long time opposed the first Christian missions because these were supported by their princes; when, however, they observed that by the acceptance of Christianity they had lost their freedom, they changed their opinion. If it were necessary to accept Christianity at all, it was better to take it from a quarter whence no danger of subjugation threatened. This was only possible by adherence to the Greek Church. The East Roman Empire had in course of time fallen into enmity with the old Rome, a dissension which extended to ecclesiastical affairs. In the ninth century Byzantium had resolved to act decisively against the West. From that period her influence increased and extended in a wide stream over the Balkan Peninsula. The Greek language, Greek writing and coinage, Greek art and literature, Greek law and military science, were disseminated among the Slavonic tribes; and of even greater importance was the missionary activity of the East Roman Church. Of decisive importance for the fate of the Balkan Slavs and for the Slav nationality in general, indeed for Eastern Europe as a whole, was the moment when the patriarchal chair of Constantinople was occupied by Photius, one of the greatest scholars that the Byzantine state produced. Apart from the fact that he strove with all his might to further the revival of Greek antiquity and brought Byzantine culture to its zenith, his ecclesiastical policy was actuated by hostility to the Roman chair, and brought about the official division of the Byzantine Church from Rome (pp. 74 and 79). He won over many nations and vast tracts of country for the Byzantine Church. During the imperial period, the Roman Empire had been divided into East and West only in respect of politics; this division was now superseded by the ecclesiastical separation. The whole of the East, with its wide northern territories, occupied by the Slavs, henceforth recognised the predominance of the Byzantine Church and sided with Constantinople in the great struggle which now began. Of the movements called forth in Europe at that time and for centuries later by the action of Photius, we can form but a vague idea in view of the scantiness of our records. A rivalry of unprecedented nature between the two worlds broke out along the whole line, and the great and vital point at issue was the question, which of the churches would be successful in winning over the yet unconverted Slavs. To the action of this great patriarch alone the Byzantine Church owes the success which it achieved over the Romans in this struggle. In vain did Rome make the greatest efforts to maintain her position; success was only possible for her where the German arms were at her disposal. Even to-day the Slavs reproach the Germans for attempting to secure their subjugation under the cloak of the Christian religion. But the German emperor and princes were only pieces upon the great chess-board, moved by unseen hands from Rome. At a later period the German princes marched eastward, not to convert, but to conquer. Almost at this time two Slav princes sent ambassadors to Byzantium and asked that the work of conversion might begin; they were the Moravian prince Rastislav (Rastiz, cf. pp. 77 and 230 f.) and the Bulgarian prince Boris (p. 79). It is possible that the prince of the Khazars (p. 78) had done the same two years earlier. Photius began the work of conversion with great prudence. Two brothers from Thessalonica, learned in the Slav language and experienced in missionary work, were chosen to preach the gospel to the Slavs. It was decided, however, definitely to separate from Rome the nationalities won over to the Greek Church, and for this purpose Byzantium, in opposition to the Roman use, which allowed the liturgy -Croatian to be recited only in Latin, laid down the principle that every people might conduct public worship in its own language. Thus outside the three sacred languages, Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, the Slav was recognized as of equal importance, as had been at an earlier period the Syrian, Coptic, and Armenian tongues. Constantine (Kyrill, Cyril) and Methodius, the two Slav apostles, went forth to their destination, Moravia, in 863. They invented a special form of writing for the Slavs, that, according to some, which is nowadays known as Glagolitic (see plate facing p. 286); they translated the sacred books into the Slavonic tongue, and thus became the founders of Slavonic literature. They organised the Slav church, founded schools, had churches built, and travelled over the whole country, everywhere carrying the light of civilization and of the new religion. "And full of delight were the Slavs when they heard the wonders of God in their own language," says the old Slav legend concerning Methodius. When shortly afterwards divine service was recited in the Slav language in the churches of Moravia and Pannonia, the German clergy were stricken with fear, as they now saw that the East, the field of their future missionary activity, was lost to them. They expostulated forthwith both to the German emperor and to Rome, enlarging upon the danger which might threaten both powers from this side. In order that their work might not be checked at its outset, the two apostles went to Rome to explain their position and to gain confirmation for their work. Upon their return journey they entered the Pannonian kingdom at Lake Platten, where Kozel (Kocel; cf. p. 233) was ruler. The two brothers were able to win over the prince to the gospel so entirely that he began to read the Slav books and ordered several youths to do the same. When the apostles of the Slavs had won over the Pope to their cause, and Methodius was made bishop of Moravia, Kozel sent an embassy to Rome requesting that the Pope would also place his principality under the new bishop. The Pope thereupon raised Methodius to the position of archbishop with a seat in Syrmium, and united the new principality to the old diocese of Syrmia. Croatia on the Save was also placed under this Pannonian archbishopric. The Slav liturgy then extended with marvellous rapidity, and the prestige of the Bavarian clergy sank so low that their arch-priest was forced to return to Salzburg in 870. The Bulgarian prince Boris hesitated for a long time between Rome and Byzantium; and it is doubtful whether his final decision in favour of Byzantium was not dictated by the political object which had influenced Rastislav, the prospect of securing his independence of Germany. Apart from the advantage conferred by the Slav liturgy, his action was decided by the further fact that so many Greek Christians were contained among his people that the acceptance of Greek Christianity seemed inevitable. Finally, he may also have acted in the interests of that Bulgarian policy which aimed at the conquest of Constantinople. For the conversion of the Bulgarians, the advice of both missionaries seems to have been sought. At the same time the Croatians accepted the Slav form of Christianity. It was now impossible for the Servian tribes to stand aloof. We do not, however, know when they came over. Some are said to have accepted Christianity as early as the seventh century under the Emperor Heraclius; but it was not until a new band of scholars and priests came into the country from Pannonia that the Slav Church became capable of development. After the death of Methodius (885) the Slav Church was no longer able to maintain its position in Pannonia; Svatopluk, the successor of Rastislav, drove out the disciples of Methodius and placed his country under the German Church (p. 232). The Slav clergy from Moravia found a hospitable reception in Bulgaria, and their activity created the Bulgarian Slav literature. The Bulgarian throne was then occupied by Symeon the son of Boris (893 to 927; cf. p. 84), who was able to turn the knowledge and the powers of the new arrivals to the best account. He lost no time in causing Bulgarian translations of the Greek authors, ecclesiastical as well as secular. Thus, for instance, the monk Gregor (Grigor) translated the chronicle of John Malala, and added to it the Old Testament history and a poem upon Alexander; fragments only survive of the Greek original, whereas the Bulgarian translation contains the whole work. A chronicle of Georgios Hamartolos, at that time the main source of historical knowledge in the East, was also translated and became a model for Slav chroniclers. Other Byzantine authors, such as Kyrill (Cyril) of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nazianzen, Ephraim the Syrian, and Johannes Klimakteros were translated. Symeon's friend, John the Exarch, translated the "Dogmatics" of Johannes Damaskenos, and wrote the famous work "Hexameron" (Sestodnev), in which, following the example of St. Basil, he related the creation of the world in polished style; he also composed sermons for holy days. Constantine, a pupil of Methodius, translated the writings of Athanasius of Alexandria against the Arians and others, and wrote sermons for holy days. A monk known by the name of Chrabr composed a treatise on the Slovenic alphabet. Symeon himself appeared as an author. He began a collection of one hundred and thirty-five sermons of John Chrysostom under the title of "Zlatostruja," and a work of reference ("Sbornik ") of Byzantine scholarship, which included dissertations on theology, geology, rhetoric, history, and other subjects by twenty Greek authors. Symeon thus became the founder of that Bulgarian literature which was then continued by other Slavs; his contemporaries compared him to King Ptolemaios of Egypt. The existence of a Slav literature, the most important of that day in Europe after the Greco-Roman, won over the whole of the Slav nationality to the Byzantine Church and facilitated its conversion. The remaining Balkan Slavs now gave in their adherence to Bulgarian literature, and Bulgaria became the middleman of culture between Constantinople and the northern Slavs. The Balkan Slavs gave the watchword to the other members of their great nationality. The connection of the Slavs with Greek civilization was secured by the fact that the abovementioned Constantine, bishop of Velica (or Bishop Clemens of Drenovica; cf. p. 78), replaced the inconvenient Glagolitic (p. 285) script by an adaptation of Greek writing made for the Slavs and augmented by the addition of several new signs representing sounds peculiar to the Slav language. This was the Cyrillic writing.1 A common literature, civilization, and religion brought Greeks and Slavs closer together, until they formed one group united by a common civilization and divided from the West (cf. p. 78). This event was of decisive influence upon the future of the whole Slav nationality. The southern Slavs in particular inherited all the advantages and all the defects of the Greek character, nor was it politically alone that they shared the fate of the Byzantine Empire. The sloth, the indifference, the stagnation, and the other defects which characterised the Greek Church 1 See the plate facing this page, "The Opening Words of the Gospel according to St. Luke, in Glago litic Character with Cyrillic Glosses." |