The Slavic Letters oF

St. Jerome

The History of the Legend and Its Legacy,

or,
How the Translator of the Vulgate
Became an Apostle of the Slavs
Julia Verkholanstev
The Slavic Letters of St. Jerome
The Slavic Letters of

St. Jerome

The History of the Legend and Its Legacy,

or,
How the Translator of the Vulgate Became an
Apostle of the Slavs

Julia Verkholantsev

N I U P r e ss / DeKalb, IL
 © 2014 by Northern Illinois University Press
Published by the Northern Illinois University Press, DeKalb, Illinois 60115
Manufactured in the United States using acid-free paper
All Rights Reserved
Design by Shaun Allshouse

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Verkholantsev, Julia, author.
The Slavic Letters of St. Jerome : the history of the legend and its legacy, or, How the translator of the
Vulgate became an apostle of the Slavs / Julia Verkholantsev.
pages : illustrations, maps ; cm
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-0-87580-485-9 (cloth : alk. paper)—ISBN 978-1-60909-158-3 (electronic)
1. Jerome, Saint, -419 or 420. 2. Christian saints, Slavic—Europe, Eastern. 3. Glagolitic alphabet—
History. 4. Liturgical language—History. 5. Catholic Church—Liturgy. 6. Europe, Eastern—
Church history. 7. Jerome, Saint, -419 or 420—Cult--Europe, Eastern. 8. Bible—Versions. I. Title.
BR1720.J5V476 2014
270.2092--dc23
2014017240
 Contents

List of Illustrations vii

Acknowledgments ix

Prologue 3

1. Origins: Enigmatic Apostolate 11

The “Mission” 11
“And every tongue shall confess to God” 14
The Alphabet 16
The Liturgy 18
The Controversy 19
The Slavonic Rite in Bohemia 26
The Slavonic Rite in Poland? 28
The Bifurcation of Slavic Writing: Glagolitic and Cyrillic 32

2. Croatia: Empowering Myth 34

The Arrival of the Slavonic Rite in Croatia 34
The Roman Slavonic Rite of the Glagolite Clergy 36
Sts. Cyril and Methodius as Slavic Apostles in Croatia 45
Cyril and Methodius in Historical Sources 50
The Legend Is Created: Sources 53
The Legend Is Created: Historical Setting 58
“Letters alone in books renew the past” 60

3. Bohemia: Imperial Aspirations 63

The Roman Slavonic Rite in Prague 63
“Monasterium Sancti Hieronymi Slavorum Ordinis Benedicti” 70
Patron Saints of the Slavonic Monastery of St. Jerome 72
The Slavic Theme in Charles’s Representation of Bohemia’s Sacred History 76
The Theology of the Slavonic Monastery’s Murals 86
Glagolitic, Cyrillic, and Latin Letters at the Slavonic Monastery of St. Jerome 90
St. Jerome’s Slavic Alphabet, the nobilis lingua Slauonica, and the Czech Bible 101
The Cult of St. Jerome in Bohemia beyond the Slavonic Monastery 106
St. Jerome in Literary Sources of Bohemian Provenance 108
Implications of St. Jerome’s Recognition as a Slav in Bohemia 114
 4. Silesia: A Provincial Exploit 116
The Slavonic Monastery 117
Hypotheses 119

5. Poland: In Prague’s Footsteps 124

The Slavonic Monastery of the Holy Cross at Kleparz: Sources and Evidence 125
The Cult of Sts. Cyril and Methodius in Poland? Hypothesis and Evidence 128
Catholic Mission to the Orthodox Rus’? Hypothesis and Evidence 131
The Roman Slavonic Rite as Memorial to Slavic Christianity 140
Jadwiga—Patron of the Monastery 142
The Czech Trend 144
The Slavic Vernacular 148
Decline 150
St. Jerome as a Slavic Apostle 153
Conclusion 156

Epilogue 158
The Denouement, Part 1 159
St. Jerome as a Slav in Bohemia 161
The Denouement, Part 2 164
St. Jerome as a Slav in Poland 165
The Vernacular Affair 168
“Refutatur Error Multorum” 172

Notes 175
Bibliography 229
Index of Names and Subjects 253
Index of Pimary Sources 259
 Illustrations

Maps
1. Central and southern Europe 10
2. Prague ca. 1380s 70

Figures
1. Croatian (Angular) Glagolitic alphabet 7
2. Codex Assemanianus (11th c.), Vatican Library (Cod. Vat. Slav. 3), fol. 106v, fragment 13
3. First Vrbnik Breviary (late 13th c. or early 14th c.), Vrbnik Parish Archive,
fol. 168, fragment 43
4. Alphabet of Aethicus. Pseudo-Jerome, Aethicus Ister’s Cosmographia 56
5. Alphabet of Aethicus. Rabanus Maurus, De inventione linguarum 56
6. Gallery in a cloister of the Slavonic Monastery of St. Jerome in Prague 88
7. Codex Gigas (1200–1230), National (Royal) Library of Sweden (A 148), fol. 1v 92
8. Glagolitic (Alphabetum Sklauorum) and Cyrillic (Alphabetum Rutenorum) alphabets,
Codex Gigas, fol. 1v, fragment 93
9. Czech colophon, The Slavonic Gospel of Reims, Bibliothèque de Reims (MS 255),
leaves 61–62 97–98
10. St. Procopius in an illuminated initial, The Slavonic Gospel of Reims,
Bibliothèque de Reims (MS 255), leaf 25 102
11. St. Jerome in an illuminated initial, The Slavonic Gospel of Reims,
Bibliothèque de Reims (MS 255), leaf 37 103
12. Czech Glagolitic (Hlaholská, Vyšebrodská) Bible (1416), National Library of the
Czech Republic (XVII A 1), fol. 200, fragment 106
 Acknowledgments

In the conception and writing of this study, I am first and fore-

most indebted to the work of many philologists and cultural histo-
rians whose ideas informed and inspired my research. I owe par-
ticular gratitude to the late Ludmila Pacnerová, for her lifetime of
work on the Czech Glagolitic manuscripts and for her generous
and kind support of my own project in its early stages. And it was
John V. A. Fine’s witty article “The Slavic Saint Jerome: An Enter-
tainment” that made me want to learn more about the origin and
reception of this myth.
With gratitude I would like to acknowledge the assistance of var-
ious institutions and individuals without whom I would not have
been able to complete this book. Thanks to the generous aid of the
American Council of Learned Societies, the American Philosophi-
cal Society, and the School of Arts and Sciences of the University of
Pennsylvania, I was given the time and means to conduct research,
write, and publish my work. I give my heartfelt thanks to all those
who assisted me in this process: to Andrew R. Corin, David Gold-
frank, Lenka Jiroušková, Paul W. Knoll, Roland Marti, and William
Veder for reading partial or whole drafts of the manuscript, and of-
fering their astute comments, criticisms, and words of encourage-
ment; to Václav Čermák, Rita Copeland, Florin Curta, Michael W.
Herren, Milada Homolková, David Kalhous, Paweł Kras, Jiří Matl,
David Mengel, Balázs Nagy, Zoё Opačić, Jan Pařez, Olga Strakhov,
Anatolii Turilov, and Jiří Žůrek for sharing their research and ma-
terials with me and providing valuable bibliographic and archival
data; to Samuel Beckelhymer, Kevin Brownlee, Lenka Jiroušková,
and Jamilya Nazyrova for advising on the translation of a number
of intricate Latin passages (the responsibility for the final choices
is, of course, mine alone); to Chelsea Pomponio for proofreading
the manuscript and making valuable stylistic improvements; and
to Daniel Huffman, an expert cartographer, for turning my design
ideas into two very fine and stylish maps.
I am most grateful to the excellent publishing team of the North-
ern Illinois University Press, who have made the process of publi-
cation smooth and enjoyable: to Roy R. Robson, the editor of the
Orthodox Christianity Studies, for engaging me with the press;
to Amy Farranto, the acquisitions editor, for her kind and ­patient
guidance through the process of manuscript preparation; to
Marlyn Miller for her thoughtful copyediting; and to Susan Bean,
the managing editor, and Shaun Allshouse, the design and pro-
duction manager, for their excellent work and willingness to put
up with my special requests. With particular appreciation I rec-
ognize the generous financial assistance of my home institution,
the School of Arts and Sciences of the University of Pennsylvania,
which allowed for the realization of the customized design features
of this book.
Some of the subject matter of this book, if not the exact text,
has appeared in print in the following publications: “‘Littera spe-
cialis . . . a beato Jeronimo’: How Did Sts. Cyril and Methodius Lose
Recognition as Inventors of the Glagolitic Letters to St. Jerome?,”
Ricerche slavistiche 54 (2010): 225–63; “St. Jerome, Apostle to the
Slavs, and the Roman Slavonic Rite,” Speculum 87 (2012): 37–61;
and “St. Jerome as a Slavic Apostle in Luxemburg Bohemia,” Viator
44 (2013): 251–86. I am most grateful to anonymous reviewers at
these journals for their insightful comments.
The research and writing of this book took several years, during
which many colleagues, friends, and family members showed me
their support and kindness in many big and little ways, scholarly
and mundane. I would like to acknowledge here how much this
has meant to me. Lastly, I would not have been able to complete the
book without my husband and backstage proofreader, Lazlo Beh.

Note on Reference and Terminology

Throughout the book I have used the transliteration system of
the Library of Congress for Cyrillic. Exceptions were made for ci-
tations in Old Church Slavonic that are given in original Cyrillic
script. Czech Glagolitic is transliterated in Czech with a few ad-
ditional, and generally accepted, characters. All other languages
appear in original orthography.
Those who write about Slavic medieval history in English well
know the challenge of rendering names of historical figures and
locations. These cause heated scholarly debates and sometimes
even sharp nationalistic criticisms. Being aware of the various
implications of my choices, I decided to use commonly accepted
Anglicized names where possible, especially for territories with a
multilingual population (e.g., John Hus and not Jan Hus, John of
Neumarkt and not Jan of Středa, Petrarch and not Petrarca). In
several cases I used names in original languages because they seem
to have gained common English usage (e.g., Jadwiga and not Hed-
wig, Władysław Jagiełło and not Ladislaus). I decided to leave less
well-known names in their original languages (e.g., Andrij of Novi
Vinodolski) for easier identification.
Another difficult decision had to be made about the representa-
tion of primary sources. I decided to include extensive citations
from primary sources, which are not easily available, in the hope
that readers might find in these not only explanations of my con-
clusions but also helpful resources for further inquiry. Many tough
stylistic and syntactical choices had to be made to translate often
ambiguous and convoluted late Latin passages. I tried to keep the
style as true to the original as reasonable; for example, I translated
pleonastic phrases. All English translations of primary sources are
made by the author unless otherwise acknowledged.
The main part of this book was written prior to the spring of
2012. Since then, several important studies have appeared in print
or are forthcoming. Among these are Kateřina Kubínová’s Em-
auzský cyklus, which provides an excellent context for my own
conclusions, and Olga Strakhov’s long-needed study of the history
and liturgical content of the Slavonic Gospel of Reims. While these
and other most recent publications are referenced in my book, it
was unfortunately too late to discuss the material they present in a
more meaningful way.
On a number of occasions, my Glagolitic adventure has led me
to historiographic questions that remain an object of scholarly dis-
pute or that are insufficiently studied. While I have tried to main-
tain a balanced approach, in some cases my discussion takes on a
polemical tone. Yet, I hope that this book is viewed not so much
as an effort to solve specific problems in historiography as a desire
to bring attention to an important chapter in the history of ideas,
which is as thought-provoking as it is simply amusing.

Philadelphia
30 September 2013 (St. Jerome’s Day)
The Slavic Letters of St. Jerome
 Prologue

A mong the Christian saints, St. Jerome has always occupied a

special place as a translator and exegete of the Bible, whose
labors brought the faithful closer to God. He has therefore been
deservedly honored by the learned as one of the most prominent
church fathers of the Latinity.1 The end of the thirteenth and four-
teenth centuries saw a particular flourishing of popular admiration Jerome receives the title
for Jerome, first in Italy and then in the rest of Catholic Europe. In of doctor
a decretal of 20 September 1295, Pope Boniface VIII confirmed the
titles of “doctor” and “father” for four of the greatest figures of the
Latin Church—Gregory, Ambrose, Augustine, and Jerome. In this
document, he ordered the faithful to celebrate these prominent
confessor saints for their remarkable work, which, “fed by streams
of heavenly grace, solves scriptural puzzles, unties knots, explains
obscurities, and resolves doubts.”2 It is in this capacity that St. Je-
rome is usually depicted in iconography and is referenced as an
authority on the written word.
The origin of the remarkable outbreak of popular devotion to St. translation of Jerome’s
Jerome at the end of the thirteenth century may be traced to the relics from Bethlehem
to Rome
ecclesiastical circle of the Papal Basilica of St. Maria Maggiore and
is related to the discovery of Jerome’s relics and their translation
from Bethlehem to Rome. The Basilica of St. Maria Maggiore, also
known as St. Maria ad Praesepem (St. Mary of the Crib) already
housed a relic of the Holy Crib from the Cave of the Nativity in
Bethlehem, which was moved there after Palestine had fallen to the
Arabs in the seventh century. A document, written in the 1290s Translatio corporis beati
and titled Translatio corporis beati Hieronymi (The Translation of Hieronymi
 The Slavic Letters of St. Jerome

the Remains of St. Jerome), tells the story of how Jerome, who had
allegedly been buried at the entrance to the Cave of the Nativity,
appeared in the dream of a monk and ordered him to exhume his
remains and rebury them in St. Maria Maggiore, next to the Holy
Crib. In the dream, Jerome explained that he desired to leave Beth-
lehem, occupied by the infidels, and to return to Rome.3 Jerome’s
intervention in the fate of his remains as described in this docu-
ment was intended to explain the sudden appearance of the relics in
Rome and to provide legitimacy to the clergy’s claim to the rightful
St. Maria Maggiore ownership of these relics. The transfer of Jerome’s relics to St. Maria
Maggiore signified distinction for the clergy of the Basilica and the
display of God’s blessing of the Roman see and its people.4
The acquisition of St. Jerome’s relics was just the beginning.
The narrative that propelled the cult of St. Jerome to prominence
most likely emerged from the same circle of St. Maria Maggiore
at the beginning of the fourteenth century and is connected with
Vita et Transitus Sancti the Dominican Order. The composition, often referred to as the
Hieronymi Vita et Transitus Sancti Hieronymi (The Life and Passage of St. Je-
rome), consisted of three hagiographical epistles on St. Jerome that
were passed off as autographs of renowned church fathers.5 The
“Epistula de Morte Sancti Hieronymi ad Damasum” (“The Letter
to Damasus on the Death of Saint Jerome”) is ascribed to St. Eu-
sebius of Cremona, Jerome’s disciple and friend. In this letter ad-
dressed to Damasus, the bishop of Portus, and to Theodosius, a
Roman senator, Pseudo-Eusebius describes the last hours and the
holy death of Jerome, which were accompanied by illuminated an-
gels. The second letter, the “Epistula de Magnificentiis Sancti Hi-
eronymi ad Cyrillum” (“The Letter to St. Cyril on the Magnificence
of Saint Jerome”), is ascribed to St. Augustine and is addressed to
St. Cyril of Jerusalem. It acknowledges St. Jerome’s superiority and
relates how, immediately after Jerome’s death, St. Augustine re-
ceived instruction from Jerome’s soul concerning the Trinity, the
hierarchies of angels, and other important theological questions.
The third letter, the “Epistula de Miraculis Sancti Hieronymi ad
Augustinum” (“The Letter to Augustine on the Miracles of Saint
Jerome”), is a reply of Pseudo-Cyril of Jerusalem to St. Augustine,
in which he gives an account of his own vision of the progress of
Jerome’s soul, escorted by a bright host of angels, from Bethlehem
to heaven. At the end of the letter there is an account of Jerome’s
burial. Pseudo-Cyril relates that Jerome appeared to him in a
dream and communicated his wish to be buried not in a prepared
marble sarcophagus, but in the bare ground at the entrance to the

4
 Prologue

Cave of the Nativity. In the same dream Jerome predicted that his
remains would be moved to Rome after the city of Jerusalem fell
to the infidels. Such testimonies of Jerome’s extraordinary virtues
and powers characterized him as a principal Christian saint and
glorified those who became heirs to Jerome’s scholarship, teach-
ings, and spiritual heritage.
Another development in the popular veneration of St. Jerome Giovanni d’Andrea
occurred when Giovanni d’Andrea (ca. 1270–1348), a lay intellec-
tual and one of the greatest canonists of his time, became an ardent
admirer of the saint’s virtues and merits.6 Andrea was a professor
of law at the University of Bologna and his devotion introduced
a humanistic emphasis on Jerome’s significance as a scholar and
an exegete. He insisted that the existing veneration of Jerome was
inadequate to the saint’s role in the Christian community, since it
was through his words and interpretation of the Bible that Chris-
tians were enlightened. Andrea’s efforts to correct the lack of rev-
erence for St. Jerome were unmatched by any other devotee: he
urged parents to name their sons Jerome (Girolamo) and monks
to take Jerome as their monastic names, and he even signed his
name with the addition of “di San Girolamo.” He collected and dis-
tributed relics, founded and dedicated churches and chapels to his
patron saint, and by commissioning numerous paintings managed
to establish what became the iconographic canon of representation
of St. Jerome as sitting in a chair in a red cardinal hat with a tame
lion at his feet. Andrea also commissioned a cycle of pictures from
Jerome’s life to be painted on the facade of his house in Bologna
along with explanatory verses. Additionally, he composed poems, Hieronymianus
prayers and orations in praise of Jerome, and compiled a book en-
titled Hieronymianus or De laudibus sancti Hieronymi (In Praise of
St. Jerome, between 1334 and 1347), in which he collected profuse
biographical material from the earlier lives, testimonies in praise
of Jerome, fragments of Jerome’s own writings, and accounts of his
miracles. Much of the material in his work was drawn from the
three apocryphal letters of Eusebius, Augustine, and Cyril.
From Italy, the devotion to St. Jerome spread to other European
lands and Jerome’s works acquired wide esteem among intellectu-
als. The Renaissance image of St. Jerome was that of a “superhu-
man miracle worker, the object of a magnetic cult, and the focus
of a powerful surge of reverence, ascetic spirituality, and supersti-
tion.”7 Jerome was endowed with all possible virtues and was be-
lieved to possess extraordinary powers to help people in distress
and protect them from misfortune. His most common titles in the

5
 The Slavic Letters of St. Jerome

Church were confessor and doctor gloriosus, while accounts of his

intercessions and miracles circulated among lay folk. For learned
men, however, Jerome had always been, first and foremost, an ex-
emplary scholar renowned for his knowledge of the Holy Scripture
and his theological insight. It is for this reason that in the middle of
the thirteenth century his qualifications as a biblical translator were
Jerome is recognized claimed in a remarkable way. A native of Dalmatia, Jerome became
as a creator of a Slavic recognized for allegedly translating the liturgical books of the Cro-
alphabet
atian clergy in Dalmatian monasteries into Church Slavonic and
for having supplied them with their special Slavic letters that for
a long time were known as “Hieronymian” (littera Hieronymiana)
but in modern scholarship received the name of Glagolitic (fig. 1).
The source of the legend is in Jerome’s own testimony about his
birthplace—the city of Strido(n) on the border of Dalmatia and
Pannonia—the land where local “barbarians” drink sabaia, a kind
of alcoholic beverage made of grain and water.8 The exact location
of the city of Stridon, which was destroyed by the Goths, has initi-
ated a lot of controversy in subsequent centuries but nevertheless
remains one of the unsolved problems of historical geography.
While the spread of devotion to St. Jerome brought by Renais-
sance learning has received proper scholarly attention, the story
of his lesser-known career as a Slavic apostle and “a Glagolite,”
which has unfolded among the Slavs in the Western Church, re-
mains largely untold.9 In the following chapters, I undertake to tell
this story, which not only reveals how the Slavonic rite and “Hi-
eronymian” letters became accepted in Latinate Europe and how
the tradition itself spread from the Balkans to Bohemia, Silesia,
and Poland, but also casts the religious and cultural history of this
region in a new and refreshing context, highlighting the richly di-
verse flavor of Europe’s late middle ages and emerging humanism.
In his newly acquired role as a Slavic apostle, St. Jerome intruded
Chapter 1 into the domain of the true inventors of the Slavic letters and the
Slavonic liturgy—Sts. Constantine-Cyril and Methodius, Byzan-
tine missionaries to Great Moravia in the early 860s.10 In chapter 1
of this book, therefore, I analyze the extensive—but far from con-
clusive—research on the origins of the Slavic (Glagolitic and Cyril-
lic) letters and liturgy. I focus on the theological, political, cultural,
and linguistic aspects that framed the emergence of the Slavic lit-
erary tradition and made Slavic letters one of the key components
of Slavic religious, cultural, and national identities. For the sake of
terminological clarity in this book, I use the term “Slavonic” to re-
fer to the ecclesiastical language and tradition that developed from

6
 Prologue

Figure 1. Croatian (Angular) Glagolitic alphabet

7
 The Slavic Letters of St. Jerome

the Old Church Slavonic language introduced among the Slavs by

Cyril and Methodius, while I use the term “Slavic” to indicate eth-
nic attribution.
After Cyril’s and Methodius’s deaths, their followers brought the
Chapter 2 Glagolitic letters and liturgy to other Slavs, including the Croats.
While the Slavonic rite and the Glagolitic letters were banned from
all Slavic lands within Roman and Frankish jurisdictions, in the
Roman province of Dalmatia it remained in use as late as the eigh-
teenth century. In chapter 2, I examine the historical and ecclesio-
logical aspects of the Slavonic rite of the Croatian Glagolites that
made it a unique phenomenon in the Western Church. Scrutiny of
the information about the role of Sts. Cyril and Methodius in the
establishment of the Slavonic rite that was available to the Glago-
lites prior to the mid-thirteenth century leads to hypotheses of
why the Glagolites accepted St. Jerome as a patron of their letters.
As a result of Jerome’s auspices, the Slavonic language gained the
Chapter 3 unique privilege in the Roman Church of being the only language
other than Latin, Greek, and Hebrew fit for celebrating God, lend-
ing itself to the construction of narratives about the distinguished
historical mission of the Slavs. The Croats, however, were not the
only Catholic Slavs to appreciate Jerome’s Roman Slavonic rite. The
concept of Jerome’s apostolate among the Slavs found especially
warm reception at the court of the Holy Roman emperor and king
of Bohemia, Charles IV. In 1348, Charles founded and dedicated
a monastery to St. Jerome, to which he invited the Benedictine
Glagolites from Dalmatia to observe the Slavonic rite. The role that
this monastery played in Charles’s political showmanship is exam-
ined in chapter 3, along with its impact on the Slavonic and Czech
literary culture in Bohemia and the emergence of the first Czech
translation of the complete Bible.
Charles’s “Slavic project” was so successful that it provided the
Chapters 4 & 5 model for the foundation of two filial monasteries in Silesia (1380)
and Poland (1390). There are more questions than answers regard-
ing the purpose of these two satellite hubs of Slavonic rite and their
role in local religious life. In chapters 4 and 5, I examine the avail-
able evidence and analyze the historical circumstances behind the
foundation of these Slavonic monasteries, which served as a living
monument to the Slavic tongue’s distinction by Divine Grace and,
consequently, of its parity with Latin.
The theory of Jerome’s apostolate among the Slavs, however, did
not survive the scrutiny of nineteenth-century philology, and the
translator of the Vulgate was thus toppled from the honorary po-

8
 Prologue

dium of Slavic cultural history, where Cyril and Methodius remain

to this day. Scholars today generally agree that Jerome could not be
a Slav and did not introduce writing to the Slavs, but his reputation
as a Slavic apostle nevertheless endures in folk historiography and
occasionally even resurfaces in academic literature.11 The charm of
this legend is indeed irresistible: its originality and elegance, and its
compelling potential, appealed to the late medieval and humanistic
mind, which was predisposed to mythologize the origins of writing.
These qualities have also fascinated and inspired the author of these
lines and have motivated the writing of the following study.

9
 D E II CC
RR D O NN
ERR
TT O
UU
TTEE OO
EElbl
be e
VVisi
tsutulal G
a AND D
GRRAND DUCHY
UCHY
OOddeerr
OF LLITHUANIA
OF ITHUANIA
aa
r ii
tt r SSi il leessi iaa
PPOLAND

nn i a
ss

ia
OLAND
l lyy
II

VVoo
Krk
Krk BBOO SSáázaz GGaal li icci iaa
HH avvaa
A
A

ss BB EEMMIIAA M
Moorraavvi iaa
aavv
e
u ll f re

PPooddool li iaa
Cr

aarri ia
D
D

Vltava
C

a Vltava
R
R

f
er Gu
I
I

v a rr nn e r G
A
A

o nn i a
ia
T
T

H
HUNGARY
UNGARY

n nn o
I

CCaarri innt thhi iaa

I

Kva
C

PPaa n
C

D
SS

D aa ll m

Map 1. Central and southern Europe

AA
TTI I
OOAA
E
E

CCRR
A
A

m a
Dan

A
Danube

AD
ube

DR

N
Neerreet
a t
Pa
Pa�man
�man

RI
IA
t i

AT

tvvaa
II

T
i a
CC
SS DDi iooccl leeaa BBULGARIA
ULGARIA

a
EE
AA
 1
Origins
Enigmatic Apostolate

In una fide nil officit sanctae ecclesiae consuetudo diversa.

(Where faith is one, difference in custom does no harm to the Holy Church.)
—Gregory the Great, Registrum Epistularum 1.41

Когда же, кем и которые буквы первее изобретены, о том между учеными
распря неоконченная.
(When, by whom, and which letters were invented first is a matter of
an ongoing feud among scholars.)
—V. N. Tatishchev, The History of Russia 1.1

The “Mission”

T he Croatian Glagolite tradition dates back to the very begin-

ning of Slavic writing, which remains more a matter of legend
than of established fact. The origins of the two Slavic alphabets—
Glagolitic and Cyrillic—seem to have provoked more scholarly re-
search and debate than any other subject in Slavic medieval stud-
ies, and yet there remains great uncertainty. The main difficulty
in resolving the questions of which alphabet appeared first and
who invented it lies in the very limited data and the scarcity of un-
ambiguous documented information. Although all scenarios that St. Cyril creates the
have been suggested rely on various degrees of speculation, most Glagolitic alphabet
scholars agree that the letters now called Glagolitic were created
by the Byzantine scholar and philosopher Constantine-Cyril1 for
the purpose of the Christian mission to establish the Slavonic lit-
urgy in Great Moravia, which he undertook with his elder brother
Methodius in the early 860s. It is also generally agreed that af-
ter Cyril’s death in 869, Methodius, in his capacity as archbishop,
 The Slavic Letters of St. Jerome

continued to disseminate the Slavonic liturgy among the Slavs.2

The word “mission,” although an accepted term in relation to the
Byzantine mission in embassy of Cyril and Methodius, is somewhat misleading. By the
Great Moravia 860s, having received Christianity from the Bavarian missionaries
of Passau in the course of the ninth century, Moravia was already
considered a Christian territory.3 Therefore, the task of the holy
brothers was delicate, going beyond mere evangelization. Inter-
preting available sources, historians reconstruct this affair in the
following way. The Moravian ruler Rostislav (846–870), weary of
Frankish supervision, sought ways to make his church (and state)
more independent. Not long before 863, he turned first to Rome
and then to Constantinople with a request for a bishop and teacher
for his land, someone capable of instructing Moravians about the
Christian faith in their own language.4 Indeed, several previous
attempts at the introduction of institutional Christianity in these
territories had limited success. Governed by foreign bishops, the
Christian church did not become fully incorporated into the state
structure and possibly failed to attract many followers among the
Rostislav asks Emperor local Slavic population.5 Rostislav felt a need to establish a local
Michael III for a teacher diocese and educate the local clergy. The rendition of Rostislav’s
& a bishop
letter to the Byzantine emperor Michael III in chapter 5 of the Life
of Methodius reflects this concern:

We have prospered through God’s grace, and many Christian teachers

have come to us from among the Italians, Greeks and Germans, teaching
us in various ways. But the Slavs are a simple people, and have no one to
instruct us in the truth, and explain wisely. Therefore, O kind lord, send
the type of man who will direct us to the whole truth.6

While the pope does not seem to have acted on Rostislav’s request,
the Byzantine emperor evidently appreciated the chance to spread
his influence to lands already claimed by Western clergy.
The choice of the emperor’s ambassadors demonstrates the im-
Cyril & Methodius portance of the Moravian mission to Byzantium. Both Cyril and
Methodius were experienced missionaries and celebrated holy
men. Cyril (ca. 826–869), a teacher of philosophy (didaskalos) at
the patriarchal academy, was one of the most distinguished schol-
ars in Byzantium at that time. His brother Methodius (ca. 815–
884), formerly a governor of a Slavic province (theme), spent sev-
eral years at a monastery on Asia Minor’s Mount Olympus as a
monk before he was appointed abbot of the Monastery Polykhron

12
 Origins

shortly before the mission to Great Moravia.7 Both brothers had

previously been entrusted with imperial Christian missions and,
most important, both were proficient in a Slavic dialect spoken in
their native city of Thessaloniki.
The brothers used their native East South Slavic dialect as the Old Church Slavonic
foundation for making Slavic translations of the liturgical and se- language & biblical
translations
lected biblical books necessary for ministering and conducting ser-
vices. In this important task, they were most likely helped by their
disciples and assistants. In order to record these translations, Cyril
devised a special script, which rendered the sounds of the Slavic
tongue. A number of Slavic manuscripts dating from the tenth to
twelfth centuries are thought to represent these original transla-
tions, made by Cyril, Methodius, and their followers for the Mora-
vian mission (fig. 2). The language of these translations is usually
termed “Old Church Slavonic.”8 The later regional varieties of this
language, which developed in the literary production of diverse

Figure 2. Codex Assemanianus (11th c.), Vatican Library (Cod. Vat. Slav. 3), fol. 106v, fragment

13
 The Slavic Letters of St. Jerome

Slavic peoples who continued the Cyrillo-Methodian tradition, are

considered to be variants (also called “recensions” or “types”) of
Church Slavonic (e.g., the Croatian variant of Church Slavonic).9

Romans 14:11 “And every tongue shall confess to God”10

Thus, the key part of the Moravian project, unlike other evange-
lizing undertakings among the Slavs, was the introduction of the
equality of languages in complete liturgy and biblical texts in a native tongue. Theologically
the Pentecostal gift of
tongues
speaking, the Moravian mission was conducted in the spirit of
the Eastern patristic belief in the Pentecostal abrogation of Babel,
identifying the emergence of the Slavonic liturgy and writing with
the gift of tongues.11 The right of understanding the word of God
in a native language was associated with the feast of the universal
Church commemorating the Descent of the Holy Spirit upon the
apostles in the shape of “tongues as of fire,” 50 days after the Resur-
rection of Christ, on the Jewish holiday called Shavu’ot (The Festi-
val of Weeks) or Pentecost in Greek: “And they were all filled with
the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues, as the Spirit
gave them utterance.”12
The appearance of the Slavonic liturgy and books was, there-
fore, regarded as a fulfillment of the Pentecostal gift of tongues,
which removed the divine curse of the confusion of languages at
Prologue: “People with- the Tower of Babel. The equality of languages in the eyes of God,
out books are naked.” presented in the New Testament and advocated by the early church
fathers, was a theological premise.13 The creators of the Slavonic
rite claimed that the Lord’s message should be comprehensible and
accurately understood. The Prologue (also known as Proglas), a
poetic introduction to the Church Slavonic translation of the Gos-
pels, most commonly ascribed to Constantine of Preslav, a disciple
of Methodius, eloquently expresses the ideological foundations of
the Byzantine mission in Moravia:

[. . .] so that you, whose mind is not yet enlightened,

hearing the Word [preached] in a foreign language,
take it for the call of a copper bell.
St. Paul, teaching, said this:
“As I offer my prayer to God,
I would rather utter five words
which everyone will comprehend,

14
 Origins

than a thousand words no one will understand.”

[. . .] People without books are naked,
possessing no armor to fight against
the enemy of our souls,
ready for the imprisonment of the eternal sorrows.14

Unlike Western missionaries, whose aggressive preaching and for-

eign Latin rituals forced the Slavic converts to keep their distance,
the Greeks offered accessible instruction in the nuances of the
Christian doctrine, coupled with the Byzantine cultural authority
and sophistication, and—importantly—a vernacular rite.15
The most significant source, apart from Cyril’s and Metho- On the Letters of Monk
Khrabr
dius’s vitae, that views the invention of the Slavic alphabet as
divinely inspired was written in Bulgaria at the end of the ninth
or the beginning of the tenth century. This treatise is often as-
cribed to the monk Khrabr after its title, On the Letters of Monk
Khrabr (crfpfzbt j gbcmvtztü+ xhmzjhbpmwf ühf,hf).16 Written
originally in Glagolitic as an apologia of Slavic writing, it analyzes
Cyril’s invention of the Slavonic alphabet vis-à-vis Greek gram-
matical thought. The author refers to Cyril’s holiness and to divine
Providence to argue the sacred origin of the Slavonic letters:

But then the lover of man, God, [. . .] having pitied the Slavic race, sent
them Constantine the Philosopher, who was named Cyril, a man righ-
teous and sincere. [. . .] But the Slavic Scriptures, Constantine alone,
named Cyril, both made the letters and translated the Scriptures in a few
years [. . .] Therefore, the Slavic letters are holier and more venerable, for
a holy man has made them, while the Greek were made by the heathen
Hellenes.17 Slavic alphabet is holy

The author not only considers the new Slavic script holy be-
cause it was created by a holy man and inspired by a divine spirit,
but also juxtaposes it to the Greek, which smacks of controversy.
While little is known about the ideological and historical context
of this treatise, it is usually viewed as an apologia of the Glagolitic
letters against those Bulgarian literati who favored using the
Greek (proto-Cyrillic) letters that they had been using “without
order” (bez ustroia, or bez ustroeniia) before Cyril’s invention:
“Having been baptised, however, with the letters of Romans
and Greeks they [i.e., the Slavs] struggled to write Slavic speech
without order.”18

15
 The Slavic Letters of St. Jerome

The Alphabet

origin of Glagolitic The graphic foundation of the Glagolitic alphabet, which is be-
lieved to be Cyril’s invention, has not been definitively determined
and remains an object of heated debate. It has been proposed, for
example, that the captivating and mystic shapes of the Glagolitic ­letters
were inspired by the Christian symbolism of the cross (Christ),
circle (the infinity and supremacy of God), and triangle (the Holy
Trinity).19 The Glagolitic alphabet has also been linked to Greek
minuscule and cursive scripts; zodiacal, medical, chemical, and
shorthand signs; Merovingian Latin; Hebrew, Gothic, Armenian,
Georgian, and Coptic letters; and Germanic runes.20 Yet while at
times one can see a certain degree of resemblance between indi-
vidual Glagolitic letters and those of other alphabets, no single sys-
tem of writing can be genetically connected to Glagolitic. Drawing
numerous examples from the history of new alphabets, Dmitro
Čyževs’kyj has convincingly argued that new systems of writing
may display superficial similarity without any genetic relationship
to existing systems.21
Alternatively, several theories date Slavic writing to the period
before Cyril and Methodius. For example, Wilhelm Lettenbauer,
developing Michael Hocij’s thesis, has argued that the Glagolitic
alphabet developed in the eighth century from the Merovingian
Latin cursive used among the Slovenes in the territories of Istria
and Venice.22 The evidence of the Legend of Saloniki and the stylis-
tic similarity of the Glagolitic letters to other missionary alphabets
inspired the hypothesis that the Glagolitic alphabet was invented
or discovered by the seventh-century missionary-Monophysite
Cyril of Cappadocia.23 The Croatian scholar Marko Japundžić has
argued that the Slavic Glagolitic liturgy and writing originated in
Croatia at the time of its conversion at the end of the seventh and
early eighth centuries.24 However, none of the attempts to date the
Glagolitic alphabet before the Cyrillo-Methodian mission have
been widely accepted.25
origin of Cyrillic The prevailing view on the emergence of the Cyrillic alphabet is
that it arose from the Byzantine Greek uncial alphabet in Bulgar-
ia in the late ninth to early tenth century, following the Cyrillo-
Methodian mission. Horace Lunt has offered another explana-
tion, suggesting that Cyril created both Cyrillic and Glagolitic.
Lunt has hypothesized that before Cyril arrived in Moravia, he
created a special writing system to note Slavic sounds based on

16
 Origins

Greek letters—what is now known as Cyrillic or “Constantinic,”

as Lunt terms it. However, in Moravia, having met with great
resistance from the Frankish Latinate clergy on account of its
“Greekness,” he devised new—Glagolitic—letters for the already
established system, different from either Latin or Greek writing.26
Although merely a speculation, Lunt’s hypothesis addresses some
important questions that usually puzzle scholars of early Slavic
writing. It explains the existence of two competing systems of
Slavic writing at a time when the emergence of even one Slavic
alphabet would have been an extraordinary event. If the Cyrillic
letters were not devised by Cyril but developed from the Greek
in Bulgaria by Cyril’s and Methodius’s disciples (Clement?), why
was the invention of Cyrillic ascribed to Cyril? Lunt’s hypothesis
accounts for the belief in the Bulgarian religious historiography
that Cyril is the creator of Cyrillic.
Moreover, the fact that in the Slavic territories under Roman
and Frankish jurisdiction (i.e., Slovenia, Croatia, and Bohemia) we
find the use of Glagolitic and in the Slavic territories under Byzan-
tine jurisdiction we find Cyrillic, suggests that Lunt’s hypothesis is
consistent with historical circumstances. There were no Latinate
clergy in Bulgaria to find the use of Cyrillic in Slavic Scriptures
offensive. This also explains why Croatian monks used Glagolitic
and not Cyrillic, as did Bulgarians, Bosnians, and Serbs.
However, Lunt’s assumption does not take into consideration semiotics of medieval
particular semiotic sensibilities that existed in the classical and writing
medieval periods concerning the relationship between alphabets
and the languages they represent. According to the principles of
ninth-century graphic culture, the Greek alphabet was reserved
for Greek, just as the Roman alphabet was the property of Latin.27
As a Greek scholar, Cyril should have respected this tradition,
especially because all missionary alphabets were usually invented
from scratch.28 If a new Church Slavonic ecclesiastical tradition
was to compete with these languages, it had to acquire a distinct
alphabet, one that would exist in its own right. Indeed, none of
the sources describing the creation of the Slavic letters by Cyril
mentions his intention of using the Greek letters. Bulgarian literati,
on the other hand, had no scruples regarding the use of the Greek
letters, which they had been previously using “without order.” Lunt
is convinced that the treatise On the Letters was directed precisely
against such improper use of the Greek letters. Were Cyril also
the author of Cyrillic, his deed would not have been as sacred as

17
 The Slavic Letters of St. Jerome

claimed. Like other hypotheses about the beginnings of the early

Slavic letters, this is an informed deduction. However, Lunt’s hy-
pothesis that Cyril most likely did not apply and disseminate Cy-
rillic himself is consistent with Andrzej Poppe’s observation that
in pre-sixteenth-century documents and devotional texts Cyril
is more often referred to as Constantine than as Cyril and that
the Cyrillic alphabet is not known as “Cyrillic” (i.e., an alphabet
named in honor of Cyril) until several centuries after his death,
suggesting that the attribution of the Greek-based Slavic alphabet
to Cyril is of a later date.29
Regardless of whether Cyril is or is not a creator of the Cyrillic
alphabet, the association of Cyrillic letters with his name became
so entrenched that on the majority of icons depicting the Slavic
apostles the scroll in his hand shows Cyrillic characters.30 Con-
versely, the link between Cyril’s philological pursuits in Moravia
and the emergence of Glagolitic had been obscured.

The Liturgy
There is an ongoing dispute in scholarship about the number and
identity of texts that Cyril and Methodius, and later Methodius
and his assistants and disciples, translated and used.31 By studying
the oldest preserved liturgical texts, scholars have tried to deter-
mine which type of rite and liturgy, Eastern or Western, the mis-
Liturgy of St. Peter sionaries chose.32 For example, Josef Vašica pointed to the Liturgy
of St. Peter as the original model that Cyril and Methodius used
for the Slavonic liturgy.33 In this Greek version of the Roman Mass
that contained a number of Byzantine elements, he saw a compro-
mise between the Byzantine and Roman liturgies. Vašica’s assump-
tions were favorably received by Dmitro Čyževs’kyj, cautiously ap-
proached by Antonín Dostál and Vojtěch Tkadlčík, and challenged
by Josef Laurenčík, until František Mareš found another copy of
the Liturgy of St. Peter and convincingly contested its dating, plac-
ing its origin in a Slavonic Athonite monastery at the end of the
fourteenth century.34 The subsequent discovery at the St. Cather­
ine Monastery on Mount Sinai of two eleventh-century Glagolitic
manuscripts that have parallels to other early Glagolitic texts (the
Kiev and Vienna Folia) allowed scholars to trace the original Sla-
Liturgy of St. John vonic liturgy to the Byzantine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom.35
Chrysostom Most likely, the brothers complemented this Byzantine formula by

18
 Origins

translating from Latin liturgical texts that were already known in

Moravia. Whether Cyril and Methodius used one or the other for-
mula as a base for their Slavonic liturgy, many scholars agree that
the resulting rite combined both Byzantine and Roman (Frankish)
elements.36
Although the question of which biblical texts were translated biblical translations
into Old Church Slavonic during the Cyrillo-Methodian mission
remains open, it has been established that the original Slavonic
translations were most likely made from both Greek and Latin
versions of the Bible.37 The mention of the “Slavonic books” (knigy
slověn’skyę) and “Slavonic Gospel” (slověn’skoie evangeliie) in the
hagiographic accounts of Cyril and Methodius’s mission in Mora-
via, and the reference to the “Holy Gospel and readings from the
New and Old Testaments” (sacrum evangelium vel lectiones divi-
nas novi et veteris testamenti) in the papal letter, suggest that at
least some necessary readings for the Slavonic liturgy had already
been translated by the end of the 870s.38
It is unknown how much of the original Slavonic translations
survived the devastation of the Slavonic rite in Great Moravia in
886, when Wiching, the Frankish bishop of Nitra, succeeded in
undermining the Slavonic clergy in the eyes of Pope Stephen V
(885–891). After Stephen officially prohibited the Slavonic rite in
Moravia and Wiching received full support of Prince Svatopluk
(871–894) to restore the Latin rite, the Slavonic clergy were ex-
pelled from the country and found refuge in Bulgaria, Macedonia,
Bohemia, and Croatia.

The Controversy
The main consideration that made first Cyril and then Metho-
dius insist on the Slavonic liturgy was most likely practical and not
ideological. They believed that only by educating and ordaining
local clergy could they create a lasting Christian tradition in Mora-
via. The linguistic aspect of the Byzantine mission, however, stood
in contrast with the established practice of the Frankish Church,
Frankish Church vis-à-
which then claimed jurisdiction over the Moravians, and created
vis the Slavonic rite
uncertainty about the orthodoxy of the new Slavonic liturgy. The
Frankish clergy had been apprehensive of the vernacular liturgy
from its very beginning and continually challenged it. As early as
867, Cyril and Methodius traveled to Rome to obtain the Roman

19
 The Slavic Letters of St. Jerome

curia’s approval of the Slavonic liturgy and ordination for their dis-
Hadrian II approves ciples. At that time, Pope Hadrian II blessed the Slavonic books,
liturgy in Slavonic and the liturgy in Slavonic was celebrated at the Papal Basilica
of St. Peter and other churches.39 Subsequently, popes alternately
forbade and allowed the use of the Slavonic liturgy depending on
John III forbids, then the state of affairs in their rivalries with Constantinople and the
approves, liturgy in Frankish Church for the Slavic flock in central and southern Eu-
Slavonic rope.40 When Pope John VIII forbade the Slavonic liturgy in 879,
Methodius again traveled to Rome to validate the legitimacy of the
Slavonic liturgy, which the pope, having had a change of heart, re-
Stephen V forbids confirmed in his bulla of 880. Following the death of Methodius,
liturgy in Slavonic
in 885, Pope Stephen V once again forbade the Slavonic liturgy,
allowing the vernacular only in sermons and clarifications of the
biblical texts.41 Methodius’s death became a turning point for the
Slavonic rite in Moravia. Unchecked by the authoritative personal-
ity of Methodius, the Frankish clergy, supported by both secular
and ecclesiastical authorities, eradicated Slavonic from the com-
munal worship in Moravia and restored the exclusive use of the
Latin liturgy.
Attested historical sources do not answer all the questions histo-
rians might have about the Cyrillo-Methodian mission, but from
what is known about the turmoil around the Slavonic liturgy in
Moravia and Pannonia at the end of the ninth century it becomes
clear that the new liturgy in a local language was as much a politi-
cal tool as it was a religious ritual. Why did the Slavonic letters’ le-
gitimacy become such a point of contention at the end of the ninth
century? Did Christian doctrine view the establishment of a new
liturgical language as heresy? Or was its legitimacy a question of
politics rather than dogma?
Life of Constantine & The Life of Constantine, a devotional account of St. Constantine-­
“the trilingual heresy” Cyril’s life that relates the details about the Cyrillo-Methodian
mission, records objections made by the Frankish and Latin clergy
against the Slavonic liturgy first in Moravia and later in Venice. As
befits the genre of the vita, the opposition to the Slavonic liturgy is
ascribed to the devil’s instigation:

The Devil, not bearing this good, entered into his devices and began to
arouse many, saying to them: God is not worshiped by this. For if this
pleased Him would He not have established it so that from the very be-
ginning [the Slavs] would worship God by writing their own language
with letters?42 But he chose only three languages: Hebrew, Greek, and

20
 Origins

Latin, which are appropriate for giving glory to God. And so spoke the
Latin and Frankish archpriests, priests, and their disciples.43

In 867 in Venice, where, according to a hypothesis advanced by a

number of scholars, Cyril and Methodius arrived to seek the Grado
Patriarch’s official approval of their mission,44 Cyril is reproached
for the lack of authority of his new writings:

When he [i.e., Constantine] was in Venice, the Latin bishops, priests,

and monks gathered against him like ravens against a falcon. And they
advanced the trilingual heresy, saying: “Tell us, O man, how is it that
you now teach books [letters] that you yourself created for the Slavs,
which none else have invented before, neither the Apostle, nor the pope
of Rome, nor Gregory the Theologian, nor Jerome, nor Augustine? We
know of only three languages worthy of praising God in books, Hebrew,
Greek, and Latin.”45

The Church Slavonic word that indicates Cyril’s creation is books & letters
kъnigy, “the books, writings, Holy Scripture, letters.” Traditionally,
translators of the Life of Constantine use the meaning “the letters” to
match it with the translation of the Church Slavonic pismeny, “the
letters,” in the passage describing the Frankish clergy’s allegations
quoted above.46 However, there is a reason why the Latin clergy in
Venice should also have been concerned with Cyril’s invention of
the kъnigy in its primary meaning—“the books, the Scriptures.”
Indeed, the controversy was not so much over the Slavonic let-
ters per se, but rather over their application, that is, that they were
used not simply for catechization and preaching but that the new
letters were used to translate holy canonical books into a language
in which no previous authoritative Christian Father had written.
The Latin clergy themselves recorded texts in Slavic using the Latin
letters. But these were sermons, prayers, and confessional formu-
lae utilized for catechetical purposes, not for canonical books.47
Therefore, the concern about the “Slavic letters” addresses the is-
sue of using a language different from Latin, whereas the concern
about the “Slavic books” addresses the use of theologically prob-
lematic liturgical books that contain texts from the Scriptures. In
this way, one can see different aspects of anxiety that the Slavonic
letters aroused among the Frankish and Latin clergy: the Frank-
ish clergy were disturbed by the competition created by the Slavic
clergy and their new letters, whereas the Venice Synodal clergy

21
 The Slavic Letters of St. Jerome

could have been seriously alarmed by the potential doctrinal un-

orthodoxy and inaccuracy of the newly translated liturgical and
biblical books.
Was “trilinguism” a Cyril’s dispute in Venice with the Frankish and Latin clergy is de-
doctrine? scribed in the sources as a controversy with “heretical trilinguists,”
in which Cyril refutes the idea that only three languages may be
used in worship. The idea of the three sacred languages is a well-
documented concept. It appears in the Gospel of John (19:20),
John 19:20 which says that Pilate placed a sign saying “Jesus of Nazareth, King
of the Jews” in Hebrew, Latin, and Greek over the crucified Christ.
It is not clear, however, whether this idea evolved into a doctrine.
To oppose a popular view that takes the vita’s account at face
value, Francis Thomson has argued that there was no doctrine of
“three liturgical languages” either in the Western or in the Eastern
churches.48 He proposes a distinction between the idea of Hebrew,
Greek, and Latin as the three sacred languages (as a symbolic trini-
tas linguarum) and the doctrine prescribing the use of only Hebrew,
Greek, and Latin in the liturgy. Thomson’s arguments are as fol-
lows. Only Slavic sources refer to the controversy over the Slavonic
rite as a dispute of St. Cyril with trilinguists-Pilatists. Moreover, in
the sources, this is not a self-identifying term, as it is Constantine
who calls them “trilinguists.” While all Latin sources acknowledge
the opposition to liturgical innovation by the papacy, nowhere in
the Latin sources is a mention of trilinguism in liturgy recorded.
With no reference to the Cyrillo-Methodian mission, “trilingu-
ism” seems to be a Byzantine definition of one of the errors of the
Western Church found in especially compiled catalogues of Latin
errors. However, this “error” did not seem to concern the language
of liturgy.
Furthermore, Thomson argues that there never existed a doc-
trine of “three liturgical languages,” but that the idea of three sacred
languages was inspired by the presence of the Greek and Hebrew
words in the Latin Mass, constituting a symbol of trinitas lin-
guarum. This symbolic unity of three sacred languages in one Mass
is not tantamount to a doctrine of liturgical trilinguism, given that
nobody celebrated the Divine Office in Hebrew or Greek in the
language of liturgy vs. Western Roman and Frankish Empires. Thomson also maintains
language of the Bible that Isidore of Seville and others before and after him, who called
these languages sacred, only referred to Hebrew, Greek, and Latin
as languages of the Bible and advocated the knowledge of these
languages for accurate interpretation. Importantly, during the first

22
 Origins

centuries of Christianity, the Roman Church was eager to elevate

Latin, which was not a language of the original Holy Scriptures,
to the same status as Greek and Hebrew. Finally, Thomson points
out, both Roman and Byzantine ecclesiastical authorities insisted
that their subjects use Latin and Greek languages respectively in
the services. However, this was primarily due to considerations of
religious unity and cultural homogeneity in imperial provinces.
It should be noted that the argument that the Slavic language
does not belong among the three sacred languages is made only
by the Frankish and Latin clergy in Moravia and Venice and is not
supported by the Byzantine patriarch and the Apostolic Pontiff
in Rome. From the Byzantine perspective, there seemed to be no
doctrinal concern about creating a new alphabet for the Slavs. Ac- Byzantine perspective
cording to the Life of Constantine, when Emperor Michael charged
Constantine with a mission to the Slavs, the latter responded that
he would accept the commission if the Slavs had their own letters.
The lack of literacy among the Slavs (whether in Greek or in Slavic)
seemed to trouble Byzantine emperors for generations: Michael re-
plied that his father and grandfather had been looking in vain for
the Slavic letters and now he thought that the time had come to
create them.49 perspective of Rome
Roman popes, too, sanctioned the Slavonic liturgy several times.
When Cyril and Methodius arrived in Rome in the winter of 868,
Pope Hadrian II blessed the Slavonic books, ordered the Slavonic
liturgy to be celebrated in principal Roman churches, and ordained
Cyril and Methodius’s disciples, as well as Methodius himself, as
priests.50 Again, in 880, Pope John VIII, after having questioned
Methodius on the tenets of his faith, bestowed on him all duties John VIII commends
and privileges of the archbishop of Moravia. John’s letter to Prince Methodius to Svatopluk
Svatopluk of Moravia demonstrates that considerations of Metho-
dius’s adherence to the teachings of the Roman Church were his
primary concern:

Accordingly, we questioned this Methodius, your venerable archbishop,

in the presence of our brother bishops, whether he adheres to the creed
of faith [fidei symbolum] in the orthodox way and during the sacred li-
turgical rites sings as is held by the Holy Roman Church and as was
announced and established by holy six universal councils of holy fathers
according to the evangelical authority of our Lord Christ. He thus de-
clared that he believes and sings [the Psalms] according to the evangeli-
cal and apostolic teaching, as the Holy Roman Church teaches and as

23
 The Slavic Letters of St. Jerome

was established by the fathers. Moreover, we, having learned that he is

orthodox and useful in all ecclesiastical teachings and matters send him
back to you again to govern God’s church.51

Noteworthy in this passage is the mention of the fidei symbolum,

which refers to a later doctrinal dispute between the Western and
Eastern Churches over the addition of the word filioque to the
Nicene Creed.52
Apparently, Methodius’s loyalty to the Apostolic See so much
pleased the pope that in his letter he expressed his warmest ap-
proval of Methodius, referring to him as confrater noster (our
brother) and reverentissimus (most venerable) and lavishing on
him the highest praise. The letter clearly shows that the pope did
not consider the use of Slavonic in the liturgy to be a breach of
doctrine; on the contrary, he thought that a Slavic translation fol-
lowing the Latin liturgy (Latin being necessary “for the greater glo-
rification”) was desirable and faithful to the teachings of the Bible:

Finally, we rightly commend the Slavonic writing, invented by a certain

Constantine the Philosopher so that God’s praise may duly sound in it,
and we decree that in this language the glory and acts of our Lord Christ
be interpreted. Indeed, by sacred authority we exhort to praise God not
Psalm 116:1 only in three but in all languages, as is taught saying: Praise the Lord, all
you Gentiles! Laud Him, all you peoples!53 [. . .] And nothing in the faith
or doctrine inhibits either to sing masses or to read the Holy Gospel
or divine lectures from New and Old Testaments in this Slavonic lan-
guage, [if they are] well translated and interpreted, or to sing all other
offices of the hour: for He who made the three principal languages, that
is, Hebrew, Greek and Latin, also created all others for His praise and
glory. Still we decree that in all churches of your land the Gospel be read
in Latin for the greater glorification and afterward preached in Slavic
translation for the ears of those who do not understand Latin words, as
it seems to be done in some churches.54

question of orthodoxy Indeed, the use of the Slavic language per se was not the cen-
tral issue. Teaching in the vernacular, in the form of preaching,
was a long-established practice of Roman and Frankish mission-
aries. However, the theological differences between the Eastern
and Western Churches, such as the dispute on the Procession of
the Holy Spirit, had already become a matter of serious disagree-
ment. These were expressed in the liturgical and biblical texts that

24
 Origins

Metho­dius and his followers disseminated in Slavonic. The linguis-

tic barrier, which did not allow for easy investigation of the trans-
lated texts used by the Slavs in religious rites, caused understand-
able uneasiness in Rome and among the Frankish clergy. This is
why, from the very beginning of the Moravian mission, the leaders
of the Slavonic rite were repeatedly summoned to Rome to testify
personally (and, most likely, in Latin) to their doctrinal orthodoxy
and allegiance to the Roman curia. Even Pope Stephen V, who ap-
peared to be a severe critic of Methodius’s leadership of the Mora-
vian Church, was apparently ready to negotiate with Methodius’s
successor. In the letter of instruction that Stephen V addressed to Stephen V summons the
his legates to Moravia, Bishop Dominic and Presbyters John and successor to Methodius
Stephen, in which he accuses Methodius of self-government and
charges his messengers to eradicate the Slavonic rite in Moravia,
he indicates that he could prove more lenient, were Methodius’s
successor to come directly to Rome and profess his creed: “By our
apostolic authority forbid the successor, whom Methodius against
the decisions of all Holy Fathers himself dared to ordain, to per-
form his service until he comes to us and explains his position per-
sonally [literally, ‘in live voice’].”55 However, Methodius’s succes-
sor, Gorazd, never went to Rome to defend his faith. Instead, the
proponents of the Slavonic rite were forced to leave Moravia, and
some of them were even imprisoned and sold at the slave market
in Venice. Despite this crisis, the Slavonic rite did not die but soon
flourished again in Bulgaria, where Cyril and Methodius’s disciples
received cordial welcome.
If the creation of the new alphabet and the establishment of the
liturgy in a new tongue was not a doctrinal issue (or at least one not
clearly defined), then the case of the Slavonic liturgy depended large-
ly on politics.56 Cyril, and after Cyril’s death, Methodius, skillfully
negotiated with the authorities and traveled to Rome and Constan-
tinople when it was necessary, expanding the corpus of Slavonic
translations and training clergy. The role of Methodius was espe- Methodius’s role in
cially decisive in the expansion and preservation of the Slavonic the expansion of the
Slavonic liturgy
liturgy. His contribution to the cause of disseminating the Slavonic
liturgy was invaluable during the years subsequent to Cyril’s death,
and his remarkable diplomatic skills allowed the Slavonic liturgy
to take deep root and persevere through the years to come despite
numerous obstacles.57
One of the paradoxes of the Cyrillo-Methodian mission is that,
although the mission itself failed, its impact on Slavic civilization

25
 The Slavic Letters of St. Jerome

was immense.58 The Slavonic rite first introduced by the holy

brothers in Moravia came to be a powerful tool in the cause of
Christian conversions and led to the creation of the Slavic national
churches. Driven by the practical purpose of expanding Christian-
ity by all possible means, Cyril and Methodius created an idiosyn-
cratic ecclesiastic culture that formed a link between the Eastern
and Western Christian traditions.

The Slavonic Rite in Bohemia

end of the Slavonic rite The Slavonic rite disappeared from Great Moravia in 885, when
in Moravia
Gorazd failed to take Methodius’s place and was overthrown by his
rival Wiching. The Slavic clergy were chased away and sold into
slavery. Many of them managed to escape to Bulgaria, where they
developed new centers of Slavonic literary and religious culture. It
is also believed that some of them found refuge in Bohemia under
the protection of the Přemyslid rulers who, according to legend,
were baptized in 884 in Great Moravia by St. Methodius. The in-
troduction of Christianity in Bohemia is documented in a number
Legenda Christiani of sources, most of them belonging to hagiographical literature.59
The earliest attested local source that talks about the Slavonic lit-
urgy, the Moravian mission, and its impact on Bohemia is the late
tenth-century composition, Legenda Christiani, named for its au-
thor Brother Christianus, a monk who is believed to be a member
of the Přemyslid family.60 This text, fully titled the Vita et passio
sancti Wenceslai et sancte Ludmile ave eius (The Life and Passion
of St. Wenceslas and His Grandmother St. Ludmila), attributes the
conversion of the Přemyslid Prince Bořivoj (872–889) and his wife
Ludmila (874–921) to the bishop of Moravia, St. Methodius. Ac-
cording to the legend, when Bořivoj attended a feast of the Mora-
vian ruler Rostislav, he was not allowed to sit together with the
Christian princes at the table but instead made to join Rostislav’s
heathen subjects on the floor. Feeling compassion for Bořivoj,
Bořivoj & Ludmila are Bishop Methodius convinced him to accept baptism. Following
baptized by Methodius Bořivoj’s example, his wife Ludmila also became Christian.61 The
legend thus traces the origin of Bohemian Christianity and polity
to Great Moravia and gives full credit to the Slavic apostles, and
not to the Bavarian Church.
Wenceslas I The rooting of Christianity in Bohemia is connected to the rule
of Bořivoj and Ludmila’s grandson, Wenceslas (Czech Václav, 923

26
 Origins

or 924–929 or 935), whose tragic death at the hands of his brother

Boleslav later elevated him to the status of patron saint of Bohe-
mia and the Přemyslid dynasty.62 Despite his fratricide, Boleslav
I (935–972) greatly contributed to the strengthening of Bohemia
as a Christian state. Moreover, he negotiated the baptism of the Boleslav I
Polish prince Mieszko, to whom he gave his daughter Dubravka in
marriage in 966. Above all, Boleslav strove for the establishment
of Bohemia’s own bishopric, which was not established until after
his death, in 973, under the authority of the archbishop of Mainz.63
With church organization overseen by the Frankish clergy and
Rome, evidence of the Slavonic rite’s survival in Bohemia during
the two centuries following the Cyrillo-Methodian mission is not
abundant, but it is, nevertheless, definite. Unfortunately, disciplin-
ary boundaries dividing historians and philologists have once more
led to debates between the two scholarly factions regarding this
question. The cause of this disagreement is a lack of direct infor-
mation about the Slavonic rite in historical sources; most evidence
comes from the analysis of literary sources and linguistic data. As a
result, historians look cautiously upon the question of the Slavonic historians & phi-
rite in Přemyslid Bohemia, while philologists speak confidently lologists disagree about
the Slavonic rite in
about its survival until the end of the eleventh century. There is no Bohemia
doubt that the Slavonic tradition existed in Přemyslid Bohemia,
but whether its coexistence with the Latin rite was peaceful, and
whether or not it was continuous and widespread, is a subject of
dispute among scholars.64
The Slavic names of priests who found refuge in Bohemia after
the collapse of Great Moravia in 906 suggest that they may have
observed the Slavonic rite and some of the customs of the Mora-
vian Church.65 While little is known about specific locations and
communities where the Slavonic rite might have been observed
in Bohemia, a number of sources identify the Sázava Benedictine
Monastery as a hub for the liturgy in Slavic. It was founded in 1032 Sázava Monastery
by its distinguished abbot St. Procopius (ca. 970/980–1053, canon-
ized in 1204), who is also believed to have instituted there the Bene-
dictine rule.66 The tenure of the Slavonic rite at the Sázava Monas-
tery, however, was short. Initially under the generous patronage
of Prince Oldřich (1012–1034) and Břetislav I (1035–1055), the
Slavonic monks were expelled from the monastery by Spytihněv
II (1055–1061), but then were brought back by Vratislav II (1061–
1092). However, after the Schism of 1054 and the reforms of Pope
Gregory the Great (1073–1085), the position of the Slavonic rite,

27
 The Slavic Letters of St. Jerome

which represented a link with the Eastern Church, was vulnerable

in Bohemia. In 1079, Pope Gregory denied Vratislav’s request to
authorize the liturgy in Slavonic. In 1096, Vratislav’s successor,
Břetislav II (1092–1100), forced the monks observing the Slavonic
rite out of the Sázava Monastery and handed it over to the Latinate
Benedictines of Břevnov.
Linguists and philologists have done substantial work to iden-
tify those literary texts from the Moravian and Přemyslid periods
linguistic data that were written in the Czech variety of Church Slavonic.67 These
scholars dispute the opinion of historians that the Slavonic rite was
imported to the Sázava Monastery from abroad, arguing that the
linguistic analysis of these Slavonic texts reveals no linguistic me-
diation, such as that found, for example, in the Rus’ manuscripts
that were imported to Rus’ from Bulgaria and which therefore
retain visible South Slavic linguistic traits. On the contrary, these
texts show consistent West Slavic (Czech) linguistic features char-
acteristic of Moravia and Bohemia, and their content embodies the
syncretism of Eastern and Western ecclesiastical elements.68

The Slavonic Rite in Poland?

The question of the Cyrillo-Methodian mission in the territo-
ries of Poland draws from the same legendary well of information
as that of the Slavonic rite in Bohemia and Great Moravia. There
are two main interrelated questions: one concerns the spread and
influence of the Slavonic liturgy in Poland, and the other concerns
the existence of an institutionalized church organization with a
debate over the Sla- Slavic or Latin hierarchy. A spirited and voluminous scholarly de-
vonic rite in Poland
bate has developed into two diametrically opposite trends in Polish
historiography, which is even more polarized than that in Czech
historiography, albeit not by discipline. Scholars advocating for
the early existence of the Slavonic liturgy in Poland generally offer
three hypotheses: (1) it arrived as part of the Cyrillo-Methodian
mission in southern Poland (Poland Minor) at the end of the ninth
century, (2) it was brought to southern Poland and Silesia from
Bohemia during the tenth century, and (3) it was received after 966
from Bohemia, along with the official Christianization. They refer
to a number of historical sources and archeological finds with a
generous dose of free interpretation, blaming later Latinization for
intentionally obscuring the beginnings of the Slavonic rite or bish-

28
 Origins

opric in Poland. Still, there are many scholars who remain uncon-
vinced and dismiss all hypotheses that the arrival of the Slavonic
rite in Poland was a consequence of the Cyrillo-Methodian mis-
sion. The scale of the debate is colossal and a detailed analysis of
the evidence brought up by both sides is beyond the scope of this
study.69 For the sake of our inquiry we note here only the central
issues in this debate.
In the absence of explicit records, the advocates of the Slavonic
rite refer to a number of indirect facts and sources that may be in-
terpreted as indications of the Slavonic rite’s existence in Poland.70 Methodius prophesizes
The primary piece of evidence, which encourages scholars to hy- the baptism of a prince
of the Vistulans
pothesize about the baptism of Poland Minor during the Mora-
vian mission, comes from chapter 11 of the Life of Methodius (the
Pannonian Legend), in which Methodius, demonstrating his gift of
prophesy, predicts that an evil pagan prince from the Vistula River
will soon be baptized:

A very powerful pagan prince, settled on the Vistula, mocked the Chris-
tians and did nasty things to them. Having sent word to him, Methodius
said, “My son, it would be better for you to be baptized of your own will
in your own land, so that you will not have to be baptized against your
will as a prisoner in a foreign land; and then you’ll remember my words.”
And so it came to pass.71

The prince, who is sometimes said to have been from the area that
would later become Cracow, was allegedly captured and baptized
by force by Prince Svatopluk. Despite the obvious hagiographic
character of the work and apparent ambiguity, it is often used as a
proof that Methodius or his disciples proselytized to the Poles liv-
ing in the Vistula region, and that there were already some Chris-
tians among them.
The arguments in favor of the Slavonic rite in Poland are largely
grounded in a conceptual understanding of the political rivalry
for jurisdiction over the Slavic lands between the three Christian
powers—Rome, Byzantium, and the Frankish Empire—as well
as Moravia’s missionary expansion politics. With some degree of
variation, the central historical premise is that from the time of the
Cyrillo-Methodian mission, the metropolitan see of Cracow was
the center of the Slavonic rite in Poland with suffragan bishoprics
that were faithful to Rome in Wiślica and Sandomierz. Accord- Gorazd as metropolitan
of Cracow
ing to Karolina Lanckorońska, for example, the first metropolitan

29
 The Slavic Letters of St. Jerome

appointed to Cracow at the end of the ninth century was none

other than Gorazd himself, Methodius’s favorite disciple and ill-
fated successor as archbishop of Moravia. One of Lanckorońska’s
strongest arguments is the presence of St. Gorazd’s name in the
early fifteenth-century Polish Wiślica Calendar.72 The proposed pe-
Latin & Slavonic rites riods of the Slavonic rite’s survival vary. The most common hypoth-
coexist in Poland esis is that the Latin and Slavonic rites existed side by side until the
eleventh century “free from mutual antagonism,” and that the Sla-
vonic rite enjoyed the protection of Bolesław the Brave (992–1025).
lack of direct evidence The conjectures about, and even the plausibility of, the Cyrillo-
Methodian Slavonic rite in Poland have been again and again criti-
cized, mainly due to lack of direct or reliable contemporaneous
historical evidence.73 Critics point out that the Life of Methodius,
even if taken at face value, says nothing about any mission con-
ducted by Methodius or any of his followers in Poland. Nor does
Methodius’s prediction of baptism indicate that it was afterward
received in the Slavonic rite. Even if the baptism was later carried
out after Methodius’s death by the efforts of his Frankish successor,
Archbishop Wiching, the language of the rite would surely have
been Latin.
The hypothesis of the early existence in Poland of the cult of St.
Gorazd (Methodius’s disciple), which would indicate the existence
of the Slavonic rite, has also been dismissed. It has been proven
that the cult of St. Gorazd migrated into the Wiślica Calendar from
Czech breviaries, as did the prayers for Cyril and Methodius, at the
end of the fourteenth century.74
Linguists and philologists have also applied their skills to verify
the hypothesis that there was direct contact between Poland and
Church Slavonic lexical the Cyrillo-Methodian mission. Their inquiry focused on uncov-
layer in Polish ering a Church Slavonic lexical layer in Polish language and lit-
erary sources.75 Although their examination has produced a list
of lexemes that may be associated with Church Slavonic, from a
methodological point of view these data cannot be used as defi-
nite proof of the Slavonic rite’s direct influence on Polish because
they are also found in Old Czech and can be explained by Czech
mediation from the time when Poland received Christianity from
Bohemia.76
“Bogurodzica” The Polish song “Bogurodzica” (“Theotokos”), recorded in the
fifteenth century but believed to be an autograph of St. Adalbert
(St. Wojciech), has become an important document of the early
poetic vernacular tradition among the Poles.77 Its real author is

30
 Origins

unknown and the song itself is variously dated from the eleventh
(Lehr-Spławiński, Ostrowska) to the thirteenth (Woronczak) to
the turn of the fourteenth (Urbańczyk) centuries.78 Scholars hy-
pothesize that several expressions in this old song (such as Bogu-
rodzica and bożycze) are the result of the original Church Slavonic
language’s direct influence on Polish.79 Yet the poetic structure and
terminology in “Bogurodzica” show dependence on thirteenth-
century Czech and Latin poetry, while its melody excludes the pos-
sibility of its emergence before the twelfth century.80
Archeologists joined historians and philologists in their efforts archeological data
to discover material evidence of the spread of Christianity in Po-
land at the time of the Moravian mission. However, one by one, all
archeological data have been discarded on the basis of recent ex-
cavations that show consistent signs of pagan cults until the end of
the tenth century and date the first signs of Christianity in Poland
to after the mission from Bohemia in 965–966, which the written
sources firmly attest.81
Scholars who share a skeptical view regarding the existence of
the Slavonic rite in Poland during or immediately following the
Cyrillo-Methodian mission point to the fact that all historical, lin-
guistic, and archeological sources are too ambiguous and subject
to interpretation. The only methodologically sound conclusion,
therefore, is that, despite some vague and indirect references that
the southern Polish lands could have been touched by the Cyrillo-
Methodian mission, there is no proof of any church organization
or even of any reliable missionary activity in Polish lands before
Mieszko decided to marry Boleslav’s daughter Dubravka and be
baptized in 966.
Everywhere in the Slavic lands under Roman or Frankish ju- no documented con-
risdiction that the Slavonic rite spread, we find evidence of ten- flicts between the Lati-
nate & Slavonic clergy
sion between the Latinate and Slavonic clergy. In Pannonia, where
Prince Kocel had showed great appreciation for the Slavonic rite,
the claims of the Salzburg clergy had already put an end to the Sla-
vonic rite by the 870s. In Moravia, this conflict resulted in the ex-
pulsion of Cyril and Methodius’s followers in 885, some of whom
escaped to Bulgaria and to Bohemia. In Bohemia, the Slavonic rite
met with resistance, and eventually the Latinate German clergy
managed to convince Prince Břetislav II in 1096 to evict the Sla-
vonic monks from their last stronghold—the Sázava Monastery. In
Croatia, this opposition led to a significant restriction of the Sla-
vonic clergy by the decisions of the Councils of 925 and 1060. The

31
 The Slavic Letters of St. Jerome

fact that we find no evidence of such conflict in Poland is an ad-

ditional argument against the existence of the Cyrillo-Methodian
Slavonic rite and church in pre-Piast Poland.

The Bifurcation of Slavic Writing: Glagolitic and Cyrillic

The dissemination of Slavic writing is directly related to the fate
of the Slavonic liturgy. In the territories with Slavic-speaking pop-
ulations that found themselves in the orbit of Byzantine jurisdic-
tion, the Slavonic rite took root and flourished, as did literature in
Slavonic rite finds Church Slavonic. Above all, the Slavonic rite and writing found a
refuge in Bulgaria
second life in Bulgaria, where the disciples of Cyril and Metho-
dius were warmly received.82 Their arrival was particularly timely
as the Bulgarian ruler Boris and, later, his son Symeon sought to
replace the Greek liturgy of Byzantium-dominated Bulgaria with
Ohrid & Preslav the native and, importantly, independent Slavonic rite. Two major
educational centers of Slavonic literacy were established by Metho-
dius’s disciples, Clement, Nahum, Angelarius, and Constantine at
Ohrid and Preslav, where clergy were trained and numerous bib-
lical and patristic writings were translated into Church Slavonic.
Gradually, the Greek-based and therefore more familiar Cyrillic
letters rivaled and came to obscure the esoteric Glagolitic alphabet,
St. Clement of Ohrid first in the secular and then in the ecclesiastical sphere.83 Under the
leadership of Clement, who headed this ambitious Slavonic literary
project, the Bulgarian literati expanded the initial Cyrillo-Metho­
dian textual corpus to such an extent that they were able to oversee
the Christianization and re-Christianization of the Serbs, Roma-
nians, and Rus’ over the course of the late tenth and early eleventh
centuries. As Ihor Ševčenko has aptly remarked, “What Methodius
had been to Moravia and Pannonia, his follower St. Clement was
Cyrillic challenges to Bulgaria, only with more enduring effects.”84 By then Cyrillic
Glagolitic in Bulgaria
had become the “mainstream” of the Slavonic writing in Bulgaria,
although Glagolitic was used in Macedonian Ohrid until as late
Glagolitic in Rus’ as the thirteenth century. It is even attested in Rus’, where, at the
dawn of its Christianity, Glagolitic writing, along with Cyrillic, was
imported from Bulgaria. William Veder has recently shown that,
rather than copying Bulgarian Cyrillic exemplars, the Rus’ book-
men preferred to transcribe from the original Glagolitic and, in
fact, produced multiple Cyrillic copies from a single Glagolitic
source.85 Thus Cyrillic became the script of the Orthodox churches

32
 Origins

of Bulgaria, Serbia, and Rus’, while the Western Slavs observed the
Roman Catholic rite and adopted the Latin language and script. Glagolitic in Dalmatia
However, as will be shown in the next chapter, in Dalmatia and
the Adriatic islands the Slavonic rite continued to be recorded in
the Glagolitic alphabet, which remained in use until as late as the
eighteenth century.

33
 2
Croatia
Empowering Myth

S(ve)ti Eronim’ imêše o(t)ca čast’na komu ime bêše Evsebiê

slovênskago ezika i slovućago.
(St. Jerome had an honorable father, whose name was Eusebius, of noble Slavic origin.)
—Čtenie svetago Eronima Hrvatina1

The Arrival of the Slavonic Rite in Croatia

Christianization of the
Croats
T he Croats came into contact with Christianity in Dalmatia and
Istria as early as the seventh century, shortly after they had
settled on the Balkan Peninsula.2 First initiated by the local Ro-
man clergy, their conversion was gradual, lasted for several cen-
turies, and was closely connected with Rome, Constantinople, the
Patriarchate of Aquileia, and Venice. As with other instances of
Christianization among the Slavs, scholars dispute the time and
ecclesiastical jurisdiction of this conversion. Because the literature
on this subject is voluminous, only a succinct analysis is given here
with references to works that scrutinize the Christianization of the
Croats in greater detail.
By the seventh century, Dalmatia, Istria, and Pannonia had en-
tered the orbit of the Roman Empire and Byzantium, and were,
therefore, already populated by Christians. The great migrations
of the sixth and seventh centuries, which brought the Slavs and
the Avars to these territories, changed the demographic scene and
challenged the position of Christianity in the Balkans. Although
some evangelical work among the Slavs must have already begun
in the seventh century, especially around the coastal towns, the
 Croatia

Christianization of the Slavs in Dalmatia, the Pannonian part of

Croatia, Istria, and the Kvarner islands gained importance starting
in the ninth century. This missionary activity emanated from sev-
eral centers: Rome, the Frankish Cividale (Old Aquileia), and Sal-
zburg, from Constantinople and the Byzantine Grado (New Aqui-
leia), which then dominated Croatia’s coast and islands, as well as
from Venice beginning in the later ninth century.3 The conversion Rome, Constantinople,
& the Franks compete
of the Slavs of Dalmatia and Illyricum resulted naturally from the
for influence among the
spirited political interest that the Franks, Byzantium, and Rome Slavs
took in this territory.4 The inhabitants of southern Croatia, to the
east of the River Neretva, were most likely converted by the Byz-
antine efforts, possibly even by the disciples of Methodius during
the reign of Emperor Basil I (867–886).5 In general, the question of
ecclesiastical jurisdiction over these provinces is difficult because
various parts of the hinterland and coastal Croatia changed hands
several times during the eighth and ninth centuries. By the begin-
ning of the ninth century, the patriarchate of Constantinople was
losing influence over the province of Illyricum, which for a short
time had been under its jurisdiction. Starting in 812, by agree-
ment between Charlemagne and Byzantium (Treaty of Aachen/
Aix) most of Dalmatian Croatia fell under Frankish administra-
tive control, while Constantinople retained suzerainty over the off-
shore islands and coastal settlements as well as over Venice. As a
result of this extended struggle for spheres of influence, the whole
region had become, as Alexis P. Vlasto characterized Venice, “a
Latin-Byzantine hybrid.”6
While the initial spread of Christianity among the Croats should
be credited mostly to Roman and Franko-Aquileian efforts, the in- routes of the Slavonic
troduction of the Slavonic rite and of Glagolitic letters is usually rite
attributed either to the Byzantine missionaries to Great Moravia,
Sts. Cyril and Methodius, or to their disciples. In the absence of di-
rect evidence of the beginnings of Glagolite writing in Croatia, the
exact date and route by which the Croats acquired the Slavonic rite
remains a subject of conjecture. Historians are forced to base their
judgments on indirect evidence and supposition. Ivanka Petrović,
for example, dates the first encounter of the Croats with the Sla-
vonic rite to as early as 863, when the Cyrillo-Methodian mission
was passing through Byzantine Dalmatia on its way to Moravia.7 In
the opinion of Henrik Birnbaum, historical sources, manuscripts,
and epigraphic material suggest that Glagolitic writing reached the
coastal region of northwestern Croatia by two routes at different

35
 The Slavic Letters of St. Jerome

times and that it did not seem to occur instantaneously or as a

result of an organized venture.8 The disciples of Methodius, after
his death, in 885 first came to Croatia from Moravia-Pannonia,
probably through Bohemia. They also could have arrived in Croa-
tia directly from the north or indirectly from Venice after some
of them were sold into slavery by the new Frankish ecclesiastical
authorities and then freed from the slave market by a Byzantine
imperial official. The other route went from Macedonia via Dioclea
(Duklja), Bosnia, and adjacent territories. It dates to a later period
and may possibly be connected in part with the dispersion of the
Bogomils, who were escaping persecution by the official Orthodox
Church.
Henrik Birnbaum believes that the explanation of how Glagolitic
came to Croatia depends upon whether this territory was under
ecclesiastical jurisdic- Byzantine or Roman jurisdiction. Eduard Hercigonja is of the same
tion in Dalmatia & the opinion and refers to a group of studies supporting the assumption
Slavonic rite
that Glagolitic script first took root in the zones under the jurisdic-
tion of the episcopate of Byzantine Dalmatia, in the cities and the
surrounding islands in the Kvarner Gulf that were owned by Byz-
antium.9 However, Franjo Šanjek notes that this question is com-
plicated and that historians should not directly link questions of
ecclesiastical jurisdiction in Dalmatia and Croatia to the struggle
over the use of the Glagolitic script and the Slavonic language in
the liturgy.10

The Roman Slavonic Rite of the Glagolite Clergy

semantics of Glagolitic The term “Glagolitic” derives from the Slavic stem glagol-, which
conveys the general semantics “word” and “speaking.” In Church
Slavonic the verb glagolati means “to write, speak graphically” be-
cause the written word was perceived as equivalent to the spoken
one. In Croatian, words with the stem glagol- were most likely in-
troduced along with the Slavonic liturgy by the followers of Cyril
and Methodius. They became associated with the language of ec-
clesiastical books and service—hence the Croatian name glagoljaši
(Glagolites) for the priests and monks who used the Slavonic lit-
terms glagoljaši, urgy and the first Slavic alphabet. However, the Croatian monks
Glagolite
and bookmen who used the Glagolitic alphabet did not receive
that name until relatively recently. At first, they were referred to
by their ethnic affiliation as the Slavic priests (presbyteri sclavici),

36
 Croatia

and their special script was associated with a collective Slavic iden-
tity. The earliest documented occurrences of terms with the stem
glagol- to describe Glagolitic writing are found episodically start-
ing from the fifteenth century. In the areas of Croatia and Bosnia,
where both Slavic alphabets were in use, the words presbyter chiu-
riliza and presbyter glagolita were used to denote priests who used
the Cyrillic or Glagolitic alphabet, respectively. However, it was
only in the nineteenth century that the term glagolitsa (glagoljica,
hlaholice, etc.) became consistently used in scholarship to denote
the Glagolitic alphabet.11
As in Moravia and Pannonia, as soon as the Slavonic rite arrived
on the Adriatic shore in the late ninth or early tenth century con-
troversies over its use arose. The earliest attested documents re- controversies over the
garding the Slavonic rite in Croatian Dalmatia are associated with Slavonic rite
the Split Church Council of 925.12 Prior to the Council, Pope John
X (914–928) wrote to both secular and ecclesiastical authorities
in Croatia to ensure that the Slavonic rite did not become deeply
rooted and gain preference over Latin.13 The pope’s disapproval of
the Slavonic rite shows that Slavonic writing had spread sufficiently
to cause concern to the Roman curia. In his letter to Archbishop
John of Split and his suffragan bishops, John reproached them for
allowing what he called Methodii doctrina (Methodian teachings) Pope John X writes to
to spread in their churches: Archbishop John of
Split about Methodii
doctrina
But let it be far from the hearts of the faithful (God forbid), who worship
Christ and believe that they can attain another life by their devotion,
that they, overlooking the teaching of the Gospel and the canons of the
Apostolic books, be attracted by the teaching of Methodius, whom we
could not find in any book among the holy writers.14

By “the teachings of Methodius” he most likely meant the use of

the Slavonic rite unaccompanied by the liturgy in Latin, which he
perceived as neglect and rejection of the Latin canonical texts and
teachings.15 There is a clear opposition between two doctrinae in
this letter: the doctrina of the Gospel and the doctrina of Metho­
dius. The Roman curia’s concern about Methodius’s teachings
could have been less about the choice of language than the fact that
it was impossible to verify the canonicity of these liturgical texts. In
the third decade of the tenth century there was no leader of Metho-
dius’s caliber among the Slavonic clergy in Croatia who could face
the pope and vouch for the orthodoxy of the Slavonic rite.

37
 The Slavic Letters of St. Jerome

Another letter that John X wrote at the same time is addressed

to Archbishop John and his suffragan bishops; the king of Croa-
tia, Tomislav; the prince of Zahumlje, Mihajlo Višević; and all
of their subjects. In this letter the pope advised that Croatian
children study Latin from an early age in order to be able to cel-
ebrate God properly in Latin, and not in Slavonic, a “barbarous”
Pope John X writes to language:
Archbishop John of
Split, King Tomislav of
That is why we urge you, beloved sons, to give your children from
Croatia, et al.
the cradle to God for the study of letters, so that they—instructed by
God—can by their admonitions save you from the enticements of sin
for the heavenly kingdom, where Christ is, with all the hosts of the cho-
sen. Indeed, what chosen son of the Holy Roman Church, such as you
are, would delight in offering his sacrifice to God [i.e., Divine Office] in
that barbarous or Slavic language? I have absolutely no doubt that for
those who insist on celebrating the Mass in the Slavic language nothing
else is left than what is written: “they broke away from us and are not of
our mold, for if they were of our mold they would surely remain with
us,” than [to remain] in our mode of life and language.16

The main issue was evidently political and administrative, rather

than linguistic. Rome perceived the Slavonic clergy as noncon-
formists who compromised the unity of the church. That is why, as
a precaution, the pope urged the Dalmatian hierarchy to take mea-
sures to unify practice in their churches according to the Latin rite
if the Dalmatian Slavs wished to remain under Roman jurisdiction
(or what he calls a “Mother Church”):

And so we advise you, our beloved, that together with our bishops,
John [. . .] and Leon [. . .], you make effort to boldly set all things right
in your Slavic land on grounds, say, that you in no way dare to depart
in any way from the instruction of the aforementioned bishops, so that
in the land of the Slavs the Divine Office is performed according to the
customs of the Holy Roman Church, that is, in Latin, and not in a for-
eign [language], because no son should say or know anything, except
what his father has advised him. And since the Slavs are most special
children of the Holy Roman Church, they have to remain in the teach-
ing of their Mother.17

The decision of the Split Council of 925 shows that the pope’s ef-
forts at church unification were not wasted. The resulting decree,

38
 Croatia

outlined in the tenth canon of the Council, did not prohibit the
Slavonic rite but did significantly limit its scope: Split Council of 925
limits the Slavonic rite
No bishop in our province should dare to elevate [anyone serving in]
the Slavonic language to whatever rank; only those in the clerical state
or monks [are allowed to use it (?)] to serve God. Nor in his diocese
should he allow to him to serve the mass, except if there is a necessity for
priests; [in which case] by applying to the Roman Pontiff, he may obtain
a license for their priestly offices.18

The papal epistles and the special resolution of the Council tes-
tify to the relatively wide use of Slavonic in Croatia; the Latin hi-
erarchy would not have concerned itself with just a few Glagolite
priests. The words in clericatu et monachatu (“in the clerical state
or monks”) could mean that the Council intended to limit the use
of Slavonic to clergy who were monks, implying that it had also
been used by other non-monastic clergy. There were also practical
reasons for retaining the Slavonic rite in Dalmatia. If only tempo-
rary, the rite was instrumental for the evangelization of common
people in rural areas, an activity that involved monasteries.
The Split Church Council of 1060 again condemned the Slavonic
clergy’s neglect of the Latin rite, forbidding them to be ordained
if they had not learned Latin: “Henceforth we prohibit in all cir- Split Council of 1060
forbids ordination of
cumstances, under the threat of excommunication to promote to
the Slavic clergy
holy orders the Slavic clergy, unless they have learned the Latin
letters, and from now on to subject a member of the clergy of any
degree to secular authority or secular taxation.”19 In both cases, the
concern seemed to be not so much about the non-doctrinal use
of Slavonic in the liturgy as about the “separatism” and isolation
of the Slavonic clergy from the “Mother Church,” whose language
was Latin. Despite the strict measures applied against them, the
Slavonic Glagolites in Dalmatian dioceses managed to preserve
their rite by addressing this concern in the centuries that followed.
Unlike the advocates of the Slavonic rite in Moravia, the Croa-
tian Glagolites did not wish for independence and authority but,
on the contrary, sought integration into the Western Church. This Glagolites & Rome
is what allowed them to stay afloat amid the strong Latin current.
They even engaged in political matters. First, they supported the
anti-pope Honorius II—who was in favor of the Slavonic rite—
against Pope Alexander II—who opposed the Slavonic rite. Later,
they participated in various territorial disputes, through which

39
 The Slavic Letters of St. Jerome

they managed to gain privileges in exchange for supporting one

side or the other.20 But, whichever side they took, the Slavonic
Glagolite clergy always remained loyal to Rome.
Another factor that allowed the Slavonic rite to continue
in Croatia—whereas elsewhere under Roman authority it was
Slavonic rite & monas- banned—was its general confinement to monastic and religious
ticism orders. Evidence of monks and hermits on the shores of the Adri-
atic dates to as early as the fourth century, long before the Cro-
ats came to this territory.21 The first Western monastics to settle
among the Croats were the monks that observed the rule of St.
Benedict of Nursia (480–547). In historiography, their arrival is
usually connected to the end of Frankish rule and the emergence
852: the earliest Bene- of the Croatian national state in the ninth century. The earliest
dictine monastery in Benedictine monastery that we know of in Dalmatia was founded
Dalmatia
in 852 by Prince Trpimir at Rižinice near the town of Solin, in the
vicinity of Split. The Cistercians, who were even more rigorous in
the application of the rules of St. Benedict, came to Croatia toward
the end of the twelfth century.22
Of the three religious orders that observed the Slavonic rite—the
Benedictines, the Third Order of Franciscans, and the Pauline fa-
thers—the Benedictines were the first monastic group to set foot
in Croatia, and they played a key role in the early development of
Benedictine Glagolites Croatian Glagolitic writing. Glagolitic stone inscriptions suggest
that the Slavonic Glagolite monks may have adopted the rule of St.
Benedict in the eleventh century.23 Ivan Ostojić—the leading histo-
rian of Benedictine monasticism in Croatia—describes the second
half of the eleventh century as the golden age of the Benedictine
movement and attributes the “Benedictization” of the Slavonic
Glagolites to this period.24
Initially, the Slavonic monks probably adopted the Benedictine
rule superficially to prove their conformity, but later, influenced by
the Cluny reforms in the late eleventh and early twelfth centuries,
Croatian Church they followed the rule more rigorously.25 The Croatian Church Sla-
Slavonic Rule of St. vonic translation of the Regula Sancti Benedicti (Rule of St. Bene-
Benedict
dict)—the earliest vernacular translation of this document—shows
that the introduction of and adherence to the rule was carried out
comprehensively. The document was translated into Slavonic for
those brethren who did not know Latin to ensure precise under-
standing of the guidelines. Attested in a fourteenth-century copy, it
was most likely translated either in the eleventh century, according
to Ostojić, or in the early twelfth century, according to Hercigonja.26

40
 Croatia

It is difficult to establish the home(s) of the first Slavonic Glago-

lite monks. The earliest Glagolitic monasteries were located on the earliest Glagolitic mon-
northern and central Dalmatian coast and islands; most of them asteries
had already disappeared by the end of the medieval period. They
were all male convents. Ivan Ostojić provides a list of at least five
monasteries that indubitably used the Slavonic rite and Glagolitic
script: St. Lucy (Lucija) in Jurandvor near Baška on the island of
Krk; St. Nicholas (Nikola) in Otočac whose location has not been
identified; St. Cosmas and Damian (Kuzma and Damjan) near
Tkon on Pašman; St. John the Baptist (Ivan Krstitelj) in Povlja on
the island of Brač; and St. Nicholas (Nikola) in Omišalj on the is-
land of Krk.27
The Slavonic rite in Benedictine communities most likely pre-
dated the acceptance of the rule. Otherwise, it is difficult to explain
why the liturgy in the “vernacular”—as Church Slavonic must have
been perceived by the Latinate clergy—could be used among those
brethren who elsewhere in the Western Christian world defended
ancient Latin traditions, preserved Roman classical monuments,
spread Latin among the newly converted European peoples, and
advocated for the establishment of Latin as the only language of
the Catholic Church.
Although the Glagolite monks did not abandon their Slavonic
rite and script, they gradually established themselves as members
of the Western monastic communities. In the wake of the Benedic- Glagolites of the Third
tines, the followers of St. Francis of Assisi (1182–1226) made their Order of St. Francis
appearance in Croatia during the lifetime of their teacher. Quite re-
markably, the members of the Third Order of St. Francis exclusively
observed the Slavonic rite from the order’s inception in Croatia.28
Another religious order that used the rite in Slavonic, along with the
Latin rite, was that of St. Paul the First Hermit. The Pauline fathers Glagolites of St. Paul
appeared in Croatia in the thirteenth century; by the second half the First Hermit
of the fourteenth century, they were engaged in the production of
Glagolitic manuscripts in substantial numbers, especially within the
domain of the Frankopan estate, in the environs of Novi Vinodol-
ski. Among the Glagolitic texts that came out of Pauline scriptoria
of Novi are two Glagolitic breviaries from the second half of the
fifteenth century, as well as several fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Croatian Church Sla-
translations of the Vita sancti Pauli primi eremitae (The Life of Saint vonic Life of St. Paul
Paul the First Hermit), originally composed in Latin by St. Jerome.29
The Latin clergy’s criticism of the Glagolites at the Split Church Glagolites’ knowledge
Councils and the early emergence of the Slavonic translation of of Latin

41
 The Slavic Letters of St. Jerome

the Regula Sancti Benedicti cause historians to assume that the

Slavonic Glagolites generally did not know Latin.30 This was defi-
nitely true during the earlier period, especially in the case of lay
brothers and lower monastic ranks. The subsequent development
of the Glagolites’ literary activity, however, shows that Latin was
not entirely a terra incognita for them. Unfortunately, traces of lit-
erary records from the period before the end of the twelfth century
are fragmentary.31 The attested stone inscriptions show that the
Glagolites knew several graphic systems, or, more precisely, that
Baška Tablet the Glagolites were part of a culture that was bilingual and triscrip-
tural. The famous Baška Tablet (Bašćanska ploča) from the Bene-
dictine Abbey of St. Lucy at Jurandvor near Baška on the island of
Krk, which records in Glagolitic an important donation made by
King Zvonimir (1075–1089) to the monastic community, includes
several Latin letters (although some scholars see them as Cyril-
Valun Tablet lic).32 Another famous biscriptural Latin-Glagolitic inscription is
the eleventh-century Valun Tablet (Valunska ploča), a tombstone
from the island of Cres.33
The examination of the resources and production of the Glagolitic
scriptoria suggests that the Glagolites not only possessed Latin
manuscripts but also actively translated from them into Slavonic.
By preserving and revising old canonical texts, as well as by trans-
lating new texts from Latin, the Croatian Glagolites created their
own liturgical and textual repertoire, as well as their own version
of Church Slavonic.34 The oldest surviving codices date to the late
thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. The lack of pre-thirteenth-
century liturgical books in Glagolitic monastic archives, however,
is understandable. By the beginning of the twelfth century the
Glagolites were already engaged in revising the liturgical books
that contained original translations from Greek by adapting them
revision of liturgical to the text in the Vulgate.35 The Cluniac reforms, which demanded
books according to the stricter observance of the rules, and the Roman Missal reform of
Vulgate
the thirteenth century rendered the earlier versions outdated.36 The
fact that the Glagolites participated in the liturgical reforms of the
Western Church by amending their books according to the Latin
sources means that at least some of the Glagolites possessed good
knowledge of Latin and competence in Latin biblical exegesis. Many
of the Benedictine scriptoria in Zadar and Krk were polygraphic,
producing books in Glagolitic, Latin, and even in Cyrillic.37
One of the influences on the Croatian Glagolites’ literary activity
was the Abbey of Monte Cassino, which was founded by St. Bene-

42
 Croatia

dict and the birthplace of the southern Italian school of Beneven-

tan script. Since its establishment, the abbey had been closely as- Glagolitic & Beneven-
sociated with Byzantine monasticism and patronized by the court tan scripts
in Constantinople.38 Paleographers believe that the angular letters
that gradually developed from round Cyrillo-Methodian Glagolitic
script in Croatian Glagolitic scriptoria were influenced by the an-
gular contours of the Latin Beneventan letters (cf. fig. 2 and fig.
3). They point out that a similar change from round to angular
letters was occurring in the Latin Beneventan script at that time.
The beginning of this process is clearly seen in the Baška Tablet
from the late eleventh century, on which the round Glagolitic let-
ters already show a tendency toward angular contours. Decorations
in Glagolitic illuminated manuscripts also demonstrate strong de-
pendence on the Beneventan style and were often even made by non-
Glagolite masters. Glagolitic scribes not only imitated decorations of
the Latin manuscripts but also modified their own script to emulate
the graphic shape and style of Beneventan letters. One of the most
prominent imports is the letter M ( ), which the Glagolite scribes
borrowed from the Latin script to replace the cumbersome Glagolitic
symbol . Some Croatian Glagolitic codices even feature Latin ini-
tials, illuminated by Italian masters.39

Figure 3. First Vrbnik Breviary (late 13th c. or early 14th c.), Vrbnik Parish Archive,
fol. 168, fragment

43
 The Slavic Letters of St. Jerome

Glagolites in Croatian Having matured with years, the Croatian Glagolite tradition be-
cultural history
came a unique cultural phenomenon.40 The Croatian Glagolites
were not mere monastics, engrossed in their books and devotion
to God; their activities penetrated deep into the secular life of the
people who surrounded them. They were writers, public scribes,
educators of the masses, and spiritual mentors. To cite Eduard
Hercigonja, an authority on medieval Croatian literature and cul-
ture, “As a way of thinking, a philosophy of life and a spontaneous
spiritual movement, the social projection of the daily, pastoral, cat-
echistic and other pragmatic activities of Croatian Glagolitic priests
(and also of their Moravian and Macedonian precursors), Glagolism
came to define Glagolitic religious activities as a polyvalent function
of the community in which the Glagolists lived and carried out
their tasks.”41
Although the law outlined in the tenth canon of the Split Council
of 925 prohibited the ordination of the Slavonic priests, it also sug-
Bishop Philip of Senj gested the remedy—a supplication to the Apostolic Pontiff. Con-
asks pope for permis- sequently, when in 1248, in an effort to resolve the controversy re-
sion to use Slavonic in
worship
garding the Slavonic Glagolitic rite in his diocese, the bishop of Senj
(Segna), Philip, appealed to Pope Innocent IV for a special license to
celebrate the Divine Office in Slavonic, he acted strictly according to
canon law. Philip’s letter of request has not survived,42 but the pope’s
rescript, dated 29 March 1248, conveys its content. Philip’s petition,
as the pope restates, explains that the Senj Glagolites use liturgy and
Pope Innocent IV ap- letters that they believe they have received from St. Jerome:
proves the Slavonic rite
in 1248
Your petition directed to us maintains that there are special letters in Sla-
vonia, which the clergy of that land say they have from Blessed Jerome,
special letters in Slavo- and which they use in celebrating the Divine Offices. That you become like
nia from St. Jerome
them and follow the custom of the land in which you are bishop, you have
petitioned us for permission to celebrate the Divine Offices in these letters.
Therefore, considering that the word is subject to the matter and not the
matter to the word, we, by the authority of this letter, grant you the permis-
sion requested, only in those places where this custom is lawfully in use,
and provided the meaning does not suffer from this difference in letters.43

The specific historical circumstances and impetus for Philip’s pe-

tition are unknown, but it is possible to infer the following facts
from the pope’s reply. First, the application to the pope demon-
strates that the Glagolites did not explicitly claim that Jerome him-
self invented their special alphabet. Rather, they believed that their

44
 Croatia

letters were brought to them by Jerome (“littera specialis, quam

illius terre clerici se habere a beato Jeronimo asserentes”).
Second, the pope refers to the special letters that the Glagolites
use to celebrate the Divine Office metonymically to indicate both
the way of writing (Glagolitic letters) and the language and text of
the liturgy itself (the Croatian variant of Church Slavonic). We can
therefore conclude that Innocent identified the littera specialis with
the language and textual corpus of the Slavonic rite.44
Third, the pope granted license to the Slavonic Glagolitic rite “quod sermo rei, et non
and letters because he considered the “word” (verbal expression) res est sermoni subiecta”
subject to the “matter” (faith; “quod sermo rei, et non res est ser-
moni subiecta”) as long as the faith did not suffer from the change
of the language (that is, letters). This important statement shows
that Innocent approached the question of using Slavonic in the Ro-
man rite in the spirit of the decisions made by the Fourth Lateran
Council of 1215, which allowed the use of various languages not
only to instruct the congregation but also to celebrate the divine
services and administer the church’s sacraments.
Finally, the rescript shows that Philip, not being a Glagolite him-
self, considered it important that the diocese of Senj should follow
the custom of the Glagolite clergy and not ignore, condemn, or ban
it. The pope acknowledged that the use of the Glagolites’ letters was
a lasting historical tradition, a custom (consuetudo) of the land that
demanded respect. He therefore acknowledged the Roman Slavonic
rite’s importance and Philip’s obligation as a bishop to support it.
Thus, although one of the most important sources about the be-
ginnings of Slavic letters, the Life of Constantine, clearly rejects St. Je-
rome’s role in the establishment of the Slavonic rite,45 it was nonethe-
less St. Jerome, a Latin Doctor of the Church, a biblical exegete, and
a translator, who was chosen as the patron of the Glagolitic letters
and the protector of the Roman Slavonic rite. But how did it happen
that, among the Glagolites, Jerome usurped Cyril and Methodius’s
position as the author of the Slavonic rite and Glagolitic letters? The
answer to this question, of course, depends upon the trajectory of
the cult of Cyril and Methodius as Slavic apostles in Croatia.

Sts. Cyril and Methodius as Slavic Apostles in Croatia

Unfortunately, the body of surviving manuscripts is insufficient
to reconstruct the beginnings of Sts. Cyril and Methodius’s cult.

45
 The Slavic Letters of St. Jerome

Little is known about the first several centuries of their venera-

tion. Furthermore, as sanctity and missionary self-sacrifice were at
the core of Cyril’s and Methodius’s cults as saints, the ecclesiastical
texts devoted to them focused much more on their spiritual virtues
than on their intellectual and cultural achievements.46 Therefore,
it is difficult to determine the extent to which their role as Slavic
apostles, and more specifically as the inventors of the Slavic alpha-
bet, contributed to the development of their cults during the first
several centuries.
The foundations of Sts. Cyril and Methodius’s religious cult were
already laid by the end of the ninth century, shortly after their
death. At that time, the saints’ vitae were written by their disciples
in Moravia, and later their pictorial representations were placed
in Cyril’s burial place.47 Methodius is thought to have contributed
Life of Constantine eight chapters to the Life of Constantine, the complete text of which
was composed between 869 (Cyril’s death) and 880, possibly in
Greek, and then translated into Slavonic. Cyril’s vita, although it
incorporates a fair amount of secular elements, is, nevertheless,
written as a hagiographic composition and celebrates above all his
Life of Methodius sanctity, divine gifts, and Christian virtues. The Life of Methodius
was written between Methodius’s death in 885 and Moravia’s fall
to the Hungarians in 905. Its main focus is the demonstration of
Methodius’s orthodoxy and holiness by relating the hardship and
self-sacrifice of his work as a holy shepherd. Importantly, it docu-
ments the recognition and admiration of Methodius by secular
and ecclesiastical hierarchs, especially by the pope. In both texts,
Cyril, although a layman, is given precedence as far as the mission-
ary work is concerned, while Methodius, although an archbishop,
acts as Cyril’s assistant and his successor.48
For the sake of celebrating the saints’ feast days, shorter litur-
gical texts were composed, consisting of encomia, services, and
liturgical texts short Synaxarium readings. These were written partly in Moravia
and partly in Bulgaria, where the missionaries found refuge after
Methodius’s death.49 In Bulgaria, the cult of the holy brothers was
developed in centers of Church Slavonic missionary and literary
activity such as Preslav, and especially in Ohrid, the workplace of
Clement, Cyril and Methodius’s disciple. Clement of Ohrid is be-
lieved to be the author of the Encomia to Sts. Cyril and Methodius.
In the Encomium to St. Cyril, as well as in the Office to St. Cyril, his
invention of the Slavic letters is mentioned as only one of many ac-
complishments. He is presented as a universal figure of Christian

46
 Croatia

oikoumene and, just like in his vita, his multinational missionary

activity is emphasized and he is likened to the Apostle Paul. Af-
ter Methodius’s death, the Encomium to both holy brothers was
composed, as well as a separate Office to St. Methodius. This Office,
written by Cyril and Methodius’s disciple Constantine of Preslav,
praises the pastoral work of Methodius, linking him to Apostle
Andronicus, the first bishop of Pannonia.50
The oldest known iconographic representation of St. Cyril in a iconographic represen-
Slavic Orthodox church is an eleventh-century fresco in the Cathe- tations
dral Church of Hagia Sophia in Ohrid. On the wall of the south-
ern nave, St. Cyril is depicted along with St. Clement of Ohrid, his
disciple. The Greek inscription identifies St. Cyril as “Agios Kyril-
los didaskalos ton Slavon”—St. Cyril the teacher of the Slavs. Both
figures are shown as bishops, clothed in episcopal garments. In his
right hand, Cyril holds a copy of the Gospels.51
The treatise On the Letters, written in Bulgaria as the polemical On the Letters
apologia of the Glagolitic letters (see chapter 1), is an important
witness to the construction of St. Cyril’s sanctity. But it is unclear
how widely this treatise circulated in Bulgaria and in the Balkans
generally, as its copies are mostly found in later Rus’ manuscripts
and no copies have been attested in any of the Croatian Glagolitic
manuscripts.52
In Bulgaria, where the cult of Cyril and Methodius was brought
and cultivated by their disciples, the saints later became vener-
ated as the patrons of the Slavic (Cyrillic) letters. The situation in
Croatia, however, is not clear. First and foremost, due to the lack
of preserved sources, the early stages of the cult of holy brothers
in Croatia are obscure and, unfortunately, no definitive conclu-
sions can be drawn. Documented evidence dates to the beginning calendars of saints
of the fourteenth century, the date of the oldest attested Croatian
Glagolitic missal, Illirico 4 (1317–1323) from the Vatican Library,
which contains a calendar of the saints.53 The calendar lists Cyril and
Methodius’s feast day on 14 February, the day of Cyril’s death. The
majority of other Glagolitic missals and breviaries follow the same
practice, with only a few manuscripts having separate feast days for
Cyril and Methodius. Based on the calendars alone, it is hard to de-
termine the capacity in which Cyril was venerated by the Glagolites
because his liturgical class is generally not specified, while Metho-
dius’s class is usually indicated as (bishop)-confessor.54
Early calendars do not provide any information about the extent
of veneration of the holy brothers among the Glagolites, nor do they

47
 The Slavic Letters of St. Jerome

in any way indicate that Cyril and Methodius were venerated as the
Slavic apostles or the patrons of the Slavic Glagolitic alphabet. Fur-
thermore, no attested Glagolitic manuscripts contain the full text
of the Life of Constantine or the Life of Methodius. Fragments from
the Life of Constantine and the Encomium to St. Constantine, how-
Office to Sts. Cyril & ever, are included in the Office to Sts. Cyril and Methodius, which
Methodius is found in the Glagolitic breviaries at the end of the fourteenth
century.55 Among the nine attested breviaries that contain the Of-
fice, scholars distinguish several textual types, depending on the
features used for classification.56 The saints’ class in the Office is
defined by the selection of biblical readings from the Common of
saints, which is specific for each class. The oldest type of the Office,
represented by the Ljubljana Breviary manuscript, number 161
(1396), has readings from the Common of Martyr, whereas other
types follow the protocol for the Common of Confessor, in which
both brothers are referred to as bishops (arhierěi).57
Bosnian Glagolitic texts The fact that among the Croatian Glagolitic manuscripts the Of-
as sources of the Office fice to Sts. Cyril and Methodius is found predominantly in Francis-
can breviaries prompted Vjekoslav Stefanić to hypothesize that the
Franciscans could have used one of the Bosnian Glagolitic texts
as a source for their version of the breviary.58 Unlike in Dalmatia
and Croatia, where the cult of the holy brothers was compromised
because Methodius came to be perceived as a heretic by church
officials, liturgical books in Macedonia, Hum, and Bosnia retained
the cult of Cyril and Methodius and could have provided models
to the Croatian Franciscan Glagolites for their reform of liturgical
books.
The archaic language of the citations from the Life of Constantine
and the Encomium led scholars to assume that the Office originated
Slavonic Monastery in in tenth- or eleventh-century Bohemia.59 Vojtěch Tkadlčík has sug-
Prague as provenance gested, however, that the Glagolitic Office to Sts. Cyril and Metho-
of the Office
dius was composed around the 1360s or 1370s at the scriptorium
of the Slavonic Monastery in Prague, where the Croatian Glago-
lites were then active.60 His analysis convincingly demonstrates
that the Office’s language and rhetoric express the ideological and
religious aspirations of the Prague Glagolites vis-à-vis the Czech
cultural milieu. Tkadlčík explains the archaic language in the ci-
tations by the fact that the Glagolites drew from old versions of
the Life of Constantine and the Encomium. Tkadlčík concludes that
the foundation of the Benedictine Slavonic Monastery in Prague,
which promoted the Roman Slavonic liturgy and writing, gave the

48
 Croatia

formerly limited cult of Sts. Cyril and Methodius a new life both
in Bohemia and in Croatia, where the text of the Office migrated at
the end of the fourteenth century (also see chapter 3).
Although the Office, as attested in the Ljubljana Breviary, re- Office to Sts. Cyril
counts that Cyril “put together letters and began writing books” & Methodius in the
Ljubljana Breviary
(“i abie složivь pismenaě slova načet besědu pisati”), it does not
specify which letters—Cyrillic or Glagolitic.61 This lack of name
for a Slavic script was, in fact, not uncommon in pre-sixteenth-
century sources. In most regions, only one of the two Slavic scripts
was in use and was therefore designated by its ethnic attribution
as “the Slavic letters.”62 Without historical context and manuscript
evidence, it becomes especially difficult to determine which of the
two alphabets is being referred to in the Office. It is likely, though,
that among the Glagolite clergy the letters that Cyril “put together”
were thought to be Cyrillic. As a matter of fact, in thirteenth-century
Bohemia, where the Office most likely originated and where Cyril
was said to have labored, the Slavonic liturgy was already associ-
ated with Cyrillic letters. Consequently, even though the Croatian
liturgical books contained some information about Cyril and his
letters, it remains unclear whether the Glagolites had sufficient ba-
sis to connect their own letters with those that St. Cyril invented.
Interestingly, the Office shows a somewhat vexing neglect of
Methodius. If we look at the contents of the Office in all its vari-
ants, it is mostly devoted to Cyril and mentions Methodius only in
passing. The readings, taken from the Life of Constantine, focus on
Cyril; hymns and antiphons are either devoted to Cyril or to both
brothers. This negligence is to some extent corrected in a later ver- Office to Sts. Cyril &
sion of the Office, attested in the Breviary of Priest Mavar (1460), Methodius in the Bre-
viary of Priest Mavar
where several antiphons are addressed specifically to Methodius.
Yet remarkably, although in Priest Mavar’s Breviary the brothers
are called the “attendants of the Slavonic books” (knigь slovin’skihь
služiteli) and are said to have translated the Slavonic books and
to have taught the Czech people, nowhere in the text of the Of-
fice does one find any explicit indication that St. Cyril invented the
Slavonic letters.63
The examination of the manuscript evidence leads us to the
following conclusions. There are no Glagolitic sources that show
the existence of a special cult of Cyril and Methodius as the cre-
ators of the Slavic letters among the Croatian Glagolites until the
end of the fourteenth century, when the Office to Sts. Cyril and
Methodius is first attested.64 Even if the Office was known to the

49
 The Slavic Letters of St. Jerome

thirteenth-century Glagolites, it did not provide explicit evidence

that the Slavonic letters that St. Cyril invented were Glagolitic (and
not Cyrillic). That the Glagolites did not resort to the authority
of St. Cyril, a scholar and a saint, in validating their letters to the
pope may suggest that they were unaware, or at least unsure, of his
authorship of their Glagolitic letters. Finally, the exclusion of Cyril
and Methodius from the patrons of “the special letters in Slavonia”
may also mean that the story of St. Jerome’s Slavic letters was not
invented by the Glagolite monks. We will explore this idea further
in the chapter.

Cyril and Methodius in Historical Sources

While there are no early sources that explicitly identify Cyril and
Methodius as the inventors of the Slavic alphabet, there are sources
that view Methodius and his teaching in a very negative light.
In 870, in order to support the legal claim of the Salzburg See on
Methodius in Conversio Pannonia, Adalwin, archbishop of Salzburg, gave orders to document
Bagoariorum et Caran- the missionary activities of the Salzburg Church in these lands.65 The
tanorum
treatise Conversio Bagoariorum et Carantanorum (Conversion of the
Bavarians and Carantanians) was written at approximately the same
time that the Bavarian clergy imprisoned and tried Methodius. It
is therefore possible that the Conversio was compiled as evidence
against him. In this document, an anonymous writer (possibly,
Adalwin himself?) presents Methodius as the inventor of the infa-
mous Slavic letters and the propagator of questionable teaching and
accuses him of stealing business from the Latin bishop Rihpald:

He [Rihpald] remained there for a long time, performing his duties, just
as his archbishop empowered him to do, until some Greek, Methodius
by name, acting as a philosopher,66 replaced the Latin language and Ro-
man doctrine, as well as the Latin authoritative writings, with the re-
cently invented Slavic letters, and in the eyes of all people in this region
disparaged the Mass and the Gospel and the duties of those ecclesiastics,
who celebrated them in Latin. He [Rihpald] was unable to tolerate this,
so he returned back [to the Salzburg see].67

Rather than fading away, this unfavorable memory of Methodius

soon resurfaced in Croatia. A number of documents associated
with the Split Church Councils of 925 and 1060 are recorded in the

50
 Croatia

thirteenth-century Historia Salonitana (The History of the Bishops of Methodius in Historia

Salonitana by Archdea-
Split) written by Archdeacon Thomas of Split.68 Among these docu-
con Thomas of Split
ments is the aforementioned letter of Pope John X to Archbishop
John of Split about a dangerous “Methodii doctrina.” It exposes
Methodius as a non-canonical self-proclaimed apostle and notes
that his name was not found “in any book among the holy writers.”69
In agreement with its previous decisions, the Council of 1060 again
condemned the Slavonic rite and pronounced Methodius a heretic:

Among these [i.e., the council of all prelates of Dalmatia and Croatia] it
was decreed and established that no one in the future should presume to
celebrate the divine mysteries in the Slavonic tongue, but only in Latin
and Greek, and that neither should anyone of that language be elevated
to holy orders. For they said that a certain heretic called Methodius had
devised a Gothic alphabet, and he perniciously wrote a great deal of
falsehood against the teachings of the Catholic faith in that same Sla-
vonic language. On account of this, he is said to have been condemned
by divine judgment to a swift end.70

Another late twelfth- or early thirteenth-century source served Methodius in Excerp-

tum de Karentanis
as a reminder of Methodius’s unwelcome appearance in the Bal-
kans. A short document titled Excerptum de Karentanis (Excerpt
from the Conversion of the Carantanians), which is based on the
Conversio Bagoariorum et Carantanorum but somewhat elaborated,
was included in a manuscript, Codex Vindobonensis 423. This
document calls Methodius a Slav, credits him with the invention
of the Slavic alphabet, and states that he brought his teachings to
Pannonia from the Dalmatian Coast:

After this, in some time, there arrived a certain Slav from the land of Istria
and Dalmatia, Methodius by name, who invented the Slavic letters and
celebrated the Divine Office in Slavonic, and undermined the Latin lan-
guage [literally: made Latin worthless]. Finally, he was driven away from
the Carantanian lands, went to Moravia and there he rests in peace.71

Methodius as a Slav
By the thirteenth century, the only areas within Roman jurisdic-
tion where the Glagolitic Slavonic liturgy had survived were Is-
tria and Dalmatia, hence the association of Methodius with this
region. The “demotion” of Methodius, who was Greek, to Slavic
ethnicity is a noteworthy feature of this document, for it shows that
ecclesiastical issues were connected to ethnic identity.

51
 The Slavic Letters of St. Jerome

In all of these sources, it is Methodius and not Cyril who is

charged with heretical teachings. In fact, there is no mention of
Cyril & Methodius in Cyril in any of the early documents issued against the Slavonic rite.
the Chronicle of the The only Croatian source that provides information about Cyril is
Presbyter Diocleas
the Chronicle of the Presbyter Diocleas (also known as Sclavorum
regnum—The Kingdom of the Slavs), written in the twelfth century
in what is today’s Montenegro.72 Yet the account that it provides is
idiosyncratic. Attested only in later copies, the Chronicle is prob-
lematic as a historical source due to numerous errors and to the
author’s political agenda. The author, believed to be Bishop Grgur
of Bar (1172–1196), relates a distorted story of the Moravian mis-
sion, moving it to the Croatian lands and to the kingdom of leg-
endary king Svetopelek (the son of Zvonimir).73 In this version,
Constantine-Cyril the Philosopher baptized Svetopelek and his
kingdom, invented the Slavic letters, translated all biblical books
of the New and Old Testament from Greek into Slavonic, ordained
priests, and established the liturgy according to the Greek rite.74
The author does not mention Moravia or Rostislav or any other
historically accurate figure. In Grgur’s story Pope Stephen admires
and supports Constantine and the Slavonic rite, while in fact the
historic Pope Stephen V (885–891) banned the Slavonic liturgy
and assisted in the restoration of the Frankish clergy in Moravia
after Methodius’s death in 885. The name of Methodius is not
mentioned in connection with this affair, but later comes up in an
unexpected way. The author relates that King Svetopelek adopted
the “liberum Sclavorum, qui dicitur Methodius” (a Slavonic book,
called “Methodius”) as a book of laws and customs for his state.75 It
is believed that this liber Methodius probably stands for the Nomo-
kanon, translated by Methodius into Church Slavonic and named
in his honor.76
As sources demonstrate, in thirteenth-century Dalmatia the
events of the Moravian mission devolved into myth, while Metho-
dius grew to be a persona non grata. Since no vitae of Cyril and
Methodius are attested in Croatian Glagolitic codices, the only
source of information about Cyril and his invention would have
been the Office to Sts. Cyril and Methodius, which is found in
manuscripts from the late fourteenth century. The lack of accu-
rate information about Cyril in the Historia Salonitana and in the
Chronicle of the Presbyter Diocleas suggests that the Office may not
yet have circulated in Dalmatia in the thirteenth century. As for
Methodius, his reputation as a heretic and an adversary of the Lat-

52
 Croatia

in Church may have rendered him undesirable as a patron of Slavic

letters and discouraged the Glagolites from evoking his name in
relation to their rite.77 This circumstance, of course, did not prevent Cyrillic is accepted as
the Slavic Orthodox churches of Bulgaria, Macedonia, Serbia, and the invention of St.
Cyril
Rus’, where the Cyrillic script had long ago supplanted the origi-
nal Glagolitic, from venerating Cyril and Methodius as the Slavic
apostles and considering Cyril to be the inventor of the alphabet
that was ultimately named in his honor. In Bohemia, too, the emer-
gence of the Cyrillic letters was associated with Cyril. Thus, by the
mid-thirteenth century, Orthodox Slavs had appropriated Cyril as
the creator of the Cyrillic alphabet, leaving the Glagolitic letters
without a patron. It was natural, then, that the Glagolites, having
by that time adopted the monastic rules of the Western Church
and the Roman liturgical protocol, would look for a patron among
the Latins.

The Legend Is Created: Sources

Innocent IV’s rescript of Philip’s petition is the earliest known
source documenting the belief that the Glagolitic letters (and lit-
urgy) came from St. Jerome. The rescript is also the earliest cita-
tion of that belief as evidence of the sacred foundation of Slavonic
writing and worship. Despite an obviously legendary origin, this
theory proved remarkably enduring over the centuries and per-
sisted even into the modern period.78 Let us therefore review the
premises and circumstances from which it emerged.
According to Jerome’s own testimony in De viris illustribus Jerome on his birth-
place in De viris
(On Famous Men), he was born in the mid-fourth century in the illustribus
town of Strido(n), which was, according to his description, situ-
ated on the border of Dalmatia and Pannonia. In reality, little is Stridon
known about the exact location of this town, which was entirely
destroyed by the Goths in the late fourth century. An alternative
theory argues that Jerome’s hometown was Zrenj near Buzet in Is-
tria. Indeed, a strong local devotion to St. Jerome existed among
the Glagolites in Istria. A complete Mass devoted to St. Jerome Zrenj in Istria
and a special Holy Office celebrating the holiday of the Translation
of Relics of St. Jerome are recorded only in a Glagolitic codex of
Istrian provenance—the Ljubljana-Beram Breviary of 1396.79 Je-
rome’s name is also included in a late fourteenth-century Glagolitic
amulet-invocation against the devil, which was written in Istria,

53
 The Slavic Letters of St. Jerome

although the saint was not generally venerated as a popular protec-

tor against the devil.80 Whether Stridon was in Dalmatia or Istria,
the theory of Jerome’s Slavic identity is of course unfounded: since
historical sources and archeological evidence prove that the Slavs
did not arrive in Dalmatia or Istria before the sixth century, Jerome
could have had no connection either to Slavs or their writing.81
This, however, was not necessarily obvious to the medieval Croa-
tian clergy, whose awareness of changes on the ethno-linguistic
map of the Balkans was lacking, and in whose eyes, therefore, Je-
rome was a Slav and a Croat.
The traditional position of Croatian historiography is to view the
emergence of the theory of Jerome’s apostolic legacy among the
Slavs as a deliberate attempt by the Croatian Glagolites to defend
their rite by using Jerome as a shield against the Latin clergy’s cen-
sure. Yet the conclusion that in 1248 the Glagolites fabricated this
legend is extrapolated by means of logical reasoning, not from his-
torical sources. The latter may tell a different story, namely that the
legend of special letters that Jerome had devised for the Slavs did
not necessarily originate with the Glagolites.
Not all Glagolite communities shared the belief in Jerome’s let-
Franciscans do not ters. For example, according to the testimony of the Šibenik his-
believe Jerome created torian Dinko Zavorović (ca. 1540–1608), initially the Franciscan
Slavic letters
Glagolites did not accept the belief that Jerome had created their
letters.82 But eventually, it seems, they found the theory to be of
some credence. By the end of the fifteenth century, the Franciscan
fathers already included Jerome in their midst: in a letter of peti-
tion to the Holy See, they name both Jerome and Cyril as patrons
of the Slavonic rite.83
More important, the hypothesis of the leading role of the Glago-
lite monasteries in myth-making is compromised by the fact that
the premise for the myth seems to borrow from Latin sources,
which lie outside of the strictly monastic literature of the Slavonic-
Cosmographia of reading Glagolites. The earliest source is likely the Cosmographia
Aethicus Ister as a of Aethicus Ister, a notoriously perplexing treatise by an as-of-yet
source of the theory
unidentified author posing as St. Jerome.84 The author presents his
treatise as an abridged and explicated edition of the account of the
lands and peoples that Aethicus Ister, a Scythian philosopher and
cosmographer of noble birth, had encountered during his travels.
This remarkable work is a bit of a literary puzzle, variously dated
and attributed.85 While Jerome’s alleged authorship may have been
accepted until the nineteenth century, twentieth-century schol-

54
 Croatia

arship has proven that Jerome cannot have been the author. The
Cosmographia’s Latin has been found too flawed for, and stylis-
tically uncharacteristic of, Jerome, whereas its numerous literary
references have been linked to later sources (such as, for example,
Isidore of Seville, Avitus, and Pseudo-Methodius).86 Although it
is impossible to identify the author or even determine his ethnic
identity and native language, analysis of the Cosmographia’s lan-
guage, sources, and manuscript evidence leads to several hypoth-
eses. The author could have been educated in Merovingian Gaul or
northern Italy, as well as in Ireland (where he became acquainted
with the writings of Virgilius Maro Grammaticus) and England
(where he may have spent some time at Canterbury and Malmes-
bury).87 After his travels he returned to the continent where he
composed his treatise soon after 727.88
Whoever the real writer of the Cosmographia was, it is clear
that Aethicus is an imaginary character and Jerome a fictitious
author. The Cosmographia is described by specialists as a work of
fiction, based on the literary technique of a “found work,” while
its genre has been characterized as a “philosophical novel” and a
“travel novel.”89 It opens with a short cosmographical section and
proceeds as Aethicus’s travelogue through various parts of north-
ern, central, and eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Africa.90 Its
tall tales, fanciful accounts of non-existing lands and peoples, and
chronological incongruity have led scholars to call it a “literary
forgery,” a work of “Schwindelliteratur,” a “Menippaean satire,” and
a “farrago of science fiction.”91 At the end of the Cosmographia, the alphabet of Aethicus
author includes “the alphabet of Aethicus,” which contributes to
the fantastic nature of the treatise.92 The illustrations in the extant
manuscripts of the Cosmographia show the shapes and names of
22 letters, which do not correspond to any known system of writ-
ing (see fig. 4).93
It remains to be explained how a fictional and even satirical work,
such as the Cosmographia is believed to have been, could have be-
come a source of information to the Benedictine scholar and edu-
cator, and archbishop of Mainz, Rabanus Maurus (776–856). Ra- alphabet of Aethicus in
banus incorporated the account of Aethicus’s letters in his treatise Rabanus Maurus’s De
inventione linguarum
De inventione linguarum (On the Invention of Writing), a curiously
short discourse on several writing systems and their origins, with
no claim to any thoroughness.94 Along with Hebrew, Greek, and
Latin letters and Germanic runes, Rabanus describes the letters of
Aethicus (fig. 5), stating:

55
 The Slavic Letters of St. Jerome

Figure 4. Alphabet of Aethicus. Pseudo-Jerome, Aethicus Ister’s Cosmographia

Figure 5. Alphabet of Aethicus. Rabanus Maurus, De inventione linguarum

We have also discovered the letters of Aethicus, philosopher and cos-

mographer of Scythian nationality and noble birth, which the venerable
Jerome, priest, brought all the way to us, explaining [them] in his own

56
 Croatia

words. Since he highly appreciated his [Aethicus’s] learning and activity,

he also wished to make his letters known. And if we are thus far mis-
taken in these letters, and if we will make mistakes elsewhere, you will
correct us.95

If indeed the Cosmographia was written as a work of fiction and

was received as such by its readers, it is surprising that the infor-
mation about the imaginary alphabet of Aethicus was taken se-
riously by Rabanus. Does this mean that he did not understand
that it was fictitious? To Rabanus’s credit, it should be noted that at
least he had certain doubts about the reliability of this information,
which he elegantly expressed in his closing remark.
Despite Rabanus’s doubts about the authenticity of the litterae
Aethici, this mystifying alphabet could have inspired some of his
Aethicus the Scythian
readers to link it with the Slavic alphabet of the Glagolites. The
nationality of Aethicus was essential. As a Scythian and native of
the Istriae regio (region of Istria), he was considered to have been
a Slav by medieval scholars who had heard about Scythians from
ancient authors and erroneously equated them with Slavs.96 It was
logical, therefore, that Jerome, also believed to have been a Slav
by virtue of his birthplace, would be interested in Aethicus’s let-
ters and include them in his work “explaining [them] in his own
words.” Although the symbols depicted in the Cosmographia and
in De inventione linguarum were not at all similar to the Glagolitic
letters, either in shape or in name, they seem to have inspired the
theory that the Glagolites received their writing from St. Jerome.97
The aforementioned Latin sources suggest that the theory of
Jerome’s Slavic alphabet originated not among the Glagolites but
among the Latin clergy who, as Bishop Philip of Senj must have
been, were sympathetically inclined toward the Dalmatian Sla-
vonic monasteries.98 Having found mention of Aethicus’s letters,
deciphered and explained by Jerome, the Latin clerics could easily
conclude that these were the special letters of their Croatian Sla-
vonic fellow-monks. It is possible that they never even bothered to
compare Aethicus’s letters in the Cosmographia and De inventione
linguarum with those of the Glagolites, and that the Glagolites em-
braced this theory without critically examining the sources upon
which their Latin brethren relied. It should be noted that there are
no explicit references to Rabanus’s treatise or to Aethicus’s alpha-
bet in any of the earliest historical documents that mention the
Glagolites’ belief that they received their letters from Jerome. It is

57
 The Slavic Letters of St. Jerome

unknown when—prior to 1248—this belief emerged and whether

Philip was the first to express it officially.

The Legend Is Created: Historical Setting

If we follow the generally accepted “conspiracy theory” that the
Glagolites devised the legend of Jerome’s Slavic alphabet for the
purpose of validating their rite, we should question whether the
political climate of the Roman curia was such that the claim would
have any weight. Philip does not support the association between
“the special letters in Slavonia” and Jerome with any solid evidence
beyond the fact that it is a belief and a custom of the Glagolitic clergy.
If deemed controversial, the accuracy of that claim could have been
challenged by the Roman curia. Therefore, it is more likely that
Philip referred to Jerome not so much to validate the Slavonic rite
of the Glagolites as to describe them as proper Catholics, loyal
to the pope and to the Western “Mother Church.” Furthermore,
was it even necessary to defend the Slavonic rite of the Glagolite
monks, who had already been observing it with the permission,
albeit restrictive, of the Split Council of 925, which allowed it to be
observed in monasteries?
A close reading of the pope’s rescript to Philip suggests that the
bishop of Senj could have been asking for authorization to observe
the Slavonic rite at his own cathedral church and that in so doing
he commended the customs of the local Glagolites to strengthen
his case. Stjepan Damjanović, following a revised reading and in-
terpretation of the papal rescript by Mile Bogović, has argued that
Philip’s request concerned the whole diocese and that the papal
Fourth Lateran Council privilegium was given to him personally as a bishop of Senj.99 The
of 1215 on rites in dif-
ferent languages approval of the Slavonic liturgy by the pope could also be viewed
within the context of the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215.100 The
ninth canon (De diversis ritibus in eadem fide [On Different Rites
within the Same Faith]) issued by the Council calls for the ade-
quate provision of priests capable of ministering to Christians of
different languages and rites by celebrating the divine services, ad-
ministering the church’s sacraments, and instructing them in their
mother tongue:

Since in many places peoples of different languages live within the same city
or diocese, having one faith but different rites and customs, we therefore

58
 Croatia

strictly order bishops of such cities and dioceses to provide suitable men
who will do the following in the various rites and languages: celebrate the
divine services for them, administer the church’s sacraments, and instruct
them by word and example.101

The expression “sermo rei et non res sermoni subjecta” (the word “sermo rei et non res
is subject to the matter and not the matter to the word) in Inno- sermoni subjecta”
cent’s decretal demonstrates that he considered the canon of lit-
urgy more important than its language.102
Although the Glagolites continued to celebrate the liturgy in Sla-
vonic (despite the limitations of the Split Councils of 925 and 1060
that forbade ordination of the Slavonic-ministering priests), they
eagerly interacted with the Latin ecclesiastical communities. They
adhered to the monastic rules of the Western Church and partici-
pated in liturgical reforms. By accepting the maker of the Vulgate
Bible as their patron, the Glagolites simply reiterated their loyalty
to Rome.
Moreover, there are reasons to believe that the Roman curia had Rome & the Bosnian
a pragmatic interest in approving the Slavonic rite as a potential Church
strategy to attract other Slavs to the Roman Church. Eduard Her-
cigonja links papal good graces toward the Glagolites with Rome’s
effort to bring the heterodox Bosnian Church, which also used
Slavonic in liturgy, back into the fold.103 Indeed, the Glagolites
who used the Slavic language in the Roman rite could be used as
an attractive bait by Rome as it sought to acquire new devotees
among the Slavs. In this respect, it is noteworthy that the terms
“Sclavi” and “Sclavonia” were used in the 1248 papal letter rather
than “Croats” and “Croatia” or “Dalmatia.” Other contemporane-
ous Latin sources show that the geographical term “Slavonia” also
referred to Bosnia.104 Furthermore, Innocent’s liberal views on the Rome & Orthodox Rus’
language and rite of the liturgy had already manifested themselves
two years prior, in 1246, when he was prepared to allow the Greek-
Orthodox Slavonic rite in the Church of the Rus’ principality of
Galicia (Halych) if the Galician prince Danilo Romanovich was
willing to accept the jurisdiction of the Apostolic See.105
Innocent’s rescript of 1248 was the third official papal document—
after Hadrian II’s in 868 and John VIII’s in 880—to approve the Sla-
vonic rite.106 Whether inspired by belief in the connection between
St. Jerome and the Slavonic rite or for other reasons, Pope Innocent
IV was apparently inclined to patronize the Croatian Glagolites.
Four years later, in 1252, he granted the appeal of Bishop ­Fructuosus

59
 The Slavic Letters of St. Jerome

Innocent allows the of Krk and allowed the Benedictines of the Abbey of St. Nicholas (St.
Slavonic rite in Omišalj
Nikola) in Omišalj to use Slavonic:

Innocent the bishop, etc., to the Venerable Father Fructuosus, the bishop
of Krk, etc. Our beloved sons, abbot and the convent of St. Nicholas of
Omišalj of the order of St. Benedict of your diocese, humbly beseeched
us that we might care to give them permission to celebrate the Divine
Office in the Slavic letters following the rite of the Roman Church, as
their predecessors had been accustomed to do, since they are Slavs and
have Slavic letters and cannot learn the Latin letters. Having full confi-
dence in God in your circumspection, we permit you by the authority of
the present letter to act on this as you see expedient.107

Notably, the document does not refer to Jerome but rather to the
observance of the Roman rite (“secundum ritum ecclesie Romane”)
and to the long-standing tradition of the Glagolites to justify the
granting of the request. The fact that Innocent did not mention the
authority of Jerome in this document, which was issued only four
years after he had cited Jerome while granting a similar permission
to the Senj Glagolites, is perplexing. It may indicate that Fructuo-
sus omitted Jerome’s name from his request because he either did
not know about this belief, or he did not consider its mention im-
portant or essential.
Whether the theory of St. Jerome’s Slavic letters originated among
the Glagolite or the Latinate clergy, the Roman curia never chal-
lenged it and the Glagolites never found it necessary to either de-
fend or contradict this belief.108 On the contrary, the popes several
times confirmed their privileges and acknowledged St. Jerome’s
authorship of the Slavonic rite. One of these pontiffs was Eugene
IV, who also signed a church union at the Council of Florence.109

“Letters alone in books renew the past”

Although in 1248 it was claimed only that the special letters of
the Glagolite monks were received from St. Jerome, the legend
grew, and gradually Jerome became acknowledged as the inventor
of the Slavic alphabet and the translator of the Mass into Slavonic.
It is not surprising that the creation of a new alphabet would then
have been associated with strictly ecclesiastical needs, specifical-
ly with the apostolic purpose. Indeed, why would new letters be

60
 Croatia

used if not to record the Divine Office in a new language? And

who better to create them than the translator of the Vulgate? The
medie­val idea of Holy Scripture assumed the a priori authority of
writing as God’s instrument. This is reflected in the terms Scrip- Medieval theory on
tura and Biblia—“writing, way of writing,” and “books, scrolls.” writing
Medieval grammatical theory acknowledged the primacy of writ-
ing over speech and considered writing the foundation of knowl-
edge and true faith because it was through writing that these were
preserved.110 The sacralizing of writing is the theme of Rabanus
Maurus’s poem “Ad Eigilum de libro quem scripsit” (“To Eigil, On
the Book He Wrote”):

Letters alone escape ruin and ward off death,

Letters alone in books renew the past.
Indeed God’s finger carved letters on suitable rock
When He gave the law to his people:
These letters disclose all that is in the world,
Has been and may chance appear in the future.111

In the poem Rabanus uses the word grammata, a Greek equivalent

of litterae. In Greek the word grammata (plural of gramma) re-
ferred both to the letters of the alphabet and to writings in general,
as well as to knowledge and learning. Since the medieval concept
of letters also included the body of written texts, it is understand-
able why the Slavonic liturgy, which was believed to be written
with letters of his making, was attributed to Jerome.
The medieval veneration of letters was conducive to the emer-
gence of numerous legendary accounts about inventors of alpha-
bets. In the tradition of Pentecost, these legends associated the
origin of writing with mysterious and supernatural events, which
underlined letters’ sacred origin and function.112 By the thirteenth
century, Cyrillic had been accepted as a divinely inspired creation
of St. Cyril in the Slavic Orthodox churches, whereas in Dalmatia,
Glagolitic letters were left without a patron. The establishment of
their sacred origin must have been seen as necessary for the pres-
tige of the Roman Slavonic rite. Because the medieval mind asso-
ciated letters with Scripture, St. Jerome’s reputation as the transla-
tor of the Vulgate made him perfect for the role of inventor of the
Glagolitic alphabet and of the Roman Slavonic rite. Jerome’s Chris- Jerome as patron of
vernacular letters
tian authority, constructed in late antiquity around (then) vernac-
ular Latinity, was once again called upon to sanction what were

61
 The Slavic Letters of St. Jerome

perceived as vernacular Slavic translations. Since then, St. Jerome’s

name has become closely connected with Croatian Glagolitic writ-
ing, as many linguistic and encyclopedic treatises from the Renais-
sance until the eighteenth century demonstrate.
It has long been assumed that in 1248 the Croatian Glagolites in-
tentionally devised the legend of Jerome’s invention of Slavic letters
in order to protect themselves from the Latin clergy’s disapproval.
This view has been taken for granted by generations of scholars,
and it has migrated from textbook to textbook without adequate
analysis. Common sense would seem to support this assumption:
since, as is now known, Jerome was not a Slav and could not have
invented the Slavic alphabet, clearly the Glagolites must have in-
vented the legend. Yet analysis of the historical circumstances sur-
rounding the pope’s confirmation of the Slavonic rite, as well as
examination of the possible sources of the legend, demonstrates
that Jerome’s role as patron of the Slavic letters was as useful to the
Roman curia as it was to the Croatian Glagolites, and that this be-
lief was cultivated for the purpose of incorporating the Glagolitic
roots of the legend communities into the Roman Church. If indeed the belief that Je-
among the Latin clergy rome had created the Glagolitic alphabet was initially inspired by
Pseudo-Jerome’s Cosmographia and Rabanus Maurus’s treatise De
inventione linguarum, then its roots are more likely to be found
among the Latin clergy in Dalmatia or even Rome. The decision of
the Roman curia to make the Slavonic rite official under the aegis
of St. Jerome did, however, coincide with the needs of the Glago-
lites, who seemed to be without a patron saint.
Endorsed by St. Jerome’s authority, the Glagolites created a reli-
gious practice that was unique in the medieval Catholic world be-
cause it reconciled the Church Slavonic language, which was also
used in the Orthodox Church, with the dogma and ecclesiology
of Western Christianity. Little by little, the Glagolite men of let-
ters modified their liturgical books that had retained the original
translations from the Cyrillo-Methodian period according to Latin
models. They enlivened the originally bookish Church Slavonic
language with vernacular elements, transforming it into a distinct
Croatian variant. Yet their liturgical language was still relatively
close to other Slavic vernaculars, and eventually this linguistic af-
finity attracted even the attention of the Orthodox Slavs. The com-
mon Roman rite also made the letters and customs of the Glago-
lites attractive to other Catholic Slavs, who saw in them an ancient
and distinguished tradition.

62
 3
Bohemia
Imperial Aspirations

Jeronimus beatus, Slavus gloriosus.

(Blessed Jerome, the glorious Slav.)
—John Hus, Sermones

The Roman Slavonic Rite in Prague

T he Roman Slavonic rite did not pass unnoticed by the Czech

king and Holy Roman Emperor Charles IV (1346–1378),
who modeled his capital city of Prague on Rome, collecting every
available relic and populating his capital with representatives of
every ecclesiastical rite and order.1 Charles became acquainted Charles IV invites the
with the customs of the Glagolite monks in 1337, when, as mar- Glagolites to Prague

grave of Moravia, he traveled through the Dalmatian coast and

the diocese of Senj.2 In the spring of 1346, while visiting his men-
tor and benefactor Pope Clement VI (1342–1352) in Avignon
to discuss his election as the Roman emperor, Charles informed
the pope about the Slavonic rite and the hardship that the Sla-
vonic monks in Dalmatia experienced because of the wars be-
tween Venice and Louis I, the king of Hungary and Croatia. It was
most likely then that Charles asked Clement for permission to
relocate some of the Benedictine Glagolite monks, as well as the
Glagolites from other orders, to Bohemia. Unfortunately, the only Clement VI authorizes
testimony of Charles’s application is the papal rescript, written Archbishop Ernest to
provide a house for the
in Avignon on 9 May 1346 and addressed to Prague Archbishop Croatian Glagolites in
Ernest (Arnošt) of Pardubice (1344–1364). Close reading of this Bohemia
document suggests that Charles’s plans to introduce the Slavonic
 The Slavic Letters of St. Jerome

rite in Bohemia were quite ambitious and may have even included
conducting missionary activity:

Bishop Clement, servant of the Lord’s servants, [sends] to the venerable

Charles informs Inno- brother, the archbishop of Prague, his greetings and apostolic benedic-
cent about the Glagolite tion. Charles, margrave of Moravia, dear son and noble man, has pointed
monks & their troubles
out to us that, in Slavonia and some other regions in [the sphere of] the
Slavic language, the Mass and the other canonical hours for the praise
of Christ are read and sung as well in their vernacular with permission
and by the leave of the Apostolic See, and that many monasteries and
seats of the black monks of Saint Benedict and of other orders in those
regions, who have preserved religious rites of this type from the ancient
custom up till today, have been destroyed and annihilated because of
the battles and wars in those regions, and that for this reason the monks
and brothers of those monasteries and seats mentioned, being unable
to benefit either God or Christian men, and unable even to hold on to
their monasteries and lands suitably, are left vagabond. For this reason
Slavic-speaking divine worship and the Christian faith are diminishing in these regions.
schismatics & pagans And since, moreover, just as his notification added, there are within the
in & near Bohemia
may benefit from the boundaries and around the lands of the kingdom of Bohemia, which
Slavonic rite originate from the same vernacular tongue, many who are schismatic
and faithless, who, when the Holy Scripture is read, set forth or preached
to them in Latin, are neither willing to understand it, nor able to be
readily converted to Christianity, and since the aforementioned monks
and brothers, common preachers, who keep the aforesaid rite, are recog-
nized in the said kingdom and its boundaries as necessary to the high-
est degree and useful for the praise of God and the spread of Christian
faith, that same margrave humbly requested from us that we deign to
allow these brothers and religious devotees, to choose locations in the
kingdom of Bohemia and within the aforementioned boundaries, in and
around which they can stand and put forth the word of God, preach,
and celebrate the Mass in accordance with the rite and custom of these
lands, that we deign to concede this permission to them on special cour-
tesy. We, therefore, having no knowledge of the aforesaid, [defer] to your
fraternity, in which we have full faith in the Lord, that by our authority
you grant these monks—either the brothers of the said St. Benedict or of
some other order, that has been approved by the same [Apostolic] see—
full and free opportunity to receive one location in the said kingdom or
within its boundaries, in which they would be able to observe the said
rite, which has been previously approved by the [Apostolic] see, with the
condition, however, that the right of the parochial church of the place

64
 Bohemia

that, as has been said, the aforementioned monks or brothers (or any
other foreigners) are to receive, is maintained in all respects.3

The papal letter primarily discusses the rationale for, and the pre-
conditions of, the establishment of a monastery with the Slavonic
rite in Bohemia, which seems to have been suggested by Charles
himself, as Clement claimed to have no knowledge of the matter
(“Nos igitur de predictis noticiam non habentes”). The pope defers
to Charles when he states that the Croatian Glagolite monks would
contribute to the strengthening of faith by proselytizing to numer-
ous Slavic-speaking heretics and pagans who allegedly resided in
Bohemia and its surroundings. This somewhat vague and enter- Charles’s motives for
inviting the Glagolites
prising claim of Charles has been varyingly interpreted by scholars.
Some hypothesize that Charles intended for the Glagolites to en-
gage in missionary work among Bohemia’s pagan and non-Catholic
neighbors—the Balts and the Orthodox Slavs.4 Indeed, Charles
was a zealous proponent of a church union, and it is possible that
he viewed the Roman Slavonic rite of the Glagolites as a tool for
uniting the Slavic Western and Eastern churches. The exploits in Czech missionaries
Lithuania of the Czech Franciscan friars Ulrich and Martin, who Ulrich & Martin in
Lithuania
were martyred there in the 1340s as a result of their missionary
activities, lend plausibility to this hypothesis.5 Alternatively, it has
been proposed that Charles hoped to ground the Roman Slavonic
rite in Bohemia in order to use it as an antidote against the Bo-
gomil heresy, which had spread from Bulgaria where it had gained
popularity owing to the fact that the rite was in a Slavic tongue.6 the role of Clement VI
Others believe that the idea of founding a Slavonic monastery in
Bohemia came from Clement VI, who hoped that the Roman Sla-
vonic rite of the Croatian Glagolites would help him to negotiate
a union with the Serbs. According to this hypothesis, Charles was
inspired by and acted on behalf of the Roman curia.7 Yet another Glagolites as educators
assumption is that the Croatian Glagolites were invited in order to
educate the Czechs in Church Slavonic and the Glagolitic script.8
Whether the proposed hypotheses and conjectures hit the mark
or not, Clement’s rescript shows that Charles appreciated the rite
of the Croatian Glagolites for its linguistic accessibility and found
it potentially beneficial for apostolic and catechetical purposes.
This expectation is also evident in an epistle that Charles wrote Charles encourages
from Pisa on 19 February 1355 to the Serbian tsar Stefan Dušan Stefan Dušan to accept
a church union
(1331–1355) regarding a possible union between the Serbian and
Roman churches. In his note of encouragement to Dušan, Charles

65
 The Slavic Letters of St. Jerome

referred to the Slavs’ unique privilege and advantage in being able

to celebrate the liturgy in their native language even in the Western
Church and pointed out that “the noble Slavic language” (nobilis
“nobilis slavici idiomatis slavici idiomatis participatio) would help Serbian clergy to be ac-
participatio”
cepted into the bosom of the Western Church because:

the ceremonies of the Holy Mass and the praise of the Divine Offices are
quite freely celebrated in the eminent and native tongue, and, on that
same note, the pontifices, prelates, and clergy of your kingdom will be
able to be restored easily by our mediation into the favor of our church,
where they are allowed by a certain singular privilege, unlike other na-
tions, to be engaged in divine celebrations in the aforementioned Slavic
vernacular language.9

The negotiations, however, fell through and the union never took
place due to Dušan’s death shortly thereafter.
Unfortunately, the scarcity and inconsistency of sources do
not definitively support any of these assumptions. Moreover,
Charles’s initial plan for the introduction of the Slavonic rite in
Bohemia, as construed from Clement’s letter, could have differed
significantly from its subsequent realization. Since Clement VI
did not seem to be taken with Charles’s plan for extensive implan-
tation of the Glagolite Slavonic rite in Bohemia and its environs,
it is perhaps fruitless to conjecture what Charles’s initial intention
had been. In addressing Charles’s request, which implied a num-
ber of foundations, Clement allowed only one monastery, and the
Slavonic rite was restricted to internal use. The conditions set up
by Clement, therefore, do not appear to be ideal for missionary
and catechetical work.
Even more perplexing is the fact that the foundation charter
for the Glagolitic monastery that Charles issued on 21 November
Charles establishes the 1347 in Nuremberg says nothing about any proselytizing mission.
Slavonic Monastery as
tribute to St. Jerome
It declares the commemoration of St. Jerome as an architect of the
Slavic traditions to be the foremost objective of the Slavonic Bene-
dictines in Prague:

Not long ago our most holy Father, Pope Clement VI, at our urging
and request, wished to entrust venerable Ernest, the first archbishop of
Prague and our dearest counselor with the task of establishing and by
the apostolic authority overseeing in our city of Prague a monastery with
convent and cloister of the Order of Saint Benedict, with an abbot and

66
 Bohemia

brethren to be established there, who, serving the Lord, will be obligated

in the future to celebrate the Divine Office only in the Slavic tongue, on
account of their reverence for and memory of Blessed Jerome, most glo-
rious confessor, Stridon’s illustrious doctor and distinguished translator Jerome translated the
and exegete of the Holy Scripture from Hebrew into Latin and Slavic, Bible from Hebrew into
Latin and Slavic
since indeed from it the Slavic language of our own kingdom of Bohemia
had its genesis and developed. In response to this we have thought it
necessary that a monastery be constructed and erected at the parochial
church of the martyrs Sts. Cosmas and Damian situated in a suburb of parochial church of Sts.
our aforementioned city of Prague, in Podskalí between Vyšehrad and Cosmas & Damian in
Podskalí
Zderaz (the right of patronage of which used to belong to the church
at Vyšehrad), with worthy restitution and amends for the right of pa-
tronage of said parochial church made through our agency to the afore-
said church at Vyšehrad. And we request and urge the aforementioned
archbishop attentively in accordance with the commission made for him
by the Apostolic See that said parochial church be erected and even el-
evated into said convent-cloister monastery in honor of the Lord and his
mother, most blessed Virgin Mary, as well as in honor of these glorious Sts. Jerome, Cyril,
men: the aforesaid Jerome, Cyril, Methodius, Adalbert, and Procopius, Methodius, Adalbert,
& Procopius—patron
patrons of the aforementioned kingdom of Bohemia, martyrs, and con- saints
fessors; and, in this matter/there . . . by the aforementioned authority, an
abbot and brethren [will be appointed], who (under the rule and cus-
tom of the Order of St. Benedict, to whom the glorious way of life of
the aforementioned saints gave beauty and splendor during their times,
which it still retains through the grace of God), in the Slavic language
only, for future and all times would be able by serving the Lord to cel-
ebrate the Divine Office, both nightly and daily, in memory and rever-
ence of the aforesaid most blessed Jerome, so that he is as glorious and
his most deserving memory is as famous in the said kingdom as among
his own people and homeland.10

The foundation charter designates the site (the parochial church

of Sts. Cosmas and Damian) and the purpose of the new monas-
tery (celebrating the memory of St. Jerome and that of Sts. Cyril,
Metho­dius, Adalbert, and Procopius) and formally proclaims a
particular connection between St. Jerome and Bohemia. In his line
of reasoning, Charles acted as a true historical linguist. By drawing Charles claims genetic
relationship between
on the comprehensibility of the Croatian version of Church Slavon-
Czech & Croatian
ic to a Czech speaker, Charles claims a genetic relationship between
the Slavic language of Jerome that was employed by the Croatian

67
 The Slavic Letters of St. Jerome

Glagolites in their rite and the Slavic language of the kingdom of

Bohemia (“slavonica nostri regni Boemie ydioma”), recognizing the
seniority of Croatian but identifying both languages as Slavic.11
John of Holešov, The same idea of a linguistic kinship between Czech and Croa-
Expositio cantici sancti tian is expressed in a work by the Břevnov Benedictine John of
Adalberti, a commen-
tary on “Hospodine, Holešov, the Expositio cantici sancti Adalberti Hospodine, pomiluj
pomiluj ny” ny (Commentary to the Song ‘Hospodine, pomiluj ny’ by St. Adal-
bert), a treatise dated from 1397, on the oldest Czech religious
hymn “Hospodine, pomiluj ny” (“Lord, Have Mercy on Us”).12
In this treatise, John of Holešov names St. Adalbert as author of
the hymn and examines its content in scholastic terms.13 He of-
fers linguistic proof of the genetic relationship between Czech and
Croatian by noting that the hymn contains many Croatian words;
he argues that the Czech people and their language are therefore
Czech originates from Croatian in origin: “It should be known, first, that we, Bohemians,
Croatian by origin and language initially descend from the Croats, as our
chronicles relate and testify, and therefore our Bohemian language
by its origin is the Croatian language. [. . .] And he who wishes may
experience this in Prague at the house of the Slavs.”14 The linguis-
tic evidence, in fact, agreed with the historiography of that time:
the kinship between the Czechs and the Croats was recorded in
an early fourteenth-century rhymed chronicle written in Czech
Dalimil Chronicle & the by an anonymous author (ascribed to one Dalimil). The Dalimil
origin of the Czechs Chronicle tells the story of a certain “Czech” (Ċech) from the “land
from the Croats
named Croatia” (zemie gyez charwatczy geſt gmie), who commit-
ted a murder and was forced to leave his native country with his
family and six brothers and wandered away to seek another home.
He found it in the shadow of the mountain Řip, which marked the
beginning of the Czech state.15
Charles concludes his charter by stressing that the foundation
of the Slavonic Monastery in Prague will ensure proper venera-
tion and celebration of St. Jerome in Bohemia “as among his own
people and homeland” (velut inter gentem suam et patriam), once
again underlining the connection between the Czechs and the
Croats.16 After all, the Croatian Glagolites were the only custodians
of the earliest native Slavic Christian traditions who stayed faithful
to the Western Church and the Apostolic Pontiff.
Croatian Benedictines In 1348, the Croatian Benedictine monks finally arrived in
arrive from the Monas- Prague. Unfortunately, no unequivocal evidence regarding the
tery of Sts. Cosmas &
Damian near Tkon on
former home of the Croatian monks survives, although histo-
Pašman riographic literature has adopted as certain the hypothesis of

68
 Bohemia

František Pechuška that they came from the Monastery of Sts.

Cosmas and Damian near Tkon on the island of Pašman, in Zadar
diocese, which had been destroyed by the Venetians in a war with
Louis I, king of Hungary and Croatia.17 They settled at the paro- Podskalí
chial Church of Sts. Cosmas and Damian, located in the neighbor-
hood of Podskalí, “between Zderaz and Vyšehrad,” which was then
in the jurisdiction of the Vyšehrad collegiate chapter church of Sts.
Peter and Paul (see map 2).18 The association with the Vyšehrad
Castle, the historical seat of the first Přemyslid dynasty, served as
an additional reminder of the future Slavonic Monastery’s connec-
tion to Czech Christianity’s roots.19 In terms of practical consider-
ations, the neighborhood was also well suited for a monastery us-
ing the Slavonic rite. Situated on the right bank of the Vltava below
the Old Town, Podskalí was inhabited mostly by ethnic Czechs,
who were likely to find the liturgy in an understandable Slavic lan-
guage to be attractive and who would therefore be loyal supporters
of the monastery.20 In a charter of 14 December 1348, Archbishop 14 December 1348,
Ernest of Pardubice elevated the status of the church from paro- Church of Sts. Cosmas
& Damian elevated to
chial to monastic and transferred the parochial rights to the neigh- monastery
boring St. Nicholas Church to comply with Clement’s directions.21
The legendary rite of the Slavonic Monastery was soon marked
with ecclesiastic distinction. On 3 February 1350, in response to 3 February 1350,
Charles’s request, Clement VI granted the abbot of the Slavonic Clement VI grants the
privilege of wearing
Monastery and his successors the privilege of wearing pontifical pontificalia
insignia.22 While this distinction was not uncommon in the West-
ern Church, very few monasteries in Bohemia enjoyed it before
the end of the fourteenth century, when the wearing of pontifical
insignia by abbots became less unique.23 This ceremonial privilege
put the Slavonic Monastery on par with the most celebrated Bo-
hemian monasteries, such as the oldest Premonstratensian Abbey Premonstratensian
at Strahov, whose abbot Peter II received the honor of pontificalia Abbey at Strahov
from Pope John XXII in the early 1340s, as well as one of the oldest
and most renowned Benedictine abbeys at Kladruby, whose abbot Benedictine Abbey at
received the honor of pontificalia from Clement VI in 1347, both Kladruby
through Charles IV’s intercession.24
It took years of administrative arrangements, construction,
and decoration to realize Charles’s grandly conceived and gen-
erously funded project. Finally, in 1372, the monastery’s church 29 March 1372, the
was consecrated. The consequence attached to the monastery monastery’s church is
consecrated
is demonstrated by the presence of the royal family and many
important ecclesiastical officials at the consecration ceremony,

69
 H R ADCANY
St. Royal O LD TOWN
Vitus Castle
Týn Royal
Charles Cathedral Court St.
Ambrose
Bridge
Strahov
University

N EW TOWN
Monastery

m
magnu
V l t a v
Church/Cathedral
Z DER AZ
Garden

Forum
Vineyard

St. Jerome Benedictine Slavonic Monastery St.

of St. Jerome Jerome
St. Charlemagne Monastery of the Augustinian Canons
Regular and Church of the Assumption
of the Virgin Mary and St. Charlemagne (Karlov) PPODSKALÍ
ODSK ALÍ St.
Charlemagne
a

Sts. Peter & Paul Chapter Church of Sts. Peter and Paul

St. Ambrose Benedictine Monastery of St. Ambrose

Strahov Premonstratensian Monastery at Strahov

St. Vitus St. Vitus Cathedral

Týn Cathedral Church of the Mother of God in Sts.
front of Týn (Týn Cathedral) Peter &
Paul
VYŠEHR AD

Map 2. Prague ca. 1380s

which was performed by Archbishop John Očko of Vlašim on

Easter Monday, 29 March 1372.25

“Monasterium Sancti Hieronymi Slavorum Ordinis Benedicti”

In contemporary historiography, the Glagolitic Monastery
in Prague is often referred to as “the Emmaus Monastery”26 or
“the Slavonic Monastery,” following the Latin term monasterium
slavorum and the Czech terms klášter na Slovanech and klášter
Slovanský.27 However, leafing through the official documents re-
lated to the monastery, which are collected in the Registrum
Slavorum, one cannot fail to notice that almost all records starting
from Charles’s foundation charter and continuing throughout his
reign, consistently refer to the monastery as “monasterium Sancti
Hieronymi Slavorum ordinis Benedicti in nova civitate Pragensi”

70
 Bohemia

(the Slavonic Monastery of St. Jerome of the Order of St. Benedict

in the New Town of Prague), indicating the monastery’s rite, rule,
main patron saint, and location. The following non-exhaustive list
of excerpts from documents of various years shows this formula
with insignificant variations: “monasterii Slauorum sancti Jeronimi
ordinis sancti Benedicti in noua ciuitate Pragensi” (8 November
1349);28 “monasterio beati Jeronimi Slauorum ordinis sancti Bene-
dicti noue fundacionis nostre in noua ciuitate nostra Pragensi situ-
ato” (20 November 1349);29 “monasterio sancti Jeronimi Slauorum
ordinis sancti Benedicti fundacionis sue in noua ciuitate Pragensi”
(7 January 1350);30 “monasterii S. Hieronymi Slavorum ordinis
S. Benedicti” (17 March 1350);31 “monasterium sancti Jeronimi
Slauorum ordinis sancti Benedicti noue fundacionis nostre in
noua ciuitate nostra Pragensi” (15 November 1350);32 “monasterii
sancti Jeronimi Slauorum ordinis sancti Benedicti in noua ciui-
tate Pragensi” (15 March 1351);33 “monasterium sancti Jeronimi in
noua ciuitate Pragensi” (16 September 1355);34 “monasterii sancti
Jeronimi Slauorum et ipsi monasterio noue ciuitatis Pragensis” (17
December 1359);35 “monasterio Slauorum sancti Jeronimi ordinis
sancti Benedicti in noua ciuitate Pragensi” (25 January 1360);36
“monasterii S. Hieronymi fratrum Slavorum ordinis S. Benedicti
in nova civitate” and “monasterii S. Hieronymi ordinis S. Benedicti
praefatae civitatis” (16 November 1368);37 “monasterii sancti Je-
ronimi Slauorum in noua ciuitate Pragensi ordinis sancti Benedicti”
(6 April 1370);38 and “monasterii s. Hieronymi ad Slauos in noua
ciuitate Pragensi” (15 January 1411).39 Likewise, in a Czech record
dated from 2 December 1403, the abbot of the Slavonic Monastery,
Paul, and all the brethren refer to themselves as “wessken conwent
klasstera sho Jeronyma Slowanskeho,” while the Latin translation
of this document reads “totus conuentus monasterium Slavorum
S. Hieronimi.”40 Hans Rothe has conducted a statistical survey of
the variants of the monastery’s official title based on records in the
Registrum Slavorum and has come to the conclusion that the royal
chancery, as well as the monastic community itself, fairly consis-
tently employed the full title “monasterii S. Hieronymi ordinis S.
Benedicti Slavorum,” while the documents issued by other towns
and individuals favored the short form “monasterium Slavorum,”
without indicating a patron saint.41 Similarly, the chronicles com-
posed during the second half of the fourteenth century record no
information about patron saints of the Slavonic Monastery.42
The evidence of the above-mentioned sources thus supports

71
 The Slavic Letters of St. Jerome

Charles’s original statement of his vision for the monastery, as in-

dicated in his foundation charter of 21 November 1347 in Nurem-
berg: “that he [i.e., Jerome] is as glorious and his most deserving
memory is as famous in said kingdom [i.e., Bohemia] as among his
own people and homeland.”43
St. Jerome is a principle Considering the compelling evidence of the administrative doc-
patron saint of the uments, it is surprising that, with the exception of a few specialized
Slavonic Monastery
publications,44 most historiographic and popular literature that
mentions the Slavonic Monastery in Prague neglects or even fails
to note that St. Jerome was not a mere co-patron but the principal
patron saint of the monastery and, consequently, that the founda-
tion of the Slavonic Monastery was primarily associated with his
cult. In fact, scholarly literature tends toward the opposite: greater
significance is usually assigned to the figures of Sts. Cyril, Metho-
dius, Adalbert, and Procopius as patron saints of the monastery,
while Jerome is mentioned only in passing.

Patron Saints of the Slavonic Monastery of St. Jerome

As Charles’s charter states, besides the Virgin Mary and St. Je-
rome, the monastery’s church was dedicated to the Slavic apostles
Sts. Cyril and Methodius, and to two local patron saints of Bo-
St. Adalbert hemia, St. Adalbert (Vojtěch) and St. Procopius (Prokop).45 The
choice of patron saints for the monastery reflected its intended
symbolic and commemorative function as a testament to the Slavs’
privileged place in the Christian world. St. Adalbert (ca. 956–997),
the second bishop of Prague and the founder of the first Benedic-
tine monastery in Břevnov, conducted the apostolate in Hungary,
Poland, and in Prussia, where he was martyred at the hands of the
pagans. By the end of the fourteenth century, Adalbert was one of
the most worshipped saints in central Europe and a patron of Bo-
hemia, Poland, Hungary, and Prussia.46 In Bohemia, he symbolized
the highest ecclesiastical office and even lent his name to the crosier
of the Prague archbishop.47 The inclusion of St. Adalbert among the
patron saints could be due to his strong connection with the Czech
Benedictines and his alleged authorship of the above-mentioned
iconic Old Czech hymn “Hospodine, pomiluj ny,” which, according
to John of Holešov, contained many Croatian words.48
St. Procopius Like St. Adalbert, St. Procopius (ca. 970/980–1053) was connected
with Benedictine monasticism as the founder and abbot of the leg-

72
 Bohemia

endary Sázava Monastery, where he was believed to have instituted

the Slavonic rite and the rule of St. Benedict. In fourteenth-century
Bohemia, the monastic community of the Sázava Monastery was
viewed as a successor to Cyril and Methodius’s apostolic mission
to the Slavs.49
Although the cult of Sts. Cyril and Methodius does not appear Sts. Cyril & Methodius
in Latin liturgy before the second half of the fourteenth century,
when their feast day of 9 March was entered into church statutes,
the connection of the Moravian mission with Bohemian Chris­
tianity had been on record since early times.50 The earliest attested
local source that connects the activity of Cyril and Methodius with
Bohemia is the late tenth-century legend, discussed in chapter 1,
the Vita et passio sancti Wenceslai et sancte Ludmile ave eius (The
Life and Passion of St. Wenceslas and His Grandmother St. Lud-
mila), or the Legenda Christiani. The author of this influential Legenda Christiani
work argues that Great Moravia’s demise was caused by its ruler’s
disregard of St. Methodius and his tolerance of paganism. There-
fore, as the legend implies, Bohemia, whose prince, Bořivoj, and
his wife, Ludmila, were baptized by Methodius himself, should be
seen as the rightful successor to Great Moravia’s Christian legacy
and its hierarchical position as a diocese. Following the Legenda
Christiani, the motif of the Moravian mission surfaced in several
hagiographical legends and chronicles, such as the Legend of St. hagiographical legends
of Cyril & Methodius
Procopius, the Chronica Boemorum of Cosmas (1045–1125), the
Sázava Chronicle (Mnich sázavský), and the Hradiště-Opatovice
Annals (Letopisy hradišt’sko-opatovické), although officially Cyril
and Methodius were not yet beatified in the Western Church.51
In the early fourteenth-century Dalimil Chronicle, the narrative Dalimil Chronicle
of the Moravian mission is tied to the account of the foundation of
the kingdom of Bohemia, or, as the chronicler puts it, “Here I want
shortly to make use of the chronicle of Moravia to better serve my
goal of telling how the crown came out of Moravia and how from
that land it came to the land of the Czechs.”52 The chronicler names Velehrad
Velehrad, a small village in southern Moravia (now, Staré Město
near Uherské Hradiště), a former center of Great Moravia and the
seat of King Svatopluk and Archbishop Methodius.53
Thus, the Cyrillo-Methodian tradition became associated with Cistercian Monastery at
the Cistercian monastery at Velehrad, which, according to the Velehrad
confirmation charter of King Přemysl Otakar I (1198–1230), was Přemysl Otakar I
founded around 1207 by his younger brother, the margrave of
Moravia Vladislav Jindřich (1197–1222), and generously endowed

73
 The Slavic Letters of St. Jerome

by the king himself.54 Contrary to popular opinion, the monastery

was originally dedicated not to Sts. Cyril and Methodius, but to
the Virgin Mary, and its church was consecrated on 27 November
1228, as the king’s privilegium testifies.55 Unfortunately, no sources
describe how the Cistercian monastery at Velehrad became linked
Přemysl Otakar II to the Moravian metropolitan see of Methodius. It has been sug-
gested that this theory emerged at the time when King Přemysl
Otakar II (1253–1278) petitioned the pope to elevate the diocese
of Moravia in Olomouc to archdiocese.56 Indeed, Clement VI’s
bulla-rescript of 20 January 1268 shows that Otakar II justified
his request by claiming that there formerly existed an archdiocese
in the kingdom of Bohemia, the margravate of Moravia, and the
duchies of Austria and Styria.57 It is possible—although still hypo-
thetical—that the reference to an archdiocese implied Archbishop
Dalimil Chronicle Methodius’s seat in Great Moravia. As it stands, however, the Da-
limil Chronicle is the earliest attested document that grounded in
local historiography both the association of Bohemia with the dis-
tinguished apostles and Velehrad as an archepiscopal center, thus
tracing the origin of the monarchial power in Bohemia to Great
Moravia in this Czech version of the translatio regni.58
As a result of the official recognition of the church, Sts. Cyril and
Methodius were honored in a number of hagiographic and histo-
riographic works composed in Czech and Latin during Charles’s
Diffundente sole reign. The late thirteenth- or early fourteenth-century Latin legend
De sancto Quirillo et conversione Moravie et Bohemie (On St. Cyril
and the Conversion of Moravia and Bohemia), also known by its in-
cipit as Diffundente sole, was translated into Czech and included in
the Czech Pasionál—a Czech adaptation of Jacobus de Voragine’s
Quemadmodum, the hagiographic collection Legenda Aurea.59 Another Cyrillo-Me­
Moravian Legend thodian Latin legend, with the incipit Quemadmodum ex histories,
was adapted from an earlier work, which is known in scholarship
as the Moravian Legend, and included all the main motifs: Veleh-
rad as the capital of Great Moravia, the baptism of the Moravians
and the Czechs by Cyril and Methodius, and the defense of the
Slavonic liturgy.60 The legend Quemadmodum also features Metho-
dius’s prophecy to Prince Bořivoj that should the Czech prince be
baptized, all Czech princes and kings, as well as their successors,
would become the strongest among the Slavic princes and kings, a
prophecy that “has indeed been fulfilled up to the present.”61 With
the institution of the feast day, the legend Quemadmodum became
the basis for the Latin Office to Cyril and Methodius, which is called

74
 Bohemia

by the beginning Adest dies Gloriosa, and which is attested in man-

uscripts of Czech and Moravian provenance.62
In geographic terms, the patron saints of the Slavonic Monas- the Slavonic Monastery
tery covered an impressive expanse of Slavic and even non-Slavic of St. Jerome as a model
of Slavic Christendom
territories, quite equal to Charles’s scale and imperial aspirations.
Jerome represented the origin of the Slavic letters in the Slavic
“homeland” and southern Slavic lands (Slavonia-Croatia). Cyril
and Methodius represented Great Moravia and its link with Bohe-
mia, symbolized by the persona of Procopius, while Adalbert had
ties to Poland, Hungary, and Prussia. The Slavonic Monastery of
St. Jerome in Prague, therefore, laid claim to being the symbolic
model of Slavic Christendom.
The patron saints of the Slavonic Monastery had a strictly mo- connection with Bene-
nastic calling and a particular connection with the Order of St. dictine monasticism
Benedict, as Charles stresses in his foundation charter.63 The ab-
sence of St. Wenceslas or St. Ludmila among the patron saints is
an additional indication of the strictly ecclesiastical orientation of
the patrons.64 Thus, the patron saints of the newly founded mon-
astery stressed the connection between the general Slavic and the
local Czech Christianity, and they commemorated the Holy Scrip-
ture, the noble Slavic language and letters, the apostolic tradition,
and Benedictine monasticism. The indigenous holy letters of St.
Jerome provided the desired importance to the local Christian tra-
dition and its main guardian—the Bohemian Church.
The intended hierarchy of patron saints is evident from the fol- hierarchy of patron
lowing donation document, issued by Charles on 15 November saints
1350, which explicitly states that St. Jerome is considered as the
principal patron saint: “prefato monasterio ob reuerenciam princi-
paliter beati Jeronimi aliorumque patronorum videlicet Procopii,
Adalberti, Cirilli et Metudii” (the abovementioned monastery on ac-
count of reverence primarily of Blessed Jerome, as well as of other
patrons, namely, Procopius, Adalbert, Cyril and Methodius).65
Charles makes a similar distinction in yet another charter, issued
two days later, on 17 November 1350: “monasterii sancti Jeronimi
Slauorum ordinis sancti Benedicti et titulo beatorum patronorum
regni Boemie Procopii, Adalberti, Cirilli et Metudii” (the Slavonic
Monastery of St. Jerome of the Order of St. Benedict and in honor
of blessed patrons of the kingdom of Bohemia Procopius, Adal-
bert, Cyril and Methodius).66
The names of all four saints, Cyril, Methodius, Adalbert, and
Procopius, as co-patrons of the Slavonic Monastery, appear in four

75
 The Slavic Letters of St. Jerome

charters—three issued by Charles IV (the foundation charter of

21 November 1347 and the two donation charters of 15 and 17
November 1350) and one issued by his son, Sigismund (a con-
St. Adalbert omitted firmation letter of privileges of 12 June 1437).67 However, in the
sources after 1350—Sigismund’s derivative letter can hardly be
taken into account—Adalbert’s name is absent. The names of Je-
rome, Cyril, Methodius, and Procopius appear in two later doc-
uments—Charles’s donation charter of 13 January 1352 and a
charter of restitution, signed by the chancellor of Bohemia, Bur-
chardus, and the officials of the Vyšehrad chapter church on 12
Gospel of Reims March 1368.68 Moreover, Adalbert’s feast day is noticeably absent
from the Glagolitic lectionary, the so-called Gospel of Reims, which
otherwise includes feast days for other important Slavic and Bohe-
mian saints. The omission of St. Adalbert in the above-mentioned
sources is remarkable and poses the question of whether it is ac-
cidental or whether by 1352 Adalbert had lost appeal as a patron
saint of the Slavonic Monastery.69
Likewise, it is hard to determine to what extent the fact that
Pope Clement VI does not mention any patron saint in either of
his bullas (of 9 May 1346 and 3 February 1350) may be considered
meaningful, as Hans Rothe believes.70 Rothe attaches great im-
portance to the pope’s “silence” on this matter and generally ques-
tions any role that Slavic-specific historical or political references
ever played in relation to the Prague Slavonic Monastery, arguing
that Charles’s original idea did not find proper realization.71 Let us
therefore consider this issue carefully.

The Slavic Theme in Charles’s Representation

of Bohemia’s Sacred History
Although we see no reference to Jerome’s creation of the Slavonic
rite in the rescript of Pope Clement VI, it is recorded in a letter
of his successor, Pope Innocent VI (1352–1362). In response to
Charles’s “devout supplication,” Innocent issued a document on
28 December 1359 that granted permission to the brethren of the
Innocent VI allows spe- two Benedictine monasteries (the Monastery of St. Jerome and
cial rites of St. Jerome
& St. Ambrose to be
the Monastery of St. Ambrose) to celebrate their special rites (the
celebrated outside of Slavonic rite of St. Jerome and the Milanese rite of St. Ambrose)
their monasteries outside of their respective monasteries in the presence of the king:

76
 Bohemia

Bishop Innocent, servant of God’s servants [sends] greetings, etc., to

Charles, dearest son in Christ, Roman Emperor, forever Augustus, and
illustrious king of Bohemia. Of your excellent devotion [. . .] And so,
since, as we have heard, in the city of Prague, there are two monasteries
of the Order of St. Benedict—one, evidently, named in reverence and
honor of confessor and doctor St. Jerome, called “at the Slavs” in the
vernacular, and the other in reverence and honor of confessor and doc-
tor St. Ambrose—and [since] under their [i.e., Jerome’s and Ambrose’s]
names they were not long ago lawfully founded and endowed by you,
and [since] the Divine Offices are celebrated with apostolic permission
in the monastery of St. Jerome, in the Slavic language, in accordance with
the instruction and rite of St. Jerome (who was a Slav by birth) himself,
and in the aforesaid monastery of St. Ambrose in accordance with the
instruction and rite of St. Ambrose himself, and [since] you, from the
devotion that you have for these saints, have vowed that, sometimes, the
offices of this type [i.e., the Divine Office], according to these rites, can
be celebrated in your presence outside of the monasteries themselves,
we, being inclined by your devout supplication in this matter, that the
abbots and monks of the aforesaid monasteries, whenever they are out-
side of said monasteries and in your presence (in places, however, that
are suitable to this [cause] and honorable), be able to celebrate lawfully
the Mass and other divine offices—only, of course, in accordance with
their aforementioned rites (even if the established apostolic constitu-
tions and the contrary customs of the monasteries and the said orders
in any way contradict [each other]), by the contents of this letter with
apostolic authority from a special favor [we] indulge your devotion as
well as that of the abbots and monks themselves.72

The Benedictines who observed the special rite ascribed to St. Milanese rite of St.
Ambrose
Ambrose came to Prague in 1354 from Milan’s Basilica of St. Am-
brose. It is not coincidental that the two special rites, that of St.
Jerome and of St. Ambrose, are discussed in the same document.
There is a lot of resemblance between them, as far as their origin,
status, and intended function are concerned. Indeed, even the syn-
tax of the pope’s phrasing stresses that permission is being grant-
ed because both rites are associated with a figure of ecclesiastical
importance—a confessor and a doctor of the church, for whom
Charles had special devotion. Thus, just as St. Ambrose gave
prestige and authority to the special Milanese rite, so St. Jerome
brought distinction to the Roman Slavonic rite. The rescript of

77
 The Slavic Letters of St. Jerome

Innocent VI is particularly notable because, unlike the rescript of

his namesake, Innocent IV, given to Bishop Philip of Senj in 1248,
it not only officially acknowledges Jerome’s authorship of the Sla-
vonic rite but also validates it by referring to Jerome’s Slavic pedi-
gree. It is of little doubt that the pope’s rescript echoes Charles’s
own notion of the importance of these special rites.
Jan Dubravius, Historia Another—albeit indirect—indication that Charles favored the
Bohemica Glagolites because of his particular veneration of St. Jerome as
a Slav is found in the Historia Bohemica (1552), written by the
Czech humanist Jan Dubravius (ca. 1486–1553).73 In the passage
that describes Charles’s creation of the Prague’s New Town and his
strategy of populating it with monastic brotherhoods of all kinds,
Dubravius attributes the foundation of the Slavonic Monastery
Charles’s personal de- to Charles’s personal devotion to St. Jerome: “Also, he gathered
votion to St. Jerome separately those brothers who called themselves Slavs and named
Blessed Jerome an author of their rite, whose name Charles par-
ticularly venerated, as he was a native of Illyria, whence the Bohe-
mians derive their origin.”74
Charles’s interest in and use of general Slavic and local Moravian
and Czech historical references in the representation of his dynas-
tic and imperial politics are by no means novel topics in scholar-
ship and have been discussed from a variety of perspectives.75 Be-
fore we proceed any further, however, let us define the way Charles
and his advisers understood “Slavic identity” in the second half of
Charles’s understanding the fourteenth century. It is important to make a terminological
of Slavic identity and methodological distinction between the study of the aware-
ness of a collective Slavic identity as reflected in historical sources
(or what is often termed as “Slavism” or the “Slavic idea”) and the
range of questions pertaining to the rise of Czech nationalism,
whether that of fifteenth-century Hussitism or that of nineteenth-
century Romanticism.76
Privilegium Alexandri A quite remarkable indicator of the emerging Slavic identity in
Magni Bohemia is the appearance of a humanistic counterpart of the Do-
natio Constantini (Donation of Constantine), the Privilegium Alex-
andri Magni donatum populis Slavis (The Privilegium of Alexander
the Great to the Slavic People).77 This fictitious and fanciful docu-
ment is ascribed to Alexander the Great and is said to have been
translated “word for word” from the Greek. Allegedly, it records the
will of Alexander, who bequeaths the possession of all of his lands
to the Slavs. Based on textological and linguistic analyses of several
extant manuscript copies, Anežka Vidmanová firmly locates this

78
 Bohemia

falsification in Bohemia, specifically, at the Slavonic Monastery of

St. Jerome, and dates it to the time of Charles, whose involvement
she assumes.78
Charles’s notice of the Croatian Glagolites and their Slavonic rite
was not sudden or accidental. Born in Prague to John of Luxem-
burg (1296–1346) and Elisabeth Přemysl of Bohemia (1292–1330),
but educated in France, Charles attached political importance to
the Slavic patrimony that he claimed through his maternal ances-
tors and used it to aggrandize the new Slavo-Roman Přemyslid-
Luxemburg dynasty. In Charles’s self-representation, his roles as
the king of Bohemia and the Roman emperor intertwined and grew
stronger together. Historians explain Charles’s “Bohemocentrism”
not so much by his ethnic background as by his political goals of
establishing a strong dynastic monarchy, for which the kingdom of
Bohemia presented an excellent opportunity and a reliable base.79
However, while he obviously saw himself as a representative of Přemyslid heritage
the Bohemian and Roman dynasties, Charles’s perception of his
Přemyslid heritage—at least as far as his political rhetoric goes—
was not specifically Czech but generally Slavic.80
Charles appreciated his Slavic ancestry because it added a unique
quality to his royal and imperial genealogies, not because it distin-
guished the Slavs (or the Czechs) as a separate nation—the prism
through which nineteenth-century nationalists looked at Slavic
identity. His “Slavic awareness” found expression primarily in po-
litical symbolism that characterized his self-presentation as a ruler
in general. The Slavic theme in his political agenda highlighted the
prominent place of Bohemia in the empire and was by no means in
conflict with Charles’s pan-European aspirations.
Historians point out that Charles understood the nature of mo-
narchial power in the humanistic terms of Dante’s Monarchia: that
it is autonomous and proceeds directly from God.81 To articulate
his dynasty’s eminence and legitimacy, Charles turned to media
effective in his time: name symbolism, art, architecture, hagiogra-
phy, and historiography. An example from the historiography pro-
vides a good illustration. Charles encouraged and commissioned
a body of chronicles and historiographic treatises that glorified
the Slavs and substantiated their ancient and aristocratic roots. Beneš Krabice of Weit-
He personally supervised chronicles by several Czech authors: the mil, Chronica Ecclesiae
Chronica Ecclesiae Pragensis by Beneš Krabice of Weitmil (first Pragensis
part until 1346 and second part until 1374), the Chronica Pragensis Francis of Prague,
by Canon Francis of Prague (dedicated to Charles in 1353), and Chronica Pragensis

79
 The Slavic Letters of St. Jerome

Přibík Pulkava of the Chronica by Přibík Pulkava of Radenín (last redaction, 1374).82
Radenín, Chronica
But for a more general European perspective he commissioned the
Florentine Franciscan scholar John of Marignolli to write a history
of the Bohemian Kingdom in the context of world history (com-
John of Marignolli, posed 1355–1358).83 Marignolli, a learned theologian and bishop
Chronica Bohemorum of Bisignano, who had recently returned from his mission as a pa-
pal legate to the court of the Mongol emperor of China and be-
the sibylline prophecy come Charles’s personal chaplain, was an eager collaborator. He
conceptualized his chronicle in a Joachimite prophetic tradition,
presenting Bohemia as the center of the world, uniting East and
West, with Charles IV as the Last Emperor, who is destined to re-
store world peace and ascend the throne in Jerusalem, thereby ful-
filling the sibylline prophecy.84
As Charles commanded, Marignolli’s Chronica Bohemorum con-
sists of three books that embody the idea of the Holy Trinity as
an underlying principle. The first book, Thearchos, documents the
prehistoric period of the divine reign; the second book, Monar-
chos, records the establishment of first states and documents
Charles’s lineage as the king of Bohemia; the third book, Hierar-
chos, or Liber Ierarticus sive Ecclesiasticus (Hierarchs or The Book of
the Church), narrates Bohemia’s ecclesiastical history, which begins
with the Old Testament figures of Abel and priest Melchizedek and
establishes the Bohemian bishops as successors to St. Peter. Even
though historians do not praise Marignolli’s work for its accuracy
or importance to the historiography of Bohemia, they acknowl-
edge that it serves as a valuable source for understanding Charles’s
dynastic agenda and political outlook.85
Charles’s dynastic Marignolli’s genealogical schema and the historical mission that
agenda he assigns to Charles are based on two main pillars, both of which
are mutually connected: Charles’s station as a king of Bohemia and
his noble descent from the Slavs and Greco-Romans. His paternal
ancestry was well established: John of Luxemburg’s lineage, which
included Charlemagne and Julius Caesar, derived from the Tro-
Charlemagne, Julius jans. According to Marignolli, Charles’s lineage is even more il-
Caesar, the Trojans lustrious than that of other European royal families because he de-
scends through his mother from ancient Greeks, whom Marignolli
Elisabeth Přemysl of identifies as Romans or Italics.86 His line of reasoning rests upon a
Bohemia & Elisa claim that the Slavs, of whom Elisabeth Přemysl is the noblest off-
spring, originate from Elisa (spelled “Helisa”), a son of Javan and a
grandson of Japheth.87 As his evidence, Marignolli has contrived an
etymological proof: he derives Elisabeth’s name (spelled “Helisa-

80
 Bohemia

beth”) from “Helisa” and “beth” (“house” in Hebrew), arriving at

the etymology of “the house of Helisa, that is, the house of Slavs.” Diocletian &
Maximian
He further compares Charles to Roman emperors Diocletian and
his son Maximian, who were at that time considered Slavs due to
their Dalmatian origin, and points out that unlike these emperors,
who were of plebeian origin, Charles’s entitlement to the imperial
crown and his mission as the Last Emperor are justified not simply
by election but by his most noble descent.88
In the third book of the chronicle, the Liber Ierarticus sive Ec- Bohemian Church &
clesiasticus, Marignolli situates the Bohemian Church in the gen- Rome
eral context of ecclesiastical history.89 Following an account of the
events in the Old Testament that prefigure the Christian tradition
and a short record of the important figures of the New Testament
and the apostolic tradition, the author establishes St. Peter as the
sole successor to Jesus Christ’s priesthood and as the head of the
Christian Church in Rome. After a brief record of Roman popes, Prague bishopric
Marignolli names Pope John XV as the founder of the Prague founded by John XV
bishopric (drawing from a story in Cosmas’s Chronica Boemorum Cosmas, Chronica
about the papal blessing that Prince Boleslav II and his sister, the Boemorum
Benedictine nun Mlada-Maria, received to institute a bishopric in
Prague). Having thus demonstrated a direct link between the ap-
ostolic continuity of Rome and the Bohemian Church, Marignolli Sts. Peter & Paul at
outlines the history of Bohemian bishops and ends his chronicle Vyšehrad
by honoring the collegiate chapter church of Sts. Peter and Paul at
the Vyšehrad Castle, which was under Rome’s direct jurisdiction.
Owing to Charles’s efforts—Marignolli points out—it became “a
seat and a special abode of St. Peter forever as in Rome” (beati Petri
sedes et specialis mansio in perpetuum sicut Rome). For the newly
built altar of St. Peter, Charles brought a valuable relic from Italy:
half of the stone altar at which St. Peter was believed to have served
the Mass when he landed at the harbor in Pisa.90
Marignolli’s history of the Bohemian Church echoed Charles’s
efforts to connect Bohemia with the imperial cult of St. Peter and
to make Bohemian hierarchs equal in status and privileges to the
other six archbishops in the empire.91 Paralleling his formulation
of the Bohemian monarchs’ dignified ethno-genealogy, Marignol-
li’s representation of the Bohemian Church as having been blessed
by the Roman pontiffs provided Charles with the necessary rheto-
ric for his political claims. Yet Marignolli, who acknowledges be-
ing perplexed by inconsistent and unclear accounts of old Czech
sources, failed to incorporate an important narrative in the history

81
 The Slavic Letters of St. Jerome

of Bohemian Christianity—its connection with the legacy of Great

Moravia.
Bohemia & the legacy The beginning of Charles’s engagement with the symbolic and
of Great Moravia ceremonial aspect of local Bohemian history dates to his early
days as margrave of Moravia. Zdeněk Kalista has observed that
Velehrad Cistercian in the 1330s and 1340s, Charles endowed the Velehrad Cistercian
Monastery Monastery with donations more numerous and generous than
any other monastery. This is especially revealing, considering that
Charles did not seem to have any particular connection with the
Order of Cistercians or with any particular individual residing in
the monastery. Kalista hypothesizes that a journey to Trenčín in
1335, on which Charles accompanied his father John of Luxem-
burg, brought him to the Velehrad Cistercian Monastery, where he
learned about the Cyrillo-Methodian mission.92
St. Wenceslas Whatever the source of Charles’s knowledge about the former
Moravian archdiocese, Velehrad became an important symbolic
locale for Charles in his political representation of Bohemia. A
literary artifact that bears witness to this is Charles’s own devo-
tional account of the life of Bohemia’s most celebrated patron saint,
St. Wenceslas, titled Hystoria nova de Sancto Wenceslao Martyre
Charles composes the
Life of St. Wenceslas
(The New History of St. Wenceslas the Martyr).93 Charles’s personal
devotion to St. Wenceslas, one of the ancestors of the Bohemian
Přemyslid dynasty and a model of the Christian monarch, was also
politically motivated. As a representative of the new ruling dynasty
of the Luxemburgs in Bohemia, Charles was keen to stress his kin-
Charles was baptized ship with the native ancestral saints. At his birth he was baptized
Wenceslas Wenceslas, possibly by the efforts of his mother, Elisabeth of Bo-
hemia, the last descendant of the Přemyslids, who after the death
of her brother, Wenceslas III (1289–1306), claimed the Bohemian
throne for her husband, John of Luxemburg, circumventing her
elder sister, Anne of Bohemia (1290–1313). Moreover, Elisabeth’s
father, Wenceslas II of Bohemia (1278–1305), also bore the name
of the Přemyslid saint. Thus, the name of the renowned Czech
saint provided a sacred link to the old local ruling dynasty. Nam-
ing their son Wenceslas was obviously a political move for John
and Elisabeth, who chose to ignore the Luxemburg tradition of
naming the first son after his paternal grandfather. At the age of
seven, while living at the court of his godfather, the French king
Charles IV Capet (the Fair), the young Wenceslas acquired the
auspices of another ancestral patron saint and political model. The
French king wished to associate his godson with Charlemagne, the

82
 Bohemia

greatest ruler of all Christians, which he did through the rite of

confirmation. In this way, Wenceslas-Charles was well qualified to
trace his paternal ancestry to Charlemagne and his maternal to
St. Wenceslas, a fact that was rhetorically evoked on more than
one occasion.94 Most remarkably, in the course of two generations, Wenceslas, a Přemyslid
the name of Wenceslas was used four times by the Luxemburgs: dynastic name
after the elder son Wenceslas changed his name to Charles, John
baptized his next son Wenceslas (1337–1383), and Charles IV also
baptized both of his sons (1350 and 1361) with the name Wenc-
eslas (the first of them did not live more than a year). Wenceslas
IV (1361–1419) later succeeded his father on both the Bohemian
and the Roman (German) thrones. Asserting his own version of
St. Wenceslas’s legacy for Bohemia was undoubtedly a matter of
personal and political importance for Charles.
Following the narrative structure of the Legenda Christiani,
Charles also opens his composition with an account of the be-
ginning of Czech Christianity, connecting it with the first Czech
dynasty of Přemyslids and the acts of Sts. Cyril and Methodius.95 Great Moravia and Sts.
His focus on the reframing of history is emphasized already in the Cyril & Methodius
title—Hystoria nova. In his revision, Charles specifies that the king
of Moravia, Svatopluk, received baptism from the “Blessed” Cyril
(a beato Cirillo), and that Wenceslas’s grandparents, Prince Bořivoj
of Bohemia and his wife St. Ludmila, were baptized by Archbishop
Methodius at the St. Vitus Cathedral of the metropolitan city of
Velehrad, the capital of Great Moravia. The site of the baptism, as
well as the fact that Svatopluk himself was baptized by St. Cyril,
was an important ideological point absent in earlier hagiographic
accounts of St. Wenceslas’s life. Charles’s version of the Life of St.
Wenceslas, therefore, reflected two of the main lines in his “Slavic
politics.” First, it commemorated the beginning of Christianity
among the Slavs, situating the former archdiocese of Great Mora-
via within the borders of the fourteenth-century kingdom of Bo-
hemia, and presenting Sts. Cyril and Methodius as the apostles and
patron saints of Bohemia.96 Second, it firmly associated the legacy Great Moravia & St.
of Great Moravia with the figure of St. Wenceslas, a symbol of Wenceslas
Czech statehood and sovereign power, and Charles’s special patron
saint.97 Altogether, it conveyed the main tenet of Charles’s politi-
cal doctrine: the secular power in Bohemia and the Holy Roman
Empire stood on sacred foundations. With Charles’s leadership
and encouragement, the symbolic, metaphorical, and allegorical
representations of this idea were molded time and again in art and

83
 The Slavic Letters of St. Jerome

architecture, the written word, and ritual, for example, in religious

rites, ceremonies of coronation, and presentation of holy relics.
Velehrad theory The Velehrad theory that elevated Moravia as a former archdio-
cese was successfully put to use by John of Neumarkt, Charles’s
chancellor (1353–1374) and the bishop of Litomyšl (1353–1364)
John of Neumarkt and of Olomouc (1364–1380).98 In his capacity as bishop of Olo-
mouc, John sought for the Velehrad Cistercian Monastery the same
distinction that had been bestowed on the Slavonic Monastery of
St. Jerome in Prague. In the 1370s, John petitioned Pope Gregory
XI (1370–1378) to grant the abbot of the Velehrad Cistercians the
honor of using pontifical vestments, referring to the honorary his-
Pope Urban VI grants torical primacy of the Moravian metropolitan church.99 The privi-
the privilege of pon-
lege was accordingly granted by Gregory’s successor Pope Urban
tificalia to the Velehrad
Cistercians VI (1378–1389) in 1379.
The narrative of the ancient archdiocese in Great Moravia as a
cradle of Bohemian Christianity was in time augmented by an-
other significant motif—the divine approval of the Slavonic rite.
Přibík Pulkava, The chronicle that develops this motif is ascribed to Přibík Pul-
Chronica kava of Radenín, who compiled it according to Charles’s orders
and under his direct supervision, using a number of historical
sources and archival chancery documents.100 That the Cyrillo-
Methodian tradition was perceived in Charles’s political theology
as not only a unique custom enjoyed by the Slavs but also as an
act of divine intervention is articulated in a remarkable account
of St. Cyril’s appeal to the pope to allow the use of the Slavonic
liturgy. According to the chronicler, the pope did not take Cyril’s
request seriously. Suddenly, in a scene reminiscent of the Pente-
costal gift of tongues, a voice from heaven commanded that God
divine approval of the be celebrated in all languages:
Slavonic rite
The pope regarded this kind of request as a joke, and while he held de-
liberation in a council of cardinals and many prelates, suddenly a voice
sounded from the heavens saying, “Let every spirit praise the Lord and
Psalm 150:6, Romans every tongue confess to Him.” Then, after this miracle was heard, he de-
14:11 creed that forever the Mass and other divine offices may be celebrated in
the Slavic tongue.101

This extraordinary episode of divine intervention is not found

in any earlier source and must be Přibík Pulkava’s invention. It is
quite likely that the author drew inspiration from Psalm 150:6 and
Romans 14:11, quoted both in the Life of Constantine and in Pope

84
 Bohemia

John VIII’s bulla, “Industriae tuae,” of 880.102 This biblical quota-

tion has also been evoked in the legend Quemadmodum, in which
Cyril opens the Book of Psalms and reads this passage to the pope
and the congregation of bishops as he defends the use of the Slavic
language in liturgy.103 This literary twist on Cyril’s dispute with the
Latin clergy eloquently reflects the claim that the chronicler, as
well as those for whom he composed his work, made for the divine
nature of the Slavonic rite. And, indeed, readers have paid it due Enea Silvio Piccolomi-
attention: Enea Silvio Piccolomini (1405–1464), later Pope Pius II ni, Historia Bohemica
(1458–1464), included this episode in his influential Historia Bo-
hemica (written in 1457, first printed in 1475), thus introducing
the legend of the divine intercession for the Slavonic liturgy to a
wider European audience.104
The only extant manuscript of Marignolli’s chronicle dem-
onstrates the definite lack of popularity that this composition
enjoyed. Whether its ideological concepts found no response
among later historians or Charles himself was dissatisfied with its
execution, it had almost no influence on Czech historiography.
The Moravian and general Slavic theme of Pulkava’s chronicle, on
the other hand, gained wide recognition and—despite its many
stylistic and historiographic defects—became one of the most
frequently used sources.
Přibík Pulkava’s chronicle, as well as other writings that emerged Slavic myth-building
under Charles’s supervision, leaves no doubt that Charles was well
informed about Přemyslid Bohemian and Slavic history and that
he actively engaged in Slavic-themed “myth-building.” His desire
to perpetuate a distinguished Slavic pedigree was contingent upon
the concept of the sacred foundation of the local Slavonic rite and
the authority of the Slavic apostolic saints, which the chronicles
substantiated.
Charles’s interest in the political and ecclesiastical legacy of Great
Moravia is sometimes connected with his ambitions of political
expansion in the Slavic East and of gaining Orthodox Slavs for the
Roman Church.105 The symbolic representation of this is seen in Charles as “second
the figure of the first Christian Roman emperor, Constantine the Constantine”
Great, with whose image—as a protector of universal Christian-
ity—Charles presumably identified. A direct reference is found in
the oration of Archbishop John Očko of Vlašim, delivered in 1378
at Charles’s funeral, in which John calls Charles “sicut alter Con-
stantinus” (just as a second Constantine).106 Likewise, art historians
point to evidence that links Charles metaphorically to Constantine

85
 The Slavic Letters of St. Jerome

the Great.107 Indeed, like Constantine, Charles built a new capital

in the east and labored to erase the political and religious divides
of the empire that had been entrusted to him. While there are in-
dications that Charles IV presented himself as seeking an alliance
between East and West, it remains an open question whether the
foundation of the Slavonic Monastery was strategically connected
to this project. Its missionary role remains unknown, but its other
function is apparent: the monastery became a showcase of local
Bohemian and Slavic ecclesiastical history and—no less impor-
tant—a means of salvation for its royal benefactor, his family, and
the kingdom of Bohemia.108

The Theology of the Slavonic Monastery’s Murals

In the late medieval period, the foundation of churches and
monasteries was not only an expression of a ruler’s piety but also
an important public and political activity. For a Christian mon-
arch, especially, the patronage of shrines and of the relics housed
in these shrines acquired political meaning: in this way the
anointed sovereign claimed the power and authority bestowed
on him or her by God. The grand architecture and decorations
commissioned and financed by a generous benefactor recorded
his magnificence for future generations and formed the sacred
landscape of a city (as well as providing a substantial source of in-
come for the king).109 Charles turned the patronage of ecclesiasti-
cal institutions, as well as the veneration of saints and relics, into a
Prague as “New Rome” state affair, earning himself the title of rex clericorum (king of the
priests). In his model of rulership, public spaces—whether sacred
or secular—and their symbolic meanings as conveyed by art and
architecture represented the legitimacy of his imperial office and
presented Prague as a “New Rome” and a “New Jerusalem”—a
cosmopolitan center of the Roman Empire and an earthly im-
age of the kingdom of Heaven.110 Monastic communities, in par-
Monastery of ticular, reflected this politics of representation. For example, the
St. Charlemagne
monastery for the canons regular of St. Augustine, founded in
1350 at the highest point of New Town and dedicated to the As-
sumption of the Virgin Mary and St. Charlemagne, promoted the
Monastery of cult of Charles’s imperial forefather and patron.111 The Benedic-
St. Ambrose
tines of the St. Ambrose Monastery, which was founded in 1354
across from Old Town Royal Court, were brought by Charles di-

86
 Bohemia

rectly from the Basilica of St. Ambrose in Milan, the site of his
coronation as king of Lombardy. Their special Milanese Ambro-
sian liturgy accentuated Charles’s connection with Milan, which
itself was endowed with the title of Roma secunda.112
Similar to these and other holy places established in Prague’s New
Town, the Slavonic Monastery of St. Jerome emerged as a part of
Charles’s plan, and therefore its physical space and function were
inextricably linked with the general concept of New Town’s urban
landscape.113 Its walls and altars were another star in the constella-
tion of the newly established holy sites and their representational
imagery. Its location between the New Town Square (also called Forum magnum
Forum magnum, or Dobytčí trh in Czech) and the Vyšehrad Castle
made it an indispensable participant in the main public proces-
sions and the teatrum sacrum performances, which took place
on this route.114 During these ceremonies and holidays its doors
were opened wide to the public, who were thereby exposed to
its magnificently decorated interior. Furthermore, it has been Passion relics
hypothesized that the themes of Christ’s Passion and the Holy
Cross in the monastery’s mural cycle were linked to the annual
exposition ceremonies of Bohemian and imperial Passion relics
that may have been taken to the Slavonic Monastery regularly for
veneration.115 It has also been suggested that Charles designated
the monasteries of St. Charlemagne and St. Jerome as tempo-
rary repositories of imperial insignia, and that the abbots of both
monasteries received the right to wear pontifical vestments for
the purpose of serving the Pontifical Mass in recognition of the
exceptional role of their convents.116
Numerous studies have examined the Slavonic Monastery’s decora- fresco cycle in the
tions, particularly the chapter hall decorations and the fresco cycle in cloister
the cloister, which have recently been partially restored and opened
to the public (fig. 6).117 Believing that the wall paintings are connect-
ed with the monastery’s mission, these studies seek to interpret the
former and extrapolate the latter. Remarkably, however, the Slavic
historical references, emphasized in Charles’s foundation charter
and implicit in the choice of the monastery’s patron saints, find
no immediate corresponding representations among the surviving
frescoes. On the contrary, art historians and theologians highlight
the universal spiritual and didactic nature of the narrative mural
cycle, which is based on the concept of typological correspondence
between the New and Old Testaments.118 In the late 1350s and the
early 1360s, about 90 frescoes were painted on all four walls of the

87
 The Slavic Letters of St. Jerome

monastery’s cloister, as well as in the adjacent chapter hall, church,

and presbytery. Charles’s sponsorship of this project is almost cer-
tain—two of the four painters of the Slavonic Monastery’s cycle have
been identified as those of the murals at the royal castle of Karl-
Ernest of Pardubice stein.119 Besides Charles, archbishops Ernest, John Očko of Vlašim,
John Očko of Vlašim and chancellor John of Neumarkt are named as the ideologues be-
John of Neumarkt
hind the choice of themes and objects for decoration.120 Models and
ideas for the cycle came from several written manuscript sources
that contain typological biblical illustrations: the Biblia pauperum,
the Speculum humanae salvationis, the Liber depictus, Concordan-
tiae caritatis, and other works.

Figure 6. Gallery in a cloister of the Slavonic Monastery of St. Jerome in Prague.

Photograph by Petr Bajak

88
 Bohemia

The concept of the Speculum humanae salvationis, which was Speculum humanae
salvationis
graphically represented on the walls of the Glagolites’ abode,
was also conveyed in their books. Its Czech version, the Zrcadlo
člověčieho spasenie, is attested in several manuscript copies from
as early as the mid-fourteenth century, most notably in a co-
piously illuminated Krumlov Miscellany (Krumlovský sborník)
that was composed around 1420.121 A Croatian version of the
Speculum, titled Zercalo človečskago spaseniê, also emerged at
the Slavonic Monastery scriptorium and was translated from a
Czech source. A copy of this translation that found its way to
Croatia is preserved in a Glagolitic miscellany, written in Vrbnik
on Krk in 1445 by deacon Luka for presbyter Grgur.122 Along
with the Zercalo, Luka copied several other Croatian transla-
tions from Czech.123 iconographic represen-
As an iconographic and exegetical representation of the Bible, tation of the Bible as a
memorial to St. Jerome
the murals’ typological cycle created a congruent setting for a holy
place that commemorated the acts of the exemplary biblical ex-
egete and—according to belief—creator of the Slavonic Bible, St.
Jerome. It was, therefore, consistent with Charles’s desire to cre-
ate a memorial for St. Jerome as indicated in the foundation char-
ter of 1347. The inscriptions in Latin accompanying scenes from
the typological cycle show that Latin letters were at home in the
Slavonic Monastery and that the wall decorations were designed
not only for the resident brethren, but with a wider audience in
mind. There is even evidence that the mural cycle was an object
of theological study for outside viewers. A description of the cycle
has been discovered in the notes of a Swedish visitor from around
1400, which were found in a fifteenth-century manuscript in the
Uppsala University Library. The notes do not contain a copy of the
Latin inscriptions on the walls but rather a list and a brief sum-
mary of the scenes with the author’s own interpretation of the cor-
respondences.124
The Slavonic Monastery’s influence beyond its walls has also
been attested in the works of contemporaneous artists active in
Bohemia, who borrowed copies of its murals (exempla) for book
illumination and monumental painting.125 Although no images of
St. Jerome have been attested among the restored murals at the
monastery, art historians believe that there must have been an al-
tar devoted to St. Jerome there, which featured a new type of rep- St. Jerome & the lion
resentation of St. Jerome with a lion, developed by the master of
the Slavonic Monastery’s decoration from Italian and Byzantine
sources. From the Slavonic Monastery—a center of the cult of St.

89
 The Slavic Letters of St. Jerome

Jerome—this new type is supposed to have spread in Bohemia,

serving as a model for other artists of monumental painting and
book illumination.126
The Slavic alphabet of St. Jerome did, of course, find its honorary
place on the monastery walls. In the 1950s, a Glagolitic inscrip-
tion, containing a brief exposition of the Ten Commandments,
was discovered on the south wall of the monastery’s eastern wing,
Ten Commandments in where a chapter hall previously existed.127 The text of the Ten Com-
Glagolitic mandments fits organically into the theme of the wall decoration
because it continued the biblical theme of the frescoes in the clois-
ter. The reconstruction of the remaining fragments suggests that
the original inscription might have been surrounded by additional
text, which is today invisible.128 The persona of Jerome, who repre-
sented the Latin-Slavic union of letters and the question of biblical
exegesis, was likely an inspiration behind the choice of the subject
matter for the mural painting.
If taken into consideration, the theological program of the in-
terior wall decoration speaks against a narrow mission of the Sla-
vonic Monastery as a self-contained, marginal sanctuary of Slavic
worship and writing. Rather, it suggests that the Slavic element
provided a political frame for universal Christian concepts. This
marriage of sacred and local earthly histories was a powerful stra-
tegic idea that turned the Benedictine Slavonic Monastery of St.
Jerome, one of the oldest and most prominent in New Town’s net-
work of monasteries, into an emblem of Slavic and Czech Christi-
anity, embedded in sacred history.

Glagolitic, Cyrillic, and Latin Letters at the

Slavonic Monastery of St. Jerome
Glagolitic Gradual Fragment

Like the walls of the Slavonic Monastery, its scriptorium unit-

Glagolitic Gradual ed both alphabets—Latin and Glagolitic. A fragment of the late
Fragment
fourteenth-­century notated missal (or gradual) from the Strahov
rahov Premonstraten- Monastery archive, which contains Croatian Church Slavonic
sian Monastery chants written in Glagolitic along with parallel Latin translitera-
tions, testifies to the Glagolitic-Latin alliance.129 The Glagolitic part
of the fragment was most likely the work of the Prague Slavonic

90
 Bohemia

monks. The Latin transliteration is written in the Gothic minus-

cule script of Bohemian provenance, but it is unclear whether it
was written at the Slavonic Monastery’s scriptorium or added at a
later time elsewhere. In his analysis of the notation system, Josef
Vajs came to the conclusion that the notation in the Latin translit-
eration was borrowed from Latin graduals.130 The Latin-Glagolit-
ic parallel notation was thus used as a guide for the study of the
Glagolitic alphabet and Slavonic hymns. Another product of the
Slavonic Monastery’s scriptorium is the Latin Bible, copied and il-
luminated around 1360. It contains among its images a representa-
tion of St. Jerome instructing (Slavonic?) monks, depicted in an
illuminated initial “C” on folio 129.131

Diviš’s Abecedarium
An important example of the use of Glagolitic letters outside of Diviš’s Abecedarium
the Slavonic Monastery is the Diviš’s Abecedarium, preserved in the
famous Codex Gigas from the National (Royal) Library in Stock-
holm.132 This codex, also known as the “Devil’s Bible,” acquired fame Codex Gigas
for its enormous size and a full-page depiction of the devil on folio
290r. In addition to the Old and New Testaments, this manuscript
book (regarded as the world’s largest—its vellum pages measure
890x490 mm) contains Josephus Flavius’s Antiquitates iudaice (An-
tiquities of the Jews) and De bello iudaico (The Jewish War), Isidore
of Seville’s Etymologiae, the Rule of St. Benedict (torn out), Cos-
mas’s Chronica Boemorum, magic spells, a calendar-martyrology,
and other texts. The book was created at the Podlažice Benedictine
Abbey before 1230 but ended up in a pawnshop, from which it was
rescued by the Břevnov Benedictines in 1295. In 1594, Rudolph II Břevnov Benedictine
Monastery
“borrowed” the codex for his Kunstkammer, from which it was sto-
len by the Swedish army during the Thirty Years’ War. The first folio
features the Glagolitic (Alphabetum Sklauorum) and Cyrillic alpha- Alphabetum Sklauorum
bets (Alphabetum Rutenorum) along with the Hebrew, Greek, and
Latin alphabets and a note of Abbot Bavor from 1295 about the his-
tory of the manuscript (fig. 7). According to the Glagolitic inscrip- Alphabetum Rutenorum
tion and its Latin translation under the Glagolitic alphabet, this az-
bukovnak (ABC book or abecedarium) was ordered to be written by
one Abbot Diviš. Two abbots of this name at the Břevnov Monastery
are known—Diviš I (1360–1366) and Diviš II (1385–1408). The lat- John of Holešov
ter also requested John of Holešov to compose the aforementioned

91
 The Slavic Letters of St. Jerome

Figure 7. Codex mixtus or Codex Gigas (1200–1230), National (Royal) Library of

Sweden (A 148), fol. 1v

92
 Bohemia

Figure 8. Glagolitic (Alphabetum Sklauorum) and Cyrillic (Alphabetum Rutenorum)

alphabets, Codex Gigas, fol. 1v, fragment

treatise commentary on the Old Czech hymn “Hospodine, pomiluj

ny.”133 The Glagolitic and Cyrillic letters are inscribed on separate
strips of parchment and pasted beside the other three sacred alpha-
bets, thereby completing the inventory of holy letters (fig. 8).

The Office to Sts. Cyril and Methodius

It is not by chance that the Cyrillic alphabet was recorded together
with Glagolitic in the Codex Gigas. The different titles for Glagolitic
(“Alphabet of the Slavs”) and for Cyrillic (“Alphabet of Rus’”) show
that the latter alphabet was closely associated with the Orthodox
rite of Rus’. At the same time, the Cyrillic letters—a divinely inspired
invention of Cyril—were also welcome at the Slavonic Monastery.
Manuscript evidence suggests that the foundation of the Slavonic
Monastery gave the cult of Sts. Cyril and Methodius, formerly lim-
ited to literature, a new life in liturgy. Vojtěch Tkadlčík, an authority
on glagolitica, has convincingly argued that the Office to Sts. Cyril
and Methodius found in Croatian Glagolitic breviaries starting from
the late fourteenth century was most likely composed around the
1360s or 1370s at the scriptorium of the Prague Slavonic Monas-
tery.134 Textual analysis suggests that the Office, as a liturgical com-
position, evolved over the years and, according to Tkadlčík, within
Bohemia.135 Tkadlčík, who has studied both textual and linguistic

93
 The Slavic Letters of St. Jerome

features of the Office, points out that its language and rhetoric ex-
press the ideological and religious aspirations of the Prague Glago-
lites vis-à-vis the Czech cultural milieu.
Life of St. Constantine The Glagolitic Office to Sts. Cyril and Methodius draws on the
Encomium to Life of St. Constantine and the Encomium to St. Constantine and
St. Constantine
narrates the embassy of the ruler Rostislav to the Byzantine Em-
peror Michael III; the preparation of Cyril (as Constantine the
Constantine the Philosopher) for the mission among the Slavs in Constantinople;
Philosopher
and the coming of the Byzantine missionaries “to the Czech land”
(v stranu češ’ku) and their activity among the Slavs “in the Czech
land” (v zemli češkoi) up until the first conflict with Frankish clergy
and Cyril’s death in Rome.136 The parts of the Life of St. Constan-
tine about the holy brothers’ activity among the Pannonian Slavs,
Constantine’s apologia of the Slavonic liturgy and letters in Venice,
and Rome’s approval of the Slavonic books are not included in the
the Czech land Office. One of the most striking features of this text is that the au-
thor consistently places the activity of Cyril and Methodius in the
Czech lands and not in Moravia. Some breviaries even contain a
hymn praising the Czech people.137 The substitution of “the Czech
land” for “Moravia” as a scene of the Slavic apostles’ activities in
the Office is especially remarkable as it deviates from earlier lo-
cal Bohemian sources that set the Cyrillo-Methodian mission in
Moravia. Tkadlčík suggests that the zeal in associating the Slavonic
rite with Bohemia could more naturally come from foreign Cro-
atian Glagolites than from native Czechs. First, he suggests, the
Croatian monks may have not fully understood the difference be-
tween “the Czech land” and “Moravia,” since both provinces were a
part of the Bohemian Kingdom in the fourteenth century. Second,
they were anxious to establish a legitimate connection with the pa-
tron saints of their monastery and thus were in need of a liturgi-
cal text, which they lacked. Third, Tkadlčík notes, were this text
authored by a local Czech it would have contained at least some
references to “our land” or “our people,” rather than to “the Czech
land.” Finally, scholars have noted the defensive tone of the Of-
fice, which Tkadlčík explains by the fact that the Glagolites felt the
Master Claretus need to prove their worth to those Czechs—he particularly names
Bartholomew of Chlumec (also known as Master Claretus)—who
doubted their connection with the ancient Slavic tradition and ac-
cused them of corrupting it.138
Since Tkadlčík published his study in 1977, another manu-
script discovery has confirmed his conclusions. Anatoly Turilov

94
 Bohemia

has examined a fourteenth-century Glagolitic fragment from the

Museum Collection of the Russian State Library in Moscow and
identified it as the oldest known copy of the Office to Sts. Cyril and
Methodius, the original of which originated at the Prague Slavonic
Monastery.139 Tkadlčík’s and Turilov’s discoveries point to impor-
tant interaction between the local Czech and Croatian Glagolite
communities in Prague. Not only did the Czech hosts ideologically
justify their common roots with Croatia (and, hence, their spe-
cial connection with Jerome), but the Croatian guests also recip-
rocated by relating themselves to Bohemia’s ancient ecclesiastical
tradition and its cult of Sts. Cyril and Methodius. This initiative
on the part of the Glagolites undermines the opinion, occasion-
ally voiced in literature, that the role of the Slavonic Monastery
in Prague’s cultural and ecclesiastical life was static, and explains
why Přibík Pulkava’s chronicle presents the Croatian Glagolites as
direct heirs to Cyril’s divinely inspired invention.140 Finally, if in-
deed the protograph of the Office to Sts. Cyril and Methodius was
composed at the Slavonic Monastery as part of the liturgical cult
to these saints, then that fact undermines Hans Rothe’s thesis that
the Slavic saints, and the Slavic references in general, held little
significance for this monastery.141
The Glagolitic Office to Sts. Cyril and Methodius also claims that
Cyril “put together letters and began writing books” (i abie složivь
pismenaě slova načet besědu pisati). As early Bohemian sources
demonstrate, these letters were considered to be Cyrillic. For ex- Legenda Christiani
ample, the Legenda Christiani (and sources that follow it) explicitly
connects the letters that Cyril invented with the writing tradition
in Bulgaria.142 Similarly, the author of the Czech Dalimil Chronicle Dalimil Chronicle
mistakenly calls Methodius “Rusín,” most likely by association
with the Cyrillic letters, which were then used in the Rus’ Ortho-
dox Church.143
All patron saints of the Slavonic Monastery were also patrons of
Slavic indigenous sacred writing, including, although perhaps to a
lesser extent, St. Adalbert.144 The newly revived cult of Sts. Cyril and
Methodius, which embodied the concept of the divine right of the
Slavonic rite and letters, was linked with the cult of St. Procopius,
who was seen as a successor to the Cyrillic tradition in Bohemia.
These patron saints of Bohemian Christianity were united under
the same roof with St. Jerome, who epitomized the origin of Slavic
(Glagolitic) letters on the one hand and the humanistic value of
learning on the other.145 The authority of St. Jerome, a doctor of the

95
 The Slavic Letters of St. Jerome

Church and a biblical exegete, played a significant role in provid-

ing legitimacy to a new Slavonic monastic center, especially as the
liturgy in a Slavic tongue had been a controversial issue for the Ro-
man curia since its emergence at the end of the ninth century. Af-
ter all, in 1079, Pope Gregory VII rejected the request of Vratislav
II for official permission for the Slavonic rite in Bohemia, and in
1096, Vratislav’s successor, Břetislav II, forced the monks observ-
ing the Slavonic rite from their last stronghold in Bohemia—the
the Sázava Monastery Sázava Monastery. Even Clement VI, who was Charles’s benefactor
and ally in ecclesiastical matters, took a rather vigilant approach to
the matter and gave authorization only for one monastery with the
Slavonic rite.

The Slavonic Gospel of Reims

The biscriptural Slavonic Gospel of Reims is a manuscript relic
that symbolically embodied the Glagolitic-Cyrillic continuity
and the unity of the Slavic letters that Sts. Jerome, Cyril, Metho-
dius, and Procopius represented.146 From the seventeenth century,
a coronation book of this manuscript codex acquired fame as a coronation book of the
the French kings
French kings.147 In fourteenth-century Bohemia, however, its role
was equally prominent: it represented the country’s sacred past.
According to the Glagolitic colophon at the end of the codex, writ-
ten in Czech, the Glagolitic part of the codex (31 leaves), which
contains readings from the Gospels and Epistles, was written in the
monastery for the purpose of the Pontifical Mass in 1395. The first
part (16 leaves), written in Cyrillic and believed to be an autograph
St. Procopius of St. Procopius, the eleventh-century abbot of the Sázava Monas-
tery, was given to the Prague Glagolites by Charles IV for “the glory
of this monastery and in honor of St. Jerome and St. Procopius,”
thereby acknowledging the connection between the ancient Slavic
Christian traditions in Bohemia and Dalmatia:

AD 1395. These Gospels and Epistles, written in the Slavonic language,

should be sung hourly when the abbot serves the Mass under the crown.
The second part of these books, according to the Rus’ rite, was written
by St. Procopius, the abbot, in his own hand. This Rus’ Scripture was pre-
sented as a gift by the late Holy Roman Emperor Charles IV to the glory
of this monastery and in honor of St. Jerome and St. Procopius. Lord,
grant him eternal peace. Amen.148 [fig. 9a & b]

96
 Bohemia

Figure 9a. Czech colophon, The Slavonic Gospel of Reims, Bibliothèque de Reims
(MS 255), leaf 61

97
 The Slavic Letters of St. Jerome

Figure 9b. Czech colophon, The Slavonic Gospel of Reims, Bibliothèque de Reims
(MS 255), leaf 62

The two parts were bound together in a majestically decorated

codex, symbolically uniting the Slavic (Cyrillic) letters that Pro-
copius cultivated in Bohemia and the Slavic (Glagolitic) letters
of Jerome that the Glagolites brought to Prague from Dalmatia
(Slavonia).
St. Procopius & Cyrillic In addition to the date of the Glagolitic part and the alleged
provenance of the Cyrillic part of the codex, the Czech colophon
reveals important nuances about the reception of Slavonic graphic
symbolism: although it was understood that the Cyrillic letters had
been introduced by Cyril and Methodius, it was the local saint,
Procopius, who was credited with their preservation in Bohemia.

98
 Bohemia

Charles’s gift of the Cyrillic manuscript to the Glagolites acknowl-

edged the contribution of St. Procopius to Bohemian Christianity
and emphasized the connection between the Slavonic traditions of
Moravia, Bohemia, and Croatia.
Unlike Charles and the Glagolites, who believed in Procopius’s
authorship of the Cyrillic part unreservedly, modern historians of-
ten hesitate to take this legend at face value. Yet it may not be easy
to separate myth from fact. The writing and language of the Cyril-
lic part are indeed quite archaic, and whether or not Procopius
could have written it is still debated by linguists, philologists, and
historians of liturgy. Linguists describe the Cyrillic part as an East
Slavic, a Serbian, or an eleventh-century Bohemian copy or, even
more specifically, suggest that it was copied by a Rus’ scribe resid-
ing in Bohemia from a Rus’ or a Serbian original.149 At the same
time, the candidacy of Procopius has not been completely rejected.
Ladislav Matějka, for example, has argued that the linguistic and
orthographic features of the manuscript clearly point to its Bohe-
mian provenance, and therefore, the Cyrillic part of the Gospel of
Reims could have been written by Procopius himself:

There is, of course, no guarantee that even the most meticulous study
will definitely solve the problems of the Reims Cyrillic text which, for
the time being, remains the most intriguing puzzle of Church Slavic
literature. Nevertheless, based on the historical evidence and linguistic
arguments, it seems reasonable to propose that the Reims Cyrillic text
was not written by a Russian scribe hampered by a lack of literary com-
petence, but by a relatively sophisticated Czech monk who tried hard
to retain a spiritual contact between East and West by copying an East-
Slavicized Bulgarian manuscript in the period when the schism threat-
ened to separate the Western Church from the Eastern Church almost
hermetically.150

If the implications of this Bohemian relic of Cyrillic writing were

understood by Charles IV exactly as Matějka has formulated them,
then the emperor’s gift to the Glagolites was doubly symbolic.
The hypothesis of Procopius’s authorship and Bohemian prove-
nance of the Cyrillic part is further complicated by the fact that the
Benedictine monks at the Sázava Monastery most likely wrote in Glagolitic at the Sázava
Monastery
Glagolitic, not Cyrillic, script, although their reading knowledge of
“imported” Cyrillic is presumed.151 Moreover, while there is little
agreement among linguists and philologists, liturgy specialists add

99
 The Slavic Letters of St. Jerome

further uncertainty to this debate. Thus, based on his analysis of

the Cyrillic part’s liturgical content and its inclusion of individual
saints, Arnošt Vykoukal—the abbot of the Emmaus Monastery
(1925–1942)—ruled out its origin at the Sázava Monastery and
Procopius’s authorship.152
The title of the “Gospel” that this codex has acquired is con-
ventional. In terms of its content and function, the codex is not a
Gospel book but a Lectionary (lectionarium missae), that is, it con-
tains readings from Gospels and Epistles that are used during the
Mass.153 The Cyrillic part, which is missing both the beginning and
the end, contains only readings from the Gospels. According to
Vykoukal, its content fully corresponds to the calendar and peric­
opes of the Byzantine-Slavonic Menology and Synaxarium.
As the colophon says, the Glagolitic section was compiled ac-
cording to the Roman rite for use during the Pontifical Mass, con-
ducted by a bishop, that is, “when the abbot serves the Mass under
Pontifical Mass the crown.” The clarification of the book’s purpose in the colophon
is of great consequence: it confirms that the Glagolites exercised
the privilege bestowed on them by Clement VI in 1350, according
to which the abbot of the Slavonic Monastery was allowed to use
pontifical insignia and serve the Pontifical Mass at special festive
occasions. This privilege, which was also bestowed on the abbot of
the St. Charlemagne Monastery the same year, has been connected
with the arrival in Prague of the Passion relics in 1350 and the in-
volvement of both monasteries in the Passion relics and imperial
Passion relics & impe- insignia presentation ceremonies.154 The Pontifical Mass was most
rial insignia presenta- likely celebrated in Latin, but the biblical lessons were also read
tion ceremonies
in Slavic, as was the custom in Dalmatia.155 A special lectionary
that includes these Slavonic lessons was required and was prob-
ably compiled around that time to complement the Latin Order
of the Mass. In this case, the Glagolitic part of the Gospel of Reims,
copied in 1395, could be a grandchild of that lectionary. The text
of the readings was taken from one of the Croatian Glagolitic mis-
sals or breviaries that the Glagolites had brought from Dalmatia.
Linguists describe its language as the Croatian variant of Church
Slavonic with very few Bohemisms.156
While the Cyrillic part includes the traditional holidays of the
Eastern Church, the Glagolitic part of the Reims lectionary re-
feasts of Sts. Procopius, flects the hagiographical focus of the Slavonic Monastery and was
Wenceslas, Jerome, compiled specifically for services that took place within its walls.
Cyril & Methodius, It contains readings for principal feasts according to the Roman
Benedict

100
 Bohemia

rite and also includes texts for feast days of Sts. Procopius (4 July),
Wenceslas (28 September), Jerome (30 September), Cyril and
Methodius (14 February), and Benedict (21 March) but—most
notably—omits the feast day of St. Adalbert (23 April), one of the
monastery’s patron saints. As has been mentioned above, other in- no feast for St. Adalbert
stances when St. Adalbert is absent from the list of patron saints
of the monastery include Charles’s donation charter of 1352 and a
charter of restitution of 1368, in which only Jerome, Cyril, Metho-
dius, and Procopius are mentioned. It is then possible that the lec-
tionary was also compiled around or after 1352, when St. Adalbert
seemed to fall out of favor with the Glagolite brethren.
Manuscript illumination reinforces the emblematic spirit of
the written word. There are seventeen illuminated initials in the
Glagolitic text, all of which are Latin letters, as was the standard
practice in Croatian Glagolitic manuscripts. Seven of the initials
render images of concepts and personages of corresponding feast
days in the text. As might be expected, both “authors” of the Sla- image of St. Procopius
vonic liturgy are represented: one initial depicts St. Procopius as a as a bishop
bishop with a white mitre, black garb, and a golden crosier in his
hand (fig. 10); another (fig. 11) depicts St. Jerome in a red cardinal’s image of St. Jerome
hat with a lion. The remaining images illustrate universal Christian with a lion
themes—the Holy Trinity, the Virgin Mary with the child Christ,
and the Nativity scene with a star of Bethlehem, while the image
of St. Peter with a key emphasizes the connection of the Glagolites
with the Roman Church.
The Glagolitic colophon, which crowns the codex, itself carries
important symbolism. Composed in Czech by the same scribe who
copied the Glagolitic lectionary in the Croatian variant of Church
Slavonic, it highlights another important idea of the Cyrillic-
Glagolitic project: in this colophon the scribe explicitly claimed
the holy letters of St. Jerome for his own vernacular language.

St. Jerome’s Slavic Alphabet, the nobilis lingua Slauonica,

and the Czech Bible
The source of the Glagolitic part of the Gospel of Reims was just
one of a number of liturgical books that the Croatian Glagolites
brought with them to Prague and used for worship at the Slavonic
Monastery of St. Jerome. Although their liturgical books contained
key readings from the biblical books, the Croatian Glagolites did

101
 The Slavic Letters of St. Jerome

Figure 10. St. Procopius in an illuminated initial, The Slavonic Gospel of Reims,
Bibliothèque de Reims (MS 255), leaf 25

102
 Bohemia

Figure 11. St. Jerome in an illuminated initial, The Slavonic Gospel of Reims, Biblio-
thèque de Reims (MS 255), leaf 37

103
 The Slavic Letters of St. Jerome

not possess a complete translation of the Bible or substantial exe-

getical literature.157 This essential textual lacuna had yet to be filled.
But the Croatian monks were neither Latin scholars nor biblical
exegetes. It was up to the local Czech brethren, who joined the Sla-
vonic monastic community, to enrich its literary production with
texts in original Latin and translations. However, they translated
Czech Glagolitic into their own, Czech, vernacular. The new Czech scribes inherited
the Croatian monks’ main linguistic concept, which was to associ-
ate their special Glagolitic alphabet received from Jerome with the
Slavic tongue. They thus adopted the Glagolitic script for the needs
of writing in Czech.158 Unfortunately, the monastic library did not
survive, and only remnants of the former Glagolitic book collec-
Peter Comestor, Histo- tion remain. Among attested Czech Glagolitic texts are a Czech
ria Scholastica translation of Peter Comestor’s Historia Scholastica and a Czech
expanded version of the Legenda Aurea, known as the Czech Pa-
Czech Pasionál sionál, which incorporated the lives of several Czech saints into the
original collection, as well as the Czech Bible.159
The donation document of 26 August 1356 shows that Charles
Charles IV supports supported a professional scriptorium in the monastery. One such
Glagolitic scriptorium scribe, by the name of John, received a yearly salary of ten marks
for his extraordinary services for the glory of the Slavonic Mon-
astery “in copying books for reading and chanting in the noble
Slavic language [. . .] with an eagerness of mind, as restlessly as
faithfully.”160 From this document we may deduce that, most likely,
John was not a monk, since Charles included his legitimate heirs
nobilis lingua Slauonica (legitimi heredes) as beneficiaries of his earnings. Just as in his let-
ter to the Serbian tsar Dušan in 1355, Charles uses the attribute
“noble, renowned” to describe the Slavic language (nobilis lingua
John of Neumarkt Slauonica).161 Charles’s chancellor John of Neumarkt, a German
praises “the noble nobleman, shared this regard for the Slavic language. In a letter
Slavic language”
to Charles regarding a German translation of the Soliloquia (So-
liloquies) ascribed to St. Augustine that he was undertaking, John
complains that the intricate and exquisite philosophical and theo-
logical terminology of this work makes the translation so difficult
that even St. Jerome would have difficulty, were he to translate this
treatise into “the noble Slavic language.”162 Such a compliment to
the Slavic language from John of Neumarkt, a connoisseur of liter-
ature, who himself aspired to a refined style in Latin and German,
is especially noteworthy because in the same letter he complains
that the words of the German language are not at all elegant.163
The epithet of a lingua nobilis—customary in reference to Latin—

104
 Bohemia

shows the high rank that Charles and his chancellor considered the
Slavic language to occupy in the ecclesiastical sphere.
Although the historical circumstances surrounding the trans- Czech Bible
lation of the complete Czech Bible are not documented, it seems
plausible that the establishment of the Slavonic Monastery in
Prague and the cult of St. Jerome as a Slavic apostle triggered its under the auspices
emergence. As the Croatian monks were not sufficiently skilled, of Charles IV and
the project was undertaken by local men of letters in the 1350s archbishops Ernest of
Pardubice & John Očko
and 1360s under the auspices of Charles IV and archbishops Er- of Vlašim
nest of Pardubice and John Očko of Vlašim, and backed by the au-
thority of the newly founded university (studium generale, 1348). studium generale
Based on the source of the translation—the Parisian edition of the
Vulgate Latin Bible—it has been suggested that the Augustinian
canons regular of the Roudnice Monastery (the center of the de-
votio moderna movement), who possessed a copy of this edition,
could have played a key role in the biblical translation project.164 Roudnice Augustinian
According to a linguistic and textological analysis, the project in- Monastery
volved about ten translators belonging to different monastic orders
and ranks, as well as coming from different cultural and religious
circles, only several of whom have been identified. Among the pos-
sible collaborators, scholars name several prominent theologians
and university professors: the university vice-chancellor Nicho- Nicholas of Roudnice
las of Roudnice, the Dominican John Moravec, the Minorite Al- John Moravec
Bludonis
bert Bludův (Bludonis), and the Augustinian eremite Nicholas of Nicholas of Louny
Louny, as well as the “father of Bohemian Reformation” Milíč of Milíč of Kroměříž
Kroměříž, and the renowned lexicographer Bartholomew of Chlu- Master Claretus
mec (Master Claretus).165
Even if the Prague Glagolites did not participate in the transla-
tion project themselves, they could have been one of its ideological
inspirations. At the very least, they numbered among its beneficia-
ries: a copy of the Czech Glagolitic Bible was made at the Slavonic
Monastery’s scriptorium in 1416, of which only the second volume Czech Glagolitic Bible
and several fragments have been preserved.166 In a colophon at the of 1416
end of the codex the scribe specified that it was written in the mon-
astery and therefore was not one of the books brought to Prague
from Croatia: “Psana tato bible ot bratrzi Klašterskich’. ale ně ot
pisarzov’ charvat′skich’” (This Bible has been written by the mon-
astery brethren and not by the Croatian scribes).167 Numerous cor-
rections and additions made over time in different ink and hand-
writing show that the Bible was continuously read and kept current
with the latest revisions of the biblical translations (fig. 12).168

105
 The Slavic Letters of St. Jerome

Figure 12. Czech Glagolitic (Hlaholská, Vyšebrodská) Bible (1416), National Library
of the Czech Republic (XVII A 1), fol. 200, fragment

The Bible in the Czech language benefited not only the Sla-
vonic monks but also female convents, as well as many common
preachers. In addition to the practical application, however, it
had important symbolical, theological, and political significance.
The implications of such an important enterprise as a vernacu-
lar Bible, which could only have been authorized by the high-
est secular and ecclesiastical authorities, need to be explained in
the general context of Charles’s ideology and politics. If indeed
Charles IV and Archbishop Ernest of Pardubice (and later John
Očko of Vlašim) sanctioned the translation of the Czech Bible,
how did they justify it? While a more focused and interdisciplin-
ary inquiry is still needed to explain the theological and political
justifications for the biblical translation project, it is evident that
the authority of St. Jerome, which elevated the status of the Slavic
letters and language, must have played an important role in pro-
viding the necessary legitimacy.

The Cult of St. Jerome in Bohemia beyond

the Slavonic Monastery
The cult of St. Jerome in Bohemia is not attested before Charles’s
reign. Jerome’s name first appears in 1349 on the list of saints
whose feasts are celebrated in the Prague diocese, in relation to

106
 Bohemia

the holiday of the four doctors of the church (Ambrose, Gregory,

Augustine, and Jerome).169 In the years following the establishment
of the Slavonic Monastery, administrative records of the Prague
diocese (the Libri erectionum Archidioecesis Pragensis) catalog sev- altars to St. Jerome
eral other cases of dedications to Jerome.170 The inventory of altars
from 1367–1373 includes an altar to the four doctors of the church Cathedral of St. Vitus
at the Prague metropolitan Cathedral of St. Vitus. This altar must the Týn Cathedral
have been established during Charles’s lifetime. In 1394, brothers
Zikmund and Ondřej Huler of the Old Town built an altar to St.
Jerome at the Týn Cathedral (the Church of the Mother of God in
front of Týn) in Prague. At that time, Zikmund Huler, formerly a
scribe in a royal chancery, served as a royal chamberlain. In 1400,
Kateřina, the widow of Kunát Kaplíř of Sulevice, a former royal
mint master and chief scribe, established an altar in honor of the
Virgin Mary and St. Jerome in a chapel of St. Anna at the St. Vitus chapel of St. Anna at
Cathedral and provided for an altar keeper. In 1402, an altar to St. the St. Vitus Cathedral
Jerome was established at a church of the royal town of Nymburk Nymburk church
with a designation for an altar keeper. The name of St. Jerome is
also among the saints of an altar established at the St. Vitus Ca- Church of Sts. Peter &
thedral in 1412 by Jošt, the margrave of Moravia. Finally, one of Paul at Vyšehrad
the 32 altars of the Church of Sts. Peter and Paul at Vyšehrad was
dedicated to St. Jerome.171
The number of church altars established in his name suggests
that St. Jerome occupied a relatively modest place in popular de- Jeroným
votion. However, a noticeable increase in the occurrence of the
Christian name Jerome (Czech Jeroným), as is documented in or-
dination rec­ords from 1395 to 1416, shows the popularity of this
saint among the clergy, especially in the Prague diocese.172 This is
especially important given the relative scarcity of the name be-
fore the end of the fourteenth century. Several of these Jeromes Jeroným Pražský
were graduates of Charles University. Among them are Jerome of
Prague (Jeroným Pražský), John Hus’s associate and fellow mar- Jan Silván Jeroným
tyr,173 as well as his religious opponent John Jerome of Prague (Jan Pražský

Silván Jeroným Pražský), later a Camaldolese monk whose mis-

sionary experience in Lithuania was documented by Enea Silvio Enea Silvio Piccolo-
Piccolomini in his De Europa (1458). Another well-known figure mini, De Europa
is Jerome Seidenberg of Vratislav (Jeroným Seidenberg z Vratisla-
vi), educated in Bologna and Prague, a canon of Olomouc and Jeroným Seidenberg z
Vratislavi
Vratislav, papal auditor, and archdeacon of St. Vitus.174 Thus, al-
though devotion to St. Jerome did not become a widespread cult in
Bohemia, he was revered among the clergy and learned audiences.

107
 The Slavic Letters of St. Jerome

In art, too, the cult of St. Jerome found a place in Bohemia. Je-
rome’s images are found in manuscript illuminations, murals, and
woodcuts. In general, while the literary models of Jerome’s cult
came directly from Italy, the iconographic tradition in Bohemia
could have developed from Byzantine-Dalmatian-Venetian proto-
St. Jerome by Master types.175 Yet one of the most famous Czech representations of St.
Theodoric Jerome belongs to Master Theodoric, whom Charles commissioned,
around 1365, to paint a series of portraits for the Holy Cross Chapel
at the royal castle of Karlstein, a treasury of holy relics and impe-
Holy Cross Chapel at rial insignia.176 Jerome’s portrait is set in the panel along with the
Karlstein other doctors of the church, Sts. Gregory, Ambrose, and Augus-
tine. Importantly, scholars point out that this representation does
not depend on the traditional iconography of Jerome, which at that
time depicted him as a cardinal sitting in his study with a lion at
his side.177 Theodoric depicted Jerome in profile holding a book.
He did not include any details in the golden background besides a
desk, a pulpit, and a scroll—a key attribute of the evangelists and
those who reveal divine wisdom (the Word, the Book) through
writing. After all, it was Jerome’s letters in the broadest sense of this
term that sparked devotion to this saint.

St. Jerome in Literary Sources of Bohemian Provenance

Although Jerome did not become a popular Bohemian saint, his
recognition as a Slav did spread beyond the Benedictine Slavonic
Monastery and accompanied his Renaissance-inspired fame as a
scholar. Literary sources and historical documents from the sec-
ond half of the fourteenth and the beginning of the fifteenth cen-
turies show that the Slavic pedigree of St. Jerome acquired wider
recognition in Bohemia than previously thought.
The earliest literary works devoted to St. Jerome that appeared
in Bohemia do not yet contain any information about his Slavic
descent, adhering instead to the contents of their Latin sources. A
Czech Pasionál relation of Jerome’s exemplary life and merits was of course included
Jacobus de Voragine,
Legenda Aurea in the Czech Pasionál, a Czech version of Jacobus de Voragine’s
popular collection of saints’ lives, the Legenda Aurea, which also
incorporated the lives of local saints. Jerome’s vita drew together
various traditional hagiographical motifs: it emphasized Jerome’s
merits as a biblical exegete and exemplary ascetic, and told the story
of Jerome’s temptation and life in the desert, including a colorful

108
 Bohemia

account of Jerome’s miraculous cure of a lion by extracting a thorn

from the animal’s paw. This legend was perceived as an allegory of Jerome & the lion
Jerome’s eradication of errors and imperfections from the Church.
Following its source, however, the Czech version has no mention
of Jerome’s Slavic roots.
Another famous work on St. Jerome—the Vita et Transitus Sancti Vita et Transitus Sancti
Hieronymi, a collection of hagiographical epistles on St. Jerome as- Hieronymi
cribed to Eusebius, Augustine, and Cyril, also known as the Hiero-
nymus—appeared in Bohemia through the labors of John of Neu-
markt. A man of letters and promoter of humanistic ideas, John John of Neumarkt
of Neumarkt was an admirer of St. Jerome and his “delightful elo-
quence” (grata facundia) and “renowned merits” (merita gloriosa).178
During his stay in Italy in 1368–1369, John acquired a fourteenth- admiration for Jerome
century manuscript of Italian or south French provenance of the John of Neumarkt edits
pseudo-epistolary Hieronymus.179 At Charles’s request, John per- the Latin Hieronymus
sonally copied and edited this work, presenting it to Charles with & translates it into
German
an explanatory note.180 Between 1371 and 1375, he translated the
Hieronymus into German and supplied it with numerous personal
additions for Elizabeth, the wife of Charles’s younger brother, the
margrave of Moravia John Henry.181 A Czech translation of the O sv. Jeronýmovi knihy
Hieronymus soon emerged under the title O sv. Jeronýmovi knihy troje
troje (Three Books on St. Jerome), although its Czech translator has
not yet been identified.182 The Czech and German versions follow
their Latin original fairly closely, showing no sign of St. Jerome’s
association with the Slavs: the letter of Augustine to Cyril, which
contains a passage about Jerome’s acts as a translator of the Holy
Writings, mentions only his translation to Latin. It gives a list of
the languages in which Jerome was allegedly proficient: Greek, He-
brew, Chaldean, Persian, Arabic, and Median.183
John’s correspondence demonstrates that he took care to promote John of Neumarkt pro-
St. Jerome’s fame. In a letter from 1372, John thanks his notary, Pe- motes St. Jerome
ter, for working diligently on copying the works of St. Jerome.184 In
his letter to the prior of Augustinians in Brno, written shortly after
1372, John hastens the scribe and manuscript illuminator John of
Opava (a canon in Brno), whose work copying the liber s. Jeronimi
(the book of St. Jerome) was delayed.185 The epistolary Hieronymus,
which John of Neumarkt industriously promoted, circulated widely
in Bohemia, both in the original Latin version and in the two local
vernacular languages: the great number of fourteenth- and fifteenth-
century manuscript copies of all three versions of this work in the
Czech archives speaks to its wide circulation and popularity.186

109
 The Slavic Letters of St. Jerome

Giovanni d’Andrea, Giovanni d’Andrea’s influential work Hieronymianus also

Hieronymianus reached Bohemia.187 One of the earliest copies of the Hieronymia-
nus to make its appearance in Bohemia was in 1350 in the library
of the first professor of canon law at Charles University, Bonsignore
de Bonsignori from Bologna. Several copies of the Hieronymia-
nus in the hand of Italian scribes, as well as an incunabula edi-
tion of 1482, are attested in the Czech archives. Although no Czech
translation of Andrea’s treatise was made, and its circulation was
very modest (there are only three manuscripts recorded in Czech
archives), it nevertheless influenced the local poetic tradition de-
voted to Jerome. Credit is again due to John of Neumarkt, who
Missal of John of Neu- introduced this source to the readership in Bohemia. Sometime
markt after 1364 he commissioned a splendidly illustrated book of the
Missal and other hymns, in which he included a poem by Fran-
ciscus Thebaldus (1241–1331) from Andrea’s Hieronymianus.188
Franciscus Thebaldus The source of Thebaldus’s poem, “Ecclesie doctor Ciceronis codice
flagrans,” is specified in a preface: “Attached are the verses edited
to the praise of St. Jerome according to the collection of Dominus
Giovanni d’Andrea, the doctor of canon law, to the praise of the
glorious Jerome.”189 Thebaldus’s poem is followed in the manu-
script by a poem by Petrarch (1304–1374), which is also devoted
Petrarch to St. Jerome.190 The addition of a poem by Petrarch, whose Latin
style John adopted as a model, is not surprising. He met the great
Florentine poet and humanist in Mantua in 1354, when he traveled
to Italy as a member of Charles IV’s entourage and later also cor-
responded with him.191
John of Neumarkt concluded his “edition” of the Latin Hier­
onymus with poems consisting of 36 hexameters that eulogize Je-
rome.192 Since John did not indicate the poems’ authorship, they
were initially ascribed to him until finally being identified as be-
longing to Thebaldus (the first 12 hexameters) and to Petrarch
(the following 24 hexameters).193 Thebaldus’s and Petrarch’s poems
appear side by side in yet another source associated with John of
Neumarkt—a fourteenth-century manuscript from the Olomouc
Metropolitan Chapter Library, which contains records from the
time when John was the bishop of Olomouc.194
Although we have seen from John’s letter to Charles that he ap-
preciated Jerome as an accomplished translator into Slavic, he does
not tamper with the above-discussed Italian literary sources, pre-
ferring to preserve their content. Other Bohemian men of letters,
however, found creative ways to recognize Jerome’s services to the

110
 Bohemia

Slavs, even when copying other authors’ compositions. One ex- Oracio de Sancto
ample comes from an early fifteenth-century versed Oracio de Jeronimo
Sancto Jeronimo (The Oration on St. Jerome), which Ferdinand
Tadra has described as “the best fruit of devotional poetry in
the Czech lands.”195 The author of this poetic masterpiece, how-
ever, is not Bohemian: the same verses are also attested in earlier
manuscripts of Austrian provenance.196 Moreover, it is quite pos- Benedictine Abbey of
sible that the poem originated in the monastic community of St. St. Peter in Salzburg
Peter’s Benedictine Abbey in Salzburg. Besides the fact that two of
the surviving manuscripts belonged to St. Peter’s monastic library,
this poem-prayer seems to have been originally addressed to St.
Benedict (as attested in a manuscript from 1470) and only later
adapted as a prayer to St. Jerome.197
What distinguishes the Bohemian copy of the oration from other
versions, though, is a small but important textual variation. The
Bohemian author, in his keen desire to draw attention to Jerome’s
services to the Slavs, sacrificed a eulogizing line in the very begin-
ning of the poem—“Doctorque eximie” (and extraordinary doc-
tor)—in order to insert the line “Sclavorum apostole” (the Slavic
apostle or the apostle of the Slavs), thus managing to preserve the Sclavorum apostole
poem’s rhyme and meter:

Analecta Hymnica 15, n. 184 Oracio de sancto Jeronimo

“Dispensator scripturarum “Dispensator scripturarum,
Jeronyme tu sacrarum, Jeronime, tu sacrarum,
Doctorque eximie, Sclavorum apostole,
Protege me supplicantem, Protege me supplicantem,
Serva tibi famulantem, Serva tibi famulantem,
Excelse Christicole.” Excelse celicole.”199
198

(O Jerome, the steward of (O Jerome, the steward of the

the Holy Scriptures, and ex- Holy Scriptures, the apostle of
ceptional doctor, protect and the Slavs, protect and guard
guard me, your servant and me, your servant and humble
humble supplicant, o exalted supplicant, o exalted worshiper
worshiper of Christ.) of heaven.)

A similar editorial technique is found in the Cheb Office to St. John of Teplá, Cheb
Jerome, which is included among the masterpieces of Czech man- Office to St. Jerome
uscript illumination on account of its majestically and unusually
ornamented title page and decorated initials.200 According to a

111
 The Slavic Letters of St. Jerome

colophon at the end, the manuscript was commissioned by the

Cheb (Eger, in German) burgers Nicolai Zychner (Czychner) and
Nicolai Hasenzagl (Hasenczagl) for the consecration of the altar
altar to St. Jerome at St. at St. Nicholas Church devoted to St. Jerome.201 The Office was
Nicholas Church composed in 1404 by John of Teplá (ca. 1350–1413/15), the author
of the famous rhetorical and poetic composition Der Ackermann
John of Teplá, Der Ack- aus Böhmen (The Ploughman from Bohemia).202 The appointments
ermann aus Böhmen of John of Teplá, in the years circa 1383–1411, as a public notary
of the bilingual town of Žatec (Saaz, in German); as the rector of
the Latin grammar school there; and, from 1411 to his death, as a
notary of Prague’s New Town, attest to his proficiency in Czech,
John of Teplá & John of Latin, and German.203 Of particular note is John of Teplá’s literary
Neumarkt connection with John of Neumarkt, whom he perceived as his pre-
cursor in German prose: literary critics characterize John of Teplá’s
style as showing the strong influence of John of Neumarkt’s prose,
modeled on the Latin classicizing style of Italian humanists.204
Vita et Gesta Sancti The Office to St. Jerome consists of several pages of notated
Jeronimi hymns, followed by the narrative Vita et Gesta Sancti Jeronimi (The
Life and Deeds of St. Jerome) in six lectures.205 That the hymnal por-
tion of the Office is attested in several manuscripts speaks of a rela-
tively wide circulation. The lectures are masterfully compiled from
Jacobus de Voragine, several sources, among which are Jacobus de Voragine’s Legenda
Legenda Aurea Aurea, John of Neumarkt’s version of the Hieronymus, Sigebert of
Hieronymus
Sigebert of Gembloux,
Gembloux’s Chronicon, and several biblical books.206 One of John
Chronicon of Teplá’s creative touches is the inclusion of a passage about Je-
Jerome knew Slavic, rome’s competence in the Slavic language prior to his learning of
Greek, Latin, & Hebrew Greek, Latin, and Hebrew. In the opening section of the first lec-
ture, which reproduces the Legenda Aurea, the author inserted the
clause “sclavonica ligwa fruens” (enjoying/speaking the Slavonic
tongue) in the sentence “Hic puer adhuc Romam adiit” (While still
a youth he went to Rome):

Legenda Aurea, Cap. 146. Cheb Office to St. Jerome,

Vita et Gesta
“Ieronymus Eusebii viri nobilis “Hieronymus Eusebii viri nobilis
filius ab oppido Stridonis quod filius, ab opido Stridonis quod
Dalmatie et Pannonie confinia Dalmacie et Pannonie confinia
tenet exstitit oriundus. Hic adhuc tenet extitit oriundus. Hic puer
puer Romam adiit et litteris adhuc Slauonica ligwa fruens
Grecis, Latinis et Hebraicis plene Romam adiit, et litteris grecis,
eruditus est.”207 latinis, et hebraicis est plene et
uberrime eruditus.”208

112
 Bohemia

(Jerome was the son of a noble- (Jerome was the son of a noble-
man named Eusebius and was man named Eusebius and was
a native of the town of Stridon, a native of the town of Stridon,
which lay on the boundary be- which lay on the boundary be-
tween Dalmatia and Pannonia. tween Dalmatia and Pannonia.
While still a youth he went to While still a youth, speaking the
Rome and became thoroughly Slavonic tongue, he went to Rome
proficient in the Latin, Greek, and and became thoroughly and fully
Hebrew languages and letters.) proficient in the Latin, Greek, and
Hebrew languages and letters.)

In the hymnal section of the Office, too, John of Teplá inserted

references to Jerome’s Slavic origin, for example: “Hic specimen specimen Slawonie
Slawonie / is doctor sapiencie / hic speculum ecclesie / exemplar
sanctimonie” (Behold the scion of Slavonia, / The teacher [doctor]
of wisdom. / Behold the mirror of the Church, / The example of
sanctity),209 and “Lucis lumen lucet clarum / quod gingnit Slavonia
/ vasta mundi graciarum / luce lustrat spacia” (The bright torch of
light shines, / Which Slavonia begets, / And it illuminates with the
light of Grace / The vast expanse of the universe).210 The number
of Slavic references in the Cheb Office to St. Jerome, written by a
German-Bohemian author, is particularly notable given the fact
that contemporaneous Latin poetry devoted to St. Jerome in man-
uscripts of non-Slavic provenance contains virtually no mention of
Jerome’s association with the Slavs.211
Among Jerome’s ardent admirers in Bohemia was also the famous John Hus: gloriosus
Czech religious reformer John Hus, who habitually calls Jerome “a Slawus Ieronimus
glorious Slav” in his sermons, in phrases such as: “Hec gloriosus
Slawus Ieronimus super isto”212 (Here, the glorious Slav Jerome on
this), “. . . et gloriosum cristianum beatum Slavum Ieronimum”213
(the glorious Christian Blessed Slav Jerome), “Jeronimus beatus,
Slavus gloriosus”214 (Blessed Jerome, the glorious Slav). In addi-
tion, according to the explicit that Hus left at the end of his copy
of John Wyclif ’s philosophical treatises, he finished his work “na
den sv. Jeronýma Slovana” (on the day of St. Jerome, the Slav), that
is, on 30 September 1398. This copy also includes Hus’s anti-Ger-
man comments: “Haha, Němci, haha, ven, ven” (Ha-ha, Germans,
ha-ha, out, out).215 Indeed, for Hus, who advocated the use of the
Czech vernacular in church and the accessibility of the religious
word to common people, St. Jerome provided a valuable model.
After all, in his own time, Jerome translated and interpreted the

113
 The Slavic Letters of St. Jerome

Holy Scripture into Latin, which then was also a vernacular, thus
creating “the Vulgate” (vulgatus—“common, well-known”) version
noster Sclavus sanctus of the Bible.
Jeronimus Another reference to Jerome as “noster Sclavus sanctus Jeroni-
mus” (our Slav Saint Jerome) is found in the treatise on the rela-
tionship between the power of the pope and that of the emperor
John of Jesenice with the incipit Quia summum in rebus (1414), which is sometimes
attributed to Hus’s friend and advocate, John of Jesenice. This in-
stance of allusion to Jerome’s Slavic pedigree is often cited as evi-
dence that the treatise was composed by a Czech author.216

Implications of St. Jerome’s Recognition as a Slav in Bohemia

To a modern historian, the association of Jerome with Slavic
Christianity might seem a random oddity. But precisely because
this theory acquired limited acknowledgment elsewhere in Latin
Europe, its reception and recognition in Bohemian learned cir-
cles, outside of Dalmatia, Jerome’s alleged homeland, is revealing
veneration of St. Jerome
and indicative of an emerging trend that cast Slavic identity as
as a Slav reveals the
awareness of Slavic meaningful and politically advantageous.217 Owing to the Croa-
identity tian Glagolites, the cult of St. Jerome that developed in Italy, and
that had focused on Jerome as a humanistic scholar and miracle-
worker, acquired in Bohemia an additional dimension—the saint’s
repute as a scion of the Slavs and their apostle. This is particularly
notable given the absence of any Slavic references in devotion to
Jerome in non-Slavic communities. Having been introduced in
Bohemia, Jerome’s Slavic-Croatian background inspired intellec-
tuals to contemplate the connection between the Czechs and the
Slavs in general and Croatians in particular.
The Benedictine Slavonic Monastery of St. Jerome in Prague,
which inaugurated the king-sponsored cult of Jerome in Bohemia,
favorably combined the representation of the fundamental Chris-
tian doctrine of soul salvation (as expressed in the mural typologi-
St. Jerome elevates the cal cycle) with elevating the prestige of the local Slavo-Bohemian
position of Slavs in
Western Christendom Church. As a Slav and a biblical translator, St. Jerome found his
due place next to Sts. Cyril and Methodius in their capacity as the
apostles of the Slavs and the Czechs. At the same time, his author-
ity as a doctor of the Latin Church elevated his Slavic kinfolk in
Bohemia to a privileged place in Western Christianity, a task that
Charles considered central to his Bohemian politics. Perhaps this

114
 Bohemia

is why the Slavonic Monastery was among the earliest foundations St. Jerome’s Slavic
alphabet is a symbol of
that Charles established in Prague’s New Town. St. Jerome’s Slavic
the union between the
(Glagolitic) letters, which firmly attached a native Slavic liturgical Slavs & Rome
tradition to the Western Church, became a perfect symbol of the
union between the Slavs and Rome.
The association of Jerome’s alphabet with a Slavic tongue, which
gave legitimacy to the Roman Slavonic rite, also raised the Slavic
vernacular to a lingua nobilis, strengthening its position vis-à-vis
Latin and creating a favorable ideological setting for the emer-
gence of the Czech Bible, the first vernacular translation among the because of St. Jerome,
Slavs. However, St. Jerome’s eminence—both in his role as a bibli- Slavic vernacular be-
comes lingua nobilis
cal scholar and as a Slavic apostle—remained limited to learned
circles and did not grow into a popular cult, as did, for instance,
the devotion to St. Vitus of Sicily, or St. Sigismund of Burgundy,
who were also both promoted by Charles IV.
On the margins of this discussion there emerges an interesting
paradox of Charles’s universalistic politics: his conception of a uni-
fied Roman Empire included, and even encouraged, a multiplicity
of languages, ethnic groups, and ecclesiastical rites, while simulta- politics of Charles IV
neously excluding any nationalist undertones. This universalistic
principle was based on the concept of the empire’s heterogeneity,
not its uniformity. (In this respect, Charles IV stands as a modern
European politician.) The foundation of the Slavonic Monastery of
St. Jerome in Prague embodies this paradox. The Glagolites’ prac-
tice of observing the Roman rite in the Slavic language, and their
attribution of the Slavic alphabet to St. Jerome, elegantly reconciled
the unique with the universal in Charles’s political symbolism and
served his political goal of firmly situating Bohemia, the country of
Slavs, in the center of the Holy Roman Empire.

115
 4
Silesia
A Provincial Exploit

Eximie virtutis beati Jeronimi merita gloriosa quemadmodum per orbis terrarum
spacia late diffusa sunt, vt iam in omnem terram laudis eius dulcis quidem sonus
exiuerit, ita procul dubio eius patrocinia sunt cunctis eum inuocantibus fructuosa.
(So widely are the extraordinarily celebrated merits of blessed Jerome’s excellence
known around the whole world that to all lands the sound of his sweet praise reached,
and so his protection is certainly valuable to all those who call upon him.)
—John of Neumarkt to Charles IV (1370/1371)1

T he prosperity of the Slavonic Monastery in Prague gave the

cult of St. Jerome a strong institutional base in Bohemia
and put the Slavonic rite and Glagolitic letters into the spot-
light. Its fame traveled to Silesia and Poland where, following its
example, two daughter monasteries were established. In 1380,
Duke Conrad II of Oleśnica founded the Monastery of Corpus
Christi for the Prague Glagolites at his seat Oleśnica (Oels) in
Lower Silesia. Ten years later, in 1390, the Prague Glagolites
were summoned to Kleparz, a suburb of Cracow, where Queen
Jadwiga and King Władysław Jagiełło founded the Monastery
of the Holy Cross for them. The fact that the Prague Glagolites
were invited to introduce their special Roman Slavonic rite in
Silesia and Poland is intriguing and thought-provoking. But
historians have found it difficult to pinpoint the reasons for,
and implications of, these foundations, and thus these ques-
tions remain open.2
 Silesia

The Slavonic Monastery

Indeed, in the case of the Slavonic Benedictine Monastery of
Corpus Christi at Oleśnica, there are more questions than answers
regarding the circumstances of its foundation, its purpose, and the Conrad II establishes
role that it played in local religious life. The foundation charter of the Slavonic Monastery
21 September 1380, signed by Duke Conrad II of Oleśnica and of Corpus Christi in
Oleśnica
Koźle (1366–1403), sheds surprisingly little light on these ques-
tions.3 The document stresses Conrad’s personal invitation to the
Slavonic brothers, suggesting that he acted as the main founder
and patron of the monastery:

[B]ut with a deliberate mind and from our own certain knowledge, and
with the name of Christ invoked, we have assigned, and by the contents
of this letter assign, [a place] to the abbot and the convent of the Slavic
brothers, members of the order and rule of St. Benedict, where they live
for the time being, having been summoned from Prague by us, who to-
gether would possess and hold it for all time with every honor and privi-
lege of liberty and joint possession that other monasteries and canonical
[i.e., not secular] places [. . .] enjoy.4

The document specifies the exact location for the construction of

the church, monastery, and utility buildings for the Slavonic Bene-
dictines. The designated area was situated close to the city walls, Wartenberg (Syców)
Gate and the Duke’s
not far from the Wartenberg (Syców) Gate and the place commonly Apple Yard
known as the Duke’s Apple Yard.5 To support the daily needs of
the monastery (“pro Vitae necessitatibus sustentationem”), Conrad
allocated the income from the parochial church in Przeczów with
all its possessions, as well as income from a number of mills and
farms.6 According to the document, the Slavonic brothers were pastoral care
given permission to preach and conduct services on all days and
holidays, with the exception of Easter, Christmas, Pentecost, and
the Assumption of the Virgin Mary, during which the main paro-
chial church’s right to celebrate Mass with a presentation of relics
was stipulated:

And also we desire and order with the consent of the aforesaid parson
that the abbot, the convent, and the aforesaid brothers be able to preach
the word of God in the aforesaid monastery on all holidays, except for
certain holidays, evidently Easter, Pentecost, the Assumption of Mary,

117
 The Slavic Letters of St. Jerome

the Nativity of the Lord—these four days of the year, when the solemn
Mass is accustomed to be celebrated in the presence of saints’ relics in
the city of Oleśnica, at the parochial church.7

Conrad’s foundation charter reveals the involvement of a strik-

ing number of local and general Silesian ecclesiastical officials.
Among those who endorsed the foundation were the head of the
Oleśnica parochial church, Nicholas of Smolna,8 and—the of-
fice of a bishop being vacant at that time—the administrators of
James Augustini of the Wrocław (Breslau) diocese, Archdeacon James Augustini of
Legnica, Matthias of Legnica (Liegnitz) and Matthias of Pannewitz.9 Conrad likewise
Pannewitz
emphasizes the consent of the parson, Phillip, to provide the pa-
rochial church in Przeczów with required pastoral activities for
the benefit of the Slavonic brothers. On the whole, Conrad’s docu-
ment seeks to incorporate the new monastery firmly in the local
ecclesiastical community, which at the turn of the fourteenth cen-
tury oversaw the pastoral care of many Polish-speaking parishio-
ners in Oleśnica:10

And so we ask with all due earnestness of our prayers that this be in-
corporated, implemented and put in practice in all respects by the lords
prefects in charge forever to the use of the abbot, convent, and the mon-
astery of the previously named brothers, and likewise be supported by
the authority of the church officials (ordinaria), so that they [i.e., the
brothers] endure steadfast forever, by the contents of the present letter.11

In general, the discourse of the foundation charter is very

businesslike: it talks at length about the location of the future
monastery, administrative issues, and people involved in this
matter. One important piece of information, however, is visibly
missing from this document. Beyond the conventional “hope
for eternal retribution” (spes retributionis aeternae), it does
not reveal any related historical circumstances or motives for
the foundation.12 The foundational document does not specify
the dedication of the monastery, but from a later document
dated to 10 August 1385, which mentions an “abbas monas-
terii Corporis Christi in Olsna ordinis sancti Benedicti frat-
rum Sclavorum” (abbot of the Slavonic Benedictine Monastery
of Corpus Christi in Oleśnica), we learn that it was eventually
dedicated to Corpus Christi.13

118
 Silesia

Hypotheses
A descendant of the Piast dynasty, Duke Conrad II was one of Conrad II
the most influential rulers in Silesia. He pursued a forceful and
practical economic policy, acquiring new lands and engaging in a
number of territorial and pecuniary disputes. In 1367 he pledged Charles IV
allegiance to Charles IV of Bohemia, receiving from him a number
of royal privileges. In 1377 he joined Louis I of Hungary and of Louis I
Poland in his military campaign in Galicia-Volynia.
The appearance in Oleśnica of the Slavonic Benedictines from
the Bohemian capital must have been caused by special circum-
stances. But the lack of any explanation for this event in the only
attested document leaves historians to conjecture and hypothesize.
A possible scenario of circumstances leading to this foundation
has been suggested by Stanisław Rybandt, who hypothesizes that
Conrad founded the monastery as a strategic maneuver and a
gesture toward the ecclesiastic authorities.14 It was necessitated by Conrad argues with the
his strained relationship with the Apostolic See on account of a Cistercians at Lubiąż
heated argument with the Cistercians at Lubiąż concerning Con-
rad’s sovereign rights over their property. The conflict, which start-
ed in 1378, escalated to the point that Conrad imprisoned the ab-
bot of the Cistercians, for which he was excommunicated by the
pope. Rybandt connects Conrad’s pious act of a monastery foun-
dation with the pope’s rescinding of the excommunication at the
beginning of 1380 (the quarrel itself ended only in 1382).
Rybandt has also argued that, although Conrad is presented as
an official founder in the foundation document, the spiritus mov-
ens of this project could have been the Augustinian canons regular
of the Abbey of the Virgin Mary on Piasek Island in Wrocław and,
specifically, their abbot, John III of Prague (1375–1386). Rybandt John of Prague
refers to several circumstances that point to John as a likely cham-
pion of the Slavonic monks in Oleśnica. He suggests that the Sla- canons regular of the
vonic monastery stood on the land that belonged to the Augustin- Virgin Mary on Piasek
Island in Wrocław
ian canons regular, not far from their hospital of St. George, and
that the Chapel of the Holy Cross and the Virgin Mary, which had
been built by Conrad’s mother Euthemia and assigned to the care
of the canons regular, became the basis for the Slavonic convent.
After Euthemia’s death in 1378, the canons regular lost funding for
the chapel and therefore welcomed the establishment of the new
monastery that brought a new endowment from Conrad. As a na-
tive of Prague, argues Rybandt, Abbot John was familiar with the

119
 The Slavic Letters of St. Jerome

Slavonic Benedictine Glagolites and was therefore a likely media-

tor in their move to Silesia, given that his name is listed first among
the witnesses on the foundation document as an acknowledgment
of his contribution.
It is certainly possible that Conrad had his own particular rea-
sons for establishing a new monastery, and that Abbot John of
Prague provided him with important assistance. Yet one cannot
but feel that a certain link—an impetus—is missing from this puz-
zling case of the “colonization” of Silesia by the Slavonic monks
from Prague. It is unlikely that their appearance in Oleśnica was
accidental. More likely than not, their expedition was conceived
of by an influential figure whose connections with Bohemia and
Silesia were strong and who, above all, had a special motive in in-
troducing the Glagolites in Silesia. Although no documents sur-
vive, circumstantial evidence suggests that such a figure could have
been the former chancellor of Charles IV and the bishop of Olo-
mouc, John of Neumarkt.
John of Neumarkt, see The scion of a German noble family in Silesia before becoming
also chapter 3 a royal notary in 1347, John was a canon of the Monastery of the
Holy Cross in Wrocław (1341–1344) and later a parson at nearby
Středa (Neumarkt).15 While he spent most of his career in Bohe-
mia and Moravia, he retained strong connections with his native
land, where the members of his family and friends continued to
reside. After leaving the royal chancellor’s office in 1374, John of
Neumarkt retired to his Moravian diocese and became engaged in
its administration.16 But when the office of bishop of Wrocław be-
came vacant in 1376 (after the death of its former bishop, Przecław
of Pogorzela, on 5 April 1376), he appealed to the pope for an ap-
John is appointed as pointment to the Silesian see.17 For various reasons—rivalry with
bishop of Wrocław another contender, Dietrich of Klatovy, the death of Charles IV (29
November 1378) and of Pope Gregory XI (29 March 1378), and
the beginning of the Western Schism—the negotiations lasted un-
til 1380, when John of Neumarkt was finally appointed to the
Wrocław bishopric.18 Unfortunately, he died on 23 December
1380, before assuming his office.
Thus, a number of clues lead to John of Neumarkt as a “person
of interest” in the case of the Oleśnica Slavonic Monastery. John’s
church politics encompassed several important concepts that the
Slavonic Glagolites represented. Their Roman Slavonic rite sig-
naled a unique ecclesiastical tradition linked to the legendary
Velehrad capital of Moravia, Velehrad, an ancient metropolitan site of the

120
 Silesia

early Moravian and Bohemian churches. Although John himself John of Neumarkt
& “the noble Slavic
composed in Latin and German, he had a soft spot for, as he called
language”
it, “the noble Slavic language.” John of Neumarkt also highly ad-
mired St. Jerome, with whom the Glagolites were associated. After John of Neumarkt &
all, he not only introduced and disseminated in Bohemia the Latin Jerome
belletristic work Hieronymus—a collection of the hagiographical
epistles on St. Jerome ascribed to Eusebius of Cremona, Augustine,
and Cyril of Jerusalem—but he also translated it into German.
John presented the Latin edition of the Hieronymus to Charles and
the German translation to Elizabeth, the wife of Charles’s younger
brother, the margrave John of Moravia. Most of the manuscripts of John of Neumarkt’s edi-
the Hieronymus originate from Prague and Olomouc locales. It is tion of Hieronymus
remarkable that apart from Prague, Olomouc, and Gdańsk, several
manuscripts have also been found in Wrocław. Anežka Vidmanová
believes that the spread of the Hieronymus in Bohemia, Moravia,
and Silesia should undoubtedly be credited to John of Neumarkt.19
John of Neumarkt’s devotion to St. Jerome was not limited to the
literary field. In the 1360s, as bishop of Olomouc, he engaged in
the reorganization and improvement of the religious life in his dio-
cese, including reforming the chapter administration. One of the John issues annual
innovations he introduced was to issue all annual statutes of the statutes on the feast day
of St. Jerome
chapter on 30 September, the feast day of St. Jerome.20 The statute
of 30 September 1373 explicitly confirms the feast day of St. Jerome
as the day of the chapter meeting.21
In May 1380, John confirmed the foundation of an altar dedi- altar to St. Jerome at the
cated to St. Jerome at the Přerov cathedral by his close associ- Přerov cathedral
ate, Sandor of Rambow, the archdeacon of Přerov and an official
of the Olomouc diocese.22 The foundational charter names two
persons, for whose souls vigils should be offered at this altar on
the feast day of St. Jerome: Wolfram of Pannwitz and Johannes Wolfram of Pannwitz,
Jurentam. The inclusion of the former name is easily explained: Johannes Jurentam
John’s close connection with the Pannwitz family of Kłodzko
(Kladsko, Glatz) has been well established.23 In his letter to Nich-
olas of Pannwitz (the dean of the Wrocław cathedral chapter)
from the period of 1364–1373, John refers to Nicholas’s brothers,
Wolfram of Pannwitz (the burgrave of Kłodzko) and Johannes of
Pannwitz, as “his patrons.”24 Another document that features one Matthias of Pannwitz
of the Pannwitz family members is Duke Conrad’s foundation
charter, where Matthias of Pannwitz is mentioned as the Wrocław
diocese official who has approved the foundation of the Slavonic
monastery in Oleśnica.25

121
 The Slavic Letters of St. Jerome

Matthias of Pannwitz and John of Prague, the abbot of the

Augustinian canons regular, are the primary suspects as John
of Neumarkt’s agents in the case. John’s reverence for St. Augus-
tine—he translated the Soliloquia ascribed to St. Augustine into
German—and his regard for monastic orders that followed the
Augustinian rule has been repeatedly pointed out by scholars.26
For example, on 10 March 1372, while in Wrocław, John of Neu-
markt presented a forty-day indulgence to the chapel of the Vir-
Premonstratensian Ab- gin Mary and St. Thomas at the Premonstratensian Abbey of St.
bey of St. Vincent Vincent, citing exclusively devotional motives.27 Incidentally, the
occasion for his visit to the Silesian capital was quite notable. He
arrived in a grand train of secular and ecclesiastical elite that ac-
Charles IV, Conrad II companied Emperor Charles IV to Wrocław. Among Charles’s
many attendees was also Duke Conrad of Oleśnica. The emperor
and his entourage gave special honor to the Augustinian Abbey of
Augustinian Abbey of the Virgin Mary on Piasek, arriving there in a celebratory proces-
the Virgin Mary on sion and confirming to the Augustinian canons regular all their
Piasek
previous privileges and freedoms.28
The clues and leads that link John of Neumarkt, the bishop of
Olomouc and the would-be bishop of Wrocław, to Silesian eccle-
siastical affairs and, specifically, to the Slavonic Benedictine mon-
astery in Oleśnica, could be, of course, coincidental. However,
his involvement, if it took place, would provide a missing ratio-
nale and context for the otherwise seemingly random venture of
Duke Conrad and Abbot John of Prague. It is even possible that
initially John might have acted on Charles’s behalf, or with his
consent, when he undertook to expand his imperial “Glagolitic
project” eastward. Charles strongly supported John’s candidacy
as the head of the Wrocław diocese until his death in 1378, and
it is possible that, by promoting the Prague Slavonic monks in
Silesia, John of Neumarkt was showing his gratitude for the royal
benefaction.29
If indeed John of Neumarkt was involved in the foundation of
the Slavonic monastery in Oleśnica, his death on 23 December
1380 explains why the project lost momentum so soon after its
inception. The subsequent history of the Slavonic Monastery
suggests that the local authorities had only a modest interest in
its well-being. Although Conrad deserves credit for enabling the
Slavonic monks from Prague to settle in Oleśnica, he did not
prove to be a caring patron. In 1392, when the Slavonic monks

122
 Silesia

found themselves in a difficult financial situation, Conrad did

little to support them, as two documents attested from that year
demonstrate.30 The Slavonic monastic community struggled fi-
nancially and most likely did not survive past the mid-fifteenth
century.31 Unfortunately, as of yet no other historical or literary
documents connected with the Slavonic Monastery of Corpus
Christi at Oleśnica have been discovered.

123
 5
Poland
In Prague’s Footsteps

[Bohemici concionatores] primi institutores religionis Christianae

apud polonos fuerunt.
([The Czech preachers] have been the founders of the Christian religion
among the Poles.)
—Jan Sandecki-Małecki, Defensio verae translationis Corporis Catechismi (1547)1

I n 1390, Jadwiga (1384–1399) and Władysław Jagiełło (1386–

1434) of Poland invited the Prague Glagolites to their capital
and founded for them the Monastery of the Holy Cross in Cra-
Jadwiga & Jagiełło cow’s suburb Kleparz. Jadwiga and Jagiełło’s decision to establish
establish the Monastery a monastery, where for the next several decades the Roman Sla-
of the Holy Cross in
Kleparz
vonic rite was observed according to books written in Glagolitic,
was one of the first among a number of monastic foundations and
quite unique in many respects. It is not surprising, therefore, that
it draws the attention of historians. The institution of the Slavonic
Monastery in Kleparz is slightly better documented than that of its
Silesian relative, but since there are almost no direct sources of this
event, one can only hypothesize about the intentions of the royal
founders and the purpose of the Czech monks in Cracow.
Two interpretations of this remarkable foundation have become
especially popular, often being presented as established facts in
non-specialized historiography. The first interpretation is that the
Slavonic Monastery in Kleparz was inspired by the lasting venera-
veneration of Sts. Cyril tion of the Slavic apostles Sts. Cyril and Methodius and the endur-
& Methodius ing tradition of the Slavonic liturgy in Poland. The second inter-
pretation is that Jadwiga and Jagiełło founded a monastery with
 Poland

the Slavonic rite for the purpose of a Catholic mission among the
Orthodox Ruthenians, who inhabited the eastern and southern Catholic mission
territories of the kingdom of Poland. Let us then consider these among the Orthodox
hypotheses in greater detail vis-à-vis the historical evidence that is
available to us.

The Slavonic Monastery of the Holy Cross at Kleparz:

Sources and Evidence
The main historiographic evidence of the monastery’s foundation
is provided by John Długosz (1415–1480), a canon of Cracow, dis-
tinguished Polish historian, diplomat, royal preceptor, clergyman,
and philanthropist, in two of his most famous works, the Annales
seu Cronicae Incliti Regni Poloniae (The Chronicles of the Renowned
Kingdom of Poland), and the Liber Beneficiorum dioecesis Cracovi-
ensis (The Book of the Benefices of the Bishopric of Cracow). In the John Długosz, Annales
Annales, under the year 1390, Długosz placed the following entry:

Władysław II, king of Poland, and his devout and most noble wife, Jad-
wiga, wishing to spread to the kingdom of Poland the eternal memory
of the Redeemer’s clemency, which exalted and splendidly honored the
race of Slavs by granting them a special favor so that all sacred services
and divine daily and nightly acts, and even mysteries of the Holy Mass
Slavic, Greek, Latin,
themselves, could be celebrated in that language [i.e., Slavic] (which we
& Hebrew as sacred
have seen happen to no other language except Greek, Latin, and He- languages
brew, with whose excellence divine goodness has compared the Slavic
language), and also wishing to show their usual munificence and their
gratitude to God for many favors and for victories that were attained
for them that year with divine help, and inspired by a similar example
that exists in Prague—the Slavonic Monastery of the Order of St. Bene-
dict—established, founded, and endowed [a similar monastery] to en-
dure under the Prague monastery’s regular observance, named in honor
of the Holy Cross outside the walls of Cracow, in the town of Kleparz,
not far from the Rudawa, during the pontificate of the bishop of Cracow
Peter Wysz, on Thursday after the feast of St. James the Apostle; and they Peter Wysz
enclosed both the choir and the nave with a beautiful bricked wall, built
magnificently and with expense; and they finished and completed the
choir of this church, along with a sacristy; the nave, however, they only
laid as a foundation (just as even today it is possible to see it plainly);
and for the monastery they built a wooden house with a garden, and

125
 The Slavic Letters of St. Jerome

established in it brothers [who were brought] from the Prague monas-

tery, giving to them twenty marks per year as an endowment, however
meager it may be, from the assessments and revenues of the Cracow
Church of the Holy customs; with the help of which even until my own day and under my
Cross own eyes this Church of the Holy Cross used to be run and administered
by the monks and brothers of St. Benedict both in divine affairs and in
all morning prayers and other ecclesiastic ceremonies, with sonorous
singing and reading in the Slavic language. Moreover, the most illustri-
ous Władysław, king of Poland, along with his most noble wife, Jadwiga,
had decided to give a sizeable endowment to that monastery and loca-
tion, which would be able to support thirty monks, besides household
servants and companions. He also had decided to build the monastery
Jadwiga’s death along with all of its cells and utility rooms with brick walls, but in the
meantime the most illustrious Queen Jadwiga was taken [from him] by
deadly fate. And when she died, all of the passion to which Queen Jad-
wiga used to stir him with her encouragement was extinguished, and
all of the work up to that day, all construction on the church and the
monastery, was put aside.2

John Długosz, Liber The above-quoted narrative appears verbatim in part 3 (titled
Beneficiorum
Monasteria) of Długosz’s Liber Beneficiorum, which he composed
around 1474–1476,3 with the sole omission of a short passage, as
will be discussed below. Importantly, this time Długosz provides
a couple of details about the current affairs of the monastery and
includes a copy of Władysław Jagiełło’s foundation letter from 28
July 1390:

For verification of the present circumstances we include a copy of the

king’s privilegium. Moreover, on account of the lack of monks from the
Georgius Lithwos Order of St. Benedict, who could run the church in Slavic, the secular
priest Dominus Georgius Lithwos rules and administers it now, and not
without a cause for offence and injustice to the endowed. The content
privilegium of the king’s privilegium is as follows: “We, Władysław, by the grace of
God, king of Poland, the Grand Duke of Lithuania, Grand Prince and
heir of Rus, etc., indicate to those who will be in the possession of this
note, at present and in the future, to everyone in whose charge this is,
that because we are burning with the zeal of genuine devotion and long-
ing to anticipate the final day of judgment with the deeds of compassion
and to procure the surety of salvation for us, we, unfading, faithfully put
aside whatever we graciously expend for the honor of the holy houses to
increase the divine worship for a chapel (which we have decreed must

126
 Poland

be established for the beginning and foundation of a cloister monastery

of the Slavic brothers of the Order of St. Benedict dedicated in honor
of the Passion of Jesus Christ),4 that is, twenty marks—Polish in number the Passion of Jesus
and weight, forty-eight groschen per mark, in whatever manner counted— Christ
from our custom duties, in whichever year we allotted them, and we
assign [them] through the contents of this [letter]. And indeed over this
chapel, up till the present time, devout Wenceslas, a brother of the Or-
der of St. Benedict of the Slavs, who stands out to us as praiseworthy Brother Wenceslas
for the probity of his ways, ought to preside, and to receive these funds
for as long as it takes for the monastery-cloister for the Slavic brothers
of the said Order of St. Benedict to be built, endowed, and enriched by
abundant revenue. Therefore we entrust to you, citizens of Cracow or
custom officers, who by circumstance will be in charge, by our firm royal
rights [regalia], that you be responsible to give and assign to this brother
Wenceslas, or whoever will be by circumstance in the established cha-
pel, in any given year twenty marks from our custom duties, in four in-
stallments of five marks, as is convenient to him. And with respect to the
aforesaid donation, for the sake of continuous recompense, two masses
for our health and welfare should be read in that same chapel every
week, by the evidence of this letter, to which in our presence our seal is
appended. Given at Cracow on the fifth day (Thursday) after the feast of
St. James the Apostle in the year 1390.”5

From these two sources the following facts can be deduced and
used as a basis for historiographic guesswork:
1. According to Długosz, the Benedictine Slavonic Monastery’s
function was to commemorate God’s grace for granting the Slavs
the unique privilege of praising the Lord in their own language
and for helping the kingdom of Poland to attain recent military
victories.
2. The new foundation in Kleparz was not only inspired by the
success of the famous Slavonic Monastery in Prague but also was
supposed to be supervised by its Czech progenitor, a circumstance
that does not usually receive much consideration.
3. Although the foundation document is signed by Jagiełło,
Długosz considers Jadwiga to be the chief mastermind of the Sla-
vonic Monastery, as he regrets that the construction of the build-
ings was left unfinished after her death because Jagiełło lost inter-
est in this project.
4. The original plan of the monastery was envisioned on a grand
scale: brick walls were intended to surround the church and a

127
 The Slavic Letters of St. Jerome

cloister-based structure with a garden, big enough to house 30

monks not counting household servants. At the same time, the
donation for this project was relatively modest: it included funding
the initial construction and a twenty-mark annual income afterward,
which was deemed the responsibility of the “citizens of Cracow.”
5. In return, the Glagolite Benedictines were expected to per-
form all daily and nightly services, including the Holy Mass, and
to administer all sacraments, all in Slavonic.
6. Lastly, it is clear from Długosz’s note that by 1474–1476 (when
part 3 of the Liber Beneficiorum was composed) there had been
no Slavonic monks in the monastery for quite some time and the
operation of the church had passed to the Latinate administration.
Although the data on the Slavonic Monastery’s foundation are
not entirely obscure, as we learn many details about its construc-
tion, funding, and even about the king’s changing favors, the sourc-
es fail to provide historians with explicit answers to the questions
that they are most eager to resolve: Why was the Glagolitic mon-
astery established in suburban Cracow? Who is to be given credit
for the invitation of the Glagolite Benedictines from Prague? Is this
foundation connected to other political and religious transforma-
tions that took place in Poland in the late 1380s and the 1390s?

The Cult of Sts. Cyril and Methodius in Poland?

Hypothesis and Evidence
Answers to the above questions usually belong in the realm of
conjecture. It has been suggested that one of the factors that led
to the foundation of the Slavonic Monastery at Kleparz was the
recently adopted notion of Slavic distinction, which had been in-
spired by the existence in Poland of the cult of the Slavic apostles,
Cyril and Methodius.6
Cyrillo-Methodian
As noted in chapter 1, most historians negatively answer the
mission & Poland
question of whether the original Cyrillo-Methodian mission ever
reached Poland. If the Slavonic rite was not introduced in Poland
before 1390, the assumption that the cult of Cyril and Methodius
existed in the Polish Church before that time has no foundation.
A number of attempts have been made to trace the continuity of
the cult of the Slavic apostles in Poland from Moravian times, or
to date it to before the arrival of the Benedictine Glagolites from
Prague. But—just as in the case of the Slavonic rite itself—these

128
 Poland

attempts have met with a persistent lack of reliable evidence and

remain, therefore, unconvincing.
The earliest attested Polish source featuring Cyril and Methodius
is a manuscript of the Cracow cathedral chapter, which contains
Passionale de Sanctis, a local version of the Legenda Aurea. This cel- Passionale de Sanctis
ebrated collection of saints’ lives also features several Slavic saints
(for example, Adalbert, Stanislaus, Wenceslas), among whom are
Cyril and Methodius (Vita Cirulli et Metudii). In his catalog of Vita Cirulli et Metudii
manuscripts of the Cracow cathedral chapter, Ignacy Polkowski
dated this manuscript to the first half of the fourteenth century.7
In a separate study, Polkowski described the legends of Cyril and
Methodius and, based on his dating of the manuscript, argued that
they must have been written at the beginning of the fourteenth
century.8 Since 1885, when Polkowski published his findings, many
publications, especially a frequently cited survey article by Wacław
Schenk from 1982, took Polkowski’s conclusions for granted and
assumed the existence of the cult of Sts. Cyril and Methodius in
the first half of the fourteenth century and sometimes even treated
it as a remnant from the time of the Cyrillo-Methodian mission.9
As early as 1904, in an extensive and well-grounded study,
Władysław Szcześniak convincingly challenged not only Polkowski’s
dating of the legends but the very existence of the liturgical cult of
Cyril and Methodius before the beginning of the fifteenth century.10
Turning to textological analysis, he established that the legends
about Cyril and Methodius had been composed with the help of sev-
eral sources, among them Gauderic’s Translatio St. Clementis (The Gauderic, Translatio St.
Translation of the Relics of St. Clement) from the eleventh century Clementis
and the Moravian Legend (Tempore Michaelis Imperatoris), a legend Moravian Legend
created in Bohemia in the second half of the fourteenth century that
substantiated the Velehrad theory.11 The Bohemian source, therefore,
immediately shifts the date of the appearance of the legends in Po-
land to no earlier than the end of the fourteenth century. Moreover,
Szcześniak rightly pointed out that the existence of legends does not
necessarily imply the existence of a liturgical cult and that similar
hagiographic collections circulated as edificatory reading and not as
liturgical books. He discussed all known early liturgical and non- cult of Sts. Cyril &
liturgical texts of Polish provenance related to Cyril and Methodius Methodius introduced
by the Prague Glago-
and proposed that their cult in Poland was first introduced by the lites
Prague Glagolites along with the Slavonic rite.12
By the vicissitudes of fate, Szcześniak’s book remained unno-
ticed by scholars and, most importantly, ignored by Schenk, whose

129
 The Slavic Letters of St. Jerome

promotion of Polkowski’s precipitate conclusions has misled many

historians, including Leszek Moszyński and Tadeusz Trajdos, into
assuming that the cult of Cyril and Methodius must have existed in
Poland before the arrival of the Slavonic monks in Kleparz. They
therefore erroneously conclude that the cult of Cyril and Methodius
in Poland played a crucial role in the foundation of the Slavonic
monastery in Kleparz, whereas in fact it was the opposite.13
Regardless of whether the Glagolites should or should not be
given credit for the introduction of the cult of Cyril and Metho­
dius in Poland, solid evidence suggests that it arrived from
Bohemia, where these saints were considered the apostles and
patrons of the Slavs and the Czechs. This could have happened
at the end of the fourteenth or the beginning of the fifteenth
John Štěkna century. It is certainly not a coincidence that John Štěkna, Jad-
wiga’s chaplain, her chargé d’affaires of the Prague college, and
one of the first professors of theology at Cracow, composed a
sermon on Sts. Cyril and Methodius.14 The first liturgical texts
about Cyril and Methodius are found in the Cracow Missal of
1410–1420, while the first mention of their feast day of 9 March
Cyril & Methodius is recorded in the Synod Statutes from 1436, which call Cyril
“patronis . . . huius regni” and Methodius “patronis . . . huius regni” (the patrons of this
kingdom).15 Importantly, the liturgical cult seems to be mostly
attested in the diocese of Cracow. Calendars from other dioceses
do not contain the names of Cyril and Methodius, while a num-
ber of Cracow breviaries from the 1440s and the second half of
the fifteenth century contain the Officia (Offices) devoted to Sts.
Cyril and Methodius that were adapted from Bohemian models.
While some of them call the saints “nostri apostoli et patroni”
(our apostles and patrons) after the Bohemian sources, others
cautiously omit this title.16
After the Glagolites from Prague had introduced the Slavonic rite
at Cracow, two other catalysts spurred the cult of Cyril and Metho-
dius in fifteenth-century Poland: the spread of Hussite ideas and a
much debated and anticipated church union with Rus’ around the
time of the Council of Ferrara-Florence (1438–1439).17 By the sec-
Matthew of Miechow, ond decade of the sixteenth century, when Matthew of Miechow
Chronica Polonorum (ca. 1456–1523) was writing his Chronica Polonorum (1521), the
tradition of the Glagolites in Poland was already understood as a
continuation of the apostolic teachings of Sts. Cyril and Metho-
dius, as is evident from Matthew’s account:

130
 Poland

Around this time [i.e., the time of Leszko], under the Roman Emperor
Arnold and the Greek Emperor Michael, there arrived Cyril, the doctor
and apostle of all Slavs, and Methodius, equipped with Greek and Sla-
vonic, having been sent by the aforementioned Greek Emperor Michael
at the request of the leaders of the Slavs in Moravia; and by laying the
foundations for the Christian faith, they raised a church cathedral in
Velehrad, in Moravia. Eventually, they were summoned to Rome and
questioned as to why they celebrate the divine rites in the Slavic tongue
and not in Latin. To this they responded that it had been written: Let
every spirit praise the Lord. Therefore, after the disputes, the Roman
pontiff granted that God could be celebrated in the Slavic language, in
the same way as in Latin and Greek. This custom was observed up until
my time around Cracow in the Church of the Holy Cross in Kleparz, but
now it no longer exists.18

Catholic Mission to the Orthodox Rus’?

Hypothesis and Evidence
Another widespread opinion about the Glagolites from Prague
that has been rooted in historiographic literature is that they came
to Cracow for the purpose of a Catholic mission in Lithuanian Rus’,
which had recently entered the sphere of Polish political influence
as a result of the dynastic union between the former grand duke
of Lithuania Jogaila and the young monarch of Poland, Jadwiga of
Anjou (1385–1386). Indeed, a Catholic mission among the Ortho-
dox Ruthenians may be seen as a logical extension of the Chris-
tianization of pagan Lithuania, in which Jogaila—now Władysław
II Jagiełło—eagerly engaged after he had become king. Likewise,
Jagiełło’s keen interest in the church union throughout his reign
led most historians to think of the Monastery of the Holy Cross at
Kleparz as a missionary site for the sake of the Orthodox Ruthe-
nians.19 Specifically, in the dedication of the monastery first to the
Passion of Christ and later to the Holy Cross, they have recognized
the promotion of a personal cult of Jagiełło as a baptizer of Lithua-
nia and the idea of the apostolate and evangelization.20 The histori-
cal circumstances, however, no matter how relevant and plausible,
may not serve as evidence or justification by themselves. Rather,
historical context should put to the test and verify what little we
know about the foundation of the Slavonic Monastery in Kleparz
and the Prague Glagolites who made it their new home.

131
 The Slavic Letters of St. Jerome

Historical Background
Kievan Rus’
In the aftermath of the Mongol invasions and the disintegration
of Kievan Rus’ in the course of the thirteenth century, Lithuania
Vytautas of Lithuania
and Poland gained control over the now weak and divided Rus’
principalities.21 By the start of Grand Duke Vytautas’s reign (1392–
1430), most of the former Kievan Rus’ lands lying in present-day
Ukraine and Belarus had been incorporated into Lithuania, except
for Galicia and the parts of Podolia and Volynia that had earlier
Galicia, Podolia,
Volynia been annexed to Poland by Casimir III the Great (1333–1370).
Although Orthodox Ruthenians accepted the political authority
of their conquerors, they did not change their customs and reli-
gion. They adhered to Orthodoxy and, despite the political divide
between Ruthenia and northeastern Rus’, ecumenically shared
the metropolitan of Kiev and All Rus’, who was appointed by the
Orthodox Ruthenians
patriarch in Constantinople. Moreover, the Ruthenians spread
their own literacy to the illiterate Lithuanians, who adopted their
language of writing for state administration and the legal system,
while some Lithuanian nobles even converted to Orthodoxy.22
Rus’ chronicles contain conflicting information about Lithuanian
princes’ religious views: it seems that they easily converted to the
Orthodox form of Christianity, if only to please their Ruthenian
subjects, and then easily reverted to paganism.23 Whatever the case
may be, Lithuanian leaders were tolerant of the Orthodox customs,
provided, of course, that these customs did not come in direct con-
flict with their indigenous lifestyle.
The 1380s saw the political union between pagan Lithuanians
Teutonic Order
and Orthodox Ruthenians augmented by another partner. The mis-
sionary claims of the Prussian Teutonic Order, crusading against
heathen Balts, made the Lithuanian princes look for a strong ally.
Two neighboring powers were capable of confronting the Teutonic
Knights: Muscovy and Poland. In 1384, the Grand Duke Jogaila—
who, if not Orthodox himself, was raised by an Orthodox mother,
the Rus’ Princess Iuliania of Tver—entertained a proposition from
Muscovy for a dynastic alliance with Sophia, daughter of Grand
Sophia, daughter of
Dmitrii Donskoi Prince Dmitrii Ivanovich (Donskoi).24 In exchange, Jogaila was ex-
pected to be baptized in the Orthodox rite and “announce his bap-
tism publicly.”25 However, the offer of Jadwiga’s hand the following
year made him accept the Polish crown for himself and Roman
Christianity as the new faith for his heathen Lithuanian subjects.26
Thus in 1386, four years before the foundation of the Slavonic

132
 Poland

Monastery at Kleparz, the Grand Duke Jogaila wed Jadwiga of Po-

land and became Władysław II Jagiełło of Poland, the founder of
the Jagiellonian dynasty.27 This matrimonial union promoted im- Jogaila marries Jadwiga
portant political alliances between Lithuania, which was half pa-
gan, half Orthodox, and Catholic Poland. If the Ruthenians had
been a mere minority in Poland before, the new partnership with
the Grand Duchy of Lithuania brought a greater number of Ortho-
dox Ruthenians into close contact with Catholic Poles, as well as
with newly converted Lithuanians.
Having become a Catholic, Jagiełło heartily engaged in the evan-
gelization of his native Lithuania, the last pagan stronghold in an Christianization of
Lithuania
otherwise Christian Europe. Yet the formal conversion of the Or-
thodox Ruthenians to Catholicism was not the Polish court’s of-
ficial policy and would not have been a realistic goal.28 Although
significantly limiting the rights of its Orthodox subjects in Galicia,
the Polish court never forced them to convert to Catholicism. This,
of course, did not discourage numerous missionaries, especially
the Dominican and the Franciscan friars, from encroaching upon
the Ruthenian lands, both in Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lith- Catholics & Orthodox
uania. As a result, the Orthodox Ruthenians resented the Catholic in Lithuania
presence in their lands.29 This religious heterogeneity presented
a challenge to the Polish monarchs and Lithuanian grand dukes,
who realized that the confrontation of the two Christian confes-
sions could only weaken their countries. Instead of proselytizing
Catholic faith, they sought alternative ways of winning the loyalty
of their Orthodox subjects and preventing them from seeking an
alliance with Poland’s rival, the Grand Duchy of Moscow. They per- Grand Duchy of
ceived as one of the foremost tasks gaining independence for the Moscow
Orthodox Ruthenian dioceses from the all-Rus metropolitan who,
after the Mongol invasion, left Kiev first for Vladimir and then,
by the 1330s, moved to Moscow. Following a short period in the Metropolitan Cyprian
1370s, when Patriarch Philotheos Kokkinos’s protégé, the Bulgar-
ian Cyprian, acted as an independent metropolitan of Lithuania,
this goal was finally achieved. In 1414, Cyprian’s compatriot, Greg- Gregory Tsamblak
ory Tsamblak, who had become Grand Duke Vytautas’s devoted
ally in church politics, was elected metropolitan of Lithuania, Kiev,
and all Rus’ by a synod of bishops as a contender to the Muscovite
metropolitan. As Constantinople was reluctant to accept Vytautas’s
candidate, the grand duke summoned another synod in Navahru-
dak to consecrate Tsamblak without the patriarch’s consent.
Another goal pursued by the Polish king and, to a lesser extent,

133
 The Slavic Letters of St. Jerome

the grand duke of Lithuania, was the establishment of church uni-

Jagiełło seeks church ty. Jagiełło’s ecumenical mind-set is eloquently demonstrated by
union
the beautiful and devotion-inspiring Orthodox frescoes that he
commissioned from Ruthenian icon painters for Gothic Catholic
chap­els in his royal castles and a number of churches.30 In terms
of ecclesiastical politics, almost immediately after becoming king
of Poland, Jagiełło started pursuing the idea of a union between
the Orthodox and Catholic churches. In the 1390s, recognizing
that it could not be done within the geographical space of Poland
and Lithuania alone, he engaged in negotiations with the patriarch
of Constantinople.31 When these negotiations proved fruitless, he
appealed with the same proposition to the Council of Constance
Council of Constance (1414–1418).32 One of his letters from 1417 relates his efforts to
bring “this old rebellion of the Greeks” (illa veterna Grecorum re-
bellio) to union with Rome. In another letter, Jagiełło notifies the
council that he has entrusted the mission of negotiating a church
union to Metropolitan Gregory Tsamblak, whom he presents as
the “metropolitan of all Rus’ and the eastern region” (metropolitus
tocius Russie ac plage orientalis).33
Tsamblak at Constance In February 1418, Gregory Tsamblak traveled to Constance
as head of the Ruthenian delegation on behalf of Vytautas and
Jagiełło. Escorted by the primate of Poland, Archbishop Nicholas
of Gniezno, and Bishop James of Płock, he was received at a gen-
eral consistory by Pope Martin V. Gregory’s mission at the council
was delicate. On the one hand, he was obliged to seek a union in
order to procure religious harmony and stability in Poland and the
Grand Duchy—a task that he perceived as separate from achiev-
ing a union between the Roman and Greek Churches. On the
other hand, as a true Orthodox, Tsamblak was unwilling to accept
Eulogy of the Council what Rome called the “reductio Graecorum” (the restitution of the
Fathers Greeks). His Church Slavonic Eulogy of the Council Fathers calls
for reunion while skillfully upholding the Orthodox Church’s op-
position to papal primacy.34 Despite some scholars’ assumptions,
Gregory’s desire for reconciliation of the Orthodox and Catholic
Churches was sincere, but he saw no way to unity except through
the convocation of an ecumenical council.35
If Jagiełło was looking for practical solutions to unite the Catho-
lic and Orthodox Christians in his kingdom, then the Roman Sla-
vonic rite, imported by Charles IV from Dalmatia, indeed provided
Slavonic rite as instru- a suitable model. Undeniably if, as Charles IV had pointed out to
ment of church union Pope Clement VI, proselytizing among “the schismatics” was only

134
 Poland

an aspiration in Bohemia, it was a real opportunity in Poland and

the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. The use of Church Slavonic had
always been a salient feature of the Slavic Orthodox churches, and
it was perhaps the most important symbol of Ruthenian identity in
Lithuania and Poland. The Benedictine Glagolites demonstrated
that the Roman rite could also be observed in Church Slavonic,
that the two churches were not so far apart after all, and that a
common ground could be found. It is also possible that the Roman
Slavonic rite suggested that Slavic ethnic identity could lend itself
as a unifying principle for religious accord between Polish Catho-
lics and Ruthenian Orthodox. It is therefore not surprising that the
foundation of the Glagolitic monastery with the Roman Slavonic
rite in Kleparz has been largely explained in historiography in the
context of the recent Christianization of Lithuania and the desired
union with the Eastern Church. What is alarming, however, is that
even though attested documents bear no indication of a mission-
ary role played by the Monastery of the Holy Cross, this hypothesis
has gradually morphed into a sure fact.

Evidence
While historical circumstances may suggest a missionary pur-
pose for the Slavonic Monastery, no trace of any organized or sys-
tematic missionary activity by the Glagolites has been found. The
modest numbers and resources of the Slavonic brethren at Kleparz
could not even come close to the volume of missionary work al-
ready being carried out by the Franciscan and Dominican orders.36
While Jagiełło’s correspondence shows that he was interested in
a church union, there is no suggestion that enforced conversion
of the Orthodox Ruthenians to Catholicism was ever the Polish
court’s goal. If such conversion took place, it was a result of the
growing prestige of Catholicism in the Ruthenian lands of the
Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Moreover, unlike Charles IV, no historical documen-
tation of a mission
Jagiełło never referred to the Roman Slavonic rite and its potential
pragmatic importance in any of the official letters that he wrote
on the subject of the church union. Neither does Długosz men-
tion missionary plans for the monastery in his chronicle or the
Liber Beneficiorum, which otherwise contain many other, less im-
portant details. This suspicious lack of reference to a missionary
role of the Slavonic Monastery in primary sources raises questions

135
 The Slavic Letters of St. Jerome

concerning the viability of the hypothesis about any Catholic mis-

sion intended in Rus’.
Catholic texts in Ruthe- As historical documents keep silent, the only evidence is found
nian manuscript in indirect sources: literary contacts between the Glagolites and
Orthodox Ruthenians. A number of Catholic texts adopted by Or-
thodox writers show that the Kleparz Glagolites reached a Ruthe-
nian audience. Yet whether this contact occurred as a result of a
missionary activity remains questionable.
A group of Ruthenian texts, whose provenance may be traced
to the Slavonic Monastery at Kleparz, are attested to in a Cyril-
lic manuscript of Ruthenian provenance, a miscellany from Mos-
cow Synod Collection no. 558 at the State Historical Museum. It
is a compilation of various texts written by a number of scribes at
the end of the fifteenth and the beginning of the sixteenth centu-
ries.37 The fascicle that dates to the last quarter of the fifteenth cen-
tury contains several texts that were probably made at the Kleparz
Monastery of the Holy Cross.
Ruthenian Marian The first text in this group is the Ruthenian Roman Mass in Honor
Mass of the Virgin Mary.38 František Mareš has convincingly demon-
strated that the Ruthenian translation was made from one of the
Hrvoje’s Missal fourteenth-century Croatian missals (close to the Hrvoje’s Missal)
at the Monastery of the Holy Cross in Kleparz by an Orthodox Ru-
thenian (or Belarusian, as Mareš calls him), who was familiar with
both Western and Eastern rites.39 Mareš has established that the
text of the Ruthenian Marian Mass corresponds to the Tridentine
Missa de S. Maria in sabbato III, as well as to the related fragments
from the Order and Canon of the Mass (Ordo et Canon Missae). The
Ruthenian Church Slavonic version follows the Croatian Slavonic
text very closely in its choice of syntax and lexicon, suggesting
that the methodology of “translation” was not so much linguistic
as graphic (from the exotic Glagolitic into understandable Cyril-
lic) and terminological (from foreign Catholic into more familiar
Orthodox terms).40 However, the doctrinal character of the text is
clearly Catholic as the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, included
in the text of the Marian Mass, contains the Western insertion fili­
filioque oque (and from the Son).
Mareš has analyzed the text of the Mass and rubrics with ex-
planations of the service and has concluded that the Ruthenian
translation was not made to serve as a liturgical book or to educate
an Orthodox priest about the Roman rite. In Mareš’s opinion, the
translation was made for a layman as an explanation of the ser-

136
 Poland

vice. That person, he suggested, was Jagiełło’s fourth wife, Zofia Zofia Holszańska
Holszańska (1422–1461), who was brought up in the Orthodox
faith but who had to convert to Catholicism when she arrived in
Cracow to become Poland’s new queen.41
The Ruthenian translation of the Glagolitic Mass is followed by Pater noster, Ave Maria,
three Latin common prayers written in Cyrillic letters with trans- Credo in Cyrillic
lations into Ruthenian—“The Lord’s Prayer” (Pater noster), “Hail
Mary” (Ave Maria), and the short version of “The Apostles’ Creed”
(Credo).42 The precision of transcription and the quality of transla-
tions show that their author was a well-educated Ruthenian, liter-
ate in Latin and Cyrillic, and familiar with the theological tradi-
tions of both the Orthodox and Catholic churches. The doctrine
of these prayers, however, is visibly Catholic: the short version of
“The Apostles’ Creed,” common in the Western Church, was gen-
erally condemned by the Orthodox, and the exegesis of the other
two prayers is carried out in Catholic terms.43 The decision of the Ruthenian translations
author to translate the prayers into Ruthenian and not to use ex- of Latin prayers
isting corresponding Church Slavonic versions suggests that the
primary purpose of the project was to provide theological expla-
nation of the Catholic common prayers. The author transcribed
the original Latin prayers for recitation and supplied them with
Ruthenian translations for catechetic instruction. Such assistance
could be required for an Orthodox resident of Lithuania (secular
or novice) who needed guidance in the Catholic rite, provided, of
course, that this person was literate in Cyrillic letters.
The common prayers are followed by a fragment of the Latin Latin Marian Mass in
Mass in Honor of the Virgin Mary (with the theme of Annuncia- Cyrillic
tion), also written in Cyrillic by the same hand but not accompa-
nied by translation.44 The incipit and explicit of the Gospel read-
ing from Luke 1:26–38 (Annunciation) is indicated in Church Luke 1:26–38
Slavonic, which suggests that this Latin Mass was celebrated with
lesson readings and prayers in Slavonic.45 A comparison between
the fragment of the Latin Cyrillic Marian Mass and the beginning
of the Ruthenian Marian Mass reveals structural and textual simi-
larity both in the Mass text (including a peculiar version of the
Confiteor) and in rubrics that describe the service and introduce
speeches by the priest and the server. Moreover, the rubrics in the Ruthenian & Latin
Latin Cyrillic Marian Mass mimic the Ruthenian Marian Mass in Cyrillic Marian Mass
that, in rendering the Latin sacerdos (priest), they switch at approx-
imately the same place from the Polish Catholic term kaplan to the
Orthodox term pop.46 Numerous scribal errors and the manner of

137
 The Slavic Letters of St. Jerome

modification of the original record demonstrate that the attested

texts were copied, perhaps even several times. The last copier and
compiler of the Ruthenian miscellany clearly did not know Latin.
If we accept Mareš’s hypothesis that the Marian Mass was trans-
lated for Queen Zofia in the early 1420s, then we may also assume
that the Latin Cyrillic common prayers and the Mass were tran-
scribed and translated for her, although perhaps not by the same
person. While the date, authorship, and beneficiary of these litur-
gical texts are provisional, the ante quem date can be established
with fair certainty. These texts could not have been created after
the 1460s, by which point the Glagolites, whose assistance would
have been essential for such a theologically sophisticated project,
no longer inhabited the Kleparz Monastery of the Holy Cross (see
below).
Ruthenian Song of In the manuscript, the Marian Mass and common prayers fol-
Songs from Czech low a Ruthenian translation of the Song of Songs from the Czech
Bible, accompanied by an edificatory treatise.47 The presence of the
Song of Songs in this context is certainly not accidental: it is the-
matically connected with the cult of the Virgin Mary as a symbol
of the heavenly bride.48 That a copier or reader of the Ruthenian
Song of Songs associated its interpretation with the Marian cult is
clear from the comment, “interpret as the Most Holy Virgin Mary”
(ghxc^nêb ldw$b vfhbb hfpevzäb), on the margin next to verse 6:10,
“My dove, my perfect one, is only one, the darling of her mother”
(∑’lzf tc^ ujkÁ,jx^rf vjå ljrjzfkfå vjå ê’lbzf tc^7 vñ$hb cdjb d¥,hfzf
hjlbñêkmzbwb cdjt’b).49
The translator of the Ruthenian Song of Songs was aware of the
fact that the Czech source was a Catholic Bible (the Czech Bible
was translated—with corrections—from the Paris version of the
dialogical structure Vulgate), and he carefully translated it into the Orthodox language.
However, he adopted the dialogical structure of the Catholic
source, which frames the text as a conversation between the “soul”
or “bride” (who represents Ecclesia or Mary) and the “bridegroom”
(who represents Jesus Christ), uncommon in all other Orthodox
versions of the Song of Songs.50 The third redaction of the Czech
Bible, from which the translation was made, was prepared by a
single as-of-yet unidentified author during the second decade of
3rd redaction of the the fifteenth century.51 The Prague Glagolites took great interest
Czech Bible in the Czech Bible and even wrote it down in Glagolitic. It is very
possible then that they brought a copy to Kleparz, where it fell into
the hands of Ruthenian literati. The Ruthenian Song of Songs is fol-

138
 Poland

lowed by what seems to be an original edificatory commentary on

how to cultivate and express one’s love for God. It suggests a num-
ber of useful prayers for this purpose and offers contemplations
about love and its blessing.52
This group of texts ends with an incomplete copy of the Ruthenian Pope Eugene IV,
translation of the bulla of Pope Eugene IV at the Ferraro-Florentine “Laetentur Coeli”
Council, “Laetentur Coeli” (6 July 1439), which confirmed a union
between the Eastern and Western churches.53 The presence of the
bulla shows the Ruthenian scribe to have a sympathetic stance to-
ward church union, while other texts suggest that he was actively
interested in and favorably disposed to the Roman rite.
The appearance of the Ruthenian translation of the Glagolitic
Mass, the Cyrillic notation of Latin texts, and the Czech version
of the Song of Songs in a miscellany of Orthodox provenance
poses many questions regarding the origins of these texts. In all
three cases, the Ruthenian authors, and not the Glagolite donors,
seem to be active agents in this literary interaction. For this rea-
son, the Ruthenian translations may not serve as a strong proof of
the missionary activity of the Glagolites among the Ruthenians.54
However, the dissemination of these texts in the Orthodox milieu
suggests that the doctrinal and textual differences between the
Catholic and Orthodox in fifteenth-century Poland and Ruthenia
were not absolute. Above all, these texts show that, even if not as
a missionary resource center for Ruthenia-bound missionaries or
as a preparatory school for Catholicism-bound Ruthenians, the
Slavonic Monastery of the Holy Cross did contribute to the life
of the surrounding Ruthenian communities during its relatively
short existence.
Future studies may identify additional adaptations by Orthodox
Ruthenians of the texts originating in the Kleparz Slavonic Monas-
tery. But their modest number may not speak to a wide-scale mis-
sionary venture. Besides, the Slavonic Monastery at Kleparz was
not widely known in Ruthenia, and even over a century later, the
Orthodox were quite perplexed by the implications of the Roman
Slavonic rite. At the beginning of the seventeenth century, an ab- Zakharia Kopystens’kyi,
bot of the Kievan Caves Monastery, Zakharia Kopystens’kyi, wrote a Palinodia
polemical treatise, Palinodia, on the differences between the Eastern
and Western churches, in which he passionately contended the or-
thodoxy of the former. Supporting his argument that all Slavs, includ-
ing the Moravians, Czechs, and Poles, were baptized and first taught
faith by the Greeks, Kopystens’kyi claims that “the Czech Slavonic-

139
 The Slavic Letters of St. Jerome

rite monks from Prague living in Cracow belonged to the religion of

the Eastern Church.”55
The conclusions drawn above leave us with a question: If the
foundation of the Slavonic Monastery at Kleparz was not a re-
sponse to the cult of Sts. Cyril and Methodius or to the growing
Slavic awareness among the Poles, and if it was not intended for
the practical purpose of a Catholic mission to the Orthodox, nor a
random expression of piety of its founders (although this idea can-
not entirely be excluded), then what was the impetus and purpose
for the invitation of the Prague Benedictine Glagolites to establish
a dependency in Poland?

The Roman Slavonic Rite as Memorial to Slavic Christianity

John Długosz, Annales Długosz opens his account by stating that the monastery was es-
tablished to be a living monument in order “to spread to Poland
the eternal memory” (Sempiternum memoriale . . . diffundere) of
the Slavic tongue’s distinction by Divine Grace and, consequently,
of its parity with Latin. Evoking the style and spirit of the chroni-
cles of Charles IV, Długosz expresses pride in Slavic achievement
and uniqueness, noting that the king and the queen established the
Slavonic Monastery in order to spread to Poland

the eternal memory of the Redeemer’s clemency, which exalted and

splendidly honored the race of Slavs by granting them a special favor so
that all sacred services and divine daily and nightly acts, and even mys-
teries of the Holy Mass themselves, could be celebrated in that language
[i.e., Slavic] (which we have seen happen to no other language except
Greek, Latin, and Hebrew, with whose excellence divine goodness has
compared the Slavic language).56

We have no reason to doubt that the famous chronicler saw the

foundation of the Slavonic Monastery as commemorative, and that
he likely considered promoting the concept of the uniqueness of
Slavic Christianity in the eyes of God to be the principal mission of
the monastery. But can we accept the views of Długosz, who wrote
in the 1470s, as direct evidence? His interpretation may reflect his
own understanding of the reasons for this foundation but not nec-
essarily the reality of the 1390s. We are, therefore, left with the only
direct source for the establishment of the reasons for the monas-

140
 Poland

tery’s foundation—Jagiełło’s own testimony in the privilegium. This Jagiełło’s privilegium

document shows no awareness of the Roman Slavonic rite’s com-
memorative or emblematic meaning:

We, Władysław, [. . .] because we are burning with the zeal of genuine de-
votion and longing to anticipate the final day of judgment with the deeds
of compassion and to procure the surety of salvation for us, we, unfad-
ing, faithfully put aside whatever we graciously expend for the honor of
the holy houses to increase the divine worship for a chapel, etc.57

Both the foundation charter and Długosz’s chronicle point out

that the Slavonic Benedictines were expected to perform in Sla-
vonic not only the more “private” liturgy of the hours but also more
public and official liturgies, such as the Mass. As a ceremonial and Mass in Slavonic
communal celebration of the Christian faith and the mission of
the Church, liturgy was viewed as social performance and a rep-
resentation of the ideological values and beliefs of society.58 In the
Polish religious tradition, so deeply entrenched in Latinate culture,
celebrating the liturgy and administering sacraments in a Slavic
language should be interpreted as a political statement. The Slavic
tongue (or, at least, the ecclesiastical Slavonic of the Glagolites) was
seen as a medium through which praise could be directed to God.
If the new foundation at Kleparz was seen as a statement, it is
not difficult to guess who, in Długosz’s eyes, could be its addressee if
we recall that the years leading to the establishment of the Slavonic
Monastery were marked by Poland’s ideological and territorial
rivalry with the Teutonic Order. The Teutonic Knights resented rivalry with the
Teutonic Order
Poland’s recent union with the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, which
undermined their long-term effort to bring the light of true faith
to pagan Balts and, if possible, to schismatic Ruthenians. With-
out interrupting their own missionary activity, they cast doubt on
Poland’s commitment to Christianize Lithuania and sought the
support of, among other allies, the Czechs.59 In response, the Pol-
ish king and queen, conscious of the delicate nature of Jagiełło’s
position as a new convert governing a great number of Orthodox
subjects, defended their sovereign rights in the Grand Duchy. Even Długosz, Annales
in Długosz’s chronicle, the foundation of the Slavonic Monastery
in Kleparz is framed in the historical narrative of Poland’s dealings
with rebellious Lithuanians and the Order. In 1389, as Długosz conflicts with Vytautas,
Teutonic Order
relates, Jagiełło’s cousin Vytautas challenged the current viceroy-
grand duke of Lithuania Skirgaila. To this end, he made an alliance

141
 The Slavic Letters of St. Jerome

with the Teutonic Grand Master Conrad Zöllner, accepted baptism

from him, and relocated his family to the Order. In 1390, Jagiełło
campaigned against the troops of Vytautas and the Knights, and
took several towns and castles: Brest-Litovsk, Kamianets, and
Jadwiga goes to Galicia Hrodna. At the same time, Jadwiga headed a military expedition
to Galicia, anxious to reclaim the former Polish territories that had
been annexed by her father to Hungary and to stake her claim to
the Ruthenian dynastic heritage. Within a short time she took over
several key cities, such as Peremyshl’/Przemyśl, Halych, and Lviv/
Lwów, replacing all Hungarian and Silesian governors with Poles.60
In the chronicle, the description of the royal exploits in Lithu-
ania and Ruthenia is followed by an account of their foundation of
a monastery for Slavonic Benedictines “to show [. . .] their grati-
tude to God for many favors and for victories that were attained
for them that year with divine help,” which, in turn, is followed
by a report of yet another conflict with Vytautas and the Teutonic
Długosz describes the Order. Notably, this is the very passage that Długosz omitted from
Slavonic Monastery as a the entry on the Benedictine Slavonic Monastery in the Liber Ben-
memorial
eficiorum, where no relevant historical setting was present. This
omission makes the allusion to the victories in Lithuania especially
meaningful in the context of the chronicle, suggesting that Długosz
saw the foundation of the monastery not only as an expression of
its founders’ religious devotion but also as a strategic gesture.61 As
a commemoration of the victory over the Teutonic Order and the
territorial gains from Hungary, the new monastery with the Ro-
man Slavonic rite in Cracow served as a reminder of Slavic Chris-
tianity’s superiority.
Długosz’s representation gives him credit as an adroit interpreta-
tive historian. Yet it remains speculation whether the troubles with
the Teutonic Order had any significance for the introduction of the
Roman Slavonic rite in Poland and whether it was perceived by the
founders of the monastery in the same way Długosz interprets it—
as preserving “the eternal memory of the Redeemer’s clemency,
which exalted and splendidly honored the race of Slavs.”

Jadwiga—Patron of the Monastery

Despite the fact that the privilegium, which determined the logis-
tics of the new foundation, was signed by Jagiełło, Długosz regards
Jadwiga as the real patron of the Slavonic Monastery in the section

142
 Poland

of the chronicle in which he enumerates all her virtues: “she started

to found, endow, and build the monastery for the Slavonic brothers
devoted to Christ’s Passion, which remains incomplete because of
her death.”62 Likewise, in the chronicle account of the monastery Długosz, Annales
foundation, Długosz notes that Jagiełło did not appear to have an
independent interest in the project: “And when she died, all of the
passion to which Queen Jadwiga used to stir him with her encour-
agement was extinguished, and all of the work up to that day, all
construction on the church and the monastery, was put aside.”63
Even if this is not factually true, can Długosz’s interpretation help
us clarify the indistinct beginnings of the Slavonic Monastery?
If the figure of Jagiełło makes historians reflect upon the conse-
quences and needs of the Christianization of Lithuania, Jadwiga
inspires associations with deep religious devotion and the values
of intellectual and spiritual fulfillment that accompanied the re-
vitalization of the Cracow University at the end of the fourteenth
century.64 Jadwiga became a “king of Poland” when she was not yet Jadwiga a “king of
eleven. The daughter of Louis I Anjou of Hungary, Croatia, and Poland”
Poland, and Elizabeth Kotromanić of Bosnia, she claimed Polish
Piast dynastic heritage through her grandmothers, Elizabeth of
Poland, the sister of Casimir III (the Great), and Elizabeth of Kuy-
avia, the daughter of Casimir II of Kuyavia. She could even boast of
Ruthenian heritage through the marriages between the Piast and
Rurik dynasties.65 Jadwiga’s biographers note her extensive educa- Jadwiga’s education
tion and command of several languages (Latin, German, Polish,
Hungarian, Italian, and even Czech), although the extent of her
schooling before arriving in Poland and even literacy has been jus-
tifiably questioned.66
Despite her youth, Jadwiga showed herself to be an able mon-
arch. Historical sources speak of her abiding encouragement of
the church’s growth and improvement. Długosz credits her with an
impressive record of accomplishments and merits: she labored for Długosz, Annales
the spread of the Catholic faith; she completed the work of King Jadwiga’s religiosity
Casimir and built the principal educational institution of the king-
dom; attentive to liturgical needs, she established a group of sing-
ers and musicians (capella regia) at the Cracow Cathedral Church
for the perpetual glorification of God; she also founded a number
of altars and monasteries, including the Slavonic Monastery of the
Holy Cross.67 Considering Jadwiga’s remarkable religiosity and
South Slavic heritage (her mother was a daughter of the Bosnian
ban and her father was a king of Croatia and Hungary), she could

143
 The Slavic Letters of St. Jerome

have been herself familiar with the Slavonic tradition of the Glago-
lites and therefore eager to welcome this form of the Roman rite to
her capital in Poland.
studium generale & the In the same year that saw the foundation of the Slavonic Monas-
Slavonic Monastery in tery at Kleparz (1390), Jadwiga also engaged in the restoration of
Prague and Cracow
Casimir’s studium generale, which historians connect with the gen-
eral spirit of church reform in Poland.68 To postulate a connection
between the establishment of these two institutions would be to in-
dulge in speculation; yet this chronological concurrence is notewor-
thy when one recalls that around the time when Charles IV invited
the Croatian Glagolites to his capital, he also undertook to institute
the four-faculty university in Prague.69 While there may be no imme-
diate causal relationship between the organization of the university
with a faculty of theology, and the foundation of the monastery with
the Roman Slavonic rite, the concurrent appearance of these institu-
tions in Prague in the 1340s and in Cracow in the 1390s provokes the
question of whether these events are meaningfully related.

The Czech Trend

The above observed parallel may not be accidental. It certainly mir-
rors the general direction of new ideas and trends in intellectual and
religious life that came to the Polish capital from Prague. The king-
dom of Poland was not unaffected by the repercussions of the Great
(Western) Schism (1378–1417)—the critique of the papacy and of
church institutions and the yearning for religious reforms associated
with the values of learning and spirituality, which pervaded Western
Christianity at the end of the fourteenth century. Above all, the spirit
of regeneration rose from institutions of higher education and from
religious orders, which embraced the ideals of “the love of learning
and the desire for God.”70 In the last two decades of the fourteenth
century, it was to the expansion of these two key spheres of public life
that the efforts of the Polish monarchs were devoted.71
As a metropolitan and a university city, neighboring Prague pro-
Casimir establishes the vided models for imitation along with ideas and personnel for their
studium generale in realization. Inspired by Prague University, established by Charles
1364 IV in 1348, King Casimir III the Great founded a studium generale
in Cracow in 1364, with chairs mostly in law, but also in medicine
and liberal arts. However, while Prague University was modeled on
the university at Paris, Casimir followed the more secular model of

144
 Poland

Bologna and Padua, which did not include the study of theology.72
Incomplete at the time of his death, however, the studium gradually
fell into decline. Meanwhile, the four-faculty university (artium or
liberal arts, medicine, theology, and law) at Prague made the capi-
tal of Bohemia and the Holy Roman Empire an educational hub
for Polish intellectuals.73 By the turn of the century, the number of
Polish and Silesian students who constituted the Polish “nation” at
Prague University was approaching three hundred.
It is therefore not surprising that Prague’s studium generale was Czech academics in
instrumental in the restoration of Cracow University, which started Poland
around 1390, the year of the Slavonic Monastery’s foundation at
Kleparz. A great number of Cracow University’s new professors
were trained in Prague during the last quarter of the fourteenth
century: out of the first 11 rectors of the restored Cracow Univer-
sity, nine obtained their degrees in Prague.74 The career trajectories
John Isner
of its first professors, such as John Isner,75 John Štěkna (Szczekna),76
John Štěkna
and Bartholomew of Jasło,77 all the students of the renowned theo- Bartholomew of Jasło
logian and Prague professor Matthew of Cracow,78 demonstrate Matthew of Cracow
the esteem and prestige that the Bohemian intellectuals enjoyed
in Cracow. Although Matthew of Cracow himself did not join the
faculty of Cracow University, his involvement in the process of its
restoration and his role as a mentor of the new Polish intellectual
elite are apparent, as is his personal influence on Jagiełło and Jad-
wiga.79 In particular, his reformist views on practical theology and
new forms of devotion became the basis of the new Theological
Faculty at Cracow. restoration of the
The earliest sources that document the restoration of Casimir’s studium generale in
studium generale date to around 1390. Several sermons of Bar- 1390
tholomew of Jasło from 1390 (4 December) to 1392 are devoted to Bartholomew of Jasło
the renewal of the studium and show that the three faculties—Lib-
eral Arts, Law, and Medicine—were already functioning to some
extent in the early 1390s.80 The beginning of this process is likewise
connected with the return to Cracow in 1390 of the future bishop
of Cracow, Peter Wysz, who must have advised Jagiełło to invite Peter Wysz
Matthew of Cracow to help restore the studium.81 Although in his
sermons Bartholomew makes no mention of either Jadwiga or Pe-
ter Wysz and instead seems to attribute to King Jagiełło and the
bishop of Cracow, John Radlica, the leading role during these years,
the queen and Wysz played a key role in the restoration and in the
institution of the studium’s fourth, and most important, faculty, the Pope Boniface IX
decrees Faculty of
Faculty of Theology, which was decreed by Pope Boniface IX in Theology

145
 The Slavic Letters of St. Jerome

Jadwiga founds Lithu- 1397.82 Earlier in 1397, with the permission of King Wenceslas IV,
anian college in Prague Jadwiga also pledged to fund a college for young Lithuanians to
pursue the study of theology at Prague. Jadwiga’s foundation char-
John Štěkna ter names John Štěkna as the person overseeing this institution. As
a matter of fact, Štěkna was most likely the main mastermind of this
project as he also recommended a sponsor and the first adminis-
trator of the college—the wealthy Prague merchant Kříž, who was
also one of the founders of the Bethlehem Chapel.83 It is sometimes
suggested in historiography that Jadwiga’s fund was also intended
for Orthodox Ruthenians, even though there is no indication of
this in either the foundation charter or in the statute.84
Czech intellectuals at In the 1390s, the royal couple was surrounded by advisers and
Polish court spiritual mentors who were either of Czech origin or had been
educated in Bohemia.85 At their court, one finds, among others, a
zealous missioner and royal chaplain, Hieronymus (Jan Jeroným
Hieronymus of Prague Silván) of Prague; and his opponent, Hus’s associate and the fu-
Nicholas of Miličin ture preacher of the Bethlehem Chapel, Nicholas of Miličin;86 Jad-
John Štěkna wiga’s above-mentioned chaplain and deputy, John Štěkna; as well
Peter Wysz as her faithful adviser and confidant, Peter Wysz of Radolin,87 the
bishop of Cracow and the first chancellor of the restored university.
Wysz charged Henry of Bitterfeld, a Dominican from the Silesian
Brzeg and a Prague University professor, with the task of compos-
Henry of Bitterfeld, De ing a spiritually instructive treatise for Jadwiga. Written for and
vita contemplativa et dedicated to Jadwiga in 1391, Henry of Bitterfeld’s ascetic-mystical
activa
treatise, De vita contemplativa et activa (On Contemplative and Ac-
tive Life), aspires to reconcile the internal tension between the two
modes of human existence.88
With such a strong Czech presence in intellectual and religious
life in Poland, the arrival of the Slavonic Benedictines from Prague
appears quite natural and consistent with the general policy and
disposition of the court. Moreover, this was not the only monastic
Prague Carmelites in community to arrive in Cracow from Prague. During 1395–1397,
Piasek
Jadwiga and Jagiełło founded a monastery for the Prague Carmel-
ites in Piasek, a suburb of Cracow, which promoted the feast of the
Visitation of the Virgin Mary, propagated by Pope Urban VI.89
supervision by the The Slavonic Monastery in Prague not only supplied a model
Prague Slavonic Mon- and human resources for the new foundation, it was also sup-
astery
posed to function as its mentor and its motherhouse. Długosz
clearly states that the Kleparz outpost was expected to operate
under the supervision of the Prague monastery: “Władysław II,
king of Poland, and his devout and most noble wife Jadwiga [. . .]

146
 Poland

inspired by a similar example that exists in Prague—the Slavonic

Monastery of the Order of St. Benedict—established, founded,
and endowed [a similar monastery] to endure under the Prague
monastery’s regular observance [et sub eius regulari observancia
duraturum].” If we interpret Długosz’s evidence literally then the
monastery at Kleparz, in a fashion quite uncharacteristic of the
Benedictine Order, was not expected to become an independent
abbey. Rather, it was conceived as a dependency, a daughter-
house of Prague’s Slavonic Monastery, a conduit of its ideas and
literary production. The delegation of the Slavonic monks from
Prague, of whom most, if not all, were ethnic Czechs, was led by
the Czech brother Wenceslas, who was put in charge of the en-
dowment. Among the Slavonic books of the Glagolites were some
that came out of the Prague scriptorium, as well as older Croatian
manuscripts.90
The invitation of the Glagolites to Poland shows the great popu- symbolic location of
larity that they enjoyed in Prague: hence the stipulation that the the Slavonic Monastery
Kleparz branch should function under the supervision of the
Prague abbey. Even the location of the Glagolites’ future quarters
in Poland was reminiscent of their home base in Prague’s New
Town. They were to reside in Kleparz, a satellite of the Polish capi-
tal and an important religious center, also known as Florentia for Florentia, St. Florian
its cult of St. Florian, one of Poland’s patrons. Moreover, just as the
Slavonic Monastery in Prague was situated on the route of royal
ceremonies and processions that connected the Vyšehrad Castle
with the Royal Castle at Hradčany, so the Slavonic Monastery in via regia
Kleparz stood mere footsteps from the beginning of the via regia,
the route of royal processions that led from the Collegiate Church
of St. Florian and St. Florian’s Gate to the Royal Castle at Wawel
Hill, passing many important ecclesiastical and public structures.
The resemblance between the symbolic settings of the two centers
of the Slavonic rite is striking.91
By association, the Czech provenance of the Slavonic Monastery
at Kleparz must have defined the way this foundation was seen in
Cracow. Considering the Glagolites’ strong ties with Prague, one
might wonder to what extent their old Slavic traditions were over-
shadowed, in the eyes of the Poles, by their Czech associations and
provenance. Was it even known that the birthplace of the Roman
Slavonic rite was in Croatian Dalmatia?

147
 The Slavic Letters of St. Jerome

The Slavic Vernacular

Whether Czech or Croatian, one of the important aspects of the
Slavonic rite was its connection with the Slavic vernacular. The new
trends in Bohemian scholarly and ecclesiastical circles that pro-
moted the idea of the individual relationship of man with God—
devotio moderna what came to be known as the devotio moderna—also brought to
Poland the appreciation of the vernacular’s role in education and
Długosz describes a departure from dependence on Latin.92 According to Długosz,
Jadwiga’s library
Jadwiga’s own reading library consisted of numerous translations
into Polish:

Possessing greatest piety and immense love for God, and having re-
nounced and banished from herself all worldly viciousness and vanity,
she exerted her soul and mind over praying and reading holy books, that
is, the Old and New Testaments, homilies of the four doctors,93 lives of
church fathers, legends and passions of saints, contemplations and ora-
tions of St. Bernhard and St. Ambrose, the Vision of St. Bridget,94 and
many other books that were translated from Latin to Polish.95

Although many rely on Długosz’s testimonial as proof that all of

the above-mentioned works existed in Polish translations, the
chronicler’s words should be taken cautiously and not without
a grain of salt, if only because almost none of these translations
ecclesiastical literature have been attested.96 However, it is possible that Jadwiga could
in Polish have read fragments or abridged versions of some of these works
in Polish. The existence of homiletic prose in Polish dates back to
the late thirteenth or early fourteenth centuries and survives in the
Kazania świętokrzyskie so-called Kazania świętokrzyskie (The Sermons of the Holy Cross)
that date to the mid-fourteenth century.97 A sizable collection of
sermons devoted to religious feasts is attested in five fragments,
discovered by Alexander Brückner inside of the binding reinforce-
ment of a fifteenth-century Latin manuscript from the Benedictine
Benedictine Monastery Monastery of the Holy Cross at Łysa Góra. The sermons address
of the Holy Cross at theological and moral questions associated with religious holidays
Łysa Góra
and reveal elaborate rhetorical and theoretical organization. The
author draws examples from the Bible and patristic literature, es-
pecially from St. Augustine, as well as from hagiographical litera-
ture, which he has translated with sophistication and precision.98
Although no sermons survive in Czech from this period, phi­
lologists and linguists believe that the Polish texts were composed

148
 Poland

with the help of Czech models.99 If Jadwiga possessed an anthology

similar to the one from which the Kazania świętokrzyskie derives,
it would account for what Długosz calls “the homilies of the four
doctors, lives of church fathers, legends and passions of saints.”
The existence of any extensive Polish translation of the Bible at Polish Bible
the end of the fourteenth century is highly unlikely.100 Polish eccle-
siastical authorities traditionally viewed vernacular biblical trans-
lations with suspicion and disapproval. Yet Długosz’s remark about
Jadwiga’s fondness for reading in the vernacular is quite intention-
al and significant. Indeed, it was for Jadwiga that the Book of Psalms,
which came down to us in the lavishly illuminated Florian Psalter, Florian Psalter commis-
was commissioned in the 1390s by Bishop Peter Wysz.101 The sioned by Peter Wysz
translation project most likely began at the monastic scriptorium
of the canons regular in Silesian Kłodzko (Czech Kladsko, German Augustinian monastery
Glatz), which was founded by Ernest of Pardubice, archbishop of in Klodzko founded by
Prague, in 1350. After Jadwiga’s death, work on the manuscript was Ernest of Pardubica
suspended and it was finally completed at the scriptorium of the
canons regular in Cracow’s Kazimierz quarter. The Florian Psalter
is not only the first Polish translation of the Psalter but, in fact, the
earliest attested manuscript book in Polish at all. The verses are
written consecutively in Latin, Polish, and German. The Latin text Latin, Polish, & Ger-
is taken from the Vulgate with few variations; the German trans- man
lation is connected with a source of Silesian provenance. Again,
linguistic analysis of the Polish text points to an older Polish origi-
nal (possibly from the beginning of the fourteenth century) and a
Czech model.102 Ornate illumination forms an integral part of the
codex. Its first part features images of fantastic plants and animals,
as well as figures of religious and astrological symbolism.103 An im-
portant piece of evidence that connects this magnificent book with
Jadwiga is her personal monogram of the two interlocking cross-
wise Gothic letters “M” and her coat of arms, which is also found
on the wall of her chamber at Wawel Castle and on her personal
silver chalice (now at the Grünes Gewölbe in Dresden).104 The exe-
cution of the Florian Psalter speaks against assumptions that it was
meant to serve liturgical purposes and suggests that it was made as
a prayer book for collective prayer at the court.105
In this atmosphere of the Polish vernacular slowly encroach-
ing on the traditionally conservative Latinate cultural landscape
in Poland, the attention to the Roman Slavonic rite seems quite
natural. Although the Prague Glagolites were no scholars them-
selves and could hardly have contributed to any scholarly project,

149
 The Slavic Letters of St. Jerome

in both Prague and Cracow the linguistic aspect of their rite at-
tracted those learned figures who were generally interested in the
vernacular.

Decline
The original design of the monastery was envisioned on a grand
scale: the church and a cloister-based structure with a garden were
supposed to be surrounded by brick walls and to house 30 monks
in addition to household servants and companions.106 It is there-
fore perplexing that the initial donation—the financial support of
Jadwiga & Jagiełło rely the construction and a twenty-mark annual income—was so mod-
on support of parish-
est. Unlike Charles IV, who provided continuous patronage and
ioners
financial support to the Slavonic Monastery during his lifetime,
Jagiełło and Jadwiga apparently counted on subsequent community
support. This strategy, of course, was not unusual: the royal patrons
followed a similar protocol when they founded other monasteries.
For instance, when the Carmelite brothers arrived in 1397 from
Prague, the walls of their monastery in Piasek had barely been
erected and the construction of the church had just begun. It was
only half completed before Jadwiga’s death in 1399 but was eventu-
ally finished by the monks through the devotees’ donations.
In the case of the Slavonic Monastery, too, one can already dis-
cern the motif of reliance on the local community in the dona-
tion document: “Therefore we entrust to you, citizens of Cracow
or custom officers, who by circumstance will be in charge, by our
firm royal rights, that you be responsible to give and assign to this
brother Wenceslas, or whoever will be by circumstance in the
established chapel, etc.” If the royal patrons relied on successive
community support for the Prague Glagolites, what community
did they have in mind? The assumption that the monastery was
intended for Jagiełło’s Ruthenian retinue or the existing Ruthe-
nian community of merchants and artisans has been challenged
by the examination of the demographic data,107 which show that
the number of Ruthenian residents in Cracow was minimal and
that both Cracow and Kleparz were dominated by Poles and Ger-
mans.108 The new Slavonic Monastery was ultimately left to the care
of local residents, which proved insufficient. Further complicating
the question of the monastery’s purpose as a provider of pastoral
care and its financial dependence is the self-contained orientation

150
 Poland

of Benedictine monasticism, which is focused on spirituality and

devotion rather than on community service (unlike that of the Au-
gustinians or Franciscans).
The Slavonic Monastery of the Holy Cross at Kleparz was ad-
ministratively dependent upon the Slavonic Monastery in Prague,
and it is therefore not surprising that it would share its fate. The the Slavonic Monastery
condemnation of Hus and his teachings in the second decade of & the Hussites
the fifteenth century and the beginning of the Hussite unrest un-
dermined the spiritual leadership of Prague in Poland.109 Formerly
sympathetic to new ideas of ecclesiastical reforms coming from
Prague, Cracow University became a center of anti-Hussite po-
lemic. After the monastic community of the Slavonic Monastery
of St. Jerome in Prague took the side of the Hussites in 1420, the
attitude toward the Slavonic monks both in Silesia and especially
in Poland must have changed. The Polish ecclesiastical community
must have looked at Glagolites with suspicion, and the latter could
hardly count on any assistance from the Polish court. In these
circumstances, it is unlikely that any new brethren arrived from
Prague and even less likely that any new members from among the
Poles joined the monastic community at Kleparz.
The death of Jadwiga in 1399, the distressing loss of the Prague
Slavonic Monastery’s authority and supervision after 1420, the am-
bivalence of the king and ecclesiastical authorities, as well as the
lack of wealthy benefactors and loyal patrons, was more than a new
foundation could endure. The Monastery of the Holy Cross de-
clined throughout the fifteenth century. No sources record the date
at which the last Slavonic monk left Kleparz, but John Długosz tes- testimony of Długosz &
tifies that he witnessed the Slavonic rite at Kleparz himself. A simi- Matthew of Miechow
lar testimony—that he witnessed the Glagolites during the days of
his childhood—is given by Matthew of Miechow, canon of Cracow,
author of several historiographic treatises, doctor of medicine, and
professor of Cracow University, who left a short account of the
Slavonic Monastery in his Chronica Polonorum (1521). His rela-
tion, although derivative from Długosz’s story, provides additional
information about the fate of the monastery after it had lost its
Slavonic brethren:

In the year 1390, on the Thursday after the feast of Saint James the Apos-
tle, King Wladislaus with his wife Queen Jadwiga founded a Slavonic
monastery of the Order of St. Benedict, obtained from Prague, devoted
to the Holy Cross, outside of the Cracow walls, in the town of Kleparz,

151
 The Slavic Letters of St. Jerome

and the church’s chorus, along with a yet-to-be-completed sacristy, as

can be seen. They only laid the foundations of the nave, which are hid-
den underground. And a wooden house with a garden for the monks,
and allotted an endowment of twenty marks from the Cracow custom
tolls, so that they can celebrate and fill with voices in the Slavic language
both the Canonical Hours and the Mass. However, when Queen Jadwiga
died, the further supply and construction were put on hold. In truth, in
the days of my childhood a Slavic priest continued to celebrate the Mass
in the Slavic language. Eventually, the Latin language took the place of
Nicholas Lithwos Slavonic first when Nicholas Lithwos, the archdeacon of Lublin, and
then when Albert (Wojciech), royal dispensator, took over the church
with the permission of the king; until the prelates and prebendaries of
[the Church of] St. Florian in Kleparz, through the mediation of Doctor
John of Oświęcim, a canon of Cracow, obtained from King Alexander
the income of the aforementioned church forever for themselves.110

Długosz’s and Matthew of Miechow’s testimonies that they had

personally encountered the Slavonic monks at Kleparz have led
some scholars to infer that the Slavonic rite existed at the Mon-
astery of the Holy Cross at least until 1480, the year of Długosz’s
death, and maybe even later.111 But this conclusion is not con-
firmed by evidence.
Długosz, Annales & Długosz’s acknowledgment in the Annales that he himself heard
Liber Beneficiorum the Slavonic rite at Kleparz does not provide a terminus post quem,
whereas his remark in the Liber Beneficiorum makes it clear that by
1474, when he was writing this volume, no services in Slavonic
were conducted at Kleparz due to the lack of the Slavonic broth-
ers and that the church management had passed on to a “secular
priest” (i.e., not a monk) and archdeacon of Lublin, Georgius Lith-
Georgius Lithwos man- wos. This is most likely the same Georgius Lithwos of Kazanow
ages the Church of the
from the house of Grzymała (de domo Grzymalitarum), whom
Holy Cross
Długosz mentions as archdeacon of Lublin under the rubric of
“Archdeaconry of Lublin” in the Liber Beneficiorum.112 Historical
documents show that Georgius (Jerzy, Grzegorz, Gregorius) Lith-
wos (Lithvos, Lithfos, Lithwosz) from Kazanow, archdeacon of Lu-
blin (1470–1489) and canon of Przemyśl (1476–1484), was canon
of Cracow in 1474, when he rebuilt a canonical house destroyed
by fire.113 Długosz portrays Lithwos as an administrator who was
inconsiderate of the Slavonic brothers’ privileges and appropriated
their endowment “not without a temptation to sin and offence to
the endowed” (non sine scandalo et iniuria dotatorum), which sug-

152
 Poland

gests that by the early 1470s they had already left Kleparz. Another
confirmation of this is found in the Acta Actorum Capituli Eccle-
siae Cathedralis Cracoviensis (The Acts of the Cracow Cathedral
Chapter), which contains a chapter’s resolution from 6 February
1465 asking the bishop to petition King Casimir IV for a provision petition to Casimir
to support a Slavonic priest at the Church of the Holy Cross for the IV to provide for the
Slavonic liturgy
preservation of services in Slavonic.114 Even if the petition was pre-
sented to the king, it was apparently not granted. It may therefore
be concluded that by the late 1460s no Glagolite monks remained
at the monastery, although the library could have still housed some
Glagolitic books. In 1505, the Collegiate Church of St. Florian re- Collegiate Church of
ceived the administrative rights over the Church of the Holy Cross St. Florian granted
administrative rights
and its income with the help of John of Oświęcim (ca. 1444–1527), over the Church of the
who petitioned King Alexander Jagiellon (1461–1506). The orig- Holy Cross
inal church existed until 1528, when, along with the rest of the
Glagolites’ legacy, it was destroyed by a fire that devastated almost
the whole town of Kleparz.115

St. Jerome as a Slavic Apostle

It remains to be noted that the connection between the Glagolites
and St. Jerome, which was recognized in Prague, is not acknowl-
edged in any of the documents and historiographic records associ-
ated with the Slavonic Monastery of the Holy Cross at Kleparz. The
ideological importance of the new foundation rested on the idio-
syncratic Slavonic rite and its Bohemian connection and not on
the belief in Jerome’s Slavic ancestry. From an ecclesiastical point
of view, too, the veneration of Jerome as a Slav was technically de-
ficient because it lacked a supporting liturgical repertoire. Unlike no liturgical texts about
Sts. Cyril and Methodius, for whom the Office had been imported Jerome as a Slav
from Bohemia, not a single liturgical text that tells the story of Je-
rome’s Slavic alphabet has been found in Poland. Since none of the
books that were brought to or created at the Slavonic Monastery’s
scriptorium have survived, it is impossible to say whether Jerome’s
deeds for the benefit of the Slavs were ever celebrated liturgically,
either in Prague or in Kleparz and Oleśnica. In Prague, at least, Je-
rome’s Slavic origin and alphabet were noted and praised in schol-
arly circles and eulogized in the Cheb Office to St. Jerome by John
of Teplá. But while the Roman Slavonic rite was surrounded by
the aura of distinction, it arrived in Poland unaccompanied by its

153
 The Slavic Letters of St. Jerome

prominent patron. Why, then, did the legend about Jerome’s Slavic
heritage fail to take root in Poland? It is especially puzzling because
at that time Cracow hosted one of Jerome’s most ardent devotees.
No admirer of St. Jerome in Bohemia or Poland was more fervent
than Jadwiga and Jagiełło’s chaplain and confessor, Jan Silván of
Prague (ca. 1378–1440), who took the name of Hieronymus at the
time of his confirmation as a Camaldolese monk, and whose life
serves as an example of personal devotion to the famous church fa-
Hieronymus of Prague ther.116 A Premonstratensian canon of the Strahov Monastery and
a graduate of Prague University, as well as a zealous missionary
and theologian, Hieronymus left his native Bohemia as a young
man for heathen Lithuania to preach to and convert the pagans.117
He then spent over ten years as a royal chaplain and confessor at
the court of Władysław Jagiełło. Hieronymus was convinced of Je-
rome’s Slavic descent, and it is possible that this belief encouraged
him to attach more significance to the Slavic ecclesiastical tradition
in general. One of the opening sermons in his widely circulated
Exemplar Salutis collection of sermons on the lives of saints, Exemplar Salutis (The
Pattern of Salvation), written between 1407 and 1409 for the use of
clergy, is a sermon on the exemplary life of St. Jerome, whose eth-
nacione Sclavus nic attribution—nacione Sclavus (Slav by origin, nationality)—he
purposely indicated.118 In the same collection he included sermons
on several other Slavic saints—Stanislaus, Wenceslas, and Adalbert
of Prague—that introduced the theme of the common history and
heritage of the Czechs, Poles, and other Slavs.119 Eventually, Hier­
onymus’s devotion to St. Jerome became a part of his persona: he
took the name of Hieronymus in 1413 upon leaving Poland to em-
brace the life of a hermit at the Monastery of Camaldoli in Tuscany,
perhaps in imitation of Jerome’s seclusion in the Syrian desert and
at the Holy Land monastery.
Hieronymus, “Sermo In 1432, Hieronymus composed another sermon on St. Jerome,
Modernus in Festo the “Sermo Modernus in Festo Sancti Hieronymi de Dalmatia
Sancti Hieronymi”
Doctoris Gloriosi” (New Sermon on the Feast Day of St. Jerome of
Dalmatia, the Glorious Doctor). In this work, Hieronymus again
emphasizes the Slavic origin of his favorite saint. Although the title
specifies Dalmatia as Jerome’s homeland, in the sermon itself the
author identifies him with the whole land of the Slavs (Sclavoniae
Terra): “And truly blessed is the land of Slavonia, which bore such
a man, and made for us a Patron from its son and an Angel from a
man.”120 In his commendation of St. Jerome’s dignity and nobility,
Hieronymus uses the argument of the noble descent of the Slavs

154
 Poland

themselves as evidence: “Saint Doctor Jerome had nobility both

of character and of descent, and therefore ought to be honored Slavs originate from
deservedly. Thus he was born to the most distinguished nobility Roman emperors
of the Slavic people (nation), from whom the Roman emperors Diocletian, Maximian,
& Maximin
Diocletian, Maximian, and Maximin have originated.”121 Here, Hi-
eronymus pays tribute to the notion that goes back to the early
Middle Ages that nobility of origin is associated with sanctity.122 In
his praise of the Slavic tribe, Hieronymus employs the theory of the
Slavic rulers’ imperial Roman origin, which was advanced in the
chronicles commissioned by Charles IV. Moreover, Hier­onymus’s
commitment to the Slavic cause extends so far that in the same col-
lection he also identifies St. Blaise and St. George as Slavic saints in
the sermons “Sermo Modernus in Festo Sancti Blasii de Sclavonia St. Blaise & St. George
Episcopi et Martyris Gloriosi” (A Popular Sermon for the Feast as Slavs
Day of St. Blaise of Slavonia, the Glorious Bishop and Martyr) and
“Sermo Modernus in Festo Sancti Georgii de Sclavonia Martyris
Gloriosi” (A Popular Sermon for the Feast Day of St. George of Sla-
vonia, the Glorious Martyr).123 An émigré and outcast in his native
Hussite Bohemia, an ascetic and champion of the Catholic faith,
Hieronymus seemed to find his identity in “the truly blessed land
of Slavonia” (vere felix Sclavoniae Terra) and in his devotion to the
Slav St. Jerome.
Yet the ideological implications of Hieronymus’s vision of Jerome
as a scion of the noble Slavic nation were not recognized in Poland;
one may only speculate about the reasons. It might have been the
absence of humanistic reverence for St. Jerome as the translator of
the Slavonic Bible, the lack of appreciation of Slavic ethnic identity,
or simply resistance to the vernacular liturgy in general. After all,
the introduction of the Slavonic rite at Kleparz was merely a pass-
ing episode in Poland’s ecclesiastical history. The idea of a vernacu- vernacular liturgy is
lar Bible and liturgy was viewed suspiciously in Poland even almost discouraged
two centuries later, as is demonstrated by the writings of Stanislaus Stanislaus Hosius on
Hosius (1504–1579) about the perilous nature of Slavic biblical and the vernacular
liturgical translations, whether made by Cyril and Methodius or
by Jerome.124
The fact that Hieronymus failed to promote the recognition of
St. Jerome as a Slavic apostle in Poland and his devotion to Je-
rome remained merely a personal cult further underscores the
particular roles that Charles IV and John of Neumarkt played
in promoting Jerome’s image as a Slavic apostle in Bohemia. But
while the cult of Jerome the Slav did not come to stay in Poland,

155
 The Slavic Letters of St. Jerome

his alphabet and Slavonic rite did spread to Silesia and Poland
and even left their mark in Ruthenian sources.

Conclusion
The individual(s) who assisted Jadwiga and Jagiełło in founding
the Slavonic Benedictine Monastery of the Holy Cross at Kleparz
will likely never be identified. The idea could have come from one
of the royal councilors and preachers, such as Nicholas of Miličin
or Bartholomew of Jasło, or from one of many prominent scholars
and intellectuals visiting the court, such as Matthew of Cracow.
Likewise, the question of the monastery’s mission remains enig-
matic. Was its foundation an indication that the Polish court con-
templated making advances to the Orthodox? Was it envisioned
as a missionary channel for a more aggressive action? Or was it
simply a current of Czech fashion, the same current that inspired
the restoration of Casimir’s studium generale and the foundation of
the Theological Faculty?
The hypothesis that the Slavonic Monastery was founded as a
result of Jadwiga and Jagiełło’s ecumenical aspirations should not
be completely discounted, although perhaps it has been notably
overstated in scholarship. Whether or not the Slavonic Monastery’s
ideological and ethnic orientation prompts assumptions about the
missionary intentions of its founders, we cannot but conclude that
no evidence has been found so far that confirms Christian mis-
no evidence of mission sions to the Orthodox. The transmission of the texts originating
from the Kleparz Slavonic Monastery to the Ruthenian textual cor-
pus may be a by-product of the Roman Slavonic rite’s geographi-
cal proximity to the Ruthenian community, rather than a result of
intentional inculcation.
The Slavonic rite was imported to Poland from Prague, where
it was seen as an emblem of the Slavs’ renown among Christian
symbolic imagery of peoples. And one can even imagine that at some point in time—
the Slavonic rite in
Bohemia and Poland
whether in the 1390s or later—the Slavonic rite acquired some po-
litical imagery and was seen as a response to the Teutonic Order’s
allegations of Poland’s missionary ineptitude. The Roman Church’s
approval of the Slavonic rite may have inspired the thought that
Slavic ethnic identity could serve as the unifying principle for re-
ligious reconciliation. However, even if this idea motivated the es-
tablishment of the Slavonic Monastery at Kleparz, it quickly lost

156
 Poland

its momentum. Whether due to financial difficulties or to some

other internal problems, the Slavonic Glagolites failed to become
active members of the local intellectual and religious community,
and were consequently marginalized. Similarly, the idea of Slavic
distinction did not realize its ideological potential in Poland: the
Slavonic rite and its prominent origin did not become incorpo-
rated into Poland’s sacred history—the way Charles IV had seen to
it in Bohemia—and the Slavonic rite remained a foreign presence.
One may recognize in this exclusion an early symptom of the un-
popularity of the Slavic national idea in Poland. The final diagnosis
would come later, when by the mid-sixteenth century the Polish
elite dissociated themselves from the traditional Slavic genealogy
by proclaiming themselves descendants of the Sarmatians—a Ja- Sarmatian theory
phetic ancient nomadic warrior people who lived in the steppes
north of the Black Sea.125
While sources are silent about the missionary activity of the
Glagolite monks, their arrival in Cracow may be viewed in the con-
text of a general spiritual rejuvenation that made its way into Poland
from Prague during the last two decades of the fourteenth century.
The association of the Kleparz Glagolites with the Czech religious Czech provenance of
and intellectual currents that were so popular in late fourteenth- the Slavonic Glagolites
plays a key role
century Poland, coupled with the emblematic privilege of their
special Roman Slavonic rite, fit so well with the spirit of the time
that the foundation of the Slavonic Monastery at Kleparz can
hardly be seen as a random expression of piety. Nor does it call for
an explicitly pragmatic explanation, such as the establishment of
a missionary base for outreach to the Orthodox. If at a later date
the Roman Slavonic rite captured the attention of the Orthodox
Ruthenians, it was due to the initiative of the latter, who must have
been fascinated by this “alternative” rite in a Slavic tongue.

157
 Epilogue

T he sojourn of the Benedictine Glagolites in Bohemia, Sile-

sia, and Poland was brief—it lasted no longer than one hun-
dred years—but momentous. Like a comet, the Glagolites swept
through the Latinate skies of the central European Slavs, leaving
behind a trail of manuscript leaves covered in mysterious letters
of St. Jerome. But their brief presence illuminated a number of im-
portant questions that continued to occupy the minds of local lay
and ecclesiastical scholars alike.
St. Jerome’s Slavonic The Glagolites made their appearance in Prague at the invita-
rite in Bohemia tion of Charles IV, whose devotion to St. Jerome, their patron, was
inspired by the belief that the famous biblical translator created
the rite in the Croatian Slavonic language, the mother tongue of
the Czechs. The attention that the emperor paid to the Slavonic
Monastery leaves no doubt that Charles’s partiality for the Glago-
lites and their rite went beyond his usual passion for collecting. His-
toriography has traditionally allocated a special place to the Slavonic
Monastery as the incubator of Slavic national ideas.1 However, the
Slavic history that the monastery represented was hardly “national.”
Rather, references to the prominent figures of Slavic descent served
to legitimize Slavic Christian traditions and elevate the Bohemian
Church: Sts. Cyril and Methodius inaugurated Slavic and Bohe-
mian Christianity, which was later shepherded by St. Procopius
and St. Adalbert. But most prestigious in Charles’s eyes was the
connection of the Slavic Glagolites to the early Church and its fa-
mous father, Jerome, whose Slavonic letters and rite formed the
very basis of Slavic Christianity. In promoting Jerome’s memory,
 Epilogue

Charles found a precious ally in the royal chancellor and bishop of

Litomyšl and Olomouc, John of Neumarkt, who honored Jerome
both in word and matters of ritual.
Owing to its unique linguistic orientation, the monastery served Czech Glagolitic & the
as a symbol and monument to the Slavic language’s privilege of vernacular
being a language of liturgy. In early fifteenth-century Bohemia,
where the question of the vernacular’s suitability in the ecclesi-
astical sphere was a fundamental concern of the reformational
movement, the implications of the Slavonic liturgy of the Catholic
Glagolites were far-reaching. The Slavonic Monastery’s role was
not only symbolic but also utilitarian: the Slavonic books that its
professional scriptorium produced were, in effect, composed in the
Czech vernacular. Although the Glagolitic library did not survive,
several manuscripts and fragments, as well as indirect evidence,
suggest the impressive scope of the Slavonic Glagolitic project. A
number of inscriptions and records of the Glagolitic alphabet in
fifteenth-century manuscripts show that the Glagolitic endeavor
did not go unnoticed by the Prague literati, who made attempts to
understand this peculiar script.2
The legacy that the Prague Glagolites left in Silesia and Poland Slavonic rite in Silesia
& Poland
has not been well preserved and, most likely, was more modest.
Both daughter monasteries appear to be a kind of visiting legation
of the Prague Glagolites, who showcased their special Slavonic rite
and script. However, the cult of St. Jerome itself did not accompany
the Silesian and Polish missions; at least, it is not attested in official
sources describing the monastery foundations. This suggests that,
unlike Charles IV, the Polish and Silesian founders saw the main
appeal of the Glagolites in the Slavic language of their rite and their
Prague affiliation, rather than in their connection with the biblical
traditions of the universal Church represented by the figure of St.
Jerome. The establishment of both Slavonic monasteries revealed
the prestige that Czech cultural and religious import enjoyed in
Silesia and Poland, which quickly wore out after the beginning of
the Hussite Wars in the 1420s.

The Denouement, Part 1

In 1419, the Slavonic Monastery of St. Jerome sided with the Glagolites & Hussites
Hussites and therefore became one of the few Prague monastic
communities to avoid destruction. However, although the Hussites

159
 The Slavic Letters of St. Jerome

appreciated the Slavonic liturgy of the Glagolites, the convent and

its mission were subordinated to the needs of the radical Hussite
movement led by John Želivský (1380–1422).3 Among the many
new members who joined the Slavonic monastic community after
1419 was, for example, the famous English theologian and Lollard,
Peter Payne. It is very unlikely that these newcomers were interest-
ed in or even capable of keeping the Glagolitic rite. Rather, the lit-
urgy most likely underwent a gradual “Bohemization.”4 Although
the presence of the ethnic Czech monks in the monastery contin-
ued until as late as 1635 (when Ferdinand III gave the monastery
to the Spanish Benedictines), the Glagolite monks seemed to have
already left Prague by the late 1430s.5
traces of the Czech The Prague Glagolites did not return home empty-handed.6 They
Glagolites in Croatia brought with them books and customs that they had acquired dur-
ing their expedition, including the veneration of Czech and Pol-
Czech and Polish saints ish saints that were new to Croatia. Contacts between the Czechs
are venerated in Croatia and the Croatian Glagolites existed long before their rendezvous in
Prague’s New Town: thirteenth- and early fourteenth-century Cro-
atian Glagolitic calendars contain the names of the Czech saints
Ludmila (†921), Wenceslas (†929 or 935), and Adalbert (†997).
But the name of St. Procopius (†1053, canonized 1204) in the First
Vrbnik Missal (1456) and the Hrvoje’s Missal (1404) is due to the
contribution of the Glagolites from Prague, while the name of St.
Stanislaus (†1079, canonized 1253) in the Senj Missal (1494) can
be attributed to the influence of the Glagolites from Kleparz.7
Glagolites translate The literary trophies of the Slavonic Monastery in Prague were
Czech texts more plentiful: a number of fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Croa-
tian Glagolitic codices and fragments include Croatian texts with
a visible Czech substratum. The most prominent among these are
the Petris Miscellany (1468) and the Miscellany of Deacon Luka
(1445).8 The Czech texts that the Glagolites brought back home
and adopted in Croatian versions were mostly of philosophical,
homiletic, and hagiographical content: several works by John Hus,
the Lucidar (Elucidarius), the Zrcadlo člověčieho spasenie (Specu-
lum humanae salvationis), Ráj dušě (Albertus Magnus’s Paradisus
animae [Paradise of the Soul]), Pasionál (Jacobus de Voragine’s
Legenda Aurea), Čím se má člověk lepšiti (Bonaventure’s De per-
fectione vitae ad sorores [On the Perfection of Life to Sisters]), as
well as hagiographical texts (for example, the lives of St. Bernard,
St. Augustine, St. Bartholomew, St. Mark the Evangelist) and leg-
ends (e.g., the Legend of the Three Kings and the Vision of Tundal),

160
 Epilogue

to name only a few.9 One of the legends in the Petris Miscellany

that bears noticeable Czech linguistic traits is of particular interest:
the opening lines of the Čtenie svetago Eronima Hrvatina (Legend
of St. Jerome the Croat) point out the Slavic origin of St. Jerome:
“St. Jerome had an honorable father, whose name was Eusebius, of
noble Slavic origin.”10 This narrative, based on Jerome’s life from
the Legenda Aurea and a close relative to John of Teplá’s Office to
St. Jerome, initiates a Croatian literary tradition of hagiographical
works devoted to St. Jerome, which gains momentum with Croa-
tia’s celebrated poet and humanist Marko Marulić of Split (1450–
1524) and his Vita Diui Hieronymi (Life of Saint Jerome, 1506).11

St. Jerome as a Slav in Bohemia

While Jerome’s recognition as a glorious Slav in Bohemia was
largely due to the efforts of Charles IV and John of Neumarkt,
and to the establishment of the Slavonic Monastery, references
to his accomplishments for the sake of the Slavic people con-
tinue to appear in later sources. A representative sample of such Jerome is praised as a
patron saint of the Slavs
references includes a “pan-Slavic” poem from the post-Hussite
period of George of Poděbrady and the king of Poland, Casimir,
which evokes St. Jerome among the patron saints and scions of
the Slavs:

And may Mary help us in this dark path, with patron saints
Martin and George, Sigismund, Wenceslas, and the throne of heaven,
And Ludmila, Procopius, Jerome, Stanislaus, the scions of the Slavs,
As well as the whole assembly of all the saints faithful to the realm of the
Poles. Amen.12

St. Jerome occupies an honorable place between the Czech saints

Ludmila and Procopius and the first native Polish saint, Stan-
islaus.
Jan Dubravius, Historia
Czech humanists also acknowledged Jerome’s contribution to
Bohemica
the rise of the Slavic vernacular. One example comes from the His-
toria Bohemica (1552) of the historian and bishop of Olomouc, Jan
Dubravius. At the beginning of his treatise, the author explains
the origin of the Slavs by providing examples of famous men who
descended from them. While he lists many names of famous his-
torical figures, he reserves a special heading on the margin for “St.

161
 The Slavic Letters of St. Jerome

Jerome of Stridon the Slav” (S. Hieron. Stridonensis Slavus), un-

S. Hieron. Stridonensis der which he informs the reader that: “From this people [i.e., the
Slavus Slavs], St. Jerome descended, who interpreted the New and Old
Testaments for his compatriots in the vernacular tongue.”13 Fur-
ther in his treatise, Dubravius touches upon this issue again, when
he describes the foundation of the Slavonic Monastery of St. Je-
rome. The passage conspicuously evokes Charles’s own foundation
charter, which states that St. Jerome was a native of Illyria, from
where the Czech people also descend.
Jan Amos Comenius, A century later, Protestant and Catholic intellectuals evoked Je-
Ecclesiae Slavonicae rome as a celebrated compatriot of the Slavs. Jan Amos Comenius
brevis Historiola
(1592–1670), a famous spiritual leader of the Unity of the Brethren
and the champion of pansophia (universal wisdom), praised Je-
rome for giving the Slavs the distinction of being the first among
other Europeans to receive the word of God in their native tongue.
In his treatise Ecclesiae Slavonicae . . . brevis Historiola (A Short
History of the Slavic Church, 1660),14 Comenius writes:

The Illyrians, as the Dalmatians, belong to the Slavic peoples until today.
That this early sowing was not without a crop is proved by the fact that
Jerome, who was born in the Illyrian town of Stridon, translated the books
of Holy Scripture into his native tongue in order to help increase faith in
his people. And thus, the Slavs were the first among the European peoples
who were entrusted with the Word of God in their mother tongue.15

Bohuslav Balbín, Bohuslav Balbín (1621–1688), a Jesuit historian and one of the most
Epitome historica rerum
Bohemicarum
patriotically minded writers of the post-White Mountain Baroque pe-
riod, had a particular interest in the foundation of the Slavonic Mon-
astery and the figure of St. Jerome.16 A Czech Latinist, Balbín was de-
voted to Bohemia’s national history and regarded Charles’s reign as its
greatest era. The analysis of Balbín’s personal notes shows that he care-
fully examined primary sources related to the history of the Slavonic
Monastery, which by then belonged to the Spanish Benedictines.17
Most of his attention was devoted to the collection of documents from
the period of 1346–1396 (the Registrum Slavorum), and he even made
copies of some of them. Judging from his notes and the passages that
he underlined, Balbín focused primarily on the persona of Charles and
his interest in the Slavic traditions of the Glagolites.18 In his Epitome
historica rerum Bohemicarum (Digest from Czech History, 1661–1668,
published 1677), Balbín explains that Charles founded the Slavonic
Monastery especially for St. Jerome because of his Slavic origin:

162
 Epilogue

While Charles University successfully rises under the auspices of King

Charles, in the same year [i.e., 1348], he constructed in Prague with
royal generosity and out of love for the Slavic people the Church and
the Monastery of the Order of St. Benedict (later called Emmaus), to St.
Jerome the Doctor of the Dalmatian Church, and therefore of the same
origin as our Slavs, so that all divine services be performed in the Slavic
language, granted by the Supreme Pontiff.19

Balbín further elaborates on this subject in his famous defense of Balbín, De regni Bo-
Czech vernacular culture that he wrote in 1672–1674 with a dra- hemiae felici quondam
nunc calamitoso statu
matically descriptive title, De regni Bohemiae felici quondam nunc
calamitoso statu ac praecipue de Bohemicae seu Slavicae linguae in
Bohemia . . . brevis et accurata tractatio (On the Once Happy and
Now Miserable State of the Czech Kingdom, Especially on the Impor-
tance of the Czech, That Is, Slavic Language in Bohemia . . . A Short
and Carefully Prepared Treatise). While Balbín’s views on the Slavic
language were well known among his contemporaries, his treatise
was published only in 1775 under the title Dissertatio apologetica pro
lingua Slavonica, praecipue Bohemica (The Apologetic Dissertation
on the Slavic, Particularly, Czech Language) by Franz Martin Pelzel
(1734–1801), a writer, historian, and philologist of German descent, Franz Martin Pelzel
publishes Balbín’s De
an ardent lover of Czech culture and the first professor of Czech regni Bohemiae as Dis-
language at Charles University. In this treatise, Balbín connects the sertatio apologetica pro
role that Charles assigned to the Slavonic Monastery with his efforts lingua Slavonica
to promote the relationship between the sacred Slavic language and
St. Jerome. Chapter 13 of this polemical work discusses Jerome’s su-
perior scholarship and his special services to the Slavic people as the
interpreter of the “sacras litteras Slauis” (the Slavic sacred letters).20
Balbín presents the figure of the famous doctor of the Church as sacras litteras Slauis
incontestable evidence of the greatness of the Slavic tongue, which
he even puts above Hebrew, as he argues, “I truly feel that the dignity
of the Slavic language is a great deal higher [than that of Hebrew]
because the Son of God descends every day from heaven to earth
when addressed [in Slavic] by priests.”21 In Balbín’s view, Charles was
“the greatest lover of the Slavic language and people,” whose politics
benefited the Czechs and who defended them from the Germans.22
In describing Charles’s unmatched love for the Slavonic Monastery
and its patron, St. Jerome, he resorts to the legendary stories of the
ancient Czechs about the fabulous cost that the emperor paid for the
construction of the monastery, which was only one penny less than
the cost of Charles Bridge in Prague.23

163
 The Slavic Letters of St. Jerome

The Denouement, Part 2

If the filial Glagolitic communities in Silesia and Poland had
initially experienced troubles, with the loss of support from their
paternal institution their position became critical. Those Slavonic
Glagolites who still remained in Oleśnica and Cracow must have
followed the example of their fellow brethren from Prague and re-
turned to Dalmatia. A few traces of their Polish venture can be
found in Croatian literary sources.
traces of the Polish Since 1184, when Pope Lucius III presented Casimir II (the Just)
Glagolites in Croatia and Bishop Gedko of Cracow with the relics of St. Florian, Po-
land, and particularly Cracow, became one of the main centers of
devotion to this saint. In fact, the history of Kleparz, a suburb of
Cracow, begins with the establishment of the Church of St. Flo-
Kleparz and veneration rian, built to house the newly acquired relics.24 When the Glago-
of St. Florian lites arrived at Kleparz in 1390 they found themselves at the heart
of devotion to St. Florian; the Church of the Holy Cross, which
became a base for the Slavonic monastery, stood not far from the
Collegiate Church of St. Florian and its hospital. A Glagolitic ver-
Glagolitic Mass for St. sion of the Mass for St. Florian’s Day (Officium Proprium), added to
Florian’s Day the first page of a fifteenth-century Croatian Glagolitic missal (the
Second Oxford Missal), is a testament both to the attention that
the Slavonic Glagolites paid to their Latinate neighbors in Kleparz
and to their eagerness to honor the patron saint of Poland.25
Peregrinus, Sermones Another artifact is a Glagolitic version of a homiletic work, Ser-
de tempore et de sanctis mones de tempore et de sanctis, composed by Silesian Dominican
Peregrinus of Opole. Written around 1297–1304, this collection of
Latin sermons for Sundays and holidays was in wide circulation in
Poland in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, especially in the
Fillip of Novi Vinodol- Wrocław and Cracow dioceses.26 The original translation into Cro-
ski translates Peregri- atian, entitled Blagdanar, was made by Fillip, the priest of a Novi
nus’s work under the
title Blagdanar Vinodolski parochial church and an administrator of the altar of
Sts. Fabian and Sebastian at the parochial Church of Sts. Philip and
James. Only one folio of Fillip’s translation is believed to have been
Franciscan monastery preserved at the Franciscan monastery in Glavotok on Krk.27 In
in Glavotok on Krk 1506, Fillip’s version of the Blagdanar was copied by priest Andrij
of Novi Vinodolski and decorated with rubrics by brother Stipan
of Krk, most likely at the scriptorium of the Pauline Monastery and
Pauline Monastery of the Church of St. Maria on Osap near Novi.28
St. Maria near Novi Unfortunately, very little is known about Fillip, who was evi-
dently not a great expert on Latin, and even less is known about

164
 Epilogue

the circumstances of the arrival of Peregrinus’s composition in

Dalmatia. It is possible that the Polish Glagolites could have had
a hand in it since priest Andrij had other texts at his disposal that
had been brought by the Glagolites from their northern itinerary.
Along with the Blagdanar, he also copied a book of homilies on the
Gospel of Matthew, which had been translated from Czech by an
anonymous Glagolite author, whose Kajkavian-Čakavian dialect
and Italian linguistic features betray his Istrian or western Croa-
tian origin.
Apart from the above-mentioned texts that turned up in Pauline
Glagolitic manuscripts, one may find Polish men of letters them- Pauline Monastery of
selves active in Croatia among the Paulines. A record from 1395 St. Nicholas on Mt.
tells of a Polish Pauline, a prior of the Glagolitic Monastery of St. Gvozd
Nicholas on Mt. Gvozd near Modruš, Father John the Pole (Ivan Ivan Poljak
Poljak).29 Latin and Croatian sources from 1444–1475 also speak
of many acts of Father Stanislaus of Poland, a vicar of St. Nicholas
and the superior of the Pauline Glagolitic monasteries of southern
Croatia and Istria (“Stanislaus de Polonia, vicarius fratrum eremi-
tarum ordinis S. Pauli primi eremitae, in claustro S. Nicolai epis-
copi et confessoris in nemore Gvozd supra Modrusiam fundati”).30 Stanislaus of Poland
A couple of sources also specify his origin: the town of Bochnia,
a small salt-mining town near Cracow, the site of the Glagolitic
monastery. But most importantly, according to at least two sourc-
es, Stanislaus of Poland was an accomplished scholar and Glagolite
writer: he translated the Pauline Rule, ascribed to St. Augustine,
the Pauline constitutions, and the sermons of St. Augustine from
Latin into Croatian Church Slavonic (“in eorum lingua Illyrica”).31
Unfortunately, none of these translations have yet been found or
else they would shed some light on the identity of Stanislaus of Po-
land and whether or not his remarkable Glagolite skills had been
acquired at the Slavonic Monastery in Kleparz.

St. Jerome as a Slav in Poland

Although the Roman rite in the Slavic tongue was the Prague
Glagolites’ main import to Cracow, the Polish hosts did not show
any interest in St. Jerome and his role as a Slavic apostle. If the pres-
tige that the famous Doctor of the Church offered to the Slavs was
not understood by Polish intellectuals at the end of the fourteenth
century, when the Glagolites reached Cracow, it was appreciated

165
 The Slavic Letters of St. Jerome

by the beginning of the sixteenth century, when Polish humanist

historians conceptualized the origins of their people and contextu-
alized them in ancient history.
Matthew of Miechow, an acknowledged successor to John
Matthew of Miechow Długosz, takes up the theory of the Slavic Jerome and scrutinizes
on Jerome’s Slavic it vis-à-vis the accounts of ancient authors in his Chronica Polo-
origin in the Chronica
Polonorum norum (1521). Matthew, whose relation of historical events up to
1480 is otherwise heavily influenced by Długosz, modernizes his
predecessor’s work in the section that discusses the ethnogenesis
of the Slavs, deviating from the familiar narratives of old Polish
chronicles and turning this section into a scholarly treatise.32 In
discussing the theory of Jerome’s Slavic descent and his invention
of the Slavic alphabet, Matthew argues with the Italian humanist
historian and archeologist Biondo Flavio (1392–1463), using his
geohistorical treatise Italia Illustrata (1453) both as a source of in-
formation and as an object of critique.33
Biondo Flavio on Biondo’s work is full of mythological and historical reminiscenc-
Jerome’s Italian origin es, as well as explanations of topographic names. In the description
in Italia Illustrata
of the eleventh and last region of Italy, Istria (Regio Histria), Bi-
ondo identifies the Istrian town of Sdrigna with Stridon, the town
that Jerome claimed to be his birthplace. Arguing that Stridon is a
part of Italian Istria, Biondo comes to the conclusion that “it may
be established that that great man [i.e., Jerome] was clearly an Ital-
ian and not a foreigner.”34
Biondo on Jerome’s But although he refuses to see Jerome as a Slav, he credits him
Slavic alphabet & holy with the invention of the Slavonic liturgy. Biondo explains that Je-
writings
rome invented an alphabet and composed the sacred books for the
Slavs, who came to occupy the area of Dalmatia (also called Slavo-
nia), contiguous with Istria, a little after Jerome’s death. As a sec-
retary in the chancery of Pope Eugene IV, Biondo himself copied
Eugene’s confirmation of Jerome’s authorship of the sacred writ-
ings in the language of the Dalmatian Slavs: “Jerome composed not
only the letters I mentioned above, and gave writing to the Slavs;
he also brought them the divine office used by Catholic Christians,
having translated it from Greek into their own new language. The
glorious pope Eugenius the fourth has confirmed this to them by
Pier Paolo Vergerio the my hand.”35 Biondo’s source was Sermo 6 pro Sancto Hieronymo
Elder, Sermo pro Sancto (Sermon 6 on St. Jerome) composed by another Italian humanist
Hieronymo
of Istrian descent, Pier Paolo Vergerio the Elder (ca. 1369–1444).36
However, while Vergerio cautiously treats this theory as a folk tra-
dition, Biondo accepts it as historical fact.37

166
 Epilogue

Matthew of Miechow agrees with Biondo’s view of Jerome’s au- Matthew & Biondo
argue about Jerome’s
thorship of the Slavic alphabet and the Roman Slavonic rite, but
place of birth
he dismisses his claim that Jerome was of Italian ethnic origin,
insisting that Jerome was a Dalmatian Slav. Both authors refer to
Jerome’s own words about his birthplace in his book On Famous
Men, yet Matthew, unlike Biondo, emphasizes that Jerome himself
identified the location of Stridon as being on the border between
Dalmatia and Pannonia. Further, in a kind of a circular argument,
he asserts that Jerome was a Slav by using his Slavic alphabet as
evidence:

Further, that there were Slavs before Emperor Justinian and the historian
Procopius, who did not come to their time, is most truly attested in [the
writings of] Sts. Jerome and Martin, who were Slavs by descent and lan-
guage. For Blessed Jerome writes about himself in the following way at
the end of his book On Famous Men, “Jerome the priest was born from
father Eusebius in the town of Stridon, which was sacked by the Goths,
formerly on the border between Dalmatia and Pannonia and up to pres-
ent day, that is, the fortieth year of Emperor Theodosius.” This is what
Jerome wrote. Afterward, however, the town of Stridon was rebuilt in the
same place and remains up until our own time, not far from the bound-
aries of Aquileia. Blessed Jerome lived in the times of emperors Hono-
rius and Arcadius until the fourteenth year of Theodosius the Younger,
as he himself relates, but these emperors lived long before Justinian and
Procopius. Also, it is evident that Jerome was a Slav, from a script in
Slavonic called Bukvitsa, which he himself introduced and he composed
ecclesiastical offices using this Slavic script. A permission to have the
Mass in the Slavic language was obtained from Pope Damasus, because
it is sacrilegious to teach otherwise in Istria, Dalmatia, and Croatia.38

Overall, the idea of Jerome’s fellowship in the Slavic nation did not Stanislaus Hosius, De
sacro vernacule legendo
become as cherished in Poland as it did in Croatia, or even in Bo-
hemia. It was, nonetheless, acknowledged by the bishop of Warmia,
Cardinal Stanislaus Hosius, who generally disapproved of the use of
the vernacular in holy writings. In his short dialogue, De sacro ver-
nacule legendo (On Sacred Readings in Vernacular), he admitted that
the language of the Croats (Dalmatica lingua) is superior in elegance
to Polish and is less dangerous when used for biblical translations
because Jerome himself used it to translate the sacred books.39
In Croatia, though, Biondo’s bold challenge that Jerome was
not a Slav found passionate opposition in the writings of the re-

167
 The Slavic Letters of St. Jerome

Marko Marulić, In eos nowned Croatian poet and humanist, a proud citizen of Split,
qui beatum Hierony-
Marko Marulić. He disputes Biondo’s thesis in a polemical work
mum Italum fuisse
contendunt with an eloquent title, In eos qui beatum Hieronymum Italum fuisse
contendunt (Against Those Who Consider St. Jerome to Have Been
an Italian).40 Similar to Matthew of Miechow, Marulić defends Je-
rome’s Slavic ancestry by locating his birthplace near the town of
Skradin (Scardona) in Dalmatia.
One may easily discern the national pride felt by those intellectu-
als who argued that the patron saint of all humanists was of Slavic
origin and was an author of the Roman Slavonic rite. This pride re-
verberates in Charles IV’s foundation charter for the Slavonic Mon-
astery in Prague and in John Hus’s praise to the great biblical exegete
Jerome. It is expressed bluntly in John Długosz’s account of the Sla-
vonic Monastery’s mission in Kleparz and in Matthew of Miechow’s,
Balbín’s, and Marulić’s scholarly inferences. But the germination of
national sentiment was not the only response that this theory pro-
voked. It resounded in a theological debate about the vernacular
Scripture, which in time engaged all of humanistic Europe.

The Vernacular Affair

The belief that Jerome himself translated the sacred writings that
the Croatian Glagolites used in worship lent authority to the cre-
ation of the complete Czech Bible in Bohemia, a project that was
sanctioned by the king and the highest ecclesiastical authorities,
and that was conducted by the leading scholars from Prague Uni-
versity. The rise of the belief that Jerome translated the Divine Of-
fice and the Bible into Slavonic was also not without consequences
for the Latinate Western Church, whose long-standing tradition of
excluding vernacular languages from the sphere of the sacred word
had already been challenged by proto-Protestant liturgical reforms
in the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries. The reformers and
Protestants, however, were not the only ones to express this criti-
cism. Internal Catholic voices, although not so radical as those of
the Protestants, had also raised concern over the monopoly of the
Latin Bible and the many distortions that resulted from the lack of
Erasmus of Rotterdam
argues that Jerome
an authoritative model. The necessity of vernacular biblical trans-
translated the Bible lations therefore became increasingly apparent. Some Catholic
into the Latin & Slavic scholars, such as the Dutch humanist theologian, Erasmus of Rot-
vernaculars terdam (1469–1536), saw greater danger in the activity of learned

168
 Epilogue

heretics (such as Wycliffe, Hus, and Luther) than in the yearning of

the uneducated masses for a comprehensible rite. In several of his
publications, Erasmus advocated the advantages and doctrinal ad-
equacy of a vernacular Bible.41 In this crucial theological dispute,
the fact that Jerome’s Vulgate Bible was written in the vernacular of
his time was an infallible argument, as was the fact that he had also
translated the Scripture into another vernacular—that of his native
Dalmatia (i.e., Slavic).42 It is not surprising, then, that Erasmus per-
ceived Jerome as his own “alter ego” and that his innovative biogra-
phy of Jerome turned into “a self-portrait, that of a Christian schol-
ar.”43 Erasmus’s argument for vernacular biblical translations was so
influential that, among sixteenth- and seventeenth-century scholars
in the West, he became a primary source of the claim that Jerome
had translated the Bible into the Slavic language of Dalmatia.44
Jerome’s linguistic approach to holy writings played an impor- Council of Trent
tant role at the Council of Trent (1545–1563), which debated, debates the vernacular
liturgy & Bible
among other issues, the controversial case of the vernacular Bible.
On several occasions during the council sessions, the Slavic trans-
lations of the Bible, both those of the Orthodox Slavs and those of
the Catholic Croatian Glagolites, were proffered as arguments in
favor of the vernacular liturgy and Bible.45
In England, too, references to Jerome’s biblical translations into William Tyndale
his mother tongue, Dalmatian, were made by advocates of the ver-
nacular Bible. Among these were William Tyndale (1492–1536),
whose biblical translations, especially of the New Testament, be-
came the basis of the future English Bible, and Bishop John Jewel John Jewel of Salisbury
of Salisbury (1522–1571), who challenged his Roman Catholic op- vs. Thomas Harding on
the English Bible
ponent Thomas Harding (1516–1572) to a vigorous debate.46
A Spanish Hieronymite monk, José de Espinoza de Sigüenza, José de Espinoza de
in his work Vida de San Gerónimo Doctor de la Santa Iglesia (The Sigüenza, Vida de San
Gerónimo
Life of St. Jerome the Doctor of the Holy Church, 1595), attempted
to resolve the argument about Jerome’s birthplace on theological
grounds. In the best traditions of hagiography, he claimed that Je-
rome’s ethnic background was irrelevant.47 Nevertheless, he took
for granted Jerome’s authorship of the Slavic Scriptures and the
Mass and his invention of the special Slavic alphabet. The issue of Jerome’s vernacular
the vernacular Bible was so important to Sigüenza that he devoted Bible
an entire chapter to reflections and suppositions of possible mo-
tives for Jerome’s decision to translate the Bible and Mass into the
vernacular. His reasoning gives little honor to the Slavs, as he con-
siders them ignorant of their own history, and he concludes that

169
 The Slavic Letters of St. Jerome

Jerome was guided mostly by pragmatic considerations of what

was necessary for the conversion of inveterate barbarians.48
lingua Hieronymiana in The belief that Jerome invented the Glagolitic alphabet and
humanistic scholarship translated the Church Slavonic Bible made its way into the hu-
manistic linguistic and historiographic treatises and encyclopedic
dictionaries that flourished in the sixteenth century. In describ-
ing and comparing various languages of Europe, Asia, the Middle
East, and Africa, their authors were concerned with the idea of the
genetic relationship between languages and peoples, although not
quite in a modern sense. On the one hand, they defined language
kinship by the number of common words in different languages,
although they did not make a distinction between etymologically
common and borrowed lexicon. On the other hand, they inherited
the traditions of antiquity and the Middle Ages, which established
language kinship by tracing the origins to a common ancestor,
whether sons of Noah or a mythological hero. These methods were
coupled with an a priori notion of the mystical and inalienable re-
lationship between the language and its alphabet, which was often
rooted in religious belief. Although humanist scholars recognized
the kinship between all Slavic languages, the existence of the two
alphabets, Cyrillic and Glagolitic, compelled them to look for two
different cultural and religious traditions. The graphic dichotomy,
therefore, was easily explained by the identification of the two in-
ventors of these alphabets: St. Cyril and St. Jerome respectively.
It is difficult to determine now what source was the first to bring
up these two great saints-philologists together. One of the earliest
Paolo Giovio, De lega- Latin sources that places St. Jerome side by side with St. Cyril as
tione Moscovitarum a translator of the Slavic Scripture is the socio-historical treatise
by an Italian historian, Paolo Giovio (1483–1552), De legatione
Moscovitarum (On the Muscovite Legation) from 1525. Describ-
ing the language and cultural traditions of the Muscovites, Giovio
explains: “A great number of sacred books were translated into this
language, chiefly by the labors of Saints Jerome and Cyril.”49
One of the most learned men of the sixteenth century, French phi-
lologist, Orientalist, and Cabbalist Guillaume Postel (1510–1581),
Guillaume Postel, in his widely known linguistic treatise, Linguarum duodecim char-
Linguarum duodecim acteribus differentium alphabetum introductio (An Introduction to
characteribus differ-
entium alphabetum
the Alphabetic Characters of Twelve Different Languages, 1538), de-
introductio scribes the linguistic history of the Balkan Slavs. He distinguishes
between the two languages, “lingua Hieronymiana seu Dalmata-
lingua Hieronymiana rum aut Illiriorum” (the Slavic Dalmatian language of St. Jerome,

170
 Epilogue

i.e., Croatian), which he exemplifies with the Glagolitic alphabet,

and “lingua Tzerviana” (i.e., Serbian and Bosnian), for which he
includes the Cyrillic alphabet.50 Driven by scientific method, he
explains contemporaneous linguistic data by viewing them in his-
torical perspective:

Around the year AD 300, the Pannonians, Illyrians, Dalmatians, and

Mysians had nearly the same language which was mixed with some
Greek, some Italian, and at some time German because of the geograph-
ic proximity of these languages; for all these peoples, the Dalmatian
doctor and theologian Jerome invented letters (which we will at once
present to you), so that they differ from other nations both in language
and in letters.51

According to Postel, all Balkan Slavs used Jerome’s letters before

the Great Schism, but after the Roman and Greek churches parted
ways, only Dalmatians and Illyrians continued with Jerome’s tradi- Postel on the vernacu-
lar Bible
tion. In the entry “De lingua Hieronymiana seu Dalmatarum aut
Illyriorum,” the reference to an “alternative” vernacular Bible of St.
Jerome prompts Postel to express his opinion on the then widely
debated question of whether or not the sacred writings should be
translated into the vernacular. His approval is supported by a refer-
ence to the principles of the early Church, which required all men
to read the sacred texts:

Regarding what I have mentioned above, Jerome invented the alphabet

for his fellow countrymen, and so perhaps in this respect, too, he im-
mortalized his name. And also for them he himself composed the trans-
lation in their language of the whole law—the Old and New Testaments,
along with the Divine Office and prayers—very far discrepant in the the Council of Nicaea
opinion of many, who believe that the sacred letters are polluted, if only establishes that every
they fall into the hands of the people. Although formerly at that time the Christian should pos-
sess the Bible in an un-
Christians of the early Church would not have yet digressed from the
derstandable language
purity of Greek and Latin, all men understood the sacred writings [i.e.,
Scriptures] in these languages, on the contrary, they were even encour-
aged to read, to such an extent that at the celebrated Council of Nicaea
it was established under penalty of interdict, that every Christian should
possess the Holy Bible written in a language that he can understand.52

Postel’s treatise on languages was followed by two linguistic Theodor Bibliander,

works composed in the form of a dictionary: De ratione communi De ratione communi
omnium linguarum &
literarum

171
 The Slavic Letters of St. Jerome

omnium linguarum & literarum (On the Common Principle of All

Languages and Letters) (1548) by another Orientalist, the Swiss
scholar and theologian, Theodor Bibliander (1509–1564), and My-
thridates (1555), authored by Bibliander’s student, a naturalist and
Conrad Gessner, Myth- linguist, Conrad Gessner (1516–1565). Both works devote many
ridates entries to the Slavic languages and make insightful comments
about their relationship. Referring to Postel, and occasionally even
quoting him verbatim, they ascribe the authorship of the alphabet
and the sacred books of the Dalmatian Slavs to Jerome.53
Angelo Rocca, Appen- Jerome’s involvement in Slavic biblical translation is also taken
dix de Dialectis up by the founder of the Biblioteca Angelica in Rome and superin-
tendent of the Vatican printing office, Augustinian Hermit Father
Angelo Rocca (1545–1620), who collaborated on both the Sixtine
(1590) and Clementine (1592) editions of the Vulgate. In his Ap-
pendix de Dialectis (1591), the publisher of the Vulgate promotes
Jerome’s reputation as the translator of the Slavic Bible into the lan-
guage or alphabet of his own invention.54 Thus, the recognition of
Jerome as the interpreter of the sacred texts, who made them ac-
cessible to common people, found its full realization in the belief
that he had created the Christian tradition of the Slavs.

“Refutatur Error Multorum”

The eighteenth century delivered the fatal blow to the half-mil-
lennium-long belief in Jerome’s Slavic apostolic labors. The author
of the section on St. Jerome’s life and works in volume 8 of the
Bollandists, Acta Sanc- Bollandists’ monumental collection of the lives of the saints, Acta
torum
Sanctorum Septembris (1762), handles this misconception with all
the thoroughness characteristic of Bollandist scholarship. With en-
cyclopedic breadth, this scholar provides all that was then known
about the saint. With emphasis on verifiable information, chapter
78 refutes the “common blunder” (error multorum) that Jerome
invented the Slavic alphabet and translated the Holy Scripture into
Slavic: “An error, shared by many, that asserts that St. Jerome trans-
lated the Holy Scripture into Dalmatian, that is Slavic, is refuted.”55
Franz Martin Pelzel Throughout the eighteenth century, Jerome’s lack of connection
refutes the belief that
Jerome was a Slav
to the Slavs became more widely accepted. When Franz Martin
Pelzel—an admirer of Czech national heritage—published Bo-
huslav Balbín’s apology of the Slavic language in 1775, he provided
a footnote to the title of chapter 13, in which Balbín praises the

172
 Epilogue

Slavic language through its association with St. Jerome: “Nowa-

days, hardly any scholar would put Jerome’s name next to the Slavs
because it has been proven and determined that before Justinian
times the Slavs did not inhabit Illyricum.”56
Now, not only did historians deny Jerome any connection to
the Slavs and their writing, they doubted the very antiquity of the
Glagolitic alphabet itself. An example par excellence is the famous Josef Dobrovský
Czech philologist and one of the central figures of the Czech na- doubts the antiquity of
Glagolitic
tional revival, Josef Dobrovský (1753–1829), who considered the
Cyrillic alphabet older than Glagolitic and identified St. Cyril as
its author. He—erroneously—believed that Glagolitic did not even
exist before the thirteenth century.57
The story of the Slavic Saint Jerome and his special alphabet as
presented in this study thus comes to a close. It remains to be noted
that it was the belief in the divine origin of writing, in the non-
arbitrariness of a letter as a sign, that made the Slavic alphabets
and language a subject of religious and historiographic controver-
sies. However, the scientific approaches of historical and compara-
tive linguistics, supported by modern archeological and historio-
graphic methodologies, ruthlessly annihilated the many theories
that Christian scholars had developed over the previous centuries.
Still, the naivety of the premodern religious scholarly imagination
has its own charm, and its many erroneous beliefs often provide us
with clues about the true driving forces of history, which otherwise
remain unfathomable and enigmatic as they rest buried in time.

173
 Notes

Abbreviations
Bible—The Interpretation of the Bible. Ed. Jože Krašovec.
BN—Biblioteka Narodowa w Warszawie (National Library of Poland)
CD 1—Codex Diplomaticus Regni Croatiae, Dalmatiae et Slavoniae, vol. 1. Ed. Marko Kostrenčić.
CD 4—Codex Diplomaticus Regni Croatiae, Dalmatiae et Slavoniae, vol. 4. Ed. Tadija Smičkiklas.
CDEM—Codex Diplomaticus et Epistolaris Moraviae
Croatia 1—Croatia and Europe, vol. 1, Croatia in the Early Middle Ages: A Cultural Survey. Ed. Ivan Supičić.
Croatia 2—Croatia and Europe, vol. 2, Croatia in the Late Middle Ages and the Renaisssance: A Cultural
Survey. Ed. Ivan Supičić.
Emauzy—Emauzy: Benedictinský klášter Na Slovanech v srdci Prahy. Ed. Klára Benešovská and Kateřina
Kubínová.
Fontes—Fontes Historici Liturgiae Glagolito-Romanae a XIII ad XIX saeculum. Ed. Lucas Jelić.
FRB—Fontes Rerum Bohemicarum. Ed. Josef Emler.
FRB s.n.—Jana Zachová, Fontes Rerum Bohemicarum, Series nova 1. Ed. Jana Zachová.
Glagolitica—Glagolitica: Zum Ursprung der slavischen Schriftkultur. Ed. Heinz Miklas, Sylvia Richter, and
Velizar Sadovski.
HRR—Husitství, Reformace, Renesance: Sborník k 60. narozeninám Františka Šmahela. Ed. Jaroslav Pánek,
Miloslav Polívka, and Noemi Rejchrtová.
KMK—Knihovna Metropolitní kapituly pražské (Library of the Metropolitan Chapter in Prague)
KNM—Knihovna Národního muzea v Praze (National Museum Library in Prague)
MMFH—Magnae Moraviae Fontes Historici. Ed. Dagmar Bartoňková, Lubomír Havlík, Jaroslav Lud-
víkovský, Zdeněk Masařík, and Radoslav Večerka.
MVB—Monumenta Vaticana Res Gestas Bohemicas Illustrantia. Ed. Ladislav Klicman.
NKČR—Národní knihovna České republiky (National Library of the Czech Republic)
NSK—Nacionalna i sveučilišna knjižnica u Zagrebu (National and University Library in Zagreb)
PL—Patrologia Latina: Cursus Completus. Ed. Jacques-Paul Migne.
RS—Die Urkunden des königlichen Stiftes Emaus in Prag, vol. 1, Das vollständige Registrum Slavorum. Ed.
Leandr Helmling and Adalbert Horcicka.
SW—Roman Jakobson, Selected Writings.
Thessaloniki—Hellenic Association for Slavic Studies. Thessaloniki Magna Moravia: Proceedings of the
International Conference, Thessaloniki 16–19 October 1997.
TODRL Trudy otdela drevnerusskoi literatury
Z tradic—Z tradic slovanské kultury v Čechách: Sázava a Emauzy v dějinách české kultury. Ed. Jan Petr
and Sáva Šabouk.
Zeszyty—Zeszyty Naukowe Wydziału Humanistycznego Uniwersytetu Gdańskiego, Slawistyka 3 (1982).

Prologue
1. On the life and works of Jerome Eusebius Hieronymus (331 or 345 or 347–420), see J. N. D. Kelly,
Jerome: His Life, Writings, and Controversies (London, 1975); Stefan Rebenich, Jerome (London, 2002);
Alfons Fürst, Hieronymus: Askese und Wissenschaft in der Spätantike (Freiburg, 2003); Andrew Cain and
Josef Lössl, eds., Jerome of Stridon: His Life, Writings and Legacy (Farnham, UK, 2009).
2. Eugene F. Rice, Saint Jerome in the Renaissance (Baltimore, 1985), 33.
3. Bollandists, Bibliotheca Hagiographica Latina Antiquae et Mediae Aetatis (Brussels, 1898–1899),
1:579.
 Notes to Pages 4–12

4. Rice, Saint Jerome, 55–63.

5. Bollandists, Bibliotheca, 1:577.
6. Rice, Saint Jerome, 64–68.
7. Ibid., 48.
8. “I, Jerome, son of Eusebius, of the city of Strido, which is on the border of Dalmatia and Panno-
nia and was overthrown by the Goths” (Hieronymus patre Eusebio natus, oppido Stridonis, quod a Gothis
eversum, Dalmatiae quondam Pannoniaeque confinium fuit). Jerome, De viris illustribus, 135.953, in PL,
23:755B. “. . . there is a sort of drink made of grain and water, and in the provinces of Dalmatia and Panno-
nia it is called in the local barbarian idiom sabaia” (. . . genus est potionis ex frugibus aquaque confectum,
et vulgo in Dalmatiae Pannoniaeque provinciis gentili barbaroque sermone appellatur sabaium). Jerome,
Commentariorum In Isaiam Prophetam 7.19, in PL, 24:253A. See the examination of Jerome’s regional
identity in Danijel Dzino, Becoming Slav, Becoming Croat: Identity Transformations in Post-Roman and
Early Medieval Dalmatia (Leiden, 2010), 71–73.
9. For example, there is no mention of this in Rice, Saint Jerome.
10. Today, both Orthodox and Catholic churches venerate Sts. Cyril and Methodius as the creators
of the Slavonic letters and as the apostles to the Slavs. In an Apostolic letter, “Egregiae virtutis,” dated 31
December 1980, Pope John Paul II announced Sts. Cyril and Methodius co-patrons of Europe (compa-
troni Europae), who since then have shared this honor with St. Benedict.
11. The legend of Jerome’s Slavic alphabet is especially popular in “cyber historiography”—online
history-themed discussion forums. For academic publications that consider Jerome to be the inventor of
a Slavic alphabet, see, for example, E. V. Afanas’eva, “The Ancient Slavonic Translation of the Book of Job
and Its Greek Original,” in Rezume soobshchenii = Summaries of Communications: XVIII Mezhdunarodnyi
Kongress Vizantinistov = International Congress of Byzantine Studies, Moskovskii gosudarstvennyi univer-
sitet im. M. V. Lomonosova, 8–15 avgusta 1991 (Moscow, 1991). The Croatian scholar Marko Japundžić,
who has claimed that the Slavic Glagolitic liturgy and writing originated in Croatia at the time of its bap-
tism at the turn of the seventh and eighth centuries, also comes very close to accepting the possibility of
Jerome’s authorship of the Glagolitic alphabet. See Marko Japundžić, Hrvatska glagoljica (Zagreb, 1998),
9–34.

Chapter 1
1. Shortly before his death in 869, Constantine took the name of Cyril at his tonsure. He is therefore
usually referred to as St. Cyril.
2. This point of view is shared by most scholars of early Slavic history, although they may not agree
on all the details. The literature on this topic is voluminous and in many languages. In English, some of
the classic and fundamental studies include books by Francis Dvornik, Byzantine Missions among the
Slavs: SS. Constantine-Cyril and Methodius (New Brunswick, NJ, 1970); Alexis P. Vlasto, The Entry of the
Slavs into Christendom: An Introduction to the Medieval History of the Slavs (Cambridge, 1970); Dimitri
Obolensky, Byzantium and the Slavs (Crestwood, NY, 1994); Ihor Ševčenko, Byzantium and the Slavs
in Letters and Culture (Cambridge, MA, 1991); Henry R. Cooper, Jr., Slavic Scriptures: The Formation
of the Church Slavonic Version of the Holy Bible (Madison, WI, 2003); as well as the English translation
from the Greek of Anthony-Emil N. Tachiaos, Cyril and Methodius of Thessalonica: The Acculturation of
the Slavs (Crestwood, NY, 2001). Shorter studies may be found in the collection of papers assembled by
the Hellenic Association for Slavic Studies, Thessaloniki Magna Moravia: Proceedings of the International
Conference, Thessaloniki 16–19 October 1997 (Thessaloniki, 1999); and in Slavic Review 23, to name only
a few. Documents related to the mission in Moravia are published in several collections. The most recent
and comprehensive is Dagmar Bartoňková, Lubomír Havlík, Jaroslav Ludvíkovský, Zdeněk Masařík, and
Radoslav Večerka, eds., Magnae Moraviae Fontes Historici, 5 vols. (Prague, 1966–1977). The main sources
of information about the holy brothers are their vitae. The Church Slavonic Life of Constantine was written
in Moravia before 885 (earliest copies are from the fifteenth century). The Church Slavonic Life of Metho-
dius dates from the late ninth or early tenth century (the earliest copy is from the twelfth century). Francis
Dvornik’s classic study of the legends as historical sources, which analyzes them in the context of ninth-

176
 Notes to Pages 12–15

century Byzantium, is still one of the best resources. See Francis Dvornik, Les légendes de Constantin et de
Méthode vues de Byzance, Byzantinoslavica Supplementa l (Prague, 1933). For a more recent discussion,
see Harvey Goldblatt, “History and Hagiography: Recent Studies on the Text and Textual Traditions of
the Life of Constantine,” Harvard Ukrainian Studies 19 (1995–1997): 158–79. An English translation, along
with the Church Slavonic texts and commentaries, is in Marvin Kantor, ed., Medieval Slavic Lives of Saints
and Princes (Ann Arbor, MI, 1983). A Russian translation with an extensive and updated critical com-
mentary is in B. N. Floria, Skazaniia o nachale slavianskoi pis’mennosti (St. Petersburg, 2004). In addition
to Church Slavonic vitae, the Latin Vita Constantini-Cyrilli cum Translatione S. Clementis, also known as
the Italian Legend, provides additional evidence of Cyril’s life. MMFH, 2:120–33.
3. Although the Franks claimed jurisdiction over Moravia, missionaries from Aquileia, Northern
Italy, and possibly even Ireland also preached in these territories. On the history of conversions in this
region, see Petr Sommer, Dušan Třeštík, and Josef Žemlička (with Zoё Opačić), “Bohemia and Moravia,”
in Christianization and the Rise of Christian Monarchy: Scandinavia, Central Europe and Rus’ c. 900–1200,
ed. Nora Berend (Cambridge, 2007), 214–62; Ian Wood, The Missionary Life: Saints and the Evangelisation
of Europe, 400–1050 (Harlow, UK, 2001), 145–206, esp. 173–74.
4. MMFH, 3:143–44.
5. Sommer, Třeštík, and Žemlička, “Bohemia and Moravia,” 221–23.
6. Kantor, Lives, 111; MMFH, 2:144.
7. Chapter 3 of the Life of Methodius informs us that Methodius, wearing a black robe, lived as a
monk on Olympus. Discrepancies in sources have caused some confusion in scholarship regarding the
geographical names and locations of the monasteries at which Methodius is thought to have been monk
and abbot. For a recent critique of this issue, see Francis J. Thomson, “Saint Methodius, Apostle to the
Slavs, as Abbot of the Greek Monastery of Polikhron,” in Iter philologicum: Festschrift für Helmut Keipert
zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. Daniel Bunčić and Nikolaos Trunte (Munich, 2006), 223–42.
8. On the corpus and description of the Old Church Slavonic manuscripts, see Alexander M.
Schenker, The Dawn of Slavic: An Introduction to Slavic Philology (New Haven, CT, 1995), 185–92; Miloš
Weingart and Josef Kurz, Texty ke studiu jazyka a písmenictví staroslověnského (Prague, 1949). On the
structure and grammar of Old Church Slavonic in English, see, for example, William R. Schmalstieg, An
Introduction to Old Church Slavic (Columbus, OH, 1983); Boris Gasparov, Old Church Slavonic (Munich,
2001); Horace G. Lunt, Old Church Slavonic Grammar (Berlin, 2001).
9. On Church Slavonic variation, see Robert Mathiesen, “The Church Slavonic Language Question:
An Overview (IX–XX Centuries),” in Aspects of the Slavic Language Question, ed. Ricardo Picchio and
Harvey Goldblatt (New Haven, CT, 1984), 1:45–65.
10. Romans 14:11.
11. On the Pentecostal justification of the Slavonic liturgy, the Cyrillo-Methodian mission, and
the beginning of national self-determination among the Slavs, see Roman Jakobson, “The Beginning of
National Self-Determination in Europe,” in SW, 115–28; Ševčenko, Byzantium and the Slavs, 3–15.
12. Acts 2:1–4.
13. Francis Thomson gives examples of the early church fathers who advocated comprehensibil-
ity of the language of worship and the equality of languages in the face of God. Thomson, “SS. Cyril and
Methodius and a Mythical Western Heresy: Trilinguism; A Contribution to the Study of Patristic and
Mediaeval Theories of Sacred Languages,” Analecta Bollandiana 110 (1992): 79.
14. Kiril Petkov, The Voices of Medieval Bulgaria, Seventh–Fifteenth Century: The Records of a By-
gone Culture (Leiden, 2008), 61–64. For the Church Slavonic edition, see Jordan Ivanov, Balgarski starini
iz Makedonija, 2nd ed. (Sofia, 1970), 338–44. Some scholars ascribe this composition to St. Cyril himself.
See Roman Jakobson, “St. Constantine’s Prologue to the Gospels,” in SW, 196–99.
15. On the differences between methods of Western and Eastern missionaries, see Richard Eugene
Sullivan, “Early Medieval Missionary Activity: A Comparative Study of Eastern and Western Methods,”
Church History 23 (1954): 17–35.
16. Opinions on how to interpret the title of this treatise and, therefore define its authorship vary.
Some read the word ühf,h+ (brave) as the personal name of the author. Others view it as an epithet of the
word xhmzjhbpmwm (monk) that was given to the author by a later scribe to characterize his sharp polemical

177
 Notes to Pages 15–18

style and argumentativeness as “courage.” It has also been viewed as a pseudonym, and the text has been
ascribed to Constantine-Cyril himself or to Tsar Simeon of Bulgaria, among others. The original com-
position is not preserved. William Veder provides a reconstruction of the treatise based on textological
analysis of attested manuscript copies. He argues that the text that is presently known as the Treatise on the
Letters of Monk Khrabr shows traces of two independent compositions: the treatise On the Script and the
treatise On the Letters. Veder dates the original composition to before ca. 919 and believes it to be a work
of anonymous writers. See William R. Veder, Utrum in Alterum Abiturum Erat? A Study of the Beginnings
of Text Transmission in Church Slavic (Bloomington, IN, 1999). For an edition of the Church Slavonic On
the Letters, see Kuio Markov Kuev, Chernorizets Khrabŭr (Sofia, 1967). For the Russian translation of the
treatise with extensive commentary and bibliography, see Floria, Skazaniia, 196–201 and 339–69.
17. Veder, Utrum, 160 and 165.
18. Ibid., 159.
19. This theory has been proposed by Georg Tschernokhvostoff and endorsed by his mentor Val-
entin Kiparsky. See Georg Tschernochvostoff, “Zum Ursprung der Glagolica,” Studia Slavica Finlandensia
12 (1995): 141–50; Valentin Kiparsky, “Tschernochvostoffs Theorie über den Ursprung des glagolitischen
Alfabets,” in Cyrillo-Methodiana: Zur Frühgeschichte des Christentums bei den Slaven, 863–1963, ed. Man-
fred Hellmann (Cologne, 1964), 393–400. It has recently been elaborated by Boris Uspenskii. See “O
proiskhozhdenii glagolitsy,” Voprosy iazykoznaniia 1 (2005): 63–77.
20. For some recent studies that summarize previous scholarship on this matter and offer new
ideas, see Olga B. Strakhov, “The Adventure of the Dancing Men: Professor Ševčenko’s Theory on the Ori-
gin of Glagolitic,” Palaeoslavica 19 (2011): 1–45; T. A. Ivanova, “Glagolitsa: Novye gipotezy,” TODRL 56
(2004): 78–93; Olivier Azam, “L’histoire controversée de la naissance du premier alphabet slave,” Slavica
Occitania 12 (2001): 49–91; Vojtěch Tkadlčík, “Über den Ursprung der Glagolica,” in Glagolitica, 9–32;
Horace Lunt, “Thoughts, Suggestions, and Questions about the Earliest Slavic Writing Systems,” Wiener
Slavistisches Jahrbuch 46 (2000): 271–86.
21. Dmitro Čyževs’kyj, “K otázce v původu slovanského písma,” in Slovanské studie: Sbírka statí,
věnovaných J. Vajsovi, ed. Josef Kurz (Prague, 1948), 52–57.
22. Wilhelm Lettenbauer, “Zur Entstehung des glagolitischen Alphabets,” Slovo 3 (1953): 35–50.
23. G. M. Prokhorov, “Glagolitsa sredi missionerskikh azbuk,” TODRL 45 (1991): 178–99; V. M.
Lur’e, “Okolo Solunskoi legendy: Iz istorii missionerstva v period monofelitskoi unii.” Slaviane i ikh sosedi
6 (1996): 23–52.
24. Japundžić, Hrvatska glagoljica, 9–34.
25. For a critical analysis of these theories see Radoslav Katičić, “Uz pitanje o postanku i starosti
glagoljice,” Croatica 42–44 (1995–1996): 185–98.
26. Lunt, “Thoughts, Suggestions,” esp. 275 and 284.
27. Ivan Illich, In the Vineyard of the Text: A Commentary to Hugh’s ‘Didascalicon’ (Chicago, 1993),
70–71.
28. Prokhorov, “Glagolitsa sredi missionerskikh azbuk.”
29. Andrzej Poppe, “Is kurilotsь i is kurilovitsь,” International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poet-
ics 31–32 (1986): 324–25.
30. Apart from numerous medieval icons, the scrolls with Cyrillic letters may also be seen in con-
temporary sculpture monuments to Cyril and Methodius, such as a monument in front of the Saints Cyril
and Methodius National Library in Sofia and a monument in Pazardjik (Bulgaria), a monument in Odessa
(Ukraine), in the Kolomna Kremlin (Russia), and in Radhošt (Czech Republic), to name only a few.
31. See, for example, A. V. Mikhailov, K voprosu o literaturnom nasledii Sv. Kirilla i Mefodiia v
glagolicheskikh khorvatskikh missalakh i breviariiakh: Iz istorii izucheniia drevneslavianskogo perevoda
Knigi Bytiia proroka Moiseia (Warsaw, 1904); Anatolii A. Alekseev, “K opredeleniiu ob”ema literaturnogo
naslediia Mefodiia (Chetii perevod Pesni pesnei),” TODRL 37 (1983): 229–55; Alekseev, “Filologicheskie
kriterii vyiavleniia bibleiskikh perevodov sv. Mefodiia,” Polata knigopisnaja 14–15 (1985): 8–14; Francis
J. Thomson, “The Slavonic Translation of the Old Testament,” in Bible, 605–920, esp. 638–46; Thomson,
“Has the Cyrillomethodian Translation of the Bible Survived?,” in Thessaloniki, 149–64; Biserka Grabar,
“Ćirilometodski i staroslavenski prijevodi u hrvatskoglagoljskim prijepisima,” Slovo 36 (1986): 87–94;

178
 Notes to Pages 18–21

Henry R. Cooper, “The Origins of the Church Slavonic Version of the Bible,” in Bible, 959–72; Cooper,
Slavic Scriptures, 24–79; Marcello Garzaniti, Die altslavische Version der Evangelien: Forschungsgeschichte
und zeitgenössische Forschung (Cologne, 2001).
32. For an overview of the preserved liturgical texts and a discussion of key questions and chal-
lenges that scholars face, see Antonín Dostál, “Origins of the Slavonic Liturgy,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers
19 (1965): 67–87.
33. Josef Vašica, “Slovanská liturgie sv. Petra,” Byzantinoslavica 8 (1939–1940): 1–54; Vašica,
“Slovanská liturgie nově osvětlená Kijevskými listy,” Slovo a slovesnost 6 (1940): 65–77.
34. Dmitro Čyževs’kyj, “K voprosu o liturgii sv. Petra,” Slovo (1953): 37–41; Dostál, “Origins,” 77;
Vojtěch Tkadlčík, “Byzantinischer und römischer Ritus in der slavischen Liturgie,” in Wegzeichen: Festgabe
zum 60. Geburtstag von Prof. Dr. Hermenegild M. Biedermann, OSA, ed. Coelestin Patock and Ernst Chris-
toph Suttner (Würzburg, 1971), 313–32. Josef Laurenčík, “K otázce slovanské liturgie sv. Petra,” in Studia
palaeoslovenica, ed. Bohuslav Havránek (Prague, 1971), 201–14; František Václav Mareš, “Slovanská litur-
gie sv. Petra,” in Cyrilometodějská tradice a slavistika (Prague, 2000), 166–87.
35. František Václav Mareš, “Význam staroslověnských rukopisů nově objevených na hoře Sinaj,”
in Cyrilometodějská tradice a slavistika (Prague, 2000), 207–8. Dostál (“Origins,” 80–84) has also hypoth-
esized that the Liturgy of St. Chrysostom was the first Slavonic liturgy introduced by Cyril and Methodius
in Moravia.
36. See, for example, Henrik Birnbaum, “Eastern and Western Components in the Earliest Slavic
Liturgy,” in Essays in Early Slavic Civilization (Munich, 1981), 36–51; Tkadlčík, “Byzantinischer und rö-
mischer Ritus,” 313–32 (Tkadlčík argues that the Slavic apostles brought the Byzantine rite to Moravia,
and only there allowed Roman and Frankish elements to be incorporated gradually into their texts and
rituals, especially after a visit to Rome in 869); Marija Pantelić, “O Kijevskim i Sinajskim listićima,” Slovo
35 (1985): 5–56. Pantelić argues that the Kiev Folia represent the oldest Slavonic liturgical text, which
records a part of the Gregorian Sacramentary and reveals terminology of the Eastern Church, while the
Sinai Folia document the Eastern liturgy with interpolated Western prayers.
37. Thomson, “The Slavonic Translation”; Cooper, “The Origins,” and Slavic Scriptures, 24–79;
Grabar, “Ćirilometodski i staroslavenski prijevodi.”
38. The Life of Constantine, chapter 17 (MMFH, 2:110); the Life of Methodius, chapter 6 (MMFH,
2:146); the letter “Industriae tuae” or “Dilecto filio Sfentopulcho glorioso comiti” (To beloved Svatopluk,
glorious ruler), June 880 (MMFH, 3:207–8). Henry Cooper, however, has suggested that the references
to the Slavonic biblical translations in the saints’ vitae are literary topoi used to enhance the holiness of
biblical translations that were completed later in Bulgaria. Cooper, “The Origins,” 965–71.
39. The Life of Constantine, chapter 17, MMFH, 2:110–11.
40. On the politics of the papacy concerning Slavic dioceses, see a new analysis by Maddalena Betti,
The Making of Christian Moravia (858–882): Papal Power and Political Reality (Leiden, 2014).
41. The letter “Commonitorium Dominico episcopo Iohanni et Stefano presbyteris euntibus ad
Sclavos” (The reminder to Bishop Dominic and presbyters John and Stephen on their journey to the
Slavs), MMFH, 3:226–29.
42. In about half of the attested copies of the Life of Constantine, a variant is pisanię, “writings.” The
Life of Constantine, chapter 15, MMFH, 2:102.
43. “lmædjk+6 zt nthgå ctuj lj,hf6 z+ ditl+ d+ cdjæ c+cel¥6 zfxån+ vzju¥ d+pldbpfnb6
ukfujkå­bv+Ω zt ckfdbncå ,ju+ j ctv+7 fot ,j ,¥ tve cbwt eujlzj ,¥kj6 zt ,¥ kb vjuk+ cndjhbnb6­
lf ,¥if bcgthdf gbcvtz¥ gbi.ot ,tcäl¥ cdjå6 ckfdbkb ,juf? zj nhb æp¥r¥ e,j tcnm njrvj
(bp,hfk+) tdhäbcr+6 uhtxtcr+ b kfnbzmcr¥b6 bvböt ljcnjbnm ckfde ,jue d+plfænb7 ,äif öt ct
ukfujk.ot kfnbzmcn⁄b b ahåötcnbb fhübthäb c+ bthäb b extzbwb.” The Life of Constantine, chapter
15, MMFH, 2:102–3.
44. Analyzing the text of the Life of Constantine, Floria substantiates the assumption made by E.
Golubinskii and I. Malyshevskii that the initial object of Cyril and Methodius’s expedition was the con-
secration of their disciples by the patriarch of Grado, and that a special Synod met in Venice to decide
this case. See Floria, Skazaniia, 256–58, 260–61. Other proposed destinations for Cyril and Methodius’s
expedition include Rome, Constantinople, and Aquilea. See MMFH, 2:104.

179
 Notes to Pages 21–24

45. “D+ zånwäü+ öt ,¥dmie tve6 cj,hfifcå zf zm kfnbzmcn⁄b tgbcrjgb b gjgjdä b xthzjhbcwb
ærj dhfzb zf cjrjk+6 b d+pldbujif nhbåp¥xze. thtcm6 ukfujk.otΩ (xkjdäxt)6 crföb zfv+6 rfrj n¥ tcb
z¥zä cndjhbk+ ckjdäzjv+ rzbu¥6 b exbi⁄ f6 büöt zäcnm zbrnjöt bz+ gthdät j,häk+6 zb fgjcnjk+6 zb
hbvmcr¥b gfgtöm6 zb atjkju+ uhbujh⁄b6 zb bthjzbv+6 zb fduecnbz+? v¥ öt nhb æp¥r¥ njrvj däv+6
bvböt ljcnjbnm d+ rzbufü+ ckfdbnb ,juf6 tdhäbcr¥6 tkkbzmcr¥6 kfnbzmcr¥.” The Life of Constantine,
chapter 16, MMFH, 2:105–6.
46. The Life of Constantine, chapter 16, cf. MMFH, 2:105 (písmena), Kantor, Lives, 71 (letters), and
Floria, Skazaniia, 170 (pis’mena).
47. The most famous example is the Freising Fragments, recently published again in France Bernik
et al., eds., Brižinski spomeniki: Monumenta Frisingensia; Znanstvenokritična izdaja (Ljubljana, 2004).
48. Thomson, “SS. Cyril and Methodius,” 67–121.
49. The Life of Constantine, chapter 14, MMFH, 2:99–100.
50. The sources show some variation in the description of these events. The Life of Constantine relates
that the pope put the Slavonic books in the Church of Santa Maria Maggiore and sanctified them. Then he
ordered bishops Formosus and Gauderic to ordain Cyril and Methodius’s disciples. The ordination was ac-
companied by a service in Slavonic at St. Peter’s. For several days afterward, the liturgy was celebrated in Sla-
vonic in various churches of Rome. The Life of Constantine, chapter 17, MMFH, 2:110–11. One of the copies
of the Italian Legend relates that Hadrian II consecrated Methodius as bishop, while others mention only a
priestly office: Vita Constantini-Cyrilli cum translatione S. Clementis, MMFH, 2:130. In the Life of Methodius,
the pope called Cyril’s opponents “gbkfn+zs b nhm•psxmzbrs” (Pilatists and trilinguists) and condemned
them. He also put the Slavonic Gospel on the altar at St. Peter’s and consecrated Methodius. Later, at the
requests of Prince Kocel of Pannonia and Rostislav of Moravia, the pope consecrated Methodius as arch-
bishop of Sirmium and Moravia. Zhitie Mefodiia, MMFH, 2:146–54. There is a dispute among scholars
regarding the nature and geography of Methodius’s office as archbishop. See Imre Boba, “The Episcopacy of
St. Methodius,” Slavic Review 26 (1967): 85–93; Henrik Birnbaum, “Where was the Missionary Field of SS.
Cyril and Methodius?,” in Thessaloniki, 47–52; Birnbaum, “Some Remaining Puzzles in Cyrillo-Methodian
Studies,” Slovo 47–49 (1997–1999): 15–23; Martin Eggers, “The Historical-Geographical Implications of the
Cyrillo-Methodian Mission among the Slavs,” in Thessaloniki, 65–86; Eggers, Das Erzbistum des Method:
Lage, Wirkung und Nachleben der kyrillo-methodianischen Mission (Munich, 1996); Horace G. Lunt, “Cyril
and Methodius with Rastislav Prince of Moravia: Where Were They?,” in Thessaloniki, 87–112.
51. “Igitur hunc Methodium venerabilem archiepiscopum vestrum interrogavimus corampositis
fratribus nostris episcopis, si orthodoxę fidei symbolum ita crederet et inter sacra missarum sollempnia
caneret, sicuti sanctam Romanam ecclesiam tenere et in sanctis sex universalibus synodis a sanctis pa-
tribus secundum evangelicam Christi Dei nostri auctoritatem promulgatum atque traditum constat. Ille
autem professus est se iuxta evangelicam et apostolicam doctrinam, sicuti sancta Romana ecclesia docet
et a patribus traditum est, tenere et psallere. Nos autem illum in omnibus ecclesiasticis doctrinis et utili-
tatibus orthodoxum et proficuum esse repperientes vobis iterum ad regendam commissam sibi ecclesiam
Dei remisimus.” The letter “Industriae tuae,” MMFH, 3:203–4.
52. The dispute concerned a disagreement regarding the Procession of the Holy Spirit. The Eastern
Church refused to recognize the dogma of the double Procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the
Son, believing that it proceeds only from the Father. This important theological difference was expressed in
the Nicene Creed by adding filioque, “and from the Son,” to the original phrase “et in Spiritum Sanctum . . .
qui ex Patre procedit” (and in the Holy Spirit . . . , which proceeds from the Father). During the apostolate of
John VIII, in the Roman practice, the Symbolum fidei did not yet contain the addition filioque. Methodius
followed the same practice of not including the addition filioque, whereas the Frankish Church included it.
See the letter of John VIII, “Industriae tuae,” MMFH, 3:203. The theological dispute about the nature of the
Holy Spirit is also apparent in Pope Stephen V’s letters. See the letter “Stephanus episcopus servus servorum
Dei Zventopolco regi Sclavorum” (Bishop Stephen, the Servant of God’s Servants to Svatopluk, the King of
the Slavs), MMFH, 3:220–21, and the letter “Commonitorium Dominico episcopo,” 228.
53. New King James Bible, Ps 117:1; Vulgate Bible, Ps 116:1. This English translation keeps the dis-
tinction between the populi = Jews and the gentes = all other peoples, made by Jerome in his Latin transla-
tion from the Hebrew: “Alleluia laudate Dominum omnes gentes laudate eum omnes populi.”

180
 Notes to Pages 24–27

54. “Litteras denique Sclaviniscas a Costantino quondam philosopho reppertas, quibus Deo laudes
debite resonent, iure laudamus et in eadem lingua Christi domini nostri preconia et opera enarrentur,
iubemus. Neque enim tribus tantum, sed omnibus linguis Dominum laudare auctoritate sacra monemur,
quę pręcipit dicens: ‘Laudate Dominum omnes gentes et collaudate eum omnes populi.’ [. . .] Nec sane
fidei vel doctrinę aliquid obstat sive missas in eadem Sclavinica lingua canere sive sacrum evangelium vel
lectiones divinas novi et veteris testamenti bene translatas et interpretatas legere aut alia horarum officia
omnia psallere, quoniam, qui fecit tres linguas principales, Hebream scilicet, Grecam et Latinam, ipse
creavit et alias omnes ad laudem et gloriam suam. Iubemus tamen, ut in omnibus ecclesiis terrę vestrę
propter maiorem honorificentiam evangelium Latine legatur et postmodum Sclavinica lingua translatum
in auribus populi Latina verba non intellegentis adnuntietur, sicut in quibusdam ecclesiis fieri videtur.”
The letter “Dilecto filio Sfentopulcho glorioso comiti,” MMFH, 3:207–8.
55. “Successorem, quem Methodius sibimet contra omnium sanctorum patrum statuta constituere
praesumpsit, ne ministret, nostra apostolica auctoritate interdicite, donec suam nobis praesentiam exhi-
beat et causam suam viva voce exponat.” The letter “Commonitorium Dominico episcopo,” MMFH, 3:229.
56. Paul J. Alexander, “The Papacy, the Bavarian Clergy, and the Slavonic Apostles,” Slavonic Year-
Book, American Series 1 (1941): 266–93; Josip Bratulić, “Rimska Kurija i misija Konstantina-Ćirila i Me­
thodija,” Slovo 36 (1986): 45–50.
57. Dmitro Čyževs’kyj, “Der hl. Method—Organisator, Missionar, Politiker und Dichter,” in Metho-
diana: Beiträge zur Zeit und Persönlichkeit sowie zum Schicksal und Werk des hl. Method, ed. Franz Zagiba,
Annales Instituti Slavici Salisburgo-Ratisbonensis 9 (Vienna, 1976), 7–21.
58. Ihor Ševčenko, “Three Paradoxes of the Cyrillo-Methodian Mission,” Slavic Review 23 (1964):
220–36.
59. For an English translation of major sources, supplemented with commentary, see Marvin Kan-
tor, ed., The Origins of Christianity in Bohemia: Sources and Commentary (Evanston, IL, 1990).
60. MMFH, 2:186–99. For a revised Latin edition, see Jaroslav Ludvíkovský, Kristiánova legenda:
Život a umučení svatého Václava a jeho báby svaté Ludmily (Prague, 1978). Christian’s composition is
dated to 992–994 but its authenticity is still debated in Czech scholarship. Its dedicatory note is addressed
to the second bishop of Prague St. Adalbert, hence the date. However, its peculiar chronicle-like narra-
tive, which stands out among other documents from that period, as well as its idiosyncratic ideological
agenda, make some scholars doubt the text’s authenticity and suggest a later date. Some of the key works
from an extensive list of publications on this issue are Josef Pekař, Nejstarší kronika česká ku kritice leg-
end o sv. Ludmile, sv. Václavu a sv. Prokopu (Prague, 1903); Pekař, Die Wenzels- und Ludmila-legenden
und die Echtheit Christians (Prague, 1906); Václav Chaloupecký, ed., Svatováclavský sborník, vol. 2, part
2, Prameny 10. století: Legendy kristiánovy o Svatém Václavu a Svaté Ludmile (Prague, 1939); Záviš Ka-
landra, České pohanství (Prague, 1947); Rudolf Urbánek, Legenda t. zv. Kristiána ve vývoji předhusitských
legend ludmilských i václavských a její autor (Prague, 1947–1948); Zdeněk Fiala, Hlavní pramen legendy
Kristiánovy (Prague, 1974); Dušan Třeštík, “Deset tezí o Kristiánově legendě,” Folia Historica Bohemica 2
(1980): 7–38; Herman Kølln, Die Wenzelslegende des Mönchs Christian, Historisk-filosofiske Meddelelser
73 (Copenhagen, 1996). Recent publications pro and contra the early dating provide a review of existing
literature on the subject. Pro: David Kalhous, Anatomy of a Duchy: The Political and Ecclesiastical Struc-
tures of Early Přemyslid Bohemia (Leiden, 2012); Kalhous, “Christian und Grossmähren,” in Die frühmit-
telalterliche Elite bei den Völkern des östlichen Mitteleuropas, ed. Pavel Kouřil (Brno, 2005), 25–33; Josef
Šrámek, “Osobnost procházející dějinami, stále záhadný Kristián,” Studia Theologica 1 (2008): 32–40.
Contra: Petr Kubín, “Znovu o Kristiána,” in Od knížat ke králům: Sborník u příležitosti 60. narozenin Josefa
Žemličky, ed. Eva Doležalová and Robert Šimůnek (Prague, 2007), 63–72.
61. Ludvíkovský, Kristiánova legenda, 16–24. On the cult of St. Ludmila, see Petr Kubín, Sedm
přemyslovských kultů (Prague, 2011), 81–123. For more information on the early period of Bohemian Chris-
tianity and its connection to Great Moravia, see Sommer, Třeštík, and Žemlička, “Bohemia and Moravia.”
62. According to legend, St. Wenceslas—a devoted Christian—was murdered by his brother
Boleslav on his way to church. The popularity of St. Wenceslas’s cult in Bohemia is documented by a
remarkable number of hagiographic works. Secondary literature is voluminous; see, for example, Pekař,
Die Wenzels- und Ludmila-legenden; František Graus, “St. Adalbert und St. Wenzel: Zur Funktion der

181
 Notes to Pages 27–29

mittelalterlichen Heiligenverehrung in Böhmen,” in Europa Slavica, Europa Orientalis: Festschrift für

Herbert Ludat zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. Klaus-Detlev Grothusen and Klaus Zernack (Berlin, 1980), 205–
31; Rudolf Turek, “Svatý Václav,” in Bohemia Sancta, ed. Jaroslav Kadlec (Prague, 1989), 53–71; Kantor,
The Origins, 1–47; Dušan Třeštík, “Translace a kanonizace svatého Václava Boleslavem I.,” in Světci a
jejich kult ve středověku, ed. Petr Kubín, Hana Pátková, and Tomáš Petráček (České Budějovice, 2006),
325–44; Marie Bláhová, “The Function of the Saints in Early Bohemian Historical Writing,” in The Mak-
ing of Christian Myths in the Periphery of Latin Christendom (c. 1000–1300), ed. Lars Boje Mortensen
(Copenhagen, 2006), 83–119; Kubín, Sedm přemyslovských kultů, 125–50; Kalhous, Anatomy, 237–62.
63. Sommer, Třeštík, and Žemlička, “Bohemia and Moravia,” 229–31.
64. František Graus, “Slovanská liturgie a písemnictví v přemyslovských Čechách 10. století,”
Československý časopis historický 14 (1966): 473–95; Radoslav Večerka, “Velkomoravská literatura v
přemyslovských Čechách,” Slavia 32 (1963): 398–416; Večerka, “Jazykovědný příspěvek k problem-
atice staroslověnského písemnictví v Čechách X. a XI. století,” Slavia 36 (1967): 421–28; Václav Kon-
zal, “Církevněslovanská literatura—slepá ulička na prahu české kultury,” in Speculum medii aevi: Zrcadlo
středověku, ed. Lenka Jiroušková (Prague, 1998), 150–62; Dušan Třeštík, “Slovanská liturgie a písemnictví
v Čechách 10. století: Představy a skutečnost,” in Svatý Prokop, Čechy a Střední Evropa, ed. Petr Sommer
(Prague, 2006), 189–218; Sommer, Třeštík, and Žemlička, “Bohemia and Moravia,” 233–34; David Kal-
hous, “Slovanské písemnictví a liturgie 10. a 11. věku,” Český časopis historický 108 (2010): 1–33; Kalhous,
Anatomy, 208–37.
65. Sommer, Třeštík, and Žemlička, “Bohemia and Moravia,” 229.
66. On St. Procopius and the sources on the Sázava Monastery, see Kubín, Sedm přemyslovských
kultů, 219–55; Petr Sommer, “Svatý Prokop a jeho kult ve středověku,” in Světci a jejich kult ve středověku,
ed. Petr Kubín, Hana Pátková, and Tomáš Petráček (České Budějovice, 2006), 261–81; Vladimír Ondáš,
“Byl svatý Prokop basilián nebo benediktin?,” in Kubín et al., Světci a jejich kult ve středověku, 211–19; Petr
Sommer, Svatý Prokop: Z počátků českého státu a církve (Prague, 2007); Petr Sommer, ed., Svatý Prokop,
Čechy a Střední Evropa (Prague, 2006); Jaroslav Kadlec and Horní Cerekev, “Das Kloster des hl. Prokop
an der Sasau,” and “Der heilige Prokop,” in Tausend Jahre Benediktiner in den Klöstern Břevnov, Braunau
und Rohr, ed. Johannes Hofmann (St. Ottilien, 1993), 297–307 and 309–24.
67. Miloš Weingart, Československý typ cirkevnej slovančiny (Bratislava, 1949); Josip Vrana, “Praški
glagoljski odlomci kao svjedok neprekidne ćirilometodske tradicije u Češkoj do kraja XI stoljeća,” Sla-
via 39 (1970): 238–49; Emilie Bláhová, Václav Konzal, and A. I. Rogov, Staroslověnské legendy českého
původu (Prague, 1976); František Václav Mareš, An Anthology of Church Slavonic Texts of Western (Czech)
Origin: With an Outline of Czech-Church Slavonic Language and Literature and with a Selected Bibliog-
raphy (Munich, 1979); Mareš, “Místo českocírkevněslovanského písemnictví v dějinách literatur,” in
Cyrilometodějská tradice a slavistika (Prague, 2000), 268–327; Francis J. Thomson, “A Survey of the Vi-
tae Allegedly Translated from Latin in Slavonic in Bohemia in the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries,” in
Atti del VIII Congresso internazionale di studi sull’alto Medioevo (Spoleto, 1983), 331–48; Zoë Hauptová,
“Církevněslovanské písemnictví v přemyslovských Čechách,” in Jazyk a literatura v historické perspektivě
(Ustí nad Labem, 1998), 5–42; Emilie Bláhová, “Literární vztahy Sázavy a Kyjevské Rusi,” in Svatý Prokop,
Čechy a Střední Evropa, ed. Petr Sommer (Prague, 2006), 219–34; Miroslav Vepřek, Česká redakce církevní
slovanštiny z hlediska lexikílní analýzy (Olomouc, 2006); František Čajka, Církevněslovanská legenda o
svaté Anastázii (Prague, 2011).
68. Konzal, “Církevněslovanská literatura,” 153–54.
69. For more or less recent synthetic analyses of this problem and reference to literature, see
Przemysław Urbańczyk and Stanisław Rosik, “The Kingdom of Poland,” in Christianization and the Rise of
Christian Monarchy: Scandinavia, Central Europe and Rus’ c. 900–1200, ed. Nora Berend (Cambridge, 2007),
263–300; Andrzej Gil, Prawosławna eparchia chełmska do 1596 roku (Lublin, 1999), 47–48; Hanna Toby, “O
źródłach tradycji cerkiewnosłowiańskiej w Polsce,” in Dutch Contributions to the Twelfth International
Congress of Slavists, Cracow, August 26–September 3, 1988; Linguistics, ed. A. A. Barentsen, Studies in Slav-
ic and General Linguistics 24 (Amsterdam, 1998), 391–428; Stanisław Szczur, “Misja cyrylo-metodiańska
w świetle najnowszych badań,” in Chrystianizacja Polski południowej: Materiały sesji naukowej odbytej 29
czerwca 1993 roku (Cracow, 1994), 7–23; Vlasto, The Entry of the Slavs, 113–42.

182
 Notes to Pages 29–30

70. For studies in English, see Karolina Lanckorońska, Studies on the Roman-Slavonic Rite in Po-
land (Rome, 1961) and Henryk Paszkiewicz, “A Polish Metropolitan See of the Slavonic Rite,” in The
Origin of Russia (London, 1954), 381–404. Studies in Polish include Józef Umański, Obrządek słowiański
w Polsce IX–XI wieku i zagadnienie drugiej metropolii polskiej w czasach Bolesława Chrobrego, Roczniki
Humanistyczne Towarzystwa Naukowego Katolickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego 4 (Lublin, 1957), 1–44;
Henryk Łowmiański, Początki Polski, 6 vols. (Warsaw, 1963–1985), 4:299–532. The most recent attempt to
prove the continuation of the Slavonic rite in Poland is a three-volume publication in Polish by Zbigniew
Dobrzyński, Obrządek słowiański w dawnej Polsce (Warsaw, 1989). Among determined advocates of the
Slavonic rite in Poland is A. V. Lipatov, whose views have been put forward in at least three publications
that, in the most uncompromising fashion, claim the operation of the Cyrillo-Methodian mission and the
Slavonic rite in Poland. See A. V. Lipatov, “Kirillo-mefodievskaia traditsiia, istoki pol’skoi literatury i prob-
lemy slavianskoi vzaimnosti (o vzaimodeistvii latinskogo Zapada i vizantiiskogo Vostoka,” Seriia literatury
i iazyka 45–46 (1995): 34–46; Lipatov, “Vzaimodeistvie latinskogo Zapada i vizantiiskogo Vostoka: Kirillo-
mefodievskaia traditsiia, istoki pol’skoi literatury i problemy slavianskoi vzaimnosti,” Palaeobulgarica 17
(1993): 67–80; Lipatov, “Kirillo-mefodievskaia traditsiia i istoki pol’skoi literatury. (Vzaimodeistvie
latinskogo Zapada i vizantiiskogo Vostoka),” in Bolgarskaia kul’tura v vekakh: Tezisy dokladov nauchnoi
konferentsii, Moskva 26–27 maia 1992 g., ed. Evgeniia I. Demina (Moscow, 1992), 14–15.
71. “Gjufzmcr+ rzåpm6 cbkmz+ dêkmvb6 cälå d+ dbckä6 heufiêcå rhmc(nb)æzjv+ b gfrfcnb
läæiê7 gjc+kfd+ öê r+ zêve hêxêΩ lj,hj nb cå rh(m)cnb(nb)6 c(¥)ze6 djkê. cdjê. zf cdj«b pêvkb6 lf
zê gkäzêz+ zelmvb rhmoêz+ ,elêib zf x.öêb pêvkb6 b gjvåzêib vå6 «öê b ,¥cn(m).” MMFH, 2:156.
72. Lanckorońska, Studies, 18–20. Lanckorońska credits Fr. Stjepan Sakač for this idea.
73. Tadeusz Lehr-Spławiński repeatedly dismissed all attempts to situate the Cyrillo-Methodian mis-
sion in the Polish lands in a number of publications, collected in his Od piętnastu wieków (966–1966):
Szkice z pradziejów i dziejów kultury polskiej (Warsaw, 1961): “Przyczynki krytyczne do dziejów dawnych
Wiślan,” 35–41; “Czy są ślady istnienia liturgii cyrylo-metodejskiej w dawnej Polsce?,” 42–50 (origi-
nally published in Slavia 25 [1956]: 290–99); “Nowa faza diskusji o zagadnieniu liturgii słowiańskiej
w dawnej Polsce,” 51–67 (originally published in 1958); “Pierwszy chrzest Polski,” 68–75 (originally
published in 1960); “Dookoła obrządku słowiańskiego w dawnej Polsce,” 76–81 (originally published
in 1961). See also Józef Szymański, “Czy w Polsce istniał obrządek rzymsko-słowiański,” Zeszyty Nau-
kowe KUL 6 (1963): 41–56; Andrzej Vincenz, “Krytyczna analiza dokumentów dotyczących kontaktów
Polski z misją cyrylometodiańską,” in Zeszyty, 69–78, and the English version, Vincenz, “The Moravian
Mission in Poland Revisited,” in Okeanos: Essays Presented to Ihor Ševčenko on His Sixtieth Birthday by
His Colleagues and Students, ed. Cyril A. Mango, Omeljian Pritsak, and Uliana M. Pasicznyk, Harvard
Ukrainian Studies 7 (Cambridge, MA, 1983), 639–54. One of the most comprehensive critical analyses
has been offered by Gerard Labuda, “O obrządku słowiańskim w Polsce południowej, czyli Kraków
biskupi przed rokiem 1000,” in Studia nad początkami państwa polskiego, 2 vols. (Poznań, 1988), 2:83–
166. Most recently, the theories about the Cyrillo-Methodian Slavonic rite in Poland were again criti-
cally examined by Toby, “O źródłach.”
74. See Lehr-Spławiński, “Czy są ślady istnienia,” 294; Toby, “O źródłach,” 403. The Polish Wiślica
Calendar of saints dates from before 1430, likely from the end of the fourteenth century. See Jerzy Za-
they, “O kilku przepadłych zabytkach rękopiśmiennych Biblioteki Narodowej w Warszawie,” in Studia z
dziejów kultury polskiej, ed. Henryk Barycz and Jan Hulewicz (Warsaw, 1949), 73–86.
75. See, for example, the works of Maria Karpluk, “Traces of the Slavonic Rite in Poland,” in Proceed-
ings of the Thirteenth International Congress of Onomastic Sciences, Cracow, August 21–25, 1978, ed. Ka-
zimierz Rymut (Wrocław, 1981), 1:593–98; Karpluk, “Imiona apostołów i ewangelistów jako świadectwo
oddziaływania liturgii słowiańskiej w Polsce,” in Zeszyty, 63–68; Karpluk, “Słownictwo cerkiewne w
polszczyźnie XVI wieku: Wybór przykładów,” in Chrześcijański Wschód a kultura polska, ed. Ryszard
Łużny (Lublin, 1989), 127–47; Janusz Siatkowski, “O cerkiewizmach w naistarszej polskiej terminologii
chrześcijańskiej,” in Zeszyty, 97–105.
76. Lehr-Spławiński, “Dookoła obrządku słowiańskiego,” 81; Stanisław Urbańczyk, “Rola Wielkich
Moraw i Czech w kulturze Polski średniowiecznej,” in Prace z dziejów języka polskiego (Wrocław, 1979),
63–74; Toby, “O źródłach,” 417–18.

183
 Notes to Pages 30–37

77. For a general survey of and literature about this song, see Teresa Michałowska, Średniowiecze
(Warsaw, 2002), 278–93, 805–6.
78. Stanisław Urbańczyk, “Bogurodzica: Problemy czasu powstania i tła kulturalnego,” in Prace
z dziejów języka polskiego (Wrocław, 1979), 113–48; Jerzy Woronczak, ed., Bogurodzica, introd. by
Ewa Ostrowska, music commentary by Hieronim Feicht, Biblioteka pisarzów polskich, Seria A. Liryka
Średniowieczna 1 (Wrocław, 1962), 7–25; Tadeusz Lehr-Spławiński, “Uwagi o języku Bogurodzicy,” in Od
piętnastu wieków, 129–44.
79. Bohuslav Havránek, “Otázka existence církevní slovanštiny v Polsku,” Slavia 25 (1956): 300–
305.
80. Urbańczyk, “Bogurodzica,” 127–48; Michałowska, Średniowiecze, 287–93.
81. Helena Zoll-Adamik, “Formy konwersji Słowiańszczyzny wczesnośredniowiecznej a prob-
lem przedpiastowskiej chrystianizacji Małopolski,” Sprawozdania z Posiedzeń Komisji Naukowych PAN,
Oddział w Krakowie 37, no. 2 (1993): 1–3; and in Chrystianizacja Polski południowej: Materiały z sesji
naukowej odbytej 29 czerwca 1993 roku (Cracow, 1994), 31–40; Toby, “O źródłach,” 404–5.
82. The principal source of the events following the death of Methodius is the Life of St. Clement,
which is usually ascribed to Archbishop Theophylactus of Ohrid (1050–1126) and which was likely based
on an earlier version. See Aleksandŭr Milev, ed., Teofilakt Ohridski: Zhitie na Kliment Ohridski; Tekst,
prevod, uvod, i obiasneniia (Sofia, 1955).
83. On different theories of the spread of Cyrillic and its initial coexistence with Glagolitic, see S.
Iu. Temchin, “O razvitii pis’mennoi kul’tury Vostochnoi Bolgarii do 971 goda,” in Issledovaniia po kirillo-
mefodievistike i paleoslavistike, Krakowsko-Wileńskie Studia Slawistyczne 5 (Cracow, 2010): 53–70; Tat-
jana Slavova, “Glagolicheskata traditsiia i preslavskata knizhnina,” Palaeobulgarica 23 (1999): 35–46; Peter
Schreiner, “Grecheskii iazyk i kirillitsa na territorii Bolgarii,” Kirilo-Metodievski studii 4 (1987): 274–82;
George C. Soulis, “The Legacy of Cyril and Methodius to the Southern Slavs,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers
19 (1965): 19–43; G. A. Il’inskii, “Gde, kogda, kem i s kakoiu tsel’iu glagolitsa byla zamenena ‘kirillitsei’?”
Byzantinoslavica 3 (1931): 79–88.
84. Ševčenko, “Three Paradoxes,” 224.
85. See William R. Veder, “Glagolitic Books in Rus’,” in Dubitando: Studies in History and Culture in
Honor of Donald Ostrowski, ed. Brian J. Boeck et al. (Bloomington, IN, 2012), 315–34.

Chapter 2
1. Petrisov zbornik (1468), NSK, R 4001, fol. 210v.
2. Ivan Ostojić, Benediktinci u Hrvatskoj i ostalim našim krajevima, vol. 1, Opći povijesno-kulturni
osvrt (Split, 1963), 82; John V. A. Fine, The Early Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Sixth to the
Late Twelfth Century (Ann Arbor, MI, 1983), 33–41; Florin Curta, Southeastern Europe in the Middle Ages,
500–1250 (Cambridge, 2006), 70–110.
3. Vlasto, The Entry of the Slavs, 187–207; Franjo Šanjek, Crkva i kršćanstvo u Hrvata: Srednji vijek,
2nd ed. (Zagreb, 1993), 46–53.
4. Dvornik, Byzantine Missions, 116–46.
5. Šanjek, Crkva i kršćanstvo, 50–52; Šanjek, “Church and Christianity,” in Croatia, 2:219.
6. Vlasto, The Entry of the Slavs, 190.
7. Ivanka Petrović, “Prvi susreti Hrvata s ćirilometodskim izvorištem svoje srednjovjekovne kul-
ture,” Slovo 38 (1988): 5–54.
8. For a detailed discussion of the probable routes of Glagolitic to Croatia and a summary of lit-
erature on this subject, see Henrik Birnbaum, “How Did Glagolitic Writing Reach the Coastal Regions of
Northwestern Croatia?” Hercigonjin zbornik, Croatica 42–44 (1996): 67–79.
9. Eduard Hercigonja, “Glagolists and Glagolism,” in Croatia, 1:369–98, esp. 379–80.
10. Šanjek, “Church and Christianity,” 221.
11. Vjekoslav Štefanić, “Nazivi glagoljskog pisma,” Slovo 25–26 (1976): 17–76.
12. These and other sources on the Church Councils of 925, 928, and 1060 are preserved in the
long version of Thomas of Split’s History of the Bishops of Salona and Split (Historia Salonitanorum atque

184
 Notes to Pages 37–40

Spalatinorum Pontificum), ed. Olga Perić, Damir Karbić, Mirjana Matijević Sokol, and James Ross Swee-
ney, Central European Medieval Texts 4 (Budapest, 2006).
13. The exact date of the letters is not established. Most likely, they were written right before the
Council.
14. “Sed absit hoc a fidelibus, qui Christum colunt, et aliam vitam per orationem se credunt posse
habere, ut doctrinam euangelii atque canonum volumina, apostolicaque etiam praecepta praetermit-
tentes, ad Methodii doctrinam confugiant, quem in nullo volumine inter sacros auctores comperimus”
(CD, 1:30).
15. Radoslav Katičić provides literature on the research and editions of the sources in question. See
Radoslav Katičić, “Methodii Doctrina,” Slovo 36 (1986): 11–44; Katičić, Litterarum studia: Književnost i
naobrazba ranoga hrvatskog srednjovjekovlja (Zagreb, 1998), 392–405. Among other things, Katičić sug-
gests that John X was familiar with the ninth-century correspondence of the Roman curia regarding
Methodius’s activity in Moravia and Pannonia and therefore was well informed about the details of his
teachings. See also Birnbaum, “Some Remaining Puzzles,” 24–29.
16. “Vnde hortamur uos, o dilectissimi filii, ut uestros tenerrimos pueros a cunabulis in studio lit-
terarum deo offeratis, quatenus diuinitus informati uos suis admonitionibus valeant releuare ab illecebris
delictorum ad supernam patriam, in qua Christus est cum omnibus electorum agminibus. Quis etenim
specialis filius sancte Romane ecclesie, sicut uos estis, in barbara seu Slauinica lingua deo sacrificium of-
ferre delectatur? Non quippe ambigo, ut in eis aliud maneat, qui in Slauinica lingua sacrificare contendit,
nisi illud, quod scriptum est: ‘Ex nobis exierunt et non sunt ex nobis; nam si ex nobis essent manerent
utique nobiscum’, nisi in nostra conuersatione et lingua” (CD, 1:34).
17. “Unde hortamur vos dilectos, ut cum nostris episcopis Joanne [. . .] et Leone [. . .] iuncti, cunc-
taque per sclauinicam [variant: salonitanam] terram audacter corrigere satagatis; ea uidelicet [variant:
nempe] ratione, ut nullo modo ab illorum supradictorum episcoporum doctrina in aliquo deuiare prae-
sumatis, ita ut secundum mores sanctae romanae ecclesiae in Sclauonorum terra ministerium sacrificii
peragant in latina scilicet lingua, non autem in extranea, quia nullus filius aliquid loqui debet, vel sapere,
nisi ut pater ei insinuauerit; et quia Sclaui specialissimi filii sanctae romanae ecclesiae sunt, in doctrina
matris permanere debent” (CD, 1:30).
18. “Ut nullus episcopus nostre prouincie audeat in quolibet gradu Slauinica lingua promouere,
tantum in clericatu et monachatu deo deseruire. Nec in sua ecclesia sinat eum missas facere, preter si ne-
cessitatem sacerdotum haberent, per supplicationem a Romano pontifice licentiam eis sacerdotalis min-
isterii tribuatur” (CD, 1:32). The editors of the MMFH offer a different reading of the first sentence: “Ut
nullus episcopus nostrae provinciae audeat /quempiam/ in quolibet gradu slavinica lingua promovere;
[potest] tam[en] in clericatu et monachatu Deo deservire.” The English translation of this syntactically
confusing passage takes into account both textual variants. Capitula Synodi Spalatensis, MMFH, 4:124.
19. “Item. Sclavos, nisi Latinas litteras didicerint, ad sacros ordines promoveri, et clericum, cuius-
cumque gradus sit, laicali servituti vel mundiali fisco amodo subiugari sub excommunicationis vinculo
amodo omnimodo prohibemus.” From a letter of Pope Alexander II (dated after 1 October 1061) con-
firming the Council decisions. See CD, 1:94–96. On the Split Church Councils of 925, 928, and 1060, see
Fine, The Early Medieval Balkans, 266–73 and 280–81.
20. Nada Klaić, “Historijska podloga hrvatskoga glagoljaštva u X i XI stoljeću,” Slovo 15–16 (1965):
225–79.
21. Šanjek, Crkva i kršćanstvo, 60–61.
22. See Ostojić, Benediktinci, 1:71–85; Ostojić, Benediktinci u Hrvatskoj i ostalim našim krajevima,
vol. 2, Benediktinci u Dalmaciji (Split, 1964), 9–10; Šanjek, Crkva i kršćanstvo, 68–71, 78–79.
23. Branko Fučić, Glagoljski natpisi, Djela Jugoslavenske akademije znanosti i umjetnosti 57 (Za-
greb, 1982), 44–70, 354–55.
24. Ivan Ostojić, “Benediktinci glagoljaši,” Slovo 9–10 (1960): 14–42.
25. Ostojić notes that it was easy for the Slavonic monks to adopt the rule of St. Benedict because
they did not have to change much in their clothes (there were no special rules for the color of habits), way
of life, or ritual. They only needed to change the monastic discipline, which at first they probably mixed
with their own traditions. See Ostojić, “Benediktinci glagoljaši,” 18.

185
 Notes to Pages 40–42

26. Ostojić, Benediktinci, 1:159; Hercigonja, “Glagolists and Glagolism,” 386–87; Eduard Her-
cigonja, Povijest hrvatske književnosti, vol. 2, Srednjovjekovna književnost (Zagreb, 1975), 126–30. On
the Glagolitic Rule of St. Benedict, see Christian Hannick, “Zur altkroatischen glagolitischen Regula
Benedicti,” Slovo 56–57 (2008): 187–95; Stjepan Damjanović, “Bilješke o jeziku glagoljaške Benediktin-
ske Regule,” in Zavičajnik: Zbornik Stanislava Marijanovića; Povodom sedamdesetogodišnjice života i
četrdesetpetogodišnjice znanstvenoga rada, ed. Milovan Tatarin (Osijek, 2005), 141–48.
27. Ostojić, Benediktinci, 1:154; Ostojić, “Benediktinci glagoljaši,” 22–33.
28. On the history of the Third Order of St. Francis (founded in 1221) in Croatia, see Josip Leon-
ard Tandarić, “Franjevački element u hrvatskoglagoljskim liturgijskim knjigama,” and “Prilog: Provincija
samostanskih trećoredaca (glagoljaša),” in Hrvatsko-glagoljska liturgijska književnost: Rasprave i prinosi
(Zagreb, 1993), 36–40 and 61–64 respectively; Šanjek, Crkva i kršćanstvo, 304–12; Vjekoslav Štefanić,
“Glagoljaši u Kopru,” Starine 46 (1956): 203–329; Stjepan Nauč Ivančić, Povjestne crte o samostanskom III
Redu sv. O. Franje po Dalmaciji, Kvarneru i Istri i Poraba Glagolice u istoj redodržavi (Zadar, 1910).
29. See Josip Bratulić, “Književna djelatnost hrvatskih pavlina,” in Kultura pavlina u Hrvatskoj,
1244–1784, ed. Đurđica Cvitanović, Vladimir Maleković, and Jadranka Petričević (Zagreb, 1989), 279–
95; Vesna Badurina-Stipčević, “Translacija sv. Pavla Pustinjaka u hrvatskoglagoljskom II. Novljanskom
brevijaru iz 1495. godine,” Slovo 58 (2008): 285–312; Badurina-Stipčević, Hrvatskoglagoljska legenda o
svetom Pavlu Pustinjaku (Zagreb, 1992); Šanjek, Crkva i kršćanstvo, 317–22.
30. See, for example, Ostojić, “Benediktinci glagoljaši,” 21.
31. See Fučić, Glagoljski natpisi. For a summary in English, see Branko Fučić, “The Croatian
Glagolitic and Cyrillic Epigraphs,” in Croatia, 1:259–82.
32. Radojica F. Barbalić, Andro Mohorovičić, and Petar Strčić, Bašćanska ploča, 2 vols. (Zagreb, 1988).
33. Fučić, Glagoljski natpisi, 354–55, no. 451; Fučić, “The Croatian Glagolitic and Cyrillic Epi-
graphs,” 264–65. Eduard Hercigonja, Tropismena i trojezična kultura hrvatskoga srednjovjekovlja (Zagreb,
1994), 28–32.
34. On the Croatian translations from Latin, see Dragica Malić, “Latinički tekstovi hrvatskoga
srednjovjekovlja na narodnom jeziku,” in Hrvatska i Europa: Kultura, znanost i umjetnost, vol. 2, Srednji
vijek i renesansa (XIII-XVI. stoljeće), ed. Eduard Hercigonja (Zagreb, 2000), 299–319. On the Croatian
redaction of Church Slavonic and the language of translations from Latin, see Petra Stankovska, “Několik
poznámek k jazyku chorvatských církevněslovanských památek z období středověku,” Slovo 56–57
(2006–2007): 507–15; Milan Mihaljević and Johannes Reinhart, “The Croatian Redaction: Language and
Literature,” Incontri linguistici 28 (2005): 31–82; Stjepan Damjanović, Tragom jezika hrvatskih glagoljaša
(Zagreb, 1984); Josip Tandarić, “Crkvenoslavenska jezična norma u hrvatskoglagoljskom ritualu,” Slovo
32–33 (1983): 53–83; Tandarić, “Staroslavenski jezik hrvatskih glagoljaša,” in Prilozi za VIII međunarodni
slavistički kongres (Zagreb, 1978), 115–24; Josip Hamm, “Hrvatski tip crkvenoslavenskog jezika,” Slovo 13
(1963): 43–67.
35. On the subject of revision of the biblical readings in Croatian liturgical books according to the
Latin Bible, see studies by Leszek Moszyński, “Wpływ Wulgaty na kształt starochorwackiego ewangeliarza
z Omišlja,” Slovo 36 (1986): 111–22; Johannes Reinhart, “Eine Redaktion des kirchenslavischen Bibeltextes
im Kroatien des 12. Jahrhunderts,” Wiener slavistisches Jahrbuch 36 (1990): 193–241; Reinhart, “Najstarije
svjedočanstvo za uticaj Vulgate na hrvatskoglagoljsku Bibliju,” Slovo 39–40 (1989–1990): 45–52; Andrew
Corin, “O reformama hrvatskoglagoljskih liturgiskih knjiga u 13. stoljeću,” in Prvi hrvatski slavistički
kongres: Zbornik radova, ed. Stjepan Damjanović et al. (Zagreb, 1997), 527–38; Margaret Dimitrova and
Adelina Angusheva, “Medieval Croato-Glagolitic Manuscript Tradition: Between East and West,” in Sred-
novekovna khristianska Evropa: Iztok i zapad; Tsennosti, traditsii, obshtuvane/Medieval Christian Europe:
East and West, ed. Vasil Giuzelev and Anisava Miltenova (Sofia, 2002), 182–96. The study of the oldest
Glagolitic missals and breviaries also aims at establishing the original Cyrillo-Methodian translations.
See, for example, Mikhailov, K voprosu; Marija Pantelić, “Elementi bizantske himnologije u hrvatsk-
oglagoljskoj himni H(rьst)ь v(ь)skr(ь)se iz mrtvihь,” Slovo 17 (1967): 37–59; Grabar, “Ćirilometodski i
staroslavenski prijevodi.”
36. The unification of the missal according to the Office of the Roman curia was promoted in
particular by the Franciscans, who disseminated the new liturgical standard throughout Europe during

186
 Notes to Pages 42–46

the thirteenth century. The reform of the missal was followed by the revision of the calendar of saints,
which further unified the Roman rite in diverse Western dioceses. Croatian liturgical books show traits
of all three orders—the Franciscans, the Benedictines, and the Paulines—making it difficult to define any
particular Glagolitic missal or breviary as belonging to a specific order. See Tandarić, Hrvatsko-glagoljska
liturgijska književnost, 36–37.
37. Viktor Novak, “The Slavonic-Latin Symbiosis in Dalmatia during the Middle Ages,” The Sla-
vonic and East European Review 32 (1953): 1–28; Hercigonja, Tropismena i trojezična kultura; Dragica
Malić, “Crkvenoslavenska jezična tradicija u hrvatskim latiničkim rukopisima 14. stoljeća,” in Na izvorima
hrvatskoga jezika (Zagreb, 2002), 35–56, esp. 35–36.
38. Herbert Bloch, Monte Cassino in the Middle Ages, 3 vols. (Cambridge, MA, 1986), 1:3–14.
39. Josef Vajs, Rukovět’ hlaholské paleografie (Prague, 1932), 135–36, 144; Viktor Novak, Scriptura
Beneventana: S osobitim obzirom na tip dalmatinske beneventane; Paleografijska studija (Zagreb, 1920),
62–66.
40. For general survey studies of the Glagolitic tradition, see Srećko Lipovčan, ed., Discovering
the Glagolitic Script of Croatia (Zagreb, 2000), featuring essays by Radoslav Katičić, Anica Nazor, Josip
Bratulić, Frano Paro, and Hana Breko; Radoslav Katičić, “Language and Literacy,” in Croatia, 1:339–67;
Hercigonja, “Glagolists and Glagolism,” 1:369–98. A useful although somewhat outdated account of the
Roman Slavonic Rite and its history is presented in Stephen Smržík, The Glagolitic or Roman-Slavonic Lit-
urgy, Series Cyrillomethodiana 2 (Cleveland, 1959). Literature in Croatian includes Josip Bratulić and Stj-
epan Damjanović, Hrvatska pisana kultura: Izbor djela pisanih latinicom, glagoljicom i ćirilicom od VIII. do
XXI. stoljeća, vol. 1, VIII.–XVII. stoljeće (Zagreb, 2005); Eduard Hercigonja, “Glagoljaštvo u društvenom
životu i kulturi Hrvata od IX do XVIII stoljeća,” Ricerche Slavistiche 38 (1991): 53–91.
41. Hercigonja, “Glagolists and Glagolism,” 375–76.
42. It is possible that the request was even made in person since Philip himself traveled to Lyon at
that time as a special envoy of Split Archbishop Ugrin.
43. “Porrecta nobis tua petitio continebat, quod in Sclavonia est littera specialis, quam illius terre
clerici se habere a beato Jeronimo asserentes, eam observant in divinis officiis celebrandis. Unde cum il-
lis efficiaris conformis, et in terre consuetudinem, in qua consistis episcopus, imiteris, celebrandi divina
officia secundum dictam litteram a nobis suppliciter licentiam postulasti. Nos igitur attendentes, quod
sermo rei, et non res est sermoni subiecta, licentiam tibi in illis dumtaxat partibus, ubi de consuetudine
observantur premissa, dummodo sententia ex ipsius varietate littere non ledatur, auctoritate presentium
concedimus postulatam.” Fontes, XIII, 9; CD, 4:343. The English translation follows a revised reading
of this document suggested by Mile Bogović, who has pointed out a mistake in the edition: instead of
“Unde cum illis efficiaris conformis,” it should read “Unde ut illis efficiaris conformis.” See Mile Bogović,
Hrvatsko glagoljsko tisućljeće, Senjski zbornik 25 (1998): 56–57.
44. In medieval grammatical and writing theory, the term litterae was understood in three senses:
letters (of the Latin alphabet), a body of written texts, and the knowledge of written texts (education). See
Martin Irvine, The Making of Textual Culture: ‘Grammatica’ and Literary Theory, 350–1100, Cambridge
Studies in Medieval Literature 19 (Cambridge, 1994), 97–104 and 213–16.
45. Although the letters disputed in the Life of Constantine were, in fact, Glagolitic, the Slavic Or-
thodox Churches that claimed the legacy of Sts. Cyril and Methodius subsequently believed that this
dispute was over the Cyrillic letters.
46. Tachiaos, Cyril and Methodius, 146.
47. The eleventh-century fresco on the left entrance wall in the Basilica of San Clemente in Rome,
where St. Cyril is buried, depicts Sts. Cyril and Methodius bringing the relics of St. Clement to Rome. See
Lila Yawn, “Clement’s New Clothes: The Destruction of Old S. Clemente in Rome, the Eleventh-Century
Frescoes, and the Cult of (Anti)Pope Clement III,” in Framing Clement III, (Anti)Pope, 1080–1100, ed.
Umberto Longo and Lila Yawn, Reti Medievali Rivista 13, no. 1 (2012): 179–80.
48. Some scholars argue that Cyril was consecrated bishop in Rome in 869, and that he declined
this title because he felt the approach of death. This claim is based on the text of the Italian Legend as well
as on the fact that Cyril is depicted as bishop on all early icons. See MMFH, 2:130; Michael Lacko, “Early
Iconography of Sts. Cyril and Methodius in Slav Eastern Churches,” Slovak Studies 12 (1972): 193–200.

187
 Notes to Pages 46–50

49. As it is with many other issues concerning the Cyrillo-Methodian mission, there is some dis-
agreement about the place and authorship of these texts. Due to the fact that the Encomium and the Of-
fice to St. Cyril do not mention his brother Methodius, scholars assume that they were composed during
Methodius’s life.
50. Incidentally, these comparisons of Cyril and Methodius to Apostles Paul and Andronicus come
up in the Rus’ Primary Chronicle, in the passage that commemorates the beginnings of the Slavic letters.
See Horace G. Lunt, “What the Rus’ Primary Chronicle Tells Us about the Origin of the Slavs and of Slavic
Writing,” in Rhetoric of the Medieval Slavic World: Essays Presented to Edward L. Keenan on His Sixtieth
Birthday, ed. Nancy Shields Kollman, Harvard Ukrainian Studies 19 (Cambridge, MA, 1996): 335–57.
51. Mirjana Ćorović-Ljubinković, “Odraz kulta Ćirila i Methodija u balkanskoj srednevekovnoj
umetnosti,” in Simpozium 1100-godišnina od smrtta na Kiril Solunski, ed. Radmila Ugrinova-Skalovska, 2
vols. (Skopje, 1970), 1:123–30.
52. For the list of the manuscripts, see Veder, Utrum, 17–20.
53. Biserka Grabar, “Kult Ćirila i Metodija u Hrvata,” Slovo 36 (1986): 141–45.
54. Liturgical classes: apostles, evangelists, martyrs, confessors (including doctors, abbots, etc.), and
virgins. For example, Vatican Library Missal Illirico 4 (1317–1323): 14 February—Cyril and Methodius,
confessor; Vienna Library Missal, Codex Slav 4 (14th c.): 14 February—Cyril and Methodius, confessor;
Bodleian Library Missal, MS canon lit. 349 (15th c.): 14 February—Cyril and Valentine and Methodius,
martyr, 4 June—Cyril, bishop-confessor; First Vrbnik Missal (1456): 14 February—Valentine, martyr,
Cyril and Methodius, confessor; Second Vrbnik Missal (1463): 14 February—Cyril and other confessors;
Ljubljana Breviary no. 22 (15th c.): 14 February—Cyril and Methodius, confessor, and Valentine, martyr.
See Josip Vajs, Najstariji hrvatskoglagoljski missal (Zagreb, 1948).
55. Ivan Berčić, Dvie službe rimskoga obreda za svetkovinu svetih Ćirila i Metuda (Zagreb, 1870).
56. For a detailed discussion of textual variation of the Office to Sts. Cyril and Methodius, see Marija
Pantelić, “Glagoljski brevijar popa Mavra iz godine 1460,” Slovo 15–16 (1965): 94–149; Ivanka Petrović,
“Sadržajne i literarne osobine odlomaka ‘Žitija Konstantina-Ćirila’ u hrvatskoglagoljskim i ruskim
tekst­ovima,” Croatica 19 (1983): 113–29; Marko Japundžić, “Kult i služba Svete Braće Ćirila i Metoda u
glagoljskoj literature,” in Tragom hrvatskoga glagolizma (Zagreb, 1995), 16–46.
57. Pantelić, “Glagoljski brevijar,” 113–14.
58. Stefanić, “Glagoljaši u Kopru,” 211.
59. Ivan Berčić and František Grivec dated it to the end of the ninth century. Vatroslav Jagić dated it
to the period from the tenth to thirteenth, whereas Petr Lavrov, Josef Vajs, Josef Vašica, Radoslav Večerka,
and Marija Pantelić date it to tenth- or eleventh-century Bohemia. See Radoslav Večerka, “Velkomoravská
literatura,” 399–403.
60. Vojtěch Tkadlčík, “K datování hlaholských služeb o sv. Cyrilu a Metoději,” Slovo 27 (1977):
85–128. Tkadlčík’s publication followed a study by František Graus, who also dated the Office to the four-
teenth century. See Graus, “Slovanská liturgie.” For the history of the Slavonic Monastery in Prague and a
more detailed analysis of the Office to Sts. Cyril and Methodius, see chapter 3.
61. Berčić, Dvie službe, 57–58.
62. Štefanić, “Nazivi glagoljskog pisma,” 20.
63. Pantelić, “Glagoljski brevijar,” 132–39.
64. Based on later copies of the Office, which contain references to the Dalmatian town of Solin,
Aloiz Jembrih has hypothesized that there may have existed an eleventh-century version of the Office. He
claims that this version reflected the cult of Cyril and Methodius, which had been brought to Croatia di-
rectly by their disciples at the end of the ninth century. Aloiz Jembrih, “Nacionalni izotopikon o porijeklu
Ćirila i Metodija u hrvatskoglagoljskim brevijarima,” Slavistična revija 34 (1986): 83–92.
65. Pannonia, an old Roman province, was located in the territory of today’s Slovenia and western
Hungary.
66. On the meaning of the word “philosopher” in similar contexts, see Ihor Ševčenko, “The Defi-
nition of Philosophy in the Life of Saint Constantine,” in Byzantium and the Slavs in Letters and Culture
(Cambridge, MA, 1991), 93–106; and Roland Marti, “Philologia in the Slavia Cyrillo-Methodiana: From
Constantine the Philosopher to Constantine the Philosopher,” in Love of Learning and Devotion to God

188
 Notes to Pages 50–53

in Orthodox Monasteries: Selected Proceedings of the Fifth International Hilandar Conference, ed. Miroljub
Joković, Daniel Collins, M. A. Johnson, and Predrag Matejić (Belgrade, 2006), 1:11–25.
67. “Qui multum tempus ibi demoratus est exercens suum potestative officium, sicut illi licuit
archiepiscopus suus, usque dum quidam Graecus Methodius nomine noviter inventis Sclavinis litteris
linguam Latinam doctrinamque Romanam atque litteras auctorales Latinas philosophicę superducens
vilescere fecit cuncto populo ex parte missas et euangelia ecclesiasticumque officium illorum, qui hoc
Latine celebraverunt. Quod ille ferre non valens sedem repetivit Iuvavensem.” Herwig Wolfram, Conver-
sio Bagoariorum et Carantanorum: Das Weißbuch der Salzburger Kirche über die erfolgreiche Mission in
Karantanien und Pannonien (Vienna, 1979), 56.
68. Thomas of Split, History of the Bishops.
69. “. . . ad Methodii doctrinam confugiant, quem in nullo volumine inter sacros auctores comperi-
mus.” CD, 1:30.
70. “Inter que siquidem hoc [i.e., synodus omnium prelatorum Dalmatie et Chroatie] firmatum
est et statutum, ut nullus de cetero in lingua Sclavonica presumeret divina misteria celebrare, nisi tantum
in Latina et Greca, nec aliquis eiusdem lingue promoveretur ad sacros [ordines]. Dicebant enim, Goticas
literas a quodam Methodio heretico fuisse repertas, qui multa contra catholice fidei normam in eadem
Sclavonica lingua mentiendo conscripsit; quam ob rem divino iudicio repentina dicitur morte fuisse
dampnatus.” Thomas of Split, History, 78–79. In his work, Thomas calls the Glagolitic letters “Gothic” and
the Glagolitic clergy—“the Goths.”
71. “Post hunc interiecto aliquo tempore supervenit quidam Sclavus ab Hystrie et Dalmatie parti-
bus nomine Methodius, qui adinvenit Sclavicas literas et Sclauice celebravit divinum officium et vilescere
fecit Latinum. Tandem fugatus a Karentanis partibus intravit Moraviam ibique quiescit.” Wolfram, Con-
versio Bagoariorum, 58; MMFH, 3:434–35.
72. For editions, see Ferdo Šišić, Letopis popa Dukljanina (Belgrade, 1928); Vladimir Mošin, Lje-
topis popa Dukljanina: Latinski tekst sa hrvatskim prevodom i “Hrvatska kronika” (Zagreb, 1950). For an
analysis of the chronicle, its author, and the historical circumstances of its emergence, see Eduard Peričić,
Sclavorum Regnum Grgura Barskog: Ljetopis popa Dukljanina (Zagreb, 1991).
73. The figure of the Croatian king Svetopelek is clearly inspired by the Moravian prince Svatopluk
(“Sventopluk” or “Sventopulk” in Latin sources).
74. “And so, the most holy man Constantine ordained priests and, having compiled letters of the
Slavic language, translated for them the Gospel of Christ and the Psalter, and all sacred books of the New
and the Old Testaments from Greek into Slavonic, and the liturgy [Mass] itself arranged according to the
Greek custom, established them in the faith of Christ and, taking leave of all those whom he had turned
to Christian faith, following the command of the pope, hurried to Rome.” (Itaque Constantinus, vir sanc-
tissimus, ordinavit presbyteros et litteram lingua sclavonica componens, commutavit evangelium Christi
atque Psalterium et omnes divinos libros veteris et novi testamenti de graeca litera in sclavonicam, nec
non et missam eis ordinans more Graecorum, confirmavit eos in fide Christi et valedicens omnibus, quos
ad fidem Christi converterat, secundum apostolicum dictum Romam pergere festinabat). Šišić, Letopis,
301. Interestingly, the words more Graecorum are omitted in the Croatian translation of this chronicle.
Šanjek, Crkva i kršćanstvo, 83–84.
75. Šišić, Letopis, 308.
76. Ludwig Steindorff, “Liber Methodius: Überlegungen zur kyrillo-methodianischen Tradition
beim Priester von Dioclea,” Mitteilungen des bulgarischen Forschungsinstitutes in Österreich 1, no. 8
(1986): 157–72.
77. Incidentally, the lack of a strong “institutional memory” of Cyril and Methodius supports the
hypothesis that the Slavonic liturgy was brought to Dalmatia only after Cyril’s and Methodius’s deaths.
78. For accounts of the trajectory of this belief among the Croats, see John V. A. Fine, “The Slav-
ic Saint Jerome: An Entertainment,” in Cultures and Nations of Central and Eastern Europe: Essays in
Honor of Roman Szporluk, ed. Zvi Gitelman, Lubomyr Hajda, John-Paul Himka, and Roman Solchanyk
(Cambridge, MA, 2000), 101–12; Petar Runje, “Sv. Jeromim i glagoljica u Hrvata,” in O knjigama hrvatskih
glagoljaša (Zagreb, 1998), 101–23; Vesna Badurina-Stipčević, “Legenda o Jeronimu u starijoj hrvatskoj
knjizevnoj tradiciji,” Wiener Slawistischer Almanach, Sonderband 82 (2013): 17–26.

189
 Notes to Pages 53–55

79. Marija Pantelić, “Prvotisak glagoljskog misala iz 1483. prema Misalu kneza Novaka iz 1368,”
Radovi Staroslavenskog Instituta 6 (1967): 39–40.
80. Marija Pantelić, “Hrvatskoglagoljski amulet tipa Sisin i Mihael,” Slovo 23 (1973): 188.
81. Fine, The Early Medieval Balkans, 25–41; Curta, Southeastern Europe, 70–110; Dzino, Becoming Slav.
82. Petar Runje, O knjigama hrvatskih glagoljaša (Zagreb, 1998), 105–6.
83. “. . . et privilegiis ipsis per romanos pontifices praedecessores vestros sacraque concilia et etiam
sanctis hieronymo et cyrillo concessis gaudere valeant” (“. . . and the same privileges by the Roman Pon-
tiffs, your predecessors, and sacred councils gladly granted to Saints Cyril and Jerome”). Fontes, XV, 38;
Ivančić, Povjestne crte, Prilog B, 165. The mention of Cyril’s name next to Jerome’s is most likely explained
by the appearance in fifteenth-century liturgical books of the Office to Sts. Cyril and Methodius, which
promoted St. Cyril’s role as the Slavic apostle.
84. For a recent edition, see Michael W. Herren, The Cosmography of Aethicus Ister: Edition, Trans-
lation, and Commentary, Publications of the Journal of Medieval Latin 8 (Turnhout, 2011). Previous edi-
tions are Otto Prinz, ed., Die Kosmographie des Aethicus, Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Quellen zur
Geistesgeschichte des Mittelalters 14 (Munich, 1993); and Heinrich Wuttke, ed., Aethici Istrici Cosmo-
graphia ab Hieronymo ex Graeco in Latinum breviarium redactam (Leipzig, 1853).
85. Views have ranged from accepting Aethicus’s or St. Jerome’s authorship (mostly by nineteenth-
century scholars and by some contemporary, patriotically inclined Bulgarian and Croatian enthusiasts)
to identifying the author as an émigré Avar from Turkey (Prinz, Die Kosmographie, 18) or as the eighth-
century bishop of Salzburg, Virgil. See Heinz Löwe, Ein literarischer Widersacher des Bonifatius, Virgil
von Salzburg und die Kosmographie des Aethicus Ister, Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur,
Abhandlungen der Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse (Jahrg. 1951) 11 (Mainz, 1952). The last
hypothesis has received much scholarly attention. Recently, however, Michael Herren has demonstrated
that the Cosmographia was written before Virgil’s time and not by an Irishman. See Michael W. Herren,
“The Cosmography of Aethicus Ister: Speculations about Its Date, Provenance, and Audience,” in Nova de
Veteribus: Mittel- und neulateinische Studien für Paul Gerhard Schmidt, ed. Andreas Bihrer and Elisabeth
Stein (Munich, 2004), 79–102. For the most recent general overview of the scholarship on the Cosmo-
graphia, see Herren, The Cosmography, xi–lxxviii.
86. Prinz, Die Kosmographie, 22–38; Herren, “The Cosmography,” 80–88; Herren, The Cosmogra-
phy, xxxiii–lv.
87. Herren, The Cosmography, lxxiii–lxxviii.
88. Ibid., lv–lxi.
89. Herren, “The Cosmography,” 98–99; Danuta Shanzer, “The Cosmographia Attributed to Aethi-
cus Ister as Philosophen- or Reiseroman,” in Insignis sophiae arcator: Essays in Honour of Michael W. Her-
ren on His 65th Birthday, ed. Carin Ruff, Gernot R. Wieland, and Ross G. Arthur, Publications of the
Journal of Medieval Latin 6 (Turnhout, 2006), 57–86.
90. Herren, “The Cosmography,” 81–82.
91. Michael W. Herren, “Wozu diente die Fälschung der Kosmographie des Aethicus?,” in Latein-
ische Kultur im VIII Jahrhundert, ed. Albert Lehner and Walter Berschin (St. Ottilien, 1989), 145–59;
Wolfgang Speyer, Die literarische Fälschung im heidnischen und christlichen Altertum: Ein Versuch ihrer
Deutung (Munich, 1971), 77–78; Herren, The Cosmography, xi and xix.
92. The text preceding the alphabet reads, “Suos caracteres litterarum quos adinuenit, ita distinxit”
(He distinguished the characters of the alphabet that he invented in this way). The text under the alpha-
bet reads, “Explicit liber Aethici philosophi chosmografi, natione Schitica, nobile prosapia parentum. Ab
eo enim ethica philosophia a reliquis sapientibus originem traxit” (Here ends the book of Aethicus the
philosopher [and] cosmographer, a Scythian by nationality and the offspring of noble parents. Ethical
philosophy took its origin from him to other philosophers). Herren, The Cosmography, 214–17.
93. The author (i.e., Pseudo-Jerome) claims that Aethicus devised a special cryptic alphabet in
order to compose metrical verses in his own honor, which no one until now could decode: “Ipsoque car-
mine talis caracteribus distinxit, ut nullius hominum legere uel deserere nodos possit: Ebreos caracteres
resupinatos, Graecos incuruatos, Latinos duplicatos in similitudinem circi suosque apices in medium
positos” (And he punctuated this poem by means of certain letters, so that no one could read or solve

190
 Notes to Pages 55–60

his riddles: Hebrew letters lying supine, Greek letters bent forward, Latin ones doubled in the shape of a
circle, and his own characters placed in the middle). Herren, The Cosmography, 162–65.
94. The complete title is De inventione linguarum ab Hebraea usque ad Theodiscam, et notis antiquis
(On the Invention of Writing from Hebrew to German and Ancient Characters).
95. “Litteras etiam Aethici philosophi cosmographi natione Scythica, nobili prosapia invenimus,
quas venerabilis Hieronymus presbyter ad nos usque cum suis dictis explanando perduxit, quia magnifice
ipsius scientiam atque industriam duxit; ideo et ejus litteras maluit promulgare. Si in istis adhuc litteris
fallimur, et in aliquibus vitium agemus, vos emendate.” Rabanus Maurus, De inventione linguarum ab
Hebraea usque ad Theodiscam, et notis antiquis, in PL, 112:1579–80.
96. “Aethicus Istriae regione,” Prinz, Die Kosmographie, 88. Ister was an ancient name for the Dan-
ube River, erroneously believed to be populated by Scythians-Slavs. Istria (Histria), a peninsula on the
Adriatic Sea, is another territory with a Slavic population.
97. The time of the Cosmographia’s composition, before the Cyrillo-Methodian mission, has been
used by enthusiasts of the theory that Jerome created the Glagolitic alphabet as proof that it was not
created by Cyril. See, for example, Kerubin Šegvić, “Jeronimska tradicija u djelu Hrabana Maura,” Nas-
tavni vjesnik 9–10 (1932): 195–96. This theory, of course, ignores the fact that there is no evidence that
Aethicus-Jerome’s letters are in any way related to the Glagolitic alphabet; in fact, the evidence is against it.
98. Stjepan Sakač first suggested this hypothesis in “Značaj jeronimske legende za održavanje i širenje
srednjevjekovne narodne hrvatske pismenosti,” in Zbirka odgovora na pitanja III. medjunarodnog kongresa
slavista (Belgrade, 1939), 156–57. However, Sakač’s suggestion has not received much attention so far.
99. Stjepan Damjanović, “Otpis pape Inocenta IV: Senjskom biskupu Filipu iz godine 1248,” in
Jazik otačaski (Zagreb, 1995), 82–89; Mile Bogović, Glagoljica u Senju (Senj, 1994), 13–17.
100. Hercigonja, Tropismena i trojezična kultura, 60–61; Damjanović, “Otpis pape Inocenta IV.”
101. “Quoniam in plerisque partibus intra eandem civitatem atque dioecesim permixti sunt populi
diversarum linguarum, habentes sub una fide varios ritus et mores, districte praecipimus ut pontifices
huiusmodi civitatum sive dioecesum, provideant viros idoneos, qui secundum diversitates rituum et lin-
guarum divina officia illis celebrent et ecclesiastica sacramenta ministrent, instruendo eos verbo pariter
et exemplo.” Norman P. Tanner, ed., Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. 1, Nicaea I to Lateran V
(London, 1990), 239, canon 9, “De diversis ritibus in eadem fide.”
102. This dictum has been taken from St. Hilary of Poitiers’s De Trinitate: “Intelligentia dictorum
ex causis est assumenda dicendi, quia non sermoni res, sed rei est sermo subiectus” (The meaning of what
is said should be taken from the reasons for saying it, since the words should be subject to the things and
not the things to the words). St. Hilary of Poitiers, De Trinitate 4.14, in PL, 10:107. It has also been refer-
enced in the decretal “De verborum significatione” by Pope Gregory IX, Innocent IV’s predecessor. See
Emil Friedberg, ed., Corpus Iuris Canonici, vol. 2, Liber Extra (Leipzig 1881), Liber V, Tit. 40, cap. 6, 913.
103. Eduard Hercigonja, “Glagolism in the High Middle Ages,” in Croatia, 2:177–80.
104. On the use of the medieval term “Slavonia” to indicate Croatia and Bosnia, see Šanjek, Crkva
i kršćanstvo, 211–12. John V. A. Fine discusses the question of general Slavic identity in the early Balkans
in When Ethnicity Did Not Matter in the Balkans (Ann Arbor, MI, 2006), 94.
105. See the bulla “Cum te de cetero specialem,” 27 August 1247, in Athanasius G. Welykyj, ed.,
Documenta Pontificum Romanorum Historiam Ucrainae Illustrantia (1075–1953) (Rome, 1953), 1:36–37.
106. The first two approvals regarding the Slavonic liturgy in Moravia and Pannonia were officially
overruled by Pope Stephan V’s letter to Prince Svatopluk in 885.
107. “Innocentius episcopus etc. Venerabili fratri Fructuoso episcopo Veglensi etc. Dilecti filii Ab-
bas et Conventus monasterii sancti Nicolai de Castro Muscla ordinis Sancti Benedicti tue dioecesis nobis
humiliter supplicarunt, ut cum ipsi, qui Sclavi existunt et sclavicas litteras habeant, discere latinas litteras
non possunt, eis, ut in litteris sclauicis secundum ritum ecclesie Romane divina officia valeant celebrare,
prout iidem et predecessores sui facere consueverunt, licentiam concedere curaremus. De tua circum-
spectione plenam in Domino fiduciam obtinentes, presentium tibi auctoritate concedimus, ut super hoc
facias, quod videris expedire.” Fontes, XIII, 9–10; CD, 4:479.
108. We do not find any polemic documents dating to the thirteenth or fourteenth century, in
(Glagolitic) Slavonic or Latin, which substantiate Jerome’s authorship of the Slavonic letters. The newly

191
 Notes to Pages 60–65

aroused interest of humanists in Jerome’s birthplace in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries (e.g., works of
Biondo Flavio, Marko Marulić, and José de Espinoza de Sigüenza) had broader objectives and was outside
of the Glagolites’ relationship with Rome.
109. Biondo Flavio bears witness to this: “the glorious pope Eugenius the fourth has confirmed this
to them by my hand” (gloriosus pontifex Eugenius quartus, per nostras manus illis confirmavit). Cath-
erine J. Castner, Biondo Flavio’s “Italia Illustrata”: Text, Translation, and Commentary, vol. 1, Northern
Italy (Binghamton, NY, 2005), 226–27.
110. “The use of letters was invented for the memory of things. Things are bound in letters so that
they may not vanish into oblivion” (Usus litterarum repertus propter memoriam rerum. Nam ne oblivi-
one fugiant, litteris alligantur). Isidore of Seville, Isidori Hispalensis episcopi Etymologiarvm sive Originvm
Libri XX, ed. W. M. Lindsay (Oxford, 1911), 1.3.2.
111. “Grammata sola carent fato mortemque repellunt, / Praeterita renovant grammata sola bibles.
/ Grammata nempe dei digitus sulcabat in apta / Rupe, suo legem cum dederat populo, / Sunt, fuerant,
mundo venient quae forte future, / Grammata haec monstrant famine cuneta suo.” Hrabanus Maurus,
Carmen 21, in Poetae Latini Aevi Carolini, ed. Ernest Dümmler (Berlin, 1884), 2:186. The English transla-
tion is from Irvine, The Making of Textual Culture, 14.
112. Irvine, The Making of Textual Culture, 101–2.

Chapter 3
1. Kateřina Kubínová, Imitatio Romae: Karel IV a Řím (Prague, 2006), 217–86.
2. The Vita Caroli IV imperatoris ab ipso Carolo conscripta, in FRB, 3:352–53; Charles IV, Karoli IV
Imperatoris Romanorum Vita ab eo ipso conscripta: Et Hystoria nova de Sancto Wenceslao martyre/Autobi-
ography of Emperor Charles IV; and, His Legend of St. Wenceslas, ed. Balázs Nagy and Frank Schaer, trans.
Paul W. Knoll and Frank Schaer (Budapest, 2001), 90–91. See also Ostojić, “Benediktinci glagoljaši,” 30.
3. “Clemens episcopus, servus servorum dei, venerabili fratri, archiepiscopo Pragensi salutem et
apostolicam benediccionem. Significavit nobis dilectus filius nobilis vir Karolus marchio Moraviae, quod
in Sclauonia et nonnullis aliis partibus de Slavonica lingua existentibus misse et alie hore canonice ad
laudem Christi in eorum vulgari de licencia et ex indulto sedis apostolice leguntur et eciam decantantur.
Et quod multa monasteria et loca monachorum nigrorum sancti Benedicti et aliorum ordinum in illis
partibus, huiusmodi ritum ex antiqua consuetudine usque in hodiernum diem tenencium propter brigas
et gwerras illarum partium destructa et ad nichilum sunt redacta, monachi quoque et fratres monas-
teriorum et locorum praedictorum occasione huiusmodi nec deo, nec christianis proficere, nec eciam
monasteria et loca ipsorum commode obtinere valentes remanent vagabundi, propter quod cultus diui-
nus et fides christiana in illis partibus minuuntur. Cum autem, sicut huiusmodi insinuacio subiungebat,
in confinibus et circa partes regni Boemie, que de eadem lingwa et wlgari existunt, sint multi scismatici
et infideles, qui, cum eis sacra scriptura latine dicitur, exponitur, uel predicatur, nec intelligere volunt
nec commode ad fidem christianam possunt conuerti dictique monachi et fratres wlgares predicatores
ritum predictum habentes in dicto regno et ipsius confinibus summe necessarii et vtiles pro dei laude
et augmentacione christiane fidei esse noscantur, idem marchio nobis humiliter supplicauit, ut eisdem
fratribus et religiosis concedere, quod in regno Boemie et confinibus supradictis loca eligere, in quibus
et circa que possint stare et verbum dei exponere, predicare et missas celebrare secundum ritum et con-
suetudinem parcium ipsarum, licenciam concedere de speciali gracia dignaremur. Nos igitur de predictis
noticiam non habentes fraternitati tue, de qua plenam in domino fiduciam gerimus, eisdem monachis seu
fratribus dicti sancti Benedicti uel alterius ordinis per sedem eandem approbati, recipiendi vnum locum
dumtaxat in dicto regno vel eius confinibus, in quo servare valeant dictum ritum, alias tamen per sedem
approbatum eandem auctoritate nostra concedas plenam et liberam facultatem. Jure tamen parrochialis
ecclesie ipsius loci, quem ut premittitur dicti monachi seu fratres receperint, et cuiuslibet alterius alieni in
omnibus semper salvo.” RS, 5–8, no. 1. In a shortened version, this document is also published in Fontes,
XIV, 4; MVB, 1:389–90, no. 653.
4. For example, considerations of a mission to the “schismatics”—the Orthodox Slavs—have been
suggested by Milada Paulová, “L’idée cyrillo-méthodienne dans la politique de Charles IV et la fonda-

192
 Notes to Pages 65–68

tion du monastère slave de Prague,” Byzantinoslavica 11 (1950): 174–86; Josip Hamm, “Glagoljica u pre-
drenesansno doba,” in Studia Paleoslovenica (Prague, 1971), 96; Václav Huňáček, “Klášter na Slovanech
a počátky východoslovanských studií u nás,” in Z tradic, 177–79. Tadeusz Trajdos and Jerzy Wyrozum-
ski, however, expressed skepticism concerning the relevance of such a mission for a monastery based
in Bohemia. See Tadeusz M. Trajdos, “Fundacja klasztoru benedyktynów słowiańskich na Kleparzu w
Krakowie,” Rocznik Krakowski 54 (1988): 73–89; Jerzy Wyrozumski, “Benedyktyni słowiańscy w Oleśnicy
i Krakowie,” in Zeszyty, 119.
5. On this remarkable missionary episode, see Stephen Christopher Rowell, Lithuania Ascending: A
Pagan Empire within East-Central Europe, 1295–1345 (Cambridge, 1994), 275–79.
6. Wyrozumski, “Benedyktyni słowiańscy,” 119–20.
7. Mita Kostić, “Zašto je osnovan slovensko-glagoljaški manastyr Emaus u Pragu?,” Glasnik skop-
skog naučnog društva 2 (1926): 159–65.
8. See, for example, Polikhronii Syrku, “Zur Geschichte des Glagolismus in Böhmen,” Archiv für
slavische Philologie 21 (1899): 169–97; Václav Huňáček, “Klášter na Slovanech,” 175.
9. “[I]n sublimi et ingenua lingwa communium missarum sollempnia et divinorum officiorum
laudes eximie licite celebrentur, et ideo pontifices, prelati et clerici regni vestri interposicione sollicitu-
dinis nostre facilius reduci valebunt in favorem nostre ecclesie, qua pre aliis nacionibus singulari quo-
dam privilegio licet eis in wlgari linwa predicta Slavonica in divinis laudibus exerceri.” Kostić, “Zašto je
osnovan,” 163–64. On Charles’s role in the negotiations with Dušan, see Věra Hrochová, “Karel IV., jižní
Slované a Byzanc,” in Mezinárodní vědecká konference “Doba Karla IV. v dějinách národů ČSSR” pořádaná
Univerzitou Karlovou v Praze k 600. výročí úmrtí Karla IV. 29.11.–1.12.1978: Materiály z plenárního
zasedání a ze sekce historie, ed. Michal Svatoš (Prague, 1981), 192–99.
10. “Dudum siquidem sanctissimus pater dominus noster . . . papa Clemens sextus venerabili Ar-
nesto archiepiscopo Pragensi principi et consiliario nostro carissimo ad nostri instanciam et requestam
committere voluit, ut ipse in nostra civitate Pragensi monasterium conuentuale et claustrale ordinis sancti
Benedicti instituere et auctoritate apostolica posset ordinare, institutis ibidem . . . abbate et fratribus, qui
domino famulantes diuina officia in lingua slauonica dumtaxat ob reuerenciam et memoriam gloriosis-
simi confessoris beati Jeronimi, Stridonensis doctoris egregii et translatoris interpretisque eximii sacre
scripture de ebrayca in latinam et slauonicam lingwas, de qua siquidem slauonica nostri regni Boemie
ydioma sumpsit exordium primordialiter et processit, debeant futuris temporibus celebrare. Ad quod
siquidem Monasterium construendum et edificandum parrochialem ecclesiam sanctorum Cosme et Da-
miani martirum in suburbiis ciuitatis nostre Pragensis predicte in Podschal inter Wissegradum et Zderaz
situatam, cuius jus patronatus ad ecclesiam Wissegradensem tunc temporis pertinebat, facta per nos dicte
ecclesie Wissegradensis pro jure patronatus dicte parrochialis ecclesie restitucione et satisfaccione con-
digna, duximus ordinandum. Quam prefatam parrochialem ecclesiam in dictum monasterium claustrale
et conuentuale ad honorem dei beatissimeque Marie virginis matris eius ac gloriosorum Jeronimi prefati
Cirilli, Metudii, Adalberti et Procopii patronorum dicti regni Boemie martirum et confessorum titulum
et honorem prefatum . . . archiepiscopum requirimus et hortamur attente, iuxta commissionem a sede
apostolica sibi factam erigi et eciam exaltari. inibi . . . abbate auctoritate predicta et fratribus, qui sub re-
gula et regulari habitu ordinis sancti Benedicti, cui dictorum sanctorum conuersacio gloriosa suis tribuit
temporibus, quos adhuc per dei graciam retinet speciem et decorem in lingwa slavonica, dumtaxat futuris
et perpetuis temporibus ob memoriam et reuerenciam prefati beatissimi Jeronimi, vt ipse in dicto regno
velut inter gentem suam et patriam reddatur perpetuo gloriosus ipsiusque dignissima memoria celebris
habeatur perpetuo, domino famulantes diuinum officium nocturnum videlicet et diurnum valeant cel-
ebrare.” RS, 8–12, no. 2, with readings of the original as reported in the critical apparatus.
11. Hans Rothe discusses the meaning of the term “Slavic” in the context of this letter in Hans
Rothe, “Das Slavenkloster in der Prager Neustadt bis zum Jahre 1419. Darstellung und Erläuterung der
Quellen,” Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas, n.s. 40 (1992): 19–22. On the usage of the term “Slavic”
and “Czech” to designate language, see Bohuslav Havránek, “K názvům lingua sclavonica, boëmo-slavica
= český jazyk a Sclavus, Slavus = Čech, Slovák,” Listy filologické 52 (1925): 111–20. That Charles himself
understood the term “Slavic language” rather broadly is evident from his Golden Bulla (1356), in which
he uses the term lingua Slavica to refer to all Slavic dialects of the Holy Roman Empire. See Wolfgang

193
 Notes to Pages 68–69

D. Fritz, ed., Die Goldene Bulle Kaiser Karls IV. vom Jahre 1356: Bulla Aurea Karoli IV. Imperatoris Anno
MCCCLVI Promulgata, Fontes Iuris Germanici Antiqui 11 (Weimar, 1972), 90.
12. František Václav Mareš provides a detailed study of this oldest known Czech hymn, which was
believed to be authored by St. Adalbert (Vojtěch), in Cyrilometodějská tradice, 403–76.
13. Zdeněk Nejedlý, Dějiny předhusitského zpěvu v Čechách (Prague, 1904), 314–27. Also see Josip
Hamm, “Hrvatski glagoljaši u Pragu,” Zbornik za slavistiku 1 (1970): 85–86.
14. “Ubi sciendum est, primo quod nos Bohemi et genere et linqwa originaliter processimus a
Charvatis, ut nostre chronice dicunt seu testantur, et ideo nostrum boemicale ydioma de genere suo
est charvaticum ydioma. [. . .] Et qui vult, potest hoc in Praga apud Slavos experiri.” Nejedlý, Dějiny
předhusitského zpěvu, 319–20.
15. FRB, 3:6–7, and, most recently, Jiří Daňhelka, Karel Hádek, Bohuslav Havránek, and Naděžda
Kvítková, eds., Staročeská Kronika tak řečeného Dalimila, vol. 1, Vydání textu a veškerého textového ma-
teriálu (Prague, 1988), 105–17.
16. The syntax of this Latin passage allows certain ambiguity in interpretation. It may be translated
as “that he is as glorious and his most deserving memory is as famous in said kingdom [i.e., Bohemia] just
as among his own people and homeland,” and, alternatively, as “that he is as glorious and his most deserv-
ing memory is as famous in said kingdom [i.e., Bohemia] as if among his own people and homeland.”
František Kavka, for instance, interprets this passage in the latter way: “Sv. Jeroným [. . .] měl se podle
zakládací listiny vrátit do Čech jakoby mezi svůj lid proto, že vykonal tak mnoho pro tu část Slovanů, z
nichž pocházeli podle tehdejšich představ Čechové, tj. pro jižní Slovany” (According to the foundation
charter, St. Jerome was supposed to return to Bohemia as if to his people because he has done so much for
the South Slavs, from whom, according to the belief of that time, the Czechs were thought to have origi-
nated). František Kavka, Karel IV: Historie života velikého vladaře (Prague, 1998), 127.
17. František Pechuška, “Benediktinské opatství Rogovské v Dalmácii,” Časopis katolického
duchovenstva 80 (1940): 14–54, 108–31, 192–208; Josef Vajs, “Benediktinské opatství Rogovské v Dalmá-
cii,” Slavia 18 (1947–1948): 223–25; Ostojić, “Benediktinci glagoljaši,” 26–27.
18. The literature on the Slavonic Monastery in Prague and its heritage is fairly extensive. Some
important publications include Kateřina Kubínová, Emauzský cyklus: Ikonografie středověkých nástěnných
maleb v ambitu kláštera Na Slovanech (Prague, 2012); Klára Benešovská and Kateřina Kubínová, eds., Em-
auzy: Benedictinský klášter Na Slovanech v srdci Prahy (Prague, 2007); Klára Benešovská, “Benediktinský
klášter Na Slovanech s kostelem Panny Marie a Slovanských Patronů,” Umění 44 (1996): 118–30; Hans
Rothe, “Das Slavenkloster”; Peter Wörster, “Monasterium sancti Hieronymi Slavorum ordinis Benedicti,”
in Kaiser Karl IV. 1316–1378: Forschungen über Kaiser und Reich, ed. Hans Patze (Neustadt an der Aisch,
1978), 721–32; Jan Petr and Sáva Šabouk, eds., Z tradic slovanské kultury v Čechách: Sázava a Emauzy v
dějinách české kultury (Prague, 1975); Karel Stejskal, Klášter Na Slovanech (Prague, 1974); and Emanuel
Poche and Jan Krofta, Na Slovanech: Stavební a umělecký vývoj pražského kláštera (Prague, 1956).
19. Paul Crossley, “The Politics of Presentation: The Architecture of Charles IV of Bohemia,” in
Courts and Regions in Medieval Europe, ed. Sarah Rees Jones, Richard Marks, and Alastair J. Minnis (York,
UK, 2000), 129.
20. Indeed, as Hans Rothe’s analysis of administrative documentation collected in the Registrum
Slavorum shows, the monastery was actively involved in the life of the neighboring New Town. Rothe,
“Das Slavenkloster,” 164.
21. RS, 14–16, no. 3. The monastery foundation was confirmed by Pope Clement VI in a bulla of 21
September 1348 (MVB, 1:576–77, no. 1028). Incidentally, the pope’s dictum shows that it was understood
that the Slavonic monks chanted and celebrated the liturgy “vulgariter,” that is, in a common language.
22. “. . . so that you, my son abbot and your successors, the abbots of the said monastery, who will be
according to the circumstances, the mitre and the ring and other pontifical insignia by the statute of our
predecessor of blessed memory, Pope Clement IV, so that, despite whatever other statutes to the contrary,
you would have free power, to you and also your successors from the special grace by the contents of the
present we grant” (. . . ut tu fili abbas et successores tui abbates dicti monasterii, qui pro tempore fuerint,
mitrae et annulo ac aliis pontificalibus insigniis juxta constitutionem pie memorie Clementis pape quarti
praedecessoris nostri libere uti, quibuscumque aliis constitutionibus contrariis nequaquam obstantibus,

194
 Notes to Pages 69–71

valeatis, vobis et eisdem successoribus de speciali gracia tenore presentium indulgemus). RS, 19–20, no.
5. See also MVB, 1:657–58, no. 1224.
23. Alfred H. Sweet, “Ceremonial Privileges of the English Benedictines,” Washington University
Studies, Humanistic Series 9 (1921): 87–89; Anne Müller and Karen Stöber, eds., Self-Representation of
Medieval Religious Communities: The British Isles in Context (Münster, 2009), 101–3. For a general history,
see Pierre Salmon, Étude sur les insignes du pontife dans le rit romain: Histoire et liturgie (Rome, 1955).
24. Dominik K. Čermák, Premonstráti v Čechách a na Moravě (Prague, 1877), 39; Jiří Čechura,
Kladruby v pohledu devíti staletí (Plzeň, 1995), 39. The Kladruby Benedictine abbey, for example, was one
of the richest in Bohemia. Its property included three towns, 128 villages, three castles, numerous woods,
fields, meadows, ponds, and mills, as well as various rights, such as the waterway rights for several rivers.
The financial prosperity of the monasteries whose abbots wore pontificalia was very important as they
paid special taxes for this right. See Ferdinand Tadra, Kulturní styky Čech s cizinou až do válek husitských
(Prague, 1897), 75.
25. In addition to the royal family, the ceremony was attended by many distinguished guests of
honor from all over the empire, including, most likely, a papal legate and the Latin patriarch of Alexandria
Jean de Cardailla, the archbishop of Mainz Jean de Ligne, a head of the French delegation, the bishop of
Paris Aimeric de Maignac, the archbishop of Esztergom Thomas and the palatine of Poland Władysław II
of Opole, representing the king of Hungary and Poland, and others. See Kavka, Karel IV., 285.
26. The name “Emmaus” sounds somewhat anachronistic for the discussed period because it is
attested only from the late sixteenth century. It was given to the monastery in honor of a daily Gospel pas-
sage (Luke 24:13–25) that was read at the consecration ceremony on 29 March 1372.
27. Cf. “konwentu klasstera Slowanskeho,” “conuentui monasterii Slauorum” (RS, 175, no. 81
[1399]); “wessken conwent klasstera sho Jeronyma na Slowanech Noweho miesta Pražskeho,” and “totus
conuentus monasterii s. Jeronimi Slauorum in noua ciuitate Pragensi.” RS, 181 and 182, no. 84 (23 April
1400, by Abbot Paulus and the whole Slavonic Monastery).
28. RS, 69, no. 30 (by Herbordus and Petrus of Janowycz in Prague).
29. Ibid., 27–28, no. 10 (by Charles IV).
30. Ibid., 71, no. 31 (by Leublinus, Charles’s notary).
31. Ibid., 22, no. 7 (by the judge and the community of Kouřim).
32. Ibid., 43, no. 17 (by Charles IV).
33. Ibid., 64, no. 26 (by Charles IV).
34. Ibid., 48, no. 20 (by Charles IV).
35. Ibid., 73, no. 32 (by Judge Nicolaus Reimbote and the jurors of the Old City of Prague).
36. Ibid., 75, no. 33 (by the prior general Gallus, commendator Nicolaus and other officials of the
Order of St. John of Jerusalem).
37. Ibid., 34–35, no. 13 (by Judge Hana Beneschawius and the juror residents of the Old City of
Prague).
38. Ibid., 100, no. 43 (by the Slavonic Monastery abbot and brethren).
39. Ibid., 201, no. 93 (by Wenceslas IV).
40. Ibid., 191, no. 90. Although it is tempting to translate this Czech expression as “the whole com-
munity of the monastery of St. Jerome the Slav,” most likely it should be interpreted as “the whole com-
munity of the Slavonic Monastery of St. Jerome,” considering that further in the same document we find
“konwent drzewe rzeczeneho klasstera Slowanskeho” (the community of the above-mentioned Slavonic
Monastery) vis-à-vis the Latin “conuentus prefati monasterii Slauorum” (192–93).
41. Rothe, “Das Slavenkloster,” 16–18. It is not unexpected, though, that documents of a strictly
business nature would show a preference for the short name of the monastery.
42. The Chronicon of Francis of Prague (chapter 25): “The black monks, Slavs, who came from
Croatia, settled between Zderaz and Vyšehrad, next to the church of holy martyrs Cosmas and Damian”
(Monachi quoque Sclavi nigri ordinis de Crawacie partibus venientes habitacula sua inter Sderaz et Wys-
segrad iuxta ecclesiam sanctorum martirum Cosme et Damiani locaverunt). FRB, s.n., 1:202. The Chroni-
ca Ecclesiae Pragensis of Beneš Krabice of Weitmil (book 4): “This year he founded a monastery of the Or-
der of St. Benedict in the same New Town and established in it Slavic brothers, who celebrate the Mass and

195
 Notes to Pages 71–73

sing the Hours in the Slavic letters [i.e., language]” (Eodem anno fundavit monasterium ordinis sancti
Benedicti in eadem civitate Noua et instituit in eo fratres Sclawos, qui litteris sclawonicis missas celebrar-
ent et horas psallerent). FRB, 4:516. “In the same year on the second day after Easter our reverend father in
Christ, Dominus John, archbishop of the holy church of Prague, legate of the Apostolic See, consecrated
the Slavonic Monastery of the Order of St. Benedict in the New Town of Prague, founded through the
aforementioned dominus emperor, completed with marvelous craftwork and greatly endowed” (Eodem
anno feria secunda post Pascha reverendus in Christo pater, dominus Iohannes, sancte Pragensis ecclesie
archiepiscopus, apostolice sedis legatus, consecravit monasterium Sclauorum ordinis sancti Benedicti in
Nova civitate Pragensi per prefatum dominum imperatorem fundatum, de miro quoque opere consuma-
tum atque magnifice dotatum). FRB, 4:545.
43. “. . . ut ipse in dicto regno velut inter gentem suam et patriam reddatur perpetuo gloriosus,
ipsiusque dignissima memoria celebris habeatur perpetuo.” RS, 10, no. 2.
44. Poche and Krofta, Na Slovanech, 9 and 20; Karel Stejskal, “Nástěnné malby kláštera Na Slovanech
v Praze z hlediska etnografického a kulturně historického,” Český lid 55 (1968): 128; Wörster, “Monaste-
rium sancti Hieronymi Slavorum”; Rothe, “Das Slavenkloster,” 16–18; Trajdos, “Fundacja klasztoru bene-
dyktynów,” 79–80; Eva Doležalová, “Stopy svatého Jeronýma v Čechách na konci 14. století,” in Evropa a
Čechy na konci středověku: Sborník příspěvků věnovaných Františku Šmahelovi, ed. Eva Doležalová, Robert
Novotný, and Pavel Soukup (Prague, 2004), 213–14; Kubínová, Emauzský cyklus, 40.
45. One of the earliest attested sources that explicitly calls Cyril an “apostle of the Slavs” is the late
thirteenth-century work of Martinus Polonus (Opavensis), Chronicon Pontificum et Imperatorum (The
Chronicle of the Popes and Emperors), in which he is called “the apostle of Moravians and almost all Slavs”
(sanctus Cyrillus, Moravorum et pene omnium Sclavorum apostolus). It narrates the discovery of St. Clem-
ent’s remains in Chersonesus and their conveyance to Rome by St. Cyril. See MMFH, 4:416–18.
46. On St. Adalbert, see Kubín, Sedm přemyslovských kultů, 161–93; Dušan Třeštík and Josef
Žemlička, eds., Svatý Vojtěch, Čechové a Evropa: Mezinárodní sympozium uspořádané Českou křesťanskou
akademií a Historickým ústavem Akademie věd ČR 19.–20. listopadu 1997 v Praze (Prague, 1998); Jaroslav
Polc, ed., Svatý Vojtěch: Sborník k mileniu (Prague, 1997). St. Adalbert was also venerated by the Croatian
Glagolites as is attested by a fragment of the thirteenth-century breviary, which contains the beginning of
the Office to this saint. See Marija Pantelić, “Fragmenti hrvatskoglagoljskoga brevijara starije redakcije iz
13. stoljeća,” Slovo 41–43 (1993): 69–70, 102.
47. A piece of the crosier used by St. Peter was incorporated into the “crosier of St. Adalbert” at
the order of Charles IV, who acquired this special relic at Trier. See Jan Bažant, The Classical Tradition in
Czech Medieval Art (Berlin, 2003), 133.
48. The genetic relationship between Czech and Croatian (a language of St. Jerome), suggested by
John of Holešov in his treatise the Expositio cantici sancti Adalberti, strengthened the connection between
St. Adalbert and St. Jerome.
49. See chapter 1.
50. For the English translation of major sources, supplemented with commentary, see Kantor,
The Origins. On the Cyrillo-Methodian cult in Bohemia, see Vojtěch Tkadlčík, Cyrilometodějský kult
na křest’anském Západě (Olomouc, 1995), 9–31; František Graus, “Die Entwicklung der Legenden der
sogennanten Slavenpostel Konstantin und Method in Böhmen und Mähren,” Jahrbücher für Geschichte
Osteuropas 19 (1971): 161–211; Zdeněk Kalista, “Cyrilometodějský motiv u Karla IV.,” in Karel IV a Itálie
(Prague, 2004), 280–305; Zdeněk Kalista, “Das cyrillo-methodianische Motiv bei Karl IV,” and Jaroslav
Kadlec, “Das Vermächtnis der Slavenapostel Cyrill und Method im böhmischen Mittelalter,” in Cyrillo-
Methodianische Fragen, slavische Philologie und Altertumskunde: Acta Congressus historiae Slavicae Salis-
burgensis in memoriam SS. Cyrilli et Methodii anno 1963 celebrati, ed. Franz Zagiba (Wiesbaden, 1968),
138–58 and 103–37 respectively; Milan Kopecký, “Cyrilometodějská tradice v starší české literatuře,” in
Magna Moravia: Sborník k 1100. Výročí příchodu byzantské mise na Moravu (Prague, 1965), 567–86; Ra-
doslav Večerka, “Cyrilometodějský kult v české středověké tradici,” Československý časopis historický 12
(1964): 40–43.
51. Tkadlčík, Cyrilometodějský kult, 17–20. On 30 September 1880, Pope Leo XIII extended the
cult of Sts. Cyril and Methodius to the whole Church.

196
 Notes to Pages 73–75

52. “Tuto chci do moravské / kroniky málo jíti, / abych mohl slíčnějie k své / řěči přijíti, / kako jest
koruna z Moravy / vyšla; / povědět’, kako jest z té / země Čechóm přišla.” MMFH, 1:274. For analysis of
this source, see Marie Bláhová, “. . . kako jest koruna z Moravy vyšla . . . ,” Mediaevalia Historica Bohemica
3 (1993): 165–76.
53. The question of whether the metropolitan center of Great Moravia was indeed at the site of
the Velehrad Cistercian Monastery remains unresolved, especially because no sources from the ninth to
thirteenth centuries confirm this fact. See Rudolf Hurt, Dějiny cisterciáckého kláštera na Velehradě (Olo-
mouc, 1934), 1:11–29. Archeological discoveries show the existence of ninth-century Christian churches
and burials at this site and its vicinity. See Vilém Hrubý, Staré Město: Velkomoravský Velehrad (Prague,
1965); Josef Cibulka, Velkomoravský kostel v Modré u Velehradu a začátky křest’anství na Moravě (Prague,
1958); Vilém Hrubý, Věra Hochmanová, and Jan Pavelčík, “Kostel a pohřebiště z doby velkomoravské na
Modré u Velehradu,” Časopis Moravského muzea—vědy společenské 40 (1955): 42–126; Luděk Galuška,
“Archeologický skanzen v Modré u Velehradu—velkomoravské opevněné sídliště středního Pomoraví,”
Archaeologia historica 30 (2005): 9–22.
54. Hurt, Dějiny, 38–42. Although the charter provides the year 1202 as a date of foundation, Hurt
believes it to be 1207 due to the fact that the charter is a later redrafted copy.
55. Ibid., 48–49.
56. Kalista, “Cyrilometodějský motiv,” 285; Tkadlčík, Cyrilometodějský kult, 18–19.
57. “. . . when in the kingdom of Bohemia, in the margravate of Moravia, in the duchies of Austria
and Styria . . . there exists no see of archbishop, but it may be said that there was in ancient times a see
of this type in Moravia.” (. . . cum in regno Boemie, marchionatu Moravie, Austrie et Stirie ducatibus
. . . nulla sedes archiepiscopalis existat, licet antiquitus in Moravia sedes hujusmodi fuisse dicatur). Josef
Emler, ed., Regesta Diplomatica nec non Epistolaria Bohemiae et Moraviae (Prague, 1882), 2:229.
58. Franz Machilek, “‘Velehrad ist unser Programm’: Zur Bedeutung der Kyrill-Method-Idee
und der Velehradbewegung für den Katholizismus in Mähren im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert,” Bohemia 45
(2004): 353–95.
59. MMFH, 2:284–88. See Anežka Vidmanová, “Legenda aurea a Čechy,” in Legenda Aurea, by Ja-
cobus de Voragine (Prague, 1984), 9–65. An expanded Glagolitic version of the Pasionál was also created
in the Slavonic Monastery (see below).
60. MMFH, 2:289–96. Numerous copies of the Moravian Legend (“Tempore Michaelis Imperatoris
. . .”) found in Czech breviaries and other collections from the second half of the fourteenth century
demonstrate its popularity and wide circulation. See MMFH, 2:255–68.
61. “. . . preaching to him with a prophet’s mouth, that if he were baptized, he himself and his suc-
ceeding princes and kings would become greater than all princes and kings of the Slavic language, which
has indeed been fulfilled up to the present” ( “. . . predicens ei ore prophetico, quodsi baptizaretur, quod
ipse et sui successores principes et reges maiores omnibus principibus et regibus lingwe Sclawonice fi-
erent, quod verifice est impletum usque in hodiernum diem). MMFH, 2:295.
62. Ibid., 2:337–45.
63. “. . . who (under the rule and custom of the Order of St. Benedict, to whom the glorious way of
life of the aforementioned saints [i.e., Jerome, Cyril, Methodius, Adalbert, and Procopius] gave beauty and
splendor during their times, which it still retains through the grace of God” (. . . qui sub regula et regulari
habitu ordinis sancti Benedicti, cui dictorum sanctorum conuersacio gloriosa suis tribuit temporibus,
quos adhuc per dei graciam retinet speciem et decorem). RS, 10, no. 2.
64. Rothe, “Das Slavenkloster,” 24. Hans Rothe’s observation that Charles’s favorite Bohemian saint,
St. Wenceslas, was not among the patron saints is well directed. Rothe explains this by the fact that, as a
patron saint of Bohemia and a dynastic saint of Bohemian monarchs, Wenceslas did not fit the concept
of the New Town envisioned as a replica of “a new Jerusalem.” It should be noted, though, that on 19
September 1350, Charles IV also founded the Monastery of the Assumption of Our Lady and St. Char-
lemagne (Karlov) for the Augustinian canons, not far from the Slavonic Monastery “on the mountain op-
posite Vyšehrad” (in monte ex opposito Wissegradi), according to the Chronica ecclesiae Pragensis of Beneš
Krabice of Weitmil. See FRB, 4:520. The monastery promoted the cult of Charlemagne and Charles’s
own imperial and dynastic claims. In this light, the reason for St. Wenceslas’s omission from the Slavonic

197
 Notes to Pages 75–78

Monastery’s patrons is not necessarily related to the concept of the New Town as a whole but is explained
by the concept of the monastery itself.
65. RS, 43, no. 17.
66. Ibid., 44, no. 18. It is noteworthy that here and in several other documents, Cyril and Methodius
seem to be included among the patron saints of Bohemia, along with Adalbert and Procopius. Ibid., 10,
no. 2 (11 November 1347); 55, no. 23 (13 January 1352); 216, Anhang, no. 5 (12 June 1437).
67. Ibid., 10, no. 2; “. . . ad honorem omnipotentis dei et eius intemerate genitricis virginis Marie
et beati Jeronimi ac sanctorum Procopii, Adalberti, Cirilli et Metudii patronorum eiusdem monasterii.”
Ibid., 217, Anhang, no. 5.
68. Ibid., 55, no. 23, and 18, no. 4 (“. . . ob reverentiam B. Marie semper virginis, Cyrilli, Methudii
martyrum nec non Hieronimi ac Procopii confessorum beatorum”).
69. See the discussion of the omission of St. Adalbert’s feast day from the Glagolitic part of the
Reims Gospel below.
70. RS, 5–8, no. 1, and 19–20, no. 5.
71. Rothe, “Das Slavenkloster,” 26.
72. “Innocentius episcopus servus servorum dei carissimo in Christo filio Carolo Romanorum im-
peratori semper augusto et Boemie regi illustri, salutem etc. Eximie tue devocionis . . . Cum itaque, sicut
acceptimus, in civitate Pragensi sint duo monasteria ordinis s. Benedicti, unum videlicet in s. Jeronimi
ad Sclauos vulgariter nuncupatum et alterum in s. Ambrosii confessoris atque doctoris reverenciam et
honorem et sub eorum vocabulis dudum per te fundata canonice ac dotata, et in s. Jeronimi in lingua
Sclauonica secundum ipsius b. Jeronimi, qui nacione Sclauus extitit, et in s. Ambrosii monasteriis predic-
tis secundum ipsius s. Ambrosii instituciones et ritus divina officia ex concessione apostolica celebrentur,
tuque ex devocione, quam habes ad sanctos eosdem, geras in votis, quod interdum huiusmodi officia
iuxta ritus eosdem possint in tua presencia extra ipsa monasteria celebrari, nos tuis in hac parte devotis
supplicacionibus inclinati, quod abbates et monachi dictorum monasteriorum, ubicunque extra dicta
monasteria in tua presencia fuerint, in locis tamen ad hoc congruis et honestis, missas et alia divina offi-
cia, singul. videlicet eorundem secundum ipsorum ritus predictos, quibuscunque constitucionibus apos-
tolicis nec non statutis et consuetudinibus monasteriorum et ordinis predictorum contrariis nequaquam
obstantibus, licite valeant celebrare, devocioni tue ipsisque abbatibus et monachis auctoritate apostolica
de speciali gracia tenore presencium indulgemus.” Jan Novák, ed., Monumenta Vaticana Res Gestas Bohe-
micas Illustrantia, vol. 2, Acta Innocentii VI, 1352–1362 (Prague, 1907), 407, no. 2019.
73. Jan Dubravius, also known by his Czech name, Jan Skála z Doubravky (ca. 1486–1553), was a
bishop of Olomouc (1541–1553).
74. “Legit item seorsim contubernales, qui se Sclavos cognominabant, Authorem religionis suae di-
vum Hieronymum cientes, quem hoc nomine Carolus peculiariter veneratus est, quod in Illyria natus fue-
rit, unde Bohemi originem trahunt.” Johannes Dubravius, Historia Bohemica (Frankfurt, 1687), 583–84.
75. Konrad Onasch, “Der cyrillo-methodianische Gedanke in der Kirchengeschichte des Mit-
telalters,” Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg 6 (1956): 27–40;
Tkadlčík, Cyrilometodějský kult, 9–31; Kalista, “Cyrilometodějský motiv”; Kalista, “Das cyrillo-metho-
dianische Motiv”; Kadlec, “Das Vermächtnis der Slavenapostel”; Jaromír Mikulka, “Karel IV. K otázce
slovanského programu jeho politiky,” Slovanský přehled 64 (1978): 196–204; Paulová, “L’idée cyrillo-
méthodienne,” 174–86. Among the works that are partly devoted to this issue are František Šmahel, Idea
národa v husitských Čechách (Prague, 2000), 199–200; Paul Crossley and Zoё Opačić, “Koruna českého
království,” in Karel IV. Císař z boží milosti: Kultura a umění za vlády posledních Lucemburků, 1310–1437,
ed. Jiří Fajt and Barbara Drake Boehm (Prague, 2006), 197–217; Václav Chaloupecký, “Karel IV. a Čechy,”
in Vlastní životopis Karla IV., ed. Jakub Pavel and Václav Chaloupecký (Prague, 1946), 5–87, esp. 33–46,
59–60, 72–75.
76. On the concept of the Slavic idea, see a programmatic study by Roman Jakobson, “Slavism as a
Topic of Comparative Studies,” in SW, 65–85, as well as works focusing on Bohemia: Tomáš Glanc, Holt
Meyer, and Ekaterina Vel’mezerova, eds., Inventing Slavia (Prague, 2005); Vladislav Šťastný et al., eds.,
Slovanství v národním životě Čechů a Slováků (Prague, 1968); Josef Macůrek, ed., Slovanství v českém
národním životě (Brno, 1947). Literature on the rise of Czech nationalism is even more extensive. Some of

198
 Notes to Pages 78–80

the fundamental studies are Šmahel, Idea národa; Šmahel, “The Idea of the ‘Nation’ in Hussite Bohemia,”
Historica 16 (1969): 143–247, and Historica 17 (1969): 93–197; Šmahel, “Česká anomalie? Úvaha na okraj
diskusí o modernosti českeho „naroda” a českého „nacionalismu” ve 14. a 15. století,” Československý
časopis historický 37 (1969): 57–68; František Graus, “Die Bildung eines Nationalbewusstseins im mit-
telalterlichen Böhmen,” Historica 13 (1966): 5–49.
77. The complete title reads: Privilegium Alexandri Magni Slavis concessum et linguae eorum, ex-
tractum ex quodam libro graeco antiquissimo apud Constantinopolim reperto et translatum in latino de
verbo ad verbum.
78. Vidmanová likewise suggests that the much disputed phrase athleta illustris stands for “illustri-
ous warrior [for faith]” and is a reference to St. Jerome. See Anežka Vidmanová, “K privilegiu Alexandra
Velikého Slovanům,” in HRR, 1:105–15; Vidmanová, “Ještě jednou k privilegiu Alexandra Velikého pro
Slovany,” in Pulchritudo et Sapientia: Ad honorem Pavel Spunar, ed. Zuzana Silagiová, Hana Šedinová, and
Petr Kitzler (Prague, 2008), 179–87.
79. Jiří Spěváček, “Bohemocentrismus a univerzalismus Karla IV,” in Mezinárodní vědecká konfer-
ence “Doba Karla IV. v dějinách národů ČSSR,” pořádaná Univerzitou Karlovou v Praze k 600. výročí úmrtí
Karla IV. 29.11.–1.12.1978: Materiály z plenárního zasedání a ze sekce historie, ed. Michal Svatoš (Prague,
1981), 96–116.
80. This aspect is also particularly pointed out by František Šmahel. See Šmahel, Idea národa, 199–200.
81. Jiří Spěváček, “Základní charakteristika struktury modelů státní moci v Evropě v 1. polovině
14. století,” Mediaevalia Historica Bohemica 2 (1992): 63–89; Spěváček, “Vztahy Karla IV. k představitelům
raného humanismu,” in HRR, 3:798–99.
82. These chronicles were based on the early twelfth-century work by Cosmas of Prague, Chronica
Boemorum. The Czech translation, along with background studies, is in Marie Bláhová, Kroniky doby
Karla IV. (Prague, 1987).
83. Johannis de Marignola, Chronicon (Kronika Jana z Marignoly), FRB, 3:485–604. On Marignolli’s
chronicle, see Marie Bláhová, “Česká kronika Jana Marignoly,” in Kroniky doby Karla IV. (Prague, 1987);
Bláhová, “Odraz státní ideologie v oficiální historiografii doby předhusické,” Folia Historica Bohemica 12
(1988): 269–88; Kateřina Engstová, “Jan Marignola a památky doby Karla IV,” Český časopis historický
97 (1999): 476–505; Kateřina Kubínová, Imitatio Romae, 151–77; Rudolf Chadraba, “Apostolus orientis:
Poselství Jana z Marignoly,” in Z tradic, 127–34.
84. The sibylline prophecy was a popular motif in the political theology of Bohemia and circulated
in many versions and copies. The basic story features a pagan prophetess, Sybil, predicting the birth and
teachings of Christ, the spread of Christianity, and the fall of Judaism, followed by Bohemia-specific
events at the time of the Last Emperor, the appearance of the Antichrist, the end of the world, and the Sec-
ond Coming of Christ. A number of other visionary texts about the future of Czech lands associated with
the sibylline prophetic tradition circulated both in manuscripts and early printed books. See Čeněk Zíbrt,
Bibliografie české historie (Prague, 1902), 2:758–77. One of the Czech versions of the Proroctví Sibyllino
that is attested in two fifteenth-century copies names Charles as the Last Emperor, although it casts his
reign in a somewhat critical light. See Věra Brynychová, “České Proroctví Sibyllino v ruském překladě,”
Český Lid 27 (1927): 49–60. A similar version served as a source for the fifteenth-century Ruthenian
translation, “The Tale of Sivilla the Prophetess.” See Julia Verkholantsev, Ruthenica Bohemica: Ruthenian
Translations from Czech in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Poland (Vienna, 2008), 71–85, 183–90.
The motif of the sibylline prophecy is also featured in the mural typological cycle at the Prague Slavonic
Monastery. Stejskal, “Nástěnné malby,” 129–34. Several textual features in the Czech and Ruthenian Sibyl-
line Prophecy suggest a link to this mural representation. See Verkholantsev, Ruthenica Bohemica, 82–84.
85. Marignolli’s work opens with Charles’s letter, in which he explains his vision of the author’s
assignment. One can, of course, only speculate whether all of Marignolli’s genealogical discoveries and
their political implications may be ascribed to Charles. Marie Bláhová considers Marignolli’s and Přibík
Pulkava’s chronicles to be the only true “official state historiographic narratives.” Bláhová, “Odraz státní
ideologie,” 273.
86. On Charles’s “Hellenoslavism,” see Rudolf Chadraba, “Kaiser Karls IV. devotio antiqua,” Medi-
aevalia Bohemica 1 (1969): 51–67; Karel Stejskal, “Emauzy a český helenoslavismus,” in Z tradic, 113–26;

199
 Notes to Pages 80–83

G. P. Mel’nikov, “Hellenoslavism in the Cultural and Political Conception of the Emperor Charles IV,”
in Acts: XVIIIth International Congress of Byzantine Studies, ed. Ihor Ševčenko and Gennady G. Litavrin
(Shepherdstown, WV, 1996), 1:431–37. Following this theory, the famous reformer Jerome of Prague, an
associate of John Hus, claimed at the Council of Constance that “the Czechs descended from the Greeks.”
See Karel Stejskal, “Klášter Na Slovanech a mistr Jeroným Pražský,” Dějiny a současnost 3 (1967): 12.
87. Marignola, Chronicon, 507 and 520. On Japheth’s and Javan’s sons, see Genesis 10:2–4. The
theory of the common origin from Japheth (and his grandson Janus) and, therefore, a kinship between
the Slavs and the Greeks, is also found in the thirteenth- or fourteenth-century Chronica Poloniae Maioris,
in which the author has supported it by deriving the common etymological origin for the Slavic and
Greek words “pan”: “Indeed, it is written in ancient books that Pannonia is the mother and the cradle of
all Slavic peoples; in fact, in Greek and Slavic, ‘pan’ designates a person ‘who holds everything’. [. . .] And
these Pannonians, named so from ‘pan,’ are said to originate from Janus, a grandson of Japheth” (Scribitur
enim in vetustissimis codicibus, quod Pannonia sit mater et origo omnium Slavonicarum nationum; Pan
enim ixta Graecam et Slavorum interpretationem dicitur ‘totum habens’. [. . .] et hii Pannonii a pan dicti
a Jano nepote Japhet ortum habuere dicuntur). Brygida Kürbis, ed., Chronica Poloniae Maioris: Kronika
Wielkopolska, Monumenta Poloniae Historica, Series Nova 8 (Warsaw, 1970), 4. On theories about the
origin of the Slavs, see Baldur Panzer, Quellen zur slavischen Ethnogenese: Fakten, Mythen und Legenden;
Originaltexte mit Übersetzungen, Erläuterungen und Kommentaren (Frankfurt am Main, 2002).
88. Marignola, Chronicon, 520. Also, see analysis in Kubínová, Imitatio Romae, 153–64.
89. For a comprehensive analysis of Marignolli’s discourse and sources of this book, see Kubínová,
“Čeští biskupové dědici svatého Petra,” in Imitatio Romae, 165–77.
90. Marignola, Chronicon, 604. To replace a valuable stone relic that was lost after the Hussites had
plundered the Vyšehrad Castle, the Vyšehrad chapter church has recently obtained a piece of the remain-
ing part of the stone at San Piero a Grado.
91. In 1344, while still margrave of Moravia, Charles raised the Prague bishopric to an archbish-
opric with the help of his long-term friend and former mentor Pope Clement VI, making it independent
from the archbishops of Mainz. In 1365, on Charles’s request, Pope Urban V appointed the archbishop of
Prague, John Očko of Vlašim (and his successors), papal legatus natus not only over Bohemian bishoprics
but also over the neighboring bishoprics of Bamberg, Meissen, and Regensburg. See Zdeňka Hledíková,
“Die Prager Erzbischöfe als ständige päpstliche Legaten: Ein Beitrag zur Kirchenpolitik Karls IV.,” Beiträge
zur Geschichte des Bistums Regensburg 6 (1972): 226–27.
92. Kalista, “Cyrilometodějský motiv,” 284–91, and “Das cyrillo-methodianische Motiv,” 142–47.
93. This work has been published several times, most recently with the English translation in
Charles IV, Karoli IV Imperatoris Romanorum Vita, 183–209.
94. Pope Clement VI referred to the duality of names of Wenceslas and Charlemagne in his en-
dorsement of Charles’s election and coronation as the king of the Romans in 1346. See Gábor Klaniczay,
Holy Rulers and Blessed Princesses: Dynastic Cults in Medieval Central Europe (Cambridge, 2002), 328–29.
Likewise, in his celebratory speech “Sermo ad Clerum pro eleccione regis,” composed on the occasion of
Charles’s coronation as king of Bohemia at the St. Vitus Cathedral in 1347, Nicholas of Louny developed
the theme of Charles’s predestination to be the king of Bohemia and the Roman emperor based on his
names. See Jaroslav Kadlec, “Die homiletischen Werke des Prager Magister Nikolaus von Louny,” Au-
gustiniana 23 (1973): 263–69. Also see Reinhard Schneider, “Karolus, qui est Wenceslaus,” in Festschrift
für Helmut Beumann zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. Kurt-Ulrich Jäschke and Reinhard Wenskus (Sigmaringen,
1977), 365–87.
95. Charles’s Life of St. Wenceslas is sometimes found in manuscripts with a subtitle “Život svatého
Cyrila biskupa” (“The Life of St. Cyril the Bishop”). See MMFH, 2:284 and 297.
96. A visual and most eloquent testimony that Sts. Cyril and Methodius had become patron saints
of Bohemia can be seen in the Prague St. Vitus Cathedral, where their sculptures were placed in the exte-
rior of the clerestory opposite Adalbert and Procopius and next to Vitus, Sigismund, Wenceslas, Ludmila,
the Virgin Mary, and Christ. See Crossley, “The Politics of Presentation,” 163.
97. The material expression of this symbolism can be seen in the myth and design of the “crown of
St. Wenceslas,” which Charles ordered modified first for his coronation in 1346, and again in 1378, shortly

200
 Notes to Pages 83–85

before his death. Art historians disagree about the extent of French influence on the newly redesigned
crown, specifically whether it bore any resemblance to the lost crown of St. Louis. However, they agree
that the archaic features of the new crown of St. Wenceslas referenced Charles’s Přemyslid ancestors.
According to tradition, the crown rested on the body of St. Wenceslas and left it only for the purpose of
the coronation, at which time, the regal power of St. Wenceslas was passed to a future king of Bohemia.
Charles IV ordered the crown to be kept on the skull of St. Wenceslas at St. Vitus Cathedral. Charles
also kept the tradition of wearing a clerical mitre along with his crown, for which Prince Spytihněv II of
Bohemia had obtained the pope’s permission in the 1050s, and which was worn along with a royal crown
by the kings of Bohemia beginning with Vratislav II (1085). This arrangement perfectly expressed the
bond between the secular and ecclesiastical power. On the reconstruction of the crown’s history, see Karel
Otavsky, Die Sankt Wenzelskrone im Prager Domschatz und die Frage der Kunstauffassung am Hofe Kaiser
Karls IV., Europäische Hochschulschriften 142 (Bern, 1992); Josef Cibulka, Korunovační klenoty království
českého (Prague, 1969), and its English translation, The Crown Jewels of the Bohemian Kingdom (Prague,
1969); Josef Krása, “Zobrazení české koruny,” Umění 42 (1994): 267–74; Ivo Hlobil, “Svatováclavská ko-
runa: Poznamky k jejímu vzniku a přemyslovské tradici,” in České korunovační klenoty: Pamětní vydání
ke vzniku České republiky (Prague, 1993), 45–53; Alexander Bělohlávek, “Die böhmischen Krönungsinsig-
nien,” Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte 53 (1990): 209–15; Bažant, The Classical Tradition, 132–33.
98. John of Neumarkt (ca. 1310–1380) is also known as Jan of Středa in Czech, Johannes de Nova
Domo or Noviforensis in Latin, and Johann von Neumarkt in German.
99. “Truly along with other marks of distinction, the Velehrad Church steps forth by its metro-
politan distinction like the mother of and first among other churches” (Verum cum alias insignis Vel-
legradensis ecclesia in honore metropolitico velud aliarum ecclesiarum mater et princeps extiterit). John’s
letter to Pope Gregory XI, written before November 1375, is published by Ferdinand Tadra, ed., Cancel-
laria Johannis Noviforensis Episcopi Olomucensis (1364–1380): Briefe und Urkunden des Olmützer Bischofs
Johann von Neumarkt, Archiv für österreichische Geschichte 68 (Vienna, 1886), 47–48, no. 33 (265);
and Paul Piur, ed., Briefe Johanns von Neumarkt, Vom Mittelalter zur Reformation, Forschungen zur Ge-
schichte der deutschen Bildung 8 (Berlin, 1937), 343–44.
100. This chronicle, which in some of its versions also indicates Charles as an author, is attested
in six redactions that show the progress of this historiographic project over a period of ten years (1364–
1374). The general appeal and significance of this work is demonstrated by the fact that the Latin original
compilation was later somewhat loosely translated into Czech and German and became a source for many
subsequent historians. See Bláhová, Kroniky doby Karla IV., 572–77.
101. “Qui papa petita huiusmodi habuit pro ridiculo, et dum in consilio cardinalium et multorum
presulum desuper tractatum et deliberacionem haberet, subito vox de celis insonuit dicens: Omnis spiri-
tus laudet Dominum, et omnis lingua confiteatur ei. Tunc papa hoc audito miraculo in perpetuum statuit,
quod in lingua slovanica possint misse et alia divina officia celebrari.” FRB, 5:16–17. See a commentary
to this fragment in MMFH, 1:310. Cf. the Czech version, “Kterúžto prosbu papiež v smieh jest obrátil. A
když pak o to s kardinaly a s mnohými biskupy mnohé řeči a rozmysly byly, ihned v rychlosti hlas povzněl
s nebes a řka: Všelikterý duch chval Hospodina a všickni jazykové jemu sě vyznávajte. Tehdy papež ten
div veliký uslyšav, na věky ustanovil jest, aby slovanským jazykem mše svaté, jiné také služby božie slúženy
byly.” FRB, 5:221.
102. MMFH, 2:106 (The Life of Constantine), MMFH, 3:207 (“Industriae tuae”).
103. MMFH, 2:292–93.
104. Enea Silvio, Historia Bohemica—Historie Česká, in Fontes Rerum Regni Bohemiae, ed. Dana
Martínková, Alena Hadravová, and Jiří Matl (Prague, 1998), 1:42–43. The popularity of Piccolomini’s
work promoted the knowledge of Sts. Cyril and Methodius’s Slavic mission in the Christian West, and
this episode was quoted in a number of historiographic works that used Piccolomini’s Historica Bohemica
as a source. Importantly, the miraculous sign that proved the divine origin of the Slavonic liturgy was
referenced in debates concerning the legitimacy of the liturgy and the Bible in vernacular translation
at the Council of Trent (1545–1563). In fact, Cyril and Methodius’s Slavonic liturgy was evoked along
with the belief in Jerome’s authorship of the Roman Slavonic rite of the Croatian Glagolites. See Francis
J. Thomson, “The Legacy of SS. Cyril and Methodius in Counter-Reformation: The Council of Trent and

201
 Notes to Pages 85–87

the Question of Scripture and Liturgy in the Vernacular, together with an Account of the Subsequent
Consequences for the Slavo-Latin (Glagolitic) Rite and the Bible in Croatian Translation,” in Methodios
und Kyrillos in ihrer europäischen Dimension, ed. E. Konstantinou (Frankfurt am Main, 2005), 87–246.
105. This view is expressed in many publications, e.g., in Kavka, Karel IV., 119; Kalista,
“Cyrilometodějský motiv,” 282; Paulová, “L’idée cyrillo-méthodienne,” 178–79. Historians note that
Charles used the rhetoric of Slavic affinity as political argument when he persuaded the Orthodox Serbs
to join in a union with the Western Church against the Turks. See Hrochová, “Karel IV.,” 193–94 and 198.
106. John Očko of Vlašim, “Post mortem imperatoris Karoli sermo,” in FRB, 3:429.
107. Rudolf Chadraba, “Tradice druhého Konstantina a řeckoperská antiteze v umění Karla IV,”
Umění 16 (1968): 567–603; Chadraba, “Kaiser Karls IV. devotio”; Chadraba, Staroměstská Mostecká věž a
triumfální symbolika v umění Karla IV. (Prague, 1971); Chadraba, “Der ‘Zweite Konstantin’: Zum Verhält-
nis von Staat und Kirche in der karolingischen Kunst Böhmens,” Umění 26 (1978): 505–20.
108. In his foundation charter, Charles delegates to the brethren of the Slavonic Monastery the task
of praying for his family and the kingdom of Bohemia in return for his patronage: “. . . and so that the
prayers and suffrage of these very men, the abbot and the current brethren as well as their successors, will
before the Lord and king of heaven incessantly intercede for us, illustrious Blanche, dearest spouse, our
children, our ancestors and successors, kings of Bohemia, and the blessed state of the kingdom itself ” (. . .
ut ipsorum . . abbatis et fratrum modernorum ipsorumque successorum oraciones et suffragia pro nobis,
illustri Blancha, consorte karissima, liberis, antecessoribus et successoribus nostris . . regibus Boemie
statuque felici regni ipsius erga regem celorum et dominum iugiter intercedant). RS, 11, no. 2.
109. Marie Bláhová, “Klášterní fundace Karla IV.,” in Emauzy, 27–28.
110. Extensive literature exists on the representation of Charles’s ideological agenda and religiosity
in art and architecture. See, for example, Crossley, “The Politics of Presentation,” 99–172, esp. 126; Jiří
Fajt and Barbara Drake Boehm, eds., Prague: The Crown of Bohemia, 1347–1437 (New Haven, CT, 2005);
Fajt and Boehm, Karel IV. Císař z boží milosti: Kultura a umění za vlády Lucemburků, 1310–1437 (Prague,
2006); Iva Rosario, ed., Art and Propaganda: Charles IV of Bohemia, 1346–1378 (Woodbridge, UK, 2000); Da-
vid C. Mengel, “Emperor Charles IV (1346–1378) as the Architect of Local Religion in Prague,” Austrian His-
tory Yearbook 41 (2010): 15–29; Mengel, “A Holy and Faithful Fellowship: Royal Saints in Fourteenth-Century
Prague,” in Evropa a Čechy na konci středověku: Sborník příspěvků věnovaných Františku Šmahelovi, ed.
Eva Doležalová, Robert Novotný, and Pavel Soukup (Prague, 2004), 145–58. The concept of Prague as “a
new Rome” in Charles’s politics is examined from an interdisciplinary perspective in Kubínová, Imitatio
Romae. On the “New Rome” rhetoric, see William Hammer, “The Concept of the New or Second Rome
in the Middle Ages,” Speculum 19 (1944): 50–62.
111. Zoё Opačić, “Karolus Magnus and Karolus Quartus: Imperial Role Models in Ingelheim,
Aachen and Prague,” in Mainz and the Middle Rhine Valley: Medieval Art, Architecture and Archaeology,
ed. Ute Engel and Alexandra Gajewski (Mainz, 2007), 225–26.
112. Kubínová, Imitatio Romae, 219; Zdeňka Hledíková, “Karlovy církevní fundace a koncepce
jeho vlády,” in Mezinárodní vědecká konference “Doba Karla IV. v dějinách národů ČSSR,” pořádaná Uni-
verzitou Karlovou v Praze k 600. výročí úmrtí Karla IV., 29.11–1.12.1978: Materiály z plenárního zasedání
a ze sekce historie, ed. Michal Svatoš (Prague, 1981), 145–46; Spěváček, “Bohemocentrismus,” 102.
113. Zoё Opačić has substantiated this idea in her PhD dissertation, “Charles IV and the Emmaus
Monastery: Slavonic Tradition and Imperial Ideology in Fourteenth-Century Prague” (PhD diss., Uni-
versity of London, Courtauld Institute of Art, 2003), and in an article, “Emauzský klášter a Nové Město
pražské: Slovanská tradice, císařská ideologie a veřejný rituál v Praze 14. století,” in Emauzy, 32–53.
114. For a description of these processions and the Slavonic Monastery’s presumed role in them,
see Opačić, “Emauzský klášter,” 34–40; Crossley and Opačić, “Koruna českého království,” 214–15.
115. Benešovská, “Benediktinský klášter,” 124; Paul Crossley and Zoё Opačić, “Prague as a New
Capital,” in Fajt and Boehm, Prague, 65; Opačić, “Emauzský klášter,” 43–47.
116. Opačić, “Emauzský klášter,” 44.
117. See, for example, Kubínová, Emauzský cyklus; Zuzana Všetečková, “Gotické nástěnné malby
v křížové chodbě kláštera Na Slovanech,” Umění 44 (1996): 118–30; Karel Stejskal, “Typological Cycle
in the Cloisters of Emmaus: Iconographic Analysis,” in Gothic Mural Painting in Bohemia and Moravia

202
 Notes to Pages 87–90

1300–1378, ed. Vlasta Dvořáková, Josef Krása, Anežka Merhautová, and Karel Stejskal (London, 1964),
71–79; Stejskal, “Nástěnné malby.” Karel Stejskal, Zuzana Všetečková, Jan Royt, Kateřina Kubínová, and
Milena Bartlová devoted their contributions to the mural cycle and its individual scenes in the collection
of papers Emauzy, edited by Klára Benešovská and Kateřina Kubínová. These contributions provide suc-
cinct but thorough reviews of existing literature on the mural cycle.
118. On the concept of typological parallelism, as well as for a list of scenes in the mural cycle, see
Stejskal, “Nástěnné malby”; Jan Royt, “Poznámky k ikonografii Emauzského cyklu,” in Emauzy, 290–308;
Kateřina Kubínová, “Emauzský cyklus—monumentální Zrcadlo lidského spasení,” in Emauzy, 309–33.
119. Karel Stejskal, “O malířích nástěnných maleb kláštera Na Slovanech,” Umění 15 (1967): 1–65.
Karel Stejskal suggests that one of these masters was Charles’s court painter, Nicholas Wurmser of Stras-
bourg, the painter of the Luxemburg Genealogy at Karlstein.
120. Zuzana Všetečková, “Gotické nástěnné malby v klášteře Na Slovanech—nová zjištění po roce
1996,” in Emauzy, 279–81; Stejskal, “Nástěnné malby,” 126.
121. Sborník náboženských traktátů zv. Krumlovský (1401–1433), KNM, III B 10, fols. 1r–111r;
Pavel Brodský, Katalog iluminovaných rukopisu Knihovny Národního muzea v Praze (Prague, 2000), no.
25, 28–32. Bohumír Mráz, “Krumlovský sborník: Heslo k barevným reprodukcím,” Dějiny a současnost
11, no. 7 (1969), ii. The Czech Zrcadlo člověčieho spasenie is partially published by Adolf Patera in Časopis
Českého Museum 61 (1887): 464–81. In addition to the Czech Zrcadlo člověčieho spasenie, the Krumlov
Miscellany contains other texts that Croatian Glagolites used as sources for their translations, such as the
Raj duše (Paradisus animae), attributed to Albertus Magnus, and Bonaventura’s Čím sě člověk má v zákoně
božiem lepšiti (De perfectione vitae ad sorores).
122. Zerzalo seu speculum illiricum vulgare characteribus glagoliticis vulgo hyeronimianis (scriptum)
anno 1445, The Vatican Library, Borgiano Illirico no. 9. A Latin description on fol. 2 from 1722 says:
“Continet liber his sive codex illirico vulgari sermone, characteribus Hieronymitanis conscriptus” (Con-
tains a codex book in the Illyrian vernacular language written in Jerome’s letters). For the description of
the manuscript, see Karlo Horvat, “Glagolitica Vaticana: Nekoliko prinosa glagolskim spomenicima, što
se čuvaju u Rimu,” in Hrvatska glagolska bibliografija, by Ivan Milčetić, Jugoslavenska Akademija znanosti
i umjetnosti, Starine 33 (Zagreb, 1911), 520–22. See also Stjepan Ivšić, “Još o dosad nepoznatim hrvatskim
glagolskim prijevodima iz staročeškoga jezika,” Slavia 6 (1927–1928): 40–63; Hercigonja, Tropismena i
trojezična kultura, 77–79.
123. These include John Hus’s “Sermon on the 13th Sunday after Pentecost,” a “Sermon on Tuesday
of the Third Week of Lent” from Jacobus de Voragine’s Sermones Quadragesimales, and two other ser-
mons by unidentified authors. See Johannes Reinhart, “Husova homilija na 13. nedjelju po duhovima u
hrvatskoglagoljskom prijevodu,” Slovo 50 (2000): 119–90. A number of other Croatian translations from
Czech, associated with the Prague Glagolites, are preserved in several Glagolitic codices. For an overview
of and literature about these translations, see Johannes Reinhart, “Mezhslavianskie perevody v period
pozdnego Srednevekov’ia i rannego Novogo vremeni (do kontsa XVI v.),” Slaviane i ikh sosedi 11 (2004):
111–35; Reinhart, “Zwischenslavische Übersetzungen im Mittelalter,” Wiener Slavistisches Jahrbuch 43
(1997): 189–203; and Reinhart, “Jan Hus in der kroatisch-glagolitischen Literatur,” in Glagolitica, 207–26.
124. “These correspondences of the Old and New Testaments are depicted according to the beauti-
ful images in the cloister of the Slavs’ monastery in Prague’s New Town” (Hee correspondencie in veteri
et nouo testamento habuntur in pictura secundum ymagines pulcherrimas ad slowos in ambitu in noua
ciuitate praghensi). The Latin ad Slavos/ad slowos stands for the Czech u Slovanů. The manuscript was
first published and examined by Margarete Andersson-Schmitt, “Eine mittelalterliche Beschreibung der
Fresken im Emauskloster zu Prag,” Umění 43 (1995): 224–31, and recently by Kateřina Kubínová, “Em-
auzský cyklus,” 321–23. This historical document has become a valuable resource for the reconstruction
of the original murals, especially those that were lost or damaged by repainting in the eighteenth century
and by destruction in the twentieth century.
125. Stejskal, “Emauzy a český helenoslavismus,” 115.
126. Josef Krása, “K ikonografii sv. Jeronýma v českém umění,” in Z tradic, 95–98; Všetečková,
“Gotické nástěnné malby,” 282–85; Karel Stejskal, “Malby v klášteře Na Slovanech a jejich vztah k evrop-
skému malířství,” in Emauzy, 235–38; Stejskal, “Emauzy a český helenoslavismus,” 118.

203
 Notes to Pages 90–95

127. Jozef Kurz, “Emauzský hlaholský nápis,” Slavia 31 (1962): 1; František Václav Mareš, “Em-
auzský hlaholský nápis—staročeský Dekalog (Desatero),” Slavia 31 (1962): 2–7. Based on his reconstruc-
tion of a poorly legible inscription, Mareš dated the Glagolitic inscription to 1412. Václav Čermák has re-
cently revised Mareš’s reading of the inscription using new images taken in UV light. See Václav Čermák,
“Emauzský hlaholský nápis—příspěvek k hlaholské epigrafice,” Slavia 74 (2005): 343–58.
128. Čermák, “Emauzský hlaholský nápis,” 358.
129. Strahovský zlomek hlaholského gradualu, Strahovská knihovna, inv. C. 290/zl. The fragment
was discovered in the binding of another book, Kepler’s Astronomy. The chants include “Svetь” (Sanctus),
“Blagosl<o>vl<e>nь” (Benedictus), “Agn<ь>če Boži” (Agnes Dei), and an incomplete “Věruju” (Cre-
do). Bohumil Ryba, ed., Soupis rukopisů Strahovské knihovny Památníku národního písemnictví v Praze
(Prague, 1971), 5:374, no. 3282. A transcript and paleographic analysis of this fragment are provided
in Josef Vajs, “Über den liturgischen Gesang der Glagoliten,” Archiv für slavische Philologie 31 (1919):
430–42. A revised transcript made by F. V. Mareš is available at the Strahov archive. Most recently, this
fragment was discussed in Ludmila Pacnerová, “Staročeské literární památky a charvátská hranatá hlaho-
lice,” Slovo 56–57 (2006–2007): 416.
130. Vajs, “Über den liturgischen Gesang,” 436–37.
131. Z tradic, pl. 40.
132. Codex mixtus or Codex Gigas (1200–1230), National (Royal) Library of Sweden, A 148. As-
trid Baecklund, “Das Stockholmer Abecedarium,” Språkvetenskapliga Sällskapets i Uppsala Förhandlingar
(January 1940–December 1942), 115–50. On the Codex Gigas, see Kamil Boldan et al., Codex Gigas, the
Devil’s Bible: The Secrets of the World’s Largest Book (Prague, 2007). This exhibition catalog features a col-
lection of articles and color illustrations, including the reproduction of the Slavic alphabets.
133. Nejedlý, Dějiny předhusitského zpěvu, 313.
134. Tkadlčík, “K datování”; Berčić, Dvie službe.
135. Tkadlčík, “K datování.” Among the nine attested breviaries that contain the Office, scholars
distinguish several textual types, depending on the features used for classification. For a detailed dis-
cussion of textual variation of the Office to Sts. Cyril and Methodius, see Pantelić, “Glagoljski brevijar”;
Petrović, “Sadržajne i literarne osobine”; Japundžić, “Kult i služba Svete Braće.”
136. The quotes in parentheses are from the Office in the Breviary of Priest Mavar (1460) published
in Pantelić, “Glagoljski brevijar,” 117–18.
137. Ibid.
138. Tkadlčík, “K datování,” 122–124.
139. Josef Vajs, “Hlaholský zlomek nalezený v Augustianském klášteře v Praze,” Časopis Českého
Museum 75 (1901): 21–35; Anatolii A. Turilov, “Moskovskii otryvok Sviatotomashevskogo breviariia (Neiz-
vestnyi spisok glagolicheskoi sluzhby Kirillu i Mefodiiu),” Slavia 61 (1992): 409–18; Olga A. Kniazevs-
kaia and Anatolii A. Turilov, Svodnyi katalog slaviano-russkikh rukopisnykh knig, khraniashchikhsia
v Rossii, stranakh SNG i Baltii: XIV vek (Moscow, 2002), 1:187–88. Turilov has determined that the
“Moscow” fragment of the Office formerly belonged to the same Glagolitic codex as the Glagolitic Of-
fice to St. Vitus, which was discovered at the St. Thomas Prague Augustinian Monastery by Josef Vajs
and has been decisively attributed to the Prague Glagolites by Ladislav Matějka. The Church Slavonic
version of the Life of St. Vitus was translated from Latin during the early years of Slavic writing and is
also preserved in the twelfth- or thirteenth-century Rus’ Uspensky Miscellany. Ladislav Matějka has
demonstrated that the Prague Glagolitic Office to St. Vitus shows similarity to the Cyrillic Life of St.
Vitus in the Uspensky Miscellany, both differing from the Office to St. Vitus found in Croatian breviaries.
He concluded that the fourteenth-century Prague Office to St. Vitus is an independent text created by
the Prague Glagolites. See Ladislav Matějka, “Dvije crkvenoslavenske legende o svetom Vidu,” Slovo 23
(1973): 73–96.
140. After describing the miracle that accompanied Cyril’s request to approve the Slavonic liturgy
and the pope’s consent, the chronicler concludes, “And so until this day through both bishops and priests
alike the Mass and other holy services are celebrated in Slavic in the dioceses and provinces of Split,
Dubrovnik and Zadar, as well as in all their suffragan parishes and many other bishoprics” (Et sic per
archiepiscopatus et provincias Spaletensem, Ragusinensem et Iadriensem et apud omnes suffraganeos

204
 Notes to Pages 95–99

eorum, et multos alios episcopatus tam per presules quam per sacerdotes misse et alia divina usque hodie
in Slovanico celebrantur). FRB, 5:17. See a commentary to this fragment in MMFH, 1:310.
141. Rothe, “Das Slavenkloster,” 26.
142. “And when he, with God’s grace, gained them [i.e., the Moravians] for Christ, he also invented
new letters, or characters, and translated the New and Old Testaments, as well as other writings, from
Greek and Latin into Slavic. In addition, he instituted that the Mass and other Canonical Hours are sung
in a common language, which is done in the lands of the Slavs until the present by the majority, espe-
cially among the Bulgarians, and many souls are gained for Christ by this” (Et cooperante divina gracia,
postquam illos Christo lucratus erat, eciam apices vel caracteres novas comperit et vetus novumque tes-
tamentum pluraque alia de Greco seu Latino sermone Sclavonicam in linguam transtulit. Missas preterea
ceterasque canonicas horas in ecclesia publica voce resonare statuit, quod et usque hodie in partibus
Sclavorum a pluribus agitur, maxime in Bulgariis, multeque ex hoc anime Christo domino acquiruntur).
MMFH, 2:189.
143. “. . . and from Methodius, archbishop of Velehrad. This archbishop was a native of Rus’, cel-
ebrated the Mass in the Slavic tongue. He baptized the first Czech, Bořivoj, the Czech prince” (. . . a
ot Metudie, arcibiskupa velehradského. / Ten arcibiskup Rusín bieše, / mši slovensky slúžieše. / Ten u
Velehradě křsti Čecha prvého, / Bořivoje, knězě českého . . .). Kronika tak řečeného Dalimila, in MMFH,
1:274; FRB, 3:48.
144. St. Adalbert was thought to be an author of the Old Czech hymn “Hospodine, pomiluj ny,” and
therefore a patron of the Czech vernacular literary tradition.
145. On humanism in Bohemia during Charles’s reign, see, for example, Zdeněk Kalista, “Karel IV.
a humanismus,” in Karel IV. a Itálie (Prague, 2004), 229–63.
146. Liber evangeliarum et epistolarum ad usum ecclesiae SS. Hieronymi et Procopii Pragensis, vulgo
‘Texte du sacre’ dictus, Bibliothèque de Reims, MS 255. For an edition of the Slavonic Gospel of Reims, see
Louis Leger, L’Évangéliaire slavon de Reims, dit: Texte du sacre (Reims, 1899).
147. After 1419, the Slavonic Monastery along with its library was taken over by the Hussites. Fol-
lowing the condemnation of the Hussites at the Council of Florence (1439–1442), the moderate Utraquists
turned for help to the patriarch of Constantinople and presented him with the precious manuscript in the
1450s. After the fall of Constantinople, the manuscript turned up in the hands of the cardinal Charles of
Lorraine, who presented it in 1554 or 1574 to the cathedral in Reims. There it became a Texte du sacre,
on which French kings took their oath during coronation. The binding of the Gospel codex was covered
with precious stones and believed to contain relics of saints and a piece of the Crucifixion Tree. Accord-
ing to one legend, the text was thought to be Greek or Syriac until the visit of Peter the Great to Reims in
1717, when he or one of his retinue identified the Cyrillic part of the codex. Literature on this remarkable
manuscript is voluminous. Some of the early works include, for example, František Pastrnek, “Evange-
lium Sázavo-emauzské čili remešské,” Časopis Matice Moravské 15 (1891): 331–40; and Henri Jadart, Le
dossier de l’évangéliaire slave à la bibliothèque de Reims (Besançon, 1902). On the misconception that this
manuscript once belonged to Anna Iaroslavna, the wife of Henry I, who brought it to France from Rus’, see
Emilie Bláhová, “Über der kyrillischen Teil des Reimster Evangeliums oder über die Resuszitation eines
Mythos,” Byzantinoslavica 56 (1995): 593–99. For a discussion of existing literature, see Olga Strakhov,
“Reimskoe evangelie kak paraliturgicheskii tekst,” Palaeoslavica, forthcoming.
148. “(( Lêtь g(ospod)n(i)hь č.t.p.d. [1395] (( tato e(van)j(e)lie a ep(isto)lie . esto su pisani
slovên’skimь êz(i)kemь . ti jmaji spievani biti nь godi . kdižь op(a)tь pod’ korunu mši služi ((
A druga strana tieh’to knižekь . jenžь e(st) podlê rus’skego z(a)k(o)na . psalь e(st) s(va)ti Prokopь
op(a)tь svu ruku . a to pismo rus’ske dalь nêbožtikь karelь . čtvr’ti c(êsa)rь rzimski k’ oslavêni tomuto kl(a)
št(e)ru . a ke cti svatemu eronimu i svatemu prokopu (( gospodine račь mu dati pokoi viečni, am(e)nь.”
Liber evangeliarum et epistolarum, 61–62.
149. The Cyrillic text shows several linguistic features that puzzle linguists who attempt to establish
its provenance. Most notably, it has a single reduced vowel, which is characteristic of non-East Slavic
variants of Church Slavonic. See, for example, George Y. Shevelov, “The Gospel of Reims and the History
of the Serbo-Croatian Language,” in Xenia Slavica: Papers Presented to Gojko Ružičić on the Occasion of
His Seventy-Fifth Birthday, ed. Rado L. Lencek and Boris O. Unbegaun (The Hague, 1975), 185–94; Lidiia

205
 Notes to Pages 99–104

Zhukovskaia, Reimskoe evangelie, istoriia ego izucheniia i tekst (Moscow, 1978); Ladislav Matějka, “The
Gospel of Reims and the History of the Russian Language,” in Essays in the Area of Slavic Languages,
Linguistics, and Byzantology: A Festschrift in Honor of Antonín Dostál on the Occasion of His Seventy-
Fifth Birthday, ed. Thomas G. Winner with Jan Kasík, Byzantine Studies 12 (Irvine, CA, 1985): 247–55;
Josip Vrana, “O postanku ćirilskoga teksta Reimskog evanđelja,” Slavia 53 (1984): 113–23; Teotyn Rott-
Żebrowski, Kirillovskaia chast’ Reimsskogo evangeliia (Lublin, 1985); Bláhová, “Literární vztahy,” 225;
Strakhov, Reimskoe evangelie.
150. Matějka, “The Gospel of Reims,” 254.
151. The Glagolitic Prague Folia are thought to have been copied at the Sázava Monastery from a
Cyrillic original. See Bláhová, “Literární vztahy,” 224–26; Karel Horálek, “K otázce české cyrilice,” in Z
tradic, 23–25.
152. Arnošt Vykoukal, “Remešský staroslovanský Evangeliář, zvaný ‘Texte du sacre,’ s liturgického
hlediska,” in Slovanské studie: Sbírka statí věnovaných prelátu univ. prof. dr. Josefu Vajsovi k uctění jeho
životního díla, ed. Josef Kurz, Matyáš Murko, and Josef Vašica (Prague, 1948), 189–206, esp. 203–4.
153. For a detailed analysis of the Gospel of Reims as a liturgical text and for a list of pericopes, see
Vykoukal, “Remešský staroslovanský Evangeliář”; Strakhov, Reimskoe evangelie.
154. Opačić, “Emauzský klášter,” 44.
155. One of the testimonies of this old custom is recorded in the documents of the Council of Trent
(1545–1563): the archbishop of Zadar, Muzio Calini, pointed out that in Dalmatia, even in those churches
in which Latin was used in the liturgy, the readings from the Gospel and the Epistles were read twice: first
in Latin and then in Slavonic. Jerko Fućak, Šest stoljeća hrvatskoga lekcionara u sklopu jedanaest stoljeća
hrvatskoga glagoljaštva (Zagreb, 1975), 64–65; Thomson, “The Legacy,” 40. Similarly, probably following
this practice, a Cyrillic transcription of the Latin Order of the Mass in the late fifteenth-century Ruthenian
manuscript incorporates the incipit and explicit of the Gospel reading in Slavonic, not in Latin. See Julia
Verkholantsev, “Kirillicheskaia zapis’ latinskikh molitv i otryvka china messy iz rukopisi Sinodal’nogo
Sobraniia GIM No. 558,” Drevniaia Rus’: Voprosy medievistiki 40 (2010): 85–86. This and several other
texts from the Ruthenian manuscript are discussed in chapter 5.
156. Ksenija Režić, “Remsko evanđelje prema hrvatskoglagoljskom lekcionaru,” Croatica 19 (1986):
137–53; Andrej Perdih, “Reimški evangelij—jezik glagolskega dela,” Jezikoslovni zapiski 16, no. 1 (2010):
147–62.
157. Anica Nazor, “The Bible in Croato-Glagolitic Liturgical Books,” in Bible, 1031–37. Petar Runje
reported that a 1380 inventory of the Zadar bookseller Damjan mentions the Bible in the Slavic language
for two golden ducats: “Una Biblia in sclavica lingua pignorata per ducatis duobus auri.” See Petar Runje,
“Hrvatska Biblija u Zadru godine 1380,” Marulić 21 (1988): 453–57, reprint in Petar Runje, Prema izvorima
(Zagreb, 1990), 191. Given that the Croatian translation of the Bible dates from a much later period, could
this have been a Czech Bible imported from Prague by the Glagolites?
158. Interestingly, the Czech Glagolite scribes adopted the Cyrillic grapheme “Г” for the Czech
voiced glottal fricative [ɦ], which was absent in Croatian and therefore not represented in the alpha-
bet of the Croatian Glagolites. For more information on Czech Glagolitic texts and further bibliography,
see Ludmila Pacnerová, “Staročeský hlaholský Pasionál,” Listy filologické 99 (1976): 211–20; Pacnerová,
Staročeské hlaholské zlomky: Kritické vydání (Prague, 1986); Pacnerová, “Hlaholice v české písařské praxi,”
Listy filologické 112 (1989): 30–40; Pacnerová, Česká Bible Hlaholská: Bible Vyšebrodská (Prague, 2000);
Pacnerová, Staročeský hlaholský Comestor (Prague, 2002); Pacnerová, “Staročeské literární památky”;
Igor Němec, “K podilu Emauzského kláštera na rozvoji staré češtiny,” in Z tradic, 165–68; Eva Pallasová,
“Grafický systém charvátské hlaholice a fonologický systém češtiny přelomu 14. a 15. století,” in České,
polské a slovenské jazykové a literární souvislosti: Sborník referátů z mezinárodního odborného semináře
uspořádaného u příležitosti sedmdesátin prof. PhDr. Edvarda Lotka, CSc., na Filozofické fakultě Univerzity
Palackého v Olomouci dne 20. února 2002, ed. Jiří Fiala, Edvard Lotko, and Marie Hádková (Olomouc,
2003), 177–81; Pallasová, “Die graphische Darstellung des tschechischen phonologischen Systems in den
glagolitischen Denkmälern der Zeit Karls IV.,” in Glagolitica, 198–206.
159. The Czech Pasionál is thought to have been commissioned by John of Neumarkt as a gift to
Charles IV. It was translated in 1356–1357 by an anonymous Dominican who also authored the Czech

206
 Notes to Pages 104–5

translation of Pseudo-Bonaventure’s Meditationes Vitae Christi (Život Krista Pána) and collaborated on
the creation of the first Czech Bible. On the Czech Pasionál and its relationship with the Legenda Au-
rea, see Pacnerová, “Staročeský hlaholský Pasionál”; Pacnerová, “Staročeský hlaholský zlomek Pasionálu
sign. 1Dc 1/19 z knihovny Národního muzea v Praze,” Listy filologické 113 (1990): 293–302; Pacnerová,
“Staročeský hlaholský zlomek Zlaté legendy sign. 1Dc 1/20 z knihovny Narodního muzea v Praze,” Listy
filologické 113 (1990): 303–13; Anežka Vidmanová, “K původní podobě a textové tradici staročeského
Pasionálu,” Listy filologické 108 (1985): 19.
160. “We, Charles IV, by divine grace Roman Emperor, forever Augustus, king of Bohemia [send]
our thanks and every blessing to our devout, faithful, and beloved John, the copyist of books at the Slavonic
Monastery of the Order of St. Benedict in Prague’s New Town, newly founded by us. After considering
your numerous [acts of] obedience, by which you have worked for the glory of our Slavonic Monastery in
copying books of readings and hymns in the noble Slavic tongue, thus far carefully [and] with an eagerness
of mind, as restlessly as faithfully, and will [continue to] work—no doubt—even more admirably in the
future we grant, depute and assign to you by the singular grace of our Majesty an income of ten marks from
the annual tax in and over the butcher shops of the city of Prague, in the possession of which you are now
recognized to be, [an income] to be held, kept and enjoyed by you, and certainly by your legitimate heirs,
in peace and quiet for as long as you continue and abide in working and copying books of readings and
hymns in the aforesaid Slavic vernacular with action and labor, faithfully and attentively” (Karolus quartus
diuina fauente clementia Romanorum Imperator semper Augustus, Boemie Rex. Johanni scriptori librorum
Monasterii Slauorum Ordinis sancti Benedicti in noua civitate Prag., noue fundationis nostre deuoto et
fideli nostro dilecto gratiam nostram et omnem bonum. Consideratis multiplicibus obsequiis tuis, quibus
pro decore Monasterii nostri Slauorum in scribendis libris legendarum et cantus, nobilis lingue Slauonice
hucusque prouide mentis studio tam sollicite quam fideliter laborasti, et laborabis, sicut non ambigimus,
prestantius in futurum, de singulari nostre Maiestatis gratia, damus, deputamus et assignamus tibi decem
marcas reddituum annui census in et super maccellis Ciuitatis Pragensis, in quorum possessione nunc esse
dignosceris, per te nec non legítimos heredes tuos habendas, et tenendas, ас vtifruendas pacifice et quiete
quamdiu in laborando et scribendo libros legendarum et cantus dicti vulgaris slauonici actu et operatione
continuaueris ac perseueraueris fideliter et attente). RS, 65–66; Fontes, XIV, 6–7.
161. Although Charles was certainly aware of the differences between Slavic dialects, the various
contexts in which he used the term “lingua Slavonica” show that he perceived it broadly and applied it to
individual Slavic languages: Czech, Croatian, Serbian, and Church Slavonic.
162. “For even there [in that work] there are terms for natural philosophy and logic, and the excel-
lent theological vocabulary and depth of great reason, such that—and I need not speak of the poverty
of my own intellect—in fact, even the delightful eloquence of St. Jerome would scarcely suffice for their
interpretation, even if by divine allowance he remained in the flesh and strove to produce the same [trans-
lation] into the noble Slavic tongue” (Nam et ibi sunt philosophie naturalis ac loyce termini et exquisita
vocabula theologica et magne racionis profunditas, vt nedum intellectus mei paruitas, immo vix sancti
Jeronimi grata facundia ad interpretandum eam sufficeret, eciam si permissione diuina adhuc in carne
persisteret et eandem ad nobilem lingwam Sclauonicam producere niteretur). From a letter to Charles IV
(1357–1363) in Piur, Briefe Johanns von Neumarkt, 51–52, no. 29.
163. “. . . especially when the words of the German language are not elegant” (. . . presertium cum
incompta verba lingwe theutunice). Piur, Briefe Johanns von Neumarkt, 52, no. 29.
164. The Latin Bible was given to the monastery by Bishop John IV of Dražice (1301–1343), who
brought it from Avignon.
165. Vladimír Kyas, Česká Bible v dějinách národního písemnictví (Prague, 1997), 35–51; Kyas, První
český překlad bible (Prague, 1971), 56–60; Kyas, “Vznik staročeského biblického překladu,” in Mezinárodní
vědecká konference “Doba Karla IV. v dějinách národů ČSSR,” pořádaná Univerzitou Karlovou v Praze k 600.
výročí úmrtí Karla IV. 29.11.–1.12.1978: Materiály ze sekce jazyka a literatury, ed. Jaroslav Porák (Prague,
1981), 48–54; Jaroslava Pečírková, “Czech Translations of the Bible,” in Bible, 1167–1200, esp. 1169–71;
Pavel Spunar, “První staročeský překlad bible v kulturním kontextu 14. století,” Religio 1 (1993): 39–45;
Spunar, “The First Old Czech Translation of the Holy Spirit in the Cultural Relations of the 14th Century,”
in The Bible in Cultural Context, ed. Helena Pavlincová and Dalibor Papoušek (Brno, 1994), 321–26.

207
 Notes to Pages 105–10

166. The Czech Glagolitic Bible, NKČR, XVII A 1, also known as the Bible Vyšebrodská, has been
transliterated and published by Ludmila Pacnerová. Pacnerová, Česká Bible Hlaholská. Also, see Ludmila
Pacnerová, “Die Hohenfurter Bibel (Bible Vyšebrodská). (Eine tschechisch-glagolische Handschrift),”
Studie o rukopisech 29 (1992): 107–19; Vladimír Kyas, “Česká hlaholská bible v poměru k ostatním
českým biblickým rukopisům,” Slavia 25 (1956): 328–41.
167. Pacnerová, Česká Bible Hlaholská, 517 (fol. 258a).
168. Ibid., xx–xxi.
169. Doležalová, “Stopy svatého Jeronýma,” 210.
170. Ibid., 212–13.
171. Stejskal, “Malby v klášteře,” 223.
172. Doležalová, “Stopy svatého Jeronýma,” 214–19. Interestingly, Doležalová compared the results
of her study of Czech ordination books with the data from the ordination books of the diocese of London:
out of 20,246 records of ordained clergy she found only two people named Jerome (219).
173. On the connection of Jerome of Prague with St. Jerome and the Slavonic Monastery, see Ste-
jskal, “Klášter Na Slovanech.” In 1412–1413 Jerome of Prague undertook a journey to Poland and Lithu-
anian Rus, where he visited the churches of the Orthodox Ruthenians. In 1416, as a follower of John Hus,
he was accused of heresy and of being partial to the Orthodox Church; he was burnt at the stake at the
Council of Constance the same year.
174. Doležalová, “Stopy svatého Jeronýma,” 218–19.
175. Krása, “K ikonografii sv. Jeronýma,” 96–98.
176. Milada Studničková, “Karlstein Castle as a Theological Metaphor,” in Prague and Bohemia:
Medieval Art, Architecture and Cultural Exchange in Central Europe, ed. Zoё Opačić (London, 2009),
168–82.
177. Krása, “K ikonografii sv. Jeronýma,” 96.
178. For John of Neumarkt’s letters to Charles IV, see Piur, Briefe Johanns von Neumarkt, 51, no.
29, and 62, no. 35. The most comprehensive biography of John of Neumarkt (Jan of Středa, Johann von
Neumarkt, Johannes Noviforensis) was published by Joseph Klapper, Johann von Neumarkt, Bischof und
Hofkanzler: Religiöse Frührenaissance in Böhmen zur Zeit Kaiser Karls IV., Erfurter Theologische Studien
17 (Leipzig, 1964), and has been complemented by recent studies by Marie Bláhová, “Život a dílo Jana
ze Středy,” in Studia z dziejów środy śląskiej, regionu i prawa średzkiego, Acta Universitatis Wratislaviensis
980, Historia 79 (Wrocław, 1990), 77–93; and Anežka Vidmanová, “Středolatinská beletrie, Jan ze Středy
a olomoucký protohumanismus,” in Laborintus: Latinská literatura středověkých Čech (Prague, 1994),
140–49.
179. Ferdinand Tadra, “Kancléř Jan ze Středy a jeho ‘Život sv. Jeronyma’,” Věstník České Akademie
8 (1899): 421–26.
180. Piur, Briefe Johanns von Neumarkt, no. 35 (a letter to Charles IV, 1370–1371), 61–62.
181. The Latin and German versions of the pseudo-epistolary Life and Passion of St. Jerome, made
by John of Neumarkt, were last published by Joseph Klapper, Schriften Johanns von Neumarkt, vol. 2, Hi-
eronymus: Die unechten Briefe des Eusebius, Augustin, Cyrill zum Lobe des Heiligen, Vom Mittelalter zur
Reformation 6 (Berlin, 1932). John’s letter to Elisabeth is published in Piur, Briefe Johanns von Neumarkt,
194–95, no. 127.
182. Adolf Patera, O sv. Jeronýmovi knihy troje: Podle rukopisu Musea Království Českého v Praze
(Prague, 1903).
183. Patera, O sv. Jeronýmovi knihy troje, 75–76.
184. Piur, Briefe Johanns von Neumarkt, 193–94, no. 126.
185. Ibid., 197–98, no. 129. John intended to send this copy to the dukes of Austria, Albrecht III
and Leopold III.
186. Ferdinand Tadra lists more than 15 manuscripts of the Latin version in three Prague and
Olomouc archives alone and mentions the potential existence of a larger number in other libraries. See
Tadra, “Kancléř Jan ze Středy,” 423.
187. Jiří Kejř, “Ioannis Andreae ‘Hieronymianum opus’ a jeho ohlas v českých zemích,” Studie o
rukopisech 12 (1973): 71–86.

208
 Notes to Pages 110–11

188. Hieronymianus, KMK, Cim. 6, fol. 234, incip. “Ecclesie doctor Ciceronis codice flagrans,” expl.
“. . . Clarificus claris clares per secula miris.” Adolf Patera and Antonín Podlaha, eds., Soupis rukopisů
Knihovny Metropolitní Kapitoly Pražské (Prague, 1910), 1:6–7; Kejř, “Ioannis Andreae,” 77–79. On Fran-
ciscus Thebaldus and his poem, see Joseph Klapper, “Aus der Frühzeit des Humanismus: Dichtungen zu
Ehren des heiligen Hieronymus,” in Bausteine: Festschrift, Max Koch zum 70. Geburtstage dargebracht, ed.
Ernst Boehlich and Hans Heckel (Breslau, 1926), 265–66. The poem is published in Tadra, “Kancléř Jan
ze Středy,” 425. It is followed by a four-hexameter poem, “Est flos doctorum Ieronimus et rosa florum.”
Among manuscripts that contain this poem are: Textus varii (1366–1400), NKČR, XIV D 23, fols. 92b–
93va, and VII E 13 (1410–1420), fol. 92.
189. “Infrascripti versus editi sunt in laudem beati Jeronimi ad ordinacionem domini Johannis
Andree, doctoris iuris canonici, in laudem Jeronimi gloriosi.”
190. Hieronymianus, fols. 234v–235v, incip. “Rore parens perfuse sacro et celestibus auris afflate
interpres et amice, Jeronimi Christi,” expl. “. . . Annuat his Christus, patri sanctoque coёvus Spiritui,
trinusque poli regnator et unus. Amen.” On Petrarch’s complex attitude to St. Jerome, see David Marsh,
“Petrarch and Jerome,” Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome 49 (2004): 85–98.
191. Petrarch corresponded with both Charles IV and his chancellor, and even visited the imperial
court at Prague in 1356. Ugo Dotti, “Petrarch in Bohemia: Culture and Civil Life in the Correspondence
between Petrarch and Johann von Neumarkt,” in Petrarch and His Readers in the Renaissance, ed. Karl A.
E. Enenkel and Jan Papy (Leiden, 2006), 73–87.
192. The verses, which are prefaced with the note “expliciunt versus extracti de libris poetarum”
(“the end of the verses from the books of poetry”), are published by Ferdinand Tadra, ed., Summa Cancel-
lariae (Cancellaria Caroli IV), Historický archiv 6 (Prague, 1895): xxiii–xxiv.
193. Jiří Kejř discusses 14 manuscripts from the Czech archives that contain these verses. Kejř,
“Ioannis Andreae,” 71–86. In one such manuscript, the verses are attributed to John of Neumarkt him-
self. Kejř suggests that this confusion arose because in one of the manuscripts John’s letter to Charles
preceded the poem, confusing a copyist. Ibid., 78–79. On Petrarch’s poem in honor of St. Jerome, see
Klapper, “Aus der Frühzeit des Humanismus,” 272–73. Apparently, there existed a non–Czech specific
manuscript tradition of appending Petrarch’s poem to the three epistles by Pseudo-Eusebius, Augus-
tine, and Cyril. For example, Petrarch’s poem also accompanies the three epistles in a fifteenth-century
northern Italian manuscript under the title Oratio preclarissimi Francisci Petrarche ad sanctum Hieroni-
mum. Hans Walther, Initia carminum ac versuum Medii Aevi posterioris Latinorum (Göttingen, 1959),
no. 16903.
194. Iohannes Noviforensis, Summa cancellariae, in Letters and Religious Tracts (14th c.), The State
Archive, the Library of the Metropolitan Chapter in Olomouc (Státní archiv, Knihovna kapitulní v Olo-
mouci), Co 177, fols. 142–144v. The poems are on fol. 143. The manuscript is briefly described in Jan
Bystřický, Miroslav Boháček, and František Čáda, “Seznam rukopisů Metropolitní Kapituly v Olomouci,”
in Statní archiv v Opavě: Průvodce po archivních fondech, vol. 3, Pobočka v Olomouci, ed. Adolf Turek
(Prague, 1961), 117. The authorship of the poems is clearly indicated in this source: the first poem is ac-
companied by the note “Istos versos edidit magister Johannes Andree ad honorem et laudem Jeronimi
gloriosi” (This verse is edited by Mg. Giovanni d’Andrea in honor and praise of the glorious Jerome) and
the second poem by “Sequitur metrum aliquid honorabilis domini Francisci Petrarchi laureati poete in
laudem prefati Jeronimi gloriosi” (Here is a certain verse of the honorable Dominus Francesco Petrarch,
a poet crowned with laurel, in praise of the said glorious Jerome). See Libuše Hrabová, “Výzvy Bernarda z
Clairvaux ke druhé křížové výpravě a jejich pozdější souvislosti,” Historica, Acta Universitatis Palackianae
Olomucensis, Facultas Philosophica 33 (2007): 57.
195. Textus varii de sancto Hieronymo, Oracio de sancto Jeronimo, in Textus varii (ca. 1415), NKČR,
VII E 13, fol. 92v; a fragment is published in Tadra, “Kancléř Jan ze Středy,” 425–26. In the manuscript, the
Oracio follows the epistolary Vita et Transitus Sancti Hieronymi and Thebaldini’s verses.
196. Guido Maria Dreves, ed., Pia Dictamina: Reimgebete und Leselieder des Mittelalters, Analecta
Hymnica Medii Aevi 15 (Leipzig, 1893), 209.
197. Ibid., 209.
198. Ibid., 208.

209
 Notes to Pages 111–13

199. Oracio de sancto Jeronimo, fol. 92v. In the last line christicole (worshiper of Christ) has been
reinterpreted by the scribe as coelicole (worshiper of heaven or inhabitant of heaven).
200. Johannes de Sitbor, Chebské Officium sv. Jeronyma (1404), KNM, XII A 18. See Brodský, Kata-
log iluminovaných rukopisů, xxv, 122. The hymnal portion of the Cheb Office to St. Jerome, with minor
discrepancies, is also attested in Antiphonarium de sanctis notis musicis instructum (15th c.), NKČR, XII
A 9, fols. 8-8v.
201. Sitbor, Chebské Officium sv. Jeronyma, fols. 20-20v; Brodský, Katalog iluminovaných rukopisů,
xxv, 122.
202. The author of this famous composition is known under several names: as Johannes de Tepla
and Johannes Henslini de Sitbor in Latin, as Johannes von Tepl and Johannes von Saaz in German, and
as Jan ze Žatce and Jan ze Šitboře in Czech. See Gerhard Hahn, Der Ackermann aus Böhmen des Johannes
von Tepl. Erträge der Forschung 215 (Darmstadt, 1984).
203. Ferdinand Tadra, Kanceláře a písaři v zemích českých za králů Jana, Karla IV. a Václava IV. z
rodu Lucemburského, Rozpravy České akademie císaře Františka Josefa pro vědy. Slovesnost a umění 2
(Prague, 1892), 240 and 243.
204. Nigel F. Palmer, “The High and Later Middle Ages (1100–1450),” in The Cambridge History of
German Literature, ed. Helen Watanabe-O’Kelly (Cambridge, 1997), 89–90.
205. Jiří Matl, Hana Vlhová, Pavel Brodský, and Jiří Žůrek, eds., Officium sv. Jeronýma (Sancti
Ieronimi clara preconia) sepsané r. 1404 pro oltář sv. Jeronýma v kostele sv. Mikuláše v Chebu, internal pub-
lication for the Ústav pro klasická studia Akademie věd ČR (Prague, 2000). This electronic publication
consists of a facsimile of the manuscript, accompanied by the edition of the notes and the text. An earlier
edition is by Anton Blaschka, “Das St. Hieronymus-Offizium des ‘Ackermann’-Dichters,” in Heimat und
Volk: Forschungsbeiträge zur sudetendeutschen Geschichte; Festschrift für Universitätsprofessor Dr. Wilhelm
Wostry zum 60. Geburtstage, ed. Anton Ernstberger and Wilhelm Wostry (Brünn, 1937), 107–55. Indi-
vidual hymns that comprise the office, without the Vita et Gesta Sancti Jeronimi, are published in Guido
Maria Dreves, ed., Historiae Rhythmicae: Liturgische Reimofficien des Mittelalters, Analecta Hymnica Me-
dii Aevi 26 (Leipzig, 1897), 117–20, and in Guido Maria Dreves, ed., Hymni Inediti: Liturgische Hymnen
des Mittelalters, Analecta Hymnica Medii Aevi 4 (Leipzig, 1888), 153–54. The contents of the Office are
also briefly listed in Karl Bertau, Johannes de Tepla, Civis Zacensis, Epistola cum Libello Ackerman und Das
Büchlein Ackerman (Berlin, 1994), 1:xxxii–xxxiii.
206. The respective passages are identified in the editions of Blaschka and Matl.
207. Jacobus de Voragine, Legenda Aurea: Con le miniature del Codice Ambrosiano C 240 Inf., ed.
Giovanni Paolo Maggioni (Milan, 2007), 2:1122.
208. Sitbor, Chebské Officium sv. Jeronyma, fol. 13.
209. Ibid., fol. 3. This hymn is also found in several fourteenth- and fifteenth-century manuscripts
of Czech provenance—from Vyšší Brod, Třeboň, and Prague. Dreves, Hymni Inediti, 154, no. 282.
210. Although fol. 2, which contained this verse, is missing from the Chebské Officium sv. Jeronyma,
it is preserved in the manuscript of the National Library of the Czech Republic, Antiphonarium de sanctis
notis musicis instructum (XII A 9), fol. 8v, as well as in the same manuscripts as the aforementioned hymn
“Hic specimen Slawonie.” See Dreves, Hymni Inediti, 153, no. 280.
211. The only allusion to Jerome’s Slavic heritage that Joseph Klapper mentions in his thorough
study of the Latin hymnal tradition devoted to St. Jerome is found in the manuscripts of Croatian prove-
nance. Klapper, “Aus der Frühzeit des Humanismus,” 255–81. My own initial, and cursory, search through
the relevant volumes of Analecta Hymnica Medii Aevi (4, 15, 26, 27, and 37) has likewise yielded no results
beyond one allusion to Jerome’s Slavic origin: the hymn that contains the verse “Hic specimen Slawonie”
(incip. “Celesti doctus lumine,” explic. “Det nobis Celi gaudia”) in Le Breviaire de Lescar de 1541, ed. Victor
Pierre Dubarat (Paris, 1891), 189.
212. Jan Hus, Opera Omnia, vol. 7, Sermones de tempore qui Collecta dicuntur, ed. Anežka Vidmanová-
Schmidtová (Prague, 1959), 540.
213. Hus, Sermones, 543.
214. Václav Flajšhans, ed., M. Io. Hus Sermones in Capella Bethlehem, 1410–1411 (Prague, 1942),
5:206.

210
 Notes to Pages 113–19

215. Stejskal, “Klášter Na Slovanech,” 17.

216. Jiří Kejř, Husitský právník M. Jan z Jesenice (Prague, 1965), 131–38, esp. 133.
217. This fact agrees with Martin Nodl’s observations about the role of intellectuals in the forma-
tion of national identity in the course of the fourteenth century. Based on the material of Czech chron-
icles, he has observed that authors expressed nationalist ideas that were only inchoate in the minds of
common Bohemians. See Martin Nodl, Tři studie o době Karla IV. (Prague, 2006), 19.

Chapter 4
1. Piur, Briefe Johanns von Neumarkt, 62, no. 35.
2. Józef Krukowski, O słowiańskim kościele św. Krzyża i klasztorze benedyktynów założonym przez
Jadwigę i Jagiełłę na Kleparzu w Krakowie 1390 roku (Cracow, 1886); Stanisław Rybandt, “O poby-
cie benedyktynów słowiańskich w Oleśnicy,” Sobótka 25 (1970): 665–80; Leszek Moszyński, “Liturgia
słowiańska i głagolskie zabytki w Polsce,” Slovo 21 (1971): 255–73; Luboš Řeháček, “Emauzský klášter
a Polsko: K založení a víznamu filiálních klášterů Emauz v dolnoslezské Olešnici a v Klepařich u Kra-
kova,” in Z tradic, 203–21; Wyrozumski, “Benedyktyni słowiańscy”; Heinrich Grüger, “Schlesisches
Kloster­buch. Oels. Abtei der slawischen Benediktiner,” Jahrbuch der Schlesischen Friedrich-Wilhelms-
Universität zu Breslau 29 (1988): 7–13; Trajdos, “Fundacja klasztoru benedyktynów”; Leszek Moszyński,
“Próba nowego spojrzenia na duchowe dziedzictwo krakowskego głagolityzmu w średniowiecznej
Polsce,” in Glagoljica i hrvatski glagolizam, ed. Marija-Ana Dürrigl, Milan Mihaljević, and Franjo Velčić
(Zagreb, 2004), 309–18.
3. The foundation charter is published in Gottlieb Fuchs, Reformations- und Kirchengeschichte des
Fürstenthums Oels: Mit dazu gehörigen Beweisen (Breslau, 1779), 686–90.
4. “. . . sed animo deliberato, et de certa nostra scientia, Christi nomine inuocato duximus assig-
nandum, et tenore praesentium assignamus, Abbati et Conuentui Fratrum Slauorum, existentibus ibidem
pro tempore Professoribus Ordinis et Regulae beatissimi Benedicti, per nos vocatis de Praga, per ipsos
perpetuo possidendum pariter et tenendum, omni libertatis et Communitatis Priuilegio et Honore, quo
caetera Monasteria et Loca regularia [. . .] possident.” Fuchs, Reformations- und Kirchengeschichte, 687.
5. Ibid., 687.
6. Ibid., 688.
7. “Volumus etiam et Consensu dicti Plebani, ordinamus, quod Abbas, Conuentus, et fratres prae-
dicti, singulis diebus festiuis, excepto tamen certis, videlicet Paschae, Pentecostes, Assumtionis Mariae,
Natalis Domini nostri, nec non quatuor diebus anni, Missa solemnis coram reliquiis Sanctorum in Oppi-
do Olsna, in Ecclesia parochiali consueuit celebrari, verbum Dei in dicto Monasterio valeant praedicari.”
Fuchs, Reformations- und Kirchengeschichte, 690.
8. “. . . with the explicit approval and consent of the distinguished Dominus Nicholas of Smolna, the
rector or parson of the parochial church of Oleśnica of the Wrocław diocese” (. . . de expresso Beneplacito
et consensu discreti Viri Domini Nicolai de Smolna, Rectoris siue Plebani Ecclesiae parochialis Olsnizen-
sis Dioeceseos Vratislauiensis moderni). Fuchs, Reformations- und Kirchengeschichte, 686.
9. “. . . with the consensus and authority of the honorable men Archdeacon James Augustini of
Legnica and Matthias of Pannewiz, the canons and administrators of the Wrocław Church, now vacant”
(. . . expresso accedente Consensu et autoritate honorabilium Virorum Dominorum Iacobi Augustini,
Archidiaconi Legnicensis et Matthiae de Pannewiz, Canonicorum Vratislauiensium Administratorum in
spiritualibus Vratislauiensis Ecclesiae, nunc vacantis). Ibid., 688.
10. Zdeněk Boháč, “Národnostní poměry v zemích České koruny,” in HRR, 1:126–27.
11. “Vt igitur haec omnia incorporentur, inuiscerentur et applicentur in perpetuum vsibus Abbatis,
Conuentus, et Monasterii praedictorum per Dominos Administratores praefectos et nihilominus auto-
ritate ordinaria confirmentur, vt stabilia perpetuo perdurent, cum debita precum instantia praesentium
tenore postulamus.” Fuchs, Reformations- und Kirchengeschichte, 690.
12. Ibid., 686.
13. Rybandt, “O pobycie benedyktynów,” 671.
14. Ibid., 666–70.

211
 Notes to Pages 120–26

15. The establishment of the exact place of birth (i.e., Středa-Neumarkt or Vysoký Mýt) depends
on whether John of Neumarkt can be identified with John of Vysoký Mýt. Having analyzed various hy-
potheses and carefully weighed all arguments, Marie Bláhová has come to the conclusion that these two
personages are most likely identical. See Bláhová, “Život a dílo,” 79–84.
16. Ibid., 89.
17. A number of John’s letters from the period of 1376–1380 document his efforts to solicit the
office of the bishop of Wrocław. See Piur, Briefe Johanns von Neumarkt, 75–79, no. 45–47 (from 1376);
415–24, no. 332–41.
18. Tadeusz Silnicki, Dzieje i ustrój Kościoła na Śląsku do końca w. XIV (Warsaw, 1955); Alexander
Rogalski, Kościół katolicki na Śląsku (Warsaw, 1955).
19. Vidmanová, “Středolatinská beletrie.”
20. Alfred Hansel, “Johann von Neumarkts kirchliche Laufbahn: Ein Beitrag zu seiner Biographie,”
Jahrbücher für Kultur und Geschichte der Slaven, n.s. 3 (1927): 332.
21. “Anno domini 1373, in generali capitulo, quod solet in ecclesia Olomucensi in festo sancti Je-
ronimi et diebus sequentibus celebrari, domino Woytechio pro tunc seniore canonico existente sequens
statutum ordinatum est.” CDEM, 15:127, no. 154.
22. CDEM, 11:171–72, no. 190.
23. Klapper, Johann von Neumarkt, 9.
24. Piur, Briefe Johanns von Neumarkt, 122–23, no. 80 (letter to Nicholas of Pannwitz from 1364–
1373).
25. Matthias of Pannwitz occupied the post of the administrator in spiritualibus from 1377 to 1380.
See Wilhelm Schulte, Die politische Tendenz der Cronica principum Polonie, Darstellung und Quellen zur
schlesischen Geschichte 1 (Breslau, 1906), 1:93.
26. Piur, Briefe Johanns von Neumarkt, 334–43, no. 251–58 (letters from the 1370s); Vidmanová,
“Středolatinská beletrie,” 142.
27. CDEM, 10:179, no. 154.
28. These events are described in the Chronica abbatum Beatae Mariae Virginis in Arena by Jodocus
of Ziegenhals. See Gustav Adolph Stenzel’s edition in Scriptores Rerum Silesicarum (Breslau, 1839), 2:156–
286, esp. 201–2. Also see Johann Heyne, Dokumentirte Geschichte des Bisthums und Hochstiftes Breslau:
Aus Urkunden, Aktenstücken, älteren Chronisten und neueren Geschichtschreibern (Breslau, 1860–1868),
2:677–78.
29. Piur, Briefe Johanns von Neumarkt, 75–79, no. 45–47.
30. Rybandt, “O pobycie benedyktynów,” 671–72.
31. Ibid., 673–75.

Chapter 5
1. Stanisław Rospond, ed. and trans., Druki Mazurskie XVI w. (Olsztyn, 1948), 60. The same idea is
expressed in Małecki’s Catechismvs to iest Nauka Krzescianska (1546): “[Czechowie] v Polaków byli pir-
wszi vcżiciele wiary krzescianskie” (The Czechs were the first teachers of the Christian faith to the Poles).
See Rospond, Druki Mazurskie, 46.
2. “Sempiternum memoriale, quo clemencia Redemptoris genus Slavonicum extulit et mirifice
honoravit, donando illi graciam specialem, ut omnia sacra officia et res Divine tam nocturne quam
diurne, ipsa quoque sacrarum missarum archana idiomate illo possent celebrari (quod nemini alteri
linguario, preterquam Greco, Latino et Hebreo videmus contigisse, quorum excellencie etiam bonitas
Divina Slavonicum equavit) Wladislaus secundus Polonie rex cum consorte sua Hedvigi, femina devota
et nobilissima, volentes etiam in Regnum Polonie diffundere et de multiplicibus beneficiis et victoriis
divinitus eo anno eis prestitis ostendere erga Deum gratitudinem et munificenciam regularem, incitati
exemplari simili, quod in civitate Pragensi habetur monasterium Slavorum ordinis sancti Benedicti, et
sub eius regulari observancia duraturum, sub honore et titulo Sancte Crucis, extra muros Cracovienses
in oppido Cleparz, non longe a fluvio Rudawa, sub pontificatu Petri Wisch episcopi Cracouiensis, feria
quinta post [festum] sancti Iacobi apostoli, fundant, condunt et dotant, et pulcerrimo muro latericio

212
 Notes to Pages 126–27

circuitum ecclesie tam chori quam corporis opere sumptuoso et magnifico designant chorumque ei-
usdem ecclesie cum sacristia perficiunt et consumunt, corporis vero fundamenta solum iaciunt, que-
madmodum usque in presentem diem id coram cernere licet; et domum pro monasterio ligneam cum
orto construunt fratresque ex monasterio Pragensi sumptos in illam introducunt, dantes eis pro dote,
quamvis tenui viginti marcas singulis annis de censibus et proventibus thelonei Cracowiensis; a quibus
usque ad mea tempora et sub meis oculis ecclesia illa Sancte Crucis et in re Divina et in matutinis horis-
que canonicis ceterisque cerimoniis ecclesiasticis sonoro cantu et leccione in idiomate Slavonico et per
monachos fratresque sancti Benedicti et officiabatur et administrabatur. Deliberaverat autem illustrissi-
mus Wladislaus Polonie rex cum sua nobilissima consorte Hedwigi monasterio et loco illi dare amplam
dotem, que triginta monachos, preter alios familiares et servitores, sustentare potuisset; deliberaverat
eciam et monasterium cum omnibus cellis et officinis suis latericio muro fabricare, sed interim regina
clarissima Hewigis sorte fatali abstracta est. Qua obeunte omnis ardor, ad quem illum stimulo suo re-
gina Hedwigis concitabat, extinctus est et omne opus usque ad diem hanc omnisque fabrica ecclesie et
monasterii intermissa.” Jan Długosz, Joannis Dlugosii Annales seu Cronicae Incliti Regni Poloniae, vol.
10, 1370–1405, ed. Danuta Turkowska (Warsaw, 1985), 183–84. In his chronicle, Długosz covered the
events from 965 until the time of his death in 1480. Subsequent historical records about the monastery,
such as that by Matthew of Miechow, derive from Długosz (Maciej z Miechowa, Chronica Polonorum
[Cracow, 1521], vol. 1, chaps. 13, 16).
3. Stanisław Kuraś, Regestrum Ecclesiae Cracoviensis: Studium nad powstaniem tzw. Liber Beneficio-
rum Jana Długosza (Warsaw, 1966), 33–36.
4. The foundation charter shows that originally it was planned to dedicate the church to Christ’s
Passion. Why and when the dedication changed to Holy Cross is unknown but it was apparently done
soon after the date of the foundation letter because in 1392 the church already appears in documents as
that of Holy Cross: “Johannes Gunter omnes partes suas domus in plathea sancti Floriani circa Homan
et instite circa Streicher et ortus ante valvam Slaucouiensem circa leprosos, ex opposito capelle sancte
Crucis, fundamentaliter sitas.” See Janina Dzikówna, Kleparz do 1528 roku (Cracow, 1932), 96; Stanisław
Krzyżanowski, Księgi ławnicze Krakowskie, 1365–1376 i 1390–1397: Acta Scabinalia Cracoviensia (Cra-
cow, 1904), 193, no. 1562.
5. “. . . pro verificatione autem praesentium, copiam privilegii regii inserimus; ob defectum
autem monachorum, qui in Sclavonico ecclesiam illam administrarent, de ordine Sancti Benedicti,
sacerdos saecularis dominus Georgius Lithvos illam regit et administrat nunc, non sine scandalo et
iniuria dotatorum. Tenor autem privilegii regii talis est: Vladislaus Dei gratia rex Poloniae, magnus
dux Lithvaniae, princeps supremus et haeres Russiae etc. Notitiam praesentium habituris, praesentibus
et futuris significamus quibus expedit universis, quia sincerae devotionis zelo accensi, diem extremum
iudicii cupientes operibus misericordiae praevenire, et indubitatae salutis nobis compendia procu-
rare immarcescibiles fiducialiter reponimus, quaecumque pro honore sacrarum aedum in augmento
cultus divinum liberaliter erogamus, oratorio, quod pro principio et fundamento claustri monasterii
Sclavorum fratrum ordinis Sancti Benedicti fundandum decrevimus, in honorem passionis Christi
Jesu dedicato, viginti marcas numeri et ponderis Polonicalium, quadraginta octo grossos pro marca
qualibet computando, de theloneis nostris quolibet anno assignavimus, et tenore praesentium assigna-
mus. Cui quidem oratorio ad praesens devotus Venceslaus frater ordinis Sancti Benedicti Sclavorum,
qui nobis probitate extat morum commendabilis debet praeesse, et easdem pecunias tollere tamdiu,
quousque monasterium seu claustrum pro fratribus Sclavis ordinis Sancti Benedicti praedicti, ibidem
erectum fuerit proventibus uberioribus dotatum et ditatum. Vobis igitur civibus Cracoviensibus seu
theloneatoribus, qui pro tempore fueritis damus firmis nostris regalibus in mandatis, quatenus eidem
fratri Venceslao, vel qui pro tempore fuerit in eodem oratorio instituto, quolibet anno viginti marcas
de theloneis nostris, singulis quatuor temporibus per quinque marcas ad ipsius quietationem dare et
assignare debeatis; praedictae namque donationis intuitu, quam ob spem retributionis perpetuae, in
eodem oratorio duae missae qualibet septimana, pro salute et sanitate nostra debent legi, harum, qui-
bus sigillum nostrum praesentibus est appensum, testimonio literarum. Datum Cracoviae, feria quinta
post Sancti Jacobi Apostoli anno Domini 1390.” Jan Długosz, Liber Beneficiorum dioecesis Cracoviensis
(Cracow, 1864), 3:225–27.

213
 Notes to Pages 128–32

6. Moszyński, “Liturgia słowiańska,” 262 and 271; Trajdos, “Fundacja klasztoru benedyktynów,” 84.
7. Ignacy Polkowski, Katalog rekopisów kapitulnych katedry krakowskiej (Cracow, 1884), 103 (man-
uscript no. 147, fol. 3).
8. Ignacy Polkowski, Cześć ś.ś. Cyrylla i Metodego w Polsce według ksiąg liturgicznych i legend od
końca 13. wieku (Cracow, 1885), 21.
9. Wacław Schenk, “Kult liturgiczny świętych Cyryla i Metodego w Polsce,” in Zeszyty, 57–62.
10. Władysław Maksymiljan Szcześniak, Obrządek słowiański w Polsce pierwotnej: Rozważony w
świetle dziejopisarstwa polskiego (Warsaw, 1904), 193–95.
11. Please see chapter 3 for more detail.
12. Szcześniak, Obrządek słowiański, 5–10, 182–202. This view is also expressed by Tadeusz Lehr-
Spławiński, although he does not refer to Szcześniak or provide his own evidence. See “Czy są ślady ist-
nienia litugii cyrylo-metodejskiej w Polsce?,” Slavia 25 (1956): 297. Additional fifteenth-century legends
about Cyril and Methodius are listed in Wojciech Kętrzyński, “Vita sancti Stanislai episcopi Cracoviensis
(Vita minor),” in Monumenta Poloniae Historica: Pomniki Dziejowe Polski, ed. August Bielowski (Lwów,
1884), 4:241–43.
13. Moszyński, “Liturgia słowiańska,” 262 and 271; Trajdos, “Fundacja klasztoru benedyktynów,”
84.
14. Jerzy Wolny, Mieczysław Markowski, and Zdzisław Kuksewicz, Polonica w średniowiecznych
rękopisach bibliotek monachijskich (Wrocław, 1969), 119; Schenk, “Kult liturgiczny,” 58.
15. Schenk, “Kult liturgiczny,” 58.
16. Szcześniak, Obrządek słowiański, 191–98; Schenk, “Kult liturgiczny,” 58–60.
17. Szcześniak, Obrządek słowiański, 11–15.
18. “Circa haec tempora sub imperatore Romanorum Arnulpho Graecorum uero imperatore Mi-
chaele, aduenerunt Cirullus doctor et apostolus omnium slauorum, et Metudius, lingua graeca et slau-
onica prompti missi a praefato imperatore Michaele graeco: ad postulationem principum, Slauorum
in Morauiam, et iacientes fundamenta christianae fidei, erexerunt ecclesiam cathedralem in Vielagrad
Morauiae. Euocati tandem Romam et inquisiti, quare in lingua slauica diuina celebrarent et non in latina.
Responderunt eo que scriptum esset. Omnis spiritus laudet dominum. Post altercationes ergo Romanus
pontifex permisit ut lingua slauica celebrando laudaretur deus perinde atque latina et graeca. Qui mos ad
tempora mea circa Graccouiam in ecclesia sanctae crucis in Clepardia obseruatus, sed iam extinctus est.”
Maciej z Miechowa, Chronica Polonorum, chaps. 13, 15–16.
19. Krukowski, O słowiańskim kościele, 8–14; Wyrozumski, “Benedyktyni słowiańscy,” 120; Trajdos,
“Fundacja klasztoru benedyktynów,” 81–83; Moszyński, “Próba nowego spojrzenia,” 309–10. However, in
an earlier publication, Leszek Moszyński stresses that the Kleparz and Oleśnica Slavonic monasteries had
only symbolic meaning and does not exclude the possibility that they were founded as a mere imitation of
the Czechs. See his “Liturgia słowiańska,” 271.
20. Trajdos, “Fundacja klasztoru benedyktynów,” 83.
21. These lands are now within the borders of Lithuania, Belarus, Ukraine, and eastern Poland.
22. Literature on the Ruthenian language is voluminous. See, for example, Verkholantsev, Ruthen-
ica Bohemica, 1–16, 128–147; Andrii Danylenko, “‘Prostaia mova,’ ‘Kitab,’ and Polissian Standard,” Die
Welt der Slaven 51 (2006): 80–115; N. A. Morozova and S. Iu. Temchin, “Ob izuchenii tserkovnoslaviansk­
oi pis’mennosti VKL,” Krakowsko-Wileńskie Studia Slawistyczne 2 (1997): 7–39.
23. Rasa Mažeika, “Was Grand Prince Algirdas a Greek Orthodox Christian?,” Lituanus: Lithu-
anian Quarterly Journal of Arts and Sciences 33, no. 4 (1987): 35–55.
24. John Długosz maintains that Jagiełło and his brothers were raised in the “Greek faith” by their
mother, Iuliania—the daughter of Prince Alexander of Tver and the second wife of Grand Duke Algirdas.
See Długosz, Annales, 93. Jagiełło’s Orthodox upbringing, however, is sometimes doubted by historians.
25. “. . . krest’ianstvo svoe ob’iaviti vo vse liudi.” See L. V. Cherepnin, “Dogovornye i duchovnye
gramoty Dmitriia Donskogo,” Istoricheskie zapiski 24 (1947): 249. The negotiations were carried out on
his behalf by his mother, Iuliania of Tver.
26. Michal Giedroyc, “Lithuanian Options Prior to Kreva (1385),” in La Cristianizzazione della
Lituania (Vatican City, 1989), 87–105.

214
 Notes to Pages 133–36

27. Although de jure Jadwiga bore the title of “king” (rex Poloniae), contemporaneous documents
more often than not refer to her as “queen” (regina) as, for example, in the privilegium of Jagiełło from
1390 cited below.
28. Andrzej Gil convincingly shows that in supporting the Orthodox Church on Polish territory
Jagiełło continued the policy of Casimir the Great. See Gil, Prawosławna eparchia, 72–77.
29. One example of an anxious response to the Polish Catholic intrusion in the Ruthenian lands
is an early fifteenth-century Ruthenian Tale of Miracles of St. Nicholas, which relates miraculous events
that happened in 1397 in Lukoml, a small principality in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania that became the
new home of a miracle-working icon of St. Nicholas from the Zhidichin Monastery in the principality of
Lutsk in Volynia. This tale’s motif of a shrine escaping from a desecrated place, otherwise quite rare in Rus’
literature, was most likely borrowed from Byzantine sources, where it developed in reaction to the intru-
sion of Turks into sacred Orthodox space in the fourteenth century. The Turkish oppression suggested
parallels with the circumstances in Lutsk, where the Orthodox felt threatened by an ever-increasing Pol-
ish Catholic presence and, in particular, by the missionary pursuits of the Dominicans. See Natalia Pak,
“Skazanne pra ‘litoŭskiia’ tsudy sviatsitselia Mikalaia Mirlikiiskaga,” Pravaslaŭe 8 (1999): 74–85.
30. The account books of vice-treasurer of Poland Hincza of Rogów from 1393–1394 contain many
records of expenses paid to Ruthenian artists, who are called “pictores Ruthenici.” Anna Różycka-Bryzek,
Freski bizantyńsko-ruskie fundacji Jagiełły w kaplicy Zamku Lubelskiego (Lublin, 2000), 14. Orthodox fres-
coes, commissioned by Jagiełło, can still be seen in a number of churches: in the Chapel of the Holy Trin-
ity in Lublin Castle, in the Chapel of the Holy Trinity and the Royal bedroom in Wawel Castle in Cracow,
in the Benedictine abbey in Łyść (Łysa Góra), in the collegiate churches in Sandomierz and Wiślica, and
in Gnieźno Cathedral. For images and a detailed study of Orthodox frescoes in the chapel of Lublin
Castle, see the above-quoted book, as well as Anna Różycka-Bryzek, Bizantyńsko-ruskie malowidła w
kaplicy Zamku Lubelskiego (Warsaw, 1983).
31. Several of Patriarch Antony IV’s letters from January of 1397 to Jagiełło, Metropolitan Cyprian,
and Archbishop Michael of Bethlehem are devoted to the church union. A. S. Pavlov, ed., Pamiatniki
drevne-russkago kanonicheskago prava, vol, 1, Pamiatniki XI–XV v., Prilozheniia, Russkaia istoricheskaia
biblioteka 6 (St. Petersburg, 1908), 291–310, nos. 43, 44, 45. In the same year, Archbishop Michael of
Bethlehem traveled to Lithuania and Poland with a diplomatic mission from Patriarch Antony to ne-
gotiate a church union and the affairs of the Galician Church. Dimitri Obolensky, “A Late Fourteenth-
Century Byzantine Diplomat: Michael, Archbishop of Bethlehem,” in The Byzantine Inheritance of Eastern
Europe (London, 1982), 300–301. Also see Antoni Mironowicz, Kościół prawosławny w państwie Piastów
i Jagiellonów (Białystok, 2003), 150–51.
32. August Sokołowski and Anatol Lewicki, eds., Codex epistolaris saeculi decimi quinti (Cracow,
1876), 2:92–93, no. 77.
33. Sokołowski and Lewicki, Codex epistolaris, 2:98–100, no. 81.
34. In a metaphor elegantly developed from Ephesians 5:23, he exalts Christ as a “head of the
Church” and likens the divided Eastern and Western Churches to his dismembered limbs: “How long,
most beloved fathers, will you suffer to see the limbs of Christ divided from unity and union?” Francis
J. Thomson, “Gregory Tsamblak: The Man and the Myths,” Slavica Gandensia 25, no. 2 (1998): 91–94.
This memorable address left a deep impression on the Council audience. It was captured in a pictorial
chronicle by Ulrich Richental. See Ulrich Richental, Chronik des Konstanzer Konzils 1414–1418, introd.
and ed. Thomas Martin Buck (Ostfildern, 2010).
35. Thomson, “Gregory Tsamblak,” 88, 99, 111.
36. Trajdos, “Fundacja klasztoru benedyktynów,” 82.
37. A. V. Gorskii and K. I. Nevostruev, Opisanie slavianskikh rukopisei moskovskoi Sinodal’noi bib-
lioteki (Moscow, 1862), 2:3:761–67.
38. “rfr cå v&if xnênm hbvcrbv ∑,sxfêv+ vfnwê ,ö$ïtb.” Sinodal’noe sobranie, no. 558, State
Historical Museum (Gosudarstvennyi istoricheskii muzei), fols. 55v–59. The Ruthenian translation
from the Croatian Glagolitic Mass is published and described in František Václav Mareš, “Moskev-
ská mariánská mše,” Slovo 25–26 (1976): 296–359; and in Leszek Moszyński, “Cerkiewnosłowiańska
tzw. Moskiewska Msza Maryjna jako odzwierciedlenie litewsko-białorusko-polskich kontaktów

215
 Notes to Pages 136–42

kulturowych w XV wieku,” in Czterechsetlecie unii brzeskiej: Zagadnienia języka religijnego, ed. Zenon
Leszczyński (Lublin, 1998), 21–35.
39. Mareš, “Moskevská mariánská mše,” 347.
40. For example, the translator (or a later scribe) was consciously replacing the Roman Amen with
the Orthodox equivalent Amin’, once even crossing out the Roman variant. Mareš, “Moskevská mariánská
mše,” 315.
41. Mareš, “Moskevská mariánská mše,” 320–21, 334, 346–48. While this scenario is of course pos-
sible, unfortunately it has no direct evidence, especially in view of the fact that Zofia was most likely illit-
erate in the 1420s and would therefore not be able to read Cyrillic letters. By the 1450s, Zofia had already
mastered Polish letters, which is evidenced by the Polish translation of the Bible that she commissioned.
42. Sinodal’noe sobranie, no. 558, fols. 59–59v.
43. For a detailed analysis of these texts, see Verkholantsev, “Kirillicheskaia zapis’.”
44. Sinodal’noe sobranie, no. 558, fols. 59v–60. For the Cyrillic transcription of the Latin Mass and
a reconstruction of the Latin text, see Verkholantsev, “Kirillicheskaia zapis’,” 85–86.
45. This custom seems to have been also in place in Latin churches in Dalmatia (Fućak, Šest stoljeća,
119). This is consistent with the assumption that, as an independent book (and not a part of the Missal
or the Breviary), the first Croatian lectionaries were created to supplement and elucidate the liturgy in
Latin, most likely by the end of the fourteenth century. The leading role in this creation is ascribed to the
Franciscans (ibid., 128–29).
46. On this editing feature, see Verkholantsev, “Kirillicheskaia zapis’,” 86–87.
47. Sinodal’noe sobranie, no. 558, fols. 39–45 (the Ruthenian Song of Songs), fols. 45–55v (edifica-
tory treatise).
48. Since Origen’s influential commentary on the imagery of virginity in the Song of Songs, it has
become a tradition in Christian exegesis to interpret this biblical book as describing the mystic union
between Ecclesia (the church) and Christ using the allegory of marriage and metaphors of the bride and
groom. See Ann W. Astell, The Song of Songs in the Middle Ages (Ithaca, NY, 1990); E. Ann Matter, The
Voice of My Beloved: The Song of Songs in Western Medieval Christianity (Philadelphia, 1990).
49. Sinodal’noe sobranie, no. 558, fol. 43.
50. For the edition of the Ruthenian Song of Songs vis-à-vis its Czech source, and the analysis of the
translation, see Verkholantsev, Ruthenica Bohemica, 39–51, 99–109, 154–73.
51. Kyas, Česká Bible, 99–111. Kyas suggests that the principal work was done in the years 1410–1413.
52. Gorskii and Nevostruev, Opisanie, 765.
53. Sinodal’noe sobranie, no. 558, fols. 60–60v.
54. Here I disagree with my earlier view that these texts may be seen as evidence of the Glagolites’
missionary involvement (Verkholantsev, Ruthenica Bohemica, 148–50).
55. Roman Koropeckyj and Dana R. Miller, eds., Lev Krevza’s ‘A Defense of Church Unity’ and Za-
xarija Kopystens’kyj’s ‘Palinodia’, part 1, Texts, trans. with a foreword by Bohdan Strumiński, Harvard Li-
brary of Early Ukrainian Literature, English Translations 3 (Cambridge, MA, 1995), 1:737. Kopystens’kyi
also erroneously attributes the production of the Cyrillic liturgical books in 1491 in the press of Shaipolt
Fiol—the first typesetting workshop in the Cyrillic alphabet—to the Kleparz Glagolites (737–38).
56. Długosz, Annales, 10:183.
57. Długosz, Liber Beneficiorum, 3:226.
58. C. Clifford Flanigan, Kathleen Ashley, and Pamela Sheingorn, “Liturgy as Social Performance:
Expanding the Definitions,” in The Liturgy of the Medieval Church, ed. Thomas J. Heffernan and E. Ann
Matter (Kalamazoo, MI, 2005), 635–52.
59. For example, in 1387, a Czech, Jindřich of Brno, the procurator of the Teutonic Order, com-
plained to the papal nuncio, bishop of Ermland (Warmia), that the Polish king obstructed their mission-
ary activities. In response, the nuncio ordered local bishops to proclaim excommunication to all those
who hindered missionary efforts. At the same time, the Czech Albrecht of Dubé, a commander of the
Order, lobbied the Bohemian court of Wenceslas IV. See Tadra, Kulturní styky Čech, 142.
60. Długosz, Annales, 10:181–82. On Jadwiga’s politics concerning Galicia, see Jerzy Wyrozumski,
Królowa Jadwiga między epoką piastowską i jagiellońską (Cracow, 1997), 107–8.

216
 Notes to Pages 142–45

61. Having served as a diplomat in Polish-Teutonic negotiations during the thirteen-year war
(1454–1466), Długosz especially disapproved of the Order’s ecclesiastical politics, which conflicted with
Polish interests. See Wojciech Polak, Aprobata i spór: Zakon Krzyżacki jako instytucja kościelna w dziełach
Jana Długosza (Lublin, 1999), 227–51.
62. “. . . hec monasterium fratrum Slavorum sub titulo Passionis Christi fundare, dotare et mu-
rare ceperat, quod eius morte imperfectum remansit.” Długosz, Annales, 10:232. In this section of the
chronicle Dlugosz brings up the original dedication of the monastery to Christ’s Passion as it appears in
the privilegium.
63. “Qua obeunte omnis ardor, ad quem illum stimulo suo regina Hedwigis concitabat, extinctus
est et omne opus usque ad diem hanc omnisque fabrica ecclesie et monasterii intermissa.” Długosz, An-
nales, 10:183–84.
64. Jadwiga is one of the most revered monarchs in Poland, on whose life and deeds there exists
vast scholarly and popular literature. One of the most comprehensive biographical studies in English is
Oscar Halecki’s Jadwiga of Anjou and the Rise of East Central Europe (Boulder, CO, 1971), but see the res-
ervations expressed by Paul Knoll in his review of Halecki’s book in The Polish Review 38 (1993): 221–25.
Among studies in Polish are Helena Kręt, Dwór królewski Jadwigi i Jagiełły (Cracow, 1987); Wyrozumski,
Królowa Jadwiga; Jadwiga Stabińska, Królowa Jadwiga (Cracow, 1997); Hanna Kowalska, Helena Byrska,
and Antoni Bednarz, eds., Święta Jadwiga królowa: Dziedzictwo i zadania na trzecie tysiąclecie (Cracow,
2002); and, most recently, Urszula Borkowska, Dynastia Jagiellonów w Polsce (Warsaw, 2011), 480–84
(with bibliographic reference).
65. On Jadwiga’s Polish and Ruthenian heritage, see Halecki, Jadwiga of Anjou, 88–91.
66. Paul W. Knoll, “Jadwiga and Education,” The Polish Review 44 (1999): 420–31; Małgorzata Ducz-
mal, “Jadwiga Andegaweńska,” in Jagiellonowie: Leksykon biograficzny (Cracow, 1996), 305–16; Stabińska,
Królowa Jadwiga; Mieczysław Gębarowicz, Psałterz floriański i jego geneza (Wrocław, 1965), 151–53.
67. It should be noted that Długosz was personally devoted to the memory of Jadwiga, whom he
considered to be a model of feminine piety and a saint. See Zbigniew Perzanowski, “Kanonik Ks. Jan
Długosz o Królowej Jadwidze,” Analecta Cracoviensia 12 (1980): 193–267.
68. Jerzy Kloczowski evaluates the role of the restored university as follows: “It is probably true to
say that in the long term the most fundamental and significant role of Krakow University in its earliest
years was its connection with the internal reform of the Polish Church, and above all with the reform of
the diocesan clergy.” Jerzy Kloczowski, A History of Polish Christianity (Cambridge, 2000), 69.
69. The bulla of Pope Clement VI, issued on 9 May 1346, authorizes Archbishop Ernest to establish
a monastery in Prague’s New Town for the Benedictine brothers from Croatia with the purpose of observ-
ing the Roman Slavonic rite. Following the Apostolic endorsement, Charles IV issued a foundation and
donation charter for the Slavonic Monastery of St. Jerome on 21 November 1347. The establishment of a
four-faculty studium generale in Prague, approved by Clement VI on 26 January 1347, falls in the interval
between the above-mentioned documents.
70. Jean Leclercq, The Love of Learning and the Desire for God: A Study of Monastic Culture (New
York, 1961). For the main trends in the religious and intellectual thought of this period, see Steven Oz-
ment, The Age of Reform 1250–1550: An Intellectual and Religious History of Late Medieval and Reforma-
tion Europe (New Haven, CT, 1980), esp. 73–134. For Polish religious and intellectual history, see Kloc-
zowski, A History, esp. 50–83.
71. Krzysztof Ożóg, Kultura umysłowa w Krakowie w XIV wieku: Środowisko duchowieństwa
świeckiego (Wrocław, 1987).
72. For more information in English, see Paul W. Knoll, “Casimir the Great and the University
of Cracow,” Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas 16 (1968): 232–49. Some of the important studies in
Polish on the history of Cracow University are Kazimierz Lepszy, ed., Dzieje Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego
w latach 1364–1374 (Cracow, 1964); Kazimierz Morawski, Historya Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego: Średne
wieki i Odrodzenie (Cracow, 1900); and, more recently, Stanisław Szczur, Papież Urban V i powstanie Uni-
wersytetu w Krakowie w 1364 r. (Cracow, 1999).
73. Václav Chaloupecký, The Caroline University at Prague: Its Foundation, Character and Develop-
ment in the Fourteenth Century (Prague, 1948).

217
 Notes to Pages 145

74. Jan Nepomucen Fijałek, Studya do dziejów Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego i jego Wydziału Teolog-
icznego w XV wieku (Cracow, 1898), 53–110; Henryk Barycz, “Dziejowe związki Polski z Uniwersytetem
Karola w Pradze,” Przegląd zachodni 3 (1948): 7–18; Barycz, Z dziejów polskich wędrówek naukowych za
granicę (Wrocław, 1969), 7–32; Zofia Kozłowska-Budkowa, “Odnowienie Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego
krakowskiego,” in Dzieje Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego w latach 1364–1764, ed. Kazimierz Lepszy (Cra-
cow, 1964), 1:37–89; Jadwiga Krzyżaniakowa, “Profesorowie krakowscy na Uniwersytecie w Pradze—ich
mistrzowie i koledzy,” in Cracovia—Polonia—Europa: Studia z dziejów średniowiecza ofiarowane Jerzemu
Wyrozumskiemu w sześćdziesiątą piątą rocznicę urodzin i czterdziestolecie pracy naukowej, ed. Waldemar
Bukowski et al. (Cracow, 1995), 505–27.
75. John Isner (ca. 1345–1411), the founder of and first professor at the Theological Faculty, was
born in Cracow and received his scholarly degrees at Prague, and possibly even worked at the imperial
chancery of Charles IV. From 1376, he taught and examined at Prague University. Many of his former
students also became professors at Cracow. Probably around 1397, he moved to Cracow to participate in
the reorganization of the studium generale and in 1409 founded the bursa pauperum, a fund and a house
for financially disadvantaged students, many of whom were from Lithuania and Ruthenia. See Jerzy Za-
they, “Jan Isner,” in Polski Słownik Biograficzny, ed. Mieczysław Horoch and Paweł Jarosiński (Wrocław,
1962–1964), 10:434–36; Fijałek, Studya do dziejów, 57–61.
76. A Czech Cistercian monk and a Thomist, John Štěkna (1355–1407) was also a student and
associate of Matthew of Cracow, to whose influence at the Polish court he most likely owed his promi-
nent position as Jadwiga and Jagiełło’s chaplain and confessor, and as a professor of theology at Cracow
University. His extraordinary commitment to the cause of preaching, including as one of the Bethlehem
Chapel speakers, was praised by John Hus, who called him “an excellent preacher like a resonant trumpet”
(velut tuba resonans praedicator eximius). See Fijałek, Studya do dziejów, 62–71; Zofia Siemiątkowska,
“Jan Szczekna,” Materiały i studia Zakładu Historii Filozofii Starożytnej i Średniowiecznej 5 (1965): 34–75;
Urszula Borkowska, “Królewscy spowiednicy,” in Ludzie, kościół, wierzenia: Studia z dziejów kultury i
społeczeństwa Europy Środkowej, ed. Wojciech Iwańczak, Stefan K. Kuczyński (Warsaw, 2001), 185.
77. Bartholomew of Jasło (ca. 1360–1407), another prominent religious preacher and enthusiast
of church reform, was a student of Štěkna and Isner at Prague, and their younger colleague at Cracow.
In 1390, he left Prague for Cracow and actively participated in the restoration of the studium, and was
engaged in the creation of Jadwiga’s library. See Fijałek, Studya do dziejów, 73–78; Maria Kowalczyk,
“Bartłomiej z Jasła,” in Materiały i studia Zakładu historii filozofii starożytnej i średniowiecznej, Seria
A 5 (1965): 3–23; Krzysztof Ożóg, “Krakowskie środowisko umysłowe na przełomie XIV i XV wieku a
problem powstania Psałterza floriańskiego,” Rocznik Biblioteki Narodowej 42 (2011): 93–114.
78. Matthew of Cracow (ca. 1335–1410) is perhaps the most famous theologian of Polish origin
from the turn of the fourteenth century. Most of his life, however, he spent abroad. Around 1360 he left for
Prague, where he remained as a student and later professor of Prague University until 1390 or 1391, when
he returned to Cracow at the invitation of Jagiełło, who hoped to engage him in the restoration of Cracow
University. Nevertheless, Matthew did not remain long in Cracow, and after several years went on to be-
come a professor in Heidelberg. His treatise De squaloribus curiae Romane is one of the most important
writings on church reform. Jadwiga Krzyżaniakowa,“Mateusz z Krakowa: Działalność w Pradze w latach
1355–1394,” Roczniki Historyczne 29 (1963): 9–57; Adam Ludwik Szafrański, “Mateusz z Krakowa: Wstęp
do badań nad życiem i twórczością naukową,” Materiały i Studia Zakładu Historii Filozofii Starożytnej i
Średniowiecznej 8 (1967): 25–92; Matthias Nuding, Matthäus von Krakau, Spätmittelalter und Reforma-
tion Neue Reihe 38 (Tübingen, 2007).
79. Kozłowska-Budkowa, “Odnowienie Uniwersytetu,” 38. Apart from Matthew’s involvement
in the restoration of Cracow University and the establishment of a bursa at Prague, the presence of St.
Bridget’s revelations in the library of Jadwiga (Długosz, Annales, 10:232) is attributed to the influence of
Matthew of Cracow, who also spread the knowledge of this work in Prague. Following his lead, Jadwiga
established an altar devoted to St. Bridget at the Cracow Cathedral Church. See Jan Nepomucen Fijałek,
Mistrz Jakób z Paradyża i uniwersytet krakowski w okresie soboru bazylejskiego (Cracow, 1900), 2:101–2.
80. Maria Kowalczyk, “Odnowienie uniwersytetu krakowskiego w świetle mów Bartłomieja z
Jasła,” Małopolskie Studia Historyczne 6 (1963): 23–42.

218
 Notes to Pages 145–46

81. Gębarowicz, Psałterz floriański, 49–50.

82. Józef Muczkowski, Wiadomość o założeniu Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego, na publicznem posiedze-
niu Towarzystwa Naukowego w dniu 3 czerwca 1847 roku, Rocznik Towarzystwa Naukowego Krakowskiego
(Cracow, 1849), 219–20. For more information on Jadwiga’s and Wysz’s contributions to the restoration
of Cracow University, see Gębarowicz, Psałterz floriański, 14–84; and Knoll, “Jadwiga and Education.”
83. Celina Zawodzińska, “Kolegium królowej Jadwigi przy Uniwersytecie Karola w Pradze i jego
pierwszy statut,” Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, Prace Historyczne 56 (1962): 20–22.
Zawodzińska names Kříž as the author of the bursa’s statute (23).
84. In fact, the legal documents allowed students of other descent to be accepted at the bursa, and
when it admitted its first students, which did not happen until after Jadwiga’s death, many of them were
Czech. See Zawodzińska, “Kolegium królowej Jadwigi.” The editions of Jadwiga’s foundation charter and
Wenceslas’s permission are in Muczkowski, Wiadomość o założeniu Uniwersytetu, 214–19.
85. Krzysztof Ożóg, “Duchowni i uczeni w otoczeniu św. Jadwigi,” in Święta Jadwiga królowa:
Dziedzictwo i zadania na trzecie tysiąclecie, ed. Hanna Kowalska, Helena Byrska, and Antoni Bednarz
(Cracow, 2002), 165–78; Ożóg, “University Masters at the Royal Court of Hedwig of Anjou and Władysław
Jagiełło,” in Central and Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages: A Cultural History, ed. Piotr S. Górecki and
Nancy E. van Deusen (London, 2009), 147–60, 267–74.
86. Nicholas of Miličin studied theology under John Hus, whom he replaced in 1412 as a preacher
at the Bethlehem Chapel. He spent the years 1390–1397 at the Polish court as a preacher. See Jerzy Wolny,
“Mikołaj z Miliczyna,” in Polski Słownik Biograficzny (Cracow, 1976), 21:126.
87. A doctor of canon and civil law (utriusque iuris doctor), educated in Prague and Padua, Peter
Wysz of Radolin (ca. 1354–1412) was one of the queen’s closest associates. In 1388, Wysz represented Po-
land in the negotiations with the Teutonic Order, and in 1389–1390 he acted as the Apostolic nuncio. In
1390, he returned to Cracow and, from 1391, served as the queen’s chancellor. On 4 December 1392 he was
appointed bishop of Cracow (1392–1412) and a year later a royal chancellor (1393–1397). In 1397, he co-
founded the Faculty of Theology at the studium generale and became its chancellor. Upon Jadwiga’s death,
Wysz was made one of the executors of her will. A mistake that John Długosz makes in his chronicle, dating
the foundation of the Slavonic monastery at Kleparz to “during the pontificate of the bishop of Cracow Peter
Wysz, in the year 1390,” has inspired a hypothesis that Wysz played an important role in this institution.
Wysz’s connection with Prague has been taken into consideration: in the 1370s, he studied philosophy and
law in Prague. As a church historian, Długosz must have known that Wysz was not yet made bishop in 1390
and that this office was occupied by John Radlica. Yet in his Vitae episcoporum Poloniae, Długosz makes no
mention of the Monastery of the Holy Cross at all, either in the life of Peter Wysz or in the life of John Ra-
dlica. See Jan Długosz, Opera Omnia, vol. 1, Vitae episcoporum Poloniae, ed. Ignatius Polkowski and Żegota
Pauli (Cracow, 1887), 418–22. Although until July of 1390, when the monastery was decreed, Wysz was
not present in Cracow, it is possible that while at the curia he could have discussed the foundation of the
Slavonic monastery in Poland with the pope. Besides, Wysz’s active involvement in the life of the city and
the court starting in 1390 could have misled the chronicler, who associated the foundation of the monastery
with his name. Tadeusz Trajdos, however, notes that after Jadwiga’s death Wysz as the bishop of Cracow did
nothing to help the Slavonic monks and, therefore, was most likely not personally concerned about their
well-being. Trajdos, “Fundacja klasztoru benedyktynów,” 74–75.
88. Allegedly, Henry of Bitterfeld also composed the Life of St. Hedwig of Silesia, Jadwiga’s patron
saint, although no textual evidence has been discovered so far. On Henry of Bitterfeld, see Vladimír J.
Koudelka, “Heinrich von Bitterfeld O. P. († ca. 1405), Professor an der Universität Prag,” Archivum Fra-
trum Praedicatorum 23 (1953): 5–65; and, more recently, Manfred Gerwing, “Heinrich von Bitterfeld
als Reformer,” Theologie und Glaube 95 (2005): 409–22. For an edition of the treatise and a summary
of research on Henry of Bitterfeld, see Henricus Bitterfeld de Brega, Tractatus De vita contemplativa
et activa, ed. Bruno Mazur, Władysław Seńko, and Ryszard Tatarzyński, preface Kazimierz Marciniak
(Warsaw, 2003).
89. Długosz, Liber Beneficiorum, 3:475; Długosz, Annales, 10:212; Tadeusz M. Trajdos, “Fundacja
klasztoru karmelitów trzewiczkowych na Piasku w Krakowie,” Nasza Przeszłość 63 (1983): 93–105.
90. A fragment of the Glagolitic missal at the Jagiellonian University Library in Cracow (no. 5567)

219
 Notes to Pages 147–49

is so far the only acknowledged survivor of the former Glagolitic library and scriptorium, which perished
in a fire. Paleographic characteristics and textual correspondences with the Czech liturgical tradition
show that this manuscript was brought by the Glagolites to Kleparz from Prague, where it was composed
at the Slavonic Monastery scriptorium. See Anica Nazor, “O pewnych związkach chorwackich głagolaszy
z Polską,” in Zeszyty, 107–11; Josef Vašica, “Krakovské zlomky hlaholské,” Slavia 18 (1947–1948): 111–37.
91. Similarly, the dedication of the Slavonic Monastery in Kleparz first to Christ’s Passion and later
to the Holy Cross echoes the role that the Slavonic Monastery played in Prague as a place where Bohe-
mian and imperial Passion relics were taken for veneration during annual exposition ceremonies. See
Benešovská, “Benediktinský klášter,” 124; Crossley and Opačić, “Prague as a New Capital,” 65; Opačić,
“Emauzský klášter,” 43–47.
92. On the influence of Bohemian theological thought on Polish clergy, see Włodzimierz Bielak,
Devotio moderna w polskich traktatach duszpasterskich powstałych do połowy XV wieku (Lublin, 2002).
93. Four doctors of the church, i.e., Ambrose, Augustine, Jerome, and Gregory. For information on
attested manuscripts, see Jan Łoś, Początki piśmiennictwa polskiego: Przegląd zabytków językowych (Lwów,
1922), 231–33.
94. St. Bridget’s revelations, addressed to popes Clement VI, Innocent VI, Urban V, and Gregory
XI, which called for the return of the Papal See to Rome and ecclesiastical reform, were brought to Jad-
wiga’s attention by Matthew of Cracow.
95. “Summa in ea devocio, immensus amor Dei, omnibus mundane pravitatis fastibus a se relegatis
abdicatisque, tantummodo ad oracionem et leccionem librorum Divinorum, videlicet Veteris et Novi
Testamenti, omeliartum quatuor doctorum, Vitas patrum, sermonum et passionum de sanctis, medi-
tacionum et oracionum beati Bernhardi, sancti Ambrosii, Revelacionum sancte Brigide et plurimorum
aliorum de Latino in Polonicum translatorum animum et cogitacionem intenderat.” Długosz, Joannis
Dlugosii Annales, 10:232.
96. An overly optimistic estimate is provided, for example, by Jan Łoś, “Biblioteka polska królowej
Jadwigi,” Przewodnik Bibliograficzny 6 (1926): 257–59. Similarly, the commission of the Polish translation
of Jacobus de Voragine’s Legenda Aurea is attributed to Jadwiga with reference to Długosz’s information
in the chronicle. See Marian Plezia, “Wstęp,” in Złota Legenda: Wybór, by Jakub de Voragine (Warsaw,
1955), li.
97. Kazania świętokrzyskie, BN, 8001. The fragments include excerpts from the sermon on the feast
of St. Michael (29 September), the complete sermon on the feast of St. Catherine (25 November), the
beginning of the sermon on St. Nicholas’s feast (6 December), fragments of the sermons on Christmas
Day (25 December), the feast of the Adoration of the Magi (6 January), and the Purification of the Virgin
(2 February).
98. Michałowska, Średniowiecze, 301–10, 806. Edition: Jan Łoś and Władysław Semkowicz, Kaza-
nia tzw. Świętokrzyskie (Cracow, 1934).
99. Urbańczyk, “Rola Wielkich Moraw,” 72.
100. Court account books record a receipt given to Bartholomew of Jasło for copying the Polish
translation of the five books of Solomon for Jadwiga. However, no manuscripts have been attested that
contain these biblical translations. See Borkowska, Dynastia Jagiellonów, 394. The first translation of the
Polish Bible was commissioned by Jagiełło’s fourth wife, Queen Zofia Holszańska. The team of several
translators and scribes—among them the queen’s chaplain Andrew of Jaszowice—used the Czech Bible
as a model for their translation. The result of this enterprise, the Szaroszpatak Codex of 1455, is therefore
called the Biblia królowej Zofii (The Bible of Queen Zofia). See Stanisław Urbańczyk and Vladimír Kyas,
Biblia królowej Zofii (Szaroszpatacka) wraz ze staroczeskim przekładem Biblii (Wrocław, 1965); Vladimír
Kyas, “K rekonstrukci české předlohy staropolské bible,” in Česko-polský sborník vědeckých prací, ed.
Milan Kudelka (Prague, 1955), 2:39–67.
101. Psałterz floriański, BN, Akc. 7513. Edition: Ryszard Ganszyniec et al., eds., Psalterium flo-
rianense latino-polono-germanicum: Psałterz floriański łacińsko-polsko-niemiecki; Rękopis Biblioteki
Narodowej w Warszawie (Lwów, 1939). The manuscript derives its name from the place of its discovery—
at the regular canons’ Abbey of St. Florian in Austria. Literature on the Florian Psalter is voluminous.
See, for example, Gębarowicz, Psałterz floriański; Ożóg, “Krakowskie środowisko umysłowe,” 93–114. On

220
 Notes to Pages 149–52

Peter Wysz’s association with the Florian Psalter, as well as the restoration of Cracow University, see 14–84
in Gębarowicz’s book. For a brief description and a list of literature, see Michałowska, Średniowiecze,
294–300, 806.
102. Gębarowicz, Psałterz floriański, 212–13; Marek Cybulski, Bohemizmy ortograficzne w drugiej i
trzeciej częsci „Psalterza florianskiego” (Wrocław, 1987); Urbańczyk, “Rola Wielkich Moraw,” 72.
103. According to one interpretation, the series of images that accompany the text of the psalms ex-
presses the medieval astrological concept of the universe. See Ewa Śnieżyńska-Stolot, Tajemnice dekoracji
Psałterza Floriańskiego: Z dziejów średniowiecznej koncepcji uniwersum (Warsaw, 1992). An alternative in-
terpretation suggests that the images were conceived as a mnemonic device, which assisted contemplative
reading. See Andrzej Dróżdż, “Propozycja badawcza dekoracji Psałterza floriańskiego,” Rocznik Biblioteki
Narodowej 25 (2003): 201–10.
104. On fol. 53v, the lower margin features two floating angels, one carrying the monogram (on
the left) and the other Jadwiga’s coat of arms—those of the Hungarian branch of the House of Anjou (on
the right). On fol. 3, the monogram is embedded in an illuminated initial “B” that opens the Psalms, and
on fol. 59 it is shown again supported by the angel. The monogram has been variously interpreted and
explained. The most popular view regards it as an abbreviation of two names, Marta and Maria, which
symbolize a harmony of two states of existence, contemplative and active (in light of Henry of Bitter-
feld’s dedication to her of his Tractatus de vita contemplativa et activa). Other suggestions include mottos
miserere mei (“have mercy on me,” a quote from Psalm 50), memento mori (“remember about death”),
and Mons Mariae (after the monastery of canons regular, called Mons Mariae, where the manuscript
originated). Mieczysław Gębarowicz suggests that the monogram was devised by Peter Wysz (Psałterz
floriański, 34–35).
105. Gębarowicz, Psałterz floriański, 149–50.
106. On the geographic location and setting of the monastery, see Dzikówna, Kleparz, 92–95.
107. Řeháček, “Emauzský klášter a Polsko,” 217–18.
108. Trajdos, “Fundacja klasztoru benedyktynów,” 84.
109. Paweł Kras, “Polish-Czech Relations in the Hussite Period: Religious Aspects,” in The Bohe-
mian Reformation and Religious Practice, vol. 4, Papers from the IV International Symposium on the Bo-
hemian Reformation and Religious Practice under auspices of the Philosophical Institute of the Academy of
Sciences of the Czech Republic held at Vila Lanna, Prague 26–28 June 2000, ed. Zdeněk V. David and David
Ralph Holeton (Prague, 2002), 177–92.
110. “Anno domini 1390 feria quinta post festum sancti Iacobi apostoli, rex Wladislaus cum sua
consorte regina Heduigi, monasterium Slauorum ordinis sancti Benedicti ex Praga sumptorum, tituli
sanctae Crucis, extra muros Graccouiensis, in oppido Cleparz fundauerunt, Chorumque ecclesiae cum
sacrario perficiendo ut cernitur. Corporis ecclesiae fundamenta solum iecerunt, quae sub terra delites-
cunt. Et domum ligneam cum horto pro monachis, dotemque uiginti marcarum de theloneo Graccouien-
sis assignarunt, ut uoce sonora, tam horas Canonicas, quam missas in idiomate Slauonico celebrarent et
explerent. Heduigi autem regina defuncta, ulterior prouisio et fabrica sunt intermissa. Verum in diebus
puericiae meae presbiter Slauus, missas idiomate Slauonico continuabat. Successit tandem sermo latinus,
reiecto Slauonico, primum Nicolao Lithwos Archidiacono Lublinensi, deinde Alberto dispensatore regio,
hanc ipsam ecclesiam concessione regum usurpantibus. Donec a rege Alexandro, Prelati et Prebendarii
sancti Floriani in Cleparz, per medium doctoris Ioannis de Osswanczim Canonici Graccouiensis, col-
lationem prefatae ecclesiae pro se perpetuam obtinuerunt.” Maciej z Miechowa, Chronica Polonorum,
49:291–92.
111. For instance, although in his recent study Leszek Moszyński does not support the hypothesis
that Sweipolt Fiol’s Orthodox Cyrillic book printing in 1491 is directly connected with the Slavonic monks
at Kleparz, he nevertheless suggests that the monastery contributed to the special atmosphere favorable to
the Slavonic rite that existed at that time. Moszyński, “Próba nowego spojrzenia,” 316.
112. Długosz, Liber Beneficiorum, 2:536. And also again as “Georgius Lythwosz de Kazanow, no-
bilis de domo Grzymalitarum,” in Liber Beneficiorum, 1:597. See also Jan Ambroży Wadowski, Kościoły
lubelskie (Cracow, 1907), 107–8.
113. “Georgius Lithwos, canonicus Cracoviensis, domum canonicalem post ignem reedificat.”

221
 Notes to Pages 152–59

Wacław Urban and Sigitas Lūžys, Cracovia Lithuanorum saeculis XIV–XVI: Lituvių Krokuva XIV–XVI
amžiais (Vilnius, 1999), 48. See also pages 40, 44, 54, 58, 60, 68. Georgius Lithwos died before 1489 (Urban
and Lūžys, Cracovia, 70). He was most likely a relation of the Cracow governor Świętosław Lithwos of
Buzina and Kazanow (1405–1413, 1414–1417). Matthew of Miechow mistakenly names Nicolaus Lithwos
archdeacon of Lublin and an interim administrator of the Monastery of the Holy Cross. Other historical
sources contain records of both Georgius and Nicolaus Lithwosz, but only Georgius Lithwos is known as
archdeacon of Lublin. Witold Taszycki, ed., Słownik staropolskich nazw osobowych (Wrocław, 1971–1973),
3:272–74. Długosz mentions “Nicolaus Lithwosz de armis Grzymalya” as an heir to the Siroslawycze estate
situated under the parochial church of Konske: “Siroslawycze, villa sub parochia ecclesiae de Konske sita,
cuius haeres Nicolaus Lithwosz de armis Grzymalya.” Długosz, Liber Beneficiorum, 1:351.
114. Krukowski, O słowiańskim kościele, 22.
115. Bogusław Ulicki, Święty Florian od średniowiecza do współczesności (Warsaw, 1991), 51–53.
116. Urszula Borkowska includes John Hieronymus Silván of Prague among confessors to Jadwiga
and Jagiełło in the years 1394–1410 (Borkowska, “Królewscy spowiednicy,” 185–86).
117. On the biography and works of Hieronymus (John Silván) of Prague, see Jan Stejskal, Podi-
vuhodný příběh Jana Jeronýma (Prague, 2003); and several articles by William P. Hyland, especially “John-
Jerome of Prague (1368–1440): A Norbertine Missionary in Lithuania,” Analecta Praemonstratensia 78
(2002): 228–54; and Hyland, “Abbot John-Jerome of Prague: Preaching and Reform in Early Fifteenth-
Century Poland,” Analecta Praemonstratensia 80 (2004): 5–42. Unfortunately, Hieronymus of Prague did
not author an account of his journey and missionary work but his vivid description of Lithuania’s pagan
inhabitants and customs is recorded by Enea Silvio Piccolomini in De Europa (1458), in which the hu-
manist pope included the stories that he personally heard from Hieronymus in Basel in 1434. See Enee
Silvii Piccolominei Postea Pii PP. II De Evropa, ed. Adrianus van Heck (Vatican, 2001), 115–18.
118. Aleksander Brückner, “Kazania średniowieczne,” Cz. 2., Rozprawy Wydziału Filologicznego
Polskiej Akademii Umiejętności 24 (Cracow, 1895), 42 [358].
119. Hyland, “Abbot John-Jerome,” 18–22, 32–35.
120. “Et vere felix Sclavoniae Terra quae talem genuit, ac de alumno nobis Patronum, & de homine
Angelum emisit.” Hieronymus of Prague, Sermones, in Annales Camaldulenses Ordinis Sancti Benedicti,
by Johannes Benedictus Mittarelli and Anselmus Costadoni (Venice, 1773), 9:828. For the whole sermon,
see 821–33.
121. “Hanc nobilitatem morum & generis habuit Sanctus Doctor Hieronymus, & ideo merito est
honorandus. Fuit itaque excellentissima Sclavonicae gentis nobilitate progenitus; De qua gente Diocle-
tianus & Maximianus ac Maximinus Imperatores Romani extiterunt.” Mittarelli and Costadoni, Annales
Camaldulenses, 9:824.
122. André Vauchez, Sainthood in the Later Middle Ages (Cambridge, 1997), 173–77.
123. Mittarelli and Costadoni, Annales Camaldulenses, 9:833 and 843 respectively.
124. David A. Frick, Polish Sacred Philology in the Reformation and the Counter-Reformation
(Berkeley, CA, 1989), 39–43.
125. On the Sarmatian historical myth, popular in Renaissance and Baroque Polish historiogra-
phy, see a recent edition of Tadeusz Ulewicz, Sarmacja: Studium z problematyki slowianskiej XV i XVI w.
(Cracow, 2006).

Epilogue
1. Literature in Czech uses the word “národní,” which is often translated as “national” in English
(not to be confused with “nationalistic”). See, for example, Šmahel, Idea národa, esp. 264–68, 278–81,
283–86.
2. Two fifteenth-century manuscripts in the Archive of the Prague Castle (Prague Metropolitan
Chapter Collection) contain Glagolitic inscriptions made by non-Glagolite scribes, who were evidently
learning to write in Glagolitic. The fifteenth-century manuscript, M 40/2, features on fol. 157r a Latin
Prayer to the Holy Trinity recorded in Glagolitic in 1450 by an unpracticed hand (by a scribe who was
trying to master Glagolitic); and on fol. 112r it features a macaronic explicit in Latin and Glagolitic from

222
 Notes to Pages 159–62

1452. See Patera and Podlaha, Soupis rukopisů, 296–97, no. 1395; Pacnerová, “Hlaholice,” 34–35. A num-
ber of manuscripts feature tables of the Glagolitic alphabet (abecedaria): the M 125 manuscript in the
Archive of the Prague Castle (Prague Metropolitan Chapter Collection) from 1442 contains a compara-
tive table of several alphabets, including Angular Glagolitic. See Patera and Podlaha, Soupis rukopisů,
343–44; Pacnerová, “Hlaholice,” 38–39. Václav Čermák has recently shown that another abecedarium,
called “Hrnčiřov,” from 1434 (NKČR, XI A 14), is closely connected with the scribal practices of the Sla-
vonic Monastery of St. Jerome and is not a copy of the earlier discussed Diviš’s Abecedarium (Pacnerová,
“Hlaholice,” 38), as previously thought. See Václav Čermák, “Hlaholská abecedaria v českém prostředí,”
in Cesty slov, ed. Petr Nejedlý and Miloslava Vajdlová (Prague, 2012), 36–42.
3. Vladimír Sakař, “Klášter Na Slovanech v období husitského revolučního hnutí a jeho doznívání,”
in Z tradic, 188.
4. Václav Huňáček, “Klášter Na Slovanech,” 181.
5. Pavel B. Kůrka, “Slovanský klášter mezi husitstvím a katolicismem: Dějiny klášterní komunity v
letech 1419–1592,” in Emauzy, 107–24.
6. For a discussion of the linguo-literary attitudes and behavior of the Croatian Glagolites in Bo-
hemia, and their requisition of textual resources in Czech and Latin, see Hamm, “Hrvatski glagoljaši.”
7. František Václav Mareš, “Średniowieczni święci czescy i polscy u głagolitów chorwackich,” in
Slawistyczne studia językoznawcze, ed. Franciszek Sławski, Anna Chruścicka, and Bożenna Marczak
(Wrocław, 1987), 192. (The source that Mareš mentions as “Pierwszy Brewiarz Wrbnicki (z XV w.)” is
most likely a typo because the First Vrbnik Breviary does not have a calendar and dates back to the late
thirteenth or early fourteenth century.)
8. Vjekoslav Štefanić, Glagoljski rukopisi otoka Krka (Zagreb, 1960), 355–97; Aksinija Džurova,
Krasimir Stančev, and Marko Japundžić, eds., Catalogo dei manoscritti slavi della Biblioteca Vaticana (So-
fia, 1985), 160–61; Karlo Horvat, “Glagolitica Vaticana,” 520–22.
9. Hercigonja, Povijest hrvatske književnosti, 57–80; Hercigonja, Tropismena i trojezična kultura,
74–82; Stjepan Ivšić, “Dosad nepoznati hrvatski glagoljski prijevodi iz staročeškoga jezika,” Slavia 1 (1922):
38–56; Ivšić, “Još o dosad nepoznatim”; Johannes Reinhart, “Husov Výklad Desatera božieho přikázanie u
hrvatskoglagoljskom (starohrvatskom) prijevodu,” Slovo 47–49 (1997–1999): 221–54; Reinhart, “Husova
homilija”; Reinhart, “Zwischenslavische Übersetzungen im Mittelalter”; Reinhart, “Jan Hus”; Reinhart,
“Mezhslavianskie perevody.” On the connection between the Croatian, Czech, and Ruthenian versions of
the Vision of Tundal, see Verkholantsev, Ruthenica Bohemica, 52–70.
10. “S(ve)ti Eronim’ imêše o(t)ca čast’na komu ime bêše Evsebiê slovênskago ezika i slovućago.”
Petrisov zbornik (1468), NSK, R 4001, fols. 210v–213v. Described in Štefanić, Glagoljski rukopisi, 378. For
an examination of the Legend of St. Jerome the Croat, see Vesna Badurina-Stipčević, “Legenda o svetom
Jeronimu u hrvatskoglagoljskom Petrisovu zborniku (1468),” in Trećoredska glagoljaška tradicija u europ-
skom kontekstu. Tertiary Glagolitic Tradition in European Context. Ed. by Ivan Botica, Tomislav Galović,
and Kristijan Kuhar (Zagreb, forthcoming).
11. For the history of the belief in Jerome’s Croatian descent among the Croats, see Fine, “The
Slavic Saint Jerome”; Runje, O knjigama hrvatskih glagoljaša, 101–23; Josip Bratulić, “Sveti Jeronim Dal-
matinac,” in Sveti Jeronim, Izbrane poslanice, ed. Adalbert Rebić (Split, 1990), ix–xlv. On the Life of St. Je-
rome by Marko Marulić and its edition, see Darko Novaković, “Novi Marulić: Vita diui Hieronymi (British
Library MS Add. 18.029),” Colloquia Maruliana 3 (1994): 5–58.
12. “Adjuvet nosque Maria in hac tenebrosa via cum sanctis patronis, / Martino et Georgio, Sigis-
mundo, Venceslao et coelorum tronis, / Et Ludmila, Procopius, Ieronimus, Stanislaus, haeredes Slavorum,
/ Necnon sanctorum omnium coetus omnis fidelium ad regna Polonorum. Amen.” Josef Perwolf,
“Petrohradský sborník písemností z dob polského krále Kazimíra,” Časopis Musea Království Českého 54
(1880): 417.
13. “Ex hac gente Divus Hieronymus prognatus, suis popularibus vetus novumque Testamentum
sermone vernaculo interpretatus est.” Dubravius, Historia Bohemica, 46.
14. The expanded title reads: Ecclesiae Slavonicae ab ipsis Apostolis fundata, ab Hieronymo, Cyrillo,
Methodio propagata, . . . brevis Historiola (A Short History of the Slavic Church founded by the Apostles
themselves, propagated by Jerome, Cyril, and Methodius). Jan Amos Komenský, Stručná historie církve

223
 Notes to Pages 162–65

slovanské, ed. Josef Hendrich (Prague, 1941); Komenský, Stručná historie církve slovanské, in Vybrané spisy
Jana Amose Komenského, ed. Otokar Chlup (Prague, 1972), 6:303–83.
15. “Illyrové však, stejně jako Dalmaté, jsou částí slovanských národů až do dnešního dne. A že ta
první setba nebyla bez plodů, toho máme doklad ten, že Jeronym, narozený v illyrském městě Stridonu,
přeložil knihy božích Písem do své mateřské řeči, aby pomáhal ve svém národě vzrůstu víry. A tak mezi
evropskými národy první to byli Slované, jimž byly svěřeny výroky boží v jejich mateřštině.” Komenský,
Stručná historie, 23; Jan Amos Komenský, Stručná historie (Vybrané spisy), 6:318.
16. Jiří Kropáček, “Klášter Na Slovanech v Praze u Bohuslava Balbína,” in Z tradic, 223–29.
17. Ibid., 226–28.
18. For example, he made extensive excerpts from Charles’s foundation charter of 1348 and even
underlined the whole passage about St. Jerome and the Slavonic rite (ibid., 228).
19. “Dum Universitas Carolina faelicibus Caroli Regis auspiciis assurgit, idem Carolus hoc ipso
anno Slavicae nationis amore, S. Hieronymo Ecclesiae Doctori Dalmatae, ac proinde ejusdem cum Slavis
nostris originis, Regia quadam magnificentia Ecclesiam et Coenobium Ordinis S. Benedicti (postea Em-
maus vocatum) Praga construxit, in quo ut divina omnia Slavico sermone peragerentur, a Summo Pon-
tifice impetravit.” Bohuslav Balbín, Epitome historica rerum Bohemicarum (Prague, 1677), 3:21:359–60.
20. Its full title is quite revealing, Slauicae linguae gloria ex S. Hieronymo Ecclesiae Doctore natione
Dalmata, tum quod hac lingua plurimae nationes in sacris vtantur, semperque sint vsae (The Glorification
of the Slavic Language by St. Jerome, the Doctor of the Church, Dalmatian by Nationality, and by the Fact
That Many Nations Use—and Have Always Used—This Language in Religious Rites). Bohuslav Balbín, Dis-
sertatio apologetica pro lingua Slavonica, praecipue Bohemica (Prague, 1775), 64–68.
21. “. . . at longo intervallo maior, ut equidem sentio, Slauicae linguae dignitas est, quod per eam
Dei Filius e coelo in terras a Sacerdotibus vocatus quotidie descendat.” Balbín, Dissertatio, 67–68.
22. “Carolus IV, summus Slauicae, & linguae, & gentis amator.” Balbín, Dissertatio, 92.
23. Ibid., 66–67.
24. Kazimierz Dobrowolski, Dzieje kultu św. Floriana w Polsce do połowy XVI wieku (Warsaw,
1923); Ulicki, Święty Florian; Dzikówna, Kleparz, 1–14. A seal of the town of Kleparz from the second
half of the fourteenth century features the image of St. Florian. The State Archive in Cracow (Archiwum
Państwowe w Krakowie), APKr, collection of loose seals, ref. no. 101.
25. Mass for St. Florian’s Day, in Glagolitic Missal (15th c.), Bodleian Library, Oxford, MS Canon.
Liturg. 349, fol. 1. Leszek Moszyński has closely studied the fifteenth-century Glagolitic Mass to St. Florian
and its textual history. He concludes that it was translated from Latin in a fairly literate manner, most likely
in Cracow. Moszyński dismisses the possibility that it was created in Croatia due to the lack of the Latin
officium proprium to St. Florian in fifteenth-century liturgical books. He believes that it is equally unlikely,
although hypothetically possible, that this translation was made in Prague, noting that further study of
Czech breviaries might either prove or disprove his hypothesis. (Leszek Moszyński, “Czy głagolska msza
świętego Floriana mogła powstać w Krakowie,” Južnoslovenski filolog 40 (1984): 173–79.
26. Michałowska, Średniowiecze, 206–7. For the Latin edition, see Peregrinus de Opole, Sermones
de tempore et de sanctis, ed. Ryszard Tatarzyński (Warsaw, 1997).
27. Nazor, “O pewnych związkach,” 110.
28. Blagdanar (1506), The Archive of the Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts (Arhiv Hrvatske
akademije znanosti i umjetnosti), IV a 99. Josip Vrana, “Hrvatskoglagoljski blagdanar: Studija o pravo-
pisu, jeziku i podrijetlu novljanskog rukopisa iz godine 1506,” Rad Jugoslavenske akademije znanosti i
umjetnosti, Odjel za filologiju 285 (1951): 95–179; Nazor, “O pewnych związkach,” 108–10. The Pauline
monastery on Osap is also associated with the creation of the famous Second Novi Breviary of 1495. See
Marija Pantelić and Anica Nazor, eds., Breviarium novi II: Vollständige verkleinerte Faksimile-Ausgabe
der kroatisch-glagolitischen Handschrift aus dem Besitz des Archivs der Pfarre Novi Vinodol (Graz, 1977).
29. Ivan Kukuljević-Sarcinski, Acta Croatica (Zagreb, 1863), 46–47; Bratulić, “Književna djelatnost
hrvatskih pavlina,” 281.
30. Vjekoslav Štefanić, “Dvije frankopanske glagoljske darovnice Pavlinima,” Zbornik Historijskog
instituta Jugoslavenske akademije znanosti i umjetnosti 1 (1954): 144–45.
31. Ibid., 145.

224
 Notes to Pages 165–69

32. In his discussion Matthew of Miechow utilizes the works of ancient and contemporary histori-
ans. See Antoni Borzemski, “Kronika Miechowity: Rozbiór krytyczny,” Rozprawy Wydziału Filozoficzno-
Historycznego Akademii Umiejętności w Krakowie 26 (1891): 18–20, 30–35.
33. Biondo’s treatise De Italia Illustrata (1447–1453) was so popular that it had two incunabulum
editions (Rome, 1474 and Verona, 1481). Also see Vinko Grubišić, “Trojica humanista o rodnome mjestu
svetog Jeronima: Flavio Biondo, Marko Marulić i José de Espinoza de Sigüenza,” Colloquia Maruliana 17
(2008): 287–98.
34. “. . . ut tantum virum plane Italicum et non alienigenam fuisse constet.” Castner, Biondo Flavio’s
Italia Illustrata, 224–25.
35. “Et quidem non solum eas praedictis composuit, deditque Sclavonicas litteras, sed officium
quoque divinum, quo catholici utuntur Christiani ex Graeco in id novum idioma traduxit, quod gloriosus
pontifex Eugenius quartus, per nostras manus illis confirmavit.” Ibid., 226–27.
36. John M. McManamon, Pierpaolo Vergerio the Elder and Saint Jerome: An Edition and Transla-
tion of ‘Sermones pro Sancto Hieronymo’ (Tempe, AZ, 1999), 196–99; McManamon, “Pier Paolo Vergerio
(the Elder) and the Beginnings of the Humanist Cult of Jerome,” The Catholic Historical Review 71 (1985):
353–71.
37. Grubišić, “Trojica humanista,” 289–91.
38. “Amplius quod fuerunt Slaui ante Iustinianum imperatorem et Procopium scriptorem, et non
in diebus eorum aduenerunt, ueracissime in sancto Hieronymo et Martino comprobatur, qui genere et
lingua Slaui fuerunt. Sic namque beatus Hieronymus de seipso in fine libri de uiris illustribus scribit.
Hieronymus praesbiter patre Eusebio natus, oppido Stridonis, quod a Gothis euersum est, Dalmaciae
quondam Pannoniae que confinium fuit, usque in praesentem diem .i. annum Theodosii principis quar-
tumdecimum, haec Hieronymus. Postea autem Stridonis oppidum in eodem loco reedificatum, in nostra
tempora promanet, ad confinia Aquilegiae euntibus propinquum. Fuit beatus Hieronymus temporibus
Honorii et Archadii imperatorum usque ad 14 annum Theodosii iunioris, ut ipsemet refert, sed hi prin-
cipes longe ante Iustinianum et Procopium fuerunt. Hieronymum autem Slauum fore constat, ex littera-
tura in Slauonico Bukwicza nuncupata, quam ipse aedidit, et officia ecclesiastica sub illa litteratura Slauis
ordinauit. A Damaso papa indultum in lingua Slauorum missandi expediendo, quod aliter astruere in
Histria, Dalmacia, et Croacia sacrilegum est” (Maciej z Miechowa, Chronica Polonorum, introduction).
39. “But however we may like them [i.e., various Slavic dialects], still it must be acknowledged that
the Slavic Dalmatian language is far more elegant than our own, so if the prayers and sacred readings were
to be translated into the vernacular, they should be above all translated into that language [i.e., Dalma-
tian] from which our own originates and which also surpasses others in elegance. Particularly, as Jerome
translated the sacred books using the Dalmatian language, its use would seem less dangerous” (Quamlibet
autem non ipsos amemus, tamen illud fateantur necesse est, Slauorum aut Dalmatarum linguam esse
multo elegantiorem, quam sit nostra, ita, ut si precationes & sacras lectiones in vernaculam transferri lin-
guam oporteret, in eam potissimum transferendae sint a qua nostra duxit originem, quae praestat etiam
caeteris elegantia. Cum praesertim Dalmatica lingua sacros libros Hieronymum vertisse constet, ut in eius
usu minus esse periculi videatur). Stanislaus Hosius, Opera Omnia (Paris, 1562), 262G.
40. The exact date of this composition is unclear since it was not published during Marulić’s life.
Mate Suić, “Marko Marulić: In eos qui beatum Hieronymum Italum fuisse contendunt,” Mogućnosti 44
(1997): 228–41; Andrea Zlatar, “Marulićev polemički spis In eos qui beatum Hieronymum Italum esse con-
tendunt,” in Dani Hvarskog kazališta: Marko Marulić, ed. Nikola Batušić (Split, 1989), 212–20; Grubišić,
“Trojica humanista,” 292–94.
41. Craig R. Thompson, “Scripture for the Ploughboy and Some Others,” in Studies in the Con-
tinental Background of Renaissance English Literature: Essays Presented to John L. Lievsay, ed. Dale B. J.
Randall and George Walton Williams (Durham, NC, 1977), 3–28; Wim François, “Erasmus’ Plea for Bible
Reading in the Vernacular: The Legacy of the Devotio Moderna?,” Erasmus of Rotterdam Society Yearbook
28 (2008): 91–120.
42. Charles Béné, “Erasme de Rotterdam et Marc Marule de Split biographes de saint Jérôme,”
Recherches & Travaux 54 (1998): 197–212.
43. Rice, Saint Jerome, 132. For the Latin text of Erasmus’s Hieronymi Stridonensis Vita, see Desi­

225
 Notes to Pages 169–72

derius Erasmus, Erasmi Opuscula: A Supplement to the ‘Opera Omnia,’ ed. Wallace K. Ferguson (The
Hague, 1933), 134–90. On Erasmus’s depiction of Jerome, see Rice, Saint Jerome, 116–36; John C. Olin,
“Erasmus and Saint Jerome: The Close Bond and Its Significance,” Erasmus of Rotterdam Society Yearbook
7 (1987): 33–53; Mark Vessey, “Erasmus’ Jerome: The Publishing of a Christian Author,” Erasmus of Rot-
terdam Yearbook 14 (1994): 62–99.
44. Craig R. Thompson, “Jerome and the Testimony of Erasmus in Disputes over the Vernacular Bi-
ble,” Proceedings of the Patristic, Medieval, and Renaissance Conference (Villanova University) 6 (1981): 15.
45. For comprehensive discussion of this question, see Francis J. Thomson, “The Legacy”; Thom-
son, “The Influence of the Slavo-Latin (Glagolitic) Rite on the Decision of the Council of Trent about the
Use of the Vernacular in the Liturgy,” in Glagoljica i hrvatski glagolizam, ed. Marija-Ana Dürrigl, Milan
Mihaljević, and Franjo Velčić (Zagreb, 2004), 295–307.
46. Thompson, “Jerome and the Testimony of Erasmus,” 1–12.
47. José de Sigüenza, Vida de San Gerónimo Doctor de la Santa Iglesia (Madrid, 1595), 17–22; see
also the English translation, José de Sigüenza, The Life of Saint Jerome, the Great Doctor of the Church: In
Six Books, trans. Mariana Monteiro (London, 1907), 10–16.
48. “Traduce san Geronimo la Santa Escrituraen lengua Esclauona. Ordena en ella el oficio diuino.
Prueuase que no es bien estar la santa Escritura en lenguas vulgares.” Sigüenza, Vida de San Gerónimo,
4:5:373–93. (St. Jerome translates the Sacred Scriptures into Slavonic. He arranges the Divine Office
[Sigüenza, The Life of Saint Jerome, 336–45].)
49. “In hanc linguam ingens multitudo sacrorum librorum industria maxime diui Hyeronimi &
Cyrilli, translata est.” Paolo Giovio, De legatione Moschovitarum libellus (Rome, 1525), D3v.
50. Guillaume Postel, Linguarum duodecim characteribus differentium alphabetum introductio
(Paris, 1538), G4v–H3v.
51. “Anno a Christi natiuitate circiter trecentesimo, Pannoniis, Illiribus, Dalmatis, & Mysiis erat
vna eademque fere lingua permixta partim Graeco, partim Italo, & aliquando Germanico ob vicin-
iam sermone, quibus ipsis omnibus Hieronymus doctor theologus Dalmata characteres reperit (quos
statim subiungemus istis) vt quemadmodum a caeteris nationibus, lingua, ita & characteribus differ-
rent. Illis tamdiu vna vsi sunt quandiu ecclesia Rhomana potuit Graecam perferre.” Postel, Linguarum
duodecim, G4v.
52. “Ratione quam attuli superius, & vt fortasse in hac re etiam nomen consecraret immortalitati,
suis conterraneis hos reperit characteres Hieronymus, quibus etiam ipsis totam legem vetus et nouum
instrumentum cum sacrificio & precationibus traductam illorum idiomate scriptam reliquit, longe sane
ab opinione differens multorum, qui putant conspurcari sacras literas, si semel in manus populares ven-
erint. Quamuis olim quo tempore nondum a linguae Graecae & Latinae puritate deflexissent christiani
primaevae ecclesiae, omnes in illis linguis intelligerent sacras literas, imo imitabantur (invitabantur?)
ad lectionem, & concilio illo tam celebri in Nicae statutum erat poena interdicti, vt omnis Christianus
haberet apud se sacra bibliorum scripta ea lingua qua posset intelligere.” Postel, Linguarum duodecim, H2.
53. “The Tzervians or Poznanians use the characters of Jerome, or Dalmatian, as they have the same
language as Pannonians, Illyrians, Dalmatians, and Mysians. [. . .] For these people Jerome invented the
alphabet, so that in this way also they would differ from other nations, just as in language: and by this, too,
he may have immortalized his name. [. . .] The same Jerome left in this dialect the translations of the Old
and New Testaments with the Mass [sacrificium] and prayers. Thus say all the priests and people through-
out the whole of Dalmatia.” (Tzerviani seu Poznaniani usi sunt Characteribus Hieronymi seu Dalmaticis,
ut lingua fuit communis Pannoniis, Illyribus, Dalmatis, Mysis. [. . .] Quibus Hieronymus characteres
reperit ut in re differrent etiam a caeteris nationibus, sicut et lingua: etiam fortasse, ut in hac re no-
men consecravet immortalitati. [. . .] Idem Hieronymus vetus et novum instrumentum cum sacrificio et
precationibus traducta, eo Idiomate reliquit. Ita Sacerdotes omnes, et populus praedicat in tota Dalmatia.)
Theodor Bibliander, De ratione communi omnium linguarum & literarum (Zurich, 1548), 14–15. Conrad
Gessner also refers to Giovio: “It is said that Doctor Jerome translated the books of the Old Testament into
Dalmatian, that is, [his] native language. And Dalmatians speak Slavic.” (D. Hieronymum legimus libros
ueteris Testamenti in Dalmaticam siue patriam linguam transtulisse. Dalmatem autem Illyrice loquun-
tur.) Conrad Gessner, Mithridates: De differentiis linguarum tum veterum tum quae hodie apud diversas

226
 Notes to Pages 172–73

nationes in toto orbe terrarum in usu sunt, ed. Manfred Peters (Aalen, 1974), 199.
54. “It is believed that into this language the Holy Scripture was translated by St. Jerome in Slavic
letters and by St. Cyril in Serbian characters.” (In hanc linguam a Sancto Hieronymo Scripturam sacram
Sclavonicis literis, & a Sancto Cyrillo Servianis characteribus translatam fuisse credendum est.) Angelo
Rocca, Bibliothecae Vaticanae Appendix de Dialectis (Rome, 1591), 320.
55. “Refutatur error multorum, quo S. Hieronymus sacram Scripturam in linguam Dalmaticam
vel Slavonicam transtulisse asseritur.” Bollandists, Acta Sanctorum, vol. 8, Septembris (Antwerp, 1762),
670–72.
56. “Hodie nemo facile Eruditorum Slauis S. Hieronymum adscripserit; cum ante Iustiniani tem-
pora Slauos Illyricum non coluisse certum, exploratumque habeatur.” Balbín, Dissertatio, 64.
57. Josef Dobrovský, Cyrill und Method der Slawen Apostel: Ein historisch-kritischer Versuch
(Prague, 1823), 52–54.

227
 Bibliography

Manuscripts
Blagdanar (1506). The Archive of the Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts (Arhiv Hrvatske akademije
znanosti i umjetnosti), IV a 99.
Česká Bible Hlaholská Vyšebrodská. NKČR, XVII A 1.
Codex Gigas (1200–1230). National (Royal) Library of Sweden, A 148.
Hieronymianus. KMK, Cim. 6.
Kazania świętokrzyskie. BN, 8001.
Liber evangeliarum et epistolarum ad usum ecclesiae SS. Hieronymi et Procopii Pragensis, vulgo ‘Texte du
sacre’ dictus. Bibliothèque de Reims, MS 255.
Mass for St. Florian’s Day. In Glagolitic Missal (15th c.). Bodleian Library, Oxford, MS Canon. Liturg. 349, fol. 1.
Noviforensis, Iohannes. Summa cancellariae. In Letters and Religious Tracts (14th c.). The State Archive,
the Library of the Metropolitan Chapter in Olomouc (Státní archiv, Knihovna kapitulní v Olo-
mouci), Co 177, fols. 142–44v.
Psałterz floriański. BN, Akc. 7513.
Sbornik. State Historical Museum (Gosudarstvennyi istoricheskii muzei), Sinodal’noe sobranie, no. 558,
fols. 55v–59.
Sborník náboženských traktátů zv. Krumlovský (1401–1433). KNM, III B 10, fols. 1–111.
Sitbor, Johannes de. Chebské Officium sv. Jeronyma (1404). KNM, XII A 18.
———. Chebské Officium sv. Jeronyma. In Antiphonarium de sanctis notis musicis instructum (15th c.).
NKČR, XII A 9, fols. 8–8v.
Strahovský zlomek hlaholského gradualu. Strahov Library (Strahovská knihovna), inv. C. 290/zl.
“S(ve)ti Eronim’ imêše o(t)ca čast’na komu ime bêše Evsebiê slovênskago ezika i slovućago.” In Petrisov
zbornik (1468). NSK, R 4001, fols. 210v–13v.
Textus varii de sancto Hieronymo, Oracio de sancto Jeronimo. In Textus varii (ca. 1415). NKČR, VII E 13,
fol. 92v.
Thebaldus, Franciscus. “Ecclesie doctor Ciceronis codice flagrans.” In Textus varii (1366–1400). NKČR, XIV
D 23, fols. 93rb–93va.
———. “Ecclesie doctor Ciceronis codice flagrans.” In Textus varii (1410–1420). NKČR,VII E 13, fol. 92.
Zerzalo seu speculum illiricum vulgare characteribus glagoliticis vulgo hyeronimianis (scriptum) anno 1445.
The Vatican Library, Borgiano Illirico no. 9.

Printed Primary and Secondary Sources

Afanas’eva, E. V. “The Ancient Slavonic Translation of the Book of Job and Its Greek Original.” In Rezume
soobshchenii = Summaries of Communications: XVIII Mezhdunarodnyi Kongress Vizantinistov =
International Congress of Byzantine Studies, Moskovskii gosudarstvennyi universitet im. M. V. Lo-
monosova, 8–15 avgusta 1991. Moscow, 1991.
Alekseev, Anatolii A. “Filologicheskie kriterii vyiavleniia bibleiskikh perevodov sv. Mefodiia.” Polata
Knigopisnaja 14–15 (1985): 8–14.
———. “K opredeleniiu ob”ema literaturnogo naslediia Mefodiia (Chetii perevod Pesni pesnei).” TODRL
37 (1983): 229–55.
Alexander, Paul J. “The Papacy, the Bavarian Clergy, and the Slavonic Apostles.” Slavonic Year-Book,
American Series 1 (1941): 266–93.
Andersson-Schmitt, Margarete. “Eine mittelalterliche Beschreibung der Fresken im Emauskloster zu
Prag.” Umění 43 (1995): 224–31.
 Bibliography

Astell, Ann W. The Song of Songs in the Middle Ages. Ithaca, NY, 1990.
Azam, Olivier. “L’Histoire Controversee de la naissance du premier alphabet slave.” Slavica Occitania 12
(2001): 49–91.
Badurina-Stipčević, Vesna. Hrvatskoglagoljska legenda o svetom Pavlu Pustinjaku. Zagreb, 1992.
———. “Legenda o Jeronimu u starijoj hrvatskoj knjizevnoj tradiciji.” Wiener Slawistischer Almanach,
Sonderband 82 (2013): 17–26.
———. “Legenda o svetom Jeronimu u hrvatskoglagoljskom Petrisovu zborniku (1468).” In Trećoredska
glagoljaška tradicija u europskom kontekstu. Tertiary Glagolitic Tradition in European Context, ed-
ited by Ivan Botica, Tomislav Galović, and Kristijan Kuhar (Zagreb, forthcoming).
———. “Translacija sv. Pavla Pustinjaka u hrvatskoglagoljskom II. Novljanskom brevijaru iz 1495. godine.”
Slovo 58 (2008): 285–312.
Baecklund, Astrid. “Das Stockholmer Abecedarium.” Språkvetenskapliga Sällskapets i Uppsala Förhandlin-
gar (January 1940–December 1942): 115–50.
Balbín, Bohuslav. Dissertatio apologetica pro lingua Slavonica, praecipue Bohemica. Prague, 1775.
———. Epitome historica rerum Bohemicarum. Prague, 1677.
Barbalić, Radojica F., Andro Mohorovičić, and Petar Strčić. Bašćanska ploča. 2 vols. Zagreb, 1988.
Bartoňková, Dagmar, Lubomír Havlík, Jaroslav Ludvíkovský, Zdeněk Masařík, and Radoslav Večerka,
eds. Magnae Moraviae Fontes Historici. 5 vols. Prague, 1966–1977.
Barycz, Henryk. “Dziejowe związki Polski z Uniwersytetem Karola w Pradze.” Przegląd zachodni 3 (1948):
7–18.
———. Z dziejów polskich wędrówek naukowych za granicę. Wrocław, 1969.
Bažant, Jan. The Classical Tradition in Czech Medieval Art. Berlin, 2003.
Bělohlávek, Alexander. “Die böhmischen Krönungsinsignien.” Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte 53 (1990):
209–15.
Béné, Charles. “Erasme de Rotterdam et Marc Marule de Split biographes de saint Jérôme.” Recherches &
Travaux 54 (1998): 197–212.
Benešovská, Klára. “Benediktinský klášter Na Slovanech s kostelem Panny Marie a Slovanských Patronů.”
Umění 44 (1996): 118–30.
Benešovská, Klára, and Kateřina Kubínová, eds. Emauzy: Benedictinský klášter Na Slovanech v srdci Prahy.
Prague, 2007.
Berčić, Ivan. Dvie službe rimskoga obreda za svetkovinu svetih Ćirila i Metuda. Zagreb, 1870.
Berend, Nora, ed. Christianization and the Rise of Christian Monarchy: Scandinavia, Central Europe and
Rus’ c. 900–1200. Cambridge, 2007.
Bernik, France, Igor Grdina, Janez Zor, Marko Kranjec, Jože Faganel, and Darko Dolinar, eds. Brižinski
spomeniki: Monumenta Frisingensia; Znanstvenokritična izdaja. Ljubljana, 2004.
Bertau, Karl, ed. Johannes de Tepla, Civis Zacensis, Epistola cum Libello Ackerman und Das Büchlein Acker-
man, by Johannes de Tepla, 1:xxxii–xxxiii. Berlin, 1994.
Betti, Maddalena. The Making of Christian Moravia (858–882): Papal Power and Political Reality. Leiden,
2014.
Bibliander, Theodor. De ratione communi omnium linguarum & literarum. Zurich, 1548.
Bielak, Włodzimierz. Devotio moderna w polskich traktatach duszpasterskich powstałych do połowy XV
wieku. Lublin, 2002.
Birnbaum, Henrik. “Eastern and Western Components in the Earliest Slavic Liturgy.” In Essays in Early
Slavic Civilization, 36–51. Munich, 1981.
———. “How Did Glagolitic Writing Reach the Coastal Regions of Northwestern Croatia?” Hercigonjin
zbornik, Croatica 42–44 (1996): 67–79.
———. “Some Remaining Puzzles in Cyrillo-Methodian Studies.” Slovo 47–49 (1997–1999): 7–32.
———. “Where Was the Missionary Field of SS. Cyril and Methodius?” In Thessaloniki, 47–52.
Bitterfeld de Brega, Henricus. Tractatus De vita contemplativa et activa. Edited by Bruno Mazur, Władysław
Seńko, and Ryszard Tatarzyński. Preface by Kazimierz Marciniak. Warsaw, 2003.
Bláhová, Emilie. “Literární vztahy Sázavy a Kyjevské Rusi.” In Svatý Prokop, Čechy a Střední Evropa, edited
by Petr Sommer, 219–34. Prague, 2006.

230
 Bibliography

———. “Über der kyrillischen Teil des Reimster Evangeliums oder über die Resuszitation eines Mythos.”
Byzantinoslavica 56 (1995): 593–99.
Bláhová, Emilie, Václav Konzal, and A. I. Rogov, Staroslověnské legendy českého původu. Prague, 1976.
Bláhová, Marie. “Česká kronika Jana Marignoly.” In Kroniky doby Karla IV. Prague, 1987.
———. “The Function of the Saints in Early Bohemian Historical Writing.” In The Making of Christian
Myths in the Periphery of Latin Christendom (c. 1000–1300), edited by Lars Boje Mortensen, 83–
119. Copenhagen, 2006.
———. “. . . kako jest koruna z Moravy vyšla. . . .” Mediaevalia Historica Bohemica 3 (1993): 165–76.
———. “Klášterní fundace Karla IV.” In Emauzy, 27–28.
———. Kroniky doby Karla IV. Prague, 1987.
———. “Odraz státní ideologie v oficiální historiografii doby předhusické.” Folia Historica Bohemica 12
(1988): 269–88.
———. “Život a dílo Jana ze Středy.” In Studia z dziejów środy śląskiej, regionu i prawa średzkiego, edited by
Ryszard Gladkiewicz, 77–93. Acta Universitatis Wratislaviensis 980, Historia 79. Wrocław, 1990.
Blaschka, Anton. “Das St. Hieronymus-Offizium des “Ackermann”-Dichters.” In Heimat und Volk:
Forschungsbeiträge zur sudetendeutschen Geschichte; Festschrift für Universitätsprofessor Dr. Wil-
helm Wostry zum 60. Geburtstage, edited by Anton Ernstberger and Wilhelm Wostry, 107–55.
Brünn, 1937.
Bloch, Herbert. Monte Cassino in the Middle Ages. 3 vols. Cambridge, MA, 1986.
Boba, Imre. “The Episcopacy of St. Methodius.” Slavic Review 26 (1967): 85–93.
Bogović, Mile. Glagoljica u Senju. Senj, 1994.
———. Hrvatsko glagoljsko tisućljeće. Senjski zbornik 25, no. 1 (1998): 1–140.
Boháč, Zdeněk. “Národnostní poměry v zemích České koruny.” In Husitství, Reformace, Renesance:
Sborník k 60. narozeninám Františka Šmahela, edited by Jaroslav Pánek, Miloslav Polívka, and No-
emi Rejchrtová, 1:123–31. Prague, 1994.
Boldan, Kamil, Michal Dragoun, Dušan Foltýn, Jindřich Marek, and Zdeněk Uhlíř. Codex Gigas, the Dev-
il’s Bible: The Secrets of the World’s Largest Book. Prague, 2007.
Bollandists. Acta Sanctorum. Vol. 8, Septembris. Antwerp, 1762.
———. Bibliotheca Hagiographica Latina Antiquae et Mediae Aetatis. Vol. 1. Brussels, 1898–1899.
Borkowska, Urszula. Dynastia Jagiellonów w Polsce. Warsaw, 2011.
———. “Królewscy spowiednicy.” In Ludzie, kościół, wierzenia: Studia z dziejów kultury i społeczeństwa
Europy Środkowej, edited by Wojciech Iwańczak and Stefan K. Kuczyński, 173–94. Warsaw, 2001.
Borzemski, Antoni. “Kronika Miechowity: Rozbiór krytyczny.” Rozprawy Wydziału Filozoficzno-History-
cznego Akademii Umiejętności w Krakowie 26 (1891): 1–199.
Bratulić, Josip. “Književna djelatnost hrvatskih pavlina.” In Kultura pavlina u Hrvatskoj, 1244–1784, ed-
ited by Đurđica Cvitanović, Vladimir Maleković, and Jadranka Petričević, 279–95. Zagreb, 1989.
———. “Rimska Kurija i misija Konstantina-Ćirila i Methodija.” Slovo 36 (1986): 45–50.
———. “Sveti Jeronim Dalmatinac.” In Sveti Jeronim, Izbrane poslanice, edited by Adalbert Rebić, ix–xlv.
Split, 1990.
Bratulić, Josip, and Stjepan Damjanović. Hrvatska pisana kultura: Izbor djela pisanih latinicom, glagolji-
com i ćirilicom od VIII. do XXI. stoljeća. Vol. 1, VIII–XVII. stoljeće. Zagreb, 2005.
Brodský, Pavel. Katalog iluminovaných rukopisu Knihovny Národního muzea v Praze. Prague, 2000.
Brückner, Aleksander. “Kazania średniowieczne,” Cz. 2. Rozprawy Wydziału Filologicznego Polskiej Aka-
demii Umiejętności 24 (Cracow, 1895).
Brynychová, Věra. “České Proroctví Sibyllino v ruském překladě.” Český lid 27 (1927): 49–60.
Bystřický, Jan, Miroslav Boháček, and František Čáda. “Seznam rukopisů metropolitní kapituly v Olo-
mouci.” In Statní archiv v Opavě: Průvodce po archivních fondech. Vol. 3, Pobočka v Olomouci, ed-
ited by Adolf Turek. Prague, 1961.
Cain, Andrew, and Josef Lössl, eds. Jerome of Stridon: His Life, Writings and Legacy. Farnham, UK, 2009.
Čajka, František. Církevněslovanská legenda o svaté Anastázii. Prague, 2011.
Castner, Catherine J. Biondo Flavio’s Italia Illustrata: Text, Translation, and Commentary. Vol. 1, Northern
Italy. Binghamton, NY, 2005.

231
 Bibliography

Čechura, Jiří. Kladruby v pohledu devíti staletí. Plzeň, 1995.

Čermák, Dominik K. Premonstráti v Čechách a na Moravě. Prague, 1877.
Čermák, Václav. “Emauzský hlaholský nápis—příspěvek k hlaholské epigrafice.” Slavia 74 (2005): 343–58.
———. “Hlaholská abecedaria v českém prostředí.” In Cesty slov, edited by Petr Nejedlý and Miloslava
Vajdlová, 36–42. Prague, 2012.
Chadraba, Rudolf. “Apostolus orientis: Poselství Jana z Marignoly.” In Z tradic, 127–34.
———. “Der ‘Zweite Konstantin’: Zum Verhältnis von Staat und Kirche in der karolingischen Kunst Böh-
mens.” Umění 26 (1978): 505–20.
———. “Kaiser Karls IV. devotio antiqua.” Mediaevalia Bohemica 1 (1969): 51–67.
———. Staroměstská Mostecká věž a triumfální symbolika v umění Karla IV. Prague, 1971.
———. “Tradice druhého Konstantina a řeckoperská antiteze v umění Karla IV.” Umění 16 (1968): 567–
603.
Chaloupecký, Václav. The Caroline University at Prague: Its Foundation, Character and Development in the
Fourteenth Century. Prague, 1948.
———. “Karel IV. a Čechy.” In Vlastní životopis Karla IV., edited by Jakub Pavel and Václav Chaloupecký,
5–87. Prague, 1946.
———, ed. Svatováclavský sborník. Vol. 2, part 2, Prameny 10. století: Legendy kristiánovy o Svatém Václavu
a Svaté Ludmile. Prague, 1939.
Charles IV. Karoli IV Imperatoris Romanorum Vita ab eo ipso conscripta: Et Hystoria nova de Sancto Wenc-
eslao martyre/Autobiography of Emperor Charles IV; and, His Legend of St. Wenceslas. Edited by
Balázs Nagy and Frank Schaer. Translated by Paul W. Knoll and Frank Schaer. Budapest, 2001.
Cherepnin, L. V. “Dogovornye i duchovnye gramoty Dmitriia Donskogo.” Istoricheskie zapiski 24 (1947):
225–66.
Cibulka, Josef. The Crown Jewels of the Bohemian Kingdom. Prague, 1969.
———. Korunovační klenoty království českého. Prague, 1969.
———. Velkomoravský kostel v Modré u Velehradu a začátky křest’anství na Moravě. Prague, 1958.
Codex Diplomaticus et Epistolaris Moraviae. 15 vols. Olomouc, 1836–1903.
Cooper, Henry R. “The Origins of the Church Slavonic Version of the Bible.” In The Interpretation of the
Bible: The International Symposium in Slovenia, edited by Jože Krašovec, 959–72. Sheffield, UK.
———. Slavic Scriptures: The Formation of the Church Slavonic Version of the Holy Bible. Madison, WI,
2003.
Corin, Andrew. “O reformama hrvatskoglagoljskih liturgiskih knjiga u 13. stoljeću.” In Prvi hrvatski
slavistički kongres: Zbornik radova, edited by Stjepan Damjanović et al., 527–38. Zagreb, 1997.
Ćorović-Ljubinković, Mirjana. “Odraz kulta Ćirila i Methodija u balkanskoj srednevekovnoj umetnosti.”
In Simpozium 1100-godišnina od smrtta na Kiril Solunski, edited by Radmila Ugrinova-Skalovska,
1:123–30. Skopje, 1970.
Crossley, Paul. “The Politics of Presentation: The Architecture of Charles IV of Bohemia.” In Courts and
Regions in Medieval Europe, edited by Sarah Rees Jones, Richard Marks, and Alastair J. Minnis,
99–172. York, UK, 2000.
Crossley, Paul, and Zoё Opačić. “Koruna českého království.” In Karel IV. Císař z boží milosti: Kultura a
umění za vlády posledních Lucemburků, 1310–1437, edited by Jiří Fajt and Barbara Drake Boehm,
197–217. Prague, 2006.
———. “Prague as a New Capital.” In Prague: The Crown of Bohemia, 1347–1437, edited by Jiří Fajt and
Barbara Drake Boehm, 59–73. New Haven, CT, 2005.
Curta, Florin. Southeastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 500–1250. Cambridge, 2006.
Cybulski, Marek. Bohemizmy ortograficzne w drugiej i trzeciej częsci „Psalterza florianskiego.” Wrocław,
1987.
Čyževs’kyj, Dmitro. “Der hl. Method—Organizator, Missionar, Politiker und Dichter.” In Methodiana:
Beiträge zur Zeit und Persönlichkeit sowie zum Schicksal und Werk des hl. Method, edited by Franz
Zagiba, 7–21. Annales Instituti Slavici Salisburgo-Ratisbonensis 9. Vienna, 1976.
———. “K otázce v původu slovanského písma.” In Slovanské studie: Sbírka statí, věnovaných J. Vajsovi,
edited by Josef Kurz, 52–57. Prague, 1948.

232
 Bibliography

———. “K voprosu o liturgii sv. Petra.” Slovo (1953): 37–41.

Damjanović, Stjepan. “Bilješke o jeziku glagoljaške Benediktinske Regule.” In Zavičajnik: Zbornik Stani­
slava Marijanovića; Povodom sedamdesetogodišnjice života i četrdesetpetogodišnjice znanstvenoga
rada, edited by Milovan Tatarin, 141–48. Osijek, 2005.
———. “Otpis pape Inocenta IV. Senjskom biskupu Filipu iz godine 1248.” In Jazik otačaski, 82–89. Zagreb
1995.
———. Tragom jezika hrvatskih glagoljaša. Zagreb, 1984.
Daňhelka, Jiří, Karel Hádek, Bohuslav Havránek, and Naděžda Kvítková, eds. Staročeská Kronika tak
řečeného Dalimila. Vol. 1, Vydání textu a veškerého textového materiálu. Prague, 1988.
Danylenko, Andrii. “‘Prostaia mova,’ ‘Kitab,’ and Polissian Standard.” Die Welt der Slaven 51 (2006): 80–
115.
Dimitrova, Margaret, and Adelina Angusheva. “Medieval Croato-Glagolitic Manuscript Tradition: Be-
tween East and West.” In Srednovekovna khristianska Evropa: Iztok i zapad; Tsennosti, traditsii,
obshtuvane/Medieval Christian Europe: East and West, edited by Vasil Giuzelev and Anisava Milte­
nova, 182–96. Sofia, 2002.
Długosz, Jan. Joannis Dlugosii Annales seu Cronicae Incliti Regni Poloniae. Vol. 10, 1370–1405. Edited by
Danuta Turkowska. Warsaw, 1985.
———. Liber Beneficiorum dioecesis Cracoviensis. 3 vols. Cracow, 1863–1864.
———. Opera Omnia. Vol. 1, Vita S. Stanislai, vita B. Kunegundis, vitae episcoporum Poloniae. Edited by
Ignatius Polkowski and Żegota Pauli. Cracow, 1887.
Dobrovský, Josef. Cyrill und Method der Slawen Apostel: Ein historisch-kritischer Versuch. Prague, 1823.
Dobrowolski, Kazimierz. Dzieje kultu św. Floriana w Polsce do połowy XVI wieku. Warsaw, 1923.
Dobrzyński, Zbigniew. Obrządek słowiański w dawnej Polsce. Warsaw, 1989.
Doležalová, Eva. “Stopy svatého Jeronýma v Čechách na konci 14. století.” In Evropa a Čechy na konci
středověku: Sborník příspěvků věnovaných Františku Šmahelovi, edited by Eva Doležalová, Robert
Novotný, and Pavel Soukup, 207–20. Prague, 2004.
Dostál, Antonín. “Origins of the Slavonic Liturgy.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 19 (1965): 67–87.
Dotti, Ugo. “Petrarch in Bohemia: Culture and Civil Life in the Correspondence between Petrarch and Jo-
hann von Neumarkt.” In Petrarch and His Readers in the Renaissance, edited by Karl A. E. Enenkel
and Jan Papy, 73–87. Leiden, 2006.
Dreves, Guido Maria, ed. Historiae Rhythmicae: Liturgische Reimofficien des Mittelalters, Analecta Hym-
nica Medii Aevi 26. Leipzig, 1897.
———. Hymni Inediti: Liturgische Hymnen des Mittelalters. Analecta Hymnica Medii Aevi 4. Leipzig, 1888.
———. Pia Dictamina: Reimgebete und Leselieder des Mittelalters. Analecta Hymnica Medii Aevi 15.
Leipzig, 1893.
Dróżdż, Andrzej. “Propozycja badawcza dekoracji Psałterza floriańskiego.” Rocznik Biblioteki Narodowej
25 (2003): 201–10.
Dubarat, Victor Pierre, ed. Le Bréviaire de Lescar de 1541. Paris, 1891.
Dubravius, Johannes. Historia Bohemica. Frankfurt, 1687.
Duczmal, Małgorzata. “Jadwiga Andegaweńska.” In Jagiellonowie: Leksykon biograficzny, 305–16. Cracow,
1996.
Dümmler, Ernest, ed. Poetae Latini Aevi Carolini. 2 vols. Berlin, 1884.
Dvornik, Francis. Byzantine Missions among the Slavs: SS. Constantine-Cyril and Methodius. New Bruns-
wick, NJ, 1970.
———. Les légendes de Constantin et de Méthode vues de Byzance. Byzantinoslavica Supplementa l. Prague, 1933.
Dzikówna, Janina. Kleparz do 1528 roku. Cracow, 1932.
Dzino, Danijel. Becoming Slav, Becoming Croat: Identity Transformations in Post-Roman and Early Medieval
Dalmatia. Leiden, 2010.
Džurova, Aksinija, Krasimir Stančev, and Marko Japundžić, eds. Catalogo dei manoscritti slavi della Bib-
lioteca Vaticana. Sofia, 1985.
Eggers, Martin. Das Erzbistum des Method: Lage, Wirkung und Nachleben der kyrillo-methodianischen
Mission. Munich, 1996.

233
 Bibliography

———. “The Historical-Geographical Implications of the Cyrillo-Methodian Mission among the Slavs.” In
Thessaloniki, 65–86.
Emler, Josef, ed. Fontes Rerum Bohemicarum. 6 vols. Prague, 1871–1907.
———. Regesta Diplomatica nec non Epistolaria Bohemiae et Moraviae. Vol. 2, Annorum 1253–1310.
Prague, 1882.
Engstová, Kateřina. “Jan Marignola a památky doby Karla IV.” Český časopis historický 97 (1999): 476–505.
Erasmus, Desiderius. Erasmi Opuscula: A Supplement to the ‘Opera Omnia.’ Edited by Wallace K. Fergu-
son. The Hague, 1933.
Fajt, Jiří, and Barbara Drake Boehm, eds. Karel IV. Císař z boží milosti: Kultura a umění za vlády posledních
Lucemburků, 1310–1437. Prague, 2006.
———. Prague: The Crown of Bohemia, 1347–1437. New Haven, CT, 2005.
Fiala, Zdeněk. Hlavní pramen legendy Kristiánovy. Prague, 1974.
Fijałek, Jan Nepomucen. Mistrz Jakób z Paradyża i uniwersytet krakowski w okresie soboru bazylejskiego.
2 vols. Cracow, 1900.
———. Studya do dziejów Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego i jego Wydziału Teologicznego w XV wieku. Cracow,
1898.
Fine, John V. A. The Early Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Sixth to the Late Twelfth Century.
Ann Arbor, MI, 1983.
———. “The Slavic Saint Jerome: An Entertainment.” In Cultures and Nations of Central and Eastern Europe:
Essays in Honor of Roman Szporluk, edited by Zvi Gitelman, Lubomyr Hajda, John-Paul Himka, and
Roman Solchanyk, 101–12. Cambridge, MA, 2000.
———. When Ethnicity Did Not Matter in the Balkans. Ann Arbor, MI, 2006.
Flajšhans, Václav, ed. M. Io. Hus Sermones in Capella Bethlehem, 1410–1411. 6 vols. Prague, 1938–1945.
Flanigan, C. Clifford, Kathleen Ashley, and Pamela Sheingorn. “Liturgy as Social Performance: Expand-
ing the Definitions.” In The Liturgy of the Medieval Church, edited by Thomas J. Heffernan and E.
Ann Matter, 635–52. Kalamazoo, MI, 2005.
Floria, B. N. Skazaniia o nachale slavianskoi pis’mennosti. St. Petersburg, 2004.
François, Wim. “Erasmus’ Plea for Bible Reading in the Vernacular: The Legacy of the Devotio Moderna?”
Erasmus of Rotterdam Society Yearbook 28 (2008): 91–120.
Frick, David A. Polish Sacred Philology in the Reformation and the Counter-Reformation. Berkeley, CA,
1989.
Friedberg, Emil, ed. Corpus Iuris Canonici. Vol. 2, Decretalium collectiones. Leipzig, 1881.
Fritz, Wolfgang D., ed. Die Goldene Bulle Kaiser Karls IV. vom Jahre 1356: Bulla Aurea Karoli IV. Imperato-
ris Anno MCCCLVI Promulgata. Fontes Iuris Germanici Antiqui 11. Weimar, 1972.
Fućak, Jerko. Šest stoljeća hrvatskoga lekcionara u sklopu jedanaest stoljeća hrvatskoga glagoljaštva. Zagreb,
1975.
Fuchs, Gottlieb. Reformations- und Kirchengeschichte des Fürstenthums Oels: Mit dazu gehörigen Beweisen.
Breslau, 1779.
Fučić, Branko. “The Croatian Glagolitic and Cyrillic Epigraphs.” In Croatia, 1:259–82.
———. Glagoljski natpisi. Djela Jugoslavenske akademije znanosti i umjetnosti 57. Zagreb, 1982.
Fürst, Alfons. Hieronymus: Askese und Wissenschaft in der Spätantike. Freiburg, 2003.
Galuška, Luděk. “Archeologický skanzen v Modré u Velehradu—velkomoravské opevněné sídliště
středního Pomoraví.” Archaeologia historica 30 (2005): 9–22.
Ganszyniec, Ryszard, Witold Taszycki, Stefan Kubica, and Ludwik Bernacki, eds. Psalterium florianense
latino-polono-germanicum: Psałterz floriański łacińsko-polsko-niemiecki; Rękopis Biblioteki Nar-
odowej w Warszawie. Lwów, 1939.
Garzaniti, Marcello. Die altslavische Version der Evangelien: Forschungsgeschichte und zeitgenössische
Forschung. Cologne, 2001.
Gasparov, Boris. Old Church Slavonic. Munich, 2001.
Gębarowicz, Mieczysław. Psałterz floriański i jego geneza. Wrocław, 1965.
Gerwing, Manfred. “Heinrich von Bitterfeld als Reformer.” Theologie und Glaube 95 (2005): 409–22.
Gessner, Conrad. Mithridates: De differentiis linguarum tum veterum tum quae hodie apud diversas natio-

234
 Bibliography

nes in toto orbe terrarum in usu sunt. Edited by Manfred Peters. Aalen, 1974.
Giedroyc, Michal. “Lithuanian Options Prior to Kreva (1385).” In La Cristianizzazione della Lituania,
edited by Paulius Rabikauskas, 87–105. Vatican City, 1989.
Gil, Andrzej. Prawosławna eparchia chełmska do 1596 roku. Lublin, 1999.
Giovio, Paolo. De legatione Moschovitarum libellus. Rome, 1525.
Glanc, Tomáš, Holt Meyer, and Ekaterina Vel’mezerova, eds. Inventing Slavia. Prague, 2005.
Goldblatt, Harvey. “History and Hagiography: Recent Studies on the Text and Textual Traditions of the
Life of Constantine.” Harvard Ukrainian Studies 19 (1995–1997): 158–79.
Gorskii, A. V., and K. I. Nevostruev. Opisanie slavianskikh rukopisei moskovskoi Sinodal’noi biblioteki. Vol.
2, part 3. Moscow, 1862.
Grabar, Biserka. “Ćirilometodski i staroslavenski prijevodi u hrvatskoglagoljskim prijepisima.” Slovo 36
(1986): 87–94.
———. “Kult Ćirila i Metodija u Hrvata.” Slovo 36 (1986): 141–45.
Graus, František. “Die Bildung eines Nationalbewusstseins im mittelalterlichen Böhmen.” Historica 13
(1966): 5–49.
———. “Die Entwicklung der Legenden der sogennanten Slavenpostel Konstantin und Method in Böh-
men und Mähren.” Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas 19 (1971): 161–211.
———. “Slovanská liturgie a písemnictví v přemyslovských Čechách 10. století.” Československý časopis
historický 14 (1966): 473–95.
———. “St. Adalbert und St. Wenzel: Zur Funktion der mittelalterlichen Heiligenverehrung in Böhmen.”
In Europa Slavica, Europa Orientalis: Festschrift für Herbert Ludat zum 70. Geburtstag, edited by
Klaus-Detlev Grothusen and Klaus Zernack, 205–31. Berlin, 1980.
Grubišić, Vinko. “Trojica humanista o rodnome mjestu svetog Jeronima: Flavio Biondo, Marko Marulić i
José de Espinoza de Sigüenza.” Colloquia Maruliana 17 (2008): 287–98.
Grüger, Heinrich. “Schlesisches Klosterbuch. Oels. Abtei der slawischen Benediktiner.” Jahrbuch der
Schlesischen Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität zu Breslau 29 (1988): 7–13.
Hahn, Gerhard. Der Ackermann aus Böhmen des Johannes von Tepl. Erträge der Forschung 215. Darm-
stadt, 1984.
Halecki, Oscar. Jadwiga of Anjou and the Rise of East Central Europe. Boulder, CO, 1991.
Hansel, Alfred. “Johann von Neumarkts kirchliche Laufbahn: Ein Beitrag zu seiner Biographie.” Jahrbücher
für Kultur und Geschichte der Slaven, n.s. 3 (1927): 299–344.
Hamm, Josip. “Glagoljica u predrenesansno doba.” In Studia Paleoslovenica, 95–104. Prague, 1971.
———. “Hrvatski glagoljaši u Pragu.” Zbornik za slavistiku 1 (1970): 84–99.
———. “Hrvatski tip crkvenoslavenskog jezika.” Slovo 13 (1963): 43–67.
Hammer, William. “The Concept of the New or Second Rome in the Middle Ages.” Speculum 19 (1944):
50–62.
Hannick, Christian. “Zur altkroatischen glagolitischen Regula Benedicti.” Slovo 56–57 (2008): 187–95.
Hauptová, Zoë. “Církevněslovanské písemnictví v přemyslovských Čechách.” In Jazyk a literatura v his-
torické perspektivě, edited by Dobrava Moldanová, 5–42. Ustí nad Labem, 1998.
Havránek, Bohuslav. “K názvům lingua sclavonica, boëmo-slavica = český jazyk a Sclavus, Slavus = Čech,
Slovák.” Listy filologické 52 (1925): 111–20.
———. “Otázka existence církevní slovanštiny v Polsku.” Slavia 25 (1956): 300–305.
Hellenic Association for Slavic Studies. Thessaloniki Magna Moravia: Proceedings of the International Con-
ference, Thessaloniki 16–19 October 1997. Thessaloniki, 1999.
Helmling, Leandr, and Adalbert Horcicka, eds. Die Urkunden des königlichen Stiftes Emaus in Prag. Vol. 1,
Das vollständige Registrum Slavorum. Prague, 1904.
Hercigonja, Eduard. “Glagolism in the High Middle Ages.” In Croatia, 2:171–226.
———. “Glagolists and Glagolism.” In Croatia, 1:369–98.
———. “Glagoljaštvo u društvenom životu i kulturi Hrvata od IX do XVIII stoljeća.” Ricerche Slavistiche
38 (1991): 53–91.
———. Povijest hrvatske književnosti. Vol. 2, Srednjovjekovna književnost. Zagreb, 1975.
———. Tropismena i trojezična kultura hrvatskoga srednjovjekovlja. Zagreb, 1994.

235
 Bibliography

Herren, Michael W. The Cosmography of Aethicus Ister: Edition, Translation, and Commentary. Publica-
tions of the Journal of Medieval Latin 8. Turnhout, 2011.
———. “The Cosmography of Aethicus Ister: Speculations about Its Date, Provenance, and Audience.” In
Nova de Veteribus: Mittel- und neulateinische Studien für Paul Gerhard Schmidt, edited by Andreas
Bihrer and Elisabeth Stein, 79–102. Munich, 2004.
———. “Wozu diente die Fälschung der Kosmographie des Aethicus?” In Lateinische Kultur im VIII Jahr-
hundert, edited by Albert Lehner and Walter Berschin, 145–59. St. Ottilien, 1989.
Heyne, Johann. Dokumentirte Geschichte des Bisthums und Hochstiftes Breslau: Aus Urkunden, Akten-
stücken, älteren Chronisten und neueren Geschichtschreibern. 3 vols. Breslau, 1860–1868.
Hieronymus of Prague, Sermones. In Annales Camaldulenses ordinis Sancti Benedicti, edited by Johannes
Benedictus Mittarelli and Anselmus Costadoni, 9:821–33. Venice, 1773.
Hledíková, Zdeňka. “Die Prager Erzbischöfe als ständige päpstliche Legaten: Ein Beitrag zur Kirchenpoli-
tik Karls IV.” Beiträge zur Geschichte des Bistums Regensburg 6 (1972): 221–56.
———. “Karlovy církevní fundace a koncepce jeho vlády.” In Mezinárodní vědecká konference “Doba Karla
IV. v dějinách národů ČSSR” pořádaná Univerzitou Karlovou v Praze k 600. výročí úmrtí Karla
IV., 29.11–1.12.1978: Materiály z plenárního zasedání a ze sekce historie, edited by Michal Svatoš,
142–51. Prague, 1981.
Hlobil, Ivo. “Svatováclavská koruna: Poznamky k jejímu vzniku a přemyslovské tradici.” In České
korunovační klenoty: Pamětní vydání ke vzniku České republiky, 45–53. Prague, 1993.
Horálek, Karel. “K otázce české cyrilice.” In Z tradic, 23–25.
Horvat, Karlo. “Glagolitica Vaticana: Nekoliko prinosa glagolskim spomenicima, što se čuvaju u Rimu.”
In Hrvatska glagolska bibliografija, by Ivan Milčetić, 506–36. Jugoslavenska Akademija znanosti i
umjetnosti, Starine 33. Zagreb, 1911.
Hosius, Stanislaus. Opera Omnia. Paris, 1562.
Hrabová, Libuše. “Výzvy Bernarda z Clairvaux ke druhé křížové výpravě a jejich pozdější souvislosti.”
Historica, Acta Universitatis Palackianae Olomucensis, Facultas Philosophica 33 (2007): 53–66.
Hrochová, Věra. “Karel IV., jižní Slované a Byzanc.” In Mezinárodní vědecká konference “Doba Karla IV. v
dějinách národů ČSSR” pořádaná Univerzitou Karlovou v Praze k 600. výročí úmrtí Karla IV. 29.11–
1.12.1978: Materiály z plenárního zasedání a ze sekce historie, edited by Michal Svatoš, 192–99.
Prague, 1981.
Hrubý, Vilém. Staré Město: Velkomoravský Velehrad. Prague, 1965.
Hrubý, Vilém, Věra Hochmanová, and Jan Pavelčík. “Kostel a pohřebiště z doby velkomoravské na Modré
u Velehradu.” Časopis Moravského muzea—vědy společenské 40 (1955): 42–126.
Huňáček, Václav. “Klášter na Slovanech a počátky východoslovanských studií u nás,” in Z tradic, 177–79.
Hurt, Rudolf. Dějiny cisterciáckého kláštera na Velehradě. 2 vols. Olomouc, 1934–1938.
Hus, John. Opera Omnia. Vol. 7, Sermones de tempore qui Collecta dicuntur. Edited by Anežka Vidmanová-
Schmidtová. Prague, 1959.
Hyland, William P. “Abbot John-Jerome of Prague: Preaching and Reform in Early Fifteenth-Century
Poland.” Analecta Praemonstratensia 80 (2004): 5–42.
———. “John-Jerome of Prague (1368–1440): A Norbertine Missionary in Lithuania.” Analecta Praemon-
stratensia 78 (2002): 228–54.
Il’inskii, G. A. “Gde, kogda, kem i s kakoiu tsel’iu glagolitsa byla zamenena ‘kirillitsei’?” Byzantinoslavica
3 (1931): 79–88.
Illich, Ivan. In the Vineyard of the Text: A Commentary to Hugh’s ‘Didascalicon.’ Chicago, 1993.
Irvine, Martin. The Making of Textual Culture: ‘Grammatica’ and Literary Theory, 350–1100. Cambridge
Studies in Medieval Literature 19. Cambridge, 1994.
Isidor of Seville. Isidori Hispalensis episcopi Etymologiarvm sive Originvm Libri XX. Edited by W. M. Lind-
say. Oxford, 1911.
Ivančić, Stjepan Nauč. Povjestne crte o samostanskom III Redu sv. O. Franje po Dalmaciji, Kvarneru i Istri i
Poraba Glagolice u istoj redodržavi. Zadar, 1910.
Ivanov, Jordan. Balgarski starini iz Makedonija. 2nd ed. Sofia, 1970.
Ivanova, T. A. “Glagolitsa: Novye gipotezy.” TODRL 56 (2004): 78–93.

236
 Bibliography

Ivšić, Stjepan. “Dosad nepoznati hrvatski glagoljski prijevodi iz staročeškoga jezika.” Slavia 1 (1922):
38–56.
———. “Još o dosad nepoznatim hrvatskim glagolskim prijevodima iz staročeškoga jezika.” Slavia 6
(1927–1928): 40–63.
Jadart, Henri. Le dossier de l’évangéliaire slave à la bibliothèque de Reims. Besançon, 1902.
Jakobson, Roman. “The Beginning of National Self-Determination in Europe.” In SW, 115–28.
———. Selected Writings. Vol. 6, Early Slavic Paths and Crossroads. Part 1. Berlin, 1985.
———. “Slavism as a Topic of Comparative Studies.” In SW, 65–85.
———. “St. Constantine’s Prologue to the Gospels.” In SW, 196–99.
Japundžić, Marko. Hrvatska glagoljica. Zagreb, 1998.
———. “Kult i služba Svete Braće Ćirila i Metoda u glagoljskoj literature.” In Tragom hrvatskoga glagolizma,
16–46. Zagreb, 1995.
Jelić, Lucas, ed. Fontes Historici Liturgiae Glagolito-Romanae a XIII ad XIX saeculum. Veglae, 1906.
Jembrih, Aloiz. “Nacionalni izotopikon o porijeklu Ćirila i Metodija u hrvatskoglagoljskim brevijarima.”
Slavistična revija 34 (1986): 83–92.
Kadlec, Jaroslav. “Das Vermächtnis der Slavenapostel Cyrill und Method im böhmischen Mittelalter.” In
Cyrillo-Methodianische Fragen, slavische Philologie und Altertumskunde: Acta Congressus historiae
Slavicae Salisburgensis in memoriam SS. Cyrilli et Methodii anno 1963 celebrati, edited by Franz
Zagiba, 103–37. Annales Instituti Slavici 1, no. 4. Wiesbaden, 1968.
———. “Die homiletischen Werke des Prager Magister Nikolaus von Louny.” Augustiniana 23 (1973):
242–70.
Kadlec, Jaroslav, and Horní Cerekev. “Das Kloster des hl. Prokop an der Sasau.” In Tausend Jahre Bene-
diktiner in den Klöstern Břevnov, Braunau und Rohr, edited by Johannes Hofmann, 297–307. St.
Ottilien, 1993.
———.“Der heilige Prokop.” In Tausend Jahre Benediktiner in den Klöstern Břevnov, Braunau und Rohr,
edited by Johannes Hofmann, 309–24. St. Ottilien, 1993.
Kalandra, Záviš. České pohanství. Prague, 1947.
Kalhous, David. Anatomy of a Duchy: The Political and Ecclesiastical Structures of Early Přemyslid Bohe-
mia. Leiden, 2012.
———. “Christian und Grossmähren.” In Die frühmittelalterliche Elite bei den Völkern des östlichen Mit-
teleuropas, edited by Pavel Kouřil, 25–33. Brno, 2005.
———. “Slovanské písemnictví a liturgie 10. a 11. věku.” Český časopis historický 108 (2010): 1–33.
Kalista, Zdeněk. “Cyrilometodějský motiv u Karla IV.” In Karel IV a Itálie, 280–305. Prague, 2004.
———. “Das cyrillo-methodianische Motiv bei Karl IV.” In Cyrillo-Methodianische Fragen, slavische Philol-
ogie und Altertumskunde: Acta Congressus historiae Slavicae Salisburgensis in memoriam SS. Cyrilli
et Methodii anno 1963 celebrati, edited by Franz Zagiba, 138–58. Wiesbaden, 1968.
———. “Karel IV. a humanismus.” In Karel IV. a Itálie, 229–63. Prague, 2004.
Kantor, Marvin, ed. Medieval Slavic Lives of Saints and Princes. Ann Arbor, MI, 1983.
———. The Origins of Christianity in Bohemia: Sources and Commentary. Evanston, IL, 1990.
Karpluk, Maria. “Imiona apostołów i ewangelistów jako świadectwo oddziaływania liturgii słowiańskiej
w Polsce.” In Zeszyty, 63–68.
———. “Słownictwo cerkiewne w polszczyźnie XVI wieku: Wybór przykładów.” In Chrześcijański Wschód
a kultura polska, edited by Ryszard Łużny, 127–47. Lublin, 1989.
———. “Traces of the Slavonic Rite in Poland.” In Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Congress of
Onomastic Sciences, Cracow, August 21–25, 1978, edited by Kazimierz Rymut, 1:593–98. Wrocław,
1981.
Katičić, Radoslav. “Language and Literacy.” In Croatia, 1:339–67.
———. Litterarum studia: Književnost i naobrazba ranoga hrvatskog srednjovjekovlja. Zagreb, 1998.
———. “Methodii Doctrina.” Slovo 36 (1986): 11–44.
———. “Uz pitanje o postanku i starosti glagoljice.” Croatica 42–44 (1995–1996): 185–98.
Kavka, František. Karel IV: Historie života velkého vladaře. Prague, 1998.
Kejř, Jiří. Husitský právník M. Jan z Jesenice. Prague, 1965.

237
 Bibliography

———. “Ioannis Andreae ‘Hieronymianum opus’ a jeho ohlas v českých zemích.” Studie o rukopisech 12
(1973): 71–86.
Kelly, J. N. D. Jerome: His Life, Writings, and Controversies. London, 1975.
Kętrzyński, Wojciech. “Vita sancti Stanislai episcopi Cracoviensis (Vita minor).” In Monumenta Poloniae
Historica: Pomniki dziejowe Polski, edited by August Bielowski, 4:241–43. Lwów, 1884.
Kiparsky, Valentin. “Tschernochvostoffs Theorie über den Ursprung des glagolitischen Alfabets.” In Cyrillo-
Methodiana: Zur Frühgeschichte des Christentums bei den Slaven, 863–1963, edited by Manfred
Hellmann, 393–400. Cologne, 1964.
Klaić, Nada. “Historijska podloga hrvatskoga glagoljaštva u X i XI stoljeću.” Slovo 15–16 (1965): 225–79.
Klaniczay, Gábor. Holy Rulers and Blessed Princesses: Dynastic Cults in Medieval Central Europe. Cam-
bridge, 2002.
Klapper, Joseph. “Aus der Frühzeit des Humanismus: Dichtungen zu Ehren des heiligen Hieronymus.”
In Bausteine: Festschrift, Max Koch zum 70. Geburtstage dargebracht, edited by Ernst Boehlich and
Hans Heckel, 255–81. Breslau, 1926.
———. Johann von Neumarkt, Bischof und Hofkanzler: Religiöse Frührenaissance in Böhmen zur Zeit Kaiser
Karls IV. Erfurter theologische Studien 17. Leipzig, 1964.
———. Schriften Johanns von Neumarkt. Vol. 2, Hieronymus: Die unechten Briefe des Eusebius, Augustin,
Cyrill zum Lobe des Heiligen. Vom Mittelalter zur Reformation 6. Berlin, 1932.
Klicman, Ladislav, ed. Monumenta Vaticana Res Gestas Bohemicas Illustrantia. Vol. 1, Acta Clementis VI,
Pontificus Romani, 1342–1352. Prague, 1903.
Kloczowski, Jerzy. A History of Polish Christianity. Cambridge, 2000.
Kniazevskaia, Olga A., and Anatolii A. Turilov. Svodnyi katalog slaviano-russkikh rukopisnykh knig, khra-
niashchikhsia v Rossii, stranakh SNG i Baltii: XIV vek. Vol. 1. Moscow, 2002.
Knoll, Paul W. “Casimir the Great and the University of Cracow.” Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas 16
(1968): 232–49.
———. “Jadwiga and Education.” The Polish Review 44 (1999): 420–31.
———. Review of Oscar Halecki, Jadwiga of Anjou and the Rise of East Central Europe. The Polish Review
38 (1993): 221–25.
Kølln, Herman. Die Wenzelslegende des Mönchs Christian. Historisk-filosofiske Meddelelser 73. Copen-
hagen, 1996.
Komenský, Jan Amos. Stručná historie církve slovanské, edited by Josef Hendrich. Prague, 1941.
———. Stručná historie církve slovanské. In Vybrané spisy Jana Amose Komenského, edited by Otokar Chlup,
6:303–83. Prague, 1972.
Konzal, Václav. “Církevněslovanská literatura—slepá ulička na prahu české kultury.” In Speculum medii
aevi: Zrcadlo středověku, edited by Lenka Jiroušková, 150–62. Prague, 1998.
Kopecký, Milan. “Cyrilometodějská tradice v starší české literatuře.” In Magna Moravia: Sborník k 1100.
Výročí příchodu byzantské mise na Moravu, edited by Josef Macůrek, 567–86. Prague, 1965.
Koropeckyj, Roman, and Dana R. Miller, eds. Lev Krevza’s ‘A Defense of Church Unity’; and Zaxarija
Kopystens’kyj’s ‘Palinodia.’ Part 1, Texts. Translated with a foreword by Bohdan Strumiński. Har-
vard Library of Early Ukrainian Literature, English Translations 3. Cambridge, MA, 1995.
Kostić, Mita. “Zašto je osnovan slovensko-glagoljaški manastyr Emaus u Pragu?” Glasnik skopskog
naučnog društva 2 (1926): 159–65.
Kostrenčić, Marko, ed. Codex Diplomaticus Regni Croatiae, Dalmatiae et Slavoniae. Vol. 1. Zagreb, 1967.
Koudelka, Vladimír J. “Heinrich von Bitterfeld O. P. († ca. 1405), Professor an der Universität Prag.” Ar-
chivum Fratrum Praedicatorum 23 (1953): 5–65.
Kowalczyk, Maria. “Bartłomiej z Jasła.” Materiały i studia Zakładu historii filozofii starożytnej
i średniowiecznej, Seria A 5 (1965): 3–23.
———. “Odnowienie uniwersytetu krakowskiego w świetle mów Bartłomieja z Jasła.” Małopolskie Studia
Historyczne 6 (1963): 23–42.
Kowalska, Hanna, Helena Byrska, and Antoni Bednarz, eds. Święta Jadwiga królowa: Dziedzictwo i zada-
nia na trzecie tysiąclecie. Cracow, 2002.
Kozłowska-Budkowa, Zofia. “Odnowienie Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego krakowskiego.” In Dzieje Uniw-

238
 Bibliography

ersytetu Jagiellońskiego w latach 1364–1764, edited by Kazimierz Lepszy, 1:37–89. Cracow, 1964.
Kras, Paweł. “Polish-Czech Relations in the Hussite Period: Religious Aspects.” In The Bohemian Reforma-
tion and Religious Practice. Vol. 4, Papers from the IV International Symposium on the Bohemian
Reformation and Religious Practice under auspices of the Philosophical Institute of the Academy of
Sciences of the Czech Republic held at Vila Lanna, Prague 26–28 June 2000, edited by Zdeněk V.
David and David Ralph Holeton, 177–92. Prague, 2002.
Krása, Josef. “K ikonografii sv. Jeronýma v českém umění.” In Z tradic, 95–100.
———. “Zobrazení české koruny.” Umění 42 (1994): 267–74.
Krašovec, Jože, ed. The Interpretation of the Bible: The International Symposium in Slovenia. Sheffield, UK,
1998.
Kręt, Helena. Dwór królewski Jadwigi i Jagiełły. Cracow, 1987.
Kropáček, Jiří. “Klášter Na Slovanech v Praze u Bohuslava Balbína.” In Z tradic, 223–29.
Krukowski, Józef. O słowiańskim kościele św. Krzyża i klasztorze benedyktynów założonym przez Jadwigę
i Jagiełłę na Kleparzu w Krakowie 1390 roku. Cracow, 1886.
Krzyżaniakowa, Jadwiga. “Mateusz z Krakowa: Działalność z Pradze w latach 1355–1394.” Roczniki His-
toryczne 29 (1963): 9–57.
———. “Profesorowie krakowscy na Uniwersytecie w Pradze—ich mistrzowie i koledzy.” In Cracovia—Po-
lonia—Europa: Studia z dziejów średniowiecza ofiarowane Jerzemu Wyrozumskiemu w sześćdziesiątą
piątą rocznicę urodzin i czterdziestolecie pracy naukowej, edited by Waldemar Bukowski et al., 505–
27. Cracow, 1995.
Krzyżanowski, Stanisław. Księgi ławnicze Krakowskie, 1365–1376 i 1390–1397: Acta Scabinalia Cracovi-
ensia. Cracow, 1904.
Kubín, Petr. Sedm přemyslovských kultů. Prague, 2011.
———. “Znovu o Kristiána.” In Od knížat ke králům: Sborník u příležitosti 60. narozenin Josefa Žemličky,
edited by Eva Doležalová and Robert Šimůnek, 63–72. Prague, 2007.
Kubín, Petr, Hana Pátková, and Tomáš Petráček, eds. Světci a jejich kult ve středověku. České Budějovice,
2006.
Kubínová, Kateřina. Emauzský cyklus: Ikonografie středověkých nástěnných maleb v ambitu kláštera Na
Slovanech. Prague, 2012.
———. “Emauzský cyklus—monumentální Zrcadlo lidského spasení.” In Emauzy, 309–33.
———. Imitatio Romae: Karel IV a Řím. Prague, 2006.
Kuev, Kuio Markov. Chernorizets Khrabŭr. Sofia, 1967.
Kukuljević-Sakcinski, Ivan. Acta Croatica. Zagreb, 1863.
Kuraś, Stanisław. Regestrum Ecclesiae Cracoviensis: Studium nad powstaniem tzw. Liber Beneficiorum Jana
Długosza. Warsaw, 1966.
Kürbis, Brygida, ed. Chronica Poloniae Maioris: Kronika Wielkopolska. Monumenta Poloniae Historica,
Series Nova 8. Warsaw, 1970.
Kůrka, Pavel B. “Slovanský klášter mezi husitstvím a katolicismem: Dějiny klášterní komunity v letech
1419–1592.” In Emauzy, 107–24.
Kurz, Jozef. “Emauzský hlaholský nápis.” Slavia 31 (1962): 1.
Kyas, Vladimír. Česká Bible v dějinách národního písemnictví. Prague, 1997.
———. “Česká hlaholská bible v poměru k ostatním českým biblickým rukopisům.” Slavia 25 (1956):
328–41.
———. “K rekonstrukci české předlohy staropolské bible.” In Česko-polský sborník vědeckých prací, edited
by Milan Kudelka, 2:39–67. Prague, 1955.
———. První český překlad bible. Prague, 1971.
———. “Vznik staročeského biblického překladu.” In Mezinárodní vědecká konference “Doba Karla IV. v
dějinách národů ČSSR,” pořádaná Univerzitou Karlovou v Praze k 600. výročí úmrtí Karla IV. 29.11.–
1.12.1978: Materiály ze sekce jazyka a literatury, edited by Jaroslav Porák, 48–54. Prague, 1981.
Labuda, Gerard. “O obrządku słowiańskim w Polsce południowej, czyli Kraków biskupi przed rokiem
1000.” In Studia nad początkami państwa polskiego, 2:83–166. Poznań, 1988.
Lacko, Michael. “Early Iconography of Sts. Cyril and Methodius in Slav Eastern Churches.” Slovak Studies

239
 Bibliography

12 (1972): 193–200.
Lanckorońska, Karolina. Studies on the Roman-Slavonic Rite in Poland. Rome, 1961.
Laurenčík, Josef. “K otázce slovanské liturgie sv. Petra.” In Studia palaeoslovenica, edited by Bohuslav
Havránek, 201–14. Prague, 1971.
Leclercq, Jean. The Love of Learning and the Desire for God: A Study of Monastic Culture. New York, 1961.
Leger, Louis. L’Évangéliaire Slavon de Reims, Dit: Texte du Sacre. Reims, 1899.
Lehr-Spławiński, Tadeusz. “Czy są ślady istnienia litugii cyrylo-metodejskiej w Polsce?” Slavia 25 (1956):
290–99.
———. “Dookoła obrządku słowiańskiego.” In Od piętnastu wieków, 76–81.
———. “Liturgia słowiańska i głagolskie zabytki w Polsce.” Slovo 21 (1971): 255–73.
———. Od piętnastu wieków (966-1966): Szkice z pradziejów i dziejów kultury polskiej. Warsaw, 1961.
———. “Uwagi o języku Bogurodzicy.” In Od piętnastu wieków, 129–44.
Lepszy, Kazimierz, ed. Dzieje Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego w latach 1364–1374. Cracow, 1964.
Lettenbauer, Wilhelm. “Zur Entstehung des glagolitischen Alphabets.” Slovo 3 (1953): 35–50.
Lipatov, A. V. “Kirillo-mefodievskaia traditsiia i istoki pol’skoi literatury. (Vzaimodeistvie latinskogo Za-
pada i vizantiiskogo Vostoka).” In Bolgarskaia kul’tura v vekakh: Tezisy dokladov nauchnoi konfer-
entsii, Moskva 26–27 maia 1992 g., edited by E. I. Demina, 14–15. Moscow, 1992.
———. “Kirillo-mefodievskaia traditsiia, istoki pol’skoi literatury i problemy slavianskoi vzaimnosti (o
vzaimodeistvii latinskogo Zapada i vizantiiskogo Vostoka).” Seriia literatury i iazyka 45–46 (1995):
34–46.
———. “Vzaimodeistvie latinskogo Zapada i vizantiiskogo Vostoka: Kirillo-mefodievskaia traditsiia, istoki
pol’skoi literatury i problemy slavianskoi vzaimnosti.” Palaeobulgarica 17 (1993): 67–80.
Lipovčan, Srećko, ed. Discovering the Glagolitic Script of Croatia. Zagreb, 2000.
Łoś, Jan. “Biblioteka polska królowej Jadwigi.” Przewodnik Bibliograficzny 6 (1926): 257–59.
———. Początki piśmiennictwa polskiego: Przegląd zabytków językowych. Lwów, 1922.
Łoś, Jan, and Władysław Semkowicz. Kazania tzw. Świętokrzyskie. Cracow, 1934.
Löwe, Heinz. Ein literarischer Widersacher des Bonifatius, Virgil von Salzburg und die Kosmographie des
Aethicus Ister. Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur, Abhandlungen der Geistes- und
Sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse (Jahrg. 1951) 11. Mainz, 1952.
Łowmiański, Henryk. Początki Polski. 6 vols. Warsaw, 1963–1985.
Ludvíkovský, Jaroslav. Kristiánova legenda: Život a umučení svatého Václava a jeho báby svaté Ludmily.
Prague, 1978.
Lunt, Horace G. “Cyril and Methodius with Rastislav Prince of Moravia: Where Were They?” In Thes-
saloniki, 87–112.
———. Old Church Slavonic Grammar. Berlin, 2001.
———. “Thoughts, Suggestions, and Questions about the Earliest Slavic Writing Systems.” Wiener Slavist-
isches Jahrbuch 46 (2000): 271–86.
———. “What the Rus’ Primary Chronicle Tells Us about the Origin of the Slavs and of Slavic Writing.”
In Rhetoric of the Medieval Slavic World: Essays Presented to Edward L. Keenan on His Sixtieth
Birthday, edited by Nancy Shields Kollman, 335–57. Harvard Ukrainian Studies 19. Cambridge,
MA, 1996.
Lur’e, V. M. “Okolo Solunskoi legendy: Iz istorii missionerstva v period monofelitskoi unii.” Slaviane i ikh
sosedi 6 (1996): 23–52.
Machilek, Franz. “‘Velehrad ist unser Programm’: Zur Bedeutung der Kyrill-Method-Idee und der Veleh-
radbewegung für den Katholizismus in Mähren im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert.” Bohemia 45 (2004):
353–95.
Maciej z Miechowa, Chronica Polonorum. Cracow, 1521.
Macůrek, Josef, ed. Slovanství v českém národním životě. Brno, 1947.
Malić, Dragica. “Latinički tekstovi hrvatskoga srednjovjekovlja na narodnom jeziku.” In Hrvatska i Eu-
ropa: Kultura, znanost i umjetnost. Vol. 2, Srednji vijek i renesansa (XIII–XVI. stoljeće), edited by
Eduard Hercigonja, 299–319. Zagreb, 2000.
———. Na izvorima hrvatskoga jezika. Zagreb, 2002.

240
 Bibliography

Mareš, František Václav. An Anthology of Church Slavonic Texts of Western (Czech) Origin: With an Outline
of Czech-Church Slavonic Language and Literature and with a Selected Bibliography. Munich, 1979.
———. Cyrilometodějská tradice a slavistika. Prague, 2000.
———. “Emauzský hlaholský nápis—staročeský Dekalog (Desatero).” Slavia 31 (1962): 2–7.
———. “Místo českocírkevněslovanského písemnictví v dějinách literatur.” In Cyrilometodějská tradice a
slavistika, 268–327. Prague, 2000.
———. “Moskevská mariánská mše.” Slovo 25–26 (1976): 296–359.
———. “Slovanská liturgie sv. Petra.” In Cyrilometodějská tradice a slavistika, 166–67. Prague, 2000.
———. “Średniowieczni święci czescy i polscy u głagolitów chorwackich.” In Slawistyczne studia
językoznawcze, edited by Franciszek Sławski, Anna Chruścicka, and Bożenna Marczak, 191–95.
Wrocław, 1987.
———. “Význam staroslověnských rukopisů nově objevených na hoře Sinaj.” In Cyrilometodějská tradice a
slavistika, 207–8. Prague, 2000.
Marignola, Johannis de. Chronicon (Kronika Jana z Marignoly). In FRB, 3:485–604.
Marsh, David. “Petrarch and Jerome.” Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome 49 (2004): 85–98.
Marti, Roland. “Philologia in the Slavia Cyrillo-Methodiana: From Constantine the Philosopher to Con-
stantine the Philosopher.” In Love of Learning and Devotion to God in Orthodox Monasteries: Se-
lected Proceedings of the Fifth International Hilandar Conference, edited by Miroljub Joković, Daniel
Collins, M. A. Johnson, and Predrag Matejić, 1:11–25. Belgrade, 2006.
Martínková, Dana, Alena Hadravová, and Jiří Matl, eds. Fontes Rerum Regni Bohemiae. Vol. 1. Prague,
1998.
Matějka, Ladislav. “Dvije crkvenoslavenske legende o svetom Vidu.” Slovo 23 (1973): 73–96.
———. “The Gospel of Reims and the History of the Russian Language.” In Essays in the Area of Slavic
Languages, Linguistics, and Byzantology: A Festschrift in Honor of Antonín Dostál on the Occasion of
His Seventy-Fifth Birthday, edited by Thomas G. Winner with Jan Kasík, 247–55. Byzantine Studies
12. Irvine, CA, 1985.
Mathiesen, Robert. “The Old Church Slavonic Language Question: An Overview (IX–XX Centuries).” In
Aspects of the Slavic Language Question, edited by Ricardo Picchio and Harvey Goldblatt, 1:45–65.
New Haven, CT, 1984.
Matl, Jiří, Hana Vlhová, Pavel Brodský, and Jiří Žůrek, eds. Officium sv. Jeronýma (Sancti Ieronimi clara
preconia) sepsané r. 1404 pro oltář sv. Jeronýma v kostele sv. Mikuláše v Chebu. Ústav pro klasická
studia Akademie věd ČR. Prague, 2000.
Matter, E. Ann. The Voice of My Beloved: The Song of Songs in Western Medieval Christianity. Philadelphia, 1990.
Mažeika, Rasa. “Was Grand Prince Algirdas a Greek Orthodox Christian?” Lituanus: Lithuanian Quar-
terly Journal of Arts and Sciences 33, no. 4 (1987): 35–55.
McManamon, John M. Pierpaolo Vergerio the Elder and Saint Jerome: An Edition and Translation of ‘Ser-
mones pro Sancto Hieronymo.’ Tempe, AZ, 1999.
———. “Pier Paolo Vergerio (the Elder) and the Beginnings of the Humanist Cult of Jerome.” The Catholic
Historical Review 71 (1985): 353–71.
Mel’nikov, G. P. “Hellenoslavism in the Cultural and Political Conception of the Emperor Charles IV.” In
Acts: XVIIIth International Congress of Byzantine Studies, edited by Ihor Ševčenko and Gennady G.
Litavrin, 1:431–37. Shepherdstown, WV, 1996.
Mengel, David C. “Emperor Charles IV (1346–1378) as the Architect of Local Religion in Prague.” Aus-
trian History Yearbook 41 (2010): 15–29.
———. “A Holy and Faithful Fellowship: Royal Saints in Fourteenth-Century Prague.” In Evropa a Čechy
na konci středověku: Sborník příspěvků věnovaných Františku Šmahelovi, edited by Eva Doležalová,
Robert Novotný, and Pavel Soukup, 145–58. Prague, 2004.
Michałowska, Teresa. Średniowiecze. Warsaw, 2002.
Migne, Jacques-Paul, ed. Patrologia Latina: Cursus Completus. 221 vols. Paris, 1844–1891.
Mihaljević, Milan, and Johannes Reinhart. “The Croatian Redaction: Language and Literature.” Incontri
linguistici 28 (2005): 31–82.
Mikhailov, A. V. K voprosu o literaturnom nasledii Sv. Kirilla i Mefodiia v glagolicheskikh khorvatskikh mis-

241
 Bibliography

salakh i breviariiakh: Iz istorii izucheniia drevneslavianskogo perevoda Knigi Bytiia proroka Moiseia.
Warsaw, 1904.
Miklas, Heinz, Sylvia Richter, and Velizar Sadovski, eds. Glagolitica: Zum Ursprung der slavischen Schrift-
kultur. Vienna, 2000.
Mikulka, Jaromír. “Karel IV. K otázce slovanského programu jeho politiky.” Slovanský přehled 64 (1978):
196–204.
Milev, Aleksandŭr, ed. Teofilakt Ohridski: Zhitie na Kliment Ohridski; Tekst, prevod, uvod, i obiasneniia.
Sofia, 1955.
Mironowicz, Antoni. Kościół prawosławny w państwie Piastów i Jagiellonów. Białystok, 2003.
Morawski, Kazimierz. Historya Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego: Średne wieki i Odrodzenie. Cracow, 1900.
Morozova, N. A., and S. Iu. Temchin. “Ob izuchenii tserkovnoslavianskoi pis’mennosti VKL.” Krakowsko-
Wileńskie Studia Slawistyczne 2 (1997): 7–39.
Mošin, Vladimir. Ljetopis popa Dukljanina: Latinski tekst sa hrvatskim prevodom i “Hrvatska kronika.”
Zagreb, 1950.
Moszyński, Leszek. “Cerkiewnosłowiańska tzw. Moskiewska Msza Maryjna jako odzwierciedlenie
litewsko-białorusko-polskich kontaktów kulturowych w XV wieku.” In Czterechsetlecie unii brzeskiej:
Zagadnienia języka religijnego, edited by Zenon Leszczyński, 21–35. Lublin, 1998.
———. “Czy głagolska msza świętego Floriana mogła powstać w Krakowie.” Južnoslovenski filolog 40
(1984): 173–79.
———. “Liturgia słowiańska i głagolskie zabytki w Polsce.” Slovo 21 (1971): 255–73.
———. “Próba nowego spojrzenia na duchowe dziedzictwo krakowskego głagolityzmu w średniowiecznej
Polsce.” In Glagoljica i hrvatski glagolizam, edited by Marija-Ana Dürrigl, Milan Mihaljević, and
Franjo Velčić, 309–18. Zagreb, 2004.
———. “Wpływ Wulgaty na kształt starochorwackiego ewangeliarza z Omišlja.” Slovo 36 (1986): 111–22.
Mráz, Bohumír. “Krumlovský sborník: Heslo k barevným reprodukcím.” Dějiny a současnost 11, no. 7
(1969): ii.
Muczkowski, Józef. Wiadomość o założeniu Uniwersytetu Krakowskiego, na publicznem posiedzeniu To-
warzystwa Naukowego w dniu 3 czerwca 1847 roku. Rocznik Towarzystwa Naukowego Krakowskiego
(1849): 219–20.
Müller, Anne, and Karen Stöber, eds. Self-Representation of Medieval Religious Communities: The British
Isles in Context. Münster, 2009.
Nazor, Anica. “The Bible in Croato-Glagolitic Liturgical Books.” In Bible, 1031–37.
———. “O pewnych związkach chorwackich głagolaszy z Polską.” In Zeszyty, 107–11.
Nejedlý, Zdeněk. Dějiny předhusitského zpěvu v Čechách. Prague, 1904.
Němec, Igor. “K podilu Emauzského kláštera na rozvoji staré češtiny.” In Z tradic, 165–68.
Nodl, Martin. Tři studie o době Karla IV. Prague, 2006.
Novák, Jan, ed. Monumenta Vaticana Res Gestas Bohemicas Illustrantia. Vol. 2, Acta Innocentii VI, 1352–
1362. Prague, 1907.
Novak, Viktor. Scriptura Beneventana: S osobitim obzirom na tip dalmatinske beneventane; Paleografijska
studija. Zagreb, 1920.
———. “The Slavonic-Latin Symbiosis in Dalmatia during the Middle Ages.” The Slavonic and East Euro-
pean Review 32 (1953): 1–28.
Novaković, Darko. “Novi Marulić: Vita diui Hieronymi (British Library Ms. Add. 18.029).” Colloquia
Maruliana 3 (1994): 5–58.
Nuding, Matthias. Matthäus von Krakau. Spätmittelalter und Reformation Neue Reihe 38. Tübingen,
2007.
Obolensky, Dimitri. Byzantium and the Slavs. Crestwood, NY, 1994.
———. “A Late Fourteenth-Century Byzantine Diplomat: Michael, Archbishop of Bethlehem.” In The Byz-
antine Inheritance of Eastern Europe, 8:299–315. London, 1982.
Olin, John C. “Erasmus and Saint Jerome: The Close Bond and Its Significance.” Erasmus of Rotterdam
Society Yearbook 7 (1987): 33–53.
Onasch, Konrad. “Der cyrillo-methodianische Gedanke in der Kirchengeschichte des Mittelalters.” Wis-

242
 Bibliography

senschaftliche Zeitschrift der Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg 6 (1956): 27–40.

Ondáš, Vladimír. “Byl svatý Prokop basilián nebo benediktin?” In Světci a jejich kult ve středověku, edited
by Petr Kubín, Hana Pátková, and Tomáš Petráček, 211–19. České Budějovice, 2006.
Opačić, Zoё. “Charles IV and the Emmaus Monastery: Slavonic Tradition and Imperial Ideology in Four-
teenth-Century Prague.” PhD diss., University of London, Courtauld Institute of Art, 2003.
———. “Emauzský klášter a Nové Město pražské: Slovanská tradice, císařská ideologie a veřejný rituál v
Praze 14. století.” In Emauzy, 32–53.
———. “Karolus Magnus and Karolus Quartus: Imperial Role Models in Ingelheim, Aachen and Prague.”
In Mainz and the Middle Rhine Valley: Medieval Art, Architecture and Archaeology, edited by Ute
Engel and Alexandra Gajewski, 221–46. Leeds, 2007.
Ostojić, Ivan. “Benediktinci glagoljaši.” Slovo 9–10 (1960): 14–42.
———. Benediktinci u Hrvatskoj i ostalim našim krajevima. Vol. 1, Opći povijesno-kulturni osvrt. Split, 1963.
———. Benediktinci u Hrvatskoj i ostalim našim krajevima. Vol. 2, Benediktinci u Dalmaciji. Split, 1964.
Otavsky, Karel. Die Sankt Wenzelskrone im Prager Domschatz und die Frage der Kunstauffassung am Hofe
Kaiser Karls IV. Europäische Hochschulschriften 142. Bern, 1992.
Ozment, Steven. The Age of Reform, 1250–1550: An Intellectual and Religious History of Late Medieval and
Reformation Europe. New Haven, CT, 1980.
Ożóg, Krzysztof. “Duchowni i uczeni w otoczeniu św. Jadwigi.” In Święta Jadwiga królowa: Dziedzictwo i
zadania na trzecie tysiąclecie, edited Hanna Kowalska, Helena Byrska, and Antoni Bednarz, 165–
78. Cracow, 2002.
———. “Krakowskie środowisko umysłowe na przełomie XIV i XV wieku a problem powstania Psałterza
floriańskiego.” Rocznik Biblioteki Narodowej 42 (2011): 93–114.
———. Kultura umysłowa w Krakowie w XIV wieku: Środowisko duchowieństwa świeckiego. Wrocław, 1987.
———. “University Masters at the Royal Court of Hedwig of Anjou and Władysław Jagiełło.” In Central
and Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages: A Cultural History, edited by Piotr S. Górecki and Nancy E.
van Deusen, 147–60, 267–74. London, 2009.
Pacnerová, Ludmila. Česká Bible Hlaholská: Bible Vyšebrodská. Prague, 2000.
———. “Die Hohenfurter Bibel (Bible Vyšebrodská). (Eine tschechisch-glagolische Handschrift).” Studie
o rukopisech 29 (1992): 107–19.
———. “Hlaholice v české písařské praxi.” Listy filologické 112 (1989): 30–40.
———. Staročeské hlaholské zlomky: Kritické vydání. Prague, 1986.
———. “Staročeské literární památky a charvátská hranatá hlaholice.” Slovo 56–57 (2006–2007): 405–20.
———. Staročeský hlaholský Comestor. Prague, 2002.
———. “Staročeský hlaholský Pasionál.” Listy filologické 99 (1976): 211–20.
———. “Starořeský hlaholský zlomek Pasionálu sign. 1Dc 1/19 z knihovny Národního muzea v Praze.”
Listy filologické 113 (1990): 293–302.
———. “Staročeský hlaholský zlomek Zlaté legendy sign. 1Dc 1/20 z knihovny Narodního muzea v Praze,”
Listy filologické 113 (1990): 303–13.
Pak, Natalia. “Skazanne pra ‘litoŭskiia’ tsudy sviatsitselia Mikalaia Mirlikiiskaga.” Pravaslaŭe 8 (1999):
74–85.
Pallasová, Eva. “Die graphische Darstellung des tschechischen phonologischen Systems in den glagoli-
tischen Denkmälern der Zeit Karls IV.” In Glagolitica, 198–206.
———. “Grafický systém charvátské hlaholice a fonologický systém češtiny přelomu 14. a 15. století.” In
České, polské a slovenské jazykové a literární souvislosti: Sborník referátů z mezinárodního odborného
semináře uspořádaného u příležitosti sedmdesátin prof. PhDr. Edvarda Lotka, CSc., na Filozofické
fakultě Univerzity Palackého v Olomouci dne 20. února 2002, edited by Jiří Fiala, Edvard Lotko, and
Marie Hádková, 177–81. Olomouc, 2003.
Palmer, Nigel F. “The High and Later Middle Ages (1100–1450).” In The Cambridge History of German
Literature, edited by Helen Watanabe-O’Kelly, 40–91. Cambridge, 1997.
Pánek, Jaroslav, Miloslav Polívka, and Noemi Rejchrtová, eds. Husitství, Reformace, Renesance: Sborník k
60. narozeninám Františka Šmahela. 3 vols. Prague, 1994.
Pantelić, Marija. “Elementi bizantske himnologije u hrvatskoglagoljskoj himni H(rьst)ь v(ь)skr(ь)se iz

243
 Bibliography

mrtvihь.” Slovo 17 (1967): 37–59.

———. “Fragmenti hrvatskoglagoljskoga brevijara starije redakcije iz 13. stoljeća.” Slovo 41–43 (1993):
61–146.
———. “Glagoljski brevijar popa Mavra iz godine 1460.” Slovo 15–16 (1965): 94–149.
———. “Hrvatskoglagoljski amulet tipa Sisin i Mihael.” Slovo 23 (1973): 161–203.
———. “O Kijevskim i Sinajskim listićima.” Slovo 35 (1985): 5–56.
———. “Prvotisak glagoljskog misala iz 1483. prema Misalu kneza Novaka iz 1368.” Radovi Staroslaven-
skog Instituta 6 (1967): 39–40.
Pantelić, Marija, and Anica Nazor, eds. Breviarium novi II: Vollständige verkleinerte Faksimile-Ausgabe der
kroatisch-glagolitischen Handschrift aus dem Besitz des Archivs der Pfarre Novi Vinodol. Graz, 1977.
Panzer, Baldur. Quellen zur slavischen Ethnogenese: Fakten, Mythen und Legenden; Originaltexte mit
Übersetzungen, Erläuterungen und Kommentaren. Frankfurt am Main, 2002.
Pastrnek, František. “Evangelium Sázavo-emauzské čili remešské.” Časopis Matice Moravské 15 (1891):
331–40.
Paszkiewicz, Henryk. “A Polish Metropolitan See of the Slavonic Rite.” In The Origin of Russia, 381–404.
London, 1954.
Patera, Adolf. O sv. Jeronýmovi knihy troje: Podle rukopisu Musea Království Českého v Praze. Prague, 1903.
———. “Zrcadlo člověčieho spasenie.” Časopis Českého Museum 61 (1887): 464–81.
Patera, Adolf, and Antonín Podlaha, eds. Soupis rukopisů Knihovny Metropolitní kapitoly pražske. Vol. 1.
Prague, 1910.
Paulová, Milada. “L’idée cyrillo-méthodienne dans la politique de Charles IV et la fondation du monastère
slave de Prague.” Byzantinoslavica 11 (1950): 174–86.
Pavić, Juraj. “Konstantin Presbiter, Učenik sv. Metodija.” Bogoslovska smotra 33 (1964): 62–75.
Pavlov, A. S. Pamiatniki drevnerusskogo kanonicheskogo prava. Vol. 1, Pamiatniki XI–XV v., Prilozheniia.
Russkaia istoricheskaia biblioteka 6. St. Petersburg, 1908.
Pechuška, František. “Benediktinské opatství Rogovské v Dalmácii.” Časopis katolického duchovenstva 80
(1940): 14–54, 108–31, 192–208.
Pečírková, Jaroslava. “Czech Translations of the Bible.” In Bible, 1167–1200.
Pekař, Josef. Die Wenzels- und Ludmila-legenden und die Echtheit Christians. Prague, 1906.
———. Nejstarší kronika česká ku kritice legend o sv. Ludmile, sv. Václavu a sv. Prokopu. Prague, 1903.
Perdih, Andrej. “Reimški evangelij—jezik glagolskega dela.” Jezikoslovni zapiski 16, no. 1 (2010): 147–62.
Peregrinus de Opole. Sermones de tempore et de sanctis. Edited by Ryszard Tatarzyński. Warsaw, 1997.
Peričić, Eduard. Sclavorum Regnum Grgura Barskog: Ljetopis popa Dukljanina. Zagreb, 1991.
Perwolf, Josef. “Petrohradský sborník písemností z dob polského krále Kazimíra.” Časopis Musea
Království Českého 54 (1880): 414–19.
Perzanowski, Zbigniew. “Kanonik Ks. Jan Długosz o Królowej Jadwidze.” Analecta Cracoviensia 12 (1980):
193–267.
Petkov, Kiril. The Voices of Medieval Bulgaria, Seventh–Fifteenth Century: The Records of a Bygone Culture.
Leiden, 2008.
Petr, Jan, and Sáva Šabouk, eds. Z tradic slovanské kultury v Čechách: Sázava a Emauzy v dějinách české
kultury. Prague, 1975.
Petrović, Ivanka. “Prvi susreti Hrvata s ćirilometodskim izvorištem svoje srednjovjekovne kulture.” Slovo
38 (1988): 5–54.
———. “Sadržajne i literarne osobine odlomaka ‘Žitija Konstantina-Ćirila’ u hrvatskoglagoljskim i ruskim
tekstovima.” Croatica 19 (1983): 113–29.
Piur, Paul, ed. Briefe Johanns von Neumarkt. Vom Mittelalter zur Reformation. Forschungen zur Ge-
schichte der deutschen Bildung 8. Berlin, 1937.
Plezia, Marian. “Wstęp.” In Złota Legenda: Wybór by Jakub de Voragine, ix–lviii. Warsaw, 1955.
Poche, Emanuel, and Jan Krofta. Na Slovanech: Stavební a umělecký vývoj pražského kláštera. Prague, 1956.
Polak, Wojciech. Aprobata i spór: Zakon Krzyżacki jako instytucja kościelna w dziełach Jana Długosza.
Lublin, 1999.
Polc, Jaroslav, ed. Svatý Vojtěch: Sborník k mileniu. Prague, 1997.

244
 Bibliography

Polkowski, Ignacy. Cześć ś.ś. Cyrylla i Metodego w Polsce według ksia̜g liturgicznych i legend od końca 13.
wieku. Cracow, 1885.
———. Katalog rekopisów kapitulnych katedry krakowskiej. Cracow, 1884.
Poppe, Andrzej. “Is kurilotsь i is kurilovitsь.” International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics 31–32
(1986): 324–25.
Postel, Guillaume. Linguarum duodecim characteribus differentium alphabetum introductio. Paris, 1538.
Prinz, Otto, ed. Die Kosmographie des Aethicus. Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Quellen zur Geistesge-
schichte des Mittelalters 14. Munich, 1993.
Prokhorov, G. M. “Glagolitsa sredi missionerskikh azbuk.” TODRL 45 (1991): 178–99.
Rebenich, Stefan. Jerome. London, 2002.
Řeháček, Luboš. “Emauzský klášter a Polsko: K založení a víznamu filiálních klášterů Emauz v dolno-
slezské Olešnici a v Klepařich u Krakova.” In Z tradic, 203–21.
Reinhart, Johannes. “Eine Redaktion des kirchenslavischen Bibeltextes im Kroatien des 12. Jahrhunderts.”
Wiener slavistisches Jahrbuch 36 (1990): 193–241.
———. “Husova homilija na 13. nedjelju po duhovima u hrvatskoglagoljskom prijevodu.” Slovo 50 (2000):
119–90.
———. “Husov Výklad Desatera božieho přikázanie u hrvatskoglagoljskom (starohrvatskom) prijevodu.”
Slovo 47–49 (1997–1999): 221–54.
———. “Jan Hus in der kroatisch-glagolitischen Literatur.” In Glagolitica, 207–26.
———. “Mezhslavianskie perevody v period pozdnego Srednevekov’ia i rannego Novogo vremeni (do
kontsa XVI v.).” Slaviane i ikh sosedu 11 (2004): 111–35.
———. “Najstarije svjedočanstvo za uticaj Vulgate na hrvatskoglagoljsku Bibliju.” Slovo 39–40 (1989–
1990): 45–52.
———. “Zwischenslavische Übersetzungen im Mittelalter.” Wiener Slavistisches Jahrbuch 43 (1997): 189–
203.
Režić, Ksenija. “Remsko evanđelje prema hrvatskoglagoljskom lekcionaru.” Croatica 19 (1986): 137–53.
Rice, Eugene F. Saint Jerome in the Renaissance. Baltimore, 1985.
Richental, Ulrich. Chronik des Konstanzer Konzils 1414–1418. Introduced and edited by Thomas Martin
Buck. Ostfildern, 2010.
Rocca, Angelo. Bibliothecae Vaticanae Appendix de Dialectis. Rome, 1591.
Rogalski, Alexander. Kościół katolicki na Śląsku. Warsaw, 1955.
Rosario, Iva, ed. Art and Propaganda: Charles IV of Bohemia, 1346–1378. Woodbridge, UK, 2000.
Rospond, Stanisław, ed. and trans. Druki Mazurskie XVI w. Olsztyn, 1948.
Rothe, Hans. “Das Slavenkloster in der Prager Neustadt bis zum Jahre 1419. Darstellung und Erläuterung
der Quellen.” Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas 40 (1992): 1–26, 161–77.
Rott-Żebrowski, Teotyn. Kirillovskaia chast’ Reimsskogo evangeliia. Lublin, 1985.
Rowell, Stephen Christopher. Lithuania Ascending: A Pagan Empire within East-Central Europe, 1295–
1345. Cambridge, 1994.
Royt, Jan. “Poznámky k ikonografii Emauzského cyklu.” In Emauzy, 290–308.
Różycka-Bryzek, Anna. Bizantyńsko-ruskie malowidła w kaplicy Zamku Lubelskiego. Warsaw, 1983.
———. Freski bizantyńsko-ruskie fundacji Jagiełły w kaplicy Zamku Lubelskiego. Lublin, 2000.
Runje, Petar. “Hrvatska Biblija u Zadru godine 1380.” Marulić 21 (1988): 453–57.
———. O knjigama hrvatskih glagoljaša. Zagreb, 1998.
———. Prema izvorima. Zagreb, 1990.
———. “Sv. Jeromim i glagoljica u Hrvata.” In O knjigama hrvatskih glagoljaša, 101–23. Zagreb, 1998.
Ryba, Bohumil, ed. Soupis rukopisů Strahovské knihovny Památníku národního písemnictví v Praze. Vol.
5. Prague, 1971.
Rybandt, Stanisław. “O pobycie benedyktynów słowiańskich w Oleśnicy.” Sobótka 25 (1970): 665–80.
Sakač, Stjepan. “Značaj jeronimske legende za održavanje i širenje srednjevjekovne narodne hrvatske
pismenosti.” In Zbirka odgovora na pitanja III. medjunarodnog kongresa slavista, 156–57. Bel-
grade, 1939.
Sakař, Vladimír. “Klášter Na Slovanech v období husitského revolučního hnutí a jeho doznívání.” In Z

245
 Bibliography

tradic, 187–92.
Salmon, Pierre. Étude sur les insignes du pontife dans le rit romain: Histoire et liturgie. Rome, 1955.
Sandecki-Małecki, Jan. “Catechismvs to iest Nauka Krzescianska.” In Druki Mazurskie XVI w., edited and
translated by Stanisław Rospond, 33–47. Olsztyn, 1948.
———. “Defensio verae translationis Corporis Catechismi.” In Druki Mazurskie XVI w., edited and trans-
lated by Stanisław Rospond, 48–78. Olsztyn, 1948.
Šanjek, Franjo. “Church and Christianity.” In Croatia, 2:227–58.
———. Crkva i kršćanstvo u Hrvata: Srednji vijek. 2nd ed. Zagreb, 1993.
Schenk, Wacław. “Kult liturgiczny świętych Cyryla i Metodego w Polsce.” In Zeszyty, 57–62.
Schenker, Alexander M. The Dawn of Slavic: An Introduction to Slavic Philology. New Haven, CT, 1995.
Schmalstieg, William R. An Introduction to Old Church Slavic. Columbus, OH, 1983.
Schneider, Reinhard. “Karolus, qui est Wenceslaus.” In Festschrift für Helmut Beumann zum 65. Geburt-
stag, edited by Kurt-Ulrich Jäschke and Reinhard Wenskus, 365–87. Sigmaringen, 1977.
Schreiner, Peter. “Grecheskii iazyk i kirillitsa na territorii Bolgarii.” Kirilo-Metodievski studii 4 (1987):
274–82.
Schulte, Wilhelm. Die politische Tendenz der Cronica principum Polonie. Darstellung und Quellen zur
schlesischen Geschichte 1. Breslau, 1906.
Šegvić, Kerubin. “Jeronimska tradicija u djelu Hrabana Maura.” Nastavni vjesnik 9–10 (1932): 195–96.
Ševčenko, Ihor. Byzantium and the Slavs in Letters and Culture. Cambridge, MA, 1991.
———. “The Definition of Philosophy in the Life of Saint Constantine.” In Byzantium and the Slavs in Let-
ters and Culture, 93–106. Cambridge, MA, 1991.
———. “Three Paradoxes of the Cyrillo-Methodian Mission.” Slavic Review 23 (1964): 220–36.
Shanzer, Danuta. “The Cosmographia Attributed to Aethicus Ister as Philosophen- or Reiseroman.” In In-
signis sophiae arcator: Essays in Honour of Michael W. Herren on His 65th Birthday, edited by Carin
Ruff, Gernot R. Wieland, and Ross G. Arthur, 57–86. Publications of the Journal of Medieval Latin
6. Turnhout, 2006.
Shevelov, George Y. “The Gospel of Reims and the History of the Serbo-Croatian Language.” In Xenia
Slavica: Papers Presented to Gojko Ružičić on the Occasion of His Seventy-Fifth Birthday, edited by
Rado L. Lencek and Boris O. Unbegaun, 185–94. The Hague, 1975.
Siatkowski, Janusz. “O cerkiewizmach w naistarszej polskiej terminologii chrześcijańskiej.” In Zeszyty,
97–105.
Siemiątkowska, Zofia. “Jan Szczekna.” Materiały i studia Zakładu Historii Filozofii Starożytnej i
Średniowiecznej 5 (1965): 34–75.
Sigüenza, José de. The Life of Saint Jerome, the Great Doctor of the Church: In Six Books. Translated by
Mariana Monteiro. London, 1907.
———. Vida de San Gerónimo Doctor de la Santa Iglesia. Madrid, 1595.
Silnicki, Tadeusz. Dzieje i ustrój Kościoła na Śląsku do końca w. XIV. Warsaw, 1955.
Šišić, Ferdo. Letopis popa Dukljanina. Belgrade, 1928.
Slavova, Tatiana. “Glagolicheskata traditsiia i preslavskata knizhnina.” Palaeobulgarica 23 (1999): 35–46.
Šmahel, František. “Česká anomalie? Úvaha na okraj diskusí o modernosti českeho „naroda” a českého
„nacionalismu” ve 14. a 15. století.” Československý časopis historický 37 (1969): 57–68.
———. “The Idea of the ‘Nation’ in Hussite Bohemia.” Historica 16 (1969): 143–247; 17 (1969): 93–197.
———. Idea národa v husitských Čechách. Prague, 2000.
Smičkiklas, Tadija, ed. Codex Diplomaticus Regni Croatiae, Dalmatiae et Slavoniae. Volume 4. Zagreb,
1906.
Smržík, Stephen. The Glagolitic or Roman-Slavonic Liturgy. Series Cyrillomethodiana 2. Cleveland, 1959.
Śnieżyńska-Stolot, Ewa. Tajemnice dekoracji Psałterza Floriańskiego: Z dziejów średniowiecznej koncepcji
uniwersum. Warsaw, 1992.
Sokołowski, August, and Anatol Lewicki, eds. Codex epistolaris saeculi decimi quinti. Vol. 2. Cracow, 1876.
Sommer, Petr. “Svatý Prokop a jeho kult ve středověku.” In Světci a jejich kult ve středověku, edited by Petr
Kubín, Hana Pátková, and Tomáš Petráček, 261–81. České Budějovice, 2006.
———, ed. Svatý Prokop, Čechy a Střední Evropa. Prague, 2006.

246
 Bibliography

———. Svatý Prokop: Z počátků českého státu a církve. Prague, 2007.

Sommer, Petr, Dušan Třeštík, and Josef Žemlička (with Zoё Opačić). “Bohemia and Moravia.” In Chris-
tianization and the Rise of Christian Monarchy: Scandinavia, Central Europe and Rus’ c. 900–1200,
edited by Nora Berend, 214–62. Cambridge, 2007.
Soulis, George C. “The Legacy of Cyril and Methodius to the Southern Slavs.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers
19 (1965): 19–43.
Spěváček, Jiří. “Bohemocentrismus a univerzalismus Karla IV.” In Mezinárodní vědecká konference “Doba
Karla IV. v dějinách národů ČSSR,” pořádaná Univerzitou Karlovou v Praze k 600. výročí úmrtí Karla
IV. 29.11.–1.12.1978: Materiály z plenárního zasedání a ze sekce historie, edited by Michal Svatoš,
96–116. Prague, 1981.
———. “Vztahy Karla IV. k představitelům raného humanismu.” In HRR, 3:795–805.
———. “Základní charakteristika struktury modelů státní moci v Evropě v 1. polovině 14. století.” Mediae-
valia Historica Bohemica 2 (1992): 63–89.
Speyer, Wolfgang. Die literarische Fälschung im heidnischen und christlichen Altertum: Ein Versuch ihrer
Deutung. Munich, 1971.
Spunar, Pavel. “The First Old Czech Translation of the Holy Spirit in the Cultural Relations of the 14th
Century.” In The Bible in Cultural Context, edited by Helena Pavlincová and Dalibor Papoušek,
321–26. Brno, 1994.
———. “První staročeský překlad bible v kulturním kontextu 14. století.” Religio 1 (1993): 39–45.
Šrámek, Josef. “Osobnost procházející dějinami, stále záhadný Kristián.” Studia Theologica 1 (2008): 32–40.
Stabińska, Jadwiga. Królowa Jadwiga. Cracow, 1997.
Stankovska, Petra. “Několik poznámek k jazyku chorvatských církevněslovanských památek z období
středověku.” Slovo 56–57 (2006–2007): 507–15.
Šťastný, Vladislav et al., eds. Slovanství v národním životě Čechů a Slováků. Prague, 1968.
Štefanić, Vjekoslav. “Dvije frankopanske glagoljske darovnice Pavlinima.” Zbornik Historijskog instituta
Jugoslavenske akademije znanosti i umjetnosti 1 (1954): 137–48.
———. “Glagoljaši u Kopru.” Starine 46 (1956): 203–329.
———. Glagoljski rukopisi otoka Krka. Zagreb, 1960.
———. “Nazivi glagoljskog pisma.” Slovo 25–26 (1976): 17–76.
Steindorff, Ludwig. “Liber Methodius: Überlegungen zur kyrillo-methodianischen Tradition beim Priester
von Dioclea.” Mitteilungen des bulgarischen Forschungsinstitutes in Österreich 1, no. 8 (1986): 157–72.
Stejskal, Jan. Podivuhodný příběh Jana Jeronýma. Prague, 2003.
Stejskal, Karel. “Emauzy a český helenoslavismus.” In Z tradic, 113–26.
———. Klášter Na Slovanech. Prague, 1974.
———. “Klášter Na Slovanech a mistr Jeroným Pražský.” Dějiny a současnost 2 (1967): 15–17; 3 (1967):
10–13.
———. “Malby v klášteře Na Slovanech a jejich vztah k evropskému malířství.” In Emauzy, 220–66.
———. “O malířích nástěnných maleb kláštera Na Slovanech.” Umění 15 (1967): 1–65.
———. “Nástěnné malby kláštera Na Slovanech v Praze z hlediska etnografického a kulturně historického.”
Český lid 55 (1968): 125–50.
———. “Typological Cycle in the Cloisters of Emmaus: Iconographic Analysis,” in Gothic Mural Painting
in Bohemia and Moravia 1300–1378, edited by Vlasta Dvořáková, Josef Krása, Anežka Merhautová,
and Karel Stejskal, 71–79. London, 1964.
Stenzel, Gustav Adolph, ed. “Chronica abbatum Beatae Mariae Virginis in Arena by Jodocus of Ziegen-
hals.” In Scriptores Rerum Silesicarum, 2:156–286. Breslau, 1839.
Strakhov, Olga B. “The Adventure of the Dancing Men: Professor Ševčenko’s Theory on the Origin of
Glagolitic.” Palaeoslavica 19 (2011): 1–45.
———. “Reimskoe evangelie kak paraliturgicheskii tekst.” Palaeoslavica, forthcoming.
Studničková, Milada. “Karlstein Castle as a Theological Metaphor.” In Prague and Bohemia: Medieval Art,
Architecture and Cultural Exchange in Central Europe, edited by Zoё Opačić, 168–82. London, 2009.
Suić, Mate. “Marko Marulić: In eos qui beatum Hieronymum Italum fuisse contendunt.” Mogućnosti 44
(1997): 228–41.

247
 Bibliography

Sullivan, Richard Eugene. “Early Medieval Missionary Activity: A Comparative Study of Eastern and
Western Methods.” Church History 23 (1954): 17–35.
Supičić, Ivan, ed. Croatia and Europe. Vol. 1, Croatia in the Early Middle Ages: A Cultural Survey. London,
1999.
———. Croatia and Europe. Vol. 2, Croatia in the Late Middle Ages and the Renaissance: A Cultural Survey.
London, 2008.
Sweet, Alfred H. “Ceremonial Privileges of the English Benedictines.” Washington University Studies, Hu-
manistic Series 9 (1921): 87–97.
Syrku, Polikhronii. “Zur Geschichte des Glagolismus in Böhmen.” Archiv für slavische Philologie 21
(1899): 169–97.
Szafrański, Adam Ludwik. “Mateusz z Krakowa: Wstęp do badań nad życiem i twórczością naukową.”
Materiały i Studia Zakładu Historii Filozofii Starożytnej i Średniowiecznej 8 (1967): 25–92.
Szcześniak, Władysław Maksymiljan. Obrządek słowiański w Polsce pierwotnej: Rozważony w świetle dzie-
jopisarstwa polskiego. Warsaw, 1904.
Szczur, Stanisław. “Misja cyrylo-metodiańska w świetle najnowszych badań.” In Chrystianizacja Polski
południowej: Materiały sesji naukowej odbytej 29 czerwca 1993 roku, 7–23. Cracow, 1994.
———. Papież Urban V i powstanie Uniwersytetu w Krakowie w 1364 r. Cracow, 1999.
Szymański, Józef. “Czy w Polsce istniał obrządek rzymsko-słowiański.” Zeszyty Naukowe KUL 6 (1963):
41–56.
Tachiaos, Anthony-Emil N. Cyril and Methodius of Thessalonica: The Acculturation of the Slavs. Crest-
wood, NY, 2001.
Tadra, Ferdinand, ed. Cancellaria Johannis Noviforensis Episcopi Olomucensis (1364–1380): Briefe und
Urkunden des Olmützer Bischofs Johann von Neumarkt. Archiv für österreichische Geschichte 68.
Vienna, 1886.
———. Kanceláře a písaři v zemích českých za králů Jana, Karla IV. a Václava IV. z rodu Lucem-
burského. Rozpravy České akademie císaře Františka Josefa pro vědy. Slovesnost a umění 2.
Prague, 1892.
———. “Kancléř Jan ze Středy a jeho ‘Život sv. Jeronyma’.” Věstník České Akademie 8 (1899): 421–26.
———. Kulturní styky Čech s cizinou až do válek husitských. Prague, 1897.
———. Summa Cancellariae (Cancellaria Caroli IV), xxiii–xxiv. Historický archiv 6. Prague, 1895.
Tandarić, Josip Leonard. “Crkvenoslavenska jezična norma u hrvatskoglagoljskom ritualu.” Slovo 32–33
(1983): 53–83.
———. Hrvatsko-glagoljska liturgijska književnost: Rasprave i prinosi. Zagreb, 1993.
———. “Staroslavenski jezik hrvatskih glagoljaša.” In Prilozi za VIII međunarodni slavistički kongres, 115–
24. Zagreb, 1978.
Tanner, Norman P., ed. Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils. Vol. 1, Nicaea I to Lateran V. London, 1990.
Taszycki, Witold, ed. Słownik staropolskich nazw osobowych. 7 vols. Wrocław, 1971–1973.
Temchin, S. Iu. “O razvitii pis’mennoi kul’tury Vostochnoi Bolgarii do 971 goda.” In Issledovaniia po
kirillo-mefodievistike i paleoslavistike, 53–70. Krakowsko-Wileńskie Studia Slawistyczne 5. Cracow,
2010.
Thomas of Split [Thomas, Archidiaconus Spalatensis]. Historia Salonitanorum atque Spalatinorum Pon-
tificum/History of the Bishops of Salona and Split. Edited by Olga Perić, Damir Karbić, Mirjana
Matijević Sokol, and James Ross Sweeney. Central European Medieval Texts 4. Budapest, 2006.
Thompson, Craig R. “Jerome and the Testimony of Erasmus in Disputes over the Vernacular Bible.” Pro-
ceedings of the Patristic, Medieval, and Renaissance Conference (Villanova University) 6 (1981):
1–36.
———. “Scripture for the Ploughboy and Some Others.” In Studies in the Continental Background of Ren­
aissance English Literature: Essays Presented to John L. Lievsay, edited by Dale B. J. Randall and
George Walton Williams, 3–28. Durham, NC, 1977.
Thomson, Francis J. “Gregory Tsamblak: The Man and the Myths.” Slavica Gandensia 25, no. 2 (1998).
———. “Has the Cyrillomethodian Translation of the Bible Survived?” In Thessaloniki, 149–64.
———. “The Influence of the Slavo-Latin (Glagolitic) Rite on the Decision of the Council of Trent about

248
 Bibliography

the Use of the Vernacular in the Liturgy.” In Glagoljica i hrvatski glagolizam, edited by Marija-Ana
Dürrigl, Milan Mihaljević, and Franjo Velčić, 295–307. Zagreb, 2004.
———. “The Legacy of SS. Cyril and Methodius in Counter-Reformation: The Council of Trent and the
Question of Scripture and Liturgy in the Vernacular, together with an Account of the Subse-
quent Consequences for the Slavo-Latin (Glagolitic) Rite and the Bible in Croatian Translation.”
In Metho­dios und Kyrillos in ihrer europäischen Dimension, edited by E. Konstantinou, 87–246.
Frankfurt am Main, 2005.
———. “Saint Methodius, Apostle to the Slavs, as Abbot of the Greek Monastery of Polikhron.” In Iter philo-
logicum: Festschrift für Helmut Keipert zum 65. Geburtstag, edited by Daniel Bunčić and Nikolaos
Trunte, 223–42. Munich, 2006.
———. “The Slavonic Bible as an Oecumenical Link between East and West.” In Medieval Christian Eu-
rope: East and West; Traditions, Values, Communications, edited by V. Gjuzelev, 30–44. Sofia, 2002.
———. “The Slavonic Translation of the Old Testament.” In Bible, 605–920, 638–46.
———. “SS. Cyril and Methodius and a Mythical Western Heresy: Trilinguism; A Contribution to the Study
of Patristic and Mediaeval Theories of Sacred Languages.” Analecta Bollandiana 110 (1992): 67–121.
———. “A Survey of the Vitae Allegedly Translated from Latin in Slavonic in Bohemia in the Tenth and
Eleventh Centuries.” In Atti del VIII Congresso internazionale di studi sull’alto Medioevo, 331–48.
Spoleto, 1983.
Tkadlčík, Vojtěch. “Byzantinischer und römischer Ritus in der slavischen Liturgie.” In Wegzeichen: Fest­
gabe zum 60. Geburtstag von Prof. Dr. Hermenegild M. Biedermann, OSA, edited by Coelestin Pa-
tock and Ernst Christoph Suttner, 313–32. Würzburg, 1971.
———. Cyrilometodějský kult na křest’anském Západě. Olomouc, 1995.
———. “K datování hlaholských služeb o sv. Cyrilu a Metoději.” Slovo 27 (1977): 85–128.
———. “Über den Ursprung der Glagolica.” In Glagolitica, 9–32.
Toby, Hanna. “O źródłach tradycji cerkiewnosłowiańskiej w Polsce.” In Dutch Contributions to the Twelfth
International Congress of Slavists, Cracow, August 26–September 3, 1998; Linguistics, edited by A. A.
Barentsen, 391–428. Studies in Slavic and General Linguistics 24. Amsterdam, 1998.
Trajdos, Tadeusz M. “Fundacja klasztoru benedyktynów słowiańskich na Kleparzu w Krakowie.” Rocznik
Krakowski 54 (1988): 73–89.
———. “Fundacja klasztoru karmelitów trzewiczkowych na Piasku w Krakowie.” Nasza Przeszłość 63
(1983): 93–105.
Třeštík, Dušan. “Deset tezí o Kristiánově legendě.” Folia Historica Bohemica 2 (1980): 7–38.
———. “Slovanská liturgie a písemnictví v Čechách 10. století: Představy a skutečnost.” In Svatý Prokop,
Čechy a Střední Evropa, edited by Petr Sommer, 189–218. Prague, 2006.
———. “Translace a kanonizace svatého Václava Boleslavem I.” In Světci a jejich kult ve středověku, edited
by Petr Kubín, Hana Pátková, and Tomáš Petráček, 325–44. České Budějovice, 2006.
Třeštík, Dušan, and Josef Žemlička, eds. Svatý Vojtěch, Čechové a Evropa: Mezinárodní sympozium
uspořádané Českou křesťanskou akademií a Historickým ústavem Akademie věd ČR 19.–20. listo-
padu 1997 v Praze. Prague, 1998.
Tschernochvostoff, Georg. “Zum Ursprung der Glagolica.” Studia Slavica Finlandensia 12 (1995): 141–50.
Turek, Rudolf. “Svatý Václav.” In Bohemia Sancta, edited by Jaroslav Kadlec, 53–71. Prague, 1989.
Turilov, Anatolii A. “Moskovskii otryvok Sviatotomashevskogo breviariia (Neizvestnyi spisok glagoli-
cheskoi sluzhby Kirillu i Mefodiiu).” Slavia 61 (1992): 409–18.
Ulewicz, Tadeusz. Sarmacja: Studium z problematyki slowianskiej XV i XVI w. Cracow, 2006.
Ulicki, Bogusław. Święty Florian od średniowiecza do współczesności. Warsaw, 1991.
Umański, Józef. Obrządek słowiański w Polsce IX–XI wieku i zagadnienie drugiej metropolii polskiej w cza-
sach Bolesława Chrobrego. Roczniki Humanistyczne Towarzystwa Naukowego Katolickiego Uniw-
ersytetu Lubelskiego 4 (1957): 1–44.
Urban, Wacław, and Sigitas Lūžys. Cracovia Lithuanorum saeculis XIV–XVI: Lietuvių Krokuva XIV–XVI
amžiais. Vilnius, 1999.
Urbańczyk, Przemysław, and Stanisław Rosik. “The Kingdom of Poland.” In Christianization and the Rise
of Christian Monarchy: Scandinavia, Central Europe and Rus’ c. 900–1200, edited by Nora Berend,

249
 Bibliography

263–300. Cambridge, 2007.

Urbańczyk, Stanisław. “Bogurodzica: Problemy czasu powstania i tła kulturalnego.” In Prace z dziejów
języka polskiego, 113–48. Wrocław, 1979.
———. Prace z dziejów języka polskiego. Wrocław, 1979.
———. “Rola Wielkich Moraw i Czech w kulturze Polski średniowiecznej.” In Prace z dziejów języka pol-
skiego, 63–74. Wrocław, 1979.
Urbańczyk, Stanisław, and Vladimír Kyas. Biblia królowej Zofii (Szaroszpatacka) wraz ze staroczeskim
przekładem Biblii. Wrocław, 1965.
Urbánek, Rudolf. Legenda t. zv. Kristiána ve vývoji předhusitských legend ludmilských i václavských a její
autor. 2 vols. Prague, 1947–1948.
Uspenskii, Boris. “O proiskhozhdenii glagolitsy.” Voprosy iazykoznaniia 1 (2005): 63–77.
Vajs, Josef. “Benediktinské opatství Rogovské v Dalmácii.” Slavia 18 (1947–1948): 223–25.
———. “Hlaholský zlomek nalezený v Augustianském klášteře v Praze.” Časopis Českého Museum 75
(1901): 21–35.
———. Najstariji hrvatskoglagoljski missal. Zagreb, 1948.
———. Rukovět’ hlaholské paleografie. Prague, 1932.
———. “Über den liturgischen Gesang der Glagoliten.” Archiv für slavische Philologie 31 (1919): 430–42.
Van Heck, Adrianus, ed. Enee Silvii Piccolominei Postea Pii PP. II De Evropa. Vatican City, 2001.
Vašica, Josef. “Krakovské zlomky hlaholské.” Slavia 18 (1947–1948): 111–37.
———. “Slovanská liturgie nově osvětlená Kijevskými listy.” Slovo a slovesnost 6 (1940): 65–77.
———. “Slovanská liturgie sv. Petra.” Byzantinoslavica 8 (1939–1940): 1–54.
Vauchez, André. Sainthood in the Later Middle Ages. Cambridge, 1997.
Večerka, Radoslav. “Cyrilometodějský kult v české středověké tradici.” Československý časopis historický
12 (1964): 40–43.
———. “Jazykovědný příspěvek k problematice staroslověnského písemnictví v Čechách X. a XI. století.”
Slavia 36 (1967): 421–28.
———. “Velkomoravská literatura v přemyslovských Čechách.” Slavia 32 (1963): 398–416.
Veder, William R. “Glagolitic Books in Rus’.” In Dubitando: Studies in History and Culture in Honor of
Donald Ostrowski, edited by Brian J. Boeck, Russell E. Martin, and Daniel Rowland, 315–34.
Bloomington, IN, 2012.
———. Utrum in Alterum Abiturum Erat? A Study of the Beginnings of Text Transmission in Church Slavic.
Bloomington, IN, 1999.
Vepřek, Miroslav. Česká redakce církevní slovanštiny z hlediska lexikílní analýzy. Olomouc, 2006.
Verkholantsev, Julia.“Kirillicheskaia zapis’ latinskikh molitv i otryvka china messy iz rukopisi Sinodal’nogo
Sobraniia GIM No. 558.” Drevniaia Rus’: Voprosy medievistiki 40 (2010): 74–90.
———. Ruthenica Bohemica: Ruthenian Translations from Czech in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and
Poland. Vienna, 2008.
Vessey, Mark. “Erasmus’ Jerome: The Publishing of a Christian Author.” Erasmus of Rotterdam Yearbook
14 (1994): 62–99.
Vidmanová, Anežka. “Ještě jednou k privilegiu Alexandra Velikého pro Slovany.” In Pulchritudo et Sa-
pientia: Ad honorem Pavel Spunar, edited by Zuzana Silagiová, Hana Šedinová, and Petr Kitzler,
179–87. Prague, 2008.
———. “K privilegiu Alexandra Velikého Slovanům.” In HRR, 1:105–15.
———. “K původní podobě a textové tradici staročeského Pasionálu.” Listy filologické 108 (1985): 16–45.
———. “Legenda aurea a Čechy.” In Legenda Aurea, by Jacobus de Voragine, 9–65. Prague, 1984.
———. “Středolatinská beletrie, Jan ze Středy a olomoucký protohumanismus.” In Laborintus: Latinská
literatura středověkých Čech, 140–49. Prague, 1994.
Vincenz, Andrzej. “Krytyczna analiza dokumentów dotyczących kontaktów Polski z misją cyrylo­
metodiańską.” In Zeszyty, 69–78.
———. “The Moravian Mission in Poland Revisited.” In Okeanos: Essays Presented to Ihor Ševčenko on His
Sixtieth Birthday by his Colleagues and Students, edited by Cyril A. Mango, Omeljian Pritsak, and

250
 Bibliography

Uliana M. Pasicznyk, 639–54. Harvard Ukrainian Studies 7. Cambridge, MA, 1983.

Vlasto, Alexis P. The Entry of the Slavs into Christendom: An Introduction to the Medieval History of the
Slavs. Cambridge, 1970.
Voragine, Jacobus de. Legenda Aurea: Con le miniature del Codice Ambrosiano C 240 Inf. Edited by
Giovanni Paolo Maggioni. Milan, 2007.
Vrana, Josip. “Hrvatskoglagoljski blagdanar: Studija o pravopisu, jeziku i podrijetlu novljanskog rukopisa
iz godine 1506.” Rad Jugoslavenske akademije znanosti i umjetnosti, Odjel za filologiju 285 (1951):
95–179.
———. “O postanku ćirilskoga teksta Reimskog evanđelja.” Slavia 53 (1984): 113–23.
———. “Praški glagoljski odlomci kao svjedok neprekidne ćirilometodske tradicije u Češkoj do kraja XI
stoljeća.” Slavia 39 (1970): 238–49.
Všetečková, Zuzana. “Gotické nástěnné malby v klášteře Na Slovanech—nová zjištění po roce 1996.” In
Emauzy, 279–81.
———. “Gotické nástěnné malby v křížové chodbě kláštera Na Slovanech.” Umění 44 (1996): 118–30.
Vykoukal, Arnošt. “Remešský staroslovanský Evangeliář, zvaný ‘Texte du sacre,’ s liturgického hlediska.” In
Slovanské studie: Sbírka statí věnovaných prelátu univ. prof. dr. Josefu Vajsovi k uctění jeho životního
díla, edited by Josef Kurz, Matyáš Murko, and Josef Vašica, 189–206. Prague, 1948.
Wadowski, Jan Ambroży. Kościoły lubelskie. Cracow, 1907.
Walther, Hans. Initia carminum ac versuum Medii Aevi posterioris Latinorum. Göttingen, 1959.
Weingart, Miloš. Československý typ cirkevnej slovančiny. Bratislava, 1949.
Weingart, Miloš, and Josef Kurz. Texty ke studiu jazyka a písmenictví staroslověnského. Prague, 1949.
Welykyj, Athanasius G., ed. Documenta Pontificum Romanorum Historiam Ucrainae Illustrantia (1075–
1953). Vol. 1. Rome, 1953.
Wolfram, Herwig. Conversio Bagoariorum et Carantanorum: Das Weißbuch der Salzburger Kirche über die
erfolgreiche Mission in Karantanien und Pannonien. Vienna, 1979.
Wolny, Jerzy. “Mikołaj z Miliczyna.” In Polski Słownik Biograficzny, 21:126. Cracow, 1976.
Wolny, Jerzy, Mieczysław Markowski, and Zdzisław Kuksewicz. Polonica w średniowiecznych rękopisach
bibliotek monachijskich. Wrocław, 1969.
Wood, Ian. The Missionary Life: Saints and the Evangelisation of Europe, 400–1050. Harlow, UK, 2001.
Woronczak, Jerzy, ed. Bogurodzica. Introduction by Ewa Ostrowska. Music commentary by Hieronim
Feicht. Biblioteka pisarzów polskich, Seria A. Liryka Średniowieczna 1. Wrocław, 1962.
Wörster, Peter. “Monasterium sancti Hieronymi Slavorum ordinis Benedicti.” In Kaiser Karl IV. 1316–
1378: Forschungen über Kaiser und Reich, edited by Hans Patze, 721–32. Neustadt an der Aisch,
1978.
Wuttke, Heinrich, ed. Aethici Istrici Cosmographia ab Hieronymo ex Graeco in Latinum breviarium redac-
tam. Leipzig, 1853.
Wyrozumski, Jerzy. “Benedyktyni słowiańscy w Oleśnicy i Krakowie.” In Zeszyty, 113–24.
———. Królowa Jadwiga między epoką piastowską i jagiellońską, with an appendix by Paweł Sikora. Cra-
cow, 1997.
Yawn, Lila. “Clement’s New Clothes: The Destruction of Old S. Clemente in Rome, the Eleventh-
Century Frescoes, and the Cult of (Anti)Pope Clement III.” In Framing Clement III, (Anti)Pope,
1080–1100, edited by Umberto Longo and Lila Yawn, 176–209. Reti Medievali Rivista 13, no. 1.
Florence, 2012.
Zachová, Jana, ed. Kronika Františka Pražského. Chronicon Francisci Pragensis. Fontes Rerum Bohemi-
carum, Series nova. Vol. 1. Prague, 1997.
Zathey, Jerzy. “Jan Isner.” In Polski Słownik Biograficzny, edited by Mieczysław Horoch and Paweł
Jarosiński, 10:434–36. Wrocław, 1962–1964.
———. “O kilku przepadłych zabytkach rękopiśmiennych Biblioteki Narodowej w Warszawie.” In Studia z
dziejów kultury polskiej, edited by Henryk Barycz and Jan Hulewicz, 73–86. Warsaw, 1949.
Zawodzińska, Celina. “Kolegium królowej Jadwigi przy Uniwersytecie Karola w Pradze i jego pierwszy
statut.” Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, Prace Historyczne 56 (1962): 19–38.

251
 Bibliography

Zhukovskaia, L.P. Reimsskoe evangelie: Istoriia ego izucheniia i tekst. Moscow, 1978.
Zíbrt, Čeněk. Bibliografie české historie. 2 vols. Prague, 1902.
Zlatar, Andrea. “Marulićev polemički spis In eos qui beatum Hieronymum Italum esse contendunt.” In Dani
Hvarskog kazališta: Marko Marulić, edited by Nikola Batušić, 212–20. Split, 1989.
Zoll-Adamik, Helena. “Formy konwersji Słowiańszczyzny wczesnośredniowiecznej a problem przedpias-
towskiej chrystianizacji Małopolski.” In Chrystianizacja Polski południowej: Materiały z sesji nau-
kowej odbytej 29 czerwca 1993 roku, 31–40. Cracow, 1994.
———. “Formy konwersji Słowiańszczyzny wczesnośredniowiecznej a problem przedpiastowskiej chrys-
tianizacji Małopolski.” Sprawozdania z Posiedzeń Komisji Naukowych PAN, Oddział w Krakowie
37, no. 2 (1993): 1–3.

252
 Index of Names and Subjects

Adalbert (Wojciech), saint, 30, 67–68, 72, 75–76, Bernhard, saint, 148,
95, 101, 129, 154, 158, 160, 181n60, 200n96; Bible (also Holy Scripture), 3, 5, 6, 22–24, 61,
crosier of, 196n47 67, 75, 88–89, 111; (Church) Slavonic, 13, 15,
Adalwin (archbishop of Salzburg), 50 19, 21, 32, 52, 67, 89, 155, 162, 169–70, 172;
Adriatic Sea, 33, 37, 40 Czech, 8, 104–6, 115, 138, 168; Czech Glagolit-
Aethicus (Ister), 54–57 ic, 105–6; Greek, 19, 52; Latin (Vulgate), 19,
Albert (royal dispensator), 152 42, 59, 61, 64, 67, 91, 105, 113–14, 138, 148,
Albrecht of Dubé, 216n59 149, 168–69, 172; Polish, 149; translated by
Algirdas (grand duke of Lithuania), 214nn23–24 Jerome, 61, 67, 89–90, 104–6, 155, 161–62,
altar to St. Jerome, at Nymburk, 107; at Přerov 168–72; vernacular translations of, 14–15,
cathedral, 121; at Slavonic Monastery of St. 104–6, 149, 155, 167, 168–72
Jerome, 89; at St. Nicholas at Cheb, 112; at Sts. Biblioteca Angelica, 72
Peter and Paul at Vyšehrad, 107; at Týn Cathe- Blaise, saint, 155
dral, 107; at St. Vitus, 107 Bludonis (Bludův), Albert, 105
Ambrose, saint, 3, 76–77, 107, 108, 148 Bogomils, 36
Andrea, Giovanni d’, 5, 110, 209n194 Bohemia, king of, John of Luxemburg, 79, 80, 82;
Andrew of Jaszowice (royal chaplain), 220n100 Přemysl Otakar I, 73; Přemysl Otakar II, 74;
Andrij of Novi Vinodolski, 164–65 Wenceslas II, 82; Wenceslas III, 82; and Holy
Andronicus (bishop of Pannonia), 47 Roman emperor, Charles IV, 8, 63–72, 74–89,
Anne of Bohemia (daughter of Wenceslas II), 82 96, 99, 101, 104–10, 114–15, 116, 119, 120–22,
Antony IV (patriarch), 215n31 134, 135, 140, 144, 150, 155, 157, 158–59,
Apostolic See (also Holy See, Roman curia, 161–63, 168; Ferdinand III, 160; Sigismund,
Rome), 12, 19–20, 23–25, 27, 29, 34–35, 37–38, 76; Wenceslas IV, 83, 146, 216n59; prince, of,
39–40, 54, 58–60, 62, 64–65, 81, 94, 96, 115, Boleslav I, 26–27, 31; of Bohemia Boleslav II,
119, 131, 134, 185n15, 220n94 81; Bořivoj, 73, 74, 85; Břetislav I, 27; Břetislav
Aquileia, 34, 167, 177n3 II, 28, 31, 96; Oldřich, 27; Spytihněv II, 27,
Augustine of Hippo, saint, 3, 4, 5, 21, 104, 107, 201n97; Vratislav II, 27–28, 96, 201n97; Wenc-
108, 109, 121, 122, 148, 160, 165; canons regu- eslas I. See St. Wenceslas
lar of, 70, 86, 105, 119, 122, 149, 221n104 Bonsignori, Bonsignore de, 110
Avitus, 55 Brest-Litovsk, 142
Bridget, of Sweden, saint, 148, 218n79, 220n94
Babel, tower of, 14 Bulgaria, ruler of, Boris I, 32; Symeon, 32
Balbín, Bohuslav, 162–63, 168, 172 Burchardus (royal chancellor), 76
Bartholomew of Chlumec (Master Claretus), 94,
105 Canterbury, 55
Bartholomew of Jasło, 145, 156, 220n100 Cardailla, Jean de (Latin patriarch of Alexandria),
Benedict of Nursia, St.: as co-patron of Europe, 195n25
176n10; feast day of, 100; order of, 27, 28, 40, Casimir II (duke of Kuyavia), 43
42–43, 55, 68, 69, 72, 75, 76–78, 81, 86, 91, chapel, Bethlehem at Prague, 146, 218n76; of Holy
111, 148, 150–151, 160, 215n30; with Roman Cross at Karlstein, 108; of St. Anna at St. Vitus,
Slavonic rite, 8, 40–43, 48, 60, 63–73, 76–78, 107, of the Holy Cross and the Virgin Mary
99, 114–15, 117–20, 122, 124–28,135, 139–42, at Oleśnica, 119; of the Holy Trinity at Lublin
146–47, 150–153, 156–57, 158–60, 162–63, Castle, 215n30; of the Holy Trinity at Wawel
187n36 Castle, 215n30; of the Virgin Mary and St.
Beneš Krabice of Weitmil, 79, 195n42, 197n64 Thomas at St.Vincent in Wrocław,122
 Index of Names and Subjects

Charles IV Capet the Fair, 82–83 Monastery, 72–76, 93–96; cult of, 30, 45–50,
Charles IV. See Bohemia, king 74–75, 93–96, 101, 124, 128–31, 140, 153;
Charles of Lorraine (cardinal), 205n147 disciples of, Angelarius, 32; Clement of Ohrid,
Cheb–Eger, 112 17, 32, 46, 47; Constantine of Preslav, 14, 32,
Chersonesus, 196n45 47; Gorazd, 25, 26, 29–30; Nahum of Ohrid,
Christian conversion, 26, 170, 59, 64; Bohemia, 32; mission of, 11–26, 35–36
26–28, 73, 74, 158; Croatia, 16, 34–36; Lithu- Cyril of Cappadocia, 16
ania, 131–33, 135, 141, 143; Moravia, 11–15, Cyril of Jerusalem, saint, 4, 121,
131; Pannonia, 35, 50, 51; Poland, 27, 28–32,
124; Romania, 32; Rus’, 32, 59; Serbia 32 Damasus (bishop of Portus), 4
church: at Nymburk, 107, basilica of San Cle- Danilo Romanovich (prince of Galicia), 59
mente, 187n47; basilica of St. Ambrose, 77, devotio moderna, 105, 148
86–87; basilica of St. Maria Maggiore, 3–5, Dietrich of Klatovy, 120
180n50; basilica of St. Peter, 20; cathedral at Dioclea (Duklja), 36, 52
Cracow, 143; cathedral at Cracow, 218n79; Diviš I and II (abbots of Břevnov Monastery), 91,
cathedral at Gnieźno, 215n30; cathedral at 223n2
Přerov, 121; cathedral at Senj, 58; cathedral Długosz, John, 125–28, 135, 140–43, 146–47,
of St. Vitus at Prague, 70, 107, 115, 200n94, 148–49, 151–52, 166, 168, 214n24, 219n87
200n96, 201n97; cathedral of St. Vitus at Dmitrii Ivanovich Donskoi (grand prince of
Velehrad, 131, 83; cathedral, Týn, 70, 107; Moscow), 132
collegiate at Sandomierz, 215n30; collegiate Dobrovský, Josef, 173
at Wiślica, 215n30; collegiate of Sts. Peter Dominic (bishop, papal legate), 25
and Paul at Vyšehrad, 67, 69–70, 76, 81, 107, Dominican, 4, 105, 133, 135, 146, 164, 206n159,
200n90; collegiate of St. Florian, 147, 152–53, 215n29
164; of Hagia Sophia at Ohrid, 47; of St. Maria Dubravka (daughter of Boleslav I), 27, 31
on Osap, 164; of St. Nicholas at Cheb, 112; of Dušan, Stefan (tsar of Serbia), 65–66, 104
St. Nicholas at Prague, 69; of Sts. Cosmas and
Damian at Pargue, 67, 69–70, 195n42; of the Elisabeth Přemysl (queen of Bohemia), 79, 80–81,
Holy Cross at Kleparz, 125–28, 131, 143, 150, 82
152–53, 164; of the Slavonic Monastery of St. Elizabeth Kotromanić of Bosnia (wife of Louis I),
Jerome at Prague, 69, 72, 163; of the Virgin 143
Mary at Velehrad, 74; parochial at Konske, Elizabeth of Kuyavia (daughter of Casimir II), 143
222n113; parochial at Oleśnica, 118; parochial Elizabeth of Poland (sister of Casimir III), 143
at Przeczów, 117–18; parochial Novi Vinodol- emperor, Byzantine, Michael III, 12, 23, 94, 131;
ski, 164; parochial of Sts. Philip and James, 164 Roman, Arnold, 131; Arcadius, 167; Basil I, 35;
church council, 23, 84; Fourth Lateran of 1215, 45, Constantine the Great, 78, 85–86; Diocle-
58–59; of Constance, 134, 200n86, 208n173; tian, 81, 155; Honorius, 167; Justinian, 167;
of Ferrara-Florence, 60, 130, 139, 205n147; of Maximian, 81; Maximin, 81; Theodosius, 167;
Nicaea, 171; of Split (925), 31, 37–39, 41, 44, Theodosius the Younger, 167
50, 58–59; of Split (1060), 31, 39, 41, 50–51, 59; Erasmus of Rotterdam, 168–69
of Trent, 169, 201n104, 206n155 Ernest of Pardubice (archbishop of Prague), 63,
church union, 60, 65–66, 130, 131, 133–35, 139 66, 69, 88, 105–6, 149, 217n69
Cistercians, 40, 73–74, 82, 84, 119, 218 Eusebius of Cremona, saint, 4, 121
Cividale (Old Aquileia), 35
Conrad II (duke of Oleśnica and Koźle), 116–23 filioque, 23–24, 136
Cres, island of, 42 Fillip of Novi Vinodolski, 164–65
Croatia, king of, Tomislav, 38; Zvonimir, 42; Florian, saint, 147, 152–53, 164
prince of, Trpimir, 40 Formosus (bishop), 180n50
Cyprian (metropolitan), 133, 215n31 Francis of Assisi, St., order of, 41, 65, 80, 133, 135,
Cyril and Methodius, saints, 6, 8, 9, 31, 32, 45, 151, 186n36; Third Order of (with Roman Sla-
50–53, 83, 98, 114, 155, 158; as co-patrons of vonic rite), 40, 41, 48, 54, 164, 187n36, 216n45
Europe, 176n10; as patrons of the Slavonic Fructuosus (bishop of Krk), 59–60

254
 Index of Names and Subjects

Galicia (Halych), 59, 119, 132, 133, 142, 215n31 John of Oświęcim (canon of Cracow), 152–53
Gdańsk, 121 John of Prague (abbot), 119–20, 122
Gedko (bishop of Cracow), 164 John Radlica (bishop of Cracow), 145, 219n87
George of Poděbrady, 161 John the Pole (Ivan Poljak) of Bochnia, 165
George, saint, 119, 155 Jošt (margrave of Moravia), 107
Gregory the Great, saint, 3, 11, 21, 27, 107, 108 Jurentam, Johannes, 121

Harding, Thomas, 169 Kamianets, 142

Hasenzagl (Hasenczagl), Nicolai, 112 Kaplíř, Kateřina and Kunát of Sulevice, 107
Hieronymus (Jan Silván) of Prague, 146, 154–55 Kłodzko–Kladsko–Glatz, 121, 149
Hincza of Rogów (vice-treasurer of Poland), Kříž (merchant), 146
215n30 Krk, island of, 10, 41, 42, 60, 89, 164
Hosius, Stanislaus (cardinal), 155, 167 Kvarner Gulf, 35, 36
Hradčany (royal castle), 70, 147
Hrodna, 142 Leszko (legendary ruler of Poland), 131
Huler, Zikmund and Ondřej, 107 Leublinus (royal notary), 195
Hum, 48 Ligne, Jean de, (archbishop of Mainz), 195n25
humanism, 5, 6, 9, 78, 79, 95, 109, 110, 112, 114, lingua nobilis, Slavic as, 65–66, 75, 104–5, 115,
155, 161, 166, 168, 170 120–21
Hus, John, 63, 107, 113–14, 146, 151, 160, 168, Lithwos, Georgius (archdeacon of Lublin), 126,
169, 108n173, 218n76, 219n86 152–53; Nicholas, 152, 222n113; Świętosław
Hussite, 78, 130, 151, 155, 159–60, 161, 200n90, (Cracow governor), 222n113
205n147 liturgy (Divine Office, Mass), Latin, 22–23, 38,
50, 81; Latin transcribed in Cyrillic, 137–39;
Isidore of Seville, 55, 91, 192n110 Pontifical, 87, 96, 100–101; Roman-Byzantine,
Isner, John, 145, 218n77 18–19; Slavonic, 11–32, 38–39, 50–51, 53,
Istria, 16, 34–35, 51, 53–54, 57, 165–67 63–66; 84–85, 96, 100–101, 117–18, 125–28,
Iuliania (princess of Tver), 132 136–39, 140–41, 151–52, 164; translated into
Slavonic by Jerome, 44–45, 58–62, 66–68,
Jadwiga of Anjou (king/queen of Poland), 116, 76–78, 166, 167–72
124–27, 130, 131, 132–33, 142–44, 145–46, Louis I Anjou (king of Hungary and Poland), 63,
148–49, 150, 151–52, 154, 156 69, 119, 143
James (bishop of Płock), 134 Ludmila of Bohemia, saint, 26, 73, 75, 83, 160,
James Augustini of Legnica (archdeacon), 118 161, 200n96
James the Apostle, saint, 125, 127, 151 Lukoml, 215n29
Jerome of Prague, 107, 200n86 Lviv–Lwów, 142
Jerome Seidenberg of Vratislav (archdeacon of St.
Vitus), 107 Maignac, Aimeric de (bishop of Paris), 195n25
Jewel, John (bishop of Salisbury), 169 Malmesbury, 55
Jogaila (grand duke of Lithuania). See Władysław Martin (Franciscan missionary), 65
II Jagiełło Matthew of Cracow, 145, 156, 218n76, 220n94
John (archbishop of Split), 37–38, 51 Methodii doctrina, 37–38, 51
John Henry (margrave of Moravia), 109 Michael (archbishop of Bethlehem), 215n31
John Očko of Vlašim (archbishop of Prague), 70, Mihajlo Višević (ruler of Zahumlje), 38
85, 88, 105–6, 200n91 Milíč of Kroměříž, 105
John of Holešov, 68, 72, 91, 196n48 Mlada-Maria (nun, sister of Boleslav II), 81
John of Jesenice, 114 monastery: at Břevnov, 28, 68, 72, 91–93; at
John of Neumarkt (royal chancellor, bishop of Glavotok on Krk, 164; at Kladruby, 69; at
Litomyšl and Olomouc), 84, 88, 104–5, 109– Lubiąż, 119; at Podlažice, 91; at Rižinice near
10, 112, 116, 120–23, 155, 159, 161, 206n159 Solin, 40; at Roudnice, 105; at Strahov, 69, 70,
John of Opava (scribe and manuscript illumina- 90, 154; at Velehrad, 73–74, 82; at Zhidichin
tor), 109 near Lutsk, 215n29; at Kłodzko, 149; of

255
 Index of Names and Subjects

Camaldoli, 154; of Monte Cassino, 42–43; of Payne, Peter, 160

St. Ambrose at Prague, 76–78, 86–87; of St. Peter, the Apostle, saint, 18, 20, 80, 81, 101, 111,
Catherine on Mt. Sinai, 18; of St. Cosmas and 180n50, 196n47
Damian Tkon on Pašman, 41, 68–69; of St. Philip (bishop of Senj), 44–45, 53, 57–58, 78
Florian, 220n101; of St. John the Baptist at Philotheos Kokkinos (patriarch), 133
Povlja on Brač, 41; of St. Lucy at Jurandvor on Podolia, 132
Krk, 41, 42; of St. Maria near Novi, 164; of St. Podskalí, 67, 69–70
Nicholas at Omišalj on Krk, 41, 59–60; of St. Poland, king of, Alexander Jagiellon, 152–53;
Nicholas at Otočac, 41; of St. Nicholas on Mt. Bolesław I the Brave, 30; Casimir III the Great,
Gvozd, 165; of St. Peter at Salzburg, 111; of St. 132, 143, 144; Casimir IV Jagiellon, 153, 161;
Vincent, 122; of the Assumption of the Virgin Władysław II Jagiełło, 116, 124–27, 130, 131–
Mary and St. Charlemagne, 70, 86–87, 100; of 35, 137, 141–43, 145–46, 150, 154, 156; prince
the Holy Cross at Łysa Gora, 148, 215n30; of of, Casimir II the Just, 164; Mieszko, 27, 31
the Holy Cross at Wrocław, 120; of the Virgin pope, Alexander II, 39, 185n19; Boniface IX, 145;
Mary on Piasek at Wrocław, 119, 122; of the Boniface VIII, 3; Clement IV, 194n22; Clement
Visitation of the Virgin Mary at Piasek, 146, VI, 63–67, 69, 74, 76, 96, 100, 134, 194n21,
150; Polykhron, 12–13; Sázava, 27–28, 31, 200n91, 200n94, 220n94; Damasus, 167; Eu-
72–73, 96, 99–100, 182n66, 206n151; Sla- gene IV, 60, 139, 166; Gregory VII, 96; Gregory
vonic of Corpus Christi at Oleśnica, 116–23, XI, 84, 120, 220n94; Hadrian II, 20, 23, 59;
153, 158–60, 164; Slavonic of St. Jerome at Honorius II, anti-pope, 39; Innocent IV, 44–45,
Prague, 63–78, 86–90, 93–106, 114–15, 116, 53, 59–60, 78; Innocent VI, 63–65, 76–78,
126–27, 146, 158–60, 162–63; Slavonic of the 220n94; John VIII, 20, 23–24, 59, 84–85; John
Holy Cross at Kleparz, 114, 124–28, 130–31, X, 37–38, 51; John XV, 81; John XXII, 69;
135–44, 146–47, 150–53, 155, 156–57, 158–60, Lucius III, 164; Martin V, 134; Stephen V, 19,
164–65, 168 20, 25, 52, 180n52; Urban VI, 84, 146
Moravec, John, 105 Premonstratensians, 69–70, 90, 122, 154
Moravia, Great, 6, 11–32, 35, 36, 37, 39, 44, 46, 51, Preslav, 14, 32, 46, 47
52, 63, 73–75, 81–85, 94, 99, 120–21, 128–29, Procopius of Bohemia, saint, 27, 67, 72–73, 75–76,
130–31; prince of, Rostislav, 12, 26, 52, 180n50; 95–102, 158, 160, 161, 200n96
Svatopluk, 29, 73, 83, 189n73, 191n106 Procopius of Caesarea, 167
Przecław of Pogorzela (bishop of Wrocław), 120
Navahrudak, 133 Przemyśl–Peremyshl’, 142, 152
Neumarkt–Středa, town of, 120, 212n15
Nicholas (archbishop of Gnieźno), 134 Rihpald, bishop, 50
Nicholas of Louny, 105, 200n94 Řip, mountain, 68
Nicholas of Miličin, 146, 156 River, Neretva, 10, 35; Vistula, 10, 29; Vltava, 10,
Nicholas of Roudnice, 105 69–70
Nicholas of Smolna, 118 Romania, 32
Novi Vinodolski, 41, 164 Rus’, 28, 32, 33, 47, 53, 59, 93, 95, 96, 99, 130,
131–40, 188n50, 204n139, 205n143, 215n29
Ohrid, 32, 46, 47,
Sandomierz, 29, 215n30
Pann(e)witz, Johannes, 121; Matthias, 118, Sandor of Rambow (archdeacon of Přerov), 121
121–22; Nicholas, 121; Wolfram, 121 Sarmatian theory, 157
Pannonia, 6, 20, 29, 31, 34, 35, 36, 37, 47, 50, 51, Sdrigna, 166. See also Stridon
53, 94, 113, 167, 171, 176n8, 180n50, 185n15, Sigismund of Burgundy, saint, 115, 161, 200n96
188n65, 200n87, 226n53; prince of, Kocel, 31, Skirgaila (viceroy-grand duke of Lithuania), 141
180n50 Skradin (Scardona), 168. See also Stridon
Passau, missionaries of, 12 Stanislaus of Poland, 165
Paul the Hermit, saint, 14, 47, 188n50; order of Stanislaus, saint, 129, 154, 160, 161
(with Roman Slavonic rite), 40, 41, 164, 165, Staré Město. See Velehrad
187n36 Štěkna (Szczekna), John, 130, 145, 146, 218n77

256
 Index of Names and Subjects

Stipan of Krk, 164 Vladislav Jindřich (margrave of Moravia), 73

Stridon, birthplace of St. Jerome, 6, 53–54, 67, Volynia, 119, 132, 215n29
112–13, 162, 166–67 Vyšehrad, castle, 67, 69–70, 76, 81, 87, 107, 147,
Styria, 74 200n90
Vyšší Brod, 210n209
Teutonic Order, 10, 132, 141–42, 156, 219n87; Vytautas (grand duke of Lithuania), 132, 133, 134,
Zöllner, Conrad, grand master of, 142; Jindřich 141–42
of Brno, procurator of, 216n59
Theodoric, Master, 108 Wartenberg (Syców) Gate, 117
Theophylactus (archbishop of Ohrid), 184n82 Wenceslas, brother, 127, 147, 150
Thomas (archbishop of Esztergom), 195n25 Wenceslas, saint, 26–27, 73, 75, 82–83, 101, 129,
Třeboň, 210n209 154, 160, 161, 197n64, 200n96; crown of,
Tsamblak, Gregory (metropolitan of Lithuania), 200n97
133–34 Wiching (bishop of Nitra), 19, 26, 30
Wiślica, 29, 215n30
Ugrin (archbishop of Split), 187n42 Władysław II of Opole (palatine of Poland),
Ulrich (Franciscan missionary), 65 195n25
university (studium generale), of Cracow, 143, Wrocław–Breslau, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 164
144–46, 151, 156, 218nn75–78; of Bologna, 5, Wurmser, Nicholas, 203n119
107, 145; of Heidelberg, 218n78; of Padua, 145, Wysz, Peter of Radolin (bishop of Cracow), 125,
219n87; of Prague, 70, 105, 107, 110, 144–46, 145–46, 149, 221n104
151, 154, 163, 168, 218nn75–78, 219n87
Zadar, 42, 69, 204n140, 206n155, 206n157
Velehrad (capital of Great Moravia), 73–75, Žatec–Saaz, 112
82–84, 120–21, 129, 131 Zavorović, Dinko, of Šibenik, 54
Venice, 16, 20–23, 25, 34, 35, 36, 63, 94 Zderaz, 67, 69–70
via regia, in Cracow and Prague, 147 Želivský, John, 160
Virgilius Maro Grammaticus, 55 Zofia Holszańska (wife of Jagiełło), 137, 220n100
Vitus of Sicily, saint, 70, 83, 107, 115, 200n94, Zrenj, 53. See also Stridon
200n96, 204n139 Zychner (Czychner), Nicolai, 112

257
 Index of Primary Sources

Manuscripts, Literary Texts, Documents, Charter for the Slavonic Monastery of St.
and Epistles Jerome in Prague (Nuremberg, 21 November
Acta Actorum Capituli Ecclesiae Cathedralis Craco- 1347), 66–68, 72, 75–76, 89; Donation Charter
viensis, 153 to the Slavonic Monastery of St. Jerome (15
Albertus Magnus, Raj dušě, 160 November 1350), 71, 75–76; Donation Charter
Alexander II (pope), Letter confirming the to the Slavonic Monastery of St. Jerome (17
decisions of the Split Council of 1061 (after 1 November 1350), 75–76; Donation Charter to
October 1061), 39n19 the Slavonic Monastery of St. Jerome (13 Janu-
Andrea, Giovanni d’, Hieronymianus or De laudi- ary 1352), 76, 101, 198n66; Hystoria nova de
bus sancti Hieronymi, 5, 110 Sancto Wenceslao Martyre, 82–84
Anthony IV (patriarch), Letters to Władysław II Clement VI (pope), Bulla to Prague Archbishop
Jagiełło, Metropolitan Cyprian, Archbishop Ernest of Pardubice on the foundation of the
Michael on Bethlehem on the church union, Slavonic Monastery of St. Jerome in Prague (9
134 May 1346), 63–65, 76, 217n69; Bulla on the
Apostles’ Creed (Credo) with Ruthenian transla- confirmation of the foundation of the Slavonic
tion, 137–39 Monastery (21 September 1348), 194n21;
Ave Maria with Ruthenian translation, 137–39 Bulla to Charles IV on the privilege of wearing
pontifical insignia by the abbot of the Slavonic
Balbín, Bohuslav, Epitome historica rerum Bo- Monastery of St. Jerome (3 February 1350), 69,
hemicarum, 162–63; De regni Bohemiae felici 76, 100
quondam nunc calamitoso statu ac praecipue de Codex Gigas, 91–93
Bohemicae seu Slavicae linguae in Bohemia . . . Comenius, Jan Amos, Ecclesiae Slavonicae . . .
brevis et accurata tractatio, 163, 172 brevis Historiola, 162
Baška Tablet, 42, 43 Comestor, Peter, Historia Scholastica, 104
Beneš Krabice of Weitmil, Chronica Ecclesiae Concordantiae caritatis, 88
Pragensis, 79, 195n42, 197n64 Conrad Gessner, Mythridates, 172
Biblia pauperum, 88 Conrad II of Oleśnica and Koźle (duke), Foun-
Bibliander, Theodor, De ratione communi omnium dation Charter of the Slavonic Monastery of
linguarum & literarum, 171–72 Corpus Christi at Oleśnica (21 September
Biondo Flavio, Italia Illustrata, 166–68, 192n109 1380), 117–18
Blagdanar, 164–65 Conversio Bagoariorum et Carantanorum, 50, 51
Bogurodzica (hymn), 30–31 Cosmas of Prague, Chronica Boemorum, 73, 81,
Bollandists, Acta Sanctorum Septembris (1762), 91, 199n82
172–73 Cosmographia of Aethicus Ister by Pseudo-Jerome,
Bonaventure, Čim se ma člověk lepšiti, 160 54–57, 62
Burchardus (chancellor), Charter of Restitution Cracow Missal of 1410–1420, 130
to the Slavonic Monastery of St. Jerome (12 Cracow Synod Statutes (1436), 130
March 1368), 76 Čtenie svetago Eronima Hrvatina, 34, 161
Czech Pasionál, 74, 104, 108, 160
Capitula Synodi Spalatensis, Decisions of the Split
Council of 925, canon10, 38–39 Dalimil Chronicle, 68, 73–74, 95
Charles IV (holy Roman emperor), Vita Caroli IV De diversis ritibus in eadem fide, canon 9 of the
imperatoris ab ipso Carolo conscripta, 192n2; Fourth Lateran Council (1215), 58
Letter to Tsar Stefan Dušan on a church union De sancto Quirillo et conversione Moravie et Bohe-
(19 February 1355), 65–66, 104; Foundation mie or Diffundente sole, 74
 Index of Primary Sources

Diviš’s Abecedarium, 91–93 of Senj granting permission to use Roman

Długosz, John, Annales seu Cronicae Incliti Regni Slavonic rite and Glagolitic letters (29 March
Poloniae, 125–28, 135, 140–43, 146–47, 148, 1248), 44–45, 59, 78; Letter to bishop Fructuo-
152, 214n24; Liber Beneficiorum dioecesis sus of Krk granting permission to use Roman
Cracoviensis, 125–28, 135, 140–42, 146–47, Slavonic rite and Glagolitic letters (26 January
152; Vitae episcoporum Poloniae, 219n87 1252), 59–60; Bulla “Cum te de cetero speci-
Dubravius, Jan, Historia Bohemica, 78, 161–62 alem” (27 August 1247), 191n105
Innocent VI (pope), Bulla to Charles IV on the
Encomium to St. Constantin-Cyril, 46, 48, 94 privilege to celebrate special Ambrosian and
Encomium to Sts. Cyril and Methodius, 47 Slavonic rites outside of their monasteries (28
Enea Silvio Piccolomini, Historia Bohemica, 85; December 1359), 76–77
De Europa, 107, 222n117 Isidore of Seville, Etymologiae, 91, 192n110
Ernest of Pardubice (archbishop), Charter on the
elevation of the Church of Sts. Cosmas and Jerome, De viris illustribus, 53, 167, 177n8; Com-
Damian to the monastic church (14 December mentariorum In Isaiam Prophetam, 6n8
1348), 69 Jodocus of Ziegenhals, Chronica abbatum Beatae
Eugene IV (pope), Bulla “Laetentur Coeli” (6 July Mariae Virginis in Arena, 212n28
1439), 60, 139 John of Holešov, Expositio cantici sancti Adalberti
Excerptum de Karentanis, 51 Hospodine, pomiluj ny, 68, 72, 91–93
John of Jesenice, Quia summum in rebus, 114
Flavius, Josephus, Antiquitates iudaice, De bello John of Neumarkt (royal chancellor, bishop), Peti-
iudaico, 91 tion to Pope Gregory XI regarding the use of
Florian Psalter, 149 pontificalia for the Velehrad Cistercian monastery
Francis of Prague, Chronica Pragensis, 79, 195n42 (before November 1375), 84, 201n99; German
Franciscans, Third Order (of the Adriatic and translation of Soliloquia, 104; Letter to Charles on
Dalmatia), Letter on the use of the Glagolitic a German translation of the Soliloquia, praise to
letters and Roman Slavonic rite, created by Sts. St. Jerome (1357–1363), 104; Letter to Charles IV
Jerome and Cyril, 54, 190n83 on St. Jerome (1370/1371), 116; German transla-
tion of Hieronymus, 109, 121; edition of the Latin
Gauderic, Translatio St. Clementis, or Italian Leg- Hieronymus, 110, 112, 121; Letter to his notary,
end, 129, 177n2, 180n50, 187n48 Peter, with thanks for copying the works of St.
Giovio, Paolo, De legatione Moscovitarum, 170 Jerome, 109; Letter to the prior of Augustinians in
Glagolitic Gradual Fragment (at Strahov Monas- Brno to hasten the copying of the liber s. Jeronimi
tery), 90–91 (shortly after 1372), 109
Grgur of Bar (bishop), Chronicle of the Presbyter John of Teplá, Cheb Office to St. Jerome, 111–13,
Diocleas, or Sclavorum regnum, 52 153, 161; Vita et Gesta Sancti Jeronimi, 112–13,
153; Der Ackermann aus Bohmen, 112
Henry of Bitterfeld, De vita contemplativa et John VIII (pope), Bulla “Industriae tuae,” or “Di-
activa, 146 lecto filio Sfentopulcho glorioso comiti (“To
Hieronymus of Prague, Exemplar Salutis, 154; the beloved son Svatopluk, glorious prince,”
“Sermo Modernus in Festo Sancti Hieronymi June 880), 20, 23–24, 85
de Dalmatia Doctoris Gloriosi,” 154–55; John X (pope), Letter to Archbishop John of Split
“Sermo Modernus in Festo Sancti Blasii de and his suffragan bishops warning against the
Sclavonia Episcopi et Martyris Gloriosi,” 155; Methodii doctrina (shortly before 925), 37,
“Sermo Modernus in Festo Sancti Georgii de 51; Letter to Archbishop John, King Tomislav
Sclavonia Martyris Gloriosi,” 155 of Croatia, and Prince Mihajlo of Zahumlje
Hosius, Stanislaus, De sacro vernacule legendo, 167 (shortly before 925), 38
Hospodine, pomiluj ny (hymn), 68, 72, 93,
205n144 Kazania świętokrzyskie, 148–149
Hus, John, Sermones, 63, 113 Khrabr (monk), On the Letters, 15, 17, 47
Kiev Folia, 18, 179n36
Innocent IV (pope), Letter to Bishop Philip Krumlov Miscellany, 89

260
 Index of Primary Sources

Legend of Saloniki, 16 Postel, Guillaume, Linguarum duodecim charac-

Legend of St. Procopius, 73 teribus differentium alphabetum introductio,
Legend of the Three Kings (Croatian and Czech), 170–71
160 Prague Folia, 206n151
Legenda Christiani, or Vita et passio sancti Wenc- Primary Chronicle, 180n50
eslai et sancte Ludmile ave eius, 26, 73, 83 Privilegium Alexandri Magni donatum populis
Letopisy hradišt’sko-opatovické, 73 Slavis, 78–79
Liber depictus, 88 Prolog (Proglas), 14–15
Libri erectionum Archidioecesis Pragensis, 107 Pulkava of Radenín, Přibík, Chronica, 79–80,
Life of Constantine, 20–23, 45, 46, 48, 49, 84, 176n2 84–5, 95
Life of Methodius, 12–13, 29–30, 46, 48, 176n2,
180n50 Rabanus Maurus, De inventione linguarum, 55–57,
Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, 18 62; “Ad Eigilum de libro quem scripsit,” 61
Liturgy of St. Peter, 18 Registrum Slavorum, 70–72, 162
Lucidar, 160 Regula Sancti Benedicti, 40, 42, 91; in Glagolitic, 40
Rocca, Angelo, Appendix de Dialectis, 172
Marian Mass or Roman Mass in Honor of the
Virgin Mary), in Ruthenian, 136–39; in Latin, Sandecki-Małecki, Jan, Defensio verae translationis
137–39 Corporis Catechismi, 124
Marignolli, John, Chronica Bohemorum, 80–82, 85 Sázava Chronicle, or Mnich sázavský, 73
Marulić, Marko, Vita Diui Hieronymi, 161; In eos Sigebert of Gembloux, Chronicon, 112
qui beatum Hieronymum Italum fuisse contend- Sigismund (holy Roman emperor), Confirmation
unt, 167–68 Charter of privileges to the Slavonic Monastery
Mass to St. Florian (Glagolitic), 164 of St. Jerome (12 June 1437), 76
Matthew of Miechow, Chronica Polonorum, Siguenza, Jose de Espinoza de, Vida de San
130–31, 151–52, 166–67 Geronimo Doctor de la Santa Iglesia, 169–70
Miscellany of Deacon Luka, 160 Sinai Folia, 179n36
Moravian Legend, or Quemadmodum ex historie, Slavonic Gospel of Reims, 76, 96–103
74, 85, 129 Song of Songs (Ruthenian), 138–39
Speculum humanae salvationis, 88–89
O sv. Jeronýmovi knihy troje, 109, 110 Stephen V (pope), Letter “Commonitorium
Office to St. Cyril, 46 Dominico episcopo Iohanni et Stefano pres-
Office to St. Methodius, 47 byteris euntibus ad Sclavos,” 20, 25, 179n41,
Office to St. Vitus (Croatian Glagolitic), 204n139 180n52, 181n55; Letter “Stephanus episco-
Office to Sts. Cyril and Methodius (Croatian pus servus servorum Dei Zventopolco regi
Glagolitic), 48–50, 52, 93–95 Sclavorum,” 180n52, 191n106
Office to Sts. Cyril and Methodius, or Adest dies
Gloriosa, 74–75, 130 Tale of Miracles of St. Nicholas (Ruthenian),
Office to the Translation of Relics of St. Jerome, 53 215n29
Oracio de Sancto Jeronimo, 111 Thebaldus, Franciscus, “Ecclesie doctor Ciceronis
codice flagrans…”110
Passionale de Sanctis, 129 Thomas of Split (archdeacon), Historia Salonitana,
Pater noster with Ruthenian translation, 137–39 50–51, 52
Pelzel, Franz Martin, Dissertatio apologetic pro Translatio corporis beati Hieronymi, 3–4
lingua Slavonica, praecipue Bohemica, 163, Tsamblak, Gregory, Eulogy of the Council Fathers,
172–73. See also Bohuslav Balbín. 134
Peregrinus of Opole, Sermones de tempore et de Tyndale, William, English translation of the New
sanctis, 164–65 Testament, 169
Petrarch, “Rore parens perfuse sacro et celestibus
auris afflate interpres et amica, Jeronimi Christ Valun Tablet, 42
. . .” 110 Vergerio, Pier Paolo the Elder, Sermo 6 pro Sancto
Petris Miscellany, 34, 160–61 Hieronymo, 166

261
 Index of Primary Sources

Vienna Folia, 18
Vision of Tundal (Croatian and Czech), 160
Vita et Transitus Sancti Hieronymi or Hieronymus,
4, 109, 110, 112, 121
Vita sancti Pauli primi eremitae, 41
Voragine, Jacobus de, Legenda Aurea, 74, 104, 108,
112–13, 129, 160, 161

Władysław II Jagiełło (king), Letters to the Council

of Constance on the church union (1417), 134;
Privilegium to the Slavonic Monastery of Holy
Cross (28 July 1390), 126–27, 141, 142, 150
Wiślica Calendar, 30

Zakharia Kopystens’kyi, Palinodia, 139–40

Zercalo človečskago spaseniȇ (Croatian), 89
Zrcadlo člověčieho spasenie (Czech), 89, 160

262