europe, as the acephali priests were well known and very widespread phenomenon throughout the Early Medieval Westem Europe.l0 Although at first glance it instigates such a notion, the presence of the acephali priests in the then Serbia does not mean at once that at that time there was no episcopal organization in the country. In Western Europe these acephali operated in the territory with the ancient and much developed episcopal organization. The mere presence of the acephctll in the then Serbia was not the main reason why the Pope addressed a letter to Mutimir. It was just an excuse to Pope to command the Serbian Prince to submit to the spiritual jurisdiction of the new Pannonian Bishop Methodius, presenting it as a necessary disciplinary measure, due to the presence of the acephali in the country their illegal occupation of church offices, and thus caused wicked acts against Godis rules. Pope's intention was primarily to expand the territory under the jurisdiction of the Bishop Methodius, as the bull of his predecessor Hadrian lI Gloria in excelsis Deo of 870 confined it to the territories ruled by the Prince of the Pannonian Slavs Kocelj and Moravian Princes Rastislav and Svetopluk. II Letter to the Serbian Prince Mutimir is one of the few letters that Pope sent to a of rulers and church dignitaries with the political and ecclesiastical influence in series Pannonia in May 873, in order to liberate Methodius from his two and a half years long captivity in Swabia and return him to his position as Bishop of Pannonia, to which he was ordained by Pope Hadrian in 870. Letters were sent to the East Frankish King Louis the German, then to his son, the Bavarian King Carloman and to the Southern German Bishops who had claims to spiritual authority over Pannonia and who deprived Methodius of his chair and held him captive - Adalwin of Salzburg, Hermeric of Passau and Anno of Freizing, as well Pannonian Prince Kocelj. as to the r2 At first glance, it is not clear how the Serbian Prince Mutimir fits into the whole picture and what is his place in the Pope's endeavor. The answer to this question lies within the lines of the Pope's letter addressed on the same occasion to Bishop Paul of Ancona, who was ap- pointed by the Pope as his legate in the entire case surrounding Metodius'release and return l0 ll Komatina, Crkvena politika, 219-280. Zywoty Konstantyntt i Metotlego (obsz.erne), ed. T. Lehr-splawiriski, Poznaii 1959, M VIII, 109. On the teffitory under the jurisdiction of bishop Methodius, cf. D. Bubalo, K. Mitrovii, R. Radii, Jurisdikcija Katolitke crkve tr Sremu, Beograd 2010, 32 35. 12 Johannis VIII epp.,280.18 286.36. ( )'Rll,\Ni) \Iir f lioD* iS:'\,.1.{\ t It \,1,\Nt) t i ti, \{v,,,F-r - ,...,,,,,. Oti-t rr(rr.jrl{:Si_r\\.S(.tHrrSSAI.oNIKlt0l-sj:r:1., ) OF I.'. SI_1 I i// i./,\ to the Diocese' and by whom he sent all the other above-mentioned letters, including that to Mutimir. In the paul, letter to the pope points out that the Apostolic See in the days of ord used to perform the consecrations, appointments and overthrows not onry in ltary ancr certain provinces of the west' but also within the overall bounrlaries of lllyricum.t3 These words reflect the pope's intention to extend the jurisdiction of Methodius, Episcopal See, which originally encompassed pannonia and Moravia, to the parls of llryricum, where Mutimir,s Serbia was located' The Pope's intention, which was only insinuated in the letter to paul, got its full expression in the letter to Mutimir, with an open command to place himself under the spiritual jurisdiction of the new Pannonian Bishop. The formal justification for this act the Pope found in historical reasons and because of that he remindsMutimir to return to the Pannonian Diocese and the pastoral care of its Bishop,./bilowing the custom oJ his ancestors. Namely, the ancient Syrmium, whose Episcopal See Methodius has been occupying at least formally, was, as the capital of the Roman province of pannonia Secunda and the Diocese of Pannonia in the 4'h century also a major ecclesiastical center of the whole of Illyricum, until it was divided in 380 with the separation of Eastern Illyricum, with rhessalonica then becoming its religious center'ra calling upon Mutimi r to returnto the spiritual power of the Pannonian Diocese, the pope had in mind this distant past, and referring to the custom of his ancestors, the pope did not think of Mutimir's biologicar ancestors, the previous serbian rulers' but in general of the people who in those days of old inhabited the area that in the 9,h century was within the borders of Mutimir,s Serbia. Strife for expanding thejurisdiction ofthe new pannonian Bishop to the parts oflllyricum in 873 had the very specific meaning' According to the decisions of the councir of constantinople in 870' the Roman church lost its jurisdiction over Burgaria and the patriarchate of constantinople then carried out the organization of the church in that country based on its ou'n principles'r5 Throughout his pontificate, between g72 andgg2, pope John vIII led an ac_ tive policy in order to restore his spiritual authority over Bulgaria.ro After losing Bulgaria in 870' Serbia became the easternmost area ofjurisdiction of the Roman church, and Methodi_ us'Pannonian Diocese was Rome's most important spiritual center in the area of central and Eastern Europe' Expanding Methodius'Diocese to Serbia could help the Roman church to largely regain influence in the area of the ancient Illyricum that it rost by reaving Bulgaria. From the letter of Pope John vIII to the Prince Mutimir in g73, it is clear that Serbia was 13 Johannis l4 l5 VIII epp.,2g4.tj_l l. Bubalo. JurisdiAciju, l4 _15,21_22. Komarina. Crkvenrt p,,titiko,236 _25L C1'. 'i,["T]i;f'tr;i:l;:t:;,,2f***W';r?:;-acv orthe Letter anctthe cross photios, I',itt:i)il(;KoNl?\TlN/\:Tlllr(lllrli(HlNsi-tRBIAAfttif f|\,il]oljCYRIt_o-lv[jltt(]DIANN,ilSSiONlNt\.1(Ju,A\/1.\ a Christian country where existed church services and offices, where the acephali priests operated, as well as across Western Europe at the time, a country with a long Christian tradition, in the eyes of the Pope even unbroken since the Roman times. How was it possible then that such a country be just simply placed under the jurisdiction of a newly created Diocese? Was not there any unit of church organization whose rights would have been violated bv this act? The Pope was absolutely silent about such a unit. It is important to emphasize that in this, as in other letters of May 873, Pope treated Methodius as the Pannonian Bishop, not as the Archbishop.rT The fact that the Pope calls Mutimir to be placed under thepas toral care of the Pannonian Bishop leads to the conclusion that in the Mutimir's Serbia of the time there was no local bishop. How much is this conclusion certain, as the country as just mentioned, was a christian one and involved in all religious streams of christian Europe? There were in Europe of the 9th century known examples of the existence and activity of the Christian church in a specific territory without any Bishop residing in it. One such case was Pannonia itself between 196 and the inauguration of Methodius in 870, during which time the Christian church operated in Pannonia under the spiritual authority of the Archbishop of Salzburg, which was the reason why Archbishop Adalwin and his suffragans, the Bavarian bishops, challenged the appointment of Methodius and kept him in captivity from g70 until 873, and thus entered into a conflict even with the pope.18 Obviously, the Pope intended to subdue Serbia to the Pannonian Bishopric of Methodius in the same way as the Principality of the Pannonian Slavs and Moravia, ignoring the possible rights of some other Diocese over it, as he ignored the rights the Archdiocese of Salzburg had over Pannonia. However, with Serbia, it was not that simple, and, in order to carry out his intention, the Pope had to find a formal reason in the unsettled conditions in its church caused by the presence of acephali priests and formaljustification in the ancient rights ofthe Pannonian Diocese for the primacy over Illyricum, in whose territory Mutimir's Serbia was situated. The outcome in the 870-ies. It is not known whether the Pope's intentions were realized, did the Serbian Prince act according to his will and command.and,returned to the pastoral care of the Pannonian Bishop. Methodius was in 873, thanks to Pope John VIII, restored to his episcopal position and his Episcopal See in Mosaburg on Lake Balaton, the capital of the prince Kocelj, but soon, most probably around 875, perhaps due to Kocelj,s death, he l7 I Komatina, Crkvena politika, 335 336, n. 514; Bubalo, Jurisdikcija,32 35. a, Crkv ena po litika, 335-337, with relevanr bibliography. 8 Cf. Komatin was (yRll-,\Nl) N4|l-ll()l)lllS: llYZAN flli\'{,\Ni)-fllir \ 1)Rl.l) forced OI: TIIii SI AVS {lllI::SSA{-ONlKl ?(}15}:74r. 71l 71'! to go further north to Moravia, where he was wannly received by Prince Svetopluk. Further activity of Methodius and his hard work in creating the Slavic Church would be linked to Moravia and its capital Vi5egrad, where Methodius resided until his death in 885.'e Based on the current knowledge about relationships between Methodius'activity in Pannonia Moravia between 873 and 885, and Serbia, it is not at all certain that Mutimir obeyed to and will and subjugated to the spiritual authority of the first Slavic Bishop. The development of the church conditions in Serbia took a completely different direction. In the second charter of the Emperor Basil lI (916 1 025) to the Archbishopric of Ochrid in Pope's the 1020, there was mentioned a Bishopric of Ras in Serbia as one of the Dioceses that belonged to the Bulgarian church during the time of Emperor Peter (927 969).20 Therefore, the reign of this Bulgarian Emperor is a terminus ante quem for the inclusion of the Diocese within the jurisdiction of the Bulgarian church.2r When the church part of Ras in Serbia could become of the Bulgarian church before the mid- 10'h century? Having regained jurisdiction over in 870 from the Roman Church, the Patriarchate of Constantinople established the church organization in Bulgaria according to its own principles. The territory of Bulgaria was divided into a number of Metropolitanates that were fully part of the Patriarchate, one of Bulgaria them being the Metropolitanate of Morava, in the valley of the Great Morava and Danube, in the westemmost pafi of the then Bulgarian state, on the border with Serbia.22 On the other hand, after gaining ecclesiastical authorily over Bulgaria in 870, the Byzantine state and ruling circles, led by Emperor Basil I, began to implement a policy of further territorial expansion of the jurisdictional area of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Thus, in the church decade between 870 and 880, within its borders were included, along with Bulgaria, the areas of the Khazars and the Russians and the island of Cyprus. Using his undisputed political in- fluence during that decade in Dalmatia and Croatia, Emperor Basil attempted to submit the church of those countries to the Patriarchate of Constantinople as well.23 This latter attempt, however, did not bring lasting results, as the Dalmatian and Croatian Bishops in 879 renewed l9 Cf. Komatina, Crkverut politika,338-344, with relevant bibliography. 20 H. Gelzer, <Ungedruckte und wenig bekannte Bistiimverzeichnisse der orientalischen Kirche II>, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 2 ( 1893) 44.1145.13. 2l I. Ravii, Crkva i driava u srpskim z.emljama od XI do XIII veka, Beograd 2013 (unpublished doctoral dissertation), 50. 22 Komatina, Crkvena politika,24l-251 . The Metropolitanate of Morava was at that time headed by Metropolitan Agathon, who was envoy of the Emperor Basil I to the court of Louis the German in 873, and took part in the Photius' Council of Constantinople in 879/880, P. Komatina, <Moravski episkop Agaton na Fotijevom saboru 879/880. g.>, Srpska teologija danas 2009. Prvi godi5nji simposion, Beograd 2010,363 367; Idem, C r kv e na p o l iti kn, 250-25 1 . 23 Komatina, Crkvena politikr-r, 303-319. Pitl:lllt'\(iKi)\1,\-ir\.\: ilti:(ilt;R(il1\stRllt,:,\t Illt:il\1i.{)ii('\RIi) \il: ilir.)t)t.,\N\{ts5l(}\li\\l()R.\\/t1 their allegiance to the Pope of Rome.2a It is really hard to believe that in the circumstances of absolute political and spiritual domination of the Byzantine Emperor Basil I in the entire Balkans in the period between 870 and 880, the Serbian Prince Mutimir, otherwise always under the undisputed political authority ofConstantinople, could escape the fate ofstronger binding to the Byzantine church. Is it not possible that it was then, that, by the decision of the Emperor Basil, the Church in Serbia was linked to the Church in Bulgaria, then within the Patriarchate of Constantinople, either by being annexed to the Metropolitanate of Morava as its westernmost ecclesiastical unit, or in some other way? Relationships between the Serbian prince Mutimir and the Bulgarian Prince Boris Michael were friendly at that time, so that political circumstances would not constitute an obstacle to such a step.2s When, after the Coun- cil of Constantinople in 880, the Church in Bulgaria became autocephalous in relation to the Patriarchate of Constantinople, the Church of the Principality of Serbia become a part of it, which it remained until 12 I 811219 and the creation of the autocephalous Serbian Archbrsh- opric, thanks to St. However, all this still remains in the domain of hypotheses. What is certain on the basis of what has been exposed here is that Serbia became familiar with the Sava.26 work of the brothers of Thessalonica, Cyril and Methodius, at all probability indirectly, via Bulgaria, after Methodius' disciples got there in 886, after his death, and not directly, as it was envisioned by Pope John VIII at the time when he wrote to the Prince Mutimir in the year 873. 24 Komatina, Crkvena politika, 318-319; P Komatina, Dalmatian Bishops at the Council o/ Nicaea in 787 and the status of the Dalmatian Church in the 8't' and 9't' centurie.i, The Treaty of Aachen, AD 8 l2: The Origins and Impact on the Region between the Adriatic, Central, and Southeastern Europe, Zagreb Zadar 1in print), with relevant bibliography. Cf. also, Zivkovii, oOn the Baptism>, 4l-43. 25 According to De administrando imperio I, $ 32.38-65, two wars were waged betwcen Serbia and Bulgaria in the mid-9'h century. Then peace was established and afterwards, during an internal strife, the Serbian Prince Mutimir exiled his two brothers, Strojimir and Gojnik, to Bulgaria, where at that time Boris Michael was ruling. Cf. T. Zivkovii, Portreti srpskih vktdara (lx-Xil r,eft), Beograd 2006,24-26. 26 Ravii, Crkva i driava,243-251.