The Mission of the Portuguese Augustinians to Persia and Beyond (1602-1747) 9789004243828, 9004243828

Citation preview

The Mission of the Portuguese Augustinians to Persia and beyond (1602–1747)

Studies in Christian Mission General Editor

Heleen L. Murre-van den Berg, Leiden University Editorial Board Peggy Brock, Edith Cowan University James Grayson, University of Sheffield David Maxwell, Keele University Mark R. Spindler, Leiden University

Volume 43

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/scm

The Mission of the Portuguese Augustinians to Persia and beyond (1602–1747) By

John M. Flannery

Leiden • boston 2013

Cover illustration: The Martyrdom of Queen Ketevan of Georgia. Detail from the extensive series of tiled panels dating from the first quarter of the 18th century which cover the walls of the chapter-house of the Convento da Graça in Lisbon and depict significant events relating to Portuguese members of the Augustinian Order as described by the Order’s chroniclers.  Photograph by Dr. João Teles e Cunha. Reproduced with kind permission from the patriarchate of Lisbon. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Flannery, John M.  The mission of the Portuguese Augustinians to Persia and beyond (1602–1747) / by John M. Flannery.   pages cm. — (Studies in Christian mission, ISSN 0924-9389 ; Volume 43)  Includes bibliographical references and index.  ISBN 978-90-04-24382-8 (hardback : alk. paper) — ISBN 978-90-04-24770-3 (e-book)  1. Augustinians—Missions—Iran—History. 2. Augustinians—Missions—History. 3. Missions to Muslims. 4. Augustinians—Portugal—History. I. Title.  BX2939.I7F53 2013  266’.255—dc23

2012048690

This publication has been typeset in the multilingual “Brill” typeface. With over 5,100 characters covering Latin, IPA, Greek, and Cyrillic, this typeface is especially suitable for use in the ­humanities. For more information, please see www.brill.com/brill-typeface. ISSN 0924-9389 ISBN 978-90-04-24382-8 (hardback) ISBN 978-90-04-24770-3 (e-book) Copyright 2013 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Global Oriental, Hotei Publishing, IDC Publishers and Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. This book is printed on acid-free paper.

CONTENTS Abbreviations ..................................................................................................... Acknowledgments ............................................................................................

ix xi

1  Introduction ................................................................................................

1

2  The Historical Context for the Augustinian Mission to Safavid Persia .............................................................................................. . The Portuguese Padroado .................................................................. . The Roman Congregation de Propaganda Fide ........................... . The Origins and Development of Shi‘a Islam .............................. . The Founding of the Safavid State .................................................. . Shah ‘Abbas I Safavi ............................................................................. . Christian Minorities in Safavid Persia, Their Status and  Treatment .......................................................................................... . Relations Between Safavid Persia and Georgia ........................... . The ‘Prester John Syndrome’: Christian Europe’s Enduring  Search for an Ally Against Islam ................................................. . Relations Between Portugal and Persia ......................................... 3 Origins of the Augustinian Order, its Portuguese Province, and the Congregation of the East Indies ............................................ Origins of the Augustinian Hermits ................................................ Our Father Saint Augustine: The Creation of the  Augustinian Myth ............................................................................ The Portuguese Augustinian Province: Origins, Decline,  Reform ................................................................................................. To Hormuz, Goa and Beyond: The Augustinian  Congregation of the East Indies .................................................. The Embassies of Simão de Moraes and Nicolau de Melo  to Persia .............................................................................................. The Embassy of 1602 and the Foundation of the Augustinian  Mission in Isfahan ........................................................................... Liberty to Captives: Ransom of Christian Prisoners at the  Heart of a Shi‘a Muslim State ......................................................

9 9 13 15 19 22 24 27 28 31 39 39 40 42 44 47 53 68

vi

contents

4. Aspects of Augustinian Presence in Isfahan ..................................... . The First Augustinian Convent and Church in Isfahan ........... . A New Augustinian Convent and Church in Isfahan ................ . The Augustinian Foundation in Isfahan in Contemporary  Travel Accounts.................................................................................. . Relations with the Propaganda ........................................................ . A Scarcity of Texts for Evangelisation ............................................ . Life and Apostolic Endeavours at the Convent of  Isfahan ................................................................................................. . Relations with the Syrian Church ...................................................

73 73 76 78 81 82 84 86

5 A Decline in Zeal: Apostasy and Polemic ......................................... 91  Indications of Decline ......................................................................... 91 . Where wine and women bring about the apostasy of  the wise (Sir. 19:20) .......................................................................... 94 . The ‘Doctor of the Alcoran’ and his Treatises Against .  Christianity ........................................................................................ 98 . A Chain of Christian-Muslim Polemic: From Jerome  Xavier to António De Jesus – and Beyond? ............................ 102 . The End of the Augustinian Presence in Persia ......................... 107 6 Augustinian Contacts with Armenian Christianity ........................ . Go, you swift messengers, to a nation tall and smooth . . .  (Is. 18:2) ............................................................................................... . Christianity in Armenia ...................................................................... . An Augustinian Encounter with the Armenian Clergy of .  Julfa ...................................................................................................... . A Visit from the Fratre Unitores ....................................................... . Holy Etchmiadzin ................................................................................. . ‘Abbas’ Deportation of the Armenians in 1604 ........................... . A Letter of Obedience to Pope Paul V, Signed by the .  Armenians of New Julfa ................................................................. . Hopes of Union Founder .................................................................... . The Missionaries Flee Isfahan ..........................................................

111

7 The Catholic Missions to the ‘St John Christians’ ........................... . The Mandaeans ..................................................................................... . The First Augustinian Mission to the Mandaeans ..................... .Initial Establishment of the Dual Mission at Basra ................... . The Carmelite Mission Under Basílio de São Francisco ..........

149 149 154 159 162

111 112 117 118 121 123 131 135 143



contents . . . .

Early Augustinian Missionary Activity and Involvement in  the First Mandaean Migration ................................................... 170 The Augustinian Mission from 1633 Onwards ........................... 174 The Carmelite Mission Under Ignazio di Gesú  (1641–1652) ........................................................................................ 176

 8 The Dispute Over Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in Basra .................. .Initial Claim and Counterclaim ...................................................... . Good Sense Prevails – for a Time .................................................. . The Augustinians Take the Offensive: The Question of the  Jurisdiction of Goa .........................................................................

vii

9 The Martyrdom of Queen Ketevan and the Augustinian Mission to Georgia .................................................................................. . Georgian Christianity and Roman Catholic Missionary .  Presence ............................................................................................ . The Relação Verdadeira, an Augustinian Eyewitness .  Account of the Martyrdom of Queen Ketevan ..................... . Twin Goals: A Georgian Mission and the Canonisation of .  Ketevan .............................................................................................. . The Journey to Georgia and Establishment in Gori ................. . Hopes of Ketevan’s Canonisation by Rome Come to .  Naught ............................................................................................... . The Augustinian Mission at Gori ................................................... . The Final Period ..................................................................................

10 Some Reflections ...................................................................................... . ‘Abbas and the Consolidation of the Safavid State .................. . Religion and Politics ........................................................................... .No Salvation Outside the Church? ................................................ . Questions of Ecclesiology ................................................................. . A Nascent Safavid Millet System .................................................... . The Augustinian Mission in Isfahan: Towards a Tentative  .  Verdict ............................................................................................... . Possible Topics for Further Research ............................................

185 185 188 190 197 197 202 212 215 218 225 235 239 239 241 242 245 248 250 251

Bibliography ....................................................................................................... 255 Index ..................................................................................................................... 277

Abbreviations Arch. Gen. OCD Arch. Gen. OSA ADB AGS AHP ANTT APF ARSI ASV BNL BPE CHI CNCDP DHGE DSp

Archivio Generale dell’Ordine dei Carmelitani Scalzi Archivio Generale dell’Ordine di S. Agostino Arquivo Distrital de Braga Archivo General de Simancas Archivum Historiae Pontificiae Arquivo Nacional da Torre do Tombo Archivum Sacrae Congregationis de Propaganda Fide Archivum Romanum Societatis Iesu Archivum Secretum Vaticanum Biblioteca Nacional de Lisboa Biblioteca Pública de Evora Cambridge History of Iran Comissão Nacional para as Comemorações dos Des­ cobrimentos Portugueses Dictionnaire d’histoire et de géographie ecclésiastiques Dictionnaire de Spiritualité

Acknowledgments Thanks must go in first place to my doctoral supervisor, Anthony O’Mahony, Director of the Centre for Eastern Christianity, Heythrop College, University of London, for suggesting a topic which from the beginning caught my interest and enabled me to deploy such skills and knowledge as I possess in the fields of mission history, theology, and Portuguese language, history and culture. His continuing encouragement and support have been no less valuable than his encyclopaedic breadth of knowledge. It would not have been possible to undertake this study without the formation I received in previous years from the dedicated staff of Heythrop College, University of London, and also from Maria Fernanda Allen FIL, whose enthusiasm for Portugal is so ably communicated to those she teaches. My initial foray into mission history was an MA dissertation on the first Jesuit mission to Tibet, largely based on the research of Hugues Didier of the University of Lyon, Jean Moulin III, and I am grateful for his encouragement in tackling this new topic, and for keeping me abreast of his own continuing research into the history of the Iberian missions. Carlos Alonso, whose own research is so central to this study, was good enough to provide me with copies of some of his later publications. I am also indebted to the members of Heythrop College’s doctoral review panels, whose insightful comments are reflected in its pages. Considerable assistance has also been accorded by the unfailingly courteous library staff of the collections I have consulted, and I would like to express thanks in particular to Raphael Zernoff, who arranged access for me to the Augustinian library in London. Leonard Harrow of the publishers Melisende has kindly imposed consistency in the rendering of Persian and Arabic terms, and from his own research offered a number of valuable insights into the topic of Christian-Muslim polemic in Persia. In Portugal, Adel Sidarus of Evora University was instrumental in enabling me to visit the chapter-house of the Augustinian Convento da Graça in Lisbon, a visit accompanied by João Teles e Cunha of the Universidade Católica, who has since patiently provided prompt and detailed responses to my numerous requests for information and clarification about aspects of the Portuguese presence in the Persian Gulf and India.

chapter one

Introduction While great advances have recently been made in Safavid studies, the topic of Christianity in seventeenth century Persia remains an under-researched field, with much documentary evidence still awaiting assessment in a systematic historical or theological way. To that extent, this thesis may be seen as a pioneering although necessarily selective endeavour, seeking to shed light on some of its important and distinctive features. It will consider aspects of the relations between Catholic states of Europe, the Holy See, and the Shi‘a Islamic state of Persia, especially in the years of its consolidation as a Shi‘a state under the Safavid Shah ‘Abbas I,1 by focussing on the missions of the Augustinian Order within Persia, and aspects of the missions to Basra and Georgia which arose from them. The Augustinians are generally under-researched in comparison with other Orders, and these particular missions have received little attention in English language scholarship. This context also sheds light on aspects of the practice of ransom/redemption of Christians in the heart of Safavid Persia, representing an internalisation of more usual Christian-Muslim interaction ‘at the frontier’. A contribution is also made to knowledge of the relationship between the Europe of the Catholic Reformation and the Eastern Churches, in the particular contexts of Persia and Georgia, something also underresearched by scholars of modern Church history. In addition, aspects of the ecclesiological relationship between the Roman Catholic Church and the Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox Churches, particularly in the area of ecclesiastical jurisdiction and primacy, are examined through the presence and activities of the Augustinians in early seventeenth century Persia. An additional layer of complexity is illustrated, particularly

1 Persian and Arabic proper names and terms are rendered using a much simplified form of that recommended by The International Journal of Middle East Studies, which itself derives from The Encyclopaedia of Islam. No long vowels are indicated and short vowels shown as a, i and u. Diphthongs are shown as au and ai. The Arabic velarised consonants are not differentiated. ‘Ain is differentiated from hamza thus: ‘ and ’. The feminine relative noun ending is shown as -iyya. Place names with general currency in English are left in their familiar forms. I am grateful to Leonard Harrow for imposing a degree of consistency on my text.

2

chapter one

in the case of the Basra mission, by questions of jurisdiction between the Congregation for the Propaganda of the Faith, given responsibility for oversight of the Church’s worldwide missionary activity, and the contemporary articulation of the prerogatives of royal patronage exercised in the overseas dominions of Portugal. As an extremely interesting counterpart to this excursus into ecclesiology and Church jurisdiction in relation to the Shi‘a state, it would appear that, unlike the Ottoman empire, the Safavid state in this period had a relatively ‘undeveloped’ juridical approach to the status of its minorities, especially its religious minorities, and it is possible that, in the context of religious and political rivalry between the Sunni rulers of the Ottoman empire and the Safavid Shi‘a state of Persia, we can recognise an attempt to formulate within Persia a parallel to the developing millet system operated by the Sublime Porte. It seems, however, that this never developed to the same degree, and that the minority religious communities, especially the Christians, are given a religious space based on monarchical preference.2 If so, the relations between the Holy See, the European Catholic states, and the Safavid monarch can be seen in this light as an attempt to gain space either by the conversion of the monarch, or by getting him to support a significant measure of freedom and independence for a fully fledged expression of Christianity embedded in seventeenth century Persia, an approach, which, as a model for interreligious diplomacy, might be considered as in advance of its time. Circumstances led to the development within Safavid Persia of a confident and characteristically Shi‘a anti-Christian polemic, initially stimulated by the Persian texts of the Jesuit Jerome Xavier at the Mogul court, and bolstered by the literary compositions of a renegade Augustinian prior in Isfahan at the end of the seventeenth century. It will be suggested that this strand of polemic has continued to influence the transmission of Shi‘a understandings of Christianity down to the present day. This study is intended then to be a historical recovery of aspects of the Portuguese Augustinian missions to Persia and the neighbouring regions of Georgia and Basra in the seventeenth century. Although reference will be made to significant later events, our time frame falls principally within the period 1580–1640, the ‘Golden Age’ of the Augustinian Order in Portugal, 2 As they would be during the reign of Shah Muhammad Reza Pahlavi (1941–1979). See Anthony O’Mahony, ‘Christianity, Shi‘a Islam and Muslim-Christian encounter in Iran’ in ibid. (ed.), Christian Responses to Islam: Muslim-Christian relations in the modern world (Manchester, 2008), 175–188, 180–181.



introduction

3

during which Portugal was under the rule of the Spanish Hapsburgs,3 while for most of the period Persia was ruled by ‘Abbas I (1587–1629). Sources describing the activities of the Augustinians in Persia include a dense if scholarly two-volume account of the Carmelite missions to Persia,4 where they succeeded the Augustinians by only a few years, and had parallel missions not only in Isfahan, but also in Georgia and Basra. This study, which reproduces a large amount of documentary material, although reflecting a somewhat anti-Portuguese bias,5 together with the English translation of an early seventeenth century manuscript chronicle by the Portuguese Augustinian Felix de Jesus,6 remain the principal sources in English on the subject. This latter account of the beginnings of the Indian mission is largely followed by the Augustinian António de Gouveia, who himself accompanied the embassy to Persia which first founded an Augustinian convent in Isfahan, in his Relaçam,7 and in three

3 Much of the historiography of this period reflects an anachronistic romantic nationalism. The complex reality of Portuguese-Spanish relations, in the period between the Union and Spanish recognition of the restoration of the Portuguese monarchy, is addressed in Fernando Bouza Álvarez, Portugal no tempo dos Filipes: Política, cultura, representações (Lisbon, 2000). 4 A Chronicle of the Carmelites in Persia and the Papal Missions of the XVIIth and XVIIIth centuries 2 vols., (London, 1939), 282–4. Hereinafter Carmelites. Often given as ‘Anon’, the editor and translator of the work is Herbert Chick, whose biography now fittingly appears in the introduction by Rudi Matthee to the new edition (London, I. B. Tauris, 2012). 5 The author blames the failure of the Catholic missions to Persia on the Augustinians, ‘not there as missionaries of their Order but as diplomatists to push the interests of the Portuguese authorities’ (I, 96). 6 Felix de Jesus OSA, Primeira parte da chrónica e relação do principio que teve a Congregação da Ordem de Santo Augustinho nas Indias Orientais . . . (BPE, Manuscritos, Codex CXV/1–8, another copy ANTT, Ms Livraria, ‘Memórias da Ordem’, no. 731) published as Arnulf Hartmann OSA, ‘The Augustinians in Golden Goa: According to a Manuscript by Felix de Jesus, OSA’, Analecta Augustiniana 30 (1967), 5–174. A native of Lisbon, Felix de Jesus was sent to Goa as a chronicler of the Order in 1605, remaining there until his death in 1640. See António da Silva Rego, Documentação para a História das Missões do Padroado Português do Oriente: India, (hereinafter Documentação) 12 vols. (Lisbon, 1947–1958), XI, 267, and Biblioteca Lusitana histórica, crítica e cronológica 4 vols., Diôgo Barbosa Machado, (ed.), (Lisbon, 1741–1759; revised critical edition: Coimbra, 1965), II, 5. 7 António de Gouveia, Relaçam em que se tratam as guerras e grandes victórias que alcançou o grande rey de Persia Xa ‘Abbas do grão Turco Mehemetto & seu filho Amethe as quaes resultarão das Embaxada que por mandado da Catholica Real Majestade de Rey D. Felippe II de Portugal fizerão alguns Religiosos da Ordem dos Ermitas de Santo Agostinho à Persia (Lisbon, 1611), hereinafter Relaçam.

4

chapter one

other chronicles from the seventeenth,8 eighteenth,9 and nineteenth10 centuries, published in Silva Rego’s multi-volume Documentação para a História das Missões do Padroado Português do Oriente: India. The last of these in particular is an invaluable and detailed source of data on the Augustinian missions to Goa and those dependent on it. Further detailed information on the activities of the missionaries, absent or greatly abbreviated in this material, is provided in the florilegia of archival material relating to the Augustinian mission to Persia published by the contemporary Spanish Augustinian historian Carlos Alonso. This material, from the archives of the Augustinian Order and the Propaganda in Rome, and from archives in Spain and Portugal is generally presented with a only a brief introduction, given in the original languages, and without further critical apparatus and provides an invaluable resource for any study of the subject, and my substantial debt to Alonso will be apparent throughout. The Portuguese academic, Roberto Gulbenkian, has written a number of important papers11 on the contacts of the Portuguese Augustinians with the Armenians, on the martyrdom of Queen Ketevan of Georgia, and on contacts between the Portuguese and the Mandaeans, while the relevant chapters in the doctoral thesis of the Augustinian scholar Teófilo Aparicio Lopez,12 and in the volume on the history of the Christian Church in Iran by Annibale Bugnini13 both provide a useful synthesis on the Augustinians in Persia, although the former is somewhat marred by poor editing, and the latter restricted by considerations of space.14 Significant recent publications include a bibliographical study which provides an invaluable reference source on contacts between the Hispano-Portuguese Empire,

  8 António de Moraes Memorial das missões . . . a esta Congregação da India . . . . (BNL, Fundo Geral, Codex 59, fols. 3–58, with another copy ibid. Codex 745, fols. 1–70), in Documentação 12, 99–233.   9 Manuel da Purificação OSA, Memorias da Congregação Augustiniana na India Oriental (BNL, Fundo Geral, No. 177, fols. 262–289, with another copy at fols. 290–321), in Documentação 12, 3–98. The author can in fact only be Francisco da Purificação, see Carlos Alonso OSA, ‘El P. Simón de Moraes, pionero de las misiones agustinianas en Persia’, Analecta Augustiniana 62 (1979), 343–372, 346; Teofilo Aparicio Lopez, La Orden de San Agustin en la India (1572–1622) (Valladolid, 1977), 14. 10 Manuel de Ave Maria OSA, Manual Eremítico da Congregação da India Oriental dos Eremitas de N. P. S. Agostinho . . . (Biblioteca da Universidade de Coimbra, Codex 1650) in Documentação 11, 3–833.  11  Collected as Estudos Históricos 3 vols. (Lisbon, 1995). 12 López, La Orden. 13 Annibale Bugnini, La Chiesa in Iran (Rome, 1981), see 117–136. 14 Translations throughout are those of the author. I am grateful to Tamsin Geach for her assistance with translations from Latin.



introduction

5

Safavid Persia, Hormuz, and Oman,15 and an important and wide-ranging collection of papers on Iran in the Safavid period.16 There is clearly a danger that a dependence on accounts written by the missionaries themselves will result in an unbalanced and one-sided view of events. Certainly it can be said that they devoted disproportionate attention to their own affairs and those of local Christians. By contrast, the Persian chronicles virtually ignore their activities, presumably seeing them as of little merit or significance in the wider Safavid context.17 In this vein Matthee notes for example that despite the frequency of the various missions of the Sherley brothers to the Safavid court and the importance accorded them by Western accounts, no Persian chronicle so much as mentions their name. He sees this reticence regarding Western envoys, in contrast to their Muslim counterparts, as underpinned by a Persian Weltanschauung which assumed a cultural superiority over the Christian West. Of greater importance to the Safavid historians was lending support to the Safavid project through a rewriting of Safavid history designed to legitimate the claims of the dynasty.18 A degree of caution must also be exercised in reading the missionary accounts sent to their religious superiors in Goa, Portugal and Rome, to the Propaganda, and to the Spanish court. Their writers are far from impartial and generally seek to present their actions and those of other members of their Order, in the best possible light, habitually exaggerating the ‘fruit’ to be expected from their missions.19 This is particularly the case for material for publication, intended to stimulate interest in and support for the missions of the Order, ever in needs of funds and personnel,

15 Willem Floor and Farhad Hakimzadeh (eds.), The Hispano-Portuguese Empire and its Contacts with Safavid Persia, the Kingdom of Hormuz and Yarubid Oman from 1498–1720, Acta Iranica 45, (Leuven, 2007). 16 Willem Floor and Edmund Herzig (eds.), Iran and the World in the Safavid Age (London, 2012). 17 Rudi Matthee, ‘Between Aloofness and Fascination: Safavid Views of the West’, Iranian Studies 31/2 (1998), 219–246, 226–227; ‘Christians in Safavid Iran: Hospitality and Harassment’, Studies on Persianate Societies 3:1 (2005), 3–43. 18 On this issue see Sholeh Alysia Quinn, Historical Writing during the Reign of Shah ‘Abbas (Salt Lake City, 2000). 19 According to Urbano Cerri, Secretary to the Propaganda, in his report on the state of the missions to Innocent XI in 1678 (Relazione di Mons. Urbano Cerri all santitá di N.S. PP. Innocenzo XI dello stato di Propaganda Fide (APF, Miscellanea varia, XI), published in English translation as An account of the state of the Roman-Catholik religion throughout the world . . ., London, 1715). ‘It seems to be the constant opinion of all the members of the Congregation, that little credit should be given to the relations, letters and solicitations that come from the missionaries.’ (182).

6

chapter one

and there is a need for proper scrutiny for bias on the part of the author. However, as Matthee notes, despite carrying with them remnants of historical and cultural prejudice, the accounts of Western travellers to Safavid Persia, of whom the missionaries were a significant proportion, provide ‘remarkable and sometimes unique’ information about the country, its inhabitants, their beliefs and practices.20 This introductory chapter will be followed by one intended to set our narrative in the historical and religious context of Safavid Persia in the time of ‘Abbas I. Themes addressed include the venerable Portuguese Padroado Real, the system of royal patronage which gave the Portuguese monarchs both privileges and responsibility for missionary activity within their realms, the later establishment of the Roman Congregation De Propaganda Fide for missions, the origins of Shi‘a Islam, and the creation of the Safavid state in Persia. Also touched on are the status and treatment of Christians in Safavid Persia, relations between Persia and neighbouring Georgia, and between Portugal and Persia. Chapter three continues this process of orientation by first considering the origins of the Order of Augustinian Hermits, the creation of their ‘foundational myth’, and the establishment and history of the Order in Portugal. It then describes the first steps of the Order’s mission to the East, the initial contacts of the Augustinians with Persia, the religio-political embassy of 1602 which led to their establishment in Isfahan, and their dealings with the court of Shah ‘Abbas I. It concludes with a section on Augustinian involvement in the ransom or rescue of Christian prisoners. The following chapter provides information on aspects of the Augustinian presence, activities and religious life in Isfahan, relations with the Propaganda, a lack of printed texts for evangelisation, and their relations with the Syrian Orthodox Christians of the city. Chapter five provides evidence of a decline in the original missionary zeal of the mission’s early years, culminating in the apostasy of two priors of the Isfahan convent to Islam and the anti-Christian polemical texts written by the second of them. It will suggest that these form links in a chain of Muslim-Christian polemic and response beginning with a Persian text of the Jesuit Jerome Xavier at the Mogul court at the beginning of the seventeenth century and developing into a specifically Shi‘a anti-Christian polemic which still inform Christian-Shi‘a relations to this day. The chap-

20 Rudi Matthee, ‘The Safavids under Western Eyes: Seventeenth-Century European Travelers to Iran’,  Journal of Early Modern History 13 (2009), 137–191, especially 151–156.



introduction

7

ter ends with a description of the last days of the Augustinian mission in Isfahan. Subsequent chapters are devoted to Augustinian relations with three particular groups, Armenians, Mandaeans and Georgians. Chapter six describes their charitable and religious activities among the members of the Armenian Church deported to Persia by ‘Abbas in 1604–5. Initially promising attempts to reconcile the Armenians with Rome would collapse, and the perceived interference of the Augustinians in their affairs would lead to the temporary abandonment of both Augustinian and Carmelite missions in the Persian capital. Chapter seven is devoted to Augustinian contacts with the Mandaeans or ‘St John Christians’ and the subsequent establishment in Basra by both Augustinians and Carmelites of rival missions to this group. A number of ill-advised attempts to arrange the transportation of the Mandaeans en masse to Christian territory are described, while the long-running jurisdictional conflict between the two groups of missionaries representing the Padroado and the Propaganda which came to characterise the Basra missions is the subject of the subsequent chapter. The presence of members of the Order at the death of Queen Ketevan of Georgia in 1624 on the orders of ‘Abbas, a circumstance which enabled the long-desired establishment of an Augustinian mission in Georgia, forms the subject-matter of chapter nine, and sheds some light on relations between the Catholic missionaries, Rome, and the Georgian Church. By way of an Afterword, the concluding chapter will focus on a number of themes implicit in the narrative account in previous chapters and offer an overall assessment of the Augustinian mission to Persia and its offshoots. Possible lines of further research are suggested in the epilogue.

CHAPTER TWO

The Historical Context for the Augustinian Mission to Safavid Persia The Portuguese Padroado The Augustinian mission to India and, certainly from a Portuguese perspective, its extensions to Persia, Basra and Georgia, operated within the structure of Portuguese royal patronage, the Padroado Real.1 The ‘right of patronage’ had its origins in the Church’s recognition of those who provided financial assistance through the building of churches or pious foundations. Silva Rego suggests that the juridical base for patronage dates to the pontificate of Nicholas II (1058–1061).2 Historical circumstances would result in a unique concentration of ecclesiastical patronage in the hands of the Portuguese monarchs, based on privileges accorded them by the papacy. This ‘Padroado’ would survive the monarchy itself, finally becoming extinct only in the last year of the twentieth century with the reversion of the Portuguese colony of Macau to Chinese rule. Its roots can be found in Portuguese overseas expansion, beginning when Pope Martin V (1417–1431) granted special faculties to the priests sailing 1 On the Padroado, see the work by an erstwhile missionary of the Padroado in Macau and scholar of note: António da Silva Rego, O Padroado Português no Oriente: esboço histórico (Lisbon, 1940), French translation as Jean Haupt (tr.), Le patronage portugais de l’orient: aperçu historique (Lisbon, 1957); Les Missions Portugaises (aperçu général) (Lisbon, 1958); Roland Jacques, De Castro Marim à Faifo: Naissance et développement du Padroado portugais d’Orient des origines à 1659 (Lisbon, 1999); António Leite SJ, ‘Teriam os Reis de Portugal verdadeira jurisdição ecclesiástica?’, Didaskalia 15/2 (1985), 357–367; ‘Enquadramento legal da actividade missionária portuguesa’, Brotéria 133/1 (1991), 36–52. Papal documents relating to the Padroado are given in Levy Maria Jordão and João Augusto da Graça Barreto, Bullarium Patronatus Portugalliae (hereinafter BPP), 6 vols. (Lisbon, 1868–1879), and examined in detail in Charles-Martial de Witte OSB, ‘Les bulles pontificales et l’expansion portugaise au XVe siècle’, Revue d’Histoire Ecclesiastique 48 (1953), 683–718; 49 (1954), 438–461; 51 (1954), 413–453, 808–836; 53 (1958), 5–46, 443–471; and idem, ‘Les lettres papales concernant l’expansion portugaise au XVIe siècle’, Nouvelle Revue de Science Missionnaire (Neue Zeitschrift fur Missionenswissenschaft) 40 (1984), 1–15, 93–125, 93–125, 194–205; 41 (1985), 41–68, 118–137, 173–187, 271–287. See also Francisco Mateos, ‘Bulas portuguesas e españolas sobre descubrimientos geográficos’ in Actas do Congresso Internacional de História dos Descobrimentos, vol. III, 327–414. 2 António da Silva Rego, O Padroado Português no Oriente e a sua Historiographia (1838–1950) (Lisbon, 1978), 15.

10

chapter two

with the armada which set out to conquer Ceuta, leading to the creation of the new diocese of Ceuta, followed by those of Tangier and Safi. Basing his right on the medieval notion of papal sovereignty, both temporal and spiritual, Eugene IV issued the Bull Romanus Pontifex (1436),3 granting Dom Duarte of Portugal the right to conquer those Canary Isles which were not under the control of a Christian ruler. The Bull is important in setting out the main motive for such new conquests: ‘By these present letters, we concede to you these lands to conquer, after their being submitted to your dominion, and converted to the faith’ (emphasis added). If no action was taken regarding the Canary Isles, the case of the islands of Madeira and of the Azores, discovered in 1419–1420 and 1427–1432 respectively, had been different. These uninhabited islands had been populated by Portuguese from the peninsula, and a primary concern had been the construction of a suitable place of worship.4 With the exploration of the African coast beyond Cape Não (Chaunar), also masterminded by Henry ‘the Navigator’, a number of forts and trading posts were established on the coast of Africa, and the islands of Cabo Verde and of São Tomé and Principe, discovered in 1460 and 1471 respectively, also received Portuguese colonists from Europe. These small centres of population fell outside the dioceses of continental Portugal and, being unable to support an ecclesiastical hierarchy, probably received pastoral care on the basis of concessions and faculties granted to chaplains of the fleet.5 As Portuguese expansion continued, however, a better solution was required, and a number of papal bulls would establish a juridical framework for Portuguese missionary activity. While against the background of the Ottoman seizure of Salonika in 1430, and their siege of Constantinople which would lead to its fall in 1453, in the brief Dum diversas6 Pope Nicolas V in 1453 granted Afonso V of Portugal the right to ‘invade, conquer, take by force and bring about the submission of Saracens and pagans, as well as other infidels and enemies of Christ, whoever and wherever they may be . . .’, the Bull Romanus Pontifex7 of 1455 granted to Afonso and his successors the right to ‘found and

3 See António J. Dias Dinis (ed.), Monumenta Henricina (hereinafter MH), 15 vols. (Coimbra, 1960–1974), V, 281. 4 See Charles-Martial de Witte, ‘Documents anciens des archives du Chapitre d’Angra’, Lusitania Sacra 9 (1970–1971), 129–253. 5 So António Leite SJ, ‘Enquadramento’, 39. 6 BPP 1, 22–23. 7 BPP 1, 31–34.



the historical context for the augustinian mission

11

establish and build all the churches, monasteries and other holy places in the provinces, islands and other places already acquired by him, or those to be acquired, and to send all willing ecclesiastical persons, secular or regular, of all Orders, including even the mendicants,8 always under licence of their superiors.’ The anomaly of a layman conferring pastoral offices was addressed in the Bull of 1456, Inter caetera,9 conferring spiritual jurisdiction of the new lands on the Order of Christ. This Order combined lay nobles and conventual clerics, the former under the jurisdiction of their Grand Master and the latter that of a Grand Prior.10 It had been established by John XXII, at the request of Dinis of Portugal, by the Bull Ad ea ex quibus of 1319,11 in order to prevent the dissolution or expatriation of the extensive property of the Templars in Portugal, following the suppression of that Order in 1313. A number of Templars entered the new Order, established first at Castro Marim in the Algarve, and soon transferred to the old Templar convent of Tomar, renamed the Convento do Christo. The new Order’s considerable wealth could be employed to finance the voyages of discovery and the consequent propagation of the faith, and it was for this reason that João I (1385–1433) requested that the pope appoint his third son, the Infante Dom Henrique (‘Henry the Navigator’), as general administrator of the Order. The Bull In apostolicae dignitatis specula of 142012 conferred on the Infante ‘the charge, the general and free governance and plenary administration of the Order’. Three years later he was granted the title of Grand Master. The text of Inter caetera granted in perpetuity to the Order of Christ ‘spiritual power and every kind of ordinary jurisdiction, both in those islands already acquired as detailed below, and in other isles acquired in the future by the said King and Infante, or by their successors, in the regions of the said Saracens . . .’. While the Order had been charged in a general way with the expansion of Christianity in Muslim and pagan lands in 1420, this granting of spiritual jurisdiction gave it a quasi-episcopal role.13 Jurisdiction over newly discovered lands was effectively conceded to the

8 Thus including the Augustinians. 9 BPP 1, 36–37. 10 On the Order and its Rule, see Charles-Marital de Witte, ‘Une Tempête sur le Couvent de Tomar (1558–1580), Arquivos do centro cultural português 25 (1988), 307–423.  11  MH I, 97. 12 MH II, 367–368. 13 Jacques, De Castro Marim, 48.

12

chapter two

Grand Master of the Order, the Infante Dom Henrique, with the strictly ecclesiastical functions falling to the Grand Prior, all without prejudice to the ecclesiastical jurisdiction already granted to the kings of Portugal. The jurisdiction of the vicar of Tomar continued until the establishment of the diocese of Funchal (Madeira) by Pope Leo X in 1514,14 transferring the powers of the vicar of Tomar to the bishop of Funchal, whose territories extended to all those lands discovered or to be discovered by the Portuguese. During this period the privileges and concessions already granted to the rulers of Portugal by the papacy were confirmed and amplified by Leo X, while in 1536 his successor Paul III suppressed the missionary jurisdiction of the bishop of Funchal, restoring it to the Grand Prior of Tomar. Fifteen years later, by the Bull Praeclara Charissimi,15 Pope Julius III decreed that the role of Grand Master of the military Orders of Christ, Santiago, and Avis,16 would henceforth be formally incorporated into the Portuguese crown. The ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the vicar or Grand Prior of Tomar over Portugal’s overseas territories was suppressed, and transferred to the king and the bishops of the newly created overseas dioceses. As Administrator or Grand Master of the Order of Christ, the Portuguese monarchs exercised jurisdiction over it ‘tam in spiritualibus quam in temporalibus’ (in both spiritual and temporal matters), acting as true ecclesiastical superiors or prelates with respect to their overseas possessions. The privileges conceded brought with them substantial liabilities; the provision of an ecclesiastical infrastructure and, not insignificantly, of sufficient missionary personnel and their financial support. Beginning with Ceuta in 1420, no less than fifty-two dioceses would have their origins in Lisbon. The diocese of Goa was established in 1534 as a suffragan see of Funchal, becoming a metropolitanate in 1557, and responsible for the region from the Cape of Good Hope to China. Suffragan sees of the Goan archdiocese 14 See Charles-Martial de Witte ‘Funchal’ in DHGE, 19 (1981), 395–410; id., ‘Les Bulles d’erection de la province ecclesiastique de Funchal’, Arquivo Histórico da Madeira 12 (1962), 279–136. 15 BPP I, 180. 16 On the Portuguese military Orders see Francis A Dutra Military Orders in the Early Modern Portuguese World, the Orders of Christ, Santiago and Avis (Aldershot, 2006); Paula Pinto Costa ‘The Military Orders Established in Portugal in the Middle Ages: A Historiographical Overview’, e-Journal of Portuguese History 2/1 (2004), 1–16; Maria Fernanda de Olival, ‘An Elite? The Meaning of Knighthood in the Portuguese Military Orders of the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries’, Mediterranean Studies 15 (2006), 117–126.



the historical context for the augustinian mission

13

were subsequently erected at Cochin and Malacca (1557), Macau (1576), Funai (1588), and Angamale (1600, transferred to Craganore in 1605). In 1606 a sixth suffragan see was established at Meliapur, the prelacy of Mozambique was added in 1612, and in 1690 sees were established at Peking and Nanking.17 As the capital of the Estado da India and therefore also the administrative centre for the Portuguese Padroado in the East, Goa would play a central role in the dissemination of Christianity in the region.18 From here the missionary endeavours of the major Orders were initiated and directed, with no less than twenty-six missions established from Goa during the period of 1515 to 1695.19 While the institution and operation of the Padroado were not without critics, it was undoubtedly responsible for bringing Christianity to a considerable part of humanity, and played a major part in the globalisation of Christianity in the Modern period. The Roman Congregation de Propaganda Fide If the roots of the Padroado lie in Portuguese overseas expansion, it can be argued that the institution of the Propaganda is a product of the movement for Curial reform originating in the Council of Trent (1545–1563). While in fact the decrees of Trent make no direct mention of mission, something which might be posed as an objection to any notion that the early-modern Church was focussed on mission, Clossey counters this by arguing that mission was in fact central to the decrees precisely because each of them deals with the salvation of souls, the aim of all mission, and describes ‘the hiving off of mission as a separate ecclesiastical category’

17 See Silva Rego, O Padroado Português no Oriente: esboço histórico, 15–23; O Padroado Português no Oriente e a sua Historiographia, 17–18. 18 On the vital importance of Goa to the Estado da India, see Vitor Luis Gaspar Rodrigues, ‘O Municipio de Goa, peça fundamental para a afirmação e sobrevivência do ‘Estado da India’, in O reino, as ilhas e o mar oceano. Estudos em homenahem a Artur Teodoro de Matos, (Lisbon, 2007), 669–685; João Teles e Cunha, ‘Goa: a construção, ascenção e declínio de um empório português na Ásia, ca. 1510–1750’ in João Marinho dos Santos and José Manuel Azevedo da Silva (eds.), Goa, Portugal e o Oriente: História e Memória (Coimbra, 2011), 81–144. 19 For the ecclesiastical expansion supported by the Padroado, see Manuel Fereira da Silva, ‘A cultura ao serviço da Missão’ in Congresso Internacional de História Missionação Portuguesa e Encontro de Culturas: actas (Lisbon, 1993), 3 vols., vol. 2, 135–160, see 154.

14

chapter two

as the error of many modern historians.20 While this reform, as ever in matters relating to reform of the Curia, proceeded slowly and unevenly due to entrenched interests, the spirit of reform finally prevailed in Rome. Four of the seven remaining popes of the seventeenth century had participated in the Council (Gregory XIII, 1572–1585, and the three successive popes between 1590 and 1591, Urban VII, Gregory XIV, and Innocent IX. The reorganisation of the government of the Catholic Church had begun under Paul III (1534–1549), and effectively brought about a radical centralisation through the establishment of ‘congregations’ responsible for guiding papal policy in their various competencies. To the dismay of some within the Church, concerns that Trent would reduce papal authority and power were not realised, and in fact the subsequent period of centralisation would serve only to increase the power of the papacy. Referring to Trent in his decidedly partial early seventeenth century history of the Council, the Servite canonist from Vienna, Paolo Sarpi, would refer to ‘the court of Rome’, which, ‘feared and avoided this Council as the most likely instrument to modify the excessive and limitless powers it had acquired over the years, so hardened its grip on the party that remained faithful to it that its authority has never been so powerful and so secure’.21 The Congregatio de Propaganda Fide22 was formally established in Rome by Pope Gregory XV in 1622 by the Bull Inscrutabili Divinae, although a cardinatial Commission de propaganda fide had been established as early the pontificate of Gregory XIII,23 This initial Commission consisted of three cardinals, charged especially with promoting union between Rome and the Eastern Churches. The rapid succession of four popes in seven years following the death of Gregory XIII arrested the progress of the Commission, but its importance was recognised by the forceful and energetic Clement VIII (1592–1605). After his election its first meetings were held in his presence, and its decisions and recommendations continued to be forwarded to him on a regular basis.24 It would, however, fall to 20 See Luke Clossey, Salvation and Globalization in the Early Jesuit Missions (Cambridge, 2008), 248. 21 Cited in R. Po-Chia Hsia, The world of Catholic renewal 1540–1770 (Cambridge, 2005), 30. 22 Since 1988, the Congregation for the Evangelisation of Peoples. On the Congregation’s history, Josef Metzler OMI, Sacrae Congregationis de Propaganda Fide memoria rerum: 350 years in the service of the missions 3 vols. in 5 (Rome, 1971–1976). 23 Described in A. Castellucci ‘Il risveglio dell’attiva missionaria e le prime origine della S. C. “de Propaganda Fide” nella seconda metà del XVI secolo’ in Le Conferenze del Laterano. Marzo-Aprile 1923 (Rome, 1924), 117–254. 24 The Union of Brest, which established the partial union of the Ruthenian Church with Rome in 1596 dates from this period.



the historical context for the augustinian mission

15

Gregory XV (1621–1623) to establish a permanent Congregation for the propagation of the Catholic faith and on 6th January 1622 thirteen cardinals and two prelates were appointed members of the new Congregation. The Congregation was tasked with the propagation of the faith throughout the world, and with the specific duty of coordinating and issuing guidelines for all those engaged in missionary activity, promoting the formation of local clergy and hierarchy, encouraging the foundation of new missionary institutes and providing material aid to missionaries. The short reign of Gregory XV (February 1621–July 1623) prevented the completion of the organisation of the Propaganda, but this was taken up by his successor, Urban VIII (1623–1644) who had been one of the original members of the Congregation.25 Even the reforming Council of Trent (1545–1563) had not presumed to interfere with the ancient system of royal patronage, and the foundational documents of the Propaganda Fide (Inscrutabili Divinae and Romanum decet of June 1622, Cum inter multiplices, December 1622, Cum nuper, June 1623, and Immortalis Dei of August 1627) all ignored the existing provisions devolving responsibility ‘in perpetuity’ to the monarchs of Portugal for missionary activity in their overseas territories, under the Padroado.26 This failure to recognise ‘the elephant in the room’ would lead to friction on those occasions when the Propaganda sought to intervene in these territories.27 However, the Congregation saw no contradiction in invoking the Padroado when asked to provide financial aid by missionaries in the same regions. The Origins and Development of Shi‘a Islam The origins of the Shi‘a, now some ten to fifteen percent of Muslims worldwide, date to the early years of Islam, following the death of Muhammad, its Prophet. Shi‘a Islam itself has also produced a number of offshoots

25 The Prefects and Secretaries of the Congregation are listed in Nicola Kowalsky, Serie dei Cardinali Prefetti e dei Segretari della Sacra Congregazione ‘de Propaganda Fide’ (Rome, 1962). 26 Even the Council of Trent (1545–1563), the great engine of Catholic reform, had not presumed to interfere with the ancient system of royal patronage. 27 See Jean-Pierre Duteil ‘Rome et l’expansion missionnaire catholique hors d’Europe: du contrôle autoritaire et centralisé à la régulation concertée’ Revue d’Histoire Ecclésiastique 95/3 (2000), 445–467.

16

chapter two

over the centuries, but we are concerned here only with the Imamiyya,28 numerically the largest sub-group, at least since the sixteenth century.29 When Muhammad died without an heir in 632, Sunni orthodoxy argues that he did not name a successor or determine the process to be followed for choosing a new leader of the fledgling community. After a short power struggle, the father-in-law of the Prophet, Abu Bakr, was chosen, succeeded shortly after by ‘Umar b. al-Khattab and then by ‘Uthman b. ‘Affan, both sons-in-law of Muhammad. By contrast, the Shi‘a believe that Muhammad appointed by divine decree his cousin and son-in law ‘Ali b. Abi Talib as his successor, and that the rule of the first three caliphs usurped the rights of Ali and his followers. Ali did in fact rule briefly as caliph (656–661),30 after ‘Uthman, but was assassinated after five years of internal strife, with power going to the house of Umayya (661–750). Ali’s elder son, Hasan, was forced to step down, and when his younger son, Husain ibn Ali, sought to take power some twenty years after Hasan’s abdication, he and many members of his family were massacred by Umayyad forces at Karbala in 680. Shi‘a belief is that Husain deliberately accepted death to express his love of God and to defend the true religion. Active participation of believers in grief for Husain and his family is an obligation in Shi‘a Islam, and the death of Husain is the focal point for the notion of martyrdom which so strongly characterises it. The ‘Ashura (‘tenth’) is celebrated by Shi‘a Muslims on the tenth day of Muharram in the Islamic calendar by acts of remembrance of the martyrdom of Husain. His defeat saw the effective end of active opposition on the part of the Shi‘a, and this withdrawal from the political arena enabled the development of the religious aspects of their message.31 Central to these was the importance of adherence to an Imam who is a descendant of ‘Ali and his wife Fatima. As a consequence of the divinely appointed role and identity of the Imams as leaders and guides of the faithful, they were held to possess special characteristics, with almost 28 Also known as Ithna Ashariyya (from which the English ‘Twelver Shi‘ism), and Jafariyya. 29 On the doctrinal position of the Imamiyya see Etan Kohlberg, ‘The Evolution of the Shi‘a’, The Jerusalem Quarterly 27 (Spring 1983), 108–126. General studies are Yann Richard, Shi‘ite Islam (Oxford, 1995); Moojan Momen An Introduction to Shi‘i Islam (New Haven, 1985); Rainer Brunner and W. Ende, The Twelver Shi‘a in Modern Times: Religious Culture and Political History (Leiden, 2001): Juan Cole, Sacred Space and Holy War: the Politics, Culture and History of Shi‘i Islam (London, 2005). 30 See Manuel Ruiz Figueroa, ‘La Elección de Alí al Califato’, Estudios de Asia y Africa, 34/1 (2004), 11–39. 31 Kohlberg, ‘The Evolution’, 111–112.



the historical context for the augustinian mission

17

unlimited knowledge, infallible, and impeccable. However, since they did not receive direct divine revelation, they do not share the role of prophet held by Muhammad. While both Sunni and Shi‘a hold Muhammad to be the ‘seal’, that is to say the last, of the prophets, Shi‘a jurisprudence gives the Imams and Muhammad equal status by also recognising the sayings and deeds of the Imams as forming part of the second source of Islamic law, after the Qur’an. On the basis of God’s generous dispensation, humanity has from the time of Adam been provided with a series of leaders to keep it on the right path. If a prophet is alive, he is the leader, and if not, an Imam, or in pre-Islamic times an heir or legatee (wasiy), takes the role. The chain continued unbroken until the coming of the ‘Seal of the Prophets’, and then with the divinely guided Imams. The position of Ali, Muhammad’s sole legitimate wasiy, and the first Imam is particularly exalted. On the Day of Judgement the Imams will intercede for their own community, and as a consequence even those within it who are sinners will enter Paradise. Members of the Imamiyya are seen as predestined for salvation, having been created to be faithful to the Imams and, created from God’s own light (or from the dust of Paradise), they form the elect (al-khassa). The converse of Shi‘a loyalty to the Imams is their repudiation of their opponents, particularly the first three caliphs, and those accused of undermining Ali during his spell in power. The Companions of the Prophet, the first generation of Islam, and as such seen by Sunnis as belonging to the Golden Age of Islam, are also rejected as reliable witnesses regarding the sayings and actions of the Prophet, being replaced in this role by the Imams. The Companions are also blamed for altering the text of the Qur’an in order to expunge mention of Ali as Muhammad’s successor. A consequence of the Shi‘a doctrine of repudiation or rejection is that the Sunni, rejecting the Imams, cannot be true believers. However, as Kohlberg notes,32 it would be difficult for their Shi‘a opponents to classify them as unbelievers in the same category as Jews or Christians. The fact that, until the establishment of Safavid Iran, most Shi‘a lived as an often despised and persecuted minority in the Sunni ‘abode of Islam’, led to their development of the doctrine of taqiyya or dissimulation. This allowed, or sometimes required them, to conceal their true belief in

32 Ibid., 116–117.

18

chapter two

situations where they would be placed in danger by revealing it.33 This key doctrine of Shi‘a Islam was supported by reference to the prophets and Imams, who, it was claimed, had themselves practised concealment. Dissimulation of various kinds, even if not taqiyya in its strict sense, will be a recurrent theme of our story. For ‘Abbas, concealment of his true motives is a routine practice, while the Augustinians dissemble their true motives on more than one occasion. The desperate situation of the Mandaeans had led them to becoming experts in camouflaging their true character, and Christians who had apparently embraced Islam insist that ‘in their heart’ they remain true to their original faith. In this world of compromise, intrigue and deceit perhaps only Queen Ketevan acquits herself entirely honourably, choosing martyrdom rather than even the appearance of conversion to Islam. The ‘Abbasid successors to the Umayyads also generally saw the Shi‘a Imams as rivals, and the Shi‘a view of history has all the Imams as being murdered by the Umayyad and ‘Abbasid authorities. One of the most significant events for Imami history occurred in 874. After the death of the eleventh Imam, al-Hasan al-‘Askari, his young son entered a cave in a cellar in their house in Samarra, and was never seen again.34 During this ‘lesser occultation’, this twelfth Imam, whose name was only later revealed as Muhammad Abu al-Kasim, maintained contact with his followers through a series of intermediaries, as had his predecessors during their imprisonment, in this sense at least the lesser occultation represented no significant change for the Shi‘a community. With the death of the fourth of these in 941 however communication ceased and the period of ‘greater occultation’ began, and continues to this day.35 The hidden Imam remains 33 Etan Kohlberg, ‘Some Imami Shi‘i Views on Taqiyya’ in id. Belief and Law in Imami Shi‘ism (Aldershot, 1991), 395–402, noting the presence of a continuing ‘activist’ attitude which eschewed the practice. A modern Iranian study notes the same tendency: Ayatollah Jaf’ar Sobhani, Doctrines of Shi‘i Islam: A Compendium of Imami Beliefs and Practices, Reza Shah-Kazemi (ed. and tr.) (London, 2001), articles 124–125 ‘Dissimulation (Taqiyya)’, 150– 154. Although Christians have also experienced hostile situations throughout their history, no parallel notion was developed. See ‘Profession de Foi’ in Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, XIII, part I, 675–682. To directly deny one’s Christian faith is always unacceptable, although a form of taqiyya was effectively practised by many renegades. 34 On occultation itself as an act of taqiyya, see I Goldhizer, ‘Das Prinzip der takiyya im Islam’ Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 60 (1906), 213–226, 218; al-Sharif al-Murtada, al-Fusul al-mukhtara (Beirut, 1985), 76–83. 35 See Kohlberg, ‘The Evolution’, 121 The view that it represents a response to a succession crisis is given in Said Amir Arjomand, ‘The Consolation of Theology: Absence of the Imam and Transition from Chiliasm to Law in Shi‘ism’ The Journal of Religion, 76/4 (Oct. 1996), 548–571; ‘Crisis of the Imamate and the Institution of Occultation in Twelver



the historical context for the augustinian mission

19

present in this world, and will return as the messiah (mahdi) shortly before the eschaton, when the enemies of the Shi‘a will be punished and a world of justice established before the Day of Judgment. During his continuing occultation the community is to be led by jurists (mujtahidun), who follow and interpret his teachings and those of the other Imams. The reasons for the Imami leaders to ‘freeze’ the institution of the imamate are unclear. The official interpretation is simply that God decreed that there would be twelve Imams and that the twelfth would be the messiah. Under the Buyid dynasty (945–1055), a more sympathetic approach to their Shi‘a subjects led to ‘an unprecedented cultural, literary, religious and political flowering in the Imami Shi‘i world’.36 This ‘Golden Age’ of the Imamiyya came to an abrupt end under the rule of the Turcoman Seljuks, zealous Sunnis, and some Shi‘a leaders even welcomed the displacement of the Seljuks by the Mongols in 1258. While not a return to their days of glory, the leaders of the Shi‘a community were generally well treated by the Mongols, and Uljaytu Khudabanda (1305–1316) even adopted Imami beliefs for a time. During the thirteenth century, certain philosophical ideas, including those of the Sufis who represented the mystical strand of Islam, had begun to enter mainstream Shi‘a thought, with attempts to identify Imami Shi‘ism with Sufism. In fact, as early as the ninth century, many Sufis, although Sunnis, gave a special status to Ali, and when the Sufi religious orders developed in the eleventh century, many of them viewed him as being their founder. During the fourteen and fifteenth centuries Islamic religious orders founded in Anatolia, Iran, and Iraq combined Sufism with a ‘folk’ Shi‘ism characterised by extremist heterodox tendencies. Prominent among these was that of the Safavids, based at Ardabil in Azerbaijan, and named for its founder, Safi al-Din (1252–1334). The Founding of the Safavid State Some two hundred years later, the Safavid Order had changed from being a primarily spiritual confraternity originally centred round a charismatic Shi‘ism: A Sociohistorical Perspective’ International Journal of Middle East Studies, 28/4 (1996) 491–515. In the first of these (548–549) Arjomand argues that the transformation of the notion of the imamate from a legitimist theory of authority of the descendants of Ali into a principle of salvation through the occultation was of critical importance for the survival and expansion of Shi‘a Islam. 36 Kohlberg ‘The Evolution’, 122.

20

chapter two

and saintly figure who had followed a version of Sunni Islam,37 to an organisation with decided military pretensions, imbued with heterodox and extremist millenarian notions largely based in a Shi‘a folk religion, and regarding its hereditary leaders as being at least semi-divine. Taking advantage of internal dissensions within the ruling White Sheep Turcomans,38 Ismail I (1488–1524), who had succeeded to the leadership of the Safavid Order on the death of his elder brother in 1494,39 fourteen years later victoriously entered the Turcoman capital Tabriz at the head of his Qizilbash troops.40 Proclaiming himself shah, some months later he declared Twelver Shi‘ism the official religion of his new empire, decreeing that the name of Ali should be added to the call to prayer. The names of the twelve infallible Imams were recited during Friday prayers, and added to the coinage. Shi‘ism was to be not merely the official religion, but the compulsory religion. Conversion was frequently undertaken at the point of the sword, and was often no doubt superficial, or accepted for the pragmatic reason of political advancement. Under this new dispensation, it would no longer in Persia be Shi‘a but Sunnis who would practise taqiyya. Ismail had succeeded in uniting in his own person the roles of religious Grand Master and political ruler. Precisely why he should have chosen to impose Twelver Shi‘ism on a region which was predominantly Sunni is unclear, and opinion is divided as to whether this was undertaken for reasons of state, or from personal conviction.41 There were few if any 37 The depiction of Safi al-Din as an other-worldly mystic which emerges from later Safavid hagiography, apparently accepted in Michel M. Mazzaoui, The Origins of the Safavids: Shi‘ism, Sufism, and the Gulat (Wiesbaden, 1972), 46–52, must be balanced with his very considerable skills as a practical politician and accomplished merchant. See H. R. Roemer ‘The Safavid Period’ in Peter Jackson and Laurence Lockhart (eds.), The Cambridge History of Iran (hereinafter CHI), vol. 6 (Cambridge, 1986), 189–350, 191–192. A classic and accessible text which charts the Safavid dynasty from its origins to its fall is Roger Savory, Iran Under the Safavids (Cambridge, 1980). Also of value for an analysis of the rise of the Safavids are Jean Aubin, ‘L’avènement des Safavides réconsideré’ Moyen Orient et Océan Indien, 5 (1988), 1–130; Said Amir Arjomand, The Shadow of God and the Hidden Imam (Chicago, 1984). 38 On the succession of political dynasties which shaped Persian history see David Morgan, Medieval Persia 1040–1797 (London, 1988). 39 Roemer ‘The Safavid Period’, 210. 40 ‘Red hats’, from their characteristic headgear with its twelve gores. Their fanatical devotion was legendary. See Shahzad Bashir, ‘Shah Ismail and the Qizilbash: Cannibalism in the Religious History of Early Safavid Iran’, History of Religion 45/3 (2006), 234–256. 41 While Arjomand (The Shadow, 109) inclines to the former view, Roemer (CHI, 196), while arguing that although Junaid may well have inclined to Shi‘ism, there is in fact no direct Shi‘a tradition linking Junaid via Haidar to Ismail, admits that the latter may well have been influenced by his Shi‘ite tutors during the formative years that he spent at the court of Gilan.



the historical context for the augustinian mission

21

Shi‘a doctrinal texts available in Persian, and a shortage of scholars to oversee the imposition of an orthodox version of the new religion. As a consequence, Arab Shi‘a scholars were imported from Iraq, Bahrain, and particularly Jabal ‘Amil in Syria,42 leading to the development of a group of religious professionals, Shi‘ite doctors, existing alongside the ‘clerical notables’, Sunnis who had embraced Shi‘ism under Ismail and who were appointed to a number of judicial and quasi-political, quasi-religious functions. It would be from the former group that a nascent Shi‘a hierocracy would emerge towards the end of the Safavid period.43 After taking control of Azerbaijan and eastern Anatolia, Ismail turned his attentions to Mesopotamia, taking Baghdad in 1508. His next target was the Uzbeks of Khurasan, whom he defeated in 1513. In a relatively short period, Ismail had established himself as ruler of virtually all the territory of Persia. The neighbouring Ottoman Empire was not unaware of his military activities, and the revolt within Ottoman territory of Qizilbash tribes loyal to the Safavids appears to have been the catalyst for the battle of Chaldiran, close to Tabriz, in 1514. Here Ismail suffered a disastrous defeat and some loss of territory, fatally undermining his reputation for military infallibility.44 On his death in 1524, he was succeeded by the ten-year-old Tahmasp I, much of whose reign was characterised by conflict between Qizilbash factions. In 1533, Baghdad was lost to the Ottomans, and a peace between the 42 The general view that such migration to Safavid Persia was widespread even in the early years of Ismail’s reign is challenged by Andrew Newman in his article ‘The Myth of Clerical Migration to Safavid Iran: Arab Shiite Opposition to Ali al-Karaki and Safavid Shi‘ism’ Die Welt des Islams 33 (1993), 66–112. While rejecting the basis of some of Newman’s arguments, Devin J. Stewart in ‘Notes on the migration of Amili Scholars to Safavid Iran’, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 55/2 (Apr. 1996), 81–103, accepts that such migration was much greater during the time of Tahmasp. For an interesting account of the journey of one such scholar to Safavid Persia in the mid-sixteenth century, see id., ‘An Episode in the Amili Migration to Safavid Iran: Husayn Abd al-Samad al-Amili’s Travel Account’, Iranian Studies 39/4 (2006), 481–508. 43 See Said Amir Arjomand, ‘The Clerical Estate and the Emergence of a Shi‘ite Hierocracy in Safavid Iran: A Study in Historical Sociology’, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 28/2 (1985) 169–219; Kathryn Babayan, ‘Sufis, Dervishes and Mullas: the Controversy over Spiritual and Temporal Dominion in Seventeenth-Century Iran’, Pembroke Papers 4 (1996), 117–138. 44 On relations between the Ottoman and Safavid Empires see Max Scherberger, ‘The Confrontation between Sunni and Shi’i Empires: Ottoman-Safavid Relations between the fourteenth and seventeenth century’ in Ofra Bengio and Meir Litvak (eds.), The Sunna and Shi‘a in History: Division and Ecumenism in the Muslim Middle East (Basingstoke, 2011), 51–68; Ernest Tucker, ‘From Rhetoric of War to Realities of Peace: The Evolution of Ottoman-Iranian Diplomacy through the Safavid era’ in Willem Floor and Edmund Herzig (eds.), Iran and the World, 81–90.

22

chapter two

two powers lasting twenty-five years would be signed at Amasya in 1555. During his reign, Tahmasp maintained Ismail’s policy of Shi‘a-isation, but this period also saw a move away from the theocratic rule of his predecessor towards a more secular administration, with the shah being seen more as a monarch than as the head of a Sufi religious order. Tahmasp was succeeded by Ismail II in 1576, whose brief and unhappy reign saw an attempt to reinstate Sunnism in Persia. After his death, likely by poison, he was succeeded by Muhammad Khudabanda, a weak ruler who allowed his ministers free rein, and was deposed by the sixteen year-old ‘Abbas in 1587, Hamza Mirza, ‘Abbas’ older brother, having already been killed as a consequence of factional rivalry. Shah ‘Abbas I Safavi ‘Abbas soon proved himself fully capable of restoring Safavid fortunes after the disastrous reigns of Ismail II and Muhammad Khudabanda. By the end of his reign, lost territory had been regained and the Safavid Persian Empire covered the area it had after Ismail’s conquests. He would reorganise the army, curtailing the military supremacy of the Qizilbash who had been established as both governors and generals during the time of Ismail I, and who effectively seized control of the state in the last years of the reign of Tahmasp, although both Ismail and Tahmasp had recognised the need to control Qizilbash ambitions, appointing Persians to important government posts in order to act as a counter balance. The introduction of a further ethnic element in the form of Georgians, Armenians and Circassians, commenced under Tahmasp, would be an essential plank of ‘Abbas policy. Drawing principally on the large numbers of Georgian prisoners and their descendants brought to Persia during the four Safavid campaigns in the Caucasus45 between 1540 and 1553,46 he institutionalised the appointment of forcibly converted Caucasian Christian slaves to key military and governmental positions, alongside Turcoman Qizilbash

45 In 1604 some twenty thousand captured Armenian were enrolled in the ghulams, and in 1616 a further 130,000 Georgian prisoners were brought back to Persia. See CHI, vol. 6, 365. 46 Fifty years of fighting for control of the region with the Ottomans would result, after the Treaty of Amasya (1555), in a situation where the Eastern Georgian kingdoms of Kartli and Kakheti fell within the Safavid sphere of influence, while the Western kingdoms were under Ottoman control. See Ronald Grigor Suny, The Making of the Georgian Nation (2nd edn.) (Bloomington, 1994), 46–53.



the historical context for the augustinian mission

23

and Persian administrators, and established a standing army drawn from these ghulams or ‘slaves of the shah’. To pay for this army large tracts of land were brought under direct control of the shah, weakening the power of local rulers, providing revenue for the re-organised army, and both enabling and increasing the possibility of patronage exercised by the centre.47 Ghulams played a significant role not only in the army, but in the administration of these state lands, and in positions in the royal household, to the extent that they would come to fill one-fifth of the highest administrative posts, and in 1598 the Georgian ghulam Allah Verdi Khan would be appointed commander-in-chief of the armed forces.48 A critical element of ‘Abbas’ reign was the centralisation around the person of the monarch of the many constituent discourses of his heterogeneous empire, and the consequent recognition by these constituencies of their dependence on and loyalty to the shah which typified the rule of ‘Abbas, is perhaps the key to understanding his relationship to and behaviour with regards to these groups, who would come to see themselves as having a vested interest in the preservation of the political status quo and the future of the Safavid project. As Newman puts it, ‘Abbas’ reign saw not only the incorporation of new elements into the military and political structures, but ‘included reinvigorating the projection of the shah as simultaneous representative of the agendas and discourses of each of the realm’s component constituencies, and thus sole arbiter among and between them, and universal, transcendent ruler of, and over, their sum total’.49 The prodigious scale of this process of invigoration indicates the perceived scale of the challenges facing ‘Abbas’ rule at the centre.50 The power and authority of the shah were given physical manifestation in the building projects undertaken by ‘Abbas at his new capital of Isfahan and in other cities, with imposing religious buildings appearing in the same time frame, surrounding ‘political’ structures in order to reassert Safavid 47 On the development of the Safavid state under ‘Abbas I, see Mohammad A. Mousavi, ‘The Autonomous State in Iran: Mobility and Prosperity in the Reign of Shah ‘Abbas the Great (1587–1629)’, Iran and the Caucasus 12 (2008), 17–34; Colin P. Mitchell (ed.), New Perspectives on Safavid Iran: Empire and Society (London, 2011). 48 See CHI vol. 6, 362–365; Giorgio Rota ‘Caucasians in Safavid Service in the 17th Century’ in Raoul Motika and Michael Ursinus (eds.), Caucasia Between the Ottoman Empire and Iran, 1555–1914 (Wiesbaden, 2000), 107–131; Rudi Matthee, ‘Georgians in the Safavid Administration’ in Encyclopaedia Iranica, 493–496. 49 Andrew J. Newman, Safavid Iran: Rebirth of a Persian Empire (London, 2006), 55, see also 118–124. 50 Ibid., 55. Chapter 4 of Newman’s study is devoted to a detailed analysis of the challenges facing ‘Abbas and his responses.

24

chapter two

spiritual legitimacy and further emphasise his attachment to Twelver Shi‘a Islam, with clear reference to him as ‘propagator of the faith of the infallible Imams’.51 In keeping with this declaration, the promotion of a legalistic, orthodox Twelver Shi‘ism was vigorously prosecuted under ‘Abbas. The remaining millenarian extremism of the Qizilbash and of some Sufi orders was suppressed, often violently. Popular attachment to Shi‘ism was encouraged by the expansion of ritual practices in remembrance of the Imams, and especially of the martyrdom of Husain. It is not, however, entirely clear how dedicated ‘Abbas himself was to the practice of the religion he was so instrumental in imposing on his empire.52 Christian Minorities in Safavid Persia, Their Status and Treatment A number of non-Muslim minorities formed constituents of varying significance in Safavid Persia during the time of ‘Abbas these included Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians and Hindus. The Christians may be broken down into Armenians, Georgians, members of the Syriac Church, and of the (Assyrian) Church of the East. These ancient Churches reflect different Christological positions established during the early centuries of Christianity, differences resulting as much from political circumstances and linguistic differences as from theological perspectives.53 The situation 51 This quotation of 1603–1604 from the inscription of the Luftallah mosque in Isfahan is given in Newman, Safavid Iran, 57. 52 On religion as one factor in the political discourse of Safavid Iran see Colin P. Mitchell, The Practice of Politics in Safavid Iran: Power, Religion and Rhetoric (London, 2010). 53 On Eastern Christianity, see Bernard Heyberger, Les Chrétiens du Proche-Orient au Temps de la Réforme Catholique (Rome, 1994); Ronald Roberson, The Eastern Christian Churches (5th edn., Rome, 1995); Jean Corbon, ‘The Churches of the Middle East: Their Origins and Identity, from Their Roots in the Past to Their Openness to the Present’ in Andrea Pacini (ed.), Fiona Tupper-Carey (tr.) Christian Communities in the Arab Middle East: the Challenge of the Future (Oxford, 1998), 93–110; Heleen Murre van den Berg, ‘Syriac Christianity’ in Ken Parry (ed.) The Blackwell Companion to Eastern Christianity (Oxford, 2007), 249–268; eadem, ‘Chaldeans and Assyrians: the Church of the East in the Ottoman Period’ in Erica Hunter (ed.), The Christian Heritge of Iraq I–V Seminar Days (Pisacataway, NJ, 2009), 146–164; Christoph Baumer, The Church of the East: An Illustrated History of Assyrian Christianity (London, 2006); Wilhelm Baum and Dietmar W. Winkler (tr. Miranda G. Henry), The Church of the East: a concise history (London, 2003); David Wilmshurst, The Maryred Church: A History of the Church of the East (London, 2011); Claude Sélis, Les Syriens orthodoxes et catholiques (Tournai, 1988); Jean-Pierre Valognes, Vie et Mort des Chretiens d’Orient: des origines à nos jours (Paris, 1994); Sebastian Brock et al., The Hidden Pearl: the Syrian Orthodox Church and its ancient Aramaic Heritage (Rome, 2001); Anthony O’Mahony, ‘The Chaldean Catholic Church: the Politics of Church-State Relations in Modern Iraq’ in



the historical context for the augustinian mission

25

is further complicated by the existence of Armenian Catholics and of factions (‘Chaldean’ Catholics) within the Church of the East loyal to Rome. To these indigenous or imported groups may be added the Catholic missionaries, and a number of English and Dutch Protestants who represented the political and economic interests of their countries. Treatment of these diverse Christian groups under the Safavids would depend on a variety of factors. From a religious perspective they could all be viewed simply as belonging to the Qur’anic category of ahl al-kitab or People of the Book, although this would be nuanced by the characteristic theology of Shi‘a Islam, especially the doctrine of najasat which puts particular emphasis on non-believers as ‘unclean’.54 The fundamental relationship between Muslim rulers and the People of the Book was the contractual relationship of the dhimma.55 At first limited to Jews and Christians, between them recipients of the Tawrat, Zabur and Injil,56 this relationship would be extended to the Sabaeans mentioned alongside them in the Qur’an (2:65, 5:69), and to the Zoroastrians of Q. 22:17.57 These groups were granted a special status, offering a degree of protection of life and property under Islamic law and considerable latitude to arrange internal legal matters within their communities,58 in return for Heythrop Journal, 45 (2004), 435–450, esp. 435–436. For an overview of the development and early history of Christianity in Iran see Bugnini, La Chiesa, 19–92. 54 Roger M. Savory, ‘Relations between the Safavid State and its Non-Muslim Minorities’, Islam and Christian Muslim Relations 14/4 (2003), 435–458, see 441–442. Possibly deriving in part from Zoroastrianism, although the extent to which Zoroastrian practice influenced the Islamic era is unclear. See Sorour Soroudi, ‘Jews in Islamic Islam’, The Jerusalem Quarterly 21/3 (1981), 99–113, 99–100; ead., ‘The Concept of Jewish impurity and its reflection in Persian and Judeo-Persian traditions’ in Shaul Shaked, Amnon Netzer (eds.), IranoJudaica III: Studies Relating to Jewish Contacts with Persian Culture throughout the Ages (Jerusalem, 1994), 142–170; David M. Freidenreich, ‘The Implications of Unbelief: Tracing the Emergence of Distinctively Shi‘i Notions regarding the Food and Impurity of NonMuslims’, Islamic Law and Society 18 (2011), 53–84. 55 Dhimma status and the treatment of non-Muslim minorities in the Safavid period are described in some detail in Savory, ‘Relations’. See also Johanan Friedmann, ‘Classification of Unbelievers in Sunni Muslim Law and Tradition’, Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 22 (1998), 163–195, and id., Tolerance and Coercion in Islam (Cambridge, 2003). The wellknown study, Bat Ye’or (tr. Miriam Kochan and David Littman), The Decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam: From Jihad to Dhimmitude, Seventh to Twentieth Centuries (Madison, NJ, 1996), betrays a clear anti-Muslim bias. 56 Torah, Psalms of David and the Gospel, although Jews and Christians are seen as no longer possessing the pristine texts referred to in the Qur’an. 57 The category of scriptuaries was somewhat flexible, and would, largely on pragmatic grounds, be extended to include the Hindu majority of India. 58 An interesting consequence of their minority status under Islam was the development by the Churches of the Middle East of law codes which governed Christian personal law and covered largely the same topics of legal interrelationships as the Muslim codes.

26

chapter two

payment of the jizya or poll tax. In addition to the jizya, various restrictions or impositions regulated the dress and behaviour of the dhimmi. More important to ‘Abbas than theological or juridical categories, however, would seem to have been political and commercial factors. His approach certainly marked a change from the notorious religious bigotry of Shah Tahmasp, and it is clear from the missionary accounts that he was untroubled by notions of ritual ‘uncleanness’. A picture emerges of ‘Abbas as having a genuine curiosity about Christianity, and he is clearly aware of and interested in the divisions within Christianity, as evinced not only to his comments on the Armenians to the bishop of Cyrene, but also by the questions put jointly to a group of English merchants, described as ‘Lutherans and others’, and the Carmelite visitor general, during an audience in Isfahan in 1621.59 After their forced deportation in 1604/5 the Armenians were the largest Christian minority, and the Armenian merchants of New Julfa in particular would be accorded special treatment, allowed considerable autonomy and a large degree of religious freedom. Their commercial expertise was vital for the prosperity of Persia, and their international trade contacts highly valued by ‘Abbas.60 Western Christian travellers visiting the court of Isfahan were generally accorded a warm reception from a ruler who wished to see his realm portrayed in Europe in a favourable light. The three major Catholic missions established at Isfahan, Augustinians, Carmelites, and Capuchins were also the political representatives of Spain/Portugal, the papacy, and France respectively. Through their good offices Abbas hoped, at least initially, to succeed in his goal of obtaining European support against the common Ottoman enemy. The missionaries were generally well treated, and benefited from the protection and patronage of the shah. Their attempts to gain converts from Islam and their anti-Muslim polemic were generally tolerated while they were close to the centre of power, although political developments would occasionally cause them considerable difficulty. Away from the court and capital, however, their position was somewhat less secure, as evidenced by the martyrdom of the Augustinian Guilherme de Santo Agostinho near Nakhitchevan in 1614. See Robert B. Rose, ‘Islam and the Development of Personal Status Laws among Christian Dhimmis: Motives, Sources, Consequences’, The Muslim World 72/3–4 (July–October 1982), 159–179. 59 Carmelites I, 248–245. Interestingly, the shah here favours Catholicism as being closer to his own religion. 60 See Sebouh David Aslanian, From the Indian Ocean to the Mediterranean: the global networks of Armenian Merchants from New Julfa (Berkeley CA, 2011).



the historical context for the augustinian mission

27

Relations Between Safavid Persia and Georgia61 Almost from its inception the Safavid state sought to dominate the South Caucasus, where its political, economic, religious, ideological and strategic interests came into direct conflict with those of Ottoman Turkey and later also Russia. Weakened by its disintegration into three independent kingdoms and a number of small principalities, Christian Georgia was powerless to offer effective resistance to Safavid expansion. Both Ismail I and Tahmasp I would conduct bloody campaigns into Georgia, and between 1540 and 1550 most of Eastern Georgia fell under Safavid control, although despite their apparent superiority, the Safavids failed to establish the full incorporation of Georgia and her reduction to a khanate within the Persian state. The Treaty of Amasya (1555) with the Ottomans recognised Eastern Georgia as forming part of the Safavid sphere of influence while Western Georgia came under Ottoman political control. The Georgian kingdoms were not extinguished, however, and their rulers became vassals of their Muslim overlords. The resumption of hostilities with Turkey in 1578 would see the Safavids adopting a policy of compromise in Georgia, with the Georgian kings of the Eastern Georgian kingdoms of Kartli and Kakheti supporting Safavid forces against their Ottoman enemies. Outbreaks of Georgian nationalism and sporadic revolts continued however, and the policy of compromise was called into question with the brutal invasions of Eastern Georgia by Shah ‘Abbas I in the first quarter of the seventeenth century. Despite the slaughter and deportation of enormous numbers of the population, Georgian statehood was still not abolished, and the determination of the Georgian people to maintain their identity was supported by the Georgian Church, which had long acted as the ‘soul of the nation’. The Safavids subsequently returned to a policy of reasonable compromise with the rulers of Georgia, members of the ancient Bagrationi dynasty. The kings of Kartli and Kakheti were required to adopt Shi‘a Islam as a token of loyalty, but such conversion was understood by both sides to be largely a matter of expediency; as Minorsky put it ‘the Georgians changed

61 See Grigol Beradze and Karlo Kutsia, ‘Towards the Interrelations of Iran and Georgia in the 16th–18th Centuries’ in Raoul Motika and Michael Ursinus (eds.), Caucasia between the Ottoman Empire and Iran, 1555–1914 (Wiesbaden, 2000), 121–131; Keith Hitchins, ‘History of Iranian-Georgian Relations’ in Encyclopaedia Iranica, 464–470; Hirotake Maeda, ‘Exploitaton of the Frontier: The Caucasus Policy of Shah ‘Abbas I’ in Willem Floor and Edmund Herzig (eds.), Iran and the World in The Safavid Age (London, 2012), 471–490.

28

chapter two

their religion with remarkable sans-façon, but Islam too sat lightly on their shoulders’.62 While a number of Georgian monarchs who outwardly professed Islam openly supported and protected Christianity, it would be only in 1744 that the Afsharid Nadir Shah conceded that the coronation of Teimuraz II as King of Kartli and his son Irakli II as King of Kakheti could take place according to the Christian tradition. The ceremony was held in Svetiskhoveli Cathedral in Mtskheta on 1st October 1745. The ‘Prester John Syndrome’: Christian Europe’s Enduring Search for an Ally Against Islam The Spanish embassy to the court of ‘Abbas which led to the establishment of the Portuguese Augustinians in the Safavid capital, encouraged by dubious claims of his philo-Christanity, was not a new departure, but reflected the continuance of a theme which has a long history: the hope of finding anti-Muslim coalition partners in distant lands. Even heretical Muslim sects could feature as potential partners: the twelfth century Crusades would see rumours of possible assistance from the Shi‘a sect of the Syrian Nizari Isma‘ilis, whose enemies included the caliphs of Baghdad and the Seljuk Turks, and whose leader was rumoured to be sympathetic to Christianity.63 It was shortly before the Second Crusade (1147–114) that the legend of Cathay or the kingdom of Prester John appeared. This Presbyter Johannes was said to be a great priest-king, descendant of the Magi, who ruled a rich and powerful Asian empire. A forged letter began to circulate in 1165, purporting to be written by Prester John, in which the ‘Ruler of the Three Indies’ claimed that he intended to destroy the enemies of the Christian Holy Places of Jerusalem. The myth of Prester John and his kingdom64

62 Tadkhirat al-Muluk: A manual of Safavid Administration (tr. and ed. Vladimir Minorsky), (London, 1943), 19, cited in Rota, ‘Caucasians in Safavid Service’, 112. 63 On the tendency to ‘baptise’ such potential allies, see Adam Knobler, ‘PseudoConversions and Patchwork Pedigrees: The Christianization of Muslim Princes and the Diplomacy of Holy War’, Journal of World History 7 (1996), 181–197, cited in Matthee ‘Christians in Safavid Iran’, 4, n. 8. 64 The term ‘The Indies’ as used here is open to a very wide interpretation The imagined location of Cathay, the legendary kingdom would move from Africa, through India to China or Tibet. See Bernard Hamilton, ‘Continental Drift: Prester John’s Progress through the Indies’ in C. F. Beckingham and B. Hamilton (eds.), Prester John: the Mongols and the Ten Lost Tribes (Aldershot, 1996), 237–270.



the historical context for the augustinian mission

29

would remain a powerful sub-text in the European imagination until the seventeenth century.65 It was as much responsible for the advance of the caravelas of the Discoveries as the wind which filled their sails. Just as the disastrous Fifth Crusade was ending, in 1221, the French bishop of Acre, Jacques de Vitry, translated an Arabic letter which told of a ‘new and mighty protector of Christianity’ who had risen in the East. In this variant of the Prester John legend, ‘King David of India’, was said to be on his way to the Holy Land and to seek its liberation from Muslim control. It seems that this was in fact a garbled reference to none other than the Mongol ruler Genghis Khan who had recently embarked on his campaign of conquest.66 During the Seventh Crusade, Louis IX of France dreamed of a joint European-Mongolian holy war against Islam, sending first André de Longjumeau as ambassador to the court of the Great Khan, and then the Franciscan monk Guillaume de Rubrouck, who crossed the Eurasian continent in 1253–1254. De Rubrouck provided more accurate information on the Mongols,67 and although no alliance with the West was ever forged, contacts were maintained, particularly with the Il-Khans, the Mongol group who came to rule the Middle East.68 The Il-Khans would request Christian support in their conflict with the Mamluks of Egypt, and as a consequence, belief in their sympathy for Christianity survived even after their conversion to Islam. After the fall of the Il-Khanate in the early fourteenth century, Timur Lang would become the next in the series of unlikely potential allies in the East against the Ottomans, with wild reports at the beginning of the fifteenth century of his having recaptured Jerusalem and preparing to convert to Christianity reaching as far as England.69 With the fall of his 65 That it retains a certain fascination as a literary topic is illustrated by a fictional account of the composition of the forged letter and its consequences: Umberto Eco (tr. William Weaver), Baudolino (London, 2002). 66 Matthee ‘Christians in Safavid Iran’, 6. 67 His travel account has been published as William Rockhill (ed. and tr.), The Journey of William of Rubruck to the Eastern Parts of the World, 1253–55 (London, 1900); The mission of Friar William of Rubruck: his journey to the court of the Great Khan Möngke, 1253–1255, tr. Peter Jackson; introduction, notes and appendices by Peter Jackson with David Morgan (London, 1990), and in French translation as Guillaume de Rubrouck, envoyé de Saint-Louis: Voyage dans l’Empire Mongol (1235–1255) Claude and René Kappler (eds. and tr.) (Paris, 1985). 68 On the varying Christian attitude to the Mongols and its millenarian undertones, see Felicitas Schmeider, ‘The Mongols as non-believing apocalyptic friends around the year 1260’, Journal of Millennial Studies 1/1 (1998), http://www.bu.edu/mille/publications/ summer98/fschmieder.pdf, accessed 11 February 2012. 69 Matthee ‘Christians in Safavid Iran’, 8.

30

chapter two

empire in 1405, Christian hopes were pinned on Uzun Hasan, ruler of the Aq Quyunlu dynasty, one of the more successful successor states. Before his death in 1478, Hasan had expanded his territory to include most of Iran, with the Ottomans his main opponents. His marriage to a niece of the last emperor of Trebizond, the final surviving Christian enclave from the time of Byzantine rule in the East, led to diplomatic exchanges with Venice, in which he requested Western armaments, and the Europeans sought his military support against the Ottomans. It was against the background of an increasing direct Ottoman threat to Europe itself that the next in the series of potential allies from the East hove into view. This was the charismatic leader of a messianic movement, none other than Ismail I, news of whom caused frantic speculation in Europe, where a myth was created from the scanty reports filtering back of ‘a Christian-like holy-man, a warrior endowed with divine qualities by his devoted army of Sufis’ and, significantly, ‘the long-awaited saviour who would free Europe from the scourge of the Ottoman Turks’.70 Ismail was initially invested by Europeans with a prophetic quality, seeing him as a renewing force to restore Christianity to its pristine state,71 as well as a military leader to be enlisted against the Ottomans.72 His prophetic reputation would quickly fade, but hopes of a military alliance would survive until the rout of Chaldiran. As Brummett notes, the narratives reaching Europe made it clear that, in the view of their writers, if Ismail was not actually a Christian, he was at least the sworn enemy of the Ottomans.73 Indeed, ‘representations of Ismail in the European sources range from Christian, to Christian-like, to liker of Christians, to Christ-like’. This European understanding of Ismail and his actions against Sunni Muslims, including his institution of the ritual cursing of the first caliphs, differs however from that of Muslim

70 Palmira Brummett, ‘The Myth of Shah Ismail Safavi: Political Rhetoric and “Divine” Kingship’ in John Victor Tolan (ed.), Medieval Christian Perceptions of Islam (New York, 2000), 331–360. See also Parvin Loloi, ‘The Image of the Safavids in English and French Literature (1500–1800)’ in Willem Floor and Edmund Herzig (eds.), Iran and the World, 347–356. 71 Echoing the claims of Islam to be the reformer of both Judaism and Christianity, restoring them to their lost primitive purity. See Jacques Jomier, How to Understand Islam (London, 1989), 17, citing Arnold Toynbee. 72 In support of this claim, Matthee (‘Christians’, n. 17) cites Biancamaria Scarcia Amoretti (ed.), Shah Ismail I nei “Diarii” di Marin Sanudo (Rome, 1979), 7, 23, 32–39, and Giovanni Ponte, ‘Attorno a Leonardo da Vinci: L’attesa popolare de Sofi de Persia in Venezia e Firenze all’inizio del Cinquecento’, Rassegna della literatura italiana, 82 (1977), 5–19. 73 Brummett, ‘The Myth’, 342–343.



the historical context for the augustinian mission

31

sources, which recognised that his adherence to Shi‘a Islam made him no less a Muslim. Setting aside the myth of Ismail created in Europe to condone and validate the project of Christian cooperation with him against the Ottomans, there is, nevertheless evidence of goodwill towards Christians on the part of the founder of the Safavid dynasty. Matthee suggests that this tolerance, represented in part by Ismail’s own projection of himself as ‘the champion of inclusiveness and syncretism by calling himself the reincarnation of not just the Abrahamic prophets but the heroes of Iran’s pre-Islamic past as well’,74 is also an inheritance from the generally benign approach to Christianity which had earlier characterised the Seljuk and Mongol rulers of the region. Relations Between Portugal and Persia A consequence of the Mongol incursions of the thirteenth century into Persia and beyond was the gradual development of contacts between East and West. It has been suggested that there were four main incentives for establishing and maintaining these relationships; religious, leading to the establishment of Latin dioceses at Sultaniyya, Maragha, Tabriz, Tiflis and Nakhitchevan between 1318 and 1350, the desire to create alliances against the Ottomans, who threatened not only Persia but the Byzantine Empire and Europe itself, commercial considerations, and the reports of the increasing number of travellers passing through Persia en route to India or beyond, or visiting the country out of curiosity.75 Dominican friars played a dominant role in contacts between East and West in this period.76 Friar Johannes de Galonifontibus, appointed bishop of Nakhitchevan in 1377 and archbishop of Sultaniyya in 1398, was sent by Timur to Europe in 1402 to report to Europe his great victory over the Ottomans near Ankara. The archbishop also carried letters offering reciprocal privileges for Persian merchants and those of England and France. For his part, Henry II of Castile and Leon sent an embassy to Persia in 1403 to obtain further information on this victory. The fall of Constantinople in 74 Matthee, ‘Christians in Safavid Iran’, 17. 75 CHI vol. 6, 373–374. I have drawn largely from this text in the initial part of this section. 76 For missions to the East in the period and the establishment of Latin dioceses there, see the important study by Jean Richard, La papauté et les missions d’Orient au Moyen Age (XIIIe–XVe siècles) (Rome, 1977; new edn. 1998).

32

chapter two

1453 concentrated European attention on the Ottoman threat, and in 1463 Venice sent Quirini as ambassador to Tabriz to persuade the Aq Quyunlu ruler Uzun Hasan to join forces with it against the Ottomans. His mission failed, but that in 1471 of Caterino Zeno would succeed. The fact that Uzun Hasan, although initially successful, received no support from the Venetians and suffered serious setbacks, meant that appeals from the subsequent Venetian envoys Barbaro and Contarini fell on deaf ears. In 1488, the Portuguese Bartolomeu Dias rounded the Cape of Good Hope, but was forced to turn back before reaching India. Contemporaneously with Dias’ voyage, his compatriot Pero da Covilhá travelled across Egypt, sailed down the Red Sea and crossed the Indian Ocean. Before returning to Egypt he crossed to Hormuz, and was the first Portuguese to set foot there. His information, taken in conjunction with that of Bartolomeu Dias, would prove invaluable in the planning of Vasco da Gama’s famous trip round the Cape to India, beginning in 1497. The pioneering establishment of the sea route to the Persian Gulf, India and beyond, would bring new possibilities for relations between Portugal and Persia, and lead to a great increase in numbers of Western travellers to the land of the Grand Sophy.77 In 1507, a Portuguese fleet under the command of Afonso de Albuquerque had taken by force the strategic island of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf, ruled by a vassal of the Persian monarch.78 The relationship between Albuquerque and Ismail I of Persia would set the tone for subsequent Luso-Persian relations, but the first contacts between the Portuguese and the Safavid ruler of Persia Shah Ismail I were not promising. While engaged in the construction of a Portuguese fortress on the island, its conqueror learnt that a representative of Ismail had come to demand payment of the customary annual tribute from the king of Hormuz. In reply, Albuquerque sent the shah’s ambassador a selection of cannon balls, cartridges and arrows of varying sizes, saying that this was the money used

77 For a useful overview of the accounts of Persia given by Portuguese travel writers, and missionaries stationed in the country, see J. Teles e Cunha, ‘The Creation of a Portuguese Discourse on Safavid Iran’ in Rudi Matthee and Jorge Flores (eds.), Portugal, The Persian Gulf and Safavid Persia (Leuven, 2011), 11–50, 38. 78 On aspects of Portuguese relations with Hormuz and the Persian Gulf, see Dejanirah Couto and Rui Manuel Loureiro (eds.), Revisiting Hormuz: Portuguese interactions in the Persian Gulf region in the early modern period (Wiesbaden, 2008). For cartographical depictions of Hormuz, see eadem, Jean-Louis Bacqué-Grammont, and Mahmoud Taleghani, (eds.), Atlas historique du golfe Persique (XVI–XVIII siècles), Zoltán Biedermann (coord.), (Turnhout, 2006).



the historical context for the augustinian mission

33

by Portugal to pay tribute to those who demanded it from those kings and nobles who were vassals of Dom Manuel, king of Portugal, the Indies, and the kingdom of Hormuz. As a military leader himself, Ismail appears to have been able to appreciate this bellicose gesture, and as a sign of esteem for Albuquerque he sent an ambassador with a gift on the occasion of his appointment as Governor of the Estado da India79 in 1509.80 The new Governor, desiring to learn more about the Persian ruler, decided to send a Portuguese embassy back to Ismail’s court. Led by Ruy Gomes de Carvalhosa, this included a Dominican priest and a servant, as well as the returning Persian envoy. In March 1510 they set sail for Hormuz, where the Portuguese ambassador was poisoned to death by order of the island’s governor. His Portuguese companions returned to Goa, but the letters which Carvalhosa carried showed not only Albuquerque’s desire to promote an exalted view of his country and its ruler, but raised the topic which would remain such a constant in relations between the two countries for a century and a half: a military alliance by land and sea against the common Ottoman enemy. Ismail sent an envoy to Goa to convey his condolences over the death of Carvalhosa, and Albuquerque named Miguel Ferreira as his new ambassador to the shah’s court, who was accompanied by a relative, João Ferreira, in the event that a substitute might become necessary. The party left for Hormuz in 1513, but this time the ambassador was poisoned by a slave he had ordered to be beaten. For three months he hovered between life and death, and on hearing of this Ismail had him conveyed to his court in Tabriz and cared for by his own doctors. Ferreira recovered, and answered Ismail’s questions about the king of Portugal, Albuquerque, and Portuguese military strength, while he himself took note of the might of the Persian ruler, and visited the Christians of Armenia.81 He returned via Hormuz in 1515, accompanied by another representative from Ismail.

79 The Portuguese Estado da India officially came into being in 1505, and embraced all that country’s territories east of the Cape of Good Hope. 80 Roberto Gulbenkian, ‘Les Ambassades Portugaises en Perse au Début du XVIème à la Fin du XVIIème Siècle’ in id. L’Ambassade en Perse de Luis Pereira de Lacerda et des Pères Portugais de l’Ordre de Saint-Augustin, Belchior dos Anjos et Guilherme de Santo Agostinho (1604–1605), hereinafter L’Ambassade (Lisbon, 1972), 21–34, see 21, and citing (22, n. 24) Ronald Bishop Smith, The First Age of the Portuguese embassies, navigations, and peregrinations in Persia (1507–1524) (Bethesda, MD, 1970). 81   Miguel Ferreira’s notebook recounting all that happened on his journey is now lost, but appears to have been used as a source by Gaspar Correia in his Lendas da India. See Gulbenkian L’Ambassade 23, n. 25.

34

chapter two

Albuquerque meantime had determined that it was expedient to ensure complete control of Hormuz for the benefit of the Portuguese crown, and to this end returned to the island in March of 1515, where he completed the construction of its fortress. He also developed an interest in the island of Bahrain, famed for the riches from its pearl fishing, and controlled by the ruler of Hormuz. During his stay there he met the returning Miguel Ferreira, and accorded the Persian ambassador a sumptuous welcome. The latter appears to have put a brave face on the consolidation of Portuguese power in Hormuz, but on behalf of his monarch requested that the duties levied on goods coming into Persia through Hormuz should revert to him, and that he should be given Portuguese naval assistance to transfer his forces to the Arabian coast near Qatif and the island of Bahrain. Albuquerque refused the first request, but declared himself happy to provide assistance to Ismail against the sultan of Cairo and the Ottoman ruler. In order to maintain good relations with Persia he also decided to send another ambassador to the Persian court. Fernão Gomes de Lemos met Ismail at Maragha in north-western Persia during the summer of 1515. The shah reiterated his earlier declaration to Miguel Ferreira that he saw no necessity to send an embassy to Portugal to formalise relations between the two countries, while demanding that Albuquerque fulfil his promise to provide shipping for Persian troops, made urgent by a revolt in Bahrain. The ambassador prevaricated, saying that the Governor had returned to India and he was unable to offer naval assistance without his authorisation. Ismail’s initial response was to declare ‘that he had other places and ports from which he could obtain shipping, and that Hormuz would be lost without the terra firma, which belonged to him’.82 On reflection, however, he recognised that it would be in his best interest to maintain his alliance with the Portuguese and to concentrate on the greater threat posed by the Ottomans, who had inflicted the crushing defeat at Chaldiran only one year earlier. Lemos returned to India unsure of the best way to proceed. The Portuguese control of Hormuz was not maintained without difficulty, with the king attempting every means to free himself from the Portuguese and the heavy tribute they demanded, and with the island in revolt in 1521 and 1522. Nor was Ismail content to have lost his income from

82 Cartas de Affonso de Albuquerque, 7 vols., eds. Raymundo António de Bulhão Pato (vols. 1–5) and Henrique Lopes de Mendonça (vols. 6–7 and part vol. 5) (Lisbon, 1884– 1935), see vol. 2, 243.



the historical context for the augustinian mission

35

the island and he demanded the payment of arrears of the tribute he had formerly received, blockading the caravans from the Persian mainland. It was against this politico-economic background that the new Governor of the Estado da India, Dom Duarte de Meneses83 decided to send another envoy to Persia. Chosen for the role was Balthasar de Pessoa, a Portuguese nobleman and Knight of the Order of Santiago. Leaving Hormuz in September 1523, he reached the camp of Ismail, to the East of Tabriz, in March 1524. While the shah invited him to participate in the Noruz celebrations of the Persian New Year and gratefully received the gifts offered to him, Pessoa was unable to broach the topic of his embassy. Following Ismail to Ardabil, he was told that the shah was gravely ill, and advised to return to Tabriz to wait in greater safety for further news. On 23rd May 1524 he learnt of the death of Ismail. Soon after, the accession of his son Tahmasp was announced, and learning that he had established camp some three days to the east of Tabriz, Pessoa set off in search of him. The new ruler had more pressing concerns, however, and showed little interest in the Portuguese embassy.84 The next in the series of Portuguese ambassadors to Tahmasp was Henrique de Macedo, whose embassy of 1549 would prove equally fruitless. It would be almost twenty years before another Portuguese ambassador was sent to Persia, and this time the moving force behind the embassy was Pope Pius V. Buoyed by the success of the Christian League at the battle of Lepanto against the Ottoman fleet in 1571, and anxious to maintain the perceived Christian advantage, the pope wrote a remarkable letter to Shah Tahmasp85 detailing the battle of Lepanto, by which the League had succeeded in its goal ‘to hold back the madly raging tyrant and repulse his nefarious enterprises’. Writing in October of the same year, only five weeks after the battle, Pius V, having noted with a certain lack of irony the zeal of the papacy for fostering peace, continued by saying that war against the Ottomans was undertaken only ‘so that We may crush and beat down the swelling necks of the proud’, going on to encourage Tahmasp to rapidly

83 Meneses, Governor of the Estado da India from 1522–1524, was the fourth to hold the office. 84 Pessoa’s embassy is described in António Tenreiro, Itinerario . . . em que se contem como da India veo por terra a estes Reynos de Portugal (Coimbra 1560; new edn. Lisbon, 1971). 85 Rome, ASV, Brev. ann., IV–VII, Arm. XLIV. The Latin text of the Brief is given in Carmelites II, 1272–1273, and the English translation in I, 19–21.

36

chapter two

seize the opportunity provided by Divine Providence and to draw up a strong army to invade the common enemy from his eastern frontiers so that, while he lies stupefied and in consternation86. . . it may be powerful enough to pay back somewhat and make good the damage and insults too often deeply branded and inflicted by that wild beast of an Ottoman on the most illustrious kings of the Persians, and that You may exert Yourself to get back and recover Assyria and Mesopotamia, provinces which not so long before were subject to You . . .

Meanwhile ‘the Christian allies from our quarter would lead against him [the Ottoman ruler] from Europe by sea and land very powerful and valorous forces . . .’ At the end of January 1572, King Dom Sebastião of Portugal notified the papal legate to Spain and Portugal, the Doge of Venice, and the Portuguese ambassador to France, that he planned to send an ambassador to Persia to invite him to join the Christian League against the Turks, and in late February of the same year wrote to Tahmasp to that effect and provided instructions for his ambassador, Miguel d’Abreu de Lima.87 It is not known whether he ever reached the shah’s court, nor does it seem that the Philip II of Spain took heed of the advice to send another embassy by land to Persia in view of the difficulties and uncertainties of the Portuguese ambassador’s sea voyage. The papal initiative would come to nothing, and the opportunity offered by Lepanto, if such it was, was allowed to slip away. The Christian League had been difficult to create and hold in being, and would not long survive Lepanto. In 1573 Venice had defected to sign a peace treaty with the Porte, while the commander-in-chief at Lepanto, Don Juan de Austria, would end his career endeavouring to enforce Spanish control in the Netherlands. Evidence of a similar initiative from Shah Khudabanda (1577–1587) appears in a letter from the papal court to the nuncio in Poland, referring to the expected arrival in Portugal of an ambassador from Persia ‘to beg the Christian princes all to move against the Turk . . .’.88 If the ambassador did in fact reach Portugal, travelling as he did by the sea route, circum-

86 This accepted view of Lepanto as a decisive turning point in which a crushing and humiliating defeat was inflicted on the Ottomans and which irrevocably damaged their power in the Mediterranean has recently been called into question. See Andrew C. Hess, ‘The Battle of Lepanto and Its Place in Mediterranean History’, Past and Present 57 (1972), 53–73. 87 L’Ambassade, 28 and notes 35–37. 88 Rome, ASV, Spagna, Misc. Arm., II, 117 (116), 135, cited in Carmelites I, 23.



the historical context for the augustinian mission

37

stances in the capital would hardly have been propitious, as following the death of Cardinal Dom Henrique without heir, Philip II of Spain had imposed his own claim to the Portuguese crown by force in 1580. Portuguese diplomacy did, however, require the maintenance of good economic and political relations with the Safavid rulers, and it was in this context, as well as a declared desire to achieve an alliance against the common Ottoman enemy that Philip II initiated contact with Khudabanda in 1582. The envoy chosen by the viceroy of India would be an Augustinian friar, sometime prior of the Order’s convent in Hormuz, and is to the Augustinian Order that we now turn our attention.

CHAPTER Three

Origins of the Augustinian Order, its Portuguese Province, and the Congregation of the East Indies Origins of the Augustinian Hermits The Eremitical Order of St. Augustine1 has no direct connection to the monastic foundations of Augustine (354–430),2 the great Saint and Doctor of the Church whose thought continues to exercise considerable influence within Christianity. Ordained as bishop of Hippo (modern Annaba, Algeria)3 in 395, and having previously spent several years living in a quasimonastic community, Augustine is, rather, the spiritual father of the Order, one of a number which based their way of life on the instructions on the religious life contained in his writings.4 These provided a framework for the Rule adopted by canons wishing to lead an apostolic life in common, hence the ‘Canons Regular of St. Augustine’,5 and a number of monastic 1 Balbino Rano OSA, Augustinian Origins, Charism and Spirituality (Villanova PA, 1994), notes (15) that the designation ‘Hermits’ was finally eliminated, with the approval of the Holy See, on 12 February 1969. In fact the Order was never in any practical sense ‘eremitical’, and the use of the term effectively served simply to maintain the fiction of a direct link to Augustine. 2 The connections of Augustine with Western monasticism, and the origin and development of his Rule are the subjects of lively scholarly debate. For the origins and foundation of the Order see Angel Martínez Cuesta, Historia de los agustinos recoletos. Vol. I, Desde los origenes hasta el siglo XIX (Madrid, 1995), 35–101; Balbino Rano (tr. Arthur Ennis), The Order of St. Augustine (Rome, 1975), 1–29; id., Augustinian Origins, especially 11–53. A recent study, Frances Andrews, The Other Friars: The Carmelite, Augustinian, Sack and Pied Friars in the Middle Ages (Woodbridge, 2006), provides a wealth of information about the origins, history and practices of the Order. For the Rule see George Lawless, Augustine of Hippo and his monastic Rule (Oxford, 1987), 127–135 and 155–161, Angel Custodio Vega OSA, Notas historico-criticas en torno a los origenes de la Regla de San Agustin (Madrid, 1963), and the magisterial work of Luc Verheijen, La Règle de saint Augustin 2 vols. (Paris, 1967). 3 Increased interest in the figure of Augustine within Algeria is signalled by the publication of Pierre-Yves Fux, Jean-Michel Roessli, Otto Wermelinger (eds.), Augustinus Afer: saint Augustin, africanité et universalité: actes du colloque international, Alger-Annaba, 1–7 avril 2001; colloque organisé par le Haut Conseil Islamique Algérie et l’Université de Fribourg Suisse (Fribourg, 2003). See also Sabah Ferdi, Augustin de retour en Afrique (388–430) (Repères archéologiques dans le patrimonie algérien) Musée de Tipasa (Algérie) (Fribourg, 2001), reviewed by Maurice Borrmans in Islamochristiana 27 (2001), 278. 4 Art. ‘Ermites de Saint Augustin’ in DSp, IV, I, 984–1018, see 983–986. 5 Although, as Lawless (127) points out this was by no means the first time that the text of the Rule was attributed to him.

40

chapter three

societies and confraternities, particularly in Italy, would later adopt versions of the Augustinian Rule.6 Several of these groups were organised by Pope Innocent IV, by the decree Incumbit Nobis of 1243, into the ‘Tuscan Order of Hermits of St. Augustine’. Alexander VI united the members of this ‘little union’ with various other groups in a ‘Grand Union’ ratified by the Bull Licet ecclesiae catholicae of May 4 1256, the foundational charter of the Ordo Eremitarum Sancti Augustini.7 The spread of the re-organised Order was rapid, radiating as it did from numerous bases rather than a single motherhouse, and by the beginning of the fourteenth century it had expanded throughout Europe.8 Our Father Saint Augustine: The Creation of the Augustinian Myth If the Augustinian Hermits were a creation of the papacy, then the papacy of the late Middle Ages can be seen as to some extent an Augustinian creation. Notions of papal monarchy were already well-established, under the reigns of popes from Gregory VII (c. 1020–1085) to Innocent III (c. 1160–1215), but with the very existence of the Augustinian Order depending upon the legitimisation of papal authority, Augustinian writers such as Giles of Rome (c. 1243–1316), James of Viterbo (c. 1255–1308)9 and Augustinus of Ancona (1270–1328) made major contributions to late medieval political philosophy as proponents of papal hierocratic theory. As Saak puts it: The Augustinians may not have been the creators of the pope or the papacy, but they were the creators of the late medieval papal political theory that provided the legitimization and justification of the Augustinian identity . . .10

 6 A version of the Rule was, for example, adopted around the beginning of the twelfth century, by the military Order of Hospitallers of St. John of Jerusalem.   7 See A. de Meijer OESA, ‘Licet ecclesiae catholicae I. Text’ and R. Kuiters OESA ‘Licet ecclesiae catholicae II. Commentary’ in Francis Roth OESA and Norbert Teeuwen OESA (eds.), Augustiniana: Septimo exacto saeculo a magna unione MCCLVI–MCMLVI (New York, 1956), 9–13 and 14–36 respectively.  8 The modern study by David Gutierrez, Historia de la Orden de San Agustín 3 vols. (Rome, 1971–1980), covers the period 1256–1648. 9 See Francis X. Martin OSA, Friar, Reformer and Renaissance Scholar: Life and Works of Giles of Viterbo, 1469–1532 (Villanova PA, 1992); id., ‘The Problem of Giles of Viterbo: A Historiographical Study’, Augustiniana 9 (1959), 357–379. 10 Eric Leland Saak, High Way to Heaven: the Augustinian platform between reform and Reformation, 1292–1524 (Leiden, 2002), see esp. 160–234.



origins of the augustinian order

41

The close relationship between the Order of Augustinian Hermits and the papacy, and their particular interpretation of papal supremacy in both the temporal and spiritual spheres will inspire the absolute insistence on submission to papal authority so characteristic of the missionaries of the Order in Persia in their dealings with those outside the Catholic Church, be they Muslims or members of those Eastern Churches not in communion with Rome. The new Order also had to carve out a place for itself, particularly with regard to its main competitors, the Franciscans and Dominicans, both already well established. These Orders had received numerous privileges by the end of the thirteenth century, and had already established their own foundational myths upon which to construct their religious identities, as the Order of Friars Minor and the Order of Preachers, and in the early fourteenth century11 a series of Augustinian writers would create the myth of Augustinian identity as ‘the true sons of Saint Augustine’. Unsurprisingly it was a papal document which authorised this development. In his Bull Veneranda sanctorum of 1327, John XXII (1249–1334) had recognised the special relationship between the Hermits and St. Augustine, as their teacher, father, leader and head. These authors had ample medieval material available on which to construct their arguments,12 and the biographical and hagiographical elements of the ‘medieval’ Augustine would be harmonised and expanded to reconstruct a ‘historical’ Augustine with a view to legitimising the foundation of the Order, its programme and platform.13 The Italian (i.e. Tuscan) origins of the Order were confirmed, and it was now authoritatively asserted not only that Augustine had founded the first community and given its Rule, but had himself lived as a Hermit, wearing the habit of the Order after his baptism. The Order’s charter to preach and teach in the cities no longer had its origins in the instructions given to the Order by Alexander IV, but dated back to Augustine’s second monastery, where the monks were to live as hermits, but in the city, studying scripture in order to serve the populace. Even St. Augustine himself was co-opted, described as appearing to Alexander IV in a vision in which the saint had a large head and disproportionately small body, interpreted as his desire that the body 11 Rano Augustinian Origins, 15, states bluntly that within a century of their foundation, the Augustinians were ‘misrepresenting their origins’. 12 Particularly the Vita Sancti Aurelii Augustini of Possidius (d. 437), a contemporary and companion of Augustine, the Vita Sancti Agustini of Philip of Harvengt (d. c. 1182) a French Premonstratensian, and the Legenda Aurea of the Dominican Jacobus de Voraigne (b. 1229). See Saak, High Way to Heaven, 176–187 for an analysis of these texts. 13 Saak, High Way to Heaven, 187.

42

chapter three

should be increased by the incorporation of other groups into the existing Hermit Order. The Portuguese Augustinian Province: Origins, Decline, Reform Until recently, the only published history of the Order in Portugal was António da Purificacão Chronica da Antiquissima Provincia de Portugal, da Ordem dos Eremitas de S. Agostinho Bispo de Hippônia, e principal Doutor da Igreja, 2 vols. Lisbon, Domingos Lopes Rota, 1656, a work limited in value as the whole of volume I is devoted to the monasticism of St Augustine, and the history in volume II extends only to 1442.14 If we discount a brief summary published in 1987,15 then the only comprehensive history of the Augustinians in Portugal is the recent work of Carlos Alonso, Os Agostinhos em Portugal (Madrid, 2003). Also of value is the entry in Bernardo Vasconcelos e Sousa (ed.) Ordens Religiosas em Portugal: das Origens a Trento (Lisbon, 2005).16 The origins of the Augustinian presence in Portugal is unclear, but it appears that an earlier eremitical foundation affiliated to the Augustinians was relinquished in 1271, doubtless as a consequence of the wish expressed by the Holy See after the Union of 1256 that the Order should lead an apostolic life within the cities. In fact, this change from eremitical life to urban monasticism was already becoming general,17 and Jordan of Saxony describes the life of the Augustinian Hermits in the century following the Grand Union as ‘Chanting the Divine Office, serving at the altar, prayer, singing the psalms, devoting themselves to the reading and study of Scripture, teaching and preaching the word of God, hearing the confessions of the faithful, and seeking the salvation of souls by word and example’.18 A new church and convent founded in 1271 or 1272 in the Lisbon district of Almasala were under the patronage of St. Augustine until the second half of the fourteenth century, when the name was changed to Nossa Senhora da Graça. The defeat of Castilian forces by the Portuguese at the battle 14 The same author produced De viribus illustribus antiquissimae provinciae Lusitanae ordinis eremitarum . . . (Lisbon, 1642). 15 Hipólito Martinez OSA, A Ordem dos Agostinhos em Portugal e no mundo (Guarda, 1987). 16 The section on the Augustinian Hermits appears in 422–435. 17 See Cécile Gaby, De l’érémitisme rural au monachisme urbain: Les Camaldules en Italie à la fin du Moyen Age (Rome, 1999). 18 See Rudolf Arbesmann and Winfried Humpfner (eds.), Liber qui dicitur Vitasfratrum (New York, 1943), II, 26, 260.



origins of the augustinian order

43

of Aljubarrota in 1385 resulted in the creation of an Augustinian vicariate general of Portugal in 1387, depending directly on the prior general in Rome, while the Portuguese Augustinian Province appears to have been established in the general chapter of the Order in 1476. The situation of the Augustinians in Portugal at the beginning of the sixteenth century had become precarious, with few vocations, and the remaining members being mostly cloistered friars.19 Various attempts at reform had been made since the end of the fifteenth century. The capitular Acts of the Portuguese province reveal the disorder prevalent in various Augustinian houses, and the memorials presented to the king in 1534 were such as to require him to ask the general of the Order to send reformers. At the end of January 1535, the names of two reformers, Juan Gallego and Francisco de Villafranca, both from Castile, were presented to King João III (1502–1557). With the death of Gallego, Luis de Montoya, also from Castile, was appointed to replace him. At the request of the Portuguese monarch, himself a great benefactor of the Augustinians, the general of the Order Gabriel Veneto sent these two Augustinian priests to undertake the Portuguese reform. Arriving in 1535, Villafranca and Montoya would spend twenty and thirty-five years respectively in Portugal, and the subsequent flourishing of the Portuguese Province is due in no small part to their efforts.20 Within six years the reformers had introduced life in common throughout the Order’s Portuguese convents, founded an important college at Coimbra, restored or translated a number of houses, increased the number of vocations and ensured the quality of formation, and gained prestige at court. A number of Augustinians were elevated to the episcopate. Montoya would later serve as confessor to Dom Sebastião I (1544–1578), and eleven Augustinian friars accompanied the ill-fated expedition of the young king to North Africa. Sebastião disappeared when the Portuguese were heavily defeated at the battle of Alcácer-Quibir (1578), but the friars remained to work as missionaries among the Muslims, although with scant success.21 The sixty years (1569–1630) following the death of Montoya would be the golden age of the Portuguese Augustinians.22 A 19  Atilano Pascual Sanz, Historia de los agustinos españoles (Madrid, 1948), 208. 20 On the period of reform and the years following, see David Gutierrez, ‘La reforma de la provincia agustiniana de Portugal en los años 1535–1540’, Archivo Agustiniano 65 (1981), 3–40; ‘La provincia agustiniana de Portugal en los años 1546–1566’ ibid. 66 (1982), 3–40; ‘Documentación inedita de la provincia agustiniana de Portugal en los años 1567–1586’ ibid. 67 (1983), 3–52. 21  See Lopez, La Orden, 48–49. 22  Agostinhos, 75.

44

chapter three

galaxy of illustrious members of the Order populated the convents; many of them served in the episcopate and held university chairs, in addition to making a substantial contribution to Portuguese literature. To Hormuz, Goa and Beyond: The Augustinian Congregation of the East Indies The beginning of missionary activity in the Gulf of Guinea23 and in the Portuguese East by the Portuguese Augustinians is another consequence of the reforms which reinvigorated its Portuguese province. The island of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf had been a Portuguese possession from 1514, and would remain so until 1622. This barren location was incapable of supporting agriculture and even water had to be imported from the mainland (the underground cisterns for water storage may be seen to this day), only its strategic position rendered it valuable, serving as a metropolitan trading crossroads and a rich source of taxation for the Portuguese crown.24 Attempts by Jesuits and Dominicans had failed to establish lasting provision for the spiritual care of the island, while the Franciscan sent there in 1568 was forced to return to Goa by ill health. In 1571, the Captain of Hormuz, Dom Luis de Melo Silva, wrote to Sebastião I to ask for priests.25 It was to the provincial of the Portuguese province of the Augustinians, the well-connected Agostinho de Castro, later archbishop of Braga and primate of Spain (1588–1609) and undoubtedly one of the most distinguished Augustinian figures of the Catholic

23 See P. E. H. Hair, ‘Discovery and Discoveries: the Portuguese in Guinea, 1444–1650’ in id., Africa Encountered: European Contacts and Evidence 1450–1700 (Aldershot, 1997); Malyn Newitt, The Portuguese in West Africa, 1415–1670, A Documentary History (New York, 2010). 24 See the description of Hormuz given by Felix de Jesus in Primeira parte fols. 9v–10r, and the account of the island and its inhabitants in the account of the travels of Nicolau de Orta Rebello in 1605–1607, published in Joaquim Verissimo Serrão, Un Voyageur portugaise en Perse au début du XVIIe siècle (Lisbon, 1972), 92–97; also Willem Floor, The Persian Gulf: a Political and Economic History of Five Port Cities 1500–1730 (Washington DC, 2006), 7–138. 25 Arnulf Hartmann, ‘The Augustinians in Golden Goa: According to a Manuscript by Felix de Jesus, OSA’, Analecta Augustiniana 30 (1967), 5–174, 5, notes that João III had asked Montoya for missionaries for India in 1542.



origins of the augustinian order

45

Reform26 that the king turned,27 and when the definitors of the Province met with the provincial in October 1571 they selected twelve religious for the task.28 Nominations were made for the position of prior and sub-prior for the convent at Hormuz, which the king had ordered to be built at royal expense, and also for the convent to be established at Goa, the capital of Portuguese India, which was to be the central house of the vice-province. Having left Lisbon for India on 18 March 1572, and suffering bad weather en route, one of the two ships carrying the missionaries put in at Mozambique, while the other continued on to Goa. From Mozambique, Simão de Moraes and João de Santa Monica took passage on a vessel bound for Hormuz, while the rest of the group continued on to Goa, where they would arrange with the viceroy, Antonio de Noronha (1571–1573), the details of the double foundation in Goa and Hormuz. The missionaries were well received in Goa, staying for three months as guests of the Franciscans,29 but things went less smoothly in Hormuz, where the authorities appeared unwilling to put the king’s wishes into effect, and Moraes and his companion returned to Goa to clarify details of the royal provision. In Goa meanwhile, António da Paixão had taken the first steps to founding a convent,30 and obtained funds from the viceroy for the establishment at Hormuz, naming Moraes as superior of the convent. Moraes probably returned to Hormuz in the February monsoons of that year, where work now began in the grounds of a property bought with royal funds from a Jewish resident, and the foundations of the church, dedicated to Nossa Senhora de Graça, were laid in August 1573. Work on the convent began soon after and was completed in 1575.31 The Augustinians would pursue their activities in Hormuz without

26 See Carlos Alonso OSA, ‘Documentación inédita sobre Fr. Agustín de Jésus, O.S.A., Arzobispo de Braga (1588–1609)’, Analecta Augustiniana 34 (1971), 85–170; T. Aparicio OSA, ‘Fray Agustín de Castro o de Jésus’, Estudio Agustiniano 10 (1975), 47–81. 27 See the letters of King Sebastião of February 20 and March 2, 1572, to the viceroy of India and the Captain of Hormuz respectively, ANTT Manuscritos. no. 731, fols. 94v–95v, in Documentação 12, 247–249. 28 Ibid., 102–109. 29 Ibid., 110–111. In sharp contrast to the reception afforded the Augustinians by the other Orders due to the ‘spiritual envy’ of the latter. 30 See Lopez, La Orden, 57–63. 31 Documentação 11, 148.

46

chapter three

interruption until, with English assistance, the island was retaken by the Persians in 1622.32 The convent had a prior and sub-prior, with a normal complement of twenty religious. As the only priests in Hormuz, the Augustinians were kept busy in preaching and administering the sacraments, accompanying soldiers on their military sorties, and caring for the sick and wounded in the hospital. They also worked for the conversion of the many nonChristians on the island, with some success among the high-ranking Persian wives of the Portuguese, and developed the practice of boarding ships visiting the island which were carrying children from India intended for sale in Persia by the ship-owners.33 To better care for these children, a seminary would later be built beside the convent. At the other end of the social spectrum from the Indian children ‘rescued’ en route to Persia are those listed in the chapter of Purificação’s Memorias entitled ‘Princes and persons of royal blood converted in the East by the religious of Saint Augustine’.34 Brief mention is made in the same source of ‘Guativanda Dedopoli’, Queen Ketevan of Georgia, whose story we will take up in a later chapter. Dependent on the Augustinian foundation in Hormuz were Comorão (Gombrun, modern Bandar ‘Abbas), and Queixome (Queshm). Each had a residence and a small church where a single missionary administered to the local Christians. The mission at Comorão, which survived only until 1617, produced few converts among the local Muslims, while that of Qeshm, which survived until the fall of Hormuz, was more productive. The Augustinians may have been late arrivals, but between 1574 and 1626 had established themselves widely throughout the Portuguese East, Ave Maria lists their presence at Tanâ (Tanà), Cochim (Cochin), Chaul, Malaca, Macau, Mascate (Muscat), Mombaça (Mombasa), Baçaim (VasaiVirar), Damão (Moti Daman), Ugulim (Hugli), Bengala (Bengal), Aspão (Isfahan), São Tomé de Meliapur, Columbo (Colombo, Ceylon), Bassora (Basra), Gorgistão (Georgia) and Negapatão (Nagapatinnam).35 That of 32 See Carlos Alonso Vanes, ‘The Augustinians in Hormuz’ in Edmund Herzig and Willem Floor (eds.) Iran and the World in the Safavid Age (London, 2012), 365–370. 33 This practice clearly continued, as in 1603 ‘Abbas would rebuke the missionaries for taking Muslim children passing through Hormuz and making them Christians against their will and that of their parents. He contrasts the relative poverty in which these children remained with his own liberality to those on whom he imposed the religion of Islam. See Primeira parte, f. 68r. 34 Documentação 12, 62–66. 35 Manual Eremítico, 150–228.



origins of the augustinian order

47

Isfahan will be a major focus of our study, while the convents of Georgia and Basra will be considered in connection with the martyrdom of Queen Ketevan of Georgia and the mission to the Mandaeans or ‘St John Christians’ respectively. We turn first however to a description of the initial contacts with Persia of the Augustinians of the Congregation of the East Indies from their base in Goa. The Embassies of Simão de Moraes and Nicolau de Melo to Persia Towards the end of the sixteenth century, two circumstances occasioned the need in Portuguese India for an ambassador to Persia;36 the presence in Goa of an Armenian who had completed his embassy to Shah Khudabanda (1578–1587)37 on behalf of the viceroy of Naples, Don Iñigo Lopez de Mendonça, and the arrival of the new viceroy of India, Dom Francisco de Mascarenhas (1581–1584), bearing a letter to the shah from the Spanish king, no doubt congratulating the Persian ruler on his victory over the Ottomans, proposing a pact of friendship against their mutual enemy, and advising of the accession of Phillip II to the Portuguese throne.38 Mendonça’s ambassador had travelled to Goa in 1581, intending to take the sea route to Europe. Delayed in Goa, he gave a remarkable account39 of an occurrence involving the heir to the Persian throne, Hamza Mirza.40 Critically ill, the prince is said to have miraculously recovered after his Georgian Christian wife, daughter of Alexander II of Kakheti, showed him a crucifix and persuaded him to put his trust in Christ, whilst promising to convert to Christianity. According to the Armenian, the shah and his son had requested him to take letters and gifts to the king of Spain, and to ask for Catholic priests to bring about the conversion of the country.41

36 On the frequently ad hoc nature of Portuguese embassies see Stefan HalikowskiSmith, ‘ “The Friendship of Kings was in the Ambassadors”: Portuguese Diplomatic Embassies in Asia and Africa during the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries’, Portuguese Studies 22–1 (2006), 101–134. 37 His name is given as ‘João Batista’ (‘Garabed’ in Armenian) by Moraes in a letter of 20 October 1582 to Philip II (ASV, Misc, Arm. II, 117, 154). On the Armenian in Goa and his embassy see Diogo de Couto, Décadas da Asia, X, I, Lisbon, 1788, 514ff. 38 See Francisco Mendes da Luz, O Conselho da India (Lisbon, 1952), 309. 39 Given in Primeira parte, fols. 10r–12r; Relaçam, fols. 1v–2r. 40 Elder son of Muhammad Khudabanda, he functioned virtually as Regent in his father’s later years. 41  Primeira parte, 27–28; Gouveia Relaçam Book I, 1v–2v.

48

chapter three

How much of this story is true42 and how much it owes to the imagination of this ‘hypocritical Neapolitan ambassador’ is open to question. Certainly our chroniclers are at pains to emphasise the part later played by Moraes, a member of their Order, in influencing the prince’s attitude to Christianity. The death in 1586 of Hamza Mirza at the hands of his barber43 does, however, appear to have been at least in part due to fears that he might become a Christian.44 While the viceroy in Goa doubted the credibility of the Armenian, it was still necessary to find an ambassador to take the letter from Philip II to the shah. As a Persian speaker and of proven rectitude the Augustinian Simão de Moraes was chosen.45 He left Goa, probably in July 1582, together with the Armenian. Little detail is given of his journey,46 but he finally met Shah Khudabanda on military campaign in Khurasan. No mention of the presence of the Augustinian ambassador from the Spanish king appears in the secular histories of the period, but the lack is filled by accounts written in Goa after the return of Moraes. Alonso warns, however, that is difficult to separate the information he may have actually provided from the literary embellishments of the Order’s historians.47 The claim that Hamza Mirza found time in the middle of his military campaigns to become friendly with the Portuguese friar, and to take lessons in mathematics and geography from him, certainly appears improbable.48 However, Moraes certainly received an audience with the shah and the prince, delivered the king’s letter and gifts, and was well received.49 The official reply to the Spanish 42 Felix de Jesus (Primeira Parte, 27–28) records that the story was met with some scepticism by the authorities in Goa, and the credibility and motives of the Armenian would become increasingly suspect. 43 Encyclopaedia of Islam III, 161. 44 Gouveia tells us that he had this information from the lips of none other than Shah ‘Abbas, see Relaçam, f. 4r. 45 On Moraes see Documentação 11, 231; Alonso ‘El P. Simón de Moraes, pionero de las misiones agustinianas en Persia’’ Analecta Augustiniana 62 (1979), 343–372. 46 Felix de Jesús (Primeira parte f. 13r) provides a description of an unsuccessful attempt on the life of Moraes by his Armenian companion ‘with a large knife’, after which he disappeared. Gulbenkian (L’Ambassade, 29, n. 41) notes that this account, written some twenty years after the event, is not given in Gouveia’s Relaçam of 1611, nor is it supported by the letter of 1582 from Moraes to Philip II in the Vatican archives referred to above, although it is repeated in another ms account of Moraes, (ANTT, Livraria, ms no. 581, fols. 241–247). 47 Alonso, El P. Simón, 362. 48 Felix de Jesús, Primeira parte, 30. 49 From a report by the Italian traveller and diplomat J. B. Vecchietti, sent to Phillip II by the Venetian ambassador in Madrid, published in English as H. F. Brown, ‘A Report on the Condition of Persia in the year 1586’, English Historical Review 7 (1892), 314–321 (cited in Alonso ‘El P. Simón’ 362, n. 51).



origins of the augustinian order

49

king was sent with a Persian ambassador, who was to accompany Moraes to Europe via Goa.50 Moraes had returned to Goa by 1584, but not without having succeeded in converting a number of Persians, who then travelled with his returning party in order to receive further instruction in the faith and to be baptised among Christians. These catechumens, said to include a famous Persian philosopher,51 were well received at Hormuz and welcomed with enthusiasm by the viceroy in Goa. For a short period, Moraes exercised the role of vicar provincial in Goa, before resigning this post in order to accompany the Persian ambassador to Europe. They left Goa with the fleet of 1585 for Lisbon. The front-runner reached Lisbon in July, but by September there were fears for the fate of the other four ships. In October three of them finally reached Lisbon, but that on which the ambassador and the Augustinian friar had set out had been lost at sea with all hands. The unfortunate irony of the ship’s name, Boa Viagem (Bon Voyage), has not been lost on later historians.52 The next Augustinian ambassador to Persia was the Portuguese Nicolau de Melo.53 Philip II was anxious to maintain good relations with the new shah, ‘Abbas I, who had acceded to the Persian throne in 1587, and to encourage him in hostilities against the Ottomans. The viceroy of India was instructed to send as ambassador a person of some rank. Fortuitously, de Melo had arrived in Goa in 1598, planning to take the sea route to Europe in order to petition the Roman Curia and the Spanish court on behalf of the Spanish Augustinian province of the Philippines. He was persuaded by Aleixo de Meneses, Augustinian archbishop of Goa (1595–1612),54

50 Both Felix de Jesús, Primeira parte, 30, and Gouveia, Relaçam f. 2v, state that the letter was seen in Portugal by Aleixo de Meneses before he embarked for India in 1595. 51  Unnamed in our sources, he was visited on a number of occasions by the contemporary historian of the Portuguese East, Diogo de Couto, see Couto’s Décadas, X, I, 519. 52 Ibid., X, II, 24. 53 On de Melo, see Documentação 11, 296–297; Carlos Alonso, ‘El P. Nicolás Melo, Embajador y Martir’, Missionalia Hispanica 15 (1959), 219–244; Arnulf Hartmann OSA, ‘Father Nicholas Melo and Brother Nicholas of St. Augustine, Martyrs, OESA’, Augustiniana 9 (1959), 118–160 and 277–303. The story of the embassy to which he was apointed is given in Carlos Alonso OSA, ‘Embajadores de Persia en las Cortes de Praga, Roma y Valladolid (1600–1601)’ in Anthologica Annua, 36 (1989), 10–271; Luis Gil, ‘Sobre el trasfondo de la embajada del shah Abbas I . . .’, Estudios Clasicós 98 (1985), 347–377. 54 Aleixo de Meneses (1559–1617) was related to Agostinho de Castro, archbishop of Braga. With Agostinho de Castro as archbishop of Braga and Primate of Spain, and Aleixo de Meneses as archbishop of Goa and Primate of India, the Augustinian Order exercised formidable power and influence in both West and East. See Carlos Alonso, Alejo de Meneses OSA, Arzobispo de Goa: estudio biográfico (Valladolid, 1992); ‘Alejo de Meneses

50

chapter three

and the viceroy Francisco da Gama, to instead take the land route through Persia.55 Travelling with a Franciscan lay brother, Afonso Cordeiro and an Armenian interpreter, he discharged his mission at the Persian capital without undue difficulty, but his fortunes would take a disastrous turn for the worse. ‘Abbas had earlier been persuaded by the English merchant adventurer Anthony Sherley to expand what was originally planned simply as an embassy to Madrid, as a result of the exchange of letters conducted through the Estado da India, into a much grander politico-economic project involving negotiations with the emperor, the queen of England, the kings of France, Spain, Poland and Scotland, and lastly the pope, who, as ‘father of the Christian Princes’, would be instrumental in cementing an anti-Ottoman alliance. De Melo, accompanied by a Japanese convert,56 the Augustinian lay brother Nicolau de Santo Agostinho, and the Franciscan Afonso Cordeiro, agreed that his party should accompany the proposed embassy, now containing three groups, that of the Persian ambassador Husain Ali Beg, that of Sherley, and that led by de Melo. At the end of April 1599 the embassy set off for the Caspian en route to Russia, choosing this rather than the Mediterranean route both in order to avoid travelling through Ottoman territory, and in order to test the viability of the route for the export of Persian silk. Before they reached Moscow, Sherley had twice, for reasons not entirely clear, made attempts on the life of de Melo,57 and Sherley and Husain Ali Beg had begun the series of bitter quarrels which would plague the embassy. Only five months later was the embassy allowed to leave Moscow, and it would do so without de Melo and Brother Nicolau. Various reasons for their continued imprisonment were

OSA (1559–1617) Arzobispo de Braga. I Parte: Archivo Agustiniano 65 (1981), 41–74; II Parte: ibid., 66 (1982), 183–251; III Parte: ibid., 68 (1984), 151–181; IV Parte: ibid., 69 (1985), 117–166. Best known for his efforts to reduce the St Thomas Christians of the Malabar Coast to Roman obedience at the Synod of Diampur in 1599, described by António de Gouveia in his Jornada do Arcebispo de Goa Dom Frey Aleixo de Menezes, primaz da India Oriental: quando foy as serras do Malavar & lugares em que morão os antigos Christãos de S. Thome (Coimbra, 1606). 55 Primeira parte, f. 34v. 56 See Arnulf Hartmann, The Augustinians in Seventeenth Century Japan (Marylake, 1965). 57 An account in the Vatican archives (Fondo Borghese, Avisi di diversi parti del mondo, 1607–1610, Ser. IV, no. 52, 346, cited in Carmelites I, 70–71) notes that ‘This Father and Don Anthony had been great friends in Persia’, suggesting either that Sherley had been dissembling in Persia, or that their disagreement had arisen in the early part of their journey.



origins of the augustinian order

51

put forward in the contemporary sources.58 Perhaps the greatest credence should be given to the account of the Carmelite missionary, Juan Tadeo de San Eliseo, who met de Melo in Russia. According to him, confessional differences were at the root of de Melo’s difficulties, brought about by his baptism of a baby girl according to the Latin rather than Greek rite. As a Catholic priest, de Melo was an unfortunate victim of the confessional differences between Russian Christians of the Byzantine rite and the Latin Church, considerably exacerbated in this period by the formation of the Ruthenian Catholic Church at the treaty of Brest in 1595, and by military conflict with the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth.59 As a consequence of their denunciation to the local clergy by Anthony Sherley, de Melo and Brother Nicolau were imprisoned in the icy cells of the island monasteryfortress of Solovetsky,60 close to the Arctic Circle. Political turmoil in Russia following the death of Boris Godunov in 1605 brought them varying fortunes, but Brother Nicolau was finally publicly beheaded at Nishni Novgorod on the banks of the Volga. De Melo was whipped and beaten but refused to abandon his Catholic faith and was once again imprisoned, only to be freed for a period as the political climate changed once more. Having returned to Persia, our Carmelite chronicler informs us that it was confirmed to him in Isfahan, both by Persian merchants travelling from Astrakhan, and by ‘Ruthenian’61 ambassadors sent to the court of the shah, that Nicolau de Melo had been burned alive, presumably in odium fidei, in Astrakhan in January 1615, sixteen years after setting out from Goa. The reduced embassy continued on its way through Europe, although it did not visit the courts of France, England or Scotland. As Augustinian involvement ended with the imprisonment of de Melo in Russia, we will 58 See Alonso, El P. Melo, 21, the extensive references in L’Ambassade 32, n. 48, and Carmelites I, 71. 59 See J. Konkevicius, Russia’s Attitude towards Union with Rome (Washington, 1927); John ( Jan) Krajcar SJ: ‘A Report on the Ruthenians and their errors prepared for the fifth Lateran Council’, Orientalia Christiana Periodica 29 (1963), 79–94; ‘The Ruthenian Patriarchate: Some Remarks on the project for its establishment in the XVIIth c.’, ibid., 30 (1964), 65–84. 60 This remote location was the site of a great medieval monastery, transformed into a prison under Peter the Great in the sevententh century before recovering much of its former glory in the nineteenth century. History would repeat itself when, in the Soviet era, the islands and the monastery became a notorious labour camp as part of the infamous Gulag system. See Roy R. Robson, Solovki: The story of Russia told through its most remarkable islands (Yale, 2004). 61 The term is notoriously difficult to interpret, and in this case is likely to be simply a reference to Muscovite Russians. I am grateful to Liudmyla Sharipova of Nottingham University for this clarification.

52

chapter three

not detail the remarkable history of this venture, during which Sherley would steal most of the gifts intended for the European monarchs, and which became infamous for the constant quarrelling between its senior figures, and included the accidental death at Badajoz of the Muslim cleric who accompanied the embassy, and the conversion to Christianity of Husain Ali Beg’s nephew and a number of his retinue.62 Of the six converts to Catholicism, three would be baptised in Rome by Clement VIII with senior figures from the college of cardinals as godfather, while the others were baptised in Spain in the presence of members of the royal family, and with noble godparents. The account of one of the secretaries who accompanied the Persian embassy to Europe, Uruch Beg, who converted to Christianity at Valladolid taking the name Don Juan de Persia, published as Relaciones de Don Juan de Persia (Valladolid, 1604), remains an important source of information on the embassy of Sherley and Husain Ali Beg to Europe, and on the history and customs of Persia. The Persian ambassador left Lisbon to return to Persia on March 14 1602, while Sherley remained in Venice and would enter the service of the Spanish crown in 1604, never returning to Persia. In response to this embassy Clement VIII in his Brief of May 2nd 1601, Pervenerunt his proximus diebus, gave provisional support to the proposed anti-Ottoman league, promised to send missionaries to Persia, and thanked ‘Abbas for the favours he extended to Christians in his realm. He had also sent his own ambassadors, Francisco da Costa and Diego de Miranda,63 in March 1601, even before the arrival of the Persian embassy in Rome. From Spain, Philip III had authorised the embassy of Luis Pereira de Lacerda,

62 Accounts of the journey as far as Rome were written by four members of the English group: Sherley himself, Sir Anthony Sherley, his relation of his travels into Persia, the dangers and distresses which befell him in his passage, both by sea and land (London, 1613); facsimile edition Sir Anthony Sherley, Relation of Travels into Persia (Amsterdam, 1974). An abbreviated version appears in the reprint of the original 1625 edition of Samuel Purchas Hakluytus posthumus, or, Purchas his pilgrimes, 20 vols. (Glasgow, 1905–1907), vol. 8, 105, 375–411; William Parry (A New and Large Discourse of the Travels of Sir Anthony Sherley . . ., (London, 1601); George Mainwaring (A true discourse of Sir Anthony Sherley’s travels into Persia), and Abel Pinçon (Relation d’un voyage faict és annés 1596–1599 par un gentilhomme de la suite du Seigneur Scierly . . ., Paris, 1653), were included in Sir E. Dennison Ross Sir Anthony Sherley and his Persian Adventure, 229–236, 98–136, 175–226, 137–174 respectively. See also the useful bibliography in Maria Laura Bettencourt Pires, ‘Um problema controverso nas relações anglo-portugueses no século XVI’, Revista da Faculdade de Ciências Sociais e Humanas 2 (1988), 211–234. 63 See Carlos Alonso OSA, ‘Una embajada de Clemente VIII a Persia (1600–1609)’, Archivum Historiae Pontificiae 34 (1996), 7–126; idem, ‘Documentación inedita’, 306, 312– 314; Carmelites, I, 89–93.



origins of the augustinian order

53

which left in 1603. From the court of Prague, the Spanish ambassador Guillén de San Clemente reported in October 1601 that the emperor was sending a ‘Transylvanian knight’ as ambassador to Persia.64 It is probable that this is a reference to Stephan Kakasch von Zalonkemeny who died on reaching Lahidjan in Ghilan, with the role of ambassador passing to his secretary, Tectander von der Jabel. The embassy was well received, and ‘Abbas sent his own ambassador, Chah Quli Beg, with the returning emissary in order to present a letter of friendship to Rudolf II.65 Clement VIII was meanwhile beginning to arrange to send members of the Discalced Carmelite Order to Persia, but they would reach Isfahan only in 1607. The two Spanish Jesuits chosen in Valladolid to accompany Husain Ali Beg on his return did not do so, and, even before the latter’s return via India, three Augustinians had been sent from Goa to Persia in 1602 with a letter to the Persian ruler, so beginning the Order’s lengthy presence in Persia. The Embassy of 1602 and the Foundation of the Augustinian Mission of Isfahan In Goa the reports of de Melo and Moraes that the shah was well disposed towards the Christian missionaries laid the basis for the establishment of an Augustinian mission in Isfahan. In Rome meanwhile, Pope Clement VIII, misinformed by exaggerated tales of the shah’s desire to convert to Christianity,66 sent a Brief to Philip III of Spain in September 1600 inviting him to instruct his representatives in Goa to assist in sending missionaries of the Society of Jesus from India to Persia.67 64 AGS, Estado, leg. 707, doc. 184, and ibid., doc. 145, respectively, Alonso, Embajadores, 169. 65 See L.-L. Bellan, Chah ‘Abbas I. Sa vie, son histoire (Paris, 1932), 120–121. An account in German of Tectander von der Jabel’s travels was presented to the emperor on his return to Prague, and later published in Altenberg in 1609 as Iter Persicum . . ., and in French translation as Charles Schefer (ed.), Description du voyage en Perse entrepris en 1602 par Etienne Kakasch de Zalonkemeny . . ., (Paris, 1877). 66 ASV Arm. XLIV, vol. 44, 231, no. 243, given in English translation in Carmelites I, 81. That the unreliable reports of Father Francisco da Costa (an ex-Jesuit) and the layman Diego de Miranda, both Portuguese, who had come to Rome in 1600 after visiting Isfahan, had made a significant impact is shown by the Papal Brief of 4 September 1600 to the king of Spain. See ibid., 80–82. 67 Clement clearly intended the Jesuits for the Persian missions. A Brief to the shah of 1601 (ASV, Arm. XLIV, vol. 45, 45, no. 61, Latin text in Carmelites, II, 1274–1276, English translation ibid., I, 84–87) is even more emphatic. The pope also considered sending Barnabite priests to Persia, see Carlos Alonso OSA, ‘Clemente VIII y la fundación de las misiones católicas en Persia’, Ciudad de Dios 171/2 (1974), 196–240, see 207–210.

54

chapter three

Initially enthusiastic Philip failed to comply, a change of heart seemingly occasioned by a letter of 1600 to the king from the Augustinian archbishop of Braga, Agostinho de Castro, requesting the mission to Persia to be entrusted to the members of his Order, ‘already labouring in the island and straits of Hormuz for almost thirty years’ and also the only Order operating there without an exclusive field of mission, ‘since they were the last to arrive and everything had been divided up’.68 Philip did however remain concerned to make contact with the Persian ruler, not least in view of the news that had reached him of the English presence at the shah’s court, and in 1601 he wrote to ‘Abbas, with instructions to his viceroy in India to send the letter to the Persian court. When these documents arrived in Goa in the autumn of that year,69 the archbishop was resolved that members of his Augustinian Order should be the bearers of the king’s letter to Persia, particularly in view of the news circulating in Goa of the shah’s supposed interest in conversion to Christianity.70 In a letter of 1602 to his relative, the archbishop of Braga, Meneses refers to the pretensions of the Jesuits, ‘Those of the Society of Jesus greatly desire this embassy . . . . with the arrival in Rome of the news that an ambassador of the Shah is on his way to the pope, they want to send priests of the Society and have been discussing it with him’.71 With a generous offer to defray the cost of the embassy from his own pocket, Meneses persuaded Viceroy Aires de Saldanha that the embassy should be entrusted to Augustinian friars.72 His letter names them as the Portuguese Jerónimo da Cruz and António de Gouveia, and the Castilian 68 Arquivo Distrital de Braga, Cartas, unfoliated, see Carlos Alonso OSA, ‘Nueva documentación inédita sobre las misiones augustinianas en la India y en Persia (1571–1609)’, Analecta Augustiniana 33 (1970), 309–383, see 345–347. 69 Primeira parte, fols. 48v–49r details the arrival of the letters and the selection of the Augustinians as ambassadors. 70 In fact, members of the Order in Goa had already expressed their desire to undertake the mission to Persia. See Relaçam, f. 5r. Felix de Jesus (Primeira parte f. 35) provides the information that Meneses had chosen not to act on letters from de Melo advising that the shah wanted priests at his court, since the letters were considerably delayed and were accompanied by no firman or patent from ‘Abbas. 71   See B. J. de Senna Freitas, Memórias de Braga 5 vols., (Braga, 1890–1891), III, 9–121, 59. 72 See Rudi Matthee, ‘The Politics of Protection: Iberian Missionaries in Safavid Iran under Shah Abbas I (1587–1629)’ in Camilla Adang and Sabine Schmidtke (eds.), Contacts and Controversies between Muslims, Jews and Christians in the Ottoman Empire and PreModern Iran, Istanbuler Texte und Studien 21, (Würzburg 2010), 245–272, citing in 247 n. 5 Carlos Alonso, ‘Nuevas aportaciones para la historia del primer viaje misional de los Carmelitas Descalzos a Persia (1603–1608)’ Missionalia Hispanica 19 (1962), 249–287; idem ‘Una embajada a Clemente VIII’. The restriction of the mission to Persia to the Augustinian Order would, in fact, be short-lived. They would share the enterprise in Isfahan with the



origins of the augustinian order

55

Cristóbal del Espíritu Santo.73 The first, already well advanced in years,74 had been a chaplain to the Invincible Armada of 1588 and novice master to Meneses in Lisbon. His reputation for holiness only increased during his time in Persia, and his relics would later be transferred from Hormuz to Goa. By contrast, Cristóbal del Espíritu Santo would have been in the prime of life when he was chosen for the Persian mission. He had been confessor to Meneses accompanying him to India in 1595. After a number of years in Persia he returned to India and then again to Persia, dying en route to Isfahan. Of António de Gouveia, who would be the chronicler of this journey, Meneses stated that ‘since important matters of state would be involved, I have selected Friar Anthony, who enjoys here such estimation for his learning and preaching, being so well-mannered, and than whom there was no one better in any Order as to their maturity in negotiations. He was someone that I would have chosen even if he had not been a member of our Order.’75 Leaving Goa on 15 February 1602 the ambassadors landed at Muscat after narrowly escaping shipwreck. Having crossed to Hormuz they found the population in a state of some anxiety, as the Portuguese fort of Comorão on the Persian mainland was under siege by the ruler of Lara (modern Lar). Since the neighbouring island of Bahrain, under Portuguese control since 1521, was also under siege, the inhabitants of Hormuz were obliged to take action on two fronts. The fort at Comorão was on the point of surrender, only to be saved by the action of our missionaries, who persuaded the leader of the besieging Persians of the illogicality of attacking the Portuguese king just as he was sending letters to ‘Abbas regarding joint operations against the Ottomans.76 The embassy continued through intolerable desert heat to the city of Lar accompanied only by an Armenian interpreter and a guide who was to lead them to Shiraz. In Lar, Gouveia

Discalced Carmelites (1607), the Capuchins (1630), Jesuits (1656), and Dominicans (1677). See details of the various missions, Bugnini, La Chiesa. 73 Summary biographies of each appear in Documentação 11, 253–254, 254–256, and 249–250 respectively. 74 Over seventy according to Felix de Jesus, Primeira parte, f. 49r. 75 Memórias de Braga III, 59. Felix de Jesus (Primeira parte f. 49v) adds the information that Gouveia had just completed a course of Arts and taught Theology at the Order’s convent in Goa. On Gouveia see Carlos Alonso, Antonio de Gouvea, O.S.A.: Diplomático y Visitador Apostolico en Persia (Valladolid, 2000); John Flannery, ‘Dom Frei António de Gouveia OESA, missionary-ambassador, bishop in partibus infidelium, and Apostolic Visitor to Persia (1575–1628)’, in Nicolas Balutet et al. (eds.), Contrabandista entre mundos fronterizos: Hommage au Professeur Hugues Didier (Paris, 2010), 87–102. 76 The affair is described in some detail by Felix de Jesus, Primeira parte, fols. 51v–53r.

56

chapter three

refers to a disputation with a Jewish rabbi, the descendant of a family from Leon expelled from Spain in the time of the Catholic Monarchs. Leaving Lar they reached Shiraz, capital of ancient Persia, where in the absence of the shah’s viceroy they were welcomed by his son, Iman Quli Khan. They were delayed here for some time as he waited to determine the shah’s wishes regarding their onward progress, and witnessed the celebration of the anniversary of the death of Husain, the third Infallible Imam. This lasted for ten days, and Gouveia describes the often-extreme penitential practices performed by his devotees during the Ashura rituals.77 Continuing north in search of ‘Abbas, on campaign against the Uzbeks of Khurasan, they reached the ancient ruins of Persepolis,78 then visiting Atud, where Gouveia describes the elaborate mausoleum of two holy men closely related to the descendants of Muhammad.79 From here the Augustinians advised the governor of Iesda (Yazd), of their imminent arrival as ambassadors to the shah. Commenting on the beauty of the town, its constant fairs and the industry of its people. Gouveia notes that they are famous textile workers and describes an embroidered brocade ordered by the shah, and bearing an image of the Virgin and child. It is not impossible that what Gouveia saw was a length of velvet cloth woven in gold with the figures of Mary and Christ presented to the Doge of Venice in 1603 by a Persian embassy. Intended for the basilica of San Marco, the cloth is now in the city’s Museo Civico Correr.80 Learning that the shah was still on campaign in Khurasan in the northeast of the country,81 Gouveia and his companions set off in that direction. From Gunabad they sent their Armenian interpreter ahead to tell ‘Abbas of their approach. He ordered that they be well-treated, and provided horses to carry them to Mashhad. The city, an important centre of pilgrimage, is famed as the site of the mosque and shrine to the eighth Infallible Imam ‘Ali al-Rida. Gouveia records two events which he sees as good omens for the spread of Christianity: a few days before their arrival

77 See Babak Rahimi, Theater State and the Formation of Early Modern Public Sphere in Iran: Studies on Safavid Muharram Rituals, 1590–1641 CE (Leiden, 2011). 78 Relaçam, 29v–30r. 79 To this day such minor shrines, or imamzadehs are common throughout Iran. 80 See Marianna Shreve Simpson, ‘The Morgan Bible and the Giving of Religious Gifts between Iran and Europe/ Europe and Iran during the reign of Shah ‘Abbas I’ in Colum Hourihane (ed.), Between the Picture and the Word: Manuscript Studies from the Index of Christian Art (Pennsylvania, 2005), 141–150, 147. 81 The shah was attempting the subjugation of the Uzbek province of Balka. See Bellan, Chah ‘Abbas, 113–119.



origins of the augustinian order

57

a Venetian merchant had presented the shah with a richly-bound copy of the Símbolo de la fe by Luís de Granada,82 and the shah reportedly had a dream in which the eighth Imam deserted the famous mosque. Our writer here makes an excursus to provide some generally accurate information regarding the rise of the Safavid dynasty and its adoption of Islam ‘according to the sect of Ali’. In addition to the first hand information he obtained in Goa and on his journey, Gouveia likely had access to the detailed and generally accurate description of the origins and beliefs of Imami Shi‘ism in volume II (x, vi) of João de Barros’ Décadas da Asia published in Lisbon in 1555.83 Barros lists the differences between Shi‘i and Sunni Islam, and in a clear reference to the practice of taqiyya notes that ‘the Persians continually dissimulated these things’ as a consequence of being under the Arab yoke. Gouveia describes ‘Abbas as he appeared to the missionaries,84 thirty-two years of age, short and with a cheerful expression, strong, and showing little if any weakness, measured and easy in conversation, loved by the people and feared and respected by his nobles. He is moderate in eating, but somewhat given to drink, a vice permitted among the Persians although forbidden by their religion. He follows the superstition of his sect, praying five times a day, and more rigorously than many. He shows clear judgment but is given to few words. . . .

We hear that he is ambitious for glory and fame, but only for what he can win by arms. Many of his wives are Georgians or Circassians (‘Cherquezes’) and their enclosure in the harem is described. Gouveia notes his fondness for horses and his equestrian prowess, his skill with the ‘Turkish bow’ and his prodigious strength. The country lacks gold, silver or precious stones, except for turquoise, and the production and sale of silk and the taxes this generates are the kingdom’s principal source of revenue. The shahs are said to be absolute masters of everything in the country, while their subjects are merely allowed the use of whatever they might have. On the day following their arrival in Mashhad, the Persian ruler sent to say that he was awaiting the presentation of their letter from the king,

82 On Luís de Granada see Jordan Aumann OP ‘Louis of Granada: The Layman’s Theologian’, Angelicum, 46 (1988), 565–584. 83 I am grateful to Michael Barry of Princeton University for this reference to Barros’ text. See also Etan Kohlberg, ‘Western Studies of Shi’a Islam’ in Martin Kramer (ed.), Shi‘ism, Resistance and Revolution (Boulder, CO, 1987), 31–46. 84 An entire chapter is devoted to a description of the shah and his predecessors, Relaçam, fols. 42–46.

58

chapter three

and of the gifts from the viceroy of India. He declared himself honoured to receive a letter from the king of Spain, and after accepting it from Jerónimo da Cruz, a line of servants passed by, bearing the viceroy’s gifts. When the shah expressed amazement at their having travelled so far by sea to visit him, they explained that their principal motivation was the desire to teach the true religion to those ‘pagans and idolaters’ who were ignorant of it, as well as to further the affairs of empire, and then presented ‘Abbas with a richly-bound ‘life of Jesus Christ’. Support is lent to the possibility that this may have been a copy in Portuguese of the work composed by the Jesuit Jerome Xavier at the court of Akbar, later translated into Persian as ‘The Mirror of Holiness viz. the Life of the Lord Jesus’, by the statement of the author of an anti-Christian polemical text at the court of Isfahan in the early eighteenth century that he had to hand a copy of the work.85 A number of copies of the Persian translation of Xavier’s text survive, the earliest dated 1602, and a note written in Latin in the copy held by the British Museum clearly states that the work was originally written in Portuguese: ‘Liber dictus Dastan Masih, i.e. Historia Christi, primum Lusitanice composita a Patre Hieronymo Xavero’ (The book called Dastan Masih, that is, History of Christ, originally written in Portuguese by Father Jerome Xavier). Both Akbar (and later Jahangir) seem to have been greatly taken by the text, a somewhat curious amalgam of Gospel stories and pious legends. Thanking them for their gift Abbas asked that someone should add explanatory notes in Persian in its margins, a task which Gouveia readily accepted.86 After this a sumptuous meal was served on gold and silver platters.87 Accompanying the shah to Isfahan a few days later, Gouveia addressed the shah regarding the league against the Ottomans, exhorting ‘Abbas not to make peace, since he could be sure of the support of the Christian princes, which would enable him to recover territory lost to the Ottomans 85 See Francis Richard, ‘Un Augustin portugais renegat apologiste de l’Islam chiite au debut du XVIII siècle’ in Moyen Orient & Océan Indien 1 (1984), 73–85, 80. See also the classic work of Arnulf Camps OFM, Jerome Xavier SJ and the Muslims of the Mogul Empire: controversial works and missionary activity (Fribourg, Switzerland, 1957). The ‘Mirror of Holiness’ is discussed in 14–16. 86 In similar fashion in 1607 Carmelites missionaries presented the shah with a volume of richly illuminated manuscripts depicting Old Testament scenes, given them during their journey by the Polish cardinal Maciejowski. This ‘Picture Bible’ dates from the mid thirteenth century, and is now in the Morgan Library in New York (MS M.638). Persian descriptions of the meaning of each picture, added at ‘Abbas’ request, can be clearly seen on every folio. See Simpson, ‘The Morgan Bible’, 143. 87 Relaçam, 46r–47v.



origins of the augustinian order

59

in the time of his predecessors, and to avenge himself for the tyranny they had inflicted. Gouveia’s depiction of a Christian Europe living in peace and harmony, its rulers ‘with their hands to their swords’ merely waiting for ‘Abbas to take up arms against the common enemy before dedicating themselves to the same cause, clearly belongs to the realm of fantasy. No doubt tailoring his comments to suit his audience, ‘Abbas replied that he sought nothing more than the entire destruction of the Ottoman empire, with their mosques destroyed and converted into churches, and promised that Gouveia would not leave Persia without concrete evidence of this enmity.88 Later, during a hunting trip, the missionaries told ‘Abbas that while he had all the qualities of a great prince and leader all he lacked was to be a Christian. Smiling he replied that only God knows the heart. When the shah told him that the crown prince, Safi Mirza was the son of a Christian, and that the pages accompanying them were all Christians, Cristóbal del Espíritu Santo replied that it was the king himself that they wanted to be a Christian. A clearer indication of the shah’s true feelings appears to have gone unnoticed by the missionaries89 when on 4 October 1602 he called them to view the preparation of gifts for the Georgian ruler Alexander II of Kakheti (1574–1605),90 showing them that he was including a number of the Christian objects from the viceroy of India, saying that he was sending Christian things to Christian princes, ‘as they would receive them with greater pleasure’.91 That night he invited them into an inner tent to see some of his pageboys (pagens) dancing,92 and led the missionaries to believe that there were many Christians amongst them. The missionaries appear at this stage to be too impressed by the proceedings to voice any concerns about the precise status of the shah’s ‘dancing boys’. While many of the boys were indeed likely ghulam Christians of foreign origin or descent, particularly Georgians, being trained for posts within the royal household, they were also likely to have been ‘converted’ to Islam, and would have had little opportunity to practice their original faith. In the words of Gouveia 88 Relaçam, 47v–52r. 89 Alonso, António de Gouveia, 40. 90 In 1602 ‘Abbas had pressured both Alexander II of Kakheti and Giorgi X of Kartli to provide support for his campaign against the Ottomans in the Transcaucasus, and this gift is no doubt connected to these events. 91   Simpson (‘Morgan Bible’, 146) suggests that this recycling of gifts of a religious nature was a not uncommon practice. 92 Relaçam, 53r.

60

chapter three

himself ‘Such were the favours he lavished on us that night, and so many were the demonstrations of the affection that he has for the Christians, that we were astonished’. Gouveia also relates that the shah introduced the Georgian Prince Constantine to them as a Christian, although he had in fact embraced Islam.93 Having summoned the Christians of Constantine’s retinue, ‘Abbas showed them how many Christians accompanied the Georgian prince, saying, much to the delight of the missionaries ‘these [Christians] are those I most trust’. ‘Abbas then began to speak about ‘certain mysteries of our faith’ surprising the missionaries by his knowledge. Regarding the death of Jesus, ‘Abbas agreed that he did indeed die, as the Christians taught, and that to say otherwise is ‘a deceit of the Muslims’, that is to say the Sunni Ottomans, since the ‘Spirit of God’ which he possessed could not die, just as in the same way the soul lives on after death. From an Islamic perspective, it is generally felt that the internal logic of the Qur’an prevents the possibility of Jesus’ death on the cross, on the basis that God does not fail to vindicate his prophets. ‘Abbas’ approach seems to be one way round this difficulty, and may indicate a sympathy for the notion of redemptive sacrifice common to both Christianity and Shi‘a Islam. Following this, the monarch asked Jerónimo da Cruz to teach him how to make the sign of the Cross. Seeing the friar fall to his knees as he did so, ‘Abbas did the same, declaring to all those present that the devil might take them if they did not also bless themselves. ‘Abbas is reported to have returned to the missionaries ‘full of laughter and happiness’, saying ‘you see, we are all becoming Christians’. Reading the text, there seems every possibility that ‘Abbas, having no doubt imbibed during the earlier festivities, is simply making fun of the missionaries’ earnestness.94 At this early stage, it was only too easy for them, influenced as they were by false rumours of his interest in Christianity, to believe that he did indeed intend to become a Christian. By coincidence Gouveia turns at this point to relating the meeting of the Augustinians with the papal envoys Miranda and da Costa, who had played no small part in fostering this illusion.

93 One of the sons of Alexander II, Constantine, now thirty-five, had been held hostage at the Persian court since his youth and had converted to Islam. He would briefly rule Kakheti after murdering both his father and elder brother at the instigation of ‘Abbas and, seizing the throne of Kakheti in 1605, and would die in battle later in the same year. Ketevan, the widow of David I, who had briefly ruled Kakheti in 1601–2 after forcing the abdication of his father Alexander II, would lead the revolt against Constantine which led to his death. 94 Relaçam, 52r–54v.



origins of the augustinian order

61

En route to the town of Gor, they were joined by one of these ambassadors, Antonio de Miranda, who arrived ‘in great haste’, in order to be the first to reach the shah. Gouveia devotes several pages to the origins of this papal embassy,95 but gives no significant details of the meeting with ‘Abbas, who received the pope’s letter respectfully, passing it to Gouveia for translation. Not only is the ‘most puissant king of the Persians and successor of Cyrus the great’ credited with the desire to become a Christian himself, but the pope states that he has heard ‘that you desire churches of the Christian rite to be built in your kingdom, or perhaps have begun their building already so that in them God be continually praised, and the holy sacrifices offered, and the sacred Gospel of Christ preached to every believer . . .’. One might wonder whether Gouveia also took the trouble to faithfully translate the passage in the letter which refers to the sending of Jesuit priests to Persia! Gouveia now appears to be developing a new understanding of ‘Abbas’ intentions as, although praising the style and sentiments of the letter, he states that, while it may well persuade the shah to make war on the Turks, it was unlikely to secure his conversion to Christianity, since the information received in Rome in this regard had no foundation in truth.96 Gouveia’s comment need not be taken as an indication that he now held no hopes for the shah’s conversion, but rather that the situation described in the Brief was so different from reality that he felt obliged to comment. After two days in Gor, the party set out for Kashan. Gouveia devotes several pages to a description of the journey, during which the shah had them travel beside him, bestowing many signs of favour, and often turning the conversation to religious matters. Such, indeed was the public display of affection towards the missionaries that Gouveia expressed concern that this would increase the jealousy and hatred towards them among those close to the shah. When ‘Abbas asked if anyone had a crucifix, one of the missionaries presented him with one ‘full of relics’, which he took and wore on his chest.97 Turning to his retinue, he asked whether, if he became a Christian, they would follow him. Their response, ‘that they desired only the same as their king, and that wherever he led they would

95 Ibid., 54v–57v. 96 The letter is the papal Brief of 1601, ASV. Arm. XLIV, 45, 44–48 (No. 61), Latin text in Carmelites II, 1274–1276, English translation in I, 84–86. 97 From Primeira parte (57r) we learn that the black cross was worn over a scarlet tunic, making it clearly visible to all. ‘Abbas would later wear it concealed under his sleeve, and appears to have regarded it as something of a talisman.

62

chapter three

follow’ must have delighted the missionaries, doubtless inspired by the principle of cuius regio, eius religio. Gouveia describes in detail the frenzied welcome received by ‘Abbas at Kashan. Even before he reached the city, the inhabitants came out to greet him, throwing themselves down to kiss the ground his horse would cross, women beating their chests and beseeching God to take their lives and add them to that of the shah, and doves and other birds released as ‘Abbas passed by. A curious detail is the description of ‘tabernacles’ raised off the ground and containing young calves with their legs tied ‘as if ready for sacrifice’. Asking the significance of this, Gouveia was informed that it indicated a willingness to sacrifice themselves for their love of the shah.98 On entering the city, fruit and wine in abundance were provided for all in the public squares. Confronted with these scenes, ‘Abbas took the sleeve of Gouveia’s habit, saying that despite the joy of the inhabitants on seeing him, ‘in truth my soul is darkened by sadness deeper than the black of your habit, seeing that I am unworthy of all this in view of the faults which I have committed before God. How much better it would be to be a simple man, who needs no more than a piece of bread to sustain him, than to be ruler over so many vassals and so many cities, which I unworthily possess.’ These words are accompanied by floods of tears, brought about, in Gouveia’s opinion by the action of the Holy Spirit through contact with the crucifix.99 We may well be sceptical of the shah’s histrionics: Pietro della Valle would note his ability to produce tears at will. It may be that the missionaries had somehow caused him to reflect on his situation in a rather emotional way, or, more likely, that he was indeed simply toying with them, and involving his followers in the deception. If Alonso100 is right, ‘Abbas earlier question about becoming a Christian may have been asked in a similarly mischievous vein. The missionaries still do not appear to have questioned his sincerity however. Certainly ‘Abbas’ comments here contradict the reality of his position, as a divinely appointed absolute monarch, a reality central to the Safavid project realised so effectively under his rule.

98 The release of the birds signifies, according to Gouveia, the freeing of the inhabitants from their former oppressors by ‘Abbas. The fervour of the populace would also certainly appear to have religious overtones, recognising ‘Abbas as the leader of the Safavid Order, while their preparedness to die for him calls to mind the legendary fanatical devotion of the troops led into battle by the founder of the Safavid dynasty. 99 Viaggi 3, 151. 100 Alonso, António de Gouvea, 43.



origins of the augustinian order

63

The missionary consoled the monarch, saying that while the condition of a ruler is more perilous than that of a simple individual, he has more opportunities to serve God. In an aside, Gouveia expressed his desire that a Muslim so inclined to every virtue should not remain lost in his ‘pestilential errors’, urging his readers to pray for the shah’s enlightenment and conversion ‘for if he does so we can hope with great certainty for the conversion of his entire kingdom, so loved and feared is he by his subjects’. On the following day, while in conversation with the shah, the missionaries received a note from the other papal ambassador, the ex-Jesuit Francisco da Costa, asking the Augustinians to accompany him on a visit to the shah that same day. The missionaries asked permission to fetch him, and return to find ‘Abbas playing polo. He later invited them to join him on an upper terrace of the palace, where they spent many hours in friendly conversation.101 The royal progress reached ‘Abbas’ capital city of Isfahan on 10 November 1602,102 and Gouveia accurately informs us that, apart from its location, the ancient capital of the Parthians owed everything to the shah, who, together with his nobles, had created many beautiful gardens and fine buildings, including the grand avenue leading to the famous bridge which crosses the river Zayanda-rud, and would link Isfahan to New Julfa. However, the missionaries now noted a decided cooling in ‘Abbas attitude towards them. Gouveia here reveals some political awareness, citing three possible causes for this change.103 Firstly, that the shah had received news from Allah Verdi Khan,104 sultan of Shiraz, that the 101 Relaçam, 58v–60r. 102 The earlier Safavid capitals had been Tabriz and Qazvin. The former had been in Turkish hands for some decades, while the latter was hated by the shah, not least as it was the site of the murder of his brother, Hamza Mirza. 103 Relaçam, 62–63. 104 Member of a well-connected Georgian family, captured in Georgia, conscripted into the Persian army, and converted to Islam, Allah Verdi Khan rose to the rank of sardare-lashkar (commander in chief), becoming perhaps the second most powerful person in Persia after the shah. He conducted a number of successful campaigns, including the conquest of Bahrain from the Portuguese in 1601–2. He was also responsible for a number of public building projects, the most famous of which is the bridge which crosses the Zayandeh river in Isfahan, and bears his name to this day. His son Iman Quli Khan would succeed him as governor of the province of Shiraz. The fortunes of the family are the subject of Vallerian N. Gabashvili, ‘The Undiladze Feudal House in the Sixteenth to Seventeenth Century Iran According to Georgian Sources’, Iranian Studies 40/1 (2007), 37–58; see also H. Maeda, ‘On the Ethno-social Background of four gholam Families from Georgia in Safavid Iran’, Studia Iranica 32/2 (2003), 243–280, see 262–266 and the genealogical chart on 273.

64

chapter three

Portuguese in Hormuz were awaiting the arrival of a large naval force for the re-conquest of the island of Bahrain. Secondly, the vehement opposition of the Shi‘a religious establishment to the shah’s agreement that the missionaries could remain in Isfahan and open a church. The clerics expressed their astonishment that the shah ‘being the principal column of the Mohamadan sect’ should consider allowing Christian churches in his lands ‘being by their religion his enemy’, and that ‘although the Christian religion had been good until the coming of Mahomet, nevertheless, with his arrival in the world the religion of Christ had come to an end’.105 Nor, in their view, was there any validity in the argument that both Mogul and Ottoman rulers had allowed churches in their kingdoms, since both were heretics, the former having left the Muslim religion,106 and the latter refusing to accept Ali as a holy man. Thirdly, the scandal caused by the interminable disagreements between the papal ambassadors Miranda and da Costa. Attempts by the Augustinians to reconcile the pair were unsuccessful, and when ‘Abbas saw them quarrelling he mused aloud that perhaps it was impossible for harmony between Christians, a clear reference to the difficulties in persuading the Christian princes to unite in his support. As to their establishment in the Persian capital, the Augustinians decided on discretion, now insisting that the purpose of their visit was purely political, aimed at persuading the shah to form an anti-Ottoman alliance with the Christian princes. However, while the missionaries continued publicly to exhort the shah to make war on the Ottomans, ‘in secret’ they pressed him for permission to build a church and to provide them with a suitable site. If the behaviour of Miranda and da Costa was far from edifying, the behaviour of other Christians passing through the Persian capital also left

105 In fact the Islamic tradition regarding other religions is a considerably more nuanced, particularly in respect of ahl al-kitab, the People of the Book. See Yohanan Friedmann, Tolerance and Coercion, esp. 13–86; Jane Dammen McAuliffe, Qur’anic Christians: An Analysis of Classical and Modern Exegesis (Cambridge, 2007). 106 Displaying a degree of certainty regarding an issue which continues to exercise scholars: whether or not Akbar, the Mogul ruler had in fact abjured Islam. For a survey of conflicting opinions see Arnulf Camps, Jerome Xavier, 52–66. Xavier stated of Akbar ‘During his lifetime nobody knew what religion he professed, and this uncertainty will remain forever.’ (letter of 25 September 1606, British Museum Add. mss. 9854, fols. 39–40, quoted in Camps, Jerome Xavier, 63). However, the historian of the Iberian Jesuits Hugues Didier accepts the modern scholarly consensus that Akbar had indeed left Islam, see Jerónimo Xavier SJ, Fuente de Vida: Tratado Apologético dirigido al Rey Mogol de la India en 1600 (San Sebastián, 2007), 49 (Hereinafter Fuente).



origins of the augustinian order

65

much to be desired. The missionaries were appalled by the decision of a Venetian merchant so weighed down by debt that he saw no alternative but conversion to Islam. Initially, on appealing to the shah to be granted permission to convert, he was told that if he wanted to become a Muslim he should do so in Hormuz, but under pressure from his compatriots the shah granted his consent. In fact such ‘conversions of convenience’ which resulted in the cancellation of debts were far from uncommon, and it is ‘Abbas’ reticence which appears stranger. It is noteworthy that he suggests the frontier between Islam and Christianity as a more appropriate place for this change of religion. Issues of religious conversion, apostasy and redemption will be considered further below. Nevertheless, the event greatly distressed the missionaries who ‘desiring to suffer for the faith’ strongly criticised the shah. ‘Abbas responded to this provocation by threatening to wage war on Hormuz, although still continuing to treat the missionaries with a show of outward respect.107 It would be political concerns regarding the south of the country rather than religious affairs which now influenced their fate as they awaited an official response from ‘Abbas. As noted, one reason for the cooling of the shah’s enthusiasm for the missionaries was the information sent by the ruler of Shiraz that a Portuguese fleet with the intention of re-taking Bahrain was expected in the Persian Gulf. In fact at the end of 1602, a fleet comprising one galliot and three light vessels had set sail from Goa for Hormuz, under the captaincy of Dom Jorge de Castelbranco. As soon as he received word, Allah Verdi Khan gathered an army and camped on the coast of the Gulf with the aim of frightening the Portuguese, particularly those defending the fort of Comorão, and interrupting the caravan traffic which was of such importance to the survival of Hormuz. Receiving no response from the Portuguese at Hormuz, after two weeks he sent one of his captains to subdue the coastal territories. When news of this eventually reached the missionaries in Isfahan, they complained to the shah, who sent instructions to his general to withdraw from the region. Allah Verdi Khan was preparing to set siege to Comorão when he received the shah’s letter, but promptly withdrew. After his withdrawal, the Portuguese ships referred to above arrived at Hormuz. They had been sent more to defend Hormuz than to capture Bahrain, but in the Persian imagination this insignificant flotilla had grown to be a full-scale naval invasion, with another sizeable fleet following on its heels. ‘Abbas in his turn now 107 Relaçam, 61r–64v.

66

chapter three

complained to the missionaries, saying that they had been responsible for the sending of an entire fleet to the Gulf. They tried to calm him as far as possible, pointing out the illogicality of the sultan of Shiraz’s actions in occupying the territories of the king of Hormuz, obliging the viceroy in India to defend him, as a vassal of the Spanish king. In conclusion, it was agreed that one of the missionaries should return to Hormuz in order to prevent the Portuguese fleet from proceeding to Bahrain, and to urge the sultan of Shiraz to leave the coastal regions he had occupied, something which he had in fact already done. That this policy suited the Portuguese is clear from official communications between Hormuz and Goa.108 Recognising the shortage of soldiers available from India due to the continual presence of Dutch ships, it was felt inopportune to invite the wrath of ‘Abbas over Bahrain, especially as this would also interfere with his ability to wage war on the Ottomans.109 It was agreed that Gouveia should carry the pact between the shah and the missionaries to Hormuz and then to Goa for ratification, while a Persian embassy would accompany him with a reply to the letter which the Augustinians had brought from Philip III. The Persian ambassador Bastan Quli Beg, accompanied by the papal ambassador Diego de Miranda, was to travel to Europe, leaving Gouveia in Goa.110 Miranda himself provides some further details of events. A letter of 23rd January 1603 addressed to Acquaviva, the Jesuit general, tells how the shah had given him a letter under the royal seal promising to permit the building of Christian churches in Persia ‘when he was convinced that the Christian princes had joined forces against the Turks’, and that such churches would be as sumptuous as the palace which he was in the process of building. The second letter, to Cardinal Cinzio Aldobrandini, the Roman cleric responsible for the papal embassy, also made mention of Miranda’s disagreements with da Costa.111 Having thus explained the reasons for his being sent back to Hormuz and India, Gouveia relates that some days later, the shah offered him money and valuables for the journey. The refusal to accept anything in view of his vow of poverty astonished and greatly impressed ‘Abbas, emboldening Gouveia to take the bold decision to address the shah directly on the 108 Alonso, Gouveia, 52. 109 Relaçam, 65r–66v. 110 Ibid., 66v. 111  ARSI, Gal. 97/111. fols. 278r–279r and ASV, Borghese, III, vol. 130-A, fols. 284–285, in Alonso, ‘Una embajada’, 113–116.



origins of the augustinian order

67

subject of religion, even if this should lead to him shedding his blood for Christianity. He states that as he would soon be leaving ‘to carry out your commands’ it was incumbent on him to fulfil those duties incumbent on a missionary priest, declaring: Believe me. O great Monarch of Asia, the principal cause of the coming of myself and my companions to your remote kingdom was not to persuade you to make war on the Turk, as we have been urging, nor other particular matters which we have referred to, since our state and profession is far removed from all such things, and in respect of such things the King can be served by others who understand them better, can speak of them better and can better put them to effect; but we have spoken of such things, and rightly so, in the wish that through them we might find occasion to speak of higher things, to do with the salvation of you and yours.

He invites the shah to ‘leave the false religion [lei] which you have so far followed, since in it you cannot find salvation, and accept the true religion of Christ, promulgated by his words, confirmed with his blood and authorised through his miracles’, continuing: Open, most excellent Prince, the eyes of your soul, see the difference between your sect and our religion, see the dishonesty of yours and the purity of ours. Ours forbids us to wish ill of our worst enemies, yours promises eternal life to anyone who kills a Christian, commanding that you should hate them all. Yours is full of lies and contradictions, as any of your scholars will show, while in ours it is as impossible for us to lie as it is for the God who gave its laws. Our religion has spread throughout the world, continually increasing by the blood which its preachers have shed, yours was entered through force of arms wishing, beyond all reason, to have no other, and threatening with death those who refuse to embrace it.112

‘Abbas received this somewhat intemperate appeal with equanimity. However, ‘he was so attached to the error in which he had been raised’, that he claimed that his own religion was also good, and could be the means of his salvation, adding ‘if I were to become a Christian, I could only have one wife’, and similar ‘frivolous things’. Nevertheless, on the following day, ‘Abbas paid a visit to the Augustinians, asking to see the celebration of Mass. The missionaries obliged with a sung Mass, although without consecration, ‘for reasons of proper respect’. 112 This unfavourable comparison of Islam with Christianity, intended to convey the superiority of the latter, had become a staple of Christian-Muslim polemic. See Sidney H. Griffiths, The Church in the Shadow of the Mosque: Christians and Muslims in the World of Islam (Princetown and Oxford, 2007), 104–105. Jerome Xavier devoted Chapter 4 of his polemical treatise Fuente de Vida to precisely this approach: see Fuente, 364–414.

68

chapter three

Gouveia describes his own unhappiness at seeing how little effect his earlier discussion with the shah had had, although adding that on another occasion he addressed the shah in public on the same topic.113 Continual delays to Gouveia’s departure were explained when the shah told him that he had been awaiting news of a secret assault on the fortress of Nakhitchevan in Armenia, having earlier promised that Gouveia would not leave his court until he could take news to the Christian world of these hostilities against the Ottomans.114 The departure on 3rd February 1603 of Gouveia, Miranda and the corresponding Persian ambassadors and their retinues is confirmed by an anonymous Catholic writer in a letter of March 1604,115 which also refers to the shah’s promise to build churches in his lands when the Christian princes unite against ‘the Turks’. Gouveia’s earlier travel companions are to remain in Isfahan to await his return. Before describing a curious event connected with Gouveia’s departure, however, we will undertake a brief excursus, intended to provide the context for this event. Liberty to Captives: Ransom of Christian Prisoners at the Heart of a Shi‘a Muslim State A significant feature of the Catholic missions in Persia would be the efforts of the missionaries to obtain the freedom of Christians who, generally under some form of duress, particularly slavery, or in order to obtain advantage, had embraced Islam and were living as Muslims. We may imagine that many of these, effectively practising a Christian taqiyya, wore their new religion lightly, and it seems that recitation of the Shahada and male circumcision were considered sufficient evidence of conversion.116 The freeing of Christians taken prisoner by Muslims had, since the Crusades, been seen as an important expression of Christian charity,117 saving from

113 Relaçam, 67v–68v. 114 Relaçam, 70v. 115 ASV, Borghese, III, vol. 100-A, f. 260r–v, see Alonso, ‘Una embajada’ 119–120. 116 Bartolomé and Lucile Bennassar, Les Chrétiens d’Allah: l’histoire extraordinaire des renégats, XVIe–XVIIe siècles (Paris, 1989), 319 and 332–340. The authors note that although virtually universal, circumcision of renegades was sometimes postponed. 117 An understanding shared by both Judaism and Islam, which also saw the ransom of captives as a meritorious deed. See Yvonne Friedmann, ‘Charity Begins at Home? Ransoming Captives in Jewish, Christian and Islamic Tradition’, Studia Hebraica 6 (2006), 55–57. It is curious to note that in a report (APF, SRCG, vol. 106, 293, cited in Carmelites I, 315) from the archbishop of Nakhitchevan in 1637, he relates that when the Ottomans



origins of the augustinian order

69

apostasy those who had resisted pressure to deny their faith and enabling renegades to return to the practice of their former religion. Protocols for the ransoming or exchange of prisoners had developed,118 particularly at the frontiers of Christianity with the Islamic world in Spain119 and in North Africa,120 where two religious Orders specifically dedicated to this apostolate, the Trinitarians121 and Mercedarians,122 would operate. Both Orders had, incidentally, adopted a version of the Augustinian Rule. We have noted above the shah’s apparent recognition that Hormuz, effectively a Christian-Muslim frontier, would be a more appropriate location for a Christian to embrace Islam. Operating at the very heart of the Safavid Shi‘a state, Augustinian efforts to rescue or redeem Christian renegades in Persia were undertaken in a very different environment to that

invaded Erivan and Tabriz, carrying off over three hundred Christians as slaves, it was ‘Abbas himself who redeemed the majority of them on recovering the region. 118 Carolyn Osiek, ‘The Ransom of Captives: Evolution of a Tradition’, Harvard Theological Review 74/4 (1981), 365–386. 119 James Brodman, Ransoming captives in crusader Spain: the Order of Merced on the Christian-Islamic frontier (Philadelphia, 1986). 120 On the topic of slavery in the Mediterranean in the Modern era, see L’esclavage en Méditerranée à l’époque moderne, Cahiers de la Mediterranée 65 (Nice, 2002). The article by Salvatore Bono, ‘La schiavitu nel mediterraneo moderno storia di una storia’ in 1–16, includes a detailed bibliography. 121 Properly, the Order of the Most Holy Trinity, founded in France in 1198. See P. Deslandres, L’ordre des trinitaires pour le rachat des captifs 2 vols. (Paris, 1903); Roseline Grimaldi-Hierholtz, L’ordre des Trinitaires. Histoire et spiritualité (Paris, 1994); D. Pujana, ‘Trinitaires’, DSp. XV, 1991, 1259–1287. The contemporary Trinitarian chronicler Giulio Cipollone has devoted a number of studies to its history: Casa della Santa Trinità di Marsiglia (1202–1547) Prima fondazione sul mare dell’ Ordine Trinitario (Vatican, 1981); ‘La bolla “Adaperiat Dominus” e l’Ordo Trinitatis et captivorum’, Archivum Historiae Pontificiae 21 (1983), 229–244; Cristianità-Islam, cattività e liberazione in nome di Dio. Il tempo di Innocenzo III dopo ‘il 1187’ ser. Monumenta Historiae Pontificiae 60, Rome, 1992 (2nd edn. 1996); ‘Innocent III and the Saracens. Between Rejection and Reconciliation’ in John C. Moore (ed.), Pope Innocent III and his world, (New York, 1999), 361–376; ‘La regola dei Trinitari tra Cristianità e Islam. Olte la crociata e il gihad: tolleranza e servizio umanitario’, Atti del Congresso interdisciplinare di studi storici organizato per l’VIII centenario dell’approvazione della regola dei Trinitari, Rome, 16–19 September 1998, Collectanea Archivi Vaticani 44, (Vatican City, 2000); John Flannery, ‘For the Redemption of Captives – The Trinitarians and Islam: an Episode in Muslim-Christian Relations in the Medieval Mediterranean’, Al-Masaq: Islam and the Medieval Mediterranean 23/2 (2011), 135–144. 122 The Order of Our Lady of Mercy, founded in Spain in 1218. See Elias Gomez Dominguez and Ricardo Sanlés Martinez, ‘Mercédaires’ in DSp X, 1030–1038; Pedro Nolasco Perez, San Pedro Nolasco: Fundador de la orden de la Merced (Barcelona, 1915); Faustino D. Gazulla, La orden de Nuestra Señora de la Merced: estudios históricocríticos (1218–1317) (Barcelona, 1934); James Brodman, The Trinitarian and Mercedarian Orders: A Study of Religious Redemptionism in the Thirteenth Century (Ann Arbor: MI, 1974).

70

chapter three

at the frontiers between Christianity and Islam.123 In the absence of any customary arrangements for such activity, it is likely that they relied to a considerable extent on their own diplomatic status as representatives of the Spanish crown, and their privileged position as missionaries of the Padroado, while their Order’s presence at Goa and later at Hormuz provided them with a means of removing those returning to their Christian faith from Islamic control. The Augustinian accounts to their superiors in Goa, Lisbon and Rome attest to their successes in this respect, and we shall see below the extent to which they were prepared to go in order to prevent many of the Armenians of New Julfa from being obliged to convert to Islam. We shall first, however, return to Gouveia’s account of the curious story of a Polish youth who travelled with him as he left Isfahan at the behest of the shah. This Alexander had been taken prisoner and spent five years as a slave in Persia, most recently as the property of ‘Abbas. Raised a Catholic, he had been pressured to abjure his faith, but, he claimed, had never done so internally and had been constantly searching for the opportunity to escape to Christian territory. Hearing of the missionaries’ presence in the capital, he had tried without avail to contact them until some days before the shah’s visit to their house, when Gouveia heard the young man’s confession and gave him the Eucharist. Gouveia apparently accepted his story at face value, and no further action was required to return him to the bosom of the Church. It is likely that missionaries to non-Christian countries were routinely given the necessary faculties to reconcile those who had formally apostasised. Furthermore, it appears that the Inquisition generally took a lenient approach to those returning from Islam, even those who had played important roles as Muslims, providing that they had neither maltreated Christians nor been notorious pirates. Before returning to the shah’s palace the youth begged the priests to intercede for him with the shah so that he might accompany Gouveia 123 The Augustinians would have been aware not only of the example of the two redemptive Orders, but also of the efforts of the Misericórdia in raising money for the ransom of captives, one of the corporal works of mercy undertaken by the members of this lay confraternity, founded in 1498, ubiquitous within Portugal, and everywhere accompanying its overseas expansion. The Misericórdia was influential in Hormuz during the Portuguese occupation, but there is no record of it having been established within Persian territory. See Carlos Dinis da Fonseca, História e Actualidade das Misericórdias (Mem Martins, 1996); Isabel dos Guimarães Sá Quando o rico se faz pobre: misericórdias, caridade e poder no império Português, 1500–1800 (Lisbon, 1997); and the collection of articles in Misericórdias – Cinco Séculos (= Oceanos 35, 1998).



origins of the augustinian order

71

out of Persia. On the day of the shah’s visit to the Augustinian chapel, Alexander suddenly entered, and threw himself at the feet of ‘Abbas, begging for mercy. The Augustinians explained that he was a Christian prisoner and that he wanted to go to Hormuz with Gouveia. The shah replied that this was impossible, since as a Muslim he could not abjure his faith. Alexander denied ever having been a Muslim, and volunteered, to the discomfiture of the monks, to demonstrate that he had never been circumcised. The missionaries were taken aback by Alexander’s boldness, but delighted that his confession of faith before the shah should have taken place in their humble chapel, leading them to hope that it would, in the future, be the scene of many more conversions. Feigning displeasure in front of his courtiers, the shah nevertheless allowed the youth to remain with the friars. Afraid to criticise him to his face, certain of his entourage expressed their displeasure privately, among them Ali Beg the elderly ‘maimondar’.124 This official would later tell the Augustinians that even a few years earlier anyone even daring to talk of a Christian church in the capital would have been burned alive, along with the building. Now however, not only were they allowed a church, but the shah himself had set foot in it, and even allowed them to take slaves freed from his own household with them to Christian lands.125 Soon after the shah’s visit, the same Ali Beg was sent to tell the missionaries that ‘Abbas had decreed that any Muslim wishing to convert to Christianity was free to do so, on condition that Christians could also become Muslims without interference from the priests. Faced with little alternative but to agree to this proposal, the missionaries showed themselves less than overjoyed at the ruling, replying that they could not wish for anything other than what the shah commanded, but that they would be sad to see any Christian abandoning the faith. In fact, despite the shah’s ruling that they were free to do so, the situation of Muslim converts to Christianity remained precarious, and the few Muslims who took this step were helped by the missionaries to leave Persia for Christian territory. Five Muslims who had been baptised by the Carmelites were martyred in 1622.126 Two were killed in view of Hormuz, while ‘Abbas was encouraged to have the others killed in Isfahan by a large group of Shi‘a clerics, who complained that the missionaries 124 Properly ‘mihmandar’, the official responsible for hospitality to ambassadors and foreign guests. 125 These comments would seem to indicate how unusual the actions of the missionaries were considered, in the absence of any existing protocol for the redemption of Christian converts in a Persian Shi‘a context. 126 Carmelites, I, 259–265.

72

chapter three

had sent more than 5,000 (or an even more improbable 7,000 in another version) converts out of Persia. An account of these events was published in Rome in 1622 as Martirio dei Cinque Persiani nuovamente battezzati delli Padri Carmelitani Scalzi di Haspahan. The young Alexander did indeed accompany Gouveia on his return journey to India, leaving Isfahan on February 3rd, 1603, and returning eventually to his own country via Spain. Nor was he the only one whom the missionary helped: on this and on the two journeys to and from Persia which would follow, Gouveia personally assisted no less than twentyseven souls to leave Muslim territory. The embassy of António de Gouveia, Jerónimo da Cruz, and Cristóbal del Espíritu Santo had seen the Augustinian dream of a mission in Persia realised, and in the next chapter we turn to a consideration of their base in Isfahan, and of some aspects of the life and activities of the friars there, ranging from the saintly, to the comical, to the somewhat unedifying.

CHAPTER four

Aspects of Augustinian Presence in Isfahan The First Augustinian Convent and Church in Isfahan Other Augustinian chroniclers add some details to Gouveia’s unembellished statement that the shah gave the Augustinians a place to live in Isfahan. Felix de Jesus tells us that the shah was persuaded by the missionaries’ promise that if he allowed them to construct a church and a modest residence he would be assured of great victories over the Ottomans, and consequently at some point during 1602 provided the missionaries with an ‘open and airy space’ in Isfahan, where they founded the convent of St. Augustine, and erected ‘a church, which was not very large, not over furnished and poorly decorated, but demonstrating such care and neatness as to cause devotion in all who entered’.1 Mass and the Divine Office were celebrated daily, and the bell was rung to mark the canonical hours. Felix de Jesus also notes that the normal complement of the convent was five or six religious, who spent their time in prayer for the conversion of souls, performing acts of charity for both Christians and Muslims, and preaching and teaching Catholic doctrine to renegades.2 Manuel de Ave Maria reduces the normal complement of religious to four, noting that the convent was endowed with an annual payment from the Portuguese factory at Congo (Bandar-e Kong, on the Persian coast). In his Breve Relazione of 1682, Simão da Graça notes that the normal complement of the convent was four or five,3 confirming that the number of personnel in Isfahan had always been limited. Bearing this fact in mind the accomplishments of this small band become even more remarkable. Manuel de Ave Maria further informs us that the convent and church were built at the expense of ‘Abbas, who was also prepared to allot a regular sum for the upkeep of the priests. They readily accepted his offer of the house and church, but refused to accept the offer of expenses, on the basis that ‘they had a king to supply them with all that they might

1 Felix de Jesus, Primeira parte f. 58v. 2 Ibid., f. 96. 3 Analecta Augustiniana 4 (1911–1912), 389.

74

chapter four

need’.4 The church was a novelty which attracted Muslim visitors, including many sick people who sought the prayers and blessings of the friars.5 An anonymous letter in the Vatican Archives also relates that in view of their humility and unity the shah had received the Augustinians warmly, providing for their needs and giving them ‘a most beautiful house, where they celebrate the Divine Office, and later will give them a church’. The letter also mentions the Persian ruler’s visit to the Augustinian house, confirming both Gouveia’s account that the shah was greatly impressed by the Catholic ceremonial, and his offer to contribute generously to the decoration of the church when it should be built.6 At the end of the first book of his Relaçãm7 Gouveia, already en route to Hormuz, tells of receiving a letter from the missionaries still in Isfahan, describing another attempt by the friars, unsuccessful this time, to obtain the freedom of a Christian, the young son of an Armenian horse trader from Turkey, taken as a slave by the shah. The incident caused considerable friction between ‘Abbas and the missionaries, but it seems that he somewhat repented his asperity towards them, next day sending workmen and painters to their convent with the offer of renovating and painting the chapel in blue and gold, an offer they happily accepted.8 By December of 1608 the Augustinian chapel was fit to receive a visit from the shah and his court, now being described as ‘finely decorated, the floor covered with carpets, with numerous perfume braziers burning scented tablets . . . On the altar were various devotional images, both of the Holy Virgin and of Christ our Saviour, which the shah observed minutely, being especially interested in fine paintings, and he bowed in reverence to each of these images.’9 The chapel boasted an organ and other musical instruments, with a choir composed of local Portuguese 4 Documentação 11, 203. 5 This claim by Felix de Jesus is supported by the account given by Belchior dos Anjos in his Relação das cousas da Cristandade que vimos na Persia e na Armenia (L’Ambassade, 143–151, 81–94), where he tells of Muslims asking for prayers while the gospels were held over their heads, and of the cure of a Persian noblewoman who visited the church at least once a week, bringing offerings. A letter of Jerome Xavier (ARSI, Goa, 46, 1, fols. 33 and 30v) describes Muslims in Mogul India similarly reverencing the Qur’an by placing it on their head. Francis Richard, ‘Les Privileges accordées aux religieux catholiques par les Safavides, quelques documents inédits’, Dabirah 6 (1989), 167–182, 177, suggests that the initial popularity of the missionaries owed much to such practices, to which curative effects were ascribed. 6 ASV, Borghese, III, vol. 100–A, f. 260r–v. See Alonso, Una embajada, 119–120. 7 Relaçam, 76v. 8 Relaçam, 76v–77v. 9 Relaçam, 207r.



aspects of augustinian presence in isfahan

75

and some Armenian children who had been instructed in the Roman Catholic faith. This description of the chapel, dedicated to Our Lady of the Assumption, is given by Gouveia in connection with a curious and somewhat comical episode. On Christmas Eve of 1608 the shah asked Gouveia if the Portu­ guese missionaries celebrated Christmas in his country in the same way as they did in their own. He replied that there were of necessity some differences, ‘since in our country the king and the princes are present to take part in the ceremonies’. ‘Abbas replied that he did not wish their celebrations to be lacking in anything, and that he would attend the Augustinian convent on the day following. While he was speaking, another of the missionaries, Guilherme de Santo Agostinho, turned and whispered to one of his associates, ‘We will still be missing something the Persians don’t have, the suckling pig we normally have in Portugal’. Seeing them smile, the shah asked Friar Guilherme what he had said. The priest was afraid to answer, but when pressed told Gouveia what had been said. The latter explained to the shah that his question about how they celebrated Christmas in Portugal had reminded the friars of the tradition of killing a suckling pig to celebrate the feast, something impossible in Persia, where there were no pigs. ‘You are mistaken’, replied the shah ‘we do have some in Persia. The Prince of Georgia10 has sent me I don’t know how many, and I keep them at a nearby village’. Calling his chamberlain, he ordered him to make some of the animals available to the missionaries, and the squeals of a pig as it was brought to the convent drew a fascinated crowd of followers. The unfortunate animal was killed and roasted, greatly to the joy of the Portuguese present, and so many people demanded a share of it that the priests had to ask the chamberlain to send for another.11 The

10 The prince in question was Manutchar II ruler (1582–1614) of Samtzkhe in Western Georgia. He had spent some five years at the court of the shah and was friendly enough with the Augustinians for plans to establish a mission in his territory to have been in place in July 1613. This initiative came to naught as a consequence of the changing political situation in Persia which saw the temporary departure of the Catholic missionaries from Isfahan and the beginning of a brutal campaign of subjugation of eastern Georgia by ‘Abbas. See Carlos Alonso, Misioneros Agustinos en Georgia (Siglo XVII) (Valladolid, 1978), 33–35. 11  Relaçam 207v–208v. Although Gulbenkian has it that those anxious for a piece of the pork were ‘doubtless Armenians’ (L’Ambassade, 56), the text of the manuscript refers to ‘Mouros graves’, indicating that they included Muslims of some standing. A traveller visiting Isfahan in 1666, noted that the Armenians in the region of Isfahan ‘in Winter bring a small wild boar like a pig to sell to the Christians’, Sir John Chardin, The Travels of Sir John Chardin into Persia and the East Indies, London, 1686, see the new edition (London, 1927),

76

chapter four

Muslim clerics accompanying the shah were appalled at this behaviour, made worse by the fact that it took place during the sacred month of Ramadan.12 ‘Abbas, however, appeared determined to give further cause for displeasure, sending for wine to be given to the missionaries, insisting that ‘almost all present’ must sample the wine to ensure it was good, while stressing to Gouveia that he should inform the pope of all he was doing for the missionaries, and how close he was to being a Christian. The missionary swore to give an accurate account, but in his text again expresses doubts about the shah’s intentions to convert, although relieved that relations with him had shown a distinct improvement. A New Augustinian Convent and Church in Isfahan It seems that the original structure in which the Augustinians had established their convent and chapel fell somewhat suddenly into a state of considerable disrepair, necessitating the construction of a replacement. A manuscript in the Portuguese National Archives provides some interesting information regarding the construction of the new Augustinian church and convent in Isfahan which resulted.13 According to this Foundation of the Persian monastery in Isfahan, ‘three years before the fall of Hormuz’14 and during the time of Sebastião de Jesus as prior,15 the Augustinians

172–174, cited in John Carswell, New Julfa: the Armenian Churches and Other Buildings (Oxford, 1968), 86. 12 That the shah was capable of greater discretion is apparent from an account by the prior of the newly-arrived Carmelites of their reception in 1608 in Isfahan ‘On 21st December the Shah went outside Isfahan because his “Lent”, in which the Muhammadans do not eat anything during daytime, had begun: and since the Shah, who did not observe [the fast], did not wish to scandalise his subjects, he went off hunting’ (Carmelites I, 122, n. 1). It was also reported that among a number of gifts presented to the shah by the religious was ‘a small barrel of vodka from Muscovy . . . which the Shah valued the more because of the scant observance with which he kept Ramazan [sic.]’ Carmelites I, 124. On Safavid use of alcohol, generally considered haram in Islam, see Rudi Matthee, The Pursuit of Pleasure: Drugs and Stimulants in Iranian History, 1500–1900 (Princeton, 2005), esp. 37–96. 13 Fundação do mosteiro da Persia em Aspão, ANTT Livraria MS No. 581, fls. 435–436v, cited in Gulbenkian, L’Ambassade 37, n. 60. I am grateful to Ana Santiago Faria for her transcription of the text. 14 Fundação do mosteiro, 435r. 15 We do not know when this friar was first prior at Isfahan, but since Belchior dos Anjos became prior in December 1616, it cannot have been earlier than 1617. He became prior for the second time in 1623. See Documentação 11, 206 and 363–364.



aspects of augustinian presence in isfahan

77

obtained authorisation16 to construct a monastery and church on the site close to the royal palace where they had formerly had their residence. Unfortunately no precise notice of the location is given, but we learn that the foundation stone was laid in the presence of the Armenian bishop, the principal members of the religious Orders, and Muslims from the shah’s court. The shortfall in money for the construction was made up by the help of a Goan merchant, who fortuitously offered his support on the very day when it had been decided to dismiss the builders through lack of funds, and this was supplemented by an inheritance from the Augustinian Bernardo de Azevedo, who had died on his travels in Persia in 1620.17 Through an unfortunate oversight, fifty of the one hundred cruzeiros of the inheritance had been interred along with the friar’s body, being recovered only a year later when the grave was reopened. While awaiting the arrival of further money from Goa, and to the astonishment of the entire city ‘the Dutch being heretics and enemies of Portugal’, the Augustinians also succeeded in negotiating a two-year loan from a Dutch merchant in Isfahan.18 The Augustinians were now also obliged to accept the offer of financial aid from the shah, recording their indebtedness to him ‘in Persian script, in their sacristy’. It is possible that the reference in a letter to ‘Abbas of July 1619 from Pope Paul V in which the pontiff states ‘You are thinking of building a noble church, worthy of Your Magnificence, for the Christians who dwell there . . .’, may well relate to the same church.19 The letter of 1622 from the Augustinians in Isfahan to Pope Gregory XVI to congratulate him on his accession to the chair of Peter in the previous year requests that he should take the new church under his personal protection, although here no mention is made of the shah’s contribution, and the new church is said to have been erected ‘in the face of the enemy’.20 The church is also mentioned in the surviving section of a letter from G. A. Antica in Goa to Urban VIII in 1625 which describes the new church as being furnished with everything necessary for divine worship, adding

16 According to Pietro della Valle (Viaggi, part II, Rome, 1658, 44–45, 69, 76–77) the Augustinians took advantage of the presence of the Spanish ambassador, Don García de Silva e Figueroa, to obtain consent from the shah for the new edifice. 17 Ave Maria gives scant details of Azevedo: prior of Isfahan from 1612–1616, the ms relates (436r) that he died in 1620. 18 Fundação do mosteiro 436r. Commercial considerations presumably weighed more with the merchant than religious or national affiliations. 19 ASV, Arm. XLV, vol. 13, 197, translation in Carmelites I, 224. 20 BNL, Fundo Geral 4947 fls. 243r–246r (copy). The Latin text is given in Alonso, ‘Novísimo florilegio’, 119.

78

chapter four

that a hospital had also been built adjacent to the church, where they treat ‘all kinds of people, both believers and infidels’, providing both corporal and spiritual care.21 The Augustinian Foundation of Isfahan in Contemporary Travel Accounts The descriptions of the Augustinian convent and church provided by European travellers visiting Persia shed some additional light on the subject of the Augustinian church and convent in Isfahan, but these accounts,22 often marked by anti-Portuguese sentiment and the prejudices of the writer, provide a somewhat contradictory picture. The Englishman Thomas Herbert, visiting Isfahan in 1627 with a trade mission, refers to the chapels of both the Augustinians and the Carmelites as ‘attractive, complete with organs, altars, crucifixes, and images, with which they endeavour to convert the inhabitants to the Christian, or Roman Catholic, religion. However, the Armenians dislike all novelty, and the Muslims have an aversion to images in their religion; but these monks serve as spies, sending information to the Christians in Goa and Europe’. The Frenchman Daulier Deslandes, again in connection with a commercial venture, stayed in the Augustinian convent at Isfahan in 1665, and in a letter to his brother wrote This convent is extremely fine and well-built; a fine garden surrounds the house, but it is especially the church, quite big for this country, that could put to shame many of those in our own country which we consider beautiful. From floor to ceiling it is decorated with mosaics and liberally gilded.23 The altar furnishings are rich, and, for the time, the carpets covering the floor are very lovely. One sees the everywhere the magnificence of the Portuguese of old, now no more than a memory, since the Dutch have ruined them.

21  APF, SRCG, vol. 189, f. 334. See Carlos Alonso, ‘El Convento Agustiniano durante el periodo 1621–1671’, Analecta. Augustiniana 36 (1973), 247–308, 254. 22 The accounts which follow are referenced in detail in Gulbenkian, L’Ambassade, 37, n.(60). See also the detailed and insightful study by Rudi Matthee, ‘The Safavids under Western Eyes’. 23 Deslandes description echoes that of Sebastian Manrique OSA, who visited Isfahan during his thirteen year travels (1629–1643) in the Augustinian missions in the East, described in his Itinerario de las missiones que hizo el Padre F. Sebastian Manrique Religioso Eremita de S. Agustin (Rome, 1644), in English as Travels of Fray Sebastien Manrique . . ., 2 vols. (Oxford, 1927). His visit to Isfahan is described in 449–456 of the Spanish text. The British Library has a manuscript Italian translation of Manrique’s work, Add. ms 38026.



aspects of augustinian presence in isfahan

79

Deslandes was travelling in the company of the Chevalier Jean Chardin, a Protestant, who describes The house of the Augustinians, who are a mission from Portugal . . . It is a grand Royal Palace, with many gardens with marble fountains, and buildings that are gilded and painted in blue, sufficient to accommodate a community of one hundred. Most of this palace is uninhabited, since there are only three or four religious, with seven or eight servants. There were many more when they first established themselves in Isfahan. At that time the Portuguese were awash with money, and it is known that in that country it was the convents that had the greatest share of it.

He adds, ‘I have heard tell that for more than thirty years this Augustinian house was hung with gold brocade, and that at great expense’, before grudgingly admitting ‘One is always welcome, and the food is always good’. On his second visit to Persia in 1670, Chardin reports that the Augustinians were living in straitened circumstances, and that not a single Christian from that country went there. He also provides the information that the Augustinian convent and church were situated in the Husaini quarter, where there was a mosque called ‘the old Congregation mosque’ (The Friday mosque of Isfahan, a masterpiece of Persian Islamic architecture with a complex of buildings dating from the eighth to seventeenth centuries), a good hour from the court, and from the Armenian Christian quarter of New Julfa. There seems to have been some improvement when, writing in 1717, Gemelli Careri the Italian traveller and adventurer, chose to stay with the Augustinians, saying They most obligingly gave me the best room in the establishment, consisting of two vaulted bedrooms, painted in blue and gold arabesques, after the fashion of the country, overlooking a fine garden divided into different areas, with fruit and flowers of various kinds. Their small church, sacristy and refectory are well built: these monks treat themselves extremely well, eating the greatest delicacies, prepared by a Portuguese cook, and looked after by twelve servants. . . .

The last of the visitors to whose accounts we will refer was the Carmelite Leandro di Santa Cecilia, who visited Isfahan for the second time in 1736– 1737, when he described the convents of both Augustinians and Carmelites as ‘very fine . . . altogether perfect, and the churches have nothing to envy in those of Europe, being also provided with towers and bells’.24

24 A remarkable feature in view of the fact that the ringing of church bells was generally forbidden in Muslim countries.

80

chapter four

That the hospitality offered by the Augustinians of Isfahan was by no means confined to diplomats or to wealthy European on their travels is documented in the substantial number of documents published by Alonso. As he points out, the Augustinian convent was above all a residence offering open hospitality to all the missionaries passing through the territory, some of whom would stay for as long as four years. Both Capuchins from France and Jesuits would establish their own foundations in the city while staying as guests of the Augustinians, and Dominicans and Franciscans passing through would also stay there on numerous occasions, and without payment, despite the fact that the Augustinians were often short of funds. In the words of José do Rosário,25 ‘In love and charity, we receive in this convent all the missionaries who come to these parts, without payment of our costs . . .’.26 It would seem that the Augustinians saw the provision of hospitality as an important element of their missionary activity, extending it also to Eastern-rite clerics in communion with Rome, such as the Dominican Catholic bishop of Nakhitchevan Agustin Bajenc27 and ‘all his religious’,28 the Syriac Archbishop Deodato of Damascus, converted to Catholicism in Rome,29 and the ‘Persian priest’, Fernando Gioerida,30 a nephew of Pietro della Valle.31

25 Augustinian prior at Isfahan no less than five times between 1630–1650: Documen­ tação 11, 206–207. 26 APF, SRCG, vol. 106, fols. 283–284 (original), ibid., fols. 273–274 (Italian tr.) Portuguese text in Carlos Alonso, ‘El P. José del Rosário OSA y la misión agustiniana de Persia’, Analecta Augustiniana 29 (1966), 272–315, 275. Some twenty religious are mentioned by name in the texts in this collection. 27 We know that Bajenc was in Isfahan in 1628 en route to Rome, where he was consecrated bishop of Mira and of Nakhitchevan. See Carlos Alonso, Angel Maria Cittadini, OP, Arzobispo de Naxivan: Una iniciativa de Propaganda Fide en favor de Armenia (Rome, 1970), 142–155. 28 Ibid., loc. cit. 29 Ibid., vol. 122, fols. 213–214; Italian tr. fols. 212 and 215; Portuguese text in Analecta Augustiniana 29, 284–287, see 284. The archbishop himself testifies (APF, SRCG, vol. 22, fols. 219r and 224v, Italian translation; fols. 220r and 223v, Arabic original) to the hospitality he received from the Augustinians, see the Portuguese text in Alonso, ‘El convento . . .  1621–1671’, 266. 30 APF, SRCG, vol. 121, fols. 137–139; Italian tr. ibid., fols. 128–130. Portuguese text in Analecta Augustiniana 29, 278–283, see 280. 31  Pietro della Valle was a member of a noble and wealthy Roman family and travelled extensively, including stays in Ottoman Turkey and Safavid Persia, describing his journeys in Persia and India in his Viaggi. See J. D. Gurney. ‘Pietro della Valle: The Limits of Perception’, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 49–1 (1986), 103–116; Avner Ben-Zaken, ‘From Naples to Goa and Back: A Secretive Galilean Messenger and a Radical Hermeneutist’, History of Science 47–2 (2009), 147–174.



aspects of augustinian presence in isfahan

81

As noted, the new Augustinian monastery and church were completed in 1622, the year in which the strategic and highly profitable trading post of Hormuz was lost by the Portuguese to an Anglo-Persian alliance.32 The decision of ‘Abbas to re-take Hormuz may be seen as a pragmatic result of his realisation that the long-proffered help of the Christian princes against the Ottomans was unlikely to be forthcoming. The position of the Catholic missionaries in the capital was adversely affected as a result, particularly so for the Portuguese,33 and the foundation within a relatively short period of Augustinian missions in Georgia, Basra, and Shiraz may be seen as a response to what was now perceived as an uncertain future in Isfahan. Relations with the Propaganda The archival texts published by Carlos Alonso also help to shed light on the approach of the Propaganda to missions which, while under the Portuguese Padroado, worked in close proximity to those under its own direct control. The Congregation appears to have been perfectly willing to supply letters of recommendation to the superiors of the Augustinian convent in Isfahan on behalf of missionaries and other travellers needing food and lodgings, and even to have considered itself to be in a ‘moral’ relationship of responsibility to the Augustinians labouring in Persia, recognising and praising their achievements and exhorting them to persevere in their work of evangelisation.34 It is clear, however, that when the cardinals of the Propaganda were asked to provide funds or additional personnel, the response was almost universally to refer such requests to the superiors of the Augustinian Order.35 One exception to this general policy was in response to the request of no less than the definitor and procurator general of the Portuguese province of the Augustinians, on the basis that not only had four Franciscans sent to Tartary by the Propaganda 32 The conditions for the use of English shipping in the venture, as agreed between the agents of the English East India Company and ‘Abbas I, are given in Carmelites I, 259. 33 Both the Carmelites and Augustinians would spend February to October of 1622 imprisoned in their convents. See Carmelites, I, 265. 34 See, for instance, the letter from the Propaganda of 7 March 1637 (APF, Lettere, vol. 17, f. 16r, in Analecta Augustiniana 29, 276. 35 As in the instruction of the Propaganda to the Augustinian general in 1643 to provide for the needs of the Persian mission either by alms or with the inheritance of deceased members of the Order (APF, Acta, vol. 15, 442r), in Analecta Augustiniana 29, 289, and that of 1645 to the same (ibid., vol. 16, 270v), in ibid., 299.

82

chapter four

been unable to proceed there and had been staying in the convent of Isfahan for four years, but that there were in addition three Jesuits quartered there, also emissaries of the Congregation. The cardinal prefects of the Propaganda authorised a one-off payment of one hundred scudi.36 As Alonso points out, the reader must decide whether the general unwillingness of the Congregation to provide support should be interpreted as a sign of respect for the jurisdiction of the Padroado, or as a deliberate policy to husband limited resources for those missions organised by and totally dependent on the Propaganda.37 It may also be that the Propaganda would not have been too displeased to see the failure of those missions over which it had no effective control, clearing the field for others directly under its influence. Significantly, writing in 1678, the secretary of the Propaganda, Urbano Cerri, refers first to the Carmelite mission in Isfahan, under the jurisdiction of the Propaganda, implying that they were the first to establish themselves there, mentioning only in passing the presence of Augustinians, Jesuits and Capuchins.38 His bias is also clear when he states ‘There are two sorts of Regular missionaries among the infidels. Some depend altogether upon the Congregation . . . Others undertake a mission with the leave and consent of their own Orders, and have little or no dependence upon the Congregation. The former are removed . . . when wanting in their duty, but the latter being almost independent of the Congregation, live as they think fit, oppose the other missionaries, and sometimes give such examples as are unworthy of a good Christian . . .’.39 A Scarcity of Texts for Evangelisation While there were clearly grounds for the general unwillingness of the Propaganda to provide financial support or manpower for the Augustinian mission in Persia, it is more surprising to find complaints in the missionaries’ correspondence to Rome of a shortage of books, both apologetical works for their debates with the Muslims, and texts expounding the errors 36 APF, SRCG, vol. 106, 283–284 (original), ibid., 273–274 (Italian tr.), Portuguese text in Analecta Augustiniana 29, 274–276, see 275. 37 Analecta Augustiniana 29, 274. 38 Urbano Cerri, Relazione di Monsr. Urbano Cerri al la Santita din. S.P.P. Innocenzo XI dello stato di Propaganda Fide, 1678, (APF, Miscellanee Varie, vol. 11), in English as (Michel de la Roche tr.), An account of the state of the Roman-Catholik religion throughout the world . . . by Sir Richard Steele [Bishop Benjamin Hoadly] (London, 1715, second edition 1716), see 94 of the English first edition. 39 Ibid., 180.



aspects of augustinian presence in isfahan

83

of those Eastern Christians considered ‘heretical’ or ‘schismatic’ with whom the friars came into contact. The scarcity of books in Persian on Christianity is blamed on Shah Ismail I by Felix de Jesus,40 claiming that he had enjoined the destruction of all such texts. The chronicler also notes that during his visit to Persia, Simão de Moraes had personally translated into Persian descriptions of various spiritual practices and the De Doctrina Christiana of Augustine. The manuscript copies he had made were distributed to the principal rulers of the realm.41 This paucity is particularly curious as the prime function of the Press established by the Propaganda in 1626 was the production of just such material for the benefit of those working in the missions. In his letter of 1635, José do Rosário complains to the Propaganda that ‘we are greatly lacking in books, both books of languages and those on the errors of the Orientals, and particularly the book of Father Thomas, De conver­ sione omnium gentium.42 May Your Eminence be good enough to send us this book, and your blessing’.43 The request was approved by the Congregation, and its Acts of January 1638 recorded that copies of the Apologia pro Christiana religione,44 in both Latin and Arabic versions, and 40 Primeira parte f. 13v. 41 A number of Doctrina Christiana, compendia of the Christian faith, were produced for use in the missions, including one in Portuguese by Francis Xavier, printed in Goa in 1557. On the use of printed material in evangelisation, see C. R. Boxer, The Church Militant and Iberian Expansion 1440–1770 (Baltimore, 1978), 41–45. Camps (   Jerome Xavier SJ, 37) notes Jerome Xavier’s authorship of a Persian Doutrina Christiana, composed in 1611, but this text does not appear to have survived (see Sir Edward MacLagan, The Jesuits and the Great Mogul (London, 1932), 221, n. 95. 42 The work in question is Thomas a Jesu De procuranda salute omnium gentium . . . [On procuring the salvation of all peoples] (Antwerp, 1613). The text of this Spanish Carmelite is described in Francois Rousseau, L’Idée Missionnaire aux XVI et XVII siècles (Paris, 1930), 68–72. He was frustrated in his plans to create a special congregation within his Order dedicated to the missions, see Sévérien Salaville, ‘Un théoreticien de l’apostolat catholique au XViième siècle, le Carme Thomas de Jésus ou Didace Sanchez d’Avila’, Echos d’Orient 2 (1920), 68–72. Rousseau (72) notes in the Carmelite’s writings a development of the need for a central body under papal control to oversee the missionary activities of the Church: chapter I of Book II of De procuranda, published only nine years before the establishment of the Propaganda, is entitled De erigenda Congregatione pro fide propaganda [On the creation of a Congregarion for the propagation of the faith]. 43 Analecta Augustiniana 29, 275. 44 Filippo Guadagnoli, CRM Apologia pro Christiana religione qua Philippo Guadagnolo respondetur ad objectiones Ahmed Filii Zin Alabedin Persæ Asphahanensis . . . contentas in libro inscripto Politor Speculi [Apology for the Christian religion in which Filippo Guadagnoli responds to the objections of Ahmed son of Zin Alabedin of Isfahan in Persia . . . contained in the book entitled the Polisher of the Mirror] (Rome, 1631). The Arabic version is dated 1637, and it may be that the Propaganda had delayed until this was available. On Guadagnoli and the establishment and output of the Propaganda’s Press, see Z. Remiro

84

chapter four

of the Summa Conciliorum,45 should also be sent to the Capuchin mission in Persia, with instructions to distribute copies of the Apologia to the Carmelites and Augustinians, and to these Orders’ missions in Georgia. It is not unlikely that these books were taken to Isfahan by Bernard de Sainte Thérèse, the French Carmelite whose appointment as bishop of Babylon was notified to various Superiors of the missions in the East in a letter from the Propaganda of September 1638.46 In a letter of 1641 which is highly critical of the new bishop,47 José do Rosário thanks the Propaganda for sending books for the Augustinians, but adds that they have not yet received them, and that having raised the question with the bishop was told that he had brought nothing to give to them, although he did indeed, Rosário insists, have books belonging to the mission. The French cleric’s appointment appears to have indeed been an unsatisfactory one, and in Lent 1642 he returned to Paris, leaving as his vicar the Augustinian prior. He left behind in the care of the Augustinians his vestments, silverware and library, and presumably this finally enabled the Augustinians to have access to the books they had requested seven years earlier. Along with his possessions, the Augustinians were also given charge of the small church he had constructed,48 in which they celebrated Sunday Mass until the building fell into disrepair through lack of funds, being abandoned in 1653. Life and Apostolic Endeavours at the Convent of Isfahan We may gain an idea of the routine of convent life in Isfahan in the early years of the Augustinian mission from a manuscript attributed to Nicolau de Melo. Here we are told that the practices and spiritual exercises initially introduced by Jerónimo da Cruz and Cristóbal del Espíritu Santo were such that,

SMA, ‘Un Saggio Bilingue, Latino e Arabe, di Controversia Islamo-Christiana nella Roma del sec. XVII’, Euntes Docete 22 (1969), 453–480. Cerri (An account, 178) notes that the printing house in the palace of the Propaganda had characters for forty-eight languages: ‘They continually print several works necessary for the preservation and propagation of the Catholic faith. Those books are distributed gratis to the bishops, missionaries and others . . .’. 45 Francisco Longo a Coriolano, Summa conciliorum omnium . . . Antwerp, 1623. Intended no doubt to serve in the Christological controversies with the Armenians et al. 46 APF, Lettere, vol. 18, f. 104v, in Analecta Augustiniana 29, 277–278. 47 On Bernard de Ste Thérèse, see Carmelites, I, 340–350. 48 Described in Carmelites, I, 347.



aspects of augustinian presence in isfahan

85

. . . in the morning [they] spend one hour in silent prayer, after which they recite the Hours, confess, and one says Mass while the other assists, and, giving thanks for the benefits of having received the Blessed Sacrament, they are in the church until almost ten o’clock. After Vespers they remain in the church for a while, and at five go to Matins. Afterwards they spend another hour in silent prayer and at eight go the refectory. Until ten they give themselves over entirely to things of religion and to what they have read that day. The first Fathers fasted almost constantly, as they never took an evening meal, since then others have made it the custom to fast voluntarily three times a week throughout the year, and to use the discipline in community twice a week, in addition to the exercises each undertakes in his cell.49

The Augustinian Sebastian Manrique describes life in the Augustinian convent at the time of his visit some forty years later as ‘reformadissa­ mente’, with the morning hour of silent prayer before the monks set off on their apostolic duties in the city having increased to three hours.50 As to the apostolate exercised by the Augustinians outside the walls of the convent, in addition to their work among Catholics resident in or visiting Isfahan en route to Europe, the difficulties in obtaining conversions from Islam in view of the shah’s continued adherence to that religion caused them to transfer their attentions to Christians of those Churches separated from Rome, and particularly to the Armenians of New Julfa, where, as we shall see below, initial hopes would also be dashed. In a letter of 1635 to the secretary of the Propaganda,51 José do Rosário, prior of the Isfahan convent, reports nevertheless that, despite the obstinacy of the Armenians, the missionaries continue to preach to them ‘and to demonstrate to them the purity of our faith in obedience to the Supreme Pontiff’ and they continue to do the same for other groups, whether ‘schismatics, Moors or heretics, sowing the Word of God until He permits that they should produce the anticipated fruit’. The crop had not been overabundant in the previous three years, amounting to some thirty souls, whose travel to Christian territory, usually via the Augustinian convents at Basra and Muscat was arranged by the missionaries at Isfahan, often at considerable expense. Among those listed were women who had embraced Islam on marrying Muslim husbands, others who had apostasised or were

49 The original Portuguese text is not known, but the Spanish translation (Biblioteca Nacional de Madrid, MS 1269, no. 37, fols. 289r–296v) is given in Appendix 1 of Arnulf Hartmann OSA, ‘William of St. Augustine and His Time’ in Augustiniana 20 (1959) 181–234 and 581–636. See 627–628 for the quotation above and 199 for the date and attribution. 50 Itinerario, 455. 51 APF, SRCG, vol. 106, fols. 283–284, in Analecta Augustiniana 29, 274–276, 275.

86

chapter four

at risk of doing so, while some were Christians who had been concealing their true faith. Relations with the Syrian Church José do Rosário’s correspondence also sheds light on the work of the Augustinians among the small community in Isfahan belonging to the Syrian Church,52 consistently referred to in the missionaries’ correspondence as ‘Jacobites’. He reports that seventy had already accepted the authority of the pope,53 continuing somewhat callously that it is hoped that the missionaries will convert the rest on the death of their elderly priest. Their attempts to persuade this cleric to leave his church proved futile, but when he fell ill during Lent he invited Rosário to preach and say Mass in his church. With the approval of the Latin bishop of Babylon, the Augustinian preached in Persian, taking with him the ‘Persian’ priest Fernando Gioerida.54 His intention to introduce Gioerida into this church was only frustrated by complaints made to the shah’s ministers by the Armenians, who appear to have been given responsibility for Syrian Christians in his realm, as was also the case in the Ottoman empire. In the face of such resistance Rosário proposed that the only solution to the difficulty was that the Latin Catholic bishop of Babylon should buy a house among the Syrian Christians and live there himself. The bishop, having agreed initially, continued to prevaricate and his refusal ‘to assist these poor Orientals by words and almsgiving, by which means much fruit could be expected’ was severely criticised by the Augustinian.55 It must be said, however, that the scheme may not have been entirely practical, and relations between the Augustinians and the bishop appear somewhat strained. Only one month later Rosário reports that Monsignor Bernard has 52 On the Syrian Church, see I. Zaide, ‘L’Eglise syrienne’ in Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, vol. 14, col. 3018–3088; Adrian Fortescue, The Lesser Eastern Churches (London, 1913, new edn. Piscataway, NJ, 2001), 323–353; B. Dupuy ‘L’Eglise syrienne d’Antioche des origines à aujurd’hui’, Istina 35 (1990), 171–188; Sélis, Les Syriens. 53 Including, according to an earlier letter of 1640 by José do Rosário to the Propaganda (APF, SCRG, vol. 120, fols. 319r–320v, in Analecta Augustiniana 36, 265), two daughters of the Syrian priest. 54 We have some knowledge of the Gioerida family since Pietro Della Valle married Sitti Maani Gioerida Her father and mother were members of the Armenian Church and the Assyrian Church of the East respectively. Immdiately after the wedding Maani Gioerida converted to Catholicism and persuaded her parents to do the same. From the context, we may assume that Fernando Gioerida is a Catholic priest with a knowledge of Syriac. 55 APF, SRCG, vol. 121, fols. 137–139, see Analecta Augustiniana 29, 279–280.



aspects of augustinian presence in isfahan

87

departed for France, having appointed the Augustinian prior as his vicar in his absence, and leaving his property in the care of the Augustinians.56 Matters are complicated by the arrival of the Syrian Archbishop Deodato of Damascus, sent to Isfahan with letters from his patriarch appointing him as archbishop of Babylon and Isfahan. He is prevented from taking possession of his church on the grounds that he had become a Catholic on a visit to Rome and despite attempts by Rosário to negotiate peace the archbishop is obliged by his penury to stay at the Augustinian convent, where he frequently preaches to the Syrian Christians,57 despite certain reservations about his Catholic orthodoxy.58 These reservations appear stronger in a letter of September 1642, five months after his arrival, when, reporting that Deodato is planning to depart for Rome, Rosário states that his true disposition is something for the Propaganda to decide. As to the Syrian church in Isfahan ‘the Jacobite preacher here is a great heretic, but very old, and with his death we hope to acquire many souls for heaven. However, these people are so poor that some alms will be needed in order to more easily work for their good’.59 In a footnote to the same letter, the Augustinian informs the secretary of the Propaganda of certain practices of the Syrian Church described to him by Deodato. The patriarch is said to add various spices, pepper, cloves, mace, saffron and nutmeg in preparing the oil of Chrism, and to allow irregularities in the matter of fasting. Deodato appears next in the Acts of the Propaganda of February 1644, and in their letter to José do Rosário of March of the same year.60 It appears that the cardinal prefects of the Congregation are satisfied with the apparent orthodoxy of the archbishop. He is to be dissuaded from spending time in travelling to Rome, and means will be found to ensure that financial support will be made available to him. No further reference to Deodato appears in the correspondence and accounts written by the Augustinians of Isfahan but other sources do shed light on this intriguing character. He is in fact Mar Atallah (Arabic for ‘God has given’, for which 56 APF, SRCG, vol. 122, fols. 213–214, see Analecta Augustiniana 29, 284. 57 These details are confirmed in an undated letter written by Deodato to Ingoli (APF, SRCG, vol. 122, f. 219r and 224v (Italian); fols. 220r and 223v (Arabic) in Analecta Augustiniana 36, 266–267. The endorsement on the document by Ingoli clearly states that Deodato had made his profession of the Catholic faith in Rome some years earlier. 58 See Analecta Augustiniana 29, 284. A later letter (APF, SRCG, vol. 62, fols. 214–215, in ibid., 291) tells us that in his preaching he always spoke of the pope as head of the Church and over the patriarchs, and in speaking of the two natures in Christ did so ‘as much as the capacity of the people permitted’. 59 APF, SRCG, vol. 122, fols. 211 and 216, see Analecta Augustiniana 29, 287–288. 60 APF, Lettere, vol. 22, f. 26r, see Analecta Augustiniana 29, 293–294.

88

chapter four

‘Deodato’ is the Latin equivalent). Born in Aleppo in c. 1590 he would become the Syrian archbishop of Damascus. On 18 October 1631 he made a profession of Catholic faith in Aleppo and visited Rome in 1632, returning to Syria in the following year. His difficulties there, due at least in part to his submission to Rome, led him to return to the Syrian Church in 1636. On the death of the Syrian Patriarch Hidayat Allah in 1639, he requested an appointment as archbishop of Baghdad and Persia. As we have seen, he was not accepted in Isfahan, where he clearly either misled the Augustinians regarding his ecclesial affiliation or simply reverted to Catholicism to suit his new circumstances. In due course he made his way to India, where the Syrian Christians, unhappy with the Padroado, greatly desired to have an Eastern bishop. He travelled via Cairo in 1645, obtaining a letter of recommendation from the Coptic patriarch, and later obtaining a similar letter from the patriarch of the Church of the East. He arrived in India around 1652, but was prevented by the Padroado from making contact with the Syrian Christian community in India and forced to return by ship. Rumours surrounding his removal, including the suggestion that he had been poisoned, were a significant factor in 1653 in what is known as the revolt of the Koonan Cross, leading to divisions within the Syrian Church in Kerala. Mar Atallah’s eventful life finally came to an end in Paris.61 The death of the aged Syrian priest so eagerly awaited by the Augustinians is reported to Monsignor Ingoli, secretary of the Propaganda, in a letter from Rosário of April 1644.62 The missionaries have been prevented from carrying out their plan to take over the church however by fierce opposition from the Armenians. Increasing numbers of Syrians were nevertheless coming to the Augustinian convent, where some became Catholics. In response, any notion of a Catholic prelate to govern all the Christians of ‘Abbas’ realm now seemingly abandoned, the Armenian in whose charge all the Eastern Christians had been placed by the shah prohibited them from attending the Augustinian church. The somewhat drastic remedy to this situation proposed by the missionaries in Isfahan was that the Catholic princes of Europe should respond to these limitations of their

61 See J. Kollamparambil, The St Thomas Christians Revolt of 1653 (Kottayam 1981), using archival material in Rome: an entire chapter, ‘Who was Mar Atallah? (168–216), is devoted to Mar Atallah with a summary of his life on 213ff. I am indebted to Sebastian Brock for elucidating the identity of ‘Deodato’ and for the citation given here.   62 APF, SRCG, vol. 62, fols. 219–220, see Analecta Augustiniana 29, 295–296.



aspects of augustinian presence in isfahan

89

apostolic activities by expelling any Armenians living in their territories, or that they should be prohibited from entering them.63 Despite an attempted compromise, whereby the Augustinians would raise with the Propaganda the question of the ill-treatment of Armenians in Poland, it is nevertheless clear that any attempts to minister to the Syrian Christians, now without a priest, or even to Syrian converts to Catholicism were met with strong resistance from the Armenians. Undeterred however, José do Rosario returns to the topic in June 1644,64 suggesting to the Propaganda that if a Catholic priest able to say Mass in Chaldean (i.e. Syriac) could be sent from Rome, then it would be possible to take control of the Syrian church, still closed after the death of its priest. There is no indication that this suggestion was considered in Rome or acted on, and so this episode in relations between the Augustinians and the Syrian Christians of Isfahan comes to a close,65 and the correspondence from the convent in Isfahan turns to considerations of the disputes over jurisdiction between the Capuchins and the Augustinians, whose prior continues to act as vicar of the absent bishop of Babylon, and the arguments over the disposal of the goods left by the bishop in the care of the Isfahan convent. The grave accusations of lax and scandalous behaviour at the Augustinian convent made by the Capuchin Valentin d’Angers in August 1657,66 accusations which will, as we shall see, find an echo at the end of the seventeenth century, are to be understood in the context of the dispute between the two Orders, and something of a personal vendetta against Rosário on the part of d’Angers. The good character of Rosário had been attested in no uncertain terms some years earlier by Manuel

63 APF, SRCG, vol. 122, f. 211, see Analecta Augustiniana 29 297–298. 64 APF, SRCG, vol. 106, fols. 203 and 210, see Analecta Augustiniana 29, 302. 65 In a Memorial to the Propaganda, from the period 1650–1652, extolling the virtues of José do Rosario (APF, SRCG, vol. 210, fols. 125r–130v, see Analecta Augustiniana 34, 288–293, esp. 291), Sebastian Manrique OSA offers information which appears to conflict with the evidence presented in Rosário’s own correspondence. He relates not only that Rosário had succeeded in converting the ‘Jacobite’ priest before his death, but that he carried out an active ministry from his former church, which he tells us was in the district of ‘Sich Sabbana’. 66 An initial diatribe against José do Rosário from the Capuchin’s pen in 1649 (APF, SRCG, vol. 210, fols. 226 and 231, see Analecta Augustiniana 36, 273–274) accuses him of having denounced the Capuchins to the Propaganda for their readiness to give dispensations from the regulations for fasting, and of poaching Syrian Christians from the Augustinians, while a letter of 1657 (APF, SRCG, vol. 238, fols. 56r–57r, see Analecta Augustiniana 36, 277–279), describes the Augustinian convent as ‘a house of recreation, games and parties, to whom the first to be invited are the English and the Dutch, who are commonly drunk’, and accuses Rosário of frequent visits to a noted house of ill-repute.

90

chapter four

Pacheco, definitor and procurator general of the Augustinian Portuguese province in India67 and, according to Sebastian Manrique, such was the fame of Rosário’s virtue, that the shah and his nobles, as well as the common people, referred to him by the sobriquet of ‘Joseph Bowzork’, Joseph the Great.68 Clear evidence of the decline of the Augustinian mission at Isfahan from the days of its former glory is however provided by the correspondence relating to the case of Francisco do Sacramento which forms a substantial part of the florilegium of texts offered by Alonso on the history of the Augustinian convent of Isfahan between 1621 and 1671.69

67 APF, SRCG, vol. 192, fols. 60r–v and 69v, see Analecta Augustiniana 36, 270–272. 68 APF, SRCG, vol. 210, fols. 125r–130v, see Analecta Augustiniana 34, 288. 69 Alonso, ‘El Convento . . . 1621–1671’.

chapter five

A Decline in Zeal: Apostasy and Polemic Indications of Decline On 18 and 20 July 1663 respectively Francisco do Sacramento, a missionary at the Augustinian convent of Isfahan ‘for six or seven years’, wrote to his patron Monsignor Alberici, secretary to the Propaganda, and to its cardinal prefects. He reminds them that he has devoted years to mastering Persian, with a view to ending his life in service to God in Persia. He claims however, that the jealousy of other friars in his convent ‘with little fear of God’, and with no proficiency in the language, has motivated them to write to his superior in Goa, as a consequence of which he has been ordered to return to India. He requests Alberici to intervene on his behalf with the Augustinian general in Rome so that he be allowed to remain in Isfahan, or alternatively that the cardinals of the Propaganda should take him under their direct protection.1 Together with his letters are testimonials in his support from Aimé Chézaud, head of the Jesuit mission in Isfahan, from the Augustinian Agostinho de Santo Guilherme, and from the Theatine Joseph Brags.2 In September 1663, he writes in the same vein directly to his general in Rome and again to the cardinals and secretary of the Propaganda.3 He continues his criticism of those missionaries unwilling to learn Persian, saying that they remain closeted in the convent, fearing the insults of the Muslims due to their ignorance if they should venture outside and thereby ‘showing little zeal for the service of God and of souls’. It is interesting to note that some fifteen years later, in his account4 of the Propaganda to Innocent XI, Urbano Cerri, secretary of the Congregation, is particularly critical of the members of religious Orders who undertake work in the missions saying ‘Secular priests will better succeed in such a ministry than regulars. When the former go upon 1 APF, SRCG, vol. 238, fols 87r and 79v, and fols 99r–v respectively, see Analecta Augustiniana 36, 286–288. 2 Ibid., f. 83r, 80r, 82r and 84r respectively, in ibid., 289–290. 3 Ibid., fols 89r and 86v, 91r–92v, 94r–95v, in ibid., 291–295. 4 See Cerri, An account, 180.

92

chapter five

a mission, they are transported with the zeal of living a more perilous and austere life, whereas the latter take such an employment upon themselves to enjoy a greater freedom, and to shake off the yoke of obedience. . . .’. From his general, Francisco do Sacramento requests letters patent forbidding his removal from the Persian mission and asks the Propaganda and Alberici to intercede on his behalf. In October 1664, the Congregation instructed the Augustinian procurator general and the vice provincial of India that he be allowed to remain in Isfahan.5 Our missionary’s correspondence with Rome begins again after a period of some six years. In June 1669 he writes to the Propaganda, thanking them for their earlier intervention, but now requesting letters allowing him to be excused from the duties of the convent and to work solely as a missionary.6 He accuses the superiors of the convent of treating their subjects ‘not as sons but as slaves’, claiming that he and the other friars have been badly treated and abused by the present prior. His letter of the same date to the general of the Order blames the vicars provincial in India for the sorry state of the Isfahan mission, saying that the priors they send to Isfahan behave as if they had the same authority as the general himself, treating their subjects in such a way that any missionaries with true zeal for the salvation of souls do not stay there for long.7 He further accuses them of pecuniary self-interest, only sending personnel to those places from which they can obtain gold, rich silk furnishings, and amber. Francisco do Sacramento appears to have now reached a point where life at the convent of Isfahan is intolerable for him, and offers himself as a missionary to Georgia. The Propaganda examined the issue only in August 1671, instructing that rather than sending priors to Isfahan, one of the number already present should be chosen, and that care should be taken that the superiors of the Order in India should devote their attention to the care of souls, rather than to the acquisition of wealth.8 Clearly, things have changed for the worse since the beginning of the Persian mission. Even allowing for the partiality of their own chroniclers, the Augustinians first established in Persia appear to have been carefully

5 Arch. Gen. OSA, fondo Aa., vol. 41, ‘Notitiae Indiarum Orientalium’, f. 37 (original); APF, Lettere, vol. 44, f. 124 (copy), and Arch. Gen OSA, fondo Aa., 41, f. 38, respectively, in Analecta Augustiniana 36, 299–300. 6 APF, SRCG, vol. 429, fols 371r and 376v, in ibid., 303–304. 7 Ibid., fols 373r–374v, in ibid., 304–306. 8 APF, Lettere, vol. 57, f. 91v, see ibid., 308.



a decline in zeal: apostasy and polemic

93

chosen and well suited to their vocation.9 However, the rapid expansion of the Augustinian missions of the Congregation of the East Indies had soon begun to create logistical difficulties in providing them with not just the required numbers, but with men having the linguistic and theological expertise, and of the necessary spiritual calibre. The Persian mission was competing for resources with the other Augustinian missions administered from Goa. To a certain extent the Congregation was a victim of its own success, and already in 1587 the vicar provincial complained of being unable to fulfil all the requests made to him to man the new missions, saying that although he received requests from many places he had no one to send ‘as it is now three years since I received provision from Portugal’.10 In 1609, João da Rocha is reporting from Goa to the archbishop of Braga that things are generally going well in the Congregation of the East Indies, but that all the houses are asking for more friars and saying ‘perhaps they [the Portuguese Province] have forgotten us’.11 In his letter of resignation from the see of Goa, Aleixo de Meneses speaks in a similar vein, saying that although the Order is well regarded by all for its teaching and preaching, all the foundations are asking for reinforcements, and even the convent at Goa is short of twenty friars. He sharply criticises the Portuguese Province ‘in this matter Your Reverences have served us poorly’, and speaks prophetically in saying that the personnel so needed ‘. . . must be carefully chosen, since if not, this will dishonour Christianity more than profit it’. Needing not just to be chosen wisely, they also needed a proper formation in the religious life. Meneses speaks more in sorrow than in anger when he criticises the commitment to the religious life of some of those sent to Goa from the Order’s houses in Portugal, saying that he was moved to tears even before opening it on the presentation to him by one such religious, like himself a scion of a noble house, of a letter which bore on the seal a family crest ‘larger than that of my own archiepiscopal chancellery’.12  9 APF, Armenia, XLIV, no. 56, 423. The actions of the first Augustinians in Persia are lauded by Pope Clement VIII in his letter of February 1605 recommending the Carmelites despatched from Italy the previous year to António de Gouveia and his fellow missionaries. The letter is given in Portuguese in Felix de Jesus, Primeira parte, fols 85r–86r; in Latin in the introduction to the Relaçam of Gouveia, and in English in Carmelites, I, 106. The ambassador to Persia, Luis Pereira de Lacerda, also describes the three Augustinians who accompanied him in 1604 in glowing terms in a declaration of 10 November, 1605 (Braga, Arquivo Distrital, papeis avulsos, caixa 54, unfoliated, see Analecta Augustiniana 33, 356–357). 10 Braga, Arquivo Distrital, cartas, unfoliated, see Analecta Augustiniana 33, 324–327. 11  Ibid., 376. 12 Ibid., 381–383.

94

chapter five

As we shall see, his predictions about Christianity being dishonoured by unsuitable candidates for the missionary life will prove all too accurate as the century draws to a close. Where wine and women bring about the apostasy of the wise (Sir. 19:20) Within the short space of six years, towards the end of the seventeenth century, two priors of the Isfahan convent would convert to Islam. After the apostasy of the first, Manuel de Santa Maria13 in 1691, nothing less than the end of the famous Persian mission of the Portuguese Augustinians was predicted by the writer of an anonymous letter.14 He describes the members of the convent as being ‘at least lately’, more concerned with the temporal affairs of the Portuguese crown, living ‘more like Muslims and Turks’. The convent, he says, is reduced to little more than a tavern or a place of business, and a young servant working there is widely held to be the son of a former prior. Despite this, he tells us the Catholics of Isfahan are stunned by the news of this public adherence to Islam. This shock is clear in correspondence to the Propaganda and to the general of the Augustinians in Rome.15 The bishop-elect of Babylon Mgr Louis-Marie Pidou de Saint-Olon notified the Propaganda in a letter of October 1691,16 describing himself as ‘overcome with grief’ as he relates that Father Manuel, an Augustinian and the Portuguese Resident, has publicly become a Muslim,17 having dissolutely squandered an enormous sum of money. The bishop asked the Propaganda to petition the Portuguese crown that in future religious should not be asked to undertake duties conflicting with their religious office. The Dominican Jacinto

13 Manuel de Ave Maria (Documentação 11, 562) provides scant information on Manuel de Santa Maria, noting his expulsion from the Order. His death is noted in a letter of August 1710 (Archives du Ministère des Relations extérieures, Paris, Corresp. politique Perse, II, f. 203v) by Mgr Pidou, who also notes that the second apostate prior, António de Jesus, is in poor health, apparently suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis. 14 The text is given in Joaquim Heliodoro da Cunha Rivara, ‘A India no governo do vice-rei Conde de Vila Verde, 1693–1698, ch. VII, Cousas da Persia’, O Chronista de Tissuary, II (1867), 251–253; Fortunato de Almeida, História da Igreja em Portugal (Coimbra, 1912), II/I, 758–762. 15 Carlos Alonso, ‘El convento agustiniano de Isfahan durante el período 1690–1702’, Archivo Agustiniano 67, (1983), 141–184 is devoted largely to this theme. 16 APF, SC, Mesopotamia, Persia . . ., vol. II, f. 16r, see Archivo Agustiniano 67, 145. 17 Taking the name Hasan Quli Beg. See Cornelis de Bruin, Voyage au Levant . . . . . . 6 parts in 2 vols (Amsterdam, 1718), IV, 240.



a decline in zeal: apostasy and polemic

95

David Avenisense, in a letter from Isfahan of January 1692,18 describes the difficulties caused to the missionaries by the prior’s apostasy. They cannot preach to ‘the heretic schismatics’, as the Armenians simply reply to them: ‘go and preach to your bishop who has become a Turk’. He warns that the behaviour of another of the Augustinians is no less scandalous than that of the apostate19 and fears that he may follow his example. In the years that follow there is clear evidence of a determined attempt to restore the reputation of the Augustinian convent. Letters in 1694 from the Polish Jesuit Ignatius Zapolski and from the Armenian Dominicans to the Augustinian general testify to the good relations they have with the Augustinians and the heroic work the latter have accomplished in their time in Persia, insisting that the failings of one should not be allowed to dim the brilliance of the others.20 Similarly, Gaspar dos Reis, the new Augustinian prior of Isfahan, begs the general to remember the past virtues and activities of the Isfahan mission.21 In his view, Manuel de Santa Maria’s action was motivated not by hatred of the Church or love of Islam, but, rather, he was seduced by fear and lust. Commending the soul of the renegade to God and the Virgin, he asks that ‘we may be spared a similar unhappy occurrence’. Letters in favour of the Augustinian convent are also provided by the Dominicans and Jesuits of Isfahan, and by the Carmelite bishop-elect of Isfahan, Elie de Saint Albert.22 In his letter of April 1697 to the general of the Order, Gaspar dos Reis relates that having been elected visitor to the East Indian Congregation he will shortly be leaving for Goa, to be succeeded as prior of Isfahan by António de Jesus ‘who has lived here for some years’.23 His earlier

18  APF, SOCG, vol. 516, f. 148r–v, see Archivo Agustiniano 67, 146–147. The Dominican gives December as the date of the friar’s apostasy, and the question of the date is further complicated by a letter from Abbé Gaudereau, vicar to the bishop of Babylon, dated 14 September 1697 which declares that the renegade prior ‘was circumcised two days ago’. See Richard ‘Un Augustin portugais’ 73 n. 3. 19  No doubt a reference to António de Jesus. The Portuguese ambassador Gregório Pereira Fidalgo also notes that this Augustinian lived at court ‘not without scandal’, see Jean Aubin, L’Ambassade de Gregório Pereira Fidalgo à la cour de Châh Soltân-Hosseyn 1696–1697 Lisbon, 1971, 85. 20 Arch. Gen. OSA, Dd., 135, fols 125–126, and ibid., fols 123–125, see Archivo Agustiniano, 67, 148–151. 21  Letter of September 1694; ibid., fols 126–132, see Archivo Agustiniano 67, 151–155. 22 The whereabouts of the letter from the Dominicans is not known, but signalled by Gaspar de los Reyes in a letter to the general of the Order (given in Archivo Agustiniano 67, 155–156, lacking an archival reference). The extant letters are Arch. Gen. OSA, Aa. 42, f. 346 and 345r, see Archivo Agustiniano 67, 156–158. 23 Arch. Gen. OSA, fondo Aa., vol. 41, f. 45r–48r, see Archivo Agustiniano 67, 165–170.

96

chapter five

heartfelt prayer was not answered however, since only five months later disaster again struck the Augustinians of Isfahan. On 12 September 1697, the Carmelite Basile de Saint Charles wrote to inform the secretary of the Propaganda of the apostasy of the recently appointed Augustinian prior, António de Jesus.24 The discomfiture of the Catholics at this further scandal again enabled the Armenians to reproach the lack of faith of the missionaries, saying: ‘see these Franks who came here to preach and have now become Turks’. The theme is taken up in the letter of the bishop of Babylon to the Propaganda,25 being moved, in his own words, to weep tears of blood over this second apostasy and the resultant damage to the apostolic ministry. He declares that ‘this is what comes from allowing young people to come to a libertine land’26 where, in the words of our title, ‘wine and women bring about the apostasy of the wise’. To make matters worse, the ex-prior has been made a ‘Doctor of the Alcoran’ and is said to be composing a book against the Christian religion. A degree of calm was restored with the appointment of the new superior of the Augustinians in Isfahan, António de Desterro, whose excellent qualities are praised by the bishop of Isfahan in a letter to the Augustinian general,27 and whom he appointed as his vicar general when he left for Europe at the end of 1699.28 Desterro’s own letter to his general in 1699 provides further information on both renegades. He reports that there seems to be no remedy in prospect for their situation, although he has often spoken with them. António de Jesus seems the more intractable, refusing to listen to reason, whereas his predecessor in apostasy, while admitting his error, refuses to remedy it, despite having been given money by Desterro to return either to Europe or to Goa.29 Confirmed in his office as superior 24 APF, SC, Mesopotamia, Persia . . ., vol. II, fols 196–197, see Archivo Agustiniano 67, 170–171. 25 Ibid., f. 219r, see Archivo Agustiniano 67, 171. 26 According to the evidence of Ave Maria (Documentação 11, 568), António de Jesus had reached the tender age of 34 or 35. Manuel de Santa Maria had been only thirty at the time of his apostasy (ibid., 562). 27 Arch. Gen. OSA, fondo Aa., vol. 41, f. 52, see Archivo Agustiniano 67, 173–174. 28 Ibid., f. 54, see ibid., 174–175. On the financial and diplomatic reasons for the departure of the bishop of Isfahan, see the biography in Carmelites II, 863. 29 The money referred to may have been provided by the Portuguese ambassador Gregório Pereira Fidalgo, in Persia in 1696–1697. Item 75 of the highly detailed instructions provided to him by the viceroy of India refers to the presence at the Persian court of the disgraced Augustinian, ‘whose blindness led him not only to fail in the observance of his vows, but to leave our true Religion’. Fidalgo is told to spare no effort to reconcile him to the Church, and the viceroy states that anything necessary should be provided, on his account, ‘even incurring expenses if necessary’. See Aubin, L’Ambassade, 123.



a decline in zeal: apostasy and polemic

97

of the Isfahan convent,30 Desterro is the likely author of a letter which suggests that all there is still not as it should be, proposing a number of essential reforms, beginning with the requirement that there should never be less than four monks together with the prior, and preferably six or eight religious in total, adequately supported from royal funds. The monks are not to go out unaccompanied, on no account to go out at night for private recreation, or to sleep in the houses of Muslims or heretics, or to give wine to Muslims, except to persons of high rank. The door in the garden wall is to be bricked up, as it serves only to bring temporal and spiritual damage to the convent. The only Muslim festival during which they may have their own celebrations is that of the New Year, no Persian servants are to be employed, and any Armenian servant must be over the age of twenty-five.31 The suggestion in Storia do Mogor,32 that the conversion of the two priors was due to ‘sentimental’ reasons, appears somewhat simplistic. The laxity at the Augustinian convent of Isfahan was no doubt a contributing factor to the apostasy of Manuel de Santa Maria and António de Jesus, a laxity which is simply one aspect of the continuing decline of the East Indies Congregation, neglected by the Portuguese Province and riven by factional calls for independence from Portugal. The fact that the Augustinian priors also acted as Agents for the Portuguese crown meant that they spent a good deal of time in the shah’s court, where they were doubtless exposed to temptation. The motivation of Manuel de Santa Maria appears more straightforward: having squandered Church property to support a lifestyle inappropriate to his condition as a professed religious, he was afraid of the repercussions from the Portuguese authorities and the Inquisition in Goa. That of António de Jesus is more complex. In his polemical work which will be discussed in the next section, he criticises the Christian sacraments, and refers to his own ordination, claiming that he had in no way experienced the presence of the Holy Spirit, and was in fact already full of doubt.33 However, despite his new status as a Muslim and as court interpreter it is not always easy to detect where

30 He would in fact serve no less than three three-year terms as superior of the convent, due to the non-appearance of others appointed to the position (Documentação 11, 573), and was awarded for his loyalty in 1702 by being given the ‘Praesentatum’ in Sacred Theology (Arch. Gen. OSA, fondo Dd., vol. 143, fols 204–206, see Archivo Agustiniano 67, 183–4). 31  See Archivo Agustiniano 67, doc. 27, 179–180 (no archival reference given). 32 N. Manucci, Storia do Mogor 4 vols, W. Irvine (ed.), (London, 1907), II, 403–404. 33 Richard, Un Augustin, 79.

98

chapter five

his loyalties lay. As Richard points out, as a Muslim with the office of court interpreter,34 the renegade prior could hardly be expected to enjoy the full confidence of his previous co-religionists. It seems however that he may not have been a completely dependable servant of the shah’s interests, since his attitude to Portuguese interests35 and the affairs of the Armenians remained open to question.36 It would appear that his motivations were pragmatic, rather than being led by religious conviction. Comfortably established in the shah’s employ, he appears to have acted in his own best interests, pursuing his personal advantage, but not to the detriment of the Portuguese state and its affairs.37 On this basis we may perhaps even suggest that he was practising a modified or selective taqiyya as to his true political loyalties. He was, nevertheless, the author of two texts of anti-Christian polemic,38 and it is to an examination of these that we now turn. The ‘Doctor of the Alcoran’ and his Treatises Against Christianity The belief of the bishop of Babylon that the renegade Augustinian prior António de Jesus was engaged in the composition of a work of antiChristian polemic would prove an understatement. In fact, a number 34 His predecessor in the post had been the venerable Capuchin priest, Raphael du Mans, whose advanced age perhaps made him more impervious to the pleasures of court life. 35 Certainly Fidalgo confirms his fidelity to the cause of the ‘Portuguese nation’ shortly before his apostasy, despite the fact that the two men enjoyed a difficult relationship. See Cunha Rivara, op. cit., in O Chronista, 253, cited in Aubin, L’Ambassade 22, n. 7. 36 Richard, Un Augustin, 74. 37 Some details of the political activities of António de Jesus on behalf of the Portuguese crown at the shah’s court are given in the account of Fidalgo’s mission to Isfahan, principally concerning an agreement between the Portuguese and the Persians over joint action against Omani naval activity in the Persian Gulf (see Aubin, L’Ambassade. The instructions from the Portuguese viceroy of India to the ambassador (Archivo da India, Livro dos registos, fl. 6v ff., given in Aubin, op. cit., 99–124, and first printed in Júlio Firmino and Judice Biker (eds.) Collecção de tratados e concertos de pazes que o Estado da India portugueza fez com os reis e senhores com que teve relações nas partes da Asia e Africa Oriental desde o principio até ao fim de século XVIII, 14 vols, Lisbon, 1884, IV, 246–283, new facsimile edition: New Delhi, 1995), advised him to seek the assistance and guidance of the Augustinian in view of his knowledge of the country (122). Aubin’s volume also contains references to the earlier apostasy of Manuel de Santa Maria (87–89 and 123). 38 In doing so he stands in a line of former Christian clerics and persons of some erudition who provided information on Christianity to Islamic scholars, and played a part in polemics against their erstwhile co-religionists. See Hava Lazarus-Yafeh, ‘Some neglected aspects of Medieval Muslim Polemics against Christianity’, Harvard Theological Review 89/1 (1996), 61–84.



a decline in zeal: apostasy and polemic

99

of manuscripts ascribed to ‘Ali Quli the recent convert’39 are preserved in the libraries of Iran. The first is the treatise Hidayat al-Muzallin fi taqwiyat al-mu’minin (‘The Guide of the lost for the strengthening of believers’). This refutation of Christianity and apologetic presentation of Twelver Shi‘ism appears to have been completed around 1708. The writer describes himself as a Catholic priest who left his faith to embrace Islam, citing as one reason the practice of the Capuchin Raphael du Mans,40 who had spent fifty years in his Order’s mission in Persia, dying in 1696. The accusation is that ‘he sent a number of Muslims to Europe in order to become Christians, promising that they would find money there’. A further cause of scandal to him he claimed was the venality of the clergy, which he makes one of the main traits of Catholicism. It is unclear whether this text was ever completed, or at least whether volumes two to four were translated into Persian.41 The proposed table of contents, interesting for the inclusion of particularly Shi‘a elements with which the writer shows familiarity, lists the four volumes as refutation of the basis of Christianity, and proofs for the truth of Islam taken from Christian scripture; refutation of the fundamental principles of Christianity and proof of the truth of those of Islam; evidence supporting the prophecy and signs of the coming of the mahdi; evidence in support of the Imamate and the a’imma-yi ma‘sumin (the imams/leaders of the innocent/infallible ones, i.e. Muhammad, Fatima and the twelve Imams). The author severely criticises St Jerome for his deliberate falsification of Scripture, and claims that St Paul is the true founder of Christianity. While the imputation by Muslim polemicists of such falsification (tahrif ),42 either deliberately or through defective transmission, of some or all Christian (and Jewish) scriptures is a commonplace, the placing of this charge at the

39 Following his conversion to Islam António de Jesus adopted the name Aliquli Jadid ul Islam. 40 His description of Persia was published as Raphael du Mans (Charles Schefer ed.), Estat de la Perse en 1660 (Paris, 1890, second edn. Farnborough, 1969). See also Francis Richard, Raphael du Mans, missionnaire en Perse au XVIIe siècle, 2 vols (Paris, 1995). 41  Richard, Un Augustin, 76, notes that both extant manuscripts end at page 749, with reference to a second volume. 42 On tahrif, see David Thomas, ‘The Bible in early Muslim anti-Christian polemic’, Islam and Muslim Christian Relations, 7/1 (1996), 29–38; W. Montgomery Watt, ‘The Early Development of the Muslim Attitude to the Bible’ Glasgow University Oriental Society, Transactions 16 (1955–56), 50–62; Jean-Marie Geudel and Robert Caspar, ‘Textes de la Tradition musulmane concernant le tahrif (Falsification) des Ecritures’, Islamochristiana 6 (1908), 61–104.

100

chapter five

door of Jerome would appear to be a novelty for which António de Jesus is responsible, while the more traditional Muslim charge that Christians have deserted the teachings of Jesus for those of Paul43 echoes earlier Christian accusation that Jews have chosen to follow the Talmud rather than Mosaic Law.44 Belief in the Trinity, according to The Guide, is said to be due to the influence of Graeco-Roman paganism, the title ‘Messiah’ is not unique to Jesus, and Jerome has removed all references to the mission of Muhammad. The Gospels lie about the Transfiguration, where the ‘light’ was that of Muhammad and Ali, who had appeared to the apostles rather than Moses and Elijah, Christ neither died nor rose, and Muhammad was the true Paraclete. From a Muslim perspective the fact that the coming of Muhammad is not foretold in the Gospels is seen as clear evidence of tahrif, and Islam rejects the Christian identification of the Paraclete in John’s Gospel (14:16, 14:26, 15:26, 16:7) with the Holy Spirit, insisting that it points to Muhammad. A Muslim scholar who produced a Persian translation of the Gospels at the end of the seventeenth century feels able to argue ‘Thus the three meanings of Fâraqlît fit the Lord of Messengers’.45 In the context of criticising the scandalous life of priests, the author of The Guide develops curious parallels between Christianity and Sufism.46 Just as the Sufis attach more importance to the poems of the thirteenth century Persian poet and mystic Rumi than to the Qur’an, so Christians give greater weight to the letters of Paul than to the Gospels, and the priest plays the same role in Christianity as the Master (pir) for the Sufis. The writer insists that carnal pleasures are willed by God, and that Christians are wrong to refuse to believe in a paradise of the flesh. In the opinion of Richard, the presentation of Christianity here seems more addressed to a Muslim audience than to those Christians it

43 Accusations that Paul’s theology has perverted the message of Christianity are still made. See the analysis of several modern Shi‘i polemical texts on Christianity in Sassan Tivassoli and Toby Howarth, ‘Shi‘i Muslim Encounter with Christian Thought’, Transformation 22/1 (2005), 28–48. 44 Cf. Irven M. Resnick, ‘The Falsification of Scripture and Medieval Christian and Jewish Polemics’, Medieval Encounters 2/3 (1996), 344–380. 45 See Franco Ometto (Karen Cristenfeld tr.), ‘Khatun Abadi: the Ayatollah who translated the Gospels’. Islamochristiana 28 (2002), 55–72. See also Hava Lazarus-Yaffe, Intertwined Worlds. Medieval Islam and Bible Criticism (Princeton, 1992), esp. ch. 4; L. Bevan Jones, ‘The Paraclete or Mohammed’. Muslim World, 10 (1920), 112–125; A. Guthrie and E. F. Bishop, ‘The Paraclete: Almunhamma and Ahmad’ in ibid., 51 (1951), 251–256; W. Montgomery Watt, ‘His Name is Ahmad’ in ibid., 43 (1953), 110–17. 46 The same author lent his support to the official campaign against the Sufis by the Shi‘ite religious leaders of the period with another treatise. See Richard, Un Augustin, 79.



a decline in zeal: apostasy and polemic

101

­ urportedly sought to convince of the truth of Islam. In this he is at one p with Lazarus-Yafeh, who states ‘Muslim polemical anti-Christian literature teaches us more about Islam itself than about Christianity, and is basically, like most polemical literature, directed mainly to the believer (not the addressed adversary) in order to help the believer better understand his or her own tradition, concepts, values and self-definition’.47 The text may have been composed for Shi‘a scholars at the shah’s court, but whatever the case, its principal thrust is that Jerome through his falsifications has hidden the true religion and created a new version of Christianity based on the ideas of St Paul.48 A later work by the same author is the Saif al-mu’minin fi qital al-mushriqin (‘The sabre of the believers for combatting the Associators’).49 We are told that the writer originates from Lisbon, and he refers to certain curious legends connected to the arrival of the relics of Saint Pantaleon of Nicomedia in Portugal in the fifteenth century in which he sees signs favouring Shi‘ism.50 He develops further his idea of the comparisons between Christians and Sufis, based on the Sufi claims about achieving union with God, which he parallels with notions of St Paul and St Jerome regarding the Trinity. The tone is intemperate, with attacks on the pope (‘Vicar of the Devil’), the Mass, images, religious and their vows, and the sacraments. The adherents of Sunni Islam are also virulently attacked as ‘worse than Christians’. Of particular interest, however, is the defence of the claims of Twelver Shi‘ism. Among the claims made are those that the Mahdi had been announced from the earliest times, 47 Lazarus-Yafeh, ‘Some neglected Aspects’, 84. 48 Richard, Un Augustin, 77. For early Christian apologetic responses to Islam see Sidney H. Griffith, The Beginnings of Christian Theology in Arabic: Muslim-Christian Encounters in the Early Islamic Period (Aldershot, 2002); David Thomas, ‘Early Muslim Responses to Christianity’ in id. (ed.), Christians at the Heart of Islamic Rule (Leiden, 2003), 331–353, argues that from a Muslim perspective the early Christian apologies, largely devoted to the doctrines of Trinity and Incarnation, were seen as incomprehensible and illogical, serving solely to reinforce Muslim feelings of superiority. Nor, generally, was the depiction of the beliefs of the religious ‘other’ particularly accurate, although there were exceptions. One such is a ninth century Muslim polemical text, of interest as it displays a remarkable knowledge of the Christological positions of the Church of the East, the Syriac Church and of Byzantine Orthodoxy. See David Thomas (ed. and tr.), Early Muslim Polemic against Christianity: Abu Isa al-Warraq’s ‘Against the Incarnation’ (Cambridge, 2002). 49 Ometto, ‘Khatun Abadi’ (60, n. 19), notes a modern publication of this text in Iran by Rasul Jafarian. 50 Richard, ‘Un Augustin’, 78. António de Jesus was born in the cathedral parish of Lisbon in 1664–5, as António Paes de Pina. He entered the Order in 1681, making his profession in September 1682. He was parish priest at Chandepur in Bengal, before travelling to Persia: Documentação 11, 568.

102

chapter five

that the Lamentations of Jeremiah anticipated the events of Karbala, and that it was Imam Husain who suffered the Passion, not Jesus. Again, in Richard’s analysis, this somewhat incoherent text is intended more to provide a mass of exegetical and apologetic arguments for the use of Muslim scholars in their attacks on Christianity, than to convince Christians of their errors and persuade them to embrace Islam. Of no great novelty or originality in their arguments, the two texts we have briefly examined are of interest principally on account of their author and context. A Chain of Christian-Muslim Polemic: From Jerome Xavier to António de Jesus – and Beyond? Both works do however stand firmly in the tradition of a century-long chain of Christian apologetic and Muslim responses written or translated into Persian and beginning at the court of Akbar (1542–1605) in Mogul India.51 In the heterodox religious environment of Akbar’s court,52 the Jesuit Jerome Xavier (1549–1617)53 composed a treatise in 1600 in the form of a dialogue between a Priest, a Mullah and a Philosopher, following perhaps the example of Raymond Llull some centuries earlier,54 Any Portuguese original is now lost, and only the Spanish text of the manuscript survives in the Jesuit Roman archives,55 This Fuente de Vida (The Wellspring of Life), ‘an apologetic treatise addressed to the Mogul ruler

51  Francis ‘Un Augustin’ 75, notes that the superior of the Carmelites at Julfa wrote to Rome in 1708 to ask permission for one of the Order’s missionaries to translate and present to the shah a refutation written by a learned Carmelite in response to an attack on Christianity composed by a renegade living at the shah’s court. The attack in question is no doubt that of Ali-Quli, but the refutation is unknown. See also Carmelites, II, 813. 52 See Hugues Didier, ‘Muslim Heterodoxy, Persian Murtaddun and Jesuit Missionaries at the Court of King Akbar (1580–1605)’, Heythrop Journal, 49/6 (2008), 898–939. 53 On Xavier see José Luis Orella Unzué, ‘La familia y patria de Jerónimo Xavier’ in Fuente 7–46, with a bibliography in 59–60. 54 Ramon Llull (1232–1315) was the author of The Gentile and the Three Wise Men, an apologetic text remarkable for the irenic tone of the discussions between representatives of Christianity, Islam and Judaism, each seeking to convince a Gentile of the truth of their religion. See Hugues Didier, Raymond Lulle, Un pont sur la Mediterranée, Paris, 2001. The text referred to is given in Anthony Bonner (ed.), Doctor Illuminatus. A Ramon Llull Reader (Princeton NJ, 1985), 73–132. This approach has, in fact, a venerable history, and it must be recognised that these supposed interlocutors, are generally merely literary personae. See Avery Dulles, A History of Apologetics (London, 1971), 72–111. 55 ARSI ms. opp. no. 259. See the description in Arnulf Camps, Jerome Xavier SJ, 93–178. Xavier’s lengthy text has now been transcribed by Hugues Didier, Fuente, 61–554.



a decline in zeal: apostasy and polemic

103

of India’56 was translated into Persian as A‘ina-i Haqq-nama (‘The Truthtelling Mirror’), together with a more elegant abbreviated version. While Xavier chooses to argue largely from reason rather than from extensive quotations from Christian sources and displays an extensive knowledge of Islam and the Qur’an, the questions addressed in his work were those of Christian apologists confronting Islam throughout the centuries,57 the Trinity, Incarnation, the integrity of Christian Scripture, the nature of divine revelation, comparisons between the commandments and precepts of Islam and Christianity and between the life, miracles and influence of Christ and Muhammad, and the aids furnished by each religion to humanity. The fact that the Fuente de Vida was translated into Persian, the language of the Mogul court of the period, had the unintended consequence that Xavier’s work, written in the unique context of Akbar’s court, could also be disseminated in Persia itself. The context here, the consolidation of Shi‘a Islam as the national religion under ‘Abbas I, was as noted above, as unsympathetic to the ‘heretical’ leanings of Akbar as it was to the Sunni Islam of its Ottoman neighbours. It is not surprising then that the response to the Fuente de Vida, albeit to the abbreviated version, comes not from India but from Persia.58 The Misqal-i Safa dar tajliya va tasfiya-yi A’ina-yi Haqqnama (‘The Clean Polisher for the Brightening and Polishing of the Mirror of Truth in Refutation of the Doctrines of the Christians’)59 was written in 1622–1623 by the Muslim scholar Sayyid Ahmad ibn Zain al-‘Abidina student and son-in-law of Mir Damad and a contemporary of Mulla Sadra, both immense figures in traditional Shi‘a philosophy/theology of the Safavid period. Thus he was part of the resurgence and formalisation of Shi‘a theology around what 56 Didier (Fuente, 48–49) notes that the work was intended for consumption within the unique religious environment of Akbar’s court, rather than a vade-mecum for missionaries working in Muslim regions. 57 This is by no means to deny the originality which Xavier was able to bring as a result of his personal knowledge of Islam and its Holy Book. 58 According to Lazarus-Yafeh (‘Some neglected aspects’, 82, n. 92), Shi‘a Islam had not previously developed a strong tradition of anti-Christian polemic. It was the consolidation of Shi‘ism in Safavid Iran, which led to a new theological and philosophical confidence, and provided a fertile location for the development and systematisation of a particularly Shi‘a tradition of anti-Christian polemic, stimulated by Xavier’s work. 59 Numerous manuscripts are known, e.g., Majlis 715, BN 52, BL Add. 25,857. I am indebted to Len Harrow for drawing attention to a published version with a slightly different title, Sayyid Ahmad Zain al-‘Abidin ‘Alawi ‘Amili, Misqal-i Safa dar naqd-i kalam-i masihiyyat, ed. Hamid Naji Isfahani (Tehran, 1373 sh./1994), with useful introductory notes. It also includes Corbin’s paper from Annuaire/ Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes: 5e section: Sciences religieuses 1976–77, 273–78; which describes ms. Majlis 715.

104

chapter five

is known as the ‘school of Isfahan’. The Misqal shows the erudition of its author, who is familiar not just with Christian (and Hebrew) scripture but also has a wide knowledge of Christian commentators. The text frequently quotes from the Old Testament and the Gospels, the former often giving the Hebrew in the Arabic alphabet, with a translation into Persian. The author’s writings say much for his own scholarship and for the vigour of clerical Shi‘a Islam at this time.60 A copy was brought to Rome by the Carmelite, Próspero do Espírito Santo, and on 21 July 1625 a Pontifical Commission was established to examine it and produce a refutation.61 The Commission included senior theologians, and also Pietro della Valle, whose knowledge of Persia and Persian was felt to be invaluable. The first response, in 1628, by the Franciscan Bonaventura Malavasia, himself a member of the Commission, was in Arabic and Latin and entitled Jalà al-mirat radd’ ala Zain Alabedin / Dilucidatio Speculi verum monstrantis (An Elucidation of the Mirror of Truth). Although published, reservations were expressed about its methodology and format, and the Propaganda commissioned a further response from Filippo Guadagnoli, a member of the Order of Minor Clerks Regular. The Latin version of his Apologia pro christianae religione was published in 1631, and the Arabic version in two editions of 1637 and 1649.62 Curiously, no Persian version of the Apologia was produced. Zemiro notes that no great originality is to be expected in the work, not only as the agenda is largely dictated by the author to whom the response is addressed, but also since the prevalent view of Islam in Rome at the time is that it is a Christian heresy, indeed ‘the sum of all heresies’,63 something which explains Guadagnoli’s reliance on texts from Scripture and the Fathers of the Church.64

60 See aso the study on another of Alawi’s polemical texts: Dennis Halft, ‘Schiitische Polemik gegen das Christentum im safawidischen Iran des 11./17. Jahrhunderts. Sayyid Aḥmad ʿAlawīs Lawāmiʿ-i rabbānī dar radd-i šubha-yi naṣrānī’, in Camilla Adang and Sabine Schmidtke (eds), Contacts and Controversies between Muslims, Jews and Christians in the Ottoman Empire and Pre-Modern Iran, Istanbuler Texte und Studien 21 (Würzburg, 2010), 273–334.  61  See Josef Metzler, OMI, ‘Die verschollene S. Congregatio “de Tuenda Fide” und ein missgluckter Bischofsrat im 17 Jahrhundert’, Nouvelle Revue de Sciences Missionnaires 23 (1967), 40–45. 62 For the background to the texts of Malavasia and Guadagnoli and a detailed examination of the latter’s Apologia see Remiro ‘Un Saggio’. 63 A notion which goes back at least to the Cluniac abbot Peter the Venerable (1095– 1156), whose texts on Islam, including his Summa totius haeresis saracenorum, are given in James Kritzeck, Peter the Venerable and Islam (Princeton, NJ), 1964. 64 Remiro, ‘Un Sabio’, 468.



a decline in zeal: apostasy and polemic

105

An apologetical work entitled Nusrat al-Haqq (The Triumph of Truth) by the Carmelite Gabriel de Chinon, who established a mission at Tabriz in 1653, is known only from a response by a Muslim writer.65 This response, dedicated to Shah Sulaiman Safi and thus later than 1668, is described in the introduction as a refutation of the Christian beliefs set out in the book of Gabriel de Chinon. While the principal subject matter of the book is the Trinity and Incarnation, as was the case with the abridged version of Jerome Xavier’s text, it cannot be claimed with any certainty that Chinon’s work and the response form part of the chain of polemical works under consideration. We are on safer ground however when we turn to the Jesuit writer Aimé Chézaud, sent in 1653 to take charge of the new Jesuit mission at Isfahan, and who composed a Persian work entitled ‘The Impurities which have soiled the Mirror of Truth’. He states that he has composed a work responding to the Misqal-i Safa of Sayyid Ahmad, ‘ego his composui aliquod tractatus circa controversias legis, in particulari Responsum persice ad Politorum Speculi’.66 Chézaud’s Alayisha is divided into two volumes, the first devoted to a refutation of the propositions of Sayyid Ahmad and demonstrating the truth of Christian doctrine, and the second, juxtaposing the texts of Xavier and Ahmad, to a point-by-point refutation of the Muslim arguments.67 Chézaud notes that, in his support, in addition to his own ideas he will use other authors, and mentions his familiarity with the Arabic text of Guadagnoli. Following Xavier, the text is presented as a dialogue between a missionary, a mullah, and a sceptical philosopher. Chézaud’s work was certainly written as a detailed and impressive response to the skilful and sometimes novel arguments put forward by Ahmad, but it may well be that the context in which Christians, and particularly Armenians, were being pressurised to convert to Islam also encouraged him to provide them with arguments to refute the attacks of the Shi‘a religious establishment on their faith. It is interesting to note, however, that the seventeenth century chain of Catholic-Muslim polemical writing in Persian appears to have had

65 Francis Richard, ‘Catholicisme et Islam chiite au “grand siècle” ’, Euntes Docete 33/3 (1980), 339–397, 362–363. 66 See Bibliothèque de la Compagnie de Jesus 11 vols., Carlos Sommervogel (ed.), (Brussels; Paris, 1890–1932), II, 1118, no. 2, cited in Francis ‘Catholicisme’, 385. Chézaud’s endeavours to have Kircher arrange the publication of his work in Europe (ibid., loc. cit., and note 155) appear to have been in vain. 67 The text is analysed in some detail in Richard, ‘Catholicisme’, 387–394.

106

chapter five

e­ nduring importance for Iran.68 Len Harrow proposes that it is not insignificant that in his recent edition of the Misqal, Hamid Naji Isfahani discusses the legacy of Alawi’s work, listing almost one hundred and sixty subsequent texts which rebut Christian doctrine from a Shi‘a Muslim perspective.69 Noting that while many of the works listed are responses to Protestant missionary activity in the region in the nineteenth century, Harrow goes on to say There seems to be a case which argues that for Iran the work of the Shi‘a theologians of the 17th century, in their response to the work of Jerome Xavier and other Catholic writers in the region, shaped the views, understanding and arguments towards Christianity of subsequent generations of Iranian Muslims. And thus the question remains: how far do Shi‘a thinkers today understand Christianity – and hence the West’s religious tradition – as formed by the experiences of this 17th-century polemical exchange?70

Clearly, the earlier debate was largely conducted on both sides through a mutually comprehensible Aristotelian framework based on arguments of final causes reinforcing revelation. Despite a certain air of artificiality to the dialogue, the methodology of both parties still had much in common. It can be argued however, that while in response to modernity Catholic thought has continued to develop new approaches,71 Shi‘a apologists of today still operate very much within the mental framework of their seventeenth century predecessors. Current dialogue between the traditions is certainly not helped by there being two distinct intellectual approaches,

68 That this was certainly the case at the beginning of the nineteenth century is convincingly demonstrated in Reza Pourjavady and Sabine Schmidtke, ‘Muslim Polemics against Judaism and Christianity in 18th Century Iran. The Literary sources of Aqa Muhammad Ali Bihbahani’s (1144/1732–1216/1801) Radd-I Shubuhat Al-Kuffar’, Studia Iranica 35 (2006), 69–94. 69 Leonard Harrow, ‘Notes on Catholic-Shi‘i Relations during the Safavid Period’, Journal of Eastern Christian Studies 63 1–2 (2011), 99–121, 120–121. Here Harrow fleshes out the suggestion mooted by Francis Richard (Un Augustin, 80). See Tivassoli and Howarth ‘Shi‘i Muslim Encounter’, where the authors note (28) that ‘Traditional polemics’ remains the principal trend of Shi‘a response to Christianity, although there are indications that this approach may now be in decline within Iran (46, n. 49). 70 Harrow, ‘Notes’, 121. The remarkable consistency of Sunni Muslim anti-Christian polemic, even after the Reformation, is noted in Bernard Lewis, ‘The Other and the Enemy: Perception of Identity and Difference in Islam’ in id. and Friedrich Niewohner (eds.), Reliogionsgesprache im Mittelalter, Wolfenbutteler Mitteralterstudien 4 (Wiesbaden, 1922), 371–382, see 377. It would appear that the same claim can be made for Shi‘a polemic. 71  The magisterial work of Jacques Dupuis SJ, Towards a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism (Maryknoll, NY, 1997) may be cited in this respect. See also the same author’s Christianity and the Religions (London, 2002).



a decline in zeal: apostasy and polemic

107

modern/Western on the Catholic side, and traditional/Scholastic on the Shi‘a side.”72 The End of Augustinian Presence in Persia That the Augustinian mission in Isfahan could survive the twin apostasy of its priors must owe much to the efforts of António de Desterro, whose attempts at reform have been referred to above. An examination of the list of priors of the Isfahan convent73 shows a regular series of appointments, with a general conformity to the customary triennial tenure. The biographies of the appointees provide, however, a somewhat different picture. No less than nine of them either ‘did not accept’ the post, or simply ‘did not go’. In fact, Desterro himself would be either prior or vicar of the convent between October 1699 and May 1719, a term exceeded by his successor, Francisco de Santo António, who served in the same way for just over twenty-five years. It seems that for much of this time these men, reduced to living on charity although still representatives of the Portuguese crown, were the only members of the Order resident in Isfahan. In 1744, João V instructed his viceroy in India, the Marquês de Alorna, Pedro Miguel de Almeida, to inform the Augustinian vicar provincial that in future the convent of Isfahan should always have a prior and one other religious, to be supported by the royal treasury. It was as a consequence that Francisco da Madre de Deus was sent to Isfahan as prior in October of the same year, to be followed by José de Santa Teresa, prior from October 1747.74 The fifty years since the apostasy of António de Jesus had brought further difficulties to the convent of Isfahan. Under Shah Sultan Husain (1694–1722), the last independent Safavid ruler of Persia, the power of the Shi‘a ‘ulama in state affairs had greatly increased, and the high-ranking

72 This is clearly demonstrated in the different approaches in the papers presented at a series of Catholic-Shi‘a Dialogues, with the participation of scholars and theologians from members of the English Benedictine Order, the Centre for Interreligious Dialogue, Heythrop College, University of London, and the Iman Khomeini Institute, Qum, Iran. The papers from the meeting are published as Anthony O’Mahony, Wulstan Peterburs OSB and Mohammad Ali Shomali (eds.), A Catholic-Shi‘a Dialogue: Studies in Theology and Spirituality (London, 2004); A Catholic-Shi‘a Engagement: Faith and Reason in Theory and Practice (London, 2006); Anthony O’Mahony, Timothy Wright, and Mohammad Ali Shomali, A Catholic-Shi‘a Dialogue: Ethics in Today’s Society (London, 2008). Series reprint in paperback, with emendations to the first volume (London, 2011). 73 Documentação 11, 206–208. 74 Ibid., 204.

108

chapter five

­mullah Muhammad Baqir Majlisi largely dictated religious policy. Tolerance of other religions, variable as it had been, was now a thing of the past. Not only Christians and Jews were ill-treated, but also Muslims and Sufis whose orthodoxy was suspected. Persecution of the Sunnis of the Persian empire, largely centred in Afghanistan, would have serious repercussions, sparking off a series of revolts in the region. These were contained, but in 1720 revolts and political unrest had broken out at various points on the periphery of the empire. In 1722, Afghan forces under Mahmud Ghilzai engaged and defeated Persian forces at Gulnabad, to the east of Isfahan.75 Isfahan was under siege for seven months before Husain surrendered, and the suffering of the population, reduced to eating cats and dogs, and then to cannibalism, is vividly described by Judas Thaddeus Krusinski, Jesuit procurator at Isfahan, and an eye witness to the events.76 It was some time before the city recovered from the effects of the siege, and a period of political instability followed, ending with the establishment of Nadir Shah as the first shah of the Afshar dynasty. He undertook a series of successful military campaigns, resulting in a shifting of the centre of gravity of the Persian empire to the East, leading him to transfer the capital to Mashhad in Khurasan in 1744. His death at the hands of the Qizilbash in 1747 would lead to a further period of chaos, which would see the troops of the Afghan rebel Azad Khan lodging his troops in the Augustinian convent of Isfahan, and stabling their horses in the chapel.77 The good friars were spared this sight however, having finally left Isfahan at the end of 1747 on account of their financial difficulties. With the decline of Portuguese commercial influence in the Gulf, the promised financial support for the Augustinian convent from the royal treasury of the Estado da India had long failed to materialise.78 As a consequence, the religious had 75 For this and the subsequent period, see, Rudi Matthee, Persia in Crisis: Safavid Decline and the Fall of Isfahan (London, 2011); Willem Floor, Afghan Occupation of Persia, 1722–1730, (Paris/Louvain, 1998). 76 First published in French, his account appeared in English translation as Jean Antoine Du Cerceau, The history of the revolution of Persia, taken from the memoirs of Father Krusinski . . ., (Dublin, 1729). An extensive extract regarding the attack, siege and surrender of Isfahan to the Afghans is given in Carmelites, I, 573–576. 77 APF Scritti Riferite, vol. 759, 251, cited in Carmelites I, 659. 78 After the fall of Hormuz in 1622 the port of Bandar-e Kong had become the centre of Portuguese commercial activity in the Gulf. According to an agreement of 1629–30, the Portuguese were to receive half of the port’s revenues and it was from this that the Augustinians of Isfahan were to receive a share, given by Ave Maria (Documentação 12, 204) as 1500 xerafins. In fact, within a few years this payment had become sporadic, and had ceased entirely by the 1660s. In 1680 the commander of the Gulf fleet, Dom Rodrigo da Costa, made a new agreement which cleared the arrears due and transmuted the share



a decline in zeal: apostasy and polemic

109

had little choice but to take loans from local Muslims, with the convent as security. These debts were considerably augmented, according to Ave Maria’s account,79 by a loan taken out by the Augustinians some quarter of a century earlier on behalf of the Portuguese superintendent of the Gulf port of Bandar-e-Kong, Lino de Faria Rodrigues, sent to undertake negotiations at the shah’s court by ‘the Admiral of the 1719 fleet’.80 By 1747 such was the pressure on the newly-appointed prior, José de Santa Teresa, for repayment of debts secured on the convent, that he feared for his life. Reasoning that his death would serve neither the Christian cause, nor the king who had sent him to live in the Isfahan convent, the prior handed the convent over to the Carmelites and fled in secret to Goa,81 ending an Augustinian presence in Isfahan of almost a century and a half.

of the port’s revenues to a fixed annual payment. These payments too were rarely made, and one of the goals of the embassy of Gregório Pereira Fidalgo to Sultan Husain Shah in 1696–1697 was to regularise affairs (see Aubin, L’Ambassade, 122). The orçamento (budget) of the Estado da India for 1687 (ANTT, Miscelâneas Manuscritas do Convento da Graça de Lisboa, caixa 6, no. 3 E, fols 270–271) shows the ordinária to be paid to the prior of the Augustinian convent of Isfahan as 2,500 xerafins. In 1690, in a letter (Archivo Hisórico Ultramarino, India, caixa [35] 64, doc. 16) to Dom Pedro II, Rodrigo da Costa, then viceroy of India, gave the revised figure of 3,000 xerafins. By the mid 1720’s, Bandar-e Kong had been abandoned by the Portuguese. I am grateful to João Teles e Cunha for providing these details. On Bandar-e Kong see Willem Floor, ‘Bandar-e Kong, the last Portuguese toehold in the Persian Gulf (1630–1721)’ in idem, The Persian Gulf, 429–478. 79 Documentação 12, 204–205. 80 In 1719 the Portuguese had collaborated with Sultan Husain Shah in a joint expedition against the Omanis, who had been plundering the Iranian coast, and Bandar-e Kong, since 1712–13. The viceroy of India sent a fleet under António de Figueredo de Utra to transfer Persian troops to the Arab mainland in order to attack Muscat. The Omanis attacked the fleet at Bandar-e Kong but were routed, and returned to Muscat. Problems in Persia’s provinces prevented taking advantage of Utra’s success. On Utra, see António Marques Esparteiro, O general dos galeões do Estado da India, António de Figueroa e Utra, 1678–1751 (Lisbon, 1975). 81  His superiors clearly accepted his reasoning, as he continued a distinguished career, being prior of the Goa convent no less than four times, dying there in 1782 (Documentação 11, 681–683).

CHAPTER six

Augustinian contacts with Armenian Christianity Go, you swift messengers, to a nation tall and smooth . . . (Is. 18:2)1 The Augustinians Belchior dos Anjos and Guilherme de Santo Agostinho who accompanied the embassy to Persia of Luis Pereira de Lacerda (1604–5) can claim in all probability to have been the first Catholic missionaries to have visited the Armenian regions of Nakhitchevan and Erentchag, at least since the time of the Italian Dominican Bartolomeo de Podio, who came to the region in the fourteenth century and was instrumental in the establishment of the Order of Fratre Unitores.2 The Augustinians would be the first Latin religious to attend the Divine Office in the Armenian churches of Julfa, only a few weeks before many of their monks and faithful were transported to Isfahan by the forces of ‘Abbas and the town sacked and set on fire. The forced transmigration of the Armenians, as part of his ‘scorched earth’ policy in the campaign against the Ottomans, was described first-hand by Belchior dos Anjos, while Diogo de Santa Anna, who had accompanied Lacerda on the initial stage of his journey, was prior of the Augustinian convent of Isfahan when the Armenians arrived there. He provides information on their condition, and on the efforts which he expended in order to obtain the submission to Rome of the Armenian Patriarch David IV, along with a number of his bishops, priests and faithful.3 This submission would prove ineffectual, largely due

1  Relaçam, 135v. 2 So Gulbenkian, L’Ambassade, 74–75, although noting that the embassy of Miguel Ferreira had preceded them in 1514. 3 In addition to the ms account Do Tocante referred to above and reproduced by Gulbenkian, the prior also wrote an extensive letter to the pope regarding the activities of the Augustinians in Persia under three headings, relations with the Muslims, with the Armenians, and on Persian military action against Turkey. This was published, together with a brief letter describing the arrival of the first Carmelite missionaries in Isfahan in Carlos Alonso, ‘Due Lettere Riguardanti I Primi Tempi Delle Missioni Agostinianae in Persia’, Analecta Augustiniana 24 (1961), 152–201. The documents are ASV, Borghese, series II, vol. 68, ff. 86–92, 101–106, 108–118, and ASV, Arm. XLV, vol. I, ff. 51v–52r respectively. Roberto Gulbenkian also addresses relations between the Portuguese Augustinians and the Armenians in Persia: ‘Relações Religiosas entre os Arménios e os Agostinhos portugueses na Persia no século XVII’ in Estudos Históricos II, 213–253, in English translation

112

chapter six

to a change in the political climate, but the Augustinians continued their apostolate among the Armenians. Gouveia devotes the third book of his Relaçãm to the transmigration of the Armenians and subsequent events, and would himself take a great deal of interest in their cause. Gouveia used the earlier Chrónica of Felix de Jesus, which itself made use of Belchior dos Anjos’ Relação das Cousas da Cristandade, and he would also have had the opportunity to discuss these events in further detail with Guilherme de Santo Agostinho, who had also accompanied Lacerda, during the time they travelled to Persia together in 1608. However, Gouveia’s pretensions with respect to the Armenians after his subsequent appointment as titular bishop of Cyrene and apostolic visitor to Persia would be personally disastrous for him, and have serious consequences both for the Armenians and for relations between Catholics and Armenians in Isfahan. Augustinian accounts of their relations with the Armenians are of interest not merely for their description of Armenia, corroboration of the suffering caused by ‘Abbas’ deportation of large numbers of Armenians from their homeland and the subsequent efforts to achieve ecclesiastical union, but also for providing an insight into the missionaries’ understanding of this ancient strand of Eastern Christianity, and the narrow ecclesiological perspective of the Augustinians which, while allowing them to recognise things of value in the other tradition, nevertheless required them to insist on submission to papal authority and membership of the Roman Catholic Church as essential for salvation. Christianity in Armenia The origins of Christianity in Armenia remain uncertain. Legend has it that the apostles Bartholomew and Jude Thaddeus had reached Armenia, and that the Holy Oil given by Christ to his apostles was brought to Armenia by St Thomas. While historians generally accept the official conversion of the country as having been accomplished by St Gregory ‘the Illuminator’ (c. 257–c. 337), the date of this event and the circumstances surrounding it is still the subject of debate. The Armenian Church celebrated the 700th anniversary of the country’s conversion in 2001, in view of the traditional date of 301 AD: while there are strong arguments for as John Flannery (tr.), ‘Religious Relations between the Armenians and the Portuguese Augustinians in Persia in the 17th Century’, Journal of Eastern Christian Studies 63:1–2 (2011), 5–43.



augustinian contacts with armenian christianity

113

placing the event in 314 AD, either date would make Armenia the first nation to officially make Christianity the national religion.4 After a period of decline and a resurgence of traditional religion towards the end of the fourth century, the following century can be seen as the Golden Age of Armenian Christianity. An Armenian alphabet was created by the monk Mesrob Mashtots, who also translated the liturgical books and Scriptures, enabling a more profound Christianisation of the country. On the doctrinal front, this period saw an increasing tendency on the part of Armenian Christianity to follow the Byzantine Church, but the Second Council of Dvin (555) rejected the Christology of the Council of Chalcedon, the position of Byzantine Orthodoxy. As a consequence, what is now referred to as the Armenian Orthodox Church is a member of the Oriental Orthodox family of Churches, and supports a Christology perhaps best described as ‘miaphysite’.5 The Armenian Church was not immune from the political vicissitudes of Armenia’s turbulent and complex history. Sassanid domination of Armenia would end in 640, with Arab attacks resulting in a period of four centuries of Arab domination. The Armenian principalities, Arab suzerains in the later period, were swept away by the Turco-Tatar hordes from Central Asia, but a part of Eastern Armenia liberated by a joint Armenian-Georgian force would see the creation around 1078 of the independent kingdom of Armenian Cilicia, located on the Gulf of Iskenderun on the Mediterranean coast. Under the Rupenid dynasty, this independent Christian kingdom was a strong ally of the European Crusaders,6 seeing itself as a bastion of Christianity in the East and serving as a focus for Armenian nationalism and culture during a period of foreign occupation. Armenian Cilicia would fall to the Egyptian Mamluks in 1375.

4 For the history, doctrines and institutions of the Armenian Church, see Jean Mécérian, Histoire et Institutions de L’Eglise Arménienne (Beirut, 1965); Yeznik Petrossian (tr. Gayane Aleksanian), Armenian Apostolic Holy Church (Etchmiadzin, 2001); Zaven Arzoumanian, The Origins of Armenian Christianity (Boca Raton FL, 2001); Aziz Suryal Atiya, A History of Eastern Christianity (Piscataway, NJ, 2010), 343–356, 370–386; Vrej Nerses Nersessian, ‘Armenian Christianity’ in The Blackwell Companion to Eastern Christianity (Oxford, 2007), 23–46. Still of value are François Tournebize, Histoire Politique et Réligieuse de l’Arménie (Paris, 1910), and Fortescue, The Lesser Eastern Churches, 424–446. 5 On Armenian Christology, see Tiran Nersoyan and Hagop Nersoyan, The christology of the Armenian Orthodox Church (Jerusalem, 2004). 6 On Armenian relations with the Latin Crusaders and attempts at union with Rome see Jacob G Ghazarian, The Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia during the Crusades (Richmond: Surrey, 2000); S. Peter Cowe, ‘The Armenians in the era of the Crusades’ in The Cambridge History of Christianity. Volume 5 Eastern Christianity, Michael Angold (ed.), 404–429.

114

chapter six

While Transcaucasian Armenia became characterised by an increasing religious conservatism, isolationist and sectarian, led by a small number of wealthy and powerful monasteries centred on Lake Sevan, Armenian Cilicia on the other hand, was open to new encounters with other Christian Churches and with the West. The Catholical see, having experienced various vicissitudes, was transferred to Cilicia, and Gregory II (1065–1105) visited Palestine, Egypt, Constantinople and even Rome, and received the pallium from Pope Gregory VII. It was under Catholicos Gregory III (1113–1136), that the most serious attempts were made to reconcile the Armenian Church with that of the Byzantine Empire, from which it had separated due to Armenian rejection of the teachings of Chalcedon. These attempts at restoring religious unity failed, as they had under Gregory II with the Syrians, and Gregory IV (1173–1193) turned to establishing agreement with Rome, receiving the mitre and pallium from Pope Lucius III. He was supported in these ecumenical endeavours by the popular and erudite archbishop of Tarsis, Nerses of Lambron, a man inspired by the vision of Christian unity.7 The Union between the Latin and Armenian Churches proclaimed in 1199 at the beginning of the reign of Leo I, the first king of Armenian Cilicia, and reaffirmed by king Hethum II, had left a number of points of difference unaddressed. A council convoked by Catholicos Gregory VII and held at Sis 1307 sought to remove these by aligning Armenian usage with that of the Latin Church, not without giving rise to strong opposition. While the religious and civil heads of the Cilician kingdom were in the main favourable to Catholicism, this was not the case with the ordinary people, and the conservative and anti-union eastern Armenian faction gained ground even in Cilicia. Furthermore, those Armenians living outside the jurisdiction of the king of Cilicia either ignored or resisted the union. One consequence appears to have been the proclamation of the archbishop of Jerusalem as Catholicos, with the support of the sultan. In 1292, the patriarchal seat of Hromkla in Cilicia fell to the Mamluks, and the Catholicos Stephanos IV was taken prisoner to Egypt. The see was transferred to Sis, which had become the capital of Armenian Cilicia. After the capitulation of the last king of Cilicia in 1375, the Catholicosal seat 7 The movement for union and its theological underpinning during this period are examined in Pascal Tekeyan, ‘Controverses Christologiques en Arméno-Cilicie dans la seconde moitiée du XII siècle (1165–1198)’, Orientalia Christiana Analecta 124 (1939), Rome. In the view of Nersessian (‘Armenian Christianity’, p. 43) it was Roman insistence on papal supremacy which caused this project to founder.



augustinian contacts with armenian christianity

115

nevertheless remained at Sis, looking increasingly to the goal of Christian unity. When he received an invitation in 1439 to the Council of Florence, the Catholicos, Constantine VI of Vahga (1430–1439), sent a number of delegates. Constantine VI having died in the interim, it would be Gregory Moussabekiants (1439–1446) who received the decree of union with Rome ‘pro Armenis’ (1439) signed by the Armenian delegates.8 As a consequence, the monks of eastern Armenia, the ‘Eastern Divines’, chose this moment to call a synod to require Catholicos Gregory IX to transfer his seat from Sis to Etchmiadzin, near Vagharschapat in Greater Armenia, and at the same time to renounce the agreement with Rome. Gregory refused to accede to their demands, and the line of his successors continued to claim to be in legitimate succession to Gregory the Illuminator. Although there would on occasion be a patriarch of Sis with close relations with Rome, the union signed at the Council of Florence would remain a dead letter. In response to Gregory’s refusal, the eastern Armenian monks elected one of their members as ‘Catholicos of all the Armenians’, with his see at Etchmiadzin. Consequently, since this time there has been a double line of Armenian Catholicoses.9 According to the analysis of B. L. Zekiyan, there were from the fourteenth century four tendencies or trends within Armenia with respect to the question of unity between the Armenian Church and Rome: 10 an ‘autocephalous tendency’ generally seeking good relations with all Christians but without dependence on any other Church; a tendency asserting the need not merely for hierarchical communion but also complete ritual and disciplinary conformity with the Roman Church, based on the Latin rite; those in favour of communion with Rome but only open to certain limited modification of their rite and discipline; and those in favour of communion but who remained convinced of the integrity of the Armenian faith

  8  See A. Balgy, Historiae doctrinae catholicae inter Armenos unionisque eorum cum Ecclesia Romana in Concilio Florentino (Vienna, 1878). 9 On the development of the jurisdictional organisation of the Armenian Church, see Hratch Tchilingirian, ‘The Catholicos and the Hierarchical Sees of the Armenian Church’ in Anthony O’Mahony (ed.) Eastern Christianity: studies in modern history, religion and politics (London, 2004), 140–159. 10 Boghos Levon Zekiyan, ‘Armenians and the Vatican during the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries: Makhitar and the Armenian Catholic Patriarchate’, Het Christelijk Oosten 52, 3–4 (2000), 251–267, see 1. On the history of relations between Rome and Armenia: Paul Chirikdjian, L’Église Arménienne et le Saint-Siège de Rome. Aperçu historique, dogmatique et politique sur le ‘Schisme Arménien’ ses origines, ses causes et ses conséquences (Alexandria, 1949); Jean Richard, La Papauté et les missions d’Orient au Moyen Age (Rome, 1977), 49–53, 200–225.

116

chapter six

and liturgical and canonical practices and intent on maintaining them, an attitude which almost appears an ‘ecumenical’ ante litteram inspiration for the understanding adopted by the Second Vatican Council in relation to the Eastern Churches. If the supporters of unity with Rome in Armenian Cilicia can be said to fit roughly within the third category, the staunchest supporters of complete conformity described in the second category are undoubtedly the Fratre Unitores or Unifying Friars of Saint Gregory the Illuminator.11 These had their origins in the contact in 1328 between a number of Armenian monks from the monastery of Qrna near Nakhitchevan and Bartolomeo de Podio, the Dominican bishop of Maragha in Persia. Bartolomeo, a renowned theologian and philosopher, visited Qrna in 1330 on the occasion of a synod held in the monastery in order to examine Latin doctrines. It was this synod which proclaimed what is known as the Union of Qrna. In 1331, the superior and members of the monastery offered it to the Dominican Order, which a number of them joined. Under the influence of Bartolomeo and his fellow Dominican, John of Florence, bishop of Tiflis, Qrna became a centre for the study of theology and philosophy. An increasing number of Latin texts were translated into Armenian, including the Bible, the Roman Missal, the Dominican breviary, and the Summa contra Gentiles of Saint Thomas Aquinas. In 1337, Qrna abandoned the traditional liturgy for the Latin rite celebrated in Armenian, and in 1344 some fifteen monasteries united into a congregation which took the name of Fratre Unitores. The Order, which followed a version of the Augustinian Rule, was approved by Rome in 1356 and placed under the jurisdiction of the Dominicans. The influence of these Unitors spread beyond their monasteries, and a number of groups of Armenian faithful in union with Rome and using the Latin rite arose in the region of Nakhitchevan. At their high point the Fratre Unitores numbered some seven hundred in total, and gradually replaced the Dominicans in the Armenian mission. In 1583 they were fully incorporated into the Dominican Order as the Province of 11 On the formative years of the ‘Unitors’, see Carlo Longo OP, ‘I domenicani nell’impero persiano: Frati armeni e missionari Italiani’, Studi sull’Oriente Cristiano 11/1 (2007), 35–77. Gregorio Petrowicz, I Fratre Unitores nella Chiesa Armenia (Rome, 1969), offprint from Euntes Docete 22 (1969), 309–347; also F. Tournebize, ‘Les Frères Unitaires ou Dominicains Arméniens (1300–1794), Revue de l’Orient Chrétien 22 (1920–1921), 145–161, 249–279; R. J. Loenertz OP, Les Missions dominicaines en Orient au quatorzième siècle et la Société des frères pérégrinants pour le Christ. 3 pts. (Rome, 1932–1934); id., La Société des frères pérégrinants. Étude sur l’Orient dominicain (Rome, 1937); M. A. van den Oudenrijn OP, Linguae haicanae scriptores (Berne, 1960).



augustinian contacts with armenian christianity

117

Nakhitchevan and continued to work for union with Rome. The last member of the Order died in Smyrna in 1813. Despite their efforts and those of other missionaries, including the Augustinians, full union between Rome and the Armenian Church was never realised, and only in 1742 with the confirmation of Abraham Petros I Ardzivian as Catholicos-Patriarch of Cilicia of the Catholic Armenians was an independent Armenian Catholic hierarchy established by Benedict XIV.12 An Augustinian Encounter with the Armenian Clergy of Julfa Having left Isfahan in 1604 in the company of Lacerda and Guilherme de Santo Agostinho, Belchior dos Anjos tells us that having passed Tabriz, as they prepared to enter the town of Julfa, they were met by a large number of Armenian clergy, singing hymns, dressed in their liturgical vestments and carrying richly decorated missals, crosses, and censers.13 Three days later, they assembled in the church of St George, and after hearing the Armenians sing Mass ‘with all the ceremonies of the Greeks’, the Augustinians questioned the assembled monks on their religious beliefs. Almost inevitably, the first question was whether they obeyed the pope, and recognised him as head of the Church. The Armenians replied that they recognised him as ‘occupying the place on earth of St Peter and of Our Lord’. On being asked, if this was the case, they were prepared to accept a decision made by the pope in Council on a matter of doctrine, they replied in the affirmative, saying that if they did not apply to him for their administration ‘it was because they lived among the Turks’. Despite these encouraging replies, Belchior noted that they were nevertheless so attached to their ‘Greek rites’ that they would not leave them, believing them to have been instituted by Saint Gregory. They also stated that,

12 On the Armenian Catholic Church see the studies by John Whooley, ‘The Armenian Catholic church: a study in history and ecclesiology’, The Heythrop Journal, 45 (2004), 416–434; ‘The Mekhitarists: Religion, Culture and Ecumenism in Armenian-Catholic Relations’ in A. O’Mahony (ed.), Eastern Christianity: Studies in Modern History, Religion and Politics (London, 2004), 452–489; ‘The Armenian Catholic Church: A Modern History until the Synod of Rome 1928’ in Anthony O’Mahony (ed.), Christianity in the Middle East: Studies in Modern History, Theology and Politics (London, 2008), 263–327; ‘The Armenian Catholic Church in the Middle East’ in Anthony O’Mahony and John Flannery (eds.), The Catholic Church in the Contemporary Middle East (London, 2010), 153–184; ‘The Armenian Church in Contemporary Europe’ in Anthony O’Mahony and Lucian Leustean (eds.), The Catholic church in Contemporary Europe (London, Routledge, forthcoming 2013). 13 L’Ambassade, 145.

118

chapter six

although many of them went to Rome to kiss the feet of the pope, for fear of the Ottomans they obeyed ‘the [Armenian] patriarch of Constantinople’.14 Through further questioning, the Augustinians learn, as well as they can through the medium of an interpreter, that the Armenians hold no ‘errors’ in their understanding of Christianity, although doctrinal differences would later be discovered. They have seven sacraments, although their rites are very different. Belchior appears remarkably relaxed over the fact that they have married priests, and continues with the curious statement ‘but they cannot say Mass, they administer the other sacraments; only the monks can say Mass, they are unmarried’. He admits to being unclear about the monks’ way of life. They wear a kind of woollen hood, and live in common, although, astonishing to the Augustinians, who have canonised their own foundational myth, they do not know who founded their Order.15 They are only monks, says our author, in that they are not married. All the Armenians, he notes, are greatly given to ritual and fasting.16 A Visit from the Fratre Unitores During their stay at Julfa, Lacerda and his companions received a visit from four Armenian Catholics, priests and Dominican monks from a neighbouring village. These Fratre Unitores ‘wore hats, and robes over which was a large white scapular, and as a coat a kind of dark cape with sleeves’, and had come to ask the Spanish ambassador (Lacerda) to intercede for them with the shah on account of the Turkish yoke under which they suffered. They told the embassy that they submitted their obedience

14 On the Armenian millet, see Razmik Panossian, The Armenians: From Kings and Priests to Merchants and Commisars (London, 2006), 69–71, 148–153; S. Peter Cowe, ‘Church and Diaspora: the case of the Armenians’ in Michael Angold (ed.), The Cambridge History of Christianity (vol. 5), Eastern Christianity (Cambridge, 2006), 430–456, 440. On the Ottoman millet system in general, see Bruce Masters, Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Arab World: the roots of sectarianism (Cambridge, 2001), 61–66 and 99; Amnon Cohen, ‘On the Realities of the Millet System’ in B. Braude and B. Lewis (eds.), Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire 2 vols. (New York, 1982), II, 7–18. 15 Scholars remain divided as to the origins of Armenian monasticism. See Mécérian, Histoire 205–221; Garabed Amadouni, ‘Le rôle historique’; Edward G. Farrugia (ed.), In Search of the Precious Pearl: 5th Encounter of Monks from East and West at Dzaghagagatzor Monastery (Rome, 2001). The monasteries combined asceticism with hospitality, and it was from them that the unique order of the ‘vardapets’, unmarried priests with authority to teach and interpret scripture, originated. A Carmelite account of 1629 (see Carmelites I, 320) describes the Armenian Antonine monks of New Julfa. 16 L’Ambassade, 146.



augustinian contacts with armenian christianity

119

to Rome, whence they had received their prelates for four hundred years, and that they were called ‘Franks’ to distinguish them from the other Armenians.17 Lacerda was unwilling to make the brief detour necessary to visit their churches, but the Augustinians, with an armed guard and accompanied by one of the Dominicans, set off for the village of ‘Abranar’ (Aparan) on the west bank of the river Erentchag. The village was the site of an important monastery which had been the residence of the Catholic archbishop of Nakhitchevan since the beginning of the sixteenth century, when he and his flock had been forced to leave and take refuge in Abranar, leaving behind the cathedral built by the Fratre Unitores, which was converted into a mosque.18 On entering the church, they were delighted to find holy water, a practice not usual in the Armenian Church, and to see everything in conformity with the Roman rite. In the sacristy, they are shown the mitres and regalia of the archbishop, who had died two or three years earlier, and some of which bore the arms of the popes who had presented them. On the following morning these ‘poor, persecuted Christians’ gathered to hear the Augustinians say Mass, followed by a sung Mass celebrated by the Armenian monks ‘with all the ritual of the Roman Church, with no other difference than the language, which was Armenian’. They were told that over four hundred years ago, a preacher called Bartholomew had come to the region and ‘converted’ a number of villages. After going to Rome and returning as a bishop, he continued his preaching, converting seven villages. Bartholomew had instructed them and taught them obedience to the Church of Rome. Their bishops were always chosen from among the monks, and on the death of the incumbent, two of them would set off for Rome, where one would be consecrated archbishop. Two monks had in fact departed two years ago, but had not returned due to the hostilities which had rendered their journey

17 Because the Frankish kingdom dominated Western Europe for centuries, terms derived from ‘Frank’ were used by many in Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and beyond as a synonym for Western Christians (e.g., al-Faranj in Arabic, farangi in Persian, and Feringhi in Hindustani). 18 See Gulbenkian, L’Ambassade, 85 n. 172, citing M. A. van den Oudenrijn, ‘Bishops and Archbishops of Naxivan’, Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum, 6 (1936), 161–216, in 189– 190. On the monastery of Abranar see id., ‘The monastery of Aparan’, Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum 1 (1932), 265–281. For an account of the archdiocese of Nakhitchevan and its situation during the seventeenth century until its disappearance in 1740, see Ani Pauline Atamian, The Archdiocese of Naxjewan in the Seventeenth Century, unpublished Ph.D. thesis (Columbia University, 1984). The meeting and subsequent visit to the church of the Armenian Catholics is described in L’Ambassade, 146–149.

120

chapter six

more difficult. The Armenian Catholics are ministered to by priests drawn from the ranks of the monks, whose prior is always their archbishop.19 The Augustinians then visited the church of Qrna, site of the burial of Bartholomew of Podio, whose tomb was held to be miraculous by the local people.20 They were also shown a piece of the arm of the apostle Jude Thaddeus, modestly encased in wood lest it be discovered by the ‘Turks’, and an iron cross made by the same saint. On one of the altars, they found two diptychs, one of John the Baptist and one of the Virgin and child. The latter showed signs of damage caused by the Ottomans, who had tried to destroy it. At their request, the image was presented willingly to the missionaries. The missionaries persuaded Lacerda to join them in visiting the church at Chazcazen, where they asked to be shown the relic of the lance which pierced the side of Jesus. The relic was said to dispel the plague and cure the sick,21 while the Augustinians vouched for the agreeable smell exhaled by the relic and the sensation of blessedness its presence induced. They noted that its shape was that illustrated in scenes of martyrdom, and Guilherme de Santo Agostinho took measurements and drawings of the relic.22 While recognising the difficulty caused by the fact that Rome also claimed to have the sacred lance,23 Belchior is sufficiently convinced of its sanctity to try, unsuccessfully, to gain possession of it by offering the villagers enough money to cancel their debts to the Ottomans in exchange for the relic.24 The enthusiasm for Armenian relics displayed by Guilherme de Santo Agostinho would lead indirectly to his death. In a somewhat unedifying episode in 1610–1611, he returned to Armenia in search of relics, removing an ossuary containing the relics of Saint Hripsime from the church

19 Gouveia, Relação f. 146, provides a brief description of the activities of the founder of the Fratre Unitores, although he gives the date of his arrival in the region as 1337. 20 In fact his official cultus was never approved. See Alonso, Angel Maria Cittadini OP, 30. n. 36, citing the article by N. del Re ‘Bartolomeo da Bologna’ in F. Caraffa (ed.), Bibliotheca Sanctorum, t. II (Rome, 1962), cols 878–880. 21  The same claim was reported in the early nineteenth century by a later traveller, the British diplomat and author, James Morier in his A second Journey through Persia, Armenia and Asia Minor to Constantinople between the years 1810 and 1816 (London, 1818), 324–325, cited in Gulbenkian, L’Ambassade, 157, n. 71. 22 As did Morier, op. cit., 325. 23 A claim also made by Vienna and Krakow. 24 APF, SRCG, vol. 189, fols. 277–278, given in Alonso, ‘Misiones de la Orden de San Augustin en Georgia (1628–1639)’ Analecta Augustiniana 28 (1965), 219–280, hereinafter ‘Misiones en Georgia’, see 222–228.



augustinian contacts with armenian christianity

121

dedicated to her at Etchmiadzin. It is likely that it was the animosity caused during this initial visit by his insistence to the sultan of the region on the truth of the Christian doctrine of the Incarnation which led to his death at the hands of a number of Muslim soldiers on his return in 1613, following the departure of the missionaries from Isfahan in that year. His adventures are described in the contemporary accounts in support of his martyrdom gathered by António de Gouveia in 1615 and that of the Carmelite Juan Tadeo de San Eliseo.25 Drawing on the available sources, and including a number of related documents in an Appendix, is the important study by the Augustinian scholar Arnulf Hartmann ‘William of St. Augustine’ referred to above.26 Through the offices of ‘Abbas himself, both Carmelites and Augustinians would in fact obtain relics of Saint Hripsime from those brought to Isfahan by the Armenians during their deportation, and it appears that the portion given to the Augustinians was later buried in the foundations of the Convent of Santa Monica in Goa. Ironically, the remains of the relic-hunter would themselves have miraculous properties attributed to them, and were later transferred to Isfahan and then to Goa, where, together with relics of the pioneer of the Isfahan mission Jerónimo da Cruz and of Queen Ketevan of Kakheti, they were installed in a tomb of black stone in the chapter-house of the Convento da Graça in Goa.27 Holy Etchmiadzin Taking their leave, Belchior and his party then travelled to the foot of Mount Ararat, where they found ‘three churches, all of stone and of excellent construction, one of which is inhabited’. They had arrived at the holy site of Etchmiadzin, twenty kilometres west of Erevan, with its celebrated monastery, seat of the Catholicos of All the Armenians, and two other churches dedicated to Saint Hripsime and Saint Gayiane.28 The patriarch was absent at the time of their visit, but one of the bishops and the monks 25 Ibid., fols. 280–281, given in Alonso, ‘Misiones en Georgia’, 228–232. See also Hartmann, ‘William of St. Augustine’; ‘Father Nicholas Melo’. 26 For a brief synthesis see Gulbenkian, L’Ambassade, 50–53, esp. n. 98. 27 Documentação 12, 91–92. 28 Whence its name of ‘Three Churches’, ‘Três Igrejas’ in the Portuguese accounts. Felix de Jesus Primeira Parte, f. 65v, describes ‘three beautiful churches, somewhat weathered, but vaulted and of majestic appearance, which they say were made by a king’. On the churches of Etchmiadzin, see Mécérian, Histoire, 260–268 and also the archaeological study by Pascal Paboudjian in 346–380 of the same volume. Roberto Gulbenkian (L’Ambassade

122

chapter six

came out to greet them and conduct them to the church with the same degree of ceremony they had received at Julfa. In the church they saw a stone covered with brocade with a lighted candle nearby. On asking its significance they were told that while St Gregory was on Mount Ararat he prayed and fasted, asking God to reveal to him the spot where Noah had made the first sacrifice after the Flood receded. One night, the risen Christ appeared to him,29 using the point of a lance to indicate the spot, and Gregory had cut out the rock and built the first of the three churches around it. Belchior notes that Muslims also came to kiss the stone. The missionaries received permission to construct a temporary wooden altar over the stone and celebrate Mass there, an act they would repeat on their return from the shah’s camp. The stone would be one of fifteen brought from Etchmiadzin to New Julfa by order of ‘Abbas in 1614 in an attempt to transfer the spiritual and religious allegiance of the deported Armenians to their new home.30 The writer also refers to a heavy stone door to the cathedral, bearing the marks of the battering rams used by the Ottomans in their unsuccessful attempts to force it and which, according to a prophecy of St Gregory the Illuminator, would be opened only when the ‘Franks’, that is to say Crusaders or Christians from the West, had taken the region.31

91, n. 184) notes that the Cathedral of Etchmiadzin was restored with a legacy of $400,000 dollars from Calouste Gulbenkian’s estate 29 The name Etchmiadzin translates as ‘(The place where) the Only-Begotten descended’. 30 Some fragments can still be found in the Church of Saint George in New Julfa, the first of the city’s Armenian churches See Carswell, New Julfa, 37–40 and pl. in 21. Anne Sophie Vivier-Muresan, ‘Autour de l’Eglise Saint-Georges d’Esfahan’, Archives de Sciences Sociales des Religions 138 (2007), 49–68 also describes the background to the transfer of sacred stones from Etchmiadzin to New Julfa, and provides interesting details of contemporary Islamo-Christian devotional practices at the site. Carmelites I, 195, n. 1 gives a translation of a purported edict of ‘Abbas relating to the construction of a large church in New Julfa in which, having described the ruinous state of the ‘Three Churches’ in Etchmiadzin, he commands that ‘the stones in question should be extracted from that place and brought to Our capital of Isfahan so that when the large church is completed they may be placed therein’. 31 On the enduring nature of an ‘Armenian Messianism’ which looked to the salvation of Armenia by Christian Europe, see B. L. Zekiyan, ‘Christianity to Modernity’ in Edmund Herzig and Marina Kurkchiyan (eds.), The Armenians: Past and present in the making of national identity (Abingdon: Oxon, 2005), 41–64, 62; ‘Armenian Self-Perception between Ottomans and Safavids’, Orientalia Christiana Periodica 75 (2009), 81–117, 91–92.



augustinian contacts with armenian christianity

123

‘Abbas’ Deportation of the Armenians in 1604 It was the fate of Armenia throughout much of its history to be the battleground for the dominant powers of the region, or at best to act as a buffer state between them. The end of the Byzantine empire would bring no respite and for centuries to follow, Armenia would be divided, occupied and fought over by the Ottoman and Persian empires, whose political, territorial and economic rivalry would become further embittered with the adoption of Shi‘a Islam as the official religion of Persia under the Safavids. Such, indeed, was the condition of Armenia when Shah ‘Abbas I sought to further extend his territory in Armenia at the expense of the Ottoman enemy in his campaign of 1603–4. When Lacerda’s party reached ‘Abbas’ camp near Kars in the region of Erzerum in October 1604 his campaign had seen notable successes. Having quickly taken Tabriz, he had advanced through Azerbaijan and Armenia largely unopposed. Those towns which surrendered to Persian forces were spared, but those prevented from doing so by their Ottoman garrisons were sacked. Gouveia relates that the inhabitants of Julfa came out to meet ‘Abbas’ troops bearing the heads of the slaughtered Ottoman troops stationed there. Ottoman forces withdrew and re-grouped at Erevan, where, according to Belchior dos Anjos, a second fortress was rapidly constructed in preparation for the arrival of the Persian forces. A lengthy siege, which would last for some seven months, ensued. Large numbers of Armenians and Muslims forced into the construction of earthworks perished from the resistance of the defenders and from the hunger and biting cold, only to be replaced by new conscripts until the region was largely depopulated.32 During this time ‘Abbas sent his Qizilbash soldiers on forays into territory still in Ottoman hands, laying waste the countryside, killing and taking prisoners. Although this does not appear to have been in any sense a systematic deportation, Belchior dos Anjos describes the pitiful sight of the roads and the shah’s camp filled with unfortunate women and children taken captive in raids on Karabagh and Ganja, although ‘Abbas would later order their release.33 In the autumn of 1604, ‘Abbas received news that the long-expected counter-attack was underway, under the command of the Italian renegade

32 Gouveia, Relaçam f. 138v. Belchior dos Anjos, Relação do Motivo, f. 224v (in L’Ambassade 157) reports that some 2,500 Persian soldiers died during the siege, many from the cold. 33 L’Ambassade, 100–101.

124

chapter six

Yusuf Sinan Pasha Ceghaloghlu.34 ‘Abbas had already demobilised many of his troops for the winter, not expecting an Ottoman advance until the following year. Unprepared and outnumbered, it was now that he made the decision to deport the inhabitants of the entire region as part of a scorched earth policy, and to fall back to the south bank of the Arax. The unplanned nature of this evacuation is in contrast to ‘Abbas’ deliberate movement of large groups of Qizilbash tribesmen from one area to another, and his subsequent settlement of large numbers of Caucasian immigrants in strategic areas of Persia, effectively exercises in social engineering designed to weaken tribal cohesion and break down rigid social patterns.35 Belchior dos Anjos describes an initially orderly retreat, with the total destruction by fire of fields and crops, and the deportation of the inhabitants, such that not a living soul remained. Passing through Erevan, the shah’s Qizilbash troops put the town of Nakhitchevan to fire and sword, on account of its reported complicity with the Ottomans. The Julfans were allowed only twenty-four hours to evacuate the town before it was razed to the ground, and the wealthy Armenian merchants36 were forced to bury much of their treasure due to the lack of pack animals. Belchior dos Anjos provides little information on the condition of the refugees driven before the Persian army, except to say that such was their suffering that many of them died on the roads, and ‘neither was the father able to help the son, nor the son the father’. The Ottoman general followed hot on the shah’s heels, until on reaching Nakhitchevan he decided that further pursuit was serving only to destroy more of his master’s territory, and withdrew to the fortress of Van.37 The brief description of the deportation of the Armenians given by Belchior dos Anjos is amplified in contemporary Armenian accounts,38 and

34 L’Ambassade 101, n. 209, provides the information that he came from the Genoese family of Cicala. Captured along with his father by pirates he was taken to Istanbul and converted to Islam. 35 See CHI, vol. 6, 365. 36 On the rise of Julfa as an important commercial centre see Edmund M. Herzig, ‘The Rise of the Julfa Merchants in the Late Sixteenth Century’ in Charles Melville (ed.), Safavid Persia: the history and politics of an Islamic society (Pembroke Papers 4), (London, 1996), 303–322. 37 L’Ambassade, 103–104. 38 See the quotations from Armenian sources given in Edmund M. Herzig, ‘The Deportation of the Armenians in 1604–1605 and Europe’s myth of Shah ‘Abbas’, Pembroke Papers I (1990), 59–71, 63–66, which include a description of the loss of civilian life in crossing the Arax, something omitted from Gouveia’s account.



augustinian contacts with armenian christianity

125

also in the version given by Gouveia in the third book of his Relaçam, valuable both as a complement and corroborative to other historical sources and for providing a Catholic perspective on Armenian Christianity. It is to Gouveia’s account that we now turn. He confirms other accounts which describe the more favourable treatment accorded to at least some inhabitants of Julfa. In his version, two days notice was given for the evacuation of the region, and while Belchior dos Anjos notes the shortage of animals to transport their treasures, Gouveia suggests that the Julfans were given camels and other pack animals on ‘Abbas’ instructions. While the rest of the inhabitants of the region were to be transported to the regions below Tabriz,39 the inhabitants of Julfa ‘whether because he [‘Abbas] was more obliged to them, or because they were the richest merchants in the entire Province, and most engaged in trade’, were sheltered in Tabriz during the winter of 1604 and on later reaching the Persian capital were assigned land to build a new city across the river from Isfahan. On account of their wealth, he notes, they were better equipped to undertake the journey, disguising their true feelings in order to appear obedient to the wishes of ‘Abbas.40 If the Julfans had, as Gouveia puts it ‘what was needed for the journey’, such was certainly not the case of the other inhabitants of the region, driven at the point of the sword from their towns and villages before these were put to the fire. He gives the number of people driven from this heavily populated region as more than sixty thousand households,41 including many women with children ‘too big to carry and too small for the road’ whose husbands had died in constructing the ramparts and ditches for the siege of Erevan. In the bitter winter cold, many perished. While the survivors suffered frostbite, hunger would be a far greater problem. Gouveia describes the widespread practice of cannibalism, with mothers eating their dead children and sharing the flesh with those still living, and even 39 The deported Armenians would be settled in various parts of Isfahan and the surrounding villages, with the Julfans installed in a new suburb south of the Zayanda River. Herzig (‘The Deportation’, 67) rejects the frequently-encountered suggestion (see e.g. Carmelites I, 99–100) that one of ‘Abbas’ motives for this deportation was to establish skilled silk-producers in the regions of Mazandaran and Gilan, since there is no evidence of Armenians being brought there until some ten years later. 40 Relaçam, 139r–v. 41 Based no doubt on Belchior dos Anjos’ estimate of sixty to seventy thousand families, and the death of some 100,000 souls, see ‘Due Lettere’, 165. Contemporary Armenian and Georgian accounts suggest 300,000 and 400,000 people respectively: see Vazken S. Ghoughassian, The Emergence of the Armenian Diocese of New Julfa in the Seventeenth Century (Atlanta GA, 1998), 30–31.

126

chapter six

the killing of children in order to obtain food, while the younger children took to consuming human excrement. He notes that he has not recounted other horrors experienced during the deportation, and claims to have been given his information not only by Armenian bishops and persons worthy of credit, but from the mouths of those children who had seen and experienced these events. The description of accounts given by Gouveia appears extreme and may contain elements of exaggeration. However, Edmund M. Herzig argues convincingly42 that later European accounts of these events are largely, and wrongly, influenced by the writings of Pietro della Valle, who ascribed advantages from ‘Abbas’ policy of deportation not only to the Persian economy, but also to the deportees themselves.43 Armenian historians on the other hand, have tended to follow the version of events presented by Arakel of Tabriz, which demonises ‘Abbas and sees the extirpation of Christianity as his secret agenda.44 While the Julfans settled in the exclusively Armenian suburb of New Julfa in Isfahan fairly quickly established themselves in relative comfort,45 although many still experienced considerable material poverty, those settled in country villages46 endured a miserable existence. Gouveia relates that four years after the deportation, on visiting a number of these villages, he found their Armenian inhabitants living in conditions of starvation, illness and penury. By his personal intervention with the khan of Shiraz, he arranged that the Armenians of three villages should be grouped together into one, displacing its Muslim inhabitants, in order to be able to cultivate the land, supporting themselves and paying rent to their overlord.47 Miserable as their condition might be, the deportees were helped by

42 Herzig, ‘The Deportation’, 59–71. 43 Ibid., 59–60. 44 Arakel of Tabriz, The History, see I, 114–124. 45 For a century or so New Julfa would be an integral and important part of the extensive and lucrative Armenian trade network. For background see the important study by Edmund Herzig, The Armenian Merchants of New Julfa, Isfahan. A Study in Pre-Modern Asian Trade (unpublished PhD thesis, University of Oxford, 1991); John Carswell, ‘New Julfa and the Safavid Image of the Armenians’ in Richard G. Hovannisian (ed.), The Armenian Image in History and Literature (Malibu, CA, 1981), 83–104; Vartan Gregorian, ‘Minorities of Isfahan: The Armenian Community of Isfahan, 1587–1772’, Iranian Studies 7:3–4 (1974), 652–680. 46 Isolated pockets of Georgian communities survive to this day in Iran. See Pierre Oberling ‘Georgian Communities in Persia’ in Encyclopaedia Iranica, 496–497. 47 Relaçam, 143r. Gouveia appears to have developed a particular interest in the plight of the deported Armenians, although clearly motivated by the prospect of their submission to Rome. See Alonso, Antonio de Gouvea OSA, 75–79 for details of his various interventions on their behalf with the courts of Spain and Rome.



augustinian contacts with armenian christianity

127

‘Abbas’ edict that no Armenian of either sex could be held captive within his territories. However, as Gouveia notes, this decree was issued too late for those sent to the more distant parts of his kingdom, although it was enforced in the regions around the capital, where increasing numbers were given their liberty.48 The chronicler now turns to the spiritual condition of the Armenians. He notes their separation from the Catholic Church in the time of the Councils of Ephesus (431) and Chalcedon (451). In fact the Armenian Church accepts the teachings of the Council of Ephesus. In view of the political situation of the time, it is unlikely that there was any significant Armenian representation at the Council of Chalcedon,49 and it would be only at the Third Council of Dvin (607) that an official and formal rejection of the Christological teachings of Chalcedon would appear. Insisting on the formula of St Cyril of Alexandria ‘One is the nature of God the Word Incarnate’ accepted by Ephesus, the Armenians rejected the doctrinal formula of Chalcedon which taught that Christ has ‘two distinct natures, human and divine, in one person’, on the basis that it over-emphasised the distinction of the divine and human in Christ. The Armenian Church and the other Oriental Orthodox Churches, have long been characterised as monophysite in contrast to the dyophisite Christology of Chalcedon.50 These Churches vehemently reject this appellation, and in fact the term miaphysite (the nature of the incarnate Logos is a composite of the human and divine) is more appropriate to their position. Gouveia also refers to the attempt at union of the Council of Florence, but accepts that in view 48 Ibid. 143r–v. 49 Karekin Sarkissian, The Council of Chalcedon and the Armenian Church (London, 1965); Paul Fries and Tiran Nersoyan (eds.), Christ in East and West (Macon GA, 1987); N. Garsoian, ‘Some preliminary precisions on the separation of the Armenian and Imperial Churches: I. The Presence of “Armenian” Bishops at the First Five Oecumenical Councils’ in J. Chrysostomides (ed.), Kathegetria: Essays presented to Joan Hussey (Camberley, 1988), 249–285; ead., ‘Quelques précisions préliminaires sur le schisme entre les Églises byzantine et arménienne au sujet du concile de Chalcédoine II. La date et les circonstances de la rupture’ in L’Arménie et Byzance. Histoire et culture (Byzantina Sorbonensia 12) (Paris, 1996), 99–112; ead., ‘Quelques précisions préliminaires sur le schisme entre les Églises byzantine et arménienne au sujet du concile de Chalcédoine III. Les évêchés méridionaux limitrophes de la Mésopotamie’, Revue des Études Arméniennes 23 (1992), 39–80; K. Maksoudian, ‘The Chalcedonian Issue and the Early Bagratids: the Council of Shirakawan’, Revue des Études Arméniennes 21 (1998–1989), 333–344. On the continuing strand of Chalcedonian Christology in Armenia, see V. A. Arutjunova-Fidanjan, ‘The Ethno-confessional self-awareness of Armenian Chalcedonians’, Revue des Études Arméniennes 23 (1992), 345–363. 50 For a particularly useful analysis of the Christological positions of the various Eastern Churches see Sebastian P. Brock, ‘The “Nestorian” Church: A Lamentable Misnomer’, Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 78 (1996), 23–35, 28.

128

chapter six

of their geographical isolation, surrounded by Muslims, it is unsurprising that they do not accept the universal authority of the pope, and that having no knowledge of the Catholic Church and being raised in hatred of the Latins and believing that there are great differences of belief between them, that they should claim that they would rather become Muslims than Catholics. This pragmatic and relatively generous interpretation of their plight must nevertheless be balanced by the detailed description of the Armenians’ ‘errors’ in the following pages, contrasted with the fidelity of the Armenian Catholics in equally difficult circumstances. Even if, as he will later acknowledge, they have somehow maintained the principal tenets of the faith, it is apparent that in Gouveia’s eyes their failure to recognise papal primacy remained a stumbling block to the possibility of salvation. He recounts the election of David as patriarch of the Armenians, shortly before the mass deportation from the region,51 also describing the site of the Three Churches at Etchmiadzin and the legends linking it to St Gregory. No doubt as a result of his later indecisiveness regarding Armenian union with Rome and his unwillingness to act without the approval of ‘Abbas, Gouveia is critical of Catholicos David, describing him as ‘weak’, and providing the information that due to the debts he was forced to accumulate by the escalating exactions of the Ottomans, and to his incapacity to govern the Armenian Church at such a difficult period, he had, in the face of considerable resistance, resigned his office in favour of one of his co-adjutors, named Melchisedech. Following the shah’s incursions, Melchisedech retired to the monastery at Mount Gordio52 having first appointed David as his vicar to accompany the unfortunate deportees. In this version of affairs, having accepted this charge until such time as Melchisedech should follow, it was either because the latter had delayed in doing so, or because he himself had repented of his decision to step down, that David again proclaimed himself patriarch of all the

51 David of Vagharchapat, generally referred to as David IV. The precise chronology of the leadership of the Armenian Church is unclear at this period. Ghoughassian, op. cit., gives 1584–1624 for his period in office, while Michael Burgess, The Eastern Orthodox Churches: Concise Histories with Chronological Checklists of their Primates ( Jefferson, NC, 2005) gives 1590–1629, and J. M. Floristan and Luis Gil, ‘Carta del Patriarca Armenio David IV a Felipe III’, Sefarad 46 (1986), 199–207 give 1587–1629. Presumably accepting the fact of his resignation, Gregorio Petrowicz, L’Unione degli Armeni di Polonia con la Santa Sede (1626–1686), Orientalia Christiana Analecta 135 (1950), 7, has 1586–1593, counting him as the fifth of his name to hold office. 52 Described by Gouveia as ‘some leagues distant from Erevan’ Relaçãm, f. 144r.



augustinian contacts with armenian christianity

129

Armenians, and was accepted as such by the majority of the Armenian bishops, clergy and people settled in Isfahan and its environs, with the support of ‘Abbas. As we shall see, this support was not universal, rather the Armenian Church appears to have been in a state of effective schism, with the majority of those involved in the transmigration recognising the primacy of David, and those bishops remaining in Armenia following Melchisedech.53 Our chronicler now attempts to give a theological explanation for the sufferings of the Armenians. He sees suggestions that the despoiling of the ancient towns and cities of a rich and fertile province which could have provided the Persian ruler with considerable income was undertaken simply to hamper the progress of the Ottoman army ‘appear ridiculous’ since ‘those forces [i.e. the Ottomans] which have passed through other wastes and deserts could easily have passed through this one, carrying their provisions in carts and on camels, of which there was no shortage in their army’.54 Aligning himself firmly with the theology of Job’s comforters, Gouveia suggests rather that God has allowed these sufferings in order to reduce the Armenians to Roman obedience by opening their eyes to their neglect of heaven, and their disobedience to the Vicar of Christ on earth. In support of this theory he notes that there were providentially in Isfahan at the time five Augustinian missionaries who could liberate the Armenians from their errors, and emphasises the fact that the Armenian Catholics were not forced to leave their houses or homeland,55 as were the majority of the ‘schismatics’.56 The Augustinians of Isfahan were astonished to hear of the arrival of the Armenians. Going to meet them outside the city, the patriarch and his bishops were surprised at the warm welcome received from the Latin

53 Relaçãm f. 144v–145r. 54 In fact, as both Armenian and Ottoman sources testify, a similar scorched earth policy had been pursued by Shah Tahmasp I and also by the Ottomans during their invasion of Erevan, Karabagh and Nakhitchevan in 1554. See the citations in Ghoughassian’s translation of Arakel of Tabriz, 22 and notes. 55 This assertion would seem doubtful, records of the numbers of Armenian Catholics in their traditional heartland dating from before and after the deportation show a considerable reduction, see the chart in Alonso, Angel Maria Cittadini, 231. Carswell, ‘New Julfa’, 8, cites Ter Yovhanian, History of New Julfa in Isfahan (in Armenian), ( Julfa, 1880), stating that ‘The Armenian Catholics came from Armenia to Isfahan with the great migration’. The Armenians insisted to the Carmelites after the latter’s arrival in 1608 that 10,000 families of ‘Franks’ had been deported, see Carmelites I, 100, citing the account of Father Paolo Simone (Arch. Gen. OCD, 234b). 56 Relaçam, 145v.

130

chapter six

missionaries, not least on account of ‘knowing that they [the Augustinians] were in Persia with the rank of ambassadors, and as such much respected by all’.57 The Augustinians shared what they had with those in the most need, ‘giving almost all that they had’. Their meagre resources would be supplemented by alms from Dom Pedro Coutinho, then captain of Hormuz, the vicar of Hormuz, and the prior of their Order’s convent on the island.58 While the Armenian prelates were greatly impressed by the Augustinians’ generosity, and the latter did not miss the opportunity to emphasise the need for all Christians to recognise the supremacy of the pope, the Augustinian prior Diogo de Santa Ana noted that the responses of the Armenians were somewhat vague and prevaricating.59 For his readers’ better understanding of the Armenians’ situation, Gouveia proceeds to outline their customs and ‘some of their errors’.60 He begins by insisting that it is truly remarkable that despite living among ‘infidels’ and deprived of the teachings of the Catholic Church, they have nevertheless held firm to the central tenets of the faith, the Trinity and its essential unity, the Incarnation and its necessity, the virginity of Mary pre- and post-partum, the number of sacraments, and the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Their principal error, unsurprisingly, is seen as the belief that their patriarch is not subject to or dependent on the Roman pontiff, but is his equal in power and authority. This is based, we are told, on the erroneous notion that there are twelve Christian ‘castes’, and twelve heads of the different Churches who are successors to the apostles, such that while the popes are the successors of Peter, the Armenian patriarchs are those of Jude Thaddeus.61 Gouveia notes that they use azyme bread like the Latins, and celebrate Mass in Armenian with Greek rites. They do not add water to the wine used for the Eucharist, and give communion after baptism to children only a week old, although they do not believe that this is essential for their salvation. They are said to be careless about the need for confession to precede communion, and a more pervasive laxity is blamed on the disinterest of their prelates in proper religious observance. Unlike the monks, who practice chastity and say Mass 57 Ibid., 147r. 58 Ibid., 148r (incorrectly foliated as 150). 59 Ibid., 150r. 60 Ibid., in Chapter V of Book III, incorrectly foliated as 150r–155v. 61   In his conversations with Diogo de Santa Ana, the Armenian patriarch David IV will use precisely this argument, showing his patriarchal seal with the twelve apostles encircling God the Father and Jesus Christ, representing, in his view, the unity of the Church. See L’Ambassade, 121.



augustinian contacts with armenian christianity

131

on Saturdays, Sundays and feast-days, the married clergy normally do not say Mass, simply because of their difficulty in refraining from sexual relations with their wives for forty days thereafter as tradition demands. This curious statement indicates a misunderstanding on Gouveia’s part. Immediately after ordination Armenian priests do undertake a kind of forty-day retreat from the world, being visited only by the person bringing them their meals, and with no possibility whatever of seeing their wife. Following this they are required only to abstain from food and from marital relations from about four o’clock on the evening prior to the day on which they celebrate the Divine Liturgy. Gouveia seems little better informed than Belchior dos Anjos regarding the Armenian monks, although repeating that they appear monks only in their adherence to celibacy. While Belchior dos Anjos simply notes the attachment of the Armenians to ritual and fasting, for Gouveia, the rigour of their fasts is something of which he strongly disapproves, not least because, in contradiction to the canons of the Latin Church, they apply equally to those who have not reached the age of majority, and to the sick. Worse still, this ‘indiscreet fasting’ proves a source of sinful pride for the Armenians, since that of other nations is less strict.62 It is highly probable that the Catholics in Isfahan had experienced this attitude of superiority on the part of the Armenians, since Gouveia goes on to describe those whom God has delivered into the care of the Latin missionaries as ‘on the one hand full of blindness, error and ignorance, and on the other very proud and scornful, not to say disdainful of those who have to preach to them, and extremely attached to their ancient customs.’63 As we shall see, it would be Armenian attachment to their age-old rites that would prove a serious obstacle to the putative union of the Armenians of New Julfa with the Roman Church. A Letter of Obedience to Pope Paul V, Signed by the Armenians of New Julfa From the account of the Augustinian prior Diogo de Santa Ana to Pope Paul V of 3rd December 1607 published by Alonso,64 the ‘anonymous’ later

62 Relaçam, 155v. 63 Ibid., 155r. 64 Alonso, ‘Due Lettere’, 166–179.

132

chapter six

manuscript by the same cleric published by Roberto Gulbenkian,65 and from Gouveia’s Relaçam of 1611, we can attempt a reconstruction of the events which transpired between the Augustinians of Isfahan and the religious and civil representatives of the deported Armenians, some two years after the arrival of the latter in the Persian capital. Diogo de Santa Ana had determined that in order to achieve union of the Armenians with the Church of Rome, his best approach would be to persuade their patriarch, priests and the senior members of the community. To this end, he initiated a series of theological discussions with them, held not only in New Julfa and the Augustinian convent, but also in the caravansaries where many of them were still lodged, and ‘wherever they celebrated their sacrifices and said their prayer’. These discussions ranged over ‘the difference between the Armenian and Roman Churches, the danger arising from being separated from the latter, and not according His Holiness the Pope the obedience due to him as Sovereign Pontiff, Supreme Prelate and universal Pastor of the whole of Holy Mother Church, Vicar on earth of God and of Our Lord Jesus Christ’.66 He also then ‘attacked those points where the Armenian Church is less certain (since he had studied them closely and knew them well)’.67 Whether worn down by the missionary’s persistence or persuaded by the promise of further material assistance, during a visit to the Augustinian convent of Isfahan the Armenian patriarch, in the company of a number of other clerics, declared himself ready to accept the Roman Pontiff as supreme head of the Church. Diogo de Santa Ana advised him that it was essential to have a written statement confirming his intention, which should also be declared in public to ensure that his subjects faithfully followed his example. David IV confirmed his willingness to do so, needing only to advise those priests and bishops absent from the capital, so that they might join him in making their declaration of obedience.

65 Do Tocante (L’Ambassade 115–140). This is clearly based on his letter of 1607, following the same pattern of description of his work among Muslims, apostates and Armenians. A critical reference to Gouveia’s Relaçam and to its author as bishop of Cyrene enables the dating of this ms. to after 1611. 66 While terms such as ‘vicar of Peter’ and ‘vicar of the Apostolic See’ had long been used to describe the pope, and the term ‘vicar of Christ’ can be dated to the sixth century, it was apparently Innocent III (1277–1280) who first used the appellation ‘vicar of God’. Such an elevated view of the papacy would of course sit well with the Augustinians. 67 Do Tocante 70r–v in L’Ambassade 119–120, referring to himself, as he does throughout this text, in the third person.



augustinian contacts with armenian christianity

133

Some days later, the patriarch, accompanied by these bishops, visited the Augustinian convent, and, after hearing the arguments of the missionaries, agreed to sign a letter of obedience. The fact that this would likely confirm his position as leader of the Armenian Church, albeit under the pope, may well have influenced David IV in view of the effective schism over jurisdiction within the Armenian Church.68 Significantly, the bishop of Julfa, who was the most senior of the Armenian bishops, and a number of the most influential lay members of the community, had not been informed of the patriarch’s intentions, precisely on account of their support for David’s rival Melchisedech. Seeing the patriarch’s resolve, on the 12 May 1607, feast of Mary Queen of Angels, the Augustinians decorated their church and put things in readiness to solemnise the act of obedience. Having celebrated Masses pro tollendo schismate [for the healing of schism], copies of the letter of obedience in both Portuguese and Armenian were prepared, and after the arrival of the patriarch, six bishops, over a hundred priests, both secular and religious, and so many people that the small church was filled to overflowing, the prior, Diogo de Santa Ana began to celebrate the Mass of the day. Following communion, the prior read aloud the letter of obedience, which an Armenian interpreter translated into his own tongue. The patriarch then took the letter and read it aloud. The text given by Gouveia reads as follows: I, David, Patriarch of All Armenia, together with those bishops and priests subject to me, who append their signatures, promise and swear by Jesus Christ Our Lord that we will never hold nor preach any belief regarding God and Our Lord Jesus Christ other than that which the holy Roman Church holds and teaches, and which the Roman Pontiff, head of the entire Church and Vicar of the same Lord, sets forth. We further promise and swear that we will give perpetual obedience to the holy Roman and Apostolic See, and to the same Roman Pontiff, canonically elected, who presides over it. And as true and obedient sons of the Supreme Pontiff and the Church of Rome, we most willingly obey and subject ourselves to Pope Paul V who currently governs it, as supreme head of the entire Catholic Church, in which he holds 68 See Floristán and Gil, ‘Carta’, 202. The remarkable political pretensions of David IV are revealed in the same article, and in the treatment of the same material by Roberto Gulbenkian, ‘Deux lettres surprenantes du Catholicos arménien David IV à Philippe III d’Espagne, II de Portugal 1612–1614’ in Estudos Históricos I, 301–356, esp. 331–332. In a letter of late 1611 or early 1612 (Archivo General de Simancas, Estado, leg. 2709), the patriarch sent a coded request, buried in a poem, for 10,000 Spanish troops to be sent against Persia, and offered himself as a confidential agent in Persia for the supply of privileged information to the Spanish crown.

134

chapter six first place, and wish to obey his commands. And since we desire this to be so, we affirm it on oath and swear by Jesus Christ Our Lord, and by his holy Gospel on which we place our hands, and so sign our own name, this twelfth day of May, in the year of Our Lord 1607 according to the Roman calendar.69

After the patriarch, his bishops and senior priests had signed the letter,70 the proceedings continued with the singing of the Te Deum and the distribution of alms to the Armenian clergy, concluding with a celebratory meal.71 The ‘alms’ referred to likely relate to the donation of one thousand cruzados sent from Goa by Aleixo de Meneses.72 Diogo de Santa Ana specifies that it was sent for the relief of the Armenians, while Gouveia glosses this further by suggesting that it was intended for the support of the Augustinians, and that they generously distributed the money to the Armenians. It is difficult not to see this distribution, which takes place after submission to Rome, as an inducement to or at best a reward for, adherence to the Latin Church. The Catholic side would have been aware of the encouragement of Decree I of the First Provincial Council of Goa (1567) to use ‘benefices or favours’ to secure conversions,73 and the Augustinian chronicler Simão da Graça baldly states in 1682 that ‘from the Customs money from Congo [Bandar-e-Kong] for the convent of Isfahan, our religious give many alms to the poor . . . and by means of giving alms, many schismatics have been reduced to the obedience of the Catholic Church’.74 On 13 May 1607, the Armenian patriarch signed and sealed a lengthier letter to Paul V, asking pardon for the earlier failure of the Armenians to

69 Relaçam 161r–v. 70 The Augustinian prior, Diogo de Santa Ana, was in fact the first to swear the oath of obedience, by way of example. He is insistent on this point, contradicting the claim of Gouveia (Relaçãm 160v) that this was done by the venerable Jerónimo da Cruz. The actual rite of the profession of faith, with the document placed on the pages of an open missal and read aloud, corresponds precisely to that in force almost four centuries later as described in the article ‘Profession de Foi’ in Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique XIII, 675–682, see 682. 71  The ceremony of the profession of obedience was recorded in the panels of azulejos decorating the chapter house of the Augustinians in Lisbon, reproduced in Gulbenkian, L’Ambassade between 58–59 and in id. ‘Rapports Entre Augustiniens et Dominicains Portugais et les Dominicains Arméniens au XVIIème siècle in Estudos Históricos I, 135–211, 211. Just over a year after being photographed in 1972 for inclusion in L’Ambassade, this section was found to have been removed by thieves, and its whereabouts remains unknown. 72 ‘Due Lettere’, 166–167, Gouveia Relação 158v. 73 Cunha Rivara, Archivo Portuguez-Oriental IV, 8. 74 Analecta Augustiniana 4 (1911–1912), 390.



augustinian contacts with armenian christianity

135

give their obedience to the pope, since they lived among Muslims and were ruled by infidels.75 The writer begins by affirming in greater detail his recognition of the pope as the successor of Peter and head of the Church, without which and outside of which it is impossible to be saved. The succeeding paragraphs turn to practical matters, a request for material aid from Rome, and that the Armenians be permitted to retain their ancient rites and usages76 ‘in which they had been raised and which they have received through tradition, as the said fathers [the Augustinians] have assured us we may hope for from Your Holiness. That is to say, those customs which are not contrary to the faith, since if they were so we would not wish them’.77 The letter ends by requesting letters from the pope to ‘Abbas on behalf of the Armenians, asking that they should be allowed to continue in the practice of their ancient faith, and that no Muslim should be permitted to interfere in their laws or their temporal and spiritual affairs. Hopes of Union Founder The initial delight of the Augustinians would soon be moderated, however. The bishop of Julfa and some of his followers, who gave at best lip-service to David as patriarch, now began to complain of his failure to consult them on such an important matter. Concerned, the Augustinians persuaded the patriarch to visit the bishop of Julfa. Having done so and succeeded in calming him somewhat, he returned to the bishop’s house the next day in order to take him to the Augustinian convent, along with another bishop and some of the principal merchants. On arrival, he refused to sign the same statement as the patriarch, being prepared to countenance only a version in Armenian which he himself had brought. At issue was the demand that the document of obedience should be made conditional on the Armenians being allowed to retain their own

75 A Portuguese translation is given by Gouveia in Relaçam 161v–162r, while the Latin text appears in Alonso, ‘Cuatro cartas relacionada con el acto de sumisión del patriarca armenio David IV al Papa Paulo V (1607)’ in Oliveira Ramos et al. (eds.) Estudos em homenagem a João Francisco Marques (Porto, 2001), 70–81, 74. 76 The Armenian Rite is described in vol. 2 of Archdale King, The Rites of Eastern Christendom 2 vols. (Rome, 1947–1948; 2nd edn. New York, 1972; new edn. Piscataway NJ, 2007). 77 This concession had, in fact, been granted to the Ruthenians by Clement VIII in his Bull Magnus Dominus et affabilis of February 1596.

136

chapter six

rites after union with Rome, ‘Noi obedimo con li nostri costumi ’.78 The Augustinians refused to accept this,79 insisting on unconditional obedience, and after five hours of heated debate, and despite having presented the Armenians with gifts, no solution was arrived at and they left in ill humour.80 On the following day Diogo de Santa Ana and three of his fellow missionaries went to the suburb of New Julfa, where they met the same two Julfan bishops, their priests and a number of wealthy and welleducated merchants. Here the prior produced a copy of the profession of faith ‘prescribed by Clement VIII for the Orientals’81 and printed in Armenian in Rome,82 asking that that it should be read aloud. Seeing them object to certain passages, he asked them to explain their difficulties. The first of three points of disagreement was the confession that Christ ‘is one and the same, according to his divinity, equal to the Father, immortal and impassible. And truly, according to his humanity, less than the Father, mortal and passible’.83 The Armenians understood this to subordinate Christ to the Father, and the best efforts of the Augustinians failing to 78 Alonso, ‘Due Lettere’, 167–168. 79 They had earlier given the same response to the patriarch (Relaçãm 158r–v), while assuring him of their willingness to raise the matter with the pope. 80 The brief account given by Belchior dos Anjos (L’Ambassade 122–123) contradicts this version of events, claiming that after many debates, lasting up to nine hours a day, he succeeded in convincing the two bishops who shared the jurisdiction of New Julfa, and their faction, to also ally themselves to Rome. 81 Alonso, ‘Due Lettere’, 169. See ‘Professio orthodoxae Fidei ab orientalibus facienda iussu S.D.N. Urbani Papae VIII’ in Iuris Pontificii de Propaganda Fide, 8 vols. (Rome, 1888–1909, new facsimile edition Farnborough, 1971), I, 227–232, where in 232, n. 2 it is stated that the revised (undated) text does not differ (non differt) from the earlier texts of Pius V, Gregory XIII and Clement VIII. An analysis of the sources of the Profession of Urban VIII is given in C. G. Patelos, ‘Aux origines dogmatiques de l’Uniatisme. Un texte ignoré’, Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique 73 (1978), 334–348. In July 1626, it was the Florentine Bull of 1439 of Eugene IV which the Propaganda specified for the Armenian patriarch Melchisedech, see Petrowicz, ‘L’Unione’, 10. 82 In his Autobiography (XII, 266) Cardinal Santoro notes the endeavours of Gregory XIII (1572–1585) to obtain type in Abyssinian, Arabic, Armenian, Coptic and Illyrian. Vital to this enterprise was the French punch-cutter and type designer, Robert Granjon, summoned to Rome in 1578, who presented the pope with Armenian type during an audience on 10 September 1579, as reported by Santoro in his Audientiae XVII, 365. See John Krajcar SJ, Cardinal Guilio Antonio Santoro and the Christian East, Orientalia Christiana Analecta 177, (Rome, 1966), 29 and nn. 44 and 45; Hendrik D. L. Vervliet, Cyrillic and Oriental Typography in Rome at the End of the 16th century: An Inquiry into the Later Work of Robert Granjon (Berkeley, Ca., 1981). 83 Alonso, ‘Due Lettere’, 169. The statement clearly draws on the thirty-third article of the Athanasian Creed, a Western creation of the fifth or sixth century attributed to Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 293–373), which states that the Son is ‘Aequalis Patri secundum divinitatem: minor Patre secundum humanitatem’ [Equal to the Father according to his divinity: less than the Father according to his humanity].



augustinian contacts with armenian christianity

137

clarify the theological complexity of the relation of divinity and humanity in Christ to their satisfaction, they began to shout ‘bir, bir’ 84 (one, one). Blaming their ‘hardness, ignorance and incapacity’, he was more successful on the second point of difference, the doctrine of Purgatory, although the Armenians were initially scandalised by what they understood as a teaching which allowed the escape of souls from Hell. Turning finally to the question of obedience to the papacy, Diogo de Santa Ana again refused to allow this to be conditional, arguing that if it were, Muslims would also be able to give their obedience while retaining their own customs.85 After some six or seven hours in fruitless discussion, the Augustinians postponed further debate. A number of the principal merchants remained angry about the letter of obedience signed by David IV and his supporters, and their disaffection soon spread throughout New Julfa, whose inhabitants also complained to the shah, then away from the capital with his army, claiming that the patriarch, persuaded by the large sum of money given him by the ‘Frank’ priests resident in the city,86 sought to separate them from their religion and their ancient customs, something never accomplished during the time of Ottoman rule in Armenia, and which they would never consent to, since as vassals of the shah they hoped to live in greater freedom than under the ‘Turks’. The clear link in Diogo de Santa Ana’s account between Meneses’ substantial gift and the unity of the Armenians with Rome must suggest that such a reading of events is not entirely unreasonable. Gouveia also links the material care which the Armenians could expect from submission to Roman obedience. ‘Abbas would later ask the Carmelites whether the pope had ordered the Augustinians ‘to change the faith of the Armenians, which they had kept for more than a thousand years’. More significantly, he also asks if this is ‘to make them into Portuguese.’87 ‘Abbas apparently had no wish to see an economically important section of the Safavid polity coming under an external power, whether Rome or Portugal, and creating a possible fifth column within his realm. Such concerns can only 84 Ibid., loc. cit., The Armenians clearly perceive here a Chalcedonian over-emphasis on the separation of the divine and human in Christ. 85 This precisely describes the approach of the Mandaean converts to Christianity in Basra who accepted Christian baptism while continuing to follow Mandaean rites and practices. 86 Alonso, ‘Due Lettere’, 166 and 167, where the alms are literally described as a ‘sweetener’. (Relaçãm f. 150). 87 The diplomatic reply was that the Armenians had clearly misunderstood the matter. See Carmelites I, 129.

138

chapter six

have been reinforced by widespread dissemination of the ‘messianic’ legend attributed by the Armenians to St Gregory to which we have referred above. According to this, the Armenians would, in a few years, be subject to Christian rulers, and considerable alarm was caused by the belief that the submission of the Armenians to Rome achieved by the Portuguese friars was simply to prepare them to be ready to rise against the Muslims when Christian forces, came to conquer the kingdom. Gouveia notes that this was discussed on a number of occasions in the presence of ‘Abbas, and that many of his nobles turned against the missionaries as a consequence.88 The patriarch, fearing now that he would be deprived not just of his office but also his life, approached the missionaries, requesting the return of the letter of obedience and that to the pope, declaring that he had never intended to abandon the rites of the Armenian Church, and that only with that condition inserted would he give his consent to union with Rome. Judging him unable to resist the pressure he was under, and unable to persuade the bishop of Julfa and his faction to make peace, the Augustinians decided on visiting the shah to provide him with an accurate account. Leaving Isfahan on 27 June 1607, and after a long and arduous journey, Diogo de Santa Ana and Bernardo de Azevedo reached the shah’s encampment near Ardabil. Questioned by ‘Abbas about their motives, they eventually admitted that they had come in order to ask the Persian monarch, ‘since his Highness was such a friend of the Christians, and showed himself so well-disposed towards the pope’, that he should persuade the Armenian patriarch to offer the appropriate obedience to the bishop of Rome.89 Remarkably, declaring that he wished to lose no opportunity to be of assistance to the pope and the king of Spain, ‘Abbas insisted that he would not merely ask the patriarch to do as they requested, but would expressly order him to do so, ‘since he knew very well that those who did not give their obedience to the Roman Pontiff were not true Christians, adding that, just as one of his own vassals who disobeyed his viceroys was disobedient to him, so anyone disobeying the pope of Rome was disobedient to Christ, whose viceroy he was’.90 The Augustinians were both 88 Relaçam, 164v–165r. 89 The prior actually made three requests, presented in a letter which he had written himself, although purporting that it originated from Aleixo de Meneses. In addition to requesting the submission of the Armenians, he also sought the freedom of all Armenians held captive by the shah’s subjects, and the granting of a site in New Julfa for the construction of an Armenian church, college and monastery, Alonso, ‘Due Lettere’, 175. 90 Relaçam, 167r.



augustinian contacts with armenian christianity

139

delighted and astonished, while ‘Abbas ordered that they should be given written instructions confirming his favourable answer to their request.91 Their joy would be short-lived, as ‘Abbas almost immediately received confirmation of the peace treaty signed between Emperor Rudolf II and Ahmed I, the Ottoman ruler,92 an act bitterly resented by the shah who held the emperor in high regard and considered his action a personal betrayal.93 Only after following ‘Abbas to Tabriz were the Augustinians granted an audience, when the Persian ruler raged against Rudolf and those Christian rulers who had betrayed him by not coming to his support, as so often promised. He demanded ‘at the same time that the Christian princes break their word and lie to me; you want to have churches in my kingdom? You want me to subject the Armenians to you? You want to ring bells in public? Why should I not smash your bells, destroy your churches and expel you from my kingdom, since from you and from those who sent you here I get nothing but letters and words and acts such as this?’94 Taken aback, Diogo de Santa Ana diplomatically suggested that it was perhaps unreasonable to blame the pope and the king of Spain and his emissaries for the actions of the emperor. Calmed somewhat, the shah still complained that it seemed unlikely that Rudolf had acted without first consulting the rulers of Spain and Rome, being related to one as a maternal nephew and subject to the other as head of all Christians. No further conversation took place, and on hearing that ‘Abbas had left for Mashhad, the disconsolate emissaries returned to Isfahan, recognising that prospects for Armenian union with Rome were now largely a dead letter.95

91  The ms account of Belchior dos Anjos includes a lengthy and somewhat self-congratulatory description of his various meetings with the shah and his theological debate with him (L’Ambassade, 124–130) which is absent from the other accounts. The debate largely centres on the perennial question of Christian theological understanding of the Trinity and Incarnation, with a curious diversion into a discussion on the number of nails which held Christ to the Cross, three or four. Both agree that three is likely correct. 92 Likely the treaty of Zsitvatorok, signed in the previous year by Rudolf ’s brother, despite the emperor’s disapproval. 93 Carmelite sources (Arch. Gen. OCD, 234b; ASV, Fondo Borghese, ser. II, no. 20, f. 163) indicate commercial malpractice and unfair treatment of Persian merchants by the Portuguese at Hormuz as also being significant factors in the shah’s displeasure with the Augustinians. See Carmelites I, 101–104. 94 Relaçam, 168v. 95 Diogo de Santa Ana had considered first going to meet the rival patriarch Melchisedech in Etchmiadzin, but decided against it due to lack of funds and to the number of robbers in this war zone between Persia and Turkey (Alonso, ‘Due Lettere’, 171–173). Melchisedech, motivated no doubt by his need for material assistance but also in order

140

chapter six

Reflecting on the affair, Diogo de Santa Ana suggested the founding of a college for the Armenians, either in Isfahan if the shah permitted it, or among the Armenian Catholics. He also stated that the presence of Aleixo de Meneses in Isfahan would have a highly beneficial effect, and that failing him, a senior cardinal from the Roman court or a Spanish grandee should be appointed Resident in the Persian capital.96 For their part, having learned of what had occurred at the shah’s camp, the Armenians shunned the missionaries, giving fear of ‘Abbas as their reason. It would be António de Gouveia, sent again from Goa to Isfahan on another mission with both religious and diplomatic objectives,97 who would succeed in restoring more cordial relations between the shah and the ‘ambassadors of the king’, before reluctantly accepting the shah’s commission to return to Europe with a Persian ambassador, Denguiz Beg. The main purpose of this embassy was to test the viability of the sale of Persian silk, the shah’s monopoly, via Hormuz and India rather than through Ottoman territory. The embassy would be disastrously mismanaged, with the sale of a substantial amount of silk in Goa to bolster its finances, and the remainder being presented to Philip III as a gift. On their return, Denguiz Beg was cut to pieces in the shah’s presence, while Gouveia escaped only on the condition that he made good ‘Abbas’ losses, something he was in no position to do.98 However, if Gouveia had succeeded in placating the shah’s ire on returning to Persia in 1608, things would go a good deal less smoothly following his return in 1613 from this unsuccessful mission, during which he had been consecrated bishop of Cyrene and appointed apostolic visitor to the Christians of Persia and surrounding regions.99 It is to be imagined that in to strengthen his own position with respect both to the rival patriarch in Isfahan and his Persian masters, would in fact proffer his own submission to Paul V (1610 and 1617), and also to Gregory XV (1622) and Urban VIII (1623). See Petrowicz, ‘L’Unione’, 8 and n. 1; DHGE, IV, 324–325, where it is also noted that in 1613 he had declared his willingness to accept the rites and teachings of the Latin Church. 96 Alonso, ‘Due Lettere’, 182 and 191. 97 As a teacher of theology, Persian speaker, and already acquainted with ‘Abbas, he was seen as the obvious choice to settle the theological objections of the Armenians to union. He also carried letters from Philip II to ‘Abbas. He returned to Isfahan in June 1608, and devotes 169v–175r of his Relaçam to an account of this mission and encounter with ‘Abbas. See also Alonso, António de Gouvea, 83–96. 98 Ibid., 168–172. 99 Ibid., 131–141. See the letter of 16 March of that year from the Carmelites of Hormuz to their convent in Isfahan (Arch. Gen. OCD 239b, quoted in Carmelites I, 205–206), describing the ‘great fright and alarm’ among the Armenians at the prospect of the arrival of the ‘Visitor of the Armenian Church’.



augustinian contacts with armenian christianity

141

view of the brutal slaughter of his fellow ambassador, the manifest displeasure of the shah over both the business of the silk and the clear unwillingness of the Europeans to commit anything except fine words to the war against the Ottomans, Gouveia would have felt it prudent to lie low. Pietro della Valle informs us, however, that despite these circumstances, and not showing the greatest of prudence, through his own desire, and for his misplaced zeal to provide some service to God and to his Order, and to send news to Europe that he had done something, he asked the King of Persia to order that all his Christian vassals should give him their obedience, saying that they obeyed schismatic, and therefore illegitimate, prelates, and that, having been sent by the pope, the supreme head of the Church, he was their legitimate superior.

To the bishop’s insistence that they should give him allegiance whether they wished to or not, ‘Abbas now replied that he would force no one in matters of religion, saying that ‘he knew very well that the Syrians as well as the Armenians, while Christians, were not of the Latin rite, and had nothing to do with the Latin Church. In fact, the result of Gouveia’s request was that ‘Abbas, objecting to this attempt to interfere with his subjects, secretly sent instructions to the Armenian patriarch and the other nonLatin Christians that henceforth they should stay away from the Catholic churches. Not satisfied with this, ‘Abbas also demanded immediate payment of the money he had lent to the Armenians of Isfahan following their forced displacement.100 Threatened with imprisonment and the seizure of their children, those few who could do so paid their share of the debt, while the rest were faced with apostasy as their only escape. Gouveia himself and the Augustinian and Carmelite missionaries did all they could to raise funds, ‘even pawning their chalices and selling all they had’.101 100 See the account in Pietro della Valle, Delle Conditioni di ‘Abbas re di Persia, All’Ilutriss. e Reverndiss. Sig. Francesco Cardinal Barberino Nepote di N.S. Papa Urbano VIII. Pietro Della Valle (Venice, 1628; French translation, Paris, 1631), 74–77. The loan to ‘all the poor Armenians of Julfa’ of 20 to 30 scudi each, with some standing as guarantors, and a prediction of the dire consequences, is signalled in a Carmelite account of 1609. Carmelite sources also inform us that a condition attached to the debt stipulated that if the capital of 4000 tumans had not been repaid within three years, then for every three tumans outstanding they were to surrender a boy, and for every two tumans a girl. See Carmelites I, 168 and 207. An alternative Armenian account in the Carmelite archives (Arch. Gen. OCD, 236b, cited in Carmelites I, 207, n. 1) relates that ‘Abbas sought the conversion of all the Armenians of Isfahan, not merely those who owed money, although he changed his mind after suffering a fit and chest pains which brought him close to death. 101  Effectively practising a form of redemption pre-eventu, aimed at preventing the apostasy of the unfortunate Armenians. Such practice seems to have been not uncommon: an Augustinian account of 1624 (Documentação 12, 95–96) notes that the sale of one

142

chapter six

Hearing of this, ‘Abbas complained that Gouveia was once again interfering in the affairs of his subjects, and declaring that there was no need for foreigners to give money to his vassals, he returned the missionaries’ money102 and not only pardoned the debt but gave more money to anyone who requested it, as a consequence of which a large number apostasised.103 Further evidence of Gouveia’s indiscretion is given by a Carmelite chronicler,104 who relates that one day the bishop, in the company of some Carmelites, happened to pass a building where the shah was in the process of ‘inducting’ a new head of the Sufi order.105 Seeing them, ‘Abbas invited them to join the meal. Gouveia initially displeased the shah by inviting one of his servants forward to sit with him, but worse was to follow. After the meal, the shah and his nobles offered gifts to the new cleric, following which a group of twelve Armenians offered a substantial gift from their own community. Turning to ‘Abbas, Gouveia tactlessly expressed his satisfaction that his subjects106 should be adding to the shah’s pleasure. Realising his error, he attempted to change tack, but ‘Abbas, feigning interest, continued to press him on the subject of his jurisdiction, although the Armenians showed their disgust by leaving. At the end of the celebrations, Gouveia asked the shah for a new house closer to New Julfa and his Armenians, a request readily acceded to by the shah, of the three chalices belonging to the convent of Isfahan was proposed in order to support an Indian Christian and her two daughters, pressured to convert by their Muslim landlord, and of the pawning of sacred vessels to rescue the daughter of another Christian in danger of falling into slavery on account of her debts. These articles had greater significance for the Augustinians than their monetary value, as they had not been granted the faculties to consecrate others for liturgical use (see Analecta Augustiniana 36 (1975), 85–86, doc. 25). 102 In the account of Arakel of Tabriz, we are told that ‘Abbas had misinterpreted Gouveia’s loan of money to the Armenians to satisfy their debt as an attempt to bribe them to become ‘Franks’, and that it was after explaining his true motives to the shah that the latter agreed to repay him his money. See George A. Bournoutian (ed. and tr.), The History of Vardapet Arakel of Tabriz 2 vols. (Costa Mesa, CA: Mazda, 2005–6), I, 119 and 123. 103 Della Valle, Delle Conditioni, 74–75. A long extract in Spanish translation is given in Alonso António de Gouvea 175–176. Apostates were numbered in the thousands according to Della Valle, and some three hundred families in the Carmelite account (Carmelites, I, 207). 104 Eusebius ab Omnibus Sanctis, History of all the Missions of the Discalced Carmelites (ms), II, Book 3, ch. IV, cited in Carmelites I, 206, n. 1. 105 This personage is not named, nor is the Order which he is to lead, although the event demonstrates ‘Abbas’ personal role in the legitimation of a group which clearly represented a form of Sufism acceptable to the ongoing Safavid project of ‘Shi‘a-isation’. 106 Curiously, in his Breve relazione of 1682 (Analecta Augustiniana 4, 1911–1912, 383ff ), Simão da Graça on two occasions (385 and 390) describes Gouveia as ‘Patriarch of the Armenians’. As apostolic visitor he may well have claimed a certain temporary jurisdiction over Armenian Catholics, but the title accorded him here is inaccurate.



augustinian contacts with armenian christianity

143

now somewhat in his cups. Oblivious to any problem, and satisfied with the turn of events, Gouveia left in the company of the Carmelites, one of whom warned him that there were likely to be consequences arising from the day’s events. It was, in fact, on the following day that the edict forbidding contact between the Armenians and the Catholic missionaries was published.107 The Missionaries Flee Isfahan The difficulties faced by the missionaries in Isfahan were discussed in a meeting of 2 November 1613, presided over by the bishop of Cyrene, with two Carmelites and two Augustinian missionaries. Deciding that their continued presence in the Persian capital might now hinder any possibility of Armenian union with Rome rather than promote it, they resolved to advise the representatives of their Orders in Hormuz and those of the king of Spain, each recording his own opinion of affairs in Isfahan.108 In view of the dislike which ‘Abbas had developed for him, and unable to make payment for the shah’s silk within a short period as demanded, Gouveia decided it would be better for him to leave without waiting for permission from Hormuz. In support of this he claimed to have received a letter from the Provedor of the Spanish royal treasury at Hormuz, stating that Philip III’s ambassador to Persia, Don García de Silva y Figueroa, had already reached Muscat on his journey to Persia.109 On this spurious basis, Gouveia declared that he wished to arrange for a large number of camels to transport the gifts for ‘Abbas. Understandably wary of appearing in the Persian court in person, he persuaded the Carmelites to obtain the necessary permits from ‘Abbas. Presented with Gouveia’s list of requirements for the reception of the Spanish ambassador, the shah, apparently impressed by the prospects of such a high-ranking embassy, conceded to his requests. Two further unfortunate lapses by the bishop would infuriate ‘Abbas. He allowed a document from Hormuz declaring that the silk sent to Spain was a gift to fall into the shah’s hands, and also wrote that since

107 Arch. Gen. OCD, 236a, see Carmelites, I, 206–207. 108 The signed document (Arch. Gen. OCD, 236a) is signalled in Carmelites I, 208, n. 2. 109 The claim that Silva y Figueroa had already reached the Persian Gulf was clearly false. It would in fact be April 1614 before the ambassador left Lisbon (the preparations and departure are described in Figueroa, Comentarios, I, 1–37), reaching Persia only in 1618. On the embassy see Luís Gil, ‘The Embassy of Don García de Silva y Figueroa to Shah ‘Abbas I’, in Willem Floor and Edmund Herzig, Iran and the World, 161–180.

144

chapter six

his own presence was no longer needed in Isfahan, he would go himself to meet the ambassador, ‘as was right and proper’. Hearing this, ‘Abbas is reported to have declared with asperity ‘Jahannum bi-ravad ’, ‘let him go to hell’. Gouveia appears to have taken this as his licence to depart, and, as soon as ‘Abbas left for Georgia to quell an uprising, departed Isfahan on 21 November 1613, together with a large party and many carriages, even including one with a comfortable seat for the imaginary ambassador. Despite difficulties at Shiraz, he reached Hormuz on Christmas day. Events following the return of the embassy of Denguiz Beg and Gouveia to Isfahan would almost spell the end of both the Carmelite and Augustinian missions in the city. The Augustinians had left the Persian capital for Baghdad only one month after Gouveia, leaving the Carmelites with the key to their convent, while the Carmelites, with the exception of the lay brother Diego, had left by early 1614. The missionaries would only return as a consequence of the decision of a meeting of Gouveia, the royal officials on the island of Hormuz and representatives of both Orders, that the convents in Isfahan should not be abandoned.110 Safe for the time in Hormuz, Gouveia interested himself in affairs on the island. In addition to informing the authorities in Spain of the events which had caused his abrupt departure from Persia, he also, in joint correspondence with the captain of Hormuz, informed Philip III of the disputes between the king of Hormuz and his constable,111 of the precarious situation of the fortress on the island, much in need of restoration,112 and of the fact that ‘Abbas had sent an ambassador to the rulers of Indian states.113 More germane to our subject is another proposal for the migration of a religious group to Portuguese territory, as originally proposed by Meneses for the Mandaeans, and as would later be attempted by the missionaries in Basra. The topic raised by Gouveia is mentioned in a reply of January 1615 from the Catholic King to his viceroy in India.114 The bishop drew attention to the fact that a large number of Eastern Christians fleeing persecution in Persia sought refuge in Hormuz, but, finding no assistance there, returned to their own lands. To overcome their difficulties, he suggested that the king should order them to be given an island under Portuguese 110 See Carmelites I, 208–210. 111  Documentos remetidos da India, III, 170–171. 112 Ibid., 172. 113 Ibid., 175. 114 Ibid., 176–177.



augustinian contacts with armenian christianity

145

control in the Persian Gulf, close to Hormuz, where they could ‘live apart, using their customary ceremonies,115 but provided with a Catholic religious to instruct them in the purity of the faith’. The Catholic Church would not be the sole beneficiary, Gouveia pointed out, since although many of these refugees were poor, there were also rich merchants, and with the growth of a large city they would be able to defend the island for the Portuguese, particularly against their former persecutors. Gouveia also proposed the establishment of a seminary at Hormuz for Armenian boys, to be run by members of his own Order. The Spanish king instructed his viceroy, Jerónimo de Azevedo, to examine the merits of populating ‘the islands of Quishm and Quedre’ with Eastern Christians fleeing Persia, but no action seems to have followed. As to Gouveia himself, he would return neither to Persia, nor to his Portuguese homeland. Having been captured by pirates from North Africa while en route to Spain, he spent time imprisoned in Algiers116 before being ransomed, fittingly enough, by the Trinitarians whose practices he had emulated in Persia, and apparently passing his latter years in relative obscurity as teacher to the children of a Spanish noble family, while adding to his considerable literary output.117 The union of the Armenians of New Julfa with the Catholic Church would progress no further, despite the continued efforts not only of the Augustinians, but also the Capuchins (from 1628), the Jesuits (1653), the Dominicans (1681), and the Carmelites (who, having arrived in Isfahan in 1607, would finally establish a foundation in New Julfa in 1691).118 While the Capuchins, always few in number, failed in their attempts to establish

115 This suggests that Gouveia may have taken a different approach to the matter of the Armenian rites in 1608. 116 During his time as a prisoner in Algiers, Gouveia devoted himself to preaching and exhorting his fellow-prisoners to remain firm in their faith. A letter detailing his activities, together with one of his sermons delivered there, was published in Mallorca in 1621 as Sermón exhortatorio que el Ilustrísimo Señor D. Fr. António de Gouvea, de la Orden de San Agustín, Obispo de Cyrene y Visitador Apostólico en los Reynos de Persia, predicó a los esclavos de Argel, persuadiendoles a conservar la fe y paciencia en la persecución y trabajos de su dura esclavitud. 117 On his captivity and ransom see Carlos Alonso, ‘Cautiverio en Argel y liberación de Antonio de Gouvea, OSA, ob. tit. de Cirene (1620–1621)’, La Ciudad de Dios 194 (1981) 475–491. For his literary activities, his last years, and his death, see id., Antonio de Gouvea, 215–222. 118 A useful summary of the activities of the various Orders in Persia is given in Bugnini, La Chiesa, 137–171. See also Kristine Kostikyan, ‘European Catholic Missionary Propaganda among the Armenian Population of Safavid Iran’ in Willem Floor and Edmund Herzig (eds.), Iran and the World, 371–378.

146

chapter six

a presence in New Julfa, of the other Orders only the Augustinians, perhaps showing a greater degree of political perspicacity, at no time sought a physical presence within the Armenian stronghold of New Julfa, where the Western missionaries experienced prolonged, and at times violent, opposition. In addition to the attentions of the Western missionaries, the Armenians and other non-Muslim groups also had to contend with sporadic bouts of religious persecution, under both ‘Abbas and his successors, frequently instituted on the initiative of local rulers.119 The edict issued by ‘Abbas shortly before his death in 1629, that any Christian embracing Islam could inherit the property of all his Christian relatives, would have particularly serious consequences for the Armenians and other Christians throughout the reigns of subsequent Safavid monarchs.120 Nevertheless, while many of the smaller, more dispersed and isolated groups of Armenians in Persia would be absorbed into the Muslim milieu, the continuing presence of an Armenian Christian community in Isfahan suggests that it was precisely the remarkable strength of their attachment to their ancient faith and rites which enabled them to survive. The Augustinian accounts of the Armenian deportation and the suffering it caused, as presented in this chapter, serve as a salutary antidote to the more benign view of events which prevails in some quarters. However, from an ecclesiological perspective the outstanding feature must be the inflexible attitude they displayed in connection with the attempt at union 119 When ‘Abbas took Baghdad and the province of Mesopotamia from the Ottomans in 1624, he commanded one of his favourites to have the Armenian inhabitants of fortythree villages in the region circumcised. Ordered after the intervention of the missionaries to allow them to practice their religion in peace, albeit in exchange for substantial financial penalties, this official transferred his persecution to a nearby region (Carmelites I, 271). In 1646 a Carmelite report notes the appointment of a new Grand Wazir, ‘a bigoted Muhammadan and antagonistic to Christianity’, under whom ‘things are not going well with the poor Armenians and Syrian Christians’ Carmelites I, 353. The Jews of Isfahan were forced to become Muslims in 1656, and under the initiative of a ‘Muhammadan doctor . . . very fanatical for his religion’ the Armenian and Syrian Christians were also driven from the city proper (ibid., 365). 120 Writing in 1632 from Abranar near Nakhitchevan, Paolo Piromalli OP (later archbishop of Nakhitchevan, 1655–1664) confirms that ‘The Persians have the custom in this Armenia, when a Christian becomes a “Turk” to dispossess his relatives and give everything up to the seventh generation to the renegade’. APF SRCG, vol. 104, cited, without foliation, in Carmelites I, 288 n. 3. Pope Alexander VII wrote in 1658 complaining of the damage caused to Christians by this edict, although he understands it as going back to the ‘fourth generation’ (ibid., 366–367), while another letter from the region, written in 1699 to the pope complaining of the plight of the Armenian Catholics, confirms the continuance of the practice, APF SRCG, vol. 538, 320, cited in ibid. 486.



augustinian contacts with armenian christianity

147

between a very significant part of the Armenian Church and Rome, a union which it is not unreasonable to suggest may have led to complete union between the Churches. An inflexibility very much in the manner of the Fratre Unitores on the question of ecclesiastical jurisdiction and insistence on papal primacy, reinforced by the genetic disposition of the Augustinians to an ultramontane view of the papacy is perhaps understandable. Gouveia’s perception of himself as a papal representative in his role of apostolic visitor, and the elevated status he believed this conferred, was no doubt also a significant factor in the events which would lead to his flight from Persia in disgrace. The rigidity displayed over the issue of the Armenian liturgical rites is less so, and a greater degree of sensitivity and flexibility here may have led to a very different outcome,121 although the disapproval by ‘Abbas of the project of union, and what would be perceived by him as the consequent transfer to an external power of control over a group within Persia so important to its economy, would likely have remained an unsurmountable barrier to union.

121 For the history of other projects of union see Heyberger, Les Chrétiens; Aidan Nichols, Rome and the Eastern Churches: A Study in Schism (Edinburgh, 1992; 2nd rev. edn. San Francisco, 2010); Fortescue, The Lesser Eastern Churches; Anthony O’Mahony, ‘Between Rome and Constantinople: the Italian-Albanian Church: a study in Eastern Catholic History and Ecclesiology’, International Journal for the Study of the Christian Church 8:3 (2008), 232–251.

chapter seven

Catholic Missions to the ‘St John Christians’ In previous chapters we have touched on Augustinian contacts and interaction with the Syrian Church, and in greater detail with members of the Armenian Church, representing two differing traditions of Eastern Christianity. There questions of ecclesiastical jurisdiction relating to papal supremacy and to a lesser extent of doctrine, were the principal concerns. We turn now to a consideration of contacts with a group which we know with the privilege of historical hindsight was not, and never had been, Christian: the Mandaeans of lower Mesopotamia, a group which had acquired the sobriquet of ‘St John Christians’.1 Both Augustinians and Carmelites would establish missions almost contemporaneously in Basra and a scarcity of material relating to the Augustinian will oblige us to make greater use of Carmelite accounts in order to provide a coherent overview of Catholic missions to the Mandaeans, of value for the description of the Mandaeans by missionaries of both Orders, and in setting the context for the dispute over jurisdiction which characterised them and which will be examined in detail in the chapter following. The Mandaeans Writing from Baghdad in 2003, a US reporter describes a remarkable scene:

1 The most important study of the Catholic missions to the Mandaeans in the 17th century remains Carlos Alonso, Los Mandeos y Las Misiones Católicas en la primera metad del s. XVII (Orientalia Christiana Analecta 179) (Rome, 1967), hereinafter Mandeos. Unless noted otherwise, the archival references given below are taken from Alonso’s text. Alonso had previously published monographs on both the initial embassy of the Augustinians to Hawizah and the mission of 1623 to Basra: ‘Los Mandeos, una misión agustiniana en la Baja Mesopotamia’, Missionalia Hispanica 15 (1958), 57–84; ‘Misiones de la Orden de S. Agustin entre los Mandeos (1623–1668)’, ibid., 16 (1959), 323–362. See also Roberto Gulbenkian ‘Relações Político-Religiosas entre os Portugueses e os Mandeus da Baixa Mesopotâmia e do Cuzistão na primeira metade do século XVII’, Anais da Academia Portuguesa da História Series II, 32/2 (1989), 229ff, reprinted in idem, Estudos Históricos II, 325–424. For a synthesis see John Flannery, ‘The Augustinians and the Mandaeans in 17th century Mesopotamia’, ARAM: Society for Syro-Mesopotamian studies 22 (2010), 335–348.

150

chapter seven Under the unblinking eye of the searing Iraqi sun, several hundred people gather on the banks of the historic Tigris River, clad in rustic white tunics secured by a simple rope. One by one, they lower themselves up to their chests in the murky water. A sheik with a long, white beard chants quietly, slowly immersing worshippers until their heads are almost completely submerged. He scoops some river water into each person’s mouth before uttering a final blessing. After everyone has been re-baptized, the full-day cleansing ritual is capped off by a ceremonial feast.2

The participants in this ritual are Mandaeans, members of a religion whose origins remain unclear. It has been suggested that they are the only surviving Gnostic sect,3 possibly originating in the region of the Jordan valley,4 before migrating between the first and third centuries of the Christian era to their traditional homeland in the lower Mesopotamian basin and Khuzestan over time, and appearing to incorporate elements from Jewish mysticism, Christianity, Babylonian religions, and Islam.5 The earliest Western Christian writer to mention them was the Florentine Dominican, Ricoldo da Montecroce, visiting Baghdad in 1290.6 In his Itinerarium he describes these ‘Sabians’, who approached them and asked for missionaries to be sent.7 It will be more than two and a half centuries, however, before the use of the term ‘St. John Christians’ appears in 2 Kevin Whitelaw, ‘Baghdad’s Baptizers’ in US News and World Report of 6 June 2003. On the Mandaeans, see Edmondo Lupieri, The Mandaeans: The last Gnostics, tr. Charles Hindley, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, 2002) originally published as I Mandei, Gli ultimi gnostici (Paideia, 1993); Jorunn Jacobsen Buckley, The Mandaeans: ancient texts and modern people (Oxford, 2002). Ethel Stefana Drower, The Mandaeans of Iraq and Iran: their cults, customs, magic legends, and folklore (Oxford 1937, facsimile edition Leiden, 1962, new edition Piscataway NJ, 2002) remains a valuable introduction to the subject. Of continuing value are Kurt Rudolph Die Mandaer, 2 vols. (treating of the mythology and cult respectively) (Gottingen, 1960–1961); Mandaeism (Leiden, 1978). 3 So Buckley, The Mandaeans, 7; Edmondo Lupieri, The Mandaeans. According to E. S. Drower and R. Macuch (eds), A Mandaic Dictionary (Oxford, 1963), one of the names used for themselves by the Mandaeans is mandaiia, ‘Gnostics’. 4 See Sinasi Gunduz, ‘The Knowledge of Life: the origins, and early history of the Mandaeans and their relations to the Sabians of the Qur’an and to the Harranians’,  Journal of Semitic Studies, Supplement 3 (Oxford, 1994), 3–14. 5 Parallels between Mandaeism and other religions are addressed in ARAM Periodical 11/2 (1999). 6 The region had become accessible to Christian missionaries as a result of the tolerant religious policy of the Mongol Il-Khans. 7 The Latin text of the section of the friar’s manuscript relating to the ‘Sabians’ is given in Ugo Monneret de Villard, Il libro della peregrinazione nelle parti d’Oriente de frato Ricoldo da Montecroce (Rome, 1948), 89–90, and in Gulbenkian Estudos Históricos II, 325, n. 47. Ricoldo also encountered Shi‘a Muslims, although Kohlberg (‘Western Studies’, 32) suggests that his understanding of Shi‘ism was sketchy at best. The Dominican’s overall verdict was that they were ‘minus mali’ (‘less bad’) than the majority Sunni.



catholic missions to the ‘st john christians’

151

a letter written in Goa in December 1555 by the Portuguese Jesuit António Quadro,8 seemingly connected to the letter of 15 December of the same year, also from Goa, of the Jesuit Aires Brandão to members of the Order in Portugal. This includes a rather hazy description of the Mandaeans as ‘natives of a province in the region of Basra, where all observe Christianity, but to what extent is not known, only that they have baptism, and among them are prelates, and many ceremonies; they say that the blessed Apostle St John the Evangelist preached in that land, and converted the people there’.9 Brandão’s young Mandaean informant cannot provide further details, and as ‘so far they have not performed any ceremonies on him’ he cannot inform the priest as to the nature of Mandaean baptism. Writing in the same period10 the Spanish Jesuit Miguel Barul relates the information obtained with the help of an interpreter from a Mandaean visiting one of the group of children in Goa. This curious account describes the St John Christians as ‘. . . under the obedience of the Holy Roman Church, and with all her sacraments and rites. The Armenian Patriarch sends them their bishop.11 The land where they live is Basra. They are subjects of a Muslim king’. These ‘Christians’ are said to have been granted permission by their Muslim ruler to have a church and to say Mass, but the Turks burnt their church, and they were forced to flee to the mountains12 and to say Mass in places where the Turks do not frequent’.  8 There had no doubt been earlier contact between the Portuguese and the Mandaeans, the former had been present in the Gulf since 1515, and had contact with the Shatt al-Arab region from 1517.  9 This identification of the Mandaeans with the evangelist rather than John the Baptist is unique, and may indicate a certain parallel in the mind of the writer with the supposed preaching of the apostle Thomas to the ‘St Thomas Christians’ of India. 10 The letters are given in full in Josef Wicki SJ (ed.), Documenta Indica, (Institutum Historicum Societatis Iesu, Rome 1954), vol. III, 1553–1557, 329–354, 365–378, and 428–431 respectively. 11  We can be certain that Barul’s interlocutor is here effectively practising taqiyya. It is interesting that he demonstrates sufficient familiarity with Christian belief and practice to convince the Jesuit. Portuguese sources indicate an Armenian community in Basra (see Gulbenkian Estudos Históricos II, 396, n. 180), and the Mandaeans would certainly have come into contact with Armenian Christianity. The reference to their ‘bishop’ being sent by the Armenian patriarch is curious, and would seem to contradict the claim that the Mandaeans are subject to Roman obedience. It may be that the Jesuit is looking for a parallel with the Saint Thomas Christians, whose bishop was sent at this period by the patriarch of the Church of the East. While the text may simply represent difficulties in translation, it is curious to note a similar confusion between the Armenians of Basra and the Mandaeans in a later letter of Philip IV to his viceroy in India (Boletim da Filmoteca Ultramarina Portuguesa 9, 330). 12 Thus neatly conforming them to the common geo-political perception of ‘Christian mountains’ and ‘Muslim plains’. For those under the pervasive influence of the ‘Prester

152

chapter seven

Only at the third Provincial Council in Goa (1585) was mention made of the ‘St John Christians’, as one of the many Christian groups to be encountered in Goa coming via Hormuz and elsewhere. Amongst these ‘the Abyssinians’ (os abexins),13 called the ‘St John Christians’ are those whose errors and customs are most contrary to the Church of Rome. Ten years later the Jesuit provincial visitor, Alessandro Valignano, counsels ‘particular care should be taken that the sabis (Sabians) commonly called the St John Christians, and those of St Thomas, might be reduced and instructed in accordance with the faith and customs of the Roman Church. . . . especially the sabis, who they say are not baptised, or do not have true baptism’.14 The ‘St John’ of their title is a reference to John the Baptist, who appears in a minor role in one of the Mandaean sacred texts, rather than the Evangelist as Brandão suggests. With the coming of Islam to their remote region, the Mandaeans had succeeded in presenting themselves as one of the Qur’anic people of the book, having a prophet, John the Baptist, and a holy book, the Ginza. Now the Baptist was again pressed into service to establish their identity as ‘Christians’, for the benefit of the Portuguese. Evidence of their success in this can be seen in the opinion of Meneses, who judged them to be an ancient Christian sect (‘huma christiandade antiquissima scismatica’).15 This notion would be reinforced by a number of Mandaean liturgical practices which were superficially similar to those of Catholic Christianity. Principal among these was Mandaean baptism, with their supposed devotion to John the Baptist, a ceremony reminiscent of the Mass, and the Mandaean ‘cross’. While the missionaries make mention of these in their accounts, there are other analogies which they may have encountered. The seven part ‘vesting’ of the Mandaean priests before performing their rituals could have been seen as paralleling the John syndrome’ it would be in the mountains that the persistent remnants of ancient ‘lost’ Christianity were to be expected. The judgement of Antoni Montserrat SJ, writing in India in 1590, forty-five years after Barul, that there were vestiges of Christianity on the slopes of the Himalayas would lend encouragement to the later Jesuit mission to Tibet. On these notions see Hugues Didier, Lourdes Júdice (tr.), Os Portugueses no Tibete. Os Primeiros Relatos dos Jesuitas (1624–1635) (Lisbon, 2000), 32–34. 13 The reference to ‘abexins’ (‘Abyssinians’) is puzzling, and may be employed to emphasise their exotic nature, or, more likely, represents a scribal lapse. 14 Josef Wicki SJ (ed.), O Livro do ‘Pai dos Cristãos’ (Lisbon, 1969), 23. 15 Letter of 14 December 1609 to his superiors in Portugal (Arquivo Distrital de Braga, Papeis Avulsos ‘cartas’, unfoliated), reproduced in Carlos Alonso, ‘Nueva Documentación (1571–1609)’, 380. In fact, modern authors agree that Christian elements incorporated into Mandaeaism are tardy and modest, largely limited to texts which relate to legends about Jesus, Mary, and John the Baptist. See Mandeos, 23, n. 63 where Alonso cites K. Rudolph, Die Mandaer: I, 101.



catholic missions to the ‘st john christians’

153

seven prayers of Catholic priests of the time as they vested for Mass. The claims of the Mandaeans to possess a relic of the Baptist, notions similar to the ‘communion of saints’, and prayers for the dead may also have aroused missionary interest. It is likely that the knowledge that Christianity had arisen in the Middle East, perhaps reinforced by the ‘Prester John syndrome’ to which we have referred above, contributed to the missionaries’ expectations of finding traces of ancient Christianity in Mesopotamia. Difficulty in piercing the veils of Mandaean gnosticism, not least on account of the lack of the necessary linguistic skills,16 would be compounded by the Mandaeans self-serving acquiescence in an understanding of them as ‘Christian’. The missionaries of the period appear to have had something of a ‘blind spot’ when it came to dealing with religions strongly characterised by gnostic elements. The initial inability of the missionaries at Basra to understand the Mandaeans is paralleled in the contemporary mission to Tibet, led by the Portuguese Jesuit António de Andrade.17 If all Buddhism can be described as ‘both gnostic and agnostic’,18 Tibetan Buddhism in particular is strongly gnostic, and Andrade was also confused by apparent similarities between it and Catholicism. Among these was the fact that these ‘sacerdotes idolorum’ (‘priests of the idols’) took a vow of celibacy. They also rang bells, sang offices in choir, said the rosary, and prayed with their hands joined, like the Roman priests. Entering one of their ‘churches’ he thought that the principal idol resembled St Christopher. He also saw images of what he believed to be bishops on the walls, their hands raised in blessing, and even the archangel Michael. Further supposed analogies were the cult of relics, veneration of the ‘double vajra’ which closely resembles

16 Ignazio di Gesú noted in his letter of 1647 to Ingoli (Rome, Arch. Gen. OCD, pluteo 241, m, doc. 24) that it was impossible to provide the word for word translation of the Mandaean Diwan Abatur requested by the Propaganda, since the Mandaean texts are written ‘in a language understood by few of them, and these their priests . . . are very unwilling to explain their things.’ 17 On Andrade see Hugues Didier, Os Portugueses, See also the same author’s ‘Interférences Islamochrétiennes dans les Représentations du Bouddhisme’, Islamochristiana 16 (1990), 115–138; ‘António de Andrade à l’origine de la tibétophile européenne’, Aufsatze zur portugiesischen Kulturgeschichte 20 (1998–1992); ‘Le découvreur du Tibet: António de Andrade SJ’, Christus 40 (1993), 37–381. For a synthesis see John Flannery, ‘Through a Glass Darkly: the First Jesuit Mission to Tibet’ in Anthony O’Mahony and Peter Bowe OSB (eds.), Catholics and Interreligious Dialogue: Studies in Monasticism, Theology and Spirituality (Leominster, 2006), 217–241. 18 Didier, Os Portugueses, 64.

154

chapter seven

a trefoil cross, and illustrations of the process of conversion or of destiny in the after-life. The First Augustinian Mission to the Mandaeans Opportunity arose for a Catholic mission to the Mandaeans of the Shattal-Arab with the arrival in 1608 of an embassy from Sa‘id Mubarak, ruler of the city and kingdom of Hawizah, who sought Portuguese assistance in taking the port of Basra, then under Ottoman control.19 The embassy included Gonçalo d’Abreu, a Christian convert from Mandaeaism and nephew of Simon, the religious leader of the Mandaean community, who asked that the Portuguese support Mubarak in order that their presence in the region would lead to an amelioration of the Mandaeans’ condition. Gouveia notes that the Mandaeans ‘customarily present at the Shah’s court’ had observed the labours of the Augustinians of Isfahan to alleviate the suffering of the deported Armenians, and that it was this which had earlier led them to ask the Order to send missionaries to Basra.20 We may assume that the Mandaeans formed one of the disparate groupings within Persia, albeit a somewhat marginal one, over which ‘Abbas exercised control and patronage in his forging of the Safavid state. It may be that his learning of the increasing number of supposed Mandaean converts to Christianity in a sensitive frontier region was later responsible for the policy of forced conversion to Islam adopted by ‘Abbas II. As in the case of Persia, and again to the frustration of the Jesuits,21 Aleixo de Meneses, at this time both archbishop of Goa and Governor of the Estado da India, selected two Augustinian missionaries, the Indian Francisco da Presentação and the Englishman Mathias do Espírito Santo,

19  Gouveia devotes Chapters XVII to XIX of Book III (fols. 211–224) of his Relaçam to the topic. 20 Relaçam, 188v. 21  The reply of the Jesuit Provincial Francisco Vieira to a letter from the Mandaean ‘patriarch’ requesting that he should send members of that Order to his flock clearly illustrates this frustration. See Sebastião Goncalves SJ, Primera parte da História dos religiosos da Companhia de Jesus . . ., Josef Wicki SJ (ed.) 3 vols (Coimbra, 1957–62), III, 329–332; also Gulbenkian, Estudos Históricos II, 373–375 and nn. 125–126. Vieira provides an interesting analysis of the plan of salvation, and ends by insisting that although there had been previous dispensations for pagans and Jews, salvation is now available only through Christian baptism, since that of John the Baptist is superseded.



catholic missions to the ‘st john christians’

155

giving them detailed instructions on the religious aspects of their mission.22 After completing their political embassy to Mubarak they were to devote themselves to the Mandaeans; to learn their ‘errors’, to have them profess the Catholic faith and swear obedience to the pope, and to confirm the validity of their baptism. Included were copies of a profession of faith and an oath of obedience which were to be translated into ‘Chaldean’23 they were to send Mandaean liturgical books back to Goa, as many children as possible were to be instructed in the Latin rite and finally, they were to make every effort to establish a convent. From correspondence between Philip III and his viceroy in India,24 we learn that the missionaries were also instructed that if Mubarak would not allow the construction of a convent and church in his territory, and give the large, fertile and uninhabited island of ‘Quexede’,25 in which they could live ‘in the purity of their faith’, to the Mandaeans, they should be gradually transferred to the island of Qeshm, near Hormuz and already under Portuguese control. This was the first of a series of unrealised proposals for the mass transmigration of the Mandaeans to Portuguese territory, which would later be the focus of so much effort by both Augustinian and Carmelite missions in Basra. Gouveia’s account does not provide a great deal of information regarding the missionary aspects of the embassy.26 He names the village of Daquá as the first place where the missionaries carried out their apostolic activities, and notes that the ignorance of the Christian religion shown by the inhabitants was astonishing, not even knowing how to make the sign of the cross, although matters were somewhat better in Hawizah, where the Mandaeans, including the ‘patriarch’ and ‘bishops’ visited and welcomed the missionaries. Through an interpreter, their leader stated that he would defer to the archbishop of Goa ‘as primate of all Eastern Christians’

22 Letter of 14 December 1609 to his superiors in Portugal (Braga, Arquivo Distrital de Braga, Papeis Avulsos ‘cartas’, no foliation), in Alonso, ‘Nueva Documentación (1571–1609)’, 380. 23 Probably to be understood as Syriac. It is likely that at this point Meneses’ information on the language used by the Mandaeans is patchy. Classical Mandeaen is in fact an Eastern Aramaic language, with a simplified spoken form (ratna) betraying considerable Arabic influence. See Lupieri, The Mandaeans, 53–54. 24 Letter of 24 January 1610, Documentos Remetidos da India, I, 306–307. 25 Alonso, Mandeos 15, n. 45, suggests that this is a reference to the island of Kharg, although this hardly seems to fit its description in the letter as ‘in the middle of the Euphrates’. 26 Relaçam, fols. 221v–223r.

156

chapter seven

and to the Augustinians as his representative. They declared themselves disposed to follow them in what they had to say about matters of salvation, ordering their subjects to marry before them and to bring their children for baptism. Enquiring about their method of baptism, the missionaries entertained grave doubts about its validity, and decided that re-baptism would be advisable. Following their consistent practice on encountering those whom they considered or suspected as ‘heretical’ or ‘schismatic’, the Augustinian missionaries began by insisting on recognition of the pope as Supreme Pontiff for all Christians as a fundamental issue – a sine qua non without which they would be unable to provide any kind of spiritual or material assistance. In support of the Mandaeans’ declared willingness to do so, Gouveia reproduces the letter written immediately after the departure of the missionaries by their leader to the archbishop of Goa.27 The text of this letter of 1st October 1609, which in his chapter heading Gouveia entitles ‘Letter from the Patriarch of the Chaldeans28 to the archbishop of Goa, Dom Frei Aleixo de Meneses’, is as follows: Most Reverend Sir, with the arrival of the priests Friar Francisco da Purificação and Matthias do Espírito Santo, I and all the Christians subject to me greatly rejoiced, hearing that something of great benefit had come to our land, as was indeed the case. I have visited them on several occasions, and as regards Christianity I placed myself in their hands in order to do whatever they told me, in obedience to Your Excellency’s instructions. So it was that I soon instructed the Christians that they should come to them [the missionaries] for everything, bringing their children to them to be baptised, and marrying according to their instructions. I fully believe that we have some errors, but I also know that it is not in our hearts or our intentions to be in error, and for this we very willingly do everything which the Fathers tell us concerning Your Excellency. As for the Declaration of Faith sent by Your Excellency, I have not sent it now with my own signature, as it must be done with the agreement of all the priests and heads of this Christianity, with whom I am now consulting on this matter. But I promise Your Excellency that when Gonçalo de Abreu leaves here he will bring it, signed by myself and by them. As to my difficulties, and those of the other Christians of this realm, and of the condition in which we find ourselves, the Fathers have written to Your Excellency as eyewitnesses. So it is that I do not have the heart to talk of such 27 In the opinion of Gulbenkian (Estudos Históricos II, 121), the letter was sent only under pressure from Mubarak, who continued to use the Mandaeans as a pawn in his attempts to gain assistance from the Portuguese. 28 Gouveia’s use of this term is to be construed as a reference to their nationality, based on the area from which they came. He refers to them (Relaçam 188r) as ‘Caldeus de nação, Nestorianos na seita’ (‘Chaldeans by nation, Nestorians by sect).



catholic missions to the ‘st john christians’

157

suffering, for which we so desire to obtain the remedy, and which indeed we hope to have with the presence of the Fathers, and with our submission to the Supreme Pontiff in Rome. We place ourselves under obedience to him, confessing him to be the father and pastor of all Christians throughout the world, and we also pledge obedience to Your Excellency, whom I, along with all these Christians, ask, do not desert us, and advance the remedy you have begun to provide us, sending King Mubarak the fleet he asks for, because with its coming, and with the fortress that the Portuguese will have in Kidr, we will have our complete remedy, and will live in that Christian freedom which today is denied us. May Our Lord grant Your Excellency all that I and all these other Christians wish you, for our benefit and relief.29

The first part of the letter reiterates what had been said on his visits to the missionaries. The excuses for his failure to sign and send the declaration of obedience which Meneses had sent are probably little more than a delaying tactic. The concluding part of the letter reveals what is very probably the true motive for his agreeing to write the letter, an improvement of the material condition of the Mandaeans to be brought about through the missionaries, and a request for Portuguese support for Mubarak, their political master and oppressor. By directly referring to the Mandaeans as Christians in several places, the letter also encourages and reinforces the existing assumptions held by the missionaries about these ‘St John Christians’. Portuguese prevarication over providing the naval support requested by Mubarak would result in the rapid return of the Augustinians to Goa, and it would be many years before political circumstances allowed the establishment of a mission to the Mandaeans, or rather of two, since both the Carmelites and the Augustinians of Isfahan would establish themselves in Basra in 1623, within a few days of each other. Despite the clear evidence that the initial mission did not accomplish the goals set by the Meneses, the letters sent by the missionaries with the ship which returned them to Hormuz, and that of the archbishop to his religious superiors, both suggest that hope remains for the future. However, Meneses himself had finally obtained permission to return to Europe, leaving Goa on the last day of 1610, preventing him from carrying out his intentions of reducing the St John Christians to Roman obedience in the same way as the St Thomas Christians earlier in his career. Since their first encounter with the Mandaeans had lasted only one month, it is perhaps not surprising that the missionaries failed to ascertain the true nature of their beliefs. As we have seen, it would appear 29 Relaçam, 223.

158

chapter seven

that in order to alleviate their miserable condition the Mandaean leaders had made a conscious decision not to disabuse the friars of their belief that they were dealing with a Christian group of some kind, albeit one which had fallen into serious error and whose baptism was of questionable ­validity. In an attempt to explain the fact that despite the fact that ‘according to their information’ the Mandaeans claimed to have formerly been subject to the patriarch of the Church of the East in Babylon, they appeared, unlike these ‘Nestorians’ to hold a Catholic Christology, since ‘they firmly believe that Our Lady, the Virgin Mary, is truly Mother of God, and that the divine Word took flesh in her womb, becoming true man and true God; and . . . other things which the Nestorians perfidiously deny’, Gouveia puts forward his own theory:30 the Mandaeans, separated by schism according to their own account, from the Church of the East, later came into contact with the dissident group within that Church which in 1551 elected a rival patriarch,31 Yohanan Sulaqa, who two years later submitted his obedience to the pope in Rome and was ordained a Catholic patriarch. According to Gouveia’s theory, it was from the followers of Sulaqa and his successors that the Mandaeans had learnt those Catholic doctrines which they still held, albeit mixed with many errors. Although an avowedly speculative explanation,32 Gouveia’s theory regarding the origins of the Christian beliefs of the Mandaeans also appears without attribution in the work of the Carmelite Ignazio di Gesú forty years later, in his tract on

30 Relaçam, 220r–v. 31  The origins of this split arose from continuing dissension within the Church of the East arising from the decree of Patriarch Mar Shimun IV Bassidi in c.1450 that his office could pass only to a member of his family, in practical terms to a nephew. Members of the new community in union with Rome would come to be referred to as ‘Chaldeans’, used as a religious designation. On Sulaqa and the origins of the Chaldean Church, see Anthony O’Mahony, ‘Patriarchs and Politics: The Chaldean Catholic Church in Modern Iraq’ in id. (ed.), Christianity in the Middle East: Studies in Modern History, Theology and Politics (London, 2008), 105–142; J. Habbi, ‘Signification del’Union de Mar Sulaqa avec Rome en 1553’, L’Orient Syrien 11 (1966), 99–132; Albert Lampart, Ein Märtyrer der Union mit Rom. Joseph I, 1681–1696, Patriarch der Chaldäer (Einsidelen, 1966). 32 ‘Whether it was in this way, or in some other unknown way, they hold this true teaching’, Relaçam, 220v. Gouveia was not alone in seeking to find Christian origins and Catholic connections for the Mandaeans. In a letter of 1627 to the Prefect of the Propaganda (Lisbon, ANTT, Ms da Livraria, ms 1822, fols 45–46, given in Mandeos, 241–246, the Carmelite Basílio de São Francisco proposes a connection between them and the Maronite Christians of Mount Lebanon, while in a move which makes the early Mandaeans into proto-Carmelites, the vicar general of the Order in his letter to Philip IV of 1633 (Rome, APF, SRCG, vol. 105, fols. 40–43) links them to the prophet Elias and Mount Carmel.



catholic missions to the ‘st john christians’

159

the ‘St John Christians’33 which secured the Carmelite’s lasting and unjustified reputation as the first writer to provide Europe with information on the Mandaeans and their practices.34 Initial Establishment of the Dual Mission in Basra The years following this initial contact saw considerable political change, Basra having been governed since 1612 by Pasha Afrasiyab, with almost complete independence from the Ottoman capital.35 Hawizah and the neighbouring region had meanwhile had fallen into the hands of ‘Abbas, leaving the Mandaean community straddling the border between two Muslim rulers. In 1614 the Portuguese fortress of Comorão on the Persian Gulf had been taken by Persian troops, and in 1622, with the aid of an English fleet, the Persians had taken control of Hormuz, jewel of the Portuguese colonial empire since 1514. The consequent diversion of Portuguese trade through Basra served as a warning to its ruler of the expansionist plans of the Persian monarch, and commercial and military support from the Portuguese became not only desirable but essential. With Portuguese-Persian relations at a low ebb, the fall of Hormuz threatened economic disaster for both the Augustinian and Carmelite convents in Isfahan. Basra, effectively independent, having good communications with India and Europe, and not too distant, must have appeared the obvious location for new missions which might also provide financial support to the struggling convents of the Persian capital. 33 Narratio originis, rituum, et errorum Christianorum Sancti Ioannis, cui adiungitur Discursus per modum dialogi, in quo confutantur XXXIIII errores eiusdem nationis (An account of the origin, rites and errors of the Christians of Saint John, to which is attached a discourse in the mode of a dialogue in which the 34 errors of the same nation are rebutted) (Rome, 1652). 34 See for example, Edmondo Lupieri, ‘Friar Ignatius of Jesus (Carlo Leonelli) and the First Scholarly Book on Mandaeaism (1652)’, Aram Periodical 16 (2004), 25–46. The argument of Carlos Alonso that the Carmelite knew and quoted from Gouveia’s work without acknowledgement is convincingly demonstrated in his ‘Los Mandeos . . . en la Baja Mesopotamia’, esp. 80–84. In fact, plagiarism of this kind characterises many of the descriptive accounts of Iran in Portuguese printed sources, see Teles e Cunha, ‘The Creation of a Portuguese Discourse’, 38. 35 On Basra and Hawizah, see Rudi Matthee, ‘Between Arabs, Turks and Iranians: the Town of Basra, 1600–1700’, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 69/1 (2006), 53–78; Willem Floor, ‘Basra, The Other Emporium in the Portuguese Gulf ’, in id., The Persian Gulf, 139–190; Jean-Louis Bacqué-Grammont, Vivian Rahmé, and Salam Hamza (eds) ‘Textes ottomans et safavides sur l’annexion de Bassora en 1546’, Eurasian Studies III/1 (2004), 1–33.

160

chapter seven

Behind the fact that the Carmelites established themselves in Basra before the Augustinians lies a somewhat unedifying tale. Prevented by the fall of Hormuz from contacting his superiors in Goa via the usual channels, the prior of the Augustinian convent in Isfahan, Manuel da Madre de Deus, had visited Basra in 1622, intending either to send letters from there or to travel himself to Goa. A Turkish speaker, he was warmly welcomed by the pasha, who invited him to stay, offering suitable premises for a convent, and financial assistance. The missionary must have been tempted, but needed the consent of his superiors. Having written to them, he returned to Isfahan, promising the pasha that he would send one of the religious from the convent there. On his return he put in hand the necessary preparations. However, on a visit to the Carmelite convent, the Augustinian prior spoke of the new mission planned for Basra. Immediately, his Carmelite counterpart, Próspero do Espírito Santo, began secret preparations to send one of his own community to Basra, in order to anticipate the arrival of the Augustinians. Such was the haste in which Basílio de São Francisco, a Portuguese of the Italian Carmelite province, was dispatched that he had to spend half the journey on foot to preserve his meagre funds, carrying his few possessions in a small sack, and lacking even proper Mass vestments.36 Only the arrival of a Portuguese merchant ship with a sympathetic captain enabled him to remain in Basra,37 and on 15 June he visited the pasha and obtained initial consent to build a convent. On July 2nd the first Augustinian missionary, Nicolau Perete, arrived in Basra, bearing letters from the Carmelite convent in Persia to Basílio, with whom he initially shared lodgings in the house taken by the Portuguese captain. Soon afterwards the Carmelite found suitable premises for his enterprise, celebrating Mass there for the first time on Sunday, 9 July. Basílio clearly believed that it was important for him to be the first to say Mass, and there are differences in the Carmelite and Augustinian accounts of the event. Having referred to their friendly relations in his letter of 1625, Basílio appears to admit that it was the knowledge that the Augustinian had arrived fully equipped to say Mass which spurred him into obtaining the altar-cloths, chasuble, surplice, and other accessories he was lacking. Only on the previous Saturday had he told the Augustinian 36 The author of Carmelites (I, 275) seeks to cast things in a more favourable light, describing Basílio as ‘a typical example of the missionary arriving from afar, with no coins, and all his possessions on his back’. 37 The Carmelite mission may thus well have been a failure if it had been entrusted to someone of a different nationality.



catholic missions to the ‘st john christians’

161

priest that he intended to celebrate Mass on the following day, somewhat to the surprise of Perete. Basílio attempts to explain his motives by saying ‘although saying Mass first or later may not seem to be a matter of much consequence, still for all that, for certain reasons, it seemed to me to be a good thing to do, in view of what might happen, and also, since I had been the first to arrive, it might have been considered negligence on my part’.38 His words have a prescient quality in view of the subsequent long­running dispute over parochial jurisdiction between the two Orders in Basra which forms the topic of our next chapter, and which would end only with the closure of the Augustinian mission. It may well be that a degree of polemic relating to this issue informs the later Augustinian account signalled by Alonso39 which states that it was the lack of wafer irons for producing hosts to be used at Mass which had prevented Basílio from saying Mass earlier, and that he had surreptitiously ‘borrowed’ those of Nicolau Perete to produce hosts for his first Mass.40 Whatever the case, it does seem clear that while Basílio was not above a certain duplicity,41 the two missionaries remained firm personal friends. However, having taken up residence in a rented house and, according to the Order’s chroniclers, having had some contact with the Mandaeans regarding religious matters, the brief mission of Nicolau Perete came to an abrupt end with his death in the arms of his Carmelite friend on 2 December 1623. Basílio remained as the only missionary in Basra until the arrival in February 1624 of two Augustinians from Goa, João dos Santos and José da Presentação, sent no doubt in response to the request of Manuel da Madre de Deus. They also accepted the hospitality of the Carmelite before renting accommodation of their own. Before their departure, the vicar provincial had obtained from the acting archbishop of Goa42 the offices

38 Carmelites II, 1126. 39 Lisbon, BNL, Ms. 1498, fols. 338v–348v. 40 Alonso (Mandeos, 96, n. 9) argues that although this account, dating from 1639– 1640, clearly reflects the polemical atmosphere generated between the Augustinians and the Carmelites by the dispute over jurisdiction, external sources verify that it is largely ­accurate. 41  Having advised the Augustinian to reject the pasha’s offer of a particular site for his new convent, Basílio later returned to request it for himself (Mandeos, 97). 42 Sebastião de São Pedro OSA, appointed archbishop of Goa in 1625; Casimiro Nazareth, Mitras Lusitanas no Oriente 3 vols, 2nd edition, (Lisbon, 1894), see I, 130.

162

chapter seven

of vicar forane (‘da vara’),43 parish priest, and Pai dos Cristãos44 for the prior of the Augustinian convent in Basra, setting the scene for the jurisdictional dispute between the Orders which will be the focus of our next chapter.45 The Carmelite Mission Under Basílio de São Francisco The initiative of the Carmelite Basílio de São Francisco in Basra was unknown to his Order’s superiors in Rome, where the newly elected general, himself one of the Carmelites sent to Persia in 1604 by the pope, was anxious to strengthen and expand the Carmelite missions. In December 1623 the recently formed Propaganda accepted his request to establish a mission in Basra. Simone di Gesú Maria offered to send five missionaries, one of whom was to act as visitor to the missions of Persia, Mogul India and Goa, and the group reached Basra in December of 1624. As well as funds for the journey he requested copies of the Doctrina Christiana of Robert Bellarmine in Arabic and Armenian.46 In addition to the usual requests to the Propaganda and the Holy Office for patents and licences, the Carmelite superiors also requested an Arabic printing press, to be used for printing copies of the Doctrina, catechisms, and other works for Christians in the region.47 The instructions given by the Propaganda to the Carmelite Eugenio di San Benedetto, chosen as visitor, make it clear that the Carmelite Basra mission is to be juridically dependent on that of Isfahan. The same instructions envisage a stay in Malta in order to collect 43 That is to say exercising limited jurisdiction in a locality at some distance from the bishop’s official see. 44 Literally ‘Father of the Christians’, a Portuguese institution dating possibly from 1537. The office-holder had responsibility not only for their conversion, catechesis and baptism, but also to protect and promote the welfare of new Christians, both spiritually and temporally. See Josef Wicki, O Livro do ‘Pai dos Cristãos’; R Fernandes Lagrange “‘O Pai dos Cristãos” nas Missões Portuguesas da India Oriental (1541–1840)’ (photocopy), Gregorian University (Rome, 1965). 45 As the Vicar Provincial Luís Coutinho clearly states in a lengthy report to the Propaganda in 1629 (Rome, APF SRCG, vol. 190, fols. 69r–72r). Given in Carlos Alonso ‘Agustinos en la India (1624–1642)’, Analecta Augustiniana 37 (1974), 261–268. 46 The Persian translation of Bellarmine’s Catechism was also used by the Carmelites of Isfahan, see Francis Richard ‘Catholicisme et Islam Chiite au “grand siècle”’ Euntes Docete 33 (1980), 339–397, 373. 47 The press was destined for Isfahan rather than Basra. In his note supporting the request, Ingoli the cardinal of the Propaganda, notes that ‘Abbas had several times asked the missionaries in his capital for such a press, and that if one was not sent from Rome he was likely to obtain it from the Dutch Calvinists. (Carmelites I, 305).



catholic missions to the ‘st john christians’

163

the printing press, but it seems unlikely that the missionaries did visit the island,48 and the press is not mentioned again in connection with this group.49 While the group sent from Rome is delayed at Aleppo, the first news of Basílio, in his letter of February 1624, reaches Rome from Basra.50 He relates the foundation of the mission, the death of the Augustinian missionary, and describes his apostolate among the native Christians, the most numerous of whom are the ‘St John Christians’. He doubts the validity of their baptism, although one of the two Mandaean ‘priests’ in Basra knew the correct form of words. Apparently he had learnt this from a European religious, likely Alonso suggests51 to have been none other than António de Gouveia, who passed through the region on his final return to Europe in 161352 and was doubtless keen to learn more about the Mandaeans of whom he had written in his Relacam of 1611 solely on the basis of the report of the two Augustinian missionaries in 1609. For Basílio, there are no Christians more ignorant of religion: they equate John the Baptist and Christ, have no knowledge of the sacraments and little of the pope. They criticise Europeans for eating meat killed by Arabs,53 and food prepared by black slaves. Mandaeans also regard the practice of allowing ‘black people’ to become Christians as unacceptable, believing that they are not the sons of Adam and Eve but of Noah. They also believe that no one 48 For the foundation and development of the study of Arabic in Malta, see Dionisius Agius, V. P. Borg (tr.), Francine Geraci (ed.), The Study of Arabic in Malta 1632–1915 (Louvain, 1990). 49 The dispatch of the press appears to have been delayed until the autumn of 1628, In his article on printing in Encyclopaedia Iranica, cols. 760–764, Willem Floor notes that no book is known to have been printed on this press, and that a Carmelite report stated that neither the the Order’s press at their Isfahan convent, nor that of the Armenians in New Julfa was a success ‘because of the dryness of the country’. See also Willem Floor ‘The First Printing-Press in Iran’, Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlandischen Gesellschaft 130 (1980), 369–371. 50 Alonso (Mandeos p. 41, n. 50) notes that the letter (Arch. Gen. OCD, pluteo 241, a, doc.6) was presented in an abridged form to the Propaganda: Arch. Prop. Fide, SRCG, vol. 209, fols. 5–6. 51  Mandeos, 42 n. 52. 52 See Alonso, Antonio de Gouvea 180–182. The instructions given to Gouveia by the Spanish king immediately before his return voyage to Persia in 1612 specifically required him to obtain information on ‘the Christians, referred to as those of Saint John’. The document is reproduced in Carlos Alonso, ‘Novísimo Florilegio Documental sobre los Agustinos en Persia (1608–1622)’, Analecta Augustiniana 50 (1987), 45–119, 80. 53 Mandaean practice requires a special ritual for the sacrifice of those animals permitted for consumption. This task is undertaken by a priest or layman in a state of purity (a halala) who also justifies himself and the community for having taken the life of an innocent creature. See Lupieri, The Mandaeans 5.

164

chapter seven

circumcised, Jew or Muslim, can enter their religion, that it is forbidden to wear blue, or to pray towards the West, and have no knowledge of the Mass or of fasting.54 The Carmelite ends by reporting that he has begun to work among the Mandaeans, teaching some of the children Arabic. In 1624 Basílio moved premises once more, and this new central location among the Portuguese residents will remain the site of the Carmelite ­mission. If information on the Mandaeans is relatively scanty in the initial period of the Carmelite mission, from 1627 it will become the main focus for Basílio de São Francisco until his departure in 1636. A letter of April 1627 to the prefect of the Propaganda provides his first systematic description of the Mandaeans.55 For the first time he notes that they call themselves Mandaeans [‘Mendaya’] who are said to speak a corrupt or dialect form of Chaldean.56 He refers to their tradition that they originate from Syria and Jerusalem, a land which they refer to as Gebel-al-Agdar, the green mountain. In support of this claim, Basílio puts forward a theory which appears entirely his own, stating that the Mandaeans are Christians converts baptised in the Jordan by the Baptist himself, thus explaining their devotion to him, and that the ‘green mountain’ is in fact Mount Lebanon. This leads him to suggest that the Mandaeans were once the same as the Maronite Christians of Mount Lebanon, or had at least lived alongside them, and the years of temporal and geographical separation were responsible for the differences between them. He turns next to the question of Mandaean baptism and its validity, which had exercised him from his first days in Basra. On his arrival he had been told that the erudite Augustinian bishop of Cyrene and apostolic visitor to Persia, António de Gouveia, had declared Mandaean baptism to be valid, and as noted above, he had heard a Mandaean priest recite the formula correctly. On this basis he had himself accepted the validity of

54 Mandaeans pray towards the North, but the taboo on wearing blue mentioned by Basílio and other travellers of the time is no longer observed. 55 ANTT, Ms. da Livrararia, ms.1822, fols. 45–46. The Italian text is given in Mandeos, Appendix I, 241–246. 56 The classical Mandaean language of the sacred texts and rituals is a form of Eastern Aramaic, with features similar to the language of the Babylonian Talmud, and showing signs of external influence, especially Persian. The spoken language, ratna, uses a simplified system and is, unsurprisingly, substantially influenced by Arabic. Modern commentators record a revival of interest in the spoken language among Mandaeans in the disapora, while Lupieri (The Mandaeans, 53–54) refers to a school in Iran for Mandaean children where the language has been in use for some time. The Mandaean alphabet, the abagada, is ascribed considerable religious significance, and even what Buckley (The Mandaeans, 144–152) describes as ‘a somewhat disturbing autonomy’.



catholic missions to the ‘st john christians’

165

Mandaean baptism, attempting as best he could to explain the anomalies he observed in practice. He had come to believe, however, that Gouveia had merely passed through the region and lacked the linguistic skill so essential for a proper evaluation of the Mandaean rite. He also suspected that it was from the deceased Perete that the Mandaean priest had learnt the correct form of baptism. Basílio now felt that Mandaean baptism was simply a cleansing ritual, common practice in the region, and also used by the Muslims. In support of this later, negative opinion of Mandaean baptism, he recalls the practice of the two Augustinian missionaries in 1609 who had baptised (albeit conditionally) a number of Mandaeans during their stay, as was also the usual practice in Goa for Mandaeans, but not for members of the Eastern Churches. In addition to repeating much of the information in his earlier letter, Basílio here provides some information on the social life of the Mandaeans. They live under Arab or Persian rule, having no lands of their own. He lists thirty-one Mandaean centres in addition to Basra or Hawizah, and has been informed that they total 1200 families.57 They are entirely subject to the Muslims, with no civil government of their own,58 and there are three ranks in their religious hierarchy. There are currently three ganzibras, their ‘bishops’, based in Hawizah, and he promises to provide more details after visiting that city. All the Mandaeans Basílio has encountered worked as carpenters, jewellers,59 or blacksmiths. They are desperately poor, despised by the Arabs and Eastern Christians,60 but they believe themselves to be the original and most ancient Christians. They are proud and do not mix, generous but unable to demonstrate this due to their poverty. Although few in number, dispersed and maltreated, they have kept their language, books and beliefs, and few of them have become Muslims. Basílio relates that he has succeeded in obtaining a copy of one of the Mandaean sacred texts, the Sidra, which he wrongly attributes to John 57 Clearly a lapsus calami for 12,000, as other accounts demonstrate. 58 This would suggest that the Mandaeans fell outside the Ottoman millet system which allowed minority confessional groups a considerable degree of autonomy under a community leader responsible for them to the central government. It may be that the relatively small numbers of Mandaeans in Ottoman territory were considered as insignificant. Without representation, the Mandaeans would indeed have been subject to the whims of local rulers, as Gouveia clearly indicates. 59 To this day some Mandaeans work as goldsmiths. 60 It would be interesting to know the view of Eastern Christianity on the Mandaeans and the Western identification of them as St John Christians. Did the view of the Eastern Christians in Basra who received instructions from Basílio influence his opinion on the validity of Mandaean baptism?

166

chapter seven

the Baptist. He is convinced that it contains much of interest, but needs to have a translation made.61 The Carmelite visitor, Eugenio di San Benedetto, whose party had finally reached Basra in December 1624, presented a report of his canonical visitation to the Order’s missions in the East to the Propaganda in September 1627. This largely reflects the view of the Mandaeans which Basílio held at the time of his visit in spring 1625, but amends the number of Mandaeans to be 12,000 families. Cognizant of Gouveia’s judgement, he nevertheless believes that Mandaean baptism is invalid due to its form, which he describes as consisting of taking water three times from a flowing river and using the formula ‘I baptise you with the baptism of John, son of Zacharias: do not steal, do not fornicate, do not lie, do not contradict your father and mother’. He reports that the Mandaeans wish to send an ‘ambassador’ to Rome to submit their obedience to the pope, but are unable to do so for lack of funds.62 The writer points out that such an embassy could play a major part in the union of these separated Christians, but the Congregation, writing in reply to Basílio, instructed him to ensure that no such embassy should take place without their approval, since it was necessary that the Mandaeans should first embrace the Catholic faith and receive instruction.63 A letter of Basílio to the Propaganda in February 1628 broaches an important topic. Based on an ancient belief that the pope will come to their aid, the Mandaeans wish the pope to order (sic) the king of Spain to give them some of his territory in the Persian Gulf, so that they can emigrate and live there as Christians, free of the Arab yoke. In response to a series of questions from the Propaganda, Basílio advises that he expects some 2000 Mandaeans to emigrate initially, and that Bahrain,64 or failing that Duba on the Arabian coast of the Gulf is their choice of destination, while the idea of emigration to India or Europe has not been raised.65 To the Propaganda’s enquiry as to the willingness of the Mandaeans to embrace Christianity, his pragmatic reply66 is that once established in Portuguese 61  The Sidra Rba (Great Book) or Ginza (Treasure) is a conglomerate of disparate Mandaean texts probably redacted in the mid seventh century. Its anti-Christian bias would indeed have been of interest to the missionaries. See the selection of relevant texts given in Lupieri, The Mandaeans, 240–253. 62 Arch. Prop. Fide., SRCG, vol. 189, fols 355–363. 63 Ibid. Acta, vol. 4, f. 292, n. 21. 64 The Portuguese still entertained some hope of recovering control of the island from the Persians. 65 Alonso (Mandeos, 67) notes that this letter is known only from reference to it in the Acts of the Propaganda, Arch. Prop. Fide, Acta, vol. 6, f. 302, n. 8. 66 Arch. Prop. Fide, SRCG, vol. 115, fols 415–416.



catholic missions to the ‘st john christians’

167

territory they will follow them in matters of religion and embrace the Catholic faith and Latin rite. Even if this should be a problem with the current generation, Basílio argues, with their children being educated by the Portuguese they will soon forget their own ceremonies, furthermore, their priests are elderly, few in number and will soon die out. Basílio is not unaware of the practical difficulties of such a large-scale migration, but points out the advantages for the Spanish crown, apart from the service to God. He notes that the Mandaeans are able fighters, something of which the Estado da India stood in need. He also advises of having organised an exploratory visit by a small group of Mandaeans to Muscat some months earlier. Interestingly, he stresses in his letter that he believes that what is at issue here is not the reduction of a Christian group to Catholicism, but a true conversion from paganism. It would seem that there is now a perception on his part at least of the fact that the Mandaeans were in no sense Christians. Although his postscript notes that the Mandaean envoys had reported back favourably, the reply of the Propaganda was that due to the presence of both warfare and plague in the region, the Mandaeans should patiently await until things were more settled.67 Alonso describes the tone of the letter sent at the same time to the Mandaeans68 as an attempt to ‘sweeten’ the Propaganda’s response, but replete with theological references and convoluted language which could mean little to the Mandaeans.69 Tensions between the Portuguese and the ruler of Basra between 1630 and 1632 resulted in a disruption of communication between the missions and Europe.70 Only with his letter of 1632,71 does Basílio provide details of the first significant Mandaean migration to Portuguese territory in the Persian Gulf. We learn that with the consent of the viceroy of India and the captain general of the straits of Hormuz, and supported by funds from the Portuguese authorities, Basílio had begun to organise the assembly of Mandaeans at Basra in order to travel with the ships reaching the port in the summer of 1632. Seven hundred Mandaeans gathered on an island in the Persian Gulf under the protection of the Portuguese fleet, but a­

67 Ibid., Lettere, vol. 10, f. 103. 68 Ibid., fols. 103–104. 69 Mandeos, 72. 70 Initially provoked by the Pasha’s insistence that two Persian ships captured by the Portuguese in the Gulf should be handed over to him. For further details see Etudes carmelitaines 14 (1929), 174–177 (cited in Mandeos, 75, n. 56). 71  Arch. Prop. Fide, SRCG, vol. 103, fols. 228–229. This account is supplemented by that of 1636.

168

chapter seven

diplomatic incident between the pasha and the Portuguese authorities would put the lives of all the Catholic missionaries in Basra in danger. The ruler of Basra had claimed as his own two Persian ships captured in the Gulf by the Portuguese. The waiting Mandaeans were caught up in the reprisals inflicted on the city by the Portuguese fleet, and their eventual departure for Muscat only intensified the riots caused by Portuguese reprisals, The prior of the Augustinian convent died during the riots, apparently from the stress under which events placed him. The migration was dogged by ill-fortune from the start. The Mandaean families were to have been received in Muscat by the captain general, Rui Freire de Andrade, who had received instructions from Goa to give them land in the region of the fortress of Duba. Andrade was himself a supporter of the policy of migration, but had died just before their arrival. His successor had little interest in the Mandaeans, whose numbers caused problems for the limited resources of the fortress of Muscat, and they were summarily parcelled out in small groups along the coast until better arrangements could be made. Disappointed and disoriented, some of the Mandaeans returned to Basra, some died, and some simply disappeared, while a group of ninety men was organised under the leadership of a certain Roboán and sent to Goa to clarify matters with the viceroy. They were received with courtesy by the viceroy and accommodated initially in the Carmelite and Augustinian convents. After six days they were called before the viceroy, given Portuguese clothes and assigned to various barracks around the city, while their leader, henceforth to be known as Luís de Sousa, was presented with a military uniform and the rank of captain. Having ascertained that they wished to settle in the territory of Duba and to live off the fruits of their labour, the viceroy, having consulted his Council, agreed to their request. After the signing of an agreement on 16 March 1633, the viceroy presented Luís de Sousa with the uniform of the Military Order of Avis and a gold chain. He then asked for fifty volunteers from the group as a sign of their fealty to the Spanish crown. Since every one of them volunteered, fifty were chosen and posted to Bengal, Ceylon and Cochin. The remainder of the group set sail, but were driven back by storms, and with the passing of the monsoon season were obliged to stay in Goa until the autumn. Under the agreement with the viceroy, the spiritual care of the Mandaeans had been entrusted to the Carmelites, one of whom was to accompany them from Goa, to be joined later by another from the convent at Isfahan. Immediately on hearing of this, the Augustinian Vicar Provincial Gaspar de Amorim presented a memorial to the viceroy­



catholic missions to the ‘st john christians’

169

arguing that this was unjust, not least in view of the long service given by the Augustinians in the Persian Gulf. That his complaint was rejected is perhaps hardly surprising, as the viceroy, Don Miguel de Noronha, then had his brother living with him, a member of the Discalced Carmelite Order. A letter from the leader of the Mandaeans in Goa to the pope in September 1633 describes the feeling of uncertainty among his community as they awaited confirmation from Madrid of the viceroy’s grant of land.72 Its main purpose was to ask the pope to intervene with the king of Spain to ensure confirmation of their agreement in India, stressing the sacrifices they have made in leaving Basra, but it also contains the interesting claim that ‘we have lived in Muslim lands for more or less one thousand three hundred and thirty years’. If this does indeed represent an ancient Mandaean tradition, then the Mandaeans have been living in the Shatt-al-Arab since 300 AD.73 Luís de Sousa also speaks of his intention to transfer a total of 12,000 men and their families to Portuguese territory before the end of the year. The much reduced Mandaean group in Goa returned to Muscat in December 1633, where they encountered great hostility from the local sultan, and found the Arab population in revolt against the Portuguese, who were obliged to accede most of the territory held by the rebels, including that of Duba, rendering impossible the settlement of the Mandaeans in the lands granted them in Goa. In a letter of 29 March 1634 to the Propaganda,74 the Carmelite visitor Epifanio di Giovanni Battista lays the blame for the failure of the project on the captain general of the Portuguese fortress at Muscat, and suggests that he was encouraged in his behaviour by the Augustinians, unhappy that the Carmelites had been entrusted with the spiritual care of the Mandaeans. Basílio de São Francisco would depart for Rome in 1636, and the four and a half year tenure of his successor Stefano di Gesú is of minimal importance with regard to the Mandaeans. In his first letter to the Propaganda, written a full year after his arrival, he requests that Basílio be sent back to Basra ‘as he is so much needed here’.75 Basílio would in fact return briefly to the convent in Basra, but only after being prevented by the political situation there from establishing a Carmelite mission in Baghdad. He returned to 72 Ibid., SRCG, vol. 138, fols. 267–268 (Portuguese translation of the Arabic original ) 73 Modern scholars have in fact argued for even earlier dates of 150 A.D. or 100 A.D. See Mandeos, 84, n. 74. 74 Arch. Prop. Fide, SRCG, vol. 135, f. 348. 75 Arch. Prop. Fide, SRCG, vol. 106, f. 140.

170

chapter seven

Europe in 1641, and was replaced by Leandro de la Resurección. No details of the latter’s time in Basra survive, and he would be succeeded by Ignazio di Gesú, whose work with the Mandaeans was at least equal to that of Basílio de São Francisco, and will be treated below in a separate section. Early Augustinian Missionary Activity and Involvement in the First Mandaean Migration As noted, by contrast with the Carmelite sources, accounts of the Augustinian mission between 1626 and 1630 are somewhat scanty. It is not clear when news reached Rome of the initiative in Basra and contact between the Augustinians from Goa and the Mandaeans, but a request for letters patent for João dos Santos and José da Presentação were included in a letter to the Propaganda from the Augustinian vicar general in late 1624. The general session of the Propaganda in October of the same year granted the patents requested to João dos Santos, and to those already sent or who in the future would serve in the Basra mission.76 The juridical status of the Augustinian mission in Basra, was thus, it can be argued, ambivalent almost from its foundation. Although the Propaganda would repeatedly intervene in the jurisdictional dispute between the two Orders in Basra, the Augustinian mission was in practice entirely dependent, not least financially, on the archdiocese of Goa and the Augustinian vice province of the East Indies based there. The appointment of a series of prefects for the missions of Persia, Georgia and Basra by the Propaganda from 1641 had no effect on the life of the convent, and any juridical dependence on the Roman Congregation remained purely formal.77 The main feature of the mission, under the leadership of João dos Santos until 1626, was the construction of the new Augustinian convent.78 Attached to this was a school, where Mandaean children were taught to read and write in Arabic, and instructed in Christian doctrine and serving Mass.79 Their 76 Ibid., vol. 384, fols. 513–514. 77 Mandeos, 181–184. 78 An account in 1626 of the progress of the missions under his control from the vicar provincial in Goa to the provincial and definitors of the Portuguese province (Arch. Prop. Fide, SRCG, vol. 189, fols. 369r–374v) notes the relocation of the Augustinian mission to the area of the city inhabited by the Mandaeans, and the affection in which the missionaries are held, ‘as we are the first to have come among them’. Text in Alonso, ‘Agustinos en la India (1624–1642), 257. 79 The Carmelites had also begun by teaching Mandaean children, but abandoned the enterprise after a year on the basis that the results did not justify the effort.



catholic missions to the ‘st john christians’

171

Arabic teacher was a Mandaean, who also taught the Augustinians, while Christian instruction was undertaken by José dos Santos.80 The primary focus of Augustinian missionary activity in Basra had been, almost from the first, the Mandaeans and their reduction to obedience of the Roman Church from which they were convinced that error and physical separation had separated these ‘St John Christians’. A degree of success in this goal coincided with the arrival in 1625 of the Roman patrician and traveller Pietro della Valle and his entourage, including a certain Rodrigo de San Miguel, a member of the Order of Augustinian Recollects. In May of 1625 in the Augustinian chapel, in the presence of this group, and of the Carmelite missionary Basílio de São Francisco,81 twenty-five Mandaean leaders and priests signed a letter of obedience to the pope.82 A fulsome address to the pope is followed by a declaration that the ‘Chaldean Christians of St. John, in the region of the city of Basra’ accept ‘the religion of our lord the pope’ and confess him to be ‘ the Vicar of Our Lord Jesus Christ, high priest, and head of the entire church on earth’. The document is signed by Salamon son of Ghanem and twentythree Mandaean ‘primates’. Entrusted to Rodrigo de San Miguel, the document reached Rome in February 1626 where, by claiming that the submission of the Mandaeans was entirely his own work, he obtained from the Propaganda considerable privileges for himself and his Order, including his own appointment as missionary to Hawizah and Basra. His machinations were perhaps deservedly brought to naught by his illness and death in December 1626,83 and the doubts expressed by the Carmelite missionary about the value of the letter of obedience would prove to be well-founded. At the suggestion of the Portuguese factor in Basra, the pasha sent João dos Santos to Goa in 1628 in order to negotiate with the authorities

80 BNL Ms. 1498, fols. 350r–354v. 81  Invited especially for the occasion, he would later express doubts about the value of the Mandaean obedience in a letter to his friend Pietro della Valle, noting how often those inexperienced in the affairs of the East (i.e. Rodrigo de S. Miguel) ‘di una formica vogliono far un elefante’ (literally, ‘make an elephant out of an ant’). See Mandeos, 114 and n. 74, where a section of the text is reproduced. 82 Arch. Prop. Fide, SRCG, vol. 181, f. 19 (Arabic original); ibid. vol. 386, fols. 159–160 (copy of contemporary Latin translation). The Latin text is given in Carlos Alonso, ‘Misiones de la Orden de San Agustin entre los mandeos’, Missionalia Hispanica 16 (1959), 334–335. 83 This unedifying affair, and the welter of documentation generated by it in Rome, is described in some detail by Alonso in Mandeos 101–114. On Rodrigo see Angel Martinez Cuesta, Historia de los agustinos recoletos. Vol. I: Desde los origenes hasta el siglo XIX (Madrid, 1995), 360.

172

chapter seven

there on a number of topics, including the request that Portuguese ships should allow free passage to Persian shipping coming to the port of Basra. In exchange, the Augustinians in Basra were granted a firman or permit which allowed the Mandaeans to visit their convent freely, and requiring them to do what the missionaries asked of them. The Carmelite Basílio de São Francisco, in his letter of 1630 to the cardinals of the Propaganda, takes a highly pessimistic view of the efficacy both of the firman obtained from Ali pasha and of the Augustinian school for Mandaean children.84 Despite his negativity, however, the school continued to function for ­several years. We have only indirect information regarding the period of tenure of the second superior of the Augustinians in Basra, António da Natividade. The records of the Propaganda85 show that he had informed them on three points, the translation of the convent and work among Christian traders visiting it, the apostolate among the Mandaeans by virtue of the firman from the pasha, together with the information that the Mandaeans brought their children for baptism, and the progress of the Mandaean children in their study of Christian doctrine and in serving Mass. The Augustinian foundation at Basra was elevated to the status of convent in December 1628, and José da Presentação, third superior of the mission, elected as its first prior properly so-called. To the intense irritation of his Augustinian superiors in Goa, this missionary had in fact already obtained permission from the general of the Order to return to Europe, and his tenure as prior was ephemeral. The available documentation, Alonso asserts, is insufficient to reconstruct the situation at the convent after the departure of José da Presentação. It is unclear whether António da Natividade remained there at the end of his spell as prior, but we know that when Manuel da Fonseca was appointed to that office in March 1631 the convent was governed by João Lobo.86 The reader with access only to the extensive documentation in A Chronicle of the Carmelites may well be surprised to discover that the Augustinians also played a substantial role in the 1632 migration of the Mandaeans described above. Basílio de São Francisco, in a letter to the Carmelite general, makes a single vague mention of Augustinian involvement in the organisation of the expedition, but does confirm in his letter of 84 Arch. Prop. Fide, SRCG, vol. 115, fols. 415–416. 85 Ibid., Acta, vol. 6, f. 282, n. 23. 86 Letter from the vicar provincial of 31st March 1631: ANTT Livraria, Ms. 674, fols. 277v–279r.



catholic missions to the ‘st john christians’

173

April 1629 that the Augustinians had earlier sent a number of Mandaeans to Portuguese territory.87 The opening of a school for Mandaean children appears to have created an atmosphere of trust between the missionaries and the Mandaeans which led to the revival of the possibility of migration to Portuguese territory first suggested by Aleixo de Meneses in his instructions to the two Augustinians who visited Basra in 1609. A group of Mandaeans decided to apply to the civil and military authorities in Muscat, and the prior of the Augustinian convent there obtained a permit signed by Rui Freire de Andrade which allowed them to travel to Goa to negotiate with the viceroy. This document was given, Alonso suggests, to the group of Mandaeans sent to Muscat in 1629 by the Augustinians. Returning to Basra they advised their community of its content, but the majority refused to leave their homeland without further permits from the viceroy and the Augustinian vicar provincial. To this end the prior of Basra sent six Mandaeans to Luís Coutinho, the vicar provincial in Goa, in order that he could intercede for them with the viceroy. On reaching Goa the Mandaeans stayed in the Augustinian convent, and, thanks to the intercession of Coutinho, Miguel de Noronha gave them a permit authorising their migration. The Augustinian also provided a letter of recommendation for the project to be communicated to the Mandaean community. Only the fact that through his preaching an Augustinian religious aroused the displeasure of the Rui Freire de Andrade would prevent control of the project for Mandaean migration from remaining exclusively with the Augustinians. As it was, having complained to the Augustinian’s superiors in Goa, he had the vice-regal documents delivered not to the Augustinian prior in Basra, but to Basílio de São Francisco at the Carmelite mission. Thus officially authorised, it would fall to Basílio and the Carmelites to manage the migration of 1632, although both Carmelite and Augustinian sources claim that members of their order were instrumental in having earlier obtained the consent from the pasha for the departure of the Mandaeans.88 The only further Augustinian involvement would be in connection with the journey of ninety Mandaeans to Goa, who were

87 The Latin text of this letter, written in support of the application of José da Presentação for permission to return to Europe, is given in Mandeos, Appendix II, 247–248. 88 Basílio for the Carmelites and Manuel de Fonseca for the Augustinians. See Mandeos, 124, n. 114.

174

chapter seven

welcomed by the friars at the convent in Chaul and assisted by them in obtaining onward transportation from the captain of the fortress.89 The Augustinian Mission from 1633 Onwards After the death in office of Manuel de Fonseca in 1632, the post of Augustinian prior of Basra was held by António de São José, whose principal apostolate was the care of apostates who had returned to the faith, along with a small number of converts from Islam, all of whom he assisted with passage to India.90 The account he wrote of his activities makes no mention of the Mandaeans, but, as we shall see, the school for Mandaean children must still have been functioning. His successor, somewhat surprisingly, was none other than José da Presentação, whose return to Europe in 1629 without the permission of his local superiors had caused considerable concern in Europe. He succeeded for a time in resisting the wishes of his superiors in Portugal for his immediate return to the Indian vice province, but eventually found himself leaving Lisbon for Goa in the twenty-sixth mission of the Indian Congregation in March 1633. After a period in Goa, he was appointed to the parish of Basra, vicar da vara, and Pai dos Cristãos, assuming office in early 1636. In mid-1639 two French Capuchin priests passing through Basra provided attestations of his activity in the city. These include the ­information91 that having several times visited the Augustinian church, they had seen there a group of seventeen or eighteen Mandaean children ranging from seven to ten years of age who were being instructed to read and write in Arabic by a teacher who was himself a Mandaean. The children were heard to recite the Pater Noster and Ave Maria in Arabic, and to answer 89 Arch. Prop. Fide, SRCG, vol. 194, fols. 34–39 (Portuguese text); fols. 2–23 (Italian text). 90 Including a number sent from the Augustinian convent at Isfahan, as related by José do Rosário of that convent (Arch. Prop. Fide, SRCG, vol. 106, fols. 283–284), reproduced in Carlos Alonso, ‘El P. José del Rosario y la Misión Agustiniana de Persia’, Analecta Augustiniana 29 (1966), 272–315, 275. A ‘Brief Account of the persons reconciled and converted to our holy faith by the labours of religious of St Augustine of the Province of East India, from October 1633 to 1638, during which time the Priors of the said Order in that city were António de S. José and José da Presentação’, written by the latter in December 1638 (BNL Fundo Geral 1498, fols. 328r–377v), relates in detail a number of individual cases, including a number ‘sent by religious the same Order resident in Persia’. See the text in Carlos Alonso, ‘Miscellanea Missionnaria Agostiniana (sec. XVII)’, Analecta Augustiniana 34 (1971), 239–294, pp. 265–274. 91  BNL Fundo Geral 1498, f. 354r–v.



catholic missions to the ‘st john christians’

175

questions on Catholic doctrine put to them by the Augustinian prior. The reported claim of José da Presentação that he exercised this mission to the Mandaeans as a consequence of the Propaganda having entrusted it to the Augustinian Order in 1624, is doubtless connected to the jurisdictional dispute with Carmelites. The Propaganda had in fact instructed the Augustinians to found a mission in the Arabian Peninsula proper, something which did not come to fruition.92 Alonso points out that by this time the Augustinians were apparently attempting to pass off the mission in Basra as an initiative of the Propaganda, perhaps making a play on the geographical terms Arabia Deserta (Arabia proper) and Arabia Felix (Mesopotamia) used by the writers and travellers of the period.93 The last years of the Basra convent reflect the general decline of the Order in India, itself in large part due to the battle for separation of the Indian vice province from the province of Portugal, characterised as it was by both a fierce nationalism94 and an extreme conservatism. The fall of the fortress of Muscat to the Arabs in early 1650, which accelerated the commercial and political withdrawal of the Portuguese from the Persian Gulf and resulted in a damaging loss of prestige for the Portuguese in Basra, had led to the massacre of the Augustinians there,95 and shortly afterwards the sole representative of the Order in Basra relinquished his post. In his Manual Eremetico, Manuel de Ave Maria records that José da Presentação was replaced in December 1640 by Adeodato da Paixão. No record of his activity survives, nor for that of his successors, whose listing by Ave Maria is incomplete.96 The chronicler notes that, although João Evangelista was elected in December 1652, the convent was abandoned in 1653, ‘due to the repeated efforts of the demon’.97 The nomination of

92 See Carlos Alonso, ‘Proyecto de una misión de la Orden de San Agustín en Arabia (1624–1629)’, Augustiniana 10 (1960), 61–76. 93 Mandeos, 172, n. 23. 94 Portuguese nationalism in this period would also adversely affect the Carmelite convent in Goa (Carmelites I, 367–368). Anti-Italian sentiment in particular can be ascribed to the refusal of the papacy to recognise the accession of João IV to the Portuguese throne in 1640. 95 A lively depiction of the Arab occupation of the convent in a section of the eight­ eenth century tiled panels in the chapter house of the Convento da Graça shows the defenestration of an elderly friar and the beheading of three others in front of the altar of the convent of Nossa Senhora do Rosário in Muscat. See the reproduction in Gulbenkian L’Ambassade, facing 68. 96 Documentação 11, 219. 97 Ibid., 218.

176

chapter seven

Agostinho de Santo Guilherme in 1668 represents no more than an attempt to revive the mission, effectively without a superior since 1651, according to the biography of this religious.98 If he did indeed take up office, it was for a very brief period, as in 1669 he was named prior of Isfahan. As Alonso shows, the scant information given by Ave Maria is corroborated by the accounts of travellers passing through Basra in the early 1650’s.99 The Carmelite Mission Under Ignazio di Gesú (1641–1652) Appointed prior of the Carmelite convent in Basra in 1641, the earliest surviving letter of Ignazio di Gesú dates from 1643, and relates his attempts to revive the plans for a Mandaean migration.100 Having enlisted the support of the captain general of Portuguese forces in the Persian Gulf, he had in readiness a group of thirty Mandaean men prepared to undertake the journey to India in order to explore the territory in Ceylon offered them by the Portuguese. Resistance from the ruler of Basra resulted in only five of them leaving the city, and hopes for a large migration in summer 1643 were dashed by the non-arrival of the expected trading ships and political conflicts between the pasha and the Portuguese authorities. When the situation deteriorated to the extent that a Portuguese fleet fired cannons on the city, the missionaries were advised to leave. Although Ignazio alone of the Carmelites elected to remain,101 any preparations for migration were necessarily put on hold. Ignazio would play a significant role in the peace negotiations. Reappointed prior in 1646, he soon afterwards sent a letter to Rome which provides little new information on the issue of Mandaean migration, but illustrates his doubts as to the validity of their baptism.102 The group of Mandaeans who had travelled to Rome had complained to

 98 Ibid.,

514.

 99 Mandeos,

186–187. 100 Arch. Gen. OCD, pluteo 241, m, doc. 1. A short section is reproduced in English translation in Carmelites I, 331. The letter was carried to Rome by a Mandaean convert to Catholicism, Manuel Carvalho, and his brothers, who travelled to Europe in order to visit the Holy City and the shrine of Santiago de Compostella, ‘for reasons of devotion’, before going on to Portugal to address personal affairs. Unfortunately we know nothing further of what befell the group, who were undoubtedly the first Mandaeans to visit Europe. Alonso does, however, devote 216–230 of Mandeos to an excursus on the journey of two Mandaean brothers to Rome in 1652. 101  The behaviour of the Augustinians in the face of this threat is not known. 102 Arch. Gen. OCD, pluteo 241, m, doc. 13.



catholic missions to the ‘st john christians’

177

Monsignor Ingoli, secretary of the Propaganda, of being re-baptised by the missionaries in Basra. Ignazio’s uncompromising response is that gratitude on their part would have been more appropriate, since the formula used for Mandaean baptism was invalid. He described the rite for the benefit of Ingoli, transliterating the words used and translating them as follows ‘I baptise you in the name of the Eternal God, the great Creator, Father of all’.103 The Propaganda advised the Carmelite that it had been resolved, at a somewhat late stage one may suggest, to ask the Holy Office for a verdict on the validity of Mandaean baptism, and that he would be informed of their decision in due course.104 It is remarkable that there should still be any doubts regarding the validity or otherwise of Mandaean baptism almost a quarter of a century after the establishment of the Basra missions. As early as 1609, Meneses had reported that he had ordered the baptism of Mandaeans found in Portuguese territories during his episcopal visitations, due to doubts about its validity. Ignazio was also urged by the Propaganda to obtain copies of the Mandaean ritual books, and to provide Latin translations of their contents, in order to purge them of any errors.105 Meanwhile, advance news of the arrival of a Portuguese trading fleet led to a revival of the planned migration. Ignazio reported that the Mandaean community was extremely supportive of the venture, and twenty-four of its members were chosen to be sent to negotiate with the authorities in Goa.106 News of this advance mission is given in October 1647, when Ignazio reported that the group had been sent on to Ceylon by the viceroy and that their return via Muscat was awaited, along with that of two ships to carry the large group of migrants.107 Preparations for the migration continued, with increasing numbers of Mandaeans coming to Basra and its environs, but a letter of August 1648 from Ignazio explains that it had been necessary to defer the transfer to Ceylon until the following year.108 In view of an outbreak of hostilities between the Imam of Muscat 103 He will give a different description and account in his later printed work on the Mandaeans (Narratio originis, 25–26). Neither in fact resemble that actually given in the books of Mandaean ritual. 104 See Alonso, ‘Nueva documentación inédita (1571–1609)’, 380. The same author (Mandeos, 197, n. 35) notes that the topic does not appear again, and that any response of the Holy Office is unknown. 105 Arch. Prop. Fide, Lettere, vol. 25, f. 55r. 106 Letter of 19 December to the cardinals of the Propaganda (Arch. Prop. Fide, SRCG, vol. 209, fols. 88–89), reproduced in Mandeos, 250–252 (Appendix IV). 107 Arch. Gen. OCD, pluteo 241, m, doc.23. 108 Ibid., doc. 25.

178

chapter seven

and the Portuguese, both the viceroy and the captain general advised of the need for postponement, as it would be impossible to send the promised ships.109 The planned migration, deferred year by year since 1642 had resulted only in the voyage of exploration in October 1646 to Ceylon. A letter from Ignazio to Ingoli in February 1649 provides only slightly more encouraging information: in October 1648, fifty Mandaean families who wished to become Catholics had travelled to Goa, ‘refusing to allow one of their schismatic priests to accompany them’. Of interest in connection with the dispute with the Augustinians over jurisdiction is the Carmelite’s acknowledgment of the extension of his faculties to the Mandaeans ‘wherever they might be found’ (quocumque in loco inveniantur).110 The letters written by Ignazio in that year, as well of narrating that this group of Mandaean families had refused to allow one of their priests to travel to India with them, inform us that he has written a Latin text in the form of a dialogue, which refutes the principal errors of the Mandaeans, and he promises that Persian and Arabic translations will also be made. He gratefully acknowledges the extension of his faculties of jurisdiction over all Mandaeans, continues to excuse himself for still not having sent copies of Mandaean texts to Rome, but relates that he has obtained an illustrated Mandaean scroll with accounts of their beliefs and rites.111 He also, in reply to a request from the secretary of the Propaganda, shows himself to be in favour in principle of the appointment of a bishopric at Basra for the spiritual welfare of the ‘St John Christians’.112 If he was still unwilling to entrust the Mandaean texts he had obtained to the couriers travelling from Basra to Rome,113 he nevertheless took the risk of sending the manuscript of his text on the Mandaeans to the

109 A bitter disappointment for the Carmelite, this must have proved disastrous for those who had travelled to Basra leaving everything behind, and for those who had their property confiscated a result of their planned departure. 110  Arch. Gen. OCD, pluteo 295, b. Alonso, Mandeos 204, n. 62 draws attention to another copy of the letter, ANTT Manuscritos, ms 912. 111  This is the copy of the Diwan Abatur now in the Vatican Library, and which has been reproduced with an English translation as, E. S. Drower Diwan Abatur, or progress through the Purgatories, text with translation, notes and appendices, series: Studi e testi no. 151 (Vatican City, 1950). 112  Arch. Gen. OCD, pluteo 241, m, doc. 27 With the death in April 1649 of Monsignor Ingoli, indefatigable servant of the Propaganda since its formal inception, this proposal receives no further mention. 113  In fact, still having found no messenger sufficiently trustworthy before he left the Basra mission for Rome in October 1652, it appears that Ignazio took the text with him to Rome, or sent it from Syria. See Mandeos, 215, n. 94.



catholic missions to the ‘st john christians’

179

Carmelite general in Rome,114 who in turn sent it to the Propaganda, with a request for publication, as he believed it would be an important aid to other missionaries working among the Mandaeans.115 It saw the light of day in 1652, printed in Rome by the Propaganda’s own Press, under the title Narratio originis, rituum, et errorum Christianorum Sancti Ioannis, cui adiungitur Discursus per modum dialogi, in quo confutantur XXXIIII errores eiusdem nationis. The book is widely known and often quoted by scholars as being the first which provided Europe with news of the Mandaeans.116 While it is certainly the first book devoted entirely to the topic, it was preceded by many years by the information given in Gouveia’s Relacam, which had circulated not just in Portuguese from 1611, but also in French from 1646. In 1651, Ignazio gave notice of a new attempt to put into effect a mass migration of the Mandaeans, described with justification by Alonso as ‘no less fantastic than the previous, and likewise doomed to failure’.117 The king of the Maldive islands, a convert to Catholicism and in exile in Goa, was anxious to regain his kingdom after his Muslim subjects had risen against him, and sought the financial and military aid of the Mandaeans in this enterprise, promising them a great deal, including a gift of land where they could establish themselves free of the Arab yoke. It appears that the Carmelite provincial in Goa had approved this bizarre enterprise, and he appointed three religious from Basra to assist if it should reach fruition. Ignazio, as the appointed missionary of the Propaganda to the Mandaeans, was to lead the mission, assisted by Barnaba di San Carlo and Matteo di San Giuseppe.118 The volatile Barnaba di San Carlo, already unhappy with his stay in the convent of Basra, sought to use the planned migration as a pretext to visit Hawizah, centre of the Mandaean religious establishment in the region. The reasons for doing so laid out in his letter of June 1651119 appear not without merit. He complained that better results would be obtained by speaking to the religious leaders, since they are the

114 It is possible, although in the view of Alonso unlikely, that the bearer of the letter was the Angevin nobleman traveller Boullaye-le-Gouz, whose Les Voyages et Observations . . . was printed in Paris in 1653. His text includes, in 276–288, an account of the ‘Religion of the Sabians’, based no doubt on information provided by Ignazio during his stay in Basra. See Alonso, Mandeos, 207; Gulbenkian, Estudos Históricos II, 403 and n. 203. 115 Letter of 20 May 1649. Arch. Prop. Fide, SRCG, vol. 210, fols. 151, 162. 116 Brief extracts from the book are given in English translation in Carmelites I, 333–334. 117 Mandeos, 210. 118 Arch. Gen. OCD, pluteo 241, m, doc. 32. 119 Ibid., a, doc. 11.

180

chapter seven

ones whose lead the others will follow, and argued that a religious should be permanently stationed there. He marvels that this has not been done during the long years of the mission in Basra ‘being such a simple thing.’ In fact, it is surprising that little seems to be have been done in this regard, particularly since the promise to visit Hawizah to obtain more information about the Mandaeans had been a regular feature of both Carmelite and Augustinian correspondence. To the disgust of Barnaba, neither of his associates agreed with his plan, possibly because of the delicate state of negotiations over the new plans for migration. However, relations between Barnaba and the leader of the mission would be irrevocably damaged. Matteo di San Giuseppe would be persuaded to side with him, accusing Ignazio not only of neglecting the conversion of the Mandaeans, but of deceiving the Order and the Propaganda of the value of the planned migration. A French Franciscan, Louis de la Conception, passing through Basra in 1651 and eager to work among the Mandaeans, also seems to have been influenced by Barnaba, and the letters of these two religious and of Matteo di San Giuseppe to Rome criticising Ignazio appear to have cast something of a shadow over perceptions there of the latter’s career in Basra, possibly contributing to his departure for Rome in October 1652. The planned migration, which appears to have been little more than a pipe dream, had in the meantime come to ­nothing. Despite, or perhaps because of these conflicts of personality at the Carmelite convent in Basra, both Ignazio di Gesú and Matteo di San Giuseppe produced a substantial corpus of written work. In addition to the Latin text which would be published as his Narratio,120 and incorporated the ‘Dialogue’, Ignazio advised the Propaganda in 1649 that he was also working on the Persian and Arabic translations of the work, together with a summary of the Diwan Abatur, and a Mandaean dictionary with aids to learning the language. Apart from these efforts related to the Mandaeans, he was in the process of completing a Persian grammar with a Latin-Persian dictionary.121

120 A useful article on the structure and some features of the content of the Narratio is given in Edmondo Lupieri ‘Friar Ignatius of Jesus and the first ‘scholarly’ book on Mandaeaism (1652)’, ARAM 16 (2004), 25–46. 121  Arch. Prop. Fide, SRCG, vol. 210, fols. 163, 176. Alonso notes that he has been able to find no reference in bibliographical sources to the translations of the Narratio, or the summary of the Diwan Abatur. The Persian grammar was separately published by the Propaganda in 1661. See Mandeos, 208.



catholic missions to the ‘st john christians’

181

As to Matteo di San Giuseppe, he appears to have initially thrown himself with enormous enthusiasm into an apostolate among the Mandaeans, organising disputations, conferences and classes aimed at their conversion. However, the first of his literary works, the ‘Introduction to the knowledge of the Christian Faith’, was a work of anti-Muslim polemic. His next work, which he described in a letter of 28 May 1650 as ‘the single most effective way of destroying, extirpating and annihilating that infidel sect known as the “St John Christians” ’ bore the title The Road to Perdition and Salvation. Reflecting on what he saw as Mandaean obstinacy, it had come to him that their strange beliefs must be based in some way on the Qur’an. His comparative study led him to claim that the three Mandaean texts The Book of John, The Book of Adam, and the Book of Zakharia are based on the Qur’an: From the chapter ‘Miriam’, their book of St John the Baptist: the ‘book of Adam’ which contains all the books of the world, and according to which theirs is the chief sect of all mankind, [the idea] taken from the chapter ‘Ta’. Their book of ‘Zakharia’ they have taken from the chapter ‘Al-Anyiba’, for instance where they say that those of their sect should not be mated to any other. From the chapter ‘Sad’ that God created the angels from serpents: and from the chapter ‘Muhammad’ that in paradise there are rivers of honey, wine, milk, etc. . . .122

It is clear that Matteo by no means believes that the Qur’an is the only influence which has contributed to Mandaean belief and practice. In The Road to Perdition and Salvation, he describes them as ‘apes’, since they ‘ape’ the customs of Turks (frequency of baptism and polygamy), Jews (seeking confirmation that the bride is a virgin before marriage), Persians (refusal to eat anything prepared by others or drinking from a stranger’s glass),123 brahmins and other pagans (the claim that their sect is superior to all others), and Christians (adoration of the Cross and celebration of Mass). Similar accusations appear in his letter of 1650, where he also describes the Mandaeans as ‘serpents’ due to their practice, in his view, of mimicry and falsehood.124 He reports that their priests receive payment for every marriage and baptism, and that they deceive the Christians, saying that 122 English translation of a section of the letter in Carmelites I, 334. 123 The strict purity laws of Zoroastrianism had no doubt influenced the Mandaeans, as they had the Persian Shi’a, and both may well be linked to Jewish codes of purity. See A. J. Wensinck, ‘The Origins of Muslim Laws of Ritual Purity’ in Gerald Hawting (ed.), The development of Islamic Ritual (Aldershot, 2006), 75–93, where he argues for a selective Jewish influence on Islam in this respect. 124 The Mandaeans appear to have been adepts at practising a form of taqiyya.

182

chapter seven

they would prefer to be Turks in order to continue with their ablutions. Tellingly, he continues ‘and if they say that they want to join with the Portuguese, this is only to free themselves from the tyranny of the Turks, and not in order to free themselves from their superstitions’. In what appears to be a new missionary approach125 to the Mandaeans, Matteo proposes that his work in Arabic should be printed and distributed among them, in order for them to discover the errors in which their priests had ensnared them. By 1651, his letters clearly indicate that Matteo no longer believes that anything can be done to convert the Mandaeans, and he has turned his attention to working among the Eastern Christians. He continued, however, to work on a treatise De Deo uno et trino, a Christian Doctrine for the St John Christians, and a Qur’anic response against the Qur’an. In the same year he also completed a Compendium of the rites and errors of the St John Christians, together with a Description or depiction of their villages and number of their families. In his final year at Basra, he dedicated himself to the study of languages, on the basis that there was no other useful occupation possible, and in a letter of April 1651, he announces that he is sending a Doctrine in Arabic and Turkish, promising that this will be followed by a dictionary in Mandaean, Arabic, Turkish, Persian and Latin.126 Despite his earlier pessimism about the possible conversion of Mandaeans in Basra, the opinion of Barnaba appears to have changed during the period when he exercised the role of superior of the mission from 1654–1660. His letters of 1655–1657 list fifty-five baptisms of Mandaeans, and he states that ‘Every day there are people coming over from St John to Christ by way of the water of baptism.’.127 This apparent change of fortunes is doubtless the result of a new Carmelite initiative in 1651. In that year two Mandaean brothers, Abdel Sayed and Abdel Ahed were despatched to Rome, where they received baptism in St John Lateran, taking the names of Giovanni Battista Orsini and Isidoro Pamphili. The Propaganda declined the Carmelites’ request that one of the brothers be 125 That of ‘literary propaganda’ according to Alonso, Mandeos, 233. 126 Arch. Gen. OCD, pluteo 241, n, doc. 5. The possibility that a manuscript pentalingual glossary in the library of the University of Leiden may be Matteo’s dictionary has been tentatively suggested by Roberta Borghero, ‘A 17th century Glossary of Mandaic’ ARAM 11 no. 2 (1999), 311–319. 127 Carmelites, I, 335. His letter of May 1657 (Arch. Gen. OCD, pluteo 242, f ) provides important information on the decree of Abbas II that the Mandeaeans should be forcibly converted to Islam, and its consequences. A passage in English translation is given in ibid., 336.



catholic missions to the ‘st john christians’

183

consecrated a bishop for the Mandaeans, but on their return in 1655 they both assisted in arranging the baptism of numerous Mandaeans.128 Any positive results were negated by the policy of forced conversion of the Mandaeans to Islam adopted soon afterwards by both ‘Abbas II and the ruler of Basra (apparently at the instigation of ‘Abbas), while it would later become clear that those who had accepted Christian baptism continued to practice their own rites, rejecting Catholic rituals for marriage and burial. Serious doubts were already being cast on the sincerity of such baptisms by Anselme de l’Annonciation in a letter of 1660,129 while the verdict in the account of Agathange de Sainte Thérèse in 1674 calls into account much of the missionary endeavours of the Carmelites among the Mandaeans. As prior of the convent he, together with the ‘President’, Toussaint de Jésus, examined the books of the convent, finding the names of several hundred Mandaean converts recorded in the register of baptisms. Turning to the register of burials, they found that not one originating from the sect had been buried by the Carmelites, nor, with one dubious exception, had any of them been joined in matrimony. Together with the fact that few Mandaean converts frequented the church, it is perhaps not surprising that ‘they were thrown into doubt and greatly marvelled’. With some concern the missionaries note that ‘some have said that it is easy to convert the Sabians and that they easily recant; but they might better have said that they are in no wise converted but easily dissemble’. The writer refers to the Mandaeans’ ‘erroneous opinion that the two or three drops of water of Christian baptism do not render invalid the immersion of the Sabians. . . . on the other hand [Christian] marriage and burial do conflict with their law. The missionaries summoned those listed as baptised to their church, preaching to them and to the other Mandaeans ‘that they should abandon their infidel creed and embrace the true faith. In a few days the church was full of ‘Christians’ and catechumens ‘and there was not one among the Sabians who did not say that he wanted to be baptised; but when warned that it was first necessary to leave the terminus a quo and then to go the terminus ad quem, there was not one to be found willing to abandon the sect of the Sabians’. The Mandaeans were summoned again to the Carmelite residence in 1679, and the true state of affairs became abundantly clear. When those

128 On the brothers, see Gulbenkian, Estudos Históricos II, 410–414; Alonso, Mandeos, 216–230. 129 Arch. Gen. OCD, pluteo 241, a.

184

chapter seven

who had been baptised were asked why they were not living a Christian life, they replied that they believed that it was sufficient for them to be Catholics to be baptised, and that afterwards they could follow their own customs. Being told that it was essential to leave one’s old beliefs when accepting a new faith, they declared that if they had known that to be the case they would not have accepted Christian baptism. Those baptised as infants declared that they had not known what they were doing, and had an absolute wish to live and die in the Mandaean fashion.130 From this time all attempts at proselytism by the Carmelites of Basra among the Mandaeans ceased, although the possibility of baptism in danger of death remained.

130 Carmelites I, 336–338 gives translated extracts of the relevant texts, taken from Hermann Gollancz (ed. and tr.), Chronicle of Events between the years 1623–1633 relating to the Settlement of the Order of Carmelites in Mesopotamia (London, 1927), see 39 et seq.

CHAPTER eight

The dispute over ecclesiastical jurisdiction in Basra A dispute over parochial jurisdiction between the Augustinian and Carmelite missionaries in Basra had arisen in the early period of the dual mission.1 Certainly from 1624 the Augustinians were claiming authority to act as parish priests, as a consequence of which the Carmelites would have needed their permission to administer the sacraments. Initially confined to the pastoral care of Portuguese and other foreign traders visiting or living in Basra, this dispute would spread after 1633 to that of Mandaean families who might migrate to Portuguese territory. The Augustinian claim was based on the appointment of their superior in Basra as parish priest by the archbishop of Goa, responsible for the ecclesiastical administration throughout the Portuguese East under the Padroado, while the Carmelites’ counter-claim of the Carmelites, under the authority of the Propaganda, was based on their reading of a Brief of Clement VIII conceding the privilege of acting as parish priests in those mission regions without a bishop.2 Initial Claim and Counterclaim As we have seen, initial relations between the missionaries in Basra were extremely cordial, although it was to be expected that the representatives of each would promote the interests of their own Order. Nevertheless the Carmelite Basílio had still accompanied the Augustinian Nicolau Perete on his visit to the pasha to request permission to found the latter’s convent, and in his letter to his Superior general which includes news of the death of Perete, he notes their friendship and describes him as ‘a fine

1 Similar disputes had arisen in Shiraz, Tatta in India, and other places where the two Orders had established missions almost contemporaneously. At the beginning of 1629, the Propaganda instructed the Augustinian Prefect in India to promote concord between his subjects and the Theatine missionaries sent to Georgia, as well as with the Carmelites of Basra. (Rome, APF Acta, vol. 6, f. 213 in Analecta Augustiniana 27 (1964), 244–245. 2 The document is reproduced in full in Isidorus a S. Andrea OCD, Historia Generalis Fratris Discalceatorum 2 vols. (Rome, 1668–1671), I, 370–372.

186

chapter eight

religious’ (‘buon religioso’).3 The two successors to the first missionary of the Augustinian Order in Basra were so grateful for the hospitality afforded them by the Carmelite that they presented him with a number of liturgical items he still lacked, and that good relations still existed even after the question of jurisdiction had been raised is confirmed by Pietro della Valle.4 The issue first appears in Rome in June and August of 1625, where the Carmelite prior of Isfahan, Próspero do Espírito Santo complained that the Augustinians in Basra, being vicars of the archbishop of Goa, are claiming to be parish priests and prohibiting the Carmelites from administering the sacraments to the Portuguese.5 It seems that no official action followed, but things were taken more seriously with the arrival in Rome of a detailed account by Basílio of difficulties in Basra.6 Having described the founding of the Basra convent, he cites the 1604 Brief of Clement VIII as the basis for his parochial ministry, having translated and displayed the same for the benefit of European visitors to the Carmelite chapel. However, the Augustinians sent from India, supported by letters patent from the prelate of Goa, had laid claim to exclusive jurisdiction. Basílio notes that he had decided to proceed diplomatically, suggesting that the three missionaries should amicably exercise their joint ministry until a decision from their superiors was received, and that such had largely been the case. He notes that when asked on what this right was based the Augustinians replied that the simple fact that the archbishop of Goa had done so demonstrated his ability to do so, without producing any documentation to support their claim. Things had recently taken a turn for the worse, as the Augustinians had threatened to excommunicate those who fulfilled their Easter obligations in the Carmelite chapel, and even to forbid the Carmelites from preaching. Even now, however, a letter from Basílio to the Carmelite general, insisting on the need for a papal decision to settle the question, states that relations between the missionaries of both Orders remain harmonious.7 Based on Basílio’s information, the Carmelite general presented a memorandum to the Propaganda in January 1626, one section of which raised the problems of parochial jurisdiction between the Augustinians 3 Arch. Gen. OCD, pluteo 241, a, doc. 6. 4 Viaggi, part III, La Persia, III, 374–375. 5 Rome, APF SRCG, vol. 209, fols. 46–52. 6 Rome, Arch. Gen. OCD, pluteo 241, g, doc. 8. 7 Ibid., doc. 9.



the dispute over ecclesiastical jurisdiction in basra

187

and Carmelites in both Tatta in Mogul India and in Basra.8 A compromise was proposed requesting that, to avoid scandal, the Augustinian general should instruct his missionaries to work with the Carmelites in these regions in a united approach (‘uno humero’).9 He promptly complied, and it is not clear whether specific difficulties led to the revival of the question of parochial jurisdiction in Basra notified in the new memorandum presented to the Propaganda by the Carmelite general in February 1628,10 rejecting the right of the archbishop of Goa to nominate vicars, as Basra is further from Goa than from Rome, and that being pagan territory the Carmelites can have resort to the privileges granted them by Clement VIII. The response of the Congregation was to order that the Augustinian general should unequivocally instruct his subjects that they should not attempt to restrict, under the pretext of being vicars of the archbishop of Goa, those activities of the Carmelites conceded by the Holy See and the Propaganda.11 Alonso suggests that it may be a counter-claim from the Augustinians to Rome, affirming the right of the Primate of the Indies to appoint vicars in Basra, which led the Propaganda to instruct a certain Feliciano de Paulis that he should conduct a search with particular diligence (‘peculiari dilgentia’) in the archives of the Chancellery and the Apostolic Registry, regarding the jurisdiction accorded to the archbishopric of Goa, in order to advise the pope if it was found that the archbishop was exceeding his authority in appointing vicars.12 Unfortunately there is no documentary indication of the results of the search.13 News of the decree of the Propaganda only reached Basílio after a considerable delay, and in February 1630 he requested a copy from his superiors in Rome. By the time this simple request had passed through the hands of the Carmelite procurator general and the secretary of the Propaganda it had become a request for an authenticated copy of the decree, and for a repetition of the order of 1628 to the Augustinian general. In Ingoli’s 8 Rome, APF SRCG, vol. 189, fols. 345, 350. 9 Ibid., Acta, vol. 4, f. 15r, no 6. 10 Ibid., vol. 388, fols. 123, 128.  11  Ibid., Acta, vol. 6, f. 28v, n. 10. 12 Ibid., f. 102v, n. 2. It may of course be that the results of the search were such that the Propaganda had no wish to divulge them, although Cerri notes (Account, 178) that ‘notwithstanding the diligence of the Register (sic.), and all the Indexes and Repertories, such is the quantity and variety of matters that the old transactions cannot be found without prodigious trouble . . . Hence it is that some decrees have been made directly opposite to the former . . .’. 13 Mandeos, 135–136.

188

chapter eight

view, this was necessary as the archbishop of Goa was daily extending his authority in the region, and the missionaries there had no way of defending themselves. Entirely on his own account, the secretary went on to propose that the customary licences should be granted to missionaries solely by the Propaganda, providing them with letters patent from the pope since ‘By this means they could resort more easily to the Congregation in order to obtain their patents, rather than to their generals, some of whom give no account of the progress of their missionaries, since they do not depend on the Congregation’.14 Ingoli’s statement is clearly inspired by the continuing attempts of the Propaganda to centralise the whole of the Church’s missionary endeavour, ignoring the earlier arrangements established under the Padroado. Good Sense Prevails – for a Time The matter was still far from settled, but the newly-elected Augustinian vicar provincial in Goa, Luís Coutinho, displayed a rare degree of good sense when he wrote in 1631 to the prior of the Order’s convent at Basra.15 His irenic approach differs notably from that of earlier and subsequent holders of the office, insisting that good will and friendship must prevail between the two Orders, and that they must not enter into litigation over vicarial jurisdiction. They may publish any patents from the archbishop of Goa which establish their claim, but are not to act to prevent anyone from going to the Carmelite church to receive the sacraments, since both Orders have equal rights, and furthermore, since the Carmelites have authority from the pope, the true prelate in infidel lands, they are equally parish priests, vicars and ministers to the Christians of the region. Those who have argued that the jurisdiction of another bishop can extend beyond his own territory, in order to compel believers to fulfil their Easter obligations in a particular church, have invented jurisdiction which does not really exist, and have caused great scandal. The Augustinians are instructed to visit the Carmelites frequently, and to offer them a warm reception in their own convent. Even if the Carmelites appear to behave unreasonably, the Augustinians are to remain patient and accepting. Particularly since

14 Rome, APF, SRCG, vol. 115, f. 419. A comment which also indicates the perceived importance of accurate information reaching the Propaganda. 15 Lisbon, ANTT, Mss da Livraria, cod. 674, fols. 277v–279r. See Mandeos, 140–141.



the dispute over ecclesiastical jurisdiction in basra

189

they live in Muslim lands they must give every demonstration of unity and friendship. No further complaints arise during Coutinho’s tenure. Unfortunately his successor did not share his enlightened approach, although the renewed dispute now centred on which Order should have responsibility for the Mandaeans who were to be transferred to Duba. The viceroy of India had given responsibility for the pastoral care of all Mandaeans established in Portuguese territory to the Carmelites when the agreement confirming their grant of land was signed in 1633. The letter to him questioning this decision from the new vicar provincial of the Augustinians, Gaspar de Amorim, is dated only one day later (20 March 1633). Amorim’s defence of the rights of the Augustinians to the Mandaean mission is based on three things. Firstly, their foundation in Basra was always intended for the spiritual assistance and evangelisation of the Mandaeans on account of plans for a foundation at Hawizah in the time of Aleixo de Meneses; the transfer of their original foundation in Basra to the Mandaean district; the opening of a school for Mandaean children to teach them Arabic and Christian doctrine; the act of obedience to the pope given by their leaders in the Augustinian church into the hands of the Prior; the licence obtained from the pasha in 1628 to permit the Mandaeans to freely communicate with the Augustinians; the baptisms administered to Mandaeans not just in Basra, but also in Duba among the group who travelled to Goa to negotiate with the viceroy. Secondly, the Augustinians had played a substantial part in the planned Mandaean migration, since they had been the first to negotiate the affair with the viceroy, through Coutinho, the then vicar provincial, they had provided hospitality to the first exploratory group, they had obtained permission from the pasha for the Mandaeans to leave Basra. Thirdly, they were the only priests who had laboured in the Persian Gulf for some sixty years, they had been specifically entrusted with that mission by Dom Sebastião of Portugal, during this time they had performed exceptional services to God and king. To Carmelite counter-claims that they themselves had been in Persia since 1607, that for some years they had had a convent in Hormuz, and were also working in Basra, all based in the privileges accorded them by the Brief of Clement VIII of 1604, which allowed them to act as parish priests in those pagan mission fields where there was no ordinary, as was the case in Basra, Amorim declared that if they did indeed have such a

190

chapter eight

document, it must have been obtained under false pretences, and that the pope cannot have been properly informed, since it had never been the practice to grant privileges to one Order which prejudiced another. Importantly, no privilege was valid in the territories of the Catholic king which had not been confirmed in the Madrid chancellery. Amorim used every possible argument in support of the Augustinian claim, but failed to achieve the desired result. The viceroy ordered a copy of his letter to be sent to the Carmelite visitor general in Goa, to allow him to reply to the points raised. He wrote accepting or rejecting the various points, and a document containing both letters side by side was sent to Rome for adjudication.16 Meanwhile, a high-powered council of the civil and ecclesiastical authorities in Goa was convened under the chairmanship of the viceroy to decide the matter, and this confirmed that the Carmelites should have exclusive rights to the Mandaean mission in Duba. The verdict was notified to the Propaganda by their agent in Goa, G. A. Antica. The Carmelite vicar general, pleased with the result, but fearful of reprisals by the Augustinians, wrote to the king of Spain in September 1633, a letter not lacking in ingenuity, as shown by the passage in which he speaks of ‘. . . reserving the effect of this work (through Divine Providence) to the Discalced Carmelites, since this people is descended in matters of religion from our Holy Father the Prophet Elias, since they had their origins at the foot of Mount Carmel itself, and were governed for many years in complete accordance with the same way of life and divine worship which first inspired our own Order.’17 The Mandaeans had now been co-opted as proto-Carmelites, whose spiritual welfare must therefore be entrusted to the current members of the Order! The Augustinians Take the Offensive: The Question of the Jurisdiction of Goa The dispute would re-emerge in the time of Stefano di Gesú as Carmelite prior in Basra (1636–1640). An oblique reference to it can recognised in his letters of February 1637 to the secretary of the Propaganda and to its prefect, Cardinal Antonio Barberini, in which he requests an extension of ear16 Rome, APF SRCG, vol. 194, fols. 20–33 (Italian translation), fols. 34–39 (Portuguese original). Amorim’s arguments are summarised in Mandeos, 142–144. 17 Ibid., vol. 105, fols. 40–43.



the dispute over ecclesiastical jurisdiction in basra

191

lier faculties to dispense from certain matrimonial impediments, ‘in view of the fact that all the weddings take place in our church’. The tension is more explicit in another letter to Cardinal Barberini, where he requests that the canonical faculties requested earlier from the Holy Office should specifically state that the Carmelite church is a parish church,18 since ‘the Augustinians say that theirs is the parish church, having been established by the Lord Archbishop [of Goa], regarding whose jurisdiction, I would like to know if it extends to these Muslim lands’.19 The Augustinians now took the initiative, alleging a number of cases of violation of their rights had occurred in 1638 and 1639 during the tenure of Stefano di Gesú, when the situation had so deteriorated that the Augustinians were considering a formal complaint. According to them, it was no longer the Augustinians who were preventing the Carmelites from exercising their apostolate, but they themselves who were hampered and impeded in discharging their legitimate functions.20 The Augustinian prior made representations to the Carmelite visitor general on the latter’s visit to Basra in March 1639, stating that thus far he had tolerated the situation rather than cause scandal to the Muslims. The Carmelite responded that he would deal with the matter on his return to Rome and appears to have left matters at that. However, mention of Rome seems to have suggested to José da Presentação the idea of gathering together the evidence on which the Augustinian claim to jurisdiction was based, for submission to the Holy See. To this end he obtained a number of testimonials 18 It is interesting to note that before his appointment in February 1636, Stefano di Gesú signed himself in the marriage register as ‘vice parish priest’, and, after taking office, as ‘parish priest’ in the register of baptisms of 1637 and 1638. See the biographical entry in Carmelites, II, 1009, where he is described as ‘Vicar of Basra’ from early February 1636 to the end of July, 1640. 19 The extent of such jurisdiction, and whether it extended to those territories not directly under Portuguese control, is, as the earlier search ordered by the Propaganda had indicated, the central issue. Silva Rego suggests that the idea that the Padroado should be restricted solely to those regions politically subject to Portugal took increasing hold in the Propaganda during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. See António da Silva Rego, O Padroado Português no Oriente e a sua Historiografia, 21. The intention of the Brief of Gregory XVI, Multa praeclare (1838), was precisely to extinguish the rights of the Padroado in those regions not under direct Portuguese control. 20 Lisbon, BNL, Fundo Geral, 1498, fols. 328r–337v. A parallel to the dispute over jurisdiction in Basra between the Augustinians and Carmelites would arise in 1642 as a result of the actions of the French Carmelite bishop of Babylon, Bernard de S. Thérèse, who insisted that in Holy Week of that year Christians could only perform their Easter duties of confession and communion in the Carmelite convent, and that as this was to be his cathedral, only the Carmelites could hold the office of parish priest. See Alonso, ‘El P. José del Rosário’, 279.

192

chapter eight

regarding the activities of the Augustinians in Basra,21 composed an account of the recent apostolate of the Basra mission,22 and produced a lengthy memorial criticising the behaviour of the Carmelites who refuse to accept the appointment by the archbishop of Goa of the Augustinian priors as parish priests, Pais dos Cristãos, and vicars forane.23 It is likely that this material was taken to Rome by the two Augustinian procurators charged by the Indian Congregation with pleading before the Roman court for the separation of the Augustinian vice-province of the East Indies from the mother province of Portugal, and that they presented a memorial to the Propaganda, requesting a judgement that the Carmelites of Basra had no juridical rights as parish priests, since this had been held by the Augustinians since the foundation of the mission, granted canonically by the archbishop of Goa. Consequently, the Carmelites should be required to cease molesting the Augustinians in the discharge of their duties.24 The legal study accompanying the memorial sought to prove two things: that the privilege so often referred to by the Carmelites was not in fact a special concession, and that similar concessions had been granted to the Augustinians and other Orders in infidel lands. In support of this a large number of papal Bulls and Briefs are cited – from the time of Innocent IV (1253–1254) until the current pontificate of Urban VIII. These were in favour not only of the medieval Dominican and Franciscan missionaries, but also the Servites, Carmelites and Augustinians; not just in favour of the kings of Portugal but also those of Spain, both before and after the union of the crowns; not only in the East Indies but also in the West Indies; that the disputed jurisdiction properly belonged to the Augustinians, having been granted by the archbishop of Goa, who had the necessary faculties. That the archbishop had jurisdiction over Basra is claimed by an examination of the history of the dioceses of Goa and Cochin, which from the time of their creation had shared all the territory from the Cape of Good Hope as far as the distant lands of China and Japan. While the diocese of Cochin had been successively sub-divided towards the East with the creation of the dioceses of Cranganor, Meliapur, Malacca, Macau and Japan, the diocese of Goa had remained undivided to the West. To Goa belonged all the coastal regions conquered by the Portuguese, or generally speaking, all the area understood as under its 21   Mandeos, 171–174. 22 Lisbon, BNL, Fundo Geral, 1498, fols. 328r–337v. 23 Ibid., fols. 338r–348v. 24 Ibid., f. 317r–v.



the dispute over ecclesiastical jurisdiction in basra

193

political influence.25 Such was claimed to be the case of Basra, virtually a maritime city, situated at the extremity of the Persian Gulf, regularly visited by the Portuguese ships of the Estado da India, and whose coastline had a number of Portuguese military forts.26 Surprisingly, the archives of the Propaganda provide no clue to any decision on the question. In fact, the only positive step it had taken in the period was the appointment on 18 August 1638 of Bernard de Sainte Thérèse, a French Discalced Carmelite, to the newly created bishopric of Babylon. The letter of recommendation sent to a number of senior clerics in the Middle East following his appointment makes it clear that its purpose was to provide a bishop to whom the missionaries of ‘Babylon, Persia, Georgia, Assyria, Basra, Syria and Egypt’ (itself no inconsiderable ecclesiastical jurisdiction) might have recourse. This measure was largely ineffective, due not merely to the fact that the appointment was ‘without prejudice to the proper exemptions of the regulars’, but also to the fact that neither Bernard nor those appointed to succeed him spent much time in the see.27 Subsequent to this appointment, and clearly having in mind the legal counter-claims of the Augustinians, only in 1644 would a clear statement of the case and a desire to end the matter appear. As the eighth point in secretary Ingoli’s presentation to the session of the Propaganda convened on July 5, 1644,28 he states in his reference to the potential extent of the claimed jurisdiction of the See of Goa, reflecting his impatience over the continuing dispute: The missionaries of Persia, Babylon and Basra, complaining of the vicars and ministers sent by the Archbishop of Goa to those regions with ordinary jurisdiction and faculties to administer the sacraments, on the pretext that those kingdoms fall within the agreement made in the time of Alexander VI between the kings of Spain and Portugal, petition for a declaration that the said archbishop cannot, beyond those regions subject to the King of Portugal, exercise any jurisdiction in those parts, especially since now the pope has created the Bishop of Babylon, with his residence in Persia, with jurisdiction over the whole of Persia and Basra, and given that the division refers only to the temporal estate, being made to end certain disagreements which had arisen between those kings by their promiscuous conquest of

25 In fact the diocese of Goa as erected by Clement VII in the Consistory of 31 January 1533, did indeed stretch from the Cape of Good Hope to China. 26 Lisbon, BNL, Fundo Geral, 1498, fols. 320–326. 27 Rome, APF Lettere, vol. 18, fols. 104v–105r. 28 Ibid., SRCG, vol. 192, f. 53r–v, in Mandeos, 180.

194

chapter eight infidel kingdoms, and finally, given that such division, if extended beyond the Indies and the New World (since it is determined by a line which the Spanish call that ‘of demarcation’, which goes from pole to pole and hence divides the terrestrial and maritime world in two), the archbishop of Goa, by virtue of such division, understood in this way, would have jurisdiction over half the earth.

Ingoli is referring to the agreement known as the Treaty of Tordesillas, varying the division of the non-European world between Spain and Portugal established in the Bull Inter caetera of Alexander VI in 1493. The treaty stated that: a boundary or straight line be determined and drawn north and south, from pole to pole, on the said ocean sea, from the Arctic to the Antarctic pole. This boundary or line shall be drawn straight, as aforesaid, at a distance of three hundred and seventy leagues west of the Cape Verde Islands, being calculated by degrees, or by any other manner as may be considered the best and readiest, provided the distance shall be no greater than above said. And all lands, both islands and mainlands, found and discovered already, or to be found and discovered hereafter, by the said King of Portugal and by his vessels on this side of the said line and bound determined as above, toward the east, in either north or south latitude, on the eastern side of the said bound provided the said bound is not crossed, shall belong to, and remain in the possession of, and pertain forever to, the said King of Portugal and his successors. And all other lands, both islands and mainlands, found or to be found hereafter, discovered or to be discovered hereafter, which have been discovered or shall be discovered by the said King and Queen of Castile, Aragon, etc., and by their vessels, on the western side of the said bound, determined as above, after having passed the said bound toward the west, in either its north or south latitude, shall belong to, and remain in the possession of, and pertain forever to, the said King and Queen of Castile, Leon, etc., and to their successors.29

Since the Propaganda had more pressing matters to decide, the issue was not addressed, and no definitive solution offered. It would in fact only be settled by the closure in 1650 of the Augustinian mission, already in decline from 1640. As Alonso points out, only an expert in the canon law of the period could hope to determine the validity of the arguments put forward by the two sides,30 and the fact that no definitive judgement is recorded appears to suggest that even the canonists of the time found the problem intractable. Clearly the central issue was the extent of the 29 See the collection of studies in Tordesilhas: a Partilha do Mundo (= Oceanos 18, Lisbon), 1994. 30 Mandeos, 178, n. 40.



the dispute over ecclesiastical jurisdiction in basra

195

jurisdiction held by the archbishop of Goa in lands which fell within the ‘sphere of influence’ of the Portuguese crown, rather than being in its possession.31 The fact that the Propaganda found it advisable to order a search of the archives to determine the extent of this authority is perhaps an indication that they were not entirely convinced by the Carmelites’ arguments. On the other hand, the pacific approach of Luís de Coutinho goes a long way to recognising exactly those claims. The claims of the Padroado to jurisdiction over Basra were effectively of no consequence after the departure of the Augustinians, but throughout its territories, and for centuries to come, the Portuguese crown would continue to defend the rights granted to it in perpetuity under the Padroado, resisting the centralising policies of the Propaganda.

31 Jacques, De Castro Marim, 94–95, briefly refers to the Portuguese juridical notion of a rei vizinho (‘neighbouring king’), equivalent in his view to modern notions of a ‘zone of influence’, and seen as sufficient basis for the establishment of a right of patronage over such territory. While the example quoted by Jacques refers specifically to Siam, with mention of Cambodia and Java, the generally good relations between the Portuguese and the semi-autonomous rulers of Basra may justify its inclusion in the same scheme.

chapter nine

The Martyrdom of Queen Ketevan and the Augustinian mission to Georgia Attempts by the Augustinians to found a mission to Georgia as early as 1604/5 would be frustrated by political circumstances, but their establishment of a foundation at Shiraz in 1623 would prove fortuitous in this regard, allowing them to become acquainted with Queen Ketevan of the Georgian kingdom of Kakheti, imprisoned in that city by order of ‘Abbas, and they would be present at the scene of her martyrdom in the following year. This combination of circumstances would finally allow them to realise their goal of a Georgian mission, and opened another chapter in the history of the Portuguese Augustinians. Georgian Christianity and Roman Catholic Missionary Presence Like the vast majority of Georgians, Ketevan was a member of the Georgian Church, a member of the Eastern Orthodox family of Churches which accept the teachings of Chalcedon. It lays claim to apostolic foundation, although we are on firmer historical ground with the claim that St Nino of Cappadocia preached Christianity in Eastern Georgia and that it was adopted as the state religion by King (later Saint) Mirian and Queen (later Saint) Nana in 337. Conversion of the West Georgian kingdom was more gradual, with Christianity being officially embraced in 523. The Georgian Church was originally dependent on the see of Antioch, but claims autocephaly from the fifth century, led by the Catholicos Patriarch of all Georgia.1 The most detailed history of the Georgian Church remains that of Michel Tamarati (= Tamarasvili), L’Eglise Géorgienne des Origines jusqu’a nos jours (Rome, 1910). Tamarasvili was a Georgian Catholic priest whose fierce opposition to Russian annexation of the country and interference in 1 Bernard Dupuy, ‘L’Autocéphalie de l’Eglise de Géorgie’, Istina 35 (1990), 277–287; Michael Tarchnisvili, Patrick Viscuso (tr.), ‘The Origin and Development of the Ecclesiastical Autocephaly of Georgia’, Greek Orthodox Theological Review 46/1–2 (2001), 89–111.

198

chapter nine

its religious affairs made it necessary for him to leave Georgia. Working in Rome he first produced a history of the Georgian Catholic Church, Istoria kat’olikobisa k’art’velt’a scioris, (Tbilisi, 1902), before publishing his scholarly monograph on the Georgian Church. The Russian authorities clearly continued to monitor his activities even in exile: the copy of L’Eglise Géorgienne in the library of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, bears the following legend in pencil on the flyleaf, ‘All available copies were bought up by Russian Embassy in Rome. This is one of the few which escaped’. The title section of the spine has also been removed, perhaps to render the book anonymous.2 Georgian rulers had long maintained contact with European rulers, including the papacy, and relations between Rome and the ecclesiastical and political rulers of Georgia were generally positive. An exchange of letters between Queen Rusudan (1223–1245) and Honorius III and his successor Gregory IX resulted in the presence of Franciscan and Dominican missionaries in Georgia between the thirteenth and sixteenth centuries. With the Bull Rex Regum altissimus of 1328, John XXII, then in Avignon, suppressed the bishopric of Smyrna and transferred it to Tiflis. As a consequence of the constant turmoil affecting the country the see became a titular one, with the bishop unable to reside in Tiflis. The last of fourteen bishops of Tiflis was appointed on 29 April 1505, and it is unclear what Catholic episcopal oversight if any existed in Georgia before the country was officially placed under the jurisdiction of the Propaganda in 1633. The return of Catholic missionaries to Georgia in the seventeenth century was led by the Augustinians based in Persia, almost contemporaneously with the appearance there of Theatines sent by the Propaganda. The Portuguese Augustinians Belchior dos Anjos and Guilherme de Santo Agostinho had first raised the possibility of establishing a mission of the Order in Georgia during the embassy of Luis Pereira de Lacerda 2 The information in Tamarati’s book may be usefully supplemented by the more recent Nodar Gabasvili, Laura Branca (ed. and tr.), La Georgia e Roma: duemila anni di dialogo (Vatican City, 2003). This continues the history of the Georgian Church into the present day, and in 119–122 the author devotes a short chapter to the life of Tamarati. A useful chronological summary of the history of Georgia and its relations with the Holy See is given in 173–181. See also Stephen H. Rapp Jr, ‘Georgian Christianity’ in Ken Parry (ed.), The Blackwell companion to Eastern Christianity (Oxford, 2007), 137–155; C. Toumanoff, ‘Introduction to Christian Caucasian History’, Traditio, 15 (1959), 1–106; Christian Caucasian History (Washington DC, 1963); ‘Christian Caucasia between Byzantium and Iran’, Traditio 10 (1954), 109–189; Michel van Esbroeck, ‘L’Eglise Géorgienne des Origines au Moyen Age’, Bedi Kartlisa 40 (1984), 186–199; id., ‘On the Historical Background of the early sources regarding the churches in the Caucasus’, St Nersess Theological Review 9 (2004), 5–24.



the martyrdom of queen ketevan

199

(1604–1605). Belchior describes a meeting with Alexander II king (1574– 1605) of the Georgian province of Kakheti,3 during which Alexander was accompanied by two Georgian archbishops and two monks. During later discussions on religion conducted through the medium of an interpreter with the senior of the Georgian clerics, likely the metropolitan of Alaverdi, the Augustinians, somewhat surprisingly found no error on the part of the Georgians regarding their understanding of Purgatory or the procession of persons in the Trinity,4 although, significantly, the writer admits that their interpreter struggled to translate the terms used. Encouraged by their acknowledgment that the pope was supreme head of the Church and vicar of Christ on earth, the missionaries asked whether, if they accompanied Alexander on his planned return to Georgia, they would be allowed to establish a Latin mission and church there, ‘in order that they could see our customs and ceremonies, and to discuss these things, in order that they might appreciate the things of the Catholic Church, and become closer to it’. The archbishop replied that if they sought the obedience of the Georgian Church to Rome, they must raise this with the patriarch, but as to the rest, he would be happy to welcome them himself and to allow them to build a church in the Roman manner, subject only to the agreement of the king.5 Gouveia provides the additional information that it was Belchior dos Anjos who planned to travel to Georgia on this venture, but that he was forbidden to do so by Lacerda.6

3 With Kartli, one of the two kingdoms of East Georgia, after the division of the Georgian kingdom in the mid thirteenth century. Re-unified under George V, ‘the Brilliant’ (1330–1346), Georgia again divided into a number of autonomous kingdoms and principalities under Constantine II (1478–1505). At the beginning of the seventeenth century, West Georgia consisted of the kingdom of Imereti, and the principalities of Mengrelia (Ashkhazeti), Guria, and Meskheti (Samtzkhe). For a brief overview of the geo-political situation of Georgia in this period see Alonso, Misioneros 14–18, citing A Gugushvili ‘Ethnographical and historical division of Georgia’, Georgica fasc. 2–3 (1936), 53–71. 4 Together with papal primacy, the principal points of doctrinal divergence between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. Belchior notes that it was the papal ambassador, Francisco da Costa, who had provided information on the ‘heterodox’ belief of the Georgians. Significantly, no Christological differences are uncovered here, unlike the case of the Armenians. 5 These details are included in Relação das Cousas da Cristandade que vimos na Persia e na Armenia, Lisbon, ANTT, Livraria, Miscelâneas, MS 1113, fols 125v–128 (new foliation 219–223r), given in Gulbenkian, L’Ambassade 81–94 (French translation), 143–151 (Portuguese transcription), see 150–151. 6 Gouveia, Relaçam f. 189, provides the additional information that while Belchior was prepared to accompany Alexander on his return to Georgia in 1605, Lacerda was unwilling to allow him to undertake the journey.

200

chapter nine

In a report to the Spanish king in 1614,7 Belchior tells of having informed Aleixo de Meneses in Goa of his meeting with the Georgians, and of how the archbishop of Goa instructed him, on his return to Persia in 1608–9, to obtain permission from the Georgian patriarch for Meneses himself to come and live in Georgia.8 The patriarch and his bishops had replied that if he had the consent of ‘Abbas, they would welcome him with open arms, as long as he did not attempt to prevent them following their ancient ­customs.9 Belchior informed the king that he had sent this reply back to Goa at the end of 1610, just as Meneses was preparing to leave India for Portugal.10 He also noted that while ‘Abbas had no great objection to the missionaries visiting Georgia, having in fact sent him there himself on one occasion, and another unnamed Augustinian on another,11 it was unlikely that he would allow them to settle there permanently, as he was bound to suspect that they would persuade the Georgians to refuse to pay the annual tribute to Persia of boys and girls, who were then raised as Muslims in order to serve in the army and the harems of ‘Abbas and his nobles. Belchior suggested to the king that in view of the friendship between Philip and ‘Abbas, he should request the shah to allow two Augustinian missionaries to establish themselves in Georgia. Nothing would come from this proposal, nor would projected missions of the Jesuits and Dominicans to West Georgia in 1615 and 1616 respectively come to anything.12 Nevertheless, the Augustinians of Isfahan held high

 7 See Zacarias Novoa OSA, ‘El M. R. P. Fr. Melchor de los Angeles del Orden de San Agustin, primeiro misionero de Persia’, Archivo Agustiniano, 45 (1951), 261–275, 264–5.  8 Meneses’ personal interest in the Georgian mission is referred to in a letter of February 1608 from the Augustinians of Isfahan to Paul V (Rome, ASV, Borghese, Series II, vol. 20, fols 143–145, 148–152) given in Alonso, ‘Due lettere’, 194.  9 This may be a reference to Meneses’ efforts among the St Thomas Christians in India, or to the concerns of the Armenians of Isfahan in 1607. 10 On Meneses’ resignation from the see of Goa, and his return voyage to Europe in autumn of 1610, see the report of the Council of Portugal in November 1608 (Simancas, AGS, Secretarías Provinciales, cod. 1479, fols 301–304) in Carlos Alonso, ‘Documentación inédita para una biografía de Fr. Alejo de Meneses O.S.A., Arzobispo de Goa, 1595–1612’, Analecta Augustiniana 27 (1964), 263–333, see 318–322. 11  Doubtless Guilherme de Santo Agostinho. The Carmelite Juan Tadeo de San Eliseo in his testimony on Guilherme following the latter’s martyrdom in 1614 (Rome, APF, SRCG, vol. 189, fols 280–281, published in Carlos Alonso ‘Misiones en Georgia’, 228–232 notes that when passing through Georgia on the way to Russia in 1611 he was pressed to ensure the Augustinian’s safe return. 12 Projected missions of the Jesuits and Dominicans in Western Georgia, in 1615 and 1616 respectively, would also come to nothing. See Tamarati, L’Eglise, 490–498.



the martyrdom of queen ketevan

201

hopes for the success of a mission in Georgia on the basis of the reports of Belchior dos Anjos and Guilherme de Santo Agostinho.13 These hopes were boosted by the submission to Rome signed in the Augustinian convent of Isfahan in 1613, only days before the Augustinian and Carmelite missionaries temporarily abandoned their convents there, by Manutchar II, ruler (1582–1614) of the west Georgian principality of Meskheti or Samtzkhe, together with the heads of his household and his chaplain.14 All now seemed prepared for an Augustinian mission to that region of Georgia, again with Guilherme de Santo Agostinho as the principal protagonist, and with every prospect of union with Rome.15 In fact, due to the death of Manutchar in 1614 and the abrupt change in the political climate, it would be only in 1628 that Ambrósio dos Anjos would found an Augustinian convent in the Georgian town of Gori, although credit for an initial attempt to establish a missionary presence for the Order in Georgia some twenty-four years earlier must go to Belchior dos Anjos and Guilherme de Santo Agostinho. In fact, this new mission would arise not from the earlier friendly contacts described, but in connection with the captivity in Persia of the mother of Teimuraz,16 ruler of the Eastern Georgian principality of Kakheti. The foundation of the Augustinian mission in Georgia, as a direct consequence of the death of Queen Ketevan of Georgia,17 martyred in Shiraz in 1624 on the instructions of Shah ‘Abbas I, will be examined here principally in the light of an account written by a Portuguese Augustinian 13 As is clear from the mention of Guilherme’s activity among the Georgians in a letter from the Augustinians of Isfahan to Pope Paul V in 1613, Rome, ASV, Borghese, III, vol. 19–I, fols 62–62, given in ‘Misiones en Georgia’ 221–222. 14 Alonso notes (Misioneros, 37) that the whereabouts of this document is unknown, but the act of obedience and the hopes to which it gave rise are described in the account presented to the Spanish court by Belchior dos Anjos in 1614 and published by Novoa to which we have already referred. See Analecta Augustiniana, 45 (1951), 264–268. Alonso details the diplomatic activity in Madrid to which this account gave rise (Misioneros, 36–40), while noting that this had little if any impact on the situation of the Persian missions. 15 Ibid., 222. 16 Intermittently ruler of Kakheti (and also of Kartli from 1629–1633) between 1605 and 1648. On the complex history of Teimuraz see W. E. D. Allen, ‘Clash of Empires: the Peregrinations of Taymuraz I (1586–1663)’ in idem, A history of the Georgian People from the beginning down to the Russian Conquest in the Nineteenth Century (London, 1932), 161–173. 17 Widow of David I, eldest son of Alexander II (1574–1605), who briefly seized control of Kakheti from his father before his own sudden death in 1602. In 1605, Alexander II and his son Giorgi were murdered by Giorgi’s brother, Constantine, who had embraced Islam. Constantine sent their heads to ‘Abbas, and their bodies were interred in the cathedral of Alaverdi. Six months later, Ketevan led a popular revolt against Constantine, and succeeded in obtaining power for her son Teimuraz I, with herself as regent.

202

chapter nine

­ issionary present at her death and published in full only in 1982 by m Roberto Gulbenkian. The Relação Verdadeira, an Augustinian Eyewitness Account of the Martyrdom of Queen Ketevan In the chapter-house of the Augustinian Convento da Graça in Lisbon, there is a remarkable series of azulejos dating from the early part of the eighteenth century. These spectacular panels of blue and white tiles depict scenes from the history of the Augustinian missions of the late sixteenth and seventeenth century, and include a nine metre long triptych illustrating scenes from the life and martyrdom of Queen Ketevan of Georgia at Shiraz in 1624, and the transport by Ambrósio dos Anjos of her relics to her homeland in order to deliver them to her son King Teimuraz, ruler at the time of Kakheti, one of the two kingdoms of East Georgia.18 The relationship of the Augustinian missionaries with Queen Ketevan, and the story of the diplomatic visit to Persia which would end in her martyrdom after many years of imprisonment, are detailed in a manuscript of 1627 by the Portuguese Augustinian Friar Ambrósio dos Anjos19 in the National Archive of Portugal: The true account of the Glorious Martyrdom of the Most Serene Queen Ketevan Dedopoli 20 in Shiraz Metropolis of the Kingdom of Persia by Order of Shah ‘Abbas, on the Twenty-Second day of September 21 in the year 1624. Written by Friar Ambrósio dos Anjos, Religious of the Order of our Father, Saint Augustine, then present at the Convent of the said Order in the city of Shiraz.22 This long-forgotten record sheds new 18  See Gulbenkian, L’Ambassade facing 57 et seq. 19  Born in Lisbon João Pinto, he entered the Order in November 1611, aged eighteen or nineteen, making his religious profession in the following year. Having been ordained priest, in 1618 he accompanied the embassy of Don García de Silva y Figueroa to Persia (Alonso, Misioneros, 142). He spent seven years in Isfahan, and two in Shiraz and Georgia. In 1640 he presented an account of labours in the missions of Persia and Georgia. Preparing to return to Georgia, he perished by shipwreck on a journey between Rome and Lisbon (Alonso, ‘Misiones en Georgia’, 277). The biography given by Ave Maria (Documentação 11, 402–403 erroneously has him returning to India with the mission of 1646. 20 A mis-rendering of ‘dedofali’ signifying ‘queen’ in Georgian. 21  Georgian accounts, ignoring the reformed Gregorian calendar used by the Portuguese, date the death of Ketevan to 12 September, the equivalent of 22 September in the Julian calendar. The Orthodox Church celebrates her feast on 13 September. See Isaac E. Lambertsen (tr.), ‘The Suffering of the Glorious Greatmartyr Queen Ketevan of Kakheti, whose memory the Holy Church celebrates on the 13th of September’, Living Orthodoxy, 16/5 (1994), 3–12. 22 Relação verdadeira do glorioso martìrio da Serenissima Rainha Gativanda de dopoli em Xira metropoli do Reino da Persia por mandado do Xa ‘Abbas no ano de 1624 a 22 Setembro.



the martyrdom of queen ketevan

203

light on the reasons for the Queen’s captivity in Persia, describes her relationship with the Catholic missionaries, her death and burial, and the recovery and subsequent dispersal of her relics, and is important for providing in its final section valuable clarification on disputed questions of Georgian history.23 Despite being given as an eye-witness account it must, however, be read with the customary degree of caution, given the Augustinian project to argue that Ketevan died a Catholic martyr and, as ever, to depict the actions of the members of the Order in the best possible light in order to establish a mission of the Order in Georgia. As noted below, the presence of standard features of traditional martyrologies, and of variant accounts of the queen’s death, is an indication that the writer has exercised a degree of literary freedom. Indeed, despite her earlier military prowess, the detailed depiction of Ketevan’s physical appearance and noble features are also such as to confirm the excellence of her spiritual disposition. Despite this there is no reason to doubt that the writer knew the queen personally, although the Augustinians themselves would later have to admit that his claim of her conversion to Catholicism was unfounded. The Relação Verdadeira contains six chapters: The occasion which brought the said Queen Ketevan to the Kingdom of Persia; The captivity in which Queen Ketevan was held for several years in Persia; The cause of the martyrdom of the most Serene Queen; The glorious martyrdom and precious death of Queen Ketevan; The initial burial given to the body of the glorious martyr and her translation to the monastery of our Father, Saint Augustine; The punishment inflicted on Shah ‘Abbas for his martyrdom of this queen.

Escrito pello Pe. Fr. Ambrósio dos Anjos Religioso da Ordem de nosso Padre Sancto Agostinho então estante no convento da dita ordem na cidade de Xiras (Lisbon, ANTT Livraria Ms. No. 731 fls. 428–438). The version of the Relação verdadeira held by ANTT postdates by more than two years a copy dating from early 1625, in the Biblioteca de Ajuda in Lisbon, MS-50-V-34, Papéis Históricos-Impressos e Manuscritos 1581–1708, fols 365–382v, see Francisco G. Cunha Leão (ed.), O Índico na Biblioteca de Ajuda (Lisbon, 1998), 268), but Gulbenkian (Relation Véritable, 251) argues for the greater historical interest offered by the additional material included in the later version, which also has in its favour the fact that every page has been initialled and notarised in the episcopal chancery of Goa. The annotated text is published in French translation as Roberto Gulbenkian ‘Relation véritable du Glorieux Maryre de la Reine Kétévan de Géorgie’ Bedi Kartlisa-revue de kartvélologie, 40 (1982), 31–97 cf. 34–35. Portuguese, Russian and Georgian translations of the Relation Véritable were published by Gulbenkian in 1985 and 1987, and the French text is reproduced in Estudos Históricos, vol. II, 245–324. References herein are to the latter text. 23 As for example the dating after the death of Ketevan of the defeat at Martkopi of the Persian army sent to Georgia under the leadership of the General-in-chief Kortchika Khan, and the death of the latter. See Relation Véritable, 319–323.

204

chapter nine

Our author begins by relating the reasons for the presence of the queen in Persia. In this account, when Shah ‘Abbas I threatened invasion in 1613, the ruler of the Georgian kingdom of Kakheti (1606–1648) and vassal of the shah, Teimuraz I, determined to send an ambassador to treat with the Persian ruler for clemency. The choice fell on his mother, Queen Ketevan, who accepted the embassy without hesitation.24 Accompanied by two sons of Teimuraz, Alexander and Leo, the courageous queen set off for the court of the shah where she interceded skilfully on behalf of her country.25 ‘Abbas acceded to her requests and allowed her to leave for Georgia. On her journey home, however, the Georgian party was taken prisoner by a troop of Persian cavalry,26 and the queen imprisoned in the city of Shiraz, while her grandsons were delivered to the viceroy of the city with the order that they should be castrated and made eunuchs.27 While Ambrósio dos Anjos does not explain the shah’s change of heart, the Persian chronicler Iskandar Beg Munshi claims that while at first ‘Abbas was prepared to accede to the queen’s request, a certain Bograt Mirza, a Georgian who was a permanent member of the shah’s entourage, revealed to ‘Abbas, through a combination of loyalty and fear, the contents of a letter he had received from Teimuraz which contradicted the protestations of loyalty made by Ketevan. The shah became furious, ordering the arrest of the queen and her grandsons, and placing the Georgian nobles at his court under close surveillance. For his part, the letter of January 1629 to 24 Alternative versions of events have the queen and her sons captured by Shah ‘Abbas (so Tamarati, L’Eglise géorgienne, 482), or demanded as hostages by him (so the nineteenth century writer whose account forms part of Nino Salia, ‘Le Martyre de la Reine Kethevan de Géorgie “Notes de voyage en Kakhétie”’ (in Russian), Bedi-Kartlisa, Revue de Kartvélologie, 1 (1957), 55–57. Pietro della Valle likewise states that Ketevan and her grandchildren were imprisoned in Shiraz as hostages, and that Teimuraz’ sons were forced to embrace Islam, see Pietro della Valle, Les Fameux Voyages de Pietro della Valle 8 vols, E. Carneau and F. Le Comte (trs) (Rouen, 1745), vol. 3, 355–356. While in Fahrabad, Pietro della Valle was shown a painting of Ketevan kneeling at the feet of ‘Abbas. 25 Relation Véritable, 285–288. 26 Iskandar Beg Munshi, History of Shah ‘Abbas the Great, 2 vols., tr. Roger M. Savory (Tehran, 1971), see II, 1083, The letter from Teimuraz to Urban VIII of January 1629 (the Italian translation of the Georgian original, Rome, APF, Lettere del Levante e dell’Asia, vol. 115, f. 396, is given in English in Tamarati, L’Eglise Géorgienne, 512–513) claims that it was the zeal of his mother in demanding that all the high-ranking Georgian prisoners at ‘Abbas’ court should be allowed to return both to their Christian religion and to their homeland which caused her imprisonment and death. 27 Their mutilation appears not to have taken place immediately, and may have been carried out at Isfahan as late as 1620. Alexander is said to have died as a consequence, while Leo, driven mad, survived to follow a life of notable wickedness. See the accounts of Arakel of Tabriz in Bournoutian, The History I, 110 and of Wakhushti in Marie Felicité Brosset, Histoire de la Géorgie . . . 5 vols in two parts (St Petersburg, 1849–1858), Part II, 165.



the martyrdom of queen ketevan

205

Urban VIII, written by Teimuraz after the Augustinians had returned his mother’s relics to Georgia, the composition of which may well have been influenced by the Augustinians, claims that it was the zeal of his mother in demanding that all the high-ranking Georgians held at ‘Abbas’ court should be allowed to return both to their Christian religion and to their homeland which caused her imprisonment and death.28 Ketevan would remain a prisoner for eleven years, according to Ambrósio dos Anjos, and by a happy coincidence the shah finally gave the Augustinians of Isfahan permission for a foundation in Shiraz in 1623,29 the year preceding her martyrdom. Ambrósio dos Anjos appears to have developed a friendly relationship with the queen. In describing the severe material difficulties afflicting the mission, difficulties which Ketevan alleviated by her almsgiving, he relates that: my greatest consolation was in visiting Queen Ketevan, as we passed our time in conversation in speaking of what touched on her salvation, exhorting her to patience in the trials to which she found herself subjected, and to perseverance in the faith of Our Saviour Jesus Christ for whose sake she endured them, and which she had so far maintained with such constancy. We often turned to talking of the Catholic Church, and I spoke a great deal about the greatness of the Sovereign Pontiff, showing how he was the true head of the universal Church, which she received with great joy. She showed much consolation in what I told her, and I had even greater in seeing her so Catholic and so attached to the things of our holy faith . . .30

While he never directly claims that the queen had accepted the authority of the pope or converted to Catholicism, the author certainly, as Gulbenkian points out, not only makes no mention of her adherence to the Georgian Church, but also renders the text highly equivocal in order to allow the reader to assume either that she was in effect Catholic or had already become so.31 Following the text we have just quoted, and no

28 The Italian translation of the Georgian original, Rome, APF, Lettere del Levante e dell’Asia, vol. 115, f. 396, is given in English in Tamarati, L’Eglise Géorgienne, 512–513. 29 The lengthy Carmelite account written from Shiraz in September 1626 (Rome, Arch. Gen. OCD, pluteo 238, o), in Carmelites II, 1056–1059, would suggest that the Augustinians had acted as go-betweens for the Carmelites in their negotiations for a foundation at Shiraz, and that the Carmelite Juan Tadeo de S. Eliseo had been instrumental in securing permission from the khan of Shiraz for the Augustinians to also be granted a house there. Ave Maria (Documentação 11, 222) describes the Augustinian foundation in Shiraz as ‘. . . a small hospice with a church dedicated to St Mary Major . . .’. It would appear to have been of short duration. 30 Relation Véritable, 298–299. 31  Ibid., 299, n. 118.

206

chapter nine

doubt with an eye to the future, the author continues by listing her ‘admirable virtues’, both theological and cardinal, evidence of which would be required in any examination of her cause for canonisation. The account of her pious activities, which included gifts to the Augustinians to enable the better celebration of the feasts of the Catholic calendar, includes a brief description of the queen’s appearance, including a reference to her fine, large, dark eyes ‘which perfectly reflected what was happening in her soul, since the divine grace possessed by God’s servants appears in their very face’.32 Ambrósio dos Anjos notes several reasons put forward for the martyrdom of Queen Ketevan, detailing what he sees as the principal ones, largely based on the personal hatred of ‘Abbas for Teimuraz, increased by recent events. Wishing to take the Georgian ruler’s second wife Khorachan as his own, not least in order to humiliate Teimuraz, the shah had availed himself of the opportunity provided by a temporary absence of Teimuraz from home to attempt her abduction. Thanks to her presence of mind, the besieging army was stalled until Teimuraz was able to return unexpectedly, putting the Persian forces ignominiously to rout, and frustrating the intentions of ‘Abbas.33 The first reason suggested by the Augustinian is the fact that Christians held captive by the Muslims who abandoned their faith and embraced Islam were absolutely forbidden to return to their own country, and the second the fact that Teimuraz had defected first to Ottoman territory and then to the Grand Duchy of Moscow. He also notes that the Persians suspected Ketevan of secretly informing Teimuraz of political events in Persia. Allen goes as far as to suggest, and possibly with justification in view of the shah’s impulsive character, that Abbas’ fury at the perceived involvement of Russia in the affairs of Teimuraz may have been sufficient reason to cause the death of Ketevan.34 Perhaps surprisingly, in view of his desire to present the Christian credentials of the 32 Relation Véritable, 300–302. 33 The account of events in Relation Véritable, 305–308, largely concurs with that given in the Georgian chronicles, although there is some disagreement on dates. For a survey of sources see ibid. 308, n. 137. 34 See W. E. F. Allen, Russian Embassies to the Georgian Kings (1589–1605) (Cambridge, 1970), 262–265. On the complex relations between Moscow and Persia in the period, see Rudi Matthee, ‘Anti-Ottoman Concerns and Caucasian Interests: Diplomatic relations between Iran and Russia, 1587–1639’ in Michel Mazzaoui (ed.), Safavid Iran and her Neighbors (Salt Lake City, 2003), 101–128. Russian contacts with Kakheti dated back to 1558, and although in 1589 Alexander II had declared his fealty to Tsar Fedor Ivanovich, no effective support would be forthcoming from Russia. See Suny, The Making of the Georgian Nation, 49.



the martyrdom of queen ketevan

207

Georgian queen in the best possible light, the Augustinian writer, does not here put forward the also entirely possible suggestion that the conversion to Islam of many of the Georgians in service to ‘Abbas at the court or in the Persian army was hindered by the influence of Georgian noblewomen who, influenced by her example, clung strongly to their Christian faith, and that the death of such a prominent figure as Ketevan would send a strong message that ‘Abbas would brook no interference in his project to create a unified Shi‘a state. He does however relate that on the rare occasions when she was summoned to the presence of the governor of Shiraz, she exhorted the numerous Georgian women in his harem to remain true to their faith.35 The attachment of Ketevan to the Christian cause had already been clearly demonstrated when, in 1605, she led a popular revolt against Constantine, a Georgian ruler who had embraced Islam. Matters at the shah’s court came to a head, according to Ambrósio, when the Grand Duke of Moscow sent an ambassador to the shah on behalf of Teimuraz to request the release of Ketevan into his care. The shah, suspecting a ruse of Teimuraz prevaricated, meanwhile sending soldiers to the queen to demand her conversion to Islam, with the alternative of death by torture. By this means ‘Abbas intended to thwart the Russian ambassador, since he would either be able to report her conversion, thus precluding her return, or her death. When the ministers sent by the shah reached Shiraz, they immediately acquainted her with his command that she should abandon either her faith or her life, that is to say, that she should become a Muslim or prepare to suffer the cruel torments ordered by the shah.36 Recovering from her initial shock, the queen calmly told the ministers that they could carry out the shah’s orders, and that she was prepared to die for what she knew to be the true faith.37 Granted time to prepare herself, she prayed for endurance, asking the advocacy of the saints whose images she venerated, and consumed a piece of blessed bread. Thus fortified, she went out to the ministers and told them that they could carry out the shah’s orders whenever they wished. Struck by her beauty, they used all the means at their disposal to persuade her to take pity on herself and to become a Muslim,

35 Relation Véritable, 291. 36 The torments and death of Ketevan as described by Ambrósio dos Anjos are given in Relation Véritable, 308–313. 37 Whatever reasons Ambrósio dos Anjos may have offered for the queen’s imprisonment, in order for her to be considered a martyr it was essential that her death should be considered as resulting from odium fide, a hatred of the Christian faith.

208

chapter nine

as then the shah would shower her with favours and treat her with all the respect due to a great queen.38 Ketevan insisted that neither promises, threats, riches nor torture would persuade her to renounce her faith. The ministers admired her constancy, but continued to try to persuade her, saying that her refusal would lead to torments of unimaginable cruelty. It may well be that the representatives of ‘Abbas found the queen’s refusal to cooperate difficult to understand. From their perspective she would have been perfectly justified in outwardly accepting the shah’s demand while secretly retaining her Christian faith,39 effectively practising a form of taqiyya. As we have already noted, this practice was sanctioned in Shi’a Islam when faced with circumstances in which a declaration of true religious belief might lead to personal risk of death or injury. The fact that Christians are required to profess their faith whatever the consequences had, as noted above, clearly not prevented many Christians in Persia and elsewhere from apostasising, at least in appearance, when forced to convert to Islam under duress, and our author’s intention here is clearly to emphasise the courage and example of the queen in deliberately choosing martyrdom rather than apostasy. He tells us that the queen replied that their urgings were of no consequence since her choice was so clear, and that they should hurry to carry out their king’s orders. This willingness to embrace death without delay is doubtless intended to call to the reader’s mind the behaviour of the early Christian martyrs. Finally convinced of her determination, the shah’s ministers called for two torturers who had been waiting in the courtyard. They brought with them two braziers filled with live coals containing two pairs of tongs.40

38 In his Histoires tragiques de nostre temps . . . (Paris 1635) Claude Malingre includes in his account De Catherine, reine de Géorgie (51) the information that the governor of Shiraz, Iman Quli Khan, showed her the shah’s instruction promising mountains of gold and marriage if she would apostatise. Iman Quli Khan, like his father Allah Verdi Khan, whom he succeeded in office, maintained close links to Georgia and an interest in its affairs. In his poem on the death of his mother, Teimuraz I of Kakheti presents a highly sympathetic picture of Iman Quli Khan, in which Ketevan refers to him as ‘ “modest, sweet and gracious”, illustrating the dilemma in which he found himself. See Z. Avalishvili ‘Teimuraz I and his poem “The Martyrdom of Queen Ketevan” ’ Georgica 1/ 4–5 (1937), 17–42. 39 In his poem, Teimuraz has Iman Quli Khan declare ‘Convert thou too, become a Tatar [sic], as if its no worse, Jesus Christ what harm will do to thee, whilst this one [Abbas] is against thee incensed . . .’ . 40 Gulbenkian (Relation Véritable, 305, n. 131) makes reference to the late seventeenth century French writer Sanson who, in Estat Présent du Royaume de Perse (Paris, 1694), 180– 181, somewhat matter-of-factly states, ‘There are two sorts of Interrogation (‘Questions’) in use in Persia, as there are in Europe: ordinary and extraordinary. . . . . They have various extraordinary . . . Sometimes they tear off the toenails with pliers. They also attach



the martyrdom of queen ketevan

209

Clearing the room of the queen’s household, thus conveniently making the Augustinians the only eyewitnesses to the subsequent proceedings, they tied her hands and began her torture by placing a heated copper bowl on her head. They then worked their way down her face with the red-hot tongs, tearing off pieces of flesh. Stripping her to the waist, they tortured her breasts, burning them and cutting off her nipples.41 Not content with this, the torturers then stripped her to her undergarment and mutilated the whole of her body with the tongs, and, when she fell to the floor, they covered her body with burning coals. Seeing her endure even this torment for some time, the torturers began to be afraid that they might be defeated, and threw themselves on her in order to strangle her with their bare hands. How accurate are the details of the queen’s sufferings, which, as we have noted, are somewhat different in the same writer’s account of 1640,42 may be open to question, as it clearly contain elements common to classical hagiography, particularly the request for a period of prayer in preparation, the calmness and fortitude of the victim, a superhuman ability to survive extraordinary suffering, and the discomfiture of the persecutors.43 Certainly the author himself compares her to St Agatha (d. 251)44 who, having resisted the amorous advances of the tyrannical Roman governor of Sicily is often depicted holding her amputated breasts on a platter. Agatha also was thrown onto a bed of hot coals.45 After her demise, Ketevan’s body was placed in a sack and buried in a deep pit in a nearby field, taking care to leave no indication of the site criminals to four stakes by their hands and feet and apply hot irons to their fleshy parts, and sometimes tear off pieces of flesh with tongs’. On the routine and arbitrary nature of torture and execution in Safavid Persia, see Willem Floor, ‘The Secular Judicial System in Safavid Persia’, Studia Iranica, 29/1 (2000), 9–60, 38–42. 41  The tiled panel in the Convento da Graça of Lisbon showing Ketevan’s sufferings has the prayer ‘Adjuva me Deus in tortura mamilearum mearum’ (Help me, God, as my breasts are tortured) issuing from her mouth. 42 In this account it is a bowstring which is used to end Ketevan’s life rather than the bare hands of the executioners. On the other hand Malingre, op. cit., 52, has her thrown half-dead onto a large fire outside the building. 43 To date, the most significant analysis of hagiography as a literary genre remains Hippolyte Delehaye, Les Passions des martyrs et les genres littéraires (Brussels, 1921, 2nd revised edn. 1966). I am grateful to Richard Price for drawing this study to my attention. 44 It is also interesting to note that in the early sixteenth century depiction of Agatha’s ordeal by the Florentine painter Sebastiano del Piombo two torturers are shown applying long handled pincers to the saint’s body. 45 As a consequence of her sufferings, Agatha is considered patron of wet-nurses, those with breast pain, and those threatened by fire. Somewhat bizarrely, and presumably on account of the shape of her amputated breasts, she is also the patron of bell-founders.

210

chapter nine

of the burial. Six days later, their mission accomplished and the queen cruelly put to death, the soldiers returned to Isfahan, where the shah was able, Ambrósio tells us, to convince the Russian ambassador that the queen’s death had been from natural causes. Significantly, an abridged version of the Relação Verdadeira in 163046 refers to the ‘glorious death’ of the Georgian queen, rather than her ‘glorious martyrdom’ as in the original. As we shall see, this is no mere editorial lapse, but reflects a more cautious attitude vis-à-vis the status of the queen as a martyr than that of the original writer, influenced no doubt by the refusal of the Propaganda in the previous year to allow the Augustinians to proceed with her process of canonisation.47 The compiler of this printed version states that for the moment ‘we do not refer to her as a martyr as the account does not clearly state that she had offered her obedience to the Supreme Pontiff ’.48 This Breve Relaçam summarised the first three and last two chapters of Ambrósio dos Anjos’ original account, giving the full text only of the account of the martyrdom in chapter four. In his Report, written in Italian in 1640 to the Propaganda Fide49 detailing his twenty-two years as a missionary in Persia and Georgia, Ambrósio dos Anjos included a new synthesis of chapter four. As Gulbenkian points out however, neither the account of 1630 nor that of 1640 includes the important information relating to the initial burial of Ketevan and the translation of her relics contained in chapter five of the original manuscript. Nor do they contain the information regarding the dispersion of the queen’s relics, doubtless in order to avoid prejudicing the start of the process of canonisation in Rome. Only the Relação Verdadeira informs us that Ambrósio dos Anjos, having prayed and fasted in order to obtain guidance, went on the night

46 The abridged version appeared in a compilation published in Lisbon anonymously and entitled: Breve Relaçam das Christandades que os religiosos de N. Padre Sancto Agostinho tem a sua conta nas partes do Oriente. . . .  47 In a letter of August 1629 to the papal nuncio in France (Rome, APF, Lettere, vol. 8, f. 132v) the Propaganda recorded its refusal to grant faculties to the Augustinians of Isfahan to begin the process of gathering material for the beatification of Ketevan, insisting that full details of her death and that of the Augustinian Guilherme de Santo Agostinho should be sent to the Congregation for Rites in Rome for detailed examination, Alonso, ‘Misiones en Georgia’, 248. 48 Breve Relaçam, 54. 49 The text (Rome, APF, SRCG, vol. 194, fols 77–84) is published in Carlos Alonso ‘Misiones en Georgia’, 269–275.



the martyrdom of queen ketevan

211

of 4 January 1625 with three Portuguese captives and a servant50 to recover the body from the pit in which it had been buried.51 Unable to complete their task before dawn, it was only on their return the following night that they were able to recover the body. Taking the remains back to the Augustinian church at Shiraz, they removed the soil covering them and placed them in a small urn. Only the bones had remained, with the exception of the right hand and the left foot. These were still entire and ‘the flesh was as white and as beautiful as when the worthy martyr was alive’. Soon afterwards, Father Ambrósio decided that the church in Shiraz did not offer the security needed to safeguard such a treasure in the town where the martyrdom had taken place, and sent the relics to the Augustinian convent at Isfahan. Curiously, the threat to the relics in Shiraz is perceived as coming not only from the officials of the shah who had killed the queen and buried the body, or from the local Muslim populace, but from the ‘holy envy of other Religious who desired such a precious jewel for themselves’.52 The relics were disturbed again following events in March of 1626, when the Augustinians of Isfahan were arrested by order of the shah, probably on suspicion of supporting or encouraging Portuguese anti-Persian activities at Basra and Hormuz, and taken to Shiraz, where they would remain under house arrest for ten months.53 On leaving Isfahan, the prior, Manuel da Madre de Deus and the other friars had secretly carried with

50 This would appear to be a reference to the lay-brother Pedro dos Santos, the only other Augustinian then at Shiraz, whose own account of 1640 claims that it was he who disinterred the queen’s remains. This Breve relationi dell’India Orientale e particularmente nelle missioni di Persia, Gorgistano, Bazorá e stretto di Ormuz (Rome, APF, SRCG, vol. 194, fols 98–135; another copy Lisbon, BNL, Fundo Geral no. 1498, fols 283r–314v) has been published by Carlos Alonso as ‘Stato delle missioni Agostiniani nelle India Orientale secondo una relazione inedita del 1640’, Analecta Augustiniana, 25 (1962), 291–325. 51  Relation Véritable, 313–319. 52 The only other religious in Shiraz at the time were in fact the Carmelites. Reference to the strong desire of each Order to be the first to obtain the relics so as to enrich their own church with them is made in Ambrósio’s account, Relation Véritable, 313. Conflict over holy relics was by no means something new to the East. See Jean-Marie Fiey OP, ‘La vie mouvementée des reliques dans l’Oriente syriaque’, Parole de l’Orient 13 (1986), 183–196. 53 It was in fact the Carmelites who were first arrested, in error, on 24 March 1626, and freed when it was realised that it was the ‘Portuguese Fathers’ rather than the ‘missionaries of the pope’ who should have been taken in charge. See Carmelites 1, 281–282. A copy of a letter of Manuel da Madre de Deus to his superior in Goa (Lisbon, ANTT Institutos Religiosos da India, caixa 2, mç 4, doc. 208), written shortly after his imprisonment, details their arrest and subsequent sufferings. I am grateful to Pedro Pinto for providing me with a copy of this document.

212

chapter nine

them the relics of Queen Ketevan. Ambrósio dos Anjos escaped the fate of his brethren, having earlier been sent to Goa to seek permission to travel to Georgia with a part of Ketevan’s relics, with the aim of persuading Teimuraz to allow them to establish a mission there. Released from captivity in Shiraz some ten months later and allowed to return to Isfahan, Manuel da Madre de Deus decided to go himself to Goa, whence Ambrósio dos Anjos had still not returned. At the request of the Augustinian Vicar Provincial João da Rocha, the prior took with him, ‘for the consolation of the Religious’, the right hand of the holy queen and a bone from her arm. The hand was in fact intended for Pietro della Valle in Rome,54 but it seems that with the death of Manuel da Madre de Deus in Goa in the autumn of 1628, the Augustinians there decided to take advantage of the opportunity to retain the precious relic. Della Valle would later accept the lower mandible of the queen in compensation.55 Twin Goals: A Georgian Mission and the Canonisation of Ketevan It is clear that the possession of the body of the Georgian queen gave fresh impetus to the long-cherished ambition of the Augustinians to establish a mission in Georgia. They now had two clear goals, the establishment of the Georgian mission, and the canonisation of Ketevan, which would itself be beneficial to the mission and to their Order. The Augustinians in Persia determined however that these two goals should be pursued independently of each other, the first directly with their superiors in Goa, and the second through a third party in Rome. The Augustinians knew that reports of their rivalry with the Carmelites in Persia and Basra had reached Rome, and believed that their idea of a mission in Georgia would only be accepted by Rome as a fait accompli. They were in little doubt that the preference of the Propaganda Fide would fall on the ‘ambassadors of the Pope’, as the Carmelites in Persia were commonly known, rather than ‘the ambassadors of the King of Portugal’,

54 As noted by Manuel da Madre de Deus in his letter (Rome, ASV, Della Valle-Del Bufalo, vol. 52, unfoliated) of October 1627 to Pietro della Valle in Rome. See Alonso ‘Misiones en Georgia’, 237–240. 55 See Alonso ‘Misiones en Georgia’, 90, citing Francisco Andreu CR, ‘Carteggio inedita di Pietro Della Valle Col. P. Avitabile e i Missionari Teatini della Georgia’, Regnum Dei, 6 (1950), 57–99; 7 (1951), 19–50, 118–153. It is possible that this is the relic interred in the crypt of St Peter’s Basilica in Rome referred to in Lambertsen, The Suffering of the Glorious Greatmartyr, 2.



the martyrdom of queen ketevan

213

the Augustinians.56 It seems that in the earliest version of the Relação Verdadeira (that of Ajuda) Ambrósio dos Anjos was not only careful to give no hint of the Augustinians’ intentions regarding the recognition of the martyr, but, no doubt to discourage anyone else who might have the same intention, when it came to speaking of a missionary enterprise in Georgia, he went so far as to say that although the Georgians wished the Augustinians to come to their country, the latter did not do so, not out of fear of death, but of the possible consequences for the Georgians in Persia if ‘Abbas should even suspect their intentions.57 Nevertheless, and contradicting their own advice, once the Augustinians in Isfahan had reached their decision on the two issues, they lost no time in sending the author of the Relação Verdadeira to the archbishop of Goa, the Augustinian Sebastião de São Pedro. On delivering his written account, Ambrósio dos Anjos would then have the opportunity to fill in the missing details viva voce, and to advise that circumstances were suddenly highly propitious for an Augustinian mission in Georgia. By an unexpected stroke of fortune and almost simultaneously, the Augustinians at Isfahan found, in the Dominican Gregorio Orsini58 a suitable messenger to handle the question of the martyrdom of Ketevan in Rome, where he was already headed overland. In Goa all went smoothly, and in a letter of November 1626 to the Propaganda, João da Rocha, the vicar provincial of the Augustinians in Goa, advised of his decision, supported by the archbishop of Goa, to send Ambrósio dos Anjos and another friar to found a mission in Georgia. The Propaganda was also informed that the religious would carry with them much of the body of the martyred queen.59 In Rome, however, not only was Orsini’s intervention on behalf of Ketevan’s cause unsuccessful, but the Propaganda took exactly the decision with regard to the Georgian mission that the Augustinians had hoped to circumvent, electing in May 1626 to send a group of Italian Theatines60 to Georgia. This was a surprising choice, not only in view of the fact that 56 Carmelites, I, 283–284, notes that the French Capuchins sent on the instructions of Cardinal Richelieu to Persia in 1628 would be known there as the ambassadors of the French king. 57 Relation Véritable, 259–260. 58 On Orsini see Alonso, Angel Maria Cittadini 71–80 and 133–144; Ambrosius Eszer O.P., ‘Der Bericht des Gregorio Orsini O.P. ueber die Laender des Nahen und Mittleren Ostens’, Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum 45 (1975), 305–397. 59 Rome, APF, SRCG, vol. 131, fols 414–415, given in Alonso, ‘Misiones en Georgia’, 232–239. 60 Properly, the Congregation of Clerks Regular of the Divine Providence. A male religious Order, founded by St Cajetan (Gaetano dei Conti di Tiene) in May 1524, and canonically erected by the Brief of Clement VII Exponi Nobis of the same year.

214

chapter nine

the Order had no experience whatever in the region, but also because it ignored Pietro della Valle’s, advice, which had indicated that the mission to Georgia could be undertaken by a number of different Orders and by three different routes.61 The first of these was via Constantinople, with a choice between Jesuits, Franciscans and Dominicans; the second was via Persia, with Augustinians and Discalced Carmelites, and the third via Poland, with Jesuits, Dominicans and Discalced Carmelites. Della Valle expressed no preference between the Orders for the Polish route, but favoured the Jesuits for that of Constantinople and the Carmelites for that via Persia. He gave due attention to the warning of Ambrósio dos Anjos about the risks of undertaking a mission from Persia, but rather than using it to advise against such a strategy, as the Augustinian writer had intended, he instead stressed the need for extreme secrecy in the undertaking. Taking all into account, it would appear that the Propaganda, anxious to avoid increasing the potential for rivalry between the Augustinians and the Carmelites in Persia, had decided to settle on the Theatines, with whom Pietro della Valle also had strong links. The Augustinian plan to present their Georgian mission as a fait accompli was thus negated. The difficulties and delays in communication between Rome and the Indies meant that the Theatines and the Augustinians were unaware that each had begun their separate journey to Georgia. Augustinian ignorance of the appointment of the Theatines is clear from a letter of Manuel da Madre de Deus to Pietro della Valle in October 1627,62 where he argues that in the initial stages of any mission it is important to have only one Order involved (for him clearly the Augustinians), in order to avoid causing any confusion to potential converts. The Theatine priests, Pietro Avitabile and Giacomo di Stefano, had set off from Messina in Sicily in December 1626, only learning in Isfahan in 1628 of the identical project of the Augustinians.63 When they arrived at Gori in December 1628, the 61  Pietro Della Valle, Informatione della Georgia data alla Santità di Nostro Signore Papa Urbana VIII, da Pietro Della Valle il Pellegrino, l’anno 1627 in Melchisedech Thevenot (ed.), Relations de divers voyages curieux qui n’ont point été publiés (Paris, 1633), 13–14. 62 In October 1627, unaware of developments in Rome, Manuel da Madre de Deus had written to Pietro della Valle emphasising the importance of having only a single Order in Georgia and that ‘for the moment no other religious other than those of Saint Augustine should be sent out’. The letter (Rome, APF, SRCG, vol. 388, f. 226) is given in Alonso, ‘Misiones en Georgia’, 237–240. 63 The arrival of the Theatines in Isfahan, where they were at first taken in error to the convent of the Augustinians instead of the Carmelites, is described in the account of Pedro dos Santos published in Alonso, ‘Stato delle missioni Agostiniani. Tamarati (L’Eglise) devotes considerable space to an account of the selection of the Theatines for



the martyrdom of queen ketevan

215

Theatines found that the Augustinians had reached the court of Teimuraz some six months earlier, not without difficulties of their own on the ­journey. The Journey to Georgia and Establishment in Gori Having left Goa around October 1626 for Isfahan (any suggestion of avoiding travelling through Persia now forgotten), Ambrósio dos Anjos then set off for Georgia in August 1627, accompanied by Father Sebastião de Jesus. Reaching Sultaniyya, Ambrósio fell ill, and with Sebastião suffering terribly from the cold, they regretfully retraced their steps, arriving back at Isfahan on 1st November 1627. After re-grouping, they set off in the company of the lay brother Pedro dos Santos, but without Father Sebastião, who had fallen ill once more on the first day of their journey and returned to Isfahan. (The vagaries of the journey, impeded by heavy snowfalls, are described in the letter of Ambrósio dos Anjos written in June 1628 and later delivered to Goa by Pedro dos Santos).64 Having reached Tabriz in the company of an Armenian, the two Augustinians then entered Armenia, arriving in May 1628 at Alindja. Not far from here they received a warm welcome in an Armenian Dominican convent where they spent a week. The superior of the convent, Augustin Bajenc, future Armenian Catholic archbishop of Nakhitchevan, told them of a vision reported to him by a holy man in the area who had seen the martyred queen in a dream. In the dream she had told him that the Georgians would inflict great damage on the Persian kingdom, and that ‘for some time’ her body must go to her homeland. The Augustinians were astonished, seeing this as a good omen for their mission. Leaving Alindja, they set off for Erevan and then Etchmiadzin in order to visit the Armenian Catholicos. They in fact

the Georgian mission, and of their establishment and activities in Gori (498–526), as well as on their subsequent missions to Mingrelia (527–538; 549–558), and Imereti (538–549). See also Carlos Alonso OSA ‘Fundación de una mision teatina en Georgia’ in Misioneros, 64–79; the series of documents published by the same author in Regnum Dei, nos. 122–127 (1996–2001); A. Eszer O.P., ‘Missionen in Randzonen der Weltgeschichte: Krim, Kakasien und Georgien’ in Sacrae Congregationis de Propaganda Fide memoria rerum, 3 vols. (Rome, 1971–1973), vol. 1/1, 650–679, esp. 660–679. 64 António de Moraes, to whom the letter was presented in Goa, incorporated it, under the new title Relação da Jornada . . . , as part of his 1629 Memorial das missões dos Religiosos que mandou a Nossa província de Nosso Pe. Sancto António. Both the Memorial (Lisbon, BNL, Fundo Geral, Codex 59, fols 3–58; another copy ibid., Codex 745, fols 1–70) and the Relação are given in Documentação, 12, 99–199, and 200–217 respectively.

216

chapter nine

met Bishop Moses of Tatev: in the absence of both the aged Catholicos David IV and his deputy,65 Moses was the effective head of the Armenian Church, and would be officially confirmed in office as Moses III in January 1629. Ambrósio dos Anjos took advantage of this meeting to speak of the ‘Sovereign Pontiff ’, and of the obedience due to him as Vicar of Christ and universal pastor of the whole Church. The Armenian prelate replied that if he did not offer such obedience it was ‘because he is far away, and we have a Muslim king and many enemies’,66 To the doctrinal arguments of Ambrósio dos Anjos, Moses replied that each wished the salvation of the other but that the Armenians understood things differently. Pressed further, he ended by saying ‘Father, would that the Franks would come and we may be all united’,67 a further example of Armenian messianism. After two weeks, the Augustinians took leave of the Patriarch, who arranged for them to be accompanied on their journey by two Armenian religious.68 Such was their welcome throughout Armenia that Ambrósio dos Anjos declared, ‘For as long as we live, we are under a great obligation to show our gratitude to the Patriarch’.69 Having reached Gandja, capital of the province of Karabagh, the governor Da’ud Khan, brother of Iman Quli Khan of Shiraz, allowed them passage across the river Kur to Georgia. On their five-day journey through Georgia they saw evidence of the devastation wrought by war with the Persians and the razzias of the Lesgh, before arriving on 11 May 1628 at the encampment of Teimuraz and his court. Teimuraz immediately questioned them about the body of his mother, having already sent three ambassadors to Shah ‘Abbas, each of whom had received the reply that the body had taken by the Catholic priests, but whether by the Carmelites from Rome or the Augustinians of the king of Portugal he did not know.70 On being told that the missionaries had the body with them, Teimuraz was overjoyed, saying that

65 The aged David IV remained in Isfahan, while his co-adjutor Sahag, crippled with debts, had fled to Van. See Relation Véritable, 265 n. 42. 66 Submission to an authority outside the Safavid state was not an acceptable option for its constituent groups to embrace. 67 Documentação 12, 206. 68 One of these, Vartabed Philip, would become Catholikos Phillipos I of Agbak (1633– 1655). 69 Documentação 12, 207. 70 Not without difficulty, Teimuraz had negotiated a fragile peace with ‘Abbas in 1625 and regained the principality of Kakheti. In contradiction to this account of ‘Abbas’ response by Ambrósio dos Anjos (Documentação 12, 210), Pedro dos Santos (Analecta Augustiniana 25, 323 states that ‘Abbas ‘had always replied that it was the Fathers of Saint Augustine’ who had her remains.



the martyrdom of queen ketevan

217

they had ‘done something which deserved to be celebrated throughout the world, and that neither he nor the whole of Georgia would forget’.71 After attending Mass on the following morning,72 he asked to be told of the martyrdom of his mother, and of how the Augustinians had found her burial place and retrieved the body. After midday of the same day he sent three monks to view his mother’s body. These reported back to the king that the martyr’s foot still bore the marks of the tongs, and Teimuraz then instructed the Patriarch, along with the bishops and clergy, to take possession of the body and accompany it to the Cathedral of Alaverdi, where some of the Georgian royal family were already buried.73 In the presence of this assembly, Father Ambrósio once again celebrated Mass, preaching in Persian on a topic clearly chosen to refer to the discovery of Ketevan’s relics, ‘Simile est regnum coelorum thesauro abscondito in agro’ (The kingdom of heaven is like treasure buried in a field, Matt. 13:44). During their stay, the Augustinians visited the Georgian Catholicos Zakaria on three occasions, who in the words of Ambrósio dos Anjos, ‘showed us much affection, called us his sons and offered us his church and all that we needed: he is a venerable man who has seen many countries and on this account holds us in esteem and rejoices that we should be in Georgia’. Ambrósio suggested that he should visit Rome in the company of Pedro dos Santos, assuring him that he would be received with great honour by the pope. Zakaria replied that ‘he was very old, and did not have the strength to undertake such a long journey, but would have greatly liked to be of an age to do so’.74 As we may expect, the missionary also spoke to Teimuraz of the obedience he owed to the Supreme Pontiff as head of the universal Church, eliciting the reply ‘that he recognised him as the supreme Prelate over all, and had always confessed that truth’. They also discussed with Teimuraz and with three Greek monks from Constantinople who were present, the doctrine of the Trinity, clerical discipline regarding ‘sins of the flesh’, and the veneration of images. 71  Gulbenkian suggests that it is not unreasonable to suppose, particularly in view of this comment, that it was after hearing the account of the martyrdom that Teimuraz wrote his poem The Martyrdom of Queen Ketevan. On this and subsequent literary works based on the story of her martyrdom, see Relation Véritable, 323, n. 169. 72 Ambrósio (Documentação 12, 210–211) notes that he chose to say the Mass of the Holy Spirit, in order to enlighten the Georgians, who, with the other members of the Orthodox family of Churches, believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father only, and not from Father and Son as the sixth century filioque addition to the Roman creed insists. 73 Including the husband and father-in-law of Ketevan. On Alaverdi cathedral see Tamarati, L’Eglise, 267. 74 Documentação 12, 216.

218

chapter nine

As to the doctrinal issues, however, both sides remained fixed in their own position.75 Teimuraz granted the Augustinians permission to found a convent in his territory, and after travelling through much of the region they decided on the town of Gori, where they began to construct an oratory and adapted two houses as a residence.76 Leaving Father Ambrósio in Gori, Brother Pedro returned to Goa in order to communicate the news of their success in Georgia, to find more recruits for the new mission in Kakheti, and to obtain financial assistance.77 After the arrival of the Theatines, Teimuraz wrote to Urban VIII in January 1629 stating: ‘Being now one year since the Reverend Father Ambrósio of the Augustinian Order brought Us the desiccated bones, the remains of my mother, from the town of Isfahan and the court of the Kingdom of the Parthians78 to our country, We have, for this service, given him a place and land to provide for him and on which to build a residence and church’.79 Hopes of Ketevan’s Canonisation by Rome Come to Naught Their goal of a Georgian mission achieved, the Augustinians now turned to the canonisation of the martyred queen. They believed that in the Dominican Gregorio Orsini, they had an advocate with all the necessary qualities of impartiality and respectability.80 There seems no doubt that he brought to Rome the original version of the Relação Verdadeira which he had been given by the Augustinians of Isfahan before his departure in the spring of 1625, and that this formed the basis for the presentation in February 1626 of his Relatio Octava purpurata, hoc est: Significans martyrium cuisdam Serenissimae Georgorum Reginae, quae hiscé diebus, in Perside, decorem, nobilitatis suae pro Christo, sanguine purpuravit, in sex ordinata Discursus (The eighth empurpled account: Relating the martyrdom of a certain most serene queen of Georgia who, in Persia, during these days, 75 Ibid., 212–215. 76 Documentação 12, 215. 77 Ibid., 217. 78 I.e. the Persians. 79 The letter (Rome, APF, Lettere del Levante e dell’Asia, vol. 115, f. 396) is given, in French translation, in L’Eglise Géorgienne, 512–513. 80 On Orsini, see Ambrosius Eszer O.P., ‘Der Bericht des Gregorio Orsini OP ueber die Laender des Nahren und Mittleren Ostens’ Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum, 45 (1975), Rome, 305–397 and Alonso, Angel Maria Cittadini, 71–80, 133–144.



the martyrdom of queen ketevan

219

empurpled her glory with the blood of her nobility for Christ, ordered in six discourses).81 The Augustinian ploy of acting in this matter through an intermediary did not bring the success they had hoped for. From the beginning, the question of recognition of the queen’s martyrdom would be confronted by a question that even Orsini was unable to answer to the satisfaction of Rome: was the queen a Catholic, had she submitted her obedience to the Pope? Ambrósio dos Anjos knew well that she had not, but by leaving the possibility open in the Relação Verdadeira he sought to avoid prejudicing ab initio the process of her canonisation. Manuel da Madre de Deus, in his addition to the later version of the Relação Verdadeira made at Goa in the autumn of 1627, shared the same viewpoint, stating that ‘soon, informed of her sanctity, this saint will be venerated throughout the world’. The Augustinian prior at Goa also wrote in October of 1627 to Pietro della Valle, reminding him of the case of the queen, which he knew that Orsini must already have presented, and asking his support for the Order with the Holy Father.82 There is no doubt that Della Valle shared the opinion that the Georgian queen was a true martyr. In his Informatione della Georgia sent to Urban VIII in 1627 he refers only briefly to the martyrdom,83 but in his work of the following year Delle Conditioni di ‘Abbas re di Persia, he lends his full support to her cause.84 With the passage of time, the queen’s process seemed to have stalled, and the Augustinians in Persia now enlisted the support of the French Capuchins who had arrived in Isfahan at the end of summer 1628. They in turn requested the apostolic nuncio in France to transmit the wishes of the Augustinians to Rome. The response of the cardinals of the Propaganda of August 1629 to the nuncio left no room for misunderstanding, stating clearly that in the matters of the death of the queen and of the Augustinian Guilherme de Santo Agostinho, the necessary information must be sent to Sacred Congregation for Rites for examination.85 As Gulbenkian puts it ‘Rome had waited four years before finally informing the Augustinians that every process of canonisation must begin at 81  The titles of the six chapters of the Relatio Octava bear a striking similarity to those of the Relação Verdadeira, cf. Eszer, Der Bericht, 321. 82 Alonso, ‘Misiones en Georgia’, 239. 83 Pietro della Valle, Delle Conditioni di Abbas re di Persia (Venice, 1628), 10. 84 Ibid, 93. Alonso (Misioneros, 51) draws attention to a further synthesis of the information received from the Augustinians regarding the mission in Georgia and other news regarding the situation in Isfahan which Della Valle presented to the Propaganda Fide in June 1628. (Rome, APF, SRCG vol. 147, fls 236r–237v). 85 Rome, APF, Lettere, vol. 8, f. 132v, given in Alonso, ‘Misiones en Georgia, 248.

220

chapter nine

the beginning’!86 In fact, the timing of the queen’s death was somewhat inopportune. Although Clement VIII and Paul V had both in the early seventeenth century raised the issue of veneration of the relics of those whose official cultus had not been approved, Urban VIII (1623–1644) had addressed the matter directly with two decrees of 13 March and 2 October 1625, only a few months after the death of Ketevan. Consequently, it is likely that the Roman Congregations were particularly careful to follow proper procedure in this period. Not only was any form of public veneration of persons who had not been canonised or beatified by the Holy See forbidden, but the publication of books recording the miracles of such persons was also prohibited, unless approved by the local ordinary and sent by him to Rome. It may of course be simply that the Roman response, or lack of it, was at least in part political rather than theological, reflecting increased tension between Rome and the Portuguese Padroado. As we have seen above, the secretary of the Propaganda Francesco Ingoli held the Padroado in no great affection. Aware of the circumspection shown by Rome, and, doubtless, of the motivation for it, the Augustinians of the Portuguese Province decided to reveal only one section of the Relação Verdadeira, and then only with the modification already referred to, inserting it into the Breve Relaçam das Christandades published in Lisbon in 1630. In this publication, following the account of the death of the queen, the question in hand is treated as follows: Such was the illustrious death of Queen Ketevan, who, for the moment, we do not refer to as a martyr because it is not clear from the Account if she had given obedience to the Sovereign Pontiff, although it could certainly be understood that she had done so, and that at least through her actions she had done so. In effect, in talking to her of the Church, and showing her how the Sovereign Pontiff was the true head of the universal Church, she received everything with great happiness and showed much consolation to hear the Father, and for his saying that he was even happier on seeing her so Catholic. Calling a Roman priest to confess her family, coming to our church to hear Mass and to pray, receiving with such pleasure the crosses and medallions blessed by the Sovereign Pontiff, and decorating her house to celebrate the feast days are fine marks of a Catholic soul, which showed equally that general profession of the law of God for which she died, particularly after what she had heard and received.87

86 Relation Véritable, 55. 87 Breve Relaçam, 54. These excerpts are given in French translation in Relation Véritable, 272–273.



the martyrdom of queen ketevan

221

The text continues in a more cautious vein: And while we wish to say that at this stage she was a catechumen, the Church is not lacking as martyrs those catechumens baptised in their blood, such as Saint Emerentiana, foster- sister of Saint Agnes, who while a catechumen, suffered martyrdom while praying at the Saint’s tomb: and the blood which serves for baptism, must, it seems, serve for reconciliation and acceptance of one’s desire.

To describe a baptised member of another Church, albeit one seen as ‘schismatic’, as a ‘catechumen’ seems curious. However, the suggestion that shedding one’s blood as a martyr, which had long been understood to confer posthumous membership of the Church on the unbaptised, might also serve for ‘reconciliation’ with the Catholic Church is an interesting theological approach. Having apparently become more confident, the writer finishes by saying: A clearer account will finally come, when the particulars of this case will be known with certainty, and the Church will assert Her authority. Declaring her to be a martyr will be a great thing for the glory of God, and of great benefit for that Church which places the illustrious crown of martyrdom on such a royal martyr. It will also be a great honour and consolation for this nation that God has planted the gifts of his remedy in the royal blood of a Queen Mother and martyr, in which they cannot fail to flourish and to bear much fruit.

The Breve Relaçam must have reached Rome by the middle of 1630, but its contents had no effect on the position of the Propaganda, particularly since no new evidence of the queen’s ‘conversion’ to Catholicism had come to light, sufficient reason for her cause to have no future. It is also noteworthy that in reply to a letter from Gori by Father Ambrósio in April 162988 regarding both Guilherme de Santo Agostinho and Queen Ketevan, the Propaganda Fide requested further details on the death of the former, but made no reference whatever to the Georgian queen.89 During a stay in Rome in 1640, Ambrósio dos Anjos himself put an end to the debate by stating openly that Ketevan had never in fact left the bosom of the Georgian Church. Nevertheless, he felt able to say. ‘It is to be believed that this Queen is now in heaven and rejoices in the glory of

88 APF, SRCG, vol. 115, fols 409–410, given in Carlos Alonso, ‘Misiones en Georgia’, 246–7. 89 APF, Acta, vol. 7, f. 65v, given in ibid., 249.

222

chapter nine

God,90 for although she belonged to the Greek rite, even so, she showed great affection for the Holy Catholic Church and for all the Latins, showing a strong love for them and helping them as much as was within her power. She was always on such good terms with us that it is impossible that she could do anything contrary to the Holy Catholic Church’.91 In his report to the Propaganda, Pedro dos Santos asserted that both Father Ambrósio and he had aided and consoled Queen Ketevan, hearing her confession and doing everything necessary for the salvation of her soul.92 These reports remained buried and forgotten in the Vatican archives until Tamarati brought to light the section of Ambrósio dos Anjos’ 1640 account relating to the martyrdom of the queen,93 and Carlos Alonso published the Breve Relazioni of Pedro dos Anjos in 1962 and the 1640 report to the Propaganda from Ambrósio dos Anjos in 1965. In the intervening period, few if any of the Order’s chroniclers of the Portuguese province and Indian vice-province were aware of these documents, particularly since all trace of Pedro dos Santos was lost after his journey to Rome, and Ambrósio dos Anjos perished in a shipwreck on his return to Portugal from Italy in 1642. The truncated version of the Relação Verdadeira and the commentary on it by the anonymous compiler of the Relaçam das Christandades were the principal sources available to the historians of the period and to the Order’s chroniclers. Some writers would make the reservations of the compiler their own, stating that since Ketevan’s obedience to the pope remained unclear she could not truly be considered a martyr for Christ.94 António da Purificação on the other hand, in his Chronologica Monastica

90 In fact, still a bold statement in view of the contemporary Catholic Church’s narrow interpretation of the axiom ‘extra ecclesiam salus nulla est’ (no salvation outside the Church). 91  Alonso, ‘Misiones en Georgia’, 271. 92 Alonso, Stato delle missioni, 306. 93 Tamarati, L’Eglise, the Italian text is reproduced in 484–485. Page 485 also contains a brief description of the queen’s death provided to the Propaganda in 1628 by a Theatine, which he claimed to have had from a Georgian ambassador in Rome in 1626. This latter account (Rome, APF, Tartaria, Soria, Persia e Giorgia, vol. 147, fol. 189) differs considerably from that of the death as recorded by António dos Anjos, with the queen being assisted by a religious of the Discalced Carmelites, and her immersion in boiling oil. The account of Ketevan’s death given by D.M. Lang Lives and Legends of the Georgian Saints (New York, 1976, 2nd edn.), 169–172, merely translates the Italian text given by Tamarati. 94 So Manuel de Faria e Sousa, Asia Portuguesa, (Lisbon 1666, with a new edition in 6 vols., Oporto, 1945–47 in the series Biblioteca histórica de Portugal e Brasil), cf. vol. 6, 268–271. The same author, however, also describes Ketevan as ‘the second Mary Stuart on Catholic altars’ (ibid., 267). Also Bibliotheca Lusitana, (new edition Coimbra, 1965), vol. 1, 130.



the martyrdom of queen ketevan

223

includes for 22 September, in his list of Saints, Blesseds and Venerables of the kingdom, ‘Reginae Gativandae Fratrum Ordinis S. Augustini disciplulae & sororis’ ([The Feast] of Queen Ketevan, disciple and companion of the Brethren of the Order of St Augustine).95 Simão da Graça, chronicler of the Indian vice-province, states in his report of 168296 ‘our religious converted to the obedience of the Catholic faith the Queen of Georgia, Guatinande, who publicly, and in a loud voice, protested her faith, abominating and detesting all her previous errors’. In his 1713 Campos do Ermo, Faustino de Graça declares that Ketevan was a disciple of the Augustinian Hermits, catechised by Father Ambrósio, and was martyred by the king of Persia in Shiraz because she did not wish to become a Muslim,97 while the secretary of the Augustinian Congregation in Goa from 1720 until 1723, stated that ‘the Queen was catechised and reduced to obedience of the Roman Church by Ambrósio dos Anjos, and that later, supported by other religious, she rejected marriage to the king of Persia and was consequently tortured and finally killed’.98 It was in this period and probably, in the view of Gulbenkian,99 after the publication in Lisbon of the Flos Sanctorum Augustiniano (1721–1737) by José de Santo António, that the Augustinians of Lisbon decorated the chapter-house of their Convento da Graça with the tiled scenes depicting the martyrdom of members of the Order to which we have referred. The inscription on the panel relating to the Ketevan refers to ‘Venerable Gativanda, Queen of Georgia, Sister and Spiritual Daughter of the Order of St. Augustine’.100 In 1817, the vicar provincial of the Order in Goa, Manuel de Ave Maria, not only claimed that Ketevan had given her obedience to the pope through the ministrations of the Augustinians, but that she had made a public profession of faith.101 More recently, in 1977, Teófilo Aparicio Lopez makes the claim that the queen was ‘won over to Christianity’ by the sons of Saint Augustine, or, to be more accurate, that her conversion, or rather her reduction to obedience to Rome was accomplished by Ambrósio dos Anjos.102  95 António da Purificação OSA, Chronologia Monastica Lusitana . . . (Lisbon, 1642), cf. Liber I, 93–94 .  96 See Analecta Augustiniana 4 (1911–1912), 383 ff., 390.  97 395.  98 Documentação 12, 3–98, cf. 63.  99 Ibid., 62. 100 The title appears to be directly borrowed from António da Purificação, Chronologia Monastica, 93–94. 101  Documentação 11, 95–833, see 206. 102 La Orden de San Agustin en la India 116, n. 42. In the preamble to his chapter on Persia (300), he baldly states that she was baptised by the Augustinians.

224

chapter nine

It is clear that both Ambrósio dos Anjos and others who had known Ketevan considered her worthy of enrolment in the calendar of saints of the Roman Church. What were the motives for this Augustinian insistence on the merits of the case of Ketevan, and their remarkable persistence in pressing her case in Rome, even after they had succeeded in their goal of establishing a mission within Georgia? While it is clearly based on a certainty that her death was caused by her refusal to deny her Christian faith and embrace Islam, thus satisfying the requirement for martyrdom of odium fidei (hatred of the faith), she had died as a member of the Georgian Orthodox Church, and thus not in communion with the Roman Catholic Church: the Augustinians had, after all, witnessed the effective proclamation of Ketevan as a saint of the Georgian Church at Alaverdi. Her elevation to Catholic altars may indeed have been seen as something which would usefully serve Augustinian ambitions for union between the Georgian and Roman Churches (although conversely it carried the risk of accusations of a religious imperialism). I would suggest here another possibility. Despite their continued insistence on the need for all Christians to submit to the authority of the pope, it may be, in this instance at least, that the Augustinians were able to draw on a broader and less exclusive ecclesiology, whereby acceptance of Christian martyrdom sufficed for recognition of sanctity by the entire Christian community. Whatever the case, this perspective would not be shared by the authorities in Rome. There is no clear indication in the Relação Verdadeira as to how Queen Ketevan herself understood the relationship between the Georgian Church and the Roman Catholic Church. Deprived by his martyrdom in 1619 of the offices of the Georgian monk of the Order of Saint Basil who had acted as her confessor during the earlier part of her captivity,103 it is not surprising that this devout woman should turn for spiritual support to the Augustinians, attending Mass and praying in their church, supporting them financially, offering valuable gifts to their church and even sending a skilled candle-maker from among her retinue in order to enable them to celebrate their liturgies more fittingly. While Ambrósio dos Anjos does not make specific reference to hearing the confession of the queen, the fact that she asked him to hear those of her household during Lent would indicate that it was highly probable. In view of the 103 On the death of Moses, Ketevan’s confessor in captivity, see Relation Véritable, 292; Misioneros, 42; L’Eglise Géorgienne, 486–487, in which Tamarati reproduces the description of the affair in Abraham de Wicqfort (tr.), L’Ambassade de D. Garcias de Silva y Figueroa en Perse de 1617–1627 (Paris, 1667), 134, 346–347.



the martyrdom of queen ketevan

225

fact that dos Anjos describes her as ‘so Catholic’, and the fact that communicatio in sacris would only be forbidden by the Propaganda in 1727, it may be significant that there is no mention of the queen receiving the Eucharist as Viaticum as she prepared herself for death at the hands of her tormentors. What she is said to consume is, in fact, ‘blessed bread’, and in view of António dos Anjos’ specific usage of this term, we may disregard the suggestion that Ketevan received ‘the sacred species’ as proposed in the nineteenth century version of her martyrdom given by Salia.104 It is likely that this is a reference to the antidoron peculiar to the Churches of the Eastern rite,105 possibly indicating that she did indeed remain true to the Georgian Church and found herself unable to offer the obedience to the pope which the Augustinians so greatly desired. It is likely that the queen did not fully understand the theological niceties of the relationship between the two Churches, but considered them simply as different facets of a greater Christian whole. Certainly her choice of martyrdom over apostasy is an indication of how strong an identity marker Christianity was for the Georgian nation. The Augustinian Mission at Gori Ketevan’s unfortunate death had however provided the Augustinian Order with a perfect opportunity to establish themselves in Georgia, an opportunity which, as we have seen, they lost no time in realising. Having settled on Gori as the location of the Augustinian mission, and only eighteen days after they had entered Georgia, Ambrósio dos Anjos decided to send Pedro dos Santos back to Goa, bearing the official replies to the letters the missionaries had brought from the viceroy of India and the archbishop of Goa and with requests for more personnel, financial support, and all the articles necessary to establish a mission not only in Kakheti, but ‘in the three neighbouring Georgian Christian kingdoms’, and for the proper celebration of the Roman rite. The account given by Pedro dos Santos of his journey from Georgia to Goa is included as the final part of Moraes’ Relacão da Jornada to which

104 Le Martyre, 56. 105 Another possibility is the bread traditionally distributed during Mass in Augustinian Churches on the feast of Saint Nicholas of Tolentino, only two weeks before Ketevan’s death. This practice continues in many Augustinian parishes, and it is still the practice to preseve this bread to be eaten in case of illness.

226

chapter nine

we have referred above.106 Setting out on 29 June 1628 on his five-month journey, he describes crossing the torrential river Kur and reaching the city of Mtzketha, the usual residence of the Georgian patriarch. Zakaria assured him that if Teimuraz did not fulfil his promise of providing support for Ambrósio dos Anjos and his new foundation, he would take care of his needs personally.107 Crossing the Armenian border, and ignoring the advice of the Georgian patriarch to avoid Erevan in view of impending hostilities in the region between Persian and Ottoman forces, he visited the Armenian patriarch, who expressed concern on seeing that Ambrósio dos Anjos was not also returning to Goa. Having assured him of Ambrósio’s continued good health, Pedro dos Santos travelled a short distance to visit a ‘fine church with three naves’, believed to have been built by Gregory the Illuminator, before returning to take his leave of the Armenian patriarch. He then travelled to Alindja, where he met the newly elected Catholic archbishop of Nakhitchevan, the Dominican Augustin Bajenc, who provided a Dominican monk to accompany him to the city of Ordubad, where that Order had another convent. With another travelling companion, he then set off for Tabriz, where he spent two weeks before taking the road to Kashan, detouring round Qazwin in order to avoid having to present himself to ‘Abbas, who was at that time in the city. En route to Kashan, Pedro dos Santos spent some days in the company of ‘a Dutch ambassador’, who told him of the death of Robert Sherley, poisoned by order of ‘Abbas.108 After spending three days in his Order’s convent in Isfahan, Pedro dos Santos travelled to Shiraz, where he heard news of the two Theatines who were making their way to Georgia. After a brief stay at Shiraz, he passed through the city of Lar and reached the port of Kung, from where some days later he crossed the Gulf to Julfar, a port on the Arab coast with a Portuguese community, and thence via Camuza to Muscat where his Order had a convent. From Muscat he travelled by way of Diu and Chaul, arriving finally at Goa on 1 December 1628. 106 Fols 52v–70v, Documentação 12, 217–233. 107 In fact, Ambrósio dos Anjos notes the fact that Teimuraz ‘although showing great affection towards us and giving strong indications that he will provide what we need to sustain life, nevertheless, so far he has not done so’ as one of the reasons for sending his companion to Goa to obtain funds (ibid., 216). 108 Alonso (Misioneros, 60, n. 16) notes that this information is of interest as it does not appear in other accounts of Sherley’s death in 1627 accompanying the first official English embassy from England to ‘Abbas of Sir Dodmore Cotton. He also suggests that the ‘Dutch ambassador’ may be Hubert Visnich, an agent of the Dutch East India Company, who assisted in the return journey of the unsuccessful English mission, a mission which saw the death of Cotton in Persia.



the martyrdom of queen ketevan

227

His presentation to a chapter meeting of the Augustinians of Goa on the very day he arrived of Ambrósio dos Anjos’ account of the Georgian mission, the letters from Teimuraz and the patriarch of Georgia, and the description of his own journey which he would later commit to writing, are noted in the chronicle of António de Moraes, who had only four days earlier taken up the office of vicar provincial of the Order in Goa.109 Here we learn that from among the many religious who volunteered for the Georgian mission, Moraes chose four, Sebastião de Jesus, who had spent fifteen years in Persia and twice tried to make the journey to Georgia, António de São Vicente,110 who seems to have been chosen for his organisational skills and his not insignificant financial contribution to the Georgian venture, Manuel dos Anjos, who had distinguished himself in his studies, especially theology, and whose youth and fitness suited him to the rigours of the journey, and António das Chágas, then resident in Persia, a skilled musician and fluent in Persian. Together with the two original founders of the mission, this group was to form its nucleus and to attempt further missions to other regions of Georgia. Before the departure of the missionaries in March 1629, a substantial collection of money and goods for their Georgian venture was made, and detailed in a supplement to the accounts of Ambrósio dos Anjos and Pedro dos Santos published by Moraes in connection with the Georgian mission.111 Prominent among those making donations of money were the Augustinians Luís de Brito, then viceroy of the Estado da India (1628– 1629), António de Moraes himself, and the archbishop of Goa, Sebastião de São Pedro.112 The viceroy also granted a licence allowing them the profits from the sale of a quantity of cinnamon in Muscat,113 and contributed two rings, one with a sapphire, for the Georgian patriarch, and another

109 Documentação, 12, 161–164. 110  Apparently replacing António da Graça, who had been appointed leader of the group, but, according to Pedro dos Santos’ account (Documentação 12, 222) was prevented from leaving Goa by the Augustinian bishop of Cochin, Luís de Brito, then Governor of the Estado da India. 111  Rol do dinheiro que se deu para a missão de Gorgistão, in Documentação 12, 223–233. 112  For their biographies, see Documentação 11, 270, 264–5, 236–237. 113  It is interesting to note this involvement of the Augustinians of Goa in trade, despite the prohibition of such activity by members of religious Orders in canon law. The Jesuits would develop international trade networks, arguing that only in this way were they able to support their far-flung missions in regions where there was no existing Catholic population to support them. See Hugues Didier, ‘Entre l’Europe et les missions lointaines, les Jésuites premiers mondialisateurs’ in Annie Moliné, Alexandra Merle et Araceli GuillaumeAlonso (eds.), Les Jésuites en Espagne et en Amérique (Paris, 2007).

228

chapter nine

of diamonds and rubies for Teimuraz. Other items were presented by the civil and ecclesiastical authorities, individual members of the Order in Goa, the Augustinian convent of Santa Monica, and a number of anonymous donors contributed clocks, pieces of furniture, and articles to be used in the divine cult. Added to these was the substantial number of items bought by the missionaries in preparation for their journey. The list is astonishing both for the sheer volume of material to be transported, including two organs, and for the variety of items it includes, ranging from a gilt Chinese desk to four containers of olives. Of particular interest are the ‘ten panels of the Queen’s martyrdom’. Unfortunately, we have no knowledge of the survival of these depictions of the martyrdom of Ketevan. The missionaries also carried with them letters for Teimuraz and patriarch Zakaria when they left Goa for the port of Muscat on 14 March 1629. In Isfahan, Sebastião de Jesus once again fell ill, as did Manuel dos Anjos and António das Chágas, and it would be only António de São Vicente and the indomitable Pedro dos Santos who reached Gori on 8 December 1629 after a nine month journey.114 The arrival of money and supplies for the mission was timely for Ambrósio dos Anjos and the Theatine priests, whose provisions being virtually exhausted, had been reduced to eating wild herbs dressed with salt and olive oil.115 The party was well received by Teimuraz, and the gifts from India were duly presented. The missionaries’ entry into Gori was described as ‘magnificent’,116 although there is no doubt that the large amount of baggage they brought served to excite the envy of the locals, living, like all Teimuraz’s subjects, in a situation of dire poverty. The Augustinians were, however, able to share their supplies with the Theatines, and to repay their increasingly impatient creditors. They were also able to purchase a fine site on the outskirts of Gori, where they began the construction of a convent with four cells and a church in the European style. Despite these promising beginnings, a relentless sequence of disasters, both natural and man-made, would frustrate the plans of the Augustinians in Georgia. The first occurred in May 1630, even as the new church was under construction, when two Georgian princes led a rebellion against

114 This information is provided in a report of March 1631 by António de São Vicente on the state of the Georgian mission to the Propaganda (Rome, ASV, Borghese, I, vol. 469–474, fols 309–312), given in Alonso, ‘Misiones en Georgia, 255–258. 115 See the Theatine chronicler, B. Ferro, Istoria delle missioni dei Chierici Regolari, 2 vols. (Rome, 1704), I, 106, cited in Misioneros, 83, n. 15. 116 Ibid., loc. cit.



the martyrdom of queen ketevan

229

Teimuraz, and, having occupied Kakheti, delivered it into the hands of the Khan of Tabriz, to rule on behalf of Shah Safi, who had acceded to the Safavid throne in the previous year. A group of rebel soldiers despoiled the Augustinians of everything they could carry with them, money, clothes, and sacred vessels, domestic and working animals. The same treatment was accorded to the Theatines, the Georgian patriarch, and the Greek monks from Constantinople to whom we have referred above, and who were in Georgia to collect alms for the Holy Places of Jerusalem.117 Although the political situation changed in favour of Teimuraz some three months later, and he reimbursed the losses of Zakaria, the Augustinians were left with only eight hundred escudos hidden in the ashes by the resourceful Pedro dos Santos before the arrival of the rebels. After a few months of relative security, the missions of both the Augustinians and Theatines were again plunged into hardship. Having considered the abandonment of their respective establishments, the Augustinians decided instead to send Pedro dos Santos once more to Goa to seek assistance, while António de São Vicente would travel to Rome and Madrid, accompanied by the Theatine priest Pietro Avitabile who, in addition to seeking funds for his mission, was acting as an envoy from Teimuraz to Urban VIII. A single priest from each Order, each accompanied by a solitary lay brother, was left in Gori, and as a consequence they decided to share their resources, living together in the Augustinian convent.118 Shortly after his arrival in Rome, at the beginning of February 1631, António de São Vicente presented to the Propaganda the report on the Augustinian mission to Georgia and the political situation there to which we have already made reference. Two requests were made, economic assistance from the Propaganda, and letters of recommendation to the papal nuncio in Madrid and the Apostolic Collector of Portugal requiring them to ask the Spanish king for financial support via India. Examined by the Propaganda in general session 27 March 1631, it was decreed119 that the report be debated by a select committee, which met one month later. This recommended that the letters requested should not be granted, and that instead the Propaganda should take responsibility for the Augustinian mission in Georgia and provide some financial assistance. Significantly, the reason given is the fact that the route via Georgia remained virtually 117 Ibid., loc. cit. 118 Ibid., 256–257. 119 Rome, APF, Acta, vol. 7 (1630–1631), f. 39r, given in Alonso, ‘Misiones en Georgia’, 258.

230

chapter nine

the only one still open to the Propaganda for sending missionaries to the Indies, in view of the restrictions on access to the region imposed by the Portuguese under the Padroado.120 The general session of the Propaganda on 7 May 1631 accepted the recommendations of the cardinatial committee, and furthermore instructed that the Augustinian superior general should be ordered to ensure that António de São Vicente, who had left Rome immediately after presenting his report, remove himself from the Spanish court without delay.121 How much financial assistance, if any, the Augustinian mission received from the Propaganda is unclear. Certainly, less than a year earlier, the same congregation had declared itself unable to provide funds for the Georgian mission, saying ‘since only eight years having passed since its foundation, the Sacred Congregation was unable to provide assistance to so much spiritual need from every part of the globe’122 and some ten years later, Ambrósio dos Anjos was still requesting the Propaganda to provide his Order’s Georgian mission with the financial assistance given to other missions under the protection of the Congregation.123 Meanwhile, Pedro dos Santos, seeking to arrange that the missionaries who had earlier fallen ill and remained in Isfahan should complete their journey to Gori and to obtain both financial aid and further personnel, had reached Goa towards the end of 1630. Here he met the vicar provincial Luís Coutinho, who provided him with three priests for the mission and fifteen hundred escudos.124 In fact, the meeting of the definitors of the Augustinian Vice Province of the East Indies which took place on 31st January 1631 had appointed four priests for the Georgian mission; Cristóvão do Espirito Santo, Bonifácio das Chágas, Domingo da Expectação, and Domingo do Nascimento.125 The ill-fortune which was

120 Ibid., f. 52. Inconclusive negotiations between the Spanish court and the Propaganda regarding freedom of access for the Congregation’s missionaries to Spanish and Portuguese overseas territories, particularly in the context of Japan, had already been in progress since 1625. See Ignácio Ting Pong Lee, ‘La actitud de la Sagrada Congregación frente al Regio Patronato’ in Sacrae Congregationis de Propaganda Fide Memoria Rerum, I/I (1622–1700), 353–438. 121  Alonso (Misioneros, 90) notes that there are no further details of the Augustinian’s activities in Madrid and Lisbon. 122 Rome, APF, Lettere, vol. 10 (1630), f. 56v, see Alonso, ‘Misiones en Georgia’, 252. 123 Ibid., Acta, vol. 14 (1640–41), fl. 435v, see Alonso, ‘Misiones en Georgia’, 275. 124 Analecta Augustiniana 25 (1962), 324. 125 These details are given in the report of the definitors in Goa to the Propaganda written of the day of their meeting: Rome, APF, SRCG, vol. 209, fols 227–230, reproduced in Alonso, ‘Misiones en Georgia’, 250–254, see 254.



the martyrdom of queen ketevan

231

to dog the Georgian mission would soon assert itself however, and, as Pedro dos Santos noted, the initial number of four missionaries would be reduced to three. Furthermore, two of these would die en route to Georgia.126 The further difficulties experienced by Ambrósio dos Anjos and the lay brother António at the Augustinian convent in Gori, after the departure of António de São Vicente and Pedro dos Santos, are described in the correspondence sent from Gori by the Theatine priest Giacomo di Stefano to Pietro Avitabile during the latter’s journey to Europe. His letter of 18 November127 reports that they are all afflicted by quaternary fever,128 while a postscript reports that although he has recovered, the two Augustinians are still unwell. The same information is repeated in a letter of 20 February 1631,129 which adds that their suffering has been compounded by ‘a fall of snow to the depth of over three feet [‘nove palmos’], with the intense cold almost causing our death’. On the 13 of May 1631, two more Theatine priests, Giuseppe Giudice and Archangelo Lamberti, arrived to supplement their Order’s presence in Gori. On their arrival, since the Theatines had as yet no church of their own, they went to the Augustinian church to give thanks for their safe arrival.130 Only two days later, Lamberti accompanied Ambrósio dos Anjos and Giacomo di Stefano to the city, where Teimuraz was overseeing the celebration of the marriage of his elder daughter to Prince Alexander of Imereti. Here they presented the newly arrived missionary, who handed Teimuraz the letters he had brought from Rome. The Theatine chronicler Bartolomeo Podio gives details of a curious incident in describing their visit. While the western missionaries attempted to convince Teimuraz of the possibility of miracles, and especially of the miraculous powers of a certain ‘manna’ of St Nicholas of Bari,131 an assertion rejected by the

126 The death of Cristóvão do Espirito Santo, a veteran of the first mission to Persia in 1602, on the road between the port of Kung on the Persian Gulf and Isfahan, is described in Documentação 11, 250. Alonso (Misioneros 94) notes that the Order’s chroniclers offer little information on his companion. 127 Rome, APF, SRCG, vol. 73, fols 216v–228r. 128 A malarial disease characterised by a four day cycle. 129 Rome, APF, SRCG, vol. 73, f. 228. 130 Ferro, Istoria, vol. I, 144. 131  St Nicholas ‘of Bari’ nowadays conflated with another Nicholas to become Santa Claus, was the bishop of Myra, in what is now the southern coast of Turkey, born in 265AD in the port city of Patara in Asia Minor. His famed generosity made him extremely popular, and after his death his fame spread to Europe with monks fleeing the persecution of the iconoclasts. Tradition has it that in the late eleventh century his huge popularity led

232

chapter nine

Greek monks present, the Georgian ruler noted the presence of Ambrósio dos Anjos, still stricken by malaria. This led him to suggest a trial of the efficacy of the nostrum from Bari, the result of which would prove or disprove the missionaries’ assertions. The sickly friar was given a little of the material to imbibe and, to the surprise of all, made an instantaneous and complete recovery.132 The Theatine Pietro Avitabile had returned from Europe to Gori in July 1632, accompanied by four members of the Order who were to build up the Georgian mission.133 Soon after their arrival, both their mission and that of the Augustinians were put at risk, this time by the actions of Teimuraz. Learning of the return of Avitabile, and believing him to have returned bearing considerable wealth, the Georgian ruler demanded all the money for himself, possibly to fund his project of rebuilding two royal palaces destroyed by ‘Abbas, and for which he had previously requested the Augustinians and Theatines to provide the services of their lay-­brothers, both skilful carpenters.134 On being told that they had no money, having been robbed by the Armenians on the last leg of their journey between Erzerum and Gori, Teimuraz threatened to sell the Theatine convent and that of the Augustinians in order to obtain the money he believed they were hiding. The missionaries were later able to convince him of the truth of their story, and in his account of the affair, Ambrósio dos Anjos lays the blame not on the avarice of the ruler, but on the machinations of certain Greeks from Crete and Zakynthos, who had convinced Teimuraz that the missionaries intended to convert the whole of Georgia to Catholicism, and

seventy sailors from the Italian town of Bari to undertake a sea-borne raid on the saint’s tomb, which they despoiled of his relics. Escaping a pursuing mob, they returned to their hometown, where the relics were deposited in a specially constructed tomb. The ‘manna’ referred to in the Theatine chronicle is the colourless liquid, which, to this day, is collected from the tomb and sold to pilgrims. See Charles W. Jones, Saint Nicholas of Myra, Bari and Manhattan. Biography of a Legend (Chicago 1978); id., ‘The Norman Cults of Sts. Catherine and Nicholas, saec. Xl’, in Collection Latomus 145 (Hommage à Andre Boutemy), (Brussels 1976), 216–230; ‘The Translation of Saint Nicholas: An anonymous Greek account of 
the transfer of the Body of Saint Nicholas from Myra to Lycia to Bari in Italy’, trs J. McGinley and H. Mursurillo, Bolletino di S. Nicola 10, Studi e testi, (Bari: 1980), 3–17. 132 Istoria, 148. 133 Among these was Cristoforo Castelli, whose detailed drawings, illustrating his ms. Descriptio originis missionum Theatinorum in Regno Giorgiae, provide a valuable insight into the Georgian mission. A number of these are reproduced in Tamarati, L’Eglise Géorgienne, while the originals are held in the Biblioteca Comunale di Palermo. 134 Istoria, 150.



the martyrdom of queen ketevan

233

that he should expel them from his kingdom.135 Further details are provided by Avitabile,136 who reports an unsuccessful attempt to recover the money at Tiflis, although Teimuraz appeared not overly concerned with this failure, believing that he could obtain the money through the good offices of his ally Da’ud Khan, governor of the province to which Tiflis belonged. However, the pessimistic view of Avitabile that ‘this cross has not ended’ would prove accurate, and from that time on the missionaries noted a decided cooling of Teimuraz towards them, since he believed that the reinforcement of the Theatine group was excessive. Concerned that the Georgian mission was in danger of collapse, the Propaganda wrote a letter of encouragement to Ambrósio dos Anjos, exhorting both Orders to continue the work which they had begun with such promise, and holding up the example of the Franciscan mission to New Mexico and that of the Jesuits to Ethiopia, which had produced ‘abundant fruit’ only after many years.137 The Theatines, now in financial difficulties, had borrowed money from the Augustinians, themselves living in straitened circumstances. The situation was exacerbated by the fact that although Pedro dos Santos, now elevated to the priesthood for his loyal service to the Georgian mission, had been sent once more to Goa to obtain funds, he had fallen ill and been unable to board the fleet sailing that year from the Gulf to Goa. To remedy this Avitabile decided to approach Da’ud Khan in Gandja to ask his assistance in recovering the money stolen by the Armenians. This initiative, on which he was accompanied by Ambrósio dos Anjos, foundered since Da’ud Khan, was out of favour with Shah Safi and forced to flee to Georgia to escape death at the hands of a large Persian army under the control of Rustam Khan, sent to punish both Da’ud Khan and Teimuraz, who had combined forces to wrest control of the province of Gandja from the Safavid ruler. Rustam Khan easily took control not only of Gandja, but also of virtually all of Kakheti. Teimuraz, holed up in an inaccessible fortress in Imereti with a few loyal followers again lost his throne, while Da’ud Khan fled to Ottoman territory. The missionaries of Gori were fortunate that the Persian leader happened to be Rustam Khan, a Georgian of royal blood raised at ‘Abbas court 135 Letter of 9 September 1632 to the Propaganda, Rome, APF, SRCG, vol. 103, f. 184 (Portuguese original ibid., f. 85). The Italian text is given in Alonso, ‘Misiones en Georgia’, 261–262. 136 See Regnum Dei, 6 (1950), 72. 137 Rome, APF, Lettere, vol. 13, f. 83, in Alonso, ‘Misiones en Georgia’, 266–267.

234

chapter nine

as a Muslim, and who had become friendly with Ambrósio dos Anjos during his term as daruga or chief of police in Isfahan. The persons of the missionaries were spared, and Gori was the only city to escape destruction. The Augustinians were however more than a little inconvenienced by the fact that Rustam Khan used their convent as a base, stationing his cavalry in its extensive orchard. The building was also used as a military supply centre and, during Rustam Khan’s absence, as a harem.138 The churches of the Augustinians and the Theatines remained open for divine worship, while those of the Georgians and the Armenians had been converted into a mosque and a storehouse respectively.139 The Theatine Justo Prato, one of the missionaries who had accompanied Avitabile on his return to Gori in 1632, provides the information that Rustam Khan stayed in Gori for three months, overseeing the building of a fortress, and offers information which helps to further understand the sympathetic treatment which the missionaries had received. He tells us, without giving a name, that the major-domo of Rustam Khan was a Catholic, on good terms with the Augustinians, whom, like his master, he had known in Isfahan.140 The end of this eventful year would bring some good news for the Augustinian convent of Gori. Justo Prato records the arrival of letters patent appointing Ambrósio dos Anjos prior of the convent of Gori, only now technically elevated to this status from that of a simple ‘residence’. This decision had been taken in the general Definitory of the Augustinian Congregation in Goa, but the letter of notification had been considerably delayed due to the shortage of funds experienced by its bearers, who had been forced to remain in Isfahan. It would be difficult to gainsay the verdict of the Theatine that the nomination of Ambrósio dos Anjos was ‘well-deserved, in view of the hardships he had suffered’.141 The encouragement given to the Augustinians of Gori by this news would soon be overshadowed however by the events of the following year. In spring 1634 plague was discovered in Gori, as well as in other cities of the East. Avitabile was the first of the missionaries to be affected, at the beginning of August. Although he would survive, things would be much worse in the Augustinian convent. Here only Ambrósio dos Anjos ­survived,

138 This information is provided in the letter of 15 August to Pietro della Valle from Avitabile. See Regnum Dei, 7 (1951), 122–125. 139 Letter of 1st October 1633 from Avitabile to the general of the Order, Rome, APF, SRCG, vol. 104, fols 358r–362r, cited in Misioneros, 109. 140 Letter of 16 October 1633, ibid., fols 347r–349r, cited in ibid., 110. 141  Ibid., vol. 209, f. 347r–349r, cited in Misioneros, 112.



the martyrdom of queen ketevan

235

while another priest, a novice, a lay brother and five servants would all succumb. The behaviour of the Theatines towards the Augustinians was exemplary, caring for them during their illness, and, as a direct consequence, losing the lay brother Cayetano Corlito and the priest Vicente Carafa.142 The Final Period Entrusting articles of value to the Theatines, and leaving the Augustinian convent in the care of a lay-brother, Ambrósio dos Anjos would depart from the Gori mission in November 1634 at the request of the Armenian archbishop of Nakhitchevan, Augustin Bajenc, in order to assist in the recovery of the money and goods of a number of rich Portuguese who had been killed en route to Europe via Armenia. This venture would prove largely unsuccessful,143 but Ambrósio dos Anjos decided to avail himself of the opportunity to continue his journey to Isfahan, in order to find new personnel for the Georgian mission, having in the meantime arranged with the Armenian archbishop for two members of his Dominican Order to take care of the Augustinian convent in Gori. Pedro dos Santos meanwhile, having reached Goa at the end of 1633, had persuaded the Augustinian Vicar Provincial Gaspar de Amorim to provide three new priests for Georgia. In order to obtain the funds to make this possible, he also obtained the permission of his superiors to travel to Mozambique in order to collect alms for the Georgian mission. During his return to Georgia however, on hearing of the problems caused by the plague and the absence of Ambrósio dos Anjos from Gori, he decided to remain in Isfahan until things improved.

142 Letter of Avitabile from Aleppo on 24 November 1635 to his superior general; Rome, APF, SRCG, vol. 209, f. 414v, cited in ibid., loc. cit. See also Ferro, Istoria, I, 272–275. In fact, the plague would carry off three members of each Order, as Ambrósio dos Anjos notes in his report of 1640 on the missions of Persia and Georgia to the Propaganda, in his capacity as procurator general of the Augustinian Congregation of the East Indies (Rome, APF, SRCG, vol. 194, fols 78–84, with a copy in ibid., SRCG, Georgia, vol. 1, fols 116r–126v), given in Alonso, ‘Misiones en Georgia’, 269–275. See 274, where, noting this parity of loss, and the fact that both missions had also been put to the sack, he somewhat touchingly describes this as ‘showing that Our Lord loves each of them equally’. 143 Events are described in the letter of Ambrósio to Avitabile from Armenia, Rome, APF, SRCG, vol. 209, f. 415v, cited in Misioneros 116.

236

chapter nine

Some details regarding the Augustinian convent of Gori during the absence of Ambrósio dos Anjos are provided in the account144 sent to Rome on the 25 November 1635 by the Dominican Giovanni Guiliani da Lucca,145 envoy to Persia of Stanislaus Konieploski, commander-inchief of the Polish army. Here he relates that he visited the church of the Augustinians, and stayed in their convent, then in the care of the Armenian Dominicans. Pablo Piromalli, prefect of the Dominican mission in Armenia also spent some six months there during 1636. A difficult character who had considerable differences with his archbishop, Augustin Bajenc,146 his stay was promptly terminated by Ambrósio dos Anjos on his return. Further information is provided in an extensive letter of Justo Prato on 20 September 1640 from Odisci in Mengrelia, where his Order had established an offshoot from their base in Gori in 1633.147 We learn that Ambrósio dos Anjos had taken the decision to close the Georgian mission which he had founded, and had returned to Goa by the end of 1637, which suggests that he had left Gori in late 1636 or early 1637. On leaving he had handed over the convent and church to the Theatines, together with two houses nearby, possibly those initially given them by Teimuraz. These houses were then under the control of an Armenian creditor of the Augustinians, who held a monopoly from Rustam Khan for all the dyeing in the region, and had converted one of the houses into a factory for dyestuffs. These details are substantially corroborated in a later account written in 1646–1648 by the provincial and definitors of the Augustinians in Portugal to the Propaganda, which also describes the activities of the missionaries there in the re-conversion and ransom of the numerous renegades created by the wars in the region, and provides the further information that they took in Georgian boys who were lodged free of charge in the two adjacent houses, with a view to their entering the Order.148 When Ambrósio dos Anjos reached Goa the vice-province to which he belonged was in crisis, effectively in revolt against the Portuguese 144 Rome, APF, SRCG, vol. 209, f. 416v, cited in ibid., 117. 145 Alonso (Misioneros, 117, n. 10) draws attention to the article by the Dominican A. Eszer on this religious and his writings: ‘Giovanni Giuliani da Lucca O.P., Forschungen zu seinem Leben und zu seinen Schriften’, Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum, 37 (1967), 353–468. His visit to Gori is described in 417–419. 146 See A. Eszer O.P., ‘Ogostinos Bajenc O.P., als Oberhirte von Naxijewan’, Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum, 47 (1977), 183–246, 198–208. 147 Rome, APF, SRCG, vol. 209, fols 435r–445v, esp. f. 439r, cited in Misioneros, 120. 148 Ibid., vol. 210, f. 218, cited in ibid., loc. cit.



the martyrdom of queen ketevan

237

­ rovince, from which it sought the consent of the Roman authorities for p its separation and independence.149 Two procurators to plead this cause were chosen, Manuel Pacheco and Ambrósio dos Anjos and, armed with the relevant instructions, they left India in the middle of October 1638. Manuel Pacheco had also been appointed visitor to the Order’s establishments in Persia, Georgia and Basra. In Isfahan, for reasons which are unclear, Ambrósio dos Anjos became separated from Pacheco, forcing the latter to seek someone else acquainted with the region to accompany him to Rome. At this time the peripatetic Pedro dos Santos was still in Isfahan and he agreed to accompany Pacheco on condition that he should be allowed to collect funds for the Georgian mission while in Europe. On reaching Gori, according to the account of the Portuguese Augustinians to which we have referred, Manuel Pacheco discovered the situation in which the Augustinian convent had been left and, being pressed for money, he took the arbitrary decision to sell the convent and houses and to liquidate the Order’s assets there. In a report to his general, he further justified his actions by claiming that he found the houses occupied by nine Georgian families, and the convent being used for storage.150 These events, in late 1639, would see the definitive ending of the Augustinian mission to Georgia.151 The convent would never be restored nor the Augustinians return although, during the negotiations in Rome of the following years, the fiction was maintained that the mission was still active, even if in need of revitalisation. In the late summer of 1640 Ambrósio dos Anjos would negotiate for the formal adoption of the missions of Basra, Persia and Georgia by the Propaganda. It was to this end that his own report of 1640 and that of Pedro dos Santos were presented to the general session of the Propaganda on the 19 November 1640, at which the Congregation formally accepted these three branches of the Augustinian mission under its protection, and appointed Ambrósio dos Anjos as its first prefect. Ambrósio dos Anjos appears to have acted independently in these 149 This topic is clearly worthy of further examination, and Carlos Alonso indicates the extensive unpublished material for such a study in the archives of the Propaganda and the Augustinian Order (Misioneros, 121, n. 21). 150 Rome, Arch. Gen. OSA, Aa, vol. 41, fols 18–19, cited in Misioneros, 122, n. 27. 151  The Theatine presence in Georgia would continue until 1691, before being abandoned due to a shortage of missionaries. In 1660, the Order’s procurator in Constantinople had suggested (Rome, APF, Asia e Cipro, vol. 228, f. 33) to the Propaganda that it should send Capuchin missionaries to the Georgian principalities, since his own Order was stretched by its missions in India. The Propaganda appeared unwilling to take this approach, and continued, unsuccessfully, to press the general of the Theatines to find missionaries for Georgia. See Tamarati, L’Eglise, 559–560.

238

chapter nine

matters, and the activities of Manuel Pacheco in Rome during the period are unknown. However, in July 1642, Pacheco wrote to the Propaganda,152 requesting that José do Rosário be appointed prefect to the missions of Basra, Persia and Georgia, since Ambrósio dos Anjos had perished by shipwreck on his journey from Italy to Lisbon. The Congregation, in its reply of 11 July 1642, accepted the proposal, and directed that the new prefect should request the necessary faculties from the Holy Office.153 In fact, by this date, the title accorded the prefect reflected the reality only in Persia, where the Augustinian mission would survive for another century, while the mission of Basra was already moribund, and that of Georgia had effectively ended in early 1637.

152 Rome, APF, SRCG, vol. 404, f. 56, in Alonso, ‘Misiones en Georgia’, 277–278. 153 Ibid., Acta, vol. 15 (1642–1643), f. 140, in ibid., 278. The date given for the death of Ambrósio dos Anjos here contradicts that given by Manuel de Ave Maria in his biography (Documentação 11, 402–403). This claims that he returned to India in 1646 and was appointed prior of the convent of São Tomé de Meliapur, dying in Goa before he could take up the post of rector to which he had been appointed. However, as Alonso points out, the appointment of José do Rosário as prefect was never questioned and as he is regularly described as such in documents which predate the date given by Ave Maria for the death of Ambrósio dos Anjos, we may assume that the report of his death in 1642 was accurate.

chapter ten

Some Reflections As a historical recovery, this study of the Augustinian Hermits and their ­ issions to Persia, Basra and Georgia has sought to shed light on a sigm nificant and important period of mission history which is still underresearched. A number of themes have been illustrated through the activities of the missionaries, and aspects of these, including the consolidation of the Safavid state under ‘Abbas, the ever-present play of religion and politics, questions of comparative missiology and theology, ecclesiological issues, and the possibility creation of a Safavid variant of the millet system, will be the focus of this concluding section, together with an overall assessment of the Augustinian presence in Persia. Inevitably, the broad scope of a pioneering study of this nature will suggest avenues of future research, and a number of these are proposed for scholarly consideration. ‘Abbas and the Consolidation of the Safavid Shi‘a State The context of a Safavid state which expressly defined itself over against its Sunni Ottoman neighbours as characterised by adherence to Shi’a Islam is clearly crucial, and it is the figure of ‘Abbas I, ‘the Great’, who played such a significant state-building role, which dominates much of our historical account and context. It is no surprise that the first missionaries in Persia should devote considerable attention to ‘Abbas in their accounts. It was, after all, a widespread European belief that, not only was he sympathetic to Christianity, but on the verge of embracing it himself, that had led the missionaries to hope that his subjects would soon follow his example. In fact, as we have seen, if he was not directly responsible for such ideas in Europe he was certainly, at least in his early contacts with the missionaries, quite prepared to encourage their delusions in this respect. The picture of ‘Abbas as he appears in the missionary accounts shows him to be possessed of a lively intelligence and curiosity, and possessed of a wide range of skills and accomplishments. It is clear that he has a detailed knowledge of the various groups which composed the Safavid polity, and that this not only extended to the different groups of Christians, but also

240

chapter ten

included an appreciation of the doctrinal differences between them. Essentially pragmatic he was also quixotic, mercurial, and unpredictable. As we have seen, he was not above ridiculing the missionaries, or of playing off members of different missionary Orders against each other.1 It is also clear that at this period religious authority is very much in the hands of the shah, and it will be some time before the members of the clerical establishment, whom ‘Abbas clearly treated on occasion with scant regard, would begin to assert themselves. Interestingly, while from a religious perspective he seems to have generally accepted that the pope was, at least in a nominal sense, the head and spiritual leader of all Christians, perhaps seeing a parallel to the evolving claim to the Islamic Caliphate of the Sunni Ottoman sultans, and of ‘Abbas self-understanding of himself as ‘the principal column’ of Shi‘a Islam, he nevertheless appears to have over-estimated the power and influence of the papacy in European politics, attributing to it an authority over the Catholic princes which, as the continued failure to create an anti-Ottoman alliance among them demonstrates, had little basis in fact.2 The attempts of the Spanish monarchy and the papacy on one hand, and Shah ‘Abbas I on the other to forge this joint anti-Ottoman league has been a recurring theme, especially in the early years of the Augustinian presence in Isfahan. The correspondence quoted indicates the importance that both sides attached to the project, but the reality of the matter may be somewhat different. While ‘Abbas was prepared, as he demonstrated to Gouveia during his first stay in Persia, to attack the Ottoman enemy as a demonstration of his sincerity, the European side was able to offer little evidence of military commitment on their part. It is frankly unlikely that Spain would by this time have been able financially or militarily to undertake the significant role which would have been required of it in any such league. It is entirely possible that Spanish diplomacy merely sought to keep open the possibility of a league in order to maintain good relations with a powerful ruler who had diplomatic interests both in India and in the Persian Gulf, where Portuguese power was already beginning 1 Gulbenkian (Estudos Históricos I, 230) notes ‘Abbas’ expertise in the policy of divide and rule, citing two specific occasions when the shah attempts to introduce dissent between the Carmelites and Augustinians. See also Carmelites, I, 129. 2 The article by Maurice Borrmans, ‘La Rome pontificale vue par les Musulmans’, Islamochristiana 30 (2004), 15–24, notes that even today Muslim perceptions of the papacy are influenced by much earlier Muslim accounts. The author quotes from the Caliph al-Idrisi, who says of the pope in 1153–1154, ‘no one is more powerful than he: kings submit to him and consider him the equal of the Creator’(16).



some reflections

241

to decline. Such a policy would of course prove dangerous in the longer term, and a recognition that the European powers were unlikely to come to his aid would no doubt be a considerable factor in ‘Abbas’ decision to recapture Hormuz from the Portuguese. It is also clear from our text that Rome was fully aware of the difficulty presented in fashioning a united European response to the Ottoman threat, and indeed, as ‘Abbas sent ambassador after ambassador to the courts of Europe, the papal correspondence shows clear evidence of ‘embassy fatigue’.3 Religion and Politics The complex interaction of religion and politics has been a constant feature of our survey. As Gouveia noted, it would be a combination of religion and politics which enabled the initial foundation of the Augustinian mission of Isfahan, and the Order’s continuing representation of the Hapsburg rulers of Spain and Portugal during the union of the crowns, and subsequently of those of an independent Portugal, which enabled them to remain there, and to weather the vicissitudes of life in the capital of an avowedly Shi‘a Muslim state. It would be political considerations which brought the Armenians to Isfahan, resulting in the abortive attempt at union, and political considerations, both internal and external which caused ‘Abbas to reject such union, despite his earlier apparent enthusiasm. The adverse political situation in Persia for the Portuguese at the time of the capture of Hormuz, and the more propitious circumstances at Basra, would both contribute to the foundation of the mission there. The degree of support of the Portuguese authorities in Goa for the various projects of Mandaean transmigration was invariably influenced by political considerations, and the decline of Portuguese political influence in the Gulf region would lead to the abandonment of the Basra mission. If, as appears likely, the death of Ketevan was at least in part politically motivated, then it was also politics which resulted in the Augustinian foundation at Gori in Georgia. It is clear then, that the continuing political aspect of the Order’s presence in Isfahan was something of a double-edged sword. Without it, such presence is likely to have been temporary or short-lived, and yet the apostolic

3 See Alonso, António de Gouvea, 120. The extravagant number of ambassadors sent from the Persian court to Europe is also referred to in Gouveia’s description of his own attempts to avoid being appointed to the same office by ‘Abbas (Relaçam 179r).

242

chapter ten

activities of the missionaries were gravely affected by the changes in relations between Persia and Spain and Portugal. No Salvation Outside the Church? The late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries would see the pioneering experiments in the acculturation or inculturation of Christianity undertaken by Jesuits such as Francis Xavier (1506–1552) in Japan, Roberto de Nobili (1577–1656) in India,4 Matteo Ricci (1552–1610) in China,5 to which we may add the less well-known activities of the Portuguese Jesuit António de Andrade (1580–1634) in Tibet. Following the formula of the Jesuit Jerónimo Nadal (1507–1580), ‘entrar en la de ellos y salir con la nuestra’,6 these missionaries sought a Christianisation of other religious cultures from within, considering them as praeparationes evangelicae (preparation for the Gospel), already containing ‘seeds’ of the divine Word7 and elements of truth and goodness.8 While the view that membership of the Church is essential for salvation has a long history, a view forcibly expressed by Boniface VIII in his Bull of 1302, Unam Sanctam, and in the Decree of the Council of Florence Pro Jacobitis (1442), nevertheless, from the times of the early Church Fathers, and particularly after the discovery

4 See Francis X. Clooney SJ, ‘Roberto de Nobili’s Dialogue on Eternal Life and an Early Jesuit Evaluation of Religion in South India’, in John W. O’Malley et al. (eds), The Jesuits: Culture, Sciences and the Arts 1540–1773, (London, 1999), 402–417. Although de Nobili is the best known practitioner of inculturation in India, the practice was already established before his arrival, and there is brief reference to a Father Alessandro Leni who donned the dress of a ‘Yogi’ before setting out on his preaching tours in Malabar. See Relations des PP. L Froes et N. Pimenta, II, 54; Hayus, De rebus Japonicis, 755, both sources cited in Jarl Charpentier (ed.), The Livro da Seita dos Indios Orientais (Brit. Mus. MS Sloane 1820) of Father Jacobo Fenicio SJ (Uppsala, 1933). 5 See Charles E. Ronan SJ and Bonnie B. C. Oh (eds), East Meets West: The Jesuits in China, 1582–1773, (Chicago, 1988), esp. 3–61; R. Po-chia Hsia, A Jesuit in the Forbidden City: Matteo Ricci 1552–1610 (Oxford, 2010). 6 Monumenta Historica Societatis Iesu, Monumenta Nadalis, V, 834–835. 7 On the notion of the cosmological function of the Logos in the writings of the early Fathers of the Church, see Jacques Dupuis, Towards a Christian Theology, 53–83. 8 This understanding of the positive values inherent in the religions for their followers was given concrete expression in the documents of the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965), partcularly the ground-breaking Declaration on the Relations of the Church to Non-Christian Religions (Nostra Aetate, 28 October 1965), which form the theological basis for modern Catholic interreligious dialogue. See Dupuis, Towards a Christian Theology, 161–165. On the complex history of the document see Alberto Melloni, ‘Nostra Aetate and the Discovery of the Sacrament of Otherness’ in Philip A. Cunningham et al. (eds), The Catholic Church and the Jewish People (New York, 2007), 129–151.



some reflections

243

of the New World, strands within Catholic theology had endeavoured to find ways to include those outside the Church in the plan of salvation. The Spanish Dominicans of the University of Salamanca took a lead in the sixteenth century, emulated by the Jesuits of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. For the Augustinian vice-province of the East Indies, however, it would seem that the general theological basis for their missionary activity was more closely aligned with a pre-Tridentine interpretation of their patron Augustine, regarding those outside the visible confines of the Church as a massa damnata.9 In this respect, they are closer to the views of Francis Xavier during his time in India,10 rather than the more positive view of Eastern religion which characterised his later intuitions in Japan, intuitions which, having been given a theoretical basis by the Jesuit Alessandro Valignano would inspire following generations of the Order’s missionaries. In fact, it is probably reasonable to suggest that the missionary approach of the Augustinians in Persia, an approach which appears to have remained consistent throughout their presence, represented majority practice, and that the bold and innovative genius of de Nobili and his confreres has overshadowed the fact that their missionary approach was the exception rather than the norm. Such a view is supported by the resistance to such an approach, as exemplified by the opposition in India of the Portuguese Jesuit and missionary Gonçalo Fernandes to de Nobili’s activities, which he saw as elitist. Criticism of Ricci’s methods in China by the Spanish Augustinians in the Philippines may indicate a conservatism within the Order in Iberia, which would later contribute to the movement for separation of the Augustinian vice-province of the East Indies from control by its Portuguese province. It also likely that the long-­established Padroado felt no need to adopt the more accommodating approach espoused by a recently created Propaganda in relation to the rites and customs of Eastern Christians separated from Rome. It is interesting to note, nevertheless, that the correspondence of the Augustinians in both the Persian and Basran missions suggests an acknowledgment of the superior theological and missionary skills of the Jesuits, who benefited from both a more extensive and more rigorous formation, and a longer presence in the East.

 9 A useful survey of these trends is given in Francis A. Sullivan, Salvation outside the Church? Tracing the History of the Catholic Response (Eugene OR, 2002). 10 See the Introduction to Hugues Didier, St François Xavier: Correspondance 1535–1552, lettres et documents (Paris, 1987), esp. 11–13.

244

chapter ten

The refusal of Gouveia and his fellow missionaries to enter the mosque at Mashhad on their initial journey to Isfahan, the description recorded by Gouveia of the inhabitants of Persia as ‘pagans and idolaters’ (echoing Xavier’s view of the Indian religions), his reference to Islam’s ‘pestilential errors’ and his own harsh criticism of it as a ‘false religion’ in addressing ‘Abbas, clearly indicate a refusal to attribute any positive qualities to Shi‘a Islam, and there is little indication of a recognition of the various ‘resonances’11 between it and Catholicism which may have proved a starting point for a more enlightened and authentic dialogue. By contrast, there are indications that ‘Abbas was both more interested in and showed a greater respect for Catholic Christianity than the Augustinians for Shi‘a Islam, as evidenced by his visits to the Augustinian church, the time spent with them in discussion of various topics, including religion, and his support for the Catholic side in debates with the Protestants at his court. Although no doubt, his actions remained generally motivated by both the demands of hospitality and his customary self-interested pragmatism, the shah does seem to have had some grasp of Christian theology and an appreciation of the doctrinal differences between the Christian Churches in his realm. His reply to Gouveia that his own religion is ‘also good’ and could also be the means of his salvation can possibly be construed as his ascribing to Christianity a salvific efficacy which the missionaries certainly refused to allow for Islam. The context in which the Augustinians in Persia were operating is also highly significant. Xavier had been driven to the new missionary territories of Japan and China as a consequence of his belief that the implantation of Christianity in Muslim territory was impossible.12 If this ‘Muslim obstacle’ was insuperable in India and the other countries of the region where an Islamic presence had been established, it could only be even more so in Safavid Persia, with a state policy of imposing a uniform adherence to Shi‘a orthodoxy. The divisions within Christianity were only too

11  Among these are a highly developed eschatology, notions of redemptive sacrifice, a hierarchical structure of authority, and a veneration of holy people and places. See James A. Bill and John Alden Williams, Roman Catholics and Shi‘i Muslims: Prayer, Passion and Politics (London, 2002). 12 See Hugues Didier, St François Xavier, 23; ‘Francis Xavier’, 140. The question of how, and to what degree Christianity might in fact be inculturated in an Islamic context is addressed in the interesting study by Thomas J. O’Shaughnessy SJ, ‘Muslim Body, Christian Soul: Inculturation in Islamic Areas’, Neue Zeitschrift fûr Missionswissenschaft, 37/4 (1981), 284–290, and is a central theme of Paolo Dall’Oglio SJ, Amoureux d’l’Islam, croyant en Jésus (Ivry-sur-Seine, 2009).



some reflections

245

apparent in Isfahan, and this knowledge of Christian disunity can only have further impeded effective evangelisation.13 The rapturous reception accorded in Goa, and in the Spanish and papal courts to the small number of converts to Christianity from Islam, is a clear indication of how infrequent such conversion was. It was of course this frustration on the part of the Augustinians in Persia at the effective impermeability of Islam to Christianity that likely gave added impetus to their founding of missions in Georgia, and among the Mandaeans of Basra, and led them to turn their attentions to members of the Eastern Churches not in communion with Rome. Here too, success would elude them, principally on account of their unwillingness to countenance the liturgical rites and customs of the Eastern and Oriental Churches, rites which themselves represent a vital and central expression of Christian inculturation.14 Questions of Ecclesiology As we have constantly emphasised, the dominant ecclesiology informing the Augustinians in Persia is an insistence on the supremacy of the pope and submission to him and membership of the Roman Catholic Church as essential to salvation. Indeed, in comparison to the need to accept the authority of the pope, doctrinal differences tend to pale into insignificance in the encounters with Eastern Christianity we have described. In view of this, Augustinian determination to have Queen Ketevan declared a saint and martyr of the Latin Church is somewhat curious, particularly in view of the fact that it continued after their possession of her relics enabled them to fulfil their long-held goal of establishing a mission in Georgia. This stubbornness may simply reflect a desire for something which reflected well on the Augustinian Order, but possibly indicates a 13 The Augustinians appear to have been aware of the need for a consistent and unified approach to evangelisation, having employed on several occasions the admittedly selfserving argument that each mission field should be entrusted to a single Order, since to expose unbelievers to members of the various Orders, with their differing appearance and practices, would be a source of confusion inimical to the work of evangelisation. For Francis Xavier, it was the behaviour of supposedly ‘Christian’ European mariners, colonists and merchants in Asia, whose guiding principle was ‘I steal, you steal’, which impeded the work of evangelisation. See Didier, Correspondance, 23. 14 In this connection it is noteworthy that although, after the Council of Trent, to be a Catholic generally meant to observe the Latin rite, the Eastern rite Catholics were represented by the three small ecclesial communities: Italo-Byzantines, Chaldeans, and Maronites. While the reforming decrees of Trent were also applied to these communities, the status of their rites was not affected.

246

chapter ten

competing ecclesiology, an alternative to their customarily narrow ecclesiological perspective, permitting recognition of the validity of the martyrdom for the Christian faith of a member of a Church separated from Rome. As we have noted, a subtle adaptation of the notion of ‘baptism of blood’ was called into play in order to justify this approach. The failed attempt to achieve union between the Armenians of Isfahan and Rome is also of interest. Rather than following the common pattern of the time of seeking union merely with those factions sympathetic to Rome within other Churches, the Augustinian plan appears to have been to achieve union with the entire Armenian Church, drawing on an older ecclesiology which had fallen into abeyance after the failure of the Council of Florence to unite the various Eastern Churches with Rome in their entirety. Certainly the Augustinians were aware of a rump of the Armenian Church remaining in Armenia, but the fact that they took care to ensure that all the Armenian clergy of Isfahan and the surrounding region were privy to the project of union may suggest that they had nothing less than full union between the two Churches in mind. The general acceptance, at least in principle, of the primacy of Rome, is an interesting aspect of the discussions of the Augustinians with senior clerics of both the Armenian and Georgian Churches. It is clear, however, that for these latter the bishop of Rome is to be considered as primus inter pares, and his relationship with the patriarchs of the autocephalous Churches is to be essentially collegial. We may ask whether the view of the Eastern Churches in this regard has since become more polarised, exacerbated by the policy which saw the creation and expansion of the Eastern Catholic Churches, and by the declaration of papal infallibility of 1870. It is unlikely that the same generally positive response would be encountered nowadays. However, if Eastern suspicion of papal pretensions has remained high, recent years have seen an increasing recognition on the part of the Roman Catholic Church that aspects of the exercise of the papacy and its jurisdictional claims do represent a possible obstacle to Christian ­unity.15 While the ecclesiological viewpoint of Rome in the period on which we have focussed required nothing less than the unquestioning ‘submission’ to papal authority on which our missionaries so insisted, the new

15 For a balanced and considered Orthodox Christian perspective, see Olivier Clément, You are Peter: an orthodox theologian’s reflection on the exercise of papal primacy (New York, 2003).



some reflections

247

­ erspective on ecumenism explored by the Second Vatican Council in p its decree Unitatis Redintegratio (November 1964) may be seen as having given impetus to the encyclical letter of John Paul II Ut Unum Sint (May 1995). Recalling the significant ecclesiological re-evaluation of the Eastern Churches by the Council, the pope here addressed the issue of his role in the Christian oikumene, acknowledging the difficulties that a narrow interpretation of it had caused, and asking that the leaders and theologians of these Churches should join him ‘in a patient and fraternal dialogue on this subject’ in order that unity may be restored. It must be acknowledged, however, that the increasing centralisation of the Latin church under the same pope, and the apparently scant regard for episcopal collegiality demonstrated by both himself and his successor, have perhaps not provided the most appropriate background for such discussion, although, certainly, Pope Benedict XVI has made union with the Churches of the East a high priority of his pontificate, and the recent common Christological statements indicate the development of an encouraging theological framework.16 If inter-ecclesial jurisdiction was the focus of Augustinian attention in their dealings with the Eastern Churches, the tensions between the Padroado and the Propaganda illustrated in our text represent an intraecclesial struggle for spiritual control in the overseas possessions of Spain and Portugal. These tensions would continue long beyond the period of our study, although the decline in Portuguese power and influence already evident would enable the Propaganda to make some inroads into the traditional territory of the Padroado, inroads which were nevertheless strenuously resisted where possible.17 The arguments over jurisdiction in Basra demonstrate clearly the issue of the degree to which the writ of the Padroado ran in areas which could only, at best, be described as within

16 In fact, theological discussions between the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches have made it clear that, despite their different formulations, they effectively share the same understanding of the incarnate Christ. These discussions are detailed in Sebastian Brock, ‘The importance of the Syriac traditions in ecumenical dialogue on Christology’, Christian Orient 20 (1999), 189–197; ‘The Syriac Churches in Ecumenical Dialogue on Christology’, in A. O’Mahony (ed.), Eastern Christianity: Studies in Modern History, Religion and Politics (London, 2004), 44–65. 17 The appointment of vicars apostolic, effectively answerable to the Propaganda, although technically the personal representatives of the pope, to the suffragan dioceses of Goa would bring the Catholic Church in India to the verge of schism in the nineteenth century. See Silva Rego, O Padroado Português no Oriente e a sua Historiografia, esp. 24–33 of the Introduction, in which he describes the bitter and protracted conflict between the Propaganda and the Padroado in the period 1838–1858.

248

chapter ten

the Portuguese sphere of influence. While these highly charged and decidedly political questions were addressed at the highest levels between the cardinals of the Propaganda and the monarchs invested with rights of patronage under the Padroado, the missionaries on the ground were forced to resort to a degree of pragmatism, and where support was not forthcoming from the Padroado they had little alternative but to petition the Propaganda not just for financial and material support, but also that they should be placed under its spiritual protection. As we have seen, the response from Rome was usually characterised more by words of encouragement than the financial help so desperately needed, and we have suggested that the Sacred Congregation may not have been overly concerned about the possible failure of missions which it had not initiated. A Nascent Safavid Millet System? There are indications that ‘Abbas may have considered introducing something similar to the Ottoman millet system into his territory, as his appointment of an Armenian to oversee the Eastern Christians of his realm, referred to above, would suggest. The fact that the Armenian Christians themselves formed a discrete and sizeable community, with a well-­developed hierarchical structure, no doubt influenced ‘Abbas’ choice.18 The organisation of the Armenian suburb of New Julfa certainly allowed the Armenian ‘nation’ a considerable degree of autonomy in self-governance, although the economic importance of this group may well have led them to be considered a special case. There is little evidence, however, of a systematic attempt to regulate the status of religious and other minorities. Rather, like the other constituents of the Safavid state, they were directly dependent on the goodwill of the shah, as demonstrated by the frequent recourse had to him by the missionaries, and by the papacy, in order either to create a space for Christians to operate under his protection, or to attempt to obtain his agreement that Christians of his realm should submit to their authority.

18 O’Mahony (‘Christianity, Shi‘a Islam and Muslim-Christian Encounter’, 180) argues that the absence in Persia of sizeable Christian communities with a powerful ecclesiastical hierarchy is the reason why the Safavid Shi‘a state did not follow the Ottoman millet model in creating a definitive organisation for religious minorities. The small numbers of the other Eastern Christian denominations and their consequently weak hierarchical structure certainly made the Armenians the obvious choice to head a Christian ‘nation’.



some reflections

249

As we have observed, ‘Abbas was certainly aware of Eastern Christian ecclesial suspicion of and political resistance to Roman authority. However, this had not prevented him from requesting on numerous occasions that both the pope and the Spanish authorities should arrange for a Catholic cleric or ambassador plenipotentiary to be sent from Europe in order to oversee all the Christians within his realm.19 In view of the fact that in 1611, one of the commissions entrusted to a Carmelite friar20 sent by ‘Abbas to Europe via Russia was to request from the pope ‘a Khalifeh’ to have jurisdiction over all Eastern Christians in his kingdom, Jacobites, Greeks, Georgians, and Armenians of Julfa and the rest’ it is difficult to understand the negative reaction of the shah to the appointment of António de Gouveia as apostolic visitor to Persia and bishop of Cyrene. It cannot simply be a question of pique on the shah’s part that Gouveia had sought to arrange this appointment himself, similar requests had been made by ‘Abbas during the first Augustinian mission to Isfahan, a mission in which Gouveia had himself played a part.21 It is quite possible that the shah was influenced by Gouveia’s presumed complicity in the unsuccessful affair of the silk, an attitude perhaps exacerbated by the elevated view of his own status now demonstrated by the newly-appointed bishop,22 but it may also reflect a change of heart by the shah, unwilling, when it came to it, and in a period in which the Safavid system of governance was still to some extent in formation, to deputise authority over a not insignificant minority of his subjects to someone who was effectively the agent of an external power, whether that power be construed as the pope or the Spanish monarch. It is interesting to note that, if Pietro della Valle’s observations are correct, ‘Abbas appears to have had no difficulty in delegating civil and criminal juridical oversight to minority groups within his realm, although such delegation remained subject to his approval, and could be rescinded at

19  As for example in the letter of Gouveia to Philip III in December 1608, and the note of Robert Sherley to Paul V dated 4 October 1609. See the excerpts given in Gulbenkian, Estudos Históricos I, 232–233. 20 None other than Juan Tadeo de S. Eliseu, who after considerable difficulties of his own would return three years later to Isfahan with news of the death of the Augustinian Nicolau de Melo. See Carmelites I, 195. 21  In reference to the Armenian patriarch, Gouveia records (Relaçam f. 180r) ‘Abbas’ desire that the pope should send ‘another patriarch to be the prelate of all the Christians’. 22 In a letter to the Spanish secretary of state (in Archivo Agustiniano 44 (1980), 91), Gouveia declares that ‘The title of bishop and the authority of Apostolic Visitor do not permit the outward show of humility and poverty of a friar’.

250

chapter ten

will.23 The Roman traveller notes that the religious and ethnic communities ‘. . . in accordance each with their own customs, make their own justice and exercise jurisdiction . . .’.24 Here too, of course, this space is granted by the shah to groups and individuals located within the Persian polity and forming part of it, and this privilege is no doubt intended to contribute to the stability and cohesion of the Safavid state project. It would seem however, that while he was prepared to offer both ecclesiastical and judicial oversight of his Christian minorities in his political negotiations with the papacy and the Spanish crown, he was clearly uncomfortable when such a delegation of power to forces outside Persia showed any sign of becoming a reality. The Augustinian Mission in Isfahan: Towards a Tentative Verdict How are we to assess the Augustinian mission to Persia which has been the focus of this study? It appears a bold even foolhardy, endeavour. The sheer ‘otherness’ of the Safavid capital of Isfahan to European eyes is clear enough from contemporary accounts. The journey from continental Europe was fraught with dangers, and the chroniclers note numerous deaths at sea. Death by martyrdom remained a distinct possibility, and would be a reality for some. The involvement of the missionaries in the practice of ransom and redemption of Christian prisoners and converts to Islam to which we have alluded was certainly not without risk. It is likely that the missions attracted candidates of a particular psychological profile, although the suggestion by a bureaucrat in Madrid that those sent to the missions were ‘not the most lucid’ members of their Orders25 is perhaps ungenerous in failing to recognise the hazardous nature of their enterprise. In terms of ‘bearing fruit’ the Augustinian missions to Persia,

23 And extended even to foreign guests and ambassadors. See Floor, ‘The Secular Judicial system’, 10–11. 24 See the comments made by the shah during an audience with the Carmelite visitor general in 1621 regarding the Catholic community of Isfahan (Carmelites I, 253). Here ‘Abbas instructs that, since their religious office barred them from acting as judges, they should appoint ‘a Frank, resident here or staying temporarily here, to be a judge, with the authority of a consul . . .’. Gouveia’s attempt during the stay in Europe in which he was ordained as bishop of Cyrene to have his own brother appointed as consul for the Christians of Persia would come to naught. See Alonso, António de Gouvea, 139. 25 The letter in which Fernão de Matos makes his comment is given in Novoa, ‘El M. R. P. Fr. Melchor de los Angeles’, 45, 268–269.



some reflections

251

Basra and Georgia had very limited results as regards conversions from Islam, or indeed among the Eastern Christians or the Mandaeans. Frustration at this failure, doubtless combined with the ‘temptations of the flesh’ at the opulent Safavid court where they represented the diplomatic interests of their country, would, on occasion, have disastrous consequences. We may mention in this connection the Augustinian contribution to the chain of Christian-Muslim polemic which stretched back to Jerome Xavier at the Mogul court; a contribution made, ironically, in support of the Muslim side of the debate. Carlos Alonso has characterised the picture of the Augustinian mission to Persia as one of ‘chiaroscuro’,26 and perhaps this is all we can expect from any human endeavour, undertaken as it is by those who are, to paraphrase a certain famous Augustinian, ‘simul iusti et peccatores’.27 Nevertheless, and however we may choose to consider the degree of success or otherwise of the mission, I believe that the present study amply demonstrates that its investigation can improve our knowledge of a wide range of interreligious and inter-ecclesial themes within Safavid Persia and the neighbouring regions, and that it fully merits further scholarly investigation. Possible Topics for Further Research An indication of the differing approaches of the Carmelites and Augustinians in the Basra mission has been touched on in our text. However, a detailed comparative study of the missiological approaches and their theological underpinning which characterise the Persian missions of all the various Orders represented there,28 both in their relations with Muslims and with members of the Eastern and Oriental Churches not in communion with Rome, would be of considerable value. Were those Orders not influenced by the Padroado operating in Isfahan and its suburb of New Julfa more amenable to applying the missionary procedures established by the Propaganda, and more open to notions of inculturation and the acceptance of Eastern Church rites and customs? Did the approach of these 26 Alonso, ‘Documentación inedita de la provincia agustiniana de Portugal en los años 1567–1586’, 143. 27 Martin Luther, originally himself an Augustinian friar, viewed the condition of the Christian as being ‘both justified and a sinner’ (simul iustus et peccator). 28 Carmelites (1604–1775), Cappuchins (1628–1745), Jesuits (1653–1760), and Dominicans (1677–1764). See the chapters devoted to each Order in Part II of Bugnini, La Chiesa, 137–171.

252

chapter ten

Orders in any way influence the Augustinian mission to change its own emphasis during its century and a half presence in Isfahan? A number of volumes from the missionary libraries of Isfahan were preserved first by the Armenian Dominicans and later by the Lazarist mission to Isfahan and these were recently examined and catalogued by the French researcher Dominique Carnoy-Torabi.29 Many of the 780 titles which form the older part of the collection (sixteenth to eighteenth century works) are in very poor repair, but as the cataloguer notes, the whole life of the missions to which they belonged is inscribed in these works, from their ex-libris to the many annotations, comments, dates, erasures or alterations contained in them. Only a single volume belonging to the Augustinians is listed, and Carnoy-Torabi provides merely the tantalising information that the collections of both the Augustinians and the Dominicans were stored elsewhere. If these volumes have indeed survived, it is likely that their mute witness would also add considerably to our knowledge of the Augustinian mission in the Safavid capital. Any surviving books from the Augustinian library are the last physical remnants of their presence in Isfahan, their buildings having long since disappeared. We are fortunate to have a detailed list of the materials taken by the Augustinians to Gori, including portraits of Ketevan. Has any of this or any physical evidence of Augustinian presence survived within Georgia? The Western missionaries had considerable difficulty in recognising that the Mandaeans were not and never had been Christians, a misunderstanding in which the Mandaeans were happy to have them remain. How were the so-called ‘St John Christians’ viewed by the Eastern Christians who had lived alongside them for so many centuries, and might they have disabused the Catholic missionaries of their misperceptions? The Inquisition was established in Goa in 1560 and abolished only in 1812. The destruction of the majority of its records following its abolition has hampered study of its activities, but surviving material or correspondence sent back to Lisbon may include details of inquisitorial proceedings instigated to investigate the orthodoxy and religious practices of the ‘St John Christians’. The long-running jurisdictional dispute between the Augustinians and Carmelites in Basra was ended only by the departure of the former. It does, however, as we have noted, raise important questions regarding the

29 Dominique Carnoy-Torabi, ‘The Forgotten Library of the Isfahan Missionaries’, Oriente 19 (Lisbon), 2008, 94–105.



some reflections

253

extent of the jurisdiction of the Padroado outside Portuguese territory, and hence of its relation in such regions with the Congregation of the Propaganda. The opportunity exists for a specialist in the canon law of the period to undertake a detailed study of the extensive documentation linked to the case in order to bring further clarity to the affair. Passing reference has been made to the increasing tensions between the Portuguese Augustinian province and the Order’s vice-province based at Goa, tensions acrimonious enough to provoke a movement for independence from Portuguese control. Carlos Alonso has confirmed the existence of material in the Order’s archives to enable further study on this interesting topic, something which would be a valuable addition to our knowledge of Augustinian mission history.

Bibliography Agius, Dionisius, V. P. Borg (tr.) Francine Geraci (ed.), The Study of Arabic in Malta 1632– 1915 (Louvain: Peeters, 1990). Allen, W. E. D., A history of the Georgian People from the beginning down to the Russian Conquest in the Nineteenth Century (London: K. Paul, Trench, Trubner 1932). ——, Russian Embassies to the Georgian Kings (1589–1605) (Cambridge: Hakluyt Society, 1970). Almeida, Fortunato de, História da Igreja em Portugal 4 vols (Coimbra: Imprensa Académica, 1912; new edn Porto: Portucalense Editora (vol. I), Livraria Civilização Editora (vols 2–4), 1967–1971). Al-Murtada, al-Sharif, al-Fusul al-mukhtara (Beirut, 1985). Alonso, Carlos, Los Mandeos y Las Misiones Católicas en la primera metad del s. XVII, Orientalia Christiana Analecta 179, (Rome: Pontificium Institutum Orientalium Studiorum, 1967). ——, Angel Maria Cittadini, OP, Arzobispo de Naxivan (d. 1629): Una iniciativa de Propa­ ganda Fide en favor de Armenia (Rome: Studium Theologicum Augustinianum, 1970). ——, Misioneros Agustinos en Georgia (Siglo XVII) (Valladolid: Ed. Estudio Agustiniano, 1978). ——, Alejo de Meneses OSA, Arzobispo de Goa: estudio biográfico, (Valladolid: Ed. Estudio Agustiniano, 1992). ——, Antonio de Gouvea, O.S.A.: Diplomático y Visitador Apostolico en Persia (Valladolid: Ed. Estudio Agustiniano, 2000). ——, Os Agostinhos em Portugal (Madrid: Ediciones Religión y Cultura, 2003). ——, ‘Clemente VIII y la fundación de las misiones católicas en Persia’, La Ciudad de Dios, 71 (1958), 196–240. ——, ‘Los Mandeos, una misión agustiniana en la Baja Mesopotamia’, Missionalia Hispanica 15 (1958), 57–84. ——, ‘El P. Nicolás Melo, Embajador y Martir’, Missionalia Hispanica 15 (1959), 219–244. ——, ‘Misiones de la Orden de S. Agustin entre los Mandeos’ (1623–1668), Missionalia Hispanica 16 (1959), 323–362. ——, ‘Proyecto de una misión de la Orden de San Agustín en Arabia (1624–1629)’, Augustiniana 10 (1960), 61–76. ——, ‘Due Lettere Riguardanti I Primi Tempi Delle Missioni Agostinianae in Persia’, Analecta Augustiniana 24 (1961), 152–201. ——, ‘Nuevas aportaciones para la historia del primer viaje misional de los Carmelitas Descalzos a Persia (1603– 1608)’ Missionalia Hispanica 19 (1962), 249–287. ——, ‘Stato delle missioni Agostiniani nelle India Orientale secondo una relazione inedita del 1640’, Analecta Augustiniana 25 (1962), 291–325. ——, ‘Documentación inédita para una biografía de Fr. Alejo de Meneses O.S.A, Arzobispo de Goa, 1595–1612’, Analecta Augustiniana 27 (1964), 263–333. ——, ‘Misiones de la Orden de San Augustin en Georgia (1628–1639)’, Analecta Augustiniana, 28 (1965), 219–280. ——, ‘El P. José del Rosário OSA y la misión agustiniana de Persia’, Analecta Augustiniana 29 (1966), 272–315. ——, ‘Nueva documentación inédita sobre las misiones augustinianas en la India y en Persia (1571–1609)’, Analecta Augustiniana 33 (1970), 309–383. ——, ‘Documentación inédita sobre Fr. Agustín de Jésus, O.S.A., Arzobispo de Braga (1588–1609)’, Analecta Augustiniana 34 (1971), 85–170.

256

bibliography

——, ‘El convento de Ispahan durante el periodo 1621–1671’, Analecta Augustiniana 36 (1973), 247–308. ——, ‘Agustinos en la India (1624–1642)’, Analecta Augustiniana 37 (1974), 261–268. ——,‘Clemente VIII y la fundación de las misiones católicas en Persia’, Ciudad de Dios 171/2 (1974), 196–240. ——, ‘El P. Simón de Moraes, pionero de las misiones agustinianas en Persia’, Analecta Augustiniana Rome, 62 (1979), 343–372. ——, ‘Cautiverio en Argel y liberación de Antonio de Gouvea, OSA, ob. tit. de Cirene (1620–1621)’, La Ciudad de Dios 194 (1981), 475–491. ——, ‘El convento agustiniano de Isfahan durante el período 1690–1702’, Archivo Agustiniano 67 (1983), 141–184. ——, ‘Alejo de Meneses OSA (1559–1617) Arzobispo de Braga. I Parte’, Archivo Agustiniano 65 (1981), 41–74; II Parte: ibid., 66 (1982), 183–251; III Parte: ibid., 68 (1984), 151–181; IV Parte, ibid., 69 (1985), 117–166. ——, ‘Novísimo Florilegio Documental sobre los Agustinos en Persia (1608–1622)’ Analecta Augustiniana 50 (1987), 45–119. ——, ‘Embajadores de Persia en las Cortes de Praga, Roma y Valladolid (1600–1601)’, Anthologica Annua 36 (1989), 10–271, published as an offprint in the same year by the Instituto Español de Historia Ecclesiastica, Rome. ——, ‘Documentación inedita sobre las misiones de los Teatinos en Georgia’ (I), Regnum Dei 122 (1996), 25–115. ——, ‘Una embajada de Clemente VIII a Persia (1600–1609)’, Archivum Historiae Pontificiae 34 (1996,) 7–126. ——, ‘Documentación inedita sobre las misiones de los Teatinos en Georgia’ (II), Regnum Dei 123 (1997), 119–209. ——, ‘Documentación inedita sobre las misiones de los Teatinos en Georgia’ (III), Regnum Dei 124 (1998), 269–372. ——, ‘Documentación inedita sobre las misiones de los Teatinos en Georgia’ (IV), Regnum Dei 125 (1999), 3–90. ——, ‘Documentación inedita sobre las misiones de los Teatinos en Georgia’ (V), Regnum Dei 126 (2000), 109–183. ——, ‘Cuatro cartas relacionadas con el acto de sumisión del patriarca armenio David IV al Papa Paulo V (1607)’, in Oliveira Ramos et al. (eds), Estudos em homenagem a João Francisco Marques (Porto: Faculdade de Letras da Universidade de Porto, 2001), 71–81. ——, ‘The Augustinians in Hormuz (1573–1622)’ in Edmund Herzig and Willem Floor (eds) Iran and the World in the Safavid Age (London: I. B. Tauris, 2012), 365–370. Álvarez, Fernando Bouza, Portugal no tempo dos Filipes: Política, cultura, representações, Ángela Barreto Xavier and Pedro Cardim (trs), (Lisbon: Edições Cosmos, 2000). Amadouni, Garabed, ‘Le rôle historique des Hiéromoines arméniens’ in Il monachesimo orientale (Orientalia Cristiana Analecta 153, Rome, 1958), 279–305. Amoretti, Biancamaria Scarcia (ed.), Shah Ismail I nei “Diarii” di Marin Sanudo (Rome: Istituto per l’Oriente, 1979). Andreu, Francisco, C. R. ‘Carteggio inedita di Pietro Della Valle Col. P. Avitabile e i Missionari Teatini della Georgia’, Regnum Dei 6 (1950), 57–99; Regnum Dei 7 (1951), 19–50, 118–153. Andrews, Frances, The Other Friars: The Carmelite, Augustinian, Sack and Pied Friars in the Middle Ages (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2006). Anonymous, ‘The Translation of Saint Nicholas: An anonymous Greek account of 
the transfer of the Body of Saint Nicholas from Myra to Lycia to Bari in Italy’, translated by J. McGinley and H. Mursurillo, Bolletino di S, Nicola, (Bari: 1980), Studi e testi 10, 3–17. Aparicio Lopez, Teofilo, OSA, ‘Fray Agustín de Castro o de Jésus’, Estudio Agustiniano 10 (1975), 47–81. ——, La Orden de San Agustin en la India (1572–1622) (Valladolid: Estudio Agustiniano, 1977). Arbesmann, Rudolf and Humpfner, Winfried (eds), Liber qui dicitur Vitasfratrum, (New York: Cosmopolitan, 1943).



bibliography

257

Arjomand, Said Amir, The Shadow of God and the Hidden Imam (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984). ——, ‘The Clerical Estate and the Emergence of a Shi‘ite Hierocracy in Safavid Iran: A Study in Historical Sociology’, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 28/2 (1985) 169–219. ——, ‘Crisis of the Imamate and the Institution of Occultation in Twelver Shi‘ism: A Sociohistorical Perspective’, International Journal of Middle East Studies 28/4 (1996), 491–515. ——, ‘The Consolation of Theology: Absence of the Imam and Transition from Chiliasm to Law in Shi‘ism’, The Journal of Religion 76/4 (Oct. 1996), 548–571. Arutjunova-Fidanjan, V. A. ‘The Ethno-confessional self-awareness of Armenian Chalce­ donians’, Revue des Études Arméniennes 21 (1998–1989), 345–363. Arzoumanian, Zaven, The Origins of Armenian Christianity (Boca Raton: FL, Z. Arzoumanian, 2001). Aslanian, Sebouh David, From the Indian Ocean to the Mediterranean: the global networks of Armenian Merchants from New Julfa ( Berkeley CA: University of California Press, 2011). Atamian, Ani Pauline, The Archdiocese of Naxjewan in the Seventeenth Century, (unpublished Ph. D. thesis, Columbia University, 1984). Atiya, Aziz Suryal, A History of Eastern Christianity (Piscataway, NJ, Gorgias, 2010). Aubin, Jean, L’Ambassade de Gregório Pereira Fidalgo à la cour de Châh Soltân-Hosseyn 1696–1697 (Lisbon: Fundação Gulbenkian, 1971). ——, ‘L’avènement des Safavides réconsideré’, Moyen Orient et Océan Indien 5 (1988), 1–130. Aumann, Jordan, OP ‘Louis of Granada: The Layman’s Theologian’, Angelicum, 46 (1988), 565–584. Avalishvili, Z., ‘Teimuraz I and his poem “The Martyrdom of Queen Ketevan’ ”, Georgica 1 (1937), 17–42. Babayan, Kathryn, ‘Sufis, Dervishes and Mullas: the Controversy over Spiritual and Temporal Dominion in Seventeenth-Century Iran’ Pembroke Papers 4 (1996), 117–138. Bacqué-Grammont, Jean-Louis, Rahmé, Vivian and Hamza, Salam, ‘Textes ottomans et safavides sur l’annexion de Bassora en 1546’, Eurasian Studies 3/1 (2004), 1–33. Balgy, A., Historiae doctrinae catholicae inter Armenos unionisque eorum cum Ecclesia Romana in Concilio Florentino (Vienna: Typis Congr. Mechitharisticae, 1878). Bashir, Shahzad, ‘Shah Ismail and the Qizilbash: Cannibalism in the Religious History of Early Safavid Iran’, History of Religion 45/3 (2006), 234–256. Baum, Wilhelm and Winkler, Dietmar W. The Church of the East: a concise history, Miranda G. Henry (tr.), (London: Routledge Curzon, 2003). Baumer, Christoph, The Church of the East: An Illustrated History of Assyrian Christianity (London: I. B. Tauris, 2006). Bellan, L.-L., Chah ‘Abbas1. Sa vie, son histoire (Paris: P. Geuthner, 1932). Bennassar, Bartolomé and Bennassar, Lucile, Les Chrétiens d’Allah: l’histoire extraordinaire des renégats, XVIe–XVIIe siècles (Paris: Perrin, 1989). Ben-Zaken, Avner, ‘From Naples to Goa and Back: A Secretive Galilean Messenger and a Radical Hermeneutist’, History of Science 47–2 (2009), 147–174. Beradze, Grigol and Kutsia, Karlo, ‘Towards the Interrelations of Iran and Georgia in the 16th–18th Centuries’ in Raoul Motika and Michael Ursinus (eds.), Caucasia between the Ottoman Empire and Iran, 1555–1914 (Wiesbaden: Reichert, 2000), 121–131. Berg, Heleen Murre van den, ‘Syriac Christianity’ in Ken Parry (ed.), The Blackwell Companion to Eastern Christianity (Oxford: Blackwell, 2007), 249–268. ——, ‘Chaldeans and Assyrians: the Church of the East in the Ottoman Period’ in Erica Hunter (ed.), The Christian Heritge of Iraq I–V Seminar Days (Pisacataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2009), 146–164. Biblioteca Lusitana histórica, crítica e cronológica 4 vols, Barbosa Machado, Diôgo (ed.), (Lisbon: Antonio Isidoro de Fonseca, 1741–1759); revised critical edition: Coimbra: Atlántida, 1965).

258

bibliography

Bibliotheca Sanctorum, 14 vols (Rome: Istituto Giovanni XXIII nella Pont. Univ. Lateranense, 1961–1987). Bill, James A and Williams, John Alden (eds), Roman Catholics and Shi‘i Muslims: Prayer, Passion and Politics (London: University of North Carolina Press, 2002). Bonner, Anthony (ed.), Doctor Illuminatus. A Ramon Llull Reader (Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press, 1985). Bono, Salvatore, ‘La schiavitu nel mediterraneo moderno storia di una storia’ in L’esclavage en Méditerranée à l’époque moderne, Cahiers de la Mediterranée 65, (Nice: Centre de la Méditerranée moderne et contemporaine, 2002), 1–16. Borrmans, Maurice, ‘La Rome pontificale vue par les Musulmans’, Islamochristiana 30 (2004), 15–24. Bosch, Miriam Díez i, ‘Cardinal Kasper: Unity isn’t optional’, permalink: http//www.zenit .org/article-21612?1=english. Boxer, C. R., The Church Militant and Iberian Expansion 1440–1770 (Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1978). Breve Relaçam das christandades que os religiosos de N. Padre Sancto Agostinho tem a sua conta nas partes do Oriente, & do fruyto que nells se faz, tirada principalmente das cartas que nestes annos de lâ se escrevem; em que se contem cousas muy notaveis (Lisbon: António Alvarez, 1630). Brock, Sebastian P., ‘The “Nestorian” Church: A Lamentable Misnomer’, Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 78 (1996), 23–35. ——, ‘The importance of the Syriac traditions in ecumenical dialogue on Christology’, Christian Orient 20 (1999), 189–197. ——, et al. (eds,), The Hidden Pearl: the Syrian Orthodox Church and its ancient Aramaic Heritage (Rome: Transworld Film Italia, 2001). ——, ‘The Syriac Churches in Ecumenical Dialogue on Christology’, in A. O’Mahony (ed.), Eastern Christianity: Studies in Modern History, Religion and Politics (London: Melisende, 2004), 44–65. Brodman, James, The Trinitarian and Mercedarian Orders: A Study of Religious Redemption­ ism in the Thirteenth Century (Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms International, 1974). ——, Ransoming captives in crusader Spain: the Order of Merced on the Christian-Islamic frontier (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1986). ——, Histoire de la Géorgie depuis l’antiquité jusqu’au XIXe siècle traduite du géorgien par M. Brosset, 5 vols. in two parts, (St Petersburg: Imprimerie de l’Académie Impériale des Sciences, 1849–1858). Brown, H. F., ‘A Report on the Condition of Persia in the year 1586’ English Historical Review 7 (1892), 314–321. Brummett, Palmira, ‘The Myth of Shah Ismail Safavi: Political Rhetoric and “Divine” Kingship’ in John Victor Tolan (ed.), Medieval Christian Perceptions of Islam (New York: Routledge, 2000), 331–360. Brunner, Rainer and Ende, W., The Twelver Shi‘a in Modern Times: Religious Culture and Political History (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2001). Bruin, Cornelis de, Voyages de Corneille le Brun par la Moscovie, en Perse et aux Indes Orientales . . . , 6 parts in two vols. (Amsterdam: Frères Wetstein, 1718). Buckley, Jorunn Jacobsen, The Mandaeans: ancient texts and modern people (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002). Bugnini, Annibale, La Chiesa in Iran (Rome: Edizione Vincenzianae, 1981). Burgess, Michael The Eastern Orthodox Churches: Concise Histories with Chronological Checklists of their Primates (Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland, 2005). Camps, Arnulf, OFM, Jerome Xavier SJ and the Muslims of the Mogul Empire: controversial works and missionary activity (Fribourg: Switzerland, Nouvelle Revue de Science Missionnaire, 1957). Carnoy-Torabi, Dominique ‘The Forgotten Library of the Isfahan Missionaries’, Oriente (Lisbon) 19, 2008, 94–105.



bibliography

259

Caraffa, F. (ed.), Bibliotheca Sanctorum, vol. II (Rome: Istituto Giovanni XXIII nella Pontificia Università Lateranense 1962). Cartas de Affonso de Albuquerque, 7 vols., eds., Raymundo António de Bulhão Pato (vols. 1–5) and Henrique Lopes de Mendonça (part vol. 5 and vols. 6–7), (Lisbon: Academia Real das Sciências de Lisboa, 1884–1935). Carswell, John, New Julfa: the Armenian Churches and Other Buildings (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968). ——, ‘New Julfa and the Safavid Image of the Armenians’ in Richard G. Hovannisian (ed.), The Armenian Image in History and Literature (Malibu, CA: Undena, 1981). Castellucci, A. ‘Il risveglio dell’attiva missionaria e le prime origine della S. C. “de Propaganda Fide” nella seconda metà del XVI secolo’ in Le Conferenze del Laterano. Marzo-Aprile 1923 (Rome: Tipografia Pontificia Nell’istituto Pio IX, 1924), 117–254. Cerri, Urbano, Relazione di Mons. Urbano Cerri all santitá di N.S. PP. Innocenzo XI dello stato di Propaganda Fide (APF, Miscellanea varia, XI), English version (Michel de la Roche tr.), An account of the state of the Roman-Catholik religion throughout the world: Written for the use of Pope Innocent XI, by Monsieur Cerri, . . . with a large dedication to the present pope; by Sir Richard Steele (= Bishop Benjamin Hoadly), (London: J. Roberts, 1715, second edition 1716). Chardin, Sir John, The Travels of Sir John Chardin into Persia and the East Indies, (London: for M. Pitt, 1686, and various later editions, new annotated version of the 2 vol. London edn of 1720 in 1927 (London: Argonaut). Charpentier, Jarl (ed.), The Livro da Seita dos Indios Orientais (Brit. Mus. MS Sloane 1820) of Father Jacobo Fenicio SJ (Uppsala, 1933). Chick, Herbert, A Chronicle of the Carmelites in Persia and the Papal Missions of the XVIIth and XVIIIth centuries 2 vols. (London: Eyre &Spottiswoode, 1939); new edn. (London: I. B. Tauris, 2012) with introduction by Rudi Matthee. Chirikdjian, Paul, L’Église Arménienne et le Saint-Siège de Rome. Aperçu historique, dogmatique et politique sur le ‘Schisme Arménien’ ses origines, ses causes et ses conséquences (Alexandria: Armenian Catholic Patriarchate, 1949). Cipollone, Giulio, OSST, Casa della Santa Trinità di Marsiglia (1202–1547) Prima fondazione sul mare dell’ Ordine Trinitario (Vatican: Polyglot Press, 1981). ——, ‘La bolla “Adaperiat Dominus” e l’Ordo Trinitatis et captivorum’, Archivum Historiae Pontificiae 21 (1983), 229–244. ——, Cristianità-Islam, cattività e liberazione in nome di Dio. Il tempo di Innocenzo III dopo ‘il 1187’, Monumenta Historiae Pontificiae 60 (Rome: Editrice Pontificia Universitá Gregoriana, 1992; 2nd edn 1996). ——, ‘Innocent III and the Saracens. Between Rejection and Reconciliation’ in John C. Moore (ed.), Pope Innocent III and his world (New York: Hempstead, 1999), 361–376. ——, ‘La regola dei Trinitari tra Cristianità e Islam. Olte la crociata e il gihad: tolleranza e servizio umanitario’ in Atti del Congresso interdisciplinare di studi storici organizato per l’VIII centenario dell’approvazione della regola dei Trinitari, Rome, 16–19 September 1998, Collectanea Archivi Vaticani 44, (Vatican City, 2000). Clément, Olivier, You are Peter: an orthodox theologian’s reflection on the exercise of papal primacy (New York: New City Press, 2003). Clossey, Luke, Salvation and Globalisation in the early Christian missions (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008). Clooney, Francis X., SJ, ‘Roberto de Nobili’s Dialogue on Eternal Life and an Early Jesuit Evaluation of Religion in South India’, in John W. O’Malley et al. (eds), The Jesuits: Culture, Sciences and the Arts 1540–1773 (University of Toronto Press, London, 1999), 402–417. Cohen, Amnon, ‘On the Realities of the Millet System’ in B. Braude and B. Lewis (eds.), Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire 2 vols. (New York: Holmes and Meier, 1982), II, 7–18. Cole, Juan, Sacred Space and Holy War: the Politics, Culture and History of Shi‘i Islam (London: I. B. Tauris, 2005).

260

bibliography

Corbin, Henry, En Islam Iranien 4 vols. (Paris, Gallimard, 1971–1972). Corbon, Jean, ‘The Churches of the Middle East: Their Origins and Identity, from Their Roots in the Past to Their Openness to the Present’ in Andrea Pacini (ed.), Fiona Tupper-Carey (tr.), Christian Communities in the Arab Middle East: the Challenge of the Future (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998), 93–110. Coriolano, Francisco Longo a, OFM, Summa conciliorum omnium: Quae a S. Petro Vsq Ad Gregorivm Xv. Papam Celebrata Sunt, Antverpiae, Ex Officina Plantiniana, Apud Balthasarem Moretum, 1623. Costa, Paula Pinto, ‘The Military Orders Established in Portugal in the Middle Ages: A Historiographical Overview’ in e-Journal of Portuguese History, 2/1 (2004). Couto, Dejanirah, Jean-Louis Bacqué-Grammont, and Mahmoud Taleghani, (eds.), Atlas historique du golfe Persique (XVI–XVIII siècles), Zoltán Biedermann (coord.), (Turnhout: Brepols, 2006). ——, and Loureiro, Rui Manuel (eds.) Revisiting Hormuz: Portuguese interactions in the Persian Gulf region in the early modern period (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation, 2008). Couto, Diogo de, Décadas da Asia 15 vols. (facsimile of the Régia Oficina Typografica edition, Lisbon, 1778–1788: Lisbon: Livraria San Carlos, 1973–1975). Cowe, S. Peter, ‘Church and Diaspora: the case of the Armenians’ in Michael Angold (ed.), The Cambridge History of Christianity Volume 5, Eastern Christianity, 430–456. ——, ‘The Armenians in the era of the Crusades’ in The Cambridge History of Christianity. Volume 5 Eastern Christianity, Michael Angold (ed.), (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 404–429. Cuesta, Angel Martínez, Historia de los agustinos recoletos: vol. I, Desde los origenes hasta el siglo XIX (Madrid: Editorial Augustinus, 1995). Dall’Oglio, Paolo, SJ, Amoureux d’l’Islam, croyant en Jésus, (Ivry-sur-Seine: Éditions de l’Atelier, 2009). De Backer, Augustin, De Backer, Aloys, and Carayon, Auguste, Bibliothèque de la Compagnie de Jesus 11 vols., Carlos Sommervogel (ed.), (Brussels: O. Schopens; Paris: A. Picard, 1890– 1932). Delehaye, Hippolyte, Les Passions des martyrs et les genres littéraires (Brussels: Société des Bollandistes, 1921; 2nd edn. 1966). Deslandres, P. L’ordre des trinitaires pour le rachat des captifs 2 vols (Toulouse: E. Privat, 1903). Dictionnaire d’histoire et de géographie ecclésiastiques. Alfred Baudrillart, et al., (eds.), (Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1912–). Dictionnaire de Spiritualité Ascétique et Mystique, eds. Viller, Marcel, SJ, Cavallera, Ferdinand, SJ, Guibert, Joseph de, SJ, et al., (Paris: G. Beauchesne, 1937–). Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique 16 vols., eds. Vacant, A., Mangenot, Eugène, et al., (Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1923–1972). Didier, Hugues, Lourdes Júdice (tr.), Os Portugueses no Tibete. Os Primeiros Relatos dos Jesuitas (1624–1635) Lisbon: CNCDP, 2000), first published as Les Portugais au Tibet: Les Premières Relations Jésuites (1624–1635) (Paris: Editions Chandeigne, 1996). ——, Raymond Lulle, Un pont sur la Mediterranée (Paris: Desclée de Brouwer, 2001. ——, ‘Interférences Islamochrétiennes dans les Représentations du Bouddhisme’, Islamochristiana 16 (1990), 115–138. ——, St François Xavier: Correspondance 1535–1552, lettres et documents (Paris: Desclée de Brouwer, 1987). ——, ‘Le découvreur du Tibet: António de Andrade SJ’, Christus 40 (1993), 37–381. ——, ‘António de Andrade à l’origine de la tibétophile européenne’, Aufsatze zur portugiesischen Kulturgeschichte 20 (1998–1992), 45–71. ——, ‘Entre l’Europe et les missions lointaines, les Jésuites premiers mondialisateurs’ in Annie Moliné, Alexandra Merle et Araceli Guillaume-Alonso (eds.), Les Jésuites en Espagne et en Amérique (Paris: P.U.P.S., 2007).



bibliography

261

——, ‘Francis Xavier: Figure of Exile and Holiness’ International Journal for the Study of the Christian Church 7/2 (2007), pp. 134–156. ——, ‘Muslim Heterodoxy, Persian Murtaddun and Jesuit Missionaries at the Court of King Akbar (1580–1605)’, Heythrop Journal 49/6 (2008), 898–1082. Díez i Bosch, Miriam, ‘Cardinal Kasper: Unity isn’t optional’, permalink: http//www.zenit .org/article-21612?1=english. Documentos remetidos da India: ou Livros das Monções, 10 vols., eds. Raymundo António de Bulhão Pato (vols. 1–4) and António da Silva Rego (vols. 5–10), (Lisbon: Typografia da Academia Real das Sciências (vols. 1–4), Imprensa Nacional (vols. 5–10), 1880–1988; continued by a new edn. in 2 vols., eds. Arturo Teodoro de Matos, Maria do Carmo Jasmins Dias, and João Manuel de Almeida Teles e Cunha, Lisbon: CNCDP/Centro de Estudos Damião de Goïs, 2000, vol. 1, Centro de História de Além-Mar, 2001, vol. 2). Drower, Ethel Stefana, The Mandaeans of Iraq and Iran: their cults, customs, magic legends, and folklore (Clarendon Press: Oxford 1937, facsimile edition, Leiden: Brill, 1962, new edition, Gorgias Press: Piscataway NJ, 2002). ——, Diwan Abatur, or progress through the Purgatories, text with translation, notes and appendices, series: Studi e testi no. 151, (Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1950). ——, and Macuch, R. (eds.), A Mandaic Dictionary (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963). Du Cerceau, Jean Antoine, The history of the revolution of Persia, taken from the memoirs of Father Krusinski (Dublin: Risk, Ewing and Smith, 1729). Dulles, Avery, SJ, A History of Apologetics (London: Hutchinson, 1971). Dupuis, Jacques, SJ, Towards a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism (Maryknoll: NY, Orbis, 1997). ——, Christianity and the Religions (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 2002). Dupuy, Bernard, ‘L’Autocéphalie de l’Eglise de Géorgie’ Istina 35 (1990), 277–287. ——, ‘L’Eglise syrienne d’Antioche des origines à aujourd’hui’ Istina 35 (1990), 171–188. Duteil, Jean-Pierre, ‘Rome et l’expansion missionnaire catholique hors d’Europe: du contrôle autoritaire et centralisé à la régulation concertée’ Revue d’Histoire Ecclésiastique, 95/3 (2000), 445–467. Dutra, Francis A, Military Orders in the Early Modern Portuguese World, the Orders of Christ, Santiago and Avis (Aldershot:Ashgate, 2006). Eco, Umberto, (tr. William Weaver) Baudolino (London: Secker and Warburg, 2002). Elison, George, Deus Destroyed: the Image of Christianity in Early Modern Japan, Harvard East Asian Monographs 141, (Cambridge MA: Council on East Asian Studies Harvard University, 1988). Encyclopaedia Iranica, Ehsan Yarshater (ed.), (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul vols. 1–4/8, New York: Encyclopaedia Iranica Foundation vols. 5–). Encyclopaedia of the Qur’an, ed. Jane Dammen McAuliffe, (Leiden: Brill, 2001–2006). Esbroeck, Michel van, ‘L’Eglise Géorgienne des Origines au Moyen Age’, Bedi Kartlisa 40 (1984), 186–199. ——, ‘On the Historical Background of the early sources regarding the churches in the Caucasus’, St Nersess Theological Review 9 (2004), 5–24. Esparteiro, António Marques, O general dos galeões do Estado da India, António de Figueroa e Utra, 1678–1751 (Lisbon: Centro de Estudos de Marinha, 1975). Eszer, Ambrosius, OP, ‘Giovanni Giuliani da Lucca O.P., Forschungen zu seinem Leben und zu seinen Schriften’. Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum 37 (1967), 353–468. ——, ‘Missionen in Randzonen der Weltgeschichte: Krim, Kakasien und Georgien’ in Josef Metzler, OMI (ed.), Sacrae Congregationis de Propaganda Fide memoria rerum 3 vols., (Rome: Frieburg; Vienna: Herder, 1971–1973), 1/1, 650–679. ——, ‘Der Bericht des Gregorio Orsini OP ueber die Laender des Nahren und Mittleren Ostens’, Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum 45 (1975), 305–397. ——, ‘Ogostinos Bajenc O.P., als Oberhirte von Naxijewan’, Archivum Fratrum Prae­ dicatorum 47 (1977), 183–246, 198–208.

262

bibliography

Faria e Sousa, Manuel de, Asia Portuguesa 3 vols, (Lisbon, 1666; new edition in 6 vols., Livraria Civilização: Oporto, 1945–47). Farrugia, Edward G., In Search of the Precious Pearl: 5th Encounter of Monks from East and West at Dzaghagagatzor Monastery (Rome: Pontificio Istituto Orientale, 2001). Ferdi, Sabah, Augustin de retour en Afrique (388–430) (Repères archéologiques dans le patrimonie algérien) Musée de Tipasa (Algérie) (Fribourg, Ed. Universitaires, 2001). Ferro, B., Istoria delle missioni dei Chierici Regolari 2 vols., (Rome, 1704). Fiey, Jean-Marie, OP, ‘La vie mouvementée des reliques dans l’Oriente syriaque’ Parole de l’Orient 13 (1986), 183–196. Figueroa, García de Silva y, Comentarios de Don.. de la embajada que de parte del rey de España Don Felipe III hizo al rey Xa Abas de Persia 2 vols., (Madrid: Sociedad de Bibliófilos Españoles, 1903–1905). Partial version in French translation, Abraham de Wicquefort, (tr.), L’Ambassade de D. Garcias de Silva y Figueroa en Perse de 1617–1627 (Paris, 1667). Figueroa, Manuel Ruiz, ‘La Elección de Alí al Califato’ Estudios de Asia y Africa, 34/1 (2004), 11–39. Firmino, Júlio and Biker, Judice, Collecção de tratados e concertos de pazes que o Estado da India portugueza fez com os reis e senhores com que teve relações nas partes da Asia e Africa Oriental desde o principio até ao fim de século XVIII 14 vols, eds., (Lisbon: Imprensa Nacional, 1884; facsimile edition, New Delhi: Asia Educational Service, 1995). Flannery, John, ‘Through a Glass Darkly: the First Jesuit Mission to Tibet’ in Anthony O’Mahony and Peter Bowe OSB (eds.), Catholics and Interreligious Dialogue: Studies in Monasticism, Theology and Spirituality (Leominster: Gracewing, 2006), 217–241. ——, ‘Dom Frei António de Gouveia OESA, missionary-ambassador, bishop in partibus infidelium, and Apostolic Visitor to Persia (1575–1628)’, in Nicolas Balutet et al. (eds.), Contrabandista entre mundos fronterizos: Hommage au Professeur Hugues Didier, (Paris: Publibook, 2010), 87–102. ——, ‘The Augustinians and the Mandaeans in 17th century Mesopotamia’, ARAM: Society for Syro-Mesopotamian studies 22 (2010), 335–348. ——, ‘For the Redemption of Captives – The Trinitarians and Islam: an Episode in MuslimChristian Relations in the Medieval Mediterranean’, Al-Masaq: Islam and the Medieval Mediterranean 23/2 (2011), 135–144. Floor, Willem, Afghan Occupation of Persia, 1722–1730, (Paris: Cahiers Studia Islamica, 1998). ——, The Persian Gulf: a Political and Economic History of Five Port Cities 1500–1730, (Washington DC: Mage, 2006). ——, and Edmund Herzig (eds), Iran and the World in the Safavid Age (London: I. B. Tauris, 2012). ——, and Hakimzadeh, Farhad (eds): The Hispano-Portuguese Empire and its Contacts with Safavid Persia, the Kingdom of Hormuz and Yarubid Oman from 1498–1720, Acta Iranica 45, (Leuven: Peeters, in association with Iran Heritage Foundation and the Freer Gallery of Art & Arthur M. Sackler Gallery, Smithsonian Institution, 2007). ——, ‘Basra, The Other Emporium in the Portuguese Gulf ’, in id., The Persian Gulf: a political and eonomic history of five port cities, 1500–1730 (Washington DC, Mage, 2006), 139–190. ——, ‘The Secular Judicial System in Safavid Persia’, Studia Iranica, 29/1, (2000), 9–60. ——, ‘The First Printing-Press in Iran’ in Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlandischen Gesellschaft 130 (1980), 369–371. Floristan, J. M. and Gil, Luis, ‘Carta del Patriarca Armenio David IV a Felipe III’, Sefarad 46 (1986), 199–207. Fonseca, Carlos Dinis da, História e Actualidade das Misericórdias (Mem Martins: Editorial Inquérito, 1996). Fortescue, Adrian, The Lesser Eastern Churches (London, Catholic Truth Society, 1913, new edn., Piscataway NJ: Gorgias Press, 2001).



bibliography

263

Freidenreich, David M., ‘The Implications of Unbelief: Tracing the Emergence of Distinctively Shi‘i Notions regarding the Food and Impurity of Non-Muslims’, Islamic Law and Society 18 (2011), 53–84. Friedmann, Johanan, ‘Classification of Unbelievers in Sunni Muslim Law and Tradition’, Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 22 (1998), 163–195. ——, Tolerance and Coercion in Islam (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003). ——, ‘Charity Begins at Home? Ransoming Captives in Jewish, Christian and Islamic Tradition’, Studia Hebraica 6 (2006), 55–57. Fries, Paul and Nersoyan, Tiran (eds.), Christ in East and West (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1987). Fujita, Neil S., Japan’s Encounter with Christianity: the Catholic Mission in pre-Modern Japan (New York: Paulist Press, 1991). Fux, Pierre-Yves, et al. (eds.), Augustinus Afer: saint Augustin, africanité et universalité: actes du colloque international, Alger-Annaba, 1–7 avril 2001; colloque organisé par le Haut Conseil Islamique Algérie et l’Université de Fribourg Suisse, series: Paradosis, 45, (Fribourg: Editions Universitaires, 2003). Gabasvili, Nodar and Branca, Laura (ed. and tr.), La Georgia e Roma: duemila anni di dialogo (Vatican City: Libreria editrice vaticana, 2003). Gabashvili, Valerian N., ‘The Undiladze Feudal House in the Sixteenth to Seventeenth Century Iran According to Georgian Sources’, Iranian Studies 40/1 (2007), 37–58. Gaby, Cécile, De l’érémitisme rural au monachisme urbain: Les Camaldules en Italie à la fin du Moyen Age (Rome: Ecole française de Rome, 1999). Garsoian, N., ‘Some preliminary precisions on the separation of the Armenian and Imperial Churches: I. The Presence of “Armenian” Bishops at the First Five Oecumenical Councils’ in J0 Chrysostomides (ed.) Kathegetria: Essays presented to Joan Hussey (Camberley: Porphyrogenitus, 1988), 249–285. ——, ‘Quelques précisions préliminaires sur le schisme entre les Églises byzantine et arménienne au sujet du concile de Chalcédoine: III. Les évêchés méridionaux limitrophes de la Mésopotamie’, Revue des Études Arméniennes 23 (1992), 39–80. ——, ‘Quelques précisions préliminaires sur le schisme entre les Églises byzantine et arménienne au sujet du concile de Chalcédoine: II. La date et les circonstances de la rupture’ in L’Arménie et Byzance. Histoire et culture, Byzantina Sorbonensia 12, (Paris: Sorbonne,1996), 99–112. Gazulla, Faustino D., La orden de Nuestra Señora de la Merced: estudios históricocríticos (1218–1317) (Barcelona: Gili, 1934). Geudel, Jean-Marie and Caspar, Robert, ‘Textes de la Tradition musulmane concernant le tahrif (Falsification) des Ecritures’, Islamochristiana 6 (1908), 61–104. Gil, Luis, ‘Sobre el trasfondo de l embajada del shah Abbas I . . .’, Estudios Clasicós 98 (1985), 347–377. ——, ‘The Embassy of Don García de Silva y Figueroa to Shah ‘Abbas I’, in Willem Floor and Edmund Herzig, Iran and the World, 161–180. Ghoughassian, Vazken S., The Emergence of the Armenian Diocese of New Julfa in the Seventeenth Century (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1998). Ghazarian, Jacob G., The Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia during the Crusades (Richmond: Surrey, Curzon, 2000). Goldhizer, I., ‘Das Prinzip der takiyya im Islam’, Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 60 (1906), 213–226. Gollancz, Hermann (ed. tr. and notes), Chronicle of Events between the years 1623–1633 relating to the Settlement of the Order of Carmelites in Mesopotamia, London, Oxford University Press, 1927. Goncalves, Sebastião, ed. Josef Wick, Primeira parte da historia dos religiosos da Companhia de Jesus e do que fizeram com a divina graca na conversão dos infieisa nossa santa fee catholica nos reynos e provincias da India Oriental 3 vols. (Coimbra: Atlântida, 1957–62).

264

bibliography

Gouveia, António de, Jornada do Arcebispo de Goa Dom Frey Aleixo de Menezes, primaz da India Oriental: quando foy as serras do Malavar & lugares em que morão os antigos Christãos de S. Thome . . . (Coimbra: D. Gomez Loureiro, 1606). ——, Relaçam em que se tratam as guerras e grandes victórias que alcançou o grande rey de Persia Xa ‘Abbas do grão Turco Mehemetto & seu filho Amethe as quaes resultarão das Embaxada que por mandado da Catholica Real Majestade de Rey D. Felippe II de Portugal fizerão alguns Religiosas da Ordem dos Ermitas de Santo Agostinho à Persia (Lisbon, 1611; French tr. by A. de Meneses Relation des grandes guerres . . ., Rouen, 1646). ——, Sermón exhortatorio que el Ilustrísimo Señor D. Fr. António de Gouvea, de la Orden de San Agustín, Obispo de Cyrene y Visitador Apostólico en los Reynos de Persia, predicó a los esclavos de Argel. persuadiendoles a conservar la fe y paciencia en la persecución y trabajos de su dura esclavitud (Palma de Mallorca: 1621). Granada, Luis de, Parte primera [-quinta] de la Introduction del symbolo de la fé . . . 5 vols. (Barcelona, 1589; new edition: Introducción del Símbolo de la Fé, José María Balcells (ed.), (Madrid: Cátedra, 1989). Gregorian, Vartan, ‘Minorities of Isfahan: The Armenian Community of Isfahan, 1587–1772’, Iranian Studies 7:3–4 (1974), 652–680. Griffith, Sidney H., The Beginnings of Christian Theology in Arabic: Muslim-Christian Encounters in the Early Islamic Period (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2002). ——, The Church in the Shadow of the Mosque: Christians and Muslims in the World of Islam (Princetown: Princetown University Press, 2007). Grimaldi-Hierholtz, Roseline, L’ordre des Trinitaires. Histoire et spiritualité (Paris: Fayard, 1994). Guadagnoli, Filippo, CRM, Apologia pro Christiana religione qua Philippo Guadagnolo respondetur ad objectiones Ahmed Filii Zin Alabedin Persæ Asphahanensis . . . contentas in libro inscripto Politor Speculi (Rome: Propaganda Fide, 1631). Gugushvili, A., ‘Ethnographical and historical division of Georgia’, Georgica fasc. 2–3 (1936), 53–71. Guimarães Sá, Isabel dos Quando o rico se faz pobre: misericórdias, caridade e poder no império Português, 1500–1800 (Lisbon: CNCDP, 1997). Gulbenkian, Roberto, Estudos Históricos 3 vols. (Lisbon: Academia Portuguesa da História, 1995). ——, L’Ambassade en Perse de Luis Pereira de Lacerda et des Pères Portugais de l’Ordre de Saint-Augustin, Belchior dos Anjos et Guilherme de Santo Agostinho (1604–1605) (Lisbon: Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian, 1972). ——, ‘Deux lettres surprenantes du Catholicos arménien David IV a Philippe II d’Espagne, II de Portugal 1612–1614’ in id., Estudos Históricos I, 301–356. ——, ‘Rapports Entre Augustiniens et Dominicains Portugais et les Dominicains Arméniens au XVIIème siècle.’, Römische Quartal Schrift für Christliche Alterumskunde und Kirchengesichte 70 (1975), 79–99, reprinted in id., Estudos Históricos I, 133–160). ——, ‘Relações Político-Religiosas entre os Portugueses e os Mandeus da Baixa Mesopotâmia e do Cuzistão na primeira metade do século XVII’, Anais da Academia Portuguesa da História Series II, 32 (1989), reprinted in id., Estudos Históricos II, 325–424. ——, ‘Relation véritable du Glorieux Martyre de la Reine Kétévan de Géorgie’ in Bedi Kartlisa-revue de kartvélologie 40 (1982), 31–97; Portuguese translation in Anais da Academia Portuguesa da História Series II, 30 (1985); French text reprinted in id., Estudos Históricos II, 245–324. ——, ‘Relações Religiosas entre os Arménios e os Agostinhos portugueses na Persia no século XVII’ in Estudos Históricos II, 213–253; English translation John Flannery (tr.), ‘Religious Relations between the Armenians and the Portuguese Augustinians in Persia in the 17th Century’, Journal of Eastern Christian Studies 63:1–2 (2011), 5–43. Gunduz, Sinasi, The Knowledge of Life: the origins, and early history of the Mandaeans and their relations to the Sabians of the Qur’an and to the Harranians, Journal of Semitic Studies, Supplement 3, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994).



bibliography

265

Gurney, J. D., ‘Pietro della Valle: The Limits of Perception’. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 49–1 (1986), 103–116. Guthrie, A. and Bishop, E. F., ‘The Paraclete: Almunhamma and Ahmad’, Muslim World 51 (1951), 251–256. Gutierrez, David, Historia de la Orden de San Agustín 3 vols. (Rome: Institutum Historicum Ordinis Fratrum S. Augustini, 1971–1980). In English translation as Arthur J. Ennis OSA (tr.), The Augustinians in the Middle Ages 1256–1356 (vol. 1/1); Thomas Martin OSA (tr.), The Augustinians in the Middle Ages 1357–1517 (vol. 1/2); John J. Kelly OSA (tr.), The Augustinians from the Protestant Reformation to the Peace of Westphalia (vol. 2), (Villanova PA: Augustinian Historical Institute, 1979–1984). ——, ‘La reforma de la provincia agustiniana de Portugal en los años 1535–1540’, Archivo Agustiniano 65 (1981), 3–40. ——, ‘La provincia agustiniana de Portugal en los años 1546–1566’, Archivo Agustiniano 66 (1982), 3–40. ——, ‘Documentación inedita de la provincia agustiniana de Portugal en los años 1567– 1586’, Archivo Agustiniano 67 (1983), 3–52. Habbi, J., ‘Signification del’Union de Mar Sulaqa avec Rome en 1553’, L’Orient Syrien 11 (1966), 99–132. Hair, P. E. H., ‘Discovery and Discoveries: the Portuguese in Guinea, 1444–1650’ in id., Africa Encountered: European Contacts and Evidence 1450–1700 (Aldershot: Ashgate, 1997). Halikowski-Smith, Stefan, ‘“The Friendship of Kings was in the Ambassadors”: Portuguese Diplomatic Embassies in Asia and Africa during the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries’, Portuguese Studies 22–1 (2006), 101–134. Halft, Dennis, ‘Schiitische Polemik gegen das Christentum im safawidischen Iran des 11./17. Jahrhunderts. Sayyid Aḥmad ʿAlawīs Lawāmiʿ-i rabbānī dar radd-i šubha-yi naṣrānī ’, in Camilla Adang and Sabine Schmidtke (eds), Contacts and Controversies between Muslims, Jews and Christians in the Ottoman Empire and Pre-Modern Iran, Istanbuler Texte und Studien 21, (Würzburg, 2010), 273– 334. Hamilton, Bernard, ‘Continental Drift: Prester John’s Progress through the Indies’ in C. F. Beckingham and B. Hamilton (eds.), Prester John: the Mongols and the Ten LostTribes (Aldershot: Variorum, 1996), 237–269. Harrow, Leonard, ‘Notes on Catholic-Shi‘I Relations during the Safavid Period’, Journal of Eastern Christian Studies 63 (1–2) 2011, 99–121. Hartmann, Arnulf, OSA, The Augustinians in Seventeenth Century Japan (Cassiciacum 8, American series), (Marylake, Ontario: Augustinian Historical Institute, 1965). ——, ‘William of St. Augustine and His Time’, Augustiniana 20 (1970), 181–234 and 581–636. ——, ‘The Augustinians in Golden Goa: According to a Manuscript by Felix de Jesus, OSA’, Analecta Augustiniana 30 (1967), 5–174. ——, ‘Father Nicholas Melo and Brother Nicholas of St. Augustine, Martyrs, OESA’, Augustiniana 9 (1959), 118–160 and 277–303. Hayus, Juan, De Rebus Japonicis, Indicis et Peruvianis, Epistoljie Reoentiores a Joanne Hayo Scoto, Societatis Jesu in librum unum coacervatse. (Antwerp, 1605). ——, Relations des peres Loys Froes, et Nicolas Pimenta de la Compagnie de Iesus. Au R.P. Claude Aquauiua general de la mesme Compagnie. Concernant l’accroissement de la foy chrestienne au Iappon & autres contrees des Indes orientales es annees 1596. & 1599 8vols (Lyon: Iean Pillehotte [. . .], 1602). Herzig, Edmund M., ‘The Deportation of the Armenians in 1604–1605 and Europe’s myth of Shah ‘Abbas’ in Charles Melville (ed.), Persian and Islamic Studies in honour of P. W. Avery (Pembroke Papers I), (Cambridge: Centre of Middle Eastern Studies, University of Cambridge, 1990), 59–71. ——, ‘The Rise of the Julfa Merchants in the Late Sixteenth Century’ in Charles Melville (ed.) Safavid Persia: the history and politics of an Islamic society (Pembroke Persian Papers 4), (London, New York: I. B. Tauris, 1996), 305–322.

266

bibliography

——, The Armenian Merchants of New Julfa, Isfahan. A Study in Pre-Modern Asian Trade (unpublished PhD thesis, University of Oxford, 1991). Hess, Andrew C., ‘The Battle of Lepanto and Its Place in Mediterranean History’, Past and Present 57 (Nov. 1972), 53–72. Heyberger, Bernard, Les Chrétiens du Proche-Orient au Temps de la Réforme Catholique (Rome: Ecole Française de Rome, 1994). Hsia, R. Po-chia, The world of Catholic renewal 1540–1770 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005). ——, A Jesuit in the Forbidden City: Matteo Ricci 1552–1610 (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2010). Iuris Pontificii de Propaganda Fide 8 vols., ed. Raffaele de Martinis (Rome: Typographia Polyglotta, 1888–1909; new facsimile edition Farnborough: Gregg, 1971). Jackson, Peter (tr.), The mission of Friar William of Rubruck: his journey to the court of the Great Khan Möngke, 1253–1255, introduction, notes and appendices by Peter Jackson with David Morgan (London: Hakluyt, 1990). Jackson, Peter and Lockhart, Laurence (eds.), The Timurid and Safavid Periods, 1986 (= vol. 6 of The Cambridge History of Iran, 7 vols, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968–1991). Jacques, Roland, De Castro Marim à Faifo: Naissance et développement du Padroado portugais d’Orient des origines à 1659 (Lisbon: Fundaçao Calouste Gulbenkian, 1999). Jesu, Ignatius A., OCD, Narratio originis, rituum, et errorum Christianorum Sancti Ioannis, cui adiungitur Discursus per modum dialogi, in quo confutantur XXXIIII errores eiusdem nationis (Rome: Typis Sacrae Congregationis Propaganda Fidei, 1652). Jesu, Thomas A., De procuranda salute omnium gentium, schismaticorum, haereticorum, Iudaeorum, sarracenorum, caeterorumq[ue] infidelium libri xii. Quibus impiisssimarum sectarum, maxime orientalium, ritus ad Historiae fidem narrantur, errores ad veritatis lucem confutantur (Antwerp, 1613). Jesus, Felix de OSA, Primeira parte da chrónica e relação do principio que teve a Congregação da Ordem de Santo Augustinho nas Indias Orientais . . . (BPE, Manuscritos, Codex CXV/1– 8, another copy ANTT, Ms Livraria, ‘Memórias da Ordem’, no. 731) published by Arnulf Hartmann OSA as ‘The Augustinians in Golden Goa: According to a Manuscript by Felix de Jesus, OSA’ Analecta Augustiniana 30 (1967), 5–174. Jomier, Jacques, How to Understand Islam, (London: SCM Press, 1989). Jones, L Bevan ‘The Paraclete or Mohammed’, Muslim World 10/2 (1920), 112–125. Jones, Charles W., Saint Nicholas of Myra, Bari and Manhattan. Biography of a Legend, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978). ——, ‘The Norman Cults of Sts. Catherine and Nicholas, saec. Xl’, in Collection Latomus 145 (Hommage à Andre Boutemy), Guy Cambier (ed.), (Brussels: Latomus, 1976), 216–230. Jordão, Levy Maria, and Graça, João Augusto da Barreto (eds.) Bullarium Patronatus Portugalliae 6 vols. (Lisbon: Tipografia Nacional, 1868–1879). Kappler, Claude and Kappler, René (eds. and trs.) Guillaume de Rubrouck, envoyé de SaintLouis: Voyage dans l’Empire Mongol (1235–1255) (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1985). King, Archdale, The Rites of Eastern Christendom Rome 2 vols. (Rome: Catholic Book Agency, 1947–1948; 2nd edn. New York: AMS Press, 1972; new edn. Piscataway NJ: Gorgias Press, 2007). Knobler, Adam, ‘Pseudo-Conversions and Patchwork Pedigrees: The Christianization of Muslim Princes and the Diplomacy of Holy War’ Journal of World History 7 (1996), 181–197. Kohlberg, Etan, ‘Some Imami-Shi‘i Views on Taqiyya’, Journal of the American Oriental Society 95/3 (1975), 395–402. ——, ‘The Evolution of the Shi‘a’, The Jerusalem Quarterly 27 (Spring, 1983), 108–126. ——, ‘Western Studies of Shi’a Islam’ in Martin Kramer (ed.) Shi‘ism, Resistance and Revolution, (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1987), 31–46. ——, ‘Some Imami Shi‘i Views on Taqiyya’ in id., Belief and Law in Imami Shi‘ism (Aldershot: Ashgate, 1991), 395–402.



bibliography

267

Kollamparambil, J., The St Thomas Christians Revolt of 1653 (Kottayam 1981). Konkevicius, J., Russia’s Attitude towards Union with Rome (Washington: Catholic University of America Press, 1927). Kostikyan, Kristine, ‘European Catholic Missionary Propaganda among the Armenian Population of Safavid Iran’ in Willem Floor and Edmund Herzig (eds), Iran and the World, 371–378. Kowalsky, Nicola, OMI, Serie dei Cardinali Prefetti e dei Segretari della Sacra Congregazione ‘de Propaganda Fide’ Collectio Urbania: textus ac documenta; Series III no. 4 (Rome: Editiones Urbanianae, 1962). Krajcar, John (Jan), SJ, ‘A Report on the Ruthenians and their errors prepared for the fifth Lateran Council’, Orientalia Christiana Periodica 29 (1963), 79–94. ——, “The Ruthenian Patriarchate: Some Remarks on the project for its establishment in the XVIIth c.”, Orientalia Christiana Periodica 30 (1964), 65–84. ——, Cardinal Guilio Antonio Santoro and the Christian East, Orientalia Christiana Analecta 177, (Rome: Pontificio Istituto Orientale, 1966). Kritzeck, James, Peter the Venerable and Islam (Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press, 1964). Kuiters, R., OESA, ‘Licet ecclesiae catholicae II. Commentary’ in Francis Roth OESA and Norbert Teeuwen OESA (eds.), Augustiniana: Septimo exacto saeculo a magna unione MCCLVI-MCMLVI (New York: Augustinian Historical Institute, 1956), 14–36. La Boullaye le Gouz, François de, Les Voyages et Observations du sieur de la Bouulaye-leGouz (Paris: Clousier, 1653). Lagrange, R. Fernandes, ‘O Pai dos Cristãos’ nas Missões Portuguesas da India Oriental (1541–1840)’ (photocopy), (Rome: Gregorian University, 1965). Lambertsen, Isaac E., ‘The Suffering of the Glorious Greatmartyr Queen Ketevan of Kakheti, whose memory the Holy Church celebrates on the 13th of September’ Living Orthodoxy 16/5 (1994), 3–12, (= English translation of the Russian text given in Michael Savinin The Complete Lives of the Saints of the Church of Georgia, the Portion of the Mother of God (Saint Petersburg: A. Transheli, 1872), II, 1–23). Lampart, Albert, Ein Märtyrer der Union mit Rom. Joseph I, 1681–1696, Patriarch der Chaldäer (Einsidelen, 1966). Lang, D. M., Lives and Legends of the Georgian Saints (London: Allen and Unwin; London: Mowbrays; New York: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1976). Lawless, George, Augustine of Hippo and his monastic Rule (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987). Lazarus-Yafeh, Hava, Intertwined Worlds. Medieval Islam and Bible Criticism (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992). ——, ‘Some neglected aspects of Medieval Muslim Polemics against Christianity’, Harvard Theological Review 89/1 (1996), 61–84. Leão, Francisco G. Cunha (ed.) O Índico na Biblioteca de Ajuda (Lisbon: CNCDP, 1998). Lee, Ignácio Ting Pong, ‘La actitud de la Sagrada Congregación frente al Regio Patronato’ in Ambrosius Eszer, OP, Sacrae Congregationis de Propaganda Fide Memoria Rerum 3 vols. (Rome, Frieburg, Vienna: Herder, 1971–1973), I/I (1622–1700), 353–438. Leite, António, SJ, ‘Teriam os Reis de Portugal verdadeira jurisdição ecclesiástica?’ Didaskalia 15/2 (1985), 357–367. ——, ‘Enquadramento legal da actividade missionária portuguesa’ Brotéria 133/1 (1991), 36–52. Lewis, Bernard, ‘The Other and the Enemy: Perception of Identity and Difference in Islam’ in Bernard Lewis and Friedrich Niewohner (eds.), Reliogionsgesprache im Mittelalter (Wolfenbutteler Mitteralterstudien 4), (Wiesbaden: Harassowitz, 1922), 371–382. Loenertz, R. J., Les Missions dominicaines en Orient au quatorzième siècle et la Société des frères pérégrinants pour le Christ. 3 parts., (Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum. vols. 2–4.), (Rome: Institutum Historicum FF. Praedicatorum Romae. 1932–1934). ——, La Société des frères pérégrinants. Étude sur l’Orient dominicain (Rome: Institutum Historicum FF. Praedicatorum Romae (Dissertationes historicae fasc.7), 1937).

268

bibliography

Loloi, Parvin, ‘The Image of the Safavids in English and French Literature (1500–1800) in Willem Floor and Edmund Herzig (eds), Iran and the World, 347–356. Longo, Carlo, OP, ‘I domenicani nell’impero persiano: Frati armeni e missionari Italiani’, Studi sull’Oriente Cristiano 11/1 (2007), 35–77. Lupieri, Edmondo, (tr. Charles Hindley) The Mandaeans: The last Gnostics (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002), originally published as I Mandei, Gli ultimi gnostici, Brescia: Paideia Editrice, 1993). ——, ‘Friar Ignatius of Jesus (Carlo Leonelli) and the First Scholarly Book on Mandaeaism (1652)’, Aram Periodical 16 (2004), 25–46. Luz, Francisco Mendes da, O Conselho da India (Lisbon: Agência Geral do Ultramar, 1952). MacLagan, Sir Edward, The Jesuits and the Great Mogul (London: Burns, Oates and Washbourne, 1932; New York, Octagon Books, 1972; Gurgaon, Vintage, 1990). Maeda, Hirotake, ‘On the Ethno-social Background of four gholam Families from Georgia in Safavid Iran’, Studia Iranica 32/2 (2003), 243–280. ——, ‘Exploitaton of the Frontier: The Caucasus Policy of Shah ‘Abbas I’ in Willem Floor and Edmund Herzig (eds.), Iran and the World in The Safavid Age, (London, I. B. Tauris, 2012), 471–490. Mainwaring, George, ‘A true discourse of Sir Anthony Sherley’s travels into Persia . . .’, in E. Dennison Ross, Sir Anthony Sherley and his Persian Adventure (London: Routledge, 1933), 175–226. Maksoudian, K., ‘The Chalcedonian Issue and the Early Bagratids: the Council of Shirakawan’, Revue des Études Arméniennes 21 (1998–1989), 333–344. Malingre, Claude, Histoires tragiques de nostre temps (Paris: C. Collet, 1635). Manucci, N., Storia do Mogor, W. Irvine (ed.) 4 vols. (London: Murray, 1907). Manrique, Sebastian, OESA, Itinerario de las missiones que hizo el Padre F. Sebastian Manrique Religioso Eremita de S. Agustin (Rome: Francisco Caballo, 1649; published in English as Charles Eckford Luard and Henry Hosten SJ (trs. and eds.), Travels of Fray Sebastien Manrique 2 vols. (Oxford: Hakluyt, 1927). Mans, Raphael du, Charles Schefer (ed.), Estat de la Perse en 1660 (Paris: Leroux, 1890; Farnborough: Gregg, 1969). Maria, Manuel de Ave OSA, Manual Eremítico da Congregação da India Oriental dos Eremitas de N. P. S. Agostinho . . . ( Biblioteca da Universidade de Coimbra, Codex 1650). Martin, Francis Xavier, OSA, Friar, Reformer and Renaissance Scholar: Life and Works of Giles of Viterbo, 1469–1532 (Villanova, PA: Augustinian Press, 1992). ——, ‘The Problem of Giles of Viterbo: A Historiographical Study’, Augustiniana 9 (1959), 357–379. Martinez, Hipólito OSA, A Ordem dos Agostinhos em Portugal e no mundo (Guarda: n.p., 1987). Martirio dei Cinque Persiani nuovamente battezzati delli Padri Carmelitani Scalzi di Haspahan (Rome, 1622). Mascarenhas, João Carvalho, Esclave a Alger (1621–1626), Paul Teyssier (ed. and tr.), (Paris: Chandeigne, 1993). Masters, Bruce, Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Arab World: the roots of sectarianism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001). Mateos, Francisco, ‘Bulas portuguesas e espaõlas sobre descubrimientos geográficos’ in Actas do Congresso Internacional de História dos Descobrimentos, 6 vols (Lisbon: Comissão Executiva das Comemorações do V Centenário da Morte do Infante D. Henrique 1961) III, 327–414. Matthee, Rudi, The Pursuit of Pleasure: Drugs and Stimulants in Iranian History, 1500–1900 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005). ——, Persia in Crisis: Safavid Decline and the Fall of Isfahan (London: I B Tauris, 2011). ——, ‘Between Aloofness and Fascination: Safavid Views of the West’, Iranian Studies 31/2 (1998), 219–246, 226–227.



bibliography

269

——, ‘Anti-Ottoman Concerns and Caucasian Interests: Diplomatic relations between Iran and Russia, 1587–1639’ in Michel Mazzaoui (ed.) Safavid Iran and her Neighbors (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 2003), 101–128. ——, ‘Between Arabs, Turks and Iranians: the Town of Basra, 1600–1700’, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 69/1 (2006), 53–78. ——, ‘Christians in Safavid Iran: Hospitality and Harassment’, Studies on Persianate Societies 3, 1 (2005), 3–43. ——, The Safavids under Western Eyes: Seventeenth-Century European Travelers to Iran’, Journal of Early Modern History 13 (2009), 137–191. ——, ‘The Politics of Protection: Iberian Missionaries in Safavid Iran under Shah Abbas I (1587–1629)’ in Camilla Adang and Sabine Schmidtke (eds), Contacts and Controversies between Muslims, Jews and Christians in the Ottoman Empire and Pre-Modern Iran, Istanbuler Texte und Studien 21, (Würzburg 2010), 245–272. Mazzaoui, Michel M., The Origins of the Safavids: Shi‘ism, Sufism, and the Gulat (Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner, 1972), 46–52. ——, (ed.) Safavid Iran and her Neighbors (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 2003). McAuliffe, Jane Dammen, Qur’anic Christians: An Analysis of Classical and Modern Exegesis (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007). Mécérian, Jean, Histoire et Institutions de L’Eglise Arménienne (Beirut: Imprimerie Catholique, 1965). Meijer, A. de, OESA, ‘Licet ecclesiae catholicae I. Text’ in Francis Roth OESA and Norbert Teeuwen OESA (eds.), Augustiniana: Septimo exacto saeculo a magna unione MCCLVIMCMLVI (New York: Augustinian Historical Institute, 1956), 9–13. Melloni, Alberto, ‘Nostra Aetate and the Discovery of the Sacrament of Otherness’ in Philip A. Cunningham et al. (eds), The Catholic Church and the Jewish People (New York: Fordham Univeristy Press, 2007), 129–151. Metzler, Josef, OMI, Sacrae Congregationis de Propaganda Fide memoria rerum: 350 years in the service of the missions 3 vols. (Rome: Herder, 1971–1976). ——, ‘Die verschollene S. Congregatio ‘de Tuenda Fide” und ein missgluckter Bischofsrat im 17. Jahrhundert’, Nouvelle Revue de Sciences Missionnaires 33 (1967), 40–45. Minorsky, Vladimir (tr. and ed.), Tadkhirat al-Muluk: A manual of Safavid Administration (London GMS, 1943). Mitchell, Colin P. (ed.), New Perspectives on Safavid Iran: Empire and Society (London: Routledge, 2011). ——, The Practice of Politics in Safavid Iran: Power, Religion and Rhetoric (London: I. B. Tauris, 2010). Momen, Moojan, An Introduction to Shi‘i Islam (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985). Monumenta Henricina 15 vols, Commisão executiva das comemoraçoes do V centenário da morte do Infante D. Henrique (vols. 1–4), Antonio Joaquim Dias Dinis ed. (vols 5–15) (Coimbra: Atlântida, 1960–1974). Moraes, António de, Memorial das missões . . . a esta Congregação da India. . . . (BNL, Fundo Geral, Codex 59, fols 3–58, with another copy ibid. Codex 745, fols. 1–70), in Documentação 12, 99–233. Morgan, David, Medieval Persia 1040–1797 (London: Longmans, 1988; 2nd edn. 1990). Morier, James, A second Journey through Persia, Armenia and Asia Minor to Constantinople between the years 1810 and 1816, (London, Longman, 1818). Mousavi, Mohammad A., ‘The Autonomous State in Iran: Mobility and Prosperity in the Reign of Shah Abbas the Great (1587–1629)’, Iran and the Caucasus 12 (2008), 17–34. Munshi, Iskandar Beg, (tr. Roger M. Savory), History of Shah ‘Abbas the Great 2 vols. (Tehran: Amir Kabir, 1971). Nazareth, Casimiro Cristóvão de, Mitras Lusitanas no Oriente 3 vols, (New Goa: Imprensa Nacional (vols 1–2), Bombay:Portuguese Printing Press (vol. 3), 1887–1888; 2nd edition, Lisbon: Imprensa Nacional, 1894; 2nd augmented edn, Lisbon: Tipografia Diário de Notícias, 1913–1924).

270

bibliography

Nersoyan, Tiran and Nersoyan, Hagop, The christology of the Armenian Orthodox Church (Jerusalem, St James Press, 2004). Newitt, Malyn, The Portuguese in West Africa, 1415–1670, A Documentary History (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010). Newman, Andrew, Safavid Iran: Rebirth of a Persian Empire (London: I. B. Tauris, 2006). ——, ‘The Myth of Clerical Migration to Safavid Iran: Arab Shiite Opposition to Ali al-Karaki and Safavid Shi‘ism’, Die Welt des Islams 33 (1993), 66–112. Nichols, Aidan, Rome and the Eastern Churches: A Study in Schism (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1992; 2nd rev. edn San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2010). Novoa, Zacarias, OSA, ‘El M. R. P. Fr. Melchor de los Angeles del Orden de San Agustin, primeiro misionero de Persia’, Archivo Agustiniano 45 (1951) 261–275. O Índico na Biblioteca de Ajuda ed. Leão, Francisco G. Cunha, (Lisbon: CNCDP, 1998). O’Shaughnessy, Thomas J. SJ, ‘Muslim Body, Christian Soul: Inculturation in Islamic Areas’, Neue Zeitschrift fûr Missionswissenschaft 37/4, 284–290 O’Mahony, Anthony, ‘The Chaldean Catholic Church: the Politics of Church-State Relations in Modern Iraq’ Heythrop Journal 45 (2004), 435–450. ——, with Wulstan Peterburs OSB and Mohammad Ali Shomali (eds.), A Catholic-Shi‘a Dialogue: Studies in Theology and Spirituality (London: Melisende 2004); A Catholic-Shi‘a Engagement: Faith and Reason in Theory and Practice (London: Melisende, 2006). ——, with Timothy Wright, and Mohammad Ali Shomali, A Catholic-Shi‘a Dialogue: Ethics in Today’s Society (London: Melisende, 2008). ——, ‘Patriarchs and Politics: The Chaldean Catholic Church in Modern Iraq’ in id. (ed.), Christianity in the Middle East: Studies in Modern History, Theology and Politics (London, 2008), 105–142. ——, ‘Christianity, Shi‘a Islam and Muslim-Christian encounter in Iran’ in ibid. (ed.), Christian Responses to Islam: Muslim-Christian relations in the modern world (Manchester, Manchester University Press, 2008), 175–188. ——, ‘Between Rome and Constantinople’: the Italian Albanian Church: a study in Eastern Catholic history and ecclesiology’, International Journal for the Study of the Christian Church 8/3 (2008), 232–251. Olival, Maria Fernanda de, ‘An Elite? The Meaning of Knighthood in the Portuguese Military Orders of the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries’, Mediterranean Studies (Manchester) 15 (2006), 117–126. Ometto, Franco, tr. Karen Cristenfeld, ‘Khatun Abadi: the Ayatollah who translated the Gospels’, Islamochristiana 28 (2002), 55–72. Osiek, Carolyn, ‘The Ransom of Captives: Evolution of a Tradition’, Harvard Theological Review 74/4 (1981), 365–386. Oudenrijn, M A van den, Linguae haicanae scriptores (Berne: Francke, 1960). ——, ‘The monastery of Aparan’ Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum 1 (1932), 265–281. ——, ‘Bishops and Archbishops of Naxivan’ Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum 6 (1936), 161–216. Panossian, Razmik, The Armenians: From Kings and Priests to Merchants and Commisars (London: Hurst, 2006), 69–71. Parry, Ken (ed.), The Blackwell companion to Eastern Christianity (Oxford: Blackwell, 2007). Parry, William, A New and Large Discourse of the Travels of Sir Anthony Sherley . . ., (London: printed by Valentine Simms for Felix Norton, 1601). Patelos, C. G., ‘Aux origines dogmatiques de l’Iniatisme. Un texte ignoré’, Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique 73 (1978), 334–348. Perez, Pedro Nolasco, San Pedro Nolasco: Fundador de la orden de la Merced (Barcelona: Subirana, 1915). Persia, Don Juan de (Uruch Beg), Relaciones de Don Juan de Persia, dirigidas a la Majestad Cathólica de Don Felipe III, rey de las Españas y señor nuestro . . . (Valladolid: Juan de Bostillo, 1604; new edition, (ed.) D. Narciso Alonso Cortés, Relaciones de Don Juan de



bibliography

271

Persia Madrid: Real Academia Española, 1946. In English translation, G. le Strange (ed. and tr.), Don Juan of Persia, a Shiah Catholic, 1560–1604 London: Routledge, 1926 and subsequent editions, most recently Routledge Curzon, 2005). Petrossian, Yeznik, (tr. Gayane Aleksanian), Armenian Apostolic Holy Church (Etchmiadzin, 2001). Petrowicz, Gregorio, L’Unione degli Armeni di Polonia con la Santa Sede (1626–1686), Orientalia Christiana Analecta 135 (Rome, 1950). ——, I Fratres Unitores nella Chiesa Armenia (Rome: Pontificia Universita Urbaniana, 1969), offprint from Euntes Docete 22 (1969), 309–347. Piemontese, Angelo Michele, ‘Les célébrités du Janicule et les diplomates Safavides immigrés a Rome’ in Michele Bernardini, Masashi Hameda and Maria Szuppe (eds.), Eurasian Studies 5/1–2 (Liber Amicorum: Études sur l’Islam médiévale et moderne offertes à Jean Calmard), (2006), 271–295. Pinçon, Abel, Relation d’un voyage faict és annés 1596–1599 par un gentilhomme de la suite du Seigneur Scierly . . ., (Paris, 1651). Pires, Maria Laura Bettencourt, ‘Um problema controverso nas relações anglo-portugueses no século XVI’, Revista da Faculdade de Ciências Sociais e Humanas 2 (1988), 211–234. Ponte, Giovanni, ‘Attorno a Leonardo da Vinci: L’attesa popolare de Sofi de Persia in Venezia e Firenze all’inizio del Cinquecento’, Rassegna della literatura italiana 82 (1977), 5–19. Pourjavady, Reza and Schmidtke, Sabine, ‘Muslim Polemics against Judaism and Christianity in 18th Century Iran. The Literary sources of Aqa Muhammad Ali Bihbahani’s (1144/1732– 1216/1801) Radd-I Shubuhat Al-Kuffar’, Studia Iranica 35 (2006), 69–94. Purchas, Samuel, Hakluytus posthumus, or, Purchas his pilgrimes 4 vols, (London, 1625; new edn. 20 vols., Hakluyt Society Extra Series, Glasgow: James Maclehose and Sons, 1905–1907). Purificação, António da, OESA Chronologia Monastica Lusitana, in quae Omnes Sancti et Beati, ac etiam venerabilis Personae Regulares, quae in lusitaniae reginis, eiusque Ditionibus natae, aut sepultae esse perhibentur, quoad fieri potuit fidelissime, ac brevissime referuntur (Lisbon, 1642). ——, De viribus illustribus antiquissimae provinciae Lusitanae ordinis eremitarum S.patriarchae Aurelii Augustini Hipponensis Episcopi, & Ecclesiae Doctoris (Lisbon, 1642). ——, Chronica da Antiquissima Provincia de Portugal, da Ordem dos Eremitas de S. Agostinho Bispo de Hippônia, e principal Doutor da Igreja 2 vols. (Lisbon: Domingos Lopes Rota, 1656). Purificação, Manuel da OSA, Memorias da Congregação Augustiniana na India Oriental (BNL, Fundo Geral, No. 177, fols 262–289, with another copy at fols 290–321). Quinn, Sholeh Alysia, Historical Writing during the Reign of Shah ‘Abbas (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 2000). Rahimi, Babak, Theater State and the Formation of Early Modern Public Sphere in Iran: Studies on Safavid Muharram Rituals, 1590–1641 CE (Leiden: Brill, 2011). Rano, Balbino, OSA, Augustinian Origins, Charism and Spirituality (Villanova PA: Augustinian Press, 1994). ——, The Order of St. Augustine (tr. Arthur Ennis), Rome: Curia Generaliza Agostiniana, 1975). Santo, António José de, Flos Sanctorum Augustiniano (Lisbon, 1721–1737). Silva Rego, António da, O Padroado Português no Oriente: esboço histórico (Lisbon: Agência Geral das Colónias 1940; in French translation as Jean Haupt (tr.) Le patronage portugais de l’orient: aperçu historique (Lisbon: Agência Geral do Ultramar, 1957). ——, Les Missions Portugaises (aperçu général) (Lisbon: Agência Geral do Ultramar, 1958). ——, O Padroado Português no Oriente e a sua Historiografia (1838–1950) (Lisbon: Academia Portuguesa da História, 1978).

272

bibliography

——, (ed.) Documentação para a História das Missões do Padroado Português do Oriente: India 12 vols, vols 1–5 Lisbon: Agência Geral das Colónias, 1947– 1958, vols. 6–12 Lisbon Agência Geral do Ultramar; new facsimile edn. Lisbon:Fundação Oriente and CNCDP, 1991–1996, with index by Isabel Pina published in 2000 as vol. 13. Remiro, Z. SMA, ‘Un Saggio Bilingue, Latino e Arabe, di Controversia Islamo-Christiana nella Roma del sec. XVII’, Euntes Docete 22 (1969), 453–480. Resnick, Irven M., ‘The Falsification of Scripture and Medieval Christian and Jewish Polemics’, Medieval Encounters 2/3 (1996), 344–380. Richard, Jean, La papauté et les missions d’Orient au Moyen Age (XIIIe–XVe siècles) (Rome: Ecole Française de Rome, 1977; new edn. 1998). Richard, Francis, Raphael du Mans, missionnaire en Perse au XVIIe siècle 2 vols. (Paris: L’Harmattan, 1995). ——, ‘Catholicisme et Islam chiite au “grand siècle” ’, Euntes Docete 33/3 (1980), 339–397. ——, ‘Un Augustin portugais renegat apologiste de l’Islam chiite au debut du XVIII siècle’, Moyen Orient & Océan Indien 1 (1984), 73–85. ——, Les Privilèges accordées aux religieux catholiques par les Safavides, quelques documents inédits’, Dabirah, 6 (Autumn 1989), 167–182. Richard, Yann, Shi‘ite Islam (Oxford: Blackwell, 1995). Rivara, Joaquim Heliodoro da Cunha, ‘A India no governo do vice-rei Conde de Vila Verde, 1693–1698, ch. VII, Cousas da Persia’, O Chronista de Tissuary II (1867), 251–253. Roberson, Ronald, The Eastern Christian Churches (5th edn., Rome: Pontificio Istituto Orientale, 1995). Robson, Roy R., Solovki: The story of Russia told through its most remarkable islands (Yale: Yale University Press, 2004). Rockhill, William (ed. and tr.), The Journey of William of Rubruck to the Eastern Parts of the World, 1253–55 (London: Hakluyt, 1900). Rodrigues, Vitor Luis Gaspar, ‘O Municipio de Goa, peça fundamental para a afirmação e sobrevivência do ‘Estado da India’, in O reino, as ilhas e o mar oceano. Estudos em homenahem a Artur Teodoro de Matos, (Lisbon: CHAM – UNL, 2007), 669–685 Ronan, Charles E., SJ, and Oh, Bonnie B. C. (eds), East Meets West: The Jesuits in China, 1582–1773 (Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1988). Rose, Robert B., ‘Islam and the Development of Personal Status Laws among Christian Dhimmis: Motives, Sources, Consequences’, The Muslim World 72/3–4 (July–October 1982), 159–179. Ross E. Dennison, Sir Anthony Sherley and his Persian Adventure (London: Routledge, 1933). Rota, Giorgio, ‘Caucasians in Safavid Service in the 17th Century’ in Raoul Motika and Michael Ursinus (eds.), Caucasia between the Ottoman Empire and Iran, 1555–1914 (Wiesbaden: Reichert, 2000), 107–120. Rousseau, Francois, L’Idée Missionnaire aux XVI et XVII siècles, (Bibliothêque des Missions 2), (Paris: Editions Spes, 1930). Rudolph, Kurt Die Mandaer 2 vols. (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1960–1961). Mandaeism (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1978). Saak, Eric Leland, High Way to Heaven: the Augustinian platform between reform and Reformation, 1292–1524 (Studies in medieval and Reformation thought 89), (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2002). Salaville, Sévérien, ‘Un théoreticien de l’apostolat catholique au XVIIéme siècle, le Carme Thomas de Jésus ou Didace Sanchez d’Avila’, Echos d’Orient 2 (April–June 1920), 68–72. Salia, Nino, ‘Le Martyre de la Reine Kethevan de Géorgie “Notes de voyage en Kakhétie” (in Russian)’ Bedi-Kartlisa, Revue de Kartvélologie 1 (Jan. 1957), 55–57. Sanson, François, Estat Présent du Royaume de Perse (Paris, 1694; English edn. John Savage (tr.) (London: Gillflower, 1695). S. Andrea, Isidorus a, OCD, Historia Generalis Fratris Discalceatorum Ordinis Beatae Virginis Mariae de Monte Carmelo Congregationis S. Elisae 2 vols. (Rome: 1668–1671).



bibliography

273

Santoro, Giulio Antonio, (ed.) Giuseppe Cugnoni, Autobiografia di Monsignor G. Antonio Santori, Cardinale di S. Severina (Rome: Archivio della R. Società Romana di storia patria, vols. 12 and 13, 1889–1890). Sanz, Atilano Pascual, Historia de los agustinos españoles (Madrid: Provincia del Santísimo Nombre de Jesus en España, 1948. Sarkissian, Karekin, The Council of Chalcedon and the Armenian Church (London: SPCK, 1965). Savory, Roger M., Iran Under the Safavids (Cambridge Cambridge University Press, 1980; 2nd edn. 2007). ——, ‘Relations between the Safavid State and its Non-Muslim Minorities’, Islam and Christian Muslim Relations 14/4 (2003), 435–458. Sélis, Claude, Les Syriens orthodoxes et catholiques, (series Fils d’Abraham), (Tournai: Editions Brepols, 1988). Senna Freitas, B. J. de, Memórias de Braga 5 vols. (Braga: Imprensa Católica, 1890–1891). Serrão, Joaquim Verissimo, Un Voyageur portugaise en Perse au début du XVIIe siècle (Lisbon: Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian, 1972). Scherberger, Max, ‘The Confrontation between Sunni and Shi’I Empires: Ottoman-Safavid Relations between the fourteenth and seventeenth century’ in Ofra Bengio and Meir Litvak (eds.), The Sunna and Shi‘a in History: Division and Ecumenism in the Muslim Middle East (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2011), 51–68. Schmeider, Felicitas, ‘The Mongols as non-believing apocalyptic friends around the year 1260’, Journal of Millennial Studies, 1/1 (1998), http://www.bu.edu/mille/publications/ summer98/fschmieder.pdf. Sherley, Anthony, Sir Anthony Sherley, his relation of his travels into Persia, the dangers and distresses which befell him in his passage, both by sea and land (London: N. Butter, 1613; facsimile edition published as Sir Anthony Sherley, his Relation of his Travels into Persia Amsterdam: Theatrum Orbis Terrarum and Norwood NJ, W. J. Johnson, 1974. Silva, Manuel Fereira da, ‘A culutura ao serviço da Missão’ in Congresso Internacional de História Missionação Portuguesa e Encontro de Culturas: actas 3 vols. (Lisbon: Universidade Católica Portuguesa, 1993). Simpson, Shreve, ‘The Morgan Bible and the Giving of Religious Gifts between Iran and Europe/Europe and Iran during the reign of Shah ‘Abbas I’ in Colum Hourihane (ed.) Between the Picture and the Word: Manuscript Studies from the Index of Christian Art (Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2005), 141–150. Smith, Ronald Bishop, The First Age of the Portuguese embassies, navigations, and peregrinations in Persia (1507–1524) (Bethesda MD: Decatur Press, 1970). Sobhani, Ayatollah Jaf’ar, Shah-Kazemi, Reza (ed. and tr.), Doctrines of Shi‘i Islam: A Compendium of Imami Beliefs and Practices (London: I. B. Tauris, 2001). Soroudi, Sorour ‘Jews in Islamic Islam’, The Jerusalem Quarterly 21/3 (1981), 99–113. ——, ‘The Concept of Jewish impurity and its reflection in Persian and Judeo-Persian traditions’ in Shaul Shaked, Amnon Netzer (eds.) Irano-Judaica III: Studies Relating to Jewish Contacts with Persian Culture throughout the Ages (Jerusalem: Ben-Zvi Institute, 1994), 142–170. Stewart, Devin J., ‘An Episode in the Amili Migration to Safavid Iran: Husayn Abd al-Samad al-Amili’s Travel Account’, Iranian Studies 39/4 (Dec. 2006), 481–508. ——, ‘Notes on the migration of Amili Scholars to Safavid Iran’, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 55/2 (Apr. 1996), 81–103. Sullivan, Francis A., Salvation outside the Church? Tracing the History of the Catholic Response (Eugene OR: Wipf and Stock), 2002. Suny, Ronald Grigor, The Making of the Georgian Nation (2nd edn.) (Bloomington: Indiana University Press), 1994. Tabriz, Arakel of, George A Bournoutian (ed. and tr.), The History of Vardapet Arakel of Tabriz 2 vols (Costa Mesa, CA: Mazda, 2005–6).

274

bibliography

Tamarati, Michel, L’Eglise Géorgienne des Origines jusqu’a nos jours (Rome: Imprimerie de la Societé Typographico-Editrice Romaine, 1910). Tarchnisvili, Michael, Patrick Viscuso (tr.), ‘The Origin and Development of the Ecclesiastical Autocephaly of Georgia’, Greek Orthodox Theological Review 46/1–2(2001), 89–111. Tchilingirian, Hratch ‘The Catholicos and the Hierarchical Sees of the Armenian Church’ in Anthony O’Mahony (ed.) Eastern Christianity: studies in modern history religion and politics (London: Melisende, 2004), 140–159. Tekeyan, Pascal, ‘Controverses Christologiques en Arméno-Cilicie dans la seconde moitiée du XII siècle (1165–1198)’, Orientalia Christiana Analecta 124 (1939). Teles e Cunha, João, ‘Goa: a construção, ascenção e declínio de um empório português na Ásia, ca. 1510–1750’ in João Marinho dos Santos and José Manuel Azevedo da Silva (eds), Goa, Portugal e o Oriente: Hisória e Memória (Coimbra: Palimage, 2011), 81–144. ——, ‘The Creation of a Portuguese Discourse on Safavid Iran’ in Rudi Matthee and Jorge Flores (eds), Portugal, The Persian Gulf and Safavid Persia (Leuven: Peeters, 2011). Tenreiro, António, Itinerario . . . em que se contem como da India veo por terra a estes Reynos de Portugal (Coimbra, 1560; Lisbon, Editorial Stampa, 1971). The Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2nd edn, A. H. R. Gibb, et al. (eds.) (Leiden: E. J. Brill; London, Luzac, 1960–2005). The Papacy: an encyclopaedia 3 vols., Philippe Levillain and John W. O’Malley SJ (eds.) (New York: Routledge, 2002). Thomas, David, ‘The Bible in early Muslim anti-Christian polemic’, Islam and Muslim Christian Relations 7/1 (1996), 29–38. ——, (ed. and tr.) Early Muslim Polemic against Christianity: Abu Isa al-Warraq’s ‘Against the Incarnation’ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002). ——, (ed.) Christians at the Heart of Islamic Rule (Leiden: Brill, 2003). Tivassoli, Sassan and Howarth, Toby, ‘Shi‘i Muslim Encounter with Christian Thought’, Transformation 22/1 (2005), 28–48. Toumanoff, Cyril Léon, Christian Caucasian History, (Washington DC, Georgetown Uni­ versity Press, 1963). ——, ‘Christian Caucasia between Byzantium and Iran’, Traditio 10 (1954), 109–189. ——, ‘Introduction to Christian Caucasian History’, Traditio 15 (1959), 1–106. Tournebize, François, Histoire Politique et Réligieuse de l’Arménie (Paris, Alphonse Picard, 1910). ——, ‘Les Frères Unitaires ou Dominicains Arméniens (1300–1794)’. Revue de l’Orient Chrétien 22 (1920–1921), 145–161, 249–279. Tucker, Ernest, ‘From Rhetoric of War to Realities of Peace: The Evolution of OttomanIranian Diplomacy through the Safavid era’ in Willem Floor and Edmund Herzig (eds), Iran and the World, 81–90. Unzué, José Luis Orella, ‘La familia y patria de Jerónimo Xavier’ in Jerónimo Xavier, SJ, Fuente de Vida: Tratado Apologético dirigido al Rey Mogol de la India en 1600 (San Sebastián, Universidad de Deusto, 2007), 7–46. Vacant, A., Mangenot, E. et al. (eds.), Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, 15 vols., Paris, Letouzey et Ané, 1903–1950. Valle, Pietro della, Delle Conditioni di ‘Abbas re di Persia, All’Ilutriss. e Reverndiss. Sig. Francesco Cardinal Barberino Nepote di N.S. Papa Urbano VIII. Pietro Della Valle (Venice, 1628; in French translation, Paris, 1631). ——, Informatione della Georgia data alla Santità di Nostro Signore Papa Urbana VIII, da Pietro Della Vale il Pellegrino, l’anno 1627 in Melchisedech Thevenot (ed.), Relations de divers voyages curieux qui n’ont point été publiés Paris, 1633. ——, Viaggi di Pietro della Valle il pelegrino . . . 3 vols. in 4 parts (Rome, Vital Mascardi, 1650–1663; 2 vols., Brighton, Gancia, 1843; revised augmented edn. in French translation Carneau, Etienne, and Le Comte, François Arthus A. (trs.), Schipano, Mario, (compiler) Les Fameux Voyages de Pietro della Valle, 8 vols., Paris, Ganeau, 1745). Valognes, Jean-Pierre, Vie et Mort des Chretiens d’Orient: des origines à nos jours (Paris: Fayard, 1994).



bibliography

275

Vasconcelos e Sousa, Bernardo (ed.), Ordens Religiosas em Portugal: das Origens a Trento (Lisbon: Horizonte, 2005). Vattappalam, Michael, The Congregation for the Eastern Churches: Origins and Competence, (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1999). Vega, Angel Custodio, OSA, Notas historico-criticas en torno a los origenes de la Regla de San Agustin (Madrid: Maestre, 1963). Verheijen, Luc, La Règle de saint Augustin 2 vols. (Paris: Etudes Augustiniennes, 1967). Vervliet, Hendrik D. L., Cyrillic and Oriental Typography in Rome at the End of the 16th century: An Inquiry into the Later Work of Robert Granjon (Berkeley CA, Poltroon Press, 1981). Villard, Ugo Monneret de, Il libro della peregrinazione nelle parti d’Oriente de frato Ricoldo da MontecroceI, Dissertationes historicae 13, (Institutum Historicum Fratrum Praedicatorum, Rome, 1948). Vivier-Muresan, Anne Sophie, ‘Autour de l’Eglise Saint-Georges d’Esfahan’, Archives de Sciences Sociales des Religions 138 (2007), 49–68. von der Jabel, Tectander, Iter Persicum (Altenberg, 1609); in French translation as Charles Schefer (ed.), Description du voyage en Perse entrepris en 1602 par Etienne Kakasch de Zalonkemeny . . . (Paris: Leroux, 1877). Watt, W. Montgomery. ‘His Name is Ahmad’, Muslim World 43 (1953), 110–17. ——, ‘The Early Development of the Muslim Attitude to the Bible’, Glasgow University Oriental Society, Transactions, 16 (1955–56), 50–62. Wensinck, A. J., ‘The Origins of Muslim Laws of Ritual Purity’ in Gerald Hawting (ed.), The development of Islamic Ritual (Aldershot:Ashgate, 2006), 75–93. Whooley, John, ‘The Armenian Catholic church: a study in history and ecclesiology’, The Heythrop Journal, 45(2004), 416–434. ——, ‘The Mekhitarists: Religion, Culture and Ecumenism in Armenian-Catholic Relations’ in A. O’Mahony (ed.), Eastern Christianity: Studies in Modern History, Religion and Politics (London: Melisende, 2004), 452–489. ——, ‘The Armenian Catholic Church: A modern History until the Synod of Rome 1928’ in Anthony O’Mahony (ed.), Christianity in the Middle East: Studies in Modern History, Theology and Politics (London: Melisende, 2008), 263–327. ——, ‘The Armenian Catholic Church in the Middle East’ in Anthony O’Mahony and John Flannery (eds), The Catholic Church in the Contemporary Middle East (London: Melisende, 2010), 153–184. ——, ‘The Armenian Church in Contemporary Europe’ in Anthony O’Mahony and Lucian Leustean (eds), The Catholic church in Contemporary Europe (London, Routledge, ­forthcoming). Wicki, Josef, SJ (ed.), O Livro do ‘Pai dos Cristãos’, (Lisbon, Centro de Estudos Ultramarinos, 1969). ——, ed. (some vols. with co-editor John Gomes), Documenta Indica 18 vols. in Monumenta Historica Societatis Iesu, (Rome, Institutum Historicum Societatis Iesu, 1948–1988). Wilmshurst, David, The Maryred Church: A History of the Church of the East (London: East & West, 2011). Witte, Charles-Martial de, OSB, ‘Les bulles pontificales et l’expansion portugaise au XVe siècle’, Revue d’Histoire Ecclesiastique 48 (1953), 683–718; 49 (1954), 438–461; 51 (1954), 413–453, 808–836; 53 (1958), 5–46, 443–471. ——, ‘Les Bulles d’erection de la province ecclesiastique de Funchal’, Arquivo Histórico da Madeira 12 (1962), 279–136. ——, ‘Documents anciens des archives du Chapitre d’Angra’, Lusitania Sacra 11 (1970– 1971), 129–253. ——, ‘Les lettres papales concernant l’expansion portugaise au XVIe siècle’, Nouvelle Revue de Science Missionnaire (Neue Zeitschrift fur Missionenswissenschaft) 40 (1984), 1–15, 93–125, 93–125, 194–205; 41 (1985), 41–68, 118–137, 173–187, 271–287. ——, ‘Une Tempête sur le Couvent de Tomar (1558–1580)’ Arquivos do centro cultural português 25 (1988), 307–423.

276

bibliography

Xavier, Jerónimo, SJ, Fuente de Vida: Tratado Apologético dirigido al Rey Mogol de la India en 1600 (San Sebastián, Universidad de Deusto, 2007). Ye’or, Bat, Miriam Kochan and David Littman (trs.), The Decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam: From Jihad to Dhimmitude, Seventh to Twentieth Centuries (Madison, NJ, Fairleigh Dixon University Press, 1996). Zain al-‘Abidin, Sayyid Ahmad, ed. Hamid Naji Isfahani ‘Alawi ‘Amili, Misqal-i Safa dar naqd-i kalam-i masihiyyat (Tehran, 1994). Zekiyan, Boghos Levon, ‘Armenians and the Vatican during the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries: Makhitar and the Armenian Catholic Patriarchate’, Het Christelijk Oosten 52, 3–4 (2000), 251–267. ——, ‘Christianity to Modernity’ in Edmund Herzig and Marina Kurkchiyan (eds), The Armenians: Past and present in the making of national identity (Abingdon, Oxon: RoutledgeCurzon, 2005). ——, ‘Armenian Self-Perception between Ottomans and Safavids’, Orientalia Christiana Periodica 75 (2009), 81–117.

Index Abbas I, shah of Persia, 22 and Armenian submission to Rome, 137, 139 and centralisation, 22–23 and consolidation of Safavid Shi’a state, 23–24 and millet system, 248 appoints Armenians over Eastern Christians, 88 at Augustinian Mass, 67 attitude to Christians, 26 building projects, 23 capaign in Azerbaijan and Armenia, 123 demands repayment of loan to Armenians, 141 described by Gouveia, 57 edict on inheritance by apostate Christians, 146 knowledge of Christianity, 244 on compulsion in religion, 141 on death of Jesus, 60 opposed by religious establishment, 64 social engineering, 124 treatment of missionaries, 26 visit to Augustinian chapel in 1608, 74 Acquaviva, Claudio, Jesuit General letter from Abbas I, 66 Afonso V, king of Portugal, 10 Afrasiyab governor of Basra, 159 ahl al-kitab. See People of the Book Akbar I, Mogul emperor heterodoxy of, 102 al-‘Abidin, Sayyid Ahmad ibn Zain author of Misqal-i Safa, 103 Alberici, Mario secretary to the Propaganda, 91 Albuquerque, Afonso de and Ismail I, 32–33 governor of the Estado da India, 33 Alcácer-Quibir battle of, 43 Alexander II of Kaketi, 199 Alexander VI, pope bull Inter caetera (1493), 194 Ali Beg, chamberlain to Abbas I on Christians in Isfahan, 71 Aliquli Jadid ul Islam. See Jesus, António de

Allah Verdi Khan, 23, 63 n. 104, 65 Alonso, Carlos Augustinian historian, 4 Amorim, Gaspar de and Georgian mission, 235 Augustinian vicar provincial in Goa, 168, 189 on issue of jurisdiction, 190 Andrade, António de first Jesuit missionary to Tibet, 153 perceived Buddhist analogies to Christianity, 153 Andrade, Rui Freire de, 173 captain of Muscat, 168 Anjos, Ambrósio dos account of the death of Ketevan, 202 appointed prior of Gori, 234 author of Relação Verdadeira, 202 death at sea, 222 decision to close Georgian mission, 236 journey to Georgia, 215 miraculous recovery, 232 negotiations with Propaganda Fide, 237 on Ketevan and Georgian Church, 221 preaches in Alaverdi Cathedral, 217 relationship with Ketevan, 205 Anjos, Belchior dos, 111, 198 author of Relação das Cousas da Cristandade, 112 Anjos, Manuel dos selected for Georgian mission, 227 Anjos, Pedro dos author of Breve Relazioni, 222 Antica, G. A. agent of Propaganda Fide in Goa, 77, 190 anti-Ottoman alliance, 50, 52, 64, 240 apostasy of Augustinian priors, 94–98 Arakel of Tabriz on Armenian deportation, 126 Ardabil, 19 Armenian Church as described by Belchior dos Anjos, 117–118 Christology, 113 in effective schism, 129 relations with Rome, 115 unity with Rome, 115–116 Armenian Cilicia, 113 Armenian messianism, 122, 216

278 Armenians deportation by Abbas I, 124 ‘errors’ of, 130 forbidden contact with Catholic missionaries, 143 forced to apostasise, 141 letter of submission to Paul V, 134 reception by Augustinias of Isfahan, 129 repayment of loan to Abbas, 141 responsible for Eastern Christians, 88 retention of traditional rites, 135–136, 138 settled in New Julfa, 126 spiritual condition, 127 targeted for conversion, 85 Armenians of Julfa visited by Augustinians, 117–118 Ashura, 56 Augustine, Saint as Augustinian Hermit, 41 author of De doctrina Christiana, 83 bishop of Hippo, 39 legitimising the Augustinian Order, 41 Augustinian convent in Isfahan, 73 visited by Abbas I, 74 Augustinian Hermits, Order of and the papacy, 40 ecclesiology, 112, 245 first convent and church in Lisbon, 42 foundational myth, 41 Grand Union, 40 inflexibilty on liturgical rites, 146 insistence on papal authority, 41 little union, 40 origins, 40 Portuguese province, 42–44 Augustinian mission in Basra ambivalent juridical status, 170 construction of new convent, 170 final years, 175 granted firman, 172 involvement in first Mandaean ­migration, 173 school for Mandaean children, 170, 172 Augustinian mission in Georgia affected by plague, 234 affected by quaternary fever, 231 final period, 235–238 foundation in Gori, 228 initial establishment, 218 initial prospects, 200 support and goods for, 227

index Augustinian mission in Isafahan description of chapel, 74 final period, 107–109 first church and convent, 73 income, 108 n. 78 in contemporary travel accounts, 78–79 indications of decline, 91–94 in Husaini quarter, 79 life and apostolate, 84–86 new church and convent (1620), 76 provision of hospitality, 80 relations with Propaganda Fide, 81–82 scarcity of texts for evangelisation, 82–84 temporarily abandoned, 143 tenure of priors, 107 Augustinian Rule, 39 Augustinian vice-province of the East Indies, 44, 47 attempts to separate from Portugal, 192 difficulties in obtaining personnel, 93 Ave Maria, Manuel de on Ketevan, 223 Avis, Henrique de, infante of Portugal, ‘the Navigator’ and Order of Christ, 11 Avitabile, Pietro envoy from Teimuraz to Urban VIII, 229 Bahrain, 55, 64 Bajenc, Augustin Armenian Catholic archbishop of Nakhitchevan, 80, 215 assistance to Augustinians, 226 Bandar ‘Abbas, 46, 55, 65, 159 Barberini, Cardinal Antonio Prefect of Propaganda Fide, 190 Bari, Saint Nicholas of, 231 Barros, João de author of Décadas da Asia, 57 Barul, Miguel on Mandaeans, 151 Basra and jurisdiction claimed for the ­archbishop of Goa, 192 and Portuguese political influence, 192–193, 194–195 and Portuguese trade, 159 as suitable base for new missions, 159 basis of jurisdictional dispute, 185 initial establishment of Catholic ­missions, 159–162 jurisdictional dispute in, 195



index

Bastan Quli Beg Persian ambassador to Europe, 66 Benedict XIV, pope establishes Armenian Catholic ­hierarchy, 117 Benedict XVI, pope and unity with Eastern Churches, 247 bishop of Rome. See pope Brandão, Aires on Mandaeans, 151 Carafa, Vicente Theatine missionary in Georgia, 235 Careri, Gemelli, 79 Carmelite mission in Basra dissension in, 180 end of proselytism among Mandaeans, 184 juridically dependent on Isfahan, 162 relocation, 164 Carmelites established in New Julfa, 145 temporary abandonment of Isfahan mission, 143–144 Carnoy-Torabi, Dominique and missionary libraries of Isfahan, 252 Carvalhosa, Ruy Gomes de embassy to Ismail I, 33 Castro, Agostinho de, 54 archbishop of Braga and primate of Spain, 44 Cerri, Urbano criticism of missionaries from religious orders, 91–92 secretary to Propaganda Fide, 82, 91 Chágas, António das selected for Georgian mission, 227 Chágas, Bonifácio das selected for Georgian mission, 230 Chaldiran battle of, 21 Chardin, Chevalier Jean, 79 Chézaud, Aimé author of The Impurities which have soiled the mirror of truth, 105 head of Jesuit mission in Isfahan, 91 Chinon, Gabriel de Carmelite missionary in Tabriz, 105 Christian-Muslim dialogue differences in approach, 106–107 Christian-Muslim polemic. See Jesus, António de, polemical texts Christ, Order of, 11–12 granted spiritual jurisdiction, 11 Church, salvation outside the, 242–245

279

Clement VIII, pope concession to missionary priests, 185 profession of faith for Eastern Christians, 136 Comorão. See Bandar ‘Abbas Congregation of the East Indies. See Augustinian vice-province of the East Indies Convento da Graça, Lisbon tiled panels, 202 Cordeiro, Afonso Franciscan lay brother, 50 Corlito, Cayetano Theatine missionary in Georgia, 235 Costa, Francisco da, 60, 63, 64 papal ambassador to Persia, 52 Council of Florence and Christian unity, 246 decree pro Armenis, 115 Council of Trent and mission, 13 Coutinho, Luís Augustinian vice-provincial in Goa, 188 irenic approach regarding jurisdiction, 188–189 Cruz, Jerónimo da, 84 chosen for embassy to Persia, 54 relics in Goa, 121 d’Abreu, Gonçalo in embassy from Hawizah, 154 d’Angers, Valentin vendetta against José do Rosário, 89 David IV, Catholicos of Armenia election of, 128–129 motives for obedience to Rome, 133 political pretensions, 133 n. 68 Denguiz Beg executed by order of Abbas, 140 Persian ambssador to Europe, 140 Deodato, Syriac archbishop of Damascus. See Mar Atallah Deslandes, Daulier, 78 Desterro, António de, 107 Augustinian prior of Isfahan, 96 conversations with the apostate priors, 96 Vicar General of bishop of Isfahan, 96 dhimmi, 25–26 Discalced Carmelites. See Carmelites Eastern Christians placed under Armenian protection by Abbas, 88 targeted for conversion, 85

280

index

Eastern Churches and common Christological statements, 247 ecclesiological re-evaluation by Rome, 247 Espírito Santo, Christóvão do selected for Georgian mission, 230 Espírito Santo, Mathias do in embassy to Mubarak, 154 Espírito Santo, Próspero do Carmelite prior of Isfahan, 160 Espíritu Santo, Cristóbal del, 84 chosen for embassy to Persia, 55 Etchmiadzin, 115 stones taken to New Julfa, 122 the three churches, 122, 128 visit by Augustinians, 121–122 Eugene IV, pope and religious dimension of Portuguese expansion, 10 Expectação, Domingo da selected for Georgian mission, 230 Ferreira, Miguel ambassador to Ismail I, 33 Fidalgo, Gregório Pereira ambassador to Persia, 96 n. 29 on António de Jesus, 96 n. 29, 98 n. 35 Franks, 122 Fratre Unitores, 111, 116–117 and Augustinians in Armenia, 118–120 incorporated into Dominican Province of Nakhitchevan, 116 Union of Qrna, 116 Fuente de Vida. See Xavier, Jerome, A‘ina-i Haqq-nama Gallego, Juan, 43 Georgia contacts with Rome, 198 establishment of diocese of Tiflis, 198 invasions by ‘Abbas I, 27 political spheres of influence, 27 relations with Safavid Persia, 27–28 under jurisdiction of Propaganda Fide, 198 Georgian Church, 197 Gesú, Ignazio di author of Persian grammar, 180 author of text on errors of the Mandaeans, 178–179 author of tract on Mandaeans, 158–159 Carmelite prior of Basra, 176 doubts on Mandaean baptism, 176

obtains copy of Diwan Abatur, 178 publication of Narratio originis, 179 Gesú Maria, Simone di Carmelite General, 162 Gesú, Stefano di Carmelite prior of Basra, 190 ghulams, 22 n. 45, 23, 59 Gioerida, Fernando, 80, 86 Giudice, Giuseppe Theatine missionary to Georgia, 231 Goa capital of Estado da India, 13 diocese and suffragan sees, 12–13 Gori chosen as site for Augustinian mission, 218 Gouveia, António de accompanies ‘Abbas to Kashan, 61 accompanies Persian embassy to Europe, 140 accused of interference by ‘Abbas, 141 author of Relaçam, 3 bishop of Cyrene and apostolic visitor, 140 calls ‘Abbas to convert to Christianity, 66–67 chosen for embassy to Persia, 54 claims authority over all Christians in Persia, 141 claims jurisdiction over Armenians, 142 flees Isfahan for Hormuz, 144 imprisonment in Algiers and ransom, 145 intervention in favour of Armenians, 126 lack of discretion, 142 literary output, 145 negative assesment of Islam, 244 on Armenian deportation, 125–127 on Mandaean baptism, 164 on Mandaeans at ‘Abbas’ court, 154 proposes Armenian seminary on Hormuz, 145 proposes haven in Persian Gulf for Eastern Christians, 144 Graça, Faustino de author of Campos do Ermo, 223 Granada, Luís de author of Simbolo de la fe, 57 Gregory II Catholicos of Armenia, 114 Gregory III Catholicos of Armenia, 114 Gregory IX Catholicos of Armenia, 115



index

Gregory IX Moussabekiants Catholicos of Armenia, 115 Gregory, Saint, ‘The Illuminator’, 112, 117, 122 Gregory VII Catholicos of Armenia, 114 Gregory VII, pope, 114 Guadagnoli, Filippo author of Apologia pro christianae religione, 83, 104 Gulbenkian, Roberto, 4 Hamza Mirza, 22 Hawizah as Mandaean centre, 179–180 under Persian control, 159 Herbert, Thomas, 78 Hethum II of Armenian Cilicia, 114 hidden Imam. See occultation Hormuz, 44, 55, 65 as Muslim-Christian frontier, 69 Augustinian convent, 46 blockaded by Ismail I, 34–35 capured by Anglo-Persian alliance, 159 dependent missions, 46 loss by Portugal, 81 Husain I, Sultan shah of Persia, 107 Husain ibn Ali, 102. See also Karbala, Ashura martyrdom, 16 third infallible Imam, 56 Imamiyya. See Shi’a Islam Iman Quli Khan, 56 and death of Ketevan, 208 n. 38 inculturation pioneers of, 242 Ingoli, Francesco and centralisation of missionary ­activity, 188 on jurisdiction of the archbishop of Goa, 193–194 secretary to Propaganda Fide, 88 Innocent XI pope, 91 Inquisition asked to rule on Mandaean baptism, 177 treatment of apostates, 70 Irakli II of Kakheti, 28 Isfahan, 23–24 besieged by Afghans, 108 first Augustinian church and convent, 73–75

281

Friday mosque, 79 missionary libraries, 252 new Augustinian church and convent (1620), 76–78 ‘school of ’, 104 Iskandar Beg Munshi on imprisonment of Ketevan, 204 Islam as Christian heresy, 104 Ismail I, shah of Persia and destruction of Christian texts, 83 as viewed in Europe, 31–32 imposition of Twelver Shi’ism, 20 Jerome, Saint and falsifying of Scripture, 99 Jesuits, 82 arrival in Isfahan, 145 pretensions to Persian mission, 54 superior theological and missionary skills, 243 Jesus, António de Augustinian prior of Isfahan, 95 court interpreter, 97 ‘Doctor of the Alcoran’, 96 motives for apostasy, 97 polemical texts, 99–102 political activities, 98 n. 37 Jesus, Felix de author of Primeira parte, 3 Jesus, Sebastião de, 215 Augustian prior of Isfahan, 76 selected for Georgian mission, 227 Jesu, Thomas a author of De procuranda salute, 83 jizya, 26 João V of Portugal regulations regarding the Isfahan ­convent, 107 John Paul II, pope encyclical letter Ut unum sint, 247 John XXII, pope and Order of Christ, 11 suppression of diocese of Smyrna, 198 Juan Tadeo de San Eliseo Carmelite missionary, 51 Julfa, 111 evacuation of, 124 surrender to Abbas I, 123 Julius III, pope and Order of Christ, 12 Kakheti occupied by Safavid forces, 229

282

index

Karbala, 16, 102 Kashan visit by Abbas I, 62 Ketevan and Augustinian missionaries, 224 as ambassador to Abbas, 204 as viewed by later Augustinian ­chroniclers, 222–223 castration of grandsons, 204 cause fails in Rome, 221 compared to Saint Agatha, 209 distribution of relics, 211–212 ecclesiological perspective, 224 in Breve Relaçam das Christandades, 220–221 martyrdom, 209 queen of Kakheti, 197 reasons for martyrdom, 206–207 recovery of body, 210–211 relics in Goa, 121 Khudabanda, shah of Persia, 22, 47 sends embassy to Europe, 36 Krusinski, Judas Thaddeus Jesuit procurator of Isfahan, 108 Lacerda, Luis Pereira de, 198 ambassador to Persia, 52, 111 Lamberti, Archangelo Theatine missionary to Georgia, 231 l’Annonciation, Anselme de doubts sincerity of Mandaean baptisms, 183 Lemos, Fernão Gomes de ambassador to Ismail I, 34 Leo I of Armenian Cilicia, 114 Leo X, pope and Order of Christ, 12 Lepanto, 35, 36 Lima, Miguel d’Abreu de ambassador to Tahmasp, 36 Llull, Raymond treatise on Christian-Muslim dialogue-Muslim, 102 Lobo, João Augustinian prior of Basra, 172 Lopez, Teófilo Aparicio on Ketevan, 223 Lucca, Giovanni Guiliani da on Augustinian mission in Gori, 236 Macedo, Henrique de ambassador to Tahmasp, 35 Madre de Deus, Francisco da prior of Isfahan, 107

Madre de Deus, Manuel da on martyrdom of Ketevan, 219 visit to Basra, 160 Majlisi, Muhammad Baqir and religious intolerance, 108 Malavasia, Bonaventura author of Jalá al-mirat radd’ ala Zain Alabedin, 104 Mandaeans, 154 and John the Baptist, 152 as proto-Carmelites, 158 n. 32, 190 Christian beliefs explained by Gouveia, 158 described by Gouveia, 155–156 first transmigration project, 167–170 forced conversion under Abbas II, 154 initial Augustinian contacts, 154–157 language and alphabet, 164 letter of obedience to archbisop of Goa, 156–157 letter of obedience to the pope, 171 perceived liturgical similarities to Catholicism, 152–153 proposed migration to Ceylon, 176, 178 proposed migration to the Maldive islands, 179–180 spiritual care entrusted to Carmelites, 168 two brothers baptised in Rome, 182–183 viewed as St John Christians, 152 Manrique, Sebastian, 78 n. 23, 85, 89 n. 65, 90 Mans, Raphael du court interpreter, 98 n. 34 Manutchar II of Meskheti signs submission to Rome, 201 Mar Atallah and Koonan Cross revolt, 88 Syriac archbishop of Damascus, 87–88 Martin V, pope and Portuguese expansion, 9 martyrdom of Muslim converts, 71 Mashhad, 56, 57 Afshar capital of Persian empire, 108 Melchisedech appointed Catholicos of Armenia, 128 Melo, Nicolau de, 84 death at Astrakhan, 51 embassy to Persia, 49 Meneses, Aleixo de alms sent to Isfahan convent, 134, 137 archbishop of Goa, 49 n. 54 critical of Portuguese Augustinian Province, 93



index

on Mandaeans, 152 orders baptism of Mandaeans, 177 sends embassy to Mubarak, 154–155 Mercedarian Order, 69 Miranda, Diego de, 60, 64, 66 papal ambassador to Persia, 52 Mir Damad, 103 Montecroce, Ricoldo de description of Mandaeans in Itinerarium, 150 Montoya, Luis de, 43 Moraes, António de Moraes, Simão de embassy to Persia, 48–49 evangelisation in Persia, 83 Moses III Catholicos of Armenia, 216 Mubarak ruler of Hawizah, 154 Muhammad naming of successor, 16 Mulla Sadra, 103 Muscat, 46, 109 n. 80, 173, 175, 177 and Mandaean migration, 167–169 massacre of Augustinian missionaries, 175 Nadir Shah first Afshar shah of Persia, 108 Nakhitchevan, 116 attacked by Abbas, 68 destroyed by Qizilbash troops, 124 Nascimento, Domingo do selected for Georgian mission, 230 Natividade, António da Augustinian prior of Basra, 172 New Julfa, 63, 70 Nicolas V, pope and Portuguese expansion, 10 Noronha, Don Miguel de, 173 viceroy of India, 169 occultation, 18–19 as taqiyya, 18 n. 34 Ordem de Christo. See Christ, Order of Orsini, Gregorio and canonisation of Ketevan, 213, 218–219 Pacheco, Manuel and closure of Georgian mission, 237 Augustinian definitor and procurator, 89–90 Augustininian visitor to Persia, Georgia and Basra, 237

283

Padroado extent of jurisdiction, 247–248 origins, 9–13 role in evangelisaation, 15 Pai dos Cristãos, 162 Paraclete identification with Muhammad, 100 Paul III, pope and Order of Christ, 12 People of the Book, 25 Perete, Nicolau first Augustinian missionary in Basra, 160 Persia, Don Juan de, 52 Pessoa, Balthasar de ambassador to Ismail I, 35 Petros I Catholicos-Patriarch of Cilicia of the Catholic Armenians, 117 Philip III of Spain and Persian silk, 140 Piromalli, Pablo prefect of the Dominican mission in Armenia, 236 Pius V, pope appeal to Tahmasp, 35 Podio, Bartolomeo de and Fratre Unitores, 111 bishop of Maragha, 116 pope as primus inter pares, 246 Portuguese Augustinian Province bibliographical sources, 42 establishment, 42–43 in fourteenth century, 42 Nossa Senhora da Graça church and convent in Lisbon, 42 reform, 43 Prato, Justo on Theatine mission in Mengrelia, 236 Theatine missionary to Georgia, 234 Presentação, Francisco da in embassy to Mubarak, 154 Presentação, José da, 170 and jurisdictional dispute in Basra, 191 elected first Augustinian prior of Basra, 172 second appointment as prior of Basra, 174 Prester John syndrome Christian Europe’s search for an ally against Islam, 28–31 influence on missionary expectations, 153

284

index

Propaganda Fide and Augustinian mission in Georgia, 229–230 and jurisdiction of the archbishop of Goa, 187 and missions of the Padroado, 81 cardinational commission, 14 foundational documents, 15 lack of resources, 230 on Ketevan, 219 origins, 13–15 press, 83, 136 n. 82 proposed Augustinian mission in Arabian peinnsula, 175 Provincial Council of Goa and Mandaeans, 152 on use of favours to obtain conversions, 134 Purificação, António da author of Chronologica Monastica, 222 Qeshm proposed as location for Mandaean transmigration, 155 Qizilbash, 20, 21, 22, 24, 108 Qrna, monastery of and Fratre Unitores, 116 and translation of Latin texts into Armenian, 116 Ransom of Christians and Misericórdia, 70 n. 123 of Christians, 72  pre-eventu, 141 n. 101 See also Mercedarians, Trinitarians Rego, António da Silva on jurisdiction of Padroado, 191 n 19 Reis, Gaspar dos Augustinian prior of Isfahan, 95 elected visitor to the Augustinian vice-province of the East Indies, 95 Relação Verdadeira abridged as Breve Relaçam, 210 contents, 203 relics, veneration of, 220 Resurección, Leandro de la Carmelite missionary in Basra, 170 Roboán. See Sousa, Luís de Rocha, João da on shortage of missionaries, 93 Rodrigues, Lino de Faria superintendent of Bandar-e-Kong, 109

Rosário, José do accusations by Valentin d’Angers, 89 complaints to Propaganda Fide, 83 preaches in Syrian church, 86 prior of Isfahan, 85–86 reputation for virtues, 89–90 Rustam Khan and Augustinians in Gori, 233–234 Sacramento, Francisco de, 90 Augustininan missionary in Isfahan, 91 critical of decline in missionary zeal, 91–92 Safavid Order, 19 heterodoxy in, 19–20 Safavid Persia historiography, 5 Safi al-Din depiction of, 20 n. 37 founder of Safavid Order, 19 Safi Mirza son of a Christian, 59 Sainte Thérèse, Agathange de on Carmelite endeavours among Mandaeans, 183 Sainte Thérèse, Bernard de, bishop of Babylon, 84, 193 property and church in care of Augustinians, 84 Saint-Olon, Louis-Marie Pidou de Catholic bishop of Babylon, 94 San Benedetto, Eugenio di Carmelite visitor to Persia, Mogul India and Goa, 162 doubts on validity Mandaean baptism, 166 San Carlo, Barnaba di Carmelite missionary in Basra, 179 planned visit to Hawizah, 179 prior of Carmelite mission in Isfahan, 182 San Giuseppe, Matteo di Carmelite missionary in Basra, 179 polemical and other texts, 182 San Miguel, Rodrigo de, Augustinian Recollect, 171 and Mandaean submission to Rome, 171 Santa Ana, Diogo de and Armenian profession of faith, 136 prior of Isfahan, 130 receives Armenian obedience to Rome, 133, 134 n. 20 theological debates with the Armenians, 132



index

Santa Maria, Manuel de apostasy of, 94 Augustinian prior of Isfahan, 94 motives for apostasy, 95, 97 Santa Teresa, José de prior of Isfahan, 109 Santo Agostinho, Guilherme de, 111, 198 martyrdom of, 120–121 relics in Goa, 121 Santo Agostinho, Nicolau de, 50 beheaded at Nishni Novgorod, 51 Santo António, José de author of Flos Sanctorum Augustiniano, 223 Santo Guilherme, Agostinho de, 91 Santos, João dos, 170 first Augustinian superior in Basra, 170 Santos, Pedro dos Augustinian missionary in Georgia, 215 ordained priest, 233 report to Propaganda Fide on Ketevan, 222 seeks assistance from Goa for Georgian mission, 218 São Francisco, Basílio de Carmelite missionary in Basra, 160 on Mandaeans, 166 São José, António de Augustinian prior of Basra, 174 São Pedro, Sebastião de Augustinian archbishop of Goa, 213 São Vicente, António de report to Propaganda Fide on Georgian mission, 229 selected for Georgian mission, 227 Sebastião I of Portugal, 36, 43 Sherley, Anthony enters service to Spanish crown, 52 in Persian embassy to Europe, 50 Shi’a Islam and anti-Christian polemic, 103 n. 58 emergence of hierocracy, 21 importation of Arab scholars, 21 in Décadas da Asia, 57 infallible Imams, 16–17, 20 in polemical text of António de Jesus, 101–102 origins and development, 15–19 Shiraz Augustinian foundation in, 205 Silva y Figueroa, Don García de Spanish ambassador to Persia, 143

285

Sousa, Luís de Mandaean leader, 168, 169 Stefano, Giacomo di Theatine missionary to Georgia, 231 Stephanos IV Catholicos of Armenia, 114 Sufis, 19 Sufism parallels with Christianity, 100–102 Sulaqa, Yohanan first Syrian Catholic patriarch, 158 Syrian Christians and Augustinians, 86–90 as responsibility of Armenians, 86 converts to Catholicism, 86 death of priest in Isfahan, 88 in Isfahan, 86 Tahmasp I, shah of Persia, 21 tahrif, 99–100 Tamarasvili. See Tamarati, Michel Tamarati, Michel Georgian Church historian, 197–198 taqiyya, 17–18, 20, 57, 68, 98 Teimuraz I of Kakheti, 201 letter to Urban VIII on death of Ketevan, 204–205 permits Augustinian mission in Georgia, 218 receives relics of Ketevan, 216–217 Teimuraz II of Kartli, 28 Templars and Order of Christ, 11 Theatines arrival in Gori, 214–215 chosen for Georgia by Propaganda Fide, 213–214 Tordesillas, Treaty of, 194 Trinitarian Order, 69 ransom of António de Gouveia, 145 Twelver Shi‘ism. See Shi’a Islam Unifying Friars of Saint Gregory the Illuminator. See Fratre Unitores Urban VIII, pope on veneration of relics, 220 Uruch Beg. See Persia, Don Juan de Valignano, Alessandro, Jesuit provincial missiological approach, 243 on Mandaeans, 152 Valle, Pietro della, 62, 80 n. 31, 104

286 Valle, Pietro della (cont.) advises Propaganda Fide on Georgian mission, 214 and Gioerida family, 86 n. 54 and relic of Ketevan, 212 on António de Gouveia, 141 on Armenian deportation, 126 on martyrdom of Ketevan, 219 on minority groups in Persia, 249–250 Villafranca, Francisco de, 43

index Xavier, Jerome author of A‘ina-i Haqq-nama, 102 author of The Mirror of Holiness, 58 Yazd, 56 Zakaria, Catholicos of Georgia support for Augustinian mission, 226 visited by Augustinians, 217