Usage of Old Slavonic and Church Slavonic

[Delodephius]

We all know St. Cyril and St. Methodius were from Macedonia and that they spoke the Macedonian dialect of Slavonic as their native language, but they were Romans first and foremost and to them it mattered little from which part of the Empire someone came or what was his/her native language. Such a concept like "Macedonian nationality" as we have today did not exist back then, nor did any other nationality exist as well. The only thing that did exist was identifying oneself with the state one lived in. Romans were all the subjects of the (Eastern) Roman Empire, Bulgarians were all the subjects of the Bulgarian Empire.

As for Cyrillic, could you provide some reference to your claim? The Ohrid school used Glagolitic until Cyrillic was introduced from Preslav from Bulgaria. Or is that too much disturbing, to think that it was the Bulgarians who invented the Cyrillic script, even though such distinction as Macedonian and Bulgarian did not exist a thousand years ago. You keep your modern issues out of history.

[Soldier of Macedon]

The Ss. Kiril i Metodi are Macedonian and lol the Cyrillic Alphabet was created in Ohrid

Lavche, I think you could have offered something a little better that a mere 'lol', perhaps you could try to actually research the matter for yourself and present evidence to the contrary.

Despite the fact that Glagolitic was invented in Macedonia, it was quickly abandoned everywhere but in Croatia/Illyria, and so I think it should be called the Illyrian alphabet simply based on prevalence of use and tradition.

Not exactly, the Glagolica alphabet was retained in Macedonia until around the 13th century. Calling it Illyrian (which I don't necessarily see as a problem) based on what you wrote above may suggest that Croatians instead of Macedonians were its creators, when the opposite is true.

The only thing that did exist was identifying oneself with the state one lived in. Romans were all the subjects of the (Eastern) Roman Empire, Bulgarians were all the subjects of the Bulgarian Empire.

While I agree with your pragmatic approach, it is important to note that there were also religious, linguistic and ethno-geographic identities, which, although not as prevalent, still existed in parallel to state/imperial identities.

Or is that too much disturbing, to think that it was the Bulgarians who invented the Cyrillic script, even though such distinction as Macedonian and Bulgarian did not exist a thousand years ago.

Be it under the instruction of Boris or otherwise, it was Macedonians who invented it, not Bulgarians, although there may have been students from the latter in the presence of St Clement during the process. Whether this took place in Bulgaria or not isn't really a concern for me, but what evidence is there for the birthplace of Cyrillic?

[Daskalot]

People don't understand that there was no migration of the Slavs. And they think that since there was a migration that all the previous inhabitants of Macedonia were eliminated. This is not true of course.

I can draw a parallel to be applied to the Greeks. In the 2nd BC century Greek cities were conquered by the Romans and in the subsequent centuries the Greeks started calling themselves Romans and have been doing so even after the fall of the Roman Empire (until the Westerners re-christened them back into Greeks/Hellenes). So by that logic modern Greeks are not the descendant of the ancient Greeks because they are really Romans and should be either called that, or their name should be prefixed, like Romanogreeks or Roman Greeks, etc.

Or just call them by the name they themselves used Romeoi speaking Romeika.
A good Christian of the Eastern rite is a Roman not a pagan Hellene.

[Delodephius]

Not exactly, the Glagolica alphabet was retained in Macedonia until around the 13th century. Calling it Illyrian (which I don't necessarily see as a problem) based on what you wrote above may suggest that Croatians instead of Macedonians were its creators, when the opposite is true.

One could also call it the Moravian alphabet because it was created for the use in Moravia and the oldest Glagolitic texts preserved were written in the Moravian dialect (the hymn I posted is actually from the oldest Glagolitic manuscript and it has Moravian features, like the word 'tuzimъ' for the Dative form of "foreign", instead of Macedonian 'tuždimъ').

All in all, I do not want to call it either Illyrian or Macedonian or whatever, since everyone knows where it was created and by who. As I mentioned in Old Slavonic circles it is called Cyrillic, while what we call Cyrillic is called Clementine, to indicate who its creators were and avoid modern issues. In reality both scripts were simply called Azbuka in the beginning.

Another thing, there are three types of Glagolitic, three styles that is: round, angular and cursive. There is also the hypothetical triangular. The round style is sometimes called the Moravian, the Macedonian or the Bulgarian style as it was used in those lands, while the angular and cursive was developed in Croatia and so is called the Illyrian style or type.

To me personally the fact that St. Cyril, St. Methodius or St. Naum were Macedonians is irrelevant. I see them as Romans and cosmopolitan people.

Be it under the instruction of Boris or otherwise, it was Macedonians who invented it, not Bulgarians, although there may have been students from the latter in the presence of St Clement during the process. Whether this took place in Bulgaria or not isn't really a concern for me, but what evidence is there for the birthplace of Cyrillic?

I'm not sure. The fact that the Ohrid school used Glagolitic rather than Cyrillic may point to Bulgaria since only Cyrillic was used there and Glagolitic only in negligible amounts.

[Delodephius]

On another topic, here is the evolutionary table of Greek, from the Rosetta Stone and then jumping into the mid 1st millennium AD. In the last column are Cyrillic letters as they appeared in manuscripts of the 10-11th century. The columns before that are Greek letters from the same period and the centuries before. You can see how Cyrillic is nothing more than the Greek alphabet with additional letters.




Here is then the complete table of the early Cyrillic alphabet:

[Risto the Great]

You can see how Cyrillic is nothing more than the Greek alphabet with additional letters.[/IMG]

The same can be said about the Greek script with Phoenician. I don't think there was an abundance of competing scripts at the time.

To me personally the fact that St. Cyril, St. Methodius or St. Naum were Macedonians is irrelevant. I see them as Romans and cosmopolitan people.

Surely you can accept Macedonians would embrace this fact in a much different way to a disinterested party.

[Soldier of Macedon]

One could also call it the Moravian alphabet because it was created for the use in Moravia and the oldest Glagolitic texts preserved were written in the Moravian dialect (the hymn I posted is actually from the oldest Glagolitic manuscript and it has Moravian features, like the word 'tuzimъ' for the Dative form of "foreign", instead of Macedonian 'tuždimъ').

Slovak, are't the oldest preserved Glagolica texts in Macedonian?

I'm not sure. The fact that the Ohrid school used Glagolitic rather than Cyrillic may point to Bulgaria since only Cyrillic was used there and Glagolitic only in negligible amounts.

But both Glagolica and Cyrillic were used in Macedonia until the former fell out of use some 3-400 years later. I'd be inclined to wait for further evidence before the suggested 'Bulgarian' birthplace of the alphabet can be corroborated, because at the moment I don't see any reason why it wouldn't have been developed in Macedonia.

Surely you can accept Macedonians would embrace this fact in a much different way to a disinterested party.

Absolutely.

[Delodephius]

Slovak, are't the oldest preserved Glagolica texts in Macedonian?

No, they're in Moravian. The Kiev folia and the Prague fragments are the oldest.

I'd be inclined to wait for further evidence before the suggested 'Bulgarian' birthplace of the alphabet can be corroborated, because at the moment I don't see any reason why it wouldn't have been developed in Macedonia.

I don't see any reason why it wouldn't have been developed in Bulgaria. Both places seem equally possible to me.

Surely you can accept Macedonians would embrace this fact in a much different way to a disinterested party.

Yes I can. But I'm not interested what Macedonians want or are interested in. I'm concerned with the history at the time it happened and not what it implies in the modern period.

[Risto the Great]

Yes I can. But I'm not interested what Macedonians want or are interested in. I'm concerned with the history at the time it happened and not what it implies in the modern period.

That is a bit rich from someone who describes himself as a Slovak yet is a Serbian based on the above logic.

I do not think you are as concerned with the history of the period as you suggest. To think everyone was "Roman" when it is more than reasonable to assume there were competing ethnicities merely simplifies an era to such a level that belies many of your other observations.

[Delodephius]

I don't want to get into any kind of nationalistically flavoured debate, but yes, I do not believe there was such thing as a Macedonian ethnicity or nationality from about the beginning of the 1st millennium AD until the 18-19th century, and also the concept of being a Macedonian two thousand years ago was completely different than the modern one. At least that is how I see. I'm only concerned with history, if you have another impression than I'm sorry. I generally am not interested in history after about the 15th century. Everything after that is irrelevant to me.

[Delodephius]

And also, the 'Slovak' in my username is old. I only used it because that is how I was know in the past on some forums, when I was 16! I'm 23 now. So I would gladly get rid of it. However, it also points to the fact that I am not a Macedonian, because some people think I am one. Besides the internet I've never even talked to a Macedonian let alone be one. I go by the username Delodephius on most forums nowadays.

[makedonche]

We all know St. Cyril and St. Methodius were from Macedonia and that they spoke the Macedonian dialect of Slavonic as their native language, but they were Romans first and foremost and to them it mattered little from which part of the Empire someone came or what was his/her native language. Such a concept like "Macedonian nationality" as we have today did not exist back then, nor did any other nationality exist as well. The only thing that did exist was identifying oneself with the state one lived in. Romans were all the subjects of the (Eastern) Roman Empire, Bulgarians were all the subjects of the Bulgarian Empire.

As for Cyrillic, could you provide some reference to your claim? The Ohrid school used Glagolitic until Cyrillic was introduced from Preslav from Bulgaria. Or is that too much disturbing, to think that it was the Bulgarians who invented the Cyrillic script, even though such distinction as Macedonian and Bulgarian did not exist a thousand years ago. You keep your modern issues out of history.

Slovak/Anomaly/Tomas

Another theory to be put to the test........btw your first theory is about to be seriously challenged, I will write more very soon.
Can you also please tell me who were Cyrill & Metodi's parents?

[Delodephius]

All that is known is that Constantine's (Cyril's) and Michael's (Methodius') father was named Leo (Львъ) and that he was an administrator in Solun.

[Risto the Great]

I don't see any reason why it wouldn't have been developed in Bulgaria. Both places seem equally possible to me.

SNIP

But I'm not interested what Macedonians want or are interested in. I'm concerned with the history at the time it happened and not what it implies in the modern period.

Some newer forum members do not know you. But a person reading your interpretation for the first time would say you in fact hate Macedonians.

You stated earlier the alphabet was created in Bulgaria. You then stated "both places seem possible". For someone so committed to historical analysis, it sounds vague and appears to be nothing more than an anti-Macedonian agenda.

I have no desire to apply modern nationalism to thousands of year old people either. But I also accept modern Macedonians have far more to do with Kiril & Metodi than any Greek or in fact Bulgarians do.

Are you saying you no longer are a Slovak?

[Serdarot]

Konstantin Filozof i Metodi Solunski, aka Kiril i Metodi aka Cyril and Methodius.

Kiril´s and Metodi´s Father was a "Byzantine" High Official.

He hold a position reserved for the "slavs" of the Balkans.

His brother, Kiril´s and Metodi´s oncle, was something what would today be called "minister of foreign affairs".

The importance of his function / title should be object of healthy reasoning...
--------------------------

The Bulgarians were not-white invaders, who never conquered Solun.

The Bulgarians spoke different language than the language spoken by the people who lived in / around Solun.

They (the bulgarians) were also Pagans, and one of the worst enemies that Christians had.

So, to translate the Gospel, and spread the Christianity between "slavic" nations, in the place of the Byzantine Emperor, who would you use???

- A yellow-skinned Bulgarian, who is speaking some kind of Gagauz-turkce, and have no idea about Christianity?
- white skinned Macedonian, who is speaking almost the same language like someone in Moravia or Moskva, and is from Christian family / ethnicity?

I mean, i understand that many are envy on us Macedonians, cause the Macedonians gave so much to the world, but hey, you dont have to swallow it, just dont puke...

Try it, slovak, it does not hurt:

Kiril and Metodi were Macedonians
Kiril i Metodi so bili Makedonci
Kiril i Metodi bili su Makedonci