3

We have no clear evidence about the relations between Methodius and Photius, but we do have certain indications. The fact that he was appointed Abbot of Polychroniou Monastery does not mean that he was friendly towards the deposed Patriarch Ignatius. Indeed, given the fact that his appointment was made during Photius's term as Patriarch, and was obviously sanctioned by him, it seems likely that it was made precisely to mollify the monks who supported Ignatius and to change their sentiments. The appointment followed directly upon the two brothers' return from Khazaria and the Crimea, after Photius had offered Methodius an episcopal see, which he declined. It is clear from what has been said above that Photius cannot have been absent from the deliberations concerning the mission to Central Europe. The question, then, should be phrased differently: why do the sources not specifically mention his participation? 

Their silence οn this point is undoubtedly connected with the circumstances under which the brothers' biographies were written.

The Life of Constantine the Philosopher was written in Rome shortly after Cyril's death in 869 by a companion of his and Methodius's, and its purpose was to present clear evidence that the Pope, Hadrian ΙΙ, approved the use of the Slavonic langιιage in the Liturgy and thus forestall the charges being brought against Methodius οn this account. The Life of Methodius was written in Moravia in 885 with the aim of persuading the ruler, Prince Sviatopolk, who was both a Latinophile and a Germanophile, that the mission was the work of the Emperor of Byzantium, and that those who reacted against it were therefore opposing the plans of the Emperor. It would have been impossible, in the Life of Constantine, to make much of Photius's role. Reference to his part in events would have undermined the whole purpose of the work, for Photius was hated in Rome and in the West generally, and had now been deposed in the East. Nor was such a reference possible in the Life of Methodius, because it would have diminished the Emperor's role, which was at the core of the work. It would also have been dangerous because, although Photius was back οn the patriarchal throne by now and had mended his differences with Rome, he still had not done so with the Germans, who were continuing to promote the filioque. It would therefore have been most unwise to present Photius as the person behind the brothers' mission. It is for the same reason that no mention is made of Photius's role in Constantine-Cyril's mission to the Caliphate,<⁸> although they probably went together, the one being responsible for religious and the other for civil affairs. Ιn this context too, such a reference would have been seen in the West as provocative.

There is therefore no reason to deny that Photius, as the supreme ecclesiastical authority in Byzantium, played a part in Cyril and Methodius's mission. Indeed, we have no choice but to accept that he did.

The question arises, however: why, in 867, did the brothers not travel to Constantinople to give an account of their work, but went to Rome instead? The answer is strange, but unequivocal: they did not go to Rome of their οwn accord; they were forced tο do so. The Life of Constantine (15) tells us: 'And so he remained in Moravia for forty months, and left in order to tonsure his disciples'; while in the Life of Methodius we read: 'Αnd when three years had passed, they returned from Moravia.'

'They returned'. One returns to tlιe point from which one has set out -in this case Constantinople- and the brothers were travelling there in order to tonsιιre their disciples in their place of origin -Constantinople. However, after passing through Pannonia, and staying fοr a while with its ruler, Κocel, in order to instruct disciples there too, they eventually came to Venice. It seems likely that the deteriorating relations between Byzantium and Bulgaria made it preferable to travel to Cοnstantinople by sea. When they arrived in Venice, however, as the Life of Constantine reports,<⁹> Latin bishops, clerics, and monks gave them a rough reception ('like crows against a hawk') because of their use of the Slavonic language, and brought up the heresy of Trilinguism.