1 () (Leningrad, 1930), pp. 26, 60, 71.

2 A good résumé of the recent archaeological discoveries in Moravia is given by J. Poulik, Staří Moravané buduji svůj stát (Gottwaldov, 1963).

3 The principal defender of this thesis is J. Cibulka in his book VelkomoravskÝ” kostel v Modré” u Velehradu a zažátky kůeslanstvi na Moravě (Prague, 1958).

4 We do not know the date of his conversion. In 822 Louis the Pious received envoys from Bohemia and Moravia in Frankfürt (Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores, I, 209). The submission of the Moravians should be dated from the end of the eighth century or the beginning of the ninth. In 805 an expedition was made against Bohemia (ibid., p. 192). The Moravians are not mentioned. Submission implied Christianization.

5 (), op. cit., p. 28.

6 The Latin text of this bull is not preserved. We have only a Slavonic version of the document in Methodius’ biography (ibid., p. 73). Its genuineness is, however, generally accepted by specialists.

7 Rastislav could regard himself as a ruler independent of the Frankish Empire from 850 on.

8 It can also be imagined that Patriarch Photius postponed sending a bishop to Moravia in order not to alienate even more Pope Nicholas I, who was hesitating to recognize him as a legitimate patriarch. Moravia was a missionary land, but had hitherto been evangelized mostly by clergy of the Roman obedience. The relics believed to be those of St. Clement, the third successor of St. Peter in Rome, which the brothers were bringing with them, were calculated to enhance the importance of the mission and to assure Rastislav that his demands would be fulfilled.

9 The specialists are now almost unanimous in accepting the thesis that the alphabet invented by Cyril was Glagolitic and not the alphabet used today by the Orthodox Slavs, which is called Cyrillic.

10 (), op. cit., pp. 26, 60, 72.

11 For details see J. Vašica's study “Origine Cyrillo-Me'thodienne du plus ancien code slave dit Zakon sudnyj,” Byzantinoslavica, XII (1951), 154-74; idem, “Jazyková povaha Zakona sudného,” Slavia, XXVII (1958), 521-37 (a linguistic study of the document).

12 MGH, Epistolae, VII, 293.

13 See F. Dvornik, Les Légendes de Constantin et de Méthode vues de Byzance, Supplement I of Byzantinoslavica (Prague, 1933), pp. 228 ff.; Dekan, J., Zaůiatky slovenskÝch dejin a Ríša vel'komoravská (Bratislava, 1951), p. 80 Google Scholar; Grivec, Franz, Konstantin und Method: Lehrer der Sloven (Wiesbaden, 1960), p. 55 Google Scholar; Dittrich, Zdenek R., Christianity in Great- Moravia (Groningen, 1962), pp. 98 Google Scholar ff., rejects the political aspect of the Moravo-Byzantine alliance without giving any reason. His presentation of Rastislav's initiative in Byzantium cannot be accepted. He minimizes the “results, presenting the Byzantine mission as a great disappointment for Rastislav.

14 See A. Vaillant and M. Lascaris, “La date de la conversion des Bulgares,” Revue des études slaves, XIII (1933), 5-15.

15 Cf. Dvornik, Les Légendes …, pp. 79 ff.

16 F. Dvornik, “Photius et la réorganisation de l'académie patriarcale,” Analecta Bollandiana, LXVIII (1950), pp. 108-25.

17 Dvornik, Les Légendes …, pp. 85 ff. I do not doubt the historicity of this embassy described in the Legend of Constantine-Cyril. It must have taken place in 851. The leader of the embassy was the “asecrete” George, a high imperial functionary.

18 Ibid., pp. 148 ff.

19 On the progress of Christianity among the Slavs in Greece see F. Dvornik, Les Slaves, Byzance et Rome au IXe siècle (Paris, 1926), pp. 63 ff.

20 Vita S. dementis, in Jacques P. Migne, ed., Patrologiae cursus completus: Series graeca (166 vols.; Paris, 1857-66), Vol. CXXVI, col. 1216 (hereafter cited as Migne, PG). Modern edition by () (Sergiev Posad, 1918), p. 104. () (Sofia, 1955), p. 60.

21 The biographer of Constantine speaks of him only as the inventor of the new letters. Both biographers of the brothers mention, however, that other companions had joined Constantine in his prayer for inspiration. This indicates that there were many young clerics in Constantinople who were interested in such an enterprise.

22 H. W. Codrington, The Liturgy of Saint Peter (Münster in W., 1936); J. M. Hanssens, “La liturgie romano-byzantine de Saint Pierre,” Orientalia Christiana Periodica, IV (1935), 234-55; V (1939), 103-51. Most important is the study by J. Vašica, “Slovanská liturgie sv. Petra,” Byzantinoslavica, VIII (1939-40), 1-54, with a résumé in Latin.

23 Cf. V. Jagić, Glagolitica (Vienna, 1890).

24 Especially by K. Mohlberg, “II messale glagolitico di Kiev ed il prototipo Romano,” Atti della Pontificia Accademia Romana di Archeologia, Series 3, I I (Rome, 1928), 207-320.

25 It is preserved in manuscripts, Munich, Clm 15815a; Vienna, Cod. Vind. Ser. nov. 4225; Salzburg Studienbibliothek, Cod. Mil, 296. The latter manuscript was published by A. Dold, “Neue Blätter des Salzburger Kurzsakramentar,” Texte und Arbeiten, XXV (Beuron, 1934), 35-48. Idem, “Abermals neue Fragmente des Salzburger Kurzsakramentars,” ibid., XXVI-XXVIII (Beuron, 1936), 71-98. A new edition is being prepared by K. Gamber.

26 Especially by J. Vajs, in his study “Mešní ůád charvatsko-hlaholskÝ vatikánského misálu,” Acta Academiae Velehradensis, XV (1939), 89-141. See also Vašica, “Slovanská liturgie …, “ Byzantinoslavica, pp. 5-10.

27 Cf. F. Zagiba, “Neue Probleme in der Cyrillomethodianischen Forschung,” Ostkirchliche Studien, XI (1962), p p . 112 ff. More bibliographical indications will be found in this study. See also K. Gamber, “Das glagolitische Sakramentar der Slavenapostel Cyrill und Method u n d seine lateinische Vorlage,” ibid., VI (1957), 165-73.

28 Vita Methodii, chap. 8, in (), op. cit., p. 73.

29 Vita Constantini, chap. 17, ibid., pp. 33, 64. It is thus quite possible that the Mass was said by the ordained disciples according to the Roman rite as translated by the brothers. It seems, however, that Constantine also translated the Byzantine Mass formulary of St. John Chrysostom, and that the so-called Fragments of Prague contain a part of this translation. The Fragments are now believed to be a part of the Euchologium Sinaiticum comprising the liturgical prayers of the Eastern Church. If this is so, then we must suppose that the brothers had intended to introduce the whole of the Eastern liturgy into Moravia. Even in this case we are entitled to assume that the translation of the liturgy of St. Peter was made by Constantine before he left for Rome. This problem will not be definitely solved until a new philological examination of the Fragments of Prague, of the Euchologium, and the Fragments of Kiev is made. so See especially Grivec, op. cit., pp. 68 ff.

31 Recently Dittrich, op. cit., pp. 151 ff., and V. Vavůínek, “Die Christianisierung und Kirchenorganisation Grossmährens,” Historica, VII (1963), 42.

32 MGH, Ep., VI, 293.

33 For details see Dvornik, Les Slaves, Byzance et Rome …, pp. 183 ft. Idem, The Slavs, Their Early History and Civilization (Boston, 1956), pp. 118 ff.

34 Vita Constantini, chap. 15, in (), op. cit., pp. 29, 62.

35 On the dangers of sea voyages in the Adriatic in the winter see F. Dvornik, The Photian Schism (Cambridge, Eng., 1948), pp. 139, 140.

36 Most recently P. Duthilleul, L'Evangelisation des Slaves, Cyrille et Méthode (Paris, 1963), p. 118. This book has little scholarly value. The author is much more dependent on my French publications between 1926 and 1933 than he is ready to admit. Grivec, op. cit., p. 77, admits that the invitation had reached them in Venice, perhaps on the initiative of Kocel.

37 On these pilgrimages and on Greek monasteries in Rome see Dvornik, Les Légendes …, pp. 284-93.

38 The relics were not genuine. It is not even established that Pope Clement (90-99?) died a martyr. The Acts of Clement, not composed until the fourth century, contained the legendary account of his exile and death as a martyr in Cherson. In Constantine's time the authenticity of this legend was generally accepted. For details see Dvornik, Les Légendes …, pp. 190 ff. Dittrich, op. cit., p. 149, rightly rejects the thesis repeated recently by Grivec, op. cit., p. 72, that the brothers had intended to bring the relics to Rome even before their journey to Moravia.

39 It is generally believed that only three of them were ordained priests and two were given the minor order of lector. This opinion is based on the passage of the Vita Methodii (chap. 6, in (), op. cit., p. 72). There it is said that the Pope had ordered Formosus, one of the bishops who were critical of Constantine's innovations, to carry out this ordination. Vita Constantini (chap. 17, in (), op. cit., pp. 34, 65) says simply that the Pope ordered bishops Formosus and Gauderich of Velletri to ordain their disciples. For the ordination of a priest only one bishop was needed. It can be concluded from this that Formosus ordained three priests and Gauderich some other disciples.

40 Ibid., pp. 34, 65.

41 Many students of these events came to unrealistic conclusions concerning the history of the two brothers because they did not pay sufficient attention to events in Rome and Constantinople in 868 and 869 and to the dates when the news from the East reached Rome. I tried to clarify this in the short study “Sts. Cyril and Methodius in Rome,” St. Vladimir's Seminary Quarterly (New York), VII (1963), 20-30.

42 (), op. cit., p. 73.

43 See for details Dvornik, Les Légendes …, pp. 248 ff.; idem, The Photian Schism, pp. 91 ff.

44 Vita Methodii, in (), op. cit., p. 73.

45 It is the famous Conversio Bagoariorum et Carantanorum, ed. M. Kos (Ljubljana, 1936). See also the study of Paul J. Alexander, “The Papacy, the Bavarian Clergy, and the Slavonic Apostles,” The Slavonic Year-Book, Vol. XX (1941) of The Slavonic and East European Review, pp. 266-93.

46 It seems to have been the monastery at Ellwangen. See the bibliography on this problem in Grivec, op. cit., p. 100.

47 Cf. the letters sent by John VIII to the Bavarian bishops through a legate in MGH, Ep., VII, 280-81.

48 For details see J. Vajs's edition of DobrovskÝ's biography of the brothers, Cyril a Metod (Prague, 1948), pp. 143-53.

49 H. F. Schmid, Die Nomokanonübersetzung des Methodius (Leipzig, 1922), pp. 47 ff., 89, 114; W. Lettenbauer, “Eine lateinische Kanonensammlung in Mähren im 9. Jahrhundert,” Orientalia Christiana Periodica, XVIII (1952), 246-69.

50 See A. Dostál, Clozianus (Prague, 1959), pp. 124-44.

51 For details see Dittrich, op. cit., pp. 270 ff. However, not all of his presentation of this affair can be accepted. The Greek Life of St. Clement is the main source for these happenings, Migne, PG, Vol. CXXVI, cols. 1192 ff. Modern edition by (), op. cit., pp. 1-144. Edition by (), op. cit., pp. 54 ff. The Life of Naum was published by (), op. cit., pp. 183 ff.

52 I have given a review of literary activity in Slavic lands to the end of the thirteenth century in my book The Slavs, Their Early History and Civilization, pp. 147 ff.

53 Cf. F. Dvornik, “Les Bénédictins et la christianisation de la Russie,” L'Église et les Églises (Chevetogne, 1954), pp. 323-49