This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
This article states that the Glagolitic alphabet was *devised* by C & M. However, the Wiki page on Glagolitic alphabet ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glagolitic_alphabet) contradicts this statement by saying that the Glagolitic alphabet pre-existed the arrival of C & M. I think that, at most, we can say that C & M REvised (not DEvised) the alphabet to include sounds for the Slavic language.
Thomkolton ( talk) 15:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
My original comment centered on the Glagolitic alphabet mentioned here. However, after reading and rereading this section, and reviewing the previous comments, I felt that this section could be better structured. Much of my suggestions are simply moving text around and generally making the text flow better. Important points on the article I would like to make are:
Since I have never updated Wikipedia and am not entirely sure how to go about it, and since I do not wish to offend by offering a radical rewrite to this section without other people's opinions, I'd like to offer it here for review. It lacks the references that would be placed in the final copy; this was done simply for expediency:
Great Moravia
In 862, both brothers were to enter upon the work which gives them their historical importance. That year, Prince Rastislav of Great Moravia requested that the Emperor Michael III and the Patriarch Photius send missionaries to evangelize his Slavic subjects. His motives in doing so were probably more political than religious. Rastislav had become king with the support of the Frankish ruler Louis the German, but subsequently sought to assert his independence from the Franks. Presumably to gain a degree of political support[14], Rastislav is said to have expelled missionaries of the Roman Church and turned to Constantinople for ecclesiastical assistance. This request provided a convenient opportunity to expand Byzantine influence. The Emperor quickly entrusted the task to Cyril, accompanied by his brother Methodius, stating "You two are from Thessaloniki, and all Thessalonians speak pure Slavonic".[15]
Their first work seems to have been the training of assistants. In 863, they began the task of translating the Bible into the language now known as Old Church Slavonic. They also translated Christian texts for Slavs into the language that is now called Old Church Slavonic, and wrote the first Slavic Civil Code, used in Great Moravia. The language derived from Old Church Slavonic, known as Church Slavonic, is still used in liturgy by several Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic churches.
Translations were performed using the Glagolitic alphabet, which was already in use during Cyril’s time. [??] It is believed that Cyril inserted additional characters into the alphabet to symbolize the non-Greek sounds of the Slavic language. [??]
It is impossible to determine with certainty what portions of the Bible the brothers translated. The New Testament and the Psalms seem to have been the first, followed by other lessons from the Old Testament. The "Translatio" speaks only of a version of the Gospels by Cyril, and the "Vita Methodii" only of the "evangelium Slovenicum," though other liturgical selections may also have been translated. Nor is it known for sure which liturgy, that of Rome or that of Constantinople, they took as a source. They may well have used the Roman alphabet, as suggested by liturgical fragments which adhere closely to the Latin type. This view is confirmed by the "Prague Fragments" and by certain Old Glagolitic liturgical fragments brought from Jerusalem to Kiev and there discovered by Saresnewsky—probably the oldest document for the Slavonic tongue; these adhere closely to the Latin type, as is shown by the words "Mass," "Preface," and the name of one Felicitas.
In spite of these efforts, the brothers could hope for no permanent success without obtaining the authorization of Rome.
Also, later on the article says :
Pre-Glagolitic Slavic writing systems A hypothetical pre-Glagolitic writing system is typically referred to as cherty i rezy (strokes and incisions)[15] - but no material evidence of the existence of any pre-Glagolitic Slavic writing system has been found, except for a few brief and vague references in old chronicles and "lives of the saints". All artifacts presented as evidence of pre-glagolitic Slavic inscriptions have later been identified as texts in known scripts and in known non-Slavic languages, or as fakes.[16] The well-known Chernorizets Hrabar's strokes and incisions are usually considered to be a reference to a kind of property mark or alternatively fortune-telling signs. Some 'Russian letters' found in one version of St. Cyril's life are explainable as misspelled 'Syrian letters' (in Slavic, the roots are very similar: rus- vs. sur- or syr-), etc.
Does this text address your concerns or does it speak about something different? I really do not know.
So, my comments would be :
# Although Cyril's name is associated with the Cyrillic alphabet, and while there is a wide popular misconception that he brought the Cyrillic alphabet to the Slavs, my personal opinion is that the misconception does not need to be mentioned here; the glaring absence of any mention of Cyrillic in this section, and only referring to the use of Glagolitic alphabet, indicates to the reader that something else must be going on. This is an opportunity to click on the Glagolitic link to learn more.
As I stated you cannot just call the Cyril theory a misconception unless you can prove that current academic consensus supports that. Even if it is so, and I am not really in the position to say, it is a fact that C&M are credited with the Cyrillic alphabet and this should be mentioned even if followed by an explanatory text which will state the "misconception".
# There is mention that Glagolitic was the precursor of the Cyrillic alphabet. I would prefer to remove this.
OK, but why? Is this wrong? Or do you think that structurally it does not belong there?
# There is a comment about C & M's success, "They enjoyed considerable success in this endeavor." There is perhaps room for debate; Cyril dead and Methodius in prison does not a success make in my book. However, I don't think this opinion is appropriate, at least not in this section.
Yes, this would be a personal opinion. Yet, this "considerable success" part also sounds like a personal opinion. Maybe you should explain why it wasn't a success to us and then change it?
As for your proposed text, it would be great help if you highlighted your proposed changes so that we can compare them to the existing text more easily. What though you should be particularly careful when changing is sourced material. GK ( talk) 11:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Btw, have a look at this article. Maybe it will be of help. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_of_Cyrillic_and_Glagolitic_alphabets
GK ( talk) 11:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Thomkolton ( talk) 21:125 11 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.7.217.233 ( talk)
"The theory of chronological precedence of Glagolitic script with regard to Cyrillic has been first put forth by G. Dobner in 1785[1], but ever since Pavel Jozef Šafárik's 1857 study of Glagolitic monuments Über den Urspung und die Heimat des Glagolitismus there has been a virtual consensus in the academic circles that the Glagolitic was the script Constantine devised, rather than Cyrillic.[2] This view is supported by numerous linguistic, paleographic and historical accounts."
All I can see here is that a bunch (and not just one) Greek “terrorists” have taken hostage the Ancient history pages on Wikipedia. They may be Greek bankrupt officials propagandists or common fanatics and must be removed from Wikipedia. In particular, those hiding under the names of Simanos (quite uncultivated one), Athenean, GK, Ptolion... Enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.2.173.16 ( talk) 08:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
...And it is a historical fact that by the 8/9 century Thessaloniki was a Slave town and that in principle the Empire was Roman empire and NOT Greek. The Brothers were simply Romans, i.e. Byzantine. Please stop playing with history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.2.173.16 ( talk) 08:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
....Not enough referenced??? There are abundant sources in the earlier discussions. In In "De Administrando Imperio", DAI, Moravchick and Jenkins, Dumberton Oaks 1949, ), Constantine VII Perphyrogenitus does not mention Greeks in 10 century, just Romaioi (Romans). Therefore up to the 10 century, the citizens of the (Eastern) Roman empire were just Romaioi, i.e. Byzantines, not Greeks. This is the end of the discussion that lasts already 3 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.2.162.214 ( talk) 22:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Ah, Diannaa reverted this. Hm. Appart from DAI I found in the Archive 1 the following:
1. Britanica: Encyclopedia Britannica does not state that they were Greeks, states just " brothers who for christianizing the Danubian Slavs and for influencing the religious and cultural development of all Slavic peoples received the title “the apostles of the Slavs.” Both were outstanding scholars, theologians, and linguists. They were honoured by Pope John Paul II in his 1985 encyclical Slavorum Apostoli..” ( http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/148671/Saint-Cyril, accessed 6th March, 2010).
2. As I cited Encyclopedia of the Middle states: Cyril and Methodius (826/827 and c820-885). Byzantine missionaries, often called “apostles of the Slaves”. Native of Thessalonica, the two brothers were Byzantine but connected with Slav circles bilingual from infancy.”(Encyclopedia of the Middle Ages, Volume 1, By André Vauchez, Richard Barrie Dobson, Michael Lapidge, James Clark & Co, 2000) However, the author that all of “ Byzantologists must know:
3. Paul Stephenson, Reader in Medieval History, University of Durham, UK, states: The two brothers, Constantine (b. 826/7) who took the monastic name Cyril) and Methodios (b. 815), were born in Thessalonika, sons of the droungarios Leo and Maria, who may have been a Slav.” From: Paul Stephenson, THE LIVES OF SAINTS CYRIL & METHODIOS, INTRODUCTION, http://homepage.mac.com/paulstephenson/trans/CyrilandMethodios.htm, accessed 6th march, 2010.
I know that there are on both sides hundreds of contradicting references. But DAI plus Britanica and the other 2 IS ENOUGH to say just "Byzantine brothers" and NOT Greek brothers. OK? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.183.250.28 ( talk) 16:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Let me rephrase your sentence and state it correctly: “The two men were born in Thessalonica, in Byzantium. They were born in Byzantium. People did not move about so much in those days; if they were born in Byzantium they were most likely Byzantines.” Why I say this? Even Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus in 10 century does not mention Greeks (Hellenes) almost at all in his book DAI. Then the north of today’s Greece was inhabited in 8, 9, 10th century up to the arrival of the Ottomans - by the Slaves. This is what the linguists say. The name Hellenes was reserved for those from Attica and Peloponnese. The northern Greece of today, become "Hellas" in 19the century. So the brothers could have been Macedonian, Thracian, Thessalian, Slave but not Hellenes. This is how it was. The problem here is not how it was but what is the terminology the modern historians use and it appears that some say "Greek" some do not specify (Britannica), and some say Byzantine. The last, which corresponds to how the Eastern Roman Empire was organized politically, I think, is correct. And... You should NOT try to prove your opinion by questioning the authority of your opponent - I am a student, study history and Slave languages and write more often in German Wikipedia.- I could say also, for example, that your record on Wikipedia on Byzantine history is almost inexistent. It is better to offer some proofs instead. I offered DAI and Encyclopedia Britannica, which are ultimate proofs. One of the letter solutions should be accepted and “Greek” deleted. And I have other things to do now. Housfrau ( talk) 11:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
What I think, is that the whole conversation is without a point. Cyril and Methodius were Byzantine Greeks, or simply Byzantines, a term used by the Western Historians to describe the Greek-speaking Christianic Eastern Roman Empire (Romioi). Not all of them where ethnically Greeks. There is a very good article, explaining the term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthmaniac ( talk • contribs) 21:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
What you should do , then, is to go to the Byzantine Greeks article, and start a conversation there. If you insist that the term Byzantine Greek , should be just Byzantine, or Eastern Roman , or Hellenised Roman, or Greco-Roman, or whatever else, you shouldn't choose an article on two specific personalities. The national identity in the Byzantine Empire is a very complicated matter, and you could help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthmaniac ( talk • contribs) 19:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Then, we have to leave it as it is. The sources, clearly call them Greeks, so it should stay that way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthmaniac ( talk • contribs) 13:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
(unindent) Diannaa you are wasting your time. Housfrau is clearly a WP:SPA, possibly a sock of DraganParis or someone of the same persuasion. If he is a Byzantine history student, then I am an ostrich. Best way to deal with him is WP:DNFTT. Constantine ✍ 17:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Not "Greeks" either. Avoiding to recognise key references, and then listing 100 irrelevant sources - would not help. You must take DAI and other sources that I gave as final proof. If you refuse, I undenstand that you have some "other" intentions and then I do not want to take part in your unfair discussion. In addition, your passing messages each to other is too naive. You obviously act in some irregular accord. Sorry. Housfrau ( talk) 20:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
DIANNAA, please, intimidations? Let us go back to the discussion. There is nothing personal here, just history. Your and the strategy of the others here seems to relay on the fact that number of trivialities in the world is greater than the number of non-trivialities. So you try to disapprove what I cite by just giving greater number of contrary “proofs”! You systematically ignore what I write (my first quality sources) and advance other (trivial sources in may be greater numbers) and think this is a proof.
Let me explain the importance of the sources here. First, all my sources are verifiable, yours are not. You should refute my sources, i.e. start discussing my sources – and this is hard, because these are ultimate sources: Britannica on line – you cannot challenge its authority (does not state the nationality of the missionaries); Encyclopedia of the Middle ages (which states Byzantines), which is the ultimate source at our university, directly available on the Internet; professor Stephenson (says may have been Slaves)…. All these you CAN VERIFY on the Internet!! And finally DAI. Well, the importance of that work? if you do not know it, ask and I will explain. But you can find at least studies which discuss it. This is one of rare and absolute essential document written by the Roman emperor Constantinus VII Porphyrogenitus to explain geopolitics to his son. If you cannot refute my sources, the problem is solved. I do not know who you are (Administrator?), but if you look up the archives there you can see that it is obvious that about five editors support each other in attacking and insulting intruders. Always. For couple of years now. They are all in Thessaloniki and communicate sometimes in Greek. Not a personal attack, just an observation. Housfrau ( talk) 22:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Danke. Ask for independent concensus and then change the article if you want (to Byzantine brothers, remove Greek brothers). I will not have a computer next 4 weeks, may be 8. Housfrau ( talk) 20:09, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Cyril and Methodius were Byzantines of likely Serb origin because they translated into Old Church Slavonic with declinations, and NOT into Macedonian or Bulgarian version - which were spoken in the region, simply because these two languages did not contain declinations. Only Serb version contained declinations. The hypothesis that they were Greeks (!) who translated into not Macedonian or Bulgarian versions of the Old Slave, but into an Old Church Slavonic with declinations is improbable. The language that they could learn 'on the streets' of Thessaloniki, did not contain declinations!!! The declinations are the most difficult to learn and the population of Serb occupied regions (Peonians, remains of the Ancient Macedonians, Dardanes and the rest) that learned Slave as a foreign language probably just ignored declinations. Therefore the brothers, if they could use declinations correctly - and they could, were Byzantines of Serbian origin. Imperatorxy ( talk) 11:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
There is no such a thing as "Czechia" in the English language. You can use either "Bohemia" (to denote the ethnic Czech part of the Czech Republic from the Moravian one) or "Czech Republic". I therefore ask those with sufficient privileges to fix this error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.127.240.155 ( talk) 18:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
remove: The assumed seat of Methodius as archbishop was in Nitra.
Iustusest ( talk) 14:19, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
reference for The assumed seat of Methodius as archbishop was in Nitra in Slovak: V bule pápeža Jána VIII. roku 880 Industriae tuae sa oznamuje ustanovenie Vichinga za nitrianskeho biskupa sanctae ecclesiae nitrensis – svätej cirkvi nitrianskej, ktorá bola pod správou arcibiskupa-metropolitu Metoda. Nitra sa takto stala prvým dokumentovaným biskupstvom v strednej a východnej Európe, z tohto obdobia. Bola to prvá diecéza medzi slovanskými národmi. Nemožno ani vylúčiť, že bola zároveň sídlom sv. Metoda-metropolitu. [1] Source is official website of archbishop in Nitra. -- Orhtodxbratm ( talk) 09:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Can someone deal with the issue in MK Wikipedia? http://mk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%B2._%D0%9A%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BB_%D0%B8_%D0%9C%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%98
Their own references talk about "Byzantine Greeks" and they keep deleting the part about "Greeks". This is absurd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.84.25.228 ( talk) 09:31, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
The missionaries were Byzantines (Romans in fact). That’s all. About 400 years after their time, in the 13th century, after the Crusades, the Europeans started calling the Romans from the Eastern Roman Empire - Greeks (pejoratively). In the 9th century they could have been just Romans, therefore we cannot call the brothers "Byzantine Greeks". Similarly we cannot call them "Byzantine Macedonians" either, although they were from the territory of the (ancient, later roman province, i.e. Byzantine province of) Macedonia. Indeed, they might have been Slave Macedonians, since they could translate the sacred texts INTO slave language, what would have been impossible if they were not borne Slave. Indeed, the translations use declinations that the Slave Macedonians probably did not have. However, Check and Slovak languages had declinations and it was possible that their students, number of whom were Checks or Slovaks, corrected their translations. Therefore the most correct would be to call the brothers just Byzantines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.65.113.42 ( talk) 20:46, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Why does it say they were born in Thessaloniki???? The town was called "Salon" for hundreds of years before it was ceded to Greece about 100 years ago and the name Hellenicised. Is it totally incorrect to say Born: Macedonia or Macedonian Region? Is there a department of the Greek government constantly checking Wikipedia and deleting all references to Macedonia as totally independent from Greece for Hundreds of years??? Wonder what the Greek kids text books say?? Anyway, this Wiki introduction kind of implies C&M were Greek when they weren't. Sure they may of spoken Greek but it doesnt mean they are, like saying Latin speakers are not necessarily all from Roma. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.6.164.67 ( talk) 14:37, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
I wonder why people from FYROM don't see that the two Apostles, Cyril and Methodius were "Apostles TO the Slavs", and not "Apostles OF the Slavs" nor "Apostles FROM the Slavs". Its obvious that only if they were non-Slav (such as Greek/Roman Byzantine) Apostles, could get known as Apostles to the Slavs... -- 85.75.131.143 ( talk) 14:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
hu:Cirill és Metód — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naxa ( talk • contribs) 17:08, 10 January 2013
I have provided the necessary disambiguation for Anastasius. However, I have also removed the quotation "the teacher of the Apostolic See" attributed to him, as there is no such expression either in the Legenda Italica or in the Epistle to Gaudericus. If anyone can find it in his writings, they are welcome to reinstate it—with citation. Лудольф ( talk) 20:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
In Russian, the day celebrated on May 24: День славянской письменности и культуры means: Day of Slavic Writing and Culture not In Russia, and not Slavonic Literature and Culture Day, as noted in the article.
-- Big Yus ( talk) 21:17, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Saints Cyril and Methodius are Bulgarians and at that time, Thessaloniki (where the Saint brothers were born was also Bulgarian territory - check your sources please) I see in the log edition here that a lot of people are trying to present them as Macedonians which is ridiculous, because at that time there was not even Macedonian country... a lot of people are trying to steal the Bulgarian history and culture (especially Macedonians) and sometimes greek's too just like in this situation... this is absurd! MK ( talk) 21:09, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
APPARENTLY,
Talk:Saints Cyril and Methodius/Archive 6 clearly demonstrates that the Saints were NOT GREEK!!! But simply Byzantine. Where is the problem then? Just remove "Greek". — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
82.123.242.218 (
talk)
12:17, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Please add to the end of Commemoration the photo of the Cyril and Methodius statue at the city Zalavár, Hungary. The picture is on this page: http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zalavár This is the direct link to the image: http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zalavár#mediaviewer/Fájl:Zalavar-Cyril-Methodius.JPG As far as I know this is the only statue of them in Hungary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Szilard66 ( talk • contribs) 21:29, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
His name was Constantine (Konštantín) ,shortly before death he changed his name to "Cyrril" now only simply Cyril. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.137.37 ( talk) 14:57, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
In the article, the Cyrillic alphabet is described as a descendant of the Glagolitic alphabet. This is largely false -- the majority of letters in the Cyrillic alphabet come from the Greek uncial script; only a few signs representing peculiar Slavic sounds were adapted from the Glagolitsa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.185.47 ( talk) 15:36, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
I do understand that vandals abound on Wikipedia, but the article si locked and it contains factual inaccuracies and cannot be edited. For instance there is a paragraph: "Nor is it known for sure which liturgy, that of Rome or that of Constantinople, they took as a source. They may well have used the Roman alphabet, as suggested by liturgical fragments..." which is wrong. Instead of Roman alphabet, it should be Roman Rite.
To anyone serious enough, with at least a vague knowledge of the subject, and older than the average age of Wikipedia editors (which seems to be 17 or so), this is quite obvious, as there is a lengthy introduction on the Glagolitic alphabet which was specifically invented for the purpose, but then automatism ( Roman alphabet is more customary for an average dude than Roman Rite), ignorance and general malevolence and political agenda brawls result in idiocies.
The page should be unlocked for edits with a person with good knowledge of both history and ecclesiastical issues overseeing it so that morons do not destroy the page with their "edits".— Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.245.161.166 ( talk) 13:19, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Would someone add that Cyril is buried in Basilica of Saint Clement? Does anyone know about the graveyard of Methodius? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.221.185 ( talk) 08:13, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
"Byzantine Greek" may refer only to the period after 12th century and not to the times of Cyril and Methodius. The second reason to avoid the expression “Greek” would be because they probably were Slavs and NOT “Greek”. The third reason is that the expression “Greek" was pejorative at exactly that time and may reflect the Catholic reaction to their mission and the introduction of the Slave language in xenophobic Catholic West and Central Europe. This is a strong reason why the expression “Greek” should be avoided. Only “Byzantine” would be appropriate. Please correct. Buridan2001 ( talk) 13:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Saints Cyril and Methodius has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
please change born in Macedonia to "Theme Thessaloniki" because Cyril was born in 826A.C in Thessaloniki of Byzantine Empire. The province name of Thessaloniki was "Theme Macedonia" and it exists since 824a.C. /info/en/?search=Theme_(Byzantine_district). Before that it was "Diocese of Macedonia" but in Cyril times it was the province of Theme Thessaloniki
Alexander is from Argead dynasty. Balkanians ( talk) 15:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
This article states that the Glagolitic alphabet was *devised* by C & M. However, the Wiki page on Glagolitic alphabet ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glagolitic_alphabet) contradicts this statement by saying that the Glagolitic alphabet pre-existed the arrival of C & M. I think that, at most, we can say that C & M REvised (not DEvised) the alphabet to include sounds for the Slavic language.
Thomkolton ( talk) 15:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
My original comment centered on the Glagolitic alphabet mentioned here. However, after reading and rereading this section, and reviewing the previous comments, I felt that this section could be better structured. Much of my suggestions are simply moving text around and generally making the text flow better. Important points on the article I would like to make are:
Since I have never updated Wikipedia and am not entirely sure how to go about it, and since I do not wish to offend by offering a radical rewrite to this section without other people's opinions, I'd like to offer it here for review. It lacks the references that would be placed in the final copy; this was done simply for expediency:
Great Moravia
In 862, both brothers were to enter upon the work which gives them their historical importance. That year, Prince Rastislav of Great Moravia requested that the Emperor Michael III and the Patriarch Photius send missionaries to evangelize his Slavic subjects. His motives in doing so were probably more political than religious. Rastislav had become king with the support of the Frankish ruler Louis the German, but subsequently sought to assert his independence from the Franks. Presumably to gain a degree of political support[14], Rastislav is said to have expelled missionaries of the Roman Church and turned to Constantinople for ecclesiastical assistance. This request provided a convenient opportunity to expand Byzantine influence. The Emperor quickly entrusted the task to Cyril, accompanied by his brother Methodius, stating "You two are from Thessaloniki, and all Thessalonians speak pure Slavonic".[15]
Their first work seems to have been the training of assistants. In 863, they began the task of translating the Bible into the language now known as Old Church Slavonic. They also translated Christian texts for Slavs into the language that is now called Old Church Slavonic, and wrote the first Slavic Civil Code, used in Great Moravia. The language derived from Old Church Slavonic, known as Church Slavonic, is still used in liturgy by several Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic churches.
Translations were performed using the Glagolitic alphabet, which was already in use during Cyril’s time. [??] It is believed that Cyril inserted additional characters into the alphabet to symbolize the non-Greek sounds of the Slavic language. [??]
It is impossible to determine with certainty what portions of the Bible the brothers translated. The New Testament and the Psalms seem to have been the first, followed by other lessons from the Old Testament. The "Translatio" speaks only of a version of the Gospels by Cyril, and the "Vita Methodii" only of the "evangelium Slovenicum," though other liturgical selections may also have been translated. Nor is it known for sure which liturgy, that of Rome or that of Constantinople, they took as a source. They may well have used the Roman alphabet, as suggested by liturgical fragments which adhere closely to the Latin type. This view is confirmed by the "Prague Fragments" and by certain Old Glagolitic liturgical fragments brought from Jerusalem to Kiev and there discovered by Saresnewsky—probably the oldest document for the Slavonic tongue; these adhere closely to the Latin type, as is shown by the words "Mass," "Preface," and the name of one Felicitas.
In spite of these efforts, the brothers could hope for no permanent success without obtaining the authorization of Rome.
Also, later on the article says :
Pre-Glagolitic Slavic writing systems A hypothetical pre-Glagolitic writing system is typically referred to as cherty i rezy (strokes and incisions)[15] - but no material evidence of the existence of any pre-Glagolitic Slavic writing system has been found, except for a few brief and vague references in old chronicles and "lives of the saints". All artifacts presented as evidence of pre-glagolitic Slavic inscriptions have later been identified as texts in known scripts and in known non-Slavic languages, or as fakes.[16] The well-known Chernorizets Hrabar's strokes and incisions are usually considered to be a reference to a kind of property mark or alternatively fortune-telling signs. Some 'Russian letters' found in one version of St. Cyril's life are explainable as misspelled 'Syrian letters' (in Slavic, the roots are very similar: rus- vs. sur- or syr-), etc.
Does this text address your concerns or does it speak about something different? I really do not know.
So, my comments would be :
# Although Cyril's name is associated with the Cyrillic alphabet, and while there is a wide popular misconception that he brought the Cyrillic alphabet to the Slavs, my personal opinion is that the misconception does not need to be mentioned here; the glaring absence of any mention of Cyrillic in this section, and only referring to the use of Glagolitic alphabet, indicates to the reader that something else must be going on. This is an opportunity to click on the Glagolitic link to learn more.
As I stated you cannot just call the Cyril theory a misconception unless you can prove that current academic consensus supports that. Even if it is so, and I am not really in the position to say, it is a fact that C&M are credited with the Cyrillic alphabet and this should be mentioned even if followed by an explanatory text which will state the "misconception".
# There is mention that Glagolitic was the precursor of the Cyrillic alphabet. I would prefer to remove this.
OK, but why? Is this wrong? Or do you think that structurally it does not belong there?
# There is a comment about C & M's success, "They enjoyed considerable success in this endeavor." There is perhaps room for debate; Cyril dead and Methodius in prison does not a success make in my book. However, I don't think this opinion is appropriate, at least not in this section.
Yes, this would be a personal opinion. Yet, this "considerable success" part also sounds like a personal opinion. Maybe you should explain why it wasn't a success to us and then change it?
As for your proposed text, it would be great help if you highlighted your proposed changes so that we can compare them to the existing text more easily. What though you should be particularly careful when changing is sourced material. GK ( talk) 11:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Btw, have a look at this article. Maybe it will be of help. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_of_Cyrillic_and_Glagolitic_alphabets
GK ( talk) 11:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Thomkolton ( talk) 21:125 11 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.7.217.233 ( talk)
"The theory of chronological precedence of Glagolitic script with regard to Cyrillic has been first put forth by G. Dobner in 1785[1], but ever since Pavel Jozef Šafárik's 1857 study of Glagolitic monuments Über den Urspung und die Heimat des Glagolitismus there has been a virtual consensus in the academic circles that the Glagolitic was the script Constantine devised, rather than Cyrillic.[2] This view is supported by numerous linguistic, paleographic and historical accounts."
All I can see here is that a bunch (and not just one) Greek “terrorists” have taken hostage the Ancient history pages on Wikipedia. They may be Greek bankrupt officials propagandists or common fanatics and must be removed from Wikipedia. In particular, those hiding under the names of Simanos (quite uncultivated one), Athenean, GK, Ptolion... Enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.2.173.16 ( talk) 08:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
...And it is a historical fact that by the 8/9 century Thessaloniki was a Slave town and that in principle the Empire was Roman empire and NOT Greek. The Brothers were simply Romans, i.e. Byzantine. Please stop playing with history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.2.173.16 ( talk) 08:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
....Not enough referenced??? There are abundant sources in the earlier discussions. In In "De Administrando Imperio", DAI, Moravchick and Jenkins, Dumberton Oaks 1949, ), Constantine VII Perphyrogenitus does not mention Greeks in 10 century, just Romaioi (Romans). Therefore up to the 10 century, the citizens of the (Eastern) Roman empire were just Romaioi, i.e. Byzantines, not Greeks. This is the end of the discussion that lasts already 3 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.2.162.214 ( talk) 22:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Ah, Diannaa reverted this. Hm. Appart from DAI I found in the Archive 1 the following:
1. Britanica: Encyclopedia Britannica does not state that they were Greeks, states just " brothers who for christianizing the Danubian Slavs and for influencing the religious and cultural development of all Slavic peoples received the title “the apostles of the Slavs.” Both were outstanding scholars, theologians, and linguists. They were honoured by Pope John Paul II in his 1985 encyclical Slavorum Apostoli..” ( http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/148671/Saint-Cyril, accessed 6th March, 2010).
2. As I cited Encyclopedia of the Middle states: Cyril and Methodius (826/827 and c820-885). Byzantine missionaries, often called “apostles of the Slaves”. Native of Thessalonica, the two brothers were Byzantine but connected with Slav circles bilingual from infancy.”(Encyclopedia of the Middle Ages, Volume 1, By André Vauchez, Richard Barrie Dobson, Michael Lapidge, James Clark & Co, 2000) However, the author that all of “ Byzantologists must know:
3. Paul Stephenson, Reader in Medieval History, University of Durham, UK, states: The two brothers, Constantine (b. 826/7) who took the monastic name Cyril) and Methodios (b. 815), were born in Thessalonika, sons of the droungarios Leo and Maria, who may have been a Slav.” From: Paul Stephenson, THE LIVES OF SAINTS CYRIL & METHODIOS, INTRODUCTION, http://homepage.mac.com/paulstephenson/trans/CyrilandMethodios.htm, accessed 6th march, 2010.
I know that there are on both sides hundreds of contradicting references. But DAI plus Britanica and the other 2 IS ENOUGH to say just "Byzantine brothers" and NOT Greek brothers. OK? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.183.250.28 ( talk) 16:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Let me rephrase your sentence and state it correctly: “The two men were born in Thessalonica, in Byzantium. They were born in Byzantium. People did not move about so much in those days; if they were born in Byzantium they were most likely Byzantines.” Why I say this? Even Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus in 10 century does not mention Greeks (Hellenes) almost at all in his book DAI. Then the north of today’s Greece was inhabited in 8, 9, 10th century up to the arrival of the Ottomans - by the Slaves. This is what the linguists say. The name Hellenes was reserved for those from Attica and Peloponnese. The northern Greece of today, become "Hellas" in 19the century. So the brothers could have been Macedonian, Thracian, Thessalian, Slave but not Hellenes. This is how it was. The problem here is not how it was but what is the terminology the modern historians use and it appears that some say "Greek" some do not specify (Britannica), and some say Byzantine. The last, which corresponds to how the Eastern Roman Empire was organized politically, I think, is correct. And... You should NOT try to prove your opinion by questioning the authority of your opponent - I am a student, study history and Slave languages and write more often in German Wikipedia.- I could say also, for example, that your record on Wikipedia on Byzantine history is almost inexistent. It is better to offer some proofs instead. I offered DAI and Encyclopedia Britannica, which are ultimate proofs. One of the letter solutions should be accepted and “Greek” deleted. And I have other things to do now. Housfrau ( talk) 11:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
What I think, is that the whole conversation is without a point. Cyril and Methodius were Byzantine Greeks, or simply Byzantines, a term used by the Western Historians to describe the Greek-speaking Christianic Eastern Roman Empire (Romioi). Not all of them where ethnically Greeks. There is a very good article, explaining the term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthmaniac ( talk • contribs) 21:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
What you should do , then, is to go to the Byzantine Greeks article, and start a conversation there. If you insist that the term Byzantine Greek , should be just Byzantine, or Eastern Roman , or Hellenised Roman, or Greco-Roman, or whatever else, you shouldn't choose an article on two specific personalities. The national identity in the Byzantine Empire is a very complicated matter, and you could help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthmaniac ( talk • contribs) 19:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Then, we have to leave it as it is. The sources, clearly call them Greeks, so it should stay that way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthmaniac ( talk • contribs) 13:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
(unindent) Diannaa you are wasting your time. Housfrau is clearly a WP:SPA, possibly a sock of DraganParis or someone of the same persuasion. If he is a Byzantine history student, then I am an ostrich. Best way to deal with him is WP:DNFTT. Constantine ✍ 17:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Not "Greeks" either. Avoiding to recognise key references, and then listing 100 irrelevant sources - would not help. You must take DAI and other sources that I gave as final proof. If you refuse, I undenstand that you have some "other" intentions and then I do not want to take part in your unfair discussion. In addition, your passing messages each to other is too naive. You obviously act in some irregular accord. Sorry. Housfrau ( talk) 20:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
DIANNAA, please, intimidations? Let us go back to the discussion. There is nothing personal here, just history. Your and the strategy of the others here seems to relay on the fact that number of trivialities in the world is greater than the number of non-trivialities. So you try to disapprove what I cite by just giving greater number of contrary “proofs”! You systematically ignore what I write (my first quality sources) and advance other (trivial sources in may be greater numbers) and think this is a proof.
Let me explain the importance of the sources here. First, all my sources are verifiable, yours are not. You should refute my sources, i.e. start discussing my sources – and this is hard, because these are ultimate sources: Britannica on line – you cannot challenge its authority (does not state the nationality of the missionaries); Encyclopedia of the Middle ages (which states Byzantines), which is the ultimate source at our university, directly available on the Internet; professor Stephenson (says may have been Slaves)…. All these you CAN VERIFY on the Internet!! And finally DAI. Well, the importance of that work? if you do not know it, ask and I will explain. But you can find at least studies which discuss it. This is one of rare and absolute essential document written by the Roman emperor Constantinus VII Porphyrogenitus to explain geopolitics to his son. If you cannot refute my sources, the problem is solved. I do not know who you are (Administrator?), but if you look up the archives there you can see that it is obvious that about five editors support each other in attacking and insulting intruders. Always. For couple of years now. They are all in Thessaloniki and communicate sometimes in Greek. Not a personal attack, just an observation. Housfrau ( talk) 22:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Danke. Ask for independent concensus and then change the article if you want (to Byzantine brothers, remove Greek brothers). I will not have a computer next 4 weeks, may be 8. Housfrau ( talk) 20:09, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Cyril and Methodius were Byzantines of likely Serb origin because they translated into Old Church Slavonic with declinations, and NOT into Macedonian or Bulgarian version - which were spoken in the region, simply because these two languages did not contain declinations. Only Serb version contained declinations. The hypothesis that they were Greeks (!) who translated into not Macedonian or Bulgarian versions of the Old Slave, but into an Old Church Slavonic with declinations is improbable. The language that they could learn 'on the streets' of Thessaloniki, did not contain declinations!!! The declinations are the most difficult to learn and the population of Serb occupied regions (Peonians, remains of the Ancient Macedonians, Dardanes and the rest) that learned Slave as a foreign language probably just ignored declinations. Therefore the brothers, if they could use declinations correctly - and they could, were Byzantines of Serbian origin. Imperatorxy ( talk) 11:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
There is no such a thing as "Czechia" in the English language. You can use either "Bohemia" (to denote the ethnic Czech part of the Czech Republic from the Moravian one) or "Czech Republic". I therefore ask those with sufficient privileges to fix this error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.127.240.155 ( talk) 18:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
remove: The assumed seat of Methodius as archbishop was in Nitra.
Iustusest ( talk) 14:19, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
reference for The assumed seat of Methodius as archbishop was in Nitra in Slovak: V bule pápeža Jána VIII. roku 880 Industriae tuae sa oznamuje ustanovenie Vichinga za nitrianskeho biskupa sanctae ecclesiae nitrensis – svätej cirkvi nitrianskej, ktorá bola pod správou arcibiskupa-metropolitu Metoda. Nitra sa takto stala prvým dokumentovaným biskupstvom v strednej a východnej Európe, z tohto obdobia. Bola to prvá diecéza medzi slovanskými národmi. Nemožno ani vylúčiť, že bola zároveň sídlom sv. Metoda-metropolitu. [1] Source is official website of archbishop in Nitra. -- Orhtodxbratm ( talk) 09:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Can someone deal with the issue in MK Wikipedia? http://mk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%B2._%D0%9A%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BB_%D0%B8_%D0%9C%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%98
Their own references talk about "Byzantine Greeks" and they keep deleting the part about "Greeks". This is absurd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.84.25.228 ( talk) 09:31, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
The missionaries were Byzantines (Romans in fact). That’s all. About 400 years after their time, in the 13th century, after the Crusades, the Europeans started calling the Romans from the Eastern Roman Empire - Greeks (pejoratively). In the 9th century they could have been just Romans, therefore we cannot call the brothers "Byzantine Greeks". Similarly we cannot call them "Byzantine Macedonians" either, although they were from the territory of the (ancient, later roman province, i.e. Byzantine province of) Macedonia. Indeed, they might have been Slave Macedonians, since they could translate the sacred texts INTO slave language, what would have been impossible if they were not borne Slave. Indeed, the translations use declinations that the Slave Macedonians probably did not have. However, Check and Slovak languages had declinations and it was possible that their students, number of whom were Checks or Slovaks, corrected their translations. Therefore the most correct would be to call the brothers just Byzantines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.65.113.42 ( talk) 20:46, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Why does it say they were born in Thessaloniki???? The town was called "Salon" for hundreds of years before it was ceded to Greece about 100 years ago and the name Hellenicised. Is it totally incorrect to say Born: Macedonia or Macedonian Region? Is there a department of the Greek government constantly checking Wikipedia and deleting all references to Macedonia as totally independent from Greece for Hundreds of years??? Wonder what the Greek kids text books say?? Anyway, this Wiki introduction kind of implies C&M were Greek when they weren't. Sure they may of spoken Greek but it doesnt mean they are, like saying Latin speakers are not necessarily all from Roma. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.6.164.67 ( talk) 14:37, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
I wonder why people from FYROM don't see that the two Apostles, Cyril and Methodius were "Apostles TO the Slavs", and not "Apostles OF the Slavs" nor "Apostles FROM the Slavs". Its obvious that only if they were non-Slav (such as Greek/Roman Byzantine) Apostles, could get known as Apostles to the Slavs... -- 85.75.131.143 ( talk) 14:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
hu:Cirill és Metód — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naxa ( talk • contribs) 17:08, 10 January 2013
I have provided the necessary disambiguation for Anastasius. However, I have also removed the quotation "the teacher of the Apostolic See" attributed to him, as there is no such expression either in the Legenda Italica or in the Epistle to Gaudericus. If anyone can find it in his writings, they are welcome to reinstate it—with citation. Лудольф ( talk) 20:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
In Russian, the day celebrated on May 24: День славянской письменности и культуры means: Day of Slavic Writing and Culture not In Russia, and not Slavonic Literature and Culture Day, as noted in the article.
-- Big Yus ( talk) 21:17, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Saints Cyril and Methodius are Bulgarians and at that time, Thessaloniki (where the Saint brothers were born was also Bulgarian territory - check your sources please) I see in the log edition here that a lot of people are trying to present them as Macedonians which is ridiculous, because at that time there was not even Macedonian country... a lot of people are trying to steal the Bulgarian history and culture (especially Macedonians) and sometimes greek's too just like in this situation... this is absurd! MK ( talk) 21:09, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
APPARENTLY,
Talk:Saints Cyril and Methodius/Archive 6 clearly demonstrates that the Saints were NOT GREEK!!! But simply Byzantine. Where is the problem then? Just remove "Greek". — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
82.123.242.218 (
talk)
12:17, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Please add to the end of Commemoration the photo of the Cyril and Methodius statue at the city Zalavár, Hungary. The picture is on this page: http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zalavár This is the direct link to the image: http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zalavár#mediaviewer/Fájl:Zalavar-Cyril-Methodius.JPG As far as I know this is the only statue of them in Hungary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Szilard66 ( talk • contribs) 21:29, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
His name was Constantine (Konštantín) ,shortly before death he changed his name to "Cyrril" now only simply Cyril. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.137.37 ( talk) 14:57, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
In the article, the Cyrillic alphabet is described as a descendant of the Glagolitic alphabet. This is largely false -- the majority of letters in the Cyrillic alphabet come from the Greek uncial script; only a few signs representing peculiar Slavic sounds were adapted from the Glagolitsa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.185.47 ( talk) 15:36, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
I do understand that vandals abound on Wikipedia, but the article si locked and it contains factual inaccuracies and cannot be edited. For instance there is a paragraph: "Nor is it known for sure which liturgy, that of Rome or that of Constantinople, they took as a source. They may well have used the Roman alphabet, as suggested by liturgical fragments..." which is wrong. Instead of Roman alphabet, it should be Roman Rite.
To anyone serious enough, with at least a vague knowledge of the subject, and older than the average age of Wikipedia editors (which seems to be 17 or so), this is quite obvious, as there is a lengthy introduction on the Glagolitic alphabet which was specifically invented for the purpose, but then automatism ( Roman alphabet is more customary for an average dude than Roman Rite), ignorance and general malevolence and political agenda brawls result in idiocies.
The page should be unlocked for edits with a person with good knowledge of both history and ecclesiastical issues overseeing it so that morons do not destroy the page with their "edits".— Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.245.161.166 ( talk) 13:19, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Would someone add that Cyril is buried in Basilica of Saint Clement? Does anyone know about the graveyard of Methodius? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.221.185 ( talk) 08:13, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
"Byzantine Greek" may refer only to the period after 12th century and not to the times of Cyril and Methodius. The second reason to avoid the expression “Greek” would be because they probably were Slavs and NOT “Greek”. The third reason is that the expression “Greek" was pejorative at exactly that time and may reflect the Catholic reaction to their mission and the introduction of the Slave language in xenophobic Catholic West and Central Europe. This is a strong reason why the expression “Greek” should be avoided. Only “Byzantine” would be appropriate. Please correct. Buridan2001 ( talk) 13:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Saints Cyril and Methodius has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
please change born in Macedonia to "Theme Thessaloniki" because Cyril was born in 826A.C in Thessaloniki of Byzantine Empire. The province name of Thessaloniki was "Theme Macedonia" and it exists since 824a.C. /info/en/?search=Theme_(Byzantine_district). Before that it was "Diocese of Macedonia" but in Cyril times it was the province of Theme Thessaloniki
Alexander is from Argead dynasty. Balkanians ( talk) 15:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)