St. Clement of Ohrid, Khan/kniaz Boris-Mikhail and Kniaz/tsar Simeon: Historical Aspects (original) (raw)
Related papers
Eastern and southwestern Macedonia, as well as southern Albania, became parts of Bulgaria in the first decade of the rule of Khan Boris. After his baptism (864/865) and the establishment of an archbishopric (870; 880), the renewal of the former Byzantine church organization on Bulgaria’s territory began. In the eastern parts, the process unfolded slowly because of the strength of the ruling ethnic Bulgarian class, which was pagan; in the western parts, however, the organization of church eparchies went more easily because the local, predominantly Slavic, population had accepted Christianity centuries earlier. This was exactly the reason why Boris-Mikhail sent the disciples of Cyril and Methodius, who had just arrived (885/886) and were well versed in holding religious services in the Slavonic language, to the remote southwest of the country to carry out the so-called “Slavonic Project.” These disciples (including Clement and his associates—Naum, Konstantin, and other unnamed companions) started training local people to serve as clergymen and formed a church structure in Kutmičevica in order to introduce religious services in the Slavonic language in those regions. When Kniaz Simeon came to power, he continued Boris’s “Slavonic Project,” which thus continued to be focused in the southwestern regions of Bulgaria. On being ordained the first Slavonic bishop, Clement organized his eparchy by ethnic (Slavonic) rather than territorial principles. It was Naum who continued his mission to educate people. Konstantin, for his part, was assigned bishop of Bregalnica when Bulgaria expanded close to Thessaloniki (904) in the early 10th century. Sources suggest that the fourth Slavonic bishop was Marko of Devol, one of Clement’s students, and therefore the question of the existence of a third Slavonic bishop has inevitably been raised. As of recently, scholars have been arguing that this third bishop is to be located in Pelagonija. The existence of these four Slavonic bishops and the location of the territories in which they served undoubtedly suggests that Boris’s “Slavonic Project” had chronological continuity and that it spread during Simeon’s rule to the neighboring Slavonic regions, along the Bregalnica and the surrounding area, and perhaps to Pelagonija as well. Their activities in the aforementioned regions continued at least until the middle of the 10th century.
Slověne, vol. 7, No 2, p. 8–46., 2018
The article addresses the issue of dating a Church Slavonic translation from Greek of Pope Leo the Great’s Tome to Archbishop Flavian of Constantinople (449), confirmed by the Fourth Ecumenical Council as an essential document of dogma (451). So far the translation has been dated as widely as the 12th century. The existing interpretations were mainly concerned with the biography of the translator, a monk Theodosius, who lived in the Kievan Rus' in the 12th century and is thought to have been an abbot of the Kievan Caves monastery (A. Shakhmatov’s version) or a cleric under the metropolitan (E. Golubinski’s version). Dwelling on the second of these suggestions, and adding his own hypothesis that Theodosius was educated in Byzantium, at the Orphanotropheion of St. Paul, the author of the article goes on to elucidate an obscure passage in Theodosius’s introduction to the Slavic translation of the Tome with a mention of an unnamed patriarch and to further hypothesize about the date of the translation: supposedly the translation activities took place at the time when Kliment Smoliatich was the nominal head of the Kievan metropoly and thus can be dated between September 1149 and April 1151. The final part of the article addresses the issue from a different perspective, discussing Theodosius’s introduction in the context of Old Slavonic hymnography. It interprets the phrase about the unnamed ʽPatriarch’ in the view of the Slavonic text of a church service devoted to Pope Leo and held in monasteries, thus producing a more exact date for the translation, February 18, 1151.
Святые Константин-Кирилл и Мефодий как покровители Польского королевства
Пътят на Кирил и Методий – пространствени и културно-исторически измерения / The Path of Cyril and Methodius – Spatial and Cultural Historical Dimensions, C. Бърлиева, В. Желязкова, К. Станев ed. (= Кирило-Методиевски студии / Cyrillo-Methodian studies 33), Cофия 2023, 91-108, 2023
In 1436 Zbigniew Oleśnicki (1423–1455), Bishop of Kraków, mentioned that Saint Cyril and Saint Methodius, were the patrons of the Polish kingdom. This event remains highly mysterious, as because the bishop was rather famous for his activities in the field of strengthening the role of the Roman Catholic Church, and nothing is known of his other manifestations of sympathy for the Orthodox Church, its patrons and saints. Intriguing in this context are the plans for the introduction of ecclesiastical union which were supposedly presented by Gregory Tsamblak, an envoy of Władysław Jagiełło, King of Poland, at the Council of Constance in 1418, as well as a number of his foundations of orthodox frescoes in the Catholic churches of Lesser Poland. A separate issue is the memory of the “Solun Brothers” in nineteenth-century Krakow, evidenced by a painting by Jan Matejko in 1885 and his contribution to the painting decoration of the Greek Orthodox Church in the former Catholic Church of St. Norbert in Krakow
Boris Stojkovski, THE LIFE OF SAINT CONSTANTINE THE GREAT IN ARMENIAN SYNAXARION OF TER ISRAEL
Ter Israel, erudite and Armenian Church father from the beginning of the 13th century compiled, based on some earlier sources, synaxarion in the Armenian language for the needs of the Church of that Caucasian country. With some later additions, this synaxarion represents first class source for the church history of medieval Armenia. In the paper the Life of Saint Constantine the great and Empress Helen was treated, which can be found in this synaxarion under 21st of May, or 14th mareri according to the old Armenian calendar. This Life is for the first time translated into Serbian language with necessary comments and the analysis of the description of Emperor Constantine’s life. The author has given special stress on the sources used for writing this hagiographic work. One interesting thing is pointed out, namely the usage of passion of Saint Eusignius, but what is also notable, is not quite wide use of Life of Constantine by Eusebius, which is primary source for all hagiographic works about the first Christian emperor. Constantine’s conversion to Christianity provided in this Armenian menologion is described on the basis of Life of Saint Sylvester, which provides rather specific and most probably completely inaccurate data on Constantine’s conversion to Christian faith. There is a lot of Church tradition present in the writing, as well as Byzantine legends, for example the one on Saint Mitrophanos, the bishop of the city of Byzantion and the First Ecumenical council. The editors of the writing dedicated great attention to the emergence of Constantinople, which partially is in accordance with other historical sources. Constantine’s mother, Empress Helen, is just briefly mentioned. Editors of the Armenian synaxarion mention only her origin, by using the already mentioned passion of Saint Eusignius. A part that, in a very short sentence her trip to Jerusalem and her alleged finding of the True Cross is described. The last data on her is in context of Constantine’s funeral. According to the authors of this Life, Emperor is buried alongside his mother Helen, which is not in accordance with historical sources. Even though there are certain imprecise data, even inaccuracies, this work is especially interested as a contribution to the cult of Saint Emperor Constantine and Empress Helen in Armenia, one of the most ancient Christian countries and nations.
The first third of the 15th century was difficult and the most important period in formation of the Crimean Khanate. Despite the importance of the Crimea for the Golden Horde, it was rather peripheral district. The impossibility to control the situation on the peninsula has led to the fact that the Emir Idegei and his khans returned to the practice started by Toktamysh Khan at the end of the 14th century and allowed a local Chingizid Khan Bek-Sufi (from the genus of Tuka-Timur) to rule in the Crimea. As a ruler of the Crimean Ulus, Beck-Sufi Saray recognized the power of the Saray khans, whose governors were constantly in Solkhat. Khan Dawlet Berdi, brother of Beck-Sufi Khan, also received the approval from the Ulugh Muhammad Khan to rule in the Crimea, but tried to seize the power in the Golden Horde and lost. Thus, there is no reason to remove the date of the emergence of the Crimean khans and Crimean Khanate itself from 1442 to 1420. On the contrary to the accepted view of the active intervention of the Lithuanian Grand Duke Vytautas in the history of the Golden Horde, an objective analysis of the sources for the period of 1400–1430 does not confirm this.
Vestnik Volgogradskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Serija 4. Istorija. Regionovedenie. Mezhdunarodnye otnoshenija, 2017
The title of autokrator first appeared in the Rhomaian Empire (Byzantium). Translated as samoderzhets, it was taken up by Slavic countries that followed Rhomaian tradition. Taking as her starting point the indispensable 1935 work by George Ostrogorsky Autokrator and Samoderzhets, the author has analysed similarities and differences in the development of the title of samoderzhets in Serbia and Russia. Three phases have been analysed, of which the first two in more detail: the beginning of the use of this title; the development of the title and its significance; the diverging of the ways of Serbia and Russia. The first phase shows that the adoption of the title in both countries is preceded by both an increase of the country's actual power and the improvement of its position among other Christian (Orthodox) countries. A significant difference appears in the second phase: Serbian kings have used the title of samoderzhets, but it was no longer in use after Stefan Dušan's coronation as Emperor; after the fall of the Empire, Serbian rulers began to use it again. In Russia it was the other way around: the use of the title was more frequent after Ivan IV's coronation. It seems that the title was mainly used in Serbia to underline independence where there was no obvious proof for it, and thus was not needed during the Serbian Empire, while Russian rulers, on the contrary, used it only when they had earned it through the actual power of their country. In the third phase both countries abandoned the Rhomaian model. Russia turned to Western models from the time of Peter I, while the development of Serbia was interrupted by its fall under Ottoman rule.