the representation of oral culture in the vita constantini

American Association of Teachers of Slavic and East European Languages

The Representation of Oral Culture in the Vita ConstantiniAuthor(s): Francis ButlerSource: The Slavic and East European Journal, Vol. 39, No. 3 (Autumn, 1995), pp. 367-384Published by: American Association of Teachers of Slavic and East European LanguagesStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/308238 .

Accessed: 14/06/2014 05:45

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

American Association of Teachers of Slavic and East European Languages is collaborating with JSTOR todigitize, preserve and extend access to The Slavic and East European Journal.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 193.105.154.127 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 05:45:08 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aatseel

http://www.jstor.org/stable/308238?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


ARTICLES

THE REPRESENTATION OF ORAL CULTURE IN THE VITA CONSTANTINI*

Francis Butler, Northern Illinois University

The opening of the ninth section of the Vita Constantini (hereafter V.C.) recounts how, upon his arrival as a missionary in the land of the Khazars, Saint Constantine-Cyril has the following encounter:1

Hocnamaa Ke Kos3apn npoTHBy ero My)Ka nyKaBa H 3acKonHBa, HNKe 6ecbaya c HHMb, pese eMy: KaKO BbI 3OJIb O6b1'aH HMbeTe, CTaBHTe iapb HHIb BO HHOro MbCTO OTb HHOro poxa? MbI me no pogy ce

abeM1,. (HJnIocoCh N)Ke Kb HeMy peqe: n 6or,

asb Cayna MbCTO, HHnITO)Ke yroHn

AjbioH(a, H36pa AasBHga, yroxIaioima eMy, H ponL ero. OH1N )Ke pese eMy: KaKO y6o BbI KHHirbI pbl )Kapme Wab pyKy, OTbn HHX- BcBI npHaHT-,q rJIaroJIeTe, MbI )Ke He TaKO, HO OT'b HpbcHHn sacI MyApOCTb, 51KO nHOrIo1bmue, H3HOCHM'b 10, He rp-,ag0ueci o nHHcaHHH, 5KO)Ke BbI. PeIe )Ke

cnHococ,-b Kb, HeMy: oTBbmalO TH

Kb ceMy: atue cpsimemn My)NK Har-b, H

riaroneTtb TH, 51KO MHOrbI pl3bI H 3JnaTO HMbIo, HMemnlI Jn eMy Bbpy, BHRJ H Hara? 14 pele: HH. TaKo H

a3-, Te6b rJaroIo: ame JiH ecH norJIOTHJa

BCIO MyapocTb, TO cKa)KH HbI, KOJIHKO

pob eCTb jo MoHceC,2 H KOJIHKO eCTb JIbTb KOTOpbIn me3

poAg, ap-.bKaJnb? He MOrbIHn e KIb ceMy OTBbmaTHn, yMJU'bIS.

(And the Khazars sent to meet him a clever and resourceful man, who, conversing with him, said to him: What evil custom do you have, that you set one ruler in the place of another from another family? But we place them by family. And the Philosopher said to him: God himself in place of Saul, who was doing nothing to please him, chose David, who was pleasing to him, and his family. And he said to him, how is it that you, holding scriptures in hand, speak all your examples from them? We are not so, but bring forth all wisdom from our breasts, as if we had swallowed it, not taking pride in writing, as you do. And the Philosopher said to him: "I shall answer you on this point: If you meet a naked man, and he says to you 'I have much clothing and gold,' do you believe him, seeing him naked?" And he said, "No." "And so I say to you: If you have swallowed all wisdom, then tell us, how many generations were there before Moses, and how many years did [each]4 generation last?" Unable to respond to this, he fell silent. Lavrov, ed., 13 [V.C. IX]).

P. A. Lavrov has suggested that Constantine's reference to Saul and David in this passage provides reason to surmise that the Saint's interlocutor is a

SEEJ, Vol. 39, No. 3 (1995): p. 367-p. 384 367



368 Slavic and East European Journal

Jew (Kyrylo ta Metodij, 25). Other scholars have treated the man as a Jew without giving reasons for doing so (e.g., Dvorn(k, Les Ligendes, 360, marginal description, Mo'in, 148; Capaldo, 956, n. 32). The only scholar I have found who explicitly denies that the man is a Jew is Andr6 Vaillant. In the notes to his French translation of V. C., Vaillant remarks that Constan- tine's question implies that the man acknowledges the authority of the Old Testament as an historical source, "but he knows it poorly, and does not make it the source of all wisdom: he is not a Jew or a learned Muslim, he is a Khazar" (Vaillant, 29, n. IX: 4). Vaillant also suggests that Constantine's reference to a naked man indicates that his interlocutor is a pagan (29, n. IX: 5). In this connection, he draws attention to an early Slavic preface to the Gospels, wherein peoples without books are referred to as "naked."5 His notes on this topic have, as far as I can tell, been ignored by other Cyrillo-Methodian scholars.

I wish to argue that the Khazar of the passage is intended to be perceived as a representative of a pagan oral culture. This claim is akin to Vaillant's interpretation of the passage. However, I differ from Vaillant, if I have understood him correctly, in that I regard it as unlikely (though possible) that Constantine's interlocutor ever really existed. The sense in which this probably fictitious character may be regarded as acquainted or unac- quainted with the Old Testament presents complex problems that I shall try to address later. Before moving to the central part of my argument, I shall briefly discuss the question of the episode's historicity, touch on the proba- ble reason for its inclusion in the Vita, and examine the representation of Khazar religion elsewhere in the text.

Problems of the historicity of the contents of V. C. have troubled scholars since the first quarter of the nineteenth century, a time when the actual text of V.C. was not even known to the said scholars (see Dobrovsky, 22-24, and commentary, 101-02; Meyvaert and Devos, 387-88; Sevienko, "On the Social Background," 479-80, n. 1). These problems render analysis of the Vita difficult to this day. The work of Francis Dvornfk and of Paul Meyvaert and Paul Devos has convinced many modern scholars that V.C. was written shortly after the death of Constantine-Cyril and that it contains a significant amount of reliable historical information together with some hagiographical embellishments (see Dvornfk, esp. Les Ligendes; Meyvaert and Devos; Milev; Sevienko, "Three Paradoxes," 220, and "Religious Missions," 13 and n. 12). Yet, as other scholars have noted, the earliest extant copy of the Vita dates from the fifteenth century. Because the composition and transmission of medieval Orthodox Slavic texts often involved complex processes of compilation and revision, it is dangerous to assume that extant textual witnesses of the Vita bear a close relationship to a hypothetical original ninth-century text (see, among others, Lamanskij, esp. April, 1903, 347-48, 372; Kiselkov; Picchio, "Strutture isocoliche,"



The Representation of Oral Culture in the Vita Constantini 369

438; "Questione della lingua," 72-73; Goldblatt, "On 'Rusbskymi Pis- meny'," 314-20). It is also not certain that if a given passage was incorpo- rated into the work in the ninth century or shortly thereafter it must be historically accurate.6

The evidence of the Vita that Constantine journeyed to the land of the Khazars is corroborated by a letter of Anastasius Bibliothecarius to Gauderic, Bishop of Velletri and by the so-called "Italian Legend" of the discovery of the relics of St Clement.7 Yet, while the Vita presents this journey as an at least partly successful Christian mission, the evidence of most other texts relevant to Khazar history indicates that the Khazars (or at least the upper classes of the Khazars) had been definitely converted to Judaism no later than the beginning of the ninth century.8 It seems that, while there is a good chance that the story of Constantine's journey is based on fact, many details of this story may be hagiographical inventions.9

I know of no external evidence that either corroborates or casts doubt on the historical accuracy of the passage with which this article opens. Yet, given what is known about the attitude towards truth of medieval hagiographers, whether Byzantine, Slavic, or Western European, it seems likely that the episode is an invention that was included in the Vita because a hagiographer wanted to illustrate some point.10 For that matter, even if the episode actually took place, it was presumably included for a reason. It thus seems sensible to attempt to understand the episode in terms of its place in the context of the text of V.C. as it has come down to us.

Central to the Vita as we know it are the depictions of Constantine-Cyril as the Apostle to the Slavs and as the inventor of the Slavic alphabet. These two aspects of the saint's activity are intimately bound up with each other, since the alphabet permits the Slavs to preach and to hear the Word of God in their native language, and hence to join the ranks of Christian peoples. Textual material that relates to the twin achievements of bringing Christianity and literacy to the Slavs may, whatever the circumstances surrounding its inser- tion, be considered integral to the work. Prior to the episode under discussion, Constantine is depicted as debating with the iconoclast and former Greek patriarch John Grammaticus (Lavrov, ed., 6-7 [V. C. V])11 and with Muslim scholars (Lavrov, ed., 7-10 [V.C. VI]); shortly after it, he is represented as debating with Jewish scholars among the Khazars (Lavrov, ed., 14- 21 [V. C. IX-X]) and with a Khazar versed in Islamic doctrine (Lavrov, ed., 23 [V. C. XI]); still later, he debates Latin priests who criticize his translation of the Scriptures into Slavic as an heretical act (Lavrov, ed., 28-33 [V. C. XV-XVI]). Islam and Judaism were the two major scripturally-based monotheistic non-Christian religions with which the Byzantines and Slavs had contact; the iconoclast controversy had held a central place in Byzantine political life from the first half of the eighth century until 843 and had still not fully died down in Constantine-Cyril's time;12 and the criticisms made by the




Latin priests were directed against Constantine's creation of a Slavic alphabet for liturgical purposes. The Saint's victories over the Muslim and Jewish scholars amount to victories of the Christian doctrine over its two prime monotheistic competitors, while his victories over John Grammaticus and the Latin priests represent triumphs of true Christianity over a major ninth- century Byzantine heresy (Iconoclasm) and over the proponents of a doctrinal error of relevance to Slavs who wished to celebrate the Christian liturgy in a Slavic language (an error inaccurately characterized in V.C. [Lavrov, 29] as the "Trilingual heresy").13 It seems likely that, like these other debates, Constantine's encounter with the Khazar emissary is relevant to the presentation of the Saint either as an Orthodox Christian missionary or as the creator of an alphabet.

Certainly the encounter would be relevant to the representation of Con- stantine's missionary activity if it were taken, as it has been, to be the first round of Constantine's debate with Jews among the Khazars. Such an interpretation would fit well with the evidence of sources other than V.C., which, as already noted, indicates that the Khazars had been converted to Judaism before Constantine's journey. However, the evidence of V.C. itself is much more ambiguous (Dvornik, Les Ligendes, 182 notwithstand- ing). In V.C., the majority of the Khazars are, as we shall see, usually portrayed as interested in adopting a scripturally based religion but unde- cided as to which one to choose. Yet the discrepancies between the evidence of the Vita and that of other sources remain beside the point as long as we distinguish the task of evaluating the work's historical accuracy from that of elucidating its compositional structure. Let us, therefore, examine the representation of Khazar religion in the text.

This religion is first characterized by a delegation of Khazars sent to Byzantium to request that a scholar be sent to debate with Jews and Mus- lims who wish to convert the Khazars to their respective religions. The members of this delegation indicate that they themselves are monotheists, but their reference to Jews and Muslims makes it clear that they have not yet accepted either Judaism or Islam. Moreover, they state that they bow to God in the East (Lavrov, ed., 11 [V. C. VIII]), a reference to a custom that, given the relative locations of Jerusalem (towards which worshippers in most ninth-century synagogues faced, as they do in most modern synagogues), Mecca, Byzantium and Khazaria, does not correlate well with either religion.14

The Byzantine emperor responds to the delegation's request by sending Constantine to Khazaria. Constantine arrives, has the encounter described in the episode already cited, and proceeds to the court of the Khazar's ruler, the Khagan. There he is asked to describe his station and responds that he is a descendant of Adam, an answer that pleases his hosts. (I shall return to the question whether this reaction on the part of the Khazars




implies their acquaintance with the Old Testament.) He then converses with the Khagan, who says to him: "B?-cn paBHO FraroJeM-b, o CeM- TOKMO pa3JnHxne apipbxiM-b. BbI 60 TpoHUgIe cJiaBHTe, a MbI 6ora ejiHHaro,

yiyyIme KHHFBI" (Lavrov's punctuation altered: "We say all the same, and differ only about this: You glorify the Trinity, but we the One God, having received scriptures" Lavrov, ed., 14 [V.C. IX]). The Khagan's monotheism, his acknowledgement of scriptural authority, and his doubts about the validity of Christian trinitarian doctrine all correlate with a Jewish perspective, but these indications are too vague to serve as proof that he has fully adopted such a perspective.15

A few lines later the narrator introduces a group of Jews with the words, "H4Iojen xe cCTO~rue OKOno ero, peKoma eMy .. ." ("And Jews, standing next to him [Constantine] said to him . . ."). This reference seems to set up a distinction between the Khazars and Khagan, who have so far been speaking, and a group of Jews who have been present but silent. Such an interpretation is consistent with the assertion of the Khazar delegation that Jews and Muslims are preaching among them, and the influence of Jewish and Muslim missionaries could even be interpreted as accounting for the ruler's monotheism and suspicion of trinitarianism. (Readers who find this interpretation contrived may prefer simply to regard the Vita as a little vague or a little inconsistent.)

Constantine debates briefly with the Jews who address him, then all retire and a date is set for further discussion. This date arrives, and Con- stantine speaks as follows:

as3- y6o eCMb aJIoBbK-b earHH-b aB Bacb, 6e3-b poAa Hn pyr-,, o 6o3b me C51 CbT5I3aeM-b

B'bCH.16... OT'b Bacb we, H)Ke cyTb CHIJIHHH B'b CIOBecbx-b, 6ecbayIO4HHM HaM'b, eKe pa3yMeIoTb, Aa rjarojIoTb, 51KO TaKO eCTb, a HX)e He pa3yMbIOTb, Aa BBbnpamlaIOTb,

H CKa~eMb HMMb.17 (Now I am a solitary person among you, without kin or friends, and we are all discussing God. ... Those of you who are strong in words, as we converse, that which they understand, let them say that it is so, and those things they do not understand, let them ask, and we will tell them, Lavrov, ed., 15 [V.C. X]).

Constantine's assertion that he is alone, "without kin or friends," cannot be taken literally,s18 but in the context of this passage it seems to imply that the Saint will be the only Byzantine representative to participate in the debate. When Constantine requests that "those of you who are strong in words" ask questions "as we converse," he implies a distinction between those who will be participating in the debate ("we") and an audience. The most perceptive members of the audience are encouraged to ask questions, which the debaters will endeavor to answer. Presumably the other debaters are Jewish scholars, and the audience is made up of Khazars.

The author/compiler of this section of the Vita describes the debate that ensues, remarks that he has presented it in condensed form, and refers




interested readers to a complete transcription made by Constantine's brother Methodius (Lavrov, ed., 21 [V.C. X]; no such transcription is extant). He then describes the reaction of the Khagan and his nobles to the discussion that they have heard:

CHI e B'bCl KaranH,

Ka3apecK-b c - HaarlnHblMH MywKH19 cnajiKaa HI noJo6Haa ero cjioBeca

cibinIasBlre, peKOIa K-b HeMy: 6orOM'b ecH cbMo nOCJaH'b Ha C'b3JaHIHIe Hame, H BC5I KHHFbI yMbemHI OTTb HerO, B'bCe ec CHo IHHy rJIaronanrb, JOCb'TH HacJnaKIb BCI1 HbI MeCJBeHbIl CJIaROCTH CJIOBecbI cB5ITblX'b KHHrIb.

Ho MbI eCMbI HeKHHXKHaa IiIqgb,

ceMy )Ke Bbpy HMeM'b, 1IKO CC TaKO eCTb OTb 6ora.

(And the Khazar Khagan and his chiefs, having heard all his [Constantine's] sweet and appropri- ate words, they said to him: "You have been sent here by God for our edification and know all scriptures from him; you have said everything in proper fashion; you have sweetened us to satiety with the words of honeyed sweetness of the Holy Scriptures. But we are an illiterate people, and in this we believe, that this is so because of God," Lavrov, ed., 21 [V.C. X]).

Here the Khazars portray themselves as illiterate, but as respectful of Constantine's literate wisdom. Once again, it is hard to identify them with the literate and learned Jews that have just been debating with the Saint. (The literacy of these Jews will be discussed at greater length below.) The Khazars' remark about their own illiteracy seems not entirely consistent with the Khagan's earlier reference to "having received scriptures," but the passages that contain these two statements resemble one another in that both include expressions of respect for the written word.

On the next day, Constantine holds a friendly discussion with the Khazars and defeats in debate one of their number who has fallen under the influence of Islam. In the process, the Khazars show themselves to be both much impressed by Constantine's erudition and, in spite of their illiteracy, quite well informed about Scripture. When they first met Con- stantine they approved of his assertion that he was a descendant of Adam. Now it becomes apparent that they know that the Fall of Humanity re- sulted from the eating of a fruit, and that many of them have a high opinion of the prophecies of Daniel (Lavrov, ed., 22-23 [V. C. XI]). I shall return to the question how an illiterate people knows so much about Scripture.

The description of the latter part of Constantine's final conversation with the Khazars is quite muddled and varies significantly in different surviving redactions (see texts and variants of V.C. XI in Lavrov, ed.; Grivec and Tom'ii; Angelov and Kodov). Yet, in all versions, a Khazar councillor indicates that Constantine has discredited both Judaism and Islam. Constan- tine then proposes that any Khazars who wish to do so be baptized. In all versions, the Khazar response to this proposition indicates that the Khazars are prepared to kill certain individuals who subscribe to Judaism or Islam. It is difficult to see how a people that had adopted Judaism would be prepared to kill Jews on religious grounds. The Vita then records that two hundred (or approximately two hundred) Khazars were baptized. It also




refers to a letter sent by the Khagan to the Byzantine emperor, wherein the Khagan remarks that Constantine has shown Christianity to be the true faith and implies that the Khazars intend to be baptized. Whether this letter be taken as a hagiographical invention (the more likely possibility; cf. Shevelyov, 593-94; Morse, 114-16)20 or as a carefully worded diplomatic document, it fits well with the Vita's representation of the Khazars as an illiterate and formerly pagan people on the point of choosing between the three major monotheistic, scripturally based religions.

Let us now return to the suggestions of Lavrov and Vaillant that Constan- tine's references to Saul and David in the passage with which this article opens imply that the Saint's interlocutor is a Jew (Lavrov) or at any rate is aware of early sacred history (Vaillant). In that passage, the Khazar criticizes the Greek custom of replacing one ruler with another on a non- hereditary basis. Constantine's response, with its reference to the replace- ment of Saul by David, is based on Scriptural precedent. It assumes that the Khazar knows who Saul and David are and that he will contest neither the veracity of the story nor the wisdom of the actions of the Old Testament God. Both assumptions would be warranted were the Khazar a Jew, and the first one would be warranted were he aware of the contents of the Old Testament. Yet the Khazar's response provides no indication that he knows who or what Constantine is talking about. When he asks why those whom Constantine represents (whether one takes his "sbI" as referring to Greeks or to Christians) draw wisdom from books, he implicitly criticizes the con- cept of Scriptural authority, without which Constantine's argument is meaningless. The Khazar seems uninterested in the history of Saul and David and, for that matter, in any other facts or arguments drawn from a written text. His response might be paraphrased as, "what is important is not what you can read, but what I know without reading." He himself seems to be a product of an orally based educational system that does not recognize writing as a useful device for storing knowledge.21 For him, what matters is traditional knowledge, which has been internalized like food and is held within the human body.22

In V.C., Constantine is represented both as the inventor of an alphabet and as a very well-read scholar with little respect for wisdom that is not derived from books. In fact, the only non-written source of wisdom that receives much respect in the Vita is direct divine revelation, which apparently aids the Saint in the eminently literate task of designing an alphabet. When the Khazar criticizes the Saint's reliance on the written word, the Saint ignores the criticism and attempts to demonstrate the Khazar's ignorance by asking yet another question that assumes the authority of Scrip- ture: "How many generations were there before Moses, and how many years did each generation last?'" This question would be meaningless to someone who had never heard of Moses. Yet for Constantine (whether the




historical Constantine or the literary creation of this episode), for the author of the episode, and for the work's medieval readers, the Khazar's failure to respond to it indicates his defeat.

Constantine's request that the Khazar give him an exact number of generations and exact numbers of years for the duration of each generation points both to a recurrent theme in V. C. and to a contrast between oral and literate cultural concepts of time. Thrice in the Vita, Constantine demon- strates his command of the sort of information that he here requests of his opponent. In his debate with the Jews among the Khazars, he apparently interprets a mention of seventy weeks in a prophecy of Daniel (9: 24) as a cryptic reference to a four-hundred-and-ninety-year period from the time of the prophecy itself to the birth of Christ (Lavrov, ed., 18 [V.C. 10]; cf. Capaldo, 949 and 956, n. 32). In a much discussed episode that takes place after the Khazar mission, he uses a text written on a mysterious chalice to calculate the number of years from the twelfth year of Solomon's reign to Christ's birth (Lavrov, ed., 26 [V.C. 13]; see Sevienko, "The Greek Source," with Addendum; Picchio, "Chapter 13 of Vita Constantini"; and Capaldo). In Rome, in response to a Jew who asserts that Christ cannot have appeared on earth because the number of years required by the prophecies of his coming have not elapsed, he calculates the number of years from Adam to Christ by generations (Lavrov, ed., 34 [V.C. 17]; see Capaldo 956, n. 32). In this last instance, the Jew is presented as respectful of Scripture and of the idea of calculating on the basis of information recorded therein. His calculations simply disagree with Constantine's. The Khazar, by contrast, becomes literally dumbfounded when Constantine raises the subject of such calculations. If this Khazar indeed was intended to be perceived as a representative of an oral culture, his response is not surprising. The very idea of making such a calculation is alien to the thought of representatives of oral cultures, who tend to be little concerned with counting of years as a means to locating themselves in time with respect to historical events, whether these events be the Creation, the Incarnation of Christ, or the accession of a ruler (see Ong, 96-101). The Khazar may be silent not only because does not value writing as a source of knowledge, but because he neither values nor understands the use of certain forms of knowledge to which the literate mind is accustomed.

Such an attitude is not characteristic of Jewish tradition, or even of Jewish tradition as presented in the Vita. The Jews with whom Constantine debates say, "MbI Alp'b)KHM'- B'b KHHTraX'b CJIOBO HI Ayx-" ("we hold to both the letter and the spirit in scriptures," Lavrov, ed., 15 [V. C. X]) and assert the authority of the Old Testament over that of the New. In the same debate, Constantine cites the Greek translation of the Old Testament by Aquila, a text apparently regarded by most ninth-century Jews as more authoritative than the Septuagint.23 The reference to Aquila indicates that




the author of the Vita (or, at least, of the description of the debate) was conscious of Jewish literacy, as does the account, noted by E. H. Minns, of Constantine's apparent pun on the name of an area known as Phoullae, which serves to link this area to a land called "Pul" in the Hebrew version of the Old Testament, but not in any known Greek versions.24 Neither, for that matter, are Muslims in the Vita depicted as hostile to literacy. In presenting their first debate with Constantine, the narrator describes them as "yMHa5l 1aJb H KHH)KHa, yleHa TreoMeTpHi4 aCTpOHOMHH, H HpolI4M'b yieHHleM'~" ("an intelligent and well-read race, learned in geometry, astron- omy, and other studies," Lavrov, ed., 8 [V. C. VI]), and in that debate the Muslims themselves cite the New Testament (Lavrov, ed., 9 [V. C. VI]). In short, it appears that the Khazar sent to meet Constantine is not intended to be taken as a proponent either of Judaism or of Islam.

My interpretation of Constantine's conversation with this Khazar im- putes to the latter thoughts about which the author of the episode is silent. Indeed, it seems unlikely that the author ever considered that the episode might be interpreted as I have interpreted it. This fact need not trouble us if we treat the passage as an accurate report of an historical event. However, if the episode is a literary fiction, there may seem to be a problem in my use of an invented character's invented speeches to analyse what may, for lack of a better term, be called that character's psychology. A possible solution to this problem lies in the fact that fictions are often modeled either on real events, on other fictions, or on both. This is particularly true of fictions intended to give the appearance of truth, a group to which the above episode (if it is fiction) certainly belongs.25 Descriptions of Constantine's debates with Jews, with Muslims, and with this Khazar, are intended to be verisimilar. None of these opponents are represented as fools; all are shown as intelligent people who argue as cogently as they can for the superiority of their own beliefs and are defeated only by Constantine's greater intelligence and better arguments. The Muslims, as already noted, are explicitly called "an intelligent and well-read race," and the Khazar is called "a clever and resourceful man." It may well be that, even if the debates did not take place as described in the Vita, the arguments used by the Saint's opponents are versions of arguments that were used against Christians in genuine debates and that somehow became known to the author. If so, the question whether they became known to him through personal experience, through report, or through a medium of other hagiographic texts in which they served similar purposes must remain a matter for speculation. Yet it should be kept in mind that even literary topoi have roots in reality.26 In other words, the fact that the episode described may not have taken place does not preclude the possibility that it constitutes an at least partially realistic depiction of a debate between a Christian and a representative of an illiterate pagan culture.




Yet the apparent ability of the author of the episode to put reasonably realistic speeches into the mouth of a representative of an oral culture does not necessarily imply that the author understood cultures that were unaware of Judaeo-Christian sacred history. A passage in the Life of a much later Slavic missionary saint, Stephen of Perm, provides a vivid illustration of a hagiographer's failure to comprehend such a culture.27 St. Stephen, like Constantine-Cyril, devised an alphabet for the people he was sent to evangelize (a Finnish tribe in the region still known as Perm). In his Life, the culture of the Permians prior to the coming of the Saint is described thus:

Hpex 60 KpeiueHHa, nepMqHe He HMbaxy y ce6e rpaMOTbI, H He pa3yMbBaxy nHcaHHa, H OTHHy.Ib He 3Haxy ITO CyTb KHHrbI, HO TOqHIO y HHX 6aCHHTBOpIubI 6bIJIH, H)Ke 6acHbMH 6aqxy o 6bITb, H 0 MnpOTBopeHHH, H o AaaMe, no pa3ajbneHHH 3bIKb ...

(For before [their] baptism, the Permians had no writing among them, and did not understand letters, and did not know at all what scriptures are, but only had storytellers, who invented tales about Genesis, and the Creation, and about Adam, and about the division of the languages . . ., Drutinin, ed., 69).

The opening of this passage coincides with the beginning of a section in the Life of Stephen that constitutes a reworking of an important text in the Cyrillo-Methodian tradition, the Treatise on the Letters by "Monk Xrabr."28 Yet the reference to the "storytellers," of interest for our purposes, is lacking in the Treatise. The hagiographer responsible for this reference is aware that the Permians lack writing and thus, by definition, lack the sacred writings of Orthodox Christianity. Moreover, like "Xrabr" and the author(s) of V.C., he sees these sacred writings as essential to the true understanding of Christianity (including the true knowledge of sacred history) and, hence, to true Christianity. Yet he himself seems so steeped in Scriptural tradition that he fails to realize that a people that has not been exposed to the Old Testament is unlikely even to have heard either of Adam or of the "division of the languages." A similar failure to understand the mentality of peoples unaware of Judaeo-Christian sacred history may explain why the narrator of V. C. represents the Khazars at the court of the Khagan as impressed by Constantine's assertion that he is a descendant of Adam, as aware of the story of the Fruit of Knowledge, and as respectful of the prophecies of Daniel. It also helps to explain why, for the narrator of the Vita and for the work's intended audience, the Khazar emissary's failure to respond to Constantine's scripturally based arguments is a clear sign of defeat.

If the emissary is intended to represent illiterate pagan culture, the question remains why the episode involving him was inserted into V.C. An obvious, and probably partially correct, answer is that Constantine's defeat of a pagan in debate rounds out his rhetorical and philosophical victories




over representatives of other faiths. However, the Khazar's paganism is less obvious than his illiteracy. The author of the passage does not indicate that the Khazar worships false gods, but dwells on his hostility to Scripture and ignorance of scriptural history. Whereas the story of Constantine's conversion of a group of tree-worshippers in the land of Phoullae may readily be linked to the Saint's achievement as the Apostle to the Slavs, the story of this debate seems more relevant to the Saint's invention of the Slavic alphabet. The faith of the tree-worshippers may be roughly equated with that of the pagan Slavs before their conversion, whereas the oral culture of the Khazar may be compared to that of the Slavs before they obtained the alphabet. The episode of the tree-worshippers emphasizes Constantine's talents as a missionary; that of the debate with the Khazar emphasizes his status as a bringer of literacy.

Yet the distinction between illiteracy and paganism in V. C. should not be overemphasized. Throughout the Vita, Constantine's achievements as the Slavic Apostle and as the creator of the Slavic alphabet are presented as closely linked to one another. The Saint is both a holy man and a wise one, and his philological achievements, including the design of the alphabet, are presented as products of a God-given wisdom (see Butler, 1-19, and references therein). The connection between these two characteristics of the Saint is also indicated in the description of the conversation that ensues when the Byzantine Emperor asks that Constantine undertake a mission to the Slavs of Moravia:

OTBbrlga c(HJIococ-b: H TpygeH'b CbI TbnOM H 6oJleH, paAs wHay TaMo, amie HMyTb 6yKBH B'b

513bIK'b CBOH. 1 peqe qaph K'b HeMy: JjbtJi MOH, H OTbnA'b MOH, H HHHH MHO3H, HCKaBIIe TOFO He

o6pbnH CyTb. TO KaKO a3b Mory o6pbcTH? )nJIocoqCb xwe peqe: TO KTO MO)KeT Ha BOb 6ecebxAy HanHcaTH? HRH29 epeTHRlbCKO HMI ce6b o6pbcTI?

(The Philosopher answered: "Though weak in body and ill, I shall go there gladly, if they have letters for their language." And the Emperor said to him: "My grandfather, and my father, and many others, having sought this have not found it. How am I to find it?" And the Philosopher said: "Who can write a discourse on water, or he will get for himself the name of a heretic," Lavrov, ed., 26-27 [V.C. XIV]).

The Philosopher's remark at the end of this passage has occasioned a considerable amount of scholarly comment (surveyed in Lavrov, 40-41; Dujiev, 113-14). Most scholars have approached the remark from one of two perspectives (a notable exception being Lavrov [40-41], who seems to accept both). Some, including A. V. Gorskij ("Zitija," 21), Johann Frie- drich (435), Dvornik (Les Slaves, Byzance, et Rome, 160-61), Joseph Bujnoch (171), and Francis J. Thomson (98, 105) have taken it to indicate a concern that the invention of a Slavic alphabet might be considered an heretical innovation. Others, apparently beginning with Vatroslav Jagid, have suggested that "[Constantine] is saying that it is dangerous to preach without a written foundation, since heretical errors may arise from exclu-




sively oral transmission of tenets of faith, and then the blame will fall on the preacher. . . . And thus it is wrong to see here a reflection of the criticism, later directed against Slavic writing, that it is heretical" (Jagid, 34). Jagid's view has probably been most forcefully argued by Ivan Dujcev, who adduces numerous examples of references to writing on water and similar expressions in Byzantine texts and in those of other traditions (Dujiev, 113-15). Dujiev notes that such expressions may be used in a variety of situations, and suggests that those most relevant to the passage in V. C. involve references to things that are unstable or ephemeral. He expli- cates the meaning of the passage thus (115): "Were it not held firm by means of writing, the Christian teaching would run the risk of being badly understood, badly interpreted and disseminated, and for this reason might easily be transformed in to an heretical, that is to say an unorthodox, doctrine."

The interpretation upheld by Jagid and Dujcev seems to me the more convincing of the two standard interpretations of Constantine's remark. While there is some controversy as to whether any sacred texts have ever been propagated within an oral culture without significant distortion, it is safe to say that such propagation is at most very rare (Goody, esp. 78-122; 167-90).30 An attempt at oral propagation of a religion founded on a sacred text will almost inevitably lead to distortion of the text, the content of which will be lost in the flux of oral tradition just as letters written on water are lost in the flux of the liquid.

In fact, the very idea of "doctrinal distortion" or "heresy" seems closely bound up with the literate mentality. Peoples of oral cultures may believe deeply in their myths, but usually have no mechanisms to prevent the alterations of myths over time. Indeed, they frequently adjust these myths, conveniently forgetting or changing elements that have no current relevance (Goody and Watt, 31-4; Ong, 46-9; Goody, 130-31, 167-82). By contrast, proponents of scripturally based religions exhibit a great concern with the accurate transmission of sacred texts. Were these texts not pre- served relatively intact, these religions would undergo rapid distortion and would eventually be altered beyond recognition.

Whether we credit Constantine's remark about writing on water to the Saint himself or to the author of the Vita, the individual responsible for it seems to have been very conscious of the problems of converting an illiterate people. The speech indicates that Constantine would have had no hope of success as a missionary had he not also been the inventor of an alphabet. Its inclusion in the Vita indicates a strong concern with the close practical connection between literacy and the preservation of Christian orthodoxy. The depiction of a representative of an oral perspective in the passage cited at the beginning of this article seems related to the same concern.




NOTES

* I am very grateful for several useful comments made by one of the anonymous readers of this paper. Faults that remain are, of course, my own. 1 The sometimes contradictory texts and textual notes of Lavrov, ed. (1-39; 39-66),

Angelov-Kodov (58-119), and Grivec-Tom'i6 (95-143), supply numerous textual variants to passages cited from V.C. I have noted only a few of particular significance or of potential relevance to my argument. Roman numerals refer to the sections into which V.C. is normally divided. All translations are mine.

2 Some South Slavic manuscripts read "oT AiaMa jo MoHceI" (see Lavrov, ed., 50; Grivec-TomgiE, 113, n. 8; Angelov-Kodov, 96; 114, n. IX: 6).

3 Lavorv, ed. (13, n. IX: 20; 50); Grivec-Tomgi6 (111); and Angelov-Kodov (96) indicate that one East Slavic and two South Slavic manuscripts (including the 1469 text of Vladislav Grammaticus, the oldest known text of V.C.) read "KOTopbI(H)xXo."

4 See n. 3 and Lexicon linguae palaeoslovenicae 2, s. v. "KOTOpbII4KXMO." 5 For the relevant phrase in this preface, see Nahtigal, ed., 84, verse 80. 6 See ?evienko, "The Greek Source," esp. 288-89; Shevelyov, esp. 593-94. For a thought-

ful discussion (unfortunately, for Slavists, from a Western European perspective) of the historicity of hagiography and other medieval "historical" genres, see Morse.

7 On the relation of the letter to the "Italian Legend" and on the "Legend's" presumed relation to an early version of V. C., see Meyvaert and Devos (includes an edition of the "Legend"). Another text that may point to the historicity of the journey is the Slavic "Slovo na prenesenie mogtem preslavnago Klimenta," possibly a translation of a Greek text by Constantine-Cyril himself (discussed and edited by Va'ica). References to the Khazar mission appear in Vita Methodii IV (Lavrov, ed., 71) and in minor Slavic texts relating to Constantine-Cyril (e. g., Lavrov, ed., 85, 90, 96, 100, 102, 103, 155-56).

8 For discussions and further references, see Dunlop, esp. 89-170, Artamonov, esp. 262- 323, and Dvornik, Les Legendes, esp. xvii-xx (2d edition only) and 168-71; Byzantine Missions, 52-53 and 337-38 (n. 5). More recent works of some relevance include Pritsak, "The Khazar Kingdom's Conversion"; Golden; Golb and Pritsak; Elevterov, esp. 216- 17. Marquart, 5-27 (see also 270-305) and Vernadsky, 76-86, argue that the conversion took place after Constantine's mission. Their arguments rest primarily on certain limited similarities between the account in V. C. and one by the Arab author al-Bakri (or Bekri); cf. Dvornfk, Les Legendes, 171; Dunlop, 194-96; and Artamonov, 260, 332.

9 Dvornik, Les Legendes, xix, 181-82, Byzantine Missions, 65-69; Artamonov, 331; and Elevterov, 216-43, suggest that the primary motivation for Constantine's journey was political rather than religious (though Elevterov's highly speculative theory differs from those of the other two scholars). On apparent anachronisms in the description of the mission in V.C., see Pritsak, "Turkological Remarks." For optimistic views of the historicity of V.C., see Sabev, "Po njakoi vaprosi" and "Prostrannoto iitiie"; Kocev.

10 Lamanskij, esp. June, 1903, 371-73, is skeptical about the encounter. Dvornik, Byzan- tine Missions, 67, seems to accept its historicity, as do Mo'in, 148, and Elevterov, 228-29.

11 On the unlikelihood of such a debate, see Dvornik, "Photius and Iconoclasm," 81, and Byzantine Missions, 61-62.

12 On the iconoclastic period, see Ostrogorsky, 147-209. On iconoclasm after 843, see Dvornfk, "Photius and Iconoclasm."

13 On the inappropriateness of the term, "Trilingual Heresy," and on the lack of evidence that any educated Latin clerics ever advocated the exclusive use of three languages for liturgical purposes, see Thomson. On the possibility that Constantine-Cyril never de- bated any Latin priests about the Slavic alphabet, see Picchio, "Questione della lingua,"




67-86. The possibly apocryphal nature of the debate is of limited relevance to the presentation of the saint in extant texts of V.C., with which the present paper deals.

14 Marquart (15), and Vernadsky (78), suggest that this passage constitutes a reference to worship of Tangri or Tengri, a sky-god of pagan Turks and Huns. Cf. Koc'ev, 92.

15 Obolensky remarks that the author of V.C. "while depicting the Khazars as monotheists and people of the Book, implies that they had not yet accepted all the tenets of Rabbinic Judaism" (176). Vaillant (29, n. IX: 9) tries to show that this passage is consistent with the remarks of the Khazar delegation to Byzantium. Unfortunately his reconstruction of the usage of "ynysme" here is unconvincing.

16 Lavrov, ed., 15, n. X: 4, lists eight texts that omit "BibCH"; Angelov-Kodov and Grivec- TomgiE list none that include it.

17 According to the apparatus of Lavrov, ed. (15: n. X: 11; 51: n. X: 2), Grivec-Tomgi6 (114; 119: n. 2), and Angelov-Kodov (97; 114: n. X: 1), most East Slavic texts read as this one does, though some read "H cKa3aeMb," and one "H cKa3yeM-b"; some or all South Slavic texts read "cKa3aeMbi," "CKa3aeMH," "CKa3aeMbIXb," or "cKa3aeMbIH." As Angelov- Kodov indicates, the East Slavic versions seem to make more sense.

18 Lavrov, ed., 21 (V. C. IX) indicates that Constantine's brother Methodius transcribed the debate, and Vita Methodii IV (Lavrov, ed., 71) states that Methodius accompanied Constantine-Cyril on the mission. See also the references in nn. 7 and 8 above and Elevterov, 235-38.

19 Six South Slavic texts omit the first six words and read "HaveJIHnbIn we MyHre" (see

Angelov-Kodov, 101; 115, n. X: 36). 20 It is interesting that the letter itself is represented as a written text. In all redactions of the

Vita it seems to be referred to as "KHHrbI" [sic], the designation used elsewhere in the work to refer to Scripture.

21 Cf. Havelock on the educational function of the Greek oral tradition and its conflict with the early written tradition.

22 Lavrov (25) cites parallels to the Khazar's references to holding wisdom within the breast in passages from a text called "Nastavlenie novokreSdennago lakova" (in Sinodal'naja biblioteka ms. no. 156, now in the State Historical Museum in Moscow), wherein this wisdom is associated with the Holy Ghost. The attitude towards the written word in these passages is complex: Iakov apparently quotes Scripture without the aid of a written text. Gorskij and Nevostruev (307-08) date the ms. in which the "Nastavlenie" appears to the sixteenth century and indicate that the "Nastavlenie" is a translation of a Greek original.

23 Constantine's citation of Aquila is described in Lavrov, ed., 15 (V.C. IX). Only frag- ments of Aquila's work have survived, and the text of the passage in question (presumably corresponding to Exodus 34:9 in the Septuagint) is lost. See Grivec, "Akvilov fragment."

24 The toponym appears as "DoyJib" in some texts of the Slavic version (Lavrov, ed., 25 [V.C. 12]); in others it appears as "Qoya," corresponding to the Septuagint "Qoio8."

For more detail on the relation of the Greek and Hebrew, see Mins, 94.

25 On the efforts of medieval authors to render their writings verisimilar, and on implica- tions for modern scholarship, see Morse, esp. 92-124.

26 For an illustration of the usefulness of blatantly fictitious hagiographical texts in exploring historical reality, see ?evienko, "Religious Missions," 20-27.

27 The Life of Stephen is usually attributed to Epiphanius the Wise and dated to the late fourteenth or early fifteenth century. The earliest ms. has been dated to 1480. For a discussion and extensive bibliography, see Droblenkova and Proxorov; see also Gold- blatt, "On the Place," and Butler, esp. 137-54. On the ms. used in Druinin's edition, which I cite, see Druinin, Introduction, v.

28 For the parallel portion of On the Letters, see Lavrov, ed., 162. For recent discussions of




the use of texts from the Cyrillo-Methodian tradition, especially Xrabr's (or "Hrabr's") work, in the Life of Stephen, with further references, see Goldblatt, "On the Place," and Butler, esp. 137-54.

29 Lavrov, ed. (60); Grivec-TomgiE (129; cf. 200, n. 8); and Angelov-Kodov (104) indicate that some South Slavic texts read "H" instead of "nJn."

30 Cf. Halverson, 315-16 on the "preservative potentiality of writing." Two groups of sacred texts that may have been transmitted orally over long periods with few alterations are the Hindu Vedas and the Zoroastrian Gathas. Goody, 110-122, acknowledges that "most Sanskritic scholars claim that the Vedas were composed and transmitted by oral means . . ." (122), but argues that the mnemonic techniques used to facilitate the accurate oral transmission of the Vedas seem themselves to have been designed in a literate context. Note, however, his remarks on verbatim transmission in oral cultures, 176-77. I know of no attempt to question the oral nature of the Gathas, but controversies surrounding the time and context of their composition leave room for such speculation. Gnoli provides a useful survey of scholarship on the geography (23-158) and chronology (159- 79) of early Zoroastrianism, though his own views are open to question. See also Mole on the authorship of the Gathas. Schwartz, who assumes that the Gathas were composed in an oral context, has found in them the phonetic equivalents of written acrostics, anagrams, and related phenomena. His results, it seems, might provide evidence either for the existence of sophisticated mnemonic systems in oral cultures or for the written origins of the Gathas.

WORKS CITED

Anastasius Bibliothecarius. Letter to Gauderic, Bishop of Velletri. Ed. E. Perels and G. Laehr. Monumenta Germaniae historica: Epistolae 7. Berlin: Weidmann, 1928. 435-38.

Angelov, B. St. and Xristo Kodov, eds. Kliment Oxridski: Sabrani sacinenija. Vol. 3. Sofia: Izdatelstvo na Balgarskata Akademija na Naukite, 1973.

Artamonov, M. I. Istorija Xazar. Leningrad: Izdatel'stvo Gosudarstvennnogo Ermitaza, 1962.

Bujnoch, Josef. Zwischen Rom und Byzanz. Slavische Geschichtsschreiber 1. Graz: Verlag Styria, 1958.

Butler, Francis. Images of Missionaries and Innovative Rulers in East Slavic Literature from Early times through the Reign of Peter the Great. Ph.D. Diss. U of California at Berkeley, 1991. Ann Arbor, Mich.: University Microfilms, 1992, 9203512.

Capaldo, Mario. "Sulla datazione di un'iscrizione pseudo-salomonica ad opera di Constantino il Filosofo." Filologia e letteratura nei paesi slavi: Studi in onore di Sante Graciotti. Ed. Giovanni Brogi Bercoff et al., 945-60. Rome: Carucci, 1990.

Dobrovsky, Josef. Cyril a Metod: Apoftolove slovanfti. Commentary by Josef Vajs. Spisy a projevy Josefa Dobrovsk6ho 12. Prague: Komise pro vydcvani spisti Josefa Dobrovsk6ho pfi Krnlovsk6 esk6 Spole'nosti Nauk, 1948. (Original edition: Joseph Dobrowsky. Cyrill und Method der Slawen Apostel: Ein historisch-kritischer Versuch. Prague, 1823.)

Droblenkova, N. F., and G. M. Proxorov. "Epifanij Premudryj." Slovar' kniinikov i kniinosti Drevnej Rusi. Vypusk 2: Vtoraja polovina XIV-XVI v. east 1: A-K, 211-220. Akademija Nauk SSSR, Institut russkoj literatury (Pushkinskij dom). Leningrad: Nauka, 1988.

Druiinin, V., ed. Zitie sv. Stefana Permskogo. St. Petersburg, 1897. (The "Photomechanic reprint," introd. by Dmitrij 1Ciievskij [Apophoreta Slavica 2. The Hague: Mouton, 1959] lacks Dru'inin's original introduction.)

Dujiev, Ivan. "Kam talkuvanieto na prostrannite iitija na Kirila i Metodija." Xiljada i sto




godini slavjanska pismenost 863-1963: Sbornik v 6est na Kiril i Metodij, Ed. D. Angelov et al., 93-117. Sofia: Izdatelstvo na balgarskata Akademija na naukite, 1963.

Dunlop, D. M. The History of the Jewish Khazars. Princeton Oriental Studies 16. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1954.

Dvornik, Francis. Les Slaves, Byzance, et Rome, au IXe siecle. Paris: Librarie Ancienne Honor6 Champion, 1926.

- . Les Legendes de Constantine et de Methode, vues de Byzance. 2d ed. With new introd. and notes by the author Academic International, 1969. (1st ed., Prague: Comission byzantologique de l'Institut Slave, 1933.)

. "The Patriarch Photius and Iconoclasm." Dumbarton Oaks Papers 7(1953): 69-97.

. Byzantine Missions Among the Slavs: SS. Constantine-Cyril and Methodius. Rutgers Byzantine Series. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers UP, 1970.

Elevterov, Stefan. "Xazarskata misija na Konstantin-Kiril." Izsledovanija po Kirilo-Metodie- vistika. Ed. Angelina Coneva Ignatova and Krasimir Stefanov Stan'ev, 216-53. Sofia: Nauka i izkustvo, 1985.

Friedrich, [Johann]. "Ein Brief des Anastasius bibliothecarius an den Bischof Gaudericus von Velletri fiber die Abfassung der 'Vita cum translatione s. Clementis Papae": Eine neue Quelle zur Cyrillus- und Methodius-Frage." Sitzungsberichte der philosophisch- philologischen und der historischen Classe der k. b. Akademie der Wissenscheften zu Miinchen, 1892 (publ. 1893): 393-442.

Gnoli, Gherhardo. Zoroaster's Time and Homeland: A Study on the Origins of Mazdeism and Related Problems. Instituto Universitario Orientale, Seminario di Studi Asiatici, Series Minor 7. Naples, 1980.

Golb, Norman and Omeljan Pritsak. Khazarian Hebrew Documents of the Tenth Century. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1982.

Goldblatt, Harvey. "On 'Rusbskymi Pismeny' " in the Vita Constantini and Rus'ian Religious Patriotism." Studia Slavica Mediaevalia et Humanistica Riccardo Picchio Dicata, Ed. Michele Colucci et al., 311-28. Rome: Edizioni dell'Ateno, 1986.

. "On the Place of the Cyrillo-Methodian Tradition in Epiphanius's Life of Saint Stephen of Perm." Slavic Cultures in the Middle Ages. Ed. Boris Gasparov and Olga Raevsky-Hughes. California Slavic Studies 16. Berkeley and Los Angeles: U of Califor- nia P, 1993: 154-78.

Golden, Peter B. Khazar Studies: An Historico-Philological Inquiry into the Origins of the Khazars. Bibliotheca orientalis hungarica 25. Budapest: Akad6miae kiado, 1980.

Goody, Jack. The Interface between the Written and the Oral. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1987.

Goody, Jack and Ian Watt. "The Consequences of Literacy." Literacy in Traditional Societies. Ed. Jack Goody, 27-68. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1968.

Gorskij, A. V. and K. I. Nevostruev. Opisanie slavjanskix rukopisej Moskovskoj Sinodal'noj Biblioteki. Vol. 2 Pisanija dogmati6eskie i duxovno-nravstvennye (= Part 1 of section 2: Pisanija svjatyx otcev). Moscow: Sinodal'naja tipografija, 1859. Reprint. Monumenta linguae slavicae dialecti veteris: Fontes et dissertationes 2: 2. Wiesbaden: Otto Harras- sowitz, 1964.

Gorskij, A. V. "Zitija sv. Kirilla i Mefodija." Kirillo-Mefodievskij sbornik v pamjat' o soversivsemsja tysiaideletii slavianskoj pismennosti i xristianstva v Rossii. Ed. M. Pogodin, 1-42. Moscow: Sinodal'naja Tipografija, 1865.

Grivec, F. "Akvilov fragment v zitju Konstantina-Cirila." Bogoslovni vestnik 15 (1935): 213-16. Grivec, F. and F. Tomgit, eds. Constantinus Et Methodius Thessalonicenses: Fontes. Radovi

staroslavenskog instituta 4. Zagreb: Staroslovenski institut, 1960. Halverson, John. "Goody and the Implosion of the Literacy Thesis." Man (n. s.) 27 (1992):

301-17.




Havelock, Eric A. Preface to Plato. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard UP, 1963. Jagi', I. V. [= Vatroslav Jagid]. "Vnov' najdennoe svidetel'stvo o dejatel'nosti Konstantina

filosofa, pervouc'itelja slavjan sv. Kirilla. Sbornik Otdelenija russkogo jazyka i slovesnosti Imperatorskoj Akademii Nauk 54 (1893). Reprint. Nendeln, Liechtenstein: Kraus Re- print Ltd., 1966. Article has own pagination.

Kiselkov, V. S1. "Za avtorstvoto na prostrannite iitija na Kiril i Metodij." Izvestija na Instituta za literatura 11. Sofia: Izdatelstvo na Balgarskata akademija na naukite, 1961. 31-53.

Kocev, Nikolaj. "Xazarskata misija na Konstantin Filosof-Kiril v svetlinata na Kembridiskija anonim i izvestijata na Jexuda Alevi." Kirilo-Metodievski studii 5 (1988): 91-98.

Lamanskij, V. "Slavjanskoe iitie sv. Kirilla kak religiozno-epiceskoe proizvedenie i kak istori'eskij istocnik." Zurnal ministerstva narodnogo prosveshchenija: April, May, June, Dec., 1903 and Jan., 1904.

Lavrov, Petro (=P. A.). Kyrylo ta Metodij v davn'o-slov'jans'komu pys'menstvi: Rozvidka. Kiev: drukarnja Ukrajins'koji Akademiji Nauk, 1928.

Lavrov, Petro, ed. Materialy po istorii vozniknovenija drevnejsej slavjanskoj pis'mennosti. Trudy slavjanskoj komissii 1. Leningrad: Akademija Nauk, 1930. Reprint. Slavistic Print- ings and Reprintings 67. The Hague: Mouton, 1966.

Lexicon linguae palaeoslovenicae: Slovnik jazyka staroslovinskdho. Vol. 2: (K-H? K-O?). By (eskoslovenska Akademie V6d. Prague: Akademia, 1966 or later [date(s) and volume boundaries missing in copy used by me].

Marquart, J. Osteuropaische und ostasiatische Streifziige: Ethnologische und historisch- topographische Studien zur Geschichte des 9 und 10 Jahrhunderts. Leipzig, 1903.

Meyvaert, Paul, and Paul Devos. "Trois 6nigmes cyrillo-m6thodiennes de la 'L6gende Italique' r6soules grace a un document in6dit." Analecta Bollandiana 73 (1955): 375-461.

Milev, Aleksandar. "Dva latinski izvora za fivota i deloto na Kiril Filosof." Konstantin-Kiril Filosof: Jubileen sbornik po slucaj 1100-godiininata ot smdrtta mu. Ed. Bonju St. An- gelov et al. Sofia: Izdatelstvo na balgarskata akademija na naukite, 1969. 181-201.

Minns, Ellis H. "Saint Cyril Really Knew Hebrew." Melanges publids en l'honneur de M. Paul Boyer. Travaux publi6s par l'Institut d' etudes slaves 2. Paris: Librarie Ancienne Honor6 Champion, 1925. 94-97.

Mole, M. "Response a M. Duchesne-Guillemin." Numen 8 (1961): 51-63. Morse, Ruth: Truth and Convention in the Middle Ages: Rhetoric, Representation, and Reality.

Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1991. Mo'in, Vladimir. "Hipoteza Lamanskoga o hazarskoj misiji sv. dirila." Juinoslovenskifilolog

6 (1926-27): 133-52. Nahtigal, Rajko, ed. "Proglas k svetemu evangeliju." Razprave 1 (Ljubljana, 1943): 76-122. Obolensky, Dimitri. The Byzantine Commonwealh. New York: Praeger, 1971. Ong, Walter J. Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word. London: Methuen,

1982. Ostrogorsky, George. History of the Byzantine State. Trans. Joan Hussey. Rev. ed. New

Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers UP, 1963. Picchio, Riccardo. "Strutture isocoliche e poesia slava medievale: a proposito dei capitoli III e

XIII della Vita Constantini." Ricerche Slavistiche 17-19 (1970-72): 419-45. . "Questione della lingua e Slavia cirillometodiana." Studi sulla questione della lingua

presso gli Slavi. Ed. Riccardo Picchio, 7-120 (includes summaries in Russian and En- glish). Rome: Edizioni dell'Anteneo, 1972.

--. "Chapter 13 of Vita Constantini: Its Text and Contextual Function." Slavica Hiero- solymitana. 7 (1985): 133-52.

Pritsak, Omeljan. "The Khazar Kingdom's Conversion to Judaism." Harvard Ukrainian Stud- ies 2 (1978): 261-81.




_- . "Turkological Remarks on Constantine's Khazarian Mission in the Vita Constantini." Orientalia christiana analecta 231: 295-98.

Sabev, Todor. "Po njakoi vaprosi na xazarskata misija." Konstantin-Kiril Filosof: Jubileen sbornik po slueaj 1,100-godigninata ot smdrtta mu. Ed. Bonju St. Angelov et al. Sofia: Izdatelstvo na balgarskata akademija na naukite, 1969. 105-25.

. "Prostrannoto litie na Konstantin-Kiril parvostepenen istoriteski izvor za xazarskata missija." Konstantin Kiril Filosof: Dokladi ot simposiuma posveten na 1100-godisniata ot smartta mu. Ed. Bonju St. Angelov et al. Sofia: Izdatelstvo na balgarskata akademija na naukite, 1971. 305-15.

Schwartz, Martin. "Coded Sound Patterns, Acrostics, and Anagrams in Zoroaster's Oral Poetry." Studia Grammatica Iranica: Festschrift fiir Helmut Humbach. Ed. Riidiger Schmitt and Prods Oktor Skjaervo, 327-92.

gev6enko, Ihor. "Three Paradoxes of the Cyrillo-Methodian Mission." Slavic Review 23 (1964): 220-35.

. "The Greek Source of the Inscription on Solomon's Chalice in the Vita Constantini," with Addendum. In his Byzantium and the Slavs in Letters and Culture (cited below), 285-98; Addendum, 729-33. (First published without addendum in To Honor Roman Jakobson: Essays on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday, 11 October 1966, 1806-17. The Hague: Mouton, 1967.)

. "On the Social Background of Cyril and Methodius." with Addendum. In his Byzan- tium and the Slavs in Letters and Culture (cited below), 479-92; Addendum, 735-38. (First published without addendum in Studia Paleoslovenica, 341-51. Prague, 1971.)

. "Religious Missions Seen From Byzantium." Harvard Ukrainian Studies 12-13 (1988-89): 7-27.

. Byzantium and the Slavs in Letters and Culture. Renovatio 1. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute; distrib. by Harvard UP, 1991.

Shevelyov, George. "Prosta (adb

and Prostaja Mova." Harvard Ukrainian Studies 12-13 (1988/89): 593-624.

Thomson, Francis J. "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 10 (1992): 67-122.

Vaillant, Andre. Textes vieux-slaves. Vol. 2. Traductions et notes. Paris: Institut d'6tudes slaves, 1968.

Vagica, Josef. "Slovo na prenesenie mogtem preslavnago Klimenta neboli Legenda cherson- ska." Acta academiae velehradensis 19 (1941): 38-80.

Vernadsky, George. "Byzantium and Southern Russia: Two Notes." Byzantion 15 (1940-41): 67-86.

