.png "English"){kind=small}
Anthony-Emil N. Tachiaos, In CYRILLOMETHODIANUM XIX, (2014) Thessaloniki, Studies on the History of Greek-Slavic Relations. Published by the Centre for the Study of the Cultural Heritage of Cyril and Methodius, pp. 5-25.
The projection and, at the same time, recognition of the magnificence of Byzantium, as a center emanating civilization, is not restricted to the two passages mentioned. Five whole centuries had passed from the time of Cyril, when, in 1347, Symeon, the Grand Prince of Moscow, wrote to Emperor John Cantacuzene, recognizing that “the Empire of the Romans, and especially the most holy great Church of God ... is the source of all piety, the teacher of legislation and sanctity” (ἡ βασιλεία γοῦν τῶν Ρωμαίων, ἀλλὰ δὴ καὶ ἡ ἁγιωτάτη τοῦ Θεοῦ μεγάλη ἐκκλησία ἔνι, ὡς ἔγραφες καὶ σύ, πηγὴ πάσης εὐσεβείας καὶ διδάσκαλος νομοθεσίας τε καὶ ἁγιασμοῦ)3 . The passages quoted testify, on the one hand, to the enduring Slav recognition of Byzantine superiority, as a source not only of spiritual values but also of laws and institutions, and, on the other, are the starting point for a survey of the process of assumption of these values and of their fate. The appearance of the Slavs in the field of vision of the Byzantine Empire was a source of great unease for the latter, because it became increasingly difficult to repel them. Their permanent establishment south of the River Danube, which was the northern limit of the Empire, made future relations with the unwanted invaders a pressing concern. One of the tried and tested methods of Byzantine diplomacy was to bring Christianity and civilization to barbarians, and to integrate them into the sphere of influence of the Empire4. And, of course, for the Slavs on the southern side of the Danube, the principle remained that areas they had settled were potentially lands that Byzantium hoped to re-acquire5.
Although this viewpoint certainly helped them become Christian, it precluded the creation of their own alphabet and Slav written language. The Byzantines proceeded to the creation of a Slav alphabet only when the ruler of Greater Moravia, Rastislav, himself asked for a teacher who would teach his people the Christian faith in the language spoken there. But Great Moravia was a Slav state which had not been created in occupied Byzantine territory6 . It is important to note that the introduction of this Slav alphabet would mean the rejection of Latin, which had already been introduced by German clergy. As we know, the Byzantines responded to Rastislav’s request by sending the Thessalonian brothers Cyril and Methodios to Moravia7.
These two representatives of the Byzantine Empire, and also the Church, came to the Slavs bringing with them the first Slavonic alphabet, called “glagolitic”, which Cyril had invented, as well as certain holy books already translated from Greek into Slavonic. This was the initial gesture from Byzantium to the Slavs, and it demonstrated the depth and importance of its gifts to the Slav world. Let us look first at the alphabet, as a cultural benefit to a society which until then did not have a written language8 . The alphabet as such was a priceless gift to the Slavs, as Michael III, the Emperor wrote to Rastislav: “Receive a gift greater and more valuable than any gold or silver, or precious stones, or than wealth which passes away” (И се приимъ даръ болии, честн7иши паче всего злата и сребра, и камень8 драгаго и богатсвта преход1щаго)9 ,meaning the enduring value of Slavonic script which has extended over the centuries10.
The alphabet concealed a deeper symbolism; morphologically it had no relation to any alphabet in the then known world -much less to the Greek- yet its origins were purely Byzantine11. In the composition of the glagolitic alphabet, Cyril used letters and signs from Byzantine cryptographic alphabets and symbols from astronomy, alchemy, and others which had been in use in Byzantium for many centuries, and can be found even in the papyri12. A completely new, artificial and exotic alphabet, symbolizing the independence and self-sufficiency of the Slav world, had been fashioned. The alphabet was merely the tool used to write the Slavonic language, and was aimed at recording its characteristic sounds and the establishment of its spelling13. As well as the alphabet, Cyril and Methodi os also gave texts to the Slavs, translated from Greek into their own language, and from this point the page opened for the introduction into their world of words and meanings with which they were not so far familiar14. In this way, the newly-baptized people were given an abundant vocabulary full of abstract meanings and compound words, taken from purely Greek patterns. The new vocabulary which began to enter their lives had come from the accurate translation of holy texts from Greek into Slavonic.
This translation gave them not only the wealth of meaning but also the structure of the Greek language with its richness of expression, flexibility and syntax15. Apart from the alphabet there were other processes which added to the accumulation of Byzantine elements in the cultural life of the Slav peoples. This accumulation did not concern Great Moravia so much since it had passed into German hands after 885, and Cyril and Methodios’ work had been abolished, but it did concern the Southern Slav countries, and Russia in particular. The introduction of the South Slavs and the Russians to Byzantine Christianity, implied the spread of many cultural elements, which passed to them intact, and were taken into their everyday life and into their church life. Letters or texts of Byzantine origin were accompanied by suggestions, written or oral, about the way they should be read or recited in church, movement during holy services and, in general, the conduct of worship16. In the oldest Russian chronicle, “The Chronicle of Nestor”, it is related that, in the year 1051, Abbot Theodosios of the Monastery of the Caves in Kiev “started to investigate monastic rules.
Then he found Michael, a monk from the monastery of Studium, who had come with Metropolitan George from the land of the Greeks, and he asked him for the Rule of the monks of Studium. When he had received it, he had it copied and established at his monastery how to chant the monasterial hymns, make prostrations, read the readings, the whole ecclesiastical order, how they should sit in the refectory, what to eat on which days, all according to the Rule... All the monasteries copied the same Rule, because the Monastery of the Caves is honoured as the oldest” («нача искати правила чернечьскаго, и обретеся тогда Михаил чернец манастыря Студийскаго, иже бе пришелъ изъ Грекъ с митрополитомь Георгием, и нача у него искати устава чернець студийских. И обретъ у него, и списа, и устави въ монастыри своемъ, како пети пенья манастырьская, и поклон как держати, и чтенья почитати, и стоянье в церкви, и весь ряъ церковный и на тряпезе седанье, и что ясти в кыя дни, все съ уставленьем... Отъ того же монастыря переяша вси монастыреве уставъ: темъ же почтень есть монастырь Печерьскый старей всехъ»)17. In short, a new etiquette of language and behaviour, clearly Byzantine, was created in the Slav world. The Greek clergy who had gone to Slav countries to teach the new faith were accompanied by a host of ancillaries: monks, iconographers, architects, craftsmen, even merchants, who brought objects to assist them in their worship. This was all sown on purely virgin soil. This process of transferring a civilization, has been called “transplantation” by the great historian of Russian literature and culture, D. S. Lichačеv18 and in my view this is a felicitous term. Transplanta tion does not involve any element of influence, since this presupposes the existence of something similar, receiving new, outside elements which are added to or affect it, whereas transplantation takes place on barren, uncultivated land, and activates latent powers of fecundity and productivity. As soon as the transposed features were absorbed into the life and thought of the Slavs, the latter began to develop their own national and religious consciousness, which was related to the fact that they were or were becoming part of the great Christian and cultural family, known in the language of Byzantium as the “ecumene”.
At the beginning of the 10th century, the glagolitic script was replaced in Bulgaria by the Cyrillic, created by the Bishop of Preslava, Constantine, who dedicated it to his teacher, the great Cyril19.Cyrillic, which was based on the majuscule, Byzantine script, was created in an age when the majuscule was being replaced by minuscule. The Bulgarians, however, insisted on retaining the sacred elegance of Greek majuscule script. Cyrillic thereafter prevailed among all the Slavs who had adopted Byzantine civilization and remained close to the values they had taken from it. Very soon a cloud appeared on the horizon along with some Slav messianism. At the beginning of the 10th century, a brief but noteworthy treatise “On letters” (O pismeneh[) was written in Bulgaria, the author of which was held to be some mysterious monk, ‘Chrabăr’ (Hrab]r)20,meaning ‘brave’. Some scholars have traced this monk to the Greek-educated Bulgarian ruler, Symeon21. Chrabăr writes in his treatise of the superiority of Slavonic script over the Greek, reasoning that the latter was concocted by many people and based on Phoenician, going through many stages of development, while the Slavic script was composed all at one time by Cyril alone, especially for the Slavs, and with divine inspiration. At about the same time, Bishop Constantine of Preslava composed the first Slavonic poetry, using twelve-syllabic Byzantine verse as his model22.
In one of these poems he calls the Slavs “The New Nation” (Ázyk] nov])23,implying that the Slavs, now Christian, were entering history as a new-born nation, with the same rights that the Greeks and Romans had when they had entered history earlier. Here we have the first, as yet undefined, signs of a dialogue between testator and beneficiary, donor and recipient which would later acquire a more concrete expression. With these texts the process of absorbing Byzantine culture had begun in the area under Bulgarian rule. Byzantium, which seemed to be the world’s most superior source of culture, would transplant an endless wealth of knowledge, education and institutions to the Slav world. Whatever Byzantium had acquired over the course of the centuries of its history, and what it had inherited from Ancient Greece, Rome and other Eastern cultures, it was now called upon to bestow in abundance on the Slavs in a short space of time. The fundamental tool, first of Byzantine transplantation and later of its influence, was Greek literature translated into Slavonic. At the very beginning of their introduction to Christianity, the Slavs received basic texts which served the immediate needs of teaching and catechism. A major role in this transfer of knowledge was played by Greek clergy, since they were the first guides in the new religion. It should be remembered that Christianity came to the Greek world through intellectual circles and the mass of the people, who petitioned the Roman Emperor until he finally consented, whereas for the Slavs the process was completely inverted: first the ruler became Christian, and then he imposed the new religion on the people, immediately and by force24.
So the embracing of the new religion, of Byzantine provenance and all the features it entailed, was the result of completely passive reception. During the process of accepting the new religion, two characteristic reactions made themselves felt. The first was in Bulgaria, on the part of the nobility25who rejected the glagolitic script when Christianity was imposed and insisted on the retention of Greek, which was the first official written language of the Proto-Bulgarian state26. So the religion that came from Byzantium to Bulgaria dislodged the Greek language and script, which was a privileged possession of the ruling class, and imposed the Slavic script, which belonged to all the people. The second reaction was in Russia, when Vladimir, the ruler, supported by the Greek metropolitan of Russia, founded schools and chose the worthiest children to study at them. At this point, the mothers objected, thinking that, were their children to acquire an education, they would lose them27 It is obvious that the translated Greek text was a strong, cultural factor in the early stages of the creation of the spiritual culture of the Slavs. But what was this text? As has been said, the first translated texts were Biblical, liturgical and catechetical28 ones which served the immediate needs of worship and teaching. After these first translations there began the introduction of a broader spectrum of texts, with a much more specialized content.
Through these texts, the Slavs might have been expected to become aware of the contemporary spiritual life of Byzantium, to make some acquaintance with the philosophical, theological and scholarly discussions that occupied the Byzantine scholarly community, to inform themselves of the schools of thought in the capital of the Empire, and perhaps to have then brought them to their own countries. And yet, none of this happened. Although a complete catalogue of Byzantine texts which were translated into ancient Slavonic languages has yet to be compiled29,scholarly knowledge in this area is advanced enough for some conclusions to be reached. Research has shown that although the spiritual life in Byzantium flourished during the 9th to the 12th centuries, with outstanding representatives and with discussions on elevated theological, philosophical and scholarly subjects, and most excellent written works on these subjects, the Slav world remained unaware of what was happening there and on the margins of these events. Despite the Slav world’s known contact with great centers of Byzantium, which stored all this intellectual activity, where manuscripts were reproduced which recorded it, centers such as Constantinople of the great monasteries of, Studion and Evergetis, and then later Mount Athos, Jerusalem and Mount Sinai30, the Slavs who went there did not translate the works of the contemporary Byzantine writers. Instead, they took to their home-land, works by writers of the early Christian and early Byzantine period31. Slav monks did, indeed, visit Greek monasteries and other spiritual centres of Byzantium, often staying there for some time, in order to translate Byzantine texts, including those in Greek manuscripts in the libraries. On Mount Athos, apart from the Slav monasteries (Zografou, Hilandar and the Russian of St. Panteleimon) these monks also stayed at purely Greek monasteries, in order to make translations of the texts they were interested in. Of course, they made their own choice of text. In many cases, they worked in collaboration with Greek monks. The responsibility for excluding the Slavs from the sumptuous feast of the Byzantine intellectual table, can all too easily be attributed to the Greek clergy who continued to guide their footsteps. It should be noted here, though, that the responsibility- if such it be- belongs both to the Greek clergy and to the Slavs themselves.
The kind of texts to be translated was also their choice, since they themselves were aware of how much they were lacking in fundamental knowledge, a most necessary requirement for the understanding of the work of contemporary Byzantine intellectuals. Byzantium had been a civilization for a long time, while the Slavs were just on the threshold of theirs, with the close guidance of those who had brought them the Christian faith. The Slavs were much less knowledgeable concerning ancient Greek thought and philosophy, of which Byzantium was also the guardian. How could they comprehend Plato, Aristotle and Plotinus, when they were as yet unable to reach the elevated theological concepts of Gregory the Theologian, Gregory of Nyssa and Maximos the Confessor? Some fragments of ancient Greek philosophy came to the Slavs through the writings of Byzantines of the early centuries32. Centuries would have to pass before the Serbs could catch up, and, in reality, they were never really well-informed about contemporary Byzantine thought. The giant step took place in the 14th century when, thanks to the Byzantine hesychast movement, the Slavs were given an impetus towards theoretical thought. During that century, for the first time, the so-called Areopagitic Treatises were translated into Slavonic, and, as they contained Neo-Platonic thought, were an important prerequisite for Slav understanding of the great mystical writers of Byzantium33. It is worth noting here that there have been Russian intellectuals in modern times, who retrospectively have blamed Cyril and Methodios for not imposing the Greek language on the Slavs from the beginning so that they would have been able to communicate directly with the ancient Greek spirit34. What is ignored here, however, is the utter lack of necessary background knowledge among the Slavs. The process of transplantation of Byzantine elements followed, as did the process of imitation, which was the transition towards emancipation. The imitation of Byzantine prototypes, and becoming independent of them, is very evident in the literature and art of old Russia.
The Greek Metropolitans who went there seemed like comets, which drag a host of objects in their wake, which acquire their value, glory and their meaning from them. These Metropolitans, like the people with them and their books and objects of art, brought Byzantine models to Russia, which were either transplanted there intact or would be objects for imitation. When we speak of imitation, this does not mean copy which implies slavish subjection to the prototype. It was precisely freedom of thought and choice which opened the horizons for the creation of a self-sufficient, national, intellectual life. If we compare ancient Bulgarian intellectual and philological production with that of old Russia, and given that the Greek clergy did not have such a commanding presence in Bulgaria as they had in Russia, the observations are entirely the opposite from what might have been expected. In the case of Russia there was an amazing movement towards a rich yield of a distinctly Russian complexion. The literary production of Russia increasingly gained an awareness of its own genre, with its own character and expressed its own lyricism and poetical mood, which, to a large extent, is missing from other literature in Cyrillic35.
The ancient literature of Russia quickly gained such a unique character that it traced its own cycle. In addition, we must take into account here that independent Russian intellectual development blossomed despite the fact that Bulgaria was used by Russia as the main route through which the translated Slavonic Byzantine texts passed in order to get to them36. It should also be noted that, although in the case of Bulgaria and Serbia we are dealing with unified state entities, in Russia, when the Tartars abolished the ancient state of Kiev in 1240, there were regional statelets, which, one after the other, succumbed to the centralization of the great hegemony of Moscow. These statelets had developed their own cultural life, each one contributing to a shared Russian culture. It was natural that each of these hegemonies would absorb the Byzantine heritage in a different way. As a result, there were different ways of experiencing Byzantine features and of reshaping them. In the end, all these ways of absorbing the Byzantine legacy gave it a very varied Russian image. The process of shaping the Slav states which lay in the orbit of Byzantine culture and walked in its footsteps, also had a share in the gift of the benefactor which was Byzantium. Here we have an imitation of a model of state structure, the composition of its functions and, although in the matter of dynastic succession each Slav state and the Russian statelets followed their own process, their political theory was modelled on purely Byzantine prototypes. The head of state in Bulgaria took the title of ‘Tsar’, an abbreviation of the Latin ‘Caesar’, a title which in Byzantium was inferior to ‘Basileus’ (βασιλεῦς)37.
However, in the Bulgarian perception, even with this title, their ruler was considered equal within his state to the Byzantine king. The latter was also called ‘emperor’, however, a title which the Slavs were not slow to appropriate, in its Slavonic version, as a composite word taken from the Greek language mould38. After they had seized Byzantine territories and included them in their states, the Bulgarian and Serb rulers used the title ‘Tsar of the Bulgarians (or Serbs) and Romans’, which clearly state imperial ambitions which would, of course, amount to the appropriation of Byzantine authority39. Tărnovo, the medieval capital of Bulgaria, flourished so greatly in intellectual, economic and political terms in the 14th century, that it created a feeling of well-being such that it was considered a ‘reigning city’, exactly like Constantinople40. The imitation of the Byzantine capital by the capital of a Slav state and the appropriation of the imperial status by Slav rulers, resulted in the assumption of titles and the acquisition of court trappings corresponding to those of Byzantium.
The tsar had to have the head of the ethnic church, entitled patriarch, beside him; the capital city had to be distinguished for its monumental architecture; and at the same time relics of saints were expected to be treasured and people of ecumenical prestige to be recorded in the lives of the saints. Great efforts were therefore made to obtain holy relics, which were a vital adjunct in the embellishment of the sceptre of royal authority. With the creation of the second Bulgarian state in the 12th century, Saints Cyril and Methodios appear as saints for the first time, Bulgarian by birth, and Saint Demetrios of Thessaloniki becomes patron of the Bulgarian nation41. Similar excesses can be observed in Russia in the 16th century. In January 1547, the Grand Prince of Moscow, Ivan the Terrible, was crowned Tsar by Metropolitan Makarios of Moscow42. The young ruler was quite bright and well-educated enough to know that the blessing of a mere Metropolitan was not sufficient for him to be crowned tsar. He therefore applied to Patriarch Ioasaf of Constantinople, asking him to recognize his royal rank, and the patriarch did so, publishing a synodal act of the Synod, on which, however, all the signatures of the bishops were forged43.
However, for centuries, in the minds of the Russians, the Grand Prince of Moscow was first recognized as tsar by the Patriarch of Constantinople. I would like to dispel the well-known theory of Moscow as the Third Rome, which was conceived by some Russian monks in the 16th century and cultivated to a large extent by Greek clergy in the 17th. The Russian tsars never declared themselves heirs to the Byzantine emperor nor called Moscow the third Rome, because, of course, Constantinople, New Rome, had been founded by a Roman Emperor, whose capital it was, but this was not so in the case of Moscow. The entirely quixotic and abortive theory of the third Rome is of greater literary than historical importance44. From the middle of the 14th century, Bulgaria and Serbia entered a period of progressive decline, resulting in their final defeat under attack from the Ottomans. Since they were in continuous close contact with Byzantium, these countries kept, unchanged, the heritage which they had taken from Byzantium, seeming to be almost completely identical both culturally and intellectually with their original source. This was not the case with Russia. From the end of the 15th century, Russia developed rapidly into a huge empire, powerful, and expanding more and more, creating the conviction, which was justified up to a point, that it was the only free, Orthodox empire, protector of all Orthodox peoples. And yet Russia started to live in self-sufficient isolation.
The Byzantine tradition which it had inherited was moulded there in terms of national uniqueness, and the conviction grew that Russia alone had kept the purity of Orthodoxy intact and unchanged. A broader education and cultivation were rare, resulting in a complete lack of philosophical and theological thought. The dominant feature was a blind dedication to the celebration of the rites, to the pomp of Church ceremonial, to the ecclesiastical form and the dead letter of Church texts. Monasticism, which flourished most abundantly, was overshadowed by the subjection of peasants to monasteries and by the use of serfs45. Some enlightened spirits, such as the cultured ascetic Nil Maikov and Prince Vassian Patrikeev46 are shining exceptions in the atmosphere where a distorted Byzantine tradition was projected as the last rays of the proper view of life and people. It was precisely against this mentality that the distinguished Epirote scholar and monk, Maximos Trivolis, (in Russia called ‘Maxim Grek’), fought and opposed in the Russia of the 16th century47. Despite the deep Classical and Western education he had acquired in Italy -he was a pupil of Savon arola- Maximos was the last representative of genuine Byzantine thought in Russia, the man who tried in vain to recall the Russian establishment to the proper Byzantine tradition. In the next century, the seventeenth, Russia was dominated by the overwhelming personality of the great reforming Patriarch, Nikon, who seems to have been a lover of all things Greek48.
The patriarch’s love of things Greek, which was expressed with superficial grandeur, designs on the leadership of the country and events full of pomp and circumstance, in the end acted in a completely negative way, irritating the conservative Russians who lived in their own bubble of false Byzantine traditions which was, by its nature, immobile and stagnant49. The occult, witchcraft and rampant obscurantism were the scourge of the ordinary people of Russia and the clergy, themselves uneducated, were in no position to address the problem50. Given all this, in the eyes of the foreigners who visited Russia, and of the Russians who came into contact with the West, contemporary Russian reality seemed like darkness, responsibility for which they unfairly attributed to Byzantium and Orthodox tradition.
This perception became more definite when Emperor Peter Romanoff, known as Peter the Great, took over the reins of Russia. A man of huge physical and intellectual dimensions, well-travelled and educated, Peter felt the drama of Russia’s position deeply: a country which remained on the margins of history precisely because of outdated institutions, adherence to a static tradition and an inability to bring itself up to date with states bordering on it or with which it had relations. Peter hated Moscow and society there, since it represented stagnation and a ritualistic ecclesiastical tradition51. Thanks to the Roman Catholic propaganda and proselytism which were rife in the country, the Ukraine, which was under Polish occupation, had become acquainted with the Western world, which was a permanent challenge. The Greek scholars who had settled in Moscow no longer represented any Byzantium. They had also been educated in the west, and had been influenced by the patterns of reason of scholasticism, like the Jesuits in Western Russia. In an effort to break away from this backward Russia, Peter the Great built a new city, the city of Saint Peter, which took the German name, Sankt Petersburg, and declared it the new capital of the state.
The upper echelons of the Russian state administration and of military structure were established on the German model. Peter abolished the Russian patriarchate, replacing it with a Synod, completely subject to him52. The Byzantine state system with its emperor and patriarch as heads of state no longer existed in Russia. The Byzantine/Slav view of Russia had passed into history. The question unavoidably arises: what happened to the huge intellectual reserves which had gone from Byzantium to Russia over so many centuries? What had it given to Russian civilization and where were the obvious traces of its positive impact? It is not easy to give a brief answer to this huge question, because it is connected to a network of individual problems. We have already remarked that the Southern Slav countries, due to political circumstances, followed a path of development almost identical to that of the Greek world. In Russia, on the one hand, the development of an intense national consciousness and imperial ideology, and, on the other hand, the creation of a critical and revolutionary group, the intelligentsia, changed the situation and cast clear doubt on the values of Byzantine culture. The Russian intelligentsia of the 19th century was riven by the dilemma: Russian tradition or the West?53.
The movement of the so-called Slavophiles deified the Slav people’s soul, with its religious and folklore particularities, and in this encountered the essence of the Russian spirit, Holy Russia54, while the Western izers, supporters of the Enlightenment and Western concepts, looked for new ways of thinking for Russia, far from the past and especially from what they called ‘dark Byzantium’. Between the Westernizers and the Slavophiles, emerged a new, completely different trend. It was a new spiritual reality that came from the translation into Slavonic of a book of purely Byzantine provenance. It was the collection of works by Byzantine ascetics and mystics, called The Philokalia which, thanks to Makarios Notaras, former bishop of Corinth, was published in Venice in 1782. Eleven years later, the great Ukrainian spiritual teacher, Paisij Veličkovskij, published this huge work in Slavonic55 and it became very popular. And so the movement known as the ‘Philokalic’ was born, which was nothing more nor less than a return to the Byzantine roots of Russian spirituality56. This movement was not populist, neither was it in harsh opposition to the spirit of the Enlightenment, nor did it fight against any contemporary ideological movement; it was simply a return to the view of the world and of people of the great Byzantine teachers who had shaped the spirit of Byzantine Orthodoxy57. The return to the spirit of Byzantium which manifested itself in Russia from the middle of the 19th century influenced the powerful Theological Academies of Russia, which turned to the study and translation of the works of great Byzantine writers58. This spirit found its place again in the Russian sphere, as it did later in that of the Southern Slavs. The turn towards the inner person, the easing of the unbearable worry over the problem of tortured existence and human pain, the contemplation of a ray of light in the darkness of a drifting world, these could be the new features which gave to the life of the Slavs the spirit of reborn Byzantium.
The presence of Byzantium in the Slav world continues to be seen permanently as it took root in people’s hearts, through symbols, signs, and most of all through the solid substratum which it created in their language and which has extended over time into their daily lives. It can also be seen in the use of Cyrillic script by the Slavs. Beyond the fact that this script is a means of communication, which draws its origins from Byzantium, it also, at the same time, acts within the Slav world as a landmark, which declares a historically-defined tradition and entrenches an entire culture, thus creating the species specific difference between it and other realities which are alien. In this way, the spirit of Cyril and Methodios, the creators of the intellectual culture of the Slavs, has remained alive amid the Slavic peoples via the Cyrillic script, pointing back, over the centuries, to the well-spring of their culture.
1 Lavrov 1930: 10.
2 Ibid, 26.
3 Miklosich-Müller 1862: 263. Cf. Das Register, 1995: 478.
4 Obolensky 1963: 45-61. Chrysos 1992: 25-39.
5 This is clear from Emperor Romanos Lekapenos’ letter to the Bulgarian ruler Symeon, see Σακελλίων 1883: 658-666. Cf. Ταχιάος 1990.
6 In recent years there has been some doubt regarding the identity of the geographical area of Greater Moravia. According to the traditional viewpoint, this area was the plain, north of the River Morava in the Czech Republic, stretching to Pannonia, South Poland, Bohemia and East Germany. Poland, Bohemia and East Germany. Imre Boba first questioned these geographical boundaries (Boba 1971) where he put Moravia further south, in the area of Sirmium. Traditional views had already been shaken by Bowlus 1995 in which, having looked at the history of wars and fortifications, the established view of the geographical identity of Greater Moravia was rejected. The person who dealt the most severe blow to the traditional view was Martin Eggers who in his monumental work (Eggers 1995) he developed very convincing arguments and placed the core of Greater Moravia in the broad plain which extends fromLake Balaton in Hungary to the River Tisa. On the conflict between these theories, see Tachiaos 1998: 62-64.
7 The bibliography on the life and work of Cyril and Methodios is immense and has been summarized in the following works: Iljinskij 1934, Popruženko-Romaski 1942, Možaeva 1980, Dujčev-Kirmagova-Paunova 1983. The most recent works on the Thessalonian brothers are: Dvornik 1933, Grivec 1960, Duthilleul 1963, Tachiaos 2001, Tachiaos 2008.
8 The move from oral speech to the written word was a sui generis process which analyses Lotman 1987: 3-11.
9 Lavrov 1930: 27.
10 On the reception of the Cyrillic script by the Slavs and its importance for them, see Tachiaos 1994.
11 The theories on the creation of the glagolitic script are the subject of the article by Echhardt 1963. Cf. Jagić 1913, Prohorov 1992 and Miklas 2007.
12 Granstrem 1955.
13 An extract of a treatise written by Cyril has survived in which he explains his method of translating Greek into Slavonic. See Vaillant 1968.
14 The study of the richness of the Greek language which was conveyed to the Slavs has repeatedly occupied Slav scholars, and their conclusions have been recorded in many studies and articles on related themes and problems. The most significant publications in this huge bibliography are: Jagić 1898, Jagić 1913, Schuman 1958, Zett 1970, Molnar 1985, Vereščagin 1972, Vereščagin 1985, Vereščagin 1988. The inf luence of Greek syntax on Old Slavonic and Old Russian is examined by Kurz 1963 and Chodova 1987.
15 That outstanding scholar of Old Slavonic literature, Francis Thomson considers that “Cyril and Methodius created a literary language fully capable of expressing the most profound and abstract philosophical and religious ideas and of being the medium for works of great poetic beauty, but the tragic fate of Bulgaria prevented Slavia orthodoxa from assimilating more than a part of the Byzantine tradition after the fall of Byzantium“. See Thomson 1986.
16 Povestj 1996: 69-70. This information is also contained word for word in the Paterikon of the Kiev Lavra: Pamjatniki 1980: 424- 427, 440. See also the English translation by Heppel 1989: 11-13, 23. See also Tachiaos 1989: 439, and the Greek translation of this article, with additions: Ταχιάος 1997: 331.
17 Povestj 1996, 70.
18 Lichačev 1968: 30-33.
19 See the article by Dobrev 1995, where there is also an extensive bibliography.
20 The basic studies on this mysterious writer, including editions of his text, are those of Kuev, 1967, and A. Dzambeluka - Kossova, 1980.
21 This hypothesis was first introduced by the most distinguished of Bulgarian historian, V. Zlatarski 1971, I 2: 820-829.
22 The Old Slavonic (or Old Bulgarian poems since they were written in Bulgaria) attributed to Constantine, priest then bishop of Preslava, are the “Prayer on an alphabetical acrostich” (It begins with the words: Az] slovom] sim] mol0 s1 Bogu) and “Preface to the Holy Gospel” (Пригласи9 святууму 9вангели0). The first critical edition of these poems was published by Nahtigal 1943. Cf. Vaillant 1956. There is also a Greek translation, Ταχιάος 1966.The second poem has been translated in English by Jakobson 1954. Kuev dedicates his massive work to the “Prayer on an Alphabetical Acrostich”. Kuev 1974.
23 Vaillant 1968: 70.
24 We would recall that the Bulgarians were compulsorily baptized in 864, following the conversion of their ruler, Boris, and the Russians similarly in 988, when their ruler, Vladimir, decided to be baptized.
25 See Zlatarski 1971: 68-104.
26 The wide use of Greek before the Bulgarians became Christian, can be seen from many epigraphs, an important source of early Bulgarian, and of Byzantine history. V. Beševliev, published and made a detailed study of these epigraphs: Beševliev 1961, 1963, 1979, 1981, 1984.
27 Povest’ 1996: 52. See also, Tachiaos 1989: 440-441.
28 The first book to be translated from Greek to Slavonic was the Evangelistarion, that is the extracts from the Gospels read in church. See Tachiaos 2001: 73-75. For a brief but well-documented overview of the works translated by Cyril and Methodios, see Mareš 1975. The bibliography for the old Slavonic writings of Cyril and Methodios and their pupils is rich. Suffice it to mention here the specialist works of Georgiev 1956, 1962. Cf. Grivec 1960: 107-136, 221-227, Ταρνανίδης 1991, Tchiflianov 1994.
29 The following specialist works are useful for the study of translated Byzantine texts into ancient Slavonic languages, particularly for translated Byzantine texts which went to ancient Russia through the Southern Slav countries: Sobolevskij 1903, Speranskij 1960, Lichačev 1960, Mošin 1963, Thomson 1989. Byzantine works which were translated into Old Bulgarian in the first centuries after the Bulgarians became Orthodox are included in the 5-volume publication Stara bălgarska literatura, Sofija 1982-1992. A first, exemplary catalogue of the Russian and Southern Slavonic manuscripts which include the homilies of St. John Chrysostom, has been made by: Granstrem-Tvorogov-Valevicius 1998.
30 On the Byzantine centres where Slavs worked, and for texts translated into Slav languages there, see: Dujčev 1963, Vzdornov 1968, Gjuzelev 1985, Ivanova-Mirčeva 1971. In the libraries of the Monasteries on the Holy Mountain and Mount Sinai, many valuable Slavonic manuscripts have been preserved, many of them written on Mount Athos. Unfortunately, the Slavonic manuscripts from Mt. Athos in other libraries throughout the world have not yet been catalogued. Regarding Slavonic manuscripts from Mount Athos and Mount Sinai, see the most recent relevant catalogues: Bogdanović 1978, Rajkov-Kožucharov-Miklas-Kodov 1994, Tachiaos 1981. An overall thematological catalogue of Mount Athos Slavonic manuscripts, which takes account of manuscripts not yet catalogued, has been compiled by Turilov-Moškova1999. The Slavonic manuscripts from Mount Sinai that were discovered in 1975 have been described by Tarnanidis 1988. For older descriptions and catalogues of Slav manuscripts of the monasteries of Sinai and Jerusalem, see: Belčikov, Begunov, Roždestvenkij 1963, 173-275.
31 See Eremin 1966.
32 Čiževskij 1956: 45-65, Weiher 1972: 138-159, Keipert 1980: 326-350, Trifunović 1994: 253-320. There are interesting articles on the subject of the transference of philosophical elements to the Slavs in the collective work Drevnjaja Rus’: peresečenie tradicij, Moskva 1997.
33 Tachiaos 1978: 21-22, Trifunović 1980, Keipert 1980.
34 Florovskij 1937: 5-6.
35 See Lichačev’s excellent works: Lichačev 1970, 1973, 1975. In his work Rothe 2000 takes rather a negative view regarding the originality of old Russian literature, calling it typically ecclesiastical, coming from a society that only produced writing, rather than education or culture. While he may be right on some points, this otherwise outstanding Slavonic scholar reaches some rather hasty conclusions.
36 The dispatch to Russia of Byzantine texts in Slavonic translation, via Bulgaria, took place in two phases, the first during the first Bulgarian state, abolished in 971 by John Tzimiskis, and the second, over the period of the second Bulgarian state, from 1185, until 1393, when it was abolished by the Turks. Despite the clear mediation of Bulgaria, which was a go-between for Russia and Byzantium, we should not ignore other, more direct, contacts.
37 See the documents of the Bulgarian tsars in: Iljinskij 1911, 12, 23, 26, 28, 29, Laskaris 1930, Andreev 1965. Regarding the influence of Byzantine diplomacy on the Bulgarians, Serbs and Rumanians, see Laskaris 1931. It must be noted here that the Bulgarian tsars, in their official documents, signed “Tsar of Bulgarians and Greeks” (Ivan Asen, 1230/31), “Pious tsar and emperor of all Bulgarians and Greeks” (Ivan Alexander 1348, Ivan Šišman, 1378, 1382). The term “and of the Romans” appears later, and, indeed, in a Serbian text. See footnote 38.
38 The compound Greek word αὐτοκράτωρ goes into the Slav language as samodăržec, a word which has exactly the same components as in Greek, samo (=auto) and dăržec (= krator). On the terms “emperor” and “tsar” in Russian sources of the 16th century, see Giraudo-Maniscalo Basile 1994: 784-787, 997-1024.
39 See the brilliant study by Ostrogorsky 1935. This work was published also in volume 4 of Ostrogorsky’s collected works: Ostrogorsky 1970: 95-187. Cf. Savva 1901. See also the interest ing publications by: Oikonomidis 1996 and Maksimović 1998. In the first, it is noted that Stefan Dušan styled himself ruler of “Serbia and Romania” (Σερβίας και Ρωμανίας), not “of the Romans”, while Maksimović points out in his article certain facts which had not been noticed by earlier scholars, particularly that the term “of the Romans” (καὶ τῶν Ρωμαίων) was used in the Serbian realm earlier than in Byzantium.
40 From the rich bibliography on Tărnovo, see Popov-Velkov 1985. For the monuments of Tărnovo, see the series Tărnovska knižovna škola, I-IX, Sofia 1974-2011, which is dedicated to literary activity in Medieval Tărnovo. For Tărnovo’s peak in the 14th century in particular, see the works by Radčenko 1898 and Syrku 1898. Tărnovo’s competitive attitude towards Constantinople is referred to by Schaeder 1957: 1-20.
41 Regarding the Bulgarian “adoption” of Saints Cyril and Methodios, into their own nation, see Tachiaos 1972-1973: 48- 52. Regarding Saint Demetrios, see Παπαδόπουλος 1971. Cf. Obolensky 1974, Ταχιάος 2013, 59-136.
42 The description of Ivan’s coronation can be found in “The Chronicle of Nikon” (Никоновская летопись), under the date of 16 January 1547. See Polnoe sobranie russkich letopisej. XXX. Patriaršaja ili Nikonovskaja letopisj, Moskva 1965, 150-151. Regarding the political ideas in Moscow in the 16th century, and the coronation of Ivan the Terrible, see: Djakonov 1889: 133- 164, Neubauer 1964: 20-48, Norretranders 1971, Uspenskij 1998: 109-113. These publications have rich bibliographies on the subject.
43 See Regel 1881-1898: LI-XCVIII, 75-79, Ταχιάος 1984: 155-164 and the brief but very important note by Fonkič 1974: 247-251 which corrects the chronology of the document from the year 1561 to1560 and proves that there was more than one forgery as regards the bishops’ signatures.
44 It was the Russian scholar and monk, Filofej of the Monastery of Eleazar near Pskov, who was alive in the second decade of the 16th century, who introduced the theory that Moscow was the third Rome and heir of the second Rome, Constantinople. Regarding Filofei and his ideas, see the study by Malinin 1901. The formulation of the theory of the third Rome and its development are the subject of Schaeder’s work (Schaeder 1957) which deduces the notion of a third Rome as being from the rivalry between the mediaeval Bulgaria capital, Tarnovo, and Constantinople. This argument is not sustainable by an objective examination of the issue and a correct evaluation of the historical background. Tărnovo’s rivalry is more than the wellknown competition of provincial cities with the capital, such as Novgorod and Moscow (see Gudzij 1953: 271-297). In such a case we have the elevation of a city to the point where it surpasses the capital, in this instance Constantinople. See, for example, the collection of encomia of Byzantine Thessaloniki, published by Nerantzi-Varmazi (Νεράντζη-Βαρμάζη 1999) in which there are similar tendencies. The case of Moscow is different: this is to do with the claim to the succession of the Byzantine Εmpire. See the notable work by Medlin 1952. Also useful for any study of this subject are the proceedings of the conference Da Roma alla terza Roma 1983: 435-556, as is the publication of related Russian texts in the collection L’idea di Roma à Mosca. Fonti per la storia del pensiero sociale russo, Roma 1993. Two essays have been published, dedicated to the subject of Moscow as the third Rome. The first is by Kudrjavcev 1994 where an attempt is made to demonstrate the grandeur of the third Rome by studying its architectural riches, and the ideological expression involved in this. A more exact, systematic and exhaustive treatment of the subject, from a philological point of view is that by Sinicyna 1998. J. Meyendorff gives a good assessment in the chapter «Was ever a “Third Rome”?» in his collection of articles Meyendorff 1996: 130-147. See also his very acute observations on p. 145. In their letters to the Russian tsars, Greek hierarchs repeatedly assured them that they were the heirs to the Byzantine Emperors and tried to persuade them to exercise the rights and fulfil the obligations entailed in this position. See Fonkič 1991, which catalogues relative documents, and Ταχιάος 1997: 323-327.
45 The subject of the worldly wealth of the Church, which entailed the use of peasant/serfs, was the source of strenuous conflict in the Russian Church and society in general during the 15th and 16th centuries. There were two sides, those who claimed that the monasteries should have great wealth and lands with peasants/serfs, and those who, influenced by the ascetics on Mount Athos, believed in monastic poverty. Concerning monastic possessions, see the basic but not completely objective studies by Klibanov 1960 and Lurje 1960. Cf. Smolitsch 1953, Meyendorff (1956), 145-179, Gorskaja 1977, Liberzon 1988.
46 On the life and work of Nil Majkov (1433-1508), named Sorskij, from Sora Monastery, where he was a monk, see the important work by Archangeljskij 1882. Nil’s famous Rule was published by Borovkova-Majkova 1912. The fullest and best-informed work on this important Russian figure is Lilienfeld 1963 which has an exhaustive bibliography (p. 15-38). Monk Vasileios (Grolimund) has translated Nil’s work into Greek (Grolimund 1985). On Prince Vassian Patrikeev (1471-1530), who became a monk and adopted a hostile position towards monasteries having worldly possessions, there is the work by Kazakova 1960. For a more recent bibliography see the article by the same writer: Kazakova 1988. See also the proceedings of a conference dedicated to Nil: Nil Sorskij 1995. A collection of Lives of saints and ascetic personalities compiled by Nil Sorskij was published by Lёnngren 2000-2004.
47 The basic works on the life and activities of Maximos the Greek (1470-1556) are the following: Ikonnikov 1915, Denisoff 1943, Παπαμιχαήλ 1950, Ivanov 1969, Sinicyna 1977, Haney 1973, Bulanin 1983, Langerer 1986, Olmsted 1987, Olmsted 1989, Garzaniti e Romoli 2010. Cf. Ταχιάος 2008. The works of Maximos had been published in three volumes by the Theological Academy of Kazan, though not in a very satisfactorily academic manner: Sočinenija Maksima Greka 1859-1862. In recent years a new publication of Maxim’s works has come out: Maksim Grek 2008. The proceedings of Maxim’s tragic trial, when he was sentenced to exile and enforced confinement in a monastery, were published by Pokrovskij 1971. Greek poems by Maximos which were discovered earlier by D. M. Bulanin in a Vienna codex, have been published by Ševčenko 1997.
48 Patriarch Nikon (1657-1667) was a controversial figure in Russian history. A very active man with a strong personality, it was he who wanted to bring Papo-Caesarism to Russia, thus creating a rift between him and his erstwhile bosom friend, Tsar Alexei Mikhaïlovič (1645-1676). He was finally removed from patriarchal office by a Synod at which the patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch and many Greek bishops participated. There is a huge bibliography on the patriarchal reign of Nikon and his rift with the Tsar, his trial and sentence, of which we would mention Palmer 1876, Kapterev 1909-1912, Kapterev 1913, Zyzykin 1931-1938, Makarij 1996: 163-289, 337-392. 289-336, Kartašev 1959: 133-220.
49 There was no particular spiritual direction to Nikon’s reforms, which fluctuated between a distorted Byzantine tradition and a confused humanism. See G. Florovskij’s very telling observations in: Florovskij 1937: 63-65. It is true that Nikon wanted to create an institution of higher learning, an ecclesiastical printing press, and the introduction of Classical letters to Moscow, but none of these was created with a solid spiritual foundation or proper vision. It is significant that Arsinij Sukhanov bought Greek manuscripts from Mount Athos on behalf of Nikon. These mostly contained Patristic works and Ancient Greek writers. On the purchase of these manuscripts from Mount Athos monasteries see: Belokurov 1891: 326-415. Fonkič 1977: 68-104. Lebedeva 1970: 268-278. Lascaris 1958. Κυριακίδης 1955-1960, Hösch 1988, 337-338, Ταχιάος 1997: 323-327.
50 Nikon’s Church reforms, which consisted mainly of corrections of the mistakes in ecclesiastical books, were pursued in a rather peremptory manner, at a time of spiritual darkness in Russia, of superstition and unrestrained ritualism. A consequence of this reformation was the introduction of polyphonic melody into the church and the abandonment of the old iconographic style. Popular reaction, channelled by fanatical clerics, most prominent of whom was the Archpriest Avvakum, was strong and led to the greatest schism in the Russian Church. See the classic study by Pascal 1934.
51 From the rich bibliography on Peter the Great published in Russian, see: Soloviev 1962-1963, VIII: 7-636, IX: 7-553. Cf. the biography of Peter included in the work of Kostomarov 1876: 537-787. There are three good, extensive works on Peter in Western European languages: Waliszewski 1897, Massie 1981, and the more recent Bruce Lincoln 1981: 137-165.
52 See Verchovskij 1916 and Cracraft 1971 (a complete bibliography in pages 308-322). Peter drew up the “Ecclesiastical Regulation” the basis of the administration of the Russian Church. On the publication of the Regulation and the related statutes, see Beneševič 1915, 88-228. There is also a Greek translation entitled Πνευματικὸς Κανονισμός, published in Petrograd in 1916, by P. V. Verchovskij with an introduction by S. A. Zebelev. Peter’s ecclesiastical reforms, unprecedented in the history of the Orthodox Church, were endorsed by the patriarchs of Constantinople and Antioch, so they were given validity and could no longer be doubted.
53 The crisis of cultural identity was intense in Russia during the 18th century (see Garrard (Edit.) 1973 and Salvo and Hughes 1996) and came to a head in the 19th. V. Zenkovskij’s work on this subject is both trustworthy and informative: Zenkovskij 1955. See also Danilevskij 1895. This discussion continued during the 20th century and has not ceased to occupy Russian thinkers and writers of the diaspora. See the two-volume work Russkaja ideja 1994 with its treatises related to the subject.
54 Fundamentalworks for the study of the Slavophile move ment are those by: Gratieux 1939 and Gratieux 1953, Petrovich 1958, Gleason 1972. Cf. Serafim 1987 and the collective volume Slavjanskaja ideja 1998.
55 On the creation of the Greek Philokalia and its Slavonic translation, entitled Dobrotoljubie see Tαχιάος 1984(a): 108- 119, Tachiaos 1981.
56 The volume entitled Amore dell Belo 1991, refers to the Philokalia and the Philokalic renaissance and includes the proceedings of a conference on this subject. Cf. Tachiaos 1993.
57 Cf. Tachiaos 1991. 58 Kern 1957.
58 Kern 1957
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:
Δημοσίευση σχολίου
Σημείωση: Μόνο ένα μέλος αυτού του ιστολογίου μπορεί να αναρτήσει σχόλιο.