Talk:Clement of Ohrid

Old talk

Hi there,

Does anyone know if St. Clements cake is anything to do with this article or related to the saints?

Thanks

People from FYROM please don`t be hysterical

When it comes to history it seems that people from the republic if Macedonia become crazy. Please, use credible sources and do not involve history or historical figures in your politicized historical self-identification process. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.206.169.207 (talk) 17:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Right, like the 'credible' sources used here to claim Clement was Bulgarian: his 'biography' at the University of Sofia :)) give me a break with your stupid half-witted propaganda 77.248.84.228 (talk) 21:50, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

To editors

This article contains chauvinistic claims that are not historically true. Bulgarian has to be erased since there is no cult, church, icon or fresco of Saint Clement in modern day Bulgaria. In Macedonia his cult was and is still alive. Хак Фин (talk) 17:04, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Origin of Clement - Macedonia

Kliment Ohridski (Clement of Ohrid) is one of the most important educator, translator, writer and literacy contributor for all Slavic people in the 9th and begining of 10th century. He was born in Macedonia and of Macedonian ethnicity, although in that time there was not big distinction and "national awareness" like today. He followed the great accomplishments of the brothers from Solun (Salonica), Kiril and Metodij, who led the Slavic people to the path of progress. 3500 students enrolled the University of Ohrid, which was founded by Kliment. He is considered as one of the creators of the "Kirilica" alphabet which is official alphabet of countries Macedonia, Serbia and Montenegro, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Byelorussia, Russia, Mongolia and others (more than 200 million people use Cyrillic alphabet).

Latin: Clement of Ohrid Macedonia Macedonian Cyrillic: Климент Охридски Македонија

To view properly Cyrillic in your browser click on View->Encoding->Cyrillic (Windows)

Georgi Kozinakov Austin, Texas

Any proofs that St Clement was considering himshelf as "macedonian" He was born in the Byzantine Empire and had a sound greek education. This is all we know about his "ethnicity". He was bi- or multi-lingual, as most of educated people who are born in multi-ethnic places like byzantine Macedonia.

Clement's birthplace

"... according to his hagiography by Theophylact, Clement was born in Macedonia."

I was unable to verify the above assertion through available translations of Theophylact's text. Neither that Theophylact mentioned Clement's birthplace. Therefore, I suggest that direct quotations be provided from the abovementioned work -- or from any other original source not mere speculations by modern historians -- testifying that Clement was indeed born in Macedonia. If not, then the above assertion should be removed. If someone were to provide a valid quotation of Chomatian's testimony that Clement was a born Macedonian, that could be included instead. Apcbg 12:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I would like to return to this issue again. If the birthplace of Clement is not mentioned, than why should that statement stay? Can annyone source the statement about Clement's birthplace? Bomac 14:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I protest

And of course fellow wikipedians, as always when an article somehow related to Republic of Macedonia if you insist is in question we always see the point of view ONLY from the perspectives of the official historiographies of it's neighbouring countries (?!) like: Republic of Bulgaria and/or Greece and/or Albania and/or Serbia but never the POV of the RoM side. Excuse me for my cynicism please, but a fact is that: he was Kliment OHRIDSKI. Ohrid is in Republic of Macedonia where the Ohrid Literary school was opened, one of the oldest Universities in the world that gave litteracy and education to all the slavic nations and which is still keeping Clement's traditions by gathering slavists from all around the world on various symposiums, seminars etc. that are held there. These are facts accepted by the whole world, while of course you can question St. Clement's "ethnicity" (though it's quite questionable itself was there really any "nationality" in this modern sence in those early medieval times?!),you can also argue over his place of birth and so on and so on, but a fact is a fact. OHRID is where he accomplished his life achievments and thus got the name OHRIDSKI, Ohrid was the University center that gave litteracy to Bulgarians, Russians and all the other slavic nations. So, without any need for an 'academic debate' and by any possible standards St. Clement from OHRID belongs to the history of Republic of Macedonia and thus the RoM perspective of these topics should be absolutely taken into account.--Vbb-sk-mk 01:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

If you just take the time to read the story of Clement's life, as it was writtent by the Byzantine scholar Theophylact you would realize how ridiculous your argument sounds anywhere outside of FYROM and Serbia. Ohrid is without a doubt in Macedonia but then again Constantinople/Istanbul is in Turkey - is it fair that the Turks claim all Byzantine history and culture as their own? And please do not presume to think that Macedonia is the sole center of Slavonic culture on the Balkans - the main University of Sofia bore the name St. Clement of Ohrida long before there was a FYROM, or even a Yugoslavia. - Jo

Do you have any recent (after the dissolution of Yugoslavia) sources supporting your statement about Serbia? Apcbg 06:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Ł

No the Turks can not claim byzantene history because they came to the region later and conquered Byzantium. Regarding the Macedonians and the macedonian ethnicity, the people that consider themselves macedonian, have lived on the territory for centuries, they didn't conquer anything, they were just there, they nurtured their own traditions and in one point in time they decided (being tired of others deciding for them) that the world should know that they are a diferent entity form the other people that lived in the region. It is normal that the people which transfered to them the traditions and customs, are considered a part of the Macedonian history as well since they are the ones that in the begining created, built and than had, this distinctive cultre! So this is a sound argument which implys that Clement was actualy macedonian, since the people that lived in that part of the balkan peninsula considered them selves macedonian, solely by the fact that their culture and language was diferent from the others, regardles of the timeline, because they weren't newcomers at any point of time!!! They were there and the identity either shaped over time, or was always present but not widely acknowledged, for whatever reason. Gogo 21:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

You Macedonia people are just incomprehensible. So, following your logic, Constantine the Great is a Romanian. This is what I call good reasoning: Some people decide to use the name of a region, shared by many nations as defining for their nationality, steal history from these other nations, then decide to call a random person, who lived on the whole Balkan peninsula and spoke some kind of slavic or greek language and accomplished something, a Macedonian, and, there you go, you have got your history. Face it people, your history began 1945. Now you will say, Israel was created 1945 and they are one of the oldest nations in the world. I will say NO, you Macedonians are the oldest nation in the world. Adam and Eve were Macedonians, right? (Definitely, if they lived anywhere in between the balkan peninsula and India;)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.44.229.21 (talk) 05:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me tell you what happened with FYROM/RoM. It was a region full of various nationalities, like you say. And at one point someone DECIDED that they were no longer Bulgarians, or greeks or vlachs, they were macedonians. And from that moment on (1945) everyone who considers himself macedonian by ethnicity, is not bulgarian, nor serbian, nor vlach. BUT to say that his grandfather, bulgarian, for example, who felt ABSOLUTELY the same way bulgarian as all the other bulgarians, spoke the same language and had the same traditions, was macedonian, is ridiculous. It's like if Sicily decided to form a new state and that from now on the people living there were not italians, but Sicilians, by ethnicity. And to claim that everyone born in sicily wasn't italian, even 500 years ago, when there was no such thing as sicilian ethnicity, and the people living there were italian by consciousness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atanas tsankov (talk • contribs) 11:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

yeah yeah blah blah again with the infantile 'argument' that Macedonians were/are invented by 'someone'. Lemme guess: Tito and/or the Comintern, amirite? :)) 77.248.84.228 (talk) 21:52, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

St. Climent is a saint of all the orthodox Slavs, not only Macedonians !

Stop deleting my edits! Sveti Climent is a saint celebrated by all Orthodox Slavic People, and it is meaningless to label him as a Bulgarian Saint! In fact the reference link on this article says that he is a Slavic saint, developed the medieval Slavic literature, while working at the Bulgarian court!

And remember that Slavic is not equal to Bulgarian! The same goes for Sveti Naum —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Martin taleski (talk • contribs) 02:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

Yes but he was an ethnic Bulgarian.   /FunkyFly.talk_  02:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Ethnic Bulgarians did not exist at the time! Nor did ethnic Macedonians or Serbians or Croats or any other Southern Slavic ethnicity! 10 centuries ago there were only Ethnic Slavs! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin taleski (talk • contribs)

Not true. There were certainly Bulgarians at that time and he was one of them.   /FunkyFly.talk_  02:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, then will keep on playing ping-pong with this page, until a moderator comes, or one of us goes to sleep!

And please tell me in what way did Ethnic Bulgarians differ from ethnic Macedonians and Serbes, or any other Slavic tribes in the 10-th century? -- Martin Taleski

Reverting this page without sources, against consensus will only get you blocked.   /FunkyFly.talk_  02:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The edit is sourced, see the reference link at the bottom of the article! It was not my link =, i found it on this article... and it never says anything of a Bulgarian Saint

http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/saintc3h.htm

This page is not saying anything about ethnicity.   /FunkyFly.talk_  02:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

from http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/saintc3h.htm

Profile: Student of Saint Cyril and Saint Methodius in Moravia and Panonia. Building on their work, he helped found Slavic literature and culture in Macedonia. He was the first Slavic writer, translated dozens of works, wrote a biography of Saints Cyril and Methodius, and founded the first Slavic university in Ohrid. Friend of Saint Naum. Served in the Bulgarian court. Taught from 886 to 893 at Kutmicevica, being a great influence on over 3,000 students, many of whom became priests and spread the Slavic liturgy through the region. Spiritual teacher of Saint Constantine the Presbyter. Bishop of Belica, the first organised Slav Church on the Balkan Peninsula. Bishop of Ohrid. Founded Saint Pantaleimonth's monastery.

Slavic: 4 Bulgarian: 0 (actualy 1, but it says it worked at the Bulgarian Court)

Again, no mention of ethnicity. And by the way: one of the Seven Apostles of Bulgaria, right at the beginning.   /FunkyFly.talk_  03:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Did he proclaim to be an apostole of Bulgaria, or modern Bulgarian adopted him as their saint... What if we proclaim George Bush to be one of the Seven Apostoles of Macedonia? Will it make any difference in hi ethnicity? -- Martin Taleski

This is just your own interpretation.   /FunkyFly.talk_  03:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

No, this is how you infantile mods abuse your editing power to push your PoV. 77.248.84.228 (talk) 21:54, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Sources!

Obolensky about St. Clement:

"... a Slav by birth, a first - generation disciple of Cyril and Methodius: his name — Clement of Ohrid." http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/obolensky_impact.html

Christian History Institute:

"Clement wrote over fifty books. He is considered the first Slavic writer." http://chi.gospelcom.net/DAILYF/2002/07/daily-07-27-2002.shtml

Patron Saints:

"Student of Saint Cyril and Saint Methodius in Moravia and Panonia. Building on their work, he helped found Slavic literature and culture in Macedonia. He was the first Slavic writer, translated dozens of works, wrote a biography of Saints Cyril and Methodius, and founded the first Slavic university in Ohrid. Friend of Saint Naum. Served in the Bulgarian court. Taught from 886 to 893 at Kutmicevica, being a great influence on over 3,000 students, many of whom became priests and spread the Slavic liturgy through the region. Spiritual teacher of Saint Constantine the Presbyter. Bishop of Belica, the first organised Slav Church on the Balkan Peninsula. Bishop of Ohrid. Founded Saint Pantaleimonth's monastery." http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/saintc3h.htm

Martin taleski 19:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Language!

i've also changed the references of Old Bulgarian to Old Church Slavonic. This is because Old Slavonic was common for all the Slavic Tribes at the time, especially for the Southern Slavs, who did not have no differences in the language (a situation different from the one today!).

Even the link that said Old Bulgarian was referring to the Wikipedia page for Old Church Slavonic

Martin taleski 19:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

More Sources about his Slavic (not Bulgarian) origin!

"St. Clement Slovensky of Okhrida and companions (Greek [of Slavic descent], missionary bishop in Bulgaria, d. 916) St. Cynllo (Welsh, 5th century)" http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=009c7F

"Died at Okhrida, Bulgaria, on July 17, 916. Probably of Slavic descent and from southern Macedonia, he became a bishop during the reign of Khan Simeon, the first Slav to become a bishop." http://www.saintpatrickdc.org/ss/0717.htm#clem

Martin taleski 19:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Slavic Origin!

I am reverting this page to the Slavic origin version... i think i have showed enough sources for this... if someone thinks otherwise, please discuss it here and back your claim with relevant sources... and i don't want to engage in edit warring any more...

Martin taleski 00:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

There are sources, that Ohrid was part of the Bulgarian Empire is undisputed. If you want an expert source by an author with a name how about Josef Safařík, a Slovak slavicist who calls him Bulgarian? Details here. Slav is too wide and too vague, it could cover most of Eastern Europe; he was from the state known as Bulgaria. Considering your sources don't contradict as Bulgarians are and were Slavs, I'm reverting.--Domitius 18:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

First of all your source is in Bulgarian and Greek! I can find hundreds of sources in Macedonian, that say he was a Macedonian Saint, but i know that they are not true since Slavic Macedonians did not differ from Slavic Bulgarians at the time (not that they differ much today!)... they were simply southern Slavic Tribes living under the Bulgarian khanate (later empire)... and the people who had the power in the medieval Bulgarian State, up to the 10th century, were the Bulgarian (Tatar) aristocracy - the Boiljars.

So when Macedonian historians say that he is Macedonian, they rely on a single fact that he was born, and spent most of his life in Macedonia! On the other side Bulgarian historians claim that he is Bulgarian, again relying on a single fact that he was born under the Bulgarian Khanate, which controlled the region of Macedonia. Both claims overlook the fact that Southern Slavic nations were not differentiated at the time, and the terms such as Bulgarian or Macedonian did not have the same meaning in the Middle Ages, with the one today... and if you think that Slavic is to broad, than we can narrow it down to South Slavic, which might be more accurate.

Martin taleski 19:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Martine, the source was written by a well-known Slovak (not-Greek, not-Bulgarian) slavicist. Also, if you a subscriber to those ridiculous Macedonist theories that then Bulgarian = Tatar, we shouldn't be discussing until you've cited some sources. About Macedonia, you are wrong. During Clement's lifetime, Macedonia was in Thrace (map), so to call him a "Macedonian" is a ridiculous Macedonistic anachronism. As you have failed to cite any sources contradicting, how about "Bulgarian and Slav"? I'll add it.--Domitius 21:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

First of all i have a great trouble understanding your sources... i don't know Greek, and i am very week at Bulgarian! Second, they are published on a site that has the goal of spreading bulgarian monopoly on the Balkan and especially on Macedonian History... so your link is unreliable as it can be, disregarding the fact that it is unintelligible!

And i am not subscriber to the Bulgarian = Tatar theory... i am just making a distinction between modern Bulgarians and medieval Bulgarians (Tatars) of the first Bulgarian Empire. And i have clearly expressed myself: "up to the 10th century".

And let me not forget... during Clements time, Macedonia was at the same place where it was for centuries. The Byzantine "thema" of Macedonia was located in Thrace only because the empire did not control the region of Macedonia at the time, and Thrace was the starting point of their ambition. Every byzantiologist explains that this "thema" did not coincide with the region of Macedonia, and they give a explanation similar to mine... don't make me scan Ostrogorsky and Obolensky... and BTW the second one clearly states that he is "Slav by Birth" (see abouve for the link)...

and i am no bargaining about "Bulgarian and Slav". It makes no sence, since at the time Bulgarians were Tatars, having a separate language from the Slavs. In fact, Clement played a great role in Slavization of the Tatars, since he spread Christianity in Slavic language... so eventually Tatars were converted to Christianity, and they did not have the Bible, other holy books and the liturgy translated in their language, and adopted Slavic language and were soon assimilated in the Slavic majority!

So, we are back to Slavic Martin taleski 01:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

This isn't POV or OR, this is LOL. You may not have heard about Kuber, a "Tatar" leader who settled in Macedonia and by the early 9th century united with Bulgaria, effectively rendering the local Slavic population ethnically the same as the one elsewhere in Bulgaria. But that's another thing, and I'm not going to explain why a sophisticated ancient eastern civilization isn't Tatar.

Your arguments arguments about the thema of Macedonia are clear nonsense which I'm not going to comment on. It is as clear as hell that Macedonia as it is today did not exist in the Middle Ages.

The Slavicization of the Bulgars was a process which had begun by the time, as evidenced by the practically zero Bulgar influence on modern Bulgarian. So basically Boris converted all Bulgarians to Christianity, chose the language of the people — the Old Bulgarian vernacular — as the liturgical language, and founded the Bulgarian literary schools which would influence the whole Slavic world. Is that clear?

You can't degrade someone who worked for and in Bulgaria and the Bulgarians to a "Slavic scholar" as you can't call Dimitar Berbatov a "Slavic footballer" — it may not be wrong, but it's ridiculous. "Bulgarian" already doesn't exclude "Slav" in the 9th century. Todor→Bozhinov 08:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Just a note: although I may consider your references to "Tatar" funny, they can also be regarded as offensive, and if you continue I'll report that. Please remain civil and don't be silly. Todor→Bozhinov 10:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

To Martin: The very fact you call Bulgarians Tatars shows you have no historical knowledge or at least no knowledge based on facts. It is insulting, yes, is someone here calling you Bulgarian (the thing you find equally insulting) - no, so please, stop calling Bulgarian Tatars. It's like name-calling for God's sake --Laveol 14:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Meditation!

Ok since we can not solve this by ourselves, i filled for meditation... the reason for know is very specific (this article), but i think we should expand it in a general discussion to solve the Bulgarian - Macedonian history dispute that has found its place on Wikipedia!

Martin taleski 02:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

It's more like an Earth vs Republic of Macedonia history dispute. Todor→Bozhinov 08:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way, why are you omitting steps from the dispute resolution process? Clearly, this discussion is not over and it's way too early for mediation (meditation???). If we really can't agree on a compromise (as it seems, we will agree), then we should invite a third party to comment and discuss with us. Only then should we resort to formal mediation. Todor→Bozhinov 17:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

If you all want a neutral 3rd party with some mediation experience (and no personal opinion at all about Clement of Ohrid or Bulgaria) I'd be happy to help out. Martin can you explain why you don't consider being part of the Bulgarian empire to be Bulgarian? Also if there are any other issues in dispute can you list them (but don't argue them yet)? jbolden1517^Talk 00:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

It's very simple: a Bulgarian empire was so called because south Slavs there called themselves 'bulgarian' among using other words such as 'Slavs', 'Macedonians', and the like. There wasn't a separate, distinct 'Bulgarian' ethnicity yet. Afterwards, when this separate ethicity distilled itself throughout history, people (Slavs & indigenous) from Macedonia refused to accept it and continued/started calling themselves 'Macedonians' and/or 'Slavs'. But today we have (ethnic) Bulgarians abusing this very simple fact: that several centuries ago, 'bulgarian' was a synonym for 'Slavic', not for an 'ethnic Bulgarian'. And it was therefore written in lowercase, as I do here. 77.248.84.228 (talk) 21:59, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

BIG PROTEST FROM MACEDONIA

So in this article you are saying that If one teritory like Macedonia was conquered by the Bulgarian empire, all the people who are living on that teritory are becoming Bulgarians or when Aleksandar III The greath Macedonian conquered the all in that time known world, all the people on that teritory became Macedonians. I have no problem then it’s ok, because in that case all the Greeks are Macedonians and now I know why they are continuing to fignt against our name, and I don’t know what to say about Bulgarians because they didn’t exist in that time. But in some articles they say that Aleksandar is Bulgarian to. How lucky we Macedonians are. Everyone whants to be Macedonian in time when the world was called Macedonia, but now when we are small and peacefull contry everyone whants to take our history from us. I’m not surprised when Bulgarians or Greeks write articles like this one, but I’m surprised and dissapointed when other people in the world believe in the propagand against Macedonians. That is sad espesualy for the people who are not informed well like you. I’m Sorry because of my cynicism but that is how you respect us, so it’s not my fault. Pavel Kapricheski from OHRID place where Kliment Orhidski made the first university on slovenian language in the churche St. Pantelemon. Sorry about my grammar mistackes, ама јас сум Македонец и ништо друго поразлично од Александар III македонски и Свети Климент Охридски и многу други за кои што се води војна за да се вметнат во историите на нашите драги соседи и да се избришат од историјата на Македонија. За жал на сите антимакедонски пропагатори историјата на Македонија полека се враќа таму каде што припаѓа во Македонија. А особено нашата мила Грција уште малку ќе почне солзи да пушта поради фактот дека ја губи војната околу името, Македонија ќе биде секогаш тука да помогне на соседите па макар и да им дадеме марамче да си ги избришат солзите, зошто очигледно тешко им паѓа тоа што Александар повторно е тоа што отсекогаш бил Македонец. Сепак сме мирољубив и дружељубив народ. 'Bold text'

Yep, that was fun :). "But in some articles they say that Aleksandar is Bulgarian to. " - that's the first time I hear of such a thing. Are you sure you've heard it? --Laveol 17:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

There was no bulgarian empire in the eight century in the region of Macedonia. That part of the history is all made up. Until 9th century slavs and tartars are still fighting wars. https://archive.org/details/ByzantineSourcesForHistoryOfThePeoplesOfYugoslavia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.205.59.148 (talk) 17:43, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

the imperial therm vulgaroi stretches back to vedic aryans which called varga all the non aryan (noble)peoples. in western civilizations starts from armenians (vanand) which called vargar their tartar subjects. than romeians called vulgaroi their slavic and tartar peoples. the western word vulgaroi comes from latin vulgus (common people, crowd, raya). it's modern equivalents are german volk and international folk. so folk (or as in medieval texts vulgaroi) from macedonia, only means people from macedonia and nothing else. as well as latina vulgata doesn't mean bulgarian latin but common, spoken latin. as well as era vulgaris doesn't mean bulgarian era, but common era. as well as lactobacilus bulgaricus doesn't mean bulgarian lactobacilus, but common lactobacilus. there was never ever bulgarian ethnicity prior to 1858. the people who were called people (vulgaroi) never called themselve with that name. in hindukush they refered to themselves as sveta huna or simply pashtuns. in volga (which they called Idil) they called themselves onogur or onogundur. in balkans, people (vulgaroi) called themselves macedonians or nashinci. that imperial caste therm swings from tribe to tribe, from nation to nation, all of different ethnic origin. i think it's time to stop this sharade. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.205.59.148 (talk) 15:25, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Recent edit war

• About the quote calling him "Bulgarian": This is a primary source from a medieval Byzantine text. Byzantine texts are notoriously difficult to interpret when it comes to ethnic appellations. Wikipedia strongly discourages the use of primary sources to bolster up potentially contentious claims. Please find a reliable secondary source discussing his ethnicity, if you want to have a reference to that.
• About the language he wrote in: He was not just a great writer in "the Bulgarian recension of Old Church Slavonic", he was one of the most significant writers of Old Slavonic as a whole. The precise dialectal nature of the Slavonic he wrote is pretty irrelevant in that context. The article on Old Church Slavonic seems to associate him more with a "Macedonian recension", actually, but I don't know anything about that. The differences were minor anyway, leave them to the linguists, not the nationalists. If you must have this issue mentioned, go read a good introduction to Old Church Slavonic and come back when you can make a competent informed summary of the linguistic differences between the various forms, and the philological situation of the surviving manuscripts and what evidence it provides for St Clement's original dialect. Have fun.
• About the placename in the infobox: Holy lord, if people could just stop overloading infoboxes with irrelevant information. The infobox should just give a first orientation. Placename alone is enough; if you want to help the reader more, then why not just "Ohrid (Macedonia)"; the issue of what polity it was then part of can be treated in the text.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

About Clement of Ohrid as an integral part of the Bulgarian medieval culture, an article from a collection of Russian Academy of Sciences, dedicated to Macedonia:

"МАКЕДОНИЯ - ПРОБЛЕМЫ ИСТОРИИ И КУЛЬТУРЫ", Институт славяноведения, РАН, Москва, 1999, "РАЗМЫШЛЕНИЯ О МАКЕДОНСКОМ "СРЕЗЕ" ПАЛЕОБОЛГАРИСТИКИ", И. И. Калиганов (Институт славяноведения РАН).

I need more time to give secondary source about his ethnicity. Greetings, Vulgarian 08:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

P. s. I'm afraid that the term "Macedonian recension" is interpreted speculatively in the article Old Church Slavonic because that recension was internal segment of the broader Old Bulgarian Language (as it is explained in the text of the Russian Academy, cited above). The article Old Church Slavonic treats these two lingustic levels, Old Bulgarian Language and Macedonian recension, as if they belong to equal category. - Vulgarian 08:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

That may all very well be true, but the name of the language used in modern international scholarship is still simply Old Church Slavonic. This article is not about how Clement pronounced his "жд"s. Or are you going to write a section on that? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

This article could be developed in every possible way, so it could contain pure linguistic section as well. It is not a problem for me, but our question here is different. The name of the "superlanguage" (if I may express in this way) is "Old (Curch) Slavonic", but the name of its subdivision on the nearest lower level is "Old Bulgarian Language", not "Bulgarian recension" or "Macedonian recension". These recensions are subdivisions of the Old Bulgarian language, which on its part is subdivision of the Old Slavonic Language. The so called Macedonian recension wasn't something separate from the medieval Bulgarian state, policy, culture, language... The Ohrid Literary School was Bulgarian as was the Preslav Literary School. The idea that these two schools and their linguistic recensions were totally independent is an anachronistic product of the Yugoslav and subsequent Macedonian policies, which is in insoluble conflict with the historical records. This is clearly explained in the text of the Russian Academy of Sciences. By the way, I think we have to include a short explanation of Macedonian point of view in the article. Greetings, Vulgarian 15:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, yeah, "Old Bulgarian" and "Old Church Slavonic" might be terms operating on different levels of generality (in some people's usage at least). But if the dialectal differences between Ohrid and Preslav aren't relevant for us, why should those between Bulgaria and Moravia be? They are still minor. Fact is, "Old Church Slavonic" (the whole of it) is the level of generality on which this language is conventionally treated, for practical purposes. If our reader wants to find out more, they'll be led to an article dealing with - "Old Church Slavonic", as a whole. If they want to find out more, they might buy a book, which will be on, guess what? - "Old Church Slavonic". In the library, they'll have to ask their way to a bookshelf labelled - "Old Church Slavonic". Or they'll take a university language class, which will be about, you guessed it, "Old Church Slavonic". There simply are no encyclopedia articles, introductory text books, language classes etc that deal with just the Bulgarian part of it to the exclusion of other forms, therefore "Old Church Slavonic" is the most appropriate and most practical way of referring to it here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid the term "Old Church Slavonic" can't be a proper substitution for "Old Bulgarian Language" because of their different levels. Probably a better approach is to use both terms together, which will depict the two periods and trends of St. Clement's activity - Moravian and Bulgarian. He was not only one of the pupils of St. Cyril and Methodius and one of the first Slavic Christian writers, but also one of the founders of the Old Bulgarian Language, so I think we could not neglect this side of his importance. Note - he is described as "the first bishop in Bulgarian language" in Bulgarian medieval tradition so such definition isn't anachronistic. Greetings, Vulgarian 03:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but you haven't even touched on my argument. As I've just explained, "Old Church Slavonic" is the better term exactly because of their different levels. That is: to the extent that the terms are actually used on these different levels. Because very often people just informally use "Old Bulgarian" and "OCS" as synonyms – in which case OCS is the internationally and scientifically established term. Where, on the other hand, people use "Old Bulgarian" as a specific sub-variety of OCS, as you seem to imply, I maintain that this distinction within OCS is still irrelevant. You'd have to bring reliable sources claiming that Clement is notable for establishing Old Bulgarian as as separate language distinct from other forms of Slavonic. I doubt those exist. All the sources you have of him being "the first bishop in Bulgarian language" etc are quite likely to be using the term in the first, more lose sense, in which case we can use OCS just as well.

What it was called in Byzantine times is pretty irrelevant here.

BTW, having been forced to write all this, I sincerely hope you initiated this discussion out of a genuine interest in Old Church Slavonic as a language, and not just out of an urge to cram the term "Bulgarian" into as many articles as possible, for the sake of the national feel-good factor. Because I detest that stance. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid you haven't even touched on my argument too. In fact you offer one-sided decision while there are many aspects in St. Clement's activity. I prefer a plural formula, which includes both terms. He is founder of the Old Bulgarian Language as well, some of the oldest signs of transition into grammar structure without cases (significant characteristic of modern Bulgarian and Macedonian languages, which differs from all other Slavic languages) are found in texts from his period. He is treated as one of the founders of the Bulgarian literature too. In his deeds there are aspects, which are closely connected with Bulgaria and Bulgarian culture, whether you like it or not. That's the point of view of the Russian Academy, cited above. The Russian text is named "About the "Macedonian" cut of the Paleobugaristic". Paleobulgaristic, not Paleoslavistic.

The medieval terminology could be very important. The term "Bulgarian language" in Old Bulgarian Language means also "Bulgarian people" in ethnic sense, therefore the concept of the separate ethnic language as leading element of separate ethnic identity existed in medieval Bulgarian mentality. This concept was clearly shaped after St. Clement's epoch, but nevertheless St. Clement was perceived as its opening stage in the medieval Bulgarian "mythology". I'm sorry, but these problems are relevant, they are traditional object of researches not only in Bulgaria (where they were one of the main interests for academician Dimitar Angelov, check his books "Образуване на българската народност", Издателство "Наука и изкуство", София, 1981 and "Българинът в средновековието. Светоглед, Идеология, душевност", Книгоиздателство "Георги Бакалов", Варна, 1985 for example), so I don't see any reason to ignore them.

Please, permit me not to comment your last accusation, it has no connection with these concrete scientific concepts, which I'm trying to explain you, and with my conceptions. Note, I include that term only in cases when it is verified with primary sources and interpreted by scientific methods. - Vulgarian 11:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

So in your response you are saying that If one teritory like Macedonia was conquered by the Yugoslavia in 1944, all the people who are living on that teritory are receiving automatically a new identity and new history? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.20.202.109 (talk) 14:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll just say a big thank you to Future Perfect at Sunrise (Fut.Perf. ☼), if not for defending the Macedonian stance (hey, guess what, I'm Macedonian, and not Bulgarian, Greek, Serbian, or whatever people 500 kilometers away from me want me to be!), then at least for recognizing pro-Bulgarian propaganda and debunking it. Thanks buddy, I owe you one! Truth be heard...79.99.56.66 (talk) 10:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Slavic Origin and slavic language

Please do not revert my edits as I am presenting citations for his Slavic origin. I am amazed how can you call him Bulgarian, as he is regarded a saint and patron by all Slavic nations. Svrznik (talk) 13:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I was just about to put a note on the talkpage on this. Look, the source you've provided says he was an Apostle of Bulgaria and the first Slav to be apointed Archbishop. But Bulgarians are actually Slavs (you must know that) so what's the point in having both in one sentence. Why not put a mention that he was a human being while we're on the way? We could mention in the second sentence that other Slav nations regard him as a saint. But we'd need a better source which actually says that. And one with less mistakes in the article of two sentences that it has on Clement. --Laveol ^T 13:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

And just to make sure everybody knows the contents of the source, here's the text of the article:

One of the Seven Apostles of Bulgaria. He became a bishop in the reign of Khan Simeon, the first Slav to become a bishop. He founded a monastery at Okhrida, near Velitsa, Bulgaria, and was so successful in his missionary work that he is one of the Seven Apostles of the region. He died on July 17.--Laveol ^T 13:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

You didn't seem to have read what I've posted here. Plus, how's a language that became such deep into the XX century be relevant to this person? There was no such term back at the time. --Laveol ^T 13:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, all the sources provided further up are just mirrors of this one. And it says nothing of the sort. How do you get so mush info from 2 sentences? --Laveol ^T 13:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Look, Clement is a saint that spread Slavic language, culture and alphabth. He is one of the reasons why did Slavic language prevailed in the Balkans and in Europe. At the time neither Bulgarians neither Macedonians existed as in modern context. In the Bulgarian Empire there were three main ethnic distinctions: Bulgars (ruling aristocracy), Slavs (majority of population) and Byzantines (Hellenised indigenous people). I think that is clear that Clement was part of the Slavic population. Svrznik (talk) 13:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Look, Clement is described (including in your source) as a Bulgarian. Whatever this meant back then it is clear that he worked in the Bulgarian Empire (and was most probably born within it). Whatever other interpretations you make of it, is entirely your OR (I'm sure you know the word since you do not seem to be new to the project). The modern Macedonian language is irrelevant to the article. Please, provide valid third-party sources dealing with the person as such. If no, I'll kindly ask you to remove the name in that language. --Laveol ^T 15:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The modern Macedonian language is as irrelevant as the modern Bulgarian is. I think that we agree that the both are different standards of the same dialect-continium. And I don't need to make my own research as, the article about the Bulgarian nation, very well states that they are a mix that developed from the 6th to 10th century from the three mentioned ethnic groups. I think it is fair not to argue about Clement weather he was Macedonian or Bulgarian, as both nations did not exist at the time. I am trying to be neutral on this subject, and it irritates me when an article of a figure that should be above petty Balkan national disputes is presented as he is a Bulgarian national hero. Svrznik (talk) 19:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Ahammm, and you have nothing to do with other new accoubnts, who sprang around here and there. When are you gonna give up. You could have at least not edited the other article from the IP ;) Hint, hint. --Laveol ^T 20:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I've opened a case about you in WP:SPI--Laveol ^T 11:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Bulgarians are described as Slavs in the Wikpedia page, so if Climent was a Bulgarian, there is no need to describe him as a Slav as well. In the same way as there is no need to describe him as a human, for example. --- Nedko^{self bias resist} 13:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

No, Bulgarians are described as a mixture of the three mentioned ethnic groups that existed in Clement's time. Bulgarian, redirects to the article about the Bulgarian nation, which did not exist at the time. Calling Clement and his contemporaries Bulgarians, is as equal as calling Saint Benedict Italian. Svrznik (talk) 09:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Yet, most sources regard him as such. Everything else is pure OR. Thank you. Oh, and it'd be nice if you stopped edit-warring first. --Laveol ^T 11:07, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I have checked the other language versions of this article. In most other languages (including the Russian, German and French) it says Slavic, some mention Bulgarian and some mention Macedonian. The Both Mecedonian and Bulgarian languages are mentioned in most versions. Will you go and start an edit war on those pages as well, because they don't fit your nationalistic propaganda. If I try to follow my national propaganda I will write that Clament is Macedonian. But instead I write Slavic and Bulgarian. You can not monopolize the whole medieval Balkan history! And meat-puppetry is not e very nice way to avoid the 3RR. It is instantly recognized. Svrznik (talk) 11:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Look, I tried to communicate to you that the source you provided is 1 No good; 2. Does not support your claims (especially the addition of a XX century language). Instead you continue edit-warring pushing deep onto WP:3RR. And I do not command any other users what to do (I really wondered who this Reanimated guy is, but that's all). If you have any accusations to make you know where to address them. For now, try not to breach 3RR. --Laveol ^T 11:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

You say that the Bulgarian nation did not exist at the time? Why you think so? To me it is obvious that the First Bulgarian Empire was a state of the Bulgarian nation. --- Nedko^{self bias resist} 13:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Because nations and nation-states, such as your and mine, are an inventions that came to the Balkans in the 18th and 19th century. Any historian would agree that no nations existed in the middle ages, and nationalism first appeared in England and France during Hundred years war. Svrznik (talk) 00:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Relatio de legatione Constantinopolitana ad Nicephorum Phocam, a document from 10th century, proves that you are wrong. --- Nedko^{self bias resist} 01:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

As I can read this is from the ambassador of Otto the Great to the Byzantine court, asking for the hand of the sister of Basil II... and what is the point? There are Bulgarians mentioned, but that does not mean that they were a nation. Please pay attention to this sentence in your link: "I answered them: "You yourselves can not but know that my master rules over Slavonian princes who are mightier than Peter king of the Bulgarians ". Slavs and Bulgarians are mentioned separetly! Svrznik (talk) 01:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Try searching for "nation" in the text. Reading the Nation Wikipedia article may give you some insight as well. And try to no break the WP:3RR rule. --- Nedko^{self bias resist} 01:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I am very interested in the original of this translation. Nationes in Latin means race, which is different from nationality. And try not to delete cited information. In the last change, I organized the first paragraph so it can look like an introductory one. And I added info, which I think i suitable for an introductory paragraph. Svrznik (talk) 01:48, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok this is dragging on two far. I have opened an issue on Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard. You can see what I wrote there, and I think that most Bulgarian editors actually agree with that. Anyway I think that you should remove biased sources such as promacedonia.org. We all know that I can find hundreds of sources which call Clement a Macedonian published in Macedonia.

So far I have found 1 reliable secondary source that explicitly deals with his ethnicity:

• Obolensky in Six Byzantine Portratis calls him a Bulgarian Slav. You can download it here: http://hotfile.com/dl/35219986/83ebf44/0198219512.rar.html, or if you find a PDF, please post it here.

Teophylact calls him a Bulgarian, but Teophylact is a primary Byzantine source. Somewhere above in this discussion page I found this: "Byzantine texts are notoriously difficult to interpret when it comes to ethnic appellations. Wikipedia strongly discourages the use of primary sources to bolster up potentially contentious claims".

I think that we should work out a compromise... Something like "Bulgarian Slav" or 'Slav from medieval Bulgaria"

Please discuss, so we can solve this edit warr

Svrznik (talk) 11:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

There are 5 different sources, supporting the claim that he is Bulgarian. Also it's noted in the article that some historians claim that he's from the Bulgarian Slav family, so the compromise you want is already in the article. --StanProg (talk) 15:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Out of the 5 sources, 3 are written by Bulgarian authors and do not represent Neutral POV . I am not posting sources from Macedonian authors, because there is no point. Obolensky in The Bogomils, never calls him a Bulgarian. He is discussing about the Bulgarian state, church etc. He is also mentionig Slavic language, Macedonia etc. So this is not really a source. And I have said about Teophylact, and primary sources. So I am changing this again! Svrznik (talk) 16:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Please see the talk page of Charlemagne. There was a similar dispute and the resolution is that he is not labeled as French, nor as German, but simply Frankish. His name is written only in Latin. I think Slavic will be a similar solution on this page. I don't want to start the edit war again, but I am not planing to let the page be as it is. Svrznik (talk) 10:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

You do not plan to continue edit-warring just like you're doing on the other pages? We're yet to see this. As for Clement, I think the current solution is best. I've linked him to the First Bulgarian Empire where he worked so to avoid any nationality disputes. And that's the compromise for you. But labeling him Macedonian is not ok. --Laveol ^T 13:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes I know that labeling him Macedonian is not ok, and that is why I am not trying to write that. But labeling him Bulgarian is not OK either. Bulgaria controlled most of the Balkan peninsula at the time, but that does not mean that anybody that was born in the Bulgarian empire is Bulgarian. And that is why I started the discussions about Bulgars and Slavs, because their blending and mixing in the Bulgarian Empire was not complete by the time of Clement. So labeling Clement as a Bulgarian is the same as labeling Charlemagne to be French Svrznik (talk) 08:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

There is a slight difference, though. Charlemagne was not Emperor of a country called France so to be labelled as being French alone. On the other hand, Clement worked in the Bulgarian Empire for the Bulgarian king and was probably one of the Slavs/Bulgarians. You cannot distinguish between them as we already tried to explain to you that Bulgarians are actually Slavs. That enough? --Laveol ^T 10:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Bulgarians are a modern nation. But so are Macedonians and Serbians. In the time of Clement there was no distinction between Bulgarians, Macedonians and Serbians. They were all Slavs. Clement is part of the history of these three modern nations, so its fair to call him Slavic, not just Bulgarian. Svrznik (talk) 12:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The correct parallel to Charlemagne would be not Boris I of Bulgaria but Asparuh. At the time of Clement and Boris I the Bulgarian state was 2 centuries old. By the way, the Serbs were clearly different from Bulgarians by then, they had had their own statehood that about 850 AD gained independence from Byzantium and Bulgaria. Among the present European states, France (established 843 AD) is the second oldest after Bulgaria (681 AD). (That is, if we do not count Armenia as European; otherwise Bulgaria would be second and France third.) Apcbg (talk) 14:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I'll try doing it again. Was there a state called Bulgaria at the time? Was Clement working in/for it? I believe both answers are yes. It's quite obvious Empires at the time were multi-ethnic. If a philosopher worked in the Constantinople court he would be called Byzantine, no matter if he was actually Slav or Armenian or whatever. The same goes for Clement. This is what sources tend to agree on. What we can add, though is a formula of the sort: Clement was a Bulgarian (with a link to the article on the First Bulgarian Empire) cleric and scholar and an all-Slavic Saint. Since he is venerated in most Slavic countries. That would include both positions and disregard any ridiculous sentences like he was Bulgarian and Slav. Is that ok? --Laveol ^T 16:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok I think that is ok... still we do not agree about the language box. How about we write the the name only in Old Church Slavonic and don't mention Bulgarian and Macedonian? Svrznik (talk) 17:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Old church Slavonic and Bulgarian would be ok. I'm changing the rest for now untill I find the exact spelling. --Laveol ^T 17:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Look if you insist on Bulgarian, I'll insist on Macedonian... The one is standardized in the 19th and the other in the 20th century. And still it is pretty much the same language.

I'll find a spelling in Old Slavonic, but I am not sure about the pronunciation Svrznik (talk) 17:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll think it over a bit. Just don't add it straight away. I have to do some research on Samuel now :) --Laveol ^T 17:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I think this is the speling for Климент in Old Slavonic: Kлймєньѳ. I am not sure how is Охридски pronounced... And please don't work too hard. I am beginning to think you are getting paid for this :) Svrznik (talk) 17:23, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I took it from the Church Slavonic Wikipedia, so it must be close if not exact. --Laveol ^T 17:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Birthplace

Please, provide a reiable source abouth his birthplace. As far as I know it is unknown. Jingby (talk) 18:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

edit war

Rather than blocking the disputants, I've reverted to the July version before this started and protected the article. If you are unable to work together as colleagues, then go to dispute resolution and have somebody babysit. Meanwhile, if there are non-contentious edits that need to be made, tell me here and I can add them in. — kwami (talk) 10:18, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Kwami, the issue is pretty simple. Jingby wants to call St. Clement "Bulgarian". It's all he does, goes into entries related to Macedonia an adds Bulgarian to it. He is doing it elsewhere and starts fights with other people. Petty nationalist. The correct thing to say is that he was Slavic. That's it.

St. Clement and the other missionaries referred to themselves, the alphabet, the people as Slavic (see O pismeneh http://mk.wikisource.org/wiki/%D0%9E_%D0%BF%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%85 you can use google translate if you want). Just search for Slavic (12 times) and Bulgarian (once), only in reference the fact that the events occurred during the rule of certain Moravian and Bulgarian princes).

Wisco2000 (talk) 06:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Saint Clement worked during most of his life in Bulgaria and died here. More, his activity to develop the Old Bulgarian literacy under the administrative control of Bulgarian Tsar Boris, was crucial for the development of Bulgarian ethnic consciousness in the present region of Macedonia, then Bulgarian province, called Kutmichevitsa. Check here: Who are the Macedonians? Hugh Poulton, C. Hurst & Co. Publishers, 2000, ISBN 1850655340, pp. 19-20. Jingby (talk) 06:49, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Jingby, you are making the Saint Clement, Naum, every everything related to Ohrid Bulgarian, that they belong to the Bulgarians, and only to the Bulgarians. That's where you are offensive, irrational and irritating. It's like me coming to Bulgaria and telling you all the things there that mean to me, and well, you can go take a hike. He was Slavic (like the language, people and the alphabet), his works transcended to all Slavs, not only to the Bulgarians. Mother Teresa was also important to the world, and we don't go and tell everyone "she was born in Skopje, you can't have her".

What is deeply unethical is that you keep on deleting every reference that points to that, and you fake the references, like the ones in the article on St. Naum. Dude, that's seriously illegal.

As far as your point that he worked for a Bulgarian king. Here is some food for thought for you: what does that make every town and your ancestors in Bulgaria during 500 years of Turkish rule?

Stop being so dense. Wisco2000 (talk) 07:19, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

First. Stop being so rude and tone down your comments a bit. One more comment like that and you will be reported. Next, how exactly are you going to prove that a man who worked for the country Bulgaria should not have the denominator Bulgarian? I see you clearly do not like it but at the time Ohrid was within the borders of Bulgaria and king of Bulgaria sent a certain scholar there. During the Middle Ages the affiliation of Slavs is determined via the country they lived/worked for. It is the same way in which Cyril and Methodius are Byzantine. The fact that he was Bulgarian does not mean "they belong only to Bulgarians". I cannot even start explaining how wrong such a statement is. And I really think you would miss the point if I started doing it. --Laveol ^T 05:32, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Laveol, first, I am not rude. The fact that apriori you don't agree doesn't make me rude. Your friend Jingiby, on the other hand, with 15 blocks, is another story. Second, nobody is denying that he was sent by a Bulgarian royal to Ohrid. Nobody is denying that Ohrid was part of the Bulgarian Empire. But if that makes him Bulgarian, then he should be Moravian even more, since he worked in Great Moravia before that. Also, by your logic, everyone in Bulgaria when it was part of the Ottoman Empire should be Turk, right?

If you follow the discussion with Jingiby, you will see that I object to three things: he says one thing, and puts references that say something else. He does that all over, and you are a witness to the similar discussion elsewhere. Second, he deletes what he doesn't like and presents only a one-sided view - his view. He has never compromised on a single entry. He cherry-picks references. And third, St. Clement, Naum, etc. called themselves Slavs, their language Slavic, the people Slavs, the alphabet Slavic. In O pismeneh, one of the few direct pieces from that time, the word Slav/Slavic appears 12 times, in reference to the language, alphabet and the people. The word Bulgarian appears only once, in reference to a Prince.

I refer to him the same way he and his fellow missionaries called themselves and their language: Slavs and Slavic, not Bulgarian.

(talk) 23:00, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

...The word Bulgarian appears only once, in reference to a Prince... Wisco2000.... Really?

...Clement of Ochrid (9th century), apostle to the Bulgarians. Apparently the first Bulgarian-speaking bishop... [1]; ...This would have been a strategic centre suitable for Clement's talents in organising the Slav Bulgarian church against Greek encroachments from Saloniki... [2]; ...The first bishop of the Bulgarian people, according to his own description of events, was Clement, who was appointed by the Bulgarian emperor Simeon to be Bishop of Drevenitza... [3]; ...There, as his Greek biographer, Archbishop Theophylactus (eleventh to twelfth century), put it, 'Kliment became the first bishop in the Bulgarian language'. As such, Kliment wholly justified the trust which Boris had placed in him...[4]; ...early Bulgarian saints were all men of the Church of otherwise obscure social background (Naum, Clement, John of Rila),... [5]. Jingby (talk) 06:26, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

To Wisco: I see you have no intention of even starting a dialogue on the subject. You just repeat what you have already said. And the fact that you do not find your statements offensive and rude is even more worrying. I already told you that the Ottoman Empire example is silly. And you keep repeating it. Why don't we just stick to the fact that he was a human being and write this down. Have you actually read the article before starting to call people names on the talkpage? It says that Clement "was a medieval Slavic enlightener and Bulgarian scholar and writer." So we have represented both views - he was undoubtedly a Slavic enlightener and also without any doubt he was Bulgarian in the Medieval sense. There is no issue here besides the act that you want to remove a perfectly valid statement. --Laveol ^T 06:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

To Laveol: You didn't respond to them, so I thought you didn't see them and I thought I'd repeat them. That's it. No need to talk down to me. Second, I find your talking down to people that disagree with your points (like me) very rude.

Third, just as much as he was Bulgarian, in the medieval sense, he was Moravian and Pannonian, in the medieval sense. After all, he worked there well before he worked for Tsar Boris, and he worked for the archbishop of Moravia and Pannonia, St. Methodius. His mission to Moravia was requested by Rastislav of Moravia from the Byzantine emperor Michael III to fight off the German influence there. His Mission to Bulgaria was requested by Tsar Boris to fight off the Byzantine influence. So the backdrop is the same, wouldn't you agree? Sts. Cyril, Methodius, Naum and Clement made it to Moravia 863, and worked there for about 22 years before they went to Bulgaria 885/886. It's not a trivial amount of time. So how about we say: Moravian and Pannonian, and later Bulgarian scholar. That would be accurate.

Wisco2000 (talk) 21:26, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorces, sources... You need a lot of reliable sources describing him as Pannonian or Moravian in the medieval sense. That means, as he was and is described as Apostle of the Bulgarians, one of the first Bulgarian Saints, first Bulgarian-speaking bishop, first bishop of the Bulgarian people, one of the organizers of the Bulgarian church, a man whose works were crucial for the development of the Bulgarian ethnicity ... Find the same for the Pannonian or Moravian ethnicity, language, church and so on... Regs. and good luck!

P.S. You can check to find the same for the Macedonian medieval ethnicity, language, Church and others. Jingby (talk) 07:51, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Please, stop reverting this page and deleting correcrt info. Check the sources. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 11:25, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Slavic Origin

There seems to be plenty of discussion why the saint is of Slavic and not Bulgarian origin, but here it is again.

1. St. Clement was born in 830 (or 840) in south-western Macedonia, a region that was outside of the Bulgarian Khanate at the time. The are was conquered by Presian in 842

2. At the time, there was still a separation between Bulgars and Slavs within the Bulgarian Khanate. Based on his life achievements and the area where he was born, he was definitely not Bulgar, but Slav

3. Bulgarian refers to the modern Balkan nation. In the time when Clement lived, there were no nations. He spoke a Slavic language, and was therefor a Slav. At the time Bulgarian (Bulgars) refered to the ruling and military elite of the Bulgarian Khanate, which Clement was not a part of

2A02:582:190D:1E00:24E7:E3F0:7143:4ECD (talk) 18:21, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Read carefully the article. Saint Clement is linked only to the Bulgarian Empire, where he was proclamed as a Saint for the first time as citet sources confirm. His Slavic origin is mentioned on several places and his role as entlightner of the Slavs is also pointed. Stop revertins sourced text without discussion and withour even reading the text. Jingiby (talk) 18:31, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Did you ever read the section Origin? And did you ever read how to identify reiable sources? Jingiby (talk) 18:37, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Also according to the Historical Dicionary of Republic of Macedonia in 830s and in 840s most of Macedonia become part of Bulgaria under Khan Presian. Southern regions remained under Byzantines. Because of that, (St. Clement was born in 830 or 840) if you read the whole article, you will understand, that some researches have accepted that he was born in Bulgarian Empire. Jingiby (talk) 19:01, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Being proclaimed a saint in the Bulgarian empire does not mean he was Bulgarian, so not a valid argument. St. Peter was proclaimed a saint in the Roman Empire, but that does not mean that he was Roman. Also linking him to the Bulgarian empire is wrong, as it was still a Khanate in his time.

Ohird was not part of the Bulgarian Khanate until 842, when Presian conquered the region, after Clement was born. So that is not a valid argument as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:582:190D:1E00:24E7:E3F0:7143:4ECD (talk) 20:54, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

When you say Bulgarian, it refers to the modern Bulgarian nation. Bulgarians in the 9th century were people that settled in the Balkans from their ancestral homeland in the Euro-asian steppe, that have not yet fully blended with the dominant Slavic population in the Balkans. Clement was not part of these medieval Bulgarian people. You don't seem to be addressing that point. Clement was Bulgarian to the same extent that St.Benedict was Italian... Neither Italians, nor Bulgarians existed as nations back then.

In the Bulgarian Khanate there were 3 groups of people:

1. Bulgars, ruling aristocrasy and military

2. Slavic tribes, majority of population

3. Ancient helenized and romanized tribes (Tracians, Ilyrians, Vlachs...)

Clement was part of the Slavic population. His work was all about promoting Slavic culture. Therefore he is Slavic, not Bulgarian. Please address these points, before reverting.

Also, since you agree that the origin is Slavic, it is contradicting to write "Bulgarian saint of Slavic origin". Bulgarians (Bulgars) and Slavs were distinct at the time.

2A02:582:190D:1E00:24E7:E3F0:7143:4ECD (talk) 20:28, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

No, when you say Bulgarian in a medieval article you do mean the actual state. Especially when the wikilink leads to the article about the state he worked in/for. Otherwise, we should now go ahead and remove any mention of Bulgaria and Bulgarian from every article about a person born pre-XIX century. --Laveol ^T 20:53, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Try consulting a native speaker for that, but I am pretty sure that when saying "Bulgarian saint" it refers to ethnicity and origin. He is linked to the medieval Bulgarian state and that is a valid link, but stating that his origin or ethnicity is Bulgarian is wrong. You would not call every single person that lived in the Roman Empire a Roman, would you?

2A02:582:190D:1E00:24E7:E3F0:7143:4ECD (talk) 20:57, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Also, if your are grouping just to avoid the 3 revert rule, it does not mean that you are right 2A02:582:190D:1E00:24E7:E3F0:7143:4ECD (talk) 20:59, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

You might take what you want from the wording, but it is factually and otherwise correct. Everything else is your own interpretation. Also, you seem to have broken the same 3RR rule you mentioned above, which makes me think you are an experienced editor who nevertheless decided to edit war his own POV through.--Laveol ^T 08:34, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

The Early Slavs are the main ethnogenetic component that participated in the formation of the Medieval Bulgarian ethnos. I do not understand the problem of this editor. More the ethnogenetic process had started when Clement was still alive. Jingiby (talk) 09:24, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Clement of Ohrid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100324104254/http://www.mpc.org.mk/MPC/istorija.asp to http://mpc.org.mk/MPC/istorija.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:06, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2023

'Saint Kliment' redirects here. For other uses, see Saint Kliment (disambiguation).

Saint Clement of Ohrid Климент Охридски
Icon of Saint Clement of Ohrid from the Orthodox Zograf monastery on Mount Athos in Greece, depicted as a disciple of Saints Cyril and Methodius.
One of the Seven Apostles of Macedonia, Disciple of Saints Cyril and Methodius
Born	c. 830–840 Byzantine or First Bulgarian Empire
Died	(916-07-27)July 27, 916 (date of burial) Ohrid, Bulgarian Empire (now North Macedonia)
Venerated in	Eastern Orthodox Church, Catholic Church
Feast	27 July
Attributes	Glagolitic alphabet, Cyrillic script
Patronage	Ohrid, North Macedonia

Saint Clement or Kliment of Ohrid (Bulgarian, Macedonian, Serbian: Климент Охридски, Kliment Ohridski; Greek: Κλήμης τῆς Ἀχρίδας, Klḗmēs tē̂s Akhrídas; Slovak: Kliment Ochridský; c. 830 – 916) was one of the first medieval Macedonian saints, scholar, writer, and apostle to the Slavs. He was one of the most prominent disciples of Cyril and Methodius and is often associated with the creation of the Glagolitic and Cyrillic scripts, especially their popularisation among Christianised Slavs. He was the founder of the Ohrid Literary School and is regarded as a patron of education and language by some Slavic people. He is considered to be the first bishop of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church, one of the Seven Apostles of Bulgarian Orthodox Church since the 10th century, and one of the premier saints of modern Bulgaria. The mission of Clement was the crucial factor that transformed the Slavs in then Kutmichevitsa (present-day Macedonia) into Bulgarians. Clement is also the patron saint of North Macedonia, the city of Ohrid and the Macedonian Orthodox Church.

Life

Icon of Saint Clement, located in the Mother of God Perybleptos church, Ohrid

Fresco of St. Clement in the Church of St. Athanasius, Kastoria

The exact date of his birth is unknown. Most probably, he joined Methodius as a young man following him later to the monastery on Mysian Olympus. According to his hagiography by Theophylact of Ohrid, Clement knew the life of Methodius like no other. That is why most scholars think he was born in the Byzantine Empire in the territory where Methodius served during his political career, i.e. that he was a Slav from Southern Macedonia. This gives rise to some researchers to indicate the area of Thessaloniki as the possible place of birth of Clement. According to others, the area of Southern Macedonia, including the northern approach to Thessaloniki, where he may have been born, was then part of the First Bulgarian Empire. Most of Macedonia became part of Bulgaria between 830 and 840, i.e when Clement was born. The Short Life of St. Clement by Theophylact of Ohrid testifies to his Slavic origin, calling him "the first bishop in the Bulgarian language," while The Ohrid Legend written by Demetrios Chomatenos describes him as one of the European Moesians, commonly known as Bulgarians. Because of that, some scholars label him a Bulgarian Slav, while Dimitri Obolensky calls Clement a Slav inhabitant of the Kingdom of Bulgaria. A fringe view on his origin postulates that Clement was born in Great Moravia. This view is based on the lexicographical analysis of Clement's works.

Clement participated in the mission of Cyril and Methodius to Great Moravia. In 867 or 868 he became a priest in Rome, ordained along with two other disciples of Cyril and Methodius, Gorazd and Naum, by bishops Formosus and Gauderic. After the death of Cyril, Clement accompanied Methodius on his journey from Rome to Pannonia and Great Moravia. After the death of Methodius himself in 885, Clement headed the struggle against the German clergy in Great Moravia along with Gorazd. After spending some time in jail, he was expelled from Great Moravia and in 885 or 886 reached Belgrade, then in the borders of Bulgaria, together with Naum of Preslav, Angelarius and possibly Gorazd (according to other sources, Gorazd was already dead by that time). Thereafter, the four of them were sent to the Bulgarian capital of Pliska, where they were commissioned by Boris I of Bulgaria to instruct the future clergy of the state in the Old Slavonic language.

After the adoption of Christianity in 865, religious ceremonies in Bulgaria were conducted in Greek by clergy sent from the Byzantine Empire. Fearing growing Byzantine influence and weakening of the state, Boris viewed the adoption of the Old Slavonic language as a way to preserve the political independence and stability of Bulgaria. With a view thereto, Boris made arrangements for the establishment of two literary academies where theology was to be taught in the Slavonic language. The first of the schools was to be found in the capital, Pliska, and the second in the region of Kutmichevitsa.

Southeastern Europe in the late 9th century.

According to his hagiography by Theophylact of Ohrid, while Naum stayed in Pliska working on the foundation of the Pliska Literary School, Clement was commissioned by Boris I to organize the teaching of theology to future clergymen in Old Church Slavonic in the southwestern part of the Bulgarian Empire, in the region then known as Kutmichevitsa. For a period of seven years (between 886 and 893) Clement taught some 3,500 disciples in the Slavonic language and the Glagolitic alphabet. At that time, Clement translated Christian literature into Old Church Slavonic, and in this way, he and his co-workers laid the foundations of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church. In 893 he was ordained archbishop of Drembica, Velika (bishopric). Upon his death in 916 he was buried in his monastery, Saint Panteleimon, in Ohrid. Soon after he was canonized as a saint by the Bulgarian Orthodox Church.

The development of Old Church Slavonic literacy had the effect of preventing the assimilation of the South Slavs into neighbouring Byzantine culture, which promoted the formation of a distinct Bulgarian identity in the Empire. During the first quarter of the 10th century, the ethnonym “Bulgarians” was adopted by the Slavic tribes in most of Macedonia, while their names were abandoned. Clement's life's work played a significant role in this transformation.

Legacy

Tomb of Saint Clement within the Church of Saints Clement and Panteleimon, Ohrid, North Macedonia.

Clement of Ohrid was one of the most prolific and important writers in Old Church Slavonic. He is credited with the Panonic Hagiography of Saint Cyril and Saint Methodius. Clement also translated the Flower Triode containing church songs sung from Easter to Pentecost and is believed to be the author of the Holy Service and the Life of St. Clement of Rome, as well as of the oldest service dedicated to St. Cyril and St. Methodius. The invention of the Cyrillic alphabet is also usually ascribed to him although the alphabet is most likely to have been developed at the Preslav Literary School at the beginning of the 10th century (see Cyrillic script).

Medieval frescoes of Clement exist throughout the modern-day territories of North Macedonia, Serbia and northern Greece, with the vast majority being located in North Macedonia. The Church of St. Clement of Ohrid is located in Skopje and is the largest cathedral of the Macedonian Orthodox Church.

The first modern Bulgarian university, Sofia University, was named after Clement upon its foundation in 1888. The Macedonian National and University Library, founded on November 23, 1944, also bears his name. The University in Bitola, established in 1979, is named after Clement, as well as the Bulgarian scientific base, St. Kliment Ohridski on Livingston Island in the South Shetland Islands of Antarctica.

In November 2008, the Macedonian Orthodox Church donated part of Clement's relics to the Bulgarian Orthodox Church as a sign of good will.

In May 2018 was announced that in the ruins of a Ravna Monastery, near the village of Ravna in Provadiya Municipality, the signature of Clement was identified on a stone plate with a large amount of graffiti on it. The signature is dated as of April 24, 889. The finding gives reason to assume that the disciples of Cyril and Methodius were settled there at one stage, after being expelled from the Great Moravia and their reception in Bulgaria.

See also

• Chernorizets Hrabar

Sources

• Gautier, Paul (1964). "Clément d'Ohrid, évèque de Dragvista". Revue des études byzantines. 22: 199–214.
• Iliev, Ilia G. (1995). "The Long Life of Saint Clement of Ohrid: A Critical Edition" (PDF). Byzantinobulgarica. 9: 62–120.
• Ivanič, Peter (2018). "The Issue of the Origin of Saint Clement of Ohrid and Saint Naum of Ohrid in Slovak and Czech Historiography" (PDF). European Journal of Science and Theology. 14 (1): 135–144.
• Мучай, Скендер; Джуери, Суеля; Ристани, Ирклид; Пентковский, Алексей М. (2014). "Средневековые церкви в долине Шушицы (Южная Албания) и славянская епископия свт. Климента Охридского" [Medieval Churches in Shushica Valley (South Albania) and the Slavonic Bishopric of St. Clement of Ohrid] (PDF). Slověne: International Journal of Slavic Studies. 3 (1): 5–42.
• Popović, Mihailo St. (2016). "Saint Clement of Ohrid: His Life and Aftermath Between Sofia and Skopje". Споменица др Тибора Живковића. Београд: Историјски институт. pp. 77–90.