Why am I qualified to write about St. Cyril and Methodius? (I'm not, but we'll get to that later)
Why should anybody care about them?
What, if anything, can their story tell us about history, religion, or science?
Is it dangerous to speculate on their personalities, opinions, and beliefs on the basis of a few biographical sources?
Well, first of all, I am not qualified to write about this topic on the basis of my education. I have a major in Russian and East European studies, and have studied and taught Russian, but never learned about Cyril and Methodius in class, except for as a small part of medieval Russian history. I try to keep the content of this blog grounded in primary sources - the translated texts as published in Duichev's Kiril and Methodius, works of art such as the San Clemente painting, and the Glagolitic and Cyrillic scripts which are the work of Cyril and his disciples and colleagues. As I've searched on the internet for sources relevant to my interests, I've noticed that ancient scripts like Proto-Bulgarian are often hotly debated by European nationalists on white supremacist forums like Stormfront. My comparison of Glagolitic and Cyrillic with material from other European and Mediterranean contexts, such as older alphabets and alchemy and astronomy symbols, is strictly for the sake of juxtaposition, and I do not intend to promote any particularist theory regarding religious beliefs, prehistory, or questions of national and ethnic identities. The goal of this blog is to focus attention on Constantine the Philosopher and his brother Methodius as they are described in sources written by those who knew them. Too often their story is considered only in a sectarian context.
Next, I think that the lives of Cyril and Methodius provide a great window into an obscure period of history - the second half of the 9th century. The accounts of their lives give us a view of Byzantium in the years after the Iconoclast controversy, a time of renewed learning and culture. The works have a polemic tone - they condemn the views, practices, and character of the Western (Frankish) clergy, and defend Christian Orthodoxy against the Muslims, Jews, and recently defeated Iconoclasts. They provide a first-hand account of how Orthodoxy and Heresy were seen in the late 9th century. The narration and the quoted speech are full of both Old and New Testament verses, which gives us a picture of how the early Slavic Christians interpreted the scriptures in the context of their own situation (or, how the early Slavic literati used biblical references in their framing of recent history). They are often noteworthy for what they leave out. There is hardly any reference to the tension between Rome and Constantinople at this time (the Photian Schism), or of Prince Vladimir's four-year restoration of Paganism in Bulgaria. The main enemy is not Rome, or even Paganism (which is more error than evil), but the German Clergy. The writings of Kliment and Theophylakt, among others, provide an important early record of an East-West division in the interior of Europe - based on the competing national developments of Germans and Slavs, not the much older rivalry between their southern neighbors the Latins and Greeks.
More specifically, however, I think Cyril and Methodius themselves are important simply because the script and language they used for the Holy Scriptures have diffused so far among the Eastern and Southern Slavs. Basically the entire literate Slavic culture is indebted to the work done by Cyril and Methodius, along with their students. Because of this, I think it's important to try to understand, as much as possible, where Cyril and Methodius were coming from. That is why i try to focus attention of their education (particularly Cyril's), their early activities, and the religious and intellectual culture of their times. Constantine the Philosopher is not a typical 9th century man, but he is very much of his time - a Philosopher and debater in the classical sense, as well as a Christian evangelizer in the Apostolic and Patristic tradition. Theophylakt Ohridski calls Constantine "great in his knowledge of the heathen philosophy, and even greater in his knowledge of Christian lore". His life's work - the writing and teaching of the Holy Scriptures in a "barbarian" language, demonstrates how these two qualities combined to change the course of history.
Now, the biggest problem with relying on the works of Kliment and Theophylakt of Ohrid is that they are excessively laden with praise. They contain numerous mentions of miracles, for which it is tempting but probably fruitless to seek mundane explanations. They deliberately demonize the enemies of Cyril and Methodius and put words in their mouths. As I said before, they sometimes leave out historical events which one would think were important to them. There are anecdotes that seem constructed for didactic, rather than historical purposes. Despite all of this, I still think that it's worth something that these texts were written by people who personally knew Cyril and Methodius. I don't think it's expecting to much to assume the texts contain some real information along with the platitudes that are found in hagiographic literature. The parts about the two brothers working miracles or interceding in heaven on behalf of their followers are also not to be completely disregarded - they represent the beginning of a proper saintly cult of Cyril and Methodius, which was initiated by their students and colleagues. It is almost exclusively as saints that we are familiar with them today - "St. Cyril" is much more widely known than "Constantine the Philosopher".
No comments:
Post a Comment