Zobor Abbey: Witness to Early Christianity Among Slavs

Christianisation and the Liturgical Question of Slavs in Central Europe

The earliest attempts to Christianise Central European Slavs date back to the seventh century. ¹ The society of Slavic tribes seems to have been well advanced at that time, as demonstrated by the remains of extant circumvallated hillforts (Šolle 1996, 38). The dynamically developing society of Slavs started to attract the attention of neighbouring countries, both politically and religiously, which resulted in several attempts at missionary activities above the Danube River. The earliest is described in the hagiographical source, the Vita s. Amandi, according to Amand, the bishop of Maastricht (†679). After hearing about pagan Slavs, the bishop crossed the Danube River and preached Christ’s Gospel in their territories. Amand returned to his flock when he realised that his initial activity brought little result (Bartoňková et al. II 1967, 49–50). ² Although Amand’s activity (ca. 630) occurred during the Slavic realm of the merchant Samo (623–58), there is no proof that Amand acted with the support of the royal court. Even though hagiographical sources agree on the fact that Amand’s activity was largely unsuccessful (Bartoňková et al. II 1967, 53–56), ³ his missionary activities resulted in the first known group of Christians above the Danube, as Philipp Harvengius noted: ‘After a small flock converted to the faith, he [i.e. Amand] entrusted [to someone] the care over preaching God’s Word, and organised the services, so that nothing would lack for their salvation’ (Bartoňková et al. II 1967, 54). ⁴

The next attempt to Christianise the Slavs above the Danube occurred over a century later. Although the Frankish missionaries were randomly visiting Slavic territories in the mid-eighth century (based on directives of Virgilius, archbishop of Salzburg [766/7-84]), systematic Christianisation only began after the defeat of the Avars by Charlemagne in 796. The following synod of bishops, held in Pepin’s military camp, ad ripas Danubii, where in the presence of Paulinus II, patriarch of Aquileia (787-802/4) the bishops accorded on the plan of Christianisation at the newly obtained territories inhabited by Avars and Slavs (AAVV 1998, 1489–1490; Jaffé 1873, 301, 311–318). ⁵ The territories were divided into three major spheres of influence: the area north of the Danube (the principalities of Moravia and Nitra) came under the administration of the Passau bishopric; Upper Pannonia (the northwestern part of present-day Hungary) was governed by the Salzburg bishopric; the remaining Pannonia (the rest of Hungary, northeast of Serbia and Croatia) was managed by the patriarchate of Aquileia (Cibulka 1958, 176). The Frankish-Bavarian missionaries from Passau began their work shortly after they started their missionary activities among the Slavs in the neighbouring principality of Moravia. In 817, the political influence of the Frankish kingdom did not extend to the territory; it was only in 822 that it was evident such control existed. Frankish political influence was initially limited to the borders of Moravia and had not yet reached the principality of Nitra (Steinhübel 2004, 112–115). After almost thirty years of missionary work, the Moravian Slavs were officially converted in 831 (Bartoňková et al. IV 1971, 407). ⁶ This was evidenced from a later source (contemporary records do not record the baptism). ⁷

The principality of Nitra fell under the jurisdiction of Passau. The first missionaries came from Salzburg, during the episcopacy of Virgilius (Bartoňková et al. III 1969, 304–305; Steinhübel 2004, 87). ⁸ A missionary centre at Nitra was soon established. The consecration of the first stone-wall church in Nitra in 828, by Adalram, bishop of Salzburg (821–36) (Bartoňková et al. III 1969, 312; Dvorník 1970, 77), ⁹ was attributed to the labours of missionaries, although it could also be seen as an attempt of the then pagan prince Pribina (ca. 840–61) to satisfy his Christian wife, and her court’s needs, as they were used to in their Frankish homeland (Steinhübel 2004, 123).

The principality of Nitra fell further under Frankish influence in 833, when Pribina was expelled from Nitra by Mojmír I (ca. 830–ca. 846), the prince of Moravia. The subsequent merging of both principalities into one state, known as Great Moravia, enabled the missionaries working in Moravia to expand their activities into Nitra. Although Nitra was still pagan, at this time, recent archaeological research has uncovered two churches found on the Devín and Bratislava castle hills (both in Slovakia; Steinhübel 2004, 180), ¹⁰ which are probable results of the activity of these missionaries. Christianity, although it did not find any substantial opposition amongst Central European Slavs, was penetrating their lives quite slowly, and even after many years of missionary activity, the area was still considered ‘barbaric’ by its neighbours (as stated at the synod in Mains in 852; Bartoňková et al. IV 1971, 34). ¹¹ Despite the lack of any further references regarding Christianisation, one can legitimately suppose that the Christian faith was gradually prevailing and implanting itself amongst the Great Moravian Slavs (Curta 2001, 109; Kožiak 2004, 110–113; Vlasto 1970, 20–21). This is reflected in Prince Rastislav’s (846–70) letter to the Byzantine Emperor Michael III (842–67), written in 862, where he states that his people spurned its pagan customs and faiths and abided by Christian law (Bartoňková et al. III 1969, 144; Marsina 1971, 10). This missionary activity, led to two outcomes. Firstly, it emphasised the essential religious education needed for baptism but did not support the development of a broader educational system, leaving the Slavs without an intellectual elite. Secondly, it imposed the dependence of the Slavs on the Frankish kingdom. For whatever reason, the prince, in the same letter, asked the emperor to send him a bishop and a teacher who would explain the true Christian faith in the local community language (Bartoňková et al. II 1967, 99, 127–128). ¹² The same letter, recorded by another biographer, reiterated the prince’s request to send a man to the Slavs who can teach the truth and guide the people toward righteousness. This implies that the confusion among the newly converted individuals arose from the missionaries working among them. He specifies their countries of origin: Italy, Greece and Germany (Bartoňková et al. II 1967, 144). ¹³ These findings are surprising. The missionaries described as being from Germany (из нѣмьць) are most likely the missionaries from the Passau bishopric, who asserted their claim to religious influence in Great Moravia, and who were active among the Slavs as early as the eighth century. While this assumption is plausible, identifying the other two categories remains unclear. Since there is no mention of the sources for any other group of missionaries (aside from those coming from Passau and Salzburg), one has to rely on more or less probable theories and hypotheses.

Missionaries from Greece (из грькъ) have been identified as those missionaries from the former Ravenna Exarchate (which ceased to exist in 751), who, speaking Greek, could be perceived as Greeks by the Slavs. They were not, however, identified with the missionaries from the Byzantine Empire, as they were not known as ‘Greeks’ but as ‘Romans’ (Ῥωμαῖοι) (Fossier and Sondheimer 1997, 104; Kazhdan et al. 1991, 344; Kinnamos 1976, 240; Ostrogorsky 1993, 26; Wolff 1948, 5–7, 33–34;). ¹⁴ Francis Dvorník hypothesised that the missionaries from Greece came from the duchy of Dalmatia, since that territory was called Greece by the Slavs, but admitted they could also have come from Bulgaria (Dvorník 1926, 155). Another theory was proposed by Alexander Isačenko, who thought it could be Irish-Scottish monks (Isačenko 1963, 62). Archaeological evidence supported this theory (Cibulka 1958, 199–233), but there is no consensus. ¹⁵ For example, Dvorník disagreed with this assertion and explained that the churches were not built by the missionaries but by architects, masons and other craftsmen who could travel willingly and independently, accompanying the missionaries on their journeys. However, if the Irish-Scottish missionaries worked among the Slavs, their activities would typically target simple peasants, unlike the Bavarian missionaries, who focused on the ruling class and nobility (Šolle 1996, 55, 62, 66). The category of missionaries from Italy (из влахъ) is also quite ambiguous. Although the influence of northern Italy seems unlikely (due to the division of territories among bishoprics), Italian missionaries may be associated with those from Aquileia, who could hypothetically reach the Slavs through Pannonia, alongside the missionaries from Salzburg who were sent by Virgilius. Given that the synod ad ripas Danubii was presided over by Paulinus II, Aquileia’s patriarch, it is probable that he might have asserted such influence.

Turning back to the letter, it turned out to be crucial for the next development of Christianity, not merely among the Great Moravian Slavs but also all the Slavs in general. Unlike the previous request to Pope Nicholas I (858–67), who said he was unable, at that time, to satisfy Rastislav’s needs (Bartoňková et al. II 1967, 148; Marsina 1971, 12–14), ¹⁶ the Emperor’s response was positive. He sent his emissaries, the saintly brothers Constantine (Cyril; †869) and Methodius (†885), on their mission to Great Moravia (Bartoňková et al. III 1969, 145–146; Marsina 1971, 11). To satisfy Rastislav’s needs and at the Emperor’s command, Constantine wrote letters that could locate all the sounds of the Slavic language. His biographer noted that ‘. . . [Constantine] composed the letters, and began to write down the words of Gospel . . .’. ¹⁷ After his arrival in Great Moravia, Constantine began his work and ‘. . . translated [to Slavic] entire church order, and taught them [i.e. the Slavs] the morning service, hours, vespers, compline, and the holy service [=divine liturgy], and he left there also other disciplines, grammar, and music . . .’. ¹⁸ This would mean that besides the Gospel, the mission’s main focus was to provide the Slavs with liturgical books, not excluding music and grammar, which was a condition sine qua non for any intellectual activity. The liturgical books constituted the most prominent part of the literary heritage of the mission, including the Italian legend Vita cum translatione s. Clementis, detailing the work of Constantine and Methodius in the development of the liturgy (Bartoňková et al. II 1967, 128). ¹⁹

It is important to remember that Frankish missionaries must have spoken Slavic; otherwise, their activity among Slavs would be inconceivable. It can therefore be supposed that there was some terminological translation on their part and attempts to write the translations down (such as prayers or confessional formulas) (Vondrák 1894, 122; Weingart 1938, 122–132), ²⁰ but with the lack of any substantial extant literary records, one can only speculate. One can, however, deduce several facts by summarising the Christianisation process of the Great Moravian Slavs. The systematic process of Christianisation commenced in the early ninth century (with previous attempts in the seventh and eighth centuries) when missionaries from the Passau and Salzburg bishoprics sent out missionaries. Although the records do not make explicit reference to bishops or monasteries, one can assume that some provisional ecclesiastical hierarchical structure existed. The main evidence for the spread of Christianity amongst the Slavs is primarily found in archaeology, where several discoveries of churches and graves have been made. Although the synod in Mainz (852) viewed Moravian Christianity as ‘barbaric’, the Slavs gradually converted to Christianity, a fact supported by Prince Rastislav’s letter to the Byzantine Emperor Michael III. Whether the prince requested emissaries (a bishop and a teacher) for political reasons (possibly to reduce dependence on Frankish influence) or for other motives is not significant. The brothers Constantine and Methodius, along with their companions, arrived in Great Moravia and began working in an area where Christianity was already established and where Bavarian missionaries were active. Unlike the Bavarian missionaries, however, Constantine and Methodius not only translated the most important liturgical books into Slavic (in the newly invented Slavic script, ‘Glagolitic’), but they also established a school in which young Slavic men could learn to read and write, to learn the law, Bible, etc. The fact that Constantine and Methodius structured educational provision and implemented Constantinopolitan liturgy in the territory (where Latin liturgy had been standard since the beginning of the ninth century) understandably provoked reactions from the Latin clergy.

The first reaction occurred when the brothers were living in Great Moravia. It came from the Latin and Frankish archpriests, priests and disciples (архиерѣи съ иерѣи и оученици), who complained against the Slavic language, arguing that God could have chosen Slavic letters earlier in time, since the beginning, if He so wished. However, God undoubtedly chose just three languages, Hebrew, Greek and Latin, which are worth glorifying God (Bartoňková et al. II 1967, 102). ²¹ A similar complaint reached Venice, where the brothers had stopped on their way to Rome. Latin bishops, priests and monks (епископи и поповѣ и чернорисци) reproached Constantine for his audacity of inventing the letters for Slavs, while this did not do ‘. . . either an Apostol, or the Roman pope, or Gregory the Theologian, or Jerome, or Augustine . . .’. They repeated that they were aware merely of the same three languages, worth glorifying God (Bartoňková et al. II 1967, 105–106). ²² Moreover, after they arrived in Rome, complaints came from the ‘many people’, who murmured against Slavic books, saying that ‘. . . it is inappropriate to any nation to have proper letters, besides Jews, Greeks, and Latins accordingly to Pilate’s inscription on the Christ’s Cross’ (Bartoňková et al. II 1967, 146; Thomson 1992, 67–122). ²³

The fate of the Slavic language (primarily in the liturgy and Bible) remained under threat, however, the initial reaction was positive. The sources state, that after Constantine and Methodius arrived there, Pope Hadrian II (867–72) accepted the Slavic books (книгы словѣньскыѧ), blessed them and placed them on the altar in the church of St. Mary, called Fatné (Bartoňková et al. II 1967, 146). ²⁴ Then, the Slavic books were put to use (пѣша же с ними литоургію), and the Slavic liturgy began to be celebrated in various churches in Rome (the biographer lists the churches of St. Mary, St. Peter, St. Petronilla, St. Andrew and St. Paul). What Constantine’s biography emphasises is the language of these liturgies (словѣньскымъ ѩзыкомъ, or свѧтоую литоургію словѣньскы) (Bartoňková et al. II 1967, 110–111). ²⁵ When Pope Hadrian II later (in ca. 869/870) recommended Methodius to princes Rastislav, Svätopluk (871–94) and Koceľ (861–76) and allowed the use of Slavic language at worship (Bartoňková et al. II 1967, 147–150, 168–176; Bartoňková et al. III 1969, 154–156; Marsina 1971, 12–14), ²⁶ having consecrated Methodius a bishop for the diocese of Pannonia, he informed the princes that he had sent Methodius to their lands to teach and to translate the books into the Slavic language (Bartoňková et al. II 1967, 174–175; Bartoňková et al. III 1969, 155–156). ²⁷ Opposition to this move came from high levels of Central European society, including King Louis II of Germany (843–76) and the bishops of Salzburg, Adalwin (859–73), Passau, Hermanrich (866–74) and Freising, Anno (854/5–75) who frequently reproached Methodius for teaching in their territory (Bartoňková et al. II 1967, 151). ²⁸ However, they did not complain about the language or liturgical traditions.

In 879 Pope John VIII (872–82) banned the use of the Slavic language in worship, calling it a ‘barbaric’ language and ordered the celebration of the liturgy to be in either Latin or Greek, although he permitted the continued usage of the Slavic language to teach the people (Bartoňková et al. III 1969, 192–193; Mansi 1772, 133; Marsina 1971, 22–23). ²⁹ When, in ca. 880, the same pope allowed the use of Slavic language in a liturgical context, he said that there was no obstacle to singing the Mass in Slavic, or to reading the Gospel, as well as readings from both the Old and New Testament (Bartoňková et al. III 1969, 197–208; Marsina 1971, 23–25). ³⁰ In 885, Pope Stephen V (885–91) banned the use of the Slavic language, and despite the permission to use it in the worship given by his predecessor, John VIII, he says in his letter that Methodius dared to celebrate the services, sacraments and Masses in the Slavic language (Bartoňková et al. III 1969, 215–229; Marsina 1971, 27–29) ³¹ (the diction pointing to the possible intervention of somebody adverse to the Slavic language.) There are no other references that could provide further information on how this ban was reflected in practice. However, it seems that it was largely ignored in some areas of Slavic Europe, as evidenced by the reaction of Pope John X (914–28) in 925, who admonished Ivan II, Bishop of Split (914–28), for not adhering to Methodius’ teachings and not using the Slavic language in worship (Bartoňková et al. III 1969, 244; Sakcinski 1874, 77–78). ³²

Reactions, whether positive or negative, focused on the use of the Slavic language in the liturgy and Bible. Neither of these reactions spoke of using or implementing another liturgical tradition or rite. All complaints were directed at using a language other than Hebrew, Greek and Latin in the liturgy. In addition, when John VIII explains that Methodius can only celebrate services in Greek or Latin, he did not pay attention to ritual differences. In modern terminology, one can hardly suppose he could have had the Latin rite Mass in two linguistic versions in mind, as he certainly did not have two linguistic versions of the Constantinopolitan liturgy, in the ninth century. The presupposition that a designation of languages is to be understood in a broader context and would also include the rite (i.e. Latin = Latin [Roman] rite, and Greek = Greek [Byzantine] rite) seems quite reasonable. Although there were differences in individual rites and liturgies, it appears that, as the Church was considered one (undivided), its expression in various rituals was unproblematic despite all the differences. In this light, we can perceive the information about the funeral of Constantine, who died in Rome on 14 February 869, that the pope ordered all priests, both Latin and Greek, to come to his funeral to sing psalms and chants (Bartoňková et al. II 1967, 131). ³³ Similarly, Constantine’s disciples celebrated the funeral rites in Latin, Greek and Slavic at his brother Methodius’ funeral (who died on 6 April 885); his disciples celebrated the funeral rites in Latin, Greek and Slavic (Bartoňková et al. II 1967, 162). ³⁴

These sources do not specify which liturgical tradition translations were produced in the ninth century. It can only be assumed that, whilst translating in Constantinople, the tradition was likely Constantinopolitan. Biographers inform us that translations continued during the mission’s duration in Great Moravia, and when the pope sent Methodius back to the Slavs, he stated that he sent him to teach and translate the books into the Slavic language. One can only speculate when, and if at all, the brothers also translated Latin liturgical books (Libelli Missae). The fact is that there are early liturgical translations of not only the Constantinopolitan rite but also the Latin rite. The oldest extant Slavic translation (written in Glagolitic script) is not of the Constantinopolitan but of the Latin rite – the so-called ‘Kiev leaflets’ (Hamm 1979, 42–61; Jagić 1890, 45–54; Weingart 1938, 114–137). While all the sources about using the Slavic language ensures us about the language, it remains ambiguous regarding the liturgical ritual.

Political Orientation of Central Europe Under the Rule of the House of Árpáds

It is unknown when Great Moravia ceased to exist. The year 906 is usually called the year ad quem in historiography. When the battle of Bratislava took place, the sources that recorded this event did not include the Great Moravian Slavs. Such proof ex silentio, however, might mean that the Great Moravian Slavs did not participate in this battle and does not necessarily imply that the state no longer existed. The lack of other references prevents us from proposing additional hypotheses. After King Svätopluk died in 894, Great Moravia quietly perished (at least according to the sources) and fragmented. While the former principality of Nitra gradually came under the rule of the Magyars in the newly emerging old Hungarian kingdom, the former principality in Moravia experienced a different fate. Following the defeat of the Magyars by King Otto I (936–73) at the battle of Lechfeld in 955, Moravia was granted to Boleslav I (935–67 or 972), the ruler of Bohemia, by the victorious king. Some thirty years later, the Polish king, Bolesław I ‘the Brave’ (992–1025) annexed Moravia (in 999) and governed it until 1019 or 1029, when Prince Břetislav (1034–55) recaptured it. Since then, Moravia has shared a history with Bohemia. For the Magyars, the defeat represented a significant change; they moved away from their nomadic lifestyle and began to settle among the Slavs (Steinhübel 2004, 171).

The date a quo of the new realm, ruled by Magyars is considered the year 1000, when the Magyar Prince Stephen (ruled since 997) was crowned king. Its political status between 906 (and perhaps even before) and 1000 remains unclear. The beginnings of the old Hungarian kingdom were marked by attempts to integrate into European ruling dynasties and establish a solid and stable position of the newly established kingdom of Magyars with its own royal dynasty. The House of Árpáds, the first ruling dynasty, developed marriage alliances with Western kingdoms and maintained extraordinary relations with the Byzantine Empire, as well as other countries where Byzantine culture prevailed (such as Kyivan Rus’ or Serbia). Thus, the first king, Stephen (997–1038), married the Bavarian princess Giselle (ca. 985–1065), and his sister Maria (Grimelda) (ca. 1000–26) married the Venetian Doge Otto Orseolo (1008–26). Later, King Andrew I (1046–60) married Anastasia in Russia (ca. 1023–74/1094), and his nephew Geza I (1074–77) married the Byzantine princess Synadene (1070s). The daughter of King Ladislaus I (1077–95) Piroska (1088–1134), who received the baptismal name Eirene, became the wife of Byzantine emperor John II Komnenos (1118–43). Another of Ladislaus’ daughters (name unknown, married ca. 1091) married Jaroslav Sviatopolkovič of Volhynia (1099–1118). Son of Geza I, King Coloman ‘the Learned’ (1095–1116), married Eufemia of Kyiv (†1139), the daughter of grand prince Vladimir II Monomakh of Kyiv (1113–25). Some years later, King Belo II (1131–41) married Jelena (after 1109–46), the daughter of King Uroš I of Serbia (1112–45), and became his son-in-law. His son King Geza II (1141–62) married Euphrosyne of Kyiv (ca. 1130–ca. 1193), the daughter of grand prince Mstislav I Monomakh of Kyiv (1125–32), and his brother King Stephen IV (1163–65), married the Byzantine princess Maria Komnene (ca. 1144–90). Geza (ca. 1150 – between 1191 and 1210), the brother of Belo III (1172–96), married a Byzantine noblewoman, and Margherita (*1175, *: born), the daughter of Belo III, became the wife of Byzantine emperor Isaac II Angelos (1185–95). King Belo IV (1235–70) married the Byzantine princess Maria Lascarina (ca. 1206–70) and Anne (ca. 1260–81), and the daughter of King Stephen V (1270–72), married the Byzantine emperor Andronikos II Palaiologos (1282–1328) (Adam 2003, 17–19).

This incomplete list (selected here are just marriages with the eastern nobility) illustrates Árpádian attempts to integrate with European royal families and demonstrates good relations with the countries and dynasties of those who shared Byzantine culture and religion. Therefore, it is clear that the political and religious attitudes toward Byzantine culture in the early Hungarian kingdom were more than amicable (Avenarius 1992, 113–132). This led to the ruling class’s favourable stance towards Byzantine culture in the kingdom, evident in various historical outputs documented in written sources. Consequently, an autonomous principality in the region, now known as Banat in Romania and Serbia in the early eleventh century, whose prince Ajtony (Achtum, early eleventh century) was baptised following Byzantine custom (Curta 2006, 248; Endlicher 1849, 214). ³⁵ Having both Latin and Byzantine faiths in some presupposed mutual modus vivendi in the same territory, one might expect the reactions and attitudes of the administration to reflect the existing model. For instance, we find a reference saying that the faithful, both Eastern and Western, were administered by one hierarchy, usually Latin (Knauz I 1874, 40; Sztripszky 1913, 23). ³⁶ During the reign of King Andrew II (1205–35), there were many conversions to the Byzantine rite among Hungarians and Germans. The presence of Christians from both traditions, in a shared territory, suggests mutual influence between them. There is a reference, albeit ambiguous in this context, from the 1273 testament of Latin provost Mothmer (1264–81), in which he bequeaths his vineyard to the priests under the condition that they sing ‘Salve Regina’ or ‘Gaude Dei genitrix’ every Saturday after vespers (Hradszky 1901, 300). ³⁷ While the first prayer is one of the most ancient ones of the Latin tradition, the latter (Богородице Дѣво, радуйся) is foremost known in the Christian East. The information from the testament, however, is ambiguous in that the prayer ‘Gaude Dei genitrix’ was also well known and used in the West and, in this context, also in the old Hungarian kingdom. Besides these references pointing to the Byzantine influence in the kingdom, sources also record information about a Greek diocese that is located within the borders of the archdiocese of Kaloča (Fejér VI/1 1830, 88). ³⁸ Eventually, the Hungarian-Wallachian metropolis was created in 1359 by the Constantinopolitan patriarch Kallistos I (1350–4, 1355–63) to be the most senior ecclesiastical office subject to Constantinople, which covered the territory of Wallachia ³⁹ (Miklosich and Müller 1860, 383–388). ⁴⁰

The political situation under the Árpád dynasty was favourable to the Christian East, particularly to Constantinople and Kyivan Rus’, which substantially impacted the kingdom’s social and political life. However, during the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, this eastward political trajectory gradually shifted toward the West. This period saw political and social development in the old Hungarian kingdom, leading to the gradual Latinisation of public (social and political) and ecclesiastical life. An analysis of this process indicated that it reached milestones in five events of international (global) and national (local) significance. The first event that initiated the entire process, which eventually influenced the political direction of the old Hungarian kingdom, was the Fourth Crusade and the subsequent conquest of Constantinople in 1204, leading to the establishment of the Latin Empire that lasted until 1261. The fall of Constantinople into Latin hands facilitated a closer and more immediate encounter between the Latin West and the Christian East. The immigration of many Byzantines to the West and their eventual cohabitation within Latin dioceses raised religious and administrative issues that needed to be addressed at the highest hierarchical level. The Eastern and Western churches were no longer as closely connected as they had been in the first millennium, and both had already developed into independent institutions. Recognising this, the Council fathers deemed it necessary to take a position regarding the Eastern faithful living in Western territories and to resolve specific incidents of conflict and confrontation between both ecclesiastical cultures.

Thus, at the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), a policy for the Eastern faithful (and the Church) was delineated. Three canons addressed the relevant issues:

After these two international events, the third local event sparked social changes within the old Hungarian kingdom. The Mongol invasion of the kingdom began in April 1241 and lasted until 1250. Mongol invasions devastated vast territories in the kingdom and ultimately drove immigration from Transylvania and Halič. The immigrants began to settle in the old Hungarian kingdom under the so-called ‘Wallachian Law’, legislation that regulated the economic and administrative aspects of immigrants’ lives (Czambel II 1987, 80). ⁴¹ It is significant that the perception of the Eastern faithful living in the kingdom gradually changed from ‘domestic’ to ‘foreign’ by domestic society and the government. Likewise, the documents and regulations of the councils and synods concerning religious life were no longer applied to all Christians but only to the Catholics because they were considered ‘natives’, ‘local’ and ‘domestic’. The entire process concluded with the death of King Andrew III in 1301, marking the demise of the House of Árpád. The last member of the dynasty, who was favourable toward Eastern culture in the kingdom, left no heirs. An era of political turmoil followed this as various claimants vied for the throne. After a prolonged period of disorder and the defeat of the Hungarian oligarchs in 1323, King Charles I of Anjou (1308–42) took control, with papal support. He ascended to the Hungarian throne in 1303 with solid backing from Pope Boniface VIII (1294–1303). ⁴² This did not mean, however, any sudden end of Eastern culture in the old Hungarian kingdom. After the bubonic plague spread throughout the kingdom in 1347 (Sedlák 2002, 306), ⁴³ the subsequent decrease in the number of inhabitants caused further waves of immigration, arriving from Eastern territories. The eastern presence was so large that even the patriarch of Constantinople intervened (Miklosich and Müller 1860, 532–536). ⁴⁴ The vast influx of Orthodox immigrants, known as ‘pseudo-Christians’, resulted in mass apostasy amongst the Hungarian and German Latin rite Christians. For this reason, Pope Boniface IX (1389–1404), who had heard of the scandal, appointed a vicar apostolic to address the growing schism with Rome (Fejér III/2 1829, 399–400). ⁴⁵ The Eastern faithful were differentiated from those native – the Latin faithful in the fourteenth to fifteenth centuries. Similarly, a confessional dimension arose and began to be perceived in contemporary documents, notably in the comparison of ‘domestic Catholics’ versus ‘domestic’ and ‘foreign non-Catholics’, who were often described as ‘schismatics’, ‘heretics’ and ‘sectarians’.

Zobor Abbey in the Context of Time

There are two theories regarding when Zobor Abbey of St. Hyppolitus was established. The first suggests that it was during the Great Moravian period (ninth to tenth centuries) while the other states it was either at the end of the tenth or the beginning of the eleventh century. The hypothesis that suggests an earlier date is based on the legend of King Svätopluk. ⁴⁶ The legend states that at the end of his life, the king retired to a small community of monks or hermits in the remote forested hillside of Zobor Mountain, where he had previously supported the construction of a church (Bretholz 1923, 32–34). ⁴⁷ The legend was recorded by the famous dean of Prague cathedral chapter and chronicler Cosmas (†1125), in the twelfth century. Cosmas may have heard the story in Ostrihom in 1090 or 1099 when he was ordained priest. Modern historiography admits that the legend recorded by Cosmas has a historical core (Marsina 2012, 23–24). Another reason, supporting this hypothesis, is the abbey’s patronage of St. Hyppolitus. It is believed that Zobor Abbey adopted this patronage from the presumed mother monastery of St. Hyppolitus in Sankt Pölten (est. ca. 791), which could hypothetically serve as the easternmost support base for missions among the Slavs (Ruttkay and Slivka 1985, 335; Slivka 1991, 5). Another contributory factor is its proximity to the episcopal centre in Nitra, where Wiching became bishop in 880 (AAVV VI 1982, 473; Bartoňková et al. III 1969, 197–208; Bretholz 1923, 18–21; Lutovský 2001, 365; Mansi 1772, 181). ⁴⁸ There is a theory that Wiching might have been a Benedictine monk, and as such, he could have contributed to the establishment of Zobor Abbey, perhaps by persuading King Svätopluk to found the monastery (Steinhübel 2004, 137). Another hypothesis states that Wiching could be both the bishop of Nitra and abbot of the monastery (Slivka 2000–2001, 29–30). If this were true, that Wiching was a mitred abbot, it would be a structure common among contemporary Frankish bishoprics in which the so-called ‘cathedral monasteries’ (in German ‘domkloster’) were common practice. In England, this would later be emulated by the cathedral priories. The assertion, however, about Wiching being a Benedictine monk, is not supported by any of the sources (Autenrieth et al. 1979, 171 [register], 5, 7, 47, 63, 103, 124, 140, 150, 157; Bartoňková et al. I 1966, 129, 269, 277, 300; Bartoňková et al. III 1969, 205, 211, 222, 237; Baumann I 1888, 279; Boshof 2001, 1136–1137; Herrmann 1965, 209–212; Lübke 1998, 59–60; Oswald 1967, 11–14). At the same time, the patronage of St. Hyppolitus alone is insufficient to provide evidence for the Sankt Pölten monastery as a mother monastery for Zobor Abbey. Although its patronage has been recorded in sources since the eleventh century and may have a connection to Sankt Pölten, it could equally simply be representative of Bavarian influence on the formation of ecclesiastical governance in the old Hungarian kingdom, as was usual and common in the tenth and eleventh centuries (Györffy 1983, 115; Hervay 2001, 526; Koszta 2008, 72; Koszta 2012, 147–175). Historical sources indicate that the Sankt Pölten monastery did not play a significant role in missionary activities among Slavs as early as the ninth century. Therefore, it may seem that the origins of Zobor Abbey are linked to King Stephen I, whose generosity is recorded in the so-called Zobor charters (1111 and 1113), which state that the king enriched the properties of Zobor Abbey (Marsina 1971, 63–67). ⁴⁹ These documents, however, do not confirm the founding of the abbey by the king; rather, they speak about his donation to the existing monastery (Lukačka 2002, 30, 2003, 38; Marsina 2012, 26–27).

The importance of Nitra in Great Moravia justifies the hypothesis that the abbey existed in the ninth century. However, this is supported by archaeological evidence (Pomfyová 2015a, 2015b). ⁵⁰ Understandably, the first monastic building would probably have been built using wood as the building material (Slivka 2000–2001, 29). The sources indicate that it may have been just a cell or even a small hermitage (Foltýn 2009, 13). The original stone buildings, constructed later, could not be accurately identified because a new Baroque Camaldoli monastery was built on the ruins of the former medieval monastery; therefore, the remains of the earlier masonry were destroyed. Zobor Abbey was not the only monastery in the old Hungarian kingdom. One can find monasteries, with the indicated date of establishment in Pannonhalma [Martin of Tours] (est. 996), Pécsvárad [St. Mary and Benedict] (est. 1009), Zalavár [Hadrian of Nicomedia] (est. 1019), Tihányi [Aignan of Orleans] (est. 1055), Szekszárd [Salvator Mundi] (est. 1061), Hronský Beňadik [Benedict] (est. 1075), Somogyvár [Holy Trinity, Peter and Paul, Giles] (est. 1091), Báta [Archangel Michael] (est. 1093), and Veszprémvölgy [St. Mary] (tenth to eleventh centuries), Abasár [St. Mary], Bakonybél [St. Maurice], Kolozsmonostor/Cluj-Napoca [St. Mary], Marosvár/Cenad [John the Baptist], Mogyoród [George], Oroszlámos/Банатско Аранђелово [George], Szávaszentdemeter/Сремска Митровица [Demetrius of Thessalonica], Szentjobb/Sâniob [St. Mary], Visegrád, all founded in the eleventh century. Some of these monasteries were founded by rulers; for instance, the monastery in Veszprémvölgy was founded by Stephen I (Fejér I/2 1829, 312–314), ⁵¹ who even invited Greek builders to build it; thus, it might be the very first stone church of Byzantine type in the old Hungarian kingdom (Sztripszky 1913, 29). Likewise, Prince Ajtony built a Byzantine monastery in Márosvár, which was inhabited by Greek-speaking monks (Endlicher 1849, 214–218). ⁵² Similarly, the monastery in Visegrád was founded by King Andrew I (Fejér III/1 1829, 310–311; Knauz I 1874, 228). ⁵³ Although there are scarce references about monasteries, amongst the extant records, they probably flourished under the house of Árpáds to the extent that in 1204, Pope Innocent III (1198–1216) reproached King Imrich (1196–1204) that there were too many Greek monasteries compared to Latin ones in his kingdom (Fejér II 1829, 447). ⁵⁴

The early presence of monasticism in Bohemia commenced with the oldest monastery, Břevnov abbey (est. 993) (Friedrich I 1904, 347–350), ⁵⁵ which was founded by Prince Boleslav II ‘the Pious’ (972–99) (together with St. Adalbert), and monks from Aventinum in Rome were invited to settle there. Since Benedictine monks lived alongside Greek Basilians on Aventinum (Dvorník 1933, 284–295; Holinka 1947, 75), it can be determined that the first monks at Břevnov Abbey were from both branches. From the beginning, the abbey was intended as a centre for the education of missionaries to be sent later to the Slavs and Hungarians, and the need for domestic Slavic monks soon emerged (Kadlec 2000, 46–47). The most prominent Slavic figure in this context is certainly St. Prokop (†1053), renowned as the founder of Sázava monastery (est. ca. 1032). Sázava monastery was founded by Benedictine monks: it was famous for maintaining worship in the Slavic language (Kadlec 2000, 58). There is a generally accepted hypothesis that the Latin and Slavic liturgies existed side by side as equipollent and coequal in Bohemia in the tenth to eleventh centuries (Chaloupecký 1939, 401–455, 1950, 65–80), and although this theory has its opponents (Bartoš 1953, 7–26) ⁵⁶ historical tradition makes it more than likely (Kadlec 2000, 26–36). The presence of Slavic (Byzantine) religious culture appears to be significant in Bohemia. When the Prague bishopric was to be established, Pope John XIII (965–72) sent a letter to Prince Boleslav I, approving the foundation but imposing the condition that it must not follow Bulgarian or Russian rites or usages nor the Slavic language (Bretholz 1923, 43–44; Friedrich I 1904, 342–343) ⁵⁷ This papal condition has also been witnessed by the dean of the Prague metropolitan chapter, Hilarius of Litoměřice (†1468), who recorded a part of the papal letter in his treatise (Strahl 1775, 4). ⁵⁸ As it results from the chronicles, the Slavic language was widely used to translate both Latin and Greek ecclesiastical ceremonies in Bohemia (Pekař 1903, 132). ⁵⁹

After the death of Prince Břetislav I (1034–55), his successor Spytihněv II (1055–61) quickly expelled the monks from their monastery in 1056 and replaced them with a German abbot and monks. It is important to note that the expelled monks found refuge in the realm of Andrew I, likely at the Visegrád monastery, which Slavic monks inhabited. It is very likely that these immigrant monks adapted to Visegrád’s customs and altered their rites to follow the Byzantine tradition (Kadlec 2000, 62). Upon returning to Sázava in 1061, they retained the Byzantine-Slavic rite. In 1096, when Slavic monks were permanently expelled from the monastery by Břetislav II (1092–1100), custody of the monastery was entrusted to Latin monks led by Abbot Děthart (since 1097), who had all works, written in Slavic, destroyed (Kadlec 1 1991, 102). The ritual context of early monasticism in both the old Hungarian kingdom and Bohemia was ambiguous where missionaries are described as Benedictines, Greeks, or Slavs. Clearly, these designations cannot be interpreted in a modern way. Benedictine monks could use Latin and Slavic languages to practice either Latin or Constantinopolitan rites. Greek monks, on the other hand, would certainly employ Greek and Constantinopolitan rites, but it is possible that they adjusted to local circumstances and incorporated the Slavic language into worship. The replacement of Byzantine and/or Slavic monks with Latin ones, and vice versa, appears to be motivated more by political expediency rather than ritual preference. Thus, we can conclude that whether Zobor Abbey was founded in the ninth or tenth centuries, the music played during worship depended on the liturgical ritual used. The issue is that we do not know with certainty which traditions were initially employed. References in diplomatic documents suggest that it was primarily Latin; therefore, the earliest of them was the so-called Zobor charters issued by King Coloman (Marsina 1971, 63–67), followed by donation charters from Kings Bela III (Marsina 1971, 91–92) and Andrew II (Marsina 1971, 109–110). Additionally, sources note that two famous hermit saints, St. Svorad (ca. 980–ca. 1030) and St. Benedict (†1034) (Marsina 1997, 35–43), stayed at Zobor Abbey, and their vitae suggest they adhered to the Eastern Palestinian eremitic tradition (Madszar 1938, 358; Millik 1966, 20, 95).

The Musical Dimension of Early Slavic Monasticism

Monastic historiography, particularly institutional narratives, lacks a developed corpus of research regarding the liturgical music of the foundation. In discussing ritual, the historiography tends to focus on the liturgical languages (Latin, Greek and Slavic), yet music was undoubtedly an integral part of worship. Nevertheless, certain conclusions might be drawn. We can presuppose with a solid probability that the abbey was not founded before the second half of the ninth century. Christianity, with its rituals (including chant), was introduced via missionaries from Passau and Salzburg among the Great Moravian Slavs after 830 (in Latin). After 863, rituals and chants in the Slavic countries began to penetrate the Moravian Church (in both Constantinopolitan and Latin). Latin missionaries among Slavs focused on elementary work, baptising and teaching basic elements, a policy set out at the aforementioned synod ad ripas Danubii in 796. In addition to regular demands regarding the time of baptism (usually during the Pascha ⁶⁰ and Pentecost) and the arrangement of a form of baptism (Trinitarian formula, baptismal fountain), solid catechisation and spiritual preparation had also been recommended. ⁶¹ Guidelines for catechisation were outlined by Alcuin of York (735–804) and were further elaborated on by the Bishop of Regensburg, Baturich (817–47) or an unknown monk from the Regensburg monastery of St. Emmeram (est. ca. 739). According to the guidelines, training should not last less than seven or more than fourteen days. The catechumens were obliged to master the Lord’s Prayer and the Creed. They had to listen to catechesis regarding the Decalogue, to the teaching regarding the sins, the virtues, and regarding eternal retributions and punishments (Bartoňková et al. IV 1971, 26–27; Vavřínek 1963, 42–43). From the text of the synod, it is apparent that the missionary programme was not planned with any local educational institutions. The Bishop of Salzburg, Arno (785–821), who was temporally (until 803) entrusted with the teaching and ecclesiastical services of the Avar and Slavic people, thereafter ordained the priests and sent them among Slavs, as did his predecessor, bishop Virgilius of Salzburg (Bartoňková et al. III 1969, 304–305; Steinhübel 2004, 87). ⁶² Here, two important facts become apparent: (1) the priests were trained beyond the territory of Slavs (in Salzburg in this case), and (2) the process of arriving as foreign missionaries was not a new thing there, since it had already occurred for some twenty years. It is obvious, then, that Frankish missionaries did not organise or establish any training centre (or school) in the territory of Slavs, neither for clerics nor for the laity. Christianisation continued as before. Under Arno’s administration, the pastoral care of the Slavs became regularised by increased and regular missionary activity.

If we overlook the missionary efforts of Amand in the seventh century, which appear to have been quite solitary, along with the sporadic visits from priests sent by Virgilius in the eighth century, we can discuss the introduction of Latin music only in the ninth century. This was when the Frankish missionaries’ activities became more regular and organised. Sources suggest that priests from Salzburg arrived first, followed by those from Passau, and we find archpriests and priests among them. At Zobor Abbey, we first observe several hermits without any other information indicating their domestic or foreign origins. If we accept the hypothesis regarding the hermits, they likely did not have their own church (perhaps just a chapel) and probably visited the church in Nitra for services. Concerning other monasteries, we note that they are either Benedictine (with monks of foreign origin) or inhabited by Slavic-speaking individuals monks. This was the era of flourishing Benedictine schools, such as that of St. Gall, with representatives such as Notker Balbulus (ca. 840–912), the author of sequences in Liber hymnorum, or his confrère Tuotilo (ca. 850–915), erudite scholar and craftsman, then Étienne de Liège (ca. 850–920), abbot of Lobbes (Belgium), famous Hucbald (ca. 850–930) of Saint-Amand (France); then the reformers, such as Odo of Cluny (ca. 878–942), or Guglielmo da Volpiano (962–1031). The musical theory of the ninth century was summarised in the Musica enchiriadis treatise and was also represented by the work of Aurelian of Réôme (in the mid-ninth century).

Unlike the missionaries from the Frankish kingdom, Constantine and Methodius had the task of teaching, as revealed by Rastislav’s original letter of request and several papal letters. Teaching activities have been documented in other sources. Accordingly, we learn that after the brothers had arrived in Great Moravia, Prince Rastislav welcomed them with great honour, gathering the disciples and entrusting them to him for instruction. After translating the entire ecclesiastical order, Constantine taught them the rites of the daily liturgical cycle (Bartoňková et al. II 1967, 102). ⁶³ Similarly, in Pannonia, where on the way to Rome, Prince Koceľ entrusted fifty disciples to Constantine for the same reason (Bartoňková et al. II 1967, 105). ⁶⁴ Constantine taught together with his brother Methodius (Bartoňková et al. II 1967, 145), ⁶⁵ and they educated all the disciples (Bartoňková et al. II 1967, 165). ⁶⁶ The brothers taught not only the disciples (i.e. young men) but also children. They taught children to write, and besides organising the worship, they spent their missionary apostolate combating heresy and providing moral instruction to their flock (Bartoňková et al. II 1967, 128, 171). ⁶⁷ The question, however, is whether the brothers established any school (building ⁶⁸ ) in Great Moravia. The fact that Constantine and Methodius taught local Slavic disciples was indirectly confirmed by the fact that these same disciples had to have their orthodoxy examined in Rome. We do not have any reference regarding the examination of Frankish priests, either because they were educated in an institution that was somehow ‘accredited’ or were examined in the country of their origin. After the Slavic disciples were examined and their orthodoxy was confirmed, they were ‘approved’ as qualified for spiritual service and teaching (Bartoňková et al. II 1967, 149). ⁶⁹

Constantine and Methodius worked in Great Moravia for over three years and prepared several candidates for ordination. This education went beyond elementary catechisation and demanded higher standards of instruction. While hagiographical sources focus on the religious aspects of the brothers’ activities, they speak much less about secular education. Besides the Divine Office ⁷⁰ the brothers also taught other disciplines, namely grammar and music (Bartoňková et al. II 1967, 1–2, 149). ⁷¹ However, these belong to secular education, analogous to the Latin septem artes liberales, a complex system of disciplines constituting general, encyclopedic education (Gr. ἐγκύκλιος παιδεία, Lat. orbis doctrinae). Given that the educational situation among the Great Moravian Slavs was still in its infancy, we can suppose that besides the mentioned disciplines (grammar and music), the rest were not offered to the disciples in Great Moravia.

In the curriculum taught in Byzantium, grammar included studies of the literary works of predominantly classical authors, and music (De Harmonia) included studies on the art of proportions between dimensions and the harmonic-numerical arrangement. In this concept, audible music and its harmony were understood as a mere outline of the world’s global and ideal (divine) arrangement. ⁷² It is hardly conceivable that the Great Moravian Slavs would comprehend all the contents of these disciplines during three years of their brothers’ presence, as they were taught in Byzantium. Rather, the grammar could just be learning the letters, reading and writing, including the grammatical rules, and since the contents of De Harmonia might too be quite complicated for the people who were beginning to learn to read and write, the music thus might mean singing, which was an integral part of worship, as Latin, or Constantinopolitan. However, this is merely a hypothesis, given that we lack any further references in the sources. At the time of the mission from Constantinople, Byzantine musical (and hymnographical) culture was represented by the work of such as Theodore the Studite (759–826), Theophanes the Branded (775–845), Kassia, the nun (805/10–865/7), Joseph the Hymnographer (ca. 816–86), Joseph the Confessor, Thekla, Theodosia (whose work was all evident in the eleventh century), Leo VI the Wise (866–912) or Martha (ca. late-ninth century). The earliest piece of music that survived from the time of Great Moravia was the Canon for St. Demetrius, which can be deciphered by comparison with Canon’s model. ⁷³

Conclusion

Christianity was first introduced to the Great Moravian Slavs by missionaries from Salzburg and Passau in the eighth and ninth centuries. While we can assume that there were Benedictine monks among them, there is no single reference confirming the presence of a monastic missionary, who was a Benedictine. Although Frankish missionaries likely spoke Slavic, Prince Rastislav sought someone to explain the faith in Slavic and organise ecclesiastical administration in his territories. It is important to note that while the Frankish missionaries probably did not intend to establish any educational centre in Great Moravia and were focused on Christianising the people, the mission from Constantinople was preparing local candidates for ordination and likely established some school where music was part of the curriculum. The music introduced by the Frankish missionaries was probably limited to churches and consisted mainly of popular responses necessary for participation in worship, which did not require substantial musical training. In this regard, we cannot expect Latin priests to establish any particular musical education for the Slavs. The Latin liturgical music of the time was in a period of formation: Roman liturgy and chant were introduced to the Frankish kingdom, where it was amended (liturgy) and enriched (music) by Frankish elements (Vogel 1986, 85–92). As such, the Carolingian kings, in an attempt to strengthen the unity of their realm, imposed the unification of rites (including music) throughout the kingdom (Hefele 1910, 1033, 1121). ⁷⁴ Thus, missionaries arriving to Christianise the Slavs probably brought freshly unified liturgy and music (the so-called Frankish-Roman liturgy and chant that later became known as ‘Gregorian Chant’). The mission from Constantinople reached the Slavs after the Iconoclastic Controversy. This consolidation involved liturgical reform, in which students played the most prominent role. During this period, musical composition was closely linked with the creation of hymns; hymnographers were, at the same time, musical composers (and vice versa).

The East and West both experienced a resurgence in monasticism during this time. In the West, Benedictine monasteries became centres of culture, bearers of Western civilisation and educators of people. In Byzantium, monasteries were not famous for their cultural activities; rather, they were guardians of Orthodoxy (in the theological sense), order and justice (in the political sense). Studite monks played an active role in restoring the religious and political order. Despite the importance of monastic movements in the East and West, there is no reference confirming whether one or the other would establish a monastery in Great Moravia. Zobor Abbey was possibly founded in the ninth or tenth century, but we do not know by whom. It likely began as a hermitage and later expanded, with the assistance of Prince Svätopluk, leading to the construction of monastic stone churches. Although there is no explicit evidence, based on the facts listed above, the monastery was probably founded with Latin as its liturgical language (although the use of the Slavic language was not excluded). If Svätopluk was connected with it, his life would support the hypothesis about the Latin foundation of the abbey (Bartoňková et al. III 1969, 197–208; Marsina 1971, 23–25). ⁷⁵ Even after Constantine and Methodius introduced the Constantinopolitan ritual among the Slavs, using a different liturgical tradition was not an issue for Frankish (and later Venetian and Roman) opponents. This is because, in the first Christian millennium, the liturgical rite was considered a sacred ceremonial term that did not change even after the outbreak of the Great Schism, when the concept of the rite remained untouched. For example, the Greeks in southern Italy and Rome continuously maintained their rites as equally as the Slavs in Great Moravia. While it was the Slavic language that was opposed, in Great Moravia, where it was vernacular, it would only be opposed by a minority of foreigners and a few local adherents of a ‘Latin party’. Byzantine culture was also supported in the old Hungarian kingdom, as proved by early legislation in the eleventh and twelfth centuries ⁷⁶ and the political orientation of the Arpadian dynasty. Apart from the reference in the Vita Constantini, there is no other mention of Latin or Byzantine music connected with the Christianisation of the Great Moravian Slavs or monasteries. This does not mean that the music was not part of the liturgical ritual or that the Slavs, Franks or Byzantines did not (like to) sing. If the hypothesis that the Latin and Byzantine liturgical traditions were equally accepted, it makes it impossible to determine whether Zobor Abbey was either a Latin or Byzantine foundation. This is equally the case with other monasteries. Indeed, our only conclusion, in this determination is whether the liturgical rite was said in Latin, Greek or Slavic.