An Interfaith Polemic of Medieval Anatolia: Qadi Burhan al-Din al-Anawi on the Armenians and their...

© Copyrighted Material

© Copyrighted Materialww

w.as

hgat

e.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m Chapter 10

an Interfaith Polemic of medieval anatolia: Qāḍī Burhān al-Dīn al-Anawī on the

armenians and their heresies

a.C.s. Peacock

the sources for the study of the relationship between muslims and non-muslims in medieval anatolia are overwhelmingly Christian. the muslim world of course had a rich tradition of writing about non-muslims, through both specialised works like heresiographies and polemics as well as more general literature such as history and poetry. Indeed, such specialised works were often composed in areas which probably did not have much of a Christian population at all. for instance, ʿAbd al-Jabbār’s Tathbīt Dalāʾil al-Nubuwwa, produced in Buyid rayy in the late tenth century, shows a profound knowledge of Christian doctrine, and discusses the Bible, church rituals and Christian claims to miracles.1 naturally, works dealing with Christianity were also regularly produced in areas with a significant Christian population, such as Spain, as has been meticulously documented by david thomas and alex mallet in their Bibliographical History of Christian–Muslim relations.2

anatolia, however, is, as with some other genres of literary production in arabic and Persian, something of a desert in this respect. Christians appear only fleetingly in our Persian chronicles; they are slightly more visible in the waqfiyyas, but the nature of such documents means these constitute rarely much more than passing references. Christians do feature prominently in the turkish epic literature, in the Danişmend-name, Dede Korkut or the Saltuk-name, but again the nature of such works, with their complex transmission histories and their depictions of Christians as the object of ghazw – religiously inspired raiding – will rarely satisfy the curiosity of historians seeking to investigate interfaith relations throughout the period that concerns us, when anatolia remained largely Christian in population, especially outside the towns. Yet the extensive Muslim literature that was produced in Seljuq anatolia, whether in arabic, Persian or turkish, concentrates overwhelmingly on the muslim faith in virtual isolation. the religious sciences, fiqh, and Sufism dominate; but rarely do the works of, say, the famous thirteenth-century scholar and theologian Ṣadr al-Dīn Qūnawī contain much indication of concern with Anatolia’s non-Muslim majority. Indeed, only the emergence from the fourteenth century of more popular works, especially in turkish, aimed at introducing the

1 ʿAbd al-Jabbār, Critique of Christian Origins, ed. and trans. Gabriel reynolds and samir Khalil Samir (Provo, UH: Brigham Young University Press, 2010).

2 David Thomas and Alex Mallet (eds), Christian–Muslim Relations: A Bibliographical History (Leiden: Brill, 2009–2013).

From A.C.S. Peacock, Bruno De Nicola and Sara Nur Yıldız (eds), Islam and Christianity in Medieval Anatolia, published by Ashgate Publishing. See: http://www.ashgate.com/isbn/9781472448637

© 2015



w.as

hgat

e.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m

Islam and Christianity in Medieval Anatolia234

fundamentals of fiqh, for example, to a wider audience, perhaps only recently converted to Islam, implies a more fluid situation.

The evidence from the Christian side is much richer, offering insights not just into Christian views of muslims, but also attesting the existence of dialogue and debate between Muslim and Christian intellectuals. To give just two examples, Grigor magistros, on the eve the turkish invasions, composed his verse summary of the Bible in Armenian in response to debates in Constantinople in 1044–45 with the Abbasid emissary Abū Naṣr al-Manāzī over the relative superiority of the Bible and the Qurʾan.3 rather later, in the fourteenth century we have Gregory Palamas’s accounts of his debates with the Turks over the nature of Christianity and Islam.4

the topic of the current chapter provides an unusual exception to this absence of evidence from the muslim side. the as yet unpublished Anīs al-Qulūb (‘Hearts’ Companion’) held in the Süleymaniye Library in Istanbul offers a unique insight into medieval Muslim–Christian relations in Anatolia through the author’s polemical description of the Armenian Church.5 although the existence of the work has been known ever since Mehmet Fuad Koprülü published a description of it in 1943, it has generally been neglected.6 Koprülü appended to his description an edition of the last few hundred lines of the Anīs al-Qulūb which contain information on the Great Seljuqs’ rise to power, none of which is particularly original, but the rest of the manuscript has not been investigated by scholars.7 The reason is not hard to find. The topic of the text is superficially one that would be of little interest to most historians, for it purports to be a versified history of Muslim Prophets (qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’). In addition, the text is extremely long – 428 folios in total, with a total of around 24,000 bayts (verses). This makes it rather longer than Firdawsī’s Shāh-nāma, and at one point (fol. 67b) – fairly early on, at the end of the first book – the author himself doubts whether he will ever finish his mammoth undertaking; the reader is liable to share the sentiment. the relevant portions of the text dealing with the armenians and their beliefs

3 magnalia dei, Biblical History in Epic Verse by Grigor Magistros, ed. and trans. abraham Terian (Leuven: Peeters, 2012).

4 Daniel Sahas, ‘Captivity and Dialogue: Greogory Palamas (1296–1360) and the Muslims’, Greek Orthodox Theological Review 25 (1980): 409–36; idem, ‘Gregory Palamas on Islam’, The Muslim World 73 (1983): 1–21.

5 Istanbul, Süleymaniye Library, MS Ayasofya 2984.6 M. Fuat Koprülü, ‘Anadolu Selçukluları Tarihi’nin Yerli Kaynakları: I. Anis al-Ḳulûb’,

Belleten 7 (1943): 459–522. A brief description of the work was also published by Mujtabā Mīnuwī, ‘Az khazāyin-i Turkīya – 3’, Majalla-yi Dānishkada-yi Adabiyāt 3 (1340), 1–29, at 15–19. I have previously published a very brief preliminary discussion of some of aspects of the work, which is superseded by the present chapter: a.C.s. Peacock, ‘local Identity and medieval Anatolian Historiography: Anavi’s Anis al-qolub and Ahmad of Niğde’s al-Walad al-shafiq’, Studies on Persianate Societies 2 (2004): 115–25. In 2008, I heard that an Iranian doctoral student, Amir (Alireza) Emami, was preparing a complete edition of the work, but so far it has not been completed as far as I have been able to ascertain, nor do I have any news as to whether work is still in progress.

7 Koprülü, ‘Anadolu Selçukluları Tarihi’nin Yerli Kaynakları: I. Anis al-Ḳulûb’, 497–519.

Copyright material: You are not permitted to transmit this file in any format or media; it may not be resold or reused without prior agreement with Ashgate Publishing and

may not be placed on any publicly accessible or commercial servers.



w.as

hgat

e.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m

An Interfaith Polemic of Medieval Anatolia 235

are buried in the midst of this, appended to the section dealing with the story of Jesus, and do not seem to have previously been noticed.

Before discussing the polemical section of the work, let us consider the work in general, and, in particular, what we know of its author, Burhān al-Dīn al-Anawī, himself a native of the largely Armenian town of Ani, which stands today in ruins on the turkish side of the turkish-armenian border.

The Anīs al-Qulūb: An Overview of the Manuscript, its Author and its Contents

The Süleymaniye manuscript is apparently unique; nor, as far as I am aware, are there any references to the text or the author in any other literary sources. The author, Qadi Burhān al-Dīn Abū Naṣr ibn Manṣūr al-Anawī, was born around 538/11428 and was still alive in 619/1222, when he appears in a waqf document as qadi of Malatya.9 In 1211, he tells us, he presented the Anīs al-Qulūb to the Seljuq Sultan of Anatolia, ʿIzz al-Dīn Kaykāʾūs I, on the occasion of his accession. ʿIzz al-Dīn is praised at regular intervals throughout the manuscript (e.g. fols 67b, 69b, 132a, 259a) and praised (inaccurately) for his descent from Alp Arslan (fol. 67b) (as we shall see, owing to al-Anawī’s ancestors having settled in Ani in the wake of Alp Arslan’s conquest, that ruler may have seemed especially important to the author).

The surviving unique manuscript is most likely a close relative of this royal presentation copy. The script and decoration of the frontispiece (fols 1b-2a) suggest a date somewhere between 1250 and 1350, and are calligraphed and illuminated in a style one might associate with a royal library. they introduce the author as ‘sulṭān al-kalām wa-mafkhar al-aqlām, afḍal al-hukamāʾ, nūr aʿyān al-ʿulamāʾ, malik al-muḥaqqiqīn … Burhān al-Milla wa’l-Ḥaqq wa’l-Dīn al-Qāḍī Abū Naṣr ibn Masʿūd al-Anawī, raḥmat Allāh ʿalayhi’. The concluding formula confirms that the author was dead when the manuscript was copied, but the distinguished titles he is given suggest he enjoyed an enduring reputation. Although the manuscript is elegantly written, the text contains numerous copying errors. the only indication of ownership is a waqf statement by the ottoman sultan Mahmud from the nineteenth century (fol. 1a).

thus this was no mass circulation madrasa text. the work was dedicated to a royal patron, its author was rewarded with a state appointment as qadi, and it enjoyed the kind of limited circulation we typically associate with court literary texts. Al-Anawī states (fol. 5b) that he drew on three classics of the qiṣaṣ al-anbiyāʾ (lit. stories of prophets) genre by al-Ṭabarī (d. 310/922, author of the famous arabic Taʾrīkh al-Rusul wa’l-Mulūk, ‘History of Prophets and Kings’), al-Thaʿlabī (d. 429/1038, known for his ʿArāʾis al-Majālis fī Qiṣaṣ al-Anbiyāʾ) and al-Kisāʾī (d. c.500/1100, author of a well-known work entitled simply Qiṣaṣ al-Anbiyāʾ). These are certainly the most famous representatives of the genre of qiṣaṣ al-anbiyāʾ, and

8 For his date of birth, as will be discussed below, al-Anawī tells us on fol. 4b of the MS he was 24 years old in 562/1166–7, which gives us approximately this date of birth.

9 See further below, note 12.


© 2015



w.as

hgat

e.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m


were widely imitated and translated into Persian and Turkish. Yet al-Anawī’s work differs from the other such works by virtue of being in verse, written as it is in the epic mutaqārib metre, most famously used in Persian for the Shāh-nāma, but also popular from the twelfth century for didactic works such as the poems of Sanāʾī and ʿAṭṭār. We will have cause to return to this peculiarity of the Anīs al-Qulūb in the conclusion, but for now it is worth noting simply that al-Anawī is distinctly defensive about the form chosen for his work. he states that, before starting the Anīs al-Qulūb, he consulted with the religious leaders (imāmān u pīrān-i ān ruzgār/ kih budand dar dīn ṣudūr-i kubār), and repeatedly insists that his purpose is not frivolous, but to present these stories of prophets in an attractive form (bi-kiswat-i laṭīf; fols 4a, 176a). He also says that only the tales of the greatest prophets had been gathered in one place, many having been scattered apart, but his aim was to collect them all together (fol. 155a).

as for the reasons why a royal patron might have been interested in the theme of the Anīs al-Qulūb, no specific reason is given beyond the general statement that it will serve as his guide (rahbar) (e.g. fol. 254b). Indeed, al-Anawī remarks that it took him 46 years to complete the work, which he had begun in 562/1166–67 at the age of 24 (fol. 4b), which suggests that the work existed in some draft for long before it was dedicated to the sultan. However, at times al-Anawī specifically links his royal patron with earlier prophets or sacred figures. Sultan ʿIzz al-Dīn Kaykāʾūs’s appearance is like ʿAlī’s son (andar ṣifat pūr-i Bū Ṭālib-ast, fol. 196a), his behaviour (sīrat) is like that of Muḥammad (Aḥmad). A broader reason for Seljuq interest in Isrāʾīliyyāt (stories of the prophets of ancient Israel) may have been their own ancestry: the anatolian branch of the family were descended from Qutlumush ibn Arslan Isrāʾīl ibn Seljuq, and Ibn Bībī alludes to this Turkish ‘Israelite’ heritage.10 the Banu Israʾil could thus be linked to Seljuq rulers in more ways than one. at any rate, each daftar commences and ends with lavish praise of sultan ʿIzz al-Dīn Kaykāʾūs I, and al-Anawī boast that his verse will spread the fame of the sultan as far as Khwarazm (fol. 69a).

the Anīs al-Qulūb is divided into seven books (daftar), the contents of which may be summarised as follows:

Daftar 1 (fols 2b–67b): Introduction, story of Adam, Adam and Eve, Cane and Abel, Seth, Idrīs, Noah, Hūd, Ṣāliḥ, Nimrod, Abraham, Ismail, Abraham and Ismail, Building of the kaʿaba, lot, death of abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Joseph and Zulaykha, Joseph’s Brothers, Joibn.

Daftar 2 (fols 68b–132a): Pharoah, Shuʿayb, Moses, the Israelites’ worship of the Golden Calf, Qārūn, Moses and Khiḍr, Samuel, Saul and David.

Daftar 3 (fols 138a–195a): Solomon, Bilqīs and Solomon, Ilyās (Elijah), Ilyasuʿ, Dhū’l-Kifl (sometimes identified with Ezekiel), Jonah, Jerusalem and the Prophets, rehoboam, shayʿa [Isaiah], Nebuchanezzar, Daniel, Armiya, ʿUzayr (Ezra?).

10 Ibn Bībī, al-Awāmir al-‘Alā’iyya fī’l-Umūr al-‘Alā’iyya, prep. Adnan Erzi (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1956), 3.





w.as

hgat

e.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m


Daftar 4 (fols 195b– 258a): Luqmān, Buluqiya, Dhū’l-Qarnayn, Zachariah, John and Jesus.

Daftar 5 (259b–320a): Aṣḥāb al-Kahf (Seven Sleepers), Jirjis (St George), samson, Aṣḥāb al-Ukhḍūd and Aṣḥāb al-Fīl (both stories of Yemen on the eve of Muhammad’s birth); the Prophet Muḥammad.

Daftar 6 (fols 320b–382a): ʿumar; the miʿrāj of the Prophet; the Prophet’s 37 Miracles (muʿjizāt), his battles (ghazawāt), the Battle of Badr.

Daftar 7 (fols 383b–428a): The Prophet’s battles (ghazawāt); the Caliphates of Abū Bakr, ʿumar, ʿUthmān, ʿAlī, Ḥasan, Muʿāwiya, Yazīd and the killing of Ḥusayn; the rebellion of ʿAbdallāh ibn al-Zubayr; the Umayyad and ʿAbbasid Caliphs up to al-Nāṣir li-Dīn Allāh. The accounts of the later ʿAbbasid Caliphs are in fact dominated by the deeds of the Seljuqs, and Alp Arslan’s conquest of the author’s home town of Ani is recounted at length. None the less, the ‘historical’ section contains little in the way of new factual information unattested in other sources.

The intermingling of Israelite and Arab prophets like Hūd was common in qiṣaṣ al-anbiyāʾ; less usual, however, is the addition of a specifically historical section such as we find in Daftar 7; even al-Ṭabarī, the main author to attempt to intermesh stories of prophets with those of secular rulers, is fairly sketchy about events of his own day. Generally, qiṣaṣ al-anbiyāʾ went no further than ‘the seal of the Prophets’, Muḥammad. At the same time, the Anīs al-Qulūb offers no attempt to integrate Prophetic history with the Iranian past, as we find in al-Ṭabarī. Al-Anawī’s focus until Daftar 7 remains firmly on the Isrāʾīliyyāt, and the career of Muḥammad.

the other unusual feature is the information author provides about himself and his background, of which extracts in the original and translation may be found in the appendix to this chapter. although autobiographical notices sometime found their way into literary works and even histories, they are not typical of the qiṣaṣ al-anbiyāʾ genre; however, few works of qiṣaṣ al-anbiyāʾ were destined quite so explicitly for a royal dedicatee. In common with literary works the autobiographical sections are doubtless intended to explain the circumstances of the work’s composition and to strengthen the author’s claim to a reward from his would-be patron. at the same time the remarkable detail al-Anawī gives in his introduction regarding his ancestry, his education and even the circumstances of his birth (for the full text and translation, see Appendix) provides an unparalleled muslim description of what it was like to grow up in a Christian majority town, in striking contrast to the almost total absence of Christians from so much Muslim Anatolian literature. Al-Anawī tells us he was born in the city of ani in armenia from which his nisba derives, to a kurdish mother and a Turkish father who was a commander in the Seljuq army. Right from the start we get an impression of an author who is not overfond of his Christian compatriots (fol. 3b):

Know who I am and why I say this, and why I have suffered so much.If you have heard, in armenia there are two towns near to one another,


© 2015



w.as

hgat

e.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m


the name of one is kars, the other ani, that is how they are known by people.But ani is a great region where unbelievers are very strong and powerful.Before Islam was revealed, they had built its foundations over unbelief.The kings in the Armenian nation that were world-conquering through their devilry,[l. 10] Had their place and base there, and raised their heads to the heavens [in pride].That people of infidel speech built one thousand and one churches there.In a town where there were so many churches, see how great was the prosperity of unbelief!

Al-Anawī recounts how after Alp Arslan’s conquest of the city in 1064, Muslims had started to settle in ani, among them his ancestors. his father was a turk, his mother a kurd. he then goes on to describe in detail the circumstances of his birth and upbringing. despite his hostility to kufr so vividly expressed a few lines before, al-Anawī tells us that during his youth he studied both the Old and new testaments and learned to read and write the language of other religious groups, which he terms millat:

I made a start on the torah and Gospels, I knew them back to front [bidānastam ān-rā az aṣl u furūʿ].By good fortune I learned both the writing and tongue of each millat.

this presumably means armenian, Persian and, as we shall see, perhaps Georgian. Al-Anawī goes on to describe how when he had reached the age of 18, Ani was struck by disaster in the form of a Georgian invasion. this must refer to the sack of the city in 1161, and al-Anawī recounts how he was led off into captivity in Georgia. Due to his knowledge of the New Testament and the Christians’ ways, he was able to engineer an escape:

the evil king entered the city, accompanied by such a great and ill-disposed army.They seized and killed and carried off, and many men died by the sword and dagger,Muslim men and women, both old and young, were seized and carried off as prisonersmy family and I fell, weak and moaning, fell into the hands of the Georgians,Because I knew the script of the gospels [khaṭṭ-i injīl], I could talk very well like them.this knowledge of mine became the cause of my escaping from the claws of these dragon-like infidels.I ended up far from that land, one day I appeared in the region of Rūm.

As a result of a dream, al-Anawī started his studies of shariʿa and ḥadīth, returning to Armenia to pursue them (where, exactly, he does not say). He subsequently became a wāʿiẓ or preacher, and went to Tabriz (fol. 4a), where he encountered a learned man who persuaded him that composing a work in verse on the prophets





w.as

hgat

e.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m


would both win him fame in this world and save him from hell in the next. It was this that inspired him to compose the Anīs al-Qulūb.

It is not until the end of the work, the conclusion of Daftar 7, that al-Anawī gives us further information about his career. When he was around 50 years old, al-Anawī was in the service of Sayf al-Dīn Beg Tīmūr, Turkmen ruler of the shah-i arman dynasty of ahlat, for whom he acted as ambassador to Baghdad in 588–85/1188–89. Al-Anawī tells us that he returned from his audience with the Caliph al-Nāṣir li-Dīn Allāh with a manshūr and sanjaq, a letter of investiture and a standard, as well as gifts, signifying the caliph’s official recognition of Sayf al-Dīn.11

There appear to be no references to Burhān al-Dīn al-Anawī or his poem in any other literary works of the period (or indeed, any later period). We do, however, have one piece of information that gives us a clue both as to his subsequent career and to the reception of his work. He is named as qadi of malatya on the waqf document dated 619/1222 endowing the burial place of Sultan ʿIzz al-Dīn Kaykāʾūs, the dār al-shifāʾ in sivas. Part of the endowment consisted of villages around Malatya, the boundaries of which were verified by al-Anawī as the local qadi.12 His appointment as qadi of the important town of malatya suggests that he was regarded with favour by the sultan, as do the elaborate titles he is given in the waqf document: al-qāḍī al-imām al-ʿālim al-ʿāmil Burhān al-Dīn sharaf al-islām, shams al-quḍāt wa’l-ḥukkām Abī Naṣr Masʿūd ibn Muẓaffar al-Anawī al-ḥākim bi-kūrat Malaṭiya.

The Polemic against the Armenians

Despite – or perhaps because of – his studies of the Gospel and his upbringing in the religiously and ethnically mixed city of Ani, al-Anawī expresses a disdain for Christianity. among the prophets he discusses in his book is Jesus, recognised by Islam as a Prophet, and after a conventional Muslim account of Jesus’ life (fol. 221bff), al-Anawī examines the Christians of his own day. Greeks, Georgians and franks are dismissed in a couple of contemptuous verses, although nestorians get a more favourable write-up: ‘there are Christians in the world who are Nestorians. They are more honourable than the others’ (fol. 254b). Al-Anawī believed they were the closest in practices to muslims, maintaining, according to him, ritual washing and circumcision. this sort of more favourable view of Nestorians on the part of Muslims was quite common. Nestorian doctrine was widely considered rather closer to Islam in its emphasis on Christ’s humanity.13

11 See the sections edited by Koprülü, ‘Anadolu Selçukluları Tarihi’nin Yerli Kaynakları: I. Anîs al-ḳulûb’, 515–6.

12 Refet Yinanç, ‘Sivas Abideleri ve Vakıfları’, Vakıflar Dergisi 22 (1991): 15–44 at 28–9, 38.13 Irfan Shahid, ‘Islam and Oriens Christianus: Makka 610–623’, in The Encounter of Eastern

Christianity with Early Islam, ed. Emmanouela Grypeou, Mark Swanson and David Thomas (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 20–22; Benjamin Jokisch, Islamic Imperial Law: Harun al-Rashid’s Codification Project (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2007), 318–9; ‘Abd al-Jabbar, Critique, lxx; Gabriel said reynolds, A


© 2015



w.as

hgat

e.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m


In addition, Nestorians held a privileged position vis-à-vis other Christians in the Abbasid caliphate. It seems then that this comment is thus a reflection of a more general Islamic prejudice imported from Iraq or Syria rather than an expression of a specifically Anatolian Muslim attitude. Nor, of course, does it reflect the reality.

Al-Anawī’s wrath, however, is reserved for the Armenians, whom he describes as ‘the filthiest, most unclean and ill-fated of all the Christians (waʾz ān jumla hast Armanī sakhttar/palīd-and ū nā-pāk ū bad-bakhttar, fol. 254a). He then launches into a polemic against and exegesis of armenian beliefs that occupies both sides of more than three large folios, saying, ‘there is a reason why this people are drunk on their ignorance’. This long and intriguing passage has no obvious parallels in muslim literature.

According to al-Anawī, Armenian beliefs originated with a man called Ṭiyāṭūs (fol. 254a):

The Armenians are the worst of these, the filthiest, most unclean and ill-fatedthere is a reason why this people is drunk with ignorance.[It is] from their ancestors, who were wise, they were capable in knowledge.they played tricks, and two hundred such things which I have already related.there was among them a deceitful man, an enchanter, a magician,They called him Ṭiyāṭūs by name, he was a master of tricks and boldness.I have heard a rumour that even in the grave, they called him in wisdom.Through him the Armenian nation (millat-i Armanī) everywhere appeared, and added trouble to trouble.He looked on the affairs of the world, he saw secretly what was going on,that the ordinary people were perplexed in their, they were engaged in vainaffairs as a result of their ignorancewhatever elders men said, people had no choice but to do.

Ṭiyāṭūs decided to put this ignorance to his own use. He thus disguised himself as a an ascetic, binding himself in iron and dispensing with clothes, and taking refuge on a mountain top near rayy in Iran. having gained a reputation for

Muslim Theologian in the Sectarian Milieu: ‘Abd al-Jabbar and the Critique of Christian Origins (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 203–6.

پلیدند و ناپاک و بدبخت ترکزین گونه هستند در جهل مست

که در راه دانش توانا بدندازان گونه که گفتم دو صد کار

فسون آور و رنگ و نیرنگ بازبجلدی و حیلة گری بد تمام

بخواندندی اورا ز راه تمیزازو گشت وافزود در کار کار

همی دید احوالها از نهانز نادانی و جهل در کار خامکسی را نبودی گزیری بران

وز آن جمله هست ارمنی سخت ترمر آن قومرا هم سبب نیز هست

ز پیشینیان انک دانا بدندکه کردند نیرنگها آشکار

یکی بود اندر میان چاره سازطیاطوس خواندند اورا بنامشنیدم بقولی که در گور نیز

کجا ملت ارمنی آشکارنگه کرد بر کارهای جهان

که سرگشته بودند در کار عامهمی هرچ گفتندی آن مهتران





w.as

hgat

e.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m


asceticism (zuhd), Ṭiyāṭūs now set off for Rūm, for the city of Caesarea (Kayseri). Here he teamed up with another ‘doctor’ (ḥakīm) from his own land who was ‘his accomplice’ (hamkār-i ū). Daubing his face with an indelible paint to forge a wound on it, Ṭiyāṭūs pretends to collapse unconscious on the road outside the town; his body having been brought into the city on the king’s orders, his accomplice persuades the Caesareans that their city will become famous by holding his tomb. On the seventh day, however, Ṭiyāṭūs, rises (fol. 254b end). The entire people of the city welcome their new saint; Ṭiyāṭūs then begins to tell the tale of his vision he experienced when a hermit living in a zāwiya. Jesus appeared to him and charged him with bringing a message to the city dwellers. Ṭiyāṭūs, however, protests that they will never believe him – ‘they will want a sign and proof from me’ (fol. 255b top). Jesus then puts this indelible scar on Ṭiyāṭūs’ face to act as proof. the people rush to touch it, proclaiming ‘this is a sign left by Jesus’ hand!’ Ṭiyāṭūs then starts to reveal Jesus’ message to the people. Initially he just urges them to penitence; but after a year he starts to reveal a more radical message, revealed to him by an angel. he tells the people:

[Christ said] ‘Dear servants! You all know with your minds and discernmentThat I am your true God, and I was your God from the first.I came into the world for a few years, and liberated departed souls from their fetters.then I returned to the heavens. I am exactly in the same form that I was.all of you recognise me as God, I am your pure creator … [l. 20] I have chosen you by my unlimited mercy out of all of the people of creationI sent my servant to you with good tidings to give you news of fear and hope … I have forgiven your sins, I have mended your torn deeds.you have a sign of my good will, three favours [lit. khalʿat, cloaks] I have sent down from the heavens.Now I have removed three things that hurt you.’

These three consist of (fols 256b–257a): the abolition of circumcision; the abolition of ritual ablutions; and the abolition of restrictions on fasting, allowing the consumption of bread and fruits. Al-Anawī goes on to comment (fol. 257a):

The Christians and people of different millats endeavoured to be virtuous[l. 10] They did not accept these three innovations [bidʿat], which they considered to be fraud, hypocrisy and impertinence.Those others who were lazy and impure were pleased by hearing this type of legal opinion [fatwā].

In other words, it was only the armenians who were convinced by the swindler. Ṭiyāṭūs continued his activities in Caesarea, subsequently introducing further divinely inspired rules. he introduced baptism and made eating pork licit. later, he introduced a third set of innovations, insisting on the compulsory


© 2015



w.as

hgat

e.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m


confession of sins to a priest and that the eucharist must be given to the dying. Al-Anawī comments:

In this way this man of tricks [mard-i ḥīlat-namāy] played a hundred tricks and lies.and whatever he said in the world, the armenians accepted it as if it was very valuable,Because armenians are the worst of all, completely lacking in discernment and rough.

When Ṭiyāṭūs died the kings of the world competed for possession of his bones. one hand was buried in castle on the borders of syria called qalʿa-yi Khurram ‘the castle of Felicity’, where:

there is an arrogant and presumptuous priest there who is the khalīfa in the armenian millat, he keeps that hand next to himself, from which he gains a great status.[l. 30] Armenians in both east and west are all subordinate to this handthey come to him from all over the world, in search of reverence and honourfor in every country he has appoints a deputy to be the leader thereGood and evil, unbelief, and what is licit and illicit [ḥalāl u ḥarām] they know completely from him.

Al-Anawī then concludes by apologising for his long digression, but says that he was obliged to introduce it due to the falsehoods these people said about Jesus.

The Possible Sources for and Influences on al-Anawī’s Anti-Armenian Polemic

The account of Ṭiyāṭūs is evidently intended more broadly to discredit Armenians in the eyes of the reader, and, perhaps most importantly, the sultan. Al-Anawī distinguishes between the armenians and other Christians above all on the basis of what he claims to be the distinctive features of armenian Christianity. Despite the polemical nature of the passage, it is clear that al-Anawī does draw on a corpus of armenian material, whether transmitted to him orally or through written sources. Indeed, the reference in his autobiography to ani as the town of a ‘thousand and one churches’, suggests this reliance on Armenian material: the same term is used by the armenian chronicler matthew of edessa,14 but not, as far as we know, by any muslim sources.

The story of Ṭiyāṭūs seems to be broadly inspired in its outline by the traditional armenian account of the conversion of armenia to Christianity in

14 Armenia and the Crusades, Tenth to Twelfth Centuries: The Chronicle of Matthew of Edessa, trans. Ara Dostourian (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1993), 102.





w.as

hgat

e.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m


the early fourth century by st Gregory the Illuminator.15 the relic of the hand in the qalʿa-yi Khurram must be connected with st Gregory, for by the twelfth century the legend that Gregory’s hand was buried at Hromgla (Rum Kale) in south-eastern anatolia started to circulate. such armenian legends attributed Gregory’s hand with miraculous powers,16 just as in al-Anawī’s text. Khurram looks like an attempt to transliterate Hromgla, although the place’s normal medieval Muslim name is Qalʿat al-Rūm. The khalīfa of the armenian millat who guards the hand must be meant to be the armenian Patriarch who was based at hromgla in the period. the reference to competition between kings over the relics perhaps alludes to the fact that Gregory’s relics, highly prized for the sanctity with which they could endow a holy place, were themselves dispersed, parts being seized and taken to Constantinople in the seventh and eighth centuries, and by tradition some being taken to Italy, where they were kept in the Church of san Gregorio armeno in naples. the right hand was found in Cilicia, where it was being venerated by the early twelfth century.17

Further specific details of the legend also point to a connection to St Gregory. st Gregory is closely associated in armenian tradition with Caesarea, which was both his home town and the city in which he was probably consecrated. Gregory was also linked to king trdat, the armenian king whom he converted to Christianity, as is mirrored in the several allusions in our text to the king who is also convinced by Ṭiyāṭūs. Ṭiyāṭūs’ career of preaching and teaching reflects that of st Gregory himself, while his insistence on the introduction of baptism (fol. 256a), also reflects Gregory’s fame for baptising King Trdat and his court reflected in his epithet of ‘Illuminator’. The reference to Ṭiyāṭūs living out his days in a zāwiya may relate to legends that Gregory spent his final years as a hermit on Mt Sepuh near Erzincan.

How, however, can we explain the distortion of Gregory into Ṭiyāṭūs? The word might represent a transliteration of the Greek θεατής (viewer, contemplator), which in turn might refer to the Greek etymology of Gregory’s name γρηγόριος (wakeful, watchful), alluding to Gregory’s witnessing of visions of Christ.18 Ṭiyāṭūs may also mask elements of a different account of Armenia’s conversion, the word representing an attempt to transcribe into Persian the name of thaddeus who is said to have brought Christianity to Armenia in Pawstos Buzand’s Epic Histories.19

15 I am especially grateful to Peter Cowe for discussing with me the allusions to the career of st Gregory, which has informed the following analysis. for the classic armenian account of St Gregory’s life see The Lives of Saint Gregory: The Armenian, Greek, Arabic, and Syriac Versions of the History Attributed to Agathangelos, trans. robert w. thomson with introduction and commentary (Ann Arbor, MI: Caravan Books, 2010).

16 M. van Esbroeck, ‘Temoignages littéraires sur les sépultures de S. Gregoire l’Illuminateur’, Analecta Bollandiana 89, nos 3/4 (1971): 387–418.

17 On the relics of St Gregory see Dickran Kouymjian ‘The Right Hand of St Gregory and Other Armenian Arm Relics’, in Les objets de la mémoire. Pour une approche comparatiste des reliques et de leur culte, ed. Philippe Borgeaud and Youri Volokhine (Geneva: Peter Lang, 2005), 215–40.

18 I am very grateful to Peter Cowe for these points.19 The Epic Histories Attributed to P‘awstos Buzand, trans. Nina Garsoian (Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press, 1989).


© 2015



w.as

hgat

e.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m


Thaddeus, variously identified by Armenian tradition as one of the 12 apostles or one of Jesus’ 70 disciples, remained a crucially important figure, for it was on the basis of his death in armenia, along with that of st Bartholomew, that the Armenians justified their claim to having an independent, autocephalous church.20 as we shall see, this claim was especially important to armenians in the late twelfth to early thirteenth century.

these armenian legends, in their doubtless deliberately distorted forms, are accompanied by numerous Islamic elements. Although Ṭiyāṭūs’ cell is on one occasion described as a ṣawmaʿa, a word we would usually find in a Christian context, it is more usually called a zāwiya, a Muslim, especially Sufi term. Ṭiyāṭūs spends his time preparing to be a hermit in rayy, and at one point he claims to the people to have received his first revelation from Jesus in Bakka, an archaic variant of Mecca. The association of Ṭiyāṭūs with Rayy is intriguing, for an armenian anti-muslim tract entitled ‘history of the Birth and upbringing of the anti-Christ Mahamad and His Reign’ claimed that Muhammad was born in rayy. the date of this text is uncertain, with the earliest manuscript from the sixteenth century, but it may be that al-Anawī’s polemic intended to refute and subvert this story by associating Rayy with Ṭiyāṭūs, the arch-deceiver of the armenians.21 If so, this would be a further indication of the armenian sources underlying the work.

the polemical elements in the story, however, doubtless draw on non-armenian sources (either written, or more likely, oral). There was a rich tradition of anti-armenian polemic among the Christian communities of anatolia, and syriac, Greek and Georgian polemics are known.22 The closest parallels to al-Anawī’s account of Ṭiyāṭūs are in Georgian anti-Armenian polemics, for a well-documented hostility existed between the Chalcedonian Georgian and non-Chalcedonian armenian Churches.23 The Georgian church council convoked by David the Builder in 1103 had condemned the armenians as heretics who should be baptised on conversion just like ‘pagans’ (i.e. Muslims).24 Georgian sources also discuss a certain Peter, a discredited bishop who they claim invented his own religion which was well received in armenia.25 Peter has obvious affinities with Ṭiyāṭūs, although there are also significant discrepancies: in the fullest version of the Peter legend (fourteenth century), Peter is accompanied by a dog, and eventually is killed, both elements

20 zaroui Pogossian, The Letter of Love and Concord: A Revised Diplomatic Edition with Historical and Textual Comments and English Translation (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 97, 99, 102–3, 112–3.

21 robert w. thomson, ‘muhammad and the origin of Islam in armenian literary Tradition’, in Armenian Studies in Memoriam Haig Berberian, ed. Dickran Kouymjian (Lisbon: Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation, 1986), 829–58, esp. 856–7; reprinted in Robert W. Thomson, Studies in Armenian Literature and Christianity (Aldershot: Variorum, 1994).

22 for examples of some syriac anti-armenian polemics see Christopher macevitt, The Crusades and the Christian World of the East: Rough Tolerance (Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2008), 173–7.

23 Bernadette Martin-Hisard, ‘Le discours des Géorgiens sur leur orthodoxie: Les hérétiques arméniens et Pierre le Foulon’, Rivista di Studi Bizantini e Neoellenici 47 (2010): 195–264.

24 Ibid., 201–3.25 Ibid., 225–6.





w.as

hgat

e.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m


with no parallel in the Ṭiyāṭūs legend. Equally, there is no suggestion that Ṭiyāṭūs had been a bishop in al-Anawī, while Peter has no association with Rayy. While Ṭiyāṭūs may owe something to Peter, the connection is hardly clear-cut. Significantly, one of the versions of the story of Peter’s deceit of the Armenians was written by the Patriarch of mtskheta, arsenes. the latter was originally from Samts‛khe, the region slightly to the west of Ani, and his text has been dated by its most recent editor to the late eleventh-early twelfth centuries.26 at the very least, this implies that Georgian legends recording the Armenians’ adherence to this false priest were circulating near the area where al-Anawī lived shortly before his birth. A different tradition, recorded by Arsenes of Iqalto around the same date, has the initiator of the Armenians’ heresy as a certain Sergius.27 evidently there was a surfeit of candidates for chief heretic of the armenians. the polemic was joined in the late twelfth century by the Armenian author Mkhitar Gosh (c.1140–1213), best known for his law code, who lived in the Mkhargrdzeli domains which comprised Ani and its surroundings. Writing around 1200 Mkhitar Gosh composed a letter to the Georgians defending armenian ecclesiastical traditions, including armenian fasting and eucharistic preparations28 – some of the elements also singled out by al-Anawī (fols 255b–256a). The Armenian historian Kirakos Gandzaketsi records that the Mkhargrdzelis’ Georgian soldiers insulted their Armenian colleagues over the differences in liturgical practices.29 In other words, these polemics existed on a popular level; they were not simply the product of some ecclesiastic milieu, but were circulated among soldiers. thus it is entirely possible that al-Anawī encountered these anti-Armenian polemics in some form during his Georgian captivity.

However, for an audience in the Seljuq lands in the early thirteenth century, there was also a more immediate historical context to which a legend involving a ‘Ṭiyāṭūs’ might be related. In about 1203 the Armenian bishop Anania of sebasteia/sivas, failing to win support for his bid to become armenian Patriarch based in hromgla, had anyway declared himself to be catholicos with the support of the Seljuq Sultan Rukn al-Dīn Sulaymānshāh. The ‘anti-catholicos’ anania made Caesarea/kayseri his base, where armenian sources suggest he was warmly received by the populace. during his stay in Caesarea, a young man named theodorus, an armenian Christian who had been forced to become a muslim to escape from a debt he was unable to pay, was martyred for apostasy from Islam. As a miraculous divine light descended on Theodorus’ body, the sultan, alarmed at the prospect of a new martyr, ordered anania to have the corpse buried.30 Ṭiyāṭūs represents a credible transliteration for Theodorus. In

26 Ibid., 236–7.27 Ibid., 251–3.28 Pogossian, Letter of Love and Concord, 37–9.29 sergio la Porta, ‘re-constructing armenia: strategies of Co-existence amongst

Christians and Muslims in the Thirteenth Century’, in Negotiating Co-Existence: Communities, Cultures and Convivencia in Byzantine Society, ed. Barbara Crostini and Sergio La Porta (Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier, 2013), 269–70.

30 See on these events, H. Berbérian, ‘Le patriarcat arménien du sultanat de Roum: L’anti-Catholicos Anania’, Revue des études arméniennes NS 3 (1966): 233–43, esp. 235–6; also Peter


© 2015



w.as

hgat

e.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m


this case, al-Anawī’s account might on one level represent an attempt to defuse the story of this evidently embarrassing martyrdom by representing theodorus as a fraud and his followers in Caesarea as gullible dupes.

Al-Anawī’s text can thus be understood on three levels: as a distorted reflection of Armenian tales of St Gregory the Illuminator, and possibly St thaddeus; as indebted to polemics such as the Georgian ones current in ani in the period which represented armenians as heretics and dupes; and as a response to the recent martyrdom of Theodorus in Caesarea. In a sense Ṭiyāṭūs may be intended to be a sort of composite of all these figures. However, there was also a broader historical context of Armenian–Seljuq political tensions against which the text must be read, to which we will now turn.

The Historical Context

The detail and length of al-Anawī’s anti-Armenian polemic suggests that this was not merely a personal prejudice. The author must have had good reason to emphasise his hostility to the armenians to the sultan. one reason, of course, given Anawī’s origins, his confessed knowledge of Christian scripture, and his period in Georgian captivity is that there may have been some doubt about his commitment to Islam. renegades from Islam to Christianity were not unknown, even if they hardly seem to have been common.31 yet while these factors may have contributed to elements of the polemic, the fact that it is specifically anti-Armenian rather than generally anti-Christian suggests the question does not admit such a simple resolution.

Why would an anti-Armenian polemic have appealed to Sultan ʿIzz al-Dīn Kaykāʾūs? The Anatolian Seljuqs at this date had little involvement in al-Anawī’s homeland. Their main adversaries in north-east Anatolia had been the Georgians, who had defeated Sultan Rukn al-Dīn Sulaymānshāh at the Battle of Basiani (Basean) in 1201. Ani itself was under the control of the Armeno-Georgian family of the Mkhargrdzelis, who held their lands from the Georgian crown.32 However, the Seljuq sultanate of Rūm did not have a direct border with the Mkhargrdzelis, for Erzurum, the easternmost major Muslim-controlled outpost, was ruled by a cadet branch of the Seljuq family under Mughīth al-Dīn Ṭughrilshāh, whose relations with his Konya relatives were cool. Further west, Erzincan and Divriği were under the control of the Muslim Mengüjekid dynasty.

Cowe, ‘The Armenian Community of Konia in the Seljuq Period’, in Armenian Communities of Asia Minor, ed. R. Hovannisian (Costa Mesa, CA: Mazda Press, forthcoming). The Armenian source for the martyrdom is discussed by Peter Cowe, ‘The Martyrology of T‘eodoros Kesarac‘i’, in Christian–Muslim Relations: a Bibliographical History, ed. David R. Thomas, vol. 4 (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 99–103.

31 David Cook, ‘Apostasy from Islam: A Historical Perspective’, Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 31 (2006): 248–88.

32 On the Mkhargrdzelis see Sergio La Porta, ‘“The Kingdom and the Sultanate were Conjoined”: Legitimizing Land and Power in Armenia during the 12th and Early 13th Centuries’, Revue des études arméniennes 34 (2012): 73–118.





w.as

hgat

e.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m


In short, after Rukn al-Dīn Sulaymānshāh’s death in 1204, the Seljuqs showed no interest in expansion in the region until ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn Kayqubād’s annexation of the Mengüjekid lands in 1228 and Erzurum in 1230.33

In the south-east, however, in Cilicia, there existed an armenian state which at the beginning of the thirteenth century represented a very substantial concern to the Seljuqs of Rūm. Tensions had developed over the second half of the twelfth century, as the Seljuq sultanate expanded, and the Turkmen increasingly encroached on Cilicia.34 An alliance between the Seljuqs and the ayyubids aimed to prevent Cilician attempts to threaten antioch. levon (Baron, r. as king 1198–1219), the first monarch of the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia, had expanded at the Seljuqs’ expense in the late twelfth and early thirteenth century, seizing numerous fortresses. He rebuffed a Seljuq attack in 1201, but the subsequent truce was broken by a joint Seljuq-Ayyubid attack on Levon’s territories in 1208–09.35 Levon’s response was to enlist the aid of the neighbouring Crusader military orders, the teutonic knights and especially the Hospitallers, on whom in 1210 he bestowed lands on his western frontier – including the Seljuq-controlled town of Larende (Karaman). By granting lands he did not actually control he aimed to encourage the Crusaders to expand at the expense of his Seljuq enemies. It seems that between 1210 and 1216 Karaman and surrounding lands actually came under hospitaller control.36

Thus just as the Anīs al-Qulūb was being dedicated to the new Sultan ʿIzz al-Dīn, the Seljuqs faced a crisis of growing Armenian encroachment on territories that lay in fairly close proximity to their capital of konya. this armenian expansion was facilitated by collaboration between armenians and Crusaders, an alliance which was itself encouraged by the growing rapprochement between the Armenian Church in Cilicia and the Church of Rome, although these efforts towards union were met with considerable suspicion by armenian monks in Greater armenia.37 Especially significant for our understanding of Anawī’s text is the literary context in which these ecclesiastical and political relationships

33 A.C.S. Peacock, ‘Georgia and the Anatolian Turks in the 12th and 13th Centuries’, Anatolian Studies 56 (2006): 127–46, esp. 133–8.

34 vahan ter-Ghevondyan, L’Arménie cilicienne et les pays arabes du Proche-Orient (Erevan: Editions de l’Université d’Erevan, 2005), 65, 74–6, 99.

35 For these events see ibid., 84, 97–9, and Sara Nur Yıldız, ‘Reconceptualizing the Seljuq-Cilician Frontier: Armenians, Latins and Turks in Conflict and Alliance during the Early Thirteenth Century’, in Borders, Barriers and Ethnogenesis: Frontiers in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages, ed. Flora Curtin (Turnhout: Brepols, 2005), 91–120, esp. 94–101. For a survey of Cilicia in the period see Pogossian, Letter of Love and Concord, 7–22, with references to the earlier literature.

36 See Marie-Anna Chevalier, ‘L’ordre de l’Hôpital en Arménie cilicienne du debut du XIIe siècle à la fin du regne de Het‘oum Ier: Aspects generaux de la question’, in L’Église arménienne entre Grecs et Latins fin XIe – milieu XVe siècle, ed. Isabelle Augé and Gerard Dédéyan (Paris: Geuthner, 2009), 79–106, esp. 91–2.

37 For an overview of these efforts see Pogossian, Letter of Love and Concord, 22–44; on the opposition in Greater armenia see ibid., 33, n. 98; also Peter Cowe, ‘the armenians in the era of the Crusades (1050–1350)’, in The Cambridge History of Christianity, vol. 5: Eastern Christianity, ed. M. Angold (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 404–29.


© 2015



w.as

hgat

e.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m


were developed. the legend of st Gregory and trdat played an important part in the Cilician Kingdom’s efforts to portray itself as an equal partner to Rome. The Letter of Love and Concord, an armenian text composed between approximately 1190 and 1204,38 relates the alleged fourth-century visit of st Gregory and trdat to rome, where, it claims, Gregory was ordained Patriarch and trdat was granted his kingdom by Constantine.39 the text thus underlines the longevity of the Roman–Armenian alliance, and emphasises to an Armenian audience the benefits that could accrue from tying themselves to Rome, despite the loss of ecclesiastical autocephaly – namely the elevation of Levon’s principality to the status of a kingdom, and the potential recognition of the armenian catholicos as Patriarch of antioch.40 similar concerns prompted the composition of several other texts dealing with st Gregory and trdat in late twelfth-/early thirteenth-century Cilicia. meanwhile, armenian sources both implicitly and explicitly identify king levon with trdat.41 the Letter of Love and Concord stressed how Constantine had granted trdat rule over vast territories in the east. many of these are very general, ‘Africa and Egypt’, ‘Palestine and Arabia’, but considerably more detail is given about anatolia. as well as Cilicia, Phrygia, Pamphylia, Cappadocia, Bithynia, Galatia and Pontus are all named as territories granted by Constantine to trdat.42 A document issued by the Cilician court in 1212 went even further, depicting levon as the universal protector of Christians, the king who would bring about a final victory over Islam and recapture Jerusalem.43

In other words, the legend of Gregory and trdat provided a powerful justification for Levon’s encroachment on Seljuq territories. In addition to these broader geopolitical factors, however, ʿIzz al-Dīn Kaykāʾūs would have had his own personal reasons for feeling ill-disposed towards levon. his accession after Ghiyāth al-Dīn’s death had been opposed by his brother ‘Alā’ al-Dīn Kayqubād (the future sultan, r. 1219–37).44 ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn had been supported by, among others, Levon, to whom he had promised Kayseri (Qayṣariyya-rā bidū nāmzad kard) where he was besieging ‘Izz al-Dīn. The governor of Kayseri, Jalāl al-Dīn Qayṣar, doubtless fearing for his own future, was, however, able to negotiate with levon, offering him the vast sum of 12,000 dinars as naʿlbahā (protection money) and promising him more when ʿIzz al-Dīn gained power. Levon agreed to raise the siege in return for further assurances:

38 Pogossian, Letter of Love and Concord, 119–25. 39 Ibid., 95, 345, 387–97.40 Cowe, ‘The Armenians in the Era of the Crusades’, 416. For another interpretation see

Pogossian, Letter of Love and Concord, 125.41 on the other texts, see Pogossian, Letter of Love and Concord, 48–9; on the association of

Levon with Trdat by contemporary Armenian authors see ibid., 19–20, 70–71.42 Ibid., 347–9.43 Sergio La Porta, ‘Conflicted Coexistence: Christian–Muslim Interaction and its

Representation in Medieval Armenia’, in Contextualizing the Muslim Other in Medieval Christian Discourse, ed. Jerold C. Frakes (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2011), 113.

44 The events described below are recounted in Ibn Bībī, al-Awāmir al-‘Alā’iyya, 114–19.





w.as

hgat

e.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m


If Sultan ʿIzz al-Dīn, during his sultanate and rule, will not harm my [Levon’s] castles or lands, and his victorious armies will not enter my land for the purpose of conquest, and he fulfils what the emir Jalāl al-Dīn has promised [i.e. the further cash payment] and sends a treaty [ʿahdnāma] to this effect, then I will depart from this place to my kingdom.45

On receipt of the written treaty, Levon’s forces departed silently in the night, leaving their allies in the lurch. ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn’s attempt to seize the sultanate collapsed, and ʿIzz al-Dīn rewarded Jalāl al-Dīn Qayṣar with the senior office of parwāna. ʿIzz al-Dīn thus owed his throne to Levon; but he evidently chafed bitterly at the terms of the treaty. In 1216 – the year in which Levon finally achieved his dream of capturing Antioch – ʿIzz al-Dīn launched a major, but abortive, attack on the Cilician fortress of Gaban.46

Furthermore, the question of Roman–Armenian church union may well have impinged on Armenians in the Seljuq realm. One of the few bishops to support the proposal for church union that was brought to the Council of tarsus in 1197 was none other than anania, bishop of sebasteia, and soon to be the Seljuq-backed ‘anti-catholicos’.47 moreover, the centre of opposition to union with Rome came from the region around Ani, al-Anawī’s homeland. A treatise by st nerses of lampron, who worked tirelessly for unity and who translated several theological works from latin into armenian, defends the new latinising practices of Cilicia against their opponents from the monastery of tsoroyget near ani.48 among these practices which nerses singles out for defence are the liturgy, the eucharist and confession, all of which he claims are lacking among his tsoroyget opponents.49 Indeed, nerses attacks his armenian opponents ‘who regard the Turk as his brother’.50 Addressing the king, he describes the ‘Oriental’ way of life followed by Tsoroyget’s opponents of unity with Rome:

moreover the people of tsoroyget cause not only us to shun the latins but also you, and do not want us to adopt their customs, but [those of the] Persians, amongst whom they are themselves and they follow their habits. now we and the princes and this people of Armenia are one in faith; you of the flesh and us of the spirit. Just as you ordered us that we should be following in the footsteps of our forefathers, so, likewise you in yours. do not be bareheaded like

45 Ibid., 117.46 ter-Ghevondyan, L’Arménie cilicienne, 98–9; Yıldız, ‘Reconceptualizing the Seljuq-Cilician

Frontier’, 101–4.47 Berberian, ‘Le patriarcat armenien’, 234–5.48 St Nerses de Lampron, ‘Lettre addressée au roi Leon II’, in Recueil des Historiens des

Croisades: Documents arméniens (Paris: Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres, 1869), vol. 1, 579–603.

49 Ibid., 587–8; also ibid., 599–600. Further on the similarity of Latin and Armenian Eucharistic practices see St Nerses de Lampron, ‘Extraits de l’ouvrage intitule Reflexions sur les institutions de l’église et explication du mystère de la messe’, in Recueil des Historiens des Croisades: Documents arméniens, vol. 1, 572.

50 St Nerses de Lampron, ‘Lettre addressée au roi Leon II’, 588.


© 2015



w.as

hgat

e.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m


the princes and kings of the latins, which armenians say is a sign of madness but put on a sharp‘ush, as your ancestors. Grow hair and beards, as your fathers. wear a wide and thick duṙay [598] and not the mantle [p‘ilon] nor the long tunic [patmuchans] tied close together. Ride on horses saddled with chushan and not on horses without saddles and with latin lehl. Grant the honour of titles of amir and marzpan and spaysalar and similar ones; and not sir and prōk‘simos, gundustapl and maraǰaxt and jiavor and lech which is the fashion of the latins. you, exchange these latin costumes and titles for the costumes and titles of the Persians and armenians in accordance with your fathers, and embellish your royal court with the customs of the ancients and we shall agree with the people of tsoroyget and we shall exchange ours; we shall perform the sacrament with the sak‘ulay [large hood] and the vełar of two cubits. we shall roll up the silk clothing and we shall come before God in fur and a monkish habit; we shall wear sackcloth for the sacrament, as those ones want, and not linen, as [599] God commanded aharon to make, and his sons, the long linen tunics [patmuchans] extending to the feet, which these ones disparage in their ignorance. we shall be eaters of meat publically and fellow drinkers with the turks, something they themselves are and their chosen one, the Anets’i [the one from Ani].51

this passage, rich in sarcasm, suggests that for nerses, then, his anti-latin opponents are suspiciously closely allied to the turks in their customs and predilections. the intent is of course polemical; but for a polemic to hit home it has to be based on some form of fact. It is entirely credible that al-Anawī, with his knowledge of armenian and scripture, would have heard the complaints of traditionalist Armenians in the Ani region about the infiltration of Latin practices further south.

Conversely, Greek writers lumped together all armenians and franks. an attempted rapprochement between the Armenian and Byzantine churches had broken down in 1197,52 leading to disillusionment on both sides. Byzantine dislike of the Armenian Church is suggested by a Greek polemic written shortly after 1204 by Constantine Stilbes. The text is first and foremost a denunciation of Roman Christianity, doubtless inspired by the Fourth Crusade’s capture of Constantinople, but Stilbes frequently compares the Latins’ practices to those of the Armenians,53 and some of the topics of his polemic are reminiscent of al-Anawī’s. Constantine singles out the disgusting eating practices which the latins and the armenians hold in common – their love for pork fat and bacon – just as al-Anawī claims that Ṭiyāṭūs made ‘pig and boar’ licit. In both instances the reader is doubtless intended to be revolted. stilbes also highlights the similarity of armenian and roman communion and baptismal practices,54 suggesting, as al-Anawī’s text

51 Ibid., 597–9. I am very grateful to Tim Greenwood for providing this translation of the armenian text.

52 Pogossian, Letter of Love and Concord, 16–17, 123–4.53 Jean Darrouzès (ed. and trans.), ‘Le memoire de Consantin Stilbès contre les Latins’,

Revue des études byzantines 21 (1963): 50–100, esp. 59.54 Ibid., 79–80, 87–8.





w.as

hgat

e.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m


does, these were part of the common currency of polemical discourse in early thirteenth-century anatolia. stilbes even mentions the issue of communion for the dying to which al-Anawī refers, criticising the Romans for not using proper consecrated bread.55 The correct preparation of the Eucharist had been a major bone of contention in armenian ecumenical negotiations with both rome and Byzantium,56 and is an issue also singled out by mkhitar Gosh in his defence of armenian practices.57 Stilbes also denounces the Roman practice of offering absolution for sins,58 which seems to refer to the debates regarding confession.

The final revelation of Ṭiyāṭūs thus seems to refer to the spread of these latin practices. Indeed, it is possible that some such practices, perhaps precisely the personal confession and final communion referred to here, had recently been introduced into the Seljuq territories by the pro-Union anti-catholicos Anania. Given the precarious position the Seljuq sultanate found itself in vis-à-vis Cilician Armenia in 1211, al-Anawī’s message may have been intended not simply to disassociate ʿIzz al-Dīn from the Armenians to whom he owed his throne, but also to warn the sultan of the dangers of supporting any future pro-union claimants to the Catholicosate. the evidently embarrassing if obscure circumstances of the martyrdom of Theodorus under Anania’s Catholicosate provided a further reminder that this party was not to be trusted.

Conclusion

Al-Anawī’s text can thus be read on a variety of levels. In a sense it might be intended as a riposte to Levon’s expansionist ambitions and his encroachment on Seljuq territory. By discrediting the St Gregory–Trdat myth, it may have been intended to undermine the ideological basis for Cilician expansionism. Equally, these passages in the Anīs al-Qulūb may have been intended as warning to the author’s royal patron to abandon his alliance with Levon by stressing Armenian untrustworthiness, but it may also have been intended to dissociate not just its author but also his patron from whisperings at court that they were too close to the Armenians. To a contemporary audience, both Ṭiyāṭūs and the town of Caesarea may have had a variety of contemporary resonances. While Ṭiyāṭūs must have brought to mind st Gregory, st thaddeus and theodorus, Caesarea was not just the site of St Gregory’s mission, but also the base of Anania’s anti-Catholicosate, Theodorus’ martyrdom and ʿIzz al-Dīn’s victorious emergence as sultan thanks to Levon’s abandonment of his siege – but also the city which had very nearly ended up as part of Levon’s realm, had ʿIzz al-Dīn’s rival and brother ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn Kayqubād won the succession struggle, as payment for Levon’s services.

55 Ibid., 64.56 Pogossian, Letter of Love and Concord, 24–6.57 Ibid., 38.58 Darrouzes, ‘Le memoire’, 69.


© 2015



w.as

hgat

e.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m


It is easy to see how al-Anawī, with his background in the anti-Union armenian stronghold of ani, his captivity among the Georgians, his professed knowledge of the Christians’ languages and sacred texts, would have been in a position to write such a polemic, weaving together a variety of oral, legendary and contemporary sources and polemics. how many, though, of these resonances, can al-Anawī’s patron reasonably be expected to have understood? Clearly an anti-armenian polemic of would have been appropriate for the circumstances in which ʿIzz al-Dīn Kaykāʾūs found himself; but to what extent could the royal patron understand the allusions to these armenian legends of Christianisation, to the contemporary ambitions of Levon, and to the Roman influences in the armenian church? the length and detail of the narrative suggest it is far from being a casual interpolation by the author, and a work must have a meaning for the audience to which it destined. there would be little point in an elaborate denunciation of armenian beliefs drawing on these multiple strands of imagery if the audience were to be oblivious of them.

there were certainly avenues by which such the sultan might have been informed about Cilician and Armenian affairs. There was a significant Armenian community in Kayseri and Konya and plenty of Armenians in Seljuq service, and it has been suggested there was an Armenian-language section of the Seljuq chancery which was responsible for dealings with Cilician armenia.59 Ibn Bībī tells us that Jalāl al-Dīn Qayṣar, the governor of Kayseri, was able to negotiate with Leon because of ‘frequent correspondence and friendship with him’ (murāsalāt wa muṣādaqāt-i bisyār).60 A senior emir under ʿIzz al-Dīn, Ḥājib Asad al-Dawla Arslan ibn Smpat, seems to have been an Armenian judging by his name (he also called one of his sons by the typically armenian name smpat, suggesting he was no convert). Ḥājib Asad al-Dawla Arslan’s wealth and influence is suggested by the caravanserai, bridge and supporting waqf near sivas that he endowed in 610/1213.61 Through such channels, it seems that ʿIzz al-Dīn must have come to some appreciation of Levon’s claims – otherwise the polemic would simply not have made sense. If the waqf document mentioning al-Anawī’s role as qadi of the largely armenian town of malatya is anything to go by, this kind of polemical message met with sultanic approval, resulting in the author’s appointment to this important position.

59 Dimitri Korobeinikov, ‘A Greek Orthodox Armenian in the Seljuqid Service: The Colophon of Basil of Melitene’, in Mare et Littora: Essays Presented to Sergei Karpov for his 60th Birthday, ed. R.M. Shukurov (Moscow: Indrik, 2009), 709–24, esp. 722. In general on Armenians in Seljuq anatolia, see mehmet ersan, Selçuklular Zamanında Anadolu’da Ermeniler (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 2007), although the work largely presents a political history of relations between the Seljuq sultanate and Cilicia. See also Cowe, ‘Armenian Community in Konia’, and the chapter by Peter Cowe in this volume.

60 Ibn Bībī, al-Awāmir al-‘Alā’iyya, 116. 61 for his waqfiyya, see Refet Yinanç, ‘Sivas Abideleri ve Vakıfları (2)’, Vakıf Dergisi 23 (1994):

5–18. The editor identifies him as Georgian, but Smpat sounds more Armenian, as Osman Turan had previously noted: osman turan, Türk Cihan Hakimiyeti Mefkuresi (Istanbul: Turan Neşriyat Yurdu, 1969), vol. 2, 145.





w.as

hgat

e.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m


the Anīs al-Qulūb gives the lie to any cosy notion of convivencia: despite growing up among armenians, apparently knowing their language and reading the scriptures, interfaith harmony seems far from al-Anawī’s mind. The only Christians deemed acceptable are those who are basically muslims, according to his description, the nestorians, while the Christians he knows best, the armenians among whom he grew up, and with whom he must have had dealings in Tabriz and as servant of the Shah-i Arman of Ahlat, are denounced in vitriolic terms. Even if, as argued above, al-Anawī’s particular target is the pro-Union party of armenians, he does not make any distinction between these and their enemies, the traditionalist, allegedly pro-turkish party of tsoroyget. yet one must wonder if ultimate the whole idea of composing the Anīs al-Qulūb is inspired by Armenian precedents. Verse ‘tales of the prophets’ are extremely rare in Arabic and Persian; the only other versified qiṣaṣ al-anbiyāʾ mentioned by Storey in his survey of Persian literature comes from the very alien (and also in a sense only partially islamised) background of sixteenth-century India.62 In armenian, however, several verse epics on Biblical themes were composed. the earliest was Grigor Magistros’s Magnalia Dei, of the mid eleventh century, but the most famous, written shortly before al-Anawī’s work, was Nerses Shnorhali’s Jesus the Son; and a verse epic summarising the Bible was also compiled by the thirteenth-century Erzincan poet Kostadin Erznkats’i. The intent of these works was to rebut Muslim claims of the inimitability of the Qurʾan by showing the authors’ ability to put Christian tales into elegant verse.63 Although al-Anawī’s verse can hardly be called elegant, the most obvious precedents for the Anīs al-Qulūb are these (admittedly much shorter) Armenian epic poems on religious themes, not anything known to us from muslim literature. was the Anīs al-Qulūb intended as a riposte to this armenian literary tradition, while borrowing its form? such a thesis takes us into the realms of speculation; but the text certainly demonstrates that muslims could have much more profound knowledge and understanding of armenian culture, and even of its own internal debates, than has hitherto been appreciated.

Appendix: Texts and Translations excerpted from the Anīs al-Qulūb

Note on the textAl-Anawī’s verse is far from elegant or correct; furthermore, the copyist has introduced a number of additional mistakes. the text has only been emended when it is clear the fault lies with the copyist rather than the author, and such emendations are noted in the notes. I hope to publish a fuller edition of further selections from the text in the future.

62 C.a. storey, Persian Literature: A Bio-Bibliographical Survey, vol. 1, Part 1 (London: Luzac and Co., 1953), 167. However, another example not mentioned by Storey is the Persian verse Anbiyā-nāma attributed to ‘Iyānī, which is preserved in MS Istanbul, Süleymaniye Library, Ayasofya 3355, a manuscript apparently dating to the end of the fifteenth century.

63 Magnali Dei, 5–6, 10–11, 15–16.


© 2015



w.as

hgat

e.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m


Excerpt A: Al-Anawī’s Autobiography

ز بهر چرا رنج بردم چنیندو شهرست نزدیک 64 یکدگر

بیکدیگر ایشان شناسند عامدرو کافرانی قوی و سترگ

نهادند در65 کفر بنیاد انجهانگیر بودند از اهرمنی

همی سر بگردون برافراشتندکنیسه هزار و یکی اندرویببین رونق کفر تا چون بود

مرا هست مقصود دیگر درانفزون گشت هر ساعتی از نوی

که اقبال سلجوقیان شد پدیدکه باداش در خلد اعلی مکانستد کرد کام عدو پر ز زهردر اسالم آن بود فتح عظیمکزیشان فزودست اعداد ما

زآنی نبود ویشان بزادبمردانگی هر یکی گرگ بودچه دانم مگر بوده باشد کسی

پدر ترک بود و مادرش کرد بودخدایش ازو یک نرینه نداد

چو فرمان رسید از یکی ذوالجاللزآماس شخصش گرفتار شدزآبستنی کس نبودش گمانبگرمابه بردش بقول حکیممرا هم بگرمابه اندر بزادخالف دگر کودکان آمدم

بسی یافتم ز بهی فتح و نصرکه نظم سخن را بدادم 66 نظام

که بد چون درختی که گوهرش بارفدا کردم اندر ادب لحم و عظمکنون خود ندارم زدانش نشان

بدانستم آنرا زاصل و فروعز هر ملتی هم خط و هم زبانبسی کرده ام حاصل اندر علوم

کزین هرچ هستم گمان نبودیکی واقعه ناگه آمد پدید

سپاهی بیامد زاندازه بیشگرفتند شهر و بشد کارزار

چنان لشکری بزرگ و بدمنشبتیغ و بخنجر بسی مرد مردگرفتند و بردند یکسو اسیر

گرفتار در دست گرجی نواندر احوال ایشان تلفظ اوستاد

ز چنگال کفار چون اژدهابرون آمدم من در اقلیم روم

64 ms نزدیکی65 ms دیر66 ms بدادنی

بدان من که بودم چرا گفتم ایندر ارمینیه گر شنیدی خبر

مران هر دورا قرس و انیست نامولی هست انی بجثه بزرگ

ازان پیش که اسالم گردد عیانملوکی که در ملت ارمنیمکان و مقام اندرو داشتندبکردند آن مردم کفرگوی

بشهری که چندین کنیسه بوددرازست آن شهر را داستان

علی الجمله اسالم چون شد قویهمان دور دولت بترکان رسید

زاوالد سلجوق الپ ارسالنهمین شهر انی بزور و بقهرشدند اهل اسالم در وی مقیم

غرض آمد ز [؟] اجداد ماازان جای ماندست ما را نژاد

مرا نیز جد و پدر ترک بودبدیدم پدر را بنعمت بسی

سپهدار و لشکرکش و گرد بودازو مادرم پنج دختر بزاد

بهنگام پیری پس از شصت سالهمان مادرم زار و بیمار شد

زآماس ورنجی که بودش گرانسرانجام چون گشت رنجش عظیم

قضا[را] خدا بند بسته گشادز مادر چو اندر جهان آمدم

ابو نصر نامم وز ایام عصرهنوزم نبد پنج سالی تمام

چنان خاطرم داده بد کردگارچو طبعم بتیزی روان شد بنظم

شکستم درآموختن استخوانبتوریت و انجیل کردم شروع

زطالع بیاموختم در بیانز اعمال و اشکال طب و نجوم

ز هر ترهاتی بمن می فزودچو سالم ز دوران بهژده رسید

زکفار ابخاز بدرای و کیشنهادند بر شهر آنی حصاربشهر اندر آمد شه بدکنش

گرفتند و کشتند ورفتند و بردمسلمان زن و مرد برنا و پیر

من و جمله خویشان من زآن میانمرا چون که بد خط انجیل یادسبب گشت این علم گشتم رها

فتادیم دور از همان مرز و بوم

Fol. 3b, l. 7

l. 10

l. 15

l. 20

l. 25





w.as

hgat

e.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m


Know who I am and why I say this, and why I have suffered so much.If you have heard, in armenia there are two towns near to one another,the name of one is kars, the other ani, that is how they are known by people.But ani is a great region where unbelievers are very strong and powerful.Before Islam was revealed, they had built its foundations over unbelief.The kings in the Armenian nation who were world-conquering through their devilry,[l. 10] Had their place and base there, and raised their heads to the heavens [in pride].That people of infidel speech built one thousand and one churches there.In a town where there were so many churches, see how great was the prosperity

of unbelief!The story of that town is long, and my intention is different.to summarise, when Islam became strong, and every hour was increasing,The turn of the Turks’ state came, and the fortune of the Seljuqs became apparent.One of the sons of Seljuq, Alp Arslan – may he abide in eternal heaven –Seized this town of Ani with force and violence, and ruined the enemies’ aspirations.the muslims started to live there, it was a great victory in Islam.I mean by all of this that our ancestors – from whom our numbers have increased – came

from [? illegible name],67

[ l. 15] Our origin is from there, it was not from Ani, but there they gave birth.my grandfather and father were turks, they were both like wolves in courage.I saw my father had much good fortune, I do not know, maybe he was an important person.he was commander, general and hero, his father was turkish and his mother kurdish.My mother had five daughters by him, God did not give her a single son by him.when he was old, more than sixty years old, a command arrived from the Glorious

King [God],My mother became weak and sick; she was seized by pains in her stomach.No one had any suspicion that the pain and suffering that she was suffering from was

due to pregnancy.In the end when her pain was very great, she was taken to the hot bath on the

doctor’s instructions.By chance God loosened the knot which was tied, she gave birth to me in the hot bath.[l. 20] When I arrived in the world from my mother, I came in a different way from

other children.My name is Abū Naṣr [Father of Victory], and from the days of the age I have found

enough of the goodness of conquest and victory [naṣr].I was not even five years old when I started ordering words in verse.In this way the omnipotent inspired my mind which was like a tree the fruit of which

is jewels.When my ability became fluent in verse, for literature I sacrificed flesh and bone.I broke my bones on learning, but now I have no fame for my knowledge.I made a start on the torah and Gospels, I knew them back to front.By good fortune I learned both the writing and tongue of each millat.

67 the text of this line in Persian is not clear, but something like this appears to be the general meaning.


© 2015



w.as

hgat

e.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m


Much did I learn of the science, concerning different types and practices of medicine and astronomy,

From each small thing I increased [in learning?], no one had any doubt about what I am.68

[l. 25] When I reached the age of eighteen, suddenly an event happened.An innumerable army of evil-minded, impious infidel Georgians came.They besieged the town of Ani, a fight began.the evil king entered the city, accompanied by such a great and ill-disposed army.They seized and killed and carried off; and many men died by the sword and dagger,Muslim men and women, both old and young, were seized and carried off as prisonersmy family and I fell, weak and moaning, fell into the hands of the Georgians,Because I knew the script of the gospels, I could talk very well like them.this knowledge of mine became the cause of my escaping from the claws of these dragon-

like infidels.I ended up far from that land, one day I appeared in the region of Rūm’.

Excerpt B: The Preaching of Ṭiyāṭūs to the People of Caesarea

ز عیسی شما را درود و سالمشمارا بدو باد بی مر امیدبدانید جمله بعقل و تمیز

خدای شما من بدم از نخسترهانیدم ارواح رفته ز بند

ازان سان که بودم همانم همان69شمارا منم پاک پروردگار

که یابید در اخرت ساز و برگکرم دارم و لطف بی منتهاگزیدم ز جمله زمین آشکار

که بدهد خبرتان ز بیم و امیدبفخر و شرف سرافرازی بدین

دریده عملتان رفو کرده امسه خلعت فرستادم ز آسمانکه رنج شما من ندارم روابود رنج بسیار و بار گران

مسلم درین کار بگذاشتمکه رسته شود کودکانتان 70 ز درد

نباشید ازین گونه ناخورده چیزمرا هیچ سودی درآن روزه نهبدارید کاکنون حاللست 71 نان

از چیزی که از خون شود اشکارز تخم و ز میوه که باشد جزینبدان روزه دارید در ماه و سال

خورید انچ یابید لیل و نهارهمانست از خلق عالم جدا

ز بهر جنابت دویدن بجوی

68 the text and meaning of this line is obscure.69 ms از آن سان که بودم همانم همانم70 ms کودکانشان71 ms حالست

و زآن پس بگفتا که ای خاص و عامز رحمت بسی داد امید و نوید

همی گوید ای بندگان عزیزکه من مر شمارا خدایم درست

بدنیا فرود آمدم سال چنددگر باره رفتم سوی آسمانشناسید یکسر مرا کردگار

برین بادتان زندگانی و مرگبدانید دیگر که من بر شما

شمارا من از رحمت بی شمارفرستادم این بنده را با نوید

شماراست بر جمله روی زمینگناه شما من عفو کرده ام

ز خوشنودی خود شما را نشانکنون بر گرفتم سه رنج از شمایکی ختنه کردن که بر کودکان

کنون از شما ختنه برداشتمازین پس نباید دگر ختنه کرددوم روزه را چون بدارید نیز

همه روزها تشنه و گرسنهکنون بعد ازین روزه را آنچنان

بپرهیز باشید آن روزگاردگر هرچ باشد نبات زمین

شما را سراسر بکردم حاللمباشید تا شب در آن انتظارسوم رحمت و شفقتم بر شما

کزین هر زمان شستن دست و روی

Fol. 256b, l.15

l. 20

l. 25





w.as

hgat

e.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m


که غسل وضو هست کار گرانکه من بندگانرا برون ننگرم

برون گرچه ناشسته باشد رواستمرا بر شما لطف و رحمت فزود

بیارید وافزون شود بندگیکنم بر شما لطف خویش آشکار

که دارد فدا بهر من خویشتنفرو خواند این داستان دراز

ببسته بفرمان او عقل و هوشنهادند سرها شبان 72 و رمه

برستند و هر سه نبایست کردکه افتاد از آسمان بر زمین

ویا زین نگارندگان)؟( زمیستبگفتا که رفتم کنون بار جای

بدیدم چه خواهم من از آب و خاکتن من کنون همچو جان پاک گشت

بخواهم سوی جای خود رفت بازاگر بار دیگر بیاید فرود

نمایم شما را دگر باره رویروانم چو مرغی بر او پرد

سوی مسکن خود روان گشت زودکه کر شد فلک را از آشوب گوش

دگر باره در کرد بر خود فرازمجاور بماندند بیرون دریکی کفر پیدا شد ناگهان

سه رنج از خالیق بکردند کمکسی را نباید درین رنج تفت

کشان بود اندر هنر همتیشمردند زرق و نفاق و فضول

خوش آمد کزین گونه فتوی شنیدبحیلت بیاورد آنجا بسر

کزین پیشتر با تو گفتیم بازبگفتا که عیسی شما را شنودفروخواند هم داستانی دراز

که شویند و چربش کنند آن زمانهمه کافران زو بترس و بیم

درآن کافری نیست دینش درستکه دارم اجازه بخوک و گراز

دگر باره در مسکن خویش تفتچه گیرم بتو قصه او دراز

فزود از سخن پایگاهی دگرچو آمد بر من بوقت صبوح

هرآن کس که هستند بر روی خاکویا چون شود رنجکی آشکار

بریشان گشایید پوشیده رازهمی داشتید از خالیق نهانگناهان خود را مدارید راز

بدانند هر کرده را سزاکه تا من کنم آن گنه را رهااگر راز دارید ازیشان نهان

بحلق آید و بس نماندست چیز

72 ms شبنان

شمارا بود رنج دائم درآنمن آن نیز برداشتم از کرم

چو باشد درون یار من از صدق راستکنون این سه رنج از شما کم ببودچو زین پس بطاعت سرافگندگی

نمایم دگر رحمت بی شماربگفتار این بنده خاص من

ازین گونه آن مرد دستان نوازهمه خلق در گفت او داده گوش

بشکرانه بر خاک تیره همهکه از ختنه و روزه و آب سرد

بگفتند کین رحمتی بد یقینکه یارست گفتن که او ادمیست

دگرباره آن مرد سالوس رایمرا تا که رخسار عیسی پاک

کنون از من این همه درگذشتندارم کنون من بعالم نیازبگفتم شمارا پیامی که بود

بگویم دگر آنچ گوید بگویوگر نه مرا نیز زی خود بردبگفت این و آمد ز منبر فرود

یکی خلق در پی بجوش و خروشبرفتند و او روی بنهفت باز

کسانی که در زهدشان بود سرپراکنده شد گفت او در جهانبگفتند عیسی ز لطف و کرم

کنون ختنه و روزه و غسل رفتنصاری و بعضی ز هر ملتی

نکردند این هر سه بدعت قبولدگر آنچ کاهل بدند و پلید

همان مرد سالوس سالی دگردگر ره بدین رنگ و نیرنگ و ساز

برون آمد و خویشتن را نمودچنین و چنین و چنین گفت باز

وزان بار این شستن کودکانکه در ملت کفر هست آن عظیم

که هر کودکی کو کشیشی نشستبیاموخت این و دگر گفت باز

ازان باز آمیخت این رنگ و رفتسوم بار رخساره بنمود بازبران خلق بنمود راهی دگر

بگفتا بفرمود عیسئ روحکه باید کزین پس زن و مرد پاکبهر سالی باری و یا خود دو بار

کشیشان خود را بخوانید بازهمه هرچ کردید اندر جهانهمه با کشیشان بگویید بازکه گویند ایشان سزا و جزاشفاعت کنند آنگهی مر مراوگرنه نیامرزم از هیچ سان

دوم وقت مردن چو جان عزیز

l.30

Fol. 257a, l.1

l. 5

l. 10

l.15

l.20


© 2015



w.as

hgat

e.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m


بباید همی خوردن از بیش و کمچو مردار افگنده باید بخاک

بیاورد صد مکر و افسون بجایپذیرفت ازو ارمنی همچو جان

بیکبارگی بی تمیز و خرستهمی روز تا روز گشتی عظیم

روانرا بقعر جهنم سپردجهان جمله در کار بشتافتند

جهانی فتادند در جست جویربودی همی آن ازین این ازان

زمانی ز خدمت نپرداختندبکردند آن کالبد ناپدید

بماندست ازوی یکی دست راستکه خوانند او را خرم قلعه نام

خلیفه است در ملت ارمنیکه او را ازانست مقدار بیشهمه باشد آن دسترا زیردست

روند از پی حرمت و آب روینیابت دهد تا شود رهبریازو باز دانند ایشان تمام

که هستند این قوم گمراه و زارکه چندین بدی در جهان رخ نمود

نگفت و نفرمود کفر و هالک

Then he [Ṭiyāṭūs] said, ‘Oh people high and low! Greetings from Jesus!he gave great hope and tidings of mercy; you should have boundless hope of him.he says, ‘dear servants! you all know with your minds and discernmentThat I am your true God, and I was your God from the first.I came into the world for a few years, and liberated departed souls from their fetters.then I returned to the heavens. I am exactly in the same form that I was.all of you recognise me as God, I am your pure creator.You should pass your life in this way so that you find reward in the hereafter.know also that I have unlimited mercy and generosity towards you.[l. 20] I have chosen you by my unlimited mercy out of all of the people of creationI sent my servant to you with good tidings to give you news of fear and hopethrough him you should exalt all over the world in honour and glory.I have forgiven your sins, I have mended your torn deeds.you have a sign of my good will, three favours [lit. khalʿat, cloaks] I have sent down from

the heavens.now I have removed three things that hurt you, for I do not hold hurting you right.one is circumcision, which is a great pain and a heavy burden for children.Now I have removed [the obligation of] circumcision from you, we have left you exempt

from this task.after this, circumcision should be done no more, so that children should be free from pain.the second is when you fast, you should not prohibit eating in this way,[l. 25] Constantly hungry and thirsty; there is no benefit to me in that fasting.henceforth do not have such a fast, for now bread is permissible.

73 ms قلبه

ز قوة جهان نان و باده بهمکه گرنه چنین میرد او نیست پاک

ازین گونه آن مرد حیلت نمایوزو هرچ می گفت اندر جهانکجا ارمنی زان همه بدترست

برفت او و ماند این همه زو مقیمچنان تا بدان زاویه در بمردچو از مرگ او آگهی یافتند

که از بهر آن استخوانهای اویبشورید با هم ملوک جهان

گه ازبهر خود قبله گه73 ساختندبسرحد روم آن کجا او رسید

ولی این زمان آنچ دانم کجاستیکی قلعه هست اندرین مرز شام

کشیشی بدو در بکبر و منینگه دارد آن دسترا نزد خویش

بشرق و بغرب ارمنی هرچ هستزاطراف عالم بنزدیک اوی

که او هر یکی را بهر کشوریبد و نیک و کفر و حالل و حرام

ازین گونه بودست احوال کارواال ز عیسی مریم نبود

که او جز کالم خداوند پاک

l.25

l. 30





w.as

hgat

e.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m


At that time [fasting] avoid anything that is appears from blood.otherwise, anything else which is plants of the ground, of seeds and fruit,I have made all these permissible for you. you can eat them while fasting through the

month and year,Do not wait until evening, eat what you find night and day.Thirdly, my mercy and compassion for you is so great, apart from the [other] people of

the world:Constantly washing your hands and face, on account of ritual uncleanliness running to

the stream –You constantly suffer from this, for ritual ablutions [wuḍūʾ] are a heavy task.out of my generosity I have also relieved you of this, for I do not look at the outside

[appearance/behaviour] of my servants.while the heart accompanies me out of true sincerity, if the outside is not washed it

is permissible.[l. 30] Now these three obligations have become less on you, my grace and mercy upon

you have increased.henceforth, when you bow your head in obedience and your servitude increases,I shall show you again boundless mercy, I will make my grace apparent to you,Through the speech of this special servant of mine, who would sacrifice himself for me’.In such a way did this teller of tales relate this long story.All the people listened to him, mind and intellect subject to his command.All the people put their heads on the black earth in thanks, both shepherd and flock.[fol. 257a]For they were freed of circumcision, fasting and cold water, and all three didn’t have to

be done [any more].They said, ‘For sure this was mercy, which fell out of the skies onto the earth.’for who could dare say that he is human or he is one of those who labour on earth?Once more that deceitful man said, ‘Now I am going to the royal Court [of heaven]since I saw the face of pure Jesus, what should I want of earth and water?now all this has left me behind; my body, like my soul, has become pure.I no longer have any need of the world, I will return to my place.I told you the message that there was. If he comes again,[l. 5] Whatever he tells me to tell you, I will show you again my face.Otherwise, he will take me to himself and my soul will fly like a bird to him.’so he said, and came down from the pulpit [minbar], he quickly went to his dwelling.a group of people followed him in such a tumult that it deafened the heavens.he hid his face again; again he shut his door on himself.People who were inclined to asceticism [zuhd] remained in the vicinity, outside the door.his speech spread in the world, unbelief [kufr] suddenly became apparent.they said, ‘Jesus, out of his grace and mercy, had made three burdens less upon people.Now circumcision, fasting and washing have gone, nobody need bother with them’The Christians and people with different millats endeavoured to be virtuous[l. 10] They did not accept these three innovations [bidʿat], which they considered to be

fraud, hypocrisy and impertinence.Those others who were lazy and impure were pleased by hearing this type of legal

opinion [fatwā].


© 2015



w.as

hgat

e.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m


this same deceitful man deceitfully stayed there one more year.Again with this fraud, magic and deceit, most of which I have told you [before],He came out and showed himself, saying, ‘Jesus has heard you.’he said such and such and such and such, he told a long story,Concerning the burden of washing of children, whom they wash and anoint at that timewhich in the millat of unbelief [kufr] they hold to be important, all the infidels are fearful

and frightful of it.for each child, which is not washed by a priest, does not have the right religion in that

unbelief [kāfirī].So he taught, and said once more, ‘I have permission for [eating] the pig and the boar’.he played this trick once more and then left, again he hastened to his house.[l. 15] For the third time he showed his face again, I tell you this story although it is longTo those people he showed a different way, with his speech he increased his stature.he said ‘Christ the spirit said, when he came to me in the morning time,‘henceforth pure men and women, everyone there is on the face of the earth,once or twice each year, or when you are in trouble,you should call your priests and open up to them your hidden secrets.everything you have done in the world, you kept secret from people.you should tell everything to the priests, do not keep your sins secret,for they will say the condign punishment and recompense, they know the recompense

for each deed.[l. 20] They will intercede [shifāʿat] with me so that I will forgive them for that sin.If not I will not forgive them at all, if they have secrets hidden from them [the priests]secondly, at the time of dying: when you are about to die, and there is nothing left,from the aliment of the world you must consume bread and wine together.If a man dies without doing this, he is not pure, like carrion he must be thrown to earth.’’In this way this man of tricks played a hundred tricks and lies.and whatever he said in the world, the armenians accepted it as if it was very valuable,Because armenians are the worst of all, completely lacking in discernment and rough.he departed, and all this was left behind, it became great day by day.such was it until he died in his zāwiya, and his soul was entrusted to the depths of hell.[l. 25] When they found out about his death, the whole world hastened to work.on account of those bones of his, the world fell to seeking them.the kings of the world competed with each other, each one stole from the other,Sometimes they built a holy place (qibla) for themselves, they did not rest from its service

even for a while.When the body reached the border of Rūm, they hid it,But at this time what I know is where it is, a right hand remains of it.there is a castle on the borders of syria which is called the castle of khurram [khurram-

qalʿa]there is an arrogant and presumptuous priest there who is the khalīfa in the armenian

millat, he keeps that hand next to himself, from which he gains a great status.[l. 30] Armenians in both east and west are all subordinate to this handthey come to him from all over the world, in search of reverence and honourfor in every country he has appoints a deputy to be the leader there





w.as

hgat

e.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m w

ww.a

shga

te.co

m


Good and evil, unbelief, and what is licit and illicit [ḥalāl u ḥarām] they know completely from him.

this is the situation; it tells why these people are misled and wretched.for sure it was not from Jesus son of mary that so much evil showed its face in the world,for he said nothing but the word of the pure lord, and did not command unbelief

and perdition.

Acknowledgements

the research leading to these results has received funding from the european Research Council under the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP/2007–13) / ERC Grant Agreement n 208476, ‘The Islamisation of Anatolia, c. 1100–1500’.

I am very grateful to Peter Cowe, tim Greenwood and zara Pogossian for their numerous comments and suggestions on armeniological aspects, and am especially thankful to tim Greenwood for translating the passage from nerses of lampron. I also thank leili vatani for checking the transcription and translation of the Persian text and making useful suggestions. all have saved me from numerous errors but of course are absolved of responsibility for those that remain.


© 2015

An Interfaith Polemic of Medieval Anatolia: Qadi Burhan al-Din al-Anawi on the Armenians and their...

Documents

Transcript of An Interfaith Polemic of Medieval Anatolia: Qadi Burhan al-Din al-Anawi on the Armenians and their...