Alexander of the Port / Kadavil Chandy Kattanar: A Syriac Poet and Disciple of the Jesuits in...

________________________________________________________________________________Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 14 (2014) ― Page 30

______________________________________________________________________

ALEXANDER OF THE PORT / KADAVIL CHANDY KATTANAR: A SYRIAC POET AND DISCIPLE OF THE JESUITS IN SEVENTEENTH

CENTURY INDIA1

ISTVÁN PERCZEL

CENTRAL EUROPEAN UNIVERSITY

riginally, I had intended to give a simple report on the discovery of the poetical work by a seven-

teenth-century Indian Malayalee humanist poet. The very existence of this poetry, composed in Syriac according to the tradi-tional meter of ‘ōnyāthā used in East Syri-ac church hymnology, but produced by a pupil of the Jesuit missionaries, is an inter-esting phenomenon that deserves to be bet-ter known. The form and content of this poetry presents a synthesis of Indian, East Syriac and post-Tridentine Latin Christian elements along with humanist erudition which the poet acquired from his Jesuit teachers. However, while I was preparing this paper and studying not only the poetry itself but also its immediate context and its sources, it gradually dawned upon me that through this complex material we might also be able to understand the following obscure points in the intellectual history of the Saint Thomas Christians of Malabar:

1) the unusual role that Classical Syriac played during the early modern history of South Indian Christianity as a modern lin-gua franca;

2) the chains of non-European transmis-sion of Syriac learning, which had previ-ously been completely obscure but are more illuminated by this poetry and its lit-erary models;

3) the origins of a vast corpus of Syriac literature, both translations and original creations that were produced by the mis-sionaries.

This paper will begin with a short biog-raphy of Alexander of the Port. I will then turn to the source material that we have about his literary oeuvre. This will be fol-lowed by the poetry itself, and finally, I will discuss the more intricate theoretical questions that the discovery of this corpus and of its literary environment could illu-minate.

A) ALEXANDER OF THE PORT Here, I will summarise what we know of the life of Alexander of the Port or Alexan-der the Indian, based on the research of Alexander Toepel, who published one of Alexander’s letters found during the digiti-sation of the Thrissur Chaldean manuscript

O

Alexander of the Port / Kadavil Chandy Kattanar _________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 14 (2014) ― Page 31

collection.2 To his research I have added some elements from my own findings.

Alexander of the Port (Alexandros L-menaya) is the translation of the Malaya-lam name Kadavil Chandy (this translation comes from Alexander himself). In fact, Kadavil in Malayalam refers to the small port in a river where the boats would land, while Chandy is the Malayalam version of Alexander. He was also called Alexander the Indian, whose Syriac form, Alexandros Hendwaya, is also attested from his own invention. He likely did not call himself “the Indian” but was so dubbed by the Por-tuguese, and he translated this nickname into Syriac as Hendwaya. He was born in 1588 in Kaduthuruthy near Kottayam, and most probably died in 1673. According to the Carmelite missionary, Giuseppe Maria Sebastiani, he was of humble origin, a statement at odds with the fact that several members of the Kadavil family became priests, and that Chandy himself was a friend of the raja of Purakkad. He must rather have been of aristocratic origins. Kadavil Chandy was a priest who studied at Vaipicotta Seminary at Chennaman-galam with the Jesuit Francisco Roz, who later became the first Latin bishop of Angamaly/Cranganore (1601-1624). As his newly discovered work indicates, Chandy was a very faithful pupil and great admirer of Roz.

Kadavil Chandy had a troubled relation-ship with Roz’s successor, namely Arch-bishop Stephen Brito (1624-41), who had Chandy excommunicated for several years. A petition of the Saint Thomas Christian priests presented to viceroy Philip Masca-renhas in 1645 may reveal a partial cause of this earlier tension. In this petition, the priests complain that after Roz, who was a linguistic genius, an excellent Syriacist and fluent in the Malayalam language, incom-petent teachers of Syriac were employed at the Vaipicotta Seminary, simply because they were Europeans, while Roz’s Indian

pupils, who knew Syriac much better, were eschewed. The petition mentions Alexan-der by name as the most capable candidate for assuming the teaching duties.3 The sto-ries of the short-lived Congregation of Saint Thomas and of this petition shed an interesting light on the combination of Lat-inisation and racism that triggered conflicts between the Europeans and a highly learned local elite, who were revolting not against the Catholic faith itself but rather against these twin social tendencies.

Alexander was involved in the conflict between the new Archdeacon Pakalomat-tam Thomas and the new Archbishop Francis Garcia (1641-1659). Beginning in 1645, Alexander took the Archdeacon’s side in the increasing conflict. In fact, he was one of the authors of the aforemen-tioned memorandum to the Portuguese viceroy, Dom Philip Mascarenhas, com-plaining of the Archbishop’s abuses. How-ever, in 1652 he warned the Archbishop of the impending schism.

He participated in the famous Bent Cross Oath (Koonan Kurishu Satyam) on 3 January 1653—an oath taken by the Syrian Christians in Matancherry, Cochin, never to obey the “Franks,” that is, the Portu-guese—by reading a praise of the Babylo-nian Catholicos Patriarch. Further, on 5 February 1653 he read a letter attributed to the Syrian Catholic bishop Mar ‘Atallah to the assembled crowd and clergy in Edapal-ly, which gave the Archdeacon far-reaching jurisdictional power. Subsequent-ly, Alexander was made one of the four advisors given to Pakalomattam Thomas and he likewise defended Thomas’s epis-copal consecration on 22 May 1653 in Alangad, by referring to the ousting of Spanish overlordship in Portugal in 1640.4 When, in 1663, Alexander de Campo (Parampil Chandy)—Mar Thomas’s rela-tive and part of the original four-member council—returned to the Roman Catholic fold and became Vicar Metropolitan of


_________________________________________________________________________________________Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 14 (2014) ― 2

India, Kadavil Chandy, at the age of seven-ty-five, became the Vicar General under him. However, as one of his newly discov-ered letters attests, his return to Rome actu-ally dates much earlier, at least from 1657, when he sent a letter to Pope Alexander VII. Kadavil Chandy remained Vicar Gen-eral until 1673 when George of St. John was given the position.5 It is assumed that he died at or shortly after this date.

B) THE SOURCE MATERIAL

B.1. The Memra on the Eucharist It has now been revealed that Chandy was also a famous poet who sent his verse hom-ily (memrā) on the Eucharist to Pope Alex-ander VII in Rome, and the poem was highly praised by Roman Syriacists.6 How-ever, his poetic oeuvre remained unknown until its discovery thanks to joint efforts of Indian Christian and Western scholars. The first revelation was made by Father Em-manuel Thelly who, in his checklist of the Syriac manuscripts of Saint Joseph’s CMI Library in Mannanam, a paper presented at the VIIIth Symposium Syriacum in Sydney in 2000, reported that he had found the fa-mous memrā on the Eucharist in a liturgi-cal manuscript of the collection.7 This is, according to our checklist, MS Mannanam Syr 99 and has the original shelf mark 090-248-3PHE-S. It is a Ḥudra, or breviary of Catholic feasts, beginning with the first Sunday of Advent and ending with the feast of the Presentation of the Holy Moth-er of God in the Temple on November 21. Thankfully, in 2008, with the support of the Hill Museum and Manuscript Library, the Association for the Preservation of the Saint Thomas Christian Heritage (based in Ernakulam) was given permission to digit-ise the Mannanam collection. As such, I am able to give a more detailed report on this discovery.

The colophon of the manuscript is as follows:

This book was copied and com-pleted gradually by Priest Philippos, son of Thomas, who is also called “near the dry land”,8 a man of failure and more miserable than all the mis-erable, a burnt up firebrand, feebler than any man, who is not worthy to write his name in this book. He lives on the right hand side of the church of the ever-virgin Lady Mary in the blessed and celebrated royal city whose name is Kalluvathu.9 It is un-der the rule of a pagan king, under the hand of the Virgin Mary, the Bearer of God and humble Mother of the God Christ, the crucified, from the tribe of Judah, from the family of David.

In the 1734th year of Our Lord, the ninth day in the month of Febru-ary, a Wednesday.10

The memrā of Alexander is inserted

between the service of Pentecost and the general service for the feasts of the Moth-er of God.11 Its insertion into the breviary seems to be an indication that the poem was used at liturgical celebrations, per-haps loosely connected to the Eucharist in general. The manner of its introduction, showing that it was written for public chanting, also reinforces this impression. Yet, it is not ascribed to any concrete reli-gious feast and there is no rubric prescrib-ing its liturgical usage. It uses complex metric and formal elements, an acrostic poem going from the letter ālap to the let-ter tāw: after every letter of the alphabet, the section begins with precisely that let-ter. The lines are rhythmic and rhyming at the same time and the prosody contains much wordplay. In each section, all the lines end with the same rhyme. The po-em’s title is the following:

Memrā composed by Presbyter Al-exander the Indian, also called of the Port, on the Eucharist of Christ. It should be sung upon the melody of “We worship…” (Sāgdīnan: an



‘ōnīthā of the East Syriac Church service).12

Following the title there is a four-line ex-ordium, after which the acrostic verses begin. Each letter of the alphabet is fol-lowed by a changing number of rhyming lines:

.ǌǋƾǁǠ Ʀܕ ǫܙܘǯƢǄ ǌǋƽƯƪǍ .ǌǋǡƯ ǞǇ ƱƵƦƯǄ ǌǋƾǁǠƦܘ

.ǌǋƾƵ Ǉܕ ƱǢ ƴ ܗܕܢƲǓ ǌǋƽƯƧǓܘ .ǌǋǝܪƲǖ ܪǠǡ ܐƲƴ ǃƽܬƣǇ ܕ

[149r] We worship the mysteries of the one who is consubstantial with us, / and we bless his sacrifice which sanctifies us. /And we commemorate the suffering of the one who gives us life / as the seal that has confirmed our redemption.

ܪ. Ư ǡ ǉ ǅǔǄ ƣƽƯƾƵƽ ܗǠƧ Ǆ ƣƦ ܀ ܐ ܀ ܐǠ Ǟ ƧǊ Ƥܗܘ ƯƾƦ 13ܕƣǎǋƩ ܕƣǢǊ ܕܐ

ƤܘܬƯƧǓ ǌǇܪ.ܘƲǔǎǊ ܐܦ ܪ. Ǡ ƵǊ ǫܘƯƧǔǄ ƣǊܘǰƷ ƥܕƢǡܕ

ܪ. ǠǢǊ ƥƯƽƯǊ ƣǢǗǊ ƿƾǖǯܘ ƤƱƽǰǁ ƣǓǰ Ǉܘ

.ǠƦ ƯǊ ƣƪƾǅǖ ƤܬƲǋǈƽ ܘƢƦܘܪƣƴ ܕƤǤǡƲǝ ܕܗǢƵƦ ǌƾǅƽ ܕ ƢǄܪ.ܘƱǋ Ǌ ܗܪܗƲǋƦ ܘ Ʋܟ ǌƾƦǤƽ ܗܘ

.ǠƸǊܘ ƥǠǢǊ ܢƲǊܐ ǌƽǠƾǍ ƣǈƷ ܐ ƲǎƦ ܘܕ:ǠǢǂ Ǌ ܘܩǠǗǊ ܘ ƣǅǅƸƦ ܕƲǇܬǌƽǠǡ Ƥ ܗܘ ܘܕ

.ǠǗǡ ܐǃƽ ܕƱƦǤǢǊܪ: ܘƱǋƾƦǜǄ ǠǗǢǊ ܕ A. The Father sent His Only-Begotten Son to the world, / so that He may seek out the human race that was lost, / that He may visit it; and from the servitude / of the tyrannical demons He may free his servants; That He may strengthen the ailing sick and those foul because of the slackness of soul, / and may lead to the right way of the faith those who have split away, / and enlighten with His light those who were sitting in darkness, (Lk 1:79) / untie and pro-tect those who were chained in fet-ters, / and redeem [149v] and make virtuous those who were dwelling in the shade of death (Lk 1:79) / in or-der that He may be glorified and please His will that is pleasant.

This verse was about the Father, that is Abbā, beginning with an ālap. The next acrostic is bēth, thus begins with the Son, Brā:

ƣƴܪܘ ǌǇ ǣǊǠƦܐܬ ƣƾǇܘǤǇ ƥǠƦ܀ ܒ܀.ƣǡܕƲǝܕ

Ʀ ǌǇƯƾƦ ƤܬƲƧƾ Ʒ Ǥƾǅ Ǉܕ ƤǤǄܘǤ ƣǋǇƲǄ14 .ƣǢƽƯ ǝ ǆǂƦ ƣƾǅǓ ƣƾƽǤƽܐ ƣƦܕܐ

.ƣǢǊǠƦ Ƥܗܘ ǃƽ ǤǎǇ ƣǄܕ ƱƦƲƴܕ ƤƳǇǠƦ .ƣǢƾǓܬ ƣǈǅǔǄ ƲǢƽƯ ǝ ǆǂƦ ƱǢǗǊ ܝƲƴܘ

ƣǈ Ǔ ǌǇ ƨǄ ܝǰƽǠƦ ǫƲƵƾǅǡ ǣǋ ǁܘ.ƣǢƾƪǡ

.ƣǡܕܘܪ ƣǄܕ ǫƲǈƴǯ ܘܘܢƱǊ ܢƲǊܐ ƣƧƩ ܘܕ Ƨǡ ܬƲǇƯƦܘ.ƣǡǠǡܕ ǌƾǅƽܐ ƥܕ ƲƩ ܝǰǇܕ ƣƸ

Ǭƾǁܙ ǫƲǅǓ ƨƽǤǁ ܗܘƤ ܘ ƣǈǅǁ ǉǅ ܕ ǡܘ.ƣǢƾƧǄ

.ƣǢǋƾǋƦ ǘǅƴ ƤܬƲǞƽܕܙܕ ƣƵƦܒ ܕǠ ǝܘ ǆǂƦ ƣǁܕ ƱǇܕ ܘƱƽܒ ƱǄܘܢ Ǡƪǖܗ ܘ

.ƣǢƽǠǖ ƣǇƲƾƦ Ǡƽܬܗ ƣǢǇ ǠƦ15 ƣǅƴܒ ܘ ܪƫƾƩ ܪ ƶƽǜǖ ܘ

.ƣǢƦܕ ǌǇ ǆǁ ǌǇ ƣǡܬܘ ǌǇܘ :ƣǢƾƦ ǌǇ ܩǠǖ

.ƣǢǄƲƷ

B. The eternal Son became man from the Holy Spirit, / from the Virgin full of grace, through the drawing nigh (?)16 / of the eternal Father who is exalted among all the saints. As a sign of his infinite love He became man, He showed himself in all holiness to the toiling world, / gathered his simple-hearted apostles from the boisterous people, / elected them so that they may love Him without being taught / and be like rods from the root, a wonderful choir. He completed all that had been written about him and conquered the Evil One, / offered the sacrifice of righteousness on behalf of men / He gave them his all-pure flesh and blood on the designated day, / on the wonderful, joyful, much-desired and great evening, sweeter than honey, / far removed from evil, from error and from all defilement.



I trust my rendering of the material shows that Alexander was indeed a gifted poet, who employed the paradigms of poesy in his memra.

B.2. LETTER TO ANTONIO TOSCANO

Father Emmanuel Thelly’s discovery of Alexander’s Memra on the Eucharist was only the beginning. While digitising and cataloguing the Syrian Chaldean manu-script collection of Mar Aprem in Thrissur, in MS Syr 7 of the collection (according to Mar Aprem’s checklist) I came across a letter by a certain Alexandros L-menaya to Antonio Toscano, the superior of the St Thomas Congregation at Edapally. After wracking our brains, my colleague, Dr. Alexander Toepel, and I have come to un-derstand that Alexandros L-menaya was the self-made translation of the name Ka-davil Chandy. The Syriac text of the letter was published with a translation and a commentary by Alexander Toepel.17

The St. Thomas Congregation was founded at Edappally, near Cochin, in 1626, at the joint urgings of Archbishop Stephen Brito and Archdeacon George of the Cross (that is, the local leader of the Indian Syriac community). The idea was initiated by the Archdeacon, who wanted to establish a genuine Indian monastic order that would educate monks from among Indian clergy, who, in due course, would replace the European monks, mainly the Jesuits. The first superior of the order was the Jesuit Antonio Toscano, a Portuguese native of India, born in 1561 in Mylapore. However, in 1627 or 1628, Toscano stepped down due to internal strife. The congregation was finally dissolved some-time between 1652 and 1657, as the dan-gers of establishing a native Indian reli-gious order became evident to the Latin hierarchy.18 Kadavil Chandy does not seem to have been part of the congregation but

he was in contact with Toscano and con-gregation members, and apparently there was dissention in all quarters. The letter announces his intended visit to the congre-gation for the purposes of exonerating him-self from some unspecified accusations that had been held against him. The letter is written in a baroque, complicated style, in excellent Syriac, and its content is occasion-ally somewhat incomprehensible. It can be dated to the narrow period between 1626 and 1628, when Toscano was superior of the congregation. It is, in fact, yet another testimony to the troubled relationship be-tween this highly gifted Indian priest and the European missionaries.

B.3. LETTER TO POPE ALEXANDER VII

Next came the discovery of Kadavil Chan-dy’s cover letter for the memrā on the Eu-charist, addressed to Pope Alexander VII. As far as the cataloguing of our digitised material goes, it is extant in two copies. One of them is in a manuscript possessed by the great Indian Syriacist, Father Curien Kaniamparampil, MS Syr 2, fol. 387v-390v, and the other is in a manuscript at the Mannanam library, Mannanam MS Syr 5, fol. 11v-13r.19 The letter is dated 15 De-cember 1657, that is, after the Bent Cross Oath, and shows that less than five years after the revolt, Kadavil Chandy, who him-self had played a crucial role in the revolt, returned his allegiances to Rome. Appar-ently, this return was triggered by political upheaval. In 1656, the Dutch conquered Cochin and expelled the detested Portu-guese and their Jesuit missionaries. Pope Alexander VII then dispatched the Carmel-ites, led by the Apostolic Commissary Jo-seph Maria Sebastiani, to continue the mis-sion there.

Kadavil Chandy’s letter reveals much. He indicates complete submission ex-pressed through poetic oxymorons: the



Roman Church is so exalted that “its sheep are our shepherds, its servants are our lords, its sons are our fathers, its deacons are our rulers.” The occasion of the letter marks the imminent trip to Rome by the Apostolic Commissary Joseph Maria Se-bastiani20, and illustrates that Chandy and his community had felt abandoned by the previous bishops—and that Sebastiani had reversed these negative feelings. Apparent-ly, Sebastiani had ingratiated himself to the Indians and this had renewed hopes for a peaceful existence within the Catholic fold. Certainly Chandy’s letter openly extolls Sebastiani’s virtues:

He saw all our ailing and wretched-ness and gave us his love in his eyes, and he lifted upon his shoulders our affairs and our apology and our accu-sation as well as all the needs of our-selves and of our Church, so that he may come before your Beatitude. He would come and apologise on our be-half and whether good or bad, all that is with us, he would report to your Be-atitude. Please, listen to him with good will!

It could be said that this is more than

obligatory praise for the missionary, who is carrying the author’s letter; Sebastiani’s personality and diplomatic skills must have played a critical role in returning a good number of the rebels to the Catholic fold. The timing also suggests that negotiations about the consecration of a bishop of Indi-an origin could also have begun. Kadavil Chandy was very ambitious and was, be-yond doubt, the most educated and talented local Indian priest; so he could very well have been aiming for this position himself. Certainly this goal would be motivation enough to send his verse homily on the Eucharist to Rome. Even the delivery of his verse homily suggests an underlying message. Chandy was aware that neither Sebastiani nor the Pope read Syriac, and so Alexander VII was asked to give the poem

to a Syriacist reader who would translate it for the Pope. On top of that, and most ex-traordinarily, Chandy did not submit his offering to scrutiny by his superiors so that they might ensure his views on the Eucha-rist were orthodox. There is not even a shade of such anxiety expressed in the let-ter. Apparently, the only thing that is im-portant for Chandy is the poetic quality of his work and the correctness of its literary Syriac, for which he expects to find quali-fied readers in Rome. He even changes the opening of the letter to the Pope and then directly addresses the anonymous reader:

And I, the most wretched man among all the wretched, have sent through his21 beloved hands before the glorious and holy See of your Beatitude a small writing, written by my madness on the holy sacrament of the Eucharist, which your Beatitude should give to a reader, so that he may clearly make your Beati-tude know all that is in it. O, Lord Reader! In love, supplication and petition I approach you and all those who will chance upon the poem of my madness, that, if they were to find in it some mistake or blunder, they should not hasten to dismiss it and to throw a stone of abuse on me but should illuminate my carelessness, feebleness and madness and should pray for me assiduously.

While these formulae of humility and

self-deprecation are traditional not so much in Syriac letter writing but rather—interestingly—in the colophons written by scribes (see for example the colophon of Mannanam MS Syr 99 cited above), the whole formulaic discourse is set in a new, modern context: that of the gifted Indian poet’s communication with the scholars of the Vatican, whom he expects to read “the poem of his madness,” of which he is in-deed proud. He is afraid only that his read-ers will find some “mistake or blunder”, that is, some expression that is incorrect in



grammar and style. In fact, a superficial reader might well find such errors in Chan-dy’s poetry and prose, as he seems to cre-ate boldly new grammatical forms and new words from existing roots and also uses the occasional Greek expression instead of the appropriate Syriac terms. This display of an odd Hellenisation in India indicated to me a European influence in Chandy’s cul-ture—until the next step in the discovery of Chandy’s oeuvre was made.

Classical Syriac was not the only classi-cal language that Chandy knew. According to missionary reports, he did not speak Por-tuguese, but he was versed in Latin and was even involved in the translation of the Latin liturgical texts into Syriac. His Syriac poetical language contains astonishing Lat-inisms and in his letter to Rome he makes a display of his knowledge of Latin and of the Catholic ecclesiastic ranks by inserting a Latin formula in Syriac adaptation. In translation it might go thusly:

I am sending the cause of the present letter before the glorious and holy See of your Beatitude by the hands of the commissarius delegatus apostolicus22, the venerable Carmelite pāter Maria Joseph.23

Commissarius delegatus apostolicus in Syriac adaptation is kūmsārī dalgad apos-tōlīqāyā (ƣƾǞƾǄƲƸǎǖ Ư ܐ

ƪǄ -ǠǎǇƲǁ). Also, Seܝ ܕ

bastiani is called a Carmelite pāter—an expression that the version of the Man-nanam manuscript, transmitting a second-ary, less original text, changes to the collo-quial Portuguese-Malayalam word pāthri —while the papal letter that Sebastiani had presented to the Malabaree Christians is properly called a sacra. Apparently, Chan-dy is keen on using the proper Latin terms when they are suitable.

In fact, it occurs to me that both Chan-dy’s poetry and the letter-writing, as well as his way of translating his names into Classical Syriac, indicate a humanist men-tality. This suggests that humanism, begin-

ning in Europe, then, through colonisation and missions, had become a global culture in which members of the local elite, such as Chandy, were taking part. However, we will see that there is even more going on for Chandy. If we take Hellenic or Hellen-ist culture as being part of the humanist tradition, we find that in India, European Hellenism met a pre-existent East Syrian Hellenism and the two became fused. I will return to this question later, when treating Chandy’s literary sources. There is also the matter of the changing role of Syriac lan-guage among Indian Christians. While it had been analogous to Sanskrit in being the exclusive language of the privileged, priestly caste of the Saint Thomas Chris-tians, by the seventeenth century, while retaining this role, Syriac had also become the Latin of the East. This was a new cul-tural and linguistic endeavour, in which European and Indian scholars engaged with equal enthusiasm.24 The discoveries which I now discuss will reveal more on this phe-nomenon.

B.4. THE COLLECTED WORKS OF KADAVIL CHANDY25

During the cataloguing of the freshly digit-ised Mannanam CMI library, I came across an odd manuscript, Mannanam MS Syr 63 according to my checklist, and 090-264-S according to its original shelf mark. It con-tains Syriac and Malayalam texts of liturgi-cal services as established by Francisco Roz, the first European Metropolitan of Angamaly/Cranganore (1601-1624). It also contains the Syriac poetry (memrē) of an anonymous poet. The language of the po-ems is complex, being composed not only of Greek terms, but also of Hebraisms, dis-playing much worldly erudition. Memra 7 is datable to 1624 AD. Memra 8 is identi-cal to the one contained in Mannanam MS Syr 99, f. 149r-160v, where it is attributed to Alexandros Hendwaya or L-menaya,



alias Kadavil Chandy Kattanar, and the style of most of the poems is unmistakably individual. Therefore, as the hypothesis of multiple authorship should be rejected, I have concluded that the author of these odd poems is Kadavil Chandy.

The manuscript can be dated to the first half of the 18th century. This dating is based on the paper: its watermarks corre-spond to manuscripts dated before 1750. The letter type also confirms this dating. Often the scribe who copied the memrē did not understand them and made a number of mistakes, which makes the reading of the poems, already very difficult in and of it-self, even more challenging. Unfortunately, only for Memra 8 (on the Eucharist) do we have another text for comparison.

The book bears the title Book of Chants [poems] (ƥǠǇܕܙܘ ƣƦǤǁ) but, in fact, the first section contains liturgical texts. Beginning with folio 27v, there come a series of apparently original poems or memrē, composed on the tune of Church chants. Some of them are composed in acrostics. The original tune, upon which the text given here constitutes a variant—a šuḥlāpā—is indicated in red. Most of the memrē are without title. Most of the po-ems are šuḥlāpē on the same melody as the one on the Eucharist, starting with “We worship” (sāgdīnan). The volume also provides an answer to the question as to why Kadavil Chandy preferred precise-ly this motif.

While most of the verse homilies treat theological-spiritual subjects, the author’s thirst for knowledge, erudition and poetic performance shines through. As a case in point, foll. 49v-81v contains Memra 4, “On the Arabic language.” This is a poem in acrostics, treating not only the excellence of the Arabic language, but also Islam, Muhammad and the Qur’an.

Foll. 81v-96r is Memra 5, “On the Syri-ac language.” In this poem, the author identifies Syriac with Aramaic, and claims

that it derives from Hebrew; he speaks about the Targums and the Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmuds, the Sepher ha-Zohar. He also speaks about the Christian litera-ture written in Syriac, mentioning the Gos-pels, Saint Ephrem and Jacob of Edessa. Under the letter lāmad it mentions that the Indian Church uses Syriac (87v). Under nūn, it condemns the heretics, namely Nes-torius, Theodore of Mopsuestia and Joseph Busnaya, the “abominable and stupid Hormiz,” “Abdisho the Belzebubish basi-lisk serpent”, and “Hananisho, who is full of the dragon’s head” (90rv); under pē it praises the Pope.

On foll. 96r-106r one finds Memra 6, “On the Hebrew language.” In this poem the author emphasises that this is the holy language par excellence, because this was the first language, which Adam spoke, and also the language used by Christ, his Mother and the Apostles.

A most fascinating poem is Memra 7 on foll. 106v-116r, which is a panegyric of “Mar Franciscus, full of chastity”. This is Francisco Roz SJ, many times mentioned before in the present study, with whom Chandy studied at Vaipicotta. Here, the poet speaks as an eyewitness to the life of Francisco Roz, composing his panegyric perhaps some years after the burial of the bishop that occurred in 1624. The poem is a double acrostic, going from ālap to tāw and, then from tāw to ālap. Every stanza starts with a word beginning with the letter of the acrostic. The poem narrates Roz’s life from his childhood, which he, born in an aristocratic and holy family, spent in Catalunia (hē-waw), where he was called to become a Jesuit (īšōcāyā in Syriac—ḥēth). Later, God gave him the Spirit to go to In-dia. Arriving in the port of Goa (mēm), “he disembarked from the ship and went to the church of his Companions, dedicated to the Blessed Mary” (?),26 where “he raised his voice” (that is, prayed for the success of his mission?—nūn).



The next stanzas present Roz as a teacher at Vaipicotta Seminary: “He was prudently sitting in the chair of teaching and was instructing beautifully together with all those belonging to the same school” (‘ē). “As a sagacious philosopher and a lofty, learned and wise theologian, he taught the people in a voice of thunder” (pē). In the debates he overcame all the false teachers (ṣādē). “The entire people called him befittingly ‘our marvellous teacher’27” (qōp).

After this, comes a narrative about Roz as archbishop: “Being the glorious Arch-bishop of all India, upon those whom he had called he conferred the reverend priesthood in great solemnity and in order.” (rēš) “Taking the greetings of the great … (Pope?) he came to Cochin and became the beloved teacher of all” (šīn).28 In fact, this verse teaches us that Roz, although accord-ing to his title he was Archbishop of Angamaly and, later, of Cranganore, was in fact residing in the Portuguese fort of Co-chin. His predecessor, Mar Abraham moved his see to Angamaly precisely to escape Portuguese control, so it is expected that Roz would have stayed there where he could be protected by the Portuguese troups. “He was sitting on the glorious See of the wonderful Apostle Thomas of this admirable diocese in mercifulness toward the Church” (tāw). “He was a model of his rank,29 very-very eminent, alien to all evil and to the ways of vanity” (second tāw). “He perfected them30 (the Indians?) as sons of the (liturgical) service in the sign of the Spirit and of love and released them in the orthodox confession of our Lord according to his glory” (šīn)—this verse is difficult to interpret; did Roz introduce a ceremony of the confession of the orthodox faith for the Indian Christians? “He shepherded them as a true, righteous and elect shepherd who put his soul alien of all apostasy for the sheep of his diocese (see Jn 10:11)” (rēš). “Alien to any avarice or greed, he nour-

ished all the poor” (qōp). The next three letters continue the praise: “He was an or-nament of all the ecclesiastic rank, a glory of all the catechumenate,31 a mind of con-templation, in the model of apostolicity” (ṣādē) etc.

And here comes very important infor-mation about Roz’s teaching and literary activity: while in India, Roz translated many books from Latin into Syriac and from Syriac to Latin, those which were without error, not indiscriminately (sem-kath)—in fact we found a number of inter-esting translations from Latin into Syriac, not extant anywhere else in the world of Syriac erudition: apparently Roz translated the commentaries of Dionysius the Carthu-sian, the Mystical Theology of Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite from the Latin translation of Ambrogio Traversari, Latin apocrypha,32 an otherwise unknown trans-lation of the Book of Revelations, and many other texts. “All the Christians called this chaste patron the second Thomas and an Apostle-bishop” (nūn). “He humiliated his soul in the testimony that he witnessed, he wrote sermons and was a humble man who drove away pride” (mēm)—this praise seems to refer to the great erudition of Roz who, however, applied his talent to write sermons for his Indian faithful. These ser-mons seem in fact to be extant; they testify to much subtlety of theological thought as well as to a sophisticated accommodation to the thought-structures of the Indian au-dience,33 He was “a divine tongue, who made known the mysteries of the Hebrews, the Syrians, the Greeks and the Latins” (lāmad). He knew these languages as if they had been his mother tongue, so that all people were wondering about his know-ledge34 (kāp)—apparently, Roz was a rare linguistic genius. “He also learned many languages of the world, in order to fight against the corporeal adversaries, so also the Indian (that is, Malayalam) and other languages” (yōd)—this, we also know from



other sources; among others, Roz was en-trusted with supervising the translation into Malayalam of the Portuguese Acts of the Diamper Synod held in 1599, written be-fore the synod.35 His fame had spread to the whole earth (ṭeth). “He was a most lofty and strong bishop, full of delicacy of his power … as a diligent (servant) of the Saviour” (ḥeth), “Being the glorious zodiac of the unoriginated sun of righteousness (Mal 4:2), he preached to the evil pagans and converted them from their erring” (zayn). The poet does not say “all this as an invention,36 as is the custom among the pagans,” but as a true eyewitness and as somebody to whom it has been revealed (waw). Mar Franciscus’ end has come in the company of his disciples (hē). So cler-ics belonging to the Jesuit order carried his divine body and placed it in a tomb befit-ting him (dālath)—this tomb can be seen until the present day in the Catholic church of North Paravur. Later, they took a bone from the dead body and placed it in the sanctuary (as a relic) (gāmal)—these relics seem to be also in the church of North Paravur. “The members of the diocese of sanctity and this parish (ƣƾǁǠǖ sic!) are weeping and are wailing in bitter voice and woe, weeping and longing!” (bēth).

Finally the poet completes his work with the following words:

“I said this in conclusion through ad-vice that had been given to me from the King Christ, the Advisor: Glory to the Father, worship to the Son and thanksgiving to the Holy Spirit from the angels and men,37 to the ages of ages! Amen” (ālap).

Besides its literary interest, this poem is

also a precious source about Roz’s life and work in India, about which we know very little. Despite its panegyrical genre it con-tains much information unknown from oth-er sources, or confirming parallel infor-mation.

On foll. 116r-126r we find the last memrā, Memra 8, without a title, also based upon the tune “We worship...” This is a poem on the Incarnation and the Eu-charist and is identical with the one found in MS 99 under the name of Alexandros Hendwaya or L-menaya, that is, Chandy Kadavil Kattanar. It is the presence of this memrā that has allowed us to identify the author as having written the other memrē as well.

It is difficult to decide whether or not this is where the poems of Kadavil Chandy end, because what follows is a series of quite original compositions of a different type, namely a sequence of litanies, reca-pitulating the whole salvation history as contained in the Old and New testaments, composed with much inventiveness and poetic talent. These may or may not be composed by Chandy.

After the poems comes another im-portant text (on foll. 153v-174v), entitled the “Order of the Offering of the Sacra-ments”—this is the new mass introduced by Francisco Roz. While the text is in Syri-ac, all the rubrics are in Garshuni Malaya-lam, that is, Malayalam written in a mixed, Syriac-Malayalam script. The colophon of this text, written in Garshuni Malayalam on fol. 174r, clearly states that this is the new text of the Sacraments ordered by Francis-co Roz:

“This new text of the Sacraments was ordered by Mar Franciscus Metran.”

After the mass, there is a breviary con-

taining the hymns of the most important feasts. While the services seem to belong to the East Syriac liturgical cycle, on f. 202rv one reads the following commemoration:

For our holy Fathers, Mar Ignatius so-and-so, Catholicos Patriarch, the Head of the entire Church of Christ, and Mar Thomas so-and-so, Metropolitan Bishop, let us pray that they may be confirmed according to the leadership



of Moses and that they may absolve according to the priesthood of Aaron, and that they may receive the keys as Peter and that they may hold fast in mercy in this world and that they may raise the religion of the Most High!

In the same commemoration, on foll.

204v-205r, there is a prayer according to the East Syrian custom for the memory of the “Blessed Lady Mary” who, then, re-ceives all the attributes required by Cyrilli-an theology, that is, Ever-Virgin and Mother of God. This prayer is followed by one for all the saints, a practice prohibited by the Synod of Diamper, since it presup-poses the dormition theory, or hypnopsy-chism, prevalent in the Church of the East, according to which the souls of the saints are not active, nor do they receive their rewards, until the general Resurrection.

Interestingly, on foll. 214v-215r, the text contains a prayer for those who deny the humanity of Christ, that is, in this in-terpretation, the very Miaphysites whose Patriarch the same prayer commemorates:

For those who in their ignorance are going astray and in their quarrelsome-ness are denying the humanity of our Saviour, who is the pride of the mem-bers of his family [that is, of the human beings] and the good cause of all the ra-tional beings, let us pray that they may leave the schisms and divisions that the rebellious Great Adversary has brought upon them, so that they may approach the sweet argument of the true faith and that we may be preserved in pure heart and harmonious thought. Let all of us together, with the venerable priests, raise glorification and confession to the eternal Head of our nature, who in His grace has converted us to the know-ledge of the truth and has returned us from the scrutiny that is in the …, to whom belongs our glorification and blessing to the end. Amen.

This is clearly the East Syriac, not to

say explicitly “Nestorian”, commemora-

tion, adapted to the Syrian Orthodox patri-arch, who is named according to the rank of the Catholicos Patriarch of Babylon. Apparently, those who were using the pre-sent mixture of East Syriac (Nestorian/ Chaldean) and Latinised Syriac liturgy and, with it, Kadavil Chandy’s liturgical and secular poetry, in fact belonged to the Mar Thoma faction under the jurisdiction of the Syrian Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch.

Clearly, the book is, on the one hand, a witness to the liturgical and literary activity in Syriac and Malayalam of the circle of Francisco Roz and of Kadavil Chandy Kat-tanar, while, on the other hand, it testifies to a singular mixture of traditions among the Putthankoor, that is the faction that seceded from the Roman Catholic Church and was led by the Mar Thoma Metropoli-tans. Its detailed study, combined with that of other manuscripts, will elucidate many aspects of the intellectual activity of the Catholic missionaries and their Malayalee interlocutors after the times of the Diamper Synod.

B.5. KADAVIL CHANDY’S SOURCES

Chandy’s manifold poems written in play-ful language and displaying vast erudition, encompassing such subjects as the Arabic, Syriac and Hebrew languages, together with a treatment of the literature written in these languages, once again testify to the humanist approach of the author. His pane-gyric of Francisco Roz shows his personal devotion to his teacher but it also shows that Roz was a missionary whom the Indi-an Christians indeed loved, not least be-cause of his great erudition. We also learn from this poem that, while in India, Bishop Roz spent much of his time translating Lat-in texts into Syriac for Indian usage, and vice versa. We might therefore conclude that at least part of the rich translation liter-ature that one finds in Indian manuscripts



is from Roz’s pen. However, one should be cautious with these attributions.

Here we arrive at the question of Ka-davil Chandy’s sources. In the Memrā on the Syriac language, under the acrostic nūn, Chandy condemns a series of heretics. He writes the following (89v-91r):

ƤܬƲƾǍܗܪ ƲǞǅƸǈ Ǆ ǌƽܕ ǌǄ ƣǊƱǇ ܀ ܡ ܀ ƤܬƲǞƾƷܪ ƲǢǄ ƲǗƵܪƥ ܕƣǅǇ ܗ ǎǈǄܘ

Ƥ ƲǋǈƽܬƤ ܕƲǢƽƯǝܬ ƱƦ ǌ Ǆ ǌƽƳǇ ܘǇ ǌǇ ǌǄ ƤǜǗǇ ƲƸƾǄܬƤܘ ƤǤǅ ܕ

ƤܬƲǗǋ Ʒ ǌǇܘ ƤǤƾƴܨܘ ǌǇ ǌ Ǆ ܙܒƲ ǢǇܘ .ƤܬƲǝǠƷܕ ƤƳƽǠƴ ƣǎǁƲƸƦ :ǌǋƽƳƴܕ ǃƽܐ

.ƣƾǋƸǍ ƣǊƱƩ ǠƦ ǏƽǠ ƸǎǊ ƲǞǗǊ ܀ ǌǊ܀

ܘƣƾǊƱƩ ƣƸƾǄ ƣƽ.ـܘܐܦ ܬ ܐܕܘܪܘܣ ܕƣǞƾǋǡ ƣǋ ܬ

ǖƯ

ƪǇ ƣƾǋǍƲƦ ǘǍƲ ƽ

ƣƾǊܕƢǡ ƣƦܪ | ƥǠƾǂǡ ƥǠƽƯǊ ܕƳƾǇܘܗܘܪ. .ƣƾƧƦƳǅǔƦ ƣǋǇǠ ƴ ƣƽƲƴ ܥƲǢƽ Ư ƧǓ

ƣƾǋƾǊ Ƣǡܬ ƣǅǇ ܕ ƱǢƾǋǋܥ ܕ ƴ .ƣƾǄƲƾǡ ƿǋƦ ƣƸƾǄ ƣǊǠƴܐ ƤƢƾƪǍ ܐܦ

.ƣƾǈƾǂǍܘܐ ƣǡƲƧǄ ƿǢƾƧǄ ƣǅƧ ƵǇ ƣƦܕܐ ǃƽ ܕܐ.ƣƾǍƲƸǍƲƽܕ ƣ ǈƾǇ ƣƽǤƾ ܐƥǠǇ ܬ Ʀܕ

ƯǞǖ ǤƽƢǈƾǂܬ ƴ ǆƾǁܗ ǤƽƢǢƽƯ܆ ǝܘ ƱƾǋƧ Ǆ

ǌǇ܆ǤƽܐƯƾǞǖ ƣǋǢǄ ǫ .ǤƽܐǠƽǠǡܘ ƣǞǎƾǎǅǞǝ ܐ

ǤƽƢ ƧƽǤǁ ƣǊƲǋǝܘ ƲƦǤǁܐܬ ǤƽƢƧƾƧ܆ ƴ ܘǤƾƦ ܕܣƱǊƲǍܕ

ܪܕǤƽƢǋƽ܆ ƳƩ ƣǈƽƲǝ ܐܦ ƣƾ ܬܪǜƽܐǤƽ܆ ƧƩ ƥǠƾǓ ܘ

ǤƽƢǊǤǡƲǝ ƣǎǇƲƷܕ ƣǊܘܗܘ .ǤƽܐǠƽܘܕܗ ǤƽǠƾǗǡܘ ƣǢƽƯ ǝ ǆǁܕ

ǤƽƢƵƾƧǡ ƣǊǠƴܐ ƿƪ Ǎܘ Mem. It is useful for us to destroy the heresy38 / and to pull down the wall that is full of heretical doctrine, / be-ing armed with the faith of holiness / and saved from the word of curse / and delivered from abuse and from de-filement, so that we may be seen in good order and excellence. Nun. Away with Nestorius, the son of Gehenna, the Satanic! / Also with Theodore, the wretched, cursed, who goes to Gehenna! / Joseph Busnaya, the blasphemous, who goes to the torments! / Hormizd, the abominable, the foul, the great demoniac! / Ab-disho, the serpent, the basilisk, the

Belzebubish! / Hananisho, who is full of Satanism! / And many other accurs-ed, sons of Sheol, / who, like perverse wolves put on the garbs and outward appearance / of the innocent dyophy-site (diū<phū>sitōsāyā!)39 sheep of the household. So the Church (ekklēsias<ti>kē!)40 wisely and holily / ordered to her sons / who are from this language [that is, Syriac] / in decrees and truly / and canons were also written in writing / and a council was convened in love, / and a constitution was written in the form of decrees / and an elect watcher in correctness, / and the mind of the Tomos41 in truth, / of all the saints and beautifully and carefully, and many other things gloriously.

Now what are these strange verses about? Why does Chandy condemn explic-itly these East Syriac teachers? Has he ever read them, or read about them? And what kind of Council is he talking about? The verses themselves do not give an answer to these questions. However, something that, at first sight, looks like the direct source of the verses is found in another manuscript, MS Syr 46, of the same Mannanam library. Upon closer investigation, we will see that the text of this manuscript is not necessari-ly a direct source but rather a witness to Chandy’s source.

The manuscript itself is a puzzle. With-out question, it contains much of the liter-ary output in Syriac of Francisco Roz, mentioned in Chandy’s Memra 7, includ-ing Roz’s letters to the Archdeacons, be-ginning in 1579/8042 (he arrived in India in 1578) as well as homilies, among which there is one written for the feast of Saint Thomas Apostle.43 The scholar Radu Mus-taţa is working on its edition and transla-tion44 and, together, we have established with a certain degree of probability that it could be written by Roz. However, some of the Syriac compositions in the manuscript must have belonged to another missionary



active in the 1560s at an unknown location. Some of his compositions are dated, and in fact the following notes are also present: “On the 11th of September, <the year> 1567 of the Lord”,45 and: “I wrote this in the church […]46 on the 3rd of August 1567.”47 As the material is mixed, it will be a difficult task to separate Roz’s Indian material from the material of the other mis-sionary (missionaries?). There are also missionary treatises in Syriac on diverse dogmatic and canonical questions, one of which contains (or witnesses to) the direct source of Chandy’s verses cited above.48 Now, the style of this homily corresponds to what we know about that of Roz. This is confirmed by Chandy’s external witness, showing that he either knew this treatise, or, as he was Roz’s personal disciple, knew its content from Roz’s oral teaching.

This text refutes the heresy of Diosco-rus,49 then proceeds as follows:

[124ra] Nestorius, together with the companions of his heresy, Theodore and Diodore, as well as the Syrian Nestorians, namely Joseph Busnaya, Hormizd, Abdisho and Hananisho and other Satanic people, in the disguise-ment of holiness lead astray many, when they say blasphemously that in Christ there are two persons and two natures but one will and when they deny about his blessed Bearer that she is the Bearer of God. And the Second Council of Ephesus of blind mind and deprived of the divine discernment, which was convened by the Nestori-ans, in certain things confirmed the truth but in other things diverted from it: while they confessed two natures, they did not confess the unity [of the two natures]; and, as to the two na-tures, they also confessed two persons in Christ.50 This council was followed by Narsai and Abraham, as well as John Bar Khaldon and others, whose names I am not listing here in order that my speech does not become too long. Therefore, because these, as rapacious,

violent and perverse wolves, entered the fold of the innocent sheep of the ho-ly Church in order to destroy, plunder, confuse, blaspheme and speak wicked-ness in all these things that they say and in others that are similar to these, so it seemed to me proper that I give a re-port on the becoming and beautiful <teachings> of the orthodoxy of the blessed Cyril, the famous teacher who, upon the order of Mar Pope Celestine directed the first council of Ephesus, [124rb] which was held against Nesto-rius and anathematised him, together with his associates.51

Here the author who, remarkably, be-

lieves the Second Council of Ephesus to be a Nestorian council, quits the historical introduction and begins to teach theology proper, which he attributes to Cyril of Al-exandria but which he begins with a magis-terial and lengthy argument on the incom-prehensibility and absolute transcendence of God in the vocabulary of Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, translated from Latin. I would consider this predilection for Pseudo-Dionysius and for an abstruse theo-logical speculation based on his teaching as one of the marks of Roz’s authorship. I would also identify Roz as the author of a Syriac translation, based on Ambrogio Traversari’s Latin translation, of Pseudo-Dionysius’s Mystical Theology.52

The resemblance between this theologi-cal treatise and Chandy’s poetic passage is indeed remarkable. Thus, one might sur-mise that it is the direct source of Chandy’s poetry, which versifies the missionary’s prose, omits the doctrine and makes the discourse much more lively with poetic vilifications of the East Syrian theologians. Some of the images, such as the rapacious wolves plundering and destroying the in-nocent sheep, the Satanism of the heretic teachers, as well as the musings on “cor-rect” and “incorrect” dyophysitism, remain the same. However, Roz’s explanatory sen-tences and Syriac vocabulary are substitut-



ed by unusual Greek expressions, such as diūphūsitōsāyā and ekklēsiastikē. But in-stead of the First Council of Ephesus, Chandy invokes Chalcedon, to which he attributes a Tomos, most probably that of Saint Leo. Apparently for the second part of his poem Chandy had a different source —one which is by no means inappropriate as Chalcedon also condemned Nestorius. In fact, if we accept Roz’s authorship for the theological treatise of Mannanam MS Syr 46, we do not have to suppose that Chandy necessarily read the text contained in that manuscript. As Roz was his teacher, Chandy could have used material taken from Roz’s oral teaching in classes given, as we know, in Syriac at the Vaipicotta seminary. Thus, the combination of the condemnation of precisely these authors with a reference to the council of Chalce-don may come from Roz’s oral teaching.

I think this Quellenforschung is illustra-tive of the way in which Kadavil Chandy used some of his sources, i.e. versifying the learning acquired from his Jesuit teachers and incorporating it into traditional East Syriac poetic forms. Moreover, Mannanam MS Syr 63, among Kadavil Chandy’s poet-ry, also contains its literary model. This is Memra 3 in the manuscript, on foll. 44v-49v, also composed upon the melody of the ‘ōnīthā “We worship…” and displaying very similar poetic features. Originally I thought that this poem was also by Chandy but, unexpectedly, I found it in a manu-script in another library under the name of “Gabriel of Mosul”.53 This implies that it was written by the thirteenth-century poet, Gabriel Qamṣā, a monk of the Monastery of Beth Qōqā, who was Metropolitan of Mosul in 1281. According to Anton Baum-stark,

Gabriel’s “main work is one of the most widely copied pieces of Syriac literature, a monstrous ‘ōnīthā, on the founder of the Beth Qōqā monastery, Sabrīshō, partly in twelve-syllable,

partly in eight-syllable rhyming vers-es, written in a bombastic language overloaded with Greek foreign words…”54

Now, Memra 3 seems to be one of the ‘ōnyāthā of Gabriel Qamṣā—though not the one mentioned and disparaged by Baumstark as “monstrous”; it certainly dis-plays the same stylistic features, so much so that the scribe of our volume could not understand it and made it even more in-comprehensible. Yet, apparently, the poetic form elaborated by Gabriel—as well as his heavily Hellenised, in Baumstark’s words “monstrous”, language—was the model for Chandy’s own poetic style. Thus, the aforementioned odd phrases, such as the use of Greek expressions and unusual Syri-ac words, which might shock a Syriacist reader, are not Chandy’s own creation but come from the East Syriac poetic tradition that he had chosen as his model. One must also say that, stylistic elements notwith-standing, Chandy’s poetry is much more accessible and enjoyable than that of Ga-briel Qamṣā.

There is one more possible source which remains unexamined at this stage: the local Malayalam poetic tradition, which was very rich, had a predilection for syl-labic, rhyming verses and was fond of the alliterating techniques and wordplay, could very well have influenced Chandy’s com-plex style.

C. CONCLUSIONS It seems, to sum up, that the European hu-manist learning that Chandy acquired from Roz and other Jesuit missionaries was grafted upon a parallel humanist and Hel-lenising tradition—that of the medieval poetry of the Church of the East—and was perhaps also combined with Indian poetic trends. This unique blend has produced a poetic and epistolary output that is not only interesting but also new, original and en-tirely enjoyable.



APPENDIX: A LETTER BY KADAVIL CHANDY KATTANAR, ALIAS ALEXANDROS

HENDWAYA OR L-MENAYA, TO POPE ALEXANDER VII FROM 1657

Witnesses: Kaniamparampil MS Syr 2 (K), foll. 387v-390v and Mannanam MS Syr 5 (M), foll. 11v –13r. As both copies contain mistakes, the reconstruction of the text can only be based on both witnesses. Yet, in general, K seems to represent a much better textual tradition and, so, whenever possi-ble, the present translation follows the ver-sion of Father Kaniamparampil’s manu-script. The following is the translation of the text: [K 387v; M 11v] “To the one who is sitting on the glorious and holy and Petrine See of Rome,55 <whom> our Lord has called in his grace, placed in his love, and set up holily; its sheep are our shepherds, its serv-ants are our lords, its sons are our fathers, its deacons are our rulers; to the Father of the fathers, the greatest Shepherd, the Head of the holy Christian Church of God, who has got all the authority over the ecclesias-tic ranks,56 who rules in all things and is the master of all, to the holy Lord Pope Alexander the Eighth,57 peace!

The most despicable and contemptible man from all the lump of Adam, a burnt up firebrand, who has withered in the fire58 of his debts, and has been burnt out in the flame of his sins, most wretched among the wretched, and a waste of the people, whose name should not be remembered in writing because of the great quantity of his vices and of his incorrect acts, however, in order that he may receive blessing and atonement from the mouth of your living Beatitude, [K 388v] makes known the name of his wretchedness, [M 12r] which is Presbyter Alexander the Indian, surnamed Of the Port, born at the faithful59 city of Kaduthu-rutthy60 in the diocese of Saint Thomas. Now, after asking for greetings from your

Beatitude, I am sending the cause of the present letter before the glorious and holy See of your Beatitude by the hands of the commissarius delegatus apostolicus,61 the venerable Carmelite pater62 Maria Joseph. For he, being strong amidst much labour and great distress and good in the care63 of voluntary love, came to us together with his beloved friends by the holy order of your Beatitude and found us as erring sheep without a shepherd who had been scattered throughout the regions of India among the pagans, who are under the rule of infidel kings;64 in due course, he let us know the holy sacra65 about all that your Beatitude has ordered. He saw all our ail-ing and wretchedness [K 389v] and gave us his love in his eyes, and he lifted upon his shoulders our affairs and our apology and our accusation as well as all the needs of ourselves and of our Church, so that he may come before your Beatitude. He would come and apologise on our behalf and whether good or bad, all that is [M 12v] with us, he would report truthfully to your Beatitude. May you listen to him with good will!

And I, the most wretched man among all the wretched, have sent through his be-loved hands before the glorious and holy See of your Beatitude a small writing, writ-ten by my madness on the holy sacrament of the Eucharist, which your Beatitude should give to a reader, so that he may see and read it, so that he may clearly make your Beatitude know all that is in it.

O, Lord Reader! In love, supplication and petition66 I approach you and all those who will chance upon the poem of my madness,67 that, if they were to find in it some mistake or blunder, they should not hasten to dismiss it and to throw a stone of abuse on me [K 390v] but should illumi-nate my carelessness, feebleness and mad-ness and should pray for me assiduously.

And I am asking in my wretchedness from your Beatitude to give me from the



good blessings of your Beatitude, so that I may be nourished on them and sustain my-self all the duration of my life, just like the dogs that are eating from the morsels fall-ing from the tables of their masters (Mt 15:27).

May the Lord lengthen your life of good and holy blessings and double your years and may He multiply his many blessings up-

on your Beatitude through the intercession of the prophets and the apostles your col-leagues. Yes and amen.

[M 13r] In the year one thousand six hundred fifty-seven of our Lord, on the 15th of the month of First Kānōn (December) this letter was written in the blessed city of Cochin68 abounding in the orthodox faith.” Yes and amen.69



NOTES

1 It is my most pleasant duty to extend my gratitude at least to some of those without whom this paper could never have been written. The Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft and Hill Museum and Manuscript Library, Collegeville MN, who sponsored the SRITE digitisation project in Kerala. Special thanks are due to Father Columba Stewart, Executive Director of HMML and to Prof. Stephen Gerö, the recipient of the DFG grant at Tübingen University. Members of the Association for the Preservation of the Saint Thomas Christian Heritage (APSTCH), the NGO that has carried out the digitisation of the material treated here, and especially Father Ignatius Payyappilly, the Secretary of the APSTCH who has provided the Mannanam digital material for this study.

2 Alexander Toepel, “A letter from Alexan-der Kadavil to the Congregation of St. Thomas at Edapally,” in: D. Bumazhnov, E. Grypeou, T.B. Sailors, and A. Toepel (eds.), Bibel, Byzanz und Christlicher Orient. Festschrift für Stephen Gerö zum 65. Geburtstag, OLA 187 (Leuven: Peeters, 2011), 387–395.

3 Paragraph 20 of a memorandum submitted by Archdeacon Thomas to Dom Philip Masca-renhas, Viceroy of Portuguese India in 1645. See J. Kollaparambil, The St. Thomas Chris-tians' Revolution in 1653 (Kottayam: Catholic Bishop’s House, 1981), 82.

4 See J. Thekkedathu, The Troubled Days of Francis Garcia S.J., Archbishop of Cranganore (1641-59), Analecta Gregoriana 187 (Rome: Università Gregoriana Editrice, 1972), 61-62; Kollaparambil, The St. Thomas Christians’ revo-lution in 1653, 140, 142, 147; J. Thekkedath (= Thekkedathu), History of Christianity in India. II. From the Middle of the Sixteenth to the End of the Seventeenth Century (1542-1700) (Ban-galore: Theological Publications in India, 1982), 92. On the authenticity of the letters of Mar ‘Atallah, see J. Kollaparambil, The St. Thomas Christians’ revolution, 108-112, 145-148, and also I. Perczel, “Four apologetic Church Histories from India,” The Harp 24 (2009) 189–217, here 211–217. Thomas’s other three advisors were the priests George Vendur, Ittithoman Anjilimutthil and Alexander Param-bil, a cousin of Thomas who, in 1663, became

the first Indian archbishop of Cranganore; see also G. Sorge, L’ India di S. Tommaso. Ricer-che storiche sulla chiesa Malabarica (Bologna: Editrice CLUEB, 1983), 73.

5 Cf. J. Kollaparambil, The Archdeacon of All-India, The Syrian Churches Series 5 (Kottayam: The Catholic Bishop's House, 1972), 152, 174.

6 Chandy is the Malayalam form of Alexan-der. On Kadavil Chandy Kattanar, seen from the Roman point of view, see P.J. Thomas, Malayāla Sahityāvum Christiyānikālum, Mala-yalam Literature and the Christians (Athiram-puzha: St. Mary’s Press, 1935; second edition with additions by Scaria Zacharia: Kottayam: DC Books, 1989), 143–144. I owe this infor-mation to the late Fr. Antony Vallavanthara, who searched for and kindly translated the rele-vant passage for me. For an evaluation of Ka-davil’s personality and role on the Jacobite side, see E.M. Philip, The Indian Church of St. Thomas (first published: Kottayam: E.P. Mathew Edavazhikal, 1908; second edition by Dr. Kuriakose Corepiscopa Moolayil: Cheer-anchira, Changanacherry 686106: Mor Adai Study Centre, 2002), 135–137, and Curien Chorepiscopa Kaniamparampil, The Syrian Orthodox Church in India and Its Apostolic Faith (Detroit, MI: Rev. Philips Gnanasi-khamony, 1989), 90–92. I received the first book from Fr. Kuriakose and the second from Fr. Curien Kaniamparampil. I thank them warmly for their kindness.

7 E. Thelly, “Syriac Manuscripts in Man-nanam Library,” Journal of Eastern Christian Studies 56 (2004) 257–70. The manuscript is described on p. 261, where the discovery is briefly mentioned and the same manuscript is also listed on p. 267 among the breviaries of the collection.

8 ƤǤǢƾƧ ƽ ܒǠǝ ƿǋǁܕܐܬ This should be a Syriac translation of the Malayalam house name of the scribe.

9 This is perhaps the present-day township of Kalluvathukkal, in the Kollam district.

10 MS Mannanam Syr 99, fol. 337v. 11 The memrā occupies foll. 149r–160v. 12 About the poetic genre of the ōnīthā, see

A. Baumstark, Geschichte der syrischen Liter-atur (Bonn: A. Marcus und E. Webers Verlag, 1922), p. 303–304.



13 After correction. Both manuscripts con-taining the poem, that is, Mannanam MS Syr 63 and 99 read ƧǊǠ ǢǞ , a word that does not seem to exist in Syriac.

14 After correction. This reconstruction is en-tirely hypothetical. Clearly, the text is corrupt here. M99 reads ƣǢǇܘƲǊ and M63 reads ƣǢǇƲǄ. None of these words has any meaning. ƲǄƣǋǇ does not exist either but it can be a derivation from the verb ƲǄܡ ,: to draw nigh, come near, put on. Kadavil Chandy often creates new words.

15 After correction. Both M63 and M99 read ǠƽƱƷ, an obvious mistake for Ǡƽܬܗ.

16 This is a possible meaning of a corrupt word, which is difficult to reconstruct. See note 13 above.

17 See above, note 2. 18 Members of the Congregation supported

the then Archdeacon Pakalomattam Thomas during his strife with Archbishop Garcia. See J. Thekkedathu, The Troubled Days of Francis Garcia, 25, 36.

19 See the Appendix for the entire letter in translation.

20 Joseph Maria Sebastiani, O.C.D. was Ap-ostolic Commissary to India in 1655–58 and 1661–63. He carried Alexander’s letter to Rome in 1658.

21 That is, Sebastiani’s. 22 In the Syriac: Ư

ƪǄ ƯƽƢƦܘǫ ܕǠǎǇƲǁܝ ܕ

ƣƾǞƾǄƲƸǎǖ .ܐ23 Sic K: ƣƸƾǅǇǠ ǁ ƥǠǞ ƾǇ ǠƸǖ ǘǍƲƽ ǉƽǠǇ. M

writes: ƣƸƾǅǇǠ ǁ ƥǠǞ ƾǇ ܝǠƸǖ ǘǍƲƽ ǉƽǠ Ǉ. In M’s

version, the dot underneath the ṭeth in ܝǠƸǖ

seems to indicate that the word is to be pro-nounced as th in the Portuguese Malayalam word pāthri or pāthiri (പാതരി or പാതിരി).

24 I discuss this phenomenon in “Classical Syriac as a modern lingua franca in South India between 1600 and 2006,” ARAM 21 (2009) 289–321.

25 I announced the discovery of Kadavil Chandy’s collected poems in “Classical Syriac as a modern lingua franca in South India;” ibid., 304–307.

26 If I understand correctly the text here, which is obviously corrupt.

27 With an interesting Syro-Hellenic expres-sion: ƣǊǠƾǇܬܢ ܕƲǄƲǂǍܕ: apparently from the Greek (di)daskalos.

28 Here comes an odd clause: “without the good Thomas” (ƣƧƷ ƣǇܘƢܬـ ƿǅƦ), which seems to be a locus corruptus.

29 After emendation, as the text is corrupt here.

30 After emendation: ǆǅǂǡ instead of ܠƯǡ. 31 Here stands the word ƲǞƽǠƩܐ, which I do

not understand. Does it come from ƥǠƾƩܐ: cate-chumen?

32 See I. Perczel with the contribution of A. Toepel, “What Can a Nineteenth-Century Syri-ac Manuscript Teach Us about Indian Church History?: On MS Ernakulam MAP Syr 7” PO 33 (2008) 245–265.

33 On this, see Radu Mustaţa, Codex Syri-acus Mannanam 46 and a homily by Francisco Roz on Saint Thomas, MA thesis written at Central European University, Department of Medieval Studies, 2014, which will be pub-lished in a scholarly journal.

34 Here the text is somewhat confused but this seems to be the meaning.

35 See Book I, chapter XVII in António de Gouvea, Jornada do Arcebispo de Goa Dom Frey Aleixo de Menezes Primaz da India Oriental, Religioso da Orden de S. Agostino (Coimbra : Officina de Diogo Gomez, 1606), fol. 57ra and 58ra. For an English translation see Pius Malekandathil (ed), Jornada of Dom Alexis de Menezes: A Portuguese Account of the Sixteenth Century Malabar (Kochi: LRC Publications, 2003), 230–31 and 235.

36 After emendation: ƣƽƯƦ. The manuscript has ƣƽƯǝ here, which is meaningless.

37 There is wordplay here using the homon-ymy between ƣǂǅǇ “advice”, ƣǂǅ Ǉ “king”, ƣǁƲǅǇ “advisor” and ƣǁƢ ǅ Ǉ “angels”.

38 I am indicating with italics and underlin-ing expressions and passages whose sources—or rather, parallels—will be cited following.

39 The scribe of the MS writes ƣƾǍƲƸǍƲƽܕ, which is to be corrected to ƣƾǍƲƷ< ـ ƽ>ـǍ<Ʋǖ>Ʋƽܕ.

40 The scribe of the MS writes ƣǞǎƾǎǅǝ ,ܐwhich is to be corrected to ƣǝ< ـ ƾƷ>ـǎƾǎǅǝܐ.

41 That of Pope Leo? 42 MS Mannanam Syr 46, fol. 192r-195v

contain a collection of anonymous Syriac let-ters written in the late-16th and early-17th cen-turies. Several can be definitively identified as written by Francisco Roz.



43 Ibid., fol. 68r-70v. 44 Radu Mustaţa, Codex Syriacus Man-

nanam 46 and a homily by Francisco Roz on Saint Thomas, see above in note 33.

45 MS Mannanam Syr 46, fol. 37v. 46 Perhaps, there is a lacuna here. One

would expect “the church of such and such a city” etc.

47 Ibid. fol. 113r. 48 Ibid. fol. 123v-135r. 49 I am indicating in italics the passages that

are parallel with Chandy’s text, cited above. 50 This is how I would understand the com-

plicated Syriac sentence which reads as fol-lows: ƽܬܪ ǫ ǌ ܕǤƦ ƯǁܪƣǄ ƣǋƾǁ ǌƽ ܬܪǜƽܐƲǇ ǤƽܕƲǊƯƵƦ ǌƽܬƤ. ܘ.ǌƽܕƲǇ ƣƵƾǢǈƦ ƣǇƲǋǝ ǌƽܐܦ ܬܪ ǌƾǋƾǁ

51 Ibid. fol. 124ra-rb. 52 The translation is contained in Ernakulam

Major Archbishop’s Palace MS Syr 7, fol. 508r–512r. For the time being this is the only copy that I have found of this translation. On this manuscript see: I. Perczel with the contri-bution of A. Toepel, “What Can a Nineteenth-Century Syriac Manuscript Teach Us about Indian Church History?” mentioned above in note 32, here 253–54. That the Syriac transla-tion was made on the basis of the Latin version by Ambrogio Traversari, was established by Sebastian Brock (in a personal letter dated 21 October 2004), see ibid., 254, n. 26. When writ-ing the above study I was not yet confident that the author of the translation was Roz, so I tenta-tively proposed the Chaldean patriarch Joseph II of Amid (1696–1713). This suggestion is to be rejected, as we are now fairly certain that Roz is indeed the author.

53 Unfortunately, I have misplaced the ref-erences and so cannot indicate here where the

other copy is to be found. 54 A. Baumstark, Geschichte der syrischen

Literatur, 323. 55 ƣƾǋǇܕܪܗܘ. 56 Sic M correctly; K: “and the ecclesiastic

ranks”—erroneously. 57 The appellation “Alexander the Eighth” is

erroneous. The Pope Alexander who ruled in 1657 was in fact seventh among the popes bear-ing that name.

58 Sic K correctly; M: “in the light”—erro-neously.

59 “Faithful” is omitted from M. 60 According to both manuscripts: Kart-

thurathy. 61 In the Syriac: Ư

ƪǄ ƯƽƢƦܘǫ ܕǠǎǇƲǁܝ ܕ

ƣƾǞƾǄƲƸǎǖ .ܐ62 Sic in K, using the Latin term. M: “Padri”

using the Portuguese. It is probably the second, more common, term, which is secondary. Jo-seph Maria Sebastiani, O.C.D. was Apostolic Commissary in 1655-58 and 1661–63.

63 After correction; “Good and the care” MSS.

64 Sic K correctly; M: “infidel king” in sin-gular, perhaps erroneously.

65 Sic! Sacra means here an official papal letter.

66 Sic in K. M: “in love, supplication of pe-tition”, which is apparently a scribal error, writ-ing a dālath instead of a waw.

67 Sic in K: ܬܝƲƸƾǡ ƯƩܪƲǎƦ; M: ܬܝƲƸƾƦ Ư

ƩܪƲǎƦ

without a sense; apparently a scribal error. 68 Sic in K. M: “in the blessed city of Kadu-

thuruthy”—probably by error, inspired by the fact that the author was born in Kaduthuruthy.

69 This second “yes and amen” is missing from M.


________________________________________________________________________________ Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 14 (2014) ― Page 49

Figure 1

MAN-SYRMS-63-0107

Figure 2:

MAN-SYRMS-99-0149

Alexander of the Port / Kadavil Chandy Kattanar: A Syriac Poet and Disciple of the Jesuits in...

Documents

Transcript of Alexander of the Port / Kadavil Chandy Kattanar: A Syriac Poet and Disciple of the Jesuits in...