More than any other Muslim writer, Ibn al-Athir has discussed the character and achievements of Nur al-Din Zangi, who he says died from al-khawaniq (angina) in 1173-74.[46] Ibn al-Athir says he read the history of the rulers before and after Islam and found no sovereign except al-Khulafa al-Rashidun (the Rightly Guided Caliphs) and the Umayyad Caliph Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz (reigned 717-720) to be more praiseworthy for his conduct, justice, and fairness than al-Malik al-Adil Nur al-Din. He lauds Nur al-Din for his indifference to worldly things and for his strict adherence to Islamic law, devotion and piety, adding that he spent long hours in prayer, even at midnight and early morning. He was a very strict Muslim who practiced the rules of the Muslim faith seriously. A part of his faith was Jihad (holy war), for which he was called to make Islam triumph. He was a Sunnite of the Hanafite school, but without prejudice against Muslims of other schools. He was abstemious in his food, simple in his dress, and chaste in sexual matters. He glorified the Islamic Shari’a (law), which impacted his work and conduct. Ibn al-Athir goes on to enumerate Nur al-Din’s achievements, like the establishment of Dar al-Adl (The House of Justice) in Damascus, the building of schools in Aleppo, Hama, and Damascus not only for the Sunnites but also for the Shafiites, and the founding of a great hospital in Damascus where rich and poor Muslim people were treated alike. He also built inns and lodges for the Sufis and homes for the orphans, staffed by men who taught the Quran. The most famous of the many mosques he built is the one that bore his name, al-Jami al-Nuri (The Nuri Mosque) in Mosul, with the tallest minaret in the whole Muslim world, known today as al-Jami al-Kabir (the Great Mosque).[47] In brief, if one follows Ibn al-Athir, he will conclude that Nur al-Din Zangi was “the most ideal Muslim” in every respect. His domain extended far and wide, from Mosul to all of Syria, Egypt, and Yemen.[48]
But Ibn al-Athir shows a dark side of Nur al-Din Zangi’s character in discussing his treatment of the Christians. He says “Nur al-Din (May God have mercy on his soul)” used a great deal of trickery, duplicity, and deception in dealing with the Franks, and thus was able to control most of the regions they had formerly held. An example of his stratagem is what he did to the Armenian Malih (Mleh), son of Leo I, Roupenid ruler of Cilicia (1173-1175). He kept deceiving, coaxing him and offering him estates until he won him over and used him to fight against the Franks,.the Byzantines, and even his own people. Supported by Nur al-Din, Malih captured the major cities of Adana, Mamistra (al-Mississa) and Tarsus in Cilicia in 1173 and defeated the Byzantine forces, killing many. He sent thirty of their leaders as prisoners and plenty of booty to Nur al-Din, who in turn sent some of them along with the booty to the Abbasid Caliph al-Mustadi bi Amr Allah (1170-1180) with a letter informing him of the victory, because some of the caliph’s troops had participated in it. Asked why he dealt with Malih as he did, Nur al-Din said that he used him to fight against his own people and to stop him from challenging his (Nur al-Din’s) troops.[49] The Armenian writer K. L. Astarjian says that Malih had a bad upbringing which affected his life and behavior. He vacillated between several religions and at one time joined the Templars, but then turned against them. Malih embraced Islam before he became involved with Nur al-Din Zangi, who influenced him to invade Cilicia and conspire against his own brother Thoros.[50]
To William of Tyre, Malih was a most wicked man. When his brother Thoros II died in 1168, the nobles chose Thomas, a nephew of Thoros and Malih on his sister’s side, as administrator of Thoros’s principality. Thomas was well-born but totally unqualified for this position, and Malih, taking advantage of his weakness, quickly seized control of the principality. To buttress his power, he betrayed his own people and defected to Nur al-Din Zangi and offered him allegiance. Nur al-Din welcomed this renegade and, on well-defined terms favorable to himself, provided Malih with a sizable cavalry force. Malih was the first of his [Armenian] people to violate the customs of his ancestors. He not only invaded and occupied the major cities of Cilicia, but also dispossessed the Knights Templar of their holdings there, although at one time he had belonged to their order. He formed an alliance with Nur al-Din and the Turks, on terms appropriate for brothers. By his actions, says William, he rejected the law of God and did immense injury to the Christians. Realizing that Malih and Nur al-Din repesented a great danger to their domains, King Amalric I of Jerusalem (1163-1174) and the governor of Antioch joined forces to fight Malih. Amalric sent several envoys to Malih asking to meet and discuss the situation with him, but without success. War became inevitable. No sooner did he march against Malih in Cilicia than reports reached him that Nur al-Din had attacked Petra in Arabia Secunda. As Amalric and the Franks continued to drive toward Cilicia, however, another messenger brought word that Nur al-Din, who apparently was not yet in a position to challenge the Franks, had abandoned the siege.[51]
The Syriac sources partly agree with this account. They say that before Thoros II, governor of Cilicia, died in 1168, he gave instructions that his youngest son (apparently under age) was to succeed him, and Thomas, the son of his aunt, should serve as his administrator. Deprived of the chance to succeed his brother, Malih became furious and contacted Nur al-Din, who supplied him with an army of Turks. He attacked and ravaged Cilicia, capturing 16,000 youths and maidens, men and women, and monks and bishops, and carried them to Aleppo; there he sold them to merchants and gave the proceeds to the Turks who had supported him. Hoping to appease him, the Armenians of Cilicia met with him and offered him half the country. Malih accepted the offer and assured them under oath that the other half would go to Thoros’s young son, but soon he broke his oath and took possession of all Cilicia, with its towns and fortresses. He then took his vengeance on his opponents. He gouged the eyes of many bishops and governors and cut off their hands and feet. He flayed others alive and cast their bodies to wild animals.[52] When Amalric learned of Malih’s ill treatment of the Christians, he came to fight against him. Malih sought the Turks’ help, but the king routed them and Malih sought refuge in his fortress. When the king besieged the fortress, he began to feel pain. Finally, he repented and apologized for his bad deeds, swore an oath of fealty to the king, and promised never to join the Turks.[53] Malih’s end came in 1175, when his army commanders revolted against him because of his abominable deeds. He left his camp at night and fled to one of his fortresses. The guards, who were in collusion with the army leaders, captured Malih, cut him into pieces, and threw him to the dogs. They brought his cousin Roupen, son of Stephen, who had been hiding in Tarsus out of fear of Malih, and installed him as their king. As soon as he took power, however, Roupen retaliated by killing those who had murdered Malih, on the pretext that they had treated him cruelly.[54]
The Anonymous Edessan’s view of Nur al-Din is similar to that of Ibn al-Athir. He says that Nur al-Din was a schemer, cunning, and very strict in observing Islamic laws. It is said that he neither drank wine nor allowed others to do so. He banned the singing, merriment and dancing enjoyed by other Muslim sovereigns. It is even said that no one heard him laugh. He ate alone, and only once a day. He was not lecherous, nor did he marry many women, as was the reprehensible custom of the Muslim sovereigns. He wore simple dress, fasted constantly, and read the Quran. He acted with justice and offered alms to poor Muslims and even to pious Christians. He persisted in strengthening Islamic laws and customs in the countries he had conquered, and abolished all taxes and excises in the countries under his control. And if he learned that an injustice had been done, he was quick to compensate the victim. He never punished anyone without a trial and reliable testimony. His camp was free from rowdiness, frivolous play, and clamor.[55]
But the Anonymous Edessan, Michael Rabo, and William of Tyre show this Turkish ruler in an unfavorable light when they describe his treatment of the native Christians. William of Tyre says that Nur al-Din was a just prince, valiant and wise, and a religious man according to the traditions of his people, but also a persecutor of the Christian name and faith.[56] Michael Rabo and the Anonymous Edessan show that the Christians suffered greatly from Nur al-Din’s oppression and persecution. When his brother Qutb al-Din Mawdud, lord of Mosul died in 1170, he went to take control of the city and instigated the Muslim jurists against the Christians, whom his brother had treated kindly. He was extremely strict about observing the times of prayer and not drinking wine, and was so devoted to observing the tenets of Islam that the Muslims nicknamed him “al-Nabi” (The Prophet), because he believed that he was like Muhammad, the Prophet of Islam. He even expected Allah to talk to him face to face, as he did to Moses. Some of the Muslims who mocked him for his belief and called him a “prophet” sarcastically told him that he, being a divine personage, had appeared to them in the masjid, and he believed them.[57]
To endear himself more to the Muslims, Nur al-Din hardened his heart against the Christians and ordered that new Christian churches and monasteries be demolished. When he reached the city of Nisibin, the Muslims clamored that the Christians were restoring their churches, and he ordered them destroyed. The Muslims pulled down the wall of the Great Church of St. Jacob of Nisibin, which had been held by the Nestorians since the fifth century (when Iraq was part of the Persian empire), and stole religious articles and about a thousand books. They did the same thing to churches elsewhere. Because Nur al-Din hated the Christians, says Michael Rabo, he appointed one of his relatives, Ibn Asrun, as judge and sent him throughout Syria to demolish every new addition to the churches built in the time of his father and his brother. Everywhere he went, Ibn Asrun asked the Christians for a bribe. If he received it, he would swear that the buildings added to the church were old, thus saving it from destruction; otherwise, he ordered it demolished. When Nur al-Din learned what Ibn Asrun had done, he fired him. Meanwhile, encouraged by his oppression of the Christians, the Muslims of Mardin usurped the Church of the Forty Martyrs.[58]
From Nisibin, Nur al-Din marched to capture Sinjar, north of Mosul, and then laid siege to Mosul itself.[59] When he reached the city, the Kurds who lived in the neighborhood of the Monastery of Mar Matta (today called the Monastery of Shaykh Matti, 25 kilometers northeast of Mosul), having heard that Nur al-Din was oppressing the Christians, seized the opportunity to destroy the monastery. They attacked it at night, but the monks, who were ready to repel them, destroyed their ladders and even killed some of the marauders. The Kurds then attacked the monastery in daylight, but the Syrians in the neighboring villages came to its aid and drove them away. The Kurds finally resorted to trickery and made a false peace with the monks, who paid them thirty dinars as a sign of their peaceful intention. The monks fell into the trap and told the villagers to go home. As they were leaving, the Kurds immediately gathered on top of the mountain and rolled down a huge rock that hit the monastery wall, creating an opening close to the aqueduct leading to the monastery’s cistern. (The rock is still lodged in the wall of the monastery, as this author has personally observed during several visits there.) The monks immediately filled the opening with stones and lime, but the Kurds attacked them with arrows; as they retreated, the Kurds unsheathed their swords and chased them inside, killing fifteen of them.[60] The monks, few in number, were no match for the 1500 Kurds; only those who had taken refuge in the monastery’s upper citadel escaped death. The Kurds pillaged the monastery, carried off whatever they could load onto their beasts, and left. After they had gone, the monks in the citadel removed the rest of the books and religious objects and went to Mosul. The Monastery of Mar Matta was desolate, and the monks would not dare to live in it. The Syrians of Mosul hired men and paid them thirty dinars to guard and prevent the Kurds from doing more damage. On learning what the Kurds had done to the monastery, the governor of Mosul sent troops out and killed a great number of them. In retaliation, the Kurds destroyed nine villages in the Nestorian district, looted and burned the houses, and killed their inhabitants.[61] The Anonymous Edessan adds that the Kurds also attacked the Monastery of Mar Sergius (also called al-Mu’allaq Monastery) in the Barren Mountain.[62]
When Nur al-Din Zangi occupied Mosul, it was ruled by Sayf al-Din Ghazi II, the son of his brother Qutb al-Din Mawdud who had originally chosen his son Imad al-Din to succeed him as atabeg of Mosul, but then changed his mind and designated his younger son, named for his uncle, Sayf al-Din Ghazi I (d. 1149). This change was made through the machinations of the eunuch Fakhr al-Din Abd al-Masih, the tutor of Qutb al-Din’s children. Although he was a Christian from the province of Antioch, he pretended to be a Muslim. He plotted with Khatun, the daughter of Husam al-Din Timurtash and mother of Sayf al-Din, to have her son replace Imad al-Din as lord of Mosul. On learning of the conspiracy, Imad al-Din asked his uncle Nur al-Din for help in reclaiming the governorship. According to Ibn al-Athir, Nur al-Din not only disparaged Fakhr al-Din Abd al-Masih for his injustice, but detested him both for his part in the conspiracy and for his Christian faith. Abd al-Masih offended the Muslims of Mosul because he loved the Christians and helped them. Others say Nur al-Din tried to subjugate Mosul because of his jealousy of Abd al-Masih, who administered the city so wisely and capably that Sayf al-Din was governor only in name.[63]
Realizing that the people of Mosul would not resist Nur al-Din’s attack because they were inclined toward him, Abd al-Masih sent emissaries to sue for peace. According to Ibn al-Athir (and Bar Hebraeus, who appears to follow him), Abd al-Masih demanded a pledge of safety for his own life and a promise that Nur al-Din would not usurp power from his nephew. Nur al-Din replied that he had come not to snatch the city or the kingdom from his brother’s sons, but to save the people from the authority of Abd al-Masih; he pledged to spare Abd al-Masih but said he would expel him from Mosul. Peace then prevailed, and Nur al-Din entered Mosul. He took quarters in the citadel and appointed another eunuch, Sa’d al-Din Gümüshtigin, to administer the city’s affairs. But he left the government of the city and the whole province of Mosul to his nephew Sayf al-Din Ghazi II, and after seventeen days he departed for Syria. He took Fakhr al-Din Abd al-Masih with him, but changed his name from Abd al-Masih (Servant of Christ) to Abd Allah (Servant of Allah) and offered him a generous living allowance.[64]
When Nur al-Din Zangi was in Mosul, says Michael Rabo, he “was intoxicated with vainglory because the Muslims considered him a prophet.”[65] He oppressed the Christians by introducing new measures against them. He burdened them with taxes and the jizya. He ordered them to wear sashes around their waists and not to grow their hair long, so that they could be distinguished from the Muslims (making them the object of mockery). He ordered that the Byzantine Christians wear a red patch on their shoulders, to distinguish them from other people.[66] He also ordered that no Christian should ride a saddled horse or mule. He expelled all Christian secretaries from government departments and from the governor’s court except Deacon Abdun, a wealthy old man known for his wisdom and knowledge. Soon after Nur al-Din left Mosul, however, the Christians were relieved from his iniquitous measures through the magnanimity of his nephew, the good governor Sayf al-Din Ghazi II (atabeg of Mosul, 1170-1176).[67]
To enhance his standing among the Muslims, Nur al-Din used every conceivable method to humiliate the Christians. He became more arrogant, especially after capturing Syria, Egypt and Athur (northern Iraq). Michael Rabo says Nur al-Din acted as if he had conquered the whole earth and tried through various measures to denigrate the Christians so that the Muslims would regard him as their Imam (religious leader). As if instigated by Satan, Nur al-Din wrote to the caliph (the Abbasid Caliph al-Mustanjid, 1160-1170), “The words of the Prophet Muhammad in the Quran, indicating that the Muslims should do no harm to the Christians for five hundred years, have become invalid because of the passage of those years. Therefore, it is imperative to annihilate the Christians in the regions under the influence of the Muslims. Any Christian who refuses to embrace Islam should be killed.”[68] He also expressed his desire to have an audience with the caliph to explain further the letter’s contents. The letter scared the caliph, who thought Nur al-Din’s intention was to deceive him, capture Baghdad, and become caliph in his place. The caliph, all the more suspicious because he knew that Nur al-Din fancied himself a prophet, did not respond to his initiatives.
When al-Mustanjid died, he was succeeded by his son al-Mustadi (1170-1180), who had his Vizir killed because he hated the Christians. Much to the relief of the Christians, the new caliph was favorably disposed toward them, as if to spite the Vizir. As a sign of his tolerance, the caliph released the Syrian dignitaries of the Tuma family, who had been detained by his father, and restored their homes and churches to them. The released Syrians told the caliph how his father had discovered the deception of Nur al-Din and rejected his emissaries. The new caliph wrote to Nur al-Din, “You have no right to pretend to be a prophet and enact laws like Allah. You have misunderstood the true words of Muhammad regarding the years. Allah did not order us to kill people without cause.”[69] After receiving this message, Nur al-Din Zangi felt ashamed and sent other messengers asking the caliph to let him visit his father’s tomb. The caliph, knowing his real intention was to occupy Baghdad, rejected this request and even threatened to challenge him if he did so. His action certainly favored the Christians, whom Nur al-Din hated. To Michael Rabo, it was a divine action showing that God had not forgotten His people. Doleful but thankful, he wrote, “Although God had caused the Muslim Arabs and Turks to rule over us because of our sins, He did not for one day deny us His mercy, but always protected us from our haters and showed mercy to His church.”[70]
Nur al-Din Zangi’s persecution of the Christians appears to have encouraged other Muslim rulers to usurp Christian churches. In 1170 the eunuch Mu’ayyid al-Din, governor of Mardin, appropriated the nave of the Syrian Church of the Forty Martyrs and gave it to the Muslims, who annexed it to their mosque. The next day he fell off his mount and felt guilty, believing that his fall was a divine punishment for what he had done to the church. He wanted to restore the nave to the church, but did not for fear of offending the Muslims.[71] This incident was followed the same year by another, no less grievous to the Christians, involving a monk, Hasan bar Kulaib (or Kumaib) of the Abkar Monastery in the Mountain of Mardin.[72] A conflict apparently arose involving him, his two brothers (also monks), and other inmate monks of the monastery over his bad conduct, for which Hasan bar Kulaib was stripped of his position as a monk. In a fit of anger, he embraced Islam and fled to Jerusalem, where he felt guilty and returned to Christianity. The governor of Mardin arrested his two brothers and the other monks, who were tortured to death. The Muslims of Mardin used his conversion to Islam as a pretext to capture the Abkar Monastery and convert it to a masjid for the use of Muslim Kurds.[73] In 1172, the Muslims of Mardin also seized the Syrian Church of St. Thomas after a Syrian man named Barsoum committed adultery with a Muslim woman. He was arrested and tortured almost to death, and his possessions were confiscated. Because Barsoum had renovated the Church of St. Thomas at his own expense in the time of the governor Husam al-Din, the Muslims, arguing that the church was his personal property, claimed it and converted it into a mosque. The Christians of Mardin, grieved to the extent that they blasphemed against divine justice, tried to reclaim the church, but their action angered the Muslims more against them. They lodged a complaint and asked the governor to restore their church to them, but his heart was hardened and he rejected their complaint, thus creating more aggravation and pressure for the Christians.[74]
Not surprisingly, Nur al-Din’s death in May 1174 brought feelings of relief not only to the Christians, but to Muslim rulers who were discontented with his strict observance of the Islamic law, particularly because he forbade them to drink wine or engage in any kind of merriment.[75] The chief reaction to Nur al-Din’s death came from his nephew Sayf al-Din Ghazi II, who occupied Nisibin and abrogated the laws enacted by his uncle. Al-Isfahani says he destroyed the place in the mosque where Nur al-Din had inscribed the restrictive laws and allowed the public drinking of wine.[76] It is more plausible that, as the Anonymous Edessan says, Sayf al-Din destroyed the stone tablet over the door of the masjid of Nisibin, on which Nur al-Din had inscribed his instructions including the anathemas on those who violated them. Also, although he allowed public consumption of wine, he restored the poll and land taxes that his uncle had abolished. Shortly after Nur al-Din Zangi died, the Muslims demolished the Great Church of Hagia Sophia in Edessa. They used some of the stones to rebuild the city’s wall and fortress, but carried most of them away to build a masjid in Harran. The Muslims also tore down the northern part of the Great Church of the Apostles (the part left intact later fell down) and carried the stone to the fortress. At the same time, they tore down the chancel of the Church of St. Stephen and the chancel of the Church of Forty Martyrs, which was adjacent to their masjid.[77]
Although Sayf al-Din Ghazi seems to have been more tolerant than Nur al-Din, the Christians were still harassed by the Turks, whose rulers were clearly partial to the Muslims and frequently interfered in the religious or ecclesiastical affairs of the church, as Michael Rabo relates firsthand. As patriarch, Michael Rabo was often opposed by rebellious and recalcitrant bishops and clergy who could not abide his strict observance of the church’s canon laws. When he was called to serve as patriarch, he says, he felt it his duty to respect and defend holy laws against accepting a bribe to ordain a clergyman or usurping a diocese or congregation because of the influence of a political ruler, laws which had been violated or ignored. For this reason he was opposed by several bishops, including Iwannis Denha of al-Raqqa (Callinicus), whose congregation had lost confidence in him because of alleged misconduct and wanted him replaced. The patriarch convened a council at the Monastery of Mar Hananya (now the Za’faran Monastery near Mardin in Turkey) to consider the case. After the testimony, the council was convinced of the bishops irreligious actions and decided to confine him to a monastery for three years until he improved his conduct. Denha at first accepted the council’s verdict, but then went to Mardin to complain to Nestorian leaders against Patriarch Michael Rabo. When the Nestorians learned the truth about his case, they expelled him.
Bishop Denha then turned to Najm al-Din, the Muslim governor of Mardin, and offered him a bribe to have Michael Rabo killed. The governor sent some men who arrested the patriarch and made him appear before the governor as a criminal, accompanied only by Abu Kir, archdeacon of the church of Mardin. The governor addressed the patriarch harshly but, after hearing the case, expelled Bishop Denha and dismissed his complaint. The bishop, still determined to spite the patriarch, went to Mosul and slandered Patriarch Michael Rabo to Sayf al-Din, the lord of Mosul, promising to pay him a thousand dinars. Soldiers arrested Michael Rabo and brought him to Sayf al-Din, who was then in Nisibin. The soldiers ushered the patriarch, together with two bishops and a number of monks, into the presence of Sayf al-Din’s deputy, who said, “Since Allah has placed you [the Christians] under our control, you should not resist the royal decree. You should fulfill the royal order of the victorious king (Sayf al-Din), or else you will be humiliated and tortured. Our king has ordered that this bishop should have jurisdiction over the dioceses of al-Raqqa, Harran, Saruj, and Habura (al-Khabur). Accordingly, you should return peacefully to your place or something harmful will take place.”
Michael Rabo courageously answered that divine laws are instituted by three Books: the Torah (Old Testament) of the Hebrews, the Gospel of the Christians, and the Quran of the Muslims. He asked the deputy to search these three books and see for himself if God had ordered the rulers to administer the countries by their worldly authority. Faith, he contended, should be administered by choice and not by compulsion. He declared that the just Muslim rulers who came after Muhammad had to the present day observed the interdicts of God and never violated them. According to the command of God, these rulers imposed on the Christians the jizya (poll tax) and obedience, but they did not interfere in matters of faith. “If you try to alter the course followed by former Muslim rulers,” he added, “then know that what you do is not against me but against Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad. You would violate their Books, or in other words you would be violating the commands of God.” Worse still, he said, the deputy believed Bishop Denha’s complaints against him. If he would do more investigation, he would easily find they were lies. In fact, the dioceses which the deputy said were in the bishop’s jurisdiction were still under the control of Sayf al-Din Ghazi II. Said Michael Rabo, “If he (the bishop) was appointed by your order, why then he is rejected by their congregations? He has committed a crime against our laws and resorted to your royal authority to force me to violate the laws of God. I would rather have my head cut off than step on these laws.” At this point he extended his neck and told the deputy to cut off his head. The deputy entered Sayf al-Din’s tent, then came out and led the patriarch into his presence, forbidding anyone to accompany him. When Michael Rabo stood before Sayf al-Din, he invoked God’s blessing on him. The deputy said, “O patriarch, ask God’s blessing because Sayf al-Din Ghazi has ordered that your laws should be executed, and no one will disobey you.” Michael Rabo repeated his blessing and thanks, then left with tears in his eyes. The bishops and monks were jubilant, while the slanderer (Bishop Iwannis Denha) was disappointed.
Persisting in his evildoing, the bishop tried another tactic to have Michael Rabo condemned. He shouted in the midst of the Muslim throng, “Know all of you that this old man is a deceiver. He is laboring in the lands of the Muslims to convert them to Christianity, and here is the evidence.” The bishop began to read a letter Michael Rabo had written about the monk Hasan bar Kulaib, who had converted to Islam. The Muslims, greatly agitated by it, tried to stone the patriarch. The monks with him fled, and he stood alone before the Muslims carrying stones in their hands to kill him. By chance some Muslims from Mardin, the city of Hasan bar Kulaib, were present and testified that he was a Christian monk, not a Muslim. The angry crowd apparently believed them and let the patriarch go in peace. Sayf al-Din Ghazi II provided him with a letter of authority and the patriarch returned to his place safe. But this was not the end of the wickedness of Bishop Iwannis Denha. He went to Baghdad and lodged a complaint with the Abbasid caliph, but Patriarch Michael Rabo wrote to the Syrian believers in Baghdad about the case, and the caliph expelled Bishop Denha. The bishop returned to Antioch, where he met with Patriarch Michael Rabo and asked his forgiveness. In a true gesture of Christian love, the patriarch accepted the bishop’s apology and sent him to the Edessan Mountain to await appointment to an available diocese.[78]
Michael Rabo relates another episode involving clergymen who from sheer avarice turned to earthly (i.e., Muslim) rulers to oppress their own Syrian people and achieve their goals. The antagonist in this case was Ignatius, the avaricious bishop of Tur Abdin, who obtained money through various means. Michael Rabo admonished him to abandon his unworthy behavior and adhere to the laws of the church, but he did not lobey. One Sunday morning he left the worship service and went to the governor, as was his custom, asking him to throw into prison monks, priests, and laymen on a variety of charges. That night, a group of Kurds captured him and beat him badly, but his companions managed to flee. Not satisfied with merely beating him, the Kurds drove a stake into his buttocks and left him near death. Some passersby found him, and as they pulled the stake from his bottom he died. It is said that he was responsible for the deaths of a number of Syrian believers, but it is not known whether they were killed by Ignatius himself or by those whom he had instigated.[79] His case clearly shows that there were renegade and outright immoral clergymen within the church who oppressed their own people, as did their worldly rulers. It also shows the sad state of the patriarchs of the Syrian Church, who had to struggle to save their church and authority not only from the Muslim Turks and their rulers, but from bishops and other clergy whose immoral and evil actions aggravated their situation and weakened the church’s spiritual authority.
The men who created particular difficulty for Patriarch Michael Rabo by seeking the aid of Muslim rulers against him were Theodore bar Wahbun and Karim bar Masih. Theodore was a native of Melitene, the son of the priest Sohda bar Wahbun. His godfather, the patriarch, brought him to the Monastery of Mar Barsoum, made him his personal secretary, and treated him with kindness and love. At the monastery, Theodore proved to be an avid reader, acquiring profound secular and spiritual knowledge, but he lacked spiritual wisdom and particularly the fear of God. He was rebellious and arrogant, with an inflated ego because of his knowledge.[80] Blinded by false pride and ambition, Theodore turned against his benefactor, seeking to usurp the office of the patriarchate. To achieve this goal he resorted to treachery, manipulation, and bribery of Muslim governors. In 1180 he plotted to split the church with the aid of some bishops who were displeased with the patriarch for his strict implementation of canon laws, which they had violated. Theodore bar Wahbun tried to stir trouble in Melitene, but the congregation had him expelled from the city. He fled to Edessa and then to Jerusalem, inciting the congregations against the patriarch. He failed at this, but succeeded in convincing four bishops to help him become a patriarch. They contacted the governor of Amid, Abu al-Qasim Hasan (Abu al-Qasim Nisan, according to Bar Hebraeus), and offered him money if he would help them to install Theodore as patriarch. The governor was ready not only to violate the canons of the Christian church, which he did not respect or understand, but to violate the laws of Islam for money. Shortly afterwards, he invited Bar Wahbun to become patriarch. Bishop Ibrahim of Amid, who had been removed from his diocese for violating church laws, was to deliver the invitation, disguised as a Turkish officer, but his mission failed due to the sudden death of the governor, who was succeeded by his son.[81] The rebellious bishops called on the new governor and showed him the invitation his father had sent, offering him more money if he would help make Bar Wahbun patriarch. The bishops’ action enraged the Syrian congregation of Amid, who told the new governor, “We will never permit our faith to be destroyed.” He replied, “If your patriarch visits us, we will expel Bar Wahbun.” After the congregation invited the patriarch, he agreed to go to Amid and meet with the governor, but the subsequent evil action of his opponents disturbed him and the church. As the patriarch left the Monastery of Mar Barsoum to travel to Amid, the rebellious bishops entered the church in Mardin, locked the doors, and ordained Theodore bar Wahbun as patriarch in a night service. In the morning they disguised themselves in different clothing and left for Mosul to meet with the Maphrian Mar Yuhanna.[82]
Karim Bar Masih had a hand in the ordination of Bar Wahbun. Bar Masih came to Mardin, the seat of the patriarch’s diocese, and usurped it by offering gold to the governor. He invited Theodore to Mardin and proclaimed him patriarch, even though he had been condemned not only by the patriarch and his clergy, but by the maphrian and the clergy of the East. Upon hearing of Bar Masih’s action, the Syrians of Mardin, together with the monks of the neighboring monasteries, notably the Monastery of Mar Hananya (Za’faran Monastery), appealed to Patriarch Michael Rabo to appoint a bishop for them. The patriarch chose a learned and articulate monk named Modyana (Confessor), from the Edessan mountain, and ordained him as bishop of Mardin. But the new bishop, unable to become an officer of the church without the governor’s approval, was forced to offer the governor the same amount of gold Bar Wahbun had offered him to obtain his investiture as a bishop.[83]
In Mosul, Theodore Bar Wahbun and his collaborators asked the Maphrian Mar Yuhanna (d. 1189) to approve Bar Wahbun as patriarch, but he refused. Disappointed, the conspirators traveled aimlessly from place to place. At the town of Dara, between Nisibin and Mardin, the leading Syrian dignitaries urged them to forsake their machinations and obey the patriarch (Michael Rabo). After learning that the conspirators were in Dara, the Maphrian Yuhanna and some bishops went there, captured them, and brought them to the patriarch in chains. At a council convened by the patriarch, they admitted their guilt in writing and asked his forgiveness. Soon, however, Theodore Bar Wahbun, violating his promise to forsake his evil ways, resorted again to deception. Some of his allies hired ruffian Kurds to hide him at night until the patriarch had left the Monastery of Mar Barsoum, where the council met. The patriarch convened another council which also condemned Bar Wahbun, but he refused to leave the monastery, asking instead for forgiveness. The meek, compassionate patriarch accepted Theodore’s false apology, allotted him a cell at the monastery for his residence, and promised to ask the council to reconsider his condemnation. But no sooner did the patriarch leave to go to the Monastery of Mar Hananya than some other rebellious monks helped Bar Wahbun escape by lowering him in a basket from the monastery’s wall. He fled to Damascus, where he approached Salah al-Din al-Ayyubi (Saladin) and offered him money to proclaim him as patriarch in the regions under his authority. He even wrote a letter slandering the patriarch, hoping that Saladin would destroy him. When the letter was read to him, Saladin inquired about Theodore and, after learning from some Christian believers in his service about his odious conduct, had him expelled.
Frustrated, Theodore Bar Wahbun went to Jerusalem and began stirring trouble between the Franks and the Syrian minority, especially against Metropolitan Athanasius, who had been chosen to head the diocese of Jerusalem in 1184. Athanasius already had strained relations with the Franks because of a dispute over the Monastery of Mary Magdalene, which belonged to the Syrians but had been usurped by the Franks.[84] He had offered the Latin patriarch of Jerusalem a thousand dinars to return the monastery to the Syrians. The Syrian Church endured deplorable hardships because of the ownership dispute, which was further prolonged because of the Muslims’ occupation of Jerusalem. Bar Wahbun then went to Mardin and Mosul, where he offered bribes to the Turkish governor and his associates, hoping they would proclaim him a patriarch. His action encouraged Muslim governors everywhere to demand money for their help. Next, he turned to the Armenian Catholicos (Gregory IV, 1173-1193), then residing in the Qal’at Romaitha, asking his assistance as he had done with the Latin patriarch in Jerusalem. The catholicos, believing Theodore’s false promises, expelled the Syrian bishop from his diocese and placed the Syrians of Cilicia under his authority, and Theodore Bar Wahbun dared to call himself patriarch. He continued his actions against Patriarch Michael Rabo and lavished enormous amounts of money and gifts on the Turkish governors in Syria and Beth Nahrin, hoping they too would declare him patriarch. Bar Wahbun’s efforts were frustrated when his principal supporter, Catholicos Gregory, died in 1193, and his machinations ended when he died forty days later.[85]
The death of the miscreant Theodore Bar Wahbun brought some relief to Patriarch Michael Rabo and his church, but he had still to deal with Karim Bar Masih, a monk from the Monastery of Mar Matta. Karim bar Masih belonged to the family of Jabir, which was originally from Takrit but, like many Syrian Takritians, had settled in Mosul. Rebellious and ambitious, he was as much a troublemaker as Bar Wahbun, whose ordination as patriarch he had supported in 1192. Mosul had a Muslim judge named Muhyi al-Din whom the governor greatly respected, and whose advice he always heeded (the governor’s lieutenants hated him, but did not dare harm him). Judge Muhyi al-Din was in charge of collecting the tribute imposed on all the monasteries and their properties, including the Monastery of Mar Matta. After Maphrian Yuhanna died in 1189, Bar Masih, hoping to succeed him, sought the aid of this judge to achieve this goal. He took a boat down the Tigris to Takrit, the maphrian’s seat, to usurp the See of the Maphrianate.[86] The archimandrite and some monks of the Monastery of Mar Matta, some Syrian Takritian leaders from Mosul, and four bishops (Ignatius Gabriel Yuhanna bar Hindi, bishop of Urmia in Azerbaijan, Yuhanna Ruwad Marqia, bishop of Ba’arbaya, Saliba, bishop of the Monastery of Mar Matta, and Basilius Matta bar Shuwayk, bishop of Baghdad) wrote in support of Bar Masih and brought him to the patriarch to be ordained a maphrian. But other clerics, including the priest Abu Mansur Bar Tibun and the monks Yaqub and Shamtah of the Monastery of Mar Matta, wrote to the patriarch that Bar Masih was an insolent person who had surrounded himself with a band of wicked men.[87] Michael Rabo says that the Syrian congregations of Mosul and Takrit had informed him that they would never accept him as their maphrian because of his immoral conduct. The patriarch, who had also heard about Bar Masih’s conduct from the late Maphrian Yuhanna, felt he had to find a suitable person for this high office. To foil the plan of Bar Masih and his collaborators, the clergymen prevailed on the patriarch to choose his nephew Yaqub, a learned and venerable man who was ordained a maphrian at the Monastery of Saint Dumit in the province of Mardin in 1189, taking the name Gregorius.[88] When the other bishops, whom Michael Rabo calls “the gang of Bar Masih,” learned that their plan had failed, they bribed the governor, who issued an order naming Karim Bar Masih as maphrian.[89] At the Monastery of Mar Matta, they ordained Bar Masih a maphrian and named him Dionysius.[90]
But things did not turn out as Bar Masih had wished, for judge Muhyi al-Din died soon afterwards. The Christians of Mosul asked the eunuch Mujahid al-Din, who hated Muhyi al-Din, to help restore their lawful Maphrian Gregorius, who for two years had been barred from entering Mosul because Muhyi al-Din had subjected them to Bar Masih’s authority, in violation of church laws. Mujahid al-Din agreed to help and provided them with letters of passage and a messenger, and they sent a delegation to fetch the maphrian, then at the Monastery of Mar Hananya, and brought him to Mosul with great joy and pomp. When Bar Masih reached Takrit, the Syrian congregation rejected him and he returned to Mosul, frustrated. As soon as he arrived, the officers of the Syrian Church had him placed in their custody. The maphrian and the bishops met to discuss his case and demanded that he return all the gold he had extorted from the Syrian churches. When he did not comply, they met with the clergy and congregation in the Church of the Takritians in Mosul and defrocked him, then sent him back to prison. A year later, his brother paid four hundred dinars, and Bar Masih was freed.
Curiously, Michael Rabo says that in 1190, under pressure from his bishops, he delegated Bishop Gabriel, abbot of the Monastery of Mar Barsoum, and Bishop Abu al-Faraj, then in charge of the patriarchal office, to Sultan Salah al-Din (Saladin) to explain Bar Masih’s machinations to him. Before they reached Damascus, while Saladin was besieging Akka (Acre), the two bishops were arrested as spies and thrown into prison, losing everything in their possession. But they were rescued through the effort of Muzaffar al-Din, son of Zayn al-Din, lord of Edessa, and finally obtained letters of support from Saladin.[91]
After three years of humiliation and condemnation, Bar Masih returned to his old ways. After paying the governor of Mosul 1000 dinars, he was allowed to proclaim himself bishop of Mosul and its environs. Encouraged by the Muslim governor’s support, he donned the garb of a bishop and traveled around the province of Mosul hoping to gather followers, but failed. Meanwhile, he was hounded by his creditors, who demanded that he settle his debts. Since he had no money, he was thrown into prison and remained there for eighteen months. Out of goodness and perhaps pity, Maphrian Gregorius had him released from prison. A year after his release he was finally forced to pay his debts. At the very end of his Chronicle, Michael Rabo states that toward the end of 1194, Maphrian Gregorius and four bishops came to see him at the Monastery of Mar Barsoum and offer allegiance to him. But as soon as they returned to their dioceses, Bar Masih slandered the maphrian to the governor, stating that he had left his diocese and would never return. But when the maphrian and the bishops returned in early 1195, Bar Masih was put to shame, and the maphrian was received warmly by his flock and the governor.[92]
After Patriarch Michael Rabo died in 1199, Bar Masih caused more trouble for the church. He was imprisoned again and then released through the intercession of Maphrian Gregorius. Because he could not pay the huge debts he had incurred, he fled from Mosul to Mardin, then to Amid, and from there to Miyafarqin, where with the governor’s help he was able to become a bishop of the Syrian flock. But he was condemned by a church council and later absolved by the new Patriarch, Athanasius Saliba the Bald. On December 24, 1204, he died in Miyafarqin; he was buried by the Nestorians, who felt sorry for him after the Syrian Church refused to bury him because of his evil actions and the contention and discord he had caused within the church.[93]
Around 1175, a sharp conflict arose between the Armenians and the Turks over the Samson (Sasun) Mountain, above Miyafarqin, which the Armenians had controlled since the time of the Assyrians (some Kurds also lived in the mountain and claimed it was theirs). With the help of the governor of Miyafarqin, the Turks occupied its fortresses and expelled the Armenians, and for five years they fought the Armenians living in Miyafarqin and Mardin. The governor oppressed and starved the Armenians, forcing them to surrender the fortresses to the great Armenian lord of Khilat (Akhlat) on Lake Van, Sukman II, Nasir al-Din Muhammad (1128-1183), known as Shah Armen.[94] A miscreant Armenian lord named Bakhyan lost his share of the mountain to the Turks and sought to control one of the fortresses. The Armenians gave him several villages, but this gift was not sufficient to satisfy his ambition. He converted to Islam, thinking the Muslim Turks would offer him a fortress. Much to his disappointment, he was repulsed, and his conversion to Islam benefited him nothing.[95]
About 1201, before the death of Bar Masih, trouble arose between the Syrians of the village of Bartulli, east of Mosul, and the village’s Muslim khatib (preacher). The Anonymous Edessan says that the Syrian Christians complained against him to the village head, who had him whipped. The preacher went one Friday to the Great Mosque in Mosul (built by Nur al-Din Zangi) and provoked a disturbance against the Christians. A large mob of Muslims joined him and left the mosque to go to Bartulli and destroy it. But when they reached the city gate (Bab al-Jisr, the gate of the bridge over the River Tigris), they found it locked. Disappointed, they returned and vented their anger on the Great Church of the Syrian Takritians. They smashed its doors and sanctuary and pillaged everything inside — beautiful church vessels, splendid curtains, crosses, Gospels, golden patens and chalices, and other magnificent brass items. They broke into the office of the maphrian, who was absent, and stole his belongings. They destroyed the closets and doors, and even dug into the floor and took great quantities of provisions, including seeds and grains stored in parts of the church.[96]
The persecution of the Christian communities, particularly the Syrians of the diocese of the Monastery of Mar Matta, worsened beginning in the first quarter of the thirteenth century. The whole northern region of Iraq was a theater of conflict between the lords of Mosul, descendants of Imad al-Din Zangi, and the lords of Arbil. On his deathbed, al-Malik al-Qahir Izz al-Din Mas’ud II (reigned 1210-1218) made his freed slave Badr al-Din Lulu (1180-1259) the administrator for his ten-year-old son Nur al-Din Arslan Shah II (1218-1219), who succeeded him as atabeg of Mosul; he gave the citadels of ‘Aqra and Shush to his younger son, Imad al-Din, who later made Aqra the seat of his government.[97] Because of Nur al-Din’s tender age, his uncle Imad al-Din tried to gain control of his state. The able administrator, Badr al-Din Lulu, obtained from the Abbasid Caliph al-Nasir li Din Allah (1180-1225) a patent of investiture for Nur al-Din, but he still had to face the ambitious Imad al-Din, who was supported by Muzaffar al-Din Kukburi, lord of Arbil.[98] Nur al-Din died in 1219 and was succeeded by his brother Nasir al-Din Mahmud, then only three years old.
After the death of Nasir al-Din in 1233, Muzaffar al-Din and Imad al-Din attacked the fortress of Imadiyya in northern Iraq, and Badr al-Din Lulu had his hands full trying to repel their forces and protect his state. This conflict seriously impacted the lives and safety of the Christians in the region. In the battle against Muzaffar al-Din Kukburi, Badr al-Din fled to Mosul and then to Balad, hoping to gather sufficient troops. Muzaffar al-Din chased after him and camped behind the hill of the fortress of Nineveh, but when he saw that Badr al-Din was about to crush him, he departed for Arbil.[99] While he was on his way there, some Kurds of Shahrzur in his company kidnaped a Syrian Christian bride from the village of Beth Sakhraya (today called Basakhra). The villagers pursued the Kurds, killed some of them, and freed the kidnaped bride. When Muzaffar al-Din heard of this he became furious, especially when he learned that the villagers had disgraced themselves and honored his enemy by shouting, “Long live the staff of gold, Badr al-Din!” In his anger, he sent troops who attacked the village of Beth Sakhraya and killed 300 villagers who had taken refuge in its church. Then the troops marched to the village of Bartulli and cut off the hands of young men with their swords.[100] In 1220 some chiefs of the Yezidis (known today as the Devil Worshipers) in the villages north of Mosul rebelled against Badr al-Din Lulu and plundered the village of Jabbara in the region of Nineveh, whose inhabitants were Syrian Christians, and killed its men, women and children.[101]
After the death of Nasir al-Din Mahmud, Badr al-Din Lulu became the atabeg of Mosul.[102] At his death in 1259, he was succeeded by his son al-Malik al-Salih Isma’il (reigned1259-1261). In 1261, the Christians of Mosul and the province of Nineveh suffered tragedy when al-Malik al-Salih Isma’il, accompanied by Kurds, decided to force the Christians of the province of Nineveh to plunder and kill other Christians. His plan was foiled by Shams al-Din ibn Yunus of Bashiqa, who alerted the people of the province to the forthcoming danger and urged them to leave with him for Arbil. Many Christians believed him and departed to Arbil on the Thursday evening of Pentecost. On learning of the their departure, al-Malik al-Salih Isma’il changed his mind and abandoned the idea of slaughtering them, but in the confusion, the Kurds in Mosul attacked the Christians, plundering their possessions and killing everyone who refused to embrace Islam. A great majority of priests, deacons, and dignitaries converted to Islam to save their lives as the Kurds ravaged the country outside Nineveh, killing and robbing Christians. They attacked a convent in the village of Beth Khudayda (modern Qaraqosh) and killed the Christians hiding there.[103] They assembled thousands of horsemen and footsoldiers, attacked the Monastery of Mar Matta, and made war on the monks for four months. They set up ladders, planning to scale the wall, but the monks prevailed and burned the ladders. The Kurds hewed a mass of stone from the mountain above the monastery and rolled it toward the wall. The stone split in two; each part made a breach in the wall, but one remained stuck in it. The Kurds rushed toward the monastery, but the monks and the Syrian villagers inside fought back fiercely with stones and arrows and prevented them from entering. In the foray the archimandrite Abu Nasr of Bartulli was knocked out, and a few men were wounded slightly by arrows.[104] Weary of fighting, the monks sued for peace and pledged to give the Kurds all the hangings, curtains, and equipment of the church, and to collect gold, silver and jewelry for them. The Kurds were also anxious for peace because they had heard that the Mongols were coming to invade the region. Before they departed, they took a very large amount of property from the monastery, valued at 1000 gold dinars.[105]
At that time the Syrian inhabitants of Beth Sakhraya and other natives of Nineveh took refuge in the Monastery of Mar Daniyal (St. Daniel), also known as Dayr al-Khanafis, or the Monastery of Beetles, near the village of Bartulli. But when they left it and crossed the river Zab to go to Arbil, the amir Kutulbeg accused them of coming from the side of the enemy and killed them all, men and women alike. When Sayf al-Din, lord of Jazirat ibn Umar, heard that his brother al-Malik al-Salih Isma’il had fled to Syria, he also prepared to flee. But before he fled, he rounded up the Christians and threw them into prison until they paid him 2000 gold dinars. On Ascension Day 1261, as the Christians remained in prison in a state of despair, Sayf al-Din distributed the gold among his troops, but finally 70,000 Kurds surrounded him and carried him off to Syria, and Jazirat ibn Umar was left without a lord. Two scouts, Izaz Bash and Muhammad, a captain of the guards, made themselves rulers of the region. They released the imprisoned Christians after exacting 7000 dinars from them, killing only two of them who had had communication with the Mongols.[106] Abu Nasr of Bartulli (d. 1290), who was archimandrite of the Monastery of Mar Matta, lamented these events in a 36-page ode which has fortunately survived.[107] He says that the wicked Kurds forced the priests to deny their Apostolic faith and plunged the deacons into the abyss of apostasy. They ruined the monks’ chastity and kept the believers from confessing the Holy Trinity. Those who refused to recant their faith were crowned with martyrdom. Out of envy, the evil marauders destroyed the churches and monasteries and had no mercy on the altars, the Table of Life, and the holy books. They even violated the Holy Scriptures. No church in all Athur, Nineveh, Rahubuth, Banuhadra (modern Duhuk), and Jazirat ibn Umar was left undefiled. The celebrations of the Holy Eucharist ceased because of the adversities which befell the believers, and the Monastery of Mar Matta it became the fortress of refuge for those who fled the sword and sought peace and tranquility.[108]
Thus, it is apparent that the native Christian communities of Syrians and Armenians suffered external oppression by their rulers and, especially in the case of the Syrians, internal dissension. This dissension, stirred by mutinous clergymen like Bar Wahbun and Bar Masih, caused the high officers of the church and their communities to fall prey to greedy Muslim rulers, who relished the hefty bribes the rebellious clergy paid them. This was an unspeakably sad period for the native Christians, because it brought boundless pain to honorable leaders like Patriarch Michael Rabo and tremendously weakened their churches and communities, causing many people to embrace Islam in order to escape external oppression and internal conflict caused not only by avaricious Muslim rulers but by the clergy, who were contending for money or the control of more dioceses. One has only to read what is left of the Chronicle of the Anonymous Edessan to realize how deplorable was the internal state of the Syrian Church shortly after Michael Rabo died in 1199.[109]
The Christian communities also had the misfortune of being the victims of warfare between two Muslim groups, the Turks and the Kurds. Starting in 1185, the Turkomans waged war for eight years against their neighboring countries — Armenia, Athur (northern Iraq), Syria, and Cappadocia. The Turkomans, says Michael Rabo, were nomads and tent dwellers. They spent the winter in the abundantly verdant plains south of Syria, where there was no snow or frozen ground. In the spring they moved to the northern region, where there was plenty of grass for their cattle, moving in herds so large they blocked the highways. The Kurds, who often committed robbery, stole the Turkomans’ horses, cows, camels and other animals, and skirmishes between the two sides occasionally brought casualties. To protect their cattle, the Turks began traveling in caravans. After they learned that two hundred Kurds were about to ambush them in the region of Shabakhtan, near Mardin, the hostilities escalated into warfare, with the result that 10,000 men fell on both sides. Angered, the Kurds brought together 30,000 men from the regions of Nisibin and Tur Abdin, while the Turkomans massed near Khabur. The Kurds were beaten and fled, and the bodies of their dead littered the area between the River Khabur and Nisibin. Soon afterwards, two more battles between the Turkomans and the Kurds took place in the district of Mosul. The Kurds were again defeated and fled to the mountain areas bordering Cilicia to protect their families and cattle, but the Turkomans attacked, stole their possessions, and annihilated them — men, women, and children. The Turks sent groups of scouts into the mountains and plains of Syria and Mesopotamia, and whenever they found Kurds, they killed them without mercy and for no reason.[110]
The other Eastern sources shed little light on the conflict between the Turkomans and the Kurds. Ibn Shaddad notes briefly states that in 1183 a battle was fought between the two sides, and that many men were killed.[111] Indeed, there was severe ethnic conflict in Saladin’s army between the Turks and the Kurds, who did not trust each other.[112] This conflict between the Kurds and the Mamluks apparently was so vehement and disruptive that it attracted the attention of the Franks. The Muslims’ aim was to capture King Richard Lion-Heart and bring him to Saladin.[113] The Anonymous Edessan says that the Turkomans became more ferocious when Saladin fell ill for four months in 1183 at Harran, to which he returned after failing to capture Mosul. The Kurds did not dare appear openly on the highways. The Turkomans invaded their villages and drove them from their mountain abodes, forcing them to live in towns under most miserable conditions. Thereafter, the Turkomans became inured to bloodshed, pillage and annihilation.[114]
Michael Rabo says the Christians suffered little harm in the first years of the Turkomans’ conflict with the Kurds, i.e., before 1185. But as it turned into warfare, the Turks became aware that the Kurds often hid their possessions in Christian villages. Moreover, because the Turkish governors did not stop the Turkomans from looting and killing, the Kurds moved into Greater Armenia. After annihilating the Kurds, the Turkomans attacked Armenia and took 26,000 Armenians captive and sold them as slaves. They set fire to the villages and to the Garabed Monastery, and killed all its monks and pillaged its books and possessions. Their troops occupied Tall al-Arabs fortress in the region of Shabakhtan and sold its occupants into slavery. Next they slaughtered 170 Syrian men in Tall Bisme, near Mardin. When the rulers saw the destruction of their territory and the decimation of their village populations, they fought against the Turkomans, especially in the provinces of Claudia and Melitene. In the village of Amrun in Claudia, the Turkomans killed many people, including 200 Syrian men. Says Michael Rabo, no one can describe the carnage and devastation during eight years (1185-1193) of warfare among the Turkomans, Kurds, and Arab Muslims.[115] The Syrians and the Armenians, who had no stake in this warfare, paid the price in lives and possessions. Even small Syrian Christian communities like Bartulli and Mosul were not immune to the antagonism and destructive acts of their Muslim neighbors. Not surprisingly, the numbers of the Christian Syrians and Armenians in greater Syria, Mesopotamia and southern Turkey fell drastically, while the number of Muslims increased.
Michael Rabo relates several events that shed light on the Turkish rulers’ treatment of the Monastery of Mar Barsoum and their recognition of the saint’s power. In one case Feridun, lord of Melitene, and his profligate brother Muhammad fought over control of the city. Muhammad was soundly beaten and fled Melitene to join the Franks in Antioch. When conditions there did not suit him, he went to Sultan Kilij Arslan II of the Seljuks of Rum, hoping that the sultan would give him Melitene, but instead he received Heraclea (present day Ereghli in Turkey). Soon, however, Heraclea was taken from him. Muhammad went to the Turks in the East (Syria), only to be captured by Nur al-Din Zangi and imprisoned at al-Bira, on the bank of the Euphrates, where he lived off the charity of the people. While he was in prison the monks of the Monastery of Mar Barsoum, who feared Nur al-Din Zangi, bravely extended charity to him because he loved their monastery. When Nur al-Din died in 1174, Muhammad was released from prison; he learned that his brother’s wife, who hated her husband, had alredy left Melitene and gone to her family in Hisn Ziyad (modern Kharput in Turkey). He followed her there, and her family encouraged him to seize control of Melitene. He sought the divine intercession of Mar Barsoum and pledged that if he was successful, he would exempt the monastery from taxes. Disguised as a beggar, he went by night to Melitene with two of his followers. They took him to the house of one of his supporters, where he remained in hiding for two days.
On Sunday, February 15, 1175, Muhammad and his companions sneaked into his brother’s palace. They found a ladder on the ground, set it against the wall, and climbed down into the garden, where they found Feridun and an aged nanny sleeping. Muhammad struck his brother a fatal blow to the head, cut off his head, and took the keys of the city and the citadel. He boldly went through Melitene carrying his brother’s head, and everyone who saw him rushed to offer support. Fifteen men swore allegiance to him that night. The next morning he went with a hundred men to the citadel, to proclaim that the city had a new lord. The Christians of Melitene, scared, hid in their homes. But the Turks mounted their horses and gathered at the entrance of the citadel, with swords in hands. There was a great commotion, and rumors about the fate of their lord swirled. When Muhammad dropped his brother’s head from the wall, they faced the reality that their prince had been killed and pledged allegiance to Muhammad. After taking control of Melitene, Muhammad proposed exempting the Monastery of Mar Barsoum from taxes, but the monks felt that such a gesture would outrage the Muslims of Melitene against them and insisted on paying the taxes imposed on them. They proposed to pay him 300 dinars annually and asked to be exempted only from the additional tax of 700 dinars imposed by Feridun. It appears that Muhammad finally gave in to the monks, but as compensation he gave them the Monastery of Mar Dumit (Demete), near Melitene.[116]
But the most remarkable episode Michael Rabo relates is in connection with Kilij Arslan II, Seljuk Sultan of Rum (1155-1192), who came to Melitene in 1181 and inquired about Michael Rabo, then the patriarch. He sent him a friendly letter, together with a patriarchal staff and twenty red (gold) dinars, which caused much astonishment. The next year Kilij Arslan came again; having heard of the trouble Theodore bar Wahbun had caused, he sent a letter inviting the patriarch to Melitene. When he arrived, he was uncertain but felt that something unusual was happening. The sultan sent a messenger to tell him that he had ordered that the patriarch should enter into his presence according to the tradition and practice of the Christians, preceded by crosses and the gospel. The following day, three amirs and a host of horsemen came to accompany him with honor to meet Sultan Kilij Arslan, but the patriarch remained suspicious. On the morning of Thursday, July 8, 1182, he and his companions entered Melitene. To his surprise, the sultan, his troops, and the townsmen came out to welcome him. The Christians, with torches lit and crosses fixed on their spears, raised their voices, chanting. The sultan approached the patriarch and asked him not to dismount or shake his hand, then opened his arms and embraced Michael Rabo. The two men communicated through an interpreter, and when the patriarch felt that the sultan was truly attentive, he began to talk freely, supporting his points with testimonies from the Scriptures and from nature, interspersed with exhortations. As the sultan listened, his eyes filled with tears, and the patriarch thanked God. Overjoyed, the Christians raised a cry of thanks and praise when they saw the Worshiped Cross hoisted over the heads of the sultan and the Muslims. In this manner the throng entered the church, and at the end of his sermon, the patriarch blessed the sultan and the people. The next day the sultan informed the patriarch that he had abolished the taxes imposed on the Monastery of Mar Barsoum and confirmed his order with a royal rescript.[117] On Sunday, the sultan sent the patriarch a hand, plated with gold and silver and inlaid with jewels, along with relics of St. Peter. Michael Rabo stayed in Melitene a month, and every day the sultan sent him gifts. The two discussed questions about God, Christ, the prophets, the apostles, and other matters. When the sultan left Melitene, he invited the patriarch to accompany him, and on the way the patriarch engaged in a lengthy conversation with Kamal al-Din, a Persian philosopher traveling with the sultan. As the patriarch offered more testimonies from the Scriptures, the sultan praised the Syrians’ wisdom and expressed joy over them. The patriarch attributes the attitude of Sultan Kilij Arslan II not to himself but to the mercy of God, who chose to comfort his small flock and the Syrian Church. Although the sultan’s purpose in conferring such great honor on the Syrian patriarch is not known, his magnanimous attitude stands in contrast to that of the Christian prince, Joscelin II, who unashamedly robbed the Monastery of Mar Barsoum.[118]
After he departed Melitene, Kilij Arslan invaded the Byzantine territory and captured twelve fortresses. Later, in a letter to Michael Rabo, the sultan attributed his victory over the Byzantines to the power of the patriarch’s prayer:

From Kilij Arslan, the great Sultan of Cappadocia, Syria and Armenia to Patriarch Michael,
the friend of our state, who resides in the Monastery of Mar Barsoum and who prays for
our success. We declare that God has glorified the affairs of our state at this time by your
prayer. From ancient Philadelphia (Alashehr, Turkey), the son of the king of the Rum
[apparently Emperor Andronicus Comnenus (1183-1185), grandson of Alexius I] came with
his sons to offer submission to our throne. We dispatched with him an army of forty
thousand men. The enemies gathered in large numbers in the Great City (Constantinople)
and prepared for war. But God gave victory to our army and chased and defeated the enemies
of our state so badly that they will never be able to rise against us for a long time to come.
Our army occupied the great fortress of Diyadin and controlled the region extending
beyond the fortress and the seashore, which has become subject to us. Now we administer
that region, which has not been subject to the Turks before, according to the laws of our state.
It should be said that verily God has given us all this [victory] because of the power of your
prayer. Therefore, we beseech you not to cease praying for our state. Farewell.[119]

Never had a Byzantine emperor or a Frankish prince asked a Syrian patriarch to pray for his triumph over his Muslim enemies. The letter clearly shows the sultan’s genuine belief in the power of prayer. Why else would Kilij Arslan have written this letter, knowing that the patriarch had no political or military power? Did he hope to coax the Syrian Christians to support him? This is doubtful, for in his Chronicle Michael Rabo never even suggests that his people were military aggressors or voluntarily took part in the warfare involving the

Bib.

[46] Ibn al-Athir, al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh, 1: 602, and al-Tarikh al-Bahir fi al-Dawla al-Atabegiyya, 161; Ibn Shaddad, al-Nawadir al-Sultaniyya wa al-Mahasin al-Yusufiyya, in R.H.C. Or., 3: 55; Abu Shama, 1: 228, follows Ibn Shaddad; Ibn al-Adim, Zubdat al-Halab min Tarikh Halab, 2: 340; Ibn Wasil, Mufarrij al-Kurub, 1: 262-263; Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 107 of the Syriac text, and trans. Budge, 302, where khawaniq is rendered as strangury, a disease marked by the painful and slow discharge of urine; Reinhold Röhricht, Geschichte des Königreichs Jerusalem 1100-1291 (Innsbrug, 1898), 358; William of Tyre, 2: 394, n. 62.

[47] Ibn al-Athir, al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh, 1: 576-577.

[48] Ibn al-Athir, al-Tarikh al-Bahir, 162-175, al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh, 1: 602-606; Sulayman Sai’gh, Tarikh al-Mawsil, 1 (Cairo; al-Matba’a al-Salafiyya, 1923), 179-181, 219; Sa’id al-Daywachi, Tarikh al-Mawsil, 1 (Baghdad: The Iraqi Academy, 1982): 335; Husayn Mu’nis, Nur al-Din Mahmud, 180-182; N. Elisséeff, Nur al-Din: un grand prince musulman de Syrie au temps des Croisades (Damascus, 1967), 64-65; Carole Hillenbrand, The Crusades: Islamic Perspectives (New York, 1999-2000), pp. 132-141.

[49] Ibn al-Athir, al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh, 1: 588-589, and al-Tarikh al-Bahir, 169; Ibn Wasil, 1: 235; Iorga,
L’Armenie Cilicienne, 98.

[50] K. L. Astarjian, Tarikh al-Umma al-Armaniyya (Mosul, 1951), 214-215.
[51] William of Tyre, 2: 386-387.

[52] Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 103 of the Syriac text, 292 of the English translation.

[53] Michael Rabo, 695-696 of the Syriac text, 337 of the French translation; Bar Hebraeus, 103 of the Syriac text,. 295 of the English translation.

[54] Michael Rabo, 710-711 of the Syriac text, 361 of the French translation; the Anonymous Edessan, 176-177 of the Syriac text, 205 of the Arabic translation; Bar Hebraeus, 108 of the Syriac text, 305 of the English translation; Frédéric Macler, “Armenia,” Cambridge Medieval History, 4: 1170-1171.

[55] The Anonymous Edessan, 169 of the Syriac text, 197-198 of the Arabic translation.

[56] William of Tyre, 2: 394.

[57] Michael Rabo, 705-706 of the Syriac text, 353 of the French translation.

[58] Michael Rabo, 705 of the Syriac text, 352 of the French translation; the Anonymous Edessan, 168 of the Syriac text, 196 of the Arabic translation.

[59] Michael Rabo, 697-698 of the Syriac text, 339-340 of the French translation; the Anonymous Edessan, 168 of the Syriac text, 195-196 of the Arabic translation.

[60] The Anonymous Edessan, 169 of the Syriac text, 197 of the Arabic translation.

[61] Michael Rabo, 678-679 of the Syriac text, 340-341 of the French translation; Bar Hebraeus, Ecclesiastical History, 3: 263-265; Patriarch Ignatius.Yaqub, Dafaqat al-Tib fi Tarikh Dayr al-Qiddis Mar Matta al-Ajib (Zahla, Lebanon, 1961), 88.

[62] The Anonymous Edessan, 169 of the Syriac text, 197 of the Arabic translation. In the spring of 1951 this author, with the students of St. Ephraim the Syrian Seminary in Mosul and its principal Rev. Bulus Behnam (ordained a bishop the next year), visited this monastery, which stands partly in ruins. Moses Bar Kipha (d. 903), a prominent Syrian writer, philosopher, and theologian, was educated at the Barren Monastery, between Sinjar and Balad in northern Iraq. For his biography, see Patriarch Aphram Barsoum, al-Lulu al-Manthur fi Tarikh al-Ulum wa al-Adab al-Syrianiyya, 2nd ed. (Hims, Syria, 1956), 434-441, and trans. Matti Moosa with the title The History of Syriac Literature and Sciences (Pueblo, Colorado: Passeggiata Press, 2000, 131-133, rpt. Gorgias Press, 2003), 398-404.

[63] Ibn al-Athir, al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh, 1: 573-576, and al-Tarikh al-Bahir, 146; Abu Shama, 1: 186, who follows Ibn al-Athir; Ibn al-Adim, Zubdat al-Halab, 2: 331; Ibn Wasil, 1: 191-193; Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, p. 295, and Tarikh Mukhtasar al-Duwal, 213-214; Sa’igh, 1: 178-179; Imad al-Din al-Isfahani, Sana al-Barq al-Shami, abridged by Qiwam al-Din al-Fath ibn Ali al-Bundari, ed. Ramadan Sheshen (Beirut: Dar al-Kitab al-Jadid, 1971), 93-94. Another edition of this work is by Fathiyya al-Nabrawi (Cairo: Maktabat al-Khanji bi Misr, 1979).

[64] Ibn al-Athir, al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh, 1: 574-577, and al-Tarikh al-Bahir, 153; Ibn al-Adim, 2: 332-333; Ibn Wasil, 1: 192-193; Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 105-106 of the Syriac text and trans. Budge, 295-297, and Tarikh Mukhtasar al-Duwal, ed. Anton Salihani (Beirut, 1958), 213-214.

[65] Michael Rabo, 697 of the Syriac text, 340 of the French translation.
[66] Michael Rabo, 698 of the Syriac text, p. 342 of the French translation.

[67] The Anonymous Edessan, 168 of the Syriac text, 196 of the Arabic translation; Michael Rabo, 710 of the Syriac text, 360-361 of the French translation; Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 302 of the English translation.

[68] Michael Rabo, 698-700 of the Syriac text, 344-345 of the French translation.

[69] Michael Rabo, 699-700 of the Syriac text, 344-345 of the French translation.

[70] Michael Rabo, 698-700 of the Syriac text, 344-345 of the French translation.

[71] Bar Hebraeus, Ecclesiastical History, biography of Michael Rabo; Michael Rabo, 695 of the Syriac text, 337-338 of the French translation (because of a lacuna in the Syriac manuscript, the name of the eunuch is missing; Chabot, p. 337, apparently relying on Bar Hebraeus, writes the name as Amin al-Din, though Bar Hebraeus gives it as Mu’ayyid al-Din); the Anonymous Edessan, 168 of the Syriac text, 196 of the Arabic translation.

[72] Michael Rabo, 709 of the Syriac text, 360 of the French translation, gives the name as Bar Kumaib. Bar Hebraeus, Ecclesiastical History, biography of Michael Rabo, writes it as Bar Kulaib.

[73] Michael Rabo, 698 of the Syriac text, 340 of the French translation; Bar Hebraeus, ibid.
[74] Michael Rabo, 700-701 of the Syriac text, 347-349 of the French translation.

[75] Michael Rabo, 705-706 of the Syriac text, 352 of the French translation; Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 107 of the Syriac text, 302 of the English translation.

[76] Imad al-Din al-Isfahani, Sana al-Barq al-Shami, 161-162; Ibn Wasil, 2: 9, appears to follow al-Isfahani. Michael Rabo, 709-710 of the Syriac text, 360-361 of the French translation, says Sayf al-Din Ghazi did the same thing after occupying Saruj and al-Raqqa.

[77] The Anonymous Edessan, 171 of the Syriac text, 199 of the Arabic translation.

[78] Michael Rabo, 707-709 of the Syriac text, 357-360 of the French translation; Bar Hebraeus, Ecclesiastical History, the biography of Michael Rabo.

[79] Michael Rabo, 710-711 of the Syriac text, 362-363 of the French translation.

[80] The Anonymous Edessan, 312 of the Syriac text, 350 of the Arabic translation.

[81] J. B. Chabot, ed., Michael Rabo, p. 384, n. 4 of the French translation, says Abu al-Qasim’s son was Baha al-Din Mas’ud, later deposed by Salah al-Din (Saladin), but does not cite any source for this assertion.

[82] Michael Rabo, 721-723 of the Syriac text, 382-384 of the French translation.

[83] The Anonymous Edessan, 316-318 of the Syriac text, 355-357 of the Arabic translation.

[84] On the Syrian Monastery of Mary Magdalene, see Rev. Yuhanna Dolabani, “Al-Suryan fi Filistin aw Dayr Maryam al-Majdaliyya,” al-Hikma, No. 9 (Jerusalem: June, 1928): 434-443.

[85] Michael Rabo, 722-724 of the Syriac text, 386-388 of the French translation; Bar Hebraeus,
Ecclesiastical History, the biography of Michael Rabo.

[86] The Anonymous Edessan, 323 of the Syriac text, 362 of the Arabic translation.

[87] See Patriarch Ignatius Yaqub III, Dafaqat al-Tib fi Tarikh Dayr al-Qiddis Mar Matta al-Ajib (Zahla, Lebanon, 1961), 85.
[88] Michael Rabo, 732 of the Syriac text, 402-403 of the French translation.
[89] Michael Rabo, 734 of the Syriac text, 406 of the French translation, says they paid him 2000 gold pieces and 500 red pieces.
[90] Patriarch Yaqub III, Dafaqat al-Tib, 85.
[91] Michael Rabo, 734 of the Syriac text, 406 of the French translation. Unfortunately, he does not explain why he sought Saladin’s intervention of Saladin in the case of Bar Masih and what role Saladin played in this matter.
[92] Michael Rabo, 738 of the Syriac text, 412 of the French translation,
[93] The Anonymous Edessan, 328-330, 340-341 of the Syriac text, 367-368, 379-380 of the Arabic translation.
[94] Michael Rabo, 710 of the Syriac text, 361 of the French translation; the Anonymous Edessan, 147 of the Syriac text, 202 of the Arabic translation, faults the governor of Mardin, rather than Miyafarqin. Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 107 of the Syriac text, 303 of the English translation, apparently places this event in the year 1174.
[95] Michael Rabo, 730 of the Syriac text, 369 of the French translation; the Anonymous Edessan, 147 of the Syriac text, 202 of the Arabic translation.

[96] The Anonymous Edessan, 210 of the Syriac text, 239 of the Arabic translation,

[97] Ibn al-Athir, 2: 126-127; Abu Shama, 2: 227; Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 132 of the Syriac text, 371 of the English translation, and Tarikh Mukhtasar al-Duwal, 229, 232; al-Daywachi, Tarikh al-Mawsil, 1: 309-310.

[98] Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 132 of the Syriac text, 371 of the English translation, and Tarikh Mukhtasar al-Duwal, 229, 232.

[99] For details see Ibn al-Athir, 2: 128-137.

[100] Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 133 of the Syriac text, 374-375 of the English translation; Patriarch Ignatius Yaqub III, 94.

[101] Ignatius Yaqub III, 94

[102] Sulayman Sa’igh, Tarikh al-Mawsil, 1: 166; Sa’id al-Daywachi, 1: 321-323.

[103] Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 159 of the Syriac text, 439-441, and Tarikh Mukhtasar al-Duwal, 282-284.

[104] On Abu Nasr of Bartulli, see Aphram Barsoum, al-Lulu al-Manthur fi Tarikh al-Ulum was al-Adab al-Suryaniyya (Aleppo, 1956), 539-540, and trans. Matti Moosa as The History of Syriac Literature and Science (Pueblo, Colorado: Passeggiata Press, 2000, 159-160, rpt. Gorgias Press, 2003), 484-485.

[105] Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 441 of the English translation.

[106] Bar Hebraeus, 160 of the Syriac text, 441 of the English translation.

[107] Barsoum, al-Lulu al-Manthur, 540, trans. Moosa, Passagiata, 160 and Gorgias, 484 says he found a copy of this ode in Diyarbakr, copied in the handwriting of the Maphrian Barsoum II al-Ma’dani.

[108] Patriarch Ignatius Yaqub III, Dafaqat al-Tib, 96, gives a translation of this ode.

[109] The Anonymous Edessan, 335-345, 348-350 of the Syriac text, 374, 379, 380-384, 386-388 of the Arabic translation. Unfortunately, there are many gaps in the cited pages, and we lack information which would have shed more light on the dissension within the Syrian Church.

[110] Michael Rabo, 732 of the Syriac text, 400-402 of the French translation; Bar Hebraeus, 114 of the Syriac text, pp. 321-322 of the English translation.

[111] Ibn Shaddad, al-Nawadir al-Sultaniyya, R.H.C. Or., 3: 87.

[112] Ibn Shaddad, 3: 313; Abu Shama, Kitab al-Rawdatayn fi Akhbar al-Dawlatayn, 2: 199.

[113] Ambroise, L’Estoire de la guerre Sainte, ed. Gaston Paris, in Collection de documents inédits sur l’histoire de France (Paris, 1897), 453-454, and trans. Merton Jerome Hubert in verse as The Crusade of Richard Lion-Heart, with notes by J. L. La Monte (New York, 1941, rpt. New York: Octagon Books, 1976), 414-415, and trans. Edward Noble Stone as The History of the Holy War (Seattle: The University of Washington, 1939), 148-149; Itinerarium Peregrinorum et Gesta Regis Ricardi, trans. and ed. Helen J. Nicholson as Chronicle of the Third Crusade (Ashgate, 1997), 359.

[114] The Anonymous Edessan, 195 of the Syriac text, 225 of the Arabic translation.

[115] Michael Rabo, 732 of the Syriac text, 400-402 of the French translation; Bar Hebraeus, 114 of the Syriac text, 321-322 of the English translation.

[116] Michael Rabo, 710-712 of the Syriac text, 362-364 of the French translation

[117] Michael Rabo, 725 of the Syriac text, p. 391 of the French translation; the Anonymous Edessan, ed. Albert Abouna, 187 of the Syriac text, 216 of the Arabic translation, esp. n. 4. Abouna erroneously says that Kilij Arslan imposed a tax on the Monastery of Mar Barsoum.

[118] Michael Rabo, 725-727 of the Syriac text, 390-393 of the French translation.

[119] Michael Rabo, 728 of the Syriac text, 394-395 of the French translation.

المؤامرة لقتل يسوع
عدد 1 : ولما أكمل يسوع هذه الأقوال كلها قال لتلاميذه :
عدد 2 : “ تعلمون انه بعد يومين يكـون الفصح وابن الانسـان يسـلّم ليصلب “ .
قال سيدنا هذا الكلام وهو في جبل الزيتون . وفي لوقا يقول قد قرب عيد الفطير وفي يوحنا يقول قبل الفصح بستة أيام . وتفصيل ذلك انه جاء يسوع الى بيت عنيا في يوم السبت واقام لعازر وصنع له وليمة فكانت مرثا تخدم ومريم تدهن رجليه . وفي يوم الاحد دخل اورشليم في وسط هتاف الشعب على ما جاء في يوحنا . وفي يوم الاحد بعينه خرج الى بيت عنيا وبات هناك كما قال متى وفي الغد خرج الى جبل الزيتون كقول متى وجلس على الجبل وعلم تلاميذه كثيراً وفي يوم الثلاثاء وهم بعد في الجبل قال لهم انه بعد يومين يكون الفصح اي ليلة الجمعة . وفي يوم الثلاثاء بعينه مسح في بيت سمعان الابرص في بيت عنيا كما قال متى ومرقس . ومن هنالك ارسل التلميذين بطرس ويوحنا الى اورشليم في يوم الخميس ليعدا الفصح كما قال لوقا . ولما كانت ليلة الجمعة جاء الى اورشليم واتكأ في العلية مع تلاميذه كما قال متى وكان عيد الفصح والفطير يوم الجمعة . واذا حسبنا الايام من السبت الذي فيه أقام لعازر الى الجمعة تجدها ستة أيام كما قال يوحنا . ومن هذه يتضح لنا اتفاق الانجيليين . وقد ذكر المسيح خبر الفصح أولاً ليخفي الخبر المؤلم أي الصلب .

عدد 3 : حينئذٍ اجتمع رؤساء الكهنة والكتبة وشيوخ الشعب الى دار رئيس الكهنة الذي يدعى قيافا ،
بموجب الناموس الموسوي كان للكهنة رئيس واحد . وكان الذي يقتل قتيلاً عن غير عمد ويهرب الى مدينة الملجأ لا يستطيع ان يرجع الى حين موت الكاهن المذكور ( عدد 25: 28 ) على ان هذا الناموس بطل فعوض رئيس كهنة واحد كانوا يقيمون كثيرين ويجعلون عليهم رئيسي كهنة فاذا عرض لاحدهما احتلام وهو نايم أو شهوة بأية علة كان يعتبر متنجساً فيقوم الآخر بالخدمة عوضه حتى لا يبطل العيد . فلما ملك هيرودس أخذ يقيم رئيس كهنة جديد كل سنة وذلك حذراً من ازدياد سطوتهم فكانوا يخدمون سنين معلومة .

عدد 4 : وتشاوروا لكي يمسكوا يسوع بمكر ويقتلوه .
بعدد ان أقام لعازر بأربعة ايام اي يوم الاربعاء تشاوروا على قتله لذلك جعل في قانون الرسل يومي الاربعاء والجمعة للصوم ويوم الاحد لتقديس الاسرار . ويوم الاحد لانه فيه قام من القبر . وقد ذهب البعض الى ان الحيوانات في تلك الجمعة اكرمت الصيام .

عدد 5 : ولكنهم قالوا : “ ليس في العيد لئلا يكون شغب في الشعب “ .
تأمل انهم لم يكونوا يخافون من الله بل من الشعب . وقد اعتمدوا على يهوذا الخائن فاسلمه لهم . وجرت المشاورة في دار قيافا لانه كان رئيس كهنة تلك السنة . وقد زعم قوم ان قيافا هذا هو يوسيفوس فبعد زمان ندم وتاب وآمن بالمسيح ولكن يوسيفوس الذي حارب الرومانيين وكتب تاريخ المقابيين وخراب أورشليم هو غير . وقد ذكر اوسابيوس القيصري في تواريخ الكنيسة . بانه دعي يوسيفوس أي يوسف الثاني من الرومانيين لاجل حكمته .

سكب العطر على المسيح
عدد 6 : وفيما كان يسوع في بيت عنيا في بيت سمعان الابرص ،
بيت عنيا هذه هي وطن مريم ومرثا ولعازر الذي أقامه فيها المسيح . وتفسيرها بيت المجد . وتبعد نحو ثلاثة أرباع ساعة من أورشليم . وبعد ان دهنت مريم المجدلية قدميه هنالك قال لتلميذيه امضيا الى المدينة واعدا لنا الفصح ويظهر من هذا ان المسيح ارسل الرسل الى اورشليم من بيت عنيا وكان سمعان المذكور أبرص وبعد ان شفي ظل يلقب بالابرص . وربما انه برص بفكره وشكّ في المسيح .

عدد 7 : تقدمت اليه امرأة معها قارورة طيب كثير الثمن ، فسكبته على رأسه وهو متكئ .
تشجعت المرأة لتدنو من سيدنا لما رأته قد طهر برص سمعان ومنح الشفاء لنساء كثيرات منهن السامرية والكنعانية وذات النزيف . ولم تدن منه كمن يدنو الى انسان بل كمن يدنو الى اله متأنس . وقد زعم البعض ان هنالك تناقضاً بين اقوال الانجيليين لان لوقا ذكر انها كانت خاطئة وانها دنت من المسيح في نايين . وقال متى انها كانت في بيت عنيا في بيت سمعان الابرص . وقال يوحنا ان اسمها مريم . وقد ذهب البعض الى ان الاشارة الى امرأتين مختلفتين . وقال آخرون انها واحدة وهي بعينها مسحته مرتين . وقال بعضهم ان سمعان الفريسي هو سمعان الابرص ابو لعازر ومريم . وقال الذهبي الفم ان المسيح مسح مرتين . اما القديس ساويرس ونحن على رأيه فانه يقول ان المسيح مسح ثلاث مرات وذلك في نايين وفي بيت عنيا قبل الفصح بستة ايام وفي بيت عنعيا أيضاً قبل الفصح بيومين . فيستنتج من قول يوحنا ان امرأة مسحت قدميه في بيت عنيا قبل الفصح بستة ايام ومن قول لوقا انه مسح في نايين ومن قول متى ان امرأة افاضت قارورة طيب على رأسه قبل الفصح بيومين ان المسيح مسح ثلاث مرات وقد مسحته ثلاث نساء وان الخاطية التي كانت في نايين هي التي اتت قبل الفصح بيومين ومسحت قدميه فيكون الماسح امرأتين كما قال الذهبي الفم وعدد المسحات ثلاثاً كقول القديس ساويرس . اما قارورة الطيب هي الناردين وقال آخرون انها بلسم وزعم بعضهم انها كانت مركبة من عقاقير طبية وقال آخرون ان ذلك الطيب لبان ومثقال واحد منه يكفي لمسح كل الجسم وذلك لان رائحته طيبة وقد ازدادت طيباً من جسد ربنا . ثم ان المجدلية استعملت شعرها عوضاً عن المنديل لكي تبقى معها رائحة جسد المسيح بعد موتها . وقد قال بعضهم انها منذ ذلك اليوم حتى موتها ما غسلت رأسها ولا تمسحت وان رائحة جسمها كانت عابقة . وكانت العادة ان يمسحوا الرجلين من تعب الطريق .

عدد 8 : فلما رأى تلاميذه ذلك اغتاظوا قائلين : “ لماذا هذا الاتلاف ؟

عدد 9 : لأنه كان يمكن ان يباع هذا الطيب بكثير ويعطى للفقراء “ .

غضبوا أي اغتاظوا وتذمروا قائلين كان يجب ان يباع . ولكن أي أفضل ان يمسح به ربنا ام يباع ويعطى للمساكين نعم ان سيدنا غني وغير محتاج . ورب سائل يقول من اين توصل التلاميذ الى هذا الفكر؟ فنجيب انهم تعلموه من قول السيد ” رحمة أريد لا ذبيحة ” . اما قول مرقس انه كان يمكن ان يباع بأكثر من ثلثمئة دينار( مر 14: 5 ) فالمفهوم منه انه دراهم كثيرة ثم وقد أشار الى كرمها وطيبة نفسها . ورضي المسيح ان تمسحه لاجل خلاصها وكانت العادة ان يمسح الناس الافاضل من ضعف الزهد . حتى ان القرابين التي كانوا يقدمونها الى الله كانوا يمسحونها . وكهنة الناموس والملوك ايضاً كانوا يمسحون .

عدد 10 : فعلم يسوع وقال لهم : “ لماذا تزعجون المرأة ؟ فانها قد عملت بي عملاً حسناً !
تعنفونها اي تزيدون تعبها وألمها . فلا تلمسوا بغتة ما هو ثقيل على الناس بل رويداً رويداً . ولو سألته قبل ان تفعل لنهاها عن مسحه . قال الذهبي الفم ان السيد يعلمنا هنا انه متى رأينا احداً قد صنع اواني كهنوتية او زينة أخرى للكنيسة لا يجب ان نقول له بعها لئلا يضعف ايمانه بل يجب ان نمدحه . فان سألنا قبل ان نصنع الاواني نشير عليه ان يعطي للمساكين ثمن ذلك .

عدد 11 : لأن الفقراء معكم في كل حين ، وأما انا فلست معكم في كل حين .
قال الذهبي فمه لاجل هذا يجب ان نترحم لان الفقراء ليسوا بيننا في كل حين الا في هذا العالم . ثم قال المسيح ذلك لكي يطيب خاطر المرأة .

عدد 12 : فانها اذ سكبت هذا الطيب على جسدي انما فعلت ذلك لاجل تكفيني .
أي بواسطة الدهن الذي دهنتني به اشارت الى موتي ودفنتي . فلخوفكم من اليهود لم تقدروا ان تحنطوا وتطيبوا جسدي فسبقتكم هذه المرأة .

عدد 13 : الحق اقول لكم : حيثما يكرز بهذا الانجيل في كل العالم ، يخبر ايضاً بما فعلته هذه تذكاراً لها “ .
عزى تلاميذه بانه سوف تكرز بشارته في كل العالم . ومدح المرأة لئلا يضعف يقينها عند سمعها خبر موته . فيذكر اسمها في كل الامم بكل اللغات ويذاع فعلها الجميل . وهنا مغزى روحي وهو ان البيت عبارة عن العالم والمرأة عبارة عن الخطاة التائبين ورائحة الطيب رمز الى البشارة التي طيبت رائحتنا النتنة .

خيانة يهوذا
عدد 14 : حينئذٍ ذهب احد الاثني عشر ، الذي يدعى يهوذا الاسخريوطي الى رؤساء الكهنة
حينئذٍ أي لما رأى ان سمعان قد طهر والمرأة أفاضت عليه الطيب . مضى أحد الاثني عشر أي احد اولئك المختارين الاولين الذين كان لهم الدالة عند سيدهم . وقد دعاه بالاسخريوطي باسم أسخريوط قريته ثم تمييزاً له عن يهوذا الغيور .

عدد 15 : وقال : “ ماذا تريدون ان تعطوني وأنا أسلمه اليكم ؟ فجعلوا له ثلاثين من الفضة .
ان السماء والارض لا تعادلان ثمن بيع السيد لانه خالق . والخليقة لا تباع بالخالق . فتأمل كيف خان يهوذا سيده بعد ان احيا امامه ثلاثة موتى . ولو لم يشأ ما قدروا ان يصلبوه . الا انه أسلم ذاته للصلب لاجل خلاص البشر فاما اليهود ويهوذا فانهم لم يسمعوا في هلاكه لاجل خلاص البشر بل ليموت ويهلكاسمه لذلك هم ملومون ومدينون . فدخل الشيطان في يهوذا لا في رفقته لانه وجدت فيه محبة الفضة . ويستفاد من قول لوقا ” ان يهوذا تكلم مع … قواد الجند ( 4 : 22 ) ان رياسة اليهود كانت قد بطلت وبما ان رؤساء الكهنة كانوا يتخاصمون دائماً الرومانيون وضع معهم في الهيكل قواد الجند منعاً للشغب وقوله ثلاثين من الفضة أي ثلاثين ديناراً لان الفضة تدل أحياناً على الذهب واحياناً على الفضة والدراهم والدنانير .

عدد 16 : ومن ذلك الوقت كان يطلب فرصة ليسلمه .
أي كان يطلب زماناً خالياً من الضجة ووقتاً لا يكون مع المسيح جماعة وشعب يعلمهم لان يهوذا كان يخاف من الشعب .

عشاء الفصح مع التلاميذ
عدد 17 : وفي اول أيام الفطير تقدم التلاميذ الى يسوع قائلين له : “ اين تريد ان نعد لك الفصح ؟ “ .
قال التلاميذ ذلك في يوم الخميس . وقال الذهبي الفم ان كثيرين كانوا معتادين ان يعددوا الفصح من المساء ويحسبونه ليوم الجمعة لانه عند انقضاء الخميس ودخول الجمعة كان الخروف يذبح لاجل ذلك سمي يوم الخميس يوم الفطير اذ من المساء والغروب سمي اليوم يوماً . فتأمل ايها القارئ في شهادة القديس الذهبي الفم عن ابتداء اليوم من المساء كما هو الحساب عندنا نحن السريان لا كما يحسب اليونانيون والارمن اليوم من الصباح فيجب اذاً اعتبار النهار من المساء كما سنبين فيما بعد عند الكلام على بقاء سيدنا في قلب الارض ثلاثة أيام وثلاث ليال . ويتضح من سؤالهم ” أين نعد الفصح ” انهم لم يكن لهم بيت لتركهم الاهل والبيت .

عدد 18 : فقال : “ اذهبوا الى المدين، ة الى فلان وقولوا له : المعلم يقول : ان وقتي قريب . عندك أصنع الفصح مع تلاميذي “ .
المقصود من المدينة أورشليم وكان اليهود يصعدون الىأورشليم من جميع الاقطار لاجل الفصح . ونظراً لضيق المدينة طلب سيدنا في هذا العيد بيتاً ليأكل فيه الفصح . وقال القديس كيرلس ان المسيح لم يذكر لهم اسم الرجل لان يهوذا كان عارفاً بالعلية وربما كان يمضي فيأتي بالصالبين وهكذا يمنع الحوادث المزمع وقوعها حينئذٍ في العلية كغسيل ارجل التلاميذ واعطاء الاسرار المقدسة وغير ذلك . وكان المسيح قد اوحى الى انسان لا يعرف سيدنا ولا رسله فأعدد عليه مخصوصة لسيدنا غير خائف من اليهود . وقد زعم البعض انه يوسف بولوطي وقال آخرون انه نيقوديموس وآخرون انه لعازر وآخرون انه سمعان القيرواني الذي سخروه ليحمل صليبه مستخفين به قائلين مثلما تلذذت معه بأكل الفصح اشترك معه في آلامه . قال ” زماني قد اقترب ” اي زمن آلامي وبهذاأعلن انه باختياره تألم . ثم قال ” مع تلاميذي ” لكي يعدد صاحب العلية شيئاً يكفى لجميعهم . ” الفصح ” أي فصح الناموس الذي كان يجب ان يوكل باعشاب مرة وبخبز فطير وغير ذلك .

عدد 19 : ففعل التلاميذ كما أمرهم يسوع واعدوا الفصح .
عدد 20 : ولما كان المساء اتكأ مع تلاميذه الاثني عشر .
كان يجب ان يؤكل الفصح في ليلة الجمعة من تلك السنة لان الجمعة كانت اول يوم الفطير وكان وقوعها في الخامس عشر من القمر . والناموس كان يأمر بذبح الفصح في الرابع عشر وهكذا اكل السيد الفصح في مساء الخميس اي ليلة الجمعة اما اليهود فتركوه الى ليلة السبت حتى يقتلوا المسيح ويتضح حقيقة ذلك من قول يوحنا انهم ما دخلوا الديوان لئلا يتنجسوا وهذا يدل على انهم لم يكونوا قد اكلوا الفصح بعدد . ثم ان سيدنا أكل اولاً الفصح الناموسي كما يجب هو وتلاميذه وبعد ذلك اتكأ على المائدة للعشاء وقال لهم ان واحداً منكم يسلمني وقال ايضاً اشياء كثيرة كما جاء في يوحنا ويوافق رأينا في ذلك القديس الذهبي الفم ولوسابيوس وموسى ابن الحجر ويوحنا اسقف دارا . اما ايفوليطوس الروماني ومار اسحق يقولان ان سيدنا ماأكل الفصح الناموسي في ذلك المساء لانه هو كان لهم فصحاً . فنجيب اذا كان ذلك كذلك كان الواجب على التلاميذ ان يسألوا سيدهم هل يريد ان يأكل الفصح فيتضح من عدم سؤالهم انه كان يأكل الفصح كل سنة
فبقوله ( الاثني عشر ) صار معلوماً ان يهوذا كان معهم وكان قد ذهب ليشترك بالاسرار . فوبخه السيد على المائدة ليندم ويرجع لذلك يقول متى ” فيما هم يأكلون قال …. ان واحداً منكم سيسلمني ” وكان قد غسل رجلي يهوذا قبل العشاء كما يقول الذهبي الفم
لوص 22: 15 فقال لهم لقد اشتهيت شهوة ان آكل هذا الفصح معكم قبل ان أتألم .
قوله هذا يدل على انه كان مزمعاً ان يبطل الناموس ويعطي فصحاً روحانياً ذاك يزول وهذا يبدأ .
لوص 22:16 فاني اقول لكم اني لا آكله بعد حتى يتم في ملكوت الله
المراد بالملكوت هنا عمل الانجيل فكأن السيد يقول انني لا آكل من هذا الفصح الناموسي حتى يكمل الفصح الحقيقي الجسد والدم بواسطة الانجيل . ومتى اعطيكم هذا الفصح آكل منه اولاً وبعد ذلك أعطيكم لتأكلوه . وحتى هنا هي للقطع كقوله في اشعيا 22: 14 لا يغفرن لكم هذا الاثم حتى تموتوا.

عدد 21 : وفيما هم يأكلون قال : “ الحق أقول لكم : ان واحداً منكم سيسلمني “ .
كان الخروف يذبح عند غروب الشمس لان السماء والارض والعناصر خلقت قبيل دخول الاحد أي وقت غروب الشمس ومع خلقتهم ابتدأ الليل وبعد ان لبث الليل اثني عشر ساعة قال الله ليكن نور فكان النور فعبر عن المساء بالليل وعن الصباح بالنهار . ففي وقت غروب الشمس الذي فيه ابتدأ هذا العالم . فيه أمر الله الاسرائيليين ان يذبحوا الخروف الذي كان سر حمل الله . فتبع في عيد الفطير لذلك الفصح لانهم بالفطير اكلوا الخروف مستعجلين ولم ينتظروا ليختمر عجينهم وكان اليهود بحسب ناموس الفصح يأخذون خروفاً ابن سنة ويبقونه الى الرابع عشر من شهر نيسان فيذبحونه في غروب الشمس ويأكلونه مشوياً واحقاؤهم مشدودة واحذيتهم في ارجلهم وعصيهم في ايديهم وكانوا يأكلونه باستعجال . سبعة ايام اي الى الحادي والعشرين من الشهر كانوا يأكلون فطيراً وكل من كان ياكل خميراً كان يقتل . ثم ان المسيح بعد ان أكل مع تلاميذه الخروف مع الفطير غسل ارجلهم كما قلنا ثم ناولهم السر وبدأ يقول ” ان واحداً منكم سيسلمني ” الى هنا تكلم عن تسليمه من الخائن بالتلميح اما من هنا فظاهراً . وبقوله ” ابتدأ كل واحد منهم يقول لعلي انا هو يا رب ” جعل كل فرد منهم خائفاً لئلا يكون هو المقصود وكان ذلك الواحد معروفاً عند السيد الا انه لم يصرح باسمه وذلك لانه كان منتظراً رجوعه نادماً .

عدد 22 : فحزنوا جداً وابتدأ كل منهم يقول له : “ هل انا هو يا رب ؟ “.
كان التلاميذ يصدقون كلام المسيح ويعلمون انه عارف بهم اكثر من معرفتهم بأنفسهم وكانوا ينظرون بعضهم الى بعض ( يو 13: 22 ) لانهم ما كانوا يعرفون عمن يتكلم فكل فرد منهم كان يسأل ويستخبر عن نفسه .

عدد 23 : فأجاب ، وقال : “ الذي يغمس يده معي في الصحفة هو يسلمني !
كشف السيد أمر الخائن لئلا يموتوا من الحزن والخوف ولعله ( اي الخائن ) يندم . قال الذهبي الفم ان يهوذا بلغ من الوقاحة حتى انه لم يكن يعنيه امر المعلم واكرامه فغمس معه . ولعل السيد قصد ان يجتذبه الى المحبة فقال للتلاميذ ان واحداً منكم خائن اي ليس من الغير بل من الذين يغمسون معه في الصحفة . قال القديس فيلكسينوس انه ولو كان الجميع يمدون ايديهم مع المسيح الا ان سيدنا عندما كان يمد يده كان التلاميذ يقصرون ايديهم اما يهوذا فكان يمد يده مع السيد بوقاحة ولما لم يفهم التلاميذ الخائن فيهم من قوله ” الذي يمد يده معي في الصحفة ” بل خبزاً وناوله وفي الحال عرفوه . وقد قال آخرون انه كان امام التلاميذ صحفتان . فكان كل ستة تلاميذ يغمسون في واحدة وكان يهوذا يغمس مع سيدنا لاجل ذلك قال ان الذي يغمس معي الخ . وزعم البعض ان السيد لم يظهر شيئاً عن يهوذا حتى غسل ارجلهم وناولهم الاسرار وهذا القول غير صحيح .

عدد 24 : ان ابن الانسان ماض كما هو مكتوب عنه ، ولكن الويل لذلك الذي به يسلم ابن الانسان . كان خيراً لذلك الرجل لو لم يولد ! “ .
رب معترض يقول بانه اذا كان المسيح ماضياً ليموت كما هو مكتوب عنه فلماذا يلام يهوذا اذ كمل المكتوب ؟ فنجيب انه لم يسلم السيد لاجل تكميل المكتوب كما ان الصالبين لم يصلبوه لاجل تكميل النبوة بل بنية شريرة لان يهوذا فعل ما فعله باختياره لذلك كان مسؤلاً لان المكتوب عن المسيح لم يسلب اختياره ( أي حرية ارادته ) أي لم يجبره على الفعل . ثانياً انه فعل كل ما فعله بقصدٍ شرير لانه خالف ضميره وشريعة الله ورفض نصائح المسيح وربى في فؤاده الرذائل كالطمع والخيانة والكنود اي كفر النعمة وارتكب شر الاثام بتسليمه سيده لا زهد غاية وهي الحصول على ثلاثين من الفضة وربما يعترض قائل انه لو لم يسلمه يهوذا لسلمه غيره فان لم يسلمه غيره فسدت خطة المسيح ؟ فنقول حاشا ما كانت تفسد أبداً لان الحكيم والعارف بكل شيء قادر ان يدير ما يخصه لانه حكمته فائقة الادراك . وقد جعل الويل للرجل الذي صار آلة لاتمام سياسته وفي الوقت نفسه حذر التلاميذ الا يظنوا انه من الضعف أسلم . وبقوله ” قد كان خيراً لذلك الرجل لو لم يولد ” بين ان يهوذا بحريته أسلمه ولذلك أعدد له عذاب أليم . ولو لم يولد ما كان يتعذب بلا نهاية . ورب معترض يقول لماذا خلق الله يهوذا اذا كان خيراً له لو لم يولد . فنجيب ان الله خلقه ليعمل خيراًً لكنه انصرف الى عمل الشر بحريته . وقد خلق الله أيضاً الشياطين والناس والاشرار ليعملوا الصالحات ولكنهم انصرفوا الى عمل الطالحات بارادتهم . ثم ان خلق يهوذا متعلق بالخالق تعالى . اما العمل صالحاً وطالحاً فمتعلق بالشيطان والانسان . وليت شعري هل نلوم الله لان بعض الناس صاروا اشراراً . ان الله بريء من الملامة . ومن هو الانسان حتى يعترض على الله . هل تقول الجبلة لجابلها لماذا جبلتني هكذا ثم نقول ان يهوذا انتخب ليكون رسولاً مثل بطرس ويوحنا والشيطان خلق ليقف في الخدمة مثل جبرائيل فكما ان الله الآب لا يلام بسقوط الشيطان كذلك الابن لا يلام بانتخابه يهوذا لئلا يكون له سبب للتذمر فيقول ان المسيح ما كان يحبني مثل رفقائي ولو غسل رجلي ما اسلمته ولا خنته . على ان السيد عرف بمحبته للفضة فسلطه على صندوق النفقة ليتصرف بالفضة كما يشاء ويريد . ولم يشاء ويريد . ولم يشأ ان يفضحه بل فضل ان يوبخه فقط فلم يرعو.

عدد 25 : فاجاب يهوذا مسلمه قائلاً : “ لعلي انا هو يا سيدي ؟ “ فقال له : “ انت قلت “ .
كان يهوذا واثقاً بصلاح السيد وان المسيح لا يفضحه وكذلك السيد لم يجب أنت هو بل قال له أنت قلت . وبما ان التلاميذ ما سمعوا الحديث اضطر السيد ان يناوله خبزاً مبلولاً ليعرفوه . وقد ذكر لوقا ان الفصح اي عيد الفطر كان قريباً لما دخل الشيطان في يهوذا . وقد ذكر يوحنا ان الشيطان دخل يهوذا بعدما تناول الخبز . والاثنان صادقان لان الشيطان لا يدخل في الانسان بغتة لكن يستعمل التجارب أولاً ثم يدخل فيه . وقد صادق يوحنا على الكلام الذي قاله لوقا فقال انه في وقت العشاء دخل الشيطان في قلب يهوذا الاسخريوطي وبعد الخبز تمكنه .
عشاء الرب
عدد 26 : وفيما هم يأكلون اخذ يسوع خبزاً ، وبارك وكسر وأعطى التلاميذ وقال : “ خذوا كلوا . هذا هو جسدي “ .
عدد 27 : واخذ الكأس وشكر واعطاهم قائلاً : “ اشربوا من هذا كلكم ،
كما كما ان السيد له المجد في النهر أبطل معمودية اليهود وكمل معمودية يوحنا وفتح باباً لمعموديتنا كذلك على المائدة خدم فصحين لذلك النهاية ولهذا البداية . أولاً خدم الناموس وغسل ألرجل التلاميذ وبعدد ذلك اتكأ وأعطاهم سر جسده ودمه . ولسائل ماذا كانوا يأكلون لان الفصح الناموسي كان قد اكل كما يؤخذ من قول مرقس ” فيما هم متكئون يأكلون ( 14: 18 ) مع ان بني اسرائيل أكلوا الفصح وقوفاً مستعجلين ؟ فالجاب انهم كانوا قد انتهوا من أكله وكانوا ياكلون عشاءً اعتيادياً متكئين . وقد ذكر متى ان المسيح بارك الخبز لكنه لم يذكر باي كلمات باركه وسبب البركة ابطال اللعنة الاولى اذ قال لآدم انك بعرق جبينك تأكل خبزك نعم قد باركه ليجعل فيه قوة غفران الخطايا للذين يتناولونه بايمان حي . ومعنى باركه قدسه وعمله جسده . ثم ان البركة هنا هي الشكر وهكذا في أمر الكأس . ولسائل كيف يسمي الخبز جده اذ ان جسده لحم وهو ذو نفس عاقلة ؟ الجواب ان قوة الروح القدس الذي حل في البتول وطهرها وقدسها وجبل منها جسداً وقدسه وجعله جسد الله الكلمة هو اليوم يحل على الخبز الذي يوضع على المذبح ويقدسه ويجعله جسد الله . كيف لا والمسيح نفسه قد سماه جسده فمن هو الذي لا يؤمن أننا ننظر باعين الجسد الخبز الموضوع على المذبح بايدي الكهنة والشمامسة وباعين الروح ننظره قد صار جسداً لكلمة الله الحي المتجسد من البتول وهكذا يجب ان نفهم وهكذا يجب ان نؤمن .

عدد 28 : لان هذا هو دمي للعهد الجديد الذي يسفك من أجل كثيرين لمغفرة الخطايا .
العهد العتيق هو الناموس الذي اعطي في جبل سينا والعهد الجديد هو الانجيل . اما الدم العتيق فهو دم الخروف الذي ذبح في مصر وكان يدعى الفصح واما الدم الجديد فهو دم المسيح المذبوح على الصليب . وبتسميته اياه جديداً ميزه عن الدم العتيق . ان الخروف في الناموس الموسوي لم يكن مستوجباً للقتل ولكنه كان يقتل عوضاً عمن يستوجب القتل . لهذا السبب سمى يوحنا المعمدان السيد حمل الله حامل خطايا العالم وقد قيل عن دمه انه يسفك عوض كثيرين فاذا كان جسده قد كسر لاجلنا ودمه قد سفك عوضنا فلماذا يلومنا الخلقيدونيون لاننا نصلي اليه قائلين يا من صلبت عوضننا ارحمنا لان الذين يصلون هكذا يكفرون اذ يجعلون المسيح كأنه لم يمت لاجلنا وهذا كفر واضح ورب سائل يسأل لماذا لم يعطنا المسيح سر جسده ودمه تحت عوارض كثيرة الثمن . الجواب اولاً لسهولة وجود هاتين المادتين ثانياً لئلا يحسب خلاصنا لشرف المواد وقيمتها الثمينة وبما ان فرض السر لاجل خلاص بني البشر فلذلك أسلم اسراره تحت عوارض قوت بني البشر .

عدد 29 : واقول لكم : اني من الآن لا اشرب من نتاج الكرمة هذا الى ذلك اليوم حينما اشربه معكم جديداً في ملكوت ابي “ .
ان ابن الله أكل وشرب بعد القيامة وهو امر غريب وخارج عن العادة ولاجل ذلك سماه جديداً . وقد شهد الرسل ان السيد اكل وشرب . قال بطرس اننا اكلنا وشربنا معه بعد قيامته . ومعنى قول السيد لا اشرب اي لا اتلذذ معكم بهذا التعليم الذي تسمعونه مني حتى تبلغوا العالم الجديد وتجلسوا على اثني عشر كرسياً حينئذٍ اتنعم معكم بهذا التعليم وأظهر لكم ما قد خفي عليكم . اما قوله جديداً فيدل على ان التعليم هنا انما هو مثال التعليم هناك . وقد أعلن ان الذي يعلم كما يجب يلتذ بتعليمه كالذين يتعلمون . ثم ان الله الكلمة منح لجسده قبل القيامة ثلاثة أمور تفوق الطبيعة البشرية . فمكث أربعين يوماً في البرية صائماً لم يجع الا بعد ما انتهت فسمح لجسده فجاع بخلاف موسى وايليا اللذين صاما ولكنهما جاعا حالة صيامهما . ثم انه مشى على امواج البحر وأضاء وجهه في الجبل اكثر من الشمس . وبعد القيامة ايضاً منح لجسده ثلاثة أمور تحت الطبيعة . فانه أكل وشرب بعدد القيامة وابقى بجسمه جروح المسامير والحربة وكان يترآءى للتلاميذ بلون جسده الذي مات فيه . أما نحن فمتى قمنا من بين الموتى فلا تحتاج أجسادنا الى أكل وشرب ولا تبقى في أجسادنا اثار الجروح وطعنات الرماح بل نقوم بلا عيب وبلا طوارئ ولا تبان فينا الوان الاجساد الميتة . فالثلاثة امور التي منحها لجسده قبل القيامة بين بها انه جسد الهي والثلاثة التي بعدد القيامة خمراً ليسد فم ماني ومرقيان وسورس ويبكم الذين يقدسون سر دمه بالماء وقد اختلف المعلمون في هل اشرك السيد يهوذا بالاسرار ام لا ؟ فالذهبي الفم في مقالته عن خيانة يهوذا وفي مقالته الحادية والثمانين من تفسير انجيل متى وساويرس في المغيث الثاني والقديس افرام في تفسير الانجيل ويعقوب السروجي في ميمر الآلام ويعقوب الرهاوي في كتاب القوانين وغيرهم يقولون ان المسيح أشرك يهوذا في الاسرار . أما القديس فيلكسينوس في تفسيره بشارة متى فيقول انه لم يشركه لان الشيطان كان قد سبق واستولى على يهوذا ومن فيلكسينوس هذا قد جرت العادة في الكنيسة الا يعطى القربان للممسوسين من الشياطين . أما القديس افرام ويعقوب السروجي فقالا بان السيد اشرك يهوذا في الاسرار ولكنه بل الجسد بالماء فزالت منه القداسة غير ان معلمين آخرين يقولون ان الجسد الملول بالماء لا تزول منه القداسة وان الماء لا يقدر ان يزيل القداسة والروح الذي فيه قال داود الراهب ابن بولص الموصلي محب موسى ابن الحجر ان سيدنا وان لم يبل جسده الذي ناوله ليهوذا بالماء لكنه أزال قداسته خفية لعددم استحقاق يهوذا الخائن له ولا يخفى ان الحنفي اذا اكل القداس يأكله خبزاً بسيطاً لانه يأكله بدون ايمان ويعقوب الرهاوي يقول ان السيد ناول يهوذا خبزاً يابساً كانوا يغمسونه في الاطعمة ويأكلونه فمن هذا الخبز غمس غمس سيدنا وناوله لا من خبز الاسرار الذي قدس جسده منه .

عدد 30 : ثم سبحوا وخرجوا الى جبل الزيتون .
سبح سيدنا ليعلمنا انه عندما نأكل يجب ان نعطي التسبيح لله ونشكره على احساناته الينا لاننا نرى سيدنا انه شكر قبلما ناول التلاميذ جسده ودمه ثم بعدما ناولهم سبح . فهكذا يجب علينا ان نشكر قبلما نأكل الاسرار ونمجد بعدما نشترك . ثم انه شكر ليعلمنا ان نشكر الله صابرين محتملين عندما نتألم كما احتمل هو الآلام لاجلنا والموت عوضنا ويعلمنا انه عندما نتناول الاسرار يجب ان نمكث حتى تكمل صلاة الشكر الاخيرة ويختم الكاهن . على ان السيد لم يمكث في العلية لئلا يحدث ضجيج عند القبض عليه . قال يوحنا الانجيلي ان المسيح خرج الى وادي قدرون ( 18: 1 ) لربما صاحب الوادي اسمه قدرون او ان الترعة التي كانت تمر فيه تدعى قدرون والعبر هو معبر من جانب الى جانب آخر . فكلام الانجيليين يتفق هكذا . فأتى يسوع الى موضع يدعى الجتسمانية ويقال انه كان فيه ترعة ماء تدعى الجتسمانية . وقد دعاها يوحنا جنينه ولكن متى ورفقاؤه سموها الجتسمانية معناها جنينة الاكابر ولعله خرج من الجنينة وجاء الى مكان آخر في جبل الزيتون يدعى الجتسمانية .

يسوع ينبئ بانكار بطرس له

عدد 31 : حينئذٍ قال لهم يسوع : “ كلكم تشكون فيّ في هذه الليلة، لانه مكتوب : اضرب الراعي فتتبدد خراف الرعية .
قال سيدنا هذا الكلام وهم صاعدون الى الجبل او عند دخولهم البستان وكأنه قال ان يهوذا يسلمني لرداوته وأنتم تهربون من الضعف وتشكون . اما الراعي هو المسيح اذ قال انا هو الراعي الصالح . والخراف المبددون هم الرسل . ترى من ضرب الراعي المسيح ؟ الجواب ليس ابليس ولا يهوذا ولا صالبوه بل الآب كما قال زكريا اضرب الراعي فتبدد خراف الرعية ( 7 : 13 ) . فبارادة الآب ضرب الابن متألماً بالموت لاجل خلاص العالم .

عدد 32 : ولكن بعد قيامي اسبقكم الى الجليل “ .
انبأ بقيامته ولم يقل متى أقامني الآب حتى يخزي النساطرة الذين يعوجون الكلام ليجعلوا الابن أحط منزلة من الآب وقال ( الى الجليل ) لا الى مكان بعيد لان البلاد التي فيها صلب فيها يظهر نفيه لهم . والجليل موضع لم يكن فيه خوف من اليهود .

عدد 33 : فاجاب بطرس وقال له : “ وإن شك فيك الجميع فأنا لا أشك فيك أبداً “ .

ان الذهبي الفم يلوم سمعان مرتين الاولى اذ وقف ضد كلمة المسيح والانبياء والثانية اذ جعل نفسه أعلى من رفقائه . وقال مار كيرلس انه من حرارة محبته للمسيح قال انه لا يشك ولا يكفر فيه ولم يكن ذا لسانين ينطق بفمه عكس ما في قلبه لكنه كان ساذجاً لا غش فيه ولشدة محبته قال اني لا أشك فيك .

عدد 34 : فقال له يسوع : “ الحق أقول لك انك في هذه الليلة قبل ان يصيح الديك تنكرني ثلاث مرات “ .
اي اني انبئك بالحق واقول لك يا بطرس انك لست تشك وتهرب فقط مع باقي رفقائك لكنك تزيد عليهم انك تكفر بي وهذا ليس بعيداً عنك بل ان في هذه الليلة نفسها ستتممه .

عدد 35 : قال له بطرس : “ لو اضطررت ان اموت معك لا أنكرتك . هكذا قال ايضاً جميع التلاميذ .
حقاً ان بطرس نطق بما في قلبه من نحو سيده اذ كان يحبه محبة شديدة ولذلك قال انه اذا الزم ان يحتمل الموت عوضه لا يمتنع . وهكذا باقي التلاميذ . الا ان السيد لكي يعرفه رحمته قال : سمعان سمعان هوذا الشيطان سأل ان يغربلكم مثل الحنطة ( لو 22: 31 ) اي ان الشيطان يظنكم نظيره مملوئين شراً فيسأل ان اتخلى عنكم كما قصد في ايوب . ومعنى يغربلكم اي يجربكم ويقلقكم ويفزعكم ويسقطكم كما يغربل القمح فيسقط من الغربال متفرقاً . وقد تخليت عنكم لحظة لكي يعلم ان هربكم ليس عن خبث طوية فيكم بل لان الانسان ضعيف وانه لا يستطيع الثبات ما لم تسنده النعمة الالهية . وطلب الشيطان هذا كما طلب ان يدخل في الخنازير ( مر 5 : 12 ولو 8 : 33 )
لو 22: 32 لكني صليت من اجلك لئلا ينقص ايمانك وانت متى رجعت فثبت أخوتك
اي وان تخليت عنكم لحظة فهربتم وانت كفرت لكني لست أتخلى عنك مطلقاً لئلا تبتعدد اكثر بالكفر وتتجرد من الايمان بي وكان يتكلم تارة بصوت منخفض وتارة بصوت منكسر لاجل ضعف السامعين لانهم كانوا يظنون فيه ملا يجب ويليق . وقال ( متى رجعت ) اي بعدد توبتك ارجع الى رفقائك وثبتهم في الايمان بي . وقال التلاميذ ( يا رب ههنا سيفين لو 22 : 38 ) قد يستغرب الانسان وجود سيفين في علية اجتماعهم . قال الذهبي الفم انه كان هنالك سكاكين معدة لاجل الفصح فلما احس التلاميذ بمجئ الاعدداء للقبض على سيدهم اخذوها معهم . وقال آخرون ان التلاميذ لما بلغهم مجييء الاعداء سبقوا وحضروا السيوف والسكاكين .

يسوع يصلي في جثيماني
عدد 36 : حينئذٍ جاء معهم يسوع الى ضيعة تدعى جتسيماني ، فقال للتلاميذه : “ اجلسوا ههنا حتى امضي وأصلي هناك “ .
سمّى يوحنا هذا المكان جنينة ولم يكن التلاميذ معتادين فراق سيدهم ومع هذا قال لهم امكثوا ههنا .

عدد 37 : ثم أخذ معه بطرس وابني زبدى وابتدأ يحزن ويكتئب .
لم يأخذ باقي التلاميذ معه لئلا يضعف ايمانهم به عند رؤيتهم اياه يحزن ويكتئب . لكنه أخذ أولئك الذين عاينوا مجده الالهي في الجبل معه وقيامة ابنة يلبراس . ثم ابتعد عن هؤلاء أيضاً نحو رمية حجر كما قال لوقا 22: 41 وطفق يحزن ويكتئب . ولم يكفه ظهور الحزن والكآبة على وجهه فقط حتى قال .

عدد 38 : فقال لهم : “ نفسي حزينة جداً حتى الموت . امكثوا ههنا واسهروا معي “ .
ذكر لوقا سبب ذلك : اما متى ومرقس فذكرا انه طفق يحزن ويكتئب وذكر يوحنا نتيجة ذلك وهو قوله ( الآن نفسي قد اضطربت يو 12: 27 ) . انه متى استولى على الانسان خوف يدركه الحزن والكآبة وبعد ذلك تضطرب نفسه . قال الهراطقة ان المسيح من خوفه من الموت حزن واكتئب ولكنهم كذبوا لانه اذا كان الموت قد اخافه فما المانع له من ان ينجو بنفسه بقدرته الالهية كما كتب عنه انه كان يجتاز في وسطهم ويختفي واذا كان يخاف الموت فلماذا مضى الى المكان الذي كان يعرفه الخائن بل كيف يخاف من الموت ذاك الذي قال للذين أتو للقبض عليه اني انا هو الذي تطلبونه ( يو 18 : 4 ) واني انا هو الراعي الصالح والراعي الصالح يبذل نفسه عوض خرافه ( يو 10 : 11 و 3 ) وقال انقضوا هذا الهيكل وانا أقيمه في ثلاثة ايام ( يو 2 : 19 ) واعطاهم آية يونان ( مت 12 : 40 ) وقال انا هو القيامة والحياة ( يو 11: 25 و36 ) ولا تخافوا ممن يقتل الجسد ( مت 10 ك 28 ) وانبأ التلاميذ انه سيتألم ويموت ( مت 16: 31 ) . ولما لامه سمعان على ذلك سماه شيطاناً وقد كتب عنه انه تعب مرة ( يو 4: 6 ) وعطش مرة واحدة ( يو 19: 28 ) وخاف واحدة ( عب 5: 7 ) ونام واحدة ( لو 8 : 23 ) واكتئب واحدة ( مت 27 : 38 ) واضطرب واحدة ( يو 11 : 34 ) وجاع مرتين ( مت 4 : او 21: 18 ) وبكي مرتين ( لو 19 : 41 ) و( يو 11 : 36 ) فكل هذه الامور بين بها انه احتملها لاجلنا نحن لا لاجل نفسه لان المسيح منها حسب مقتضى الطبيعة أي ان له نفساً وجسداً مثلنا وحبل به في البطن تسعة اشهر . ومنها بمقتضى الناموس كقوله اختتن وتمم ما كان واجب علينا تتميمه نحن في الناموس كتقديم قرابين وحفظ طقوس وما شاكل . ومنها سياسية فانه جاع وتعب وعطش واكتأب فبالحقيقة كان يحتمل هذه لا خيالاً واضطراراً لكن بارادته . ومنها فوق الطبيعة كالحبل به في البطن بلا زواج وولد والختومات محفوظة . ثم ان المسيح قال نفسي حزينة كما قبل عن الآب ( حزن الرب انه عمل الانسان في الارض وتأسف في قلبه تك 6: 6 ) وليس حزن وتأسف من اجل الخليقة بل لان البشر فسدوا واخطأوا . فكذلك قال الابن ان نفسي حزينة من أجل خطية يهوذا واليهود لانه نظرهم قد أذنبوا بقتلهم اياه بعد ما عمل قدامهم العجائب العظيمة فليس انهم ما استفادوا فقط بل تواعددوا على قتله .

عدد 39 : ثم تقدم قليلاً وخرّ على وجهه وكان يصلي قائلاً : “ يا ابتاه، ان أمكن فلتعبر عني هذه الكأس . لكن ليس كما اريدأنا بل كما تريد أنت “ .
اراد المسيح بقوله للتلاميذ ( امكثوا ههنا واسهروا معي ) ان لا يخفي عنهم شيئاً مما نظروه ومما سمعوه وان يتعلموا ان يسألوا الصلوة من تلاميذهم كما فعل بولس ( تس 2 : 1 ) ثم ان كلما ذكر للمسيح صلاة نراه كان يصليها منفرداً لكي يعلمنا ان نصلي بتعقل وبقلب مبتهل غير مضطرب حتى نستطيع ان نكلم الله في الصلوة . وقد ذكر يوحنا ان المسيح صلى في الجنينة ( 18 : 1 ) وذكر لوقا انه ابتعد عنهم نحو رمية حجر 22 : 41 وتفصيل ذلك انهم خرجوا اولاً كلهم الى جبل الزيتون ودخلوا البستان كما قال يوحنا ثم أخذ معه ثلاثة منهم وتكلم معهم قائلاً نفسي حزينة كما قال متى ثم ابتعد عن هؤلاء ايضاً نحو رمية حجر كما قال لوقا . وما قاله المسيح هنا في الصلاة كان نيابة عن آدم فكأنه يقول ان آدم ولو لم يعمل ارادتك فبما اني لبست جسده وعملت ارادتك فاغفر له ذنبه وأقول عوضه لا كما أريد أنا لكن كما تريد أنت . ان ارادة آدم كانت صيرورته الهاً مع انه انسان فلاجل محو ذنب آدم هذا جاء سيدنا وكونه الهاً حقاً قد صار انساناً حقاً ووفى الدين الذي كان على آدم وعليه فقد صار معلوماً ان ارادة الآب والابن واحدة . وبقوله ( يا أبت ) وليس يا الهي اظهر جلياً انه ابن الآب طبيعياً لا ابن النعمة اي ان نبوته ليست اكتسابية . وما قال يا أبانا كما ندعوه نحن في الصلاة لاننا قد اعطينا البنوة بالنعمة . فاذاً ان الذي صلى ودعا الله اباه هو الابن الطبيعي لا كما يقول النساطرة والخلقيدونيون ان الذي صلى هو انسان وان الطبع البشري خاف من الموت . فلو كان المسيح ابناً بالنعمة وكلمة الله ابناً طبيعياً للاب فيكون لنا ابنان واحد طبيعي وواحد ابن النعمة والنتيجة يكون لنا ربان وهذا باطل وقد صلى المسيح لاجلنا حتى يجيز الموت عنا وثم صلى لاجل صالبيه لانه لا يشاء هلاك احد من قتلته . ولم يصل كالمحتاج والضعيف لانه قوة الاب وحكمته وهو الغني وغير المحتاج لكنه علمنا باقنومه كيف يجب ان نصلي واذا عرضت علينا التجارب نصبر ونصلي ونقول نجنا من التجارب وليبين انه بالحقيقة قد صار انساناً لانه لو لم يصل لتشبه لابيه فقط بل صلى لكي يظهر انه يشبهنا ايضاً . وزعم قوم انه كان يجهل هل تعبر عنه الكأس ام لا فنقول كيف يجهل ذلك وهو حكمة الاب فان حكمة الله تعلم كل شيء ( ام 8 : 14 ) كيف لا وقد قال ايضاً كما يعرفني الاب اعرف ابي وقد سبق وأنبأ تلاميذه مراراً بانه سيسلم الى اليهود فيصلبوه . وقال آخرون ان كان يعلم كل شيء فلماذا كان يهرب من الموت فنقول انه لو أحب الهرب لم يكن له مانع عن ذلك كيف لا وهو الذي مراراً كثيرة جاز في وسطهم واختفى ( لو4 : 30 ويو 8: 59 ) فاذاً لم يخف من الموت لكنه أراد ان يعلمنا ان لا نسارع بارادتنا الى الآلام لعلة ضعف طبيعتنا . وان الصلوة نافعة . وعلمنا الرأفة على المتألمين وعرفنا محبته الشديدة للبشر حتى انها اوصلته الى ان يموت عنهم ليخلصهم نعم كان قادراً ان يحيي البشر بقدرته دون ان يموت لكن ذلك يخالف عددله فلو لم يمت ما ظهرت محبته في خلاص البشر . وبقوله ( ليس كمشيئتي بل كمشيئتك ) علمنا ان نسلم كل شيء لارادة الله .

عدد 40 : ثم جاء الى التلاميذ فوجدهم نياماً . فقال لبطرس أهكذا ما قدرتم ان تسهروا معي ساعة واحدة ؟ .
اي لم تقدروا ان تسهروا معي ساعة واحدة فكيف تسلمون انفسكم عوضي . وفي هذا الكلام اشارة الى بطرس حيث قال سأضع نفسي عنك فانه وهو بعد مع المسيح ما استطاع ان يسهر معه ساعة واحدة .

عدد 41 : اسهروا وصلوا لئلا تدخلوا في تجربة . أما الروح فنشيط وأما الجسد فضعيف “ .
ولسائل لماذا لم يصل التلاميذ مع انه اوصاهم بالصلوة ؟ فالجواب من الحزن الذي اعتراهم ثم لانهم لم يكونوا يعلمون ماذا يقولون فان بطرس الذي قال حاشاك يا سيد ان تموت سمّاه شيطاناً . والروح هنا ليس اللاهوت حسب زعم الهراطقة لكن النفس الناطقة وأراد باستعداد الروح اظهاراً انه بنفسه قهر كل الآلام النفسانية والجسدانية . ثم بقوله الجسد ضعيف برهن ان من جهة ضعف الجسد تدخل التجارب والاحزان والخوف على النفس . ثم نقول ان ظن احد انه مقتدر على اقتحام التجارب والموت فلا يستطيع ذلك ما يطلب من الله ويعينه ويمسك بيده انبأ المسيح قبلاً تلاميذه بانهم سيشكون فيه فأجابوه مع سمعان انه اذا لزم الامر سيموتون معه ولا يشكون فيه . فقال لهم المسيح صلوا لئلا تدخلوا في تجربة . فكأنه يقول ولو ارواحكم اي أنفسكم مستعدة لاتمام ما تعدونه لكن اذا تذكرتم ان الجسد ضعيف امتنعتم حباً بالحياة حتى انه يحدث ان خوفكم من الموت يجعلكم تكفرون كما سيعرض بعد قليل لسمعان فهذا معنى قوله الجسد ضعيف .

عدد 42 : فمضى ايضاً ثانية وصلى قائلاً : “ يا ابتاه ، ان لم يمكن ان تعبر عني هذه الكأس الا ان أشربها ، فلتكن مشيئتك “ .
عدد 43 : ثم جاء فوجدهم نياماً ، إذ كانت اعينهم ثقيلة .
مضى ثانية وغير الصلوة لانه كان عالماً ان عبور شربه الكأس مستحيل .

عدد 44 : فتركهم ومضى أيضاً وصلّى ثالثة قائلاً ذلك الكلام بعينه .
احتمل المسيح في كل وقت من الصلاة ألماً عن جنسنا الضعيف . اولاً حكم الموت . ثانياً الخوف من الموت . ثالثاً الموت عينه وبصلاته صار مثالاً الى أولاد الكنيسة يصلوا ثلاث مرات في الليل .

عدد 45 : ثم جاء الى تلاميذه وقال لهم : “ ناموا الآن واستريحوا ! هوذا الساعة قد اقتربت ، وابن الانسان يسلم الى أيدي الخطاة .
بقوله استريحوا أظهر انهم كانوا حزانى معذبين وانه غير محتاج الى معونتهم وبقوله قد اقتربت الساعة اي التي فيها كان سيسلم بين انه لم يخف عنه شيئاً . وأبان بقوله ( ابن البشر يسلم الى ايدي الخطاة ) ان لا حق للموت عليه لكن شرهم وخبثهم أماته .

عدد 46 : قوموا ننطلق ! هوذا الذي يسلمني قد اقترب ! “ .
قوموا لننطلق اي من موضع الذي كان يصلي فيه الى الموضع الذي يعرفه يهوذا وروحانياً قوموا لننطلق من الجسديات والارضيات الى السماويات والروحيات .

القبض على يسوع
عدد 47 : وفيما هو يتكلم ، اذا يهوذا احد الاثني عشر قد جاء ومعه جمع كثير بسيوفٍ وعصي من عند رؤساء الكهنة وشيوخ الشعب .

عدد 48 : والذي اســلمه اعطاهم علامة قائلاً : “ الذي أقبله هو هو . امسكوه “ .

القبلة عادة كل البشر وزادها اليهود عند رؤية بعضهم بعد فراق وقتي انظر ( لو 7 : 45 ) . واما الآن فقد جعلها يهوذا علامة بينه وبين اليهود لالقاء القبض على المسيح . وقد ظن يهوذا انه بالقبلة يغش سيدنا فكأنه قال اذا رآني أقبله يظن ان ذلك من محبتي له مع كونه يعرف ان سيدنا يعلم الخفيات وعلاوة عليه ان اتيان الشرط واليهود وعلامة يهوذا والجمع الكثير لم تكن تمنع المسيح لو أراد ان يختفي عنهم لان له القدرة ان يترآءى في كل حين كالشكل الذي يختار ومتى أراد ان يكون غير معروف فما كان يعرف لا من صوته ولا من رؤيته كما فعل مع المجدلية يوم قيامته من القبر وبعدد ذلك عرفها نفسه بواسطة صوت لهجته المعهودة لديها لما دعاها مريم ( يو 10 : 16 ) والظاهر من قوله ( من تطلبون يو 18: 4 ) وجوابهم يسوع الناصري انهم ما عرفوه فربما غير شكله وكان يمكنه ان يتوارى عنهم لو أراد ولكنه أظهر نفسه لهم وقال انا هو وقد سر اليهود اتفاق يهوذا معهم على تسليمه لتكن لهم حجة للقول ان المسيح لو لم يكن شريراً ما أسلمه تلميذه .

عدد 49 : فللوقت تقدم الى يسوع وقال له : “ السلام يا سيدي ! “ وقبله .

رضي المسيح ان يقبله يهوذا لانه صبر عليه ليرجع عن شره . ثم نقول ان السلطان الذي اعطاه اياه ليشفي به المرضى ويقيم الموتى ويعمل الآيات نزعه عنه وعراه من الهبة الالهية والسلطة الرسولية عندما قبله قبلة الخيانة .

عدد 50 : فقال له يسوع : “ يا صاحب، لماذا جئت ؟ “ . حينئذٍ تقدموا والقوا الايادي على يسوع وامسكوه .
ان معنى قول السيد له يا صاحب اي لست الآن تلميذي لكنك مقاوم ومضاد بل لك معلم أخر هو الشيطان والصالبين وأراد بذلك نصحه عساه يرعوي . وسماه باسمه يهوذا ( لو 12: 48 ) ليذكره بالرتبة والتعليم والالفة والدالة التي كانت له عنده لكي يرجع عن شره . ولما كان المسيح قد اكمل كل سياسته ولم يبق له الا الآلام والموت والقيامة فسلم نفسه لاعدائه .

عدد 51 : واذا واحد من الذين مع يسوع مد يده واستل سيفه وضرب عبد رئيس الكهنة ، فقطع اذنه .
اراد بطرس ان يقطع عنق العبد لا أذنه لان الذي يريد ضرب العنق فيضرب بالسيف يمين عنق المضروب لكن العناية الالهية أمالت السيف فقطع الاذن دلالة على ان الانبياء نادوا كثيراً في اذان الشعب اليهودي ليؤمنوا بالمسيح فرفضوه وسدوا آذانهم عن صراخ الانبياء وأخيراً قطع مسمعهم .

عدد 52 : فقال له يسوع : “ ردّ سيفك الى مكانه . لان كل الذين يأخذون السيف بالسيف يهلكون !
توبيخ سيدنا لسمعان كان تعليماً لنا على انه يجب التسليم لمشيئة الله ولكن بما ان سمعان لم يكن قد حصل على موهبة الروح ضرب بالسيف وارفاقه ساعددوه بانواع أخر . لكن لما كمل بالروح اهين وضربولم يغضب ولا اغتاظ . قال الذهبي الفم ان العبد الذي قطع أذنه بطرس هو الذي لطم المسيح على خده واياه يسمي يوحنا ملخوس . وقال ( ان من يأخذ بالسيف بالسيف يهلك ) اي كما ان اليهود جاءوا بسيوفهم وعصيهم فهكذا سيأتيهم اسباسيانوس وتيطس بسيوفهم فيقتلونهم وقال آخرون انه بعد ان صلب بطرس منكس الرأس قطع رأسه وكمل فيه كلام سيدنا . وبقوله ( الكأس التي اعطاني الآب ألا اشربها يو 18: 11 ) منع بطرس من القتال مع الاعدداء . فكأنه يقول لو كنت اريد قتالهم لحاربتهم الملائكة وفعلت بهم كما فعلت بأهل سدوم .

عدد 53 : أتظن اني لا استطيع الآن ان أطلب الى أبي فيقدم لي في الحال أكثر من اثنتي عشرة جيشاً من الملائكة ؟
أي لكل سبط من اسباط اسرائيل جوقة والجوقة عشرة آلاف فيكون مجموع الجوقات مئة وعشرون الفاً ملاكاً وقال ( اسأل من أبي ) اولاً لاجل ضعف السامعين لانه لم يكن له عندهم شأن يذكر لاسيما وانهم قبل قليل رأوه يحزن ويكتئب ورأوا فيه ما يدل على انه لا يقدر ان يهلك الصالبين لذلك قال اسأل .

عدد 54 : فكيف تكمل الكتب : انه هكذا ينبغي ان يكون ؟ “ .
عدد 55 : في تلك الساعة قال يسوع للجموع : “ كأنه على لص خرجتم بسيوف وعصي لتاخذوني ! كل يوم كنت أجلس معكم أعلم في الهيكل ولم تمسكوني .
اي ان افعالي ليست كأفعال اللصوص والسراق لتمسكوني ليلاً لاني بالنهار كنت اعلم بينكم . وليكن عندكم معلوم اني لو لم ارد تسليم نفسي لكم فسيوفكم وعصيكم لا تستطيع امساكي .

عدد 56 : وامّا هذا كله فقد كان لكي تكمل كتب الانبياء “ . حينئذٍ تركه التلاميذ كلهم وهربوا.
بقوله ( لتتم كتب الانبياء ) لم يترك حجة لليهود ولا عذر برفضهم اياه لانه كمل الناموس وتمم اقوال الانبياء . ثم ان اليهود لما أمسكوا المسيح لبث التلاميذ عنده يدافعون عنه لكنهم لما رأوا انه هو باختياره اسلم ذاته فكروا ان بقائهم معه زائد لذلك هربوا . وتمت فيهم نبوة زكريا القائلة . أضرب الراعي فتتبدد خراف الرعية ( زك 13: 7 ) .

المحاكمة أمام المجلس اليهودي
عدد 57 : والذين أمسكوا يسوع مضوا به الى قيافا رئيس الكهنة ، حيث اجتمع الكتبة والشيوخ .
ان الامكنة او المراحل التي أخذوا اليها سيدنا هي اولاً بيت حانان ومن هناك الى بيت قيافا ثم الى مجمعهم فبيلاطوس فهيرودس فديوان بيلاطس فالجلجلة حيث صلبوه . وهذه عوض المراحل التي عملها لاجدادهم لما خرجوا من مصر .

عدد 58 : واما بطرس فتبعه من بعيد الى دار رئيس الكهنة ، فدخل الى داخل وجلس بين الخدام لينظر النهاية .
كان سمعان يخاف ان يتقدم . ولم يهرب من كثرة محبته . ودخل وجلس لينظر ماذا تكون نتيجة محاكمته .

عدد 59 : وكان رؤساء الكهنة والشيوخ والمجمع كله يطلبون شهادة زور على يسوع لكي ليقتلوه .
عدد 60 : فلم يجدوا ، ومع أنه جاء شهود زور كثيرون ، ولم يجدوا . ولكن أخيراً تقدم شاهدا زور .
عدد 61 : وقالا : “ هذا قد قال : “ اني اقدر ان انقض هيكل الله ، وفي ثلاثة أيام أبنيه “ .
دعي شاهدا زور لان السيد قال ذلك هن هيكل جسده اذا نقضوه هم لا اذا نقضه هو والشهود شهدوا انه قال ذلك عن هيكل الحجارة . وان قال قائل ان الشهود لم يكونوا عارفين بمراد المسيح والتلاميذ أيضاً ما كانوا عارفين حتى قام من القبر وعليه فالشهود معذورون ؟ الجواب ان شهادتهم تظهر زوراً من أمر واحد فقط وهو تحريفهم قول سيدنا . فانه له المجد لم يقل انه هو ينقض الهيكل ويقيمه بل ان نقضوه هم أي يقتلون المسيح ويدفن وبعد ثلاثة أيام هو يحيي جسده ويقيمه وعليه فهم شهود زور .

عدد 62 : فقام رئيس الكهنة وقال له : “ اما تجيب بشيء ؟ ماذا يشهد به هذان عليك ؟ “ .
عدد 63 : وأما يسوع فكان ساكتاً . فأجاب رئيس الكهنة وقال له : “ استحلفك بالله الحي ان تقول لنا : هل انت المسيح ابن الله ؟ “ .
استخدم رئيس الكهنة هذا القسم بمكر ليقضي على المسيح ومراده اذا سمع المسيح هذا القسم وسكت فيبكته ويشكوه كأنسان مذنب سمع قسم الله ولم يعتد به بل سكت . وان قال هو فيشكوه ويدينه من فمه بلا شهود لانه جعل نفسه ابن الله وهو انسان . وعلى فرض المستحيل ان المسيح انكر وقال اني لست ابن الله فيعرف انه مضل وكذاب فيحكم عليه بالموت .

عدد 64 : قال له يسوع : “ انت قلت ! وأيضاً اقول لكم : من الآن تبصرون ابن الانسان جالساً عن يمين القوة ، وآتياً على سحاب السماء “ .
أجابه المسيح بحكمة فانه لم يسكت سكوتاً غير مكترث بالقسم ولا أجاب كما اراد ولا انكر شيئاً . بل اجابه ( انت قلت ) اي آمن وصدق بما قد قلت اني انا هو المسيح ابن الله . وبقوله ( جالس عن يمين القدرة ) بيّن انه مساوٍ لابيه في الجلوس . فكأنه يقول لست ابن الله فقط بل الديان المزمع ان ياتي ويدين المسكونة بالعددل .

عدد 65 : فمزّق رئيس الكهنة حينئذٍ ثيابه قائلاً : “ قد جدف ! ما حاجتنا بعد الى شهود ؟ ها انتم قد سمعتم تجديفه !
عدد 66 : ماذا ترون ؟ “ . فأجابوا وقالوا : “ انه مستوجب الموت “ .
لم تكن الثياب عادية بسيطة بل كانت ثياب الكهنوت لانه كان عيد الفصح وكان لابساً ليخدم الخدمة الكهنوتية . وقد تم هذا الامر بتدبير الهي حتى يرفض من الكهنوت . كانت العادة عند اليهود انه متى جدف أحد على الله فيما بينهم شقوا ثيابهم على المجدفين . وهذه لم تكن مفروضة في الناموس لان يوئيل النبي قال قلوبكم لا ثيابكم ( يؤ 2: 12 ) .

عدد 67 : حينئذٍ بصقوا في وجهه ولكموه ، وآخرون لطموه
لم يبصق اليهود بوجهه ولم يضربه العبد بما انه اله لانه عال بطبعه عن الآلام والسخرية بما انه صار انساناً .

عدد 68 : قائلين : “ تنبأ لنا ايها المسيح من الذي ضربك ؟ “ .
اوضح مرقس هذا بانهم غطوا وجهه ولكموه ( 14 : 65 ) . وبما انه عرف افكارهم ونياتهم مرات شتى فاستهزأوا به قائلين ما دمت تعرف الخفايا تنبأ لنا من الذي ضربك .

بطرس ينكر يسوع
عدد 69 : اما بطرس فكان جالساً خارجاً في الدار ، فجاءت اليه جارية قائلة : “ وانت كنت مع يسوع الجليلي ! “ .
عدد 70 : فانكر قدام الجميع قائلاً : “ لست ادري ما تقولين ! “
لم يكن سؤال الجارية لبطرس في معرض كلام جار صدفة أو اتفاقاً بل بتدبير من الله . وكأن لسان حالها يقول كيف لم تكن معه وكيف لا تدريه ففي الحالتين انت كاذب لانك كنت معه وتدريه وانت رفيقه .

عدد 71 : ثم اذ خرج الى الدهليز رأته أخرى ، فقالت للذين هناك : “ وهذا كان مع يسوع الناصري ! “
عدد 72 : فانكر ايضاً بقسم : “ اني لست أعرف الرجل ! “ .
عدد 73 : وبعد قليل جاء القيام وقالوا لبطرس : “ حقاً انت أيضاً منهم ، فان لغتك تظهرك ! “ .
عدد 74 : فابتدأ حينئذٍ يلعن ويحلف : “ اني لا اعرف الرجل ! “ وللوقت صاح الديك .
خرج الى الباب لئلا يرى فرأته أخرى . ولما امسك به هؤلاء الرجال وقالوا له وانت أيضاً منهم ازداد نكراناً وأقسم بلعنات انه لا يعرفه . زعم قوم ان بطرس انكر ان المسيح انسان ولكنه عارف به انه اله . وهذا الزعم باطل اذ لو صح لكان تانس المسيح خيالاً . لان بطرس ما اعترف به انه ذو جسد متنفس فقط بل كذب ايضاً انباء سيدنا القائل له انك تنكرني والحقيقة هي انه كفر وجدف حقاً لخوفه من الموت لان الموت كان وقتئذٍ صعباً جداً . وعلة كفره ترك المسيح اياه لحريته ليظهر انه حر في كفره ليس مرغماً ولكي يختبر ضعف نفسه ولكي لا يتكبر فيما بعد عند صنعه العجائب الباهرة . ان الفضيلة تقوم من شيئين من ارادتنا ومن معونة الله وعليه فلا يجوز ان نلقي كل شيء على الله ولا ان نتكل على قوتنا وارادتنا في تكميل الفضائل بل علينا ان نبتدي قاصدين اتمامها ومن الله القوة والعون
ذكر متى ومرقس ولوقا ان بطرس انكر سيده في بيت قيافا وذكر يوحنا ان كفر بطرس للمرة الاولى كان في بيت حانان . اما نحن فنقول ان كفره المثلث كان ما بين بيت حنان لبيت قيافا . ثم ان متى يقول ان بطرس سئل من الجاريتين ولوقا يقول انه سئل من الجارية الواحدة ومرقس يقول انه سئل من الجارية الواحدة مرتين . ثم ان متى ومرقس يقولان انه سئل في المرة الثالثة من الذين كانوا واقفين . ولوقا يقول انه سئل في المرة الثالثة من آخرين ويوحنا يقول انه سئل في المرة الاولى من الفتاة الجارية وانه في المرة الثانية سئل من آخرين والمرة الثالثة سئل من احد عبيد رئيس الكهنة نسيب الذي قطع بطرس اذنه . أما نحن فنقول ان لفظة آخرين تطلق احياناً على الفتاة اي الجارية. وعليه فان قول لوقا ويوحنا الذين قالا انه قيل له من آخرين هو الذي ذكره متى ومرقس اذ قالا انه في المرة الثانية سئل من الجارية . وكذلك قول يوحنا انه قيل له من العبد هو الذي ذكره متى ومرقس اذ قال انه سئل من اولئك الواقفين . ويتضح من قول لوقا ( ان المسيح التفت ونظر الى بطرس ) ان بطرس نسي انباء سيدنا اياه بالانكار حتى ان صياح الديك لم يذكره ولكن التفات المسيح عندما نظر اليه جعله يتنبه ويبكي وكأن لسان حال ذلك الالتفات يقول له تذكر ما انبأتك به فانه قد تم فعليك ان تفوز بنفسك وتتوب .

عدد 75 : فتذكر بطرس كلام يسوع الذي قال له : “ انك قبل ان يصيح الديك تنكرني ثلاث مرات “ . فخرج الى خارج وبكى بكاءً مراً .
يسأل البعض لماذا قال مرقس انه قبل ان يصيح الديك مرتين تنكرني ثلاث مرات ؟ الجواب ان صياح الديك الاول كان بعد نكران بطرس الاول وصياحه الثاني كان بعد نكرانه ثلاث مرات . لان كل ما يصيح الديك يصيح صيحتين أو ثلاثاً . فقال القديس متى انه قبل ان يصيح الديك المرة الاولى أي ويكمل كل صيحاته تنكرني ثلاث مرات . وكيفية ذلك انه لما انكره سمعان المرة الاولى صاح الديك وقبل ان يكمل صياحه للمرة الثانية من الصيحة الاولى أنكر سمعان المسيح المرة الثانية والثالثة . فعلى هذا المنوال اتفق الانجيليون . قال آخرون انه في تلك الليلة صاح ذلك الديك مرتين الاولى طبيعية والثانية خلافاً لعادته . وذلك بتدبير رباني سبق وجعله ان يصيح أولاً لكي يمنع بطرس من الكفر به مع ان ذلك لم يفده شيئاً بل ازداد اثماً وكفر مرتين أخريين وكل ذلك من خوفه وحينئذٍ صاح الديك . وقد سمى مرقس وحده هذه الصيحة ثانية نسبة للاولى التي كانت بالهام السيد المسيح لانه كتب عن كفر معلمه بالتفصيل لان بطرس كان قد اوصاه ان يكتب عن الخوف والكفر بالتدقيق لاجل ذلك كتب عنه كما حدث فسمى هذه الملهمة أولى وتلك الطبيعية ثانية . اما متى ولوقا ويوحنا فذكروا المرة الطبيعية فقط . وأراد المسيح ان يعترف سمعان بضعفه ويتوب راجعاً اليه فلم يتب لا بصياح الديك كعادته ولا بصياحه خارجاً عن عادته المالوفة . ولم يخجل من نفسه عما أتاه من النكران الى ان التفت اليه السيد المسيح فحينئذٍ خرج خارجاً وبكى وببكائه فتح باب التوبة للتائبين وبقوله بكاء مراً اوضح انه من كل قلبه يبكي . وكما قلنا آنفاً كفره صدر عن خوفه وعن سماح ربنا وليس من شره أو بغضه للمسيح . وبكاؤه برهن شدة محبته أمانته لسيده .

One of the first and most significant indications of the new orientation of Muslim thought was the extensive production of Arabic translations of works dealing with philosophical and scientific subjects, with the result that eighty years after the f all of the ‘Umayyads the Arabic speaking world possessed Arabic translations of the greater part of the works of Aristotle, of the leading neo-Platonic commentators, of some of the works of Plato, of the greater part of the works of Galen, and portions of other medical writers and their commentators, as well as of other Greek scientific works and of various Indian and Persian writings. This period of activity in translating falls into two stages, the first from the accession of the Abbasids to the accession of al-Ma’mum (A.H. 132-198), when a large amount of work was done by various independent translators, largely Christians, Jews, and recent converts from non-Islamic religions; the second under al-Ma’mun and his immediate successors, when the work of translation mainly centered in the academy newly founded at Baghdad, and a consistent effort was made to render the material necessary for philosophical and scientific research available for the Arabic speaking student.
p. 106
The earlier translation work is especially associated with ‘Abdullah b. al-Muqaffa‘, a native of Fars and originally a Zoroastrian, who made his profession of faith before a brother of Muhammad b. ‘Ali, the father of as-Saffah, and became his secretary. Presuming on his employer’s protection he ventured to make derisive and impertinent remarks to Arab dignitaries and especially to Sufyan, the governor of Basra, whom he used to salute with a lewd jest against his mother’s chastity. It seems that men of Arab birth who held political office under the early ‘Abbasids often had to put up with such insults from the ex-serfs. After an unsuccessful attempt at revolt by another of the Khalif’s uncles Ibn al-Muqaffa‘ was directed to prepare a draft letter of pardon to be presented to the Khalif al-Mansur, who succeeded his brother as-Saffah, for his official seal, but he drew up the letter in such terms as to arouse the Khalif’s indignation; amongst other things the letter said, “if at any time the Commander of the Faithful act perfidiously towards his uncle ‘Abdullah b. ‘Ali, his wives shall be divorced from him, his horses shall be confiscated for the service of God (in war), his slaves shall become free, and the Muslims loosed from their allegiance to him.” The Khalif enquired who had prepared this letter and on being informed directed Sufyan to put him to death. Pleased thus to gratify his personal rancour the governor of Basra executed Ibn al-Muqaffa‘ with great cruelty, though the details differ in different accounts, in A.H. 142 or 143.
p. 107
Although conforming to Islam, Ibn al-Muqaffa‘ was generally regarded as a Zindiq, a term properly signifying a Manichæan but used loosely by the Arabic writers to denote a member of one of the Persian religions who professed outward conformity to Islam, but secretly adhered to his own creed, or as a term of abuse to denote a heretic of any sort. The word itself is a Persian rendering of siddiq or “initiate,” a title assumed by full members of the Manichæan sect. It implies the possession of esoteric knowledge and from this idea rose the practice common amongst the Shi‘ite sects of concealing their real beliefs from general profession and assuming the external appearance of orthodoxy. Masudi (viii. 293) states that “many heresies arose after the publication of the works of Mani, Ibn Daysan, and Marcion translated from Persian and Pahlawi into Arabic by ‘Abdullah b. al-Muqaffa‘ and others.” Under al-Mansur and by his orders, translations were made from Greek, Syriac, and Persian, the Syriac and Persian books being themselves translations from Greek or Sanskrit. The best known work of Ibn Muqaffa, was the translation of the Kalila wa-Dimna or “Fables of Bidpai” from the Old Persian which was itself a translation from the Sanskrit. Ibn al-Muqaffa‘s translation into Arabic is generally regarded as a standard model of Arabic prose. The Persian original is lost, but a version in Syriac made from it by the Nestorian missionary Budh, about A.D. 570, is extant and has been published (ed. Bickell and Benfey,
p. 108
[paragraph continues]
1876); the Sanskrit original also is lost in what was presumably its earlier form, but we find its material in a much expanded form in two Sanskrit books, (i) in the Panchatantra, which contains the stories which appear as 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 17, of de Sacy’s Arabic text, and (ii) the Mahabharata, which contains chapters 11, 12, 13. Evidently the old Syriac of Budh, a translation of the Persian translation of the original, is the best representative of the older form of the text. The Arabic version of Ibn al-Muqaffa‘ shows a number of interpolations and additions which all, of course, appear in the derived versions, in the later Syriac, the several mediæval Persian translations which are made from the Arabic and not from the old Persian, and in the numerous Latin, Hebrew, Spanish, Persian, and Greek versions. It was this Arabic translation which gave to the book a wider circulation than possessed before or than it could ever have had, and introduced it to the western world. The case was exactly parallel with Aristotle and similar material: Arabic became a medium of extremely wide transmission and the additions made as material passed through Arabic received a wide circulation also.
Ibn Muqaffa‘ lived in the reign of al-Mansur and during that same period we are told (Masudi. viii. 291-2) that Arabic versions were made of several treatises of Aristotle, of the almajasta of Ptolemy, of the book of Euclid, and other material from the Greek. About 156 A.H. an Indian traveller brought to Baghdad a treatise on arithmetic and another on
p. 109
astronomy: the astronomical treatise was the Siddhanta which came to be known to the Arabic writers as the Sindhind, it was translated by Ibrahim al-Fazari and opened up a new interest in astronomical studies: some little time afterwards Muhammad b. Musa al-Kharizmi combined the Greek and Indian systems of astronomy, and from this time forth the subject takes a prominent place in Arabic studies. The great Arabic astronomers belong to a later generation, such as Abu Ma‘shar of Baghdad, the pupil of al-Kindi, who died in A.H. 272 (= A.D. 885), known to the Latin mediæval writers as “Abumazar,” and Muhammad b. Jabir b. Sinan al-Battani (d. 317 A.H. = A.D. 929) who was known as “Albategnius.” The Indian work on arithmetic was even more important as by its means the Indian numerals were introduced, to be passed on in due course as “Arabic” numerals, and this decimal system of numbering has made possible an extension of arithmetical processes and indeed of mathematics generally which would have been difficult with any of the older and more cumbersome systems.
Al-Mansur, after founding Baghdad in A.H. 148 (= A.D. 765) summoned a Nestorian physician, George Boktishu‘, from the school at Junde-Shapur and established him a court physician, and from this time there was a series of Nestorian physicians connected with the court and forming a medical school at Baghdad. George fell ill in Baghdad and was allowed to retire to Junde-Shapur, his place being
p. 110
taken by his pupil Issa b. Thakerbokht, who was the author of a book on therapeutics. Later came Bokhtishu‘ son of George who was physician to Harunu r-Rashid in 171 (= A.D. 787), and then Gabriel, another son of George, who was sent to attend Ja‘far the Barmecide in 175 and stood high in Harun’s favour: he wrote an introduction to logic, a letter to al-Ma‘mun on foods and drinks, a manual of medicine based on Dioscorus, Galen, and Paul of Aegina, medical pandects, a treatise on perfumes, and other works. In medicine, as will be remembered, the Indian system had been introduced at Junde-Shapur and combined with the Greek, but the latter clearly predominated. Another important settler in Baghdad was the Jewish Syrian physician John bar Maserjoye, who translated the Syntagma of Aaron into Syriac and presided over the medical school gathered in the Muslim capital. For a long time the Arabic work in medicine was limited to translation of the great Greek authorities and practice on the lines learned in Alexandria. We have already referred to the unfortunate influence derived from the Egyptian school which diverted both medicine and chemistry into semi-magical lines, an evil tendency from which the Arabic school never quite freed itself. A considerable time elapsed before the Arabic speaking community produced any original writers on medicine. About the end of the third century we find Abu l-Abbas Ahmad b. Thayib as-Sarakhsi, a pupil of al-Kindi, who is stated to have written a treatise on the
p. 111
soul, an abridgment of Porphyry’s Isagoge, and an introductory manual of medicine (Masudi. ii. 72). At that time medical studies were still very largely in Christian and Jewish hands, and we find the Syriac physician John ben Serapion (end of 9th cent. A.D.) writing in Syriac medical pandects which were circulated in two editions, the latter of which was translated into Arabic by several writers independently and long afterwards into Latin by Gerard of Cremona.
The father of Arabic medicine proper was Abu Bakr Muhammad b. Zakariyya ar-Razi (d. A.H. 311-320 =A.D. 923-932) who was known to Latin mediaeval writers as “Razes,” a student of music, philosophy, literature, and finally medicine. In his medical pandects he uses both Greek and Indian authorities, and the introduction of these latter in subordination to the classic authorities used at Alexandria was the really important contribution made by the Arabic students to the progress of science. Unfortunately ar-Razi’s work suffered from the defect that it greatly lacks order and arrangement, it is a collection of more or less separate treatises, and so not at all convenient to use. For this reason more perhaps than any other he was replaced by Ibn Sina (Avicenna) whose work, if anything, errs in the opposite direction and suffers from an extremely elaborate arrangement and systematization. It will be noticed that with the Arabic writers, as with their Syriac predecessors, the leading medical
p. 112
writers were usually also exponents of logic and commentators on Aristotle as well as Galen.
The Khalif al-Mansur was the patron who did most to attract the Nestorian physicians to the city of Baghdad which he had founded, and he was also a prince who did much to encourage those who set themselves to prepare Arabic translations of Greek, Syriac, and Persian works. Still more important was the patronage given by the Khalif al-Ma’mun who in A.H. 217 (= A.D. 832) founded a school at Baghdad, suggested no doubt by the Nestorians and Zoroastrian schools already existing, and this he called the Bayt al-Hikma or “House of Wisdom,” and this he placed under the guidance of Yahya b. Masawaih (d. A.H. 243 = A.D. 857), who was an author both in Syriac and Arabic, and learned also in the use of Greek. His medical treatise on “Fevers” was long in repute and was afterwards translated into Latin and into Hebrew.
The most important work of the academy however was done by Yahya’s pupils and successors, especially Abu Zayd Hunayn b. Ishaq al-Ibadi (d. 263 A.H. = A.D. 876), the Nestorian physician to whom we have already referred as translating into Syriac the chief medical authorities as well as parts of Aristotle’s Organon. After studying at Baghdad under Yahya he visited Alexandria and returned, not only with the training given at what was then the first medical school, but with a good knowledge of Greek which he employed in making translations in Syriac and Arabic.
p. 113
[paragraph continues]
With him were associated his son Ishaq and his nephew Hubaysh. Hunayn prepared Arabic translations of Euclid; of various portions of Galen, Hippocrates, Archimedes, Apollonius, and others, as well as of the Republic Laws, and Timæus of Plato, the Categories, Physics, and Magna Moralia of Aristotle, and the commentary of Themistius on book 30 of the Metaphysics, as well as an Arabic translation of the Bible. He also translated the spurious Mineralogy of Aristotle, which long served as one of the leading authorities on chemistry, and the medical pandects of Paul of Aegina. His son, besides original works on medicine, produced Arabic versions of the Sophist of Plato, the Metaphysics, de anima, de generatione et de corruptione, and the Hermeneutica of Aristotle which Hunayn had translated into Syriac, as well as some of the commentaries of Porphyry, Alexander of Aphrodisias, and Ammonius. A little later we find the Syrian Christian Questa b. Luqa, a native of Ba‘albek, who had studied in Greece, prominent as a translator.
The fourth century A.H. was the golden period of the Arabic translators, and it is worth noting that, although the work was done chiefly by Syriac speaking Christians, and inspired by Syriac tradition a very large number of the translations were made directly from the Greek, by men who had studied the language in Alexandria or Greece; very often the same scholar made Syriac and Arabic translations from the Greek text. There were also translators from the Syriac, but
p. 114
these usually come after the translators from the Greek. Amongst the Nestorian translators from Syriac was Abu Bishr Matta b. Yunus (d. 328 A.H. =A.D. 939), who rendered into Arabic the Analytica Posteriora and the poetics of Aristotle, Alexander of Aphrodisias’ commentary on the de generatione et de corruptione, and Themistius’ commentary on book 30 of the Metaphysics, all from the existing Syriac versions. He was also the author of original commentaries on Aristotle’s Categories and the Isagoge of Porphyry.
The Jacobite translators come on the scene after the Nestorians. Amongst the Jacobites translating from Syriac to Arabic we find Yahya b. Adi of Takrit (d. 364), a pupil of Hunayn, who revised many of the existing versions and prepared translations of Aristotle’s Categories, Sophist. Blench., Poetics, and Metaphysics, Plato’s Laws and Timæus, as well as Alexander of Aphrodisias’ commentary on the Categories and Theophrastus on the Moralia. The Jacobite Abu ‘Ali Isa b. Zaraah (d. 398) translated the Categories, the Natural History, and the de partibus animalium, with the commentary of John Philoponus.
This is a convenient place to summarize briefly the range of Aristotelian material available to Arabic students of philosophy. The whole of the logical Organon was accessible in Arabic, and in this were included the Rhetoric and Poetics, as well as Porphyry’s Isagoge. Of the works on natural science they had the Physica, de coelo, de generatione
p. 115
et corruptione, de sensu, the Historia animalium, the spurious Meteorologia, and the de anima. On mental and moral science they had the Metaphysics, the Nicomachæan Ethics and the Magna Moralia. Strangely enough the Politics was not included in the Aristotelian canon, its place being taken by Plato’s Laws or Republic. Besides these the Arabic students accepted as Aristotelian a Mineralogy, of which we have no knowledge, and a Mechanics.
Of these the logical Organon always remained the basis of a humane education, side by side with the indigenous study of grammar, and this essentially logical basis of education seems to have been influenced by the example of the existing system developed amongst the Syrians, although it must be remembered a similar system was developed quite independently in Latin scholasticism prior to the earliest contact with the Arabic writers. The Aristotelian logic has always remained an orthodox and generally accepted science. The philosophical and theological controversies and the developments produced by the Arabic philosophers centred mainly in questions of metaphysics and psychology, and so were particularly concerned with the 12th book of Metaphysics and the treatise de anima, more especially the 3rd book. As we have already noted the psychology of Aristotle was interpreted in the light of Alexander of Aphrodisias’ commentary, and thus received a theistic and supernatural colouring which receives its fuller development in neo-Platonic teaching.
p. 116
Most important in the fuller development of this neo-Platonic doctrine was the so-called Theology of Aristotle which appeared in Arabic about 226 A.H. It was in fact an abridged paraphrase of the last three books (iv-vi) of the Enneads of Plotinus made by Naymah of Emessa, boldly circulated and generally received as a genuine work of Aristotle. It might be regarded as a literary fraud, but it is quite possible that Plotinus was confused with Plato whose name appears in Arabic as ’Aflatun, it seems indeed that this particular confusion was made by some other writers, and the translators accepted the current belief, maintained by all the neo-Platonic commentators, that the teaching of Aristotle and that of Plato were substantially the same, the superficial appearances of difference being such as could be easily explained away. By means of this Theology the fully developed doctrine of the neo-Platonists was put into general circulation and combined with the teaching of Alexander of Aphrodisias and thus exercised an enormous influence on the philosophy of Islam in several directions. In the hands of the philosophers properly so called it developed an Islamic neo-Platonism which received its final form at the hands of Ibn Sina (Avicenna) and Ibn Rushd (Averroes), and in this form exercised a powerful influence over Latin scholasticism. Transmitted in another atmosphere it affected Sufism or Muslim mysticism, and was mainly responsible for the speculative theology which that mysticism developed.
p. 117
[paragraph continues]
In a modified form some of the resultant principles gathered from these two sources finally entered into orthodox Muslim scholastic theology.
The main points of this neo-Platonic doctrine as it figures in Muslim theology present the teaching of the active intellect or ‘aql fa‘‘al, the Agent Intellect of Alexander Aph. as an emanation from God, and the ‘aql hayyulani or passive intellect in man only aroused to activity by the operation of this Agent Intellect, which is substantially the doctrine of Alexander Aph.: the aim of man is to attain a union or ittisal in which his intellect becomes one with the Agent Intellect, although the means of attaining this union and the nature of the union differ in the doctrines of the philosophers and the mystics, as we shall see in due course.
Next to philosophy proper medical science is the most important heritage received by the Arabic world from Hellenism. But this science derived through an Alexandrian medium had a serious defect in the accretions which the later Egyptian school had added to the pure teaching of Galen and Hippocrates. As we have already noted this accretion is of a quasi magical character and shows itself in talismans, etc., and theories which are based on ideas which are now classed as “sympathetic magic.”
The real impetus came ultimately from transmitted Hellenism, but this influence was derived immediately from the Nestorians in philosophy proper, and from the Nestorians and the Zoroastrian school at Junde-Shapur
p. 118
in medicine. A good deal later comes the influence of the pagan school at Harran, which also had a neo-Platonic tendency. When the second Abbasid Khalif al-Mansur passed by Harran on his way to fight against the Byzantine Emperor he was astonished to observe the strange appearance of some of the citizens who came out to meet him, wearing their hair long and having close fitting tunics. When the Khalif asked whether they were Christians, Jews, or Zoroastrians, they replied that they were neither. He then enquired if they were “people of a book,” for it was only those who possessed written scriptures who could be tolerated in Muslim dominions; but to this they returned such hesitating and ambiguous replies that the Khalif at length felt convinced that he had discovered a colony of pagans, as was the case, and he ordered them to adopt some one or other of the “religions of the book” before his return from the war, or to suffer the penalty of death. At this they were greatly alarmed: some of them became Muslims, others Christians or Zoroastrians, but some declined to desert their traditional beliefs. These latter naturally had the most anxious time, wondering how they could contrive to evade the Khalif’s demands. At length a Muslim lawyer offered to show them a way out of the difficulty if they paid him a substantial fee for doing so. The fee was paid and he advised them to claim to be Sabians, because Sabians are mentioned in the Qur’an as belonging to a religion “of the book,” but no one knew who the Sabians were. There is a
p. 119
sect known as Sabiyun or Sabaean, whose religion is a strange mixture of ancient Babylonian state worship Christian Gnosticism, and Zoroastrianism, living in the marsh lands near Basra, but they had always been careful to keep their religious beliefs secret from all outsiders, and although they were no doubt the sect mentioned in the Qur’an under the name of Sabiyun or Sabians, none could prove that the pagans of Harran were not also comprised under this term. The Khalif never did pass back by Harran, the pagans who had assumed the name of Sabian continued to use it, those who had become Christians or Zoroastrians reverted to their old faith and submitted to its new name; those who had become Muslims were obliged to remain so as the penalty of death lay upon any who became renegades from that religion.
The most distinguished of the alumni of Harran was Thabit b. Qurra (d. 289 A.H.), a scholar familiar with Greek, Syriac, and Arabic, who produced many works on logic, mathematics, astrology, and medicine, as well as on the ritual and beliefs of the paganism to which he remained faithful. Following in his footsteps were his son Abu Sa‘id Sinan, his grandsons Ibrahim and Abu l-Hasan Thabit, and his great grandsons Ishaq and Abu l-Faraj. All these specialized in mathematics and astronomy.
It seems that we ought to associate with Harran Jabir b. Hayyan a perfectly historical character but of somewhat uncertain date, but believed to have been a pupil of the ‘Umayyad prince Khalid, who distinguished
p. 120
himself by his researches in chemistry. Many chemical treatises bear the name of Jabir and a great proportion of these are probably quite authentic. M. Berthelot in the 3rd volume of his La chimie au moyen age (Paris, 1893) has made a careful analysis of the Arabic chemists and regards the whole material capable of division into two classes, the one a reproduction of the investigations of the Greek chemists of Alexandria, the other as representing original investigations, though based upon the Alexandrian studies in the first place, and all this original material he regards as due to the initiative of Jabir who thus becomes in chemistry very much what Aristotle was in logic. Berthelot publishes in this book six treatises claiming to be by Jabir, and these he regards as representative of all Arabic chemical material, the later investigators continuing in the lines laid down by this first investigator. For a long time the main object in view was the transmutation of metals, but at a later period chemistry enters into closer connection with medical work though never losing the metallurgical character which we imply when we speak of “alchemy.” The object in view of the Arabic students of alchemy does not appeal to the modern scientist, although the possibility of transmuting elements is no longer regarded as the impossible dream which it appeared to the chemists of the nineteenth century: and, at the same time, it is perfectly clear that with admitted limitations, the Arabic chemists were bona fide investigators, though
p. 121
not understanding correctly the results of the experiments they made.
All the texts published by M. Berthelot begin with the warning that the contents are to be kept strictly secret, and often contain a statement that some essential process is omitted in order that the unenlightened student may not be able to perform the experiments successfully, lest the wholesale production of gold should be a means of corrupting the whole human race. Undoubtedly the Arabic chemists did claim to have attained a knowledge of the means of transmuting the baser metals into gold but the histories contain various references which show that these claims were adversely criticised by many contemporary thinkers, and that a great many of the Arabic writers regarded chemistry, as it was then understood, as a mere imposture. More than once it was noted that the philosopher al-Farabi, who fully believed that it was possible to change other metals into gold and wrote a treatise on how it might be done, himself lived and died in great poverty, whilst Ibn Sina, who did not believe in alchemy, enjoyed modest comfort and could have commanded wealth had he been willing to accept it.
In the course of the middle ages various treatises by Jabir were translated into Latin, where his name appears as Geber, and exercised a considerable influence in producing a western school of alchemy. Before long many original alchemical works were produced in Western Europe and a considerable
p. 122
proportion of these were published under the name of Geber but are pure forgeries. As a result the personality of Geber took a semi mythical character and attempts have been made to account for the diverse and contradictory statements about his life and death, and about the country and century in which he lived by supposing that there were several persons who bore the name; but the fact seems to be that he early attained a position of great prominence as a chemical writer, and that later ages fathered on him a number of apocryphal productions. Berthelot considers that the best evidence associates him with Harran in the early part of the second century of the Hijra.
Arabic chemistry largely reproduces the work of the Greek chemists of Alexandria, but probably had an underlying native Egyptian stratum. J. Ruska (Tabula smaragdina, 1926) regards the material as transmitted through Coptic to Arabic, but this certainly was not the case as the Coptic texts show that they have been translated from Arabic originals.

Next: Chapter V. The Mu‘tazilites
THE TRANSLATORS

– De Lacy O’lery

When the Aristotelian philosophy was first made known to the Muslim world it was received almost as a revelation supplementing the Qur’an. At that time it was very imperfectly understood and the discrepancies between it and orthodox theology were not perceived. Thus the Qur’an and Aristotle were read together and regarded as supplementing one another in perfect good faith, but inevitably the conclusions, and still more perhaps the methods, of Greek philosophy began to act as a powerful solvent on the traditional beliefs.
Maqrizi refers to the Mu‘tazilites as seizing with avidity on the books of the philosophers, and certainly now new difficulties begin to appear as well as the two great problems which had been prominent at the beginning of the second century—the eternity of the Qur’an and the question of free will. The new difficulties were especially concerned with the qualities of God and, later, with the Qur’anic promise of the beatific vision. The problem of the qualities of God is very closely parallel to the earlier difficulty as to the eternity of the Qur’an, indeed it appears as an enlargement of it. Christian theologians educated in
p. 124
the methods of Greek philosophy had already debated this matter, and in their hands it had taken the form of the question, “how many, and what, attributes are compatible with the unity of God?” If God’s wisdom, whether expressed in the Qur’an or not expressed, were eternal there was something which God possessed, and consequently something other than God which was equal to him in eternity and was not created by him, so that it could not be said that God was alone and that all other things proceeded from him as their cause as the eternal quality always was side by side with God, and so Wasil b. ‘Ata declared “he who affirms an eternal quality beside God, affirms two gods.” But this applies equally to all qualities, justice, mercy, etc., and, as was suggested by the study of Aristotle, all the categories, all that could be predicated of God as subject, were either created by God and so were not essential and eternal attributes, or else were external things equal with God.
The second generation of Mu‘tazilites, of those who begin to show direct acquaintance with Greek philosophy, begins with Abu l-Hudayl al- Allaf of Basra (d. 226 A.H.), who lived at the time when Greek philosophy was beginning to be studied with great ardour and was received without question. He admits the attributes of God and regards them as eternal, but treats them on lines very similar to those employed by the Christians in dealing with the divine hypostases, that is to say, they are not external things
p. 125
possessed by God but modes or phases of the divine essence. The will of God for example, he treats as a mode of knowledge, that is to say that God wills what is good is equivalent to saying that God knows it to be good. But in dealing with the will we must distinguish between (a) that which exists in place, as the moral rules in God’s commandments to men, for there could be no will against theft until the creation of things which could be stolen; in such case the will exists in time and is created, for it depends upon a created thing: and (b) that which exists not in place and without an object to which the will refers, as when God willed to create before the thing to be created existed. In man the inner volition is free, but the outer acts are not free; sometimes they are controlled by external forces in the body, or even outside the body, and sometimes they are controlled by the inner volition. Aristotle speaks of the universe as existing from eternity, but the Qur’an refers to its creation, yet these are not inconsistent: we must suppose that it existed eternally, but in perfect quiescence and stillness, as it were latent and potential rather than actual, and without those qualities which appear in the categories of logic and are to us the only known terms of existence. Creation meant that God brought in movement so that things began to exist in time and space, and the universe comes to an end when it returns again to the state of absolute rest in which it was at the beginning. Men can distinguish between good and evil by the light of reason, for good
p. 126
and evil have objective characters which can be recognised so that our knowledge of this difference does not depend only on God’s revelation: but no man can know anything about God but by the medium of revelation which is given principally for this purpose.
Ibrahim b. Sayar an-Nazzam (d. 231), the next great Mu‘tazilite leader was a devoted student of the Greek philosophers and an encyclopædic writer. In this he was typical of the earlier Arabic philosophers whose endeavour was to apply Greek science to the interpretation of life and nature generally, an aim which necessarily tended to produce encyclopædic compilations rather than original studies in any one field of knowledge. Already the Mu‘tazilites had reached the position that good and evil represent objective realities and that God, knowing the good does not will that which is contrary to it; but an-Nazzam presses this further and asserts that God can do nothing in the creature save what is for its good and is in itself just. To this the objection was raised that in such case God’s own acts are determined and are not free. An-Nazzam replied that he admitted this determination, not in action but in potentiality as God is restricted by his own nature. He attempted to reproduce the ancient doctrine that the soul is the form of the body, as had already been asserted by Aristotle, but he misunderstood the terminology employed and represents the soul as of the same shape as the body. This implies that the soul is a very
p. 127
subtile kind of substance permeating the whole body in the same way as butter permeates milk, or as oil permeates the sesame: both soul and body are equal in size and alike in shape. Freedom of the will is peculiar to God and man, all other created things are subject to necessity. God created all things at once in remote eternity, but reserved them in a state of quiescence so that they may be described as “concealed,” and then projected them into active existence at successive intervals.
The next great Mu‘tazilite leader was Bishr b. Mu‘tamir (d. 226 circ.) in whose work we find a more definite attempt to apply philosophical speculation to the practical needs of Islam. In the case of free will he enters directly into the question of how far external influences limit freedom of the will and so diminish responsibility. Infants cannot be condemned to eternal punishment because they have no responsibility, having never exercised free will. Unbelievers, however, are condemned to punishment because, although they have not the help of revelation, it is possible for them to know that there must be a God, and only one God, by the light of reason. In dealing with actions and their moral values we have to consider not only one agent and one object, but often a series, the act being transmitted from one to the other so that each of the intervening objects becomes the agent to the next object. This serial connection he termed “begetting” (tawullud).
Ma‘mar b. Abbad as-Sulami (d. 220) describes God
p. 128
as creating substances but not accidents, so that he produced a kind of universal matter common to all existing things and to this matter or essence the accidents are added, some produced by a force inherent in the essence created, others by free will on the part of the creature. Following the neo-Platonic commentators on Aristotle he treats the attributes of God as purely negative, so that God is unknowable by man. In the case of wisdom or knowledge, that which is known must either be identical with God, or external to him: if God is the agent who knows and that which is known as object is also himself, there is a distinction between God the agent and God the object which implies two persons, and this is subversive of the divine unity: but if God is the agent and knows something external to himself, that knowledge depends on the external object, and God therefore is not absolute but in some sense dependent on something other than himself. Hence the attributes of God cannot be such as the positive qualities which exist in man, but only the negation of those which are distinctively human and dependent: we can only say that he is infinite, meaning unlimited in space, or eternal as unlimited in time, or other like terms negative of the known things which can be predicated of man. The general tendency of Ma‘mar’s teaching is distinctly pantheistic: partly this is due to the logical development of a tendency already inherent in the neo-Platonic doctrine with which all Arabic thought was now becoming saturated, and partly it
p. 129
was due to oriental influences which were now beginning to appear in Islam.
Ma‘mar’s pantheism was more fully developed by Tumameh b. al-Ashras (d. 213) who treats the world as indeed created by God, but created according to a law of nature so that it is the expression of a force latent in God and not due to an act of volition. Tumameh entirely deserts al-Allaf’s attempt to reconcile the Aristotelian doctrine of the eternity of matter with the teaching of the Qur’an, and quite frankly states that the universe is eternal like God. This is by no means the last word in Islamic pantheism, but its subsequent development rather belongs to the doctrines of the extremer Shi‘ite sects and to Sufism.
Reverting to an-Nazzam, the great leader of the middle age of the Mu‘tazilites, we find his teaching continued by his pupils Ahmad b. Habit, Fadl al-Hudabi, and ‘Amr b. Bakr al-Jahiz. On the theological side all the Mu‘tazilites admitted the eternal salvation of good Muslims, and most agreed that unbelievers would receive eternal punishment: but there were differences of view as to those who were believers but died unrepentant in sin. For the most part the Mu‘tazilites took the lax view that these would be favourably treated as against the rigorist opinion which reserved eternal salvation to good Muslims, an opinion which appeared amongst the stricter believers during the ‘Umayyad period. The two first named of an-Nazzam’s pupils, however, introduced a new theory entirely repugnant to orthodox
p. 130
[paragraph continues]
Islam, though familiar to the extremer Shi‘ite sects, that those neither decisively good nor absolutely bad pass by transmigration into other bodies until they finally deserve either salvation or damnation. With these two thinkers also we are brought into contact with another problem which now began to present itself to Islam, the doctrine of the “beatific vision.” Islam generally had expected the vision of God to be the chief of the rewards enjoyed in paradise, but the treatment of the attributes of God had been so definitely against the anthropomorphic ideas expressed in the Qur’an that it became difficult to explain what could be meant by “seeing God.” Ahmad and Fadl dealing with this subject deny that men ever will or can see God; the beatific vision can at most mean that they are brought face to face with the “Agent Intellect” which is an emanation from the First Cause, and “seeing” in such a connection must of course mean something quite different from what we understand as vision.
‘Amr b. Bakr al-Jahir (d. 255), the third of an-Nazzam’s pupils mentioned above, may be regarded as the last of the middle period of the Mu‘tazilites. He was an encyclopædic writer according to the fashion of the time and wrote on literature, theology, logic, philosophy, geography, natural history, and other subjects (cf. Masudi viii. 33, etc.) To free will he gives rather a new bearing. The will he regards as simply a manner of knowing and so as an accident of knowledge; a voluntary act he defines as one known
p. 131
to its agent. Those who are condemned to the fire of hell do not suffer eternally by it, but are changed by its purification. The term “Muslim” must be taken to include all who believe that God has neither form or body, since the attribution of a human form to God is the essential mark of the idolater, that he is just and wills no evil, and that Muhammad is his prophet. Substance he treats as eternal, accidents are created and variable.
We have now reached the third stage of the history of the Mu‘tazilites, that which marks their decline. During this latter period they divide into two schools, that of Basra giving its attention mainly to the attributes of God, that of Baghdad being chiefly occupied with the more purely philosophical discussion of what is meant by an existing thing.
The Basrite discussions received their final form in the dispute between al-Jubbay (d. 303) and his son Abu Hashim (d. 321). The latter held that the attributes of God are distinct modes of being, we know the essence under such varying modes or conditions, but they are not states, nor are they thinkable apart from the essence, though they are distinct from it but do not exist apart from it. Against this his father objected that these subjective attributes are only names and convey no concept. The attributes are thus asserted to be neither qualities nor states so as to imply subject or agent, but they are inseparably united with the essence.
Against all views of this sort the orthodox adhered,
p. 132
and still adhere to the opinion that God has real qualities. Those who laid emphasis on this in opposition to the Mu‘tazilite speculations are commonly known as Sifatites (sifat, qualities), but they admit that, as God is not like a man, the qualities attributed to him in the Qur’an are not the same as those qualities bearing the same names which are referred to men, and it is not possible for us to know the real import of the qualities attributed to God.
A more pronounced recoil against the Mu‘tazilite speculations appears in Abu ‘Abdullah b. Karram (d. 256) and his followers who were known as Karramites. These returned to a crude anthropomorphism and held that God not only has qualities of precisely the same kind as a man may have, but that he actually sits on a throne, etc., taking in plain literal sense all the statements made in the Qur’an.
The Mu‘tazilite school of Baghdad concerned itself mainly with the metaphysical question—”what is a thing?” It was admitted that “thing” denotes a concept which could be known and could serve as subject to a predicate. It does not necessarily exist, for existence is a quality added to the essence: with this addition the essence becomes an entity (mawjud), without this addition it is a non-entity (ma‘dum) but still has substance and accident, so that God creates by adding the single attribute of existence.
The whole course of Mu‘tazilite speculation shows the influence of Greek philosophy as applied to Muslim theology, but the influence is for the most
p. 133
part indirect. The ideas of Aristotle, as the course of speculation projected to the fore-front the problems with which he had dealt in times past, were received through a Syriac Christian medium, for the most part imperfectly understood and somewhat modified by the emphasis which Christian controversy had given to certain particular aspects. More or less directly prompted by the Mu‘tazilite controversy we have three other lines of development: in the first place we have the “philosophers” as the name is used by the Arabic writers, meaning those students and commentators who based their work directly on the Greek text or at least on the later and better versions. In their hands philosophical enquiry took a somewhat changed direction as they began to understand better the real meaning of what Aristotle had taught. In the second place we have the orthodox theology of al-Ash‘ari, al-Ghazali, and others, which represents Muslim theological science as modified and partly directed by Aristotelian philosophy, consciously endeavouring to make a working compromise between that philosophy and Muslim theology. The older Mu‘tazilite tradition came to an end in the time of al-Ash‘ari: men who felt the force of philosophical questions either adopted the orthodox scholasticism of al-Ash‘ari and those who came after him, or followed the course of the philosophers and drift
p. 134
away from the traditional beliefs of Islam altogether. In the third place we have the Sufi movement, in which we find neo-Platonic elements mingled with others from the east, from India and Persia. The Mu‘tazilites proper come to an end with the fourth century A.H.

Next: Chapter VI. The Eastern Philosophers
THE MU‘TAZILITES

– De Lacy O’lery

Joshua the Stylite, Chronicle composed in Syriac in AD 507 (1882) pp.1-76

A HISTORY OF THE TIME OF AFFLICTION AT EDESSA AND AMIDA AND THROUGHOUT ALL MESOPOTAMIA.

[Translated by William Wright]

I. I have received the letter of your God-loving holiness, O most excellent of men, Sergius, priest and abbot, in which you have bidden me write for you, by way of record, (concerning the time) when the locusts came, and when the sun was darkened, and when there was earthquake and famine and pestilence, and (about) the war between the Romans and the Persians. But |2 besides these things, there were found in it great encomiums of myself, which made me much ashamed even when alone with my own soul, because not one of them pertains to me in reality. Now I would like to write the things that are in you, but the eye of my understanding is unable to examine and see, such as it actually is, the marvellous robe which your energetic will has woven for you and clothed you therewith; for it is clearly manifest that you burn with the love that fulfils the law, since you care not only for the brethren that are under your authority at this time, but also for all the lovers of learning that may hereafter enter your blessed monastery; and in your diligence you wish to leave in writing memorials of the chastisements which have been wrought in our times because of our sins, so that, when they read and see the things that have happened to us, they may take warning by our sins and be delivered from our punishments. One must wonder at the fulness of your love, which is poured out upon all men, that it is not exhausted nor fails. Indeed I am unable to speak of it as it is, because I have not been nigh unto its working; nor do I know how to tell about it from a single interview which I have had with you.

II. Like Jonathan, the true friend, you have bound yourself to me in love. But that the soul of Jonathan was drawn to the soul of David, after he saw that the giant was slain by his hands and the camp delivered, is not so marvellous as this, because he loved him for his good deeds; whereas you have loved me more than yourself, without having seen anything that was good in me. Nor is Jonathan’s delivering of David from death at the hands of Saul deserving of wonder in comparison with this (doing) of yours, because he still requited unto him something that was due to him; for he first delivered him from death, and gave life unto him and all his father’s house, that they should not die by the hands of the Philistine. And though nothing like this has been done by me unto you, you are at all times praying unto God for me, that I may be delivered from Satan, and that he may not slay me through sins. But this I must say, that you love me as David did Saul; for you are intoxicated by the greatness of your affection to such a degree that, because of the fervency of your love, you know not what my limit is, but imagine regarding me |3 things which are far beyond me. For in the time preceding this, you supplied my deficiencies by the teaching contained in your letters; and you took such care for me as parents do, who, though they have not profited aught by their children, yet care for everything that they need. And today in your discretion you have humbled yourself, and have begged me to write for you things that are too hard for me, that hereby you might be especially exalted; and though you know them better than I do, you wish to learn them from me. So neither do I grudge you this, nor do I decline to do what you have commanded.

III. Know then that I too, when I saw these signs that were wrought and the chastisements that came after them, was thinking that they were worthy of being written down and preserved in some record, and not let fall into oblivion. But whereas I considered the weakness of my mind and my own utter ignorance, I declined to do this. Now however that you have bidden me do this very thing, I am in such fear as a man who, not knowing how to swim well, is ordered to go down into deep waters. But because I rely on your prayers to draw me out, which are constantly sent up by you unto God on my behalf, I believe that I shall be providentially saved from drowning and drawn forth from the sea into which you have cast me; since I shall swim as best I can in its shallows, because its depths cannot be explored. For who is able to tell fittingly concerning those things which God has wrought in His wisdom to wipe out sins and to chastise offences? For the exact nature of God’s government is hidden even from the angels, as you may learn from the parable of the tares in the Gospel. For when his servants said unto the master of the house, “Do you want us to go and gather them up?” he that knew the things as they were said unto them, “No, in case while you gather up the tares, you root up also the wheat with them.” This then we say according to our knowledge, that because of the multitude of our sins our chastisements were abundant; and had not the protection of God embraced the whole world so that it should not be dissolved, the lives of all mankind would probably have perished. For at |4 what times did afflictions like these happen with such violence, save in these (times) in which we live? And because the cause of them has not been removed, they have not even yet ceased. In addition to that which we saw with our own eyes and heard with our own ears, and amid which we lived, there terrified us also rumours from far and near, and calamities that happened in various places; terrible earthquakes, overturnings of cities, famines and pestilences, wars and tumults, captivity and deportation of whole districts, razings and burning of churches. And whereas these things have amazed you by their frequency, you have sent unto me to write them down with words of grief and sorrow, which shall astonish both readers and hearers; and I know that you have said this through your zeal for good things, that there may be contrition also in those who hear them, and that they may draw nigh unto repentance.

IV. But know that it is one thing for a man to write sadly, and another (to write) truly; for any man who is endowed with natural eloquence can, if he chooses, write sad and melancholy tales. But I am a plain man in speech, and I record in this book those things which all men that are in our country can testify to be true; and it is for them who read and hear, when they have examined them, if they please, to draw nigh unto repentance. But perchance one may say, “What profit have those who read from these things, if admonition be not mingled with the recital?” I for my part, as one who is not able to do this, say that these chastisements which have come upon us are sufficient to rebuke us and our posterity, and to teach us by the memory and reading of them that they were sent upon us for our sins. If they did not teach us this, they would be quite useless to us. But this cannot be said, because chastisements supply to us the place of teaching; and that they are sent upon us for our sins all believers under heaven testify, in accordance with the words of S. Paul, who says, “When we are chastened, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.” For the whole object of men being chastened in this world is that they may be restrained from their sins, and that the judgement of the world to come may be made light for |5 them. As for those who are chastised because of sinners, whilst they themselves have not sinned, a double reward shall be added unto them. But there is mercy at all times even for those who are unworthy, because of the kindness and grace and longsuffering of God, who wills that this world should last until the time that is decreed in His knowledge, and doesn’t forget. And that these things are so is clear both from the evidences of holy Scripture and from the things that have taken place among us, which we purpose to write down.

V. For behold, there leaned heavily upon us the calamities of hunger and of pestilence in the time of the locusts, so that we were well nigh going to destruction; but God had mercy upon us, though we were unworthy, and gave us a little respite from the calamities that pressed upon us. And this, as I have said, was because of His goodness. But He changed our torments, after we had had some respite, and smote us by the hands of the Assyrian, who is called the rod of anger. Now I do not wish to deny the free will of the Persians, when I say that God smote us by their hands; nor do I, after God, bring forward any blame of their wickedness; but reflecting that, because of our sins, He has not inflicted any punishment on them, I have set it down that He smote us by their hands. Now the pleasure of this wicked people is abundantly made evident by this, that they have not shown mercy unto those who were delivered up unto them; for they have been accustomed to show their pleasure and to rejoice in evil done to the children of men, wherewith the Prophet too taunts them and says, prophesying regarding the desolation of Babylon as it were by the mouth of the Lord: “I was wroth with my people, who defiled mine inheritance; and I delivered them into your hands, and you showed them no mercy.” Unto us too, therefore, they have similarly wrought harm in their pitiless pleasure, according to their wont. For though the rod of their chastisement did not reach our bodies, and they were unable to make themselves masters of our city, (because it is not possible for the promise of Christ to be made void, who promised the believing king Abgar, saying, “Thy city shall be blessed, and no enemy |6 shall ever make himself master of it1”;) yet, because of the believers who were spoiled and led away captive and slain and destroyed in the other cities which were captured, and who were like mud in the streets, all those have tasted no small degree of suffering who have learned to sympathise with them that suffer. And those too who were far away from this (sight) have been tortured with fear for their own lives by their lack of faith, for they thought that the enemy would make himself master of Edessa too, as he had done of other cities. About which things we are going to write unto you.

VI. Since then, according to the saying of the wise Solomon, “War is brought about by provocation”; and you wish to learn this very thing, namely by what causes it was provoked; it is my intention to inform you whence these causes took their rise, even at the risk of its being thought that I speak of things the time of which is long past. And then, after a little, I will make known to you too how these causes acquired strength. For although this war was stirred up against us because of our sins, yet it took its origin in certain obvious facts, which I am going to relate to you, that you may be clearly acquainted with the whole subject, and not be led, along with some foolish persons, to blame the all-ruling and believing emperor Anastasius. For he was not the exciting cause of the war, but it was provoked from a much earlier time, as you may understand from the things that I am going to write unto you.

VII. In the year 609 (A.D. 297-8) 2 the Romans got possession of the city of Nisibis, and it remained under their |7 sway for sixty-five years. After the death of Julian in Persia, which took place in the year 674 (A.D. 362-3), Jovinian 3, who reigned over the Romans after him, preferred peace above everything; and for the sake of this he allowed the Persians to take possession of Nisibis for one hundred and twenty years, after which they were to restore it to its (former) masters. These years came to an end in the time of the Roman emperor Zeno; but the Persians were unwilling to restore the city, and this thing stirred up strife.

VIII. Further, there was a treaty between the Romans and the Persians, that, if they had need of one another when carrying on war with any nation, they should help one another, by giving three hundred able-bodied men, with their arms and horses, or three hundred staters in lieu of each man, according to the wish of the party that had need. Now the Romans, by the help of God, the Lord of all, had never any need of assistance from the Persians; for believing emperors have always reigned from that time until the present day, and by the help of Heaven their power has been strengthened. But the kings of the Persians have been sending ambassadors and receiving money for their needs; but it was not in the way of tribute that they took it, as many thought.

IX. Even in our days Peroz, the king of the Persians, because of the wars that he had with the Kushanaye or Huns, very often received money from the Romans, not however demanding it as tribute, but exciting their religious zeal, as if he was carrying on his contests on their behalf, “that,” said he, “they may not pass over into your territory.” What made these words of his find credence was the devastation and depopulation which the Huns wrought in the Roman territory |8 in the year 707 (A.D. 395-6), in the days of the emperors Honorius and Arcadius, the sons of Theodosius the Great, when all Syria was delivered into their hands by the treachery of the prefect Rufinus and the supineness of the general Addai.

X. By the help of the money which he received from the Romans, Peroz subdued the Huns, and took many places from their land and added them to his own kingdom; but at last he was taken prisoner by them. When Zeno, the emperor of the Romans, heard this, he sent money of his own and freed him, and reconciled him with them. Peroz made a treaty with the Huns that he would not again cross the boundary of their territory to make war with them; but he went back from and broke his covenant, like Zedekiah, and went to war, and like him he was delivered into the hands of his enemies, and all his army was destroyed and dispersed, and he himself was taken alive. He promised in his pride that he would give for the safety of his life thirty mules laden with silver coin; and he sent to his country over which he ruled, but he could hardly collect twenty loads, for by his former wars he had completely emptied the treasury of the king who preceded him. Instead therefore of the other ten loads, he placed with them as a pledge and hostage his son Kawad, until he should send them, and he made an agreement with them for the second time that he would not again go to war.

XI. When he returned to his kingdom, he imposed a poll-tax on his whole country, and sent the ten loads of silver coin, and delivered his son. But he again collected an army and went to war; and the word of the Prophet was in very reality fulfilled regarding him, who says, ” I saw the wicked uplifted like the trees of the forest, but when I passed by he was not, and I sought him but did not find him.” For when a battle |9 took place, and the two hosts were mingled together in confusion, his whole force was destroyed, and he himself was sought but not found; nor to the present day is it known what became of him, whether he was buried under the bodies of the slain, or threw himself into the sea, or hid himself in a cave under ground and perished of hunger, or concealed himself in a wood and was devoured by wild beasts.

XII. In the days of Peroz the Roman empire too was in disorder; for the officials of the palace hated the emperor Zeno because he was an Isaurian by race, and Basiliscus rebelled against him and became emperor in his stead. Afterwards, however, Zeno strengthened himself and was reestablished on the throne. And because he had had experience of the hatred of many towards him, he prepared for himself an impregnable fortress in his own country; so that, if any harm should happen to him, it might be a place of refuge for him. His confidant in this was the military governor of Antioch, by name Illus, who was likewise an Isaurian; for he bestowed posts of honour and authority upon all his countrymen, and for this reason he was much hated by the Romans.

XIII. When the fortress was fully equipped with everything necessary for it, and a countless sum of money had been deposited there by Illus, he came to the capital (Constantinople) to inform Zeno that he had executed his will. But Zeno, because he knew that he was a traitor and was aiming at the throne, ordered one of the soldiers to kill him. After the person to whom this commission had been given was for many days seeking an opportunity of executing it secretly, but found none, he accidentally met Illus inside the palace, and drew his sword and raised it to smite him. Instantly, however, one of the soldiers who formed the retinue of Illus struck him |10 with a knife on the arm, and the sword fell from his hand and merely cut off Illus’s ear. Zeno, in order that his treachery towards Illus might not be disclosed, at once gave orders that that soldier’s head should be cut off, without any inquiry. But this very circumstance only made Illus think the more that Zeno had ordered him; and he arose and departed thence and went down to Antioch, having made up his mind that, whenever an opportunity offered, he would take measures to requite him.

XIV. Zeno, being afraid of Illus, because he knew his evil design, despatched to him at Antioch certain men of standing, and sent him word to come up to him (to Constantinople), as if he wished to make excuses to him, pretending that that treachery was not committed at his instigation, but that he did not wish to kill him. However he could not soften the hard heart of Illus; for he despised him, and did not choose to obey his command and go to him. At last Zeno sent to him another general, whose name was Leontius, with the troops under his orders, and bade him bring Illus up to him by force, and if he offered any resistance even to kill him. When this man arrived at Antioch, he was corrupted by the gold of Illus, and disclosed to him the order which had been given to him to put him to death. And when Illus saw that he had hidden nothing from him, he too showed him a large quantity of gold that he had in his hands, for the sake of which Zeno was wishing to kill him; and he persuaded Leontius to conspire with him and to rebel along with him, pointing out to him also the hatred of the Romans towards Zeno. After he had consented, Illus was able to disclose his design, for alone he could not rebel nor make himself emperor, because the Romans hated him too on account of his race and of his hardness of heart.

XV. Leontius then became emperor at Antioch in name, whilst Illus was in fact the administrator of affairs. As some say, he was even scheming to kill Leontius, in case they should overcome Zeno. But there was in their following a certain rascally conjuror, by name Pamprepius, who confounded and upset all their plans by his perfidy. In order that their throne |11 might be firmly established, they sent ambassadors to Persia, with a large sum of money, to conclude a treaty of friendship, ………4 or, if they required an army to help them, they should send it to them. When Zeno heard of what had happened at Antioch, he sent thither one of his generals, whose name was John 5, with a large army.

XVI. When Illus and Leontius heard of the great force that was coming against them, their hearts trembled; and the people of Antioch too were afraid that they might not be able to stand a siege, and called on them tumultuously to quit the city, and, if they were able, to meet [John in] battle. This caused Illus and Leontius much anxiety, and they formed plans for quitting Antioch, and crossing the river Euphrates eastwards. And they sent one of their partisans, whose name was Matronianus, with five hundred horsemen, to establish their authority in Edessa as a seat of government. The Edessenes, however, rose up against him, and closed the gates of the city, and guarded the wall after the fashion of war, and did not let him enter.

XVII. When Illus and Leontius heard this, they were forced to meet John in battle; but they were not strong enough for this, because John fell upon them manfully, and destroyed the greater part of the troops that were with them, while the rest were scattered every man to his city. They themselves, being unable to bear his onslaught, took those that were left with them, and made their escape to the fortress of which I have said above that it was impregnable and well provided with stores of every kind (ch. xii). John pursued after them, but did not overtake them, and encamped around the fortress and kept watching it. They, because they relied upon the impregnability of the fortress, let the troops that were with them go |12 down, retaining with them only chosen men and valiant. John appeased his fury upon those who came down from the fortress, but was unable to harm Illus and Leontius in any way. Now because of the difficulty of the natural position of the fortress, it was also rendered wonderfully impregnable by the work of men’s hands, and there was no path leading up to it save one, by which, because of its narrowness, not even two persons could ascend at once. However, after a considerable time, when all John’s stratagems were exhausted, Illus and Leontius were betrayed by those who were with them, and were taken captive in their sleep. By the order of Zeno both of them were put to death, as well as those who betrayed them, and the hands of all who were with them were cut off. Such were the troubles of the Roman empire in the days of Peroz.

XVIII. After the sudden disappearance of Peroz, which I have mentioned above (ch. xi), his brother Balash reigned over the Persians in his place. This was a humble man and fond of peace. He found nothing in the Persian treasury, and his land was laid waste and depopulated by the Huns, (for you in your wisdom dost not forget what expense and outlay kings incur in wars, even when they are victorious, and how much more when they are defeated,) and from the Romans he had no help of any kind such as his brother had. For he sent ambassadors to Zeno, asking him to send him money; but because he was occupied with the war against Illus and Leontius, and because he also remembered the money that had been sent by them at the commencement of their rebellion, which still remained there in Persia, he did not choose to send him anything, save this verbal message: “The taxes of Nisibis which you receive are enough for you, which for many years past have been due to the Romans.”

XIX. Balash then, because he had no money to maintain his troops, was despised in their eyes. The priesthood too hated him, because he was trying to abolish their laws, and wishing to build baths in the cities for bathing; |13 and when they saw that he was not counted aught in the eyes of his troops, they took him and blinded him, and set up in his stead Kawad, the son of his brother Peroz, whose name we have mentioned above (ch. x), who was left as a hostage among the Huns, and who it was that stirred up the war with the Romans, because they did not give him money. For he sent ambassadors, and a large elephant as a present to the emperor, that he might send him money. But before the ambassadors reached Antioch in Syria, Zen6n died, and Anastasius became emperor after him. When the Persian ambassador informed his master Kawad of this change in the Roman government, he sent him word to go up with diligence and to demand the customary money, or else to say to the emperor, “Take war.”

XX. And so, instead of speaking words of peace and salutation, as he ought to have done, and of rejoicing with him on the commencement of the soverainty which had been newly granted him by God, he irritated the mind of the believing emperor Anastasius with threatening words. But when he heard his boastful language, and learned about his evil conduct, and that he had reestablished the abominable sect of the magi which is called that of the Zaradushtakan 6, (which teaches that women should be in common, and that every one could sleep with whom he pleases,) and that he had wrought harm to the Armenians who were under his sway, because they would not worship fire, he despised him, and did not send him the money, but sent him word, saying, “As Zeno, who reigned before me, did not send it, so neither will I send it, until you restore Nisibis to me; for the wars are not trifling which I have to carry on with the barbarians who are called the Germans, and with those who are called the Blemyes 7, and with |14 many others: and I will not neglect the Roman troops and feed yours.”

XXI. When the Armenians who were under the rule of Kawad heard that he had not received a peaceful answer from the Romans, they took courage and strengthened themselves, and destroyed the fire-temples that had been built by the Persians in their land, and massacred the magi who were among them. Kawad sent against them a general 8 with an army to chastise them and make them return to the worship of fire; but they fought with him, and destroyed both him and his army, and sent ambassadors to our emperor, offering to become his subjects. He however was unwilling to receive them, that he might not be thought to be stirring up war with the Persians. Let those therefore who blame him because he did not give the money, rather blame him who demanded what was not his as if by force; for had he asked for it peaceably and by persuasion, it would have been sent to him; but he hardened his heart like Pharaoh, and used threats of war. But we place our trust in the justice of God, that He will bring upon him a greater punishment than that of the other because of his filthy laws, for be wished to violate the law of nature and to destroy the path of the fear of God.

XXII. Next the whole of the Kadishaye 9 who were under his sway rebelled against him, and wanted to enter Nisibis, and to set up in it a king of their own; and they fought against it for a considerable time. The Tamuraye too, who dwell in the land of the Persians, when they saw that nothing was given to them by him, rebelled against him. These placed their trust in the lofty mountains amid which they dwelt, and used to come down and spoil and plunder the villages around them, and (rob) the merchants, both foreigners and natives of the place, and then go up again. The nobles too of his kingdom hated him, because he had allowed their wives to commit adultery. The |15 Arabs 10 also who were under his sway, when they saw the confusion of his kingdom, likewise made predatory raids, as far as their strength permitted, throughout the whole Persian territory.

XXIII. There arose at this time another trouble in the Roman territory also; for the Isaurians, after the death of Zeno, rebelled against the emperor Anastasius, and were wishing to set up an emperor who was pleasing to themselves. When Kawad heard this, he thought that he had found his opportunity, and sent ambassadors to the Roman territory, thinking that they would be afraid and would send him money, since the Isaurians had rebelled against them. But the emperor Anastasius sent him word, saying, “If you ask it as a loan, I will send it to you; but if as a matter of custom, I will not neglect the Roman armies, which are sore put to it in the war with the Isaurians, and become a helper of the Persians.” By these words the spirit of Kawad was humbled, because his plan had not succeeded. The Isaurians were overcome and destroyed and slaughtered, and all their cities were razed and burned. The Persian grandees plotted in secret to slay Kawad, on account of his impure morals and perverse laws; and when this became known to him, he abandoned his kingdom, and fled to the territory of the Huns, to the king at whose court he had been brought up when he was a hostage.

XXIV. His brother Zamashp reigned in his stead over the Persians. Kawad himself took to wife among the Huns his sister’s daughter. His sister had been led captive thither in the war in which his father was slain; and because she was a king’s daughter, she became the wife of the king of the Huns, and he had a daughter by her. When Kawad fled thither, she gave him this daughter to wife. Being emboldened by having become the king’s son-in-law, he used to weep before him every |16 day, imploring him to give him the aid of an army, that he might go and kill the grandees and establish himself on his throne. His father-in-law gave him a by no means small army, according to his request. When he reached the land of the Persians, his brother heard of it, and fled before him, and he accomplished his wish and slew the grandees. He also sent a message to the Tamuraye, threatening them that, if they did not submit to him of their own accord, they would be conquered in war; but, if they would join his army, that they should enter with him the Roman territory, and out of the spoil of that country he would distribute to them all that had been wrongly withheld from them (see ch. xxii). They were afraid of the Hunnish army, and yielded to him. The Kadishaye, who were encamped against Nisibis (ch. xxii), when they heard this, submitted likewise. And the Arabs, when they learned that he was going to make war with the Romans, crowded to him with great alacrity. The Armenians, on the other hand, who were afraid lest he should take vengeance on them because of those fire-temples which they had razed in time past, were unwilling to obey him. But he collected an army and went to war with them; and though he was too strong for them, he did not destroy them, but promised them that he would not even compel them to worship fire, if they would be his auxiliaries in the war with the Romans. They consented most unwillingly, because they were afraid. What things Kawad did after he entered the Roman borders, I will tell you hereafter in their proper time; but just now, as you have bidden me to write unto you also about the signs and chastisements which took place, in their due order, and about the locusts and the pestilence and the dearth, and these are antecedent in point of time, I will turn my discourse unto them. And that the narrative may not be confused, I will set down the years separately, one by one, and under each of them, by and for itself, I will state what happened in it, God being my helper by the aid of the prayers of you His elect. |17

XXV. The year of Alexander 806 (A.D. 494-5). Concerning then the cause of the war, and how it was provoked, I have, as I think, sufficiently informed you, O our father, though I have written down these narratives in brief terms, because I was anxious to avoid prolixity. Some of them I found in old books; others I learned from meeting with men who had acted as ambassadors to both monarchs; and others from those who were present at these occurrences. But now I am going to inform you of the things that happened with us, because with this year commenced the violent chastisements and the signs that have taken place in our own days.

XXVI. At this time our bodies were perfectly sound all over, but the pains and diseases of our souls were many. But God, who finds pleasure in sinners when they repent of their sins and live, made our bodies as it were a mirror for us, and filled our whole bodies with sores, that by means of our exterior He might show us what our interior was like unto, and that, by means of the scars of our bodies, we might learn how hideous were the scars of our souls. And as all the people had sinned, all of them were smitten with this plague. For there were swellings and tumours upon all the people of our city, and the faces of many gathered and became full of matter, and they presented a horrid sight. There were some whose whole bodies were full of boils or pustules, down even to the palms of their hands and the soles of their feet; whilst others had large holes in their several limbs. However, by the goodness of God which protected them, the pain did not last long with any one, nor did any defect or injury result in the body; but, though the scars of the sores were quite plain after healing, the limbs were preserved in such a state as to fulfil their functions in the body. At this time thirty modii of wheat were sold at Edessa for a dinar, and fifty of barley 11.

XXVII. The year 807 (A.D. 495-6). On the 17th of Iyar (May) in this year, when blessings were sent down |18 abundantly from heaven upon all men, and the crops by the blessing (of God) were abundant, and, rain was falling, and the fruits of the earth were growing in their season, the greater part of the citizens (of Edessa) cut off all hope of safety for their lives by sinning openly. Being plunged in all sorts of luxurious pleasures, they did not even send up thanks for the gifts of God, but were neglectful of [this duty], and corrupted by the diseases of sins. And as if the secret and open sins in which they were indulging were not enough for them, they were present on the day above specified, that is to say, on the night between the Friday and Saturday, [at the place] where the dancer who was named Trimerius was dancing. They kindled lamps without number in honour of this festival, a custom which was previously unknown in this city. These were arranged by them on the ground along the river 12 from the gate of the Theatre 13 as far as the gate of the Arches 14. They placed on its bank lighted lamps, and hung them in the porticoes, in the town-hall, in the upper streets 15, |19 and in many (other) places. Because of this wickedness a marvellous sign was wrought by God to reprove them. For the symbol of the Cross, which the statue of the blessed emperor Constantine held in its hand, receded from the hand of the statue about one cubit, and remained thus during the Friday and Saturday until evening. On the Sunday the symbol came of its own accord and drew nigh to its place, and the statue took it in its hand, as it had held it before. By means of this sign the discreet understood that the thing that had been done was very far removed from what was pleasing unto God.

XXVIII. The year 808 (A.D. 496-7). This sign from above was not sufficient for us to restrain us from our sins; on the contrary, we became more audacious, and gave ourselves up easily to sins. The small slandered their neighbours, and the great were full of respect of persons. Envy and treachery prevailed among all of us; and adultery and fornication abounded. The plague of boils became more prevalent among the people, and the eyes of many were destroyed both in the city and the (surrounding) villages. Mar Cyrus 16 the bishop displayed a seemly zeal, and exhorted the citizens to make a small litter of silver in honour of the eucharistic vessels, that they might be placed in it when they were going to minister with them at the commemoration of one of the martyrs. Every one gave according to his means, but Eutychianus, the husband of Aurelia, was the first to show right good will, giving a hundred dinars of his own property.

XXIX. Anastasius the governor was dismissed, and Alexander came in his place at the end of this year. He cleared the streets of the city of filth, and swept away the |20 booths which had been built by the artisans in the porticoes and streets. He also placed a box in front of his palace, and made a hole in the lid of it, and wrote thereon, that, if any one wished to make known anything, and it was not easy for him to do so openly, he should write it down and throw it into it without fear. By reason of this he learned many things which many people wrote down and threw into it. He used to sit regularly every Friday in the church of S. John the Baptist and S. Addai the Apostle, and to settle legal causes without any expense. And the wronged took courage against their wrongers, and the plundered against their plunderers, and brought their causes before him, and he decided them. Some causes which were more than fifty years old, and had never been inquired into, were brought before him and settled. He constructed the covered walk, which was beside the gate of the Arches. He began also to build the public bath, which had been planned years before to be built beside the granary of corn. He gave orders that the artisans should hang over their shops on the eve of Sunday crosses with five lighted lamps attached to them.

XXX. The year 809 (a. d. 497-8). Whilst these things were taking place, there came round again the time of that festival at which the heathen tales were sung; and the citizens (of Edessa) took even more pains about it than usual. For seven days previously they were going up in crowds to the |21 theatre at eventide, clad in linen garments, and wearing turbans, with their loins ungirt. Lamps were lighted before them, and they were burning incense, and holding vigils the whole night, walking about the city and praising the dancer until morning, with singing and shouting and lewd behaviour. For these reasons they neglected also to go to prayer, and not one of them gave a thought to his duty, but in their pride they mocked at the modesty of their fathers, who, they said, “did not know how to do these things as we do”; and they kept saying that the inhabitants of the city in the olden times were simpletons and fools. In this way they became daring in their impiety, and there was none to warn or rebuke or admonish. For although Xenaias, the bishop of Mabbog 17, was at the time in Edessa,—-of whom beyond all others it was thought that he had taken upon him to labour in teaching,—-yet he did not speak with them on this subject more than one day. But God in His mercy showed them clearly the care which He had for them, that they might be restrained from their iniquity. For the two colonnades and the tepidarium (or lukewarm-bathroom) of the summer bathhouse fell down; but by God’s goodness nobody was hurt there, although many people were at work in it both inside and outside, and no one perished of them except two men, who were crushed, as they were fleeing from the noise of the fall, at the door of the coldwater-bathroom. |22 Whilst they were laying hold of it from opposite sides, to make it revolve, they were delayed by this struggle as to which of them should get out first, and the stones fell upon them and they died. All sensible men gave thanks to God that He had preserved the city from having to mourn for many; for this bath was to have been opened in a few days. So complete was its downfall that even the lowest ranges of stone, which were laid on the surface of the ground, were uprooted from their places.

XXXI. In this same year was issued an edict of the emperor Anastasius that the money should be remitted which the artisans used to pay once in four years, and that they should be freed from the impost. This edict was issued, not only in Edessa, but in all the cities of the Roman empire. The Edessenes used to pay once in four years one hundred and forty pounds of gold. The whole city rejoiced, and they all put on white garments, both small and great, and carried lighted tapers and censers full of burning incense, and went forth with psalms and hymns, giving thanks to God and praising the emperor, to the church of S. Sergius and S. Simeon, where they celebrated the eucharist. They then reentered the city, and kept a glad and merry festival during the whole week, and enacted that they should celebrate this festival every year. All the artisans were reclining and enjoying themselves, bathing, and feasting in the court of the (great) Church 18 and in all the porticoes of the city. |23

XXXII. In this year, on the 5th of the month of Khaziran (June), Mar Cyrus the bishop departed this life, and Peter succeeded him. He added to the festivals of the year that of Palm Sunday. He also established the custom of consecrating the water on the night immediately preceding the feast of the Epiphany; and he prayed over the oil of unction on the Thursday (in Passion Week) before the whole people; besides regulating the other feasts. Alexander the governor was dismissed, and Demosthenes succeeded him. By his order all the porticoes of the city were whitewashed, whereat persons of experience were much annoyed, for they said that it was a warning sign of approaching evils that were to happen to their home.

XXXIII. The year 810 (A.D. 498-9). A proof of God’s justice was manifested towards us at this time, for the correction of our evil conduct; for in the month of Iyar (May) of this year, when the day arrived for the celebration of that wicked heathen festival, there came a vast quantity of locusts into our country from the south. They did not, however, destroy or harm anything in this year, but merely laid their eggs in our country in no small quantity. After their eggs were deposited in the ground, there were terrible earthquakes in the land; and it is clear that they took place to awaken the people out of the sin in which they were plunged, that they might not be (further) chastised by famine and pestilence.

XXXIV. In the month of Ab (August) of this year there came an edict from the emperor Anastasius that the fights of wild beasts in the amphitheatre should be suppressed in all the cities of the Roman empire. In the month of Ilul (September) there was a violent earthquake, and a great sound was heard from heaven over the land, so that the earth trembled from its foundations at the sound; and all the villages and towns heard that sound and felt the earthquake. |24 Alarming rumours and evil reports came to us from all quarters; and, as some said, a marvellous sign was seen in the river Euphrates and at the hot-spring of Abarne, in that the water which flowed from their fountains was dried up this day. It does not appear to me that this is false, because, whenever the earth is rent by earthquakes, it happens that the running waters in those places that are cleft are restrained from flowing, and are at times even turned into another direction; as the blessed David too, when telling in the eighteenth psalm of the punishments that came from God upon His enemies, by means of the shaking of the earth and the cleaving of the mountains, and the like, lets us know that this also took place. For he says: “The fountains of the waters were laid bare, and the foundations of the world were seen, at Thy rebuke, O Lord.” There came too in the course of this month a letter, which was read in church before the whole congregation, stating that Nicopolis 19 had fallen to the ground of a sudden at midnight and overwhelmed all its inhabitants. Some strangers too who were there, and certain brethren from our schools who were travelling there and happened to be on the spot, were buried (in the ruins). Their companions who came (back from thence) told us (this). The whole wall of the city all round, and everything that was within it, was overturned in that night, and not one person of them remained alive, save the bishop of the town and two other men, who were sleeping behind the apse of the altar of the church. When the ceiling of the room in which they were sleeping fell, one end of its beams was propped up by the wall of the altar, and so it did |25 not bury them. A certain brother, whose veracity can be depended upon, has told me as follows. “At nightfall on the night when Nicopolis fell, we were lying down inside the town, I and a companion of mine. He was very restless, and said to me, ‘Get up, and let us go and pass the night outside of the town in yonder cave, as is our custom, for I cannot get rest here, because the air is so sultry and sleep will not come to me.’ So we got up, I and he, and went out of the town, and passed the night in the cave, as was our custom. When the time of dawn drew nigh, I awakened the brother who was with me, and said to him, ‘Get up, for it is daybreak, and let us go into the town, and attend to our business.’ So we got up, I and he, and came into the town, and found all its houses overturned, and the people and the cattle, the oxen and the camels, buried therein; and the sound of their groaning was coming up from under the ground. Those who came together to the spot took out the bishop from beneath the beams (of the roof) by which he was sheltered. He asked for bread and wine, wherewith to celebrate the eucharist, [but could get none,] because the whole town was overturned and nothing in it left standing. Presently, however, there arrived a wayfarer, a good man, who gave him some small pieces of bread and a little wine, and he celebrated the eucharist and prayed, and made those who were there participate in the mystery of life. He resembled at this time, as it seems to me, the just Lot when he made his escape from Sodom.” Thus much is sufficient to tell.

XXXV. Again, in the north there was a church called that of Arsamosata, which was very strongly built and beautifully decorated. On a fixed day in each year, namely on the day of the commemoration of the martyrs who were deposited in it, many used to gather together thither from all quarters, partly for prayer and partly for traffic; for great provision was made for the people who were assembled on that occasion. When there was a great crowd collected of men and women and children, of |26 every age and class, there were terrible flashes of lightning and violent peals of thunder and frightful noises; and all the people fled to the church, to seek refuge with the bones of the saints. And while they were in great fear, and were engaged in prayer and service at midnight, the church fell in and crushed beneath it the greater part of the people who were in it. This happened on the same day on which Nicopolis fell.

XXXVI. The year 811 (A.D. 499-500). By all these earthquakes and calamities, however, not a man of us was restrained from his evil ways, so that our country and our city remained without excuse. Because we had been preserved from the chastisement inflicted on others, and rumours from afar had not alarmed us, we were (presently) smitten with a stroke for which there was no healing. Let us recognise therefore the justice of God and say, “Righteous is the Lord, and very upright are His judgments;” for lo, in His longsuffering He was yet willing by means of signs and wonders to restrain us from our evil doings. In the month of the first Teshrin (October) of this year, on the 23d, which was a Saturday, at the rising of the sun, his brightness was taken away from him, and his sphere of light appeared like silver. He had no perceptible rays, and our eyes could easily gaze upon him without hindrance, for he had neither rays nor beams to hinder them from looking upon him. Just as it is easy for us to look upon the moon, so we could look upon him. He continued thus till towards the eighth hour. The ground over which shone the little light that there was, seemed as if ashes or sulphur had been sprinkled upon it. On this day another dreadful and terrible sign took place on the wall of the city. This city, which, because of the faith of its king and the righteousness of its inhabitants in days of old, was deemed worthy to receive a blessing from our Lord (see ch. v), was well nigh overwhelming its inhabitants at the present day, because of the multitude of their sins. For there was a breach in the wall from the south to the Great Gate 20; and some of the |27 stones at this spot were scattered to no inconsiderable distance from it. By the order of our father the bishop Mar Peter, public prayers were offered, and every one besought mercy from God. He took all his clergy and all the members of religious orders, both men and women, and all the lay members of the holy Church, both rich and poor, men women and children, and they traversed all the streets of the city, carrying crosses, with psalms and hymns, clad in black garments of humiliation. All the convents too in our district kept up continual services with great diligence; and so, by the prayers of all the holy ones, the light of the sun was restored to its place, and we were a little cheered.

XXXVII. In the latter Teshri (November) we saw three signs in the sky at midday. One of them was in the midst of the heavens in the south. It resembled in its colour the bow that is in the clouds, and with its concave surface it looked upwards; that is to say, its convex surface was downwards and its extremities were upwards. And there was one on the east, and another also on the west. Again, in the latter Kanun (January), we saw another sign in the exact southwest corner (of the heavens), which resembled a spear. Some people said of it that it was the besom of destruction, and others said that it was the spear of war.

XXXVIII. Till now we were chastised (only) with rumours and signs; but for the future who is able to tell of the affliction that surrounded our land on all sides? In the month of Adar (March) of this year the locusts came upon us out of the ground, so that, because of their number, we imagined that not only had the eggs that were in the ground been hatched to our harm, but that the very air was vomiting them against us, and that they were descending from the sky upon us. When they were only able to crawl, they devoured and consumed all the Arab territory and all that of Ras-‘ain and Tella and Edessa. |28 But after they were able to fly, the stretch of their radii was from the border of Assyria to the Western Sea (the Mediterranean), and they went northwards as far as the boundary of the Ortaye. They ate up and desolated these districts and utterly consumed everything that was in them, so that, even before the war broke out, we could see with our own eyes what was said of the Babylonian, “The land is as the garden of Eden before him, and behind him a desolate wilderness.” Had not the providence of God restrained them, they would have devoured human beings and cattle, as we have heard that they actually did in a certain village, where some people had put down a little baby in a field, while they were working; and before they got from one end of the field to the other, the locusts leaped upon it and deprived it of life. Presently after, in the month of Nisan (April), there began to be a dearth of corn and of everything else, and four modii of wheat were sold for a dinar. In the months of Khaziran (June) and Tammuz (July) the inhabitants of these districts were reduced to all sorts of shifts to live. They sowed millet for their own use, but it was not enough for them, because it did not thrive. Before the year came to an end, misery from hunger had reduced the people to beggary, so that they sold their property for half its worth, horses and oxen and sheep and pigs. And because the locusts had devoured all the crop, and left neither pasture nor food for man or beast, many forsook their native places and removed to other districts of the north and west. And the sick who were in the villages, as well as the old men and boys and women and infants, and those who were tortured by hunger, being unable to walk far and go to distant places, entered into the cities to get a livelihood by begging; and thus many villages and hamlets were left destitute of inhabitants. They did not, however, escape punishment, not |29 even those who went to far off places; but, as it is written concerning the Children of Israel, “Whithersoever they went out, the hand of the Lord was against them for evil,” so also it fared with them; for the pestilence came upon them in the places to which they went, and even overtook those who entered into Edessa; about which I shall tell (you) presently to the best of my ability, though no one, as I think, is able to describe it as it really was.

XXXIX. Now, however, I am going to write to you about the dearth, as you asked me. I did not, it is true, wish to set down anything regarding this, but I have constrained myself to do so, so that you don’t think that I treated your order slightingly. Wheat was sold at this time at the rate of four modii for a dinar, and barley six modii. Chickpeas were five hundred numia a kab; beans, four hundred numia a kab; and lentils, three hundred and sixty numia a kab; but meat was not as yet dear. As time went on, however, the dearth became greater, and the pain of hunger afflicted the people more and more. Everything that was not edible was cheap, such as clothes and household utensils and furniture, for these things were sold for a half or a third of their value, and did not suffice for the maintenance of their owners, because of the great dearth of bread. At this time our father Mar Peter set out to visit the emperor (at Constantinople), in order to beg him to remit the tax. The governor, however, laid hold of the landed proprietors, and |30 used great violence to them and extorted it from them, so that, before the bishop could persuade the emperor, the governor had sent the money to the capital. When the emperor saw that the money had arrived, he did not like to remit it; but, in order not to send our father away empty, he remitted two folles to the villagers, and the price which they were paying 21, whilst he freed the citizens from the obligation of drawing water for the Roman soldiery.

XL. The governor himself too set out to visit the emperor, girt with his sword 22, and left Eusebius to hold his post and govern the city. When this Eusebius saw that the bakers were not sufficient to make bread for the market, because of the multitude of country people, of whom the city was full, and because of the poor who had no bread in their houses, he gave an order that every one who chose might make bread and sell it in the market. And there came Jewish women, to whom he gave wheat from the public granary, and they made bread for the market. But even so the poor were in straits, because they had not money wherewith to buy bread; and they wandered about the streets and porticoes and courtyards to beg a morsel of bread, but there was no one in whose house bread was in superfluity. And when one of them had begged (a few) pence, but was unable to buy bread therewith, he used to purchase therewith a turnip or a cabbage or a mallow, and eat it raw. And for this reason there was a scarcity of vegetables, and a lack of everything in the city and villages, so that people actually dared to enter the holy places and for sheer hunger to eat the consecrated bread as if it had been common bread. Others cut pieces off dead carcases, that ought not to be eaten, and cooked and ate them; to which things you in your truthfulness canst bear testimony. |31

XLI. The year 812 (a. d. 500-1). In this year, after the vintage, wine was sold at the rate of six measures for a dinar, and a kab of raisins for three hundred numia. The famine was sore in the villages and in the city; for those who were left in the villages were eating bitter-vetches, and others Were frying the withered fallen grapes and eating them, though even of them there was not enough to satisfy them. And those who were in the city were wandering about the streets, picking up the stalks and leaves of vegetables, all filthy with mud, and eating them. They were sleeping in the porticoes and streets, and wailing by night and day from the pangs of hunger; and their bodies wasted away, and they were in a sad plight, and became like jackals because of the leanness of their bodies. The whole city was full of them, and they began to die in the porticoes and in the streets.

XLII. After the governor Demosthenes had gone up to the emperor, he informed him of this calamity; and the emperor gave him no small sum of money to distribute among the poor. And when he came back from his presence to Edessa, he sealed many of them on their necks with leaden seals, and gave each of them a pound of bread a day. Still, however, they were not able to live, because they were tortured by the pangs of hunger, which wasted them away. The pestilence became worse about this time, namely the month of the latter Teshri (November); and still more in the month of the first Kanun (December), when there began to be frost and ice, because they were passing the nights in the porticoes and streets, and the sleep of death came upon them during their natural sleep. Children and babes were crying in every street. |32 Of some the mothers were dead; others their mothers had left, and had run away from them, when they asked for something to eat, because they had nothing to give them. Dead bodies were lying exposed in every street, and the citizens were not able to bury them, because, whilst they were carrying out the first that had died, the moment that they returned, they found others. By the care of Mar Nonnus, the ξενοδόχος, the brethren used afterwards to go about the city, and to collect these dead bodies. And all the people of the city used to assemble at the gate of the ξενοδοχεῖον and go forth and bury them, from morning to morning. The stewards of the (Great) Church, the priest Mar Tewath-il and Mar Stratonicus (who some time afterwards was deemed worthy of the office of bishop in the city of Harran), established an infirmary among the buildings attached to the (Great) Church of Edessa. Those who were very ill used to go in and lie down there; and many dead bodies were found in the infirmary, which they buried along with those at the ξενοδοχεῖον.

XLIII. The governor blocked up the gates of the colonnades attached to the winter bath, and laid down in it straw and mats, and they used to sleep there, but it was not sufficient for them. When the grandees of the city saw this, they too established infirmaries, and many went in and found shelter in them. The Roman soldiers too set up places in which the sick slept, and charged themselves with their expenses. They died by a painful and melancholy death; and though many of them were buried every day, the number still went on increasing. For a report had gone forth |33 throughout the province of Edessa, that the Edessenes took good care of those who were in want; and for this reason a countless multitude of people entered the city. The bath too that was under the Church of the Apostles, beside the Great Gate, was full of sick, and many dead bodies were carried forth from it every day. All the inhabitants of the city were careful to attend in a body the funeral of those who were carried forth from the ξενοδοχεῖον with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs that were full of the hope of the resurrection. The women too (were there) with bitter weeping and loud cries. And at their head went the diligent shepherd Mar Peter; and with them too was the governor, and all the nobles. When these were buried, then every one came back, and accompanied the funeral of those who had died in his own neighbourhood. And when the graves of the ξενοδοχεῖον and the Church were full, the governor went forth and opened the old graves that were beside the church of Mar Kona, which had been constructed by the ancients with great pains, and they filled them. Then they opened others, and they were not sufficient for them; and at last they opened any old grave, no matter what, and filled it. For more than a hundred bodies were carried out every day from the ξενοδοχεῖον, and many a day a hundred and twenty, and up to a hundred and thirty, from the beginning of the latter Teshri (November) till the end of Adar (March). During that time nothing could be heard in all the streets of the city but either weeping over the dead or the lamentable cries of those in pain. Many too were dying in the courts of the (Great) Church, and in the courts of the city and in the inns: and they were dying also on the roads, as they were coming to enter the city. In the month of Shebat (February) too the dearth was very great, and the pestilence |34 increased. Wheat was sold at the rate of thirteen kabs for a dinar, and barley eighteen kabs. A pound of meat was a hundred numia, and a pound of fowl three hundred numia, and an egg forty numia. In short there was a dearth of everything edible.

XLIV. There were public prayers in the month of Adar (March) on account of the pestilence, that it might be restrained from the strangers; and the people of the city, while interceding on their behalf, resembled the blessed David when he was saying to the Angel who destroyed his people, “If I have sinned and have done perversely, wherein have these innocent sheep sinned? Let your hand be against me and against my father’s house.” In the month of Msan (April) the pestilence began among the people of the city, and many biers were carried out in one day, but no one could tell their number. And not only in Edessa was this sword of the pestilence, but also from Antioch as far as Nisibis the people were destroyed and tortured in the same way by famine and pestilence. Many of the rich died, who were not starved; and many of the grandees too died in this year. In the months of Khaziran (June) and Tammuz (July), after the harvest, we thought that we might now be relieved from dearth. However our expectations were not fulfilled as we thought, but the wheat of the new harvest was sold so dear as five modii for a dinar.

XLV. The year 813 (A.D. 501-2). After these afflictions of locusts and famine and pestilence, about which I have written to you, a little respite was granted us by the mercy of God, that we might be able to endure what was to come, as we learned from the actual facts. There was an abundant vintage, and wine from the press was sold at the rate of twenty-five measures for a dinar; and the poor were amply supplied from the vineyards by means of the crop of dried grapes. For the husbandmen and farmers said that the crop of dried grapes was more abundant than that of wheat, because there was a hot wind when the grapes began to ripen, and the greater part of them dried up. By the discreet it was said that this took place by the good providence of God, the Lord of all, and that this thing was a mingling of mercy with chastisement, that the |35 villagers might be supported by this supply of dried grapes, and not die of hunger as in the past year; because at this time wheat was sold at the rate of only four modii for a dinar, and barley six modii. During the two Teshris (October and November) there was the following sign of mercy. The whole winter of this year was excessively rainy; and the seed that was sown shot up here and there to more than the height of a man, before the month of Nisan (April) was come. Even barren spots of land produced nearly as much as those that were sown. The very roofs of the houses produced much grass, which some people reaped and sold like the dog’s grass of the fields; and because it had spikes and was of the full height, the buyers did not perceive (the difference). We were expecting and hoping this year too that corn would be very cheap, as in the years of old; but our hopes came to nothing, for in the month of Iyar (May) there blew a hot wind for three days, and all the corn of our land was dried up save in a few places.

XLVI. In this month, when the day came on which the wicked festival of the tales of the (ancient) Romans was held, of which we have spoken above, there came an edict from the emperor Anastasius that the dancers should not dance any more, not even in a single city throughout his empire. Any one, therefore, who looks to the issue of things, will not blame us because of our having said that, by reason of the wickedness which the people of the city perpetrated at this festival, the chastisements of hunger and pestilence came upon us in succession. For, behold, within thirty days after it was abolished, wheat, which had been sold at the rate of four modii for a dinar, was sold at the rate of twelve; and barley, which had been sold at the rate of six, was sold at the rate of twenty-two. And it was clearly made known to every one, that the will of God is able to bless a small crop, and to give abundance to those who repent of their sins; for although the whole crop of grain was dried up, as I have said, yet from the little remnant that was left came all this relief within thirty days. Perhaps, |36 however, even now some one may say that I have not reasoned well, for this repentance was in no way a voluntary one, that mercy should be shown for it, seeing that it was the emperor who abolished the festival by force, in that he ordered that the dancers should not dance at all. We, on the contrary, say that God, because of the multitude of His goodness, was seeking an occasion to show mercy even unto those who were not worthy. Of this we have a proof from the fact that He had mercy upon Ahab, when he was put to shame by the rebuke of Elijah, and did not bring in his days the evil which had been before decreed against his house. I do not, however, by any means assert that this was the only sin which was perpetrated in our city, for many were the sins that were wrought secretly and openly; but because the rulers too participated in them, I do not choose to specify these sins distinctly, that I may not give occasion to those who like it of finding fault and of saying of me that I speak against the chiefs. That I may not, however, leave the matter in complete obscurity,—-because I promised above to make known to you how this war was stirred up against us,—-and that I may not moreover say anything against the offenders, I will (merely) set down the words of the Prophet, from which you may understand (my meaning), who, when he saw his fellow-citizens committing acts like these which are this day committed in our city, especially where you live, and throughout the whole province, said to them as if from the mouth of the Lord: “Woe to him that says to a father, What are you fathering? and to the woman, What are you giving birth to?” About other matters it is better to be silent, for it is fitting to hearken to the passage of Scripture which says: “Let him that is prudent keep silence in that time, because it is a time of evil.” But if our Lord grants that we see you in health, we will speak with you of these things according as we are able.

XLVII. Now then listen to the calamities that happened in this year, and to the sign that appeared on the day when they happened, for this too you have required at my hands. On the 22d of Ab (August) in this year, on the night preceding |37 Friday 23, a great fire appeared to us blazing in the northern quarter the whole night, and we thought that the whole earth was going to be destroyed that night by a deluge of fire; but the mercy of our Lord preserved us without harm. We received, however, a letter from some acquaintances of ours, who were travelling to Jerusalem, in which it was stated that, on the same night in which that great blazing fire appeared, the city of Ptolemais or ‘Akko was overturned, and nothing in it left standing. Again, a few days after, there came unto us some Tyrians and Sidonians, and told us that, on the very same day on which the fire appeared and Ptolemais was overturned, the half of their cities fell, namely of Tyre and Sidon. In Berytus (Beirut) only the synagogue of the Jews fell down on the day when ‘Akko was overturned. The people of Nicomedia (in Bithynia) were delivered over to Satan to be chastised, and many of them were tormented by demons, until they remembered the words of our Lord, and persevered in fasting and prayer, and received healing.

XLVIII. On the very same day on which that fire was seen, Kawad, the son of Peroz, the king of the Persians, collected the whole Persian army, and went up against the north. He entered the Roman territory with the force of Huns that he had with him, and encamped against Theodosiupolis of Armenia, and took it in a few days; for the governor of the place, whose name was Constantine, rebelled against the Romans, and surrendered it, because of some enmity that he had against the emperor. Kawad consequently plundered the city, and destroyed and burned it; and he laid waste all the villages in the region of the north, and the fugitives that were left he carried off captive. Constantine he made one of his generals, and left a garrison in Theodosiupolis, and marched thence. |38

XLIX. The year 814 (A.D. 502-3). On the region of Mesopotamia also, in which we dwell, great calamities weighed heavily in this year, so that the things which Christ our Lord decreed in His Gospel against Jerusalem, and actually brought to pass, and the things too which have been spoken regarding the end of this world, would be well fitting to those which happened us at this time. For after there had been earthquakes in various places, as I have written unto you, and famines and pestilences, and alarms and terrors, and after great signs had been shown from heaven, nation arose against nation and kingdom against kingdom, and we fell by the edge of the sword, and were led away captive into every region, and our land was trampled under foot by strange nations; so that, had it not been for the words of our Lord, who has said, “When you hear of wars and tumults, do not be afraid, for these things must needs first come to pass, but the end is not yet come,” we would have dared to say that the end of the world was come, because many thought and said thus. But we ourselves reflected that this war did not extend over the whole world; and besides we remembered too the words of S. Paul, wherewith he warned the Thessalonians concerning the coming of our Lord, saying that they should not be astonished either by word, or by spirit, or by beguiling epistle, as if it were from him, declaring the day of the Lord to be now come; and (how) he showed that it is not possible that the end should be until the false Christ is revealed. From these words then of our Lord and of His Apostle we understood that these things did not happen to us because it was the latter time, but that they took place for our chastisement, because our sins were great.

L. Kawad, the king of the Persians, came from the north on the fifth of the first Teshrt (October), on a Saturday, and encamped against the city of Amid, which is beside us in Mesopotamia, he and his whole army. When Anastasius, the Roman emperor, heard that Kawad had collected his forces, he was unwilling to meet him in battle, that blood might not be shed on both sides; but he sent him money by the hand of Rufinus, to whom he gave orders that, if Kawad was on the frontier and had not yet crossed over into the Roman territory, |39 he should give him the money and send him away. But when Rufinus came to Caesarea of Cappadocia, and heard that Kawad had laid waste Agel and Suph and Armenia and the Arabs, he left the money at Caesarea, and went to him, and told him that he should recross the border and take the money. He however would not, but seized Rufinus and ordered him to be kept under guard. He fought against Amid, he and his whole army, with every manner of warfare, by night and by day, and built against it (the mound called) a mule; but the people of Amid built and added to the height of the wall. When the mule was raised high, the Persians applied the battering-ram; and after they had struck the wall violently, the part newly built became loosened, because it had not yet settled, and fell. But the Amidenes dug a hole in the wall under the mule, and secretly drew away inside the city the earth which was heaped up to form it, propping it up with beams as they worked; and so the mule collapsed and fell.

LI. When Kawad found that he was not a match for the city, he sent Na’man, the king of the Arabs (of al-Hirah), with his whole force, to go southwards to the district of Harran 24. Some of the Persian troops advanced as far as the city of |40 Constantina or Tella, and were plundering and harrying and laying waste the whole country. On the 19th of the latter Teshri (November) Olympius, the dux of Tella, and Eugenius, the dux of Melitene (who had come down at that time), went forth, they and their troops, and destroyed the Persians whom they found in the villages around Tella. And when they had turned to go back to the city, some one told them that there were five hundred men in a ravine not very far from them. They were ready to go against them, but the Roman troops that were with them had dispersed themselves to strip the slain; and because it was night, Olympius gave orders to light a fire on the top of an eminence and to blow trumpets, that those who were scattered might rejoin them. But the Persian generals, who were encamped at the village of Tell Beshmai, when they saw the light of the fire and heard the sound of the trumpets, armed all their force and came against them. When the Roman cavalry saw that the Persians were too many for them, they turned (their backs); but the infantry were unable to escape and were constrained to fight. So they came together and drew up in battle array, forming what is called the χελώνη or tortoise, and fought for a long time. But as the army of the Persians was too many for them, and there were added to these the Huns and Arabs, their ranks were broken, and they were thrown into disorder, and mixed up among the cavalry, and trampled and crushed under the hoofs of the horses of the Arabs. So many of the Romans were killed, and the rest were made prisoners.

LII. On the 26th of this month Na’man came from the south and entered the territory of the Harranites, and laid waste and plundered and took captive the people and cattle |41 and property of the whole territory of Harran. He came also as far as Edessa, harrying and plundering and taking captive all the villages. The number of persons whom he led away into captivity was 18,500, besides those who were killed, and besides the cattle and property and spoil of all kinds. The reason that all these people were found in the villages was its being the time of the vintage, for not only did the villagers go out to the vintage, but also many of the Harranites and Edessenes went out, and were taken prisoners. Because of these things Edessa was closed and guarded, and ditches were dug, and the wall was repaired; and the gates of the city were stopped up with blocks of stone, because they were decayed. They were going to put new ones, and to make bars for the sluices of the river, lest any one should enter thereby 25; but they could not find iron enough for the work, and an order was issued that every house in Edessa should furnish ten pounds of iron. When this was done, the work was finished. When Eugenius saw that he could not meet all the Persians (in battle), he took what troops were left him, and went against the garrison which they had at Theodosiupolis, and destroyed those who were in it, and retook the town.

LIII. Kawad was still fighting against Amid, and striving and labouring to set up again the mule that had fallen in. He ordered the Persians to fill it up with stones and beams, and to bring cloths of hair and wool and linen, and make them into bags or sacks, and fill them with earth, and pile them up on the mule which they had made, so that it might be raised quickly against the wall. Then the Amidenes constructed |42 a machine which the Persians named “the Crusher”, because it thwarted all their labour and destroyed themselves. For the Amidenes cast with this engine huge stones, each of which weighed more than three hundred pounds; and so the cotton awning under which the Persians concealed themselves was rent in pieces, and those who were standing beneath it were crushed. The battering ram too was broken by the constant shower of stones which were cast without cessation; for the Amidenes were not able to damage the Persians so much in any other way as by means of large stones, because of the cotton awning which was folded many times over (the mule). Upon this the Persians used to pour water, and it could neither be damaged by arrows on account of its thickness, nor by fire because it was damp. But these large stones that were hurled from “the Crusher” destroyed both awning and men and weapons. In this way the Persians were discomfited, and gave up working at the mule, and took counsel to return to their own country, because, during the three months that they had sat before it, 50,000 of them had perished in the battles that were fought daily both by night and day. But the Amidenes became overconfident in their victory, and fell into careless ways, and did not guard the wall with the same diligence as before. On the 10th of the month of the latter Kanun (January) the guardians of the wall drank a great deal of wine because of the cold, and when it was night, they fell asleep and were sunk in a heavy slumber; and some of them quitted their posts, because it was raining, and went down to seek shelter in their houses. Whether then through this remissness, as we think, or by an act of treachery, as people said, or as a chastisement from God, the Persians got possession of the walls of Amid by means of a ladder, without the gates being opened or the wall breached. They laid waste the city, and sacked all the property in it, and trampled the eucharist under foot, and mocked at its service, and stripped bare its churches, and led its inhabitants into |43 captivity, except the old and the maimed and those who hid themselves. They left there a garrison of three thousand men, and all (the rest) of them went down to the mountains of Shigar. That the Persians who remained might not be annoyed by the smell of the dead bodies of the Amidenes, they carried them out and piled them up in two heaps outside of the north gate. The number of those who were carried out by the north gate was more than 80,000; besides those whom they led forth alive and stoned outside of the city, and those whom they stabbed on the top of the mule that they had constructed, and those who were thrown into the Tigris (Deklath), and those who died by all sorts of deaths, regarding which we are unable to speak.

LIV. Then Kawad let Rufinus go, that he might go and tell the emperor what had been done; and he was speaking of these atrocities everywhere, and by these reports the cities to the east of the Euphrates were alarmed, and (their inhabitants) made ready to flee to the west. The honoured Jacob 26, the periodeutes, who has composed many homilies on passages of the Scriptures, and written various poems and hymns regarding the time of the locusts, was not neglectful at this time too of his duty, but wrote letters of admonition to all the cities, bidding them trust in the Divine deliverance, and exhorting them not to flee. The emperor Anastasius too, when he heard this, sent a large army of Roman soldiers to winter in the cities and garrison them. All the booty that he had taken, and the captives that he had carried off, were” not, however, enough for Kawad, nor was he sated with the great quantity of blood that he had shed; but he (again) sent ambassadors to the emperor, saying, |44 “Send me the money or accept war.” This was in the month of Nisan (April). The emperor, however, did not send the money, but made preparations to avenge himself and to exact satisfaction for those who had perished. In the month of Iyar (May) he sent against him three generals, Areobindus, Patricius, and Hypatius, and many officers with them. Areobindus went down and encamped on the border by Dara and ‘Ammudin, towards the city of Nisibis; he had with him 12,000 men. Patricius and Hypatius beseiged Amid, to drive out the Persian garrison there; they had with them 40,000 men. There came down too at this time the hyparch Appion, and dwelt at Edessa, to look after the provisioning of the Roman troops that were with them. As the bakers were not able to make bread enough, he ordered that wheat should be supplied to all the houses of Edessa and that they should make soldiers’ bread at their own cost. The Edessenes turned out at the first baking 630,000 modii.

LV. When Kawad saw that those who were with Areobindus were few in number, he sent against them the troops that he had with him in Shigar, (namely) 20,000 Persians; but Areobindus routed them once and again, until they were driven to the gate of Nisibis, and many of the fugitives were suffocated at the gate as they were pressing to get in. In the month of Tammuz (July) the Huns and Arabs joined the Persians to come against him, with Constantine (see ch. xlviii) at their head. When he learned this from spies, he sent Calliopius the Aleppine to Patricius and Hypatius, saying, “Come to me and help me, because a large army is about to come against me.” They, however, did not listen to him, but stayed where they were beside Amid. When the Persians came against the army of Areobindus, he could not contend with them, but left his camp, and made his escape to Tella and Edessa; and all their baggage was plundered and carried off. |45

LVI. The troops of Patricius and Hypatius were (meanwhile) constructing three towers of wood, wherewith to scale the walls of Amid. But when they had finished building the towers at a great expense, and they were girded with iron so as not to be harmed by anything, then they found out what had happened on the frontier, and they burned the towers, and departed thence, and went after the Persians but did not overtake them. One of the officers, whose name was Pharazman, and another named Theodore, sent by stratagem a flock of sheep to pass by Amid, while they and their troops lay in ambush. When the Persians saw the sheep from within Amid, about four hundred chosen men of them sallied forth to carry them off; but the Romans who were lying in ambush arose and destroyed them, and took their leader alive. He promised them that he would give up Amid to them, and for this reason Patricius and Hypatius returned thither; but when that general was unable to fulfil his promise, because those in the city would not be persuaded by him, the generals ordered him to be impaled.

LVII. The Arabs of the Persian territory advanced as far as the Khabur, and Timostratus the dux of Callinicus, went out against them and routed them. The Arabs of the Roman territory also, who are called the Tha’labites 27, went to Hirta 28 |46 (the capital) of Na’man, and found a caravan which was going up to him, and camels that were carrying up to him……29 They fell upon them and destroyed them and took the camels, but they did not make any stay at al-Hirah, because its inhabitants had withdrawn into the inner desert. Again, in the month of Ab (August), the whole Persian army assembled, along with the Huns and the Kadishaye and the Armenians, and came against Opadna. Patricius and his troops heard of this, and arose to go against them; but while the Romans were yet on the march, and not drawn up for battle, the Persians met the vanguard and smote them. When these who were beaten fell back, the rest of the Roman army saw that the vanguard was smitten, and fear fell upon them, and they did not wait to fight, but Patricius himself was the first to turn, and all his army after him. They crossed the Euphrates, and made their escape to the city of Shemishat. In this battle Na’man too, the king of the Persian Arabs, was wounded. One of the Roman officers, whose name was Peter, fled to the castle of Ashparin; and when the Persians surrounded the castle, the inhabitants were afraid of them, and gave him up to them, and the Persians took him away prisoner. They slew the Roman soldiers who were with him, but the people of the castle they did not harm in any way.

LVIII. Kawad, the king of the Persians, was thinking of going against Areobindus to Edessa; for Na’man, the king of |47 the Arabs, kept urging him on because of what had happened to his caravan (see ch. lvii). But a shaikh from Hirta of Na’man, who was a Christian, answered and said: “Let not your majesty take the trouble of going to war against Edessa, because there is the infallible word of Christ, whom we worship, regarding it, that no enemy shall ever make himself master of it” (see ch. v). When Na’man heard this, he threatened that he would do at Edessa worse things than had been done at Amid, and uttered blasphemous words. And Christ showed a manifest sign in him, for at the very time when he blasphemed, the wound which he had received on his head swelled, and his whole head became swollen, and he arose and went to his tent, and lingered in this pain for two days and died 30. Not even this sign, however, restrained the wicked mind of Kawad from his evil purpose; but he set up a king in place of Na’man, and arose and went to battle. When he came to Tella, he encamped against it; and the Jews who were there plotted to surrender the city to him. They dug a hole in the tower of their synagogue, which had been committed to them to guard, and sent word to the Persians regarding it that they might dig into it (from the outside) and enter by it. This was found out by the count Peter, who was in captivity (see ch. lvii), and he persuaded those who were guarding him to let him come near the wall, saying that there were clothes and articles of his of different kinds which he had left in the city, and he wished to ask the Tellenes to give them to him. The guards granted his request and let him go near. He said to the soldiers who were standing on the wall to call the count Leontius, who at that time had charge of the city, and they called him and the officers. Peter spoke with them in Roman, and disclosed to them the treachery of the Jews. In order that the matter might not become known to the Persians, he asked them to give him a pair of trousers. They at first made a pretence of being angry with him; but afterwards they threw |48 down to him from the wall a pair of trousers, because in reality he had need of clothes to wear. Then they went down from the wall, and as if they had learned nothing about the treachery of the Jews and did not know which was the place, they went round and examined the foundations of the whole wall, as if they wished to see whether it required strengthening. This they did for the sake of Peter, lest the Persians might become aware that he had disclosed the thing and might treat him much worse. At last they came to the place which the Jews were guarding, and found that it was mined, and that they had made ready in the centre of the tower a great hole, as they had been told. When the Romans saw what was there, they sallied out against them with great fury, and went round the whole city, and killed all the Jews whom they could find, men and women, old men and children. This they did for (several) days, and they would scarcely cease from killing them at the order of the count Leontius and the entreaty of the blessed Bar-hadad the bishop. They guarded the city carefully by night and by day, and the holy Bar-hadad himself used to go round and visit them and pray for them and bless them, commending their care and encouraging them, and sprinkling holy water on them and on the wall of the city. He also carried with him on his rounds the eucharist, in order to let them receive the mystery at their stations, lest for this reason any one of them should quit his post and come down from the wall. He also went out boldly to the king of the Persians and spoke with him and appeased him. When Kawad saw the dignified bearing of the man, and perceived too the vigilance of the Romans, it seemed to him of no use to remain idle before Tella, with all that host which he had with him; firstly, because sustenance could not be found for it in a district that had already been ravaged; and secondly, because he was afraid lest the Roman generals might join one another and come against him in a body. For these reasons he moved off quickly towards Edessa, and encamped by the river |49 Gallab, otherwise called (the river) of the Medes, for about twenty days.

LIX. Some of the more daring men in his army traversed the district and laid it waste. On the 6th of Ilul (September) the Edessenes pulled down all the convents and inns that were close to the wall, and burned the village of Kephar Selem, also called Negbath. They cut down all the hedges of the gardens and parks that were around, and felled the trees which were in them. They brought in the bones of all the martyrs (from the churches) which were around the city; and set up engines on the wall, and tied coverings of haircloth over the battlements. On the 9th of this month Kawad sent a message to Areobindus, that he should either receive into the city his general, or come out to him into the plain, as he wished to conclude a treaty of peace with him. He gave secret orders however to his troops that, if Areobindus allowed them to enter the city, they should turn and seize the gate and entrance, until he could come and enter after them; and that, if he came forth to them, they should lie in ambush for him and carry him off alive and bring him to him. But Areobindus, because he was afraid to allow them to enter the city, went forth to them outside, without going very far from the city, but (only) as far as the |50 church of S. Sergius. There came to him Bawi, who was the astabid, which is, being interpreted, the magister (militum) of the Persians, and said to Areobindus, “If you wishest to make peace, give us 10,000 pounds of gold, and make an agreement with us that we shall receive every year the customary sum of money.” Areobindus promised to give as much as 7,000 pounds, but they would not accept it, and kept wrangling with him from morning until the ninth hour. And since they found no opportunity for their treachery, on account of the Roman soldiers who were guarding him, and because they were afraid to make war again with Edessa in consequence of what had happened to Na’man, they left Areobindus at Edessa, and went to fight against Harran, whilst they sent all the Arabs to Serug. But the Rifite who was in (command of) Harran sallied forth secretly from the city, and fell upon them, and slew of them sixty men, and took alive the chief of the Huns. As this was a man of mark, and in great honour with the king of the Persians, he promised the Harranites that he would not make war upon them, if they would give him up alive; and they were afraid to fight and gave up that Hun, sending along with him as a present to him fifteen hundred rams and other things. |51

LX. The Persian Arabs, who had been sent to Serug, went as far as the Euphrates, laying waste and taking captive and plundering all that they could. Patriciolus 31, one of the Roman officers, with his son Vitalianus, came at this time from the west to go down to the war; and he was confident and fearless, because he had not as yet been in the neighbourhood of the things that had previously happened. When he crossed the River 32, he met one of the Persian officers and fought with him and destroyed all the Persians that were with him. Then he set his face to go to Edessa; but he heard from the fugitives that Kawad had surrounded the city, so he recrossed the river and stopped at Shemishat (Samosata). On the 17th of this month, which was Wednesday, we saw the words of Christ and His promises to Abgar (see ch. v) really fulfilled. For Kawad collected his whole force, and marched from the river Euphrates, and came and encamped against Edessa. His camp extended from the church of SS. Cosmas and Damianus, past all the gardens and the church of S. Sergius and the village of Bekin|, as far as the church of the Confessors; and its breadth was as far as the steep descent of Serrin. This whole host |52 without number surrounded Edessa in one day, besides the pickets which it had left on the hills and rising grounds (to the west of the city). In fact the whole plain (to the E. and S.) was full of them. The gates of the city were all standing open, but the Persians were unable to enter it because of the blessing of Christ. On the contrary, fear fell upon them, and they remained at their posts, no one fighting with them, from morning till towards the ninth hour. Then some went forth from the city and fought with them; and they slew many Persians, but of them there fell but one man. Women too were bearing water, and carrying it outside of the wall, that those who were fighting might drink; and little boys were throwing stones with slings. So then a few people who had gone out of the city drove them away and repulsed them far from the wall, for they were not farther off from it than about a bowshot; and they went and encamped beside the village of Kubbe.

LXI. Next day Areobindus too went forth outside of the Great Gate; and while he was standing opposite the Persian army, he sent word to Kawad, saying, “Now you see by experience that the city is not yours, nor Anastasius’, but it is the city of Christ, who blessed it, and has withstood your hosts, so that they cannot become masters of it.” Kawad sent word to him, saying, “Give me hostages so that you will not come out after me when I have struck my camp to depart; and send me those men whom you took yesterday, and the gold which you promised, and I will go far away from the city.” Areobindus gave him the count Basil, and the men whom they had taken from him, who were fourteen in number, and made an agreement with him to give him 2000 pounds of gold at [the end] of twelve days. Kawad struck his camp, and went and pitched at |53 Dahbana. He did not, however, wait till the appointed time, but sent the very next day one of his men, named Hormizd, and ordered him to fetch three hundred pounds of gold. Areobindus summoned to him the grandees of the city, that they might consider how this money could be collected. When they saw that Hormizd had come in haste, they strengthened themselves in reliance on Christ, and took heart and said to Areobindus: “We will not send the money to this false man, because, just as he has gone back from his word, and has not waited till the day came which you appointed for him, so will he go back and deceive when he has got the money. We believe that, if he fights with us, he will be again put to shame, because Christ stands in front of our city.” Then Areobindus too took courage and sent to Kawad, saying: “Now we know that you are no king; for he is not a king who says a word and goes back (from it) and deceives. And if he deceives, he is no king. Therefore, as falsehood is manifest in you, send me back the count Basil, and do your worst.”

LXII. Then Kawad became furious, and armed the elephants which were with him, and set out, he and all his host, and came again to fight with Edessa, on the 24th of the month of Ilul (September), a Wednesday. He surrounded the city on all sides, more than on the former occasion, all its gates being open. Areobindus ordered the Roman soldiers not to fight with him, that no falsehood might appear on his part; but some few of the villagers who were in the city went out against him with slings, and smote many of his mail-clad warriors, whilst of themselves not one fell. His legions were daring enough to try to enter the city; but when they came near its gates, like an upraised mound of earth 33, they were humbled and repressed and turned back. Because, however, of the |54 swiftness of the charge of their cavalry, the slingers became mixed up among them; and though the Persians were shooting arrows, and the Huns were brandishing maces, and the Arabs were levelling spears at them, they were unable to harm a single one of them; but like those Philistines who went up against Samson, ‘who, though they were many and armed, were unable to slay him, whilst he, though destitute of weapons, slew a thousand of them with the jaw-bone of an ass, so also the Persians and Huns and Arabs, though they and their horses were falling by the stones which the slingers were throwing, were unable to slay even a single one of them. After they saw that they were able neither to enter the city nor to harm the unarmed men who were mixed up with them, they set fire to the church of S. Sergius and the church of the Confessors and to all the convents that had been left (standing), and to the church of (the village of) Negbath, which the people of the city had spared.

LXIII. When the general Areobindus saw the zeal of the villagers, and that they were not put to shame, but that (the Divine) help went with them, he summoned all the villagers that were in Edessa next day to the (Great) Church, and gave them three hundred dinars as a present. Kawad departed from Edessa, and went and pitched on the river Euphrates; and thence he sent ambassadors to the emperor to inform him of his coming. The Arabs that were with him crossed the river westwards, and plundered and laid waste and took captive and burned everything in their way. Some few of the Persian cavalry went to Batnan (Batnae), and because its wall was broken down, they could not resist them, but admitted them without fighting and surrendered the town to them.

LXIV. The year 815 (A.D. 503-4). When the Roman emperor learned what had happened, he sent his magister Celer with a large army. When Kawad heard this, he |55 directed his marches along the river Euphrates that he might go and stay in that province of his which is called Beth Armaye. When he came nigh Callinicus (ar-Rakkah), he sent thither a general to fight with them. The dux Timostratus came out against him, and destroyed his whole army and took him alive. When Kawad arrived at the city, he drew up his whole force against it, threatening to rase it and to put all its inhabitants to the sword or carry them off as captives, if they did not give him up to him. The dux was afraid of the vast host of the Persians, and gave him up.

LXV. When the magister Celerius arrived at Mabbog, which is on the river Euphrates 34, and saw that Kawad had moved away his camp before him, and moreover that the winter season was come, and that he could not go after him, he called the Roman generals, and rebuked them because they had not hearkened one to another, and assigned them cities in which to winter till the time for campaigning came again.

LXVI. On the 25th of the first Kanun (December) there came an edict from the emperor that the tax should be remitted to all Mesopotamia. The Persians who were in Amid, when they saw that the Roman army had gone far away from them, opened the gates of the city of Amid, and went forth and entered where they pleased, and sold to the merchants copper and iron and lead and old clothes and whatever was to be had in it, and established in it a public magazine. When Patricius heard this, he set out from Melitene (Malatia), where he was wintering, and came and pitched against Amid. All the merchants whom he found carrying down thither grain and oil, and those too who were buying things from thence, he slew. He found also the Persians who were sent by Kawad to convey thither arms and grain and cattle, and destroyed them, and took all that was with them. When Kawad learned this, he sent against him a |56 general to take vengeance on him. When they came near one another to fight, the Romans, because of the fear inspired by their former defeat, counselled Patricius to flee, and he hearkened to this. In their haste, not knowing whither they were going, they came upon the river Kallath; and because it was winter and there was a great flood in it, they were not able to cross it, but every one of them who hastened to cross was drowned in the river with his horse. When Patricius saw this, he exhorted the Romans, saying: “O men of Rome, let us not put to shame our race and our profession, and flee from our enemies, but let us turn against them, and perhaps we may be a match for them. And if they be too strong for us, it is better to die by the edge of the sword with a good name for valour than to perish like cowards by drowning.” Then the Romans listened to his advice, being constrained by the river; and they turned against the Persians with fury and destroyed them, and took their generals alive. Thereafter they again encamped against Amid, and Patricius sent and collected unto him artisans from other cities and many of the villagers, and bade them dig in the ground and make a mine beneath the wall, that it might be weakened and fall.

LXVII. In the month of Adar (March), when the rest of the Romans were assembling to go down with the magister, a certain sign was given them from God, that they might be encouraged and be confident of victory. We were informed of this in writing by the people of the church of Zeugma. That it may not be thought that I say anything on my own authority, or that I have hearkened to and believed a false rumour, I quote the very words of the letter that came to us, which are as follows. |57

LXVIII. “Listen now to a marvel and a glorious sight, such as has never been, because this concerns us and you and all the Romans. For it is a wondrous thing, which it is hard for the understanding of men to believe. But we have seen it with our eyes, and touched it (with our hands), and read it with our lips. You should therefore believe it without any scruple. On the 19th of Adar (March), a Friday, which is the day that our Saviour was slain, a goose laid an egg in the village of ‘Agar in the district of Zeugma, and thereon were written Roman letters, fair and legible, which formed as it were the body of the egg and were raised to the sight and touch, like the letters which monks trace on the eucharistic cups, so that even the blind could feel their shape. They were thus. A cross was traced on the side of the egg, and going completely round the egg, from it until it came to it again, was written THE ROMANS. And again there was traced another cross, and [going round the egg,] from it until it came to it again, was written SHALL CONQUER. The crosses were traced one above the other, and the words were written one above the other. There was none that saw this marvel, Christian or Jew, who restrained his mouth from uttering praise. But as for the letters which the right hand of God traced in the ovary (of the bird), we do not dare to imitate them, for they are very beautiful. Whosoever therefore hears it, let him believe it without hesitation.” These are the words of the letter of the Zeugmatites. As for the egg, those in whose village it was laid gave it to Areobindus.

LXIX. The Romans collected a large army, and went down and encamped beside the city of Ras-‘ain. By Kawad too |58 about 10,000 men were sent to go against Patricius. They took up their quarters in Nislbis, that they might rest there, and they sent their cattle to pasture in the hills of Shigar. When the Magister heard this, he sent Timostratus, the dux of Callinicus, with 6000 cavalry, and he went and fell upon those who were tending the horses and destroyed them, and carried off the horses and sheep and much booty, and returned to the Roman army at Ras-‘ain. Then they all set out in a body, and went and encamped against the city of Amid beside Patricius.

LXX. In the month of Iyar (May) Calliopius the Aleppine became hyparch. He came and settled at Edessa, and gave the Edessenes wheat to make bread for the soldiers at their own expense. They baked at this time 850,000 modii of wheat. Appion went to Alexandria, that he might make soldiers’ bread there also and send a supply.

LXXI. As soon as Patricius had got under the wall of Amid by means of the mine which he had dug, he propped it up with beams and set fire to them, whereby the outer face of the wall was loosened and fell down, but the inner part remained standing. He then thought of digging on by that mine and entering the city. When they had carried the excavation through, and the Romans had begun to ascend, a woman of Amid saw them and cried out suddenly for joy, “The Romans are entering the city!” The Persians heard her, and ran at the first who came up and stabbed him. After him there came up a Goth, whose name was Ald 35, who had been made tribune at Harran, and he stabbed three of those Persians. Not another one of the Romans came up after him, because the Persians had perceived them. When Ald saw that no one was coming up, he became afraid and turned back; but he thought that he would take down with him the dead body of the Roman |59 who had fallen, that the Persians might not insult it. As he was dragging away the dead body and going down into the mouth of the mine, the Persians smote him too and wounded him; and they directed thither the water from a large well that was near to it, and drowned four of the mail-clad Romans who were about to come up. The rest fled and escaped thence. The Persians collected stones from within the city and blocked up the mine, and piled up a great quantity of earth over it, and all of them kept watch carefully round it, lest it should be excavated at some other spot. They dug ditches within along the whole wall all round, and filled them with water, so that, if the Romans should make another mine, the water might trickle into it, and it so become known. When Patricius heard this from a deserter who had come down to him, he gave up constructing mines.

LXXII. One day, when the whole Roman army was still and quiet, fighting was stirred up in this way. A boy was feeding the camels and asses; and an ass, as it grazed, walked gradually close up to the wall. The boy was afraid to go in and fetch it; and one of the Persians, when he saw it, descended by a rope from the wall, and was going to cut it in pieces and carry it up to be food for them, for there was no meat at all inside the city. But one of the Roman soldiers, a Galilaean by race, drew his sword, and took his shield in his left hand, and ran at the Persian to kill him. As he had come close up to the wall, those who were standing on the wall threw down a large stone and crushed the Galilaean; and the Persian began to ascend to his place by the rope. When he had got halfway up the wall, one of the Roman officers drew nigh, with two shield-bearers walking before him, and shot an arrow from between them, and struck the Persian, and laid him beside the Galilaean. A shout went up from both sides, and because of this they became excited and rose up to fight, All the Roman troops surrounded the city in a dense mass, and there fell of them forty men, while one hundred and fifty were wounded. Of the Persians who were on the wall only nine were seen to be killed, and a few were wounded; for it was difficult to fight with them, the more so as they were on the top of the wall, because they had made for |60 themselves small houses all along the wall, and they were standing within them and fighting, and could not be seen by those who were without.

LXXIII. The Magister and the generals then thought that it was not fitting for them to fight with them, because victory did not depend for the Romans upon the slaying of these, seeing that they had to carry on war against the whole of the Persians; and if Kawad were to be defeated, these would have to surrender or to perish in their prison. Therefore they gave orders that no one should fight with them, lest by reason of those who were slain or wounded among the Romans, a great part of the army should disperse out of fear.

LXXIV. In the month of Khaziran (June), Constantine, who had gone over to the Persians (see ch. xlviii), after he saw that their cause did not prosper, fled from them, he and two women of rank from Amid, who had been given to him (as wives) by the Persian king. For fourteen days he travelled night and day through the uninhabited desert with a few followers; and when he reached an inhabited spot, he made himself known to the Roman Arabs, and they took him and brought him to the fort 36 which is called Shura 37, and thence they sent him to Edessa. When the emperor heard of his arrival (there), he sent for him (to Constantinople); and when he had come up to him, he ordered one of the bishops to ordain him priest, and bade him go and dwell in the city of Nicaea, and not come into his presence nor meddle with affairs (of state).

LXXV. As Kawad, when he took Amid, had gone into its public bath and experienced the benefit of bathing, |61 he gave orders, as soon as he went down to his own country, that baths should be built in all the towns of the Persian territory. ‘Adid the Arab, who was under the rule of the Persians, surrendered with all his troops and became subject to the Romans. Again, in the month of Tammuz (July), the Romans fought with the Persians who were in Amid, and Gainas, the dux of Arabia 38, smote many of them with arrows. When the day became hot, his armour got too warm for him, and he loosened the belt of his mail a little; whereupon they shot from Amid arrows from the ballistae, and smote him, and he died. When the Magister saw that he suffered harm by sitting before Amid, he took his army and went down to the Persian territory, leaving Patricius at Amid. Areobindus too took his army and entered Persian Armenia; and they destroyed of the Armenians and Persians 10,000 men, and took captive 30,000 women and children, and plundered and burned many villages. When they came back to return to Amid, they brought 120,000 sheep and oxen and horses. As they were passing by Nisibis, the Romans lay in ambush, and the few whose charge it was drove them past the city. When a certain general who was there saw that they were few in number, he armed his troops and sallied forth to take them from them. They pretended to flee, and the Persians took courage and pursued them. When they had gone a long way from their supports, the Romans arose from the ambush and destroyed them, and not one of them escaped. They were about 7000 men. Mushlek (Mushegh) the Armenian, who was under the Persians, surrendered with his whole force and became subject to the Romans.

LXXVI. The year 816 (A.D. 504-5). The fugitives and those who had escaped the sword, that were left in Amid of its inhabitants, were in sore trouble and distress from famine. The Persians were afraid of them lest they should give up the |62 city to the Romans; and they bound all the men that were there, and threw them into the amphitheatre, and there they perished of hunger and of endless bonds. But to the women they gave part of their food, because they used them to satisfy their lust, and because they had need of them to grind and bake for them. When, however, food became scarce, they neglected them, and left them without sustenance. For none of them received more than one handful of barley daily during this year; whilst of meat, or wine, or any other article of food, they had absolutely none at all. And because they were very much afraid of the Romans, they never stirred from their posts, but made for themselves small furnaces upon the wall, and brought up hand-mills, and ground that handful of barley where they were, and baked and ate it. They also brought up large kneading-troughs, and placed them between the battlements, and filled them with earth, and sowed in them vegetables, and whatever grew in them they ate.

LXXVII. In narrating what the women of the place did, I may perhaps not be believed by those who come after us, (but) at the present day there is no one of those who care to learn things that has not heard all that was done, even though he be at a great distance from us. Many women then met and conspired together, and used to go forth by stealth into the streets of the city in the evening or morning; and whomsoever they met, woman or child or man, for whom they were a match, they used to carry him by force into a house and kill and eat him, either boiled or roasted. When this was betrayed by the smell of the roasting, and the thing became known to the general who was there (in command), he made an example of many of them and put them to death, and told the rest with threats that they should not do this again nor kill any one. He gave them leave however to eat those that were dead, and this they did openly, eating the flesh of dead men; and the rest of them were picking up shoes and old soles and other nasty things from the streets and courtyards, and eating them. To the Roman troops however nothing was lacking, but everything was supplied to them in its season, and came down with great care by the order of the emperor. Indeed the things that were sold in their camps were more abundant than in the cities, |63 whether meat or drink or shoes or clothing. All the cities were baking soldiers’ bread by their bakers, and sending it to them, especially the Edessenes; for the citizens baked in their houses this year too. by order of Calliopius the hyparch, 630,000 modii, besides what the villagers baked throughout the whole district, and the bakers, both strangers and natives.

LXXVIII. This year Mar Peter the bishop went up again to the emperor to ask him to remit the tax. The emperor answered him harshly, and rebuked him for having neglected the charge of the poor at a time like this and having come up to him (at Constantinople); for he said that God himself would have put it into his heart, if it had been right, without any one persuading him, to do a favour to the blessed city (of Edessa). Whilst the bishop was still there, however, the emperor sent the remission for all Mesopotamia by the hands of another, without his being aware of it. To the district of Mabbog also he remitted one-third of the tax.

LXXIX. The Roman generals who were encamped by Amid were going down on forays into the Persian territory, plundering and taking captive and destroying, and the Persians migrated before them, and crossed the Tigris. They found there the Persian cavalry, who were gathered together to come against the Romans, and so they took heart against them, and halted on the farther bank of the Tigris. The Romans crossed after them, and destroyed all the Persian cavalry, who were about 10,000 men, and plundered the property of all the fugitives. They burned many villages, and killed every male that was in them from twelve years old and upwards, but the women and children they took prisoners. For the Magister had thus commanded all the generals, that if any one of the Romans was found saving a male from twelve years old and upwards, he should be put to death in his stead; and whatsoever village they entered, that they should not leave a single house standing in it. For this reason he set apart some stalwart men of the Romans, and many villagers that accompanied them as they went down; and after the roofs were burned and the fire was gone out, they used to pull down the walls too. They also cut down and destroyed the vines and olives and all the trees. |64 The Roman Arabs too crossed the Tigris in front of them, and plundered and took captive and destroyed all that they found in the Persian territory. As I know you study everything with great care, your holiness must be well aware of this, that to the Arabs on both sides this war was a source of much profit, and they wrought their will upon both kingdoms.

LXXX. When Kawad saw that the Romans were ravaging the country, and that there was no one to oppose them, he wished to go and meet them. For this reason he sent an Astabid to the Magister to speak of peace, having with him an army of about 20,000 men. He sent all the men of note whom he had led captive from Amid, and Peter, whom he had brought from Ashparin (see ch. lvii), and Basil, whom he had taken from Edessa as a hostage (see ch. lxi). He sent also the dead body of the dux Olympius (see ch. li), who had gone down to him on an embassy and died, sealed up in a coffin, to show that he had not died by any other than a natural death, whereof his servants and those who came down with him were witnesses. The Magister received them, and sent them to Edessa, with the exception of the governor of Amid and the count Peter; for he was very angry and provoked, and wanted to put them to death, saying that by their remissness the places which they guarded had been betrayed, and the Persians themselves testified that the wall of Amid was impregnable. The Astabid was begging and imploring of him to give him the Persians who were shut up in Amid in place of those whom he had brought to him; because, though they were holding out from fear, yet they were in great distress through hunger. But the Magister said, “Do not mention the subject of these to me, because they are shut up in our city, and they are our slaves.” The Astabid says to him, “Well then, allow me to send them food, for it is unseemly for you that your slaves should die of hunger; for whenever you pleasest, it is easy for you to kill them.” He says to him, “Send it.” The Astabid says, “Do you swear unto me, and all your generals and officers that are with you, that no one shall kill those whom I send.” They all |65 took the oath, save the dux Nonnosus, who was not with them by preconcerted arrangement, for the Magister had left him behind on purpose, so that, if there should be any oath taken, he might not be bound by it. The Astabid therefore sent three hundred camels laden with sacks of bread, in the middle of which were placed arrows. Nonnosus fell upon them and took them from them, and slew those who were with them. When the Astabid complained of this, and asked the Magister to punish the man who had done it, the Magister said to him, “I cannot find out who has done this, because of the great size of the army that is with me; but if you know who it is, and have strength to take vengeance on him, I will not hinder you.” The Astabid however was afraid to do this, and kept asking for peace.

LXXXI. When many days had passed after his asking (for peace), great cold set in, with much snow and ice, and the Romans left their camps, one by one. Each man carried off what booty he had got, and set out to convey it to his own place. Those who remained and did not go to their homes, went into Tella and Ras-‘ain and Edessa, to shelter themselves from the cold. When the Astabid saw that the Romans had become remiss and could not withstand the cold, he sent word to the Magister, saying, “Either make peace, and let the Persians go forth from Amid, or accept war.” The Magister commanded the count Justin to reassemble the army, but he was unable. When he saw that the greater part of the Romans were dispersed and had left him, he made peace and let the Persians come out from Amid on these terms, that, if the peace which they had concluded pleased the two soverains (Anastasius and Kawad), and they set their seal to what they had done, (it should stand); but if not, the war should go on between them. When the Roman emperor learned these things, he gave orders that a public magazine should be established in every city, but especially at Amid, with the view of putting an |66 end to hostility and drawing closer the bonds of peace, he also sent gifts and presents to Kawad by the hand of a man named Leon, and a service for his table, all the pieces of which were of gold.

LXXXII. How much the Edessenes suffered, who conveyed corn down to Amid, no man knows but those who were actually engaged in the work; for the greater part of them died by the way, themselves and their cattle.

LXXXIII. The excellent John, bishop of Amid, went to his rest before the Persians laid siege to it; and its clergy went up to the holy and God-loving, the adorned with all divine beauties, the strenuous and illustrious Mar Flavian 39, patriarch of Antioch, to ask him to appoint a bishop for them. He treated them with great honour during the whole time that they stayed there. Afterwards, when the excellent Nonnus, priest and steward of the church of Amid, escaped from captivity, the clergy asked the patriarch and he made him their bishop. When the excellent Nonnus had been ordained bishop, he sent his suffragan Thomas to Constantinople, to fetch the Amidenes who were there and to ask a donation from the emperor. Those who were there conspired with him, and asked the emperor that Thomas himself might be their bishop. The emperor granted their prayer, and sent word to the patriarch not to constrain them. The emperor also gave them the governor whom they asked for. The emperor and the patriarch gave presents to the church of Amid, and a large sum of money to be distributed among the poor. For this reason there flocked thither all those who were wandering about in other places, and they were carrying forth the corpses of the dead every day out of Amid, and were then receiving what was appointed for them.

LXXXIV. Urbicius, the emperor’s minister, who had bestowed large gifts in the district of Jerusalem and in other places, went down thither also, and gave there a dinar a piece (to the inhabitants). He returned thence to Edessa, where he gave to every woman who chose to take it a |67 trimesion 40, and to every child a dirham. Nearly all the women took it, both those that were needy and those that were not.

LXXXV. In this same year, after the fighting had ceased, the wild beasts became very ferocious against us. In consequence of the great number of dead bodies of those who had fallen in these battles, they had acquired a taste for eating human flesh; and when the bodies of the slain rotted and disappeared, the wild beasts entered the villages and carried off children and devoured them. They also fell upon single men on the roads and killed them. At last they became so afraid that, at the time of threshing, not a man in the whole district would pass the night in his threshing-floor without a hut (to shelter him), for fear of the beasts of prey. But by the help of our Lord, who is always careful for us and delivers us from all trials by His mercy, some of them fell by the hands of the villagers, who stabbed them, and sent their dead carcases to Edessa; and others were caught by huntsmen, who bound them and brought them (thither) alive, so that every one saw them and praised God, who has said, “The fear of you and the dread of you I will put upon every beast of the earth.” For although, because of our sins, war and famine and pestilence and captivity and noxious beasts and other chastisements, written and unwritten, were sent upon us, yet by His grace we have been delivered from them all.

LXXXVI. Me too, a feeble man, He has strengthened because of His mercy, through your prayers, that I should write to the best of my ability some of the things that have happened, as a reminder to those who endured them, and for the instruction of those who shall come after us, that, if they please, they may be enabled to become wise through these few things which I have written. For the things that I have omitted are far more than those which I have recorded; and indeed I said from the beginning that I was not able to recount them all; because the sufferings which each individual alone endured, if they were written down, would form long narratives, for which a big book would not suffice. And you must know from what |68 others have written, that those too who came to our aid under the name of deliverers, both when going down and when coming up, plundered us almost as much as enemies 41. Many poor people they turned out of their beds and slept in them, whilst their owners lay on the ground in cold weather. Others they drove out of their own houses, and went in and dwelt in them. The cattle of some they carried off by force as if it were spoil of war; the clothes of others they stripped off their persons and took away. Some they beat violently for a mere trifle; with others they quarrelled in the streets and reviled them for a small cause. They openly plundered every one’s little stock of provisions, and the stores that some had laid up in the villages and cities. Many they fell upon in the highways. Because the houses and inns of the city (of Edessa) were not sufficient for them, they lodged with the artisans in their shops. Before the eyes of every one they ill-used the women in the streets and houses. From old women, widows and poor, they took oil, wood, salt, and other things, for their own expenses; and they kept them from their own work to wait upon them. In short, they harassed every one, both great and small, and there was not a person left who did not suffer some harm from them. Even the nobles of the land, who were set to keep them in order and to give them their billets, stretched out their hands for bribes; and as they took them from every one, they spared nobody, but after a few days sent other soldiers to those upon whom they had quartered them in the first instance. They were billeted even upon the priests and deacons, though these had a letter from the emperor exempting them from this. But why need I weary myself in setting forth many things, which even those who are greater than I are unable to recount?

LXXXVII. After he had recrossed the river Euphrates westwards, the Magister went to the emperor (at Constantinople); and Areobindus went to Antioch, Patricius to Melitene (Malatia), Pharazman to Apameia (Famiyah), Theodore to Darmesuk (Damascus), and Calliopius to Mabbog (Menbij). So there was a little breathing-space at Edessa, and the few |69 people that remained in it were glad. Eulogius the governor was busying himself in rebuilding the town; and the emperor [gave him] two hundred pounds (of gold) for the expenses of the building. He rebuilt and restored the [whole] outer wall that goes round the city. He also restored and repaired the two aqueducts that come in from the village of Tell-Zema and from Maudad 42; and rebuilt and finished the public bath that fell down (see ch. xxx). He likewise repaired his own palace, and built a great deal throughout the whole city. The emperor too gave the bishop twenty pounds (of gold) for the expenses of repairing the wall; and the minister Urbicius gave him ten pounds to build a church to the blessed Mary. But the oil which had been supplied to the churches and convents from the public oil-store, amounting to 6800 keste 43 (per annum), the governor took away from them, and ordered it to be used for burning in the porticoes of the city. The vergers besought him much regarding it, but he would not listen to them. That he might not be thought, however, to despise the churches built for God, he gave of his own property to every church two hundred keste. Up to this year wheat had been sold at the rate of four modii for a dinar, and barley six modii, and wine two measures; but after the new harvest wheat was sold at the rate of six modii for a dinar, and barley ten modii.

LXXXVIII. The Persian Arabs were never at peace or rest, but they crossed over into the Roman territory, without the Persians, and took captive (the people of) two villages. When the general of the Persians, who was at Nisibis, learned this, he took their shaikhs and put them to |70 death. The Roman Arabs too crossed over without orders into the Persian territory, and took captive (the people of) a hamlet. When the Magister heard this, for he had gone down at the end of this year to Apameia, he sent (orders) to Timostratus, the dux of Callinicus, and he seized five of their shaikhs, two of whom he slew with the sword and impaled the other three. Pharazman set out from Apameia after the Magister had gone down thither, and came and stayed at Edessa, and he received authority from the emperor to become general in place of Hypatius.

LXXXIX. The wall of Batnan-kastra, in Serug, which was all out of repair and breached, was rebuilt and renovated by the care of Eulogius, the governor of Edessa. The excellent priest Aedesius plated with copper the doors of the men’s aisle in the (Great) Church of Edessa.

XC. The year 817 (A.D. 505-6). The generals of the Roman army informed the emperor that the troops suffered great harm from their not having any (fortified) town situated on the border. For whenever the Romans went forth from Tella or Amid to go about on expeditions among the Arabs, they were in constant fear, whenever they halted, of the treachery of enemies; and if it happened that they fell in with a larger force than their own, and thought of turning back, they had to endure great fatigue, because there was no town near them in which they could find shelter. For this reason the emperor gave orders that a wall should be built for the village of Dara, which is situated on the frontier. They selected workmen from all Syria (for this task), and they went down thither and were building it; and the Persians were sallying forth from Nisibis and forcing them to stop. On this account Pharazman set out from Edessa, and went down and dwelt at Amid, whence he used to go forth to those who were building and to give them aid. He also used to make great hunts after the wild beasts, especially the wild boars, which had become numerous there after the country was laid waste. He used to catch more than forty of these in one day; and as a proof of his skill he even sent some of them to Edessa, both alive and dead. |71

XCI. The excellent Sergius, bishop of Birta-kastraf, which is situated beside us on the river Euphrates, began likewise to build a wall to his town; and the emperor gave him no small sum of money for his expenses. The Magister also gave orders that a wall should be built to Europus, which is situated to the west of the River in the prefecture of Mabbog; and the people of the place worked at it as best they could.

XCII. After Pharazman went down to Amid, the dux Romanus came in his place, and settled at Edessa with his troops, and bestowed large alms upon the poor. The emperor added in this year to all his former good deeds, and sent a remission of the tax to the whole of Mesopotamia, whereat all the landed proprietors rejoiced and praised the emperor.

XCIII. But the common people were murmuring, and crying out and saying, “The Goths ought not to be billeted upon us, but upon the landed proprietors, because they have been benefited by this remission.” The prefect gave orders that their request should be granted. When this began to be done, all the grandees of the city assembled unto the dux Romanus and asked of him, saying, “Let your highness give orders what each of these Goths should receive by the month, lest, when they enter the houses of wealthy people, they plunder them as they have plundered the common people.” He granted their request, and ordered that they should receive an espada of oil per month, and two hundred pounds of wood, and a bed and bedding between each two of them. |72

XCIV. When the Goths heard this order, they ran to attack the dux Romanus in the house of the family of Barsa 44 and to kill him. As they were ascending the stairs of his lodging, he heard the sound of their tumult and uproar, and perceived what they wanted to do. He quickly put on his armour, and took up his weapons, and drew his sword, and stood at the upper door of the house in which he lodged. He did not however kill any one of the Goths, but (merely) kept brandishing his sword and hindering the first that came up from forcing their way in upon him. Those who were below were in their anger compelling those who were above them to ascend and force their way in upon him. Thus a great many people occupied the stairs of the house, as your holiness well knows. When therefore the first who had gone up were unable to get in, because of their fear of the sword, and those behind were pressing upon them, many men occupied the stairs; and because of the weight they broke and fell upon them. A few of them were killed, but many had their limbs broken and were maimed, so that they could not be cured again. When Romanus had found an opportunity because of this accident, he fled upon the roof from one house to another and made his escape; but he said nothing more to them, and for this reason they remained where they were billeted, behaving exactly as they pleased, for there was none to check them or restrain or admonish them.

XCV. Our bishop Mar Peter was very dangerously ill all this year. In the month of Nisan (April) the distress became again much greater in our city; for the Magister collected his whole army, and arose to go down to the Persian territory to make and renew with them a treaty of peace. When he entered Edessa, ambassadors from the Persians came to him and informed him that the Astabid who had come to meet him and conclude a peace with him was dead; and they begged of him and said that, if he came down for peace, he |73 ought not to go beyond Edessa until another Astabid should be sent by the Persian king. He granted their request and stayed at Edessa for five months. And because the city was not sufficient for the Goths who were with him, they were quartered also in the villages, and likewise in all the convents, large and small, that were around the city. Not even those who lived in solitude were allowed to dwell in the quiet which they loved, because upon them too they were quartered in their convents.

XCVI. Because they did not live at their own expense from the very first day they came, they became so gluttonous in their eating and drinking, that some of them, who had regaled themselves on the tops of the houses, went forth by night, quite stupefied with too much wine, and stepped out into empty space, and fell headlong down, and so departed this life by an evil end. Others, as they were sitting and drinking, sank into slumber, and fell from the housetops, and died on the spot. Others again suffered agonies on their beds from eating too much. Some poured boiling water into the ears of those who waited upon them for trifling faults. Others went into a garden to take vegetables, and when the gardener arose to prevent them from taking them, they slew him with an arrow, and his blood was not avenged. Others still, as their wickedness increased and there was no one to check them, since those on whom they were quartered behaved with great discretion and did everything exactly as they wished, because they gave them no opportunity for doing them harm, were overcome by their own rage and slew one another. That there were among them others who lived decently is not concealed from your knowledge; for it is impossible that in a large army like this there should not be some such persons found. The wickedness of the bad, however, went so far in evildoing that those too who were ill-disposed among the Edessenes dared to do something unseemly; for they wrote down on sheets of paper complaints against the Magister, and fastened them up secretly in the customary places of the city (for public notices). When he heard this, he was not angered, as he well might have been, neither did he make any search after those who had done this, nor think of doing any harm to the city, because of his good nature; but he used all the diligence possible to quit Edessa with haste and speed. |74

XCVII. The year 818 (A.D. 506-7) 45. The Magister therefore took his whole army, and went down to the border. And there came to him a Persian ambassador to the town of Dara, bringing with him hostages, who had been sent by the Astabid; and they also asked him, saying that, if he wished to make peace, he too ought to send hostages in place of those whom he had received, and afterwards both parties would draw nigh to one another in friendship, and they would meet one another with five hundred horsemen apiece unarmed, and then they would sit in council, and would do what was fitting. He agreed to do what they asked, and sent hostages, and went unarmed to meet the Astabid on the day appointed. But because he was afraid lest the Persians should commit some treachery against him, he drew up the whole Roman army opposite them under arms, and gave them a sign, and ordered them, if they saw that sign, to come to him quickly. When the Astabid too was come to meet him, and the Romans and all the generals who were with them had seated themselves in council, one of the Roman soldiers gave good heed and perceived that all those who had come with the Astabid wore armour under their clothes. He made this known to the general Pharazman and the dux Timostratus, and they displayed that signal to the troops, whereupon they at once set up a shout and came to them, and took prisoners the Astabid and those who were with him among them. The troops that were in the Persian camp, when they learned that the Astabid and his companions were taken prisoners, fled for fear of them, and entered Nisibis. The Romans wished to take the Astabid and to kill those who were with him; but the Magister begged them not to give an occasion for war and to drive away (all hopes of) peace. With difficulty did they consent, but at last they hearkened to him, and let the Astabid and his companions depart from among them, without having done them any hurt; for even when victorious, the Roman generals were gentle. When the Astabid went to his camp, and saw that the Persians had retired into Nisibis, he was afraid to remain alone, and went in also to join them. He tried to force them to go out of the city with him, but they were unwilling to go out for fear. |75 In order that their fear might not become evident to the Romans, the Astabid sent and fetched his daughter to Nisibis, and according to Persian custom took her to wife. When the Magister sent him a message to say, “No man will harm you, even if you come forth alone “, he returned for answer, “It is not out of fear that I do not go forth, but in order that the days of the wedding-feast may be fulfilled.” Although the Magister knew the whole thing quite well, he passed it over just as if he did not.

XCVIII. And some days after, when the Astabid came out to him, he gave up, for love of peace, all the things which he had determined to require of the Persians, and made a covenant with them, and concluded peace. They drew up documents between them, and appointed a fixed time, during which they were not to make war with one another; and all the armies were glad and rejoiced in the peace that was made.

XCIX. While they were still there on the frontier, Celerius the magister and Calliopius received a letter from the emperor Anastasius, which was full of care and compassion for the whole region of Mesopotamia; and thus he wrote to them, that, if they thought that the tax ought to be remitted, they had full power to remit it without delay. They decided that the whole tax should be remitted to the district of Amid, and the half of it to that of Edessa, and they sent and made this known in Edessa. And after a little while they sent another letter with the news of the peace.

C. On the 28th of the month of the latter Teshri (November A.D. 506), he took his whole army and came up from the border. When he arrived at Edessa, the Magister had a mind not to enter it, because of their murmuring against him (see ch. xcvi). But the blessed Bar-hadad, bishop of Tella, begged him not to allow resentment to get the better of him, nor to leave behind the feeling of vexation or annoyance in any one’s mind. He readily acceded to his request; and all the Edessenes too came forth with much alacrity to meet him, carrying wax tapers, both young and old. All the clergy likewise, and the members of religious orders, and the monks, came out with them; and they entered the city with great rejoicing. He sent on all his troops the very same day to |76 continue their march; but he himself remained for three days, and gave the governor two hundred dinars to distribute in presents. And the people of the city, rejoicing in the peace that was made, and exulting in the immunity which they would henceforth enjoy from the distress in which they now were, and dancing for joy at the hope of the good things which they expected to arrive, and lauding God, who in His goodness and mercy had cast peace over the two kingdoms, escorted him as he set forth with songs of praise that befitted him and him who had sent him 46.

46. CI. If this emperor appears in a different aspect towards the end of his life, let no one be offended at his praises, but let him remember the things that Solomon did at the close of his life.47 These few things out of many I have written to the best of my ability unto your charity, unwillingly and yet willingly. Unwillingly, on the one hand, in order that I might not weary the wise friend who knows these things better than I do. Willingly, on the other hand, for the sake of obeying your command. Now therefore I beg of you that you too would fulfil the promise contained in your letter (see ch. i) to offer up prayer constantly on behalf of me a sinner. For now that I have learned your wish, it shall be my greatest care, and whatever happens in the times that are coming and is worthy of record, I will write it down and send it to you my father, if I remain alive. Let us therefore pray from this place, and you my father from yonder, and all the children of men everywhere, that history may speak of the great change that is going to take place in the world; and just as we have been unable to describe the wants of these evil times as they really were, because of the abundance of their afflictions, so also may we be unable to tell of those that are coming, because of the multitude of their blessings. And may our words be too feeble to speak of the happy life of our fellow-citizens, and of the calm and peace that shall reign throughout the world, and of the great plenty that there shall be, and of the superabundance of the harvest of the blessing of God, who has said, “The former troubles shall be forgotten and shall be hidden from before us.” To Him be glory for ever and ever, Amen.

[Extracts from the copious footnotes follow]

1. * On the promise of our Lord to king Abgar that Edessa should never be captured by an enemy, see Cureton, Ancient Syriac Documents, p. 10 and p. 152; Phillips, The Doctrine of Addai, p.D and p. 5.

2. § The era of Alexander, or of the Romans, begins with October 312 B.C.

3. * That is, Jovian.

4. * The first alternative in their proposal seems to have been accidentally omitted by the scribe.

5. + John the Scythian.

6. + The followers of Mazdak, the son of Bamdadh, who was the disciple of Zaradusht, the son of Khoragan.

7. ++ Blemmyes, an Ethiopian or negro race who used to harry Upper Egypt.

8. * The word in the original is marzebana or marzban, which signifies in Persian “warden of the marches,” or what the Germans call “Markgraf.” It ia nearly equivalent to the older term of “satrap.” See Noeldeke, Gesch. d. Perser u. s. w., p. 102, note 2, and p. 446.

9. + They dwelt in the neighbourhood of Sinjar and Dara.

10. * In the text Taiyaye, which originally designated the Arabs of the tribe of Taiyi, one of the most powerful in northern Arabia.

11. + By dinar (the Latin denarius), is here meant the Byzantine aureus.

12. ++ The Daisan, or Kara Koyun, which now flows round the northern part of the city, but in ancient times ran right through it from N.W. to S.E., parallel to, or perhaps coinciding with, the modern ‘Ain al-Khalil or ‘Ain Ibrahim.

13. § This was apparently on the eastern side of the city, at the exit of the Daisan.

14. || My friend Professor G. Hoffmann, of Kiel, reads “to the gate of the Grottoes” or “Tombs,” meaning thereby the grottoes or tombs cut out in the range of heights to the west of the city. At any rate, this gate lay on the west side of the city, at or near the entrance of the Daisan.

15. ** If this conjecture is right, the “upper streets” are those in the S.W. corner of the city, where there is a hill, on which lay the old town of king Abgar with its buildings and fortifications. See the account of the great flood, A. Gr. 513, a. d. 201, in Assemani, Bibl. Orient, t. i, pp. 390-3. The reading of the MS. is, however, very uncertain.

16. * Mar, shortened from Mari, means “my lord.”

17. ++ Mabbog or Mabug, Hierapolis, now Membij. Xenaias or Philoxenus was the friend of Severus, patriarch of Antioch.

18. || By “the Church” par excellence we are, I suppose, to understand “the great Church of S. Thomas the Apostle” (see Assemani, Bibl. Orient., t. i, p. 399). It is uncertain, however, whether the actual reading of the manuscript is not “in the courts of the churches.”

19. § Another name for Emmaus, in Palestine, about halfway between Jaffa and Jerusalem.

20. § The Great Gate lay at the S.E. corner of the town, leading out to Harran.

21. + There is evidently some error or omission here in the text.

22. § To show that he was still in office, and had not been deposed.

23. * We would say, “on Thursday night.” This display of the aurora borealis must have been unusually magnificent.

24. ** Carrae still retains its ancient name of Harran.

25. ++ At this time the Daisan ran through the city, not round it.

26. + Jacob, at present periodeutes or visitor, afterwards bishop of Batnan (Batnae) in Serug, one of the most prolific of Syriac writers. He died A. Gr. 833 (A.D. 521). BL Add. 14587 contains several of the letters referred to in the text.

27. || The Benu Tha’labah, the leading branch of the great tribe of Bekr ibn Wail. (Wustenfeld, Tabellen, 2te Abth., b,c), who, in alliance with the southern tribe of Kindah (ibid., 1ste Abth., 4), occupied a large portion of the Syrian desert, between the kingdom of al-Hirah on the east and that of the Ghassanides on the west. They were ruled over by the kings of Kindah, of the house of Akil al-morar, and the reigning king at this time was al-Harith ibn ‘Amr. See Lebeau, op. cit., t. vii, p. 250; Caussin de Perceval, Essai sur l’histoire des Arabes, t. ii, p. 69; Reiske, Primae Lineae, p. 98; and above all the sketch by my lamented friend Dr. O. Loth, at p. 10 of the pamphlet entitled ” Otto Loth. Ein Gedenkblatt fur seine Freunde. 1881.”

28. ¶ al-Hirah, the chief town of the petty kingdom of the Lakhmite Arabs. See Caussin de Perceval, Essai sur l’histoire des Arabes, t. ii, p. 1 sqq.; Reiske, Primae Lineae, p. 25 sqq. It lay within a few miles of the more modern town of al-Kufah.

29. * The word in the Syriac text, if correctly written, is wholly unknown to me; but is evidently the name of some valuable commodity.

30. * Of erysipelas, the natural result of his wound and of exposure or excitement.

31. * Patricius, the son of Aspar, a Goth.

32. + The Euphrates,

33. + The comparison seems to be that of the compact mass of shield-bearing warriors in their charge to a moving mound of earth.

34. + This is not strictly correct.

35. + I am not at all sure that I have called the Gothic warrior by his right name. The Syriac letters give us only Ald, Eld or Ild, which might be Aldo, Haldo (Forstemann, Altdeutsches Namenbuch, Bd i, col. 45); or Helido, Allido (ibid., col. 597); or Hildi, Hildo (ibid., col. 665). The well known name of Alatheus, Alotheus, or Allothus (ibid., col. 41), would probably have been spelled by our author with a soft t.

36. * The Latin word castrum remained appended to many Syrian names in the form of … , (whence the Arabic …), like caster, cester, Chester, in our own country.

37. + When we last heard of this traitor, he was at Nisibis (ch. lv). He probably fled thence, and crossed the desert in a southwesterly direction till he approached the Euphrates near Suriyeh, above ar-Kakkah. There seems to be no reason for believing him to have been shut up in Amid, as Lebeau thinks (op. cit., t. vii, p. 872), following Assemani (Bibl. Orient., t. i, p. 279, col. 1).

38. ++ Meaning the district around Damascus.

39. + Flavian II.

40. * …the third of an aureus.

41. * The description of the Gothic mercenaries in this and the following chapters is not without its peculiar interest and value.

42. * Both these villages evidently lay to the N. of Edessa. The Germish-Chai rises, two or three hours’ journey from the city, near a place called Burac or Berik, a little south of which are the remains of the arches of an ancient aqueduct, which entered Edessa on the north side, somewhere near the Gate of Beth-Shemesh. In the neighbourhood of Burac, therefore, Professor G. Hoffmann places Maudad (Modad) and Tell-Zema; though for the latter another locality may, he thinks, be possibly found. In the valley of the Ras-al-‘ain Chai, near a place called Jurban, Julban, or Julman, the ruins of another ancient aqueduct have been seen, and in this neighbourhood, a little way south of Dagouly or Tagula, Pococke mentions a place named Zoumey, which may perhaps be identical with Tell-Zema.

43. + Say quarts.

44. * There was a bishop of Edessa of this name. See Assemani, Bibl. Orient., t. i, pp. 396 and 398.

45. * In the MS. there is a marginal note, no longer distinctly legible: “In this year died the holy Mar Shila (Silas) of the village of B…….”

47. * That befitted Celer and his master the emperor.

48. + This sentence is no doubt a later addition, probably from the pen of Dionysius of Tell-Mahre.

Previous PageTable Of ContentsNext Page

This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, Ipswich, UK, 2006. All material on this page is in the public domain – copy freely.

Greek text is rendered using unicode.

Early Church Fathers – Additional Texts

The Aristotelian philosophy was first made known to the Muslim world through the medium of Syriac translations and commentaries, and the particular commentaries used amongst the Syrians never ceased to control the direction of Arabic thought. From the time of al-Ma’mun the text of Aristotle began to be better known, as translations were made directly from the Greek, and this resulted in a more accurate appreciation of his teaching, although still largely controlled by the suggestions of the commentaries circulated amongst the Syrians. The Arabic writers give the name of failasuf (plur. falasifa), a transliteration of the Greek φιλόσοφος, to those who based their study directly on the Greek text, either as translators or as students of philosophy, or as the pupils of those who used the Greek text. The word is used to denote a particular series of Arabic scholars who arose in the third century A.H. and came to an end in the seventh century, and who had their origin in the more accurate study of Aristotle based on an examination of the Greek text and the Greek commentators whose work was circulated in Syria, and is employed as though these falasifa formed a particular
p. 136
sect or school of thought. Other philosophical students were termed hakim or nazir.
The line of these falasifa forms the most important group in the history of Islamic culture. It was they who were largely responsible for awakening Aristotelian studies in Latin Christendom, and it was they who developed the Aristotelian tradition which Islam had received from the Syriac community, correcting and revising its contents by a direct study of the Greek text and working out their conclusions on lines indicated by the neo-Platonic commentators.
The first of the series is Yaqub b. Ishaq al-Kindi (d. circ. 260 A.H. = 873 A.D.), who began very much as a Mu‘tazilite interested in the theological problems discussed by the members of that school of thought, but desirous of testing and examining these more accurately, made use of the translations taken directly from the Greek and then only recently published. By this means he brought a much stricter method to bear, and thus opened the way to an Aristotelian scholarship much in advance of anything which had been contemplated so far. As a result his pupils and those who came after them raised new questions and ceased to confine themselves to Mu‘tazilite problems, and al-Kindi was their intellectual ancestor in those new enquiries which his methods and his use of the Greek text alone made possible. It is a strange fact that al-Kindi, the parent of Arabic philosophy, was himself one of the very few leaders of Arabic thought who was a true
p. 137
[paragraph continues]
Arab by race. For the most part the scientists and philosophers of the Muslim world were of Persian, Turkish, or Berber blood, but al-Kindi was descended from the Yemenite kings of Kinda (cf. genealogy quoted from the Tarikh al-Hakama cited in note (22) of De Slane’s trans. of Ibn Khallikan, vol. i. p. 355). Very little is known about his life, save that his father was governor of Kufa, that he himself studied at Baghdad, under what teachers is not known, and stood high in favour with the Khalif Mu‘tasim (A.H. 218-227). His real training and equipment lay in a knowledge of Greek, which he used in preparing translations of Aristotle’s Metaphysics, Ptolemy’s Geography, and a revised edition of the Arabic version of Euclid. Besides this he made Arabic abridgments of Aristotle’s Poetica and Hermeneutica, and Porphyry’s Isagoge, and wrote commentaries on Aristotle’s Analytica Posteriora, Sophistica Elenchi, the Categories, the apocryphal Apology; on Ptolemy’s Almagesta and Euclid’s Elements, and original treatises, of which the essay “On the Intellect” and another “On the five essences” are the most noteworthy (Latin tr. by A. Nagy in Baeumker and Hertling’s Beitrage zur Geschichte der philosophie des MA. II. 5. Munster, 1897).
He accepted as genuine the Theology of Aristotle which had been put into circulation by Naymah of Emessa, and, we are told, revised the Arabic translation. The Theology was an abridgment of the
p. 138
last three books of Plotinus’ Enneads, and presumably al-Kindi compared this with the text of the Enneads, corrected the terminology and general sense in accordance with the original, and evidently did so without any suspicion that it was not a genuine work of Aristotle. The Theology had not been long introduced to the Muslim world, and it is certain that the use of it made by al-Kindi was a main cause of its subsequent importance. Endorsed by him it not only took an assured place in the Aristotelian canon, but became the very kernel of the teaching developed by the whole series of falasifa, emphasizing the tendencies already marked in the commentary of Alexander of Aphrodisias. The influence of the Theology and of Alexander appear most clearly in the treatise “On the Intellect” which is based on the doctrine of the faculties of the soul as described in Aristotle’s de anima II. ii. Al-Kindi, developing the doctrine as presented by the neo-Platonic commentators, describes the faculties or degrees of intelligence in the soul as four, of which three are actually and necessarily in the human soul, but one enters from outside and is independent of the soul. Of the three former one is latent or potential, as the knowledge of the art of writing is latent in the mind of one who has learned to write; the second is active, as when the scribe evokes from the latent state this knowledge of writing which he desires to put into practice; the third is the degree of intelligence actually involved in the operation of writing, where
p. 139
the knowledge now quickened into activity guides and directs the act. The external faculty is the “Agent Intellect” (‘aql fa‘‘al) which proceeds from God by way of emanation and which, though acting on the faculties in the body, is independent of the body, as its knowledge is not based upon perceptions obtained through the senses.
It is futile to maintain that the history of Arabic philosophy shows a lack of originality in the Semitic mind; for one thing not one of the philosophers of first rank after al-Kindi was of Arab birth, very few could be described as Semitic. It would be more correct to say that the Greek philosophers stood alone, until quite modern times, in attempting anything which could be described as a scientific psychology. Until the methods and material of modern natural science came to be applied to psychological research there was little, if any, advance on the psychological theories of the ancient Greek investigators, and the only point of difference in later schools was as to which particular aspect of ancient research would be selected as the starting-place. Here lies the great importance of al-Kindi, for it was he who selected and indicated the starting-point which all the later Arabic philosophers began from, and selected the material which they developed. The particular basis thus selected by al-Kindi was the psychology of Aristotle’s de Anima as expounded by Alexander of Aphrodisias. This was suggested but not in all respects clearly indicated by the Syriac philosophers,
p. 140
and it seems certain that al-Kindi’s development was very largely influenced by the Theology of Aristotle, a work which he evidently esteemed very greatly. The relation between Alexander Aphr. and Plotinus, whose teaching appeared in the Theology, may be described as being that Alexander’s teaching contained all the germs of neo-Platonism, whilst Plotinus shows the neo-Platonic system fully worked out. As first presented this system must have seemed fully consistent with the teaching of the Qur’an, indeed it would appear as complementary to it. In man was an animal soul which he shared with the lower creation, but added to it was a rational soul or spirit which proceeded directly from God and was immortal because it was not dependent on the body. The possible conclusions which proved to be inconsistent with the teachings of revelation were not as yet fully worked out.
We need not linger over al-Kindi’s logical teaching which carried on and corrected Arabic study of the Aristotelian logic. This was not a mere side issue, it is true, although logic did not play so important a part in Arabic education as it did in Syriac. In Syriac it was the basis of all that we should regard as the humanities, but in Arabic this position was taken by the study of grammar, which was developed on rather fresh and independent lines, though slightly modified by the study of logic in later times. Still, so long as the Muslim world had any claim to be regarded as fostering philosophical studies, and to
p. 141
a less degree even in later times, the Aristotelian logic has been only second to grammar as the basis of a humane education. Al-Kindi’s real influence is shown in the introduction of the problems of psychology and of metaphysics, and the work of the falasifa centres in these two studies on the lines indicated by al-Kindi.
In psychology, as we have seen, al-Kindi introduced a system already fully developed by Alexander and the neo-Platonic commentators on Aristotle, kept alive amongst the Syriac students of philosophy, and then further developed from this point by his successors. In metaphysics the circumstances were different. Al-Kindi apparently was the one who introduced the problems of metaphysics to the Muslim world, but it is obvious that he did not clearly understand Aristotle’s treatment of these problems. The problems involved in the ideas of movement, time, and place are treated by Aristotle in books iv., v. and vii. of the Physics, which had been translated by al-Kindi’s contemporary, Hunayn b. Ishaq, and in the Metaphysics, of which at the time no Arabic translation existed, so that, so far as it was used, al-Kindi must have consulted the Greek text.
The essay “On the Five Essences” treats the ideas of the five conditions of matter, form, movement, time, and place. Of these he defines (a) matter as that which receives the other essences but cannot itself be received as an attribute, and so if the matter is taken away the other four essences are necessarily
p. 142
removed also. (b) Form is of two kinds, that which is the essential of the genius, being inseparable from the matter, and that which serves to describe the thing itself, i.e., the ten Aristotelian, categories—substance, quantity, quality, relation, place, time, situation, condition, action, and passion; and this form is the faculty whereby a thing (shay’) is produced from formless matter, as fire is produced from the coincidence of dryness and heat, the matter being the dryness and heat, the form being the fire; without form the matter is abstract but real, becoming a thing when it takes form. As De Vaux points out (Avicenne, p. 85) this illustration shows that al-Kindi does not grasp Aristotle’s meaning correctly. (c) Movement is of six kinds: two are variations in substance, as either generation or corruption, i.e., production or destruction; two are variations in quantity by increase or decrease; one is variation in quality, and one is change of position. (d) Time is itself akin to movement, but proceeds always and only in one direction; it is not movement, though akin, for movement shows diversities of direction. Time is known only in relation to a “before” or “after,” like movement in a straight line and at a uniform rate, and so can only be expressed as a series of continuous numbers. (e) Place is by some supposed to be a body, but this is refuted by Aristotle: it is rather the surface which surrounds the body. When the body is taken away the place does not cease to exist, for the vacant space is instantly filled
p. 143
by some other body, air, water, etc., which has the same surrounding surface. Admittedly al-Kindi shows a crude treatment of these ideas, but he was the first to direct Arabic thought in this direction, and from these arose a new attitude towards the revealed doctrine of creation on the part of those who came after him.
Al-Kindi, the “Philosopher of the Arabs,” as he was called (circ. 365), contains our best account of the various sects existing in Islam towards the end of the 3rd century A.H. as he met them in the course of his travels. It has been published as the second volume of De Goeje’s Bibliotheca Geographorum Arab. (Leiden., 1873).
The next great philosopher was Muhammad b. Muhammad b. Tarkhan Abu Nasr al-Farabi (d. 339), of Turkish descent. He was “a celebrated philosopher, the greatest indeed that the Muslims ever had; he composed a number of works on logic, music, and other sciences. No Musulman ever reached in the philosophical sciences the same rank as he, and it was by the study of his writings and the imitation of his style that Avicenna attained proficiency and rendered his own works so useful.” (Ibn Khallikan, iii. 307). He was born at Farab or Otrar near Balasaghum, but travelled widely. In the course of his wanderings he came to Baghdad but, as at the time he knew no Arabic, he was unable to enter into the intellectual life of the city. He set himself first to acquire a knowledge of the Arabic language, and then became
p. 144
a pupil of the Christian physician Matta b. Yunus, who was at that time a very old man, and under him he studied logic. To increase his studies he removed to Harran, where he met the Christian philosopher Yuhanna b. Khailan, and continued to work at logic under his direction. He then returned to Baghdad, where he set to work at the Aristotelian philosophy, in the course of his studies reading the de anima 200 times, the Physics 40 times. His chief interest, however, was in logic, and it is on his logical work that his fame chiefly rests. From Baghdad he went to Damascus, and thence to Egypt, but returned to Damascus, where he settled for the rest of his life. At that time the empire of the Khalifa of Baghdad was beginning to split up into many states, just like the Roman Empire under the later Karlings, and the officials of the Khalif ate were forming semi-independent principalities under the nominal suzerainty of the Khalif and establishing hereditary dynasties. The Hamdanids Shi‘ites, who began to rule in Mosul in 293, established themselves at Aleppo in 333 and achieved great fame and power as successful leaders against the Byzantine emperors. In 334 (= 946 A.D.) the Hamdanid Prince Sayf ad-Dawla took Damascus, and al-Farabi lived under his protection. At that period the orthodox were distinctly reactionary, and it was the various Shi‘ite rulers who showed themselves the patrons of science and philosophy.
p. 145
At Damascus al-Farabi led a secluded life. Most of his time he spent by the borders of one of the many streams which are so characteristic a feature of Damascus, or in a shady garden, and here he met and talked with his friends and pupils. He was accustomed to write his compositions on loose leaves, “for which reason nearly all his productions assume the form of detached chapters and notes; some of them exist only in fragments and unfinished. He was the most indifferent of men for the things of this world; he never gave himself the least trouble to acquire a livelihood or possess a habitation. Sayf ad-Dawla settled on him a daily pension of four dirhams out of the public treasury, this moderate sum being the amount to which al-Farabi had limited his demand.” (Ibn Khallikan, iii. 309-310.)
Al-Farabi was the author of a series of commentaries on the logical Organon, which contained nine books according to the Arabic reckoning, namely:
(i.)
The Isagoge of Porphyry.
(ii.)
The Categories or al-Maqulat.
(iii.)
The Hermeneutica or al-’Ibara or al-Tafsir.
(iv.)
The Analytica Priora or al-Qiyas I.
(v.)
The Analytica Posteriora or al-Burhan.
(vi.)
The Topica or al-Jadl.
(vii.)
The Sophistica Elenchi or al-Maghalit.
(viii.)
The Rhetoric or al-Khataba.
(ix.)
The Poetics or ash-Shi‘r.
p. 146
He also wrote an “Introduction to Logic” and an “Abridgment of Logic”; indeed, as we have already noted, his main work lay in the exposition of logic. He took some interest in political science and edited a summary of the laws of Plato, which very often replaces the Politics in the Arabic Aristotelian canon. In Ethics he wrote a commentary on the Nicomachæan Ethics of Aristotle, but ethical theory did not, as a rule, appeal greatly to Arabic students. In natural science he was the author of commentaries on the Physics, Meteorology, de coelo et de mundo of Aristotle, as well as of an essay “On the movement of the heavenly spheres.” His work in psychology is represented by a commentary on Alexander of Aphrodisias’ commentary on the De Anima, and by treatises “On the soul,” “On the power of the soul,” “On the unity and the one,” and “On the intelligence and the intelligible,” some of which afterwards circulated in mediæval Latin translations, which continued to be reprinted well into the 17th century (e.g., De intelligentia et de intelligibili. Paris, 1638). In metaphysics he wrote essays on “Substance,” “Time,” “Space and Measure,” and “Vacuum.” In mathematics he wrote a commentary on the Almajesta of Ptolemy, and a treatise on various problems in Euclid. He was a staunch upholder of the neo-Platonic theory that the teaching of Aristotle and that of Plato are essentially in accord and differ only in superficial details and modes of expression; he wrote treatises “On the agreement between Plato
p. 147
and Aristotle” and on “The object before Plato and Aristotle.” In essays “Against Galen” and “Against John Philoponus” he criticised the views of those commentators, and endeavoured to defend the orthodoxy of Aristotle by making them responsible for apparent discrepancies with the teaching of revelation. He was interested also in the occult sciences, as appears from his treatises “On geomancy,” “On the Jinn,” and “On dreams.” His chemical treatise called kimiya t-Tabish, “the chemistry of things heated,” has been classed as a work on natural science and also as a treatise on magic; this was the unfortunate direction which Arabic chemistry was taking. He also wrote several works on music. (Cf. Schmölders: Documenta Philos. Arab. Bonn., 1836, for Latin versions of select treatises).
As we have already noted, his primary importance was as a teacher of logic. A great deal of what he has written is simply a reproduction of the outlines of the Aristotelian logic and an exposition of its principles, but De Vaux (Avicenne, pp. 94-97) has drawn attention to evidences of original thought in his “Letter in reply to certain questions.”
Like al-Kindi he accepted the Theology as a genuine work of Aristotle, and shows very clear traces of its influences. In his treatise “On the intelligence” he makes a careful analysis of the way in which the term ‘aql (reason, intelligence, spirit) is employed in general speech and in philosophical enquiry. In common language “a man of intelligence” denotes a man of
p. 148
reliable judgment, who uses his judgment in an upright way to discern between good and evil, and thus is distinguished from a crafty man who employs his mind in devising evil expedients. Theologians use the term ‘aql to denote the faculty which tests the validity of statements, either approving them as true or rejecting them as false. In the Analytica Aristotle uses “intelligence” for the faculty by which man attains directly to the certain knowledge of axioms and general abstract truths without the need of proof; this faculty al-Farabi explains as being the part of the soul in which intuition exists, and which is thereby able to lay hold of the premises of speculative science, i.e., the reason of intelligence proper as the term is employed in the de anima, the rational soul which Alexander of Aphrodisias takes as an emanation from God. Following al-Kindi, al-Farabi speaks of four faculties or parts of the soul: the potential or latent. intelligence, intelligence in action, acquired intelligence, and the agent intelligence. The first is the ‘aql hayyulani, the passive intelligence, the capacity which man has for understanding the essence of material things by abstracting mentally that essence from the various accidents with which it is associated in perception, more or less equivalent to the “common sense” of Aristotle. The intelligence in action or ‘aql bi-l-fi‘l is the potential faculty aroused to activity and making this abstraction. The agent intelligence or ‘aql fa‘‘al is the external power, the emanation from God which is able to awaken
p. 149
the latent power in man and arouse it to activity, and the acquired intelligence or ‘aql mustafad is the intelligence aroused to activity and developed under the inspiration of the agent intelligence. Thus the intelligence in action is related to the potential intellect as form is to matter, but the agent intelligence enters from outside, and by its operation the intelligence receives new powers, so that its highest activity is “acquired.”
Al-Farabi appears throughout as a devout Muslim, and evidently does not appreciate the bearing of the Aristotelian psychology on the doctrine of the Qur’an. The earlier belief of Islam, as of most religions, was a heritage from primitive animism, which regarded life as due to the presence of a perfectly substantial, though invisible, thing called the soul: a thing is alive so long as the soul is present, it dies when the soul goes away. In the earlier forms of animism this is the explanation of all movement: the flying arrow has a “soul” in it so long as it moves, it ceases to move when this soul goes away or desires to rest. This involves no belief in the immortality of the soul, nor is the soul invested with any distinct personality, all that comes later; it is simply that life is regarded as a kind of substance, very light and impalpable but perfectly self-existent. What may be described as the “ghost” theory marks a later stage of evolution, when the departed soul is believed to retain a distinct
p. 150
personality and still to possess the form and some at least of the sensations associated with the being in which it formerly dwelt. Such was the stage reached by Arab psychology at the time of the preaching of Islam. The Aristotelian doctrine represented the soul as containing different energies or parts, such as it had in common with the vegetable world and such others as it possessed in common with the lower kinds of animals: that is to say the faculties of nutrition, reproduction, and all the perceptions obtained from the use of the organs of sense, as well as the intellectual generalisations derived from the use of those senses, are simply laid on one side as forms of energy derived from the potentialities latent in the material body, very nearly the position indeed of modern materialism, as the term is used in psychology. This does not oppose a belief in God, who is the prime source of the powers which exist, although that is brought out more by the commentators than by Aristotle himself; nor does it infringe the doctrine of an immortal and separable soul or spirit which exists in man in addition to what we may describe as the vegetative and animal soul. It is this spirit, the rational soul which has entered from outside and exists in man alone, which is immortal. Such a doctrine sets an impassible gulf between man and the rest of creation, and explains why it is impossible for those whose thought is formed on Aristotelian lines, whether in orthodox
p. 151
[paragraph continues]
Islam or in the Catholic Church, to admit the “rights” of animals, although ready to regard benevolent action towards them as a duty. But more, the highly abstract rational soul or spirit of the Aristotelian doctrine, void of all that could be shared with the lower creatures, and even of all that could be developed from anything that an animal is capable of possessing, is the only part of man which is capable of immortality, and such a spirit separated from its body and the lower functions of the animal soul can hardly fit in with the picture of the future life as portrayed in the Qur’an. Further, the Qur’an regards that future life as incomplete until the spirit is re-united with the body, a possibility which the Aristotelians could hardly contemplate. The Aristotelian doctrine showed the animal soul not as an invisible being but merely as a form of energy in the body: so far as it was concerned, death did not mean the going away of this soul, but the cessation of the functions of the bodily faculties, just as combustion ceases when a candle is blown out, the flame not going away and continuing to exist apart; or as the impression of a seal on wax which disappears when the wax is melted and does not continue a ghostly existence on its own account. The only immortal part of man, therefore, was the part which came to him as an emanation from the Agent Intellect, and when this emanation was set free from its association with the human body and lower soul it became inevitable to suggest its re-absorption in the omnipresent
p. 152
source from which it had been derived. The logical conclusion was thus a denial, not of a future life, nor of its eternity, but of the separate existence of an individual soul, and this, as we shall see, was actually worked out as a result of Arabic Aristotelianism. Thus the scholastic theologians, both of Islam and of Latin Christianity, attack the philosophers as undermining belief in individual personality and in opposing the doctrine of the resurrection, and in this latter, it must be remembered, Muslim doctrine is committed to cruder details than prevail in Christianity. But al-Farabi did not see where the Aristotelian teaching would lead him: to him Aristotle seemed orthodox because his doctrines seemed to prove the immortality of the soul.
Al-Farabi expresses his theory of causality in the treatise called “the gems of wisdom.” Everything which exists after having not existed, he says, must be brought into being by a cause which itself may be the result of some preceding cause, and so on, until we reach a First Cause, which is and always has been, its eternity being necessary because there is no other cause to precede it, and Aristotle has shown that the chain of causes cannot be infinite. The First Cause is one and eternal, and is God (cf. Aristot. Metaph. 12. 7, and similarly Plato, Timaeus 28). Being unchanged this First Cause is perfect, and to know it is the aim of all philosophy, for obviously everything would be intelligible if the cause of all were known. This First Cause is the “necessary being” whose
p. 153
existence is necessary to account for all other existence; it has neither genus, species, nor differentia; it is both external and internal, at once apparent and concealed; it cannot be perceived by any faculty but is knowable by its attributes, and the best approach to knowledge is to know that it is inaccessible. In this treatment al-Farabi is mingling the teaching of philosophy proper with mysticism, in his days rapidly developing in Asiatic Islam, and especially in the Shi‘ite community with which he was in contact. From the philosophical point of view God is unknowable but necessary, just as eternity and infinity are unknowable but necessary, because God is above all knowledge: but in another sense God is beneath all knowledge, as the ultimate reality must underlie all existing things, and every result is a manifesting of the cause.
The proof of the existence of God is founded upon the argument in Plato, Timaeus 28, and Aristotle, Metaphysics 12. 7, and was later on used by Albertus Magnus and others. In the first place a distinction is made between the possible, which may be only potential, and the real. For the possible to become real it is necessary that there should be an effective cause. The world is evidently composite, and so cannot itself be the first cause, for the first cause must be single and not multiple: therefore the world evidently proceeds from a cause other than itself. The immediate cause may itself be the result of another preceding cause, but the series of causes cannot be infinite, nor
p. 154
can they return as a circle upon themselves, therefore if we trace back we must ultimately reach an ens primum, itself uncaused, which is the cause of all, and this first cause exists of necessity, but not by a necessity caused by anything other than itself. It must be single and unchangeable, free from all accidents, absolute, perfect, and good, and the absolute intelligentia, intelligibile, and intelligens. In itself it possesses wisdom, life, insight, will, power, beauty and goodness, not as acquired or external qualities, but as aspects of its own essence. It is the first will and the first willing, and also the first object of will. It is the end of all philosophy to know this first Cause, which is God, because as He is the cause of all, all can be understood and explained by understanding and knowing Him. That the first Cause is single and one and the cause of all agrees with the teaching of the Qur’an, and al-Farabi freely uses Qur’anic phraseology in perfect good faith, supposing that the Aristotelian doctrine corroborates the doctrine of the Qur’an. The most curious part of al-Farabi’s work is the way in which he employs the terminology of the Qur’an as corresponding to that of the neo-Platonists, so that the Qur’anic pen, tablet, etc., represent the neo-Platonic, etc. It may be questioned whether, even in al-Farabi, philosophy really does fit in with Qur’anic doctrine, but the divergence was not yet sufficiently marked to compel attention.
Assured of the conformity of the teaching of Aristotle with the teaching of revelation al-Farabi
p. 155
denies that Aristotle teaches the eternity of matter, and so is inconsistent with the dogma of creation. The whole question depends on what is meant by “creation.” God, he supposes, created all things in an instant in unmeasured eternity, not directly, but by the intermediary operation of the ‘aql or Agent Intelligence. In this sense Aristotle held that the universe existed in eternity, but it so existed as a created thing. Creation was therefore complete before God, acting through the ‘aql, introduced movement, at which time commenced; as movement and time came into existence simultaneously, forthwith creation already existing in the timeless came out of its concealment and entered into reality. The term “creation” is sometimes used as applying to this emergence from timeless quiescence, but more properly may be taken as denoting the causation, which, as it preceded time, came into unmeasured eternity, which is what Aristotle means when he speaks of the world as eternal. Thus both Qur’an and Aristotle are right, but each uses “creation” to denote a different thing.
It is difficult to over-estimate the importance of al-Farabi. Practically all we afterwards meet in Ibn Sina and Ibn Rushd is already to be found in substance in his teaching, only that these later philosophers have realized that the Aristotelian system cannot be reconciled with the traditional theology, and so, having given up all attempt at formal reconciliation, are able to express themselves more clearly and to
p. 156
press home their tenets to their logical conclusions. When considering the reconciliation between philosophy and Qur’an attempted by al-Farabi it is important to compare and contrast the reconciliation attempted on quite other lines by al-Ash‘ari and other founders of orthodox scholasticism. It must be noted that the beginning of scholasticism was contemporary with al-Farabi.
As has been noted, al-Farabi was mixed up with the Shi‘ite group; the supporters of ‘Alid claims who held aloof from the official Khalifate at Baghdad. About the time of al-Kindi’s death (circ. 260), the twelfth Iman of the Ithna ‘ashariya or orthodox Shi‘ite sect, Muhammad al-Muntazar, “disappeared.” In the year 320, within the period of al-Farabi’s activity, the Buwayhid princes became the leading power in ‘Iraq, and in 334, five years before his death, they obtained possession of Baghdad, so that for the next 133 years the Khalifs were in very much the same position as the Frankish kings when they, surrounded with great ceremony and treated with the utmost reverence, were no more than puppets in the hands of the Mayors of the Palace. In exactly the same way the Khalifs, half popes and half emperors, whose sign manual was sought as giving a show of legitimacy to sovereigns even in far-off India, possessed in Baghdad only ceremonial functions, and were treated as honoured prisoners by the Buwayhid Emirs, who themselves were Shi‘ites of the Ithna ‘ashariya sect, and who, consequently, regarded
p. 157
the Khalifs as mere usurpers. At this period the Shi‘ites were the patrons of philosophy, and the orthodox Sunnis generally took a reactionary attitude.
Besides the Ithna ‘ashariya, the comparatively orthodox Shi‘ites, there was another branch of extremer type known as the Sab‘iya or “seveners.” The sixth Imam Ja‘far as-Sadiq had nominated his son Isma’il as his successor, but as Isma’il was one day found drunk, Ja‘far disinherited him and appointed his second son Musa al-Qazam (d. 183). But some did not admit that the Imamate, whose divine right passed by hereditary descent, could be transferred at will, but remained loyal to Isma’il, and these preferred, when Isma‘il died in Ja‘far’s lifetime, to transfer their allegiance to his son Muhammed, reckoning him as the seventh Imam. These “seveners” continued to exist as an obscure sect until, it would appear, somewhere about the year 220, when ‘Abdullah, the son of a Persian oculist named Maymun, either was made their head or led a secession from them, and organised his followers with a kind of freemasonry in seven (afterwards nine) grades of initiation and a very admirably organised system of propaganda on the lines already laid down by the Hashimites (cf. supra). In the earlier grades the doctrine of batn or allegorical interpretation of the Qur’an was laid down as essential to a right understanding of its meaning, for the literal sense is often obscure, and sometimes refers to things incomprehensible, a doctrine commonly attributed
p. 158
to Ja‘far as-Sadiq. The initiate was then taught that the true meaning could not be discovered by private interpretation but needed an authoritative teacher, the Imam, or, as he had disappeared, his accredited representative, the Mahdi ‘Abdullah, son of Maymun. In the higher grades the disciple had this inner meaning of the Qur’an disclosed to him, and this proved to be substantially the Aristotelian and neo-Platonic doctrine in general outline, together with certain oriental elements derived from Zoroastrianism and Masdekism. These oriental elements figured chiefly in the doctrines taught to the intermediate grades, the higher ones attaining a pure agnosticism with an Aristotelian background. The sect thus formed spread, developed, and finally divided. It had a successful career in the Bahrayn or district near the junction of the two rivers, the Tigris and Euphrates, and there its followers were known as Qarmatians, after the name of a leading missionary. It met with success also in and around Aden, but we have no account of its subsequent history there. From Aden missionaries passed over to North Africa, where it had its chief success, and when Ubayd Allah, a descendant of ‘Abdullah, passed over there an independent state was founded, with its capital at Kairawan (297 A.H.). From Kairawan a missionary propaganda was conducted in Egypt, then suffering from almost perennial misgovernment, and in the days of the deputy Kafur a definite invitation was sent by the Egyptian officials asking for the Khalif
p. 159
of Kairawan to enter Egypt. At length Ubayd Allah’s great-grandson al-Mo’izz did invade Egypt in 356, and established there the Fatimite Khalifate, which lasted until the country was conquered by Saladin in 567.
The Sab‘iya sect was thus geographically divided into two branches, one in Asia represented by the Qarmatians, the other in Africa under the Fatimite Khalifs. In the Asiatic branch the members were chiefly drawn from the Nabatæan peasantry, and the sect took the form of a revolutionary group with communist teaching, and violently opposed to the Muslim religion. In their contemptuous hostility they finally attacked Mecca, slew many of the dignitaries of the city and a number of pilgrims who were there, and carried off the sacred black stone, which they retained for several years. In the hands of the Qarmatians the sect ceased to be a propaganda of philosophical doctrine, it became simply anti-religious and revolutionary. The history of the African branch took a different turn. Possession of an important state brought with it a position of respectability, and political ambition replaced religious enthusiasm. As the majority of the subject population was strictly orthodox, the peculiar tenets of the sect were, to a large extent, allowed to drop into the background; candidates were still admitted to initiation and instructed, but, although the Fatimite rulers in Egypt were liberal patrons of scholarship, and generally showed a more tolerant attitude than
p. 160
other contemporary Muslim rulers, they certainly did not carry out a wholesale Aristotelian propaganda; indeed, the line of “philosophers” proper simply misses over Fatimite Egypt, although there were several distinguished medical workers there. From the Isma’ilians or Sab‘iya of Egypt there came two interesting off-shoots. Towards the end of the reign of the sixth Fatimite Khalif, al-Hakim, who may have been a religious fanatic, perhaps insane, or possibly an enlightened religious reformer of views far ahead of his age—his real character is one of the problems of history—there arrived in Egypt certain Persian teachers holding doctrines of transmigration and of theophanies, which seem to be endemic in Persia, and these persuaded al-Hakim that he was an incarnation of the Deity. A riot followed the open preaching of this claim, and the preachers fled to Syria, then a part of the Fatimite dominions, and there founded a sect which still exists in the Lebanon under the name of the Druzes. Soon after this al-Hakim himself disappeared; some said he was murdered, others said he had retired to a Christian monastery, and was recognised there afterwards as a monk; others believed he had gone up to heaven, and more than one claimant appeared asserting that he was al-Hakim returned from concealment. The other off-shoot shows a more definitely philosophical bearing. In the days of al-Mustansir, al-Hakim’s grandson, one of the Isma‘ilian missionaries, a Persian named Nasir-i-Khusraw, came from Khurasan
p. 161
to Egypt, and after a stay of seven years returned home. This seems to have coincided with a kind of revival in the Isma‘ilian sect, which now regarded Cairo as its headquarters. The Qarmatians had quite passed away; al-Hakim, whatever his later eccentricities, had been a patron of scholarship, the founder of an academy, the Daru l-Hikma, or “House of Wisdom,” at Cairo, and had enriched it with a large library, and was himself distinguished as a student of astronomy. The reign of his grandson was the golden age of Fatimid science, and apparently Shi‘ites from all parts of Asia found their way to Egypt. In 471 another da’i or missionary, Hasan-i-Sabbah, a pupil of Nasir-i-Khusraw, visited Cairo and was received by the Chief Da’i, but not allowed to see the Khalif, and eighteen months later was compelled to leave the country and return to Asia. There were two factions in Cairo, the adherents respectively of the Khalif’s two sons, Nizar and Musta‘li; Nasir-i-Khusraw and Hasan-i-Sabbah had already made themselves known as supporters of the elder son Nizar, but the court officials in Egypt adhered to the younger son Musta‘li. When the Khalif al-Mustansir died in 487 the Isma‘ilian sect divided into two new branches, the Egyptians and Africans generally recognising Musta‘li, the Asiatics adhering to Nizar. This latter group had already been well organised by Nasir-i-Khusraw and Hasan-i-Sabbah, who for several years previously had been preaching the rights of Nizar. On his return home, about 473, Hasan-i-Sabbah
p. 162
had secured possession of a stronghold known as Alamut, “the eagle’s teaching” (cf. Browne: Lit. History of Persia, ii. 203, espec. note 13), and this became the headquarters of the sect of Nizaris or Assassins, who figure so prominently in the history of the Crusades. They had many mountain strongholds, but all were under the control of the Sheikh or “Old Man of the Mountain,” as the Crusaders and Marco Polo called him, at Alamut. These Sheikhs or Grand Masters of the order continued for eight generations, until Alamut was captured by the Mongols in 618 A.H. (= 1221 A.D.), and the last was put to death. As the order grew it spread into Syria, and it was the Syrian branch with which the Crusaders from Europe came most into contact. In this order we find the old system of successive grades of initiation. The Lasiqs, or “adherents,” had but little knowledge of the real doctrines of the sect, and attached to them were the Fida‘is or “self-devoted,” bound to blind obedience and ready to execute vengeance at the bidding of their superiors; these were the men to whom the Crusaders especially applied the term Assassins, that is Hashishin or “users of hashish,” referring to the hashish or Indian hemp which they commonly used as a means of exaltation. Above these were the Rafiqs or “companions,” and above these was an ordered hierarchy of da‘is or missionaries, Chief Missionaries (da’i i-Kabir), and Supreme Missionary (da’i d-Du‘at). In the eyes of outsiders the whole sect had a sinister
p. 163
appearance; the crimes of the Fida‘is, usually committed under striking and dramatic circumstances, and the reputed heresies of the superior grades were sufficient to secure this, and the general dread with which they were regarded was increased by incidents which showed that they had spies and sympathizers in all directions. The superior grades, however, were true heirs of the old Isma‘ilian principles and ardent students of philosophy and science. When the Mongols under Hulagu seized Alamut in 654 = A.D. 1256) they found an extensive library and an observatory with a collection of valuable astronomical instruments. The Mongol capture meant the downfall of the Assassins, although the Syrian branch still continued in humbler fashion, and the sect has adherents even at the present day. Scattered relics survive also in central Asia, in Persia, and in India; the Agha Khan is a lineal descendant of Ruknu d-Din Khurshah, the last Sheikh at Alamut.
Thus the movement started by Abdullah, the son of Maymun, whose original purpose seems to have been to maintain a highly philosophical religion as revealed by Aristotle and the neo-Platonists, but to safeguard this as an esoteric faith disclosed only to initiates, the rank and file being apparently Shi‘ite sectaries, produced a group of very curious sects. In the Qarmatians the esoteric tenets were compelled to take a debased form because those who professed them, and into whose hands this branch fell altogether, were illiterate peasants. In the Fatimid
p. 164
state of Egypt they were minimised because political considerations rendered it expedient to conciliate orthodox Muslim opinion. And in the Assassins, confined, it seems, to the higher grades of the initiates, they produced a rich intellectual development, though allied to a system which shows fanaticism unscrupulously used by the leaders that they might live out their lives in a philosophical seclusion, protected from the dangers which surrounded them.
Before leaving this particular subject, which shows the promulgation of philosophy as an esoteric creed, we must refer to a society known as the Ikhwanu s-Safa or “the brotherhood of purity.” We do not know what its connection with ‘Abdullah b. Maymun’s sect may have been beyond the fact that they were contemporary and of kindred aims, but it certainly seems that there was some connection: it has been suggested that this brotherhood represents the original teaching of Abdullah’s sect. It was divided into four grades, but its doctrines were promulgated freely at an early date, though we do not know whether this general divulging of its teaching was part of the original plan or forced upon it by circumstances. It appears openly about 360, some hundred years after Abdullah founded his sect, shortly after the Fatimites had conquered Egypt and some time after the Qarmatians had returned the sacred black stone which they had stolen from the “House of God” at Mecca. It seems tempting to suggest that it may have been a reformation of
p. 165
the Isma’ilians on the part of those who wished to return to the original aims of the movement.
The published work of the brotherhood appears in a series of 51 epistles, the Rasa’il ikhwani s-Safa, which form an encyclopædia of philosophy and science as known to the Arabic-speaking world in the 4th cent. A.H. They do not propose any new theories but simply furnish a manual of current material. The whole text of these epistles has been printed at Calcutta, whilst portions of the voluminous whole have been edited by Prof. Dieterici between 1858 and 1872, and these were followed in 1876 and 1879 by two volumes called Makrokosmos and Mikrokosmos, in which an epitome is presented of the whole work. It appears that the leading spirit in the preparation of this encyclopædia was Zayd b. Rifa’a, and with him were associated Abu Sulayman Muhammad al-Busti, Abu l-Hasan ‘Ali az-Zanjani, Abu Ahmad al-Mahrajani, and al-Awfi, but it does not follow that these were the founders of the brotherhood, as some have supposed.
A great part of the Epistles of the Brotherhood deals with logic and the natural sciences, but when the writers turn to metaphysics, psychology, or theology, we find very clear traces of the neo-Platonic doctrines as contained in Alexander of Aphrodisias and matured by Plotinus. God, we read, is above all knowledge and above all the categories of human thought. From God proceeds the ‘aql or intelligence, a complete spiritual emanation which contains in itself the forms
p. 166
of all things, and from the ‘aql proceeds the Universal Soul, and from that Soul comes primal matter: when this primal matter becomes capable of receiving dimensions it becomes secondary matter, and from that the universe proceeds. The Universal Soul permeates all matter and is itself sustained by the perpetual emanation of itself from the ‘aql. This Universal Soul permeating all things yet remains one; but each individual thing has a part-soul, which is the source of its force and energy, this part-soul having a varying degree of intellectual capacity. The union of soul and matter is temporary; by wisdom and faith the soul tends to be set free from its material fetters, and so to approach nearer to the present spirit or ‘aql. The right aim of life is the emancipation of the soul from matter, so that it may be absorbed in the parent spirit and thus approach nearer to the Deity. All this is but a repetition of the teaching of al-Farabi and the neo-Platonists, slightly coloured, perhaps, by Sufism, and expressed less logically and lucidly than in the teaching of the philosophers. In general character it shows a tendency towards pantheism, akin to the tendency we have already observed in certain of the Mu‘tazilites. God, properly so called, is outside, or rather on such a plane that man does not know, and never can know, anything about Him. Even the ‘aql is on a plane other than that on which the human soul lives. But the Universal Soul which permeates all things is an emanation from this Spirit, and the Spirit emanates
p. 167
from the unknowable God. Comparing this with the teaching of al-Kindi and al-Farabi it is clear that it is based upon the same material, but it is in the hands of those who have made it a religion, and this religion has entirely broken away from the orthodox doctrine of the Qur’an. In al-Farabi this breach is not conscious, although really quite complete; in his successors we see a full realization of the cleavage. Comparing it with Sufism the superficial resemblances are very close, the more so as Sufism borrows a great deal of philosophical, i.e., neo-Platonic terminology, but in fact there is an essential divergence: the Epistles of the brethren represent the emancipation of the soul from matter as the aim of life, and the final result is re-absorption in the Universal Soul, but they represent this emancipation as due to an intellectual force, so that the soul’s salvation lies in wisdom and knowledge; it is a cult of intellect. But Sufism is spiritual in another sense: it has the same aim in view, but it regards the means as wisdom in the sense of religious truth as found by the devout soul in piety, not as the wisdom obtained by intellectual learning.
We seem, however, justified in saying that Sufism is the heir of the philosophical teaching of al-Farabi and the Brethren of Purity, at least in Asia. After the first quarter of the fifth century philosophical teaching seems to have disappeared altogether in Asia, but this is only apparent. In substance it remains in Sufism, and we may say that the essential
p. 168
change lies in the new meaning given to “wisdom,” which ceases to signify scientific facts and speculations acquired intellectually, and is taken to mean a supra-intellectual knowledge of God. This, perhaps, represents the Indian contribution working upon elements. of Hellenistic origin.
The doctrines of the Brethren of Purity were introduced to the West by a Spanish doctor, Muslim b. Muhammad Abu l-Qasim al-Majriti al-Andalusi (d. 395-6), and were largely influential in producing the falasifa of Spain, who ultimately exercised so great an influence on mediæval Latin scholasticism.
Before leaving this particular section of our subject it will be well to note that all these sects and groups we have mentioned after al-Farabi, from the sect founded by Abdullah b. Maymun to the Brethren of Purity, agreed in treating philosophy, at least in so far as it had any bearing on theological topics, as esoteric, and not to be disclosed to any save the elect. This general attitude will appear again, in a slightly different form, in the works of the Spanish philosophers, and to some extent recurs in all Islamic thought.
The greatest product in Asia of the ferment of thought produced by the general study of the Aristotelian and neo-Platonic philosophies appears in Abu ‘Ali al-Husayn b. ‘Abdullah b. Sina (d. 428 = A.D. 1027), commonly known as Ibn Sina, which is Latinized as Avicenna. His life is known to us from an autobiography completed by his pupil, Abu Ubayd
p. 169
al-Juzjanl, from his master’s recollections. We learn that his father was governor of Kharmayta, but, after his son’s birth, he returned to Bukhara, which had been, the original home of his family, and it was there that Ibn Sina received his education. During his youth some Isma‘ilian missionaries arrived from Egypt, and his father became one of their converts. From them the son learned Greek, philosophy, geometry, and arithmetic. This helps to remind us how the whole Isma‘ilian propaganda was associated with Hellenistic learning. It is sometimes stated that the Egypt of the Fatimite age was isolated from the intellectual life of Islam at large: but this is hardly accurate; from first to last the whole of the Isma‘ilian movement was connected with the intellectual revival due to the reproduction of Greek philosophy in Arabic form, less so, of course, when the Isma‘ilian converts were drawn from the illiterate classes, as was the case with the Qarmatians, and when the attention of the members was engrossed with political ambitions, as was the case with the Fatimids whilst they were building up their power in Africa before the invasion of Egypt. But even under the most unfavourable conditions it seems that the da‘is or missionaries regarded the spread of science and philosophy as a leading part of their duties, quite as much so as the preaching of the ‘Alid claims of the Fatimite Khalif. Learning Greek and Greek philosophy from these missionaries Ibn Sina made rapid progress, and then turned to the study of jurisprudence
p. 170
and mystic theology. Jurisprudence, that is to say, the canon law based on one of the orthodox systems laid down by Abu Hanifa and the other recognised jurists, or by their Shi‘ite rivals, has always been the backbone of Islamic scholarship, and was thus parallel with the study of canon law in mediæval Europe: in each case it turned men’s attention to the development of the social structure towards an ideal, and this had an educative influence of the highest value. We, holding very different principles, may be tempted to under-estimate this influence, but it is worth noting that, whilst our aims are opportunist in character, the canonist of Islam or of Christendom had a more definitely constructed ideal, with a more complete and scientific finality, which, in so far as it was an ideal, was an uplifting power. In Muslim lands the canonists were the one power which had the courage and ability to resist the caprices of an autocratic government, and to compel even the most arbitrary princes to submit to principles which, however narrow and defective they may seem to us, yet made the ruler admit that he was subordinate to a system, and defined the limits allowed by that system in conformity with ideals of equity and justice. It is interesting to note that in Ibn Sina’s time mystic theology had already taken its place as a subject of serious study.
A short time afterwards a philosopher named an-Natali arrived at Bukhara and became a guest of Ibn Sina’s father. Bearing in mind the technical
p. 171
meaning of failasuf, we recognise this guest as a professed Aristotelian, and presumably one able to obtain his living as a teacher of the Aristotelian doctrine. From him Ibn Sina learned logic and had his mind directed towards the Aristotelian teaching, which was then preached like a religion. After this he studied Euclid, the Almajesta, and the “Aphorisms of the Philosophers.” His next study was medicine, in which he made so great progress that he adopted the practice of medicine as his profession. He attempted to study Aristotle’s Metaphysics, but found himself entirely incapable of understanding its meaning, until one day he casually purchased one of al-Farabi’s books, and by its help he was able to grasp the meaning and purport of what had so far eluded him. It is on this ground that we are entitled to describe Ibn Sina as a pupil of al-Farabi: it was al-Farabi’s work which really formed his mind and guided him to the interpretation of Aristotle; al-Farabi was, in the truest sense, the parent of all subsequent Arabic philosophers; great as was Ibn Sina, he does not enter into the tradition in the same way as al-Farabi, and does not exercise the same influence on his successors, although al-Ghazali classes him with al-Farabi, and calls them the leading interpreters of Aristotle. Emphasis is sometimes laid upon the fact that Ibn Sina treats philosophy as quite apart from revelation as given in the Qur’an; but in this he was not original: it was the general tendency of all who came after al-Farabi; we can
p. 172
only say that Ibn Sina was the first important writer who illustrates this tendency.
Called to exercise his medical skill at the court of Nuh b. Mansur, the Samanid governor of Khurasan, he enjoyed that prince’s favour, and in his library studied many works of Aristotle hitherto unknown to his contemporaries, and when that library was burned he was regarded as the sole transmitter of the doctrines contained in those books. This represents contemporary Arabic opinion about him: there is no evidence in his existing writings that he had access to Aristotelian material other than that generally known to the Syriac and Arabic writers. When the affairs of the Samanid dynasty fell into disorder Ibn Sina removed to Khwarazan, where he, with several other scholars, enjoyed the enlightened patronage of the Ma’muni Emir. But this Emir was living a somewhat precarious existence in the neighbourhood of the Turkish Sultan Mahmud of Ghazna, the stern champion of orthodoxy and the conqueror of India. It was obvious that the Sultan coveted the Emir’s dominions, and that when he chose to seize them it would be impossible to resist; he actually did take them in 408. Meanwhile the Sultan was treated with the utmost deference by the Emir and such of his neighbours as were allowed to live on sufferance. Mahmud wished to be distinguished as a patron of learning, and “invited” scholars to his court—in plain words, he kidnapped scholars and took care that they never afterwards transgressed the strictest
p. 173
limits of orthodoxy. Amongst others the Emir received a letter inviting such men of learning as were to be found in Khwarazan to his court. The Emir read out the letter to the five most distinguished scholars who were his guests, leaving them to act as they thought fit. Three of the guests were attracted by the Sultan’s reputation for generosity and accepted the invitation, but two, Ibn Sina and Masihi, were afraid to venture, so they escaped privately and fled; overtaken by a sandstorm in the desert Masihi perished, but Ibn Sina, after long wanderings, finally found a refuge in Isfahan, where the Buwayhid ‘Ala’u d-Dawla Muhammad held his court. His experiences show plainly that it was the Shi‘ites who were the supporters of philosophy, and that the growing Turkish power of Mahmud of Ghazna and of the Seljuks who succeeded him was reactionary and unfavourably disposed towards philosophical research. It was the Turkish power which finally checked the progress of Arabic philosophy in the East.
Ibn Sina wrote many works in Arabic and Persian, and a number of these are still extant. Amongst his productions were as-Shafa, an encyclopædia of physics, metaphysics, and mathematics in eighteen volumes (ed. Forget, Leiden, 1892), a treatise on logic and philosophy, and the medical works on which his fame so largely rests. The best known of these are the Najat abridged from the as-Shafa, and the medical Canon, in which he reproduced the teaching
p. 174
of Galen and Hippocrates with illustrative material from the later medical writers. The Canon is more methodical in its arrangement than the al-Hawi of Razes, hitherto the popular manual of medicine in Arabic; indeed, its chief defect is an excessively elaborate classification. It became the leading medical authority, and, after translation into Latin by Gerard of Cremona, served for many centuries as the chief representative of the Arabic school of medicine in western Europe, holding its place in the universities of Montpelier and Louvain down to A.D. 1650.
Ibn Sina treats logic as of use rather in a negative than in a positive way: “the end of logic is to give a man a standard rule, by observing which he is preserved from error in reasoning” (Isharat ed. Forget, p. 2). His treatise on this subject in Tis’ Rasa’il fi-l-Hikma wa-l-Tabi’yat (p. 79, pub. Stamboul, 1298), is divided into nine parts corresponding to the Arabic canon of Aristotle, which includes the Isagoge as well as the Rhetoric and Poetics. He makes special note to the logical bearing of particular grammatical constructions which in Arabic differ from the forms used in Greek, as, for example, where the Greek expresses the universal negative by “all A is not B,” but Arabic renders this “nothing of A (is) B.” He lays great emphasis upon accurate definition, which he describes as the essential basis of all sound reasoning, and to this he devotes much attention. Definition proper must state the quiddity
p. 175
of a thing, its genus, differentia, and all its essential characteristics, and is thus distinct from mere description, which need only give the propria and accidents in such a way that the thing may be recognised correctly.
In dealing with the universal and the particular he considers that the universal exists only in the human mind: the abstract idea of the genus is formed in the mind of the observer when he compares individuals and makes note of their points of similarity, but this abstract idea exists only as a mental concept and has no objective reality. The universal precedes the individual (genus ante res) only in the way that the general idea existed in the mind of the Creator before the individual was formed, just as the idea of an object to be made exists in the mind of the artificer before the work is executed. The general idea is realised in matter (genus in rebus), but only when accompanied by accidents: apart from these accidents it exists only as a mental abstraction. After the general idea is realised in matter (genus post res) it is possible for the intellect to make a mental abstraction and to use this as a standard of comparison with other individuals. The generic belongs only to the realm of thought, and such abstract ideas have no objective existence, although they may be used as real in logic.
The soul is treated as a collection of faculties (kowa) or forces acting on the body: all activity of any sort, in bodies animal or vegetable, as well as human, proceeds either from such forces added to
p. 176
the body or from the mixture of elements from which the body is formed. The simplest soul condition is that of the vegetable whose activity is limited to nutrition and generation and accretion by growth (Najat, p. 43). The animal soul possesses the vegetable faculties but adds to them others, and the human soul adds yet others to these, and the addition made to the human soul enables it to be described as a rational soul. The faculties present in the soul may be divided into two classes, the faculties of perception and the faculties of action. The faculties of perception are partly external and partly internal: of these the external faculties exist in the body wherein the soul dwells and are the eight senses, sight, hearing, taste, smell, perception of heat and cold, perception of dry and moist, perception of resistance as by hard and soft, and perception of rough and smooth. By means of these senses the form of the external object is reproduced in the soul of the percipient. There are four internal faculties of perception: (i.) al-musawira, “the formative,” whereby the soul perceives the object without the aid of the senses as by an act of imagination; (ii.) al-mufakkira, “the cogitative,” by which the soul perceiving a number of qualities associated together abstracts one or more of them from the others with which they are associated, or groups together those which are not seen as connected; this is the faculty of abstraction which is employed in forming general ideas; (iii.) al wahm, or “opinion,” by means of which
p. 177
a general conclusion is drawn from a number of ideas grouped together; and (iv.) al-hafiza or az-zakira, “memory,” which preserves and records the judgments formed. Men and animals perceive particulars by means of sense; man attains the knowledge of universals by means of reason. The ‘aql or rational soul of man is conscious of its own faculties, not by means of an external, i.e., bodily sense, but immediately by the exercise of its own reasoning power. This proves to be an independent entity, even though accidentally connected with a body and dependent on that body for sense perception: the possibility of direct knowledge without sense perception shows that it is not essentially dependent on the body, and the possibility of its existence without the body, which follows logically from its independence, is the proof of its immortality. Every living creature perceives that it has only one ego or soul in itself, and this soul, says Ibn Sina, did not exist prior to the body but was created, that is to say, proceeded by emanation from the Agent Intellect at the time when the body was generated. (Najat, p. 51).
Under the head of Physics Ibn Sina considers the forces observed in nature, including all that are in the soul, save only that which is peculiar to the rational soul of man. These forces are of three kinds: some, such as weight, are an essential part of the body in which they occur; others are external to the body on which they act, and are such as cause movement
p. 178
or rest; and others, again, are such as the faculties possessed by the non-rational souls of the spheres, which produce movement directly without external impulse. No force is infinite; it may be increased or diminished, and always produces a finite result.
Time is regarded as essentially dependent on movement; although it is not itself a form of movement, so far as the idea of time is concerned, it is measured and made known by the movements of the heavenly bodies. Following al-Kindi place is defined as “the limit of the container which touches the contained.” Vacuum is “only a name”, in fact it is impossible, for all space can be increased, diminished, or divided into parts, and so must contain something capable of increase, etc.
God alone is “necessary being,” and so the supreme reality. Space, time, etc., belong to “actual being,” and whatever necessity they possess is derived from God. The objects studied in physical science are only “possible being,” which may or may not become “actual being.” God alone is necessarily existent through all eternity: He is the truth in the sense that He alone is true absolutely, all other reality is so only in so far as it is derived from God. From God by emanation comes the ‘aql or “Agent Intellect,” and from this proceeds the intellect or reason which differentiates the rational soul in man from the soul in other creatures. To every man this intellect is given, and in due course it returns to the “Agent Intellect” which was its source. The soul’s possible
p. 179
activity, independent of the body with which it is associated, proves its immortality, but this immortality does not imply separate existence, but rather re-absorption in the source. From the ‘aql also proceeds the universe, but not like the reason of man by direct emanation, but by the medium of successive emanations.
Ibn Sina was the last of the great philosophers of the East. Two causes combined to terminate philosophy proper in Asiatic Islam. In the first place it had become closely identified with the Shi‘ite heresies, and was thus in bad repute in the eyes of the orthodox; whilst the Shi‘ite sects themselves, all of the extremer kind (ghulat), which had devoted themselves most to philosophical studies, had also taken up a number of pre-Islamic religious theories, such as transmigration of souls, etc., which were detrimental to scientific research. Neo-Platonism had shown itself at an earlier period prone to similar tendencies. As a result the Shi‘ites tended towards mystic and often fantastic theories, which were discouraging to the study of Aristotelian doctrines. The second cause lay in the rise of dominant Turkish elements, Mahmud of Ghazna, then the Saljuk Turks, which were of uncompromising orthodoxy, and abhorred everything which was associated with the Shi‘ites or tended to rationalism. For all that it left permanent marks in Asiatic Islam in two directions: in orthodox scholasticism and in mysticism.
p. 180
We have already noted that Muslim b. Muhammad Abu l-Qasim al-Majriti al-Andalusi (d. 395-6), as his name denotes, a native of Madrid, brought the teachings of the Brethren of Purity to Spain, and so incidentally aroused an interest there in the philosophy which had been studied in the East. For some time no important results appeared, then followed a series of brilliant philosophical writers and teachers, deriving their inspiration partly from the Brethren, and partly from the Jewish students.

Next: Chapter VII. Sufism
THE EASTERN PHILOSOPHERS

–

– القسم الأول –
منذ فجر التاريخ حتى الفتح العربي

كانت هذه البلاد في العصر الحجري ، أعني قبل الميلاد بثلاثة آلاف وخمس مئة سنة ق . م مأهولة بأقوام غير ساميين كما نطقت بذلك الآثار المكتشفة حديثاً في عدة أماكن من سورية وفلسطين وغيرهما وخصوصاً في قرية جازر ( وهي قرية ابو شوشة قرب الرملة ) . وبعد ألف سنة من هذا التاريخ أي حوالي الفين وخمس مئة ق . م تدفق عليها سيل عرم من سكان العراق وأواسط جزيرة العرب فنزلوا فيها وعمّروها وشادوا فيها المدن . وقد كانت مساكن الساميين من الشمال الى الجنوب حسب الترتيب الآتي :
الآراميون ( وهم السريان والكلدان ) فالفينيقيون فالعبرانيون فالأنباط . وقد خالطتهم أمم شتّى من ساميّة وغير ساميّة أقامت بين أظهرهم في بقاع مختلفة من البلاد كالكنعانيين والفلسطينيين والأدوميين وغيرهم . هذا عدا بقايا الشعوب الأصلية ممّا يطول بيانه

على أن مركز هذه البلاد الجغرافي جعلها عرضة لمطامع الفاتحين من الأمم القديمة كالحثيين والمصريين والآشوريين والفرس وغيرهم . فكانوا يتناوبون فتحها او اكتساحها فتتقاطر شعوبهم اليها وكثيراً ما تندمج تلك الشعوب بالسكان الأصليين . فالحثيون الذين كانت لهم مملكة مؤسسة في شمال سورية وفي آسيا الصغرى هاجمت قبيلة منهم فلسطين نحو القرن السابع عشر ( قبل الميلاد ) وسكنت بين القدس والخليل وكثيراً ما امتدوا شمالاً الى قرب نابلس

وتسلّط المصريون على فلسطين وعلى بعض أقسام سورية في أواخر القرن السادس عشر قبل المسيح ودامت سلطتهم نحو ثلاثة قرون ( ما عدا مدتين طويلتين تخلّلت تلك القرون الثلاثة ) . والظاهر أنهم لم يكونوا ميّالين الى البقاء في هذه البلاد نظراً لإختلاف هوائها عن وادي النيل ، بل كان احتلالهم لها ناشئاً عن تخوفهم من غزوة أخرى تأتيهم عن طريق سورية وفلسطين كغزوة ( الهكسوس ) التي اكتسحت بلادهم ، ودرءاً لما قد يفاجئها من الغزوات إلا . ولذلك نجد أنهم لم يحاولوا نشر تمدّنهم وآدابهم في هذه البلاد وكانوا يستعملون في كتاباتهم الرسمية اللغة البابلية . ثم تدفق من الصحراء على فلسطين سيل من الغزاة أكثرهم من الآراميين والعرب وذلك حوالي سنة 1360 ق . م وامتزجوا بالسكان الأصليين فقويت شوكتهم بهم واستطاعوا ان يتحرروا بمساعدتهم من نير المصريين . واحتلت دولة الآشوريين قسماُ من فلسطين وكذلك دولة البابليين احتلت قسماً آخر . إلا ان كلا الاحتلالين لم يكن إلا بمثابة الغزوات التي لا تزال تقوم بها بعض القبائل حتى الآن في بعض الجهات . ولم يكن نصيب فلسطين من تينك الغزوتين إلا التقتيل والتخريب والتدمير والسبي . وقد دخلت فلسطين في حوزة الفرس في زمن كورش الكبير الذي أسّس مملكته على أنقاض مملكتي بابل وآشور سنة 529 ق . م ولكن رغماً عن هذا الاحتلال الذي دام مدة قرنين كاملين لم يترك الفرس آثاراً تذكر في هذه البلاد

ولكن احتلالاً آخر عقب احتلال الفرس وهو احتلال اليونان تحت قيادة ملكهم الاسكندر الكبير المكدوني المعروف عند العرب بذي القرنين . الذي ترك آثاراً هامّة في كل بقعة من سوريا وفلسطين وشرقي الأردن وفي غيرها من البلاد . ولا تزال الحفريات تظهر لنا منها بين آونة وأخرى ما يحيّر الألباب . ان هذا القائد العظيم فتح هذه البلاد في أوائل الربع الثاني من القرن الرابع قبل الميلاد وأوغل فيها . وأول همّ له كان نشر الروح اليونانية والآداب والعلوم اليونانية فيها . ولما توفي اقتسم قواده مملكته من بعده وبذلوا كل جهودهم في تصيير البلاد التي استولوا عليها يونانية بكل معنى الكلمة . ولذلك فتحوا باب الهجرة لبني قومهم على مصراعيه فتوافد الى هذه البلاد كثيرون منهم وأقاموا فيها واختلطوا بأهلها ، وقد كثر تدفقهم اليها على الخصوص بعد ظهور النصرانية كما سنرى . ورغم كون البلاد قد دخلت بعد هذا الاحتلال بمئتين وتسع وستين سنة ( 269 ) في حوزة الرومان فإن اللغة الرومانية لم تستطع رغماً عن عظمتها وعظمة الدولة التي كانت تشدّ أزرها ان تحل محل اللغة اليونانية التي نشرها وعمّمها خلفاء الاسكندر السلوقيون والبطالسة أو ان تزاحمها مزاحمة الند للند . بل ظلت اللغة اليونانية ذات المقام الأول بين خاصة السكان على الأخص وكانت منزلتها آنذاك تشبه منزلة اللغتين الفرنسية والانكليزية في الوقت الحاضر

خضعت سوريا بعد موت الاسكندر لدولة السلوقيين . وخضعت فلسطين للبطالسة حكام مصر فانفصلت بذلك سوريا عن فلسطين مدة قرن وربع الى ان قام انطيوخوس الرابع ملك سوريا سنة 198 ق . م وضمّ فلسطين الى سوريا بعد معارك دامية . وقد كانت المدة التي خضعت فيها فلسطين للبطالسة مدة هدوء وسلام . ولكن بعد دخولها في حوزة السلوقيين قاسى أهلها الأهوال

قلنا ان مدة الحكم اليوناني في سوريا وفلسطين منذ دخول الاسكندر اليها الى حين دخولها في حوزة الرومان كانت عبارة عن ( 269 ) سنة ومن يراجع تاريخ البلاد في تلك العصور يستغرب كل الاستغراب كيف استطاع اليونان في خلال هذه المدة ان ينشروا علومهم وفنونهم وآدابهم بهذه السرعة ، وأن يمتزجوا بأهل البلاد الأصليين ويصيّروا معظم البلاد يونانية ، فيشيّدوا فيها المباني ويعمّروا المدن . مع أن هذه المدة لم تنقض بهدوء وسلام بل كانت الحروب بين السلوقيين والبطالسة متتابعة والثورات والقلاقل متتالية . وكان السلوقيون خصوصاً منحطّين في الآداب والأخلاق زد على ذلك انهم كانوا قساة ظالمين كما يظهر من معاملتهم لليهود وممّا كان سبباً في انتقاض اليهود عليهم بعد أن عاشوا مدة قرن وربع تحت حكم البطالسة بسلام واطمئنان . ولكن هذا الاستغراب يزول عندما يتوسع المطالع في درس أخلاق الاسكندر وقواده ويتأكد أن أعظم دافع لذلك القائد العظيم على افتتاح البلدان وخوض معارك الحروب هي مزج الشرق بالغرب – وهي نفس الفكرة التي كان يرمي اليها نابليون – وتوحيد العائلة البشرية . أو بعبارة أخرى تصيير جميع أهل البلاد التي يفتحونها يونانيين بأية وسيلة كانت . وقد توخى طرقاً كثيرة لتحقيق أمانيه أهمها مسألة الزواج فقد اقترن هو بابنة داريوس ملك الفرس وشوّق قواده وأجبر رجاله على الاقتران بالشرقيات . وفتح باب المهاجرة لليونان على مصراعيه فتدفق على سوريا وفلسطين وشرقي الاردن سيل عظيم من بلاد اليونان وجزر البحر المتوسط وغيرها من البلاد اليونانية ونسج قواده وخلفاؤه على نسقه فعمّموا الروح اليونانية بنشر شعرهم وفلسفتهم وعاداتهم وألبستهم ومسارحهم وفنونهم وألعابهم وآدابهم ولغتهم . وهكذا حوّل الاسكندر وخلفاؤه مدن فلسطين وسوريا وعبر الاردن الى مراكز للعلوم اليونانية والتمدن اليوناني . وشيّدوا المدن المختلفة . فعدد عظيم من المستعمرين اليونانيين كانوا يقيمون في غزة وأشدود وعسقلان ويافا وعكاء التي دُعيت ( بتولمايس ) . وقد توطّن كثيرون من جنود الاسكندر المتقاعدين في هبوس وجدرا وبيلا وجرش وربة عمون القديمة التي أسموها ( فيلادلفيا ) . ويمكننا القول ان انتشار اللغة اليونانية في البلاد والآداب والعلوم والتمدّن رافقه شيء من القسوة والارغام والارهاب وخصوصاً من قبل السلوقيين قياساً على معاملة هؤلاء لليهود وفتكهم فيهم بلا رحمة ولا شفقة

ولكن رغماً عن جميع الوسائل التي استعملت لملاشاة آداب سكان البلاد الاصليين وعاداتهم وأخلاقهم ولغتهم ورغماً عن هذا الاختلاط نلاحظ ان هؤلاء السكان ظلوا متمسكين بآدابهم ولغتهم . وقد ظل اليهود محافظين على كل شيء ، هذا عدا ما أصاب لغتهم من التغيير في أثناء سبي بابل فانها اختلطت بالسريانية والكلدانية وعرفت باللغة الآرامية أو الكلدانية وبها كتب التلمود . وقد برع كثيرون منهم في اللغة اليونانية فاشترك اثنين وسبعون شيخاً منهم في ترجمة الكتاب المقدس الى اللغة اليونانية في عهد بطليموس فيلادلفوس في الاسكندرية . كان بينهم سمعان الشيخ كما يروي لنا التقليد . اما من بقي من الشعوب السامية ولا سيما الآراميون فقد تنصروا عند دخول النصرانية وانفردوا بآدابهم وأخلاقهم وعاداتهم . وأكثرهم كانوا يقيمون في العراق وما بين النهرين وأعالي سورية الى فلسطين

واذا ألقينا نظرة عامّة على سوريا وفلسطين وشرق الاردن في تلك العصور نجد أن حدود الشام الغربية على سواحل بحر الروم كان يغلب فيها العنصر اليوناني . وحدودها الشرقية ممّا يلي البادية يغلب فبها العنصر العربي . وأما أواسط البلاد فكان يغلب فيها العنصر الآرامي كما يؤيد ذلك المحققون من المؤرخين العرب والافرنج . ولا تزال ثلاث قرى بالقرب من دمشق حتى الآن يتكلم أهلها اللغة الآرامية وهي معلولة وعين التينة وجب العين مع أن أسماؤها عربية

وكان هناك من أوائل القرن الرابع قبل الميلاد أمة عربية عرفت بالأنباط أو النبط . كان مقامهم في الجنوب الشرقي من فلسطين على أنقاض الأدوميين وهي دولة بطرا . وقد اختلطوا بأهل الشـام وفلسطين أجيالاً متوالية وتشـهد النقوش والآثار التي عثر عليها بعض المستشرقين في كثير من المدن التي كانت داخلة ضمن حدود هذه المملكة مثل بطرا ( وادي موسى ) وبصرى وازرع ( ازرعات ) وعمان وجـرش والكـرك والشوبك وإيلة ( العقبة ) ومدائن صالح . ان هذه المملكة كانت في زمن من الأزمان تشمل معظم شمالي جزيرة العرب ويدخل فيها مؤاب والبلقاء وحوران وشبه جزيرة سيناء وأرض مديان وأعالي الحجاز . وقد وجدت نقوش من لغتهم في دمر على حدود دمشق ممّا يدل على سعة علاقاتهم التجارية . ويذكر التاريخ ان هذه الدولة كانت منظمة تنظيماً لا بأس به فكان لها ملوك ووزراء وعملة خاصّة . وقد جرب خلفاء الاسكندر الاستيلاء على هذه المملكة فلم يفلحوا . ولمّا دخلت البلاد في حوزة الرومان سنة 64 ق . م أشهروا عليهم الحرب في أيام اغسطس قيصر فارتدوا عنهم خائبين وقد تنصر كثيرون منهم في أول انتشار الدين المسيحي ولكن الرومان عادوا فتغلبوا على هذه المملكة واحتلوها سنة 106 م فتبدّد شملهم وقضي على مدنيتهم فاندمجوا في غيرهم من أهل البلاد وانتشروا على حدود سورية وفلسطين مما يلي البادية بين سيناء والفرات . ( راجع تاريخ العرب قبل الاسلام لزيدان صفحة 76 . والدول العربية وآدابها لأنيس الخوري المقدسي صفحة 25 . وأصل الارثوذكس في سورية وفلسطين لباقلوس كاروليندس اليوناني صفحة 135

وما اندثرت هذه المملكة العربية حتى زهت بدلاً منها مملكة عربية أخرى هي مملكة تدمر الشهيرة . ومدينة تدمر قديمة العهد يزعمون ان بانيها هو الملك سليمان مع ان هذا الزعم مردود عليه من مؤرخين كثيرين لأسباب يضيق بنا المقام عن ذكرها . ولكنها على كل حال مدينة قديمة جداً ولكنها لم تزهو ولم تتقدم وتتسع حدودها الا بعد سقوط بطرا إذ اصبحت هي طريق القوافل بين الهند وبلاد فارس الى فينيقية وقد تنصر كثيرون من أهلها. وقد أخذت هذه المملكة بالانحطاط شيئاً فشيئاً بعد إنكسار شوكة زنوبيا في حربها مع الرومان على ما هو مشهور في التاريخ الى ان كانت دولة الاسلام ففتحها خالد بن الوليد
وفي أواسط القرن الثالث للميلاد ، يوم كانت دولة تدمر لا تزال زاهية زاهرة ظهر على حدود الشام والعراق أجيال جديدة من العرب وهم دولة اللخميين أو المناذرة في الحيرة الذين اتخذهم الفرس حلفاء لهم ، يردون غارات اخوانهم أهل البادية ، أو ينصروهم في الحروب التي كانت تنشب بينهم وبين الروم قبل الاسلام بين آونة وأخرى . ودولة الغساسنة في بصرى اسكي شام الذين اتخذهم الروم حلفاء لهم للسبب عينه . فأقام حلفاء الفرس على شواطئ الفرات . وحلفاء الروم في حوران . وكانوا كلما نشبت الحرب بين الروم والفرس تجند الغساسنة للروم والمناذرة للفـرس ودافع كل منهما عن أصحابه وحلفائه دفاع المستميت . ومن جراء ذلك وقعت العداوة المرّة بين هاتين الدولتين العربيتين المسيحيتين . وظلت تلك العداوة مستمرة رغماً عن تنصر الدولتين

فسكان الشام والعراق عند ظهور الاسلام كان معظمهم من بقايا الآراميين الأصليين في الشمال والشرق واليهود والسامريين في الجنوب وبقايا الأنباط في الجنوب الشرقي يليهم العرب الغساسنة والمناذرة ثم قبائل اياد ونمر وربيعة بين النهرين ويتخلل هذا المجموع شتات من امم أخرى كالجراجمة في جبل اللكام والجرامقة في الموصل وأخلاط من مولدي اليونان والرومان على الشواطئ ومولدي الفرس والأكراد في الشمال

ولا شك ان الديانة المسيحية كانت قد انتشرت في سورية وفلسطين وبلاد العرب والعراق الغربي قبل الفتح الاسلامي انتشاراً كبيراً وبنوع أخص في فلسطين . فإنه على أثر الاضطهاد الذي ثار ضدّ الرسل في اورشليم قبل خرابها وعلى أثر رجم مار استفانوس تشتت التلاميذ في أماكن عديدة من فلسطين وسورية والعراق وبلاد العرب . وكانوا حيثما ذهبوا يكرزون بالانجيل . وآمن كثيرون من أهل تلك البلاد بالمسيح وقد أطلقت كلمة “مسيحيين” على أتباع السيد المسيح للمرة الأولى في انطاكية
ومن المعلوم ان سمعان اسقف اورشليم والمؤمنين الذين كانوا فيها سنة 70 م عندما ابتدأت ثورة اليهود ضدّ الرومان لجأوا الى مدينة ” بيلا ” على ضفة الاردن الشرقية مقابل بيسان . وأقاموا فيها حتى شرع الرومان في بناء اورشليم ثانية باسم ” ايليا كابيتولنيا ” بعد ان مكثت ستين سنة ينعق فيها البوم . فعندئذ أخذوا يعودون اليها وكان ذلك سنة 134 م . ولاشك انهم أثناء وجودهم في تلك البلاد قد اشتغلوا في التبشير بالانجيل كما ان الذين ظلوا منهم في مدينة بيلا بقوا مستمرين في الكرازة والتبشير . كما ان أساقفة اورشليم أيضاً بعد رجوعهم اليها لم يكونوا فيها مكتوفي الأيدي مكمومي الأفواه . بل رغماً عن الاضطهادات المتوالية عليهم لم يكونوا ليفتروا او يملّوا من التبشير والكرازة . ممّا جعلنا نسمع عن إنشاء عدّة اسقفيات في تلك الأعصر في كل من سورية وفلسطين وفي أشهر المدن وأهمها . بعض هذه المدن لا يزال باقياً والبعض الآخر أصبح خراباً . ونقرأ في تاريخ الكنيسة ان هرمون اسقف اورشليم الذي رقّي الكرسي سنة 300 م قد سام عدة أساقفة وأرسلهم للتبشير بالأنجيل في أماكن مختلفة من سورية وفلسطين وشرق الاردن والعراق وبلاد العرب . كما ان القديس ايلاريون صديق القديس انطونيوس الكبير قد أسس ديراً في تلك الأثناء بقرب غزة في المكان المعروف الآن ( بدير البلح ) فكان أول دير تأسس في فلسطين . وقد اهتدى بواسطة وعظه وسيرته هو ورهبانه كثيرون من الوثنيين وقبائل برمتها من العرب الذين كانوا يخيّمون في تلك الربوع . ونظراً لما حلّ بالمسيحية من الاضطهادات في القرون الثلاثة الأولى لم يستطع التاريخ الكنسي ان يفيدنا مفصلاً عن الذين تنصّروا والذين لم يتنصّروا من العرب او من سواهم في تلك الأيام المظلمة

ولكن بعد تنصر قسطنطين ورفع الاضطهاد عن المسيحيين ظهرت عدة اسقفيات في فلسطين وسورية وشرق الاردن وظهرت بينهم أسماء أساقفة من العرب . وأصبح التاريخ يذكر أسماء كثيرين منهم في مناسبات عديدة . ففي المجمع المسكوني الثالث الذي عقد في أفسس سنة 431 م نرى أنه كان بين المئتي عضو الذين تألف المجمع منهم اسقفان عربيان هما : بطرس اسقف القبائل العربية التي كانت منازلها في ( الغور ) بالقرب من بحيرة لوط وسعيد الوافدي اسقف جدرة ( المعروفة الآن بخربة ام قيس في شرقي الاردن ) ( تاريخ العلاّمة خريسوستومس متروبوليت أثينا صفحة 159 ) . هذا عدا بقية الأساقفة الذين حضروا هذا المجمع والمجمعين السابقين من سوريين وفلسطينيين . ولم نستطع ان نجزم ان كانوا عرباً أم لا ، نظراً لتغيير الأسماء ، لأنه كما ان شاؤول غيّر اسمه بعد ان تنصّر وصار يسمى بولس هكذا درجت العادة بين المسيحيين الأقدمين ان يغيّروا أسماءهم عند اعتناقهم النصرانية وكانوا دائماً بفضلون أسماء الأنبياء والقديسين والشهداء الذين استشهدوا في القرون الثلاثة الأولى وأكثرها أسماء عبرانية ويونانية ورومانية . لذلك نلاحظ ان بطرس اسقف القبائل العربية العربي القح قد سمّى ابنه وخليفته ” افكسيلاوس ” وحفيده “يوحنا” . ونستطيع ان نتأكد صحة ذلك ممّا نراه اليوم في الكرسي الانطاكي وفي الكنيسة الكاثوليكية العربية حيث لا نسمع إلا أسماء عبرانية ويونانية ورومانية كغريغوريوس وجراسيموس ومارينيوس وميصائيل وصموئيل مع أن أصحابها عرب قلباً وقالباً

ولما كان للأسماء علاقة كبرى بالجنسية – على نحو ما يقولون ان الأسم تاريخ – لذلك نلاحظ ان المؤرخ اليوناني الشهير بافلوس كاروليندس مبعوث ازمير في البرلمان العثماني في كتابه الذي ألفه وبحث فيه عن أصل المسيحيين في سورية وفلسطين قد أنكر وجود عرب مسيحيين رغماً عن ورود أسماء كثيرين منهم في تاريخ الكنيسة وبين أعضاء المجامع المسكونية نفسها ، مستنداً في إنكاره على أسماء الأشخاص والمدن . ولكن رغماً عن هذا الإنكار نرى ان كثيرين من المؤرخين الكنائسيين المتقدمين والمتأخرين يجاهرون بوجود بطاركة وأساقفة وقسوس ومتوحدين ونسّاك من العرب . كما أنهم لا ينكرون وجود كنائس عربية كانت تستعمل في صلواتها اللغة العربية منذ أقدم أزمنة التاريخ المسيحي فإن القديس ثيودوسيوس الذي نبغ في أواخر القرن الخامس قد بنى ديراً – هو الدير المعروف الآن بدير أبي عبيدة – فيه أربع كنائس كان كل فريق من رهبان ذلك الدير وعددهم (700) نفس يقيم الصلاة في كنيسته بلغته الخاصة وفي جملتهم رهبان العرب يصلون في كنيستهم بالعربية ( راجع دليل الأرض المقدسة للأرشمندريت بنيامين

والبطريرك الاورشليمي ذوسيتارس يقول في تاريخه أنه في سنة 494 م رُقّي كرسي البطريركية الاورشليمية البطريرك ايليا العربي وكان أصله من نجد وهو الذي أسّس دير الروم الكبير الحالي . وفي سنة 525 م رُقّي هذا الكرسي البطريرك بطرس العربي من بيت جبرين . وفي تلك الأثناء كان المتوحد ( مارن ) اخو بطرس اسقف القبائل العربية المذكورة آنفاً رئيساً لدير القديس افتيميوس ( هو مقام النبي موسى الحالي

وفي سنة 513 م نبغ القديس كيرلّس الشهير وأخذ يكتب تراجم بعض القديسين الذين اشتهروا في هذه البلاد مثل مار سابا وافتيميوس وثيودوسيوس وجراسموس وغيرهم . والذي كان يمدّه بالمعلومات الوافية من اولئك القديسين هو تريفون بن بطرس اسقف القبائل العربية . وقد ذكر البستاني في الجزء الحادي عشر من دائرة المعارف ( ص 355 ) عن رهبان طور سيناء أنهم كانوا عرباً من بني صالح . كما ذكر خريسوستوموس ميتروبوليت اثينا في تاريخه عن دير بصرى في حوران ان رهبانه كانوا عرباً من بني صادر

وجملة القول ان فلسطين وسورية والعراق وبعض بلاد العرب من السنة التي تنصّر فيها قسطنطين وهي سنة 325 م واعتبر النصرانية دين المملكة الرسمي ورفع الاضطهاد عن المسيحيين الى سنة 614 م وقد تنصّرمعظم الأهالي فيها فلم يبق إلا بعض اليهود والسمرة في فلسطين وبعض عبدة الأوثان من اليونان والرومان في بعض أنحاء سورية وفلسطين . وقد امتازت فلسطين عن سورية بكثرة الأديرة والكنائس والمناسك والملاجئ والمستشفيات وبكثرة المهاجرين اليها من اليونان والرومان ومن الذين كانوا يحضرون لزيارة الأماكن المقدسة . فلا يلبثوا ان يقيموا فيها حتى يندمجوا في أهلها . وبين هؤلاء المهاجرين نقرأ أسماء كثيرين من الامراء والملوك والملكات والأميرات والأغنياء العظام الذين تبرعوا فأقاموا الملاجئ والمعاهد الخيرية وشيدوا الأديرة والكنائس والمدارس من أموالهم الخاصّة . واوقفوا جزءاً من أملاكهم وأموالهم على كنائس فلسطين وأديرتها وفقرائها . لذلك نرى ان الكرسي الاورشليمي وحده في تلك الأثناء كان مؤلفاً من ستين اسقفية . بينها اسقفية الفثروبولس ( بيت جبرين ) وشـارون ( سارونه ) وعسقلان وميومة ( الآن خربة المنية قرب غزة ) ولببلاخية ( الآن لببلوخية قرب غزة ) وذيوقيصرية (صفورية) وقيسارية فلسطين وسبسطية ( قرب نابلس ) وبيت ايل ( قرب راملله ) وبصرى في حوران وجرش وبيسان وبطره ( وادي موسى ) وجدره ( خربة ام قيس في شرق الاردن ) وفيلادلفيا ( عمان ) وفيكوبولس ( عمواس ) وخربة سوق مازن قرب بني سحيلة في شرق الاردن . وغيرها من الأماكن التي لا يزال قسم كبير منها مجهول الموقع حتى الآن . هذا عدا الاسقفيات التي لا تزال عامرة وفيها عدد من المسيحيين مثل اسقفيات الناصرة وبتولمايوس ( عكاء ) ويافا واللد وغـزة وبيت لحم والكرك ومأدبا وعجلون ونابلس

ولكن غزوة الفرس الشهيرة التي سبقت الفتح العربي الاسلامي بمدة قصيرة قد جعلت معظم الاسقفيات أثراً بعد عين . فإنه فيما كان النصارى في سورية وفلسطين مشتغلين بالمجادلات والمحاورات الدينية والحكومة تارة تنصر لهذا الحزب وطوراً لذلك والملوك والحكام يتداخلون في الشؤون الكنائسية واذا بالفرس قد هجموا على سورية وفلسطين هجمة غزو ونهب وذبح لا هجمة احتلال . وقد عجزت الحكومة عن صدّهم فاجتاحوا البلاد من أقصاها الى أقصاها وهم يخربون ويدمرون وينهبون ويقتلون كل من ساقه حظه العاثر للوقوع بين ايديهم . ولما وصلوا القدس هدموا كنيسة القيامة التي كان قد بناها قسطنطين وأمه هيلانه عندما تنصرا كما هدموا سائر الأديرة والكنائس وقسماً كبيراً من المدينة وفتكوا بكثيرين من الرهبان ومن الأهالي المسيحيين . وقد عثر بعضهم على مخطوطات عربية وكرجية لا تزال حتى الآن محفوظة في مكتبة دير الروم بالقدس تنبئ بفظاعة تلك الغزوة . وتقدر المخطوطات العربية عدد القتلى المسيحيين في القدس وحدها ( 55866 ) نفساً . وأما الكرجية فتقدرهم ( 67314 ) نفساً . وتذكر هذه المخطوطات عدد القتلى من كل حيّ على حدة . وقد كان أكثر بطشهم في الأديرة والكنائس والرهابين ورجال الدين ولا تزال حتى اليوم جماجم الرهبان الذين قتلوا في دير مار سابا محفوظة في كهف في كنيسة قديمة هناك باسم القديس نيقولاوس ركمة واحدة تشهد بفظاعة اولئك الغزاة وقسوتهم . ولما كان سكان الساحل قد افلتوا من أيدي هؤلاء الطغاة فلم تصل اليهم أيدي التقتيل والتخريب لذلك نراهم لم يقفوا مكتوفي الأيدي بل مدّوا أيدي المساعدة لاخوانهم المنكوبين وتبرعوا بإعادة بناء كنيسة القيامة وغيرها من الكنائس والأديرة . فهذه الضربة الشديدة التي حلّت بمسيحيّي فلسطين وسورية فضلاً عما أحدثته من الخراب والدمار والرجوع بالبلاد مئات السنين الى الوراء فقد جرفت الشيء الكثير من أخبار اولئك المسيحيين وآثارهم ومخطوطاتهم

– القسم الثاني –
سورية وفلسطين بعد الفتح العربي الاسلامي

زحف العرب على سورية وفلسطين سنة 634 م . أي بعد غزوة الفرس بعشرين سنة . وكانت البلاد متضعضعة الأحوال لم تسترجع قواها بعد من شدّة تلك الضربة المؤلمة التي ذاقتها من الفرس . وكان سكان البلاد في ذلك الوقت من جهة الديانة كلهم مسيحيون ما خلا عدد ضئيل من اليهود والسمرة . وأما من جهة اللغة فكانوا يقسمون الى ثلاثة أقسام : فسكان السواحل كلهم تقريباً على طول الخط كانوا يتكلمون اللغة اليونانية . وسكان الجنوب والشرق مما يلي البادية كانوا يتكلمون العربية . وأهل الشمال مع سكان أواسط البلاد كانوا يتكلمون الآرامية . فلما زحف العرب المسلمون على البلاد بجموعهم وقفت في بادئ الأمر القبائل العربية المتنصّرة في سورية وفلسطين الى جانب جيش الروم وقاتلوا المسلمين . وقد ذكر جيبون المؤرخ الشهير ان بين المئة والخمسين ألف مقاتل الذين جمعهم الروم لصدّ العرب عن التوغل في البلاد كان ( 60 ) الف جندي عربي مسيحي بقيادة جبلة بن الأيهم آخر ملوك الغساسنة . وقال مؤرخوا العرب أنه لما وصل خالد بن الوليد قائد جيوش المسلمين الى تيماء صدمه الروم بجموع أكثرها من العرب المتنصرة ( بهراء وتنوخ ولخم وسليم وجذام وغسان ) . إلا ان جامعة اللغة والجنس عادت فرجحت على جامعة الدين ولذلك مدّ العرب المسيحيون أيديهم الى العرب المسلمين فتصافح الفريقان وانضم المسيحيون الى اخوانهم الاسلام فشاركوهم في محاربة الروم في سورية وفلسطين كما شاركوهم في محاربة الفرس في العراق فعرف لهم المسلمون فضلهم في ذلك . ولمّا همّوا بوضع الجزية على أهل الذمة بعد الفتح أبت قبائل تغلب وإياد وانمار أداءها . وبلغ عمر بن الخطاب ذلك فاستشار أصحابه فقال له بعضهم ” انهم عرب مثلنا يأنفون من الجزية وهم قوم لهم نكاية فلا تعن عدوك عليك ” . فوافق ذلك ما في نفسه ففرض عليهم الصدقة كما تفرض على المسلمين . وكان عمر شديد المحافظة على الجامعة العربية لا يأذن للعرب النصارى في التوغل ببلاد الروم وإذا فعلوا استرجعهم وخاطب ملك الروم بشأنهم لأنه يرى ذلك حقاً له . فقد ذكروا ان الوليد بن عقبة لما سار لفتح العراق والجزيرة انضم اليها عربها النصارى الا قبيلة إياد فإنهم تحملوا الى بلاد الروم فكتب الوليد الى عمر بذلك فكتب عمر الى ملك الروم يقول ” بلغني ان حياً من أحياء العرب ترك دارنا وأتى دارك فوالله لتخرجنه أو لنخرجن النصارى اليك ” فأخرجهم ملك الروم . ويظر ان العرب المتنصّرين في أبان حكم الروم لم يكونوا مرتاحين الى ذلك الحكم فقد ذكر البلاذري وأيد أقواله بعض مؤرخي الافرنج ان أول مدينة فتحها المسلمون في فلسطين كانت غزة .وأسباب فتحها انه كان يسكن وقتئذ في جنوب غزة قوم من قبائل العرب المتنصّرين وكان قد أصابهم من قبل ولاة الروم عسف وجور . فالتجأوا الى عساكر المسلمين ودعوهم الى فلسطين فلبوا دعوتهم وزحفوا على غزة في 4 شباط سنة 634 م وظفروا بجيش الروم وفتحوا المدينة وبعد أيام قليلة أتمّوا فتح بقية مدن فلسطين( راجع كتاب فتوح البلدان للبلاذري صفحة 109

ولما رسخت قدم العرب في سورية وفلسطين أخذ عدد المتكلمين باللغتين اليونانية والآرامية يتضائل شيئاً فشيئاً . فإن الخليفة عثمان بن عفان قد طرد الروم من مدن ساحل فلسطين ونقل العرب اليها فسكنوا فيها . ولما أفضت الخلافة الى عبدالملك بن مروان منع استعمال اللغات الأجنبية في دواوين الحكومة . وجعل اللغة العربية اللغة الرسمية الوحيدة ليس في سورية وفلسطين فقط بل في العراق ومصر وبلاد فارس وفي سائر الأقطار التي كان العرب قد استولوا عليها حتى ذلك التاريخ . ناهيك بتشديده وتشديد غيره من الخلفاء والحكام على المسيحيين في أوقات مختلفة بعدم استعمال لغة أخرى غير العربية . ومن المعلوم ان العرب بعد ان استولوا على هذه البلاد قد هاجموا قبرص وكريت ورودس واخذوا يهاجمون عاصمة الروم فيها بين آونة وأخرى . وكانوا كلما فشلوا يشدّدون النكير على مسيحيي سورية وفلسطين ولا يسمحون لهم بإستعمال لغة أخرى غير العربية حتى في كنائسهم خوفاً من ان يكونوا عيوناً عليهم وينقلوا أخبارهم للروم . وكان المنصور العباسي أشدّ الخلفاء السابقين تدقيقاً من هذه الجهة . فلم يكتف بإصدار الأوامر المشدّدة بل أمر بترجمة الكتب الكنائسية اليونانية جميعها الى العربية وحظر على البطاركة والأساقفة وسائر رجال الاكليروس بمنتهى الشدّة استعمال أية لغة غير العربية . فأصبحت بعد عهد ذلك الخليفة اللغة العربية والحالة هذه لغة الكنيسة والشعب معاً . ولذلك أصبحنا نرى بعد ذلك التاريخ مؤلفات دينية عربية لا يزال الشيء الكثير منها محفوظاً في مكتبة دير الروم الأرثوذكس بالقدس وفي مكتبة كنيسة مار يعقوب الكاتدرائية فيها وفي مكتبة دير الصليب “المصلبة” حيث عدد المجلدات العربية المخطوطة ” 150 ” مجلداً بينها الأناجيل الأربعة التي كتبت في القرن الحادي عشر للميلاد – وفي مكتبة دير طور سيناء حيث عدد المجلدات العربية ” 602 ” – ( مجلة النعمة السنة الأولى الجزء الثاني ) وفي مكتبة دير صدنايا بسورية وفي غيرها من المكاتب عدا ما نقل منها الى مكتبة الفاتيكان والى غيرها من مكاتب اوروبا الشهيرة

ولكن الجزية التي فرضت في بادء الأمر على غير العرب من المسيحيين ما لبثت ان تناولت العرب ولم يستثن منها أحد حتى ولا رجال الدين في أيام بعض الخلفاء – من جهة . والزلازل المريعة التي كانت تجتاح سورية وفلسطين في ذلك العهد بين آونة وأخرى كانت من أشد العوامل على تأخر النصرانية في هذه البلاد وتقليل عدد المسيحيين فيها وهدم كثير من الأديرة والكنائس التي لم تقم لها قائمة حتى اليوم . ففي أواخر أيام الدولة الأموية في أثناء خلافة مروان الثاني ( 744 – 750 ) م . داهمت سورية وفلسطين زلزلة مريعة هدمت عدة كنائس وأديرة وبيوت ومات ألوف الناس تحت الردم وكان بعض الخلفاء لا يأذنون بإعادة بناء كنيسة قد تهدمت أو دير ما لم يكن قد ذكـر ذلك المكان في العهدة العمرية . وفي سنة 861 م جاء الروم وحاصروا دمياط باسطولهم فاندفع بعض المتطرفين من المسلمين لمناوأة المسيحيين واعتدوا على بعضهم وهدموا بعض الكنائس والأديرة في وادي الاردن وغيره وأحرقوا مدينة “عسقلان ” . وقد حدثت زلزلة مريعة في تلك السنة عقب تلك الحوادث تهدّم من جرائها عدة كنائس وأديرة وبيوت وقتل فيها خلق كثير فكانت ضربة فوق ضربة . ومما زاد الطين بلّة وأودى بحياة كثيرين من أهالي سورية وفلسطين كانت المجاعة الشديدة التي أعقبت الزلزلة في تلك السنة . ومع أن الضيق كان عمومياً إلا ان نصيب المسيحيين منه كان أوفر من سواهم لأنهم رغماً عن تلك الحالة كانوا مضطرين ان يدفعوا الجزية وقيمتها أربعة دنانير ذهباً عن كل نفس سنوياً . فالعائلة المؤلفة من عشرة أنفس مثلاً كانت مضطرة الى دفع أربعين ديناراً ذهبياً في السنة . وهذه القيمة في تلك الأيام لم يكن وجودها سهلاً بل كانت تعدّ ثروة فكيف بها اذا جاءت ومعها الزلازل والمجاعة ؟ ولذلك نرى ان كثيرين من المسيحيين في تلك الأيام اضطروا ان يلجأوا الى الروم كما اضطر بعضهم ان يعتنق الاسلام للتخلص من دفع الجزية . ومن يطالع تاريخ الكنيسة يرى ان هذه الجزية كانت دائماً هي السبب الأكبر في اعتناق كثيرين من مسيحيي هذه البلاد الدين الاسلامي أر رحيلهم الى بلاد الروم . ففي زمن الخليفة معاوية حينما هاجم العرب عاصمة الروم واغتنم الفرصة مردة جبل لبنان وزحفوا على فلسطين استشاط هذا الخليفة غضباً وشدّد في تحصيل الجزية من المسيحيين . فاستعمل بعض الحكام والجباة القسوة في تحصيلها منهم ولذلك تهافتوا على اعتناق الاسلام تهافتاً شديداً حتى كادت خزينة الدولة تخلو من المال فاضطر الخليفة ان يصدر أوامره الى جميع حكام المقاطعات بعدم قبول المسيحيين في الاسلام . ويقال ان عدد المسيحيين في فلسطين بعد هذه الحوادث قد نزل الى ( 43 ) ألف نسمة فقط ( راجع تاريخ خريسوستومس صفحة 255 )

ولكن لا هذا ولا ذاك يعدّ شيئاً مذكوراً بالنسبة الى ما أصاب المسيحيين في عهد الحاكم بأمر الله الفاطمي مدة عشر سنوات متوالية من سنة 1007 – 1017 م . فقد راجت اشاعة في الغرب مآلها ان نهاية العالم ستكون في تمام الألف سنة لميلاد المسيح . ولذلك تقاطر عدد عظيم من مسيحيي الغرب الى فلسطين وسكن عدد كبير منهم القدس وهم يرقبون نهاية العالم ويقولون ان مركز الدينونة سيكون في اورشليم فلما كانت سنة 1007 م ولم يحدث شيء اغتنم اليهود هذه الفرصة فأوغروا صدر الحاكم بأمر الله على المسيحيين فشرع في اضطهادهم . فهدم كنيسة القيامة وسائر الكنائس والأديرة في القدس وفي كل فلسطين وسلب جميع أوانيها وأموالها واستولى على أملاكها الموقوفة عليها . وبعد ان بطش بكثيرين من رجال الدين وغيرهم وخصوصاً الأجانب الغى الأعياد وأبطل الصلوات وأمر المسيحيين ان يلبسوا ثياباً سوداء تمييزاً لهم عن سواهم . وأن يعلّقوا في أعناقهم صلباناً من خشب طول كل منها ذراع واحد واشتدت وطأت الاضطهاد خصوصاً على غير العرب من المسيحيين فأمر ان يحرق بسفافيد الحديد المحميّة على النار لسان كل من نطق بغير العربية من المسيحيين . فدخلت في الاسلام في غضون ذلك مدن وقرى برمتها وهرب كثيرون من المسيحيين خلسة الى بلاد الروم . ثم انقلب ضد اليهود فشرع في اضطهادهم وأمرهم ان يعلقوا في أعناقهم جلاجل وأن يلبسوا وجوهاً مصنعة كوجوه العجول بحجة ان اجدادهم عبدوا العجل في البرية . وكأن هذا الرجل أصيب بمس من الجنون حتى ان المسلمين أنفسهم لم يسلموا من شره وأذيته بل عذب وقتل كثيرين منهم لأسباب تافهة . ولكنه عاد فجأة في سنة 1017 م فأمر بالكف عن اضطهاد المسيحيين وسمح لهم بإعادة بناء الكنائس وأعاد اليها الأملاك الوقفية التي كان قد استولى عليها . فنزع المسيحيون ثياب الحداد واتخذوا يوم ذلك الانقلاب الفجائي عيداً كانوا يعيدونه كل سنة

ولم ترتح البلاد مدة طويلة بعد هذه الحوادث بل كأن المصائب والرزايا تحالفت على رؤوس أهلها منذ فجر التاريخ حتى الآن . فإنه بعد مرور ستين عاماً على هذه الحوادث اي في سنة 1076 م اجتاح السلاجقة فلسطين فعاث جيشهم في الارض فساداً ناهباً ومخرباً وقاتلاً كل من ساقه حظه العاثر للوقوع بين أيديهم . حتى أنهم لم يكفوا عمن عاذ بالمسجد الاقصى من أهل بيت المقدس بل اكتفوا بالكف عمن عاذ بالصخرة فقط . وقد وقف المسلمون والمسيحيون الى جانب بعضهم متظافرين لصدّ هذه الغارة عنهم فلم يفلحوا . وفي سنة 1078 م عاد الفاطميون فاسترجعوا البلاد من أيدي اولئك الغزاة الذين بطشوا بالمسيحيين والمسلمين على السواء . الا ان العراك ظل مستمراً بين هاتين الدولتين الى ان باغتهم الصليبيون وهم منهوكوا القوى جميعاً فاستولوا على البلاد

ابتدأ ظهور الصليبيين في هذه البلاد سنة 1079 م وتقلّص ظلهم منها نهائياً سنة 1297 م فكانت مدة وجودهم فيها نحو قرنين كاملين قاست البلاد الأهوال في أثنائها . وكان وجودهم فيها نقمة على المسيحيين الوطنيين بنوع خاص . فإن بعض صغار العقول من المسلمين لمّا رأوا فتك الصليبيين بالمسلمين نفرت قلوبهم من مواطنيهم المسيحيين . وأخدوا ينظرون اليهم نظرة عداء ويضطهدونهم كلما جلا الصليبيون عن بلاد فيها بعض المسيحيين مع أن الصليبيين الذين كانوا يدعون أنهم انما جاؤوا الى هذه البلاد ليخلصوا المسيحيين فيها من جور المسلمين قد اضطهدوا المسيحيين الوطنيين اضطهاداً شديداً وأذاقوهم الأمريّن . وقد انتزعوا الأماكن المقدسة من أيدي الأرثوذكس واستلموا البطريركية والكنائس والأديرة وصاروا ينصبون البطاركة منهم ولم يعترفوا لمسيحيي البلاد في الأماكن المقدسة والوظائف الكنائسية . بل نبذوهم نبذ النواة واحتقروهم واحتقروا لغتهم . الأمر الذي لم يخف على ذلك القائد الكبير صلاح الدين الأيوبي الذي استعان بمسيحيي هذه البلاد على فتح بيت المقدس عندما لاحظ ما يكنونه من الكراهية للأفرنج والميل الى مواطنيهم العرب . ولما طرد الصليبيين من القدس سلّم الأماكن المقدسة لأصحابها الأرثوذكس الوطنيين وأمنهم على أرواحهم وأموالهم واستخدم كثيرين منهم في جيشه كمأموري إعاشة وخزنة أموال ، وهي وظائف لا تعطى الا لمن اشتهر بالأمانة والاستقامة والاخلاص وحسن المعاملة

وقد تشتت الصليبيين بعد سقوط بيت المقدس فرجع قسم منهم الى بلادهم والتجأ البعض الآخر الى اخوانهم في صور وطرابلس فلم يقبلوهم . فتاهو في البلاد واندمجوا في أهلها على تمادي الأيام وتعلموا لغة أهلها وعوائدهم وصاهروهم وامتزجوا بهم فتعرّبوا ولم يميز بينهم وبين الوطنيين . وقد ذكر بعض المؤرخين ان الذين تأخروا في القدس فقط من فلول الصليبيين كان عددهم 16 ألف نسمة ما عدا فرقة من فرسان مار يوحنا بقيت للإهتمام بالمرضى والضعفاء منهم

فالصليبيون والحالة هذه وان كانوا لم يمتزجوا بغيرهم من السكان في أثناء وجودهم في البلاد فإن فلولهم التي بقيت فيها قد اندنجت في مسيحيي هذه البلاد . يشهد بصحة هذا القول ما نسمعه من الألقاب غير العربية الموجودة في كل بيت من بيت لحم والناصرة والقدس وبيت جالا وغزة ويافا من مدن فلسطين وقراها وفي كثير من البلاد السورية . وبعد ان خلت البلاد من الصليبيين أصبحت الحكومة من جهة والأهالي من جهة أخرى يخشون وينفرون من كل ما هو أجنبي ولا يريدون ان يسمعوا لغة أعجمية . ولذلك ظهر في سوريا وفلسطين بعد رحيل الصليبيين منهم بطاركة وقسوس ورهبان من العرب . واشتغل كثيرون منهم في التأليف حتى أنك لتجد أكثر المخطوطات المحفوظة في المكاتب الشهيرة التي أشرنا اليها فيما سبق من آثار تلك العصور

ونبغ في ذلك الزمان عدة رجال نوابغ من الاكليروس العربي في سورية وفلسطين نذكر منهم : المطران سليمان بن حسن الغزي اسقف غزة العالم الشهير والشاعر المطبوع ، وله ديوان في وصف الديانة المسيحية وشرح معتقداتها ووصف الأماكن المقدسة وما أشبه ذلك في 154 صفحة ، وهذا الديوان لا يزال موجوداً حتى الآن بلغته العربية الفصحى في مكتبة دير الروم بالقدس وله ثلاث مقالات دينية باللغة العربية . والمطران ايليا اسقف بيت لحم العربي الذي كان عالماً شهيراً وقد دفن في كنيسة مار الياس ولا يزال قبره حتى الآن هناك منقوشاً عليه تاريخ وفاته باللغة العربية . وافتيميوس كرمه الحموي ومكارريوس ابن الزعيم الشهير بطريرك انطاكية . وابن الخوري بولس صاحب المؤلفات المشهورة . والشماس عبدالله ابن الفضل الانطاكي . وذروثاوس الثاني البطريرك الانطاكي سنة 1436 وهو ابن الصابوني . وميخائيل الرابع البطـريرك الانطاكي سنة 1454 وهو ابن المارودي . ويواكيم الرابع البطريرك الانطاكي سنة 1524 وهو ابن جمعة البيروتي . ودروثاوس الرابع وهو عبدالعزيز بن أحمر من دمشق . وأثناسيوس الثالث ابن الدباس الدمشقي . ويواكيم الخامس بن ضو من برج صافيتا … وغيرهم كثيرون يضيق بنا المقام عن تعدادهم وذكر مؤلفاتهم . ونلاحظ انه لما عقد المجمع الفلورنتيني سنة 1439 م لإتحاد الكنيستين الارثوذكسية والبابوية كان البطاركة الثلاثة الموجودون في ذلك المجمع – الاورشليمي والانطاكي والاسكندري – عرباً والبطريرك القسطنطيني فقط في ذلك المجمع كان يونانياً

ثم نلاحظ انه لما دخلت البلاد تحت حكم المماليك الجراكسة ظهر بين مسيحييها عنصر جديد أيضاً هو العنصر الكرجي . وكانوا مسيحيين أرثوذكس من قفقاسيا . وبنوا لهمم أديرة وأشتركوا مع أهل البلاد في إدارة الأماكن المقدسة واختلطوا بهم وكانوا معززي الجانب من قبل المماليك الجراكسة مواطنيهم

وفي منتصف القرن الخامس عشر للميلاد وقع خصام في حوران بين القبائل العربية وثقل بعضهم على القبائل العربية المتنصّرة في تلك الجهات فرحل بعض العرب المسيحيين وفي مقدمتهم بقايا الغساسنة ولجأ بعضهم الى لبنان والبعض الى فلسطين والبعض الى الكرك . وقد ذكر المؤرخ الشهير المرحوم جرجي زيدان في أحد أعداد مجلة ” الهلال ” لسنتها السابعة عشر صفحة 425 ان مشايخ بيت الخازن في لبنان ينتسبون الى أصل حوراني . وكذلك بيت مطران في بعلبك وزحلة هم في الأصل من جالية حوران . كما ذكر بيوتاً كثيرة في سورية تنسب الى حوران وبنوع خصوصي الى الغساسنة مثل بيوت جبارة وغنّام وحوراني وعطية وشقير وطرّاد وصفير وغصن وغيرهم

ويظهر أنه في نحو ذلك الوقت أيضاً نزحت بعض القبائل العربية من حوران ومن جهات الكرك الى فلسطين . فإن مسيحيي رام الله والطيبة وبير زيت وعين عريك وأهالي بيت جالا وبيت ساحور ينتسبون الى تلك البلاد . ولم نجد تعليلاً في التأريخ لهذا الارتحال الذي يكاد ان يكون اجماعياً او بمشورة سابقة سوى أحد أمرين : فإما ان تكون قد تدفقت عليهم قبائل جديدة من الصحراء فثقلت عليهم ورأوا ان لا قدرة لهم بمناوأتهم فارتحلوا . وأما ان يكونوا قد التحقوا بأخوانهم وحلفائهم من قبائل العرب المسلمين الذين جاء بهم صلاح الدين الأيوبي ومن قام بعده من ملوك المسلمين فأسكنهم في البلاد بعد ارتحال الصليبيين عنها وخلوها من السكان وهذا هو الأرجح . ومما يؤيد هذا القول ان حمولة الحددة في رام الله عندما ارتحلت من الكرك وجاءت الى فلسطين كان لهم حلفاء وأصدقاء من المسلمين هناك وهم أهل البيرة الحاليين فلم يتركوهم يرحلوا وحدهم بل ارتحلوا هم أيضاً معهم وجاؤوا فسكنوا جانب بعضهم – الحددة في رام الله ومن جدهم الحداد تفرعت حمائل رام الله المعروفة اليوم – ودار القرعان ودار الطويل في البيرة . وما زالوا منذ ذلك العهد الى الآن يحسبون بعضهم أبناء عم

أما أنساب المسيحيين في المدن فقد اختلط فيها الحابل بالنابل وكثيراً ما جربنا ان نقف على أنساب بعض البيوت الشهيرة فرأينا ولسوء الحظ ان معظمهم لا يعرفون عن أنسابهم شيئاً . بل ان بعضهم لا يعرف أكثر من جده او ابي جده . وقد جرب ذلك قبلنا من هم أطول باعاً وأكثر اطلاعاً اعني بهم المرحوم العلامة جورج زيدان صاحب مجلة الهلال والمؤرخ الشهير الاستاذ عيسى اسكندر المعلوف وغيرهما من الباحثين والمدققين فتوصلوا الى معرفة أنساب بعض البيوت الشهيرة في سوريا ولبنان . فقالوا ان بيوت هندية وخياط باشا وابكاريوس وورتبات وقرابيت وغيرهم يرجعون الى أصل أرمني كما تدل عليهم اسمارهم . وبيت أتيلا أصله من الاسبان . وبيت طاسو من الايطاليين . وبيت شرشل من الانكليز .وينتسب بيت كرم في أهدن ( جبل لبنان ) الى كولونيل فرنساوي وبيت طربية في طرابلس ينتسبون الى الفرنساويين من زمن الصليبيين . ما عدا من تعرّب منهم ولقّب بلقب عربي . وقد ذكروا بيوتاً في سورية ترجع في أنسابها الى أصل يوناني مثل بيوت : يني وباولي وكتسفليس وباباذوبلوس وفيليبيس وأسماؤها تدل عليها . كما ان منها بيوت تبدلت أسماؤها بأسماء عربية وحفظت أنسابها عند أهلها كبيت مشاقة في دمشق فهم يرجعون بنسبهم الى يوسف بركي من كورفو في بلاد اليونان نزل طرابلس الشام وكان تاجراً بالمشاقة فعرف اسمه بها . وبيت مسرة فرع من أسرة يونانية نشأت في طرابزون جاء جدها الى دياربكر ثم الى حلب وتفرعت في دمشق ومصر

ثم لما دخلت البلاد في حوزة الاتراك العثمانيين وانتشر الامن فيها جاء فلسطين كثيرون من الزوار اليونان والروس والسرب والبلغار والرومان وغيرهم وتوطنت عائلات كثيرة منهم في هذه البلاد وخصوصاً اليونان . فمنهم من تعرّب اسماً وفعلاً ومنهم من ظل حتى الآن محافظاً على لغته وجنسيته وعاداته . وقد جاء فلسطين وسوريا بعد الفتح التركي أجناس كثيرة أيضاً من الغرب من انكليز وفرنساويين وايطاليين واسبان وألمان وغيرهم الا أنه ندر في هذه المرة من اختلط منهم بأهل البلاد الاصليين

خلاصة القول ان أنساب النصارى في سورية وفلسطين الآن ترجع الى أنساب أصلية وأنساب دخيلة .فالأنساب الأصلية هي الآرامية . وأما الأنساب الدخيلة فهي العربية واليونانية . فالنسب العربي في السوريين والفلسطينيين قديم وعريق فيهم ولكن أكثره في شرق الشام وجنوبها وفي شرق الاردن وغربيه وبجوار غزة . وأما النسب اليوناني فأقدمه وأكثره شيوعاً على سواحل البحر المتوسط لأن اليونان جاؤوا سوريا وفلسطين واختلطوا بأهلها من أقدم أزمنة التاريخ وكانوا ينزلون شواطئها . وزاد نزوحهم بعد زمن الاسكندر حتى صارت هذه البلاد بلداً ثانياً لهم كما تقدم . وظلوا يتوافدون اليها بعد الفتح الاسلامي وما زالوا على ذلك الى الآن

وأما سائر الأنساب النصرانية فمنها الأصول الأرمنية وهي كثيرة في سورية على الأخص . ومنها الأصول الافرنجية من الاسبان والايطاليين والأنكليز والفرنساويين وغيرهم من زمن الصليبيين . وقس على ذلك سائر الأمم المسيحية التي نزلت هذه البلاد إما بقصد التجارة او الزيارة فاختلطت بأهلها مثل الروس والكرج والبلغار والرومان والصرب وغيرهم مما يطول شرحه

فالمسيحيون اذاً في سورية وفلسطين ليسوا عرباً من حيث النسب . ولكنهم يعدّون عرباً لأنهم يتكلمون العربية وقد توالدوا في بلاد عربية وتخلّقوا بأخلاق العرب

فسورية وفلسطين – وهي بلاد واحدة – أصبحت بعد الفتح العربي الاسلامي عربية لنزول العرب المسلمين فيها واتخاذها وطناً لهم . وقد نشروا فيها لسانهم وعاداتهم وآدابهم . فسكانها يعدّون عرباً وإن لم يرجعوا كلهم بأنسابهم الى قبائل العرب

والعرب بهذا الاعتبار ثلاث طبقات

أولاً – أهل البادية الذين ينتسبون الى القبائل العربية ولا يزالون محافظين على أنسابهم وفيهم المسلمون والمسيحيون

ثانياً – العرب المسلمون الذين نزلوا الأرياف واختلطوا بغير العرب بالتزاوج وأندمج فيهم سواهم من الأمم الاسلامية غير العربية – كالأتراك والأكراد والفرس والجركس وغيرهم . وهؤلاء هم سكان المدن في سورية والعراق وفلسطين ومصر والمغرب عدا عمّن اعتنق الاسلام من الأمم المسيحية المختلفة وخصوصاً من الصليبيين ثم تعرّبوا واندمجوا مع أهل المدن والقرى

ثالثاً – العرب العاربون وهم معظم المسيحيين من سكان هذه البلاد . وكثيرون يعدّون عرباً باعتبار لغتهم وعاداتهم وآدابهم لا باعتبار أنسابهم . وعلى هذا القياس يعدّ نصارى بر الأناضول الذين يتكلمون التركية أتراكاً مع ان أكثرهم من اليونان

مجلة الحكمة العدد الثاني اذار سنة 1931

Catholic Information
The rite used by the Jacobite sect in Syria and by the Catholic Syrians is in its origin simply the old rite of Antioch in the Syriac language. Into this framework the Jacobites have fitted a great number of other Anaphoras, so that now their Liturgy has more variant forms than any other. The oldest form of the Antiochene Rite that we know is in Greek (see ANTIOCHENE LITURGY). It was apparently composed in that language. The many Greek terms that remain in the Syriac form show that this is derived from Greek. The version must have been made very early, evidently before the Monophysite schism, before the influence of Constantinople and Byzantine infiltrations had begun. No doubt as soon as Christian communities arose in the country parts of Syria the prayers which in the cities (Antioch, Jerusalem, etc.) were said in Greek, were, as a matter of course, translated into the peasants’ language (Syriac) for their use. The “Peregrinatio Silviae” describes the services at Jerusalem as being Greek; but the lessons, first read in Greek, are then translated into Syriac propter populum. As long as all Western Syria was one communion, the country dioceses followed the rite of the patriarch at Antioch, only changing the language. Modifications adopted at Antioch in Greek were copied in Syriac by those who said their prayers in the national tongue. This point is important because the Syriac Liturgy (in its fundamental form) already contains all the changes brought to Antioch from Jerusalem. It is not the older pure Antiochene Rite, but the later Rite of Jerusalem-Antioch. “St. James”, prays first not for the Church of Antioch, but “for the holy Sion, the mother of all churches” (Brightman, pp. 89-90). The fact that the Jacobites as well as the Orthodox have the Jerusalem-Antiochene Liturgy is the chief proof that this had supplanted the older Antiochene use before the schism of the fifth century. Our first Syriac documents come from about the end of the fifth century (“Testamentum Domini,” ed. by Ignatius Rahmani II, Life of Severus of Antioch, sixth century). They give us valuable information about local forms of the Rite of Antioch-Jerusalem. The Jacobite sect kept a version of this rite which is obviously a local variant. Its scheme and most of its prayers correspond to those of the Greek St. James; but it has amplifications and omissions, such as we find in all local forms of early rites. It seems too that the Jacobites after the schism made some modifications. We know this for certain in one point (the Trisagion). The first Jacobite writer on their rite is James of Edessa (d. 708), who wrote a letter to a priest Thomas comparing the Syrian Liturgy with that of Egypt. This letter is an exceedingly valuable and really critical discussion of the rite. A number of later Jacobite writers followed James of Edessa. On the whole this sect produced the first scientific students of liturgy. Benjamin of Edessa (period unknown), Lazarus bar Sabhetha of Bagdad (ninth century), Moses bar Kephas of Mosul (d. 903), Dionysuis bar Salibhi of Amida (d. 1171) wrote valuable commentaries on the Jacobite Rite. In the eighth and ninth centuries a controversy concerning the prayer at the Fraction produced much liturgical literature. The chronicle of their Patriarch Michael the Great (d. 1199) discusses the question and supplies valuable contemporary documents.
The oldest Jacobite Liturgy extant is the one ascribed (as in its Greek form) to St. James. It is in the dialect of Edessa. The pro-anaphoral part of this is the Ordo communis to which the other later Anaphoras are joined. It is printed in Latin by Renaudot (II, 1-44) and in English by Brightman (pp. 69-110). This follows the Greek St. James (see ANTIOCHENE LITURGY) with these differences. All the vesting prayer and preparation of the offering (Proskomide) are considerably expanded, and the prayers differ. This part of the Liturgy is most subject to modification; it began as private prayer only. The Monogenes comes later; the litany before the lessons is missing; the incensing is expanded into a more elaborate rite. The Trisagion comes after the lessons from the Old Testament; it contains the addition: “who wast crucified for us”. This is the most famous characteristic of the Jacobite Rite. The clause was added by Peter the Dyer (Fullo), Monophysite Patriarch of Antioch (d. 488), was believed to imply Monophysism and caused much controversy during these times, eventually becoming a kind of watchword to the Jacobites (see Zacharias Rhetor, “Hist. eccl.”, PG 85, 1165). The litany between the lessons is represented by the word Kurillison said thrice. There is no chant at the Great Entrance (a Byzantine addition in the Greek Rite). The long Offertory prayers of the Greek Rite do not occur. The Epiklesis and Intercession are much the same as in Greek. The Lord’s Prayer follows the Fraction. At the Communion-litany the answer is Halleluiah instead of Kyrie eleison.
In this Syriac Liturgy many Greek forms remain: Stomen kalos, Kurillison, Sophia, Proschomen, etc. Renaudot gives also a second form of the Ordo communis (II, 12-28) with many variants. To the Ordo communis the Jacobites have added a very great number of alternative Anaphoras, many of which have not been published. These Anaphoras are ascribed to all manner of people; they were composed at very different periods. One explanation of their attribution to various saints is that they were originally used on their feasts.
Renaudot translated and published thirty-nine of these. After that, the Liturgy of St. of St. James follows (in his work) a shortened form of the same. This is the one commonly used today. Then:
Xystus, which is placed first in the Maronite books; of St. Peter; another of St. Peter; of St. John; of the Twelve Apostles; of St. Mark; of St. Clement of Rome; of St. Dionysius; of St. Ignatius; of St. Julius of Rome; of St. Eustathius; of St. John Chrysostom; of St. Chrysostom (from Chaldaean sources); of St. Maruta; of St. Cyril; of Dioscor; of Philoxenus of Hierapolis; a second Liturgy also ascribed to him; of Serverus of Antioch; of James Baradæus; of Mathew the Shepherd; of St. James of Botnan and Serug; of James of Edessa, the Interpreter; of Thomas of Heraclea; of Moses bar Kephas; of Philoxenus of Bagdad; of the Doctors, arranged by John the Great, Patriarch; of John of Basora; of Michael of Antioch; of Dionysius Bar-Salibhi; of Gregory Bar-Hebraeus; of St. John the Patriarch, called Acoemetus (Akoimetos); of St. Dioscor of Kardu; John, Patriarch of Antioch; of Ignatius of Antioch (Joseph Ibn Wahib); of St. Basil (another version, by Masius).
Brightman (pp. lviii-lix) mentions sixty-four Liturgies as known, at least by name. Notes of this bewildring number of Anaphoras will be found after each in Renaudot. In most cases all he can say is that he knows nothing of the real author; often the names affixed are otherwise unknown. Many Anaphoras are obviously quite late, inflated with long prayers and rhetorical, expressions, many contain Monophysite ideas, some are insufficient at the consecration so as to be invalid. Baumstark (Die Messe im Morgenland, 44-46) thinks the Anaphora of St. Ignatius most important, as containing parts of the old pure Antiochene Rite. He considers that many attributions to later Jacobite authors may be correct, that the Liturgy of Ignatius of Antioch (Joseph Ibn Wahib; d. 1304) is the latest. Most of these Anaphoras have now fallen into disuse. The Jacobite celebrant generally uses the shortened form of St. James. There is an Armenian version (shortened) of the Syriac St. James. The Liturgy is said in Syriac with (since the fifteenth century) many Arabic substitutions in the lessons and proanaphoral prayers. The Lectionary and Diaconicum have not been published and are badly known. The vestments correspond almost exactly to those of the Orthodox, except that the bishop wears a latinized mitre. The Calendar has few feasts. It follows in its main lines the older of Antioch, observed also by the Nestorians, which is the basis of the Byzantine Calendar. Feasts are divided into three classes of dignity. Wednesday and Friday are fast-days. The Divine Office consists of Vespers, Compline, Nocturns, Lauds, Terce, Sext, and None, or rather of hours that correspond to these among Latins. Vespers always belongs to the following day. The great part of this consists of long poems composed for the purpose, like the Byzantine odes. Baptism is performed by immersion; the priest confirms at once with chrism blessed by the patriarch. Confession is not much used; it has fallen into the same decay as in most Eastern Churches. Communion is administered under both kinds; the sick are anointed with oil blessed by a priest — the ideal is to have seven priests to administer it. The orders are bishop, priest, deacon, subdeacon, lector, and singer. There are many chorepiscopi, not ordained bishop. It will be seen, then, that one little Jacobite Church has followed much the same line of development in its rites as its powerful Orthodox neighbour.
The Syrian Catholics use the same rite as the Jacobites. But (as is the case with most Eastern Rite Catholic Churches) it is better organized with them. There is not much that can be called Romanizing in their books; but they have the advantage of well-arranged, well-edited, and well-printed books. All the great students of the West-Syrian Rite (the Assemani, Renaudot, etc.) have been Catholic. Their knowledge and the higher Western standard of scholarship in general are advantages of which the Syrian Catholics rather than the Jacobites profit. Of the manifold Syrian Anaphoras the Catholics use seven only — those of St. James, St.John, St. Peter, St. Chrysostom, St. Xystus, St. Mathew, and St. Basil. That of St. Xystus is attached to the Ordo communis in their official book; that of St. John is said on the chief feasts. The lessons only are in Arabic. It was inevitable that the Syrian Liturgies, coming from Monophysite sources, should be examined at Rome before they are allowed to Syrian Catholics. But the revisers made very few changes. Out of the mass of Anaphoras they chose the oldest and purest, leaving out the long series of later ones that were unorthodox, or even invalid. In the seven kept for Syrian Catholic use what alterations have been made chiefly the omission of redundant prayers, simplication of confused parts in which the Diaconicum and the Euchologion had become mixed together. The only important correction is the omission of the fatal clause: “Who was crucified for us” in the Trisagion. There is no suspicion of modifying in the direction of the Roman Rite. The other books of the Catholics — the Diaconicum, officebook, and ritual — are edited at Rome, Beirut, and the Patriarchal press Sharfé; they are considerably the most accessible, the best-arranged books in which to study this rite.
The West-Syrian Rite has also been used at intervals by sections of the (schismatical) Malabar Church. Namely, as the Malabar Christians at various times made approaches to the Jacobite Patriarch or received bishops from him, so did they at such times use his Liturgy. Most of Malabar has now returned to the Nestorian communion; but there are still Jacobite communities using this rite among them.
The Maronite Rite is merely a Romanized adaptation of that of the West Syrians.
Publication information Written by Adrian Fortescue. Transcribed by Joseph P. Thomas. In memory of Father Mathew Alakulam The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XIV. Published 1912. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Nihil Obstat, July 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York
This page – – West Syrian Rite – – is at file:///Users/john/Library/Mail Downloads/West Syrian Rite-1.htm
This subject presentation was last updated on
West Syrian Rite

الاراميون الشعب السامي الثالث الرئيسي *

الدكتور فيليب حتي

قبل ان يُسمى الآراميون بهذا الاسم كانوا قبائل من الرحل في بادية شمالي الجزيرة العربية . وكانوا كسائر البدو من قبلهم ومن بعدهم يضغطون من وقتٍ إلى آخر على اراضي جيرانهم النائية في بلاد بابل وسورية وهدفهم امتلاكها وقبل أن ينتصف الألف الثاني ق.م كانت هذه القبائل قد سكنت في ضفاف وادي الفرات الأوسط حيث نشأت قوميتها ولغتها ويمكن الاعتقاد بأنّ الآرامية اتت من لهجة سامية غربية كانت مستعملة في شمالي غربي بلاد الرافدين في النصف الأول للألف الثاني ولم يكتسبوا اسمهم “الآراميين” حتى ايام تغلات فلاسر الاول (نحو 11.. ق.م) حين اقاموا في منطقة الفرات الاوسط حتى سورية في الغرب وكانت الهجات الخاطية في اوائل القرن السادس عشر على بابل وشمالي سورية هي التي فتحت الابواب كما يبدو في وجه الحركة االآرامية واعطت القادمين الجدد من الصحراء محطا ثابتا في تلك المنطقة. وسهل القضاء على ميتاني عن يد الحثيين بعد قرن ونصف حركة الاراميين من جديد. وتبين ان هذه الهجرة االآرامية كانت بعد الهجرتين الامورية والكنعانية ثالث حركة سامية اتت من الصحراء.

بدء ظهورهم في بلاد الرافدين

كانت جماعات متعددة تشكل اقساماً من الحركة االآرامية ولكنها لم تكن تُعرف بهذا الاسم. فبالاضافة الى الخابيرو الذين ذكرناهم سابقا كان يوجد الاخلامو وهذه التسمية التي تعني “الرفاق” لم تكن تسمية عرقية وقد اطلقها لأول مرة كما يبدو الأموريون المقيمون في منطقة الفرات على اتحاد من القبائل.

ويخبرنا الملك الاشوري آدد نيراري الاول (نحو 13.. ق.م) أنَّ أباه قهر جماعات الاخلامو في شمالي بلاد الرافدين. وفي تحرير أرسله حتوشلش حوالي 1275 ق.م إلى أحد ملوك بابل إشارة الى الاخلامو المعادين الذين يقيمون على طول نهر الفرات . ونقرأ قبل ذلك في احدى رسائل تل العمارنة عن الاخلامو في عهد اخناتون وانهم كانوا يستولون على المدن والاراضي السورية برضى حكام وطنيين غير مخلصين إن لم يكن تحت قيادتهم وفي الوثائق التي أتت فيما بعد نجد الآراميين والاخلامو مقترنين بصورة وثيقة فالملك تغلات فلاسر الاول يقول “لقد زحفت الى وسط الاحلامي الآراميين أعداء الإله “اشور سيدي”. وكانت هذه القبائل االآرامية تعيش بجوار كركميش ولكننا نشاهد الآراميين بعد ذلك في بلاد بابل في الشرق يدعمون الكلدو (الكلدانيين او البابليين الحديثين) الذين كانت لهم صلة وثيقة بهم. ويصف تغلات فلاسر وخلفاؤه حملاتهم في مات آريمي بلاد الآراميين وذلك في كتابات اثرية اخرى.

انتشارهم في شمالي سورية

يستدل من هذه المدونات الآشورية البابلية وغيرها أنّ قسماً كبيرا من بلاد الرافدين وسورية الشمالية والوسطى قد اجتاحته في خلال القرنين الرابع عشر والثالث عشر جماعات سامية وان هذا المناطق بدأت تتخذ صفة آرامية باستثناء جيوب حثيّة قليلة منها كركميش وقد ادى ضغط الآراميين المتواصل الى طغيانهم التدريجي على الاموريين والحوريين والحثيين في وادي العاصي والمنطقة التي تليها في الشمال وإلى امتصاص هؤلاء او طردهم وكان جبل لبنان عائقا في طريق هذا التوسع نحو الغرب واستمر فيه ازدهار الجماعات الحثية والامورية بينما بقيت المدن الكنعانية في السهل الساحلي بدون ان تمس واصبحت دمشق وهي مركز دولة آرامية فيما بعد يسكنها الآراميون في 12.. ق.م وتعطي حوليات رعمسيس الثالث (1198 – 2267) التهجئة االآرامية لاسم دمشق وقد احتل الآراميون مدينة حرّان غالبا وهي احدى مراكزهم في ما بين النهرين قبل احتلالهم دمشق واقتبس القادمون الجدد بالتدريج حضارة الاموريين والكنعانيين الذين اقاموا بينهم غير انهم احتفظوا بمظهر واحد من حضارتهم وهو اللغة وبخلاف الاسرائيليين والفلسطينيين الذين أقاموا في أواخر القرن الثالث عشر في جنوبي مناطقهم فان الآراميين احتفظوا بلهجتهم الاصلية التي قدر لها ان تلعب دوراً بالغ الاهمية في حياة غربي آسيا فيما بعد.

الدول االآرامية في ما بين النهرين

وفي نهاية القرن الثالث عشر كانت الحركات االآرامية والاسرائيلية قد انتهت واصبح الشعبان يجاور واحدهما الآخر في موطنهما الجديد وظهرت الدول االآرامية الاولى في منطقة الفرات الاوسط وهي الممر بين بلاد الرافدين وسورية.

وقد سميت احداهما آرام النهرين والنهران المقصودان هما الفرات ورافده الخابور وليس الفرات والدجلة وكلمة “نهارين” المصرية هي تحريف لهذا الاسم نفسه ويظهر هذا الاسم مراراً في الكتابات المسمارية من اواخر القرن الثالث عشر ويميل الى الزوال بعد القرن التاسع عندما كان الآشوريون قد قضوا على الآراميين في هذه المنطقة ومن الدول الاخرى في ما بين النهرين دولة فدان آرام ولم تكن باتساع آرام النهرين وكان مركزها مدينة حرّان.

والواقع ان الكلمتين تستعملان بالترادف في العهد القديم. وكانت تقع حرّان على طريق تجاري عظيم – ومعنى اسمها “طريق” – واصبحت من اعظم مراكز الحضارة االآرامية والمرويات العبرانية التي لم تنس الصلة العبرانية االآرامية القديمة جعلت اسلاف الشعب العبراني يأتون من هذه المنطقة قبل استقرارهم في فلسطين.

وتقول هذه المرويات أنّ إبراهيم اوفد رسوله الى حرّان ليبحث عن زوجة لابنه اسحق وهي رفقة كما تقول أنّ يعقوب ذهب بنفسه ليتزوج ليئة وراحيل. وهكذا فان اسلاف ابناء يعقوب هم آراميون من جهة الام. وهنالك عبارة تسمى أبا الامة العبرانية آراميا وسفر التكوين الذي يدون بدء التاريخ العبراني مملوء بالتعابير ذات الصبغة االآرامية وبالمفردات االآرامية وكان اسلاف الشعب العبراني يتكلمون االآرامية كما يظن قبل استقرارهم في فلسطين واقتباسهم اللهجة الكنعانية المحلية.

آرام دمشق

غير أنّ اهم الدول العديدة التي اسَّسها الآراميون كانت تلك التي كان مركزها أولًا في صوبة ثم في دمشق وقد تأسست مملكة دمشق في اواخر القرن الحادي عشر فكانت معاصرة تقريبا لتأسيس المملكة العبرانية وتطورت فأصبحت مملكة كبرى تمتد إلى الفرات من جهة وإلى اليرموك من جهة اخرى وكانت متاخمة للاراضي الاشورية في الشمال والعبرانية في الجنوب وكانت سورية الداخلية شرقي جبل لبنان وسورية الشمالية وباشان تحت سلطتها الاكيدة في حوالي 1… ق.م ومنطقة دمشق هذه هي التي يعنيها العهد القديم حين يشير إلى آرام او سورية وقد كان هؤلاء الآراميون في سورية خلال قرنين ألد أعداء العبرانيين.
كانت صوبة عاصمة مملكة بنفس الاسم والكلمة مشتقة من صهوبة بمعنى احمر او نحاس ويظن ان موقعها هو في كالس او عنجر الحديثة جنوبي زحلة في البقاع وقد بدأت الاصطدامات بين ملوكها ومنافسيهم العبرانيين في الجنوب في عهد شاول مؤسس المملكة العبرانية وكان من اقدم ملوك صوبة حدد عزر (اي حدد عون) الذي أدى انتصار داود عليه إلى اعطاء ذلك الملك العبراني السلطة على مصادر ذلك المعدن الهام النحاس ولم ينتصر داود على حدد عزر وحلفائه فحسب وإنما نجح في احتلال دمشق موقتاً وبعد فترة قصيرة نجد رصين ملك هذه المدينة يعمل كتابع لصوبة ويقوم بمحاربة اسرائيل “طيلة ايام سليمان” وتنتقل السيادة بعد ذلك من صوبة إلى دمشق وعندما انقسمت المملكة العبرانية الى قسمين في عام 922 كان ذلك من مصلحة ملوك دمشق الذين كانوا يقيمون المملكة الواحدة ضدَّ الاخرى.

واخذ بنحدد الاول ملك دمشق (حوالي 879 – 843) من ملك يهوذا كنوزا ثمينة من المعبد ومن القصر الملكي في اورشليم ثم هاجم ملك اسرائيل وجعل جلعاد في شرقي الاردن تحت السيطرة االآرامية والواقع ام مملكة اسرائيل كانت كما يبدو تابعة اسمية لآرام منذ اواخر ملكها عمري (حوالي 875) وعندما رفض آخاب ابن عمري ووريثه دفع الجزية أو الانضمام الى التحالف ضد الهجوم الآشوري الذي كان وشيك الوقوع ظهر بنحدد بغتة أمام عاصمته السامرة ليجبره على الطاعة.

معركة قرقر

وبلغت هذه الغزوة الاشورية ذروتها في المعركة التي حارب فيها شلمناصر الثالث في عام 853 ق.م وكان تحالف الملوك السوريين يضم اثني عشر ملكاً يرأسهم بنحدد الذي كان جيشه يضم 1.2.. مركبة و 1.2.. فارس و 2….. من المشاة وقد اتى الملك آخاب بالجيش الثاني في قوته وبعده اتى جيش ملك حماة وقدمت ممالك مدن فينيقية كثيرة قواتها للمساهمة في المعركة وكان عدد الجيوش التي وقفت بوجه شلمناصر في موقعة قرقر على العاصي 6….. جندي وانتهت بدون نتيجة حاسمة وكان على الآشوريين ان ينتظروا سنين كثيرة اخرى قبل ان يتمكنوا من اخضاع دمشق.

حزائيل

ويظهر وريث بنحدد واسمه حزائيل (بمعنى “ايل قد رأى” حوالي 8.5) كأعظم محارب في التاريخ الآرامي فبعد أن صمد لهجومين قام بهما شلمناصر في 842 و 838 قاد حملة ضدَّ اسرائيل ووسّع ممتلكاته في شرقي الاردن الى الجنوب حتى نهر آرنون (الموجب) الذي يصب في البحر الميت وكان ياهو (نحو 842 – 814) الذي كان يدفع الجزية لشلمناصر هو ملك اسرائيل حينذاك وكانت اسرائيل تحت رحمة آرام في عهد يهواجاز وريث ياهو حتى أنّ حزائيل لم يترك له أيّة قوّة فيما سوى خمسين فارساً وعشر مركبات وتوسّع حزائيل في فتوحاته حتى سهل فلسطين الساحلي بقصد الاستيلاء على طريق التجارة مع مصر والجزيرة العربية . ثم “حوَّل حزائيل وجهه ليصعد الى اورشليم” ولكنهم منعوه من ذلك بعد أن قدموا له الذهب والكنوز التي كانت في المعبد وعندما تضعضعت قوة الذين خلفو حزائيل بسبب الهجمات الآشورية عجزوا عن المحافظة على حدود مملكتهم في المناطق الجنوبية وعادت الحدود القديمة إلى سابق عهدها في زمن الملك يربعام الثاني الذي اصبح ملكاً في السامرة في عام 785 وزاد هذا الملك على ذلك بأنَّه بدأ بمهاجمة دمشق وحماة.

غير أنّ الخطر الحقيقي كان مصدره من جانب آخر فقد كانت القوة العسكرية الآشورية جاهزة للزحف من جديد وأتت الفرصة المناسبة في 734 حين هدد آحاز ملك يهوذا بصورة جدية من قبل فقح ملك اسرائيل ورصين ملك دمشق فطلب تدخل الآشوريين واستجاب تغلات فلاسر الثالث لطلبه واجتاح المقاطعات الست عشرة التابعة لدمشق مع المدن التي عددها 591 مدينة “وهدمها حتى اصبحت مثل الكثبان التي يتركها السيل” وكان بين الملوك التابعين لآشور والذين حاربوا وسقطوا امام اسوار دمشق بنامو الثاني ملك شمأل (زنجرلي) في اقصى الشمال ورصين نفسه هرب “و كفأرة [او وعلٍ؟] دخل باب مدينته”. وهناك اصبح محاصرا “مثل عصفورٍ في قفص”. ولكن الحصار استمر. واخيرا فتحت المدينة في عام 732 وقتل ملكها وقطعت اشجار بساتينها – موضع فخارها في جميع العصور – “ولم تنج واحدة منها” ونفي اهلها وهكذا انتهى امر آرام دمشق وانتهت معها السيادة االآرامية الى الأبد.

التجار الآراميون

فاق توسع التجارة والحضارة الآرامية توسع الآراميين السياسي والعسكري ودام إلى ما بعد إنتهاء هذا الاخير هذا الحضارة التي بلغت ذروتها في القرنين التاسع والثامن لا تقدر اليوم حقَّ قدرها حتى في الأوساط المتعلّمة والسوريون الحديثون لا يشعرون باصلهم وتراثهم الآراميين بالرغم من أنّ كثيرين من اللبنانيين يصرون على أصلهم الفينيقي وكان التجار الآراميون يبعثون قوافلهم إلى جميع مناطق الهلال الخصيب وحتى منابع الدجلة في الشمال واكتشفت في خرائب نينوي بعض الموازين البرونزية التي تركوها وكانوا يحتكرون تجارة سورية الداخلية كما كان يحتكر ابناء عمهم ومنافسوهم الكنعانيون التجارة البحرية وكانت عاصمتهم دمشق ميناء البادية كما كانت جبيل ثم صور من موانىء البحر وقد تاجر الآراميون بالارجوان من فينيقية وبالمطرزات والكتان واليشب والنحاس والابنوس والعاج من افريقيا “وبمحصول البحار” الذي ربما كان اللؤلؤ الذي اشتهر به الخليج الفارسي خلال العصور.

اللغة االآرامية

كان التجار الآراميون هم الذين نشروا لغتهم منذ اول عهدهم في مختلف البلدان وهي فرع من مجموعة اللغات السامية الشمالية الغربية وقد وصلنا من عام 731 ق.م في عهد تغلات فلاسر الثالث اول رسم يمثل كاتباً يدوّن باالآرامية الغنائم المأخوذة من احدى المدن المفتوحة وهو يمسك بيده ليس قلماً ولوحاً من طين لأجل الكتابة المسمارية وانما ملف بردي وريشة ويبدو انه كان يكتب بكتابة ابجدية وفي نحو عام 5.. ق.م اصبحت الآرامية التي كانت اللغة التجارية لاحدى الجماعات السورية ليس فقط اللغة العامة للتجارة والحضارة والحكومة في بلاد الهلال الخصيب كلها بل اللغة التي يستعملها سكان تلك البلاد في كلامهم وكان فوزها على شقيقاتها اللغات السامية الاخرى بما فيها العبرية تاماً. واصبحت لغة المسيح وشعبه والاشارة الثانية إن لم تكن الأولى للمسيحيين وجدت مكتوبة بالآرامية بحروف لاتينية مشوّهة على جدار مسكن ربما كان كنيسة في بومبي مما يجعل تاريخها قبل عام 379 م .

وهنالك صلاة آرامية تسمى “قديش” (المقدس) تشبه الصلاة المسيحية المعروفة بالصلاة الربّانية في بعض عباراتها وهي أقدم منها وتبدأ بعبارة “ليتمجد ويتقدس اسمه العظيم”. واسطورة احيقار الواسعة الانتشار تحوي بعض حكم آشورية او بابلية ولكنها بالآرامية وقد كتبت في القرن السابع او ما بعده.

ولم يقتصر انتشار االآرامية على المناطق السامية ففي عهد داريوس الكبير (521 – 486) جعلت الآرامية اللغة الرسمية بين مقاطعات الامبراطورية الفارسية وهكذا اصبحت حتى فتوحات الاسكندر اللغة المتداولة في امبراطورية تمتد “من الهند حتى الحبشة”. إنَّ مثل هذا الفوز الذي حققته لغة لا تدعمها سلطة امبراطورية من أهلها ليس له مثيل في التاريخ.

ومع انتشار اللغة الآرامية انتشرت الأبجدية الفينيقية التي كان الآراميون اول من اقتبسها واستعملت في لغات اخرى في القارة الاسيوية وحصل العبرانيون على ابجديتهم من الآراميين بين القرنين السادس والرابع وكانوا قبلاً يستعملون الأبجدية الفينيقية القديمة مدة من الزمن ، والحروف المربعة التي تطبع بها اليوم كتب التوراة العبرانية نشأت من الكتابة الآرامية ، واخذ عرب الشمال ابجديتهم التي كتب بها القرآن من الآرامية التي استعملها الانباط ، كذلك حصل الأرمن والفرس والهنود على ابجديتهم من مصادر آرامية ، وحروف البهلوية والسنسكريتية هي من اصل آرامي ، وحمل الكهنة البوذيون من الهند الأبجدية السنسكريتية إلى قلب الصين وكوريا . وهكذا وصلت الحروف الفينيقية شرقاً بطريق الآرامية إلى الشرق الاقصى وغرباً بطريق اليونانية إلى الاميريكتين مطوِّقة العالم كله.

الكتابات الاثرية

وجدت اقدم الكتابات الاثرية الآرامية المعروفة اليوم في شمالي سورية وتعود إلى بدء القرن التاسع. وتوجد بينها كتابة قصيرة من تل حلف (غوزانه) ثم تأتي كتابة اكتشفت حديثاً على نصب نذري على بعد أربعة أميال ونصف شمالي حلب التي كانت تحت حكم دمشق وترجع إلى نحو عام 85. ق.م وقد كتب عليها اسم بنحدد الاول والكتابة التالية:

“النصب الذي اقامه بار حدد ابن طاب رمان ابن حاديان ملك آرام لسيده ملقارت وقد نذره له لأنه أصغى الى صوته.”

وعلى ذلك فإنّ كتابة زاكر ملك حماة ولعش المشهورة (نحو 775) التي كانت تعتبر اقدم كتابة آرامية اصبحت في الدرجة الثالثة في قدمها . وقد اقيم نصب زاكر من قبل هذا الملك الآرامي لتخليد ذكرى انقاذه من هجوم شنَّه عليه سبعة عشر ملكاً بينهم ملوك دمشق وشمأل وعدد من المدن الفينيقية .

واتت كتابات اثرية اخرى تركها الآراميون من زنجرلي (شمأل) وهي مدينتهم الرئيسية في الشمال. وفيما سوى هذه الكتابات على النصب والمباني فان هنالك اوزاناً ومستندات كثيرة عليها كتابات آرامية تترواح بين القرن الثامن والقرن الخامس ق.م واوراق البردي الآرامية التي كتبتها جالية يهودية في مصر العليا واكتشفت في الالفنتين (جزيرة اسوان الحديثة) ترجع الى ما بين 5.. و 4.. ق.م.

وقد تفرعت اللغة الآرامية مع الزمن الى مجموعتين هما المجموعة الشرقية في وادي الفرات وتمثلها المندعية والسريانية والمجموعة الغربية وتمثلها الآرامية التوراتية والترجوم ولهجات شمأل وحماة والتدمرية والنبطية. وكانت تتكلم المندعية طائفة غنوسطية تسكن قرب الفرات بين القرنين السابع والتاسع م. واصبحت السريانية وهي لغة اديسا (الرها) لغة الكنائس في سورية ولبنان وبلاد الرافدين مع بعض الاختلافات المحلية، واستعملت بين القرنين الثالث عشر للميلاد ثم حلت العـربية محلها. وعندما اتخذ المسيحيون الآراميون لهجة اديسا وجعلوها لغة الكنيسة والادب والتعامل الثقافي صاروا يُعرفون باسم سوريين واصبح لاسمهم القديم أي الآراميين مدلول وثني غير مستحب في عقولهم ولذلك تجنبوه بوجه العموم وحلت محله التعابير اليونانية وهي سوري بالنسبة للشعب وسرياني بالنسبة للغة. ولنذكر أنّ اليونان كانوا يسمون بلاد آرام “سورية” .

وكثيرا ما يسمى سكان البلاد سوريين ولغتهم سورية في الترجمة السبعينية للتوراة وكذلك في الترجمة اللاتينية الشائعة وفي التعبير الحديث تقتصر كلمة “سريانية” على لهجات اديسا والمناطق المجاورة.

الحضارة المادية

اقتبس الآراميون الحضارة المادية للشعب الذي سكنوا بين ظهرانيه . ففي شمالي سورية اصبحوا ورثاء ومتابعين لعمل الحضارة الحثية الآشورية وفي سورية الوسطى ورثوا الحضارة الكنعانية وتابعوها . واتخذت عاصمتهم شمأل في الشمال الغربي مظهر مدينة حثية ولكن ملوكها كانوا يتسمون باسماء آرامية على الغالب وتركوا كتابات اثرية بحروف فينيقية وكانت هذه المدينة من المدن الآرامية النادرة التي جرت فيها حفريات اثرية.

وقد قام احد ملوك شمأل واسمه بنامو الاول الذي عاش في النصف الاول القرن الثامن تمثالا ضخما للإله حدد ارتفاعه تسعة أقدام ونصف ظهر فيه الإله بقبعة ذات قرنين ولحية مستديرة مجعدة وعينين منزلتين بالحجارة الكريمة وذراعين ممتدتين لاعطاء البركة وتقول الكتابة التي تحت زنار التمثال أنّ همَّ الملك الاكبر كان سعادة شعبه. ويذكر أنّ الارض التي منحته اياها الآلهة المحسنة كانت “ارض شعير وقمح وثوم ويعمل الرجال في حرث تربتها وزرع كرومها وهنالك تمثال تذكاري لبنامو الثاني (73م) اقيم غالبا فوق ضريحه من قبل ابنه ويقول:

“وفي ايام ابي بنامو حاملين للكؤوس وسائقي مركبات” وبذلك زاد في فخامة البلاط الملكي.

ويظهر شكل ابن بنامو الثاني واسمه بار ركاب منحوتا بشكل بارز على عرش محفور حفراً فخماً في الابنوس والعاج والذهب ولا يقلّ ابهة عن عرش سيده ملك اشور. ويرتكز العرش على مخروطيات الأرز وفي زوايا المقعد الأربعة رؤوس ثيران وتحت قدميه يوجد كرسي بمثل هذه الزخارف الفنية. وثوبه الطويل ذو الحواشي وقبعته المروسة من النوع الحثي ، أما لحيته وتجاعيد شعره فانها تتبع الاسلوب الآشوري.

حدد الراعد

والإله الذي كان يوجه الآراميون اعظم اهتمام لعبادته كان حدد إله الزوابع والرعد ويسمى ايضاً أدد أو أدو . وكإله للبرق والرعد كان حدد مفيداً حين يرسل المطر الذي يخصب الارض وكان مضراً حين يرسل السيول ومن القابه ريمون (الراعد) وكان نعمان السوري يسمى اله سيده ملك دمشق بهذا اللقب. وكان الإسمان يستعملان معاًَ احياناً فيقال حدد ريمون ويظهر في نحت بارز من زنجرلي حاملًا الشوكة ذات القضبان الثلاثة والمطرقة رمز البرق والرعد. وفي ملاطية يبدو في شكل منحوت واقفاً على ظهر ثور وهذا رمز القوى المولدة وكان أهم معبد للإله حدد في هيرابولس (منبج) ولكن له معابد في مدن سورية اخرى كثيرة وفي لبنان وكان محبوباً بصورة خاصة بين المزارعين في سورية وامتزجت عبادته فيما بعد بعبادة الشمس وزخرف رأسه عند ذلك بالاشعة كما في بعلبك وفي الغالب يجب اعتبار جوبيتر هليوبوليتانس الذي عبد في بعلبك معادلًا للإله حدد وفي العصر الروماني تبدَّل اسمه فاصبح جوبيتر الدمشقي.

وقد أمر بنامو الأول ابنه في الكتابة التي تركها على تمثال حدد أن يتلو العبارة الآتية عندما يقدم الذبائح: “لتأكل روح بنامو مع حدد ولتشرب روحه مع حدد ولتفرح بالتقدمة لحدد” ويعطينا ذلك فكرة طريفة عن فكرة الآراميين القدماء في الحياة الآخرة . وعرف الآراميون بعادة تسمية ابنائهم “بار حدد” أي ابن حدد او ابن آلهة اخرى محببة لديهم. وبقيت هذه العادة شائعة في سورية حتى العصر المسيحي وتلقي ضوءاً مفيداً على العلاقة المفترضة بين الإله والذي يعبده.

اتارغاتس

وعبدت رفيقة حدد او زوجته وهي الاهة توالد في هيرابولس وفي مراكز سامية اخرى باسم اتارغاتس وكان اليونان والرومان يبسِّطون الامر فيسمونها “الالهة السورية”. وقد اتانا وصف لعبادتها من العصر الكلاسيكي كتبه لوكيانس وهو سوري من سمياط وُلِدَ حوالي 125م. وكان يكتب باليونانية وصفات عبادتها كما كتب عنها لوكيانس هي صفات الالهة الأم السامية وفي النقود التي اتت من هيرابولس نراها تلبس تاجاً ويصحبها أسد احياناً . ويتألف رمزها من الهلال مع قرص الشمس . وكان لها معبد في كرنيون في جلعاد . وكانت عسقلان في فلسطين مركزا لعبادتها حيث اعتبرت غالباً معادلة لافروديت.

وانتشرت عبادة اتارغاتس بين اليونان في العصر السلوقي وبواسطتهم وصلت إلى روما حيث اقيم معبد باسمها. وتشاهد في الآثار الرومانية جالسة على عرش بين اسدين. وكان كهنتها عموماً من الخصيان الذين اعتادوا القيام برحلات إلى اليونان وايطاليا لنشر عبادتها بواسطة التنبؤات والرقص الروحاني ولجمع تبرعات الاتقياء لأجل معبدها في هيرابولس.

وهنالك نموذج غريب لاتارغاتس على النقود من هيرابولس تظهر محجبة . ووجدت صور اخرى كثيرة لاتارغاتس المحجبة . وتظهر رسوم نساء محجبات بحجاب ثقيل يشبه حجاب أي مسلمة محافظة اليوم على نقش من معبد بعل في تدمر وفي لوح منحوت من دورا اوربس وترينا بعض الآثار الاخرى الرأس محجبا . ويبدو ان الحجاب كان في الشرق القديم رمز المتزوجة ولباسها المفروض.

وكان التشريع الآشوري من منتصف الالف الثاني ق.م يتطلب من نساء الرجال الأحرار وبناتهم أن يغطين رؤوسهن حين يخرجن إلى الشارع . وكانت مجموعة الآلهة الآرامية تضم فيما سوى الزوج الالهي حدد واتارغاتس عدداً من الآلهة الاخرى ذات المكانة الثانوية بعضها محلي والبعض الآخر مستعار من الامم المجاورة وكانت الآلهة حدد وايل وركاب ايل وشمش ورشوف هي التي أعطت الملك بنامو الاول الصولجان في الكتابة الاثرية التي تركها ومنحته الاشياء التي صلّى لاجلها وركاب او سائق المركبات هو إله مستورد إلى سورية مع إله الشمس الآشوري وشمش الآشوري هو اسم إله الشمس الذي يعبد في العالم السامي كله . ورشوف هو الإله الفينيقي رشف الذي كان كثيراً ما يمثل بشكل جندي مسلح وفي كتابة زاكر ملك حماة يرفع هذا الملك يديه لبعل شمين (سيد السموات) ويقول : “كل من يمحوا اسم زاكر ملك حماة ولعش من هذا النصب أو يخربه من امام ايل وير Ei Werأو يزيله من مكانه أو يمدُّ يده ضدَّه… فان بعل شمين وايل وير وشمش وسهر وآلهة السماء وآلهة الارض… ستهلكه”. ويتضّح أنّ بعل شمين هو حدد ولكن هوية ايل وير لم تعرف بعد. وسهر هو الاله القمر.

وكانت حرّان مركز الاله القمر الذي يسمى سين عند الاشوريين. ويرد ذكر هذا الإله على حجر تيماء التي ترجع كتابتها الى القرن الخامس ق.م باسم شنغالا وهو اسم آشوري مستورد معناه سين العظيم والإلهان الآخران المذكوران على هذا الحجر هما سلم (بمعنى صورة او تمثال) ويشير غالباً إلى بعل المحلي، وعاشرة.

* من كتاب “تاريخ سورية ولبنان وفلسطين” – الدكتور فيليب حتي

تاريخ الحضارات السامية ( الحلقة الأولى ) * :

لعل من الضروري القول : انَّ الحضارة ، أية حضارة ، ليست ثمرة جهود فرد ، أو شعب ، أو مجموعة أمم ، بل هي صنع الإنسان في مختلف عصوره القديمة والحديثة والمستقبلية .. يتضافر ويتكافل لخلقها مع أخيه الإنسان للسير والانتقال من حسن إلى أحسن ..وقد تولي أمة ما اهتمامها لناحية حضارية من دون الأخرى ، وتسهم من ثم على قدر طاقتها في تشييد صرح هذه الحضارة الإنسانية العالمية التي ينعم بها الجميع على تفاوت تبعا للمؤهلات والظروف.

فلا فضل والحالة هذه لشعبٍ على آخر ، إذ لا حياة ولا استمرار للجهد الإنساني الكبير إذا لم يعضده الأفراد في أي قطر وُجدوا ، وفي أي وقت عاشوا ، وهكذا تظهر بوضوح كل تلك الصفة الاجتماعية ـ الاشتراكية التي تربط الإنسان بأخيه الإنسان مهما اختلف اللون ، وتميز العرق ، وبعدت المسافات ، إذ أن الحضارة الإنسانية للإنسان، ونتيجة جهد الإنسان وفي خدمة الإنسان.

ومن هذا المنطلق فتاريخ الحضارة بمفهومه الحقيقي ، هو التاريخ الذي يتناول بالدروس سجل الجماعات البشرية والمدنيات ، ويرى في هذا التراث مراحل التطور الحضاري الذي عرفته الإنسانية في رقيها الصاعد ، ويحصي على كل جماعة ما أسدته من خير للتراث المشترك يصعب تجريده من غاية تجعل الحضارة وقفا علينا نحن أبناء هذا القرن.

وليس ثمة شك في أن سوريا هي ملتقى طرق وملتقى شعوب أيضا . فقد استوطنتها عدة شعوب وتناوبت السيطرة عليها تاركة فيها عنصريات مختلفة القوميات انصهرت رويداً رويداً في كل متجانس وتاركة أيضا بقايا أثرية يحاول المعاصرون تنسيقها . ولنقتصر بين هذه الشعوب على الآراميين من دون غيرهم ، إذ أن حضارتهم تنطوي ، في بعض مظاهرها ، على أهمية راهنة .

الآراميــون

فالآراميون أيضاً ساميون ، جاءوا من إحدى مناطق الصحراء السورية العربية، كانوا في البدء بدواً رحلا منتظمين قبائل ، بلغوا الأصقاع العليا من بلاد ما بين النهرين حيث نجدهم ، على بعض الكثافة ، مستقرين في حرّان أولاً ، ثم هاجروا، ابتداء من القرن الرابع عشر قبل الميلاد إلى سوريا حيث أسّسوا مستعمرات حضرية . بيد انهم لم يقدموا يوماً على طرد قدامى السكان كلياً ، ولم يتوصلوا إلى غمرهم عدداً ، كما انهم لم يؤسّسوا يوماً دولةً واحدةً ، بل ممالك متعددة قد تتحارب أحياناً.
ولعلّ أهم ممالكهم تلك التي قامت في واحة دمشق الكبرى عند لحف جبل لبنان الشرقي ، وهي مملكة أسرة ( بن حدد) ـ ابن حداد ـ ومملكة هازائيل (ايل ينظر) . وبإستطاعتنا أن نذكر ، إلى جانب مملكة حرّان ، ممالك أخرى كثيرة : في حلب ، وحماة على العاصي ، وزنجرلي عند لحف أمانوس ، وغيرها ، ويمكن القول انهم بلغوا أوج الازدهار في القرنين الحادي عشر والعاشر إذ سدّوا الطريق أمام الآشوريين نحو الغرب والشمال الغربي.

وليس لدينا من الحقائق التاريخية الثابتة ما نستعين به على تعيين موطن الآراميين الأصلي ، أو زمن نزوحهم ، أو دخولهم إلى أراضي الهلال الخصيب . وأقدم ما نقرأه عنهم ورد في إحدى رسائل تل العمارنة ، في القرن الرابع عشر ق.م. والإشارة في هذه الرسالة إلى قبائل ( الأخلامو ) ، التي غزت اراضي الفرات في عهد قردونياش ، ملك بابل .

ولعلّ الداعي إلى استقرار هذه القبائل في نواحي الفرات أو دولة المتاني التي سيطرت على هذه المنطقة قروناً عديدة كانت قد بدأت تتقهقر وتتلاشى . وكان من الطبيعي أن يطمع الأخلامو في مواردها ، وان يزاحموا في ذلك الحثيين والآشوريين.

إنّ الاسم أخلامو بدأ يقترن بالاسم آرام . ولعل الداعي إلى هذا أنّ قبيلة آرام الأخلاميّة أثبتت زعامتها على سائر أخواتها القبائل الأخلامية الأخرى ، ففرضت ، مع مرور الزمن ، اسمها عليها كلها.

ويرى رجال الاختصاص أن غزوات القبائل الأخلامية ـ الآرامية بلغت اشدها عنفاً وحجماً في القرن الحادي عشر ق. م . وان هذه القبائل وطّدت سلطتها في هذا القرن نفسه على منحنى الفرات الكبير ، فأسست مملكة بيت أدين، حول مدينة تل برسيب ، وبيت بخياني في وادي الخابور ، ونصيبينة، وخوريزانة ، وجدارة إلى الشرق . واحتلت عشائر المسوخو الآرامية ضفتي الفرات من عانة حتى ربيقو، بينما استقرت عشائر اللاقي الآرامية في منطقة سنجار، وعشائر العوتات على ضفتي الدجلة بين الزاب والأدهم . وتمكن ادد أبال أيدين الآرامي ، في السنة 1.83 ، من الاستئثار بعرش بابل . ففاوضه ملك آشور المعاصر ، وحالفه وتزوج ابنته.

ويعتقد بعضهم أن قبائل كلدو التي احتلت منطقة الفرات السفلى في هذه الآونة نفسها ، هي أيضا آرامية . واتجه الآراميون غرباً ، فتغلبوا على بقايا الحثيين في كركميش ( جرابلس) ، وحلب ، وحماة . وذلك في أواخر القرن الحادي عشر . وتابعوا غزواتهم في وادي العاصي ، وسهل البقاع ، حتى تخوم فلسطين ..واحتلوا دمشق وتوابعها ، ووقفوا عند حدود فلسطين .

وأنشأ الآراميون في منطقتهم الغربية عدداً من الدويلات أشهرها صوبة . وأصلها الآرامي صهوبة ، ومعناها الحمراء . وهي خلقيس اليونان . وخلقيس باليونانية معناه النحاس الأحمر . وخلقيس هي عنجر البقاع .

ويستدل من المراجع الآشورية المسمارية ، ومن أخبار الملوك الثاني ، أنّ حزائيل كان أعظم محارب أنجبه الآراميون ، فإنّه بعد أن صدّ هجومين قام بهما شلماناصر الثالث، في السنتين 842 و 838 ، جهّز حملة على إسرائيل ووسّع ملكه في شرقي الأردن حتى أرنون ، وأنّ ياهو ، ملك إسرائيل ( 842 ـ 81)، الذي كان قد أدّى الجزية صاغـراً لشلماناصر الثالث، اصبح بيد حزائيل ، ولم يبق له إلاّ خمسون فارساً ، وعشر مركبات ، وعشرة آلاف راجل ( لأنّ حزائيل أفناهم ووضعهم كالتراب للدوس).

وأقام ذاكر ، ملك حماة الآرامي ، في أواخر القرن التاسع ، وحوالي السنة 8.5 ق.م. ، أثراً تذكارياً على بعد أربعين كيلو متراً إلى جنوبي حلب وغربيها، يخلّد به انتصاره على حلف آرامي ترأسه بن هدد الثالث ، ملك دمشق ، وابن حزائيل ، وشمل عدداً من الدويلات الآرامية بينها دمشق ، وارباد ، وقي، وعمق، وجرجم ، وشمأل ، وماليز ، ويشكر به الإله بعل شمين الذي استجاب سؤاله ، وخلّصه من يد أعدائه . وهناك أثر تذكاري آرامي أخر أقامه كيلامو الآرامي ، ملك شمأل في قصره ، في زنجرلي ، في منتصف القرن التاسع ، وباللغة الفينيقية ، وقد ذكر فيه أسماء أسلافه في الملك ، وتغنّى بعطفه على رعيته، وبقوته وصموده في وجه أعدائه المحيطين به .

وقد يجوز القول أنّ الآراميين أخذوا بمدنيات الشعوب التي حلّوا محلّها . فإنّ ما اكتشفه العالم الألماني فون ابنهايم من آثار الآراميين في تل خلف ، عند رأس الخابور وإلى غربيه ، من تماثيل ونقوش بارزة لا يختلف اختلافاً كبيراً عن آثار الميتانيين قبلهم . وقل الأمر نفسه عن آثار الآراميين في زنجرلي، فإنها تكاد تكون حثية في ذوقها وصنعها ، ومثل هذا في حماة ، فإن النسر المزدوج الرأس الذي يعزي صنعه إلى الآراميين فيها لا يختلف عن نسور الحيثيين قبلهم . وفي دمشق ، عاصمة الدولة الآرامية الكبرى ، وفي جدار جامعها الكبير نقشٌ بارزٌ آرامي فيه سفنكس فينيقي في طرازه ، مما يدلّ على أن ملوك دمشق الآراميين استعانوا ، في الأرجح ، بصنّاع فينيقيين لتشييد هيكلهم العظيم للإله هدد . وليس في مجموعة العاج الدمشقية التي تحمل اسم حزائيل ، التي وجدت في أرسلان طاش ، ما يختلف عن الكثير من نوعها الذي وجد في مجدو والسامرة وغيرهما ، مما جمع بين عناصر فنية مختلفة مصرية وفينيقية وحثية وايجية ، وتمثال ملكارت ، الذي وجد في حلب ، وهو الذي أقامه بين هدد الأول ، ملك دمشق ، حثي في طرازه بالأكثر.

وكان الآراميون في سورية يعدّون من ألد الأعداء للمملكة الإسرائيلية . وقد استمرت الحرب بينهما في معظم سني القرن التاسع قبل الميلاد . وكان النصر فيها حليف السوريين حتى انهم في إحدى حروبهم تمكنوا من حصار ( السامرة ) عاصمة المملكة الإسرائيلية . وفي حوالي عام 8.5 ق. م . قام ( حزائيل بن بنهدد) ملك آرام الدمشقي بحملة ضد إسرائيل ، فوسع ممتلكاته في شرقي الأردن حتى نهر الموجب ، ووصلت فتوحاته إلى ( جت ـ عراق المنشية ) في السهل الساحلي الفلسطيني . وكان مزمعا أن يقتحم القدس ، غير انه تحول عنها بعد أن قـدَّم له ملكها الكنوز والهدايا الذهبية . وهكذا أضحت إسرائيل وكأنها تابعة لآرام . وبعد وفاة ( حزائيل) الذي كان يعدّ أعظم محارب آرامي ، خسر خلفاؤه، بسبب هجمات الآشوريين المتكررة ، كل ما كان قد استولى عليه .

وفي عام 734 قام ملك آشور تغلات فلاسر الثالث ( فاكتسح مقاطعات دمشق الست عشرة وخرّب مدنها الخمسمائة والإحدى والتسعين . وفرّ رصين ملك دمشق الآرامي من أمام وجهه ، ودخل دمشق دخول الفأر ،وهناك حُصر كأنه في قفص) . وطال أمر حصار دمشق ، ولكنها سقطت في يد آشور في السنة 732 ، فقُتل ملكها ، وقُطعت جنائنها ، وسُبي أهلها ، وبسقوط دمشق انتهى تاريخ الآراميين السياسي.

والآراميون هؤلاء عُرفوا بعد تنصرهم باسم ( السريان ) ولغتهم السريانية . وهي لا تختلف كثيرا عن اللهجات السريانية الباقية إلى يومنا هذا .

وقد اندمج الآراميون ( السريان ) أخيراً بالعرب ، بعد الفتوحات الإسلامية نظراً لتشابه أصلهم وقرابتهم .

الحضارة الآرامية : اللغة .. الديانة .. التجارة ( الحلقة الثانية )

نرى في ماضي البشرية ، وتاريخها السحيق ، حضارات عديدة ، لكلٍ منها مجموعة من الأفكار والنظم السياسية ، ومستوى من العيش المادي والتقنية ، وطاقات على الإنتاج ، وقدرة على تأمين العلاقات الاجتماعية على اختلاف مظاهرها الدينية ، والفكرية ، والفنية .
ومن هذا المنطلق فالتاريخ بمفهومه الحقيقي ، استحضار للماضي بكلِ مظاهره وواقعه ، فعلينا إذن أن نصف بدقة المظاهر الحياتية والمكانية .. كما يجب علينا أن ندرس المؤثرات التي تفاعلت بها هذه الحضارات .. وانفعلت .

اللغـة الآراميـة

اللغة الآرامية إحدى اللغات السامية ، واللغات السامية مجموعة لغات ميتة وحية ، متقاربة في المفردات ، والاشتقاق ، والتركيب ، وأساليب التعبير ، مما يدلّ على تحدّرها من أرومة واحـدة . وتنقسم هذه اللغات إلى شعبتين رئيسيتين :

شمالية : وتشمل البابلية والآشورية ، والعبرية ، والفينيقية ، والآرامية التي نحن بصددها .

وجنوبية : وتضمّ العربية بفرعيها : العدناني ( الشمالي) ، والقحطاني (الجنوبي) ، وما إليها من لهجات عديدة ، والحبشية ، وما إليها من لهجات .

أمّا الآرامية فمصطلح لغوي يشمل عدة لهجات متقاربة . وقد كانت مواطن الآرامية قدماً تمتد من منابع دجلة والفرات شمالا ، إلى تيماء في شمالي الحجاز ، ومن الشاطئ السوري اللبناني غرباً إلى صحراء سورية ، وبلاد الأنباط (شرقي الأردن وحوران ) شرقا . وقد وُجِد في جزيرة الفيلة ، جنوبي مصر ، وثائق مكتوبة على البردي يرجع عهدها إلى القرن السادس والقرن الرابع ق. م . حيث كان هناك مستعمرة يهودية بقيت إلى زمن البطالة . وكانت الآرامية ، بعد انقراض سلطان العبران السياسي ، لغة العبران العامة ، وزمن الحكم الفارسي ، كانت اللغة الرسمية في جميع المقاطعات الواقعة غربي الفرات حتى مصر . ذلك لان الفرس ، كورثة للمملكة الآشورية ، اعتبروا الآرامية لغة رسمية . لان سواد الناس في فتوحاتهم الجديدة كانوا يتكلمون الآرامية ، ولأان الآرامية نظاماً كتابياً حسناً ، ولأنها كانت لغة التجارة والفكر آنذاك .

وقد تقدم أن قبائل آرامية كانت منتشرة في سورية الجغرافية حوالي القرن الخامس عشر ق. م. ولكنها لم تكون دولة متحدة بل كانت دويلات ، ويذكر الكتاب المقدس عدة دويلات آرامية أهمها آرام دمشق في منطقة الشام ، وآرام صوبة في البقاع ، وآرام معكة في سفوح جبل حرمون ( جبل الشيخ ) ، وآرام نهرايم أي العراق القديم . ويجب ألا يغرب عن بالنا أن لا ذكر لسورية في الكتاب ، إنما هو يذكر آرام . ولكن الإغريق أطلقوا على آرام اسم سورية ، وسمّوا أهلها سريان ، ولغتهم السريانية . غير أن العرب ، في العصور المتوسطة ، فرّقوا بين سورية كوحدة جغرافية وبين سريان وسريانية كاسم لأقلية دينية لغوية ولكنه تاريخيا ، لافرق بين سريان وسوريين ، وسريانية ولغة سورية القديمة ، أي الآرامية .
أما اللهجات التي تندرج تحت هذا المصطلح اللغوي الشامل فهي :

أ_ آرامية الكتاب : أي الفقرات والفصول التي كتبت بلهجة آرامية كان أهل فلسطين يتكلمونها ، وذلك في سفر عزرا ودانيال .

ب_آرامية الترجوم : والترجوم كلمة عبرية من أصل آرامي معناها التفسير . والترجوم هو ترجمة أسفار الكتاب العبرية إلى لهجة فلسطين العامية ، التي كانت الآرامية ، وليس الكلدانية ، كما يظن خطأ وذلك لان عامة العبران تخلوا في حياتهم اليومية عن العبرية ، واستعاضوا عنها بالآرامية ، لأنها كانت اللغة الشائعة .

ج_لهجة مسيحيي فلسطين : فإن لدينا ترجمة للأناجيل ترجمها مسيحيو فلسطين في القرن الخامس للميلاد ، ولا تختلف عن آرامية الترجوم .
د_آرامية السامريين : فإنهم ترجموا كتابهم المقدس ، أسفار موسى الخمسة إلى لهجة آرامية . وذلك عندما أصبحت الآرامية اللغة الرسمية الشائعة في جميع أنحاء الشرق الأدنى القديم .

هـ آرامية التلمود : والتلمود كلمة عبرية معناها التعليم والإرشاد ( من فعل لمد، ومنها تلميذ بالعربية) وهناك تلمودان : اورشليمي ، ويرجع عهده إلى القرن الرابع ق . م . وبابلي، ويرجع عهده إلى القرن السادس ، والتلمودان مكتوبان بلهجة آرامية مشوبة بالعبرية .

و_آرامية تدمر : فإن جميع النقوش التي بين أيدينا مكتوبة بلهجة آرامية . وقد يكون التدمريون من أصل عربي . ولكن لغتهم لم تكن العربية بل الآرامية ، كما تدل النقوش الكتابية التي وصلت إلينا من تدمر .

ز_الأنباط : وتمتد من حوران إلى البتراء ، وكان الأنباط من قبائل عربية غير أن لغتهم الرسمية واللغة التي ابقوا لنا منها آثارا عديدة فإنها كانت آرامية مشوبة ببعض المفردات العربية .

ح_وأخيرا وأهمها جميعا آرامية ( الرها ) أو ( أوديسا ) : كما كان يسميها الإغريق ( مدينة أورفا الحالية ) وهي التي تعرف في يومنا هذا بالسريالية ولا تزال حية تتكلم بها أقليات دينية وتقام بها الطقوس، وكان أهل الرها يدعون انهم أول من تنصر . وذلك زمن ملكهم ابجر الأسود بن معن . قيل أن ابجر تنصر حالا بعد موت المسيح . وقد ترجم الكتاب المقدس إلى لهجتهم ، وسميت ترجمته بالترجمة البسيطة . وعندما تنصَّر أهل الرها تخلو عن اسمهم القديم ( آراميين ) وتسموا بالسريان ، أي السوريين، وذلك لان لفظة آرامي أصبحت إذ ذاك ، مرادفة للفظة وثني،ولفظة سرياني مرادفة للفظة مسيحي ، ولم يبق منهم على الوثنية سوى مدينة حران التي ظلت تباهي بوثنيتها إلى زمن الإسلام .

أما الخط الآرامي ، رغم ما يظهر في من تباين بالنسبة إلى المناطق التي كانت موطن الآرامية ، فمشتق من الخط الفينيقي الذي هو أبٌ لكلَ هجاءٍ تال. ومن هذا الخط الآرامي اشتق فيما بعد ، وفي عصور متأخرة ، الخط العربي .

أما اللغة الآرامية القديمة فلا نعرف عنها الكثير ، ولم يتجمع بعد عند علماء اللغات السامية مادة لغوية تكفي لوضع كتاب في قواعدها وأحكامها وأساليب التركيب فيها . وقد وصل إلينا رُقَمٌ عديدة من مناطق متباينة ومن عصور مختلفة. ولكن هذه الرُقَم جاءت خلواً من الحروف المصوتة ، على ما هو معروف لدى خبراء الخط السامي عامة . فكان علماء الساميات ، الذين عنوا بها ، يستعينون بالسريانية والعبرانية على قراءتها وفهمها . واتهم بعضهم الآرامية بأنها لغة بدائية فقيرة بالمفردات جافة في أساليب التركيب ، ضيقة في الاشتقاق ، محدودة في النتاج الأدبي . ولكن نولدكه ، في مقاله الرائع عن اللغات السامية ( والذي تُرجم إلى الموسوعة البريطانية ) ينفي عنها هذه التهمة ، ويؤكد أنها كانت لغة حية نامية متطورة ، وسَّعت الفكر الهيليني في عهد ازدهارها . وما أدرانا أن يكون الآراميون قد أنتجوا أدباً جميلاً ، ولكنه لم يصلنا منه شيء .

الديـانة الآراميـة

ليس هناك ما يلفت النظر في فن الآراميين طيلة هذا العهد القديم . وما كانت الديانة لتلفت الأنظار وتتسم ببعض الأهمية لولا الشهرة التي ستعرفها بعض عبادتهم في عهد الإمبراطورية الرومانية .

فديانتهم هذه لا ابتكار ولا تفرد فيها ، بل هي مزيج جوهره كنعاني انضمت إليه تأثيرات ميتانية وحثية فينيقية . ومما سهل استساغة هذه التأثيرات أن العبادات التي عكستها تنحدر هي نفسها من العبادات الكنعانية . وهكذا فقد عرف اسم إبل هنا وهناك ، كما أن اله الزوبعة ( حدد) خصوصا ـ واسمه رامون أي ( القاصف) في دمشق ـ يعرف باسم بعل في أكثر الأحيان . وكذلك فإن عشترت هي المثال الأصلي لأغلبية الآلهات . ثم أن آلهة ما بين النهرين الكثيري العدد أيضا لم يتميزوا عن الآلهة الكنعانية ، باستثناء بعل حرّان الإله القمر سين الذي جاء من اور في بلاد الكلدانيين وأُكرِم في هذه المدينة منذ عهد سحيق ، محافظاً على اسمه دون تغيير .

إلا أن الآراميين آثروا هدد على غيره . فشاعت عبادته بينهم في منطقة الفرات . وفي سورية الشمالية في زنجرلي . ولكن مركز عبادته الرئيس كان في منبج . وهو إله البرق والرعد ، إله العاصفة والتخريب. ولا غرو فهدَّ يهدُّ هداً : هدم وضعضع وكسر بشدة صوت . ومن ألقابه رمون ومعناه (الراعد) . ومن هنا قول نعمان في سفر الملوك الثاني : ( فاسجد في بيت رمون ) ، أي في هيكل هدد رمون في دمشق ، ويظهر هدد في نقش بارز في زنجرلي ممسكاً رمحاً مثلث الشعب . ومطرقةً للتعبير عن البرق والرعد . وفي ملاطية نراه واقفاً على ظهر ثور وهو شعار التوالد .

وكان لهدد هذا شريكة في العبادة تدعى عطار . وهي اترغاتيس اليونان والرومان . آلهة التوالد . وكان شعارها هلالًا مقترناً بقرص الشمس . وأشرك الآراميون في شمالي ( زنجرلي ، مع هدد ، الإلهين الكنعانيين إيل ورشف ، وإله الشمس ، وفي النيرب ، سحر ( القمر ) ، ونكال ، وتوسكو، وفي حماة بعل شماين ، أي بعل السماوات ، وفي دمشق إيل الكنعاني ، وادوناي الفينيقي ، بالإضافة إلى عطار ، وفي بعلبك عطار وإله الشمس .

وقال الآراميون ، مع غيرهم من الشعوب السامية ببقاء أمواتهم أحياءً في قبورهم ، وباتصالهم بعالم الأموات تحت الأرض حيث لا نور ولا فرح و واعتبروا إزعاج الأموات جريمة لا تغتفر .
الدور التجاري

أما دورها التجاري فأقل غموضاً . فالموقع الجغرافي لسورية وشمالي بلاد ما بين النهرين الذي جعل منهما طريقاً طبيعية للتجارة بين الساحل الفينيقيون وآسيا الصغرى من جهة ومن مناطق اسفل الفرات ودجلة من جهة أخرى ، قد سمح لهما ، كوسطاء، بإظهار المزيد من النشاط الواسع . فقاموا براً في بعض مناطق الشرق الأدنى بما قام به الفينيقون بحراً .

وما لبثت الصناعة والتجارة في سورية أن طبقت أصولًا تقنية افضل فنالت شهرة كبرى وأسهمت في ثروة دمشق . ولكن القوافل كانت قد تقاطرت على هذه المدينة منذ قبل الفتح المقدوني . ثم أن تنقلات الآراميين قبل إقامتهم الحضرية المستقرة ، وأقدام الملوك الآشوريين مراراً على نفيهم ، وهجرة تجارهم الطوعية إلى الإمبراطوريات الواسعة الأرجاء التي انخرطوا في عداد رعاياها ، كل هذه الأسباب قد أفضت إلى إحلال جماعات ، كبيرة أو صغيرة ، ممن يتعاطون التجارة ، في مدن عديدة نائية جدا في بعض الأحيان . وقد استفادوا من هذا الوجود المتزايد في كل مكان ، حتى في عهد السيطرة اليونانية ، وأصبحوا في أيام الإمبراطورية الرومانية ، التجار في كل أمصار العالم القديم تقريبا .

وقد يصح القول أن الآراميين احتكروا تجارة الهلال الخصيب الداخلية ، مدة طويلة من الزمن فاتجروا بالأرجوان الفينيقي ، وبكتان أفريقية ، وعاجها ، وأبنوسها ، وبلؤلؤ الخليج الفارسي. وأصبحت دمشق في القرنين التاسع والثامن ق. م . ثغر البادية ، كما كانت جبيل ، وصور ، وصيدا ، ثغور البحر. ولا نزال نعثر على موازينهم البرونزية في جميع أنحاء العراق ، وسورية ، و لبنان ، وفلسطين .

الآراميـة لغـة الشـرق ( الحلقة الأخيرة )

لتاريخ الحضارات التي ظهرت في العصور القديمة طابع مؤثر ، فقد تطور من المدنيات المسكونية البدائية حضارات أخذت بالتطور والتكامل إلى أن ازدهرت وزالت الواحدة تلو الأخرى ، وقد أسهمت كل منها في نماء التراث البشري المشترك.. ومن جهة أخرى ، فالحضارات الكبرى التي نشأت واستشرى أمرها ضمّت في كينونتها ممالك ودولًا تعايشت معا وتفاعلت على فترات من تطورها .. وهكذا بدأ العالم القديم وكأنّ قوة خفية تحركه وتدفعه من حيث لا يدري نحو وحدة إنسانية تتجدد دهراً بعد دهر .. فالحضارات تتعاقب وتهوي بعد أن تحاول كل منها أن تسهم على قدر طاقتها في خدمة البشرية .

الكتـابة الآراميـة

بلغ الآراميون درجة عالية من المدنية فكانوا في سنة 1… ق . م . يستعملون في كتاباتهم الحروف الهجائية التي أخذوها عن الفينيقيين . وهو أقدم أسلوب للكتابة معروف استعملت فيه الحروف الهجائية وحدها . وأخذوا عن المصريين القلم والحبر اللذين لا يستغني عنهما مطلقا في الكتابة بحروف الهجاء ، وكما حملت قوافل البابليين في الأزمنة الأولى قطع الآجر المكتوبة بالخط المسماري إلى أطراف آسيا الغربية كذلك حملت إليها القوافل الآرامية قوائم حسابات التجار وسنداتهم المكتوبة بالحروف الهجائية فحلت الحروف الهجائية الآرامية الفينيقية محل العلامات المسمارية .

وانتشرت في جميع أنحاء آسية الغربية ثم جاوزت الفرات . إلى بلاد فارس وأواسط آسية حتى بلغت أخيراً إلى الهند وصارت بعد زمان حروف هجاء للشعوب الشرقية أيضا .

وحينما سار التجار الآراميون كانت لغتهم بالطبع تسير معهم . فلم يمر عليها زمن طويل حتى شاع استعمالها تدريجياً على تخوم البادية . وأصبح عدد المتكلمين بها في بلاد آشور نفسها يربو على المتكلمين بالآشورية . وكلما وصلت إلى يد تاجر آرامي آجرة مكتوبة بالآشورية كان يتناول قلمه ويعلق عليها حواش بالآرامية . وبعد مدة من الزمان أجمع الرأي العام على أن تدار الأشغال العمومية باللغتين الآشورية والآرامية .
هذا في الشؤون العمومية . وأما في الحكومة فإذا كان الكاتب آراميا فبالطبع كان يدوّن المحاضر بقلم على ملف البردي وإذا كان آشوريا كان يكتب على الآجر بقلم قصب كالّ الرأس.

وأصبحت اللغة الآرامية لغة الهلال الخصيب كله . حتى أنها حلت محل العبرانية الفلسطينية ، وهكذا صار هذا اللسان التجاري الآرامي بعد ذلك بقرون عديدة اللغة التي تكلم بها المسيح ومن عاصره من العبرانيين في فلسطين .

وكانت أولى نتائج ذلك انتشار لغتهم التي انصهرت لهجاتها المتعددة في لغة آرامية عامة . وهم لم يكتبوها بحروف مسمارية ، بل طبقوا عليها أبجدية مشتقة من الأبجدية الفينيقية . فحملت سهولة استعمالها الملوك الآشوريين على استخدام الكَتَبَة الآراميين المنتشرين هنا وهناك في إدارتهم ، للكتابة على البردي . وذهب الاخمينيون إلى ابعد من ذلك فجعلوا من الآرامية لغة إمبراطوريتهم الإدارية . وإذا ما أضفنا إلى ذلك نشاط الآراميين التجاري يتضح لنا كيف أن لغتهم قد عمَّ استعمالها وحلت محل لغات أخرى كثيرة . وتبين لنا نجاحاتها أسباب اضمحلال اللغات القديمة الخاصة في بلاد ما بين النهرين . فاصيبت العبرانية بالشلل حتى في فلسطين . لذلك نرى في التوراة بعض المقاطع الآرامية . فكتاب دانيال يعلموا بالعبرانية بل بالآرامية . وكذلك أيضا فإن اللغة السريانية وهي لغة المسيحيين في سوريا وبلاد ما بين النهرين طيلة أحقاب طويلة ، تشتق من اللغة الآرامية .

تاريـخ اللغـة الآراميـة

كانت الآرامية لهجة القبائل البدوية التي ذكرتها رسائل تل العمارنة في القرن الرابع عشر ق . م . والتي ذكرها الآشوريون في أحد نصوصهم وأطلقوا عليها اسم ( أكلامو) أو ( أخلامو) ، وكانت هذه القبائل تقيم في تخوم وديان دجلة والفرات .

مع قلب الأزمنة ، واتساع رقعة سكن القبائل المذكورة ، ظهرت لهجات عديدة ، وأصبحت الآرامية تدل على تفرع للغة السامية يضم عدة لهجات .

مقارنة الآرامية مع عبرية كتاب العهد القديم ، تظهر آثار تطور اكبر أصاب هذه اللغة ، على صعيد نظامها الصوتي والحرفي ، وفيما يتعلق بالإعراب الذي فُقِدَ فيها تماماً في حين احتفظت العبرية ببعض مظاهره . وقد اكتسبت الآرامية عدداً من مفردات الألفاظ والأدوات ، واغتنت بالتوريات والجمل التابعة .

ويمكن تمييز مرحلتين أساسيتين في تاريخ اللغة الآرامية :

المرحلة الأولى : سابقة لانقسام اللغة إلى لهجات متعددة ، وتمتد من القرن التاسع ق . م. وحتى موت الاسكندر الكبير عام 323 ق . م . وتعرف بمرحلة الآرامية الشائعة أو المشتركة.

المرحلة الثانية : تمتد من موت الاسكندر إلى يومنا هذا . وقد ظهرت في هذه المرحلة لهجات عديدة اصبح اغلبها من اللغات الأدبية .

ينقسم تاريخ الآرامية المشتركة إلى عدة مراحل . فهناك المرحلة القديمة وقد دونت بها كتابات القرنين التاسع والثامن ق. م. ، مثال نص إهداء ، من بر هدد إلى الإله ملقارت ( مطلع القرن الثامن ق. م. ) وكتابات ارسلان طاش ( قرابة القرن الثامن ق. م. ) وكتابات زاكر ( نهاية القرن التاسع الميلادي) والنقوش على القرميد التي عثر عليها في حماة ( القرنان التاسع والثامن ق. م. ) ومسلات السفيرة ( قرابة العام 75. ق . م. ) وكذلك سائر النصوص العائدة إلى العالم الآرامي السياسي ( جوزانا وشمبأل وارباد ودمشق) . هذه الكتابات دونت بالأبجدية الفينيقية ، مع فارق أن بعض الأحرف الحلقية والشبه صامتة استُعملت لترمز إلى الأحرف الصامتة ( الحركات ).

وانتشرت الآرامية في القرن الثامن ق. م. بفضل الفتوحات الآشورية والبابلية، فحلت مكان الأكادية كلغة دبلوماسية . وهذه الآرامية تسمى الآرامية الكلاسيكية المتأثرة بالأكادية . وآثارها في مسلات النيرب ، وألواح تل حلف ، وفي تعويذة آرامية لآشور ، وكتابات نمرود.

ومن ثمَّ تمَّ استيلاء قورش على بابل عام 539 ق .م. وأسس إمبراطورية تمتد من بلاد فارس إلى النيل والهندوس . وكانت الآرامية هي اللغة الرسمية للأجهزة الإدارية التي كانت تشرف من سوس على الجهاز السياسي الهائل . وكانت الآرامية في خدمة المبادلات التجارية والسياسية والثقافية . وقد تراكبت هذه اللغة مع اللهجات المحلية ، في مختلف المناطق ، محتفظة بوحدة بينه ومن دون أن تفسد اللهجات المذكورة . ويطلق على هذه الآرامية اسم آرامية الإمبراطورية . وقد عثر على عدد كبير من الوثائق العائدة للحقبة الأمينية في جميع مرزبانات الإمبراطورية الفارسية ، من الأفغانيتان والهند شرقاً إلى مصر غرباً .وأشهر هذه الوثائق هي برديات ( يت ) ( الفنتين) التي تعود إلى القرن الخامس ق. م. والصادرة عن إحدى المستعمرات اليهودية العسكرية المستقلة .

تتكشف آرامية الإمبراطورية عن دلائل عديدة لتطورها الصوتي والغراماطيقي. وقد تطعمت بعبارات فارسية من المصطلحات الإدارية والعسكرية . وأتخذت الآرامية طابعاً صورياً رمزياً في الكتابات الفارسية استمر حتى العام 247ق . م. وذلك أن عدداً كبيراً من الكلمات كانت تُكتب بالآرامية وتحوَّل عند القراءة إلى مرادفها البهلوي.

وعندما فتح الاسكندر الكبير الشرق حلَّت اللغة الإغريقية محل الآرامية . وانقسمت الآرامية إلى لهجات عدة . أما الخط الآرامي المنحدر من الخط الأفريقي اعتباراً من القرن السابع ق. م. فقد تولدت منه أقلام جديدة ، منها الأحرف المربعة ( سترانجلو ) التي تبنّاها العبرانيون والأحرف النبطية والتدمرية والسريانية والمائدية .

وانقسمت الآرامية إلى فرعين رئيسيين : فرع غربي وآخر شرقي. ويحتوي الفرع الغربي على اللهجات التالية :

أولا : آرامية الكتاب المقدس ( القرنان الثالث ، والثاني ق. م.م) التي يطلق عليها خطأ اسم الكلدانية . وقد استعملت هذه اللهجة في سفر عزرا ثم في سفر دانيال ( 167 ــ 166) ق . م. وأصبحت لهجة محلية في فلسطين .

ثانيـا: اللهجة التدمرية .

ثالثـا: اللهجة النبطية .

رابعـا: اللهجة اليهودية الآرامية الغربية .

خامسا: اللهجة السامرية .

سادسا: اللهجة المسيحية الآرامية .

سابعـا: اللهجة الآرامية الجديدة .

أما الفرع الشرقي الذي تطور في بابل ، منذ العصر السلوقي اعتبارا من القرن الرابع ق .م. فهو ينقسم إلى اللهجات التالية :

اولا: السريانية .

ثانيـا: اليهودية الآرامية الشرقية .

ثالثـا: المندية .

رابعـا: اللهجات الآرامية الشرقية الحديثة .

تراجعت الآرامية الشرقية والغربية أمام اللهجة العربية التي عمت كامل المنطقة، فلم يسلم بعدها إلا لهجات ثلاث جماعات صغيرة من الشعوب الآرامية ، تتمثل إحداها في شعب طور عابدين في أعالي دجلة . وقد تبدلت البنية الآرامية القديمة تبدلاً كبيراً في هذه اللهجة فظهرت فيها صيغ فعلية جديدة مشتقة من المصدر حلت مكان صيغ الماضي والمضارع . واصبحت أداة التعريف تختلف باختلاف الجنس والعدد . وهناك لهجة ثانية هي السريانية الجديدة ، وثالثة هي لهجة الموصل . وهذه الأخيرة تقع بين لهجة طور عابدين ولهجة اورميا .

ومع آخر عهد الإمبراطورية الرومانية بعثت الثقافة الآرامية مجدداً ، وتراجعت اللغة الإغريقية أمام السريانية ، وظهر عدد كبير من الكتاب يستعملون إحدى اللغتين المذكورتين . ونشأت بطريركيتا أورشليم وإنطاكية .وظهرت مدارس انطاكية والرها ونصيبين ، ورهبان أمثال القديس سابا ، ونساك ، وعموديون أمثال القديس سمعان، ما أسهم إسهاماً كبيرا في الحقبة ما بين القرنين الرابع والسابع الميلاديين ، بترسيخ أسس العقيدة المسيحية . وقد تميزت العقيدة المسيحية بالعاطفة الدينية القوية والروح القومية المعادية لبيزنطة ، مما أدى إلى ظهور الكنائس الهرطوقية التي كانت تستعمل السريانية لغة لها ، ونشأت النسطورية في القرن الخامس انطلاقا من إنطاكية ، ولاقت اتباعاً لها في شرقي الفرات . إلّا أن مذهب الطبيعة الواحدة ، الذي دافع عنه سويروس بطريريك إنطاكية ويعقوب البرادعي مؤسس الكنيسة اليعقوبية ، تغلب على المذهب الأرثوذكسي الممثل من يومها بالكنيسة الملكية ، وبموارنة لبنان الكاثوليكيين ذوي الطقس السرياني . وتدخل هيراقليوس الأول في الجدل القائم ، ونتج عن ذلك تحديد جديد للمسيحية قائم على مذهب الإرادة الواحدة لدى المسيح .

مصـادر الحلقـات

1_معجم الحضارات السامية _ هنري ، س ، عبودي
2_تاريخ الحضارات العام _ مجموعة مؤلفين
3_العصور القديمة _ جيمس برستد
4_تاريخ سوريا ولبنان وفلسطين _ فيليب حتي
5_مقارنة الأديان _ د. احمد شلبي
6_بلادنا فلسطين _ مصطفى مراد الدباغ
7_العرب قبل الإسلام _ د. جواد علي

Abstract
Writing to counter the critique of a much larger Jewish community, and to instruct fellow ascetics in their chosen path, the fourth-century Syriac author Aphrahat develops a notion of law-observance that serves both ends: God’s law of righteousness, which is more fundamental than the Mosaic law, has been summed up in Christ’s teaching on love for God and neighbor; but a commitment to this way of love also calls for ascetic renunciation. In addition, the few references to ritual should be understood, like Aphrahat’s teaching on ascetic practice, as an attempt to bring this area of Christian life under the all-embracing imperative of following the law of righteousness with a pure heart.
A prominent feature of Aphrahat’s fourth-century Syriac Demonstrations1 is the author’s concern about the threat of Judaism to his Christian community. In addition to various passages throughout the work as a whole, the majority of the final thirteen Demonstrations focus explicitly on this perceived threat, seeking to show that the Jews have been rejected and that the church has become God’s chosen people, drawn from all the peoples of the world.2 Thus Aphrahat feels compelled to argue against circumcision [End Page 157] (Demonstration 11), Sabbath (12) and Passover (13) observance, dietary laws (15), Jewish claims of election (16, 19), Jewish objections to Christ being the son of God (17) and to celibacy (18), and Jewish criticism of Christians based on the fact that they are persecuted (21). Demonstration 20, ostensibly on the topic of giving to the poor, is also preoccupied with the status of the Jews, a preoccupation expressed in particular through an extended midrash on the parable of Lazarus and the rich man.3
Another prominent feature of the text is its ascetic orientation, not unusual in an early Christian work. This is most clear in Aphrahat’s Demonstrations on fasting (3), covenanters (6), and virginity and holiness (18), but asceticism is not far beneath the surface in much of the rest of [End Page 158] his work. Aphrahat himself has embraced the ascetic life and is writing to those who have done likewise. Even as Aphrahat affirms the legitimacy of marriage, it is clear that, like Paul, his preference is for a more rigorous understanding of the Christian life. While the topics of Aphrahat’s Demonstrations are often generic, this should be not be taken to be evidence for a general readership. When he outlines the qualities of the ascetic in Demonstration 6, faith, prayer, love, and humility figure prominently. Though he does not deny that these topics have relevance beyond his fellow ascetics, his own attention is to that particular subset of the larger Christian community.
It is possible to relate Aphrahat’s concern about Judaism to his asceticism by focusing on his positive concept of divine law.4 Much has been written on Aphrahat’s arguments against the ritual observances of Jewish law and his rejection of some of the basic assumptions of the Jewish theology in his milieu. A number of studies have also investigated the degree of familiarity that Aphrahat may or may not have had with rabbinic arguments.5 An important aspect of Aphrahat’s response to what he perceived as a Jewish threat is the way in which he articulates his own interpretation of God’s law, an interpretation which sees the Jewish law as being fulfilled and at the same time points to what Aphrahat saw as a higher, ascetic way of life. It will also become clear that the importance of the law for Aphrahat is a basic part of his faith and not merely a response to Jewish pressure or a product of persecution.6 While Aphrahat claims that Christian ascetics [End Page 159] embrace their way of life “by free choice, and not from the slavery and coercion of a commandment or because we are constrained by it under the law,”7 it is clear from a consideration of other crucial passages in the Demonstrations that asceticism itself is a higher form of law-observance. Aphrahat’s preoccupation with law is not merely a feature of his anti-Jewish polemic, though it is often developed in that context.
The main focus of the investigation that follows will be the Greek loan-word nāmosā (; “law” or “the law”), though words based on the root pqd(; e.g., “command,” “commandment,” etc.) will also be considered where appropriate. I will not be considering cases where nāmosā is used to refer to human laws. Aphrahat also uses the term ‘orāytā a relatively infrequent seven times.8
The Semantic Range of Aphrahat’s Concept of Law
I will begin by examining the various meanings associated with the term “law” in the Demonstrations. Aphrahat is not overly concerned with consistency in his usage, so it is important to note that the term functions differently in different contexts.
“Law” as Scripture
This sense of the term is basic to all of Aphrahat’s arguments, dependent as they are upon numerous prooftexts.9 The law is clearly related to Scripture, but the relationship is not clearly defined. A number of logical [End Page 160] possibilities exist for the denotation of “law”: i) the revelation to Moses at Sinai; ii) the ritual laws within the Sinai revelation that are no longer relevant; iii) the Pentateuch as a whole; iv) the Bible (OT plus NT); v) the gospels; vi) the words of Christ in the gospels; vii) the Old Testament alone; and ix) the New Testament alone. The last two of these do not occur in the Demonstrations and can be excluded from discussion.
i) Here Aphrahat seems to refer to a body of law that is given to Moses, contained in but not co-extensive with the Pentateuch. Thus 1.19 (God “gave the Torah to Moses”)10 ; 2.5 (“The [promise to Abraham] was four hundred and thirty years older than the law”)11 ; 2.7 (“at the head of the whole law it is written: ‘I am the Lord your God . . .'”)12 ; 3.3 (“Moses also fasted purely when he went up the mountain and brought the law to his people”)13 ; 3.4 (where Deut 17.6–7, Lev 24.16, and Exod 20.17 are cited as “written in the law,” though this could be an example of ii) below)14 ; and 15.8 (refers to the “ten holy commandments which [God] inscribed with his hand and gave to Moses” ).15
ii) It is important to take note of certain phrases, concentrated in 2.5–6, that Aphrahat uses to denote ritual laws that have, according to him, been made irrelevant by the coming of Christ: “the observances of the law”; “the law of the commandments”; “the customs of the law”; “the offerings which are in the law”; and “the works which were in the law.”16 In all cases, these phrases denote that which has been done away with by the sacrifice of Christ.17 Likewise, in the fascinating section 8 of Demonstration 15, when Aphrahat quotes Gal 3.11–12 and says that the Israelites “were not able to be made righteous through the law,” it is ritual law that he has in mind. In this passage, the Decalogue is associated with the “easy and pleasant” yoke that Christ gives to his followers, in contrast [End Page 161] with the “hard and difficult” yoke of the ritual law.18 I shall return to this passage below.
iii) Though the denotation of “law” is sometimes ambiguous (does he mean the entire Pentateuch?) in passages where Aphrahat appeals to Sinai revelation (e.g., 3.4, listed above),19 there are some passages in which the whole Pentateuch is clearly the referent. Throughout Demonstration 2 and in 21.2 we find the phrase “the law and the Prophets” in which “law” refers to a section of the Bible rather than to a particular set of laws delivered to Moses at Sinai. Likewise, in Demonstration 3.11, Exod 17.9, which is pre-Sinai in the biblical narrative, is referred to as part of the law.20 Twice in Demonstration 6 (sections 1 and 6), the phrase “curse of the law” occurs. Unlike Paul, it seems that Aphrahat has Genesis rather than Deuteronomy in mind when he uses this phrase.21
iv) When Aphrahat, in various passages (6.1, 17, 20; 7.21; 9.2, 4, 11)22 exhorts his readers to meditate on the law of the Lord, it is inherently unlikely that the reference is to a restricted sense of “law,” either Decalogue or Pentateuch. Rather, the meaning of “law” in such passages seems to be “Scripture,” including both Old and New Testaments.
v & vi) These two possible meanings emerge from a single passage in section 20 of Demonstration 6. In his closing words at the end of that Demonstration, Aphrahat quotes Luke 16.14 to describe anyone who mocks or scoffs at a fellow covenanter. He says that the warning that Jesus gave to the Pharisees (Luke 16.15, which he does not quote) is fulfilled against such a person. This is followed by the admonition: “Read and learn, and be zealous to read and to act. Let this law of God be your meditation at [End Page 162] all times.” Though this could be another example of iv) above, the context and the use of the demonstrative pronoun suggest that here law is associated with either the gospel(s) or with Christ’s words in the gospel(s). Even if this is the case, it is clear that this denotation of law did not figure prominently in Aphrahat’s thinking.
“Law” as a Spiritual or Moral Ideal Predating Moses
The use of the term “law” to denote Scripture or parts of Scripture represents Aphrahat’s “default mode.” Another meaning of the term, however, though infrequent, is very important. This other meaning is reflected in a few passages which indicate that the righteous have no need of a written law: they observe a “law of righteousness” that is inscribed in their hearts (2.2, 7; 13.8). Abraham is the paradigmatic figure in this regard, though Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, and Moses are also singled out. It is striking that no NT figure appears in this list. This is probably due to the assumption that this law of righteousness, once obeyed by the few, was now available to all through Christ.
Now that I have established the semantic range of the term “law,” I will argue three related points: i) the theme of the observance of a “law of righteousness,” reflected in but not limited to Scripture, is fundamental to Aphrahat’s discourse; ii) ascetic practices are a means to the end of observing this law of righteousness; iii) even Christian ritual law (such as it appears in the Demonstrations) is subordinate to this deeper law of righteousness.
Law-Observance: The Moral Dimension
Aphrahat’s ethical instruction flows out of his emphasis on the “two commandments, upon which depends the whole force of the law and the Prophets.”23 Love for God is primary but must lead to love for neighbor: “[A]fter a person loves the Lord his God, he should also love his neighbor as himself.”24 The theme of faith, as an affirmation of the existence of God and a commitment to loving obedience to God, frames the Demonstrations as a whole, and this faith is inextricably linked to good actions. The role of Christ in faith is stated at the beginning and the end of the Demonstrations: “[T]he foundation of our whole faith is the true stone, [End Page 163] our Lord Jesus Christ”; “In him we have come to know [God] and have become his worshippers. . . .”25
In both cases, faith in God through Christ is linked to good works. The building that is raised on the foundation of faith is “furnished” with items that make it suitable for Christ the king (1.4). Many of these items have a decidedly ascetic flavor to them, but we must keep in mind that when Aphrahat speaks of “pure fasting” and “pure prayer” (the first two items), the purity here has to do with purity of heart, which includes a commitment to moral action that transcends mere ascetic praxis (see 3.8; 4.14–15). The inclusion of love, almsgiving, and hospitality in the list of required furnishings for the house of faith make clear the connection between faith and good works. The fact that ascetic and moral “furnishings” both feature prominently reflects Aphrahat’s conviction that a true observance of the moral law is facilitated by asceticism, a link which will be examined in more detail below.
In the closing sections of the last Demonstration, the link between faith and moral action is expressed even more forcefully. Immediately after the passage from 23.61 quoted above, we read:
As the essence of all good actions, this is required before God: a person must believe that there is one God and with faithfulness keep his commandments. If a person acknowledges that there is one God but transgresses his commandments and does not follow them, he does not really believe that there is one God. . . . For the person who believes that God judges the murderer does not murder, and in the person who murders, it is not established that God exists. The person who believes that God judges the adulterer does not commit adultery, and in the person who commits adultery, it is not established that God exists. The person who believes that God judges thieves does not steal, and in the person who steals, it is not established that God exists. All the commandments are likewise.26
Once again Aphrahat’s dependence on the Decalogue is evident. In the four sections that follow, Aphrahat expands on the prohibition against swearing falsely, a moral rule that was evidently being breached in a particularly flagrant way in the church he knew. After this exhortation, section 67 contains the very end of his argument proper, before the formal end of the Demonstration in sections 68 and 69. The theme of section 67 is the impermanence of the world and worldly attachments, and its final [End Page 164] line should be seen as a summary of Aphrahat’s argument in the Demonstrations as a whole: “There is nothing greater than the fear of God, and the person who keeps his commands is glorified. For many are called wise, but there is no wisdom like the fear of God.”27 Aphrahat assumes that by now the reader will understand that ascetic practice is required for the one who is deeply committed to keeping God’s commands.
This emphasis on the moral dimension of law-observance is not merely a feature of the beginning and end of the Demonstrations, but occurs throughout.28 The Decalogue is held up as a slightly expanded version of the double law of love, and Christ is portrayed as one who would call God’s people back to a true law-observance. Combining a passage from Hosea with the parable of the lost coin from Luke, Aphrahat criticizes Jews for rejecting Christ, who is the lamp that they should have used to seek the Lord and recover their lost love for God (the first of the ten commandments) and neighbor (the other nine commandments).29 To accept Christ is to return to the essence of the law. Likewise, as mentioned above, in 15.8 a distinction is made between the “ten holy commandments” and other “commandments and judgments” having to do with ritual purity. This clear contrast is followed by another: that between the “hard yoke” of these ritual purity laws and the “easy yoke” of Christ. An obvious reading of this passage would understand this “easy yoke,” whatever else it may involve, to refer back to the “holy commandments” that are not obscured (for Aphrahat) by ritual purity laws. In other words, as at 1.11, we are again dealing with a portrayal of Christ as proponent of the Decalogue.
Perhaps the most striking appeal to law-observance as a fundamental category for Christian living occurs in the fourteenth Demonstration. A recurrent theme in the exhortation that Aphrahat and his associates direct toward the leadership of the Syriac church is that the law is not being observed. Most of the occurrences of the terms “law” and “command[ment]” [End Page 165] are in the context of discussions of disobedience to the divine imperative. After greeting his readers, Aphrahat30 points to the crisis in the church in a way that seems to include him and his supporters in the problem (14.2). Very quickly, however, it becomes clear that Aphrahat is ready to assess blame for the present situation. His talk of “our sins” and “our minds” in 14.2 refers not to himself and his supporters, but to the church insofar as it has been corrupted by certain of its leaders.
In 14.3 he says that these leaders have “forsaken the law and have adorned themselves with evil,”31 and that under their rule the law has “grown cold” and is “bound.”32 In their greed, they have ignored the clear commands found in Scripture against the practice of lending at interest. Their disregard for the law is further seen in the fact that they cater to the rich and oppress the poor, which leads them to pervert justice and to refuse to listen to any admonition. Aphrahat distances himself from the so-called “handlers of the law,”33 whose greed has made them envious and jealous and whose way of life does not match their teaching. They are seen by Aphrahat as continuing the tradition of Adam, who, out of greed, disobeyed the command not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (14.23). Indeed, the leaders of the church are portrayed as the culmination of a long history of greed outlined in the Bible (14.23–24). These men enjoy exercising power, but have no interest in the good works which ought to accompany the titles they bear. A series of Old Testament allusions describes their condition:
The foolish shepherd’s eye is blind and his arm is withered. Do not the priests say, “Where is the Lord?” The handlers of the law do not understand it, and the shepherds are unfaithful to it. From the prophets of Jerusalem comes forth godlessness over the whole earth. The leaders of my people are uprooting them, and women have power over the people. Henceforth we do not fear the Lord. What will the king do to us? Woe to us! What have we become when the law is forsaken and some among us adorn themselves with wickedness? We ought to sit and be quiet and not talk.34 [End Page 166]
Later in the Demonstration, Aphrahat provides another evocative description:
Our Lord has opened before us a great treasure full of all good things. In it is love, peace, friendship, healing, purity, and all manner of good, beautiful, and excellent things. He has given authority to his stewards over all the treasure-house, and has also placed chains, prisons, and fetters into the hands of the stewards and authorized them to bind and to set free. But the stewards have forsaken love and peace and friendship and all the rest of the treasure. They have become prison wardens, prosecutors, and executioners, instead of stewards of the treasure of all good things. . . . We hope, brothers, that when the king sees his stewards, who have transgressed the law and changed the commandment which he gave to them and established their own decrees, he will bind them with the fetters that they so loved, demand payment from them for the blood of his servants, and take away from them his treasure, because they did not cherish it.35
The commandment that has been given to them is expressed, in section 44, not only in Jesus’ injunctions to love and forgive, but also in Moses’ well-known words, “Do not hate or sin [against] your brother in your heart” (Lev 19.17).36 Leaders such as these have been rejected by God (14.17, 27), with the example of Uzzah (who, in carrying the ark on some heifers, “transgressed the law” and died as a result) serving as a solemn warning.37
Sections 34–37 of the fourteenth Demonstration compare observance of the law among humans with that of the rest of creation. In section 34, the reader is reminded of the greatness of God’s creative work. For all the greatness of creation, however, no part of it can respond to God in the way that humans can:
The wind has no vision, the air has no sense of touch, the sky has no shape, and the clouds have not been given knowledge. The creatures of the sea are powerful, but the monsters in it are without speech. The arms of intelligence are stretched out, and the wings of thought are extended; the senses of the mind explore, and the eyes of consciousness gaze intently. The openings of the sense of hearing fly to perceive and to understand the inquiry. But even all of these together do not comprehend.38
These references to “intelligence,” “thought,” “mind,” and “consciousness” are metaphorically applied to the animal and inanimate worlds, but in the next section (14.35) we are told that “the one who extends the [End Page 167] wings of his intellect” inherits wisdom and knowledge.39 These objects of the mind are unavailable to the foolish, but those who ask and who have open hearts are able to acquire them.40 Clearly the topic has shifted from non-human creation to humans. A profusion of metaphors describes first the powers of wisdom and then the characteristics of the wise man. Wisdom is focused on the heavenly realm. It is “the great temple of its Creator,”41 who shows it all kinds of heavenly treasure. The content of this treasure has already been mentioned above: “love, peace, friendship, healing, purity, and all manner of good, beautiful, and excellent things” (14.44). When the wise man (who has been represented by “wisdom” thus far) “sees in his mind the place of his many treasures, then his thought is elevated, and his heart conceives and gives birth to all good things, and he meditates on all that has been commanded.”42 The rest of the section contrasts the earthly limitations of the wise man with the power of his wisdom; he can give this wisdom away freely without becoming impoverished, since there “is no limit to the mind of the one who is contained and who lives inside of him.”43 What we see here in Aphrahat is a kind of wisdom-mysticism,44 but it is important to keep in mind that this mystical tendency is balanced by an emphasis on “all that has been commanded” in the history of salvation, and it is on the basis of these commands that the final judgment will take place. That Aphrahat does not think of law as disembodied but rather as historically given is affirmed, moreover, in the fact that he can speak of the church leaders as “handlers of the law,” i.e., as interpreters of a sacred text that has been given by God. The law seems to function in these passages as the key to the treasury of God; the [End Page 168] wicked leaders of the church will lose its treasure because they did not cherish it by obeying the law.
Section 36 portrays all of creation as an analogue to the wise man who does God’s will. By their obedience, the water and sand in the time of Noah play a role in the destruction of a disobedient generation. When God wills for the flood to end, water recedes into the abyss below the land, and the water above the firmament remains where it is. Other examples from the lives of biblical heroes prove that “[h]eaven, earth, and all creatures do his will at each moment, and none among them has resisted his will.”45 Such is not the case in the human sphere. Section 37 opens with the thematic statement, “But the transgression of the law is found with Adam. From the first day and forever, he transgresses the law.”46 The examples that follow are not of humans in general, but rather the wicked leaders of the church. I will not attempt to summarize Aphrahat’s description of these leaders. He is quite harsh, going so far as to call them “the offspring of Satan” and “the enemies of Christ.”47 For our purposes, it is enough to note that their behavior and characteristics fall under the category of law-breaking, given the thematic statement which begins the section. At one point Aphrahat calls them “mute dogs who are unable to bark,”48 which reminds us of 7.21, where those who do not meditate on the law are given the same designation.
Aphrahat returns to the metaphor of harvest (among other metaphors) in the closing section of Demonstration 14. Section 46 summarizes the parable of the sower. Section 47 then opens as follows:
Friends! Though we are sinners and unworthy, nevertheless it is on this foundation that we build, and this leaven that we have received. The seed of our Lord has fallen on our earth, and we have received money from the rich merchant. His Spirit has been poured out on everyone, and his kindness is not held back from anyone. If it should happen that someone scoffs at us and does not receive what we have written, he does not injure us thereby, nor does he gain [anything]. Our words demonstrate profit for those who listen, for we have written nothing to you that is outside of the law, nor have we sent a stolen treasure to you, but rather from the seed and the clay of the holy writings.49 [End Page 169]
Here, once again, Aphrahat appeals to “the law” (or “the holy writings”) as a standard for truth. Furthermore, this “law” is implicitly compared to a seed. Aphrahat seems to read the parable of the sower as a story of how Christ gives his law to those who would receive it. The “holy writings” are also described as containing (or consisting of) “dough.” Earlier in the Demonstration (in sections 30 and 38), Aphrahat, in the process of describing to his readers the kind of persons God calls them to be, draws on a New Testament image and compares them to “new dough” which is not contaminated by any “old yeast.”50 Thus, when he compares the holy writings (i.e., the law) to dough, we can infer that the state of being “new dough” has everything to do with responding appropriately to the law of God. The phrase “outside the law” is used elsewhere in Aphrahat only once, to refer to those who engage in immoral acts: “thieves, murderers, liars, and servants of hatred.”51 There is no possibility, given Aphrahat’s continual use of the Old Testament, that “holy writings” refers only to the New Testament as a kind of “new dough.” It is also important to note that in 14.47, law and Spirit are the only elements that are not intended to be taken metaphorically. These two work together, and it is their effect or activity which is described as “foundation,” “leaven,” “seed,” “money,” “dough,” “good flour,” “strong wine,” “new patch,” “vine,” and “fruit.” Likewise, those who fail to respond positively to God’s law and Spirit are like “the rock which dries out the seed,” “the building that is placed on sand,” or “salt that has lost its taste.”All of these metaphors can be taken, in the context of Aphrahat’s discourse, as describing a state of disobedience to God’s law and/or a lack of receptivity to God’s Spirit. There is no hint of the Pauline antithesis between law and Spirit.52
Other passages can be cited to demonstrate Aphrahat’s concern with moral instruction. In 4.15–16, 18, he emphasizes that prayer without compassion and a commitment to doing the will of God is without value. The seventh Demonstration urges those who have fallen into sin to seek out the remedy that is provided in repentance and also urges those in leadership positions not to withhold this remedy from those who desire it. Demonstration 9 portrays humility as a fundamental virtue, from [End Page 170] which other virtues flow.53 In section three of the ninth Demonstration, Aphrahat states that “the humble one reflects on the law of his Lord, and from it receives the remedy which he seeks.” The word translated here as “remedy” appears first in Demonstration 7, where it is used eight times to refer to repentance. One of the main functions of the law (i.e., the Scriptures in general), we are here reminded, is that of encouraging sinners to repent. Only those who are humble can embrace repentance. The theme of repentance as remedy also figures prominently in Demonstration 23.3. Those who have repented have access to the tree of life, and judgment is delayed so as to allow others to repent. Though the meaning of the passage is not as clear as we might wish, the fruit of the tree of life is associated with the remedy of repentance. The tree of life is pictured as an olive tree which “gives light to those in darkness, fattens up those who are feeble, and brings the hidden mystery to those who repent.”54 This repentance opens the door to spiritual/mystical perception. That Aphrahat is addressing ascetic leaders in the church seems to be indicated not only by this claim for enhanced levels of perception, but also by the passage that follows: “Now they have become the yeast of the righteous in this world, so that room for repentance might be given through them. It is also through them that sinners are forgiven on the earth, so that they might receive the promise and that the sun of goodness might rise on them.” The reference to yeast echoes the passage from Demonstration 14, cited above, where Aphrahat describes those who follow the law as being “new dough.” I would suggest that these passages emphasizing humility and repentance fall naturally into the same category of law-observance, seen as a positive feature of the Christian life.
Law-Observance: The Ascetic Dimension
It will not be necessary to provide an extensive summary of Aphrahat’s instruction on ascetic living.55 While there are the usual commitments to [End Page 171] the renunciation of sexual activity, property, food (certain kinds and/or at certain times), sleep and comfort, Aphrahat also includes discussions of the ascetic’s commitments in the moral sphere. My purpose here is to note how this askesis is associated with obedience to divine law and how it is often taken to be a means to a moral end. Though not an exhaustive survey, the following discussion will deal with the most significant passages which make a connection between askesis and moral commitment.
We may begin with the important image for the development of Christian virtues found in the first Demonstration, which I mentioned briefly above. Aphrahat compares this development to the building of a house, with Christ as the bedrock upon which the foundation of faith is laid. The image is not entirely consistent, since the spiritual “house” that rises on the bedrock of Christ and the foundation of faith also has Christ as royal resident. What is important for our purposes are the “furnishings” which must be in place for Christ to reside within and the imperative involved in providing them. The language is clear: the development of these qualities (which include actions) are “required” by faith (i.e., in some sense follow from faith), and indeed, “required” by Christ. In passages such as this Aphrahat comes close to speaking of a “law of Christ” for his followers. The requirements in question (the furnishings of the house) are as follows: pure fasting, pure prayer, love, almsgiving, humility, virginity, holiness, wisdom, hospitality, simplicity, perseverance, moderation, mourning, and purity. It would be convenient for my argument if Aphrahat had explicitly said that various ascetic behaviors were designed to further the development of moral qualities, but he does not. What we do find, however, is the embedding of askesis within what can only be seen as a larger program of spiritual development, which includes a significant moral dimension.
Fasting and prayer occupy prominent positions in this list. While it is clear that these disciplines are very important to Aphrahat, one needs to remember what he means by the phrases “pure fasting” and “pure prayer.” An examination of the third and fourth Demonstrations makes this clear. A commitment to the outward forms of fasting and prayer is not enough [End Page 172] in itself. What matters is one’s inward disposition, expressing itself in acts of service. When Aphrahat says that “without purity of heart, fasting is not accepted,”56 he is saying, at the very least, that abstinence of any sort must either express or develop purity of heart. This connection is elaborated in a particularly powerful statement later in the Demonstration:
For, my friend, when one fasts, fasting from wickedness is always more excellent than fasting from bread and water. It is also better than humbling oneself, and better than bending one’s neck like a hook or covering oneself with sackcloth and ashes, as Isaiah said. Indeed, when a person abstains from bread, water, and all nourishment, and when he covers himself with sackcloth and ashes and when he mourns, he is lovely, virtuous, and beautiful. But this beauty is more excellent: when a person humbles himself and also loosens the chains of impiety and cuts the bonds of deceit.57
On the one hand, humbling oneself, as expressed in fasting, repentance, and mourning, has value in itself. This humbling of oneself already involves moving beyond the observance of merely outward forms or rituals. But Aphrahat’s point is that if such humbling of oneself does not also lead to action, it is less than it should be. The pure fasting that includes a commitment not merely to humbling oneself and to repentance but also to moral action is, at the very end of Aphrahat’s discussion, said to be the subject of divine command: “[Christ] has commanded us to fast and to keep watch at all times, so that by the power of pure fasting, we might attain his rest.”58 The commandment is not primarily about literal fasting, i.e., abstinence, but about pure fasting, which involves a commitment to purity of heart and action. Abstinence serves to further the goal of this purity of heart and action.
Likewise in his explication of “pure prayer.” After reminding his readers that prayers will not be accepted from those who are unwilling to forgive, Aphrahat explains how the need to ask for forgiveness can be avoided by “bringing about the rest of God.” His starting point is Isa 28.12:
It says in the prophet, “This is my rest: give rest to the weary.” Therefore, bring about the rest of God, O human, and there will be no need for you [to say,] “Forgive me.” Give rest to the weary, visit the sick, and provide for the poor: this is prayer. . . . Watch out, my friend, that, when an opportunity for giving rest to the will of God comes to you, you do not say, “The time for prayer is at hand. I will pray and then I will act.” For while you are trying to finish your prayer, the opportunity for bringing about rest [End Page 173] will have slipped away from you, and your ability to bring about the will and the rest of God will have been diminished. Through your prayer you will be guilty of sin. However, if you bring about the rest of God, it will be [considered] prayer.59
Thus a distinction is drawn between the ritual of prayer (understood in the literal sense of “speaking with God”), which is important in all forms of Christian asceticism, and a deeper kind of “prayer” which involves service to those in need. Those who make a show of their prayers but lack what Aphrahat calls “the works of prayer,”60 a phrase parallel to “the works of the law” in Aphrahat’s usage, cannot be said to be offering “pure” prayer; their offerings are rejected. No ritual performance of prayer, as part of an ascetic commitment, can be considered complete without the willingness to allow service to those in need, or reconciliation with one’s enemies, to take precedence.
The theme of forgiveness appears in the second Demonstration as a major example of how love is expressed. There, too, Aphrahat repeats the gospel teaching on how forgiveness for the petitioner is conditional upon forgiveness of others. As is so often the case, Aphrahat pairs his exposition of a gospel passage with an appeal to Paul, citing, appropriately, 1 Cor 13. The metaphor from Demonstration 1 is then elaborated: along with Christ as the bedrock upon which the foundation of faith is laid, the house of faith requires beams to strengthen it, which are here equated with love. After an extensive discussion of biblical examples of loving action, in particular the acts of Christ, Aphrahat introduces what seems at first to be an abrupt change of topic:
He gave us a command: that we should forsake the world and turn to him. He revealed to us, in the example of the rich man who trusted in his possessions, that whoever loves the world is not able to please God.61
It turns out, however, that this giving of a commandment is yet another example of the loving acts of Christ. Forsaking the world in order to please God is central to his teaching. Forsaking the world, however, does not involve a flight from the world. Rather, it means participating in the love of Christ, and thus fulfilling the law and the Prophets. Love, in turn, can be identified as the element that brings purity to both fasting and prayer. For Aphrahat, obeying the command to forsake the world means embracing purity of heart. He does not explicitly say that askesis helps to develop [End Page 174] purity of heart, but this is because he does not have to; his readers would have made this connection themselves. The reference to possessions in the passage just quoted, however, as well as the material from Demonstrations 1 and 3, noted above, indicate that, according to Aphrahat, the fundamental goal of love/purity/fulfillment of the law, if taken seriously, requires a commitment to asceticism.
It should not be supposed that the pursuit of purity, at least in the Demonstrations, is limited to the realm of sexual renunciation. Those who do not carefully guard, “in purity,”62 the pledge of the Holy Spirit, imparted at baptism, suffer the temporary departure of that Spirit:
[T]his is the way things are for a person: in the hour in which he perceives in his soul that he is not fervent in the Spirit and his heart is falling into attachment to this world, let him understand that the Spirit is not with him, and let him rise up and pray and keep vigil, so that the Spirit of God might come back to him and he might not be conquered by the Adversary.63
Evidence for this departure includes “speaking hateful words or becoming angry or quarrelling or fighting,”64 which, Aphrahat says, serves as a sign for the Evil One to attack, since he then knows that the Spirit is not present. The fact that “guarding the pledge in purity” can mean more than fidelity to a vow of sexual renunciation is significant. For Aphrahat, the ideal of purity is all-encompassing, and is related to obedience to the law, not in its ritual aspects, but at its deepest level, that of loving God and neighbor.65
There can be no doubt, however, that for Aphrahat, sexual renunciation is of great importance in the pursuit of purity, which is obedience to the law of love. This would be clear even apart from Demonstration 18, which focuses directly on Jewish objections to the Christian ideals of virginity and celibacy. It will be enough for my argument to show how these ideals are related to a moral end, and thus to another ideal, that of law-observance. It is here that Aphrahat makes a distinction between the compulsion of Jewish law and the freedom of Christian asceticism. This distinction, however, is not as absolute as it at first seems, since he retains his own version of the law, into which asceticism is incorporated. [End Page 175]
The opening section of Demonstration 18 outlines Aphrahat’s perception of the Jewish objections to virginity and celibacy. In particular, the link between procreation and blessing is rejected. What benefit, Aphrahat asks, are many descendants if the vast majority of them turn to wickedness? Going beyond the general observation of the wickedness of most of the human population, Aphrahat cites the particular examples of Zimri, Achan, and the sons of Eli and Samuel, concluding with the statement, “There are many similar [cases], in which it would have been better for [certain people] not to have fathered [children] or to have been born.”66 On the other hand, “[t]o God, a single person who does [his] will is more excellent and notable before his majesty than myriads and thousands of those who are wicked.”67
Section 9 shows the link between procreation and a tendency to transgress divine law: “[A]fter he fathered Eve, [Adam] went astray and transgressed the commandment . . . David was attractive in his youth, but through his desire for Bathsheba he transgressed the law and abrogated three of the ten commandments. . . .”68 Even the earth, Aphrahat says, was virginal once, before the rain caused it to produce thistles. In the other examples mentioned (the descendants of Seth, Samson, Amnon, and Solomon), it is not stated that the law has been transgressed, but this is certainly implied. The sexual urge that Aphrahat must admit has been created by God and is good in itself (section 8) is in fact a dangerous thing that is better left uncultivated. The biblical warrant for marriage in Gen 2.24 is given a decidedly negative valence: if a man leaves his father [God] and his mother [the Holy Spirit] in order to marry, “his mind is captivated by this world.”69 On the other hand, the “man who has not yet taken a wife and who remains alone is in one spirit and one mind with his father,” that is, with God.70 [End Page 176]
It is at this point in the argument (18.12) that Aphrahat introduces an important distinction between ascetic observance and a kind of law-observance that he claims to have transcended:
For this way of life [i.e., virginity] there is a great reward, since we perfect it by free choice, and not from the slavery and coercion of a commandment or because we are constrained by it under the law. We have found its form and image in Scripture, and we have seen that this image of the watchers in heaven is found with the victorious, while on earth it is acquired as a gift. If a person loses this possession, he will be unable [to find it again], nor is a person able to acquire it at [any] price. No one who has it and loses it will find it [again]. No one who does not have it can run and attain it. Love this gift, my friend, to which nothing in the whole world is comparable.71
Clearly if virginity (and, by extension, non-virginal celibacy) is a gift, it cannot be required by the law.72 What we have seen, however, is that a commitment to celibacy is seen by Aphrahat as a kind of shield against wickedness, a very strong preventative measure. One could say that it functions as a “fence around the law,” to use a well-known rabbinic phrase. Some are given the ability to rise to a higher level of law-observance than [End Page 177] others, that is, a higher level of purity, a deeper commitment to the law of love. When Aphrahat says, in the context of a very real debate with Jewish interlocutors, that Christian asceticism is embraced freely, and not from the “coercion of a commandment or because we are constrained by it under the law,” he is referring to the ritual law that, in his understanding, contributes nothing to the observance of the deeper law (love for God and neighbor).
Law-Observance: The Ritual Dimension
Just as celibacy (and virginity in particular) is reflected, if not commanded, in Jewish Scripture, so too aspects of Christian liturgical ritual can be seen there, according to Aphrahat. Demonstration 12 contains his argument against the Jewish observance of the Passover. His concern is to show that Diaspora Jews cannot lawfully observe the Passover (since this was to occur only in Jerusalem) and that the celebration of Christ’s death and resurrection has superseded it anyway. A very comprehensive typological interpretation of the Jewish festival is given, along with a very confusing chronology of Christ’s death and resurrection (12.6–12). There is no need to discuss either of these here. It will suffice to focus on one aspect of Aphrahat’s argument. He says, “After the Passover, Israel eats unleavened bread for seven days until the twenty-first day of the month, but we observe the [days of] unleavened bread as the festival of our Savior.”73 Then in section 12 he stipulates that “If the day of the passover sacrifice, which is the suffering of our Savior, should fall for us on the first [day] of the week, according to the law we ought to make it [fall] on the second day, so that his whole week might be observed with his suffering and his unleavened bread. For after the Passover there are seven days of unleavened bread, until the twenty-first.”74 Aphrahat thought that the Christian Easter celebrations ought to coincide with the Jewish Feast of Unleavened Bread. In this sense Easter itself is portrayed as a kind of law-observance. The seven days of unleavened bread are commanded in the law, but Aphrahat interprets this commandment typologically as pointing to the feast of the Savior. It is not clear if Aphrahat’s “feast of the Savior” is always seven days or not, since if Sunday could not begin the feast then it is hard to see why it would occur in the middle either. What is clear is that Aphrahat felt compelled to observe Easter “according to the law,” where the [End Page 178] commandments about Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread are in mind. This concern for keeping the commandments is reinforced, with a new emphasis, in the closing lines of the Demonstration:
But for us, this is what is required: to observe the festival in its time from season to season, to fast in purity, to pray continually, to give glory [to God] eagerly, to chant psalms when appropriate, to administer correctly the annointing oil [lit. “the sign”] and baptism, to consecrate the holy things in their time and to fulfill all the customary rituals. . . . But if we are troubled by these things, and about [the observation of the] fourteenth alone, let us be diligent, but not [only] about the festival which is from season to season. Rather, let us embrace the observance of the fourteenth of every month, and let us mourn on the Friday of every week. However, we ought to do good on every day of the week before the Lord our God. Now, be convinced by this small [treatise] that I have written to you, for you are not commanded to be troubled by bickering over words, in which there is no profit, but [rather you are commanded to have] a pure heart which observes the commandment75 and the festival and the times of the observances of [each] day.76
Here we catch a rare glimpse into the ritual aspect of Aphrahat’s faith. He is prepared to admit that the Christian community, like the Jewish, has “customary rituals.” The observance of the festival of Christ’s death and resurrection involves a regimen of various actions, all of which are “required” and “commanded.” Of more importance, however, is the requirement to have a pure heart while doing all those things that are required. This demand for purity of heart does not do away with the observance, but rather transposes it to a new key. The observance of the festival is now placed within the larger context of doing good on every day before God. To celebrate the festival “according to the law,” then, is not only to engage in a typological fulfillment of the Old Testament commandment to observe the Feast of Unleavened Bread, but it is also to do so in the proper way, with purity of heart, which acts according to the law of love and thus fulfills the whole law. Aphrahat, then, replaces one form of ritual with another. He shares with his Jewish opponents a desire to follow God’s law. What is at issue is how to do so. [End Page 179]
Conclusion
For Aphrahat’s celibate circle, asceticism is the path to purity, which could be described as a pure commitment to law-observance. A prominent feature of this asceticism is celibacy, virginity if possible. But as we have seen, Aphrahat is equally (if not more) concerned with purity of speech and acts of compassion. Acts of renunciation that lead to a “flight from the world,” understood geographically or physically, are not valued, but those that contribute to a lessening of a love for the world, understood as a realm of lawlessness, are highly prized indeed. Aphrahat is an ascetic because he wants to follow God’s law, not the reverse. Asceticism, for him, cannot be established on independent grounds, leading subsequently to a concern for the law. Law-observance itself, however, is fundamental in his discourse, and provides a rationale for the various forms of renunciation reflected in the Demonstrations. The few, almost casual, references to a non-written law of righteousness in the hearts of the patriarchs are more important than they at first seem. This unwritten law forms the essence of the Sinai revelation and becomes explicit in the teaching of Christ.77 For [End Page 180] Aphrahat and his circle, Christians who follow the higher way of asceticism make use of powerful tools in the quest to follow this law. In his second Demonstration, which seeks to show how the whole revelation of God is summed up in the double law of love, Aphrahat says that “[e]verything that is done through the law is meant to encourage people to love” God and neighbor (2.8). If my analysis is correct, the same could be said of Aphrahat’s approach to asceticism.
Dr. Adam Lehto lives in Waterloo, Ontario
Footnotes
1. For a general introduction to Aphrahat, see Marie-Joseph Pierre, Aphraate le Sage Persan: Les Exposés I–X, SC 349 (Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 1988), 33–199. A more concise introduction can be found in Peter Bruns, Aphrahat: Unterweisungen. Erster Teilband, Fontes christiani 5/1 (Freiburg: Herder, 1991), 35–73.
2. The most plausible explanation for the shift in focus toward Jewish issues in the second series of Demonstrations is that Shapur II had initiated a persecution against Christians, making conversion to Judaism more appealing. Directly related to Shapur’s war with Rome, which was now pro-Christian, this persecution became intense when the bishop of Seleucia-Ctesiphon, Simeon bar Sabba’e, refused to collect a head tax imposed on Christians to finance the war. See S. P. Brock, “Christians in the Sasanian Empire: A Case of Divided Loyalties,” in Religion and National Identity,Studies in Church History 18, ed. Stuart Mews (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982), 1–19; J. G. Snaith, “Aphrahat and the Jews,” in Interpreting the Hebrew Bible: Essays in Honour of E. I. J. Rosenthal, ed. J. A. Emerton and Stefan C. Reif (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), 235–37; Pierre, Les Exposés I–X, 71–93; Naomi Koltun-Fromm, “A Jewish-Christian Conversation in Fourth-Century Persian Mesopotamia,” JJS 47 (1996): 45–63; Adam H. Becker, “Beyond the Spatial and Temporal Limes: Questioning the ‘Parting of the Ways’ outside the Roman Empire,” in The Ways That Never Parted: Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, ed. Adam H. Becker and Annette Yoshiko Reed (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 343–62.
3. Demonstration 20.7–12 (Parisot, Demonstrationes, 1:904, 13–1:913, 5). I have used the standard critical edition of J. Parisot (“Aphraatis Sapientis Persae Demonstrationes,” in PS volumes 1 [Demonstrations 1–22] and 2 [Demonstration 23], ed. R. Graffin [Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1894 and 1907]). In-text references are to Demonstration number and section number (as established by Parisot). All translations of the Demonstrations are the author’s own. For a discussion of this particular Demonstration and a plausible reconstruction of its social context, see Adam H. Becker, “Anti-Judaism and Care for the Poor in Aphrahat’s Demonstration 20,” JECS 10 (2002): 305–27. Of the few extant works of Syrian provenance earlier than the Demonstrations, none but the Didascalia exhibit such a preoccupation with Judaism. This work was originally written in Greek, but was translated into Syriac not long before Aphrahat wrote his Demonstrations. It is in fact a Syriac manuscript which provides the only complete version of this work, with fragments surviving in Greek, along with extensive Latin portions. For an English translation and extensive introduction, see R. H. Connolly, Didascalia Apostolorum (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1929). Connolly includes the extensive Latin fragments on facing pages where they occur and refers to the few Greek fragments in his footnotes. He argues that Aphrahat probably knew the Didascalia. A. Vööbus, skeptical of any influence from the Didascalia on Aphrahat, has produced the most recent critical edition (The Didascalia Apostolorum in Syriac, CSCO 401 and 407 [Louvain: Secrétariat du CorpusSCO, 1979]) along with an English translation published at the same time (CSCO 402 and 408). For a reading of the Didascalia as a Jewish document, see Charlotte Elisheva Fonrobert, “The Didascalia Apostolorum: A Mishnah for the Disciples of Jesus,” JECS 9 (2001): 483–509.
4. Henceforth “divine law” will be referred to simply as “law” for the sake of convenience.
5. See Frank Gavin, “Aphraates and the Jews,” Journal of the Society of Oriental Research, 7, #3–4 (1923): 95–166; Marcel Simon, Verus Israel: A Study of the Relations between Christians and Jews in the Roman Empire (135–425) (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986; trans. by H. McKeating of French 2nd edition published in 1964); Jacob Neusner, Aphrahat and Judaism: The Christian-Jewish Argument in Fourth Century Iran (Leiden: Brill, 1971); Snaith, “Aphrahat and the Jews”; P. Hayman, “The Image of the Jew in the Syriac Anti-Jewish Polemical Literature” in “To See Ourselves as Others See Us”: Christians, Jews, “Others” in Late Antiquity,ed. Jacob Neusner and Ernest S. Frerichs (Chico: Scholars Press, 1985), 423–41; Pierre, Les Exposés (introduction, as well as extensive footnotes throughout on rabbinic parallels); Naomi Koltun-Fromm, “Sexuality and Holiness: Semitic Christian and Jewish Conceptualizations of Sexual Behavior,” VC 54 (2000): 375–95; idem, “Yokes of the Holy Ones: The Embodiment of a Christian Vocation,” HTR 94 (2001): 205–18.
6. A recent study by Diana Juhl fails to acknowledge the multivalency of the term “law” for Aphrahat, a failure that is all too typical in the literature: “Neben dem Tod war das Gesetz eine weitere Folge des Falls. Afrahat hat dabei das ganze mosaische Gesetz im Blick. Das Gesetz sollte den viefältigen Begierden der Menschen entgegentreten, die Menschen vor der Sünde schützen. Erst bei der Ankunft des Erlösers wurde der Gebrauch des Gesetzes aufgehoben” (Die Askese im Liber Graduum und bei Afrahat [Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz, 1996], 67). This does not negate the value of her study as a whole.
7. Demonstration 18.12 (Parisot, Demonstrationes, 1:841, 20–22).
8. Five of these occurrences are in Demonstration 2, where Aphrahat discusses the way in which the law of love has fulfilled the law and the Prophets. Four of these five occur in quotations of the words of Christ, and the remaining example in Demonstration 2 is found in Aphrahat’s introduction to one of these quotations. The other two occurrences of the term in the Demonstrations are in 1.19 and 21.18, where Aphrahat is not quoting any verse. That he uses the term as a synonym for nāmosā can be deduced by comparing 2.1 and 2.2, where the phrase “the law and the Prophets” occurs using first one (in quotation) and then another term for “law.” I have used the term “Torah” (a cognate) to translate ‘orāytā. In contrast to the limited use of ‘orāytā, the term nāmosā is used 53 times in Demonstration 2 and 116 times elsewhere.
9. The title of the work as a whole is derived from this feature of the text, which includes many “demonstrations” of the truth of its arguments from Scripture.
10. Parisot, Demonstrationes, 1:44, 16–17.
11. Parisot, Demonstrationes, 1:56, 19–20.
12. Parisot, Demonstrationes, 1:61, 23–25.
13. Parisot, Demonstrationes, 1:104, 4–5.
14. Parisot, Demonstrationes, 1:105, 14–15.
15. Parisot, Demonstrationes, 1:756, 11–12.
16. See Parisot, Demonstrationes, 1:56, 21; 1:57, 12–13, 15, 24; 1:60, 12. Significantly, earlier in Demonstration 2, Aphrahat had argued that the patriarchs exhibited the “works of the law” before the law was revealed (1:49, 17; 1:52, 7). Clearly this phrase, in contrast to those just mentioned, had a positive meaning for Aphrahat.
17. In 5.20, Antiochus is presented as a kind of anti-Christ (not Aphrahat’s term), in the sense that he, too “made the observances which are in the law cease,” not because he wanted to fulfill the law (as Christ did), but because he opposed all righteousness.
18. Parisot, Demonstrationes, 1:757, 9–11.
19. See also 7.19 (“When [Gideon] assembled the people for war, the scribes admonished [them] with the words of the law . . .”), where “law” clearly means something less than “Old Testament,” but may be either “Sinai revelation” or “Pentateuch.”
20. Parisot, Demonstrationes, 1:121, 8–11.
21. See 1:244, 12–13; 1:265, 10–11. In Gal 3.10, Paul quotes Deut 27.26 in order to argue that those who try to obey the whole law are under a curse, since such obedience, on his view, is impossible. In 6.6, Aphrahat argues that “it was because of [Eve] that the curse of the law was established, and it was because of her that the promise of death came.” There is no reason to suppose that “the curse of the law” in this passage has the same meaning as it does in Galatians. Rather than focusing on a curse from Deuteronomy, Aphrahat refers to the Genesis narrative, which is more appropriate for a discussion of the role of Eve. Thus the phrase “curse of the law” seems to refer to “the curse recorded in Genesis” (which is part of the law, i.e., the Pentateuch) rather than “the curse recorded in the Mosaic legislation.”
22. See Parisot, Demonstrationes, 1:252, 23–26; 1:304, 22–25; 1:312, 17–18; 1:349, 11–13; 1:412, 6–8; 1:416, 17–19; 1:433, 4–12.
23. Demonstration 2.2 (Parisot, Demonstrationes, 1:48, 11–13).
24. Demonstration 2.11 (Parisot, Demonstrationes, 1:72, 19–21).
25. Demonstration 1.2 (Parisot, Demonstrationes, 1:8, 4–6); Demonstration 23.61 (2:128, 12–13).
26. Demonstration 23.62 (Parisot, Demonstrationes, 2:128, 18–23; 129, 15–23).
27. Demonstration 23.67 (Parisot, Demonstrationes, 2:144, 19–2:148, 8).
28. This is a major theme in early Christianity and beyond. As Marcel Simon so aptly put it: “In actual fact there is not a great deal of difference between the Jew who applies himself to fulfil what the law prescribes and the apostle who spontaneously, without seeking to do so, lives in conformity with the law. There was even less difference between the ordinary Christian and the ordinary Jew. For the immense majority of Christians the commandments kept their old force, as they had always done. This was even more true after Christian theology had slipped into moralistic grooves very similar to those of Judaism, and made respectable again the ideas of merit and retribution that St. Paul had denied” (Verus Israel, 75). A trajectory that would repay further study on this theme runs from Theophilus of Antioch through the Didascalia and Aphrahat and on to Philoxenus of Mabbug.
29. Demonstration 1.11 (Parisot, Demonstrationes, 1:25, 4–1:28, 21).
30. For the sake of convenience, I will refer to Aphrahat as the author of the exhortation, though it must be kept in mind that here he was not writing on his own, but representing the convictions of the covenanters in general. This is not to deny, of course, that the fourteenth Demonstration bears all the marks of Aphrahat’s own convictions.
31. Parisot, Demonstrationes, 1:577, 1–2.
32. See Parisot, Demonstrationes, 1:577, 22 and 1:580, 1.
33. Parisot, Demonstrationes, 1:633, 7.
34. Parisot, Demonstrationes, 1:640, 12–22.
35. Parisot, Demonstrationes, 1:704, 11–1:708, 16.
36. Parisot, Demonstrationes, 1:705, 9–10.
37. Parisot, Demonstrationes, 1:620, 27–1:621, 1.
38. Parisot, Demonstrationes, 1:660, 14–22.
39. Parisot, Demonstrationes, 1:661, 7–8.
40. Section 35 opens as follows: “Who perceives the place of knowledge? Who comprehends the foundation of wisdom? Who discerns the place of understanding? It is hidden from every living thing, and from the thoughts of all flesh” (1:660, 23–26). The words “knowledge” and “wisdom” are feminine singular, while “understanding” is masculine singular. The pronoun “it” is feminine singular. Either Aphrahat is referring back to knowledge or wisdom, or, more likely, he is treating all three terms as referring to essentially the same entity. He uses the pronoun, rather than any particular term, in the long description that follows. I use the term “wisdom” to refer to what might be more properly referred to as “knowledge/wisdom/understanding.”
41. Parisot, Demonstrationes, 1:661, 17–18.
42. Parisot, Demonstrationes, 1:664, 10–14.
43. Parisot, Demonstrationes, 1:665, 4–5.
44. See the very thorough and thought-provoking article by Alexander Golitzin, “The Place of the Presence of God: Aphrahat of Persia’s Portrait of the Christian Holy Man: An Essay in Honor of Archimandrite Aimilianos of the Monastery of Simonos Petras, Mount Athos”(http://www.marquette.edu/maqom/aimilianos).
45. Parisot, Demonstrationes, 1:672, 18–20.
46. Parisot, Demonstrationes, 1:672, 21–23.
47. See Parisot, Demonstrationes, 1:676, 7 and 1:676, 16.
48. Parisot, Demonstrationes, 1:676, 8–9.
49. Parisot, Demonstrationes, 1:716, 20–1:717, 7.
50. See Parisot, Demonstrationes, 1:649, 12–13 and 1:680, 25–26.
51. Parisot, Demonstrationes, 1:924, 2–4.
52. For an insightful discussion of Aphrahat’s use of Paul, see Stephen S. Taylor, “Paul and the Persian Sage: Some Observations on Aphrahat’s Use of the Pauline Corpus,” in The Function of Scripture in Early Jewish and Christian Tradition, ed. Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 312–31.
53. For a discussion of the theme of humility in Aphrahat, and how it might compare to the concept of “implicity” in Philoxenus, see Adam Lehto, “Aphrahat and Philoxenus on Faith,” The Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 4 (2004): 47–59.
54. Parisot, Demonstrationes, 2:9, 7–8.
55. Others have undertaken this task effectively. See Sebastian Brock, “Early Syrian Asceticism” (Numen 20 [1973]: 1–19); George Nedungatt, “The Covenanters in the Early Syriac-Speaking Church” (OCP 39 [1973]: 191–215 and 419–44); Robert Murray, “The Exhortation to Candidates for Ascetical Vows at Baptism in the Ancient Syriac Church” (NTS 21 [1974]: 59–80); idem,”The Features of the Earliest Christian Asceticism,” in Christian Spirituality: Essays in Honour of George Rupp, ed. Peter Brooks (London, SCM Press: 1975), 65–77; idem,”‘Circumcision of the Heart’ and the Origins of the Qyāmâ,” in After Bardaisan: Studies on Continuity and Change in Syriac Christianity in Honour of Professor Han J. W. Drijvers, ed. G. J. Reinink and A. C. Klugkist, Orientalia Lovaniensia analecta 89 (Louvain: Peeters, 1999), 201–11; Marie-Joseph Pierre, “Introduction,” in Les Exposés; Sidney H Griffith, “Asceticism in the Church of Syria: The Hermeneutics of Early Syrian Monasticism,” in Asceticism, ed. Vincent L. Wimbush & Richard Valantasis (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995), 220–45; Diana Juhl, Die Askese.
56. Demonstration 3.2 (Parisot, Demonstrationes, 1:101, 10–11).
57. Demonstration 3.7 (Parisot, Demonstrationes, 1:113, 12–22).
58. Demonstration 3.16 (Parisot, Demonstrationes, 1:136, 12–14).
59. Demonstration 14.4 (Parisot, Demonstrationes, 1:169, 16–23).
60. Demonstration 4.13 (Parisot, Demonstrationes, 1:165, 16).
61. Demonstration 2.20 (Parisot, Demonstrationes, 1:96, 3–4).
62. Demonstration 6.1 (Parisot, Demonstrationes, 1:245, 21).
63. Demonstration 6.17 (Parisot, Demonstrationes, 1:301, 11–16).
64. Parisot, Demonstrationes, 1:304, 11–12.
65. Here, of course, Aphrahat’s Jewish interlocutors might have protested that the ritual observance of the law is precisely intended to facilitate the observance of the “deeper” law, rather than being an end in itself.
66. Demonstration 18.6 (Parisot, Demonstrationes, 1:832, 21–23).
67. Demonstration 18.3 (Parisot, Demonstrationes, 1:824, 7–9).
68. Parisot, Demonstrationes, 1:837, 3–5, 11–14.
69. Demonstration 18.10 (Parisot, Demonstrationes, 1:840, 15–16).
70. Demonstration 18.11 (Parisot, Demonstrationes, 1:840, 26–1:841, 2). Though this particular interpretation of Gen 2.24 is not mentioned in the discussion of the passage in Elizabeth Clark’s Reading Renunciation: Asceticism and Scripture in Early Christianity (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1999), 182–83, Aphrahat’s approach to the passage appears to be close to that of Jerome and John Chrysostom (among many others), who thought that marriage represented a fallen state. Not surprisingly, it is here, in his defense of virginity and celibacy against Jewish criticisms, that Aphrahat is forced to give the most ascetic reading of the Old Testament in all of the Demonstrations. Elsewhere, ascetic exegesis rarely figures prominently: Aphrahat’s moral and historical orientation does not require it. The main exception to this rule is found in Demonstration 7.18–22, where Aphrahat gives an ascetic reading of Judg 7.1–8: Gideon choosing men for war is compared to the leaders of the church guiding select candidates into ascetic warfare. A less prominent example is Aphrahat’s attribution of “pure fasting” to a series of Old Testament figures (see 3.2). This, however, is ascetic reading with a twist, since what he is attributing to them is not literal fasting, but rather the purity of heart that literal fasting, at best, facilitates. Even when Aphrahat has the luxury of examples of literal fasting (that is, Moses and Elijah; see 3.3), the important thing is that they “fasted purely” and thus were able to function effectively as God’s servants.
71. Parisot, Demonstrationes, 1:841, 19–1:844, 5.
72. Naomi Koltun-Fromm has suggested that “Aphrahat perceived his celibate vocation as a divinely commanded obligation” (“Yokes of the Holy Ones,” 215). This is true only indirectly. Insofar as virginity, for example, is a gift, it cannot be considered a general law. But if virginity enables the select few to follow the law of love more closely, then by extension we might say (though, in a polemical context, Aphrahat avoids this formulation) that it is “commanded” for those few. Earlier in her article Koltun-Fromm states, “A comparison between Aphrahat’s ‘yoke’ and various rabbinic ‘yokes’ illuminates how Aphrahat’s Christianity and rabbinic Judaism share common Semitic exegetical patterns and methodology. The yoke’s embodiment in ritualized practice—celibacy for Aphrahat and Torah-study and commandment-fulfillment for the rabbis—enables these biblical exegetes to pursue analogous paths to holiness in a post-Temple existence.” Koltun-Fromm’s general point is well-taken, but it is a mistake to suggest that Torah-study and commandment fulfillment are not important for Aphrahat. As we have seen, Aphrahat is comfortable with the designation of the Decalogue as Christ’s “easy yoke,” and his self-designation as a “disciple of the holy scriptures” (22.26) should be taken seriously.
73. Parisot, Demonstrationes, 1:521, 12–15.
74. Parisot, Demonstrationes, 1:533, 24–1:536, 4.
75. The “commandment” that is observed by the pure in heart may be the love command (cf. 1.8; 1.11; 2.12; 14.14; 14.44).
76. Parisot, Demonstrationes, 1:537, 8–15 and 1:537, 20–1:540, 6.
77. Aphrahat’s claim that an unwritten law of righteousness predated Sinai, continued to be operative under the written law, and was now clarified in Christ’s teaching and call is formally similar to the later Islamic claim that what Muslims embrace in their faith is nothing other than the pure and original form of religion. For a similar statement in another important early Syriac text, note the following passage from the Liber Graduum 26.5: “Now this Gospel which Jesus gave is the same one which Adam transgressed and [from which he] fell. That Uprightness which Moses and the prophets gave is the same one which was established for Adam after he had transgressed against the first commandment. So the first law become the latter law and the latter [law became] the first one, just as the last became the first and the first [became] the last” (trans. Robert A. Kitchen, The Book of Steps: The Syriac Liber Graduum, Cistercian Studies Series 196 [Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian Publications, 2004]). Aleksander Kowalski has argued that in the Liber Graduum, the commandment to avoid eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (sometimes simply called “the first commandment”) is associated with prohibitions against obeying Satan and engaging in worldly activities (marriage, ownership, and the like). In other words, according to the Liber Graduum, Adam and Eve were the first monastics (see Perfezione e giustizia di Adamo nel Liber Graduum [Rome: Pontificium institutum orientale, 1989], 41–46). While it is clear that for Aphrahat, as for the Liber Graduum, there was a “fall into sexuality,” there is, in Aphrahat, no association of the commandment to avoid the fruit of the tree with prohibitions against obeying Satan and embracing worldly activities (for the relevant passages, see Demonstrations 2.2,7; 7.1; 8.17; 11.3; 13.4; 18.9; 21.1, 2, 6; 23.3). Even more significant is the lack of any distinction between perfection and uprightness in the Demonstrations, and the corresponding lack of a “law for the perfect” (first given to Adam and reinstituted by Christ) and a “law for the upright” (given to Moses to regulate the lives of those who had fallen from perfection). For Aphrahat, the perfect law of love, which is also the “law of righteousness” written on the hearts of the patriarchs, forms the essence of the Mosaic law, and it is to this law that Christ calls his followers to return. Asceticism is embraced as a means to the fulfillment of this law of love. The lack of any emphasis on a separate “law for the upright” is probably also a function of Aphrahat’s decision to address his own ascetic circle, and not the wider church.

In his Commentary on Isaiah.(1) Jerome quotes from a passage in the Gospel according to the Hebrews where Jesus proclaims that ‘my mother the Holy Spirit has taken me . . . [and conveyed me to Mount Tabor]’. No one should be scandalised on this matter, comments Jerome, in that ‘Spirit’ is feminine in Hebrew, but masculine in ‘our language’ (Latin) and neuter in Greek, ‘for in the deity there is no gender’ [in divinitate enim nullus est sexus]. The aim of this paper is to explore some of the repercussions of this grammatical feature of the Semitic languages in the history of the only early Christian literature to have been written in one of these languages, namely Syriac.
Although the New Testament was written in Greek, Christianity was born in a Semitic milieu and Jesus himself will have spoken Aramaic (of which Syriac is a dialect). Likewise, in those parts of the eastern Roman Empire where Aramaic, rather than Greek, was both spoken and written (such as much of Syria and Palestine), Aramaic became the language of many early Christian communities; accordingly, when these communities spoke of the Holy Spirit they naturally used the standard Aramaic word for ‘spirit’, ruha (also ‘wind’ as pneuma), which, like Hebrew ruah, is grammatically feminine. Thus, when referring to the Holy Spirit, they used the feminine forms of adjectives, verbs, etc. What effect does this purely grammatical feature have on their understanding of the role of the Holy Spirit? In what way does it affect the images and metaphors they use of the Spirit? In particular is the image of the Holy Spirit as ‘mother’ found elsewhere, as well as in the Gospel according to the Hebrews?
Before turning to the evidence of Syriac literature we should briefly look at the role of grammatical gender in different languages, for it is important to realise that differences in this role will give rise to different sensitivities. For our present purpose it will suffice to notice five different possibilities.
(1) In English there are separate pronouns, ‘he’, ‘she’, ‘it’, but no special feminine forms for the article, for adjectives or for verbs. Gender is thus mostly confined to persons.
(2) French has only the masculine and feminine pronouns, but it also has separate feminine forms for the article and adjectives. Thus, for example, 1’Esprit is grammatically masculine. Gender affects things as well as persons.
3) The situation in Greek is similar to that in French, except that there are three separate pronouns. Thus to pneuma to hagwn is neuter.
(4) In Hebrew, Aramaic and Syriac, while there are only two pronouns, masculine and feminine, separate feminine forms exist for verbs as well as for adjectives (but not for the article).
(5) In certain languages, such as Armenian, no grammatical gender exists and a single pronoun covers both ‘he’ and ‘she’. Revisers of modern liturgies and biblical translations will lament that the English language does not have this simple solution to the problem of ‘sexist language’.
This difference in the role played by grammatical gender in different languages means that we should not necessarily think that the surprise which we may feel if we hear the Holy Spirit described as ‘she’ would have also been felt in a language where the word for ‘spirit’ is feminine anyway.
With these preliminaries let us turn to see what happens in the literature of the Syriac-speaking Church. First of all, it is important to look at these texts in historical perspective, for over the course of time practice can be observed to change. Three stages can be identified:
(1) In the earliest literature up to about AD 400 the Holy Spirit is virtually always treated grammatically as feminine. This is the norm in the three main monuments of early Syriac literature, the Acts of Thomas, and the writings of Aphrahat and Ephrem.
(2) From the early fifth century onwards it is evident that some people began to disapprove of treating the Holy Spirit as grammatically feminine; accordingly, in defiance of the grammatical rules of the language, they treated the word ruha as masculine wherever it referred to the Holy Spirit. Perhaps this shift in practice was in part due to the ever increasing prestige of the Greek language (though of course pneuma is neuter, rather than masculine).
(3) From the sixth century onwards what had been only sporadic practice in the fifth century now becomes the norm, ruha, referring to the Holy Spirit, is regularly treated as masculine. Even so, the original feminine was not completely ousted, for it can still occasionally be found, chiefly in liturgical texts and in poetry (where some poets use either masculine or feminine, depending on which best fits their immediate metrical requirements).
This three-stage development happens to be neatly reflected in the history of the biblical translations into Syriac. Thus in the Old Syriac translation of the Gospels, dating from the late second or early third century, the Holy Spirit regularly features grammatically as feminine. In the revised translation of the Syriac New Testament, known as the Peshitta, and produced in the early fifth century, we find that although the feminine has been preserved in many places, there are also some where the gender has been altered to masculine. Finally, in the early seventh-century version known as the Harklean (a masterpiece of mirror translation) ruha is regularly treated as masculine wherever it refers to the Holy Spirit. It is likely that this practice was also adopted in the Philoxenian revision of 507/8, now lost apart from quotations.
These developments may be illustrated by means of some examples, beginning with the Syriac Bible.
Rather surprisingly there are only two places in the Gospels where the revisers who produced the Peshitta chose to alter the feminine of the Old Syriac to masculine; it so happens that both are passages where the Holy Spirit ‘teaches’ (Luke 12.12 and John 14.26). Much more frequently in the Gospels the Peshitta simply retains the feminine of the Old Syriac; this includes two contexts of central importance, the Annunciation (Luke 1.35) and the Baptism.(2) It is, curiously, in Acts that the Peshitta provides the highest number of cases where a masculine form is used in connection with the Holy
Spirit (nine instances),(3) but even in that book the feminine survives in a further seven passages.(4) There appears to be no clear rationale behind this variation in usage. In the Peshitta of the Epistles, on the other hand, the archaic usage with the feminine is kept throughout.(5)
The only consistent alteration made by the Peshitta revisers (and this is confined to the Gospels) concerns the precise Syriac terminology for the Holy Spirit. Although the Old Syriac normally employs the phrase ‘Spirit of holiness’, ruha d-qudsha, of Jewish origin,(6) in five passages(7) it uses instead the feminine adjective, ruha qaddishta, ‘Holy Spirit’; all five of these the Peshitta alters to ruha d-qudsha, though the feminine is retained in the single case (Luke 2.25) where the context does not leave the gender indeterminate. This situation is quite different from that in the Peshitta Epistles, where ruha. qaddishta is to be found at Eph. 4:30 and 1 Thess. 4:8. It comes as no surprise to find that the form with the masculine adjective, ruha qaddisha, occurs only in the post-Peshitta version of the minor Catholic Epistles known as the Pococke Epistles (early sixth century?), and in the Harklean New Testament.(8)
The alteration to masculine of biblical passages which originally had feminine can also take place at a subsequent stage, either in the manuscript tradition of the Syriac Bible, or in quotations by later writers. Two examples will suffice. In the much used Psalm 51 the original Peshitta text has the feminine adjective in verse 13, ‘Take not thy Holy Spirit, ruhak qaddishta, from me’; this is preserved only in a few of the oldest manuscripts,(9) and the alteration to masculine qaddisha is already found in the earliest complete Syriac Bible, Codex Ambrosianus, of the six/seventh century. Another important verse is 1 Cor. 3.16, where the Peshitta uses the feminine: ‘The Spirit of God dwells (‘amra, feminine) in you’. The great Syrian Orthodox theologian Philoxenus (died 523) alters the verb to the masculine (‘amar) when he quotes the passage;(10) the same phenomenon can be observed when he quotes other key New Testament passages referring to the activity of the Spirit, such as Luke 1.35;(11) it is thus likely that the (lost) Philoxenian revision of the Syriac New Testament regularly removed usage with the feminine, anticipating the Harklean’s practice. The same phenomenon can be observed in the transmission of Christian Palestinian Aramaic biblical texts. In this version (of uncertain date, possibly Fifth century) the feminine is the norm, but at Luke 3.22, for example, some manuscripts have altered the verb to masculine.
Before turning to non-biblical literature one further analogous feature of the Syriac Gospels should be mentioned. In Syriac Logos, ‘Word’, is translated by another feminine noun, mellta. Accordingly in the Prologue of the Gospel of John the Old Syriac treats Mellta, the Logos, as feminine, and this usage is reflected, not only in the fourth-century writer Ephrem (which is to be expected);(12) but also very occasionally in texts of the fifth, or even later centuries,(13) even though in the Peshitta revision the gender had already been altered to masculine.
In the non-biblical literature of the earliest of the three periods outlined above it is very exceptional to find cases where the Holy Spirit is treated grammatically as masculine. Curiously enough the one text where the masculine adjective (ruha) qaddisha does occur several times is the archaic Odes of Solomon, (14)The fifth century is clearly the period of transition, and it would be of interest to trace in detail the development of usage over the course of the century in different texts. This task remains to be done, but my general impression is that it is those writers who are more theologically aware (aware, that is, of contemporary controversies) who are more likely to employ the masculine. Thus, towards the end of the century, both Narsai (in the Antiochene christological tradition) and Philoxenus (in the Alexandrine) use the masculine, while the author of the Life of Symeon the Stylite still employs the feminine.(16)The great poet Jacob of Serugh (died 521) happily uses both feminine and masculine, indifferently.”(17)
From the sixth century onwards usage with the masculine (and normally with ruha qaddisha, rather than ruha d-qudsha) appears to be invariable in theological writing, and it is only sporadically in poetry that the feminine is still to be found (many examples – still in liturgical use – can be gathered from the pages of the Fenqitho and Hudra, the Festal Hymnaries of the Syrian Orthodox Church and the Church of the East).
Thus far we have solely been concerned with surface phenomena connected with the grammatical structure of the language. Does this fact that the Holy Spirit is grammatically feminine in the earliest Syriac literature have any effect on the way people envisaged the role of the Spirit? That it did is suggested by a passage in the Gospel according to Philip, a work preserved only in Coptic (among the Nag Hammadi finds) but probably having a Syrian background; here, at §17 we find: ‘Some have said, “Mary conceived of the Holy Spirit”. They are wrong . . . when did a woman ever conceive of a woman?’ Passages implying that the Spirit acts in a male role as the source of Mary’s conception can be found in some later liturgical texts, such as the following, where Gabriel addresses Mary: ‘You shall discover a wonderful conception: without [human] seed or intercourse, your conception shall be from the Holy Spirit, O Virgin.(18) It was perhaps in order to obviate such a literalist reading of Luke 1.35 that many later Syriac writers deliberately distinguish between the ‘Holy Spirit’ and the ‘Power of the Most High’ in that verse, identifying the Power (hayla, masculine in Syriac) as the Logos.(19)
The author of the Gospel according to Philip clearly sees the Spirit as female, and it is this, evidently Semitic, tradition that is represented in a number of early Syriac works where we encounter the Spirit as Mother.(20) The Acts of Thomas, perhaps of the third century, is the earliest of these. This work, whose original language was Syriac (this is now generally agreed), survives in a re-worked Syriac form and in a Greek translation which was made from a more primitive form of the Syriac original. Thus, in the course of several prayers uttered by Judas Thomas, the Greek text includes several invocations to the Holy Spirit as ‘Mother’; in the surviving Syriac, however, this term is always absent, presumably having been removed on the grounds that it was no longer considered appropriate. The relevant passages in the Greek text are as follows:(21)
§27 [In a baptismal context; the invocation is addressed to both the Son and the Spirit.] Come, holy name of Christ, which is above every name; come Power of the Most High, and perfect mercy; come exalted gift [i.e. the Holy Spirit]; come, compassionate mother . . . [For ‘compassionate mother’ the Syriac has nothing corresponding.]
§50 [An invocation to the Spirit in the context of the Eucharist.] . . . Come, hidden mother . . . come, and make us share in this Eucharist which we perform in your name, and [make us share] in the love to which we are joined by invoking you. [The Syriac again removes the reference to the Spirit as ‘mother’.]
§133 [In the course of a trinitarian invocation in the context of the Eucharist.] We name over you [the newly baptised] the name of the Mother. [Syriac: the name of the Spirit.]
In one further passage, a prayer in §39, the Greek text has an intrusive ‘and’, wrongly separating the epithet Mother from the Holy Spirit: ‘We hymn you [Christ] and your unseen Father and your Holy Spirit and the Mother of all created things.'(22)
In these passages we have clear evidence of a Trinity envisaged as consisting of Father, Mother and Son. Traces of this are also to be found in the archaic poem known as the Hymn of the Pearl (or, of the Soul), incorporated into the Acts of Thomas. The poem describes how a royal son was sent by his father and mother, the king and the queen, from the highlands of the East (the heavenly world) to go to Egypt (the fallen world) in order to collect a pearl from the mouth of a dragon. Although the interpretation of the poem has been much disputed,(23) a reasonable case can be made out for seeing the son as representing in some senses both Adam/humanity and Christ the Word who rescues him. In Egypt the son receives a letter from his parents which begins: ‘From your Father, the King of kings, and your Mother, the Mistress of the East’, and later he uses the names of his father and mother in an invocation to charm the dragon so that he can extract the pearl. In some sense or other it seems likely that the King and the Queen are to be identified as the Father and the Holy Spirit; in any case, this was the Christian reading of the poem in antiquity.
The Acts of Thomas might be considered as belonging at best only to the fringes of orthodoxy. It is not, however, the only placein early Syriac literature where we encounter the Spirit as Mother.
A thoroughly orthodox witness to this tradition is Aphrahat, writing in the middle of the fourth century. Aphrahat, or the Persian Sage as he was called, lived within the Sasanid Empire, and so it is no great surprise that his theological language seems archaic when compared with that of his contemporaries writing within the Roman Empire. In a work dealing mainly with virginity he has the following interpretation of Genesis 2.24 (‘a man shall leave his father and mother’):(24)
Who is it who leaves father and mother to take a wife? The meaning is as follows: as long as a man has not taken a wife, he loves and reveres God his Father and the Holy Spirit his Mother, and he has no other love. But when a man takes a wife, then he leaves his (true) Father and his Mother.
The seeds for such an interpretation had already been sown by Philo (not that Aphrahat would have read him) in his Allegorical Interpretation (of Gen. 2-3). At 11.49, after quoting Gen. 2.24, he says: (25)
For the sake of sense-perception the Mind, when it has become her slave, abandons both God the Father of the universe, and God’s excellence and wisdom, the Mother of all things, and cleaves to and becomes one with sense-perception and is resolved into sense-perception so that the two become one flesh and one experience.
Closer to Aphrahat in time, space and spirit, however, are the Macarian Homilies, whose Syrian/Mesopotamian origin in the fourth/fifth century is now generally admitted. Here we encounter the following passage, which again reflects Gen.2.24.(26)
It is right and-fitting, children, for you to have left all that is temporal and to have gone off to God: instead of an earthly father you are seeking the heavenly Father, and instead of a mother who is subject to corruption, you have as a Mother the excellent Spirit of God, and the heavenly Jerusalem. Instead of the brothers you have left you now have the Lord who has allowed himself to be called brother of the faithful.
It is important to realise that the image of the Holy Spirit as Mother is by no means confined to Syriac writers or to those working in a Semitic milieu. Thus Hippolytus, writing in Greek c.200, describes Isaac as an image of God the Father, his wife Rebecca as an image of the Holy Spirit, and their son Jacob as an image of Christ – or of the Church.(27) Most striking in this respect, however, is the second Hymn of the highly cultured Synesios, Bishop of Gyrene from 410-13. After addressing the Father and the Son he turns to the Spirit:(28)I sing of the [Father’s] travail, the fecund will, the intermediary principle, the Holy Breath/Inspiration, the centre point of the Parent, the centre point of the Child: she is mother, she is sister, she is daughter; she has delivered [i.e. as midwife] the hidden root.
Examples of the same kind of imagery used of the Spirit can also be found in a few Latin writers, most notably in Marius Victorinus (mid fourth century).
Thus among early Christian writers, Greek and Latin as well as Syriac, one can find scattered pieces of evidence which may suggest that there was once a fairly widespread tradition which associated the Holy Spirit with the image of mother.(29) The roots of such a tradition are to be found, not only in the grammatical feature of the Semitic languages where ‘Spirit’ is feminine, but also in the links which the concept of Holy Spirit will have had with the personalised figure of Wisdom(30)and with the Jewish concept of the Divine Presence or Shekhina.(31) As is well known, both these features are often connected with mother imagery. As far as extant early Syriac literature is concerned, however, neither Wisdom nor the Shekhina is at all prominent.
As we have seen, from the fifth century onwards a revulsion against the idea of the Holy Spirit as mother must have set in. This may partly have been due to the misuse of the imagery by some heretical groups, though another factor should also be kept in mind: in the Syriac-speaking areas of the eastern Roman Empire the large scale influx of new converts to Christianity will have included many people whose background lay in pagan cults in which a divine triad of Father, Mother and Son was prominent.(32)
The archaic tradition of the Holy Spirit as Mother did not, however, entirely disappear, for one can find occasional relics of it, albeit reduced to a simile, in much later Syriac writers. Thus the monastic writer Martyrius, writing in the first half of the seventh century, speaks of the person ‘who has been held worthy of the hovering of the all-holy Spirit, who, like a mother, hovers over us as she gives sanctification; and through her hovering over us, we are made worthy of sonship’.(33) The term ‘hovering’ here will immediately have provided Syriac readers with three resonances, of which Genesis 1.2 is the primary one; more important, however, in the context within which Martyrius is speaking, are the resonances of the baptismal rite, where the Spirit ‘hovers over’ the font,(34) and the eucharistic epiclesis, where the Spirit is invited to come and ‘hover over’ the Bread and the Wine and thus transform them into the Body and the Blood of Christ.(35)
Another example of the imagery can be found in the writings of the Syrian Orthodox theologian and scholar, Moses bar Kepha (died 903): ‘the Holy Spirit hovered over John the Baptist and brought him up like a compassionate mother’.(36) For the most part, however, in later Syriac literature it will be found that ‘Grace’ has taken over the Spirit’s place as mother.(37)
Whereas the Holy Spirit as Mother, alongside God the Father, is a feature only encountered rarely in Syriac literature, the use of female imagery is much more common. Such imagery is implied, for example, every time the term ‘hovers’ is used of the Holy Spirit – and it occurs very frequently – for this term, based as we have seen on Genesis 1.2, originally describes the action of a mother bird. Rather than explore this aspect further here, it must suffice to observe that female imagery is by no means confined to the Holy Spirit: many examples can be found (and this applies to Greek and Latin literature, as well as Syriac) where female imagery is used of the Father and the Son. What to us seems a bizarre example can be found in the Odes of Solomon (late second century?):(38)
A cup of milk was offered to me, and I drank it in the sweetness of the Lord’s kindness. The Son is the cup, and the Father is he who was milked; and the Holy Spirit is she who milked him. Because his breasts were full, and it was undesirable that his milk should be ineffectually released, the Holy Spirit opened her bosom, and mixed the milk of the two breasts of the Father.
An interesting example is provided by the Syriac translation of John 1.18, ‘No one has ever seen God: the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known'(39). In order to render the Greek word kolpos, ‘bosom’, the Syriac translator employed a word which also means ‘womb’ (‘ubba); that at least some Syriac readers understood ‘ubba in the sense of ‘womb’ at John 1.18 is shown by a number of passages in Ephrem’s hymns, where he sets the ‘womb’ of the Father alongside the ‘womb of Mary’. Thus in the Hymns on the Resurrection, 1:7,
The Word [fem.] of the Father came from his womb and put on a body in another womb: the Word proceeded from one womb to another and chaste wombs are now filled with the Word. Blessed is he who has resided in us.
Ephrem happens to be a writer who is particularly fond of female imagery (even though he perhaps deliberately avoids any overt description of the Spirit as mother). Two examples will suffice here. In one of his Nativity Hymns (4.149-50) he describes the infant Christ, who sucks Mary’s breast, as himself ‘the living breast’:
He was lying there, sucking Mary’s milk,
yet all created things suck from his goodness.
He is the living breast; from his life
the dead have sucked living breath – and come to life
Elsewhere, in the Hymns on the Church (25.18), Ephrem compares God to a wetnurse:
The Divinity is attentive to us, just as a wetnurse is to a baby,
keeping back for the right time things that will benefit it, 
for she knows the right time for weaning, 
and when the child should be nourished with milk, 
and when it should be fed with solid bread,
weighing out and providing what is beneficial to it
in accordance with the measure of its growing up.
In using female imagery of God Ephrem and other Syriac writers are simply following the lead set in the biblical writings themselves where such imagery applied to God is by no means infrequent -even though traditionally male-oriented eyes have usually been blind to this. In fact, throughout Christian tradition an undercurrent can be discerned where feminine imagery is used of God, and of the individual persons of the Trinity. Thus in the medieval West, to take but one example, besides the well known case of Dame Julian of Norwich, many instances can be found in writers like St Anselm and St Bernard.(40)
Clearly it is important to recover an awareness of, and a sensitivity to, this female imagery already present in the tradition, for it is only by regaining this sensitivity that it is possible to attain to a better appreciation of the fullness of the Godhead: by restricting ourselves to only fatherly images (or only motherly images), we will end up with a very unbalanced view of God.
At the same time it is essential, as Ephrem points out, to move beyond the metaphors with which God has ‘allowed himself to be clothed’ in the course of what could be described as his incarnation into human language:
If someone concentrates his attention solely 
on the metaphors used of God’s majesty,
he abuses and misrepresents that majesty 
by means of those metaphors with which God has clothed himself
for humanity’s own benefit, 
and he is ungrateful to that Grace 
which bent down its stature to the level of human childishness. 
Although God had nothing in common with it,
he clothed himself in the likeness of humanity
in order to bring humanity to the likeness of himself.
(Hymns on Paradise 11:6)(41)
FOOT NOTES
1. On Isaiah 40.9 (Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina 73, p. 459).
2. Matt. 3.16, Luke 3.22, John 1.32 (at Mark 1.10 ‘dove’ rather than ‘Spirit’ could be subject of the feminine verb). Other passages where the feminine is kept are Matt. 10.20 ‘speaks’, Mark 1.12 ‘took him out’, Luke 2.25 ‘was’, 4.1 ‘led him’, John 6.63 ‘who gives life’, and 7.39 ‘was given’.
3. Acts 1.16’foretold’, 2.4’gave’, 10.19 and 11.12’said’, 19.6’came’, 20.23 ‘testifies and says’, 20.28’set up’, 21.11 ‘said’, 28.25 ‘spoke’.
4. Acts 1.8 ‘shall come’, 8.18 ‘is given’, 8.29 ‘said’, 8.39 ‘snatched’, 10.44 ‘overshadowed’, 13.2 ‘said’, 16.7 ‘permitted’.
5. Rom. 5.5 ‘was given’, 8.9, 11 ‘dwells’, 8.16 ‘testifies’, 8.26 ‘assists, prays’, 1 Cor. 2.10 ‘searches out’, 3.16 and 6.19 ‘dwells’, 12.11 ‘performs, distributes’, Eph. 1.13 ‘is promised’, 2 Tim. 1.14- ‘dwelt’. Heb. 3.7 ‘said’, 9.8 ‘indicated’, 10.15 ‘testifies’, 1 John 5.7 ‘testifies’.
6. Cp. H. Parzen, ‘The Ruach hakodesh in Tannaitic literature’, Jewish Quarterly Review 20 (1929/30), pp. 51-76.
7. Mark 13.11, Luke 2.25, 26; 11.13, John 20.22.
8. Several editions of the Syriac NT based on late manuscripts have altered Eph. 4.30 to masculine, qaddisha. In early Syriac literature ruha d-qudsha is the norm, but ruha qaddishta is also sometimes found, e.g. Acts of Thomas (ed. Wright), p. 323(note10); Aphrahat, Dem. VI. 14, XXIII.61; Ephrem, Hymns against Heresies 55:5; Liber Graduum IX. 1. The masculine ruha qaddisha. is not found until the fifth century and later – with the surprising exception of the Odes of Solomon (see below, n. 14).
9. 6tl, 8al*, 8tl, 10t4.5 in the notation of the critical edition, Vetus Testamentum Syriace II.3 (the first numeral denotes the century to which the manuscript is dated). At another important verse, Isaiah 11.2, Codex Ambrosianus (7al) is the only manuscript to make a similar alteration to masculine.
10. E.g. Tradatus tres de trinitate et incarnatione (ed. Vaschalde, Corpus Scr. Chr. Orientalium, Scriptores Syri 9, p. 168(note31) ). An earlier writer who sometimes makes such alterations of gender in his biblical quotations is the monastic author John the Solitary (or John of Apamea; first half of fifth century), e.g. Letters (ed. Rignell), p. 113(note9), quoting John 7.39
11. Substituting a masculine for the feminine form of the verb ‘shall come’: e.g. Comm, on Prologue of John (ed. de Halleux, C.S.C.O, Scriptures Syri 165, p. 41(note2) ). The same change is often made in liturgical texts, e.g. Fenqitho (Mosul edition), II, p. 83b, 87a, 88b, 95b, etc.
12. Excerpt on the Prologue of John, apud T. Lamy, S. Ephrem Syri Hymni et Sermones, II, col. 511; Hymns on Resurrection 1.7 (quoted below).
13. Fenqitho II, p. 65a (in a prayer which on other grounds must belong at least to c.7th century), p. 272b; VI, p. 107b, etc.
14. Odes of Solomon 6:7, 11:2, 14:8, 23:22 (in the older manuscript). Usage with the feminine verb (but not adjective) also occurs.
15. Hymns on Faith 12.6; on Church 45:15.
16. For Narsai, e.g. Homily on Nativity, line 151; on Epiphany, line 298 (both in Patrologia Orientalis40). For Philoxenus see above, notes 10-11. Life of Symeon the Stylite: ed. Bedjan, Acta Martyrum et Sanctorum IV, p. 617, ‘The Holy Spirit caused to be written down (aktbat, fem.) the resplendent deeds of the faithful . . .’
17. Metrical considerations are evidently uppermost in his choice of masc. or fem.; for an example see note 19.
18. Fenqitho II, p. l08b. Compare the polemic in Ephrem, Hymns against Heresies 55:3. Cp. also A. Orbe, La teologia del Espiritu Santo (Rome, p1966), pp. 69-116, 687-706.
19. Cf. my remarks in Novum Testamentum 24 (1982), p. 227, and further in A. Guillaumont Mélanges (Geneva, 1988) pp. 121 ff. Jacob of Serugh explains the different roles of the Spirit and the Power as follows: ‘The Spirit of Holiness first sanctified [fem, form of verb] her, and then [the Son of God] tabernacled in her. The Spirit freed [masc. verb] her from that debt [or sin], so that she might be above any wrongdoing when [the Son of God] resided in her in holy fashion’ i(Homily on Virgin, apud P. Bedjan, Sancti Martyrii qui et Sahdona quae supersunt omnia (Paris/Leipzig, 1902), p. 632.
20. On this see especially R. Murray, Symbols of Church and Kingdom: a Study in Early Syriac Tradition (Cambridge, 1975), pp. 312-20, W. Cramer, Der Geist Gottes und des Menschen in frühsyrischer Theologie (Münster, 1979), pp. 36-8, 68-9, and my The Holy Spirit in the Syrian Baptismal Tradition (Syrian Churches Series 9, 1979), pp. 3-5.
21. For §27 and §50 there is a detailed study by H. Kruse, ‘Zwei Geist-Epiklesen der syrischen Thomasakten’, Oriens Christianas 69 (1985), zpp. 33-55.
22. For ‘mother’ the Syriac has ‘hovering over’ (based on Gen. 1,2, on which see below).
23. A helpful survey is provided by P-H. Poirier, L’Hymne de la Perle des Actes de Thomas (Louvain la Neuve, 1981).
24. Demonstration 18:10.
25. Translation by G.H. Whitaker (Loeb edition, p. 255).
26. Homily LIV.4.5 in H. Berthold, Makarios/Symeon. Reden und Briefe (Berlin, 1973), II, pp. 156-7.
27. In H. Achelis, Hippolytus Werke (Leipzig, 1897), 1.2, p. 54(note5). For Greek writers see S. Hirsch, Die Vorstellung von einem weiblichen pneuma hagion (Diss. Berlin, 1926),
28. On this passage see S. Vollenweider’s excursus ‘Mutter Heiliger Geist’ in his Neuplatonische und christliche Theologie bei Synesios von Kyrene (Gottingen, 1985), pp. 78-9 (with further bibliography on the subject).
29. A different model is provided in chapter 9 of the Didascalia (a Syrian product of the 3rd century): there the bishop corresponds to God the Father, ‘the deacon stands in the position of Christ . . . and the deaconess in the position of the Holy Spirit’.
30. In Acts of Thomas §50 the Holy Spirit is described as ‘the Wisdom of the Son’; but on the whole the figure of Wisdom is not often found in early Syriac literature.
31. The Peshitta of Chronicles introduces the term in a number of passages (e.g. 2 Chron. 6.18), and it occurs a few times in Aphrahat (Dem. IV.7, XVIII.4, XIX.4) and Ephrem (e.g. Hymns on Paradise 2:11; on Unleavened Bread 13.21), but it only becomes popular in rather later writers such as Jacob of Serugh, and notably in some 7th/8th century(?) texts in the East Syrian Hudra, on which compare my Syriac Perspectives on Late Antiquity (London, 1984), ch. IV, pp. 106-7
32. Such cults are well documented from Palmyra and Hatra from a rather earlier period.
33. Book of Perfection 1.3.13 (ed. de Halleux, C.S.C.O., Scr. Syri 86, p. 32). Martyrius is a writer who frequently retains the archaic usage, treating the Spirit as grammatically feminine.
34. On this see my The Holy Spirit in the Syrian Baptismal Tradition (Syrian xChurches Series 9, 1979), pp. 81-4. Ancient exegetes, as well as modern translators, disputed the sense of ruah ‘elohim, ‘spirit/wind of God’ in Gen. 1.2.
35. Many of the Syriac anaphoras employ the term ‘hover’ in the wording of their epicleses. It is already used in a Eucharistic context by Ephrem (Hymns of Faith 10:16), even though he elsewhere states that the spirit of Gen. 1.2 is not to be identified as the Holy Spirit. 
36. In a homily edited by F. Nurse in American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literature 26 (1909/10), p. 95.
37. E.g. Jacob of Serugh, Homiliae Selectae (ed. P. Bedjan), IV, p. 313 (though on p. 52 he has ‘the Divinity is a compassionate mother’), Fenqitho III, p. 137a.
38. Odes of Solomon 19:1-4, translated by R. Murray, Symbols of Church and Kingdom, p. 315. Similar imagery can be found especially in Clement of Alexandria; a collection of references can be found in H.J.W. Drijvers, ‘The 19th Ode of Solomon’, Journal of Theological Studies 31 (1980), pp. 344-5.
39. The following is based on my The Luminous Eye: the Spiritual World Vision of St Ephrem (Rome, 1985), pp. 143—4. (Ephrem’s writings suggest that he had a special sympathy for women.)
40. See especially C. Bynum, Jesus as Mother. Studies in the Spirituality of the High Middle Ages (Berkeley, 1982).
41. English translations of several early Syriac writings are available. Odes of Solomon: in H.F.D. Sparks (ed.), The Apocryphal Old Testament (Oxford, J984), pp. 683-731. Acts ofThomas: A.FJ. Klijn, The Acts of Thomas (Leiden, 1962). Aphrahat: J. Gwynn (ed.), in A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, II. 13 (Oxford/New York, 1898), and J. Neusner, Aphrahat and Judaism (Leiden, 1971). Ephrem: J.B. Morris, Select Works of St Ephrem The Syrian (Oxford, 1847), J. Gwynn, op. cit., S.P. Brock, The Harp of the Spirit: 18 Poems of St Ephrem (London, 1983), and K. McVey, Ephrem the Syrian: Hymns, Classics of Western Spirituality (New York, 1989).

هنيبعل
( قرطاجنة – رجيولوس – هملكار – هنيبعل – سبيو )
“ قصة الحضارة “
ويل ديورانت

قرطاجنة
كشف التجار الفينيقيون – وهم قوم ديدنهم البحث والتنقيب – عن ثروة إسبانيا المعدنية قبل ألف ومائة عام من تلك الأيام . ولم يمض على هذا الكشف إلا قليل من الوقت حتى كان أسطول من السفن التجارية يمخر عباب البحر الأبيض المتوسط بين صيدا وصور وبيلوس من ناحية وطارطسوس Tartessus عند منصب نهر الوادي الكبير من ناحية أخرى . وإذ كانت هذه الأسفار مما يتعذر القيام بها من غير أن تكون فيها محاط ( محطات ) كثيرة في الطريق ، وإذ كانت سواحل البحر الأبيض الجنوبية أقصر الطرق وآمنها، فقد أنشأ الفينيقيون مراكز وسطى ومحاط تجارية على سواحل إفريقيا الشمالي عند لبتس مجنا Leptes Magna ( ليدة الحالية ) وهدرومنتم Hadrumentum ( سومة ) وبوتيكا ( بوتيك ) وهبوديرهيتس Hppo Diarrhytus وهبورجيوس Hippo Regius ( بونة )، بل إنهم عبروا مضيق جبل طارق وأقاموا مركزًا لهم في لكسوس Lixus ( جنوب طنجة ) . وتزوج التجار الساميون الذين أقاموا في هذه المراكز من الأهالي وأسكتوا غيرهم بالمال . وفي عام 813 ق .م أقامت جماعة جديدة من المستعمرين – قد يكونون من فينيقية وقد يكونون من يتكيا Utica التي أخذت وقتئذ في الاتساع – أقامت هذه الجماعة بيوتًا لها على نتوء في البحر على بعد عشرة أميال من مدينة تونس الحالية . وكان الدفاع عن شبه الجزيرة الفينيقية أمراً سهلاً ، وكانت مياه نهر بجرداس ( مجردة ) تروي أرضها وتفيض عليها الخصب والنماء ، ولذلك كانت تعود إلى الانتعاش بسرعة بعد ما كان يحل بها من التخريب المتكرر . وتعزو الروايات القديمة إنشاء هذه المدينة إلى إليسا Elissa أو ديدو Dido ابنة ملك صور ، فتقول إن أخاها قتل زوجها فأبحرت مع طائفة أخرى من المغامرين إلى إفريقيا . وسمي المكان الذي استقرت فيه كارت هدشت – أي المدينة الجديدة- تمييزًا لها عن يتيكا . وحول اليونان هذا الاسم إلى كارشدون وبدله الرومان إلى كرثاجو . وأطلق اللاتين اسم إفريقيا على الإقليم المحيط بقرطاجنة ويتكيا وسموا أهلها الساميين ، كما كان يسميهم اليونان ، البوني أو الفوني ، أي الفينيقيين . وهاجر كثيرون من سراة أهل صور إلى إفريقيا عقب حصار شلمانصر ، ونبوخذ نصر والإسكندر ، واستقر معظمهم في قرطاجنة، فأصبحت بسبب هذه الهجرة مركزًا جديدًا للتجارة الفينيقية ، وأخذت قوة قرطاجنة وعظمتها في الازدياد كلما أخذت صور وصيدا في الاضمحلال .

ولما ازدادت المدينة قوة دفعت أهل إفريقيا الأولين إلى الداخل شيئاً فشيئاً ، وامتنعت عن أداء الجزية لهم ، بل أرغمتهم على أن يؤدوها هم واستخدمتهم أرقاء وأقناناً في بيوتها ومزارعها . وكانت نتيجة هذا أن نشأت لأهل قرطاجنة ضياع واسعة كان يعمل في بعضها عشرون ألف رجل ، وأضحت الزراعة عند الفينيقين العمليين علماً وصناعة ، ولخص قواعدها ماجو الكاتب القرطاجني في كتاب ذائع الصيت . وشق الأهلون القنوات فأخصبت الأرض ونشأت فيها حدائق ذات بهجة ، وحقول من القمح والكروم ، وبساتين تنتج الزيتون والرمان والكمثرى والكرز والتين . وربوا الخيل والأنعام والضأن والمعز ، واستخدموا الحمير والبغال في حمل الأثقال ، وأنّسوا كثيرًا من الحيوانات ومنها الفيل . أما الصناعات في المدن فلم تزدهر ازدهار الزراعة اللهم إلا صناعة المعادن ؛ ذلك أن القرطاجنيين ، كآبائهم الأسيويين ، كانوا يفضلون أن يتجروا فيما يصنعه غيرهم ، فكانوا يجربون الأقطار ، يقودون بغالهم شرقًا وغربًا ، ويضربون في قفار الصحراء طلبًا للفيلة والعاج والذهب والعبيد . وكانت سفنهم الضخمة تحمل المتاجر من مئات المواني بين آسيا وبريطانيا وإليهما ، لأنهم لم يكونوا يرضون أن يعودوا كما عاد معظم الملاحين عند أعمدة هرقول Pillars of Hercules ( مضيق جبل طارق )؛ وأكبر الظن أنهم هم الذين أنفقوا على رحلة هنو Hanno البحرية التي ارتادت ألفين وستمائة ميل من ساحل أفريقيا الغربي ، ورحلة هملكو Himilco التي ارتادت سواحل أوربا الشمالية . ويلوح أنهم كانوا أول من أصدر عملة من نوع العملة الورقية – في صورة رقائق من الجلد مطبوع عليها ما يدل على قيمتها ويتعامل بها في جميع أنحاء الدولة القرطاجنية ، وإن لم يكن من المستطاع تمييز عملتهم المعدنية عن عملة غيرهم من الأمم . والراجح أن التجار الأثرياء لا الأشراف أصحاب الضياع هم الذين قدموا الأموال اللازمة لتجييش الجيوش وإنشاء الأساطيل التي حولت قرطاجنة من مركز للتجارة إلى إمبراطورية استولت على ساحل البحر الأبيض الجنوبي من سيرنيكا Cyrenaica إلى جبل طارق والى ما بعد جبل طارق عدا يتكا . واستولى القرطاجنيون كذلك على طارطسوس وجادير ( فادز ) وغيرهما من المدن الأسبانية ، وأثرت بما أخذته من ذهب أسبانيا وفضتها وحديدها ونحاسها . وتملكت جزائر البليار ، بل أنها وصلت إلى جزائر ماديرة ومالطة وسرادانية وقورسقة ونصف صقلية الغربي . وكانت تعامل البلاد الخاضعة لحكمها معاملة مختلفة الدرجات في قسوتها، فكانت تفرض عليها جزية سنوية ، وتجند الأهلين في جيوشها ، وتقيد تجارتها وعلاقاتها الخارجية بأشد من القيود . ولكنها في نظير هذا كانت تحميها من أعدائها عسكريًا ، وتمنحها استقلالاً ذاتياً محلياً ، واستقراً ا اقتصاياً . وفي وسعنا أن نقدر ما كان لهذه البلاد الخاضعة لقرطاجنة من ثراء إذا عرفنا أن واحدة منها هي لبتس الصغرى Leptis Minor كانت تؤدي إلى خزانة قرطاجنة 365 وزنة ( أي ما يعادل 000 ,314 ,1 ريال أمريكي من نقود هذه الأيام .
واستغلت قرطاجنة هذه الإمبراطورية استغلالاً جعلها في القرن الثالث قبل الميلاد أكثر مدائن البحر الأبيض المتوسط ثراء ، فقد كان يدخلها كل عام من الضرائب الجمركية ومن الخراج قدر ما كان يدخل في خزائن أثينا أيام مجدها عشرين مرة . وكان سراتها يسكنون القصور ويلبسون الملابس الغالية الثمن ويطمعون الأطعمة الشهية يأتون بها من خارج بلادهم . وازدحمت المدينة بسكانها البالغ عددهم ربع مليون نسمة واشتهرت بما أقيم فيها من الهياكل الفخمة والحمامات العامة ، ولكن أكثر ما كانت تشتهر به الأمينة وأحواضها الواسعة . وكان في مقابل كل حوض من أحواضها البالغة 220 حوضًا عمودان أيونيان Ionic؛ ومن ثم أضحى الميناء الداخلي ذا الشكل مستدير فخم يحيط به 440 عموداً . وكان يوصل هذا الميناء بالسوق العامة طريق واسع به ميدان ذو عمد ، تزينه تماثيل يونانية ، وتقوم على جانبيه الأبنية المحتوية على المصالح الحكومية ، والمكاتب التجارية ، ودور القضاء والعبادة . أما الشوارع التي تجاور هذا الطريق، فكانت ضيقة كمعظم شوارع البلاد الشرقية ، وكانت ملئ بالحوانيت التي تقوم فيها الصناعات المختلفة وتعقد فيها آلاف الصفقات التجارية . وكانت بيوتها ترتفع في الجو إلى ستة أطباق؛ وكثيراً ما كانت الحجرة الواحدة تضم أسرة بأكملها . وكان في وسط المدينة ربوة عالية أو قلعة – كانت هي وغيرها من المعالم مما أوحى إلى الرومان بالصورة التي أقاموا عليها مدينتهم – تسمى “ البورصة “ Byrsa ، وتضم بيت المال ، ومضرب النقود، وكثيراً من المزارات والعمد ، وأفخم معبد في قرطاجنة كلها وهو معبد الإله إشمون Eshmun؛ وكان يحيط بالمدينة من ناحيتها الأرضية غير البحرية سور من ثلاثة جدران يرتفع خمسًا وأربعين قدمًا في الهواء ، ومن فوقه أبراج وشرفات، ومن داخل الأسوار فضاء يتسع لأربعة آلاف حصان وثلاثمائة فيل ، وعشرين ألف رجل . وفي خارج الأسوار كانت مزارع الأغنياء ومن بعدها حقول الفقراء .
وكان القرطاجنيون من الجنس السامي وثيقي الصلة باليهود الأقدمين في دمهم وفي ملامحهم، وكانت تظهر في لغتهم أحيانًا ألفاظ عبرية ، مثال ذلك أنهم كانوا يسمون القضاة شفيتي وتلك هي الكلمة العبرية شفتيهم . وكان الرجال يرسلون لحاهم ولكنهم كان من عادتهم أن يحلقوا شفتيهم العليا بشفرات من البرونز . وكان معظمهم يضعون على رؤوسهم قلانس أو عمائم، ويحتذون أحذية أو أخفافاً ، ويلبسون جلابيب طويلة فضفاضة؛ ولكن الطبقات العليا من الأهلين قلّدت اليونان في ملابسهم ، وصبغت أثوابها باللون الأرجواني ووشت أطرافها بالخرز الزجاجي . أما النساء فكن في الغالب متحجبات يحيين حياة العزلة؛ وكان في وسعهن أن يبلغن مناصب كهنوتية عالية ، أما فيما عدا ذلك فكان عليهن أن يأسرن الرجال بجمالهن . وكان الأهلون جميعًا – رجالاً كانوا أو نساء – يتحلون ويتعطرون ويضعون أحيانًا حلقات معدنية في أنوفهم . ولسنا نعرف إلا القليل عن أخلاقهم من غير أعدائهم ، فالكتاب اليونان والرومان يصفونهم بالإسراف في الطعام والشراب ، وبأنهم يحبون أن يجتمعوا في نوادي الطعام، وأنهم إباحيون في علاقاتهم الجنسية فاسدون في شؤونهم السياسية؛ وكان الرومان المعروفون بالغدر يستعملون لفظ الوفاء القرطاجني Fides Punica مرادفًا للفظ الخيانة . ويقول بولبيوس أن “ لا شيء ينتج عنه كسب يعد عاراً في قرطاجنة “ ويتهم فلوطرخس أهل قرطاجنة بأنهم “ خشنو الطباع مكتئبون ، سلسو القياد في أيدي حكامهم ، قساة على الشعوب الخاضعة لسلطانهم ، إذا خافوا بلغوا منتهى الجبن ، وإذا غضبوا بلغوا منتهى الوحشية ، عنيدون لا يرجعون عن شيء أقروه ، صارمون ، لا يستجيبون إلى دواعي اللهو أو مباهج الحياة . ولكن فلوطرخس رغم ما عرف به من العدل في أحكامه كان يونانياً على الدوام، وأما بولبيوس فكان صديقاً حميماً لسبيو الذي حرق قرطاجنة ومحا آثارها من الوجود .
ويبدو القرطاجنيون في أسوأ صورهم في دينهم ، وإن كان كل ما نعرفه عنهم من هذه الناحية قد وصل إلينا عن طريق أعدائهم . لقد كان أسلافهم في فينيقية يعبدون بعل مُلُك وعشتروت بوصفهما ممثلين لعنصري الذكر والأنثى في الطبيعة وللشمس والقمر في السماء؛ وعبد القرطاجنيون إلهين مماثلين لهما وهما بعل هامان وثانيت . وكانت ثانيت بصفة خاصة تثير حبهم وتقواهم؛ فكانوا يملؤون هياكلها بالهدايا ويقسمون بأسمها . ويلي هذين الإلهين في التعظيم ملكارت “ مفتاح المدينة “ ثم إشمون رب الثروة والصحة ، ويأتي من بعد هذه كلها حشد كبير من الآلهة الصغرى تسمى “ البعول “ أو الأرباب . بل عن ديدو نفسه كان من هذه المعبودات . وكانوا في الأزمات العصيبة يضحون لبعل- هامان بالأطفال الأحياء، وكان عدد من يضحي بهم لهذا الإله في اليوم الواحد يبلغ أحيانًا ثلاثمائة طفل . وكانت طريقتهم في هذه التضحية أن يضعوا الأطفال فوق ذراعي هذا الوثن المبسوطتين ، ثم يدحرجونهم إلى النار المتقدة أسفل الذراعين؛ وكان يغطى على صياحهم أصوات الأبواق والدفوف ، ويطلب إلى أمهاتهم أن يشهدن هذا المنظر دون توجع أو بكاء لئلا يتهمن بالكفر ويخسرون ما هو خليق بهم من رضاء الآلهة . وتطورت الأمور بعد ذلك فكان الأغنياء يأبون أن يضحوا بأطفالهم ويبتاعون بدلاً منهم أطفال الفقراء ، فلما أن حاصر أجثكليز Agathocles صاحب سرقوسة Syracuse مدينة قرطاجنة خشيت الطبقات العليا من أهل المدينة أن يكون احتيالها وتهربها من واجبها المقدس قد أغضب الآلهة فألقت في النار مائتين من أبناء الأشراف . على أن من واجبنا أن نضيف إلى هذا أن تلك القصص إنما يقصها علينا ديودور وهو يوناني من أهل صقلية لا يستنكف أن يشهد ما إعتاده اليونان من قتل أطفالهم وهو هادئ مطمئن . وليس ببعيد أن يكون منشأ هذه العادة القرطاجنية عادة التضحية بالأطفال أن أولئك القوم أرادوا أن يصبغوا ما يبذلون من الجهد لضبط النسل بصبغة التقي والصلاح .
ولما دمّر الرومان قرطاجنة أهدوا ما وجدوه فيها من المكتبات إلى أحلافهم من أهل أفريقية . ولكن هذه الكتب لم يبق منها إلا كتاب هنو الذي سجل فيه رحلته وشذرات من كتاب ماجو في الزراعة . ويؤكد لنا القديس أوغسطين تأكياً يكتنفه شيء من الغموض أنه “ كان في قرطاجنة كثير من الأشياء التي خلدت ذكراها في عقول من خلفهم من الناس“ . وقد استعان سلست Sallust وجوبا Juba بما كتبه المؤخرون القرطاجنيون ، ولكنّا لا نجد لدينا تارياً لقرطاجنة كتبه مؤرخ من أبنائها . أما عمارتها فحسبنا أن نقول عنها إن الرومان لم يتركوا فيها حجراً على حجر . ويقص علينا بعضهم أن طراز مبانيها كان مزيجًا من الطرازين الفينيقي واليوناني، وأن هياكلها كانت ضخمة مزخرفة ، وأن هيكل بعل – هامان وتمثاله كانا مصفحين بألواح من الذهب تقدر قيمتها بألف وزنة ( تالنت ) ، وأن اليونان أنفسهم مع ما عرف عنهم من زهو وكبرياء كانوا يعدون قرطاجنة من أجمل العواصم في العالم كله . ويحتوي متحف تونس على قطع من توابيت الموتى وجدت في مقابر بالقرب من موقع قرطاجنة ، أجملها كلها صورة واضحة المعارف ، لعلها صورة ثانيت ، يونانية الطابع في جوهرها . وثمة تماثيل صغرى استخرجت من القبور القرطاجنية وفي جزائر البليار، ولكنها فجة خالية من الدقة ، وكثيرًا ما تكون بشعة لا تطيق العين رؤيتها كأنها صنعت لإرهاب الأطفال أو طرد الشياطين . أما ما بقي من الخزف فيدل على أن هذا الفن كان يقصد إلى النفع لا إلى الجمال الفني ، ولكنا نعرف أن الصناع القرطاجنيين قد أخرجوا نماذج طيبة من المنسوجات ، والحلي ، والنقش على العاج والأبنوس والكهرمان والزجاج .
وليس في استطاعتنا في الوقت الحاضر أن نرسم أية صورة واضحة للحكومة القرطاجنية . وقد أثنى أرسطوطاليس على دستور قرطاجنة ووصفه بأنه “ أرقى من سائر دساتير العالم في كثير من نواحيه “ ، وذلك “ لأن الدولة تعد حسنة النظام إذا كان العامة أوفياء لدستورها على الدوام، وإذا لم يثر فيها نزاع أثيم يستحق الذكر ، وإذا لم يستطع أحد أن ينصب نفسه دكتاتوًراً “ ؛ وكان أهلها يجتمعون من آن إلى آن في جمعية وطنية من حقها أن تقبل أو ترفض ما يعرضه عليها من الاقتراحات مجلس الشيوخ المكون من ثلاثمائة من أهل المدينة الكبار ، ولا حق لها في مناقشتها أو تعديلها . على أن مجلس الشيوخ نفسه لم يكن يحتم عليه أن يعرض على الجمعية أي مشروع في وسع أعضائه أن يتفقوا عليه . وكان السكان هم الذين يختارون الشيوخ . وكانت الجمعية الوطنية تختار في كل عام شفيتيين Shofetes ليرأسا الناحيتين القضائية والإدارية في الدولة . وكان من فوق الهيئات القضائية والإدارية جميعًا محكمة مؤلفة من 104 من القضاة يبقون في مناصبهم مدى الحياة، وإن كان القانون لا يجيز هذا البقاء . وإذ كان من حق هذه المحكمة أن تشرف على جميع فروع الإدارة ، وأن تستدعي كل موظف عمومي بعد انتهاء مدة خدمته لتحاسبه على أعماله ، فقد أصبحت قبيل الحروب البونية هي المسيطرة على جميع الإدارات الحكومية والمشرفة على جميع المواطنين .
وكان مجلس الشيوخ هو الذي يرشح القائد الأعلى للجيش ، على أن تختاره الجمعية من بين المرشحين . وكلن مركزه خيراً من مركز القنصل في رومه لأنه كان في وسعه أن يبقى في منصبه طوال المدة التي يرغب مجلس الشيوخ أن يبقى فيه . لكن الرومان قد سيروا على قرطاجنة جحافل من ملاك الأراضي الوطنيين ، على حين أن الجيش القرطاجني كان مؤلفًا من مرتزقة الجند الأجانب معظمهم من اللوبيين الذين لا يشعرون نحو قرطاجنة بأقل عاطفة وطنية، ولا يدينون بالولاء إلا لمن يؤدي إليهم أجورهم ، ولقائدهم في بعض الأحيان . وما من شك في أن الأسطول القرطاجني كان في أيامه أقوى أساطيل العالم على الإطلاق ، فقد كانت خمسمائة سفينة ذات خمسة صفوف من المجدفين ، زاهية الألوان ، رفيعة، سريعة ، ترد المعتدين على مستعمرات قرطاجنة وأسواقها ومسالكها التجارية . وكان فتح هذا الجيش القرطاجني لصقلية، وإقفال هذا الأسطول حوض البحر الأبيض المتوسط الغربي في وجه التجارة الرومانية ، منشأ الصراع المرير الذي دام نحو مائة عام والمعروف بأسم الحروب البونية الثلاث .

رجيولوس Regulus
لقد ظلت الأمتان صديقتين طالما كان إحداهما من القوة ما تستطيع به أن تسيطر على الأخرى . وقد عقدتا في عام 508 معاهدة اعترفتا فيها بسيادة رومه على شاطئ لاتيوم وتعهد فيها الرومان ألا يسيّروا سفنهم في البحر الأبيض المتوسط غربي قرطاجنة ، وألا ينزلوا في سردانية أو لوبية إلا فترات قصيرة يصلحون فيها سفنهم أو يمونونها . ويقول أحد الجغرافيين اليونان إن القرطاجنيين اعتادوا أن يغرقوا كل بحار أجنبي يجدونه بين سردانية وجبل طارق . وكان اليونان في مساليا Massalia ( مرسيليا ) قد نشأت لهم تجارة شاطئية سليمة بين جنوبي غالة وشمالي أسبانيا الغربي؛ وتروي الأخبار أن قرطاجنة كانت تحارب هذه التجارة حروب قرصنة، وإن مساليا كانت حليفة وفية لرومه ( ولسنا ندري ما في هذه الأخبار من دعاوة حربية يسمونها تاريخاً تكريماً لها وتعظيماً ) . أما وقد سيطرت رومه على جميع إيطاليا فإنها لم تكن تشعر بالأمن والطمأنينة إلى سلامتها ما دامت هناك قوتان معاديتان لها- اليونان والقرطاجنيون- تتملكان صقلية ، وهي لا تكاد تبعد عن ساحل إيطاليا بميل واحد . يضاف إلى هذا أن صقلية خصبة التربة ، في وسعها أن تمون نصف إيطاليا بالحبوب؛ وإذا ما استولت رومه على صقلية سقطت سردانية وقورسقة في يدها من تلقاء نفسهما . فهذا طريق لابد من سلوكه وهو الطريق الطبيعي لتوسع رومه وبسطة ملكها .
وقد بقي أن توجد الحجة التي تتذرع بها رومه لإشعال نار الحرب . وقد جاءت هذه الحجة في عام 264 ق .م حين استولى جماعة من مرتزقة السمنيين يسمون أنفسهم الممرتيين Mamertines أي “ رجال المريخ “ على بلدة مسانا Messana الواقعة على أقرب سواحل لإيطاليا، وذبحوا السكان اليونان أو أخرجوهم من البلدة ، واقتسموا فيما بينهم نساء هؤلاء الضحايا وأبناءهم وأملاكهم ، وجعلوا ديدنهم الإغارة على المدن اليونانية القريبة من تلك البلدة . فما كان من هيرو الثاني Hiero II دكتاتور سرقوسة إلا أن حاصرهم ، ولكن قوة قرطاجنية نزلت في مسانا وردت هيرو على أعقابه واستولت على المدينة . واستغاث الممرتيون برومه وطلبوا إليها أن تعينهم على من أنقذوهم من عدوهم؛ وتردد مجلس الشيوخ في تقديم هذه المعونة لأنه يعرف ما لقرطاجنة من قوة وثروة، ولكن الأثرياء من العامة الذين يسيطرون على الجمعية المئوية أخذوا يدعون للحرب وللاستيلاء على صقلية . وقرّ قرار رومه أن تبعد القرطاجنيين عن هذا الثغر ذي الموقع الحربي الهام القريب كل القرب منها مهما كلفها هذا من ثمن؛ وجهزت رومه أسطولاً وعقدت لواءه لـ “ كيوس كلوديوس Caius Claudius “ وسيّرته لإنقاذ الممرتيين؛ ولكن القرطاجنيين استطاعوا في هذه الأثناء أن يقنعوا الممرتيين بالعدول عن طلب مساعدة رومه ، وأرسلوا رسالة بهذا المعنى إلى كلوديوس في ريجيوم Rhegium . غير أن كلوديوس لم يلق بالاً إلى هذه الرسالة ، وعبر المضيق الذي يفصل إيطاليا عن صقلية ، ودعا أمير البحر القرطاجني إلى المفاوضة؛ فلما جاءه قبض عليه وسجنه ، وبعث إلى الجيش القرطاجني يقول إنه سيقتل أمير البحر إذا أبدى الجيش أية مقاومة . ورحب الجنود المرتزقة بهذه الحجة التي تتيح لهم فرصة تجنب القتال مع الفيالق الرومانية ، وتظهرهم في الوقت نفسه بمظهر الشهامة ، وسقطت مسانا في يد رومه .
وبرز في هذه الحرب البونية ( الفينيقية ) الأولى بطلان عظيمان هما رجيولوس الروماني وهملكار القرطاجني . ولعل في وسعنا أن نضيف إليهما ثالثاً ورابعاً هما مجلس شيوخ رومه والشعب الروماني . فأما مجلس الشيوخ فلأنه ضم هيرو صاحب سرقوسة إلى جانب رومه وضمن بذلك وصول العتاد والزاد إلى الجنود الرومان في صقلية ، هذا إلى أنه قد نظم الأمة أحسن تنظيم قائم على الحكمة والسداد، وقوي عزيمتها، وقادها إلى النصر وسط الخطوب والأهوال الجسام . هذا فضل مجلس الشيوخ ، أما الرومان أنفسهم فقد أمدوا الحكومة بالمال والعتاد ، والأيدي العاملة ، وبالرجال الذين بنوا لرومه أسطولها الأول – وكان مؤلفًا من 330 سفينة كلها تقريبًا ذات صفوف من المجدفين ، ويبلغ طول الواحدة منها 150 قدمًا، في كل منها 300 مجذف و120 جنديًا، ومعظمها مجهز بخطاطيف من الحديد لم تكن معروفة من قبل ، وبجسور متحركة تمكنهم من الإمساك بسفن الأعداء والنزول إليها . وبهذه الطريقة بدّل الرومان الحرب البحرية التي لم يألفوها من قبل حرباً برية يقاتلون فيها أعدائهم يداً بيد، وتستطيع فيها فيالقهم أن تستفيد بكل ما تمتاز به من مهارة وحسن نظام . ويقول بولبيوس في هذا: “ ويدل هذا الحادث أكثر مما يدل غيره من الحوادث على ما للرومان من جرأة وبسالة إذا ما اعتزموا القيام بعمل خطير . . ذلك أنهم لم يفكروا قط قبل هذه الحرب في إنشاء أسطول؛ فلما أن استقر رأيهم على إنشائه بذلوا في ذلك جهد الجبابرة ، وهاجموا به من فورهم القرطاجنيين الذين ظلوا عدة أجيال سادة البحار لا ينازعهم فيها منازع – مع أن الرومان لم تكن لهم في حرب البحار خبرة ما “ . والتقي الأسطولان بالقرب من إكنوموس Economus أحد الثغور الواقعة على ساحل صقلية الجنوبي؛ وكانا يحملان من الجند ثلاثمائة ألف . ودارت بينهما أكبر معركة بحرية في التاريخ القديم . وانتصر الرومان فيها انتصاراً مؤزراً حاسماً ساروا بعده إلى إفريقيا لا يلوون على شيء، ونزلوا إلى البر دون أن يعنوا باستطلاع الأرض ، فالتقوا بقوة تفوق قوتهم كادت تفنيهم عن آخرهم ، وأسرت قنصلهم الطائش المتهور . وبعد قليل من ذلك الوقت دفعت العواصف الأسطول الروماني إلى شاطئ صخري فتحطمت منه 284 سفينة وغرق,000 80 من رجاله . وكانت هذه أعظم كارثة بحرية عرفها الناس في التاريخ . وأظهر الرومان بعدها ما في طبائعهم من عزيمة فبنوا في ثلاثة أشهر مائتي سفينة جديدة ذات خمسة صفوف من المجدفين، ودربوا لها ثمانين ألف بحار .
واحتفظ القرطاجنيون برجيولوس في الأسر خمس سنين ثم سمحوا له بأن يرافق بعثة قرطاجنية إلى رومه تعرض عليها الصلح بعد أن وعدهم بأن يعود إلى الأسر إذا رفض مجلس الشيوخ الشروط التي عرضوها عليه . فلما سمع رجيولوس هذه الشروط أشار على مجلس الشيوخ بأن يرفضها ، ثم عاد مع البعثة إلى قرطاجنة غير عابئ بتوسل أسرته وأصدقائه . وعذبه القرطاجنيون عذاباً شديداً بأن حرموا عليه النوم حتى فارق الحياة . وأمسك أبناؤه في رومه بأسيرين من ذوي المكانة في بلادهما في داخل صندوق ثبتت فيه حراب من الحديد، وحرموا عليهما النوم حتى قضيا نحبهما . وليس في مقدورنا أن نصدق كلتا القصتين إلا حين نذكر ما حدث من التعذيب الهمجي في هذه الأيام .

هملكار

لقد كان في قرطاجنة عدد كبير من أهلها يحملون أسماء هملكار وهزدروبال وهنيبال، ذلك بأن هذه الأسماء لا يخلو منها جيل من الأجيال ، وكانت من الأسماء الشائعة في أقدم أسرها . وكانت أسماء تدل على التقي والصلاح ، ومشتقة من أسماء الآلهة : فأما هملكار فمعناه : “ من يتمتع بحماية ملكارت “ وأما هزدروبال فمعناه “ من في معونته بعل “ ومعنى هنيبال “ الفضل لبعل “ . ولقب هملكار الذي نتحدث عنه في هذا الفصل بهملكار برقة – “ الصاعقة “ وذلك لأنه كان من طبيعته أن يعجل بضرب عدوه ويفاجئه حيثما وجده . وكان لا يزال شابًا في مقتبل العمر حين ولّته قرطاجنة في عام 247 القيادة العليا لجيوشها، فسار ومعه أسطول صغير نحو إيطاليا وأخذ يغير على سواحلها ويفاجئها بالنزول في أراضيها ، ويدمّر المراكز الرومانية الأمامية ، ويأسر كثيرًا من جنودها. ثم أنزل جنوده إلى البر في مواجهة جيش روماني كبير كان يحمي مدينة بنورمس Panormus ( بلرمو Palermo الحالية )، واستولى على ربوة تشرف على المدينة . وكانت القوة التي يقودها أصغر من أن تجازف بالاشتباك مع الرومان في واقعة كبرى ، ولكنها كانت تعود بالأسباب كلما قادها لمهاجمتهم . وأخذ يرجو مجلس الشيوخ القرطاجني أن يبعث إليه بالأمداد والزاد؛ ولكن المجلس لم يستجب لرجائه وقبض يده فلم يسعفه بالمال الذي كان يكنزه ، وأمره أن يطعم جنوده ويكسوهم من مال البلاد التي حوله .
وكان الأسطول الروماني في هذه الأثناء قد انتصر في واقعة بحرية أخرى ، ولكنه هزم هزيمة منكرة عند دربانا Drepana ، وأضعفت هذه الحروب قوة الفريقين على السواء فاستراحا تسعة أعوام . ولم تفعل قرطاجنة شيئاً في هذه التسع السنين لأنها كانت تعتمد على عبقرية هملكار ، وأما رومه فإن جماعة من أبنائها قدموا طائعين عمارة مؤلفة من مائتي سفينة حربية وعليها ستون ألف جندي . وأبحرت هذه العمارة القوية ، دون أن يعلم أحد بإبحارها، وباغتت الأسطول القرطاجني عند جزائر إيجاديان Aegadian Isles بالقرب من ساحل صقلية وأحدقت به فاضطرت قرطاجنة إلى طلب الصلح ، ونزلت عن أملاكها في صقلية إلى رومه وتعهدت أن تؤدي لها غرامة حربية مقدارها 440 تالنتاً في كل عام مدى عشرة أعوام ، وألغت كل ما كان مفروضاً على التجارة الرومانية من قيود . وكانت الحرب قد دامت عشرين عاماً أو نحوها وأشرفت رومه في خلالها على هاوية الإفلاس حتى اضطرت إلى تخفيض قيمة نقدها بنحو 83%، ولكنها برهنت على ما في أخلاق الرومان من صلابة لا تلين، وعلى تفوق الجيش المكون من رجال أحرار على مرتزقة الجند الذين يسعون للحصول على أعظم المغانم بأقل ما يمكن إراقته من الدماء .
وأوشكت قرطاجنة أن تقضي عليها شراهتها وأطماعها؛ ذلك أنها كانت قد قبضت يدها بعض الوقت عن جنودها المرتزقين، فلم تؤد إليهم أجورهم، ولم تستثن من هؤلاء من أخلصوا في خدمة هملكار . فأقبلت جموعهم على المدينة يطالبون بتلك الأجور ، ولما تلكأت الحكومة في إجابة مطلبهم وحاولت أن تفرقهم تمردوا عليها جهرة . وانضمت الشعوب الخاضعة لقرطاجنة إلى هؤلاء العصاة ، وكانت قد أبهظها عبء الضرائب الفادحة الذي رزحت تحته طوال الحرب . وباعت نساء لوبيا حليهن لتمد الثوار بالمال ، وحاصر قرطاجنة عشرون ألفًا من الجنود المرتزقين والثوار يقودهم ماثو Matho وهو لوبي محرر واسبنديوس Spendius وهو عبد كمباني Campanian . وكان ذلك الحصار في وقت لا يكاد يوجد فيها جندي يحميها . وارتعدت فرائض التجار فرقاً وخشوا أن يقضي عليهم الثوار ، فأرسلوا في طلب هملكار ليؤمنهم على حياتهم . وألفى هملكار نفسه يتنازعه عطفه على جنوده المرتزقة وحبه لمدينته ، ولكنه آثر مدينته على جنده وجند جيشاً من عشرة آلاف قرطاجني ودربهم ، وقادهم بنفسه ، ورفع الحصار عن المدينة . وإرتد الجنود المرتزقون المهزومون إلى الجبال ، وقطعوا يدي جسكو Gesco أحد القواد القرطاجنيين وقدميه ، وكسروا ساقيه ، وفعلوا ذلك الفعل نفسه بسبعمائة أسير غيره ، ثم ألقوا بمن بقي منهم أحياء في قبر واحد بلا تمييز بينهم . واحتال هملكار على أربعين ألفًا من العصاة حتى اضطرهم إلى الالتجاء إلى مضيق ، وسد عليهم مسالكه حتى أوشكوا على الهلاك من الجوع . فأكلوا من بقي لديهم من الأسرى ، ثم أكلوا عبيدهم ، واضطروا في آخر الأمر أن يرسلوا أسبنديوس Spendius بطلب الصلح ، فما كان من هملكار إلا أن صلب أسبنديوس وألقي بمئات من الأسرى تحت أرجل الفيلة ، وظلت تطؤهم حتى قضوا نخبهم . وحاول العصاة أن يشقوا لهم بالقوة مخرجاً من مأزقهم الذي وقعوا فيه ، ولكن جيش هملكار قطع أصلابهم، وقبض على ماثو وأرغمه على أن يعدو في شوارع قرطاجنة وأهلها من ورائه يضربونه بالسياط ويعذبونه حتى مات . ودامت “ حرب المرتزقة “ هذه أربعين شهرًا ( 241-237 ) ، ويقول بولبيوس “ إنها كانت أفظع الحروب وأشدها وحشية ، وإن ما سفك فيها من الدماء لم يسفك مثله في التاريخ كله “ . ولما أن خمدت نار الفتنة وجدت قرطاجنة أن الرومان قد احتلوا سردانية . فلما احتجت على هذا الاعتداء أعلن الرومان الحرب عليها . واضطر القرطاجنيون في يأسهم إلى طلب الصلح ، ولم ينالوه إلا بأن يؤدّوا لرومه فوق ما كانوا يؤدّون لها من الغرامة 1200 تالنت ، وأن يتخلوا عن سردانية وقورسقة .
وفي وسعنا أن نتصور غضب هملكار من هذه المعاملة القاسية التي عوملت بها بلاده . فعرض على حكومته أن تمده بالجند والمال ليعيد قوة قرطاجنة في أسبانيا وليستعين بها مهاجمة إيطاليا . وعارض الملّاك الأشراف في هذه الخطة لأنهم كانوا يخافون مغبة الحرب ، ولكن طبقة التجار التي حزّ في نفوسها ما فقدته من الأسواق والثغور الأجنبية أيدته . وتراضت الفئتان بعدئذ على أن يعطى هملكار قوة صغيرة عبر بها البحر إلى أسبانيا ، واستولى على المدن التي كان ولاؤها لقرطاجنة قد تزعزع في أثناء الحرب ، وقوّى صفوف جيشه بأهلها، وجهّزه وأمدّه بالمال من غلات المناجم الأسبانية ، ومات وهو يقود هجوماً على إحدى قبائل تلك البلاد . وترك وراءه في معسكره هزدروبال زوج ابنته وأولاده هنيبال وهزدروبال وماجو – الملقب “ بابن أسده “ . واختير زوج ابنته قائدًا في مكانه ، وظل ثماني سنين يحكم البلاد بحكمة وسداد كسب في أثنائها معونة الأسبان، وأقام بجوار مناجم الفضة مدينة عظيمة يعرفها الرومان باسم قرطاجنة الجديدة ( Nova Carthage ) وهي مدينة قرطاجنة الباقية إلى اليوم . ولما اغتيل في عام 221 اختار الجيش لقيادته هنيبال أكبر أبناء هملكار، وكان وقتئذ في السادسة والعشرين من عمره . وكان أبوه قد جاء به قبل أن يغادر قرطاجنة ، وهو لا يزال غلاماً في التاسعة من عمره ، إلى مذبح بعل – هامان واستحلفه أن يثأر لبلاده من رومه في يوم من الأيام . وأقسم هنيبال ولم ينس قط قسمه .

هنيبال
ترى لـمَ سكتت رومه حتى عادت قرطاجنة إلى فتح أسبانيا؟ لقد أرغمها على هذا السكوت أن النزاع بين الطبقات كان يمزق أحشاءها، وأنها كانت تمد سلطانها على شواطئ البحر الأدرياوي ، وكانت مشتبكة في حرب من الغالبين . ذلك أن أحد التربيونين وهو كيوس فلامينيوس Caius Flaminius قد سبق ابني جراكس Gracchii فأقنع الجمعية في عام 232 بالموافقة على اقتراح يقضي بتوزيع أراضي غنمتها رومه من الغالبين على فقراء المواطنين، وذلك بالرغم من معارضة مجلس الشيوخ الشديدة لهذا الاقتراح . وفي عام 230 خطت رومه الخطوة الأولى لفتح بلاد اليونان ، وذلك بتطهير البحر الأدرياوي من القراصنة وباستيلائها على جزء من سواحل ألبرياlilyria لتحمي بذلك التجارة الإيطالية من العدوان . ولما اطمأنت على سلامتها من ناحيتي الجنوب والشرق اعتزمت أن تطرد الغاليين إلى ما وراء جبال الألب ، وتجعل من ايطاليا بأكملها دولة متحدة كل الاتحاد . وأرادت أن تضمن سلامتها من ناحية الغرب فعقدت معاهدة مع هزدروبال تعهد فيها القرطاجنيون بأن يبقوا جنوب نهر الإبرة Ebro، وعقدت في الوقت نفسه حلفًا مع مدينتي سجنتم Saguntum وامبورياس Ampurias الأسبانيتين الإغريقيتي الصبغة . ولكن جيشاً غالياً مؤلفاً من خمسين ألفاً من المشاة وعشرين ألفاً من الفرسان إنقض على شبه الجزيرة من الشمال . وارتاع سكان العاصمة أشد الارتياع، ولجأ مجلس الشيوخ إلى العادة البدائية عادة التضحية البشرية ، ودفن اثنين من الغالة حيين في السوق العامة مرضاة للآلهة . والتقت الفيالق الرومانية بالغزاة قرب تلامون Telamon وقتلت منهم أربعين ألفاً وأسرت عشرة آلاف، وزحفت نحو الشمال لتخضع جميع بلاد الغاليين الواقعة في جنوب جبال الألب ، وأنمت هذا العمل في ثلاث سنين وأنشأت مستعمرات رومانية عند بلاسنتيا Placentia، وكرمونا Cremona لحماية البلاد من الغاليين وبذلك أصبحت إيطاليا دولة واحدة تمتد من جبال الألب في الشمال إلى صقلية في الجنوب . ولكن هذا النصر قد جاء في غير أوانه؛ فلو أن الغاليين قد تركوا في أماكنهم بضع سنين أخرى لكان في وسعهم أن يقفوا في وجه هنيبال؛ أما والحال كما هي فإن بلاد الغالة كلها كانت تضطرم بنار الثورة على رومه . ورأى هنيبال أن هذه هي الفرصة التي طالما تاقت نفسه إليها- فرصة اجتياز بلاد الغاليين دون أن يلقي مقاومة تستحق الذكر، وغزو إيطاليا ومعه القبائل الغالية تحالفه وتشد أزره .
وكان القائد البوني يومئذ في الثامنة والعشرين من عمره ، وفي عنفوان شبابه ، وثيق الأركان ثبت الجنان . وكان قد جمع إلى ثقافة السادة القرطاجنيين ، وتمكنهم من لغتي فينيقية وآدابهما وتاريخهما ، جمع إلى هذه الثقافة تدريباً عسكرياً دام عشر عاماً في المعسكر الحربي ، أدب في خلالها نفسه أحسن تأديب ، فعود جسمه شظف العيش ومغالبة الصعاب ، وأخضع شهواته لعقله ، وعود لسانه السكوت ، كما عود أفكاره أن تركز فيما يهدف إليه من الأغراض . ولم يكن يضارعه أحد في الجري أو في سباق الخيل ، وكان في مقدوره أن يخرج إلى الصيد أو القتال مع أشجع الشجعان؛ ويصفه ليفي وهو من أعدائه بأنه : “ كان أول من يدخل المعمعة، وآخر من يخرج من الميدان “ . وكان محببًا إلى القواد والجنود الذين ضرستهم الحروب، لأنهم إذا كانوا في حضرته تمتلكهم هيبته وثاقب نظراته فخالفوا أن هملكار قائدهم الأكبر قد عاد إليهم في عنفوان الشباب . وأحبه المجندون الجدد لأنه لم يكن يرتدي ثياباً يميز بها نفسه منهم ولا يستريح حتى يكفل للجيش كل حاجاته ، وكان يقسمهم كل ما يصيبهم من شر وخير . أما الرومان فكانوا يتهمونه بالبخل والقسوة والغدر ، لأنه لم يكن يتقيد بمبدأ من المبادئ يحول بينه وبين الاستيلاء على المؤن لجنده ، وكان يجازي على الخيانة وعدم الولاء أشد الجزاء ، وكان ينصب لأعدائه كثيرًا من الشراك . ولكننا كثيراً ما نجده مشفقاً رحيماً ، ونراه على الدوام شهماً ذا مروءة . ويقول عنه ممسن Mommsen ذلك القول الحكيم وهو “ أنه ليس فيما يروى عنه شيء لا يمكن أن تبرره ظروف وقته والقوانين الدولية التي كانت سائدة في أيامه “ . ولم يكن في وسع الرومان أن يرضوا عنه لأنه كان يكسب الوقائع الحربية بعقله لا بدماء رجاله ، ذلك أن الحيل التي كان يحتال بها عليهم ، ومهارته في التجسس عليهم ومعرفة أسرارهم ، وعلمه بفنون الحرب والحركات العسكرية ، وقدرته على مباغتة أعدائه ، كل هذا ظل فوق إدراكهم وتقديرهم حتى دمرت قرطاجنة . وحدث في عام 219 ق .م أن دبر عمال رومه في سجنتم انقلاباً سياسياً أقام في المدينة حكومة وطنية معادية لقرطاجنة . ولما أساء أهل المدينة معاملة بعض القبائل الموالية لهنيبال ، وأمرهم بالكف عن هذه المعاملة السيئة ، فلما رفضوا طلبه حاصر المدينة ، فاحتجت رومه على قرطاجنة وأنذرتها بالحرب؛ فكان رد قرطاجنة أن سجنتم تبعد عن نهر إبره Ebro مائة ميل نحو الجنوب ، وأن ليس من حق رومه أن تتدخل في هذا النزاع ، وأنها إذ وقعت معاهدة مع تلك المدينة أخلت بشروط معاهدتها مع هزدروبال . وواصل هنيبال الحصار ، وامتشقت رومه الحسام مرة أخرى ، وهي لا تدري أن هذه الحرب البونية الثانية ستكون أشد هولاً من جميع الحروب التي خاضت غمارها في تاريخها كله .
وقضي هنيبال في إخضاع أهل سجنتم ثمانية أشهر كاملة ، وذلك لأنه لم يكن يجرؤ على التقدم لغزو إيطاليا ويترك لرومه من ورائه ثغراً هاماً تستطيع أن تنزل جنودها فيه . فلما تم له الاستيلاء عليها عبر نهر الإبرة في عام 218 وتحدى الأقدار كما تحداها قيصر من بعده حين تخطى الربيكون Rubicon . وكان تحت قيادته جيش يتألف من خمسين ألفاً من المشاة وتسعة آلاف من الفرسان ، ليس فيهم أحد من الجنود المرتزقين ، ومعظمهم من الأسبان واللوبيين . ولكن ثلاثة آلاف من جنوده الأسبان نكصوا على أعقابهم حين علموا أنه ينتوي عبور جبال الألب ، وسرح هو نفسه سبعة آلاف غيرهم لأنهم احتجوا على هذه المغامرة ، وقالوا إنها مستحلية التحقيق . وكان اختراق جبال البرانس نفسها من أشق الأعمال؛ ولم يكن يتوقع قط أن يلقي ما يلقيه من المقاومة الشديدة من بعض قبائل الغاليين أحلاف مرسيلية؛ واقتضاه الوصول إلى نهر الرون حروباً دامت ثمانية أشهر ، فلما وصله كان لابد له من معركة عنيفة ليتمكن من اجتيازه . وما كاد يبتعد عن شاطئيه حتى وصل جيش روماني عند مصبه .
واتجه هنيبال بجيشه شمالاً نحو فين Vienne ثم اتجه به شرقًا نحو جبال الألب . وكانت جموع من الكلت قد عبرت هذه السلاسل الجبلية من قبله، وكان في مقدوره هو أن يعبرها دون أن يلقى في سبيل ذلك صعابًا غير عادية لو لا عداء القبائل الألبية وما عاناه من الصعاب في تسيير فيلته في الممرات الضيقة أو الشديدة الانحدار . وقضى هنيبال في تسلق الجبال تسعة أيام وصل بعدها في أوائل شهر سبتمبر إلى قممها فوجدها مغطاة بالثلوج؛ وبعد أن استراح هو ورجاله ودوابه يومين شرع في النزول في ممرات أشد وعورة من التي سلكها في الصعود، وطرق مغطاة في بعض الأحيان بجلاميد من الصخر ومرصوفة في أحيان أخرى بالجليد . وكثيرًا ما كانت أقدام الجنود والدواب فتتردى في هاويات سحيقة تلقى فيها حتفها . وكان هنيبال يستحث جنوده اليائسين بأن يشير إلى الحقول الناضرة والمجاري المتلألئة التي تنتشر من بعيد جنوب الجبال ، ويقول إن هذه الجنة التي وعدهم بها سوف تكون لهم بعد قليل . وبعد أن قضوا سبعة عشر يومًا في الصعود والهبوط وصلوا إلى السهول ، وألقوا عصا التسيار ليستريحوا، وقد خسر الجيش في هذه المجازفة الخطيرة كثيراً من الرجال والجياد حتى لم يبق من الجنود إلا ستة وعشرون ألفًا أي أقل من نصف القوة التي غادر بها قرطاجنة الجديدة منذ أربعة شهور . ولو أن هنيبال لقي من الغاليين في جنوب الألب مثل ما لقيه من مقاومة الغاليين في غربها لكان الأرجح أن تنتهي حملته قبل أن يتقدم جنوبًا في إيطاليا؛ ولكن البوئي Boii وغيرهم من القبائل رحبوا به ورأوا فيه منقذًا لهم ، فتحالفوا معه وانضووا تحت لوائه ، وأما المستعمرون الرومان المحدثون الذين أسكنتهم رومه في تلك البلاد فقد فروا أمامه نحو الجنوب، ولم يقفوا حتى عبروا البو Po .
وهكذا واجه مجلس الشيوخ هذا الخطر الثاني يهدد رومه بالدمار والفناء ولما يمض على الخطر الأول إلا نحو سبع سنين ، فاستعان بموارد البلاد كلها، وأهاب بالولايات الإيطالية أن توحد جهودها للدفاع عن بلادها . وبفضل ما لقيته من معونتها جندت رومه جيوشاً بلغت ثلاثمائة ألف من المشاة ، وأربعة عشر ألفًا من الفرسان، وستة وخمسين ألفًا وأربعمائة ألف من الجنود الاحتياطيين . والتقى أحد الجيوش الرومانية بقيادة سبيو Scipio – وهو واحد من كثير من مشهوري القواد المسمين بهذا الاسم – على شاطئ نهر تسينو Ticino، وهو رافد صغير من روافد نهر البو يلتقي به عند بافيا Pavia . وهاجم فرسان هنيبال النوميديون Numidian جنود سبيو وولوهم الأدبار، وجرح سبيو جرحًا خطيرًا، وكاد أعداؤه يجهزون عليه لولا شجاعة ولده الذي شاءت الأقدار أن يلقي هنيبال مرة أخرى عند زاما Zama بعد ستة أشهر من ذلك الوقت . والتقى هنيبال بجيش روماني آخر عند بحيرة ترزميني Trasimene تبلغ عدته ثلاثين ألف مقاتل يقوده التربيون كيوس فلامينيوس Caius Flamimius، ويتبعه عدد من النخاسين يحملون الأغلال ليسلكوا فيها الأسرى الذين يأملون أن يبيعوهم في الأسواق بيع العبيد . واستطاع هنيبال ومعه جزء من جيشه أن يخدع جيش فلامينيوس فيستدرجه إلى سهل تكتنفه التلال والغابات اختبأ فيها معظم جنوده؛ فلما ضمه هذا السهل أشار إلى طوابيره المختبئة فانقضت على الرومان من كل الجهات وأفنتهم عن آخرهم تقريباً؛ وقتل فلامينيوس نفسه .
وبذلك سيطر هنيبال على شمالي إيطاليا كله ، ولكنه كان يعرف أن أمامه عدوًا عنيدًا يبلغ عدده عشرة أضعاف عدد رجاله ، وكان أمله الوحيد في التغلب على هذا العدو هو أن يقنع بعض الولايات الإيطالية بالخروج على رومه . وكانت وسيلته إلى هذا أن أطلق سراح كل من وقع في أسره من أحلاف رومه ، وقال إنه لم يأت ليحارب إيطاليا بل جاء ليحررها من الاستعمار . ثم خاض إتروريا التي كانت تغمرها المياه ، وظل أربعة أيام كاملة لا يجد أرضًا جافة يقيم فيها معسكره ، فعبر جبال الأبنين إلى شاطئ البحر الأدرياوي ، حيث سمح لجنوده أن يقضوا فترة طويلة يستعيدون فيها نشاطهم ، ويداوون فيها جراحهم، وكان هو نفسه مصابًا برمد خطير في عينيه، ولكنه لم يعالجه فانتهى بفقد إحداهما . وبعد أن استراح جيشه اتجه به نحو الجنوب بمحاذاة ساحل إيطاليا الشرقي ، وأخذ يعرض على القبائل الإيطالية أن تنضوي تحت لوائه، ولكن واحدة منها لم تستجب لدعوته ، بل فعلت عكس هذا فكانت كل مدينة تغلق أبوابها دونه وتتأهب للقتال . وحينما اتجه إلى الجنوب أخذ حلفاؤه الغاليون يتخلون عنه لأنهم لم يكن يعنيهم إلا مصير موطنهم في الشمال . وبلغ من كثرة المؤامرات التي دبرت لاغتياله أن صار يتخفى في كل يوم بشكل جديد . وأخذ يتوسل إلى حكومته أن ترسل إليه المدد والعتاد والزاد عن طريق الثغور الواقعة على البحر الأدرياوي، ولكن حكومته خيبت رجاءه، فطلب إلى هزدروبال أخيه الأصغر – وكان قد تركه في أسبانيا – أن يعد فيها جيشًا يعبر به بلاد غالة وجبال الألب وينضم إليه؛ ولكن الرومان كانوا قد غزوا أسبانيا، فلم يجرؤ هزدروبال على مغادرتها؛ ومضت عشر سنين قبل أن يخف إلى نجدته .
واستعانت رومه على عدوها الأكبر بخطته هو نفسه ، خطة المراوغة والحيطة والإفناء البطيء . واختير كونتس فابيوس مكسموس Quintus Fabius Makimus دكتاتوراً لعلاج الموقف في عام 217، فاتبع خطة تقضي بأن يؤخر ما استطاع الالتحام في واقعة فاصلة مع هنيبال، ونجح في هذا نجاحًا اشتق معه من اسمه وصف لهذا النوع من القتال . وكان فابيوس يرى أن الغزاة سيتناقص عددهم على مر الأيام بفعل الجوع والمرض والشقاق ، ولكن الشعب الروماني لم يطق صبراً على خطة “ السكون السديدة “ أكثر من عام؛ وتغلبت الجمعية المئوية على مجلس الشيوخ وعلى منطق الحوادث والسوابق جميعها، واختارت منوسيوس روفوس Minucius Rufus دكتاتوراً مع فابيوس . وسار منوسيوس لملاقاة العدو على الرغم من نصيحة فابيوس، فوقع في كمين وهزم هزيمة منكرة أدرك بعدها لم قال هنيبال إنه يخشى فابيوس الذي لم يحاربه أشد مما يخشى مرسلس Marcellus الذي يبغى حربه . وبعد عام واحد أسقط الرومان فابيوس وعهدوا إلى لوسيوس إيمليوس بولوس Lucius Aemilius Paulus، وكيوس ترتنيوس فارو Caius Terentius Varro قيادة الجيوش الرومانية . وأشار بولوس الأرستقراطي بالحيطة والتريث ، أما فارو مختار العامة فكان شديد الرغبة في العمل العاجل، وحدث ما يحدث عادة في مثل هذه الأحوال فتغلب الرأي الأخير ، وأخذ فارو يبحث عن القرطاجنيين حتى وجدهم عند كاني Cannae من أعمال أبوليا Apulia على بعد عشرة أميال أو نحوها من شاطئ البحر الأدرياوي . وكان قوام الجيش الروماني ثمانين ألف راجل وستة آلاف فارس؛ أما هنيبال فكان لديه تسعة عشر ألف جندي ممن ضرستهم الحروب ، وستة عشر ألفًا من الغاليين الذين لا يوثق بهم ، وعشرة آلاف من الفرسان؛ وكان قد خدع فارو حتى جعله يحاربه في سهل متسع هو أحسن المواضع لحرب الفرسان ، وكان قد وضع الغاليين في القلب لظنه أنهم سيتخلون عن مواقعهم ، وقد صدق ظنه فتراجعوا واقتفى الرومان أثرهم في الثغرة التي حدثت بانسحابهم ، فأمر القائد القرطاجني الماكر مضرسة جنده بالإطباق على جناحي الجيش الروماني ، وخاض بنفسه غمار المعمعة في أشد أماكنها هولاً ، كما أمر فرسانه باختراق صفوف فرسان العدو ومهاجمة الفيالق الروماني من خلفها . وبذلك أحاط القرطاجنيون بالجيش الروماني ، ولم يجد له فرصة للتحرك ، وكاد يفنى عن آخره؛ فقد قتل من رجاله أربعة وأربعون ألفًا ، من بينهم بولوس Paulus وثمانون من الشيوخ الذين تطوعوا في الجيش ، وفر عشرة آلاف إلى كنوزيوم Canusium ومن بينهم فارو وسبيو الذي لقب فيما بعد بالإفريقي الأكبر Africanus Major . أما هنيبال فقد خسر من رجاله ستة آلاف ثلثاهم من الغاليين . وكان نصره هذا شاهداً فذاً على براعته في القيادة التي لم يتفوق عليه أحد فيها في التاريخ كله . ولم يعد الرومان بعد هذا النصر يعتمدون قط على الجنود المشاة ، كما أن هذا النصر وجه الحركات العسكرية الفنية وجهة لم تتحول عنها مدى ألفي عام .

سبيو
وزعزعت هذه الكارثة هيبة رومه في جنوبي إيطاليا وضعضعت سلطانها، فانضم السمنيون والبروتيون واللوكانيون وأهل متابنتم، وثوراي، وكروتونا، ولوكري، وكبوا Samnites Bruttians , Lucanians , Melpontum , Thurii ,Cotona , Locri , Capua إلى الغاليين الجنوبيين في حلفهم مع هنيبال ، ولم يلبث على الولاء لرومه إلا أمبريا، ولاتيوم، وإتروريا . وظل هرو صاحب سرقوسة وفياً حتى مماته ، ولكن خلفه جهر بانضمامه إلى قرطاجنة . وتحالف فليب الخامس ملك مقدونية مع هنيبال لأنه كان يخشى أن تبسط رومه سلطانها على البلاد الواقعة في شرق أوربا عن طريق إليريا Illyria، وأعلن الحرب على رومه . وأظهرت قرطاجنة نفسها شيئًا من الاهتمام بالأمر فبعثت إلى هنيبال بقليل من الزاد والعتاد؛ وظن بعض الشبان من النبلاء الذين نجوا من كارثة كنوزيوم أن لا أمل لرومه في النجاة ، وفكروا في الهرب إلى بلاد اليونان، ولكن سبيو ظل يندد بموقفهم حتى استحوا ودبت فيهم روح الشجاعة . وقضت رومه شهراً كاملاً وهي في أشد حالات الروع؛ ولم يكن فيها إلا حامية قليلة تدفع عنها هنيبال إذا ما هاجمها . وهرعت كرائم العقائل إلى الهياكل يبكين وينظفن بشعورهن تماثيل الآلهة ، وعاشرت بعض النساء اللائي قتل أزواجهن وأبناؤهن في الحروب الأجانب والرقيق خشية أن ينقطع نسلهن . وظن مجلس الشيوخ أن الآلهة غضبى فأحل مرة أخرى التضحية بالآدميين مرضاة لها ، وأمر بدفن اثنين من الغاليين واثنين من اليونان أحياء .
ولكن الرومان على حد قول بولبيوس إنما “ يُخشون أشد الخشية في ساعة المحنة . . . . وشاهد ذلك أنهم وإن منوا بأشد الهزائم ، وخسروا سمعتهم الحربية ، استطاعوا ، بفضل ما كان لدستورهم من المزايا التي لا يشاركه فيها دستور غيره ، وبالاستماع إلى حسن المشورة، أن يستردوا سيادتهم على إيطاليا . . . وأن يصبحوا بعد قليل من السنين سادة العالم “ . وفي هذه الساعة الرهيبة سكنت حرب الطبقات ، وتدافعت كل الطوائف للعمل على إنقاذ الدولة . وكانت الضرائب قبل ذلك الوقت قد ارتفعت حتى ظن أنهم لن يطيقوها ، ولكن السكان ، ومنهم الأرامل والأطفال ، تقدموا راضين لخزانة الدولة بما كانوا قد ادخروه لأيام الشدة . وجند كل رجل قادر على حمل السلاح ، وحتى الأرقاء قد قبلوا في الفيالق ووعدهم أسيادهم بأن يهبوهم حريتهم إذا كتب النصر لرومه ، ولم يرض جندي واحد أن يتناول عن عمله أجراً ، واستعدت رومه لتنازع أسد قرطاجنة الجديد كل شبر من أرضها .
وانتظرت رومه مجيء هنيبال ، ولكن هنيبال لم يأت إليها ، فقد ظن أن قوته المؤلفة من أربعين ألف مقاتل أقل من أن تحاصر مدينة تتجمع للدفاع عنها جيوش من جميع الولايات التي لا تزال موالية لها، ولا يستطيع الاحتفاظ بها لو أنه استولى عليها . هذا إلى أن أحلافه من الإيطاليين لم يكونوا مصدر قوة له بل كانوا مصدر ضعف، فقد كانت رومه وأصدقاؤها يعدان العدة لمهاجمة أولئك الأحلاف، وإذا لم يخف هو لنجدتهم فسيقضي عليهم . وقد لامه رجاله على حذره وبطئه، وقال له واحد منهم والأسف يحز في نفسه: “ إن الآلهة لم تمنح كل مواهبها لرجل واحد؛ أنك ياهنيبال تعرف كيف تنال النصر، ولكنك لا تعرف كيف تنتفع به “ . لكن هنيبال استقر رأيه على أن ينتظر حتى تنضم إليه قرطاجنة، ومقدونية، وسرقوسة فيؤلف منها حلفاً ثلاثياً يستعيد به صقلية وسردانية، وقورسقة، وإليريا فلا يكون لرومه قوة إلا في إيطاليا . وبدأ بإطلاق الأسرى جميعهم عدا الرومان، وحتى هؤلاء عرضهم على رومه نظير فدية قليلة، فلما رفض مجلس الشيوخ أن يفتديهم أرسل معظمهم عبيدًا إلى قرطاجنة، وأرغم الباقين على أن يسلوا رجاله بأن يصارع بعضهم بعضاً في حلبة الجلاد حتى الممات كما يفعل الرومان . ثم أحاط بعدة مدن واستولى عليها وسار بجيوشه ليقضي الشتاء في كبوا Capua .
وكانت كبوا أجمل المدن التي كان في مقدوره أن يختارها لهذه الغاية وأشدها خطرًا عليه . ذلك أن هذه المدينة ، وهي ثانية المدن الإيطالية ، والتي تبعد عن نابلي نحو إثنى عشر ميلاً إلى الشمال ، قد أخذت عن التسكانيين واليونان رذائل الحضارة كما أخذت عنهم فضائلها؛ وأحس جنود هنيبال أن من حقهم أن يستمتعوا في ذلك الفصل بالملاذ الجسمية بعد ما قاسوا من الصعاب وما أثخنوا من الجراح؛ ولم يعودوا كما كانوا من قبل أولئك الجند الشداد الذين لا يقهرون ، والذين احتفظوا طوال ما خاضوه من الحروب بالصورة الإسبارطية التي كانت في اعتقاد قائدهم هي وحدها صورة الجندي الحق . وقادهم هنيبال في خلال الخمس السنين التالية وانتصر بهم في بعض الوقائع الصغيرة ، وفي هذه الأثناء ضرب الرومان الحصار على كبوا . وأراد هنيبال أن يرفع عنها الحصار فتقدم إلى رومه حتى لم يبق بينه وبينها إلا بضعة أميال؛ وجند الرومان خمساً وعشرون فرقة جديدة – أي مائتي ألف رجل ، ولم تكن قوة هنيبال قد زادت على أربعين ألفًا، فاضطر إلى الانسحاب نحو الجنوب، وسقطت كبوا في أيدي الرومان عام 211، وقطعت رؤوس زعمائها الذين أباحوا قتل من كان من الرومان في المدينة؛ ومن لم يقتل منهم انتحر؛ وشتت أهلها الذين ناصروا هنيبال في جميع أنحاء إيطاليا ، وكان مرسلس Marcellus قبل عام واحد من ذلك الوقت قد استولى على سرقوسة وبعد عام منه استسلمت أرجنتم لرومه .
وأرسل إلى أسبانيا في هذه الأثناء جيش روماني بقيادة سبيو وأخيه الكبيرين ليناوشا هزدروبال ويشغلاه، فهزماه عند نهر إبره ، ولكن القائدين قتلا في الميدان بعد قليل، وكادت تضيع ثمار ما كسباه من النصر لولا أن أرسل إلى أسبانيا سبيو الإفريقي Scipio Africanus، ابن أحد القائدين وابن أخ الثاني ، ليتولى قيادة الجيوش الرومانية فيها، ولم يكن سبيو هذا قد تجاوز الرابعة والعشرين من عمره في ذلك الوقت، ولم تكن هذه السن تجيز له من الوجهة القانونية أن يشغل هذا المنصب الخطير؛ ولكن مجلس الشيوخ كان في ذلك الوقت لا يرى ضيرًا في أن يتجاوز عن حرفية الدستور إذا كان في ذلك التجاوز نجاة الدولة ، وكانت الجمعية قد رضيت مختارة أن تخضع لإرادة الشيوخ ، ولم يكن الشعب يعجب به لبهاء طلعته وفصاحة لسانه وذكائه وشجاعته فحسب ، بل كان يعجب به كذلك لتقواه ، وعدالته، وبشاشته . وكان من عادته قبل أن يقدم على أمر خطير أن يناجي الآلهة في الهياكل المقامة على الكبتول، كما كان من عادته بعد أن ينال النصر أن يكافئها بذبح مئات من الثيران قرباناً لها . وكان يعتقد ، أو لعله كان يتظاهر بالاعتقاد ، أنه محبوب الآلهة؛ وكانت انتصاراته سبباً في انتشار هذه العقيدة بين أتباعه فملأت قلوبهم ثقة به . وما لبث أن أعاد النظام إلى الجيش ، واستولى على نوفا كرتاجو ( قرطاجنة الجديدة ) بعد حصار طويل ، وحرص على أن يبعث إلى خزانة الدولة بما وقع في يديه بعد سقوطها من المعادن الثمينة والحجارة الكريمة ، واستسلمت له بعدئذ معظم المدن الأسبانية ، ولم يحل عام 205 حتى كانت أسبانيا ولاية رومانية .
ولكن قوة هزدروبال الرئيسية كانت قد أفلتت من يد سبيو واجتازت بلاد غالة وعبرت جبال الألب إلى إيطاليا . ووقعت الرسالة التي بعث بها القائد الشاب لهنيبال في يد الرومان ، وعرفت رومه خططه الحربية . والتقى جيش روماني بقوته الصغيرة عند نهر متورس Metaurus وهزمته رغم مهارته في القيادة . ولما رأى هزدروبال أن قد حاقت به الهزيمة وأن لا أمل له في الوصول إلى أخيه ، قفز في وسط الفيالق الرومانية حيث لقي حتفه . ويقول القائد المنتصر انه قطع رأس القائد الشاب ، وبعث بها بطريق أبوليا ليقذف بها من فوق الأسوار في معسكر هنيبال . ولما علم ذلك القائد بما حل بأخيه ، وكان يحبه أشد الحب ، فتّ في عضده ، وطفأت جمرته ، فسحب قواته ، وكانت قد قل عديدها ، إلى برتيوم Bruttium . ويقول ليفي إن “ الرومان لم يشتبكوا معه في حرب في ذلك العام ، وإنهم لم يجرؤا على مناوشته ، وذلك لما عرف عن قواته من البسالة وإن كان ركنه قد تضعضع وأخذت الأقدار تعاكسه ، وبدأ نجمه في الأفول “ . وأرسلت إليه قرطاجنة مائة سفينة محملة بالزاد والرجال ، ولكن عاصفة هوجاء ساقتها إلى سردانية فالتقت فيها بعمارة بحرية رومانية أغرقت وأسرت منها ثمانين، وانطلقت السفن الباقية عائدة إلى بلادها . واختير سبيو الأصغر قنصلاً في عام 205 ولما يمض على انتصاره في أسبانيا إلا وقت قصير ، فجند جيشاً جديداً وأبحر به إلى إفريقية . وطلبت الحكومة القرطاجنية إلى هنيبال أن يعود إلى بلاده ليدافع عن المدينة التي ظلت زمنًا طويلاً ترفض معاونته . ترى ماذا كان شعور هذا الجندي الأعور وقد تألب عليه أعداء لا حصر لهم فساقوه إلى ركن قصي في إيطاليا ، وشاهد بعينيه ما بذله من الجهد وما عاناه من المشاق خلال خمسة عشر عاماً كاملة ينتهي إلى لا شيء ، وكل ما ظفر به من نصر حربي يقضي عليه فلا تكون له نتيجة إلا الفرار من الميدان؟ لقد أبى نصف جنوده أن يعودوا معه إلى قرطاجنة، ويقول بعض من يعادونه من المؤرخين إنه أمر بقتل عشرين ألفًا منهم عقاباً لهم لأنهم خالفوا أمره ، ولأنه كان يخشى أن تضمهم رومه إلى فيالقها . فلما أن وطئت قدماه أرض بلاده ، بعد أن غاب عنها ستة وثلاثين عاماً بادر إلى حشد جيش جديد وسار على رأسه لملاقاة سبيو عند زاما Zama على بعد خمسين ميلاً جنوبي قرطاجنة . وتقابل القائدان في بداية المعركة مقابلة ودية ، فلما وجدا أن لا سبيل إلى الاتفاق بينهما أصدرا أمرهما ببدء القتال .
وهزم هنيبال للمرة الأولى في حياته ، فقد تضعضع القرطاجنيون ، وكان معظمهم من الجند المرتزقة ، أمام مشاة الرومان وفرسان مسينسا Massinissa ملك نوميديا المجازفين الأبطال . وقاتل هنيبال وهو في سن الخامسة والأربعين كما كان يقاتل وهو في نضرة الشباب، فهجم على سبيو بنفسه وجرحه ، ثم ثنى بمسينسا، وأعاد تنظيم قواه بعد أن اختل نظامها أكثر من مرة ، وقادها في هجمات مضادة شديدة على الأعداء . فلما لم يبق له أمل في النصر أفلت من الأسر وسار على ظهر جواده إلى قرطاجنة ، وأعلن أنه لم يخسر الموقعة فحسب بل خسر الحرب كلها معها، وأشار على مجلس الشيوخ بأن يطلب الصلح . وعامل سبيو القرطاجنيين معاملة الكرام فرضى أن تحتفظ قرطاجنة بأملاكها في إفريقية ، ولكنه طلب إليها أن تسلم لرومه جميع سفنها الحربية عدا عشر من ذات الثلاثة الصفوف من المجدفين ، وألا تشتبك في حرب خارج إفريقية أو داخلها إلا بعد موافقة رومه ، وأن تؤدي إليها غرامة حربية سنوية مقدارها مائتا تالنت أي ما يقرب من 000 .720 ريال أمريكي مدى خمسين عامًا . وأعلن هنيبال أن هذه الشروط عادلة وأشار على مجلس الشيوخ بقبولها .
وغيرت الحرب البونية الثانية وجه البحر الأبيض المتوسط من ناحيته الغربية ، فقد سيطرت رومه بعدها على أسبانيا كلها وما فيها من ثروة فأمدتها بما يلزمها من المال لفتح بلاد اليونان، وأعادت إلى إيطاليا وحدتها تحت سيادة رومه لا ينازعها فيها منازع ، وفتحت جميع الطرق والأسواق للسفن والبضائع الرومانية؛ ولكنها كانت أكثر الحروب القديمة جميعها نفقة ، فقد خربت مزارع إيطاليا الجنوبية أو ألحقت بها أشد الأضرار ، وهدمت أربعمائة من مدنها، وأهلكت ثلاثمائة ألف من رجالها؛ ولم تفق إيطاليا الجنوبية حتى اليوم من جميع ما أصابها من هذا الدمار . يضاف إلى هذا أن هذه الحرب قد أضعفت الديمقراطية إذ أظهرت أن الجمعيات الشعبية عاجزة عن أن تحسن اختيار القواد أو إدارة دفة الحروب؛ وكانت سببًا فيما طرأ على حياة الرومان وأخلاقهم من انقلاب ، فقد أضرت بالزراعة وشجعت التجارة ، وانتزعت الرجال من الريف ، وعلمتهم عنف الحروب ومفاسد حياة المعسكرات ، وجاءت بمعادن أسبانيا النفيسة لتنفق على ملاذ الحياة وعلى التوسع الاستعماري ، وأمكنت إيطاليا من أن تعيش على ما اغتصبته من قمح أسبانيا وصقلية وإفريقية ، وقصارى القول أن هذه الحرب كانت المحور الذي يدور حوله تاريخ رومه من جميع نواحيه .
هذه آثار الحرب في رومه ، أما في قرطاجنة فقد كانت بداية نهايتها . لقد كان في وسعها ، وقد احتفظت بجزء كبير من تجارتها وإمبراطوريتها ، أن تحل ما يواجهها من مشاكل الإنعاش؛ ولكن حكومتها الألجراكية قد بلغت من الفساد مبلغاً جعلها تلقي على كاهل الطبقات الدنيا عبء الغرامة الحربية ، وأن تختلس جزءاً من هذه الغرامة . وطلبت طوائف الشعب إلى هنيبال أن يخرج من عزلته وينقذ الأمة من محنتها ، واختير في عام 196 حاكماً عاماً لها . فلما تولى منصبه روع سراة المدينة إذ اقترح ألا يبقى قضاة المحكمة البالغ عددهم 104 في مناصبهم أكثر من سنة واحدة ، وألا يعاد انتخابهم إلى هذه المناصب إلا بعد عام من خروجهم منها . فلما رفض مجلس الشيوخ هذا الاقتراح عرضه على الجمعية الشعبية فأجازته ، وكانت نتيجة هذا القانون وما اتبع فيه من إجراء أن أنشأ من أقصر طريق نوعاً من الديمقراطية لا يقل عن مثيله في رومه . ثم حارب الرشوة واجتثها من أصولها ، وأنزل بالمرتشين أشد العقاب ، ورفع عن الأهلين ما فرض عليهم من الضرائب الإضافية ، ودبر موارد الدولة تدبيرًا استطاعت به قرطاجنة قبل أن يحل عام 188 أن تؤدي جميع ما فرضته عليها رومه من غرامة حربية . لكن أرباب الأموال أرادوا أن يتخلصوا منه فبعثوا في السر إلى رومة يقولون إن هنيبال يعد العدة لاستئناف القتال . وبذل سبيو كل ماله من نفوذ ليحمي عدوه القديم ، ولكنه غلب على أمره . واستجاب مجلس الشيوخ إلى رغبة أغنياء القرطاجنيين ، بأن طلب تسليم هنيبال إلى رومة، ولكن الجندي القديم فرّ من بلاده ليلاً ، واجتاز على ظهر جواده مائة وخمسين ميلاً حتى وصل إلى ثبسوس Thapsus وركب منها سفينة إلى أنطاكية حيث وجد أنتيوخوس الثالث Antiochus متردداً بين حرب رومه ومسالمتها، فأشار عليه بحربها وأصبح فيها من قواد الملك . فلما هزم الرومان أنتيوخوس في مجنيزيا اشترطوا لعقد الصلح معه أن يسلم هنيبال، فما كان من هذا القائد إلا أن فرّ أولاً إلى كريت ، ثم إلى بيثونيا Bithynia . فأخذ الرومان يطاردونه في كل مكان يلجأ إليه حتى أحاطوه في مكمنه بالجند . وآثر هنيبال الموت على الأسر، وقال في هذا : “ دعوني أخفف عن الرومان ما يشغل بالهم من زمن طويل؛ فهم يظنون أنهم لا يطيقون الصبر حتى يلاقي شيخ مثلي منيته “ . وتجرع السم الذي كان يحمله معه ومات في عام 184 ق .م في السابعة والستين من عمره ، وما هي إلا بضعة أشهر حتى تبعه إلى الراحة الأبدية سبيو قاهره الذي كان شديد الإعجاب به .

هنيبعل
( قرطاجنة – رجيولوس – هملكار – هنيبعل – سبيو )
“ قصة الحضارة “
ويل ديورانت

One of the major motifs of my poetry, is the exploration of the historical evolution, adoption and transformation of elements of Hellenic culture in literary traditions of non-Hellenic areas that have been touched somehow by Greek civilization. For while it is often claimed that ours is the parent of Western civilization, I would argue that in fact it is the Middle Eastern civilizations that are united closer to us in kinship and which have drawn more heavily on the corpus of our tradition, whereas with the West, it is more precise to refer to an adoptive, rather than a sanguinary relationship.

Indeed, various Middle Eastern cultures including the Jewish, Syriac and Arabic exist in a historic dialectic and continuous process of emancipation from Greek culture.
The process through which elements of Greek civilization are adopted by, inform and ultimately are subsumed into other cultures on the margins of the Greek world is instructive and act as a parallel and commentary to similar processes unfolding here in Australia. Furthermore, the fact that a good number of the Western oriented first generation fail to identify or understand the inferences to Middle Eastern acculturation in my poems provides a most telling and satisfying parallel to the phenomenon of a large number of the first generation failing to see the level of assimilation and/or acculturation of the latter generations is Australia.
If there is one historical persona who inspires me in my delusion of poetical aspiration, then undoubtedly that is Grigorios Bar Ebroyo, known as Bar Hebraeus, an Assyrian bishop, philosopher, poet, grammarian, physician, biblical commentator, historian, and theologian, who lived in Melitene, in Arab territory, on the borders of Byzantine territory in the thirteenth century. A polymath, and scholar, through his works addressing philosophy, poetry, language, history, and theology, he has been called “one of the most learned and versatile of men.” It is through his Syriac translations and discussions of ancient and contemporary Greek writings, real or imagined, that one can gauge the permeation and high esteem of Greek culture into the Middle East.


Born in the village of Ebro in 1226, he began as a boy the study of medicine at the great centre of Hellenic knowledge at Antioch and Tripoli. In 1246 he was consecrated bishop and finally was made primate, or maphrian, of the East in 1264. In this task, he was responsible for keeping alive a millenium old Christian tradition in the face of Muslim intolerance, engaging in a dangerous and delicate balancing act between the Byzantines and the Caliphs. His episcopal duties however did not interfere with his studies. He took advantage of the numerous visitations, which he had to make throughout his vast province, to consult the libraries and converse with the learned men whom he happened to meet. Thus he gradually accumulated an immense erudition, became familiar with almost all branches of secular and religious knowledge, and in many cases thoroughly mastered the bibliography of the various subjects which he undertook to treat.
Just how erudite and all pervasive he cast his eye in search of intellectual stimulation can be evidenced by a perusal of my favourite of his works, the Kethabha dhe-Thunnaye Mighaizjzikhanl, or Book of Entertaining Stories. This is in effect a joke book, something quite surprising for a clergyman. One chapter, proving how important Greece and Greek philosophy is to the Easter world, is entitled “Profitable Sayings of the Greek philosophers,” lists reputed sayings that are profound, such as this attributed to Socrates: “A certain disciple of Socrates said unto him, “How is it that I see in thee no sign of sorrow?” Socrates replied, “Because I possess nothing for which I should sorrow if it perished. ” It also is a repository of sayings that are rather wicked, such as: “Diogenes saw a harlot’s child throwing stones at people, and he said to him, “Throw not stones, lest thou smite thine own father without knowing it.” In the authoritative English translation by Wallis Budge in 1897, some of the more racier stories, are rendered in Latin for the sake of offending readers’ tender morals. His legacy today survives in the equally compendious and prolific prelate of the Church of the East in India, Mar Aprem, who has also published a joke book among his many writings.
Bar Hebraeus’ love of Greek philosophy led him also to write the Kethabha dhe-Bhabhatha or Book of the Pupils of the Eyes, a treatise on logic or dialectics based on the writings of Greek philosophers, which he comments on extensively. This was at a time when the West, in the form of refugees fleeing Byzantium, was only just experiencing a taste of long lost Greek works. In Syria however, these works had been adopted wholesale into the local Aramaic and Arabic cultures for generations. Thus, the prolific prelate continued with his Hewath Hekmetha or Butter of Wisdom, an exposition of the whole philosophy of Aristotle, Sullarat Haunãnãyã or Ascent of the Mind, a treatise on astronomy and cosmography, various commentaries on the medical works of the ancient Greek Galen, explaining how medicine had advanced since his time, as well as a collection of quite remarkable Syriac poems.As if this were not enough, his great encyclopedic work Hewath Hekhmetha, “The Cream of Science”, deals with almost every branch of human knowledge, and comprises the whole Aristotelian discipline, after Avicenna and other Arabian writers – a remarkable synthesis which shows the permeation and interpretation of Greek philosophy throughout the East. A further work Teghrath Teghratha, or “Commerce of Commerces”, also revisits similar themes, while the Kethabha dhe-Bhabhatha, or Book of the Pupils of the Eyes is an amazing compendium of Greek philosophic thought on logic and dialectics and the Kethabha dhe-Sewadh Sophia, or Book of Speech of Wisdom, a compendium of Greek thought on physics and metaphysics. Bar Hebraeus’ theological works are also significant, coming at a time when the Christians of the Arab world were largely cut off from Byzantium. His Aucar Raze, or “Storehouse of Secrets”, is a vast commentary on the entire Bible, both doctrinal and critical. Before giving his doctrinal exposition of a passage, he first considers its critical state. Although he uses the Syriac Peshitta, as a basis, he knows that it is not perfect, and therefore controls it by the Hebrew, the Septuagint, the Greek versions of Symmachus, Theodotion, Aquila, by Oriental versions, Armenian and Coptic, and finally by the other Syriac translations, Heraclean, Philoxenian and especially the Syro-Hexapla. The work of Bar Hebraeus is of prime importance for the recovery of these versions and more specifically for the Hexapla of the great theologian Origen. His exegetical and doctrinal portions are taken from the Greek Fathers and previous Syrian Jacobite theologians, preserving works that would otherwise have been lost to us.
How he could have devoted so much time to such a systematic study of the Greek world, in spite of all the vicissitudes incident to the ensuing Mongol invasion, an extemely traumatic event for the Middle East, is almost beyond comprehension. The main claim of Bar Hebraeus to my admiration is not, in his original productions, but rather in his having preserved and systematized the work of his Greek predecessors, either by way of condensation of by way of direct reproduction. The obscurity that writers of his ilk have endured by a Greek nation obsessed with establishing or ‘proving’ western roots in its vain attempt to obtain legitimacy is decidedly underserved. Give me a prelate who writes jokes such as “Another fool…when his son was being circumcised said to him that was making the cutting, “Cut him little by little, for he hath never before been circumcised,” compared to a stuffy Korais any day.
Bar Hebraeus’ remains lie today in Mar Mattai monastery in Northern Iraq, a most ancient place that has been virtually abandoned due to the dangerous conditions existing in that country for its native Christians. I should feel my debt to him as one of my personal heroes to be partially discharged, should I be able to discover a Greek rendering of his title, maphrian. Μαφριανός, to my taste, sounds decidedly cool.
DEAN KALIMNIOU

August 15th 944 was a day of great jubilation and excitement for the citizens
of the capital of the Byzantine Empire, for on it one of the most precious relics,
the famous mandylion bearing the imprint of the face of Christ, came to the end
of its long journey from Edessa, to be escorted in solemn procession into
Constantinople; the following day the relic was taken in procession to the great
church of the Holy Wisdom, and then finally found its resting place in a chapel of
the imperial palace. An annual commemoration of the image, on 16th August,
was inserted into the liturgical calendar.1 Earlier in the year of 944 the Byzantine
Emperor, Romanos I, had managed to reach an agreement with the Muslim
authorities that they would be willing to hand it over in exchange for 200 Muslim
prisoners and 12,000 pieces of silver.2 Probably not long after its arrival in
Constantinople, the mandylion was portrayed on an icon that is still preserved in
the Monastery of St Catherine, Mount Sinai.3 The icon is divided up into four
fields: on the top right King Abgar is seated, and in his hands he holds the
mandylion with the face of Christ clearly visible to the viewer; to the left is a
smaller figure who stands and makes a gesture; he is, of course, Hannan, Abgar’s
messenger who conveyed his letter to Christ in Jerusalem. In the top left panel is
another seated figure, clothed in white, and alone: this will be Addai (or
Thaddaios in the Greek tradition), the apostle of Edessa. On the panels below are
1 Thus a long account (largely based on the Narratio, for which see note 2) is found in
H. Delehaye (ed.), Synaxarium Ecclesiae Constantinoplitanae (Bruxelles, 1902), cols
893-901 (for August 16th).
2 The details are given in section 56 of the Narratio (“account”), written shortly after
the transfer to Constantinople; the text is edited by E. von Dobschütz,
Christusbilder (Texte und Untersuchungen XVIII; Leipzig, 1899), pp.39**-85**.
This work, which includes a collection of most of the relevant texts, remains of
fundamental importance. (Two relevant texts have been published subsequently, both
in the Revue des études byzantines 55 (1997): a homily by the Archdeacon Gregory
(perhaps dating from 945), and a late twelfth-century text on the mandylion). The
recent bibliography on the history of the Edessa portrait is extensive; of particular
importance are: A. Cameron, “History of the image of Edessa”, in her Changing
Cultures in Early Byzantium (Aldershot, 1996), ch. XI, and H.J.W. Drijvers, “The
image of Edessa in the Syriac tradition”, in H.L. Kessler and G. Wolf (eds), The
Holy Face and the Paradox of Representation (Villa Spelman Colloquia 6; 1998),
pp.13-31; this volume contains a number of other contributions of relevance.
3 An illustration can be found in S.P. Brock and D.G.K. Taylor (eds), The Hidden
Pearl, II. The Heirs of the Ancient Aramaic Heritage (Rome, 2001), p.49. (A section
on the image is to be found on pp.122-5). On this icon, see K. Weitzmann, “The
mandylion and Constantine Porphyrogennetos”, Cahiers archéologiques 11 (1960),
pp.163-84.
Transformation of the Edessa Portrait of Christ 47
two pairs of standing saints, St Paul of Thebes and St Antony on the left, and St
Basil and St Ephrem on the right.

The mandylion remained in Constantinople until 1204, when it was part of
the spoils seized by the Crusaders who infamously sacked the capital. Its
subsequent fate is totally unknown, a situation that has left ample room for
speculation, with among the modern claimants are icons in the church of St
Bartholomew degli Armeni in Genoa, and in the Vatican Museum (formerly in
San Silvestro in Capite, in Rome), and even the Turin Shroud.4 That a similar
relic was in Rome by 1208 is indicated by the fact that Pope Innocent III
instituted a ceremonial procession and liturgical office for it.5 Eighty years later
the monk Rabban Sauma, who had travelled all the way from the region of
(modern) Beijing in China as an ambassador for Argun, the Mongol Ilkhan, saw
in St Peter’s ‘the piece of pure linen on which our Lord had impressed his own
image in order to send it to King Abgar of Edessa’.6 Although it seems that
Abgar’s connection with the relic was subsequently largely forgotten in Rome,
being replaced by the legend of Veronica, nevertheless in the middle of the
sixteenth century the Syrian Orthodox priest Moses of Mardin, who assisted in
the production of the first printed edition of the Peshitta New Testament
(published in Vienna in 1555), records that when he was in Rome he saw with his
own eyes ‘the mandila which was sent by our Lord to Abgar’, specifying that this
was in the church of the Apostles Peter and Paul.7

The relic that was brought to Constantinople from Edessa was clearly a
piece of clothe on which the image of Christ’s face had been impressed. What
has happened to the portrait of Christ which, according to the Syriac Teaching of
Addai (dating from the early fifth century), %annan, King Abgar’s emissary to
Jesus, painted when he was in Jerusalem? In the Teaching of Addai we are told
that, after Christ gave an oral reply to king Abgar’s letter,
4 For the Turin Shroud, see below, note 35.
5 A cloth (sudarium) with the holy face imprinted on it, but described as the
“Veronica” (< vera icona?) is already recorded as being in St Peter’s in Rome c.1160
(von Dobschütz, p.285*). The two relics are often confused in the sources; for the
dominance of the “Veronica” image in Rome, see especially I. Ragusa, “Mandylion-
Sudarium: the translation of a Byzantine relic to Rome”, Arte Medievale II.v.2 (1991),
pp. 97-106; H. Belting, Likeness and Presence: a History of the Image before the Era
of Art (Chicago, 1994), pp.208-24 (“The ‘Holy Face’: legends and images in
competition”); and G. Wolf, “From mandylion to Veronica”, in Kessler and Wolf
(eds), The Holy Face and the Paradox of Representation, pp.153-79.
6 Ed. P. Bedjan, Histoire de Mar Jab-Alaha, patriarche… (Leipzig/Paris, 1895), p.63
(p.58 in his earlier edition of 1888).
7 He gives this information in a marginal note to Michael the Syrian’s Chronicle which
he copied c.1560; the text is given by J-B. Chabot, Chronique de Michel le Syrien I
(Paris, 1899, repr. Bruxelles, 1963), p. xxxix.
48 Journal of Assyrian Academic Studies, Vol. 18, no. 1, 2004
Because (%annan) was the royal artist, he took up (paints) and depicted the
image (1almeh) of Jesus with choice paints, and brought (it) with him to king
Abgar his master. And when king Abgar saw that image he received it with great
joy and placed it in great honour in one of the rooms of his palace.8

As is well known, the earliest account of Abgar’s correspondence with
Jesus, dating from about AD 300 and in Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History, in fact
has no mention at all of such a portrait, and the western pilgrim Egeria, who
visited Edessa about 385, still only knows of the correspondence, and not the
portrait. But what is of concern here is the transformation, over the course of
time, of what was originally understood to have been a painted portrait into a
piece of cloth with Christ’s face imprinted on it. As always in such cases, it is
essential to look at the sources in chronological sequence, and to observe closely
the specific terms used in connection with the portrait. As it will emerge, there
are four main stages in the tradition over the portrait:
(1) No mention in any source before early fifth century.
(2) A portrait of Christ is painted by Abgar’s emissary, Hannan: thus the
Teaching of Addai (probably dating from about the third decade of the fifth
century).
(3) The portrait (evidently painted) is a miraculous one, not made by human
hands. Evagrius Scholasticus, at the end of the sixth century, is the witness
to this development.
(4) It is no longer question of a painted portrait, but of an impression of
Christ’s face on a cloth: it proves impossible to paint a portrait, so Christ
washes his face and wipes it with a towel, on which the impression of his
face is left, for Abgar’s emissary to take back to Edessa. This version is
found in Syriac in the Acts of Mari and the anonymous Chronicle to the
year 1234, and in Greek first in John of Damascus and the Acts of
Thaddaios, as well as in most later texts.

After the passage in the Teaching of Addai it is not until the sixth century
that we next have references to the portrait. The first is in the Life of Jacob of
Galash, by Jacob of Serugh (d.521); there it is mentioned in passing that Daniel
and a fellow monk went to Edessa where they ‘were blessed by the portrait of
Christ’.9 Much more specific information is to be found in the account of the
Persian siege of Edessa in 544, as written up by Evagrius Scholasticus in his
Ecclesiastical History, a work he completed in 593/4. Evagrius tells of how the
citizens of Edessa “brought the divinely created image, which human hands had
not made, the one that Christ the God sent to Agbar [sic!] when he yearned to see
Him”, and with its aid they managed to set fire to Persian siege mound from a
passage dug underneath it. At first they had not managed to ignite the fire, but
8 G. Phillips, The Doctrine of Addai the Apostle (London, 1876), pp.5*-6* (Syriac), p.5
(tr.); G. Howard, The Teaching of Addai (Chico, 1981), pp.8-11 (text and tr.).
9 Paris, syr. 235, f.166r.
Transformation of the Edessa Portrait of Christ 49
once “they brought the all-holy image (eikon) into the channel they had created
…. at once the timbers caught fire.”10

Perhaps from about the same time as Evagrius, though it could be
somewhat later, is the first mention of a linen cloth; this is to be found in the Acts
of Mari, the Apostle of the Church of the East.11 Mari is presented as a disciple
of Addai, and after recounting Abgar’s correspondence with Christ (taken mainly
from Eusebius, but with a few details derived from the Teaching of Addai), the
author presents an account of the portrait of Christ that is considerably different
from that in the Teaching of Addai:
The Letter (of Christ) came to King Abgar and he received it with great joy.
When they told him of the miracles that were being performed by Him in the
land of Judaea, he was full of astonishment at the power of God. Because he was
not worthy to see this, he was in a state of great grief. What then did King
Abgar do? He saw some skilled artists and ordered them to go with his emissaries
and depict (Him), and bring back on an image (yuqna) the face of our Lord, so
that he might take pleasure in his image (1almeh), just as if he had met Him. The
artists arrived, along with the King’s emissaries, but they were unable to paint a
portrait (1 urta) of the venerable humanity of our Lord. Our Lord perceived in
them, with the knowledge of His divinity, the love that Abgar had for Him: on
seeing how the artists had toiled in their attempt to portray the image as it was,
but had not succeeded, He took a linen cloth (sedona; from Greek sindon), and
the Saviour of the World imprinted it with His face – and it was (exactly) like
Him. And the linen cloth was brought and placed as a source of assistance in the
church of Edessa, up to today.12

A passing reference to “the eikon (yuqna) that Christ impressed with his
face and sent to Abgar, the king of Edessa” is found in a Syriac Dispute between
a monk of the monastery of Beth Hale and a follower of the Emir Maslama
(d.737).13 In Greek a similar narrative which introduces the linen cloth is to be
found in the Acts of Thaddaeus (Thaddaeus was Eusebius’ name for Addai), a
10 Evagrius, Eccl. Hist. IV. 27, English tr. M. Whitby, The Ecclesiastical History of
Evagrius Scholasticus (Liverpool, 2000), p.226; in his Appendix II (pp.323-6)
Whitby convincingly refutes the view of J. Chrysostomides [see n.15] that the passage
was an interpolation of the eighth century, intended to bolster the position of the
opponents of iconoclasm.
11 Unfortunately the date is uncertain (as in the case of several of the other key
documents!): C. Jullien and F. Jullien, Les Actes de Mari, l’apôtre de la Mésopotamie
(Turnhout, 2001), p.53, think the late sixth or early seventh century is the most likely.
12 Acta Sancti Maris, section 4, ed. J-B. Abbeloos, Analecta Bollandiana 4 (1885),
pp.43-138. Note that the image is only acquired on a second visit to Jerusalem: this is
paralleled in the Greek Epistula Abgari, but not in the Acts of Thaddaeus or the
Narratio.
13 I quote from H.J.W. Drijvers, “The image of Edessa in the Syriac tradition”, p.27; the
text has not yet been published.
50 Journal of Assyrian Academic Studies, Vol. 18, no. 1, 2004
work also of uncertain date.14 Unlike the situation portrayed in the Acts of Mari,
Abgar instructs Ananias (Hannan) at the very outset to “describe Christ
accurately, what sort of appearance he has, his age, his hair, in brief, everything”.
Ananias then goes off with the letter, hands it to Christ, gazes carefully at him,
but is unable to take anything in: “Realizing this, He who knows hearts asked to
wash. He was given a cloth folded in four; once he had washed, he wiped his
face. His image (eikon) was imprinted linen cloth (sindon), and he gave it to
Ananias”, telling him to take it to Abgar, along with his (oral) reply to the king’s
letter. Basically the same form of the narrative was known to John of Damascus,
writing shortly before the middle of the eighth century.15

Since the term eikon is used in the Acts of Thaddaeus for the imprinted
portrait of Christ on the linen, one cannot be sure exactly what was implied by
the phrase “shrine of the eikon (yuqna) of our Lord”, which features in the
colophon of a Melkite manuscript written in Edessa in 723: the ‘eikon’ could be
either painted on wood, or refer to an image on linen.16 An indication that, at
least in some circles, the image of Christ was understood as having been painted
is shown by an account in the Chronicle of Patriarch Michael the Great (d.1199),
which derives from the lost Chronicle of Patriarch Dionysius of Telmahre
(d.845), in which
The Edessans owed part of the taxes they had to pay and had nothing
with which to pay it. A crafty man…advised the collector of taxes, ‘If you
take the portrait they will sell their children and themselves rather than
allow it [to be removed]. When he did this, the Edessans were in
consternation…. They came to the noble Athanasius (bar Gumoye) and
asked him to give them the 5,000 dinars of the taxes, and to take the
portrait to his house until they repaid him. He gladly took the portrait
to his place and gave the gold. Then he brought a clever painter and
asked him to paint one like it. When the work was finished and there
14 Greek text in R.A. Lipsius and M. Bonnet, Acta Apostolorum Apocrypha I (Leipzig,
1891; repr. Darmstadt, 1965), pp.273-8; French translation by A.N. Palmer in A.
Desreumaux, Histoire du roi Abgar et de Jésus (Turnhout, 1993), pp.138-45.
Unfortunately the date is very uncertain; Palmer (p.137 note 1) suggests that it dates
from the latter part of the reign of Heraclius (611-641).
15 On Orthodox Faith IV.16 (89) (ed. Kotter, II, p.208). Here he specifies that it was the
luminosity of Christ’s face that prevented the painter making a portrait (the cloth is
termed himation, whereas in his treatise On Images he calls it rakos, ed. Kotter, III,
p.145-6). According to Chrysostomides, these passages too are later iconophile
interpolations (in J.A. Munitiz, J. Chrysostomides, E. Harvalia-Crook, Ch. Dendrinos,
The Letter of the Three Patriarchs to Emperor Theophilus and Related Texts
(Camberley, 1997), pp.xxiv-xxxvii); in view of the Syriac texts, this seems rather
unlikely.
16 R.W. Thomson, “An eighth-century Melkite colophon from Edessa”, Journal of
Theological Studies NS 13 (1962), pp.249-58.
Transformation of the Edessa Portrait of Christ 51
was a portrait as exactly as possible like [the original] because the painter
had dulled the paints of the portrait so that they would appear old, the
Edessans after a time returned the gold and asked him for the portrait. He
gave them the one that had been made recently and kept the old one in
his place. After a while he revealed the affair to the faithful [i.e. his
fellow Syrian Orthodox], and built the wonderful shrine of the baptistery.
He completed it at expense great beyond reckoning, spent in honour of
the portrait, because he knew that the genuine portrait sent through
Yohannan [sic] the tabellara, had remained in his place. After several
years he brought it and put it in the baptistery.17

This story would imply that the Melkite priest who was looking after “the
shrine of the eikon of our Lord” was actually just looking after its recent copy! It
also helps to explain why there were evidently three different portraits in Edessa
(one being in “the church of the Nestorians”) at the time when one of them was
transported to Constantinople in 944.18 Reference to a painted portrait is found as
late as the second quarter of the 10th century in Agapius of Mabbug’s Kitab al
`Unwan, where Hannan is said to have painted the portrait on “a square tablet
(luh )”.19

A later Syriac account which introduces a portrait imprinted on linen,
instead of a painted one, features in the anonymous Chronicle to the year 1234,
no doubt taken from an earlier source.20 After giving the text of Abgar’s Letter to
Jesus in a shortened form (based on Eusebius), there is a section entitled
“Concerning the yuqna or depiction (1 urta) of Christ which is on the towel
(shushepa)”. Then comes the following narrative:
Because king Abgar had previously instructed Hananya the tabellara that, if
Christ was not going to come with them (back to Edessa), by all means they
should bring up on a piece of wood (dappa) the yuqna of his portrait (d-1 urteh)
so that he might see it. Now when they reached Jerusalem and met Christ, they
17 XI.16 (ed. Chabot, pp.448-9); I quote from J.B. Segal’s translation, in Edessa, ‘the
Blessed City’ (Oxford, 1970), p.214; another translation can be found in A.N. Palmer,
The Seventh Century in West-Syrian Chronicles (Liverpool, 1993), pp.203-4.
Athanasius bar Gumoye was active in the reign of Abdalmalik (685-705). The
account is said to go back to Dionysius’ maternal grandfather.
18 This is mentioned in the Narratio (47) concerning the bringing of the relic to
Constantinople in 944.
19 Ed. A. Vasiliev, Patrologia Orientalis 7 (1911), pp.18-19 (474-5). Eutychius (Sa`id
ibn Bitriq), patriarch of Alexandria (933-40), however, already uses the term mandil
in a passing reference in his Book of Demonstration/Kitab al-Burhan (ed. P. Cachia,
tr. W. Montgomery Watt, CSCO Scr. Arab. 20-21, 1960, p. 207 (text), p.162 (tr.)).
20 Ed. J-B. Chabot, Chronicon ad annum Christi 1234 pertinens, I (CSCO Scr. Syri 36,
1920, repr, 1953), pp.121-2. Drijvers, “The image of Edessa”, p.23, suggests the
passage goes back, by way to Dionysius of Telmahre, to the lost chronicle of
Theophilus (late 8th cent.).
52 Journal of Assyrian Academic Studies, Vol. 18, no. 1, 2004
gave him the letter and he read it. He wrote a reply to the letter on the spot, and
knowing hidden things, he asked for water and washed his face. He (then) took a
towel (shushepa) as if to wipe his face, and straightaway by some great wonder
the yuqna of his face was portrayed on that towel, in his likeness and
resemblance. And he gave the towel, along with the reply to the letter, to Abgar’s
emissaries.

The Chronicler then gives the text of Jesus’ letter, again based on Eusebius
rather than the Teaching of Addai, though it ends with the blessing of Edessa and
promise that it no enemy would have dominion over it (found in the Teaching,
but not in Eusebius). There follows a completely new episode (pp.122-3), headed
“Concerning the return of Abgar’s emissaries”. It reads as follows:
Once the emissaries had received the letter and the towel, or mandila, they
set off to return to their master. They reached as far as the town of Mabbug, and
stayed in a certain place outside the town. Since they were concerned about the
mandila, they went up to the roof of the place where they were staying, and
placed it between two tiles (keramidia), in a clean spot. While they were asleep at
night a great light descended from heaven over the place where it had been
placed. When the local inhabitants saw that great sight, they came in droves to
the place. The emissaries, being unable to conceal the matter, related the whole
story, just as it was. Once the citizens understood what was the cause of the light,
they demanded to be blessed by the yuqna, for they hade seen this great wonder
that had taken place. When Hananya the tabellara stretched out his hand to take
the mandila, he found that the portrait (1 urteh) of the Saviour had been marked
on the times. When the local inhabitants saw this second miracle, they were once
more fired with a desire for it, and they urged Hananya to give them the tiles, to
be a source of blessing and protection for their region. Once they had received
the tiles they placed them in honour in a splendid location in their place of
worship. In this way many miraculous healings were performed by them, up to
the time when the Apostle Philip came to them; it was he who converted them
and built a large church, in which he placed the holy tiles. When the holy apostle
died in martyrdom for Christ, his holy body was place there.

The emissaries took the mandila and came to Edessa. On hearing of this,
king Abgar went out to meet them with all the town; he received them with great
ceremony. He was blessed by the holy mandila, and received relief from his
illness, until the Apostle Addai came to him, after our Lord’s ascension: (Addai)
then baptized him and healed him completely from his sickness. The citizens of
Edessa were also converted and they were all baptized, becoming Christians.

This episode is also found in the Greek Narratio (section 14) composed
shortly after the transfer of the image to Constantinople in 944. A similar account
also features, but in a shorter form, in the Greek Epistula Abgari (section 5),
composed around 1032. The Syriac account is by no means a translation of either
Transformation of the Edessa Portrait of Christ 53
of these Greek accounts; rather, it represents a separate, though related, tradition
that circulated in Syriac.21

The same Chronicle has one further passage concerning the image. After
describing the arrival of Zengi in Edessa (1145), the Chronicler has a section
entitled “Concerning the well of the lepers outside Edessa” (I, pp.134-5).22 This
reads as follows:
We shall indicate here the story of this well. Because we have already
written about the mandila of Christ our Lord which was sent to Abgar, king of
Edessa, and how he was healed of his sickness, we will indicate here about this
well that we have just mentioned,23 how and whence it acquired the power of
healing. We mentioned earlier that there was in this place a renowned monastery,
named after the glorious Cosmas, the true confessor and martyr, who was a
healer of bodies in Edessa, along with his companion and spiritual brother,
Damian (Dumyana): they used to heal everyone free with their medicaments, as
is described in their History. Cosmas’ (body) was laid in this place, and over it
this monastery was built. Damian was placed high up on the mountain, and over
him another splendid monastery was built. Healings and miracles were
performed by their bones.

Now there was at a certain time an Oriental who was present in Edessa. He
cunningly waited for a time when he could find an opportunity to steal from the
church the mandila which had been sent by our Lord to Abgar, which was
preserved in a church in Edessa. Once he had taken it, he left by the south gate in
the evening and passed the night in this monastery of St Cosmas. The mandila
filled his lap as it were with fire, burning him. In anguish he removed it from his
lap, and in his fright he threw it into this deep well in the monastery. All at once
there was seen above it a column of fire coming down from heaven into the well.
People thronged to see what had happened. Peering into the well they saw that
something looking like the ball of the sun was shining out in the water.

Descending into the well, they found the mandila and brought it up. All the
sick who were in the monastery were healed after washing in that water. Report
(of this) spread everywhere, and many people – especially those with various
kinds of leprosy and everyone who had the same disease as Abgar – poured
along, washed in the well’s water and were healed. It was especially people who
do not belong to our Christian religion who were speedily healed.

The next paragraph tells how Zengi, on learning about the well’s healing
parts, had said “I believe that Christ’s blessing can perform miracles”, and when
one of his officers was healed he wanted to build an endowed hostel for the sick,
but this did not come to fruition. The Chronicler adds the information that by
21 The image (on a shushepa) was still commemorated liturgically in Edessa in the 12th
century, to judge by an Enyono mentioning it in British Library Add. 14697, f.168r
(Syrian Orthodox); the passage is quoted in The Hidden Pearl, II, p.124.
22 Segal refers to this episode in Edessa, ‘the Blessed City’, p.250.
23 It was mentioned in the previous paragraph of the Chronicle.
54 Journal of Assyrian Academic Studies, Vol. 18, no. 1, 2004
Zengi’s day the monastery had been in ruins “for a long time”; however, the
reference in the passage quoted to non-Christians being healed suggests that it
did not fall into ruin until some time after Arab rule.

This episode of the theft of the mandylion and its being thrown into a well
seems not to be known from any other source. The motif of the hiding away of a
precious object can be traced back to the hiding of the sacred vessels of the
Temple by Jeremiah after Nebuchadnezzar’s capture of the Jerusalem in BC 587,
a tradition which goes back to 2 Maccabees 2:5. More intriguingly, an episode
involving the hiding of the mandylion in a well is depicted in a Latin manuscript
perhaps written in Rome in the second half of the thirteenth century. This
manuscript (now Paris, Lat. 2688) contains an extended cycle of 22 miniatures
illustrating the story of Abgar and the sudarium (as the cloth with the image is
here called).24 Towards the end of the cycle, when the sacred image is on its
journey back to Abgar, there is a scene where it is being brought up out of a
well.25 Such an episode seems to be completely without parallel in the other later
texts on the history of the image, and this makes the counterpart in the Syriac
Chronicle all the more striking, even though the narrative context is quite
different. As it happens, there is another intriguing link, albeit again remote,
between our Syriac Chronicle and this Latin text: the Latin text identifies the
gentiles who approach Philip, “wanting to see Jesus” (John 12:21-3), with king
Abgar’s emissaries. This too, seems to be something without parallel in other
accounts; Philip, however, does feature in the Syriac Chronicle’s account, though
again in a different context, the conversion of the people of Mabbug (something
not mentioned in either the Narratio or the Epistula Abgari).

The Latin manuscript provides a unique ending to the story. After
describing how Abgar’s son reverted to paganism, instead of having the bishop
of Edessa hiding the image (as the Narratio and Epistula Abgari relate it),
Abgar’s widow takes it off for safety to Jerusalem.26 The motivation behind this
is clear: in the Narratio and Epistula Abgari the image has to be hidden so that it
can be rediscovered at the siege of Edessa in 544, as related by Evagrius (and
expanded in The Letter of the Three Patriarchs, where bishop Eulalios is
24 On this see I. Ragusa, “The iconography of the Abgar cycle in Paris ms lat. 2688 and
its relationship to Byzantine cycles”, Miniatura 2 (1989), pp.35-51. (The cloth is
evidently also called sindon in the text). The visit to Hierapolis/Mabbug (but in the
Latin corrupted to Menpente) on the return journey to Edessa indicates a general
relationship to the Greek accounts in the Narratio and Epistula Abgari; the latter text
was provided with a cycle of illustrations on a Greek scroll of the 14th century in the
Pierpont Morgan Library, New York (M 499): for this see, S. Der Nersessian, “La
légende d’Abgar d’après un rouleau illustré de la bibliothèque Pierpont Morgan à
New York”, in Actes, IV congrès international des études byzantines, II (Sofia, 1936),
pp.98-106; Ragusa, “The iconography”, also gives several illustrations.
25 Illustrated in Plate IV.
26 Plate III in Ragusa, “The iconography”.
Transformation of the Edessa Portrait of Christ 55
introduced for the first time); furthermore, the image has to remain in Edessa so
that the genuine article is still there in 944, to be transported to the Byzantine
capital, Constantinople. Rome, however, where Paris Lat. 2688 was probably
written, had no interest in Constantinople, and indeed was happy to undermine its
claim to have the Edessa relic by neatly removing the image from Edessa only
shortly after Abgar’s death!

It is striking that an interest in the return journey from Jerusalem to Edessa
only begins to feature in texts that are subsequent to the transfer of the image to
Constantiople in 944. Thus it is only with the Narratio and the Epistula Abgari
that the Hierapolis (Mabbug) episode (providing the origin of the image being
impressed on two tiles) and the healing of a man outside Edessa, first appear.
These would seem to have been introduced as counterparts to episodes on the
journey in 944 from Edessa to Constantinople, when miracles are performed on
the way at Samosata, and a demoniac is healed at a monastery of the Virgin in
the theme of the Optimates.27 That Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos (who
became emperor on 16 December 944, replacing Romanos) sought to have
himself portrayed as the new Abgar is suggested by the fact that on the Sinai icon
Abgar’s face bears Constantine’s features.28

Although there are indications in the Narratio that the Christian population
of Edessa were – not surprisingly – extremely unwilling to give up their treasured
image of Christ,29 its removal to Constantinople did at least ensure that the Abgar
story gained a great deal of publicity that it would otherwise not have had.
Although in the west, outside the remarkable Paris manuscript, the Edessan
image was largely forgotten, being replaced by the Veronica tradition, the
correspondence between Abgar and Christ became known far and wide, with
translations of Christ’s letter into many different languages. It was in the
Byzantine east, however, that the Edessan image on cloth came to be reproduced
again an again.30 The mandylion was portrayed already in the eleventh century
churches in Cappadocia31 and even further afield, in Georgia,32 where two
27 Whose capital was Nikomedia.
28 See Weitzmann, “The Mandylion”.
29 Michael the Syrian, Chronicle XIII.3 (ed. Chabot, pp.553-5) and Bar `Ebroyo,
Chronicon (ed. Bedjan, pp.179-80) only give passing reference to the event. Both use
the term mandila.
30 The Mandylion in the mosaics of Monreale (Palermo, Sicily) in the late 12th century
belongs to the Byzantine iconographic tradition: see E. Kitzinger, “The Mandylion at
Monreale”, in A. Iakobini and E. Zanini, Arte profana e arte sacra a Bisanzio (Rome,
1995), pp.575-602. Another rare western example is provided by the cycle of ten
scenes from the Abgar story, largely based on the Narratio, on the frame of the Genoa
‘Volto Santo’; these are described, with illustrations, by C. Dufour-Bozzo, “La
cornice del Volto Santo de Genova”, Cahiers archéologiques 19 (1969), pp.223-30.
31 See C. Walter, “The Abgar cycle at Mateic”, in Studien zur byzantinischen
Kunstgeschichte. Festschrift für H. Hallensleben (Amsterdam, 1995), pp.221-31; that
56 Journal of Assyrian Academic Studies, Vol. 18, no. 1, 2004
successive translations of the correspondence between Abgar and Jesus were
made. Cycles of miniatures also feature in two Gospel manuscripts, with 5
illustrations in the Alaverdi Gospels of 1054, copied on the Black Mountain, near
Antioch,33 and with 10 in the Gelati Gospels, of the twelfth century.34

If one works backward in time, the image on cloth of Christ’s face, brought
from Edessa to Constantinople in 944, turns out to be the last of several different
transformations: prior to the impression on cloth, it had been an image (evidently
painted) not made by human hands; then before that, it was a portrait painted by
Abgar’s emissary Hannan, prior to which it vanishes altogether into thin air.
Although this makes a very unsatisfactory ancestry for those who would like to
identify the famous Turin Shroud with the Edessan mandylion,35 the gradual
development of the story, and above all its immense influence, provide an
excellent example of how a subsequent interpretation and perception of the past
can prove to have a far greater historical impact than that of the historical reality
(or in this case, non-reality) of the original event.

at Sakli kilise is illustrated in M. Restle, Byzantine Wall Painting in Asia Minor
(Greenwich, Conn., 1967), I, p.103f.
32 See Z. Skhirtladze, “Canonizing the apocrypha: the Abgar cycle in the Alavardi and
Gelati Gospels”, in Kessler and Wolf (eds), The Holy Face and the Paradox of
Representation, pp.69-93; in 1989 apse murals of the much earlier date, 8th/9th
century, with the inscription “The holy face of God”, were identified at the church of
the Holy Cross at Telovani (p.72).
33 Tbilisi, A-484. For Syriac manuscripts (all Melkite) copied there at much the same
time, see my “Syriac manuscripts copied on the Black Mountain, near Antioch”, in R.
Schulz and M. Görg (eds), Lingua Restituta Orientalis: Festgabe für Julius Assfalg
(Ägypten und altes Testament 20; 1990), pp.59-67.
34 Tbilisi, Q-908; the scenes are listed by Skhirtladze, pp.81-2 (and illustrations in figs.
10-16).
35 E.g. I. Wilson, The Turin Shroud (Harmondsworth, 1979; A-M. Dubarle, Histoire
ancienne du linceul de Turin jusqu’au xiiie siècle (Paris, 1985

1

SYRIAC SOURCES AND RESOURCES FOR BYZANTINISTS

Sebastian Brock

Oriental Institute, Oxford, UK

All the Oriental Christian languages have a great deal of interest to offer to the Byzantinist, but of them it is perhaps Syriac which has the most, especially for the early and middle Byzantine periods. It so happens that the last quarter century has witnessed a burgeoning of studies in the general field of Syriac studies.1 The present survey is organised under the following main headings: New developments; Where to find publications; How to find them; Some recently published texts and translations; and Tools.

New developments

Like every other area of study, Syriac studies have greatly benefited from developments in computing and information technology. Here a key role has been played by The Syriac Institute / Beth Mardutho (Piscataway NJ), founded by Dr George Kiraz. Three particular areas have seen great advances.

(1) Computer generated Syriac fonts. After a period when a large number of mutually

incompatible Syriac fonts of varying quality were circulating, there is now a Unicode

estrangelo font, for which Beth Mardutho has developed fonts in the two other main Syriac scripts, in a variety of different styles.

(2) The use of computer Syriac scripts has greatly improved the ease (and cost) of

publishing Syriac texts. Among other things, this has given rise to small-scale publishing

enterprises in unexpected places; some examples of this will be found below.

(3) Concordances in the field of Syriac studies have hitherto been almost entirely lacking. Some notable examples of how this is now beginning to be remedied by means of computer generated concordances are given below.

Where to find publications: relevant series, journals, encyclopaedias

Series with texts Two venerable series, both started in 1903, provide standard editions of Syriac texts, together with translations: the Patrologia Orientalis (PO; originally Paris, but now Rome) and the Scriptores Syri series of the Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium (CSCO SS; (Leuven). Both these also provide translations (in CSCO in the second of each pair of volumes). Series with studies The following (in alphabetical order) are wholly, or predominantly, concerned with Syriac studies: Göttinger Orientforschungen, Reihe Syriaca (GOFS, 1971– ); 35 volumes to date, several

of which contain editions of texts. Moran Etho: this monograph series is published by the St Ephrem Ecumenical Research Institute (SEERI), in Kottaym, India; some 25 volumes have appeared so far. Patrimoine Syriaque (Antelias, Lebanon): papers from annual colloquia on different topics are published (since 1993) under this title by the Centre d’études et de recherches orientales .1 A survey of Syriac studies c. 1960-1990 can be found in VI Symposium Syriacum (Orientalia Christiana Analecta 247; 1994), pp.13-29.

2

(CERO), at Antelias (Lebanon). Vol. IX (2005) deals with the role of Syriac translators in

ninth-century Baghdad.

Patrimoine Syriaque (Kaslik, Lebanon): this is a monograph series published by

l’Université Saint-Esprit, Kaslik.

Peshitta Institute (Leiden) Monographs: these primarily concern the Peshitta Old

Testament, though other Syriac versions (notably Jacob of Edessa’s) are sometimes covered.

Pro Oriente, Syriac Dialogue: in 1994 the PRO ORIENTE Foundation (Vienna) for

Ecumenical Dialogue with the Christian East initiated a series of ‘Syriac Dialogues’,

involving all the Churches of Syriac tradition. The main papers from these meetings are

published under the title Syriac Dialogue; six volumes have appeared so far.

Symposia Syriaca: starting in 1972 an international Syriac conference has been held every four years in a different locality; the main papers for these, under the title Symposium Syriacum, I-VII, have been published in Orientalia Christiana Analecta (Rome), vols. 197 (1974), 205 (1978), 221 (1983), 229 (1987), 236 (1990), 247 (1994), and 256 (1998). Papers from the Eighth Symposium Syriacum, however, have been published as volume 46 of the Journal of Eastern Christian Studies (Nijmegen, 2004).

Syriac Patrimony (Aleppo): a description of this valuable monograph series (in Arabic) is

given by A.N. Palmer in Parole de l’Orient 23 (1998), 217-31. Three volumes are mentioned below, under Tools: Catalogues of manuscripts. Other series of recent origin which are often of relevance include: Eastern Christian Studies (Leuven); Sprachen und Kulturen des Christlichen Orients (Wiesbaden); Studien zur Orientalischen Kirchengeschichte (1995–, Münster). Three volumes of the last of these contain select papers from the annual meetings of German Syriacists: 9 (2000), 17 (2002), and 33 (2004). Festschriften and collections of articles. A number of these deal wholly, or very largely, with Syriac studies. In alphabetical order of the honorand/author, these are: Mar Aprem (Metropolitan of Trissur): Festschrift = The Harp 15 (2002). J. Assfalg: Festschrift = (ed. R. Schulz and M. Görg), Festgabe f. J. Assfalg (Aegypten und

Altes Testament 20, 1990), with an index in Oriens Christianus 76 (1992), 275-9.

S. P. Brock, Syriac Perspectives on Late Antiquity (Variorum Reprints, 1984).

—, Studies in Syriac Christianity (Variorum Reprints, 1992).

—, From Ephrem to Romanos: interactions between Syriac and Greek in Late Antiquity

(Variorum Reprints, 1999).

—, Fire from Heaven: studies in Syriac theology and Lliturgy (Variorum Reprints,

2006/7).

—: Festschrift = Aram 5 (1993).

H.J.W. Drijvers, East of Antioch: studies in early Syriac Christianity (Variorum Reprints,

1984).

—: Festschrift = (ed. G. J. Reinink and A. C. Klugkist), After Bardaisan (Orientalia

Lovaniensia Analecta 89, 1999).

J. M. Fiey, Communautés syriaques en Iran et Iraq des origines à 1552 (Variorum

Reprints, 1979).

—, Memorial volume = In Memoriam Prof. J.M. Fiey (Annales de Département des

Lettres Arabes, Université Saint-Joseph, 6-B. 1991/2 [1996]).

F. Graffin: Festschrift = Parole de l’Orient 6/7 (1975/6).

A. Guillaumont: Festschrift = (ed. R.-G. Coquin and E. Lucchesi), Mélanges Antoine

Guillaumont (Cahiers d’Orientalisme 20; Geneva, 1988).

W. Hage: Festschrift = (ed. M. Tamcke and others), Syrisches Christentum Weltweit

(Studien zur Orientalischen Kirchengeschichte 1, 1995).

H. Hugonnard-Roche, La logique d’Aristote du grec au syriaque (Paris, 2004).

3

G. Khouri-Sarkis: Memorial volume = (ed. F. Graffin), Mémorial Mgr Gabriel Khouri

Sarkis (Louvain, 1969).

G. Panicker: Festschrift = The Harp 16 (2003).

J.-M. Sauget (ed. L. Duval-Arnould and F. Rilliet), Littératures et manuscrits des

chrétientés syriaques et arabes (Studi e Testi 389, 1998).

W. Strothmann: Festschrift = (ed. G.Wiessner), Erkenntnisse und Meinungen, II

(Göttinger Orientforschungen, Reihe Syriaca 17; 1978).

A. Vööbus: Festschrift = (ed. R.H. Fischer), A Tribute to Arthur Vööbus (Chicago, 1977).

Journals

Apart from the now defunct L’Orient Syrien (Paris, 1956-67), until recently no journals were

devoted solely to Syriac studies, though journals such as Le Muséon, Oriens Christianus

(which has a wonderful separate Gesamtregister, by H. Kaufhold, 1989), and Orientalia

Christiana Periodica quite often contain articles of relevance, while Parole de l’Orient also

covers Christian Arabic studies as well as Syriac. In recent years, however, three journals

specifically concerned with Syriac studies have come into being:

The Harp. A Journal of Syriac and Oriental Studies (Kottayam; 1987– ), published

annually by the St Ephrem Ecumenical Research Institute (SEERI).

Hugoye/Journal of Syriac Studies (Piscataway NJ; 1998-): this is an internet journal

(www.syrcom.cua.edu/Hugoye), published twice annually by Beth Mardutho. In due course it

is hoped to make it available in printed form as well, but so far only vol. 5 (2002) has been

published in this way.

Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies (Toronto; 2001– ), published annually.

Some other journals of recent origin often have coverage of Syriac relevance, notably Aram

(Leuven), Aramaic Studies (London), Journal of Assyrian Academic Studies (Des Plaines IL),

Journal of Eastern Christian Studies (Leuven; formerly Het christelijk Oosten).

Encyclopaedias

An Encyclopaedic Dictionary of the Syriac Heritage is currently being planned by Beth

Mardutho. Until this appears it is necessary to resort to the uneven coverage in the standard

encyclopedias, some of which have quite good coverage of Syriac matters (e.g LThK (3rd

edn, 1993-2001), and the various encyclopedias of the Christian East..

How to find publications

Syriac studies are quite well provided with bibliographical aids. Most relevant literature

published prior to c. 1960 can be found in C. Moss’s Catalogue of Syriac Printed Books and

Related Literature in the British Museum (London, 1962), arranged alphabetically under

author (both ancient and modern), with a few subject headings, such as Bible, Liturgy.

Publications from 1960 onwards are covered by the classified bibliographies published as

follows in Parole de l’Orient:

1960–70: 4 (1973), 393-465

1971-80: 10 (1981/2), 291-412

1981-5: 14 (1987), 289-360

1986-90: 17 (1992), 211-301

These four have been combined into a single volume: S. P. Brock, Syriac Studies: a

Classified Bibliography (1960-1990) (Kaslik, 1996).

1991-5: 23 (1998), 241-350

1996-2000: 29 (2004), 263-410.

That for 2001-5 is in preparation. An annual listing of new books of Syriac relevance is

provided in the first number of Hugoye for each year.

4

Specialized bibliographies are available for the following:

Peshitta Old Testament: P.B. Dirksen, An Annotated Bibliography of the Peshitta of the

Old Testament (Leiden, 1989).

Barhebraeus: J. M. Fiey, in Parole de l’Orient 13 (1986), 279-312; and H. Takahashi,

Barhebraeus, a Bio-Bibliography (Piscataway NJ, forthcoming).

Ephrem: K. den Biesen, Bibliography of Ephrem the Syrian (Giove in Umbria, 2002). This

is an invaluable work for anyone concerned with writings of Ephrem in Greek and Slavonic,

as well as in Syriac (and other oriental languages).

Isaac of Antioch: E. G. Mathews, in Hugoye 5:1 (2002), 3-14.

Jacob of Edessa: D. Kruisheer and L. van Rompay, in Hugoye 1:1 (1998); an updated

version of this will be found in a forthcoming monograph on Jacob of Edessa.

Jacob of Serugh: Kh. Alwan, in Parole de l’Orient 13 (1986), 313-83.

Liturgy (East Syriac): P. Yousif, A Classified Bibliography on the East Syrian Liturgy

(Rome, 1990); new edition in preparation.

Some recently published texts and translations

Hitherto unpublished texts:

It is a sad fact that many works by major Syriac authors remain unpublished; the process of

remedying this is understandably slow, given the small number of specialists in the field. The

following listing is confined to editions and translations appearing as separate volumes within

the last 25 years; the sequence is in alphabetical order of Syriac author (or Greek author in

Syriac translation). Apart from the PO and CSCO, the Syrian Orthodox Monastery of St

Ephrem (Netherlands) has been particularly active in publishing Syriac texts, most of which

are edited by Metropolitan Julius Y. Cicek; since 1986 their publishing house has been

entitled the Barhebraeus Verlag. All texts published in CSCO and PO, and most others, apart

from those edited by Cicek, are accompanied by translations. It should be noted that the

following lists do not include translations of Syriac authors into Greek and other languages.

Anonymous: (1) Prose homilies of 6th cent., ed. F. Graffin (PO 41:4; 1984). (2)

Commentary on Gen.-Exod. 9:32, ed. L. van Rompay (CSCO 205-6; 1986); this is an

especially important work in the East Syriac exegetical tradition. (3) Gannat Bussame

(Commentary on the Lectionary), Advent Sundays, ed. G. J. Reinink (CSCO 212-3, 1988).

(4) Finding of the Cross (Judas Cyriacus legend), ed. H. J. W. and J. W. Drijvers (CSCO

Subsidia 93; 1997). (5) Dialogue poems, and Narrative poems on biblical figures, ed. (without

translations) S. P. Brock (Monastery of St Ephrem, NL (1983, 1993). (6) Monastic texts,

partly hitherto unpublished, ed. S. P. Brock (Barhebraeus Verlag, 1988); translations can be

found in The Syriac Fathers on Prayer and the Spiritual Life (Kalamazoo, 1987).

Anton of Takrit (9th cent.?), Book 5 of his Rhetoric, on Poetics, has now been published

in CSCO SS 203-4 (1986), by J.W. Watts. A vocalized text of the entire work, though not in a

critical edition, has also been provided by Elia Seven (Stockholm, 2000).

Athanasius, Ps., On Virginity, ed. D. Brakke (CSCO SS 232-3; 2002).

Barhebraeus (d. 1286): (1) The last three books of the edition of his theological

compendium, The Candelabrum of the Sanctuary, fall into this period: Book IX (ed. P.-H.

Poirier, PO 43:2; 1985), Book X (ed. N. Sed; PO 40:3; 1981), and Book XI (ed. N. Sed. PO

41:3; 1983). The entire work has also been published as single volume by the Barhebraeus

Verlag (ed. J. Y. Cicek, 1997). (2) Commentary on Kings, ed. A. Sauma (Uppsala, 2003); his

complete Commentary on the Bible (only parts of which have hitherto been available) is

published in its entirety by the Barhebraeus Verlag (ed. J. Y. Cicek, 2003). (3) Two sections

of his great philosophical encyclopedia, the Cream of Wisdom, have appeared: H. Takahashi

(Minerals and Meteorology) and N. P. Joosse (Ethics, Economy, Politics), in the series

Aristoteles Semitico-Latinus, vols 15 and 16 (2004).

Basil: the early Syriac translations of his Hexaemeron and De Spiritu Sancto have been

edited by R. W. Thomson (CSCO SS 222-3; 1995) and D. G. K. Taylor (CSCO 228-9; 1999).

5

Daniel, Apocalypse of (7th cent.?): two editions appeared in close succession, by M.

Slabczyk, with Esperanto translation (Vienna, 2000), and M. Henze, with English translation

and commentary (Tübingen, 2001); the latter should become the standard one. The

Apocalypse is unrelated to the Greek, Armenian and other Apocalypses of Daniel, but partly

overlaps with the Syriac text entitled ‘The Young Daniel’.

Daniel of Salah (6th cent.), Commentary on the Psalms: this has been published (ed. J.

Cicek) by the Barhebraeus Verlag in 2004. A critical edition of this long and important work,

by D. G. K. Taylor, is in preparation.

Dionysius bar Salibi (d. 1171): (1) Commentary on Psalms 73-82, ed. S. D. Ryan

(Cahiers de la Revue Biblique 57; 2004). (2) Commentary on Ecclesisastes (Syrohexapla

version), ed. (without translation) W. Strothmann (GOFS 31; 1988). (3) Commentary on

Evagrius’ Centuries, ed J.Y. Cicek (Barhebraeus Verlag, 1991) [taken from Berlin,

Petermann 26].

Dioscorus of Gozarto (14th cent.), Verse Life of Barhebraeus, ed. J. Y. Cicek

(Barhebraeus Verlag, 1985), taken from Oxford, Bodleian, Marsh 74.

Elia of Anbar (10th cent.): Books 1-3 of his (verse) Book of Centuries, ed. A. Juckel

(CSCO SS 226-7; 1996).

Elia (8th/9th cent.), Letter to Leo of Harran, ed. A. van Roey (CSCO SS 201-2; 1985).

Ephrem, Comm. on the Diatessaron: L. Leloir, Saint E, Comm. de l’Évangile

concordante. Folios additionels (Chester Beatty Monographs 8; 1990).

George, bishop of the Arab tribes (d. 724): Verse Life of Severus, ed. K.E. McVey

(CSCO SS 216-7; 1993).

Gregory of Nazianzus: the Syriac translation, and seventh-century revision, of

Discourses 40 (ed. J.-C. Haelewyck) and 13 and 41 (ed. A. B. Schmidt) are edited in the

Corpus Christianorum Series Graeca 14 (2001) and 14 (2002).

Isaac of Nineveh (late 7th cent.): chapters 4-41 of the newly recovered ‘Second Part’, ed.

S. P. Brock, CSCO SS 224-5 (1995). For translations of further unedited parts, see below.

Isho`dad of Merv (9th cent.), Comm. on OT, VI, Psalms, ed. C. van den Eynde (CSCO SS

185-6; 1981). (This volume completes his edition of the Comm. on the OT).

Isho`yahb II (d.646), Christological letter, (photographic) ed. L. R. M. Sako (Rome,

1983).

Jacob of Edessa (d. 708): his revision of the Syriac translation of 1-2 Samuel is edited

(with English translation) by A. G. Salvesen (Leiden, 1999).

Jacob of Serugh (d. 521): (1) 6 prose Festal Homilies, ed. F. Rilliet (PO 43:4; 1986); also

ed. (without translation) S. P. Brock (Monastery of St Ephrem, 1984). (2) 4 verse homilies on

Creation, ed. Kh. Alwan (CSCO 214-5; 1989). (3) Verse homily on Ephrem, ed. J. Amar (PO

47:1 (1995).

John Chrysostom, Homilies on John (select): ed. J. Childers (DPhil thesis, Oxford,

1996); edn in CSCO in preparation.

John of the Sedre (d. 648): works ed. J. Martikainen (GOFS 34; 1991).

John the Solitary, of Apamea (5th cent.): Commentary on Ecclesiastes, ed. (without

translation) W. Strothmann (GOFS 30, 1988).

Khamis (13th cent.): his poems have been published by Shleymon Isho Khadbeshaba

(Nuhadra, Iraq, 2002).

Macarius, Ps., Homilies (Syriac collections), ed. W. Strothmann (GOFS 21:1-2; 1981).

Marutha, Canons ascribed to, ed. A. Vööbus (CSCO SS 191-2; 1982).

Methodius, Ps. Apocalypse (c. 692): ed. G. J. Reinink (CSCO SS 220-221; 1993).

Moshe bar Kepha (d. 903), Commentary on John, ed. L. Schlimme GOFS 18.I-IV;

[1978] -1981). Commentary on Romans, ed. J. Reller (GOFS 35; 1994). For translation

(alone) of an unpublished work, see below.

Narsai (d. c. 500): (1) 5 verse homilies on Gospel parables, ed. E. P. Siman (Paris, 1984);

only the first and third feature in Mingana’s edition of 1907. (2) 6 verse homilies on Old

Testament topics, ed. J. Frishman (Diss. Leiden, 1992).

6

Peter of Kallinikos (6th cent.): his massive theological polemic against Damian of

Alexandria has been edited, with facing English translation, by R. Ebied, L. Wickham, A. van

Roey (and, for the final volume, J. Noret) in the Corpus Christianorum, Series Graeca 29

(1994), 32 (1996), 35 (1998), 54 (2003). What may be part of the lost first book appeared

under the title Peter of Callinicum, Anti-Tritheist Dossier (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta

10; 1981).

Philoxenus of Mabbug (d. 523): the last fascicle of his Discourses against Habbib,ed. By M. Brière and F. Graffin, appeared in 1982 (PO 41:1).

Sententiae Syriacae: ed. W. Selb (Sb. Öst. Ak. Wiss., phil.-hist. Kl. 567; 1990).

Shubhalmaran (fl. c. 600): this important new collection of East Syriac monastic

discourses was edited by the late D. J. Lane, CSCO 236-7 (2004).

Theodore of Mopsuestia: (1) Commentary on Pss 118, 138-148, ed. L. van Rompay

(CSCO SS 189-90; 1982). (2) (Fragmentary) Commentary on Ecclesiastes, ed. W.

Strothmann (GOFS 28; 1988); with further Catena fragments in GOFS 29 (1988).

Theodosius of Alexandria (d. 566), Theological discourses, ed. A. Van Roey, in A. Van

Roey and P. Allen, Monophysite Texts of the Sixth Century (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta

56; 1994).

Timothy I (d.823), Letter on dialectic and language about God, ed. with FT, H.P.J.

Cheikho (Rome, 1983). This Letter also figures as Letter 37 in ed. T. Darmo (Trichur, 1982).

Photographic reprints are not included in the above list; several have been published by the

Gorgias Press (Piscataway NJ; www.gorgiaspress.com).

New editions of already published texts

`Abdisho` (d. 1318), Catalogue of authors, ed. J. Habbi (Baghdad, 1986).

Acts of Thomas, Hymn of the Pearl: ed. (also with Greek) J. Fereira (Sydney, 2002).

Alexander, poem on (early 7th cent.): ed. G. J. Reinink (CSCO 195-6; 1983).

Anonymous: (1) Teaching of Addai, ed. E. N. Meschcherskaya (Moscow, 1984). (2)

History of the Virgin Mary, ed. J. Y. Cicek (Barhebraeus Verlag, 2001); this is the work in 6

Books, previously edited by E. A. W. Budge (1899).

Aristides, Apology: ed. M.-J. Pierre, in Sources chrétiennes 470 (2003).

Athanasius, Index of Festal Letters: ed. M. Albert (Sources chrétiennes 317; 1985). (For

an Italian translation, see below.)

Barhebraeus: (1) Book of the Dove, ed. J. Y. Cicek (Barhebraeus Verlag, 1983). (2)

Amusing Stories, ed. J. Y. Cicek (Barhebraeus Verlag, 1984). Chapter 10, on animals, is also

ed. (with FT) by P. G. Borbone (Torino, 1991). (3) Nomocanon, ed. J. Y. Cicek (Barhebraeus

Verlag, 1986), based on several manuscripts not used by Bedjan in his edition of 1898. (4)

Ethicon, Books I, ed. H. Teule (CSCO 218-9; 1993). The Barhebraeus Verlag has also issued

the entire work (1985), taken from Bedjan’s edition of 1898. (5) Bedjan’s edition (1890) of

the Chronicle also served as the source (along with Budge’s of 1932) for the Monastery of St

Ephrem’s edition of the Chronicle (1987). (6) The Monastery has also produced a

photographic reprint (1983) of the rare 1929 (Jerusalem) edition of his poems.

Bible: Peshitta Old Testament: 5 further volumes of the Vetus Testamentum Syriace,

based on the oldest manuscripts and published by the Peshitta Institute, Leiden, have appeared

within the last 25 years.

Syriac Gospels: Comparative edition of Old Syriac, Peshitta, and Harklean, ed. G. Kiraz (4

vols, Leiden, 1996).

Peshitta and Harklean Epistles: a critical parallel edition, including citations, has been

edited in four volumes (I, II.1-3) by B. Aland and A. Juckel (Münster, 1986-2002.

Lectionaries: photographic editions of two important manuscripts have been published by

A. Vööbus (CSCO Subsidia 73, 76; 1985, 1986).

(For reasons of space, a number of other editions of (e.g.) individual books are passed over

here).

Cave of Treasures, ed. S.M. Ri (CSCO SS 207-8; 1987).

7

Chronicle of Arbela, ed. P. Kawerau (CSCO SS 199-200; 1985).

Dadisho` (late 7th cent.), On Stillness, ed. F. Del Rio Sanchez (Barcelona, 2001).

Ephrem, select poems: ed. S.P. Brock and G. Kiraz (Provo, Utah, forthcoming).

Hagiography: Acts of Mari, ed. C. and F. Jullien (CSCO SS 234-5; 2003); Life of Peter

the Iberian, ed. C. Horn and R. Phenix (forthcoming); Samuel, Simeon and Gabriel of

Qartmin, ed. (without tr.) A. N. Palmer (St Ephrem Monastery, 1983).

Jacob of Edessa, Commentary on the Hexaemeron: ed. J.Y. Cicek (Monastery of St

Ephrem, NL, 1985).

John of Dalyatha, Letters: ed. M. Hansbury (Provo, Utah, forthcoming).

John Maro: works, ed. M. Breydy (CSCO SS 209-10; 1988).

Joseph Hazzaya, Letter of the 3 stages of monastic life, ed. P. Harb, F. Graffin, M. Albert

(PO 45:2; 1992); earlier editions were wrongly attributed to Philoxenus.

Liturgical texts: Anaphorae Syriacae III.1 (Rome, 1981) was the last volume to be

published in this series. Among many other editions, three might be noted here: A. Gelston’s

edition and study of the Anaphora of Addai and Mari (Oxford, 1992), the critical edition of

the Anaphora of Theodore of Mopsuestia by J. Vadakkel (Kottayam, 1989), and the bilingual,

Syriac-English, collection of 13 Syrian Orthodox Anaphoras edited by Mar Athanasius

Samuel (Lodi NJ, 1991).

Solomon, Odes of: E. Azar (Paris, 1996); M. Lattke (with commentary; 3 vols,

Göttingen/Fribourg, 1999-2005).

Syro–Roman Law Book: there is a magnificent new edition, with long introduction and

detailed commentary by W. Selb and H. Kaufhold, Das syrisch-römische Rechtsbuch, in three

volumes, published by the Austrian Academy (Vienna, 2002).

Theodore bar Koni (late 8th cent.): Urmi recension, ed. J. Hespel (CSCO SS 193-4;

1983).

Timothy I, Letters 1-39, ed. (without tr.) T. Darmo (Trichur, 1982).

Translations (alone)

Ahiqar: IT, F. Pennachietti in R. Contini anbd C Grottanelli (eds), Il saggio Ahiqar

(Brescia, 2005), 193-225.

Aphrahat, Demonstrations. ET, K. Valavalonickal (I, Changanassery, 1999); I and II

(Moran Etho 23-4, 2005). Another ET, by Adam Lehto, is forthcoming. FT, M-J. Pierre

(Sources chrétiennes 349, 359; 1988-9). GT, P. Bruns I-II (Freiburg, 1991-2).

Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles: Russian tr. E. Meshcherskaya (Moscow, 1997).

Athanasius, Index to the Festal Letters: IT, A. Camplani (Milan, 2003). For FT, see

above.

Barhebraeus, Amusing Stories: Russian tr., K. P. Matveev (Moscow, 1985).

Babai the Great, Useful Counsels: ET, G. Chediath (Moran Etho 15, 2001).

Chronicles: ET, the following have appeared in the series Translated Texts for Historians

(Liverpool): A. N. Palmer, The Seventh Century in the West-Syrian Chronicles (1993); W.

Witakowski, Ps.Dionysius of Tel-Mahre, Chronicle, Part III (1996); F. R. Trombley and J.W.

Watt, The Chronicle of Ps.-Joshua the Stylite (2000). The last two are both part of the same

eighth-century chronicle, also known as the Zuqnin Chronicle, of which Part III (together

with Part IV) is also translated by A. Harrak (Toronto, 1999). FT, Zuqnin Chronicle, Parts IIIIV:

R. Hespel (CSCO SS 213; 1989). GT, Chronicle of Ps.Joshua the Stylites (A. Luther,

1997).

Cyrillonas. FT, D. Cerbelaud, Cyr.: L’Agneau véritable (Chevetogne, 1984).

Dionysius bar Salibi: Comm. on the Liturgy: ET, B. Varghese (Moran Etho 10, 1998).

Ephrem. ET, J. Amar and E. Mathews, Select Prose Works (Washington DC, 1994); S. P.

Brock, Hymns on Paradise (Crestwood NY, 1990); J. M. Lieu, Hymns against Julian

(Translated Texts for Historians, Liverpool, 1986, 2nd edn 1989); C. McCarthy, Comm. on the

Diatessaron (Oxford/Manchester, 1993); K.E. McVey, Hymns on Nativity, Virginity, against

Julian (Mahwah 1989); A. Salvesen, Comm. on Exodus (Moran Etho 8, 1995). Dutch tr., A.

8

G. P. Janson and L. van Rompay (Comm. on Genesis; Kampen, 1993); G. A. M. Rouwhorst

(selected hymns; Kampen, 1991). FT, F. Cassingena-Trevédy (H. on Epiphany; Spiritualité

Orientale 70; 1997), (H. on Nativity; Sources chrétiennes 459; 2001); D. Cerbelaud (H. on the

Fast; Spiritualité Orientale 69; 1997); D. Cerbelaud and A-G. Hamman (Paschal hymns;

Paris, 1995); P. Féghali and C. Navarre (Nisibene hymns; Paris, 1989); B. Hindo and C.Saleh

(H. on the Nativity; Paris, 1996); G. A. M. Rouwhorst (Paschal hymns; Leiden, 1989). IT, F.

de Francesco (Paschal hymns; Milan, 2001). Romanian tr.: I. Ica (H. on Paradise: Sibiu,

1998); H. on Fast, Paschal hymns: Sibiu, 1999); H. on Nativity, Epiphany: Sibiu, 2000).

Evagrius, Letters, GT, G. Bunge (Trier, 1986).

George, Ps. of Arbela (9th cent.?), Commentary on the Liturgy: ET, R. H. Connolly (ed.

R. Matheus; Kottayam, 2000).

Hagiography: Abgar legend: FT, A. Desreumaux (Turnhout, 1993). Mari, Acts of: FT, C.

and F. Jullien (Turnhout, 2001). Qardagh: J. T. Walker (Berkeley, forthcoming). Simeon the

Stylite: ET, R. Doran, The Lives of Simeon Stylites (Kalamazoo, 1992). Various: ET, S. P.

Brock and S. A. Harvey, Holy Women of the Syrian Orient (Berkeley, 1987).

Isaac of Nineveh, Part I: some discourses are translated from Syriac in [D. Miller], The

Ascetical Homilies of St I. the Syrian (Boston, 1984), though Greek is the base for the main

translation. Homilies 1-6: ET, M. Hansbury (Crestwood NY, 1989). Homilies 1-38: IT, M.

Gallo and P. Bettiolo (Rome, 1984). Part II: FT, A. Louf (Spiritualité Orientale 81; 2003);

Romanian tr. (based on English and Italian): I. Ica (Sibiu, 2003); Russian tr., H. Alfeyev

(Moscow, 1998). Kephalaia Gnostica (= ch. 3, edition by P. Bettiolo in preparation): IT, P.

Bettiolo (Magnano, 1985; 2nd expanded edn, 1990. Catalan tr., M. Nin (Barcelona, 2005).

Part III (unpublished): FT, A. Louf (forthcoming); IT, S. Chialà (Magnano, 2004).

Jacob of Serugh. ET, M. Hansbury, Verse homilies on Mary (Crestwood NY, 1998); T.

Kollamparampil, Select Festal Homilies (prose and verse) (Rome/Bangalore, 1997). FT, M.

Albert, Les Lettres de J. de S. (Kaslik, 2004); I. Isebaert-Cauuet, J. de S. Homélies sur la Fin

du Monde (Paris, 2005).

John of Dara, Commentary on the Eucharist: ET, B. Varghese (Moran Etho 12, 1999).

John Philoponus, Arbiter: ET, U. M. Lang (Leuven, 2001).

John the Solitary, of Apamea, Dialogues and Treatises: FT, R. Lavenant (Sources

chrétiennes 311; 1984).

John bar Zo`bi (12th/13th cent.), Commentary on the Liturgy: ET, T. Mannooramparampil

(Kottayam, 1992).

Joseph the Seer (8th cent.), Spiritual Letters (including unpublished): GT, G. Bunge

(Trier, 1982).

Liber Graduum (4th cent.). ET, R.A. Kitchen and M. Parmentier (Kalamazoo, 2004).

Liturgy, Commentaries on: GT, A. Heinz, Die Eucharistiefeier in der Deutung syrischer

Liturgieerklerer (Trier, 2000). (For recent English translations of liturgical texts, reference

should be made to the section ‘Liturgy’ in the bibliographies in Parole de l’Orient).

Moshe bar Kepha, Discourse on Paradise (unpublished): Hungarian tr., A. Köver, I.

Lukács, M. Pesthy (Budapest, 2001).

Sauma, Rabban (13th cent.): IT: P. G. Borbone, Storia di Mar Yahballaha e di R.S.

(Torino, 2000).

Selections: ET S. P. Brock, The Syriac Fathers on Prayer and the Spiritual Life

(Kalamazoo, 1987); Bride of Light. Hymns on Mary (Moran Etho 6, 1994); and (forthcoming)

A Treasurehouse of Mysteries (poems on biblical topics). FT Le saint prophète Élie

(Spiritualité Orientale 53, 1992); Le saint prophète Élisée (Spiritualité Orientale 59, 1993).

Simeon d-Taybutheh (late 7th cent.): IT (including unpublished texts), P. Bettiolo (Rome,

1992).

Solomon, Odes of (2nd cent.?): FT, M-J. Pierre (Turnhout, 1994). GT, M. Lattke

(Freiburg, l995).

Theodore bar Koni, Book of Scholia I-II, tr. R. Hespel and R. Draguet (CSCO SS 187-8;

1981).

9

Theodore of Mopsuestia: There are recent French (M. Debié and others, 1996), German

(P. Bruns, 1995) and Catalan (S. Janeras, 2000) translations of the Catechetical Homilies.

Timothy II, Commentary on Baptism: ET, P. B. Kadicheeni (Bangalore, 1980).

The series of booklets, entitled Testi dei Padri della Chiesa and published by the

Monastero di Bose (Magnano), includes a number of short texts (not listed above) translated

from Syriac.

Tools

A more detailed guide to tools will be found in S. P. Brock, An Introduction to Syriac Studies

(Piscataway NJ, 2006). The following selection of topics is given in alphabetic order.

Catalogues of manuscripts

The essential guide is A. Desreumaux, Répertoire des bibliothèques et des catalogues de

manuscrits syriaques (Paris, 1991). It is remarkable that among the important catalogues that

have been published subsequently are three recently published in Baghdad (these three are

essentially just handlists):

Ainkawa (Chaldean Archbishopric of Arbela); J. Isaac (in Arabic; Baghdad, 2005).

Baghdad (Chaldean Monastery): P. Haddad and J. Isaac (in Arabic; Baghdad, 1988). [This

is the collection formerly of Notre Dame de Semences, Alqosh].

Baghdad (Chaldean Seminary): S. Warduni and H. Hermiz, (in Arabic; Baghdad, 1998).

Baghdad (Church of the East): K. Saliwa, (in Arabic; Baghdad, 2003).

Charfet (Lebanon): B. M. B. Sony, (in Arabic; Beirut, 1993).

Damascus, Syrian Orthodox Patriarchate: a French translation of a summary handlist (with

a more detailed listing of a few select manuscripts) is published in Parole de l’Orient 19

(1994), 555-661.

Dublin, Trinity College: I. Bcheiry, Catalogue of Syriac Manuscripts in Trinity College

Dublin (Patrimoine Syriaque 5; Kaslik, 2005).

India: (1) J. P. M. van der Ploeg, The Syriac Manuscripts of St Thomas Christians

(Bangalore, 1983). (2) H. Kaufhold, Syrische Handschriften juristischen Inhalts in

südindischen Bibliotheken (Öst.Ak. Wiss. Wien, 1989). (See also under Kottayam).

Iraq: J. Habbi and others (ed.), Catalogue of Syriac mss in Iraq, II (in Arabic; Baghdad,

1981) [vol. I, covering Mosul, appeared in 1977]. (See also under Ainkawa and Baghdad).

Jerusalem, Greek Orthodox Patriarchate: D. A. Johnson (Longview Wa., 1987). [Without

awareness of the catalogues by Chabot (1894) and its derivative by Koikylides (1998)].

Kottayam (St Ephrem Ecumenical Research Institute): F. Briquel-Chatonnet, A.

Desreumaux, J. Thekeparampil, Le Muséon 110 (1997), 383-446.

Manchester, John Rylands Library: J. F. Coakley, Bulletin of the John Rylands University

Library of Manchester 75:2 (1993), 105-207.

Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale: F. Briquel-Chattonet, Manuscrits syriaques [syr. 356-435]

(Paris, 1997).

Qaraqosh (Irak): B. M. B. Sony (in Arabic; Baghdad, 1988).

Sinai, St Catherine’s Monastery: S. P. Brock, Catalogue of Syriac Fragments (New Finds)

(Athens, 1995). (The catalogue of the main Syriac New Finds, by Mother Philothea of Sinai,

is forthcoming).

Mention should also be made of the photographic publication by Mar Gregorios Y.

Ibrahim, in Syriac Patrimony 8-10 (1994), of a number of detailed handwritten catalogues by

Mar Filoksinos Yohanna Dolabany (died 1969), made early in the 20th century, covering St

Mark’s Monastery (Jerusalem), Deir ez Za`faran (near Mardin), and smaller collections. (It

should be noted that several of the Jerusalem and Mardin manuscripts are now in the Syrian

Orthodox Patriarchate).

Among the many useful reprints published by the Gorgias Press (Piscataway NJ) is the

standard work of reference for Syriac palaeography, W. H. P. Hatch’s Album of Dated Syriac

10

Manuscripts, whose value is enhanced by an important introductory chapter by L. van

Rompay (2002).

Chronicles

Some recent translations of parts of Syriac chronicles have already been mentioned. There are

now a number of helpful initial guides to the various chronicles that survive: a very summary

guide is given in ch. I of S. P. Brock, Studies in Syriac Christianity (Aldershot, 1992).

Particularly useful are the relevant sections in R. Hoyland’s Seeing Islam as Others Saw It: a

survey and evaluation of Christian, Jewish and Zoroastrian writings on early Islam

(Princeton, 1997). E. I. Yousif’s Les chroniqueurs syriaques (Paris, 2002) is primarily

descriptive; a more critical study of them, by M. Debié, is forthcoming.

A few Syriac chronicles have received individual monograph treatment. J. J. van Ginkel’s

dissertation John of Ephesus: a Monophysite historian in sixth-century Byzantium

(Groningen, 1995) offers a helpful study of this important source for sixth-century history.

The late eighth-century Zuqnin Chronicle has been the object of a number of important

studies by W. Witakowski, beginning with his The Syriac Chronicle of Pseudo-Dionysius of

Tel-Mahre (Uppsala, 1887), and followed up by a number of articles identifying its sources.

By far the largest of all Syriac chronicles is that by patriarch Michael I (d. 1199). A critical

study of this much quoted source is now available for the first time in D. Weltecke’s Die

“Beschreibung der Zeiten” von Mor Michael dem Grossen (CSCO Subsidia 110, 2003).

Concordances

Until recently, these have been almost entirely lacking, but computer technology will

gradually remedy this. So far only the Syriac Bible has benefited from this; here the most

important publications are:

Old Testament: a series of multi-volume concordances has been edited by W. Strothmann,

covering the Pentateuch (1986), the Prophetical Books (1984), the Historical and Wisdom

books (1995; entitled Die Mautbe). An earlier concordance to the Peshitta Psalms was

compiled by N. Sprenger (1976). A second concordance for the Pentateuch, based on

different principles, has been published by the Peshitta Institute in Leiden (P. Borbone and

others; 1997).

New Testament: G. Kiraz, A Computer-Generated Concordance to the Syriac New

Testament (6 vols; Leiden, 1993); those who can read Syriac will enjoy the colophon. There is

also a concordance devoted to the Old Syriac Gospels, edited by J. Lund (3 vols, Piscataway

NJ, 2004).

Dictionaries

For those who venture into reading Syriac sources in the original, the most handy dictionaries

remain those of J. Payne Smith (Mrs Margoliouth) and L. Costaz, supplemented where

necessary by the more extensive Lexicon Syriacum by C. Brocklemann and the Thesaurus

Syriacus by R. Payne Smith. An English adaptation of Brockelmann’s Lexicon is currently

being prepared by M. Sokoloff (who has already produced invaluable dictionaries of Jewish

Palestinian and Babylonian Aramaic).

Several other dictionaries have appeared in recent years, notably E. Thelly’s Syriac-

English-Malayalam Lexicon (Kottayam, 1999), based on T. Audo’s important Syriac-Syriac

dictionary of 1897). Thanks to the new opportunities for publishing with Syriac scripts,

several two-way dictionaries have been produced for practical use among the diaspora from

the Syriac Churches in Europe; the most extensive of these is S. Hanna and A. Bulut’s

Wörterbuch Deutsch-Aramäisch, Aramäisch-Deutsch (Heilbronn, 2000): these incorporate

many recent neologisms.

The Syriac Bible has benefited from a number of specialized dictionaries, notably M.

Pazzini’s Lessico concordanziale del Nuovo Testamento siriaco (Jerusalem, 2004), G. Kiraz’s

Lexical Tools to the Syriac New Testament (Sheffield, 1994; providing word frequency lists),

11

and T. Falla’s A Key to the Peshitta Gospels (two volumes to date, Leiden, 1991, 2000; with

special reference to the underlying Greek).

An Annotated Bibliography of Printed Syriac Lexica, by D. G. K. Taylor, is forthcoming

(Piscataway NJ). A brief guide can be found in S. P. Brock, ‘Syriac lexicography’, in

Aramaic Studies 1 (2003), 165-78.

Exegesis

An excellent survey for the Old Testament commentary tradition given by L. van Rompay in

M. Saebo (ed.), Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: the history of its interpretation I.i (Göttingen,

1996), 612-41, and I.ii (2000), 559-77; and for the New Testament, by J. McCullough, ‘Early

Syriac commentaries on the NT’, Theological Review, Near Eastern School of Theology 5

(1982), 14-33, 79-126.

Hagiography

A planned Bibliotheca Hagiographica Syriaca, announced in Aram 5 (1993), 657-70, has

unfortunately come to a standstill. To some extent this gap is filled by J. M. Fiey’s

posthumous Saints Syriaques, edited by L. I. Conrad (Princeton NJ, 2004). A general

introduction is given by S.P. Brock, in a forthcoming volume edited by S. Efthymiades.

Reasonable coverage of Syriac saints can be found in the Bibliotheca Sanctorum (especially

in the contributions by J.-M. Sauget), and in the more recent Enciclopedia dei Santi. Le Chiesi

orientali, I-II (Rome, 1998-9), where many of the relevant articles are by J. M. Fiey and J.

Habbi.

Inscriptions

The early inscriptions, of the 1st- 3rd century, are now conveniently republished by H. J. W.

Drijvers and J. F. Healey, The Old Syriac Inscriptions of Edessa and Osrhoene (Leiden,

1999); this includes the three legal parchments of the early 240s.

Plans for a Corpus Inscriptionum Syriacarum were announced by A. N. Palmer and A.

Desreumaux at the Sixth Symposium Syriacum in 1992. The volume on inscriptions in Iraq,

by A. Harrak, is almost completed. The Syriac inscriptions of Tur `Abdin are collected by A.

N. Palmer in Oriens Christianus 71 (1987), 53-139.

A bibliography of inscriptions published up to 1977 by S.Brock in Annali dell’Istituto

Orientale di Napoli 38 (1978), 255-71, reprinted in Studies in Syriac Christianity (Aldershot,

1992), no. III. References to some of the more important ones that have been published more

recently can be found in the contributions edited by F. Briquel-Chatonnet, M. Debié, and A.

Desreumaux, Les inscriptions syriaques (Paris, 2004), and in S. Brock, ‘Edessene Syriac

inscriptions in Late Antique Syria’, forthcoming in a volume edited by H. Cotton.

Law

W. Selb’s Orientalischen Kirchenrecht, I-II (Sb. Öst. Ak. Wiss., phil.-hist. Kl, 388, 543;

1981, 1989) deals with the East and West Syriac canon law collections respectively. For the

Syro-Roman Law Book and the Sententiae Syriacae, see above, under recent editions

(republished, and new texts).

Literature

A major event has been the publication of an English translation of The Scattered Pearls: a

history of Syriac literature and sciences by the learned Syrian Orthodox Patriarch Aphram I

Barsoum (d. 1957) (Piscataway NJ, 2003). Though confined to writers in the Syrian Orthodox

tradition, this is an extremely valuable work, providing information on quite a number of

authors who were not known to Anton Baumstark in his still standard work, Geschichte der

syrischen Literatur of 1922.

M. Albert’s chapter on Syriac in Christianismes orientaux: introduction à l’étude des

langues et des littératures (Paris, 1993) is a very informative guide; likewise P. Bettiolo’s

12

‘Lineamenti di patrologia siriaca’ in A. Quacquarelli (ed.), Complementi interdisciplinari di

Patrologia (Rome, 1989), 503-603, and his ‘Letteratura siriaca’ in A. di Berardino (ed.),

Patrologia V. Dal Concilio di Calcedonia (451) a Giovanni Damasceno. I Padri Orientali

(Genoa, 2000), 413-93. A helpful collection of introductory surveys of different genres of

Syriac literature is to be found in Nos sources: arts et littératures syriaques, published by the

Centres d’études et de recherches orientales (CERO) (Antelias, 2005). Another recent basic

introduction is S. P. Brock, A Brief Outline of Syriac Literature (Moran Etho 9; Kottayam,

1997); this includes a large number of short samples in translation.

Topography

One of J-M. Fiey’s last publications before his death in 1995 was Pour un Oriens Christianus

Novus. Répertoire des diocèses syriaques orientaux et occidentaux (Beiruter Texte und

Studien 49; 1993), which provides a summary, but nevertheless extremely useful inventory.

Fiey’s earlier pioneering works on the topographical history of the Syriac Churches in Iraq

and elsewhere have now been supplemented by D. Wilmshurst’s The Ecclesiastical

Organisation of the Church of the East 1318–1913 (CSCO Subsidia 104, 2000). This

impressive volume of some 850 pages (including several useful maps) is based on a careful

analysis of information provided by the colophons of well over 2000 manuscripts. Also

valuable (especially for its maps) is J. Sanders, Assyrian-Chaldean Christians in Eastern

Turkey and Iran (Hernen, 1997). A different area of Eastern Turkey (and an earlier period) is

covered by Andrew Palmer’s Monk and Mason on the Tigris Frontier: the early history of

Tur `Abdin (Cambridge, 1990), which combines epigraphic and literary evidence in a

masterly way.

Translations of Greek secular literature

The role of Syriac in the transmission of Greek philosophy to the Arab world has received a

certain amount of attention in recent years, notably in a series of studies by H. Hugonnard-

Roche, most of which are now conveniently collected in a single volume (see above). The

relevant sections on the Syriac background, by P. Bettiolo and C. d’Ancona, in C. d’Ancona

(ed.), Storia della filosofia nell’Islam medievale I (Torino, 2005), 48-100, 180-91, are very

helpful. A summary guide to what translations of Aristotle’s logical works survive can be

found in S. P. Brock, ‘The Syriac Commentary tradition’, in C. Burnett (ed.), Glosses and

Commentaries on Aristotelian Logical Texts (Warburg Institute Surveys and Texts 23,

London, 1993), 3-18 (reprinted in From Ephrem to Romanos (Aldershot, 1999), no. XIII), and

for Syriac translations of popular philosophy, see P. Bruns (ed.), Von Athen nach Bagdad. Zur

Rezeption griechischer Philosophie von der Spätantike bis zum Islam (Hereditas 22; Bonn,

2003), 9-28. The Aristotelian tradition of rhetoric in Syriac is the subject of a number of

articles by J. W. Watt, e.g. in Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft 143

(1993), 45-71. A number of relevant articles will be found in Journal of the Canadian Society

for Syriac Studies 4 (2004), and in Patrimoine syriaque, Colloque IX: Les Syriaques,

transmetteurs de civilisations (Paris/Antelias, 2005). A more popular account is given by E. I.

Yousif, La floraison des philosophes syriaques (Paris, 2003), and likewise for medicine, R. Le Coz, Les médecins nestoriens au moyen âge: les maîtres des arabes (Paris, 2004).

Various

Although not directly of concern to Byzantine studies, M. Weitzman’s The Syriac Version of the Old Testament: an introduction (Cambridge, 1999), deserves special mention as

constituting a milestone in scholarship on the Syriac Bible. More of relevance, are various parts of The Hidden Pearl: the Syrian Orthodox Church and its ancient Aramaic heritage, 3

vols (ed. S. P. Brock; Rome, 2001), for which there is some basic annotation in Hugoye 5:1

(2002), 63-112. This work is intended to serve as a sort of encyclopedia of three millennia of the Aramaic/Syriac tradition in a narrative (and illustrated) form; among the topics covered in more detail are manuscripts (including illuminations).

13

The revival of interest in Syriac studies that the last quarter of the twentieth century

witnessed was in no small part inspired by R. Murray’s Symbols of Church and Kingdom: a study in Syriac tradition (Cambridge, 1975), which served as a marvellous introduction to the world of early Syriac Christianity; nearly 30 years later, in 2004, this has now been

republished in a revised edition, with a completely new first chapter.

Syriac studies owe a great debt to the Gorgias Press, directed by G. Kiraz, for the

reprinting of a number of essential classic works, long unavailable, such as W. Wright’s

magnificent three-volume Catalogue of Syriac Manuscripts in the British Museum.

Introduction
The De Mundo (hereafter DM) occupies somewhat of a unique position in the
history of philosophical and scientific transmission from Greek to Syriac and Arabic in that the complete work is extant in all three languages. What is more, there are in fact three separate versions in Arabic,1 not to mention two Armenian translations,2 as well as an early Latin version, the work of Apuleius (c.125-c.180).3 Too often we have only testimonia that this or that text was translated into Syriac or Arabic, but we lack either the original or the translation(s); the DM gives us all this, and then some. In this paper, I would like to focus on the Syriac version4 of this fascinating and significant scientific

1 This version has only been well known since the publications of S.M. Stern, “The Arabic Translations of the Pseudo-Aristotelian Treatise De Mundo,” Le Muséon, 77 (1964): 187-204, and “A Third Arabic Translation of the Pseudo-Aristotelian Treatise De Mundo,” Le Muséon, 78 (1965): 381-393; see also F.
Klein-Franke, , “Die Überlieferung der ältesten arabischen Handschrift von Pseudo-Aristoteles ‘De Mundo,’” Le Muséon, 87 (1974): 59-65, for an important clarification of the relationship to the Greek and Syriac texts. Brafman’s 1985 dissertation, The Arabic ‘De Mundo’: An Edition with Translation and Commentary, (Ph.D. dissertation, Duke University, 1985), made the texts more widely available, but since he did not know Syriac, from which at least two of the three translations were made, he made some mistakes in interpretation. Incidentally, the Princeton Arabic ms. of the DM also contains the related Treatise on the Movement of the Universe (Risālah fī ḥarakat al-kull) by Alexander of Aphrodisias (fols. 176r-177r); for an edition and English translation, see C. Genequand, Alexander of Aphrodisias on the Cosmos (Leiden, 2000), pp. 136-143. I am currently preparing an edition (with English translation and commentary) of the Syriac and Arabic versions of the DM.
2 See F.C. Conybeare, A Collation with the Ancient Armenian Versions of the Greek Text of Aristotle’s Categories, De Interpretatione, De Mundo, De Virtutibus et Vitiis, and of Porphyry’s Introduction (Oxford, 1892), especially pp. xxxii-xxxv, as well as W.L. Lorimer, The Text Tradition of Pseudo-Aristotle, “De Mundo” (London, 1924), pp. 21-23. The printed edition of the Mekhitarists is included in the volume entitled Koriwn Vardapet, Mambre Vercanol, Dawit’ Anyalt’: Matenagrut’iwnk’ (Venice, 1833). On the subject of Aristotle in Armenian, see also A. Tessier, Il testo di Aristotele e le traduzioni armene (Padua, 1979).
3 A critical edition of the text is found at the end of W.L. Lorimer, De Mundo. Translationes Bartholomaei et Nicholai, rev. by L. Minio-Paluello (Bruges and Paris, 1965), which also contains the two medieval Latin versions. Some scholars have doubted the attribution to Apuleius, but Lorimer’s statement is apt: “…[I] am content to accept the traditional view as in all probability correct on the general ground that most nineteenth-century atheteses of classical works—at any rate, those that have not secured general support—are mistaken” (Lorimer, Text Tradition, p. 20).
4 The Syriac text was published in P.A. de Lagarde (ed.), Analecta Syriaca (Leipzig: 1858), pp. 134-158.
The solemanuscript of the Syriac DM is British Library (olim Museum) Add. ms. 14658 (see below). As
2
text, in particular on its translator, Sergius of Reshaina (d. 536), and on his modus operandi in bringing the Greek work into Syriac. I will aim to offer a few examples of his work, hopefully in such a way that readers who are not specialists in Syriac will nevertheless still be in a position to get an idea of how Sergius worked and how his rendering would have looked to a Syriac reader.5
The Greek text of the DM has been very ably edited by W.L. Lorimer,6 who also
published two separate monographs at about the same time dealing with textual and other interpretive questions, and there is a fine commentary on the DM by G. Reale and A. Bos.7 Lorimer, while keenly aware of the importance of the Syriac version, was himself no expert in Syriac.8 Similarly, Brafman, who studied the Arabic versions of the DM, also lacked any direct knowledge of Syriac.9 Based on the sections translated into German by Victor Ryssel10 and Eduard König (the latter included as an appendix to the Greek critical edition), Lorimer adopted just two readings based solely on the Syriac text.11

Lagarde makes numerous tacit alterations to the manuscript reading, this study is based on the manuscript, and references to the DM are given according to it, but an appendix at the end of the paper provides a handy concordance of the ms., Lagarde’s text, and Bekker’s page numbers for the Greek text.
5 For the Nachleben of Sergius’ DM, see the works of H. Takahashi in the bibliography and the
commentary in A. McCollum, The Syriac De Mundo: Translation, Commentary, and Analysis of
Translation Technique (Ph.D. dissertation, Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, 2009), which also contains comparative notes on other scientific Syriac texts.
6 W.L. Lorimer, Aristotelis qui fertur libellus De Mundo (Paris: Société d’Édition “Les Belles Lettres,” 1933).
7 G. Reale and A.P. Bos, Il trattato Sul Cosmo per Alessandro attribuito ad Aristotele (2nd edn, Milan,
1995). This volume includes a classified bibliography of the substantial amount of literature on the DM, as well as a concordance to the Greek text.
8 “linguae Syriacae scientiae prorsus expers sum,” (Aristotelis…De Mundo, p. 26).
9 Pp. 2-3, n. 3.
10 Über den textkritischen Werth der syrischen Übersetzungen griechischer Klassiker, I. Theil (Leipzig, 1880). While Ryssel’s analysis certainly offers some fruitful observations, his concern for the Syriac version as a textual witness to the Greek (note his title) makes his work differently focused than a study like this one. See also the concluding remarks.
11 395a28 τὴν γῆν, 399b30 om. λίθοιϲ (Lorimer, Aristotelis…De Mundo, p. 26). On Lorimer’s use of Ryssel and König, cf. W. Raven, “De Mundo. Tradition syriaque et arabe,” in R. Goulet (ed.), Dictionnaire des Philosophes Antiques, Supplément (Paris, 2003), p. 481: “Malheureusement Lorimer n’a pas toujours compris le texte de Ryssel et la traduction de König est pleine de fautes, ce qui dévalorise l’apparat critique en ce qui concerne les variantes syriaques.” Raven does not elaborate this judgment further.
3
Sergius of Reshaina
We first turn to the man that brought the DM into Syriac.12 He is famous in both
Syriac and Arabic literature mainly as a translator, notably of the works of Galen, ps.-Dionysius, and some Aristotelica.13 The Syriac version of Aristotle’s Categories and Porphyry’s Eisagoge were formerly attributed to Sergius but this is no longer tenable.14 The Syriac DM, as well as most of the other works attributed to Sergius, resides in British Museum (now Library) Add. ms. 14658.15 The earliest (indeed almost contemporary) source mentioning Sergius is the Historia Ecclesiastica of (ps.-)Zacharias of Mitylene, the Syriac text of which was edited both by Land16 and Brooks;17 in book 9, chapter 19, we find,

12 On Sergius in general, see E. Renan, De Philosophia Peripatetica apud Syros (Paris, 1852), pp. 23-29;
W. Wright, A Short History of Syriac Literature (London, 1894), pp. 88-93; R. Duval, La littérature
syriaque (3d ed., Paris, 1907), pp. 247-249; A. Baumstark, Geschichte der syrischen Literatur (Bonn,
1922), pp. 167-169; and Mar Igantius Aphram I Barsoum, The Scattered Pearls: A History of Syriac Literature and Sciences, trans. Matti Moosa, 2d rev. ed. (Piscataway, N.J.), pp. 273-74.
13 Sergius is also very probably the translator of the works of Evagrius into Syriac; see A. Guillaumont, Les six centuries des ‘kephalaia gnostica’ d’Évagre le Pontique, PO. 28.1 (Paris, 1958).
14 See S. Brock, A Brief Outline of Syriac Literature (Moran Etho 9, Kottayam, 1997), p. 43; H.
Hugonnard-Roche, “Note sur Sergius de Resh ‘Aina, traducteur du grec en syriaque et commentateur
d’Aristote,” in G. Endress and R. Kruk (eds), The Ancient Tradition in Christian and Islamic Hellenism (CNWS Research: Leiden, 1997), pp. 128-9. The attributions of these and other works (a work on the soul, a work on the parts of speech, a work on affirmation and negation, and a scholion on the term οὐϲία) to Sergius most likely rest on the fact that they are included in BL Add. 14658; cf. E. Renan, “Lettre à M. Reinaud, sur quelques manuscrits syriaques du Musée Britannique, contenant des traductions d’auteurs grecs profanes et des traités philosophiques,” Journal Asiatique 19 (1852b), p. 329, and W. Wright’s description of the contents of the ms. in his Catalogue of the Syriac Manuscripts in the British Museum Acquired since the Year 1838 (London, 1872), pp. 1154-1160.
15 Lorimer (Text Tradition, p. 24; Aristotelis…De Mundo, p. 25 n. 3) wonders whether A. S. Lewis’ Cod. Sinait. Syr. 14 may be another ms. of the Syriac DM. I have not examined the ms., but while it is possible, I see no conspicuous likelihood that the it contains the DM. It has the title: “Collection of holy books for the benefit of souls,” and in Lewis’ description more fully “Extracts from Macarius…, followed by sayings of the philosophers, …Aristotle” (A.S. Lewis, Catalogue of the Syriac Mss. in the Convent of S. Catharine on Mount Sinai [Studia Sinaitica I, London, 1894], p. 17), nor is there anything in the additional description of the ms. by John Stenning, contained on p. 127 of the same volume, to suggest that this selection from Aristotle is the DM.
16 J.P.N. Land, Anecdota Syriaca, vol. 3, Zachariae Episcopi Mitylenes aliorumque Scripta Historica
Graece plerumque Deperdita (Leiden, 1870). The text translated in the following lines is found on p. 289, lines 7-16.
17 E.W. Brooks, Historia Ecclesiastica Zachariae Rhetori, vol. 2 (Paris, 1921); the following translated text is from p. 136, lines 4-16.
4
“This man [Sergius] was eloquent and practiced in reading many books of the
Greeks and in the doctrine of Origen. He had been studying translation of the
books of other teachers in Alexandria for some time—he had knowledge of Syriac both in reading and speaking—and books on medicine. In his beliefs he was orthodox, as witness the prologue and translation of Dionysius, which he made quite aptly, and the book made by him on the faith in the days of the illustrious Peter the faithful. In his lifestyle, however, this Sergius was very unrestrained in the desire for women, and was licentious and immodest. He was greedy in the desire for money. Efrem tested him and found him learned.”
From this passage (and elsewhere), we see that Sergius, who is always referred to as “of Reshaina,”18 or the “Reshainan,” was educated at Alexandria19 in matters Hellenistic,20 at the very least, including theology and medicine, and he was admired for his learning.21 Our testimonia to Sergius after Zacharias are late,22 though they are presumably based on earlier sources. The memory of Sergius as an expert in Greek matters (and particularly in medicine) continued for some time. Ibn abī Uṣaibi‘a (1203-1270) in a parenthesis

18 It is still called Ra’s al-‘Ain and is located on the Khabur River at 36.825125 N, 40.049286 E in the Al-Ḥasakah governorate in northeast Syria on the border with Turkey. See also Yaqut’s Geographical Dictionary (Mu‘jam al-Buldān) (Beirut, 1977), vol. 3, pp. 13-14.
19 Cf. A. Baumstark, Lucubrationes Syro-Graecae (Leipzig, 1904), p. 367. Further on, Baumstark (p. 382) says of Sergius in that city: “Alexandriae, quo tunc undique artium et doctrinarum divitiae confluebant, litteris sacris et profanis imbutus, omnes, quotquot suae aetatis hominibus Syris scitu digni videbantur,locos scientiarum cognitos habebat et tractatos.” On Alexandria in Late Antiquity, particularly from the viewpoint of medical history, which of course is very relevant for understanding Sergius, see Peter E. Pormann and Emilie Savage-Smith, Medieval Islamic Medicine (Washington, D.C., 2007), pp. 12-15, with the literature cited there.
20 “Sergius de Reschaina se forma à l’école des Grecs” (Duval, p. 281).
21 Modern scholars, too, continue to cite Sergius as an early paragon of thorough Greek learning among Syriac authors: “Conspicuous among the scholars of this age for his knowledge of Greek, and more especially of the Aristotelian philosophy, was Sergius…” (Wright, Short History, p. 88).
22 I have followed Baumstark (Lucubrationes, pp. 368-369) in taking the references to Ϲέργιοϲ ὁ ἑρμηνεύϲ in the Greek historian Agathias (535-580) as not pointing to our Sergius (contra Renan, De Philosophia, pp. 24-25 with n. 1). There are also some grammarians named Ϲέργιοϲ, references to whom Baumstark spends several pages cautiously discussing (Lucubrationes, pp. 369-374; also see pp. 374-380 on “Sergius the Greek, son of Elias”), but the identification of any one of them with Sergius of Reshaina is fraught with uncertainties and too convoluted to explore here.
5
mentions Sergius as a translator of Greek works into Syriac.23 When Barhebraeus (1225/6-1286) comes to the time of the famous Ḥunayn ibn Isḥāq (808-873) he tells how Ḥunayn, reared in al-Ḥīra, went to Baghdad and then left to spend time among the Greeks learning their language and literature. When Ḥunayn returned to Baghdad an accomplished Hellenistic scholar he approached the chief physician of the city, Gabriel,24 who tested him and exclaimed, “If this young man lives, he will leave no memory to Sergius of Reshaina!”25 Ibn abī Uṣaibi‘a in fact considers Sergius to have been only a mediocre translator and Ḥunayn to have surpassed him.26 We might well doubt, however, Ibn Abī Uṣaibi‘a’s ability to judge the matter competently and without bias:27 he
probably knew neither Greek nor Syriac and was more akin to Ḥunayn, not religiously but at least linguistically. Before Ibn abī Uṣaibi‘a, Ḥunayn himself mentions Sergius numerous times in his famous Risālah on the translations of Galen into Syriac and

23 A. Müller (ed.), ‘Uyūn al-anbā’ fī ṭabaqāt al-aṭibbā’ (Cairo, 1882; reprint, Frankfurt, 1995), vol. I, 186, lines 4-5: “This Sergius, whom Gabriel mentions, was from Reshaina and he was the first to translate anything from Greek science into the language of the Syrians.” The text is also in Baumstark, Lucubrationes, pp. 361-362, with notes on 492-493, where he compares it with (the Arabic version of) Barhebraeus’ report (see below for the Syriac reference). The supposed reference to our Sergius in al-Nadīm’s Fihrist (see the English translation of B. Dodge, vol. 2, p. 852) is on shaky ground. While it is tempting to see Sergius here, there are problems with the spelling of the name, as well as exactly what kind of work is being attributed to him (and who is Quwairi, Bishop of Edessa, mentioned there?); the Arabic text is on p. 354 of Flügel’s edition, vol. 1, line 19 (see also the notes and variants in vol. 2, pp. 191-192). The subsequent reference to “Sergius the Monk” is even less sure (contra Dodge, p. 853, note 86).
24 On this Gabriel see Baumstark, Geschichte, p. 227, and the lengthy treatment by al-Qifṭī (J. Lippert [ed.],Ibn al-Qifṭī’s Ta’rīḫ al-Ḥukamā’ (Leipzig, 1903], pp. 132-146).
25 In Renan’s words (De Philosophia, p. 25), “quasi nihil majus dici aut fingi posset.” This is the same story recorded in Ibn Abī Uṣaibi‘a mentioned above. The line translated here may be found in E.A.W. Budge (ed. and trans.), The Chronography of Gregory Abû’l Faraj…Bar Hebraeus, 2 vols. (London: Oxford University Press, 1932), vol. 2, fol. 53v, col. b, lines 17-19 (cf. P. Bedjan (ed.) Gregorii Barhebraei Chronicon Syriacum [Paris, 1890], p. 162, lines 22-23), with Budge’s translation in vol. 1, pp. 147-148.
26 “Sergius Ra’sī, of the town Ra’s al-‘Ayn, translated many books but was mediocre in the skill of
translation [mutawassiṭan fī al-naql]. Ḥunayn would improve his translation and what is found in the improvement of Ḥunayn is the good, but what is found without [his] improvement is of medium quality,” (Müller, vol. I, p. 204, near the bottom; the text is also given in Baumstark, Lucubrationes, p. 364).
27 Cf. Renan, De Philosophia, pp. 28-29, and Baumstark, Lucubrationes, p.366.
6
Arabic.28 He often finds little to praise in Sergius’ translations, but he does note
improvement in Sergius’ ability over time.29 Sergius was seen as the first of skilled physicians in the Greek tradition, and Barhebraeus names him at the head of such a list.30 It is worth pointing out that his regular appellation ἀρχίατροϲ, “chief physician.”31 Though presumably a skilled and successful practitioner of medicine, it is as a translator that posterity especially reveres him. As (ps.-)Zacharias mentioned, Sergius translated the Dionysian corpus into Syriac,32 and the introduction to another Syriac translation of ps.-Dionysius refers to Sergius’ previous work: “that which was translated a long time ago from Greek into Syriac by the pious and skillful Sergius, presbyter and chief

28 The work was originally written in Syriac, but it does not survive in that language. There was a first and second Arabic edition, the second extant in two recensions, one of which was published by G. Bergsträsser, with German translation (Ḥunain ibn Isḥāq über die syrischen und arabischen Galen-Übersetzungen [Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 17.2, Leipzig, 1925]), and the second is soon to appear (with English translation) in John Lamoreaux, Ḥunayn Ibn Isḥāq on His Galen Translations (Eastern Christian Texts 3, Provo, forthcoming).
29 I have mainly used Lamoreaux’s forthcoming work (see previous note); the following reference numbers correspond (sometimes roughly) to Bergsträsser’s page and line numbers as well. Of the many references to Sergius in the Risālah, especially relevant are the following: First, on the poor quality of Sergius’ work, 9.5, 13.4, 15.3, 19.5, 20.3-4, 51.6; and second, on Sergius’ progression as a translator, 6.6, 8.7, 16.9 (specifically mentions training in Alexandria), 22.13.
30 Budge’s translation, Chronography, pp. 56-57 in vol. 1; the accompanying Syriac volume, a ms.
facsimile, has the text on fol. 21r, col. a, line 16-col. b, line 5 (= Bedjan, p. 57, lines 12-17): “Shapur built a city in Persia and named it Gundishapur and had his Roman wife live there. Skilled men from the Greeks, physicians, came with her, and they planted the Hippocratic study of medicine in the east. There were also excellent Syrian physicians, such as Sergius of Reshaina, for he first brought over medical books from Greek into Syriac.”
31 As Renan (De Philosophia, p. 24) remarks, it is no surprise that Sergius was a physician and a bishop at the same time, since these studies (medical and ecclesiastical) were so closely joined together among Syrians of Sergius’ time. The same scholar later that year wrote of Sergius’ dual expertise that it was a “témoignage remarquable de l’alliance des études ecclésiastiques et profanes chez les Syriens au viiie siècle” (“Lettre,” p. 320). Sergius remains at once, it seems, a representative of both camps. Authors up to the early sixth century generally approached Greek learning with an eye to theology and the church, but “Avec Serge de Rēš ‘Aynā commence une nouvelle période” (J. Habbi, “Le langage philosophique syriaque,” in H.J.W. Drijvers, R. Lavenant, C. Molenberg, and G.J. Reinink (eds), IV Symposium Syriacum 1984. Literary Genres in Syriac Literature (Orientalia Christiana Analecta 229, Rome, 1987), p. 234).
32 See Fiori’s contribution in this volume and I. Perczel, “The Earliest Syriac Reception of Dionysius,” in (ed.), Re-thinking Dionysius the Areopagite (Malden, Mass.: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009), with literature cited in these. Sergius himself also wrote an introduction to the works of Dionysius, which is contained in the late (post fourteenth century) ms. BL Add. 22370 (Wright, Catalogue, pp. 500-501). Sergius himself refers to the Dionysian writings and his translation of them in his On the Spiritual Life §§ 114-122, P. Sherwood, (ed. and trans.), “Mimro de Serge de Rešayna sur la vie spirituelle,” L’Orient Syrien, 5 (1961), pp. 146-151.
7
physician.”33 In this ms. Phocas bar Sergius of Edessa,34 who revised the earlier
translation of Sergius, says of the work, “all of us Syrians who read the work35 marvel and praise it on account of the superiority of its meanings, its divinity, which in truth is worthy of marveling.”36 Finally, while it is remarkable that Sergius earned mention in the catalog of mostly Church of the East authors by ‘Abdišo‘ bar Brikhā (d. 1318)37 at all, it is somewhat curious that he is only associated there with “commentaries on logic” and not at all with medicine or translation.

The Syriac De Mundo
It is best to begin as Sergius himself did, with his preface to the translation. It is
especially fitting to include here in full since it has not hitherto appeared in English: [107v] The letter composed by Aristotle the philosopher for Alexander the King on the knowledge of the things that exist, which you, the elect, have sent me and commanded38 that I translate according to my ability from Greek speech to the language of the Syrians, I have received whence you sent it. I have, though,

33 See Wright, Catalogue, p. 494). The text is from BL Add. 12151, fol. 1b, with introduction and notes by Phocas bar Sergius of Edessa, ms. dated 804 CE.
34 On Phocas see J.S. Assemani, Bibliotheca Orientalis, vol. 1 (Rome, 1719), p. 468, and Baumstark, Geschichte, pp. 271-272.
35 It is unclear whether Phocas is praising the work itself or the translation specifically, but the reference to “all…Syrians,” who would have in general been more familiar with a work in Syriac than one in Greek and thus would have known the work in Sergius’ version, favors the latter possibility. On the other hand, the fact that Phocas himself revised the translation leads one to believe that he thought the translation in need of improvement, or at least adaptation.
36 See Wright, Catalogue, p. 494. Incidentally, Sergius also finds mention as a source in the Syriac(-Arabic) lexica: see W. Gesenius, De Bar Alio et Bar Bahlulo, Lexicographis Syro-Arabicis Ineditis, Commentatio Litteraria Philologica (Leipzig, 1834), p. 30; R. Payne Smith, Catalogi Codicum Manuscriptorum Bibliothecae Bodleianae, pt VI, Codices Syriacos, Carshunicos, Mendaeos Complectens (Oxford, 1864), cols. 606, 620.
37 The text is in J.S. Assemani, Bibliotheca Orientalis, vol. 3.1 (Rome, 1725), p. 87.
38 Cf. also “your commands” at 107vβ36 and “your command” at 108rα2. Sergius composed his preface to the translation along the same lines as other prefaces in Syriac literature and he includes in it the common themes of an order or request to undertake a project (E. Riad, Studies in the Syriac Preface [Uppsala, 1988], pp. 191-196) and mention of his own humility (at 108rα9-11; cf. Riad, Syriac Preface, pp. 197-202).
8
been hindered39 from the work until now for various reasons, which it is not now
time to mention. But now, since it is necessary, I have decided to fulfill your
commands. Even though many other important things have been preventing me,
[108r] I have let them all go for the sake of your command for me and have taken
pains to accomplish your will. But I urge you, dear sir, that if another copy40 of
this letter is found, in which is anything more or less, please, elect one, do not
blame our weakness:41 that which I have found in the copy that was sent from
you, dear sir, I have taken care to preserve completely, neither adding anything to those things written here by the philosopher, nor on the other hand taking away from them according to my ability.42

It cannot be said with certainty to whom Sergius addresses this preface, or who the one who asked for this Syriac version of the DM is. Renan43 assumes that the preface is addressed to his known correspondent Theodore of Karḫ Juddān (located on the Diyala river near the present day Iraq-Iran border),44 and Wright,45 following Renan, says that the work “was translated for Theodore,” but this is simply not certain; it may well be that this Theodore is the addressee but he is not explicitly named, in contrast, for example, to

39 This word makes no sense as it stands. The verb baggen means “to complain,” or “to appeal to,” but the meaning from context is almost certainly, “I have been hindered.” Additionally, there is the ending -yt, which does occur in some later texts, but would be irregular in a text this early. In light of these difficulties, it is probable that we have here eṯbagḥeṯ, a phonetic variant of eṯpagḥeṯ, “I have been hindered,” the ḥēṯ being miswritten as nun-yoḏ.
40 This apparently refers to another exemplar of the Greek text.
41 Similarly, Sergius says of his translation of Dionysius that it was completed (SpirLife §114.6 [Sherwood, pp. 146-147]), “according to the weakness of my intellect,” and he hopes that it will succeed despite (ibid. §121.4-5), “our ignorance.”
42 Sergius brackets his preface with this expression here and above at 107vβ26 (inclusio). He uses similar expressions elsewhere, e.g. (SpirLife §115.2, 6 [Sherwood, pp. 146-147]).
43 De Philosophia, p. 26, “Lettre,” p. 321.
44 This Theodore was formerly that to be “of Merv,” but see Hugonnard-Roche, p. 124, n. 13), where his identity is established. For Karḫ Juddān, see Yaqut, vol. 4, p. 449, and Jean Maurice Fiey, Assyrie chrétienne, vol. 3 (Beirut, 1968), pp. 71-74). I thank Hidemi Takahashi for the last reference.
45 Catalogue, p. 1157.
9
Sergius’ translation of Galen’s De Simplicibus;46 in addition, we know that Sergius had other patrons.47

The history of Greek-Syriac translation and various examples across its spectrum
have been discussed elsewhere,48 but interest in the subject justly continues to urge scholars to pry into the matter more thoroughly. Suffice it to say here that there is a tendency49 of translators to use a “free” method of rendering in the fourth and fifth centuries, while in the seventh century they show a conspicuous literalism in their work.50 This leaves the sixth century as an intermediate period, and it proves indeed to be a time of transition in translation methodology as well. Sergius, our translator, who died in 536, shows in his translation of the DM a number of characteristics that, on the one hand, echo the practice of the fourth and fifth century translators, but on the other, some that also forecast the work of the seventh century literalists.

46 See A. Merx, “Proben der syrischen Uebersetzung von Galenus’ Schrift über die einfachen Heilmittel,”Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 39 (1885): pp. 244, 272, 286.
47 The treatise On the Spiritual Life was addressed to a Mar Stephen: see §123 of the work (Sherwood, pp. 150-153).
48 For example, Baumstark, Geschichte, pp. 75-95, 102-104, 106-107, 159-173, 251-252, 256-257, 261-268; S.P. Brock, “Aspects of Translation Technique in Antiquity,” Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 20 (1979): 69-87; “Towards a History of Syriac Translation Technique,” in René Lavenant (ed.), III Symposium Syriacum 1980. Les contacts du monde syriaque avec les autres cultures (Rome, 1983); Brief Outline pp. 143-145; D. King, The Syriac Versions of the Writings of Cyril of Alexandria: A Study in Translation Technique (Louvain, 2009), pp. 11-25; see also his “Paul of Callinicum and his Place in Syriac Literature,” Le Muséon, 120 (2007), with the items he mentions on pp. 327-38, and, for more on Sergius, Fiori’s contribution in this volume and King’s forthcoming paper in Le Muséon.
49 It must be stressed that this scheme highlights the main trends, and that there are translations that diverge from the pattern presented here. The Syriac version of Titus of Bostra’s Contra Manichaeos, for example, was made very early, but tends toward the literal. In general one finds in this translation “un souci evident de littéralisme chez le traducteur” (P.-H. Poirier, and C. Sensal, “Du grec au syriaque: quelques réflexions sur la version syriaque du Contra Manichaeos de Titus de Bostra,” in René Lavenant (ed.), V Symposium Syriacum 1988 [Rome, 1990], pp. 315). In conclusion: “Si nous voulions caractériser brèvement son enterprise, nous dirions qu’elle se situe quelque part entre les traductions sensus de sensu et celles verbumn de verbo, plus proche, toutefois, des dernières que des premières” (ibid., pp. 317-18).
50 The hallmark examples of this approach are the Ḥarqlean version of the New Testament and the Syro-Hexapla Old Testament. In general, see S.P. Brock, The Bible in the Syriac Tradition (Piscataway, 2006), pp. 37, 47-48, 50; and the articles A. Juckel, “Ḥarqlean Version” and A.G. Salvesen, “Syro-Hexapla” in the forthcoming Encyclopedic Dictionary of Syriac Heritage (Piscataway), for a study of translation technique in the Syro-Hexapla, see T. Skat Rørdam, Libri Judicum et Ruth secundum Versionem Syriaco-Hexaplarem (Copenhagen, 1861), pp. 3-59.
10
We are fortunate to have, in his own words, some statements by Sergius about
translation and the praxis of it.51 A passage, the Syriac text of which is unfortunately not yet published, from his Introduction to Aristotle’s Categories (British Library, Add. ms. 14658, f.60v) gives a picture of Sergius at work translating Galen. Brock52 has translated the text and his version of the pertinent sentence runs as follows: “When we were translating certain works of the doctor Galen from Greek into Syriac, I used to translate, while you would write it down for me, correcting the Syriac wording, in accordance with the requirements of the idiom of this language.”53 An obvious question: Why was correction necessary for Sergius’ Syriac? More pointedly, “Est-ce à dire que le style de Sergius était defectueux, ou que sa langue était incorrecte” (Hugonnard-Roche 1997:
131)? Hugonnard-Roche answers the question with “Il semble plus probable que
l’allusion de Sergius se rapporte à un procédé de traduction à deux, l’un traduisant au fil du grec, l’autre améliorant le style de la version orale en la mettant par écrit” (1997: 132).

51 In addition to the following words of Sergius, another statement of his on translation may be found in On the Spiritual Life, §§121-122 (pp. 150-151 in Sherwood), but since it is less focused on the praxis of translation itself and more on the theory, we only mention it without any further discussion.
52 Brief Outline, p. 202. The same passage also has an important declaration about the broad usefulness of Aristotelian logic; see Brock’s translation in Brief Outline, p. 204, and also From Ephrem to Romanos, chap. 3, p. 43 n. 76. The passage was paraphrased, it seems, in the much later Chronicon ad annum 1234 (ed. J.-B. Chabot, Paris, 1920), pp. 104-105, where we read: “At this time [Alexander has just been mentioned] Aristotle the philosopher gathered together all the scattered species [āḏšē] of philosophical teachings and made from them one great corpus [gušmā], dense with meanings and powerful teachings, because he separated the truth from falsehood. Without reading this book of logic he made, it is impossible to grasp the knowledge of books, the understanding of teachings, and the power that is in Holy Scripture, on which the hope of Christians depends, unless someone is granted favor from the Holy Spirit (who makes
everyone wise), on account of the excellence of his life.”
53 This description in some ways brings to mind Jerome’s quick work of bringing Tobit into Latin, which he describes in a letter to Bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus: “quia vicina est Chaldaeorum lingua sermoni hebraico, utriusque linguae peritissimum loquacem repperiens, unius diei laborem arripui et quicquid ille mihi hebraicis verbis expressit, haec ego accito notario sermonibus latinis exposui.” The letter may be conveniently found in R. Weber and R. Gryson (eds), Biblia Sacra iuxta Latinam Vulgatam Versionem (4t ed., Stuttgart, 1994) as the preface to Tobit. But even more relevant to out subject here is a passage from Ḥunayn’s Risālah (Lamoreaux, 22.15) on his correction of one of Sergius’ translations: there Ḥunayn records a two-person approach to revising the text, one (Ḥunayn) with the Greek and one with the
Syriac; the latter reads Sergius’ Syriac and Ḥunayn speaks up whenever there is a contradiction of the Greek.
11
If this reconstructed picture of Sergius translating is on the mark, then we might well expect to see in his translated products some elements that are akin to the freer earlier Syriac translations, as well as some elements that will match later seventh century translation activity, that is, a mixture of the two methods.

It is appropriate now to take a look, albeit a selective and brief one, at some ways
in which Sergius’ translation technique especially manifests itself.

Editing
By “editing” I mean the addition or omission of words, phrases, or even sentences that the translator felt free to make. Such editing is also known from other Syriac translations.54 It is, of course, not always possible to distinguish such additions or omissions from textual variants. Sergius adds very many words in Syriac to repeat verbs in long sentences or to make explicit words only assumed in Greek, as can be seen in the Syriac-Greek Index where there is no corresponding Greek word given. Some examples of Sergius’ changes follow in list form.

• At 108vβ33, b-ḥuḏrā w-ḇa-ḵrāḵā (“in a circle and circuit”), there is no
corresponding word in the Syriac text to the Greek numeral in μιᾷ περιαγωγῇ καὶ κύκλῳ. This is, of course, not a major change, but it does show that Sergius, here at least, is not following the Greek in a servile manner.

• Where the Greek has διάμετροϲ ἔϲται τοῦ κόϲμου, Sergius (109rα20)
expands the phrase to āmrinan d-hu hānā surṭā diyameṭros iṯāu(hy) d-‘ālmā, that is, he

54 See, for example, C.E. Morrison, The Character of the Syriac Version of the First Book of Samuel (Leiden, 2001), pp. 78-82 and G. Greenberg, Translation Technique in the Peshitta to Jeremiah (Leiden, 2002), pp. 32-45, 97-102.

12
has not translated the word ἔϲται exactly, but has gone from “it will be a diameter of the cosmos” to “we say that this line is a diameter of the universe.”
• 109vβ11 μέχριϲ ἧϲ ὁρίζεται ὁ αἰθήρ | da-‘ḏammā l-ṣēḏāu(hy) men lǝ‘el āṯē
aṯir w-ṯammān mettaḥam (“which the aether comes next to at the top and is bounded there”). Sergius, in adding “coming from above” and “and there,” does not change the meaning, but he has not adhered to the Greek text.
• 114vβ19-23 Τούτων δὲ οἱ μὲν καὶ πνεῦμα προϲαναβάλλουϲιν, οἱ δὲ
πέτραϲ | w-henon dēn hālēn, menhon ruḥē gāḏēn w-massqin men gaw ar‘ā, w-menhon kēfē rawrǝḇē (“Some of these cast winds and make them rise from within the earth, some large stones”). Sergius has added “and make them rise from within the earth” and describes the stones as “large,” as opposed to being undefined in the Greek.
• At 117rα9-10 τὴν μὲν οὖν ἀνωτάτω καὶ πρώτην ἕδραν becomes rēšā
hāḵēl hāw d-qaḏmāy ṭāḇ wa-m‘allay ‘ālmā (“the top, then, that is first and exalted, the world”), that is ἀνωτάτω and πρώτην have switched places. It is possible that there is a textual mix-up, but it is also possible that in Syriac it was more usual to say “first and highest” than “highest and first,” just as in English we always say “bigger and better,” and never “better and bigger.”
• At 118vβ17 Sergius has added a substantive to the numeral: ἐξ ἑνόϲ | ḥaḏ
hwāyā (“one essence”).
• The reason why Sergius omits the reference to Sophocles (τοῦ
ποιήϲαντοϲ) at 121rα10 is unclear, but it is possible that he thought his readers would not be familiar with the line (in contrast to the Homeric quotations) or the poet and therefore

13
simply translated it with no indication that it is a poetic citation, but since Stobaeus, with whom Sergius shares a number of readings, also lacks it,55 it may have stood thus in his Greek exemplar. While a reader perusing the De Mundo in Greek might be expected to know, or at least be able to figure out, the references to etymological explanation, a reader going through the text in Syriac cannot be expected to have the same knowledge and ability available to him. Sergius, therefore, responsibly makes additions to the text in his translation to make these sections more palatable to his Syriac audience. In his discussion of the meaning of aether, Sergius supplies the information (109rβ5-7) b-yaḏ d-ḏāmē (h)u
šmā hānā da-mšalhḇē b-yawnāyā l-aṯir (“because the word for ‘glowing hot’ in Greek resembles [the word] aether”), on the name Olympus (120rα18-25) dumyā gēr da-šmēh da-šmayyā b-lešānā yawnāyā, a(y)ḵ tḥumā iṯāw(hy) da-l‘el, meṭṭul da-l-šmayyā qārēn lēh uranos, wa-l-tḥumā oros, wa-l‘el anon (“for the likeness of the noun ‘heaven’ in the Greek language is as ‘the limit above,’ for they call ‘heaven’ ouranos, ‘limit’ oros,56 and ‘above’ anōn57), and, although the connection is not fully clear, he is obviously trying to give his readers some etymological information from Greek in his mention of Peprōmenē (121vβ25-33).

In the classification of winds in Chapter Four, we find several changes. Here
(394b19ff.) the four main types are given according to origin and are then further
subdivided. It will be instructive to examine some of the differences between the Greek

55 The direct tradition of the DM is almost uniform in having it (see Lorimer’s apparatus), and it is unlikely that it is simply a later gloss.
56 Not horos: the pronunciation of the rough breathing had long since passed away in Greek.
57 Sic! What can explain the ending in -n? There is a phenomenon in Jewish Palestinian Aramaic where indeclinable words ending in a long vowel appear with -n (E.Y. Kutscher, Studies in Galilean Aramaic [trans. Michael Sokoloff, Ramat-Gan, 1976], p. 61 with the literature at n. 79), and analogous behavior may have taken place here.
14
and Syriac texts. In the section on the Εὖροι, the order of the wind-names in Greek is καικίαϲ, ἀπηλιώτηϲ, εὖροϲ, but second in Syriac: maḏnḥāyā, then qaiqiyas, ending with apiliyoṭis, but, in the case of ἀπηλιώτηϲ and εὖροϲ, only the order of the names is different, not the order of the descriptions, the result being that the description of the Syriac apiliyoṭis actually matches the Greek description of εὖροϲ, etc. Additionally, ἀπὸ τοῦ…τόπου πνέων occurs only once in Greek, but in Syriac it (d-nāšeḇ men aṯrā) appears with all three wind descriptions. In the list of Ζέφυροι, the first two (of three) names, with their proper descriptions, have been switched: Greek ἀργέϲτηϲ, ζέφυροϲ, λίψ; but Syriac ma‘rḇāyā, then agrēsṭis (sic, with metathesis of r and g), then libā. In the list of Βορέαι, the wind θραϲκίαϲ has its proper definition, but it is in the second place in Syriac, not the third, as in Greek. The other two winds, βορέαϲ and ἀπαρκτίαϲ, have their descriptions
switched in the Syriac, and the phrase κατὰ τὸ μεϲημβρινόν __________(properly in the description of ἀπαρκτίαϲ) is completely absent in the Syriac, even in the description garbyāyā, where we would expect it due to the switching of names and definitions. Finally, the section on the Νότοι is remarkably intact in Syriac. There is an exact fit in the order, although with some additional details, and instead of εὐρόνοτοϲ being described as μεταξὺ νότου καὶ εὔρου, it is said to be hāw d-ḇaināṯ taimnā l-apiliyoṭis, that is, ἀπηλιώτηϲ stands for εὖροϲ, just as in the list of Εὖροι. The fact that we find the discrepancy here too, suggests that the switch between these two winds was intentional. Perhaps the differences between the Greek and Syriac are due to the dissimilar orientation toward the major winds in Greek and Mesopotamian science.58

58 See J. Neumann, “The Winds in the World of the Ancient Mesopotamian Civilizations,” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 58 (1977): 1050-1055, with bibliography; cf. W. Horowitz,
15
To conclude, we may say that Sergius has, while not reticent to add words for
clarification (and Syriac style?) or omit words for smooth Syriac reading, followed even the details of the DM, but not on a narrow level focused on individual words.

Doublets
One of the most striking aspects of the Syriac DM is the large number of doublets, that is, “la traduction d’un seul mot grec par deux termes syriaques plus ou moins proches l’un de l’autre.”59 There are at least 39 examples of doublets in the Syriac DM. Poirier and Sensal gave attention to doublets in their study of the Syriac version of Titus of Bostra’s Contra Manichaeos, and due to the large number of such translations in the DM, we will do well to consider them too. These doublets, especially in their large number, show how free Sergius felt himself to explain Greek words by offering synonyms, and to deviate from any quantitative correspondence60 between the Greek and Syriac texts. But
this characteristic of Sergius’ translation method is probably more than just a matter of precise explanation, since the use of near synonyms juxtaposed together is in fact a feature of native Syriac writing too, and even of high Semitic style generally.61 In addition, “le recours au doublet trahit la volonté de rendre un préverbe grec,”62 examples from Contra Manichaeos including meṯpseq wǝ-meṯpleg = κατατεμνομένου and neṯḥre luqbal = ἀντιλέγειν. This usage of a doublet in the DM occurs at 121vβ8-9

Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography (Winona Lake, 1998), pp. 196-198, 200-204).
59 Poirier and Sensal, p. 311; cf. J. Joosten, “Doublet Translations in Peshitta Proverbs,” in P.B. Dirksen and A. van der Kooij (eds), The Peshitta as a Translation: Papers Read at the II Peshitta Symposium, Held at Leiden, 19-21 August 1993 (Leiden, 1995), p. 63.
60 M.P. Weitzman, The Syriac Version of the Old Testament: An Introduction (Cambridge and New York, 1999), p. 23, discusses doublets under the heading “Quantitative correspondence.”
61 Specifically for Syriac, merely from a random and quick perusal of Jacob of Edessa’s Hexaemeron we find several examples: J.-B. Chabot (ed.), Iacobi Edesseni Hexaemeron seu in opus creationis libri septem. (Paris, 1928): 85b5, 146a18-19, 147b9, [13-14 similar], 147b24-25, 150a28-29.
62 Poirier and Sensal, p. 313.
16
maite…masseq | ἀνενέγκατο and 110rα32 meṯyaldin w-gāḏēn | ἀναλιϲκομένοιϲ.
This phenomenon is not restricted to one part of speech: verbs, nouns, and
adjectives all may be translated with a doublet. While these kinds of translation are common in Sergius’ DM, we find others that also call for mention here. At 117vβ13-14 simply for κόϲμοϲ we find ṣeḇtēh wǝ-rabbuṯēh wǝ-ya’yuṯēh: a triplet! Such expansions are rare, to be sure, but there is at least another one in the Contra Manichaeos: rēšānuṯā wǝ-‘attiquṯā wǝ-qaḏmāyuṯā = τὸ ἀρχαιότερον.63 Oddly, in two places Sergius reduced paired items in Greek to only one in Syriac: 114vβ32 zu‘zā‘ā | ἐγκλίϲεϲι καὶ ἀποπάλϲεϲι and 117vα27 allāhā | δεϲπότηϲ καὶ θεὸϲ. Sergius similarly turns three Greek verbs (εὕρηται καὶ διατέτακται καὶ ϲυνέχεται) into only two in Syriac at 119vα17-18: eštǝḵaḥ w-ettaqqan. A few further examples follow:
108rβ22 kannšaṯ w-ḥeḇšaṯ ϲυνεφόρηϲε
“gathered and included”
117rα7 raḥiqān w-maḇ‘ḏān πόρρω
“far away and distant”
118vβ19 qrāh w-šammhāh ὀνομάϲαϲα
“called it and named it”
119vβ35 asrēh…w-raḵḇēh ϲυνδῆϲαι
“bound it…and put it together”
120rβ12 ba-ṣlawwāṯā wa-b-taḵšfāṯā εὐχὰϲ ποιούμενοι
63 Ibid.
17
“with prayers and with supplications”
Other than Poirier and Sensal, Jan Joosten has also given attention to doublets in Syriac translations, in his case those of the book of Proverbs. He arrived at the conclusion that the doublets in the Syriac Proverbs “are typical of the working method of the author—possibly of the group of authors—who produced the version roughly as we know it today”.64 The large number of these doublet translations in the DM, in addition to those in the Contra Manichaeos and in Proverbs, show that this phenomenon deserves more attention in future studies of translations into Syriac, which will, no doubt, reveal more occurrences of this feature and will perhaps provide us with enough data to understand with more precision the causes and development of this unique characteristic.

Terms Differently Translated
It is commonly assumed that lexical consistency is a mark of literal translation.
Whether or not such consistency is a mark of literalism or not,65 it may tell us something about key terms in a translated text and how they were interpreted by the translator, and therefore how they would be received in the target language. In the case of the DM, some of the frequently occurring scientific terms naturally lend themselves to this kind of investigation. There are, of course, many cases where Sergius has been consistent in his rendering of this or that Greek term, as a perusal of both texts will show.66 This fact, however, does not definitively tell us anything about Sergius’ method of translation; he may happen to translate a Greek word by the same Syriac word because the two words

64 Joosten, “Doublet Translations,” p. 63.
65 J. Barr, The Typology of Literalism in ancient biblical translations (Mitteilungen des Septuaginta-Unternehmens XV, Göttingen, 1979), pp. 305-314.
66 See my A Greek and Syriac Index to Sergius of Reshaina’s Version of the De Mundo (Piscataway, 2009).
18
have a similar range of meaning in both languages,67 not because of any overt proclivity toward consistency in the translation of lexemes.

The terms for bodies of water θάλαϲϲ/ττα, κόλποϲ, and πέλαγοϲ occur several
times in the DM. At the outset of this discussion of how Sergius translates each of them, it must be remembered that the niceties of this semantic domain are not part of common linguisic purview. In English, for example, while speakers are comfortable with the words “river,” “lake,” “pond,” and “ocean,” far fewer are comfortable with the distinction between “bay” and “gulf,” or, say, “creek,” “brook,” “stream,” and “beck.” The Greek islands and even the mainland are, of course, always very near bodies of water of some kind, so there were certain terms in use among their inhabitants that they would have been very familiar with. Semites will not have had the same range of meaning for names
used for bodies of water as Greek islanders. The three Greek terms under discussion here are all common and presumably well-known to anyone who knows Greek, but the fact is that the terms were not all that specific (see LSJ s.vv.). Θάλαϲϲα might refer, for example, to the Mediterranean Sea, the Atlantic Ocean, or the Black Sea; Aristotle (Meteorology 351a9) uses the term of a salt lake. Πέλαγοϲ may be used of the broad, open sea, but also of parts of the sea named for its geographical environs. We even find expressions like πέλαγοϲ θαλάϲϲηϲ (Appolonius Rhodius 2.608). Herodotus (2.97) uses πέλαγοϲ, perhaps waxing poetic, of a flooded plain. The term κόλποϲ, which may refer to
any inner part of something, such as the womb or the fold of a garment, is defined doubly for water as “bay, gulf.”68 All this is to make clear what might have been obvious: these are not strictly used terms. For this reason, and the aforementioned geographical factors

67 Weitzman, p. 27.
68 LSJ, p. 974, meaning III.2.
19
that differently informed the usual vocabularies of Greek and the Semitic languages, we can hardly impugn Sergius’ lack of consistency in how he brings them into Syriac.

The first of these terms is usually yammā (“sea,” as 110rα27, 110rβ27, 110vβ27,
and 111vα32), and the related verb ἐθαλάττωϲαν at 120rβ35 is translated šaḥlef l-yammā (“it changed [much dry land] to sea”), but τὴν Ἐρυθρὰν θάλαϲϲαν becomes (111rβ3) ‘ubbā hāw d-meṯqre d-suf (“the bay that is called [the bay] of Suf”).69 Sergius also renders πέλαγο with yammā a few times (e.g. 110rβ23, 110vβ16). At 110vα37 μεγάλοιϲ…πελάγεϲιν becomes men yammē ḥrānē rawrḇē, that is, he has used yammā, but these words at 110rβ30 are rendered men ‘ubbē rawrḇē dǝ-yammā, that is, with ‘ubbā, which also stands for πέλαγοϲ at 111rα15 and 115rα35. This word ‘ubbā (“bay, gulf”) is also Sergius’ most frequent choice for κόλποϲ (e.g. 110vβ32, 111rβ21, 118rβ38) and the related adjective ἐγκολπίαι and verbal phrase become, respectively (112vα36 and 111rα4) ‘ubbānē and meṯpleg la-ṯrēn ‘ubbin. As we saw both ‘ubbā and yammā for πέλαγοϲ at
110rβ30, so, too, at 112vα35 men ‘ubbē d-yammē (“from gulfs of seas”) renders ἐκ κόλπων. Due perhaps to the looseness of meaning of the terms in Greek or Syriac, perhaps to the paucity of terms in Syriac (only two used in the instances above), perhaps to both, Sergius shows himself to be without concern for a precise rendering of these words for bodies of water.

Another scientific term that occurs several times in the DM is κεραυνόϲ. As with
the vocabulary for bodies of water, this word has more than one usual meaning. It is traditionally translated into English as “thunderbolt,” but this is due to its frequent

69 That is, the Red Sea; compare, for example, Exodus 15:22 and Joshua 24:6 in Hebrew, Greek, and Syriac.
20
occurrence in mythological texts as the weapon and sign of Zeus, not to any specific meteorological description, in which kinds of texts the word, in fact, is used of both thunder and lightning,70 although Greek has more common terms for these phenomena as well (βροντή and ἀϲτραπή). Sergius’ inconsistency in translating κεραυνόϲ into Syriac suggests that there was no accepted or thoroughly suitable word in Syriac for it.71 Sergius translates the word with (112rα18) zelgā and twice (113vβ4, 17) with zalqā dǝ-māḥe (“a lightning ray that strikes”), but elsewhere he uses barqā, the regular word for “lightning,”
for κεραυνόϲ: at 110rα24 merely barqin, but later at 116rβ21 he adds an adjective, barqē taqqifē (“intense lightning”). The compound word ἀρχικέραυνοϲ and the derivative κεραύνιοϲ become, respectively, maḇreq barqē72 (“one that causes lightning to flash”) and ‘āḇeḏ barqē wǝ-ra‘mē (“maker of lightning and thunder,” at 121vα29 and 121vα1).

Let us now consider some words that do not occur as frequently, but which
Sergius translates differently on one occasion or other. Sometimes polysemy in the Greek is the cause fordifferent translations into Syriac, as for ἀρχή we find
122rβ2) rēšē (lit. “heads”) as well as šulṭānā (“rule, authority”) and šurāyā (“beginning”); for δώρον we find (108vβ4, 117vα36) mawhḇāṯā (“gifts”) and qurbānē (“offerings”). By far the greater number of places, however, where the same Greek word has been translated with a different Syriac word are instances where Sergius simply seems to have chosen two (or more) Syriac words of similar meaning to translate the same Greek word

70 The several derivatives of the word (LSJ, p. 942) also show that both thunder and lightning are associated with the term.
71 Cf. H. Takahashi, Aristotelian Meteorology in Syriac: Barhebraeus, Butyrum Sapientiae, Books of Mineralogy and Meteorology (Leiden, 2004), p. 541 n. 18. In Syriac Jacob b. Šakko defines a kehrāwnos (=κεραυνόϲ) as “a thunderbolt [paq‘ā] that comes down from the clouds and destroys every body it comes down upon” (Syriac text in F. Nau, “Notice sur le livre des trésors,” Journal Asiatique, 9th series, 7 [1896], pp. 327-328); for Job of Edessa’s description, see A. Mingana (ed. and trans.), Book of Treasures by Job of Edessa (Cambridge, 1935), p. 422b.
72 The ms. mistakenly has qrābē for this word.
21
in different places; that is, he has not interpreted the Greek differently at each occurrence, but only offered a variant Syriac word, in some cases, a plain synonym. Examples of this practice include: ἀκίνητοϲ = d-lā mettzi‘ānuṯā and d-lā zaw‘ā (both mean “without movement,” 109rα28, 110vα5), ἄϲτρον = kawkḇā (“star,” 108vβ30) and nahhirā (“luminary,” 114rα13, 19), βιαίως = qṭirā’iṯ and ‘azzizā’iṯ (113vα4, 113vβ2), ἰδέα = znā and āḏšā (both terms can mean “kind,” 114rβ4, 118rα27), κορυφαῖοϲ = rēšā (lit. “head,” 118vβ34) and mallfānā (“teacher,” 120vα36).

Proper Names
Brock mentions the remarkable rendering of Ζεύϲ at Acts 14:12 in the Peshitta by
mārē allāhā.73 A translator working from Greek into a Semitic language also, at least in some cases, has the option of transliteration or a substitute, this time a substitute of native Mesopotamian tradition. In theDM Sergius often simply transliterates the Greek name, but other times he gives a Syriac substitute. When “Zeus” refers to the god, he gives zeus (as 120rβ15, 121vα26),74 but when the planet Jupiter is meant, the Syriac name is bēl (as 109vα31, 118vβ8). Where the DM gives more than one name for a planet, Sergius is not always consistent in how he translates the different terms. Mars is named both Πυρόειϲ and Ἄρεοϲ, which Sergius translates (109vα33-34) with hāw summāqā (“the red”) and daris,
but later (118vβ6) Πυρόειϲ is also translated with d-aris. In this list of planet names at the end of 109vα we also see both bēlaṯ(y) (“lady”) and kawkaḇṯā (fem. of “star, planet”) for Venus (Ἀφροδίτηϲ and ὁ τοῦ Φωϲφόρου [cf. 118vβ4] in Greek), and for

73 “Limitations of Syriac in Representing Greek,” in Bruce Metzger, The Early Versions of the New
Testament (Oxford, 1977), p. 87.
74 But at 121rβ25 he translates the name—here in the accusative Ζῆνα—with ḥayyā “living” to
communicate the connection between Zeus’ name and “life.”
22
Saturn (Κρόνοϲ) kēwān (cf. 118vβ11), but the other names are transliterated, with the exception of Ϲτίλβων (Mercury), which Sergius (109vα36) just translates into Syriac, maḇreq (“flashing, shining”), that is, as a common adjective used for a specific entity, not purely as a proper name.

Sergius generally transliterates the wind-names, other than those which are purely adjectives of the compass points (e.g. 112vβ34 ma‘rḇāyā | ζέφυροϲ):
113rα27 euronaṭos εὐρόνοτοϲ
113rα5 libā λίψ
113rα36 libā funiqā λιβοφοίνικα
113rα35 libānaṭon λιβόνοτον
Finally, we come to certain place names. Sergius gives the Greek place names in transliteration, either because they were known and accepted as such in Syriac or because they were unknown in Syriac and there was, therefore, no Syriac name for them, but he at times changes the form of gentilic adjectives.

The adjectives Αἰγαῖοϲ, Αἰγύπτιοϲ, and Παμφύλιο__________ϲ are not adjectives in Sergius’ version, but become a demonstrative pronoun +toponym: at 111rα26 hāw d-agēs, then 111rα23 hāw d-meṣrēn, and 111rα24 hāw dpamfuliyya,
respectively. On the other hand, Περϲικόϲ and Καϲπία become the relative
marker d- + plural gentilic adjective.

Some Concluding Remarks
If we ask what it was that attracted Sergius to the DM, a likely answer is that it
had a role in the scientific curriculum at Alexandria, of which Sergius was a master. He
23
presumably knew the text and its worth as a piece of elementary philosophico-scientific instruction and wanted it to be read by Syriac readers who had little or no facility in Greek. It is also tempting to imagine a theological or religious motive, given the strong possibility for a monotheistic interpretation of the text, but nowhere in his translation does Sergius Christianize the work or balk at its (non-Christian) Greekness, which is a tack different from the one he follows in translating Alexander of Aphrodisias’ On the Principles of the Universe (often known as the mabādi’, from the Arabic title).75 This Christianization of Alexander’s work is only a part of the rather large-scale alterations that Sergius seems to have undertaken while translating that text, if, as is generally assumed, it is not a case of dual recensions in Greek; judging from the Arabic translation of the text (the Greek is not extant), there are entire portions missing in Sergius’ version.
His DM, however, lines up exactly with the Greek when viewed as a whole, and the individual changes or adaptations that Sergius makes—with the possible exception of the description of the winds—do not substantially alter the data, arrangement, or presentation of the DM: it has been repackaged for a Syriac audience, but it most certainly remains an accurate reflection of the Greek DM. Sergius, it seems, then, did not always operate with the same translation method and with the same goals.

What about the style of the Syriac DM? From the point of view of lexicon, there
is little—and we must permit to every author some idiosyncrasies—that strikes us as out of place; indeed, a large number of words are attested very similarly too in other Syriac scientific texts for the next several centuries, even up to Barhebraeus in the thirteenth century. It might be said that Sergius’ translation of the DM into Syriac rendered a far-

75 See Genequand for the Arabic versions, and, for the Syriac, the articles by King and Fiori in the
forthcoming issue of Le Muséon.
24
reaching scientific service to Syriac thought and language.76 From a grammatical and syntactical standpoint, too, the Syriac DM uses forms and constructions that are completely regular in Syriac literature, both natively written and in translations from Greek; there are some similarities between the DM and the mirror-translations of the seventh century, such as the rendering of derived adjectival forms and standard equivalences for adverbs and alpha-privative words, but Sergius is not rigid in their application and he has virtually none of the harshness and foreign syntactic and lexical flavor of those texts. In a text such as this one that contains so many lists of toponyms,planet-names, and wind-names, not to mention the etymological arguments offered by the author, it would be impossible for a translator into any language to avoid a noticeable presence of Greek words, so there is a conspicuous foreignness to the text in this regard, but that oreignness is wrapped in such a fine specimen of good Syriac, that often we can
easily forget that we are reading a translation.

Of the Syriac version of Daniel, Richard Taylor has said, “Upon reading it, one
does not get the uncomfortable impression that it is wooden or stiff. On the contrary, it is a carefully executed and idiomatic translation, faithful to its Vorlage, while at the same time maintaining in Syriac a high standard of pleasing literary achievement.”77 The same description will fit the DM. Wright78 cites with approval Ryssel’s positive assessment of the quality of Sergius’ translation of the DM as “ein Meisterwerk des Uebersetzungskunst;” the translation is, furthermore, “eine im besten Sinne wortgetreue.” Sergius’ DM, while not as disparate from the Greek as (apparently) his translation of

76 For reasons of space, we have had to forego a discussion of the well-attested Nachleben of the Syriac DM, but see n. 5 above.
77 R. Taylor, The Peshiṭta of Daniel (Leiden, 1994), pp. 319-320.
78 Short History, p. 91, n. 3.
25
Alexander’s mabādi’, cannot baldly be called literal, at least not in any way approaching the same sense in which that term might be given to a number of seventh-century Syriac translations. Scott Montgomery has offered an acute evaluation of Ryssel’s general interpretation of Sergius’ translation method: “As a modern commentator, Ryssel seems at pains to emphasize the literal exactness of Sergius’ version over any ‘free disposition of Syrian vocabulary’; he thus appears to reveal a degree of reverence for the Greek original entirely characteristic of German scholarship in his own time.”79 This same
contemporary “reverence for the Greek original” might be pointed out from the
emendations of de Lagarde, who is usually tacit about his alterations to the manuscript reading, and Baumstark, and, while any study of translation technique such as this one necessarily requires a constant eye on both the Greek original and the Syriac translation, due prestige must be granted to the Syriac version in its own right, if it is to be taken seriously as a translation. The fact that Sergius’ DM might accord high appreciation from both quarters, one more concerned with the Greek and the other looking also to the Syriac
as a piece of Syriac literature, marks Sergius as a fine translator indeed.
We noticed above in our mention of other Syriac translations from Greek that the
general tendency is from freer in the fourth century to more literal in the seventh, and that a noticeable aspect of the trend is the striving toward formal equivalence between individual Greek and Syriac words, as well as Syriac word order mimicking the Greek. In this selective survey of Sergius’ translation methods in the DM, we have seen very little of this strict adherence to Greek forms. He omits very little—and this is perhaps in some places a question of his Greek Vorlage, not one of his editing techniques—and generally

79 Science in Translation: Movements of Knowledge through Cultures and Time (Chicago, 2000), p. 73.
26
adds only to clarify for Syriac readers the details of the etymological data from the Greek language necessary to understand what the author is stating, to translate periphrastically some term or concept that might not be obvious to a Syriac reader without Greek, or to smooth over the style of his version. Sergius is more concerned with the content and the sense of the Greek text and, therefore, offers in good Syriac form this fascinating piece of Hellenistic literature. The Syriac version of the DM, then, fits squarely in this translation continuum where we would expect it as a product of the early sixth century.

Appendix: Concordance of Texts Manuscript de Lagarde Bekker
107v 134.12-20
108r 134.20-135.17 391a1-20 (Chapter one begins)
108v 135.17-136.13 391a20-391b20 (Chapter two begins)
109r 136.13-137.8 391b20-392a15
109v 137.8-138.3 392a15-392b4
110r 138.3-27 392b4-32 (Chapter three begins)
110v 138.27-139.23 392b32-393a23
111r 139.23-140.21 393a23-393b18
111v 140.21-141.16 393b18-394a11 (Chapter four begins)
112r 141.16-142.10 394a11-394b2
112v 142.11-143.6 394b2-25
113r 143.6-30 394b25-395a10
113v 143.30-144.25 395a10-32
114r 144.25-145.21 395a32-395b21
114v 145.21-146.19 395b21-396a10
115r 146.19-147.16 396a10-396b7 (Chapter five begins)
115v 147.16-148.11 396b7-397a1
116r 148.11-149.5 397a1-28
116v 149.5-30 397a28-397b22 (Chapter six begins)
117r 149.30-150.24 397b22-398a13
27
117v 150.24-151.20 398a13-398b5
118r 151.20-152.15 398b5-30
118v 152.15-153.8 398b30-399a21
119r 153.8-154.1 399a21-399b11
119v 154.1-154.25 399b11-400a1
120r 154.25-155.20 400a1-29
120v 155.20-156.14 400a29-400b21
121r 156.14-157.8 400b21-401a18 (Chapter seven begins)
121v 157.8-158.2 401a18-401b13
122r 158.2-21 401b13-29

Bibliography
Assemani, J.S., Bibliotheca Orientalis, (3 vols., Rome: Sacra Congregatio de Propaganda Fide, 1719-1728).
Barr, James, The Typology of Literalism in ancient biblical translations (Mitteilungen des Septuaginta-Unternehmens XV, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979).
Barsoum, Mar Ignatius Aphram I, The Scattered Pearls: A History of Syriac Literature and Sciences, trans. Matti Moosa. (2d rev. ed., Piscataway, N.J.: Gorgias Press, 2003).
Baumstark, Anton, Lucubrationes Syro-Graecae (Leipzig: Teubner, 1904).
________, Geschichte der syrischen Literatur (Bonn: A. Marcus & E. Webers, 1922).
Bedjan, Paul (ed.), Gregorii Barhebraei Chronicon Syriacum (Paris, 1890).
Bergsträsser, G (ed. and trans.), Ḥunain ibn Isḥāq über die syrischen und arabischen Galen-Übersetzungen (Abhandlungen für fie Kunde des Morgenlandes 17.2.
Leipzig: Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, 1925).
Bos, Abraham, “The Theological Conception in De Mundo and the Relation between this Writing and the Work of Plato and Aristotle,” Tijdschrift voor Filosofie, 39
28
(1977): 314-330.
________, “Greek Philosophical Theology and the De Mundo,” in Th. G. Sinnige (ed.),
On and Off the Beaten Track: Studies in the History of Platonism (Nijmegen:
Centrale Interfaculteit, 1986).
Brafman, David Alan, The Arabic ‘De Mundo’: An Edition with Translation and
Commentary (Ph.D. dissertation, Duke University, 1985).
Brock, Sebastian P., The Syriac Version of the Pseudo-Nonnos Mythological Scholia (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971).
________, “Limitations of Syriac in Representing Greek,” in Bruce Metzger, The Early Versions of the New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977).
________, “Aspects of Translation Technique in Antiquity,” Greek, Roman and
Byzantine Studies, 20 (1979): 69-87 (reprint, in Brock, Syriac Perspectives,
1984).
________, “From Antagonism to Assimilation: Syriac Attitudes to Greek Learning,” in Nina Garsoïan et al. (eds), East of Byzantium: Syria and Armenia in the Formative Period (Dumbarton Oaks Symposium, 1980) (Washington, DC:
Dumbarton Oaks, 1982; reprint, in Brock, Syriac Perspectives, 1984).
________, “Towards a History of Syriac Translation Technique,” in René Lavenant (ed.),
III Symposium Syriacum 1980. Les contacts du monde syriaque avec les autres
cultures (Rome: Pont. Institutum Studiorum Orientalium, 1983).
________, Syriac Perspectives on Late Antiquity (London: Variorum, 1984).
________, A Brief Outline of Syriac Literature (Moran Etho 9, Kottayam: St. Ephrem Ecumenical Research Institute, 1997).
29
________, The Bible in the Syriac Tradition (Piscataway: Gorgias, 2006).
Brooks, E.W. (ed. and trans.), Historia Ecclesiastica Zachariae Rhetori, vol. 2 (SS Series 3, 6, Paris: Typographeum Reipublicae, 1921).
Budge, E.A.W., The Chronography of Gregory Abû’l Faraj…Bar Hebraeus, 2 vols. (London: Oxford University Press, 1932).
Chabot, J.-B. (ed.), Chronicon ad annum Christi 1234 (SS Series 3, 14, Paris:
Typographeum Reipublicae, 1920).
________ (ed.), Iacobi Edesseni Hexaemeron seu in opus creationis libri septem. (CSCO 92=SS 44, Paris: Typographeum Reipublicae, 1928).
Conybeare, F.C., A Collation with the Ancient Armenian Versions of the Greek Text of Aristotle’s Categories, De Interpretatione, De Mundo, De Virtutibus et Vitiis, and of Porphyry’s Introduction (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1892).
de Lagarde, Paul Anton, Analecta Syriaca (Leipzig: Teubner, 1858).
Daiber, Hans, “Semitische Sprache als Kulturvermittler zwischen Antike und Mittelalter: Stand und Aufgaben der Forschung,” Zeitschrift der Deutschen
Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, 136 (1986): 292-313.
________, “The Meteorology of Theophrastus in Syriac and Arabic Translation,” in William W. Fortenbaugh and Dimitri Gutas (eds), Theophrastus: His
Psychological, Doxographical, and Scientific Writings (New Brunswick and
London: Transaction, 1992).
Dodge, Bayard (ed. and trans.), The Fihrist of al-Nadīm: A Tenth Century Survey of Muslim Culture, 2 vols. (New York and London: Columbia University Press,
30
1970.
Duval, R., La littérature syriaque (3d ed., Paris: Librairie Victor Lecoffre, 1907).
Elsas, Christoph, “Studien zu griechischen Wörtern im Syrischen,” in Paul de Lagarde und die syrische Kirchengeschichte (Göttingen: Göttinger Arbeitskreis für syrische Kirchengeschichte, 1968).
Fiey, Jean Maurice, Assyrie chrétienne, vol. III (Beirut: Imprimerie Catholique, 1968).
Fiori, Emiliano, “L’épitomé syriaque du traité Sur les causes du tout d’Alexandre
d’Aphrodise attributée à Serge de Reš‘aynā: edition et traduction,” Le Muséon,
forthcoming.
________, Dionigi l’Areopagita e l’origenismo siriaco. Edizione critica e studio storicodottrinale
del trattato sui Nomi divini nella versione di Sergio di Reš‘aynā, (Ph.D.
thesis, Università di Bologna, 2009).
Flügel, Gustav (ed.), Kitâb al-Fihrist mit Anmerkungen Herausgegeben, edited by J. Roediger and A. Müller, 2 vols. (Leipzig: F.C.W. Vogel, 1872).
Genequand, Charles, Alexander of Aphrodisias on the Cosmos (Leiden: Brill, 2000).
Gesenius, W., De Bar Alio et Bar Bahlulo, Lexicographis Syro-Arabicis Ineditis,
Commentatio Litteraria Philologica (Leipzig: Vogel, 1834).
Greenberg, Gillian, Translation Technique in the Peshitta to Jeremiah (Leiden: Brill, 2002).
Guillaumont, A., Les six centuries des ‘kephalaia gnostica’ d’Évagre le Pontique (PO 28.1, Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1958).
Habbi, Joseph, “Le langage philosophique syriaque,” in H.J.W. Drijvers, R. Lavenant, C.
31
Molenberg, and G.J. Reinink (eds), IV Symposium Syriacum 1984. Literary
Genres in Syriac Literature (Orientalia Christiana Analecta 229, Rome: Pont.
Institutum Studiorum Orientalium, 1987).
Hamilton, F.J. and E.W. Brooks, The Syriac Chronicle known as that of Zacharias of Mitylene (London: Methuen, 1899).
Horowitz, Wayne, Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1998).
Hugonnard-Roche, Henri, “Note sur Sergius de Resh ‘Aina, traducteur du grec en syriaque et commentateur d’Aristote,” in G. Endress and R. Kruk (eds), The
Ancient Tradition in Christian and Islamic Hellenism (CNWS Research: Leiden,
1997).
Joosten, Jan, “Doublet Translations in Peshitta Proverbs,” in P.B. Dirksen and A. van der Kooij (eds), The Peshitta as a Translation: Papers Read at the II Peshitta
Symposium, Held at Leiden, 19-21 August 1993 (Leiden: Brill, 1995).
King, Daniel, “Paul of Callinicum and his Place in Syriac Literature,” Le Muséon, 120
(2007): 327-349.
________, The Syriac Versions of the Writings of Cyril of Alexandria: A Study in
Translation Technique (Louvain: Peeters, 2009).
________, “Alexander of Aphrodisias’ On the Principles of the Universe in a Syriac Adaptation,” Le Muséon, forthcoming.
Klein-Franke, Felix, “Die Überlieferung der ältesten arabischen Handschrift von Pseudo-Aristoteles ‘De Mundo,’” Le Muséon, 87 (1974): 59-65.
32
Koriwn Vardapet, Mambre Vercanol, Dawit’ Anyalt’: Matenagrut’iwnk’ (Venice, 1833).
Kutscher, E.Y., Studies in Galilean Aramaic (trans. Michael Sokoloff, Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University, 1976).
Lamoreaux, John (ed. and trans.), Ḥunayn Ibn Isḥāq on His Galen Translations (Eastern Christian Texts 3, Provo: Brigham Young University Press, forthcoming).
Land, J.P.N., Anecdota Syriaca, vol. 3, Zachariae Episcopi Mitylenes aliorumque Scripta Historica Graece plerumque Deperdita (Leiden: Brill, 1870).
Lewis, Agnes Smith, Catalogue of the Syriac Mss. in the Convent of S. Catharine onMount Sinai (Studia Sinaitica I, London: C. J. Clay and Sons, 1894).
Lippert, J. (ed.), Ibn al-Qifṭī’s Ta’rīḫ al-Ḥukamā’ (Leipzig: Dieterich’sche
Verlagbuchhandlung, 1903).
Lorimer, W.L., The Text Tradition of Pseudo-Aristotle, “De Mundo” (London: Oxford University Press, 1924).
________, Some Notes on the Text of Pseudo-Aristotle, “De Mundo” (London: Oxford University Press, 1925).
________, Aristotelis qui fertur libellus De Mundo (Paris: Société d’Édition “Les Belles Lettres,” 1933).
________, De Mundo. Translationes Bartholomaei et Nicholai, rev. by L. Minio-Paluello (Bruges and Paris: Desclée de Brouwer, 1965).
Lulofs, H.J. Drossaart, “The Syriac Translation of Theophrastus’ Meteorology,” in L. de Raemaker (ed.), Autour d’Aristote: Recueil d’ études de philosophie ancienne et médiévale offert à Monseigneur A. Mansion (Louvain: Publications Universitaires de Louvain, 1955).
33
________, Nicolaus Damascenus on the Philosophy of Aristotle: Fragments of the First Five Books Translated from the Syriac with an Introduction and Commentary (Leiden: Brill, 1969).
Mansfeld, Jaap, “ΠΕΡΙ ΚΟΣΜΟΥ. A Note on the History of a Title,” Vigiliae Christianae, 46 (1992): 391-411.
McCollum, Adam, A Greek and Syriac Index to Sergius of Reshaina’s Version of the De Mundo (Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2009).
________. The Syriac De Mundo: Translation, Commentary, and Analysis of TranslationTechnique (Ph.D. dissertation, Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, 2009).
Merx, A., “Proben der syrischen Uebersetzung von Galenus’ Schrift über die einfachen Heilmittel,” Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, 39 (1885): 237-305.
Mingana, A., Book of Treasures by Job of Edessa (Cambridge: W. Heffer & Sons
Limited, 1935).
Montgomery, Scott L., Science in Translation: Movements of Knowledge through
Cultures and Time (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000).
Morrison, Craig E., The Character of the Syriac Version of the First Book of Samuel(Leiden: Brill, 2001).
Müller, A. (ed.), Ibn Abi Uṣaibi‘a,‘Uyūn al-anbā’ fī ṭabaqāt al-aṭibbā’ (2 vols., Cairo, 1882, reprint, Frankfurt: Institute for the History of Arabic-Islamic Science,
1995).
34
Nau, F., “Notice sur le livre des trésors,” Journal Asiatique, 9th series, 7 (1896): 286-331.
Neumann, J., “The Winds in the World of the Ancient Mesopotamian Civilizations,” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 58 (1977): 1050-1055.
Payne Smith, R., Catalogi Codicum Manuscriptorum Bibliothecae Bodleianae, pt VI, Codices Syriacos, Carshunicos, Mendaeos Complectens (Oxford: Clarendon,
1864).
Perczel, István, “The Earliest Syriac Reception of Dionysius,” in (ed.), Re-thinking
Dionysius the Areopagite (Malden, Mass.: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009).
Poirier, Paul-Huber and Catherine Sensal, “Du grec au syriaque: quelques réflexions sur la version syriaque du Contra Manichaeos de Titus de Bostra,” in René Lavenant (ed.), V Symposium Syriacum 1988 (Rome: Pont. Institutum Studiorum Orientalium, 1990).
Pormann, Peter E. and Emilie Savage-Smith, Medieval Islamic Medicine (Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 2007).
Raven, W., “De Mundo. Tradition syriaque et arabe,” in R. Goulet (ed.), Dictionnaire des Philosophes Antiques, Supplément (Paris: Editions du Centre national de la recherche scientifique, 2003).
Reale, Giovanni and Abraham P. Bos, Il trattato Sul Cosmo per Alessandro attribuito ad Aristotele (2nd edn, Milan: Vita e Pensiero, 1995).
Renan, Ernest, De Philosophia Peripatetica apud Syros (Paris: A. Durand, 1852).
________, “Lettre à M. Reinaud, sur quelques manuscrits syriaques du Musée
35
Britannique, contenant des traductions d’auteurs grecs profanes et des traités
philosophiques.” Journal Asiatique, 19 (1852): 293-333.
Riad, Eva, Studies in the Syriac Preface (Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, Studia Semitica Upsaliensia, Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1988).
Rørdam, T. Skat, Libri Judicum et Ruth secundum Versionem Syriaco-Hexaplarem (Copenhagen, 1861).
Ryssel, Victor, Über den textkritischen Werth der syrischen Übersetzungen griechischer Klassiker, I. Theil (Leipzig, 1880).
Saliba, George, “Revisiting the Syriac Role in the Transmission of Greek Sciences into Arabic,” Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies, 4 (2004): 27-32.
Sherwood, P. (ed. and trans.) “Mimro de Serge de Rešayna sur la vie spirituelle,”
L’Orient Syrien, 5 (1960): 433-59, and 6 (1961): 95-115, 121-56.
Stern, S.M., “The Arabic Translations of the Pseudo-Aristotelian Treatise De Mundo,” Le Muséon, 77 (1964): 187-204.
________, “A Third Arabic Translation of the Pseudo-Aristotelian Treatise De Mundo,” Le Muséon, 78 (1965): 381-393.
Takahashi, Hidemi, “The Greco-Syriac and Arabic Sources of Barhebraeus’ Mineralogy and Meteorology in Candelabrum of the Sanctuary, Base II,” Islamic Studies, 41 (2002): 215-269.
________, “Syriac Fragments of Theophrastean Meteorology and Mineralogy: Fragments in the Syriac Version of Nicolaus Damascenus, Compendium of Aristotelian Philosophy, and the Accompanying Scholia,” in W. Fortenbaugh and G. Wöhrle (eds), On the Opuscula of Theophrastus (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 2002).
________, “Observations on Bar ‘Ebroyo’s Marine Geography,” Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies [http://syrcom.cua.edu/syrcom/Hugoye], 6.1 (2003).
________, Aristotelian Meteorology in Syriac: Barhebraeus, Butyrum Sapientiae, Books of Mineralogy and Meteorology (Leiden: Brill, 2004).
________, “Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī, Qazwīnī and Bar Shakkō,” The Harp, 19 (2006): 365-379.
________, “Notes on the Syriac and Arabic Versions of the Pseudo-Aristotelian De Mundo,” (Unpublished paper).
________, “Reception of Secular Greek Learning in Syriac,” (Unpublished paper).
Taylor, Richard, The Peshiṭta of Daniel (Leiden: Brill, 1994).
Tessier, Andrea, Il testo di Aristotele e le traduzioni armene (Padua: Editrice Antenore, 1979).
Van Rompay, Lucas, “Jacob of Edessa and the Sixth-Century Syriac Translator of Severus of Antioch’s Cathedral Homilies,” in Bas ter Haar Romeny (ed.), Jacob of Edessa and the Syriac Culture of His Day (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2008).
Wachsmuth, Curtius (ed.), Ioanni Stobaei Anthologii Libri Duo Priores Qui Inscribi
Solent Eclogae Physicae et Ethicae, vol. 1 (2d edn, Weidemann: Berlin, 1884).
Weber, R. and R. Gryson (eds), Biblia Sacra iuxta Latinam Vulgatam Versionem (4t ed., Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994).
Weitzman, M.P., The Syriac Version of the Old Testament: An Introduction (Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1999).
37
Wright, William, Catalogue of the Syriac Manuscripts in the British Museum Acquired since the Year 1838 (3 vols, London: Gilbert and Rivington, 1872).
________, A Short History of Syriac Literature (London: Adam and Charles Black, 1894).
Yaqut al-Ḥamawī, Mu‘jam al-Buldān (5 vols., Beirut, 1977).

Introduction
The discussion concerning Christology has been one of the most crucial
and sensitive subjects among churches. While diversity in Christology existed
right from the dawn of Christianity, after the fifth century this subject
increasingly became politicized and negatively damaged Christ’s message.
Christ himself, according to Matthew (7:21), taught with respect to Christology:
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord Lord’ will enter the kingdom of heaven,
but only he who does the will of my Father.”
In this article, we will survey the biblical background for the diversity
among Christological doctrines. Then we will review the Christological
approach of the Syriac churches as opposed to the Greek churches. We will also
demonstrate the diversity of Christologies within the Syriac churches after the
4th century when the Syriac churches (both in the East and the West) adopted
the Greek Christologies at the expense of their own. Following our review of
their diversity, and after we demonstrate both the contention and tolerance the
churches had towards each other, we will address the following question: Given
the spirit of both contention and tolerance which has existed within each church
throughout history, what can we learn about becoming a truly ecumenical
church?”

Biblical background for the diverse Christologies
In the Bible itself, there are at least four different Christological
approaches. Mathematically speaking, one can generate and validate some 24
(4!=4x3x2x1) literal, biblical Christologies. The main biblical Christologies,
however, are that of Adoption, of Identity, of Distinction and of Derivation.
The Christology of Adoption conveys that at a certain time, at baptism or
resurrection, God conferred on the man Jesus the status of God.1 Its biblical
1 Among the early sources of the Christology of Adoption are: The Shepherd of Hermans
(2nd century), see Aolf Harnack, History of Dogma (tr. N. Buchanan; New York: 1931)
1:211; the alleged doctrines of Paul of Samosata, the deposed Patriarch of Antioch (3rd
century), had been credited (or accused) of being adoptionist, see Eusebius, The History
of the Church From Christ to Constantine (tr. G. Williamson; Minneapolis: Augsburg,
1965) 313-4; additionally, the Ebionites, according to Hippolyitus (3rd century), believed
48 Journal of Assyrian Academic Studies
support, as some scholars argue, according to its adherents, is grounded on
biblical passages such as: “You are my Son, today I have begotten you”( Ps. 2:7),
and ”God had made Jesus.. Lord and Christ” (Acts 2:32-36)..etc.The Christology
of Identity speaks of Christ as God, Yahweh.2 Its biblical support comes from
Isaiah 63:9 (LXX) which reads: “Not an intercessor, nor an angel, but the Lord
himself;” Psalm 96:10 “the Lord reigns from the tree;” Isa. 44:6 “Thus says the
Lord, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts; “I am the first and I
am the last, besides me there is no God;” Romans 9:5 “..who is God, blessed
forever.”
The Christology of Distinction speaks of One Lord and another Lord.3 The
biblical support comes from Gen. 19:24 “and the Lord rained…from before the
Lord from heaven,” Psalm 110:1 “The Lord said to my Lord.”
The Christology of Derivation refers to the Father as “the greater” or “the
generator”, or concerning the use of Christ’s titles such as angel, Spirit, Logos,
and Son.4 The biblical support comes from John 1:1-14; Proverbs 8:22-31
(LXX).

The diversity within the Greek Churches
that Jesus was a man endowed with special powers of the Spirit” See Hippolytous of
Rome, On Heresies; and Cf. Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the
Development of Doctrine (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1971) esp. 175-6. However,
among the adoptionists, there was a range of differences about the nature of the Adoption
which extends from ontological union unto analogical one.
2 There were many churches in the first four centuries whose Christology was that of
Identity with its various approaches, such as the Monarchians, Modalists..etc., and among
its prominent figures are Ignatius of Antioch (d. 107), Melito of Sardis (d. 190), and
Tertullian (d. 225). Tertulian, for example, called for protecting the ‘monarchy’ of the
Godhead by stressing the identity of the Son with the Father without specifying the
distinction between them with equal precision. See J. Pelikan, 176-180.
3 Among the earlier figures who stressed the Christology of Distinction were Justin
Martyr (d. 165), and Irenaeus (d. 200). Justin explains Gen. 19:24, saying that there had
to be some distinction between “the Father and Lord of all” and “the Lord.” Cf. J. van
Winden, An early Christian Philosopher: Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho (Leiden:
Brill, 1971) 127.5. See a similar argument of John of Sedreh (d. 648), by the present
author, “The Letter of John of Sedreh: A New Perspective on Nascent Islam,” JAAS 11.1
(1997) 68-84.
4 While there is no specific churches whose Christology is that of Derivation, many of the
earlier Christian authors explained certain Christological notions as Derivation. Among
these, we refer to the Shepherd of Herm (Herm. Sim 8.3.3), Justin Martyr (Dial. 56.4),
Clement of Alexandria, who writes: “the Lord Jesus, that is, the Word of God, the Spirit
incarnate, the heavenly flesh sanctified;” Wood, S. P., Clement of Alexandria: Christ the
Educator (New York: Fathers of the Chruch, 1954) 16.43.3.
Christological Contention and Tolerance in the Syriac Church Traditions. 49
Among many other challenges, the churches in the Roman world faced the
challenge of the Greek (pagan) philosophers who accused nascent Christianity of
inferior knowledge.5 In reaction, the early Christian apologists responded to
these philosophers in their own terms and language, proving the vitality of
Christian knowledge. Among various Greek philosophical approaches, most of
the Christian apologists adopted platonism, with its contemplating focus, in
Alexandria, or Aristotelianism, with its focus on matter, history and grammar, in
the region of Antioch.
As time went on, the Christians developed various explanations of the
doctrine of Christology based on the various schools of thought. The Platonic
philosophy, accordingly, concluded that Christ must have One Nature. The
Aristotlean philosophy, on the other hand, concluded that Christ must have Two
Natures. As mentioned above, although conflicts and disputations concerning
this subject emerged right from the time of the Apostles, it was well within its
accepted limits.6 However, after the 4th century, certain Christological
statements were politicized and weakened Christendom.

The diversity within the Syriac Churches
Prior to the 4th century, the Syriac churches found themselves at home with
regard to the biblical proclamation. Far from Greek culture, early Syriac
Christianity integrated the Christian message in its Semitic understanding to
which the Old and most of the New Testament belong. It is widely recognized
by modern scholars that unlike Greek Christianity, which developed an
ontological interpretation of God and Christ, Syriac Christianity was
uninterested in dogmatic strife. Syriac Christianity conceived its faith rather as a
Way, a way of daily life and continual mission.7
By way of example, let us refer to the creed of faith of Aphrahat (4th
century) and the creed in the Acts of Judas Thomas (2nd or 3rd century), which
represent Syriac Christology before adopting (or being imposed upon by) the
5 Celsus (d. 178) is one of several Greek philosophers who describes Christianity as “
hodgepodge of superstition and fanaticism,” see Quasten, J., Pathology ( Vol. 1;
Westminster: Newman, 1950)86; Robert M. Grant, Greek Apologists of the Second
Century (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1988) 78, 85, 133-139.
6 David Roahd, The Challenge of Diversity: The Witness of Paul and the Gospels
(Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996) esp. the Introduction.
7 G. Quispel, “The Discussion on Judaic Christianity,” Vigiliae Christianae 22 (1968) 81-
93, esp. 81-2; J. Neusner, Aphrahat and Judaism: The Christian-Jewish Argument in
Fourth-Century Iran (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1971) esp. 6-7.
50 Journal of Assyrian Academic Studies
Greek Christology.8 In fact, the Syriac creeds have no equivalent to any of those
Greek Christological terms, such as hypostasis, physis, ousia, and the like, which
later caused all the misunderstanding within each church, and between the
churches.
However, Greek Christology began to permeate the Syriac churches
through the late writings of St. Ephrem. Although most of Ephrem’s writings are
genuinely Semitic, several passages speak about the way of union between the
humanity and divinity of Jesus Christ in terms of mixture. Ephrem says: “In a
new way, his body has been mixed in our bodies. And his pure blood has been
poured into our veins. … The whole of him with the whole of us is mixed by his
mercy.”9
Ephrem was so fortunate that he escaped the harsher criteria set by later
generations who determined who were the faithful and who were the heretical.
Ultimately, neither of the Syriac church traditions accepted the concept of
mixture; on the contrary, both of them vehemently opposed it.

The Syriac Christologies in the West Syriac tradition
By the turn of the fifth century, most of the West Syriac churches adopted
the Alexandrian Christology. However, because of the loose definition of Greek
Christological terms, such as hypostasis (person, or QENUMA), ousia (essence),
and physis (nature), even within the Greek schools of thought, the Syriac
theologians faced difficulties in expressing their Christological understandings.
The translation of these Greek terms into Syriac added further difficulties. But
the Greek terms, concepts and formulas posed a greater obstacle in developing
and studying their own Syriac Christology.
To illustrate Christological diversity, we have selected three prominent
figures in the West Syriac church in the sixth century. The first one is Severus
of Antioch (d. 539), who is Greek in origin, thought and language. The other
two are native to the Syriac culture and language, but inheritors of the Greek
Christology of the Alexandrian school, the are Philoxenus of Mabugh (d. 523),
and Jacob of Sarugh (d. 521). In order to make it succinct and clear, we will
introduce the basic components of their Christology and compare and contrast
their understanding.

Severus of Antioch
Hypostasis and Nature
8 Patrologia Syriaca (ed. D. I. Parisot; Vol. 1; Paris: Instituti Francici Typographi, 1894)
44-45, 788; Judas Thomas, The Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles (ed. W. Wright; London:
1871); Doctrine of Addai (ed. G. Howard; Chico: Scholoars, 1981).
9 Des Heiligen Epheam des Syres: Hymnen de Virginitate (ed. E. Beck; CSCO, Vol.
133/94; Louvain: Secretariat du CorpusSCO, 1962) 133.
Christological Contention and Tolerance in the Syriac Church Traditions. 51
In a clear and consistent way, Severus discusses his Christology based on
the theology of the school of Alexandria. For Severus, the concepts of
Hypostasis (Qenuma), and Nature (Keyana), are synonyms, except that the term
Nature could refer either to the specific (individual) or to the generic (nonindividual),
while the term Hypostasis always refers to an individual.10
Severus argues for two kinds of hypostases: the self-existent (complete
hyp.), and the non-self-existent (incomplete hyp.) hypostasis. To use a man as
an example, Shabo, is a combination of two non-self-existents, i.e., the body and
the soul.11 The combination or union of these two makes one complete
hypostasis. A simple self-existent hypostasis is one that exists in its own right
and is not composite: the Father or the Holy Spirit is a simple self-existent
hypostasis.12 Christ, on the other hand, is one self-existent composite
hypostasis, the product of a union of a simple self-existent with a non-selfexistent
hypostasis. The simple self-existent hypostasis is the divinity of Christ,
and the simple non-self-existent hypostasis is the humanity of Christ.
Prosopon
The term Prosopon, according to Severus is equivalent to self-existent
hypostasis, and implies existing in an individual being.13 Accordingly, the
Prosopon is a concrete reality, and bears a proper name, such as Shabo, Gallo, or
Christ. The non-self-existent is not a Prosopon: this is why Severus never called
humanity in the Incarnation “the man.” Thus Severus speaks of One Nature, One
Hypostasis, and One Prosopon of God, the Word Incarnated.
Operation
According to Severus, there is only one operation arising from self-existent
hypostasis. Ephrem, for example, may eat (body) or think (soul). In both cases,
we say Ephrem does it, not Ephrem’s body or Ephrem’s soul.
In the case of Christ, we should not speak of two operations: We should not say
that “the man wept,” and “God raised Lazarus,” but “the Incarnated Word did
it.”14
Prosoponic Union
10 E. W. Brooks, “A Collection of Letters of Severus of Antioch, from Numerous
Syriac Manuscripts (Letters I to LXI),” Patrologia Orientalis 12 (1919) , Letter VII,
200; Letters XV, 210-11.
11 Brooks, Letter II, 190; Letter XXV, 230ff.
12 Severi Antiocheni, Liber Contra Impium Grammaticum: Oratio et Secunda (ed.
Iosephus Lebon; CSCO, Vol. 111/58; Louvain: Secretariat du CorpusSCO, 1965) 76.
13 Brooks, Letter XVI, 211.
14 Brooks, Letter I, 180-2;
52 Journal of Assyrian Academic Studies
Prosoponic union is a union of two prosopa, two self-existent hypostases.
For example, the union of Ephrem and Warda in friendship, partnership, etc., is a
prosopic union. In prosopic union, the two partners can exist apart from each
other. Thus the members of a prosopic union are not in an iconic relationship to
each other. Severus describes the prosopic union in various phrases such as,
“partnership”, “union of brotherhood”, “conjunction in honor”, “union by
assumption”, and “presence”.15
Hypostatic Union
Hypostatic union is a “natural” union, where although the two hypostases
remain, they have no individual, separate existence of their own. The union of
the body and the soul is a clear example.
The actual union of the divinity and humanity in Christ, according to
Severus, was not Prosoponic but hypostatic union, the union of self-existent
(Divine Hypostasis) with non-self-existent (human) hypostasis. The members of
hypostatic union are in an iconic relationship to each other.
In hypostatic union, the hypostases (non + self-), are in composition
(brukobo), and perfect, they do not continue as an individual existence so as to
number them two.16

Philoxenus of Mabugh
Unlike Severus, whose thoughts, vocabulary and language are those of the
Alexandrian school, Philoxenus expresses his Christology in more Syriac
(=Semitic) thought and language. Although Philoxenus remains loyal to the One
Nature formula, his explanation is drastically different than that of Severus. Far
from technical Greek vocabulary and philosophical explanations, Philoxenus
states that Christ, the Word of God, simultaneously exists in two modes of being,
as God by nature, and as a man by a miracle. In a similar way, the baptized
believers also exist in two modes of beings, as human by nature, and as sons of
God by a miracle.
Nature and Hypostasis
Philoxenus uses the term Nature and Hypostasis interchangeably. He
defines nature as the basic unchangeable characteristics that belong to a certain
species (being). For example, in the incarnation, God remains God by Nature,
immortal, invisible, intangible, in spite of undergoing birth, death and tangibility.
At the same time, God, the divine hypostasis of the Word, becomes man by
15 Brooks, Letters II, 189-90; Letter X, 20; Letter XVI, 211; Letter XXV, 244;
Homily. LVII (P.O. viii 221-2).
16 Brooks, Letter XV, 210; Letter XVI, 211; Letter XXV, 232; Lebon, 78.
Christological Contention and Tolerance in the Syriac Church Traditions. 53
miracle, which takes place in accordance with God’s will within the hypostasis of
the Word himself.17
Philoxenus does not regard the existence by miracle as a change
(shuhlapha), but as additional. He states that “We became sons of God, although
our nature was not changed, and Christ became a man by his mercy, although his
essence was not changed.”18
Ultimately, Philoxenus chooses to reject the expression of Two-Natures
without sufficient reasoning, since his logical argument, based on the power of
miracle, does not conclude in either of the two “standard” Christological
formulas, namely, the One Nature, or the Two Natures . However, he chooses to
reaffirm the formula of the Alexandrian school, i.e. One Nature, One Hypostasis,
One Prosopon, One Ousia.

Jacob of Sarugh
We have already found significant differences in the explanation of the
Christological doctrine between Severus and Philoxenus. Jacob of Sarugh, on
the other hand, is very different from either of them. Far from Greek philosophy
and theology, Jacob’s theology is more mythological and symbolic.19
After introducing the history of the world in a mythological way, Jacob
speaks about the appointed time when the Word of God, the “Hidden One”,
made himself visible to men. From his birth, Jacob maintains, the Word remains
disguised for many, “in appearance he was a man, though by nature he was
God.”20
Nature and Hypostasis
17 Philoxène de Mabbog: Lettre aux Moines de Senoun (ed. A. Halleus; CSCO, Vol.
231/98; Louvain: Secrétariat du CorpusSCO, 1963) 57.
18 Three Letters of Philoxenus, Bishop of Mabbogh (ed. And tr. A. Vaschalde,; CUA,
Dissertation for PhD; Rome: 1902) 164-5. The Philoxenus statement contradicts
Alexandrian and Cappadosian Writers who said, “God became man in order for a man to
become god.”
19 Sebastian Brock, “From Antagonism to Assimilation: Syriac Attitudes to Greek
Learning,” Syriac Perspectives on Late Antiquity (London: Variorum, 1984) V-17.
Elsewhere, Brock considers Jacob of Sarugh has a significant impact on the Hudra, the
standard prayer book in the Church of East; see S. Brock, OCA, 55 (1989) 339-343.
Furthermore, according to Brock, Jacob’s writings reflect the Edessan School, and thus he
comes closer to Theodore than Ephrem or Narsai; see S. Brock, “Baptismal Themes in
the Writings of Jacob of Sarugh,” OCA, 205 (1976)325-326.
20 Letter 13, 53.
54 Journal of Assyrian Academic Studies
Confirming the Alexandrian Christological formula, Jacob states that Jesus
is “one Son, one Nature, one Hypostasis, one in number.”21 Distancing himself
from Severus, Jacob uses the term Nature to refer to a concrete being, an entity
which can be counted. Equally, he equates the term Nature with Hypostasis.
Therefore, one Nature and one Hypostasis means one being, one actual identity.
It was for this reason that Jacob rejected the doctrine of Two Natures because,
according to him, that means two beings and two entities.22
In opposition to Severus but in agreement with Philoxenus, Jacob speaks of
two births as an alternative to the hypostatic union of Severus.23
In another instance, Jacob refers to the human nature of Christ as Schema.
Commenting on the term Schema found in Philippians, 2, Jacob argues that Jesus
is God by nature, but in the image and Schema of man. While “nature”, Jacob
explains, is a concrete being, Schema, is something that can be chosen or
rejected or changed. For example, Ephrem’s human nature did not change when
he was a child, young, or old; however, his Schema changed according to his
growth and career. Jesus, on the other hand, is God in nature, but he has come
into being in the Schema of man.
By comparing these three theologians, one can easily recognize the drastic
differences in their understanding of the adopted Alexandrian Christological
formula. We can easily notice that the only common idea among these three
Christologies was the repeated formula of “One Nature, One hypostasis, One
Prosopon, One Ousia,”..etc.

Christologies from the Church of the East
After the fourth century, and as in the West Syriac churches, the Syriac
churches of the East offered various explanations for the Christological formulas
which originated in the Greek school of Antioch. Unlike the formula of
Alexandrian Christology, the Antiochene Christology accepts the duality of
some Christological terms, such as Nature and hypostasis. Because of such
duality, and their inaccurate definition, in addition to their treatment in the
Syriac language, its Christological statements vary. In the following section I
will briefly review five Christological statements dating to the 5th – 7th century,
beginning with Theodore of Mopsuestia (d. 428), who was of Greek origin, both
in thought and language.

Theodore of Mopsuestia
21 Letter 3, 19.
22 Letter 14, 61; Letter 27, 137and 139; Letter 33, 249.
23 Letter 2, 3; 3,18; 6, 32-33; 13, 53; 14, 60; 29, 233..etc.
Christological Contention and Tolerance in the Syriac Church Traditions. 55
Like Severus in the West Syriac church, Theodore was of Greek origin and
wrote only in Greek. Theodore’s writings were soon translated into Syriac and
propagated in the School of Edessa. This very translation posed further
difficulties and confusion. These Christological terms were not well defined
even in the Greek language, and were explained variously by the Greek scholars,
and their translation into Syriac carried the confusion a step further. Theodore’s
Christological position, based on Aristotelian philosophy, is as follows:24
Two Persons, by which he meant hypostases,
Two Natures (physes), in voluntary union.
Babai (d. 628), the Catholicos of the Church of the East, clarifies that Theodore
spoke of “One Parsupa” of Christ.25 Additionally, the Syriac translators
rendered Qenuma for persons sometimes, and/or hypostaes. For the word
Nature, physis, the Syriac translators render Keyane26

Synod of Aqaq (486) and Synod of Yeshu`Yab (585)
Unlike Theodore of Mopsuestia, both Synods, of the Catholicos Aqaq and
of Yeshu`Yab stated the following Christology:
One person (parsopa),
Two natures (keyane: physes),
in voluntary union
As stated, both Synods distinguished, in their Syriac expression, between the
Greek term of Prosopon to which they rendered the Syriac word Parupha i.e.
person, and the Greek term for Hypostasis to which they rendered the Syriac
word Qenuma. In so doing, the church of the East presented the closest
Christological formula to the Christology of Chalcedon.27

Narsai (d. 503)
Narsai, the former instructor of the school of Edessa and later the leading
scholar in the school of Nisibis, maintained Theodore’s formulae but clarified it.
Narsai stated that in Christ:
Two persons (i.e. hypostases/ Qenuma),
Two nature (keyane: physes), and
24 Unlike the Platonic philosophy, the Stoic (materialistic) philosophy teaches that in
the union of soul and body, they both preserve their own hypostasis (IDIA UPOSTASIS).
See Alexander of Aphrodisias, de Mixtione 3 (Suppl. Aristot. ii 2, 217.33 Bruns); Henry
Chadwick, History and Thought of Early Church (London: Variorum, 1982) XVI, 160-1.
25 Babai, Histoire de Mar-Jabalaha (ed. P. Bedjan; Paris: np,1895) 499.
26 Arthur Voobus, History of the School of Nisibis (CSCO, Vol. 266, Subsidia 26;
Louvain: 1965) 253, 255.
27 Synodicon Orientale (ed. J. B. Chabot: Paris: 1902) 302, 397, 455.
56 Journal of Assyrian Academic Studies
One prosopon (parsopa).28

Henana (d. 609)
Henana’s Christology, according to the writing of Babai (628) was
expressed as follows:
One person (qenuma: hypostases),
Two natures (keyane: physis).29

Synod of Bishops (612)
The Synod of Bishops at the turn of the seventh century reformulated the
Christological doctrine as follows:
two persons (qenume: hypostasis),
two nature (keyene: physis),
one union or one lordship.30
As stated above, the diversity in Christologies in the Church of the East is
also obvious. While all statements agree on the Two Natures, they vary on
defining the hypostasis and/or prosopon.

Agreement and Disagreement
The diversity of Christologies within each church is well recognized
through the above statements. Ultimately, none of the above Christologies have
continuity with the earlier Syriac (Semitic) Christologies. But in spite of the
diversity within each church tradition, each church lived in harmony with its
diverse Christologies. The fact that each church accepted its diversity or
harmonized it, or at least turned a blind eye to it is commendable. But the
question today is: Since each church lived in harmony with its Christological
diversity, is it not possible today to live in harmony with the Christological
diversity among the churches?
According to a number of medieval, Syriac scholars, such as Arfadi (9th
century),31 Patriarch Keryakus (9th century),32 Moshe bar Kepha (9th cent.),33
28 F. McLeod, Narsai’s Metrical Homilies on the Nativity, Epiphany, Passion,
Resurrection and Ascension: Critical Edition of the Syriac Text (Patrologia Orientalis,
Vol. 40.1.182; Turnhout: np, 1979) I, 274.
29 Baba Magni, Liber de Unione (ed. A. Vaschalde; CSCO, Vol. 79.34; Louvain:
Secretariat du CorpusSCO, 1915) 209.
30 Synodicon Orientale, 575
31 Gerard Troupeau, “Le Livre de L’unaminite de la foi de `Ali Ibn Dawud al-Arfadi”
Pareole de L’Orient (1969) 197-219.
32 W. Wright, Catalogue of Syriac Manuscripts in the Brithish Museum Acquired Since
the Year 1838 (Vol. 1; London: 1878) Add. 17145.
Christological Contention and Tolerance in the Syriac Church Traditions. 57
`Ammar al-Basri (9th cent.),34 Bar Hebraeus (13th cent.),35 and many others, the
answer would have been yes! But what is the answer of the contemporaries?
33 Abdul Massih Saadi, The Commentary of Moshe Bar Kepha on Luke: A Christian
Apology Responding to Muslims (Dissertation; Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago,
1998).
34 S. Griffith, “`Ammar al-Basri’s Kitab al-Burhan: Christian Kalam in the First Abbasid
Century,” Le Museon 96 (1983) 145-181.
35 Bar Hebraeus, Kethobo de-Yauno (ed. G. Gardahi; Rome: 1898) 75. In this book,
Bar Hebraeus, who might have been responding to a similar question responded: “But
when I studied and meditated in this field, I realized that the quarrel among the Christians
is baseless. For all confess Christ, our Lord, to be wholly God and wholly man, without
blending, mixture, and confusion in natures. This bilateral likeness is called by some
nature (Keyana), by others hypostasis (Qenuma), by others person (Prosopon).
Therefore, notwithstanding their diversity, I consider all Christians to be of equal,
comparable value.”

The Syriac (Aramaic) liturgy and liturgical chants that originated in the Middle East found their way into South India through immigrant Christians sometime before the fifth century. Continuous contact between the “Syrian Christians” (descendants of Hindu converts and immigrant Christians)1 in India and the Persian Church kept the chant tradition rejuvenated in the subsequent centuries. Due to divisions and varying ecclesiastical allegiances starting from the sixteenth century, there are now two liturgical and three chant traditions among the Syrian Christians. The Syro-Malabar Church (in union with Rome) and the Church of the East (Diophysite, also known as Nestorian) continue the Chaldean liturgy, which was originally in East Syriac, while the Syrian Orthodox Church (Monophysite, also known as Jacobite) adopted the Antiochene liturgy, which was originally in West Syriac. Although the first two Churches follow the same liturgical tradition with minor variations, their musical repertoires as they exist today are different from each other. As a means of preserving their individual identity, all three Churches retained most of the original Syriac melodies in the process of vernacularizing the liturgies to Malayalam since the 1960s. Thus, the melodies that were once associated with Syriac texts of celebrated poets such as St. Ephrem the Syrian (d. 373), Narsai (d.c. 503), and Jacob of Serugh (d. 521) assumed yet another life in a completely different cultural milieu of South India.
It is a matter of historical and ethnomusicological interest that the melodies of these chants have not only survived over such a long period of time, but also have retained their unique identity amidst vibrant musical traditions of the Hindus, Muslims, and Jews in South India. Yet, neither the history nor the music of the chants has received adequate attention from musicologists. My purpose is to identify and address the problems and issues in the study of these chant traditions from historical and analytical perspectives.
On a personal note, I was born and raised in Kerala, South India, where I grew up listening to and singing the Syriac chants of the Syro-Malabar Church. Later, I familiarized myself with the chant traditions of the other Syrian Churches. While doing fieldwork in Kerala for my master’s thesis2, I noticed how singers of Puthen Pāna, a Christian musical genre, adapted melodic phrases and stylistic aspects of Syriac chants such as the ornamentation of the ultimate or the penultimate syllable of a word. The discussion of the melodies of Puthen Pāna in my thesis includes analysis of a few melodies of the Syriac chants. Thus, my personal experience and knowledge of the Syriac chant traditions give me a vantage point from which to look at the repertories as a researcher.
I shall divide the dissertation in two parts: part I will contain discussions of historical issues and part II, analytical issues.

Part I : Historical issues
In chapter 1, I shall examine the historical processes involved in the introduction of different liturgical and musical traditions at various stages in the history of the Syrian Christians. For this chapter, I shall rely heavily on the published histories of Christianity in India mentioned in the bibliography. I have spent several years studying the history of Christianity and Christian music in India. The first two chapters of my master’s thesis contain short surveys of those histories. The knowledge and experience I gained in the process will help me toward a historical overview of the Syriac liturgies and music in South India.
When it comes to the study of the history of chants themselves, one encounters the problem of the dearth of musical documentation in the past. Therefore, the musical history of the chants has to be constructed primarily from contemporary practice by employing both synchronic and diachronic methods. Through interviews with older informants, and reviewing the available published sources such as Saldanha (1937) and Vadakel (1954), I intend to gather information on the state of music before vernacularization of the liturgies (i.e., before the 1960s). My primary concern, however, is to assess the current practice, including individual and regional variations in the singing of the melodies that exist primarily in oral transmission, the singers’ perception of and judgment on such variations, and the factors behind the survival of certain melodies and gradual disappearance of certain others.
In chapter 2, I shall explore the survival strategies of the Syrian Christians that helped the preservation of the Syriac chant traditions. One of the reasons for the survival of Syriac chants in South India is the distinction the Christians made between their social identity and their musical identity. Early sixteenth-century accounts of the Portuguese missionaries testify that the Christianity they encountered in South India was a highly indigenized one. The Christians shared with their Hindu neighbors many social customs and practices. However, in matters related to liturgical celebrations, they adhered strictly to Syriac language and music. When the Portuguese missionaries attempted to enforce Latin liturgy and chant, the Syrian Christians went so far as to stage a revolt against the Portuguese. The current debate on the reform of the Chaldean liturgy (in Malayalam) in the Syro-Malabar Church once again brings the issue of musical identity to the foreground.
In chapter 3, I shall discuss the impact of Western (Latin) Christian hegemony of the Portuguese missionaries on the Syriac chant traditions. The Portuguese missionaries failed to replace Syriac liturgy with Latin liturgy and chant. However, they succeeded in introducing the Holy Week and paraliturgical services such as Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament, Novena to saints and solemn Vespers in Syriac translations. This gave rise to a new set of Syriac chants that are characterized by a higher melodic range and greater rhythmic regularity in comparison with the chants of the Mass and the Office. A relatively small proportion of these chants was retained in the process of vernacularizing the liturgies. The missionaries also introduced Western musical instruments such as pedal organ, violin, and bass drum. The impact of these and similar innovations is visible even today in the liturgical celebrations, especially in the Syro-Malabar Church.
Exploration of the historical issues mentioned above shall serve as a background for studying the analytical issues in part II.

Part II: Analytical issues
Chapter 4 will be devoted to the discussion of a significant feature of the Syriac music repertory in South India, viz., the preservation of the Oktoechos system in the Syrian Orthodox Church. The echoi are referred to in Malayalam, since at least the eighteenth century, as ettu niram (eight colors) or ettu rāgam. They are numbered serially from 1 to 8, e.g., onnām niram (first color), randām niram (second color), etc. Melodies of the Oktoechoi of the Syrian Churches outside India have received scholarly attention in the past (Jeannin I925-28, Husmann 1969, 1971, and Kuckertz 1969). I intend to illustrate the distinctive characteristics of the ettu niram by analyzing five representative chants in each niram. My inquiry will also include the aesthetic and ethical aspects of niram as understood by its practitioners. Findings of this study will be useful for cross-cultural comparisons.
In chapter 5, I shall make a comparative study of the model melodies used as a compositional device in the Syro-Malabar Church and the Church of the East. A model melody is a complete, fixed tune for creating new hymns by writing verses that will fit the melody. Although, in principle, model melodies are fixed tunes, individual differences do occur in actual performance. I shall attempt to study the range of variations in seventeen model melodies that are currently in vogue in the Syro-Malabar liturgy by analysing performances by different individuals from different dioceses. The Syro-Malabar Church and the Church of the East follow the same Chaldean liturgy. However, the melodic and rhythmic features of model melodies used in both liturgies are quite different. I intend to compare the characteristics of the model melodies of both Churches by analyzing sample melodies from the respective repertories.
Finally, chapter 6 will consist of a discussion of the influence of language in melodic transformation. Translation of Syriac liturgies to the vernacular presents new issues related to language and music. A preliminary analysis of contemporary chants in comparison with their older versions shows changes, especially in the rhythmic aspects of the melodies. There appears to be a tendency, at least in some cases, to adjust the melody to indigenous metric structures. The semantic and syntactic structures of Malayalam seem to influence the choice of ornamentation of the ultimate or the penultimate syllable of a word. I shall pursue these and other similar issues by a comparative study of the Syriac and Malayalam versions of a selected number of model melodies. Heinrich Husmann’s transcription of the Syriac chants of the Chaldean Office for Sundays and ordinary days recorded in Kerala in the early 1960s will be useful in this study.3

Relevance
The richness and the diversity in the Syriac chant traditions in South India demand more scholarly attention than what they received in the past. A history of India’s music may be incomplete without the history of Indian Christian music. A study of the historical processes involved in the retention of a musical tradition outside its original geographical and cultural domain will be valuable to the understanding of the interaction between music and history. The timeliness of this project, too, adds to its relevance. There are people still alive who can sing the older version of the melodies with the original Syriac texts. Those informants are crucial witnesses to a musical tradition that is undergoing rapid transformation.

Research Plan and Methodology
My immediate plan is to acquire a reading knowledge of Syriac language so that I can consult the Syriac sources of chants and liturgical texts available in India. Fr. Eleazer Vadakkumchery has agreed to teach me the language in this summer during my stay in Kerala. My next priority is to study the structure of the Antiochene liturgy of the Syrian Orthodox Church and to record at least five chants in each of the ettu niram, in both Syriac and Malayalam, for an analytical study. Dr. M.P. George, who is currently teaching at the Theological Seminary of the Syrian Orthodox Church at Kottayam, Kerala, has given his consent to help me in this matter.
In the past few years I have interviewed several resource persons from the Syro-Malabar Church and the Church of the East. Audio recordings of these interviews include renditions of chants by the informants. Fr. Abel Periyappuram (b. 1920) is the most important resource person for the liturgical music of the Syro-Malabar Church. It was Fr. Abel who translated the Syriac texts of the chants for Mass, Office, and funeral services of the Chaldean liturgy to the vernacular in the 1960s. He was kind enough to sing for me seventeen model melodies, both in Syriac and Malayalam. In addition to this, I intend to interview sixteen informants, eight men and eight women, between the age of 25 and 40, from a cross-section of the population of the Syro-Malabar Church. Two men and two women each will be chosen from the dioceses of Palai, Kottayam, Ernakulam, and Thrissur. I shall record their versions of the model melodies for transcription and analysis to assess the range of variations within each model melody.
I made an audio recording of the Syriac version of the model melodies, some of which are not currently in use, sung by Fr. Alexander Kattakkayam (b. 1912), a former teacher of Syriac language and an accomplished singer of Syriac chants. I shall further record the Syriac version of the model melodies sung by ten more informants (mostly priests) from the older generation, to assess the differences between the Syriac and Malayalam versions of the melodies.
I interviewed Most Rev. Dr. Mar Aprem, the Metropolitan and the head of the Church of the East (Nestorian) at Thrissur, Kerala. During the recorded interview Mar Aprem, along with Deacon Varghese and Deacon C.D. Paully, sang the melodies of Mass, Office, and funeral services. Additionally, I plan to interview five informants and record their versions of melodies for a comparative study of the model melodies of the Church of the East and the Syro-Malabar Church.
I shall conduct the field work in two stages. I shall spend three months in this summer in Kerala. During this period, I shall locate informants and conduct a few interviews, especially with the older informants. My focus will be on the chant tradition of the Syrian Orthodox Church. After returning to New York, I shall transcribe the melodies and conduct a preliminary analysis. I shall go to Kerala again for six months in March 2000, to do the rest of the fieldwork.

Tentative Outline

Introduction
Part I: Music and History
Chapter 1. Syriac Liturgies and Chant Traditions in South India: A Historical Overview
Chapter 2. Survival Strategies of the Syrian Christians: Social Identity vs. Musical Identity
Chapter 3. Western Christian Hegemony and the Syriac Chants of the Syro-Malabar Church

Part II: Scales, Niram, and Model Melodies
Chapter 4. Ettu niram of the Syrian Orthodox Church
Chapter 5. Model Melodies of the Chaldean Liturgy in the Syro-Malabar Church and the Church of the East: A comparative Study
Chapter 6. From Syriac to Malayalam: Language and Musical Transformation
Conclusion

State of Research
A renewal of interest in the Western Latin Christian chant toward the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century led music scholars to search for the original or older versions of the melodies in the chants of the Eastern Churches. Dom Jean Parisot (1861-1923) was sent on an official “scientific mission” by the French Government in 1896 to study Syriac language and music of the Maronite, Syrian, and Chaldean rites in Turkey and Syria. His reports published in Rapport sur une mission scientifique en Turquie ď Asie (Paris, 1899) and Rapport sur une mission scientifique en Turquie et Syrie (Paris, 1903) include transcriptions of chants from these rites. At about the same time, three French priests –Dom Jules Jeannin, Dom Julien Puyade, and Dom Anselme Chibas-Lassalle– engaged in the study of Syriac liturgical music. They published Mélodies liturgiques syriennes et chaldéennes (Paris, 1925-1928), an extensive collection of Syriac chants sung at the monastery at Charfu in Lebanon along with a discussion on the melodies and their classification according to the system of the Syrian Octoechos. Josef Kuckertz, in “Die Melodietypen der westsyrischen liturgischen Gesänge.” Kirchenmusicalishes Jahrbuch, vol. 53, 1969), analysed the melody types of the West Syrian liturgical hymns to explain the principles of classification of melodies according to the eight “Tones” of the Syrian Oktoechos.
Heinrich Husmann has made valuable contributions to Syriac music scholarship through his transcriptions of a large number of melodies from the repertories of the Jacobite and Chaldean Churches. The work he edited, Die Melodien der jacobitischen Kirche, i: Die Melodien des Wochenbreviers (shīmtā) gesungen von Qurillāos Jaqub Kas Görgös, Metropolit von Damaskus (Vienna, 1969), contains transcriptions of the melodies of the Office of the Jacobite Church. His transcriptions of the melodies of a particular genre, known as qāle (“melodies,” sing. qālā), are published in Die Melodien der jacobitischen Kirche, ii: Die Qāle gaoānāie des Beit gazā ( Vienna, 1971). Both these publications are helpful to understand the system of the Syrian Oktoechos. Husmann’s transcriptions of the melodies of the Chaldean Breviary, as sung in the Near East and in Kerala, are published in Die Melodien des Chaldäischen Breviers Commune nach den Traditionen Vorderasiens und der Malabarküste (Rome, 1967).
A. Saldanha, a Jesuit priest, made the first attempt in India to transcribe the melodies of the solemn sung mass of the Syro-Malabar rite in Western staff notation. His transcriptions appear in the first part of The Syriac-Malayalam Hymnal (Calicut, 1937). Seventeen years later, Fr. Mathew Vadakel edited Kerala kaldāya suriyāni reethile thirukkarmma geethangal (liturgical hymns of the Chaldeo-Syrian rite of Kerala; Alwaye, 1954) which contains an extensive collection of chants (in Western staff notation) for the solemn celebration of the mass and other liturgical and paraliturgical occasions such as the solemn Vespers, Novena to saints, and Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament. As in the previous book, the Syriac texts appear in Malayalam transliteration. In “Ritual and Music in South India: Syrian Christian Liturgical Music in Kerala” (Asian Music, vol. 11, 1979), Israel Ross made an analytical study of a few Syrian Christian chants (it is not clear from which of the three traditions) and found resemblance between Syriac chants and Hebrew cantillation. According to Ross, “Syrian Christian chant in Kerala is sung in two modes: kadmoyo, equivalent to Arabic bayat (Gr. Phrygian; Ecc. Dorian) and hamisoyo, equivalent to Arabic rast (Gr. Lydian; Ecc. Ionian).” (This seems to me to be an overgeneralization).
Husmann’s article, “Syriac Church Music,” in The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians (vol. 18, London, 1980), and Ulrike Nieten’s article, “Syrische Kirchenmusik,” in Die Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart (vol. 9, Kassel, 1998) provide short historical backgrounds of the various Syrian Churches and their respective liturgies. Both authors discuss the musical forms and styles of these liturgies with special emphasis on the modal system, analogous to the Byzantine Oktoechos, that is in use in the Syrian Orthodox Church.

Advice and Consultations

Advisor: Dr. Stephen Blum, Graduate Center (CUNY)
Reader: Dr. Peter L. Manuel, John Jay College (CUNY)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Christianity in India

Bernard of St. Thomas (Fr. Bernard Alenchery).1992. Marthoma christianikal
(St. Thomas Christians). 2nd ed. Ernakulam & Kottayam: C.M.I. Publications Dept. & Pellissery Publications. (First published in two volumes, 1916-1921).

Brown, Leslie. 1982. The Indian Christians of St. Thomas: An Account of the
Ancient Syrian Church of Malabar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Geddes, Michael. 1694. The History of the Church of Malabar, FROM The time
of its being discover’d by the Portuguezes in the Year 1501. Giving an Account of The Persecutions and Violent Methods of the Roman Prelates, to Reduce them to the subjection of the Church of Rome. Together with the SYNOD of DIAMPER, Celebrated in the Year of our Lord 1599. With Some Remarks upon the Faith and Doctrine of the Christians of St. Thomas in the Indies, agreeing with the Church of England, in opposition to that of Rome. Done out of Portugueze into English. London: Printed for Sam. Smith, and Benj. Walford, at the Prince’s Arms in St. Paul’s Church yard.

Gouvea, Antonio de. 1606a. Jornada do Arcebispo de Goa Dom Frey Alexio de
Menezes Primas de India Oriental Religioso da Ordem de S. Agostinho. Coimbra: Diogo Gomez Loureyro.

——-. 1606b. Synodo Diocesano da Igreia e Bispado de Angamale dos antigos
christaôs de Sam Thome das Serras do Malavar das partes da India Oriental. Coimbra: Diogo Gomez Loureyro.

Kollaparambil, Jacob. 1992. The Babylonian Origin of the Southists Among the
St. Thomas Christians. Orientalia Christiana Analecta. No. 241. Rome: Pontificium Institutum Orientalium.

Mathew, C.P., and M.M. Thomas. 1967. The Indian Churches of Saint Thomas.
Delhi: I.S.P.C.K.

Medlycott, Adolphus E., ed. 1905. India and the Apostle Thomas: An Inquiry,
with a Critical Analysis of the “Acta Thomae”. London: David Nutt.

Mundadan, Mathias A. 1970. Sixteenth Century Traditions of St. Thomas
Christians. Bangalore: Dharmaram Publications.

——-. 1984. Indian Christians: Search for Identity and Struggle for Autonomy.
Bangalore: Dharmaram Publications.

——-. 1989. History of Christianity in India. Vol. I. From the Beginning up to
the Middle of the Sixteenth Century (Up to 1542). Bangalore: Church History Association of India. (First published in 1984).

Neill, Stephen C. 1984. A History of Christianity in India: the Beginnings to
A.D. 1707. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Podipara, Placid J. 1979. The Rise and Decline of the Indian Church of the
Thomas Christians. Vadavthoor, Kottayam: Oriental Institute for Religious Studies.

Thekkedath, Joseph. 1988. History of Christianity in India. Vol.II. From the
Middle of the Sixteenth to the End of the Seventeenth Century 1542-1700. Bangalore: Church History Association of India.

Tisserant, Eugene. 1957. Eastern Christianity in India: A History of the Syro-
Malabar Church from the Earliest Time to the Present Day. Bombay: Orient Longmans.

Zacharia, Scaria. ed. 1994a. Udayamperur sunahadosinte kanonakal, A. D.
1599 (The decrees of the Synod of Diamper). Kottayam: Indian Institute of Christian Studies.

——-. ed. 1994b. The Acts and Decrees of the Synod of Diamper, A.D. 1599.
Kottayam: Indian Institute of Christian Studies.

Syriac chants

Bonvin, Ludwig. 1918. “On Syrian Liturgical Chant.” Musical Quarterly.
4 (4): 593-603.

Breviarium juxta Ritum Syrorum Orientalium id est Chaldaeorium. 1938. Part
I: From Advent to Lent. Rome: Sacred Congregation for the Eastern Churches. First published in 1886 by the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of Faith, Rome.

Cody, Aelred. 1982. “The Early History of the Octoechos in Syria.” East of
Byzantium: Syria and Armenia in the Formative Period. Nina Garsoïan, ed. Dumbarton Oaks Symposium 1980. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Center for Byzantine Studies.

Coxe, Arthur C. 1925. The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Vol. 8. New York: Scribner’s
Sons.

Husmann, Heinrich. 1966. “The Practice of Organum in the Liturgical singing
of the Syrian Churches of the Near and Middle East.” Aspects of Medieval and Renaissance Music: A Birthday Offering to Gustave Reese. Jan LaRue, ed. New York: W.W. Norton & Company. 435-439.

——-, ed. 1967. Die Melodien des Chaldäischen Breviers Commune nach den
Traditionen Vorderasiens und der Malabarküste. Orientalia Christiana Analecta, 178. Rome: Pontificium Institutum Orientalium Studiorum. Review by Josef Kuckertz, Die Musikforschung. 23 (1970). 371-3

——-, ed. 1969a. Die Melodien der jacobitischen Kirche, i: Die Melodien des
Wochenbreviers (shīmtā) gesungen von Qurillāos Jaqub Kas Görgös, Metropolit von Damaskus. Sitzungsberichte der Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophische-historische Klasse, 262 (1).Vienna: Hermann Böhlaus Nachfolger. Review by Josef Kuckertz, Die Musikforschung. 23 (1970): 371-3

——-. 1969b. “Die Tonarten der Chaldäschen breviergesänge.” Orientalia
Christiana Periodica. 35: 215-48.

——-, ed. 1971. Die Melodien der jacobitischen Kirche, ii: Die Qāle gaoānāie
des Beit gazā. Sitzungsberichte der Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophische-historische Klasse, 273 (4). Vienna: Hermann Böhlaus Nachfolger.

——-. 1972. “Die ostkirchlichen Liturgien und ihre Kultmusik,” “Die Gesänge
der syrischen Liturgie.” Geschichte der katholischen Kirchenmusik. Vol. 1. K. G. Fellerer, ed. Kassel: Bärenreiter. 57-98.

——-. 1974a. “Eine Konkordanztabelle syrischer kirchentöne und arabischen
Maqamen in einem syrischen Musiknotizbuch.” Symposium Syriacum 1972. Orientalia Christiana Analecta. Rome: Pontificium Institutum Orientalium Studiorum. 197: 371-85.

——-. 1974b. “Ein syrischer Sticherarion mit paläobyzantinischer Notation
(Sinai syr. 261).” Hamburger Jahrbuch für Musikwissenschaft. 1: 9-57.

——-. 1976. “Madraše und Seblata — Repertoireuntersuchungen zu den
Hymnen Ephraems des Syrers.” Acta Musicologica. 48:113-150.

——-. 1980. “Syriac Church Music.” The New Grove Dictionary of Music and
Musicians. Vol. 18. Stanley Sadie, ed. London: Macmillan. 472-81.

Jeannin, Jules. 1925-1928. Mélodies liturgiques syriennes et chaldéennes.
Paris: Maison ďédition Leroux.

Kuckertz, Josef. 1969. “Die Melodietypen der westsyrischen liturgischen
Gesänge.” Kirchenmusicalishes Jahrbuch. 53: 61-98.

Nieten, Ulrike. 1998. “Syrische Kirchenmusik.” Die Musik in Geschichte und
Gegenwart. Vol. 9. Ludwig Finscher, ed. Kassel: Bärenreiter. 185-200.

Parisot, Jean. 1899. Rapport sur une mission scientifique en Turquie ď Asie.
Paris: Imprimerie Nationale.

——-. 1903. Rapport sur une mission scientifique en Turquie et Syrie. Paris:
Imprimerie Nationale.

Thomas, Romeo, C.M.I. 1961. “The Syriac Language and Literature.” Syro-
Chaldaic (Aramaic) Grammar. Gabriel of St. Joseph, T.O.C.D.. 5th edition, revised by Fr. Emmanuel, C.M.I.. Mannanam: St. Joseph’s Press.

Syriac chants – India

Husmann, Heinrich. 1967. “Die Melodien des Commune des malabarischen
breviers.” Die Melodien des Chaldäischen Breviers Commune nach den Traditionen Vorderasiens und der Malabarküste. Heinrich Husmann, ed. Rome: Pontificium Institutum Orientalium Studiorum. Orientalia Christiana Analecta. 178:108-176.

Palackal, Joseph J. 1995. Puthen Pana: A Musical Study. Master’s thesis.
Hunter College of the City University of New York. (DA 1384737).

Ross, Israel J. 1979. “Ritual and Music in South India: Syrian Christian
Liturgical Music in Kerala.” Asian Music. 11 (1): 80-98.

Saldanha, A., S.J., ed. 1937. The Syriac-Malayalam Hymnal (Calicut,
Kerala: Cathedral Church. Music of the Syriac chants of the Syro-Malabar rite (text transliterated in Malayalam script), and Malayalam devotional songs in Western staff notation.

Vadakel, Mathew, Fr., ed. 1954. Kerala kaldaya suriyani reethile
thirukkarmma geethangal (Liturgical hymns of the Chaldeo- Syrian rite of Kerala). Alwaye: S. H. League. Music of the Syriac chants of the Syro-Malabar rite (text transliterated in Malayalam script) in Western staff notation.

Abel, C.M.I. 1968. Kanonanamaskaram (canonical prayers) for the seasons of
Lent and Resurrection [Easter]. Ernakulam: Syro-Malabar Liturgical Committee.

——-. 1986. Marichavarkuvendiyulla thirukkarmmangal (rites for the dead).
Ernakulam: Liturgical Book Center.

Elisva, Kuriakose, ed. 1921. Ksava d’sesmestha dahalap annide (the book of
prayers for the dead). Mannanam: St. Joseph’s Press. Reprint of the 1882 edition.

Kalappura, Andreos, ed. 1948. D’sesmestha d’annide (Office of the dead).
Aluva: Mar Thoma Sleeha Press.

Malankara orthodox suriani christianikalude namaskarakramam & visudha
kurbanakramam (the Order of the Office & the holy mass of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Christians). 1990. Devalokam, Kottayam: Department of Publications of the Malankara Orthodox Church.

George, M.P., Fr. 1993. Suriyani sangeetham (Syriac music). Devalokam,
Kottayam: M.O.C. Publications.

J. Kuckertz, ed.: Musica Indigena: einheimische Musik und ihre mögliche
Verwendung in Liturgie und Verkundigung (Rome, 1976)

Bedjan, Paul, ed. 1892. Acta Martyrum et Sanctorum. Vol.III. Paris, Leipsic: O. Harrassowitz.

RESUMO – Neste estudo, procura-se mostrar, através de um autor cristão do século 10, como
comentários às obras de Aristóteles foram continuamente feitos, desde os gregos até Averróis.
Por meio de alguns textos da Metafísica, é possível perceber que, mesmo sem ter contato direto
com o original grego, foram cotejadas pelo autor diversas traduções, tanto do grego como do
siríaco. Nesses casos, tratava-se, não apenas de tradução, mas também de comentário ao texto de
Aristóteles.

PALAVRAS-CHAVE – Aristóteles. Metafísica.
Filosofia islâmica. Traduções para o árabe. Comentários.

ABSTRACT – In this study, we want to show, through the analysis of a Christian author of the
10th. century, how commentaries on the works of Aristotle were continuously made, from the Greek
commentators until Averroes. Taking as an example some texts of the Metaphysics, we can
see that, even without direct contact with the original Greek version, several translations, both
from the Greek and the Syriac, were compared by the author. In those cases, it was not only a
translation, but also a work of commentary on the text of Aristotle.
KEY WORDS – Aristotle. Metaphysics. Islamic philosophy. Translations into Arabic. Commentaries.

Yahya ibn ‘Adi’s Tafsir al-Alif as-sugra min kutub Aristutalis fi Ma ba‘d attabi
‘a (Commentary on Alpha Elatton from Aristotle’s Books in the Metaphysics),
mentioned by al-Qifti in his Ta’ri¶ al-hukama’ (History of Learned Men) and survived
in many manuscripts, has been edited by ‘A. Badawi and M. Miºkat, together
with Ishaq ibn ßunayn’s translation of Aristotle’s text, which is copied in
the lemmata of Yahya ibn ‘Adi’s commentary.1 Both are crucial in the still open
field of studies on the Graeco-Arabic transmission of Aristotle’s Metaphysics in
the 10th century Bagdad.
* Università di Padova.

1 Yahya ibn ‘Adi’s commentary on Aristotle’s Metaphysics is mentioned in Al-Qifti, Ta’ri¶ alhukama’,
ed. J. Lippert, Leipzig 1903, p. 362.20. The list of the manuscripts of this work has been
given by G. Endress, The Works of Yahya ibn ‘Adi, An analytical inventory, Wiesbaden 1977, pp.
38-39. It has been edited twice by M. Miºkat, Aristatalis-i hakim. Na¶ustin maqala-i Ma ba‘d attabi
‘a mawsum bi maqalat al-Alif as-sugra taræama -i Ishaq ibn ßunayn ba Yahya b. ‘Adi wa tafsir-i
Ibn-i Rushd, Tehran 1346/1967 (for the manuscrips on which this edition is based cf. Endress, The
Works of Yahya ibn ‘Adi, cit., p. 39) and by A. Badawi, Rasa’il falsafiyya lil-Kindi wal-Farabi wa-Ibn
Baææa wa-Ibn ‘Adi, Bangazi 1393/1973 (for the manuscrips on which this edition is based cf. Introduction,
p. 18).

8
First, they give a substantial contribution to the knowledge of the Arabic
translations of Alpha Elatton and of the Metaphysics as a whole, as well as to the
study of its circulation in the Arab-Muslim world. Second, they provide a key in
the analysis of the commentaries produced on the basis of the Arabic translations
of Aristotle’s Metaphysics. This is particulary important from the viewpoint of the
history of Aristotelianism, in so far as it allows us to perceive the continuity2 between
the Greek commentaries – Alexander of Aphrodisias’ commentary on the first five
books,3 Themistius’ paraphrasis of book Lambda,4 Syrianus’ commentary
on books Beta, Gamma, Mi, Ni,5 Ammonius’ lectures on the first seven books of
this treatise transcribed by Asclepius6 – and Averroes’ Great Commentary, the
Tafsir Ma ba‘d at-tabi ‘a.7

I shall devote this paper to the critical use of sources made by Yahya ibn ‘Adi
in his Commentary on Alpha Elatton and I shall focus on the following items:
i.) Yahya ibn ‘Adi had at his disposal a more complete copy of Ishaq ibn
ßunayn’s translation than the one which reached us through Averroes’ Great
Commentary on Metaphysics.
ii.) He did not limit himself to comment on Ishaq ibn ßunayn’s translation,
but also quite systematically compares the quotations of other Syriac and Arabic
translations, in order to get a good text. One of the translations which he mentions,
an ancient Arabic one, in all likelihood can be identified with Usta¢’s version
of Alpha Elatton.
In doing so, he provides us with important information about the translations
which were at the disposal of the Christian and Muslims intellectuals in the melting
pot of the 10th century Bagdad, about his way to deal with the doctrinal and
textual problems and, finally, about the method and style of composition which
caracterized the commentaries produced in his maælis (circle).8

In the 10th century Bagdad, during the decay of the ‘Abbasid caliphate and in
the following Buyid age,9 the translators were still at work: the last Greek-Arabic

2 About this “continuity” see the substantial contribution offered in C. D’Ancona Costa, Commenting
on Aristotle: from Late Antiquity to the Arab Aristotelianism, in Der Kommentar in Antike und Mittelalter.
Beiträge zu seiner Erforschung, hrsg. von W. Geerlings – Ch. Schulze, Leiden Boston Köln
2002, pp. 201-251.
3 It is well known that Alexander’s commentary on the Metaphysics, edited by M. Hayduck in the
CAG I (1891) is genuine as for books Alpha Meizon-Delta, but spurious as for books Epsilon-Ni,
which belong to Michael of Ephesus’work. See C. Luna, Trois études sur la tradition des commentaires
anciens à la, Métaphysique‘ d’Aristote, (Philosophia Antiqua 88), Leiden 2001.
4 Themistii In Aristotelis Metaphysicorum Librum L Paraprasis Hebraice et Latine, edited by S. Landauer,
CAG V 5 (1903).
5 Syriani In Metaphysica Commentaria, edited by G. Kroll, CAG VI 1 (1902).
6 Asclepii In Aristotelis Metaphysicorum Libros A-Z Commentaria, edited by M. Hayduck, CAG VI 2
(1888).
7 Averroès, Tafsir Ma ba‘d at-tabi‘a, Texte arabe inédit, établi par Maurice Bouyges, Bibliotheca
Arabica Scholasticorum, Beyrouth 1938-1948.
8 Cf. C. Martini Bonadeo, Un commento ad Alpha Elatton ‘sicut litterae sonant’ nella Bagdad del X
secolo, «Medioevo», XXIX (2003), pp. 69-96.
9 Cf. G. Endress, An introduction to Islam, Edinburgh 1988, pp. 122-123; about the early Buyid Era cf.
J. L. Kraemer, Humanism in the Renaissance of Islam, The Cultural Revival during the Buyid Age,
9
translations belong to this period. These last followers of the long translation
movement undertook also the revision of some of the already available Arabic
translations of Greek philosophical works. In addition, an increasingly autonomous
and original philosophical discussion was moving its first steps.10 In this context,
we meet Yahya ibn ‘Adi.
Yahya ibn ‘Adi (Abu Zakariyya Yahya ibn ‘Adi ibn ßamid ibn Zakariyya at-
Takriti al-Mantiqi, 893-974) is well known through the works of the ancients Arab
biographers.11 He belonged to a Jacobite Christian family of Takrit, an old metropolis
of the East, situated on the right bank of the Tigris to the north of
Samarra’, between Mausil and Bagdad. Later on he moved to Bagdad aiming at
studying logic, philosophy and theology: from Ibn an-Nadim who was in close
contact with him, and from al-Qifti, we know that in Bagdad Yahya ibn ‘Adi had
as his teacher the Nestorian philosopher Abu Biºr Matta ibn Yunus and then Abu
Nasr al-Farabi became his teacher.12 Yahya ibn ‘Adi himself summarised in a
compendium the whole corpus of al-Farabi’s works.13 Probably he also got in
touch, for a short time, with Muhammad ibn Zakariyya ar-Razi: al-Mas‘udi reports
that Yahya ibn ‘Adi’s thought was rooted in ar-Razi’s metaphysical theory based
on the doctrine of the “Pythagoreans” about first philosophy.14
He seems to have worked as a professional copyist and bookseller, a job he
inherited from his father; in addition, he was a collector of manuscripts. Ibn an-
Nadim himself tells us that he read many books in the handwriting (bi-¶att) of
Yahya Ibn ‘Adi and that he got acquainted with many texts in the catalogue of his
books, written in his own hand.15

Leiden 1986, pp. 31-102. About socio-economic distress and cultural vigor in Bagdad cf. Kraemer,
Humanism in the Renaissance of Islam, cit., p. 26-27.
10 M. Nasir Bin Omar, Christian Translators in Medieval Islamic Baghdad: the Life and Works of Yahya
Ibn ‘Adi, in The Islamic Quarterly, XXXIX 3 (1995), pp. 167-181.
11 Through the works of the ancients bio-bibliographers and the manuscripts like Paris, Bibliothèque
Nationale, ar. 2346 and Leiden, Universiteitsbiblioteek, or. 583, E. Platti in Yahya ibn ‘Adi, théologien
chrétien et philosophe arabe, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 14, Department Orientaliestiek,
Leuven 1983, has reconstructed a vivid portrait of this Christian teacher, apologist and prime-order
philosopher and Endress in The Works of Yahya ibn ‘Adi, cit., wrote a complete and precious inventory
of his works. The bio-bibliographers who mention Yahya Ibn ‘Adi are al-Mas‘udi (at-Tanbih
wa’l-Ishraf, ed. M. J. de Goeje, Leiden 1893, p. 122.10-14), Ibn an-Nadim (Kitab al-fihrist, ed. G.
Flügel, Leipzig 1871-1872, p. 264.5-14), Abu ßayyan at-Tawhidi (al-Muqabasat, éd. M. Tawfiq
ßusayn, Bagdad 1970, 13, p. 103.2-16; 14, pp. 104.2-105.5; 48, pp. 204.9-205.12; 49, pp. 207-208;
89, p. 334.6-335.3; Kitab al-Imta’ wal-mu’anasa, edd. A. Amin and A. az-Zayn, æuz’ 1, p. 37.6-9; 2,
p. 38.13-17), al-Qifti (Ta’ri¶ al-hukama’, ed. J. Lippert, Leipzig 1903, pp. 361.8-364.2), Ibn Abi
Usaibi‘a (‘Uyun al-anba’ fi tabaqat al-atibba’, ed. A. Müller, Cairo – Königsberg 1882, p. 235.9-28),
al-Bayhaqi (Tatimmat ≠iwan al-ßikma, ed. M. ªafi’, Lahore 1935, p. 906-11) See in Endress, The
Works of Yahya ibn ‘Adi, cit., pp.1-9, all the references to the sources.
12 Ibn an-Nadim, Kitab al-Fihrist, ed. G. Flügel, cit., p. 264.5-7; ed. R. Taæaddud, Tehran 1971, p.
475.11-13. Al-Qifti, Ta’ri¶ al-hukama’, cit., p. 361.9-12.
13 Al-Bayhaqi, Tatimmat ≠iwan al-ßikma, ed. M. ªafi’, cit., p. 90.6.
14 Al-Mas‘udi, at-Tanbih wa’l-Ishraf, ed. M. J. de Goeje, cit., p. 122. 10-24; ed. ‘A. I. As-≠awi, Cairo
19382, p. 106.2-5.
15 Cf. Endress, The Works of Yahya ibn ‘Adi, cit., pp. 6-7. In the Fihrist there is the following anecdote:
once at Suq al-Warraqin Ibn an-Nadim criticised Yahya ibn ‘Adi for his copying so much. Yahya
ibn ‘Adi replied that his patience was hardly to be marveled at. He has transcribed two copies

10
He became after Abu Biºr Matta ibn Yunus and Abu Nasr al-Farabi the ra’is
(the chief) and the usta™ (the teacher) of the maælis16 in Bagdad. In this maælis
members of different religious affiliation,17 following the teaching of Abu Biºr
Matta ibn Yunus and Abu Nasr al-Farabi,18 were involved in copying and translating
ancient philosophical and scientific texts as well as in editing them, as we can
see in the mss Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, ar. 234619 and Leiden, Universiteitsbiblioteek,
or. 58320 containing respectively Ibn Suwar’s edition of the Organon
and Ibn as-Samh’s edition of the Physics. They were also involved in philosophical
speculation about the problem of the relationship between philosophy and religious
doctrine.21 They produced the last Greek-Arabic translations like books
Lambda and Mi of the Metaphysics and undertook the revision of some of the
already available Arabic translations of Greek philosophical works and particularly
of Aristotelian works. Ibn Abi Usaibi‘a tells us that Yahya ibn ‘Adi had an excellent
knowledge of the technique of translation and translated from Syriac into
Arabic.22

of the at-tabari’s Tafsir which he has taken to the kings of the frontiers, and he has copied innumerable
works of the mutakallimun, working day at night, writing a hundred pages every day (cf.
Ibn an-Nadim, Fihrist, cit., ed. Flügel, p. 264. 8-10; ed. Taæaddud, p. 322.20-23).
16 Cf. Kraemer, Humanism in the Renaissance of Islam, cit., pp. 6, 55-57, 103-206. One could immagine
this maælis like an informal circle guided by a spirit of friendship in which the partecipants were
motivated by a shared commitment to reason and a mutual interest in the sciences of the Ancients.
“The school consisted of a teacher, his home, books, colleagues, pupils and occasional visitors. The
teacher sometimes met with individuals or small groups […]. On special occasions, large assemblies
were convened for discussions. The teacher often dictated texts, usually adding his own comments.
In discussion sessions a question was initially proposed and then theses and antitheses
stated in turn. The procedure of question and answer is reminiscent ζ0JZμ”J” i” 8ύFg4H of Hellenistic
age”.
17 There were the Christians – ‘ƒsa ibn Zur‘a (d. 1008; cf. Kraemer, Humanism in the Renaissance of
Islam, cit., pp. 117-123), Ibn Suwar (d. 1017; ibidem, pp. 123-130), Ibn as-Samh (d.1027; ibidem, pp.
130-132) – more involved in textual studies, due to their bilingual Syriac-Arabic education, and the
Muslims – Abu Sulayman as-Siæistani (d. 985; ibidem, pp. 139-165), Abu ßayyan at-Tawhidi (d.
1023; ibidem, pp. 213-222).
18 Unfortunately we don’t know what was the exact curriculum of studies and the precise canon of
readings in Yahya ibn ‘Adi’s school. Probably the curriculum was humanistic and included grammar,
poetry, rhetoric, logic, ethics, politics, physics, mathematics and metaphysics: it was based
on the Aristotelian classification of the sciences (cf. Top. VI 6, 145a15-16, Top. VIII 1, 157a10-11,
Metaph. a 1, 993b20-21, Metaph. L 9, 1075a1-2, Metaph. E 1, 1025 b 18-25), but of course it was influenced
by al-Farabi’s one presented in his Ihsa’ al-‘ulum (cf. Al-Farabi, Ihsa’ al-‘ulum, ed. by ‘U.
Amin, Cairo 1968, pp. 9-12) which included Arabic-Islamic sciences like fiqh and kalam.
19 Cf. Endress, The Works of Yahya ibn ‘Adi, cit., p. 32-34.
20 Cf. Endress, The Works of Yahya ibn ‘Adi, cit., p. 35-38 and Kraemer, Humanism in the Renaissance
of Islam, cit., p. 109.
21 The theology-philosophy relationship in the thought of Yahya ibn ‘Adi and in the interests of his
school was object of a debate between G. Graf and A. Périer. In the opinion of Graf, Yahya ibn ‘Adi
conceived of philosophy as the ancilla theologiae; on the contrary, Périer maintains that also in his
theological works Yahya ibn ‘Adi was first a philosopher and only secondarily a defensor fidei in favour
of the Jacobite Church. In fact, following the teaching of al-Farabi, Yahya ibn ‘Adi considered
the theological notions as symbols of philosophical concepts. Cf. A. Périer, Yahya Ibn ‘Adi; un philosophe
arabe chrétien du Xe siècle, Paris 1920, p. 82.
22 Ibn Abi Usaibi‘a, ‘Uyun al-anba’ fi tabaqat al-atibba’, cit., vol. I, p. 235. 12.

11
He is credited with the following translations of Aristotelian and related
works: the Arabic version of Ishaq ibn ßunayn’s Syriac translation of the Topics
together with the Commentary of Alexander of Aphrodisias on books I and V-VIII
and Ammonius’ Commentary on books I-IV,23 the Arabic version of the Sophistici
elenchi from the Syriac translation of Theophylus of Edessa,24 the version of a
Syriac translation of the Physics, book II, together with the Commentary of Alexander
of Aphrodisias,25 the version of Alexander’s Commentary on the Meteorology,
26 and finally the versions of books Lambda and Mi of Aristotle’s Metaphysics.
27 According to Ibn an-Nadim, Yahya ibn ‘Adi translated book Mi of Aristotle’s
treatise on first philosophy and Averroes quotes in his Tafsir the translation of
book Lambda by Yahya ibn ‘Adi (1070a2-7).28

If we give a look in the knowledge of the Aristotelian philosophy in Yahya ibn
‘Adi’s school and in the specific role played by Yahya ibn ‘Adi in promoting it, the
picture we can desume is amazing. Aristotle’s Organon, which incorporated Porphyry’s
Eisagoge, was well known.29 From the Fihrist we learn that Abu Sulayman
as-Siæistani al-Mantiqi had asked Yahya ibn ‘Adi to translate the Categories and
the Commentary of Alexander on them.30 From the Paris manuscript of the Organon
mentioned above, we know that Ibn Suwar used Yahya ibn ‘Adi’s copy of
Ishaq ibn ßunayn’s translation and Yahya ibn ‘Adi himself composed a Commentary
on the Categories, based in part on Simplicius’one, which is cited by Ibn
Suwar in his critical notes.31 Yahya ibn ‘Adi used the Commentary of his teacher
Abu Biºr Matta ibn Yunus on the Prior Analytics, as appears from the notes included
in the Paris manuscript.32 According to a colophon of the Arabic translation
of the Posterior Analytics, Ibn Suwar used for his edition the copies of the
Arabic versions made by Yahya ibn ‘Adi and ‘ƒsa ibn Zur‘a.33 Yahya ibn ‘Adi

23 Ibn an-Nadim, Kitab al-fihrist, cit., ed. Flügel, p. 249.17-21; ed. Taæaddud, pp. 309.27-310.4; al-
Qifti, Ta’ri¶ al-hukama’, cit., pp. 36.18-37.7. Endress, The Works of Yahya ibn ‘Adi. An analytical
inventory, cit, pp. 25-26, 34.
24 Ibn an-Nadim, Kitab al-fihrist, cit., ed. Flügel, p. 249.27; ed. Taæaddud, p. 310.9; al-Qifti, Ta’ri¶ alhukama’,
cit., p. 37.14. Endress, The Works of Yahya ibn ‘Adi. An analytical inventory, cit, pp. 26-
27 e nota 7.
25 Ibn an-Nadim, Kitab al-fihrist, cit., ed. Flügel, p. 250.8-11; ed. Taæaddud, p. 310.19-22; al-Qifti,
Ta’ri¶ al-hukama’, cit., p. 38.10-15. Endress, The Works of Yahya ibn ‘Adi. An analytical inventory,
cit, p. 27.
26 Ibn an-Nadim, Kitab al-fihrist, cit., ed. Flügel, p. 251.9; ed. Taæaddud, p. 309.23; al-Qifti, Ta’ri¶ alhukama’,
cit., p. 41.5. Endress, The Works of Yahya ibn ‘Adi. An analytical inventory, cit, p. 29.
27 Ibn an-Nadim, Kitab al-fihrist, cit., ed. Flügel, p. 251.26; ed. Taæaddud, p. 312.13; al-Qifti, Ta’ri¶ alhukama’,
cit., p. 41.23. Endress, The Works of Yahya ibn ‘Adi. An analytical inventory, cit., pp. 27-
28.
28 Averroès, Tafsir Ma ba‘d at-tabi‘a, cit., p. 1463.3-8.
29 Endress, The Works of Yahya ibn ‘Adi. An analytical inventory, cit., pp. 25-28, 32-34.
30 Ibn an-Nadim, Kitab al-fihrist, cit., ed. Flügel, p. 248. 24-25; ed. Taæaddud, p. 454.9-10; al-Qifti,
Ta’ri¶ al-hukama’, cit., p. 35.10-12.
31 F. E. Peters, Aristoteles Arabus. The Oriental Translations and Commentaries on the Aristotelian
Corpus, Leiden 1968, pp. 8-10.
32 Peters, Aristoteles Arabus, cit., p. 16.
33 Peters, Aristoteles Arabus, cit., p. 18.

12
wrote his own Commentary on the Topics.34 He probably wrote a Commentary on
the Sophistici elenchi.35 And finally he revised the version of Poetics by Abu Biºr
Matta ibn Yunus.36
Yahya ibn ‘Adi revised an earlier translation of the Physics, book I.37 Ibn an-
Nadim in the Fihrist says that Yahya ibn ‘Adi translated or revised the Arabic
translation of Themistius’ Commentary on De Caelo et Mundo.38 He also corrected
the Arabic translation of Olympiodorus’ Commentary on De Generatione et Corruptione
made by Abu Biºr Matta ibn Yunus.39
Finally, al-Qifti notes that Yahya ibn ‘Adi wrote a Commentary on Alpha Elatton40
of Aristotle’s Metaphysics: our Tafsir lil-maqala l-ula min kitab Aristutalis almawsum
bi-Matafusiqa ay fi Ma ba‘d at-tabi‘a wa-hiya l-mawsuma bi-Alif assugra.
41
We get from the accounts of Yahya ibn ‘Adi’s activity given by the biographers
the impression that he was first of all a commentator and a translator of
Aristotle.42 Yahya ibn ‘Adi and his pupils seem to share in the critical attitude of
ßunayn ibn Ishaq’s circle in editing the texts of the ancient Greek philosophers,
although they did not have any direct access to the Greek sources. I shall add
some pieces of evidence to this claim in what follows, through an analysis of the
critical use of sources made by Yahya ibn ‘Adi in his Commentary on Alpha Elatton.

(i)
In order to prove (1) that for his commentary Yahya ibn ‘Adi uses Ishaq ibn
ßunayn’s translation of Alpha Elatton, (2) that Averroes too uses this translation in
his Great Commentary and (3) that the translation which is survived in Yahya ibn
‘Adi’s text is more complete, I’d like to focus on two examples.

34 Ibn an-Nadim, Kitab al-fihrist, cit., ed. Flügel, p. 264.12; ed. Taæaddud, p. 322.24; Al-Qifti, Ta’ri¶ alhukama’,
cit., p. 362.1; Endress, The Works of Yahya ibn ‘Adi, cit., p. 34; Peters, Aristoteles
Arabus., cit., p. 23-24.
35 Endress, The Works of Yahya ibn ‘Adi, cit., p. 34, reports Ibn Suwar’s following note: “The excellent
Yahya ibn ‘Adi worked on a commentary of this book; I saw a large part of it – about two
thirds, according to my estimate – in Syriac and Arabic. I think that he completed it, but the copy
was not found among his books after his death. I have not made up my mind what to think about
this matter; sometimes I suppose that he destroyed the book because he was not satisfied with it;
but I am more inclined to think that it was stolen.”
36 Ibn an-Nadim, Kitab al-fihrist, cit., ed. Flügel, p. 250.4; ed. Taæaddud, p. 310.16; al-Qifti, Ta’ri¶ alhukama’,
cit., p. 38.4. Endress, The Works of Yahya ibn ‘Adi, cit., p. 28.
37 For the accurate work on the Physica in Yahya ibn ‘Adi’s school see Endress, The Works of Yahya
ibn ‘Adi, cit., pp. 35-38, and P. Lettinck, Aristotle’s Physics and its Reception in the Arabic World,
Aristoteles Semitico-Latinus 7, Leiden NewYork Koln 1994, pp. 4-6, 14-31 and Appendix 2 p. 33.
38 Ibn an-Nadim, Kitab al-fihrist, cit., ed. Flügel, p. 250.30; ed. Taæaddud, p. 311.13; al-Qifti, Ta’ri¶ alhukama’,
cit., p. 40.3. Endress, The Works of Yahya ibn ‘Adi, cit., pp. 29-30. This work in not suvived,
but it was available to Averroes.
39 Ibn an-Nadim, Kitab al-fihrist, cit., ed. Flügel, p. 251.5; ed. Taæaddud, p., 311.19; al-Qifti, Ta’ri¶ alhukama’,
cit., p. 40.20; Endress, The Works of Yahya ibn ‘Adi, cit., p. 30.
40 Al-Qifti, Ta’ri¶ al-hukama’, cit., p. 362.20; Endress, The Works of Yahya ibn ‘Adi, cit., p. 38-39.
41 Cf. note 1.
42 Cf. E. Platti, Yahya ibn ‘Adi, théologien chrétien et philosophe arabe, cit., p. 19.

13
See the passage in Metaph. a 993b 23-27:43
@Ûi ËFμg< *¥ JÎ •802¥H –<gL J0)H “ÆJ”H Ê)i”FJ@< *¥ μV84FJ” “ÛJÎ JT)<
–88T< i”2’Ó i” J@4)H –88@4H ßBVDPg4 JÎ FL<f<Lμo< (@Ë@< JÎ BL)D
2gDμ`J”J@< i” (D J@4)H –88@4H JÎ “ËJ4o< J@L)J@ J0)H 2gDμ`J0J@H)
òFJg i” •802XFJ”J@< JÎ J@4)H ßFJXD@4H J@L) •802XF4<.

In this passage Aristotle says that we do not know the truth without its cause
and that a thing has a quality in a highest degree with respect to other things if
the given quality belongs to others thing in virtue of it. Aristotle proposes the
example of fire: it is the hottest thing, for it is the cause of the heat of all other
things which are hot. Consequently, that which causes derivative truths to be true
is the absolute instance of truth. The Greek text of the example of fire (993b 25-26)
seen above is the following:
@Ê)@< JÎ BL)D 2gDμ`J”J@< i” (D J@4)H –88@4H
JÎ “ÇJ4o< J@L)J@ J0)H 2gDμ`J0J@H.

What we find in Averroes’ lemma is only the first part of this sentence, i.e.: «mi¢alu ™alika n-naru fi gayati l-hararati; as the fire is the hottest».44 However, in Yahya ibn ‘Adi’s text the Aristotelian passage appears in his entirely: «wa-mi¢alu ™alika anna n-nara fi gayati l-hararati wa-™alika
annaha hiya l-‘illatu fi hararati sa’iri l-aºya’i l-harrati; as the fire is the hottest and
it is the cause of being hot for the other hot things».45 Another example is given by Metaph. a 994b 27-31:46
•88 μ¬< i” gÆ –Bg4DV (’²)F”< B8Z2g4 J gÇ*0 JT)< “ÆJT<, @Ûi –<
²)< @Û*’@àJT JÎ (4(<fFig4< J`Jg (D gÆ*X<“4 @Æ`μg2” ÓJ”< J “ÇJ4”
(<TDFTμg< JÎ *’–Bg4D@< i”J J¬< BD`F2gF4< @Ûi §FJ4< ¦<
BgBgD”FμX<å *4g>g82g4)<.

In this passage Aristotle is saying that “if the kinds of causes had been infinite
in number, then also knowledge would have been impossible; because we
think to know, only when we have ascertained the causes; but that which is infinite
by addition cannot be gone through in a finite time”. The last sentence
JÎ *’–Bg4D@< i”J J¬< BD`F2gF4< @Ûi §FJ4< ¦< BgBgD”FμX<å *4g>g82g4)<
– is translated in Averroes’ lemma as follows: «wa-la yumkinu l-mutanahi an
yaæuza ma la nihayatu la-hu; it is not possible that what is infinite passes through
the finite ».47 The translation of Aristotle’s passage in Yahya ibn ‘Adi’s text is
identical with the one used by Averroes, as for the first part of the sentence: «wa-
43 Aristotle’s Metaphysics, A revised text with introduction and commentary by D. Ross, Clarendon
Press, Oxford 1924.
44 Averroès, Tafsir Ma ba‘d at-tabi‘a, cit., p.13.1.
45 Yahya ibn ‘Adi, Tafsir al-Alif as-sugra min kutub Aristutalis fi Ma ba‘d at-tabi‘a, cit., ed. Miºkat, p.
24.15-16. In Badawi’s edition, the passage in Aristotle’s lemma is not complete and we can find the
same text we read in Averroes’ lemma, but in Yahya ibn ‘Adi’s commentary the lemma is quoted in
its entirely (ed. Badawi, pp. 177.1, 178.1-2).
46 Aristotle’s Metaphysics, ed. Ross, cit.
47 Averroès, Tafsir Ma ba‘d at-tabi ‘a, cit., p. 41.4.

14
la yumkinu l-mutanahi an yaæuza ma la nihayatu la-hu», but also the words
i”J J¬< BD`F2gF4< are translated in «‘ala tariqi t-tazayyudi; in the way of
addition», at variance with what happens in Averroes.48
The two examples suggest that Yahya ibn ‘Adi made use of a copy of Ishaq’s
translation, which was more complete than the one which Averroes had at his
disposal.

(ii)
In his comments Yahya ibn ‘Adi cites, in quite a systematic comparison with
IsÌaq’s version, other Syriac and Arabic translations. A good example of this careful
attitude is his Commentary on Metaph. a 994a11-19:49
JT)< (D μXFT<, ñ)< ¦FJ J4 §FP”J@< i” BD`JgD@<, •<“(i”4)@< gÆ)<“4
JÎ BD`JgD@< “ÇJ4@< JT)< μgJ’”ÛJ`. gÆ (D gÆBg4)< ºμ”H *X@4 J JT)<
JD4T)< “ÇJ4@<, JÎ BDT)J@< ¦D@L)μg< @Û (D *¬ J` (’§FP”J@<, @Û*g<ÎH
(D JÎ Jg8gLJ”4)@< •88 μ¬< @Û*¥ JÎ μXF@<, ©<ÎH (VD (@Û2¥< *¥
*4″nXDg4 «< ´ B8gT gÆ)<“4, @Û*’–Bg4D” ´ BgBgD”FμX<“). JT)<
*z•BgDT< J@L)J@< JÎ< JD`B@< i” Ó8TH J@L) •BgD@L BV<J” J μ`D4″
μXF” Òμ@TH μXPD4 J@L) <L)< òFJ’gÇBgD μ0*X< ¦FJ4 BDT)J@<, Ó8TH “ÇJ4@<
@Û*X< ¦FJ4<.

In this passage Aristotle says that when we are speaking about a finite series
in which there are intermediates, the prior element in the series must be the cause
of the subsequent elements. For if we have to say which element is the cause, we
should say the first; surely not the last, for the final term is the cause of none; nor
even the intermediate, for it is the cause only of one. (It makes no difference
whether there is one intermediate or more, nor whether they are infinite or finite in
number.) Now, let’s imagine a series which is infinite: in this case, all the elements
preceding the one we are considering at present are intermediates; consequently,
if there is no first element, there is no cause at all.
Yahya ibn ‘Adi has in front of him the literal translation of Ishaq, which grants
a correct understanding of these lines50 and in fact he has a full comprehension of
the problem discussed by Aristotle, as we can see from the beginning of his
Commentary:51

48 Yahya ibn ‘Adi, Tafsir al-Alif as-sugra min kutub Aristutalis fi Ma ba‘d at-tabi‘a, cit., ed. Miºkat, p.
80.6-7; ed. Badawi, p. 196.9.
49 Aristotle’s Metaphysics, ed. Ross, cit.
50 Cf. J. N. Mattock, The early translations from Greek into Arabic: an experiment in comparative
assessment, Akten des Zweiten Symposium Graeco-Arabicum, Amsterdam 1989, pp. 101-102 and
my La tradizione araba dei primi due libri della Metafisica di Aristotele: Libri a -A, in Aristotele e
Alessandro di Afrodisia nella tradizione araba, a cura di C. D’Ancona e G. Serra, Padova 2002, pp.
75-112.
51 Yahya ibn ‘Adi, Tafsir al-Alif as-sugra min kutub Aristutalis fi Ma ba‘d at-tabi‘a, cit., ed. Miºkat, pp.
36.14-5, 38.1-10, 40.2-17; ed. Badawi, pp. 181.1-13, 181.21-23, 182.1-13.

15
His aim in this section is to clarify that the causes precede by nature their effects
and the causes are prior to them, and that the effects are posterior to causes.
For him it will become clear by this fact that if there is nothing which is first and
which has not anything prior to it, there is no cause at all and, in this case, if there
is no cause, there are no effects; but it is clear and evident that the effects exist.
Therefore it is necessary that the causes exist and the first exists necessarily. And
since the first exists, it is clear that the causes exist before, and this is what Aristotle
intended to demonstrate, and for this reason he added this explanation and
said: “About intermediates, which have a last term and a term prior to them, the
prior must be the cause of the later terms”. So it is clear that the intermediates
have a prior and a last term, if they are exactly what is intermediate between two
extremes; and in the same way it is also evident that the prior is, among these
three terms, the cause of the others two which follow. For this reason he says: “It
is absolutely necessary that the prior is the cause of the later terms”. Then he
says: “When we ask which of the three is the cause?”, we answer “The first”…
Then he begins to add evidence to this theory by saying: “Surely the last is
not the cause, for it is the cause of none; nor even the intermediate is cause of the
three terms, for it is the cause only of one of them”. This is evident and he speaks
clearly about it.
Then he says: “It makes no difference whether there is one intermediate or
more, nor whether they are infinite or finite in number, and the parts of the things
which are infinite in this way, and all the infinite parts are intermediates in this
way down to that now present”. It means that there is no difference, in order to
the fact that is absolutely necessary that the prior is cause of the later terms, if the
intermediate, between two extremes, is one, or the intermediates are more, and if
they are finite in number or infinite. And he adds to his passage: “and the parts of
the things which are infinite in this way”, in order to distinguish the intermediates
between two extremes: whether some are only causes, some are only effects, and
some others causes and effects together, or whether they are only intermediates in
a series, like the parts of the time, of speeches or of things like that. And then he
says: “and all the infinite parts are intermediates in this way”: this means that
there is no difference among them, for they are intermediates and his speech
“down to that now present” means up to finish with the last that is only an effect”.
At this point, Yahya says:52

It is necessary to know that in this part of the speech which in Ishaq ibn
ßunayn’s translation begins with “It makes no difference whether there is one
intermediate or more” and finishes with “down to that now present” I have found
in another ancient Arabic translation this quotation: “It makes no difference
52 Yahya ibn ‘Adi, Tafsir al-Alif as-sugra min kutub Aristutalis fî Ma ba‘d at-tabi‘a, cit., ed. Miºkat, p.
42.1-9; ed. Badawi, p. 182.14-22.

16
whether the first cause is one or more, nor whether the causes are finite or infinite
in number, because all the parts of what is infinite are in this way, and all the
parts of what is infinite are now intermediates in the same way”.
Besides I have found that the same quotation in Syriac sounds in this way: “It
makes no difference for one thing to say that the causes are one or more, nor to
say that they are infinite or finite and all the infinite parts and the parts of what is
infinite in this way are intermediates down to that now present”.
So, Yahya ibn ‘Adi makes use of two additional translations: a Syriac version
and an Arabic version. Ishaq’s translation is quite different from the other two
especially as their respective rendering of Metaph. a.994a16:53

(@Û2¥< *¥*4″nXDg4 «< ´ B8gT gÆ)<“4, @Û*’–Bg4D” ´ BgBgD”FμX<“).

In Ishaq’s version this line sounds as follows: «wa-la farqa bayna an yakuna
mutawassitun wahidun wa-bayna an yakuna l-mutawassitatu ak¢ara min wahidin
wa-la bayna an takuna mutanahiyatan wa-bayna an takuna gayr mutanahiyatin; it
makes no difference whether there is one intermediate or more, nor whether they
are infinite or finite in number ».54 In the other Arabic translation we find the following
translation: «wa-la ¶ilafa fi an yakuna l-‘illatu l-ula wahidatan aw ka¢iratan
wa-la fi an takuna ™a nihayatin aw la nihayata la-ha; it makes no difference
whether the first cause is one or more, nor whether the causes are finite or infinite
in number».55 This translation is probably Usta¢’s one.56 This conclusion is suggested
by the comparison between the text given by Yahya and Usta¢’s version,
which is preserved in the margins of the Leiden manuscript Universiteitsbibliotheek,
or. 2074 (cod. arab. 1692): «wa-la ¶ilafa fi an yakuna l-‘illatu l-ula wahidatan
aw ka¢iratan wa-la fi an takuna ™at nihayatin aw la nihayata la-ha».57
In his commentary Yahya ibn ‘Adi proves to be an experienced reader of Aristotle
and makes sense of these two different translations explaining the concept of
cause. It does not matter if the first cause is one or if there are more, provided that
we do not understand the word “cause” in the meaning of the first cause in the
four genders described by Aristotle. In fact, such a cause is prior and it is cause of
everything between it and the last term. Such a cause cannot be intermediate,
because nothing comes before it. But the word “cause” can be understood in the
sense of an intermediate cause. Yahya ibn ‘Adi observes that the word “intermediate”
has two different meanings: the first when we mean the intermediates in a
series – like the parts of time or of a speech –, the second when we mean the
intermediates which are between the first cause and the last effect. In this second

53 Aristotle’s Metaphysics, ed. Ross, cit.
54 Yahya ibn ‘Adi, Tafsir al-Alif as-sugra min kutub Aristutalis fi Ma ba‘d at-tabi‘a, cit., ed. Miºkat, p.
36.7-9, ed. Badawi, p. 180.17-19. Cf. Averroès, Tafsir Ma ba‘d at-tabi‘a, cit., p. 19.1-3.
55 Yahya ibn ‘Adi, Tafsir al-Alif as-sugra min kutub Aristutalis fi Ma ba‘d at-tabi‘a, cit., ed. Miºkat, p.
42.3-4, ed. Badawi, p. 182. 16-18.
56 Cf. C. Martini, La tradizione araba dei primi due libri della Metafisica di Aristotele: Libri a -A, cit., p.
103.
57 Averroès, Tafsir Ma ba‘d at-tabi‘a, cit., v (marginal version), p. 19.2-3.

17
meaning as much as the intermediate is close to the first cause, it is cause of the
cause that comes after it. Later on Yahya ibn ‘Adi concludes.58
Then Aristotle says: “Necessarily if there is no first there is no cause at all”,
because the condition of the cause is to be prior to his effects, and if there is no
first there is no cause at all.59

With this explanation, Yahya ibn ‘Adi has recourse to another passage of Aristotle’s
text strictly related with the one mentioned above, in which Aristotle
explains the double meaning of “one thing comes from another”. See Metaph. a
994a22-24:60
*4PT)H (D ((<gJ”4 J`*g ¦i J@L)*g – μ¬61 ñH J`*g 8X(gJ”4 μgJ J`*g,
@Ê)@< ¦> ’IF2μT< ’O8bμB4″, •88’´ ñH ¦i B”4*ÎH •<¬D μgJ”$V88@<J@H
´ ñH ¦> à*”J@H •ZD.

Aristotle says that the first meaning of “one thing comes from another” is in
the sense in which “from” means “after”, as in the case of the calendar of the
Greek games. The second meaning implies that something comes into being (with
– in the case of water – or without – in the case of man – the destruction of the
pre-existent thing). Yahya ibn ‘Adi has in front of him Ishaq’s version, which presents
a gap in this passage, and does not give any example for the sense of
“from” as a chronological succession.62
In his Commentary, he says:63

58 Yahya ibn ‘Adi, Tafsir al-Alif as-sugra min kutub Aristutalis fi Ma ba‘d at-tabi‘a, cit., ed. Miºkat, p.
44.1-3, ed. Badawi, p. 183.8-10.
59 The discussion about the Aristotelian doctrine of causes was a pivotal theme among the falasifa
and in Yahya ibn ‘Adi’s school. For example, at-Tawhidi in the 13th record of his Muqabasat records
a discussion between Yahya ibn ‘Adi and al-Badihi on the following argument: «al-‘illa qabl
al-ma‘lul» (cf. at-Tawhidi, Al-Muqabasat, cit., 13, p. 103; cf E. Platti, Yahya ibn ‘Adi, théologien
chrétien et philosophe arabe, cit., p. 12).
60 Aristotle’s Metaphysics, ed. Ross, cit.
61 In Ab (Laurentianus 87.12 saec. XII) we find ³. In E1 (Parisinus gr. 1853 saec. X) we find littera erasa.
In mss. E2 (Parisinus gr. 1853), J (Vindobonensis phil. gr. C saec. X ineuntis) and in Alp (Alexandri interpretatio
vel paraphrasis) we find μ¬. M¬ is the text accepted by Ross (Aristotle’s Metaphysics,
ed. Ross, cit.), whereas Jaeger (Aristotelis Metaphysica, recognovit brevique adnotatione critica instruxit
W. Jaeger, Oxonii MCMLVII) follows the reading ³.
62 Yahya ibn ‘Adi, Tafsir al-Alif as-sugra min kutub Aristutalis fi Ma ba‘d at-tabi‘a, cit., ed. Miºkat, p.
44.14-16 and note 4, ed. Badawi, p. 184.1-3. In Ishaq’s version survived in Averroès’ Tafsir Ma ba‘d
at-tabi‘a there is not any gap and we find: «ma yuqalu ad-dababu min al-bu¶ari». Perhaps this is a
correction produced in the text by the copist; cf. Averroès, Tafsir Ma ba‘d at-tabi‘a, cit., p. 23.3; cf.
R. Walzer, On the Arabic Versions of books A, a and L of Aristotle’s Metaphysics, «Harvard Studies
in Classical Philology», 63 (1958), pp. 217-231, (also in R. Walzer, Greek into Arabic Essays on Islamic
Philosophy, Oxford 1963, pp. 114-128); cf. J. N. Mattock, The early translations from Greek
into Arabic: an experiment in comparative assessment, cit., pp. 100-101; cf. C. Martini, La tradizione
araba dei primi due libri della Metafisica di Aristotele: Libri a -A, cit., pp. 104-107.
63 Yahya ibn ‘Adi, Tafsir al-Alif as-sugra min kutub Aristutalis fi Ma ba‘d at-tabi‘a, cit., ed. Miºkat, p.
48.15-17; ed. Badawi, p. 185. 6-9.

18
It is necessary to know that I have found, in a different Arabic translation from
Ishaq’s one, an integration: “like for example it is said that fog comes after the
steam”, whereas in a Syriac translation I have found, instead of this example,
these precise words: “like the see is from the mountain”. Ishaq’s passage is incomplete
and it needs an example.

It is worth noting that Yahya ibn ‘Adi is properly editing his text. He finds an
integration of a different Arabic translation, probably Usta¢’s version, in which the
first example of the calendar of Greek games is rendered through a different image,
namely, the couple fog-steam, which seems to imply a causal relation:
«mi¢alu ma yuqalu ad-dababu ba‘da l-bu¶ari».64 But he has also a Syriac text,
which gives a less clear example: the see from the mountain.
Yahya ibn ‘Adi explains this textual situation assuming that these two images
are perfectly equivalent, because they are related to a process of condensation and
aggregation after – in the chronological meaning adopted, for istance, by Empedocles
and Anaxagoras – the rarefaction and the disgregation. He says:65
These two examples which I have mentioned, also if they are different, coincide
for the reason that between the two parts of everyone of them there is a contrariety
that is the condensation and the congregation after the rarefaction and the
disgregation.

Let’s proceed to the last example I would like to give of Yahya ibn ‘Adi’s attitude
to compare different translations. In his Commentary the last line of Metaph.

a. 995a19-2066 – i” gÆ μ4″H ¦B4FJZμ0H ´ B8g4`<T< J “ÇJ4″ i” JH •DPH
2gTD0)F” ¦FJ4< –
appears in Ishaq’s literal translation as follow: «wa-hal
yanbagi an nanzura fi ‘ilalin wa-awa’ila li-‘ilmin wahidin aw li-‘ulumin ak¢ara min
wahidin».67 In this line Aristotle is wondering whether the study of causes and
principles belongs to only one science or to more.
Yahya ibn ‘Adi says:68

It is necessary to know that this last part can be found only in Ishaq ibn
ßunayn’s translation. I have not found it in any Syriac translation, or in any other
Arabic different translation from Ishaq’s one; and here it is not appropriate.

64 Yahya ibn ‘Adi, Tafsir al-Alif as-sugra min kutub Aristutalis fi Ma ba‘d at-tabi‘a, cit., ed. Miºkat, p.
48.15-16; ed. Badawi, p. 185.7. Cf. Usta¢’s translation in Averroès, Tafsir Ma ba‘d at-tabi‘a, cit., v
(marginal version), p. 23.2: «mi¢la ma yuqalu ad-dababa min al-bu¶ari».
65 Yahya ibn ‘Adi, Tafsir al-Alif as-sugra min kutub Aristutalis fi Ma ba‘d at-tabi‘a, cit., ed. Miºkat, p.
50.1-3; ed. Badawi, p. 185.9-11.
66 Aristotle’s Metaphysics, ed. Ross, cit.
67 Yahya ibn ‘Adi, Tafsir al-Alif as-sugra min kutub Aristutalis fi Ma ba‘d at-tabi‘a, cit., ed. Miºkat, p.
98.15-16; ed. Badawi, p. 202.6-7. Cf. Averroès, Tafsir Ma ba‘d at-tabi‘a, cit., pp. 49.11-50.1.
68 Yahya ibn ‘Adi, Tafsir al-Alif as-sugra min kutub Aristutalis fi Ma ba‘d at-tabi‘a, cit., ed. Miºkat, p.
100.2-4; ed. Badawi, p. 202.9-11.

19
In this case Yahya ibn ‘Adi has at his disposal this passage only in Ishaq’s
version, because it is not preserved in any other Syriac or Arabic version. Could
this mean that he had more than one Syriac and more than one Arabic translation?
Note that in this case he is wrong in thinking that Ishaq’s version is not
correct.

Conclusions
We are now in a position to draw some conclusions, both about the critical
use of sources made by Yahya ibn ‘Adi and about the method and style of composition
which characterized the commentaries produced in his school, as well as
Yahya ibn ‘Adi’s way to deal with the doctrinal and textual problems.
Through Yahya ibn ‘Adi’s commentary on Alpha Elatton, we get a text of
Ishaq ibn ßunayn’s translation which appears to be more complete then the one
reflected in Averroes’ Great Commentary on the Metaphysics.
Yahya ibn ‘Adi in more than one case compares the quotations of other Syriac
and Arabic translations in order to get a good text.
Commenting on Metaph. a 994a11-19 he uses two additional translations: a
Syriac version and an Arabic one which can be identified with Usta¢’s version of
Alpha Elatton. The three translations present some differences and Yahya ibn ‘Adi
makes an effort to make sense of this textual situation.
In the case of Metaph a 94a22-24, Yahya ibn ‘Adi makes an effort to establish
a good text by comparing Ishaq’s version, which presents a gap, with two different
translations. He uses an Arabic translation, which is probably Usta¢’s one, and
also a Syriac source.
Finally, in his Commentary of Metaph a 995a19-20 we are told that he has at
his disposal this passage only in Ishaq’s version and that he has not found other
Syriac or Arabic versions. This could mean that he has more than one Syriac and
more than one Arabic translation.
Yahya ibn ‘Adi’ approach in editing and commenting Alpha Elatton seems to
be very careful indeed. He and his pupils continued, as Platti said,69 the critical
attitude of the circle of ßunayn ibn Ishaq in editing the texts of the ancient Greek
philosophers, although they did not have any direct access to the Greek sources.
A more complete analysis of this Commentary, both in form and philosophical
contents, proves to be important in order to evaluate both the continuity and the
differences in the trasmission of Aristotle’s thought and particularly of Aristotle’s
doctrine of causes.
From this viewpoint, Alpha Elatton counts as a preferred observatory: reconstructing
its history is possible, almost without a break from Alexander to
Averroes and even later, through the Greek commentaries,70 the VIII-IXth century

69 Platti, Yahya ibn ‘Adi, théologien chrétien et philosophe arabe, cit., p. 27.
70 Cf. notes 2 and 5.

translation of Alpha Elatton made by Usta¢ for al-Kindi,71 the IX-Xth century one
made by Ishaq ibn ßunayn,72 this commentary by Yahya ibn ‘Adi,73 the paraphrase
of Metaph. a 2 by Avicenna (Ilahiyyat, VIII, 1-3),74 the Averroes’ Great
Commentary75 and finally the XIIIth century paraphrase by ‘Abd al-Latif al-
Bagdadi.76 Through a comparative analysis of the stylistic corrispondances and of
the argomentations of theese texts, it should be possible to reconstruct this important
segment in the history of Aristotelianism. This does not involve only a source
hunting, within the framework of a passive reception of Aristotle’though among
Arabs. On the contrary, such a research involves the attitude with which the Arabs
faced the study of Aristotle, the focal meanings and the most original developments
around which they commented Aristotle’s text and, finally, the linguistic
and doctrinal adaptations which characterized the Arabic tradition of Aristotle’s
doctrine of causes.

71 Usta¢’s translation is in Averroès, Tafsir Ma ba‘d at-tabi‘a, cit.
72 Ishaq ibn ßunayn’s translation is edited in Averroès, Tafsir Ma ba‘d at-tabi‘a, cit., and in Yahya ibn
‘Adi, Tafsir al-Alif as-sugra min kutub Aristutalis fi Ma ba‘d at-tabi‘a, cit., in the two editions by
Badawi and by Miºkat.
73 Cf. note 1.
74 Ibn Sina, Al-Shifa. Al-Ilahiyyat (1), texte établi et édité par G.C. Anawati et S. Zayed, Le Caire 1960;
Ibn Sina, Al-ªifa. Al-Ilahiyyat (2), texte établi et édité par M. Y. Moussa, S. Dunya et S. Zayed, Le
Caire 1960.
75 Averroès, Tafsir Ma ba‘d at-tabi‘a, cit.
76 A. Neuwirth, Neue Materialien zur Arabischen Tradition der beiden ersten Metaphysik Bücher
“welt des Islam,” 18, 1-2 (1977-78), pp. 84-100.

20