The Forgotten Bishops: The Malabar Independent Syrian Church and its Place in the Story of the St Thomas Christians of South India 9781463216818

Citation preview

The Forgotten Bishops

Gorgias Eastern Christian Studies

20

Gorgias Eastern Christian Studies brings to the scholarly world the underrepresented field of Christianity as it developed in the Eastern hemisphere. This series consists of monographs, collections of essays, texts and translations of the documents of Eastern Christianity, and studies of topics relevant to the unique world of historic Orthodoxy and early Christianity.

The Forgotten Bishops

The Malabar Independent Syrian Church and its Place in the Story of the St Thomas Christians of South India

John Fenwick

9

34 2009

Gorgias Press LLC, 180 Centennial Ave., Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA www.gorgiaspress.com Copyright © 2009 by Gorgias Press LLC

All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise without the prior written permission of Gorgias Press LLC. 2009

‫ܛ‬

9

ISBN 978-1-60724-619-0

ISSN 1539-1507

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Fenwick, John R. K.., 1951The forgotten bishops : the Malabar Independent Syrian Church and its place in the story of the St. Thomas Christians of South India / By John Fenwick. p. cm. -- (Gorgias eastern Christian studies ; 20) Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. Malabar Independent Syrian Church--History. 2. India--Church history. 3. Saint Thomas Christians--History. I. Title. BX163.3.F46 2009 281'.5--dc22 2009038631 Printed in the United States of America

‫̈‬

‫ܐ ܕ ܒܐ‬ ‫̈ ܐ ܕ ܬܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܘ ̈ ܐ ܘ‬ ‫ܪ ܐ ܐܪܬܐ ܕ ܒܐܪ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܒ ܘܢ‬ ‫ܬܘܕ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܥ‬ ‫ܒ ܢ‬

TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents...................................................................................vii List of Illustrations ................................................................................xiii Illustrations .............................................................................................xxi Sources ....................................................................................................xxi Abbreviations ................................................................................... xxxvii Note on Terminology, Episcopal Nomenclature, Spelling and dates ............................................................................................xxxix Ecclesiastical..............................................................................xxxix Indian Usage....................................................................................xl Personal Names .............................................................................xli Spelling and transliteration..........................................................xlii Dates..............................................................................................xliii Acknowledgements ...............................................................................xlv Map of Travancore, Cochin and British Malabar circa 1800 ........xlix Introduction ..............................................................................................1 Chapter 1: The Indian Context ............................................................11 The Geographical Context...........................................................12 Ethnography...................................................................................14 Political Organisation....................................................................17 Chapter 2: Syrian Christianity ...............................................................23 Syriac................................................................................................24 The Common Heritage.................................................................25 The East Syrian community – the Church of the East ...........28 The West Syrian Community – the Syrian Orthodox Church....................................................................................40 Through Indian eyes?....................................................................53 Chapter 3: ‘Syrian’ Christianity in India to 1498................................59 The St Thomas Tradition.............................................................62 Later Developments......................................................................66 vii

viii

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

The Stone Crosses.........................................................................69 Other Factors .................................................................................70 The Archdeacon ............................................................................72 The Lower Clergy..........................................................................75 The Status of the Community .....................................................77 Chapter 4: The Consequences of European Contact – An Overview.........................................................................................83 The Portuguese and The Synod of Udyamperoor/Diamper .83 The Dutch ....................................................................................103 The British and Tippu Sultan ....................................................108 Chapter 5: The Struggle For Independence and Identity 16531751 ...............................................................................................119 Francis Garcia, Archbishop of Cranganore, 1641-1659........120 Coonen Cross and the establishment of contact with the West Syrian tradition..........................................................121 Efforts to Restore Union with Rome.......................................127 Mar Gregorios Abdul Jaleel .......................................................133 The Kattumangattu Brothers.....................................................143 Maphrian Mar Basilios Yaldo and Mar Ivanios Hidayathulla.........................................................................145 The transformation of the Archidiaconate..............................147 Mar Thoma IV ca 1688-1728 ....................................................149 The Struggle for Control of the Syrians: Mar Thoma IV, Mar Gabriel, Padroado and Propaganda ........................153 Mar Thoma V 1728-1765...........................................................157 Mar Ivanios Yuhanon Ibn al Arqugianyi of Amid.................160 Chapter 6: The Consequences of the Maphrian’s Delegation of 1751: I - The Quarrel With Mar Thoma V..............................169 Mar Basilios Shukr Allah Qasagbi, Maphrian of the East.....169 Mar Gregorios Yuhanna, Metropolitan of Jerusalem............171 The arrival of the delegation......................................................172 First contact with the Kattumangattu brothers? ....................177 The absence of the Vicar Apostolic .........................................179 The concordat with Mar Thoma V ..........................................180 Anquetil du Perron’s Meeting with Maphrian Mar Basilios, January 1758 ........................................................................181 The Maphrian’s legacy –community and liturgy.....................184 The breakdown of the concordat with Mar Thoma V..........188

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ix

Chapter 7: The Consequences of the Maphrian’s Delegation of 1751: II - The Consecration of Two Bishops.........................193 The Consecration of Mar Thoma VI as Dionysios I.............194 The Date of the Consecration of Mar Koorilose I ................200 Why was another Indian consecrated?.....................................221 What happened in 1772? ............................................................224 Summary .......................................................................................241 The end of the Maphrian’s delegation .....................................245 Postscript: Why ‘Koorilose’? .....................................................246 Chapter 8: Mar Koorilose I And Mar Dionysios I: Further Themes..........................................................................................247 Mar Dionysios I’s attempts to unite with Rome ....................247 The Mission of Joseph Kariattil ................................................250 Opposition to Mar Dionysios’ reception.................................252 Mar Abraham Pandari and the reception of Mar Dionysios I .............................................................................................256 Additional Topics ........................................................................264 Chapter 9: The Early 19th Century – Two Lines of Succession....285 A Brief Review of Sources .........................................................285 The Kattumangattu Succession – Geeverghese Mar Koorilose II and Mar Ivanios...........................................288 The Pakalomattom Succession – Mar Dionysios I and Contact With British Churchmen ....................................295 Mar Thoma VII 1808-1809........................................................310 Mar Thoma VIII 1809-1816......................................................313 John Munro, British Resident, 1810-1819...............................315 Mar Thoma IX 1816 ...................................................................323 The Thozhiyur Succession .........................................................324 Plans for Renewal – and Reunion? ...........................................327 The Founding of the Seminary and the Consecration of Mar Dionysios II ................................................................331 North-South tensions .................................................................335 The Mission of Help ...................................................................338 Indigenous Evangelism ..............................................................343 Chapter 10: The Golden Age: Geeverghese Mar Philoxenos II, Malankara Metropolitan .............................................................347 Consecration and Ministry .........................................................347 Mar Athanasios Abdul Messih ..................................................361 The Liturgical Shift......................................................................370

x

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

Mar Philoxenos II – death and tributes ...................................373 Chapter 11: Mar Koorilose III and the Termination of the Mission of Help ...........................................................................377 The consecration of Mar Koorilose III ...................................377 Bishop Wilson’s Visits ................................................................382 Fading Hopes for Reform..........................................................386 Attitudes to Roman Catholicism...............................................389 The Mavelikara Synod, 1836......................................................397 Palakunnathu Abraham Malpan................................................402 The Petition to the British Resident, 1836 ..............................406 Chapter 12: Mathews Mar Athanasios ..............................................413 Early Life and troubles with the CMS Missionaries ..............414 The Journey to the Patriarch .....................................................419 Encounter with Patriarch Elias II.............................................424 The return to India......................................................................436 Mar Athanasios and Mar Dionysios IV – early contacts.......439 The Kandanat Assembly of 30th August 1843........................442 The Callumcatta Assembly of 3rd September 1843 ................444 The Attitude of the Missionaries ..............................................445 The Response from the Patriarchate........................................446 A West Syrian agenda?................................................................453 Malankara Metropolitan .............................................................459 Chapter 13: Independence Secured ...................................................461 The Consecration of Mar Koorilose IV ..................................463 The Thozhiyur community acquires new Churches ..............471 The Later Career of Yoakim Mar Koorilose...........................473 The Death of Mar Dionysios IV...............................................476 A wider perspective – the Pazhayakuttukar ............................477 Internal life ...................................................................................486 Chapter 14: The End of the Old Order and the Consecration of Titus I Mar Thoma......................................................................527 Joseph Mar Dionysios V ............................................................527 The Consecration of Thomas Mar Athanasios.......................529 The Visit of Patriarch Peter III .................................................530 The Abandoning of Mathews Mar Athanasios.......................533 The Mulanthuruthy Synod 1876 ...............................................535 The Death of Metropolitan Mathews Mar Athanasios .........538 Thomas Mar Athanasios, Malankara Metropolitan................541

TABLE OF CONTENTS

xi

Events at Thozhiyur – the consecration of Mar Athanasios I .............................................................................................545 The consecration of Titus Mar Thoma....................................548 Internal Life..................................................................................553 Chapter 15: The Twentieth Century: Expansion, Obscurity and New Initiatives .............................................................................555 Geeverghese Mar Koorilose V, 8th Metropolitan, 18981935, and Paulose Mar Athanasios, Suffragan Metropolitan 1917-1927 ....................................................558 Kuriakose Mar Koorilose VI, 9th Metropolitan, 1936-1947 .565 Geeverghese Mar Koorilose VII, 10th Metropolitan, 19481967 ......................................................................................567 Paulose Mar Philoxenos III, 11th Metropolitan, 1967-1977 .569 Mathews Mar Koorilose VIII, 12th Metropolitan, 19781986 ......................................................................................574 Joseph Mar Koorilose IX, 13th Metropolitan 1986-2001, and Cyril Mar Basilios, 2001 -...........................................575 Chapter 16: The Significance Of The Malabar Independent Syrian Church...............................................................................583 An Integral Place in the St Thomas Christian Story ..............583 Wider Implications ......................................................................587 A Future Role? .............................................................................588 Bibliography ..........................................................................................591 Index.......................................................................................................621

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS (Every attempt has been made to identify the source of the illustrations and to track down possible owners of copyright. Any errors or omissions will gladly be corrected in subsequent editions.) Cover picture. A 19th century Metropolitan and attendants. The illustration conveys something of the position of Syrian bishops in Kerala (Source: the collection of Joseph Mar Barnabas, Adoor). Figure 1. Syrian Christian man and woman. The water colour dates from the 1820s, but the dress seems to have been essentially the same for many centuries. The small ‘scapular’ around the woman’s neck shows that she is of the Pazhayakuttukar – those St Thomas Christians in communion with Rome. The white cloth is pleated into a fan at the rear, which is still seen in very old Syrian women today. The form of the pleating varied between those Syrians in communion with Rome and those who were not. (Source: British Library MSS EUR D 152. By permission.) Figure 2. Syrian priests or kathanars. The one on the right is wearing the kamiss over loose ‘pyjamas’, as described in the 16th century sources and still worn today. The round cap of West Asian origin has not yet replaced the head cloth. The priest on the left is in a white cassock which may derive from European influence. His beard shows that he is not of the Romo-Syrians, though he has a Roman tonsure. (Source: British Library MSS EUR D 152. By permission.) Figure 3. Bishop Alexander de Campo and his nephews. All are clean shaven. The bishop is in stole, cope and mitre. His nephews are tonsured and in black, with the exception of the Archdeacon who is in full length rochet and mozetta. He holds the bishop’s xiii

xiv

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

staff, the head of which seems to be two snakes facing a cross – a design still common in Kerala. (Source: original 17th century oil painting in the presbytery at Kuruvilangad. I am grateful to Fr Jacob Thekkeparambil for arranging for me to photograph the original.) Figure 4. Syro-Malabar bishop, priest and laity. This group, from the middle of the 20th century, shows the totally westernised appearance of the Syrian clergy who remained in communion with Rome after the middle of the 17th century. The bishop, in particular, is dressed identically to his Latin-rite European counterparts, complete with biretta. Eucharistic vestments were also totally Latin-rite. The contrast between this and the much more ‘Orthodox’ appearance of the non-Roman Syrians needs to be borne in mind when considering the relationship between the two sections of the community. (Source: Donald Attwater, The Christian Churches of the East, facing p. 201.) Figure 5. 18th century wall painting of a bishop at Angamale Church. The mitre, pectoral cross, blessing cross and beard have been added to the rochet and mozetta. (Source: G. Menachery (ed.), The Nazaranies, (Indian Church History Classics vol. 1), Thrissur, SARAS, 1998, back cover. The figure is named as ‘Archdeacon Gevarghese’, but seems more likely to be a bishop.) Figure 6. Syrian Metropolitan in the 1820s. This may be an artist’s impression, based on descriptions, rather than taken from life. The rochet is almost certainly incorrectly depicted as open. (Source: British Library MSS EUR D 152. By permission.) Figure 7. Detail from the susthaticon recording the consecration of Mar Thoma VI as Mar Dionysios I. It is attested by Gregorios, Metropolitan of Jerusalem, and Ivanios, bishop of India, and bears the date 19th Haziran 2081 of the Greeks (= 1770 AD). (Source: CMS archives Birmingham (CMS/ACC 91 02/04) by permission.) Figure 8. The modern Chapel of Mar Behnam at Thevanal on the site of the original monastery founded in 1767. (Source: author’s collection.)

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

xv

Figure 9. St George’s Cathedral, Thozhiyur, prior to renovation in 1989. This presumably the original Church built by Mar Koorilose I. His tomb and those of Mar Philoxenos I, Mar Philoxenos II and Mar Koorilose III are in the madbaha, which was unaffected by the renovation. Subsequent bishops have been buried seated and robed in a special vault in the qestroma. On the death of a bishop his predcessor’s bones are removed and placed in a pit under the south wall of the nave. (Source: Thozhiyur Archives.) Figure 10. The Cheriapally (Little Church) at Kottayam, showing the characteristic design: the sanctuary or madbaha, is higher than the nave; the west gable is ornamented; and there is a long west porch. Compare with St George’s Cathedral, Thozhiyur. (Source: Richards, The Indian Christians of St. Thomas, p.3.) Figure 11. Signature of Mar Philoxenos II. This dates from 1829 and is in East Syriac script. Figure 12. The Revd Richard Kerr, whose visit to Kerala preceded that of Claudius Buchanan, but whose account of the St Thomas Christians was eclipsed by Buchanan’s. (Source: Frank Penny, The Church in Madras, vol. 2, p.304.) Figure 13. The Revd Claudius Buchanan, whose book Christian Researches in Asia, published in 1811, did much to bring the existence of the Syrians in Kerala to the attention of the British public. (Source: Frank Penny, The Church in Madras, vol. 2, p.304.) Figure 14. Colonel Colin Macaulay, first British Resident in Travancore and Cochin. (Source: W. S. Hunt, The Anglican Church in Travancore and Cochin, vol. 1.) Figure 15. Colonel John Munro, second British Resident in Travancore and Cochin. His impact on the Syrian community was immense. (Source: W. S. Hunt, The Anglican Church in Travancore and Cochin, vol. 1.) Figure 16. Mathews Mar Athanasios (Palakunnathu), Malankara Metropolitan 1852-1877. (Source: CMS Archives, Oxford (H/H31/AG1/1, p.46) by permission of the Archivist.)

xvi

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

Figure 17. Geevarghese Mar Koorilose III (Koothoor), MISC Metropolitan 1829-1856. He was the successor of Mar Philoxenos II, and was consecrated by Cheppat Mar Dionysios IV. (Source: Thozhiyur Archives.) Figure 18. Joseph Mar Koorilose IV (Alathoor-Panakkal), MISC Metropolitan 1856-1888. He was a very active Metropolitan, who began the expansion of the MISC beyond Anjur and Thozhiyur, and who built the cloister adjoining the Cathedral. (Source: Thozhiyur Archives.) Figure 19. The signature of Metropolitan Mathews Mar Athanasios on the 1856 susthaticon of Mar Koorilose IV. (Source: Thozhiyur Archives.) Figure 20. Pulikottil Mar Dionysios V. Consecrated in 1864 by Patriarch Yacoub II, contrary to the wishes of the Patriarchal delegate in Kerala. Eventually, in 1889, won legal recognition as Malankara Metropolitan on the grounds that the Patriarch of Antioch was judged to have spiritual authority over the Indian Church and only a bishop consecrated by him or his delegate could be Malankara Metropolitan. (Source: Richards, The Indian Christians of St. Thomas, p.40.) Figure 21. Thomas Mar Athanasios (Palakunnathu), Malankara Metropolitan 1877-1893. Consecrated by Mathews Mar Athananasios and Mar Koorilose IV, he in turn was involved in the consecrations of Joseph Mar Athanasios and Geevarghese Mar Koorilose V. (Source: Richards, The Indian Christians of St. Thomas, frontispiece.) Figure 22. Joseph Mar Athanasios I (Maliyekkal), consecrated 1883, MISC Metropolitan 1888-1898. He presided at the consecration of Titus I Mar Thoma in the Cheriapally, Kottayam, in 1894. (Source: Thozhiyur Archives.) Figure 23. Geevarghese Mar Koorilose V (PulikottilKarumamkuzhi), consecrated 1892, MISC Metropolitan 1898-1935. Assisted at the consecration of Titus I Mar Thoma. (Source: Thozhiyur Archives.)

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

xvii

Figure 24. Punnathra Chandapilla kathanar (Thazhath Achen). He was the priest of the Cheriapally in Kottayam and was one of the priests instrumental in bringing the bishops from Thozhiyur for the consecration of Titus I Mar Thoma in 1894. In later years he was one of the priests who argued that the ‘reform’ had gone far enough, and that no further changes were necessary. Note that he wears the kamiss and tonsure. (Source: Mar Thoma Seminary Archives.) Figure 25. Titus I Mar Thoma (Palakunnathu), Metropolitan of the ‘Reformed Syrians’ 1894-1909. (Source: Collection of Joseph Mar Barnabas, Adoor.) Figure 26. Thomas Mar Athanasios and his clergy. The priests are wearing white cassocks with black belts and black caps. (Source: Richards, The Indian Christians of St. Thomas, p.47.) Figure 27. Mar Dionysios V and clergy. The clergy are in black cassocks, but the Latin tonsure is still being worn. The bishop on the left is Mar Abdisho Thondanat (see Chapter 13); the bishop on the right is Mar Julius Alvares from whom several lines of episcopi vagantes derive. (Source: Richards, The Indian Christians of St. Thomas, p.63.) Figure 28. Aviotte Yonan kassisa (1850-1916). One of the leaders of the ‘reform’ movement, who was particularly instrumental in securing a number of southern Churches for the Mar Thoma Church. Note that, despite being a ‘Reformer’ he wears a black cassock and Roman tonsure as late as the early 20th century. (Source: Poolatheen collection. By permission of Metropolitan Philipose Mar Chrysostom.) Figure 29. Paulose Mar Athanasios (Alathoor-Panakkal), Suffragan Metropolitan of MISC 1917-1927. He died before succeeding as Metropolitan. (Source: Thozhiyur Archives.) Figure 30. Paulose Mar Athanasios, Titus II Mar Thoma, Geevarghese Mar Koorilose V, and Abraham Mar Thoma. The photograph was almost certainly taken in 1917 following the consecration of Abraham Mar Thoma (the photographer who copied

xviii

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

the original has removed the background). (Source: Thozhiyur Archives.) Figure 31. Kuriakose Mar Koorilose VI (Koothoor), MISC Metropolitan 1935-1947. Consecrated by Titus II Mar Thoma. (Source: Thozhiyur Archives.) Figure 32. Juhanon Mar Thoma, Metropolitan 1947-1976. Consecrator of Mar Koorilose VII and Mar Philoxenos III. (Source: K.K. Kuruvilla, A History of the Mar Thoma Church and its Doctrines, facing p.45.) Figure 33. Geeverghese Mar Koorilose VII (Cheeran), MISC Metropolitan 1947-1967. Consecrated by Juhanon Mar Thoma. (Source: Thozhiyur Archives.) Figure 34. Paulose Mar Philoxenos III (Ayyamkulangara), MISC Metropolitan 1967-1977. Consecrated by Juhanon Mar Thoma. Left the MISC to join the Syro-Malankara Church, where he was made titular Bishop of Chayal. The photograph was taken on the day of his consecration. (Source: Mar Thoma Seminary Archives.) Figure 35. The MISC clergy with the body of Mar Koorilose VII in 1967. Assembling for a group photograph with the vested corpse of a deceased bishop is still normal practice in many of the Syrian Churches. Second from the left is Fr Paul A. Thomas, who was to succeed as Mar Philoxenos III. Third from the left is Fr K.C. Verghese, author of the Brief Sketch, the only history of the MISC in English before 1992. The Deacon on the right is wearing a dalmatic, almost certainly a tradition continued since Portuguese times. (Source: Thozhiyur Archives.) Figure 36. Alexander Mar Thoma, Metropolitan 1976-1999. Consecrator of Mathews Mar Koorilose VIII and Joseph Mar Koorilose IX. (Source: collection of the Revd Dr George Mathew.) Figure 37. Geeverghese Mar Koorilose VIII (Koothoor), MISC Metropolitan 1977-1986. (Source: Thozhiyur Archives.)

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

xix

Figure 38. Joseph Mar Koorilose IX (Alathoor-Panakkal), MISC Metropolitan 1986-2001, Valiya Metropolitan from 2001. Consecrated by Alexander Mar Thoma, assisted by Mar Thoma bishops and by Mar Aprem Mooken and Paulose Mar Paulose of the Church of the East. He is the first MISC Metropolitan to travel outside India. (Source: author’s collection) Figure 39. Cyril Mar Basilios (Koothoor), MISC Metropolitan from 2001. Consecrated by Mar Koorilose IX assisted by Mar Thoma, Malankara Orthodox, Syrian Orthodox and Church of South India bishops. (Source: author’s collection.)

ILLUSTRATIONS

(For more information on each illustration, see pp xiii – xix)

1. Syrian Christian man and woman.

2. Syrian priests or kathanars.

xxi

xxii

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

Figure 3. Mar Alexander de Campo and his nephews.

Figure 4. Syro-Malabar bishop, priest and laity.

Figure 5. 18th century wall painting of a bishop at Angamale Church.

ILLUSTRATIONS

xxiii

Figure 6. Syrian Metropolitan in the 1820s.

Figure 7. Detail from copy of the susthaticon recording the consecration of Mar Thoma VI as Mar Dionysios I in 1770.

xxiv

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

Figure 8. The modern Chapel of Mar Behnam at Thevanal on the site of the original monastery founded in 1767.

Figure 9. St George’s Cathedral, Thozhiyur, prior to renovation in 1989.

ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure 10. The Cheriapally (Little Church) at Kottayam.

Figure 11. Signature of Mar Philoxenos II in 1829.

xxv

xxvi

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

Figure 12. The Revd Richard Kerr.

Figure 13. The Revd Claudius Buchanan.

Figure 14. Colonel Colin Macaulay.

Figure 15. Colonel John Munro.

ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure 16. Mathews Mar Athanasios (Palakunnathu), Malankara Metropolitan 1852-1877.

xxvii

xxviii

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

Figure 17. Geevarghese Mar Koorilose III (Koothoor), MISC Metropolitan 1829-1856.

Figure 18. Joseph Mar Koorilose IV (Alathoor-Panakkal), MISC Metropolitan 1856-1888.

Figure 19. The signature of Metropolitan Mathews Mar Athanasios on the 1856 susthaticon of Mar Koorilose IV.

ILLUSTRATIONS

xxix

Figure 20. Pulikottil Mar Dionysios V.

Figure 21. Thomas Mar Athanasios (Palakunnathu), Malankara Metropolitan 1877-1893.

Figure 22. Joseph Mar Athanasios I (Maliyekkal) MISC Metropolitan 1888-1898.

Figure 23. Geevarghese Mar Koorilose V (PulikottilKarumamkuzhi) MISC Metropolitan 1898-1935.

xxx

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

Figure 24. Punnathra Chandapilla Figure 25. Titus I Mar Thoma (Palakunnathu) Metropolitan1894-1909. kathanar (Thazhath Achen).

Figure 26. Thomas Mar Athanasios and his clergy

ILLUSTRATIONS

xxxi

Figure 27. Mar Dionysios V and clergy.

Figure 28. Aviotte Yonan kassisa (1850-1916).

Figure 29. Paulose Mar Athanasios (Alathoor-Panakkal), Suffragan Metropolitan of MISC 1917-1927.

xxxii

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

Figure 30. Paulose Mar Athanasios, Titus II Mar Thoma, Geevarghese Mar Koorilose V, and Abraham Mar Thoma (ca. 1917).

Figure 31. Kuriakose Mar Koorilose VI (Koothoor) MISC Metropolitan 1935-1947.

Figure 32. Juhanon Mar Thoma, Metropolitan 1947-1976.

ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure 33. Geeverghese Mar Koorilose VII (Cheeran) MISC Metropolitan 1948-1967.

xxxiii

Figure 34. Paulose Mar Philoxenos III (Ayyamkulangara) MISC Metropolitan 1967-1977.

Figure 35. The MISC clergy with the body of Mar Koorilose VII in 1967.

xxxiv

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

Figure 36. Alexander Mar Thoma, Metropolitan 1976-1999.

Figure 37. Geeverghese Mar Koorilose VIII (Koothoor) MISC Metropolitan 1978-1986.

Figure 38. Joseph Mar Koorilose IX (Alathoor-Panakkal) MISC Metropolitan 1986-2001.

Figure 39. Cyril Mar Basilios (Koothoor), MISC Metropolitan from 2001.

SOURCES CMS

Church Missionary Society archives. The bulk of these are housed at the University of Birmingham (UK), with some at current CMS headquarters in Oxford. The Birmingham deposit in particular contains a substantial amount of letters and other material deriving from the CMS mission in Kerala which began in 1816.

DR

Dutch Records. The records of the Dutch East India Company in Travancore and Cochin were stored at Madras. In the early 20th century the majority of them were bound and catalogued by A.J. Heylingers in Press List of Ancient Dutch Records (IOR/V/27/36/27), covering the period 1657 to 1825. This does not list every document, but describes the general type of manuscript in each volume, with more detailed notes on some that Heylingers found particularly interesting. Examination of each volume is therefore necessary. Some of the volumes are in a fragile state. Not all are paginated. The collection is now housed at Tamil Nadu Archives, Ghandi-Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai.

IOR

India Office Records. Various materials (correspondence, reports, etc) held at the British Library, Euston Road, London,

LP

Lambeth Palace Archives, London.

MTS

Mar Thoma Seminary Archives, Kottayam. The Seminary has a separate archive building which contains various photographs, manuscripts and printed books in bookcases and display cases. xxxv

xxxvi

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS Most of the items seem to have been donated by families in whose keeping they had been. There is a rudimentary catalogue. The collection is less extensive than might be expected and is suffering considerably from the effects of deterioration.

TA

Thozhiyur Archives. These consist of various manuscripts and printed groups which are currently being catalogued and stored in a number of bookcases at St George’s Cathedral, Thozhiyur. The majority of the Syriac documents are described in a Handlist in by Dr David Taylor, currently in preparation. There are also numerous further loose documents in Syriac, Malayalam and English which have not yet been catalogued. See also next item.

VB

Visitor’s Book. This is a bound volume of blank pages which has been used as a Visitor’s Book by the Metropolitans of the MISC from 18 to the present day, with a gap between 1956 and 1990.

One corpus of source material that it was not possible to locate were the volumes of evidence submitted in the ten years of litigation from 1879 to 1889, commonly referred to as ‘the Seminary Case’. The Judgements have, however, been consulted. They often quote a length from the authorities they cite. To have incorporated a critical comparison between the accounts of events as laid before the various Courts and the account presented here, would have added considerably to the length of the present work, and would in effect constitute a separate project. Only occasional references are therefore included to the Judgements where these are judged to be of material significance for the present work. References to the majority judgement in the Travancore Royal Court of Final Appeal by The Chief Justice (K. Krishnaswamy Row) and A. Sitarama Iyer are cited as Judgment/Row-Iyer, followed by the paragraph number of the printed edition. References to W.E. Ormsby’s minority dissenting judgement are cites as Judgement/Ormsby, followed by the page number (this Judgement not having numbered paragraphs).

ABBREVIATIONS CCC HCI JRAS DNB

Colonial Church Chronicle. History of Christianity India. Published by Church History Association of India. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society. Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Online at www.oxforddnb.com

xxxvii

NOTE ON TERMINOLOGY, EPISCOPAL NOMENCLATURE, SPELLING AND DATES ECCLESIASTICAL

In telling the story of the Malabar Independent Syrian Church it is necessary to deal with issues of division and doctrinal controversy between Christians. The terminology of such controversies - words such as 'Nestorian', 'Monophysite', 'Uniates' - can still cause hurt and misunderstanding in parts of the Church today. Except in direct quotations I have therefore tried to avoid terms with pejorative overtones and to use more neutral descriptions. In a few places I have used quotation marks to indicate the provisionality and frequent inaccuracy of such terms. Where necessary I have followed Brock and other recent writers in using the term ‘Miaphysite’ for the Christology deriving in the main from Cyril of Alexandria and now accepted as ‘orthodox’ by the Chalcedonian Orthodox Churches, the Roman Catholic Church and other Christian bodies. For much of the 20th century – and up to the present day – a substantial section of the Syrian community has been divided over the issue of its relationship to the Syrian Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch. Is the Indian Church part of the Syrian Orthodox Church and hence under the Patriarch’s jurisdiction, or is it an independent Church? The names given to the two groups have varied somewhat over the years. Currently in Kerala, the section which is under the ultimate jurisdiction of the Syrian Orthodox Patriarch in Damascus it is often commonly referred to as ‘Jacobite’, a name which it accepts and which seems to have no pejorative overtones. I have therefore used it here in that context. Those who maintain the independence of the Syrian Church in India use the name ‘Orthodox Syrian’ and ‘Malankara Orthodox’, which I have adopted. I have used the name ‘the Church of the East’ for the Church frequently described in history as ‘the Nestorian Church’. As Sebasxxxix

xl

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

tian Brock has pointed out, the older usage is ‘a lamentable misnomer’. INDIAN USAGE

The very name of the part of India where the events recounted here took place presents problems. For most of the existence of the MISC, the principal political divisions have been the rajahates of Travancore and Cochin, and the territory of British Malabar, formerly under the control of the Zamorin of Calicut. However, as these areas share broadly a common geography, culture and language, they are often referred to by such generic names as ‘Malabar’, ‘Malankara’ or ‘Malayalam’.1 This can produce considerable confusion: the whole southwest coast of India, for example, is often referred to by writers as the ‘Malabar coast’, when, in fact, much of it comprises the seaboard of Cochin and Travancore. On 1st November 1956, the three historic territories were combined into the single state of Kerala.2 For convenience, the term ‘Kerala’, although anachronistic, is used here as a generic term for the geographical region. The appellation given by different writers is, of course, retained in direct quotations. The question of nomenclature is further complicated by the current policy of the Government of India to replace Europeanised names with their indigenous originals, even when the former are of longstanding international usage. Thus ‘Bombay’ is now ‘Mumbai’, ‘Madras’ is ‘Chennai’ and so on. In the area of India with which this study is most concerned, the following changes should be noted:

1 ‘Malayalam’ (which is the name of the local vernacular language) is thought to derive from mala (hill) and alam (dale), referring to the undulating landscape of parts of the area. ‘Malabar’ is a partially Arabicised form of the same word. ‘Malankara’ is the name of an ancient port which came to be extended to the surrounding territory (Mundadan, p.12). 2 Some Tamil-speaking areas in the south were incorporated into Madras State (now Tamil Nadu), and a small section of the former South Kanara district of Madras State was transferred to Kerala. The chief criterion seems to have been linguistic. ‘Kerala’ was the name of the realm of the Chera kings.

NOTE ON TERMINOLOGY Cochin Travancore Calicut Trichur Trivandrum Verapoly

– – – – – –

xli

Kochi Thiruvithancore Kozhikode Thrissur Thiruvananthapuram Verapuzha

In order to facilitate reference to historical sources, the decision has been made in most cases to retain the name in use prior to the recent Indianisation process. PERSONAL NAMES

Among Syrian Christians in Kerala the name traditionally had a threefold structure: Family/house name – Father’s name – Baptismal name. The first two of these are usually abbreviated to initials. Thus K.M. George = Kuthiyil Mathew George. This, it will be seen, is the reverse of the usual British, European and American conventions. In the Malabar Independent Syrian Church, as in a number of Churches, a bishop receives a new name on consecration. In the Syrian Churches this is preceded by the title 'Mar' meaning 'Lord'. The West Syrian form is 'Mor', but, as will be discussed in the main text, the East Syrian pronunciation prevails in Kerala even among churches which, like the MISC, are West Syrian in episcopal succession and rite. As the number of episcopal names in use is quite small, the individual's baptismal name is usually prefixed. Thus (to take the hypothetical example mentioned above), were K.M. George to be consecrated a bishop with the episcopal name Philoxenos, he would be called Geevarghese Mar Philoxenos (his baptismal name having been rendering into its Syriac form, or an Indian version of it). In Syriac the formula is ‘Philoxenos who is Geevarghese’ ( ‫ܕܗܘ ܓ ܪܓ‬ pylksns dhw gwrgs). Sometimes, however, an individual may be more commonly known by the name of his family or of the place from which he originated. So, for example, Malankara Metropolitan Mar Dionysios IV is usually known as Cheppat Mar Dionysios, rather than Philipose Mar Dionysios. Of the fourteen bishops who have ruled over the MISC as Metropolitan, nine have borne the name episcopal Koorilose, three

xlii

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

Philoxenos, one Athanasios and one Basilios. For the purposes of clarity I have numbered them according to their episcopal name, though often including their prefixed baptismal name. The thirteenth Metropolitan was thus Joseph Mar Koorilose IX and not Joseph Mar Koorilose II, the fact that he was the ninth Metropolitan named Koorilose being more important than the fact that an earlier Koorilose happened to have the same baptismal name. I have applied this numbering only to the undisputed Metropolitans: two bishops (one, a Mar Ivanios of uncertain status in the early 19th century, and an assistant Paulose Mar Athanasions) I have left unnumbered. The pattern ‘A Mar B’ is also found in the Church of the East (for example Paulose Mar Paulose who was one of the consecrators of Mar Koorilose IX). Here, however, the use is less consistent. For example, the predecessor of the present Metropolitan of the Church of the East in India was generally referred to as Mar Thoma Dharmo, and his predecessor as Mar Timotheos Abimelek. I have generally used the commonly recognised forms SPELLING AND TRANSLITERATION

The spelling of names and places is notoriously difficult to standardise. Different writers use different systems for transliterating Malayalam and Syriac, and Indian sources in particular frequently spell names in two or more different ways in the same document. In the present work 1 have tried to standardise as much as possible, though I have used an author's own spelling in direct quotations. With regard to Malayalam, Brown gives a scientific system of transliteration.3 One main drawback of this is that it is not used in Kerala itself. As the present study is not primarily linguistic in nature, the decision has been taken to adopt current Indian usage, rather than a scientific transliteration system. While this should be of benefit to Indian readers, it does mean that usage is not entirely consistent.4 Readers should note that the name of ‘Thozhiyur’, Indian Christians, p.308ff. Susan Bayly found the same problem: Saints, Goddesses and Kings: Muslims and Christians in South India Society 1700-1900, Cambridge, CUP, 1989, Indian ed. 1992), p.xiii. 3 4

NOTE ON TERMINOLOGY

xliii

which they will encounter frequently, is pronounced approximately ‘Tolly – yoor’. Since Syriac names often derive from Greek, I have tried to use Greek rather than Latin forms when rendering them in the English: 'Gregorios' rather than 'Gregorius'. However, here, as elsewhere, some inconsistencies remain. DATES

For the majority of references the date given in the original is used, sometimes with the modern European equivalent in brackets or a footnote. The Malayalam Era (ME) begins on 15th August 825 AD. This date was adopted by Rajah Udaya Marthanda Varma of Quilon on the advice of a council of learned men. It is still used in Kerala, alongside the European system.5 The months (with their approximate English equivalents) are: Chingam Kanni Thulam Vrischikam Dhanu Makaram Kumbham Meenam Medam Edavam Midhunam Karkhidakam

August – September September – October October – November November – December December – January January – February February – March March – April April – May May – June June – July July - August

Syrian documents are often dated ‘in the year of the Greeks’. This began with the accession of Seleucus I, the founder of the Seleucid dynasty, on 1st October 312BC. The months (with approximate English equivalents) are:

5 K.P.Padmanabhe Menon, History of Kerala, New Delhi, Asian Educational Series, 1986, vol. IV, p.265.

xliv

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

‫ܬ ܝ ܘܕܡ‬ ‫ܬ ܝܐ ܝ‬ ‫ܢ ܙܕܡ‬ ‫ܢ ܐ ܝ‬ ‫ܒ‬ ‫ܐܕܪ‬

teshrin qdem teshrin hro kanoon qdem kanoun hro shboth ‘odor nison ‘eyor haziran tomuz ob elull

‫ܐ‬ ‫ܢ‬ ‫ܬ ܢ‬ ‫ܐܒ‬ ‫ܐ ܠ‬

October November December January February March April May June July August September

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The research for the present book has taken well over a decade and I am conscious of the enormous debt I owe to a considerable number of people in India and elsewhere who have assisted me in various ways and made this book and its predecessor possible. The whole project was initiated by the Most Revd Joseph Mar Koorilose IX, as Metropolitan of the Malabar Independent Syrian Church. Over the years he has devoted many hours to answering innumerable questions sent out from England. The answers to many of those questions, together with unstinting support, have also come from many members of the MISC. I wish to thank the Most Revd Cyril Mar Basilios, the current Metropolitan, and the priests and laity who have patiently answered my queries in many hours of discussions. Particular thanks are due to Mr M.P. Kochumon, who stimulated my examination of the sequence of events surrounding the consecration of Mar Koorilose I, and to Pulikottil Thambi Master who translated some Malayalam texts for me. Bishops, priests and academics from all the jurisdictions of St Thomas heritage in Kerala have kindly given of their hospitality and knowledge during my various visits to India. From within the Mar Thoma Church I have benefited greatly from Metropolitans Alexander Mar Thoma, Philipos Mar Chrysostom and Joseph Mar Thoma – together with most of the current bishops of the Mar Thoma Syrian Church. The Revd Dr George Mathew Kuthiyil and the Revd Dr Dr K.V. Mathew read the Chapter on Mathews Mar Athanasios and made helpful comments. Successive Principals of the Mar Thoma Seminary have given permission to work in the archives. Dr Zac Varghese of the Mar Thoma community in the UK, and the Revd Dr M.J.Joseph have kindly tracked down a number of texts. Beyond the Mar Thoma Church, I wish to thank Fr Jacob Thekeparampil and Fr Thomas Koonammakkal of the St Ephrem xlv

xlvi

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

Ecumenical Institute at Kottayam, for clearing up a number of points. Dr Istvan Perczel has kindly read a number of Chapters and made the contents of some Malayalam and Syriac texts available to me. The Most Revd Athanasios Toma Dawod, currently Syrian Orthodox Archishop in the UK, in the midst of dealing with the humanitarian crisis caused by the dispossession of the Christians of Iraq, kindly undertook to translate some 18th century Arabic letters for me. Archdeacon Yonan of the Church of the East and the members of his community generously offered hospitality and reflections on some of the issues discussed here. Archbishop Gregorios of Thyateira and Great Britain (of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople) answered a number of technical questions. Dr David Taylor of the Oriental Institute at Oxford generously gave of his time for a number of stimulating discussions in his study and assisted with some translations. Dr Sebastian Brock has shown a supportive interest and answered a number of queries. A special word of thanks is owed to the Reverend Dr Phillip Tovey who allowed me free access to his collection of books on Indian subjects, and drew my attention to a number of important works that I should otherwise have overlooked. In addition, his companionship and advice during a visit to Kerala in May 2009 were invaluable. A special figure in the recent history of the Thozhiyur Church is the Very Revd Chorepiscopa Peter Hawkins who set up the MISC Support Group as a UK charity to assist the Church and has been a constant source of encouragement. Bishop Colin Buchanan, formerly manager of Grove Books Ltd., showed his own commitment to the Indian Church by publishing the 1992 short history which was the starting point for the present work. The Trustees (Alan Hobbs, Phillip Tovey, Derek Turner, Andrea Weston and Zac Varghese) and members of the Malabar Independent Syrian Church Support Group have given patient but enthusiastic encouragement to the project. I should also like to record my thanks to the Librarians and staff of the University of Birmingham (keepers of the CMS archive), the Bodleian Library in Oxford, the British Library, the John Rylands Library at Manchester, the Royal Asiatic Society, the

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

xlvii

Tamil Nadu State Archives at Chennai, the Mar Thoma Seminary at Kottayam, Ulverston County Library, and Mr Osborne, the archivist at the CMS headquarters in Oxford. Especial thanks are due to the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge and to the Anglican and Eastern Churches Association for generous grants which made the publication of the 1992 monograph possible. The Fellowship of St Alban and St Sergius and the Anglican and Eastern Churches Association have made grants towards the cost of researching the present work. I am grateful, too, to my archivist brother Simon Fenwick for advice and for allowing me to sleep on his sofa during my visits to London. Deeply indebted though I am to all the above and to many other individuals, the responsibility for errors and judgements remains my own. I would also like to express my gratitude to my colleagues in the Free Church of England who have taken the exotically robed visitors from India in their stride and to their hearts. Finally, I wish to thank George Kiraz and the staff of Gorgias Press for accepting the book for publication and their assistance with the process, and my son David Fenwick for formatting the final text. Given the number of years that this book has been in preparation, it is inevitable that I have overlooked some who have materially assisted me. To them I offer my sincere apologies, but hope that seeing this book in print will be sufficient reward.

MAP OF TRAVANCORE, COCHIN AND BRITISH MALABAR CIRCA 1800

INTRODUCTION The story of the St Thomas Christians of South India has been told many times before and the volume of literature about the community is immense. Within all the accounts of the last two hundred years the reader will find references to a small section of the St Thomas Christians variously described as ‘the Thozhiyur Church’, ‘the Independent Syrian Church of Malabar’, ‘the Kattumangat sect’, ‘the Anjur Church’, and the like. Most of the major histories devote only a page or two to this group, some relegate it to a footnote. It is a Christian community that, along with its bishops, has largely been forgotten. It is the story of that community which forms the main subject of this book.1 My own involvement with this Christian community goes back to the mid 1980s. I was looking for a liturgical subject for doctoral research and the late Dr Geoffrey Cuming, the renowned Anglican liturgist, suggested the anaphoras of the Liturgies of St Basil and St James.2 I already had friends among the Greek Orthodox who use the Liturgy of St Basil at various times through the year, so during the years of my research I made contact with some of the Churches in the UK that used the Liturgy of St James. This led me to the Mar Thoma Syrian Church, with which the Church of England is in communion. Puzzled by references in Mar Thoma writers to ‘the Thozhiyur Church’, in 1986 I wrote to the Mar Thoma historian Dr K.T. Joy for further information. Early in the morning of 27th August 1986 Dr Joy handed my letter to the young priest Joseph Panakkal who was about to be consecrated the thir1 The ‘official’ name of the community (from the middle of the 19th century) is ‘The Malabar Independent Syrian Church’, usually abbreviated to MISC, even within the community itself. This abbreviation will be used in the present work. 2 Eventually published as John R.K.Fenwick, The Anaphoras of St Basil and St James: An Investigation into their Common Origin (Orientalia Christiana Analecta 240), Rome, Pontificium Institutum Orientale, 1992.

1

2

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

teenth Metropolitan of the Malabar Independent Syrian Church that very day. A few weeks later the new bishop – Mar Koorilose IX – wrote to me, thus beginning a friendship that has lasted to the present day. In 1987 I visited Kerala for the first time as a guest lecturer of the Mar Thoma Church. During that visit I went to Thozhiyur for the first time and began to collect material which formed the basis of a small monograph which was published in 1992.3 India is full of fascinating communities, each with its own history. What makes this particular community ‘special’ is, as I said in my 1992 study, the fact that, ‘It is impossible to understand the history of the ancient, vibrant and highly significant Christian community in South India without being aware of this Church and the crucial role it has played in that history.’ Further research since 1992 has strengthened that conviction. That is not, however, the current perception of the community now called the Malabar Independent Syrian Church. In India, for the last century at least, it has been largely forgotten by larger communities which in fact are indebted to it. Outside India the Bishops at Thozhiyur were not forgotten – they had never been heard of. Indian Christianity is a significant area of study in its own right. In many parts of the subcontinent Christian communities trace their origins to the frequently extremely sacrificial work and witness of evangelists from Europe and North America. Pre-dating these by many centuries, however, is a family of Churches which trace their origins to the dawn of the Christian era. The MISC is one of these. In recent years these communities (which, as will be seen in Chapter 3, trace their origin to the Apostle Thomas) have been the source of much seminal thinking on topics which the whole Church is beginning to address, not least the issues of Church unity, the relationship between Gospel and Culture, dialogue with other faiths, liturgical inculturation, and so on. Recent theological agreements on the subject of Christology, which divided the Church in the fifth century may eventually restore eucharistic 3 John R.K.Fenwick, The Malabar Independent Syrian Church, Nottingham, Grove Books, 1992.

INTRODUCTION

3

communion between the Oriental Orthodox Churches - including the Indian and Syrian - and the family of Byzantine Orthodox Churches. The Indian Orthodox Church was a participant, along with other members of the Oriental Orthodox family, in a Joint Statement on Christology with the Anglican Communion, issued in 2002.4 The Church of the East concluded a historically highly significant agreement with the Roman Catholic Church in 1994. From within India itself the jurisdictions worshipping according to ancient Syrian rites have provided precedent and model for recent liturgical reform elsewhere in the world Church. (The congregational exchange of the Peace and the use of acclamations in the Eucharistic Prayer may be cited as examples now widely used in Roman Catholic, Anglican and Protestant rites.) European Christian thinkers who visit or work in India return invigorated and thinking new thoughts - one has only to think of the contribution of men like Leslie Brown, Lesslie Newbigin and Stephen Neill. The eminent Russian Orthodox layman, Nicolas Zernov, spent almost a year in Kerala (1953-4) helping to establish a University College for the Indian Orthodox Church. He was greatly impressed by their ecumenical potential. It is important, too, to remember that the Churches which united in 1947 to form the Church of South India included some with a substantial proportion of Syrians. For these and other reasons the story of the St Thomas Christians of India deserves to be widely known - and within that story a knowledge of the MISC is inescapable, for the story cannot be told without it. At the time the 1992 monograph was published I had only spent 48 hours at Thozhiyur, the headquarters of the MISC. Since then I have had the opportunity to return on five occasions and to collect substantial amounts of new information. The earlier work relied heavily on an English translation in typescript of a history of the MISC in Malayalam written by K.C.Verghese, one of the priests of the Church, in about 1972.5 I attempted to supplement that with 4 http://www.anglicancommunion.org/ministry/ecumenical /dialogues/oriental/docs/2002christology.cfm. Details of some of the other agreements will be given in later Chapters. 5 The Malayalam text (which does not seem to have been published until about 1981) and two English typescripts (one made in India, the

4

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

accounts of nineteenth century British visitors to India, closely researched histories such as those of Cheriyan, Brown and Daniel (none of whom devotes more than one page solely to the MISC), together with information supplied by the Metropolitan, and my own observations. It has now been possible to supplement that considerably with additional data from a number of sources. One happy result of the 1992 work was that it elicited responses from a number of Indian writers, in the main drawing my attention to material of which I had not been aware. I have been very happy to incorporate some of this in the present work and to acknowledge my debt to those who have assisted me in this way. Several significant documentary resources have to come to light since 1992: 1. The collection of manuscripts – mainly letters and reports – among the Dutch records housed at the Tamil Nadu State Archives in Chennai. I am not aware that they have been read until now. Certainly, no direct reference to their contents appears in any of the histories of the Syrian community. 2. The collection in the Mar Thoma Seminary Library in Kottayam. From this collection particular use has been made of material deriving from Metropolitan Mathews Mar Athanasios. 3. The archives at Thozhiyur. These have never been systematically studied. In recent years, however, Dr David Taylor, Lecturer in Syriac at the Oriental Institute at the University of Oxford, has visited Thozhiyur on two occasions and has commenced the work of cataloguing this unique collection. I am extremely grateful to Dr Taylor for giving me free access to his findings and for permission to quote other a re-typing made in the UK) are deposited in Lambeth Palace library. References to Verghese’s work cite the page numbers of the UK typescript.

INTRODUCTION

5

from his as yet unpublished Handlist. 4. The Visitors’ Book at Thozhiyur. This was commenced in 1868 and continues to the present day, though with a substantial gap from 1956 to 1990. Its entries shed fascinating light on the state of the Church and the issues that concerned it. 5. The records of the India Office, deposited in the British Library, contain significant amounts of unpublished material which shed light on the situation in Malabar in the 18th and 19th centuries. 6. The papers of the Revd William Hodge Mill, stored in the Bodleian Library in Oxford. As recently as the 1980s Stephen Neill could write, ‘No one who has written on the Thomas Christians appears to have consulted these papers’.6 In fact they contain a substantial amount of extremely valuable material, of which considerable use has been made in the present work. 7. The work of Dr Istvan Perczel and others in digitising and publishing translations of Syriac and Malayalam texts in Kerala and elsewhere is making available significant indigenous sources.7 8. Thozhiyur also houses a collection of photographs. These are now succumbing to the effects of climate and insects. Copies have been made of the most significant and some of these feature in the present work as they provide a unique record of a number of aspects of the Church’s life. To these I have added a number of other photographs, A History of Christianity in India, vol. 2, p.456. The initial stages of this process (with particular reference to Thozhiyur) are described in Istvan Perczel, ‘Syriac Manuscripts in India: the present state of the cataloguing process’, in The Harp, XV (2002) 289-297. 6 7

6

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS some taken by myself in Kerala. An annotated list of Illustrations, explaining the reason why they have been selected, is provided. 9. A number of works of Middle Eastern origin have been published in English, enabling that perspective to be added to the story. 10. Finally, further contact with members of the MISC over

the intervening years has brought to my attention a substantial amount of oral tradition. Some of these narratives are shared by the whole community, others are preserved in particular families. They have been invaluable in filling in some of the gaps. Exploring these and other sources revealed a fundamental dimension to the story of the MISC and the wider St Thomas Christian community that has been hitherto almost completely overlooked. It is a commonplace of Indian Church history that a substantial proportion of a community that had originally been ‘Nestorian’ performed a theological volte-face in the 17th century and adopted the diametrically opposite Christological position, becoming ‘Monophysite’.8 Moreover, this is often stated as having happened almost in a single step.9 Furthermore, while some scholars have questioned this popular assumption that the community changed its ecclesial identity almost overnight, none have explored the role of the MISC in the gradual process that did in fact take place.10 That omission is corrected to some degree in the present These terms – and their undesirability – will be discussed below. A couple of recent examples may be given: ‘In 1644, with the arrival of the Jacobite bishop Mar Gregorious [sic] the West Syrian Church became established in Kerala …’ (Susan Visvanathan, The Christians of Kerala: History, Belief and Ritual among the Yakoba, Madras, Oxford University Press, 1993, p.16); ‘At this point [1665] the West Syrian Orthodox rite was adopted in India’ (Christine Chaillot, ‘The Ancient Oriental Churches’, in Geoffrey Wainwright and Karen B. Westerfield Tucker, The Oxford History of Christian Worship, Oxford, OUP, 2006, p.159). 10 Cardinal Eugene Tisserant in his Eastern Christianity in India: A History of the Syro-Malabar Church from the Earliest times to the present day, (ET 8 9

INTRODUCTION

7

work. An exploration of the history of the MISC takes one into the heart of this transition and reveals it to be a much more complex process than is often assumed. The present work also challenges another simplistic assumption. As the MISC is nowadays simply a small jurisdiction within that part of the Syrian community of West Syrian heritage, I had assumed that its history had no point of contact with the RomoSyrians, whose descendants now constitute the Syro-Malabar Church. As the evidence presented below demonstrates, that assumption is totally incorrect. Far from having nothing to do with the Syrians of Roman obedience, the bishops of the MISC were very much at the interface between the two communities. This discovery required me to go back over the sources and look at them with new eyes. A further incorrect assumption that I made was that it would be unnecessary to look at the history of the St Thomas Christians prior to the middle of the 18th century when the MISC began to come into being as a distinct jurisdiction. Here again, it is impossible to understand what was happening in the 1750s onwards without understanding what had taken place before. This has meant that, to some extent, the present work has become yet another retelling of the whole story of the St Thomas Christians. The main criticisms that I received of the small 1992 book were (a) that the subject matter was very complicated, and (b) that I assumed too great a degree of specialised knowledge for the general reader. With regard to the first, I have tried to break the material down into smaller sections with a more liberal use of sub-headings. The subject matter, alas, remains complex, and is now considerably E.R.Hambye) London, Longmans, Green & Co., 1957, for example, makes only occasional brief references to the MISC and nowhere discusses the community in relation to the adoption of the West Syrian rite. Another Roman Catholic writer, Donald A. Attwater, states that ‘It is not clear when the dissidents began to abandon their Chaldean or East Syrian liturgy for that of the Jacobites, the West Syrian or Antiochene … (The Christian Churches of the East, Milwaukee, Thomas More Books, 1961, vol. 1, p.169).

8

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

more so thanks to the additional sources listed above. In view of the fact that many of these have never appeared in print before, I have deliberately included a significant amount of direct quotation in the main text and footnotes. This has inevitably added to the length of this study, but will enable readers to see for themselves the material on which I have based my judgements, and also give them a ‘feel’ for a largely unknown world. I have tried to meet the second criticism by including more background information, in particular about the Indian and Middle Eastern contexts and the impact of European involvement. As I have done so, I have become increasingly convinced that this is not something for which any apology is necessary: it is impossible to understand what was happening among the St Thomas Christians without being aware of events elsewhere. Middle Eastern patriarchs, Indian princes, European traders, soldiers and churchmen have all played a part in the story of the MISC. The first four Chapters of the present work therefore attempt to provide a brief framework into which the specific events of MISC history can be fitted and understood. The need for such a framework has been reinforced by the evidence presented here that the MISC, far from being rather removed from the main events of the Syrian community in India, has in fact been more intimately connected with them than was hitherto apparent. The current small size and marginalised status of the MISC has obscured the fact that, for about 150 years, the bishops of this community were at the heart of the events shaping the history of Syrian Christianity in Kerala. In the present volume I have therefore tried to show how the story of the MISC relates to the wider context, and hope that by doing so I have not only demonstrated the significance of the Church, but have made the subject matter more accessible to a wide readership, without detracting from the usefulness of the work to the academic community.11 11 One aspect of the wider perspective not explored, however, is the number of St Thomas Christians and their Churches. Many sources give (frequently contradictory) estimates of the numbers of Syrian congregations at various points in the community’s history. Reconciling and analysing these would be a major study in its own right and no attempt is made to do so here.

INTRODUCTION

9

The interpretation of Indian Church history raises strong feelings and contributes to ecclesial division in India to the present day. History is often used as ‘ammunition’. I have therefore tried to do justice to Indian Roman Catholic, Malankara Orthodox, Syrian Orthodox, Mar Thoma and Church of the East perspectives. All, of these, however, are influenced in their assessment of the MISC by its current status as the smallest of the Syrian Christian communities, and therefore make only limited references to it. The present work seeks to redress that balance by establishing that something very different was envisaged in the 18th century and, indeed, existed for a time in the early 19th century. Some of the consequences of that are still evident to the present day. Other than telling the story from this perspective, there is no denominational bias intended in the present work. Even so, the present work is not, alas, the definitive history of the MISC. Substantial primary resources remain to be explored. These include the records of the Dutch and British East India Companies and of the British administration in India which followed them. There are, too, voluminous Indian Court records which will no doubt yield up further valuable information. No systematic study has yet been made of the Christian material in the archives of the princely states of Travancore and Cochin. The Syriac and Malayalam manuscripts held at Thozhiyur and at other places in Kerala (and probably in the Middle East) have further insights to reveal. Further work needs to be done to relate the life of this Christian community to the ethnographic and religious context in which it is situated. The strong Indian identity of the MISC also requires further exploration. Until such studies are undertaken, I hope that the present work will bring to the attention of scholars and the wider Christian world, a community and its bishops who have been all but forgotten. + John Fenwick Ulverston, Cumbria, Feast of St Thomas the Apostle, 3rd July2009

CHAPTER 1: THE INDIAN CONTEXT This is an account of a community of Christians in India. That community, like almost every other Christian community, has two geographical foci.1 One focus is the Middle East – or West Asia as the region is designated from an Indian perspective.2 Christianity is a Semitic faith, emerging out of a predominantly Semitic culture, focused on a Man whose mother tongue was a Semitic language, whose ministry was defined and undergirded by Semitic Scriptures.3 The strongly historical nature of Christianity – seen most clearly in the Incarnation – means that all Christians must relate to the events that took place in biblical Israel and the surrounding region. The other focus for Christians is their own particular country or culture – Slav, West African, Anglo-Saxon or Japanese. In every case there is a necessary interaction between the context and culture in which the biblical revelation took place and the ‘receiving’ culture - in this case, that of India. India, itself, however, is a complex of widely differing climates and cultures. The precise focus here is that part of south-west India comprising the modern state of Kerala.4 1 The exceptions would be the ancient Christian communities with a continuous existence in the lands of the Bible. 2 Both terms will be used in the present work. 3 ‘Semitic’ is used here as a general term for peoples whose related languages fall within the group classed as ‘semitic’. It is not used here to mean ‘Jewish’ (as in ‘anti-Semitism’). As the term is used here, Jews and Arabs are both Semites. 4 The modern state of Kerala came into existence on 1st November 1956, principally as a linguistic entity – the territory occupied by Malayalam speakers. Historically, Christians were found in the three principal states that were combined in 1956 – Travancore, Cochin and Malabar.

11

12

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

For all the apparent dissimilarity between the burning deserts of the Middle East and the lush, monsoon-fed coconut groves and paddy fields of Kerala, the two foci are here in fact remarkably close. For Christianity first came to this part of India in its original Semitic form, only slightly modified by Greek culture, and completely without Latin or Anglo-Saxon influence. When Latin and Germanic expressions of the Faith eventually reached South India, their impact on the indigenous faith can at best be described as mixed, perhaps more honestly as disastrous. As will be described below, the community of Christians which is today called the Malabar Independent Syrian Church owes the particular form of its existence to the interplay of some of these external forces. Its essential identity, however, is that unique blend of Semitic Christianity and Indian culture which characterizes the ‘St Thomas Christians’. Both strands – the Semitic and the Indian – are equally authentic. There is nothing ‘alien’ about this culture in the context of Kerala where it has existed for nearly two thousand years. But, equally, it would be instantly recognizable in Antioch, Jerusalem, Damascus or Mosul. The present work attempts to set the story of the MISC in its wider context. To do so exhaustively, however, would require an exploration of specialist fields such as anthropology, European colonization, Syrian culture, Indian history, and missiological studies – all beyond the scope of the present work. All that can be attempted here are broad brush strokes to help understand the uniqueness of the wider context in which the Christian community which forms the subject of this study lives, deeply embedded among its Hindu and Muslim neighbours. THE GEOGRAPHICAL CONTEXT

Kerala is one of the smallest states in modern India, comprising only 1.3% of the land area of that country.5 It lies between 8° 18′ Thus, although anachronistic, the term ‘Kerala’ will be used when it is unnecessary or impossible to distinguish the precise subdivision in question. For general information and statistics on modern Kerala see the official government website: www.kerala.gov.in. 5 Numerous travellers’ descriptions of Kerala, spanning several centuries, exist. Two, which give a flavour of the richness of the country and its

THE INDIAN CONTEXT

13

and 12° 48′ North, and 74° 52′ and 77° 24′ East, forming a narrow coastal strip extending north on the shore of the Arabian Sea from the southernmost tip of the Indian subcontinent. Inland, its eastern boundary is formed by the mountain range known as the Western Ghats, rising to 10,000 feet. The very geography of the country is reflected in the terminology formerly used of the Christian community. To the Portuguese, who seldom left the coastal strip, the native Christians, living inland, appeared as ‘the Christians of the Serra’ (ie of the Mountains). Much of the area between the mountains and the sea is lowlying and is crossed by numerous inlets, lagoons and backwaters, which form a distinctive feature of the topography of the region.6 As a result, transport by water has often been more efficient than by land. Apart from among the mountains, the climate of Kerala is tropical and controlled by the monsoon. Annual rainfall is between 150″ and 250″. Frost is unknown (the temperature range is from approximately 19°C and 39°C) and the vegetation is lush and green all year round. The extensive forests contain teak, rosewood and sandalwood, together with a range of other species. The availability of timber has made it a basic building material throughout the history of the region. Agricultural production has concentrated on low-lying coastal plain. Here can be found rice (planted as paddy after the monsoon), pulses, tapioca, cashew, banana, pineapple, jackfruit and mango. The coconut is a dominant crop, seen throughout the area. peoples at periods significant in the story of the MISC can be found in Paulinus a S. Bartholomeo, A Voyage to the East Indies: Observations made during a residence of thirteen years, between 1776 and 1789, in districts little frequented by Europeans; with notes and illustrations by John Reinhold Forster. Translated from the German by William Johnston London, Vernor & Hood, 1800, pp.102-229; and Francis Day, The Land of the Perumauls, or Cochin, its Past and its Present, Madras, Adelphi Press, 1863. 6 Geologically, this area was once under the sea – a fact reflected in the Hindu myth that the sage Parasu Rama caused the land to arise from the sea. Its low-lying nature meant that there was some flooding and damage as a result of the December 2004 tsunami, despite the fact that the Kerala coast faces in the opposite direction to the epicentre of the undersea earthquake.

14

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

Alongside these, for many centuries the region has been famous for the production of peppers, ginger, cardamom and other spices. In the cooler, higher regions tea is now grown. ETHNOGRAPHY7

The area has been inhabited from at least from Mesolithic times, with artefacts and monuments providing valuable dating evidence. Ethnically, the population contains evidence of many groups, some pre-Dravidian, such as Negritos and Proto-Australoids; others of the Indo-Dravidian type, being ‘a basically Mediterranean people who exhibit some evidences of Negritoid, and possibly protoAustraloid, admixture’.8 The Aryanisation of the indigenous popular by immigration and influence from the north was a gradual process,9 which produced a unique form of Hinduism – ‘a compromise between the pantheism of the Aryans and the demonolatry of the Dravidians’.10 Highly significant in this process were the Nambudiri Brahmins, whose ancestors moved into the region in the 8th century AD and were reinforced by further immigration in the 11th century.11 Isolation from other Brahmins led the Nambudiris to develop unique 7 See Menon, Cochin State Manual, pp.185-232 for a detailed discussion of the people and customs of that State. 8 M.F.Ashley Montague, An Introduction to Physical Anthropology, Springfield, Illinois, Charles C.Thomas, 1960, p.460. 9 Mundadan, HCI, I, p.147. Mundadan gives a useful survey of the process. See also Part Two of Brown, Indian Christians, for a detailed discussion of the relationship of the Christian community with its Hindu context. 10 Menon, Cochin State Manual, p.186. 11 Eapen, A Study of Kerala History, Kottayam, Kollett Publication, revised ed. 1986, p.32f. The spelling ‘Namputhiri’ is also found. ‘The Nambudiris are an exclusive caste of Brahmins peculiar to Malabar, who, more than any other class of Brahmins, still retain their primitive habits and high sacerdotal position …. They are believed to be the truest Aryans in South India … [and] are supposed to be the descendants of a colony of sixty four villagers brought down by the renowned sage and warrior Sri Parasurama from all parts of India’ (Aiya, Travancore State Manual, II, p.247f). See Aiya, Travancore State Manual, I, p.214ff for a discussion of the peculiar customs of Kerala Brahmins.

THE INDIAN CONTEXT

15

characteristics.12 With the arrival of the Brahmins came the introduction of the caste system, which was to play a particularly strong role in Keralan society.13 A peculiarity of Kerala society was the Nayar class.14 In the assimilation of Malayali society to Hindu norms, the Nayars – a farming and fighting community - were originally categorised as sudras, the lowest caste. However, owing in part to the lack of kshastriyas (the Aryan ruling warrior class) the Nayars gradually rose to social prominence, so that eventually the Rajahs of Travancore, for example, were from this community.15 As late as the 18th century the group remained ‘open’ and could assimilate new members, even non-Malayalis.16 The Nayars were traditionally matrilineal in their family organization, with the head of family being the eldest male member on the mother’s side.17 The Syrian Christian community 12 See K. Ramavarna Rajah, ‘The Brahmins of Malabar’, JRAS, (July 1910) 625-639. 13 This may have been in part a result of relative freedom from Muslim influence, at least in the more southerly parts: ‘The southern end of Malayalim, unexposed as it has been to Mahomedan conquest, preserves the Hindoo religion in all its strictness of forms and ceremonies’ (W.H.Horsely, Memoir of Travancore, Historical and Statistical, compiled from various authentic records and personal observation by Lieutenant W.H.Horsley, Engineers, at the Request of Major-General J.S. Fraser, British Resident, 1839 (in Drury, Selections, p.30). 14 Also often spelt ‘Nair’. 15 See Brown, Indian Christians, p.168ff for a discussion of this. Logan in his history of 1887 Malabar wrote, ‘The central point of interest … in any descriptive and historical account of the Malayali race [is] the position … which was occupied for centuries on centuries by the Nayar caste in the Civil and Military organization of the province … Their functions in the body politic have been wisely described in their own traditions as “the eye”, “the hand” and “the order” and to the present day we find them spread throughout the length and breadth of the land ….’ Quoted in K.M.Panikkar, Malabar and the Dutch (being the History of the Fall of Nayar Power in Malabar), Bombay, D.B.Taraporevala Sons & Co., 1931, p.98. 16 Bayly, Saints, p.47f. 17 ‘A man’s heirs are his sister’s children, his own wife and children having no legal claim on his property’, (Menon, Cochin State Manual, p.192). By this system – sometimes referred to as Marumakattayam – the child belonged to its mother’s caste. The Brahmins, however, were gener-

16

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

came to share many Nayar practices (though not their matrilineal organization), but traditionally claimed higher status as a result of its descent from Brahmin converts.18 Pre-Aryanised Keralan society also seems to have lacked vaisyas (the trading caste) and, as will be seen in Chapter 3, there is some evidence that the Christian community came to occupy this ‘niche’.19 Although relatively isolated from the rest of India by the Western Ghats, Kerala’s coast has long made it accessible by sea. Extensive sea-borne trade has brought contact with the outside world. For many centuries, as a result, Kerala has had communities of Jews, Christians and Muslims, the majority of whom are now indistinguishable from the indigenous population.20 Despite the relatively late Aryanisation of south India, by the 16th century a complex system had evolved in Kerala: ‘Caste rules and restrictions are more rigid and severe among the Malayalis than among other classes in India. Intermarriage, interdining and pollution by touching or proximity are the tests by which caste status is determined’.21 So pervasive was the mentality that even the small ally patrilineal (Makattayam), the child belonging to its father’s family (see D. Ferroli, SJ, The Jesuits in Malabar, Bangalore, Bangalore Press, 1939, vol, 1, p.37). 18 See Chapter 3. 19 Brown: ‘it is easy to see that the coming of the Christians filled a gap in society’ (Indian Christians, p.168). 20 As with most statements about Kerala, this requires some slight modification. European writers often comment on the ‘fair complexion’ of the Nayars (eg James Forbes, Oriental Memoirs, London, 1813, vol. I, p.378) and Syrian Christians (eg Francis Buchanan, A Journey from Madras through the Countries of Mysore, Canara, and Malabar, London, 1807, vol. II, p.391 describes a Syrian priest as ‘very fair with high Jewish features’). With a practiced eye, it is in fact possible to distinguish different ‘types’ in the population, some of them characteristic of particular religious groupings. 21 Census Report on Cochin (1911), quoted in Eapen, Kerala History, p.34. ‘Malabar has a caste hierarchy of its own. The graduation of castes and the rules governing hypergan, endogamy and exogamy are analogous to those obtaining elsewhere in India, but the caste nomenclature and several of the customs and usages are peculiar to Malabar’, (Menon, Cochin State Manual, p.191).

THE INDIAN CONTEXT

17

Jewish community had castes within it.22 Eapen describes Kerala as ‘the worst example of caste division and colour prejudice in the whole of India’.23 This was the society into which Christianity came and in which the MISC was born. POLITICAL ORGANISATION

The history of the numerous states and dynasties of ancient Malabar is a topic too complex for description here, and, in any case, is largely irrelevant to the story of the MISC. For our present purposes, it will be sufficient to record some broad features, before focusing on a shift in the local power structure that did impinge on the genesis of the MISC. Kerala forms part of the ancient Tamilakam – the area of Southern India occupied by people sharing a Dravidian language and culture broadly classed as ‘Tamilian’. By the early Christian era this had become divided among three dynasties who ruled among numerous local chieftains – the Cheras (the western region) with their capital at Tiruvanjikalam, the Cholas (eastern region), with Uraiyur as their capital, and the Pandyas (northern region) centred on Madurai.24 During the Sangam era (broadly the first five centuries AD) Kerala was itself divided into five regions, with the central portion (where the Christian centres were established) under the rule of the Chera kings. Gradually the language spoken on the western side of the Ghats took on a distinctive form, chiefly due to a large influx of Sanskrit vocabulary, to produce ‘Malayalam’.25 Eapen, Kerala History, p.35. For an account of the present day Jewish community and its possible imminent extinction, see Edna Fernandes, The Last Jews of Kerala, London, Portobello Books, 2008. 23 Eapen, Kerala History, p.33. See also the conclusion of George Joseph: ‘Nowhere else in India did such a complex and refined system of ritual pollution exist’ (art. ‘India, Syrian Christian community’, in Ken Parry, David J. Melling, Dimitri Brady, Sidney H. Griffith & John Healey (eds.), The Blackwell Dictionary of Eastern Christianity, Oxford, Blackwell Publishers, 2002, p.249). See also Aiya, Travancore State Manual, II, pp.228-420. 24 See Mundadan, HCI, I, p.68f. 25 Menon, Cochin State Manual, p.187. See Aiya, Travancore State Manual, I, pp.421-442 for a discussion of the Malayalam language and literature. 22

18

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

Trading contact with Egyptians, Jews, Greeks and Romans became well established, with accounts of Indians traveling west as well as traders from West Asia and the Mediterranean reaching India. Coins bearing the inscriptions of the Roman Emperors Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius and Nero testify to significant contact in the first century AD.26 The constant changing kaleidoscope of alliances and wars between the various dynasties and states lie beyond the scope of the present work. It is sufficient here to take note of some of the main players who would, consciously or unconsciously, contribute to the story of the MISC. At the end of the 17th century the territory that is now Kerala had about fifty different rulers of varying importance.27 In the north of the region the most powerful of these was the Samuthiri of Kozhikode – more familiar as the Zamorin of Calicut.28 This coastal state had trading contact with the outside world long before the arrival of the Portuguese. It seems to have been the point of entry for Islam into southwest India: ‘While the Muslims entered North India as hostile invaders and “fanatical iconoclasts” they came to the west coast as friendly merchants and ambassadors of Arab culture’.29 The expansion of Islam in the region seems to have been generally peaceful, far removed from the bloody exchanges of the clashes with the Byzantine Empire and the Western Crusaders. From about the 8th century the Western trade with Kerala was substantially under the control of the Arabs. The ancient city of Calicut/Kozhikode contained two mosques and practically the whole of its foreign trade was in Muslim hands by the 15th century.30 Like Christianity, Islam also adopted an Indian identity in Kerala. It was a community to which the MISC would one day be indebted.31 See Panikkar, Portuguese, p.3ff. See Pannikar, Dutch, p.148. Thekkedath, HCI, II, p.19. 28 The Zamorins were of Nayar descent (Panikkar, Portuguese, p.11). 29 Mundadan, HCI, I, p.150. 30 Panikkar, Portuguese, p.11. 31 There is a large literature on the origin and identity of the Muslim population in Kerala and elsewhere in South India. See Susan Bayley, Saints, Goddesses and Kings: Muslims and Christians in South Indian Society, 26 27

THE INDIAN CONTEXT

19

Nevertheless, by comparison with northern parts of India, Muslim political influence, like its religious influence, was relatively slight in the areas that now comprise Kerala. Thus, for example, it was possible in the mid 19th century to describe Travancore as ‘one of the few remaining specimens of pure Hindoo Government, the institutions of which have never been affected by Mahomedan Conquest’.32 Travancore itself, at the beginning of the 18th century was one of the smaller Hindu states held by one of the five branches of the Trippappil family.33 To compensate for their lowly origins (referred to above), the Rajahs, on succeeding, ‘ennobled’ themselves by passing through the body of a cow made of gold and so being reborn.34 The southern part of this small state had strong Tamil links ‘and its political and cultural affiliations were more with Madura and Trichinopoly than with Calicut, Cochin and Quilon’.35 For some centuries the Rajah had been merely a figurehead, with real power resting with an oligarchy of nobles (the Pillamar) and Brahmins. This situation was transformed by Rajah Martanda Varma, ‘the founder of modern Travancore’.36 Born in 1706 and succeeding to the throne in 1729, he set about a long process of Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1989; and J.B.P More, Religion and Society in South India: Hindus, Muslims and Christians, Kuthuparamba, Midas Press for Institute for Research in Social Sciences and Humanities, 2006, and the sources quoted there. 32 Heber Drury (ed.), Selections from the Records of Travancore, selected by Major Heber Drury, Assistant Resident, at the request of Francis Newcombe Maltby, Esq., Resident at the Courts of Travancore and Cochin, Trevandrum, Press of HH the Rajah, 1860. The quotation is from the Preface, the pages of which are unnumbered. 33 See Panikkar, Dutch, p.57ff for an account of the rise and expansion of Travancore. 34 Moens, Memorandum (1781), in Galletti, van der Burg and Groot, Dutch in Malabar, p.110. James Forbes, Oriental Memoirs, vol 1, p.378. The cow was then broken up and the gold given to the Nambudiris. For a description and discussion of the significance of the rite see Bayly, Saints, p.66ff. 35 Pannikar, Dutch, p.57. 36 Aiya, Travancore State Manual, I, p.333. See the facing page for a genealogical tree of the Royal House of Travancore. Bayly describes him as ‘a ruler who began life as heir to a tiny Keralan pepper chiefdom’ (Saints, p.63).

20

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

destroying the power of the Pillamar. By a series of alliances and military campaigns, he gradually overthrew the feudal Nayar structures and established a centralized government focused on himself. He now set about trying to weld much of what is now southern Kerala into a single state. Kayamkulam, Vadakkumkur, Thekkamukur, Purakkad were either conquered or accepted the suzerainty of Travancore.37 To the north of Travancore lay the state of Cochin, with its own Rajah who claimed kshastriya status and descent from the last Perumal of Malabar.38 In the 16th and 17 centuries Cochin had grown from relative insignificance to being one of the four most powerful rulers in the region. In 1742 Cochin was invaded by the Zamorin of Calicut. Having been an ally of the Dutch (see Chapter 4), the Rajah of Cochin felt exposed and betrayed when the Dutch in a treaty of 1753 with Martanda Varma, undertook not to come to the defence of any enemy of Travancore. By the mid 1750s the boundaries of Travancore stretched from Cape Comorin in the south to the Periyar river, leaving the Rajah of Cochin vulnerably situated between two potentially aggressive neighbours – Travancore to the south and Calicut to the north. In 1755 the Zamorin invaded again, seizing back a number of territories that had been ceded to the Dutch in 1719, and occupying Trichur – historically the nearest large town to the territory of the MISC.39 The campaign threatened the very survival of Cochin.40 In 1758, however, both the Zamorin and Martanda 37 There was a cultural element in Martanda Varma’s expansionism: ‘The Travancore state was in fact a Tamilian conception and its advance towards the North was the victory of Tamilian over Malabar culture’ (Pannikar, Dutch, p.91). 38 ‘The king is a Kshatryaby caste … and without fear of contradiction the noblest of all the Malabar kings, being a sister’s son and consequently the only and true heir of Cherum-Perumal’, Gollensee, Memorandum (1743), in Galletti, van der Burg and Groot, Dutch in Malabar, p.60. 39 Originally called Trissivaperur – ‘the town of the name of Siva’ – Trichur was ‘considered the oldest town on the west coast [of Cochin]’ (Menon, Cochin State Manual, pp.394-9). It has recently been renamed Thrissur. 40 ‘The Zamorin’s attack on Cochin almost annihilated that Kingdom’ (Pannikar, Dutch, p.89).

THE INDIAN CONTEXT

21

Varma died. In the new situation, a treaty of alliance was negotiated in 1760 between the Rajah of Cochin and the new Rajah of Travancore, Rama Varma, with the new Zamorin as the common enemy.41 After a combined military campaign against him, the Zamorin withdrew from the territory of Cochin and concluded a treaty with Cochin and Travancore in 1762.42 Following this treaty the Rajah of Cochin’s minister, Paliath Komu Menon, introduced centralizing policies into Cochin, and, following the example of Travancore, destroyed the political power of the Nayars – ‘the most capital fact in the history of Malabar during the last 400 years’.43 Martanda Varma’s successor, Karthoka Thirunal Rama Varma, reigned for forty years (1758-98), a period described as ‘one of the brightest epochs in the history of Travancore’.44 Despite episodes of war, it was also a time of construction – roads, canals and ports were built – laying the foundation of an infrastructure that the British would soon extend. Thus, by the second half of the 18th century, when the events that were to determine the genesis of the MISC were beginning to be played out in the Syrian Christian community, there were essentially three indigenous powers in central Kerala – Calicut, Cochin and Travancore. As will be seen, the Rajahs of the latter two were to intervene in those events.

41 See Pannikar, Dutch, pp.171-176 for the text of correspondence between the two Rajahs relating to the this treaty. 42 Pannikar views this treaty as marking the end of Nayar hegemony in Malabar (Dutch, p.98). 43 Pannikar, Dutch, p.151. 44 Cheriyan, CMS, p.133.

CHAPTER 2: SYRIAN CHRISTIANITY Despite being thoroughly indigenised within their South Indian culture for many centuries, the prominence given by the heirs of the ancient Christian community to the source of their faith is remarkable. This is immediately apparent on looking at the names of the main present-day jurisdictions: the Mar Thoma Syrian Church of Malabar,1 the Malankara Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Church, the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church, the Syro-Malabar Church, the Syro-Malankara Church, and, of course, the Malabar Independent Syrian Church. To understand something of the attachment to this designation, it is necessary to review briefly the story of Syrian Christianity.2 The designation ‘Malankara Mar Thoma Syrian Church’ is also used. See Mar Thoma Syrian Church of Malabar: Constitution, Tiruvalla, ET 1984, p.1. 2 It should be noted, however, that the designation ‘Syrian’ as used in India is of fairly recent origin. The name of the community in the Malayalam text of the Synod of Diamper (1599 – see Chapter 4) is Nasraanikal or Maaarttoommaa Nasraanikal (Scaria Zachariah (ed.), The Acts and Decrees of the Synod of Diamper 1599, Edamattam, Indian Institute of Christian Studies, 1994, p.17). Zachariah asserts that ‘the appellation Syrian Christians was invented by the Dutch and popularised by the British. Thomas Christians … accepted the new appellation only during the British Raj’ (p. 59). That view is shared by other Indian writers: ‘It is familiarly called the Syrian Christian community, but that is a name applied to it only in comparatively recent centuries’ (Mathew and Thomas, Indian Churches, p.1). The use of ‘Syrian’ seems to have grown in popularity with the arrival of Latin – ie non-Syrian – Christianity. Usage seems to have been strengthened by division – the various groups have wished to assert the purity of their faith by appealing to their ‘Syrian’ identity. There would seem to be some parallels to the ascription of ‘Assyrian’ to the Church of the East at a later date (see J.F. Coakley, The Church of the East and the Church of England: A History 1

23

24

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

Compared with the other two large ancient traditions within Christianity – the Greek and the Latin – Syrian Christianity is today little known. Historically, however, it was for many centuries a numerically strong and geographically widespread part of the Christian Church. Ecclesiologically it is of immense importance as an indigenous Semitic expression of Christianity. While showing in places substantial evidence of Greek influence, Syrian Christianity has, nevertheless, a continuous history as a non-European form of the community brought into existence by Jesus Christ. Apart from its own intrinsic interest, that fact is of some significance in India today, where elements within Hindu nationalism are inclined to view the presence of Indian Christians as a legacy of European colonialism. SYRIAC

In an ecclesiastical context, the term ‘Syrian’ refers to those Churches for which Syriac was the primary vernacular language in the earliest Christian centuries, and was the language in which their distinctive liturgical and theological traditions were formed. By extension, the term applies to those communities founded by the original Syriac-speaking Churches, even though Syriac was not for them the vernacular. Syriac is a member of the Aramaic branch of the Semitic family of languages (whose members include now extinct languages such as Babylonian, and modern ones such as Arabic and Amharic).3 The Aramaic-speaking heartlands broadly comprise the area occupied by the modern states of Syria, Palestine/Israel, Jordan, Iraq, eastern Turkey and northwestern Iran. A form of it was spoken in Palestine in the first century AD. The utterances of Jesus transliterated in St Mark’s Gospel (talitha qom of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Assyrian Mission, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1992, pp.5f., 147). For convenience the term ‘Syrian’ as a description of the Indian community is used in the present work. 3 For a detailed study of Aramaic and allied and derivative languages see Sebastian P. Brock, David G.K.Taylor and Witold Witakowski (eds), The Hidden Pearl: The Syrian Orthodox Church and its ancient Aramaic Heritage, Rome, Trans World Film Italia, 2001, especially volume I. A briefer account can be found in Sebastian P. Brock, An Introduction to Syriac Studies, (revised 2nd ed.) Piscataway, Gorgias Press, 2006, pp.19-24.

SYRIAN CHRISTIANITY

25

(5:41); ephphatha (7:34); abba (14:36); eli eli lama sabachtani (15:34)) are in this language.4 The regional variety of Aramaic that came to be designated Christian Syriac was that of the Province of Osrhoene, with its capital at Edessa (modern Urfa in southern Turkey). It was this language that was carried as far as China and India by Christian merchants and missionaries.5 Today, relatively few communities in the Middle East speak Syriac as their vernacular, but for millions of Christians (including the MISC) it survives as a liturgical language. Even those Churches which have substantially abandoned even its liturgical use, are still recognisably ‘Syrian’ in their liturgical style.6 THE COMMON HERITAGE

Since later events were to present the two main strands of Syriac Christianity which had relations with India as diametrically opposed, it is important to stress that they share the same early history and traditions.7 Communities that would later be perceived as widely divergent theologically ‘shared the same fortunes in antiq4 There are of course other examples of Aramaic in the New Testament. Jesus’ own form of address for God, abba, is reproduced by Paul in Romans 8:15 and Galatians 4:6; Kepha as the name of Simon Peter (John 1:42, 1 Corinthians 9:5, etc); there is also the eschatological imploration marana tha (1 Corinthians 16:22). 5 Just as, in the 19th century, Christianity and the English language were disseminated simultaneously by British traders, soldiers and missionaries. 6 Just as a congregation in, for example, Kenya, may be recognisably Anglican though worshipping exclusively in Swahili. 7 The two main traditions introduced here do not comprise the totality of Syriac Christianity. There are other traditions of Syrian heritage (for example, the Maronites and parts of the (Chalcedonian) Patriarchate of Antioch), but these are not directly relevant to the present study. For an exploration of the common heritage see, for example, W. Stuart McCullough, A Short History of Syrian Christiansity to the Rise of Islam, Chico, CA, Scholars Press, 1982. For older accounts see De Lacy O’Leary, The Syrian Church and Fathers: a brief review of the subject, London, SPCK, 1909 and J.W.Etheridge, The Syrian Churches: Their Early History, Liturgies and Literature, with a Literal Translation of the Four Gospels from the Peschito or Canon of Holy Scripture in use among the Oriental Christians from the Earliest Times, London, Longman, Green, Brown and Longmans, 1846.

26

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

uity, and the patrology of both was identical at least in the first four centuries. They used the same liturgy and scripture in the same Syriac language without distinction or discrimination’.8 Brock calls the Syriac Fathers of this common period ‘the true heirs of the Semitic world into which Christianity was born.’9 Little reliable documentation survives concerning the spread of Christianity among Syriac-speaking peoples of the Middle East prior to the 4th century AD.10 The detail in the 4th or 5th century document The Doctrine of Addai that when the evangelist Addai first came to Edessa, he stayed with a Jewish merchant from Palestine, suggests that here (as with St Paul to the West) the Jewish community was the natural starting point for the Christian message.11 By the 4th century ‘Syriac Christianity was well established both in the Eastern Roman Empire and the Persian Sasanian Empire to the east (approximately modern Iraq and Iran).’12 The Christian Scriptures were translated into Syriac at a relatively early date.13 There was already a Syriac version of the Jewish Scriptures, probably translated by Jews in Adiabene, the province to the east of Osrhoene, with Nisibis as its capital. To these were added translations of the apostolic writings, the combined collec8 Atiyah, Eastern Christianity, p.241. Not all scholars would agree that the liturgical traditions were the same. 9 ‘The Two Poles of Syrian Tradition,’ in Payngot, Homage, pp.74-79. The quotation is from p.75. 10 For general accounts see S.H. Moffett, A History of Christianity in Asia, I: Beginnings to 1500, New York, HarperSanFrancisco, 1992, esp. pp.45-90; L.Gillman and H.-J. Klimkeit, Christians in Asia Before 1500, Richmond, Curzon, 1998, esp. pp.21-65. For a discussion of other accounts, see Brock, Introduction to Syriac Studies, p. 43f. 11 For the relationship between Christianity and Judaism outside the Roman Empire, see Robert Murray, Symbols of Church and Kingdom: A Study in Early Syriac Tradition, revised edition, London T&T Clark, 2006, pp.6-12 and sources. Also McCullough, Short History, p.7f. Eusebius thought that Addai (whom he identified with Thaddeus) was one of the Seventy disciples sent out by Jesus (Ecclesiatical History, I, 13, Kirsopp Lake, I, 85-97). 12 Sebastian Brock, ‘Syrian Christianity’ in Parry et al (eds) Blackwell Dictionary, 2001, p.468. 13 Sebastian P. Brock, The Bible in the Syrian Tradition, Piscataway, Gorgias Press, 2006.

SYRIAN CHRISTIANITY

27

tion being known as the Peshitta. Initially, a conflation of the four canonical Gospels – the Diatessaron – was used.14 A catechetical school was established at Nisibis (possibly modelled on an earlier Jewish school in the city). When in 363 the Emperor Jovian ceded Nisibis to the Persians, the school moved west to Edessa within the Roman Empire.15 Significant theological and spiritual writers, such as Aphrahat and Ephrem, were active during this period. The 4th century also saw the beginning of a monastic tradition, producing saints and traditions common to all Syrian families (see below). Eventually, however, within Syriac-speaking Christianity two broad groupings gradually emerged. The difference between them was to be both determined and marked by geographical distribution, and by historical, theological and linguistic divergences. Both traditions have profoundly affected the community in India from which the MISC emerged, and consequently have left their mark on the MISC itself. It is therefore necessary to sketch the broad outlines of their history and distinctiveness. To facilitate comparison each will be looked at under the same subheadings.

14 This had been compiled by Tatian in about 160 AD. Its use was eventually discouraged and copies destroyed. See Murray, Symbols, pp. 10,18ff; J. Healey, art. ‘Diatesseron’ in Parry et al. (eds.), Blackwell Dictionary, p.161. 15 Murray, Symbols, pp. 18, 23.

28

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

THE EAST SYRIAN COMMUNITY – THE CHURCH OF THE EAST16

The Coptic historian Aziz Atiyah, though from a community historically inimical towards the East Syrians, could nevertheless wax lyrical about their achievements: ‘The historic origins of the East Syrian … Church are as enthralling as its legends…. there are decades that shine with the early bishops and saints of Edessa. From the Diatessaron to the Peshitta, we see how the Syriac Scripture was formulated for all generations. In the schools of Nisibis and Edessa, there are bulwarks of faith and a spiritual home for the pioneers who spread Christianity in Osrhoene and Persia’.17 Similarly, Adrian Fortescue described the Church of the East as ‘a Church whose history is as glorious as any in Christendom’,18 With the passage of time, ecclesiastical structure, language and theological affiliation were to distinguish the East Syrians from the West Syrians. What divided them initially was simply the eastern boundary of the Roman Empire. Whereas the West Syrians – many of whose descendants came to comprise the Syrian Orthodox Church – were those Syriac speakers who lived predominantly within the Roman/Byzantine Empire, the East Syrians – the Church of the East – was ‘simply the church of the ancient Persian Empire’.19 The boundary between the two Empires was fluid at times but ran approximately across eastern Turkey, south along the 16 Comprehensive histories up to the present day can be found in Wilhelm Baum and Dietmar W. Winkler, The Church of the East: A Concise History, London, RoutledgeCurzon, 2003 (first published in German in 2000 as Die Apostolische Kirche des Ostens, with the final Chapter published with footnotes as Dietmar W. Winkler, ‘The Assyrian Church of the East in the Twentieth Century, in The Harp, XVI, (2002), 245-270); and Christoph Baumer, The Church of the East: An Illustrated History of Assyrian Christianity, London, I.B.Taurus, 2006. For a 19th century account see George Percy Badger, The Nestorians and their Rituals: With the narrative of a Mission to Mesopotamia and Coordistan in 1842-1844, and of a later visit to those countries in 1850; also researches into the present condition of the Syrian Jacobites, Papal Syrians, and Chaldeans, and an inquiry into the religious tenets of the Yezeedees, (London, 1852; Reprinted London, Darf, 1987). See also the various histories listed in Brock, Introduction to Syriac Studies, pp.44-46. 17 Atiyah, Eastern Christianity, p.246f. 18 Lesser Eastern Churches, p.17. 19 Coakley, The Church of the East, p.11.

SYRIAN CHRISTIANITY

29

eastern border of modern Syria and bisecting modern Iraq.20 The political boundary proved to be no barrier to the Gospel. Christianity reached Edessa and towns east of the Tigris in the second century.21 By the third century AD there were bishoprics east and south of Baghdad and along the Persian Gulf ‘deep inside the realm of the Persian Empire’.22 There is evidence that by the same date there were Syriac-speaking Christians living near the Upper Oxus river in the north of modern Afghanistan. The situation of the Church in Persia was significantly different from that in the Roman Empire.23 There were some episodes of martyrdom in connection with conflict with Zoroastrianism, but not apparently on the scale of those within the Roman Empire.24 Indeed, at times Christians from the West sought refuge in Persia. Ironically, it was the adoption of Christianity by the Emperor Constantineand his successors that led to a deterioration of conditions for Christians beyond the eastern frontier and their increasing isolation. Persian rulers came to see the Christians in their territories as sympathisers with their now Christian enemies, and initiated a number of periods of persecution. It also became expedient for the Persian Church to organise itself in a way that showed that it was not dependent on the Roman Empire. In the year 410 a synod was held at Seleucia-Ctesiphon, the Persian capital (south of modern Baghdad).25 This organised the eighty bishoprics into six ecclesiastical provinces, each headed by a Metropolitan. The senior of these was the Metropolitan of Seleucia-Ctesiphon who was increasingly accorded the title ‘Catholicos’ – ‘general’ or ‘universal’ bishop. After a further synod in 424, the title was amended to ‘Catholicos-

See Wolfgang Hage, Syriac Christianity in the East, p.1. See Gillman and Klimkeith, Christians in Asia, pp.109-152. 22 Hage, Syriac Christianity, p.2. 23 An account of its history and organisation can be found in Moffett, Christianity in Asia, I, pp.92-167. 24 See A.V.Williams, ‘Zoroastrians and Christians in Sasanian Iran’, in Coakley and Parry (eds), The Church of the East, 37-53 for a recent review of relationships. 25 The dominant figure was bishop Marutha of Maipherqat (Moffett, Christianity in Asia, I, pp.152-157). 20 21

30

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

Patriarch’.26 There is unclarity as to the pre-5th century relationship between the Persian Church and its western neighbours, principally Antioch, but the Synods of 410 and 424 seem to have been merely formalising an existing degree of independence.27 This institutional independence is paralleled in the realm of theology. It had not been possible for the bishops in Persia to attend the Council of Nicaea summoned by the Emperor Constantinein 325. Not until the Synod of 410 did the East Syrians formally accept the creed drawn up there and expanded at the Council of Constantinople in 381. At that time it also adopted some western canons relating to Church order. Liturgically, the East Syrians developed a tradition substantially their own. Its origins are still very much the subject of liturgical research, but seem to derive from the region of Edessa before the 4th century. Fortescue calls it ‘one of the great historic rites of Christendom.’28 Within the Eucharist – the Qurbana – the main

26 Baum & Winkler, Church of the East, pp.15-17. The title ‘Catholicos’ is more common among those Churches outside the Byzantine Empire (Armenia and Georgia, for example). It has been argued that a Catholicos is the senior bishop of a people, while a Patriarch is the senior bishop of a Church organised in a particular geographical area (see Hratch Tlingirian, ‘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) p.142ff). Current usage tends simply to prefer the term ‘Patriarch’ for the senior bishop of what is now the Church of the East. That will be followed here to avoid confusion with the use of the title ‘Catholicos’ by a section of the West Syrian community in Kerala – see below. For a modern testimony to the interchangeability of the titles the statement of Surma d’Bait Mar Shimun, sister of two patriarchs, may be quoted: ‘We use the two words indifferently’ (Assyrian Church Customs and the Murder of Mar Shimun, (London, Faith Press, 1920) p.45). 27 See Moffett, Christianity in Asia, I, pp.161-163. It should be noted that this independence predates by seven years the condemnation by the Council of Ephesus in 431 of Patriarch Nestorius, whose followers the Church of the East are often accused of being. 28 Lesser Eastern Churches, p.140. There is a description of the East Syrian worship practices on pp.140-158. See also Badger, Rituals, passim. For the Roman Catholic form see H. W. Codrington, Studies of the Syrian Litur-

SYRIAN CHRISTIANITY

31

Eucharistic Prayer is named after Addai and Mari and has ancient roots.29 Famously, it seems never to have had a Narrative of Institution (Jesus’ words over the bread and wine at the Last Supper) and hence seemed deficient to Western Churchmen for whom these words were consecratory.30 The Consequences of the Fourth Century Christological Controversy31 The ‘semi-detached’ nature of the Church in Persia and further east was turned into a rupture and loss of sacramental communion with the Church in the west by the controversy over the relationship between the divine and the human in Jesus Christ, which broke out in the 4th century. The actual theological debate was complicated by differences in inherited terminology (especially when languages of two different ‘families’ – Semitic and Indo-European – were involved); and by long-standing rivalry between the principal eastern sees – Constantinople, Alexandria and Antioch. To oversimplify gies, London, George Goldwell, 1952, pp.60-85. English text in Brightman, Liturgies Eastern and Western, pp.lxxvii-lxxxi, 245-305. 29 See Anthony Gelston, The Eucharistic Prayer of Addai and Mari, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1992 and Thomas Manooramparampil, ‘The Origin and Development of the Syro-Malabar Qurbana’, in Thomas Vellilamthadam, Joseph Koldakudy, Xavier Koodapuzha and Mathew Vellanickal (eds.), Ecclesial Identity of the Thomas Christians, Kottayam, Oriental Institute Publications, 1985, pp.191-204. 30 But see Robert F. Taft, ‘Mass Without the Consecration? The Historic Agreement on the Eucharist between the Catholic Church and the Assyrian Church of the East, Promulgated 26 October 2001’, in Bulletin of Centro Pro Unione, 63 (Spring 2002), 15-27. Also Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, Guidelines for Admission to the Eucharist between the Chaldean Church and the Assyrian Church of the East, Rome, 20 July 2001. In January 2001 Pope John Paul II approved a recommendation that the Anaphora of Addai and Mari could be considered valid. 31 There are innumerable works covering this period (which is also crucial to the story of the West Syrians, to be examined below). Among them W.H.C. Frend, The Rise of the Monophysite Movement: Chapters in the History of the Church in the Fifth and Sixth Centuries, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1972, and Moffett, Christianity in Asia, I, pp.169-215, have been relied on here. A helpful introduction to the theological issues can be found in is Frances Young, From Nicaea to Chalcedon: A Guide to the Literature and its Background, London, SCM Press, 1983.

32

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

grossly, the theological tradition of Antioch and Edessa emphasised the duality of natures (human and divine) in the incarnate Christ, while the tradition of Alexandria emphasised their unity in Him. A version of the former position, which allegedly produced two ‘persons’ in Christ, came to be associated with the name of Nestorius, the Patriarch of Constantinople from 428. One focus was the terminology used of Mary: was she the ‘Godbearer’ (Θεοτόκος, ‫ܬ‬ ‫ )ܐ ܐ‬or the ‘Christbearer’ (Χριστοτόκος)?32 In 431 a Council of bishops at Ephesus, presided over by Cyril of Alexandria, declared Mary to be rightly called Theotokos, deposed Nestorius (who was not present to defend his alleged teaching) in circumstances that seemed unjust to many Christians in the east. The extent to which the East Syrians embraced the theological teachings attributed to Nestorius, is a hotly contested issue.33 It is undoubtedly true that the Church of the East is Antiochene in its Christology and venerates Nestorius as an orthodox teacher, ‘though, admittedly, not one of special prominence’.34 It also uses an anaphora which bears his name. Recent studies have, however, demonstrated that only one work by Nestorius – ‘The Bazaar of Heraclides’ in which he claims that his views were much the same as those who opposed the ‘Monophysite’ Eutyches (see below) – has been translated into Syriac, and that the translation was not made until 539, a century after the East Syrian Church began its separate existence.35 Furthermore, the anaphora which bears his name has recently been shown to be almost certainly a Syriac rather than a Greek composition and therefore cannot be the work of Nestorius himself.36 Hage argues that a degree of acceptance of the For an examination of the history of the term, see Maxwell E. Johnson, ‘Sub Tuum Praesidium: The Theotokos in Christian Life and Worship before Ephesus’, in Bryan Spinks (ed.), The Place of Christ in Liturgical Prayer, Collegeville, Liturgical Press, 2008, pp.243-267. 33 There is also considerable uncertainty as to what Nestorius actually taught. 34 Coakley, Church of the East, p.5. 35 See S.Brock, ‘The “Nestorian” Church: a lamentable misnomer’, in Coakely and Parry (eds), The Church of the East, 23-35 for a robust refutation of the accusation that the Church of the East is ‘Nestorian’. 36 A.Gelston, ‘The origin of the Anaphora of Nestorius: Greek or Syriac?’, in Coakely and Parry (eds), The Church of the East, 73-86. 32

SYRIAN CHRISTIANITY

33

designation ‘Nestorian’ was motivated by a desire to show the rulers of Persia that the Christians within their realms had deliberately distanced themselves from those within the enemy Empire now governed from Constantinople.37 Indeed, later members of the Church of the East were to defend the purity of their faith by contrasting their independence with the frequent interference of Roman Emperors in the doctrinal disputes in the Church within their domain. As long ago as the 14th century Metropolitan Abdisho of Nisibis pointed out that the members of the Church of the East were called “Nestorians” quite unjustly, ‘for Nestorius was not their patriarch, nor did they know his language’.38 The present Patriarch of the Church of the East, Mar Dinkha IV, formally repudiated the label ‘Nestorian’ at his enthronement in 1976. It is therefore not used in the present work, except in quotations.39 As might be expected from the foregoing history, the Church in the Persian Empire was not directly involved in the Council of Chalcedon in 451. Its isolation meant that ‘by the seventh century when it first took official notice of Chalcedon, the church had gone so far in a dyophysite (‘two natures’) direction that it could not accept even the terms agreed there’.40 Flowering and Decline The Church of the East has never existed in a predominantly Christian society under Christian rulers. In that its experience is significantly different to that of most of European Christianity. It was a situation that allowed the Church to evangelise independently of the state, and this is did with phenomenal success. ‘It is no exaggeration to contend that, in the early Middle Ages the … Church [of the East] was the most widespread in the whole world’.41 The involvement of the Persian Church in India will be Hage, Syriac Christianity, p.7ff. Quoted in Brock, ‘Lamentable Misnomer’, p.35. 39 The formal name of the successors of the original East Syrians is ‘The Assyrian Church of the East’. As noted above, the designation ‘Assyrian’ dates in the main only from the 19th century. 40 Coakley, Church of the East, p.15. 41 Atiyah, Eastern Christianity, p.240. See Moffett, Christianity in Asia, I, pp.288-323, 400-494; Gillman and Klimkeit, Christians in Asia, pp.205-313 37 38

34

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

examined in the next Chapter. Here it sufficient to note briefly the larger picture of which the Indian Church was simply a small part. By the 6th century bishops, monks and missionaries of the Church of the East had crossed the River Oxus and were moving into Central Asia, reaching Samarkand. They followed the ancient trade routes – in particular the famous ‘Silk Road’ into China.42 Some branched off south to Tibet and won converts there. The famous Hsi-an fû stele, with its inscriptions in Chinese and Syriac, testifies to the presence of Syrian monks in China by the 7th century.43 There was a temporary setback in the 9th century when the Chinese Emperor expelled foreign Christians from his Empire, but the conversion of a succession of rulers among the Turco-Mongol tribes allowed the return of Christians into China as far east as Beijing by the 13th century. Following the arrival of Islam in Persia, the Patriarch of the Church of the East moved his headquarters to Baghdad, with jurisdiction over Christians as far east as China. Indeed, in 1281 a Mongol from China was elected to the Patriarchate as Mar Yahballaha III.44 From the end of the 13th century, however, the story of the Church of the East is one of decline and displacement. From being perhaps the geographically most widespread of the Christian Churches the Church of the East was to suffer a rapid decline that was to reduce it to a small community struggling to survive in a hostile environment. Four main groups of factors contributed to this decline. The first was a series of dramatic political and religious changes in Central Asia and China. In 1295 the Il-Khan Ghazan adopted Islam. This conversion marked the beginning of the end of the protected status enjoyed by Christians in the lands controlled for accounts of the spread of the Church into Central and south east Asia, and China. 42 See, for example, Meera Abraham, ‘Religion and Trade: Nestorian Christianity reaches T’ang China’, in The Harp, XVI, (2003), 35-42. 43 James Legge, The Nestorian Monument of His-an fû in Shen-His, China, Piscataway, Gorgias Press, 2009. 44 Yabhalaha did not even speak Syriac (Brock, Hidden Pearl, II, p.249). See Hage, Syriac Christianity, pp.68-79 for an account of the life and ministry of Yabhalaha III.

SYRIAN CHRISTIANITY

35

by the Mongols. Added to this was the fact that the Mongol Yuan dynasty was expelled from China in 1368. In the general xenophobic reaction that followed, Christianity was suppressed in China. In Central Asia many of the Turcic tribes adopted Buddhism. The violent westward campaigns of Timur Lane in the 14th century destroyed Christian communities over vast tracts of Asia. The second factor was the emergence of increasingly hostile attitudes among Arab Muslim leaders towards the Christians in their midst. In part this was encouraged by the conversion of the Mongols to Islam. In part it was one of the consequences of the Crusades. The intrusion of Western Christians upset the balance of co-existence between Muslims and indigenous Christians in the Middle East. From this period onwards the relative proportion of the two faiths begins to alter, with Christians becoming an ever more rapidly shrinking minority. A third factor seems to have been the plague known in Europe as the Black Death, which swept across Asia before reaching the lands of the west. In Central and West Asia it seems to have claimed a high proportion of the population and to have rendered vulnerable those who survived. Contact with the Roman Church A fourth factor came from within the Christian world. Mediaeval Popes of Rome had claimed universal jurisdiction over all Christians, and the establishment of Crusader kingdoms, followed by the sack of Constantinople in 1204, had enabled this claim to be physically expressed by the intrusion of Roman Catholic hierarchies into Eastern Christian territories. Many of these were short-lived but they had marked the beginning of interference by the Roman Church into the lands of the Orthodox Churches and the Church of the East. From the 15th century onwards the rapid trade and colonial expansion of European nations such as Portugal and Spain facilitated such expansion. Opinions differ strongly concerning the ‘Catholic Mission to the East’. On the positive side, there is no doubt that contact with the West made available to Eastern Christians living under Muslim rule such advantages as improved education and access to printing presses. There was also the possibility of protection by one of the Western ‘Great Powers’. Negatively, however, the Roman missions were to produce schism in virtually every Christian community, with the result that there now exist, for ex-

36

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

ample, Syrian, Armenian, and Ukrainian Catholics alongside Syrian, Armenian and Ukrainian Orthodox.45 Legacies of confusion and hatred survive down to the present day. Two Hierarchies Within the Church of the East, Roman Catholic activities produced a situation that was to have some repercussions in India, and hence must be mentioned briefly here.46 From about 1450 until the 20th century, the office of Patriarch became essentially hereditary, passing from uncle to nephew. The same was also true of some bishoprics. The system (which, as will be seen, had its Indian equivalent) introduced a degree of stability into what was now a shattered community, but also provided a focus of discontent.47 The decision in about 1551 by Patriarch Shimun VI Bar Mama to nominate his 8 year old nephew as his successor precipitated a revolt. A section headed by three bishops opposed to the hereditary principle elected a monk named Sulaqa from Rabban Hormizd monastery near Alqosh in northern Iraq.48 The customs of the Church of the East required a Metropolitan to consecrate a bishop, and, as none of the three bishops held this rank, a decision was made to send Sulaqa to Rome for consecration and recognition by the senior Patriarch of the Church. Having travelled via Jerusalem, Beirut and Venice, Sulaqa arrived in Rome in November 1552. There, on 15th February See Binns, The Christian Orthodox Churches, pp.218-223 for a useful summary of Roman proselytism and its consequence. It should be noted that in some situations Roman Catholic involvement was used as a weapon in existing intra-communal strife. 46 For a pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic account of Rome’s dealing with the East Syrians, see Attwater, Christian Churches, 1, pp.188-198. 47 For accounts of the split in the East Syrian Church see Guiseppe Beltrani, La Chiese Caldeo nel secolo dell’Unione (OCA 83) Rome, 1933, and J. Habbi, ‘Signification de Union Chaldeenne de Mar Sulaqa avec Rome en 1553’, in L’Orient Syrien, XI, 2 (1966), 99-132, 199-230. For a Syrian Orthodox comment on this episode see Yacoub III, Syrian Church in India, pp.30-32. 48 There is a degree of uncertainty about his name. Two eastern sources call him Yuhanna. His Patriarchal name (bestowed on him by the Pope) was Shem’un. For a discussion of the issue see Habbi, ‘Signification’, p.104f. 45

SYRIAN CHRISTIANITY

37

1553, he made a profession of faith in terms required by the Roman Curia. Pope Julius III, by the Bull ‘Divina disponente clementia’ recognised Sulaqa as Patriarch of Mosul ‘and of other eastern cities and lands subject to the same Patriarchate’. Significantly for our story, these explicitly included ‘Calicut and all India.’49 The Bull also used the term ‘Chaldeans’ for the Church of the East.50 On 9th April 1553 Sulaqa received episcopal consecration from Cardinal Jean of Toledo in St Peter’s basilica; Julius bestowed on him the pallium later that same month. On his return to Diabekir Mar Shem’un Sulaqa consecrated five bishops, one of whom he subsequently promoted to Metropolitan. At the instigation of Patriarch Bar Mama he was arrested by the Turks, imprisoned and murdered in January 1555. Mar Sulaqa was succeeded as leader of the proRoman group by Mar Abdisho , one of the bishops whom he had consecrated. From this point on there have been two ‘East Syrian’ Churches in the Middle East, one in communion with Rome (and consequently to some degree latinised), and the other not.51 The situation was, however, far from watertight. In about 1675 the successors of Patriarch Sulaqa broke from Rome and resumed an independent stance, while a few years later a different section of the Church of the East entered into communion with Rome. The see49 Whilst in Rome Sulaqa made contact with the Portuguese ambassador about the Christians of Malabar (Habbi, ‘Signification’, p.110). Within a few weeks Pope Julius would find himself addressing the problem of reconciling a Church at the other end of the Christian world – the Church of England – following the death of King Edward VI and the accession of Mary Tudor. 50 Coakely, Church of the East, p.15. The term ‘Chaldean’ seems to have first been used for East Syrian Christians a century or so earlier, by Pope Eugenios IV. It seems to have merely meant ‘Syriac speaker’, though at times the term has been used to suggest that the East Syrians are descended from the biblical Chaldeans. Modern usage generally reserves the term ‘Chaldean’ for those East Syrians in communion with Rome, with the exception of the Church of the East in India which is known as the ‘Chaldean Syrian Church’. 51 See Heleen H.L. Murre van den Berg, ’The Patriarchs of the Church of the East from the Fifteenth to Eighteenth Centuries,’ in Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies Vol. 2, No. 2 (July 1999) for an introduction to the tortuous successions.

38

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

saw situation continued into the 19th century, with a member of Patriarch Shimun VII’s previously ‘independent’ line, Yuhannan Hormuz, Metropolitan of Mosul, being recognised ‘Chaldean Patriarch of Bablylon’ by Pope Pius VIII in 1830.52 This line (now represented by the present Chaldean patriarchate of Babylon, which has its See in Baghdad) and its independent rival, were to have dealings with the Church in India, as will be seen below.53 Battered by these external and internal factors, ‘the Church of the East, with its chain of metropolitan sees, the largest Church in the Middle Ages, an “Oikoumene” for itself which embraced many peoples, was almost suppressed overnight into the small church of the “Assyrians”, hidden in the remote mountains of Mesopotamia’.54 By the 16th century most of the community was to be found in the Hakkari region, divided politically between Ottoman Turkey and Persian Azerbaijan.55 The Patriarchs resided in various places, including Mosul and Urmia.56 By the 19th century they were based at Qudshanis,57 to the north of Mosul. Even here they were not 52 The activities of Mar Yuhannan Hormuz in relation to the Church in India will be described in Chapter 8. 53 To add to the confusion, Rome has also at times sustained a succession of Latin-rite Bishops of Babylon. One of these – Dominic Marie Varlet – was the consecrator of the first Archbishop of Utrecht following that See’s final breach with Rome in the first half of the 18th century, and hence is the originator of the present day Old Catholic hierarchy (see C.B. Moss, The Old Catholic Movement: It Origins and History, London, SPCK 1964 (2nd ed.). 54 Hage, Syriac Christianity, p.21. 55 See Coakley, Church of the East, passim, for an account of the community to the present day. 56 Also spelled ‘Ormia’ and ‘Ooroomia’. See Etheridge, Syrian Churches, p.104f. 57 Also spelt ‘Kotchanes’ and ‘Kochanes’. For eye-witness accounts of the East Syrians in the first half of the 19th century see Asahel Grant, The Nestorians or The Lost Tribes, containing Evidence of their Identity, an Account of their Manners, Customs and Ceremonies, London, 1841 (reprinted Piscataway, Gorgias Press, 2004); and Horatio Southgate, Narrative of a Tour through Armenia, Kurdistan, Persia and Mesopotamia, with Observations on the Condition of Mohammedanism and Christianity in those Countries, (2 vols) London, Tilt & Bogue, 1840. Southgate thought the conversion to a Roman Catholic identity to be fairly superficial.

SYRIAN CHRISTIANITY

39

safe. The Church of the East suffered during various anti-Christian campaigns of the Ottoman Empire, notably in 1895 and 1915.58 In the early 20th century two young Patriarchs died in quick succession – one assassinated, the other of disease brought on by privation. At one stage there were only four bishops remaining. The Great War and its aftermath brought further dislocation and suffering, as did the consequences of British withdrawal from Iraq, where much of the community was based by the 1950s. From 1940 until his assassination in November 1975 Patriarch Mar Eshai Shimun (who had been consecrated Patriarch at the age of 12) lived in the United States, being forbidden by the Iraqi government to visit his flock in that country. Under the present Patriarch Mar Dinkha IV (who is based in Chicago) the Church of the East has substantially recovered and re-organised itself in a number of dioceses, covering both the Middle East and the various diaspora communities. Its members in Iraq have suffered considerable dislocation and persecution following the American-led invasions of that country in 1991 and 2003.59 In 1994 Mar Dinkha IV signed a ‘Common Christological Agreement’ with Pope John Paul II of Rome. This recognised ‘the legitimacy and rightness’ of each Church’s traditional statements about the Incarnation and the Virgin Mary.60 The Church of the 58 See Mar Aprem, The Assyrian Church of the East in the Twentieth Century, Kottayam, SEERI, 2003 for a summary overview; and the relevant chapters in Coakley, Church of the East, passim. 59 See Harald Suermann, ‘The History of Christianity in Iraq of the 20th and 21st Century’, in The Harp, XX, (2006), 171-194, and the sources quoted there. 60 For the full text of the Agreement and accompanying material see the website www.cired.org. Also Mar Aprem, Mar Dinkha, pp.273-276. On the basis of this agreement, the Roman Catholic Church recognises the Church of the East as a ‘sister Church’ and ‘a true particular Church, built upon orthodox faith and apostolic succession’ (Guidelines for Admission to the Eucharist between the Chaldean Church and the Assyrian Church of the East, www.cired ; Mar Aprem, Mar Dinkha, p.287). For an Indian West Syrian commentary on the agreement see Geevarghese Chediath, ‘Common Christological Declaration between the Catholic Church and the Assyrian Church of the East – An Evaluation’, in The Harp, XVI, (2002), 271-278.

40

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

East has also participated in dialogue with other Churches within the broader Syriac tradition.61 Prior to the 20th century expansion through emigration (voluntary or forced) there remained only one section of the Church of the East outside the mountain fastnesses of ‘Kurdistan’, the only surviving remnant of the ancient Asian ‘oikoumene’ – the Church in south India. THE WEST SYRIAN COMMUNITY – THE SYRIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH62

To the west of the Persian Church, the eastern provinces of the Roman Empire (comprising part or all the modern states of Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Israel/Palestine and southeast Turkey) contained substantial Syriac-speaking populations. Here, unlike in the Persian Empire, Greek was also widely spoken and in urban areas such as Antioch was almost certainly the dominant tongue. Greek certainly dominated as the ecclesiastical language. There are eye-witness accounts of the bishop of Jerusalem preaching in Greek in the 4th century, with his words being translated into Syriac for the main body of worshippers.63 Greek was, of course, the language of the 61 These Consultations have taken place under the auspices of Pro Oriente. For background and texts see http://www.prooriente.at/dokumente/4SyrCons2000.doc and http://sor.cua.edu/Ecumenism/19970711syriacconsultation.html. 62 In April 2000 the Holy Synod of the Syrian Orthodox Church changed the Church’s official name from ‘Syrian’ to ‘Syriac’ Orthodox Church of Antioch in order to avoid confusion with the modern state of Syria. The new name applies only to the English language and is to be adopted gradually over the course of time. See http://sor.cua.edu/index.html. For historical accounts see the various histories listed in Brock, Introduction to Syriac Studies, p.46f. Material relating to relations with the Church in India can be found in Ignatius Aphram Barsoum I, The Scattered Pearls: A History of Syriac Literature and Science (ET Matti Mousa), Piscataway, Gorgias Press (rev. ed.) 2003; and idem, History of the Syriac Dioceses, Piscataway, New Jersey, Gorgias Press, 2009. 63 Egeria 47.3 in John Wilkinson, Egeria’s Travels to the Holy Land: Newly translated with supporting notes and documents, Warminster, Aris and Phillips, (revised edn) 1981, p.146. As Wilkinson points out, ‘Syriac’ here is, strictly speaking, Palestinian Aramaic.

SYRIAN CHRISTIANITY

41

classic Trinitarian and Christological controversies of the 4th and 5th centuries, and the language in which the definitions of the Ecumenical Councils were formulated. Inevitably, the Churches in these provinces within the Roman Empire were deeply embroiled in the theological controversies that raged in the 4th and 5th centuries. The Patriarchate of Antioch The city of Antioch had been founded in about 300 BC by the Greek general Seleucus, as the capital of his new kingdom, following the death of Alexander the Great. It achieved wealth and prominence, not least from its position at the junction of a number of trade routes. The importance of Antioch is reflected in the New Testament. It was a natural destination for disciples dispersed from Jerusalem following the death of Stephen; it was one of the first places where the Gospel was proclaimed to non-Jews; and Barnabas and Paul spent a year there establishing the Church (Acts 11:19-26). Peter, also, is associated with the city. Eusebius states that Ignatios, the famous martyr-bishop (d. ca. 107) was ‘the second after Peter to succeed to the bishopric (episcope) of Antioch’.64 Patriarchs of Antioch therefore consider themselves as successors of St Peter. In honour of Ignatios, from 878 AD Syrian Orthodox Patriarchs were given the honorific name ‘Ignatios’.65 The Council of Nicaea in 325 had acknowledged the significance of the see of Antioch and decreed that its privileges were to be preserved.66 By the mid 5th century, Antioch was firmly established as one of the great sees of the Pentarchy, together with Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria and Jerusalem. In the 18th and 19th centuries the relationship of the community that was to become the MISC with the Syrian Patriarchate of Antioch was gradually to be defined. The relationship of much of the rest of the Syr64 Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, III. 36.2 (Kirsop Lake (ed), London, 1975, I. p.281.) 65 Mar Ignatius Zakka I Iwas, The Syrian Orthodox Church at a Glance, (ET Emmanuel H. Bismarji) Aleppo, Gregorios Yohanna Ibrahim, 1983, p.19f. 66 Canon 6. Norman P. Tanner, Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, London, Sheed & Ward, 1990, vol. I, p.9.

42

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

ian community in India with the Patriarchate is unresolved to the present day. The Consequences of the Fourth Century Christological Controversy The deposition of Patriarch Nestorius of Constantinople by the Council of Ephesus, with the consequent alienation of the Church in Persia, briefly described above, did not prove the end of the controversy over Christology. Ephesus produced no Christological definition to answer the ‘presenting problem’. Two years later, in 433, Cyril of Alexandria and John of Antioch agreed the ‘Formula of Reunion’ in which they attempted to define the incarnate Christ as ‘of two natures … in a union without confusion … consubstantial with the Father as touching his divinity, and with us as touching his humanity; a union therefore of two natures, and hence we confess one Christ, one Son and Lord’.67 This produced relative peace for a number of years until in 447 an elderly Archimandrite in Constantinople, named Eutyches, began to make pronouncements that seem to challenge the idea that Christ’s humanity was consubstantial with our humanity: ultimately there was only one Nature in Christ, the divine – hence the term ‘monophysite’ for this theological position. Out of the reaction to this development there took place in October 451 a Council of bishops, summoned by Pulcheria and Marcian, the Empress and her consort. The meeting was held at Chalcedon on the Asiatic side of the Bosphorus. The Council deposed Cyril’s successor as Patriarch of Alexandria and agreed a formula which ‘built on the foundation laid by the Formula of Reunion eighteen years before’.68 Its position is traditionally described as ‘Dyophysite’, stressing the two natures in the incarnate Christ. Opponents who stressed the unity of the incarnate nature are today increasingly referred to as ‘Miaphysite’, implying an orthodox expression of Christology.69 67 See Frend, Rise, p.21ff for a detailed discussion of the progress of the debate. 68 Frend, Rise, p.47. 69 See, for example, Dietmar W. Winkler, ‘Miaphysitism: A New Term for Use in the History of Dogma and Ecumenical Theology’, in The Harp, X, no.3, (December 1997), 33-40.

SYRIAN CHRISTIANITY

43

The years following Chalcedon saw considerable confusion, with dioceses fluctuating between Chalcedonian and Miaphysite bishops, though there was at this stage no attempt to set up parallel hierarchies. The differing sympathies of succeeding Emperors, and their attempts to impose ecclesiastical unity, complicated matters still further. The Emperor Zeno, for example, sponsored an agreement known as the Henotikon in 482. This substantially set aside Chalcedon and made no mention of the ‘two natures’ issue. The Henotikon was in turn set aside by the Emperor Justin I in 519 and the authority of Chalcedon restored. His successor Justinian I (Emperor 527-565) for much of his reign strongly favoured the Chalcedonian settlement and vigorously persecuted those who would not accept it.70 So successful was he that the Miaphysite cause was in danger of collapse in much of West Asia. The situation was reversed, however, by the ministry of Jacob Baradaeus. Jacob Baradaeus Jacob (‫ ܰ ܽ ܒ‬, Ya’kub) was born in about 490 near Constantia (modern Tella). His father, Theophilos bar Ma’anu, was a Christian priest. As a young man Jacob entered the monastery of Psilta on Mount Izla near Constantia. In about 527 Jacob and another monk, Sergius (who was later to become Patriarch of Antioch) were sent to Constantinople where they remained for about fifteen years under the patronage of the Empress Theodora who strongly supported the Miaphysite cause. At the time a number of bishops who had taken the ‘Cyrilline’ Christological position and therefore refused to accept the decrees of the Council of Chalcedon, were under house arrest in the capital. In 541 the Arab Ghassanid king alHareth bar Jabadah sent an embassy to Theodora requesting bishops for his tribe. At Theodora’s instigation a number of imprisoned bishops - Theodosios of Alexandria, Anthimus of Constantinople (both deposed patriarchs), Peter of Apamea, Constantius of Laodicea, and ‘other bishops of kindred views’ - consecrated a monk Theodore as Metropolitan of Bostra in the Roman province 70 Imperial intervention meant that bishops who defied the Emperor’s definition were capable of deposition or exile by the organs of the state.

44

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

of Arabia, and Jacob as Metropolitan of Edessa, but with a roving jurisdiction over a wide area of Syria and Asia.71 For the next thirty five years Jacob travelled extensively between Constantinople, Alexandria and Seleucia, consecrating bishops and ordaining priests, and generally strengthening the Miaphysite cause. To avoid recognition and arrest by the Imperial authorities Jacob wore a ܳ horse-blanket – ‫( ܰܒ ܰܕ ܐ‬barda’ta) – hence his Syriac nickname ‫( ܽܒ ܪܕ ܳ ܳ ܐ‬burd’aya/burd’oyo), latinized as Baradaeus. So extensive and successful was his ministry that Jacob ‘can be regarded as the institutional founder of the Syrian Orthodox church tradition. He it was who saved it from extinction, organized its hierarchy and laid the foundations for its future development.’72 For many centuries the Syrian Orthodox Church has therefore been known as ‘Jacobite’. 73 The tradition is also generally referred to as ‘West Syrian’ to distinguish it from the ‘East Syrians’ or Church of the East.

As a result of Jacob Baradeus’ labours a parallel Miaphysite hierarchy was created in the Syriac-speaking provinces of the Empire. There were now, for example, two Patriarchs of Antioch, one Chalcedonian or Dyophysite, one Miaphysite. Further attempts at reconciliation followed for the next century or so, until the Arab invasions effectively ‘froze’ the situation, putting an end to any chance of Christian reunion. Flowering and Decline Unlike their East Syrian brethren, the Syrian Orthodox never achieved a wide geographical spread, being hemmed in by Greekspeaking Byzantine provinces to the north, Coptic and Arabic areas 71

p.285.

O’Leary, Syriac Church, p.120. Parry, Six Months, p.292; Frend, Rise,

72 Healey, article ‘Jacob Baradaeus’ in Parry et al (eds), Blackwell Dictionary, p.261. 73 Healey in Parry et al. (eds), Blackwell Dictionary, p.261. This is not now the official name of the Church, except in India, where that portion of the West Syrian community which acknowledges the jurisdiction of the Syrian Orthodox patriarch has taken the name ‘Malankara Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Church (under the Holy See of Antioch and All the East)’. See official letterheads and ‘Malankara Split Deepens’, in The Glastonbury Review, 106 (July 2002), 134-140; the reference to the name is on p.138.

SYRIAN CHRISTIANITY

45

to the south, and by the Persian Church to the East. They do, however, constitute an influential tradition among the Eastern Churches. In part this is due to a substantial literary legacy, which began in the pre-Nicene period and continued strongly until the thirteenth century. As well as original compositions in Syriac, many Greek theological, philosophical and scientific texts were translated into Syriac, from which language many of the latter in particular subsequently found their way into Arabic and contributed to the flowering of Arabic culture and science. Under the Abbasid Caliphs Syrian Orthodox Christians enjoyed positions of prominence and influence and in the 13th century produced three of its most famous writers – Dionysios bar Salibi, Michael the Syrian and Bar Hebraeus. At this time the Syrian Orthodox patriarchs ‘ruled over twenty metropolitans and about a hundred bishops in dioceses spread over Syria, Anatolia, upper Mesopotamia and other regions of the western parts of the Middle East, while the maphrianate of Tekrit [see below] included eighteen episcopal dioceses in lower Mesopotamia-Persia and lands eastwards’ where Syriac-speaking Miaphysite Christians had initially spread to escape persecution in

Roman lands.74

One element of this flowering was the development of a rich liturgical tradition. Fortescue described the West Syrian Eucharist as ‘one of the most beautiful in Christendom’ and thought it ‘strange that an insignificant little sect should possess so splendid a liturgical tradition.’75 The rites are those of Jerusalem and Antioch, with the principal form of the Eucharist being the Liturgy of St James, which contains elements of the anaphora quoted in the 4th century Mystagogical Catecheses.76

Atiyah, Eastern Christianity, p.209. Lesser Eastern Churches, p.350. 76 Fenwick Investigation, passim. The literature – both academic and popular – is immense. Text in Brightman, Liturgies, pp.xvii-lxiii, 31-110. For description see Codrington, Syrian Liturgies, pp.343-352. The rite as performed in India is described in Poulose Mor Athanasios Kadavil (formerly K.P.Paul), The Eucharist Service of the Syrian Jacobite Church of Malabar, Cheeranchira, Changanaserry, Mor Adai Study Centre, 2003. An interpretative commentary can be found in Baby Varghese, West Syrian Liturgical Theology, Aldershot, Ashgate, 2004. 74 75

46

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

From the 14th century onwards, however, the Syrian Orthodox suffered rapid decline as a result of the same factors which all but extinguished the Church of the East as outlined above. The inroads of the Mongols, particularly after the conversion of IlKhan Ghazan to Islam, the disruption caused by the Crusades and the violent campaigns of Timur Lane, all contributed to an irreversible decline. Speaking of the last of these, Atiyah paints a picture of the condition to which the Syrian Orthodox were reduced: Districts pre-eminently Jacobite in character, such as Amid (Diyarbekr), Mardin, Mosul, Tur-‘Abdin and Tekrit, suffered unparalleled devastation at the hands of his hordes. Jacobites were hunted and massacred in al-Jazirah and upper Mesopotamia. Those who escaped slaughter took refuge in the arid mountains until the storm subsided, only to return home to find their churches and monasteries levelled to the ground. It is to this period that we must date the disappearance of the majority of the hitherto flourishing monasteries of the Jacobites. Those ancient seats of light and learning were extinguished forever, and their priceless literary contents were set aflame. … Deprived of strong leadership and beset by one enemy after another, the community dwindled and declined.77

Partly as a result of these disruptions, for many centuries the Syrian Orthodox Patriarch lived in one or other of the monasteries in Mesopotamia. In the 13th century the Patriarchate moved to Mar Hananya (also called, on account of the yellow colour of the stone in which it is built, Deir al-Za‘faran), near Mardin in Turkey, where it remained until 1933.78 It was from here that the Patriarchs dealt 77 Atiyah, Eastern Christianity, p.210. Antioch itself had been extensively damaged by an earthquake in 526, suffered invasion by the Persians in 540, and by the Arabs in 636. It was restored to Byzantine rule in 969, but was conquered by both the Seljuk Turks and the Crusaders in the following century. In 1268 it returned again to Muslim rule. 78 Dairo d-Mor Hannanyo. The monastery (which is also known as Kurkama) and some of the people and events associated with it are described in Ignatius Aphram Barsoum I, History of the Za’afaran Monastery (ET Matti Mousa), Piscataway, Gorgias Press, 2008. For further descriptions of the building and its contents see Hollerweger, Turabdin, pp.339-

SYRIAN CHRISTIANITY

47

with the circumstances surrounding the genesis and development of the MISC. Following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire in the early 20th century, Antioch was handed by the French to the modern state of Turkey in 1939.The political situation required the Patriarchate to transfer from Deir al-Za‛faran to Homs in Syria in1933, and in 1959 it moved again, this time to Damascus where it is currently situated. Under Muslim rule it was customary for the Patriarch to be confirmed in office by the Caliph or Sultan, a situation which (as in other communities) created conditions for rivalry, corruption and exploitation, which further weakened the morale of the Syrians. By the late 18th and early 19th centuries, when reports on the condition of the Syrian Orthodox began to reach the West, it is clear that, like the Church of the East described above, the Syrians were in a sorry state. Badger summarised their condition as ‘inferior to any of the native communities in general intelligence: their ecclesiastical affairs are very badly administered, and their bishops and priests far behind the clergy of all the other sects’.79 In 1838 Southgate found the Syrian Orthodox fearful and depressed: ‘the future appears dark for them’.80 Unlike some of the other communities in the Ottoman Empire, the Syrian Orthodox did not have official milet status, nor a permanent representative at Constantinople who could deal with the Porte directly on their behalf.81 The Syrians were considered part of the Armenian milet and the Armenian Patriarch officially dealt with their affairs.82 This, concluded Badger, ‘doubtless is another cause why their ecclesiastical interests have been so much 359 (with numerous colour photographs); and Brock et al., Hidden Pearl, II, p.165f. An account of life at Deir al Za‘faran (and of several other parts of the Syrian Church) in the 19th century can be found in Oswald Parry, Six Months in a Syrian Monastery: Being the Record of a visit to the Head Quarters of the Syrian Church in Mesopotamia, with some Account of the Yazidis or Devil Worshippers of Mosul and El Jilwah, their Sacred Book, (London, Horace Cox, 1895). 79 Badger, Rituals, p.44. 80 Narrative of a Tour, vol. 2, p.287. 81 A milet was an ethnic grouping within the Ottoman Empire, defined primarily by religious identity. The ecclesiastical head was thus also the ‘head’ of his ‘nation’ – an ‘ethnarch’. 82 Milet status was not granted until 1882 (Parry, Six Months, p.314).

48

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

neglected’.83 Again, like other Christian minorities, the Syrian Orthodox suffered considerably in the Great War and in the Turkish Republic that resulted from it. Emigration from the ancient homelands has been remorseless, though there are a few encouraging signs. Gradually Syriac gave way to Arabic and Turkish for many of the community, which became concentrated in the Tur Abdin region of what is now Southwest Turkey. Contact with the Roman Church Like their East Syrian counterparts, Syrian Orthodox patriarchs have at various times entered into communion with Rome, the first to do so being Ignatios IX Bahnam in the thirteenth century, followed in 1552 by Ignatios XVII Ni’matallah.84 Very often these ‘reconciliations’ were short-lived and the 17th and 18th centuries in particular saw a number of oscillations between Roman obedience and independence, marked by several unedifying episodes. By the late 18th century, there came into being a permanent community of West Syrians under Roman jurisdiction. The community was recognised as a distinct milet by the Turks in 1843.85 These constitute the Syrian Catholic Church which today numbers approximately 100,000 faithful.86 The patriarchal residence is now in Beirut. The role of the Syrian Catholic Church in the Indian situation has hitherto been largely ignored and awaits scholarly investigation. Like the Church of the East, the Syrian Orthodox Church has also agreed common Christological and Pastoral Statements with

Badger, Rituals, p.5. Etheridge, Syrian Churches, p.149. See Anthony O’Mahoney, ‘The Syrian Catholic Church: a study on history and ecclesiology’, in Sobornost, 28. 2 (2006), 28-50, for an overview of the history of those Syrians who entered into communion with Rome. 85 Attwater, The Christian Churches of the East, vol. I, p.149. The hopedfor protection afforded by status (and France) seems to have been a factor in the acceptance of papal jurisdiction by many Syrian Orthodox (see De Courtois, Forgotten Genocide, pp.33-37 and sources quoted there). 86 Its equivalent body in Kerala is the Syro-Malankara jurisdiction, the 20th century origins of which will be noted below. 83 84

SYRIAN CHRISTIANITY

49

the Roman Catholic Church.87 It has also in recent decades engaged in dialogue with other Churches. In partnership with the other Oriental Orthodox Churches (Armenian, Coptic, Ethiopian and India) it has participated in conversations with the Chalcedonian Orthodox which have produced Agreed Statements on Christology.88 Remarkably, it is acknowledged that ‘both families have always loyally maintained the same authentic Orthodox Christological faith, and the same unbroken continuity of apostolic tradition, though they may have used Christological terms in different ways. It is this common faith in continuous loyalty to the Apostolic Tradition that should be the basis of our unity and communion’.89 The Syrian Orthodox Church, again in partnership with the other Oriental Orthodox Churches, has also agreed a common Christological Statement with the Churches of the Anglican Communion.90

87 Zakka Iwas’ agreement with Pope John Paul II in 1984 built on earlier contact between Jacob III and Paul VI (http://sor.cua.edu /Ecumenism/RC.html). 88 See Paulos Mar Gregorios, William H. Lazareth and Nikos A. Nissiotis (eds.), Does Chalcedon Divide or Unite? Towards Convergence in Orthodox Christology, Geneva, World Council of Churches, 1981 for the earlier Agreed Statements and accompanying essays (including one by V.C Samuel of the Malankara Orthodox Church). More recent Agreements and related essays can be found in Christine Chaillot and Alexander Belopopsky (eds), Towards Unity: The Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches, Geneva, Inter-Orthodox Dialogue, 1998. 89 Chaillot and Belopopsky, Towards Unity, p.64. 90 In 2002.

50

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

The Maphrian91 One Syrian Orthodox institution which requires some explanation as it was to impact directly on the story of the MISC is that of (mapryana) meaning ‘fructifier’ in Maphrian, from the Syriac ‫ܐ‬ the sense of consecrator of bishops.92 The dignity is unique to the Syrian Orthodox and originally denoted the bishop – second in rank to the Patriarch himself – who had authority over the West Syrians outside the Roman Empire, in lower Mesopotamia, Persia and the lands beyond.93 This authority included some prerogatives usually restricted to the Patriarch including the ordination and deposition of bishops, and the consecration of muron or chrism.94 Etheridge states that ‘in former days his power was all but supreme’.95 At times the term ‘Catholicos’ was also used for the senior bishop of the Syrian Orthodox in the Eastern regions, though there is continuing debate as to whether the two titles are in fact interchangeable.96 The first bishop to enjoy Maphrian-like status See the articles ‘Catholicos’ and ‘Maphrian’ in K.Parry et al. (eds), Blackwell Dictionary’ and online at WikiSyriaca (http://www.bethmardutho.org/wikisyriaca/index.php?title=Maphrian). Parry (Six Months, p.317f) describes the travels of the maphrianate and its powers. For a brief description of the maphrianate from a modern Syrian Orthodox perspective, see Ignatios Zakka I Iwas, Syrian Orthodox Church, pp.26-33. A detailed treatment and list of Maphrians can be found in Baby Varghese, ‘Origin of the Maphrianate of Tagrit’, in The Harp, vol. XX (2006), 305-349. 92 Etheridge, Syrian Churches, p.148. 93 Prior to the institution of the maphrianate, Jacob Baradaeus had consecrated a bishop for the non-Chalcedonians in Persia. Thereafter, a number of Miaphysite bishops can be documented (Varghese, ‘Maphrianate’, p.313-316f.). 94 Atiyah, Eastern Christianity, p.220. 95 Etheridge, Syrian Churches, p.148. 96 See, for example, Geevarghese Chediath, ‘The Malankara Catholic Catholicos and the Catholicate’, in The Harp, XX (2006), 195-207, who argues that a Catholicos is the head of his community, and, unlike the Maphrian, does not have a superior. When used in a West Syrian context, the term ‘Catholicos’ must not to be confused with the senior bishop of the Church of the East (see above). Parry states that the Church of the East disputed the Maphrian’s claim to the title of Catholicos (Six Months, p.318). 91

SYRIAN CHRISTIANITY

51

was Marutha, Metropolitan of Tikrit, who died in 649.97 The seat of the Maphrian was settled at Tikrit98 in the early 7th century, though has since also been located at Nineveh, Baghdad, Mosul and the Monastery of Mar Mattai.99 At its greatest extent his rule encompassed 15 bishoprics covering southern Iraq, Arabia, Persia and Afghanistan. The most famous Maphrian was Yohannan abu’lFaraj ibn al-‘Ibri, better known as Bar Hebraeus (1264-86).100 For many years the normal process was for the Maphrian to succeed as Patriarch.101 In recent centuries the position became a titular dignity with little actual additional power. The episcopal name came to be Basilios, the name associated with Mosul (see below) where the Maphrians resided for considerable periods, in the monastery of Mar Matai.102 There is unclarity concerning the historical relationship between the Maphrian/Catholicos and the Church in India, though much of the acrimonious division in the West Syrian community in Marutha and his successors were styled ‘Metropolitans of Tikrit’; the actual title ‘Maphrian’ did not come into use until the 12th century (Varghese, ‘Maphrianate’, p.336f.). 98 Tikrit was the birthplace of Salah al-Din (Saladin). It is currently familiar as the birthplace of the Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. Immediately prior to conquest by the Arabs in 637 it had been under Byzantine occupation (Varghese, ‘Maphrianate’, p.328). 99 Etheridge, Syrian Churches, p.149. 100 It is not know why he adopted the name Gregorios. His approach towards other Christian traditions was notably irenic: so much so that at his funeral in 1286 Orthodox, Syrian Orthodox, Church of the East and Armenians joined together to honour him (Fortescue, Lesser Churches, p.330). 101 Bar Hebraeus did not wish to become Patriarch, partly because of the state of the Western dioceses: ‘Even were I ambitious of the Patriarchate, as some men, yet when I behold the Western dioceses, how wasted they are, what remains in them that I should desire them?’ (quoted in Parry, Six Months, p.318). 102 The first Maphrian to be named Basilios was Barsuma Maudanay (1422-1455) (Varghese, ‘Maphrianate’, p.340). Mar Matai has been described as ‘situated, fortress-like and partly hewn in the solid rock on the Maqlub Mountain, overlooking the plains of ancient Nineveh twenty miles north-west of Mosul’ (Atiyah, Eastern Christianity, p. 191). The monastery contains both the cell and the tomb of Bar Hebraeus. 97

52

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

Kerala is ostensibly related to it.103 The position of Maphrian was abolished by Patriarch Ignatios Yacoub II and the Holy Synod of the Syrian Orthodox Church in the 19th century, but was subsequently revived, principally for use in India (see below).104 Syrian Orthodox Maphrians were to play a significant role in the story of the MISC. Episcopal Nomenclature In the Syrian Orthodox tradition particular episcopal names are given to the occupants of specific sees. As these often provide clues to the status or origin of a bishop, it will be helpful to set out the main ones below: Antioch (the Patriarch) Mosul (the Maphrian) Jerusalem Edessa (Urfa)

Ignatios Basilios Gregorios Severus

103 In the controversies concerning the relationship of the Indian Church and the Patriarchate of Antioch in the 20th century, a distinction was made between the offices of Catholicos and Maphrian by the Indians: ‘The Church wanted a system that will assure their independence and at the same time ensure generation of its own ecclesiastical leadership. Establishment of a Catholicossate which preserves full autonomy was the answer, the Church realised. The Catholicate of Seleucia was conceived as their model, not the Maphrianate with its dependence on Antioch’ (Daniel, Orthodox Church, p.306). In 2005 Pope John Paul II bestowed the title of ‘Catholicos’ on the head of the Syro-Malankara Church in Kerala, thus creating a third Catholicos among the Indian Syrians (see Chediath, ‘Catholicos’, passim). The issue is still highly politically contentious in India. 104 From an Indian perspective this allege suppression is controversial. For a brief account see Varghese, ‘Maphrianate’, pp.340-342. Atiyah gives the date of 1859 as that of the suppression of the Maphrianate (p. 184; 1895 on p. 220 seems to be an error). This is the date given by Varghese for the death of Maphrian Basilios Behnam IV (‘Maphrianate’, p.342). Varghese also states that Mar Behnam IV was excommunicated by the Patriarch on making a Roman Catholic profession of faith, but does not state when this happened (‘Maphrianate’, p.349). Zakka Iwas gives 1860 (Syrian Orthodox Church, p.32).

SYRIAN CHRISTIANITY Amida (Diyabekr) Mardin Aleppo Nisibis Maipharqat (Farkin) Ma’adan Jazireh

53

Timotheos Athanasios Dionysios Athanasios Ivanios Kurillos Julios105

The abbots of the more important monasteries were often of episcopal rank, with that of Mar Matai being styled Archbishop. THROUGH INDIAN EYES?

Having reviewed the diverging tendencies that led to the existence of two Churches – the Syrian Orthodox and the Church of the East – holding theoretically irreconcilable Christological positions and condemning each other as heretics as a result, it is salutary to ask the question, how much of this mattered in India? To anticipate some of the developments to be outlined in the next Chapter, it is important to remember that for much of the Indian Church’s existence, there seems to have been only one significant individual from West Asia actually in Kerala at any one time – the Metropolitan himself. No doubt from time to time there were a number of other clergy, and doubtless, too, there were laymen – merchants or mariners – also intermittently present. But their numbers were insignificant in comparison with the indigenous community and its priesthood. Nor, until the 19th century, do any significant numbers of Indian clerics seem ever to have visited the heartlands of the Syrian Churches. Nobody knew, therefore, what Syrian Christianity was ‘supposed’ to look like; all they had to go on were the received traditions of the community and the example of the foreign bishop. Given that situation, how well would the Indian Church have dis105 These are the names given by Parry, Six Months, pp.321-323. Parry says that the translation of bishops from one see to another was causing considerable confusion in his day. See also Edavalikel Philipos, The Syrian Christians of Malabar: Otherwise called the Christians of St Thomas, by the Rev. Edavalikel Philipos, Chorepiscopos, Cathanar of the Great Church at Cottayam, (ed. G.B.Howard), Oxford, James Parker and Co., 1869, p.15f.

54

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

tinguished between the West and East Syrian traditions? To begin to try to answer this question it is necessary to review briefly some features of the two Churches as they might have been perceived through Indian eyes.106 Monasticism Both East and West Syrian traditions had strong monastic traditions. For both Churches (as, indeed, for many others, both in East and West) the monasteries were centres of learning and material aid, as well as of spirituality. Following the spread of Islam it was the monasteries that took on some of the functions of the Syriac schools of higher education. Large numbers of monasteries were founded, some of which were to change from one tradition to another over the centuries.107 In both traditions monks came to be referred to as ‘Rabban’ – ‘our master’.108 Organised monastic communities did not survive the severe disruptions which the Church of the East suffered, though a tradition of monastic hermits survived until 1886 when Rabban Yonan, ‘the last of the theologians of the “Church of the East”, the last of her monastic order’, died.109 They were, however, flourishing in the centuries during which the Indian Church was connected with that Church. Organised communities of monks were also strong in the Syrian Orthodox Church and have survived to the present day.110 In this tradition the professed ܶ monk came to be easily identified by ‫ )ܐ‬embroidered with crosses, which is the cowl or schema (‫ܻ ܳ ܐ‬ 106 This review includes a few details which will be of significance in later chapters. 107 The monastery of Mar Augen on Mount Izla/Izlo, for example, seems at different times to have belonged to the Church of the East, the Chaldeans, and the Syrian Orthodox (Hidden Pearl, II, p. 135f.). 108 Hidden Pearl, II, p.126. The term was also used of the Director of the famous East Syrian School at Nisibis. 109 Athelstan Riley, of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Mission to the Assyrians, quoted in Coakley, Church of the East, p.106. A photograph of Rabban Yonan appears on the cover of the book and on page 108. 110 For a modern treatment see Phillip Tovey, Encountering Syrian Monasticism, Kunnamkulam, MISC Youth League, 1997, and Francis Acharya, The Ritual Clothing of Monks, Kottayam, SEERI, 1997.

SYRIAN CHRISTIANITY

55

worn at all times.111 For many centuries bishops have been chosen only from the ranks of the Rabbans. Organised monasteries on traditional Orthodox lines seem never to have been established in India. The Ramban – the Indian version of ‘Rabban’ – is more likely to be a solitary, or simply viewed as a senior priest. Today if an unmarried priest who is not a Ramban is elected a bishop he is ordained to this order prior to his episcopal consecration. From an Indian perspective there was thus relatively little difference between the East and West Syrians in this area of Church life. Both had organised communities in the West Asia. Both had married priests, but chose their bishops from the ranks of the celibates.112 From the Greek σχῆμα. In the Middle East these crosses tend to be rather smaller and embroidered on a smaller area of the schema on the crown of the head than in India, where they tend to be larger and to cover more of the cowl. The reason for this appears to be that it is necessary to cover the crosses with a turban or cylindrical hat in the Middle East in order to avoid offending Muslims. In Kerala, where this consideration does not apply, the schema is worn openly. The schema has been adopted by Egyptian monks in recent decades, its use having been vigorously encouraged by Pope Shenouda III. See John Watson, ‘The Desert Fathers Today: Contemporary Coptic Monasticism’, in O’Mahony, Eastern Christianity, p. 129. Refusal to wear the schema (qalansuwa/qolunsha) in Egypt is a symbol of resistance to Pope Shenouda’s monastic reforms. In Kerala at least three different types of schema can be identified. That of a Ramban has white crosses and dividing lines. The schema of a bishop has some red thread among the white stitching of the crosses, together with red and gold stitched dividing lines. When celebrating the Qurbana, bishops will usually wear a schema with crosses embroidered in gold thread. A further distinction to be found in Kerala lies in the shape of the cowl. The central front to back ridge is rather higher in the cowls of Mar Thoma and MISC bishops than in those of the Orthodox and Jacobites, whose cowls are closer fitting. Photographic evidence from the 19th century suggests that the Mar Thoma and MISC are preserving an older style, while the Orthodox and Jacobites have adapted to the current West Asian form. 112 There had been a period from 497 when the Church of the East required even bishops and the Patriarch to marry. This had been in effect revoked in 544 (see Baumer, Church of the East, p.78) though there remained a more tolerant attitude to clerical marriage. The Church of the East allowed (and still allows) priests to marry after ordination, whereas 111

56

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

Use of Syriac One of the chief characteristics of the Indian Church was its attachment to the Syriac language. So strong was this that, while the Portuguese managed to force many changes onto the community (see Chapter 4) they had to permit the continued use of Syriac as the exclusive vehicle of worship. A native speaker of Syriac from West Asia was therefore instinctively held in high regard. The evidence is mixed as to how discerning the Indians were in this regard. The 4th century Christological divide had had linguistic consequences: ‘As the Eastern and Western Syriac regions went their separate ways theologically and liturgically, Syriac underwent a gradual dialectal bifurcation, most obviously with regard to the pronunciation of vowels’.113 ‘Under the influence of Greek, West Syriac changed more significantly than East Syriac; thus the latter represents a more archaic step in the development of the language. This is clearly evident in pronunciation’.114 The two forms of pronunciation can be detected in India to this day. The written script also took slightly different forms in the two traditions. The Church of the East script became more ‘angular’, eventually adopting a pointing system of vowels, while the Syrian Orthodox came to use more rounded ‘serto’ characters, with (as might be expected from their more westerly location) vowels modified from Greek.115 The common Estrangelo ‫ܫ‬ ‫‘( ܐܒ ܢ ܕܒ ܐ‬Our Father in ܿ ܿ ܿ ƣƾLjǢƦ‫ܕ‬ ܿ ܿ ܵ ‫ܫ‬ƯǝǤNJ heaven, hallowed be your name’) becameܰ ǃLjǡ ܼ ܸ ܵ ܼ ܼ ‫ܢ‬ƲƦ‫ܐ‬ ܼ ܼ in ܼ ܰ ܰ ‫ ܽܐܒ ܢ‬in West Syriac. There is East Syriac, and ܳ ‫ܕܒ ܰ ܳ ܐ ܶ ܰ ܫ‬ evidence of Indian Christians not being able to read Syriac scripts that they were not used to. However, faced with a choice between a European bishop, able only to worship in Latin, and a West Asian bishop who could lead worship in Syriac, the latter would have been certainly preferred.

this is not normally permitted in the Syrian Orthodox tradition, though this will be looked at again later. 113 S. Brock, ‘Syriac’ in Parry et al (eds), Blackwell Dictionary, p.466. 114 Baum and Winkler, Church of the East, p.158. 115 The two forms (and their common parent, Estrangelo) can be found in most Syriac grammars.

SYRIAN CHRISTIANITY

57

Worship and Vestments In the debate about whether the Indian Church would have recognised the difference between different forms of Syriac, it has to be remembered that for the ordinary illiterate worshippers Syriac was exclusively a liturgical language. Only the clergy and assistant ministers needed enough Syriac to make the appropriate responses. Furthermore, the dynamics of worship in the Church of the East and Syrian Orthodox Church are, to the observer, substantially the same. Both traditions veil the sanctuary with a curtain. In both the celebrants face east and from time to time prostrate themselves; the service is chanted and incense is used. The liturgical vestments of the two Churches are essentially the same, with some slight differences.116 Both Churches required priests and bishops to wear full beards (the Latins, by contrast, were shaved). Both use leavened bread (again, contrasting with the unleavened wafers of the Latins). All this meant that visually the Christians in India would have found it difficult to distinguish visitors from the East or West Syrian patriarchs. There were some differences that would have been noticed. The two traditions, for example, now make the sign of the cross in different ways. The Church of the East, like the Chalcedonian Orthodox Churches, makes the sign from right to left. The Syrian Orthodox (and the Copts) make the sign from left to right.117 This may be a result of Latin influence in the Middle East in the Middle Ages or of a desire to distinguish themselves from the Chalcedonians and ‘Nestorians’. The more ancient form seems to be right to left and to have been Roman practice until the Middle Ages.118 116 Both have kuthina (alb), zunara (girdle), zende (cuffs) and phaino (chasuble – opened at the front to give the appearance of a cope) which are identical. Only the stole differs: in the Syrian Orthodox Church the priest’s stole is joined as in the Chalcedonian Orthodox, while in the Church of the East it is unjoined, as in the Latin Church. 117 Atiyah, Eastern Christianity, p. 224. 118 ‘It is to be noted that even in the ancient Latin Church, the ancient form [ie right to left] was in use …’ G. Vavanikunnel and J. Madey, ‘A “Reform” of the Restored Syro-Malabar Qurbana?’ in Jacob Vellian (ed) The Malabar Church, Rome, Pont. Inst. Orient, Stud, 1970, p.89. See also Catholic Encyclopedia article (online at http://

58

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

That right to left was the ancient form in India is proved by Decree XXXVII of the Synod of Diamper (see below) which sought to change the practice to Latin usage. (In the post Vatican II process of de-Latinising the Syro-Malabar rite, the sign was restored to right to left in 1962, though was changed again in 1968, due, no doubt, to popular resistance.119 The official text of the SyroMalabar Qurbana, published in 1986 in time for Pope John Paul II’s visit to India requires the celebrant to cross himself from right to left. The English rubrics are silent about the form of the gesture to be used by the laity.120) It would be wrong either to minimise or to exaggerate the differences between the East and West Syrian traditions. However, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that, from an Indian perspective, and particularly when compared with Latin-rite Europeans, East and West Syrians would have looked almost indistinguishable. This needs to be borne in mind as we now examine, albeit briefly, the story of the ‘Syrian’ Church in South India.

www.newadvent.org/cathen/13785a.htm), and Andreas Andreopoulos, The Sign of the Cross: The Gesture, the Mystery, the History, Brewster, Massachusetts, 2006, pp.34-37. 119 See Paul Pallath, The Eucharistic Liturgy of the St Thomas Christians and the Synod of Diamper, Vadavathoor, Kottayam, Oriental Institute of Religious Studies India, 2008, pp.175-177 and Vavanikunnel and Madey, loc. cit. 120 Taksa Quadisha, (Trivandrum, Syro-Malabar Bishops’ Conference, 1986). Pages 1 – 242 are in Malayalam, followed by an English text on pages numbered 1 to 71. The directions about the sign of the cross are on p.2 of the English text.

CHAPTER 3: ‘SYRIAN’ CHRISTIANITY IN INDIA TO 1498 The story of the ancient Syrian community in India has fascinated writers and travellers down the centuries and consequently its history has been told many times.1 No attempt is made to repeat it in any detail here. Instead a basic sketch is presented, sufficient to enable an understanding of the context in which the Malabar Independent Syrian Church came into existence and its role in the events that were re-shaping the St Thomas Christian community.2 1 The account that follows is restricted almost entirely to the community in the modern state of Kerala. There is, however, evidence of the presence of indigenous Christians in several places throughout India prior to the arrival of Europeans. For a survey see Mar Abraham Mattam, The Indian Church of St Thomas Christians and Her Missionary Enterprises before the Sixteenth Century, Vadavathoor, Oriental Institute of Religious Studies India, 1985. 2 Leslie Brown's The Indian Christians of St. Thomas (2nd edition, 1982) remains a good introduction. The story of the Syrian Churches forms only part of the late Stephen Neill's two volume work A History of Christianity in India, but it receives generous and detailed treatment. The same is true of George Mark Moraes, A History of Christianity in India from Early Times to St Francis Xavier: AD 52-1542, Bombay, Manaktalas, 1964. The Indian Churches of St. Thomas by C. P. Mathew and M. M. Thomas provides a clear and concise account of the community and its divisions. Aziz Atiyah (A History of Eastern Christianity) describes the Indian Church. Eyewitness accounts from those who visited or worked in Kerala in the nineteenth century (for example, G.B. Howard (The Christians of St. Thomas and their Liturgies), Thomas Whitehouse, (Lingerings of Light in a Dark Land) and Richards (The Indian Christians of St. Thomas) give an excellent 'flavour' of the Syrian community and its dealings. Also of great value in understanding the Syrian ecclesiastical tradition are the descriptions by Badger (The Nestorians and their Rituals) and Parry (Six Months in a Syrian Monastery) of their travels

59

60

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

Nor is any attempt made to explore the interplay of Christianity and indigenous Indian beliefs and practices. This interaction over many centuries has given rise to a complex pattern of social and religious behaviour and expectations. These are important, for they often transcend ‘denominational’ differences between Christians, but lie beyond the scope of the present work.3 in the Middle East. A thorough treatment of events by Roman Catholic scholars can be found in the History of Christianity in India series, in particular volume I – A.M. Mundandan, From the Beginning up to the Middle of the Sixteenth Century (Bangalore, Church History Association of India, 1989); volume 2 – Joseph Thekkedath, From the Middle of the Sixteenth Century to the End of the Seventeenth Century (Bangalore, Church History Association of India, 1988); volume III – E.R. Hambye, Eighteenth Century (Bangalore, Church History Association of India, 1997). The Syrian/Indian Orthodox account prior to the 20th century split in that community is presented by E.M.Philip, The Indian Church of St Thomas, (first ed. Kottayam, E.P.Mathew, 1908; reprinted with notes by Kooriakose Moolayil, Mor Adai Study Centre, Cheeranchira, 2002). For the perspective of the Malankara Orthodox Church there is David Daniel, The Orthodox Church of India, (2nd edition New Delhi, 1986) and for that of the Patriarchal Syrians, Yacoub III, History of the Syrian Church of India, 1951 (ET Matti Mousa), Piscataway, Gorgias Press, 2009 (it should be noted that this book was written and published while the author was still Mar Severus Jacob Toma, Metropolitan of Damascus and Beruit); and Chorepiscopa Kaniamparampil Curien, The Syrian Orthodox Church in India and its Apostolic Faith (Detroit, Philips Gnashikhamony, 1989, printed in India). Mar Thoma writers include Juhanon Mar Thoma, Christianity in India and a Brief History of the Mar Thoma Syrian Church, (Madras, E.M. Cherian, 1968) and K. T. Joy, The Mar Thoma Church: A Study of its Growth and Contribution, (Kottayam, 1986). Mar Aprem, The Chaldean Syrian Church in India (Trichur, Mar Nasai Press, 1977) and Indian Church History Lectures, (Thrissur Mar Narsai Press, 2007) are brief accounts from the perspective of his own community, the Church of the East. A recent restatement of the various interpretations can be found in Kuncheria Pathil (ed.), ‘The Catholic Churches in India: Self-Understanding and Challenges Today’ (Jeevadhara– A Journal for Socio-Religious Research, XXXIII.196, (July 2003), and ‘Indian Churches Self-Understanding and Challenges Today 2’, in Jeevadhava – A Journal for Socio-Religious Research, XXXIV. 202 (July 2004). 3 For an anthropological treatment see Susan Bayly, Saints, and Susan Visvanathan, The Christians of Kerala: History, Belief and Ritual among the Yakoba, Madras, Oxford University Press, 1993, and the sources quoted

‘SYRIAN’ CHRISTIANITY IN INDIA TO 1498

61

A controverted identity It is important to note at the outset, however, that the question of the community’s ecclesial identity prior to the arrival of the Portuguese, is still hotly contested and of considerable political significance today.4 Interpretation of the events tends to follow ecclesiastical affiliation.5 Thus Syrian Orthodox writers tend to favour a long-standing historic link with Antioch.6 This is rejected by Orthere. Brown has an extensive description of the social life of the St Thomas Christians (Indian Christians, pp.167-307). 4 The historic affiliation of the Church was a crucial area of dispute in the ‘Seminary Case’ which had its final hearing in the Royal Court of Final Appeal in 1889 (see Chapter 14). The fate of the entire non-Roman Syrian community depended to a considerable extent on which interpretation of history the Judges accepted. 5 This is a long-established tradition. For examples of 17th and 18th century indigenous accounts written to justify particular positions see Istvan Perczel, ‘Four Apologetic Church Histories from India’, in The Harp, vol. XXIV (2009) (forthcoming). 6 For example, E.M.Philip concluded in 1908: ‘Thus, from the various pieces of evidence, internal, external and circumstantial, through which we have gone in this chapter, we may legitimately conclude that the Syrian Church of Malabar was Jacobite in her tenets from the sixth to the fifteenth century’ (Indian Church, p.131). Philip was followed by P.T.Geeverghese (later Mar Ivanios of Bethany) in his essay, ‘Were the Syrian Christians Nestorians?’ (Reprinted in Kuriakose Corepiscopa Moolayil (ed.), Four Historic Documents, Cheeranchira, Mor Adai Study Centre, 2002, pp.107-164): ‘… the Syrian Church of Malabar could not have been anything but Jacobite, before the fifteenth century’ (p.164). Curien Corepiscopa Kaniamparampil, also a Syrian Orthodox, takes the same line: ‘At least from AD 345, the Malankara Church was under the supremacy of the Patriarch of Antioch; who, directly, or indirectly through the Maphrians, administered the Church by deputing Prelates, furnished with liturgical books and literature’ (Syrian Orthodox Church, p.142). Yacoub III, Syrian Church of India, sets out at length arguments for a long-standing connection with Antioch. The author resided in Kerala from 1934 to 1946 as Ramban Abdul Ahad, and became Patriarch Jacob III in 1957 until his death in 1980. Both in India and as Patriarch he was closely involved in the struggle to assert Patriarchal authority over the Malankara Church. By contrast the Malankara Orthodox historian V.C.Samuel says of Philip’s conclusion: ‘… no other historian who has done serious work in the study of the subject takes him seriously’ (V.C. Samuel, Truth Triumphs: An Ac-

62

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

thodox Syrian and Mar Thoma writers who argue either for East Syrian jurisdiction or that the Church in India was essentially independent, though receiving its bishops from the Church of the East in Persia.7 Roman Catholic writers accept the East Syrian nature of the Church, but maintain that it was in communion with Rome.8 Fortunately, not only does the whole issue predate the genesis of the MISC, but (as will be seen below) there is broad agreement on the nature of the Indian Church immediately prior to the arrival of the Portuguese; it is therefore not necessary to seek to resolve the question in the present work. THE ST THOMAS TRADITION

The question whether or not the Christian Church was planted in Kerala by the Apostle Thomas also continues to be hotly debated down to the present day.9 Only a brief survey is necessary here to count of the Life and Achievements of Malakankara Metropolitan Vattasseril Geevarghese, Mar Dionysios [VI], Kottayam, Malankara Orthodox Church Publications, 1986, p.128). 7 ‘The Mar Thoma people believe that the Malabar Church founded by St Thomas was essentially an independent Church. Though this independent Church came into contact with other Churches which came to Malabar, that does not mean that those Churches have any supremacy over this independent Church ….The Mar Thoma Church did not align itself to any Christian denomination’, K.T.Joy, The Mar Thoma Church: A Study of its Growth and Contribution, Kottayam, 1986, p.78f. 8 For a recent statement of this position, see Philip Chembakassery, ‘The Malankara Catholic Church: Problems and Prospects’, in Kuncheria Pathil, The Catholic Churches in India: Self-understanding and Challenges Today, in Jeevadhava, XXXIII, 16 (July 2003), pp.324-336. See also Placid Podipara, The St Thomas Christians, London, Darton, Longman & Todd, 1970, pp.4662, 102-115. Podipara accepts that there are some obscure references which might suggest contact with Antioch, but believes certainty is impossible (p.66f). 9 For overview accounts and discussions of the evidence see Moffett, Christianity in Asia, pp.25-44; Gillman and Klimkkeit, Christians in Asia, pp.159-166; Neill, History, vol.1, pp.26-36. George Nedungatt, SJ, (Quest for the Historical Thomas, Apostle of India: A Re-reading of the Evidence, Bangalore, Theological Publications in India, 2008) reviews the recent literature and theories, reproduces over 30 patristic texts and examines Indian traditions and ballads. He concludes that the combined weight of evidence is

‘SYRIAN’ CHRISTIANITY IN INDIA TO 1498

63

provide an insight into the self understanding of the community. The evidence is scattered in various documents, archaeological remains, and in the oral tradition of the community itself and of its Hindu neighbours. The ‘internal tradition’ maintained in Kerala is summarised by Mundandan: According to Indian tradition, St Thomas came by sea, and landed first at Cranganore about the year AD 52; converted high caste Hindu families in Cranganore, Palayur, Quilon and some other places; visited the Coromandel coast, making conversions;10 crossed over to China and preached the Gospel; returned to India and organised the Christians of Malabar under some guides (priests) from among the leading families he had converted, and erected a few public places of worship. Then he moved to the Coromandel, and suffered martyrdom on or near the Little Mount. His body was brought to the town of Mylapore and was buried in a holy shrine he had built. As the tradition goes, Christians from Malabar, West Asia and even from China, used to go to Mylapore and venerate the tomb.11

There are a number of features which seem at first sight improbable that in fact add credence to the story. It is known, for example, that there were trading links between Kerala and China – as the famous ‘Chinese nets’ still pointed out to visitors today testify, and the presence of East Syrian Christianity in China has already been noted. Mylapore was known to Roman traders, and the Portuguese certainly discovered an ancient site there, accompanied in favour of the Apostle Thomas having evangelised India. A brief analysis of the content of some of the traditional songs can be found in Mar Aprem, Indian Church History Lectures, pp.15-20. 10 The Coromandel coast is the east cost of India (Coromandel = Cholamandalam ‘the country of the Cholas’ ), (Mundadan, HCI, I, p.49). 11 Mundadan, HCI, I, p.29. An English translation of the portion of a Malayalam text dated 1770 concerning the Thomas tradition is given in Richards, Indian Christians, pp.73-77. This seems to be the same text of which latter portions are reproduced in Whitehouse, Lingerings, pp.303308. Whitehouse merely gives a brief summary of what the MS has to say about St Thomas.

64

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

by Christian traditions. Six of the seven sites in Kerala where St Thomas is reputed to have founded communities were on the coast; the seventh is on an inland trading route. Certainly, classical Roman and Greek writers knew of this part of India and, as already noted, coins of first century AD Roman Emperors have been found there.12 ‘External’ evidence begins with the Syriac Acts of Thomas, dated to about the year 200.13 The story is fanciful in many respects to the modern reader, but it does attribute missionary activity in India to St Thomas. The critical question is whether the ‘India’ in the Acts is South India, or whether it refers to the north west of the country. This remains an unresolved question in a number of sources. From the fourth century onwards there is documentary evidence of a Christian community in southwest India linked primarily with Syriac-speaking Churches in Mesopotamia. In the middle of the 5th century, for example, Cosmas Indicopleustes, probably a native of Alexandria, who travelled extensively, wrote of Christians 'In the country called Male where the pepper grows' and ‘another place called Calliana’ where there is ‘a bishop who is appointed from Persia’.14 Cosmas goes on to speak of `Persian Christians' in the island of Sri Lanka.15 Brown carefully reviews the evidence and concludes that while it `does not prove the Apostolic mission of St. Thomas in South India . . . it does show that there was no physical 12 For a discussion of the relationship between India and the Western world in antiquity, see Moraes, History of Christianity in India, pp.13-24 and the sources quoted there. 13 A.F.J. Klijn, The Acts of Thomas: Introduction, Text and Commentary, Leiden, Brill, 1962; G. Bornkamm, ‘The Acts of Thomas’, in E. Hennecke, New Testament Apocrypha, vol.2, ed. W. Schneemelcher, English ed. by R.H. Wilson (London, Lutterworth, 1965). 14 Book III (J.W. McCrindle, The Christian Topography of Cosmas, an Egyptian Monk; translated from the Greek, and Edited, with Notes and Introduction, by J.W. McCrindle MA …Late Principal of the Government College at Patna, and Fellow of Calcutta University, London, Hakluyt Society, 1897, p.119. There is some dispute whether Calliana is Kalyana near Bombay or Quilon in Kerala (McCrindle, Cosmas, p.366, n.5). Cosmas may have belonged to the Church of the East (McCrindle, Cosmas, p.ix). 15 Book XI. McCrindle, Cosmas, p.365.

‘SYRIAN’ CHRISTIANITY IN INDIA TO 1498

65

reason why Christian traders, or the Apostle himself, could not have come to Malabar in the first century'.16 He adds: We cannot prove that the Apostle worked in South India any more than we can disprove it; but the presence of Christians of undoubtedly ancient origin holding firm to the tradition, the proof of very considerable commercial contact between the Western world and the Malabar coast in the first century of our era, and the probable presence of Jewish colonies at the same time, may for some incline the balance to belief that the truth of the tradition is a reasonable possibility.17

Mundadan concludes his survey of the evidence by asserting that Brown is too cautious in his conclusion. He criticises the way in which in general, scholars familiar with western sources have tended not to be familiar with the India data, and vice versa. His own survey seeks to establish common ground and where the traditions reinforce each other. He concludes: The investigation made above into the western tradition and different aspects of the Indian tradition give me the impression that the central content stands out in clear relief, namely St Thomas the Apostle preached, died and was buried in South India. None of the arguments so far advanced seem to be strong enough to erode the validity of this central content. Nor do I foresee the possibility, as things stand, of some positive evidence being suddenly unearthed which would impair its value. The argument of convergence mentioned above, therefore, appears to me reasonable enough to be accepted. The age-old consciousness of the community of St Thomas Christians – that their origin as Christians is from the mission of St Thomas the Apostle to India – stands sufficiently justified.18 Brown, Indian Christians, p.63. Brown, Indian Christians p.59. 18 Mundadan, HCI, I, p.64. Mundadan criticised Brown and others for not taking sufficiently seriously the many Portuguese accounts, or the archaeological significance of the site at Mylapore. See the references in Mundadan and Brown in particular for arguments against a link between St Thomas and South India. 16 17

66

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

While the question of apostolic foundation of the community is not directly relevant to the story of the MISC, at least one feature of it has exerted an influence on events. Tradition states that St Thomas converted thirty-two Brahmin families, members of which until modern times could be found in the seven places traditionally associated with the saint’s labours. Brown states that ‘precedence is given in Syrian society to the descendants of these families’.19 Significantly for the story of the MISC, it was believed that St Thomas ordained priests from only four families – the Kalli, Kalikavu, Sankarapuri and Pakalomattom.20 Of these, only the Pakalomattom21 were still providing senior clerical leadership in the 16th to 18th centuries. The significance of this for the MISC will be explored in later Chapters. LATER DEVELOPMENTS

Reinforcement from West Asia Despite its remoteness, the infant Church in Kerala was not totally isolated. On the contrary the evidence suggests that it owed its continued existence to contact with the Church further west: The various sources of tradition are unanimous in evidencing that the original community constituted by the Apostle Thomas suffered a decline in the course of time. But … it was re-

19 Brown, Indian Christians, p.177. Mundadan confirms this and lists the families, adding that a number of them still retain Namputhiri names (HCI, I, p.32). This conflicts with the view that the Nambudiris entered Kerala at a late date, but cannot be discussed here. 20 According to Mundadan, some of these families are still proudly able to enumerate the number of priests that they have provided since St Thomas ordained their first member (HCI, I, p.33). Also Kaniamparampil, Syrian Orthodox Church, p.1. The Cochin State Manual acknowledges that ‘The priestly office is often hereditary, descending by the marumakkattayam system’ (p.225). 21 The spelling of this name varies widely in different sources, due in part to different systems of transliterating Malayalam. For a brief discussion of the forms see Istavan Perczel, ‘Four Apologetic Church Histories from India’, in The Harp, vol. XXIV (2009).

‘SYRIAN’ CHRISTIANITY IN INDIA TO 1498

67

invigorated by groups of Christians who came from ‘Babylon’.22

Two such groups deserve mention. One persistent account tells of an expedition led by Thomas of Cana – Cnai Thoman - in the mid-fourth century bringing a bishop, priests, deacons, men, women and children from Jerusalem, Baghdad and Nineveh. Traditions concerning this Thomas associate him with Cranganore, where he is said to have settled and become equal to the Nayars in status. The mid 4th century was a period of persecution of Christians by the Sasanians, and it is quite possible that this and other occasional migrations were prompted by persecutions in the Persian Empire.23 Mundadan, HCI, I, p.89. It should be noted in passing that the liturgical identity of the original community prior to the documented reinforcements from West Asia, is a matter of debate to the present day. For some Indian Christians it was a time when the worship and traditions of the community were authentically ‘Indian’ rather than Chaldean – ‘We can reasonably think that the apostle [Thomas] gave his converts a way of worship suited to their own culture in their own native language …’ (Varkey Vthayathil, quoted in Jeevadhara, XXXIII, 196 (July 2003), p.269). This is denied by others – ‘Recently, some Syro-Malabarians have begun with the conjecture about a so-called Indian Liturgy as the original expression of Christianity in India. Nobody could hitherto propose any historical or traditional or even some logical substantiation for such conjecture!’ (Verghese Pathikulangara, Qurbana: The Eucharistic Celebration of the ChaldeoIndian Church, Kottayam/Manganam, Denha Services, 1998, p.103). For a contemporary view of the ‘Indianness’ of the St Thomas Christians, see Geevarghese Panicker, ‘The Indian Identity of Thomas Christians of India (Kerala)’, in The Harp, vol. XIX (2006), pp.195-209. 23 There exists in Kerala to this day a Christian community claiming descent from Thomas of Cana and forming an endogamous group. Now known as the Knanaya, ‘Southist’ or Thekkumbhagar (the other St Thomas Christians being ‘Northist’ or Vadakkumbhagar), their sense of identity and separateness is so strong that in recent decades they have been provided with their own bishops by most jurisdictions. (The distinction is even reflected in certain Latin-rite Christians and Brahmins (Podipara, Latin Rite Christians, p.3).) There are numerous studies on this community. For a brief introduction see Joseph Kulathramannil, Cultural Heritage of Knanaya Syrian Christians, Sharjah, Youth Association of St Mary’s Church, n.d. ?2001. The maps show no Knayana Churches in the vicinity of Thoz22

68

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

The second significant influx from West Asia is associated with the names Sapor and Prot. According to tradition these were brothers and saints.24 These possibly 9th century Christian immigrants are credited with founding the port of Quilon, though it is likely that the story of a number of migrations have been telescoped together. There survive, however, ancient copper plates recording the privileges accorded to them by local Hindu rulers, including the keeping of the public weights, which suggests a high degree of trustworthiness in the community.25 By this stage the Christians were becoming recognised as ‘a community of high caste rank within the elaborate schemes of social and ceremonial precedence which were presided over by local kings – that is, by rulers who would now be described as orthodox Hindus’.26 By the late 15th century, when first significant European contact began, the community was heavily involved in the pepper trade, and also enjoyed a martial reputation.27

hiyur (pp.142-4). See also Jurgen Tubach, ‘Thomas Cannaneo and the Thekkumbhagar (Southists)’, in The Harp, XIX (2006), 399-412. The historian E.M. Philip, whose work will be referred to extensively in later Chapters was a Knanaya. No MISC families belong to this group. 24 The names therefore sometimes have the prefix ‘Mar’. The names are given in various forms and may derive from the Persian Pherox and the Syrian Aphraat. See Mundadan,HCI, I, p.103ff. 25 For a discussion of the plates see Mundadan, HCI, I, pp.165-173. Facsimiles of these plates can be found in JRAS, XIV, (1843) 343-5. The facsimiles were obtained from the Revd Benjamin Bailey ‘Principal of the College at Cottayam, where the originals are preserved’. Today they are divided between the Mar Thoma and Malankara Orthodox Churches. See Brown, Indian Christians, pp.74-76, 85-90 for the text of one of the plates and a discussion of their significance. Also Bayly, Saints, p.246, and Neill, History, vol. 1, pp.45-47, 388-390 and the references given there. Copper plates were a common way of recording grants – see the various articles listed in Frederick Eden Pargiter, Centenary Volume of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, London, Royal Asiatic Society, 1923. 26 Bayly, Saints, p.8. 27 Bayly, Saints, pp.247-253.

‘SYRIAN’ CHRISTIANITY IN INDIA TO 1498

69

THE STONE CROSSES

Tangible proof of the existence of the community and its Persian links is provided by a number of carved stone crosses with Pahlavi inscriptions which date from between the 7th and 9th centuries.28 One of these was discovered by the Portuguese at Mylapore in 1547.29 Four others exist in Kerala itself, perhaps the oldest being in the Valiapally (Great Church) in Kottayam.30 The other three are thought to be either copies of this or else of the cross in Mylapore. All of them are cut in relief on slabs of granite. The arms end in floral forms and leaves spring from the base. Leaved crosses are ‘a distinctive, but by no means unique, feature of the art of the Church of the East … a design that was favoured more than others by East Syrian Christians’.31 The foliate form is believed to result from a combination of the Cross with the Tree of Life.32 Some of the Indian forms are surmounted with a descending dove, representing the Holy Spirit. The use of Pahlavi script points of course to Persia as the country of origin and almost certainly confirms the fact that the community was East Syrian, though it has been argued that the existence of West Syrian Christians in Persia by the date of the crosses means that the possibility of the crosses originating in that tradition cannot be ruled out. Brown suggests that the Afras men28 For a description of the crosses and a discussion of their history and symbolism, see Joseph Vazhuthanapally, The Biblical and Archaeological Foundations of the Mar Thoma Sliba, Kottayam, Oriental Institute of Religious Studies India Publications (No. 139), 1990. See also Neill, History, vol. 1, p.47f and the references given there. 29 For an account of the finding of this cross and the miracles attributed to it, see Mundadan, HCI, I, p.422ff. 30 See Brown, Indian Christians, p.79ff for a discussion of these. A similar cross has also been found in Sri Lanka, and as recently as 2001 yet another was discovered in Goa, to which a Portuguese inscription seems to have been added in 1642 (Pius Malekandathil, ‘Discovery of a Pahlavi Cross from Goa: A New evidence for pre-Portuguese Settlement in Konkan’, in Christian Orient, XXIII, no.3, (Sept 2002), 132-146). 31 See K.Parry, ‘Images in the Church of the East’ in Coakley and Parry (eds) The Church of the East, pp.141-162. The quotation is from p.145f. 32 Parry, ‘Images’, p.154.

70

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

tion in the Pahlavi inscriptions may be the Prot/Aprod of the Quilon tradition.33 OTHER FACTORS

One of the community’s marks of identity was the names borne by its members. The author of the Cochin State Manual summed up the situation in the early twentieth century. Despite having lived in the midst of Hindus for at least fifteen centuries, ‘not one among them bears an Indian name …. So far as I know there is no other Christian community in the world that confines itself entirely to biblical names’.34 No ancient Syrian Churches survive intact, though a few several centuries old may still be seen. The style is distinctive, though influenced by Portuguese architecture.35 English writers have sometimes made much of the fact that the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and William of Malmsbury record that King Alfred of Wessex sent two bishops to India in 883 with gifts in fulfilment of a vow. In view of the later relationship with the Church of England the idea of such a contact is attractive. It is impossible to be certain, however, whether south India is meant. As a result of both the climate and the wholesale destruction of manuscripts by the Portuguese (see next Chapter) very few documents written in India before the 15th century survive. One of these is dated 1301 and is undeniably of East Syrian provenance. Its scribal colophon states that it was completed in Cranganore during the time of ‘Yabalaha the Turk and the metropolitan bishop Jacob of the throne of St Thomas’.36 ‘Yabhalah the Turk’ is Church of the East Patriarch Yabhalah III whose consecration following Indian Christians, p.80. Menon, Cochin State Manual, p.226. For examples of such names in their Syrian/Indian forms see Richards, Indian Christians, p.9; Brown, Indian Christians, p.208. A few non-biblical names such as ‘George’ were also found. It is no longer the case that Syrian Christians use exclusively biblical names. 35 For a description of the Church buildings see Richards, Indian Christians, pp.3-5. 36 VatSyr 22. Van der Ploeg, Syrian MSS, p.3; Brock, Hidden Pearl, II, p.249. 33 34

‘SYRIAN’ CHRISTIANITY IN INDIA TO 1498

71

his journey to the West was described in the previous Chapter. The colophon confirms the existence of an Indian Metropolitan – in line with the pattern followed elsewhere in the remoter provinces of the Church of the East.37 Interestingly, it also confirms the concept of a ‘throne of St Thomas’, pointing to a sense of the Indian Church being an independent apostolic foundation. It was the ‘policy’ of the Church of the East as a rule to appoint only Mesopotamians or Persians as bishops, even of its farflung provinces. This was intended to be a mechanism for holding together the Church over the enormous geographical areas that it covered before the 14th century. The Metropolitans of the ‘Outer Sees’ – those in Central Asia and beyond – had a degree of autonomy, but even they could only be consecrated by the CatholicosPatriarch himself or with his express sanction. This custom was applied to India as well. There is no record of an Indian of the St Thomas community being consecrated a bishop prior to the 17th century. Whatever the weaknesses of the system, it did ensure that the Indian Church remained aware of and in communication with the Mother Church in Persia. When a Metropolitan died, messages were sent to the Patriarch for him to send a replacement.38 The consequence was that for perhaps a thousand years, the Indian Christians had looked to a Syrian Church in West Asia to provide their bishops. It was an expectation that was to prove difficult to break.39 37 There is some evidence that the position of Metropolitan of India had been created by Patriarch Yeshuyab II or III in the mid 7th century (Moffett, Christianity in Asia, I, p.269). 38 The situation is not unique. Until 1951 the Ethiopian Orthodox Church received its Abuna from the Coptic Church in Egypt. In 1994 the Coptic Pope Shenouda III consecrated bishops for the newly independent Eritreia. 39 This dynamic penetrated very deeply into the community’s psyche. As Tisserant put it, ‘at each new arrival of a bishop from Mesopotamia, real or fake – Catholic, Nestorian or even Jacobite – the Christians of St Thomas quivered with emotion’ (Eastern Christianity, p.102). It was not just the Christians who looked to the Middle East for leadership. ‘What the Syrians also have in common with their Muslim neighbours is a set of legendary hero-precursors and holy men, travellers from overseas who are revered as bringers of Christian teachers and as founders of the region’s

72

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

THE ARCHDEACON40

A perhaps unforeseen consequence of this policy of episcopal provision was the development in Kerala of an office that was to be highly significant – the Archdeacon. This was a senior celibate priest41 who exercised considerable authority over the whole community. The earliest reference to an Archdeacon in India is generally taken to be a letter dated about 800 from Patriarch Timothy I to the ‘Arkn’ or head of the faithful in India.42 Kollaparampil argues that ‘Arkn’ is a contraction of ‘Archdeacon’, as ‘Metran’ is a common contraction of ‘Metropolitan’. Recently, however, Istvan Perczel has maintained that it is simply the Greek word ἄρχων, meaning ‘prince’, ‘leader’ or ‘governor’, and does not therefore indicate that the office of Archdeacon existed at this time. Perczel further argues that the first certain evidence for the institution of the archdiaconate is 1502 when George Pakalomattom was appointed to the office by the Persian Metropolitan John of India.43 So important did the office become, it is argued, that its existence was projected back into earlier centuries. early shrines and commercial centres. These figures are comparable to the Muslim “Sahabi” or companions of the Prophet …and to all the other early pirs who are associated with the coming of Islam to South India’ (Bayly, Saints, p.245). An 18th century British visitor to Malabar observed of the Muslim community: ‘Many Siyds or Holy Men from Arabia resorted to Malabar where they were received with profound Reverence and Superstitious respect by those of their Religion, and many were so pleased at the reception as to be thereby induced to settle in it’ (IOR/H/465c, p.457). 40 For a comprehensive treatment of the office of Archdeacon, see Jacob Kollaparampil, The Archdeacon of All-India, Rome, 1972. 41 This in itself is indicative of an East Syrian origin, the rank of Archdeacon being bestowed by laying on of hands on senior priests, whereas in other Orthodox Churches the Archdeacon is still in Deacon’s Orders and is admitted by simple appointment. For the liturgy of Ordination of a Church of the East archdeacon, see Badger, Rituals, vol. 2, pp.336-340. Church of the East archdeacons are not, however, required to be celibate. 42 Kollaparambil, Archdeacon, p.80. 43 See Istvan Perczel, ‘Four Apologetic Church Histories from India’, in The Harp, vol. XXIV (2009).

‘SYRIAN’ CHRISTIANITY IN INDIA TO 1498

73

Whatever the precise origins of the archidiaconate, there is evidence that by the 16th century the Archdeacons understood their role to extend to the whole subcontinent: Archdeacons often signed themselves Ƥ‫ܘ‬ƯNJ‫ ܗ‬ƱDžǁ‫ܢ ܕ‬ƲǞƽƯǁ‫( ܐܪ‬Archdeacon of All-India) or Ƥ‫ܘ‬ƯNJ‫ ܗ‬ƱDžǁ‫ ܕ‬ƣǓ‫( ܬܪ‬Gate of All-India).44 Unlike the Metropolitans, the Archdeacon was always an Indian.45 Indeed, by the arrival of the Portuguese, the office was hereditary in the Pakalomattom family, whose ancestral home was the ancient trading centre of Kuravilangad.46 Their hereditary command of Kuravilangad Church and the claim to have been chosen by St Thomas, enabled the Pakalomattom clan to establish themselves as the Syrians’ pre-eminent priestly line. Even when there was more than one foreign bishop in the country (as sometimes happened) there was only ever one Archdeacon. In a situation where the Metropolitan was not a native of the country and (initially at least) did not speak Malayalam, it was inevitable that the administration of the Christians was exercised to a considerable extent by the Archdeacon, who was thus, for long periods, the head of the whole Christian community.47 Bayly sees the office as having considerable cultic significance: Kollaparambil, Archdeacon, pp.222-226. Here, too, a parallel situation existed in the Ethiopian Orthodox Church. As noted above, until 1951 the spiritual head – the abouna – was always an Egyptian Copt who did not necessarily know the language and customs of Ethiopia. The echage was an Ethiopian monk who was in charge of the practical administration of the Church and was its main channel of communication with the imperial government (see art. ‘Echage’, in Parry et al. (eds), Blackwell Dictionary; Atiyah, Eastern Christianity, p.158f). 46 Bayly (Saints, pp.254-257) discusses the office of archdeacon from an anthropological perspective. 47 ‘The one who held the office of archdeacon was also the national head of the Christian community. Thus the archdeacon exerted great influence both in ecclesiastical and non-ecclesiastical spheres …. This Church preserved no liturgy of her own; what she had to glory in, was her typical organization and discipline built up through and preserved in her social customs and environments. And it was the duty of the archdeacon, as the national head of her organisation, to preserve, protect and promote what was typical to her and thus keep her individuality intact’ (Kollamparambil, Archdeacon, p.15). See ibid., pp.187-235 for the wide range of powers and privileges enjoyed by the Archdeacon. 44 45

74

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS The role of the hereditary Pakalamarram archdeacons was comparable to that of a Muslim or west Asian Christian holy man. Through his office, his command of the group’s key shrines and his practices of bodily austerities – archdeacons remained celibate: the office was passed from uncle to nephew – the archdeacon possessed a measure of spiritual power resembling the barakat of a middle eastern Christian monk or Muslim Sufi. His performance of liturgical rites served to transmit this power, and these acts confirmed the authority of the priesthood and maintained the spiritual integrity of the wider population.48

This ‘power’, however, ‘needed to be renewed periodically’. The source of this renewal was West Asian bishops or patriarchs.49 This is why the most consistent trend in the history of the St Thomas Christians has been a continual quest for contact with West Asian primates and bishops. They alone possessed the power to perform acts of consecration and thus restore the spiritual energy possessed by the Syrians’ priests and primates.50

As will be seen in later Chapters, Bayly’s analysis helps to explain the furore surrounding the consecration of the first bishop of the MISC. 48 Bayly, Saints, p.255. ‘Thus, in a sense, the Pakalamarram archdeacons came to be perceived as the equivalent of a line of south Indian “little kings”’ (Bayly, Saints, p.272). It should be noted that while East Syrian Archdeacons were not generally required to be celibate, all the Indian ones seem to have been, at least since the 16th century (Kollaparambil, Archdeacon, p.231). It appears that the existence of both patrilineal and matrilineal groups within Kerala society made it possible for nephews on either side (sister’s or brother’s) to succeed (Kollamparambil, Archdeacon, p.242). Within the family itself there seem to have been conventions regarding the hereditary succession. The Metropolitan and community assembly also influenced the choice (Kollamparambil, Archdeacon, p.245f). 49 Bayly sees the muron or chrism periodically brought to Kerala as conveying this, though this can not have been the case prior to the Portuguese period, as the Church of the East does not use muron. 50 Bayly, Saints, p.256.

‘SYRIAN’ CHRISTIANITY IN INDIA TO 1498

75

Furthermore the Indian Archdeacon was also Jathikku Karthavian – head of his caste.51 This uniquely Indian attribute (carrying with it a whole host of implications regarding ritual purity and interaction with the Hindu castes), combined with the position of senior ecclesiastical administrator and possessor of ‘spiritual power’, created a unique and immensely powerful office. It was inevitable, therefore, that much of the story of the Indian Church’s relations with the Western Church should focus on the person of the Archdeacon.52 THE LOWER CLERGY

Each Church was served by one or more priests, known as kathanars.53 This is a word of uncertain origin. It may be a corrup(qasheesha) – ‘elder’. La Croze thought it a tion of the Syriac ‫ܐ‬ compound of qasheesha and nair - ‘noble’.54 Other authorities are inclined to derive it from Sanskrit roots meaning ‘to sacrifice’ or ‘to be in charge of others’.55 In modern usage ‘kathanar’ has been largely replaced by the Hindu-derived honorific ‘Achen’. Before the Synod of Diamper the majority of kathanars seem to have been married. Assisting the priests were numerous ‘deacons’. The term ‘shamasha’56 (from the Syriac ‫ܐ‬ mshamshona) is loosely used in 51 This title can be traced to the early 16th century (Kollaparambil, Archdeacon, p.82). 52 In the middle of the 17th century the Syrians told the Carmelite missionaries: ‘The Archdeacon is our natural head…. Our Religion, moreover, without him would soon dwindle into nothing; which would be a most agreeable spectacle to our Heathen Neighbours’ (quoted in Lee, Brief History, p.525). 53 Also spelt kattanar, cassanar, etc. 54 See Mundadan, HCI, I, p.185ff.; Lee, Brief History, p.504; Whitehouse, Lingerings, p.87. 55 Hobson-Jobson is inclined to derive it from the Sanskrit kartri, ‘chief’ (Henry Yule and A.C. Burnell (eds.), Hobson-Jobson: A Glossary of Coloquial Anglo-Indian Words and Phrases, and of kindred Terms Etymological, Historical, Geographical and Disscursive, London, John Murray, 1903, p.110). See also the discussion in Thaliath, Diamper, p.20-21. 56 Here, too, there are numerous spellings – chamas, shamuses, semmasan, etc.

76

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

Kerala to describe those in minor Orders as well as full deacons. It was normal for boys to be admitted to the minor Orders of ‫ܐ‬ (mazmorono) ‘singer’, ‫ܘ ܐ‬ (kooroyo) ‘reader’ and ( ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܗܘ‬hypodiakon) ‘subdeacon’.57 In addition to their liturgical role they acted as attendants and secretaries to the kathanars and bishops. These ministers were most visible at the weekly Eucharist which was the centre of each local community’s life. This was designated the Qurbana (‫ ) ܪܒ ܐ‬from the Syriac meaning ‘offering’. The use of the East Syrian pronunciation in ordinary speech, strongly suggests that the term entered the language while the Christian community was East Syrian in affiliation and rite. Outside the Eucharist, the clergy engaged with the life of the St Thomas Christians through numerous rites and occasions – baptism, marriage, house-blessings, funerals and numerous festivals. They were a visible and important group within Christian society. Some were well educated, many knew only enough Syriac to enable them to celebrate the rites of the Church.

The Palliyogam The power of the Archdeacon and clergy was not, however, absolute even within their own community. A further distinctive feature of the organisation of the Syrian Church in Kerala was the Palliyogam.58 This was a body of laity (sometimes wider than just the heads of families) which in many respects spoke for its ‘parish’. It was responsible for local decision-making and making representation to the ecclesiastical leadership. So powerful was this lay element in the Indian Church that foreign Church leaders (eg Archbishop Menezes in the late 16th century, and Patriarch Peter 57 See Etheridge, Syrian Churches, p.147 for a description of the various Orders (though recording ‫ܐ‬ ‫‘– ܓ ܬ‬half deacon’ for subdeacon). Fortescue states that ‘the minor orders ... are now obsolete’ (Lesser Eastern Churches, p.341f), but this is incorrect. See http://sor.cua.edu/Vestments/index.html for photographs of the various orders and their vestments. 58 For a brief description of the composition and powers of the Palliyogam see Xavier Koodapuzha, ‘The Ecclesial Communion of the St Thomas Christians of India before the 16th Century’, in The Harp, XXII (2007), 108-110.

‘SYRIAN’ CHRISTIANITY IN INDIA TO 1498

77

III in the late 19th century) found it necessary to summon the laity to the synods that they called. In meetings of the Palliyogam a range of matters was discussed, from care of the Church building to selecting candidates to recommend to the Bishop for Ordination. In addition to these local ‘parish’ gatherings, on certain occasions representatives from all the Churches would meet together. There was therefore a mechanism for local and community decision-making. Positively, this aided community cohesion. Negatively, the yogams could provide venues for dissent and disruption. THE STATUS OF THE COMMUNITY

It is apparent that the Syrian Christian community was in fact a complex one. The original nucleus of converts (whether formed by St Thomas or not) itself seems to have contained people from different castes – and who seem to have retained a sense of their origins. This group was augmented over the centuries by a number of influxes by people of Persian and/or East Syrian ethnicity, who assimilated to varying degrees. This is suggested by the name given to them by their neighbours: ‘The most common name given to them by the Hindoos of the country is that of Nazaranee Mapila, and more frequently Surians or Surianee Mapila’.59 The origin of the word ‘Mapilla’ is uncertain, but may derive from ‘maha’ – great – and ‘pilla’ – child.60 It was used among Nayars, and the Syrian Christians were commonly called ‘Nasrani Mappilamaar’.61 The Dutch Governor van Angelbeek testifies to the continuing use of the name for Christians – ‘Mapoeles genoemd worden’.62 It was originally a title of respect, but gradually came to be confined to Muslims during the course of the 19th century.63 There is a strong 59 F. Wrede, ‘Account of the St Thome Christians on the Coast of Malabar’, in Asiatick Researches, 7 (1801), pp.362-380 (this last page is wrongly numbered as 382). 60 Menon, Cochin State Manual, p.228. See also Podipara. Thomas Christians, p.85. 61 See Scaria Zachariah, Diamper, p.17. 62 Memoir of Johan Gerhard van Angelbeek, p.3. 63 Thus, a report compiled in 1798 could say, ‘The Malabar Mahomadans, named Mapillas, were at first only merchants’ (IOR/H/456c).

78

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

tradition of a community of Christians who fled from Mylapore on the east coast in a time of persecution and settled in Kerala – the D-haraiyaykal. Brown states that until the early twentieth century they were still distinguished in dress and cultural practices from all other Christians, but have now assimilated to the ‘Jacobite’ community.64 Precisely how the indigenous Christians and the descendants of those who came from the Middle East blended to form a unique Indian community is a substantially unexplored area and, in any case, lies beyond the present study. The blending was certainly successful and produced a distinctive community that today is spread around the world.65 It is clear that within the rigidly hierarchical society described in Chapter 2 the Christian community occupied a distinct position and enjoyed recognised privileges. The details of this lie beyond the scope of the present work. Functionally, the Christians seem to have long retained many of the characteristics of a mercantile However, a letter from the Rajah of Cochin, dated August 1806 to the Romo-Syrians under his jurisdiction refers to them as Roman Mapoolas’ (IOR/F/4/616, p.154), and, as late as the 1830s, Maramon, the centre of the Syrian ‘Reformation’ could be described as ‘a Syrian Church surrounded by its congregation of Mauplay Christians’ (W.H.Horsely, Memoir of Travancore, Historical and Statistical, compiled from various authentic records and personal observation by Lieutenant W.H.Horsley, Engineers, at the Request of MajorGeneral J.S. Fraser, British Resident, 1839 ( in Drury, Selections, p.23). 64 Indian Christians, p.78f. See also Podipara, Latin Rite Christians, p.44; idem, Canonical Sources, p.49f. 65 The literature on the social customs of the St Thomas Christians is immense. Brown’s account has already been noted: Indian Christians, pp.167-209. For descriptions of the community at the time of its first significant encounter with Europeans see A.Mathias Mundadan, Sixteenth Century Traditions of Thomas Christians, Bangalore, Dharmaran College, 1970 and Andrews Thazhath, The Law of Thomas, Kottayam, Vadavathoor, Oriental Institute of Religious Studies, India, 1987. Also Placid Podipara, Thomas Christians, pp.79-100 and idem, ‘The Thomas-Christians and “Adaptation”’ in Eastern Churches Review, III, 2 (Autumn 1970), 171-177. Podipara’s article is an answer to modern suggestions that Indian Christians need to ‘adapt’ themselves to the prevailing culture. It should be noted, albeit briefly, that the influences went both ways. Modern Malayalam, for example, contains a number of words derived from Syriac (in its Eastern form) – see the examples given by Van der Ploeg, Syriac MSS, p.274f.

‘SYRIAN’ CHRISTIANITY IN INDIA TO 1498

79

community, with a dominant role in the production and sale of pepper. Evidence for this role is furnished by the celebrated copper plates. Beyond this, the Syrian Christians are said to have ‘enjoyed the privileges of the highest castes and were participants in even religious honours’.66 The reason for this exalted status was believed to be the fact that some of St Thomas’ first converts had been Brahmins, and that the privileges attached to their caste were transmitted to their Christian descendants.67 The community seems at one time to have had its own ‘royal family’ though this had become extinct before the beginning of the 16th century. Despite their status, Syrian Christians could at times be vulnerable to the policies of hostile Hindu rulers. As seen in the previous Chapter a second bond used by the Church of the East to maintain unity over its scattered peoples was the invariable use of Syriac as a liturgical language. East Syrian writings survive in translation in Middle and New Persian, Sogdian, Old Turkish, Uighur and Chinese languages, but none of these languages appears to contain a complete text of the liturgy, though some fragments of translations of the Psalms into Middle Persian survive.68 Malayalam only began to be used in Kerala in the 19th century.69 Until then the Eucharist and other rites seems to have been always in Syriac, a practice that the Indian Syrians were not prepared to abandon, even when so much else was being taken away from them. Even Syrian Orthodox historians, who argue that the Indian Church’s historic allegiance was to the Syrian Orthodox Church Thaliath, Diamper, p.4. For a discussion of similarities between St Thomas Christian and Brahmin practices see George Menachery, ‘Aspects of the idea of “clean and unclean” among the Brahmins, the Jews and the St Thomas Christians of Kerala’, in The Harp, XII (2007), 311-330. 68 See the chapter ‘Language and Literature of the Church of the East’ in Baum and Winkler, The Church of the East, pp.158-172 for a survey of the extent of Syrian texts in eastern languages. The authors do not cite any evidence of early translations into Malayalam. If any existed, they no doubt perished in the wholesale destruction of texts by the Portuguese. 69 This is usually said to be as result of Protestant influence, which is probably correct in most cases. The earliest known example, however, is found in the MISC, where there was little such influence (see below). 66 67

80

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

and not to the Church of the East, concede that on the eve of the 15th century, the dominant influence in India was East Syrian and not Syrian Orthodox.70 In 1490 the East Syrian Patriarch Mar Shimun IV consecrated two bishops – Mar Thomas and Mar Yohannan – whom he sent to Malabar.71 These were joined in 1503 by three more East Syrian bishops, one of whom Mar Jacob, described himself as ‘Bishop of Hindo’ in a MS he copied in 1510.72 Kaniamparampil and other Jacobite writers claim that this was the beginning of a ‘new era’ – an eclipse of Syrian Orthodox identity in Kerala which would only begin to be restored in 1665 (see Chapter 5).73 Thus, by the 15th century, the Church in India was part of the vast domains of the Church of the East; a member of an ecclesiastical family which stretched from Persia to Beijing, Tibet and Central Asia as well as to the southern tip of the Indian subcontinent. To what extent the Indian Church was committed to ‘Nestorian’ doctrine is controverted. As the Synod of Diamper shows, there were characteristically East Syrian formulae in the liturgy. However there seems to be no evidence that theological documents had been translated into Malayalam or of a vernacular theological tradition. It is doubtful whether the subtle Christological definitions that had 70 Yacoub III, Syrian Church in India, pp. 16-20, 27-28, 32-35. E.M.Philip: ‘It was, no doubt, Nestorian from 1490 to 1599, but previous to that period, the Church of Malabar was a branch of the Jacobite Church of Persia’ (Indian Church, p.112). This position was accepted (uncritically, in the present writer’s view) by Judges Row and Iyer in the Seminary Case of 1889 (Judgements/Row-Iyer, 90). 71 VatSyr 204a. Van der Ploeg, Syrian MSS, p.4f. See Brown, Indian Christians, pp.16-18 for the text of a letter of 1504 describing the circumstances in which this delegation was formed. 72 Van der Ploeg, MSS, p.186. Some of these bishops were destined for Java and China (Van der Ploeg, Syrian MSS, p.5; Brown, Indian Christians, p.17). 73 Kaniamparampil, Syrian Orthodox Church, p.46ff. Kaniamparampil argues that the description of Malabar and the Christian community sent to the Patriarch by the bishops shows that the East Syrians had not previously had contact with India. Brown believes that the same letter plainly shows that the Indian Church ‘depended on the East Syrian Church for its theology, its liturgy and its bishops’ (Indian Christians, p.18).

‘SYRIAN’ CHRISTIANITY IN INDIA TO 1498

81

been so hotly fought over in West Asia and Europe found much resonance among the Malayalam-speaking faithful in Kerala. Nevertheless, as a result of the vicissitudes described in Chapter 2, by the 16th century, as we have seen, virtually all that remained of the Church of the East was an increasingly beleaguered minority in West Asia and the St Thomas Christians of India. The arrival of the Europeans was to change everything.

CHAPTER 4: THE CONSEQUENCES OF EUROPEAN CONTACT – AN OVERVIEW The events in which the MISC was to play a crucial part were in large measure the product of interactions between the indigenous Christian community and outside powers, political and ecclesiastical. The purpose of the present Chapter is to provide a brief overview of the way in which three European nations in particular – the Portuguese, the Dutch and the British – came to be in southwest India and to introduce the religious consequences of their presence. This Chapter thus provides the background against which the precise details of events which will be related in subsequent Chapters can be seen in context. Some of the activities recounted here will be mentioned again as they impinge on the foundation, development and interactions of the MISC. It is also the intention of this Chapter to introduce a number of witnesses and sources whose evidence will be assessed in later Chapters. THE PORTUGUESE AND THE SYNOD OF UDYAMPEROOR/DIAMPER 1

On 21st May 1498 the Portuguese explorer Vasco da Gama landed at Calicut and was received generously by the 1 There is a large literature on Portuguese involvement with India (which of course extended beyond Kerala). For a general introduction see Moraes, History of Christianity in India, pp.106-124 and the sources quoted there. In relation to Kerala, the whole period is recounted in detail in Panikkar, Malabar and the Portuguese. Panikkar is concerned primarily with

83

84

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

Zamorin.2 Da Gama was not the first European to visit South India. From the thirteenth century there had been an increasing trickle of European contacts.3 Western missionaries (many of them members of religious Orders) on their way to China and the Far East occasionally passed via Kerala. There is some evidence that there were a few Latin-rite Churches in Quilon and other centres of population, presumably to serve traders.4 Marco Polo called in the political, military and commercial aspects of the contact, and his account is a useful corrective to those which tell the story purely from an ecclesiastical perspective. Near contemporaneous accounts can be found in Antony Gouvea, Histoire Orientale, des Grans Progres de l’Église Catholique, Apostolique et Romaine en la réduction des anciens Chrestiens, dits de S. Thomas, de plusieurs autres Schismatiques et Hérétiques a l’union de la vraye Église. Converserion encore des Mahometains, Mores et Payens, par … Alexis de Meneses, de l’Ordre des Eremites de S. Augustin, et Primat de tout l’Orient. Composée en langue Portuguaise par le R.P.F. Antoine Gouea [sic] … et tournée en François par F. Jean Baptiste de Glen …, Anvers, Hierosme Verdussen, 1609; Michael Geddes [Chancellor of the Cathedral Church of Sarum], The History of the Church of Malabar, from the time of its first discovery by the Portuguezes in the Year 1501. Giving an Account of the Persecutions and Violent Methods of the Roman Prelates, to Reduce them to the Subjection of the Church of Rome. Together with the Synod of Diamper, celebrated in the Year of our Lord 1599. With some Remarks upon the Faith and Doctrines of the Christians of St Thomas in the Indies agreeing with the Church of England, in opposition to that of Rome. Done out of Portugueze into English, London, Sam. Smith & Benj. Walford, 1694; M.V. La Croze, Histoire de Christianisme des Indes, par M.V. La Croze, Bibliothecaire et Antiquaire du Roi de Prusse, La Haye, Vaillant & Prevost, 1724. See also Samuel Lee, ‘A Brief History of the Syrian Churches in the South of India’, in Proceedings of the CMS, 1816-1817, pp.496-529. 2 Panikkar believes that da Gama does not deserve the tributes paid to his seamanship (‘There is nothing in Vasco da Gama’s discovery which entitles him to the claim of a great explorer or navigator’ Portuguese, p.32), but acknowledges that the contact was historic in that it brought Europeans into sustained direct contact with India (rather than through Arab intermediaries) for the first time since Alexander the Great (ibid). Da Gama obtained permission to open a ‘factory’ in Calicut. 3 For a brief survey of earlier European contacts see Moraes, History of Christianity in India, pp.80-105; Gillman and Klimkeit, Christians in Asia, pp.172-176; Neill, History, vol. 1, pp.71-86. 4 Podipara, Latin Rite Christians, p.42 and sources quoted there; G. Moraes, ‘Medieval Christianity in India; Part II The Latin Church’. in H.C.

THE CONSEQUENCES OF EUROPEAN CONTACT

85

about 1293. Such travellers, however, made little impact on the local community. It was with the coming of the Portuguese in 1498 that the situation began to change. Vasco da Gama returned to Portugal with a cargo worth sixty times the cost of the expedition. The Portuguese were suddenly made aware of a highly lucrative trading opportunity.5 Simultaneously, Churchmen in Portugal and Rome became aware of ‘the Christians of St Thomas’. From a 21st century perspective, the actions of the Portuguese in India make sorry reading. By as early as 1500 Pedro Alvarez Cabral, the leader of the next Portuguese expedition after da Gama, was massacring the crews of rival shipping in Calicut harbour and bombarding the civilian population. Local divisions were cynically exploited; the Rajah of Cochin, a rival of the Zamorin, made a treaty with the Portuguese and benefited by enhanced status, but in return was made to ‘drink to the very dregs the cup of humiliation in exchange for the ready help he had given …. Cochin was reduced to an absolute dependency of Portugal’.6 From a very early stage the Portuguese saw their presence as permanent. Intermarriage with local women was encouraged as the Portuguese brought very few women out to India.7 The children of such unions were usually baptised as Christians and contributed to a rapidly growing community of Latin-rite Roman Catholics created by conversions from the local Hindu population. To ensure their own security and their monopoly of trade the Portuguese built forts from which to control both the seas and the Perumalil and E.R. Hambye (eds.), Christianity in India: A History in Ecumenical Perspectice, Allepey, Prakasam Publications, 1973, pp.38-45. 5 Panikkar, Portuguese, p.39. It has been said of Da Gama’s discovery of a direct route to India that it ‘symbolised not merely the ruin of Venice, but the turning of the Mediterranean into a backwater’ (Camoens, The Lusiads, (ET William C.Atkinson), Harmondswoth, Penguin Books, 1952, p.12. Camoes, whose father died in Goa, is the national poet of Portugal. His work Os Lusiadas (The Lusiads) – ‘the national epic of Portugal’ (Atkinson, p.7) shows how deeply India caught the Portuguese imagination. 6 Panikkar, Portuguese, pp.44, 204. 7 See Moraes, History of Christianity in India, pp.155-162; and Dalrymple, White Mughals, pp.10-17 for brief accounts of early cross-cultural assimilation.

86

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

hinterland.8 For a century and a half they controlled much of the trade on the Kerala coast. It was a long enough period to allow Western Christians to change the ancient Syrian Church for ever. Initially the Syrian Christians in India welcomed the Portuguese and relations between them were generally good. In the early part of the sixteenth century the Syrian community was under the leadership of the survivors of the five Church of the East bishops whose arrival from 1490 onwards was noted in Chapter 3. Letters from these to both the Patriarch of Babylon and to the Pope of Rome survive.9 Before long, however, tensions began to emerge: The Portuguese held the Roman obedience to be an essential mark of the Church and they therefore were compelled to persuade their new allies to accept the Pope as their new Patriarch, and in the event of persuasion failing, to force them to it.10

For their part the Indians were prepared to make promises that satisfied the Portuguese, while maintaining their own practices and their own share of the lucrative pepper trade – ‘for nearly a century their methods of procrastination worked’.11 One reason why it ‘worked’ was that relatively few Portuguese penetrated inland beyond the trading centres. Gradually things began to change. Portuguese friars began to demand entrance to Syrian churches to say Mass according to the Latin rite. Zealots from Europe dismissed Syrian baptism as heretical and invalid. Soon there was a clash over jurisdiction. The diocese of Goa (several hundred miles north of Kerala and the chief Portuguese port and city in India) had been created by Pope Clement VII in 1533 as the first Diocese in the East under the Padroado – the right 8 Despite impressions to the contrary, the Portuguese never controlled large areas of India: ‘The Portuguese never had any “Empire” in India. They had a few coastal towns, and their authority never extended beyond a few miles of their naval bases. The only territorial possession of any considerable extent over which they ruled was Goa – and Goa was an easily defensible island’ (Panikkar, Portuguese, p.162). 9 See Brown, Indian Christians, p.14f and the sources quoted there. 10 Brown, Indian Christians, p.18. 11 Brown, Indian Christians, p.18.

THE CONSEQUENCES OF EUROPEAN CONTACT

87

granted by the Popes to the Kings of Portugal to invade ‘infidel’ lands and erect Churches.12 It was raised to an archdiocese in 1557. Nomination was to be by the King of Portugal, but the jurisdiction granted was vague – stretching from Tibet to the southern tip of India. An appeal for missionaries was answered by Francis Xavier, who arrived in Goa in 1542 and moved on to the Travancore coast two years later, thus beginning a Jesuit presence in Kerala.13 Converts were made, particularly from the coastal fishing communities. The existence of this community is important in understanding the ecclesiastical situation. The Syrian Christians were soon no longer the only Christians in Kerala. The Portuguese missionaries had created a second Christian community which used the same rites as the Roman Church in Europe and which conformed to a significant degree to European norms and practices. To oversee these new converts Pope Paul IV created the Diocese of Cochin (subor12 For a summary of the Padroado, see Moraes, History of Christianity in India, pp.229-245; J. Wicki, ‘The Portuguese Padroado in India in the 16th century’, in H.C. Perumalil and E.R. Hambye (eds.), Christianity in India, pp.47-61; Joseph Perumthottam, A Period of Decline of the Mar Thoma Christians (1712-1752), Vadavathoor, Oriental Institute of Religious Studies India, 1994, pp.93-104, Thomas Pallipurathkunnel, A Double Regime in the Malabar Church (1663-1716), Alwaye, Pontifical Institute of Theology and Philosophy, 1982, pp.3-6; James Abraham Puliurumpil, A Period of Jurisdictional Conflict in the Suriani Church of India (1800-1838), Vadavathoor, Kottayam, Oriental Institute of Religious Studies India, 1993, pp.95-100; Varghese Puthussery, Reunion Efforts of St Thomas Christians of India (17501773): A Historical-Critical Analysis of the Contemporary Documents, Thrissur, Marymatha Publications, 2008, pp.20-25; Neill, History, vol. 1, pp.111-113, 399-401. Similar privileges (the Patronato) were granted to the Spanish Crown in relation to the West Indies and other new territories being discovered across the Atlantic. In view of the later involvement of the Church of England with the St Thomas Christians, it may be noted that it was Clement VII who confirmed King Henry VIII’s nomination of Thomas Cranmer as Archbishop of Canterbury. For an account of the Latinrite jurisdictions, see Ferroli, Jesuits, vol. 1, passim, and Pascal, Hierarchies, passim. The first bishop of Goa, Joao Albuquerque, a Reformed Franciscan, was not actually consecrated until 1538. He died in 1553 (Wicki, ‘Portuguese Padroado’, pp. 50-52; Neill, History, vol. 1, pp116-118). 13 See Neill, History, vol. 1, pp.122-165 for an account of the early missionary work and the career of Francis Xavier in India.

88

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

dinate to Goa) in 1557.14 Its first priests and its bishops were Europeans.15 It is understandable that this was increasingly seen as the ‘normative’ community by the Papacy and European powers, with the Syrian Christians as a separate – and problematic - group for whom special provision had to be made. Meanwhile, the Syrian Christians looked on Mar Jacob, the surviving bishop from the 1503 delegation from the Church of the East patriarch, as their spiritual father. Mar Jacob, however, died in 1549.16 Soon after this, as described in Chapter 2, the Church of the East in West Asia itself suffered a schism, with the recognition of Mar Sulaqa as Patriarch by the Pope. There were now two East Syrian Patriarchs in West Asia claiming authority over the St Thomas Christians. Sulaqa’s successor, Joseph IV (who was also recognised by the Pope) despatched two bishops, Mar Elias and Mar Joseph, to Kerala. They were, however, intercepted by the Portuguese at Goa and detained. During this time they were taught to say Mass in Latin according to the Roman rite. In 1558 one of the bishops, Mar Joseph,17 was permitted to travel to Malabar where, after an initial period in which he worked to latinise the Indian Church, he seems to have reverted to normal East Syrian practices.18 His refusal to co-operate led to his imprisonment on two 14 The extent of the Archbishop of Goa’s jurisdiction is demonstrated by the fact that his other two suffragan bishops were of Malacca and Macao (Ferroli, Jesuits, p.147). The Diocese of Cochin contained some Syrian Churches, which proved a constant source of unrest. 15 For a discussion of the origin of the Latin-rite Christians, their jurisdictions and relationships with the St Thomas Christians, see Placid Podipara, The Latin Rite Christians of Malabar, Kottayam, Denha Services, 1986. It is an indication of how deep the caste mentality penetrates that even the Latin-rite Christians are divided into distinct groups which seldom inter-marry. 16 For the career of Mar Jacob and his relations with the Portuguese see Thaliath, Diamper, p.7ff; Brown, Indian Christians, p.18; Neill, History, vol. 1, pp.195-200 and the sources quoted there. 17 Mar Joseph was the brother of Patriarch Sulaqa. While on the voyage to India he copied a number of Syriac manuscripts, three of which survive bearing dates. See Brock, Hidden Pearl, II, p.250f. 18 He had begun to introduce such Latin customs as confession, confirmation and extreme unction which were previously unknown. He

THE CONSEQUENCES OF EUROPEAN CONTACT

89

occasions by the Portuguese, who eventually sent him to Goa and Lisbon. He died in or on the way to, Rome in 1569.19 The Synod of Udiamperoor/Diamper20 In addition to his tensions with the Roman authorities, for part of his time in Kerala Mar Joseph had a Church of the East rival, Mar Abraham, who was sent by Patriarch Mar Shimun IV, and arrived in Kerala in 1568, having evaded the Portuguese in Goa.21 Once there he accepted help from the Jesuits and seems to have considered the possibility of consecrating the native Archdeacon as his successor, though this did not happen.22 Following the death of Mar Joseph in Rome in 1569, Mar Abraham received the obedience of much of the Syrian community for the rest of his life. Although he managed to get himself recommended by the Pope and collaborated with the Portuguese ecclesiastical authorities, even to the extent of attending a Synod in Goa with them, Mar Abraham ‘did everything in his power to preserve in his diocese the old traditions seems also to have begun to introduce Latin-rite vestments in place of the traditional kuthina and phaina (see the quotation from Archbishop Ros in Pallath, Eucharistic Liturgy, p.187). 19 Thaliath, Diamper, p.11; Lee, Brief History, p.501. 20 ‘Diamper’ is the Europeanised form of the name ‘Udiamperoor’. As the Synod is generally referred to in the literature by this westernised form, it is used here. In other contexts the Indian form is used. Recent detailed studies of the Synod of Diamper include Jonas Thaliath, The Synod of Diamper (Orientalia Christiana Analecta 152), Rome, Pontifical Institute for Oriental Studies, 1958, reprinted Banglare, Dharmaram Vidya Kshetram, 1999; and Scaria Zachariah (ed.), The Acts and Decrees of the Synod of Diamper 1599, (Edamattam, Indian Institute of Christian Studies, 1994). For summaries see Neill, History, vol. 1, pp.87-99: Brown, Indian Christians, p.11ff; Kaniamparampil, Syrian Orthodox Church, p.51ff. 21 Mar Abraham’s ecclesiastical loyalty may be described as ‘fluid’. Podipara maintains that he was sent by Patriarch Abdisho IV (Canonical Sources, p.58). See Mundadan, ‘The Eastern Church 16th-17th centuries’, in H.C. Perumalil and E.R. Hambye (eds.), Christianity in India, pp.89-96; Neill, History, vol. 1, pp.203-208 for the career of Mar Abraham, and p.469, n.44 for a comment on his allegiances. 22 Kollaparambil, Archdeacon, p.87f. For a detailed discussion of the manoeuvrings during these decades see Kollaparambil, Revolution, pp.2538.

90

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

of his Church’.23 The Archdeacon at this time, Geeverghese – called ‘George of Christ’ by European sources – was also working with the Portuguese and was in occasional correspondence with the Pope, who in 1568 actually confirmed his election as Bishop of Palur and suffragan to Mar Abraham, though for some reason the consecration never took place.24 Mar Abraham died in 1597. ‘He was ‘the last of a long line of Mesopotamian bishops who have governed the Christians of St Thomas in India’.25 Although the Syrian Christians did not have a ‘See City’, he was often referred to in Western sources as the ‘Archbishop of Angamale’, an ancient centre of the Syrian Christians.26 To the Portuguese and Roman authorities there was therefore a ‘Diocese of Angamale’, appointment to which they could now control.27

Van der Ploeg, Syrian MSS, p.15. Kollaparambil, Archdeacon, p.90ff; Neill, History, vol. 1, p.469, nn.47-49. 25 Van der Ploeg, Syrian MSS, p.12. 26 Ferroli, Jesuits, p.164. Podipara, Canonical Sources, p.53. 27 On 21st January 1597, even before the death of Mar Abraham, Rome sent a brief to the Archbishop of Goa empowering him to appoint a Vicar Apostolic to the See of Angamale in the event of Mar Abraham’s death, to govern the Church until a bishop could be appointed by Rome (ASV, Brev. Apost, vol. 248, ff.245-246, quoted in Perumthottam, Decline, p.18). 23 24

THE CONSEQUENCES OF EUROPEAN CONTACT

91

Following the death of Mar Abraham, Alexis de Menezes,28 Archbishop of Goa, took steps to prevent another bishop coming to India from Persia.29 In the spirit of the Counter-Reformation, Menezes and other Roman Catholic authorities were not inclined to look favourably on diversity of faith and practice. The St Thomas Christians were to be made to conform to the norms of the Council of Trent. Moreover, the Portuguese by now controlled the coastal-based distribution and marketing of the Kerala spice trade; bringing the St Thomas Christians within the Padroado system would enable them to increase their control over the spiceproducing communities inland.30 For a number of reasons it was now time to deal once and for all with the recalcitrant Syrian community. In understanding the events of Diamper, it is important to remember that the Portuguese had by the time of the Synod coexisted alongside the Indian Church for almost a century. The Portuguese and their Church were no longer unknown quantities to 28 Menezes was of aristocratic Portuguese descent. Before coming to India to be Archbishop of Goa he had been Prior of the Augustinian monastery in Lisbon. In addition to the Archbishopric of Goa, between 1607 and 1609 Menezes was Governor of Portuguese India. ‘To win lands and people for the Church and the king was the ideal that motivated his career and action’ (Thaliath, Diamper, p.17). On his life see Pius Malekandathil (ed.), Jornada of Dom Alexis de Menezes: a Portuguese Account of the Sixteenth Century Malabar, Kochi, LRC Publications, 2003, p.XXIIf. This is an English translation of Antonio de Gouvea’s Jornada do Archebispo de Goa Frei Aleixo de Menezes Primaz da India Orientali, first published in Portuguese in 1603, and contains much valuable information about the actual state of the Christian communities and Menezes’ attitude to them. Gouvea was an Augustinian monk entrusted by his Order with preparing a eulogy of Menezes’ career in Kerala. See also Neill, History, vol. 1, pp.208, 405f and the sources quoted there. 29 Even before Mar Abraham’s death, a Church of the East bishop, Mar Shimun, had visited Kerala, but had been caught by the Portuguese and taken to Rome and Lisbon where he died in 1599 (Thaliath, Diamper, p.12; Lee, Brief History, p.502; Brown, Indian Christians, p.24). 30 This latter point is argued persuasively by Malekandathil, in his Introduction to Jornada,: ‘the main target of this exercise [Menezes’ visits to the Syrian communities] was to control the spice-producing community of the St Thomas Christians in the name of cleansing the religion’ (p.XLV).

92

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

the Syrians. Many of the leaders of the two communities were known to each other. Some westernisation of the liturgy was already taking place. This doubtless explains something of the apparent ease with which the Syrian Church submitted to Menezes’ demands. From the Portuguese perspective, decades of a piecemeal approach to ‘reforming’ the ancient Church had produced very limited results. In 1545 the Franciscans had founded a college at Cranganore to train local men as priests, but they were in the main rejected by the Syrians.31 Another college was founded, this time by the Jesuits at Vaipukotta in 1587. It, too, met with limited success, especially as, after 1590, Mar Abraham refused to ordain students from the college. The death of Mar Abraham cleared the way for a root and branch approach to reform. In January 1599 Menezes arrived in Cochin. The Pakalomattom Archdeacon, Geeverghese,32 was summoned to make his submission, but refused, and instead held a synod at Angamale which swore not to accept any bishop but one sent by the Patriarch. Priests trained at the Jesuit College at Vaipukotta were not to be allowed to enter Syrian Churches.33 Predictably, Archbishop Menezes denounced the Archdeacon as a traitor and heretic and enlisted the support of the Rajah of Cochin to bring the Syrian community into submission. The Rajah, well aware that native ‘states which did not fall in with Portuguese wishes were attacked and their towns

Panikkar, Portuguese, p.188. He is referred to as ‘George of the Cross’ in Portuguese sources, and was the nephew of Archdeacon ‘George of Christ’ noted above. The new Archdeacon was appointed by Mar Abraham in 1593. There seem to have been two short-lived Archdeacons between the two Georges (Kollaparambil, Archdeacon, pp.94-96). Shortly before his death Mar Abraham petitioned Rome to be allowed to consecrated Geevarghese as his successor, but the Jesuits dissuaded him from proceeding with the consecration until it was too late and Mar Abraham too ill to act (Kollaparambil, Archdeacon, pp.98-99). 33 A Syrian boy who had been educated a Vaipukotta, on going back to his home parish, innocently prayed for the Pope and was beaten by the St Thomas priest for doing so (Malekandathil, Jornada, p.61f). 31 32

THE CONSEQUENCES OF EUROPEAN CONTACT

93

sacked’,34 granted safe conduct to Menezes who began visiting Syrian Churches, asserting the supremacy of the See of Rome and denouncing ‘Nestorian heresies’. Various manoeuvrings followed, the details of which need not concern us here. On 20th June 1599 Archbishop Menezes, dressed in full pontificals for maximum effect, opened a Synod at Udiamperoor.35 It was reportedly attended by 813 participants, including 163 priests.36 Over 100 of the latter had been ordained in the weeks preceding the Synod by Menezes himself, to strengthen his support among the families from which the priests came, and to bolster the number of priests loyal to himself.37 This imbalance was made worse by the refusal of a number of Syrian priests to attend. There were two sessions each day. The proposed decrees (prepared in advance by Archbishop Menezes) were read out. According to the Spanish Jesuit priest Francis Ros, who was to succeed Menezes, ‘the reading of the decrees was done in Portuguese and those assembled had no idea of what was being said’.38 There then followed some discussion, but precisely how free and fair this was remains a controverted matter to this day.39 After eight days the priests, who 34 ‘The native princes were coaxed, in spite of themselves and often against their own interests, to grant all that the Archbishop wanted of them’, Thaliath, Diamper, p.22; Brown, Indian Christians, p.27, n.2. 35 An account of the Synod was published by Antonio de Gouvea; see Malekandathil, Jornada, pp.182-292. The Portuguese edition was followed by editions in Spanish and French (used by Brown, Indian Christians, p.13ff) (see Bibliography). An English version also appears in Scaria Zachariah (ed.), The Acts and Decrees of the Synod of Diamper 1599, (Edamattam, Indian Institute of Christian Studies, 1994), pp.19-36. 36 Zacharia, Diamper, p.22. 37 Menezes played on the fact that to have a priest among its members brought honour to a family, and that local expectation was for a priest to be loyal to the bishop who had ordained him. The cynicism of Menezes’ action is revealed by the fact that, not many years before, the Provincial Synod of Goa had declared that Malabar already had sufficient priests (Thaliath, Diamper, p.24f; Malekandathil, Jornada, p.158, n.146). 38 Quoted in Thaliath, Diamper, p.140. Neill, however, asserts that Menezes was concerned that everything done at the Synod should be understood by all, and appointed interpreters (History, vol. 1, p.213). 39 ‘Many objections were raised, but in every case the archbishop’s partisans rose to speak in support and the opponents of the measures,

94

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

had been told that they could no longer officiate if they refused to accept the decrees, signed and were followed by the lay delegates. Assessments of the Synod vary according to the perspective of the writer. Some of the decrees were, from a modern Christian perspective, unobjectionable insofar as they condemned such beliefs as the transmigration of souls after death into beasts or other people, or that a person’s ‘fate’ is determined by the date of his birth.40 Some dealt with ‘administrative’ matters – the execution of wills, 41 the securing of the sacred vessels in cupboards,42 etc. Very many more, however, concerned the suppression of the ancient practices of the Church of the East and the substitution of Latin rites in their place.43 In the case of the lesser sacraments, this meant the total suppression of the ancient East Syrian forms; the new Sacramentary was to be ‘a translation [into East Syriac] of the Rituale Romanum with the peculiarities then obtaining in the Diocese of Braga in Portugal’.44 This programme ranged from altering the leaderless as they were, lacked ability and courage to sustain their objections’ (Brown, Indian Christians, p.34). The final Decree orders the ‘vicars’ of the local Churches, ‘not to fail to have all its decrees transcribed from the original Malabar, and to have a copy thereof in all their Churches …’ (Session IX, Decree XXV, Zacharia, Diamper, p.214). This suggests that there was a Malayalam version of the Decrees, though to what extent it was available during the Synod is unclear. See also Malekandathil, Jornada, pp.261, n.201, 285, n.209. 40 Session III, Decree IV (Zacharia, Diamper, p.90f). 41 Session VIII, Decree XXXVIII (Zacharia, Diamper, p.200). 42 Session VIII, Decree XXVIII (Zacharia, Diamper, p.195). For a preVatican II Roman Catholic assessement of the decrees of Diamper, see Tisserant, Eastern Christianity, pp.56-68, 163-172. 43 For a discussion of some of the areas see Baby Varghese, ‘The Impact of the Synod of Diamper on the Faith and Liturgy of the St. Thomas Christians’, in The Harp, XVI, (2002), 151-158. 44 Jacob Vellian, ‘The Vicissitudes of the Syro-Malabar Liturgy down the Centuries’, in idem (ed), The Malabar Church, p.10. Braga, in northern Portugal, was the Primatial See of that country. Its rite had some features deriving from the Mozarabic tradition and was one of the few permitted to continue following the Council of Trent, as it had been in use for two centuries prior to that Council. The translation into Syriac must have been effected prior to the Synod as copies were available for Menezes to give to the priests before they returned to their parishes (Zacharia, Diamper, p.36;

THE CONSEQUENCES OF EUROPEAN CONTACT

95

Sign of the Cross (from right to left in ancient Syrian usage to left to right in Latin usage)45 to altering the appearance of the clergy. Older priests were allowed to keep their beards, provided they kept the hair around the lips trimmed so as not to touch the sacramental wine, but younger priests were to be clean shaven.46 All clerics were to have the crown of their heads shaved in a Latin-rite tonsure.47 Most serious was the wholesale destruction of some texts of the Eucharist and the alteration of others.48 Twenty four Decrees relate to the Eucharist. A western scholastic theology is imposed, and Tisserant, Eastern Christianity, pp.64, 177). Elements from the Braga rite were incorporated into the liturgy of the Lusitanian Church in the mid 20th century (The Faith and Order of the Lusitanian and Spanish Reformed Episcopal Churches, Report of the Commission appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, London, Church Information Office, 1963, p.6). 45 Session VIII, Decree XXXVII (Zacharia, Diamper, p.200). Pallath, Eucharistic Liturgy, pp.175-177. 46 Session VII, Decree XII (Zacharia, Diamper, p.163). See Henry Chadwick, East and West: The Making of a Rift in the Church. From Apostolic Times until the Council of Florence, Oxford, OUP, 2003, p.12 for a brief introduction to the different perspectives of East and West on beards. The wearing of beards by East Syrian clergy is even mentioned on the Hsi-an fu stele (see text in Moffett, Christianity in Asia, p.515). 47 Session VII, Decree XIV (Zacharia, Diamper, p.163f.). See also Podipara, Canonical Sources, pp.137-139. For priests the tonsure was to be size of the celebrant’s host at Mass. The tonsure became universal, with the hair immediately above the ears being shaved off as well, to leave a circle of hair, perhaps influenced by the tonsure of the Discalced Carmelites (of whom see below). Even this western introduction was incorporated into the Keralan caste system. Eventually it became necessary for the initial tonsure (which was performed in Church on the evening before the actual ordination) to be made by a Hindu barber of the Vathi caste. This is still the case in the MISC. I am grateful to Mar Koorilose IX for this information. 48 Session V, Decree II (Zacharia, Diamper, p.137). ‘If anything can consign to perpetual infamy the name and progress of this Barbarian [Menezes] surely it must be the destruction of so many ancient and invaluable documents of the Christian Church’, (Lee, Brief History, p.515). See also Istavan Perczel, ‘Have the Flames of Diamper destroyed all the old Manuscripts of the St Thomas Christians?’, in The Harp, vol. XX (2006), pp.87-104, for a recent examination of some texts that survived the attempts of the Portuguese to destroy all traces of ‘Nestorianism’.

96

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

significant alterations made to the structure of the rite, most notably the insertion of a Narrative of Institution.49 For daily Masses the text of the Roman rite, translated into Syriac, was to be used, as the Syrian rite was judged too long.50 The collective spirituality of the community was to be destroyed as the list of other condemned books shows.51 A flavour of the spirit of the Synod may usefully be given in the following Decree: Forasmuch as it is of great moment, that all things belonging to the sacrifice of the mass, should be preserved pure and undefiled, and whereas this Church has been for 1200 years from under the obedience of the holy Roman Church, the mistress of all the other Churches …, all the bishops that came hither from Babylon having been schismatics and Nestorian heretics, who have added to and taken from the mass at their pleasure without any order …, for which, if due order were observed, all the missals of this bishopric ought to be burned, as also for their having been of Nestorian use, and compiled by Nestorian heretics; but there being none other at present, they are tolerated, until such time as our lord the Pope shall take some order therein, and there shall be missals sent by him printed in the Chaldee tongue, which this Synod humbly and earnestly desires may be done: and in the meantime it doth command, that the missals now in use be purged and reformed … and that till such time as they are so purged … no priest shall presume to make use of them any more.52

The whole community was placed under the authority of the Pope of Rome, each person present being required to swear that they will have no further 49 For a detailed treatment see Pallath, Eucharistic Liturgy, passim. There is some evidence that Mar Joseph, under Roman pressure, had begun to introduce an Institution Narrative. 50 Session V, Decree II (Zacharia, Diamper, p.138). 51 Session II, Decree XIV (Zacharia, Diamper, pp.98-103). 52 Session V, Decree I (Zacharia, Diamper, p.131). Some books were solemnly burned by Menezes dressed in his pontificals. It should be noted, however, that even Menezes could not bring the Syrians to worship in any other language than Syriac.

THE CONSEQUENCES OF EUROPEAN CONTACT

97

dependence upon the Patriarch of Babylon, whom I condemn, reject and anathematise, as being a Nestorian heretic and schismatic, and out of the obedience of the holy Roman Church, and for that reason out of a state of salvation ….53

The Synod thus brought to an end the pastoral oversight of the community by bishops from West Asia. The Syrians swore to accept no bishops other than those appointed by the Pope. In practice this meant the imposition of a Latin-rite hierarchy of Europeans. Pope Julius III’s acknowledgement that the Patriarchate of Mar Sulaqa and his successors included ‘all India’ was not honoured.54 There is considerable irony in the fact that the Patriarch whom Menezes forced the St Thomas Christians to repudiate was Shem’un IX Denha (of the Sulaqa line) who was in communion with Rome.55 Not until 1896 did the Indians who remained under Roman obedience receive a hierarchy of their own race.56 Western practices such as Confirmation and Confession57, and the use of the rosary were commanded. Clerical celibacy was imposed, only those priests who put away their wives being allowed to function. Priests’ wives who refused to leave their husbands were to be degraded in the Church.58 After the Synod Archbishop Menezes himself visited many of the parishes, reinforcing acceptance of the Decrees.59 Under the pretext of making good deficiencies, Latin-style Session II, Decree I (Zacharia, Diamper, p.81). It had in any case been extremely restricted by Pius IV in 1562 – Chaldean Patriarchs could only appoint in places where the Roman Pontiff had not done so. This meant that Kerala, where Cochin had been erected, was excluded (Podipara, Latin Rite Christians, p.26). 55 Malekandathil, Jornada, pp.XXXIII. Malekandathil argues that there is some evidence that the Portuguese were aware that the Patriarch was not a heretic (Jornada, 142, n.131). 56 As will be seen below, there were in fact two ethnic Indian bishops prior to 1896, but their appointment was exceptional. 57 The Syrians initially strongly resisted Confirmation, believing that marking their forehead with a cross was means of making them vassals of the Portuguese (Malekandathil, Jornada, pp.130f, 297). 58 Session VII, Decrees XVI – XVIII (Zacharia, Diamper, pp.164166). 59 For an account of Menezes visitations see Malekandathil, Jornada, pp.293-449. A summary can be found in Lee, Brief History, pp.514-517. 53 54

98

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

vestments were provided in the parishes.60 In an attempt to obliterate the community’s collective memory, the substantial archives of the bishopric, kept at the ancient centre at Angamale, were burned.61 It is important, in view of the later engagement of the St Thomas Christians with non-Roman Catholic Europeans, to note that writers from such Churches (particularly the Church of England in the early 19th century) tended to see the Decrees of Diamper as evidence that the Indian Church was anciently a ‘pure’ community whose doctrines and practices had been corrupted by Rome. The faith of the Syrians as condemned at Diamper was interpreted as being substantially the same as that of the Protestant Reformers. A quotation from 1833 illustrates the sentiment: The value of this document [the Decrees] is very great to the protestant Churches of the West … We are accused of innovation and modern heresy: but here, according to the written testimonies of our adversaries themselves, is a Church wonderfully preserved … in all probability from the days of the Apostles, without any communication or intercourse with the Churches of Europe; and yet agreeing in very many of the most essential points in which the Protestants of Europe have resisted the corruptions of the Romanists.62

60 Session V, Decree XI (Zacharia, Diamper, p.141). Menezes also gave the senior priests a ‘surplice’ in which to administer the sacraments. It seems that only for the Qurbana had the kathanars worn vestments (Malekandathil, Jornada, pp.244, 291; Zacharia, Diamper, p.36). Post Vatican II liturgical reforms have largely restored the eastern vestments (Pallath, Eucharistic Liturgy, pp.187-190). 61 Malekandathil, Jornada, p.351. 62 Paper read by Archdeacon Thomas Robinson on 8th August 1833 and published as ‘An Historical Account of the Christians on the Malabar Coast’, in Madras Journal of Literature and Science, (Oct. 1833), 7-13, (Jan. 1834), 94-104, (July 1834), 255-269, (Oct. 1834), 342-350. The quotation is from Oct. 1834, p.343. Also: ‘The proceedings of the Synod, which are on record, show what the ancient Syrian Churches had received by tradition from their fathers, and how nearly it approximated to Protestant truth’, (Bateman, Life of Daniel Wilson, vol. 2, p.45).

THE CONSEQUENCES OF EUROPEAN CONTACT

99

This perception was to have a profound influence on later events. The effects of the Synod of Diamper insofar as they relate to issues that would later be addressed in the circumstances surrounding the genesis of the MISC, may be summed up as follows: • The Syrian community was under the oversight of Latinrite European bishops, rather than bishops from West Asia (though the local Archdeacon remained a significant figure). • The spiritual head of the community was the Pope of Rome, rather than a Patriarch of Syriac provenance.63 • The Eucharist was celebrated, in western-style vestments, using a heavily latinised version of the East Syrian rite, though in East Syriac script and pronunciation. • The other offices were essentially translations of Latin rites.64 • Statues, rosaries and other features of Latin Catholic worship were introduced into Churches. • Priests were forbidden to marry.65 Before leaving this brief account of the Synod of Diamper, it is necessary to note a small detail which relates to subsequent events. Beyond the Northist/Southist division already noted, there was a marked tendency for the St Thomas congregations to form two ‘clusters’, which differed from each other slightly in identity and ecclesiastical allegiance. The effect that this has had will be noted in the following Chapters. Here it is simply necessary to note that this differentiation is reflected even in the reception of Diamper. In the 18th century the Syrians in communion with Roman rule 63 ‘It severed in one coup the age-long relation that the Church of Malabar fostered with that of Babylon’, (Thaliath, Diamper, p.173). 64 Ordinations were to be performed in Latin. 65 For an extended study of the status of the synod, see Thaliath and Zacharia, passim. Thaliath (himself a Roman Catholic) strongly questions its legitimacy. He concludes that Menezes had no juridical authority to call the Synod and notes that some decrees were added after the synod ended: ‘the invalidity of the Synod stands proved’ (p.172). This seems to be the current accepted position of Roman Catholic scholars (see, for example, Van der Ploeg, Syriac MSS, p.18.

100

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

claimed that, ‘the churches of the north did not accept that synod [Diamper] at the very time of its celebration’.66 Francis Ros, Archbishop of Angamale/Cranganore 1601-1624 Archbishop Menezes eventually returned to Goa.67 Francis Ros, a Jesuit, one of Menezes’ chaplains familiar with both Syriac and Malayalam, was consecrated bishop of Angamale at Goa in 1601, technically as successor to the late Mar Abraham, who had died four years previously.68 Not only were the Syrians now under a European bishop, but their community was no longer independent, being reduced to a mere bishopric (Mar Abraham had been styled Archbishop) and arbitrarily placed under Goa.69 Ros ruled the Church in Kerala until 1624.70 His appointment in effect extinguished the right of the Chaldean Patriarch to appoint Metropolitans for the Indian Syrian community. In 1608 he managed to get archiepiscopal status restored to his diocese, but the following year moved the seat of the Latin bishops from Angamale to Cranganore (now Kodungalloor).71 The majority of Syrians were now members Paremmakkal, Varthamanppusthakam, p.267. In 1609 he returned to Portugal to become Archbishop of Braga and Viceroy of Portugal. He died in 1617 (Malekandathil, Jornada, p.XXIII; Thaliath, Diamper, p.18). 68 For a detailed account of the life and ministry of Ros, see Ferroli, Jesuits, pp.291-360. Ros (whose name is often spelt ‘Roz’) had been in India since 1584. He was presented by the King of Spain and Portugal under the Padroado and consecrated by de Menezes (see the sources quoted in Neill, History, vol. 1, p.471, nn.80-84. 69 Podipara, Canonical Sources, p.70. Tisserant calls this subjection ‘mere abuse’ (Eastern Christianity, p.102). 70 Thaliath claims that initially Ros made some attempt to undo some of the provisions of Diamper, but eventually gave way (Diamper, p.172; Lee, Brief History, p.517). He also seems to have been responsible for ‘stabilising’ the liturgical situation by approving standard rubrics for the celebration of the Qurbana (Van der Ploeg, MSS, p.118). See Podipara, Canonical Sources, pp.110-113, 141-143 for a brief description of Ros’ changes to the Syrians’ rite and customs. 71 Tisserant, Eastern Christianity, p.74; Thaliath, Diamper, p.34, Ferroli, Jesuits, p.312. Cranganore was a centre of Portuguese settlement, which the Syrians had largely abandoned (Kollaparambil, Revolution, pp.42f, 236, n.40). 66 67

THE CONSEQUENCES OF EUROPEAN CONTACT

101

of a Padroado See, whose episcopal head was to be nominated by the King of Portugal and confirmed by the Pope. Much of Ros’ episcopate was marked by difficult relations with his fellowEuropeans, the Bishops of Cochin, the other Padroado See in Kerala.72 Initially he and Archdeacon Geevarghese worked well together, but then the relationship between them deteriorated, to such an extent that Ros excommunicated Geevarghese and appointed his uncle as Archdeacon for a short period. They were eventually briefly reconciled, but were again at enmity when Ros died. 73 One small development that is first noted in Ros’ archiepiscopate which has left its mark on the MISC and other Syrian communities to the present day, is the assumption of episcopal regalia by the Archdeacon. Towards the end of the 17th century it was noted that the wearing of rochet and mozetta by the Archdeacons 72 There were several reasons for this. Cochin, it will be recalled, had been founded in 1557 at a Latin-rite diocese for converts. The assigning of territories to Cranganore and Cochin in 1609 meant that Cranganore had several Latin rite parishes, while some St Thomas Christians lived in the territory assigned to Cochin. At times the Bishops of Cochin tended to view the Archbishopric of Cranganore as a personal (non-territorial) jurisdiction over the Syrians (Kollaparambil, Revolution, p.242). See Podipara, Canonical Sources, pp.72-74 for a brief description of the jurisdictional quarrels. Antipathy between the Catholic dioceses was to be a continuing problem. In the early 18th century, Visscher described how two of the three Roman bishops ‘receive their approval from the King of Portugal, the Pope confirming them’, while the third was ‘a Carmelite, appointed by the Pope alone, and is under the [Dutch East India] Company’s protection; the States General having conceded to the [Holy Roman] Emperor the right to appoint such a Prelate, which right he has handed over to the Pope. There is no fear lest this Bishop should make common cause with the Portuguese. On the contrary, he has always been their enemy …’ (Dury, Visscher, Letter XVII, p.111). Visscher believed that the Portugese and Jesuits were intercepting the Archbishop of Cranganore’s letters. The other initial Padroado Sees in India were Goa and Mylapore. 73 See Kollaparambil, Archdeacon, pp.112-122, for an account of the relationship between the two men. Ros’ body was said to have been incorrupt when moved two years after his burial (Van der Ploeg, Syriac MSS, p.266). His tombstone can be seen in the Church of Parur (Tisserant, Eastern Christianity, p.75, n.1).

102

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

had been ‘granted or rather permitted’ by Archbishop Ros, and had been worn by all Pakalomattom Archdeacons since.74 Other sources also speak of a pectoral cross and ring.75 Thus, as early as the reign of the first European Archbishop, the ‘state’ dress (as opposed to the liturgical vestments) of the native head of the St Thomas Christians was the choir dress of a Latin rite bishop. As will be seen, this ‘uniform’ and the significance attached to it was to prove very enduring. Stephen de Brito, Archbishop of Cranganore 1624-1641 Ros was succeeded by another Jesuit, Stephen de Brito, who occupied the see from 1624 to 1641.76 De Brito knew Malayalam, but not Syriac, which isolated him liturgically from his subjects. Like his predecessor, he had a variable relationship with Archdeacon Geeverghese who at one stage petitioned Rome (unsuccessfully) for relief from Jesuit bishops.77 The response was the consecration the following year of another Jesuit, Francis Garcia, as co-adjutor, and who succeeded Brito as Archbishop in 1641. Garcia (1641-1659) has been described as ‘conscientious, but without any appreciation of, or sympathy with, the India point of view’.78 He knew neither Malayalam nor Syriac. The consequences of Garcia’s dealings with the Syrians will be explored in the next Chapter. Archdeacon Geevarghese died in 1640 and de Brito appointed one of his nephews, Thomas, as successor to his uncle. The relationship between the new Archdeacon and the new Archbishop will also be explored in the next Chapter. The coming of the Portuguese had thus totally transformed the dynamic of the Christian presence in Kerala. Now there were two Christian communities: Latin-rite congregations with their own 74 Kollaparambil, Archdeacon, p.162. See the depiction of the Archdeacon beside Mar Alexander de Campo in Figure 3. 75 Kollaparambil, Archdeacon, p.229. 76 See Ferroli, Jesuits, pp.361-372, for the career of De Brito. 77 Kollaparambil, Archdeacon, p.124ff. It seems that the Dominicans were the prime movers behind the petition. De Brito generally took a more tolerant line towards the Syrians than either his predecessor or successor (Kollaparambil, Revolution, p.43f, 243). 78 Brown, Indian Christians, p.98.

THE CONSEQUENCES OF EUROPEAN CONTACT

103

hierarchy,79 existing alongside the ancient St Thomas Christians, whose own worship, though still in Syriac, was now heavily latinised liturgically. Echoes of this latinisation can be found even today in the MISC. Furthermore, the ancient tradition of obtaining Metropolitans from West Asia had been broken. The St Thomas Christians now had bishops imposed on them by European powers – the papacy and the Portuguese monarchy. The office of Archdeacon had survived, but understood in significantly different ways by the European bishops and the St Thomas Christians (including, of course, the Archdeacons themselves). Diamper had indeed been a watershed.80 THE DUTCH

In 1592 a number of Dutch merchants meeting in Amsterdam agreed to found a company for trading with the Indes. In part they were emboldened by the defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588 which seemed to suggest that the power of Spain and Portugal, who had hitherto dominated the West Indes and East Indes, was not invincible after all.81 In 1595 a fleet of four vessels commanded by Cornelius de Houtman sailed for India. The arrival of Europeans who were hostile to the Portuguese was seized upon by the Indians of Kerala as an opportunity to rid themselves of the Portuguese yoke. As early as 1604 the Dutch had concluded a treaty with the Zamorin of Calicut which anticipated ‘the expulsion of the Portuguese from the territories of His Highness [the Zamorin] and the rest of India’.82

79 These were literally Latin-rite, in that Latin was the language of worship. Neither group was worshipping in Malayalam. 80 In 1821 the British army officer Digby Mackworth travelled past the Church at Diamper. The young Syrian accompanying him ‘observed that a Divine judgement seemed ever since [the 1559 Synod] to rest upon the place, for they had no worship there at all. The inhabitants profess Romanism; but the Church is almost in ruins, and they have no priest’ (Mackworth, Tour, p.102f). A few months later Mill described Diamper as ‘All desertion and forgetfulness’ (MS Mill 204 Journal 1st January 1822). 81 See Pannikar, Dutch, for an account of Dutch dealings in India. 82 Quoted in Pannikar, Dutch, p.2.

104

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

Like the British East India Company after it, however, the main interest of the Dutch East India Company initially lay further East again, in Java, where they had a major trading and administrative centre at Batavia (modern Jakarta). Despite the contacts established at the beginning of the 17th century, it was not until 1658 that a representative of one of the claimants to the throne of Cochin visited the Dutch at the newly-conquered base on Sri Lanka and invited them to expel the Portuguese from Cochin. The Dutch seized the opportunity to return to Malabar and take over the Portuguese trade monopoly there. They captured Cochin and achieved what was asked of them in 1663.83 Within a very short space of time the Dutch had taken over the trading structures created by the Portuguese and were exporting large quantities of pepper and other spices out of the Malabar Coast. Replacing the Portuguese as the dominant European power meant that the Dutch were inevitably drawn into local rivalries. ‘As soon as the campaign [of 1662/3] was over the Zamorin demanded that the position of the Cochin Rajah should be reduced to what it was before the Portuguese elevated him to the status of an independent ruler ….’84 This the Dutch refused to do, unwittingly preserving one of the players in the MISC story, though by treaty they acquired for themselves a substantial amount of influence in the state of Cochin.85 ‘The Dutch policy in Malabar was governed by the single consideration of maximum pepper trade at minimum expense’.86 Such military presence as they maintained in Kerala was to protect this trade, rather than for conquest, and represented a considerable re-

83 ‘The Portuguese never lost India, because they never possessed it; they never came anywhere near to possessing it. Theirs was merely a supremacy on the sea gained by purely adventitious circumstances, which vanished with the arrival in Indian waters of the Dutch and the British’ (Panikkar, Portuguese, p.203). 84 Pannikar, Dutch, p.9. 85 Pannikar, Dutch, p.21. Pannikar states that ‘This agreement virtually handed over the Cochin state to the Dutch’. 86 Pannikar, Dutch, p.112.

THE CONSEQUENCES OF EUROPEAN CONTACT

105

duction on that kept by the Portuguese.87 Any temptation to territorial ambitions that did arise in the first half of the 18th century was quickly stifled by the rise of Martanda Varma of Travancore, as described in Chapter 1. Malabar, in any case, was one a small part of Dutch interest in the East; as already noted, her main interests were further East. Compared to their predecessors, the Dutch were a benign presence ‘not marred by massacres and other acts of inhuman cruelty which characterised the Portuguese’.88 Initially there were some acts of violence against Roman Catholics and their institutions – including the destruction of the magnificent Jesuit library at Cochin – but soon the Dutch adopted a fairly tolerant policy towards Roman Catholics, taking on something of the Portuguese’s protecting role in relation to Latin rite Christians. Jesuits and Carmelites were allowed to return and ministered unmolested. Relations between the Dutch administration and Roman bishops were generally cordial. Pope Clement XIV even wrote a letter thanking the Dutch for their protection of Catholics.89 The Dutch were, however, perceived to favour the Syrian Christian community against the Roman Catholics. This was a correct perception: We have after the conquest of Cochin not only favoured the revolt of the Eastern Christians against the usurpations of Rome but also assisted them in getting out new Bishops from Syria, by placing at their disposal the ships of the Company.90

The effects of these acts in favour of the Syrian Christians will be examined in Chapter 5. The presence of the Dutch means that a new set of sources now comes into existence. It was the custom for each retiring Commander to leave a Memorandum for his successor. Most of 87 Such protection was not simply from the Indians; the British, Danes and French were both anxious to break into the lucrative pepper trade. 88 Pannikar, Dutch, p.125. 89 See quotation in Pannikar, Dutch, p.129. 90 Moens, quoted in Pannikar, Dutch, p.130. See below for further information on Moens.

106

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

these are concerned purely with trade and political matters. One Commander, however, Adriaan Moens, Commandeur from 1771 to 1781, took a close interest in Church affairs and included an account of these in his Memorandum which provides one of the few accounts contemporary with the genesis of the MISC.91 Dutch influence in southwest India, combined with steadily improving communication with Europe, brought an increasing number of travellers to Kerala, some of whom have left descriptions of what they found there. Of particular importance for the present work is Abraham Hyacinthe Anquetil du Perron of the French Royal Academy and ‘Interpretre du Roi pour les Langues Orientales’. In 1771 Anquetil du Perron published a three volume translation of the Zend-Avesta, the sacred writings of Zoroastrianism (the Avesta), combined with its traditional interpretative Pahlavi commentary (the Zend). Much of the first volume of this work is taken up with a journey that the translator made to India in 17578. This is of enormous value as it includes eye-witness accounts of some of the early players in the MISC story. A second valuable source is Paulinus a S. Bartholomeo, the Vicar-General of the Carmelites in Travancore from 1776-89. His India Orientalis Christiana, published in 1794, draws in part on Anquetil du Perron, but augments it with his own observations and information derived from people with whom he had spoken.92

91 An English translation is published as Memorandum on the Administration of the Coast of Malabar by the Right Worshipful Adriaan Moens … dated 18th April 1781, (ET P.Groot and A.Galletti) Dutch Records No. 13, Government Press, 1911. 92 A ‘Notation’ preserved among various documents relating to the situation of the Roman Catholic Church in Travancore and Cochin gathered by British Resident John Munro in the second decade of the 19th century contains some highly critical comments about Paulinus by the Roman authorities. They record that he had been imprisoned, and had been obliged to answer to ‘various Articles and accusations’ in the presence of the Rajah of Cochin. Concerning his published works, it is alleged that ‘in one of them he advanced many falseshood and calumnies against the Portuguese Bishops and missionaries, entirely misrepresenting the facts’ (IOR/F/4//616/15311.p.152). The accusations are a typical example of the antipathy between the various Roman Catholic parties in Ker-

THE CONSEQUENCES OF EUROPEAN CONTACT

107

The testimony of these two writers will be referred to in the next two Chapters. The Dutch were drawn into the wars caused by Rajah Martanda Varma of Travancore in his expansionist policies described briefly in Chapter 1. In 1741 they suffered a serious defeat at Colachel which ‘put an end to Dutch dreams of the conquest of Malabar …. From this time, except for unimportant diplomatic skirmishes with Travancore, the Company was reconciled to the position of mere traders without political pretensions’.93 This new reality was formally recognised in a treaty of 1753 with Martanda Varma. The right to intervene and arbitrate in local disputes, inherited from the Portuguese was finally surrendered by the Dutch. Further, there was no mention of special protection for Christians by the European power, something which the Portuguese had always claimed. From this time on Dutch power declined rapidly. By 1776 the invasion of Haider Ali (see below) had deprived the Dutch East India Company of all its territorial possessions, leaving virtually only the fort and town of Cochin and a few other defensive outposts.94 In 1789 the Dutch sold the fort of Cranganore to Travancore.95 Alliance with Revolutionary France brought Holland into a state of war with Great Britain.96 The British demanded the surrender of Fort Cochin and on 20th October 1795 the Dutch flag ceased to fly on the Malabar coast.97

ala. Paulinus was the author of a Malayalam Grammar entitled Sidharoopam, which was still in use in 1937 (Pascal, Hierarchies, p.116). 93 Pannikar, Dutch, p.70. 94 Pannikar, Dutch, p.105. 95 Pannikar, Dutch, p.185. 96 ‘In order to prevent the Dutch Colonies falling into the hands of the Revolutionists and their French allies, the English Government issued orders to the naval and military authorities to reduce and occupy all the Dutch settlements in foreign parts’ (Whitehouse, Lingerings of Light, p.237). 97 The Dutch surrender was taken by Major Petrie who marched down from Calicut. The town of Cochin was formally surrendered in 1814, following the Convention of Paris (Pannikar, Dutch, p.111).

108

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

THE BRITISH AND TIPPU SULTAN There was never a masterplan for the conquest of India. No minister in London or governor-general in Calcutta consciously decided that the ultimate goal of British policy was paramountcy throughout the subcontinent. Instead, there was a sequence of tactical decisions made in response to local and sometimes unexpected crises. A backsliding raja who evaded his treaty obligations, a client state in peril from its neighbours, encroachments on British territory, or an independent frontier state making aggressive noises were sufficient justifications for war. When the fighting was over, the [East India] Company found itself with additional land, responsibilities and revenues.98

British involvement with India can be traced back to the 16th century, and is far too vast a subject to be recounted here. Two broad generalisations may perhaps be made. The first is that the British presence in India was initially driven by trading and mercantile concerns and not by the desire for conquest. The chief agent of British involvement was the East India Company, which received its first Royal Charter in 1600.99 By 1740 the British presence was still mainly confined to a number of coastal trading posts.100 Shortly after, the situation began to change. In July 1756 the Nawab of Bengal stormed Calcutta in the northeast of the subcontinent and ejected the British. A countercampaign by Robert Clive led to the conquest and annexation of Bengal, thus placing the East India Company in control of a whole province, though technically as subjects of the Mughal Emperor in

98 Lawrence James, Raj: The Making of British India, London, 1997, p.63. Keay (India, p.383ff) argues that the East India Company was in fact much more aggressive and expansionist than this quotation would suggest, nevertheless it is true that, from the beginning, there was never a plan for the conquest of the whole of India. 99 For overview accounts see John Keay, The Honourable Company: A History of the East India Company, London, 1993 passim and idem, India: A History, London, HarperCollins, 2000, esp. pp. 383-447. 100 See the map in Keay, India, p.378.

THE CONSEQUENCES OF EUROPEAN CONTACT

109

Delhi. From this bridgehead the acquisition of further territories proceeded.101 The East India Company ultimately had three main administrative headquarters – called ‘Presidencies’ – in Calcutta, Bombay and Madras. To defend its trading posts and eventually to impose its rule, the Company maintained an army made up of both British troops and locally-recruited regiments, the soldiers of which were referred to as sepoys.102 The second generalisation relevant to the story of the MISC is that there was little British presence in the areas of Travancore, Cochin and Malabar until the very end of the 18th century. These areas had, as shown above, been firmly under the control of Britain’s trading (and at times political) rivals, the Portuguese and the Dutch. The arrival of the British came about as a response to just such a local crisis as envisaged in the above quotation. The arrival of the British in Kerala It was not trade that brought a substantial British presence into what is now Kerala, but war.103 The region of Malabar was, in the latter part of the 18th century, caught up in events of extreme violence. Haider Ali, a Muslim and a former cavalry subaltern in the Nizam of Hyderabad’s army, had displaced the Hindu ruler of Mysore and seized power for himself.104 He then began upon a policy of expansion. 101 See the maps showing the territories under direct British rule in 1792, 1804, 1820 and 1856 in Keay, India, pp.401 and 417. 102 From the Persian sipahi, meaning ‘soldier’. 103 Though there had been a trading presence since 1635 when a treaty with the Portuguese ‘opened to the English Goa itself, the Portuguese settlements on the Malabar Coast, and numerous other ports from Basra in Iraq to Tatta in Sind and Macao off the Chinese mainland’ (Keay, Honourable Company, p.108). 104 Technically, ‘neither Haidar nor his son was ever more than regent of Mysore’ (Forrest, Tiger Tiger of Mysore: the Life and Death of Tippu Sultan London, Chatto & Windus, 1970 , p.55) but in practice their power was absolute. After their final defeat of Tippu the British restored nominal rule to Krishnaraja Wadeyar III, the child heir of the original Hindu dynasty.

110

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

An excuse to direct his attention to Kerala was provided unwittingly by Martanda Varma. In 1753 the Rajah sought Haider Ali’s assistance to quell the resistance against his expansionist policies being put up by the Rajah of Cochin and his allies. In the event, the defeat of Cochin made intervention by Haider Ali unnecessary, but a precedent had been created.105 In 1763 Haider Ali made an incursion into northern Malabar in alliance with the Rajah of Cannanore, the only Muslim ruler on the western coast. Three years later Haider brought a full invasion force into Malabar from the north, entering Calicut. The Zamorin, staring defeat in the face, sent his family away to safety, then blew himself up in one of his palaces.106 Considerable acts of repression and deportation of Nayars followed. On Haider’s withdrawal north to Mysore, the locals rose against his rule. In 1773 Haidar again entered Malabar, annexing the territory of the Zamorin, and in August 1776 his army occupied Thrissur (Trichur) only 15 miles from Thozhiyur. The fact that Haider was receiving supplies from the French gave the British justification for opposing him in Malabar.107 They therefore allied themselves with the new Zamorin and other local rulers and helped evict Haider’s garrisons from most of Malabar. This situation was reversed when Haider’s son, Tippu Sultan (who had succeeded his father in 1782) seized Malabar and many other territories. By the Treaty of Mangalore in 1784 the British recognised Tippu Sultan as suzerain of Malabar. The Mysorean campaigns were accompanied by numerous atrocities by Tippu’s forces against Christians and Hindus, which will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 8.108 105 See Pannikar, Dutch, p.86ff. In Pannikar’s view this appeal to Haider Ali ‘takes away from [Martanda Varma] any claim to greatness as King of Malabar’ (p.86). 106 Eapen, Kerala History, p.199. 107 The political situation was further complicated by the fact that the Netherlands was also drawn for a time into the sphere of revolutionary France. See Denys Forrest, p.236ff for an account of Haider and Tippu’s relations with the French. Tippu had sepoys trained by French officers (Dalrymple, White Mughals, p.58 and sources). 108 Haider had been a tolerant ruler. J.B.P. More argues that this is because he was himself probably a first generation convert to Islam from

THE CONSEQUENCES OF EUROPEAN CONTACT

111

1786 Lord Cornwallis (‘fresh from his defeat by George Washington at Yorktown’109) became Governor General of Bengal under the terms of the 1775 Regulatory Act which restructured the East India Company. The Act gave the Governor General control over the Company’s various ‘Presidencies’ throughout India; the occupant was therefore in effect Governor of all British interests and possessions on the subcontinent. The territories of Malabar, Cochin and Travancore fell initially within the Presidency of Bombay.110 In 1789 Tippu Sultan sought to extend his territories southwards into Travancore, entering Cochin with 20,000 regular infantry, 5,000 horse and 10,000 auxiliaries.111 In January 1790 ‘northern Travancore fell to the enemy and dreadful havoc was inflicted, particularly on the Christian community’.112 The British by this time were allied with the Rajah of Travancore. Cornwallis therefore interpreted Tippu’s attack on that state as a declaration of war and embarked on a series of alliances and troop assemblies to drive Tippu out of Travancore.113 In the event, however, they did not see action in Kerala. By May 1790 Tippu Sultan began to withdraw from the territories he had occupied and returned to Mysore in preparation for its defence from the attack which he knew would come soon. In 1792 by the Treaty of Seringapatam Tippu Sultan ceded Malabar to the British. The British Governor General made the decision to bring Malabar under the direct rule of the East India Company and accordingly two commissioners were sent to tanner or weaver caste. This contrasts with later claims of Afghan or Quairshi descent (‘The Origin, Ancestry and Identity of Hyder Ali’, in More, Religion and Society in South India, pp.11-28). 109 Dalrymple, White Mughals, p.50. 110 For the administrative structures of British rule in India see David Gilmour, The Ruling Caste: Imperial Lives in the Victorian Raj, (London, John Murray, 2005) and the sources quoted there. The diagram on pages xxivxxv gives a useful overview but needs to be used with caution as it relates to a later period than that of the major events explored in the present work. 111 Forrest, Tiger, p.123. 112 Forrest, Tiger, p.132. 113 Forrest, Tiger, p.130. This campaign is known to historians as the Third Mysorean War.

112

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

Calicut to negotiate with the Zamorin. The outcome was an agreement whereby the British would rule Malabar in exchange for an annual allowance paid to the Zamorin. In May 1800, Malabar district was transferred from the Bombay province of the East India Company to the Madras province and the first Principal Collector, Major Macleod, took charge of the district. Revenue and judicial administration departments were set up. To the south the situation was legally different, as the Rajahs of Travancore and Cochin retained their thrones.114 In practice, however, British control extended here as well. In 1795 the British had captured Cochin from the Dutch. On 4th May 1799 Tippu Sultan was killed at the siege of Seringapatam.115 Later that year a ‘Resident’ was appointed to the rajahate of Travancore. A Resident was technically merely the East India Company’s representative or ambassador at an Indian Court. Gradually, however, many of them came to assume significant local power.116 Travancore’s first Resident was Colonel Colin Macaulay, who, as will be seen below, took

As they did until after Indian independence in 1947. By this time the British Governor General was Richard Wellesley, whose brother Arthur was later first Duke of Wellington. For a military account of the Fourth Mysorean War culminating in the siege of Seringapatam, and Arthur Wellesley’s involvement in it, see Richard Holmes, Wellington: The Iron Duke, London, HarperCollins, 2003, pp. 37-68. 116 ‘Whilst these Hindoo Princes had their civil independence guaranteed to them, they accepted the offices of a British Resident, who should reside in their territories to advise and assist in all matters that related to a wise and just administration of state affairs. This arrangement, so fraught with good to their states, came into operation at the beginning of the present century ….’ (Whitehouse, Lingerings of Light, p.237). A less benevolent interpretation can be found among the India Office papers relating to Lord Cornwallis’ period as Governor-General following the defeat of Tippu Sultan: ‘The Commission were of opinion that it would be desirable to appoint Residents at the respective Places [sic] of the Rajahs, for the purpose of controlling them and at the same time acquiring a knowledge of the Country, language and mode of collecting the Revenues, the want of which qualification in some servants of the Company is much felt’, IOR/ H 585, p.22. 114 115

THE CONSEQUENCES OF EUROPEAN CONTACT

113

an interest in the Syrian Christians.117 He was succeeded in March 1810 by Colonel John Munro, whose considerable involvement with the St Thomas Christians will be discussed in Chapter 9. These political changes meant that British colonial writings now provide new sources of information on the St Thomas Christians. Some of these took the form of official notice, others are found in personal memoirs. Britain’s new territorial acquisition of Malabar was rich in natural resources, especially timber, and several surveys and descriptions survive. Evidence from these will be quoted below. In 1821 a young cavalry officer, Digby Mackworth, travelled through Travancore, Cochin and Malabar, and subsequently published an account of his journey which includes eye-witness descriptions of some of the players in the MISC story. From 1809-1811 another officer in the East India Company’s service, Charles Swanston, was engaged in a Survey in Travancore and Cochin. He was back in the region in 1816 in attendance on Bishop Middleton (see below) and yet again in the mid 1820s. In 1826 he submitted to the British Governor in Madras, Sir Thomas Munro ‘A Memoir of the Primitive Church of Malayala, or of the Syrian Christians of the Apostle Thomas, from its first rise the present day’. It was eventually published between 1834 and 1837 in the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland.118 Colin Macaulay was a brother of the historian Zachary Macaulay (see DNB). It should not be imagined that the arrival of the British was universally welcomed. In 1808 Macaulay had to flee from his residence by boat during a rebellion led by Velu Thampi Dalawa, which was recently described in The Hindu newspaper as ‘an epoch-making beginning in the struggle for emancipation from the British’ (6 January 2003). For accounts of the rebellion see Day, Land of the Perumauls, pp.186-189; K.K.N Kurup, ‘The Pazhassi Revolts, Velu Thampi Rebellion …’, in ‘Peasant Protests and Revolts in Travancore and Malabar’, in P.J. Cherian (ed.), Perspectives on Kerala History: The Second Millenium, (online at www.keralahistory.ac.in/peasantprotest.htm). The rebellion resulted in the loss of a number of documents relating to the Syrian Christians. 118 JRAS, I (1834), 171-191, II, 51-62, 234-247. A MS copy with accompanying correspondence can be found in IOR/Mss Eur D152 (formerly K391). According to the accompanying correspondence it was submitted by Swanston in January 1827 to Sir Thomas Munro, Bt, who 117

114

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

Swanston at times relies on earlier and contemporary sources, though often without acknowledgement. 119 Nevertheless, some of the events he recounts, for example the treatment of Mar Philoxenos II, would appear to be from the perspective of an eye-witness or one who has spoken to eye-witnesses. Swanston provides a number of details not mentioned in other sources. The evidence of British Churchmen The establishment of the British as the dominant European power in Kerala facilitated the arrival of British Churchmen and so brought them into contact with the ancient Syrian Church. Two of the earliest of such visits took place in 1806. The first was by the Revd Dr Richard Hall Kerr, the senior East India chaplain at Fort St George (Madras/Chennai). Kerr was a sympathetic though rather uncritical observer.120 Later that year the Revd Claudius Buchanan, Vice-provost of Fort William College in Calcutta came to Kerala. Buchanan’s account of the Syrian Christians, published in his book Christian Researches in Asia (which included ordered it to be passed on the Madras Literary Society. This body had been founded in 1812 and affiliated to the Royal Asiatic Society in 1830. It did not commence publishing its own Journal until 1834, which may explain why Swanston’s manuscript was apparently forwarded to London. There were similar Societies in Calcutta and Bombay (see C.F. Beckingham, ‘A History of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1823-1973), in Stuart Simmonds and Simon Digby (eds), The Royal Asiatic Society: Its History and Treasures, Leiden/London, E.J. Brill, 1979). The MS copy includes three colour illustrations. Identical copies of two of the drawings (though coloured differently) are in the possession of the Royal Asiatic Society. That of the Metropolitan is entitled ‘Serian Bawa’ (Raymond Head, Catalogue of the Paintings, Drawings, Engravings and Books in the Collection of the Royal Asiatic Society, London, RAS, 1991). 119 His description of the dress of a Syrian bishop, for example, is an almost verbally identical with that of Claudius Buchanan (see below) from which it is manifestly derived. 120 His report can be found in IOR/H/59. An insight into Kerr’s perhaps rather uncritical approach can be found in the fact that, although only in Deacon’s Orders, he functioned as a Priest for several years in India claiming that ‘the distinctions which prevail in England ... have not hitherto been considered to apply to this country’ (see Neill, History, vol. 2, pp457f).

THE CONSEQUENCES OF EUROPEAN CONTACT

115

experiences in Persian and Arabia as well as India) stimulated immense interest in the ancient Church.121 An invaluable source of information is provided by the members of the Church Missionary Society who worked in Kerala from 1816. Their accounts are often to be found published in the Church Missionary Society Register and the Madras Church Missionary Record. Numerous manuscript sources also survive. Until the arrival of the first Church of England missionaries, the only Anglican clergy in India had been the Chaplains of the East India Company. These men (of whom there were probably less than 40 in the whole of India at the beginning of the 19th century) were employees of the Company and, in effect, were totally independent of any episcopal control. In 1813 the Act of Parliament which renewed the charter of the Company erected its territories into one huge diocese, comprising not just India, but, initially, southern Africa and Australia.122 The first bishop, whose See city was Calcutta, was Thomas Fanshaw Middleton, who saw his role primarily as organising such Christian ministry as there was into a Diocese of the Church of England, serving the expatriate community.123 In 1816 Bishop Middleton undertook a visitation of his diocese (involving a journey of about 5,000 miles around the Indian subcontinent). In the course of this he visited the Syrian Christians of Kerala. He visited them again in 1821 and took a sufficiently keen interest in their situation as to compose a memoir on the community. This document, which could have been of immense value, was destroyed along with all of Middleton’s manu121

there.

For Buchanan’s career, see art. in DNB and the sources quoted

122 The Act also permitted missionaries to act under licence in India and thus opened the way for the Church Missionary Society to begin to operate in Kerala (Eapen, CMS, p.13). Claudius Buchanan, who was to play a significant role in the story of the Syrian Christians had campaigned vigorously for an English episcopate in India, following his return to the UK in 1808. For an account of the passage of the Bill through Parliament see Penny, Church in Madras, vol. 2, pp.27-50. See Chapter 9 for details of Buchanan’s dealings with the St Thomas Christians.. 123 For the career of Bishop Middleton and an account of his visits to Kerala, see C.W. Le Bas, The Life of the Rt Rev Thomas Fanshaw Middleton DD, London, 1831 (2 vols). Also DNB and the sources quoted there.

116

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

scripts in accordance with the terms of his will. Fortunately, some of Middleton’s observations on the Syrian survive and will be drawn on as evidence in later chapters of the present work. Bishop Middleton died of a fever at Calcutta on 8th July 1822. His successor was Reginald Heber, whose episcopate lasted only from 1823 to his sudden death on 3rd April 1826.124 Heber undertook only one journey to southern India, but died before he could personally visit the Syrian Christians. He was, however, well aware of their circumstances and corresponded with their bishops, as will be seen below. He also unwittingly facilitated a divisive visit by a bishop from Antioch, whose impact upon the community will be examined in due course. Both Middleton and Heber were accompanied by Churchmen who also took a keen interest in the Syrians, and have contributed to our knowledge of them: the letters and publications of Thomas Robinson, John Doran, Samuel Lee and William Hodge Mill in particular shed valuable light on our subject.125 The fourth bishop of Calcutta, Daniel Wilson,126 oversaw the termination of formal co-operation between British missionaries and the ancient Church. His experience offers further insights.127 George Broadley Howard, Assistant Chaplain in Madras, 124 See Michael Laird, art. ‘Heber, Reginald’, in DNB, and the sources quoted there. 125 Robinson (1790-1873) was Chaplain to Bishop Heber and published an account of his last days, and a history of the St Thomas Christians up to the Synod of Diamper (‘An Historical Account of the Christians on the Malabar Coast’, in Madras Journal of Literature and Science, (Oct. 1833), 7-13, (Jan. 1834), 94-104, (July 1834), 255-269, (Oct. 1834), 342350. Robinson went on to become Archdeacon of Madras. Doran succeeded Fenn as principal at Kottayam in 1826 (T. Hough, Christianity in India, vol. 5, p.389ff.). Lee was Professor of Arabic and Hebrew at the University of Cambridge (Thomas Hamilton, (revised John D. Haigh), art. ‘Lee, Samuel’. in DNB); William Hodge Mill (1792-1853) was Principal of Bishop’s College, Calcutta, founded by Bishop Middleton. 126 Heber’s successor, John James, survived only 7 months in India before his death. The next bishop, John Turner, also had a short episcopate, dying in 1831. For accounts of their ministries see T. Hough, Christianity in India, vol.5, pp.593-649. Wilson was Bishop from 1832 to 1858. 127 See Joseph Bateman, The Life of the Rt Rev Daniel Wilson, DD, late Lord Bishop of Calcutta, (London, John Murray, 1862).

THE CONSEQUENCES OF EUROPEAN CONTACT

117

published in 1864 a sympathetic account of his travels among the Syrians, together with the text of their Eucharistic liturgies.128 Another English chaplain, James Hough, also published liturgical texts in his History of Christianity in India.129 Thomas Whitehouse gives a further account, from his time as a missionary in the 1850s and 60s.130 Perhaps inevitably, the English Churchmen were drawn into the Syrians’ conflicts. Howard and the CMS missionaries in particular found themselves putting into the public domain the views of opposing factions, as will be seen below. The Middle Eastern Dimension It was not only in India that the British and other Europeans were coming into contact with Christians of the Syrian (and other) traditions. The early 19th century saw a renewed interest in the ancient Churches within the Ottoman Empire. In part this was a byproduct of the political ‘Great Game’ – the ever-shifting balance of power between Turkey, Persia and Russia in which Western European powers involved themselves for their own interests. For the purposes of the present study it is sufficient to note that Church of England policy with regard to these ancient Churches was to seek to alleviate their conditions by sponsoring in the main educational initiatives with a view to providing educated clergy and laity who would lead their communities and spread the Gospel. The most long-standing of these was the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Mission to the East Syrians.131 The Syrian Orthodox, however, also desired 128 George Broadley Howard, The Christians of St Thomas and their Liturgies … translated from Syriac MSS obtained in Travancore, Oxford, John Henry & James Parker, 1864. 129 J. Hough, The History of Christianity in India from the Commencement of the Christian Era, London, Church Missionary House, 1839-47. The texts form an appendix to volume IV. Like many of his generation, Hough was offered a post in India by Charles Simeon (see below) 130 Thomas Whitehouse, Lingerings of Light in a Dark Land: Being Researches into the Past History and Present Condition of the Syrian Church of Malabar, London, William Brown & Co, 1873 (reprinted in facsimile by Kessinger Publishing). 131 J.F. Coakley, The Church of the East and the Church of England: A History of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Assyrian Mission, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1992.

118

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

assistance from the Church of England.132 As will be seen, in the second half of the 19th century Church of England authorities were to find themselves caught up in the conflict between India and Syria. Having introduced some of the major players in our story, we can now resume the narrative in the years following the Synod of Diamper.

For an overview of the early contact between the Syrian Orthodox Church and the Church of England, see William H. Taylor, Antioch and Canterbury: The Syrian Orthodox Church and the Church of England 1874-1928, (Piscataway, NJ, Gorgias Press, 2005). 132

CHAPTER 5: THE STRUGGLE FOR INDEPENDENCE AND IDENTITY 1653-1751 The Synod of Diamper had, in theory, brought the whole Indian Syrian community within the Roman Catholic Church. There was, however, much disaffection among the Syrians. Quite apart from the circumstances in which the submission had been obtained, Diamper violated some of the most precious marks of the community’s identity – it had cut them off from West Asian bishops, placing them under a European hierarchy in Dioceses which also contained Latin rite convert congregations, and it had changed many of the time-honoured rites and ceremonies of their worship. The situation worsened when the Portuguese – and in particular the Jesuits - began to interfere with another cherished Indian institution – the Archdeacon.1 As noted in Chapter 3, all the archdeacons who ruled over the non-Roman Syrians were from the same family – the Pakalomattom. This had the psychological effect of binding the Christian community very strongly to a particular ‘dynasty’ to which they gave their loyalty. Moreover, the Archdeacon was from time immemorial the acknowledged head and spokesman of the indigenous Christian community. No other figure represented the entire ‘caste’ in any comparable way. Any attack on the Archdeacon or his office would therefore have wider repercussions. This attempt to degrade the archdiaconate met with strong resistance not only from the archdeacons but also from the cattanars and the people. The archdeacons were able to offer so much resistance to the [Latin] archbishops, because not only 1 See Kollaparambil, Revolution, p.42-59 for details of the Jesuits’ campaigns against the Archdeacons in the reigns of Ros and de Brito.

119

120

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS they but also large sections of the cattanars and the Christians considered the maintenance of the power and the prestige of the archdiaconate necessary for the maintenance of the privileges and enviable status that the community as a whole enjoyed in the kingdoms of Malabar.2

Various initiatives were attempted, including the founding of a religious Order for native clergy – the Recollects - but all foundered as a result of mistrust between the various parties. FRANCIS GARCIA, ARCHBISHOP OF CRANGANORE, 1641-1659

In 1641 de Brito was succeeded as Archbishop by Francis Garcia SJ, whom even a Roman Catholic scholar describes as ‘harsh and intransigent by nature, dogmatic and legalistic by training’.3 Born in 1580 in Portugal, Garcia had joined the Jesuits in 1598 and left for India four years later. He held a number of missionary and teaching posts before being consecrated titular bishop of Ascalon at Goa, with right of succession to De Brito. Garcia had no intention of treating the Archdeacon as a partner in the administration of the Diocese and snubbed him on numerous occasions.4 European centralisation policies meant that the stipends of the priests were now paid by the Archbishop (as opposed to the earlier custom of localised finance). This meant that Garcia could attempt to enforce his will on the kathanars by withholding their pay, which naturally provoked great resentment. As Garcia’s archiepiscopate progressed, the causes of resentment multiplied. Some sort of revolt was inevitable. It came in 1653.

Thekkedath, HCI, II, p.95. Kollaparambil, Revolution, p.61. For the career of Garcia see Joseph Thekedathu, The Troubled Days of Francis Garcia SJ, Archbishop of Cranganore (1641-59), (Analecta Gregoriana 187), Rome, Universita Gregoria Editrice, 1972, and the sources quoted there. 4 ‘Dom Garcia was determined to do away with the Archdeacon’s position and influence and thus to destroy that bastion of the Malabar Church’s autonomy’ (Kollaparambil, Revolution, p.103). For the details see Thekedathu, Francis Garcia, pp.21-40. 2 3

THE STRUGGLE FOR INDEPENDENCE AND IDENTITY

121

COONEN CROSS AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF CONTACT WITH THE WEST SYRIAN TRADITION5

The spark that ignited the revolt was the alleged murder by the Portuguese of a bishop from Syria. The bishop in question was Mar Aithalaha.6 Cyril Aithalaha ibn Issa was a Syrian Orthodox native of Aleppo.7 Having become a monk (he was wearing the characteristic Syrian monastic schema on his arrival in India) he was consecrated Archbishop of Damascus, Nicomedia and Homs by Patriarch Ignatios Hidayat-Allah. In 1631 he made a formal profession of faith before a Roman Catholic priest. The following year he travelled to Rome where he stayed for about 18 months before returning to the Middle East. There he encountered a mixed reception. While some Syrian Orthodox bishops were in favour of submission to Rome, many of the faithful were antagonistic towards him for ‘becoming Italian’. After various travels which took him to Persia, Jerusalem and Cairo, he eventually sailed to India in 1652, arriving on the east coast at Mylapore, where he was promptly interned by the Jesuits.8 Seminarians returning to Kerala from Myla5 The story of this incident is told in detail in Jacob Kollaparampil, The St Thomas Christians’ Revolution in 1653, Kottayam, St Joseph’s Press, 1981. 6 This is the Syriac form of the name. The Arabic, which a number of writers use, is Atallah (Thekkedath, HCI, II, p.91). 7 His career, long a mystery, has been carefully traced and documented by Kollaparambil (Revolution, pp.191-215). See also Thekedathu, Francis Garcia, pp.50-59, 73-79. 8 In addition to Kollaparambil, see Thekkedath HCI, II, p.91 and the sources cited there. Lee and Brown believe that the Roman Catholic missionaries’ account of Aithalaha – which include his being given jurisdiction by both the Coptic and Church of the East patriarchs ‘is not plausible’ (Brief History, p.519, Indian Christians, p.99). Kollaparambil suggests that his alleged patriarchal status may have derived either from his having been an unsuccessful candidate in a patriarchal election, or from his having been elected by a faction. Some sources suggest that he had been given authority over Syrians to the east of their traditional lands, which suggest a Maphrian-type authority. As the Indian Archdeacon had written to the Coptic Pope in about 1648 (Kollaparambil Revolution, p.98), it is not impossible that Mar Aithalaha had conceived of the idea of travelling to India while he was in Egypt. Neill. (History, vol. 1, p.317) suggests that the Coptic Pope may have suggested that he respond to appeals from the

122

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

pore brought news of this and carried with them a letter from Mar Aithalaha in which he declared himself to be ‘Ignatius, Patriarch of the whole of India and China’ and that he had been sent by the Pope to be their Archbishop.9 This news caused great excitement among the Syrians in Kerala, who requested Archbishop Garcia’s help in bringing Mar Aithalaha to them. Garcia refused the request and arrangements were made to take Mar Aithalaha to Goa to be examined by the Inquisition. When the news came that the fleet in which Atallah was being taken from Mylapore to Goa was approaching Cochin, Archdeacon Thomas, accompanied by a large number of cattanars and several thousands of armed Christians, moved towards Mattancherry. Their leaders spoke to the civil and ecclesiastical authorities of Cochin, asking that Atallah be brought before them, so that they could examine his credentials. On the whole, the authorities were in favour of granting this request. But due to the vehement opposition of Archbishop Garcia, the commander of the fleet decided that the ships should not even enter the channel of Cochin, but remain outside the bar. After only two days’ stay, the fleet set sail for Goa. When the Christians saw the ships sailing away towards the north, all their hopes of having an oriental bishop as their prelate disappeared. Their resentment towards Garcia and the Jesuits knew no bounds.10 Archdeacon. Kaniamparampil argues strongly that Mar Aithalaha was a bona fide Syrian Orthodox bishop (see his arguments on p.80ff). 9 For the full text of three letters claimed to be by Mar Aithalaha see Kollaparabil Revolution, pp.108-112. Syriac copies are reproduced on pp.252-255. The belief that Aithalaha was indeed Patriarch Ignatios long persisted in the Syrian community. See the Answers given by Mar Thoma VIII and Ramban Joseph Pulikottil in 1813 (IOR/F/4/616, pp35ff). It was even believed by two of the three Judges in the 1889 Seminary Case ruling (Judgements/Row-Iyer, 79). It is just possible that he had been elected as a rival to the Patriarch by a group of dissident bishops (Thekedathu, Francis Garcia, p.78). 10 Thekkedath, HCI, II, p.92, summarising the account given in Kollaparambil. The fate of Mar Aithalaha following the sailing of his boat from Cochin was for long uncertain. Rumours began to be circulated that

THE STRUGGLE FOR INDEPENDENCE AND IDENTITY

123

The enraged Syrians assembled at St Mary’s Church at Matancherry, near Cochin, on 3rd January 1653 and took a solemn oath renouncing their allegiance to Archbishop Garcia,11 declaring that they would have nothing to do with the Jesuits, and recognising Archdeacon Thomas as the leader of the Church. The oath seems to have been taken by the Archdeacon, kathanars and leading laity inside the Church, while the crowds outside took it while holding ropes tied to a stone cross in the churchyard – hence the name usually given to this incident of the Coonen Cross Oath.12 The extent to which the revolt was an assertion of independence against Rome obedience in any form, or simply against Garcia, the Jesuits and the Portuguese, is debated down to the present day.13 What is clear is that the Syrians recognised Archdeacon he had either been deliberately drowned by the Portuguese or burned as a heretic by the Inquisition at Goa. (Paulinus a S.Bartholomeo, for example, writing over a century later, believed that Mar Aithalaha had been burned at Goa (India Orientalis, p.89, recte 97: pages 97-104 are incorrectly numbered 89-96. The correct sequence recommences at p. 105), and several writers repeat this (eg Tisserant, Eastern Christianity, p.80.)) However, Kollaparambil has demonstrated that both versions are untrue, the latter in particular resulting from a misunderstanding by De la Croze of his sources, then uncritically repeated by subsequent historians. Mar Aithalaha was in fact taken to Lisbon, whence, despite attempts by the Jesuits to have him detained there, he set off for Rome at the initiative of the King of Portugal. He reached Paris and died there on 26th March 1654, being ‘very old and sick’. He was buried in the Jerusalem Chapel of the Franciscan Cordeliers. The Chapel was desecrated during the French Revolution and demolished in 1802 (Revolution, pp.168-191). 11 Thekedathu suggests that their rejection of Garcia was in part based on the belief that he had disobeyed the Pope by keeping from them Mar Aithalaha, whom they supposed the Pope to have sent to them (Francis Garcia, p.61). Thekedathu also suggests that Archdeacon Mathew may have had his own reasons for not wanting Mar Aithalaha to meet the Syrians: it would have exposed his ‘treasonable correspondence’ with Eastern Patriarchs not in communion with Rome (Francis Garcia, p.57f). 12 Coonen = crooked, the cross having supposedly having shifted as a result of the pressures placed on it. Thekkedath, HCI, II, p.93. 13 Thekkedath cites evidence to suggest that the Syrians would accept any bishop sent by the Pope as long as he was not a Jesuit and knew Syriac (HCI, II, p.94). See also Kollaparambil, Revolution, pp.159-163, and

124

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

Thomas as their leader. About a month after the oath, he was acclaimed governor of the archdiocese by the Syrians who appointed four senior priests to be his counsellors. On 22nd May 1653 Archdeacon Thomas was ‘consecrated’ bishop by the laying on of hands of twelve kathanars.14 This was allegedly done on the basis of a letter from Mar Aithalaha authorising such an action, but there is considerable doubt about the authenticity of the letter.15 According to contemporary accounts, the Chaldean consecration rite was used.16 Despite the irregularity, the majority of Syrians stood with the Archdeacon – now generally referred to as Mar Thoma I.17 An external contributory factor was the weakening of Portuguese power and the imminent advent of the Dutch as outlined in Chapter 4. This changing context had created a situation where a ‘declaration of independence’ by the St Thomas Christians had been made possible. The question now was whether independence could be maintained. Where were the Syrians going to place their allegiance in the long term, or, perhaps more accurately, which of Perumthottam, Decline, p.26. Kaniamparampil (Syrian Orthodox Church, p.84ff) argues that the incident was a root and branch rejection of any connection with Rome. 14 Paulinus, India Orientalis, p.89, recte 97. Paulinus says that this ‘sacrilega chirotonia’ took place at ‘Corolongatta’. This is probably Kuravilangad, the home Church of the Pakalomattoms which lies inland, away from centres of Portuguese contol. Kaniamparampil calls Mar Thoma I a ‘chumma Metran’ – a nominal bishop (Syrian Orthodox Church, p.88). 15 Thekkedath, HCI, II, p.94. Kollaparambil gives the arguments in favour of its genuineness (though without committing himself to that conclusion). He suggests that the ‘consecration’ by twelve priests may have been suggested by the manner in which the Bishop of Alexandria was, in earliest times, consecrated by the laying on of hands of his fellowpriests (Revolution, pp.110-115). 16 Kollamparambil, Revolution, p.148. 17 After his ‘consecration’ Mar Thoma I is recorded as having made little alteration to the Latin rite episcopal choir robes that he had been wearing as Archdeacon, though he may have changed the colour of his mozetta to scarlet (Kollaparambil, Archdeacon, p.229). He may also at this time or soon after have adopted the Latin mitre which, worn with rochet and mozetta was to become the distinguishing mark of the leader of the St Thomas Christians and hence, in due course, of the Malankara Metropolitan.

THE STRUGGLE FOR INDEPENDENCE AND IDENTITY

125

the competing authorities was going to win control of the Syrian community? There were three principal claimants: ‰

‰

‰

The European bishops of the Roman Catholic Church.18 These, as we have seen, had now replaced the succession of Middle Eastern bishops who had supplied the Church in India in the preceding centuries. It was natural that this hierarchy should seek to win back the Syrians. The story of this group is complicated by competing factions within the Roman Church – rivalry between Jesuits and Carmelites, arguments between the Portuguese monarchs and the papacy over the right of appointment and nomination, the relationship between Latin rite and Syrian Christians, and so on. Chaldean Patriarchs within the Roman Catholic Church. As seen in Chapters 2 and 4, from the 1550s onwards there were now two East Syrian communities in the Middle East – the independent Church of the East, and the Chaldeans in communion with Rome.19 The patriarchs of both communities saw the St Thomas Christians as being under their jurisdiction. The Chaldean patriarchs were well aware that their ‘independent’ predecessors had exercised jurisdiction over the Indian Church. Now that both they and the Indians were members of the Roman family, it seemed obvious that immediate jurisdiction over the Indians should be exercised by their Middle Eastern co-religionists, and not by a European Latin hierarchy. The Church of the East. The patriarchs of the independent East Syrians might reasonably be expected to try and re-

18 With rare exceptions the hierarchy was exclusively European, and appointed by European powers such as the Papacy or the Kings of Portugal. For details see the tables in Mackenzie, Christianity, pp.74, 77, Tisserant, Eastern Christianity, pp.187-191, and Varekat Antony Pascal, The Latin and Syrian Hierarchies of Malabar, Trichur, 1937, Appendix A, pp.3-5. 19 To complicate matters even further, at times there were two rival East Syrian patriarchs in communion (or at least in negotiation) with Rome. For a brief overview see the lists in Baumer, Church of the East, p.318f.

126

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS establish the status quo as it had existed before the arrival of the Portuguese in India. It should be borne in mind that only about 60 years separated the Coonen Cross incident from the presence in Kerala of Mar Shem’un, the last Church of the East bishop in India.

The declaration of independence at the Coonen Cross did not, therefore, usher in a period of stability for the Christians of St Thomas.20 On the contrary, there began a period of approximately 150 years during which the Indian Syrians were the subject of an intense power struggle to establish ecclesiastical control over them. It is true to say that there is a sense in which the process is not yet complete. In the period with which we are particularly concerned, this struggle was complicated further by the involvement of the European powers and of local rulers. The struggle was not simply about jurisdiction, but about identity. This was expressed primarily in the rite used by the community. The three groups listed above were identified by three different rites: ‰

‰

‰

The East-Syrian rite as heavily latinised following the Synod of Diamper. This was celebrated in East Syriac, but using Latin rite vestments. Non-eucharistic services were substantially those of the Western rite, but, again, in Syriac.21 The East-Syrian rite as used by the Chaldeans in the Middle East. This was much closer to the original rite, but ‘purified’ by the removal of allegedly ‘Nestorian’ features. The East Syriac language and Syrian vestments were used. The East-Syrian rite as used by the Church of the East in Persia and the Ottoman Empire, in the traditional eastern vest-

20 The statement in the Cochin State Manual (p.222) that ‘The history of the Jacobite Syrians, since they seceded from the Romo-Syrians, was comparatively uneventful until the Church Missionary Society entered into friendly relations with them at the beginning of the nineteenth century’ is, alas, not true. 21 For photographic evidence of just how latinised the Romo-Syrians had become by the 19th century, see the illustrations in Pascal, Hierarchies.

THE STRUGGLE FOR INDEPENDENCE AND IDENTITY

127

ments. This was naturally celebrated using East Syriac language and script. The question of allegiance was therefore going to be related to the actual experience of worship in the local Churches. Bishops seeking to change a congregation’s allegiance had also to persuade them to change their liturgical usage. Events were further complicated by the fact that many of the chief protagonists, both in India and in the Middle East, changed sides more than once. There were continuing inducements – and pressure -from the Roman Catholic Church on the non-Roman bishops to bring their flock into Roman obedience. Some bishops seem to have been attracted by the idea, several used it as a bargaining point in various situations. Bishops would make their submission to Rome, for example, then declare their independence. Nor was it always possible for the Indian Syrians to be sure of the ecclesiastical identity or credentials of bishops who arrived in their country from Europe or West Asia. All of these factors form the background to the events which were to lead to the creation of the MISC. Fortunately, it is not necessary to follow each development in detail. A broad summary to take us to the middle of the 18th century will suffice. EFFORTS TO RESTORE UNION WITH ROME22

It seems clear that the majority of the St Thomas Christians had rejected the authority of Garcia and the Jesuits, with only an ‘insignificant minority’ remaining faithful to the Roman authorities.23 22 See Thekkedath, HCI, II, pp.96-109 for a concise account of this period. Brown (Indian Christians, pp.98-119) gives rather more detail, as does Lee (Brief History, pp.517-529). 23 Kollaparambil, Revolution, p.148. Some account state that only 200 laity and 15 to 25 priests remained faithful to Rome. Others put the number of laity at about 1,000. Paulinus says that out of 200,000 Syrians, only 400 remained loyal to Archbishop Garcia (India Orientalis, p.74). The Roman authorities themselves accepted that a majority of the Syrians had joined the revolt. See the statement of the Bishop of Verapoly in 1813 (IOR/F/616, p.76f). At this early stage the proportion followed natural divisions within the community: the majority ‘Northist’ population sup-

128

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

Within weeks of his ‘consecration’ Mar Thoma I began to conduct ordinations, thus removing Garcia’s last sacramental hold over his Syrian flock. This situation naturally brought about strenuous efforts by Rome to win back its lost adherents. These took several forms. Negotiations were opened with Archdeacon Thomas by two commissaries of the Goan Inquisition, but these failed to achieve success.24 Rome then sent two groups of Carmelites.25 Joseph Sebastiani and the Carmelite Vicariate Apostolic This was the beginning of a Carmelite mission in Kerala, which was to complicate yet further the ecclesiastical situation. By the end of the 18th century the Carmelites had established four houses in Kerala, though there were never more than six missionaries in southwest India at any one time.26 According to a rare document in the Vatican archives, written in Vatteluttu (the script in which Malayalam was written prior to the middle of the 17th century), contact was established with Archdeacon Thomas in 1658.27 The Archdeacon and some of his followers expressed a willingness to submit to the Carmelite Commissaries and set out their position in the document in question. They attempted to justify their actions by stating they believed Mar Aithalaha to have been sent by the Pope; ported the Archdeacon, only the handful of ‘Southist’ churches did not (Kollaparambil, Revolution, p.165). 24 For this incident, and Garcia’s initiatives, see Thekedathu, Francis Garcia, pp.83-100. 25 The Discalced (Barefoot) Carmelites were originally kept out of India by the Jesuits, but were eventually allowed in in 1657 on being granted passports by the Dutch (Lee, Brief History, p.518). The two priests were Jaciuto de S. Vincencio (Hyacinth Catini) and Jose de S. Marias (Joseph Sebastiani) (IOR/F/616, p.77). Neill adds the names of two more: Vincent of St Catherine of Sienna, and Marcel of St Ivo (History, vol. 1, p.491, n.39). Also Thekedathu, Francis Garcia, pp.101-145. 26 For a description and analysis of the Carmelite mission up to the mid 18th century, see Perumthottam, Decline, pp.47-74. Once established, their mission was headed by a Vicar Apostolic in episcopal Orders. 27 Jacob Kollaparambil, ‘Two Documents in Vatteluttu: (APF, SOCG 233, ff. 54-55) Their Historical Context, Contents and Malayalam Transcript’, in George Karukaparampil (ed.), Tuvaik: Studies in Honour of Rev. Jacob Vellian, (Syrian Churches Series XVI) Kottayam, 1995, pp.201-213.

THE STRUGGLE FOR INDEPENDENCE AND IDENTITY

129

that they understood the appointment of bishops by persons other than bishops to have taken place at other places in the Church; that popes had authority to permit priests to perform certain functions normally restricted to bishops (for example, the blessing of oils and administering of Confirmation) and in any case the Pope has the power to remedy any defect there might be in the ‘consecration’ of the Archdeacon as Mar Thoma I by twelve priests. The Carmelites answered all these points, stressing that only a person possessing the episcopal character could consecrate another bishop. It seems that, even after receiving this reply, Archdeacon Thomas would have submitted, but declined to do so because in the interval Archbishop Garcia had appointed Kunju Mathai kathanar as Archdeacon. This action by Garcia may have been the deciding factor.28 No Pakalomattom Archdeacon could have submitted to the rule of another of his countrymen in these circumstances. In 1659 Archbishop Garcia died, thus removing from the scene one of the major obstacles to reunion. By the time of his death only nine Syrian churches still acknowledged his jurisdiction.29 On 14th May 1661 Joseph Sebastiani, one of the Carmelites, arrived back in Cochin, having been consecrated a bishop in Rome.30 Significantly, he was not appointed Archbishop of Cranganore (that is, he was not canonically Garcia’s successor31), but exercised jurisdiction 28 Archbishop Garcia must bear a large part of the responsibility for the split within the St Thomas Christians. It seems that he was aware that Mar Aithalaha was not who the Syrians believed him to be, but made no attempt to share this knowledge with them (Kollaparambil, ‘Two Documents’, p.213). 29 Thekedathu, Francis Garcia, p.148. 30 Lee, Brief History, p.525ff. The consecration took place on 15th December 1659 in secret to avoid the wrath of the King of Portugal who claimed the right to nominate all bishops for India. It was conducted by a single bishop (Landucci, the Pope’s sacristan), assisted only by two priests (Mackenzie, Christianity, pp.28, 76, n.68). See also Brown, Indian Christians, p.105f. Sebastiani was Italian, not Portuguese (Tisserant, Eastern Christianity, p.83). 31 After Garcia’s death the Archdiocese of Cranganore was governed by a series of Administrators, who were not in episcopal Orders. There was no Archbishop in India until 1701 (Tisserant, Eastern Christianity, p.187; Podipara, Thomas Christians, p. 157).

130

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

merely as an Apostolic Commissary.32 He was thus not under the Padroado, but was responsible directly to Rome via the Congregation of Propaganda Fide, a department of the pontifical administration which had been founded by Pope Gregory XV in 1622.33 Sebastiani failed to capture Archdeacon Thomas, whose attitude against the Roman authorities seems to have hardened, but began to win the submission of Syrian churches, eventually bringing 84 into Roman obedience, leaving the Archdeacon/Mar Thoma I with only 32.34 Mar Alexander de Campo At this point the political events sketched in Chapter 4 had a direct effect on ecclesiastical developments. As noted above, the Dutch captured Cochin from the Portuguese in January 1663. They then ordered the withdrawal of all foreign priests and monks from the country. Faced with the undoing of all his work, Sebastiani acted to try and secure the loyalty of the Syrians to Rome. In the ten days he was given before being required to leave, he consecrated as bishop 32 His title is given in the Papal Brief ‘Iniunati nobis divinitus’ of 17th December 1659 as ‘Apostolic Commissary and administrator of the whole of the Serra’ (Thekedathu, Francis Garcia, p.154). The form ‘Vicar Apostolic of the Hills in Malabar’ is found in IOR/F/616, p.77. ‘Hills’ is usually given in its Portuguese form ‘Serra’, which is often found in documents (see Chapter 1). His titular see was Hierapolis, perhaps chosen for its similarity to Verapoly [Varapuzha], where the Vicars Apostolic were usually based. His appointment introduced a third European party (the other two being the Archbishop of Cranganore and the Bishop of Cochin) with an interest in controlling the St Thomas Christians. 33 The Propaganda had a particular responsible for countries where there was no regular Roman hierarchy (such as England) and for missions. Part of the rationale was also to unite all missionary work under papal supervision. For the foundation of the Propaganda see Neill, History, vol. 1, pp.333-335. 34 Paulinus, India Orientalis, p.96. Brown, Indian Christians, p.107. Lee describes the loyalty of Mulanthuruthy and Kandanad in particular to Archdeacon Thomas, despite threats and fines (Brief History, p.527). Mulanthuruthy seems to have had a strong anti-Roman tradition. In 1599 the doors of the Church had been locked to deny access to Archbishop Menezes (Brief History, p.511).

THE STRUGGLE FOR INDEPENDENCE AND IDENTITY

131

a cousin of Archdeacon Thomas/Mar Thoma I: Chandy Parampil – known to western historians as Alexander de Campo.35 Sebastiani then returned to Italy via Goa.36 Strictly speaking Mar Alexander was consecrated Bishop of Megara, a titular see in partibus infidelium, but after a few months he began to use the traditional titles of the Pakalomattom Archdeacons (substituting ‘bishop’ for ‘archdeacon’), which his rivals of the independent line were also using: Ƥ‫ܘ‬ƯNJ‫ ܗ‬ƱDžǁ‫ ܕ‬ƣǖƲǞǂǎƾǖ‫( ܐ‬Bishop of All-India), Ƥ‫ܘ‬ƯNJ‫ ܗ‬ƱDžǁ‫ ܕ‬ƣǓ‫( ܬܪ‬Gate of All-India). After 1668 he consistently signed himself ‫ܘܣ‬ƯNjǎǂDŽ‫ܐ‬ Ƥ‫ܘ‬ƯNJ‫ ܗ‬ƱDžǁ‫ ܕ‬ƤǤƾDŽƲǖ‫ܪܘ‬ǤLJ (Alexander, Metropolitan of All-India).37 The Syrians now had a choice between two members of the ancient Pakalomattom family – one a duly consecrated bishop, the other a mere Archdeacon who was performing some episcopal functions to the unease of some of his followers.38 As might be expected, the consecration of Alexander de Campo turned the tide. He had considerable success in winning priests and laity over to him, so that eventually the majority of the Syrian community returned to Roman obedience.39 They were, however, divided between three juris35 He was parish priest of Kuravilangad (Tisserant, Eastern Christianity, p.86) and had been one of the four counsellors of Archdeacon Thomas appointed in 1653 (see above). In the absence of other bishops, two Portuguese priests, Andrea de Pinho, vicar of Cochin, and Antonio de Mirard Saldahna, canon-elect of Cochin cathedral ‘assisted’ at the consecration (Pallipurathkunnel, Double Regime, p.12; Mackenzie, Christianity, pp.28, 77, n.71) which took place on 1st February 1663 at Kaduthuruthy (Ferroli, Jesuits in Malabar, vol. II, p.60). Sebastiani arrayed Mar Alexander in Garcia’s (western) vestments (Neill, History, p.325). 36 He ministered as bishop of two Italian dioceses in succession before his death in 1689 (Neill, History, pp.326, 492, n.53). 37 Kollaparambil, Archdeacon, p.225. Mar Alexander had entered Kuravilangad in state, accompanied by 50 kathanars, 1,000 mapillas (ie Syrian Christians) and 500 Hindus (Pallipurathkunnel, Double Regime, p.13). 38 Kaniamparampil sees Alexander de Campo as having betrayed his cousin, lured by money and the promise of a mitre (Syrian Orthodox Church, p.90ff). Even Thekkedath admits that he had ‘abandoned the archdeacon’ (HCI, II, p.100). 39 A Church of the East bishop, Mar Gabriel (whose career will be described below), writing about about 50 years after the Coonen Cross oath, maintained that the Portuguese won many people back to Rome by giving gifts to kathanars and the the Rajah (Dury, Visscher, p.108).

132

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

dictions – Cranganore, Cochin and the Vicar Apostolic. It was a recipe for future confusion. Arguably, Sebastiani would have achieved the unification of all the Syrians under Roman rule if he had consecrated Archdeacon Thomas as his successor, rather than Chandy Parampil.40 It seems that Sebastiani had arrived in India with faculties to consecrate Archdeacon Thomas/Mar Thoma I, but the relationship between the two men and their followers never progressed to a position where this was possible.41 As it was, there are signs that Archdeacon Thomas/Mar Thoma I recognised the inevitable, and again began to enter into negotiations with the Roman authorities. This process of re-integration was, however, halted by the arrival in Kerala of a Syrian bishop in 1665. It is not clear why Mar Thoma I and his followers had been unable to establish contact with either Mar Elia X (Patriarch of the Church of the East from 1660-1700) or Mar Shimun VIII (Chaldean Patriarch 1662-1700). Instead, contact was somehow made with the Syrian Orthodox Church. Van der Ploeg gives the example of an Indian layman in the late 16th century who made his way to West Asia and became a servant of the Syrian Orthodox Patriarch, but other than isolated examples of this kind, ‘as far as we know the Christians of St Thomas had never been in contact with the monophysites of Mesopotamia and Syria’.42 It is possible that news

See Philip Chembakassery, ‘The Malankara Catholic Church: Prospects and Problems’, in Kuncheria Pathil (ed.), The Catholic Churches in India: Self-Understanding and Challenges Today (Jeevadhara, XXXIII, no.196, July 2003, p.327). 41 Kollaparambil, Revolution, pp.165f, 231. 42 Van der Ploeg, Syriac MSS, p.27. It should be noted, however, that in about 1648 Archdeacon Thomas had sent letters to the Chaldean Patriarch in Mesopotamia, the Syrian Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch and the Coptic Patriarch of Alexandria (Kollamparambil, Revolution, p.98). The St Thomas Christians clearly were aware of the existence of other Oriental Orthodox prelates. Kollaparambil makes the point that the East Syrian, West Syrian and Coptic hierarchies were all in various levels of contact with Rome at this period, some of them even sending professions of faith to the Pope. His point is that, even by seeking to make contact with other Oriental patriarchs, the St Thomas Christians were not necessarily contemplating leaving the Roman communion (Revolution, p.100f, 104). 40

THE STRUGGLE FOR INDEPENDENCE AND IDENTITY

133

of Mar Aithalaha’s experiences in India had reached the Syrian Orthodox Patriarch and encouraged him to send a bishop.43 The Syrian Orthodox Church was, of course, the other significant Syriac-speaking Church in West Asia.44 However, as seen in Chapter 2, its Christological position was neither that of the Church of the East nor of the Church of Rome. Moreover, its liturgical practice differed from that of the East Syrian tradition (including significantly different Eucharistic rites), and was expressed in a different orthography and pronunciation. Despite these obstacles, it was a bishop of the West Syrian tradition who was to reach Kerala (the Portuguese blockade having been lifted by the Dutch) and change the course of Indian Church history. The bishop was Mar Gregorios. MAR GREGORIOS ABDUL JALEEL

It is difficult to over-estimate the significance of Mar Gregorios. Kaniamparampil states that he was consecrated as Bishop of Amid in 1654 with the episcopal name Mar Timotheos. In 1664 he was transferred to Jerusalem and given the name associated with that see.45 There is surviving among the manuscripts at Thozhiyur a document which seems to be the patriarchal susthaticon46 of Mar 43 During his time in Rome Mar Aithalaha had listed the countries in which ‘Jacobites’ were to be found. India is not among them (Kollaparambil, Revolution, pp.196). 44 Syriac was also used by the Maronites and, at this date, in parts of the Chalcedonian Patriarchate of Antioch. 45 Kaniamparampil, Syrian Orthodox Church, p.97f. ‘Mor Gregorios `Abd al-Jaleel was born in Mosul, Iraq. He was at first the Metropolitan of Diyarbakr and thereafter was transferred to Jerusalem. He was later sent to India by the then Patriarch of Antioch `Abded Mshiho the First in response to the request of the Church in Malankara’ (Syrian Orthodox Resources website, http://sor.cua.edu/Personage /Sheema /PGregoriuscAbdAlJalil.html). 46 The susthaticon is the Letters of Orders given to a Syrian bishop by his consecrator. The term derives from 2 Corinthians 3:1 where St Paul speaks of ‘letters of introduction (or commendation)’: συστατικῶν ἐπιστολῶν (sustatikon epistolon). Several such letters survive in the archives at Thozhiyur.

134

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

Gregorios on his elevation as Metropolitan of Jerusalem and the Syrian Orthodox faithful in Egypt and Tripoli.47 The text is incomplete, but refers to ‘bishop Abd al-Jaleel who was chosen from the womb of his mother like Jeremiah the prophet …. Voices [came from all sides] saying that his priestly ministry is from the Holy Spirit who perfects all perfections. He was also named by the Holy Spirit: Mar Gregorios, and he deserves the name as he deserved the priestly ministry. And now, with one voice, we, the holy bishops and chiefs who were with us at that time, shout out Axios Axios Axios [worthy, worthy, worthy].

The fact that this document is in the possession of the bishops of the MISC is itself an interesting piece of evidence concerning their own relationship with the West Syrians. The general assumption concerning the effect of Mar Gregorios’ arrival is summed up by the Cochin State Manual: ‘Since his arrival, the Syrians accepted the tenets of Jacobinism [sic – Jacobitism is meant].48 This, however, is a gross oversimplification. Mar Gregorios encountered a situation where all the St Thomas Christians – those content to remain under bishops provided by Rome and those who wished to be free of Roman obedience – were using the same latinised East Syrian Qurbana and the Latin Sacramentary in Syriac translation. Ironically, even the latinisations were by now part of the ‘independent’ community’s tradition and there is evidence that the Indians were unwilling to abandon them.49 In response, it appears that Mar Gregorios, rather than attempting to Taylor, Handlist (forthcoming). Menon, The Cochin State Manual, p.221. 49 ‘The schismatics were then and for a long time afterwards following in all other things the latinized Syro-Chaldaic rite of their Catholic brethren’ (Placid Podipara, ‘The Efforts for Reunion in Malankara, South India’, in Unitas, 5 (1953), p.9). Yacoub III paraphrases what he claims is a letter from Mar Gregorios to Christians in Mylapore in which the says that he has spent four years in the country saddened and wearied by the conflict among the Syrian Indians. The disciples of the Apostle Thomas have abandoned the faith of the Syrians and joined the Franks. He does not know what to do (Syrian Church of India, p.58). The note of despair suggest authenticity. 47 48

THE STRUGGLE FOR INDEPENDENCE AND IDENTITY

135

force on the Syrians full-blown Antiochene doctrine and liturgy, proceeded by emphasising and re-introducing those features which were common to both the East and West Syrian traditions – the form of the vestments, leavened bread, clerical marriage and beards, the calendar and fasts.50 This is plausible, given that the process of latinisation seems to have been less advanced in areas far from Portuguese control. Older priests and laity would remember how things had looked in their youth: an octogenarian would have remembered how things were pre-Diamper.51 With regard to the Eucharist Mar Gregorios was prepared to compromise by using the latinised rite, but with his own vestments and leavened bread.52 Crucial though Mar Gregorios was, it is important not to over-estimate his achievements. At one level he did little more than commence a process of ‘re-Syrianising’ the liturgy. Had he not been followed, albeit spasmodically, by other West Syrian bishops, he would have had no lasting impact. It is the fact that other Syrian Orthodox bishops were to build on his modest beginnings that makes it possible to see him as the bridgehead of an alternative 50 Fr Cyril OIP, ‘The Introduction of the Antiochene Rite into the Malankara Church’ in Jacob Vellian (ed) The Malabar Church: Symposium in honour of Rev. Placid J. Podipara CMI, (Orientala Christiana Analecta 186), Rome, Pont. Inst. Orient, Stud, 1970, pp.137-164. See also Podipara, ‘Efforts’, p.9. Paulinus also says that Mar Gregorios condemned both the Pope and Nestorius, asserting Antioch to be ‘head and mother’. He also taught one Nature in the incarnate Christ, and denied the Filioque and Purgatory (India Orientalis, pp.91-92, recte 99-100). Yacoub III says that Mar Gregorios personally conducted the weddings of some priests (Syrian Church of India, p.54). The work of the early Antiochene bishops was summed up by their successor Mar Basilios Shukr Allah in 1751: ‘They had your priests grow long beards, handed them the faith, and taught them the seasons of fasting and times of prayer, as much as they could’ (Barsoum, Syriac Dioceses, p.92f). 51 Although the East and West Syrian traditions are traditionally thought of as being at opposite ends of the Christological spectrum, in some respects they have much in common. For examples of textual similarity, see Baby Varghese, ‘Some Common Elements in the East and the West Syrian Liturgies, in The Harp, vol. XIII, (2000), pp.65-76. 52 Van der Ploeg, Syriac MSS, p.29. See Yacoub III, Syrian Church in India, pp.51-58 for Syrian Orthodox claims about Mar Gregorios’ achievements.

136

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

form of Syrian Christianity into Kerala. The work of Mar Gregorios and his successors meant that ultimately, in addition to the three rites detailed above, there was to be available to the St Thomas Christians a fourth possibility – those of the Syrian Orthodox Church, celebrated in the West Syrian form of the language and script, with eastern vestments somewhat different to those of the Church of the East. Pazhayakuttukar and Puthenkuttukar A further aspect of Mar Gregorios’ legacy is that he seems to have helped to give some form and focus to the anti-Roman Syrians; so much so that from his time on it begins to be possible to speak of two ‘parties’ in the St Thomas Christians: Till the arrival of Mar Gregorios in Malabar there was the strongest probability that the followers of Mar Thoma I [Archdeacon Thomas] would, either during his lifetime or at least after his death, join the majority of their brethren who were being ruled by his cousin, Bishop Alexander, about whose episcopal status there was no doubt…. Hence one can legitimately say that the permanent division of the Thomas Christian community into ‘Puthenkur’ and ‘Pazhayakur’ … became a reality with the advent of Mar Gregorios.53

The two parties were characterised by different names. ‘Puthenkuttukar’ means ‘new party’, while ‘Pazhayakuttukar’ means ‘old party’.54 The names are given from the perspective of the majority community in communion with Rome. Some writers have commented that the nomenclature appears illogical from the perspective that the St Thomas Christians were historically nonRoman, and consequently it is the situation of being part of the Roman communion that is ‘new’.55 That is to fail to see the situaThekkedath, HCI, II, p.20. There are many variant spellings of both words. The form ‘Puthenkuttukar’ is the noun; while ‘Puthenkur’ is the adjective. I am grateful to the Revd Dr K.V. Mathew for explaining the difference to me. 55 In 1870 Bishop Milman referred to ‘the considerable body of Romo-Syrians who still remain divided from the old Syrian Church’, as if the latter were the original body (F.M.Milman, A Memoir of the Rt Revd 53 54

THE STRUGGLE FOR INDEPENDENCE AND IDENTITY

137

tion from a late 17th century perspective. By then, 70 or so years after Diamper, the Romo-Syrian practices (celebrated in the same form of Syriac as the community had used since before the arrival of the Portuguese) were, to a large extent, the new norm. Those who were to increasingly identify themselves with the West Syrian identity of Antioch had to adopt a new Eucharist and other rites, a new orthography and pronunciation, new saints, a new theological position, some new cultural practices (Middle Eastern bishops were not always happy with Indian ways), new vestments (including the distinctive schema of the bishops), and a new Head – the Patriarch of Antioch, rather than of Babylon or the Pope of Rome. Moreover, they were consciously adopting a position of being a minority in continual rebellion against the Portuguese and the succession of European bishops who were sent to India by Rome.56 The fact that such a community did develop – and became in many ways the ‘face’ of indigenous Indian Christianity57 – should not obscure the fact that it was, historically, a far from obvious outcome. Not for 150 years would the ‘new party’ be assured of a continued existence. The highly significant role played by the MISC in allowing this outcome to develop will become obvious in the Robert Milman DD, (1879), p.285). Even Indian writers tend to make the same assumption (eg Philipos, Syrian Christians, p.24; Mathew & Thomas, Indian Churches, p.39; Juhanon Mar Thoma, Mar Thoma Church, p.15; Kaniamparampil, Syrian Orthodox Church, p.97). It should be noted that the designation ‘New Christians’ is also used by some writers of the converts made by Western missions (eg Wrede, Account, p.376). 56 In Paulinus’ succinct phrase: ‘Novi sunt Jacobitae, veteres sunt Catholici’ (‘the new ones are Jacobites, the old ones are Catholics’) (India Orientalis, p.91, recte 99). 57 Most accounts (Indian as well as Western) of the Indian Church lose interest in what was to become the Syro-Malabar community (despite its being easily the largest Christian group in Kerala) and concentrate on the ‘Antiochene’ Syrians (eg, C.P. Mathew & M.M. Thomas, although having been commissioned to write a book on ‘the Indian Churches of the St Thomas tradition’, do not give an account of the Syro-Malabar Church (The Indian Churches of St. Thomas, q.v). Also, Brown, Indian Christians, p.110f.). The reverse is also true: accounts written from the perspective of the Syro-Malabar community relegate the non-Roman Syrians to brief sections dealing with the ‘dissidents’.

138

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

following Chapters. Initially, however, there was considerable fluidity and contact between the two groups. To anticipate, this is illustrated by the fact that until the early nineteenth century a number of Churches were still being shared by Pazhayakuttukar and Puthenkuttukar.58 Visscher records that in the first decades of the 18th century, in some Churches ‘the service is performed by the Syrians and Papists indifferently, not a little to the grief of the former who are scandalised at the multiplicity of images introduced by their rivals.’ Nearly a century later again, when Kerr visited Kerala in 1806, he described how in some Churches the liturgy was performed in the ‘Syrian and Latin rituals alternately by the priests of the Christians of St Thomas who have adhered to their ancient rites, and those who have been united to the Church of Rome. When the latter have celebrated Mass they carry away their Images from the Church before the others enter’.59 Modern conceptions about clarity of ecclesial identity and doctrinal ‘purity’ also seem out of place at this period: Nor is any correct account to be given at the present day [wrote Visscher] of their confession of faith, their services being a medley, partly borrowed from the heathens amongst whom they live, and whose fellow-countryman they are; partly from the Papists, to whom very many of them have gone over, and with whom they have several Churches in common; and partly from the Greek and Syrian Christians, by whose Bishops they are governed and whose opinions they adopt.60 Dury, Visscher, Letter XVI, p.102. IOR/H/59.p.112. It is interesting that Kerr uses the phrase ‘Syrian and Latin rituals’. Both congregations were worshipping in Syriac (there is no certain evidence for Syrians sharing a Church with Latin-rite Christians, indeed, worshipping with non-Syrians is still problematic for parts of the community to the present day), but the ceremonial seems to have been visibly different. This is no doubt a result of the ‘re-Syrianising’ process that had been taking place since Mar Gregorios Abdul Jaleed. Note that Kerr makes the usual European error of ascribing the adjective ‘ancient’ to the non-Roman rite. If the West Syrian rite is meant, then of course in the Indian context it was ‘new’ and not ‘ancient’. 60 Dury, Visscher, Letter XVI, p.104. Liturgical MS evidence supports this and shows that it continued for a very long time. Very many examples 58 59

THE STRUGGLE FOR INDEPENDENCE AND IDENTITY

139

In such a situation the transference of individuals, families and whole congregations from one group to the other must have been relatively easy. Local factors also played an important role. Personal and family ambitions and rivalries were expressed in ecclesiastical conflict. It is frequently stated by the non-Roman Syrians that Mar Gregorios canonically consecrated Archdeacon Thomas as Mar Thoma I, though there are considerable scholarly doubts about this.61 Mar Gregorios died on 14th Nisan [24 April ] 1671 and was buried in Parur Church.62 Mar Thoma II Mar Thoma I probably died on 22nd April 1672. He was buried in Angamale.63 Thereafter the succession becomes complicated, as the could be given; see Van der Ploeg, (MSS, passim). One text, chosen here almost at random, is of a Ritual copied in 1859, which, although containing Chaldean and Latin formulae, was being used by the ‘Jacobites’ (MSS, p.109). 61 Mathew & Thomas call it ‘the common tradition among the nonRoman Syrians in Malabar’ (Indian Churches, p.39). Brown states that this ‘has not been established from contemporary sources’ (Indian Christians, p.112). ‘Mar Gregory does not seem to have given episcopal consecration to Mar Thomas I (Podipara, ‘Efforts’, p.9). The 1770 document quoted by Whitehouse states categorically that it took place (Lingerings, p.307), and Kaniamparampil gives the evidence of an inscription in the Jacobite Church in Angamale (Syrian Orthodox Church, p.98). Yacoub III also asserts that the consecration took place and that Gregorios gave Mar Thoma a susthaticon ‘indicating his total submission to the See of Antioch’, but his sources are not clear (Syrian Church in India, p.53). 62 Thekkedath. HCI, II, p.102; Pallipurathkunnel, Double Regime, p.153; Kaniamparampil, Syrian Orthodox Church, p.100, but on p.101 he gives the date as 6 Medom 1670 and Angamale as the place of burial. Paulinus gives 1672 (India Orientalis, 90, recte 100). The Syrian Orthodox Resources website gives the year as 1681. (http://sor.cua.edu/Personage/Sheema/PGregoriuscAbdAlJalil.html). 63 Thekkedath, HCI, II, p.102. Tisserant states 1673 as the year (Eastern Christianity, p.142); Pallipurathkunnel has 22nd April 1673 (Double Regime, p.153 and sources); and Kaniamparampil gives 6th Medom 1670 (Syrian Orthodox Church, p.101), but Thekkedath indicates a number of con-

140

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

sources do not agree in the number of bishops or dates of their rule. The account below follows that of Brown who admits that ‘it is not established with accuracy, but it can claim probability’.64 Mar Thoma I’s funeral was conducted by his brother ‘in pontifical vestments’, but within six days he too was dead.65 A nephew, designated Mar Thoma II, assumed leadership of the Puthenkuttukar. Kaniamparampil states that he had been consecrated by Mar Gregorios Abd Jaleel, assisted by Mar Thoma I, but Brown and Thekkedath doubt whether this was the case. Whatever his canonical status, Mar Thoma II seems to have had a relatively peaceful period in office before his death in 1686. This may have been due in part to problems in the Pazhayakuttukar community. A glimpse of the ecclesiastical situation is found in the report of the Dutch Commandeur Hendrik van Rheede to his successor, dated 1677.66 He states that the St Thomas Christians have about 1,400 villages and 150 Churches.67 It is usually assumed that the Dutch took little interest in ecclesiastical matters, but this is in fact not the case. Once they had replaced the Portuguese, the Dutch forbade the Portuguese-nominated Padroado Archbishop of temporary sources for his date. Brown thinks that it was Mar Thoma I who died in 1685 – an indication of the difficulty of creating a coherent account from the sources. See also Kaniamparampil, Syrian Orthodox Church, p.103f. 64 Brown, Indian Christians, p.113. 65 Kollaparambil, Archdeacon, p.176, quoting Propagande Fide sources. This brother had been a member of the Recollects founded by Archdeacon Gevarghese. Tisserant says ‘eight days’ (Eastern Christianity, p.142, following Paulinus, India Orientalis, p.95, recte 103). See also Thekkedath, HCI, II, p.103. 66 Hendrik Adrian van Rheede to the Honourable Jacob Lobs, Governor-General on the Coasts of Malabar, Canara and Wingola, Cochin, 17 March 1677. Instructions to his Successor for the Administration of the Dutch Possessions on these coasts (IOR/H/456b, pp.1-448). This is a translation from the Dutch by F. Wappers, who made marginal notes which are themselves of interest. The notes contain the date 1684. 67 Van Rheede, Instructions, p.311. He distinguishes the St Thomas Christians (as a single group) from the ‘Inland Christians’ (Roman Catholic converts ‘from all tribes’) and Toplas Christians (of mixed race who ‘dress like the Portuguese and use their language’).

THE STRUGGLE FOR INDEPENDENCE AND IDENTITY

141

Cranganore and Bishop of Cochin from entering territories under their control. They did, however, allow in the (mainly Italian) Vicars Apostolic and their Carmelite missionaries. This policy contributed to further bitter rivalry between Padroado and Propaganda.68 Finding a Successor to Mar Alexander de Campo The Dutch also involved themselves in the question of who should rule the St Thomas Christians. Van Rheede reports that a Carmelite had arrived in India with orders from Rome to nominate a successor to the Bishop of the St Thomas Christians, but, says van Rheede, We have taken the appointment of a successor upon ourselves, and to exclude the Europeans effectually … have made choice of a nephew of the present Bishop Don Alex Del Campo …His name is Mathias Mampus; we are only waiting for certain requisites to have him consecrated, and as long as the old Bishop lives, he shall be his Assistant.69

In his marginal notes to the translation Wappers adds some interesting detail relevant to our story: The name of the Bishop who is still attached to the Roman See, is Alexander Decampo, a very old man…. A nephew of his, one Thomas Decampo, and Arch Deacon, presides over the Schismatics or dissenting St Thomas Christians. He also lives in the Mountains and has many Churches in the low lands … by whom he is stiled [sic] Bishop so that these Christians are yet divided among themselves, but the dissenting part [the Puthenkuttukar] are however the most numerous.70

Of the Dutch candidate to succeed Alexander De Campo, Wappers tells us: 68 See Perumthottam, Decline, pp.112-116 for Dutch ecclesiastical policy towards the Padroado. 69 IOR/H/456b, pp.328-331 (the text is written in columns occupying only half the page. Wappers’ notes are written in the adjacent columns). ‘Mampus’ would seem to be a scribal error for ‘Campus’ – ie de Campo. 70 IOR/H/456b, pp.314-316.

142

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS The Nephew of the Bishop Alexander del Campo is also called by him Matheus del Campo, being of the same family with the dissenting Bishop Thomas Del Campo; It would be very well for these two parties to unite in the popish subjection so there would be greater hope in such case to bring them to the Reformed Religion.71

An attempt by Rome to ensure that Alexander de Campo was succeeded by another Indian bishop failed.72 It is not clear why the Carmelites sent out to India to choose the candidate discounted Mathew, nephew of Mar Alexander de Campo, who, as noted above, had been identified by the Dutch as a suitable non-Roman candidate.73 In the end they chose Raphael de Figueredo Salgado, whom Alexander de Campo only accepted with great reluctance as his coadjutor. Tisserant states of Raphael that ‘One cannot imagine a less happy choice’ and describes his somewhat high-handed ways.74 The real reason for his unsuitability was that he was of mixed race, Portuguese and Indian.75 His appointment was seen by the Syrians as a deliberate attempt to ‘extinguish the rank and honour’ of their Church and they refused to submit to him.76 Mar Alexander de Campo refused to consecrate him, the act being performed reluctantly in 1677 by Thomas de Castro, Vicar Apostolic 71 IOR/H/456b, pp.328-331. Kollaparmabil (Archdeacon, p.176) states that Mar Thoma II wished to unite with Rome, but that Mar Alexander de Campo frustrated this. The missionaries had offered him the office of Archdeacon. 72 For an account see Tisserant, Eastern Chrisianity, p.87f; Pallipurathkunnel, Double Regime, p.21f. 73 Mackenzie points to the fact that Rome was anxious to end the hereditary succession of the Pakalomattoms (Christianity, p.78, n.75). 74 Tisserant, Eastern Chrisianity, p.88. Kollaparambil agrees that not consecrating Mathew Parambil resulted in the loss of a good chance of healing the schism (Revolution, p.245). 75 This is explicitly stated in the declaration of independence from European rule made in 1787 at Angamale (see Chapter ). An English translation can be found in Whitehouse, Lingerings, p.308ff. He is described in Portuguese as Bishop Mestico and in Malayalam as kuppayakaran (literally a ‘coat-wearer’, referring to the use of European clothes). 76 See Mackenzie, Christianity, p.29; Brown, Indian Christians, p.110; Mundadan, Search and Struggle, pp.53-56.

THE STRUGGLE FOR INDEPENDENCE AND IDENTITY

143

of Canara.77 So unsatisfactory was Figuerdo that Rome eventually agreed to suspend him, but he died in 1695 before the suspension took effect.78 Mar Alexander had died in 1687. While the Pazhayakuttukar were concerned with the activities of Bishop Figueredo, three Syrian bishops are known to have visited Kerala during the reign of Mar Thoma II. The first of these, named Mar Andreas arrived in 1676. Paulinus a S. Bartholomeo states that he brought a forged letter from the Pope stating that the latter had sent him.79 The Propaganda Fide archives contain a Carmelite report of 15th March 1681 recounting the episcopal consecration of Mar Thoma II by Mar Andreas, but at the same time discountenancing it on the basis of information that Mar Andreas was merely a priest from Alleppo.80 Brown describes Mar Andreas as ‘of no importance for the history’.81 While this is true in one sense, at the same time his arrival also marks the beginning of one of the strands in the story of the MISC. It is now necessary to introduce two of the central characters in that story. THE KATTUMANGATTU BROTHERS

As has been seen, the St Thomas Christians, like the majority of the communities or castes in India, were essentially endogamous. In the nineteenth century, for example, Syrian Indian Christians found it difficult to relate to converts to Christianity from low caste Pallipurathkunnel, Double Regime, p.36. De Castro thought Raphael unworthy of the office, but was threatened with the reporting to Rome of certain offences that he was alleged to have committed, if he did not consecrate. 78 For the accusations against Raphael see Pallipurathkunnel, Double Regime, p.51f. They included irregular ordinations and the accepting of priest with concubines. 79 Paulinus, India Orientalis, p.96, recte 104. 80 See Kollaparambil, Archdeacon, p.177, and Thekkedath, HCI, II, p.103 and sources given there. 81 Brown, Indian Christians, p.112. Mar Andreas is said not have gained a wide following among the Syrians and eventually to have drowned in a river. Paulinus gives 1683 as the year of Mar Andreas’ death. He states that the bishop was fond of wine. Yacoub III, drawing in the main on Indian and Roman Catholic sources, gives further details of the behaviour and death of Mar Andreas (Syrian Church of India, pp.59-63). 77

144

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

Hindu backgrounds and even today do not as a rule marry outside their own community. One exception to this generally endogamous practice has been marriage with Syrian Christians from the Middle East/West Asia with whom such marriages have been permissible down the centuries. A number of families in Kerala proudly trace their descent from such unions. One such family is that of Kattumangatt from which were to come the first two bishops of the MISC. A history of the family was compiled by one of its members, Kattumangat Thomas John (K.T.John), from oral traditions collected by earlier generations, and published in 1989.82 The genealogical details given there broadly agree with those found in other sources. K.C. Verghese states that `they belonged to a noble family in Syria that came down to Kerala and settled first at Piravam and then at Mulanthuruthi, a village in the former Cochin state,'83 approximately 15 miles east of Cochin town. The brother of Mar Andreas, had accompanied him to India and settled there. After marriage to a woman of the Palasana family (itself said to be of West Asian origin84) Mar Andreas’ brother had been ordained priest by the Mar Ivanios who, as will be seen below, came to Kerala in 1685. Two sons resulted from this marriage. They seem to have lived for a time on a plot of land adjacent to Piravam Church, known as Srambickal,85 as a result of which the first MISC bishops are sometimes referred to as ‘Srambickal’ rather than Kattumangat. Eventually one of the brothers (Yacob) went to live at Thanangad, 82

1989.

K.T.John, The Kattumangat Family of Mulanthuruthy, Bangalore,

Verghese Brief Sketch, p.8. Mulanthuruthy had given only a qualified welcome to Menezes’ visits (Malekandathil, Jornada, pp.156, 200. 84 K.T.John, Kattumangat Family, p.29. Kaniamparampil’s account of Mar Andreas broadly agrees with that of K.T.John. According to Kaniamparampil, Mar Andreas was accompanied by two brothers who both married members of the Palasana family. Kaniamparampil states that Mar Andreas died at Kallada and the anniversary of his death is commemorated there and in Kundara, Kuruppampadi and a few other churches (Syrian Orthodox Church, p.103). See also Yacoub III, Syrian Church of India, p.61f. Paulinus states that this commemoration involved offering cockerels and hens at his tomb (India Orientalis, p.105). 85 K.T.John, Kattumangat Family, p.30. 83

THE STRUGGLE FOR INDEPENDENCE AND IDENTITY

145

a place where "thanang" (a kind of bush) grew in abundance, and the other (Abraham) at Kattumangat where there was a wild growth of mango trees. The two properties are adjacent to each other, less than half a mile south of the Church at Mulanthuruthy.86 Abraham had eight sons and two daughters: Youseph Parappattil, Korah Chalil, Yacob Thilakkulathil, Puravath Puthenpurayil, Kurian Abraham, Payli Punayidath, Geeverghese, Yuhanon Kattumangat, Eli Mamala, Acha Ayinad.87 Yuhanon, the youngest son, is said to have stayed at the old family residence of Kattumangat while his brothers and sisters settled elsewhere. He is the ancestor of many present branches of the family.88 In the middle of the 18th century two members of the Kattumangat family were to be caught up in the events sweeping through the Orthodox community. MAPHRIAN MAR BASILIOS YALDO AND MAR IVANIOS HIDAYATHULLA

The two other West Asian bishops who arrived towards the end of Mar Thoma II’s reign, probably in 1685,89 seem to have been an official delegation from the Syrian Orthodox patriarch arrived, apparently in response to a request for assistance sent by Mar Thoma II. Yacoub III and Kaniamparampil describes the sending of the Maphrian, Mar Basilios Yaldo, from near Mosul. He was to be accompanied by his brother Jamma, Rambans Joea and Mathai from the monasteries of Mar Mathai and Mar Behnam, together with the newly consecrated Mar Ivanios Hidayathulla, from Khudayda.90 In K.T.John, Kattumangat Family, p.30. K.T.John, Kattumangat Family, p.31; Verghese, Brief Sketch, p.8. 88 K.T.John, Kattumangat Family, p.31ff. 89 Paulinus gives the precise date as January 1685 (India Orientalis, p.105). He is followed by Thekkedath (HCI, II, p.103) and Kaniamparampil (Syrian Orthodox Church, p.103). Brown, gives the date as 1678 (Indian Christians, p.112f). 90 For some brief information on Mar Ivanios Hidayathulla, see Barsoum I, The Scattered Pearls, p.515. He had been a married priest, but on the death of his wife had entered the monastery of Mar Behnam. Also Yacoub III, Syrian Church of India, pp.65-67. Kaniamparampil, gives the name of his home village in the form Bakudaid (Syrian Orthodox Church, 86 87

146

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

the event, only the two bishops and Ramban Mathai seem to have reached India. The party landed at Tellichery and is said to have travelled overland to Kothamangalam, where Mar Basilios died just thirteen days after his arrival there. He was buried at the Cheriapally at Kothamangalam where vast crowds of Pazhayakuttukar, Puthenkuttukar and Hindus used to assemble every September to commemorate his death and seek healing.91 Prior to his death, Mar Basilios raised Mar Ivanios to the rank of Metropolitan.92 Remarkably, the susthaticon recording this event survives at Thozhiyur. Although damaged, it clearly shows that Mar Ivanios was given authority to consecrate bishops and even muron, a privilege normally reserved to the Patriarch. He is also to use leavened bread in the Qurbana. Mar Ivanios Hidayathulla then embarked on a programme of bringing the Malabar Church into conformity with Syrian Orthodox rites and customs. He removed carved crosses and images from churches, though allowed some ‘pictas’. Prayer was to be said standing, not kneeling; the Qurbana was only to be celebrated on Sundays during the forty days before Easter (ie not on weekdays in Lent); meat from strangled animals was to be avoided; he gave wives to priests, apparently with some success – ‘ut multi clerici

p.102f). Paulinus states that the two bishops were accompanied by two Armenian and one Greek priest (India Orientalis, p.105). European writers sometime confuse ‘Aramean’ with ‘Armenian’. 91 Whitehouse, Lingerings, p.268. According to local tradition, Mar Basilios was 74 years old at the time of his death. 92 Yacoub III, Syrian Church of India, pp.64,67; Kaniamparampil, Syrian Orthodox Church, p.103. Paulinus states that Ivanios was the Maphrian and Basilios simply a bishop (India Orientalis, p.105). Not only is this unlikely, given the respective names of the prelates, but Barsoum’s sources confirm that Basilios Yaldo was indeed Maphrian and had ordained at least one bishop in that capacity in West Asia. When Yaldo left for India in 1684 a new Maphrian was consecrated by the Patriarch (Syriac Dioceses, p.1). He also appears in Baby Varghese’s list of Maphrians (‘Maphrianate’, p.348). Mar Thoma VIII calls Basilios ‘Casolica’ ie ‘Catholicos’ (IOR/ F/4/616/15311.p.44).

THE STRUGGLE FOR INDEPENDENCE AND IDENTITY

147

Malabarenses eas ducerunt’.93 Doctrinally, the Council of Chalcedon was rejected, as was the Procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son as well as from the Father; two natures in Christ were denied, as was Purgatory and the Beatific Vision after death.94 Mar Ivanios also seems to have drawn up canons for the Church in Malabar.95 Yacoub III states that he held a council at Chenganur of delegates from 14 churches in southern Malabar in 1686 at which a number of West Syrian customs and canons were accepted.96 This process was not allowed to proceed unhindered. Mar Ivanios seems to have been opposed by the new Metropolitan Mar Thoma III (a nephew of Mar Thoma II) who both resisted Antiochene doctrine and feared the loss of his own authority in the eyes of his community.97 THE TRANSFORMATION OF THE ARCHIDIACONATE

This last statement deserves further comment. It is important to record the fact that a new situation had come about. Despite the imprecision in the sources and the high probability of irregularities, 93 ‘so that many clergy took them’ (Paulinus, India Orientalis, p.106). It is interesting to note in passing that the Syrian Orthodox bishops seem to have had no qualms about allowing priests to marry after ordination, despite the usual prohibition in Eastern Canon Law. The community also seems to have accepted this, at least up until the early 19th century, when, under the encouragement of the British Resident, many of them did so. The Decrees of the Synod of Diamper explicitly state that it had been permitted in the Indian Church for priests to marry ‘after they were in Orders’ (Session VII, Decree XVI, Zacharia, Diamper, p.165). The Synod acknowledged that married priests and even married bishops had existed in ‘in the beginning of the Church’). Today, of the Indian Churches of Syrian heritage, only the Mar Thoma Church and the Church of the East permit marriage after ordination (though the eminent theologian V.C Samuel was an exception in the Malankara Orthodox Church). The MISC does not. 94 Paulinus, India Orientalis, p.106. 95 Barsoum, Scattered Pearls, p.315. 96 Syrian Church of India, pp.70-76. 97 Paulinus, India Orientalis, p.105f.; Thekkedath, HCI, II, p.103; Cyril, ‘Introduction’, pp.142-144. Tisserant describes him as ‘a mere layman’ (Eastern Christianity, p.142).

148

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

members of the Pakalomattom family were now assuming the status (and, as we have seen, ornaments) of bishop. This was a new development. Hitherto, the Pakalomattom Archdeacons had ruled the community, though always as ‘lieutentants’ of the Metropolitan, who was invariably a non-Indian. Now, however, some at least of the Archdeacons were obtaining episcopal consecration. Even those that did not were acting as if they had. In effect, the two separate roles of Metropolitan and Archdeacon were becoming merged into one. There are isolated references to individuals called ‘Archdeacon’ among the Puthenkuttukar up to the late 18th century, but there is no evidence that they received the traditional recognition of their position from the Rajahs of Cochin or, indeed, that they exercised a role comparable to Archdeacons in earlier times.98 What is emerging is a new role of ‘Malankara Metropolitan’ – an Indian bishop who combines within his own person both the spiritual role of Metropolitan and the ‘head of community’ and ‘head of ecclesiastical administration’ roles traditionally exercised by the Archdeacons. Increasingly, as the 18th and 19th centuries progressed, it was this combined role to which claimants aspired. Mar Alexander de Campo’s assumption of the title ‘Metropolitan of All India’ by 1668 shows how strong the instinct was, even, at this early stage, among the Romo-Syrians. There was a further important consequence. Now that Pakalomattom bishops existed, was there any need for foreign bishops to have a say in the affairs of the community? Thus the hitherto unquestioned assumption that the spiritual father of the community must be a foreign bishop began to fade somewhat, though it took a long time to disappear completely, and a preference for ‘white’ bishops from West Asia was still strong in some parts of the community at the end of the 19th century.99 Here, then, is the genesis of

98 See Kollaparambil, Archdeacon, p.176f for the sketchy references to Archdeacons in this period. 99 Mar Aprem, Mar Joseph Thondanat: A Biography, Trichur, Mar Narsai Press, 1987, p.88: ‘They want white skinned clergy from Babel’. See also Thondanat, pp.65, 107.

THE STRUGGLE FOR INDEPENDENCE AND IDENTITY

149

the concept of a totally autocephalous or independent indigenous Church.100 It is important, too, to take into account the situation in the Romo-Syrian community. The Roman authorities had in effect ‘remodelled’ the ancient Syrian Metropolitanate first into the Bishopric of Angamale, then into the Archbishopric of Cranganore. However, from 1659 to 1701 Rome left the Archbishopric of Cranganore vacant, maintaining an episcopal presence only through Carmelite Vicars Apostolic answerable to the Propaganda Congregation.101 Thus, for many Syrians it must have seemed that Rome was failing to provide a Metropolitan. The Pakalomattom bishops (with the support of many Syrians) inevitably saw themselves as the natural occupiers of this vacancy. It was important, therefore, that foreign bishops were not allowed to do anything that lessened the chances of a Pakalomattom bishop re-uniting the St Thomas Christians under himself as Metropolitan. MAR THOMA IV CA 1688-1728

On the death of Mar Thoma III in 1686,102 Mar Ivanios Hidayathulla is said to have made his (Mar Thoma’s) nephew a Ramban and then, after some days, consecrated him a bishop. This bishop lived for only two years and was succeed by another bishop

100 Today, this can be found in the MISC, the Mar Thoma Church and the Orthodox Syrian Church. The Syrian Orthodox, Church of the East, Syro-Malabar and Syro-Malankara jurisdictions all have ‘external points of reference’ outside India. 101 This can be seen clearly in the tables appended to Thomas Robinson, The Last Days of Bishop Heber, Madras, Jennings & Chaplin, 1830, esp. pp.292-299. The information is derived mainly from Paulinus a S. Bartholomeo. Lists of the Archbishops of Cranganore, Bishops of Verapoly and Vicars Apostolic (with dates and notes) can be found in Mackenzie, Christianity, pp. 74,77; and Tisserant, Eastern Christianity, pp.186-189. To be fair to the Roman authorities, it is important to note that some individuals were offered the post but declined, others were appointed but either died or failed to travel to India. Others were refused entry by the Dutch. 102 Paulinus, India Orientalis, p.106 (though Paulinus numbers him ‘IV’).

150

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

also consecrated by Mar Ivanios.103 Whatever the discrepancies in the numbering of earlier bishops, this bishop is designated by most sources as Mar Thoma IV. Mar Ivanios Hidayathulla continued with his task of conforming the Syrian community to West Syrian ways. In this he seems to have had a degree of success. Kaniamparampil calls him ‘the Reviver of the Syrian Orthodox faith’104 and Thekkedath concludes that, ‘By the time Mar Ivanios died in 1693, Mar Thoma IV and the other leaders of his group appear to have accepted the doctrine of the Antiochian Syrians’.105 His task may well have been made easier by the fact that many of the Syrians were unhappy with the leadership of Figueredo and the controversies surrounding him, which were raging at this time.106 Jacob Visscher, the Dutch chaplain in Cochin, gives us a description of Mar Thoma IV:

103 In 1751 Mar Basilios Shukr Allah was told by the elders of Mulanthuruthy that Maphrian Yaldo ‘ordained for them a bishop and a chorepiscopus named Tuma, who came from a family that had held clerical positions by heredity for a long time’ (Barsoum, Syriac Dioceses, p.97). The description of Tuma as a chorepiscopa, suggests a reluctance on the part of the Antiochene to accept that Indians had been consecrated full bishops. Paulinus also names Mar Basilius Yaldo as the consecrator on the first occasion (India Orientalis, p.106), but, given Mar Basilius’ death just a few days after his arrival he may be confusing an Indian bishop with Mar Ivanios. Mar Thoma VIII stated (in 1813) that ‘the then Metran of Malialum, Nephew of the 3rd Bishop of the Pallomittam family was consecrated bishop by Mar Ivanios Metran and after the death of the latter the aforesaid Metran of Malialum consecrated his nephew as Metran’ (IOR/ F/4/616/15311.p.44). See also Kollaparambil, Archdeacon, p.177; Yacoub III, Syrian Church in India, p.76, quoting Philip, Indian Church, p.152; Kaniamparampil, Syrian Orthodox Church, p.104; Thekkedath, HCI, II, p.103 and the sources quoted there. 104 Kaniamparampil, Syrian Orthodox Church, p.104. 105 Thekkedath, HCI, II, p.104. Mar Ivanios died in Mulanthuruthy (Paulinus, India Orientalis, p.106). Kaniamparampil agrees that the venue was Mulanthuruthy, but gives 3 Chingom 1694 as the date (Syrian Orthodox Church, p.104). Barsoum simply gives 1693 (Scattered Pearls, p.515). 106 Pallipurathkunnel, Double Regime, p.160.

THE STRUGGLE FOR INDEPENDENCE AND IDENTITY

151

Mar Thoma, … is a native of Malabar. He is a black man, dull and slow of understanding. He lives in great state, and when he came into the city to visit the Commandant, he was attended by numbers of soldiers bearing swords and shields, in imitation of the princes of Malabar. He wears on his head a silken cowl, embroidered with crosses, in form much resembling that of the Carmelites.107

The reference to the cowl embroidered with crosses is interesting; as noted above, it a distinctive Syrian Orthodox garment, suggesting that, externally as well as theologically, the Puthenkur claimant to the Metropolitanate was conforming to West Syrian traditions. Though some prominent figures among the Puthenkuttukar may have been adopting an Antiochene identity, liturgical change was progressing much more slowly. The East Syrian script was still in use and Fr Cyril concludes from his survey of contemporary sources that the evidence shows ‘the Malankara community [ie the Puthenkuttukar] clearly having the same Chaldean liturgy as the Catholic community as late as 1750’.108 Mar Ivanios seems to have adopted the approach of Mar Gregorios Abdul Jaleel before him, and to have concentrated on the (re-)introduction of features that were common to both East and West Syrian traditions – of which the use of leavened bread was a major touchstone of Syrian authenticity for the Indians – while gradually increasing the West Syrian element.109 Leadership Problems among the Pazhayakuttukar This ‘re-Syrianising’ of the St Thomas Christians was no doubt made easier by the chaos in the Roman jurisdictions. The Dutch were still refusing to allow Padroado bishops into territories which they controlled, which meant that the Cranganore and Cochin were without episcopal ministrations. Raphael de Figueredo died in

Drury, Visscher, p.104. Cyril, ‘Introduction’, p.146. 109 Cyril, ‘Introduction’, p.147. There is, for example, manuscript evidence of the introduction of Syrian Orthodox saints into the calendar. 107 108

152

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

1795, but was not immediately replaced.110 The arrangement of Apostolic Commissaries inaugurated with Sebastiani was confirmed as the Vicariate Apostolic of Malabar in 1700, though technically only as a temporary arrangement.111 In 1701 Angelus Francis of St Therese, an Italian Discalced Carmelite, who had been in Kerala since 1676, was consecrated titular bishop of Metellopolis to occupy the position. As no Padroado bishop would consecrate him, the rite was performed by an East Syrian bishop, Mar Shem’un.112 The presence of this prelate in Kerala is a reminder that links between the St Thomas Christians and their ancestral Mother Church had by no means ceased. Mar Shem’un’s ecclesiastical allegiance is difficult to ascertain with certainty.113 He seems to have been consecrated by Patriarch Elia of the Church of the East, but had submitted to Mar Joseph I and Mar Joseph II who had made professions of loyalty to Rome. He may have been sent to Kerala by one of these to try and win back those drifting to West Syrian usages. His consecration of Angelus Francis in 1701 was resisted by the Jesuits, for various reasons, including the fact that consecrator and candidate were of different rites.114 After the consecration Mar Shem’un seems to have been compelled to go to Pondicherry, probably because the Carmelites feared that the Syrians would want him as their bishop. In 1720 he drowned in a well in circumstances that are unclear.115 In 1704 John Ribeiro, a Portuguese Jesuit, who had been consecrated Archbishop of Cranganore (and therefore successor to

Pallipurathkunnel, Double Regime, p.72. Pallipurathkunnel, Double Regime, p.72. 112 He was assisted by Archdeacon Mathew de Campo and several others, using the Roman rite translated into Syriac (Pallipurathkunnel, Double Regime, p.80). The consecration took place in the same Church in which Mar Thoma I had been ‘consecrated’ by 12 priests. 113 See Pallipurathkunnel, Double Regime, pp.90-101 for a discussion of Mar Shem’un. 114 Pallipurathkunnel, Double Regime, p.92; Pascal, Hierarchies, p.94f.; Podipara, Thomas Christians, p.166; Neill, History, vol. 1, p.330. 115 Pallipurathkunnel, Double Regime, p.99; Podipara, Canonical Sources, p.85. 110 111

THE STRUGGLE FOR INDEPENDENCE AND IDENTITY

153

Garcia) arrived in Kerala.116 Angelus Francis ceased to exercise jurisdiction, according to the agreement under which he was consecrated, but most of the Pazhayakuttukar refused to transfer their allegiance from him to Ribeiro, making it very difficult for the latter to function effectively. Ribeiro’s successor, the Jesuit Manuel Carvalho Pimentel, was Archbishop from 1721 until 1752, but prevented by the Dutch from entering his Diocese. His Carmelite contemporary was John Baptist Mary of St Theresa, who was Vicar Apostolic from 1714 to 1750.117 THE STRUGGLE FOR CONTROL OF THE SYRIANS: MAR THOMA IV, MAR GABRIEL, PADROADO AND PROPAGANDA118

The ‘three-cornered fight’ between Mar Thoma IV and the two Roman jurisdictions was further complicated by the arrival of another East Syrian bishop, Mar Gabriel, who arrived in Kerala in December 1708 in an English ship from Madras.119 While in West Asia he had made a profession of faith to Rome, but, contrary to Rome’s wishes, then travelled to Kerala. Once in Kerala Mar Gabriel seems to have ‘worked for the reanimation of the East SyrFor the career of Ribeiro see Pallipurathkunnel, Double Regime, pp.102-136. 117 Puthussery, Reunion Efforts, pp.24-27; Tisserant, Eastern Christianity, 118 For a detailed account of the 40 years prior to the genesis of the MISC, see Perumthottam, Decline, passim. Much of what is known about Mar Thoma IV is derived from his correspondence with Carolus Schaaf of Leiden. The correspondence had originally been intended for the Governors of the Dutch East Indian Company, who passed the initial letter, written in East Syriac script in 1709 and intended for the Patriarch of Antioch, to Schaaf, Professor of Oriental Languages at Leiden, for translation. Schaaf took it upon himself reply and an exchange ensued which lasted several years, being taken up by Schaaf’s son after his father’s death in 1729. See also Martin Tamke, ‘A Letter of Mar Thoma’s from 1728 as Source for the History of the St Thomas Christians’, in The Harp, vol. XXII (2007), 201-214. The details of the correspondence need not be entered into here. 119 See Paulinus, India Orientalis, p.107ff. Perumthottam, Decline, pp.82-92 and Hambye, HCI, III, pp.46-49 describe the career of Mar Gabriel. 116

154

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

ian tradition in Malabar’.120 It seems that his true allegiance was to the Church of the East Patriarch Mar Eliah XI Maroghin (1700– 1722).121 A Malayalam ‘Brief History of the Syrians in Malabar’, dated 1770, says that Mar Gabriel used both leavened and unleavened bread in the Qurbana and kept the Syrian fasts, which suggests he accommodated his practices to the congregation he was ministering to.122 At different times he formed alliances with both Mar Thoma IV and the Roman authorities and seems to have been accepted by significant numbers of both Puthenkuttukar and Pazhayakuttukar, thus forming yet another ‘bloc’.123 He ordained many Indians as priest, including at least one who was well known to Paulinus many years later and from whom Paulinus obtained much of his information.124 Mar Gabriel’s time in Kerala is of further interest because it illustrates the tendency (noted in Chapter 4) of the Syrians to divide into two groups, determined broadly geographically. Lee, drawing on earlier sources, describes how Mar Thoma IV ‘presided over the Churches in the South’, while ‘Mar Gabriel, who was a Nestorian, 120 Perczel, ‘Flames’, p.97. Including clerical marriage: in 1719 Mar Gabriel approached the Dutch Commander asking for his intercession with the local rulers to allow the kathanars to marry (Heylinger Press List, no. 111). 121 See Perczel, ‘Four Apologetic Church Histories’, The Harp, XXIV (2009) p. for further information on Mar Gabriel. 122 Whitehouse, Lingerings, p.307. Gabriel’s use of unleavened bread (contrary to Church of the East practice) was confirmed by a kathanar to the Protestant missionaries at Tranquebar (Whitehouse, Lingerings, p.213). 123 Hambye states that thirty to forty churches accepted him (HCI, III, p.47). Vicar Apostolic Angelus Francis died in 1712, and Archbishop Ribeiro in 1716, leaving the Pazhayakuttukar with no bishop. It is not surprising, therefore, that many looked to Mar Gabriel (Pallipurathkunnel, Double Regime, pp.132, 144). 124 India Orientalis, p.108f. In addition to the ordination of priests attested to by Paulinus, Swanston states that Mar Gabriel actually ‘consecrated a young priest of the family of Palakommatta, and raised him to the episcopacy’, but the new bishop died before he could succeed Mar Thoma IV (JRAS, II, p.52). Swanston is almost certainly wrong here. He seems to confuse Mar Gabriel with two other bishops: (i) Mar Ivanios who accompanied Mar Basilios in 1685; (ii) Mar Shem’un.

THE STRUGGLE FOR INDEPENDENCE AND IDENTITY

155

exercised his jurisdiction in the North’.125 Echoes of this division survive to the present day.126 The existence of these two groupings was to be of considerable significance in the events of the 19th century, as will be noted in subsequent Chapters. A description of Mar Gabriel by Visscher survives: Mar Gabriel, a white man, and sent hither from Baghdad, is aged and venerable in appearance, and dresses nearly in the same fashion as the Jewish priests of old, wearing a cap fashioned like a turban, and a long white beard. He is courteous and God-fearing, and not at all addicted to extravagant pomp. Round his neck he wears a gold crucifix. He lives with the utmost sobriety, abstaining from all animal food. He holds the Nestorian doctrine respecting the union of the two natures in our Saviour’s person’.127

Mar Thoma IV thus had powerful rivals for the allegiance of the St Thomas Christians – the European leaders of the Pazhayakuttukar congregations and Mar Gabriel. His own ‘share’ of the Syrian community was shrinking. From at least 1705 he had been attempting to make contact with both Rome and Antioch. Rome, however, learned of his approaches to the latter, which naturally lost him any sympathy he might have expected there.128 His approach to Antioch was equally unsuccessful, but is worth examining for the insight it gives into the evolving identity Lee, Brief History, p.529. In 1727 the Vicar Apostolic was alarmed when Mar Gabriel gained possession of a Southern Church (Perumthottam, Decline, p.192). Mar Basilios Shukr Allah was aware of the geographical division, but inexplicably reverses the spheres of influence, placing Mar Gabriel in the south (Barsoum Syriac Dioceses, p.97). This may be a translation error. 126 I am grateful to the Revd Dr Phillip Tovey for the information that the Northern Churches tend not to use ceremonial elephants, while the Southern Churches have no objection to this custom. 127 Drury, Visscher, p.103, 128 See Perumthottam, Decline, pp.128-131 for a review of Mar Thoma IV’s attempts to unite with Rome. Also Hambye, HCI, III, p.48f. 125

156

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

of the Puthenkuttukar.129 Interestingly, his letters indicate that he knew neither the name nor abode of the Patriarch, which suggests that there had been no active contact for some time, probably since the death of Mar Ivanios Hidayathulla in 1693. Nevertheless, he clearly was aware that his Christology differed from that of Mar Gabriel, whom he accuses of teaching that there are two Natures and two Persons in Christ. This suggests that Miaphysite teaching was making some headway in the community. Mar Thoma IV’s letters indicate a willingness to address the Patriarch of Antioch as ‘Head of the Catholic Church and Pastor of the sheep of the East’ – titles with echoes of those given to the Church of the East Patriarchs. He requests that there be sent to India a Patriarch, a Metropolitan and two learned priests.130 There is no evidence that any of Mar Thoma IV’s letters ever reached the Syrian Orthodox Patriarch. They reveal, however, that the succession of West Syrian bishops who had visited Kerala since Mar Gregorios Abdul Jaleel had indeed shifted the self-understanding of the Puthenkuttukar – or at least of the Pakalomattoms. When Mar Thoma IV sent his first letter, a little over a century had passed since the death of Mar Abraham, the last East Syrian bishop to rule over the whole community. Now the East Syrian tradition, as represented by Mar Gabriel, was seen as an heretical intrusion to be resisted.131 Or was it rather that Mar Thoma IV feared that to reconnect with the Church of the East would have required the Pakalomattoms to revert to the status of Archdeacons? Antioch had done what Babylon seems never to have done – it had consecrated 129 The text of his letter of 25 Ellul [September] 1720 is given in Mackenzie, Christianity, p.86f. 130 There seems to have been some unclarity about the Indians’ understanding of the term ‘Patriarch’. As Van der Ploeg notes, one gets the impression that they confused it with the term ‘Maphrian’, which would have been unknown to their East Syrian ancestors (Syriac MSS, p.251). It will be recalled that Mar Aithalaha was believed by the Syrians to be a Patriarch. 131 It would be wrong to give all the credit for this shift in perception to the West Syrian bishops. It must be remembered that since Diamper the Roman Catholic clergy and religious Orders had been denouncing the errors of ‘Nestorianism’ as allegedly propagated by the Patriarch of Babylon. A century of ‘propaganda’ had no doubt had its effect.

THE STRUGGLE FOR INDEPENDENCE AND IDENTITY

157

Pakalomattom bishops. Theological issues aside, the indications were that the dynastic status of the Pakalomattoms would be better served by an alliance with the Syrian Orthodox than with the Church of the East or with Rome.132 Probably both these considerations (and many more) played a part. Nevertheless, the fact that Mar Gabriel had attracted a substantial following suggests that not all the Puthenkuttukar shared Mar Thoma IV’s disavowal of their East Syrian heritage. Be that as it may, from this point on the likelihood of the whole St Thomas community ever re-uniting in an East Syrian identity begins to decrease, though not for some decades can it be thought of as unachievable. MAR THOMA V 1728-1765

We come now to the first of the Pakalomattom bishops whose actions contributed to the foundation of the MISC. There is general agreement that Mar Thoma V was not a canonically consecrated bishop at all. In 1751 Maphrian Mar Basilios Shukr Allah recorded the following account of what happened in the last hours of Mar Thoma IV: They said to Tuma, ‘Arise, let us convey to the Church. Your nephew, the monk Tuma, will celebrate the Mass and you will lay your hands on him’. He said to them, ‘That is not right. The people will say that a monk has ordained [a bishop]’. As he uttered these words he fell into a coma. When he regained consciousness the priests brought him the book (office of ordination). He sat upright in the chair while the monk was reading (the service of ordination) to him. But Tuma lapsed into a coma again. Instantly one of the priests place the mitre on the head of monk Tuma. Two hours later [Mar Thoma IV] breathed his last. Meanwhile their learned priests arrived, one of whom was named Abraham. The monk Tuma [Mar Thoma V] said to them, ‘I want to write letters to the churches (about his ordination), but how should I sign?’ They said, ‘Sign your Mackenzie suggests that Mar Thoma IV’s 1720 letter indicates a distinction between ‘ruling bishops, himself and his four predecessors, and the teaching bishops who occasionally came from Syria’ (Christianity, p.87). 132

158

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS name as the Chorepiscopus.’ But they had no idea what a Chorepiscopus is, so they began to argue with one another. Many of them refused to kiss his hand. So he appealed to the king (the raja) , who brought soldiers who forced them to kiss his hand.133

This account is verified independently by Anquetil du Perron’s sources: This Archdeacon [sic – ie Mar Thoma V], knowing that noone wished to consecrate him a bishop, approached the last Archdeacon (successor of George de Campo) [ie Mar Thoma IV] who was about to die, and took from him the title of Bishop while he was still alive; he placed between his [i.e. the dying man’s] hands the Cross, the Mitre and the other episcopal habit, and then took them back as if they had been received from the Archdeacon. From this time he performed the functions of Bishop and was recognised as such.134

The incident is also referred to in a letter written to Rome and quoted by Paulinus: At the hour of his death he [Mar Thoma IV] placed the mitre (on his lay nephew) and gave the staff and ring into his hand …135

Evidence that Mar Thoma V himself accepted that he was not validly consecrated is found in an incident recorded by Paulinus a S. Bartholomaeo. This relates to Mar Gabriel, whose impact on Mar Thoma IV’s reign has been noted above. Unsurprisingly, Mar Thoma V also resented Mar Gabriel’s presence and activities. In fact, according to the Dutch Commander Moens, when Mar Barsoum, Syriac Dioceses, p.98. Anquetil du Perron, Zend-Avesta, vol.1, p.clxxxiii. This seems to be the earliest definite mention of the western mitre being used by the Pakalomattom bishops. If Mar Thoma IV had used it throughout his episcopate, then its use can be dated to within about 30 years of the Coonen Cross oath, which suggests that it was probably adopted by Mar Thoma I. 135 Paulinus, India Orientalis, p.108. Roman Catholic writers are inclined to refer to Syrian priests as ‘laici’ in view of the doubt about their Orders. 133 134

THE STRUGGLE FOR INDEPENDENCE AND IDENTITY

159

Gabriel eventually died it was ‘after having suffered much at the hands of Mar Thome’.136 Despite this animosity, according to Paulinus, when Mar Gabriel was dying in 1730 Mar Thoma V hastened to Kottayam in order to be consecrated by him, but the Church of the East bishop died before any such consecration could take place.137 The fact that someone technically in the West Syrian tradition should seek consecration from an East Syrian bishop is evidence both that Mar Thoma V was desperate to regularise his position, and that the differences between the Puthenkuttukar (with their now slightly re-Syrianised rites) and the Church of the East were not so very great at this stage.138 The fact that there was clearly continuing dissatisfaction within the Syrian community concerning Mar Thoma V’s Orders lends credence to the account.139 The desire of Mar Thoma V and 136 Moens, Memorandum, p.176. See Cyril, ‘Introduction’, p.143, for evidence of Mar Thoma explicitly refuting the ‘two natures’ doctrine of Mar Gabriel. 137 Paulinus, India Orientalis, p.109, though giving 1731 as the date, Moens says that Mar Gabriel died in 1730 (Memorandum, p.176). Mar Basilios Shukr Allah records that Mar Thoma V was on his way to see Mar Gabriel when the latter died. His story also suggests that Mar Thoma V may have been seeking episcopal consecration from him, Gabriel having offered it to him some years previously (Barsoum, Syriac Dioceses, p.98). Mar Gabriel was buried in the Cheriapally in Kottayam. He was still being commemorated in the 1860s (see the vivid description of a midnight service in a packed Church in Collins, Missionary Enterprise, pp.143-148), but the canopy over his grave had been removed by the time Whitehouse visited. A piece of wood from it still survived recording in old Malayalam the date of Mar Gabriel’s death as ‘8th of Kumbun (February) in the year of our Lord 1730’ (Whitehouse, Lingerings, p.46). Mar Aprem claims that the present Malankara Orthodox occupiers of the Church are unwilling to acknowledge the tomb of a ‘Nestorian’ bishop, the site of which is now obscured by a staircase (Indian Church History Lectures, pp.29, 36, n.2). 138 This is supported by the fact that after his death Mar Gabriel’s supporters divided themselves between Mar Thoma IV, the Archbishop of Cranganore and the Vicar Apostolic (Perumthottam, Decline, p.192). 139 The Patriarch of Antioch also believed that Mar Thoma V’s appointment consisted merely in ‘the placing upon his head, by a priest, during his Karanaven’s illness, of the episcopal mitre’ (Exhibit W, Judgement/Ormsby, p.41).

160

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

VI to regularise their Orders was to play a major part in their relations with other Churches for several decades. In 1737 Mar Thoma V made two requests of the Dutch authorities. The first was for protection of his Churches against the ‘Romanists’, which was granted him. The second was that ‘the Dutch Government would compel by force all the Old Christians now in the Romish Church [the Pazhayakuttukar] to expel the Jesuits and Carmelites and put themselves under him’.140 This latter objective the Dutch advised him to try and achieve by argument and persuasion. The continuing dissatisfaction concerning the regularity of Mar Thoma V’s Orders was now to bring to India another bishop who unwittingly contributed to the events that brought the MISC into existence. MAR IVANIOS YUHANON IBN AL ARQUGIANYI OF AMID141

Still acutely conscious of the irregularities in his position, in 1746 Mar Thoma V appealed to the Syrian Orthodox Patriarch Georgios III and asked him to deal with his case.142 The following year Mar Ivanios Ibn al-Arqugianyi arrived in Kerala. Born in Amid (Diyarbakr), he had entered the monastery of Deir al-Za‘faran shortly before 1716 and spent most of his career there, copying books (some of which were seen by Barsoum), before being consecrated a Metropolitan in 1743, when he was appointed superior of the

MS Mill 193, f.26. For details of Mar Ivanios’ career see Barsoum, Syriac Dioceses, pp.51-53. Barsoum gives his name as ‘Araqchinchi’ and states that it was ‘a Turkish term for one who makes white linen caps worn on the head under the turban to absorb sweat’. Hambye (who dates his arrival as November 1747) gives his name as Yuhanon ibn al Arqugianyi (HCI, III, p.50). ‘Yuhanon’ and ‘Ivanios’ are both forms of the same name, of which the English form is ‘John’. This would seem to be the Ivanios described by Brown, Indian Christians, p.119. Mar Aprem calls him a ‘Nestorian’ bishop, but without giving a reason (Chaldean Syrian Church, p.52). 142 Hambye, HCI, III, p.50; Kaniamparampil, Syrian Orthodox Church, p.106. Mar Thoma’s letters were conveyed to the Patriarch by a Jewish merchant from Cochin named Ezekiel. 140 141

THE STRUGGLE FOR INDEPENDENCE AND IDENTITY

161

Monastery of Mar Mattai. He was given the episcopal name Ivanios.143 Barsoum states that Patriarch Georgios III entrusted the administration of Malabar to Mar Ivanios in response to a petition from India.144 Rumours circulating in Kerala, however, cast some doubt on whether Mar Ivanios was in fact the Patriarch’s response to Mar Thoma V’s appeal. Anquetil du Perron claims that he was told the following account by Florentius, Vicar-Apostolic of Verapoly: The schismatic Christians of St Thomas, weary of obeying Mar Thomas, a simple Archdeacon, asked permission of the Dutch to bring a bishop from Syria. The Consul at Cochin consented and gave orders to the Dutch vessels at Bassora [Basra] to bring the first one they found. They came across a bishop named John, who had been driven out of Ethiopia, and who had just been released from prison in Bassora on the payment of five hundred guineas by a Minoriste friend of his. The Prelate arrived at Cochin in 1747 and was received with cannon salute and extraordinary honours: the Dutch always show more regard to the heretics than to the Catholics.145

The judgements of Roman Catholic sources are, however, undoubtedly coloured by the fact that Mar Ivanios clearly saw as a major part of his mission the bringing of the Indians (whom he complained ‘do not walk in the Syrian paths’146) into conformity with Antiochene practice. This involved purging it of both East 143 In his letter of 16th January 1748 the bishop calls himself Mar Ivanios Yuhanon (DR 450). 144 Syriac Dioceses, p.52. 145 Anquetil du Perron, Zend-Avesta, p.clxii, n.1. Despite this description of the welcome afforded by the Dutch, Moens makes no mention of Mar Ivanios. The Vicar Apostolic who entertained Anquetil du Perron was Bishop Florentinus, a Lithuanian Pole whose lay name was Nicholas Szostak. He was a Carmelite. For the career of Florentius and the events of his time, see Varghese Puthussery, Reunion Efforts of St Thomas Christians of India (1750-1773): A Historical-Critical Analysis of the Contemporary Documents, Thrissur, Marymatha Publications, 2008. 146 DR 450. I am grateful to Archbishop Athanasios Dawod for translating this letter for me.

162

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

Syrian and Latin features, in exactly the same way as the earlier Mar Ivanios (Hidayathulla) had done. Inevitably he was on a collision course with the Roman authorities. It is not surprising, therefore, that Paulinus a S. Bartholomeo who had spoken to contemporaries, calls Mar Ivanios ‘haereticus iconoclastes’ and recounts with horror how in the town of Candenata, in Molanturutim, in Porrota, in Milicolam, and in other schismatic churches he burned with fire images of saints and even of the Lord Christ and crosses; he gave wives to priests….147

The destruction of 3-dimensional images and the restoration of a married clergy are of course in line with Syrian Orthodox norms, but also constitute a direct undoing of practices that had been forced on the Indian Church since the Synod of Diamper. Mar Ivanios’ reforms did not merely upset the Roman authorities; they were also resisted by Mar Thoma V. The Syrian bishop wrote a long letter to the Dutch in 1748 setting out the differences between Mar Thoma and himself, one of the chief of which was the marriage of clergy, which Mar Thoma V was resisting. In his reply the Dutch Commandeur had advised Mar Ivanios not to return to Antioch, but to remain in India to prevent the Catholics from making inroads into his flock. It was the view of the Dutch that much of the trouble was being caused by ‘the Papists and Jesuits’.148 An incident preserved in the oral tradition of the MISC gives a unique insight into one aspect of how Mar Ivanios went about conforming the Indian Church to West Syrian ways. K.C. Verghese recounts the following story: Those were the days when there was no bishop permanently staying in Kerala. At times a bishop would come from Antioch 147 Paulinus, India Orientalis, p.110f. Note how, like his predecessor of the same name, Mar Ivanios seems to have had no problem with priests taking wives after ordination. Interestingly, almost a century later another reformer, Palakunnathu Abraham Malpan, was to arouse great opposition by destroying a statue (see Chapter 11). 148 DR 419.

THE STRUGGLE FOR INDEPENDENCE AND IDENTITY

163

or Edessa, reside for a while and then return. Towards the middle of the eighteenth century a prelate named Ivanios reached Malankara and was residing at Mulanthuruthi, the stronghold of the Jacobites in Malankara. He used to teach the boys of the locality Syriac. The Kattumangat brothers, Abraham and Geeverghese, attended the prayers regularly and used to listen to the hymns chanted by those students. One day while the students were singing the hymns went wrong. At once Abraham and Geeverghese intervened and recited the hymns in the right manner. Mar Ivanios, who was reclining in a room close by called the Kattumangat brothers. He was much pleased and admitted them to the class. The boys soon surpassed their classmates. Seeing their intelligence and good character he ordained them as deacons and before he left for his native country ordained them as priests and engaged them to teach Syriac in his stead.'149

The story seems entirely plausible, given the strong ecclesiastical nature of the boys’ family. They were descended from a Syrian Orthodox priest, the brother of Mar Andreas; their immediate ancestors lived near Mulanthuruthy Church and ‘were involved in the affairs of the Church’ both in Mulanthuruthy and previously in Piravam.150 It was natural that they should be attracted to Mar Ivanios and that he should encourage their aptitude for Antiochene liturgical usage. Hambye confirms that Mar Ivanios ‘ordained a few priests’.151 As well as recording how Mar Ivanios unwittingly initiated the sequence of events that was to lead to the formation of the MISC, the incident also tells us something of the manner in which Syrian Orthodox practice was to be introduced:

149 Verghese, Brief Sketch, p.9. Yacoub III’s sources confirm that Abraham Kattumangat was a deacon who studied under Mar Ivanios (Syrian Church of India, p.88). As noted above, Paulinus confirms Mar Ivanios’ presence in Mulanthuruthy. 150 K.T.John, Kattumangat Family, p.30. 151 Hambye, HCI, II, p.50.

164

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS 1. Part of Mar Ivanios’ strategy in promoting Antiochene usage was the education of boys, some of whom would go on to become priests. By building up a group to whom Syrian Orthodox ways were normal, he was creating a nucleus of priests who would perpetuate those ways in the Indian Church. 2. The importance of singing is noteworthy. As in other Orthodox Churches, the liturgical rites of the Syrian Orthodox Church are chanted and sung. Among other considerations, this makes them more easily remembered than would be the case with the spoken voice. This is an important consideration in a context where few of those present at an act of worship would have a text available. Mar Ivanios was thus teaching his pupils a ‘repertoire’ which they would be able to reproduce easily in the future. 3. There is an interesting parallel with the situation in the English Church in the 7th century. The Synod of Whitby in 664 saw the formal adoption of the Roman date of Easter and other Roman customs in preference to those employed by the Irish-derived communities such as Lindisfarne and Iona. Change in the local Churches and monasteries did not, however, happen overnight. In what seems to have been an attempt to hasten the process of transition, especially in Northumbria where Irish influence had been strong, Pope Agatho sent John, Arch-cantor of the Roman Church to Benedict Biscop’s monastic foundations of Jarrow and Wearmouth where ‘he was to teach [the] monks the chant for the liturgical year as it was sung at Saint Peter’s, Rome. John taught the cantors of the monastery the theory and practice of singing and reading aloud …. John’s instruction was not limited to the brethren of this monastery alone; for men who were proficient singers came from nearly all the monasteries of the province to hear him, and he received many invitations to teach elsewhere’.152 In both situations an attempt is being made to bring a distant Church into liturgical, doctrinal (and jurisdictional) conformity with another. The method used is 152

Bede, Historia Ecclesiastica, IV. 18.

THE STRUGGLE FOR INDEPENDENCE AND IDENTITY

165

the supplanting of the former liturgical use by systematically teaching the musical tradition of the new usage.153 4. K.C. Verghese records that ‘while the students were singing the hymns went wrong’. It is interesting to speculate that this may have been due to the fact that Mar Ivanios was no doubt trying to teach them to sing from West Syrian script with West Syrian pronunciation, both of which may well not have been familiar to his pupils.154 Mar Ivanios also required clergy to shave their heads and wear the clerical cap, rather than the loose cloth round the head that was then normal wear for kathanars (see below).155 Given the support that Mar Ivanios was receiving from the Dutch and the vigorous way in which he was pursing his reforms, 156 it is not surprising that he was unpopular and that attempts were made to discredit him.157 Anquetil du Perron states that Mar Ivanios had a fondness for wine and brandy.158 He also states that the Christians had to redeem from the Jews a Cross and a censer which Mar Ivanios had given in payment of a sum which he owed. It may be that these are simply malicious rumours. The Christian community was not tee-total. Coconut toddy was drunk by people of all castes (including some Brahmins for whom it was technically forbidden). In the 18th century foreign liquor was said to have some For further discussion of the dissemination of new teaching by the importation of manuscripts see David Dumville, ‘The Importation of Mediterranean manuscripts into Theodore’s England’, in Michael Lapidge (ed.), Archbishop Theodore: Comparative Studies on his Life and Influence, Cambridge, University Press, 1995, pp.96-119. 154 It is interesting to speculate that a knowledge of West Syriac might have been transmitted down the family. 155 Barsoum, Syriac Dioceses, p.52; Kaniamparampil, Syrian Orthodox Church, p.107; Perumthottam, Decline, p.197. 156 Kaniamparampil says that Mar Ivanios lacked a ‘give and take’ mentality (Syrian Orthodox Church, p.107). 157 There were various attempts to assert that Mar Ivanios was not a bishop but a Jew. These, however, were discounted even by contemporaries (see Mackenzie, Christianity, p.88 and the sources quoted there). 158 Anquetil du Perron, Zend-Avesta, p.clxii, n.1. Paulinus, (India Orientalis, p.111) merely summarises Anquetil du Perron’s account. 153

166

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

popularity with Syrian Christians, but the cost restricted the use of brandy and wine to the wealthier classes.159 Despite attempts by the Vicar Apostolic to persuade the Dutch to remove him, Mar Ivanios remained in Kerala until 1751 when he returned to the Middle East in circumstances that will be described in the next Chapter. In parallel with his dealings with the Syrian Orthodox Patriarchate, Mar Thoma V was also in contact with Rome.160 In 1748 he went so far as to agree to unite with Rome on the condition that he and his followers might be allowed to use leavened bread (hmira) in the Qurbana.161 Rome replied unfavourably in 1750.162 To understand this apparently contradictory approach, it is important to remember that the identities of the constituent parts of the St Thomas community were not as fixed as they were later to become. Whitehouse sums up the situation: There is no doubt that the Syrians and Romo-Syrians were very much mixed up together at this time and approached each other far nearer in sentiments and practice than they do nowadays; for no fewer than eighteen churches were regarded as the common property of both parties. In some the services were performed by the Syrians and Romans indifferently.163

By the 1740s the situation among the Christians in Kerala was, as has been seen, fluid and unstable. Before proceeding to examine further what Brown calls `the confusions of the eighteenth century',164 it will be useful to summarise the various groups of ChrisPannikar, Dutch, p.158. See Perumthottam, Decline, pp.204-211, and Puthussery, Reunion Efforts, pp.144-151 for accounts of this contact. 161 The text of the letter is in Perumthottam, Decline, p.205f. 162 Perumthottam, Decline, p.207-209; Travancore State Manual, vol, II, p.205; Cheriyan, CMS, p.53. Tisserant says: ‘The arrival of the Jacobites prelates [in 1751] foiled the whole attempt’ (Eastern Christianity, p.144, n.3). 163 Lingerings, p.203. His last remark would seem to suggest that some at least of the priests were capable of celebrating both the West Syrian and (latinised) East Syrian rites. 164 Brown, Indian Christians, p.109 ff. Neill calls the story of the St Thomas Christians at this period, ‘dark, obscure, distorted and for the most part highly unedifying’ (History, vol. 2, p.59). 159 160

THE STRUGGLE FOR INDEPENDENCE AND IDENTITY

167

tians in southwest India. The exclusively East-Syrian ‘options’ set out earlier in this Chapter had been somewhat modified by the middle of the century. They were divided into three groups: ‰

‰

‰

The Latin-rite. These were descended in the main from converts from Hinduism or Islam, or from mixed marriages with the Portuguese. They had European bishops and worshipped with the Western Latin Mass. To a large extent they are external to the issues being explored here, though their relationship to the Latin and Syrian hierarchies occasionally became an issue. The Pazhayakuttukar who were eventually to form the SyroMalabar Church. These comprised the majority of the prePortuguese St Thomas Christians. Their Eucharistic rite was the East Syrian one, now heavily latinised and celebrated by clergy in Western style vestments. Their bishops, as has been seen, were mainly Europeans. In terms of jurisdiction, they were divided between the Jesuit Padroado Archbishopric of Cranganore, the Bishop of Cochin, and the Carmelite Vicar Apostolic of Verapoly. The Puthenkuttukar. The descendants of those St Thomas Christians who had remained independent of Rome following the Coonen Cross oath. Like the Pazhayakuttukar they used the latinised East Syrian rite, but with some degree of ‘reSyrianisation’ under the influence of the various West Asian bishops who had visited the region since the visit of Mar Gregorios in 1665. This seems to have included a gradual return to Eastern style vestments and leavened bread. Alongside the visiting bishops there was a succession of Indian bishops, though at times of uncertain consecration. There was also an undefined sense of ‘connectedness’ with the Syrian Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch.165 This community was subject to constant attempts to re-unite it with the larger Syrian body, under Roman obedience. It was a situation in which rivalry and manoeuvring flourished.

165 It would perhaps be going beyond the evidence to say that the Puthenkuttukar had at this stage a strong sense of being directly under the jurisdiction of the Patriarch.

CHAPTER 6: THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE MAPHRIAN’S DELEGATION OF 1751: I - THE QUARREL WITH MAR THOMA V The 1750s were a critical decade in modern Indian history. During these years the expansionist policies of the British East India Company, epitomised by Clive’s victory at the Battle of Plassey in 1757, marked the transition from a trading company to a colonial power. Far away from Bengal, the ecclesiastical equivalent was taking place within the St Thomas Christians. West Syrian bishops began to make the transition from occasional visitors to exercisers of jurisdiction over the Indian Church. In 1751 there came to Kerala two bishops who were to begin a chain of events which have shaped the identity of the non-Roman Syrian community down to the present day.1 The delegation had a twofold purpose – to legitimise the indigenous ministry by providing valid and canonical consecration to Mar Thoma V, and to hasten the use of West Syrian liturgical forms among the Puthenkuttukar. The second of these was achieved successfully. The first was not.2 MAR BASILIOS SHUKR ALLAH QASAGBI, MAPHRIAN OF THE EAST

While still in India Mar Ivanios al-Arqugianyi, whose activities were described at the end of the previous Chapter, seems to have made a 1 Hough completely missed the significance of the delegation: ‘we know little of these strangers or their subsequent proceedings, to give more than this mere record of their arrival in the country’ (Christianity in India, vol. 2, p.396). 2 A number of letters in Syriac, Garshuni, Arabic and Dutch written by members of the delegation survive in a number of collections. It is hoped that these will form the subject of a subsequent study.

169

170

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

joint appeal with Mar Thoma V to the Patriarch. According to Barsoum, Mar Ivanios wrote to both the Patriarch and to Mar Dionysios Shukr Allah Qasagbi, Metropolitan of Aleppo.3 It is therefore necessary to look at the career of this man who was to play a pivotal role in the formation of the MISC.4 Shukr Allah was born the son of deacon Musa Qasagbi in Allepo at the end of the first decade of the 18th cenury.5 He became a monk at the Monastery of Mar Musa the Abyssinian and was appointed to the staff of Mar Dionysios Georgios of Aleppo, the future Patriarch Georgios III. On the latter’s elevation to the Patriarchate in 1745, he consecrated Shukr Allah the following year as his successor at Aleppo with the name Mar Dionysios. On receipt of the letters from Mar Ivanios al-Arqugianyi and Mar Thoma V, the Patriarch decided to send Shukr Allah to India. He consecrated him Maphrian, with the traditional name Basilios.6

3 Syriac Dioceses, p.53. Kaniamparampil says that Mar Ivanios made a specific request that Shukr Allah be consecrated Maphrian and sent to India (Syrian Orthodox Church, p.107). See also Yacoub III, Syrian Church in India, p.92. 4 Barsoum lists his main sources on Mar Basilios (Syriac Dioceses, p.80). The contemporary ones comprise (1) an account in Syriac by the Maphrian describing the events from 1748 to 1751; (2) an account in Arabic by Chorepiscopa Georgios Tunburchi of Aleppo, which also ends in 1751; (3) four letters of Patriarch Georgios III. The remainder are from the 19th or 20th century. 5 The name Qasagbi is compound Arabic/Turkish word, referring to a weaver of silk cloth embroidered with silver and gold threads, which was the family business (Barsoum, Syriac Dioceses, p.60). 6 Barsoum states that Shukr Allah was ordained ‘a maphryono for Malabar’ (Syriac Dioceses, p.66). It should be noted that there already was a Maphrian of the East, Mar Basilios Li’azar, who occupied that office from 1730 to 1759, and a Maphrian of Tur ‘Abdin, Mar Basilios Denha (Barsoum, Syriac Dioceses, pp.38f, 53-55). It is not clear what the relationship between these three Maphrianates was understood to be.

THE QUARREL WITH MAR THOMA V

171

MAR GREGORIOS YUHANNA, METROPOLITAN OF JERUSALEM

The new Maphrian was accompanied by another bishop who was to be particularly important in the story of the MISC.7 The son of a priest, the future Metropolitan was born at Ba Khudayda (Qaraqosh) near Mosul in about 1695.8 In 1723 he was professed a Rabban at the monastery of Mar Behnam.9 On the death of the abbot, Mar Ivanios Karas,10 Yuhanna was consecrated Metropolitan of Mar Behnam (this being a monastery whose head was traditionally in episcopal Orders) with the name Ivanios.11 The new bishop was, however, involved in some controversy from the beginning of his ministry, with the result that Patriarch Georgios III decided to include him in the party that was to travel to India, and ‘promoted’ him to Metropolitan of Jerusalem, with the traditional name of the holders of that see, Gregorios.12 This was to be an ‘official’ intervention in the life of the St Thomas Christians by the second and third most senior hierarchs of the Syrian Orthodox Church. The Maphrian and Metropolitan of Jerusalem were to have been accompanied by another Bishop, Mar Severus Yuhanna, whom the Patriarch consecrated in 1749.13 While waiting at Baghdad for the arrival of the Maphrian, Mar Severus fell ill and returned to Amid. He thus never joined the expedition, remaining in West Asia, where he was made Metropolitan of Gargar. The party For the life of Mar Gregorios Yuhanna see Barsoum, Syriac Dioceses, pp.61-66. 8 Hambye gives his name as Mar Gregorios Hanna Bakiddide (HCI, III, p.51). 9 See Chapter 8 for an account of Mar Behnam and the monastery which bears his name. 10 See Barsoum, Syriac Dioceses, p.26f for the career of Abbot Karas. 11 This was the episcopal name for occupants of this ‘see’ (Barsoum, Syriac Dioceses, pp.26, 122). 12 The Metropolitan of Jerusalem had a particular eminence in the Syrian Orthodox hierarchy (Philipos, Syrian Christians, p.16). The Mar Gregorios who came to Kerala in 1665 had been consecrated as Metropolitan of Amid in 1654 with the name Mar Timotheos. In 1664, on being transferred to Jerusalem, he was given the name Gregorios (Kaniamparampil, Syrian Orthodox Church, p.97f). 13 See Barsoum, Syriac Dioceses, p.100f. 7

172

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

that travelled to India eventually consisted of a number of ecclesiastics, of whom one, Rabban Yuhanna, was to be consecrated there as Mar Ivanios, as will be seen below. THE ARRIVAL OF THE DELEGATION

Graphic accounts survive from both Mar Basilios and Chorepiscopa George Tunburchi, son of Chorepiscopa N’ima of the journey from Aleppo to Baghdad to meet up with Mar Gregorios, and then on to Cochin. The details do not, however, concern us here.14 From Basra they travelled under the protection of the Dutch authorities, arriving at Cochin on 23rd April 1751. A nearcontemporary account is provided by Adrian Moens, the Dutch Governor and Director of the Malabar Coast, Canara and Vingorla: When they first arrived at Bassora in Persia, they were kindly received by the officers of our Company there, and in due course conveyed here in one of the Company’s ships. During their stay in this town they were assigned suitable lodgings by the Commandeur and shown every courtesy’.15

While residing as guests of the Dutch, the Maphrian wrote letters to Mar Thoma V and to Mar Ivanios al-Arqugianyi to come to him. After nearly three weeks Mar Ivanios duly arrived. He disagreed violently with his fellow countrymen on how the Indians should be treated, favouring beatings and insults rather than courteous engagement.16 Eventually the Maphrian had the Dutch Governor detain him, then return him to West Asia in November 1751. Following his departure the Maphrian had to settle his debts of

14 The Maphrian’s account can be found in Philip, Indian Church, pp.157-159, footnote 8 (reproduced with some minor differences in Barsoum, Syriac Dioceses, pp.71-76). Chorepiscopa George’s account is in Barsoum, Syriac Dioceses, pp.83-91. The accounts contain such fascinating details as the camel litter used by the Maphrian, and attacks by Arab tribesmen. 15 Moens, Memorandum, p.177. This is confirmed by a second account by Chorepiscopa George, not quoted in full by Barsoum, but one of his sources (Syriac Dioceses, p.68ff.). 16 Barsoum, Syriac Dioceses, pp.69f, 75.

THE QUARREL WITH MAR THOMA V

173

2,897 rupees.17 Patriarch Georgios III appointed Ivanios Metropolitan of Bedlis, which he administered until his death in September 1765.18 Mar Ivanios was not the most serious issue that the Maphrian and his delegation had to face. It soon became clear that Mar Thoma V posed a much greater problem. It might have been expected that the Maphrian of the Syrian Orthodox Church and his party would have been formally welcomed by Mar Thoma V. If such a welcome was attempted, it got off to a bad start. In 1821 Mill recorded the ‘secret reason’ for this. The tradition suggests that there was an immediate clash of cultures: Mar Thoma sent a Catanar to meet them courteously on their first landing, accoutred with the tonsure they all have ever since the Portuguese usurpation – the said ill-behaved person [it is not clear whether the Maphrian or a member of his delegation is meant] … offended at a diadem’d head so Popish & unbecoming a Jacobite … seized the Catanar [illeg.] shaved away the rim of hairs – to the no small resentment of his [illeg.].19

If the story is true, it reveals an immediate clash of cultures. The unfortunate kathanar not only looked ‘alien’ to the Syrian Orthodox, but bore the mark of the Church that was proselytising their faithful in the Middle East. The incident also suggests an allor-nothing approach to issues of ecclesiastical identity and an assumption that the Indian Church should conform itself entirely to the norms expected by non-Indian ecclesiastics. The Antiochenes were not, of course, the first to make this assumption; nor would they be the last. (It is worth noting that the delegation failed in its Barsoum, Syriac Dioceses, p.91. Syriac Dioceses, p.53. 19 MS Mill 204 Journal 10th December 1821. Mill calls this ‘a curious history’. Kaniamparampil states that Mar Thoma V sent ‘some priests and leaders’ to receive the Maphrian and his party at Kandandat (Syrian Orthodox Church, p.109). Yakoub states that several Syrian priests visited the Maphrian’s delegation on its arrival, including Abraham Kattumangat (Syrian Church in India, p.98). It is not clear whether the incident referred to by Mill took place on this occasion. 17

18Barsoum,

174

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

attempt to eradicate the tonsure. It was still being worn at the very end of the 19th century even among the Puthenkuttukar, and still survives in vestigial form among the MISC and Mar Thoma Churches. Howard records it being worn even by boys in minor Orders in the 1860s.20) More serious than this incident was the refusal of Mar Thoma V himself to meet the bishops from Antioch. Remarkably, a journal written by Mar Basilios and covering the period October 1751 to September 1752 survives.21 Its chief theme is a succession of promises to meet, followed by excuses for not doing so on the part of the Malankara Metropolitan. On several occasions Mar Basilios travelled to agreed venues, only to find that Mar Thoma V had moved on. Frequently in this first year, the two were actually in close proximity, with groups of priests and others relaying messages between them. A major reason behind the failure of Mar Thoma V to meet the delegation (who were still under Dutch protection), was the former’s failure to reimburse the Dutch for the visitors’ fares.22 Faced with possible arrest as a defaulting debtor, Mar Thoma V kept his distance and seems to have concluded that attack was the best defence, for, according to Moens, he denounced the bishops, who had arrived, as heretics to the Syrian congregations and would not appear before them notwithstanding that three letters were sent to him from time to time and that many Syrian priests and Christians had come to pay their respects. Thereupon the Commandeur was going to have him brought to Cochin by force, but he came to hear of it, and fled inland, and they could not lay hands on him.23

Christians of St Thomas, pp.149, 160. Ironically, this form of tonsure has been abandoned since Vatican II by the Latin-rite and Syro-Malabar Churches, though the latter now have a clipping of the hair within the rite of ordination in keeping with restored East Syrian practice. 21 The text is reproduced in Barsoum, Syriac Dioceses, pp.91-100. The document is also listed in Barsoum, Scattered Pearls, p.157. 22 This is referred to in all the accounts. 23 Moens, Memorandum, p.177. 20

THE QUARREL WITH MAR THOMA V

175

Eventually some of the Syrians seem to have taken matters into their own hands and conducted the Antiochene bishops to Kandanat, ‘a village belonging to the king of Travancore, situated about five hours south of Cochin, where Syrian bishops have always resided’.24 A more fundamentally serious problem seems to have been a difference in perception between the various parties concerning the purpose of the delegation. As far as can be ascertained, Mar Thoma V simply wanted valid episcopal consecration to secure his status within the Puthenkuttukar and to strengthen his hand in his periodic overtures to Rome. Mar Basilios, on the other hand, believed himself to have been sent to India to assume the headship of the Puthenkuttukar. This is a highly significant moment in the community’s history. The 1751 delegation constitutes a watershed. There is no incontrovertible evidence that the earlier West Syrian prelates had sought to assume the undisputed leadership of the Indian Syrians. However, from 1751 onwards there is an assumption on the part of the Miaphysite Patriarchs of Antioch that the Indian Church should be treated simply as part of their flock. Just as it had once been a ‘province’ of the Church of the East, the St Thomas community (or at least the non-Roman section) was now to be part of the Syrian Orthodox Church. The evidence for this is found in two principal sources. The first of these are letters purporting to be sent by Patriarch Georgios III to Mar Thoma V. Yacoub III quotes one dated 15th August 1749, of which he says he has a copy. Speaking of the Maprhian it says, You should obey him and do nothing without his order. He will control the collection of the patriarchal tithe and the tithe of the Holy Sepulchre. He is empowered over every thing. He will deliver all things to us by the knowledge of our sons Iyawannis [Ivanios al-Arqugianyi], Gregorius, you yourself and Severus [of Gargar]. He will set aright your ordination. And you yourself should rightly guide your priests and deacons and do nothing without his command. He has absolute authority over Malabar and India. By his order, all the priests and dea24

Moens, Memorandum, p.177.

176

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS cons shall be ordained. By his counsel should all the chief priests and episcopi abide. You should offer him due honour.25

Not only is Mar Basilios to have total authority over Mar Thoma V, but a financial exaction is to be made for the benefit of the Patriarchate and Jerusalem. A second letter dated 25 Chingam 1751 from the Patriarch taking issue with Mar Thoma V over the validity of his consecration and containing the following admonition: By the authority invested in us through the Holy Spirit being the power of Jesus Messiah, the Lord who has empowered our weakness in the Supremacy of the Apostolic throne of Peter at Antioch, I now command unto you: by that authority, We command unto you that you should acknowledge the supremacy of the Apostolic throne of Antioch; that you should obey all commands and that you should root out from among you all alien and foreign practices …. Behold, you must obey the Brothers, the Venerable Mar Baselius and Mar Gregorius who are in your midst and all that they command our counsel unto You; for we have placed the word given unto us into their mouth … You should become obedient and go to the foresaid Venerable Father and get your Episcopal title confirmed and that you should be on terms of reciprocal unity and amity. 26

While the Patriarch was prepared to provide Mar Thoma V with valid consecration, it is clear that his status was to be, in effect, a suffragan or assistant to Mar Basilios. The repeated use of ‘command’ and ‘obey’ no doubt sounded all too similar to the language used by the Latin rite bishops and did not accord with the ‘head of community’ status that the Pakolomattoms saw as their right. The second corpus of evidence derives from Mar Basilios himself. In his surviving letters he refers to himself as ‫ܘ ܐ ܕܗ ܘ‬ – Catholicos of India - and as ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐܢ‬ ‫ܕ ܐ ܘܕܗ ܘ ܕܗܘ‬ Syrian Church in India, p.94. Exhibit W, see Judgement/Row-Iyer, para. 99; Judgement/Ormsby, p.41. The document is accepted by all as genuine. The spelling and grammar are as given there. The text may also be found in David Daniel, Orthodox Church, p.130. 25 26

THE QUARREL WITH MAR THOMA V

177

(Catholicos of the East and of India, who is Maphrian Shukr Allah).27 Moreover, there had been a ceremony at which this status had been acknowledged. His correspondence refers to his ‘enthronement at Kottayam’, and the fact that learned priests and laity had examined his susthaticon and accepted him.28 It is quite clear from the tone of his letter that, while he is prepared to make some efforts himself towards reconciliation, he nevertheless sees himself as Mar Thoma V’s superior. The consequence was that a long-running dispute ensued, with many churches deserting Mar Thoma V and allying themselves with the Antiochenes, who seemed to have based themselves at Mattanchery, Kandanat and Kothamangalam.29 FIRST CONTACT WITH THE KATTUMANGATTU BROTHERS?

Frustrated by Mar Thoma V’s refusal to meet him, the Maphrian devoted his attention to Syrianising the Churches. At Kandanat ‘we exerted great effort in talking with the priests until they became convinced to put on the vestments that Metropolitan [Gregorios] ‘Abd al-Jalil and Maphrian [Basilios] Yaldo had brought with them.’30 This incident is illuminating as it suggests that the priests had reverted to the use of Latin-rite chasubles and presumably were celebrating the post-Diamper East Syrian liturgy. Also at Kandanat Mar Basilios had made some alterations to the interior arrangements, which Mar Thoma V removed when he later visited the Church, but which were subsequently restored again by the local priests, who reported what they had done to Mar Basilios. It is an interesting illustration of the gradual shift of allegiance. Building up a loyal body of clergy was also important. On Maundy Thursday 1752 the Maphrian ordained priests and a deacon at Kandanat. A few days later he consecrated Rabban Yuhanna

27 DR/537/2. CMS/B/OMS/CI 2/0185/99.11. This latter is from a collection of letters as yet unedited. 28 DR/537/1. The susthaticon was read in Kothamangalam Church on about 23rd October 1751 and translated into Malayalam by an interpreter present (Barsoum, Syriac Dioceses, p.61f). 29 Brown, Indian Christians, p.120. 30 Barsoum, Syriac Dioceses, p.94.

178

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

as Mar Ivanios of Malabar.31 The new bishop was a native of Mosul and had been a deacon and priest-monk at Deir al-Za‘faran monastery.32 From Kandanat Mar Basilios travelled to a number of Churches, eventually arriving at Mulanthuruthy, which, it will be recalled, was the home Church of the Kattumangattu family. He found the parishioners poor and at enmity with each other, but spent some time talking to the elders of the Church about the ministry of Mar Gregorios ‘Abd al-Jaleel, Mar Basilios Yaldo and Mar Ivanios Hidayathulla.33 Mulanthuruthy was one of the places where Mar Thoma V was supposed to meet with the Maphrian. However, his failure once again to do so prompted Mar Basilios to take a step that was to be of considerable future significance: The date on which Tuma promised to meet with us passed and he did not appear. So on August 3 [1752], the date of the commemoration of Bishop Hidaya at Mulanthuruthi, we sent a message to Metropolitan [Gregorios] Yuhanna and Bishop [Ivanios] Yuhanna to come to us. We vested the priest Gurgis with the monastic habit. This priest was a native of Mulanthuruthi and of noble descent. Like us, he had learned how to say the prayers of the religious duties (that is, the prayers chanted antiphonally by two church choirs of priests and deacons). We found him to be qualified for the priesthood. We had hopes that, by the intercession of the Virgin, he would continue to be of virtuous conduct. May the Lord bring forth good fruit from him! 34

The priest described in this fascinating glimpse is almost certainly one of the Kattumangattu brothers. The name given is Gurgis, which indicates Geevarghese, the later Mar Koorilose II. In later years he certainly called himself a disciple of the Maphrian and

Barsoum, Syriac Dioceses, p.95. Barsoum, Syriac Dioceses, pp.78, 80. 33 Barsoum, Syriac Dioceses, p.97. 34 Barsoum, Syriac Dioceses, p.99. The phrase in parenthesis is presumably Barsoum’s explanation of the Maphrian’s phrase ‘prayers of the religious duties’. 31 32

THE QUARREL WITH MAR THOMA V

179

claimed to have received Holy Orders from him.35 On the other hand, it is Abraham Kattumangat, the future Mar Koorilose I, whom the sources fairly consistently claim to have been made a Ramban by Mar Basilios.36 That issue aside, it almost certain that the priest in question is one of the two brothers. He is described as ‘of noble descent’, which agrees with the Middle Eastern ancestry noted in Chapter 5. Moreover, he is proficient in West Syrian chanting, which recalls immediately the manner in which the Kattumangattu boys came to the attention of Mar Ivanios al Arqugianyi, namely their ability to sing the offices correctly. At Mulanthuruthy the Maphrian had found at least one Indian cleric of virtuous character who was proficient in and committed to West Syrian ways, who was, in the Maphrian’s phrase, ‘like us’. The contrast with the perfidious Mar Thoma could not have been greater. The passage implies that the Maphrian summoned the other two bishops for the ceremony, which suggests that it was an event of some significance.37 It may have been prompted in part by the fact that, just a few months earlier, in May 1752, ‘Tuma had the audacity to ordain his sister’s grandson a deacon to succeed him.’38 Perhaps even at this early stage it occurred to Mar Basilios Shukr Allah that the winning of the community to the Syrian Orthodox Church could be effected by other means than the submission of Mar Thoma V. THE ABSENCE OF THE VICAR APOSTOLIC

One reason for the relative ease of movement of the Maphrian and his colleagues is that there were no Roman Catholic bishops in Kerala when they arrived. The Archbishop of Cranganore and the Bishop of Cochin, being under the Portuguese Padroada, were not permitted to reside in territories controlled by the Dutch.39 Nor was the newly nominated Vicar Apostolic, Florentius, allowed by See Chapter 9 for the MS evidence of this. The evidence will be discussed in Chapters 7 and 8. 37 There is no mention of any other reason for which Mar Gregorios and Mar Ivanios were summoned. 38 Barsoum, Syriac Dioceses, p.98. This was presumably the future Mar Thoma VI/Dionysios I. 39 Puthussery, Reunion Efforts, p.69. 35 36

180

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

the Dutch to obtain episcopal consecration from them. Florentius had therefore left Kerala in December 1750 to Bombay, where he was consecrated on 22nd April 1751, but did not return to Kerala until November 1751.40 Thus for seven months the Maphrian’s delegation had been able to function relatively unopposed by any Pazhayakur authorities. THE CONCORDAT WITH MAR THOMA V

After making Geevarghese a Ramban at Mulanthuruthy, the Maphrian travelled south to ‘fourteen Syrian Churches in southern Travancore’, and at Kottayam seems to have been visited by delegates from further southern Churches.41 He also seems to have performed a number of ordinations, including the re-ordination of some who had been ordained by Mar Thoma V.42 This trip is noteworthy as it shows the Maphrian seeking to establish his influence in both of the traditional groupings of Puthenkur Churches. In early 1753 Mar Basilios returned to the north. Later that year an attempt at reconciliation was made following a meeting between Martanda Varma, the powerful Rajah of Travancore (whose expansionist policies were described in Chapter 1) and the Dutch Commander at Mavelikarra. As a result of this meeting the Commander introduced the Antiochene bishops to the Rajah and recommended them to his protection. Thereupon His Highness commanded Mar Thome and his followers to acknowledge these Bishops and to live with one another in mutual friendship. For some time Mar Thome obeyed ….’43

Both Daniel and Brown record this eventual compromise between Mar Thoma V and the Antiochene bishops as having been reached at what seems to have been their first meeting, which did Puthussery, Reunion Efforts, pp.35, 42-45. Yacoub III, Syrian Church of India, p.112. 42 Kaniamparampil, Syrian Orthodox Church, p.110. 43 Moens, Memorandum, p.177; Kaniamparampil, Syrian Orthodox Church, p.110. 40 41

THE QUARREL WITH MAR THOMA V

181

not take place until 1754.44 Under its terms the Syrian bishops agreed not to ordain priests without Mar Thoma V’s sanction, and to respect the customs of the Indian Church in return for Mar Thoma V’s acknowledgement of the supremacy of the Patriarch.45 In the light of recent events these terms are understandable. Mar Basilios, as just seen, had been ordaining (and re-ordaining) since his arrival in India; and there had perhaps been further clashes such as had occurred over the tonsure. Significantly, however, no reconsecration of Mar Thoma V took place. The latter seems to have continued his contacts with Rome, for in 1757 the Congregation of Propaganda Fide issued instructions to the Vicar Apostolic (Florentius) warning him not to raise Mar Thoma V’s hopes of episcopal consecration if he united with Rome.46 ANQUETIL DU PERRON’S MEETING WITH MAPHRIAN MAR BASILIOS, JANUARY 1758

An eye-witness account of the circumstances in which Mar Basilios lived has been preserved for us in a description of a visit to him by Anquetil du Perron. The account is of sufficient importance to quote at length. The Bishop was residing at Kandanat, which was then being rebuilt after being destroyed in Martanda Varma’s wars. The location of his residence may itself be of significance. Kandanat lies within the Northern cluster of St Thomas Churches. This was the region where, in the days of Mar Gabriel, opposition to Mar Thoma IV had been strongest. It may be that a degree of antiPakalomattom sentiment persisted. The meeting took place on between 6th and 13th January 1758.47 Daniel, Orthodox Church, p.131; Brown, Indian Christians, p.120. This agreement seems to be Exhibit XXVII, which the majority Appeal Court Judges interpreted as having been entered into by Mar Thoma V ‘not against his will’, even though ‘the terms of this document clearly point to the supreme position of the Patriarch’s Delegate over the Metropolitan of Malabar’ (Judgement/Row-Iyer, para.100). Yacoub III mentions the 1754 meeting, but his account states that the main area of agreement was the settling of the debt owed to the Dutch (Syrian Church in India, pp.101-111). 46 Text in Puthussery, Reunion Efforts, p.150f. 47 It is possible to give a precise date because Chorepiscopa George Namateulla wrote out and dated his Confession of Faith in the presence 44 45

182

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS Chorepiscopa George48 presented me to Archbishop Schoko reulla. This Prelate greeted me with distinction and embraced me politely, instead of his custom (which the Chorepiscopa shared) of giving his ring and hand to be kissed by Christians who approached him. He was surrounded by Schamasches (Deacons, attendants, etc) who served him in private as well as in Church. He did not wear a cross on his chest; but on entering and leaving the Church or his house, he gave a blessing with a small cross of gilded copper, four or five inches long. He had on his head a kind of black hood, the top of which was covered with crosses, and a white turban over it. The house which the Prelate occupied adjoined the Church, on the right. Access to his room was by a small ladder which led to a dilapidated gallery, at the end of which was a dark room, where two kathanars slept.49 To the right of this chamber was the Archbishop’s apartment, lighted by two low windows and furnished with old chairs and a wardrobe. Monseigneur’s bed was a rickety frame, covered with a thin mattress: his undergarments, chemises, handkerchiefs, etc were hanging to dry on cords across the room. His books, few in number and very dusty, were piled on a wooden plank which partially screened his cot, beside which stood a box, in which the ornaments of the Church were deposited. The Archbishop showed me his Bulls. This was a parchment twenty-five feet long and six inches wide, written in Syriac, with the seal of the Patriarch of Antioch, and that of the Archbishop repeated three times, witnessed by the signatures

of the Maphrian. Anquetil du Perron states that he left Kandanat on 13th January (Zend-Avesta, vol.I, p.clvii). Hambye refers to this incident, but mistakenly says that it was to Mar Dionysios (HCI, III, p.64f). 48 Anquetil du Peron calls this Chorepiscopa George Namateulla. He is presumably the person called by Barsoum Chorepiscopa Jirjis, son of Chorepiscopa Ni’mat Allah Tjunburji of Aleppo (Syriac Dioceses, p.53). Barsoum states that he returned to the Middle East with Mar Ivanios in 1751, but presumably had returned to India. 49 It is an intriguing possibility that these could be Abraham and Geevarghese Kattumangattu.

THE QUARREL WITH MAR THOMA V

183

of five bishops and their seals; the whole thing was decorated with flowers and oriental designs. This scroll had cost him twenty rupees.

When the time for the evening meal arrived, the bishop, who lived on a milk diet, ate alone in his small room, while Chorepiscopa George served me with a plate of eggs and small salted fish. His Eminence fasted nearly all the year, according to the usage of Greek monks, but I was told that in the more rigorous fasts they were able to drink water, and to eat something in the evening if their strength did not allow them to keep to a single meal.

The next day there was a celebration of the Qurbana: The Bishop came out of his apartment, having in his hand a wooden cross that exactly resembled a shepherd’s crook. The kathanars who accompanied him wore white drawers, wooden sandals; they were dressed in white tunics like long chemises, and had on their heads a kind of large cloth skullcap.50 The Church was half-ruined and was only lit by two high windows …. I saw several altars ornamented with a simple cross without candlesticks or figures of saints … The acolytes were dressed in yellow tunics, with a red stole on the left shoulder, holding wax tapers.

Anquetil du Perron thought the sound ‘more melodious than our psalmody’; the singing reminded him of the ‘airs of Provence’.51

50‘

Calote’ in the original French. This is the head covering clearly seen in the illustration of a priest in the MS version of Swanston’s ‘Memoir’ (IOR/Miss Eur D 152, p.73). It is also frequently seen in the artist’s impression of the Reformer Palakunnathu Abraham Malpan in Mar Thoma works (eg K. T. Joy, The Mar Thoma Church: A Study of its Growth and Contribution, (Kottayam, 1986), facing p.152). In the course of the 19th century it was replaced by the round black cap used in the Middle East. 51 Anquetil du Perron, Zend-Avesta, vol. I, p.clxii-clcv.

184

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

THE MAPHRIAN’S LEGACY –COMMUNITY AND LITURGY

A few points need to be made about this fascinating glimpse into the Maphrian’s community. Firstly, it is strikingly familiar to the arrangements which persist in the MISC at Thozhiyur to the present day. The heart of the Church is essentially a small group of kathanars, deacons and attendants grouped around the bishop and worshipping regularly with him. Secondly, this was no chance visit (as that of Mar Ivanios alArqugyanyi in 1747 might have been). The Maphrian had a susthaticon of appointment from the Patriarch himself, witnessed by five other bishops. Earlier, in Cochin, Anquetil du Perron had been shown a translation into Dutch of this document. It was dated 23 July 1749 at Diabekir and by it ‘Ignatios George, Patriarch of Antioch, established Basilius Schokor eulla, Archbishop of the Malabar Coast’.52 This confirms the evidence presented above that the Patriarch was not concerned simply with regularising Mar Thoma V’s Orders, but intended to place his own deputy in charge of the Syrian Church in India. Thirdly, there is no suggestion that the deacons and priests of Mar Basilios’ household were anything other than Indian. The Maphrian had been in Kerala for over six years by the time of the meeting with the Frenchman, and seems to have had an entirely indigenous household. It seems almost certain that among those who attached themselves to the semi-monastic community that gathered around the Antiochene bishops were the priests Abraham and Geeverghese. This decision by the Kattumangat brothers is entirely understandable. Their involvement with Mar Ivanios al Arqugianyi has been noted, as has their intelligence and proficiency in Syriac. K.T. John states that Mar Basilios put Abraham in charge of training.53 There is nothing improbable about this – it would seem to be a natural continuation of the task entrusted to him by Mar Ivanios. Kaniamparampil states that in 1753 Shukr Allah Mar Basilios ‘ordained priests, deacons and Rembans’.54 As we have Anquetil du Perron, Zend-Avesta, vol. I, p.cli. Kattumangat Family, p.14. The hostile accounts used by Barsoum agree that Abraham ‘was engaged for some time in the teaching of deacons (Syriac Dioceses, p.64). 54 Syrian Orthodox Church, p.110. 52 53

THE QUARREL WITH MAR THOMA V

185

seen, a priest who was almost certainly one of the Kattumangat brothers had already been made a Ramban at Mulanthuruthy. Anquetil du Perron actually gives us the name of one of the kathanars who were present in the Maphrian’s household at the time of his visit – ‘Petros Cacanare de Mamlascheri’.55 Precise identification of ‘Mamlascheri’ is uncertain, but it may well be Mullacheri. If so, this could be significant as the town lies at the far north of the range of Syrian communities, not far from Anjur. It is a further piece of evidence which suggests that sympathy for the Antiochene cause (or at least opposition to the Pakalomattoms) was strong in the north56 – a fact that may have influenced Mar Koorilose I’s decision to take refuge there. Fourthly, there is no sign of Mar Basilios having consecrated one of his Indian companions as a bishop by 1758, though the consecration of one of his Middle Eastern companions, Ramban Yuhanon, as Mar Ivanios had taken place in 1752. If an Indian had been consecrated, Anquetil du Perron, or his Dutch and Roman Catholic contacts would almost certainly have commented on it. Fifthly, Anquetil du Perron’s account shows us the transition from the East to West Syrian rite taking place. The Frenchman was curious to see the liturgy which the St Thomas Christians had used anciently, and in which Nestorius and Theodore of Mopsuestia were named as saints, and the Body and Blood of Christ were said to be present ‘figuratively’.57 The kathanars were, however, unable to show him anything that predated Menezes. Anquetil du Perron therefore had to be content with the liturgy ‘which the Syrian prelates had found in the hands of the schismatics’. This was written in ‘Estrangelo’ and had to be translated for him by kathanar Peter of Mamlascheri, as it appears that George Namateulla could only read ‘Syriaque ordinaire’.58 With regard to the content of the rite, AnZend-Avesta, I, p.clxvii. Chorepiscopa George stated that ‘the southern province has not yet subjected itself to us [the Maphrian’s delegation] in order to allow us to visit it and ascertain its conditions’ (Barsoum, Syriac Dioceses, p.82f). 57 ‘Seulement par figure’. The whole of this exchange is recorded in Zend-Avesta, I, pp.clxv-clxvi. 58 Ie Serto or West Syrian. Anquetil du Perron understood Estrangelo to be the more ancient script. From it were formed, he believed, ‘les let55 56

186

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

quetil du Perron concluded that ‘the Missal of the Schismatics and that of the Catholics are actually the same’, the only difference being a few words at the end of the Narrative of Institution which were missing in the Romo-Syrian rite. All this is highly revealing. By the term ‘Estrangelo’ Anquetil du Perron probably means the East Syrian or ‘Nestorian’ script which in fact resembles Estrangelo more closely than does the West Syrian Serto. The fact that the rite used by the ‘schismatics’ [= the Puthenkuttukar] had an Institution Narrative at all shows that it was the post-Diamper form of the East Syrian liturgy, as that still used by the Church of the East has no such section. It suggests that as late as the second half of the 18th century both sections of the St Thomas Christians were still virtually identical liturgically. This is confirmed by the statement made in 1750 by the Cardinal Secretary of the Propaganda in Rome that the Puthenkuttukar were ‘heretics of the Chaldean rite’.59 The presence of East Syriac texts in the Maphrian’s house is probably due to the fact that they were the copies that belonged to the adjacent Church.60 Sixthly, the scene at Kandanat shows us how the West Syrian use was being introduced. George Namateulla showed Anquetil du Perron a copy of the Liturgy of St James, written in Mardin, and brought to India by the bishops in 1751. This contained a large number of anaphoras.61 An important part of Shukr Allah Mar Basilios’ brief was to further strengthen Syrian Orthodox usage in India. To that end he brought with him 18 manuscripts that he had gathered himself62 and a set of 46 volumes presented by the Patritres Syriaques ordinaires’ by St James, bishop of Urfa (Edessa) who flourished at the end of the 7th century. These ‘ordinary’ letters were ‘now generally received and even used in books’. 59 APF, SOCP (1750) vol. 109, f3, quoted in Cyril, ‘Introduction’, p.148. 60 Like the Puthenkuttukar, the Pazhayakuttukar were using manuscript copies of the liturgy at this date. The first printed texts were not authorised by Rome until 1774, following requests by Anquetil du Perron’s host, Bishop Florentius of Verapoly (Puthussery, Reunion Efforts, pp.62-68; Tisserant, Eastern Christianity, pp.93, 179f). 61 Anquetil du Perron, Zend-Avesta, vol. I, p.clxvf. 62 Yakoub III, Syrian Church in India, p.95.

THE QUARREL WITH MAR THOMA V

187

arch, together with muron, relics of the saints, chalice, paten, fans, candlesticks and other such objects.63 The fact that only a few volumes were to be seen in the Maphrian’s quarters suggests that some of the rest had been taken by his companions, Mar Gregorios and Mar Ivanios, to the Churches where they had based themselves. Other copies may have been given to local Churches for use, copying and further dissemination.64 In the Maphrian’s presence George Namateulla wrote out for Anquetil du Perron a Miaphyite confession of faith. It seems quite clear that the doctrinal basis and liturgical usage of the Maphrian’s household were West Syrian. It is from the 1750s onwards that West Syrian rites begin to make significant headway. Hitherto there seems to have been indifference or resistance: when the Maphrian’s delegation had first arrived it found ‘only about fifteen priests [who] could speak Syriac, but they were not interested in our Syriac rite’.65 That now demonstrably changed. The substantial resources brought by Mar Basilios and his companions, together with their concerted effort to instruct a new generation of Indian priests in Syrian Orthodox rites was so successful that by 1778 the Puthenkuttukar were described by a Romo-Syrian as using the same liturgy as the Catholic Syrians in Antioch.66 Contemporary evidence shows that this was in fact an 63 The books are listed by Barsoum (Pearl, p.76). The majority of them were liturgical. An area awaiting study is whether they represented the western or eastern traditions within the Syrian Orthodox liturgical rites (see Barsoum, Scattered Pearls, pp.72f, 89). The answer may lie in the surviving MSS at Thozhiyur. 64 In his list of MSS, published in 1937, K.N.Daniel includes one belonging to Mr Chelattu Mattoo of Kothamangalam: ‘He told me that this was presented to his forefather by Mar Basilios, the prelate who came from Syria’ (A Critical Study of Primitive Liturgies, Kottayam, CMS Press, p.21). 65 Barsoum, Syriac Dioceses, p.81, quoting the Arabic account of Chorepiscopa George. It is not clear whether he means that only 15 priests could converse in Syriac or whether only 15 priests could read West Syrian script. ‘Our Syriac rite’ must refer to the West Syrian rite as the native priests were using the post-Diamper East Syrian version. 66 Cyril, ‘Introduction’, p.151. The Catholic Syrians, it will be recalled, were those Syrian Orthodox who had united with the Roman Church.

188

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

exaggeration – those of the Puthenkuttukar who ‘still cherished the hope of re-union with Rome’ seem to have been actively resisting the spread of the West Syrian rite.67 Even so, it is a mark of how rapidly the new rite was perceived to be spreading. Fascinatingly, the manuscript evidence shows that initially it was necessary to use the indigenous form of Syrian orthography: ‘In the beginning even the texts of the WS Eucharistic liturgy were copied in ES script’.68 Despite the compromise over script, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Shukr Allah Mar Basilios’ community – including the Kattumangattu brothers – formed the base from which the Syrian Orthodox family of rites gained substantial acceptance among the Puthenkuttukar.69 Only from this point on does the eclipse of the East Syrian rite among the non-Roman Syrians begin to look possible. Significantly for the present story, Mar Basilios is also said to have brought with him a pastoral staff and bishop’s cross to present to the bishop whom he was to consecrate as Malankara Metropolitan.70 THE BREAKDOWN OF THE CONCORDAT WITH MAR THOMA V

The Maphrian and his companions continued to devote themselves to training and reform. Both Puthenkuttukar and Pazhayakuttukar were attracted to the bishops who, as Commander Moens noted approvingly, ‘zealously busied themselves with cleansing the church from many Roman ceremonies and heathen superstitions, and also from many unworthy teachers and members, who for want of proper instruction in the faith, and through a laxity of discipline,

Cyril, ‘Introduction’, p.153. Van der Ploeg, Syriac MSS, p.30. 69 There seems to be no surviving evidence as to whether Mar Gregorios and Mar Ivanios had similar communities gathered around them. They would certainly have had some clergy in attendance and no doubt were also propagating West Syrian practices. 70 Kanianparampil, Syrian Orthodox Church, p.108. At the outset of the journey from Syria it was of course assumed that this would be Mar Thoma V. 67 68

THE QUARREL WITH MAR THOMA V

189

had slipped into the Church from time to time’71 This reforming activity was bitterly resented by Mar Thoma V, who, according to Moens, only ‘controlled himself’ until the death of the Rajah Martanda Varma of Travancore in 1758, whereupon he ingratiated himself ‘by means of presents’ with the new Rajah and his advisors, then stirred up dissension and discord between the Antiochene bishops and their communities. As perhaps an ultimate act of defiance, in 1760 he consecrated his ‘cousin’ Joseph ‘an inexperienced young man … in order that he might become his heir and successor after his death’.72 As might be expected, ‘the Archbishop Mar Basilius and his two suffragan bishops were much chagrined and displeased at this’.73 In response Mar Basilios moved to ‘a house at Mattanchery, just a little outside this town [Cochin]’. Here Mar Basilios built a Church called Elimeesa Palli.74 Here too, on 9th October 1764 he died.75 He was buried at Kandanat in the Church where Anquetil du Perron had seen him worshipping with his household. 71 Moens, Memorandum, p.177. Mar Basilios and his companions also ‘withstood’ Mar Thoma’s practice of ordaining ‘unfit youths’. 72 Moens, Memorandum, p.177. Paulinus states that the new bishop’s baptismal name was ‘Ausepu, id est Josephus’ (India Orientalis, p.109). Mackenzie gives 1757 as the year of consecration (Christianity, p.36). This presumably was the great-nephew ordained deacon in May 1752. Barsoum gives the year of consecration as 1765, but this would appear to be incorrect (Syriac Dioceses, p.63). 73 Moens, Memorandum, p.177. The original has ‘onder-bisschoppen’. The term confirms the Maphrian’s status as head of the delegation. 74 Kaniamparampil says that Mar Basilios bought a plot of land at Mattanchery for 475 rupees with the permission of the Rajah of Cochin and built a Church there. His account, however, (probably relying on a source known to Barsoum) implies that this was done fairly soon after his arrival in India (Syrian Orthodox Church, p.110). 75 E.M.Philip (who claimed to possess a MS written by Mar Basilios and may therefore have had access to traditions about him) states that Mar Basilios died on 9 Thulam (October) 1764 (Indian Church, p.160). This is the date given by Barsoum (Syriac Dioceses, p.80), Yacoub III (Syrian Church in India, p.114) and Kaniamparampil (Syrian Orthodox Church, p.110), who may be relying on Philip. David Daniel gives September 1764 (pp.94, 131). Moens states that, ‘after a lapse of three years he died in the year 1763’ (Memorandum, p.177). Brown gives 1753 as the date of death, but

190

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

Remarkably, among Yacoub III’s sources is a letter, purporting to be from Abraham Ramban to the Patriarch and dated 21st January, 2080 of the Greeks/1769 AD. In the letter Abraham writes about the late Maphrian: The events which happened amongst us in India are known to your Holiness through our late father Maphryono Shukr Allah. In the time of this saint, the condemned Tuma caused us great distress while that saint [Shukr Allah] endured adversity with patience. He visited the parishes teaching, preaching and explaining (the faith) and restored about twenty churches. But that rebellious one [Mar Thoma V] passed away only one year after the death of our father. And since that human angel [the Maphrian] entered Cochin until his death, your servant the author was in his company. The Maphrian had no opportunity even to perform an ordination because of the opposition of that insolent one. He did not even give a susthaticon to Bishop Yuhanna. Be that as it may, the Maphrian laboured in the vineyard of the Lord properly and has now joined the saints.76

In the absence of the full text, and in view of the fact that Yacoub III is a hostile witness in relation to the MISC, it is necessary to be cautious. It suggests a warm affection on the part of Abraham Ramban towards his mentor, and confirms the latter’s visitations of the Syrian Churches. The phrase ‘had no opportunity even to perform an ordination’, seems to mean ‘could not perform ordinations’, presumably referring to the undertaking given to Mar Thoma V in 1754. It is tempting to think that the statement about this is clearly an error as he refers to him as being alive in 1754 (Indian Christians, p.120). Brown seems to be following Paulinus who, inexplicably, states that Mar Basilios died one year after his arrival in India (India Orientalis, p.112). Curiously, this is supported by a MS in East Syriac script, catalogued by Van der Ploeg as Tiruvalla 33 (Syriac MSS, pp.32, 113) which contains a note in WS ‘stating that in the middle of the night of Thursday, the 19th of Teshrin qdim (October) 1753 AD, the Maphrian died and was buried in the Church at Kandanad’. Yet Anquetil du Perron met with Mar Basilios in 1758, and the Dutch records contain letters written by him as late as 1758. The 1764 date is therefore presumed to be correct. 76 Syrian Church in India, p.113.

THE QUARREL WITH MAR THOMA V

191

the Maphrian’s not having given a susthaticon to Mar Ivanios was intended to prepare the Patriarch for news that another consecration had occurred for which no susthaticon had been given either. We shall return to this in the following Chapter. A full assessment of Mar Basilios Shukr Allah must wait for a detailed study of his surviving correspondence. Barsoum’s sources credit him with having been involved, prior to his consecration, in the training of deacons, some of whom went on to become bishops, and with being the author of a book ‘in good Arabic’ on the principles of the Christian faith.77 Anquetil du Perron, however, thought him ‘an ignorant monk whose poverty had required him to leave his native land.’78 In the present state of the evidence, this judgment appears too harsh. The fact that the identity of the Puthenkuttukar began to shift decisively under the Maphrian’s ministry in Kerala, suggests that he was a person at the very least of some competence and perseverance. In May 1765 Mar Thoma V died.79 On this, too, Mar Koorilose seems to have written to the Patriarch: Concerning the death of that condemned one, some say he was killed by the people, others say that his bowels spilled out when he went to the bathroom. Whatever that may be, he was found dead in the morning and his black body was oozing pus. Yusuf [ie Mar Thoma VI] who succeeded him is no different from him. He relies on his wealth although he pretends contrition of heart. We have no idea whether he behaves this way because of righteousness or ambition or for obtaining a higher rank.80

The Maphrian and Mar Thoma V had died with matters still unresolved. Events were now to take an unexpected turn.

Barsoum, Syriac Dioceses, p.23. Zend-Avesta, I, p.clxiv. 79 Moens, Memorandum, p.178. Philip and Kaniamparampil give the date as ‘27th Medom (April)’ 1765 (Indian Church, p.160; Syrian Orthodox Church, p.110). Barsoum simply has 1765 (Syriac Dioceses, p.63). 80 Syrian Church in India, p.116. The text gives 1796 instead of 1769. 77 78

CHAPTER 7: THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE MAPHRIAN’S DELEGATION OF 1751: II - THE CONSECRATION OF TWO BISHOPS As the previous Chapter has shown, the apparently straightforward mission of Maphrian Shukr Allah Mar Basilios and his companions had initially proved impossible to fulfil. Out of this impasse was to develop a situation where the bishops from Antioch eventually consecrated not one but two Indians as bishops. From these two consecrations were to come two lines of bishops between which the office of Malankara Metropolitan was to pass on more than one occasion. The precise sequence of events is disputed down to the present day. What is not in doubt is that by the end of 1772 both Ramban Abraham Kattumangat and Mar Thoma VI had been consecrated as bishops by a bishop from the 1751 delegation. The fact that both consecrations took place – and their validity – is accepted by all.1 There has been less unanimity over the sequence in which they occurred. In order to try and understand what was taking place in the Syrian Church it is necessary to explore this issue in some detail, not least because the interpretations placed on it in succeeding decades contributed significantly to the complex events of the 19th century. 1 As will be seen below, there were numerous investigations by the Roman authorities into the validity of Mar Thoma VI’s consecration, and by the British into that of Mar Koorilose I. Although in both cases there were representations made by individuals who wished to demonstrate the invalidity of either or both consecrations, the balance of evidence is in favour of both. Both are now accepted within the community.

193

194

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

This process is rendered more difficult by the fact that the primary documents relating to the consecration of Abraham Kattumangat were deliberately destroyed in 1825 by a bishop from Antioch.2 It is necessary, therefore, to examine the testimony of witnesses as close as possible chronologically to the events and attempt to deduce what happened from their testimony. THE CONSECRATION OF MAR THOMA VI AS DIONYSIOS I

All the writers agree that at some point Mar Thoma VI submitted to episcopal consecration by Mar Gregorios and Mar Ivanios, being given the new episcopal name Dionysios.3 The tradition is that he entered the Church at Niranam while Mar Gregorios was celebrating the Qurbana and fell down at his feet, declaring his repentance. A few days later Mar Gregorios, assisted by Mar Ivanios consecrated him as Mar Dionysios and gave him the staff, crosier, susthaticon and muron that had been brought from Antioch and originally intended for Mar Thoma V.4 The date and circumstances of this event are attested to by several sources. The most important witness is the susthaticon given to Mar Dionyios I by Mar Gregorios. Two independent lines of testimony as to its text exist. The first is a copy made by Benjamin Bailey, one of the first group of CMS missionaries, in about 1820. This copy exists in the CMS archives at Birmingham.5 The Bailey text, along with four other documents, was lent to the Revd James Hough in 2 The circumstances surrounding this incident will be described below and in Chapter 10. 3 Daniel and Kaniamparampil state that the name had been suggested to Mar Thoma V by the Patriarch (Daniel, Orthodox Church, p.129, Kaniamparampil, Syrian Orthodox Church, p.108). He will henceforth be referred to as Mar Dionysios I in this narrative, except in instances where it is not clear whether or not his re-consecration had taken place by the time of the incident under discussion; here he is referred to as Mar Thoma VI/Dionysios. He is sometimes referred to by posterity as Mar Dionysios the Great. See Jacob Kollaparampil, ‘Mar Dionysios the Great: For the One True Fold’, in Orientalia Christiana Periodica, (1964), 148-192 for a detailed account of the life and career of this bishop. 4 Barsoum, Syriac Dioceses, p.63. 5 CMS/ACC 91 02/04 doc.3.

THE CONSECRATION OF TWO BISHOPS

195

1841 who had it translated by Dr W.H. Mill.6 Two copies of this version (in Syriac) are found in the Bodleian Library at Oxford.7 ‫ܒܐ ܚ ܢ ܐ ܒ‬ ‫‘( ܿ ܼ ܐ‬19 of the The date given is ‫ܒ ܐ‬ month Haziran in the year 2081 of the Greeks’) which is 19th June 1770 AD.8 All three versions are in the name of Mar Gregorios, with an attestation by Mar Ivanios at the end. The second source of the susthaticon text is the document examined in the court cases of a century later in which it was described as Exhibit X. This is said to bear the seal of Mar Gregorios only (despite Mar Ivanios being also present). It, too, gives the year equivalent to 1770 for the consecration.9 The following contemporary or near-contemporary sources also indicate that the re-consecration of Mar Thoma VI took place in 1770: 1. Paulinus a S.Bartholomeo does not give a date though he states that the consecration of ‘Thomam de Campo seu Josephem ex familia Palli intrusum’ took place at ‘Neranata’ in the presence of Ivanios, some time prior to the death of Mar Gregorios, which he states took place about 1772.10 Letter from Hough to Mill, 27th August 1841, MS Mill 192, f.16. MS Mill 192, f.30 and f.33r + v. 8 The version at MS Mill 192, f.30 has ‫ܒ ܐ‬, which equates to 1790 AD and, as Mill points out, is obviously an error. I am grateful to David Taylor for checking the originals with me. 9 The document had allegedly been passed from Cheppat Mar Dionysios IV to Yoakim Mar Koorilose, and from him to Mar Dionysios V. See Judgement/Ormsby, pp.52, 42, 47; Judgement/Row-Iyer, para.104 (who give 29 Mithunam 945 in the Malayalam Calendar = 1770). Philip gives an English translation (presumably of Exhibit X). This dated ‘19 Haseeron (June) in the year 2081 of the Greek era (AD 1770)’ (Indian Church, p.350f.). Inevitably, its genuineness was disputed in the various Court cases. If it is genuine, then it constitutes definitive proof; if it is a forgery (emanating presumably from the ‘Patriarchal party’) then it shows that supporters of the Patriarch of Antioch’s cause must have had reason to date this significant event to 1770. The fact that the Bailey and Mill texts (which predate the 19th century controversies) have 1770 makes it virtually certain that this is correct. 10 Paulinus, India Orientalis, p.112f. 6 7

196

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS There is no suggestion that Mar Gregorios’ death took place shortly after the consecration. 2. A ‘Brief History’ of the Syrians in Malabar, translated from Malayalam by Benjamin Bailey dated 1770, mentions the consecration of Mar Thoma by one of the bishops from Antioch, and concludes with the words: ‘A.D. 1770. Mar Dionysios is now our Metropolitan’.11 3. The Malayalam manuscript Mannanam Malayalam 3, dated approximately 1813 (which will be described more fully below), states that ‘In the year 1770 the Malankara Mar Thoma Metropolitan and the foreign bishops reconciled. They offered 72,000 rashis to the Thrupāppu Sorūvān [the Travancore king]. The foreigner gave episcopal ordination to the Malankara Mar Thoma Metropolitan under the name Mar Dionysios with regard to the future administration of the Church.’12 An English version of this – MS Mill 192, ff. 44-51 - says that the foreign bishops met with Mar Thoma VI in 1770 and agreed to pay 72,000 chuckrams as tribute to the Rajah of Travancore, ‘and accordingly Mar Thoma was consecrated by one of the foreign bishops and called Mar Dionysios Bishop’.13 4. Swanston states that nineteen years of factions that began after the arrival of the Maphrian’s delegation were brought to end by the consecration, thus indicating a date of around 1770.

11 The text is given in Whitehouse, Lingerings, pp.304-308, quoting ‘Church Missionary Society Report for 1818-19’, p.317. This is the document referred to in the previous Chapter. 12 I am grateful to Dr Istvan Perczel for providing me with the English translation. 13 MS Mill 192, f47v. This document seems to be the one quoted by Fenn in approximately 1826 when he repeats the above information (MS Mill191, f.142v). Fenn is thus not an independent source as to the date 1770, but does not seem to have encountered an alternative.

THE CONSECRATION OF TWO BISHOPS

197

5. Archdeacon Robinson states that the Syrian bishops ‘after more than eighteen years quarrelling, procured the younger Indian bishop [ie Mar Thoma VI] to be submissive to their will, and (Mar Basilius being dead) Mar Gregorius consecrated him and honoured him with the title of Metropolitan’.14 This, like Swanston’s evidence, would suggest 1769 or 1770. 6. W.H. Mill, in his survey of the evidence (compiled in the mid 1820s) gives both 1771 and 1772 for the date, but his sources are not clear.15 Secondary accounts also all tend to favour 1770.16 14 Letter to the Syrian Orthodox Patriarch, dated 1826 (Heber, Journal, III, p.492). In The Last Days of Bishop Heber Robinson simply reproduces in English Paulinus’ statement that Mar Gregorios died in 1772 after performing the consecration at Neranatta (p.301). 15 MS Mill 195, f.51; MS Mill 193, f.22. 16 Daniel: 29 Midhunam 945 ME [July 1770] in St Mary’s Niranam at the hands of Mar Gregorios and Mar Ivanios (Orthodox Church, p.131. The source seems to be the Judgement of the Royal Court of Appeal, p.33, para 104). Philip: 29 May 1770 (Indian Church, p.161 (no contemporary source given)). Philip adds the detail that after the consecration the government of the Church was vested in Mar Dionsyios I and Mar Ivanios conjointly, Mar Gregorios retiring to Mattanchery. Philip seems to be the source used by Barsoum and Yacoub III who also give 29 May 1770 (Syriac Dioceses, p.81; Syrian Church in India, p.117). Hambye: 29 May 1770 ‘from Mar Gregorios’ (HCI, III, p.53. His sources seem to be Paulinus and Germann. Germann in fact gives the year as 1772 (but no day or month) but, as his principal source is Swanston, it is not clear how he came to be so precise (Kirche, pp.576f, 778). Kaniamparampil: 27 Edavom 1770 by ‘Mar Gregorios assisted by Mar Ivanios’ (Niranam is implied as the venue) (Syrian Orthodox, p.111). Cheriyan:‘about 1770’, (CMS, p.54, quoting Travancore State Manual, vol.II, p.209 as his source). Howard: 19 years after the arrival of Mar Basilios and his companions in 1750 (Christians of St Thomas, p.53). Neill actually gives both 1772 and 1770 (History, vol. 2, pp,67, 237, without noting the contradiction. The WikiSyriaca article by Baby Verghese also gives 1770 (http://www.bethmardutho.org/wikisyriaca/index.php?title=Malankara_ Orthodox_Syrian_Church).

198

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

Strangely, the only contemporary source which explicitly disagrees with the date comes from Mar Dionysios I himself, in a letter written in1778 to Pope Pius VI and brought to Europe by the Romo-Syrian Malpan Joseph Kariattil (whose own career will be described in Chapter 8). This places the date of the re-consecration two years later, in 1772: When I took charge, I understood from the Jacobites who came during the rule of my predecessors, as well as from the learned priests of the Roman Catholic Church, that I had not the true ordination and that the priesthood I had received at the hands of my predecessors was not valid and so, humbly hearkening to their admonition, in 1772 I received anew in the church of the Blessed Virgin Mary at Neranam all the holy orders from the tonsure to the Episcopal consecration, from the Jacobite Metropolitan, Mar Gregory ….17

Kariattil’s petition to the Pope on Mar Dionysios’ behalf also gives the date as 1772: ‘He received the episcopal order from a Jacobite heretic called Mar Gregorius in 1772’.18 Kollaparambil gives ‘the first Sunday of January 1772,’ but his primary source is Mar Dionsyios’ profession of faith quoted above.19 He does, however, refer to a document in the Carmelite archives and to information gathered in 1781 by Bishop Carlo a S. Conrado, the Administrator of the Vicariate Apostolic, which supports the 1772 date.20 Thus, of the pre-1830 sources, virtually only those prepared in connection with Mar Dionysios’ petitions to Rome give 1772 as the date of Mar Dionysios’ consecration. The remainder, either explicitly or implicitly, point to 1770. It is not immediately apparent why two traditions should exist. There seems to be no reason why either group of sources should falsify the date. From Mar Dionysios’ perArchives of the S.Propaganda, Rome, Scritti rifert rei Congressi India, Or. e Cina, vol. 39, folio 14ff. English translations can be found in Paremmakkal, Varthamanappusthakam , pp.139-141; and in Mackenzie, Christianity, p.93f. Mackenzie’s translation is given here. Kariattil’s journey will be described below. 18 Varthamanappusthakam, p.145. 19 ‘Dionysios’, p.153. 20 ‘Dionysios’, p.166f. 17

THE CONSECRATION OF TWO BISHOPS

199

spective, 1772 (as will be seen) was the year in which he definitively defeated his rival Mar Koorilose I and therefore would have been of some significance to him. However, Mar Dionysios and Kariattil are clearly talking about ordination and consecration in their submissions to the Pope. On the basis of the evidence available, the question is not capable of final resolution, but the balance of probability seems strongly in favour of 1770 as the date when Mar Thoma VI accepted consecration. Why did Mar Thoma VI accept consecration? Mar Thoma VI’s motives in accepting consecration after such a long period of time are difficult to identify precisely. Daniel lists ‘expediency’ and a desire for peace and concord.21 Hambye suggests that fact that the Syrian bishops had become financially dependent on Mar Thoma VI ‘ought well explain why at last’ the consecration took place.22 Brown is inclined to see it as strengthening his hand in his campaign to re-unite all the St Thomas Christians under his rule, a goal which would eventually involve his submission to Rome.23 In the light of the ambitions of the Pakalomattom dynasty as seen already in this study, this seems the most plausible. The chronologically closest sources suggest that the Antiochene bishops simply lost the battle – ‘finally the party of the foreign bishops decayed’24 – and felt that they had to reach an accommodation with Mar Thoma VI. Perhaps Mar Thoma VI judged the aging bishops to be no longer a threat to his power; he could therefore accept consecration from them, knowing that death would soon remove them from the scene. Certainly, the consecration removed any doubt about the validity of his Orders in the eyes of both the

Orthodox Church, p.131. Hambye, HCI, III, p.53. 23 Brown, Indian Christians, p.122f. 24 MS Mill 192, f.47v. Mannanam Malayalam 3 has ‘Those people who sided with the foreign bishops became weak and desperate’. This is supported by the 1769 letter from Mar Koorilose I to the Patriarch: ‘If you inquire about our Fathers Metropolitan Yuhanna and BishopYuhanna, I would say that they have become old and weary. They want to return home’ (Yacoub III, Syrian Church in India, p.119. 21 22

200

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

Puthenkuttukar and Pazhayakuttukar. Mar Dionysios’ dealings with Rome will be considered further below. There is some evidence that Mar Thoma VI may have had the support of the ‘secular arm’ in achieving re-consecration. The State Manual of Travancore suggests that the Rajah of Travancore may have brought pressure to bear to bring about the consecration: The faction which arose in the Syrian Christian community became more and more frequent and the Government of Travancore was constrained to intervene, so far as it was necessary for the maintenance of peace and order …. In these circumstances both parties respected the Maharajah’s suggestion of a compromise. They assembled in large numbers. As a result of the decision so arrived at, Bishop Gregory consecrated Mar Thoma VI, who assumed the name Dionysios.25

In view of the Rajah’s strong support for Mar Thoma VI/Dionysios I in 1772 (see below), this suggestion is highly plausible. THE DATE OF THE CONSECRATION OF MAR KOORILOSE I

The Generally Accepted Account Having established the date of Mar Dionysios I’s consecration as very probably mid 1770, the question now at issue is whether the consecration of Abraham Ramban preceded or followed it. E.M. Philip gives 17 November 1772.26 Hambye gives 17 November 1772, and implies that the event took place at Mulanthuruthy, which, he suggests, Mar Gregorios wished to reward ‘for its strong attachment to the patriarch’.27 David Daniel and Kaniamparampil

25 The Travancore State Manual, Sadasya tilaka Velupillai (ed.), 1940, vol.1, p.716. No primary source is given. 26 Philip, Indian Church, p.162. No primary source is given. 27 Hambye, HCI, III, p.53. Hambye gives as his sources Paulinus and Germann (Kirche, p.578). Germann, however, quotes no contemporary source.

THE CONSECRATION OF TWO BISHOPS

201

give 17 Vrischikom 1772 at Mattanchery.28 K.T.John states that the consecration took place on 28th November 1772.29 This date for the consecration is the widely accepted view outside the MISC. It is argued that, even after re-consecrating him, the Antiochene prelates were uneasy about Mar Dionysios, and in particular about his flirting with Rome. This, it is argued, so alarmed Mar Gregorios and Mar Ivanios that they looked for a replacement who would be more loyal to the traditions of Antioch. A second reason given in some accounts (see below) is that Mar Gregorios became unhappy with the way that he was treated in his old age by Mar Dionysios I.30 Abraham Ramban, it is claimed, therefore took him to Mulanthuruthy, where Mar Gregorios consecrated him in about 1772. The generally accepted account, therefore, is that Kattumangat Abraham was consecrated a bishop by Mar Gregorios in 1772.31 On closer examination none of this is totally convincing. None of the sources listed above gives a contemporary source for their assertion. This is a serious omission for a view so widely accepted. Furthermore, there are contemporary reasons to question this account. The Syrian bishops had known Mar Thoma VI for over twenty years; it therefore seems unlikely that his Romeward sympathies should only seriously begin to concern them after his re-consecration. There is also the discrepancy in the venue where the alleged consecration took place. K.T.John’s details concerning the event have an eyewitness authenticity, which argues in favour of Mulanthuruthy. Why then does the source used by Daniel and Kaniamparampil state Mattanchery?

28 D.Daniel,Orthodox Church, p.132; Kaniamparampil, Syrian Orthodox, p.112. Neither gives a source for their statement. 29 K.T.John, Kattumangat Family, p.15. Brown follows John’s date (Indian Christians, p.129f). 30 K.T.John states that Mar Dionysios I had forced the nearly blind Mar Gregorios to retire to Puthencavu church on a meagre daily allowance of eight chackrams (Kattumangat Family, p.15). 31 All the authorities quoted above for 1772 as the date of Mar Koorilose I’s consecration naturally assume that it was performed by Mar Gregorios. See also Juhanon Mar Thoma, Mar Thoma Church, p.16.

202

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

In contrast to the generally accepted account, within the MISC there is a strong tradition that Abraham Ramban’s consecration as Mar Koorilose preceded that of Mar Dionysios I.32 To try and evaluate this claim the evidence of the earliest surviving witnesses will be examined. The evidence of witnesses In about 1812 and again in 1825 there were occasions (which will be described below) in which the validity of the two rival successions was examined. The evidence gathered survives in various unpublished and published works, the latter being in European sources. They are given here in chronological order.

(a) The Thevanal manuscripts Crucially, important pieces of evidence in favour of the earlier date for Abraham Ramban’s consecration survive among the manuscripts preserved in Kerala. A MS at Thozhiyur (containing homilies, anthems and assorted theological texts) written by ‘Gwrgys-d-Mwlndwrty’ (Gevarghese of Mulanthuruthy, ie Kattumangat Gevarghese, brother of Abraham Ramban) is stated in the colophon to have been begun in the Church of ‘Kymkwlm’ in 1764.33 This would seem to be Kayamkulam, which lies in the southern part of the traditional Syrian Christian territories, near Mavelikara. The second MS is a copy of the New Testament, written by hand in Syriac, also by Geeverghese.34 The text bears the date 1769 after the Gospels and 1771 at the end. The inscription states that the copy was made at Thevanal. This is highly significant as Thozhiyur tradition identifies Thevanal as the place to which Mar Koorilose I retreated once it became clear that he was not going to be recognized as Malankara Metropolitan (see below). In the in32 See the discussion in K.C.Verghese, Brief Sketch, pp.11-13, which cites secondary evidence for 1766. More recently, much work has been done by M.P.Kochumon, for whose assistance I am most grateful. 33 MS 2 in Taylor’s provisional Handlist. The second part was complete in 1766 but no location is given. 34 This is MS X1 in Taylor’s provisional Handlist.

THE CONSECRATION OF TWO BISHOPS

203

scription Kattumangat Geeverghese states that he and his fellow clergy moved to Thevanal on 20th Iyyar [May] 1767 and built there the monastery of Mar Bahnam. He names his fellow clergy as ‘my brother’ Baryamin, Jacob, Koorilose and Markos.35 A third piece of documentary evidence supporting the earlier consecration date is a ‘Thaksa’ (the Order for the Qurbana) with six anaphoras written in Syriac by ‘the priest Cyril of Tebbenal’ and dated 9th December 1769. This text, formerly in the library of the Syro-Malankara bishop at Tiruvalla, is now at SEERI at Kottayam.36 The writer mentions his brother the priest Giwargis. By 1767 Abraham Ramban is ‘Koorilose’. What brought about the change of name? The taksa for creating a Ramban contains many symbolic items, but the bestowal of a new name is not one of them.37 Significantly, no mention is made of Geevarghese having been given a new name when he was clothed with monastic habit by Mar Basilios himself.38 Why has one brother received a new name and the other not? The giving of a new name is a significant element in episcopal consecration, and, as seen in Chapter 2, ‘Koorilose’ was one of the accepted list of episcopal names in the West Syrian tradition. But if Koorilose was a bishop by the time the community moved to Thevanal, why do the MSS not describe him as such? One possibility is that his status was a closely guarded secret. There is no evidence that Mar Gregorios or Mar Ivanios were involved in Mar Basilios Shukr Allah’s decision to consecrate 35 With one exception, no memory of the sojourn at Thevanal seems to have survived outside the MISC, though the existence of the chapel there down to the present day strongly corroborates the tradition. The exception is a letter, allegedly dated 1769, quoted by Yacoub III (Syrian Church in India, p.114). Its content and significance will be discussed in Chapter 8. 36 This text (which it has not been possible to consult) is described by Van der Ploeg (MSS, p.106f). 37 See Francis Acharya, The Ritual Clothing of Monks, Kottayam, SEERI, 1997; Phillip Tovey, Encountering Syrian Monasticism, Kunnamkulam, MISC Youth League, 1997. Modern practice in the Syrian Orthodox Church does, however, include the bestowal of a monastic name. 38 Barsoum, Scattered Pearls, p.99. This contrasts with the change of name for ‘Rabban Hanna’ who is referred to after consecration as ‘Bishop Yuhanna’ (Scattered Pearls, pp.95, 99).

204

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

Abraham Ramban. They may not even have known about it in the years immediately following. The absence of evidence of any action by Mar Thoma VI suggests that he was not aware of the presence of a native rival. It is conceivable that Mar Koorilose in effect lived a simple monastic life, incognito, until circumstances forced Mar Gregorios to look for an alternative to Mar Thoma VI/Mar Dionysios I. The fact that in 1769 (two years after he was identified as ‘Koorilose’ in the Thevenal MSS) he wrote to the Patriarch as ‘Abraham’ suggests concealment of a new status.39 Against this, is the question whether, in copying texts for use within their own community, Koorilose and his brother Geeverghese would have hidden the former’s episcopal status. The very manner of celebrating the Qurbana is different for a bishop; if Koorilose acted as a priest subsequent to consecration as a bishop it would be a very rare occurrence.40 For the purposes of the present discussion it is simply necessary to note that the MS evidence points to Abraham Kattumangat having undergone some change of status, indicated by the bestowal of a new ecclesiastical name, by 1767. While not conclusive, this would be consistent with his having been episcopally consecrated by that date.41

(b) Paulinus a S. Bartholomeo42 Paulinus a S. Bartholomeo, as noted in Chapter 4, was the VicarGeneral of the Carmelites in Travancore from 1776 to 1789. He knew David, the son of Ezekiel the Jewish merchant who had been involved in the bringing of Mar Ivanios al-Arqugianyi to Kerala in 1747. He also says that he often conversed (‘et quocum ego saepe locutus sum’) with a priest named Aday, who had accompanied the Yakoub, Syriac Dioceses, p.114. Rare, but not unknown. The canonically consecrated Mar Abdisho Thondanat functioned as a priest for several years before resuming episcopal status (see Chapter 13). 41 It is, of course, possible that the Kandanat community might have survived grouped around a Ramban and have transferred to Thevanal. This seems less likely than that it continued as the household of a bishop. 42 Paulinus’ evidence predates the early 19th century investigations and is therefore not partisan in relation to the issues being contended then. 39 40

THE CONSECRATION OF TWO BISHOPS

205

Maphrian’s 1751 delegation, and in Paulinus’ time was living with his wife in Mattincera [Mattinchery].43 Paulinus also heard accounts of the problems that beset the delegation on its arrival in Kerala from Van Tongern an interpreter of the Dutch Company at Cochin, ‘vir catholicus et gravis’.44 Paulinus’ account must be treated with some caution, but is the earliest surviving explicit record of the events at issue.45 Paulinus’ evidence about the consecration of Mar Koorilose is as follows: One day before he died Mar Basilios consecrated at Mattinchery another native, called Cattumagnaden, who was named Mar Cyrillos. Many uncertain things are told about him, for it is thought that he was driven into exile in Anhur by Dionysios.46

The basic facts – the family and episopal names and the exile at Anjur – agree with what is already established. What is startlingly new is the statement that it was Mar Basilios, not Mar Gregorios, who consecrated Abraham Kattumangat. Paulinus’ occasional inaccuracies undermine his testimony somewhat, but the claim that the consecration took place the very day before Mar Basilios died has a ring of eyewitness credibility about it. Furthermore, Mattancherry is the place where, it is traditionally believed, Mar Basilios died – and therefore he was presumably there the day before his death.47 It is 43 Paulinus, India Orientalis, pp.110-111. A ‘Shamas’ [= deacon] Aday is mentioned as being present at Mar Dionysios I’s consecration in a later (1824) Roman Catholic account (MS Mill 192, f.200v). 44 Paulinus, India Orientalis, pp.113. 45 His error over the date of Mar Basilios’ death has been noted above. Paulinus also confuses Mar Gregorios who was alive in Kerala while he was there, with Chorepiscopa George Namateulla mentioned in Anquetil du Perron’s account ‘Gregorios, quem Anquetil Georgium vocat …..Georgios, quem Malabarenses Gregorium vocant …’ Paulinus, India Orientalis, pp.112. 46 ‘Mar Basilius Mattincerae uno ante obitum die consecravit alium indigenam, Cattumangnaden dictum, qui Mar Cyrillus compellatus fuit. De hoc multa incerta narrantur; a Dionysio enim pulsus in Anhur exulare cogitur’ (India Orientalis, p.114). Mar Aprem states that Mar Basilios died suddenly at Mattanchery on 9th October 1764, but does not give a source (Indian Church History Lectures, p.32). 47 See, for example, Kaniamparampil, Syrian Orthodox Church, p.110.

206

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

also the home of the priest Aday with whom Paulinus had often spoken, and who may very well have been present at the consecration. Furthermore, MISC tradition places the consecration at Mattanchery. The alleged consecration of Mar Koorilose by Mar Gregorios in 1772 is, however, said by some sources, to have taken place in Mulanthuruthy, which raises the possibility that what is being referred to was a different event entirely.48 Paulinus’ evidence suggests that Mar Basilios, perhaps conscious of his impending death, consecrated Abraham Kattumangat as Mar Koorilose at Mattanchery in October 1764. If his health was deteriorating rapidly, it would explain why there was no time to summon Mar Gregorios and Mar Ivanios to join him in the consecration.

(c) Mar Koorilose I A surviving letter from Mar Koorilose I in the archives of Cochin needs also to be quoted in this context. It seems to be dated 1796.49 The letter is a complaint to the Rajah of Cochin about his deposition at the instigation of the Rajah of Travancore. Its contents will be examined more fully below. Speaking of himself in the third person, on the matter of dates, Mar Koorilose states, The foreign prelates who came in the year 926 ME [=1751 AD] consecrated Mar Koorilose as Metran in the year 947 ME [= 1772 AD]. By the order and decree given by the Rajah of Cochin he was given authority to govern as Metran over all the Churches of the Puthencoor Christians in Malankara.50

At first sight this seems to support the generally received account. Closer examination suggests this might not be the case. Mar Koorilose was writing to the Rajah primarily about the matter of 48

p.15.

Eg Daniel, Orthodox Church, p.132; K.T.John, Kattumangat Family,

49 1744 years from the arrival of St Thomas, traditionally understood as AD 52. 50 The Malayalam text is found in Puthezhathu Ramon Menon, Sakthan Thampuram, Kozhikode, Mathrubhoomi, 1989 (3rd ed.), p.286. I am grateful to Mr M.P.Kochumon for locating this for me and to the Revd Dr George Mathew for the translation from the Malayalam.

THE CONSECRATION OF TWO BISHOPS

207

his authority over the Syrian Churches in the Rajah’s territory. It is this which he states was given in 1772. The niceties of Christian Holy Orders were of no interest to the Hindu ruler. He had merely been called upon to recognise the authority over the Puthenkuttukar given to one of his subjects by the ‘foreign prelates’ in 1772. Any transactions between the Syrian bishops and Mar Koorilose prior to this would have been of no interest to the Rajah. Moreover, the letter states that it was ‘Mar Koorilose’ who was consecrated as ‘Metran’. This suggests that he was already bishop when elevated to Malankara Metropolitan. If he had not been bishop he may well have used some such phrase as, ‘The foreign prelates … consecrated the Ramban Abraham as Metran ….’51 It is difficult to know whether to attach any significance to the fact that Mar Koorilose uses the plural ‘prelates’. The sources agree that whatever happened in 1772 was performed by Mar Gregorios alone, without any involvement by Mar Ivanios. Mar Koorilose may simply be ignoring this detail in order to give the impression that he had the support of the whole Antiochene delegation. Alternatively, he may have been reflecting loosely the fact that more than one bishop was involved in the process of his elevation from Ramban to Malankara Metropolitan. While not conclusive, the evidence of this letter is not necessarily incompatible with that of the other witnesses closest in date.

(d) Mannanam Malayalam 3/MS Mill 192, ff. 44-51 These appear to be two versions – one in Malayalam and one in English - of the same document. The former is found in St Joseph’s CMI Monastery, Mannanam (shelfmark 262.9 MAN C 3156).52 The latter is found among the papers of W.H. Mill in the Bodleian Library in Oxford, entitled ‘Translation of a paper in Malayalam containing information regarding the establishment and 51 This would be in line with the formula used in the rite of episcopal consecration: The divine grace, which heals infirmities and supplies deficiencies, … calls and promotes N., the pious priest present to the episcopate …’ (Bradshaw, Ordination Rites, p.183). Not until after the primary prayer of consecration is the new episcopal name announced. 52 I am extremely grateful to Dr Istvan Perczel for making an English translation of this MS available to me.

208

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

actual state of the Syrian Christians’.53 The Malayalam text (which is incomplete) refers to the Queen at Nilakkamughal, while the English text refers to the British Resident at the equivalent place. It is possible that the main text is the work of Joseph Pulikottil, who as will be seen below, was a priest of Kunnamkulam who was closely associated with Mar Koorilose I and, indeed, seems to have been responsible for the latter’s eventual residence at Anjur. It bears some resemblance to the Ramban’s Answers to the 17 Questions addressed by Colonel Munro to various religious leaders in 1813.54 The last date mentioned in both versions is 1812, which suggests that the original might have been prepared in connection with an investigation undertaken by Munro in about 1813 concerning the respective validity of Mar Thoma VIII and Mar Philoxenos II. Having described the arrival of the 1751 delegation and the consecration of Mar Thoma VI by his uncle, Mannanam Malayalam 3 continues, The foreigner Mar Basilios ordained three Rambans in Malankara. After some time, Mar Basilios, the foreign bishop, gave the rank of ‘aposkopa’ to one of the Rambans from Mulanthuruthy. After some time the foreigner Mar Basilios and the Malankara Mar Thoma Metropolitan died. After that the quarrels and riots between the followers of the two parties increased. By giving money to the kings the Churches became ruined.55

This statement is actually more problematic than it appears at first. In all other places the word ‘vispu’ (a loan word from the Portuguese) is used for ‘bishop’. Why, then, is ‘aposkopa’ used here? One possibility is that it is a form of ‘chorepiscopa’. The problem with this interpretation is that the Thevanal manuscripts show that there was indeed a chorepiscopa in the community - Geevarghese Kattumangat – but that this is not the same person as the Kooril53 MS Mill 192, f.44. In a note in the same file, G.B. Howard describes it as a ‘very curious history’. 54 These will be discussed more fully in Chapter 9. 55 The English version reads: ‘Mar Basilius appointed three native priests as Canons, one of whom was promoted by Mar Basilius to the episcopal dignity’. (MS Mill 192, f.47v).

THE CONSECRATION OF TWO BISHOPS

209

ose who is also listed among those at Thevanal. Nor is a change of name part of the rite of making a chorepiscopa. Mannanam Malayalam 3 and MS Mill 192 are aware of a subsequent ceremony performed by Mar Gregorios in 1772 (which will be looked at below), to which the Dutch and the Rajah of Cochin assented, but clearly distinguish it from the initial consecration. These two sources therefore confirm that during Mar Basilios’ lifetime one of the Mulanthuruthy brothers was ‘promoted’ by him from Ramban to ‘aposkopa’.

(e) Luigio Maria de Giesa (Pianazzi), Vicar Apostolic of Verapoli The Mill papers contain two versions of an English translation of ‘Short and compendious notices of the origin and progression of the Christian Community of the Apostle Thomas at Malabar in the East Indes which was assisted by the Bare-footed Carmelite Fathers. Translated from the Italian of Luigio Maria, Bishop of Verapoli’. 56 Luigio Maria is listed by Tisserant as ‘Aloysius Mary of Jesus OCD’.57 According to the document, he came to India as a priest in 1779 and in 1784 was nominated by Rome to succeed Giovanni Maria who died before reaching Malabar.58 His consecration as Bishop of Ursula in partibus infidelium took place in Pondicherry on 18th September 1785. On returning incognito to Cochin, he presented his credentials to the Dutch, and enjoyed a formal public welcome at Mattanchery in May 1787. He was Vicar Apostolic until his death on 2nd April 1802. The work is an account of the Pazhayakuttukar with a ‘Brief Appendix of schismatical bishops, arrived from Turkey, by the deputation, true or false, of the Patriarch of Babylon or of any schismatical Prelate of the Syro-Chaldean Ritual, whether Nestorian or Jacobite’.59 As the main text ends with his own consecra56 The second account, a ‘fair copy’ of the first (which seems to have been the translator’s working copy) is found in MS Mill 192, ff.173-201. References are to this version. 57 Eastern Christianity, pp.97, 188. 58 See also Puliurumpil, Conflict, pp.57-59. Some of the dates differ slightly. 59 MS Mill 192, ff.199-201.

210

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

tion and reception into Kerala, it may be presumed to date not long after 1787. It seems to have been translated into English in 1824. The author speaks of Mar Dionysios I ruling alone, excluding there Mar Basilius and Mar Gregorius jointly with Mar Cyrilius, made a Bishop by Mar Gregorius according to some, and by others of Mar Basilius, from whom they said that Mar Cyrilius called Cattamangnale had stolen his Mitre and Pastoral staff.’60

This account thus furnishes near contemporary evidence from within the Pazhayakuttukar community of a degree of confusion concerning the consecration of Mar Koorilose I, but of the existence of a tradition that Mar Basilios was the consecrator.

(f) Joseph Fenn Fenn was one of the priests of the Church of England sent out to Kerala by the Church Missionary Society. On 3rd March 1826 he wrote a letter to his Bishop, Reginald Heber, giving an account of the disturbances which were then taking place in the Puthenkuttukar community. He had clearly made detailed enquires. He describes the arrival of the 1751 delegation and the confusion which ensued, then continues: The Maphriana previously to his death which happened in the year 1765 consecrated one learned priest Bishop by the name of Mar Cyril; and Mar Gregorius in the same year in which he consecrated Mar Dionyios conferred also on Cyril the dignity of Metropolitan.61

The Mill papers also contain a paper by Fenn, probably also written in 1826, in which he claims to have seen an earlier history ‘composed by Cyril and his successors’. According to this account, the three foreign prelates who came in 1751, finding that Mar Thoma would not assent to their exercise of authority endeavoured to carry the points against him, and among the priests attached to them, Cyril whom they in60 61

MS Mill 192, f.200v. MS Mill 191, f.91v.

THE CONSECRATION OF TWO BISHOPS

211

structed and whom report speaks of in high terms as a scholar and a Christian – In 1757 the Maphriana consecrated him Bishop in the Church of Candenad and in 1771 Gregorius installed him as Metropolitan in the Church at Cochin.62

The sequence of events matches the sources quoted so far. Only the date is problematic, differing as it does from that given in Fenn’s letter to Heber just quoted. It may be that Fenn has confused the date of Mar Koorilose’ consecration, with that of Mar Thoma VI.63 Nevertheless, this source is a further early witness to the tradition that the episcopal consecration was performed by Mar Basilios and to its being a separate event from the attempt to make Mar Koorilose Malankara Metropolitan. Fenn had spoken to someone who had been present at Mar Koorilose’s elevation by Mar Gregorios, so would have received first hand information about the nature of the event.64

(g) Archdeacon Thomas Robinson Following the sudden death of Bishop Heber while the problem caused by the behaviour of Mar Athanasios Abdul Messih (see Chapter 10) were still unresolved, Archdeacon Thomas Robinson wrote in 1826 to the Patriarch in Antioch.65 Robinson recounts the arrival of ‘the last prelates (on whom be the peace of God) [who] came from Syria to Malabar, Mar Gregorius of Jerusalem, Mar Basilius Maphrian, and Mar Johannes’, and the consecration of Mar Thoma VI by Mar Gregorios ‘after more than eighteen years quarrelling’, with the name Dionysios and title of Metropolitan. MS Mill 191, f.142. Mackenzie gives 1757 as the year that Mar Thoma V consecrated Mar Thoma VI (Christianity, p.36). Swanston repeats the date 1757 in relation to Mar Koorilose, but appears to be drawing on either the document referred to by Fenn, or on Fenn’s reproduction of it (JRAS, II,(1835) p.53). 64 MS Mill 191, f11, Letter from Fenn to Heber, Cottayam, 9th March 1826. 65 Text in Heber, Journal, III, pp.484-494. Robinson went on to become Archdeacon of Madras. He returned to England in 1836 (Penny, Church in Madras, vol. 2, pp.151-174, 368f). 62 63

212

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS All this is not unknown to your Eminency [continues Robinson], but besides this it is also true that there was a young Indian priest, who during all these troubles and contentions, remained faithful to the just cause of the Syrian prelates from Antioch. Him, therefore, during these troubles, Mar Basilius had consecrated bishop, by the name of Cyrillus. And it is said also, though with what truth I know not certainly, that when Mar Gregorius had given the title of Metropolitan to Dionysios, and when Mar Dionysios afterwards refused to give him the maintenance he agreed to give, then Mar Gregorius gave the same title of Metropolitan to Mar Cyrillus.66

Archdeacon Robinson continues that, whatever Mar Koorilose I’s right to the position of Metropolitan may have been, ‘it is the confession of all in Malabar, of every party, that he was truly a bishop by the consecration of Mar Basilios’.67 Significantly, Robinson’s account places the consecration of Mar Koorilose by Mar Basilios at some point during the eighteen years of troubles prior to the re-consecration of Mar Thoma VI. The events of 1772 were not understood by Robinson to be Mar Koorilose’s consecration to the episcopate, but an attempt by Mar Gregorios to make him Malankara Metropolitan, subsequent to the re-consecration of Mar Dionysios I. Robinson is to some extent relying on Paulinus’ account, passages from which he published in his book The Last Days of Bishop Heber, and on information supplied by Fenn and others. Even so, material from other sources can be detected. The details about Abraham Kattumangat being ‘young’ and ‘faithful to the just cause of the Syrian prelates from Antioch’ can not be found in Paulinus, Anquetil du Perron or the Fenn letter quoted above. Furthermore, in the middle of the bitter contest for supremacy in the Malabar Church which the arrival of Mar Athanasios Abdul Messih had precipitated, Robinson is unlikely to have been so specific about the identity of Mar Koorilose’s consecrator if he had not been sure Heber, Journal, III, pp.492. Ibid. That this is not an error is shown by the fact that soon after in the same letter Robinson refers to ‘the other successions from Mar Basilius … which continued from Cyrillus to those who are now in Malabar’. 66 67

THE CONSECRATION OF TWO BISHOPS

213

of his facts. It would have been rash to have committed himself to stating that all parties agreed that it was Mar Basilios if this statement were likely to be challenged.

(h) William Hodge Mill Mill entered a lot of material in a notebook (MS Mill 195) from which he transcribed selected items into a tabular form which he called India Christiana (MS Mill 193).68 His notebook entries state that one of his sources was an account given him by Palakunnathu Abraham Malpan (see Chapters 10 and 11) which would suggest 1759 or 1760 for Mar Koorilose’s consecration, though he notes that Fenn favours 1757.69 In his ‘fair copy’ his entry for 1758 reads: Cyrillus, learned and excellent native priest consecrated by Mar Basilius Maphrian, bishop of Candinad – thus forming in the North an antagonistic native power against Mar Thoma’s faction in Travancore.70

Apart from confirming the consecration by Mar Basilios, this entry is significant in that it indicates that there was a North-South element in the events. His entry for 1771 is: Cyrillus is consecrated Metran (having been already Bishop for 15 years from his consecration by Basilius) by the Syrian Bishop Mar Gregorius to counterbalance the unfriendly Metropolitan.71

As his notes show, Mill was a meticulous and persistent scholar. His conclusion that the consecration by Mar Basilios and the elevation to Malankara Metropolitan were two separate events therefore carries considerable weight. This was intended to run from 1476 onwards, but the entries only begin in 1701. 69 MS Mill 195, f.51. 70 MS Mill 193, f.24. 71 MS Mill 193, f.22 (NB the pages are numbered backwards in relation to the chronological sequence). His notes state that he is generally following Fenn here, but calls the consecration by Basilios ‘the tradition in India’ (MS Mill 195, f.51). 68

214

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

(i) Charles Swanston Swanston’s 1826 ‘Memoir’ is not a totally independent source, but draws on various accounts circulating in the British ecclesiastical community in about 1825/6, some of which can be identified in the Mill papers. It serves, nevertheless as a useful summary of what the British believed the situation to have been, in the light of their researches, and appears to contain material not yet identified in other sources. Following his description of the arrival of Maphrian Mar Basilios and his companions, which he dates to 1750, Swanston continues: The maphriana was invested with authority to consecrate Mar Thomas [V] metropolitan, and brought with him the crosier, the crucifix, and the ring; but, a quarrel ensuing, the consecration did not take place. These foreign prelates, at the instigation of many of the priests, and amongst others Cyril, whom they instructed, and whom report speaks of in high terms as a scholar and a Christian, attempted to take upon themselves the government of the church, but which Mar Thomas resisted, and resisted successfully. In the midst of this schism and discord Mar Thomas died, having previously consecrated his nephew, Mar Thoma, who succeeded him in defiance of the foreigners; and in the same year, AD 1757, the maphriana consecrated Cyril bishop in the church of Kandidad.72

Swanston goes on to describe 19 years of factional strife which were only brought to an end by the intervention of the Rajah of Travancore, who decided in favour of Mar Thoma VI, a decision which ‘the foreign faction, both clergy and people’, submitted to, paying fine of 72,000 chuckrams.73 This reconciliation, continues Swanston, ‘was celebrated by the consecration of Mar Thoma metropolitan, by the name of Mar Dionysios. He was adorned with the crosier, the crucifix and the ring, which had been brought from Chaldaea’. According to Swanston’s account, Mar Gregorios and Mar Ivanios then retired to an unnamed Church, on the promise of a 72 73

JRAS, II (1835) p.53. JRAS, II (1835) p.53.

THE CONSECRATION OF TWO BISHOPS

215

fixed daily allowance or pension from Mar Dionysios I. (Swanston does not state where Mar Koorilose was at this time.) This state of affairs seems to have broken down as a result of Mar Dionysios I failing to provide adequately for the Syrian bishops. According to Swanston, Mar Gregorios repaired to Cochin, and there conferred on Cyril the full dignity of metropolitan.74

Despite the discrepancy in the date (1757 instead of 1764) Swanston believed Mar Koorilose had been ‘consecrated bishop’ by the Maphrian, and at a later date elevated to the ‘full dignity of metropolitan’ by Mar Gregorios. His summary supports both the early date for the consecration of Mar Koorilose and its having been performed by Mar Basilios. For the sake of completeness, it is necessary to take note of a number of other early sources, where reference to the consecration might be expected.

(j) The Dutch It is almost a commonplace among writers that Mar Koorilose I’s elevation to the position of Metropolitan was supported and recorded by the Dutch.75 The reality is, however, that the major primary Dutch sources for ecclesiastical information are strangely silent on the matter. In his extensive Memorandum, Commander Moens describes at some length the arrival in Kerala of Maphrian Mar Basilios Shukr Allah and his party, even giving information JRAS, II (1835), p.53f. Z.M. Paret, Malankara Nazaranakal, vol.3, p58f, quoted in K.T.John, Kattumangat Family, pp.16-17. Swanston: ‘The Dutch authorities witnessed Cyril’s elevation, and certified the legality of his consecration’ (JRAS, II (1835), p.53f). Verghese (Brief Sketch, p.11) also claims the support of the Dutch East India Company and states that Mar Koorilose was well received by the faithful. In a letter dated 7th August 1803, British Resident Colonel Macaulay refers to ‘the Agreement of 1772’ between the Rajah of Cochin and the Dutch, but it has not been possible to locate this, nor is it certain that it would have referred to Mar Koorilose I (IOR/F/4/176/3192, p.48f). 74 75

216

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

about their travels in the country. He records Mar Thoma V’s consecration of his nephew, then continues, The Archbishop Mar Basilius and his two suffragan bishops were much chagrined and displeased by this, and the former took up his abode in a house at Mattanchery, just a little outside this town [Cochin], where after a lapse of three years he died in the year 1763. His successor Mar Gregorius, not wishing any longer to govern the Church on account of old age and infirmity, settled down at Molendurty [Mulanthuruthy] beyond Candanatty, where he died in the year 1773. At last in the year 1765 Mar Thome [V] also died, and his cousin Mar Thome succeeded him as Bishop. But he also lived at enmity with Bishop Mar Johannes [Ivanios]. They were however reconciled at last through my intervention and constant exhortations in the year 1773. At present [1781] they have two bishops, Mar Johannes and Mar Thome ….

It will be seen that Moens’ account is inexplicably silent about the consecrations both of Mar Koorilose I and of Mar Thoma VI as Mar Dionysios. Nor is there any mention of Mar Gregorios’ attempt to make Mar Koorilose Metropolitan in 1772. This silence is puzzling, not least because, as he himself says, Moens was ‘constantly exhorting’ Mar Thoma VI and Mar Ivanios in the period leading up to 1773. Moreover, the British inherited a succession of treaties between the Dutch and the Rajah of Cochin, concerning sovereignty over the Syrian Christians.76 Moens’ silence is matched by that of the Dutch Records now stored at Chennai. Heylingers’ Press List makes particular mention of ecclesiastical documents, and, where it has been possible to check the List against the volumes themselves, it is generally very accurate.77 However, the last mention of Maphrian Mar Basilios in the List is dated 1758. After

These are referred to in IOR/F/4/176/3192, p.14. The volumes, as well as containing the documents mentioned in the Press List sometimes also contain other Church-related material. 76 77

THE CONSECRATION OF TWO BISHOPS

217

this, there are very few references to ecclesiastical concerns.78 Did Moens omit any mention of the Koorilose/Dionysios issue because he had on this occasion failed to achieve his policy (ie of installing Mar Koorilose as Metropolitan) and decided therefore to keep silent about it in his report? He was, after all, simply describing the state of affairs that his successor was going to inherit nine years later and may have decided there was no need to go into detail about a ‘failed coup’. Indeed, if he did actively interfere, it is conceivable that he could have been censured for doing so by his superiors. Is that why – and this is pure speculation – no papers relating to the incident have been allowed to survive in the archive?79 An alternative possibility is hinted at in a document in the Vatican archives.80 In it two Syro-Malabar priests claim that the Carmelite Bonaventure ‘when he was in Malabar, with the help of the Dutch Governor of Cochin kept under custody Mar Gregory who had consecrated Mar Thomas, and forced him to say that he had no intention of consecrating Mar Thomas. But when he was set free he said that he had had that intention which they have in their Church’. If this incident did take place, it is not inconceivable that Moens’ motivation for his involvement in it was to discredit Mar Dionysios I in order to strengthen support for Mar Koorilose I, whom the Dutch seem initially to have favoured. Given that the ‘coup’ failed, it is easy to understand why Moens decided simply to omit any reference to it and to his apparently discreditable involvement in it. Whatever the reason, the effect on the present 78 The fact that there are some (requests by Roman Catholic bishops to visit their dioceses, Christians complaining about taxes in Cochin, a Syrian priest who has become a Protestant, etc) suggests that it is highly unlikely that Heylingers has failed to mention documents relating to an attempt to replace one Metropolitan with another. The present writer was not, however, granted access to the relevant volumes, so it is possible that some material is contained there. 79 Other explanations are of course possible. Moens’ ecclesiastical papers may have been stored separately and either been lost or not yet found. 80 Archives of the S. Propaganda Congregation, Scritti referti nei Congr. General, vol. 867, folio 147f, quoted in Paremmakkal, Varthamanappusthakam, p.149ff.

218

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

study is that what might have been an invaluable contemporary source is not available.

(k) The Varthamanappusthakam81 This work is an account of events in the Syrian Church between 1773 and 1786, written by Thomman Paremmakkal, a Syro-Malabar priest. A major theme is the visit to Rome made by Paremmakkal when he accompanied Joseph Kariattil to present a petition to the Pope on behalf of Mar Dionysios I. The book makes significant reference to ‘the heretic Cyril’, which will be discussed below, but is silent concerning the circumstances surrounding Mar Koorilose’s consecration.

(l) Bishop Middleton The destruction of Middleton’s manuscript Memoir on the Syrians has perhaps resulted in the loss of what might have been a definitive account of the events at issue. Accompanied by Archdeacon Barnes (who ‘did not suffer the opportunity to pass without preserving some tolerably copious notices of what he saw and heard’82) Bishop Middleton visited the Syrian Christians in October 1816. Interestingly, the arrival of the Syrian Bishops who were to transform the lives of the Kattumangattu brothers had not been forgotten: They still have among them the memory of Mar Yohanne [Ivanios], who was sent from Antioch in 1747, and was known among the Syro-Romans by the name of heretic and iconoclast, because he prohibited and destroyed the images.83

81 Thomman Paremmakkal, The Varthamanappusthakam: An account of the history of the Malabar Church between the years 1773 and 1786 with special emphasis on the journey from Malabar to Rome via Lisbon and back under taken by Malpan Mar Joseph Cariattil and Cathanar Thomman Paremmakkal, ET Placid J. Podipara (Orientalia Christiana Analecta 190) Rome, Pont. Institutum Orientalium Studiorum, 1971. 82 Le Bas, Middleton, I. p.285. 83 Le Bas, Middleton, I. p.290. This confirms what has been recorded earlier about Mar Ivanios’ attempts to de-Romanise the Puthenkuttukar.

THE CONSECRATION OF TWO BISHOPS

219

They have also now remaining some of the books brought to them in 1751 by three malpans, or Jacobite bishops, Mar Basilius and Mar Gregorius, and another Mar Yohanne, who allowed the clergy to marry and continued the prohibition of images.84

Middleton’s tour of the Syrian Churches included Mulanthurutty and Kandidad. At the latter the clergy produced a large quarto manuscript of hymns, brought from Antioch by one of those three Mafrians who came from Antioch about 1751’.85

Middleton’s evidence confirms that the visit of Mar Ivanios in 1747 and of Maphrian Shukr Allah Mar Basilios and his companions had been a defining stage in the adoption by the Puthenkuttukar community of Antiochene ways, but tells us nothing of the consecration of Mar Koorilose I.

(m) Bishop Heber Heber died on his way to Kerala and so never met the Syrian community. He was much involved in the impact of the visit of Mar Athanasios Abdul Messih in 1825/6, but was reliant on Fenn, Mill and Robinson for his information. In a letter dated 22nd March 1826 to Mar Athanasios Abdul Messih, he sent greetings to ‘Bishops Dionysius and Philoxenus …. I call them Bishops, forasmuch as they have been so reported unto me by divers sure tokens ….’86 Heber was aware that ‘for about fifty years, the Jacobite Bishops of Travancore have all been people of the country, and have succeeded each other by a sort of domestic nomination, each prelate, soon after his accession to the See, ordaining a coadjutor “cum spe

84 Ibid. The evidence is apparent testimony to the long-lasting influence of the Maphrian’s 1751 delegation. 85 Le Bas, Middleton, I. p.287f. Middleton (or perhaps Le Bas) seems a little unclear at to the difference between malpan, mafrian and metran. The clergy did not seem to be too attached to the manuscript, for they gave it to Middleton. 86 Heber, Journal, vol. III, p.480.

220

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

successionis”’.87 This is evidence of an accepted independent succession of consecration and appointment, culminating in Mar Koorilose’s successors in Heber’s day. One further issue needs to be recorded.

The Proximity of the Metropolitical consecrations Fenn’s 1826 letter to Heber records that Mar Basilios, having consecrated Mar Koorilose in 1765, then, ‘in the same year in which he [Mar Gregorios] consecrated Mar Dionysios conferred also on Cyril the dignity of Metropolitan’,88 Cheriyan seems to follow this when he states that the consecration of Mar Koorilose had taken place almost immediately after the re-consecration of Mar Thoma VI which, as seen above, took place in 1770.89 It is likely that Cheriyan, who had access to the CMS archives, is quoting the Fenn statement here. No other early source places the two events so close together. It is difficult to see why Mar Gregorios would have elevated Mar Koorilose so soon after consecrating Mar Basilios. Summary The early evidence may be summed up as follows: • • • •

All sources agree that the arrival of the 1751 delegation resulted in considerable confusion and divisions in the Puthenkuttukar community. The Varthamanappusthakam, dating from the 1780s, confirms the existence of Mar Koorilose and that he was a ‘heretic’ (ie a ‘Monophysite’) in Rome’s eyes. The Thevanal MSS show a ‘Koorilose’ living in a monastic community of Mar Behnam by 1769, and perhaps as early as May 1767. The earliest source to refer to the actual consecration, Paulinus (who left India in 1789 and published India Orientalis

87 Letter dated 21st March 1826 to Charles William Wynn, in Journal, vol. III, p.447. 88 Fenn to Heber, 3rd March 1826, MS Mill 191, f.91v. 89 Cheriyan, CMS, p.55. Cheriyan refers to the State Manual of Travancore, but not to any contemporary source.

THE CONSECRATION OF TWO BISHOPS

•

• •

221

Christiana in 1794) states that Mar Basilios consecrated Mar Koorilose I the day before he died (and therefore obviously several years prior to the re-consecration of Mar Thoma VI). The chronologically subsequent sources, Vicar Apostolic Luigio Maria de Giesa, Mannanam Malayalam 3, MS Mill 192 and Fenn, also all state that Mar Basilios performed some action capable of being understood as episcopal consecration. These three sources also distinguish between Mar Koorilose’s episcopal consecration and his elevation to Metropolitan by Mar Gregorios. Robinson and Swanston feel sufficiently confident about distinction between the consecration by Mar Basilios and the ‘elevation’ by Mar Gregorios to state it authoritatively in documents which could be challenged by others.

WHY WAS ANOTHER INDIAN CONSECRATED?

As far as can be ascertained, the Maphrian’s delegation had instructions only to consecrate the native Metropolitan who had asked for them. Why did two members of the delegation eventually come to believe it necessary to consecrate and install as Metropolitan someone else? The preferability of Kattumangat Abraham K.T.John records a tradition of a meeting at Kandanat ‘for the purpose of selecting a Metropolitan for the Jacobites. People of the southern regions presented a member of the Pakalomattam family, Mar Thoma VI, and the northerners presented Kattumangat Revd Abraham as candidates. The Maphrian and Mar Gregorios favoured the Revd Abraham as he was the more proficient in Syriac and in Malayalam.’90 John gives no date for this meeting, though he states that it was before Abraham was made a Ramban. The chief problem with this account is that it states that the meeting took place while Maphrian Mar Basilios was still alive, though in fact he 90

K.T.John, Kattumangat Family, p.17.

222

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

had predeceased Mar Thoma V. It may represent the conflation of accounts of earlier meetings with a meeting precipitated by the death of Mar Thoma V, or possibly a meeting between the two rivals to succeed Mar Thoma V while the latter was still alive. The incident also provides a further example of the North/South division in the Puthenkuttukar. The basic account does, however, ring true with the known facts. Mar Thoma VI was known to have pro-Roman leanings (like his uncle) and had not worked particularly closely or loyally with the Middle Eastern bishops. By accepting consecration from his uncle Mar Thoma V, without any reference to the Antiochene bishops present in the country, he would appear to have colluded in his uncle’s distancing of himself from them. His liturgical practice was predominantly East Syrian in script and rite (He only made a statement that he would celebrate the Eucharist according to the Syro-Antiochian tradition after his re-consecration91). Furthermore, there was of course considerable doubt about the validity of his Orders. Kattumangat Abraham Ramban was of Syrian descent, a competent Syriac scholar92 and had associated with bishops from Antioch since his youth. He was trained in and loyal to Antiochene usage. He (or his brother) had been recognised as a person of virtue and promise and solemnly made a monk at Mulanthuruthy as far back as 1752. For several years he had been working with Mar Basilios and his colleagues in the training of deacons and the propagation of the faith.93 Even Yacoub III accepts that he was an intelligent and able teacher.94 There was no doubt as to the validity of his Orders: he had been ordained deacon and priest by Mar Ivanios al-Arqugianyi.95 To the Antiochene bishops he must indeed have seemed the more attractive candidate of the two. Hambye, HCI, III, p.53. Though he seems to have used the East Syrian script. See below. 93 Doran records a tradition that he was Mar Basilios’ interpreter as the latter ‘went from Church to Church forcibly impressing upon the minds of all repentance towards God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ’ (CMS/B/OMS CI2 085). 94 Syrian Church in India, p.115. 95 Syrian Church in India, p.115. 91 92

THE CONSECRATION OF TWO BISHOPS

223

The delay in Mar Thoma VI’s re-consecration If Mar Thoma VI was prepared to accept re-consecration from the Syrian bishops, why did he wait six years before doing so? The obvious time would have been immediately after the death of Mar Thoma V in 1765. Regularising his Orders was very much in Mar Thoma VI’s interest. It would improve his standing with his own flock, with Antioch and with Rome. All writers agree that Mar Thoma VI was in regular contact with the Roman Catholic authorities. Hambye explicitly states that, ‘Before receiving episcopal ordination from Bishop Gregorios Mar Dionysios I had already made approaches to the Carmelite missionaries with some intention of joining the Catholic Church’.96 Rome was genuinely interested in the possibility of Mar Dionysios bringing his community over with him, a scenario which would become more likely if Mar Dionysios were indisputably the Metropolitan in valid Orders. With so much to be gained by submitting to re-consecration, why did Mar Thoma VI delay? Yacoub III’s account hints at a failure to reach agreement with the Antiochene bishops over liturgical usage, suggesting that Mar Thoma VI intended to reach an agreement soon after his uncle’s death but was prevented ‘by some ritualistic customs’, which the Syrian bishops were prepared to ignore with the exception of celebrating the Qurbana according to the Antiochene rite.97 This suggests that they were prepared to permit the continued use of a number of the latinised East Syrian rites, but not to compromise on the Eucharist. The reason may be not so much that Mar Thoma VI was reluctant, but that Mar Gregorios refused to perform the act until he had an assurance that the new bishop would use the West Syrian Qurbana. Furthermore, the lack of a validly consecrated Indian bishop would probably have the effect of sustaining Puthenkuttukar loyalty to the Antiochene prelates.98 Mar Gregorios may also have decided that Mar Koorilose I, whom his colleague the late Maphrian had consecrated, was the better candidate and was waiting for an opportunity to elevate him to the Metropolitanate. Hambye, HCI, III, p.54. Syrian Church in India, p.117. 98 Puthussery favours this possibility (Reunion Efforts, p.142). 96 97

224

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

WHAT HAPPENED IN 1772?

Having established that Mar Thoma VI was consecrated in 1770 and that there is credible evidence that Mar Koorilose I was consecrated a bishop by Maphrian Mar Basilios Shukr Allah in 1764, it is necessary now to look in more detail at the events surrounding Mar Koorilose I in 1772. A useful summary account is provided by Swanston: In the year 1772, the daily allowance stipulated for the maintenance of the foreign prelates was withheld by Mar Dionysios; and Gregorius was, in his old age, left with out support. Necessitated to quit the place of his retirement, he repaired to Cochin, and there conferred on Cyril the full dignity of metropolitan. The Dutch authorities witnessed Cyril’s elevation, and certified the legality of his consecration. The Rajah of Cochin acknowledged him as primate over the churches within his dominions, and sanctioned the performance of the sacred duties of his ministry. But his adversary, Dionysios, was too powerful; Cyril was compelled to yield up his insignia of office, and, betrayed by the Rajah of Cochin, was treacherously delivered into the hands of his rival, by whom he was thrown into confinement, and treated with indignity and insult.

To what period his imprisonment extended is not known: all that can be ascertained is, that he was released from his confinement by the zeal and courage of a brother, and that his flight was directed to Agugnur [Anjur], where he found refuge and rest from the persecution of his enemies.99 This account emanates from sources sympathetic to the line of bishops that derived from Mar Koorilose I. In the early decades of the 19th century, there were also those who wished to discredit the validity of that succession. It is therefore necessary to introduce further witnesses.100

JRAS, II (1835), p.53. These are silent on the question of Abraham’s consecration by Mar Basilios, and hence have not been cited hitherto. 99

100

THE CONSECRATION OF TWO BISHOPS

225

The ‘Palakunnathu Notes’ The Bodleian Library at Oxford contains a manuscript copy of a document supplied in 1840 to the Revd W. Humphrey, a CMS missionary, by Palakunnathu Abraham Malpan, entitled Some Notes respecting the succession of Bishops in the Jacobite Syrian Church of Malabar.101 The account begins with the arrival of the Maphrian’s delegation in 1751 and continues until 1826 and the arrival of Mar Athanasios Abdul Messih. The reader is then referred (presumably by Humphrey) to ‘The Last Days of Bishop Heber’. The document is of especial importance as it presumably contains the views of one of the leaders of the ‘Reformation’ in the Puthenkuttukar in the early 19th century.

Patriarchal Library Sources Both Barsoum and Yacoub III refer to a number of sources, most of them originating in Kerala, which they had either seen in India (in the case of Yacoub III) or in the Patriarchal Library. It is not clear whether some of the sources referred to are the same. Both writers tend to summarise and conflate the accounts in these sources, so that it is not always possible to be confident precisely which document is meant. The sources, insofar as they can be distinguished, are listed below, but they will be collectively referred to simply as Patriarchal Library Sources.102 Barsoum mentions (a) A Syriac tract of 1820, written by ‘a Malabarian priest’, (b) Another Syriac tract, by another Malabarian priest, dated 1838.103 According to Barsoum both of these were written in poor Syriac and had been transcribed by ‘other clergymen of Malabar’. Both were in the Patriarchal Library. Yacoub III lists among his sources:

MS Mill 192, ff.1-6. Humphreys in turn copied out the Notes at Cambridge on 10th September 1840 for W.H.Mill. 102 None of the originals has been seen by the present writer. 103 Barsoum, Syriac Dioceses, p.65 and n.93. 101

226

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS (c) A Syriac manuscript containing two treatises: one by the priest Philip Edavazhikal on the History of the Church of Malabar until 1816; the other by the Chorepiscopus Philip Edavazhikal which is a continuation of this history until 1840. It also contains correspondence, discourses, comments and the number of churches of Malabar. (d) A tract on the Syrian church of Malabar in 40 pages, delivered by some clergy and laymen to the Apostolic See in 1840. The date ascribed to this varies. It is not impossible that it is the same as (b) above. (e) Two Syriac treatises by the Chorepiscopa Matta Konat, the first published on June 15, 1914; the other still in manuscript. Also, there are witings by Konat still in manuscript form at his private Library, at the library of the monastery in Omallor and at family libraries.104

It should be noted that both the Palakunnathu Notes and the Patriarchal Library Sources are hostile witnesses, and are produced at time when the Puthenkuttukar were descending into a pattern of bitter factional dispute, aspects of which continue to the present day. Their statements therefore need to be treated with caution. The Palakunnathu Notes and the sources cited by Barsoum and Yacoub III agree that Mar Gregorios’ sight failed him in his latter years. The following is the former’s version of events: … the blind bishop being easily managed, the Ramban [Abraham] had got him away to Cochin to dwell there and there the Bishop consecrated the Ramban privately by the name of Cyrilos the same week, at least this report is current, on his, the Ramban’s, sole testimony. The usual custom is that the consecrating bishop should perform curuama [Qurbana] or the communion and then lay his hands upon the Bishop elect before all the people and clergy. The bishop however in this case being blind, a catanar or priest celebrated the eucharist and then the Ramban according to his sole testimony was consecrated. They say that the Blind Bishop never told anyone about

104

Yacoub III, Syrian Church, p.xvii.

THE CONSECRATION OF TWO BISHOPS

227

it. No person present but the Ramban and officiating catanar who happened to be the Ramban’s disciple (Shishyan).105

This account is, by Abraham Malpan’s own admission, merely what was being repeated nearly 70 years after the events in question. Barsoum summarises the accounts of the 1820 and 1838 Syriac tracts.106 These do not simply slander Mar Koorilose I, but even deny any consecration by Mar Gregorios: In 1773, Gregorius Yuhanna, burdened by old age and weak vision, almost lost his sight. A Malabarian monk named Curien (Quryaqos) Kattoomangat, a priest of the Church of Mulanthurithi who had assumed the monastic habit by the hands of Maphryono Shukr Allah and was engaged for some time in the teaching of deacons, asked the two churchmen [Mar Dionysios I and Mar Ivanios] to permit him to take Gregorius Yuhanna to another town for care and treatment…. Apparently this monk [Koorilose] had evil intentions. He was sick in heart and coveted a higher office. One day he put on the vestment of a bishop and claimed that Metropolitan Gregorius Yuhanna had ordained him a metropolitan and called him Cyril at his ordination. When news spread throughout the town of Mattancheri … the deacon Addai … rushed to see Metropolitan Gregorius Yuhanna to ascertain the truth. The metropolitan told him that he had no knowledge of the rumour and that he had ordained no one.107

The main elements are also found in one of Yacoub III’s sources, though it is difficult to know how independent this is: ‘Gregorius lost his sight. When he was staying in the house of the MS Mill 192, f.1v. See also Barsoum, Syriac Dioceses, p.64. These were mentioned briefly in Chapter 7. 107 Syriac Dioceses, p.64. The accounts contains a number of claims that are contradicted by contemporary accounts: the role of the Dutch and the presence of the British in Malabar, for example. Barsoum was aware that there was a tradition that Mar Gregorios had indeed made Mar Koorilose a Metropolitan, but chose to discount it (Syriac Dioceses, p.65f.). Note how even this hostile source confirms that Mar Koorilose I had been made a Ramban by Maphrian Basilios Shukr Allah. 105 106

228

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

maphryono in Cochin, he was deceived by the monk Gurgis [sic], of the church of Mulanthuruthi, who ordained him a metropolitan with the name of Cyril.’108 The tradition concerning the blindness of Mar Gregorios is repeated by K.T. John who gives the information that the ‘consecration’ of Mar Koorilose I happened ‘at the St Thomas Church, Mulanthuruthy after a mass [sic] said by Kattadi Paulose Remban.’109 The reason why Mar Gregorios did not preside at the Qurbana himself would seem to be that he had ‘developed a serious eye complaint which left him almost blind’. However, as John’s source can only be traced with confidence to 1905, it is impossible to be confident that he represents an independent tradition. The date given for this event is Friday 17th October 1772.110 The account of Mar Gregorios’ blindness is told in the above sources in such a way as to suggest that he was being unwillingly manipulated by Mar Koorilose. This is not necessarily the case. Vicar Apostolic Florentius (at almost exactly the same date) had virtually lost his sight by the end of his life. Therefore, whenever he administered Confirmation or Ordination one of the assisting ministers dictated the prayers to him and he repeated them.111 This expedient may well have been not uncommon and the negative connotation put on it by sources which, a generation or more later, were hostile to the Thozhiyur succession should not be accepted uncritically. 108 Yacoub III, Syrian Church in India, p.123. The source is said to be a Syriac tract dated 28th May 1854 in the possession of the Edavazhikal family. Yacoub III seems somewhat annoyed by this account, as he would prefer to believe that no consecration had taken place. 109 K.T.John, Kattumangat Family, p.15. John is here quoting an unpublished account drawn up in 1905 by Kattumangat Ulahannan. This seems to have been drawn from family oral traditions. (ibid.). Of the presiding Ramban, Yacoub III says: ‘The monk Paul was then residing in the bishop’s house. It is believed that he was the same Korola mentioned among those who established the Monastery of Mar Behnam in Vattikal, and that Gregorius invested him with the monastic habit’ (Syrian Church in India, p.121). 110 Yacoub III, Syrian Church in India, p.121. 111 See the accounts dating from 1771 in Puthussery, Reunion Efforts, p.206.

THE CONSECRATION OF TWO BISHOPS

229

Mannanam Malayalam 3/MS Mill 192, ff. 44-51 This text records: Mar Dionysius was also to rule all the Malankara churches and he was obliged to give a daily salary of one rashi panam per person to the foreign bishops. An agreement was reached and a palm-leaf document (padiyola) was written concerning this. After that, all the things pertaining to religion were ruled by Mar Dionysios. While he was ruling, he began to change the conditions included in the palm-leaf document. The foreign bishop, waiting impatiently, did not get his salary. So in the year 1772 the foreign bishop ordained the ‘aposkopa’ of Mulanthuruthy as a bishop under the name Mar Qurillos. For doing this, he had obtained a letter from Kochi and a royal order from the Pērumpadappu Sorūvān (the Kochi king). Priestly ordination was given to many people. While he was ruling according to his position, Mar Dionysios went to the Thrupāppu Sorūvān and got a royal order, brought it to Fort Kochi and gave it to the Pērumpadappu Sorūvān. In many ways he influenced him [the king]; he brought Mar Qurillos by deceit and defamed him. When he [Mar Qurillos] was kept under the custody of Mar Dionysius, somehow he escaped in secret, went to the region (shīma) of Chavakkad of the Kozhikode king and lived there; he built a church and ordained some priests.112

As can be seen, there is a substantial measure of agreement between all the sources regarding the basic facts. There was dissatisfaction with Mar Dionysios I; Gregorios was in Koorilose’s care; the consecration was performed without any other bishop present. Yacoub III and Barsoum suggest that no actual consecration took place (Mar Koorilose simply assuming the espiscopal vestments), but the latter concedes that there is a tradition in Kerala which asserts its veracity.113

Translation supplied by Dr Perczel. The English version is in MS Mill 192, f.47. 113 Barsoum, Syriac Dioceses, p.64; Yacoub III, Syrian Church in India, p.121. 112

230

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

A common feature of the hostile sources is the clandestine nature of the consecration. This is difficult to reconcile with what happened next – a very public attempt to establish Metropolitical jurisdiction over the Puthenkuttukar.

The Rajah’s Ring114 The Palakunnathu Notes, Yacoub III’s sources, Mannanam Malayalam 3, MS Mill 192 and writers as diverse as Neill, Verghese and K.T.John all agree that Mar Koorilose obtained the support of the Rajah of Cochin who issued a proclamation recognizing his authority over the churches in the Cochin area: Kurilos had the support of Sakthan Thampuran, the Rajah of Cochin, the Paliath Achan, the hereditary Dewan [Prime Minister] of Cochin, and the Dutch authorities in Cochin. The Rajah appointed Kurilos as the Metropolitan of Cochin. The congregation in and around Mulanthuruthy, the stronghold of the Jacobites in the northern regions, was happy to have Kurilos as head of the Church.’115

The Rajah’s support was demonstrated symbolically by his giving to Mar Koorilose a ring. This was a ceremony that the ruling dynasty of Cochin had inherited from Velliyarvattam dynasty who had once ruled nearby Udayamperur.116 The ceremony pre-dated the consecration of Indian bishops in the 17th century. Prior to this it was to each new Archdeacon that the Rajah of Cochin had given a ring. Evidence survives from approximately 1683 of the tradition of the presentation of a ring to the recognised head of the Syrians being well established by that date:

114 I am most grateful to Mr M.P.Kochumon for drawing my attention to the significance of the ring ceremony. 115 K.T.John, Kattumagat Family, p.15. John is speaking of events in 1772. Neill. History, 2, p.70; Verghese, Brief Sketch, p.11. Even Yacoub III accepts that Mar Koorilose ‘corresponded with the churches of the kingdom of Cochin visiting some of them and ministering to others. He had many supporters in these churches, especially Mulanthuruthi, Kallikanchara and Kandanad’ (Syrian Church in India, p.121). 116 Kollaparambil, Revolution, pp.4, 151.

THE CONSECRATION OF TWO BISHOPS

231

Then he [Archdeacon Mathew de Campo, d.1706] went to the visit the king of Cochin, who giving him according to the custom a gold ring, recognised him as archdeacon and head of all the Christians of St Thomas, and as such promised him all favours and helps, in the same way as to his predecessors in the past. Thereafter the archdeacon exercised jurisdiction, both spiritual and temporal’.117

Mar Koorilose I himself refers to this ceremony in the first of two petitions made by him to Sakthan Thampuram, the Rajah of Cochin, in 1796. Having recounted briefly the history of the Syrian community, Mar Koorilose describes the consecration of Mar Thoma I in 1653 and His Majesty has approved and presented him a ring. There were no native bishops before this consecration. The prelates who came in 926 ME [1751 AD] consecrated and gave all the dignity of Metran to Kurilos in 947 ME and His Highness presented him the ring. And He also gave him the Royal Approval by a letter “to rule over the Malankara Puthenkur Christians and their churches as a Metran”.118

In a second petition to the Rajah of Cochin the same year (seeking the assigning of the Arthat parish (see below) to the 117 Letter from Carmelites to Fr Peter Paul, the prefect of their mission, ca. 1683 , quoted in Kollaparambil, Archdeacon, pp.164-168 where the full text of the letter is given. The actual reference to the ring is on p.165. See also Mundadan, HCI, II, p.185. Evidence associating the Rajahs of Cochin with the insignia of the head of the Puthenkuttukar can be traced even earlier. When in 1661 Bishop Joseph Sebastiani failed to capture Archdeacon Thomas [= Mar Thoma I] at Mulanthuruthy, he burned the Archdeacon’s palanquin and books. The Archdeacon’s ‘ornaments’, however, he gave to the Rajah of Cochin (Lee, Brief History, p.527). 118 Text in P.Raman Menon, Sakthan Thampuram, p.286. I am grateful to M.P.Kochumon for translating the Malayalam. 947 in the Malayalam Era corresponds to 1772 in Christian dating. M.P.Kochumon believes that the date was originally 941 (=1766 AD) and has been altered by the addition of a horizontal stroke to make 947. This explanation may not be necessary, however, if Mar Koorilose is referring, not to his consecration as bishop, but to Mar Gregorios’ attempt towards the end of his life to install him as Metropolitan in place of the unsatisfactory Dionysios.

232

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

Church of Thozhiyur), Mar Koorilose states, ‘I have remitted without any objection an amount of 5,000 puthen [the coinage then in use] when you appointed me as the Metran for the whole Church belonging to the Puthenkur’.119 Although by 1772 the ceremony may have lost some of the significance it had in earlier centuries, it looks very much as though the Rajah of Cochin understood himself to be doing what his ancestors had done, namely, recognising the head of the St Thomas Christians. Certainly, Mar Koorilose understood himself to have been accorded the same recognition that had been bestowed on Malankara Metropolitans from Mar Thoma I onwards, and, before them, on the Archdeacons of All-India. The bestowal of the ring indicates the significance of the position being conferred on Mar Koorilose I. There seems to be no evidence that Mar Dionysios had been recognised by the Rajah of Cochin by being given a ring of office. His consecration as Mar Thoma VI had taken place at a time when there was considerable confusion as to which of the various bishops then in Kerala could claim to be head of the community. If he had received the traditional symbol of the head of the St Thomas Christians, he would certainly have announced it, but does not seem to have done so. Equally, it seems unlikely that the Rajah had recognised Mar Dionysios in 1770, and then transferred that recognition to Mar Koorilose just two years later. It looks as though Mar Dionysios had never been presented with the ring of office by the Rajah of Cochin.120

Menon, Saktham Thampuram, p.289. If recognition had been given and then withdrawn, it would be a further piece of evidence in favour of 1770 as the likely date of Mar Dionysios’ consecration by Mar Gregorios. It is conceivable that the Rajah might have been persuaded to replace Mar Dionysios with Mar Koorilose after two years, but not that he did so after a few weeks. There could in fact have been two rings: one, which had been brought originally from Syria, was presented to Mar Dionysios I at his consecration by the Antiochene bishops. The second ring was delivered to the Metropolitan by the Rajah. See P.C.Jacob, The Jacobite Church and the Orthodox Faith, p.28. 119 120

THE CONSECRATION OF TWO BISHOPS

233

The persecution of Mar Koorilose I It is clear that after his ‘elevation’ by Mar Gregorios and his recognition by the Rajah of Cochin, Mar Koorilose was accepted as Metropolitan by a number of Syrian Churches and ministered as bishop to them. Mar Koorilose’s own account of 1796, as seen above, states that it was in 1772 that he was consecrated Metran and ‘was given authority to govern as Metran over all the Churches of the Puthencoor Christians in Malankara’. This state of affairs was in due course brought to an end. Some of the traditions concerning this are found in the various sources. In the context of a community that accorded (and still accords) great reverence to bishops, the humiliations imposed on Mar Koorilose I are deeply shocking. Mar Koorilose himself was in no doubt as to who was to blame for his removal from office: The Pothimadan [Mar Dionysios I] who belongs to Trippappa Swarupam [the territory of the Rajah of Venad-Travancore] claimed his descent from the aforesaid Mar Thoma [ie Mar Thoma I] and came to Perumpadappu Swarupam [the Rajah of Cochin] with all the officials of that place. He claimed jurisdiction over Cochin, too. Since he was a strong and argumentative person, all the Churches of Mar Koorilose were given to him. The believers under the Rajah of Cochin were reluctant to accept, but were forced to accept the authority of Pothimadan.121

It is clear that Mar Koorilose believed the decision to be unjust, not least because it resulted from an unwarranted interference by the Rajah of Travancore in a matter traditionally the prerogative of the Rajah of Cochin. In the petition quoted in the Cochin State Manual, Mar Koorilose I complains to the Rajah of Cochin that it was according to the will of Travancore that the right was given to a Catholic Bishop [ie Mar Thoma VI with his Romanising tendencies] … especially when there is no need for the Travancore dynasty to interfere in this matter. The Syrian Christians have no need to obey him [Mar Thoma VI/Dionysios] for he 121

Menon, Saktham Thampuram, p.289.

234

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS was appointed by the Rajah of Tranvancore, ignoring the right of the Rajah of Cochin.122

Mar Koorilose I’s account is supported by MS Mill 192’s record of 1813 which states that Mar Dionysios prevailed upon the Rajah of Travancore and obtained letters from him which he used to force the Rajah of Cochin and the Dutch to withdraw their support of Mar Koorilose. Mar Dionysios got Bishop Cyril under him, and he brought the latter to his Residency, insulted him and kept him under restraint, from where he escaped and went off secretly to Choughaut in the District of the Rajah of Calicut, where he built a Church….123

All accounts refer to the confiscation of Mar Koorilose’s episcopal insignia by his rival, though there is no unanimity on precisely at what stage it took place. Mill, for example, records that Mar Koorilose was betrayed by the Rajah of Cochin ‘(after he had already yielded the insignia of his office) to the hands of his rival – who imprisoned him and used him most barbarically’.124 What were these insignia? It seems unlikely that in 1764 the Maphrian gave Mar Koorilose the insignia brought from Antioch for the Malanakara Metropolitan, as there is no record of any action of Mar Thoma VI against Mar Koorilose at that stage.125 By 1772, how122 Menon, Saktham Thampuram, p.287. Mar Koorilose’s objection seems to be based partly on the fact that, prior to Martanda Varma’s annexation of the surrounding petty kingdoms, the Rajahs of the original territory of Travancore had very few Syrian Christians in their domains. The bulk of the Syrians had lived under the authority of the Rajah of Cochin. In the late 18th century the involvement of the Rajah of Travancore in Christian affairs would have seemed an unwarranted novelty (see Cheriyan, CMS, p.30ff). 123 MS Mill 192, f.48. Fenn’s account is essentially the same: ‘Mar Dionysios possessing the greatest influence, having secured the assistance of the Dutch Government, compelled Cyril to deliver up his insignia of office. Cyril then retired to the Country which is now the Company’s Country of Calicut ….’ (Letter dated 3 March 1826, MS Mill 191, f.91v). 124 MS Mill 193, f.22. 125 It will be recalled that Maphrian Shukr Allah Basilios and his companion brought from Antioch ‘crozier, ring and crucifix’ to bestow on the Malankara Metropolitan (JRAS, II, (1835), p,53f).

THE CONSECRATION OF TWO BISHOPS

235

ever, Mar Koorilose was in possession (in addition to what Mar Basilios may have given him) of whatever ornaments Mar Gregorios had given him at his elevation to Metropolitan, and of the ring given by the Rajah of Cochin. It is conceivable that those given by Mar Gregorios included items from West Asia. Whatever their precise nature, it is clear that Mar Dionysios was extremely anxious to remove Mar Koorilose’s insignia. This suggests that whatever insignia Mar Koorilose had in 1772, they were capable of being interpreted not merely episcopal insignia, but as Metropolitical insignia. This would certainly be the case with the Rajah’s ring, and accounts for Mar Dionysios’ draconian attempts to humiliate his rival. The precise details are confused. Verghese states that Mar Koorilose was summoned by Mar Dionysios to Kandanat, while Neill maintains that he was in fact delivered into the latter's custody by the Rajah.126 Barsoum says that the Dutch handed him over to the Rajah.127 Yacoub III’s sources state that the Dutch set up a court to assess Mar Koorilose’s claims. They then ordered his arrest, upon which Mar Koorilose appealed to the Vicar Apostolic of Verapoly for assistance. The Vicar Apostolic agreed to help, but Mar Koorilose was arrested before anything could be done.128 Certainly he was for a period in effect a prisoner and attempts were made to get him to give up his episcopal robe and staff and to celebrate the Holy Qurbana as a priest.129 The evidence seems incontrovertible that there was an attempt to make Mar Koorilose I Malankara Metropolitan and thus head of the entire St Thomas Christian community. Attempts to explain this action simply as an attempt by Mar Gregorios to ‘pay back’ Mar Dionysios for his ill-treatment of him, or as a piece of scheming by Mar Koorilose himself, fail to take into account the Verghese, Brief Sketch, p.11; Neill, p.70 (Neill admits that ‘other accounts vary’). 127 Syriac Dioceses, p.65. 128 Syrian Church in India, p.125. If true, this is an interesting example of involvement with the Pazhayakur community. 129 Verghese, Brief Sketch, p.11. Kaniamparampil describes Mar Dionysios I’s decision regarding Mar Koorilose as ‘extremely harsh’ (Syrian Orthodox Church, p.112). 126

236

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

fact that there was clearly an attempt to observe the traditional forms for recognising ‘the national head of the Christian community’.130 These could not have taken place without the support of a substantial proportion of the Syrians. A hitherto overlooked piece of evidence in this regard is the ceremony of the bestowal of a ring by the Rajah of Cochin. Palakunnathu Abraham Malpan, in his account dated 1840, gives some further detail, some of which still survives in the oral tradition of the MISC: [Following representation by Mar Dionysios] the Dutch and the Rajah [of Cochin] then decided that Cyrilus was in the wrong and promised to support the Syrian Canons which forbad intrusion into another See. These however decided that he must remain a Ramban – Cyril was sent to Candenada Church where the two Bishops [presumably Mar Dionysios and Mar Gregorios or Mar Ivanios] were staying and he returned to them the pastoral staff, the mitre and the crozier – these they placed in the Chancel – they took away his scarlet robe as degradation – he was ordered to remain in confinement.131 Confinement did not suit Cyril so he placed a wet cloth on his head and slept – this as he expected brought on sickness and he told Mar Dionysios that he must go home to be recovered of his sickness. This Dionysios granted. He stayed at home a few days and secretly went to Calicut where the Mohamedan power was exercised. There he had granted to him a compound or garden at Anyor near Canungalmum – there he created a Chapel and dwelt. He made new insignia of office and set up as Metran.132

The phrase is Kollamparambil’s (Archdeacon, p.15). This event seems to be the same as that referred to in Yacoub III, Syrian Church in India, p.125. The period of confinement is said there to have lasted three months. 132 MS Mill 192, f.6. Thozhiyur tradition (which Kaniamparampil accepts) states that Mar Koorilose, by wrapping a wet cloth round his head all night, brought on a severe fever which saved him from the embarrassment of having to do so. Barsoum’s source alleges that Koorilose ‘faked 130 131

THE CONSECRATION OF TWO BISHOPS

237

The treatment of Mar Koorilose by Mar Dionysios was clearly not universally approved, as Luigio Maria’s account makes clear: The Malabarians pretend that Mar Cyrilius or Cattamangalon, who was banished by the engagement of Mar Thoma and the force of the Kings of Cochin and Travancore and the Company, was truly a Bishop, and were scandalised at the Manner in which Mar Thoma or Mar Dionysios behaved towards him. He remained in the North in the neighbourhood of Ponanni.133

Robinson’s account essentially agrees with these, though, writing to the Patriarch, he clearly feels the need to be circumspect: And it is said also, though with what truth I know not certainly, that when Mar Gregorius had given the title of Metropolitan to Dionysios, and when Mar Dionysios afterwards refused to give him the maintenance he agreed to give, then Mar Gregorius gave the same title of Metropolitan to Mar Cyrillus.134

The earliest witnesses therefore present a coherent account: Abraham Kattumangat was consecrated ‘aposkopa’, with the name Koorilose by Maphrian Mar Basilios (ie before November 1764). Following the death of the Maphrian he made no attempt to claim episcopal jurisdiction, but lived in a monastic community at Thevanal. In 1770 Mar Gregorios and Mar Ivanios were prevailed upon to re-consecrate Mar Thoma VI. By 1772 relations between them and the new bishop had deteriorated to such an extent that Mar Gregorios attempted to make Mar Koorilose Malankara Metropolitan. After initial support from the Rajah and Churches of Cochin, under pressure from the Rajah of Travancore and Mar

illness and went to British Malabar, ostensibly to seek medical treatment’ (Syriac Dioceses, p.65). 133 MS Mill 192, f.201. 134 Heber, Journal, III, pp.492. Robinson shared Bishop Heber’s belief that the Malankara Metropolitan should be appointed by the Patriarch. He believed, therefore, that the title was ‘wrongly assumed’ by Philoxenos II (ibid.).

238

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

Dionysios, Mar Koorilose was deposed as Metropolitan and eventually fled north beyond the territory of Cochin. Why did the Rajah of Travancore favour Mar Dionysios I? A significant reason seems to be his favourable attitude to the Roman Catholic community and missionaries. This was so marked that Florentius wrote to Pope Clement XIV about it, eliciting a letter of thanks from the Pope to Rama Varma.135 Presumably, to the Rajah, Mar Dionysios I, being of a Romo-Syrian family and known to desire union with Rome was no doubt preferable to Mar Koorilose I who was clearly the ‘anti-Rome’ candidate.136 Given the plausibility of this account, why has 1772 come to be regarded definitively as the year of Mar Koorilose I’s episcopal consecration? 137 One reason appears to be simply that, with the passage of time, the two events – the consecration and the attempt to make him Malankara Metropolitan – became conflated. It was the second of these that had had the larger political impact and was more likely to be remembered. Further, there does not appear to be any evidence that Mar Koorilose attempted to function as a bishop in the years between his consecration and the events of 1772. All that is known of him in this period is that he resided at Thevanal. It is highly likely that the fact of his consecration was not generally known. Had it been, Mar Dionysios I would have acted against him earlier. In after years all that was remembered in the wider Puthenkur community was the year of Mar Gregorios’ failed ‘coup’ which resulted in Mar Dionysios IV’s undisputed control over the whole community – 1772. 135 Text and discussion in Puthussery, Reunion Efforts, pp.78-81. Cheriyan states that, ‘there is ample evidence to show that Rama Varma Maha Rajah was very well disposed towards the Roman Catholics’ (CMS, p.35 and see the sources quoted there). 136 To some extent he was probably also seen as the ‘innovating’ candidate. His adherence to Antiochene ways would be seen as departing from the community’s inherited usage. 137 Brown, Indian Christians, p.130, actually gives the date 2 July 1774, though no direct source for the information is given. K.T.John agrees with the date, but says it is the date of Mar Koorilose’s exile from Cochin (Kattumangat Family, p.16).

THE CONSECRATION OF TWO BISHOPS

239

Why was the attempt to make Mar Koorilose I Malankara Metropolitan unsuccessful? A number of possible reasons may now be listed. 1. Mar Thoma VI/Dionysios I was not prepared to give up his position and was clearly a man of sufficiently strong character to fight to maintain it. 2. Mar Koorilose clearly had some enemies. K.T.John tells how Mar Thoma VI/Dionysios enlisted the help of Ipekora Tharakan of Kandanat, a rich and powerful friend of the Rajah of Cochin, whom Mar Koorilose had angered by beginning the Qurbana one Sunday before Tharakan had arrived in Church.138 3. It was not clear that the Puthenkur community was irrevocably committed to adopting a West Syrian identity. To accept Mar Koorilose meant the increasing abandonment of the post-Diamper liturgical practices and closing off the possibility of re-uniting the community under Rome (or under one of the East Syrian Patriarchs). There were undoubtedly some individuals who were not prepared to see that happen. 4. Mar Koorilose had no support from the Roman Catholic authorities in Kerala. To them he was a Monophysite heretic, and of no use to them in bringing the Puthenkuttukar under Roman obedience. 5. Perhaps one of the strongest reasons was simply that Mar Koorilose I was not of the Pakalomattom dynasty. The attachment of the community to the family that, since the days of St Thomas (as it was believed) had supplied its Archdeacons and Metropolitans, should not be underestimated. Bayly’s anthropological analysis noted in Chapter 3 indicates something of the centrality of the dynasty to 138

K.T.John, Kattumangat Family, p.16.

240

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS the Syrian Christians’ relationship with its sources of legitimacy and ‘power’. Even the Latin bishops had felt unable to appoint Archdeacons from outside its ranks.139 In some respects the reverence for the Pakalomattoms had increased since the division of the community. Ever since the Coonen Cross oath and the arrival of Mar Gregorios Abdul Jaleel all bishops in the somewhat erratic succession had been members of the family. By obtaining episcopal consecration the Pakalomattoms had themselves become independent sources of the ‘spiritual energy’ that gave the community its life. Mar Koorilose I was the first bishop consecrated for the Puthenkuttukar not of this family. While this was clearly not a major factor to the Antiochene bishops, it was a revolutionary step in the eyes of the local Syrians. To accept a non-Pakalomattom imposed on them by foreign bishops was both to accept the same type of external ‘control’ as the Pazhayakuttukar were chafing under, and to cut themselves off from the priestly line established by St Thomas himself. 6. Travancore had become a powerful state by the second half of the 18th century, following the expansionist campaigns of Martanda Varma and in 1772 had a Rajah known to favour Roman Catholics. The Rajah of Cochin may have been prepared to abandon Mar Koorilose I rather than risk a confrontation with his southern neighbour. 7. Allied to this last point is the fact that the Syrians to a significant degree functioned as two groupings of Churches – North and South. This has already been noted in the territorial differentiation between the Churches affiliated to Mar Thoma IV and Mar Gabriel earlier in the century. By the closing decades of the 18th century these groupings approximated with the kingdoms of Cochin and Travancore respectively. Mulanthuruthy, the home Church of Mar Koorilose I, was definitely in the northern group of Churches. For that reason alone he would not have been 139

Kollaparambil, Archdeacon, pp.240-248.

THE CONSECRATION OF TWO BISHOPS

241

immediately acceptable to the southern Churches. We shall see parallels to this scenario in later Chapters. 8. By the 1770s the Dutch were a declining force. They may have witnessed and approved the 1772 elevation of Mar Koorilose as Malankara Metropolitan, but they did not have the power (or commitment) to insist on his acceptance. SUMMARY

After a examining a range of complex material it is helpful to summarise the main areas where the earliest sources agree and to attempt to construct a probable sequence of events: ‰

‰

‰ ‰

‰

‰

The coming of the 1751 delegation from Antioch was a defining moment. This was certainly so liturgically, for it was the beginning of the widespread adoption of the Syrian Orthodox rite among the non-Roman Syrians. The lasting authority of the delegation would also increase the prestige of any line of bishops deriving from it. There were good reasons why the Antiochene prelates should favour Kattumangat Abraham as one likely to be more loyal to their cause than Mar Thoma V or VI. Maphrian Mar Basilios consecrated Abraham Kattumangat a bishop, probably immediately before his death in 1764 Following the death of Mar Basilios, Mar Koorilose and a number of companions lived in the monastic community of Mar Behanan at Thevanal. During this period he seems to have made no attempt to exercise an episcopal ministry in the wider community. In 1770 Mar Gregorios in the presence of Mar Ivanios reordained Mar Thoma VI to all the Orders, including Metropolitan.140 Following a breakdown of relations between himself and Mar Dionysios I, in 1772 Mar Gregorios attempted to make Mar Koorilose Malankara Metropolitan. This attempt originally had

140 ‘The stature of the Pakalamarrams was much enhanced by this act’ (Bayly, Saints, p.271).

242

‰

‰

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS the support of the Rajah of Cochin and a number of Churches in Cochin (ie the northern group). Mar Dionysios I and the majority of the non-Roman Christian community was not prepared to see the leadership of the community pass out of the Pakalomattom family in which it had been hereditary for centuries. Under pressure from the pro-Roman Rajah of Travancore, the Rajah of Cochin ceased his support for Mar Koorilose I and accepted Mar Dionysios I as Malankara Metropolitan. Subsequent events will be examined in the following Chapter.

The Bestowing of Metropolitan Status. Such a sequence reconciles the strong MISC tradition (supported now by some independent evidence) of an early date for Mar Koorilose’s consecration with the body of evidence relating to the years 1772-1774. Once it is appreciated that the Syrian traditions have a separate rite for raising a bishop to a Metropolitan, the above sequence becomes entirely plausible. We have noted in earlier Chapters how in the 1680s Mar Basilios Yaldo raised Mar Ivanios Hidayathulla (who was already a bishop) to the rank of Metropolitan, and how Patriarch Georgios III promoted Mar Ivanios of Mar Behnam to be Metropolitan of Jerusalem.141 The service described by most sources as Mar Koorilose’s episcopal consecration in 1772 would, on this interpretation, have been in fact his raising to ‘full metropolitan dignity’. The liturgy for making a bishop a Metropolitan includes many of the same features of an actual episcopal consecration – vesting with insignia, seating the candidate in a chair, the singing of ‘Oxios’ [= ‘worthy’, cf the Greek ἄξιος (axios)] – all within the context of the Qurbana. To the general observer the services (conducted in Syriac) would look virtually indistinguishable.142 141 Jacob Baradeus himself is reported to have consecrated Bishop Ahudemmeh (d. 575) to the rank of Metropolitan (Bar Hebraeus, Ecclesiastical History, II, 99-101, quoted in Baby Varghese, ‘Maphrianate’, p.312. See also Barsoum, Scattered Pearls, p.299. 142 For a discussion of the rite of consecration of Patriarchs, Metropolitans and Bishops (with an accompanying French translation) see G.

THE CONSECRATION OF TWO BISHOPS

243

Mar Gregorios’ Blindness and the interval between the Consecrations of Mar Dionysios I and Mar Koorilose I One further discrepancy remains to be considered. It was recorded above that, among the earliest sources, Fenn states that ‘Mar Gregorius in the same year in which he consecrated Mar Dionysios conferred also on Cyril the dignity of Metropolitan’143 and that some Roman Catholic sources affirm 1772 as the date of Mar Dionysios’ consecration. Why should Mar Gregorios perform the two acts so closely together? Such a juxtaposition does not seem to leave time for the breakdown in relations between Mar Gregorios and Mar Dionysios I which is generally claimed to be the motivation for the consecration of Mar Koorilose I as Metropolitan. In addition, as seen, there was a persistent tradition that Mar Gregorios’ eyesight was so poor that he was unable to celebrate the Qurbana at the ceremony with Mar Koorilose; yet there is no mention in any of the sources of such a problem at Mar Dionysios’ consecration. Had the Antiochene bishop’s eyesight deteriorated so severely in such a short time? In fact, the eyewitness detail about Mar Gregorios’ blindness argues strongly in favour of the consecration of Mar Dionysios having taken place in 1770, and the elevation of Mar Koorilose to Metropolitan having taken place in 1772. It is quite credible that Mar Gregorios’ eyesight could have deteriorated sufficiently in two years to prevent him playing as full a part in the latter ceremony as he had in the former. Moreover, the time span involved would allow for the deterioration in the relationship referred to above.144

Khouri-Sarkis, ‘Le Rituel du Sacre des Évêques et des Patriarches dans l’Église Syrienne d’Antioch’, in L’Orient Syrien, VIII, 2 (1963) 137-212. For the East Syrian rites see Badger, Rituals, II, pp.340-349. 143 MS Mill 191, f.91v. 144 If Mar Dionysios’ consecration in fact took place in 1772, as some of the Roman sources and Fenn’s account suggest, then it is possible that Mar Gregorios understood himself to have been consecrating Mar Thoma VI as a bishop, with Mar Koorilose I as Metropolitan – in other words as Mar Dionysios’ superior. No contemporary source seems to state this, but it would account for Mar Dionysios’ violent repudiation of Mar Koorilose I.

244

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

Evidence Destroyed The actions of Mar Athanasios Abdul Messih who, as will be described more fully in Chapter 10, came from Antioch half a century later, also lend some support to this account of events. Before his forcible removal from India by the British, the bishop in question is alleged to have destroyed the ‘credentials’ given by Mar Gregorios of Jerusalem to Mar Koorilose I in 1772 ‘which were of importance in establishing the title of the present line of metropolitans’.145 Why was it so important for Mar Athanasios – who had tried to get himself acknowledged as Metropolitan on the throne of St Thomas – to destroy the documents in question? Clearly they must have contained something that would prejudice his claim. It may be that in bestowing the title of Malankara Metropolitan on Mar Koorilose I, Mar Gregorios (who, after all, had come to India precisely to regularise the episcopal succession) had also given him the right to bestow that title on his successors. Perhaps, among the Dutch records in Chennai, the manuscript collections in the UK, or the scattered Malayalam and Syriac documents in Kerala there still exists evidence that will allow the precise sequence of the consecrations and their surrounding events to be established definitively. Until such documents come to light, the present state of the evidence makes absolute certainty impossible. What has emerged from the present investigation is that the much-repeated date of 1772 for Abraham Kattumangat’s episcopal consecration by Mar Gregorios does not seem to be supported by the earliest surviving sources. Any attempt to defend the ‘generally accepted’ account has to explain why four significant early witnesses – Paulinus, Ramban Joseph Pulikottil, Luigio Maria, and Fenn – assert that it was Mar Basilios who conferred the episcopal office on the Indian Ramban;146 and why they and succeeding writers such as Swanston and Robinson clearly distinguish this from the attempt to make Koorilose Malankara Metropolitan. 145 Swanston, JRAS, II (1835) p.61. We have already noted the hint in Abraham’s 1769 letter to the Patriarch that there was probably no susthaticon from Mar Basilios. See chapter 10 for a discussion of the context of the destruction of the ‘credentials’. 146 Nor does there seem to be any evidence that any contemporary contradicted them in this assertion.

THE CONSECRATION OF TWO BISHOPS

245

From the point of view of later events it matters little whether Mar Koorilose I was consecrated in 1764 or 1772.147 Any attempt to claim greater legitimacy for his ‘line’ on the basis that it was inaugurated by a Maphrian, has long been overtaken by subsequent developments in the Syrian Church in India as will be shown below. While it can never now be known to what extent he was a willing participant in what might be described as the attempted ‘coup’ of 1772, it is nevertheless clear that throughout his life Mar Koorilose I remained more constantly loyal to the Syrian Orthodox cause than did Mar Dionysios I. THE END OF THE MAPHRIAN’S DELEGATION

On July 10 1773 Mar Gregorios died and was buried in Mulanthuruthy Church where the anniversary of his death is still observed.148 In his will, witnessed by Abraham Shultz, secretary to the Dutch commodore in Cochin and by Francis Robert of the Dutch East India Company, he left his episcopal ornaments and ‘most of his considerable wealth consisting of gold ornaments and precious stones’ to Mar Koorilose.149 As noted above, Moens states that Mar Thoma V/Mar Dionysios I had ‘always lived at enmity’ with Mar Ivanios, until 1773 when the two bishops were apparently reconciled by Moens’ ‘intercession and constant exhortations’.150 Mar Ivanios lived on until 1794 and was buried at Chengannur.151 Moens describes him thus: 147 Though it may have influenced events in the early 1840s. See Chapter 12. 148 Moens, Memorandum, p.177. Barsoum gives the date of death as 27th June 1773 (Syriac Dioceses, p.64). Whitehouse records Mar Gregorios’ tomb at Mulanthuruthy and says he died ‘about 1772’ (Lingerings, p.104). 149 Yacoub III, Syrian Church in India, p.121f (though the names differ slightly); K.T.John, Kattumangat Family, p.18; Brown, Indian Christians, p.130. The items mentioned are Mar Gregorios’ personal possessions, not the official ones brought from Mesopotamia for investing the Malankara Metropolitan. They are still kept at Thozhiyur. 150 Moens, Memorandum, p.178. 151 Barsoum, Syriac Dioceses, p.81; E.M. Philip, 7th April 1794 (Indian Church, p.165); Kanianmparampil, 7 Medom 1794 (Syrian Orthodox Church, p.113). For further details on Mar Ivanios see Yacoub III, Syrian Church in India, p.126f.

246

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS [He] is fair in complexion and is a venerable old man with a long beard, dressed almost in the same fashion as all the old Jewish priests. He wears on his head a cap, like a turban, and seems to be a pious, modest and upright Christian.152

The death of Mar Ivanios left the Puthenkuttukar with two Indian bishops – perhaps the first time that this had ever occurred. We turn in the next Chapter to examine further aspects of the relationship between them. POSTSCRIPT: WHY ‘KOORILOSE’?

It is worth reflecting briefly on the name given to Kattumangat Abraham by his consecrator. As bestowed by a Syrian Orthodox bishop, the name almost certainly alludes to Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria from 412 to 444, the doughty spokesman of the Miaphysite cause, who secured the deposition of Patriarch Nestorios of Constantinople at the Council of Ephesus in 431.153 It is therefore, understandably, not a name that would be bestowed in an East Syrian context. Equally, in Roman eyes, Cyril of Alexandria was identified with the ‘Monophysite heresy’. It could well be that by naming his protégé Cyril, Mar Basilios was distancing him from both the Church of the East and from Rome, and was binding him firmly to the Miaphysite cause as expressed in Syrian Orthodoxy.

152 Moens, Memorandum, p.178. The parallels to Visscher’s description of Mar Gabriel earlier in the century are striking. Both Dutchmen had a high regard for the West Asian prelates and were equally scathing of their Indian contemporaries. 153 Verghese states that this was in fact the reason for the bestowal of the name (Brief Sketch, p.10).

CHAPTER 8: MAR KOORILOSE I AND MAR DIONYSIOS I: FURTHER THEMES Having established a likely sequence for the events which had led to the consecration of two bishops, it is now necessary to look at the subsequent actions of the two protagonists. MAR DIONYSIOS I’S ATTEMPTS TO UNITE WITH ROME

Even once safely out of the way at Anjur, it seems that the mere existence of Mar Koorilose continued to influence events in the larger Puthenkur community. To understand this, it is necessary to retrace our steps somewhat. As we have seen, ever since the Coonen Cross incident and its aftermath, the Puthenkuttukar had been under pressure to re-unite with the Pazhayakuttukar. Much of this pressure came from the Roman hierarchy and religious Orders who tried, by a range of methods, to create a single community under Roman obedience. By the end of the 17th century, as described above, these efforts had been largely successful and most of the St Thomas Christians were back under Roman obedience, though pastored by European bishops under two different jurisdictions – the Portuguese Padroado and the Propaganda mission. From a Roman Catholic perspective the task still outstanding was to bring over the remaining Syrians who were being haphazardly pastored by a rather chaotic succession of (in Roman eyes) ‘Nestorian’ and ‘Jacobite’ intruders and native bishops of sometimes questionable consecration. The pressure to unite the Puthenkuttukar with their RomoSyrian brethren did not come solely from European ecclesiastics. There was a constant tendency in that direction from – surprisingly – the hereditary leaders of the Puthenkuttukar themselves: the Pakalomattom dynasty. The reason for this is found in the peculiar circumstances relating to the family, most of whom, according to Swanston had: 247

248

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS gone over to the Roman Catholics with Alexander of Palakommatta; since which period the custom had been to get a youth from that family, and place him with the metropolitan for the time being, to instruct him and eventually to consecrate him.1

We have already seen, in Chapter 6, how Mar Alexander de Campo, Mar Thoma II and the former’s prospective successor, Mathew, were all members of the same family, though on different sides of the ecclesiastical divide. Mar Thoma VI was himself an example of this practice. His supporter, Paremmakkal describes his circumstances: He was born of Catholic parents of the parish of Kuravilangat, was baptized there, and for a short time was also brought up there. Today [ie in 1785] he desires to join the Pazhayath not only because of his knowledge but also because of his good will and of the faith and education he received from his parents along with his mother’s milk.2

The custom illustrates how immensely powerful the hereditary principle then was - stronger even than Roman or Antiochene loyalties. This in itself makes it easier to understand why the acceptance of Mar Koorilose I was such a radical departure and hence so fiercely resisted. Further, it shows that ecclesiastical identities were by no means as ‘fixed’ as later perceptions would believe. Transfer between the Roman and Non-Roman Syrians was clearly still possible and acceptable. The young Aip (Joseph) was no doubt chosen by his uncle Mar Thoma V and brought up to succeed him.3 This in itself is no doubt a good reason why Mar Thoma V kept his distance from the

Swanston, JRAS, II, (1835), p.53f. Varthamanappusthakam, p.61. 3 Kollaparambil states that the transference was ‘under pressure’ from his maternal uncle, but does not quote a direct contemporary statement to this effect (‘Dionysios’, p.150). The custom of selecting a young nephew and preparing him for the episcopate survived into the 20th century in the Church of the East. 1 2

MAR KOORILOSE I AND MAR DIONYSIOS I

249

1751 Maphrian’s delegation – he did not want them interfering in the hereditary system. Thus the Pakalomattom Metropolitans belonged to both communities. To unite those communities under themselves must have seemed highly desirable. To do so under Roman obedience would not have seemed unnatural. In the event, Mar Thoma VI/Dionysios I was to be the last Pakalomattom Metropolitan to make a serious attempt to unite the Puthenkuttukar and Pazhayakuttukar – it was, indeed, to be the dominant theme of his long episcopate.4 There is contemporary evidence that a significant reason for his failure was Mar Koorilose I. It is therefore necessary to explore the main lines of his approaches to Rome. Both before and after his consecration by Mar Gregorios, Mar Thoma VI/Dionysios I had made overtures to the Roman authorities in Kerala.5 The first record of this dates from 1768, just a few years after Mar Thoma VI had succeeded his uncle.6 At this stage the term used of him by the Roman authorities was ‘laicus mitratus’ or ‘episcopus laicus’ - his ‘consecration’ by his uncle not being recognised. This being the case, they suggested offering Mar Thoma VI either a papal knighthood or the title of Protonotary Apostolic, which would not involve spiritual jurisdiction. Following his consecration by Mar Gregorios, Mar Dionysios renewed his attempts at recognition. He received encouragement in this from the Pazhayakuttukar, who were then smarting from the perceived humiliation of not being allowed to carry the body of the Vicar Apostolic,

‘More than all his predecessors Mar Thoma VI desired and tried to be received into the Catholic Church’, Varthamanappusthakam, p.17. 5 Varthamanappusthakam, p.57f. Relations between the European religious Orders at times broke out into open enmity. Such a situation must have encouraged Mar Thoma VI to believe that one day the community would turn to him to unite it. For the disorders in the Syro-Malabar community see Tisserant, Eastern Christianity, pp.93-97. 6 The details of his various attempts are described in Kollaparambil, ‘Dionysios’, passim, and Puthussery, Reunion Efforts, pp.152-162. Throughout this period Florentius was reporting back to Rome on the numbers of Puthenkuttukar who were converting to Rome (Puthussery, Reunion Efforts, p.179). 4

250

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

Florentius, at his funeral in July 1773.7 The following month the leading Pazhayakur clergy convened a meeting at St Hormisdas Church in Angamale and demanded the union of the St Thomas Christians, free from foreign connections.8 In such a climate, it is not surprising that the European bishops and their colleagues in the main distrusted Mar Dionysios I’s motives in approaching them and refused to receive him. In 1774 the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith issued an instruction to the Vicar Apostolic to encourage Mar Dionsysios to submit, but without promising him very much in the way of authority if he did so.9 For his part, Mar Dionysios insisted on acceptance of his episcopal status and jurisdiction over at least some Syrian parishes. Eventually, some of the Pazhayakuttukar, frustrated by the reluctance of the European clerics in India to further Mar Dionysios’ cause, attempted a direct appeal to the Pope. THE MISSION OF JOSEPH KARIATTIL

This took the form of the small delegation of 1778, noted in the previous Chapter, headed by the Malpan Joseph Kariattil, who had studied for several years at the Propaganda in Rome and received a doctorate from there.10 With the support of 72 Syrian Churches the 7 The Carmelites had insisted on carrying the body. For an account of the funeral see Puthussery, Reunion Efforts, pp.210-214. 8 The ‘Angamale Yogam’ and its consequences are described in Puthussery, Reunion Efforts, pp.214-238. There were in fact a number of grievances, including a sense of outrage that Latin-rite priests were dressing like Syrian kathanars (Podipara, Latin Rite Christians, pp.61-63). 9 Text in Podipara, ‘Efforts’, p.13. Interestingly, the Instruction refers to Mar Dionysios as ‘laico mitrato’, but also speaks of a ‘schismatic bishop’ [vescovo schismatico] who intruded himself into that mission’. Podipara says that the identity of the ‘schismatic bishop’ is unknown, but it would seem highly likely that it is Mar Koorilose I, of whom Rome was aware (see below). Note that he is referred to as a bishop, while Mar Dionysios only as a layman. 10 For details of his life see Payngot, ‘Mar Joseph Cariattil: Life and Activities’, in idem (ed.), Homage to Mar Cariattil, pp.35-64; and Puthussery, Reunion Efforts, pp.195-205. Kariattil was born in 1742 and died in 1786. He was ordained priest in Rome in 1766. Vicar Apostolic Florentius had encouraged his education.

MAR KOORILOSE I AND MAR DIONYSIOS I

251

delegation left for Rome in 1778, arriving there in January 1780, having spent some time in Portugal. It is the story of this delegation that is recounted in the Varthamanappusthakam. They took with them Mar Dionysios I’s profession of faith and his petition for reception: I was convinced from the learned priests of the Catholic Church, as well as from the books of the Sacred Councils, that the creed I received is not orthodox and also, that no one can be saved without the Catholic Faith, … [the letter then recounts how the Jesuit Archbishop and the Carmelite VicarGeneral refused to receive Mar Dionysios, hence this direct appeal to Rome] … So far as it lies within my power, I with my people swear before the Omnipotent God and promise to embrace and believe with our whole strength what the Catholic Church embraces and believes ….11

Furious at this attempt by the Indians to circumvent them, the religious Orders and European ecclesiastical dignitaries in Kerala attempted to discredit Kariattil’s delegation, which suffered numerous delays and humiliations as a consequence. Eventually Kariattil travelled from Rome back to Portugal, where in 1783 Kariattil himself was consecrated Archbishop of Cranganore (Kodungalloor) on the nomination of the Queen of Portugal.12 The consecration took place in St Benedict’s Church in Lisbon on 17th February 1783. There as a high price to pay. The first St Thomas Christian to be consecrated Archbishop of Cranganore was required to transfer to Mackenzie, State of Christianity, p.94. A slightly longer version is given in Podipara, ‘Efforts’, pp.14-15. In this Mar Dionysios states that formerly he ‘was believing the faith of the Chaldeans of the East and of the Jacobites which are different from the faith of the Roman Church’. Podipara comments that ‘we do not know what Mar Dionysios meant by the faith of the Chaldeans of the East’ (‘Efforts’, p.15, n.1). The fact that Mar Dionysios can refer to both ‘Chaldeans of the East’ and ‘Jacobites’ in the same sentence suggests strongly that he was aware of the original East Syrian identity of his community, which was now assimilating West Syrian teaching and practices. 12 There were political overtones to the somewhat surprising nomination, which was an assertion of Padroado rights against the Propaganda. 11

252

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

the Latin rite and was forbidden to use his ancestral Syrian rite.13 After being delayed in Europe for a further two years by various influential Portuguese who objected to an Indian being appointed to a Padroado see, Kariattil returned to India, with authority to resolve the situation, but died in Goa on 9th September 1786 before having had an opportunity to admit Mar Dionysios I into communion with Rome.14 Not surprisingly, many Syrians suspected that he had been poisoned to prevent him bringing about the re-union of their community.15 OPPOSITION TO MAR DIONYSIOS’ RECEPTION

Throughout Kariattil’s mission the European ecclesiastical authorities in India had been making strenuous efforts to dissuade Rome from authorizing the reception of Mar Dionysios I. Paremmakkal believed that their motivation arose in large part from a fear that Mar Dionysios’ reception would result in a loss of their own authority over the St Thomas Christians – ‘Who could rule over Malabar if a bishop from among the Malabarians were given them?’16 Chief among those resisting the acceptance of a native bishop was Paulinus a S. Bartholomeo. A surviving letter of Paulinus, dated 12th February 1785, reveals that Mar Koorilose I was a factor in the situation:

13 For the text of the Indult see John Madey, ‘Oriental Catholics in Roman Catholic Dioceses’, in Payngot, Homage, p.140 (pp.140-154). No Oriental bishop could have jurisdiction of a Latin Diocese or a diocese in which there were Latins (Podipara, Canonical Sources, p.91). There is, however, some evidence that Kariattil continued to use the East Syrian rite (Podipara, Thomas Christians, p.174f.). 14 He was to have done so in the presence of a representative of the Archbishop of Goa, to preserve that See’s claim to precendence (Podipara, ‘Efforts’, p.89). The text of the letter dated 18th July 1784, authorising Kariattil to admit Mar Dionysios I ‘to Catholic communion’ if he judged him sincere, is reproduced in Payngot, Homage, pp.202-206. The original is in APF, Lettere 244 (1784) fol.570r – 573v. 15 On Kariattil’s death see Payngot, Homage, pp.58, 63. 16 Varthamanappusthakam, p.59, 138.

MAR KOORILOSE I AND MAR DIONYSIOS I

253

In what concerns Mar Thomas, the schismatic bishop of Malabar [ie Mar Dionysios I], I am convinced that he has no intention of remaining a Catholic, except on his own terms, i.e., his profession of the Catholic Faith would not include an acceptance of the Council of Diamper or the will to end the schism. Nor can I see any way to end the schism. Also, the bishop continues to act in a simoniacal way, and is determined to be recognised as a bishop, even though, after sending his profession of faith to Rome, he has changed absolutely nothing in his erroneous doctrine and in his eccelesiastical discipline. Therefore I am convinced that there is need of an extraordinary Providence for him as well for his priests and for his people if they are to leave the schism, and this is all the more so because today the schismatics are determined to bring in for their churches another schismatic bishop called Mar Cyrillos, also a Malabarian, and a fellow student of Mar Thomas.17

Paulinus’ view is echoed in a list of objections made by Joseph de Soledade, Propaganda Bishop of Cochin18 and recorded ‘in brief’ by Paremmakkal: Regarding the Bishop Mar Thomas: What is written about him is true, namely that he wishes to become a catholic. But he wants it to be as he likes, viz. he is unwilling to accept the synod of Diamper. He still continues to do what he was doing before, viz. he practices simony in ecclesiastical matters. It is through worldly motives that he desires to accept the catholic faith. If Mar Thomas were completely to receive the true faith, his subjects would at once leave him, fetch the heretic Cyril and obey him.19 Archivum S.Congregationis pro Gentium. Evangelizatione seu de Propaganda Fide, SC (IOC) 39, f.80, quoted in Hambye, HCI, III, p.56f. Kollaparambil paraphrases what seems to be this letter, but gives its reference as SC APF (IOC) 38, ff.39-40, and its date as 15 January 1784 (‘Dionysios’, p.171f). 18 He was a Portuguese Carmelite (Podipara, Thomas Christians, pp.169, 178; Tisserant, Eastern Christianity, p.191). 19 Varthamanappusthakam, p.243. The letter to Kariattil of 18th July 1784 referred to above records de Soledade’s convictions about Mar 17

254

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

The similarity between the accounts of Paulinus and de Soledade suggest some inter-dependence. However, for our present purpose what is significant is the belief of the European hierarchy in India that the Puthenkuttukar would not follow Mar Dionysios I into union with the Pazhayakuttukar, but would instead make Mar Koorilose I their Metropolitan. Interestingly, the fact that he is described as a ‘heretic’ shows that Mar Koorilose was a convinced ‘Monophysite’, holding doctrines condemned by Rome. The ascription is testimony to his West Syrian identity. Paremmakkal angrily refuted the accusations made against Mar Dionysios I. Concerning the likelihood that the Puthenkuttukar would forsake Mar Dionysios for Mar Koorilose, he wrote, ‘What reason have you to write like this? Do not think that others are ignorant of it.’ If the Church is to be true to herself, he maintained, she should receive Mar Dionysios ‘even if none of his subjects followed him’.20 In any case, Paremmakkal believed that the Europeans were wrong: Hence it will happen with all reasonableness that when bishop Mar Thomas, their ecclesiastical head accepts the holy faith, the churches under him will accept the same faith.21

At this distance in time it is not possible to assess whether Paremmakkal or the European bishops were right. Nevertheless, it is clear that the existence of Mar Koorilose I was one of the factors that persuaded Rome not to receive Mar Dionysios I in the mid Koorilose I. It states that he regarded Cyril as ‘their own prelate’ (‘propriamente il lero Prelato’), presumably meaning ‘of their own race’. Mar Koorilose is said to have only five Churches with him (Payngot, Homage, p.205f.). The threat of the Puthenkuttukar defecting to Mar Koorilose seems to have forced the authorities at Rome to consider allowing Mar Dionysios I some genuine episcopal jurisdiction: ‘Hence … it shall be your care to examine maturely whether he should be entrusted with the government of his Diocese Neranam, or … should be declared Coadjutor Bishop to Your Lordship in the government of the Syro-Chaldean Churches’ (Payngot, Homage, p.206). The date of de Soledade’s objection is unclear. He had originally supported the reception of Mar Dionysios, but later became less enthusiastic (Kollaparambil, ‘Dionysios’, p.191). 20 Varthamanappusthakam, p.269f. 21 Varthamanappusthakam, p.270.

MAR KOORILOSE I AND MAR DIONYSIOS I

255

1780s. It was the whole Puthenkuttukar that Rome wanted, and if there was any doubt that Mar Dionsyios might not be able to deliver them, then it was not prepared to receive him. Despite these setbacks Mar Dionysios persisted in his efforts to unite with Rome. In this he was aided by the continuing unrest in the Pazhayakur community. 1787 saw the convening of a Synod at Angamale, presided over by Paremmekkal (who was now ecclesiastical administrator of the Archdiocese of Cranganore following Kariattil’s untimely death), which there and then seceded from the Latin Vicars Apostolic, those present binding themselves with an oath that in future they would not receive as pastors any but their own nation. They drew up certain reasons for this secession, to lay before the Rajahs of Cochin and Travancore, accusing the Jesuits and Carmelites of ‘destroying their Archbishop D. Cariatil with poison, of expelling Mar Simon, a Syro-Chaldean from Malabar, of imprisoning priests of their own nation, etc’.22 Such a climate must have encouraged Mar Dionysios I in his attempts to obtain recognition. In his own eyes he must have seemed the obvious person ‘of their own nation’ for the Pazhayakuttukar to follow. Accepting him, a validly consecrated bishop already in Kerala, would be a simpler option than hoping than a far-off Queen and Patriarch would eventually receive the Pazhayakuttukar’s requests and act as the community wished. Following further prolonged negotiations, in April 1791 Mar Dionysios I signed an agreement with Bishop Joseph de Soledade. According to this agreement, Mar Dionysios would keep his jurisdiction over all the Syrians who followed him into the Roman communion. The choice of his successor, however, was to lie with Rome, as would the organisation of his diocese after 22 An English translation of this petition can be found in Whitehouse, Lingerings, pp.308-310). The petition stated that if the Queen of Portugal (patron of the Padroado) did not accede to their request to have Paremmekkal as their Metropolitan, then they would transfer their allegiance to the Chaldean Patriarch, Joseph IV, and procure from him Metrans ‘who will consecrate our honourable Governors’ (Lingerings, p.309). See also Tisserant, Eastern Christianity, p.103. In the event, the Rajah of Travancore, at the behest of Paulinus a S. Bartholomeo and the Carmelites, prevented the Romo-Syrians from breaking free from European ecclesiastical rule. See Paulinus, Voyage to the East Indies, p.200f.

256

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

his death. The agreement also committed him to make alterations to the liturgical practices of his followers: presumably those of them using the West Syrian rite would abandon it for the latinised East Syrian.23 If implemented, the agreement would have brought all the St Thomas Christians into the Roman Catholic fold. In fact, nothing came of it, and several more years of haggling followed. MAR ABRAHAM PANDARI AND THE RECEPTION OF MAR DIONYSIOS I

In 1799 a sequence of events finally permitted Mar Dionysios I to be received into communion with Rome.24 Joseph de Soledade resigned as Bishop of Cochin and Thomas Paremmekkal, Ecclesiastical Governor of Cranganore, died. In the ensuing power vacuum a Syro-Malabarian, Paulos Mar Abraham Pandari, acted as Bishop of Malabar.25 Pandari had been a member of a delegation sent by some Pazhayakur and Puthenkur Churches to the Chaldean Patriarch in 1797, in the wake of the agitation following Kariattil’s death, requesting a bishop to rule them instead of the European missionaries.26 Patriarch Joseph IV (to whom the Synod of Angamale had threatened to turn in 1787) had died in 1791 and the East Syrians (Catholic and non-Catholic) were in a further period of jurisdictional confusion, with two nephews of Mar Elias XI (of a line originally in opposition to that of Sulaqa, but now itself intermittently in communion with Rome), who had died in 1778, vying for power.27 Of these two, Yuhannan Hormez was recognized by Rome in 1783 as Archbishop of Mosul and at the time of the arrival of Pandari and his companions was locum tenens of the vacant Kollaparambil, ‘Dionsyios’, p.180. A detailed survey of this incident can be found in Puliurumpil, Jurisdictional Conflict, pp.5-52. 25 For the career of Pandari see Hambye, ‘Mar Paulos Abraham Pandari, Bishop in Malabar, and his Relations with Mesopotamia’, in Madey and Kariarakath (eds.), The Church I Love, pp.79-88 and idem,.HCI, III, p.36 and the sources quoted there. 26 For the precise dates see Puliurumpil, Jurisdictional Conflict, p.7. 27 The Sulaqa line of Patriarchs had broken communion with Rome in 1672. The present day representative of this line is Patriarch Mar Denkha IV of the Church of the East. See Baum and Winkler, Church of the East, pp.116-122 for an account of the tortuous successions. 23 24

MAR KOORILOSE I AND MAR DIONYSIOS I

257

Chaldean Patriarchate.28 The Indian delegation had taken with them letters, signed by both Pazhayakuttukar and Puthenkuttukar complaining about the Latin missionaries and asking for a bishop and some clerics.29 Significantly, the letters also claimed that, were a Syrian bishop sent, the ‘heretics’ – i.e. the Puthenkuttukar – had promised obedience to the Roman See.30 This last point may refer to undertakings given by Mar Dionysios I and his supporters. Mar Yuhannan wrote to Rome about the Malabar delegation, but the city was occupied by the armies of the French Revolution, and no reply was received. After waiting 16 months, Mar Yuhannan consecrated Pandari. The new bishop was given the name Mar Abraham and the titular see ‘of the monastery of Mar Behnam’. This monastery, though originally an East Syrian foundation, had from 540 AD belonged to the West Syrians (Syrian Orthodox and later Syrian Catholics).31 There must have been a particular reason why Mar Yuhannan gave it as a designation to the bishop whom he hoped would take charge of all the Syrians of India. Hambye suspects that this title was given ‘to make the new Malabar bishop acceptable to the Syrian Orthodox St Thomas Christians’.32 Was this because Mar Yuhannan Hormez had been told that Mar Gregorios and Mar Ivanios had been from the monastery of Mar Behnam and that their followers had established communities in that saint’s name in Thevanal and Anjur?33 The Patriarchate was vacant because Rome had originally recognised the other nephew of Elias XI as Patriarch Elias XII. This Patriarch had, however, then broken his ties with Rome. Other bishops then became contenders for recognition by Rome. The issue was not really resolved until 1830 when Mar Yuhannan Hormuz was finally acknowledged by Rome as the Chaldean Patriarch of Babylon. He appears in lists as John VIII (Baum and Winkler, Church of the East, p.122; Hambye, ‘Pandari’, p.82f). 29 Hambye, ‘Pandari’, p.84. 30 Text in Puliurumpil, Jurisdictional Conflict, p.10. 31 Baumer, Church of the East, p.101. 32 ‘Pandari’, p.86, n.11. 33 Podipara says that the title was of the monastery of Mar Abraham, but gives no source (Thomas Christians, p.177) and seems to be confusing it with his episcopal name. The error may derive from a letter of Luigio Maria (see Puliurumpil, Jurisdictional Conflict, p.21). 28

258

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

Mar Abraham Pandari returned to Kerala in March 1798, but was officially not permitted by the Vicar Apostolic, Luigio Maria, to exercise jurisdiction, as his consecration had taken place without Papal approval. Paremekkal also resisted any attempt by Pandari to exercise jurisdiction, but his death on 19th March 1799 removed this restraint, with the result that, on 20th May 1799 at Allepey Mar Dionysios signed an agreement with Mar Abraham Pandari, kathanar Abraham Kattakayathil (Paremekkal’s successor as Ecclesiastical Governor of Cranganore, himself a Syrian Christian,34) and a presbyter Hormisdas who is described as ‘Deputy of the Patriarch’.35 The agreement states that the forefathers of all the parties observed the Syro-Chaldean rite prior to 1599. It briefly recites the events of Coonen Cross, then declares that we of both parties unitedly agree on oath to join together, as our fathers did, submitting ourselves to the Holy Father, the Pope, performing the Mass, reciting the breviary, observing the fasts and other rites as they were prescribed by the Synod of Diamper and to report accordingly to the Holy Father, the Pope, with the view of obtaining permission to conduct all ceremonies according to the Syro-Chaldean Rite of those who are submissive to the Holy Roman Church. Moreover, we agree that those who observe at present the Jacobite creed and rites shall abjure them and make the profession of faith prescribed by Pope Urban VIII for the Orientals and submit to the orders of His Holiness the Pope.

Three points in particular may be commented on. Firstly, the East Syrian identity of the pre-Portuguese community is accepted. This, as will be seen, contrasts with the self-understanding of members of the Puthenkuttukar that the historic connection of the St Thomas Christians was with Antioch (see below). Secondly, the 34 He was elected Governor of the vacant diocese, by a yogam of kathanars, a process of which the Roman authorities did not approve (Puliurumpil, Jurisdictional Conflict, p.25f). 35 The text is in Podipara, ‘Efforts’, pp.90-91, quoting C.J. George, The Catholicity of the St Thomas Christians, (Trivandrum, 1904), pp.19-21 as his source. A Malayalam source is quoted in Kollaparambil, ‘Dionysios’, p.186, n.1.

MAR KOORILOSE I AND MAR DIONYSIOS I

259

West Syrian rites are to be abandoned. This seems to represent a complete u-turn by Mar Dionysios. In 1787 he had summoned an assembly of Puthenkuttukar which decided ‘to give up completely the old latinised Syro-Malabar liturgy, above all the Eucharist and the canonical prayers’ and adopt Antiochene usage.36 Now twelve years later, he was prepared to abandon them as a price worth paying for supremacy over the St Thomas Christians. As will appear, he may have been too late. The subsequent rejection of his submission by his followers is itself evidence that these rites were now normative among some at least of the Puthenkuttukar.37 Thirdly, and perhaps surprisingly, is the hope that the latinised Diamper rites may be abandoned for the ‘pure’ East Syrian rites practiced by the Chaldean Church in West Asia.38 Mar Dionsyios was hoping to become Malankara Metropolitan following his reception (he is actually referred to as ‘Metropolitan of Malabar’ in the agreement). Which episcopal rites would he use? It will be recalled that all such rites then in use in India were translations of those of the Latin Church, with some, indeed, still performed in Latin. It looks as though Mar Dionsyios wished to use instead ‘pure’ East Syrian rites.39 This no doubt a project in which he would have the support of Pandari. In fact, the whole episode has something of the feel of an East Syrian or Chaldean ‘coup’, enacted without the involvement of any Europeans.40 Hambye, HCI, III, p.64, quoting the diary of Paulinus (Archivum Generale Carmelitarum Discalceatorum, 193, f. 134r). 37 Note that the agreement does not state that all the Puthenkuttukar were using ‘Jacobite’ rites. The ‘mixed’ nature is attested by Paulinus who refers to Mar Dionysios’ followers as ‘Jacobites’ who ‘however adhere in parts to the practices of the Nestorians’ (Voyage to the East Indies, p.121). 38 This does not seem to have been commented on by writers on this episode. 39 If this is the case, he was anticipating the reforms that the Second Vatican Council would inaugurate. It would be interesting to know whether by seeking to adopt Chaldean rites he wished to abolish Confirmation and other rites found solely in the Latin Church. 40 It should be noted that the episode took place in the period when the Jesuit Order had been suppressed. In 1759 the Portuguese government removed most Jesuits from its Indian possessions (Hambye, HCI, III, p.26f; Neill, History, vol.2, pp.121-132). From 1773-1814 the Order 36

260

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

Following this agreement, on 11th June 1799 in St Michael’s Church, Thathampally, Mar Dionysios and a few followers were absolved from ecclesiastical censure by Mar Abraham Pandari and solemnly received into the Roman communion in the name of Mar Yuhannan, locum tenens of the Chaldean Patriarchate, not of the Pope.41 His reconciliation was immediately given the liturgical expression agreed upon: ‘Mar Dionysios celebrated forthwith the Eucharistic liturgy according to the heavily latinized Syro-Malabar usage of the period’.42 This was a momentous occasion, the significance of which is often overlooked. Ostensibly the St Thomas Christians had achieved their longed-for goal. They were now united, in communion with Rome, under two bishops of their own nation (one of them a Pakalomattom) and of undeniably valid consecration, with a commitment to restore the community’s identity as an oriental Church. The re-union had come too late. By 1799 too many of the Puthenkuttukar had become committed to an alternative identity. There was therefore an immediate reaction among some of them to the enormity of what Mar Dionysios had done. Kaniamparampil describes how ‘Mar Dionysios had to offer the H[oly] Mass with ‘Pathira’ of the Latins in place of ‘Hmira’ of the Syrian Orthodox’ producing the response from his senior priests, ‘You may eat Pathira – we are going’.43 Theoretically, though, the entire community of St Thomas Christians was now re-united under Roman obedience, with the exception of the little community at Thozhiyur. was entirely suppressed by the Pope. Thus a powerful European agency was removed from Kerala. 41 Kollaparamabil gives the date as 11th June (‘Dionysios’, p.186) and is followed by Hambye (‘Pandari’, p.87) and Puliurumpil (Jurisdictional Conflict, p.31); Podipara has 21st June (‘Efforts’, p.91). Philip claims that Mar Dionysios was starved to force him to submit (Indian Church, p.165f). Cheriyan refers to this as a ‘miserable episode’ (CMS, p.56). 42 Hambye, HCI, III, p.60. Yacoub III claims that he celebrated it on three occasions (Syrian Church in India, p.131). He also claims that Mar Dionysios only submitted after having been imprisoned by Mathu Tharakan and deprived of food for several days. 43 Kaniamparampil, Syrian Orthodox Church, p.114. Pathira is the unleavened wafer; hmira is leavened Eucharistic bread.

MAR KOORILOSE I AND MAR DIONYSIOS I

261

Perhaps unsurprisingly, various theories have always circulated among the Syrians as to why Mar Dionysios I took this step. Fourteen years later, Ramban Joseph Pulikottil (admittedly no admirer of Mar Dionysios) was to suggest to the British Resident that the Metropolitan’s submission to Rome had not been predominantly motivated by theological considerations: [In] the year 1798, it happened that the Namboory walie Sarautty Kariayam succeeded in the Ministry and by whose order the room of the Church of Chengenoore where the Bishop Mar Dionicius resided, was searched and took therefrom upwards of five thousand Rupees and then carried the Bishop to Alepy and ordered that he should pay a lack [lakh] of Rupees to the Sircar. The said Bishop with view to escape from this oppression through the favor [sic] of the Roman Christians, gave obedience to the Roman Church, and in consequence performed Mass in the Church of Patampolly after the Romish Rite in the year 1799. Since that period a misfortune attended the Bishops in the family of Paulamuttam [Pakalomattom], although the aforesaid Bishop Dionicius returned to the Syrian Church, as before by paying the sum of Rupees 2000 to the Sircar, being a subscription levied from our respective Churches.44

It is by no means unlikely that financial considerations may have contributed to Mar Dionysios’ entering into the agreement of 20th May 1799. Podipara recounts a tradition that he was in debt to Mathew Thachil, a prominent Pazhayakur layman.45 There is an inconsistency, however, regarding the consequences. Kaniam44 Answers to Munro, May 1813, IOR/F/4/616, p.57. See chapter 9 for further on the Resident’s Questions. 45 ‘Efforts’, p.92. This is the version in the Travancore State Manual, according to which Mar Dionysios was in debt to the Rajah and borrowed money from a wealthy Romo-Syrian layman, Mathu Tharagan, signing a bond, one of the conditions of which was his submission to Rome. On his withdrawal from Roman obedience, he had to repay the penalties of the bond (Aiya, Travancore State Manual, p.211). See also Hambye, HCI, III, p.39 which quotes Paulinus’ Diaries concerning Mathu and Puliurumpil, Jurisdictional Conflict, p.31-33.

262

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

parampil states that Mar Dionysios had to make a payment to each of the Orthodox churches ‘as a retribution for the guilt of using “Pathira”’,46 while Ramban Joseph asserts that, on the contrary, the Metropolitan took money from the parishes to satisfy the Government’s demands. In the event, the longed-for reunion of Puthenkuttukar and Pazhayakuttukar which Mar Dionysios’ reception had technically brought about, proved abortive. Mar Dionysios very soon found himself isolated within the Pazhayakuttukar: Rome acted swiftly to remove from office those who had encouraged his reception. Abraham Kattakayathil was replaced as Ecclesiastical Governor of Cranganore. Mar Abraham Pandari ‘disappeared from the Indian scene mysteriously’.47 Mathew Thachil fell from grace with the Travancore government.48 Real power was still in the hands of the European ecclesiastics and Orders, and it is inconceivable that they would have acknowledged Mar Dionysios as, say, Archbishop of Cranganore. He thus had no formal status in his new community, and no machinery for exercising jurisdiction. Furthermore, very few Puthenkur clergy and laity seem to have followed him. Hambye states that, ‘No clear reason was ever given for his refusal to remain within the Catholic Church. One can suspect that he did not like at all the old latinized ways and that his new position among the Catholics was ambiguous’.49 While the second part is no doubt cor-

46 Kaniamparampil, Syrian Orthodox Church, p.115. The amount payable to each Church was the fee for a ‘munnummel’ – a three-altar celebration of the Qurbana. 47 Hambye, HCI, III, p.36f . For a time he seems to have lived at Verapoly, then travelled in lay dress in India. There were rumours that he became ill, possibly mentally disturbed, and that he returned to West Asia and died in Constantinople. It is not known when and where he died (Puliurumpil, Jurisdictional Conflict, p.50f; Hambye, ‘Pandari’, p.87). Over the next few years the parishes that had accepted Mar Abraham Pandari resubmitted to the Roman authorities (Puliurumpil, Jurisdictional Conflict, p.46). 48 Kollaparambil, ‘Dionysios’, p.187. 49 Hambye, HCI, III, p.61. Mar Dionysios had been the head of the entire West Syrian community; united to Rome, he would simply be one bishop (or archbishop) among several. Kollaparambil is also rather vague

MAR KOORILOSE I AND MAR DIONYSIOS I

263

rect, it is less easy to be confident about the former assertion. All the evidence is that Mar Dionysios, like the rest of his family, was perfectly at home with the latinised East Syrian rite. The West Syrian rite, after all, was the one being propagated by his rival Mar Koorilose. Moreover, the 1799 agreement itself contained a commitment to seek the restoration of purer East Syrian forms.50 Mar Dionysios would have been perfectly content with an East Syrian liturgical identity. It seems that by 1799 many of the Puthenkuttukar were not. The spread of Syrian Orthodox rites, pioneered to a significant extent by the community gathered around Mar Koorilose I, had shifted the community’s sense of identity. In fact the evidence suggests that a further powerful reason for Mar Dionysios I’s rapid departure from the Roman fold was the existence of Mar Koorilose I who presumably, as in 1785, was seen as an acceptable non-Roman Metropolitan. It may be that Mar Dionysios came to realise not only that significant numbers of Puthenkuttukar were not going to follow him, but that those opposed to Roman jurisdiction really would turn to Mar Koorilose, who from his very consecration seems to have been ‘the nonRoman option’. The West Syrian rites, practiced by Mar Koorilose, but ‘abjured’ by Mar Dionysios were genuinely popular among many Puthenkuttukar. Such a scenario would explain why Mar Dionysios hastily abandoned his Roman allegiance. The significance of Mar Koorilose in this regard has recently been recognised. The Syrian Orthodox author John K. Abraham has recently concluded, If Mar Koorilose had not been alive then Rome would have accepted Mar Dionysios I as a bishop, and, faced with a situaas to precisely why Mar Dionysios withdrew from Roman communion (‘Dionysios’, p.187f). 50 There is, however, evidence that the West Syrian rite had some attraction for Mar Dionysios. The records of the Roman Propaganda contain a letter from four missionaries in Kerala in 1788 who complain of Mar Dionysios that ‘not only does he not convert, but he has reformed his Jacobite rite and is still more obstinate in his schismatical attitude …’APF, SOCG, (11 Sept 1789), vol.884, f122r, quoted in Cyril, ‘Introduction’, p.155. This presumably refers to the 1787 assembly of Puthenkuttukar mentioned above.

264

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS tion of having no bishop of their own, the whole of the Syrian Christians would have joined the Catholic faith under Rome and the ancient Malankara Church would have been wiped out for ever in Kerala.51

It is an intriguing thought that if Mar Koorilose I had not existed, then the entire Puthenkuttukar might have followed the Pazhayakuttukar into the Church of Rome.52 The result was that Mar Dionysios’ submission was of short duration. Six months later he withdrew from Roman jurisdiction and adopted a West Syrian liturgical identity once again. Consideration of Mar Dionysios I’s dealing with a rather different European ecclesiastical power – the Church of England – will be reserved until the following Chapter. ADDITIONAL TOPICS

The Community of Mar Behnam

(a) At Thevanal As described in the previous Chapter, a colophon in a MS copy of the New Testament, written by hand in Syriac, by Geeverghese of Mulanthuruthy states that he and his fellow clergy moved to Thevanal on 20th Iyyar [May] 1767 and built there a monastery dedicated to Mar Bahnam.53 The existence of this community is mentioned in the 1769 letter quoted by Yacoub III, claiming to be from Abraham Ramban to the Patriarch, referred to in the previous John K. Abraham, Suriyani Sabhaye Nilanirthiya Kattumangattu Bavamar, (Malayalam), 2002, p.33. I am grateful to Mar Koorilose IX for the translation of this passage. 52 Kollaparambil ends his detailed study of the events thus: ‘in the ultimate analysis we must conclude that these missionaries [the Carmelites] were largely responsible for the failure of all the endeavours of Mar Dionysios and his supporters’, just as they tried to impede the appointment of native bishops as century later (‘Dionysios’, pp.189-192). In fact, as this account makes clear, all parties – Padroado, Carmelites, and Indian ecclesiastics – contrived to thwart Dionysios’ attempts to unite all the St Thomas Christians under his jurisdiction. 53 This is MS X1 in Taylor’s provisional Handlist. 51

MAR KOORILOSE I AND MAR DIONYSIOS I

265

Chapter. In this letter, Abraham asked the patriarch’s blessing for a monastery at Vettikal, its inhabitants, those who would join it, the rules necessary for its administration and the appointment of a superior for it.54 The monastery was to bear the name of Mar Behnam and his sister Sarah.55 The names of the members of the monastery in 1769/71 are given in the colophon written by Geeverghese and referred to in the previous Chapter. He names his fellow clergy as ‘my brother’ Baryamin, Jacob, Koorilose and Markos. This list accords remarkably closely with that in the 1769 letter to the Patriarch (noted in the previous Chapter), which refers to Abraham’s brother the priest Benjamin, the priest Jacob of Dayar who were joined by two more priests, Gurgis and Joseph.56 It looks very much as though the core of the community consisted of Jacob, Benjamin, and the brothers Geeverghese and Abraham/Koorilose. The sequence of the MSS places the community in Thevanal in 1767, 1769 and 1771, while Koorilose is also at Thevanal, at least from 1769. This suggests that something took place between 1764 and May 1767 which prompted the founding of the Thevanal community. The death of Mar Basilios in October 1764 is an obvious possibility. If so, what held it together? Here again, the MSS offer clues. When was Thevanal founded? The clearest evidence is the date of May 1767 in Geeverghese’s colophon.57 This leaves a gap between Mar Koorilose’s probable consecration in October 1764 and the founding of Thevanal. Where were Koorilose and his followers in that two year interval?58 Yacoub III’s 1840 source states that after the Maphrian passed away he moved to Muluthuruthy

Interestingly, at about this time there was in interest in the monastic life among some of the Pazhayakur priests, though nothing concrete seems to have resulted (Puthussery, Reunion Efforts, pp.57-59). 55 Syrian Church in India, pp.114. 56 Syrian Church of India, p.114. 57 Taylor, Handlist (forthcoming). 58 According to the Thevenal MSS, Gevarghese Kattumangat was in Kayamkulam in 1764. 54

266

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

and taught at its church, training ‘efficient deacons and priests’.59 This seems not unlikely, especially as the Yacoub III is able to give a source naming some of those whom he trained. It may be that the little community at Kandanat formed around the Maphrian, described by Anquetil du Perron in 1758, did not disperse after the death of its founder, but went with Koorilose to Mulanthuruthy. The question then arises as to what precipitated the foundation of the little monastery at Thevanal. No definitive answer on the basis of the currently available evidence. It may simply have been the desire for a more contemplative life away from what must have been the busy Church and community at Mulanthuruthy, as suggested by Verghese’s account (though this seems to telescope events): After the internment at Kandanad Mar Koorilose accompanied by his brother Geeverghese Ramban60 and a few others went straight to his native village, Mulanthuruthy, in search of a solitary place where they could continue their devotional life. They found Thevanal, a place surrounded by huge trees, the most suitable one for the purpose. There they put up a temporary chapel and dedicated it in the name of St. Bahanan.61

It looks very much, however, that, after the death of the Maphrian, Mar Koorilose now found himself in much the same position as bishops who had come from Antioch. He was a bishop, but had no jurisdiction over the Malankara Christian community. He therefore did precisely what his boyhood mentor, Mar Ivanios al-Arqugianyi, and Mar Basilios Shukr Allah had done – he maintained a small community, perhaps simply continuing in existence that formed by his consecrator.62 This centred on daily prayer and 59 Syrian Church in India, p.115. Verghese also states that Mar Koorilose made his way initially to Mulanthuruthy (Brief Sketch, p.11). 60 The likelihood that Kattumangat Geeverghese was made a Ramban by the Maphrian himself has already been noted. 61 Verghese, Brief Sketch, p.13. Thevanal is about four kilometres from Mulanthuruthy. 62 There is evidence of indebtedness to the Maphrian in Thozhiyur MS X1 where Kattumangat Geeverghese explicitly states that he was a student of the Catholicos Basilios.

MAR KOORILOSE I AND MAR DIONYSIOS I

267

was probably maintained by the gifts of Christian families, reflecting the strong Indian tradition of supporting ‘holy men’. After an attempt to do this at a Church in a Syrian village, a quieter location was eventually sought. The dedication of the little community’s Church is significant. As noted above, Behanan (the Indianised version of Behnam) was the name of the monastery in Ottoman Syria of which Mar Gregorios been abbot before being required to accompany Maphrian Shukr Allah Mar Basilios to India. Various versions of the martyrdom of Behnam exist.63 He and his sister Sarah lived in the second half of the 4th century.64 According to tradition, they were the children of a Persian king, who slew them and forty companions for having embraced Christianity. Behnam had been out hunting on the Alfaf Mountain 35 km. northeast of Mosul where he met a Christian hermit named Mathew (Mar Mattai). Impressed by his teachings, Behnam went back to his mother and persuaded her to let him take his sister Sarah, who had a disease,65 to the saint. She was cured by the saint. After the miracle, both Sarah and Behnam were baptized by Matthew. Upon hearing the news, their father, the king, was angered and he ordered that they be put to death. The king was then struck with a disease.66 Behnam appeared to his mother in a dream and told her to get Mar Mattai. She did and the saint cured the king. To show his gratitude, the king built a monastery (the present day Mar Mattai) on the mountain.67 The nearby monastery of Mar Behnam (as noted above) was founded in the 6th century. Brock et al., Hidden Pearl, III, p.40. Their martyrdom is said by Barsoum to have taken place ‘around 382’ (Scattered Pearls, p.164). 65 Some versions of the story say leprosy. 66 According to some versions he was afflicted by an evil spirit. 67 Parry visited Mar Mattai monastery and says that the tombs of Mar Behnam and Sarah were in a grotto below that monastery, rather than in the nearby monastery of Mar Behnam which he describes as ‘near Nimrud’ and as ‘now the property of the Papal Syrians’. Parry, Six Months, p.270. In the account recorded by Parry, the father of the saint and his sister is an Assyrian king named Sennacherib. See Hidden Pearl, III, p. 40 and Baumer, Church of the East, pp.101-104 (with photographs) for brief accounts. 63 64

268

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

By 1797, when Mar Yuhannan Hormuz consecrated Mar Abraham Pandari its titular bishop, the monastery was half ruined.68 At the time of Badger’s first visit in 1844 the monastery was ‘tenanted only by a few Coords, and the whole building was rapidly falling into decay’.69 By the time he visited again, shortly afterwards, it had passed into the possession of the Syrian Catholics who were repairing it.70 Badger described it as ‘one of the finest specimens of ecclesiastical architecture in the country’.71 Since then regular services have been maintained to the present day.72 It looks very much as though the Kattumangattu brothers and their companions were trying to establish a monastic community modelled on the monastery of Mar Behnam in the Middle East.73 Puliurumpil, Jurisdictional Conflict, p.13. The last Syrian Orthodox Metropolitan-Abbot seems to have been Mar Ivanios Behnam, who died in 1776, shortly after which most of the nearby Syrian Orthodox entered into communion with Rome (Barsoum, Syriac Dioceses, p.122). 69 Badger, Rituals, 1, p.95. 70 Barsoum says that in 1839 ‘it was usurped by a group which seceded and joined the Catholic Church’ (Scattered Pearls, p.561). 71 Badger, Rituals,1, p.94. 72 Attwater describes it before the 1914-1918 War as ‘a wealthy and ancient monastery … with a few student brethren in charge of a secular priest’ (Christian Churches of the East, vol I, p.151). For a description of the monastery as a pilgrimage centre for both Christians and Muslims, see Otto Meinardus, ‘Notes on some non-Byzantine Monasteries and Churches in the East’, in Eastern Churches Review, III, 2 (Autumn 1970), 167-170. To this day it ranks ‘by far the most exquisite example of medieval Syriac architecture’ (Brock, Hidden Pearl, II, p.215). 73 Such indications of devotion would seem to contradict suggestions made in certain quarters that Ramban Abraham Kattumangat had prevailed on Mar Gregorios of Jerusalem to consecrate him by force. On the contrary, the cumulative evidence suggests filial devotion, both to Mar Gregorios personally and to the Antiochian traditions that he represented. It is possible that the 1751 delegation had tried to introduce the cult of Mar Behnam more widely. There is an 18th century wall painting of the saint in the Church at Angamale. It is an intriguing possibility that this may derive from their influence (Hambye, ‘Pandari’, p.86). Cheppat Mar Dionysios IV is said to have composed a 61 line hymn in praise of Behnan, Sarah and their companions (Yacoub III, Syrian Church of India, p.195), suggesting that they had caught the Indian imagination. 68

MAR KOORILOSE I AND MAR DIONYSIOS I

269

The cycle of monastic hours seems to have been established. The monastic community at St George’s Cathedral today stands in direct succession from this small community. Interestingly, the existence of the community at Thevanal is today seen as a point of contact with indigenous Indian tradition. Mar Koorilose IX has expressed it thus: The maharishis and sanyasis of ancient India used to meditate in forests, but Mar Koorilose I and his brother were the only Christian prelates who lived in the forest in the long history of Christianity in India.74

As seen above, during the existence of the monastic community at Thevanal, a number of Syriac manuscripts were copied, some of which still survive in the collection at Thozhiyur and elsewhere. One of these, written by Mar Koorilose himself, offers a fascinating insight into the complexities of identity then existing in the Syrian community. The document is a collection of anaphorae, completed on 9th December 1769 by ‘the priest Cyril of Tebbanal’.75 It is in East Syriac script but contains the text of six West Syrian anaphoras, with certain words in the Narrative of Insitution written in larger letters in imitation of Latin-rite texts. Koorilose calls himself a disciple of a skilled and learned chorepiscopa, but does not give the name.76 In his requests for prayers he mentions his brother the priest Giwargis.

74 E-mail to present writer 13 October 2004. This observation highlights the predominantly port and village-based nature of Christian settlement, perhaps reflecting the mercantile origins of the community. 75 This is the MS listed by Van der Ploeg as having been found at the Syro-Malankara bishop’s house at Thiruvalla (no.11) (MSS, p.106f). It seems to have been transferred since to SEERI at Kottayam. 76 A possible candidate is Mar Ivanios Ibn al Arqugianyi, his boyhood mentor, but it is unlikely that Koorilose would have described him as a chorepiscopa. Perhaps a member of the household of Maphrian Basilios Shukr Allah is meant.

270

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

(b) At Anjur The community remained only about four years (1767-1771) at Thevanal. According to Verghese, it was the very holiness of one of the monks that endangered their continued existence there: While they were camping at Thevanal, a dragon perching on a tall tree close by used to scream aloud and disturb their prayers. Geeverghese Ramban [the future Mar Koorilose II] made up his mind to drive away this devilish creature. So he resorted to fasting and prayer. One day the dragon fell down and disappeared with an astounding noise. The news regarding the fall of this monstrous dragon spread over the countryside and Mar Koorilose thought that his cloistered existence would be publicised and endanger his safety at Thevanal. At that juncture Father Joseph Pulikottil came for their help. He was from Kunnamkulam and a beloved disciple of Mar Koorilos. He invited Mar Koorilos to Kunnamkulam. He gladly accepted his invitation.77

There may be another reason for the re-location. Following the failed ‘coup’ of 1772, return to Thevanal was no longer possible. It lay at the heart of Mar Dionysios’s territory. The community at Thevanal therefore travelled north. Despite the abandonment of the site, its sacred associations were not forgotten: Since Mar Koorilos left for Kunnamkulam, the temporary chapel he had built began to decay. Mar Gregorios of Parumala, who was also from Mulathuruthi and had a high veneration for the late Mar Koorilos, attempted to rebuild the chapel but failed to complete the construction. In the course of time the partly built structure was ruined. Now Kuriakos Corepiscopa of the Ollie family has raised a magnificent church on the site.78 Verghese, Brief Sketch, p.13. Verghese, Brief Sketch, p.13f. Mar Gregorios of Parumala who died in 1902 has been canonised by the Indian Orthodox Church. He was ordained kooroyo (Reader) by Mathews Mar Athanasios (see Chapter 12) (Iype, Parumala Thirumeni, p.5; Daniel, Orthodox Church, p.185). Mar 77 78

MAR KOORILOSE I AND MAR DIONYSIOS I

271

Today a Chapel on the site is in the possession of the Koonampilli family, a branch of the Kattumangattu. Mar Koorilose IX developed a close relationship with the family and it has been his practice to spend three or four days a year there in prayer and celebrating the Qurbana. Since 1999 on the last Saturday of every month a priest or bishop of the MISC celebrates the Qurbana there. Kunnamkulam is approximately 125 kilometres by road north of Thevanal. It lay on the edge of the State of Cochin and was far removed both from the Rajah’s main residence and from the main areas of Syrian Christian population, though on a few miles inland from Palur, one of the seven Churches which claim foundation by St Thomas.79 Its choice seems to have been determined by the priest (later Ramban) Joseph Pulikottil, who took the initiative in leading the small community there. The journey was made by boat along the inland waterways to Chavakkad [Chowghat], an important commercial centre, approximately 9 kilometres from Kunnamkulam. In the 18th century it would have taken several days. Accompanied by Fr Ittoop (Joseph) of Pulikkottil Mar Koorilose and his brother, Geeverghese Ramban, reached Kunnamkulam. The building where they stayed belonged to a well known family called Panakal. It is still kept intact. This family has rendered service to the Metropolitans of Thozhiyur and still continues to do so.80

At Kunnamkulam the Pulikkottil and Panakkal families were close neighbours, the latter owning several properties. As Fr ) Koorilose IX has added a handwritten note to the original Verghese typescript at this point: ‘this Mar Gregorios used to spend more time at this Chapel in deep meditation – following the venerable memory of Mar Koorilose’s prayer life in that forest for five years’ (p.9). 79 Kunnamkulam was an ancient Christian centre, though its population of St Thomas Christians was augmented in the mid 18th century by Rajah Sakthan Thampuran of Cochin, who relocated many Christians there to develop the town as a commercial centre. Nearby Trichur [Thrissur] also received St Thomas Christians at this time, not having previously had a Christian population (Mar Aprem, Chaldean Church, p.75ff). 80 Verghese, Brief Sketch, p.14.

272

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

Pulikottil was technically under the jurisdiction of Mar Dionysios I as parish priest of nearby Arthat,81 he entrusted Mar Koorilose I to the Panakkal family to avoid sanctions being taken against himself or his family by the Metropolitan. Kunnamkulam, however, was still in Cochin and hence under the jurisdiction of both the Rajah and Mar Dionysios I. The decision was therefore taken to move on to a location beyond their reach. The place chosen was the small village of Anjur82 about 5 kilometres west of Kunnamkulam which lay within a narrow coastal strip of land extending south from the main territory of the Zamorin of Calicut. The boundary between Cochin and the Zamorin’s territory (later British Malabar) runs north-south at this point and its line is still visible today on the outskirts of Anjur. It is marked by a small river bed (dry outside the rainy season) crossed by a small bridge referred to as ‘boundary bridge’ which carries the modern road. According to oral tradition, however, Mar Koorilose did not enter Anjur by this route (the road not being in existence at that date), but via waterways and paddy fields further inland. Just a few hundred yards from the boundary river bed Mar Koorilose I and his companions re-established the monastic community of Mar Behanan. Clearly, it was intended to be a continuation of the Thevanal daughter community of Mar Gregorios’ original monastery. It is now sometimes referred to as ‘the cradle of the MISC’. The original building was renovated in 1895 by Mar Koorilose V. It appears to have been completely rebuilt in 1970 by Mar Philoxenos III.

81 The church at Arthat which was to figure prominently in the story of the MISC is about 3 kilometres from Thozhiyur and a similar distance from Kunnamkulam. Arthat is also referred to as Chattukulam; Whitehouse describes this as meaning the place where the Christians came for their chattums (funeral feasts), on account of the large graveyard there (Lingerings, p.177). The subsequent career of Ittoop Pulikottil will be described in Chapter 9. 82 The name is also spelt Anjoor. Brown transliterates it as Annur. The MISC Metropolitan is often referred to as ‘the Bishop of (or at) Anjoor’.

MAR KOORILOSE I AND MAR DIONYSIOS I

273

The Establishment of Thozhiyur Shortly after Mar Koorilose's arrival at Anjur there occurred an event which was to be highly significant in determining the future of what was to become the Malabar Independent Syrian Church. The only son of a prominent Muslim family headed by Hydrose Mooppen, steward of the local Punnathur Rajah, was bitten by a mad dog and contracted rabies. The local people (who were Muslims) brought the boy to the temporary shed where Mar Koorilose was living in prayer at Anjur. Mar Koorilose prayed earnestly and wept and gave the boy a pill soaked in his tears. The boy instantly recovered from his illness. In gratitude the local Muslim chief gave a large area of coconut grove at the village of Thozhiyur to the bishop, along with substantial financial support to help him build the church which was to become St. George's Cathedral. The Church stands amid coconut trees to this day.83 It has occasionally been asserted by individuals hostile to the MISC that Mar Koorilose I purchased the land at Thozhiyur with money that he inherited from Mar Gregorios. To this three answers are made by the MISC today. Firstly, Mar Gregorios did not die until 1773, whereas St George Cathedral was said to be founded in about 1772.84 Secondly, the Muslim donor’s family still retains documents showing that land was donated to the Kattumangattu bishops. Thirdly, if it had indeed been the personal property of Mar Koorilose I and his brother, they would have passed it on to a member of their own family. In fact, following the departure of 83 The significance of the gift can be appreciated in the light of the following remark made by an East India Company official who described Malabar in 1798: ‘The necessities of life were very cheap … but the value of land was exceedingly high; indeed it was seldom to be purchased at any price’ (Murdoch Brown, IOR/H/456c, p.485). The Muslim benefactor had given the community an extremely valuable asset which it could almost certainly not have otherwise acquired. 84 Although 1772 is the date now celebrated in Thozhiyur itself, some accounts give the year of the foundation of St George’s Cathedral as 1774 (eg K.T.John, Kattumangat Family, p.19). This seems quite plausible. It would allow time for the imprisonment following Mar Koorilose I’s elevation to Metropolitan in 1772, the journey to Kunnamkulam and Anjur, the founding of Mar Behnam Chapel, the spread of Mar Koorilose’s reputation as a holy man, and the gift of the land.

274

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

Mar Koorilose II from Thozhiyur and his subsequent death, there was never any claim to the property by the Kattumangattu family (which there certainly would have been if they had believed they had a right to it). On the contrary, there was no further connection between the Kattumangattu family and the MISC until 1904 when a distant relative, Abraham Koonampillil of Vittickkal, a priest, joined the Church for some time before eventually returning to his native village. Thozhiyur is an area of scattered dwellings about quarter of a mile from the single street that is Anjur to this day. The original gift of land was approximately 100 acres. Today, however, the Church only retains about 40 acres, the remainder having from time to time been pledged by earlier Metropolitans as security for debts which were not able to be paid. The heart of the complex is St George’s cathedral. The original building (see figure) eventually formed one side of a square cloister (the other three sides being added in the 19th century). The scale of the building is substantial for the period. Certainly, the gift of the land and the establishment of the cathedral gave the bishopric a degree of financial security and hence permanence which has lasted to the present day. Without it, it is possible that the little community gathered around its bishop might simply have dispersed on the latter’s death, as other communities had done. In Mar Koorilose I’s case this community seems initially to have been augmented from the circle of his former 'disciples', whom he had trained in association with the Antiochene bishops. Some of these priests joined Mar Koorilose in the Zamorin’s Malabar territory. One of them seems to have been his nephew Abraham (son of the Metropolitan’s youngest brother, Yohannan) who acted as secretary to his uncle.85 It has to be remembered that at this stage there was little, if any, sense of Mar Koorilose belonging to a separate church. He seems to have maintained cordial relations with Syrian priests in the vicinity. Thozhiyur tradition states that as well as clergy, a number of Syrian families joined him, and there is a family still living in Kerala today which claims descent from one of

85

K.T.John, Kattumangat Family, p.31.

MAR KOORILOSE I AND MAR DIONYSIOS I

275

his servants.86 An example of this relatively fluid situation and of the goodwill of local churches is furnished by the relationship with the Church of Arthat, approximately five kilometres from Thozhiyur on the Cochin side of the border. From this church were to come two Metropolitans of the Malabar Independent Syrian Church - Mar Philoxenos II and Mar Koorilose IV. Verghese states that ‘Sri P. C. Kunhattu in his history of the Arthat Church writes that the priests of Arthat and Thozhiyur were jointly officiating in church services till 1862 and that the texts followed by the clergy of both the churches were identical but differed from those used by other Jacobites.’87 The condition of Malabar Verghese’s account gives the impression that Mar Koorilose I and his companions had found a haven of peace. This seems to be far from the case. Several accounts and surveys made by the British in the 1790s survive and provide an insight into conditions there. The coastal region (in which Thozhiyur lies) consisted of a continuous belt of coconut trees, while inland there were forests containing trees of great commercial value, such as teak.88 One consequence of the densely wooded nature of the terrain, however, was that travel was hazardous, as Lieutenant Edward Seton described in his report on what by the 1790s was newly acquired British territory: The Naiirs, Moppillahs, and others, who have to travel through narrow Paths and Byeways, dread everybody they meet, and never go unarmed …. Were public Roads made to the principal places, this Distrust would wear off, and the Inhabitants 86 The Revd John Doran visited Thozhiyur in 1829 and described it as a ‘lone spot’, where Mar Koorilose I had ‘erected a small Church, collected a small congregation, and taught a few boys from the neighbouring town Konungahuncherry for the ministry’ (CMS/B/OMS CI2 085). 87 Verghese, Brief Sketch, p.17f. Arthat is an ancient Church. At this time it was under the joint control of the Pazhayakuttukar and Puthenkuttukar who worshipped in it on alternate Sundays. In 1805 Rajah Ramavarman of Cochin, on the tossing of a coin, gave the main Church to the Puthenkuttukar and a nearby chapel to the Catholics. 88 In 1837 the British estimated that there were 5,577,401 coconut trees in Travancore! (Drury, Selections, p.10).

276

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS frequent the Pagoda, or the Market, without the fear of being murdered.89

Quite apart from its innate dangers,90 in the latter part of the century the region of Malabar was in effect a war zone, being caught up in events of extreme violence: the invasions of Haider Ali and Tippu Sultan.91 The former had invaded Malabar from the north in 1766, entering Calicut, and again in 1773 when his army occupied nearby Thrissur. By the Treaty of Mangalore in 1784 the British recognised Haider Ali’s son, Tippu Sultan as suzerain of Malabar – which of course included Anjur and Thozhiyur. In 1789 Tippu Sultan sought to extend his territories southwards into Travancore. In December of that year he set fire to the Church at Arthat and hanged some of its community. Paulinus a S.Bartholomeo, who was involved in helping refugees fleeing from Tippu’s forces, testified to the forcible circumcision of Christians. Christian and Hindu men were tied to the feet of elephants and dragged about until limb was torn from limb. Christian and Hindu women were compelled to marry Muslims.92 Paulinus estimated that about 10,000 Christians lost their lives.93 When Claudius Bu18th

Lieutenant Edward Seton’s Observations on the Ceded Countries on the Malabar Coast, (IOR/H/456b, pp.451-623). The quotation is from p.599. The document was forwarded to London in 1795, so Seton’s visit must have occurred sometime earlier. Seton did not penetrate into the region of Thozhiyur: ‘With the Interior of this Country, as far South as Calicut, I am unacquainted, nor has it yet been visited by English Gentlemen’ (p.469). Lieutenant Thomas Arthur, on his equivalent report on Travancore, reported a similar problem with communications, and believed that it was a dislike of foreigners which had induced the local authorities ‘to keep the roads and communications by land as obscure and difficult as possible’ (Thomas Arthur, Report on a Few Subjects regarding the countries of Travancore and Cochin, by Thomas Arthur, Engineers, Late Superintendent Travancore Survey, Quilon, 1820 in Drury, Selections, p.17)). Most north-south communication was by means of the extensive system of waterways. 90 Seton also mentions tigers and elephants (Observations, p.517). 91 See the brief background given in Chapter 4. 92 Paulinus, Voyage to the East Indies, p.141.f. Tippu also forcibly circumcised three hundred British prisoners (Dalrymple, White Mughals, p.28). 93 Voyage to the East Indies, p.149. 89

MAR KOORILOSE I AND MAR DIONYSIOS I

277

chanan visited the vicinity (‘a district of the Syrian Christians which I had not before visited’) in 1807 he was shown the grove of trees on which Christians were hanged.94 Paulinus lists twenty-six Latin or Romo-Syrian churches, and three Syrian churches burnt.95 One consequence of this destruction was that the Syrian Metropolitans moved their chief residence from Angamale to Kottayam. All three Churches at Angamale were badly damaged and desecrated by Tippu’s forces, who stabled their horses in one of them.96 In 1798 Murdoch Brown of the East India Company reported of Tippu’s campaign that ‘the Devastations it has occasioned are easily traced by the Rice Fields and Garden Grounds now waste … and by the ruins of houses’.97 Murdoch Brown estimated that the population of the Malabar territory before the incursions of Haider and Tippu had been five times greater than the present level.98 94 IOR/MSS Eur D.122, p.137; Pearson, Buchanan, p.292, in a letter to the Revd David Brown. Whitehouse (Lingerings, p.234) states that this was at Kunnamkulam. Buchanan says that it was called by Hyder Ali, Nazarani Ghur, the City of Nazarenes. Buchanan recorded that the Christians were so numerous there that the Rajah had to treat them with indulgence, ‘and the more as they are within 4 miles of the English territories in Malabar’. It is surprising that, despite being so close to Thozhiyur, Buchanan does not seem to have been made aware of the presence of a Syrian bishop there. 95 Paulinus, Voyage to the East Indies, p.141ff. J.B.P. More claims that Tippu treated Syrian Christians more favourably than the Latin-rite converts, but his sources are mainly French and he seems to be unaware of the evidence of Paulinus and the British soldiers and Churchmen (see ‘Tipu Sultan and the Christians of Southern India’. in More, Religion and Society in South India, pp.29-50). 96 After lying desolate for a number of years, the churches at Angamale were restored, partly through the offices of Colonel Munro, who obtained a grant of free timber from the government (Whitehouse, Lingerings, p.236). 97 IOR/H/456c, p.361. 98 IOR/H/456c, p.361. Forrest’s assessment of the impact of Haider Ali and Tippu Sultan is significant: ‘The territory we now call Kerala had seen many conquerors or would-be conquerors before Haidar’s first invasion, but in spite of his son’s reformist aims … it must be said that neither the English nor the Dutch, nor even the ruthless Portuguese, showed themselves more alien to or disruptive of the entire region’s political and

278

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

There is one small piece of evidence concerning the impact of these ‘Devastations’ on Thozhiyur. Kollaparambil states that Mar Koorilose I fled south as Tippu’s army approached and found himself once more in the territory of Mar Dionysios I.99 Mar Dionysios took the opportunity of convening the general assembly of his community which met in August 1789, approved his approaches to Rome, allowed him also to ordain his nephew as successor, and forced Kurillos to submit to him as an ordinary priest’.100 There is no tradition or record at Thozhiyur of this event or of Tippu’s incursion having impinged on the life of the young community there. On the contrary, it is believed that the location of the Church in a predominantly Muslim area, and the high regard in which Mar Koorilose I and his companions were held following the healing of the rabid boy, saved it from damage by Tippu. Certainly, the contrast between the fates of Arthat and Thozhiyur would seem to require some explanation, and this is the most likely.101 social fabric than the two dictators from Mysore. Given time, they might have remade it in their own image; as it was, they came and conquered and killed and converted – and then disappeared for ever’ (Tiger, p.133). 99 ‘Dionysios’, p.179f. His source seems to be a letter of Bishop Aloysius a S. Maria, the Vicar Apostolic, dated 3rd March 1790 (APF SC(IOC) vol. 39, f.223) The incident is repeated in Hambye, HCI, III, p.58. There is no mention of Mar Koorilose II, who had probably been consecrated by this date (see next Chapter). 100 Kollaparambil, ‘Dionysios’, p.179. Hambye, HCI, III, p.58. It was this initiative that led to the abortive agreement referred to above, whereby, in April 1791 Mar Dionysios I signed an agreement with Bishop Jose de Soledade, Latin-rite bishop of Cochin. Kollaparambil states that Mar Koorilose was named in the agreement as being prepared to be received into communion with Rome, together with his followers (‘Dionysios’, p.180). Given his loyalty to the Antiochene bishops, it is extremely unlikely that Mar Koorilose supported in any way Mar Dionysios I’s negotiations with Rome nor is he likely to have willingly acquiesced in any decision to continue the Metropolitanate as hereditary in Mar Dionysios I’s family. The alleged forced submission does no credit to Mar Dionysios or his community. It has not been possible to examine the alleged primary source. 101 The general impression is that ‘The Syrians who remained in the Zamorin’s dominions seem to have been exterminated during Tippu’s

MAR KOORILOSE I AND MAR DIONYSIOS I

279

If Mar Koorilose did flee Tippu’s armies, changes in the military situation soon allowed him to return to Thozhiyur. The Zamorin of Calicut and the Rajah of Cochin allied themselves with the British and assisted in forcing Tippu Sultan’s withdrawal from the territories he had occupied. As noted in Chapter 4, in 1792 by the Treaty of Seringapatam Tippu Sultan ceded Malabar to the British. The British Governor General made the decision to bring Malabar under the direct rule of East India Company and accordingly two commissioners were sent to Calicut to negotiate with the Zamorin. The outcome was an agreement whereby the British would rule Malabar in exchange for an annual allowance paid to the Zamorin. The Thozhiyur community was now under British sovereignty. The newly acquired territory was judged ‘a rich Country, abounding in excellent Timber for Ship building and every purpose; it offers particular commercial advantages’.102 In May 1800, Malabar district was transferred from the Bombay province of the East India Company to the Madras province and the first Principal Collector, Major Macleod, took charge of the district. Revenue and judicial administration departments were set up. Beyond the glimpse of Mar Koorilose I’s possible flight, it is impossible to know what other effects the campaigns and social upheaval had on the life of the community at Anjoor and Thozhiyur. A detailed report compiled by the British in 1792-3 concerning their newly-acquired territory frustratingly explicitly excludes any description of the Christians, though it notes their presence ‘in the Southern part of the Zamourin or Samoory’s districts; which last are more immediately under the British Superintendency’.103 Murwars’ (Cheriyan, CMS, p.43), though Seton recorded ‘many Christians in Malabar who are supposed to have been converted as early as the 3rd century’ (Observations, p.557). 102 Seton, Observations, p.471. Much of the surviving material from the early British administration in Malabar concerns the timber trade. 103 Reports of a Joint Commission from Bengal and Bombay, to inspect into the state and condition of the province of Malabar in years 1792 and 1793, with the regulations thereon established for the administration of the province, (IOL/ T5236, vol. I, p.12, para.3). The report was printed and published in Madras in 1862 (IOR/ V3202). The response of Sir John Shore, the Governor-General, survives in published form: Reply of the Governor General in Council to the

280

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

doch Brown, in his report, gave a detailed account of the Muslim and Hindu communities and their inter-relationships, but makes no mention of Christians at all.104 The likelihood is that Christians had always been fewer in number than further south in Cochin and Travancore, and that the Mysorean Wars had reduced their numbers in the region so much that it was possible for a traveller not to encounter them at all. Thozhiyur must have been an isolated outpost. In 1800, another wide-ranging British survey, conducted by Dr Francis Buchanan on behalf of the Governor General, crossed the border between Cochin and Malabar rather to the north of Anjur, heading north-west.105 Dr Buchanan and his party did, howMalabar Joint Commissioners’ Reports, with Letters of Instruction from the Bombay Government and Despatch from the Honourable Court of Directors, Madras, Lawrence Asylum Press, 1879, (IOL/ V3182). It speaks of ‘Nestorian Christians, who are still to be found in considerable numbers in Travancore and the other southern parts of Malabar’, but says that they are much fewer in number than Muslims, whose descendants are called ‘Mopillas’ (p.7f). The ‘Reply’ has as an appendix a ‘List of vouchers and papers accompanying the 1st or General Report of the Malabar Commissioners under date the 11th of October 1793, with a Postscript of the 14th of the same month’. 160 documents are listed. The second is ‘Major Dow’s account of the Nestorians and other Christians in Malabar, together with an extract from Mr Agnew’s report on the same subject’ (p.101). To date these have not come to light. Major Alexander Dow, who served in the Bombay Army from 1769-1800, was one of the first two members of the Malabar Commission. He died in 1800, by which time he was a Lt-Colonel (for references see IOR/H/613; IOR/H/634; IOR/Mss Eur/ C470). ‘Mr Agnew’ was probably the John Agnew who was Resident at Calicut in 1794 (IOR/H/456a.pp.429-59). 104 IOR/H/456c, pp.353-491. 105 See the map in Francis Buchanan, MD, A Journey from Madras through the Countries of Mysore, Canara, and Malabar, performed under the Orders of the Most Noble the Marquis Wellesley, Governor General of India, for the express purpose of investigating the state of Agriculture, Arts, and Commerce; the Religion, Manners, and Customs; the History Natural and Civil, and Antiquities, in the Dominions of the Rajah of Mysore and the Countries acquired by the Honourable East India Company in the late and former Wars, from Tippoo Sultaun, (3 vols), London, Cadell and Davies (for the Asiatic Society) and Black, Parry & Kingsbury (for the East India Company), 1807, vol. II.

MAR KOORILOSE I AND MAR DIONYSIOS I

281

ever, pass through ‘a Nazaren, or Christian village, named Cunnung colung curry Angady, which looks very well, being situated on a rising ground amid fine groves of the Betel-nut palm’ on 9th December 1800.106 This village is the modern Kunnamkulam, the nearest large town to Thozhiyur. It is therefore instructive to look in a little more detail at Buchanan’s description of this community, just a few miles from Mar Koorilose I: The Papa or priest waited on us. He was attended by a pupil, who behaved to his superior with the utmost deference. The Papa was very well dressed in a blue robe; and though his ancestors have been settled in the country for many generations, he was very fair with high Jewish features. The greater part of the sect, however, entirely resemble the aborigines of the country, from whom indeed they are descended. The Papa informed me that his sect are dependent on the Jacobite Patriarch of Antioch; but that they have a metropolitan, who resides in the dominions of Travancore, and who is sent by the patriarch on the death of his predecessor. None of the Papas, or inferior clergy, go to Antioch for their education, and all of them have been born in the country. My visitor understood no language but the Syriac, and that of Malayala. He preaches in the latter; but all the ceremonies of the Church are performed in the Syriac. In their churches they have neither images nor pictures, but the Nazarens worship the cross. Their clergy are allowed to marry; my visitor, however, seemed to be not a little proud of his observing celibacy, and a total abstinence from animal food. He said that, so far as he remembers, the number of the sect seems to be neither increasing nor diminishing. Converts, however, are occasionally made of both Nairs and Shanars; but no instance of a Moplay [Muslim] having been converted, nor of a Namburi, unless he had previously lost caste.107

The priest seems to have put on his kappa or phaino to greet his visitors. What is puzzling in the account is the lack of any men106 107

F.Buchanan, Journey from Madras, vol. II, p.391. F.Buchanan, Journey from Madras, vol. II, p.391.

282

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

tion of the bishop living nearby. Presumably this is because the priest in question was loyal to Mar Dionysios I. Mill believed that the person whom Buchanan met was Mar Koorilose I (because a mere priest would not wear a blue robe) but that he ‘did not (probably through fear) lay claim to any episcopal or metropolitan character’.108 This seems unlikely. Had Buchanan and his party visited Arthat where Joseph Pulikottil was based, they might have heard a very different account of things. Buchanan was impressed with the cleanliness of the Christian village, where an old clay-built church still stood, though now roofless, the community evidently using a new building. From Kunnamkulam the British moved on to ‘the place called by us Chitwa, but by the natives Shetuwai’, where they met up with Mr Drummond the Collector. It is not clear at what stage contact was established between Mar Koorilose and the British authorities who arrived to govern Malabar, though further research may shed some light on this. Some evidence of their contact will be examined in the next Chapter. Arthat This was the nearest Syrian Orthodox Church to Anjur, though it lay over the border in Cochin. It appears that some time prior to this (and probably prior to Tippu Sultan’s invasions) Mar Koorilose I requested that the Church be placed under his jurisdiction. An undated letter, written in Malayalam, from the bishop to the Rajah of Cochin, surives: To Your Grace, Koorilose Metropolitan gives information about his grievances. There are more than 20 churches outside the Vettiya kottpurathu. All these belong to the Pazhayacoot Christians [ie the Romo-Syrians]. In the extreme north there is only half a church [ara-pally] which is Puthenkuttukar. It is called Chattukulangara. Further north of it there are no Christians or churches. There are three chapels. By your grace, please may Chattuku108

MS Mill 195, f.53.

MAR KOORILOSE I AND MAR DIONYSIOS I

283

langara Church be given under my authority, particularly as the Metran in your country will come to make trouble. When I felt my life was in danger, I paid a ransom and escaped to the north. Please give the northernmost church to my rule. When I was in total control of the Puthenkuttukar churches within your jurisdiction and beyond, I paid 5000 puthen into the treasury. I am eager to see Your Grace. May peace and long life remain with you.109

The aspects of the letter relating to the circumstances of Mar Koorilose’s tenure as Malankara Metropolitan have been discussed in the previous Chapter. Here it is sufficient to note that the bishop’s request was not granted, perhaps because the Rajah was unwilling to transfer a church within his dominions to a bishop based in another territory. Nevertheless, the situation described by Koorilose I fits what is known of the history of Arthat. It was one of the Churches used jointly by Pazhayakuttukar and Puthenkuttukar – hence its description as ‘only half a church’. Eventually the Church was given to the Puthenkuttukar; a plaque on the wall of the Church still commemorates this. In 1806, following its destruction by Tippu Sultan, the renovation of Arthat Church was undertaken by Pulikottil Joseph who had brought Mar Koorilose I to Anjur. For many years its proximity to Anjur ensured a close relationship. The character of Mar Koorilose I Little other evidence has so far come to light concerning Mar Koorilose I’s activities, prior to his death in 1802. As the 1785 correspondence from Paulinus a S.Bartholomeo and the 1796 petition referred to above indicate, he seems to have remained active and engaged in local Christian affairs. Comparison between Mar Dionysios I and Mar Koorilose I is instructive. The former clearly had an ‘agenda’ and was active in promoting initiatives to achieve it. Mar Koorilose, on the other 109 Puthezhathu Ramon Menon, Sakthan Thampuram, Kozhikode, Mathrubhoomi, 1989 (3rd ed.), p.289.

284

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

hand, seems to have been caught up in other people’s ‘agendas’. It looks as though Mar Basilios consecrated him to ensure that there was an Indian bishop loyal to Antioch; Mar Gregorios tried to make him Metropolitan to defeat Mar Dionysios; and the antiRoman Syrians clearly wished to use him to counter-balance Mar Dionysios’ Romeward approaches. Interestingly, despite what could be interpreted as a rather passive role, none of the contemporary sources describe him as weak. On the contrary he is consistently described as spiritual and intelligent. It is noteworthy, for example, that the testimony of the sources quoted by Yacoub III and referred to above are all positive until the point where Mar Koorilose receives episcopal consecration apparently without Patriarchal sanction. Only then does he begin to be vilified. Respect for him, however, has continued strong, both within the MISC and, with the passage of time, more widely. He is sometimes referred to as Kattumangat Valiya Bava (Great Father) and was declared a Saint in 1972 by his successor, Mar Philoxenos III of Thozhiyur. Thus, by the dawn of the 19th century, there had been established at the northern edge of the traditional Syrian Christian area in Kerala, a small episcopally-led community, essentially West Syrian in liturgical identity, independent of the jurisdiction both of Rome and of the Malankara Metropolitan. Thanks to the generosity of its Muslim benefactor it had a substantial land holding, buildings and sufficient income to guarantee its continued existence. In Thozhiyur tradition the expulsion of Mar Koorilose parallels the rejection of the biblical Joseph by his brothers. Like Joseph, the expelled bishops of Thozhiyur were later to save those who had plotted against them. The very humiliations repeatedly meted out to Mar Koorilose I by the majority community make the events that followed next all the more extraordinary.

CHAPTER 9: THE EARLY 19TH CENTURY – TWO LINES OF SUCCESSION On 27th November 1817 the Revd Josiah Pratt of the Church Missionary Society wrote to a colleague of the ‘awful visitation under which the nations labours’.1 The event was the death in childbirth of Princess Charlotte, the only legitimate grandchild of the King, George III. It provoked a succession crisis in the House of Hanover which was ultimately solved by the birth and long reign of Queen Victoria. Far away in south India, the Puthenkuttukar were also experiencing a succession crisis in the second decade of the 19th century. Unfortunately for the community, this succession crisis – of bishops - proved much more difficult to resolve. As a result of the actions of Shukr Allah Mar Basilios Maphrian and his companions half a century before, for the first 15 years of the 19th century there were two independent lines of episcopal succession in Kerala. One of these derived from Mar Dionysios I, the other from Mar Koorilose I. The office of Malankara Metropolitan was to pass from one line to the other before eventually the direct consecration of bishops by the Patriarch himself was to usher in a totally changed situation. It will be helpful to look at the two lines of succession independently. Before doing so, let us ourselves of the sources of our information for this period. A BRIEF REVIEW OF SOURCES

From the beginning of the 19th century to the present day there has been almost unremitting conflict – both communal and litigious – about the identity and leadership of the Puthenkuttukar. Most ac1

CMS/B/OMS/CI E1/107, Letter to Mr Thompson.

285

286

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

counts have been written to promote a particular viewpoint, and have frequently not hesitated to blacken the characters and motives of opponents. At times this has taken the form of sheer untruth.2 It is therefore necessary to treat such sources with extreme care. In relation to the Kattumangattu succession the main indigenous written sources are the Palakunnathu Notes and the various sources referred to by Barsoum and Yacoub III, details of which were given in Chapter 7. Before proceeding with the narrative, it is instructive at this point to consider the nature of these sources. All emanate from three prominent families which have produced generations of priests and malpans (and, later, bishops) and are still represented in Kerala today.3 The Palakunnathu family of Maramon and their role will be described in Chapters 11 and 13. The Edavazhikals,4 a Knanaya family, derive from Kottayam.5 During the period under review, the main representative was the priest Philip Edavazhikal who lived from approximately 1790 to 1867. He was a strong defender of the Puthenkuttukar’s links with Antioch, but not uncritically or consistently so. Yacoub III says that Philip was opinionated and despotic and that his ideas caused the Church much damage.6 He was the author of several writings and was actively involved in many of the events to be narrated here. One of this Philip’s sons, another Philip (1831-1875), became a Chorepiscopa and carried on his father’s polemical campaigns, not least by writing numerous letters.7 Chorepiscopa Philip is best known to the 2 An example of this is the claim that Mar Philixenos II (see below) at the end of his life ‘corrupted women and procreated bastards’ (quoted in Yacoub III, Syrian Church in India, p.165). In fact there is ample evidence of Philoxenos’ genuine sanctity and frailty, and of the affection in which he was widely held. Such manifestly untrue statements naturally undermine confidence in other statements made by the same sources. 3 The present Mar Thoma Metropolitan, Joseph Mar Thoma, is a member of the Palakunnathu family. The present writer recalls a courteous meeting with the grandson of E.M. Philip of the Edavazhikal family. 4 The spelling ‘Edavalikel’ is also found. 5 See Yacoub III, Syrian Church of India, pp.215-223, 242-250 for an account of this family. 6 Syrian Church of India, p.217. 7 See Yacoub III, Syrian Church of India, pp.242-250 for an account of Chorepiscopus Philipos. Baker believed that Chorepiscopus Philipos’ op-

THE EARLY 19TH CENTURY

287

English-speaking world by a small book published in his name in England by the Revd G.B. Howard, one of the English clergy noted in Chapter 4.8 In the subsequent generation the Edavazhikal family produced E.M. Philip, whose book The Indian Church of St Thomas was published posthumously in 1908 and is still in print. The family collected, and still possesses, a significant collection of letters and other manuscripts. Like the Edavazhikals, the Konats were a priestly family for many generations.9 Some were calligraphers and malpans, at times exercising great influence among the northern churches. Several members of the family were involved in the events of the 19th century, usually in opposition to both the Thozhiyur bishops and Mathews Mar Athanasios (see below). Abraham Konat (1780-1864) was ‘the northern malpan’ at the Old Seminary in its early years, and was one of the priests imprisoned after the visit of Mar Athanasios Abdul Messih (see Chapter 10). Mathen Konat (1859-1927) is credited with creating an important collection of manuscripts, now stored at Pampakuda. It is possible to interpret the convulsions that engulfed the Puthenkuttukar in the 19th century as the result of rivalries between these three families and their allies, inside and outside Kerala. This is Bayly’s view of events. It was not, of course, the view of the protagonists or their present day successors.

position to Mathews Mar Athanasios were intensified by a dispute with him over a piece of land (CCC, (Nov. 1870), p.436f. He seems originally to have been priest of a church by Mathews Mar Athanasios’ appointment, but had been removed by the same bishop (CCC, (Oct. 1871), p.389; (May 1871), p.182, (Dec. 1871), p.473f). 8 Edavalikel Philipos, The Syrian Christians of Malabar: Otherwise called the Christians of St Thomas, by the Rev. Edavalikel Philipos, Chorepiscopos, Cathanar of the Great Church at Cottayam, (ed. G.B.Howard), Oxford, James Parker and Co., 1869. There is, however, some controversy over the actual authorship of the work, a number of authorities attributing it to his father (see CCC, (Nov. 1870), p.436f, (May 1871); p.182, (Oct. 1871), p.389; (Dec.1871), p.473). 9 See Yacoub III, Syrian Church of India, pp.213f for a brief account of the family. Also references in Barsoum, Scattered Pearls, pp.28, 71, 522. Van der Ploeg, Syriac MSS, pp.155-179 describes their MS collection.

288

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

The authorship of another source cited in Chapter 7 – the Tract of 1840 – is less easy to identify. Insofar as its contents can be ascertained from quotations by Yacoub III, it appears to come from circles hostile to the indigenous bishops of the early decades of the 19th century. Yacoub III also cites Tracts of 1841 and 1842, but these seem to be the same work as that ascribed to 1840. If any documents relating to the early episcopal succession exist at Thozhiyur, they have not yet come to light, though there is a clear oral tradition concerning events. The bulk of our written evidence, prior to the arrival of the English missionaries, therefore we owe to families who either believed or wished to convince others that the succession deriving from Mar Koorilose I was certainly tainted, if not invalid, and so sought to discredit the Thozhiyur bishops by portraying their actions and motives negatively. This must be borne in mind as we now turn to the witnesses. THE KATTUMANGATTU SUCCESSION – GEEVERGHESE MAR KOORILOSE II AND MAR IVANIOS

In view of the importance of the subject, Yacoub III’s summary of his Edavazhikal, Konat and 1840 Tract sources, and the Palakunnathu Notes are given here in full. Yacoub III’s Summary Abraham returned to Anjoor (Thoziyur). In 1794, the priest Gurgis invested his young half-brother (of his mother), with a bishop’s habit and called him Cyril II. Shortly afterwards, Gurgis became paralytic hardly able to walk, and passed away. Abraham turned to his nephew, the youngest son of his halfbrother Yuhanna and ordained him deacon and then a priest. When he asked the young man to wear the bishop’s habit, he refused saying that he will be rejected and mocked by the congregation. The young man went to Dionysios I, receiving from him the lawful ordination of a deacon and then a priest. The congregation of Mulanthuruthi welcomed him as a priest of their own church. [A tract on the church of Malabar written in 1841.] About this time, a corrupt young man called Corola, son of Matta Pannoyli, from Kottayam, who was residing in Kandanat, went to see Abraham. Few days later, Abraham unlaw-

THE EARLY 19TH CENTURY

289

fully ordained him a bishop with the name of Iyawannis despite that he was married. He also taught him magic. [A tract on the church of Malabar written in 1841.] On June 27, 1802, Abraham died and was buried in his house in Anjoor. Corola, unlawfully of course, ordained as bishop a priest called Zechariah who was Cheran’s son, in whose house Abraham resided in Anjoor, giving him the name of Philexinus. Zechariah, was already ordained a deacon and then priest by Dionyius I, as has been previously said. [A tract of the Chorepsicopus Matta Konat, still in manuscript form, and a tract on the church of Malabar written in 1841.] Later, Corola and the paralytic Gurgis, went to the home of latter in Mulanthuruthi. Corola died on the road and his body was taken to Anjoor and buried in Abraham’s house. Gurgis reached his house where he died in 1807 and was buried in the Church of the Cross at Vitaikal. [A tract on the church of Malabar written in 1841.] Palakunnathu Notes [Cyrilus] then consecrated one of his younger brothers Metran under the name of Dionyisios [sic] – this man after was affected by paralysis. A man named Curien from Codanatta near Cotyam wandering as a mendicant came to Anyoor…. he was ignorant but Cyril consecrated him Bishop as his nephew was quite unfit to succeed him in the case of this death. … At this time Cyril died at Anyoor. The Ramban Joseph with the 5 refractory parishes sent for the paralytic and the beggar Metran, promising to make them Metrans …. These two Metrans prior to leaving Anyoor sent for a catanar Chiran from Columgnere and consecrated him under the name of Dionysios [sic]. They came to Chowghaut then while getting into the boat the paralytic died: the survivor went to Mulandurte and stayed six months till he died.

Despite the hostile tone and the obvious inaccuracies (for example, the use of the name ‘Dionysios’ instead of ‘Philoxenos’), these sources in fact agree surprisingly closely with MISC oral tradition.

290

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

The first major agreed fact is that Abraham Mar Koorilose consecrated his brother Geevarghese as Mar Koorilose II. The earliest direct evidence relating to Mar Koorilose II is found in the inscription in the Thevanal New Testament of 1767/1771 referred to above, where Geeverghese refers to himself as a Chorepiscopos and a disciple of Mar Basilios the Catholicos from whom he received Holy Orders.10 It is likely that he was one of the three native priests made ‘Canons’ by the Maphrian, as described in Joseph Pulikottil’s 1813 submission.11 It is probable that he was ordained priest by Mar Ivanios al- Arqugianyi. As noted in Chapter 6, he was almost certainly ‘clothed with the monastic habit’ by Maphrian Mar Basilios. The date of the consecration of Mar Koorilose II given by Yacoub III’s sources is 1794, and this is followed by Brown and Chediath, but in a prayer book and psalter dated 15th Tammuz [July] 1788, the scribe refers to himself as ‘Geeverghese son of Abraham, in name Metropolitan Koorilose, from the Church of Mar Geeverghese [St George] which is in Thozhiyur.’12 He clearly must have been consecrated by his brother before that date. Why did Mar Koorilose I consecrate another bishop at such an early date? This is a question that much exercised Mill, since, as he reasoned, prior to the death of Mar Dionysios I, ‘the canonical power and authority of the Metropolitan See at Cottayam had not been broken, … How came Cyril now to set it at naught by providing for a Northern Succession of his own (from Mar Basilios)?’13 Part of the answer is probably that in the late 1780s Mar Dionysios I was, as we have seen still actively pursuing the goal of reunification with Rome. The anti-Roman section of the Puthenkuttukar still needed a leader. Something – perhaps a bout of illness may have reminded Mar Koorilose I of his mortality and prompted him to do something to ensure a pro-Antioch succession.14 A furTaylor, Handlist, (forthcoming). MS Mill 192, f.47v. 12 Brown, Indian Christians, p.130; Chediath, ‘List’, p.4. See Taylor, Handlist, (forthcoming). 13 MS Mill 192, f.127. 14 Mill notes, that, under British rule, Mar Koorilose I could act more freely than if he were subject to the Dutch in Travancore. This is slightly 10 11

THE EARLY 19TH CENTURY

291

ther factor may be that in September 1786 news of Archbishop Kariattil’s death had reached Kerala, prompting, as we have seen, great unrest among the St Thomas Christians and disgust with the European hierarchy. The prospect of another anti-Roman rising could have justified strengthening an indigenous succession. Mar Koorilose I died in about 1802.15 All the sources agree that his death took place at Anjur. His tomb can be seen at the north-west corner of the sanctuary in the Cathedral he built at Thozhiyur, with an inscription.16 Koorilose I is said to have bequeathed to his brother the inheritance he had received from Mar Gregorios. This was entrusted by Mar Koorilose II to his niece for safe-keeping, but according to family tradition was never recovered from her.17 Mar Koorilose II is described by Verghese as ‘a man of prayer [who] seldom moved outside the church.’18 This description tallies with the glimpse of him in the ‘dragon’ incident at Thevanal. Thozhiyur tradition states that Mar Koorilose II consecrated Joseph Panavelil of Kaniampully (probably in 1807) to be his successor under the title Mar Ivanios.19 This Joseph, according to the anachronistic, as Malabar was not yet British in 1788, but the point about being free from Dutch control stands. 15 Verghese, Brief Sketch, p.18; Daniel 10th July 1802 (Orthodox Church, p.133) Mill suggests 1800, MS Mill 192, f.127. The 10th July is still celebrated as a major festival at Thozhiyur each year. 16 Interestingly, in the monastery of Mar Behnam in Mesopotamia, the Beit Kaddishee, where several Syrian bishops are buried, is situated to the north-west of the main sanctuary (see plan in Badger, Rituals, facing p.95). It may be that this positioning was being deliberately followed. The arrangement at Thozhiyur, where an inscribed marble slab is fixed into the wall is fixed into the wall above the grave is also found at Mar Behnam monastery (Badger, Rtuals, p.95). 17 K.T.John, Kattumangat Family, p.18. 18 Verghese, Brief Sketch, p.18. 19 K.T. John, Kattumagat Family, p.19. Verghese, Brief Sketch, p.18, where he is said to be called Joseph of Kaniapilli. Interestingly, Ivanios is, of course, the name of the Antiochian bishop who came to Kerala in 1747 and had promoted the careers of Geeverghese and his brother in their youth. It may well have been chosen as an affectionate tribute to their former mentor. Alternatively, it seems to have been the episcopal name of Mar Gregorios as titular Bishop of Mar Behnam monastery, prior to his

292

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

oral tradition, had been a priest at Kottayam under Mar Dionysios I. Following some differences with that bishop, he had travelled to Thozhiyur and joined with Mar Koorilose II. However, the Palakunnathu Notes, Yacoub III’s sources and Mannanam Malayalam 3/MS Mill 192 all state that Mar Koorilose I in fact consecrated two bishops. 20 The hostile sources used by Barsoum also have a tradition of two bishops being consecrated: ‘[Koorilose] installed Gurgis, his half-brother, and Ibrahim, his nephew on his mother’s side, as unlawful bishops’. 21 This second bishop is named ‘Curian from Codanatta near Cotyam’ in the Palakunnathu Notes and ‘Corola, son of Matta Pannoyli, from Kottayam’ by Yacoub III’s sources. The latter agrees with Thozhiyur tradition in giving his episcopal name as Ivanios; ‘Pannoyli’ and ‘Panaveli’ are also obviously the same name. It appears that Curian and Joseph are the same person. The external sources have a low opinion of this Mar Ivanios: Yacoub III’s sources describe him as ‘a corrupt young man’, and the Palakunnathu Notes state that he was ‘ignorant’, and reached Thozhiyur after ‘wandering as a mendicant’. Whatever the truth of this, it is clear that Mar Koorilose I consecrated him because his brother (Mar Koorilose II) was now a paralytic, and so ‘quite unfit to succeed him in the case of his death’. 22 The Palakunnathu Notes and Yacoub III’s sources also agree the two surviving Thozhiyur Metrans (Koorilose II and Ivanios) intended to leave Thozhiyur and had actually begun their journey when one of them died. The Palakunnathu Notes give the detail that the death took place as they were preparing to board a boat at elevation to the see of Jerusalem. If either of these was the inspiration for the choice, it indicates a continuing attachment to the Church in Syria. 20 Mannanam Malayalam 3: ‘When he [Mar Qurillos] was kept under the custody of Mar Dionysius, somehow he escaped in secret, went to the region (shīma) of Chavakkad of the Kozhikode king and lived there; he built a church and ordained some priests. Two of these he ordained as bishops.Ramban’. MS Mill 192, f.48: ‘[Kurilos] conferred Orders on divers persons of his party, among whom he consecrated 2 Bishops’. 21 Syriac Dioceses, p.65. 22 (MS Mill 192, f.6). K.T. John describes Mar Koorilose II as ‘a sickly person not interested in the administration of the Church’ (Kattumangat Family, p.19), which supports the tradition of his being a paralytic.

THE EARLY 19TH CENTURY

293

Chowghat, in response to an invitation from Ramban Joseph Pulikottil to join him. They differ, however, on which bishop died. The Palakunnathu Notes say that it was the ‘paralytic’ who died,23 while Yacoub III’s sources give Mar Ivanios. The latter is correct, for Mar Koorilose II is known to be buried near Mulanthuruthy (see below). Fascinatingly, recent events confirm the tradition that Mar Ivanios was buried in Thozhiyur Church. During the rebuilding of St George’s Cathedral in 1988 the remains of an unaccounted-for bishop were discovered under the floor and placed in a repository with the bones of other former bishops. Again, both the Palakunnathu Notes and Yacoub III’s sources agree that Mar Ivanios was involved in the consecration of a bishop prior to his departure from Thozhiyur and unforeseen death. The Palakunnathu Notes associate Mar Koorilose II with this consecration: it is likely that he participated as far as his disability allowed. Thozhiyur tradition says only that Mar Koorilose II consecrated a priest of Arthat Church, Skariah Kaseesa from Pengamuck, as Mar Philoxenos I in 1807.24 The Palakunnathu Notes call him ‘a catanar Chiran from Columgnere’.25 The names ‘Zechariah’ and ‘Chiran’ are both attested to by Yacoub III’s sources. The episcopal name was ‘Philoxenos’26 and it an intriguing choice. It may have been bestowed to reinforce the West Syrian identity of the little community. It probably alludes to Philoxenos of Mabbugh (ca. 440-523) who, though of Persian origin and having studied at Edessa, became a fervent ‘Miaphysite’ and even campaigned for the closure of the School at Edessa on the grounds that it was ‘Nestorian’. 27 He was consecrated Metropolitan of Mabbugh west of

MS Mill 192, f.6v . Verghese, Brief Sketch, p.18. 25 MS Mill 192, f.6. Verghese confirms the name ‘Cheeran’ (Brief Sketch, p.19). 26 The ‘Dionysios’ of the Palakunnathu Notes is clearly a surprising error. 27 See McCullough, Short History, p.80f for the career of Philoxenos of Mabbugh; also Barsoum, Scattered Pearls, pp.262-270. Numerous writings by Philoxenos of Mabbugh survive. See Brock, The Syriac Fathers on Prayer and the Spiritual Life, (Kalamazoo, Cistercian Publications, 1987). Philox23 24

294

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

the Euphrates (known in Greek as Hierapolis) in 485, but was exiled in 518 by Emperor Justin I because of his opposition to the Council of Chalcedon. A prolific writer, he died in 523.28 The name is therefore not one that would be favoured by the Church of the East.29 According to Thozhiyur tradition, after the consecration, Mar Koorilose II - suffering from ill health - left for his boyhood village of Mulanthuruthy, from where he and his brother had begun their pilgrimage to Thozhiyur approximately forty years previously. This agrees with the external traditions that the incumbent Metropolitan left Thozhiyur. At Mulanthuruthy Mar Koorilose II died on 29th May 1808. His remains were laid to rest in the south-west corner of the sanctuary at St. Thomas Dayara (monastery) at Vettikal, a mile and a half from Mulanthuruthy, where the anniversary of his death is still celebrated annually.30 Thus the internal and external traditions (despite the extreme hostility of most of the latter) present a remarkably consistent account. Mar Koorilose I initially consecrated his brother to succeed him as Mar Koorilose II. When the latter was paralysed (perhaps by a stroke), Mar Koorilose I then consecrated Curien Panaveli as Mar Ivanios. Some time after the death of Mar Koorilose I, the two surviving bishops planned to leave Thozhiyur, but before doing so consecrated Zecharia Chiran as Mar Philoxenos I. Shortly after leaving Thozhiyur, Mar Ivanios died suddenly and his body was brought back to St George’s Cathedral for burial. Mar Koorilose II managed to reach Mulanthuruthy where he died and was buried in enos of Mabbugh also spent some time at the monastery of Mar Gabriel in Turabdin (Brock et al., Hidden Pearl, II, p. 155f). 28 Brock et al., Hidden Pearl, III, pp. 60f, 212. 29 It must be remembered that, like his brother, Mar Koorilose II had also been nurtured by Shukr Allah Mar Basilios and Mar Gregorios in Syrian Orthodox identity. 30 Verghese, Brief Sketch, p.18. A marble plaque in Malayalam marks the place. The fact that he was buried at ‘Vitaikal’ is confirmed by Yacoub III’s sources (Syrian Church in India, p.142). K.T. John states that Mar Koorilose II was refused burial in Mulanthuruthy Church at the instigation of a relative, Thanganat Ipekora Tharakan (Kattumangat Family, p.19). This is perhaps the same person whom Mar Koorilose I had angered by beginning the Qurbana before his arrival.

THE EARLY 19TH CENTURY

295

a nearby Chapel. Statements about the characters of the bishops need to be treated with great caution. What the accounts do show is a clear succession of consecrations deriving from Mar Koorilose I. This was to be of great significance in the early decades of the 19th century. Left alone at Thozhiyur, Mar Philoxenos I succeeded as bishop of the community. While life at Thozhiyur entered a relatively quiet (or at least, little documented) phase, events that were to have a significant bearing on the future of the little community were taking place elsewhere in Kerala. THE PAKALOMATTOM SUCCESSION – MAR DIONYSIOS I AND CONTACT WITH BRITISH CHURCHMEN

Mar Koorilose I’s nemesis, Mar Dionysios I, outlived his rival by six years, dying aged 80 in May 1808.31 He had been canonically consecrated for 38 years and had functioned as Mar Thoma VI for about 14 years before that. Before his death he had helped initiate a development that was to have unforeseen consequences for the ancient Church in India. Following his short-lived submission to Rome in 1799, Mar Dionysios seems to have abandoned his initiatives in that direction. The changing political situation contributed to this. As noted in Chapter 4, in 1795 Cochin was taken by the British from the Dutch and in 1800 a British Resident was appointed at the courts of Cochin and Travancore. The increasing presence of British military and political personnel meant that contact with the Church of England was now inevitable. The story of this encounter has been told many times, but the emphasis has always been on the results that flowed from it, in particular the translation of the Bible into Malayalam, and the arrival of missionaries from the Church Missionary Society. Here it will be looked again with a view to identifying the situation between the Puthenkuttukar and Pazhayakuttukar. By the early 19th century Mar Dionysios I had some experience of dealing with Europeans. The Pazhayakuttukar among Brown (Indian Christians, p.127) and David Daniel (Orthodox Church, p.138) have 13th May. E.M. Philip – 25th Meenam (March) (Indian Church, p.170). Kaniamparampil agrees that Mar Dionysios died at Niranam and was buried at Puthencavu (Syrian Orthodox Church, p.117). 31

296

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

whom he had grown up had a European hierarchy, and European religious Orders were active among them. We have a description of Mar Dionyisios I from Paulinus a S. Bartholomeo who visited him on 22nd December 1785: When I entered his chamber, I saw an old man seated among his kathanars, with a long white beard, holding in his hand a silver crozier curved at the top in Greek style, wearing a pontifical cape,32 on his head a round mitre, such as oriental bishops wear, bearing a cross worked on it Phrygian fashion, from which a white veil flowed from head to shoulders. I tried him in a long discourse. I found him shrewd enough, talking grandly of his house and dignity, the matter of his conversion [ie to Rome] putting by for some other occasion, and striving that his nephew may succeed him. I knew the beast by its horns, and having left it, hastened on my journey.33

Mar Dionysios and the British Following the arrival of the British, Colonel Colin Macaulay, British Resident from 1800 to 1810, seems to have developed a working relationship with Mar Dionysios I. Macaulay saw the protection of the Christians as a major element of his role – and one to which he was personally, and not merely professionally, committed.34 He himself wrote on 20th April 1806 to the Chief Secretary to the Government at Fort St George to inform him that 32 The Latin is ‘cappa’. Brown (p.124) translates this as ‘cope’, but it more likely to refer to the shoulder cape (mozetta) worn as seen in Chapter 4 by the Archdeacons and their Metropolitan successors. 33 Paulinus, India Orentialis, p.110. 34 The Syrian Christians at this stage were suffering from the arbitrary actions of the Rajah of Cochin. In August 1803, for example, Macaulay had to remonstrate with the Rajah who had put to death ‘two respectable Natives of the Sect of Nestorian Christians’, after having imprisoned them in ‘a Tyger’s cage’ for a year. It seems the Rajah believed that there was treasure buried on the Christians’ property, which he had dug over to a depth of 8 feet in a vain attempt to discover. One of the victim’s sons had fled to British Malabar and appealed to the East India Company for redress (IOR/F/4/176/3192). Burial of treasure by Hindus fleeing Tippu’s army is recorded by Murdoch Brown (IOR/H.456c, p.481).

THE EARLY 19TH CENTURY

297

The Christians of the Syrian Sect of Nestorians in Cochin and Travancore are numerous. They are subjects in Spiritual Concerns to the Diocesan upon whom that high Office may be conferred by the Patriarch, who resides at Antioch. The present Diocesan is named Mar Thomas. The number of Churches governed by him amounts, it would appear, to nearly fifty.35

Macaulay’s terminology is interesting. Although clearly believing that the Indian Syrians had their bishop appointed by the Syrian Orthodox Patriarch, he nevertheless describes them as ‘Nestorians’. This confusion is echoed by Wrede, a contemporary of Macaulay, who states that a short time after the Synod of Diamper, ‘some Maronites, or Nestorian priests, found their way to the mountains of Travancore, where they revived the old doctrines and rites, and ever since kept up their communication with the Jacobites, Maronites and Nestorians of Syria.’36 Although neither Macaulay nor Wrede were likely to have been familiar with the minutiae of doctrinal differences between the East and West Syrian traditions, their relatively loose terminology confirms other evidence that the Puthenkur community was at the dawn of the 19th century, far from being ‘pure’ Syrian Orthodox. Frustratingly, neither European gives us any description of Mar Koorilose I and his community in far-off Anjur, which at this stage was almost certainly more determinedly West Syrian in rite than the majority of the Puthenkuttukar. Macaulay’s efforts to improve the social conditions of the Syrians by extending to them the direct protection of the British See IOR/F/4/217/4782 for this collection of correspondence. Although Macaulay’s involvement with Mar Dionysios I and his flock is explored here, it should be borne in mind that the Resident’s dealings with the Indian Christians were not limited to the Puthenkuttukar. For example, on 20th May 1807 he issued Regulations to allot Roman Catholic parishes to specific dioceses ‘instead of their being as heretofore liable to capricious and hurtful changes’ (IOR/F/4/244/5538, p.11). For a detailed discussion of the dealings of Macaulay and later Residents with the Roman authorities, see Puliurumpil, Jurisdictional Conflict, pp.167-203. The Roman Catholic bishops were not at always happy with what they saw as Macaulay’s interference. 36 Wrede, ‘Account’, p.373. 35

298

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

Government, need not be explored in detail here. It should be noted, however, that it is likely that the British themselves were contributing to the Syrians’ loss of their traditional status in Keralan society. The disbanding by the British of the armies of Travancore and Cochin deprived the Syrians (and others) of their martial role. Further, the Syrians were impoverished (again, along with others) by having to contribute to the tribute levied by the British on the Rajahs of Travancore and Cochin.37 The disruption of trade caused by the wars of Tippu Sultan had also contributed to an economic downturn which had affected the St Thomas Christians. Kerr and Buchanan The first British Churchman to meet Mar Dionysios seems to have been the Revd Richard Kerr, whose manuscript report, dated 4th November 1806, describes the Metran as ‘now old and infirm but a very respectable character and of the most venerable and prepossessing appearance’.38 37 See Bayly, Saints, pp.281-296 for a discussion of the changes taking place in the Christians’ community status. For examples of Macaulay’s socalled ‘assistance’ see IOR/F/4/217/4782. Among the records there survives a copy of a letter from Macaulay to ‘Mar Thoma (more properly Mar Dyonisius)’ asking if he is satisfied ‘with the degree of protection which has been extended towards you, and also whether of late you have any reason to complain of oppression or violence towards your Clergy or their Flocks, either on the part of the Sircar of Cochin or Travancore?’ The Metropolitan replied entreating Macaulay, ‘that you may have the goodness to continue towards me your kind protection’. The Resident believed that his measures to relieve the oppression endured by the Syrians had already borne fruit: clergy in ‘remote situations … who had become licentious from having imbibed and being encouraged in the spirit of insubordination, have been induced to submit themselves to a wholesome discipline and have become more soberly and orderly’. This had benefited their congregations, and both Roman and non-Roman dignitaries had expressed their gratitude for ‘this happy change in the relative conditions of Thousands and Thousands of the Christians of Cochin and Travancore’. The authorities at Fort St George expressed their ‘approbation of the judicious and humane measures that he [Macaulay] had adopted’. 38 IOR/H/59, p.111. Glimpses of Mar Dionysios can be found in the records of other Europeans at this time. Francis Wrede (described as Baron von Wrede by Kerr (IOR/H/59.p.105)), ‘a Gentleman from Ger-

THE EARLY 19TH CENTURY

299

Kerr’s visit paved the way for that of the Revd Dr Claudius Buchanan.39 After a curacy in London, Buchanan had arrived in Calcutta in 1797 as a Chaplain to the East India Company.40 He was favoured by Lord Wellesley, the Governor-General and appointed by him as Vice-Provost of his ‘Oxford of the East’, the new college for East India Company servants at Fort William.41 Buchanan took a keen interest in the cause of promoting Christianity in India, and when the British authorities wished to know more of the state of Christians in the southern territories which had recently come under their control and influence, he was, no doubt, the obvious person to send. Buchanan’s account of his travels, Christian Reseaches in Asia, published in 1811 was a best seller and brought the Syrian Christians of India to the attention of the English-speaking world.42 The book is based on a series of letters writmany, long resident in Malabar’ (IOR/H/493, pp.19-100) whose main interest seems to have been in the commercial exploitation of the timber of the region, noted that the Syrians had ‘a Bishop, or Mar Thome, who resides at Narnatte, about ten miles inland from Porca; and was consecrated by some Jacobite Bishops sent from Antiochia for that purpose in the year 1752. He adheres more to the doctrine of Eutiches than of Nestorius’, (F. Wrede, ‘Account of the St Thome Christians on the Coast of Malabar’, in Asiatick Researches, 7 (1801) p.373f). For Wrede’s dealings with the British concerning the timber trade see also IOR/H/341, pp.631-45; IOR/H/493, pp.143-51; IOR/F/4/182/3474. 39 Kerr seems to have felt that his thunder was about to be stolen. He states that he does not think it incumbent on himself to make more than a general account as he has heard that the Governor of Bengal had nominated Dr Buchanan ‘to travel the same ground for purposes somewhat similar’ (IOR/H/59, p.97). Buchanan’s own account supports this: ‘The Government have authorized me to proceed; and desired me to communicate my observations on the state of the Christians in the South’ (IOR/MSS Eur D.122, Letter 21, 6th August 1806, p.31f). 40 For the life and career of Buchanan see Penelope Carson, art. ‘Claudius Buchanan’ in DNB, and the sources quoted there. 41 For a brief account of the Fort William College, see Neill, History, vol. 2, pp.144-146 and sources quoted there. 42 Whitehouse, working in Kerala approximately half a century after Buchanan, thought the latter’s account, ‘at times, perhaps, too highly coloured’, and that Buchanan’s ‘enthusiastic temperament was, at times, carried away,’ (Lingerings, p.238).

300

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

ten by Buchanan, manuscript copies of which survive in the British Library.43 Comparison between the two is instructive; the letters contain material relevant to the present study which Buchanan did not think fit to include in his published account. In Christian Researches Buchanan records that, at the first Syrian [ie Puthenkuttukar] Church that he visited, in Mavelikara, he was met with suspicion. The Syrians ‘could not believe that I was come with any friendly purpose …. Soon however, the gloom and suspicion subsided; they gave me the right had of fellowship in the primitive manner …’44 The manuscript originals reveal the reason for the less than enthusiastic reception. On meeting with the priests and community elders, Buchanan had made it clear to them that he knew their history, told them that the English nation would be glad to relieve their oppressions and that ‘the English Church might propose an [sic] union’ with their Church.45 This produced an unexpected reaction: Their countenances began now to assume great distress; and after a few civil sentences they begged leave to withdraw. Matters appeared very gloomy all day. My Servants informed me that the people were alarmed. I was the friend of the Rajah and the Rajah was their oppressor; I was a friend of Colonel M[acaulay] and he was a Roman Catholic; I myself was suspected to be Roman Catholic. I had slept in Romish Churches and had conversed with the Priests in Latin.46

It took some time before Buchanan’s servants managed to convince the Syrians that they may have misjudged him. Eventually an old priest came and explained to Buchanan that the Roman Catholics, who for some years past, had been acquiring great strength on the Coast of Malabar,… had made IOR/MSS Eur D.122. The letters contain much fascinating detail not of immediate relevance here, such as the insight into Eurpopean travelling conditions revealed by Buchanan’s decision on 27th May 1806 that I ‘can’t be troubled with Tablecloths’. He travelled on horseback, elephant and palanquin. 44 Christian Researches, p.114. 45 IOR Mss Eur D.122. Letter 32, 1st Nov 1806, p.80. 46 IOR Mss Eur D.122. Letter 32, 1st Nov 1806, p.81. 43

THE EARLY 19TH CENTURY

301

an attempt about twelve months ago, to force the Syrian Church to an union; that large sums of money had been offered to seduce individuals, that the Rajah favoured the plan, his ministers having been bribed to advise him; that the British Resident was also in the Romish interest, as appeared from his inviting the Bishop to dine with him and conferring favors [sic] on his Church; that while they were in this distress an order was sent to all the Syrian Churches by their own Bishop, under the direction of the British Resident, to produce all their old books; that this measure confirmed their suspicions of the projected Union; that the books were sent to Cochin, and were now actually in the hands of Colonel M[acaulay]; that the Roman Catholics interpreted the demand of the Books in the same way; and that the Syrian Congregations expected every day to hear their doom pronounced by a tribunal from which there was no appeal, like the Inquisition in Goa in a former century; but that many individuals had declared their resolution to suffer persecution and death rather than abjure the faith. The old man concluded with observing me come among them at this critical time, to investigate their books and mode of worship, and understanding that I was proceeding to Cochin, where Colonel M and the Romish Bishop resided, they had suffered themselves to suspect that I had been sent officially to prepare for their being subjected to the Roman Church. When he spoke these words, the tears fell down his beard; and he said that the hoped “the English would be merciful to them, for he had heard that God had given the English all power in the East”.47

It is quite clear from this poignant account that the actions of Macaulay and Buchanan had awoken memories of the Portuguese. Macaulay’s contact with the Roman Bishop was no doubt a result of a desire for European company, but it had clearly been interpreted as his sharing Rome’s aims.48 His request for books had

IOR Mss Eur D.122. Letter 32, 1st Nov 1806, p.81. Sources confirm that Macaulay was on good terms with the Roman Catholic bishop with Raymond of St Joseph, Vicar Apostolic and Bishop 47 48

302

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

sounded all too similar to that of Menezes two hundred years before. It is not surprising that Buchan omitted this rather insensitive first impression in his Christian Researches.49 The reaction of the Syrian priests and community elders is instructive. Only six years previously their Bishop, Mar Dionysios I, had tried to take them into union with Rome. It appears that attempts at union from the Roman side were still being made. Such a union was, however, clearly no longer desired by the Puthenkuttukar, no doubt because it could only be conceived of as their submission to control by the larger European-led body. The statement that some individuals had sworn to resist supports Bishop Soledade’s view recorded above that the Puthenkuttukar would not follow Mar Dionysios into communion with Rome, and that a substantial proportion of them, in such an eventuality, may well have looked to Mar Koorilose I as their new leader. There was residual loyalty to the Pakalomattom Metropolitan, but not blind obedience. Buchanan set the Syrians’ mind at rest concerning his and Colonel Macaulay’s views on the Roman Church and the atmosphere improved considerably.50 The Syrians listened politely as Buof Verapoly 1803-1816 (Puliurumpil, Jurisdictional Confusion, p.179f). For identity of the bishop, see the list in Tisserant, Eastern Christianity, p.188. 49 Pearson, Buchanan’s biographer, also omits any detail (Memoir, p.244). 50 Even so, it is instructive to see that Buchanan demanded to know the names of those who had spread such notions, that they might be punished for ‘what would be considered a crime by the British nation’ (IOR Mss Eur D.122, p.86). His assumption that the British could exercise authority over local clergy is not so very different from the attitude of the Portuguese. Moreover, his approach to collecting MSS reveals some unattractive assumptions. In Cochin he got the military forcibly to seize some old MSS from the Jews when they refused to give them to him: ‘The Jewish spoils were brought in Triumph to my house under the British guard, amidst the dire execrations and deep lamentations of the Jewish mob …. I have since returned such books as I did not want’ (IOR/MSS/Eur. D.122, p.176). Pearson glosses over this incident, simply stating that, ‘Dr Buchanan then relates his success in obtaining both Syrian and Hebrew manuscripts’ (Memoir, p.255), though it is acknowledged in the DNB article. For years afterwards Buchanan’s plundering of manuscripts still rankled with the Syrians. In 1817 the CMS missionary Benjamin Bailey (see below) expressed the hope that the distribution of Syriac New Testaments

THE EARLY 19TH CENTURY

303

chanan impressed on them the need for a school in each parish and expressed a willingness to abandon any practices which their ancient Church may have inherited from Rome. All changes, however, they insisted, would have to be approved by their Metropolitan. Buchanan eventually met Mar Dionysios I at Kandanat. He described him as dressed in a red silk gown, with a large Gold Cross hanging from his neck. On his head a black satin Fillet studded with white crosses. His white beard reached below his girdle … he saluted me with “a holy kiss” after the “apostolic manner”.51

Two further descriptions of Mar Dionysios I by Buchanan add a little more detail: He resides in a building attached to the church [at Kandanad]. I was much struck with his first appearance; he was dressed in a vestment of dark red silk, a large golden cross hung from his neck, and his venerable beard reached below his girdle. Such, thought I, was the appearance of Chrysostom in the fourth century. On public occasions he wears the episcopal mitre, a muslin robe is thrown over his under-garment, and in his hand he bears the crosier or pastoral staff. He is a man of highly reto the parishes will ‘dispel the feeling, long entertained, that Buchanan took away a great many of their books’ (CMS/ACC91 02/4 Letter from Bailey to Thompson 16 June 1817, Kottayam College). In 1821 Mar Dionysios III doubted ‘the propriety of their giving to Dr Buchanan the only entire copy of their Scriptures’ (referring to Mar Dionysios I’s gift of the Syriac Bible now at Cambridge) (MS Mill 204 Journal 10 December 1821). Whitehouse records that Buchanan’s memory was ‘execrated’ by the Syrians until the printed copies of the Syriac Scriptures which he had arranged arrived (Lingerings, p.238f). Buchanan’s acquisitiveness must have been copied by others: over 40 years later Howard’s request to Mathews Mar Athanasios about MSS met with the reply, ‘Our friends the missionaries have taken most of our books’ (Christians of St Thomas, p.155). Buchanan’s MSS (which, interestingly, are mostly in East Syriac script) are in Cambridge University Library (see William Wright, A Catalogue of the Syriac Manuscripts preserved in the Library of the University of Cambridge, Cambridge, University Press, 1901 and Van der Ploeg, MSS, pp.203-224). 51 IOR Mss Eur D.122, p.107.

304

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS spected character in his church, eminent for his piety, and for the attention which he devotes to his sacred functions.52 Mar Dionysious, the bishop of the Syrians in the mountains … has a remarkable long beard, which reaches below his girdle, and through which you may see a large gold cross beaming at intervals. He is now seventy-eight years of age, amiable in his temper, and devout according to his knowledge.53

Mar Dionysios had heard all about his visitor’s conversations in the various Churches that he had visited. Buchanan, on the other hand, seems to have been totally unaware that Mar Dionysios had been negotiating with Rome for most of his episcopate and that he had even been received into communion with the Roman Church six or seven years before. The Metropolitan did not mention it, nor did his household. They, indeed, seemed to share the view of Rome that Buchanan had found at Mavelikara. When asked by them from where the Church of England derived its apostolic succession, Buchanan had answered, ‘From Rome’. To this the Syrian priests had replied, ‘You derive it from a Church which is our ancient enemy, and with which we would never unite’.54 It is difficult to know how to assess Mar Dionysios’ attitude to Buchanan. The impression of him given in Christian Researches is of a saintly man who, although elderly, seems to have been prepared to co-operate with the Christian representatives of British power for the good of his community. As he told Claudius Buchanan, ‘You have come to visit a declining Church, and I am now an old man, but hopes of seeing better days cheer my old age …’55 52 Christian Researches, p. 126. The ‘muslin robe’ is perhaps the rochet worn over the cassock. 53 Letter from Buchanan to Henry Thornton, 24th December 1806, quoted in Pearson, Memoir, p.261. The length of Mar Dionysios I’s beard has passed into legend; the present writer recalls Mar Koorilose IX demonstrating how Mar Dionysios had to lift it up when he went up stairs. 54 Christian Researches, p. 128. There is no mention of this exchange in IOR/MSS Eur D.122. 55 In 1813 Mar Thoma VIII recall how Buchanan and Macaulay ‘came to the Church at Candanaad and visited my uncle the late Metropolitan and 4 Books were given on that day’ (IOR/F/616 p.41).

THE EARLY 19TH CENTURY

305

What is remarkable is the openness with which Mar Dionysios I was prepared to discuss the possibility of a union between the Puthenkuttukar and the Church of England. By the time he met Buchanan he knew that this was part of the Briton’s ‘agenda’. Indeed, so important was the subject to Buchanan that he actually handed the Metropolitan a paper on which he had written ‘some subjects for the consideration of himself and his clergy’.56 These included, in addition to the desirability of vernacular Scriptures and of schools attached to each of the Metropolitan’s 55 Churches, a proposal for a union or ‘at least’, a ‘connection’ with the English Church. The first two were quickly agreed to, the latter was the subject of a day’s consultation between Bishop and kathanars. The answer, delivered to Buchanan in the evening, is highly instructive, and worth quoting at length: As to the Union, he would submit that entirely to the English Church, whose eminence among the Churches of the Christian world would give her title to make the first overtures on a subject of this nature…. He was willing to write a public letter stating his desire that his Church should be subject to the direct influence of the Church of England; and that his successor and all future Bishops should be appointed by the English Church or by the English Government in India. The inconvenience, he observed, of procuring Bishops from Antioch has ever been very great; but it has been an inconvenience without remedy. Besides, the church at Antioch is now in a desolate state, and the priests are no longer men of learning. I am myself, said he, a native of Malabar, born of Syrian parents. If the English government should determine that our future Bishops should be of the Syrian Church, natives of Malabar, to be subject however to the English Archbishop of India, as we were formerly to the Archbishop of Goa, that plan would I conceive be most acceptable to my Church. It would also preclude the difficulties of entering into a literal and direct union; at the least until circumstances on both sides had fully matured.57

56 57

IOR/MSS Eur D.122, p. 107f. IOR/MSS Eur D.122, p.108.

306

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

The first thing to note is that Buchanan had no authority to propose a union with the Church of England. He was visiting the Syrian community on behalf of the Governor General in Calcutta, not of the Archbishop of Canterbury. It is not surprising, therefore, that the whole of this exchange is omitted from the published account in Christian Researches.58 Even more remarkable, at face value, are the terms that, according to Buchanan, Mar Dionysios was prepared to accept. The Metropolitan’s apparent willingness to give the British a say in deciding his successor is at odds with the whole thrust of his policy hitherto. His own nephew was, after all, already consecrated and waiting to succeed him. One of the sticking points in his negotiations with Rome had been his insistence on nominating his successor. It seems incredible that he was now prepared to abandon this. It must be remembered, however, that this passage records what Buchanan believed that he had been told. A closer examination suggests that the Metropolitan was almost certainly being more subtle than Buchanan realised. At the heart of Mar Dionysios I’s statement is in fact a desire to sever the dependence on Antioch. Not only does he describe the inconvenience of the system of obtaining bishops from West Asia, which had, after all, existed for over a thousand years, but he actually disparages the quality of clergy who might now be obtained from Antioch. While this was, indeed, in line with the judgement of European travellers who had encountered the Syrian Orthodox Church in the heart of the Ottoman Empire,59 it was certainly not the view that most Indian Syrians had of the Church in West Asia, which was traditionally, as has been seen, viewed as a source of pure faith and legitimate leadership. As an alternative to such an unsatisfactory system, Mar Dionsyios proposes what must have seemed to Buchanan the eminently reasonably alternative of appointing Bishops from among natives of Malabar. It is likely that recent events had reinforced Mar Dionysios’ views about bishops from Antioch. It will be recalled that Kerr’s Nor does it appear in Pearson’s Memoir. See, for example, Horatio Southgate, Narrative of a Visit to the Syrian [Jacobite] Church of Mesopotamia; New York, Dana & Company, 1836 (reprinted Piscataway, Gorgias Press, 2003). 58 59

THE EARLY 19TH CENTURY

307

visit to Kerala had preceded that of Buchanan.60 On his visit Kerr had found a Syrian Orthodox bishop, Mar Dioscoros, in Kerala, whom he described as: ‘A person has been sent from Mousal, a City of Mesopotamia, to succeed to his [Mar Dionyios’] station in the event of his decease’. 61 His visit was not a happy one. Yacoub III claims that Mar Dioscoros had been consecrated a Catholicos by Patriarch Matta, and given authority over the Indian Church.62 He was, however, unable to present a susthaticon in Syriac, being only able to show a document in Turkish or Arabic. Although received with due reverence, Mar Dioscoros soon began to demand money and beat the kathanars who failed to give him any. He behaved in a high-handed manner towards Mar Dionysios I. When commanded by Colonel Macaulay to remain in Cochin, Mar Dioscoros attempted to penetrate the interior. He was brought back under guard and deported. The incident was still remembered in 1821 when Mar Dionysios III related it to James Hough. It serves as a reminder that the Indian Church’s experience of visitors from Antioch was not consistently of beneficent spiritual guides, but usually involved squabbles about money.63 More importantly, the 60 Kerr’s MS report is dated 4th November 1806 (IOR/H/59, pp.95130), while Buchanan’s letter describing his first visit to a Puthenkuttukar Church is dated 5th December 1806 (IOR/MSS/ Eur D.122, p.79). It is surprising that the people whom Buchanan met do not seem to have heard of Kerr’s visit. 61 Kerr observed that Mar Dioscoros did not know the local language, was ‘violent in his temper’ and not averse to the views of ‘the Romish Church’. Kerr hoped that Mar Dioscoros would not succeed (IOR/H/59.p.111). 62 Syrian Church of India, p.137. The ‘tract in Malabar written in about 1842’ says that Mar Dioscoros took legal action against ‘Gurgis the Anjoorian and his companion Korola’ over Maphrian Mar Basilios Shukr Allah’s residence in Cochin, which they were said to be occupying, and from which they were evicted, having lost the case. If true, it suggests that the Metropolitans at Thozhiyur had retained control over the property of the founder of their community and line (Yacoub III, Syrian Church of India, p.137). 63 Letter from James Hough to Madras Corresponding Committee of the CMS, 8th January 1821, quoted in Cheriyan, CMS, p.57. It will be re-

308

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

arrival of Mar Dioscoros had no doubt reminded Mar Dionsyios I that his nephew could well face rivals from West Asia. It looks very much, therefore, as though in his statement to Buchanan, Mar Dionysios was manoeuvring towards a situation where British support would be given to Pakalomattom Metropolitans. He may well have argued in his own mind that the British authorities would take local advice on whom to appoint, and that advice would invariably be in favour of a member of his dynasty – to which he had already managed to draw attention in his statement. Buchanan was unaware of the tortuous history and family loyalties and no doubt recorded the conversation as he understood it. It is extremely doubtful whether Mar Dionysios understood the ‘conditions’ in precisely the same way. From his point of view, vague assurances about accepting the ‘influence’ of the English Church or of the Anglican Archbishop of India (who was based hundreds of miles away in Calcutta) were worth making if they ensured that the British supported local Metropolitans against any possible further visitors from Antioch. Mar Dionysios wanted no more Middle Easterners claiming jurisdiction over the Puthenkuttukar as Shukr Allah Mar Basilios and Mar Dioscoros had done. Equally, though, the English Church was to be kept at harm’s length – the prospect of an immediate union is carefully postponed. Viewed in their context, Mar Dionysios’ words reveal not so much a willingness to subject his Church to the Church of England, as a subtle bid for effective independence from Rome, Antioch and Canterbury. Of additional significance for the present study is the raising for the first time since Coonen Cross of a different direction that the Puthenkuttukar might take. Submission to the Church of one European power had been ruled out; now there was being floated called that the previous visit from Antioch – the Maphrian’s delegation of 1751 – had also been marred by a long disute about money. In 1813 Ramban Joseph Pulikottil recounted the following incident concerning Dioscoros: ‘In the year 1751 a moral Book of Theology was brought from Antioch by Mar Ivanis [sic] and kept with Mar Dionicis for the instruction and observance of the Clergy, which was taken away by Mar Diosqueros Metropolitan on his return to Antioch in 1809 (IOR/F/4/616/15311. p.54).

THE EARLY 19TH CENTURY

309

the idea of a ‘connection’ with another – an idea that would win the benevolent favour of the new colonial power. This vision was to last only until 1836. Among the initiatives which were to result from Buchanan’s contact with Mar Dionysios I, one of the most important was the translation of the Scriptures into Malayalam.64 This was seen as of first importance, but the details of the story need not detain us here. A summary, with reproductions of the various editions, is given by Richards in his account of the St Thomas Christians.65 The four Gospels were translated and printed by 1811.66 This was, it should be noted, ‘the only version of the Scriptures ever made by Indian Christians alone, without immediate European supervi64 At his meeting in Mavelikara, Buchanan had made willingness to have vernacular Scriptures a test of the genuineness of the Syrians’ stated desire for reform and union with the Church of England. (This aspect is omitted in Pearson’s account: Memoir, p.244.) To Buchanan’s delight they passed the test – an ‘elder’ named Thomas told him that he had himself prepared a translation of the Gospel of Matthew into Malayalam for the benefit of his own children and that it was frequently borrowed by other families (IOR Mss Eur D.122. Letter 32, 1st Nov 1806, p.90). Interestingly, the Syrians felt it necessary to check whether the English Bible agreed with their own. In the ensuing textual comparison, copies in East Syrian and West Syrian were employed. The former were almost certainly those used locally, the latter Buchanans’ copy. Among the Pazhayakuttukar Bibles in Latin and Syriac were available to clergy (IOR/F/4/616/15311, p.105). 65 Indian Christians, pp.102-111. By the time Claudius Buchanan made his second visit to the Syrians, at the end of 1807, the translation of the four Gospels was complete and delivered to him. He had it checked by Dr Robert Drummond, editor of a Malayalam grammar, who considered it to be ‘a faithful version of the sacred original, and easily intelligible to the common people’. Buchanan then tried to get the British authorities in Bombay to finance the edition. They expressed concern that there might be jealousy among ‘Mahomedans and Hindoo castes’, and, remembering that Kerala was not within their jurisdiction, forwarded the request to the Madras Presidency at Fort St George. (See the correspondence in IOR/F/4/281/6450.) 66 In 1816 the English missionary Thomas Norton, visiting a Syrian Church, was shown, to his surprise and pleasure, ‘a copy of the Gospels in Malayalim; as we were not aware that there was a line of the Word of God in that tongue’ (Missionary Register, March 1818, p.107).

310

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

sion’.67 The original translation, from Syriac into Malayalam, was made by Ramban Philippos, ‘one of the disciples’ of Mar Ivanios, the last survivor of the Maphrian’s delegation.68 Philippos Ramban ‘died at Kannankoda, a chapel of ease of Kadambonada Church; and an annual feast is held in commemoration of him, at the place of his sepulture. The senior Metran of the Syrians in 1830 [Mar Dionyios IV] had been instructed by this same Ramban’.69 As noted above, Mar Dionysios I died at the age of 80 in 1808, and was buried in the Church at Puthencavu near Chenganur. Despite his earlier inconsistencies and vascillations, he is often referred to as Dionysios the Great. MAR THOMA VII 1808-1809

In 1796 Mar Dionysios I had consecrated his nephew Mathan, who had already been ordained a Ramban by the aged Mar Ivanios.70 This was a project that the elder bishop had entertained for many years. It will be recalled that as early as 1785 Paulinus a S. Bar67 Richards, Indian Christians, p.103. By the 1820s the CMS missionaries had taken over the work of producing a whole Bible translated directly from the Hebrew and Greek. This was printed by Benjamin Bailey on a printing press that he constructed on the basis of articles in the Encyclopaedia Britannica. The press survives in Kottayam to this day. Mar Thoma VIII does not seem to have shared his uncle’s enthusiasm for the project. He states that Macaulay and Buchanan ‘incumbed the Metropolitan with the translation of the Gospels into Malialum and accordingly a person was brought from Cochin and kept at Candanaad and in six months they were translated and delivered. Since Colonel Macaulay having demanded the Syrian Retual [sic] and Psalms of David they were accordingly sent by me in the year 985 ME/1810 AD’ (IOR/ F/4/616/15311. p.43). 68 Whitehouse, Lingerings, p.229. Whitehouse describes him as ‘a man of some mark among the Syrians’. 69 Whitehouse, Lingerings, p.229. 70 Brown, Indian Christians, p.124; Judgement/Row-Iyer, para.108. Kaniamparampil (Syrian Orthodox Church, p.113f) gives the date as 24th Medom 1796 at Chenganur. He also says that Mar Ivanios also ordained Cheppat Philipos (later Mar Dionysios IV) as a Ramban, but this is incorrect. The Philipos (of Kayenkulam) who was made Ramban on the same occasion as the future Mar Thoma VII (MS Mill 192, f.6) was the translator of the Scriptures noted above. As noted in Chapter 7, Mar Ivanios died on 7th Medom 1794.

THE EARLY 19TH CENTURY

311

tholomeo had visited him and found him ‘talking grandly of his house and dignity … and striving that his nephew might succeed him’.71 Significantly, Mar Dionysios gave his nephew the episcopal name Thomas, suggesting a return to the concept of an independent Indian jurisdiction. This consecration appears to have been canonically valid, though performed by Mar Dionysios alone. There is no suggestion that he invited Mar Koorilose I to take part, nor that the Patriarch of Antioch was consulted. Significantly, though, if the text given by E.M. Philip and Bailey’s transcript of Mar Dionysios’ susthaticon from Mar Gregorios is correct, the authority to consecrate bishops was not one that was bestowed upon him in the name of the Patriarch: Just as our Lord Jesus Christ granted to his holy Apostles, we have, by the command of Moran Mor Ignatius, Patriarch of Antioch, given him power to bind and loose, to judge according to the law and precepts, to ordain priests and deacons, to consecrate sanctuaries and churches ….72

While this would not necessary negate the authority to consecrate inherent in episcopal Order, it does suggest that the Patriarch and his representatives did not envisage Mar Dionyios inaugurating a line of self-perpetuating bishops. Swanston specifically states that, prior to his consecration, Mar Thoma VII was ‘a priest of the Roman Church’.73 Thus, at the dawn of the 19th century the hold of the Pakalomattom family over the Metranship was still stronger than ecclesiastical allegiance. Star Pagodas The most significant development that took place during Mar Thoma VII’s reign was the coming into operation of the Star Pagoda fund. On 25 October 1808 Colonel Macaulay wrote to the Chief Secretary at Fort St George in Madras requesting permission for Mar Thoma VII to pay into the Treasury of the East India Company ‘as a loan in perpetuity, for charitable purposes solely, the Paulinus, India Orientalis, p. 110. Philip, Indian Churches, p.350. CMS/ACC 91 02/04 doc.3. 73 Swanston, JRAS, II (1835), 54. 71 72

312

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

sum of three thousand Star Pagodas at the usual rate of interest for such loan; and he requests that the interest be paid indulgently in Travancore; and be subject to the Bishop or Metropolitan pro tempore or other regular superior, however denominated, of that ancient Church.’74 A similar deposit was made on behalf of the Pazhayakuttukar community.75The source of these sums in unclear, the original records perhaps having been lost in the Travacore Insurrection led by Velu Thampi Dalawa in 1808.76 Philip discusses a number of possibilities, while Cheriyan favours yet another alternative.77 The precise origins are not of relevance to the present study. However, while the sum invested on behalf of the Roman Syrians seems to have been administered without controversy, for the Puthenkuttukar the investment became ‘like a millstone hanging round the neck of the community’.78 The reason for this is, in Cheriyan’s words, ‘In the mind of the ordinary people, competency to draw the interest on the Star Pagodas has become the test by which the claim of every Bishop aspiring to the supreme local headship of the largest section of the Puthencoor Syrians has to be settled’.79 The money designated for the benefit of the community in the reign of Dionysios I (though not actually invested until after his death) thus became the centre of various struggles and court cases in the decades to come. As Cheriyan observed, the amount spent on litigation now far exceeds the original capital investment.

74 The text of the letter and the reply confirming that the request had been complied with at a rate of 8%, together with other correspondence relating to the investment, can be found in Cheriyan, CMS, pp.387-389. See also Brown, Indian Christians, p.127; Mackenzie, Lingerings of Light, p.100; Cheriyan, CMS, p.59. The fund is sometimes referred to as the Vattipanam (eg Juhanon Mar Thoma, Mar Thoma Church, p.20). 75 For information on British financial assistance to the Roman Catholic missionaries and community see Puliurumpil, Jurisdictional Conflict, pp.182-196, 262-264. 76 See Chapter 4. 77 Philip, Indian Church, pp.169-170; Cheriyan, CMS, pp.58-60. See also Baker’s letter in CCC, (Oct. 1871), p.392f, and Mackenzie, Christianity, p.79f. 78 Cheriyan, CMS, p.60. 79 ibid.

THE EARLY 19TH CENTURY

313

Mar Thoma VII outlived his uncle by only fifteen months, dying at Kandanat on 20 Mithunam [June] 1809.80 He was buried in the Kozhenchery Church.81 Philip describes him as ‘a meek prelate, not strong in mind or body, but pious and strictly religious’.82 MAR THOMA VIII 1809-1816

With the death of Mar Thoma VII, Mar Dionysios’ plans for the perpetuation of the episcopal office within his family began to run into problems. Philip states that Mar Thoma VII was in fact the last of the Pakalomattom family and that Mar Thoma VIII and IX were the children of people adopted into that family.83 This is supported by Swanston who describes the future Mar Thoma VIII as nephew to Mar Thoma VII, but having ‘been brought over from the family of Korrovolanghat’ [Kuruvilangad].84 Presumably for this reason ‘his appointment was not consonant with the wishes of the body of the people’, despite the bishop-designate being ‘a man of the most inoffensive conduct and manners’.85 Intrigues and threats seem to have prevented any consecration taking place. The situation had not been resolved when death overtook Mar Thoma VII. There is general contemporary agreement that Mar Thoma VII did not regularly consecrate his successor. Ramban Joseph Pulikottil states that Mar Thoma VII believed his nephew to have caused his final illness by necromancy.86 An initial attempt to bring the two together had ended with the dying bishop ‘falling into a passion’. A few days later, when Mar Thoma VII was unconscious, 80 Philip, Indian Church, p.171; Cheriyan gives 1810 as the date (CMS, p.60).; Brown gives 1809 (Indian Christians, p.127). 81 Kaniamparampil, Syrian Orthodox Church, p.117. 82 Philip, Indian Church, p.171. 83 Philip, Indian Church, p.175. 84 Swanston, JRAS, II (1835), p.55. A similar statement is made in the 1813 submission to the Resident by Ramban Joseph Pulikottil concerning the future Mar Thoma VII. Mar Dionsysios is said to have ‘brought a young man of the Romish Church of Corrovalanghaut, educated him in the Books’, and consecrated him in 1797 (MS Mill 192, f.48v). 85 Swanston, JRAS, II (1835), p.55. 86 MS Mill 192, f.49. See below for further allegations of necromancy in the family.

314

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

his nephew was brought into his presence, dressed in episcopal vestments by those present who then ‘made him kneel down near the Cot of the expiring Bishop and Ittoop Catanar nominated him the Bishop Mar Thoma, being on 30th Jan 1809’.87 This account is generally accepted, as is Ramban Joseph’s assertion that it was intended that the consecration would be regularised by obtaining a Bishop from Antioch.88 The new ‘Metropolitan’ - known as Mar Thoma VIII – seems to have initially agreed to this, but then began performing all episcopal functions, and was displeased when the matter of recourse to Antioch was broached. According to Ramban Joseph, it was this that led to Mar Thoma VIII’s enmity towards himself.89 Unsurprisingly, the authority of the new ‘bishop’ was rejected by ‘the general body of Christians’ and a further period of instability followed.90 The cloud thrown over Mar Thoma VIII by the circumstances of his coming to office was particularly unfortunate as the pace of change began to quicken, and it would have been beneficial to have had a reigning Metropolitan who commanded the respect and obedience of the whole community.

87 MS Mill 192, f.49v. The term ‘nominated’ here (which is of course that chosen by the translator) almost certainly refers to the formal ‘naming’ of the new bishop in the consecration rite (see, for example, Bradshaw, Ordination Rites, p.184f). 88 The 1840 Palakunnathu Notes say that ‘the surrounding priests and people made him [Mar Thoma VII] lay his hands on his head – No prayers were offered by the dying Metran, but the priests around prayed (MS Mill 192, f.6v); Swanston, JRAS, II (1835), p.55; Philip, Indian Church, p.171; Brown, Indian Christians, p.127; Kaniamparampil, Syrian Orthodox Church, p.117. Joseph Pulikottil says that Ramban Philipos and Ittoop Catanar went to Munro and asked him to send for a Bishop from Antioch (MS Mill 192, f.48). Swanston states that an application was made to the Patriarch ‘for an ordained prelate’, but without success (JRAS, II (1835), p.55). 89 MS Mill 192, f.50v. This breakdown in relationships is dated by the Ramban from 1811. 90 Swanston, JRAS, II (1835), p.55.

THE EARLY 19TH CENTURY

315

JOHN MUNRO, BRITISH RESIDENT, 1810-1819

In 1810 Colin Macaulay was succeeded as Resident by Colonel John Munro, who was to exert an enormous influence on the course of events. Munro was born in 1778 at Teaninich in Rossshire, Scotland, of a lairdly family.91 He went to India while still in his teens and had taken part in the battle of Seringapatam. A gifted linguist, he served in several military staff positions and was appointed Quartermaster-General of the Madras army, at the early age of twenty-seven years. He was married to Charlotte, youngest daughter of the Revd. Dr. Blacker, Rector of Moira, co. Donegal, by whom he had a number of children, some of whom had continuing links with India. By the time he arrived as Resident, Munro was ‘a man of deep piety and profound evangelical conviction’, though the source of his faith is not clear.92 Munro is a classic illustration of the growing power of the British Residents. In addition to his post as Resident (which he held until January 1819) Munro was also Dewan (chief administrator – virtually Prime Minister) of Travancore from 1811-1815 and of Cochin from 1812-1818. He was therefore in a position to have unprecedented influence on the affairs of the Christian community, as will be seen below. Munro’s 17 Questions As part of a fact-finding exercise on the state of Christianity in Travancore and Cochin, Munro, on behalf of the Madras Government, put a number of questions to representatives of the various communities. Seventeen questions were put to Mar Thoma VIII. No full biography of Munro seems to exist, and there are a number of unresolved issues about his life. For biographical information see The Gentleman’s Magazine, (1846), p.428; Alexander MacKenzie, History of the Munros of Fowlis: With the Genealogies of the Principal Families of the Name: to which are Appended Those of Lexington and New England, Inverness, A & W Mackenzie, 1898, pp.427-430. 92 The quotation is from Neil, History, vol. 2, p.240. His marriage to a clergyman’s daughter suggests that he was already a committed Christian by then. It is not totally clear whether Munro (a Scot, of course) was a member of the Church of England, or an Episcopalian at all. Back in Scotland, he was involved in the founding of the Free Church of Scotland in 1843. 91

316

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

The Metropolitan’s replies to them, dated 30 April 1813 survive. The existence of these replies has long been known and they are quoted in several histories.93 What seems hitherto to have escaped attention, is the fact that the same questions were also put to the Bishop of Verapoly (Bishop Raymond a S. Joseph), the Ecclesiastical Governor of Cranganore (Fr Domingo da Conceinao), the Ecclesiastical Governor of Cochin (Fr Manuel de S. Joaquin Neves)94 and to the Protestant Missionaries in Travancore under W.T. Ringeltaube.95 The Questions were also put to Ramban Pulikottil Joseph, whose answers also survive.96 There is much common ground between the Ramban and Mar Thoma VIII. Both men accept the foundation of the Church by St Thomas, and the influxes into the community from West Asia in 345 and 825. Both also assume that the Syrians’ historic links were with Antioch both before

E.g. Philip, Indian Church, pp.172-174. The Ecclesiastical Governors were priests who exercised the authority of bishops, with the exception of those acts which required an officiant in episcopal Orders. Candidates for ordination were sent to the Bishop of Verapoly. The inter-relationships between the Roman Dioceses revealed by these Answers lies outside the present study, but it is clear that the transference of congregations between the jurisdictions was a longstanding cause of animosity. 95 The Questions and the Answers given to them are contained in IOR/ F/4/616/15311. Much of this volume consists of material relating to the various Christian groups: the Syrians; the Protestant mission in Travancore under Ringeltaube; and the Roman Catholics. Pages 35-45 deal with the 17 Questions put to Mar Dionysios. Mackenzie thought that ‘the original replies by Mar Thoma VIII are not forthcoming’ (Christianity, p.37), but they were certainly known to Philip who lists the questions and discussed the Metropolitan’s answers (Indian Church, pp.172-4, 352-3). During the Seminary Case it was claimed that the Questions were framed by the Madras Government in response to petition from the Syrians complaining that Mar Thoma VIII was not a member of the Pakalomattom family and therefore should not perform episcopal functions (Judgement/Row-Iyer, para.119). Mr Justice Ormsby was of the view that the Questions and Answers were not admissible as evidence (Judgement/Ormsby, p.42). 96 IOR/F/4/616/15311, pp.51-58. 93 94

THE EARLY 19TH CENTURY

317

and after the arrival of the Portuguese.97 Similarly, both believed that Mar Aithalaha who came in 1653 was Patriarch Ignatius himself, and that the Portuguese drowned him. Mar Thoma and Ramban Joseph agreed that clerical marriage was permitted: The Syrians are guided by the Rules laid down in the Books sent hither from Antioch by Mar Ignatius Patriarch and in

97 Ramban Joseph, who might be supposed to be less attached to Antioch than Mar Thoma VIII, says that after the Coonen Cross incident, ‘we obeyed again the Bishop Mar Ignatius of Antioch’ (IOR/ F/4/616/15311 p.57). The Ecclesiastical Governor of Cranganore, by contrast, stated that his Diocese had been linked with the Patriarch of Babylon ‘from whence came also the Syrian Rite which are [sic] still preserved’ ((IOR/ F/4/616, p.91f). It was, according to the Ecclesiastical Governor, as a result of this connection that the Indian Church ‘fell into Nestorianism’ from which it had been rescued at the Synod of Diamper. The belief held by Mar Thoma VIII and Ramban Joseph that the St Thomas Christians’ historic links were with Antioch is somewhat surprising, given the existence alongside them of the Romo-Syrians and, indeed, the continued use of East Syrian script even among the Puthenkuttukar. It is, however, consistent with other evidence: even Mar Thoma V’s knowledge in ca 1730 of his community’s post-Portuguese history was ‘inadequate’ (see the evidence in Van der Ploeg, MSS, p.264). The Revd Joseph Wolff, who visited Kerala in 1833, records the ‘mystical’ status of Antioch among the non-Roman Syrians: ‘They speak of Antioch as the Jews do of Jerusalem and they believe that the chief seat of the Syrian Christians is still in Antioch’ (Researches and Missionary Labours among the Jews, Mohammedans and others Sects, by the Rev. Joseph Wolfff, during his Travels between the years 1831 and 1834 …, London, pub. by author, 1835, p.469). Such a hazy knowledge of their own history among the leaders of the Puthenkuttukar no doubt encouraged the European (and Antiochene?) assumption that they (the Puthenkuttukar) were the original community from which the RomoSyrians had departed. In West Asia, however, both East and West Syrian communties saw the St Thomas Christians as their co-religionists: ‘When I was in Mesopotamia in the year 1824, I observed that the Syrians at Merdeen and upon Mount Tor, near to it, claimed the Syrians of India as an offshoot from their Church; and when in the year 1822 I arrived at Oormia and Salmast, I observed that the Chaldean Christians, commonly called Nestorians, claimed that honour’ (Wolff, Researches and Missionary Labours, p.468).

318

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS these the Clergymen are not forbidden matrimony. (Mar Thoma VIII).98 The Clergy are allowed to marry by our law and the Bishops that came from Antioch permitted several of them to marry and I knew one of them, whose wife and children are still alive. (Ramban Joseph).99

Differences emerge concerning the hereditary nature of the Metropolitanate. Three times Mar Thoma VIII emphasises this. He tells of St Thomas conferring sacerdotal Orders only on the families of Changarapoory and Pallamittam [Pakalomattom]. He states that Mar Gregorios (Abdul Jaleel) did indeed consecrate Mar Thoma I, who consecrated his nephew, who in turn consecrated his own nephew – ‘thus the situation of Bishop has been held hereditary to that family’.100 Mar Thoma sums up his case: Since the year AD 345 as aforesaid till the year 1653 when Mar Ignatius [ie Ahatallah] came, thus for 1308 years, the persons of this family have been created Arch Deacons and they have held the Ecclesiastic Government of the Syrian Churches in Malialim, and from … 1653 to the year 1813 all the Metrans that have come from Antioch have conferred the Office of Metrans to persons of this family and they have successively held the Government of the Syrian Churches in Malialim. And the numbers that have been consecrated of this family are one Metropolitan and six Metrans.101

Understandably, there is no mention of the rival line of bishops at Thozhiyur. They simply do not feature in Mar Thoma VIII’s IOR/ F/4/616/15311.p.43. IOR/ F/4/616/15311.p.56. While the ‘books sent from Antioch’ are clearly seen as normative where possible, there is evidence that the canonical framework in which the Puthenkuttukar operated at this time was of a hybrid character. Mar Thoma VIII in his Replies speaks of the Syrians obeying ‘the Rules which correspond with the Roman Laws and deviate from those of the Syrian Religion in consequence of the insupportable persecution of the Portuguese’ (IOR/ F/4/616/15311.p.44.) 100 IOR/ F/4/616/15311.p.40. 101 IOR/ F/4/616/15311. p.45. 98 99

THE EARLY 19TH CENTURY

319

account. Of the visit of Maphrian Basilios Shukr Allah’s delegation, he simply says, ‘some discord took place between them and us, but union was afterwards introduced and the Metran was consecrated Mar Devancius [Dionysios] Metropolitan. This Metropolitan afterwards consecrated his Nephew as Metran’.102 Ramban Joseph’s account differs significantly and attacks the very origins of the Pakalomattom supremacy. According to the Ramban, in 625 Mar Chaor and Mar Aprot also promoted a person in the family of Paulamuttum to the dignity of Archdeacon, although he was inferior in Clerical Order. The said person was rich and clever and through his influence and presents obtained great honours and powers from the Rajah of Cochin.103

Since the consecration of Mar Thoma I, The Bishops of the family of Pulamattam have always appointed their nephews to succeed them, which practice is unlawful contrary to the Doctrines of the Apostles, the holy Fathers of the Church, and the Canon law.104

But Ramban Joseph has a much more serious accusation to bring against the Pakalomattom dynasty – that of witchcraft.105 The Ramban explains at length that, at an unspecified date, three or four Christians came from a foreign country ‘conversant in the art of Necromancy and in league with the Devil whom we call Marrowmanmar’. One of these – called Mar Danagah – passed on these teachings to a local priest of the Cadamattum family who in due course put Mar Danagah’s bones in a church and began to worship him. This priest in turn initiated one of his nephews, and so on until it happened that there was no more issue in the family, when an application was made to the family of Mar Thoma IOR/ F/4/616/15311.p.44. IOR/ F/4/616/15311.p.49. 104 IOR/ F/4/616/15311. p.52. 105 The following account is repeated by Ramban Joseph in his paper presented to Munro already quoted (MS Mill 192, ff.44-51). 102 103

320

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS Metran to that of the Cadamattum and a member of that family still continues to perform the above mentioned ceremonies and adoration in that Church. The next in succession is the Acting Bishop Mar Thoma who is well versed in the art of Necromancy; many of the people are afraid to act contrary to his will. The family of Cadamattum still continue to adore the Devil of which circumstance the Christians of the old and new Syriac Rites, as well as the neighbouring Inhabitants of Cadamuttum, as Nair, Nambooris and other casts are well acquainted.106

The account is not wholly clear. It appears to be saying that, as well as supplying bishops to the Puthenkuttukar, the Pakalomattom family had also supplied individuals to head what Joseph Pulikottil considered to be a Devil-worshipping cult. Superstitious practices, such as the worshipping of images were indeed found

106 IOR/ F/4/616/15311.p.52. Intriguingly, a Syriac history, written by a supporter of Mar Gabriel between 1705 and 1731, also tells of the introduction of magic (see Istavan Perczel, ‘Four Apologetic Church Histories from India’, in The Harp, vol. XXIV (2009). This seems to be the same text as a letter in Syriac given to Jacob Visscher by Mar Gabriel tells of an anti-Christian introduction, and dates it to the years following the Apostle Thomas’ mission: ‘In the course of a few years all the priests in Hindostan and Malabar died; and many years after a Tovenaar called Mamukswassar (Perczel transcribes the Syriac as ‘Manikkavacchar’ and identifies him with Mānikka-vāśagar, a ninth-century Śaiva saint,), an enemy to the Christian faith, arrived in Maliapore, performing many miracles to hinder its progress’ (Dury, Visscher, p.105. An English translation of the letter – ‘The Antiquity of the Syrian Christians and Historical Events relating to them’ occupies pp.105-109). Whitehouse also describes a community – the Manigramakar – descended from converts of a sorcerer who came to Kerala in the 3rd century AD and which had links with both the St Thomas Christians and Hindus. According to Whitehouse’s sources, the connection with the Syrians had ended by about the 1830s, though accusations of sorcery were still sometimes made against individual kathanars. Whitehouse makes no mention of Pakalomattom involvement (Lingerings, pp.48-54). In the 16th century Menezes encountered stories of ‘Necromancers and Magicians’, having learned the art in Babylonia (Malekandathil, Jornaada, p.247). See also Neill, History, vol. 1, p.43f.

THE EARLY 19TH CENTURY

321

among the Syrians at this period,107 and the concept of hereditary ‘guardians’ of such objects is consistent with local culture. To what extent Mar Thoma VIII was a practitioner of the ‘black arts’108 can probably never now be established, and against the allegations must be set Swanston’s fairly positive assessment of him quoted above. The Ramban’s evidence certainly reveals that there was deep-seated opposition to Mar Thoma VIII. With regard to the validity of the consecration of Mar Thoma VIII, Joseph Ramban is in no doubt: ‘The present Mar Thoma was never consecrated Bishop, therefore the people are unwilling to obey him’.109 As noted above, he merely refers to Mar Thoma VIII as the ‘Acting Bishop’. Colonel John Munro also had no doubt about the invalidity of Mar Thoma VIII’s consecration. In a long letter dated 27th October 1818 to the Chief Secretary of the Government at Fort St George [Madras] he wrote: Their Bishop, consecrated in an irregular manner and rather unqualified for his Office, was opposed by a large party amongst the clergy and people ….110

What is clear is that a variety of grounds were being put forward to discredit Mar Thoma VIII’s claim to be Malankara Metropolitan: he was not a true Pakalomattom, he was involved with Devil worship, and he had never been canonically consecrated. The 107 The destruction of such an object of devotion at Maramon was one of the inaugural acts of the Syrian ‘Reformation’ a generation or so later (see Chapter 11). 108 The terms ‘necromancy’ and ‘black arts’, it must be remembered, were chosen by the translator of the Malayalam. The terms may have rather different connotations in the original. 109 IOR/ F/4/616/15311.p.51. 110 IOR/ F/4/616/15311. p.16f. This letter accompanied the answers given by local Church leaders to Munro’s Questions as described above. The letter, but not the accompanying data, is printed in Proceedings of the Church Missionary Society, 1819-1820, pp.333-340. There the date of the letter is given as 30th March 1818. For convenience, references to the letter will be to the printed version in the Proceedings. The quotation concerning the invalidity of Mar Thoma VIII’s consecration is on page 337f.

322

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

contrast with Mar Thoma VIII’s own statements about the supremacy of his dynasty could not be greater. Ramban Joseph’s Answer to the Question concerning the bishops who have governed the Puthenkuttukar is more comprehensive than that of Mar Thoma VIII: The following are the number of Bishops that have been consecrated in different families and have governed the Syrian Churches since the consecration of Archdeacon Thomas of Paulamattum after the name of Mar Thoma Metropolitan, viz Bishops arrived from Antioch eight; Bishops consecrated in the family of Paulamattum six; Ditto in the family of Malantoritil Srambikal two who afterwards went to Choughaut and died with two of their Successors. So it appears that in the course of 160 years 19 Bishops governed the Syriac Churches during which period they have been sometimes at variance and sometimes on friendly terms with each other.111

While Mar Thoma VIII gives the impression that only his family have ruled the Puthenkuttukar (and the undivided community before that), the Ramban paints a more diverse picture – the Malankara Church had been governed by bishops from three groups: Antioch itself, and members of two local families, Pakalomattom and the Srambikals of Mulanthuruthy. No further detail is given of the Thozhiyur bishops in Ramban Joseph’s Answers, but in the contemporaneous submission to Munro, the Ramban makes it perfectly clear that there is a suitable alternative to Mar Thoma VIII: There is at Chowghaut a Bishop who, in spite of being a poor and humble person, is however complete in the Episcopal Order, therefore I humbly intreat the Resident will be pleased to permit us to obey him.112

The Bishop in question was Mar Philoxenos II, but Joseph Pulikottil had been pressing the case of the Thozhiyur bishops even in the time of Mar Philoxenos I. He had supplied Munro with 111 112

IOR/ F/4/616/15311.p.58. MS Mill 192, f.45v.

THE EARLY 19TH CENTURY

323

information on the northern succession in December 1812, ‘when the said Gentleman [Munro] was pleased to desire me to call down the said Bishop in order to have an interview with him’.113 Mar Philoxenos I’s illness had prevented him travelling to meet Munro, but he was able to make provision for the succession: In June following the said Bishop was at the point of death; he therefore consecrated his successor and shortly after expired. The present Bishop [Mar Philoxenos II] is very desirous of seeing the Resident, and I beg to assert that he is complete in his Episcopal Consecration, therefore I heartily wish to obey him.114

Munro (and anyone else concerned about providing a validly consecrated bishop for the Puthenkuttukar) were left in no doubt where Joseph Pulikottil believed that one could be found. It is impossible to assess the degree to which the Ramban’s views were shared within the Puthenkur community. However, had there not been a degree of sympathy for them, it is unlikely that even Colonel Munro could have achieved the transfer of the Metropolitanate to the Thozhiyur line as will now be seen.115 MAR THOMA IX 1816

Mar Thoma VIII died on 10th January 1816 at Niranam and was buried at Puthencavu.116 Shortly before his death he had consecrated his uncle Ipe Kassisa, a saintly old man, as Mar Thoma IX. This bishop was never to exercise any authority. Mar Dionysios II (whose consecration will be discussed below) petitioned the Resident against him. He then

MS Mill 192, f.48. MS Mill 192, f.48v. 115 Joseph Pulikottil also accused Mar Thoma VIII of oppressing the Christians, receiving bribes for ordination and for remitting canonical penalties: ‘These particulars myself and Philip Ramban submitted in detail in a Petition we laid before you [Munro] in the month of April 1811 when at Always …’ (IOR/ F/4/616/15311.p.53). 116 MS Mill 192, f.5; Brown, Indian Christians, p.129; Kaniamparampil, Syrian Orthodox Church, p.120. 113 114

324

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS reached Kadamattom Church, where the ‘Metran’ was staying and stripped him of his Crimson Robe, staff, mitre and Cross! And thus ended for ever the family line of rulers of the Church from the Pakalomattom family.117

Kaniamparampil is strongly inclined to see this incident as a nemesis for Mar Dionysios I’s treatment of Mar Koorilose I: Highhanded actions certainly have their repercussions. One Pakalomattom Metran stripped Mar Coorilos of his episcopal robes, etc; and, lo, another Metran, consecrated by the successor of the exiled Mar Coorilos, stripped the last of the Pakalommaton Metrans of everything he had – including the family rule!!118

It is generally assumed that Mar Thoma IX accepted the situation and played no further part in wider Church events.119 It appears, however, that on the unexpectedly early death of Mar Dionysios II (see below), he made an attempt to return to power: Some of the parishes wished to restore the old deposed one and went as far as Alepee on their way to see Col. Munro at Quilon, but returned. The old man sent letters to all the parishes to come and submit to him, but they, fearing, declined.120

By this stage, as will be seen, there was no realistic chance of opposing a candidate supported by the Resident, Missionaries and powerful sections of the Puthenkuttukar. THE THOZHIYUR SUCCESSION

With the marginalisation of Mar Thoma IX, the line of consecrations121 begun by Mar Gregorios’ consecration of Mar Dionyios I 117 Kaniamparampil, Syrian Orthodox Church, p.120. The 1840 Palakunnathu Notes say that Mar Thoma IX went to the College at Kottayam to see Mar Dionysios II, and it was there that he was ‘deposed’ (MS Mill 192, f.5v). 118 Kaniamparampil, Syrian Orthodox Church, p.120f. 119 See, for example, Brown, Indian Christians, p.129. 120 MS Mill 192, f.5v. 121 The question of the validity of Mar Thoma VIII’s consecration has already been discussed.

THE EARLY 19TH CENTURY

325

in 1770 had come to an end. The position of Malankara Metropolitan now passed to the surviving line – the successors of Mar Koorilose I. Mar Dionysios II It is now necessary to look more systematically at a highly significant figure in the development of the Puthenkuttukar Syrian community. Pulikottil Joseph Kathanar, it will be recalled, was the priest who had assisted Mar Koorilose I and his companions in their flight from Mar Dionysios I out of Cochin into the territory of the Zamorin of Calicut. He seems to have been ordained priest by Mar Dionysios I to serve at Arthat church which was his home parish. As noted above, the Church was shared by both the Pazhayakuttukar and Puthenkuttukar, which suggests that Joseph had learned Syriac in its Eastern orthography. Why he should have attached himself so strongly to a bishop of West Syrian usage is unclear. While priest at Arthat Joseph was the victim of a terrible atrocity. E.M Philip recounts the usually accepted story: When the army of Tippu Sultan invaded the country, the Syrians of Kunnamkulam deserted their village and hid themselves in the neighbouring hills and mountains, but Joseph Ramban remained in the Church at Arthat, praying for the people. Tippu’s men set fire to the church and got hold of the Ramban; they were about to kill him for not accepting Islam when the sudden recall of the army to Mysore compelled them to leave the place abruptly, and before they could execute their design on him.122

Kaniamparampil states that ) Ramban ‘suffered imprisonment when Tippu Sultan of Mysore invaded Malabar in 1789’.123 A fuller version of the incident is recorded by Whitehouse who states: It is commonly reported among [the Christians] to this day [Whitehouse was writing in 1873] that their Northern Metran

122 123

Philip, Indian Church, p.176. Kaniamparampil, Syrian Orthodox Church, p.121.

326

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS was forcibly dishonoured by the initiatory rite of a creed that his inmost soul abhorred.124

Whitehouse gives no authority for his statement, other than oral tradition in the Christian community, and the story does not seem to appear in any written account. It does, however, survive in local oral tradition to the present day. In the vicinity of Arthat Joseph Pulikottil is still remembered as chelacheytha achen – the circumcised priest.125 Later in his career, when his enemies wished to disparage him, the accusation that Joseph Pulikottil had ‘become a Muslim’ was used against him.126 It is heartening to observe that the incident does not seem to have destroyed Joseph’s goodwill or sense of purpose. When peace was restored, Joseph took the initiative in repairing the damage done to the Arthat church. It seems that Joseph was made a Ramban by the newly ‘consecrated’ Mar Thoma VIII.127 His ‘elevation’ seems to have been one of the results of a meeting of clergy that took place at Kandanat shortly after the death of Mar Thoma VII. Among other matters, the meeting resolved that two ‘schools’ should be established for the education of children and deacons.128 Ramban Joseph seems to have taken this proposal very much to heart. He visited a number of northern parishes (he was, it will be recalled, from that region himself129) sharing his vision of the need for an appropriate Whitehouse, Lingerings of Light, p.234. I am grateful to the Mar Thoma priest Saju Papachan of Kunnamkulam and bishop Paulose Mar Milethiose of the Orthodox Syrian diocese of Kunnamkulam for confirming this for me. Oral tradition also states that another priest was actually killed in the madbaha of Arthat church. 126 Information supplied by Mar Koorilose IX. 127 MS Mill 192, f.6v. Baby Varghese gives the date as 15th Chingom 1809 (‘The CMS Missionaries and the Malankara Church (1815-1840)’, in The Harp, vol. XX (2006), p.401). 128 See Varghese (‘Missionaries’, p.401) for a fuller account. Varghese’s source is E.M.Philip, The Seminary Church Case, (Kottayam, 1890) which contains the full text of the resolutions passed. 129 The Palakunnathu Notes state that he had the support of five parishes in the North (MS Mill 192, f.7). This would be about 10% of the Puthenkuttukar. 124 125

THE EARLY 19TH CENTURY

327

institution. Mar Thoma VIII seems to have approved at first, but changed his mind when it was suggested that some of the income from the Star Pagodas (which he was enjoying) should be diverted to fund a Seminary. Ramban Joseph’s version of this is given in one of his answers to Munro’s Questions of 1813: When Philip Ramban and I applied to the Metran to establish a school for the instruction of the people he would not assent to it. I hope however to be enabled to establish one through your aid and assistance, but for this purpose I shall require about one thousand pagodas to build it, together with a Chapel.130

The precise form in which Ramban Joseph Pulikottil’s vision came into existence will be discussed below. PLANS FOR RENEWAL – AND REUNION?

In Colonel John Munro, Ramban Joseph had found a sympathetic ear. There seems no doubt that Munro was motivated by personal, spiritual reasons – he desired to bring the Gospel to the local population so that their souls may be saved. He was also, of course, a man of his time and a British colonial administrator. He had to justify his active involvement in ecclesiastical affairs to his superiors in Madras in terms that they would approve. His arguments are set out in the 1818 letter already referred to. As they shed light on the Syrians’ ‘agenda’, it is necessary to examine them at some length. Munro had clearly been impressed by what he saw as ‘the toleration, or rather the naked indifference, manifested by the Hindoos to the quiet and peaceable diffusion of religious opinions and practices different from their own’.131 As proof of this he cited the extensive spread of Islam, particularly in the former territories of the Zamorin, now directly ruled by the British. This, he argues, augured well for the spread of Christianity – or, to be more precise, ‘the Protestant Religion’ – in India. In turn, the building up of ‘a body of native subjects … united to the British Government by the stronger ties of religion and safety’ would, in the short term, provide advance warning of any ‘machinations against the British 130 131

IOR/ F/4/616/15311.p.55. Proc. CMS, (1819-22), p.333.

328

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

power’, and in due course build up ‘a respectable body of Christian subjects’.132 Munro accepted that there might be ‘delays’ in introducing Christianity to some parts of India, but drew attention to the considerable numbers of Christians already present in Travancore and Cochin. It is clear, however, that Munro’s plans extended beyond simply ‘converting natives’. They also included reviving an old dream. Munro represented the Romo-Syrians as oppressed – and aware of their oppression – so much so, that many of them have manifested a disposition to join the proper Syrians [the Puthenkuttukar]; and I believe that no great difficulty would be experienced, in converting to the Protestant Religion the greatest part of the Roman Catholics in Travancore and Cochin – an event extremely desirable, on every ground of policy, humanity and religion.133

In particular, the education of the clergy at the College at Kottayam, the proposed founding of Parish Schools, and the employment of large numbers of Christians in public office by the Rani of Travancore, would soon restore the Syrians to the high station which they formerly occupied … and the British Government would receive, in their grateful and devoted attachment on every emergency, the reward due to its benevolence and wisdom. Other advantages would also occur. The Roman Catholics, and especially the Syrian Communities still united to them, would be induced, by the great melioration of the religious and temporal state of the Syrians, to join them; and in the course of a few years, the conversion to the Protestant Religion of the greatest portion of the Roman Catholics on this coast, would take place.134 132 Proc. CMS, (1819-22), p.335-6. The desire for advance warning of rebellions is obviously coloured by memories of the 1808 Travancore insurrection against the British. 133 Proc. CMS, (1819-20), p.337. 134 Proc. CMS, (1819-20), p.339. It must be remembered that in Britain anti-Roman Catholic legislation was still in place; not until 1829 would the Roman Catholic Relief Act remove most civil disabilities from Catholics.

THE EARLY 19TH CENTURY

329

What is remarkable – and apparently hitherto unnoticed135 – is this revival of the old dream of re-uniting the Pazhayakuttukar and the Puthenkuttukar. Indeed, the Romo-Syrians are spoken of in language which suggests that they are not seen as ‘true’ Catholics, but simply ‘communities’ united to the Roman Church, from which, with the right encouragement, they could be ‘detached’. While the sentiments about creating a body of Christians loyal to the British almost certainly came from Munro, the goal of reuniting the Syrian community was one that he had inherited. Claudius Buchanan reported that Colonel Macaulay ‘is of the opinion that even the Syrian Churches which are now in the Romish Communion would all be happy to return to their antient Church’.136 The concept must have been suggested to Macaulay by the Syrians with whom he was working, and, in Munro’s case perhaps even by Ramban Joseph Pulikottil himself. It is important to remember that Munro’s report was being written only 19 years after Mar Dionysios I’s short-lived attempt to unite the two communities by his own submission to Rome.137 If uniting the Syrians in a common obedience had been thought achievable then, why should it not still be possible? Hitherto, it had appeared that the community would only unite under a Pakalomattom Metropolitan, and, as they were always from a Pazhayakur family, it was inevitable that the natural direction would be to take the Puthenkuttukar into the Cheriyan reproduces much of the text of Munro’s report from Proc. CMS, (1819-22), but has excised most of the references to the RomoSyrians and does not address the issue of the re-union of the two groups (CMS, pp.366-369). 136 IOR/MSS Eur D.122, p.121. On his visit to Angamale Buchanan had observed that ‘Two of the Churches here are Roman, the third Syrian. But the two former would gladly return to their mother Church’ (IOR/MSS/Eur D.122, p.124). British observers always assumed that it was the Roman section of the St Thomas Christians who had broken away, not the reverse. 137 Evidence of Munro’s interest in re-uniting the two groups can be found pre-dating this report. In a letter dated 23rd September 1817 he writes of his hopes that a Syrian Church purged of superstitions will ‘accelerate the return into the bosom of the Syrian Church those Syrians who are still united to the Roman Catholic communion’ (quoted in Cheriyan, CMS, p.344). 135

330

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

Pazhayakuttukar. Now that the Pakalomattoms were extinct, why should not re-union be possible by bringing the Pazhayakuttukar over to the Puthenkuttukar community, presided over by an Indian Metropolitan, and with its faith renewed and its status restored by British ecclesiastical and political support? Claudius Buchanan’s conversations had shown the Puthenkuttukar to be unwilling to unite on what would in fact have been Rome’s terms, but a union in which the British-backed Puthenkuttukar were the dominant partner could be a very different matter. Joseph Pulikottil was of a generation for which re-union had been an important issue. He had seen the abortive attempts of 1772 and 1799, but may have felt that circumstances were now propitious for achieving the long-desired goal. The further step – of converting the re-united Syrians to ‘the Protestant Religion’ – no doubt came from Munro. While there is evidence of Joseph Pulikottil’s desire to achieve the renewal of his community (see below), there is no evidence that he was prepared to abandon his ancient faith. There is also some evidence that the distance between the communities was, even now, not so very great. In his Answers to Munro’s 17 Questions, Ramban Joseph recorded that the limit of Christian education given to the laity was instruction ‘to say the Lord’s Prayer, the Ave Maria, the Creed, the Confession, the seven sacraments, the seven spiritual sins [and] the fourteen merciful acts’.138 This is Roman Catholic catechetical material, not Syrian Orthodox. From a Pazhayakuttukar perspective there must have been some attractions in the now relatively stable Puthenkuttukar situation. Their own administration and pastoral oversight were in chaos at the beginning of the 19th century. From 1801 to 1838 Cranganore had only Administrators (with a brief exception between 1821 and 1823 when Paul de Thomas Aquinas was Archbishop); Cochin had only two bishops between 1799 and 1886; only the Vicariate Apostolic of Verapoly (still viewed with 138 IOR/F/4/616/15311. p.54. This catechetical material suggests that the receiving of Holy Communion by infants (an integral part of Syrian Orthodox but not of Latin-rite Catholic discipline) might not have become the norm among the Puthenkuttukar. The Pazhayakuttukar, it will be remembered, were still required to undergo the rite of Confirmation which had been introduced at Diamper.

THE EARLY 19TH CENTURY

331

dislike by the Padroado Churches) had anything approaching consistent episcopal oversight.139 Ironically, just at the point where a British-backed push for reunion looked possible, the vision begins to fade. From now on, the two sections of the St Thomas Christians were to diverge at an accelerating rate. The causes for this will be explored in the next two Chapters. THE FOUNDING OF THE SEMINARY AND THE CONSECRATION OF MAR DIONYSIOS II140

The story of the founding of the educational institution that was to be at the heart, not simply of theological education but of political events for over a century, has been told in detail by Cheriyan,141 who supports his account by publishing many of his primary sources. There is no need to repeat the detail here; for present purposes it is sufficient to draw attention to aspects that relate to the Bishops of Thozhiyur and those consecrated by them. Training for the priesthood was undertaken locally.142 Mar Thoma VIII confessed to Munro that, ‘There is no Established 139 Tisserant, Eastern Christianity, pp.187-191; Podipara, Thomas Christians, p.184f. 140 The name currently in use for the institution established by Joseph Pulikottil and Colonel Munro is ‘the Old Seminary’. At the time of its founding, however, it seems generally to have been known as ‘the College’. 141 P. Cheriyan, The Malabar Syrians and the Church Missionary Society, Kottayam, CMS Press, 1935. 142 See Baby Varghese, ‘A Brief Study of the Syriac Study Centres in Kerala’, in The Harp, vol. X, (1997), pp.65-70, and ‘The CMS Missionaries and the Malankara Church (1815-1840)’, in The Harp, vol. XX (2006), pp.399-446 for accounts of the earlier system of training by Malpans and of the events surrounding the founding of the Seminary. Local training by Malpans was not just practised among the Puthenkuttukar. In 1813 the Diocese of Verapoly had a Latin seminary with 22 seminarians and two Syrian seminaries with 16 and 14 Scholars each (IOR/ F/4/616/15311. p.78), but local instruction was also important. The Ecclesiastical Governor of the Diocese of Cranganore complained that his Diocese’s seminary at Poocotta had been destroyed in Tippu’s war and he only had a house in Kalparambil where the Syriac language was taught. ‘Likewise we have three masters [= malpans?] in the

332

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

plan for the educating of pupils, nor is there any funds for educating them’.143 According to Ramban Joseph Pulikottil, the usual practice was for the community at each Church to present to the Metropolitan individuals who were willing to be ordained. The bishop would then often confer ‘the first Order’.144 Local priests undertook some training, with more advance instruction being given by Malpans. A certificate was then supposed to be given before the Metropolitan ordained them to major Orders.145 According to the Answer (quoted above) given in 1813 by Ramban Joseph, the initiative in establishing a place for the education of the Syrian clergy, came from him and Ramban Philippos Pallipadu, who had apparently persuaded the 1809 meeting at Kandanat to support them, and had a number of dealings with Colonel Macaulay on the subject.146 This is quite plausible, given the long existence of seminaries for Pazhayakur candidates, which may well have provided a model. Perhaps unsurprisingly, British accounts give the impression that the Seminary was one of Munro’s initiatives. I was able however, with the aid of the Rumban [sic] Joseph, a man eminent for piety and zeal, to make arrangements for erecting a College at Cotyum …. The death of the Bishop [Mar Thoma VIII] and the elevation of the Rumban to his Office Churches of the South who educate youths by the same methods and books, but they are not paid the same as the masters of Kalparambil’ (IOR/ F/4/616/15311. p.103f). For a description of the Roman Catholic training methods and seminaries at this period see Puthussery, Reunion Efforts, pp.94-133. As late as 1855, despite the existence of the Catholicfounded seminaries, most Syro-Malabar candidates for ordination were still receiving only a rudimentary education from local Malpans (Tisserant, Eastern Christianity, p.99). 143 IOR/ F/4/616/15311. p.42. 144 Of Reader (kooroyo). This meant that they could wear a white robe and minister in the sanctuary. 145 IOR/ F/4/616/15311. p.52. It was one of Ramban Joseph’s complaints against Mar Thoma VIII that he accepted bribes to ordain clergy (IOR/ F/4/616/15311. p.53). 146 MS Mill 192, f.7 agrees that Ramban Philipos joined with Ramban Joseph in this attempt to improve education and dates it to 1811. See also Baby Varghese, ‘Missionaries’, p.401.

THE EARLY 19TH CENTURY

333

removed some of the impediments that had opposed the measures that appeared to be requisite for the general amelioration of the Syrian Community.147

Wherever the initial inspiration lay, it appears that Munro was prepared in effect to ignore Mar Thoma VIII, and to put the scheme into operation. Encouraged by him, the Rani of Travancore gave a site at Kottayam, followed by a further grant of land, ‘with one hundred slaves to cultivate it, as an endowment for its support.’148 Ramban Joseph laid the foundation stone in February 1813 and the Seminary opened in 1815.149 The original intention seems to have been that Philippos Ramban would be the resident Malpan, but this was overtaken by events.150 According to E.M.Philip (whose grandfather was a contemporary of some of these events) the British authorities in Madras did not approve of Munro paying money from the star pagoda interest to someone who was not a bishop. The Ramban was therefore asked to accept consecration. Recourse was had neither to the Patriarch of Antioch, nor to Mar Thoma VIII, but to Philoxenos of Thozhiyur.151 Quarter of a century later, Abraham Malpan believed that ‘Joseph Ramban went to Candungan [Philoxenos II] and obtained consecration secretly, not according to law’.152 Mill believed that ‘Bishop Joseph had doubtless been consecrated by Philoxenus IOR/ F/4/616/15311. p.16f. In a letter dated 7th August 1815 Munro complains that differences between Mar Thoma VIII and Joseph Pulikottil ‘opposes many difficulties to the execution of all the plans which I have had in view for the benefit of the Syrians’ (Miss. Reg., 1816, p.387). The same edition of the Register claimed that ‘Major Munro, the Company’s Resident in Travancore, conceived and has now executed the benevolent design of erecting a College for the instruction of Syrian priests and laymen in Travancore …’ (p.37). 148 Swanston, JRAS, II (1835), p.56. See Cheriyan, CMS, pp.88-90 for a list of various gifts of land and money to the Seminary. 149 Some of the original buildings are still standing. 150 Baby Varghese, ‘Missionaries’, p.403f. 151 Philip, Indian Church, p.177. Bishop Philoxenos will be discussed in the following chapter. Swanston does not seem to know who consecrated ‘Mar Joseph’. 152 MS Mill 192, f.5. 147

334

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

at the decree of his patron Colonel Munro … most probably in 1813’.153 E.M. Philip gives the date as 9th Meenam [March] 1815.154 The ceremony took place in St. Mary's Church, Pazhanji, in the locality of Arthat. Initially, according to Mill, the fact of the consecration was unknown to many and Mar Thoma VIII continued to enjoy ‘the sanction of Government’.155 However, on 21 Makaran [January] 1816 the Travancore Government issued a proclamation recognising the new bishop as Malankara Metropolitan and requiring all Syrian Christians to obey him.156 The Cochin Government issued a similar proclamation. This development was highly significant. If the dates are correct, the consecration and proclamation took place while Mar Thoma VIII was still alive. In other words, Mar Thoma VIII was effectively ‘deposed’ by the State Governments and a rival bishop admitted to his office.157 This was the first time under British administration that the State Governments had been active in naming an individual as Malankara Metropolitan and lending the sanction of State support to his position. It was not an entirely new departure, as the support first given to Mar Koorilose I and then withdrawn by the Cochin Rajah in 1772 shows, but it set a precedent that was to be followed several times in the course of the 19th century. For the next sixty years it was the Government, not the community, which decided who was Malankara Metropolitan.158 Three quarters of a century later, there was an attempt to argue that Mar Philoxenos had, from the Patriarch of Antioch, ‘a 153 MS Mill 195, f.54. Mill argued that Bishop Middleton had been told in 1816 that Mar Dionysios II had been consecrated ‘some years before’ (MS Mill 192 f.129r.). 154 Indian Church, p.137. Kaniamparampil has 9th Meenan 991 (ME) [=1816]. Neither gives a primary source. 155 MS Mill 193, f.17f. 156 Philip, Indian Church, p.177; Cheriyan, CMS, p.105. K.C. Verghese gives 1816 as the date of consecration (Brief Sketch, p.19). 157 This was certainly what was believed to have happened by 1836 (see Chapter 11). 158 See Philip, Indian Church, p.178 for one Indian perspective on this situation. Arguably, the right to decide who is Malankara Metropolitan has not yet returned to the community. Since 1893 it has been determined by the Courts.

THE EARLY 19TH CENTURY

335

general power to thus consecrate one or more Metrans as may be found necessary’, a claim for which no reputable evidence was produced and which Mr Justice Ormsby ‘utterly disbelieve[d]’.159 NORTH-SOUTH TENSIONS

The whole issue of the succession and Mar Dionysios II’s consecration was complicated by the division of the Puthenkuttukar Churches into Northern and Southern groupings.160 This, as noted in Chapter 5, can be traced back at least to the beginning of the 18th century, and almost certainly reflects a much more ancient polarity in identities. Mill visited Travancore, Cochin and Malabar in 1821 and 1822 and was inclined to analyse the situation substantially in terms of the different perceptions of the two groups. The Southern party, he noted, was itself divided. Some wanted to ‘end their troubles by calling in the exile[d] Northern Bishop whose consecration by Mar Cyrillus was indubitable’. This option was opposed by ‘strong party feeling against that northern succession – or what was nearly allied to it, devotion to the cause of the ruling family of Mar Dionysios’. This group was prepared ‘to abide for a while in their present anomalous position, only keeping up a correspondence with Antioch’.161 Mill noted that one of the leaders of this group was ‘Abraham Konatti of Mamalacherri – an admirer of Mar Dionysios’ memory and a proportional enemy of his rival Cyril’s’. There was, however, Mill observed, a contradiction in Konat’s position. He was devoted to the See of Antioch, ‘though Cyril’s cause was that of loyalty to that See against the ruling family of his own nation’.

159 Judgement/Ormsby, p.44. The Judge thought the claim ludicrous in the light of the attempts being made by the ‘Patriarchal’ party to argue that Mathews Mar Athanasios’ consecration of Thomas Mar Athanasios was invalid: ‘If this [the claim concerning Mar Philoxenos] means anything, it means that, although a Metran of Malankarai cannot consecrate his successor, the Metran of the little Diocese of Tholyur consisting of a single church in foreign territory … may be invested with a general authority to consecrate Metrans for the infinitely more important See’ (ibid.). 160 The division can also be identified in the Pazhayakuttukar. 161 MS Mill 193, f.17.

336

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

By 1813 the Northern party, according to Mill, was ‘receiving considerable accessions from the malcontents among the Southern’.162 It was in this context that the consecration of Mar Philoxenos II of Thozhiyur took place. This will be discussed more fully in the following Chapter, but here it is necessary to note that it was judged ‘of particular moment’ because of the extinction of the Pakalomattoms and ‘the anarchical state of the (heretofore ruling) Southern party’. Mill’s analysis is instructive. It shows the strength of factional feeling between the Northern and Southern parties. As long as there was a legitimate Pakalomattom Archdeacon or Metropolitan, the ancient sense of loyalty to that dynasty felt by all Syrians, seems to have held them together in a common allegiance. With the dying out of the Pakalomattoms, the two halves of the Puthenkuttukar tended to favour different solutions regarding the Metropolitanate. These divisions were not absolute – some Southerners supported the Northern (Anjur) succession, while the powerful Northern Konat family rejected it. Given this scenario, it is not surprising that the choice of Joseph Pulikottil as bishop was not universally popular. Munro found himself having to record, I am sorry to say that the internal dissensions among the Syrians have increased since Ramban Joseph has been elected to the office of Bishop. I expect that all the principal ecclesiastical authorities among the Syrians will arrive here in the course of a few days; and I shall endeavour to make some arrangement for the settlement of their disputes.163

Munro seems to have been oblivious of the enormity of what he had done: At a stroke the Resident had overturned the whole Pakalamarram succession, not realising that once the eighteenth-century state system had collapsed, the prestige of these hereditary

162 163

MS Mill 193, f.17. Miss. Reg., 1816, p.453.

THE EARLY 19TH CENTURY

337

metrans had become the strongest stabilising force which the group [the St Thomas Christians] still possessed.164

Bayly argues that Munro had unwittingly destabilised the community by interfering in the succession, paving the way for the disputes that were to mark much of the remainder of the century.165 What was happening paralleled what Mar Gregorios had attempted with Mar Koorilose I in 1772. This time, however, the ‘sponsor’ – Munro – had the authority to impose his will. Despite these initial troubles, all accounts of Mar Dionysios II are positive in their assessment of his character. Philip calls him ‘pious, fearless, impartial in his dealings, open-hearted, a rigid ascetic in his mode of life, a friend of education, a well-read scholar in Syriac, and an eloquent preacher’.166 Howard describes him as `a man of eminent piety and conciliatory demeanour, who was fortunately able to unite the interests of both parties, and to restore concord to the Church',167 It is important in view of what was to happen later to note precisely what the situation was in early 1816. The Malankara Metropolitan was an Indian, whose faith had been tested in the fires of persecution. Largely on his initiative (albeit with strong support from the Resident) a Seminary had been founded to enable the Puthenkuttukar Syrians ‘to prosecute the study of Holy Scriptures according to the custom of their sect’.168 Moreover, the new Metropolitan had been a pupil and active supporter of Mar Koorilose I and, over forty years earlier, had facilitated his flight to Kunnamkulam and Anjur. He had now accepted consecration from Mar Koorilose’s successor. The Metropolitanate had passed from the line begun by Mar Gregorios in 1770 to that begun by Mar Basilios Shukr Allah in 1764. This had liturgical implications. The Pakalomattoms were, as we have seen, essentially an East Syrian dynasty, although it is not Bayly, Saints, p.287. She seems to be unaware, however, of the extinction of the Pakalamattoms (at least in the main line) referred to above. 166 Indian Church, p.179. 167 Howard, Christians of St Thomas, p.62. 168 Philip, Indian Church, p.182. 164 165

338

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

clear to what extent this was true of Mar Thoma VII and VIII. They were replaced with a succession of bishops who were, as far as can be ascertained, West Syrian in rite. Mar Dionysios II did not enjoy his position as Malankara Metropolitan for long. 169 He died on 24th November 1816.170 His tomb is still venerated today in the Chapel of his beloved Seminary.171 Before his death, however, he witnessed the beginning of a new development that was to have far-reaching consequences. THE MISSION OF HELP172

Munro’s desire to do everything in his power to assist the spread of Christianity was given a new impetus by the East India Act of 1813 which came into force the following year. That Act removed all obstacles to missionary work in the East India Company’s territories.173 One of the first Church of England agencies to begin work 169 It is difficult to avoid the impression that Mar Dionysios II was under constant pressure from Munro: ‘I have repeatedly urged the Bishop Joseph to hasten the translation of the Scriptures; but I fear, from his age and infirmities, that we cannot expect the completion of the work, until Mr Norton shall be enabled by his knowledge of Malayalam to take some part in it’ (Proc. CMS for the 16th and 17th years, p.456). ‘The bishop is naturally slow and will lose much valuable time unless he is stimulated by our advice and representations’ (letter dated 22nd July 1816, in Cheriyan, CMS, p.346). 170 Church Missionary Register, (March 1818), p.103. Letter from Norton to Thompson dated 14th December 1816. 171 The Chapel itself, however, was not built until 1817 and dedicated on 20th September 1818 by Mar Dionysios III (CMS/B/OMS/C I2 E2/66 Letter from Bailey to Pratt, 10 Nov 1818, Kottayam). Perhaps Mar Dionysios was interred on the plot reserved for the Chapel and the edifice erected around his tomb. 172 The fullest account of the Mission to date is still P. Cheriyan, The Malabar Syrians and the Church Missionary Society, Kottayam, CMS Press, 1935. See also W.S. Hunt, The Anglican Church in Travancore and Cochin, 1816-1916: Operations of the Church Missionary Society in South-West India, London, Church Missionary Society, 1920, (vol. 1), pp.54-108. Primary sources in the CMS archives and elsewhere suggest that the time is ripe for a new history of this enterprise. 173 See Neill, History, vol. 2, pp.151-155 for an account of the debates in the British Parliament.

THE EARLY 19TH CENTURY

339

in India was the Church Missionary Society, founded in 1799.174 This Society, which was in many ways a fruit of the 18th century Evangelical Revival, opened an auxiliary branch – designated a ‘Corresponding Committee’ – in Madras in 1814. It was with this body that Colonel Munro made contact soon after, requesting that English missionaries might be sent to work among the Puthenkuttukar in Travancore and Cochin.175 In response the Madras Committee sent to Kerala the Revd Thomas Norton, who had originally been intended to serve in Ceylon.176 In mid June 1816 Norton visited the College at Kottayam. His description of what was still an indigenous institution deserves quoting: The Metropolitan [Mar Dionysios II] received me in the most friendly manner, and took me over the whole of the building. It is a large and handsome structure; and is situate in a pleasant, open spot, on the bank of a fine river. The surrounding country is very beautiful. The Bishop expects it to be completed in about six months. There are twenty–five pupils already, and many more are expected. They were reading Syriac.177

174 The CMS was not the first Church of England mission agency to work in India. Both SPG (the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel) and SPCK (the Society for the Propagation of Christian Knowledge) had earlier undertaken some initiatives in India (see M.E. Gibbs, ‘Anglican and Protestant Missions, 1706-1857’, in H.C. Perumalil and E.R. Hambye (eds.), Christianity in India, pp.211-237 and the sources quoted there). 175 For the early history of the CMS see Eugene Stock, The History of the Church Missionary Society, its Environment, its Men and its Work, London, CMS, 1899. Munro would naturally look to Madras as his Residency was part of the Madras Presidency. 176 For the careers of Norton, and of Bailey, Fenn and Baker who would soon join him, see Hunt, Anglican Church, pp.109-131. 177 Missionary Register, March 1818, p.102. It is important to stress that the Seminary was already in existence before Norton and the other CMS missionaries even arrived in Kerala. Writers on this period tend to assume that it was a missionary foundation: ‘They [the English missionaries] founded a college-seminary at Kottayam’ (Tisserant, Eastern Christianity,

340

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

The first involvement of the English in the actual teaching seems to have been on Norton’s initiative: I have proposed to the Metropolitan, that a few of the young Syrian Pupils, intended for Casanars and Schoolmasters, should come to Allepie, to be instructed in English; and that they should then be sent to the Seminary, to teach English, as a necessary part of Education, to all that may be admitted into it …. When a number have sufficiently learned to read, a suitable library should be placed in the College, for public use; which would open to them a vast fund of knowledge, from which they are at present necessarily barred; and would be of essential service to them, in enlarging and raising their minds from their contracted and grovelling state. The Resident highly approves of this design, and begs it may be commenced immediately, and recommends apartments to be prepared for them. This I propose to do without loss of time. The Metropolitan also is desirous of seeing this plan put into execution.178

Mar Dionysios II is usually portrayed as being in complete sympathy with the missionaries and their work in the College.179 Philip, however, relates an incident to which he claims that his grandfather was an eye-witness. According to this account, Mar Dionysios II was presented with the arrival of the Revd Thomas Norton as a fait accompli – the missionary, with his wife and child had already arrived in Kerala. The Metropolitan is said to have resisted Norton’s appointment to the Seminary, compromising on his being stationed at Allepey,180 and to have had serious misgivings about this turn of events: I repent having sought the Sahib’s help in the construction of the Seminary; since the days of Dr Buchanan, the eyes of the p.146); ‘the CMS set up … a training college for Syrian katanars’ (Bayly, Saints, p.296). 178 Missionary Register, March 1818, p.102 – 103. 179 Swanston says they were attached to the college ‘with the fullest approbation of the bishop, clergy and people’ (JRAS, II, (1835), p.56). 180 Norton opened a mission school at Allepey in 1817 (Eapen, CMS, p.18).

THE EARLY 19TH CENTURY

341

Europeans are fixed upon our poor Church as those of a kite upon chickens; God knows the end; as long as I live, I will, under God’s guidance, guard this poor Church. May God preserve it for ever.181

In fact, Mar Dionysios had communicated his fears to Norton on their first meeting: It appears that some apprehension existed in his [Mar Dionysios’] mind and much more in the minds of the clergy and people, lest we should innovate and endeavour to do away with some of their legitimate rites and bring them under English ecclesiastical power.182

Norton believed that he had been able to allay the Metropolitan’s fears,183 and thereafter, as described above, the evidence points in the direction of his being a willing partner in the enterprise. On Mar Dionysios II’ death, Norton described him as ‘the good old Metropolitan’.184 Mar Dionysios II’s death had taken place a week after the arrival at Cochin of the next CMS missionary, the Revd Benjamin Bailey and his wife. Munro was anxious that they should reside at the Seminary at Kottayam, believing that ‘we cannot calculate on the good management of the College and above all on the early translation of the Scriptures into Malayalam, unless an English clergyman is fixed at Kottayam and is placed in an efficient and direct superintendence over the affairs of the College, and of the Syrian 181 Philip, Indian Church, p.182, allegedly quoting an autograph diary of his grandfather, Edavazhikal Philipose Kathanar. It must be remembered that Philip belonged to the ‘unreformed’ Syrians who were inclined to see the arrival of the CMS as having precipitated schism within their Church. 182 Missionary Register, 1818, p.98. Norton says that some Puthenkur Syrians had actually joined the Pazhayakuttukar, fearing that their bishop was about to betray them to the English. 183 ‘I have reason to be thankful that after a little conversation I succeeded, and he received me, as he expressed himself, as sent by the Lord to be the deliverer and protector and prayed that God would bless my efforts among them’. Ibid. 184 Letter dated 14 December 1816, Missionary Register, March 1818, p.103.

342

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

Church in general’.185 He therefore made arrangements for suitable accommodation to be built there.186 Prior to its completion Bailey actually lived in the Seminary. This (in early 1817) marked the beginning of a permanent European presence on the staff, which was to have far-reaching consequences. Bailey was joined in October 1818 by the Revd Joseph Fenn and in April 1819 by the Revd Henry Baker.187 Thus was formed a remarkable team whose work was to have lasting benefits for the spiritual and social uplifting of the Puthenkuttukar.188 The missionaries were allowed to preach in the Syrian Churches, a printing press was founded, as were schools and other institutions. The hub of much of this expanding activity was the Seminary, where the missionaries were based. Gradually, too, the missionaries began (with the best of intentions) to take control of the training and ordination process of candidates for the ministry. Munro, in his enthusiastic paternalism, would have had them go even further. On one occasion he wrote to Bailey, ‘I request that you will assume a control and direction of the whole system of the discipline and Church government of the Syrians, employing, of course, the Metropolitan as your coadjutor. The first point is to be attained is to procure invariable obedience to your commands and I request that you will in conjunction with the Metropolitan address a circular letter to all the Churches enjoining strict, uniform and implicit obedience to all your orders on pain of such penalties as you may think proper to establish’ 189 Given Letter dated 16th January 1817 (Cheriyan, CMS, p.349). Missionary Register, March 1818, p.104f. 187 Baker was only 25 at the time. On his journey to Kerala he had stopped at Tanjore where, after three weeks acquaintance, he had married Amelia Kohlhoff, niece of one of the missionaries of the Lutheran Mission there. For a description of their children and descendants, and their various contributions to the religious and social welfare of the indigenous peoples, see Arby Varghese, P.J. Kurian and P.M. Kurian, The Contributions of the Baker Family, 1818-1966, Kottayam, Benjamin Bailey Research Centre, 1999. 188 The contribution of Bailey, Fenn and Baker is discussed extensively in Cheriyan, CMS, passim. 189 Letter dated 6th August 1817, Cheriyan, CMS, p.363. This assumption was shared by Swanston. In a letter to Thomas Robinson (Chaplain to Bishop Heber) dated 15th September 1826, he wrote that ‘the Protes185 186

THE EARLY 19TH CENTURY

343

Munro’s conviction (breathtaking as it is from a 21st century perspective) that a European clergyman – and one only in Priest’s Orders at that - should have ‘direct superintendence … of the Syrian Church in general’ it was inevitable that the Seminary gradually came to be seen as the missionaries’ institution, rather than an indigenous institution with some European assistance.190 Seen from a broader perspective, Munro was merely urging Bailey to adopt the ecclesiastical equivalent of his own position. Though technically only the East India Company’s representative, Munro (as described in Chapter 4) had been Dewan of Travancore and was still Dewan of Cochin in 1817 when he made the above request to Bailey. He took it for granted that Britons should control native institutions, albeit in the name of local leaders, and genuinely believed that this was to the benefit of the indigenous population. INDIGENOUS EVANGELISM

Before passing on to the events surrounding the work of the Seminary and its effects on the community, one important observation needs to be made. It is sometimes stated that the Syrian community had become a completely closed ‘caste’ by the 19th century, with no tant Bishop of India [ie Heber] must declare himself their Head and assume charge of their Church – then and only then can this primative [sic] Church expect to flourish’ (MS Mill 191, f.14). It is not difficult to see that such attitudes would create bitter opposition to the missionaries and all they stood for in the minds of many Syrian Christians. Munro had also tried to persuade the British authorities in Madras to permit the appointment of the missionaries as judges in the local courts, but, according to a letter sent by the Chief Secretary to Munro, the Governor deemed it ‘inexpedient and improper’ and was of the opinion that the missionaries’ labour ‘ought strictly to be confined to the spiritual object for which they were sent out to India’ (IOR/F/4/616, p.68f). 190 The desire to control the Christian communities had been manifested by Munro’s predecessor, Macaulay, who had persuaded the Government of Travancore to agree that the appointment of bishops to all the Churches was ‘cognizable’ by ‘the Christian King who is now sovereign of India’ [ie George III]. In practice this gave the British a veto. Even Roman Catholic bishops had to be approved by the Resident before the latter would present them formally to the Rajah (IOR/MSS/Eur D.122, p.113f).

344

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

interest in winning other Indians for Christ. While it appears to be the case that no organised evangelism was taking place among the Puthenkuttukar, nevertheless it is important to note that conversions to Christianity were happening prior to the evangelistic impetus given by the British missionaries.191 The testimony of the priest at Kunnamkulam in 1800, that ‘converts, however, are occasionally made of both Nairs and Shanars’ has been noted in the previous Chapter.192 This agrees with the evidence of Ramban Joseph Pulikottil in his answers to Munro’s Seventeen Questions: ‘The pagans are not christened publicly, through fear of the Malabar Rajahs, but a few who came to embrace Christianity are secretly admitted in it and baptised’.193 Whitehouse records accounts of the persecution and martyrdom of converts.194 The community had not entirely lost sight of the Great Commission. It may be remarked in passing, that the initial stated intention of the Seminary was, in Munro’s words quoted above, ‘the general amelioration of the Syrian community’. From the outset, however, it is certain that Munro and collaborators saw the College as a basis for evangelism. In 1809 Claudius Buchanan, in a sermon in Bristol, See Mar Abraham Mattan, The Indian Church of St Thomas Christians and Her Missionary Enterprises before the Sixteenth Century, Vadavathoor, Oriental Institute of Religious Studies India, 1985, for a brief survey and discussion of the evangelistic activities of the St Thomas Christians prior to European contact. Also Mundadan, HCI, I, pp.191f. Marriage with higher castes seems to have been a traditional route for non-Christians to enter the community. The Bishop of Verapoly reported about 400 conversions a year in his Answers to Munro, but, as his diocese included some Latinrite congregations, it is impossible to know whether any Syrians were involved in this work. The Bishop stated that there were no formal impediments to conversion, but the loss of inheritance rights was a serious disincentive, which he hoped that Munro would do something about (IOR/F/616, p.90). See also Puliurumpil (Jurisdictional Confusion,p.18) for a brief comment on conversions from a Roman perspective. 192 F.Buchanan, Journey from Madras, vol. II, p.391. 193 IOR/F/4/1616. Interestingly, Mar Thoma VIII was either unaware of this, or sought to hide it from Munro. In his reply he stated, ‘The Pagans do not become Christians, nor do the Syrians enter into Paganism’ (ibid). 194 Lingerings, p.223. 191

THE EARLY 19TH CENTURY

345

had opined that, ‘The probable design of the Divine Providence in preserving this people [the Syrians], appears to be this; That they should be a seed of the Church in Asia: that they should be a special instrument for the conversion of the surrounding heathen ….’195 For the next twenty years the Seminary was to be at the centre of the story of the Puthenkuttukar. Its success, however, was largely dependent on the attitude taken towards it by bishops in the Anjoor succession.

195 Buchanan, The Star in the East: A Sermon preached in the Parish Church of St James, Bristol, on Sunday February 26 1809 for the benefit of the ‘Society for Missions to Africa and the East’, London, Longman, Hurst & Co, 1809.

CHAPTER 10: THE GOLDEN AGE: GEEVERGHESE MAR PHILOXENOS II, MALANKARA METROPOLITAN Following the death of Mar Dionysios II there took place what may be described as the apotheosis of the Thozhiyur Church. The bishop of this tiny community, having already consecrated one Malankara Metropolitan, now became Malankara Metropolitan himself. A bishop from the community which Mar Ivanios Ibn al Arqugianyi and Mar Basilios Shukr Allah had begun to nurture in ‘pure’ West Syrian ways nearly seventy years before had now ascended the Throne of St Thomas. It is no wonder that K.C. Verghese calls this his Church’s ‘Golden Age’. CONSECRATION AND MINISTRY

The Metropolitan was Geeverghese Mar Philoxenos II. Kidangan Geeverghese Kathanar - as he was before consecration - belonged to a well-known Syrian family at Kunnamkulam, just a few miles from Thozhiyur itself, where his family and that of Mar Dionysios II lived in close proximity. Both had occupied the position of priest of the Church at Arthat. Swanston (who was a contemporary of Mar Philoxenos II in India) states that he had been ‘educated and admitted into holy orders’ by ‘the virtuous and learned Cyril’ [ie Mar Koorilose I].1 Fenn, who of course knew Mar Philoxenos well, gives the following account: The history of Mar Philoxenus is singularly interesting. In his younger days he was a man of great spirit. Possessed of a large 1

JRAS, II (1835), p.58.

347

348

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS fortune, he delighted in the influence it gave him and in the gratifications it put within his reach. When his predecessor perceived the probability of his being removed from the world he chose 2 Priests whom he desired to draw lots for the office at the altar. Philoxenus was one of them. He had no wish whatever for the office and thought his character would certainly preclude the lot falling upon him. But it turned out contrary to his expectations. Great remorse and terror filled his mind. For 8 days he scarcely touched any food. He immediately relinquished all his property to his relations, told them that earthly ties ceased with him from that moment, that he wished for nothing from them and that they must expect nothing from him. He became punctual to his devotions both public and private which return every 3½ hours day and night. And is, I believe, the nearly solitary instance of an Ecclesiastic in this Church praying in private in his own native tongue. The simplicity of his dependence upon God and his total absence of all intrigue are among the most remarkable traits of his character. His failing is a want of confidence in himself and an erroneous persuasion that the salvation of the soul cannot be secured amid the cares and duties of a public life.2

2 Fenn to Heber, Kottayam, 22nd March 1826, MS Mill 191, f.140. Swanston’s statement seems to rely substantially on Fenn’s account: ‘Mar Philoxenos, before his elevation to the episcopal dignity, was possessed of a large fortune and a free liver. At his consecration he relinquished the whole of his property to his relations, and assumed the character of a recluse, and the most abstemious habits. For money, of the riches of this world, he has the most thorough contempt. He is pre-eminent for a simple dependence upon God, for an unaffected simplicity of manners, and for a most intimate knowledge of the character of his countrymen’ (JRAS, II (1835), p.57). A further document by Fenn adds detail to the drawing of the lots: ‘Another candidate was also in nomination named David, who is still living. Lots were drawn after an invocation of the divine blessing and the lot fell upon Philoxenus’ (MS Mill 191, f.141v). Joseph Pulikottil’s brief account has already been noted (MS Mill 192, f.48v). The Palakunnathu Notes also agree: Chiran Metran of the North [Mar Philoxenos I] died, but one of his relations called Cadangan was sent for just before, and also one catanar called Coladi, a friend of Chiran – he told them one of them must succeed him – cast lots and the lot fell on the former and he

THE GOLDEN AGE

349

An undated document in Fenn’s handwriting, headed ‘Answers to the Questions proposed in His Lordship’s letter of the 10th ultimo’ states that Mar Philoxenos II was consecrated by ‘his predecessor of the same name, at the Church of Agnneur [Anjur] on the 24th of Nithuner [?] (Gemini) [sic] 1812, in the presence of priests and Christians of the Church of Chatakulam [Arthat] and its appendant churches of Paraqui and Konankalakare’.3 According to Mannanam Malayalam 3 Philoxenos I died four days after the consecration, leaving Philoxenos II as Metropolitan.4 Interestingly, one person who was not pleased at Philoxenos’ consecration seems to have been Mar Thoma VIII. The following response is recorded in the Palakunnathu Notes: The death of Chiran being reported to Mar Thoma and that Cadungan had been consecrated, Mar Thoma was in great fear, because while Cadungan was catanar he was universally beloved, and though Cadungan had been on friendly terms with Mar Thoma and an enemy to Joseph Ramban, Mar Thoma’s foe, - now, however, Mar Thoma disliked him because he received consecration from Mar Dionysios [sic] or Chiran. Mar was consecrated as Mar Philoxenus (MS Mill 192, f.6v). Yacoub III’s sources agree on the same basic facts: ‘A few years later, Zechariah (Cheran) became sick and was visited by Gurgis Kernikam, of the church of Arthat-Kunnamkulam. Shortly before his death, Zechariah ordained Gurgis a bishop with the name of Philoxenus II’ (Yacoub III, p.142). 3 MS Mill 191, f.141v. The date of Fenn’s paper is almost certainly 1826. Swanston quotes this passage verbatim (JRAS, II (1835), p.57). Mill, however, believed that Fenn had miscalculated the date, and that Mar Philoxenos II was actually consecrated on 2nd or 3rd July 1813 (MS Mill 193, f.17f: MS Mill 192, f.128). The location of the consecration was almost certainly St George’s Cathedral, Thozhiyur, rather than Mar Behanan Church in Anjur proper. Most European writers do not distinguish between Anjur and Thozhiyur. 4 ‘After that, in the year 1812, the news that this bishop [Philoxenos I] was living in the Chavakkad church reached the Queen Sāyū , who was in Nilakkamughal. She ordered me to bring him. So I sent a man. He [Mar Philoxenos] was sick, it was impossible to bring him. After that, the disease increased and, in the next month of Mithunam, the time of death approached. Four days after giving episcopal ordination to another priest, the sick bishop died’ (ET Istvan Perczel).

350

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS Thoma wrote letters to the parishes denouncing Mar Philoxenus or Cadungan, and forbidding him to be honoured ….5

If the report is correct, it suggests that Mar Thoma VIII did indeed feel insecure about the validity of his consecration and vulnerable to challenge from anyone who could claim a more canonically correct succession. At some stage – apparently even before Philoxenos’ consecration of Ramban Joseph Pulikottil - there seems to have been a challenge to the validity of Philoxenos’ consecration by the supporters of the priest David, who had been the unsuccessful candidate at the drawing of lots which had chosen Philoxenos. To resolve the issue a Synod was called at Balghatty, near Cochin. This was attended by ‘the whole of the clergy of the diocese’ and took place in the presence of the British Resident and the Diwan of Travancore.6 A letter from the Revd Joseph Fenn dated 9th March 1826 refers to this meeting: The validity of the consecration and title of Philoxenus was brought into discussion before the Government during the residency of Col. Munro. It was supported by two very learned native Rabbans, Phillippus and Joseph, the latter of whom was afterwards Metropolitan, and the decision was for its legality.7

The synod found that, although there had been no assisting bishops nevertheless Mar Philoxenos had been ‘really and sufficiently consecrated’.8 MS Mill 192, f.6v. Swanston, JRAS, 2, p.57. ‘The whole of the clergy of the diocese’ must refer to the Puthenkuttukar as a whole, and not simply to the handful of priests at Thozhiyur. 7 Fenn to Heber, from Quilon 9th March 1826, MS Mill 191, f.114v. One of those who opposed was Abraham Konat Malpan, whose opposition to the Kattumangat succession was noted in the preceding Chapter. It will be recalled that Konat MSS were among Yacoub III’s sources. Mill states that the ‘memoir’ of Philipos and Joseph in favour of the succession ‘is still extant in Malayalim’ (MS Mill 193, f.17f), but it has, regrettably, not been possible to trace it. 8 Howard’s account, from which the phrase is taken (Christians of St Thomas, p.65), is based very closely on those of Swanston and Fenn. 5 6

THE GOLDEN AGE

351

From Thomas Norton we learn something of the circumstances of Mar Philoxenos’ elevation from Bishop of Anjur to Malankara Metropoltan. On 14 December 1816 he wrote: There is in a neighbourhood of Calicut a Syrian bishop who consecrated the late Metropolitan. He prefers a retired life. The Resident is desirous of his appointment to the office of Metropolitan and, according to the little that I have seen of him, he is a very suitable person. He appears to be a man who fears God. The Syrians speak of him as such. Nearly all the Kattanars are well acted towards him, and wish to have him over them.9

In a further letter written on 26 February 1817 Norton describes how his hopes were achieved: You will have heard from the Resident that we have a new Metropolitan. I hope he is one who will warmly coincide with us in all that we deem necessary for the revival of these waste places of Zion over which he is providentially placed. I had seen him at Cotyam prior to the late Metropolitan's decease. The whole of his demeanour pleased me much; and without the least idea of losing the venerable Metropolitan so soon, I spoke to him on the propriety of his coming forth into public life and requested him to lend his exertions for the good of the cause in which we are engaged. About six weeks after this, unexpected by us all, as we supposed him considerably better, the Metropolitan died. I lost no time in going to Cochin to communicate the intelligence to the Resident and recommended Philoxenus to him as his successor. The Resident having known something of him wished it also and directed me to consult him on the subject and, if agreeable to the Kattanars in general, to propose him to them. The Kattanars made no objection but rather wished for his appointment and speaking very highly of him said, “He is a man of prayer”. This conMissionary Register, March 1818, p.103. Munro’s approbation of Mar Philoxenos II is recorded in a letter of 22 January 1817: ‘The new bishop manifests the best disposition , and is anxious for the assistance and cooperation of the Missionaries’ (Miss. Reg., 1818, p.105). 9

352

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS firmed in me the conviction that Philoxenus is the man who would consult the real good of this Church. According to the Resident's direction I requested him therefore to come to Alleppie that we might confer together on the subject.10

The actual meeting shows Philoxenos behaving with all the dignity of a Metropolitan: Knowing that he would come in his episcopal attire [wrote Norton], with all the corresponding insignia and attendants, I considered it our duty to receive him in our clerical vestments, with all possible respect; which we did at the front door, at the top of a walk arched over with the branches of cinnamon trees …. [The scene] was most solemn and interesting. When I inquired whether he was willing to take on the office of Metropolitan; and, if so, whether he would unite with us in adopting whatever measures might be deemed necessary for the prosperity of the Church over which he would preside; he consented to accept the office, if appointed thereto, on condition that we, with the Resident, would give him our assistance, as we had done to the late Metropolitan.11

The assurances were duly given, and Mar Philoxenos was proclaimed as Malankara Metropolitan by the Diwan of Travancore.12 His occupancy of the position is confirmed by the statement in the susthaticon which he gave Punnthra Mar Dionysios III (see below) that he is Metropolitan ‘of the throne of Malankarai and of the whole of India’.13 On being congratulated by Norton and Munro, Philoxenos ‘taking each one of us, one after the other, round the waist, he said, “We three go together, and visit all the Churches, and see what can be done for their revival”.’14 Missionary Register, March 1818, p.104. . Ibid. 12 This was by Munro’s arrangement: ‘I have requested the Dewan to proclaim the appointment of Philoxenus as successor to the late Metran’ (letter to Norton, dated 8th January 1817, in Cheriyan, CMS, p.348). 13 Exhibit XXIX (accepted as genuine), quoted in Judgement/Ormsby, p.45. 14 Missionary Register, March 1818, p.104. 10 11

THE GOLDEN AGE

353

As seen, Mar Philoxenos II had only accepted the position of Metropolitan on being given assurances of help from the missionaries and the Resident.15 He also requested the assistance of an Archdeacon to assist him, the individual chosen being George Kathanar of Punnathra.16 Shortly after this, Mar Philoxenos II’s ability to perform the duties of Malankara Metropolitan was seriously diminished by an attack of smallpox.17 Seriously weakened by his illness, Mar Philoxenos II expressed a wish ‘to resign the most laborious part of his functions’18 and return to Thozhiyur, ‘without relinquishing the high-sounding title of “Metropolitan of Malankara”’19, leaving George Kathanar as his consecrated co-adjutor. The missionaries and Resident consented to this, judging George `a 15 Philoxenos also received what was becoming the mark of the legitimate Metropolitan – the interest on the Star Pagodas (see previous Chapter). ‘I have sent orders for remitting to the Metran 240 Pagodas, the annual interest now due on the Company’s bond …’ (Letter from Munro to Norton, 13th February 1817, Cheriyan, CMS, p.352). 16 ‘The Metran’s request to have George with him as Archdeacon ought to be acceded to’ (Letter from Munro to Norton, 13th February 1817, Cheriyan, CMS, p.351). It is interesting to note that Philoxenos seems to have had recourse to the ancient pattern whereby an Archdeacon handled the day to day business under the ultimate supervision of a Metropolitan. George himself seems to have preferred the term ‘Vicar General’ ‘as being most known in this country’ (Letter from Captain Blacker to Bishop Middleton, Cochin, 19 May 1817, MS Mill 192, f.91v). If this is true then it suggests that long use of the term Vicar General among the Romo-Syrians had displaced the ancient term Archdeacon in the popular mind. In English usage the term ‘Vicar General’ came to replace ‘Archdeacon’ and survives today in use in the Mar Thoma Church (‘A Vicar General will ordinarily be appointed by the Metropolitan for each diocese …’ Mar Thoma Syrian Church Constitution (1984) 56 (3)). Archdeacons may also be appointed but, unlike Vicars General, no duties are specified for them in the Mar Thoma Constitution. 17 Philoxenos was not expected to survive: ‘I am sorry to say that the Metropolitan and several Catenars have been attacked by Small Pox, which may again occasion a vacancy’ (Letter from Captain Blacker to Bishop Middleton, Cochin, 19 May 1817, MS Mill 192, f.91v). ‘I am surprised at the prejudices manifested by the Syrians against vaccination …’ (Letter of Munro, dated 29th May 1817, Cheriyan, CMS, p.360). 18 Cheriyan, CMS, p.108. 19 Philip, Indian Church, p.183.

354

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

pious man' and ‘possessing a degree of zeal and energy that would be extremely useful’.20 On 6th October 1817 Bailey wrote to Munro, The Consecration of George will take place in a short time, and I will inform you, Sir, of it immediately afterwards. The present Metran will resign into the hands of George the power of ordaining Priests, regulating the affairs of the Church in general, etc …. I hope the blessing of God will rest on the Archdeacon which will enable him to be more active than the present one has been.21

After his consecration the former Archdeacon George was known as Punnathra Mar Dionysios III and was proclaimed assistant Metropolitan in December.22 He combined an open and sincere loyalty to the authority and practice of the Church in Mesopotamia with friendship and cooperation towards the missionaries. A glimpse of Mar Dionysios III, shortly prior to his consecration, appears in the account of Bishop Middleton’s visit in 1816, when he led a delegation of kathanars to welcome the Bishop: He was attired in loose white trowser, with a white tunic or shirt, a red silk cap, hanging much down behind, and carried a long staff of cane, tipped with gold. He was a good-looking man, of mild and modest demeanour, and interesting manners. He was, apparently, about 30 years of age, had a black beard, and his head shaved on the crown.’23

By February 1818 Bailey was writing to the Resident, ‘I beg leave to remark that the present Metran is very charitable to the poor’.24 Munro reported the new situation to his superiors at Madras:

Letter of Munro dated 6th August 1817 (Cheriyan, CMS, p.361). Bailey to Munro, 6th October 1817, IOR/ F/4/616/15311. p.26. 22 His susthaticon, dated 2 Vrichigom 1817, was Exhibit XXIX in the Seminary Case. It apparently contained no reference to the Patriarch or any other Head of the Malankara Church (Judgement/Row-Iyer, para.136). 23 Le Bas, Middleton, vol.1, p.288. 24 Bailey to Munro, 10th February 1818, IOR/ F/4/616/15311. p.30. 20 21

THE GOLDEN AGE

355

The Bishop Joseph [Mar Dionysios II], worn out with age and abstinence, lived long enough only to afford the warmest testimonies of satisfaction and joy at the improvement of his Church …. He has been succeeded in office by two Bishops, Mar Philoxenos and Mar George, the former being too infirm to discharge the duties of his office.25

A description of Mar Dionysios III and his relationship with the missionaries is provided by ‘a Field Officer of Cavalry’ – identified as Digby Mackworth by Whitehouse – who travelled through Travancore, Cochin and Malabar in 1821.26 Accompanied by Fenn and Baker, Mackworth visited the Syrian Church at Kottayam on 20th February 1821: On arriving at the Church, the Metropolitan, Mar Dionysios, received us in a small room leading into it, and serving as the habitation of one of it’s [sic] Catanars. The Metran’s appearance is pleasing and dignified, and his address good: he seems to be about forty or forty-two years of age; has a fine countenance, (evidently not of Indian origin), expressive of mild good sense, yet with a meek subdued look, which instantaneously bespeaks our natural sympathy and affection. He received me with great kindness, shaking me by the hand; and I hope my manner expressed the respect for all that I had heard of his real worth.27

It is clear that the missionaries had a great affection for Punnathra Mar Dionsyios III, who joined them at their weekly ‘com-

25 Munro to Chief Secretary to the Government 27th October 1818, (Proc. CMS, (1819-20), p.338. IOR/ F/4/616/15311. p.17). Despite the limitations on Mar Philoxenos’ actual management of the affairs of the Church, there is no doubt that he was regarded as the reigning Metropolitan: ‘The present Metropolitan is named Philoxenus, and his coadjutor, who, for several years past, has transacted most of the business of the diocese, is named Dionysios …’ (Heber, Journal, III, p.447). 26 A Field Officer of Cavalry [Digby Mackworth], Diary of a Tour through Southern India, Egypt and Palestine in the years 1821 and 1823, (London, J.Hatchard & Son, 1823). Whitehouse, Lingerings of Light, p.243. 27 Mackworth, Tour, p.66f.

356

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

mittee meetings’.28 They spoke to Mackworth of his habit of private prayer and his willingness to absorb and put into effect many of their suggestions, of which marriage of the kathanars was one of the most visible. Another suggestion was evident in the Qurbana that Mackworth attended at Kottayam - a portion of the New Testament was read in Malayalam, though the service in Mackworth’s eyes, ‘very much resembled that of the Romish superstitions’.29 While this latter comment clearly owes much to Mackworth’s Protestant perspective, it is also a reminder of Punnathra Mar Dionysios III’s loyalty to Antiochene ways. Cheriyan says of him, ‘It is not possible to say that there ever ruled over the Malankara Church a Metropolitan who was as much attached to Antioch as he was. He never made a secret of his views on that point; nor do the Missionaries seem to have exhibited the slightest displeasure at this manifestation of loyalty to Antioch’.30 In a letter to Lord Gambier, President of CMS, Mar Dionysios III claims that the St Thomas Christians from earliest times ‘kept the True Faith according to the manner of the Syrian Jacobites’ until interrupted by ‘the power and dominion of the Franks [ie Portuguese]’. In 1753 [sic], he continues, there ‘came to us some holy Jacobite-Syrian Fathers from Antioch, who turned us to our true ancient faith, and set up a High Priest for us’.31 Worthy of comment is the fact that the Metropolitan notes the loss of many Syrian Churches to the ‘Franks’ and the Pope of Rome, but there is no mention of seeking to win them back. On the contrary, Mar Dionsysios III’s attention is on his own people and on the benefits that the College, the missionaries and the gift of vernacular Scriptures have brought. The plan to re-unite the St Thomas Christians by bringing the Pazhayakuttukar over to the Puthenkuttukar which had featured in Munro’s apologia is nowhere to be seen. The significance of this will be discussed in the following Chapter. The following day Mackworth visited the College at Kottayam. After seeing the pupils, Mackworth, Tour, p.89f. Mackworth, Tour, p.66f. 30 CMS, p.109. 31 The full text of the letter is printed in Missionary Register, 1822, pp.431f. 28 29

THE GOLDEN AGE

357

we proceeded to the apartments of the Metropolitan, whom we found in his usual robe of crimson silk, with an agate cross, suspended from his neck by a golden chain, red shoes, with gold or gilt buckles, and his head covered with a peculiarly shaped silk handkerchief, in which numerous small crosses were marked. The crimson robe resembled in shape, an English Clergyman’s surplice, and the dress was certainly handsome.32

Mar Dionysios III’s living conditions were as simple as those of Maphrian Mar Basilios Shukr Allah sixty-three years before: He received me… in his little bed-room, the furniture of which consisted simply of a bed, three chairs, a very small table, a wooden chest, and a brass lamp; from the canopy of his bed some dresses of ceremony were hanging on a cord, and a very few books lay on the chest opposite the one small window. Beside this room, he has one other, not much larger, which is nearly empty. Such I pictured to myself, the abode of an Archbishop in the primitive ages of the Church, before the progress of society and civilization had effected a corresponding change’.33

On 2nd March 1821 Mackworth bade farewell to Punnathra Mar Dionysios III (who entrusted to him a printed copy of the Syriac New Testament, in which he had written a few lines, for delivery to the Patriarch of Antioch)34 and, accompanied by Fenn, departed in the Mission boat for Cochin and the northern Churches. The details of this journey, though fascinating, are not of direct relevance here. Significantly, however, Fenn took Mackworth Mackworth, Tour, p.72. Mackworth, Tour, p.90f. Mackworth had an opportunity to see some of the ‘dresses of ceremony’ when, one evening, the Metropolitan visited him at the Bailey’s house ‘in state; which had had kindly consented to do, in order to afford me the gratification of seeing him in his pontifical robes. He wears a mitre on these occasions, and the pastoral crook, or crozier, is carried before him … After a short time, he took off most of his robes and kept on only the usual one, of crimson silk’ (p.88). It is likely that the Metropolitan had worn rochet and mozetta. 34 It is not clear whether this ever reached its destination. 32 33

358

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

to visit Mar Philoxenos II in his retirement, thus providing us with the first description of a Bishop of Anjur in his own headquarters. On 9th March 1821 the two men and their retinue left Trichur to travel to Carangalancherry, about fourteen miles away. From there, After breakfast we set out on foot, for the residence of the late Metropolitan [Philoxenos II] who resigned his situation for the purpose of leading a quiet retired life, unembarrassed by any secular affairs. We had about three miles to walk before we reached his place of abode, and that under the burning heat of a perpendicular meridian sun, so that we were truly glad when we arrived, and partook of a little Madeira and plantains, which the good old hermit had provided for us. He is a little man, with a pleasing expression of countenance; fond of talking, and more inquisitive than Indians usually are when conversing with Europeans. He asked me a great many questions concerning my family in England; how many brothers and sisters I had; where they lived, &c. &c.: and he was greatly amazed that they should, as he found out, live in the same town (London) with Mr Fenn’s family, and yet be personally unacquainted with them. I wished to know what he thought of the new printed Syriac Testament: he said he admired it very much; and on being asked whether he had discovered the slightest error in it, or deviation from the original, he assured me he knew of none. We staid with him about an hour, and then returned to the Church at Caranagalancherry.35

It appears that the difficulties experienced by the Anjur line of bishops had clearly not faded: This aged Metropolitan has built the house in which he resides, within the Honourable Company’s territory, in order, on becoming a British subject, to escape the continued insults and persecutions of the inferior officers of the Travancore Government. The line of demarcation in this part, is a small rivulet, which flows close under the Metropolitan’s garden, so that he enjoys the vicinity of his countrymen, by whom he is revered

35

Mackworth, Tour, p.112f.

THE GOLDEN AGE

359

as a saint, and is no longer subject to the same oppressions under which they are labouring.36

Later that year – in December 1821 – the Revd William Hodge Mill also visited Kottayam and Anjur.37 He thought the College ‘a curious structure, built without taste’, but enjoyed spending a morning going through the Syriac manuscripts with Fenn and ‘the chief Malpan Abraham’. Like Mackworth, Mill also traveled north to Thozhiyur. His Journal entry for 12th January 1822 describes what he found: Reach the tranquil retirement of the old Metropolitan Mar Philoxenus – at Annur (or Tolura) in the Company’s territory, which extends here to the sea…. Here see the venerable man (like Mar Dionysios in aspect as well as dress, but less grave and careful in manner than he) affable and simple as a child – attending to his periods of private and public prayer every 2½ hours - & while most severe to himself, most attentive to all the bodily wants of others.38

Mill describes a tranquil scene, with a kathanar teaching students and other kathanars from Cacode visiting. The Church, ‘built by Mar Cyrillus’ was, however, ‘unroofed and out of repair’.39 The contents of Mill’s luggage were obviously a source of much interest: Arithmetical puzzles, microscope, etc exhibited to the Catanars & people – Old Philoxenos sitting as a father among his children, enjoying the thing himself - & saying to them – ‘Look at

36 ibid. The Boundary Stream still borders the Thozhiyur property today. Interestingly, Mar Philoxenos II does not seem to have been living in the Church itself. 37 See Journal of a Tour in India in the years 1821 & 1822 (MS Mill 204). 38 MS Mill 204 Journal 12th January 1822. 39 This may not necessarily indicate impoverishment. On the same visit Mill describes a number of houses belonging to Syrian Christians ‘unroofed after the rainy season, for fear of fire’ (MS Mill 204 Journal 13th January 1822). The deliberate unroofing of a church is, however, less likely.

360

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS it, perhaps you may never see such a thing again’. Distribute books to the deserving lads. Scene never to be forgotten.40

Mill left Thozhiyur on 13th January, full of praise for Mar Philoxenos’ ‘generosity and care for our journey’, and ‘with his episcopal blessing’. He resolved to speak to Fenn and Baker ‘for the poor Church of Annur’. Mar Philoxenos II’s quiet retirement was not to continue. Just over three years after Mill’s visit, on 16th May 1825, Punnathra Mar Dionysios III died suddenly from cholera.41 His death was a blow to Syrians and missionaries alike. Fenn describes the wailing and tolling of bells that followed his death and the seating of his fully vested body in the sanctuary for the funeral rites (a ceremony still observed today by the West Syrian Churches and the Church of the East in Kerala).42 On Mar Philoxenos’ arrival, ‘on beholding the corpse of his deceased friend he burst out into exclamations of grief. It was his duty to take the ring, the pastoral staff and cross from the hands of the deceased Metran.’ On the lowering of the body, still seated, into a grave in the sanctuary, ‘Mar Philoxenos, supported by two or three friends, came forward and poured a small vial of olive oil on the head.’43 Mar Philoxenos II was persuaded to leave Thozhiyur and was again proclaimed Malankara Metropolitan, a position which he held until his death in 1829.44 In view of his frailty it was agreed to appoint another co-adjutor. No single name commanded sufficient support, so it was decided to cast lots.45 The names of three candi-

MS Mill 204 Journal 12th January 1822. The Seminary Case documents give the date as 8 Edavom 1827 (Judgement/Row-Iyer, para.142). 42 It had been intended to carry the deceased Metran’s body around the village in his palanquin, but the corpse was found to be too stiff to allow this (CMS/B/OMS/CI2/096/18). 43 CMS/B/OMS/CI2/096/18. Rae (Syrian Church, p.295f) repeats Fenn’s account but mistakenly substitutes ‘wig’ for ’ring’. 44 Swanston, writing in 1826, describes Philoxenos as ‘the present metropolitan’ (JRAS, II (1835), p.57). 45 Fenn describes the process. Punnathra Mar Dionysios III had hoped that one of two deacons, Marcus and Mathew of Kottayam, might 40 41

THE GOLDEN AGE

361

dates were written on pieces of paper placed on the altar and one of them drawn by a young deacon. The lot fell on Cheppat Philipos Kattanar who was duly consecrated by Philoxenos II and was eventually to succeed him as Metropolitan Dionysios IV on the old man's death.46 After the consecration, Philoxenos II, still Malankara Metropolitan, resumed a retired life of prayer at Thozhiyur while Cheppat Mar Dionysios exercised day to day oversight of the Syrian community. This state of affairs was, however, to be rudely interrupted. MAR ATHANASIOS ABDUL MESSIH

With the exception of the brief visit of Mar Dioscoros in 1807, the Malankara Syrians had been living independently of the Patriarch of Antioch in effect since 1751 when his delegation had arrived to consecrate Mar Thoma V. Contact was re-established with the arrival in India of Mar Athanasios Abdul Messih in 1825.47 Ironically, this new phase of involvement by Antioch in the affairs of the Indian Church had apparently been occasioned by the succeed him, but they were judged to be too young, though thought suitable for the office ‘at the proper age’ (CMS/B/OMS/CI2/096/18). 46 Baker adds the detail that Philoxenos II was assisted by three priests at the consecration (CCC, (Nov. 1870), p.437. Bayly believes that the drawing of lots was necessitated by the failure of a ‘wild free-for-all with most of the leading Syrian families battling inconclusively for the post’. She also argues that this method of appointment left Cheppat Mar Dionysios IV ‘with no inherited link to the west Asian patriarchate and no clear backing from the Resident or the Travancore rajahs to sustain his authority’ (Saints, p.287). A website of the Malankara Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Church claims that in order to allay fears about the validity of Mar Philoxenos’ consecrations, recognition was requested from the Patriarch. This was forthcoming: ‘a letter of the Patriarch was issued, confirming the status of Mor Dionysios IV as a prelate of the Malankara Syrian Church and a copy was handed over to the British Government as well’ (http://catholicose.org/PauloseII/Primates.htm). There is no evidence of this. If such a document had existed, it would have been referred to in the prolonged Seminary Case later in the century (see below). 47 For an account of the activities of Mar Athanasios Abdul Messih from an Antiochene perspective, see Yacoub III, Syrian Church in India, pp.153-164.

362

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

British themselves – and in particular by Claudius Buchanan’s Christian Researches in Asia, first published in 1811. According to Reginald Heber, Middleton’s successor as Bishop of Calcutta, Last year [1825] the publications respecting these people [ie the Indian Syrians] in Europe … appear to have become known in Syria, and to have attracted the notice of the Patriarch to this remote portion of his flock, and two Syrian monks, named Athanasius and Abraham, with the titles of Metropolitan and ‘Ramban,’ or Archdeacon, arrived at Bombay whilst I was there, on their way to the Malayalim Churches, and with regular appointments from the Patriarch ….48

Heber is incorrect in claiming for Buchanan’s publications sole credit for bringing an Antiochene bishop to Kerala. Some letters from India were reaching West Asia.49 As long ago as 1814, at the time of the disruptions caused by the removal of Mar Thoma VIII and the consecration of Mar Dionysios II, a letter had been drafted to the Patriarch asking him to send ‘a Mafrian, even an honoured Patriarch; one skilled in ecclesiastical learning, versed in the Scriptures, learned in divine things, adorned with excellent gifts, a godly man, intent upon spiritual matters…’50 However, it was never sent ‘for want of opportunity’. In February 1821 Punnathra Mar Dionysios III and the Malpan51 forwarded the letter (with an Heber, Journals, III, pp.447f, 482. The same volume also gives an English translation of the ‘Circular of Mar Ignatius George, Patriarch of Antioch, to the British Authorities in India, recommending to their protection his envoy, Mar Athanasius’, (pp.465-467). (The Narrative of a Journey is usually referred to as Heber’s Journals, that being the word used to refer to them by his widow Amelia in her Dedication dated 31st December 1827 (vol. I, p.iii)). 49 Barsoum states that in the Patriarchal collection there exist ‘several communications sent by Patriarchs to Malabar in India, or written by some clergy of that country dating from 1754 to the present time. Most of these letters are predominantly trite and artless’ (Scattered Pearls, p.28, n.1). 50 An English translation of the letter can be found in CMS/B/OMS/CI2/059/26. It is written as if from ‘Mar Dionysios Metran of Malabar, your weak and helpless son ….’ 51 This is presumably Palakunnathu Abraham who was described as ‘the chief Malpan’ by the end of 1821 (MS Mill 204 Journal 22nd November 48

THE GOLDEN AGE

363

additional paragraph added) to the CMS at Madras, with the request that they send it on to the Patriarch of Antioch, unless they thought ‘there was any danger of a dangerous or improper person being sent as Metropolitan’.52 The CMS file does not contain the Syriac original, so it was presumably forwarded as requested.53 Very likely both it and Christian Researches contributed to the decision to send a bishop to India. Mar Athanasios Abdul Messih was a native of Amid/Diyabekr and a monk of Deir al-Za‘faran.54 He was consecrated a bishop for the Patriarchal Office in 1820 and in 1825 was chosen to visit Kerala, accompanied by three monks. It is clear that Heber (who never visited Kerala, nor met the native Bishops) accepted uncritically the supremacy of Antioch over the Syrians in India, and that this should be legitimately exercised through Mar Athanasios Abdul Messih, just as the Archbishop of Canterbury’s jurisdiction over English Christians in India was exercised via himself.55 Nevertheless, despite cordial relations between himself and Mar Athanasios in Bombay (the Syrian 1822). If so, it is consistent with his commitment to Antioch and his unease with the Thozhiyur succession which will be explored further below. 52An accompany letter from James Hough to the secretary of the Madras Corresponding Committee of the CMS is CMS/B/OMS/ CI2/059/24. Accompanying these two letters is one from Mar Dionysios III to the CMS (CMS/B/OMS/CI2/059/27). 53 The letter is couched in terms of great reverence to Antioch: ‘To Mar Ignatius Patriarch, seated upon St Peter’s throne of Antioch, the Mother of all Churches, who like the sun enlightens the 4 quarters of the earth by the holy Apostles, etc, etc.’ It also asked for muron and various books to be sent. 54 See Yacoub III, Syrian Church in India, p.153. 55 ‘… he [Heber] intended that Mar Athanasius should be acknowledged as metropolitan by all those who had power, and that the Indian bishops, when it should be seen that they were truly such, should receive honour and maintenance as his suffragans’ (Heber, Journals, III, p.489). Heber even obtained from the British Governor in Madras an undertaking to provide a salary for Mar Athanasios Abdul Messih ‘who might then reside amongst them as the chief in power, but without prejudicing the native Bishops whose episcopal ordination was undoubted, and to whom he would naturally delegate the actual government of the churches as his suffragans’ (Robinson, Last Days of Bishop Heber, p.142).

364

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

bishop on his own initiative received Holy Communion from his Anglican brother) Heber clearly foresaw that Mar Athanasios’ manner would cause problems in Kerala: ‘I was not without some fears as to the manner in which the new and old Metropolitans might adjust their claims … and gave Athanasius my best advice as to the moderation with which it would become him, under actual circumstances, to advance his claims’.56 Heber’s fears about Mar Athanasios were fully justified.57 He arrived in Travancore in November 1825, stating that he came with the full authority of the Patriarch of Antioch and that he was ‘Metropolitan of Hindustan, seated on the throne of the Apostle Thomas’.58 On his first meeting with Colonel Newall, the British Resident, he immediately demanded the deposition of the local Metropolitans.59 By the Syrians he was initially received well – ‘the common people and most of the Cattanars were so overjoyed at obtaining once more a Metran from Antioch, and were so loud in their demonstrations, that Mar Athanasius felt himself encouraged to preserve the haughty bearing he had assumed’.60 In a Proclamation dated 25 Dham 1825 he refers to the presence of Mar Philoxenos Heber, Journals, III, p.448. The Mill papers (MS Mill 191) contain 173 pages (many of them doubled-sided) of correspondence generated by Mar Athansios Abdul Messih! 58 Swanston, JRAS, II.59. Published accounts may be found in Swanston, loc.cit., and Whitehouse, Lingerings of Light, pp.249-252. See Missionary Register, 1826, pp.478-480 for the Missionaries’ account of Mar Athanasios’ visit. Howard adds some further details (Christians of St Thomas, p.69). See also Cheriyan, CMS, pp.161-174. MS Mill 191 contains a letter from the Patriarch to ‘The Chiefs of the British Nation in Hindoostan’, commending his ‘children’ who are ‘unacquainted with the Customs of that Country’ (letter dated 29 Tisreen 2nd 1823). 59 Fenn to Heber, Kottayam, 3rd March 1826 (Mill MS 191, f.84). Athanasios had not even met the local bishops at this stage. Both of them were away from Cochin when Athanasios arrived. Prior to meeting, both had expressed pleasure at the prospect of seeing one of their Syrian brethren. The Resident charged Mar Athanasios not to interfere with the Syrian Church to which the bishop is alleged to have replied, ‘As I have no guns to force my way, I must submit’ (T. Hough, Christianity in India, vol. 5, p.397, n.3). 60 Whitehouse, Lingerings, pp.250. 56 57

THE GOLDEN AGE

365

II and Mar Dionsyios IV at an assembly in the Cheriapally at Kottayam: There we saw two men in the likeness of Metropolitans and asked them for the Sousthatikon which they had received from our Father and Lord Mar Ignatius, Patriarch of Antioch; they fled from us because they are liars and have no Sousthatikon. We cursed these two liars ….61

Inevitably factions began to appear in the Puthenkur community. Konnat Malpan, who had argued against the validity of Mar Philoxenos’ Orders at Balghatty, began to circulate rumours about their invalidity again, while professing loyalty to Philoxenos.62 Many Syrians told the missionaries that they had simply expected the foreign prelate to reside quietly at one of the Churches, ‘neither interfering in the government of the Church, nor receiving any income beyond his simple diet’.63 Mar Athanasios, meanwhile, seems to have been determined to remove all evidence of Indian independence. In addition to demanding the deposition of Mar Philoxenos II and Mar Dionysios IV, ‘acts of violence were resorted to against such as refused compliance; priests were suspended for acts done in obedience to the orders of the native metropolitans; the tombs of former metropolitans were demolished; the interior of churches altered; and the laws and customs of the community infringed’.64 Faced with the very real possibility of physical violence, the two Indian bishops took refuge in the Seminary at Kottayam and refused to answer Mar Athanasios’ demand that they appear before MS Mill 191, f.116. Fenn to Heber, Kottayam, 3rd March 1826 (Mill MS 191, f.84v). 63 Fenn to Heber, Kottayam, 3rd March 1826 (Mill MS 191, f.85v). Fenn reported to Heber that, ‘After all the enquiries we have been able to make we cannot learn that the foreign Metropolitans were ever recognised, at least since the existence of Native Bishops and Metropolitans, as entitled to the management of the affairs of the Church; this always rested with the local Diocesans, and the foreign Dignitaries resided privately in a Church appointed for them and were consulted on occasions of importance’ (Mill MS 191, f.91). 64 Fenn to Heber, Kottayam, 3rd March 1826 (Mill MS 191, f.85v). Swanston, JRAS, II (1835), p.59. Newall, writing to J. Strachan on 6th January 1826 refers to demolition of a tomb (MS Mill 191, f.44). 61 62

366

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

him as simple priests. The Ramban who accompanied Mar Athanasios tried, with the aid of ‘10 or 15 of the lowest people of the Bazaar’ to force an entry into the Seminary and seize the two bishops by force.65 Cheated of his prey, Mar Athanasios then issued a formal excommunication against them and, by summoning the kathanars, then locking the shocked priests in a church, forced them to sign a document acknowledging his authority. On obtaining this paper, Mar Athanasios pronounced all ordinations void which had been held since the decease of Mar Dionysios [I] metropolitan, who died in AD 1810; conferred fresh orders on those already possessing them, priests as well as deacons;66 and threatened with excommunication such as refused to receive them. Large fees for the administration of the ordinances of marriage and burial, and for the celebration of feasts for the dead, were exacted; and the services of the church were directed to be withheld, unless unconditional compliance was rendered to his regulations, notwithstanding that they were at variance with the ordinances of the state, and the customs and practices of the church. These irregular proceedings produced division and a long train of evils, and exposed the church to the laughter and scorn of the Romans Catholics and the Hindus around them’.67

65 Fenn to Heber, Kottayam, 3rd March 1826 (Mill MS 191, f.86). The kathanars were threatened with the Patriarch’s curse if they associated with Mar Philoxenos II and Mar Dionysios IV. 66 Whitehouse says that nine kathanars ‘went so far as to submit to re-ordination’ (Lingerings, p.251). A document said to be by Mar Athanasios Abdul Messih himself gives the number as nineteen (Yacoub III, Syrian Church in India, p.158). One of them was Palakunnathu Abraham of Maramon, whose story will be told in Chapter 11. 67 Swanston, JRAS, II (1835), p.59f. The attack on local Orders threatened the validity of marriages conducted by the priests in question and caused wide-ranging consternation in the community (Mill MS 191, ff.66, 90). E.M. Philip’s assertion that Mar Athanasios ‘mildly asked the native bishops to abstain from exercising episopal functions’ (Indian Church, p.188) is not supported by contemporary accounts.

THE GOLDEN AGE

367

The reaction of Mar Philoxenos II to this situation is highly revealing of his character. Instead of taking vigorous action in retaliation (which Swanston clearly thought might be preferable) he ‘retired to his usual retreat [Thozhiyur] in perfect peace of mind’ until the 40 days of the anathema laid upon him by Mar Athanasios had expired.68 In the meantime Mar Athanasios went even further, denouncing the two Indian bishops as children of the devil. The kathanars at last appealed to the authorities in Madras who warned Mar Athanasios against further interference with the affairs of the Church. After the expiry of the 40 days Mar Philoxenos II ‘resumed the exercise of the duties of his prelacy’ and issued pastoral letters to all the parishes and recalling all the faithful to ‘the established customs of their communion’.69 This action prompted Mar Athanasios to further extreme action, including resisting the civil authority and harbouring several Indians who had made seditious remarks about the civil authorities.70 This neither the native Government nor the Resident could ignore. Mar Athanasios was deported from India and returned to West Asia.71 68 Ibid. Swanston does not record what action Mar Dionysios IV took. Fenn adds that Mar Philoxenos told the kathanars not to come near him till the 40 days had elapsed (MS Mill 191, f.87). 69 Swanston, JRAS, II (1835), p.60. 70 Fenn to Heber, Kottayam 17th March 1826 (MS Mill 191, f.137). 71 Heber tried to prevent the deportation of Mar Athanasios, but his letters arrived too late (Heber, Journals, III, pp.489-491). Philip accuses the missionaries of being the prime instigators in the deportation of Mar Athanasios (Indian Church, pp.188-191), an accusation repeated by Tisserant (Eastern Christianity, p.147), but Bailey has placed on record that, ‘It may be a general impression that we were in a great measure instrumental in Athanasius’ being sent out of the country; I can positively state that we had nothing whatever to do with it; the Travancore Government acted in entire independence of us, and for the preservation of its own authority’ (quoted in Whitehouse, Lingerings of Light, p.252). Captain Swanston wrote to Heber’s Chaplain, Robinson, assuring him that the missionaries did not instigate Mar Athanasios’ removal: ‘The civil power drove Mar Athanasius out of the country on account of his violent proceedings and insult towards the Dewan of Travancore’ (Letter dated 15th September 1826 from Quilon, MS Mill 191, f.13). This is confirmed by a letter from Newall the Resident (dated Neelghery 13th March 1826, MS Mill 191, f.15) saying that

368

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

Despite his behaviour, Mar Athanasios Abdul Messih continued to be viewed sympathetically by the Church of England. In 1840 and 1841 he was in England, complaining of being in debt because of ‘Mahometan extortion and oppression’. A letter to Mill (in French) survives, recounting the substantial sums of money that he had received from distinguished persons.72 The Bishop of London (Charles Blomfield) took a more critical view of his visitor, giving credence to reports that he had become a Roman Catholic, and stating that he should not ‘be encouraged in his notion of remaining in this country’.73 Blomfield’s suspicions were correct: Mar Athanasios was carrying a letter of commendation from the Syrian Catholic Patriarch of Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem.74 In about 1842 Badger met Mar Athanasios whom he refers to as ‘Mutran Abdool-Messiah, generally known to us as Athanasius, who was acquainted with Bishop Heber in India’ in Diarbekir. Clearly the bishop’s career had remained controversial: ‘he had gone over to the Romanists and returned again to his own community … When I last passed through the town he had gone to his final home’. 75 Before his departure from India Mar Athanasios Abdul Messih undertook one further act of relevance to this study: Fenn explicitly states that Mar Athanasios ‘on the evening of his quitting Cottayam tore to pieces the letters of consecration given by Mar Gregorius to Mar Cyril’.76 This act almost certainly explains why no he has authorised the Dewan to desire Mar Athanasios to leave the country because of ‘violence and their contempt of the authority of the local Government’. 72 Letter of 21 Juin 1841 from 49 Stafford Place, Pimlico, MS Mill 191, ff.37-38. Mill is addressed as ‘Mon cher ami’. Abdul Messih had received £100 from Lord Melbourne, £50 from Oxford, and £20 each from the Archbishops of Armagh and Canterbury. 73 Letter from C. Londin to Mill, Fulham 5th Nov. 1840, MS Mill 191, ff.44-45. 74 MS Mill 191, f.47. 75Rituals, p.44. It was believed in Kerala that he had been dismissed by the Patriarch on account of his behaviour in India (Cheriyan, CMS, p.165, quoting evidence given by Mar Dionysios V in the Seminary Case Book, vol. II, p.25). 76 Fenn to Heber, Kottayam, 17th March 1826. Fenn’s letter actually says that Philoxenos destroyed the letters, but a note by Mill corrects the

THE GOLDEN AGE

369

susthaticons of the early Thozhiyur bishops survive. They may well have been brought from Thozhiyur to be examined at the Synod of Balghatty and kept at the Seminary where Mar Philoxenos sometimes resided. Barsoum states that the document was a forged letter purporting to be from Mar Gregorios, whose seal had been removed from another document and pasted onto the forgery.77 Yacoub III actually gives us part of the text: ‘We ordained Raban Gurgis (Abraham) Kattomangad, who accompanied us and served us since we arrived in Malabar, a metropolitan with the name of Cyril. We granted him the authority invested in me by the Patrairch of Antioch.’78 E.M. Philip alleges that a document found in the Seminary by one of Mar Athanasios’ companions cast doubts on

mistake. Swanston says Mar Athanasios destroyed the ‘credentials’ given to Mar Koorilose I ‘which were of importance in establishing the title of the present line of metropolitans’ (JRAS, II (1835), p.61). The fact that the ‘letters of consecration’ are said to be from Mar Gregorios might be taken as evidence against Mar Koorilose I’s consecration by Mar Basilios. To this three points may be made. (i) The circumstances of the consecration – by a man who would soon be dead – may not have permitted the Maphrian to prepare a susthaticon. The lack of such a document may have been one reason why Mar Koorilose I made no attempt to act as a bishop, but retired to Thevanal. (ii) It was normal for a new susthaticon to be given to a bishop on his ‘promotion’ in the hierarchy. The surviving susthaticon of Mar Gregorios Abdul Jaleel on his elevation to Metropolitan of Jerusalem is an example of this. The fact that Mar Koorilose had a susthaticon naming his as Metropolitan does not mean that he had been consecrated bishop by him. (iii) It was the powers conferred by Mar Gregorios – an official representative of Antioch – on Mar Koorilose in 1772 that potentially posed a threat to Mar Athanasios Abdul Messih. Presumably he also destroyed the ‘paper signed by the Dutch authorities of Cochin’ testifying to the consecration, which Fenn stated was also in Mar Philoxenos II’s possession (Fenn to Heber, Cottayam, 9th March 1826, MS Mill, 191, ff.11-12). 77 Syriac Dioceses, p.65. Barsoum, however, is here relying on two anonymous ‘tracts’ written in Syriac in India and allegedly dated 1820 and 1838 (Syriac Dioceses, p.80). 78 Yacoub III, Syrian Church in India, p.155f. Yacoub states that Mar Athanasios too the susthaticon back to the Patriarchate (p.160).

370

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

the validity of Mar Koorilose I’s consecration.79 If the document had in fact been such a manifest forgery, Mar Athanasios would have been much more likely to expose it than to destroy it. By destroying the ‘credentials’ he was almost certainly seeking to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the Anjur line of consecrations – and thereby force the Syrians to apply to Antioch for an indisputably consecrated bishop.80 His actions, however, suggest the opposite of what he claimed, namely that Mar Koorilose I had a genuine susthaticon from Mar GregoriosError! Bookmark not defined.. THE LITURGICAL SHIFT

It might be thought that the violent visit of Mar Athanasios Abdul Messih would have produced a reaction against all things Antiochene. Ironically, the year of his visit in fact proved to be a milestone in the consolidation of the Syrian Orthodox tradition in Kerala: In ca 1825 the ES liturgy and script totally disappeared from the Jacobite community and also the ES script, to be replaced by the WS ones. It seems that the influence of the British and

79 Philip, Indian Church, p.188. Even Philip, however, accepts that Mar Koorilose I was validly consecrated. In his comments on Fenn’s letters, Mill posed the question, ‘What is Athanasius’ objection to the validity of Philoxenus’ consecration?’ Mill argues that it cannot be because Athanasios believes that the character of a bishop or Metropolitan can not be conferred on an Indian, for he must have known that Maphrian Mar Basilios had the Patriarch’s authority to do precisely that in the case of Mar Thoma V. Or ‘is he [Athanasios] then ignorant that the same Gregory bestowed the same dignity on Cyril?’ Or, ‘is it that the Patriarch or his legate affirm that the office of Metropolitan, though tenable by an Indian, cannot be transferred by him to another – but must come from Syria direct?’ In the end Mill concluded that Mar Athanasios may be basing his objections on alleged irregularities, but Mill felt that these could not be such as to justify a conclusion of invalidity (MS Mill 101, f.99v). 80 It will be recalled that the susthaticon given by Mar Gregorios to Mar Dionysios I did not convey authority from the Patriarch to consecrate bishops. It could well be that Mar Koorilose I’s susthaticon did contain that explicit authority – hence the need for its destruction.

THE GOLDEN AGE

371

other missionaries was an important factor in this development.81

It was not the British per se who had brought about the final suppression of the East Syriac script, but the situation which they had helped to create. Thanks to Munro’s support of Ramban Joseph Pulikottil’s initiative, for the first time in their history the Puthenkuttukar now had a centralised teaching facility – the Seminary at Kottayam. No longer did candidates for the priesthood learn their Syriac from the village kathanar. Whole classes now studied together under resident Malpans. Furthermore, the three Metropolitans who had had most to do with the Seminary up to 1825 (Pulikottil Mar Dionysios II, Kindagan Mar Philoxenos II, and Punnathra Mar Dionysios III) were all in various ways associated with the Thozhiyur community in which the West Syrian usage had been maintained perhaps longer than anywhere else in Kerala. Mar Dionysios II and III are both on record as having accepted that the St Thomas Christians had from early times been part of the Church of Antioch, and even Mar Philoxenos II had attempted to receive Mar Athanasios Abdul Messih with respect. The loyalty of the Metropolitans was matched by that of the teachers of Syriac in the Seminary. Palakunnathu Abraham, in particular, as will be seen below,82 was so attached to Antioch that he had been one of the priests who had accepted re-ordination from Mar Athanasios Abdul Messih. All his surviving writings are in a clear Serto hand.83 It seems incontrovertible, therefore that the Syrian

Van der Ploeg, Syriac MSS, p.85. His career will be described in the next Chapter. 83 The Bodleian Library in Oxford possesses a number of manuscripts written by Abraham Malpan (none seems to survive in India). The texts comprise a range of subjects, including a letter to Mill (MS Mill 192, ff 13-14), a brief history of the Syrian Church in Kerala, a list of Roman bishops, riddles of St Ephrem, songs by Geevarghese Malpan, and a list of those anathematized by the Syrians of Malabar (BOD OR 667. See R. Payne-Smith, Catalogi Codicum Manuscriptorum Bibliothecae Bodleianae, Oxford, Clarendon, 1864, pp.264-268). 81 82

372

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

Orthodox script and rite were taught in the Seminary and thus disseminated into the Puthenkur community.84 It will be recalled that Ramban Joseph Pulikottil had an ally in seeking to found an educational establishment – Pallipadu Philipose Ramban – who translated the Gospels into Malayalam subsequent to Claudius Buchanan’s visit to Mar Dionysios I. As a deacon Philipose had copied out the Gospels in Syriac and a few lines are reproduced by Richards.85 The script is clearly East Syrian. This suggests that at the beginning of the 19th century one of the main teachers of Syriac in the Puthenkuttukar community was almost certainly still teaching the same form of the script that was used by the Pazhayakuttukar.86 If the same was true of Ramban Joseph, this would mean that the introduction of West Syriac can be attributed even more confidently to the next generation of Malpans – the Seminary teachers. All this strengthens the probability that Palakunnathu Abraham Malpan’s heritage comprises not simply the ‘Syrian Reformation’, but the hastening of the adoption of Serto by the Puthenkuttukar as a whole. Today’s Malankara Orthodox and Syrian Jacobite Churches in Kerala may be more greatly in his debt than they know. A further factor was almost certainly the now rapid fading of the vision of re-uniting the two parts of the Syrian community which will be discussed more fully in the following Chapter. Once the Romo-Syrians were seen as totally other and no longer potential co-religionists, there would have been little incentive to maintain a knowledge of their script and rites.

84 Mill was also given (in 1822) by Mar Dionysios III a copy of the four Gospels in East Syriac (Bodleian Or. 626 (PS17); Van der Ploeg, Syriac MSS, p.227). The gift suggests that liturgical and scriptural material in East Syriac was becoming redundant. 85 Indian Christians, p.103. 86 Evidence of the ‘hybrid’ nature of the Puthenkuttukar at about the time of Mar Philoxenos’ death (1829) comes from Bishop Maurelius Stabellini, Vicar Apostolic of Malabar from 1827-1831: ‘some of them are Nestorians and others Jacobites. The majority of them are very ignorant and they do not know what they believe’ (quoted in Puliurumpil Jurisdictional Conflict, p.119).

THE GOLDEN AGE

373

One final legacy of the visit of Mar Athanansios Abdul Messih should be noted. Reprehensible though many of his actions may appear, it is important to see the dynamic of his visit as it doubtless appeared to some Syrians. There are, in fact, some parallels with the scenario surrounding the attempted visit by Mar Aithalaha in the 1650s. In both cases a bishop purporting to come from Antioch for the benefit of the local Christians had been removed from the country by representatives of the colonial power – a power, moreover, whose local authorities clearly had a religious ‘agenda’, namely the assimilation of the Indian Church to the doctrines and practices of their own. Seen in this light, it is easier to understand why the visit of Mar Athanasios, rather than producing a revulsion against all things Antiochene, in fact contributed to the existing shift towards Antiochene allegiance and practice. Antioch was not a colonial European power, and had, after all, been sending bishops to Kerala for approximately 150 years, without interfering significantly in the internal organisation of the community. It was entirely possible to view the far-off Patriarch as a benevolent Father-inGod, disinterestedly concerned with the spiritual well-being of the St Thomas Christians, even if his emissaries did not always live up to these high ideals. MAR PHILOXENOS II – DEATH AND TRIBUTES

Following the deportation of Mar Athanasios, his most vocal supporters were punished with ‘a fine, a short imprisonment, and the spiritual censures of the church’.87 The situation which had obtained prior to the interruption created by the Antiochene bishop seems to have been resumed and lasted without significant incident until the death of Mar Philoxenos II in 1829. The incident had, however, illustrated the willingness of some kathanars and laity to cast off loyalty to local bishops in favour of bishops from Antioch. It set a precedent that has been repeated many times since. 87 Swanston, JRAS, II (1835), p.62. Swanston did not think the punishment sufficiently severe. Philip adds the detail that the imprisonment was for disobeying the royal Proclamations (Indian Church, p.189).

374

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

The passing of Mar Philoxenos II on 25th Kanun ohroi 182988 left ‘a fragrant memory of patient kindliness and piety'.89 Cheriyan records the sorrow of the missionaries and of the whole Syrian community ‘by whom he was universally esteemed’.90 To later generations the years of Mar Philoxenos’ influence - both directly and through the first two bishops he consecrated - took on the appearance of a golden age between the chaos of the 18th century and the sad and bitter divisions of the remainder of the 19th. Cheriyan's tribute is worth quoting at length: It will be no exaggeration to say that Pulikotil Dionysios, Mar Philoxenos and Panathra Dionysios were the best and greatest Metropolitans the Puthencoor Syrian community ever had. During their episcopates the community enjoyed a peace which it never enjoyed either before or since. The foundations of education were well and truly laid at this period. The printing press was established at Kottayam. Much progress was made in the work of translating the Bible into Malayalam. In temporal as well as in spiritual matters the Syrian community enjoyed in the time of these bishops many blessings to which that community was strangers till then. It was during this period that the practice of marriage was introduced among the Puthencoor Syrian Kattanars thus putting an end largely to the licentiousness that prevailed among the clergy previously owing to enforced celibacy. The fact that it was in the time of these bishops that at least in some churches the passages from the Gospel prescribed for the regular church service began to be read in Malayalam will also be remembered to their credit. It

88 This is the date given in a colophon to a Syriac text (see Chapter 11). Whitehouse gives 6th February 1829 (Lingerings, p.253). Today the death of Mar Philoxenos II is commemorated at Thozhiyur on 7th February, with special prayers, Qurbana and offering of incense. A member of the Kindagan family (currently Dr Thampy Vareghese, a cardiologist) attends and the family provides sweet rice for the worshippers (information from Mar Koorilose IX, e-mail dated 5th February 2009). 89 Brown, Indian Christians, p.137. 90 CMS Record (1830), p. l 10.

THE GOLDEN AGE

375

was only after the last of these bishops died that the Puthencoor Syrians began to split themselves into so many sects.91

The ministry of Mar Philoxenos guarantees the MISC a permanent place in the wider history of the St. Thomas Christians. In the person of Mar Philoxenos a Thozhiyur Metropolitan occupied ‘the Throne of St. Thomas’ as Malankara Metropolitan. His name appears in the lists of officially recognized Metropolitans to this day.92 Also of continuing significance is the fact that through him the Syrian community was able to obtain bishops without recourse to the Church outside India. This was to be of substantial importance in subsequent disputes over the autonomy of the Indian Church. Mar Philoxenos' role in consecrating bishops for a sister Church had also created a precedent which was to be followed by his successors over half a century later.

Cheriyan, CMS, p. l 11. He is listed was Malankara Metropolitan by the Orthodox before the split into two factions (MTS/A/218, Exhibit DU, Malankara Edavaka Almanac for AD 1908) and is still recognised as such by them (eg David Daniel, Orthodox Church, p.543). The Indian Jacobites also acknowledge that he held the position (eg Philip, Indian Church, p.377; Kaniamparampil, Syrian Orthodox Church, p.125 – though Kaniamparampil believes his tenure to have been illegitimate as it was not sanctioned by the Patriarch). Only the Mar Thoma Church seems to deny him this position. K.K. Kuruvilla deliberately omits Mar Philoxenos from his list of ‘bishops who ruled the Malankara Church’ (Mar Thoma Church, p.12), as Kanisseril and Kallumpram, Glimpses, passim, and the official website of the Mar Thoma Church, www.marthomasyrianchurch.org/metropolitan_pg2.htm). Juhanon Mar Thoma accepts that he occupied the position ‘on two occasions … for short intervals’ (Mar Thoma Church, p.17). 91 92

CHAPTER 11: MAR KOORILOSE III AND THE TERMINATION OF THE MISSION OF HELP THE CONSECRATION OF MAR KOORILOSE III

On the death of Mar Philoxenos II, Cheppat Mar Dionysios IV consecrated Geevarghese Kothoor Kathanar as Mar Koorilose III. He is the first Metropolitan of Thozhiyur of whom we have a likeness, a drawing surviving among the records.1 The consecration is itself not without significance and marks a turning point in the story of the MISC. Mar Dionysios IV was Malankara Metropolitan and, like many of his predecessors, could have ruled his flock alone for many years. Why did he feel the need to consecrate a successor to Philoxenos II immediately? The logical thing would have been for him to treat the congregations at Anjur and Thozhiyur as simply two more among his parishes. He was of the Thozhiyur succession and therefore presumably was acceptable to those Churches. Fortunately, some surviving documents at Thozhiyur throw light on the circumstances. The first of these is a letter from Mar Philoxenos II to his nominated successor. The text is in Malayalam, but is signed by Philoxenos in Syriac: To our Koothore Geevarghese Kathanar, We are greatly distressed because of our illness and therefore from hereafter you are to supervise and administer the Thozhiyur Church, all its property and estates, since you are the priest of the above church, having all powers and rights. It should not be entrusted to anybody without your permission 1

See Figure 17.

377

378

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS and consent, especially the celebration of the Holy Qurbana. We have no health to stand and to consecrate you as Metran. If it is not possible to consecrate you by our hands, we have made arrangements to give the Office by Mar Dionysios from the Seminary. The late Mar Koorilose, the Great Metropolitan, had appointed four people and handed over the assets of the church through Tarrappan of Panackal. Likewise we entrust the assets to you. If it is difficult for you to manage the aforesaid assets by yourself, you are free to appoint four persons of your own choice. Since the above property belongs to St George [church] you are accountable for the same. Thus in the year ME 1004, Dhanu [1828 December] Mar Philoxenos, Metropolitan

݂

‫݂ ݁ ܣ܀‬

݂ ‫ܝ܍‬

2

Various points deserve comment. Firstly, it is taken for granted by Philoxenos that Thozhiyur should have its own bishop. The point is not argued, and seems to have been agreed by Cheppat Mar Dionysios IV. It is possible to guess that the traumatic experience of the intrusion of Mar Athanasios Abdul-Messih just three years earlier, had convinced both bishops of the desirability of maintaining an independent succession in India. If there was to be a second bishop to save the succession from extinction, then Thozhiyur, which had been the seat of a bishop for over fifty years, must have seemed an obvious place for him to be based. The fact that Thozhiyur lay in British Malabar may have been seen as an added advantage. The protection of the British might seem more secure than that of the Rajahs of Cochin and Travancore, whose predecessors had betrayed Mar Koorilose I. Whatever the reasons, there is no hint that the idea of a second bishop based at Thozhiyur met any resistance. Secondly, there seems to be a concern on the part of Mar Philoxenos that unauthorised persons might intrude on the life and property of the Church. Again, it is probable that the abuse which the old bishop had suffered from the representative of Antioch in 1825-6 had made him anxious to preserve the independence of his Church. Certainly, within a generation there was to 2 MS I am grateful to the Revd Dr George Mathew for the English translation.

MAR KOORILOSE III

379

be a serious attempt to usurp the leadership of this little community (see Chapter 13). It is also clear that Mar Philoxenos’ health, which had been acknowledged by all to have been frail for some years, had now deteriorated to such an extent that he was no longer able to stand to perform a consecration. He had been in contact with Cheppat Mar Dionysios IV about this, and the latter had agreed to consecrate Geevarghese Kothoor Kathanar. Thirdly, it is interesting to note that the arrangements which Mar Koorilose I had put in place for the management of the property are commended as a model to be followed. It is a rare insight into the arrangements made in the late 18th century. The letter as a whole is, in fact, a remarkable testimony to the relative stability which the Thozhiyur Church enjoyed by 1828. A final observation on this letter is that the signature of Mar Philoxenos is in East Syrian and not West Syrian script. At first sight this is intriguing in a community that, as has been argued, was ‘purer’ West Syrian than the main Malankara Church. However, as has been seen, even Mar Koorilose I used the East Syriac script, albeit for West Syrian texts. Moreover, Arthat, it will be recalled, was one of the Churches used jointly by the Pazhayakuttukar and Puthenkuttukar until the early years of the 19th century. Philoxenos, as a priest of Arthat, would have learned Syriac in the form still prevalent in the wider community. Presumably he could read the West Syriac texts that he inherited at Thozhiyur, but he himself preferred the traditional style of the undivided Syrian community. The second manuscript relating to the consecration of a successor to Mar Philoxenos II is an English translation of the susthaticon given by Cheppat Mar Dionysios IV to Mar Koorilose III. The translation was almost certainly made in connection with the Court Case to be described in Chapter 13. In view of its importance for the self-understanding of the Churches concerned, most of the text (omitting standard salutations) is given below: I Phillipos called Dionisios, being Metropolitan of the Jacobite Syrian Christians of Malabar, sitting in the chair of St Thomas, the holy and blessed Apostle. Amen.

380

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS I the said Dionisios in virtue of the promise made to you on the [illeg] Danod? 10043 by our father the Honourable Mar Phillixonous Metropolitan of the Toyoor Church and according to the Royal writ granted you by [missing] said Phillixenous and the sanction of the community of this Church, have this day consecrated you as Gevurgis Coorilos Metropolitan of the Toyoor Church in the same manner as Our Saviour Jesus Christ empowered his disciples, appointed and given you authority to ordain Deacons, Priests, Episcopas and Metropolitans, to consecrate Churches, Altars and Holy Oil and to perform all the legal acts of a Metropolitan. I therefore enjoin that you are not to act in opposition to the three Holy Synods, and further that you are to be diligent in prayer and fasting and be vigilant in purity and charity. You are to ordain a Metropolitan in this Church according to the rules of the first head of this Church, the Holy, pious and honourable Aboon Mar Coorilose Metropolitan and the fathers who were ordained by him…. Dated 15th December 18294

Several points merit comment. Firstly – and highly significant in view of future controversies – there is no mention of Antioch or its Patriarch. Mar Dionysios accepts the adjectives ‘Jacobite’ and ‘Syrian’, and, as the reference to the ‘three Holy Synods’ shows, is aware of his community’s Miaphysite theological identity. Nevertheless, he sees himself as occupying ‘the chair of St Thomas’. Dionysios’ claim is to be head of a Church of apostolic foundation. It is interesting to note, in the light of Mar Dionysios IV’s subsequent declarations of allegiance to Antioch, that consecrating Mar Koorilose III in fact reduced the Indian Church’s dependence on the Syrian Orthodox Patriarchate. Reasons for this have been discussed above. The reference to a promise and writ made by Mar Philoxenos II clearly confirm the evidence of the document discussed above.

3 4

This is almost certainly the letter of Mar Philoxenos quoted above. TA/uncatalogued MS.

MAR KOORILOSE III

381

Also noteworthy is the inclusion of ‘Metropolitans’ in the list of Orders to which the new Metropolitan of Thozhiyur is empowered to ordain. The standard list in susthaticons issued by the Patriarch does not even include bishops (‘episcopas’) as this was seen as a patriarchal prerogative. Here, Dionysios, no doubt mindful of his own consecration by ‘our father’ Philoxenos, seems to be making provision for the eventuality that a future Metropolitan of Thozhiyur may have to consecrate a Metropolitan for the Malankara Church. That this is the likely interpretation is supported by the fact that succession to the throne of Thozhiyur is addressed separately: ‘You are to ordain a Metropolitan in this Church…’ Interestingly, this is to be according to rules laid down by Mar Koorilose I and his successors. It is not clear whether these ever constituted a written document or were simply an oral understanding. What these two documents show is that the little community in British Malabar was now seen as having an independent existence and therefore needed its own bishop. Mar Philoxenos II clearly saw it as such and Mar Dionysios IV, who could have brought the independence of Thozhiyur to an end by refusing to consecrate and simply absorbing the congregations, seems to have accepted this state of affairs. A further reason for the Malankara Metropolitan’s compliance with his consecrator’s wish may well have been, as noted above, the desire to have in India another bishop who might one day either succeed him or consecrate his successor. The sudden deaths of Mar Dionysios II and Mar Dionysios III illustrated the importance of being prepared for such eventualities. Whatever the exact reasons, Cheppat Mar Dionysios’ act in consecrating Mar Koorilose III underlined the independent status of the community in the north. From this moment onwards there seems to have been no likelihood of it being absorbed into the main Malankara Church.5 A description of the events surrounding Mar Koorilose III’s consecration is recorded in a Syriac manuscript preserved at the St 5 As seen in earlier Chapters, several previous Metropolitans has consecrated their successors but none had assigned them to a particular community. There were no independent dioceses among the Puthenkuttukar. The consecration of a bishop for a specified community was very much a new departure.

382

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

Ephrem Ecumenical Research Institute at Kottayam. The main text, which is anonymous and undated, contains a homologia and various rites for the bestowal of Orders by the imposition of hands. At the end of the manuscript appear two brief historical notes relating to events at Thozhiyur, the first of which runs: In the year of Our Lord 1829, on the 25th of the month Kanun ohroi, Abun Mar Philoxenios, Metropolitan, departed this world for the world to come. Then Abun Mar Dionnysios, Metropolitan, came from the south to Thozhiyur, and forty days [after the death of] Abun, on the 9th of the month of Adar, Saturday, the feast of the Forty Martyrs, consecrated the priest Giwargis to the monastic life. And the next day, Sunday, he consecrated him Mar Qurillos, Metropolitan. There were with us priests and Christians of the Church of Chatukullam, that she might be glorified.6

It is interesting to note that the bishop-designate was made a Ramban the day prior to his consecration. Despite the virtual lack of organised monastic life in India (by contrast with the Middle East), it was (and is today) still seen as important that a new bishop should wear the habit of a monk. BISHOP WILSON’S VISITS

Further documentation regarding Mar Koorilose III is patchy. He appears in the records as a figure on the fringe of events concerning the gradual breakdown of relations between Mar Dionysios IV and the English missionaries. A sense of his marginal status is conveyed by Bishop Daniel Wilson of Calcutta who wrote in 1835: It is a further peculiarity that each Metran or Metropolitan consecrates his successor early, and then dismisses him to the most distant part of his diocese, to live retired in one of the 6 For a full description of the MS see F. Briquel-Chatonet, A. Desreumaux and J. Thekeparampil, ‘Catalogue des manuscripts Syriaques de la Collection du Saint Ephrem Ecumenical Research Institute (Kottayam)’, in Le Museon, vol. 110, fasc. 3-4, Louvain 1997, pp. 398-400. The historical note given here is on page 83 of the MS.

MAR KOORILOSE III

383

churches, without allowing him the power of ordination or the privilege of jurisdiction. This is to keep up the Apostolic Succession’.7

Wilson seems to have had little understanding of the separate origin and identity of the Church at Thozhiyur. He was also mistaken about the severe limitations placed on Mar Koorilose III. As seen above, the 1829 susthaticon shows that the bishops at Thozhiyur in fact enjoyed wide powers of ordination and consecration, though this was probably not intended to be excercised in the main Malankara Church while there was a reigning Metropolitan there. It is interesting, however, that Wilson has gained the impression that the bishop at Thozhiyur was the designated successor to the incumbent Metropolitan, and that part of his role was to preserve the historic succession, by inference independent of Antioch. Wilson is also incorrect in assuming that the consecration of the bishop at Thozhiyur by the Malankara Metropolitan was an established custom. This was, in fact, the first time it had occurred. Wilson may simply have misunderstood what was being explained to him – or his informants may have given him the impression that this was an arrangement likely to be repeated in the future. Wilson wished to meet Mar Koorilose III in November 1835, but was unable to do so. The account illustrates something of the difficulties of travel as well as Wilson’s understanding of the relationship. [The last day of the Bishop’s stay in those parts] was set apart for a hurried visit to several of the Syrian Churches in the northern part of Travancore, and for an interview if possible with the second Metran. This peculiarity of the Church was not very clearly made out, but it appears from the statements at Cottayam, that in the uncertainty at present of communication with the Patriarch of Antioch, the Mother Church, it had become customary for the Metran to consecrate a successor, who remained in retirement, without any power or jurisdiction till a vacancy was caused by death or avoidance, when he at once 7 Note dated 27 November 1835 quoted in Batemen, Daniel Wilson, vol. 2, p.69.

384

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS came forward and assumed the governance of the Church. The Bishop [Wilson] was willing to encounter some fatigue in order to visit this second Metran, to pay a passing visit to the Rajah of Travancore, and so see a few more of these interesting churches. But the arrangements for the journey were badly made, the air was sultry, the roads were a drifting sand, the bridges were broken down, the route was often lost, no refreshments were provided, and the ten miles spoken of at first extended to twenty-five; so that, though the Rajah was visited, and five interesting churches – Tripoonatra, Caranyachirra, Udiampoor (or Diamper), Mullimduraiti, and Candadad, examined; yet the attendant fatigue and exposure were very great. All suffered; and the Bishop for a short time was very unwell. The residence of the second Metran could not be reached’.8

Bishop Wilson had had more success in meeting Cheppat Mar Dionysios IV at Kottayam a few days earlier on 19th November 1835, and has left the following description of the Metropolitan: He was a good-looking man, about fifty years of age, with a tendency to shortness, the appearance of which was much increased by the dress he wore – a cassock of figured lawn over crimson satin, and a tippet of embroidered cloth stiff with gold. He had a mitre on his head of red and green velvet, tipped and edged with gold. A cross, studded with rubies, hung upon his breast; an ornamented bag was held in his hand; and a silver crozier was carried and held by an attendant priest behind his back. The beard was long and grey, the moustache thick and black. The expression of his countenance was weak and feeble. He had a cunning and twinkling eye, and a stiff uneasy gait.9 Batemen, Daniel Wilson, vol. 2, p.67. The proposed itinerary seems over-ambitious, even by modern standards. It is noteworthy that Wilson certainly does not seem to have gained the impression that the community felt that bishops could only be had from Antioch. 9 Batemen, Daniel Wilson, vol. 2, p.51f. A drawing on page 92 shows Mar Dionysios wearing the Roman-derived robes. The mitre still used by the Mar Thoma and MISC Metropolitans is of green and red velvet, ornamented with gold. 8

MAR KOORILOSE III

385

Wilson’s assessment of Mar Dionysios IV’s demeanour was no doubt influenced by the information that he had received concerning the Metropolitan’s character, which he had been informed was ‘more than doubtful in many respects’ regarding ‘morality and honesty’.10 The Metropolitan, was, however, supreme in his community: ‘there was no proof forthcoming, no suitable tribunal, and consequently no remedy’.11 Much of the problem resulted from the lack of any regular source of income for bishop and priests. The Metropolitan received between 20 and 30 rupees from each candidate when he ordained them. There was therefore a temptation to ordain more than were strictly necessary for each congregation. This in turn resulted in too many kathanars having to share the income of the local churches, so they in turn sought to raise money by taking fees from the people to celebrate Qurbanas for the dead. Apart from the morality of the situation, it grieved the missionaries and Bishop Wilson doctrinally: ‘Their poverty perpetuated this Romish error’.12 Wilson visited Mar Dionysios IV at the College13 and spent most of Saturday 21st November 1835 discussing matters of reform with him – worship in the vernacular, parish schools, and the like.14 The Metropolitan agreed politely with much of what Wilson said, but without apparent enthusiasm. In fact, behind the mixture of Victorian politeness and Eastern courtesies with which the dis-

Batemen, Daniel Wilson, vol. 2, p.48. Batemen, Daniel Wilson, vol. 2, p.48. 12 Batemen, Daniel Wilson, vol. 2, p.49. 13 Once the formal first meeting was over, the Metropolitan wore ‘a loose undress of crimson, with a leather girdle, and a curious skull-cap’ (Batemen, Daniel Wilson, vol. 2, p.52). The last item was no doubt the monastic schema. 14 Ironically, a decade earlier the missionaries had been hesitant about translating the Syriac liturgy into Malayalam, as it would expose the congregation to prayers to the Virgin and to Saints in a language they could understand. It was felt preferable to circulate Malayalam copies of the Book of Common Prayer, though without any injunction to adopt it. If that were done, wrote Fenn, ‘I think that in the course of a few years all the Churches would adopt it’ (Fenn to Robinson, Cottayam, 17th March 1826, MS Mill 191, f.3). 10 11

386

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

course is clothed, it is clear that Mar Dionysios was resisting Wilson’s suggestions and that Wilson knew it.15 FADING HOPES FOR REFORM

Wilson’s unease with Mar Dionysios IV was part of a wider disenchantment with the Syrian Church. The high hopes entertained by Munro and the first CMS missionaries twenty years before were turning into disillusionment, frustration and distrust. This in itself appears to be a reflection of a wider phenomenon taking place in India, namely a growing lack of empathy between the British and the native population. This shift has recently been highlighted by William Dalrymple. In the 17th and 18th century, he argues, the British and other Europeans in India were inclined to respect indigenous literature and culture, which they frequently adopted in varying degrees, even to the extent of converting to Islam or performing Hindu rites.16 British merchants and employees of the East India Company frequently wore Indian dress, ate Indian food and took Indian wives or mistresses. The children of such unions grew up comfortably as members of two worlds. Until the 1830s there was, argues Dalrymple, every sign that India would succeed in transforming the Europeans in her midst as thoroughly as she had transformed the Central Asian Mughals before them.17 There are a number of reasons why this process of assimilation and acculturation came to an end and, indeed, was reversed. One is the increased military supremacy of the British in India from the late 18th century, in particular following the wars with Tippu Sultan. Put crudely, the British were beginning to feel that, in some parts of India at least, they were now the masters. In certain places they were now present in sufficient numbers as to be able to create a home from home,

15 See Batemen, Daniel Wilson, vol. 2, pp.54-61 for an account of the discussions, based on notes taken by Wilson’s chaplain. Wilson’s own summary of the five points that he was trying to get Mar Dionysios IV to agree to are reproduced in Richards, Indian Christians, p.127f. 16 See especially, Dalrymple, White Mughals, pp.11-54 for an overview of this stage of Anglo-Indian relationships. 17 Dalrymple, White Mughals, p.11.

MAR KOORILOSE III

387

organising cricket teams, local drama societies and the like.18 Another major factor identified by Dalrymple is the rise of Evangelical Christianity. One of the fruits of the powerful Evangelical Revival that swept through the Churches in Britain in the 18th century was the desire to extend the message of the Gospel to those countries and peoples who had not yet heard it.19 Prominent Evangelical clergy like Charles Simeon at Cambridge encouraged committed young men to offer themselves for overseas service – including in India.20 At its best this Evangelical zeal was motivated by a love for lost souls and a desire to bring them to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ – ‘No-one comes to the Father except through me’ (John 14:6). Such love inspired many attractive and sacrificial lives, including Henry Martyn, who pioneered the translation of the Scriptures into the languages of North India and West Asia.21 Numerous men (and women) suffered immense privation – and often death – to save others. Such an intense love could sometimes come to be matched by a hatred and disgust of the belief systems that kept people from a knowledge of God’s love in Christ. Claudius Buchanan, whose involvement with the Syrians we have seen, shows something of this attitude. Born in Scotland in 1766, as a young man he travelled to London where he lived a fairly dissolute life for a number of years, before conversion to Christ under the ministry of John Newton, Rector of St Mary Woolnoth in the City of Lon18 From the mid 1780s Governor General Cornwallis introduced a range of legislation which put severe restrictions on the career prospects of mixed race Anglo-Indians, thus creating a serious disincentive to further integration. In large part this seems to have been to prevent the creation of a settled colonial class, such as had recently thrown off British rule in North America (Dalrymple, White Mughals, p.50). 19 The Evangelical Revival is often dated from the conversion experience of George Whitefield at Oxford in 1735. Whitefield’s memory has largely been eclipsed in the UK by the names of John and Charles Wesley. See G. R. Balleine, A History of the Evangelical Party in the Church of England, London, Church Book Room Press, 1951. 20 See, for example, H.C.G. Moule, Charles Simeon, London, 1892, reprinted Inter-Varsity Press, 1956, especially pp.87-114. 21 For a biography of Martyn see David Bentley-Taylor, My Love Must Wait, London, Inter-Varsity Press, 1975.

388

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

don.22 While at Cambridge he had come under the influence of Simeon, who encouraged Newton’s suggestion that Buchanan should go to India. To Buchanan the rites of Hinduism were Devil worship. On his journey to Kerala he described the Juggernaut ceremonies and concluded, ‘It is the valley of Hinnom – here Moloch maintains his throne to this day’.23 In his own eyes Buchanan ‘outranked’ even the Brahmins. He had his attendants call out ‘profane!’ whenever a Brahmin approached ‘as I considered myself of being of a higher cast [sic] than they’.24 Compassion for lost souls all too easily transmuted into a sense of superiority. By the end of the 18th century to many British (lay as well as ordained) who came out to India, no longer were [Hindus] inheritors of a body of sublime and ancient wisdom, as [an earlier generation of British] believed, but instead merely, ‘poor benighted heathen’, or even ‘licentious pagans’, some of whom, it was hoped, were eagerly awaiting conversion, and with it the path to civilisation’.25

It is important not to overstate the case. Long before the Evangelical Revival, the Portuguese had been shocked at the practices of Hinduism and, as has been seen above, Francis Xavier and others had laboured to win converts from the non-Christian population with notable success. Nevertheless, as will be seen below, the See art. ‘Claudius Buchanan’ in DNB, and the sources quoted there. Newton himself was a former slave trading sea captain who become a committed Christian, then had been ordained. 23 IOR/MSS Eur D.122, Letter 11, 14th June 1806, p.12. A fortnight later Buchanan recorded, ‘The Bramins … offered to carry me to a Suttee in the flaming Pit. Six, Eight or Ten females often accompany the Rajah; The wife in the husband’s Pit, and the concubines in their own private and separate pits’ (Letter 14, 29th June 1806, p.26). 24 IOR/MSS Eur D.122, Letter 29, 27th October 1806, p.73. 25 Dalrymple, White Mughals, p.46. See Bayly (Saints, pp.281-294) for a discussion of how the missionaries to a large degree destroyed the ties that bound the St Thomas Christians into Hindu society. ‘By 1813 the image of India prevalent in Britain was not the glorious India of the past depicted by men like Sir William Jones, but the degraded India of the present portrayed by Buchanan and other evangelicals’ (art. ‘Buchanan’, in DNB). 22

MAR KOORILOSE III

389

shift towards a more critical and less sympathetic attitude on the part of British Churchmen, does seem to have played a part in the final break-down of official co-operation between the CMS missionaries and the Puthenkuttukar. ATTITUDES TO ROMAN CATHOLICISM

A complicating factor in the situation in Kerala was that in the eyes of Protestant British Churchmen, Roman Catholicism was holding the Indians in spiritual captivity just as much as Hinduism or Islam. Modern Roman Catholic writers on this period concede that their community was marked by many superstitious practices and immorality.26 Nor were relations improved by the fact that Roman Catholic authorities and missionaries at times warned their flocks against the Protestant missions.27 All this confirmed Protestant convictions about the dangerous and degenerate nature of Roman Catholicism. In Goa Buchanan had visited the Inquisition and learned that the last burning had taken place as recently 1774.28 The assistant Inquisitor was too frightened of his superior to disclose to Buchanan how many people the Inquisition was holding in its cells. Buchanan left the building with a feeling of fear and oppression, having whispered in the ear of the Inquisitor, ‘Delanda est Carthago’.29 Between such a religious system and the pure air of Church of England Protestantism there could be nothing in comEg. Puliurumpil, Jurisdictional Conflict, p.122f. Puliurumpil, Jurisdictional Conflict, pp.159, 203; Whitehouse, Lingerings, p.310f. 28 The Inquisition had been suppressed in 1774, but restarted in 1779, under the restriction that it could no longer conduct burnings in public, but only within its own walls (IOR/MSS/ Eur. D.122, Letter 40, Goa 25th January 1808, p.141). For a brief account of the Inquisition in Goa see Neill, History, vol. 1, pp.228-231. A fuller description (including details of the tortures inflicted) can be found in Hough, Christianity in India, vol. 1, pp.212-237. 29 ‘Carthage must be destroyed’ – a reference to the closing sentence of the speeches of Cato the Elder in the Roman Senate prior to the Third Punic War of 149-146BC, intended by Buchanan as a prophecy that the Inquisition would one day be swept away. It was finally abolished in Goa in June 1812. 26 27

390

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

mon. Buchanan left Goa, ‘no less indignant at the Inquisition of Goa than I had been with the Temple of Juggernaut’.30 Ironically, however, Buchanan’s letters provide evidence that, for a brief moment, even the Roman authorities in India believed that the British were intent on effecting a union of the two parts of the Syrian community. Amazingly, when Buchanan had visited the Bishop of Verapoly he discovered that ‘he and all the people at Verapoly had taken it for granted that my purpose was to subjugate them to the Church of the English’. ‘If the English Government should desire it, and threaten to withdraw its protection if we did not comply, what alternative would be left?’ stated the Bishop. Buchanan seems to have missed the significance of what was being said to him: ‘I answered that I was glad to find that they were so compliant, but had no proposition to make to them on that subject at present. Only I should be obliged to them to give the Scriptures to the people’.31 Whilst it is undoubtedly true that a Britishenforced re-union of the Pazhayakuttukar with the Puthenkuttukar would have met with fierce opposition from several quarters it is nevertheless fascinating to discover that, as late as 1806, it could still be seriously envisaged as something that a colonial power with an interest in ecclesiastical matters should wish to effect.. Buchanan, however, formed by his perception of the polarisation brought about by the English and European Reformation, saw only the differences, not the shared heritage. The moment (which could have had tremendous consequences for the little community at Thozhiyur) was lost. Munro shared Buchanan’s attitude towards the Church of Rome. In his final report to the Governor General he could write of Catholics: Their morals were singularly depraved. Their Clergy – corrupt, licentious, and ignorant – kept their flocks in utter darkness: no proper religious instruction was afforded to the people: the IOR/MSS Eur D.122, Letter 41, Bombay 10th Februay 1808, p.144. IOR/MSS/Eur D.122, p.112f. A summary of this exchange was published in Pearson (Memoir, p.254) but without any discussion of it. The Bishop of Verapoly at the time was Raymond of St Joseph of the Order of Discalced Carmelites (Tisserant, Eastern Christianity, p.188). 30 31

MAR KOORILOSE III

391

circulation of the Bible was resisted: superstitious and idolatrous ceremonies formed the greater part of their religious worship … and in a Country notorious for the dissoluteness, immorality, and vices of the people, the Roman Catholics were pre-eminent in crimes. … A careful observation of the people of India leads me to expect, that the Protestant religion will make a rapid progress among them … the pageantry, idolatrous appearances, and extraordinary mysteries of the Roman Catholic Faith, are calculated to revolt a mind, already disgusted and disposed to change by the idolatries and incongruities of the Hindoo worship.32

Munro was writing in 1819, in the early years of the Mission. The perception of the British then was that all the ‘errors’ that they found in the Syrian Church were a result of its ‘Romish captivity’. This would reinforce the perception of the Romo-Syrian community as something ‘wholly other’ and the source of all the Puthenkuttukar’s problems, thus killing off any desire for re-union with them.33 Moreover, Munro went even further. He believed that the Roman authorities were encouraging the Pazhayakuttukar to seize Churches from the Puthenkuttukar. He therefore swung his weight behind the latter and gave them financial aid ‘to buy out their Romo-Syrian co-sharers and take sole control of the region’s Proc. CMS 1819-20, pp. 336,343f. His comments on the morality of Roman Catholics include converts and not just the Romo-Syrians. It should be noted that, approximately a century earlier, Visscher had felt that the similarities (as he saw them) between Roman Catholic and Hindu worship (images, vows, minor deities/saints, use of flowers, etc), rather than disgusting the non-Christian population, actually facilitated the conversion of Hindus to ‘the Roman persuasion’ (Dury, Visscher, Letter XVI, p.113). 33 For Munro, the Syrians were ‘a non-Roman body. That was quite sufficient to enlist his sympathy. No non-Roman, he thought, could be far from Protestantism’, (Cheriyan, CMS, p.268). Over a decade earlier Claudius Buchanan had revealed this assumption that the Romo-Syrians belonged to a totally different community when he told the Bishop of Verapoly ‘that I had not come to notice his church, but to take care of a flock who seemed to have no Church of its own’ (IOR/MSS/Eur D.122, p.112). 32

392

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

mutually managed churches’.34 Only physical separation would create the circumstances in which the Puthenkuttukar could be purged of Roman accretions.35 Bayly sums up the result: What this meant … was that for the first time since the creation of the two jurisdictions in the seventeenth century, the Syrians had acquired a real incentive to treat the two denominations as separate and exclusive affiliations. The result was that the region acquired yet another form of sectarian or intercommunal conflict. By the early 1830s it was common for groups claiming Jacobite and Romo-Syrian affiliation to stage pitched battles over the allocation of churches and church properties.36

All this sounded the death-knell to the cherished dream of bringing the two parts of the ancient community together in a single ecclesiastical obedience. Thus, for example, when in 1822, the three CMS missionaries then in Kerala submitted a long report to the new Resident, Colonel Newall, on the state of the Syrian Church and their role in relation to it, there is no mention of any activity or intention in relation to the Romo-Syrians.37 Separation from the Pazhayakuttukar did not, however, result in an immediate ‘purging’ of Puthenkuttukar liturgical usage. On the contrary, by 1836 there was a dawning realisation on the part of the missionaries that the ‘abuses’ they were labouring to remove (such as prayers for the dead, the invocation of saints, the use of candles and incense) had not been forced upon the Indian Church by her Roman oppressors, but were integral to the Orthodox faith as practised by 34 Bayly, Saints, p.296. There was also pressure from the Roman Catholic authorities to separate their congregations from the ‘schismatics’ (Puliurumpil, Jurisdictional Conflict, p.122). 35 This assumption long persisted. A generation later, Whitehouse rejoiced that ‘this unhealthy contact with Roman superstitions in their ancient sanctuaries is completely done away – we trust for ever’, (Lingerings, p.289). 36 Bayly, Saints, p.296. 37 The four areas of work listed are: distribution of the Scriptures, education of youth, education of clergy, and erection or enlargement of Churches (Proc. CMS, 1822-1823, pp.236-241).

MAR KOORILOSE III

393

Antioch.38 Others (for example, the veneration of shrines, and the observing of festivals and ‘pollution’ rites) were fundamental to the community’s place in the indigenous society.39 Furthermore, like the Portuguese before them, the missionaries had badly underestimated the Syrians’ attachment to their traditions. They were not going to abandon them lightly to become European Protestants.40 All this was inflamed by the replacement of the older generation of missionaries by younger, less experienced and less tolerant men.41 The details of the gradual breakdown of the Mission of Help need not be recorded here. Cheriyan chronicles it closely and analyses the reasons why the original vision remained unfulfilled.42 38 Collins, in the 1860s, could see the problem clearly: ‘Led astray by Buchanan and Bishop Middleton, they had arrived at the hasty and incorrect conclusion that everything erroneous in doctrine and practice in the Syrian Church had been derived from their fifty years’ subjection to Rome. Never was there a greater mistake. The errors of Syrianism were the errors of Antioch, not Rome. No sooner was the Roman yoke taken off her shoulders than the Syrian Church returned to her old liturgies, and her old faith, under the auspices of a bishop commissioned to this work by the Jacobite Patriarch of Antioch himself. The false teachings and customs of the Syrian Church were not mere excrescences, grafted on to an otherwise pure stock by Rome, and which needed only to be pointed out in order to their speedy excision; they were entwined amid the very vitals of the system’ (Missionary Enterprise, p.100). 39 ‘None of the early missionaries realised that these supposed “accretions” were really the cornerstone of Syrian faith and worship and that they were used to confirm the status of the group’s church notables’ (Bayly, Saints, p.297). 40 Munro’s dream of converting them all to ‘the Protestant Religion’ shows how little he, in some respects, understood the community. He also seems to have had little understanding of ancient theological differences; despite the Puthenkuttukar’s manifest emotional attachment to Antioch and their free use of the adjective ‘Jacobite’ of themselves, Munro could still write: ‘I think that the Syrians are very little imbued with Nestorianism: and may easily be brought to assimilate with the Church of England’ (Letter dated 22nd February 1817, Cheriyan, CMS, p.355). 41 Bailey and Doran left Kerala in 1831, Baker in 1833 (Whitehouse, Lingerings, p.255). 42 CMS, pp.209-241. See also Philip, Indian Church, 214-279 for an Orthodox perspective. Bayly (Saints, p.298f, n.41) gives further examples and sources of Peet’s abhorrence of Syrian ways.

394

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

Some of the blame undoubtedly lies with Joseph Peet and W. Woodcock who had replaced Fenn and Bailey in 1833 and 1834 respectively, being only thirty four and twenty five years of age. They were inexperienced and provocative. Peet, for example, interrupted festivals by distributing tracts and attempting to preach. He also by his presence threatened to render the worshippers ‘unclean’ by touching them.43 Woodcock embarked on doctrinal controversies even before his linguistic skills were adequate. Such actions were grossly offensive to the Syrians.44 Even the Parent Committee that had sent them regretted the ‘tendency for young Missionaries to fall into the vortex of controversy’.45 At this stage of their careers, at least, Woodcock and Peet would seem to fit the type identified by Dalrymple, with one important difference. All the intolerance, superiority, self-confidence and impatience described, for example, by Dalrymple of the Revd Midgely John Jennings in Delhi in 1857,46 was shown by Peet and Woodcock, not against the nonChristian population, but against the Syrian Christians. They were not so much equal partners in a Christian enterprise, but ungrateful natives who now needed to be shocked out of their ‘superstitions’.47 43 See his own account in Madras Church Missionary Record (March 1836), pp.36-37. 44 Woodcock has been decribed as ‘very young, earnest, narrow, argumentative and immature’, and Peet as ‘able and energetic, but about as much in place in a delicate situation as a bull in a china shop’ (Gibb, Anglican Church, p.111). It should be noted that the later ministry of Peet in India was in fact marked by genuine devotion and he was remembered with affection when he died (in India) in 1865 (Cheriyan, CMS, p.222). 45 Quoted in Cheriyan, CMS, p.211. 46 Dalrymple, Last Mughal, pp.58-75. 47 See Howard (Christians of St Thomas, pp.92-106) for the critical comments of a Church of England priest of differing churchmanship on the attitudes of the missionaries of this period. In particular Howard draws attention to the infrequency of their celebration of the Eucharist (‘a cold uninviting performance’, perhaps four times a year, compared with its position as the weekly focus of the Syrians’ devotion), and to the fact that the missionaries were using a Presbyterian catechism as the basis of their teaching. According to Howard the missionaries seldom attended the Qurbana, which one of them described as ‘a most wretched piece of buf-

MAR KOORILOSE III

395

Prior to Bishop Wilson’s 1835 visit, the Revd J. Tucker, Secretary of the Madras Corresponding Committee of the CMS since 1833, had also been to Kerala. He met with the missionaries and put 70 questions to them.48 The following exchange is typical: 'What substantial reform has been effected in the Syrian Church through the direct or indirect labours of the missionaries from their first establishment at Cottayam to the present day? ' Answer 1. Rev. B. Bailey. 'I cannot say that any real substantial reform has hitherto been effected. The instruction of the youth in the college, &c., I trust has not been wholly in vain. The translating and printing of a portion of the Sacred Scriptures have been accomplished, and distributed apiong the Syrians, &c., which, I doubt not, will, through the blessing of God, eventually prove a means of bringing about a reform in the Syrian Church.' 2. Rev. J. Peet. 'I know not of any one.' 3. Rev. W. J. Woodcock. 'I am not aware that any kind of reform has been effected by the direct or indirect labours of the brethren at Cottayam. At the same time there is doubtless some general improvement among the priests and people in and about Cottayam, by the diffusion of knowledge and the dissemination of God's Word.'

Tucker then talked with Mar Dionysios IV and made him, with great reluctance, sign a declaration that he would not ordain anyone without a testimonial from the missionary at the College.49 It was hardly an act likely to endear the missionary project to the foonery’ (Howard, Christians of St Thomas, p.92). Even Bishop Wilson excused himself from attending the Qurbana on the grounds of fatigue, but had enough energy to preach for an hour at the end of it (Howard, Christians of St Thomas, p.103). Howard himself, though sensitive to some doctrinal issues, nevertheless appreciated ‘the wonderfully impressive service of the Corbano’ (Christians of St Thomas, p.116). 48 See Collins, Missionary Enterprise, pp.115-117 for some of the questions. 49 Collins, Missionary Enterprise, p.119.

396

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

Metropolitan. Then (and of particular interest for the present study) Tucker ‘subsequently visited the junior Metran also, at Annura’.50 He found the junior bishop more affable and gentlemanly than the senior, but no nearer to reform. He spoke very kindly of the missionaries, and thought that he could see fruits to their labours. But when Mr. Tucker asked him more closely what one thing that was contrary to the Scriptures had the Church put away, he was unable to name one.

Tucker found Mar Koorilose III not averse to the idea of the holding of a Synod to discuss reform, but when the particular things in the liturgy that are contrary to the Word of God were set before him, he justified them by saying that they had existed from the beginning, and that it was impossible that men who were taught by the Holy Ghost could have erred in these things.

Not surprisingly, Tucker’s subsequent report reveals great frustration: There is not known to be one single instance of the genuine conversion to God of any Syrian Kattanar or layman, through the agency of any Missionary, direct or indirect ….Of the one hundred and fifty three Kattanars educated more or less by the Missionaries, there is not one who does not continue every Sunday performing services which are plainly contrary to the Word of God …. Neither has one corrupt practice been laid aside by the Church, nor is there any trace of an increased desire for real reformation …51

50 See Collins, Missionary Enterprise, p.120f for an account of the meeting from which the following quotations are taken. 51 Quoted in Cheriyan, CMS, p.281. Munro had assumed that the missionaries would gradually be able to persuade the Syrians ‘to abandon the seven sacraments, the Mass, and other remnants of Roman Catholic usage’ (Letter dated 23rd May 1818, Cheriyan, CMS, p.365).

MAR KOORILOSE III

397

THE MAVELIKARA SYNOD, 1836

In response to the proposals for reforming the liturgy and placing the control of ordination in the hands of the missionaries, which Bishop Wilson had put before him on 21st November 1835,52 Mar Dionysios IV convened a meeting of his clergy at Mavelikara on 5th January 1836. To this meeting Mar Koorilose III of Thozhiyur also came. There were also present about fifty kathanars and some prominent laymen. The result was a total rejection of Bishop Wilson’s proposals and the issuing of a long statement – the ‘Mavelikara Padiyola’.53 The opening phrases describe Cheppat Mar Dionsyios IV as ‘of the Jacobite Syrian Church of Malankara, subject to the supremacy of Mar Ignatius, Patriarch, the Father of Fathers and the Chief of Chiefs, ruling the Throne of St Peter of Antioch, the mother of all Churches’. The statement goes on the say that We the Jacobite Syrians, being subject to the authority of the Patriarch of Antioch, and observing as we do, the liturgies and ordinances instituted by the prelates sent out at his command, cannot deviate from such liturgies and ordinances and maintain a discipline contrary thereto …

The bishops and clergy acknowledged the good that the earlier missionaries had done but complained that their successors have ‘conducted affairs in opposition to the discipline of our Church and created dissension among us, all of which have occasioned much sorrow and dissension’. Therefore, the Synod concluded, We do not follow any faith or teaching other than the orthodox faith of the Jacobite Syrian Christians, to the end that we may obtain salvation through the prayers of the ever happy,

52 Bishop Wilson also offered the sum of one thousand rupees as a ‘mark of love’ towards the Syrian Church. This gesture was interpreted as a bribe and woke memories of Archbishop Menezes’ financial inducements to the Syrians over two hundred years earlier. 53 An official translation of the text can be found in Cheriyan, CMS, p.390-391. It is also reproduced in Daniel, Orthodox Church, p.541-542 and Kaniamparampil, Syrian Orthodox Church, p.133-134.

398

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS holy and ever-blessed Mother of God, the redresser of all complaints, and through the prayers of all the saints.

There is, in fact, nothing in the statement that goes beyond what Mar Thoma VIII and Ramban Joseph Pulikottil had said in their answers to Colonel Munro’s Seventeen Questions back in 1813. Antioch is acknowledged as the model in liturgical and canonical matters. Neither in 1813 nor in 1836 is there any suggestion that the Patriarch of Antioch might exercise direct jurisdiction in Kerala. The Padiyola expresses gratitude for the aid brought by the West Asian bishops which had assisted with the building of Churches. The accounts of the voluntary giving by the congregations are ‘as required by the rules, furnished to our bishops, as is the custom in the churches of Antioch as well as in the churches of this and other countries.’ In this context ‘our bishops’ would appear to mean Mar Dionysios IV and Mar Koorilose III. There is no suggestion that the Indian Church sent money to Antioch or expected to be required to do so. It is unlikely that Cheppat Mar Dionysios expected to be ruled by or accountable to the Patriarch of Antioch any more than Mar Koorilose III of Thozhiyur was. Much of the blame for the separation lies with Cheppat Mar Dionysios IV who ‘thoroughly disliked the reforms which the Missionaries desired to introduce, and had little or no sympathy with their ultimate object of making the Syrian Church capable of sending forth its own missionaries for the evangelisation of their nonChristian neighbours’.54 Cheriyan records the following testimony of one who had known Dionysios well: ‘He was pious and tenacious of the doctrines and rituals of his Church, but not strong in mind; simplicity characterised all his dealings’.55 Under Mar Diony-

Cheriyan, CMS, p.209. Baker says that Edavazhikal Philipos kathanar and Konat Malpan were the greatest opponents of Bishop Wilson’s proposals (CCC, (Nov. 1870), p.437. 55 CMS, p.196. This was not just the view of Churchmen. Lieutenant W.H.Horsley, in his 1839 survey, recorded that there were very few students at the College at Kottayam, ‘in consequence of the opposition of the present Metran, who is averse to any species of improvement or reform’ (Horsely, Memoir, in Drury, Selections, p.26). 54

MAR KOORILOSE III

399

sios IV the conservative element in the Puthenkuttukar found it easy to gain the ascendency.56 There is a sense in which the termination of the Mission of Help can be seen as part of the wider pattern of disengagement between the British and the indigenous population identified above. The missionaries were, indeed, to go on and build up a Church composed predominantly of converts from Hinduism or Islam (as other missionaries were doing in other places), but it was a Church on their terms - a little clone of European Christianity (in this case the Church of England), only slightly adapted to Indian conditions. It was, in fact an exact counterpart of the Latin-rite Church created by the Portuguese and their Roman Catholic successors.57 Not until the mid 20th century, with the formation of the Church of South India in 1947 and the implementation of the reforms initiated by the Second Vatican Council was it possible to question seriously the extent to which an Indian Church should look like a European one.58 The Mavelikara Synod was thus a parting of the ways. Some contact continued and there was a continuing dispute over various properties, but this was settled by a commission which reported in 1840.59 Some Syrians left the Orthodox Church and joined the new Whitehouse, Lingerings, p.257. None of these remarks is intended to disparage the heroism and sacrifice of the Europeans and their co-workers. Many inspiring stories of witness and wonder can be told. 58 In both the Roman and non-Roman communities there was in fact a succession of voices raising precisely this question (for example J.C. Winslow, D.R. Athavale, J.E.G. Festig, E.C. Ratcliff, The Eucharist in India: Plea for a Distinctive Liturgy for the Indian Church, London, Longmans, 1920, and Bede Griffiths, Prayer with the Harp of the Spirit: The Prayer of Asian Churches, Kottayam, Kurisumala Ashram, 1983-1986 (6 vols). It was, however, only in the second half of the 20th century that the Indian Churches were really able to address this for themselves. 59 The text of the award can be found in Exhibit 223 in the Report In the Supreme Court of India. On Appeal from the High Court of Judicature, Kerala, between Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos, Appellant and Thukalam Poula Avira & others, Respondents, MTS/A/218. See also Cheriyan, CMS, 266-280; Daniel, Orthodox Church, p.153f; Kaniamparampil, Syrian Orthodox Church, p.136. The Seminary was awarded to the Syrian Church, but did not function for 56 57

400

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

Church of England jurisdiction, which was now directing its attention to evangelising the non-Christian population. Their descendants may be found in the Church of South India to this day.60 The remainder of the Puthenkuttukar had now formally committed themselves as a corporate body – for the first time - to allegiance to Antioch and its rites. It was the coming to fruition of the seed planted by Mar Gregorios Abdul Jaleel in the late 17th century and nurtured most consistently by the Thozhiyur community and the Metropolitans that its bishops had consecrated. It is important to see Mavelikara in perspective. It was, after all, only 37 years – rather more than a single generation – since Mar Dionysios I had attempted to take the Puthenkuttukar into union with Rome, and exclusive use of the East Syrian rite. There must have been kathanars at Mavelikara who had learned Syriac in the Eastern script.61 Cheppat Mar Dionysios IV’s consecrator, Philoxenos, who had died just eight years before, had himself used that script to the end of his life. Viewed from this perspective, the decision to ally with Antioch should not be thought of as inevitable, especially as the visits of Mar Dioscoros and Mar Athanasios Abdul Messih had been so problematic. It is difficult to avoid the impression that what had driven the Puthenkuttukar so decisively in the direction of Antioch was the influence of the missionaries. As we have seen, for a brief period at the commencement of their contact, the British Churchmen had taken up the Indian Syrians’ dream of re-union and had reversed the hitherto anticipated direction – reform of the Puthenkuttukar would make them so attractive that the Pazhayamany years. In 1852 the buildings were described as ‘going to ruin’, being occupied only by a priest who was using them for an eye clinic, and two young deacons learning Syriac under his supervision (CCC, (June 1853), p.453f). 60 Howard claims that the missionaries in fact ‘persisted in a system of proselytising’ Syrians by building Churches near their own and encouraging them to use the missionaries’ rites rather than the Syrian ones (Christians of St Thomas, p.107f). 61 See the several MSS ‘in Chaldean script’ owned by Jacobite, Orthodox and Mar Thoma members in K.N.Daniel’s list (Critical Study, pp.14-21). Writing in 1937, Daniel states that what he calls ‘Maronite characters’ [= West Syrian] had only been in general use in Malabar for the preceding 150 years (ibid, p.179).

MAR KOORILOSE III

401

kuttukar would desert Rome and join them.62 Very soon, however, the loathing of Rome as the source of all the Syrians’ problems and corruptions, illustrated by the quotations from Munro above, must have communicated itself to the Puthenkuttukar. It would have reinforced the innate suspicion of Rome that had persisted since the Coonen Cross oath, encouraged no doubt by a desire not to be ruled by European bishops. The vision of re-uniting the St Thomas Christians was allowed to die. Of the alternatives, union with the Church of England did not look as attractive as it apparently had to Mar Dionysios I in his conversations with Claudius Buchanan. It was now clear that it would mean a radical abandonment of the community’s religious identity – and the possibility of serving under European (this time English) bishops, the very situation under which the Pazhayakuttukar were still chafing. The only real option was Antioch to whose liturgical and canonical usage the Puthenkuttukar had been gradually assimilating since the Maphrian’s delegation of 1751. Alignment with the Syrian Orthodox Patriarch would fulfil the Syrians’ deep instinct for leadership from West Asia, which, historically, had not interfered with a considerable degree of local autonomy.63 62 There were some successes. In 1817 it was reported that Padre Prospero, the former Vicar General of Verapoly, had expressed a desire ‘to embrace the Protestant faith’ and thought that many Catholics – including Syrians – would follow his example (Blacker to Middleton, Cochin, 14th May 1817, MS Mill 192, f.92r). Whitehouse describes a ‘Malpan Luke, who had been a Romish priest and Secretary to the Bishop of Verapoli’, who was now in charge of a CMS congregation (Lingerings, p.276). It was official CMS policy to invite Roman Catholics to leave their Church. This policy did not apply to Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches (see Cheriyan, CMS, p.305f and sources quoted there). 63 The Syrians do not appear at this stage to have articulated a desire to be a totally independent Church. It may be that it was felt that this would have been difficult to maintain, given the British presence in the country. Alliance with an overseas Church may well have been seen as a counter-balance to Anglican influence. Cheriyan opines that Mar Dionysios IV may have felt that he had only benefitted from the missionaries’ favour as a result of their friendship with Mar Philoxenos II. Now that Philoxenos was dead, Dionysios may have thought it opportune to repair his relationship with the Patriarch (CMS, p.233).

402

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

The Puthenkuttukar, now free of their partnership with the Church of England missionaries, were not, however, a homogenous group. Many – including Cheppat Mar Dionysios IV - were no doubt happy to maintain the status quo. Others, while committed to a Syrian identity, believed that a measure of reform was still necessary. The story of this latter group - the ‘Reformers’ - was to impinge on the life of the MISC in ways that could not have been expected. It is therefore necessary to look at some aspects of the reform movement. PALAKUNNATHU ABRAHAM MALPAN

The man to whom the present day Mar Thoma Church looks back as the leader of the ‘Reformation’ in the ancient Syrian Church was the priest Palakunnathu Abraham.64 He was born posthumously in May 1796 at Maramon. By the time he was two and half years old his mother had also died and he was brought up by his father’s elder brother, Thomas Malpan, whom Mackworth met at Maramon in 1821 and described as ‘a very respectable man, much in the habit, we were told, of family prayer’.65 He was ordained deacon and studied Syriac under Kora Malpan (whose nephew Kayithil 64 There is no English biography of Abraham. A Malayalam account of his life can be found in M.C.George, Palakunnathu Abraham Malpan, Tiruvalla, Christian Literature Society, 1919, repub. 1985. A summary of much of its contents can be found in Z.V.Kanisseril & M.A.Kallumpram, Glimpses of Mar Thoma Church History, New Delhi, Society of St Thomas & St Augustine, 2003. 65 Mackworth, Tour, p.81. Piety seems to have been prominent in the priests of Maramon. When Claudius Buchanan visited there in 1806 he described ‘a small church, over which presides the aged Zechariah. I found him reading his Masmora (Psalms) in the porch of the church’ (IOR Mss Eur D.122, p. 98; Pearson, Buchanan, p.247). Zechariah may well have been the grandfather of Abraham Malpan. In 1813 Joseph Pulikottil had listed ‘Mariamanum Pallacoonat Vargiss Cattanar’ as one of the two ‘Malpans of the Southern Churches’ (the other being Pullipaut Phillipose Cattanar) (IOR/F/4/616 p.41). It is not clear if this is the same person as the Thomas named by Mackworth. On 1st December 1821 Mill visited Maramon and met Abraham Malpan’s uncle, ‘an old sick Catanar’, who was reading ‘an excellent old MS of the Syriac Psalter’ (MS Mill 204 Journal).

MAR KOORILOSE III

403

Geevarghese Malpan, was to be one of Abraham’s fellow leaders in the reform movement).66 Abraham was ordained kasheesha by Mar Thoma VIII when he was only 16, but does not seem to have celebrated the Qurbana until three years later at his home Church of Maramon. He had married a girl called Aleyama, with whom he had several children, two of whom were to become bishops.67 Mackworth met Abraham at Maramon on 24 February 1821 and judged him, a young man of abilities and esteemed among his countrymen. We had a good deal of conversation with him, on trifling as well as on religious subjects, in which he shewed natural good sense, and some knowledge of Scripture. He says he is very anxious to learn English, and means shortly to go to the College for that purpose: but as his wife has been lately confined, he is unwilling to quit her at the present moment…. This young Malpan’s name is Abraham; and the Missionaries have hopes that he will turn out a genuine Christian: he certainly seems well disposed.68

Abraham must have gone to the Seminary at Kottayam very shortly after this, for Mill met him there in December of the same year and described him as ‘the chief Malpan Abraham’.69 He also fulfilled the missionaries’ hopes by imbibing a more spiritually

66 Kora Malpan may be ‘Cotiam Coorream Cattanar’ named by Joseph Pulikottil as one of the ‘Malpans of the Northern Churches’. The others were Conaat Vurgiss Cattanar and Poodoo [?] Pulil yacko Cattanar (IOR/F/4/616 p.41). Kaithayil Geeverghese Malpan’s role in the ‘Reformation’ does not generally receive as much prominence (at least in English sources) as that of Palukunnathu Abraham Malpan. 67 It is not clear whether he married before or after ordination. Presumably he was one of the first generation of priests to take advantage of Munro’s encouragement of clerical marriage (Cheriyan, CMS, p.287). 68 Mackworth, Tour, p.81. 69 MS Mill 204 Journal 22nd November 1822. That this is indeed Palakunnathu Abraham is confirmed by the fact that Mill visited his home at Maramon.

404

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

aware understanding of his faith.70 He remained, however, deeply conservative in many respects.71 He entertained doubts about the validity of his ordination by Mar Thoma VIII and was one of the priests who offered himself for re-ordination by Mar Athanasios Abdul Messih during his tempestuous visit to Kerala in 1825.72 For this act of insubordination he suffered a period of imprisonment.73 The evidence for Abraham Malpan’s commitment to West Syrian script and liturgy has been discussed in Chapter 10. Palakunnathu Abraham Malpan and the Anjur succession One aspect of Palakunnathu Abraham’s influence which has hitherto gone unnoticed is an antipathy towards the Bishops at Anjur. In January 1822 Mill made the following note in his Journal following a (complimentary) reference to Mar Koorilose I: ‘Feud between the Malpan Abraham and our Metropolitan [Punnathra Mar Dionysios III] – thro’ the former’s hatred of this succession’, and in the margin Mill added: ‘Copy all this DV elsewhere’.74 This is not the only reference. In his notes for what he called ‘Indiana Christiana’ he wrote of the Malpan: ‘He is vehemently opposed to the pretenMill describes an Anglican service in Malayalam attended by large numbers of Syrians ‘my friend the Malpan at their head’ (MS Mill 204, Journal, 25th Nov. 1821). 71 Cheriyan states that ‘while conscientiously eschewing what he considered to be the positive corruptions of his Church, he had no objection to the practices enumerated above [elevation of the elements, the sign of the cross and incense] and was even attached to some of its peculiarities, such as its vestments, its canonical orders, its mode of conducting baptisms, marriages, burials and other rites, the way in which the prayers were chanted and the stress it laid on the study of Syriac’ (CMS, p.289). Abraham also shared the belief that the Indian Church had always been ‘Jacobite’ (see Bodleian Or 667 (PS 72) quoted in Van der Ploeg, Syriac MSS, p.229). 72 Ironically, others of the re-ordained priests were Mathan Konat and Philip Edavazhikal, whose families were to oppose the Palakunnathu reforms for the remainder of the 19th century (Yacoub III, Syrian Church in India, p.161f). 73 George, Malpan, p.22f. 74 MS Mill 204 Journal 12 January 1822. If Mill did write a fuller account, it has not yet come to light. 70

MAR KOORILOSE III

405

sions of Cyrillus’, 75 and calls Abraham ‘a great admirer’ of Mar Dionysios I76 and ‘a zealous Parambilist’.77 What was the reason for this attitude? Some insight into this issue is furnished by Abraham Malpan’s Notes respecting the succession of bishops in the Jacobite Church of Malabar, previously referred to. These reveal that the Malpan believed that were two places in the ‘Thozhiyur succession’ which could be interpreted in a way that might affect the validity of the episcopate. The first is that Abraham Malpan believed Mar Koorilose I to have been consecrated by Mar Gregorios (he is unaware of the Mar Basilios tradition) in what was virtually a private and secret ceremony.78 The second regards the consecration of Philoxenos II which Abraham Malpan believed to have been performed by his dying predecessor while lying on a bed.79 As already noted, there are serious inaccuracies in Abraham Malpan’s account and he is almost certainly in error on these two points also. The second, in particular, is directly contradicted by the evidence of Fenn noted in Chapter 10, that the consecration of Philoxenos II took place in Anjur Church in the presence of many witnesses.80 It will be recalled that only eight years or so before Fenn wrote his account, the validity of Mar Philoxenos II’s consecration had been questioned to such an extent that Munro had felt it necessarily publicly to establish the facts. In 1840 there were clearly some who still wished to disparage the Anjur succession, and the influential young Malpan was among them. His devotion to Mar Dionysios I probably derived from that bishop’s willingness to be consecrated by Antiochene prelates. The complexities of Mar Thoma VI/Mar MS Mill 195, f.51. MS Mill 195, f.51v. 77 MS Mill 195, f.53. It will be recalled that ‘Parambil’ was the name of the Pakalomattom Archdeacons and Metrans. 78 MS Mill 192, f.1v. 79 MS Mill 192, f.4v. 80 MS Mill 191, f.141v. The Palakunnathus were a southern family and would not necessarily have known the details of events at the extreme north of the Syrians’ range. Fenn’s account dates from only 14 years after the event, when many witnesses were still around. Abraham Malpan’s Notes were made over quarter of a century later. 75 76

406

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

Dionysios I’s relationship with the Maphrian’s delegation and with Rome seem to have been conveniently forgotten. An additional factor may simply be that Abraham Malpan and his family belonged to the Southern group of Churches and had a natural suspicion and antipathy towards what might be termed ‘Northern pretensions’. THE PETITION TO THE BRITISH RESIDENT, 1836

Following the Mavelikara Synod, Palakunnathu Abraham Malpan was one of those committed to further reform in the Syrian Church. Later in 1836 he and several other priests presented a ‘Memorial’ to the British Resident, now Colonel Fraser.81 Mar Thoma writers sometimes refer to the Memorial as ‘the Trumpet Call of the Reformation’, and concentrate on the list of twenty three abuses in need of correction, as if the British Resident were being asked to put them right himself.82 There is, in fact, much more to the Petition. It recites that the ‘Metrans of the name of Mar Thoma superintended the Syrian Churches … under the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Antioch’, but did not always do so ‘agreeably to the customs of the Syrians, on account of the relationship that sustained between them and the Roman Catholics’. This appears to be an acknowledgment of the Pakalomattoms’ links with the Pazhayakuttukar and the legacy of latinised East Syrian practice. The Petition then refers to Mar Thoma VIII’s reluctance to found a Seminary, and his other irregularities. These, it states, were investigated by Colonel Munro, who awarded the money from the ‘bond’ (the vatipannam ) to Joseph Ramban who ‘in the meantime … was ordained Metran by a Metran residing in the Province of Kalicut [while] Mar Thoma who had not governed the Churches according to custom was set aside’ and a proclamation issued in favour of ‘Joseph Metran [Mar Dionysios II]’. The Petition then refers to the reigns of Mar Philoxenos, Mar Dionysios III and Mar 81 The text of the Memorial can be found in CMS/C I2/0253/59/19 (where it is referred to as a ‘Petition’). The names of all the signatories are given in K.T.Joy, The Mar Thoma Church: A Study of its Growth and Contribution, Kottayam, pub. by author, 1986, p.32; and Kanisseril & Kallumpram, Glimpses, p.28f. 82 Eg, Joy, Mar Thoma Church, p.31f.

MAR KOORILOSE III

407

Dionysios IV. This last, it alleges, had, on his consecration, given to Mar Philoxenos ‘a document signed by him, which states that he would conduct himself agreeable to the Scriptures and to the Canons and cause others to do so, but that he had not been diligent in the discharge of this duties’ and, after the death of Philoxenos, had ‘manifested his real disposition’. Cheppat Mar Dionysios IV is then accused of several misdemeanours, including going around the Churches acquiring money in different ways, and not keeping harmony with the missionaries. Having recited all these matters, the Petition then comes to its essential request: therefore, that no irregularity may take place in future, your Petitioners most humbly solicit that your Excellency will be pleased to set aside according to the Canons, as Col. Munro did, the present Metran who commits acts of disorder, put down his evil advisers, send for Kurilos Metran residing at Tholoor Church in the Province of Kalicut, and cause him properly to administer the affairs of the Church according to the Scriptures and Canons, and thus redress the grievances of your Petitioners and the people of the Churches.

There then follows ‘A Statement of Disorders’, listing the matters of faith and practice that Mar Dionysios IV is alleged to have contravened. Three matters in particular merit comment. Firstly, the points of reference in the ‘Disorders’ are the Canons and Holy Fathers, rather than a Protestant interpretation of the Bible. The abuses include such matters as admitting people to Communion for a fee rather than after adequate preparation and repentance; delaying unction until after the sick person is unconscious; ordaining men below the canonical age; not instructing the people in the lives of the saints on their feast days; condoning images; using charcoal on Ash Wednesday (presumably a continuing Roman practice); and such matters.83 While the underlying motiva-

83 For the full list see K.K.Kuruvilla, A History of the Mar Thoma Church and its Doctrines, Madras, Christian Literature Society for India, 1951, pp1517; Kanisseril & Kallumpram, Glimpses, pp.29-33.

408

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

tion is clearly to foster a greater spiritual awareness, it is not particularly a ‘Western’ agenda.84 Secondly, loyalty to Antioch is still asserted. The Memorial thus in fact reaffirms the basic orientation of the community recently asserted in the Mavelikara Padiyola. Its complaint against Mar Dionysios IV is that (in addition to inferred immorality) he is not leading the Puthenkuttukar towards greater loyalty to West Syrian forms. The criticism of Romo-Syrian practices in the Memorial may derive in part from something that Abraham had imbibed from the missionaries – a negative attitude towards the Pazhayakuttukar. It is inevitable that he would have been influenced by their anti-Roman views and invective. It was, after all, according the missionaries, the Church of Rome that was suppressing the ‘pure Gospel’ to which the Malpan seems genuinely to have responded. This would have reinforced his already strong loyalty towards Antioch. His submission to re-ordination by Mar Athanasios Abdul Messih shows this, and his admiration for the Syrian Orthodox Patriarch seems to have continued to the end of his life (see Chapter 12). Moreover, it almost certainly engendered a commitment to West Syrian orthography and liturgy in favour of the previously dominant East Syriac. In his 1840 Palakunnathu Notes he stressed the natural affinity of Malabar with Antioch. Speaking of the post-1751 turmoil, the Malpan wrote: The Churches or parishes were divided, part holding with Mar Thoma [V], but the greater part with the foreigners! This shews how the Syrians esteem the Antiochean Church, their foster mother.85

The cumulative evidence - his re-ordination, his devotion to Antioch, the shift in script – all suggest that Palakunnathu Abraham Malpan was in fact one of the primary figures responsible for the consolidation of West Syrian use in Kerala. None of this is repudiated in the Petition. Bayly is incorrect when she says that the reformers’ appeals were ‘couched in the language of evangelical “reform” and purification’ (Saints, p.301). 85 MS Mill 192, f.1. 84

MAR KOORILOSE III

409

Thirdly, despite the Petition’s professions of loyalty to Antioch, it is not from Antioch that the Resident is asked to find a solution. The heart of the Petition is a request to Colonel Fraser to remove from office the current Metran, replacing him with a bishop from Thozhiyur, following Colonel Munro’s precedent in replacing Mar Thoma VIII with Pulikottil Mar Dionysios II, and eventually with Mar Philoxenos II.86 It will immediately be noted that this is at variance with the anti-Kattumagat stance of Abraham Palakunnathu recorded 14 years earlier by Mill. There is, however, some evidence which suggests that Mar Koorilose III of Thozhiyur might have been viewed favourably by the potential reformers. Seven years earlier, in December 1829, the Revd John Doran had visited the newly consecrated 27 year old Mar Koorilose III at ‘Annura’.87 He recorded, ‘I like Mar Kurilos very much – there seems to be a good share of sound sense and frankness about him …. Being from very childhood about the late lamented and amiable Philoxenos he seems to have imbibed not a little of his meek spirit.’ That in itself was encouraging – a Metropolitan in the mould of Philoxenos II would not impede reform. But Doran found at Anjur something extraordinary that would have greatly encouraged all those desirous of change in the Puthenkuttukar. One of the kathanars, George, ‘seems to have more idea of the nature of his office than almost any other I have met with. He expounds the Scripture every Sabbath to the people – and instead of repeating the Mass prayers in Syriac … he translates them entire into the vernacular dialect’. It would appear that the first to celebrate the Qurbana in Malayalam was not Palakunnathu Abraham Malpan, but the otherwise unknown kathanar George of Anjur. In fact, George’s initiative seems to pre-date Abraham’s by several years and may even have helped to inspire it. While it is not stated that Mar Koorilose III celebrated the Qurbana in Malalayalam, the fact 86 This fact is often omitted in accounts of the Memorial. It is not mentioned, for example, by Kuruvilla, Joy or Bayly. Cheriyan thinks that this willingness to accept Mar Koorilose III shows that ‘there was no reason to doubt the orthodoxy of the memorialists from a Jacobite point of view or of their loyalty to the Patriarch’ (CMS, p.284). See also George, Malpan, p.30. 87 See his account in CMS/B/OMS CI2 085.

410

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

that George and his ministry were at least tolerated (and perhaps welcomed) at Anjur, further suggests that Mar Koorilose III was not unsympathetic to reform. This fact may have helped overcome the prejudices of Abraham Malpan and others against the Northern succession. Colonel Fraser’s response to the Petition may have unwittingly contributed to subsequent events.88 He noted that, while there were 56 Syrian Churches, the Petition was signed only by representatives of twelve, and that he would need to be convinced that the majority of the Churches concurred with the Petition before he took any action. More importantly, he asked, in the event of the charges against Mar Dionysios IV being proved true, ‘in whom the Canons of their [ie the Petitioners’] Church vest the power of removing an offending Metran and of appointing another’. Fraser was not Munro. The latter would have gladly and immediately acted upon the Petition. Fraser passed the question back to the Christians: Who in your Church has the right to do this? By so doing, he was in effect forcing them to seek an ecclesiastical solution. In the circumstances this could only mean that they would have to have recourse to the Patriarch of Antioch. The immediate result was a degree of stalemate. Even if he had wanted to, Mar Koorilose III could not have replaced Cheppat Mar Dionysios IV without the active support of the Resident and (through the Resident’s influence) the governments of Cochin and Travancore. In any case, he may very well have been reluctant to be party to an attempt to depose the bishop who had consecrated him. It thus appeared that neither of the two bishops in Kerala was able or willing to address the concerns of a section of the Puthenkuttukar. Cheppat Mar Dionysios IV, indeed, retaliated in 1837 by forbidding the Syrian Churches to allow the missionaries to preach in them, thus withdrawing a privilege dating back over twenty years.89 Letters to the Patriarch of Antioch – official and unofficial – began to be sent. Peet records one sent by Philipos kathanar, informing the Patriarch that the Syrians were ‘like sheep without a shepherd’,

88 89

This is also to be found in CMS/C I2/0253/59/19. Cheriyan, CMS, p.253.

MAR KOORILOSE III

411

the Patriarch’s reply to which was intercepted by Cheppat Mar Dionysios, to Philipos’ fury.90 Abraham Malpan seems to have spent the next three years working on a revised vernacular version of the Qurbana, though remaining at his post at the Seminary.91 At about this time the missionaries produced a text known as the Amended Syrian Liturgy. There is much debate as to whether this was the rite used by the Malpan, or whether he favoured a more conservative revision.92 It was perhaps also at this time that he threw into a well a wooden statue that formed the focus of popular devotion – and act inspired, perhaps, by both the missionaries and by the precedent of bishops who had come from Antioch.93 Eventually in 1840 he resigned and returned to Maramon to begin to put some of his reforms into practice, introducing Malayalam into the liturgy and removing prayers for the departed, for example. By this stage, however, the CMS missionaries had lost interest in reforming the Syrian rite and were using the English Prayer Book services in Malayalam with their congregations. Eventually Mar Dionysios IV excommunicated the entire congregation at Maramon and announced that he 90 CMS/ACC 91 02/05; letter from Peet to Tucker dated 10th April 1839. The Patriarch’s letter had apparently been brought by two men from Baghdad. It spoke of needing to know the truth of the matter and suggesting that two bishops might be sent. 91 He was still at the Seminary when he gave the Palakunnathu Notes to Humphreys in 1840. In 1839 there seems to have been some uncertainty about his pay (CMS/ACC 91 02/05; letter from Peet to Tucker dated 10th April 1839). Peet noted that Abraham Malpan received less in salary than most priests got for the celebration of chattams. 92 For a study of the liturgical legacy of Abraham Malpan see Zacharia John, The Liturgy of the Mar Thoma Syrian Church of Malabar in the Light of its History, (University of Durham MA thesis 1994) and Phillip Tovey, ‘Abraham Malpan and the Amended Syrian Liturgy of CMS’, in idem, Essays in West Syrian Liturgy, Kottayam, Oriental Institute of Religious Studies India (No. 199), 1998, pp.7-27, and the sources quoted. Z. John favours the idea of two revised liturgies at this stage; Tovey disagrees. The development of the liturgy among the Syrians favouring reform (and the role of the CMS) is a complex story, not yet fully explored. 93 Kurivilla, History, p.14, Juhanon Mar Thoma, Christianity in India, p.24. Tovey states that this incident took place in 1837 (‘Abraham Malpan’, p.24).

412

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

would not ordain any deacons trained by Abraham and his associates. Faced with increasing marginalisation after Mavelikara, deprived of the official support of the missionaries, and without hope of assistance from either of the two Metrans in India, it seems to have occurred to some of the ‘Reformers’ at some point after 1836, that one solution would be to obtain the services of another bishop who would address their needs. It would never have occurred to them that such a bishop would one day play a crucial role in the story of the MISC.

CHAPTER 12: MATHEWS MAR ATHANASIOS ‘It is almost impossible,’ concluded Neill, ‘on the basis of the available evidence, to form a reliable estimate of the character and work of Mathew Athanasios’1 Given the central position occupied by Mar Athanasios at the heart of the violent factional strife which was to result in a permanent schism by the end of the nineteenth century (and which was to cause yet another schism in the twentieth century) perhaps such an analysis is inevitable. Mathews Mar Athanasios is listed by the Orthodox and Roman Catholics as a legitimate Malankara Metropolitan,2 and hailed by the Mar Thoma Church as one of the great proponents of the reform initiated by the CMS missionaries. Abraham Malpan himself hoped he would lead the reformation, yet was so disappointed in him as apparently to refuse to receive the sacrament from him as he lay dying.3 One CMS missionary, highly critical of his early years, yet also testifies to genuine repentance and to the fact that his latter years were exemplary.4 From a mod1 Neill, History, vol. 2, p.254. No biography of Mathews Mar Athanasios exists in English. The main Malayalam biography is J. Varghese, Mathews Mar Athanasios Metropolitan, 1st ed. Kottayam, V.G. Press, 1920; revised by T.Chandy, Kottayam, Mar Thoma Sabha Publications Board, 1973 (to which references in the present work are made). This seems to be the principal source for the chapter on Mar Athanasios in Kanisserial and Kallumpram, Glimpses. 2 Daniel, Orthodox Church, p.544, Chediath, ‘List’, p.4. Tisserant, Eastern Christianity, p.192. He was also accepted by all parties in the Seminary Case as being validly consecrated and lawful Malankara Metropolitan (though the parties disagree as to the precise dates of his tenure of the latter office) (Judgement/Ormsby, p.10). 3 Richards, Indian Christians, p.38. 4 Richards, Indian Christians, p.28, ff.

413

414

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

ern perspective his practice of celebrating the Qurbana in Syriac when in an ‘unreformed’ parish and in Malayalam when in a ‘reformed’ one, might be seen as attempting to hold both together in a comprehensive unity; at the time he was vilified for duplicity and neither side of the dispute felt totally sure of his commitment to their cause. His much criticized resort to the secular authority to establish his position was no different from the action of others both before and after him. Although not himself a member of the Malabar Independent Syrian Church, nor its Metropolitan, a discussion of the life and activity of Metropolitan Mathews Athanasios is necessary here, for it was during his reign as Metropolitan of the Malankara Church that the independence of the Malabar Independent Syrian Church was legally recognized and it is through him that the MISC derives its episcopal succession from the Syrian Patriarch himself. Furthermore, the Thozhiyur Metropolitans found themselves inevitably caught up in the events of Mar Athanasios’ life. EARLY LIFE AND TROUBLES WITH THE CMS MISSIONARIES

Mathew was born in 1818 at Maramon, one of the children of Palakunnathu Mathan, elder brother of Abraham Malpan. He was educated at the Seminary at Kottayam where he resided with his uncle. At the age of thirteen was ordained kooroyo (reader) by Cheppat Mar Dionysios IV.5 Following the death of his father in 1834 and the Mavelikara Synod he was encouraged by the missionaries, together with a close friend George Mathan, to continue his studies at Bishop Corrie’s Grammer School in Madras (then one month’s journey away from Kerala).6 He was observed there by the Rev. J. Tucker who wrote on 19th July 1837:

Kuruvilla, Mar Thoma Church, p.18. Mathew is almost always referred to as a Deacon prior to his consecration. In fact according to his own account (which was Exhibit H at the Seminary Case) he was only a kooroyo of Maramon Church (Judgement/Ormsby, p.55). It was noted in Chapter 3 that boys in Minor Orders were (and still are) loosely referred to as Deacons in Kerala. 6 Philip states that the two deacons were amongst those excommunicated by Dionysios IV (Indian Church, p.197). 5

MATHEWS MAR ATHANASIOS

415

You will be glad to know that Mathew the deacon commends himself to all who know him by his Christian simplicity, uprightness and diligence. I trust it may please God in due time to make him a faithful and profitable servant to that part of the Church to which he belongs.7

This positive assessment was not shared by all. In later years, when Mathew was being fiercely opposed by many in the Puthenkuttukar community, it was said that he had been expelled from the CMS Preparandi Institution at Madras (to which he had progressed from the Grammar School). The charge usually quoted is that of using ‘cribs’ – cheating in a translation exercise.8 In view of Mathew’s importance to the Malankara Church and to the MISC (as well as to the present day Mar Thoma Church) the incident is worth exploring further. Remarkably, there survive several documents relating to the incident, deriving both from the CMS missionaries and from Mathew himself. In the Mar Thoma Seminary Archives at Kottayam there survive two small handwritten collections of pages, described as Mathew’s ‘Diaries, volumes 1 and 2’. The existence of these has long been known, though their contents do not seem to have been examined before.9 They are in fact not strictly diaries at all. The first, written on blue paper, consists predominantly of Syriac texts and will be discussed below.10 The second does contain some diary entries, but only from 10th April to 5th May 1841.11 This booklet begins, however, with a statement answering the charges made against him at Madras. Two further statements are added to this – one on the left hand page facing what appears to have been Cheriyan, CMS , p.406, Appendix V. For example, Richards, Indian Christians, p.37. Philip quotes examples of CMS missionaries using such phrases as ‘fell into the snare of the devil’ and ‘dismissed by us as unfit for the ministry’ (Indian Church, p.198). 9 K.T.Joy has abstracted from them the dates of Mathew’s ordinations, but does not address the remainder of the text (Mar Thoma Church, p.40f). 10 MTS/A/228. The leaves are folded and stitched into a booklet measuring 17cm x 14cm. 11 MTS/A/229. This, too, is stitched into a small booklet (of paper that was originally white) measuring 20cm x 15.5cm. 7 8

416

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

originally the first page of writing; the other appended to the general defence. All are written in a small, neat hand in fluent English. The text is undated but seems to have been written before Mathew travelled to the Middle East. The CMS sources are contained in a bundle of documents in the CMS archives at the University of Birmingham. These comprise letters between various individuals, including Mathew himself, between about 1838 and 1846.12 To deal with the general defence first, it appears that there were in fact four areas of contention between Mathew and the English staff at the Madras Institution. The first of these (which offers a fascinating if uncomfortable insight into the social conditions of the time) is that, in describing life at the College, Mathew had given the impression that he ate with Europeans. In communicating to Mr Johnson particulars regarding the internal economy and arrangement of the Institute at Madras and in one particular part of the statement regarding where the students take their meals. The impression made in the mind of Mrs S [?] was that I said that we all dined together & the tutors and students both E[nglish] and N[ative] but which I did not [illeg.] intend.13

Part of Mathew’s defence is that there could be no possible advantage in his attempting to give this impression to a European; had he been communicating this to his ‘countrymen’, it would have conveyed ‘the idea to their minds that I was considered a great man and made much of … by being permitted to eat with the Europeans’. The second area of contention concerned an account that Mathew had given of the length of his stay at a certain lady’s house: ‘I had said in a casual conversation in a general way that I was there only four days whereas I arrived on Wednesday evening and left on Monday morning …’14 This is difficult to understand. There is no suggestion of any impropriety.15 The third accusation was that ‘I CMS/ACC 91 02/05. The individual letters are not numbered. MTS/A/229. 14 MTS/A/229. 15 In 1843 Mathews Mar Athanasios told the Bishop of Bombay that he had stayed six days and not four, but the underlying issue remains ob12 13

MATHEWS MAR ATHANASIOS

417

was charged with wilful and deliberate falsehood for denying that I chewed tobacco’. It appears that he had been seen spitting out ‘Bettle’ [betel] before entering a European’s house.16 Finally, The next charge against me which Mr Gray [Grey – the Principal] brought to the notice of the Committee was my bringing up some Latin theme which Mr G insisted I had copied from some book and charged me with it.17

Mathew admitted that he had ‘looked over’ a Latin text, ‘then set it down’ earlier that morning. He complains of ‘unjust conduct towards me’.18 While there is undoubtedly some dissimulation, the impression given is not so much of a dishonest individual, but of an intelligent and selfassured young man who chafed under the regime of his Victorian masters. The comment of the Revd J.H. Pratt that it all seemed ‘very schoolboy like’ is very apt.19 A few years later Mathew himself confessed to the Bishop of Bombay that, being a young man at the time, his ‘pride was up’ by the way he was crossexamined by the Europeans.20 Mathew, however, was not simply concerned about his own situation. His Kottayam ‘Diary’ reveals his deep unhappiness at their treatment of one of his fellow pupils, referred to in the diary only as ‘M’, but described in one place as ‘the Nephew of the Rajah of Cochin’ and named in the CMS corre-

scure CMS/ACC 91 02/05; letter from Pratt to Tucker, dated Bombay 1st April 1843). 16 Peet had seen Mathew’s lips red with the betel. He claimed that he had been given it by some natives and that it was not his custom to chew it (CMS/ACC 91 02/05; letter from Pratt to Tucker, dated Bombay 1st April 1843). 17 MTS/A/229. 18 Several years later Mathew told the Bishop of Bombay that he had memorised the translated text and written down his translation (CMS/ACC 91 02/05; letter from Pratt to Tucker, dated Bombay 1st April 1843). 19 CMS/ACC 91 02/05; letter from Pratt to Tucker, dated Bombay st 1 April 1843. 20 CMS/ACC 91 02/05; letter from Pratt to Tucker, dated Bombay 1st April 1843.

418

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

spondence as Constantine Ramavarma.21 It appears that ‘M’ has been accused of being ‘guilty of a gross and deliberate falsehood’ to Mr G. ‘the principle [sic] of the “Ins”’. ‘M’ was then given money to return home: ‘This was a grievous disappointment to us all’. According to Mathew’s account, this precipitated his decision: It was not my intention so soon to leave the “Ins” but the course of proceedings adopted by the Com[mittee] against M and another student, both of whom I highly esteemed, loved and always considered very exemplary in their conduct and truly devoted in heart to God and his work decided me.22

He complains that his concerns were not placed before the Committee and therefore ‘I was induced to leave in the manner stated which is called “abruptly”…. I had no alternative but to quit without permission as my mind had been made up to do….’23 However the actual severing of the Mathew’s relationship with the Institute came about, it is likely that the parting of the ways was a relief to both parties. Mathew had outgrown the confines of the 21 CMS/ACC 91 02/05; letter from J.H. Grey to Major Browne (Secretary of CMS) dated 14th April 1840. Constantine was the son of Vira Rajah, who had died in 1828. Had been converted to Christ under the Revd Ridsdale’s ministry and baptised (in the face of much opposition from his family) in 1835. Tucker had obtained a place for Constantine at Bishop Corrie’s Grammar School, where he seems to have met Mathew. The friendship went back at least to before 1st January 1838, when a New Year’s Day note from ‘Mathew Marrammah’ to Tucker states that, ‘Constantine and myself are quite well’ (CMS/ACC 91 02/05). From the Grammar School they both graduated to the Institution. Constantine eventually joined the Basel Mission in which he was ordained. He died in 1857 from smallpox contracted from a youth to whom he had ministered (see Hunt, Anglican Church, pp.159-162). 22 MTS/A/229.The Principal discovered from the other students that there had been a long-standing agreement between Constantine and Mathew that if either were ever dismissed, the other would leave the Institute as well (CMS/ACC 91 02/05; letter from J.H. Grey to Major Browne dated 14th April 1840). 23 His appeal to the Committee dated 18th March 1840 was rejected at the meeting of the latter held on 8th April 1840 (CMS/ACC 91 02/05). On 13th April 1840 Constantine Ramavarma wrote to Grey to inform him that he and Mathew were leaving the Institute (CMS/ACC 91 02/05).

MATHEWS MAR ATHANASIOS

419

institution’s structures, and the missionaries saw his independence as insubordination. Once the break had been made, reasonably amicable relations seem to have been restored: I beg to observe that about a fortnight after I left the “Ins” I called on Mr G. who received me in a very kind and affectionate manner – brought a chair himself – told me to sit down – enquired about my welfare as well as what was my intention to do & exhorted me not to attempt to do anything against the CMS to which I said that it was never my intention to do so and hoped that I never would do so or words to that effect.24

Nevertheless, Mathew still felt that the missionaries ‘had means to injure my character and block all my prospects, but my trust is in the Lord who sees my ways and knows all my motives for all that I have done and am proposing’.25 THE JOURNEY TO THE PATRIARCH

Of crucial importance for the present study is the insight that Mathew’s writings give into the motivation for his journey to the Patriarch. Following his defence of the four charges against him, he continues, The fact is my mind was made up after a further course of study to quit the “Ins” and in the first place proceed to my native country to furnish myself with letters from the body of Syrians [illeg.] who are desirous of reformation and from thence to proceed to Antioch for the purpose which is now pretty generally known and which I never studiously endeavoured to keep a secret though I did not think it necessary to proclaim it aloud for everyone to know.26

This is amplified in a paragraph entitled ‘A Statement’ which follows the general account:

MTS/A/229. Mathew acknowledges, ‘I do not pretend to be a perfect man, for what man is there that liveth and sinneth not?’ MTS/A/229. 26 MTS/A/229. 24 25

420

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS For various reasons which I need not enumerate I was not inclined to continue my connection with the CMS. It was not however the individual instigation of my dear Mother and fellow [illeg.] which induced me to make up my mind to serve the Lord, but it was the warm solicitation of a great body of the Syrians who invited me to become a teacher & pastor among them as well as to carry on the work of reformation which is partly begun among them and in order to secure the necessary power to exercise ecclesiastical authority I intend to [..missing..] Patriarch of Antioch and receive ordination, to return from [..missing..] appointment to enable me to carry on the proposed work without, prejudice, difficulty and opposition, all of which I would encounter were I not ordained.27

Noteworthy in the above extracts is Mathew’s commitment to reforming the Syrian Church. Whatever the difficulties in his relations with the CMS, he shared many of their convictions about the need for a cleansing and renewing of the ancient Church. Noteworthy, too, is the conclusion that in order to pursue this goal of reformation he must seek ‘ordination’ from the Patriarch. He seems to accept as matter of course the Indian Church’s relationship with Antioch.28 He also appears to assume – perhaps with the innocence of youth - that the Patriarch will want to assist his mission. Mathew does not state explicitly that he hoped to be consecrated a bishop, but the coyness of his expression (‘the purpose which is now pretty generally known’) shows what his intentions were. Interestingly, there is no indication of Mathew’s decision having been influenced by his uncle. Modern Mar Thoma writers tend to state that it was Abraham Malpan who took the initiative in sending Deacon

MTS/A/229. It may be noted in passing that there was never any thought of seeking consecration from a European bishop. Quite apart from Mathew’s own problems with his English tutors, the gulf between English and ‘natives’ was so great that the idea would simply never have been entertained by the former. It was not until 1945 that an Indian Anglican bishop was consecrated. The candidate was a Syrian, C.K. Jacob (Eapen, CMS, p.24; Brown, Indian Christians, p.299). 27 28

MATHEWS MAR ATHANASIOS

421

Mathew to the Patriarch.29 The signs are that Mathew was intelligent enough and ambitious enough to have reached the obvious conclusion himself. Indeed, Abraham Malpan was later to deny ‘any knowledge of his nephew’s designs’.30 Kanisseril and Kallumpram say that Mathew returned to Kerala to collect funds for his journey and a petition to the Patriarch prior to his departure to West Asia.31 It is not precisely clear what documentary commendations he took with him. The tradition is that he travelled from Madras (to which he must have returned if he had indeed spent some time in Kerala) to Bombay with a detachment of British soldiers who provided him with a horse.32 Given Mathew’s character and fluency in English (and very probably a recommendation from the missionaries) the story seems entirely plausible.33 From Bombay Mathew travelled by boat up into the Persian Gulf. Here his diary offers a glimpse of his doings: April 10th Saturday 1841 This Evening through the mercy of our God after a long voyage of 59 days from Bombay I arrived at an island called Kar29 For example, Alexander Mar Thoma, Heritage and Mission, Tiruvalla, Christava Sahitya Samithi, 2002, p.29: ‘He [Abraham Malpan] decided to send his nephew Deacon Mathew … all the way to Mardin in Syria ….’ Bayly sees the initiative as ‘the Palakunnathus making a bid to seize the metranship for themselves’ (Saints, p.301). She is aware of Mathew’s ‘Diary’ but not of its contents. 30 CMS/ACC 91 02/05; letter from J. Chapman to Tucker, dated Kottayam, March 1843. 31 Glimpses, p.44. The chronology may have allowed time for this. Mathew seems to have left the Madras Institute in April 1840. A year later he was in the Persian Gulf, after two month’s sailing from Bombay, which suggests that he left the latter port in about mid February 1841. That leaves approximately nine months unaccounted for. 32 It seems that Constantine Ramavarma accompanied Mathew as far as Bombay (Hunt, Anglican Church, p.162). 33 Despite having never ridden a horse before, it is said that he became so proficient a rider that in later years, as a bishop, he used to ride around the Churches on horseback. So unusual was this in an era when bishops were usually carried in palanquins, that even the name of his horse – Panchakalyani – has been remembered (I am grateful to Dr K.V. Mathew for this information).

422

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS rack, an English settlement. Here I was received in the kindest manner by my friend Mr Dunlop in whose house I found a kind and friendly welcome during sojourn in the ?interior.34

Mathew goes on to describe an Anglican service that he attended and a local mosque (‘many fabulous stories are told about it’). He also gives evidence of evangelistic zeal: There are five families of Jews whom I, accompanied by Mr Dunlop & a Tamil Christian visited and had a long conversation on religious subjects, but we being ignorant of the Persian language could not properly make them understand all we desired … that their beloved people should be brought to the fold of Jesus.35

From Karrack Mathew, furnished with a letter of recommendation from the British Colonel, proceeded by boat to ‘Bassorah’ [Basra] on 28th April, arriving on 2nd May. (‘The inhabitants are [illeg.] Arabs, Jews, Chaldeans and Armenian Christians.’) At Basra he did some sight-seeing by donkey and was visited by some Armenian priests. He describes ‘the pleasure party in the boats – the chief with his soldiers, women and children with tumtoms accompanying their songs’. The young deacon was clearly enjoying his experiences of a world unknown to his fellow-Syrians in Kerala. Here, unfortunately, Mathew’s diary ends and we do not have his account of his time with the Patriarch. Ministry in Mosul Kanisseril and Kallupram relate a number of anecdotes about the journey which must have come via oral tradition from Mathew himself. They do not, however, mention that before meeting the Patriarch he spent some time at Mosul where he was encountered by an American missionary, Dr. Asahel Grant, who provides independent evidence that Mathew made no attempt to conceal his biblical approach to his faith: August 24th, 1841. 34 35

MTS/A/229. MTS/A/229.

MATHEWS MAR ATHANASIOS

423

I was rejoiced to find on my arrival in this city [Mosul] a Syrian priest named Joseph(?) Mathew from the mission college in Malabar, who, preaching with great fidelity to his brethren of the Jacobite Syrians, directed their attention to a more evangelical view of the Gospel. He appears to be a truly pious man, has good knowledge of the English language and is very intelligent in religious subjects … His course at Mosul is unconstrained; and when we see him under such circumstances spontaneously preaching with fidelity to his brethren of the Jacobite Syrians, and thus directing their attention to an even more evangelical view of the Gospel, we think it clear that he has profited and that largely by the Missionary teaching.36

Grant’s evidence concerning Mathew’s behaviour at Mosul prior to his consecration is corroborated by the Rev. Percy Badger who reported that Mathew had been welcomed by the Jacobites in the town and encouraged to preach. However, it appears that in his discourses he frequently inveighed against the errors of the Papacy, which so infuriated the Romanists that they used all their influence to have him sent out of the town. His claim to British protection saved him from this indignity, and he afterwards repaired to Deir-Zaafaran…37 36 Extract from Grant’s Journal, reproduced in a letter from the Parent Committee of CMS to the Madras Corresponding Committee, quoted in Cheriyan, CMS, p.303. 37 Badger, Rituals, vol.1, p.71. Badger also records that the ‘Jacobites’ persuaded him to celebrate the Eucharist, though he insisted that he was not a validly ordained priest as the bishop was already dead when hands were laid upon him. The assertion that he represented himself as a priest agrees with Patriarch Peter’s accusation (see next note). It is made in the ‘padiyola’or petition to the Patriarch made at the Synod of Mulanthuruthy in 1876 (Kaniamparampil, Syrian Orthodox Church, p.151) and is recorded by E.M. Philip (Indian Church, p.199). The account of the laying on of dead hands suspiciously resembles circumstances concerning the consecration of Mar Thoma VIII. It may be that Mathew’s hosts at Mosul had misunderstood him. A statement made on behalf of Mathews Mar Athanasios in 1871 suggests that Mathew ‘may have told his co-religionists in Mosul the story of a Syrian Metran whose consecration was performed in the above manner in former times’ (CCC, (Dec. 1871), p.477). This seems most

424

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

According to Dr Grant, Mathew preached in Syriac, which he spoke ‘freely’, with the aid of a local self-educated millwright named Micha as his interpreter. There is also evidence from a hostile source concerning Mathew’s stay in Mosul. In 1876 at the Muluanthuruthy Synod in Kerala Patriarch Peter III inveighed against Mathew: He was ordained Metran because he represented he was a priest and because of the distance and as Patriarch Elias believed the false representation made to him by the people who accompanied him from Mosul.38 ENCOUNTER WITH PATRIARCH ELIAS II

At the end of September 1841 Mathew left Mosul39 and arrived at the patriarchal residence at the monastery of Deir-el-Za’faran, about five miles east of the city of Mardin, where he was received by Patriarch Elias II. European travellers speak well of the Patriarch. Badger describes him as ‘a venerable old man of a kindly disposition’.40 Southgate had met Elias in Constantinople in 1838, where the Patriarch was securing his election in the face of opposition from the Roman Catholics, and found him open and cordial: likely. Badger’s evidence clearly shows that Mathew claimed not to be a priest to both missionaries and Jacobites. Philip claims that Mathew pretended to be a priest because the name of ‘Deacon Mathew’ was on a list sent by Dionysios IV to the Patriarch of those whom he had excommunicated (ibid.). This, too, presents problems. The Patriarch knew that Dionysios’ consecration was held as invalid by at least some in Kerala, and therefore probably viewed any act of excommunication by him as a partisan attempt to silence his enemies. Further, if Mar Dionysios was not a validly consecrated bishop, then his acts of excommunication were void. Either way, there were good reasons why Patriarch Elias should not feel himself bound by Mar Dionysios’ decisions. Nor did he. It is hoped to explore this issue further in a subsequent work. 38 Preface to the Proceedings of the Mulanthuruthy Synod, Exhibit FO in documents relating to the Appeal in the High Court of Judicature, Kerala, between Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos Appellant and Thukalan Poulo Avira and others Respondents, Part II. MTS/A/218. 39 Laurie, Dr Grant, p.204. 40 Badger, Rituals, vol. 1, p.60. Patriarch Elias was a former Maphrian (Varghese, ‘Maphrianate’, p.349).

MATHEWS MAR ATHANASIOS

425

In personal appearance, the Patriarch was a venerable man. His long and full beard was white as the driven snow, and his face wore a grave, but not unpleasant, aspect.41

Deir al-Za‛faran had only a handful of monks and had not yet recovered from being occupied and looted by the Kurds just a few years previously.42 Mathew seems to have been received warmly.43 It was not the first contact between India and Deir al-Za‛faran. The Patriarch told Southgate just a few weeks before Mathew arrived that the previous autumn [1840] ‘a messenger had arrived from India with letters from the Malabar Christians, requesting that a Metropolitan might be sent to them to preserve their Episcopal succession’.44 This would appear to confirm the genuineness of quotations contained in the Seminary Case Judgements from what are alleged to be copies of correspondence between the Christians of Kerala and the Patriarch which impugn the validity of the Orders of Mar Philoxenos II and Cheppat Mar Dionysios IV.45 Even so, the signs are that Elias II knew little about the realities of the situation in India. While he was able to give Southgate the number of ‘all the Christians of the Syrian nation to be found in the world’ [12,755 families ‘or about 64,000 souls’], he had no figures concerning the Syrians ‘in the Southern part of Hindostan’ Interestingly,

Narrative of a Tour, vol. 2, p.278-280. For a description of the monastery in July 1841 see Horatio Southgate, Narrative of a Visit to the Syrian [Jacobite] Church of Mesopotamia; with Statements and Reflections upon the present State of Christianity in Turkey, and the Character and Prospects of the Eastern Churches, New York, Dana & Company. 1836 (reprinted Piscataway, Gorgias Press, 2003), pp.194-231. Southgate must have missed Mathew by only a few weeks. 43 This contrasts with the much more cautious welcome which Southgate observed being given to an Ethiopian monk who had arrived at the monastery without any letters of introduction (Narrative, p.199f). Mathew, by contrast, had such letters. He came from a Church which the Patriarch knew was seeking to make contact with him, and he had the support of Syrians in Mosul who had come to know him. 44 Southgate, Narrative of a Visit, p.198. 45 These are the documents examined by the so-called Quilon Committee. See extracts in Judgements/Row-Iyer, para.151-152. 41 42

426

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

the Patriarch was aware that ‘some of the Chaldeans of Mossoul claimed [the Indian Syrians] as belonging to themselves’.46 Neill doubts to what extent the Patriarch was fully aware of ‘the reforming proclivities of his protégé’,47 but the evidence suggests that the Patriarch had ample time to form his own estimate of his visitor.48 Nor is there any sign that Mathew had attempted to conceal his desire for reform at Mosul. Varghese (presumably drawing on traditions of Mathew’s reminiscences) says that the Patriarch was impressed with Mathew’s intelligence and enthusiasm and asked if everyone in India was like him.49 According to the same source, the Patriarch used to take Mathew with him on his travels (the young man no doubt had some curiosity value) and invite him to preach at Qurbanas celebrated by the Patriarch himself. M.C.George adds the homely detail that Mathew transcribed some Malayalam songs into Syriac and taught his hosts to sing them.50 It seems that Mathew’s linguistic skills were also used by some British missionaries who obtained the Patriarch’s permission for him to undertake some translation from English to Arabic for them.51 Certainly there is no indication that the Patriarch’s consecration of Mathew was in any way precipitate. On the contrary, the susthaticon, dated 1 Kumbhom 1842, given by the Patriarch to

Narrative of a Tour, vol. 2, Appendix XIV, pp.313f. Neill, History, vol.2, p.52. 48 It is sometimes stated that Deacon Mathew ‘stayed with the Patriarch for about two years’ (eg Mathew & Thomas, Indian Churches, p.19). While he was out of India for about two years, the time Mathew spent with the Patriarch seems to have been about 7 months. 49 Varghese, Athanasios, p.18. This is entirely in keeping with the sympathetic portrait of Patriarch Elias II painted by Southgate. Interestingly, the good impression that Mathew made on Elias is confirmed in a letter of Patriarch Peter III (text in Yacoub III, Syrian Church in India, p.231). 50 Malpan, p.52; Kanisseril & Kallumpram, Glimpses, p.46-47. Evidence of this interest in song is found in MTS/A/228 which contains a Syriac song in four-line stanzas praising ‘Mathai’ and comparing him to ‘the rubies of India’! 51 Varghese, Malpan, p.20. 46 47

MATHEWS MAR ATHANASIOS

427

Mathew suggests a degree of genuine affection.52 Cheriyan is surely correct in his observation that, of none of the many Metrans whom the Patriarchs have from time to time consecrated for Malabar could it be said that the consecration took place after such a prolonged period of personal acquaintance between the Patriarch and the candidate for consecration.53

Patriarch Elias’ decision to consecrate Mathew must be seen in context. It has already been noted in Chapter 2 that the Syrian Orthodox community in the Ottoman Empire was increasingly aware of its ignorance and its need for renewal through improved education.54 Appeals for assistance in this enterprise had already 52 Almost the entire text is reproduced in English in The Colonial Church Chronicle (May 1872), pp.186-189. It was Exhibit M, lodged among the documents relating to Case No.III of 1061 in the Royal Court of Final Appeal, 1888. Extracts from it are quoted in Judgement/Row-Iyer, para.154). Elias wrote: ‘At his coming our love grew hot, even as the horn of ointment in the hands of Samuel the Prophet before David the King .... When we say him with the eye of our body, our mental vision greatly desired him; and every mouth and every tongue cried out that this was not of men, nor by the hands of men, but of God on high....’ (CCC, (May 1872), p.187. 53 Cheriyan, CMS p.292. Kanisseril & Kallumpram state that Cheppat Mar Dionysios IV wrote to the Patriarch accusing Mathew of wanting to take the Indian Church to Protestantism, but the Patriarch, after discussing the letters with Mathew, dismissed them (Glimpses, p.47f). Given that the only known prior attempts to communicate with Antioch had been by those who claimed to doubt the validity of Mar Dionysios IV’s consecration, it is possible that the Metropolitan may have written to the Patriarch attempting to discredit Mathew. It may be that Mathew gave assurances that Patriarch Peter III was later to interpret as ‘He swore that he would not alter the faith of the ancient Syrians’ (Preface to the Proceedings of the Mulanthuruthy Synod, Exhibit FO in documents relating to the Appeal in the High Court of Judicature, Kerala, between Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos Appellant and Thukalan Poulo Avira and others Respondents, Part II. MTS/A/218). 54 Whilst in Constantinople in 1838 Patriarch Elias had become so convinced of the need for schools that, on his journey back to Deir el Za’faran, he had founded schools in all of the Syrian villages through

428

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

been made to the Church of England. To the Patriarch, Mathew must have appeared as a product of the very kind of system that he hoped to see introduced in the Ottoman Empire – a young man capable of high office, who had been trained in an institution funded and partly staffed by the Church of England. According to Mathew himself Patriarch Elias ‘wishe[d] reformation in the Church, but he has none to co-operate with him in this arduous work’.55 Importantly, he was competent in West Syriac language and liturgy – here usage favoured by his uncle and taught in the Seminary stood him in good stead.56 There was no doubt the added advantage that Mathew, once consecrated, would be likely to enjoy the favour of the British colonial authorities, which would almost certainly enhance the status of the Syrian Orthodox in India. Undeniably, too, Mathew’s arrival provided a means of contact with ‘the rich Jacobite communities of southern India’.57 The Syrian Orthodox in the Ottoman Empire were an impoverished community, forced to pay the exactions of their Turkish masters. It would have seemed only reasonable that the Syrians in more prosperous circumstances in India should assist the Mother Church. A further important consideration was probably the fact that Mathew was anti-Roman in conviction. As noted in Chapter 2, the Syrian Orthodox community in the Middle East by this time had a permawhich he passed (Southgate, Narrative of a Visit, p.202). This concern of the Patriarch’s even found its way into Mathew’s susthaticon: the new Metropolitan is explicitly commanded to found schools and to ‘raise up the great school, the Seminary of Cottyam...’ (CCC, (May 1872), p.187). 55 Letter to George Mathan, from Bombay, 11 March 1843, MTS/A/226. ‘Our Patriarch is a very old man of about 90 years of age and is well disposed towards a reformation in the Syrian Church’ (CMS/ACC 91 02/05; letter from Athanasios Malabar to Tucker, dated Bombay 14th March 1843). 56 Kanisseril and Kallumpram record Mathew helping to officiate at evening prayers in the chapel at Deir al-Za‛faran on the day of his arrival there, and of the Patriarch being favourably impressed with his ‘melodious voice, good accent in Syriac, and the correct rhyme in chanting’ (Glimpses, p.46). The scene is evocative of the way that Mar Ivanios al-Arqugianyi had been impressed by the Syriac singing of the Kattumangattu brothers nearly a century earlier. 57 Bayly, Saints, p.302.

MATHEWS MAR ATHANASIOS

429

nent rival in the form of the Syrian Catholic Church which was about to be granted milet status. Defections from the Orthodox community were a serious and persistent problem. The Patriarch would have known about the frequently aggressive attitude of the Roman Catholic Church in India towards those whom he saw as his people. At Mosul Mathew had demonstrated his willingness to stand up to Roman claims. This must have added to his attractiveness as a candidate for episcopal office. Mathew’s arrival at Mardin must therefore have seemed providential to the Patriarch, as the wording of the susthaticon reveals: Our loving and beloved children! … In the letters sent by you, you have said in complaint, ‘that we have no shepherd, nor priesthood, nor baptism, nor ruler’ and used several of the expressions of the kind. … We strove to send one to you so that a true shepherd may come and see you, and a ruler possessing knowledge for the spiritual protection of our trusted people of Malayalam…. While we were labouring with all these thoughts as to who should be sent to Malayalam, here came our dear son Kassisa Matthai from you in peace. On seeing him we were much pleased with him, and said that, as one had come from among them, it is best above all that he should be the father and ruler of them....[E]very mouth and every tongue cried out that this was not of men, nor by the hands of men, but of God on high.... So first we ordained him as deacon, thereafter as kassisa, subsequently as ramban and afterwards as metropolitan. … Furthermore we lovingly make known unto you, O our children, that we have sent through our son Mathews Metropolitan Holy Morone for the use of your children …58

Further insight into the Patriarch’s motivation is found in a copy of a letter in Syriac from Elias II to the British Governor in Bengal, the text of which is found in one of the MS ‘booklets’ in the Mar Thoma Seminary archives. The Patriarch writes: 58 CCC (May 1872), pp.186-187. It looks as though Mathew was the first Indian cleric to visit the Patriarch. The ‘messenger’ who had brought the letters in 1840 presumably was a layman.

430

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS May it be known to you, O honoured Governor, that this letter is to commend our beloved son, Metropolitan Athanasios who is Mathai, to Your Excellency. When he was sent to us from our Syrian people of Malabar they requested of us that we should consecrate him Metropolitan of the Throne of Malabar, and they wrote to us that there was among them confusion and strife because of the lack of a Metropolitan who had an apostolic laying on of hands, and we then consecrated him according to their request… 59

Ironically, it is likely that both ‘conservatives’ (ie pro-Antioch traditionalists) and ‘liberals’ (ie supporters of reform) were petitioning the Patriarch. Clearly, it was not merely those whose representations Mathew took to Deir al-Za‛faran who wanted the Patriarch to believe that the apostolic succession in Malabar had failed.60 For example, the letter sent by Philipos kathanar – a strong opponent of Mathew - mentioned above, complains that the Syrians are ‘like sheep without a shepherd’ – and may have inspired the wording of the susthaticon. The Patriarch would have known of the violent repudiation of the Thozhiyur succession by Mar Athanasios Abdul Messih, the last Antiochene prelate to visit Kerala. He had also received some at least of the hostile sources cited by Barsoum and Yacoub III and detailed in Chapter 7. Mathew’s own account to the Patriarch was presumably along the lines set out in the Palakunnathu MTS/A/228, p.1. There is no way of assessing whether these views were simply those of relatively small numbers of people, motivated by perhaps contradictory perceptions, or reflected the position of most of the Puthenkuttukar. The relative stability of the community suggests that there was in fact no wide-scale dissatisfaction with the status of the indigenous Metrans. Even Mar Dionysios V seems to have accepted that Dionysios II, III and IV ‘were all accepted by the people as true Metrans’ (Judgement/Orsmby, p.47). By the Court cases of the 1880s the Reformers (claiming to be the spiritual heirs of Mathews Mar Athanasios) had forgotten Abraham Malpan’s antipathy to this succession and appealed to it as evidence that Indian Metropolitans could nominate and ordain their successors without reference to the Patriarch (Judgements/Row-Iyer, 27). Similarly, the Malankara Orthodox Church now accepts the validity of Mar Philoxenos and those ordained by him (David Daniel, Orthodox Church, p.146). 59 60

MATHEWS MAR ATHANASIOS

431

Notes. All these can only have reinforced the Patriarch’s fears that there was indeed no validly consecrated bishop in Kerala. For different reasons, various parties within the Puthenkuttukar wanted the Patriarch to send a bishop. That could only be achieved by disparaging the Thozhiyur succession. Moreover, while the Patriarch’s letter to the Governor reveals that Mathew did indeed take with him some recommendation, this is not mentioned in the susthaticon. In consecrating Mathew, Elias II was responding, not simply to whatever documents Mathew delivered to him, but to all the representations that he had been receiving.61 If the accusation is made that Mathew did not have the support of the whole of the Puthenkuttukar, then it has to be acknowledged that the same was to be true of Mar Dionysios V Pulikottil who was consecrated in 1864, and of other bishops who 61 Henry Baker reported to the Bishop of Madras that Mathew went to the Patriarch with ‘credentials from twenty-eight churches of Travancore’ (Letter dated 31st December 1869 reproduced in CCC (Nov. 1870), pp.436-439). In a later letter he stated that Mathew was consecrated ‘on the recommendation of the Maramana party to the south’ (CCC, (Oct. 1871), p.392). A letter written on Mar Athanasios’ behalf in 1871 says that, following Maramon’s lead, ‘an application opportunely went round asking all the churches for letters to the Patriarch, recommending Mar Athanasios to be consecrated (CCC, (Dec. 1871), p.474). The mention of Maramon suggests that this was indeed a southern initiative. Yacoub III reports that in the Patriarchal Library was a letter commending Mathew, ‘dated March 30, 1840 signed by forged names of ten priests and nine psalter deacons of Malabar’ (Yacoub III, Syrian Church in India, p.179). Given that the Puthenkuttukar community at this time numbered over one hundred Churches and had perhaps three times that many priests, neither figure suggests that Mathew claimed to have the support of the whole community. On the contrary, the meagre number of signatories on the document seen by Yacoub III suggests that it is genuine. Anyone attempting to forge a document intended to convince the Patriarch that the bearer was supported by the majority of the Syrians in India would produce something more convincing than fewer than twenty signatures, nearly half of them of the lowest rank of Minor Orders, and hence likely to be only boys. Mr Justice Ormsby concluded (having reviewed the Quilon Committee’s examination of the evidence) that ‘there is no proof in this case that any false statements were made’ [ie in relation to Mathew] (Judgement/Orsmby, p.56).

432

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

have been consecrated without a ‘popular mandate’ since then. In terms of education, community support (as we shall see, Mathew in fact had substantial support among the Southern Churches), natural leadership ability, and devotion to the West Syrian tradition, Deacon Mathew was perhaps the most able candidate of his generation for the position of Malankara Metropolitan. To remove any possible cause for doubt over the new bishop’s Orders, Patriarch Elias II ordained him to all of them. In addition to the Patriarch’s own account noted above, Mathew’s ‘diary’ gives the following dates: In the year of Our Lord 1842, January 3rd, in the monastery of Za’afaran under the throne of the Patriarch, ordained by the hand of the Patriarch as deacon.62 The following day (Sunday) was ordained qasheesha.

There then follows: 5th January 1842 Metran Abdul Noor died and was buried in the monastery.63

On Tuesday 15th January 1842, ‘on the Feast of the Exaltation of the Grains and St Mary’, Mathew was made a Ramban. On Sunday 2nd February 1842, was ordained bishop of Malabar by the hand of the Patriarch before a large assembly of Bishops, priests, deacons and people.64

62 Kanisseril and Kallumpram state that Mathew was ordained as a Semmasan (‘deacon’ – see Chapter 3) ‘to avoid any doubt’ soon after his arrival at the monastery and only ordained him priest after several months of acquaintance and instruction (Glimpses, p.46). At first sight this appears to contradict the entry in the ‘diary’ that he was ordained deacon the day prior to being ordained a priest. It is quite likely, however, that the Patriarch on Mathew’s arrival merely admitted him to a minor Order to regularise his entry into the madbaha and his participation in worship. As noted in Chapter 3, the term ‘Semmasan’ can be used to include the minor Orders. 63 This may have been ‘Abd al-Nur of Arbo who is listed as a master of West Syriac calligraphy by Barsoum, who gives his date of death as 1841 (Scattered Pearls, p.22).

MATHEWS MAR ATHANASIOS

433

It was the first time that an Indian had ever received consecration directly at the hands of a Patriarch. Mathew received the episcopal name Mar Athanasios. The choice of this name may be due to the fact that the consecration took place near Mardin. The tradition of associating certain names with particular Sees, has already been described. Athanasios was the name associated with Mardin.65 The new bishop was provided with muron, ‘consecrated book, staff, cross and the dress called kappa’.66 The jurisdiction granted is explicitly that of Metropolitan of the throne of Malabar.67 The Patriarch had solved the problem of the alleged irregularity of Mar Dionysios IV’s consecration by providing an indisputably valid Metropolitan for the Puthenkuttukar. Acting Bishop of Mosul Mar Athanasios did not immediately return to India.68 By June 1842 he was in Mosul, as the date on a copy of a Syriac letter writMTS/A/228. The words in italic are in Malayalam; the remainder are in English. Daniel accepts 2 February as the date (Orthodox Church, p.163). This date is repeated in a list on a separate page of MTS/A/228. The fact that Mathew was ordained through all the ecclesiastical Orders of deacon, priest, ramban and bishop is confirmed by Pratt’s comment on the text of the susthaticon which he helped to translate (CMS/ACC 91 02/05; letter of Pratt to Tucker, dated Bombay 16th March 1843). The susthaticon bears the attestation of ‘Cyril Metropolitan, who am Matthaeus’ and ‘Cyrillus Bishop, whom am Malcho’ as co-consecrating bishops who ‘with all the Fathers ... called out three times, Axios, Axios, Axios, our exalted Father Mar Athanasios’ (CCC (May 1872), p.188f. 65 Atiyah, Eastern Christianity, p.221, Parry, Six Months, p.321f. 66 Royal Court of Final Appeal I, Trivandrum, Keralodayam Press, 1890, p.271 (quoted in Visvanathan, Yakoba, p.30). Note that the list does not include a mitre. These are not worn by the Syrian Orthodox, but are an essential part of the dress of a Malankara Metropolitan. 67 The relevant section of the susthaticon reads: ‘He is worthy and he is just, the shepherd and arch-priest, the honoured Father Mar Athanasius, to wit, the Metropolitan Matthaeus, for the throne of Malabar’ (CCC (May 1872), p.187). 68 The news that had reached Kerala was that the new bishop was to have begun his journey to India on 13th February – just ten days after his consecration (CMS/ACC 91 02/05; letter from Peet to Tucker, dated 21st June 1842). 64

434

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

ten to him there from Rabban Behanan of Deir al-Za‛faran monastery shows.69 The city had just been through a period of anarchy, culminating in the overthrow by the Ottoman authorities of the local Pasha. There was a Syrian Catholic bishop, Mutran Isai, who had been Syrian Orthodox, but had made his submission to Rome and on arriving in Mosul had engaged in vigorous proselytism. Violence had reached such proportions that the Sultan had ordered walls to be built down the middle of the Syrian Churches, so that the Orthodox could worship on one side and the Catholics on the other.70 It may be that Patriarch Elias hoped that the new bishop’s energy and eloquence would stop the haemorrhage of his people to Rome, especially as he had made a favourable impression there a few months previously. Certainly, it is further evidence of the Patriarch’s confidence in Mathews Mar Athanasios.71 In a letter dated 11 March 1843 (and now preserved in the archives at the Mar Thoma Seminary at Kottayam) written from Bombay to his friend the Reverend George Mathan, Mar Athanasios writes of his time in Mosul where the Syrian Christians were pressed by the Muslims on one side and the Roman Catholics on the other.72 In a letter to Tucker he describes how he preached twice every Sunday to crowded congregations, but that the ‘Papists’ threw stones and spat at him.73 Badger met Mathews Mar Athanasios personally in No69 MTS/A/228. Grant records that Mathew returned to Mosul ‘as Mutran Athanasius’ in the spring of 1842, and that his ministry there was needed both by the missionaries and by the Syrians (Laurie, Dr Grant and the Mountain Nestorians, pp.214-216). 70 See Southgate’s description of Mosul in February 1838. (Narrative of a Tour, vol. 2, 236-257, 274-275). On the Catholic side of the dividing walls there were ‘wax images imported from Rome’ (Laurie, Dr Grant, p.203). 71 Southgate records that both West and East Syrians in Mosul spoke almost the same form of Syriac, with a ‘Chaldean’ (ie East Syrian) pronunciation (Narrative of a Tour, vol. 2, p.243). It is likely that Mathew was familiar with this (as it was of course the pronunciation of the majority of St Thomas Christians in Kerala), which may have been a further reason for his appointment here. 72 MTS/A/226. 73 CMS/ACC 91 02/05; letter from Athanasios Malabar to Tucker, dated Bombay 14th March 1843.

MATHEWS MAR ATHANASIOS

435

vember 1842 at Mosul. He judged him ‘a man of much intelligence, fluent in English and open about his intention to reform the Church in India.74 No communication about Mathews Mar Athanasios’ temporary appointment to Mosul had reached his uncle, Abraham Malpan, waiting anxiously back at Maramon. The Mar Thoma Seminary archives contain a transcript copy (in Malayalam) of the letter sent by the Malpan to his nephew when, after nearly a year’s silence, he eventually heard from him.75 The Malpan had clearly been frantic with worry and had been making strenuous efforts to obtain news of his nephew. His alarm has been increased by the fact that accounts by two of the American missionaries in the Middle East, Asahel Grant and Horatio Southgate, make no mention of having encountered Mathew in their travels.76 On finally receiving a letter, the Malpan’s first emotion is of gratitude to the Patriarch: Unable as we are to repay the Right Reverend Patriarch for his kindness through the grace of our Father in heaven, we pray that God will keep him with grace for long years in this world for the benefit of his Church, and give him eternal joy and blessing in the world to come. Glory and honour for ever be to

74 Badger, Rituals, vol. 1, p.71. Badger did not approve of Mathew’s being on ‘intimate terms with the … American Independent missionaries resident at Mosul, and constantly joining in their religious services’ (ibid.). Mar Athanasios described ‘the American missionaries [as] doing much good amongst the independent Nestorians of Kurdistan’ (CMS/ACC 91 02/05; letter from Athanasios Malabar to Tucker, dated Bombay 14th March 1843). Grant refers to an arrangement whereby Mar Athanasios would also assist their mission (Letter dated 30th May 1842, reproduced in The Missionary Herald, vol. XXXVIII, no.2 (Nov. 1842), p.460). 75 MTS/A/225. Donated to the Seminary by Professor Titus Varghese of Mallapally. I am grateful to Pulikottil Thambi Master for translating it for me. The final page of the letter is missing and there is no date on the remaining sections. 76 It is not clear what information from these two Americans the Malpan had seen, though the circulation of extracts from missionaries’ journals was common practice at the time, and some of the CMS missionaries might have shared with the Malpan material that they were receiving.

436

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS the holy name of God the Father, the author of all goodness, for the favours given to us, his unworthy servants.77

However, the purpose of Mar Athanasios’ consecration was, in Abraham Malpan’s mind, the benefit of the Church in India, and not that in Mosul. He therefore chides his nephew: Though it is profitable and good that Christ is preached to our brethren in those places such as Mosul, we are especially accountable for the flock of God that is entrusted under us, and we alone and no one else will be held accountable if at least one among them is lost. It is felt that the clergy and bishops there have better education and devotion to God than the people and bishops here.

Finally, the Malpan presents personal reasons why his nephew should return home without delay: Diarrhoea has been troubling me for some time, and treatments have not brought much comfort, and so I am not even able to be at Church regularly. It is felt that the lack of teachers has badly affected our people’s passion for the way of our loving Lord…. My illness is not subsiding; it is because of the mental pain caused by your delay in returning, say the physicians and others. If this is my situation, you can understand how much sorrow there will be for people like your kind mother, aunt, sisters, brothers and nephews. Further delay in your return will cause sorrow, which can worsen my situation [illeg] and I who am to comfort them am myself taken ill because of an aching heart. THE RETURN TO INDIA

No doubt moved by his uncle’s entreaties, Mar Athanasios left Mosul in early December 184278 and returned to India, arriving at Bombay in March 1843, where his coming was greeted in the Bombay Times.79 In Bombay he met the Revd J.H. Pratt, who spent four MTS/A/225. Laurie, Dr Grant and the Mountain Nestorians, p.281. 79 A transcript of a cutting is preserved in CMS/ACC 91 02/05: ‘We hail with pleasure the arrival of this pious and highly educated person …’ 77 78

MATHEWS MAR ATHANASIOS

437

hours helping him to translate his susthaticon into English,80 and the Bishop of Bombay, to whom he found himself having to explain the four reasons for which he had been dismissed from the Madras Institute.81 The Bishop of Bombay found him ‘most satisfactory’ and informed Tucker that He has sat within the Communion rails of the Cathedral and has received the Lord’s Supper with us twice – and has been treated in every respect as a Bishop.82

In general, though, the Bombay clergy were cautious in their assessment: Mar Athanasios was accompanied, as befitted his rank, by ‘a boy whom I brought from Mosul’. Later in the year the unfortunate youth was attacked by drunken opponents of Mar Athanasios at Kandanat (CMS/ACC 91 02/05; letter of Athanasios Malabar, dated Mavelikara 22nd September 1843). 80 CMS/ACC 91 02/05; letter from Pratt to Tucker, dated Bombay 16th March 1843. 81 CMS/ACC 91 02/05; letter from Pratt to Tucker, dated Bombay 1st April 1843. 82 CMS/ACC 91 02/05; letter from Bishop of Bombay to Tucker, dated Bombay 11th March 1843. Mar Athanasios himself wrote a conciliatory letter to Tucker a few weeks later: ‘I therefore have no desire to hide or palliate the sins which I am actually guilty of. I am quite aware that my episcopal garments will not cover my sins ….’ (CMS/ACC 91 02/05; letter from Athansios Malabar to Tucker, dated Bombay 4th April 1843). In his reply Tucker thanked Mar Athanasios for his confession as a result of which ‘I feel that I am not any longer precluded from having intercourse with you’ (CMS/ACC 91 02/05; letter from Tucker to Mar Athanasios, dated Madras 15th April 1843). Mar Athanasios was also well enough informed about Church of England politics to reassure Tucker that he stood with the Evangelicals and not with the emerging Tractarians. Writing of his time in Mosul, he stated: ‘I am sure you will feel exceeding sorrow that a legate from the Church of England is sent to us who proves himself to be a first rate disciple of Dr Peusy [sic.’Pusey’ is meant] … The Papists like him very much and speak very highly of him’ (CMS/ACC 91 02/05; letter from Athanasios Malabar to Tucker, dated Bombay 14th March 1843). This could be Badger, whom Mar Athanasios had ‘sharply rebuked … for telling the Jacobites that the Syriac Bibles of the British and Foreign Bible Society were deficient because they did not contain the Apocrypha’ (Laurie, Dr Grant, p.281).

438

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS My impression is that he is aware of what was wrong [in his dealings at the Institute] and that he is sorry for it…. But I cannot but confess that while I think him sincere and that he is a converted man, yet there is much of the native about him still.83

From Bombay Mathews Mar Athanasios travelled to Kerala, arriving in May 1843. He landed at Cochin and proceeded to Mattancherry Church. Abraham Malpan had sent a deputation to meet him and to request him to celebrate his first Qurbana in India at Maramon according to his uncle’s revised rite. However, by the time the messengers reached him, Mar Athanasios had already celebrated the unreformed rite in Syriac.84 The incident marked the beginning of a rift between uncle and nephew. There were of course already two Indian Syrian bishops in Kerala – Cheppat Mar Dionysios IV and the Metropolitan whom he had consecrated for Thozhiyur, Mar Koorilose III. His relationship with them would be crucial. The Syriac texts in Mathew’s hand suggest what he had in mind on returning to India. Among the Orders of Service, the first which Mar Athanasios has transcribed is a ‘Taksa concerning the Enthronement of a Patriarch, bishop or metropolitan when he enters into his diocese’.85 This contains the repeated refrain, ‘Come in peace’ and draws parallels with King David who overcame all his enemies. The new bishop is to be seated in his throne while another bishop or malpan reads his susthaticon. The Indian Church had not witnessed Mathew’s consecration; it looks as though he was contemplating an impressive service on his arrival to make visible his new status as Malankara Metropolitan.86 CMS/ACC/91/02/05. George, Malpan, p.57. Mar Athanasios had of course been celebrating the Syriac Qurbana for over a year in the Middle East. 85 MTS/A/228 86 In Mar Athanasios’ susthaticon Patriarch Elias had bidden the Indian Christians to go out and meet their true shepherd, bearing boughs and palms, and with mouths full of praise and thanksgiving (CCC (May 1872), p.187). Interestingly, the Bishops of Verapoly also had an ‘inauguration’ ceremony, perhaps on account of their usually being consecrated in Europe. All the congregations of the Diocese were summoned to 83 84

MATHEWS MAR ATHANASIOS

439

As well as planning for an ecclesiastical inauguration of his ministry, Mathews Mar Athanasios had convinced the Patriarch that the support of the secular arm would also be necessary. The Patriarch’s request to the British Governor in Bengal has been noted above. The same letter requests the Governor: of your Christian love that you should send a firman to the King of Travancore and another to the King of Cochin that they might confirm him over his diocese and that they might command all the Syrians of Malabar, the priests, deacons and people, that they should be obedient to his commandments in relation to Church matters.87

The Enthronement taksa and the appeal to the British and Indian rulers suggest that Mathews Mar Athanasios was highly unlikely to adopt a low-key approach to his episcopal ministry in India. MAR ATHANASIOS AND MAR DIONYSIOS IV – EARLY CONTACTS

The precise course of events following Mar Athanasios’ arrival in Kerala can be pieced together from the correspondence in the CMS archives. Among other things, it reveals something of the activities of Mar Koorilose III of Thozhiyur during this period. Much of what transpired seems to have been a product of the division of the Puthenkur Churches into the two groupings – of North and South – that has already been identified. It seems that in May 1843 (ie shortly after Mar Athanasios’ return to Kerala), Verapoly where the new bishop’s ‘Letters Patent’ (the equivalent of a Syriac susthaticon) were read out (IOR/F/616, p.80). It may be that Mathews Mar Athanasios was aware of this way of publicly introducing a bishop consecrated overseas to his Indian flock. The custom is still followed today: the Syrian Orthodox (Jacobite) Catholicos, Mar Basilios Thomas I, having been consecrated by the Patriarch in Damascus, had a Sunthroniso Koodoso at Kothamangalam on 31st July 2002 – ‘by this Koodoso the consecration of the Catholicos by the Patriarch was officially recognised by the Malankara Church’ (Glastonbury Review, 106 (July 2002), p.139). 87 MTS/A/228, p.1.

440

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS Konatta Malpan with some of the people belonging to the Churches of the North went to him, saw the susthaticon, and saluted him by kissing his hands, showed him a written document containing the particulars of the Cattumangat Metrans, and gave a copy of it to him.88

It will be recalled that the Konat family were long-standing opponents of the Thozhiyur bishops, having sought to exclude them from the Metropolitanate in the days of Mar Philoxenos II and at the time of the visit of Mar Athanasios Abdul Messih. The document given to Mathews Mar Athanasios was presumably a further attempt to discredit Mar Dionysios IV and Mar Koorilose III, thus encouraging the young bishop to seek total control of the Puthenkuttukar for himself.89 Shortly after this Mar Athanasios met with Cheppat Mar Dionysios IV. This meeting seems to have been brokered by Abraham Malpan himself who ‘went to the old Metran to ask him to write to the Churches to acknowledge Athanasios because of the Patriarch’s authority – and that they should live together on friendly terms’. Mar Dionysios IV’s reply had apparently been, ‘Yes, he should come and live with me and we ought not to be separated. He ought to reside with me as my Nephew and successor’.90 Had it been possible for Mar Athanasios to act as assistant to the elderly Dionysios in this way, it is quite likely that he would have succeeded him on his death. In reality, the personalities and ambitions of the two men 88 The source of this information is a remarkable document executed at the Ammeum Church at Callumcatta on 3rd September 1843 by Mar Athanasios and representatives of a number of Churches (which will be discussed below) – CMS/ACC 91 02/05; letter from Bailey to Tucker dated Kottayam 28th October 1843, containing an English translation of the Callumcatta document. 89 This visit is confirmed by Bailey: ‘The Northern Malpan [Konat] passed through Cottayam last week on his way to Mar Athanasios. He called on me and from the conversation I had with him he appears inclined to take Mar Athanasios’ part against the old Metran whom he wishes to place on the shelf’ (CMS/ACC 91 02/05; letter from Bailey to Tucker, dated Kottayam 27th May 1843). 90 CMS/ACC 91 02/05; letter from Peet to Tucker dated 12th June 1843.

MATHEWS MAR ATHANASIOS

441

and the intrigues of their respective supporters made it highly unlikely that such an arrangement would succeed. For his part, Mar Dionysios ‘it is said, intends to try to tie Mar Athanasios down very tightly and if the latter submit the former will be disposed to take him by the hand’.91 Mar Athanasios, by contrast, told Peet that ‘he would consent to join with the old Metran upon the condition that the old man would go into honourable retirement, or, to use his own words, that he should go about and rule the Churches in the old Metran’s name and the old Gentleman to sit quiet’.92 An amicable working relationship was never going to be realistically possible. The meeting between the two bishops took place at Niranam, with Konat Malpan present. They agreed that Mar Athanasios’ susthaticon would be read at Kandanat on 30th August ‘and then [to] take into consideration what should be done afterwards’.93 At this meeting Mar Dionysios is said to have given Mar Athanasios ‘the officiating vestments’ and ‘the people of the above Church [Niranam] put a ring on his hand according to custom’.94 91 CMS/ACC 91 02/05; letter from Bailey to Tucker, dated Kottayam 27th May 1843. 92 CMS/ACC 91 02/05; letter from Peet to Tucker, dated Mavalikara th 11 November 1843. No doubt, too, Mar Athanasios, who was still only 25, saw himself carrying all the authority of the Patriarchal court, which, of course, virtually no-one else in Kerala had ever visited. He is said in later life to have regretted the decision not to act as Mar Dionysios’s assistant (George, Malpan, p.58). Kanisseril & Kallupram state that Mar Athanasios’ rift with Mar Dionysios IV was in fact occasioned by ‘some crafty clergymen’ (Glimpses, p.52). 93 CMS/ACC 91 02/05; Callumcatta document accompanying the letter from Bailey to Tucker dated Kottayam 28th October 1843. The agreement to hold a subsequent meeting is confirmed by Baker: ‘The two Metrans have agreed a meeting, I believe, but they are very jealous of each other; and our young friend finds his way not quite so easy as he expected’ (CMS/ACC 91 02/05; letter from Baker to Tucker, dated Kottayam 23rd June 1843). 94 CMS/ACC 91 02/05; Callumcatta document accompanying the letter from Bailey to Tucker dated Kottayam 28th October 1843. The giving of the vestments is confirmed by the documents given in evidence in the Seminary Case: ‘some of the episcopal garments of the former Metropolitans appointed by the Patriarch’ (Judgement/Row-Iyer, para.158). The

442

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

THE KANDANAT ASSEMBLY OF 30TH AUGUST 184395

The choice of Kandanat for this potentially crucial meeting itself deserves comment. It was, it will be recalled, the place where Maphrian Shukr Allah Mar Basilios had lived and was buried, and where Anquetil du Perron had visited him in 1758. It lay near Cochin, and was therefore very much within the northern cluster of Churches. Inasmuch as Mar Athanasios was from the southern Churches, Kandanat was potentially ‘enemy territory’.96 According to information received by the missionaries, there were attempts to ‘rig’ the outcome of the assembly even before it met: The old Metran wrote public letters to the chief people to assemble at Candanade and private ones to forbid them – the result was, that, with few exceptions, none but the Scum were present, Philippos, etc ….97

Among those invited by Mar Dionysios IV were Konat Malpan and ‘the Junior Metran’, who must be Mar Koorilose III of Thozhiyur.98 The former is said to have attacked Mar Athanasios publicly, warning the Syrians that the new bishop had come to subvert their religion. If this is correct, then something must have happened to cause Konat Malpan to change sides and now oppose the Metropolitan whom a few months before he had been disposed to support. It is not clear from the surviving documentation what reference to the ring is particularly interesting. The event took place in Travancore, so the custom is presumably not that of the gift of the Rajah of Cochin’s discussed above. Nevertheless, it reinforces the symbolic importance of the possession of particular items of regalia. 95 This is the date given in the Callumcatta document and the letter of Mar Athanasios to Major Cullen quoted in Judgement/Row-Iyer, para.158. A letter of Mar Athanasios dated 22nd September 1843 inexplicably gives the date as ‘12th Instant’ (CMS/ACC 91 02/05). This can not be correct, for the Callumcatta meeting had taken place before this date. 96 This was doubly the case, as the influence of the CMS missionaries had not penetrated the northern Churches (Cheriyan, CMS, p.328). 97 CMS/ACC 91 02/05; letter Peet to Tucker, dated Mavelikara 11th November 1843. 98 CMS/ACC 91 02/05; letter of Athanasios Malabar, dated Mavelikara 22nd September 1843.

MATHEWS MAR ATHANASIOS

443

this might have been. It is not stated that Mar Koorilose III joined the public attacks on Mar Athanasios, but at Kandanat he was party to an attempt to commit the latter to unreformed ways: The old Metran and the little Metran from the North, with the Northern Malpan [Konat] and Phillippos had drawn up a paper cursing the English, etc, and declaring this, no ancient custom should be changed, this they said if he [Athanasios] signed that they would at once receive him; this he refused to do and was rejected, this I think says much in his favour.99

It is difficult to know how willing a participant Mar Koorilose III was in this. The meekness admired by Doran when he visited Thozhiyur suggests that he was not a forceful character. Tucker’s description of him as ‘a cypher’ reinforces this impression.100 Thus the Kandanat assembly did not turn out to be the triumphant vindication that Mar Athanasios must have hoped for, but degenerated into a riot (inflamed by some drunken individuals) and a walk out. According to his own account: Some of the Northern Churches desired to hear my staticon read but I was afraid that Dionysios would [illeg. ?seize] and tear it, so I thought it proper not to tempt the Lord my God. When I came out of the Church to go to the South, all the people of the Southern Churches came with me and we all de-

CMS/ACC 91 02/05; letter of J. Johnson to Tucker, dated 18th September 1843. Mar Athanasios’ version of this was that if he would ‘write a document stating that I will walk in all the superstitions that exist now in the Syrian Church they would read my staticon, and acknowledge me, but I sent them word that I could not do it and that I would not compromise the truth’ (CMS/ACC 91 02/05; letter of Athanasios Malabar, dated Mavelikara 22nd September 1843). Mar Athanasios also states that, whereas on entering a Church a bishop will normally offer prayer to the Virgin and at sepulchres, he merely blesses the people in the vernacular. 100 CMS/ACC 91 02/05; letter of Tucker to Pratt, dated Madras 24th March 1843. 99

444

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS parted together, not one of them remained – Thus you see that I have all the Southern Churches.101

THE CALLUMCATTA ASSEMBLY OF 3RD SEPTEMBER 1843

Not to be deterred, Mathews Mar Athanasios and representatives from 23 Churches met in the Ammeum Church at Callucatta (Kallungathara, near Kottayam) and drew up a Statement.102 This shows a great deal of respect to the Patriarch of Antioch and is critical of the Thozhiyur succession, though no specific reason is given for this attitude. After reciting something of the history of the Puthenkuttukar up to the time of the death of Mar Thoma VIII, it continues: After that time, there being no fit person in that family, and Fathers not coming from Antioch to this country, Pulicat Joseph Ramban who built the College at Cottayam obtained consecration by the title of Dionysios Metropolitan from Kindungat Philoxenos a Metropolitan belonging to the sect of Cattumangat Metrans whom the above Dionysios [I] Metropolitan and the people of the Churches had unitedly deposed from the See of Malabar.

The Statement then goes on to blame Mar Philoxenos II and Dionysios IV (whom it calls Angelamathil Dionysios of Cheppat Church) for the deportation of Mar Athanasios Abdul Messih. It further states that a letter from the Patriarch in 1840 had informed Mar Dionysios IV that the Patriarch would be sending a Metran and Muron, but that in the meantime Mar Dionysios was to cease performing ordinations. According to the Statement, Mar Diony101 CMS/ACC 91 02/05; letter of Athanasios Malabar, dated Mavelikara 22nd September 1843. The need to preserve the susthaticon is interesting. Had Mar Athanasios heard what Mar Abdul Messih had done to Mar Koorilose I’s susthaticon? 102 The Churches seem to be all of the Southern Group – Tiruvalla, Maramon, Cheppad, Chattanoor, Chenganoor, Canancale, Callade, etc (CMS/ACC 91 02/05; Callumcatta document accompanying the letter from Bailey to Tucker dated Kottayam 28th October 1843). This assembly is referred to in V.C. Samuel, Truth Triumphs, p.10. His source seems to be Z.M. Paret, Malankara Nasranikal, III, p.176f (Malayalam).

MATHEWS MAR ATHANASIOS

445

sios had obeyed this injunction for about a year and a half, then had commenced ordinations again, which had occasioned dissensions in the community. It was against this background that Mathew had arrived in Mardin. The Patriarch had convoked an ‘assembly’ which had agreed to consecrate Mathew and send him back to rule the Syrian Churches. The culmination of the document is a commitment to obey Mar Athanasios and Metropolitans sent from the Patriarch ‘so long as they act and govern according to what is above written’. There is also a statement about liturgical practices which will be discussed below. To facilitate the Churches’ obedience to Mar Athanasios, an application is to be made to the Rajah concerning the existing Declaration ‘in favour of this Metran of the Cattumangat sect who has hitherto been ruling’. Accordingly, on 21st September 1843 Mar Athanasios wrote to the British Resident, Major General Cullen, complaining that Mar Dionysios IV had not yielded total authority to him.103 From the perspective of the British and native State authorities there was the problem that Mar Dionysios IV had received a Royal Proclamation in his favour when he had succeeded Mar Philoxenos II. They therefore did not immediately grant Mar Athanasios a similar Proclamation, despite his repeated insistence that he alone was the Metropolitan appointed by the Patriarch. THE ATTITUDE OF THE MISSIONARIES

In addition to Mar Athansios’ difficulties with the Syrians and the civil authorities, it should be noted that he was not viewed as an unmixed blessing by the CMS missionaries either. He had, after all, been dismissed from one of their institutions, and some of them seem to have been ‘startled’ by the news of his consecration.104 Their opinion of him was divided. Some accepted the genuineness of his desire for reform; others doubted whether his character would enable him to achieve anything worthwhile.105 There was Judgement Iyer/Row para. 158. CMS/ACC 91 02/05; letter from Tucker to Peet dated Madras, 2nd July 1842. 105 Tucker, for example, thought that the enthusiastic welcome that Mar Athanasios received in Bombay ‘will be like poison to him’ – meaning that it would inflate still further his sense of self-importance (CMS/ACC 103 104

446

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

also the tricky question of how the young bishop would relate to his old teachers.106 Despite assertions to the contrary, it seems that there remained a distance between them. As late as 1871 Baker could write, ‘We are none of us partisans whatever of Mar Athanasios…. [He] never had the slightest help from any C.M.S. Missionary; they were anything but sympathising’.107 In the event, Mar Athanasios maintained good relations with the missionaries, but it is certainly incorrect to see him as merely executing their ‘agenda’ among the Puthenkuttukar. THE RESPONSE FROM THE PATRIARCHATE

Inevitably, the fact that neither Mar Dionysios, the Syrian Churches nor the State authorities immediately recognised Mar Athanasios afforded an opportunity for complaints about him to reach Mardin. These seem to have majored on his favouring of reform. In fact, as has been demonstrated, there can have been little evidence of this. It is unlikely that at this stage Mar Athanasios was undertaking anything more ‘reformed’ than Mar Dionysios II or Mar Dionysios III had done.108 Furthermore, there seems to have been a financial motive for opposition: any interference with the traditional chattams, especially those in connection with Qurbanas for the departed, would result in a substantial loss of income for the kathanars.109 From a wider perspective, it is difficult to escape that the conclu91 02/05; letter from Tucker to Pratt, dated Madras 24th March 1843). ‘… nor do I think he has a yet made up his mind on the subject [of reform]’ (CMS/ACC 91 02/05; letter from Bailey to Tucker, dated Kottayam 27th May 1843). 106 Much of the correspondence in CMS/ACC 91 02/05 relates to these issues. 107 CCC, (Oct. 1871), p.389. 108 Mar Athanasios himself told Tucker that he was being advised to wait until his authority was recognised before attempting to ‘remove the many abuses which are now practised’ (CMS/ACC 91 02/05; letter from Athanasios Malabar to Tucker, dated Mavelikara 22nd September 1843). 109 CMS/ACC 91 02/05; letter from Athanasios Malabar, dated Mavelikara 22nd September 1843. It should be remembered that ‘reform’ was not simply about issues of Christian theology, but included social customs derived in part from surrounding culture, such as the Synod of Diamper had sought to address.

MATHEWS MAR ATHANASIOS

447

sion that Mathews Mar Athanasios was simply too strongly identified with one grouping within the Puthenkuttukar – the southern Churches – to win acceptance throughout the whole of the community. The two sections of the Puthenkuttukar were merely demonstrating the same tendency to group around two different leaders that they had over 120 years earlier when they divided between Mar Gabriel and Mar Thoma IV. In response to the reports that reached him, Patriarch Elias II (after an interval of about two years) sent his former secretary to investigate the situation in India.110 This individual was Yoakim Mar Koorilose, who was to play a highly significant role in the story of the MISC and the wider Puthenkuttukar community. It is therefore necessary to look at his career. Yoakim Mar Koorilose The future bishop was born in the village of Hbab in Tur Abdin in 1810.111 He had five brothers, Elyo, Israel, Mordechai, Skaryo and Gabriel, and two sisters Satta and Hedna. At least two of the brothers accompanied him to Kerala.112 Yoakim entered Deir alZa‘faran, where he was professed a Rabban, and in due course ordained deacon and priest. He studied Syriac calligraphy under Metropolitan ‘Abd el Nur.113 Patriarch Elias made him his secretary in 1840 ordained him a Metropolitan in February 1845. He was therefore just a few years older than Mathews Mar Athanasios and would have been involved with events when the latter arrived at Deir al-Za‘faran at the end of 1841. Shortly after his consecration Yoakim Mar Koorilose travelled to India via Egypt, money for his fare being paid by Edavazhikal Philip. He arrived in Kerala in Au-

Yacoub III states that the Konat and Edavazhikal families took the lead in complaining to the Patriarch. Some of the letters reached him in Constantinople (Syrian Church of India, p.181f). 111 See Yacoub III, Syrian Church in India, p.181, quoting a Syriac biography in the Patriarchal library. 112 The information is on an inscription in Fort Cochin Church. 113 This is presumably the ‘Abd al-Nur whose death and burial are recorded in Mathew’s ‘Diary’ as noted above. 110

448

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

gust 1846.114 Initially, his relations with Mar Athanasios’ opponents got off to a bad start, because he did not immediately condemn him as they wished. Yacoub III claims that, some time prior to March 1847, Yoakim Mar Koorilose became convinced that Mar Athanasios was guilty of trying to propagate Protestantism, and excommunicated him in the name of the Patriarch.115 In an Appendix to Edavalikel Philipos’ treatise on the faith and history of the pro-patriarchal Syrians, G.B. Howard prints the text of a letter purporting to be from Elias II to Dionysios IV urging him to ‘drive out the accursed and anathematized Matthew’,116 but as Brown points out, no such document ‘was ever at Dionysios’ disposal in Malabar or he would certainly have produced it’.117 There is, in fact, 114 Philipos reproduces what purports to be the text of a letter dated 29th May 1847 from Elias’ successor, Jacob II, in which he states that the Christians of India ‘sent and asked for a Metropolitan from hence [i.e. from Mesopotamia], and exceedingly urged the compliance of our Father the Patriarch Elias the holy. And he arose and consecrated for you his beloved secretary and treasurer Mar Koorilose Metropolitan who is Joyakim the honoured. And he sent him to India hour before hour, that he might expel the reprobate Mathew, and keep from him all the flock of Mar Thomas, and might stand before the face of the people and administer the affairs of all the people, and of the Churches that remain there to the Jacobite Syrians’ (Philipos, Syrian Christians, p.30ff). 115 Syrian Church in India, p.185f. Brown points out that any complaints about Mar Athanasios’ reforming tendencies must at this stage have been ‘based more on apprehension about the future than on any violation of tradition actually observed’ (Indian Christians, p.142). Even the Jacobite Kaniamparampil admits that Mar Athanasios, ‘although friendly with the missionaries, did not precipitate matters by making any change in the rituals; nor did he disregard the supremacy of the Patriarch of Antioch which he asserted in public and remembered the Patriarch’s name in the “Tubden”. He was also careful to demand from the candidates for priesthood perfect obedience and submission to the Patriarch in their confession of faith’ (Syrian Orthodox Church, p.139). 116 Edavalikel Philipos, The Syrian Christians of Malabar, p.38. See also the letters allegedly from Patriarch Jacob II (pp.30-32) and Metropolitan Timothy of Edessa (pp.34-38). 117 Brown, Indian Christians, p.142. By 1870 G.B. Howard claimed that he possessed the original of this letter in England (CCC, (Nov. 1870), p.440, (Dec. 1871), p.479). In 1875 Patriarch Peter III claimed that Elias II had twice excommunicated Mar Athanasios (LP/Tait 226, f.10v).

MATHEWS MAR ATHANASIOS

449

considerable unclarity as to whether Mathews Mar Athanasios was every actually formally excommunicated, though pro-Antiochene writers claim that he was by three successive Patriarchs. Patriarchal Elias II died in 1847, with the matter still unresolved.118 He had given his former secretary a set of blank papers bearing his seal and signature so that, having ascertained the reality of the situation in India, Yoakim Mar Koorilose could insert the name of the person he deemed should be lawful Metropolitan.119 Cheriyan summarises the subsequent events: On arrival in Travancore Mar Cyril [i.e. Yoakim Mar Koorilose] joined Mar Dionysios IV, and reported in his favour to the Patriarch who replied exhorting them both to work together to expel Mar Athanasios. Soon afterwards the Patriarch died and there succeeded a new Patriarch [Yacoub II] who was impatient to see results.120 In order to satisfy these expectations and to drive Mar Athanasios from the field, Mar Cyril filled up his blank papers with an appointment of himself as Metropolitan of Malabar. Mar Dionysios IV taking part in this scheme made over his office to Mar Cyril and reported to the Resident that he had done so. This unwise scheme was his undoing. The Travancore Durbar appointed a committee [the ‘Quilon Committee’] to report whether the credentials of Mar Athanasios or the credentials of Mar Cyril were genuine. The committee reported that the credentials of Mar Athanasios were genuine and those of Mar Cyril were forged, and that Mar

118

p.61).

He was buried in Deir al-Za‘faran (Barsoum, Za’faran Monastery,

119 This suggests that Jacob II’s letter exaggerates Patriarch Elias’ rejection of Mar Athanasios. Yoakim Mar Koorilose himself is generally described as having been appointed ‘Reesh Episcopa’ [Chief Bishop] in modern Syrian Orthodox sources (http://sor.cua.edu/ChMon/ Cochin/MulanthuruthyMarthoman.html). 120 Badger describes Patriarch Jacob II as ‘a man of grasping and ambitious spirit, who only aims at exacting from his flock all that he can, not for any purpose of general good, but for his own personal aggrandizement’ (Rituals, p.60f).

450

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS Dionysios IV was privy to the forgery. Upon this report the Durbar Srin 1852, placed Mar Athanasios in office.121

The proclamation of 15 July 1852 reads: Whereas Mar Dionysios Metropolitan, resident at Kottayam, has resigned his Dignity on account of old age, and whereas Mar Athanasios who has brought letter from Antioch for that Dignity, has been appointed Metropolitan, it is hereby proclaimed:That all comprising the Puthencoor Syrians in the Edavagai of Malankarai should acknowledge the said Mar Athanasios Metropolitan and conduct themselves in conformity with past customs.122

A similar proclamation was issued in Cochin on 4 October 1853. Yoakim Mar Koorilose’s intervention had therefore had precisely the opposite result to that intended. Mathews Mar Athanasios was now recognised by the governments of Travancore and Cochin as Malankara Metropolitan.

121 Cheriyan, CMS, p.294. The committee examined the correspondence between the Syrians, Mar Dionysios and the Patriarch prior to the consecration of Mathews Mar Athanasios. Further details of the so-called committee ‘Quilon Committee’ may be found in Judgement/Row-Iyer, paras. 165-172 and Daniel, Orthodox Church, p.167f. Mar Koorilose of Thozhiyur is listed as one of the people who gave written evidence to the Committee that examined the respective claims (Judgement/Row-Iyer, para. 171). A quarter of a century later it was claimed that the Committee had also ‘collected votes of Syrian clergy and laity’. The result, according to the then Resident Major Cullen, had been ‘a small majority in favour of Koorilose in the north of Travancore’, but ‘a powerful minority in favour of Mar Athanasios in the south’ – ‘the meaning of which is not very clear’. It does, however, show the North-South divide continuing (LP/Tait 208, ff.311-320). It may be noted that neither of the patriarchal bishops – Koorilose or Stephanos – who dealt with Cheppat Mar Dionysios IV required him to be re-consecrated, in marked contrast to the attitude of Mar Athanasios Abdul Messih. 122 Text in Judgement/Row-Iyer, para. 178 An alternative translation is given in Philipos, Syrian Church, p.26.

MATHEWS MAR ATHANASIOS

451

Elias’ successor, Yacoub II, had sent another bishop from the Middle East to India to investigate and if possible rectify the situation. This was Stephanos Mar Athanasios who between about 1849 and 1852 attempted to preach in the Syrian Churches and collect money which he claimed was the raissa due to the Patriarch. He was eventually inhibited by the secular authorities and left Kerala, travelling to London in 1855 where he tried to make his case before the Directors of the East India Company, though with little practical effect in Kerala.123 By 1857 the Honourable Court of Directors of the East India Company noted that there was ‘general acquiescence in the rule as Metropolitan of Mar Athanasios’.124 Although, as will be seen in Chapter 14, permission to challenge Mar Athanasios’ status in the Courts was granted in 1876, at no stage did the civil authorities withdraw their recognition of him as Malankara Metropolitan. Following this recognition of Mar Athanasios, Yoakim Mar Koorilose seems to have been reconciled with him.125 Yacoub III claims that in December 1854 Mar Athanasios asked for the Patriarch’s absolution, which Yoakim Mar Koorilose eventually pronounced (having received permission from the Patriarch) in February 1856.126 On the face of it, this seems improbable, but there is evidence that indicates that some measure of reconciliation had been achieved. Mar Eustathios ‘Abd al-Nur, Syrian Orthodox Metropolitan of Jerusalem, visited Kerala between February 1856 and the autumn of 1857, visiting Churches in both north and south, rearranging madbahe to conform to Syrian Orthodox expectations, See Yacoub III, Syrian Church in India, pp.187-192. Also Judgement/Row-Iyer, paras. 178, 181-184. Mar Athanasios Stephanos subsequently returned to the Middle East and died in Jazireh in 1869. 124 Philipos, Syrian Christians, p.27. 125 Kanisseril and Kallupram suggest that Yoakim Mar Koorilose ‘decided to mend his fences with the Metropolitan who extended to him his hand of friendship and invited him to stay with him at the Seminary at Kottyam’ (Glimpses, p.54). Brown independently states that for a year or two Mar Koorilose acted as suffragan to Mathews Mar Athanasios, ‘but this attitude of co-operation did not last’ (Indian Christians, p.143). Neither of these, however, gives a date or source for their information. 126 Syrian Church in India, p.201. 123

452

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

and collecting money for the repair of St Mark’s Monastery in Jerusalem.127 Remarkably, this visit seems to have passed peacefully. On arrival by boat at Kottayam, Mar Eustathios was met by Gabriel, brother of Yoakim Mar Koorilose and by Raphael of Mosul, (the attendant whom Mathews Mar Athanasios had brought back with him from West Asia and who had been attacked by his master’s drunken opponents at Kandanat) who accompanied Mar Eustathius to the seminary, where he was welcomed by the two metropolitans with great joy and pomp.128 Shortly after, the three bishops together attended the marriage of Yoakim Mar Koorilose’s brother to a local girl. Among the Northern Churches, Mar Eustathios is recorded as visiting Arthat, but there seems to be no record of whether he went to nearby Thozhiyur.129 Evidence that Mathews Mar Athanasios was considered ‘in good standing’ at this time is furnished by a letter of Mar Eustathios/Gregorios, dated 1st Ellul [September] 1856.130 It is addressed to ‘Our exalted brother, Mar Athanasios, Metropolitan of the Throne of St Thomas the Apostle’ and is apparently written throughout in a tone of great affection. The ‘unhappy quarrel’ (with Yoakim Mar Koorilose, is inferred but not stated) is referred to, but there is no hint that the Metropolitan of Jerusalem favours Yoakim Mar Koorilose; in fact, the reverse is true. Contrary to the impression given by most later Syrian Orthodox writers, Antiochene sources thus appear to confirm that Mathews Mar Athanasios was recognized by and in communion with the Patriarchate for the greater part of his ministry in Kerala. Significantly, it was during this period of recognition that he consecrated two bishops as will be described below. 127 See Yacoub III, Syrian Church in India, pp.198-201. As Metropolitan of Jerusalem he is sometimes referred to by the episcopal name of that See, Gregorios. 128 Yacoub III, Syrian Church in India, p.197. 129 An account of the journey, written by a monk who accompanied Mar Eustathios, can apparently be found in the library of St Mark’s Monastery in Jerusalem. It may well contain valuable information about the state of the Puthenkuttukar and the relationships between the bishops at this time. 130 A summary of the text, with some direct quotations, is given by Howard in CCC, (May 1872), p.185.

MATHEWS MAR ATHANASIOS

453

Howard visited Mar Athanasios in 1861 and provides the following interesting description: The Metropolitan received me very courteously, and having led the way to a couple of chairs in the verandah, we entered at once into conversation. He was a man of middle height, a burly figure, and a somewhat portly carriage, and had a very intelligent and agreeable expression of countenance. His dress consisted of a handsome purple silk robe of ample dimensions, buttoned down the front with a row of many buttons, and reaching nearly to the feet. Besides this he wore trousers and shoes, and a large collar folded down over the robe. A cross about four inches long hung from his neck by a riband, and a skull-cap, ornamented with crosses embroidered on it in gold, completed his costume.131

Seven years later, the CMS missionary William Johnson sent two ‘authorised’ likenesses of ‘the Metran of the Syrian Xtians of Travancore’ for the Library.132 One if these is reproduced in Figure 16. The remainder of the career of Mathews Mar Athanasios will be described in Chapter 13. A WEST SYRIAN AGENDA?

Statements about Mathews Mar Athanasios’ commitment to reform must be balanced by his apparently equally strong commitment to West Syrian liturgical practice. As noted above, on his return to India his practice was to ‘conduct the services adopting all the old Syrian customs’.133 He was apparently explicitly asked by his uncle which rite he would use and had answered in favour of the traditional one. This had ‘grieved and incensed’ the old Malpan, Howard, Christians of St Thomas, p.155. The ‘large collar folded down’ seems to have been the ‘sailor collar’ of the kamiss, worn under the cassock. It can be seen in several photographs. 132 CMS/ CI2/0141/5. Engravings of one of these photographs can be found in Collins, Missionary Enterprise, between pp.62 and 63; Germann, Kirche der Thomaschristen, frontispiece. 133 CMS/ACC 91 02/05; letter from Peet to Tucker, dated 12th June 1843. 131

454

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

who told Peet that ‘since his coming I have 3 times more grief on his account’.134 Furthermore, the Callumcatta Statement makes a specific commitment to liturgical reform. Having noted some variations in the Syrian rites which are used here, we do agree to act and be governed according to the Holy Bible and according to the order of rites which the Holy Fathers of Antioch observe in their Churches, agreeable to the Canons of the Councils of Nicaea, Constantinople and Ephesus and according to the present Staticon.135

Here, then, is an explicit acknowledgement that the rites of the Puthenkuttukar diverged from those used by the Syrian Orthodox Churches in West Asia, and a commitment to conform to the latter.136 It is entirely consistent with the strong commitment to West Syrian script and use fostered by Abraham Malpan.137 It is seldom appreciated that Mathews Mar Athanasios was the first Indian bishop before the twentieth century to have prolonged exposure to ‘normative’ Syrian Orthodox practice. He had seen what none of his countrymen had seen. Not even the Thozhiyur bishops, nurtured though they were in the West Syrian tradition, had ever experienced a substantial body of Christians living by this li134 CMS/ACC 91 02/05; letter from Peet to Tucker, dated 12th June 1843. Peet states that Mathew, as Deacon, had actually helped his uncle draw up the modified rite being used at Maramon. 135 CMS/ACC 91 02/05; Callumcatta document accompanying the letter from Bailey to Tucker dated Kottayam 28th October 1843. 136 The question of which rites were being used by the Puthenkuttukar is far too large an issue to be explored here. Texts of some of the major rites – Qurbana, baptism, marriage, ordination,- can be found in J. Hough, The History of Christianity in India, vol. IV, pp.619-695. The collection contains a form for anointing with oil on the first Wednesday in Lent, which is clearly taken from a rite for the imposition of ashes. 137 Mundadan is incorrect when he states that ‘attempts at stabilization of the Antiochene rite were mainly the result of opposition to the Anglican missionaries and the “reform” party of Abraham Malpan and Mar Athanasios who insistently discouraged Antiochene influence’ (‘Selfhood of the Indian Christians’, in M.M. Kuriakose (ed.), Orthodox Identity in India, p.57).

MATHEWS MAR ATHANASIOS

455

turgical tradition. If the Indian Church was going to be West Syrian in rite, then it was Mathews Mar Athanasios, and not Cheppat Mar Dionysios IV, who knew what that ought to look like.138 Intriguingly, the surviving documents brought back to Kerala by Mar Athanasios from West Asia lend some support to this desire to conform to West Syrian practice It was normal practice for a newly consecrated bishop to be given a manuscript set of the texts that he would require for his episcopal ministry – blessing of churches, ordinations, etc.139 It is reasonable to suppose that this would have happened in the case of Mathews Mar Athanasios in 1842. The Syriac document MTS/A/228 does indeed contain some liturgical material. In addition to the Enthronement ceremony described above, there are some penitential prayers, the taksa for consecrating a church building, and taksas for the ordination of psalmists, readers, subdeacons, chorepiscopas and perideutes. Intriguingly, there are no taksas for the ordinations of deacons, priests, rambans and bishops. This could be because they were supplied to Mathew Mar Athanasios in a separate text, or that he made his own copies in a separate document. Alternately, it may be because the texts for these Orders already existed in Kerala, and there was no need for him to spend time making his own copies. This would seem reasonable; deacons and priests were obviously being ordained in India, and Mar Philoxenos II and Cheppat Mar Dionysios IV clearly had the taksa for episcopal consecration.140 138 As will be seen below, the next Indian to travel to the Patriarchal Court for consecration was Joseph Mar Dionysios V in 1863/4. He does not seem to have remained in the West Asia as long as Mathews Mar Athanasios had. Brown says he came ‘straight back’ to Kerala after consecration, (Indian Christians, p.144). 139 Mar Thoma bishops to this day are provided with hand-written books with the services (in Malayalam). 140 Mar Dionysios IV had, it will be recalled, consecrated Mar Koorilose III of Thozhiyur in 1829. This raises the interesting question as to where the Thozhiyur ordination taksa came from. The most obvious source would be from Maphrian Mar Basilios Shukr Allah and his companions. Sadly, the originals do not seem to have survived. K.N. Daniel describes an Ordination taksa which was at Thozhiyur in 1937: ‘This was once used by the Bishop of Mosul, Syria. There are in it hundreds of names of newly ordained deacons, who marked with the sign of the cross

456

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

The fact that Mathews Mar Athanasios has made copies of some texts and not of others raises the fascinating possibility that the ministries in question did not exist in the Indian Church. This is not a question that can be pursued in detail here, but it is just possible that Mathew encountered in the heartlands of the Syrian Orthodox Church Orders that either had not formed part of the East Syrian heritage in India, or had not survived the Latinisation process –or that, if liturgical orders existed, Mathew was not confident of their Syrian authenticity. It will be recalled that the Ordinal imposed on the Romo-Syrians was an exclusively Western one (its contents used only in Latin) and would not have contained, for example, a liturgy for making chorepiscopas.141 This could explain the statement in the chaos surrounding the ‘consecration’ of Mar Thoma V that ‘they had no idea what a Chorepiscopus is.’142 Despite the young bishop’s efforts, there is evidence that the conversion of the Puthenkuttukar to pure Antiochene usage was far from complete by the time Mathews Mar Athanasios died. His successor, Thomas Mar Athanasios, in giving evidence to the Royal Court of Appeal indicated that liturgical usage was still ‘hybrid’: The book for the burial of the clergy is a combination of what was taken from the Roman Catholics and our own books. The Book of the Liturgy, the Book of Ordination and the Mass Book are an admixture of our own as well as what has come in from other religionists.143 according to the custom. Further, the name Mar Thoma Metran is written on it in old Malayalam characters. So it was once in the possession of the Pakalomattam Mar Thoma Metrans of the Church of Malabar’ (Critical Study, p.17). Sadly, this priceless MS was lent to another bishop at some point in the second half of the 20th century and never returned. 141 It is not suggested that there were no West Syrian Pontificals in Kerala before the return of Mathews Mar Athanasios in 1843 (indeed, one is listed by Van der Ploeg as having been given to an English missionary prior to 1840 (Syriac MSS, p.228)). It does, however, appear that they were somewhat rare and Deacon Mathew can not be expected to have encountered many before he left for Ottoman Syria. 142 Barsoum, Syriac Dioceses, p.98. See Chapter 5. 143 Quoted in Kuruvilla, Mar Thoma Church, p.29. It is claimed that a translation of the Chaldean Eucharist was in unofficial use in 8 churches

MATHEWS MAR ATHANASIOS

457

What was true of the liturgy was also true of canon law. As late as the 1950s Tisserant could write of those Puthenkuttukar who had returned to union with Rome (the Syro-Malankara Church – see Chapter 15) that, ‘Even today, certain local characteristics have been preserved, having their origin either in the old law of the Chaldeans, or in local customs, or even in legislation imposed by the Portuguese before 1653’.144 Such testimonies expose the inadequacy of claims that the non-Roman Syrians ‘became Syrian Orthodox’ after Coonen Cross. There is a further intriguing suggestion that loyalty to Antiochene usage may not have been seen as incompatible with reform. A photograph of Thomas Mar Athansios, successor to Mathew Mar Athanasios (see next Chapter) shows the Metropolitan with twenty nine kathanars and deacons. The bishop is wearing a loose, dark coloured gown over a dark cassock, and has a mitre. The other clergy are almost all in white cassocks with broad belts of a dark material, probably black.145 All are either wearing circular black caps or holding them. The cap had not been traditional headgear in India. Indeed, it will be recalled that various Antiochene bishops had tried to introduce it in place of the coloured headcloth.146 The photograph must date from some time between the death of Mathews Mar Athanasios in 1877 and that of Thomas Mar Athanasios in 1893, and is probably from nearer the end of that period. This was a time when the Puthenkur community was in ferment, having to choose between the Reformers and the Patriarch of Antioch. It is inconceivable that reforming clergy would have adopted the cap at this period, especially as the Patriarch was

under Mathews Mar Athanasios, though this seems to have been a reintroduction and not a survival of ancient usage (Cyril, ‘Introduction’, p.159). 144 Eastern Christianity, p.172f. 145 Richards, Indian Christians, p.47, reproduced as Figure 26. There appear to be two individuals at the edge of the photograph who may be wearing black cassocks. 146 Eg Mar Ivanios in the 1740s and Mar Athansios Abdul Messih in 1825.

458

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

enforcing it on his followers (see Chapter 14).147 Nor is it just the cap that is found unexpectedly among the Reformers. The loose black robe, worn over the white cassock, was also used by Mar Thoma priests until well into the 20th century, and, indeed, is still worn in one of the Mar Thoma parishes in Kottayam to this day. Like the cap, the wearing of black is said to be one of the changes insisted on by Patriarch Peter.III in 1876. However, the dress of the priest in the 1868 photograph of Mathews Mar Athansios throws some doubt on this. It is clearly a black cassock with palecoloured buttons down the centre of the chest. An apparently identical cassock is worn by one of the priests in the photograph of the ‘unreformed’ bishops reproduced by Richards.148 Clearly, on the evidence of the 1868 photograph, the black cassock was in use before the split between ‘Reformers’ and ‘Antiochenes’ became definitive.149 The same would seem to be true of the cap. This raises the interesting possibility that they were encouraged by Mathews Mar Athanasios.150 Certainly, in his time as Metropolitan the traditional coloured head cloth worn by kathanars was abandoned. The use of black cassocks (along with the tonsure) was in fact probably a survival of the Roman period, but would also agree with what Mar Athanasios had seen at the Patriarchal Court.151 All of this is quite consistent with Abraham Malpan’s strongly pro-Antioch stance. 147 Other photographic evidence of reforming kathanars in the cap exists, eg Kurivilla, Mar Thoma Church, p.37; Richards, Indian Christians, p.115. 148 Indian Christians, p. 63. 149 At least on formal occasions. Presumably the priest in the 1868 photograph had a status that entitled him to pose with his Metropolitan. In 1863 Mar Athanasios was attended by ‘a train of white-robed Cattanars’ (Whitehouse, Lingerings, p.39). 150 Had the cap and robe been found in the MISC and not the Mar Thoma Church, there would have been a strong possibility that they had merely been copied by the Anjur clergy from their ‘Jacobite’ neighbours, whose faith and liturgy they shared. It is their presence in the ‘reformed’ community which makes this explanation less likely. 151 Interestingly, both Mathews Mar Athanasios and the Antiochene Yoakim Mar Koorilose (see Chapter 13) are described as putting on outer robes (‘a large black silk gown with full sleeves’ in the case of Mar Athanasios, ‘a silken outer robe’ in the case of Mar Koorilose) when leaving

MATHEWS MAR ATHANASIOS

459

The Callumcatta/Kallungathara Statement, the surviving texts at Kottayam and the adoption of West Asian clerical dress thus suggest that there was a second strand in Mathews Mar Athanasios’ reforming agenda. Alongside the introduction of insights derived from the CMS missionaries, the evidence suggests that there was a desire to bring the Puthenkuttukar more closely into line with the broad ‘shape’ of Antiochene liturgical practice. If this were the case, it would go a long way towards explaining some of the complexities and apparent inconsistencies in Mar Athanasios’ career. Moreover the ‘reforming’ Metran perhaps deserves more credit than he has received for making a substantial contribution to the conforming of the Puthenkuttukar to Syrian Orthodox usage. MALANKARA METROPOLITAN

At the same time, however, it is manifestly clear that Mathews Mar Athanasios did not simply see himself as administering the Indian diocese of the Syrian Orthodox Church, in the way that he had administered the Diocese of Mosul. On the contrary, in India his ‘model’ was the dual persona of Malankara Metropolitan, formed by a fusion of the roles of Bishop and Archdeacon by the Pakalomattoms in the century after Coonen Cross.152 Like his predecessors Pakalomattom and non-Pakalomattom - he wore the Latin-rite choir dress, which, as has been seen, had become the distinctive robes of the Archdeacons from the time of Archbishop Ros onwards, and to which mitre and pastoral staff had been added.153 It was even claimed by his supporters that ‘his ancestors were scions their living quarters to accompany guests (Whitehouse, Lingerings, pp.39, 267). 152 It is probably significant that although Mar Athansios appointed a secretary (who was to succeed him), there is no evidence that he ever appointed an Archdeacon. The Constitution of the present-day Mar Thoma Church allows for the appointment of Archdeacons, but it seems never to have been enacted (Constitution, para 56 (1). A parallel to this ‘fusion’ can be found in the Ethiopian Orthodox Church when the offices and duties of echage and abouna merged in 1951 in the person of the first Ethiopian Patriarch (see Chapter 3). 153 It is likely that the bestowal of a ring by the Cochin Rajah had been discontinued, at least since the days of Munro, but, as recorded above, Mar Athanasios had been given a ring at Niranam.

460

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

of the old Pakalomattam family’.154 The Syrian Orthodox Patriarchs were familiar with the combination of the roles of ‘head of Church’ and ‘head of community’ which was an integral feature of the milet system in the Ottoman Empire.155 It is doubtful whether they had any deep appreciation of the form that it had taken in India, where, even despite the disruptions caused by the British, there was a still further dimension, that of ‘head of caste’.156 Nor was there probably any comprehension in Deir al-Za‛faran of the ‘dream’ of reuniting Puthenkuttukar and Pazhayakuttukar which, although much diminished (again, thanks to the British), was not quite dead and in which, as will be seen, Mar Athanasios was prepared to take an active role. The evidence suggests that Mathews Mar Athanasios shared a version of his predecessors’ attitude to Antioch. Ecclesiastically, there was much that he was prepared to acknowledge and accept. Beyond that, however, he saw himself as heir to a uniquely Indian role, in which neither Antioch, Rome nor Persia had ever played a significant part.157 In a letter of September 1856, Mar Eustathios of Jerusalem, then still in Kerala, stated that he was sorry to hear that the quarrel between Mathews Mar Athanasios and Yoakim Mar Koorilose had broken out afresh. It is possible to be confident of the reason for this. In June of that year Mar Koorilose III of Thozhiyur had died.

Kuruvilla, Mar Thoma Church, p.18. It is not clear to what extent this was claimed during Mar Athanasios’ career. 155 Though the Syrian Orthodox Church did not itself become a recognised independent millet until 1882. 156 See the discussion of this in Chapter 3 and the sources quoted there. 157 Even Canterbury (in the form of Munro and the CMS) had failed to ‘capture’ control of the St Thomas Christians. 154

CHAPTER 13: INDEPENDENCE SECURED In 1857 the British in India were rocked by what has been described as ‘the single most serious armed challenge any Western empire would face, anywhere in the world, in the entire course of the nineteenth century’.1 The so-called First War of Independence or Indian Mutiny, famously sparked by the issuing to Hindu and Muslim sepoys of cartridges greased with pork and beef fat, was a revolt against a number of issues, including the perceived attempts to enforce Christianity on the native populace.2 Thousands of people died, the Mughal Emperor (whose powers by this time were purely nominal) was deposed and the fiction of his dynasty’s rule extinguished. So, too, was the rule of the East India Company. In 1858 the British Crown assumed all the rights previously enjoyed by the Company in India, thus beginning the process that would lead to the proclamation of Queen Victoria as Empress of India in 1876. Critical though the Mutiny was, large parts of India were unaffected. The Company’s Madras army (which operated in Malabar, Travancore and Cochin) remained loyal to the British.3 However, while issues of independence and survival were being fought out in northern India, many miles to the south the Church at Thozhiyur was simultaneously engaged in a struggle for its independence and Dalrymple, Last Mughal, p.192. For an overview of the Mutiny see Keay, India, pp.436-447. Dalrymple, Last Mughal, deals in detail with the events in Delhi. Dalrymple describes the effects in Delhi of the kind of insensitive high-handed Evangelical Christianity which had contributed to the termination of the Mission of Help in Kerala twenty years before (pp. 58-84). 3 Whitehouse suggests that the memories of Tippu Sultan’s atrocities were still too fresh for Hindus and Christians to indentify themselves with a Muslim-led revolt (Lingerings, p.234f). 1 2

461

462

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

survival. Indeed, the results of this lesser struggle have outlasted those of the Mutiny. It is perhaps ironic that one of the first challenges that Mathews Mar Athanasios had to face, just four years after his proclamation as Metropolitan, had nothing to do with the Reformation cause for which he is now remembered, but was over the status of the Church of Thozhiyur, which of course was then, and has remained ever since, unswervingly Orthodox. Again, like other matters relating to the MISC, this is of wider significance than simply its consequences for the small community involved. For a few years Thozhiyur was at the heart of the long-running dispute over the precise powers and jurisdiction exercised by the Syrian Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch in India. In the case of Thozhiyur the matter was solved and the solution accepted by all parties. Outside the MISC, however, the question has been a running sore in the ancient Church in India down to the present day. There seems to be no surviving evidence of the relations between Mar Koorilose III and Mathews Mar Athanasios in the years immediately following after the former’s alliance (albeit perhaps lukewarm) with Mar Dionysios IV in 1843. It is known that Mar Athanasios travelled to nearby Kunnamkulam from time to time and exercised jurisdiction over its Churches, and it would seem inconceivable that he did not visit the community at Thozhiyur.4 The signs are that over time good relations developed between them. Whitehouse visited Mar Koorilose III in 1853 and found him ‘in very feeble health’, taking no part in public affairs.5 The Metropolitan had a reputation for sanctity and as a worker of miracles, among Muslims and Hindus, as well as Christians. Mar Koorilose III told Whitehouse that the Church building ‘succeeded a former structure of much smaller proportions’. This might refer to a build4 He was there in 1846. CMS/ACC 91 02/05; letter from Bailey to Tucker, dated Kottayam 6th November 1843. Bailey reports that Mar Athanasios was pestered by the Northern Malpan (Konat) on this journey. There are also records of him visiting in 1853 and 1854 ( Whitehouse, Lingerings, p.179f). 5 Lingerings, p.181f.

INDEPENDENCE SECURED

463

ing on the same site or to the nearby Mar Behnam’s chapel, the significance of which would not have been known to Whitehouse. THE CONSECRATION OF MAR KOORILOSE IV

In 1856 Geeverghese Mar Koorilose III of Thozhiyur died. This precipitated something of a crisis. Surviving manuscripts at Thozhiyur enable the sequence of events to be pieced together. Most important among these is the actual susthaticon signed, in English, by ‘Athanasius Malabar, Metropolitan of the Syrian Churches’.6 This is, in itself, an interesting document. Though written in West Syriac script, some words are in East Syriac, and the remainder of the text bears East Syriac characteristics. It bears the marks of being written by a scribe who was uncomfortable with Serto.7 The fact that this was the case as late as 1856 is testimony to how slow the transition to ‘pure’ West Syrian script and practices actually was. The document bears two impressions of a seal with the Syriac inscription, ‘Mar Athansios Metropolitan of Malabar who is Mathai’.8 After standard formulaic passages, the text continues: The Holy Spirit the Paraclete has consecrated you by the hand of my sinful self in the name of Koorilose, Metropolitan to the Church of Thozhiyur, according to the will of Mar Koorilose Geevarghese the glorious, our beloved brother, and according to the covenant [diateke] which he caused to be written in the year of our Lord 1856, and according to the deed of promise which was given to you by him in the same year on the 1st day of the month Haziran [June].

Remarkably, an English translation of the Will of Mar Koorilose III referred to survives.9 This bears the Malayalam signature of a notary and the attestation ‘True Translation’ by Metropolitan Mathews Mar Athanasios who was its executor. The Will is dated 6 An English manuscript translation survives among the documents assembled for the court cases against Yoakim Mar Koorilose (see below). 7 I am grateful to David Taylor for this assessment of the orthography. 8 There is also a Malayalam seal at the end of the document. 9 TA/uncatalogued document

464

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

18th Medom 1031 of the Malayalam era (1856). In it Mar Koorilose describes himself as ‘sick and weak in body’ but of ‘sound mind and memory’. The first matter dealt with is the succession: That a Metropolitan should be consecrated and appointed as has usually been done in this church, according to the determination made between myself and my spiritual brother by name Matheos Mar Athanasios, the Metropolitan of the Syrian Churches in all Malabar.

There does not seem to be any further evidence of the ‘determination’ referred to. It was either a verbal agreement, or perhaps the diateke referred to in the susthaticon, and made in the light of a common threat to be discussed below. It seems that Mar Koorilose III had some hope of recovery, for the Will continues: That, if God spares my life, I and the above said Most Revd brother Metropolitan conjointly should consecrate a person in the ensuing month of Cunnay of 1032.

In the event of Mar Koorilose dying before the consecration of a successor, ‘the Keys and all other things’ were to be delivered over to the custody of Mathews Mar Athanasios, who was clearly to take the new bishop under his wing: When he [Mar Athanasios] is satisfied that the person consecrated be able to conduct everything as I have done, to cause him (the consecrated) to manage the affairs himself. As for the laborious affairs, he (the consecrated) should, as usual, appoint 4 honest and trustworthy persons as Churchwardens and cause them to conduct such affairs.

Other clauses in the Will deal with the establishing of a school in the Church compound ‘where the Syrian children should be instructed in Syriac, Malayalam and other languages’; distribution of money to the poor; and bequests to his servants and attendants. Behind it all, however, is a lurking fear, made explicit in the fourth clause: [illeg]los Joakim, the Foreigner, has often tried to take forcible possession of this property, my Will is as follows: neither the said Mar Coorilos Joakim, nor any other that comes from Foreign parts, nor any other Metropolitan of the Syrian Churches

INDEPENDENCE SECURED

465

in all Malabar, who would in future be appointed, should in any way be permitted to participate in the property.

It will be recalled that in 1852 and 1853 the Governments of Travancore and Cochin had issued proclamations recognising Mathews Mar Athanasios as Malankara Metropolitan. It seems that at about this time Yoakim Mar Koorilose was ordered to leave the States of Travancore and Cochin. He therefore travelled north to British Malabar, which brought him into the vicinity of Thozhiyur. In 1853 Whitehouse found him living at Chaliserry in a thatched cottage with a small adjoining chapel among paddy fields. The chapel had a semi-circular apse – a feature not normal in Syrian Churches in Kerala.10 Mar Koorilose did not accept defeat. An Order from the Dewan of Travancore dated 3rd Coombum 1083 [1863] to the Superintendents of Police, states that Yoakim Mar Koorilose ‘is going about clandestinely from Church to Church, creating dissensions among the community, and that, joining those offenders who were excommunicated by the Church, he disturbs the peace and perpetrates outrages, and therefore the Metropolitan [Mathews Mar Athanasios] finds it difficult to enforce the rules of the Church.’11 Significantly, the Dewan’s Order continues: ‘If there are any persons who are unwilling to follow the Church under Mar Athanasios, such persons may, after duly obtaining permission of the Sircar, have Churches of their own erected, and perform their religious duties in a peaceable manner’. The building of Churches by Yoakim Mar Koorilose seems to have long pre-dated 1863. One of the pieces of evidence produced in the Court case involving the Church of Thozhiyur (see below) was a letter sent by Yoakim Mar Koorilose to the Punnathur Rajah requesting him to give him a plot of land on which to build a Church, dated 16th Medam 1851.12 10 Lingerings, p.182f. Whitehouse was told that, during the Crimean War, Yoakim Mar Koorilose had prayed for the Tsar of Russia. Whitehouse interpreted this as an anti-British sentiment, but in fact Mar Koorilose may have been more concerned about the defeat of the Ottoman Empire, which might have brought some relief to its Christian subjects. 11 Text in Philipos, Syrian Church, p.28. The Order is also evidence that Yoakim Mar Koorilose was not restricting his activities to British Malabar. 12 See Taylor, Handlist (forthcoming).

466

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

K.T.Joy states that in all Mar Koorilose and others who would not accept Mar Athanasios’ jurisdiction founded 17 Churches.13 Forty years later, this was to be an important piece of evidence in the claim by the Mar Thoma Church to be the legitimate Malankara Church. It was not they, the Reformers, who had left the ancient church buildings and erected new buildings for themselves; it was the adherents of the Patriarch who had done so. In relation to the story of the MISC, it indicates that in the 1850s Yoakim Mar Koorilose was actively creating a family of Churches loyal to himself. The death of Geeverghese Mar Koorilose III of Thozhiyur seemed to present an opportunity to acquire the Churches at Thozhiyur and Anjur also. Various oral traditions survive concerning the precise events following the death of Mar Koorilose III and it is difficult to reconcile them into a coherent sequence. The designated successor to the deceased Metropolitan was Joseph of Alathur, a member of the Panakkal family.14 The majority of his family, however, supported Yoakim Mar Koorilose and urged Joseph to seek consecration from him.15 On at least one occasion the compound of St George’s cathedral was in effect under siege. David Daniel states that Mathews Mar Athanasios arrived at Thozhiyur and found the Church locked, but opened it forcibly, thus giving Yoakim Mar Koorilose an excuse to lodge a suit against him in the courts.16 Oral tradition in the Panakkal family states that it was a representative of Yoakim Mar Koorilose who found the Church locked against him, with his requests for admission being answered by a deacon from a window. According to this tradition a small force then arrived to remove Yoakim Mar Koorilose’s representative, but Joseph Panak13 K.T.Joy, The Mar Thoma Church, p.59. See also Brown, Indian Christians, p.144. 14 A handwritten note by Mar Koorilose IX concerning Mar Koorilose IV reads: ‘His family was situated at Chittangur near Kunnamkulam. As that place is known locally as “Alathur”, this Metropolitan was also called “Alathur Thirumeni”’. (Verghese original typescript, p.20). 15 The majority of the Panakkal family is loyal to the Patriarch to the present day. One of the recent senior bishops of the Jacobite Church in India, Benjamin Mar Ostathios, was of this family. 16 Daniel, Orthodox Church, p.171.

INDEPENDENCE SECURED

467

kal asked them not to mistreat him. Something of this incident seems to be reflected in the evidence considered by the High Court of Madras in 1862: Two witnesses depose that they come over from a neighbouring church as agents of the plaintiff [Yoakim Mar Koorilose] and delivered the key into the custody of the 2nd defendant [Joseph Panakkal] who since withheld the church and property from the plaintiff.17

Despite the High Court deciding that ‘There can be no hesitation in declaring this evidence unentitled to the least attention’ on the grounds that supporters of Yoakim Mar Koorilose would ‘not have delivered this property into the hands of one known to be a rival claimant’, there is in fact a degree of probability about it. It may not have occurred to Yoakim Mar Koorilose’s supporters that Joseph Panakkal did not share his family’s general support for the Patriarchal representative. Indeed, Joseph Panakkal may not initially have made up his mind which course of action to follow. He may well not have declared for Mathews Mar Athanasios until he had gained control of the compound. A near-contemporary account is recorded in a marginal note in the manuscript described as SEERI 13 referred to in Chapter 3: In the year of our Lord 1856, the 3rd of the month of Haziran [June], the day of Pentecost, died Abun Mar Qurillos who is Giwargis. After 10 days came Abun Mar Athanasios (who is Matthaios) of Palakunnel. And 40 days after him arrived Qurillos Yuyaqim, of Tur Abdin, and he fought with Mar Athanasios. Qurillos Yuyaqim wanted to take to himself the goods which used to be possessed by the one who was dead, and by the Metropolitans who have died here, that is to say, in the church of Thoyoor. Mar Athanasios fought so that everything will be done according to what has been ordained in the will of the one who died, and according to what has been perpetuated since the foundation of the Church at Thoyoor. In the year of our Lord 1857, the 13th of Kanun ohroi [January], Sunday, he consecrated the priest Joseph, visitor of the monastic church 17

Text TA/uncatalogued document.

468

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS of Chattukulam. The 20th of the same month, Sunday, he was consecrated Metropolitan with the name Mar Qurillos.18

This last date – 20th January 1857- is also given on the susthaticon. If the other dates in the marginal note are correct (and there is no reason to dispute them), there was an interval of six months between the death of Koorilose III and the consecration of Koorilose IV. This would seem to contradict the charge that Mathews Mar Athanasios had hurried to Thozhiyur, forcibly entered the Church, and hastily consecrated Joseph Panakkal before Yoakim Mar Koorilose could get there. On the contrary, there was clearly a considerable period before the final decision was made. At what stage in this the incident of the locking of the compound occurred is not clear. The ‘consecration’ on 13th January 1857 was clearly the making of Joseph Panakkal into a Ramban.19 His episcopal consecration followed a week later.20 Whatever the precise sequence of events, there is no doubt that it was Malankara Metropolitan Mathews Mar Athanasios who consecrated Father Joseph of the Panakkal family as Joseph Mar Koorilose IV at Thozhiyur. The susthaticon given by Mar Athanasios to Mar Koorilose IV states the authority conferred: At the request of all the faithful who are in the diocese [lit. ‘flock’] of Thozhiyur, authority was given to you by the Holy Spirit that you may ordain bishops, priests and deacons, and consecrate churches, altars [madbahe] and to do every thing appropriate to Metropolitans just as our Lord gave to his pure and holy disciples.

Following the standard admonition not to deviate from the maxims of the Apostles and the three Holy Councils, the document continues:

SEERI 13, p.84. Chattukulam is Arthat. Interestingly, the new Ramban is attached to a particular Church, designated ‘the monastic Church of Chattukulam’ (ie. Arthat). 20 Baker adds the detail that Mathews Mar Athanasios was assisted by four priests (CCC, (Oct. 1871), p.392). 18 19

INDEPENDENCE SECURED

469

Again, I command you that you should consecrate one Metropolitan for the Church of Thozhiyur according to the tradition of our Father Mar Koorilose Katumangat21 the founder of the Church of Thozhiyur, and of all the illustrious Metropolitans who are there.

The similarities with the susthaticon given by Cheppat Mar Dionysios IV to Mar Koorilose III are striking. Both documents acknowledge the independence of the Thozhiyur Church and its right to consecrate bishops, while at the same time assuming a interdependence with the main Malankara Church, at least as far as episcopal consecrations are concerned. In both 1829 and 1857 reference is made back to Mar Koorilose I and the steps taken by him and those who came after him to maintain the succession. Yoakim Mar Koorilose challenged this assertion of independence in the courts. As noted, some documents relating to this survive at Thozhiyur. Of particular interest is a signed testimonial from Henry Baker ‘Missionary at Cottayam in Travancore’. Baker was of course one of the first generation of CMS missionaries and had an unrivalled local knowledge: I have always understood that the [missing] the maintenance of the resident Metran from time to time. During my residence in this country of upwards of forty years, many of which were spent in close connection with the Syrian Church in Travancore and Cochin, I have never known even a native Metran governing that Church, to put in any claim to the property in question, either by virtue of his office, or in the name of the Patriarch of Antioch, the latter of which would certainly not be allowed in Travancore and Cochin. The charge of the Metran sending [a line or more is missing] to the Office in Travancore and Cochin, he then either consecrates a successor or assumes the charge himself, as was the case with Philoxenos the fifth of the Anyura Metrans, as stated above. This last word is written in Malayalam Garshuni. See Thomas Koonammakkal, ‘An Introduction to Malayalam Karshon’, in The Harp, XV (2002), 99-106, for a brief description with a table of Malayalam Garshuni. Also Brock et al., Hidden Pearl, vol. I, p.40. 21

470

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS Should this confirmation of the statement of Joseph Mar Curelos the present resident Metran at Anyura be of service to him it is at his service.22

Baker’s evidence, based on long first hand experience, is significant. It confirms the independence of the Church of Anjur and its property both from Antioch and from the Malankara Metropolitans. Further, it identifies the ‘Anyura Metrans’ as consecrators of Malankara Metropolitans or potential Malankara Metropolitans themselves. A Court hearing in 1857 concluded that Yoakim Mar Koorilose’s appointment by the Patriarch gave him ‘the spiritual authority to preach and teach the doctrines of that Church but it confers no civil rights to the plaintiff over any Church, nor does it entitle the plaintiff to interfere in any way with the property of any Church unless he is accepted by the members of that Church.’23 Yoakim Mar Koorilose then appealed to the High Court in Madras, but the court took the view that ‘there is not a scintilla of evidence on the side of the plaintiff establishing the supremacy of any one … of the Syrian Churches over any other.’ Further, ‘certain witnesses have delivered opinions upon the question but have spoken to no single fact from which the existence of such supremacy can be reasonably deduced.’24 The final judgement was that There seems to exist no doubt that this nomination of the 2nd defendant [Joseph Mar Koorilose IV Panakkal] followed the custom which has long prevailed in this particular church and there being no reliable evidence whatever that the plaintiff [Yoakim Mar Koorilose] ever had possession of this church or its property or that his title to interfere with it had ever been acknowledged either by the tenants of that property or those whom they represent, the result is that the appeal will be dismissed with costs.

TA/uncatalogued document. It possible that further evidence may exist among the State and Court archives in India. 23 TA/uncatalogued document. 24 TA/uncatalogued document. 22

INDEPENDENCE SECURED

471

Whatever controversies lay in the future about the status of the main body of Puthenkur Christians in relation to Antioch, it was now established that the Thozhiyur Church was independent and that neither the Patriarch of Antioch nor his delegate had any authority over it. That has not been seriously questioned since. A further legacy from this period was the ‘special relationship’ between the Thozhiyur Church and the heirs of Mathews Mar Athanasios. It is important to remember that at the time of the Thozhiyur Independence Cases Mar Athanasios was Metropolitan of the whole Malankara Church, and not simply of a ‘reformed’ section. When the Puthenkuttukar finally divided, approximately three decades later, it was perhaps inevitable that the MISC should maintain unique links with the community that was also taking its stand on independence from Antioch. That this should have been the case, despite the clear doctrinal differences, is no doubt due in large measure to the close friendship between Mar Koorilose IV and Mathews Mar Athanasios, which, as will be seen, extended to Thomas Mar Athanasios as well. THE THOZHIYUR COMMUNITY ACQUIRES NEW CHURCHES

The court case brought by Yoakim Mar Koorilose, as well as establishing the independence of the Church of Thozhiyur, had the unexpected effect of increasing its jurisdiction. Up to this time the only buildings and congregations belonging to the Church were St Bahanan’s Chapel at Anjoor and St George’s Cathedral at Thozhiyur. The final Court ruling against Yoakim Mar Koorilose had required him to pay the costs. Since he had no assets other than the churches he had established he was required to forego some of these in lieu of payment. Three Churches were handed over to Mar Koorilose IV. One of these was at Mattancherry near Fort Cochin, but its distance from Thozhiyur made it difficult to maintain and it was eventually disposed of. The other two remain as part of the MISC family to the present day. St. Adai's Church at Porkulam is two miles north of Kun-

472

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

namkulam.25 It is on a hill away from the busy roads and din of the town – ‘an ideal place for worship and retreat’.26 The Church was rebuilt in 1970 following the appearance of cracks in the eastern wall, believed to be the result of an earthquake. Verghese states that according to tradition there was a church by this name at the foot of the hill where the local school now stands.27 The second Church acquired from Yoakim Mar Koorilose was St Augen, situated at Chalissery in British Malabar. St Augen’s betrays the fact that it was founded by a non-Indian by its architecture: the sanctuary is more or less a hemisphere built of stone, a feature almost unknown among Syrian Indian Churches. In 1986 the church at Chalissery was renovated; but its sanctuary was kept intact in order to preserve its uniqueness. Unlike Porkulam, where there were some Christian families loyal to the Metropolitan of Thozhiyur already living, there were no such families at Chalissery. Mar Koorilose IV therefore asked a number of families to move from Akathiyur to Chalissery. Some of their descendants are still there to this day.28 The dedication of the two Churches to saints common in the Middle East but very rare in India is a continuing reminder of their origins. St Augen29 was a fourth century pearl fisherman on the Red Sea at the ancient city of Clysma.30 After a ministry of giving pearls away to the poor, eventually he decided to retire from the world and entered an Egyptian monastery, perhaps as a disciple of Pachomios. From here is believed to have travelled to the north of Mesopotamia, with, according to later tradition, seventy companions, who in turn went on to found seventy monasteries. The tradi25 A letter dated 23rd June, 1855, preserved in the Patriarchal Library, refers to the foundation of this Church (Yacoub III, Syrian Church in India, p.234). 26 Verghese, Brief Sketch, p.30. 27 Verghese, Brief Sketch, p.30. 28 I am grateful to C.V. Geevar achen (Cheruvathoor) for telling me the story of his family. 29 ‘Eugenios’ in Greek, ‘Awgin’ in Arabic. See Atiyah, Eastern Christianity, p.291, and Brock et al., Hidden Pearl, III, p. 38 for brief accounts of Mar Augen. 30 Mediaeval Arabic al-Qulzum, modern Suez.

INDEPENDENCE SECURED

473

tional account is strongly influenced by typology – seventy is the number of people that the biblical Jacob took with him into Egypt. The ‘exodus’ of Augen and his seventy to make ‘a second heaven in Turabdin’ is seen as a parallel to this.31 Together with his fellow ascetics, Augen ‘founded and erected Churches and monasteries on the sites of the temples of idols, and the pleasant odour of Christianity wafted through that people’.32 Towards the end of his life Augen retired to Mount Izlo above the plains of Nisibis where a now-deserted monastery dedicated to him still exists.33 Interestingly, the monastery belonged to the Church of the East (Augen is honoured as the traditional founder of monasticism in that Church) until 1504, when it passed to the Syrian Orthodox. It was to this monastery that East Syrian Patriarch Mar Shimun sent the two delegates from India who reached him in 1490. From here that same year the patriarch consecrated two monks as Mar Thomas and Mar John whom he sent to Kerala.34 The last monk at Mar Augen died in 1974. As noted in Chapter 2, St Addai is the traditional evangelist of Edessa who, according to Eusebius, was sent by the Apostle Thomas after the Resurrection to King Abgar, ‘the celebrated monarch of the nations beyond the Euphrates’.35 As the saint who brought the Gospel to the Syriac-speaking regions around Edessa, Addai is honoured in both the East and West Syrian tradtions.36 THE LATER CAREER OF YOAKIM MAR KOORILOSE

Having lost his Churches Yoakim Mar Koorilose took refuge in British territory at Fort Cochin. Howard visited him here in 1861 and recorded the following description: 31 See the Syriac ballad in dodecasyllables in Hollerweger, Turabdin, p.292 (translation, p.361). 32 Quoted in Andrew Palmer, ‘The 1600-year History of the Monastery of Qartim (Mor Gabriel) in Hollerweger, Turabdin, p.37. 33 See Hollerweger, Turabdin, pp.288-295 for an illustrated account of the monastery of Mor Awgin. Also The Hidden Pearl, II, p.134ff. 34 Brown, Indian Christians, p.16. 35 Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, I. XIII. 36 See Hidden Pearl, II, 102-122 for an overview account of the Abgar/Addai story and an assessment of the probability of its historicity.

474

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS He lived in a miserable hovel standing in a ditch, the remains of the old ditch of the fort. The walls were of brick, to be sure, but old and ruinous, and the building was more fit for a cartshed than for a human habitation. When I entered it, the uneven mud floor and broken roof, together with the squalid look of everything around, betokened the utmost poverty. There was a rickety table in the centre of the room, but nothing to sit down upon, nor indeed any other furniture except a few pots, &, used for cooking. On being informed of my arrival, the Metropolitan emerged from behind a partition which screened off one end of the building. He was in the decline of life, painfully grave and dejected in manner, and altogether, in personal appearance, no less than in the external circumstances of his dwelling, presented a marked contrast to his younger and more fortunate rival [Mathews Mar Athanasios]. He dress was a long white garment with many folds, confined at the waist by a band of the same material, and a turban of that peculiar shape represented in some illustrations of the Jewish priests, i.e. nearly spherical, with a hole scooped out of one side for the head.37

Despite his reduced circumstances, Yoakim Mar Koorilose had not lost a sense of the position which he believed he held. He presented Howard with a copy of the Psalter which he signed in Syriac ‘Koorillos J’huyakim, Metr. of India’. Kaniamparampil suggests that the East India Company eventually countermanded the order expelling Yoakim Mar Koorilose from Travancore and Cochin.38 Despite his poverty and frailty, Mar Koorilose seems to have continued to cause trouble for Mar Athanasios. Philipos reported in the late 1860s that he still remains in Malabar, and teaches such as come to him the scriptures, and ordains priests and deacons. He also ordains a second time those priests and deacons who have been ordained by Athanasios Mathew, on account to their going to

37 38

Howard, Christians of St Thomas, p. 162f. Kaniamparampil, Syrian Orthodox Church, p.138.

INDEPENDENCE SECURED

475

him and confessing that they had done wrongfully in that they were ordained by him who was deposed by the Patriarch.39

It is claimed by some authors that Yoakim Mar Koorilose, as well as providing something of a focus for Puthenkuttukar professing loyalty to the Patriarch of Antioch, also contributed to the transition from East Syrian to West Syrian script and rites.40 Certainly, in his list of manuscripts K.N. Daniel includes a number that had belonged to Yoakim Mar Koorilose, some of them copied by himself.41 Van der Ploeg is, however, inclined to minimise Yoakim Mar Koorilose’s influence, pointing out that ‘from a study of the manuscripts it appears that Mar Kurillos did not have much to do in the liturgical field,’42 and that the transition to West Syrian script among the Puthenkuttukar was complete twenty years before Yoakim Mar Koorilose arrived from Syria. Even so, he must have commended Syrian Orthodox usage to those who came to him, and so, ironically, reinforced Mathews Mar Athanasios’ efforts in this area.43 After staying for some time with his brother in Tiruvalla, Mar Koorilose eventually went to Mulanthuruthy to die.44 While there he was visited on several occasions by Mathews Mar Athanasios, Philipos, Syrian Christians, p.27f. Eg Tisserant: ‘It was this Mar Kurillos who completely replaced the Chaldean rite by the West Syrian rite of Antioch, and introduced West Syrian script among the dissidents of Malabar’ (Eastern Christianity, p.150); Mundadan: ‘Full transition to pure Antiochene liturgy was made only during the interregnum [sic] (1846-48) of the Antiochene bishop Cyril Joachim (in Kuriakose, Orthodox Identity, p.56). Pallath: ‘the implementation of the Antiochene liturgy in India ... was completed during the period of the Antiochene bishop Mar Kurullos (1846-1866) (Eucharistic Liturgy, p.1). 41 K.N. Daniel, A Critical Study, pp.14-21. There are photographic reproductions of some of these on pp.89, 101, 115, 117. 42 Syriac MSS, p.138. 43 For a review of Yoakim Mar Koorilose’s not inconsiderable achievements, see Yacoub III, Syrian Church in India, pp.234-239. 44 In 1872 Howard described him a very old and ‘a leper’ (Colonial Church Chronicle, (February 1872), p.63). Yacoub III confirms the leprosy: ‘his face shrivelled and he lost his sight’ (Syrian Church of India, p.237). See also CCC, (Dec. 1871), p.474. 39 40

476

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

who, by the early 1870s was said to ‘sometimes hold communion and friendship’ with him.45 The two are said to have made their peace with each other before Mar Koorilose died in 1874 and was buried in Mulanthuruthy.46 THE DEATH OF MAR DIONYSIOS IV

Mar Dionysios IV died in 1855 at his home village of Cheppat.47 It seems that Mathews Mar Athanasios made arrangements for his care at the end and himself administered Holy Communion to the dying bishop.48 Baker states that Mar Dionysios sent for him and formally handed to him the insignia of office –signet, crosier, diamond ring and golden mitre.49 It is also claimed that Mar Athanasios ‘said the masses and conducted the funeral feast of forty days’.50 Mar Dionysios IV’s death, and that of Mar Koorilose III a year later, brought to an end the line of bishops that had begun with Maphrian Shukr Allah’s consecration of Mar Koorilose I nearly a century before.

CCC, (Oct. 1871), p.392. & Kallumpram, Glimpses, p.61f. Yacoub III has 20th August 1874 (Syrian Church of India, p.237). Kaniamparampil gives the date of death as 20th Chingom 1874 and mentions the memorial to him in Fort Cochin Church (Syrian Orthodox Church, p.140). An alternative date is 2nd September 1874, given in the souvenir on Yoakim Mar Koorilose published by Mulanthuruthy Church. Daniel (Orthodox Church, p.168) gives 1875 as the year of death. This is almost certainly incorrect. One of Yoakim Mar Koorilose’s brothers, Israel, had accompanied him to India, where he married a girl of the Chalakuzhi family of Tiruvalla. One of their descendants was consecrated a bishop in the Mar Thoma Church in December 1989 and given the episcopal name Yoakim Mar Koorilose. 47 27th September 1855 (Yacoub III, Syrian Church of India, p.194; E.M. Philip, Indian Church, p.377; David Daniel, Orthodox Church, p.544. 48 Kanisseril & Kallumpram, Glimpses, p.54. Yacoub III confirms that Mar Athanasios conducted his funeral (Syrian Church of India, p.194. 49 CCC, (November 1870), p.437. This was denied by Edavalikel Philippos (CCC, (May 1871), p.182), but reasserted by Baker on the evidence of eye-witness accounts (CCC, (October 1871), p.389. 50 CCC, (October 1871), p.389. See also Philippos’ agreement, summarised by Howard in CCC, (December 1872), p.483. 45

46Kanisseril

INDEPENDENCE SECURED

477

A WIDER PERSPECTIVE – THE PAZHAYAKUTTUKAR

The struggle to establish the independence of the Thozhiyur community – and, indeed, of the whole of the Puthenkuttukar – was not an isolated phenomenon. Fascinatingly, at precisely the same time there was ferment within the Pazhayakuttukar, the RomoSyrians, concerning their own relationship with an ecclesiastical authority outside India.51 Even more intriguingly, there were points of contact between some of the main players in both communities. The story of the struggle for independence among the RomoSyrians that was eventually to lead to the erection of an indigenous hierarchy – the Syro-Malabar Church – and the establishment (or re-establishment) of a community of the Church of the East in Kerala, is, if anything, even more complex than that of the West Syrians’ long-running battle with Antioch. It is therefore impossible to tell it in any detail here.52 It will be recalled that the 18th century had closed with Rome’s removal from India of Mar Abraham Pandari, the Syrian who had been consecrated by the acting Chaldean Patriarch. European ecclesiastics once more controlled the Sees of Cranganore and Cochin, and the Vicariate Apostolic of Verapoly. In 1838, however, the Pope suppressed the Padroado jurisdiction 51 Richards, writing in the early 20th century, summarised the situation since Diamper: ‘Roman-Syrians have never settled down under the supremacy of foreign bishops. Their history, if we had time to tell it, would show a constant effort to obtain from the Portuguese and Roman authorities bishops of Syrian descent as their rulers….’ (Indian Christians, p.62). Bayly says of the ferment caused by Mathews Mar Athanasios: ‘Many Syrian Catholics were drawn into these struggles, partly because the appeal of foreign bishops still transcended the Jacobite-Catholic divide’ (Saints, p.302). Unusually for an Antiochene source, Yacoub III deals briefly with events in the Pazhayakuttukar (Syrian Church of India, pp.209-211). 52 See Mundadan, Search and Struggle, pp.71-108. The story from the perspective of the Church of the East community is told in Mar Aprem, The Chaldean Church in India, Trichur, Mar Narsai Press, 1977. Further details can be found in the same author’s biographies of some of the main players: Mar Joseph Thondanat, Trichur, Mar Narsai Press, 1987; Mar Abimelek Timotheus, Trichur, Mar Narsai Press, 1975; Mar Thoma Darmo, Trichur, Mar Narsai Press, 1974. More recent events are related in Mar Aprem’s The Assyrian Church of the East in the Twentieth Century, Kottayam, SEERI, 2003.

478

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

over Cranganore and Cochin (now an anachronism in view of British ascendency), placing both Sees under the Propaganda Vicar Apostolic of Verapoly (which in 1886 was to become an Archdiocese).53 Free at last from even nominal Portuguese control, the Pazhayakuttukar revived the dream of having bishops of their own nation and rite, and from time to time there were appeals to Rome for such bishops. There were also renewed attempts to make contact with the Chaldean hierarchy in West Asia, led predominantly (as had been the appeals to Rome) by ex-Padroado clergy who were unwilling to submit to Carmelite Vicars Apostolic.54 Patriarch Joseph VI Audo In the 1850s the Syrians’ call for independence from Latin-rite bishops found a sympathiser in Patriarch Joseph VI Audo, the Chaldean Patriarch in Mesopotamia from 1847 to 1878.55 Shortly before Audo’s elevation, a petition had been sent from Kerala to his predecessor Mar Nicholas Zeya (who himself had succeeded Mar Yuhannan VIII Hormuz, consecrator of Mar Abrahama Pandari). Fascinatingly, the petition was sent ‘through the help of Jacobite Metropolitan Mathews Mar Athanasios who knew the Middle

53 There was fierce opposition from many quarters, leading to a short-lived schism and continuing unrest; for details see Puliurumpil, Jurisdictional Conflict, pp.205-244; Neill, History, vol. 2, pp.285-288. The Padroado was briefly restored in India in 1864. Cranganore was governed by Administrators until 1887 when it was suppressed and eventually became an honorary title of the Archbishop of Goa (Tisserant, Eastern Christianity, p.188). Cochin survives, but as a Latin-rite diocese. 54 Podipara, Thomas Christians, pp.188, 191. 55 For a detailed account of the life and career of Audo, see Cyril Korolevskij, article ‘Audo’, in Dictionnaire de Histoire et de Geographie Ecclesiastique, Paris, 1931, columns 317-356. Attwater describes Audo as ‘An energetic and competent prelate, but ambitious, and very anxious to recover the ancient but abolished jurisdiction of his church over the Syrian Catholics of Malabar’ (Christian Churches, 1, p.191). Bayly wrongly calls him the ‘Nestorian primate’ (Saints, p.303). For an account of the community in the years preceding Audo’s period in office, and the activities of Roman Catholic agents, see Southgate, Narrative of a Tour, vol.2, pp.221-235.

INDEPENDENCE SECURED

479

East well’.56 Another petition was sent to the Pope on 28th January 1852, signed by thirty nine Pazhayakur priests, again requesting that the Chaldean Patriarch be allowed to send them a metropolitan and two malpans. Significantly, the group threatened to become ‘Jacobite’ if their request was refused.57 In the circumstances of the time, this can only mean that they were prepared to place themselves under Mathews Mar Athanasios’ jurisdiction. The petition was not granted by Rome. Further anti-Roman feeling was occasioned by a situation strikingly similar to that which had faced Abraham Malpan’s supporters in the 1830s. Luigi Martini, the Vicar Apostolic of Verapoly from 1844 to 1853, refused to ordain deacons trained by a certain Malpan Antony Kodakachira, who had tried to revive Oriental monasticism and had campaigned for an independent hierarchy for the Syrian Catholics.58 This of course exactly parallels the situation created by Cheppat Mar Dionysios IV’s refusal to ordain Abraham Malpan’s deacons. The same solution – a sympathetic bishop consecrated in West Asia – was sought.59 56 Mar Aprem, Thondanat, p.25. Korolevskij, says it was ‘forwarded through the Jacobite Bishop of Cochin, probably Mar Mattai Athanasios’ (‘Audo’, col. 328). Tisserant follows Korolevskij (Eastern Christianity, p.105). 57 Tissrant, Eastern Christianity, p.105. ‘In many localities dissident Syrian Catholics tried to wring concessions from their priests and missionaries by threatening to “convert” to one of the embattled Jacobite affiliations’ (Bayly, Saints, p.303). 58 Podipara. Canonical Sources, p.98. Aprem, Thondanat, p.27. The various accounts conflict somewhat. Korolevskij (col.328) says that Martini refused to ordain pupils of Anthony Thondanat, one of the priests agitating for a Chaldean hierarchy and ‘the head of a powerful malpan family who had been in conflict with the European Carmelites’ (Bayly, Saints, p.303), but as the latter was only in his early 20s when Martini left office, this seems unlikely. Kodakachira, who was Thondanat’s mentor, was in his 40s. Tisserant says Thondanat had candidates refused by Bernardino Baccinelli (Vicar Apostolic from 1853-1868) in 1858 (Eastern Christianity, p.107), probably following Mackenzie (Christianity, pp.32, 84). The most likely scenario is that both Martini and Baccinelli were refusing to ordain candidates trained by Malpans known not to be entirely loyal to Rome. 59 Bayly sees the appeal anthropologically in terms of an assertion of rights by ‘a number of powerful malpan lineages’ (Saints, p.303).

480

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

In 1857 one of the Malpans whose candidates had been refused ordination, Anthony Thondanat, himself then travelled to West Asia with a small delegation to press the cause. Patriarch Audo was more than willing to establish his authority over the Indian East Syrians, but had been warned by Rome not to interfere. Eventually, after much hesitation, and apparently spurred on by the possibility of the Indians’ turning instead to the Church of the East Patriarch if he did not act, in September 1860 Chaldean Patriarch Joseph VI Audo consecrated Mar Thoma Rokos. Strictly speaking, Rokos was consecrated Bishop of Bassora, but was designated Patriarchal Vicar and charged to travel to India, ostensibly to explore the situation. The subtlety was lost on the Syrian Catholics in India. On his arrival in Kerala in May 1861 the new bishop was feted by many in both the Pazhayakur and Puthenkur communities.60 His arrival was seen as paralleling that of Mar Gregorios of Jerusalem in 1665.61 Interestingly his first contact seems to have been Metropolitan Mathews Mar Athanasios, with whom he stayed at first, though this did not win favour with some of his potential supporters: He made at once a bad impression since he lodged with the reformed Jacobite bishop Mar Mattai Athanasios: the latter became his advisor for the simple reason that he alone could speak Arabic, whereas Rocos did not know either Portuguese or Latin.62

As might be expected, Mar Thoma Rokos’ intervention in Kerala provoked serious disruption in the Pazhayakur community, together with fierce opposition from the Latin-rite bishops and 60 ‘On the arrival of the Chaldean Metran, almost the whole of the Romo-Syrian party received him as their bishop’ (Whitehouse, Lingerings, p.287). Whitehouse was in Kerala when Mar Rokos arrived. 61 Mar Aprem, Thondanat, p.35. Tisserant, Eastern Christianity, p.107. 62 Korolevsij ‘Audo’, (col.333). Tisserant says that Mar Rokos on arrival in Cochin, ‘was taken by the kattanar Anthony to the Jacobite bishop who was residing there’ (Eastern Christianity, p.109). Mar Athanasios had no doubt perfected his Arabic during his time in Mosul where it was ‘the language universally and almost exclusively spoken’ (Southgate, Narrative of a Tour, vol. 2, p.242f).

INDEPENDENCE SECURED

481

eventually an excommunication from Rome in November 1861. After only a few months in Kerala, Mar Rokos seems to have decided that his position was untenable and that he should return to the Middle East. The surviving accounts surrounding Mar Rokos’ departure reveal, surprisingly, that he was in contact with the Metropolitan of Thozhiyur. It appears that, on hearing of Mar Rokos’ intention to return to Mesopotamia, Joseph Mar Koorilose IV Panakkal contacted him ‘and asked him not to return to Babel, but to stay at Anjur near Chavakad’.63 This Mar Rokos did, with Mar Koorilose IV making arrangements concerning his luggage. Shortly after this, in March 1862, the steam boat to Bombay arrived at Cochin, which the Roman authorities were anxious that Mar Rokos should board. There seems to have been an attempt by some Syrian Catholics to prevent his leaving, not least because they felt he had failed to perform the religious services for which they had had paid 5,000 rupees. Mar Rokos, accompanied by Mar Koorilose IV, gave a written undertaking before a judge that he would not leave India until September. This was clearly a ruse to mislead his opponents (though whether Mar Koorilose was aware of this is unclear), for Mar Rokos then secretly boarded the steam boat and sailed for Bombay.64 Two of his companions are named. One was the Fr Anthony Thondanat mentioned above, who was himself to become bishop of those Syrian Catholics who returned to the Church of the East. The other was ‘Thoma Srampickal’.65 His name suggests that he was a member of the family of which the Kattumangattu were a subdivision. This raises the intriguing possibility that here, as

63 Mar Aprem, Thondanat, p.48. Chavakad was called Chowghat by the British. 64 Mar Aprem, Thondanat, p.49. Mar Thoma Rokos eventually submitted to Rome, but seems to have passed the remainder of his life under a cloud. He died in 1885 (Korolovskij, ‘Audo’, col. 334). Yacoub III mistakenly believes that the Koorilose in question, was Yoakim Mar Koorilose (Syrian Church of India, p.209), but the reference to Anjur identifies him as Koorilose IV Panakkal. 65 Mar Aprem, Thondanat, p.49. ‘Thomas Shrampical’ had been a member of a delegation that had travelled to Baghdad in 1857 (Mar Aprem, Thondanat, p.29).

482

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

so often in the Syrian community, family ties were being maintained across jurisdictional divides. Following the failure of Mar Rokos’ mission, in 1862 Anthony Thondanat returned to West Asia. Patriarch Joseph Audo was reluctant to consecrate him in the light of the furore surrounding Mar Thoma Rokos. Thondanat therefore made contact with the Church of the East Patriarch Mar Reuel Shimun at Qudshanis, by whom he was consecrated as Mar Abdisho.66 He returned to Kerala in 1863, but met with considerable opposition and found himself with few supporters: Mar Abdisho Thondanatt was forsaken by all. He had some following in Plassanal only. He went to Mar Kuriakose [Mar Koorilose IV] and got some help and returned to Plassanal to stay.67

Mar Aprem states that Mar Abdisho also received some advice from Mathews Mar Athanasios.68 The future career of Mar Abdisho Thondanat need not be told in detail. In 1865 he submitted to Rome, shaving off his beard as a sign of his obedience. In 1874 Patriarch Joseph VI Audo, in response to further requests from Pazhayakuttukar Padroado priests, sent Mar Elia Mellus (whom he had consecrated Bishop of Aqra in 1864) to Kerala, armed with letters to the British authorities and to the Christians of Malabar.69 These included the intention of suppressing the Carmelite jurisdiction over the Pazhayakuttukar. In the event, after some initial success, very few congregations left the Diocese of Verapoly (which at this stage consisted of both Latin and Syriac rite parishes) and placed themselves under Mar Mellus, who had ordained significant numbers of priests loyal to his cause. For a time Mar Mellus was assisted by another Chaldean bishop, Mar Jacob Abraham, who had also been consecrated by Patriarch Joseph VI. Mar Jacob 66 Tisserant says the consecration was performed by Mar Abraham Shimun (Eastern Christianity, p.110) but he had died in 1861 (see the list in Baumer, Church of the East, p.319). 67 Mar Aprem, Thondanat, p.61. 68 Mar Aprem, Thondanat, p.61, quoting a Malayalam source. 69 Tisserant, Eastern Christianity, p.113. See also Coakley, Church of the East, pp.274-279 and the sources quoted there, for this period of contact.

INDEPENDENCE SECURED

483

attempted to win supporters in the Kuruvilangad area, but with no success.70 Despite papal threats, Mar Elia Mellus (with Mar Jacob) did not return to the Middle East until 1882, upon which Mar Abdisho once again resumed episcopal responsibilities in India which he held until his death in 1900. During this period there is evidence of links with both Thomas Mar Athanasios, the successor of Mathews Mar Athanasios and leader of the Reform/Independence group in the Puthenkuttukar (see below), and with Mar Dionysios V, leader of the ‘Patriarchal’ group.71 He even appears, robed, in a group photograph of Orthodox bishops, priests and deacons where he is described as ‘formerly a Roman Catholic’.72 These contacts and the photograph seem to be further evidence of a degree of fluidity between the different Syrian jurisdictions.73 From 1900 there has been a succession (with some breaks and schisms) of Church of the East bishops based at Trichur down to the present.74 Mar Aprem, Indian Church History Lectures, p.45f. See Mar Aprem, Thondonat, p.79ff. In 1882 Mar Abdisho wrote to his Patriarch from ‘the school of the Metran Mar Thomas Athanasius of the Syrian Jacobites’ at Kottayam. O’Mahoney claims that Mar Dionysios (whom he numbers ‘IV’) ‘was known for his Catholic tendencies, especially his regard for forms of Latin catholic piety’ and himself desired union with Rome (‘Syrian Catholic Church’, Sobornost, 28. 2 (2006), p.46f). If this is true, it is further evidence of the complex and shifting loyalties of the period. 72 Richards, Indian Christians, facing p.62, see Figure 27. The photograph must date from after 1889, for also among the bishops is Mar Julius Alvarez who was consecrated in July of that year (Abba Seraphim, Flesh of our Brethren, p.127). 73 It seems, however, that contact with Mar Reuel Shem’un was not successfully maintained. Maclean and Browne, who were living closely with the Patriarch and his people testify that by the 1890s it was not known what had become of the Metropolitan whom Mar Reuel Shem’un had consecrated for India (The Catholicos of the East, p.246). 74The 20th century history of the Church of the East in India may be summarized as follows: In February 27, 1908, Mar Abimalek Timotheos arrived in India, sent by Patriarch Mar Benjamin Shimun. Upon his arrival, he removed all statues from the churches. He was challenged by the Roman Catholics and faced a long series of court cases. Not until 1925 did he win legal security for his jurisdiction. The following year Mar Timotheus established the Mar Narsai Press which still functions today. In 70 71

484

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

This glimpse of the involvement of the two Metropolitans Mar Athanasios and Mar Koorilose IV in the affairs of the major section of the Syrian community raises some interesting questions. From what is known of Mar Athanasios it is unlikely that his knowledge of Arabic provided his only interest in Mar Thoma Rokos’ mission. In the 1850s Mathews Mar Athanasios was at the height of his powers. He had just secured recognition from the State authorities, and no threat to his position was imminent.75 1945 Mar Timotheus died in Trichur and the Church of the East in India was left without a bishop for seven years. In June 1952, in Mar Addai Church in Turlock, California, Patriarch Mar Eshai Shimun consecrated Deacon Mansor Elisha Dharmo, originally from Syria, as Mar Thoma Dharmo and sent him as the new bishop to India. In 1964, Mar Thoma Dharmo had a disagreement with Patriarch Mar Shimun, principally over the hereditary succession of bishops and the Church calendar. On 10th January 1964, the Patriarch suspended the bishop for disobedience. Soon after the Patriarch attempted to introduce the Gregorian calendar in place of the Julian, which created a schism in the Church of the East. In India, too, the church was divided into two groups. In 1968, Mar Thoma Dharmo travelled to Baghdad and there consecrated two Indians (Mar Aprem Mooken and Mar Paulos Konikkara) as bishops to lead the Old Calendar group. In 1971 Patriarch Mar Eshai Shimun consecrated another Indian as Mar Timotheus for the adherents of the new calendar. The two groups united in January 2000, under Patriarch Mar Dinkha IV, successor to Mar Eshai Shimun. Today the Church of the East in India has 29 listed parishes and 34 churches, with a membership estimated at about 30,000. The church has 43 priests, 14 unmarried and hence qualified to become bishops. There are also 32 deacons, 2 sub deacons, 2 deaconesses, and 3 nuns. The church has one seminary, one college for girls, one higher secondary school, two high schools, three lower primary schools, one orphanage, and a centre for the elderly. (See Mar Aprem, The Chaldean Syrian Church in India, passim; Indian Church History Lectures, pp.37-62.; J.F.Coakley, ‘The Church of the East since 1914’ in J.F. Coakley and K. Parry (eds.) The Church of the East: Life and Thought, (Bulletin of the John Rylands Library of Manchester, vol.78, no.3, Autumn 1996). Christoph Baumer, The Church of the East: An Illustrated History of Assyrian Christianity, (London, I.B.Taurus, 2006) needs to be treated with caution in its chapter relating to India. 75 Mar Stephanos and Yoakim Mar Koorilose were, in effect, contained by the State authorities who supported Mar Athanasios. Mar Dionysios V did not appear on the scene until 1865.

INDEPENDENCE SECURED

485

Perhaps this helps explain his ambivalent attitude towards reform – too radical a pursuit of Protestant-inspired change would have reduced the likelihood of discontented Pazhayakuttukar joining him.76 Precisely why Mar Koorilose IV should have become involved is less clear. Trichur, the centre of the activities of Mar Thoma Rokos and Mar Abdisho Thondanat, is the nearest large town to Thozhiyur and so there may have been elements of local solidarity. Did he share the hopes of uniting the Pazhayakur community, freed from Rome, with the Puthenkuttukar, freed from Antioch? Was a variant of the dream of Mar Dionysios I momentarily revived? Certainly, the 1852 petition to the Pope threatened as much (though the number of signatories was actually very small). Nor had the dream of re-uniting the St Thomas Christians died on the Roman side, though the methods employed are reminiscent of the aggressive tactics of the decades following Coonen Cross: When in 1896 Syro-Malabar vicars apostolic were appointed, they immediately turned their attention towards their Jacobite brethren. They opened several mission stations in Jacobite centres of their respective dioceses … the work steadily progressed. The converts, both lay and ecclesiastical, were received into the Chaldean rite of the Syro-Malabar Church.77

It is possible that further research will shed light on the precise nature of the contact between the MISC and the community at Trichur and its neighbourhood. After the affairs of Mar Rokos, Mar Mellus and Mar Abdisho , there seems to have been little involvement with the MISC, though amicable relations exist down to Tisserant, writing from a pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic perspective, says of Mathews Mar Athanasios that he ‘was keen on remaining as the head of the whole Jacobite community of Malabar. Although he had Protestant leanings, he did not make any attempt to carry out the programme of reforms which had been planned by his uncle Abraham Malpan’ (Eastern Christianity, p.150). 77 Tisserant, Eastern Christianity, p.156. For the story of the final appointment of Indian bishops for the Syro-Malabar community, see Tisserant, pp.121-139 and Mundadan, Search and Struggle, pp.74-108. On the very eve of the appointment of the first Indian bishop since Alexander de Campo, the Pazhayakuttukar were still petitioning the Chaldean Patriarch, Mar Joseph V, to take them under his jurisdiction. 76

486

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

the present day with the descendants of those Pazhayakuttukar who were eventually to break free of Rome. Two Church of the East bishops, Metropolitan Mar Aprem Mooken and Paulose Mar Paulose, were among the consecrators of Mar Koorilose IX in 1986. Within the majority Pazahayakur community, the 1870s and 1880s saw further developments leading to the establishment of two Vicars Apostolic for the Romo-Syrians in 1887 (though with non-Syrian bishops78) under the newly erected Archdiocese of Verapoly, and eventually the consecration of Indian bishops in 1896. By the 1870s, however, the Puthenkuttukar were facing their own crisis; Mathews Mar Athanasios, Joseph Mar Koorilose IV and their successors were fighting for their survival, as will be seen in the next Chapter. INTERNAL LIFE

Protected from outside interference by the High Court's recognition of its independence, the Malabar Independent Syrian Church was able to consolidate itself and pursue its own course under the direction of its Metropolitan, Joseph Mar Koorilose IV, who reigned until his death in 1888. As noted in the previous chapter, at the time of Mar Koorilose IV’s accession, the Church consisted simply of St George’s cathedral standing in its coconut grove, and the Mar Behanan Chapel in nearby Anjur. The acquisition of the two properties at Chalisserry and Porkulam began a process of expansion that is still continuing. Mar Koorilose IV was a native of Kunnamkulam (where the Panakkal family home still stands). So it was his ardent desire that he should have a church in his native place. An extensive plot in the heart of the town was purchased. It is an elevated place and so could command a beautiful view around. It is still commonly, known as “The Hill Church”, though formerly it seems to have been called the Seminary Church. Later, it became a fully constituted parish. It 78 The Vicars Apostolic had the rites for Confirmation and the consecration of Churches and Churchyards translated from Latin into Syriac (Podipara, Canonical Sources, p.125).

INDEPENDENCE SECURED

487

is noteworthy that the local Christians of all denominations have heartily co-operated in all the activities of the church and also in its renovation in the year 1940.79

A surviving document at Thozhiyur throws light on the alternative name which clearly meant nothing to Verghese. It appears that Mar Koorilose IV had hopes of founding a Seminary, for in 1871 he petitioned the British Governor in Madras for permission to conduct a lottery in order to raise funds for that purpose. The document granting the permission of the Governor in Council is still in existence.80 It may be that the lottery produced sufficient money for the purchase of the land at Kunnamkulam. Certainly, the survival of the tradition concerning the name ‘the Seminary Church’ suggests very strongly that this is what Mar Koorilose IV hoped to build on the site. His contemporary, Metropolitan Mathews Mar Athanasios had just re-opened the Old Seminary at Kottayam.81 It is very likely that, with that example before him, Mar Koorilose IV hoped to endow his own Church with a seat of learning and perhaps to reside there himself.82 If a rudimentary Seminary was ever founded in Kunnamkulam, it can not have lasted very long. Neverthless, the Church at Kunnamkulam, with its strategic position in one of the larger towns of the region, remains a centre for a range of outreach activities to the present day.

Verghese, Brief Sketch, p29. The Petition was number 79 of 1871 (or 1872 – both dates appear on the document). The response is addressed to ‘Mar Coorilas, the Right Reverend the Syrian Bishop of Anyoor, Ponnany Taluq, Malabar District’. 81 In order to do so, Mathews Mar Athanasios had had to persuade the British Resident to release to him the income on the Star Pagodas, which seems to have been untouched and accumulating since the parting of the ways after the Mavelikara Synod of 1836. Inevitably, the granting of the money and re-opening of the Seminary were controversial. For details see CCC, (November 1870), p.439, (May 1871), p.182f, (October 1871), p.390, (December 1871), pp.474-476; Yacoub III, Syrian Church in India, pp.223-225. 82 By coincidence, approximately one hundred years later, another Joseph Panakkal of the same family as Mar Koorilose IV lived at Kunnamkulam Church prior to his consecration as Mar Koorilose IX. 79 80

488

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

The growth of the Church meant that the Metropolitan had to travel more extensively and regularly than before. Accordingly, in July 1883 Mar Koorilose IV petitioned the Chief Secretary of the Government in Madras for permission to have two silver badges made. These were to be worn by his ‘peons’ ‘to be made use of in my circuits’, as ‘in these frequent visits’ the Metropolitan often found ‘his progress obstructed while passing through crowded bazaars’.83 Permission was granted and the badges were made (though in brass, not silver) bearing the Metropolitical mitre and the legend ‘By Sanction of the Government’. They were used up until Indian Independence in 1947 and still survive at Thozhiyur today. Another of Mar Koorilose IV’s projects was the erection of further buildings at the original cathedral at Thozhiyur, producing a four-sided cloister, with a balcony supported by pillars. This seems to have taken place between 1857 and 1865. As seen above, in 1821 Digby Mackworth had visited Thozhiyur and found Mar Philoxenos II living in a house which he had built for himself, just over the stream that forms the boundary between Cochin and Malabar. It looks as though Mar Koorilose IV wished to replace that house with a more suitable residence. Once again, this seems to have been modelled on the Old Seminary at Kottayam and consists of a threestoried structure, with living accommodation and rooms for storage and office use. Entry is via a large double wooden door which is still closed every night at the end of the evening prayers.84 The tumultuous events of 1857, far away in northern India, seem to have had little effect on life at Thozhiyur. In any case, Malabar had been directly governed by British authorities since it was ceded to them by Tippu Sultan in 1792. It is, however, possible to obtain a glimpse of interaction between the bishops and the outside world. In 1868 Mar Koorilose IV commenced a Visitors’ Book in which are recorded the comments of a succession of visitors to Thozhiyur down to the present day. Many of these were Government officials and their entries show their concerns for the region. Most of the signatures are indecipherable, but the dates are usually TA. Uncatalogued document. The nave of the Church and the west wing of the quadrangle were rebuilt by Mar Koorilose IX in 1989. 83 84

INDEPENDENCE SECURED

489

clear. In his report on Britain’s newly acquired territory, made in the early 1790s, Lieutenant Edward Seton had concluded, I know nothing so much wanted, or that would tend more to the Improvement of Malabar, than Road and Bridges, which might be made at little or no expense ….85

Fascinatingly, the first entry in the Visitors’ Book, dated 27th March 1868, includes a reference to the problems of transport, which had obviously not been solved in the intervening period and which was to be a recurring theme over the years: There was much intelligent desire for progress amongst the Bishop and his people – and I hope to be able to do something towards bettering the roads, etc which they are very anxious to have improved. If the people will come forward to help themselves they may depend on the assistance of Government.

Raising the standard of living in the vicinity is also the subject of the next entry, by a ‘Special Commissioner’: I have had a pleasant visit from the Bishop of Toliyur. He has given me much information regarding the condition of the agricultural classes in his neighbourhood. It will be of material assistance to me in the accomplishment of the task I have in hand.86

Progress, however, was slow. Six year later the road still had not been built, as the entry from the Collector of Malabar87 reveals: It has given me much pleasure to pay a long-promised visit to Bishop Mar Coorilos whom I have known for many years but whom I have never before visited in his own house at Anjoor. IOR/H/456b, p.599. 29th August 1881. This entry is made at Chetwai, which raises the interesting scenario of Mar Koorilose IV going to visit the Government’s Special Commissioner and taking his Visitors’ Book with him to be signed. Chetwai was formerly part of the Zamorin’s territory and had been taken into Dutch possession as early as 1717 (see Panikkar, Dutch, p.44). 87 For the various posts within the British administration, see the table ‘Principal Positions in the Executive Branch of the Indian Government 1900’ in Gilmour, The Ruling Caste, following p.xxiii. 85 86

490

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS I have seen his books and am presently going to see his Church. He has treated me with the utmost hospitality, and I only wish I could have done better justice to the good things to which he has treated me. I hope to give him the road to connect his Church with the outer world. I take away very pleasing recollections of my visit to Anjoor.88

An incident handed down in oral tradition and recorded by Verghese illustrates something of the health risks in the region at the time, and the continuation of a healing ministry at Thozhiyur: While Mar Koorilose IV was Metropolitan one of the priests was bitten by a dog. Nobody took a great deal of notice, for the animal was a pet in the bishop's residence. Later, however, the priest began to show symptoms of rabies. The Metropolitan was extremely sad, not least because the Church was a place where rabies was treated. So he closed himself in the church for prayer. The third day he celebrated the Holy Qurbana and the victim was brought in. By that time he had regained his normal senses and received Holy Communion with due respect and devotion as before. It was this priest who later on succeeded the Metropolitan under the name Joseph Mar Athanasios (Maliyakkal).89

Independent documentary evidence of the Church’s ‘specialist ministry’ in relation to dog-bite related disease is found in an entry in the Visitors' Book dated 28 March 1889: 'I was sorry to hear of the demise of my old respected friend Mar Curialos, who treated my son, John from mad dog bite.' The man (whose signature is illegible) had returned with three other children likewise afflicted. This range of activity, much of which has endured to the 21st century, clearly identifies Alathur Panakkal Mar Koorilose IV as one of the most significant bishops of the MISC. The evidence of the extension to the building, the lottery petition and the Visitors’ Book are helpful correctives to the impression that the sole preoccupation of Mar Koorilose IV and other Syrian bishops was the struggle for the future and identity of the 88 89

VB. 23rd March 1887. Verghese, Brief Sketch, p.31f.

INDEPENDENCE SECURED

491

Puthenkur and Pazhayakur communities. As it happened, the Thozhiyur bishops were to be called on to make one further major intervention in that struggle, but by that time Mar Koorilose IV was dead. It fell to his successor to meet the new challenge.

[Publisher’s Note: Page 491 is followed directly by page 527 due to an error in production. No content is missing from the book.]

CHAPTER 14: THE END OF THE OLD ORDER AND THE CONSECRATION OF TITUS I MAR THOMA Cheppat Mar Dionysios IV, it will be recalled, had died in 1855. For the next nine years Mathews Mar Athanasios and Joseph Mar Koorilose IV were the only Indian bishops in Kerala, between them ruling over the Puthenkuttukar, albeit with periodic interference from bishops from Antioch. In 1864 the situation changed with the arrival of a new Indian claimant to the throne of Malabar. It was to initiate a chain of events that would lead to the dismantling of the old Puthenkur Malankara Metropolitanate. JOSEPH MAR DIONYSIOS V

The identity of this new player in the story is arguably a consequence of the Thozhiyur Independence Court Cases. Among the supporters that Yoakim Mar Koorilose had gained in the northern regions, following his banishment from Travancore and Cochin, was a young man Joseph Pulikottil of Kunnamkulam. This Joseph was a great nephew of the Joseph Pulikottil who had brought Mar Koorilose I to Malabar and who had been subsequently consecrated by Mar Philoxenos II as Mar Dionysios II. On 10th October 1846, at the age of 13, the younger Joseph Pulikottil was ordained as korooyo, by Cheppat Mar Dionysios IV at Marthoman Cheriapally, Kothamangalam. He then returned to his native Kunnamkulam and continued his theological studies. In 1849, the Patriarchal bishop, Mar Stephanos, ordained him to the order of shamsono (full deacon) at Arthat Church. Clearly committed to the Patriarchal cause, he was ordained priest by Yoakim Mar Koorilose on 18th

527

528

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

August 1852.1 He seems to have handled the latter’s lawsuit against Mathews Mar Athanasios and Joseph Mar Koorilose IV (and may, indeed, have been one of the representatives or agents who found the Church at Thozhiyur locked against him). Despite having lost the case, he was recognised by some of the Puthekuttukar as their ‘man of the hour’.2 In 1863 Joseph Pulikottil therefore set out for Mesopotamia (just as Deacon Mathew Palakunnathu had done twenty two years before). Yacoub III claims that he took with him forged letters purporting to be from Yoakim Mar Koorilose.3 In April 1864 he was consecrated at Diyabekr by Patriarch Yacoub II as Joseph Mar Dionysios V, despite the fact that the former had received warnings against him.4 He returned to Kerala and commenced a long campaign to get Mathews Mar Athanasios’ recognition as Malankara Metropolitan withdrawn. His career thus mirrors that of Mathews Mar Athanasios, even to the extent that his supporters also claimed that he was ‘connected with the Powlomattom family by relationship’.5 It seems that the old North-South divide 1 Daniel, Orthodox Church, p.171. The Syrian Orthodox Resources website gives the date 23rd August 1853, and states that the ordination took place in Chalissery Church (http://sor.cua.edu/Personage /Malankara/MDionysiusJPulikkottil.html). Brown states that in the year of his ordination Joseph Pulikottil led a secession in Kunnamkulam and built a church for his followers (Indian Christians, p.143f). 2 Daniel, Orthodox Church, p.171. He particularly seems to have had the support of the Edavazhakil family (Yacoub III, Syrian Church of India, p.205), though in 1858 Philip Edavazhikal had written to the Patriarch requesting the consecration of Geevarghese Konat as Metropolitan (Syrian Church of India, p.212). It is not clear what prompted the shift of support. 3 Syrian Church in India, p.208. V.C. Samuel states that Joseph went to the Patriarch ‘with all the necessary recommendations’ (Truth Triumphs, p.14). He had of course nothing of the kind. Like Palakunathu Mathew before him, he may well have carried a request for his consecration from some supporters (in addition to the alleged forged documents), but could not claim to have the support of the whole Puthenkuttukar. 4 Yacoub III, Syrian Church in India, p.206f. Bayly sees this consecration as the Patriarch giving ‘his imprimatur to the head of yet another Malayali priestly lineage’ (Saints, p.306). 5 Judgement/Row-Iyer, para. 193. Tisserant says that Pulikottil Joseph ‘laid claim to the Metropolitan see as a member of the Pakalomattom fam-

THE END OF THE OLD ORDER

529

also played a part in the support given to Mar Dionysios V. As a native of Kunnumkulam he had the backing of the northern Churches, while Mar Athanasios’ following was stronger in the south.6 Mar Dionysios V also had to face opposition from Yoakim Mar Koorilose, who claimed that he himself had received metropolitical authority from the Patriarch, and seems to have objected to Indians being made bishop.7 For his part, Mar Dionysios V wrote letters to Antioch claiming that Yoakim Mar Koorilose was only interested in acquiring money.8 THE CONSECRATION OF THOMAS MAR ATHANASIOS

The arrival in Kerala of Mar Dionysios V was no doubt a contributory factor in the decision to consecrate an assistant by Mathews Mar Athanasios. He was, after all, the only bishop of reforming sympathies and needed to ensure that all that he was seeking to achieve was not lost on his death. For some years his younger cousin Palakunnathu Thomas Kathanar, the second son of Abraham Malpan, had been acting as secretary to Mar Athanasios.9 Urged on by his supporters who stated that they ‘did not with to kiss the hands of foreign bishops’, in 1868 Mathews Mar Athanasios consecrated his cousin as Thomas Mar Athanasios.10 Of the three other bishops then in Kerala - Yoakim Mar Koorilose, Joseph Mar Dionysios V and Joseph Mar Koorilose IV of Thozhiyur – ily’, but does not give an authority for this statement (Eastern Christianity, p.150). 6 CCC, (October 1871), p.389. In 1870 it was reported that a number of Churches in the north were still refusing adherence to Mar Athanasios (CCC, (May 1871), p.184). 7 Yacoub III, Syrian Church in India, p.208. Baker confirms that Mar Dionysios V was resisted by both Mar Athanasios and Yoakim Mar Koorilose (CCC, (Nov. 1870), p.437. 8 Yacoub III, Syrian Church in India, p.230. 9 Kanisseril & Kallumpram, Glimpses, pp.58, 69-71. In one of his statements to the Courts Thomas Mar Athanasios says that he was his predecessor’s secretary from 1863 (Judgement/Row-Iyer, para. 232). Interestingly, the Judges refer to him as Mathews Mar Athanasios’ ‘brother’. The confusion is caused by the fact that there is no distinction between ‘brother’ and ‘cousin’ in Malayalam. 10 Kanisseril & Kallumpram, Glimpses, pp.58.

530

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

only the last assisted at the consecration.11 The consecration thus visibly demonstrates the divide between the two Patriarchal bishops on the one hand and the two who were prepared to contend for the independence of the Indian Church on the other. It seems that the common cause of independence was stronger than doctrinal difference, for there is no evidence that the community at Thozhiyur ever sympathised with or adopted even the modest reforms that Mathews Mar Athanasios was seeking to introduce among the Puthenkuttukar by this date. The consecration of Thomas Mar Athanasios was attended by thousands of people from all over the diocese showing ‘by their presence how thoroughly they approved of their metran’s act for securing the succession in accordance with the “use and wont” obtaining in Malankarai.’12 THE VISIT OF PATRIARCH PETER III

Despite constant harassment from his opponents Mathews Mar Athanasios continued to reign as Malankara Metropolitan. In fact, his position was strengthened by the recognition of him as Metropolitan by the courts in 1869 and the consequent award to him of the interest on the Star Pagodas.13 The evidence suggests that the majority of Puthenkur Churches accepted his leadership. As late as 1874 Bishop Milman judged Mar Dionysios V as ‘a mere adventurer, who managed to get a small following, and had a small party trading chiefly on objections to all reformation and improvement’.14 Frustrated by his lack of progress, Mar Dionysios V eventually decided to invite the Patriarch of Antioch himself to visit

Judgement/Ormsby, p.106. Rae, Syrian Church in India, p.313. See Judgement/Ormsby, p.106 for testimonies concerning the numbers present and the popularity of the action. 13 Brown, Indian Christians, p.144f; Kanisseril & Kallumpram, Glimpses, p.60. It was this award that led to the re-opening of the Old Seminary at Kottayam, as discussed above. 14 Milman, Memoir, p.286. Opponents of Mathews Mar Athanasios argued that many feared to voice their objections for fear of reprisals from the authorities – hence the impression that most of the Puthenkuttukar willingly obeyed him. 11 12

THE END OF THE OLD ORDER

531

India.15 The new Patriarch, Peter III16, decided to take up the challenge posed by the Indian Church. No doubt conscious of the fact that Mathews Mar Athanasios enjoyed support from the British, the Patriarch travelled first to London where he met the Archbishop of Canterbury and a number of Government representatives.17 In addition to soliciting British support against Mathews Mar Athanasios, there were also two other items on the Patriarch’s ‘shopping list’: to enlist British protection for his community in the Ottoman Empire, and the establishment of various educational institutions for the Syrian Orthodox. Archbishop Tait (advised by the Bishops of Calcutta and Madras among others) initially expressed unequivocal support for Mar Athanasios: The Archbishop deplores that there should be at present a schism from the presence in Travancore of two claimants for the Office of Mutran. Mar Athanasios and not Mar Dionysios ought to be supported as Mutran of the Christians of Malabar …. Athanasios represents the principle of that Church’s independence and desire to reform itself.18

Tait even went on to suggest that the Patriarch should model the relationship between Antioch and Malabar on that which was emerging between Canterbury and the overseas Anglican Provinces.19 This was not advice that the Patriarch was inclined to ac-

15 It may be that the death of his ally Yoakim Mar Koorilose in 1874 prompted the decision. The death left Mar Dionysios outnumbered 3:1 by pro-independence bishops. 16 This is the numbering given to him in contemporary documents. Since the 1980s he has been referred to as Peter IV in Syrian Orthodox usage, due to the addition of the Apostle Peter to the numbering (Taylor, Antioch and Canterbury, p.15). 17 The visit is described in detail in Taylor, Antioch and Canterbury, pp.15-43. For an account from a Syrian Orthodox perspective, see Yacoub III, Syrian Church of India, pp.231-234. 18 Letter from Tait to Peter III, September 1874 (LP/Tait 202, ff. 237-241) quoted in Taylor, Antioch and Canterbury, p.21. 19 See Tait’s address to the Patriarch of 15th September 1874. Text in CCC, (October 1874), pp.382-382.

532

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

cept.20 He continued to make representation to both ecclesiastical and political authorities in London, contrasting the British refusal to interfere with ecclesiastical matters in the Ottoman Empire with what the Patriarch saw as its partisan support of Mathews Mar Athanasios in India. To Lord Derby, the Foreign Secretary, he wrote: I therefore claim justice in this matter from Her Majesty’s Government that this order be cancelled by which alone he [Athanasios] is forced upon my people and which was obtained for him contrary to right by influence of the British Resident.21

Gradually the British Government and the Churchmen involved came to accept that a position of neutrality regarding who should be Malankara Metropolitan was the only realistic compromise. Archbishop Tait communicated this to Peter III, though his references to the desirability of worship in the vernacular and the distribution of the Scriptures, show where his instincts lay.22 Armed with this considerable victory, the Patriarch left London for India.23 20 The Patriarch’s formal response can be found in CCC, (November 1874), pp.420-422. The question of Mathews Mar Athanasios’ leadership of the Indian Syrians is the major topic in both the Archbishop’s and the Patriarch’s speeches. 21 Letter dated 28th January 1875 (FO. 78/2426) quoted in Taylor, Antioch and Canterbury, p.37. 22 Letter of Tait to Patriarch, 8th March 1875 (LP/Tait 214, f.87). The British decision seems to have been based on a perspective that the Indian Church was, after all, a ‘daughter Church’ of Antioch and that it had to be acknowledged that the Patriarch had some rights in relation to it. 23 While in London the Patriarch seems to have been the guest of Mrs Elizabeth Finn, the widow of the British Consul in Jerusalem, who was to continue active in her support for the Syrian Orthodox Church until the second decade of the 20th century (see Taylor, Antioch and Canterbury, p.22 and passim). The copy of Richards, The Indian Christians of St Thomas, now in the possession of the Library of Trinity College, Bristol, contains a letter by Mrs Finn. This includes the following statement: ‘The Patriarch then in England applied to Lord Salisbury (1874) who in my presence told him he must go to India – To which he replied that this was impossible as he had no funds. On hearing this the Malabar Christians sent him, through the Archbishop of Canterbury £300 cheques which the

THE END OF THE OLD ORDER

533

Eventually he arrived in Cochin in June 1875.24 The Bishop of Madras wrote to Archbishop Tait that the Patriarch had refused to give any indication as to his intentions, but that unrest was inevitable: ‘his red and black silk and satin will be attractive to many’.25 THE ABANDONING OF MATHEWS MAR ATHANASIOS

Mathews Mar Athanasios and Patriarch Peter III never met in Kerala, allegedly due to the machinations of various interested parties who feared that, if they were to meet face to face, they might be able to reach an accommodation.26 At one stage, when both of them were in Trivandrum, Mar Athanasios sent a deputation to the Patriarch, and subsequently wrote to him, but the Patriarch, it is alleged, declined to see him.27 It is likely that at some stage the Patriarch annulled the absolution given to Mar Athanasios back in 1856, though there is some unclarity about this.28 By March 1876 the Patriarch, taking advantage of the change in British policy that he had achieved in London, succeeded in getting from the Travancore Government a proclamation which in effect removed Mathews Mar Athanasios’ immunity from legal challenge; from Rev [blank] Bullock handed to me in the Patriarch’s presence & I handed to him. He left for India in April 1875.’ The sending of money by Indian Syrians is referred to in Yacoub III, Syrian Church of India, p.233. 24 The Patriarch’s first major event in Kerala had been at Kunnamkulam on 29th May. There is no evidence of his making contact with Mar Koorilose IV at nearby Thozhiyur (Yacoub III, Syrian Church of India, p.241). 25 Letter of F.Madras to Archbishop of Cantebury, Coonoor, 14th June 1875 (LP/Tait 208, f.289). 26 Kanisseril & Kallumpram, Glimpses, p.62; Yacoub III, Syrian Church of India, p.268. They seem to have met in Turkey – the Patriarch had been a deacon when Mathews Mar Athanasios was there. 27 CMS/B/OMS/CI2 E1/94 Letter from K Kuruwella to Rev Thomas Whitehouse. 28 Yacoub III, Syrian Church of India, p.250. Richards recounts an incident in 1874 when a deacon showed him a letter from the Patriarch deposing Mathews Mar Athanasios (Indian Christians, p.48f). It has, however, been claimed that there is no primary evidence that Patriarch Peter III (or any other Patriarch) ever formally excommunicated him (see Samuel, Truth Triumphs, pp.77, 140, quoting Paret, Malankara Nasranikal, p.188).

534

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

now on the Governments of the States were to be officially neutral in relation to the Malankara Metropolitanate. In future claims for possession of Church property were to be decided by the courts.29 Mathews Mar Athanasios was given assurances by the Rajah of Travancore regarding his position, but these were not honoured. Letters, petitions and telegrams were sent by the Reformers to the Archbishop of Canterbury, the British Government and the Governor in Madras. Some of these were from individual Syrian Christians, others from groups.30 Eighteen individuals from Kunnamkulam, the nearest town to Thozhiyur, for example, sent a Memorial to Tait, begging him to intervene on behalf of Mathews Mar Athanasios.31 Thomas Mar Athanasios, the Suffragan Metropolitan, asked Tait to save the Syrian Church from ‘the thraldom which threatens it at present’.32 Mathews Mar Athanasios himself sent a Memorial to the Marquis of Salisbury, pointing out that the Malabar Church was independent and that there was no precedent of a Patriarch ever deposing or excommunicating a Malankara Metropolitan. It was all to no avail. Mathews Mar Athanasios was to all intents and purposes abandoned by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Ironically, this was just at the moment when the dream of Abraham Malpan, Colonel Munro and the first generation of CMS missionaries at the Old Seminary was beginning to be fulfilled. The Kun29 For the text see Judgement/Ormsby, Appendix (following p.118). It should be noted that the proclamation did not remove Mar Athanasios from the office of Malankara Metropolitan. It merely stated that ‘the former proclamation [of 1852] is not to be considered as in any way precluding the entertainment and decision by the ordinary Courts of Law of any questions, as to rights in, or ownership to, any churches or property connected therewith, or as to the power of appointment or removal of officers connected thereto’. This course of action had been recommended in a paper prepared by Sir A.J. Arbuthnot KCSI (Dissensions in the Syrian Church in Malbar, LP/Tait 208, ff.315-318. It is followed by a shorter paper on the same subject by Adolphus Moore). Yacoub III describes Patriarch Peter’s communications with various officials to achieve this end (Syrian Church of India, pp.250ff). 30 See CMS/B/OMS/CI2 E1/94 Letter from K Kuruwella to Revd Thomas Whitehouse; and LP/Tait 208 for examples of these. 31 LP/Tait 208, ff.296-8. 32 LP/Tait 208, f.292.

THE END OF THE OLD ORDER

535

namkulam memorialists complained that the Patriarch was determined to follow ‘all those erroneous and superstitious doctrines against the teachings of Mar Athanasios our recognised Metropolitan, who has wisely discontinued the invocation of Saints, prayers for the dead, the auricular confession, and various other similar superstitions which are contrary to Holy Scripture’.33 After years of equivocation, Mar Athanasios had come down on the side of reform. But at the end of his life, the CMS-educated Metropolitan was prevented from implementing change by the very Church of England which had impressed upon him the importance of those reforms when he was still a boy. THE MULANTHURUTHY SYNOD 1876

Patriarch Peter III travelled extensively around the Churches in Travancore and Cochin.34 His attempts to gain access caused some Churches to be closed to him. This prompted appeals by the Patriarch to governors and officials, both British and Indian, who struggled to balance local custom and property rights with the Patriarch’s insistence that, as the head of the Syrian Church, all Syrian property was under his authority. In July 1876 the Patriarch convened what he claimed was a synod of the Syrian Church at Mulanthuruthy.35 Interestingly, this lies within the northern cluster of Churches, where opposition to Mathews Mar Athanasios had been strongest at the beginning of his reign, though it is impossible to be sure how strong the North-South polarisation was by this time. The synod comprised three bishops (the Patriarch himself, Mar Gregorios Abdullah who had accompanied him from West Asia, and Mar Dionysios V36), 130 priests and 144 laymen, allegedly repLP/Tait 208, ff.296-8. See Yacoub III, Syrian Church of India, pp.253-256, for an account of these visits and their consequences. 35 The status and composition of this gathering, and the authority of its decisions, have been much controverted matters down to the present day. See, for example, Judgement/Row-Iyer, paras. 250-287; Judgement/Ormsby, pp.64-102. 36 The Patriarch seems simply to have ignored Mathew Mar Athanasios. He is referred to as ‘Beliar’ in some of the proceedings of the Synod. Documentary evidence has yet come to light to suggest that Mar Kooril33 34

536

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

resenting 103 parishes.37 The Synod created a Managing Committee of priests and laymen to work with the Metropolitan and made various arrangements concerning the administration of parishes and the dissemination of canon law and Patriarchal directives.38 A Padiyola or Agreement was then submitted to the Patriarch by the Synod. This recited the community’s history, taking the position that the Indian Church had always been beholden to Antioch, and promising continued adherence to the faith of the Patriarch.39 Of particular interest here are two references to the Thozhiyur bishops. Having spoken of the ‘regularising’ of the consecration of Mar Dionysios I by the bishops who came in 1751 (with no mention of Mar Koorilose I), the Padiyola continues, And in 1815 Pulikottil Youseph Dionysius metropolitan of the line of Kattumangat Metran, founded the Kottayam Seminary and earned properties for the same and made arrangements for instruction – in a laudable manner.40

Interestingly, there is no suggestion here of any deficiency in the Orders of Mar Dionysios II, despite the fact that he was consecrated without any reference to Antioch. On the contrary ‘the line

ose IV was invited. There are virtually no references to him in the Patriarch’s statements beyond the complaint that Mathews Mar Athanasios had ‘consecrated two more bishops like unto himself, and had the effrontery to designate them Metropolitans’ (LP/Tait 226, f.11). 37 Kaniamparampil, Syrian Orthodox Church, p.143f. Tisserant states that ‘In spite of the presence of their hierarchical superior, the great majority of the priests and the faithful as well as the CMS missionaries stood by Mathews Mar Athansius’ (Eastern Christianity, p.151). While actual numbers are difficult to obtain, the fact that it took over ten years for the position adopted by the 1876 Synod to prevail, suggests that the opposition to the Patriarch was substantial. For evidence that, until the arrival of the Patriarch, the majority of the Puthenkuttukar accepted Mathews Mar Athanasios as Metropolitan see Judgement/Ormsby, p.66f. 38 Kaniamparampil lists the first members of the Managing Committee (Syrian Orthodox Church, p.147-149). 39 The text is given in Kaniamparampil, Syrian Orthodox Church, pp.149-154. 40 Kaniamparampil, Syrian Orthodox Church, p.151.

THE END OF THE OLD ORDER

537

of Kattumangat Metran’ – Mar Koorilose I – is simply referred to without any need to explain or justify its validity. The second reference in the Padiyola relates to the visit of Mar Athanasios Abdul Messih. There is a brief mention of the ‘deceitful influence’ of the English missionaries; Consequently, the Church, through the then ruling Metropolitan Mar Dionysios [III] appealed to the Throne of Antioch; as a result of which Mar Athanasios Abdul Masih and Sabor Remban came in 1825 and the missionaries, influencing the ruling Kidangan metropolitan [Mar Philoxenos II], succeeded in sending them back ….41

Here again, there is no suggestion of Mar Dionysios III and Mar Philoxenos II not being validly consecrated bishops. Both are referred to as ‘ruling’ Metropolitans. Nor is there any attempt to blacken their memory by associating them with the reforms being pressed by the missionaries – at most Philoxenos is criticised for not standing up to them. In this highly politicised and contentious document, designed to bind the Puthenkuttukar to the Patriarchate of Antioch, the Thozhiyur bishops are given an integral place in the community’s story. Following the Synod the Patriarch created seven dioceses and consecrated bishops for six of them (the seventh being assigned to Mar Dionysios V). There is no evidence that he took Thozhiyur into account, though none of the seven towns named as diocesan centres was in the northern districts near Anjur. Significantly, all the new bishops had to swear an oath of loyalty to the Patriarch. Mar Dionysios V was assigned the smallest of the newly-created dioceses. It looks as though the Patriarch was attempting to evacuate the Malankara Metropolitanate of its historic prestige and power.42 This presents an interesting contrast with Mathews Mar Athanasios who was clearly adhering to the older ‘model’ of the Puthenkuttukar as a single community under a single Metropolitan. The Patriarch seems to have view Kerala as a territory, capable of Kaniamparampil, Syrian Orthodox Church, p.151. If this was the intention, it did not succeed. Even the newlyconsecrated bishops acknowledged Mar Dionysios V as Malankara Metropolitan. See Judgement/Ormsby, p.13f. 41 42

538

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

supporting a number of dioceses.43 In 1877 Patriarch Peter III returned to Ottoman Syria, taking with him much gold and silver.44 As a result of his intervention there were now two parallel systems in Kerala. The traditional one, headed by Mathews Mar Athanasios, was still in place, with a newly-created multi-diocese system alongside it. Individual congregations were now going to have to choose to which system they belonged. THE DEATH OF METROPOLITAN MATHEWS MAR ATHANASIOS

That same year Mathews Mar Athanasios died at Maramon, as a result of a poisonous rat bite, aggravated by his diabetes.45 Despite some criticisms of episodes in his early life and of his methods in securing recognition of his Metropolitanate in Kerala, assessments of his life and work are generally positive. As demonstrated in earlier Chapters, for most of his episcopal career his commitment to the cause of reform seems to have been inconsistently pursued.46 In 1864 Bishop George Cotton visited Travancore and Cochin and wrote to Mar Athanasios in terms that ‘show that the reformation movement was not in a flourishing If Mar Athanasios had taken this view and consecrated several bishops, it could have radically altered the balance between his supporters and those of the Patriarch. 44 Yacoub III, Syrian Church of India, p.267. He was described by a French Capuchin father as arriving back in West Asia ‘bearing considerable sums. The prestige of gold here is a power nothing can resist’ (quoted in De Courtois, Forgotten Genocide, p.26). 45 15th July 1877 (Kanisseril and Kallumpram, Glimpses, p.67). 46 Even Juhanon Mar Thoma concedes that in his early years as a bishop, Mar Athanasios ‘seemed to be indifferent to matters of reform’ (Mar Thoma Church, p.25). Tisserant’s Roman Catholic perspective has been noted in the previous Chapter. E.M. Philip claims that Mar Athanasios ‘dabbled in reform’ in some parishes, while in conservative parishes, ‘he showed himself an out-and-out Jacobite in the fullness of ardour for the time-honoured practices of the Church …’ (Indian Church, p.202). The debate continues to the present day: ‘It is hotly contested whether Athanasios had identified with the reform party or the Jacobites’ (www.malankaraorthodoxch.in). The Mar Thoma Seminary archives contain a number of kalpanas by him, several of them appointing priests to parishes. They are nearly all in Syriac. 43

THE END OF THE OLD ORDER

539

condition’.47 A glimpse of the quality of Mar Athansios’ life in 1868 (as seen by a CMS missionary) is given in a letter by the Revd William Johnson, who was working in Tiruvalla: ‘It is to be lamented that he does not act up to what he knows of the truth’.48 At this stage there seems to have been a feeling among the missionaries that their protégé had let them down. A large part of the missionaries’ sense of disappointment was no doubt due to the fact that Mar Athanasios had not ‘protestantised’ the Puthenkuttukar as much as they would have liked. Ecclesiastically, the ‘reforms’ seem to have been modest and include a number of practices now accepted by all Syrian Christian communities: the reading of the Scriptures, worship in the vernacular, Sunday Schools and preaching. More widely, Mathews Mar Athanasios had worked for the improvement of the status of the Puthenkur community – something which even his severest critics concede.49 Both reformers and conservatives benefited from his efforts to raise the status of the Syrian community and to remove some of the social disabilities from which Christians were then suffering.50 Even so, it is important not to exaggerate Mar Athanasios qualities. Robert Milman’s (Bishop of Calcutta from 1867 to 1876) assessment of him was that he ‘was not of a very high character (though I think better than the other)’.51 Milman had seen it as his duty to admonish his brother bishop, and seems to have done so to good effect: ‘[he] took a little objurgation (humbly administered, but very plain) extremely well, and mended his ways, I believe, permanently’.52 Milman was correct. W. J. Richards who for thirty-five years was a CMS missionary in Kerala and who was critical of Mar Athanasios’ early life, recorded that, ‘I can bear testimony - as from 1871 until 1877, when he died, we were

Cheriyan, CMS, pp. 296, 426f. CMS/CI2/0141/5 Letter dated 19th March 1868. 49 Eg E.M. Philip, Indian Church, p.203. For an example of the kind of incident that attracted his attention, see Kuruvilla, Mar Thoma Church, p.22. 50 Kuruvilla, Mar Thoma Church, p.22; Juhanon Mar Thoma, Christianity in India, p.25; Daniel, Orthodox Church, p.169. 51 Milman, Memoir, p.287. 52 Letter dated December 1874, quoted in Milman, Memoir, p.287. 47 48

540

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

neighbours in Kottayam - that his latter years were exemplary, and he did set himself to reform the Church.’53 In preparation for his death Mathews Mar Athanasios made a will, naming Thomas Mar Athanasios as his successor. He also issued a Pastoral Letter in Malayalam to each Church in which he speaks of ‘the doctrines which we, who are weak and sinful,54 from the time of our entering upon the episcopate have preached and expounded to you.’ There is nothing in them that is ‘strange’ nor cannot ‘be clearly discerned by every one who would compare them with the pure word of God.’ He asks the forgiveness of any whom he may have offended and exhorts them to stand firm in the faith, to believe in the Lord Messiah and to yield their souls and bodies ‘for His glory and service.’55 The Metropolitan also gave instructions that he was not to be buried seated and robed according to the usual custom, but in a coffin beside the grave of his uncle Abraham Malpan in Maramon churchyard. This was in fact done, though his bones were later transferred to the churchyard at Tiruvalla where the Mar Thoma Metropolitans and bishops are buried.

53 Richards, Indian Christians, p.59. The annotation of the copy at Trinity College, Bristol by Mrs Finn (who was of course an active supporter of Patriarch Peter III), states that ‘Mar Athanasius seems to have repented his evil life before his death’. Of the ‘Reformers’ she states: ‘They appear to be a respectable body in spite of Mar Athanasius’. Milman (who believed Mar Athanasios to be the legitimate Metropolitan) thought there was now a real choice facing the Syrian community: ‘a desire of real reformation on the part of Mar Athanasios, and a blind adherence to antiquity on the part of Mar Dionysios’ (Milman, Memoir, p.285). Cheriyan opines that the consecration of Mar Dionysios V might have prompted Mar Athanasios to realise that reconciliation with the Patriarch was now impossible and that he should now pursue reform. However, Mar Dionysios V was consecrated in 1864, whereas the evidence of Cotton, Johnson and Milman suggests that Mar Athanasios did not finally commit himself to reform until some years after that. It does seem to have been a genuine commitment. 54 ‘weak and sinful’ is a phrase from the liturgy of St James which the celebrant uses of himself. 55 Full text in Richards, Indian Christians, p.43f.

THE END OF THE OLD ORDER

541

Perhaps his most fitting epitaph is Tucker’s judgement on him, expressed in 1842, when the news of young Mathew’s consecration first reached him: My belief is from what I know of Matthew, that he desires a reform in his Church, and will attempt an extensive one, and I think … that his natural gifts and character are such as admirably to qualify him to govern. I think he will not be daunted by opposition or indifference, and that difficulties will only serve to call out his energies.56 THOMAS MAR ATHANASIOS, MALANKARA METROPOLITAN57

On the death of Mathews Mar Athanasios, Thomas Mar Athanasios succeeded him in the possession of such symbols of the Metropolitanate as the crozier and the Seminary at Kottayam and hence, in the eyes of his followers, and according to the strict letter of the law, as Malankara Metropolitan.58 Even Philip concedes that ‘possession of the churches and other properties’ passed to Thomas Mar Athanasios on the death of his cousin as ‘when the old Proclamation was cancelled, the possession existing at the time was not disturbed’.59 Significantly, payment of the interest from the Star 56 CMS/ACC 91 02/05; letter from Tucker to Peet, dated Madras 2nd July 1842. 57 For biographical details of Thomas Mar Athanasios see Kanisseril and Kallumpram, Glimpses, pp.69-84. Richards describes him as ‘gentle’ (Indian Christians, p.xv). 58 Thomas Mar Athanasios claimed that his succession was in accordance with the precedent of former times when Metropolitans had nominated and consecrated someone to succeed on their death (Judgement/RowIyer, para. 232). 59 Indian Church, p.210. It will be recalled that the 1875 Proclamation had not of itself removed Mathews Mar Athanasios from office. Tisserant accepts that ‘When Mathews Mar Athansius died in 1877, his cousin Thomas automatically succeeded him, became the head of the Mar Thomites and even a sort of superintendent of the properties of all the Jacobites’, (Eastern Christianity, p.152). ‘Through the Patriarchal actions, though Mar Athanasios’ royal proclamation was cancelled off, still he was the Metropolitan and almost all the Churches were with him according to the status quo prevailed then on’ (www.malankaraorthodoxch.in). The

542

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

Pagodas – that touchstone of the authentic Metropolitan - was also transferred to him. Patriarch Peter III may have set up parallel structures, but the old Malankara Metropolitanate was still in place. Mar Dionysios V summoned a synod of bishops to Parumala in February 1878 where a decision was taken to file a suit against Thomas Mar Athanasios.60 The initial hearing was in the Zilla Court of Allepy, which after five years found in favour of Mar Dionysios in 1884.61 Only at this point did the interest from the Star Pagodas cease to be paid to Thomas Mar Athanasios.62 Mar Athanasios then appealed to the High Court in August 1884, which, two years later, upheld the ruling of the Zilla Court. At this stage the Maharajah of Travancore seems to have tried to broker a compromise. At a meeting held at Niranam Mar Dionysios V agreed to acknowledge Thomas Mar Athanasios as Malankara Metropolitan on the condition that he did not consecrate a successor. The offer was rejected on the grounds that it would have meant the surrender of the independence of the Indian Church.63 Thomas Mar Athanasios then appealed judicially to the Maharajah of Traclergy and lay trustees (who both favoured reform) also remained in office (Kanisseril and Kallumpram, Glimpses, p.74). 60 The suit was for the possession of certain properties, seen as pertaining to the office of Malankara Metropolitan. They included the star pagodas, the Seminary, various domestic items, and ‘a mitre of red velvet with designs made of gold, [and] a silver staff with a serpent hood’ (Visvanathan, Yakoba, p.26, quoting Royal Court of Final Appeal I, Trivandrum, Keralodayam Press, 1890, p.12). 61 For a brief description of the court structure see V.Krishnan Row, A Description of the Administrative System of Travancore in the year 1844, (reproduced in Drury, Selections, pp.25-36.) and H.H. Wilson, A Glossary of Judicial and Revenue Terms and useful words occurring in official documents relating to the administration of the Government of British India, London, W.H. Allen & Co., 1855. The Zillah and Appeal Courts each had to have one Christian judge. The opinion of the British Resident was to be sought in making appointments, particularly of the Christian judges. 62 Exhibit 255, Ruling In the District Court of Trivandrum (MTS/A/218). It should be noted that, despite all the activity and claims of the Mulanthuruthy Synod, Thomas Mar Athanasios functioned unchallenged as Malankara Metropolitan for two years, and then for a further five while the case dragged through the Courts. 63 Kanisseril and Kallumpram, Glimpses, p.75.

THE END OF THE OLD ORDER

543

vancore who appointed a Royal Court of Final Appeal. On 12th July 1889 the Court pronounced its judgement. By a majority of two to one the Judges again found in favour of Mar Dionysios. Among the vast amount of material and argumentation, the Court had decided that there were two basic issues to be determined. The first was whether the Malankara Church came under the jurisdiction of the Jacobite Patriarch of Antioch. The majority verdict was that, the Ecclesiastical supremacy of the See of Antioch over the Syrian Church in Travancore has been all along recognised and acknowledged by the Jacobite Syrian community and their Metropolitans; [and] that the exercise of that supreme power consisted in ordaining, whether directly or by duly authorised Delegates, Metropolitans from time to time to manage the spiritual matters of the local Church …..64

In the light of the Puthenkuttukar’s consistent interpretation of their history – so surprisingly different from that of the Pazhayakuttukar – it is not surprising that the judges reached this decision. Whether the community’s interpretation is supported by objective evidence is another matter. It should be noted that the even the majority judgment, while allowing the Patriarch spiritual supremacy, denied him any authority of the temporalities of the Indian Church. In a sense this perpetuated the division of responsibilities inherited from pre-Diamper days. The foreign prelates were limited in their involvement with the community. By contrast, Mathews Mar Athanasios and Thomas Mar Athanasios were, in effect, defending a different ‘model’, namely the combined role of 64 Judgement/Row-Iyer, 347. In fact, of the six judges who had heard the case in the various courts, five had decided that the Patriarch of Antioch had been, at least since 1665, the recognised head of the Syrian Church. Mr Justice Orsmby alone concluded: ‘it is not made out that imposition of hands by Antioch is essential to the consecration of a Metran of Malankarai, which is itself an independent and coeval Church’ (Judgement/Ormsby, p.116). All the Final Court of Appeal Judges agreed that ‘the authority of the Patriarch has never extended to the government of the Church which, in this respect, has been an independent Church’ (Judgement/Row-Iyer, 347).

544

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

‘spiritual head’ and ‘head of community’ which the Pakalomattom Archdeacons had assumed once they began to obtain episcopal consecration. The second fundamental issue was whether approval by the majority of the Christian community was also necessary for an individual to hold the office of Malankara Metropolitan. Both parties argued that it was. Mar Dionysios argued that the Mulanthuruthy Synod of 1876 constituted his acceptance by the community. Judges Row and Iyer accepted this. Ormsby drew attention to a host of irregularities in the calling and conduct of that Synod and concluded, There is no proof that either at the meeting or before it, or since, the majority of the Churches in Malankarai have accepted [Mar Dionysios V] as their Metropolitan. …As the record now stands, we have, in effect, no legal evidence – certainly no sufficient evidence – that the majority of the Syrian Churches here is on [Mar Dionysios’] side. As to the majority of the members of the Church, there is no evidence put before us….65

In the event the Rajah of Travancore confirmed the majority judgement awarding Mar Dionysios V possession of the Seminary at Kottayam. Thomas Mar Athanasios therefore had to leave the Seminary where he and his predecessors had lived for over seventy years, and take up residence at his ancestral parish at Maramon. He also had to surrender certain items ‘worn and used by the successive Metropolitans of that community, in virtue of their office’.66 It is possible that these included some items brought from West Asia by the 1751 delegation. Further judgments on other properties and individual churches were mainly given against the supporters of Thomas Mar Athanasios. With hindsight it can be seen that the division within the Puthenkuttukar became definitive from this point. It is normally described as a division between ‘Reformers’ and ‘conservatives’. This is understandable, as ecclesiastical and Judgement/Ormsby, p.117f. Judgement/Row-Iyer, paras. 2, 147. They are described further as ‘mitre, ring, staff and other insignia of office’ (Judgement/Ormsby, p.4). 65 66

THE END OF THE OLD ORDER

545

liturgical reforms were now pursued by Thomas Mar Athanasios and his successors and became characteristic of them. The divide can also be seen as the triumph of a new model of Church organisation over the older unitary Malankara Metropolitanate. The fact that the ‘Reformers’ were also eventually to adopt a multi-diocese structure has tended to obscure this fact.67 Subsequent to 1889 they commenced a programme of Church building and re-organisation, and eventually took the designation ‘Mar Thoma Syrian Church of Malabar’, claiming to represent the ancient autonomous Indian Church, purged of accretions introduced by Rome and Antioch.68 Thanks in part to a significant spiritual revival which began at this time, the Church began to experience growth and renewed confidence.69 EVENTS AT THOZHIYUR – THE CONSECRATION OF MAR ATHANASIOS I

What was the role of the MISC during this ten year period of litigation? Little documentary evidence survives. Such as there is suggests continuity in the relationship between the Metropolitan of Thozhiyur and Thomas Mar Athanasios. In 1883 Joseph Mar 67 Although possessing a number of dioceses, the Mar Thoma Church down to the present day still perpetuates something of the old unitary concept. There is only one Metropolitan, and the ‘episcopas’ have powers more analogous to Area Bishops than to full Diocesans. 68 Juhanon Mar Thoma, Mar Thoma Church, p.30ff; Alexander Mar Thoma, Heritage and Mission, p.91ff. The Reformers had argued that India was ‘the throne of St Thomas’, just as Antioch was ‘the throne of St Peter’. Both were apostolic foundations and therefore neither had authority over the other (Visvanathan, Yakoba, p.26). The separation within the Syrian community was at this time paralleled by the latest stage in the distancing of the Syrian community from the Hindu community with which it had once been closely connected (see Bayly, Saints, p.312f). This phenomenon lies outside the scope of the present work. 69 This is traced in the works of Juhanon Mar Thoma, Alexander Mar Thoma and K.T.Joy cited in the bibliography. One enduring aspect of the revival was the establishment of the Maramon Convention in 1896. This is a large evangelistic and teaching event, which attracts speakers from around the world. See P.P. Philip, A Survey of the Background, Origin and Growth of the Maramon Convention, Trivandrum, E.Philip, 1976.

546

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

Koorilose IV Panakkal was taken ill with a ‘violent attack of dropsical swelling’ so serious that his life was despaired of.70 In view of the gravity of the situation, Mar Koorilose IV nominated a successor - Maliyekkal Joseph Kathanar - who was consecrated on 14th October 1883 ‘by Mar Thomas Athanasius the recognized head of the national independent Syrian Church in Malabar’.71 The new bishop was given the episcopal name of Athanasios. The susthaticon is actually drawn up in the name of Mar Koorilose, who seems to have been present as a co-consecrator as he has added his personal attestation: ‘Mar Koorilose Metropolitan who is Joseph, the servant of Christos’.72 There the follows the seal of ‘Mar Athanasios, Metropolitan of Malabar, who is Thoma’ and an inscription in two concentric circles, surrounding the seal, which reads: I Thoma Athanasios, Metropolitan of Malabar [illeg.] our beloved brother Mar Athanasios who is Joseph, with all the clergy and with the small ones and the great ones, I also cried out three times Axios, Axios, Axios [is] Abuna Mar Joseph Athanasios.

The description of Thomas Mar Athanasios as ‘recognized head of the national independent Syrian Church in Malabar’ is accurate in that in 1883 no court had yet ruled that Thomas Mar Athanasios was not Malankara Metropolitan. The MISC was thus not allying itself with the Reformers as such, but with the status quo. It was the historic relationship with the Malankara Metropolitan (unaffected by the setting up of a parallel structure by the Patriarch) that was being maintained.

70 Letter from Joseph Mar Koorilose to the Right Honourable Mountstuart Elphinstone Grant Duff, Governor of Madras, dated 25th October 1883 (TA/uncatalogued document). 71 Letter from Joseph Mar Koorilose to the Right Honourable Mountstuart Elphinstone Grant Duff, Governor of Madras, dated 25th October 1883 (TA/uncatalogued document). 72 This last word is transliterated Greek. In all probability Thomas Mar Athasasios performed the bulk of the long, physically demanding rite, with Mar Koorilose IV seated in the madbaha and participating in such activities as the giving of the pastoral staff.

THE END OF THE OLD ORDER

547

The format of the susthaticon is clearly modelled on those of Mar Koorilose III and Mar Koorilose IV himself. It contains the clauses: Oh our spiritual son, the Holy Spirit has consecrated you through the hand of my weak self in the name of Athanasios, Metropolitan for the flocks of Thozhiyur at the request of all the faithful of the dioceses of Thozhiyur with authority to ordain bishops, priests and deacons, and consecrate churches, altars [madbahe], and do every thing appropriate to Metropolitans just as our Lord gave to his pure and holy disciples …. Again, I command you to ordain one Metropolitan for the diocese of Thozhiyur, which was mentioned above, during your life to guide your diocese after your passing away, according to the tradition of our Father Mar Koorilose Katumangat73 the founder of the Church of Thozhiyur, and of all the illustrious Metropolitans who are there.

Nine years later, in 1892, by which time Thomas Mar Athanasios had lost possession of the Seminary and other properties, he again took part in the consecration of a bishop for Thozhiyur – Mar Koorilose V. This time the susthaticon is issued by ‘Mar Athanasios Metropolitan of the Throne of Malabar who is Thoma and Mar Athanasios Metro[politan] who is Joseph, of the Church of Thozhiyur’.74 The document bears the same seal as the earlier one. Here Thomas Mar Athanasios’ claim to represent the true Church of St Thomas against the predatory claims of Antioch is clearly being maintained, despite the Seminary Case Judgement only three years before. Furthermore, given the many convolutions in Indian Church life, it was almost certainly not obvious in 1892 that this time the division was irreversible (see below). The Thozhiyur archives contain a suggestion that the continuing alliance between the MISC and the ‘defeated’ Malankara Metropolitan (powerfully symbolised in the joint consecration of a bishop) was bringing the small community unwelcome attention and hostility. On 1st January 1883 the Malabar District Magistrates 73 74

Unlike the rest of the text the last name has the vowels indicated. TA/uncatalogued document.

548

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

Court granted to Aynamkulangara Paulos kathanar, Vicar General of the MISC, a licence for ‘two guns and two bayonets, 8lbs of powder and 50 caps’ for ‘self defence and sport’.75 To this day the old wooden doors of the Metropolitan’s private quarters contain two holes through which it said that the guns were to be fired in the case of the Metropolitan being subject to attack. Within just over a year, the bishops at Thozhiyur would need all the protection they could get. THE CONSECRATION OF TITUS MAR THOMA

In July 1893 Thomas Mar Athanasios’ health began to deteriorate and he moved to his ancestral family home at Palakunnathu. Here he was visited by his old rival Joseph Mar Dionysios V.76 Soon after Thomas Mar Athanasios – no doubt worn out by his struggles – died. He had not of course consecrated a successor, to the delight of his opponents and the consternation of the Reformers.77 Everything that had been achieved since the days of Abraham Malpan over sixty years before was now in jeopardy. Understandably, Thomas Mar Athanasios’ funeral was a highly emotional affair. Mar Athanasios of Thozhiyur was unable to attend, due to monsoon floods. One of the presiding priests prayed through his tears, ‘Lord, when Moses died you had provided a Joshua to lead the people, but now we have nobody’.78 Some of the senior priests in the Reform party met and decided to nominate Dethos (Titus), the youngest son of Abraham Malpan, as bishop designate. The Reformers also decided, following the precedent of recourse to Mar Philoxenos II approximately 70 years earlier, to seek the help of the Metropolitan at Thozhiyur for his consecration. The leaders of what must now be called the Mar Thoma Church, the Rev. Punnathra Chandappilla, the Rev. Mathen Kizhakethalakal and Paramel Iyyu Ittoop came to Thozhi75 TA/uncatalogued document. Presumably the licence was granted to the Vicar General as it would be unseemly for the Metropolitan to have applied for it. 76 Kanisseril & Kallumpram, Glimpses, p.83. 77 The newly organized Mar Thoma Church ‘was shaken to its foundations’ (Glimpses, p.83). 78 Kanisseril & Kallumpram, Glimpses, p.84.

THE END OF THE OLD ORDER

549

yur to invite the Metropolitan to perform the consecration. Mar Athanasios I consented (after some initial hesitation according to some accounts), to do so as his predecessor had done for the Malankara Church earlier. Various oral traditions exist concerning the events at this time. Circulars were issued by the Mar Thoma ‘Vicar General’ and by Joseph Mar Athanasios summoning an assembly at Niranam which ratified the nomination of Dethos.79 The consecration was to take place in the Cheriappally in Kottayam of which Punnathra Chandappilla was the priest.80 The opponents of the newly independent Mar Thoma Church were bent upon preventing the consecration in order to annihilate the Reforming community once and for all. Threats and plots were directed against the bishops at Thozhiyur. Eventually in 1894 Mar Athanasios I and his suffragan, Geeverghese Mar Koorilose V, reached Kottayam, having had their journey disrupted on several occasions. Even here they were subject to threats of physical violence from crowds determined to prevent the consecration taking place. The local magistrate and police had to intervene and the two bishops were unable to leave the Church building. Eventually, however, on 8th January 1894, the two Thozhiyur bishops consecrated Dethos kathanar under the title Titus Mar Thoma in the Cheriapally at Kottayam. The susthaticon given by the MISC bishops to the new Metropolitan still survives at Thozhiyur.81 As one of the foundational documents of the Mar Thoma Church, it is worth examining in some detail. The format follows closely that of the earlier susthaticons at Thozhiyur. After the formulaic introduction, there follows: In the name of the eternal Being of necessary existence who holds all things; Mar Athanasios, 8th Metropolitan of the dio79 The choice of Niranam may be significant. It was an ancient Church and for long periods had been the seat of the Syrian Metropolitans, several of whom were buried there. It is where Mar Dionysios I had been consecrated in 1770. The venue would have imbued the election with a sense of continuity with the earlier history of the Puthenkuttukar. 80 The Church still contains many of its historic features. Punnathra Mar Dionysios III was consecrated and buried here. 81 This has probably saved it. The archives at Thozhiyur are fuller and in a better condition than those of the Mar Thoma Church.

550

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS cese of Thozhiyur who is Joseph, servant of Christ, and who guides and protects the goats of Christ who reside in Thozhiyur, the free diocese, which of old submitted to our Fathers and now [submits] to me, and over which the Metropolitans and the sons of the Churches of Malabar have no authority.

The robust statements of the independence of the Thozhiyur Church are particularly noteworthy. Firstly, it is described as ‘free’;82 then there is the almost defiant assertion - ‘over which the Metropolitans and the sons of the Churches of Malabar have no authority’. It is perhaps a little surprising that there is no mention of Antioch’s lack of authority over the community as well, but the pressing need was to assert the autonomy of the bishops, against local opposition, rather than the far-off Patriarch. Having established his freedom to act, Mar Athanasios I then states the basis for so doing: Oh my spiritual sons, we make known to you that, by your request and intercession, the priest [qasheesho] Titus who was chosen by the Synod which was called together in Niranam, received the High Priesthood on the 6th day of this month and was given the name Mar Thoma like the names of the first Fathers of Malabar, and he was raised up onto the Throne of High Priesthood through my mediation, weak though I am, to be the Metropolitan of Malabar which was mentioned above.

The susthaticon confirms the existence of the Synod at Niranam, and states that Mar Athanasios is acting in response to the petition emanating from that Synod. There is no diminution of the concept of the episcopal office being bestowed – it is referred to as ‘high priesthood’ at several times in the document. Further, the name ‘Thoma’ is explicitly linked to the earlier bishops, reaching back beyond the Dionsysioi and Athanasioi who had intervened. Finally, it is clearly stated that the new bishop is to be Metropolitan of Malabar – ie. head of the whole Puthenkuttukar.83 He is also given authority to ordain ‘Metropolitans’ as well as bishops, Syriac: hirto (‫) ܐܪܬܐ‬. It is doubtful whether by this stage there was any thought of a claim over the Pazhayakuttukar as well. 82 83

THE END OF THE OLD ORDER

551

priests and deacons. The only ‘Reformed’ note in the entire document is the addition of ‘Gospel laws’84 to the apostolic canons and decrees of the three Holy Synods as the teaching authorities from which the new bishop is not to remove anything. At the end of the document Mar Koorilose V has added his attestation: I, Koorilose who is Geevarghese, 9th Metropolitan of Thozhiyur, at the time of the crowning of our exalted brother Mar Thoma Metropolitan of Malabar who is Titus, cried out three times with all the clergy, Axios, Axios [illeg.] Mar Thoma Metropolitan of Malabar.85

It was a momentous intervention. Without it the Mar Thoma Church, which today numbers approximately 900,000 members around the world and has a number of bishops, would almost certainly not exist in its present form. The Reformers may well have dispersed either into the Anglican dioceses or back into unreformed Orthodoxy. It is possible that some might have organized themselves into a body like the later St Thomas Evangelical Church, in which the first bishops were consecrated by the laying on of hands by priests.86 The consequences for the MISC were also momentous. From the consecration of Titus Mar Thoma was to come a line of bishops who would in due course be called on to provide bishops for the Church at Thozhiyur. The consecration by bishops of one community for another is far from unknown. The traditional practice of the Coptic Pope consecrating the head of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church has already been noted, as has Pope Shenouda III’s consecration of bishops for the newly independent Eritreian Orthodox Church in 1994. Within Europe, bishops of the Church of Utrecht consecrated bishops for the ‘Old Catholic’ communities leaving the Ro84

Syriac: nmws’ ‘wngli[missing] […]

‫̈ ܐ ܐܘ ܓ‬

.

85 A further point of interest is that the MISC bishops apply numbers to themselves, Joseph Mar Athanasios being 8th Metropolitan, and Geeverghese Mar Koorilose V, the 9th. The sequence includes the short-lived Mar Ivanios whose career was noted in Chapter 9. 86 This was a schism from the Mar Thoma Church which took place in 1961. See Joy, Growth, p.71f; Alexander Mar Thoma, Heritage, p,39f.

552

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

man Church from the 1870s.87 More recently, bishops of the Church of Sweden have on several occasions consecrated bishops for the Church of Latvia. Finnish bishops have done the same for Estonia.88 Bishops of the Church of Ireland have consecrated bishops for the Spanish Reformed Episcopal Church and the Lusitanian Church.89 The Reformed Episcopal Church performed the same service for the Free Church of England in 187690 and bishops of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the USA for the Philippine Independent Church in 1945.91 Mar Athanasios and Mar Koorilose were following both the precedent of Mar Philoxenos II, and acting in a way that is widely accepted in the world Church. At the time, however, it brought them deep unpopularity from those who opposed the Reformers. Why did they do it? Apart from any emotional pressure that may have been applied, it is important to take into account the contemporary situation. From a 21st century perspective it is obvious that from 1876 onwards there would be two hierarchies contending for control of the Puthenkuttukar. That would not have seemed so obvious in 1894. It was becoming clear that the Patriarch was not maintaining the arrangements he had made following the Synod of Mulanthuruthy. By 1894 three of the six bishops consecrated by Peter III had died (one of them as long as ten years previously) and had not been replaced.92 The indications were that the multiFor the initial consecrations and the events leading to them see C.B. Moss, The Old Catholic Movement: Its Origins and History, London, SPCK 1964 (2nd ed.), pp.226-256. 88 For the Baltic Churches see the essays in Together in Mission and Ministry: The Porvoo Common Statement with Essays on Church and Ministry in Northern Europe, London, Church House Publishing, 1993. 89 The Faith and Order of the Lusitanian and Spanish Reformed Episcopal Churches, Report of the Commission appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, London, CIO, 1963, p.3. C.H.Long (ed.), Who Are the Anglicans? Profiles and Maps of the Anglican Communion, with brief descriptions of inter-Anglican agencies and their history, Ohio, Forward Movement Publications, 1988, p.62f. 90 See Fenwick, The Free Church of England, pp.104-107. 91 The Faith and Order of the Philippine Independent Church,, Report of the Commission appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, London, CIO, 1963, p.9. 92 Geevarghese Mar Julios had died in 1884, Simon Mar Dionysios in 1886 and Geevarghese Mar Kurilose in 1891 87

THE END OF THE OLD ORDER

553

diocese structure imposed by the Patriarch was not going to be permanent. The other bishops had, in any case, been ‘speedily reduced to the status of suffragans’.93 The extinction of the proAntioch hierarchy was a possibility, as, perhaps, was some sort of ‘deal’ such as that proposed to Thomas Mar Athanasios in 1886. In consecrating Titus I Mar Thoma, the Thozhiyur bishops were making possible the survival of the old ‘model’ of a Malankara Metropolitan who may have in an undefined way ‘acknowledged’ Antioch, but who functioned independently in India as head of his community. In 1894 the division in the Puthenkuttukar was only five years old; its healing would have seemed desirable and feasible to many.94 INTERNAL LIFE

Joseph Mar Athanasios I had succeeded Mar Koorilose IV in 1888. Apart from his historic intervention in Malankara history by the consecration of Titus I Mar Thoma, there is little evidence of his other activities. Only the Visitors’ Book provides a few glimpses. Communications with the outside world had not improved. There still does not seem to have been any road out of the village. In 1891 the Assistant Engineer for Malabar recorded that: I am happy to be able soon to carry into completion the road and bridges so much needed. I should recommend that the road be carried out towards the backwater and thus open a

(http://catholicose.org/PauloseII/Primates.htm). Two non-Syrians, Julius Alvares and Rene Vilatte had been consecrated, but not to serve in Kerala. Not until 1908, by which time only one bishop consecrated by Peter III was still alive, did Patriarch Abdalla II of Antioch consecrate further bishops for Kerala – beginning with Geevarghese Vattasseril, as Mar Dionysios VI (Samuel, Truth Triumphs, p.32f). 93 Brown, Indian Christians, p.150. 94 There is a degree of irony in the fact that the Reform movement inspired by Palakunnathu Abraham Malpan had been saved from extinction (at least in a traditional episcopal form) by bishops of the very Church towards which the Malpan had taken such a disparaging attitude back in the 1830s and 40s.

554

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS good road to Chowgat and Po-a ?. It should prove a very useful road to many.95

Even when constructed, the road does not seem to have been very satisfactory. Just six years later there were problems: I have inspected the Anjur Road. The Bridge requires repair and the Road metal and gravel formation. This appears to have been promised but not carried out. I hope early steps will be taken to do the needful. Bishop Joseph and Sufragan Mar Coorilose have welcomed me most cordially.96

A recurring theme is the warmth of hospitality received at Thozhiyur. British officials clearly enjoyed their visits: I have this day had the pleasure of fulfilling my long desire, viz. to visit Bishop Mar Joseph Athanasios and his Church. The Bishop was very kind to me and I only wish I could have done more justice to all the good things with which I was treated. As this village is within my jurisdiction I shall always repeat my visits when encamped here.97

The domestic, peaceable comments in the Visitors’ Book in the 1890s give no hint of the fierce battle that was raging in the Malankara Church at that time. It seems ironic, therefore, that Mar Athanasios I’s place in Church history should have been secured not by his hospitality to British colonial officials, but by his role in that crisis.

VB. 3rd February 1891. VB. 19th March 1897. 97 8th May 1892 at Camp Vyalattur. 95 96

CHAPTER 15: THE TWENTIETH CENTURY: EXPANSION, OBSCURITY AND NEW INITIATIVES By the dawn of the 20th century, the identities of the various sections of the Syrian community were becoming fixed.1 The Pazhayakuttukar had had Indian bishops since 1896, and in 1923 they were finally freed from the control of Latin-rite bishops with the erection of the ‘Syro-Malabar’ hierarchy, with Ernakulam (near Cochin) as its major See. In 1992 Ernakulam-Angamale was raised to a Major Archbishopric, the equivalent of a Patriarchate. The Syro-Malabar Church now has several dioceses, and many schools, institutions and religious Orders, active throughout India. At the beginning of the 20th century much of its energy was devoted to seeking to prevent the return to the Church of the East of several thousand of its members in the vicinity of Trichur in Cochin. Since then, and more positively, but not without trauma, the SyroMalabar Church, has been vigorously debating its identity and, since Vatican II especially, has been actively restoring its Eastern liturgical heritage. ‘De-latinisation’ has proved extremely controversial, as has Rome’s reluctance to sanction Eastern-rite congregations outside Kerala.2 1 For a detailed statistical analysis of the various groups with the wider Syrian community since the end of the 19th century, see K.C. Zachariah, The Syrian Christians of Kerala: Demographic and Socio-Economic Transition in the Twentieth Century, New Delhi, Orient Longman, 2006. 2 The literature generated by Syro-Malabar scholars has been immense and only a tiny fraction can be cited here as illustrative of some of the community’s concerns. On the question of identity, see Podipara, Thomas Christians, pp.202-215; A.Mathias Mundadan, Indian Christians: Search for Identity & Struggle for Autonomy, Bangalore, Dharmaram Publica-

555

556

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

Among the Puthenkuttukar, the ‘Reformed Syrians’ – now generally known as the Mar Thoma Church - were occupied with building new Churches under the leadership of Titus I Mar Thoma and his suffragan, and enjoying the blessings of a series of spiritual revivals. Today the Church has ten bishops and a prosperous Diaspora stretching from Canada to Australia, with particularly strong communities in the Gulf and Malaysia. The ‘unreformed Syrians’ – ancestors of today’s ‘Patriarchal/Jacobite’, ‘Catholicos/Orthodox’ and Syro-Malankara jurisdictions - were finding that the 1876 Mulanthuruthy Synod had not in fact resolved all their issues, but were nevertheless relatively fixed in an increasingly West Syrian identity – though major divisions among them were to begin in 1912 and are still unresolved.3 Much of the controversy has hinged on the ancient question of whether the Malankara Church was an independent sui generis community, or whether it was part of the Syrian Orthodox Church. In 1909 Mar Dionysios V (Mathews Mar Athanasios’ old adversary) died and was succeeded by Geeverghese Mar Dionysios VI Vatterseril, who was appointed Malankara Metropolitan by Patriarch Abdulla. By 1910, however, Abdulla had excommunicated Dionysios VI and claimed authority to appoint another bishop (Mar Kurilose) as Malankara Metropolitan. In 1912 Patriarch Ignatios Abdul Massih, Abdulla’s predecessor as Patriarch, who had been removed from office by the Ottoman authorities, came to Kerala at the invitation of Mar Dionysios VI and his followers. At a ceremony at Niranam tions, 1984; Thomas Vellilamthadam, Joseph Koldakudy, Xavier Koodapuzha and Mathew Vellanickal (eds.), Ecclesial Identity of the Thomas Christians, Kottayam, Oriental Institute Publications, 1985. On liturgical revision see D.S. Amalorpavadas (ed.), Post Vatican Liturgical Renewal in India, Bangalore, National Catechetical and Liturgical Centre, 1968; Jacob Vellian, An Historical Introduction to the Syriac Liturgy: Syro-Malabar Liturgy, Encounter of the West with the East in Malabar, Kottayam, St Ephrem Ecumenical Research Institute, (n.d.); Roman Documents on the Syro-Malabar Liturgy, Kottayam, Vadavathoor, Oriental Institute of Religious Studies India, (213), 1999 and the many documents cited there. 3 For an account from the ‘Patriarchal’ side, see Yacoub III, Syrian Church in India, pp.278-297; Kanianparampil, Syrian Orthodox Church, pp.160-296; for the ‘Catholicos’ view see David Daniel, Orthodox Church, pp.201-458. There is a great deal of other literature.

THE TWENTIETH CENTURY

557

Abdul Massih created the office of ‘Catholicos’ for the Puthenkuttukar, bestowing it upon another bishop, Paulos Mar Ivanios (ie not upon Mar Dionysios VI, who remained Malankara Metropolitan), and gave authority to the Church to appoint further Catholicoi in future.4 The details of the numerous court cases and negotiations need not be repeated here. Suffice it to say that two parties – known locally as Bava kakshi and Metran kakshi – persist to the present day. In 1934 the ‘pro-independence’ group merged the titles of Catholicos and Malankara Metropolitan. In 1964 Patriarch Yacoub III reinstated the office of Maphrian (suspended since 1859) for the senior bishop among his adherents in Kerala, though the term ‘Catholicos’ is more generally used.5 A brief re-union between the two groups collapsed in 1974. Today they constitute two separate Churches, though social intercourse and inter-marriage between them is common (as it is with the MISC and Mar Thoma Churches, the wife taking her husband’s affiliation). Bishops occasionally transfer from one group to the other.6 With fixed and expanding indigenous hierarchies of their own, none of these substantially larger groupings any longer needed the little Church at Thozhiyur. References to the MISC therefore disappear from the stories of the Churches in whose determining events it had once played such an important role. Even so, the MISC has continued to interact with all of them to various degrees and has an acknowledged place in the St Thomas community down to the present day. Its bishops frequently appear on the platform at ecumenical gatherings. Despite this its internal life is little known, and hence a brief overview of major

4 As early as 1909 Kora Mathew Malpan had written to Patriarch Abdul Messih asking that ‘the throne of Tigris [Tikrit] be established in India and one amongst us be installed as Maphrian with the title of Basilios Maphrian of the East (MTS/A/218 Exhibit 73). 5 Zakka Iwas, Syrian Orthodox Church, p.32f. 6 Interestingly, this conflict, too, reflects the North-South divide in the wider community: ‘In the north the majority of the people supported the Patriarch …. The south, on the whole, was for the Catholicos, centred in the old Seminary at Kottayam (Brown, Indian Christians, p.158).

558

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

developments in the 20th century is given here.7 As this Chapter shows, a major concern of the Metropolitans has been the improvement of the situation of their people and an alleviation of the suffering of those among whom they live. GEEVERGHESE MAR KOORILOSE V, 8TH METROPOLITAN, 1898-1935, AND PAULOSE MAR ATHANASIOS, SUFFRAGAN METROPOLITAN 1917-1927

At the very beginning of the 20th century, the English evangelist Thomas Walker, who paid several visits to the Mar Thoma Church with a view to deepening the spiritual life of its clergy and people, was aware of the MISC only as a Church predominantly untouched by the form of the Gospel that he preached. In March 1900 he recorded in his diary that the deacons in the Mar Thoma Seminary in Kottayam had all made a decision for Christ, following his evangelistic ministry: This is indeed something to praise God for, since they are the clergy of the future. Two of them belong to the Ainar [Anjur] Bishopric in the Cochin State, a very dark Bishopric, where the Gospel is scarcely preached. It is quite separated from the Metran’s jurisdiction, though they are all on friendly terms of communion. If they carry the Gospel light there, it will be splendid.8

7 The present Chapter relies heavily on Fr. K. C. Verghese's account of that process, which brings together a considerable corpus of oral tradition (Brief Sketch, pp.29-45). Verghese, whose life spanned much of the 20th century, was no doubt an eye-witness to many of the events that he describes. For some decades entries in the Visitors’ Book also exist. The sources show a community occasionally touched by outside events, but whose main focus was its own internal life, grouped around its Metropolitan. This relative isolation enabled the Church to arrive at the end of the twentieth century in a state of traditional simplicity to some extent lost in the other Churches. 8 Amy Wilson-Carmichael, Walker of Tinnevelly, London, Morgan & Scott, 1916, p.249. It may be noted in passing that in 1900 the Mar Thoma Church was by no means as ‘reformed’ as Walker wished. He observed that of the approximately 70 Achens, only 20 wished for any fur-

THE TWENTIETH CENTURY

559

That Anjur was ‘a very dark Bishopric’ in the eyes of a committed English Evangelical Churchman confirms the MISC’s adherence to the traditional rites and beliefs of the Indian Church. The Metropolitan at the time of Walker’s remarks was Mar Koorilose V (Mar Athanasios I having died in 1898),. Richards refers to the Church in 1901 simply as the ‘brethren under the Bishop of Anyura, reckoned at fourteen thousand, who are called Nasranis, and who live in British Malabar’.9 Mar Koorilose V’s first appearance in the Visitors’ Book is in 1895. The entry reveals something of the fascination which the ancient Syrian Christian community had for visitors: On my visit to Vayalathur, I was told that there is a large Syrian Christian Church here. I was therefore very anxious to see it, not having seen one before. I was very kindly received by the Bishop Korilous, the Archbishop being away on circuit at the time. I was very kindly shewn around the premises and Church and the Bishop very kindly explained to me the whole history of the Church. I wish the Archbishop and his Bishop every success in their undertaking.10

Mar Koorilose V belonged to the Karumamkuzhi branch of the Pulikottil family. The loss of his mother at an early age had resulted in the disruption of his education, an event which gave him a passionate commitment to providing schooling for others. He founded schools at Porkulam, Chalissery and Thozhiyur, despite facing bitter opposition from the managers of neighbouring schools. He was interested not only in secular education but also in religious education. He sent the clergy to the theological instituther reform, though the majority of the 30 deacons were ‘on the right side’ (Wilson-Carmichael, Walker, p.244). 9 Richards, Indian Christians, p.52. At the same time ‘the Jacobites and the Reformers together’ were thought to number approximately 255,000 (ibid). Richards is, however, incorrect when he states that, ‘At the present time there are three Metrans at the head of the Reformed Church – namely, Titus Mar Thoma, his suffragan, Titus Mar Thoma II … and the Bishop of Anyura in British Malabar’ (p.53f). The Church at Anjur was never part of the Reformed body – as Walker’s assessment of it shows. 10 VB. 7th June 1895.

560

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

tions at Serampore and Kottayam,11 and established churches at Pazhanji and Kallumpuram. Examples of Mar Koorilose V’s concern for Hindus and Muslims survive. One incident recorded by Verghese in connection with the latter links Thozhiyur with the political situation then current in India. Within the growing anti-British agitation, the Muslim population had a particular grievance. Following the surrender of Turkey in 1918 there was a persistent rumour that Britain was proposing the abolition of the office of Caliph, which in recent centuries had been borne by the Ottoman Sultan. In response there grew up the Khalifat movement which urged the British government to preserve the religious status of the Sultan as the head of Sunni Islam. In the early 1920s this anxiety within the Muslim community in Kerala combined with general pro-independence sentiment (Gandhi visited the region in August 1920), and with local resentment against Hindu landlords. As James puts it, ‘As was now happening so often throughout India, nationalist agitation was a catalyst for the release of long pent-up resentments and frustration whose mainsprings were regional, social and economic’.12 The result was the Mapilla rebellion.13 This was ignited by an incident in August 1921 following which ‘within a fortnight the government’s control over much of Malabar had snapped’.14 Lacking adequate weaponry, the rebels resorted to guerilla warfare, with the result that they were compared to Sinn Fein whom the British were simultaneously fighting in Ireland. In due course the rebels demanded an independent Muslim kingdom in Malabar and began the forcible circumcision and conversion to Islam of Hindus. Those who refused were murdered. The situation was worsened considerably by the death from 11 One of these was Fr K.C.Verghese, the first priest of the MISC to have a degree, whom he ordained deacon on 14th March 1926 at St Addai’s Church, Porkulam, with Paulose Mar Athanasios also present. 12 James, Raj, p.487. 13 As noted in Chapter 3, the term ‘Mapilla’, which had originally been applied to both Nayars and Syrian Christians, had come to be used almost exclusively as a name of a Keralan Muslim (Mundadan, HCI, I, p.151, Brown, Indian Christians, p.171). 14 James, Raj, p.487.

THE TWENTIETH CENTURY

561

suffocation of 37 Mapilla prisoners whom the British had incarcerated in a railway carriage whose ventilators had been papered over. The dead and wounded eventually numbered several thousand and, when the revolt finally collapsed, the British took the surrender of nearly 40,000 activists.15 In the midst of this highly charged situation the following incident involving Mar Koorilose V took place: One day the Deputy Collector came to the Metropolitan along with a Muslim who was under arrest. The man previously had illegally taken possession of a property that belonged to the Church. He was suspected of being an accomplice in the rebellion. Although he pleaded his innocence, he was not released. It was made clear that he would not be released unless a responsible person of the locality would speak for him. The Metropolitan, as soon as he saw the Muslim, said `Oh, indeed, he is loyal'.16

At this distance in time it is impossible to know whether Mar Koorilose V genuinely knew the Muslim involved or whether he had sympathies with the independence movement. In any case, Verghese’s interest in the incident is not in its political dimension, but the way it shows the Metropolitan helping someone who had wronged the Church. He prefaces his account with the remark ‘The Metropolitan was generous’.17 In 1924 the new ruler of Turkey, Mustafa Kemal (Attaturk), persuaded the Grand National Assembly in Ankara to abolish the Caliphate (‘this tumour of the middle ages’ as he called it), thus removing the issue as a source of grievance against the British. See Noel Barber, Lords of the Golden Horn, London, 1976, p.250; Philip Mansel, Constantinople: City of the World’s Desire 1453-1924, London, 1997, p.413. 16 Verghese, Brief Sketch, p.33. 17 Verghese gives the following accounts in relation to Hindus: ‘It is said that once a poor Hindu boy came to him and requested help to continue his studies. The Metropolitan took pity on the boy and promised to give him his tuition fees. One day as usual the boy presented himself before the Metropolitan who asked his secretary to pay the fees. But the secretary said that there was no money available except Rs3, kept to purchase wheat since the Metropolitan was diabetic. The Metropolitan asked him to give the amount to the boy and added that he would gladly forgo his meal of wheat and share their meal of rice. It was a time when the 15

562

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

Mar Koorilose V was very influential among the high officials of the time. Sir C Sankaran Nair, a member of the Viceroy's executive council, and Mr. Statham, the Director of Public Instruction in Madras, were some of the dignitaries who visited him and signed the Visitors' Book. He had also the privilege of nominating a member to the District Education Board. Paulose Mar Athanasios Perhaps prompted by an accident in which he nearly lost a foot when a cart overturned, Mar Koorilose V nominated a successor. His choice was Father Paulose of the Panakkal family, a great nephew of Joseph Mar Koorilose IV. He was ordained as Ramban in 1907, but not consecrated as bishop (under the title Paulose Mar Athanasios) until 1917. Glimpses of Mar Athanasios can be found in the Visitors’ Book. A Sub Magistrate visited in 1924: It gave me very great pleasure to visit the ancient Syrian Church at Anjoor today. I was very kindly received and entertained by the Right Reverend Paul Mar Athanasios, the suffragan Bishop of Anjoor, the Senior Bishop having gone to Chalisseri on an Episcopal visit. I had a long talk with the Suffragan Bishop and he very kindly gave me a brief history of the founchurch was bankrupt due to the fall in the price of coconuts, the main yield of the church estate. Another incident which shows Mar Koorilose V's compassion for the pour is that of Nzhiyath Krishnan Nair who eventually became the manager of `Matrubumi' newspaper. While Krishnan Nair was a student in the church primary school, the Metropolitan happened to hear him recite a poem during the school anniversary celebration. He was much pleased and since then he used to call the boy to his residence and listen to his recitation. But when he passed the primary classes he had to discontinue his education for his parents were very poor. So the Metropolitan himself undertook to educate him. As the boy was bright and clever he soon rose to prominence and became an employee on the 'Mathrubuml'. Krishnan Hair remained ever grateful to his benefactor. In 1952 when a high school was started at Thozhiyur he promised to sponsor a student. Later he instituted an endowment to give a scholarship annually to the boy who comes out first in the final examination of CMUP School, Thozhiyur, where Krishnan Nair had his early education.’

THE TWENTIETH CENTURY

563

dation of this Bishopric. I regret that owing to lack of time I can not remain here long and inspect the manuscripts and other interesting antiquities. I thank the Suffragan Bishop very much for his kindness and hope to visit this interesting Church again.18

Harvey Calkins, a missionary at Lucknow in North India, visited Thozhiyur in 1925 and recorded how he had been ‘particularly happy in the frank and cordial way in which my questions have been answered. Both the Bishop and the Suffragan Bishop are Christian gentlemen whom it is a pleasure to meet.’19 Shortly after his own consecration Paulose Mar Athanasios took part in the consecration of Abraham Mar Thoma as assistant bishop to Titus II Mar Thoma: ‘Mar Coorilos and Mar Athanasios of the Thozhiyoor Church and Bishop Dr Gill from the Anglican Church were present for the consecration ceremony’.20 A photograph of the four Indian bishops, presumably taken at the consecration of Abraham Mar Thoma, survives in the Thozhiyur archives. Paulose Mar Athanasios was suffragan till his death in 1927 when he passed away following a severe attack of asthma. Inexplicably, despite the directive in his susthaticon – ‘You should ordain [illeg.] of the High Priesthood of the diocese of Thozhiyur, which was mentioned above, during your life to guide your diocese after your passing away, according to the tradition of our Father Mar Koorilose [missing] the founder of the Church of Thozhiyur, and of all the illustrious Metropolitans who are there’ - Mar Koorilose V did not consecrate an alternative successor. No oral tradition as to the reason seems to have survived. Mar Koorilose V maintained his Church’s link with the other successors of Mathews Mar Athanasios. As described above, as suffragan he had participated in the consecration ceremony of Titus I Mar Thoma along with Mar Athanasios I in 1893. Five years VB. 28th November 1924. VB. 27th January 1925. 20 Nalloor, Abraham Mar Thoma, p.5. Abraham Mar Thoma was the first bishop of the ‘Reformed Syrians’ not to belong to the Palakunnathu family. 18 19

564

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

later he ordained the future Titus II as a Ramban, and performed the same ceremony in 1917 for the future Abraham Mar Thoma prior to his episcopal consecration, in which, as noted, he and Paulose Mar Athanasios took part. Mar Koorilose V also participated in the Silver jubilee celebrations of the consecration of Titus Mar Thoma II. The following glimpses into the Metropolitan’s devotional life are probably events of which Deacon Verghese, as a member of the episcopal household, was an eye-witness. He would never tolerate anyone to distract his prayers. Once there was an ordination ceremony at Porkulam, the native place of the candidate to be ordained. The church was so small that it would not accommodate more than a hundred or two. In those days, such occasions being rare, there was a large gathering. When the prayers began some miscreants pushed from behind and a few, especially children in the front, fell flat upon the door of the sanctuary. The Metropolitan with all seriousness advised the congregation to attend to the prayers reverently. The prayers continued, but the unruly mob paid no heed to him and they once again disturbed the service. The Metropolitan turned back. His face shone like that of an angel. He said ‘Cursed be the man who disturbs the service'. No sooner did he utter these words than a sturdy young man fell unconscious. At once he was removed. Silence ensued and the service continued. After the service the Metropolitan came to that man who was still unconscious, laid his hands upon him and prayed. He regained his senses and begged for pardon. Every day Mar Koorilose V used to get up before the sun rose. It was the time for his morning devotion which lasted more than an hour. His favourite book for devotion was the psalms in Syriac. Before the celebration of the Holy Qurbana, he used to confine himself to his study for the preparatory prayers. His birthday fell on 15th August and it was his never-failing custom to celebrate the Holy Qurbana on every day in that month. His intonation and sweet voice made his service very solemn and attractive. Such attributes have won him a place of

THE TWENTIETH CENTURY

565

honour as a prominent Metropolitan of the Thozhiyur Church.21 KURIAKOSE MAR KOORILOSE VI, 9TH METROPOLITAN, 1936-1947

On 21 April 1935 Geeverghese Mar Koorilose V died of a heart attack. This produced something of a crisis in the community. Eight years that had passed since the death of Paulose Mar Athanasios in 1927. There was therefore no bishop within the MISC to continue the succession. Nor does Mar Koorilose V seem to have designated a successor among his priests. Titus II Mar Thoma, Metropolitan of the sister church, arrived at Thozhiyur and held consultations with the representatives of the parishes at the Cathedral. It was a Sunday. There were two candidates, Father K. M. Kuriakose aged 52 and Father C. J. Verghese aged 28. the Metropolitan began the meeting with prayer and spoke of the healthy co-operation between the Mar Thoma Syrian Church and the Malabar Independent Syrian Church and their mutual participation in consecrating bishops. Then he asked the members to mention their nominee. There was a pause for a few minutes. The silence was broken by Sri C. P. Chummar, a leading member of the Chalisserri Parish. He, with all due respect, said they would be glad to accept whomsoever their distinguished guest nominated. The others agreed unanimously. The Metropolitan, with tears in his eyes, declared that Fr. K. M. Kuriakose, senior of the two, was to be elected and consecrated. He added that Fr. C. J. Verghese could succeed the selected nominee. Accordingly, Fr. C. J. Verghese eventually succeeded Kuriakose Mar Koorilose in 1948. The congregation gladly accepted the advice of the Mar Thoma Metropolitan. No episcopal election has been conducted in such a peaceful atmosphere since 1935.22

Father Kuriakose Kothoor was consecrated under the title of Mar Koorilose VI by Metropolitan Titus II Mar Thoma assisted by Abraham Mar Thoma, his suffragan, on 23 January 1936. The con21 22

Verghese, Brief Sketch, p.35f. Verghese, Brief Sketch, p.36f.

566

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

secration began a pattern that was to be repeated four more times in the course of the 20th century. Like his predecessors, Mar Koorilose VI took up the cause of improving facilities in the vicinity of Thozhiur. A visiting official from Chowgat recorded: It gave me great pleasure to pay a long deferred visit to the Bishop of Anjur this morning. He has been kind enough to represent to me some of the difficulties which people in and around this place are put to on account of the lack of some of the amenities of civilized life, e.g. a public well in the bazaar in front of the Church and a pucca bridge over the channel separating the road in ?valathur from that in the adjoining Cochin territory. I hope the D[istric]t Board will ere long supply these deficiencies.23

Once again, progress was slow. Mar Koorilose VI took the opportunity of pointing this out to M.Shresta who visited in March 1936: [The bishop] pointed out some of the difficulties his congregation suffers from. The public well, which is obviously a great need, has still not been built, although pressed for, for a long time. I trust the D[istric]t Board will see its way to [illegible] this well as soon as possible. A pucca bridge at the boundary of the State is another need which deserves early attention.24

The entry of the Sub Collector at Palghat four year later reveals another project: ‘I have been pleased to visit the Bishop this afternoon in the course of the inspection of the proposed canal’.25 Kuriakose Mar Koorilose participated in the consecration of Juhanon Mar Timothios and Mathews Mar Athanasios of the Mar Thoma Church in 1939.26 During his episcopal ministry a chapel 23 VB. 5th October 1935. If Verghese’s date for the consecration of Mar Koorilose VI is correct, then Fr K.M.Kuriakose was probably a Ramban (and not a bishop) at the time of this visit. 24 VB. 9th March 1936. 25 VB. 24th March 1940. 26 Juhanon Mar Thoma, Mar Thoma Church, p.28; Kurivilla, History, p.50; Chediath, ‘List’, p.133.

THE TWENTIETH CENTURY

567

was built at Akathiyur, three miles north of Kunnamkulam, and the St. Thomas church at Kunnamkulam was modified and reconstructed in 1940. The income of the church increased and some of the mortgaged properties were recovered. Verghese makes the cryptic comment: ‘Unfortunately he could not lead the church on the path of peace and prosperity’ which suggests either a deficiency in the Metropolitan’s leadership or, more likely, factional agitation within the Church. Gradually his eyesight failed and for the last two years of his life Mar Koorilose VII was completely confined to bed. He died on 15 October 1947, exactly two months after India had gained her independence from British rule. GEEVERGHESE MAR KOORILOSE VII, 10TH METROPOLITAN, 19481967

Kuriakose Mar Koorilose VI was succeeded by Geeverghese Mar Koorilose VII (Cheeran) who became Metropolitan of the Independent See of Thozhiyur in 1948. He was the son of Cheeran Job Kaseesa who had been the Vicar General. After his high school education he joined the staff of the higher elementary school at Thozhiyur. In 1948 he was consecrated by Metropolitan Juhanon Mar Thoma with the assistance of the Mar Thoma bishop Mathews Mar Athanasios. Independence from British rule does not seem to have affected the flow of Government officials to Thozhiyur, nor the perennial struggle to improve facilities. An official based at Pormani Camp recorded in 1949 that Mar Koorilose VII was ‘taking a real interest in the construction of the Subsidy well sanctioned for agricultural purposes. He promises to have many more such wells in the vicinity.’27 Later that year, it was recorded that the Bishop ‘is taking a keen interest in Rural Development’.28 One of the remarkable achievements of this period was the starting of a high school at Thozhiyur. In those days there were no high schools within a radius of four miles of the church. On 23 April 1952 the Metropolitan 27 28

VB. 1st May 1949. VB. 18th July 1949.

568

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS laid the foundation stone of St. George's High School. To obtain recognition, an endowment of Rs30,000 had to be instituted under the Madras Educational Rules since Thozhiyur was in the erstwhile Malabar district in the Madras presidency at that time. As the church had not enough funds some of the church properties had to be given as security. Later on the properties were recovered, following payment as stipulated.29

Co-operation with the Mar Thoma Church continued. Mar Koorilose VII participated in the consecration of Alexander Mar Theophilos, Thomas Mar Athanasios and Philipose Mar Chrysostom in 195330 and also in the Silver Jubilee celebration of the consecration of Juhanon Mar Thoma and Mathews Mar Athanasios held in 1962.31 The Metropolitan sought to alleviate poverty and ignorance. He founded a Poor Home in Pazhani in 1950 and raised a fund to award scholarships to deserving students. A Gospel Association was founded in 1948 to conduct Sunday Schools, Sunday evening meetings, and to organise house visiting in order to strengthen the spiritual life of the people. It was also responsible for the printing and free distribution of Bible reading cards, the conducting of annual camps for Sunday School children and teachers, retreats in parishes, an annual convention, and the conducting of a common examination for the Sunday Schools every year in December.32 Mar Koorilose VII suffered from heart trouble and his health caused anxiety. An assistant was badly needed and the Mandalam was convened on 30 December 1965 to elect a bishop. Unfortunately, the occasion gave rise to dissension. Kunnamkulam, being a small congregation, was not allowed representation in the assembly. Verghese, Brief Sketch, p.40. Mar Theophilos and Mar Chrysostom were both to become Mar Thoma Metropolitans. Thomas Mar Athanasios died in 1984, Alexander Mar Thoma in 2000. Philipose Mar Chrysostom was Metropolitan from to 2000 to 2007. 31 Mathews Mar Athanasios died in 1973 and Juhanon Mar Thoma in 1976. 32 This is one area where the initiatives introduced by the Mission of Help over a century before have been take up by the MISC (and other sections of the Puthenkuttukar). 29 30

THE TWENTIETH CENTURY

569

This led to a civil suit which resulted the election being stopped by the High Court.33 Eventually the stay was lifted and the Mandalam met again on 9 May 1967 and elected Father Paul Thomas. By then Metropolitan Mar Koorilose VII had become so weak that the election had to be conducted with the assistance of Thomas Mar Athanasios of the Mar Thoma Church. Mar Koorilose VII passed away on 9 June 1967. In order to avoid any further litigation, the constitution was amended on 5 November 1967, providing representation even to small parishes in the municipal area with a strength of at least ten families. PAULOSE MAR PHILOXENOS III, 11TH METROPOLITAN, 1967-1977

The future Metropolitan (whose grandfather, the Rev. Fr. Paulose Ayvamkulam, was the Vicar General who had applied for the gun licence), was ordained as deacon in 1952 and as priest in 1961 by Geeverghese Mar Koorilose VII. Earlier, he had served the Church as the secretary of the Gospel Association and the Sabha Council. At the time of his election as Bishop he was on the staff of St. George's High School. On 16 December 1967 he was consecrated as Mar Philoxenos III by Metropolitan Juhanon Mar Thoma, assisted by Alexander Mar Theophilos and Thomas Mar Athanasios. The new Metropolitan proved to be energetic and undertook a number of projects, some of which survive in the MISC to this day.34 These include a number of initiatives that had been planned and begun by his predecessor: the completion of St. Mary's Church at Perumannoor (in 1968 – the foundation stone had been laid by Mar Koorilose VII in 1966), the renovation of Mar Bahanam Chapel at Anjoor (1970), Mar Addai’s Church at Porkulam (1971), and the Mar Koorilose Chapel at Korottikara (1971). Totally new institutions established by Mar Philoxenos III are the St. George Chapel at 33 Resort to legal action is a besetting weakness of the St Thomas Christians. Brown wrote of their need to ‘drive out the devil of litigiousness’ (Indian Christians, p.7). 34 Prior to the election of Mar Philoxenos III, Podipara had written that ‘The Anjoorians are a comparatively stagnant Church’ (Thomas Christians, p.227).

570

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

Karikkad (1971), the St. Thomas Press at Kunnamkulam and the Poor Home at Chalisserri. 1972 was celebrated as the two hundredth anniversary of the foundation of the cathedral at Thozhiyur. This was marked in a number of ways. In addition to substantial local celebrations, Mar Philoxenos III presided over the canonisation of Mar Koorilose I. An associated major capital project was the construction of a mission hospital which was opened at Anjoor on 28 May 1972 in memory of Mar Koorilose I. As Verghese put it, ‘No other monument could be more fitting to preserve the memory of Mar Koorilose I who himself had been blessed with healing gifts.’35 It seems to have been during the reign of Mar Philoxenos III that the MISC began to use Malayalam in the liturgy. Mar Koorilose IX recalls as a deacon in the early 1970s watching the priests K.C. Verghese and V.V. Jacob celebrating the Qurbana with a Syriac text in front of them, but translating simultaneously into Malayalam.36 The Syro-Malankara Catholic Church This promising ministry came to an end in August 1977 when Mar Philoxenos III caused consternation and dismay by leaving the Malabar Independent Syrian Church to join the Syro-Malankara jurisdiction of the Roman Catholic Church. That community had itself come into existence as a result of the seemingly endless fighting between the Patriarchal and Catholicos groups in the Malankara Verghese, Brief Sketch, p.43. Interestingly, this parallels Mar Thoma use in the late 19th and early 20th century: ‘It was the custom of the divines of the Mar Thoma Church to conduct the service with the Jacobite liturgy before them. They knew by heart the corrections introduced into it by their Church’ (K.N. Daniel, Critical Study, p.15, referring to a Syriac liturgy used by Talathu Chandapilla kathanar). It was also true of West Syrian Orthodox and Catholics. Writing in the 1950s, Tisserant can say, ‘Till recently, most of these translations [from Syriac into Malayalam] were left to the goodwill and skill of the celebrating priest. Hence many inaccuracies crept in; but nowadays both Jacobites and Malankara Catholics … have books which possess a standard translation’ (Eastern Christianity, p.185). Among the Orthodox, vernacular liturgy was promoted by Vattasseril Mar Dionysios VI (19081934) (Daniel, Orthodox Church, pp.204,242). 35 36

THE TWENTIETH CENTURY

571

Church. In 1926, a group of five Malankara Orthodox Syrian bishops who were opposed to the jurisdiction of the Syrian Orthodox Patriarch in India commissioned one of their own number, Mar Ivanios, to open negotiations with Rome with a view to ‘reconciliation’. Among the conditions requested were that their liturgy be preserved and that the bishops be allowed to retain their dioceses.37 After discussions, Rome required only that the bishops make a profession of faith and that their baptisms and ordinations be proven valid in each case. In the event, only two of the five bishops accepted the new arrangement with Rome, of whom Mar Ivanios was the more senior.38 Accordingly, Mar Ivanios, Mar Theophilos and their followers made their profession of faith on 20th September, 1930 and were duly received into the Roman Church.39 By the Apostolic Constitution, Christo Pastorum Principi, Pope Pius XI constituted the Malankara hierarchy on 11th June, 1932 with Mar Ivanios as archbishop of Trivandrum and Mar Theophilos as the suffragan bishop of Tiruvalla. It is a significant development since it marks acceptance by Rome that the re-unification of the Pazhayakuttukar and Puthenkuttukar within a single rite was no longer possible. Later in the 1930s two more bishops, from among those who had favoured the jurisdiction of the Syrian Patriarch in India, were received into communion with Rome. 37 As noted in Chapter 13, West Syrians who came into communion with Rome had been required to use the latinised East Syrian rite. From 1921 they had been allowed to retain the Syrian Orthodox rite with slight modifications (Tisserant, Eastern Christianity, p.156). 38 Mar Ivanios had been instrumental in founding the first monastic communities for men and women in the Malankara Church, and in promoting worship in Malayalam (Mathew & Thomas, Indian Churches, p.125). For a Roman Catholic account of the formation of the Syro-Malankara jurisdiction see Podipara ‘Efforts’, pp.97-98; ibid., Thomas Christians, pp.210-215; Dunstan Donovan, ‘The Death of Mar Ivanios’ (obituary) in Unitas, 5 (1953), pp.149-152; Tisserant, Eastern Christianity, pp.156-162. The most recent account from within the community is Geevarghese Chediath, The Malankara Catholic Church, (ET A.J. Joy Angemadathil), Kottayam, Bethany Sisters’ Publication, 2003. 39 The original group received by Rome was very small: two bishops, 13 priests, 1 deacon and 35 families (Tisserant, Eastern Christianity, p.159; Chediath, Malankara Catholic Church, p.99).

572

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

The bishops were followed by a significant movement of faithful into the new Syro-Malankara Catholic Church. By 1950 there were some 65,588 faithful, in 1960 112,478, and in 1970 183,490. There are now three dioceses for over 325,000 faithful, all in Kerala.40 In 2005 Pope John Paul II raised the status of the community to that of a Major Archiepiscopal Church (the same status as that afforded to the Syro-Malabar Church) and officially sanctioned the title of ‘Catholicos’ for its head.41 The archives at Thozhiyur suggest that loneliness and desperation may have contributed to Mar Philoxenos III’s decision. In 1973 he had written to the World Council of Churches for help with funding the Mission Hospital project, but was refused because his Church was not a member of the Syrian Orthodox Church. On 21st July 1973 he wrote to Mr K.Buma of the Division of InterChurch Aid of the WCC that ‘Ours is an ancient small INDEPENDENT CHURCH, even though we are Orthodox in all reThe Syro-Malankara Church is the third hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church in India. It is granted all the rights and privileges and its own liturgy and legitimate customs of the Antiochian Rite, and also administrative autonomy. Celibacy is required of all candidates for ordination, but a dispensation is granted to married priests who transfer to it. The Church sees itself as a focus and model for the re-union of all Puthenkuttukar with Rome (see, for example, Geevarghese Chediath, ‘The Malankara Catholic Church and Ecumenism, in The Harp, XIX (2006), 134-148). Members of all the major West Syrian groups in Kerala have joined the Syro-Malankara jurisdiction. It is interesting that there was even the possibility of a ‘large scale’ defection from the Mar Thoma Church (Juhanon Mar Thoma, Mar Thoma Church, p.40). Mar Philoxenos III does not seem to be the first member of the MISC to enter communion with Rome. In 1953 Podipara claimed that there had been ‘conversions’ to the Syro-Malanakra jurisdiction from ‘among the Jacobites of both parties, from among the Anjoor community, from among the Marthomites, from among the Anglicans and other Protestant bodies, and in great numbers from among pagans’ (‘Efforts’, p.98). Members of the Syro-Malankara Church will intermarry with other West Syrian traditions and with members of the Syro-Malabar Church, but not with Latin-rite Catholics (Podipara, Latin Rite Catholics, p.114f). 41 For a discussion of the modern interpretation of this title see Geevarghese Chediath, ‘The Malankara Catholic Catholicos and the Catholicate’, in The Harp, XX (2006), 195-207. 40

THE TWENTIETH CENTURY

573

spects as that of the Syrian Orthodox Church.’ In an earlier letter his disappointment and frustration lead him to compare the MISC with the cripple at the Pool at Bethzatha – ‘there is no-one to help us into the water’ (John 5:7). This sense of being without friends persists. To many of the Mar Thoma clergy, educated in Western institutions, the MISC represents a form of Christianity with which they are not entirely comfortable. Conversely, the consecration of Thozhiyur Metropolitans by Mar Thoma bishops throughout much of the 20th century is clearly a hindrance to the acceptance of the MISC by some within the Orthodox and Jacobite communities in India, and by external bodies such as the WCC. This was almost certainly a contributory factor in Mar Koorilose IX’s decision to consecrate his own successor with fully Orthodox rites in 2001. The official website of the Syro-Malankara Church simply states that, ‘His Excellency Most Rev. Paulos Mar Philexinos, the Metropolitan of the Malabar Independent Syrian Church, was received into the Catholic Church on 28th August 1977. He was appointed Titular Bishop of Chayal.’42 Eye witnesses testify that he was received as a bishop by Roman Catholic priests and people at the gate of the compound at Thozhiyur.43 Oral tradition suggests 42 Chayal, in the eastern hills of Travancore, was one of the seven Churches reputedly founded by St Thomas, though by the end of the 19th century, ‘it ha[d] long been abandoned, owing to wild animals; but the ruins remain’ (Richards, Indian Christians, p.91). See also Brown, Indian Christians, p.54. 43 It seems that he was subsequently conditionally re-consecrated secretly at his own request (I am grateful to Fr George Vadakken, the only MISC priest who followed Mar Philoxenos III into communion with Rome, for this information. Fr George himself was also conditionally reordained). The Congregation for Oriental Rites in Rome and the SyroMalankara hierarchy in India are not prepared to comment on this alleged incident. The then Syro-Malankara Archbishop of Trivandrum, Mar Clemis, told the present writer in 2005 that his Church recognises Mar Thoma and MISC Orders, though other members of the Syro-Malankara Church have denied that this is the case. The Roman Catholic Adrian Fortescue says that ‘The Jacobites deny the validity of the Reformers’ [ie the Mar Thomites] orders, without reason, it seems’ (The Lesser Eastern Churches, London, Catholic Truth Society, 1913), p.374. It is hoped to explore this issue in a subsequent work.

574

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

that Mar Philoxenos was disappointed not to be granted active diocesan responsibility within the Syro-Malankara Church. In due course he returned to Anjur and lived in a house opposite the hospital that he had founded. He died on 3rd November 1998 and was buried at the Syro-Malankara Cathedral in Tiruvalla in the traditional Syrian Orthodox manner. Metropolitan Mar Koorilose IX attended and took part in the service. During the carrying of the seated corpse around the Church one of the MISC priests was asked to assist, which was seen as a great honour.44 His body was interred in one of a series of alcoves at the Cathedral. MATHEWS MAR KOORILOSE VIII, 12TH METROPOLITAN, 1978-1986

Mar Philoxenos III does not seem to have made any serious attempt to persuade large numbers of people to follow him into submission to Rome.45 Even so, there was understandably considerable concern that many would follow him into the SyroMalankara Church; ‘but apart from one or two families, the nearest of his kin, nobody ventured to leave the Church. On the contrary, it made the people hold on all the more firmly to the faith and traditions of the Church.’46 The Mandalam met on 11th December 1977 in the presence of Thomas Mar Athanasios of the Mar Thoma Church, at the request of the Church Council. Fr. K. I. Mathew was elected as the new Metropolitan. Fr Mathew belonged to the Koothoor family of Kottapadi which had already given two bishops to the See of Thozhiyur, Geeverghese Mar Koorilose III and Kuriakose Mar Koorilose VI. He was also the nephew of Cheeran Geeverghese Mar Koorilose VII. Prior to his election K.I.Mathew had worked as a teacher and a parish priest. On 18 44 The Revd Dr Phillip Tovey from England also attended. A video of the funeral exists. 45 Chediath states that Mar Philoxenos, prior to his resignation at Metropolitan, circulated a Pastoral Letter exhorting MISC members to follow him into communion with Rome (Malankara Catholic Church, p.205), but conversations with some of those who lived through that period suggest that there had been no prior ‘lobbying’ of clergy and people. Mar Philoxenos’ final departure from Thozhiyur was very low-key – he was driven away in a car one night. 46 Verghese, Brief Sketch, p.44.

THE TWENTIETH CENTURY

575

January 1978 he was consecrated as Mar Koorilose VIII by Metropolitan Alexander Mar Thoma, with the assistance of Thomas Mar Athanasios, Joseph Mar Irenaeus and Easow Mar Timotheos of the Mar Thoma Church. Mar Koorilose VIII’s tenure of the metropolitical throne coincided with a period of increased social mobility. As a result members of the MISC began to move outside their traditional homeland to other parts of Inda and beyond. The process was already well under way for the larger Syrian Churches (the Mar Thoma congregation in London was first organized in 1957, for example) but until now the tiny MISC had been confined to Kerala alone. In 1974 the members residing in Madras purchased a plot for the construction of a church near the B. & C. Mill at Perambur. The construction was delayed due to the lack of funds and the state of emergency declared by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, following her conviction for electoral fraud. Restrictions were lifted following the defeat of the Congress Party in a general election in 1977. Eventually, Sri John Peter, a philanthropist and well-wisher of the Church, was able to put up a small Church at his own expense on the plot. The church was consecrated on 11th January 1981 and at a meeting held after the service the key was handed over to the Metropolitan. JOSEPH MAR KOORILOSE IX, 13TH METROPOLITAN 1986-2001, AND CYRIL MAR BASILIOS, 2001 -

After approximately a century of relative obscurity, the MISC emerged from the shadows in the last two decades of the 20th century. Once again it acquired a degree of prominence and respect among the Churches of Kerala and beyond, including, for the first time in its history, outside India. The Metropolitan responsible for these developments was Mar Koorilose IX. Mathews Mar Koorilose VIII suffered from diabetes and very often had to be admitted to hospital. He therefore asked the Church Council to take steps to convene the general body of the Church in order to elect an bishop. On 20th December 1981 the

576

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

general body elected Fr. Joseph Panakkal.47 At the time of his election as a bishop he was only 27 years old. Joseph kathanar was the second of the five children of Sri P. I. Mathewkutty and Smt Kunjhani. After attending schools in his native Kunnamkulam, he received his higher education first in the Sri Krishna College, Guruayur, the St. Thomas College at Trichur, and then in the Municipal College of Education at Chickballapur in Karnataka State. Afterwards he was appointed to the staff of St. George's High School, Thozhiyur, in January 1981. On 5th March 1972 he was ordained a deacon by Paulos Mar Philoxenos III and on 1st March 1978 a priest by Mathews Mar Koorilose VIII. He also served as the Secretary of both the Church and the Gospel Association. At his initiative a Youth Movement (with both spiritual and social activities) was organized in 1984. In June 1986 Mathews Mar Koorilose VIII died and on 27th August 1986 Fr. Joseph was consecrated as Metropolitan Joseph Mar Koorilose IX by Metropolitan Alexander Mar Thoma with the assistance of Joseph Mar Irenaeus, Easow Mar Timotheos and Zacharias Mar Theophilos of the Mar Thoma Church, and Metropolitan Mar Aprem Mooken and Bishop Paulose Mar Paulose of the Church of the East. A week earlier he had been made a Ramban by Philipose Mar Chrysostom, Suffragan Metropolitan of the Mar Thoma Church. One of his most visible achievements was the renovation of the Cathedral, a long cherished wish of his predecessors. The haikala [nave] of the original Cathedral was demolished in 1987, though the madbaha containing the episcopal tombs was retained. The rebuilt Cathedral was dedicated on 16th April 1988. He also rebuilt one wing of the cloister. Mar Koorilose IX was the first Metropolitan of the MISC to travel outside India. He visited Jordan and Syria and some of the Gulf States in 1988 and met the Syrian Orthodox Patriarch Zakka I Iwas. In 1989 Mar Koorilose IX visited England for the first time, where he met the then Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Robert Runcie. While in England he declared himself willing to extend 47 The association of the Panakkal family with the MISC it will be recalled goes back to the first arrival of Mar Koorilose I in Kunnamkulam.

THE TWENTIETH CENTURY

577

eucharistic hospitality to members of the Church of England. On this and on his subsequent visit the Metropolitan celebrated the Holy Qurbana both with Anglican and Mar Thoma congregations and took part in Anglican services, on occasion together with Church of England bishops. At the end of the visit he spent a few days in Rome. The Metropolitan returned to England in 1991 as an official guest at the Enthronement of Dr. George Carey as Archbishop of Canterbury. During that visit (which lasted three months in all) he underwent surgery to replace severely damaged ear-drums. The Metropolitan has also visited Germany, France and the United States. In December 1989 Mar Koorilose IX took part in the consecration of three new Mar Thoma bishops at Tiruvalla: Geeverghese Mar Athanasios, Geeverghese Mar Theodosios and Euakim Mar Koorilose. In January 1991 the Metropolitan took part also in the consecration of the Jacobite bishop Thomas Mar Themotheose at Udayagin Seminary near Mulanthuruthy. Mar Koorilose IX’s eirenic openness to both `reformed' and `unreformed' - and his acceptance by both - was a strength which laid foundations for a future role for the Malabar Independent Syrian Church in the attempts to overcome the divisions among the St. Thomas Christians. The reign of Mar Koorilose IX saw a degree of contact with the outside world hitherto unparalleled in the history of the MISC. As a result of his travels outside India, a charitable Support Group was founded in the UK, which was able to provide modest sums to assist various projects at Thozhiyur.48 An ambulance was provided for the hospital and a bungalow for guest accommodation was built within the Cathedral compound. Residential visits by students and others from the UK were initiated.49 In a different area, visits by 48 The Support Group was chiefly the initiative of the Very Revd Peter Hawkins, than a priest of the Church of England, later of the Roman Catholic Church. In recognition of his services to the MISC, Mar Koorilose IX consecrated Hawkins (a married priest) as a Chorepiscopa (for a discussion of the office and an English translation of the text of the order of service by the late David Lane, see Phillip Tovey (ed.), The Consecration of a Corepiscopa, Kunnamkulam, MISC Youth League, 1997. 49 Some of these were medical students doing an elective at the hospital.

578

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

Syriac scholars commenced, both on an individual basis and group visits from the St Ephrem Ecumenical Research Institute. The Visitors’ Book now contains entries from Germany, Hungary, France and the UK as well as other parts of India.50 On 4th September 1997 it looked as though Mar Koorilose’s remarkable ministry was about to be cut short when he suffered a brain stem stroke and was unconscious for two days. He had suddenly become unconscious and was admitted to West Fort Hospital in Thrichur. Contrary to expectation he recovered consciousness and was eventually discharged without any apparent ill effects.51 So complete was the recovery that the Metropolitan was able to attend the Lambeth Conference in July 1998 as an ‘Ecumenical Participant’ which also enabled him to extend further the network of contacts enjoyed by the MISC. 52 The hearing difficulties experienced by the Metropolitan continued to worsen, at times making the writing of notes virtually the only method of communicating with him. He therefore decided to consecrate a successor and retire as Metropolitan. Such was the affection that very many in the Church felt for him that there were many attempts to dissuade from such a course of action., but to no avail. Whatever future role Mar Koorilose IX may have, if any, his place in the history of the MISC is assured. 50 Bishop Jesudason, former Moderator of the Church of South India, visited in 1990. 51 The initial medical report found: ‘He has pin point pupil/absent eye movements and areflexic quadriparesis. He is on a ventilator due to respiratory difficulty and cerebral oedema. His vital signs are stable. (The report is reproduced in English in the Malayalam booklet on the Metropolitan’s illness published in thanksgiving in March 1998.) A CT scan revealed ‘The quadrigeminal and inter pedicular cistern effaced and the tentorium cerebelli hyperdense’. Miraculously – and the Indian Church most certainly does see it as a miracle – Mar Koorilose recovered consciousness and by 10th September was well enough to fax his friends in England with the news of his recovery. While in hospital the Metropolitan received Holy Communion from his kinsman Benjamin Mar Ostathiose of the Jacobite Church. He also received a number of episcopal guests from the Mar Thoma and Orthodox Churches and the Church of the East. 52 See the list of participants in Mark Dyer et al. (eds), The Official Report of the Lambeth Conference 1998, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, 1999, p.528.

THE TWENTIETH CENTURY

579

The consecration of Cyril Mar Basilios in March 2001 was an event of particular importance in the history of the Church, being the first time that a MISC Metropolitan had directly consecrated a bishop for 84 years. Prior to consecration, Mar Basilios was Fr K.C.Sunny of the Koothoor family. He has two brothers and three sisters. His father (who died in 1996) was a rice mill driver from the village of Porkulam, where the MISC has a Church and school. Up to the age of 13 the future Metropolitan was educated at the Mar Koorilose Memorial School Porkulam, before transferring to the Government High School at Pazhanji. His pre-degree course was taken at Sri Krishna College, Guruvayur, after which he studied Commerce at Calicut University. He has also studied History at Madras University and Psychology at Annamala University in Tamil Nadu. From an early age he had been drawn to the ministry, having been a server in the sanctuary from the age of 8, learning Syriac and the liturgical tradition alongside his other studies. Fr Sunny was ordained to the first order of the diaconate by Mar Philoxenos III, and was then ordained priest in 1980 by Mar Koorilose VIII. He held several posts in the Church, including that of Church Secretary for two and half years under Mar Koorilose IX. Following his election as bishop, Fr Sunny was made a Ramban on Saturday 10th March. The rite was presided over by Mar Koorilose, assisted by Joseph Mar Irenaeus, Euakim Mar Koorilose and Mar Barnabas of the Mar Thoma Church.53 Ramban Sunny’s consecration took place on Saturday 17th March 2001. Unlike Mar Koorilose IX’s consecration which was held in a specially erected pandal (a bamboo and palm leaf structure) that of Mar Basilios took place in the madbaha of the cathedral itself, though palm leaf shelters were erected all around the building and equipped with closed circuit television. The service began at 7.00am and lasted four and half hours. The presiding bishop was Mar Koorilose IX, assisted by Mar Chrysostom, the Mar Thoma Metropolitan (who preached the sermon), and Joseph Mar Irenaeus, Euakim Mar Koorilose and Mar Barnabas of the Mar 53 Also present was Dr Karl Heinze Kuhlmann a German Syriac scholar who had first visited Thozhiyur in 1986.

580

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

Thoma Church. Also participating were Benjamin Mar Ostathiose of the Syrian Orthodox Church54, Zacharias Mar Anthonios of the Cochin Diocese of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church and Bishop Sam Mathew of the Central Kerala Diocese of the Church of South India. In accordance with Syrian Orthodox tradition only the bishops (all eight of them) participated in the chanting of the service,55 and the giving of the pastoral staff. The latter is a distinctive feature of the rite and signifies participation in the consecra54 For details of the career of Mar Ostathios see Curien, Syrian Orthodox Church, p.289. For several years he was secretary to the Patriarch in Damascus. In 1984 he was consecrated by Patriarach Zakka Iwas I. 55 Etheridge records how, at an episcopal consecration, the bishops present ‘perform the entire ceremony, no priest or deacon assisting’ (Syrian Churches, p.147). Parry: ‘by them the whole service is conducted’ (Six Months, p.320). See also the rubrics in the text given by Paul Bradshaw, Ordination Rites of the Ancient Churches of East and West, New York, Pueblo, 1990, pp.174-187. The present writer recalls Mar Koorilose IX drawing his attention to this feature of Mar Basilios’ consecration. In the absence of an MISC ‘pontifical’ (the manuscript copy owned by previous bishops having been lost) the text used was the (manuscript) rite owned by Mar Irenaeus, but with various sections which the Mar Thoma Church has excised being restored from Orthodox and Jacobite sources. For most of the Qurbana the bishop-elect knelt (in his black Ramban’s habit) at the North-east corner of the madbaha. For the consecration (which took place after the consecration of the elements but before the administration of Communion) Fr Sunny moved to the centre of the sanctuary and the Gospel was read over his head as he knelt before Mar Koorilose. There were three layings on of hands. The first consisted of Mar Koorilose ‘taking power’ from the chalice and paten in his cupped hands, over which one of the attendant priests placed a kablana. Mar Koorilose then moved to the south-west corner of the altar where Fr Sunny was kneeling and symbolically poured the contents of his cupped hands over the candidate’s head and shoulders. This was performed three times, with the action being screened from the sight of most present by another priest holding up Mar Koorilose’s phaino. There then followed a laying on of hands with the recital of the main consecration prayer as the bishop-elect knelt before his consecrator in the centre of the sanctuary. A little later in the rite, Mar Koorilose laid his left hand on Mar Basilios’ head and make the sign of the cross above him with his blessing cross. The new bishop was then vested and lifted up in a chair by the priests from which he read the Gospel.

THE TWENTIETH CENTURY

581

tion, since in the West Syrian rite only the Patriarch or presiding bishop actually lays his hands on the candidate.56 The new bishop was given the name ‘Cyril Mar Basilios’ in memory of Maphrian Shukr Allah Mar Basilios, whose arrival in India in 1751 had been so critical in the chain of events leading to the formation of the MISC.57 Mar Basilios was installed as the 14th Metropolitan of the MISC in the Cathedral at Thozhiyur on Monday 28th May 2001. Mar Koorilose invested his successor with a new gold-embroidered schema, then with a ring, pectoral cross and the Metropolitan’s mitre. The new Metropolitan read the Gospel while lifted up on a chair. There then followed a new departure for the Church. It is unusual for Orthodox bishops to retire, and it had certainly never happened in the history of the MISC. Much thought was given to Mar Koorilose’s status and title following his relinquishing of his jurisdiction as Metropolitan. In the end the precedent set just a few years before by the Mar Thoma Church was adopted. In 1999 Alexander Mar Thoma, for reasons of age and infirmity, resigned as Metropolitan in favour of Philipose Mar Chrysostom, previously the Suffragan Metropolitan. Alexander Mar Thoma was given the title Valiya (‘Great’ or ‘Supreme’) Metropolitan and ceased to be the executive head of the Church.58 Adapting this model, Mar Koorilose was installed as Valiya Metropolitan of the MISC on 28th May 2001. He was given a ring and pectoral cross by Mar Basilios and then also read the Gospel enthroned. There then followed a

56 Significantly, both Mar Ostathios and Mar Anthonios (and Bishop Sam Mathew) joined with the Mar Thoma bishops in the giving of the staff to Mar Basilios. This contrasts with the situation when Mar Thoma bishops are consecrated.. Orthodox or Jacobite bishops do not attend the actual consecration (though they attend the felicitations later in the day) and hence do not take part in bestowing the staff. 57 The Archbishop of the Syro-Malankara Church at the time was also called Cyril Mar Basilios. The ‘Cyril’ was chosen as ‘Sunny’ is not a name of Syriac derivation. 58 Mar Chrysostom himself resigned in favour of Joseph Mar Irenaeus in 2007 and became Valiya Metropolitan.

582

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

procession to Kunnamkulam Church and felicitations to both bishops. Mar Basilios I has continued his predecessor’s policy of maintaining links with Churches both inside Kerala and overseas. He made his first journey outside India in May 2002 when he visited the UK, returning the following year as a guest at the Enthronement of Dr Rowan Williams as Archbishop of Canterbury. Both he and Mar Koorilose IX travelled to England in July 2006 to participate in the consecration of two bishops for the Free Church of England.59 In 2007 they both took part in the inauguration of the new Mar Thoma Metropolitan, Joseph Mar Thoma. Mar Basilios was an Ecumenical Observer at the Lambeth Conference in 2008 and visited a number of congregations during his time in the UK. Despite all the upheavals that have engulfed the St Thomas Christians – and India herself – in the 250 years since Maphrian Mar Basilios Shukr Allah arrived in Kerala, the small community which he founded maintains its faith and identity.

59 See Free Church of England Year Book 2006-2007, and brief report in The Glastonbury Review, vol. XII, no. 114 (Nov. 2006), p.299.

CHAPTER 16: THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE MALABAR INDEPENDENT SYRIAN CHURCH The vast majority of writing on the history of the St Thomas Christians has been from a confessional perspective. This is not surprising. In a context where litigation between various parties has been almost continual for over a century, Indian writers have sought to demonstrate that their particular tradition is the natural heir of the community founded by St Thomas. European writers, too, as we have seen, tended to have their own views on who the ‘real’ Syrians were. The writer on the Malabar Independent Syrian Church is free from such limitations. The MISC has never claimed to be the sole legitimate expression of the St Thomas heritage. It has no jurisdictional links with any Christian community outside India, and its small size has meant that other Churches have not sought to dominate or absorb it. To approach Indian Church history from the perspective of the MISC therefore allows a degree of objectivity perhaps denied to others. AN INTEGRAL PLACE IN THE ST THOMAS CHRISTIAN STORY

That said, this study has attempted to demonstrate that, far from being a mere footnote to the history of the St Thomas Christians, the MISC and its bishops have in fact exercised a profound influence on the direction that history has taken. There are a number of points at which the bishops of the MISC have changed the course of the history of the St Thomas Christians. These may be briefly summarised: 1. The existence of Mar Koorilose I and those whom he consecrated meant the end of the hereditary Metranship in the Pakalomattom family. Mar Koorilose I himself was the 583

584

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS first known Puthenkur Syrian not of the Pakalomattom family to be consecrated bishop. He was the first Indian not of the Pakalomattom dynasty to be proclaimed Malankara Metropolitan (Mar Alexander de Campo, it will be recalled, had not been consecrated to be Metropolitan; Kariattil’s consecration as Archbishop of Cranganore was subsequent to that of Mar Koorilose I). Nowadays, when men from many families are consecrated bishops for the Syrian jurisdictions, it is difficult to appreciate the enormity of Mar Koorilose I’s consecration and appointment as Malankara Metropolitan in the eyes of indigenous Christian contemporaries. Furthermore, the existence of the Thozhiyur line – Koorilose II, Ivanios, Philoxenos I – showed that the consecration of Indian by Indian outside the privileged family was indeed possible. The passage of time, and the addition of Philoxenos II and the three Dionysioi to that succession demonstrated that bishops from other families could win acceptance. To use a rather anachronistic term, the Thozhiyur bishops ‘democratised’ the episcopate in Kerala. 2. The consecrations of three Metropolitans for the Puthenkuttukar by Mar Philoxenos II (and his own occupation of that position for a number of years) established in the mind of some at least of that community the possibility of an existence independent of the jurisdiction of the Syrian Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch (or any other foreign prelate). For most of their existence the St Thomas Christians (at times in their entirety, at others the majority of them) have acknowledged a spiritual ‘head’ outside India – the Patriarch of Babylon, the Bishop of Rome, and the Patriarch of Antioch. Mar Dionysios I’s conversations with Claudius Buchanan suggest that the Archbishop of Canterbury could even have been added to the list. It was however, in Anjur, far away from the traditional seats of ecclesiastical power, that the reality of a totally Indian Church, beholden however nominally to no foreign prelate, was first lived out. This was given legal force by the recognition of the Thozhiyur Church as an independent

THE MALABAR SYRIAN INDEPENDENT CHURCH

585

community in the court case 1857 and the subsequent appeal. In this matter, where the MISC has led, others have since followed. 3. This was not simply a matter of jurisdiction; there was also a shift in spiritual perception. The existence and acceptance of Mar Koorilose I and his successors weakened and eventually broke the centuries-old dependence on West Asia for ‘re-authenticating power’. 4. The presence in Malabar of Mar Koorilose I probably prevented Mar Dionysios I taking the entire non-Roman Syrian community into the Syro-Malabar jurisdiction in 1791 and 1799, and thus preserved the continuation of the West Syrian tradition down to the present day. 5. The MISC may well have secured the adoption of the Syrian Orthodox rites – and hence, to a large extent, ecclesiastical identity – among the non-Roman Syrians. Prior to the consecration of Mar Koorilose I and the formation of a community around him, use of the West Syrian rites seems to have been spasmodic. While it is just possible that a few ancient parishes may have used the Syrian Orthodox Eucharist since the second half of the 17th century (though this is not proven), neither the Puthenkuttukar as a whole nor their leaders did so until the early 19th century. By contrast the Thozhiyur community, from the earliest days of the Kattumangat brothers, has been consistently Syrian Orthodox in its liturgical practice. The bishops of the MISC possess what is probably the longest continuous usage of the West Syrian rite in India. 6. It was with bishops of the Kattumangat succession that the Church Missionary Society collaborated between 1816 and 1836. Had Mar Philoxenos II, Mar Dionysios II and Mar Dionysios III taken the same attitude as Cheppat Mar Dionysios IV, there would probably have been no Mission of Help. This in turn might have led to very few Syrians

586

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS being influenced by the missionaries’ teaching – and hence the constitution of the Anglican (and subsequently Church of South India) dioceses in Kerala would have been very different. Without the Mission of Help it is unlikely that Palakunnathu Abraham Malpan would have achieved such a position of influence or have acquired new spiritual perspectives. Nor would Deacon Mathai have received the excellent education from which he obviously profited so greatly. Beyond immediate ecclesiastical effects, the development of education and literacy in Kerala generally might have developed differently. The leadership given at this critical period by bishops deriving their spiritual authority ultimately from the little village of Anjur was to have profound effects which are still visible in Kerala and beyond today. 7. The twenty years (1816-1836) during which Metropolitans of the Thozhiyur succession ruled and worked in collaboration with the CMS, created the conditions for the stabilizing and final triumph of the West Syrian rite by enabling Palakunnathu Abraham Malpan (and no doubt others) to impress West Syrian orthography and usage on a whole generation of future priests. 8. The consecration of Titus I Mar Thoma in 1894 almost certainly enabled the Mar Thoma Church to survive in a recognizably Orthodox form. Without bishops the reform movement might either have petered out, or been reorganized on a different ecclesial basis. The continuing participation of MISC bishops in Mar Thoma consecrations helps to keep that Church in contact with its Orthodox roots. 9. The first documented celebration of the Qurbana in Malayalam took place at Thozhiyur. This, as has been shown, seems to have been an indigenous initiative and to have predated the so-called ‘reform’ movement. Although this did not lead directly to the widespread use of the vernacular among the St Thomas Christians, it deserves recogni-

THE MALABAR SYRIAN INDEPENDENT CHURCH

587

tion as a pioneering step which all the others have now followed. 10. The bishops of the MISC are perhaps the first to have been consecrated by both East and West Syrian bishops. In recent years both Church of the East, Indian Orthodox and Jacobite bishops have joined with Mar Thoma bishops in consecrating Mar Koorilose IX and Mar Basilios I. The fact that the MISC does not pose a ‘threat’ to larger Churches, and the continued traditional orthodoxy of its faith has no doubt facilitated this. Thozhiyur bishops thus represent in themselves a re-uniting of these two longseparated branches of Syrian Christianity. WIDER IMPLICATIONS

More widely, the research for the present work has shown that there are still untapped sources for understanding the history of the St Thomas Christians. The libraries and archives of Chennai, Oxford, Birmingham, London, the Middle East and Kerala have not yet yielded up all their secrets. There is, for example, sufficient material amply to justify a new look at the Mission of Help in the early 19th century. The manuscripts preserved at Thozhiyur itself offer new information and fresh insights into the history of the Syrian community and would repay systematic study. This study has also revealed the tendency of writers to limit themselves to one particular source of material. Syro-Malabar writers, for example, have made excellent use of Vatican sources in recent decades, but are less familiar with the vast respositories of material in Britain. Similarly, writers from within the West Syrian traditions seldom make use of Roman Catholic or Anglican material. All traditions could benefit from an opening up of the material that survives in the Middle East. One can hope that globalisation and the increased availability of resources online will encourage a greater breadth of approach. It is important, too, to be prepared to go where the evidence leads. One of the people who read the typescript of the present work jocularly remarked to the author, ‘You will never be able to visit India again; you have insulted everybody!’ The truth is that all the sections of the St Thomas Christian community have episodes in their past which are do not live up to Christian ideals. Tragically,

588

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

in the modern Indian context, such episodes can become ammunition for one’s enemies. Modern ecumenists tend to talk about the need for a ‘healing of memories’ if separated Christian communities are to be reconciled. Such a healing can only begin if the actual historical realities are faced, and not just the myths that the various communities have woven about themselves and their rivals. A FUTURE ROLE?

The Malabar Independent Syrian Church occupies a unique place in the story of the St. Thomas Christians. It is by no means inconceivable that it will play a significant role in future attempts to heal divisions within the Syrian Christian body. Two factors in particular are potential sources of strength in this regard. Its small size means that it can never be a threat to the larger Churches, which can therefore be open towards it without compromising their own positions on ecclesiastical authority and autonomy. The Metropolitan of the Malabar Independent Syrian Church has no `power base' from which to launch a bid for jurisdiction over the whole Syrian community. That very fact should enable him to relate with ease to the different groups within that community. Secondly the history of the Malabar Independent Syrian Church enables it to bridge various fault lines, most notably the `reformed'/`unreformed' divide which arose in the 19th century. Both sides of that divide are indebted to the MISC for the provision of bishops at moments of crisis in their histories. The Malankara Orthodox Church still trains its ordinands in the Seminary founded by a Metropolitan consecrated by Mar Philoxenos II of Thozhiyur. The Mar Thoma Syrian Church would almost certainly not exist in the form in which it does today without the intervention of Mar Athanasios I of Thozhiyur and his suffragan in 1894. The Syrian Orthodox faith in its Indian expression is lived and celebrated without interruption or diminution in the Malabar Independent Syrian Church, but that has not hindered long-standing friendship with the Church of the East in nearby Thrissur, or with neighbouring Syro-Malabar parishes. This unique pattern of relationships provides a context from which Metropolitans of the MISC might one day make a crucial contribution to the healing of the divisions which were never intended nor foreseen by those who came to Kerala from Western Asia and Europe.

THE MALABAR SYRIAN INDEPENDENT CHURCH

589

The very isolation of the MISC - for long seen as a source of ignorance and backwardness - has its own advantages. It has enabled the preservation of a way of life that has been largely modified by westernization in other parts of the Syrian Community. As the Indian Church re-discovers confidence in its own traditions and becomes more critical in its adoption of western ways and assumptions, the authentic preservation of an Indian Syrian heritage in the MISC could prove a valuable asset. Yet the MISC is not simply a museum-piece. It is a community which takes for granted the assumption that its leaders should be men of prayer and that God will act in response to such prayer. Such an attitude, coupled with a holding together of relevant outreach and the best of the Tradition, suggests that this small member of the Universal Church will continue to be used by God in the years to come. The MISC does not claim to be the sole legitimate representative of the St Thomas tradition. Yet it bears the marks of each stage of the development of that community. The MISC preserves the memory of the East Syrian heritage in the pronunciation of its Christian vocabulary. The era of Latin-rite bishops is evoked in the continued use of the tonsure and of the diaconal dalmatic and episcopal surplice, mozetta and mitre. From the Syrian Orthodox Church the MISC derives its liturgical practice. Even the Church of England missionaries had an influence, though indirectly, in the form of a commitment to education and to worship in Malayalam which had been imbibed by all the other Churches in Kerala and passed from them to the MISC. Some of these ‘marks’ have been discarded by other sections of the St Thomas Christians as they have sought to bring their practice into line with the ‘norms’ of Churches outside India. The MISC, perhaps uniquely, preserves them all, not as badges of affiliation, but simply as a record of the community’s story. The present shape of the St Thomas Christian community; the ecclesial identity of the Puthenkuttukar; an indigenous episcopate; the possibility of jurisdictional independence for Indian Christianity; the opportunity for Christian education and renewal – to all of these the MISC has contributed in significant and often determinative ways. Indian Christianity – in Kerala and beyond – can not be understood without being aware of this community. Despite this, during the course of the 20th century, with the expansion of the various jurisdictions and the hardening of the

590

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

boundaries between them, the MISC was left isolated. It did not ‘fit’ into anybody’s camp. The others got on with the tasks of church building, evangelizing, education, conducting social improvement programmes, litigation and organizing rapidly growing diasporas. Except in the immediate vicinity of Anjur (which long remained an undeveloped backwater) the bishops of the MISC were largely forgotten. Perhaps it is now time to remember them again.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

The differences in name structures between names of Indian, Middle Eastern and European/North American origin makes total consistency of presentation difficult. Should Alexander Mar Thoma, for example, be listed under A or T (or even M), or La Croze under L or C? In general works are listed in alphabetical order of surname or equivalent, but the reader is advised to check other key names as well. John K. Abraham, Suriyani Sabhaye Nilanirthiya Kattumangattu Bavamar, (Malayalam), 2002. Meera Abraham, ‘Religion and Trade: Nestorian Christianity reaches T’ang China’, in The Harp, XVI, (2003), 35-42. Francis Acharya, The Ritual Clothing of Monks, Kottayam, SEERI, 1997. V. Nagam Aiya, The Travancore State Manual (3 vols) Trivandrum, Travancore Government Press, 1906. Alexander Mar Thoma, The Mar Thoma Church: Heritage and Mission, (2nd edition Kottayam, 1986). D.S. Amalorpavadas (ed.), Post Vatican Liturgical Renewal in India, Bangalore, National Catechetical and Liturgical Centre, 1968. Andreas Andreopoulos, The Sign of the Cross: The Gesture, the Mystery, the History, Brewster, Massachusetts, 2006.

591

592

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

A.H. Anquetil du Perron, Zend-Avesta: Ouvrage de Zoroastre … traduit en François sur l’Original Zend …par M. Anquetil du Perron, de l’Academie Royale …, (3 vols, Paris, N.M. Tillard, 1771). A.H. Anquetil du Perron, Recherches Historiques et Geographiques sur L’Inde, Berlin, Pierre Bordeaux, 1786 (vol.I), 1787 (vol.II). Mar Aprem, Mar Thoma Darmo, Trichur, Mar Narsai Press, 1974. _____, Mar Abimelek Timotheus, Trichur, Mar Narsai Press, 1975. _____, The Chaldean Syrian Church in India Trichur, Mar Nasai Press, 1977. _____, Mar Abdisho Thondanat: A Biography, Trichur, Mar Narsai Press, 1987. _____, The Assyrian Church of the East in the Twentieth Century, Kottayam, SEERI, 2003. _____, Indian Church History Lectures, Thrissur, Mar Narsai Press, 2007. Thomas Arthur, Report on a Few Subjects regarding the countries of Travancore and Cochin, by Thomas Arthur, Engineers, Late Superintendent Travancore Survey, Quilon, 1820 (reprinted in Drury, Selections, q.v.). Aziz S. Atiyah, A History of Eastern Christianity London, Methuen & Co., 1968. Donald A. Attwater, The Christian Churches of the East, Milwaukee, Thomas More Books, 1961. George Percy Badger, The Nestorians and their Rituals: With the narrative of a Mission to Mesopotamia and Coordistan in 1842-1844, and of a late visit to those countries in 1850; also researches into the present condition of the Syrian Jacobites, Papal Syrians, and Chaldeans, and an inquiry into the religious tenets of the Yezeedees, London, 1852; Reprinted London, Darf, 1987.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

593

G. R. Balleine, A History of the Evangelical Party in the Church of England, London, Church Book Room Press, 1951. Noel Barber, Lords of the Golden Horn, London, 1976. Ignatius Aphram Barsoum I, The Scattered Pearls: A History of Syriac Literature and Science (ET Matti Mousa), Piscataway, Gorgias Press (rev. ed.) 2003. Ignatius Aphram Barsoum I, History of the Za’afaran Monastery (ET Matti Mousa), Piscataway, Gorgias Press, 2008. Ignatius Aphram Barsoum I, History of the Syriac Dioceses, Piscataway, New Jersey, Gorgias Press, 2009. Joseph Bateman, The Life of the Rt Rev Daniel Wilson, DD, late Lord Bishop of Calcutta and Metropolitan of India with extracts from his Journals and Correspondence, (Two vols.) London, John Murray, 1860. Wilhelm Baum and Dietmar W. Winkler, The Church of the East: A Concise History, London, RoutledgeCurzon, 2003 (first published in German in 2000 as Die Apostolische Kirche des Ostens). Christoph Baumer, The Church of the East: An Illustrated History of Assyrian Christianity, London, I.B.Taurus, 2006. Susan Bayly, Saints, Goddesses and Kings: Muslims and Christians in South Indian Society, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1989. Cyril Behnam Benni [Archbishop of Mosul, The Tradition of the Syriac Church of Antioch, concerning the Prerogatives of St Peter and of his successors the Roman Pontiffs, (ET Joseph Gagliardi), London, Burns, Oates & Co., 1871. Guiseppe Beltrani, La Chiese Caldeo nel secolo dell’Unione (OCA 83) Rome, 1933. David Bentley-Taylor, My Love Must Wait, London, Inter-Varsity Press, 1975.

594

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

Robert Brenton Betts, Christians in the Arab East: A Political Study, London, SPCK, 1979. John Binns, An Introduction to the Christian Orthodox Churches, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2002. Paul F. Bradshaw, Ordination Rites of the Ancient Churches of East and West, New York, Pueblo, 1990. F.E. Brightman, Liturgies Eastern and Western, being the Texts original or translated of the Principal Liturgies of the Church, edited with Introductions and Appendices, Vol. I. Eastern Liturgies, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1896. F. Briquel-Chatonet, A. Desreumaux and J. Thekeparampil, ‘Catalogue des manuscripts Syriaques de la Collection du Saint Ephrem Ecumenical Research Institute (Kottayam)’, in Le Museon, vol. 110, fasc. 3-4, Louvain 1997, 398-400. Sebastian P. Brock, Syriac Perspectives on Late Antiquity, London, Variorum Reprints, 1984. Sebastian P. Brock, The Syriac Fathers on Prayer and the Spiritual Life, Kalamazoo, Cistercian Publications, 1987. Sebastian P. Brock, ‘The “Nestorian” Church: A Lamentable Misnomer’, in J.F. Coakley and K. Parry (eds.) The Church of the East: Life and Thought, (Bulletin of the John Rylands Library of Manchester), vol.78, no.3, Autumn 1996, pp.23-35. Sebastian P. Brock, David G.K.Taylor and Witold Witakowski (eds), The Hidden Pearl: The Syrian Orthodox Church and its ancient Aramaic Heritage, Rome, Trans World Film Italia, 2001. Sebastian P. Brock, The Bible in the Syrian Tradition, Piscataway, Gorgias Press, 2006. Sebastian P. Brock, An Introduction to Syriac Studies, (revised 2nd ed.) Piscataway, Gorgias Press, 2006.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

595

Leslie Brown, The Indian Christians of St Thomas (2nd edition), Cambridge, 1982. Claudius Buchanan, The Star in the East: A Sermon preached in the Parish Church of St James, Bristol, on Sunday February 26 1809 for the benefit of the ‘Society for Missions to Africa and the East’, London, Longman, Hurst & Co, 1809. Claudius Buchanan, Christian Researches in Asia: With Notices of the Translation of the Scriptures into the Oriental Languages, by the Rev. Claudius Buchanan DD, Late Vice-Provost of the College of Fort William in Bengal, and Member of the Asiatic Society, London, T. Cadell & W. Davies (5th ed.), 1812. Francis Buchanan, MD, A Journey from Madras through the Countries of Mysore, Canara, and Malabar, performed under the Orders of the Most Noble the Marquis Wellesley, Governor General of India, for the express purpose of investigating the state of Agriculture, Arts, and Commerce; the Religion, Manners, and Customs; the History Natural and Civil, and Antiquities, in the Dominions of the Rajah of Mysore and the Countries acquired by the Honourable East India Company in the late and former Wars, from Tippoo Sultaun, (3 vols), London, Cadell and Davies (for the Asiatic Society) and Black, Parry & Kingsbury (for the East India Company), 1807. Camoens, The Lusiads, (ET William C.Atkinson), Harmondswoth, Penguin Books, 1952. Henry Chadwick, East and West: The Making of a Rift in the Church. From Apostolic Times until the Council of Florence, Oxford, OUP, 2003. Christine Chaillot, The Malankara Orthodox Church, Geneva, Inter Orthodox Dialogue, 1996. Christine Chaillot, The Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch and All the East, Geneva, Inter Orthodox Dialogue, 1998. Christine Chaillot and Alexander Belopopsky (eds), Towards Unity: The Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches, Geneva, Inter-Orthodox Dialogue, 1998.

596

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

Eyre Chatterton, A History of the Church of England in India since the Early Days of the East India Company, London, SPCK, 1924. Geevarghese Chediath, `The list of the bishops of the Thomas Christians' in Christian Orient, 6 (1985) 2-4, 68-70, 130-134. Geevarghese Chediath, ‘Common Christological Declaration between the Catholic Church and the Assyrian Church of the East – An Evaluation’, in The Harp, XVI, (2002), 271-278. Geevarghese Chediath, The Malankara Catholic Church, (ET A.J. Joy Angemadathil), Kottayam, Bethany Sisters’ Publication, 2003. Geevarghese Chediath, ‘The Malankara Catholic Church and Ecumenism, in The Harp, XIX (2006), 134-148. Geevarghese Chediath, ‘The Malankara Catholic Catholicos and the Catholicate’, in The Harp, XX (2006), 195-207. P. Cheriyan, The Malabar Syrians and the Church Missionary Society, Kottayam, CMS Press, 1935. P.J. Cherian (ed.), Perspectives on Kerala History: The Second Millenium, (online at http://www.keralahistory.ac.in/peasantprotest.htm). J.F. Coakley, The Church of the East and the Church of England: A History of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Assyrian Mission, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1992. J.F. Coakley and K. Parry (eds.) The Church of the East: Life and Thought, (Bulletin of the John Rylands Library of Manchester), vol.78, no.3, Autumn 1996. H. W. Codrington, Studies of the Syrian Liturgies, London, George Goldwell, 1952. Richard Collins, Missionary Enterprise in the East with Especial Reference to the Syrian Christians of Malabar and the Results of Modern Missions, by the Rev. Richard Collins, Late Principal of the Church Missionary Society’s

BIBLIOGRAPHY

597

Syrian College, Cottayam, Travancore, South India, London, Henry S. King & Co., 65 Cornhill & 12 Paternoster Row, 1873. Dalrymple, William, White Mughals: Love and Betrayal in EighteenthCentury India, London, Flamingo, 2003. _____, The Last Mughal: The Fall of a Dynasty, Delhi, 1857, London, Bloomsbury, 2006. David Daniel, The Orthodox Church of India, New Delhi, Rachel Daniel, 2nd ed. 1986. K. N. Daniel, Malankara Sabhacharithravum Upadeshangalum: A History of the Malankara Churc hand its Teachings, 2nd edn.) Tiruvalla1924 (Malayalam). _____, A Critical Study of Primitive Liturgies, Kottayam, CMS Press, 1937. Francis Day, The Land of the Perumauls, or Cochin, its Past and its Present, Madras, Adelphi Press, 1863. Sebastien De Courtois, The Forgotten Genocide: Eastern Christians, The Last Arameans, (ET Vincent Aurora), Piscataway, Gorgias Press, 2004. Dunstan Donovan, ‘The Death of Mar Ivanios’, in Unitas, 5 (1953), pp.149-152. Hans J.W. Drijvers, East of Antioch: Studies in Early Syriac Christianity, London, Variorum Reprints, 1984. Heber Drury (ed.), Selections from the Records of Travancore, selected by Major Heber Drury, Assistant Resident, at the request of Francis Newcombe Maltby, Esq., Resident at the Courts of Travancore and Cochin, Trevandrum, Press of HH the Rajah, 1860. _____ (ed.), Letters from Malabar by Jacob Canter Visscher, now first translated from the Original Dutch: to which is added an Account of Travancore and Fra Bartholomeo’s Travels in that Country, by Major Heber Drury,

598

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

Madras Staff Corps, Late Assistant Resident at Travancore and Cochin, Madras, Adelphi Press, 1862. John H. Eaton (ed.), Horizons in Semitic Studies: Articles for the Student, (Semitic Study Aids 8), Birmingham, University of Birmingham, 1980. K.V. Eapen, Church Missionary Society and Education in Kerala, Kottayam, Kollet Publication, 1985. _____, History of the Church Missionary Society in Kerala, Kottayam, Kollet Publication, 1985. _____, A Study of Kerala History, Kottayam, Kollett Publication, revised ed. 1986. J.W.Etheridge, The Syrian Churches: Their Early History, Liturgies and Literature, with a Literal Translation of the Four Gospels from the Peschito or Canon of Holy Scripture in use among the Oriental Christians from the Earliest Times, London, Longman, Green, Brown and Longmans, 1846. Eusebius, The Ecclesiastical History, Greek text with ET by Kirsopp Lake, London, William Heinemann Ltd, 1975. John R.K.Fenwick, The Anaphoras of St Basil and St James: An Investigation into their Common Origin, (Orientalia Christiana Analecta 240), Rome, Pontificium Institutum Orientale, 1992. _____, The Malabar Independent Syrian Church, Nottingham, Grove Books, 1992. _____, The Free Church of England: Introduction to an Anglican Tradition, London, T&T Clark, 2004. Edna Fernandes, The Last Jews of Kerala, London, Portobello Books, 2008. D. Ferroli, SJ, The Jesuits in Malabar, (2 vols) Bangalore, Bangalore Press, 1939.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

599

Denys Forrest, Tiger of Mysore: the Life and Death of Tippu Sultan London, Chatto & Windus, 1970. James Forbes, Oriental Memoirs: Selected and Abridged from a Series of Familiar Letters written during Seventeen Years Residence in India, London, White, Cochrane & Co, 1813. Adrian Fortescue, The Lesser Eastern Churches, London, Catholic Truth Society, 1913. W.H.C. Frend, The Rise of the Monophysite Movement: Chapters in the History of the Church in the Fifth and Sixth Centuries, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1972. A.Galletti, A.J. van der Burg, P. Groot (eds), The Dutch in Malabar: Selections from the Records of the Madras Government (Dutch Records No. 13), Madras, Government Press, 1911. Michael Geddes [Chancellor of the Cathedral Church of Sarum], The History of the Church of Malabar, from the time of its first discovery by the Portuguezes in the Year 1501. Giving an Account of the Persecutions and Violent Methods of the Roman Prelates, to Reduce them to the Subjection of the Church of Rome. Together with the Synod of Diamper, celebrated in the Year of our Lord 1599. With some Remarks upon the Faith and Doctrines of the Christians of St Thomas in the Indies agreeing with the Church of England, in opposition to that of Rome. Done out of Portugueze into English, London, Sam. Smith & Benj. Walford, 1694. Anthony Gelston, The Eucharistic Prayer of Addai and Mari, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1992. M.C.George, Palakunnathu Abraham Malpan, Tiruvalla, Christian Literature Society, 1919, repub. 1985. Wilhelm Germann, Die Kirche der Thomaschristen: ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der orientalishen Kirchen, Gotersloh, C.Bertelsmann, 1877. M.E. Gibbs, The Anglican Church in India 1600-1970, Delhi, ISPCK, 1972.

600

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

Ian Gillman and Hans-Joachim Klimkeit, Christians in Asia before 1500, Richmond, Curzon, 1999. David Gilmour, The Ruling Caste: Imperial Lives in the Victorian Raj, London, John Murray, 2005. Antony Gouvea, Iornado do Arcebispo de Goa Dom Frey Aleixo de Menezes Primaz da India Oriental, Religioso da Ordem de S. Augustino … recopilada … por Frey Antonio de Gouvea, Religioso da mesma Ordem …, Coimbra, 1606. Antony Gouvea, Histoire Orientale, des Grans Progres de l’Eglise Catholique, Apostolique et Romaine en la reduction des anciens Chrestiens, dits de S. Thomas, de plusieurs autres Schismatiques et Heretiques a l’union de la vraye Eglise. Converserion encore des Mahometains, Mores et Payens, par … Alexis de Meneses, de l’Ordre des Eremites de S. Augustin, et Primat de tout l’Orient. Composee en langue Portuguaise par le R.P.F. Antoine Gouea [sic] … et tournee en Francois par F. Jean Baptiste de Glen …, Anvers, Hierosme Verdussen, 1609. Asahel Grant, The Nestorians or The Lost Tribes, containing Evidence of their Identity, an Account of their Manners, Customs and Ceremonies, London, 1841 (reprinted Piscataway, Gorgias Press, 2004). Bede Griffiths, Prayer with the Harp of the Spirit: The Prayer of Asian Churches, Kottayam, Kurisumala Ashram, 1983-1986 (6 vols). J. Habbi, ‘Signification de Union Chaldeenne de Mar Sulaqa avec Rome en 1553’, in L’Orient Syrien, XI, 2 (1966), 99-132, 199-230. E.R. Hambye, ‘Mar Paulos Abraham Pandari, Bishop in Malabar, and his Relations with Mesopotamia’, in Madey and Kariarakath (eds.), The Church I Love, q.v., pp.79-88. _____, ‘Mar Joseph Cariattil: between Propaganda and Padroado’, in Payngot (ed.), Homage to Mar Cariattil, q.v. _____, History of Christianity in India. Volume III: Eighteenth Century, Bangalore, Church History Association of India, 1997.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

601

Raymond Head, Catalogue of Paintings, Drawings, Engravings and Busts in the Collection of the Royal Asiatic Society, London, Royal Asiatic Society, 1991. John F. Healy, First Studies in Syriac, (Semitics Study Aids 6, Sheffield, University of Sheffield, 1986). Reginald Heber, Narrative of a Journey through the Upper Provinces of India from Calcutta to Bombay, 1824-1825 (with Notes on Ceylon). An Account of a Journey to Madras and the Southern Provinces, 1826, and Letters written in India, by the late Right Rev. Reginald Heber DD, Lord Bishop of Calcutta, London, John Murray (3rd ed.), 1828 (3 vols.). A.J.M. Heylingers, Press List of Ancient Dutch Records, from 1657 to 1825, Madras, Madras Record Office, 1897. H. Hill (ed), Light from the East: A Symposium on the Oriental Orthodox and Assyrian Churches, Toronto, Anglican Book Centre, 1988. Hans Hollerweger, Turabdin: Living Cultural Heritage, Linz, Freunde des Tur Abdin, 1999. Richard Holmes, Wellington: The Iron Duke, London, HarperCollins, 2003. Norman A. Horner, A Guide to Christian Churches in the Middle East: Present-day Christianity in the Middle East and North Africa, Eikhart, Illinois, Mission Focus, 1989. W.H.Horsely, Memoir of Travancore, Historical and Statistical, compiled from various authentic records and personal observation by Lieutenant W.H.Horsley, Engineers, at the Request of Major-General J.S. Fraser, British Resident, 1839 (reprinted in Drury, Selections, q.v.). George Broadley Howard, The Christians of St Thomas and their Liturgies … translated from Syriac MSS obtained in Travancore, Oxford, John Henry & James Parker, 1864. Jennifer Howes, The Courts of Pre-Colonial South India: Material Culture and Kingship, London, RoutledgeCurzon, 2003.

602

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

James Hough, The History of Christianity in India from the Commencement of the Christian Era, London, Church Missionary House, 4 vols. 1839-1847. Thomas G.P. Hough, (ed.), The History of Christianity in India from the Commencement of the Christian Era, London, Church Missionary House, vol. 5, 1860. William Saunders Hunt, The Anglican Church in Travancore and Cochin, 1816-1916: Operations of the Church Missionary Society in South-West India, London, Church Missionary Society, (2 vols), 1920, 1933. Mar Ignatius Zakka I Iwas, The Syrian Orthodox Church at a Glance, (ET Emmanuel H. Bismarji) Aleppo, Gregorios Yohanna Ibrahim, 1983. P.S. Iype, The Parumala Kochu Thirumeni, Mavelikara, Mrs P.S.Iype, 1981. Zacharia John, The Liturgy of the Mar Thoma Syrian Church of Malabar in the Light of its History, (University of Durham MA Thesis, 1994). K. T. Joy, The Mar Thoma Church: A Study of its Growth and Contribution, Kottayam, pub. by the author, 1986. Juhanon Mar Thoma, Christianity in India and a Brief History of the Mar Thoma Syrian Church, Madras, C.M. Cherian 1968. Poulose Mor Athanasios Kadavil (formerly K.P.Paul), The Eucharist Service of the Syrian Jacobite Church of Malabar, Cheeranchira, Changanaserry, Mor Adai Study Centre, 2003. Curien Kaniamparampil, The Syrian Orthodox Church in India and its Apostolic Faith, Detroit, Philips Gnashikhamony, 1989. Zac Varghese Kanisseril & Mathew A.Kallumpram, Glimpses of Mar Thoma Church History, New Delhi, Society of St Thomas & St Augustine, 2003.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

603

George Karukaparampil (ed.), Tuvaik: Studies in Honour of Rev. Jacob Vellian, (Syrian Churches Series XVI) Kottayam, 1995. John William Kaye, Christianity in India: An Historical Narrative, London, Smith, Elder & Co., 1859. John Keay, The Honourable Company: A History of the English East India Company, London, HarperCollins, 1993. _____, India: A History, London, HarperCollins, 2000. G. Khouri-Sarkis, ‘Le Rituel du Sacre des Évêques et des Patriarches dans l’Église Syrienne d’Antioch’, in L’Orient Syrien, VIII, 2 (1963) 137-212. A.F.J. Klijn, The Acts of Thomas: Introduction, Text and Commentary, Leiden, Brill, 1962. Jacob Kollaparampil, ‘Mar Dionysios the Great: For the One True Fold’, in Orientalia Christiana Periodica, (1964), 148-192. _____, The Archdeacon of All-India, Rome, 1972. _____, The St Thomas Christians’ Revolution in 1653, Kottayam, St Joseph’s Press, 1981. _____, ‘Two Documents in Vatteluttu: (APF, SOCG 233, ff. 5455) Their Historical Context, Contents and Malayalam Transcript’, in George Karukaparampil (ed.), Tuvaik, q.v. Xavier Koodapuzha, ‘The Ecclesial Communion of the St Thomas Christians of India before the 16th Century’, in The Harp, XXII (2007), 103-119. Thomas Koonammakkal, ‘An Introduction to Malayalam Karshon’, in The Harp, XV (2002), 99-106. Cyril Korolevskij, article ‘Audo’, in Dictionnaire de Histoire et de Geographie Ecclesiastique, Paris, 1931, columns 317-356.

604

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

Sunny Kulathakkal, ‘A Short Biography of Rev. Dr. V.C. Samuel’, in M.K. Kuriakose (ed.), Orthodox Identity in India, q.v., pp.13-25. Joseph Kulathramannil, Cultural Heritage of Knanaya Syrian Christians, Sharjah, Youth Association of St Mary’s Church, n.d. ?2001. M.K. Kuriakose (ed.), Orthodox Identity in India: Essays in Honour of V.C. Samuel, Bangalore, V.C. Samuel 75th Birthday Celebration Committee, 1988. K.N Kurup, ‘The Pazhassi Revolts, Velu Thampi Rebellion …’, in ‘Peasant Protests and Revolts in Travancore and Malabar’, in P.J. Cherian (ed.), Perspectives on Kerala History: The Second Millenium, (online at http://www.keralahistory.ac.in/peasantprotest.htm). K. K. Kuruvilla, A History of the Mar Thoma Church and its Doctrines, Madras, Christian Literature Society for India, 1951. M.V. La Croze, Histoire de Christianisme des Indes, par M.V. La Croze, Bibliothecaire et Antiquaire du Roi de Prusse, La Haye, Vaillant & Prevost, 1724. Michael Lapidge (ed.), Archbishop Theodore: Comparative Studies on his Life and Influence, Cambridge, University Press, 1995. A.C. Lathrop, Memoir of Asahel Grant, MD, Missionary to the Nestorians, compiled at the request of his Mother (Mrs Rachel Grant), New York, M.W. Dodd, 1847. Thomas Laurie, Dr Grant and the Mountain Nestorians, Boston, Gould and Lincoln, 1853 (reprinted Gorgias Press, 2005). C.W. Le Bas, The Life of the Rt Rev Thomas Fanshaw Middleton, (2 vols. 1831). Samuel Lee, ‘A Brief History of the Syrian Churches in the South of India’, in Proceedings of the Church Missionary Society, 1817-1817, 496-529. James Legge, The Nestorian Monument of Hsi-an fû in Shen-His, China, Piscataway, Gorgias Press, 2009.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

605

C.H.Long (ed.), Who Are the Anglicans? Profiles and Maps of the Anglican Communion, with brief descriptions of inter-Anglican agencies and their history, Ohio, Forward Movement Publications, 1988. Alexander MacKenzie, History of the Munros of Fowlis: With the Genealogies of the Principal Families of the Name: to which are Appended Those of Lexington and New England, Inverness, A & W Mackenzie, 1898. Gordon Thomson Mackenzie, Christianity in Travancore, Trivandrum, 1901. A Field Officer of Cavalry [Digby Mackworth, Diary of a Tour through Southern India, Egypt and Palestine in the years 1821 and 1823, London, J.Hatchard & Son, 1823. Arthur John Maclean and William Henry Browne, The Catholicos of the East and His People, being the Impressions of Five Year’s Work in the “Archbishop of Canterbury’s Assyrian Mission”: An Account of the Religious and Secular Life and Opinions of the Eastern Syrian Christians of Kurdistan and Northern Persia (known also as Nestorians), London, SPCK, 1895 (reprinted Piscataway, Gorgias Press, 2006). John Madey and G. Kaniarakath (eds.), The Church I Love: A Tribute to Rev. Placid J. Podipara CMI, Kottayam, Ecumenical Biblical and Oriental Study Centre, 1983. Pius Malekandathil (ed.), Jornada of Dom Alexis de Menezes: a Portuguese Account of the Sixteenth Century Malabar, Kochi, LRC Publications, 2003. _____, ‘Discovery of a Pahlavi Cross from Goa: A New evidence for pre-Portuguese Settlement in Konkan’, in Christian Orient, XXIII, no.3, (Sept 2002), 132-146. Samuel Mateer, The Land of Charity: A Descriptive Account of Travancore and its People, with Special Reference to Mission Life, London, John Snow & Co., 1870 (reprinted Asian Educational Services, 1991). Mar Thoma Syrian Church of Malabar, Constitution, Tiruvalla. 1984.

606

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

Philip Mansel, Constantinople: City of the World’s Desire 1453-1924, London, Penguin Books 1997. C. P. Mathew and M. M. Thomas, The Indian Churches of St. Thomas, Delhi, ISPCK, 1967. Mar Abraham Mattan, The Indian Church of St Thomas Christians and Her Missionary Enterprises before the Sixteenth Century, Vadavathoor, Oriental Institute of Religious Studies India, 1985. J.W. McCrindle, The Christian Topography of Cosmas, an Egyptian Monk; translated from the Greek, and Edited, with Notes and Introduction, by J.W. McCrindle MA …Late Principal of the Government College at Patna, and Fellow of Calcutta University, London, Hakluyt Society, 1897. W. Stewart McCullough, A Short History of Syrian Christianity to the Rise of Islam, Chico, CA, Scholars Press, 1982. Otto Meinardus, ‘Notes on some non-Byzantine Monasteries and Churches in the East’, in Eastern Churches Review, III, 1 (Spring 1970), 50-58; III, 2 (Autumn 1970), 163-170. George Menachery, ‘Aspects of the idea of “clean and unclean” among the Brahmins, the Jews and the St Thomas Christians of Kerala’, in The Harp, XII (2007), 311-330. C. Achyuta Menon, The Cochin State Manual, Ernakulam, Cochin Government Press, 1911. Puthezhathu Ramon Menon, Sakthan Thampuram, Kozhikode, Mathrubhoomi, 1989 (3rd ed.). F.M.Milman, A Memoir of the Rt Revd Robert Milman DD, (1879). Adriaan Moens, Memorandum on the Administration of the Coast of Malabar by the Right Worshipful Adriaan Moens, Extraordinary Member of the Council of India, Governor and Director of the Malabar Coast, Canara and Vingorla, drawn up for the information of his successor. Dated 18th April 1781, 1781 (in A.Galletti, A.J. van der Burg, P. Groot (eds), The

BIBLIOGRAPHY

607

Dutch in Malabar: Selections from the Records of the Madras Government, (Dutch Records No. 13, Madras), Government Press, 1911. Samuel Hugh Moffett, A History of Christianity in Asia, Vol.I: Beginnings to 1500, New York, HarperSanFrancisco, 1992. George Mark Moraes, A History of Christianity in India from Early Times to St Francis Xavier: AD 52-1542, Bombay, Manaktalas, 1964. J.B.P. More, Religion and Society in South India: Hindus, Muslims and Christians, Kuthuparamba, Midas Press for Institute for Research in Social Sciences and Humanities, 2006. C.B. Moss, The Old Catholic Movement: It Origins and History, London, SPCK 1964 (2nd ed.). H.C.G. Moule, Charles Simeon, London, 1892, reprinted Inter Varsity Press, 1956. A.Mathias Mundadan, Sixteenth Century Traditions of Thomas Christians, Bangalore, Dharmaran College, 1970. A.Mathias Mundadan, Indian Christians: Search for Identity & Struggle for Autonomy, Bangalore, Dharmaram Publications, 1984. _____, ‘Selfhood of the Indian Christians’, in M.K. Kuriakose (ed.), Orthodox Identity in India, q.v., pp.48-58. _____, History of Christianity in India. Volume I: From the Beginning up to the Middle of the Sixteenth Century, Bangalore, Church History Association of India, 1989. Robert Murray, Symbols of Church and Kingdom: A Study in Early Syriac Tradition, revised edition, London T&T Clark, 2006. George Nedungatt, SJ, Quest for the Historical Thomas, Apostle of India: A Re-reading of the Evidence, Bangalore, Theological Publications in India, 2008.

608

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

Stephen Neill, A History of Christianity in India (vol. 1: The Beginning to AD 1707; vol. 2: 1707-1858), Cambridge, University Press, 1984. Abba Seraphim (Newman-Norton), Flesh of our Brethren: An historical examination of Western episcopal successions originating from the Syrian Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch, London, The British Orthodox Press, 2006. De Lacy O’Leary, The Syriac Church and Fathers: A brief review of the subject, London, SPCK, 1909. Anthony O’Mahony (ed.), Eastern Christianity: Studies in Modern History, Religion and Politics, London, Melisende, 2004. _____, ‘The Syrian Catholic Church: a study on history and ecclesiology’, in Sobornost, 28. 2 (2006), 28-50. Paul Pallath, The Eucharistic Liturgy of the St Thomas Christians and the Synod of Diamper, Vadavathoor, Kottayam, Oriental Institute of Religious Studies India, 2008. Thomas Pallipurathkunnel, A Double Regime in the Malabar Church (1663-1716), Alwaye, Pontifical Institute of Theology and Philosophy, 1982. Geevarghese Panicker, ‘The Indian Identity of Thomas Christians of India (Kerala)’, in The Harp, vol. XIX (2006), pp.195-209. K.M.Panikkar, Malabar and the Portuguese, Bombay, B.Taraporevala Sons & Co., 1929. _____, Malabar and the Dutch (being the History of the Fall of Nayar Power in Malabar), Bombay, D.B.Taraporevala Sons & Co., 1931. Thomman Paremmakkal, The Varthamanappusthakam: An account of the history of the Malabar Church between the years 1773 and 1786 with special emphasis on the journey from Malabar to Rome via Lisbon and back under taken by Malpan Mar Joseph Cariattil and Cathanar Thomman Paremmakkal, ET Placid J. Podipara (Orientalia Christiana Analecta 190) Rome, Pont. Institutum Orientalium Studiorum, 1971

BIBLIOGRAPHY

609

Ken Parry, David J. Melling, Dimitri Brady, Sidney H. Griffith & John Healey (eds.), The Blackwell Dictionary of Eastern Christianity, Oxford, Blackwell Publishers, 2002. Frederick Eden Pargiter, Centenary Volume of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, London, Royal Asiatic Society, 1923. Oswald H. Parry, Six Months in a Syrian Monastery: Being the Record of a visit to the Head Quarters of the Syrian Church in Mesopotamia, with some Account of the Yazidis or Devil Worshippers of Mosul and El Jilwah, their Sacred Book, London, Horace Cox, 1895. Varekat Antony Pascal, The Latin and Syrian Hierarchies of Malabar, Trichur, 1937. Verghese Pathikulangara, Qurbana: The Eucharistic Celebration of the Chaldeo-Indian Church, Kottayam/Manganam, Denha Services, 1998. Kuncheria Pathil (ed.), ‘The Catholic Churches in India: SelfUnderstanding and Challenges Today’ (Jeevadhara– A Journal for Socio-Religious Research, XXXIII.196, (July 2003). _____ (ed.), ‘Indian Churches Self-Understanding and Challenges Today 2’, in Jeevadhava – A Journal for Socio-Religious Research, XXXIV. 202 (July 2004). Paulinus a S. Bartholomeo, India Orientalis Christiana, continens fundationes ecclesiarum, serium episcoporum, missiones, schismata, persecutions, reges, viros illustres, Rome, typis Salomoniansis, 1794. _____, A Voyage to the East Indies: Observations made during a residence of thirteen years, between 1776 and 1789, in districts little frequented by Europeans; with notes and illustrations by John Reinhold Forster. Translated from the German by William Johnston. London, Vernor & Hood, 1800. Paulos Mar Gregorios, William H. Lazareth and Nikos A. Nissiotis (eds.), Does Chalcedon Divide or Unite? Towards Convergence in Orthodox Christology, Geneva, World Council of Churches, 1981.

610

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

R. Payne-Smith, Catalogi Codicum Manuscriptorum Bibliothecae Bodleianae, Oxford, Clarendon, 1864. Charles Payngot (ed.), Homage to Mar Cariattil, Pioneer Malabar Ecumenist, Vadavathoor, Oriental Institute of Religious Studies India, 1992. Charles Payngot, ‘Mar Joseph Cariattil: Life and Activities’, in idem (ed.), Homage to Mar Cariattil, q.v. Hugh N.Pearson, Memoirs of the Life and Writings of the Rev. Claudius Buchanan, DD, Late Vice-Provost of the College of Fort William in Bengal, London, R.B. Seeley & W. Burnside, 1834. Frank Penny, The Church in Madras: Being the History of the Ecclesiastical and Missionary action of the East India Company in the Presidency of Madras, (3 vols), London, Smith, Elder & Co., 1904-1922. Istvan Perczel, ‘Syriac Manuscripts in India: the present state of the cataloguing process’, in The Harp, XV (2002) 289-297. _____, ‘Have the Flames of Diamper destroyed all the old Manuscripts of the St Thomas Christians?’, in The Harp, vol. XX (2006), pp.87-104. _____, ‘Four Apologetic Church Histories from India’, in The Harp, vol. XXIV (2009) (forthcoming). H.C. Perumalil and E.R. Hambye (eds.), Christianity in India: A History in Ecumenical Perspectice, Allepey, Prakasam Publications, 1973. Joseph Perumthottam, A Period of Decline of the Mar Thoma Christians (1712-1752), Vadavathoor, Oriental Institute of Religious Studies India, 1994. E.M.Philip, The Indian Church of St Thomas, Kottayam, E.P. Mathew, 1908; republished (ed. Kuriakose Corepiscopa Moolyil), Cheerancheera, Changanacherry Mor Adai Study Centre, 2002.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

611

P.P. Philip, A Survey of the Background, Origin and Growth of the Maramon Convention, Trivandrum, E.Philip, 1976. Thomas John Philip of Nalloor, Dr Abraham Mar Thoma Metropolitan (Mar Thoma XVII) 1880-1947: Life Story of Marettu Kochu Thirumeni, Nalloor, pub. by author, 2004. T.W. Philip, East of the Euphrates: Early Christianity in Asia, Delhi and Tiruvalla, ISPCK, 1998. Edavalikel Philipos, The Syrian Christians of Malabar: Otherwise called the Christians of St Thomas, by the Rev. Edavalikel Philipos, Chorepiscopos, Cathanar of the Great Church at Cottayam, (ed. G.B.Howard), Oxford, James Parker and Co., 1869. Placid Podipara, ‘The Efforts for Reunion in Malankara, South India’, in Unitas, 5 (1953), 7-15, 89-98. _____, The St Thomas Christians, London, Darton, Longman & Todd, 1970. _____, ‘The Thomas-Christians and “Adaptation”’, in Eastern Churches Review, III, 2 (Autumn 1970), 171-177. _____, The Latin Rite Christians of Malabar, Kottayam, Denha Services, 1986. _____, (ed. Xavier Koodapazha), The Canonical Sources of the SyroMalabar Church, Vadavathoor, Kottayam, Oriental Institute of Religious Studies India, (104), 1986. James Abraham Puliurumpil, A Period of Jurisdictional Conflict in the Suriani Church of India (1800-1838), Vadavathoor, Kottayam, Oriental Institute of Religious Studies India, 1993. Varghese Puthussery, Reunion Efforts of St Thomas Christians of India (1750-1773): A Historical-Critical Analysis of the Contemporary Documents, Thrissur, Marymatha Publications, 2008.

612

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

Charlie Pye-Smith, Rebels and Outcasts: A Journey through Christian India, London, Viking, 1997. George Milne Rae, The Syrian Church in India, Edinburgh & London, William Blackwood & Sons, 1892. K. Ramavarna Rajah, ‘The Brahmins of Malabar’, in JRAS, (July 1910) 625-639. William Joseph Richards, The Indian Christians of St. Thomas: Otherwise called the Syrian Christians of Malabar. A Sketch of their History, and an Account of the Present Condition, as well as a discussion of the Legend of St Thomas, London, Bemrose & Sons, 1908. Roman Documents on the Syro-Malabar Liturgy, (updated and enlarged edition), Vadavathoor, Oriental Institute of Religious Studies India, 1999. Ronald G. Roberson, The Eastern Christian Churches: A Brief Survey, Rome, Pontifical Institute for Oriental Studies, 3rd edn., 1990. Thomas Robinson, The Last Days of Bishop Heber, Madras, Jennings & Chaplin, 1830. Thomas Robinson, ‘An Historical Account of the Christians on the Malabar Coast’, in Madras Journal of Literature and Science, (Oct. 1833), 7-13, (Jan. 1834), 94-104, (July 1834), 255-269, (Oct. 1834), 342350. V.Krishnan Row, A Description of the Administrative System of Travancore in the year 1844, (reproduced in Drury, Selections, q.v.). V.C. Samuel, Truth Triumphs: An Account of the Life and Achievements of Malankara Metropolitan Vattasseril Geevarghese Mar Dionysios [VI], Kottayam, Malankara Orthodox Church Publications, 1986. Edward Seton, Lieutenant Edward Seton’s Observations on the Ceded Countries on the Malabar Coast, n.d. but pre-1795 (IOR/H/456b, pp.451-623).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

613

Yacoub III (formerly Severus Jacob Tuma), History of the Syrian Church of India, 1951 (ET Matti Mousa), Piscataway, Gorgias Press, 2009. Sir John Shore, Reply of the Governor General in Council to the Malabar Joint Commissioners’ Reports, with Letters of Instruction from the Bombay Government and Despatch from the Honourable Court of Directors, Madras, Lawrence Asylum Press, 1879, (IOR/ V3182). Stuart Simmonds and Simon Digby (eds), The Royal Asiatic Society: Its History and Treasures, Leiden/London, E.J. Brill, 1979. Bryan Spinks (ed.), The Place of Christ in Liturgical Prayer, Collegeville, Liturgical Press, 2008. Eugene Stock, The History of the Church Missionary Society, its Environment, its Men and its Work, London, CMS, 1899. Horatio Southgate, Narrative of a Visit to the Syrian [Jacobite] Church of Mesopotamia; with Statements and Reflections upon the present State of Christianity in Turkey, and the Character and Prospects of the Eastern Churches, New York, Dana & Company. 1836 (reprinted Piscataway, Gorgias Press, 2003). _____, Narrative of a Tour through Armenia, Kurdistan, Persia and Mesopotamia, with Observations on the Condition of Mohammedanism and Christianity in those Countries, (2 vols) London, Tilt & Bogue, 1840. Harald Suermann, ‘The History of Christianity in Iraq of the 20th and 21st Century’, in The Harp, XX, (2006), 171-194. Surma d’Bait Mar Shimun, Assyrian Church Customs and the Murder of Mar Shimun, London, Faith Press, 1920. C.A. Swainson, The Greek Liturgies, chiefly from Original Authorities, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1884. Charles Swanston, ‘A Memoir of the Primitive Church of Malayala, or of the Syrian Christians of the Apostle Thomas, from its first rise to the present time, by Captain Charles Swanston, of the Hon-

614

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

ourable East India Company’s Military Service on the Madras Establishment. – Communicated by the Madras Literary Society and the Auxiliary Royal Asiatic Society’, in JRAS, I (1834), 171-191, II, 51-62, 234-247. A MS copy with accompanying correspondence can be found in IOR/Mss Eur D152 (formerly K391). Robert F. Taft, ‘Mass Without the Consecration? The Historic Agreement on the Eucharist between the Catholic Church and the Assyrian Church of the East, Promulgated 26 October 2001’, in Bulletin of Centro Pro Unione, 63 (Spring 2002), 15-27. Martin Tamke, ‘A Letter of Mar Thoma’s from 1728 as Source for the History of the St Thomas Christians’, in The Harp, vol. XXII (2007), 201-214. Norman P. Tanner, Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, (2 vols), London, Sheed & Ward, 1990. William H. Taylor, Antioch and Canterbury: The Syrian Orthodox Church and the Church of England 1874-1928, Piscataway, NJ, Gorgias Press, 2005. Jonas Thaliath, The Synod of Diamper, (Orientalia Christiana Analecta 152), Rome, Pontifical Institute for Oriental Studies, 1958, reprinted Bangalore, Dharmaram Vidya Kshetram, 1999. Andrews Thazhath, The Law of Thomas, Kottayam, Vadavathoor, Oriental Institute of Religious Studies, India, 1987. Joseph Thekedathu, The Troubled Days of Francis Garcia SJ, Archbishop of Cranganore (1641-59), (Analecta Gregoriana 187), Rome, Universita Gregoria Editrice, 1972. Joseph Thekkedath, History of Christianity in India. Volume II: From the Middle of the Sixteenth Century to the End of the Seventeenth Century, Bangalore, Church History Association of India, 1988. Eugene Tisserant, Eastern Christianity in India: A History of the SyroMalabar Church from the Earliest times to the present day, (ET E.R.Hambye) London, Longmans, Green & Co., 1957.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

615

Together in Mission and Ministry: The Porvoo Common Statement with Essays on Church and Ministry in Northern Europe, London, Church House Publishing, 1993. Phillip Tovey, Encountering Syrian Monasticism, Kunnamkulam, MISC Youth League, 1997. _____ (ed.), The Consecration of a Corepiscopa, Kunnamkulam, MISC Youth League, 1997. _____, Essays in West Syrian Liturgy, Kottayam, Oriental Institute of Religious Studies India (No. 199), 1998. Jurgen Tubach, ‘Thomas Cannaneo and the Thekkumbhagar (Southists)’, in The Harp, XIX (2006), 399-412. B. Vadakkekara, ‘Cariattil-Paremmakkal – Representation to Rome and Lisbon towards Restoring Ecclesial Unity among India’s St Thomas Christians, 1778-1786’, in Payngot (ed.), Homage to Mar Cariattil, q.v. Johan van Angelbeek, Memoir of Johan Gerhard van Angelbeek, Ordinary Member of the Council of Dutch India and Governor-elect of Ceylon, delivered to his successor in the Adminstration of Malabar, Jan Lambertus van Spall, in the year 1793, (copied by P. Groot, Dutch Records No. 4, Madras, Government Press, 1908). J. P. M. Van der Ploeg, The Christians of St. Thomas in South India and their Syriac Manuscripts, Bangalore, 1983. Hendrik Adrian van Rheede, Hendrik Adrian van Rheede to the Honourable Jacob Lobs, Governor-General on the Coasts of Malabar, Canara and Wingola, Cochin, 17 March 1677. Instructions to his Successor for the Administration of the Dutch Possessions on these coasts (IOR/H/456b, pp.1448). Translated from the Dutch with marginal notes by F. Wappers.

616

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

Arby Varghese, P.J. Kurian and P.M. Kurian, The Contributions of the Baker Family, 1818-1966, Kottayam, Benjamin Bailey Research Centre, 1999. Baby Varghese, ‘A Brief Study of the Syriac Study Centres in Kerala’, in The Harp, vol. X, (1997), 65-70. _____, ‘Some Common Elements in the East and the West Syrian Liturgies’, in The Harp, vol. XIII, (2000), 65-76. _____, ‘The Impact of the Synod of Diamper on the Faith and Liturgy of the St. Thomas Christians’, in The Harp, XVI, (2002), 151-158. _____, West Syrian Liturgical Theology, Aldershot, Ashgate, 2004. _____, ‘Origin of the Maphrianate of Tagrit’, in The Harp, vol. XX (2006), 305-349. _____, ‘The CMS Missionaries and the Malankara Church (18151840)’, in The Harp, vol. XX (2006), 399-446. V. Titus Varghese and P. P. Philip, Glimpses of the History of the Christian Churches in India, Madras, Christian Literature Society, 1983. Joseph Vazhuthanapally, The Biblical and Archaeological Foundations of the Mar Thoma Sliba, Kottayam, Oriental Institute of Religious Studies India Publications (No. 139), 1990. Jacob Vellian (ed) The Malabar Church: Symposium in honour of Rev. Placid J. Podipara CMI, (Orientala Christiana Analecta 186), Rome, Pont. Inst. Orient, Stud, 1970. _____, An Historical Introduction to the Syriac Liturgy: Syro-Malabar Liturgy, Encounter of the West with the East in Malabar, Kottayam, St Ephrem Ecumenical Research Institute, (n.d.). Thomas Vellilamthadam, Joseph Koldakudy, Xavier Koodapuzha and Mathew Vellanickal (eds.), Ecclesial Identity of the Thomas Christians, Kottayam, Oriental Institute Publications, 1985.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

617

K.C. Verghese, Malabar Swathanthra Suriyani Sabha Charithram (The Malabar Independent Syrian Church: A Brief Historical Sketch), Kunnamkulam (n.d. ?1981). Malayalam text and English translation in Lambeth Palace Library. Jacob Visscher, see Drury, Selections. Susan Visvanathan, The Christians of Kerala: History, Belief and Ritual among the Yakoba, Madras, Oxford University Press, 1993. Geoffrey Wainwright and Karen B. Westerfield Tucker, The Oxford History of Christian Worship, Oxford, OUP, 2006. Thomas Whitehouse, Lingerings of Light in a Dark Land: Being Researches into the Past History and Present Condition of the Syrian Church of Malabar, London, William Brown & Co, 1873 (reprinted in facsimile by Kessinger Publishing). W.A. Wigram, Our Smallest Ally: A Account of the Assyrian Nation in the Great War, London, SPCK, 1920. W.A. Wigram, The Assyrians and their Neighbours, London, Bell, 1929. John Wilkinson, Egeria’s Travels to the Holy Land: Newly translated with supporting notes and documents, Warminster, Aris and Phillips, (revised edn) 1981. H.H. Wilson, A Glossary of Judicial and Revenue Terms and useful words occurring in official documents relating to the administration of the Government of British India, from the Arabic, Persian, Hindustani, Sanskrit … Malayalam and other languages, compiled and published under the Authority of the Honorable Court of Directors of the East India Company, by H.H. Wilson, Librarian of the East India Company …, London, W.H. Allen & Co., 1855. Amy Wilson-Carmichael, Walker of Tinnevelly, London, Morgan & Scott, 1916.

618

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

Dietmar W. Winkler, ‘Miaphysitism: A New Term for Use in the History of Dogma and Ecumenical Theology’, in The Harp, X, no.3, (December 1997), 33-40. Dietmar W. Winkler, ‘The Assyrian Church of the East in the Twentieth Century, in The Harp, XVI, (2002), 245-270. J.C. Winslow, D.R. Athavale, J.E.G. Festig, E.C. Ratcliff, The Eucharist in India: Plea for a Distinctive Liturgy for the Indian Church, London, Longmans, 1920. Joseph Wolff, Researches and Missionary Labours among the Jews, Mohammedans and others Sects, by the Rev. Joseph Wolfff, during his Travels between the years 1831 and 1834 …, London, pub. by author, 1835. F. Wrede, ‘Account of the St Thome Christians on the Coast of Malabar’, in Asiatick Researches, 7 (1801), pp.362-380. William Wright, A Catalogue of the Syriac Manuscripts preserved in the Library of the University of Cambridge, Cambridge, University Press, 1901. Frances Young, From Nicaea to Chalcedon: A Guide to the Literature and its Background, London, SCM Press, 1983. Henry Yule and A.C. Burnell (eds.), Hobson-Jobson: A Glossary of Coloquial Anglo-Indian Words and Phrases, and of kindred Terms Etymological, Historical, Geographical and Disscursive, London, John Murray, 1903. K.C. Zachariah, The Syrian Christians of Kerala: Demographic and SocioEconomic Transition in the Twentieth Century, New Delhi, Orient Longman, 2006. Scaria Zachariah (ed.), The Acts and Decrees of the Synod of Diamper 1599, Edamattam, Indian Institute of Christian Studies, 1994. Melitza Zernov, ‘Encounter with the Indian Church’, in Sourozh, 27 (Feb. 1987), 24-33, 28 (May 1987), 26-40.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

619

Nicholas M. Zernov, The Christian East: The Eastern Orthodox Church and Indian Christianity, Delhi, SPCK, 1956.

INDEX Abraham, Mar, East Syrian bishop in Kerala 1568-1597, 89, 90, 91, 92, 100, 156 Acts of Thomas, 64 Addai, 26, 31, 227, 473, 484, 560, 569 Adiabene, 26 Agatho, Pope of Rome, 164 Aithalaha, Syrian bishop, 121, 122, 123, 124, 128, 129, 133, 156, 317, 373 al Arqugianyi, Ivanios Yuhanon, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 169, 170, 172, 173, 175, 179, 184, 204, 218, 219, 222, 266, 269, 290, 347 Albuquerque, Joao, Bishop of Goa, 87 Alexander de Campo, xiii, 102, 130, 131, 136, 141, 142, 143, 148, 248, 485, 584 Alexander Mar Thoma, xviii, xix, xlv, 421, 545, 551, 568, 575, 576, 581, 591 Alfred, King of Wessex, 70 Alvares, Julius, xvii, 553 Andreas, Syrian bishop, 143, 144, 163 Angamale, xiv, 90, 92, 98, 100, 139, 142, 149, 250, 255, 256, 268, 277, 329, 555

Abdisho (Thondanat), Church of the East bishop in Kerala, 204, 482, 483, 485 Abdisho (Thondanat), Church of the East bishop in Kerala, 482 Abdisho of Nisibis, 33 Abdisho, brother of Sulaqa, 37, 89 Abdul Massih, Patriarch, 556, 557 Abraham Katumangat (later Mar Koorilose I), 145, 163, 179, 184, 190, 193, 194, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 212, 221, 222, 226, 237, 241, 244, 246, 264, 265, 288, 289, 369 Abraham Mar Thoma (Mar Thoma Metropolitan), xvii, 563, 564, 565 Abraham Palakunnathu (Abraham Malpan), 213, 225, 227, 236, 333, 359, 371, 372, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 408, 409, 410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 420, 421, 435, 436, 438, 440, 454, 458, 479, 529, 534, 540, 548, 586

621

622

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

Angelus Francis of St Therese, 152, 153, 154 Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 70 Anjur, xvi, 1, 185, 205, 208, 224, 247, 257, 270, 272, 273, 274, 276, 280, 282, 283, 291, 297, 336, 337, 349, 351, 358, 359, 370, 377, 404, 405, 409, 458, 466, 470, 481, 486, 537, 554, 558, 559, 566, 574, 584, 586, 590 Anquetil du Perron, Abraham Hyacinthe, 106, 158, 161, 165, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 189, 190, 191, 205, 212, 266, 442 Anthimus of Constantinople, 43 Antioch, xvi, xxxix, 12, 25, 30, 31, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 52, 61, 62, 116, 118, 132, 133, 135, 137, 139, 153, 155, 156, 159, 162, 167, 174, 175, 176, 182, 184, 187, 193, 194, 195, 196, 201, 211, 212, 218, 219, 222, 223, 234, 241, 243, 244, 258, 266, 281, 284, 286, 290, 297, 305, 306, 308, 311, 314, 316, 317, 318, 322, 333, 334, 335, 356, 357, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 368, 369, 371, 373, 378, 380, 383, 384, 393, 397, 398, 400, 406, 408, 409, 410, 411, 419, 420, 427, 430, 444, 448, 450, 454, 457, 460, 462, 469, 470, 471, 475, 477, 485, 527, 529, 530, 531, 532, 536, 537, 543, 545, 547, 550, 553, 584 Aprem, Mar, Metropolitan of Church of the East in India,

xix, 39, 60, 63, 148, 159, 160, 205, 271, 477, 479, 480, 481, 482, 483, 484, 486, 576 Archdeacon of All India, office of, 75 Arthat, 231, 272, 275, 276, 278, 282, 283, 293, 325, 326, 334, 347, 349, 379, 452, 468, 527 Athanasios Abdul Messih, 211, 212, 219, 225, 244, 287, 361, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369, 370, 371, 373, 378, 400, 404, 408, 430, 440, 444, 450, 537 Audo, Joseph VI, Chaldean Patriarch, 478, 479, 480, 481, 482 Augen, Church dedicated to, 472 Augen, Monastery of, 473 Augen, Saint, 472, 473 Augustus, 18 Badger, George Percy, 28, 30, 47, 48, 59, 72, 243, 268, 291, 368, 423, 424, 434, 435, 437, 449 Baghdad, 29, 34, 38, 51, 67, 155, 171, 172, 411, 481, 484 Bailey, Benjamin, 68, 194, 195, 196, 302, 303, 310, 311, 338, 339, 341, 342, 343, 354, 357, 367, 393, 394, 395, 440, 441, 444, 446, 454, 462 Baker, Henry, 286, 312, 339, 342, 355, 360, 361, 393, 398, 431, 441, 446, 468, 469, 470, 476, 529 Bar Hebraeus (Yohannan abu’lFaraj ibn al-‘Ibri), 51 Baradaeus, Jacob, 43–44

INDEX Batavia, 104 beard, xiii, xiv, 57, 95, 135, 155, 246, 296, 301, 303, 304, 354, 384, 425, 482 Behnam, xiv, 52, 145, 171, 220, 228, 242, 257, 264, 265, 267, 268, 273, 291, 463 Benedict Biscop, 164 Benjamin Mar Ostathiose (Syrian Orthodox bishop), 580 Bombay (Mumbai), xl, 15, 59, 64, 109, 111, 112, 114, 180, 279, 280, 309, 362, 363, 390, 416, 417, 421, 428, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 445, 481 Braga, Diocese of, 94, 95, 100 Brito, Stephen de, Archbishop of Cranganore, 102, 119, 120 Brown, Murdoch, 277 Buchanan, Claudius, 114, 277, 298, 299, 300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309, 329, 330, 340, 344, 362, 372, 387, 388, 389, 390, 401, 584 Buchanan, Colin, xlvi Buchanan, Francis, 280, 281, 282 Cabral, Pedro Alvarez, 85 Cairo, 121 Calcutta (Kolkotta), 64, 108, 109, 114, 115, 116, 299, 306, 308, 362, 382, 531, 539 Calicut (Kozhikode), xl, xli, 18, 19, 20, 21, 37, 83, 84, 85, 103, 107, 110, 112, 234, 236, 272, 276, 279, 280, 325, 351, 579 Caligula, 18

623 Callumcatta (Kallungathara), 440, 441, 442, 444, 454, 459 Carey, George, Archbishop of Canterbury, 577 Carmelites, 75, 101, 128, 141, 143, 149, 152, 153, 161, 167, 198, 209, 217, 223, 251, 253, 478, 482 Catholicos, 29, 30, 50, 51, 52, 71, 146, 176, 266, 290, 307, 399, 424, 427, 439, 483, 556, 557, 570, 572 Chalcedon, Council of, 451, 33, 42, 43, 147 Chalissery, 472, 528, 559 Chandy Parampil. See Alexander de Campo Chengannur, 245 Cheruvathoor V. Geevar (C.V. Geevar), 472 China, 25, 34, 63, 80, 84, 122 Church Missionary Society (CMS), xiv, xv, xxxv, xlvi, xlvii, 21, 84, 115, 117, 166, 177, 187, 194, 197, 220, 222, 225, 234, 238, 260, 275, 279, 285, 302, 303, 307, 310, 311, 312, 313, 326, 327, 328, 329, 331, 333, 334, 338, 339, 340, 341, 342, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 374, 375, 386, 389, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 401, 403, 404, 406, 409, 410, 411, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419, 420, 421, 423, 427, 428, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439, 440, 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 450, 453, 454, 459, 460, 462, 469, 533,

624

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

534, 535, 536, 539, 541, 586, 597 Claudius, 18 Clement VII, Pope of Rome, 86, 87 Clement XIV, Pope of Rome, 105, 238 Clive, Robert, 108, 169 Cochin, xv, xxxv, xl, xli, 9, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 66, 70, 77, 78, 85, 87, 88, 92, 97, 101, 104, 105, 106, 107, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 122, 123, 126, 129, 130, 131, 134, 140, 141, 144, 148, 150, 151, 160, 161, 167, 172, 174, 175, 179, 184, 189, 190, 205, 206, 209, 211, 215, 216, 217, 224, 226, 228, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 242, 245, 253, 255, 256, 271, 272, 275, 276, 278, 279, 280, 282, 295, 296, 297, 298, 301, 302, 307, 310, 315, 319, 325, 328, 330, 334, 335, 338, 339, 341, 350, 351, 353, 355, 357, 364, 369, 378, 401, 410, 417, 438, 439, 442, 447, 449, 450, 459, 461, 465, 469, 471, 473, 474, 476, 477, 478, 479, 480, 481, 488, 527, 533, 535, 538, 555, 558, 566, 580, 606 Constantine Ramavarma, 418, 421 Constantius of Laodicea, 43 Coonen Cross, 121, 123, 126, 131, 158, 167, 240, 247, 258, 308, 317, 401, 457, 459, 485 Cornwallis, Lord, 111, 112, 387 Cosmas Indicopleustes, 64

Cotton, George, bishop, 538 Cranmer, Thomas, Archbishop of Canterbury, 87 Cullen, Major General, 442, 445, 450 Cuming, Geoffrey, 1 Cyril Mar Basilios, xix, xlv, 575, 579, 581 Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria, 32, 42, 246 Deir al-Za‘faran, 46, 160, 178, 363, 447, 449 Diamper, 23, 58, 75, 77, 79, 80, 84, 88, 89, 91, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 103, 116, 118, 119, 126, 135, 137, 147, 156, 162, 177, 186, 187, 239, 253, 258, 259, 297, 317, 330, 384, 446, 477, 543 Diatessaron, 27, 28 Dionysios I, xiv, 179, 194, 198, 200, 201, 202, 204, 205, 210, 212, 215, 217, 218, 223, 227, 229, 232, 233, 235, 238, 241, 242, 243, 245, 247, 250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 261, 263, 264, 272, 278, 282, 283, 285, 288, 290, 292, 295, 296, 297, 302, 303, 304,
305, 306, 307, 309, 310, 312, 324, 325, 329, 370, 372, 400, 401, 405, 406, 485, 536, 549, 584, 585 Dionysios II (Pulikottil) (formerly Jospeh Ramban), 323, 324, 325, 331, 334, 335, 337, 338, 339, 340, 341, 347, 355, 362, 371, 381, 406, 409, 430, 446, 527, 536, 585

INDEX Dionysios III (Punnathra), 303, 307, 338, 352, 354, 355, 356, 357, 360, 362, 363, 371, 372, 381, 404, 406, 446, 537, 549, 585 Dionysios IV (Cheppat), xvi, xli, 195, 219, 268, 310, 361, 365, 366, 367, 377, 378, 379, 380, 381, 382, 384, 385, 386, 395, 397, 398, 399, 400, 401, 402, 407, 408, 410, 411, 414, 424, 425, 427, 433, 438, 439, 440, 441, 442, 444, 445, 448, 449, 450, 455, 462, 469, 476, 479, 527,
585 Dionysios V (Pulikottil), xvi, xvii, 195, 368, 430, 431, 455, 483, 484, 527, 528, 529, 530, 535, 537, 540, 542, 544, 548, 556 Dionysios VI (Vatterseril), 553, 556, 557, 570 Dioscoros, Syrian bishop in Kerala ca. 1806, 307, 308, 361, 400 Doctrine of Addai, 26 Domingo da Conceinao, 316 Doran, John, 116, 222, 275, 393, 409, 443 E.M. Philip (Edavazhikal), 68, 200, 245, 286, 287, 295, 311, 334, 366, 369, 423, 476, 538, 539 Easow Mar Timotheos (Mar Thoma bishop), 575, 576 Edavazhikal (family), 286, 287 Edavazhikal MS sources, 288 Edavazhikal Philip (chorepiscopa), 226, 286, 448, 474

625 Edavazhikal, Philip (priest), 226, 286, 447 Edessa, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 44, 52, 163, 186, 293, 448, 473 Edward VI, King of England, 37 Eliah XI Maroghin, Church of the East Patriarch, 154 Elias II, Patriarch of Antioch, 256, 257, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428, 429, 431, 432, 434, 438, 447, 448, 449, 451 Ephesus, Council of, 431, 32, 42, 246, 454 Eshai Shimun, XXIII, Patriarch of Church of the East, 39, 484 Euakim Mar Koorilose (Mar Thoma bishop), 577, 579 Eustathios, Mar, Metropolitan of Jerusalem, 451, 452, 460 Fenn, Joseph, 116, 196, 210, 211, 212, 213, 219, 220, 221, 234, 243, 244, 339, 342, 347, 348, 349, 350, 355, 357, 358, 359, 360, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369, 370, 385, 394, 405 Figueredo, Raphael de, 142, 143, 150, 151 Florentius (Nicholas Szostak), Vicar Apostolic, 161, 179, 180, 181, 186, 228, 238, 249, 250 Francis Xavier, 59, 87, 388 Fraser, Colonel, 15, 78, 406, 409, 410 Free Church of England, xlvii, 552, 582

626

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

Gabriel, Church of the East bishop, 131, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 181, 240, 246, 294, 320, 447, 452, 473 Gama, Vasca da, 83, 84, 85 Garcia, Francis, Archbishop of Cranganore, 102, 120, 121, 122, 123, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 153 Geeverghese Kattumangat (later Mar Koorilose II), 145, 163, 178, 180, 184, 202, 203, 204, 208, 264, 265, 266, 270, 271, 288, 290 Geeverghese Mar Athanasios (Mar Thoma bishop), 577 Geeverghese Mar Theodosios (Mar Thoma bishop), 577 George Mathan, 414, 428, 434 George Tunburchi, 172 Georgios III, Syrian Orthodox Patriarch, 160, 161, 170, 171, 173, 175, 242 Goa, 69, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 93, 100, 101, 109, 120, 122, 123, 131, 252, 301, 305, 389, 478, 605 Grant, Asahel, 422, 435 Gregorios Abdul Jaleel, 133, 134, 135, 136, 139, 140, 151, 156, 167, 240, 369, 400 Gregorios of Parumala, 270 Gregorios Yuhanna, Metropolitan of Jerusalem, 172, 178, 187, 194, 195, 196, 200, 201, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 209, 211, 214, 215, 216, 220, 221, 223, 226, 227, 228, 229, 233, 235, 236, 237, 238, 241, 243, 244, 245, 249, 257,

267, 272, 273, 284, 291, 311, 324, 337, 369, 405 Gregory XV, Pope of Rome, 130 Haider Ali, 107, 109, 110, 276, 277 Hakkari, 38 Hawkins, Peter, Chorepiscopa, xlvi, 577 Heber, Reginald, Bishop of Calcutta, 19, 116, 149, 197, 210, 211, 212, 219, 220, 225, 237, 342, 343, 348, 350, 355, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369 Henry VIII, King of England, 87 Hidayathulla, Ivanios, 145, 146, 149, 150, 156, 162, 178, 242 Hough, James, 116, 117, 169, 194, 195, 307, 363, 364, 389, 454 Howard, George Broadley, 53, 59, 116, 117, 174, 197, 208, 287, 303, 337, 350, 364, 394, 395, 400, 448, 452, 453, 473, 474, 475, 476 Hsi-an fû stele, 34 Hydrose Mooppen, 273 Ignatios IX Bahnam, 48 Ignatios XVII Ni’matallah, 48 Il-Khan Ghazan, 34, 46 Inquisition, 122, 123, 128, 301, 389 Irenaeus, Joseph (now Joseph Mar Thoma), 575, 576, 579 Ivanios of Bethany, Archbishop of Trivandrum, 571

INDEX Ivanios Panavelil, Metropolitan of Thozhiyur, 291, 292, 293, 294, 584 Ivanios Yuhanon, 'bishop of India' (d.1794), 172, 178, 185, 187, 191, 194, 195, 201, 203, 206, 207, 214, 216, 236, 237, 241, 245, 246, 257, 310 Ivanios, Paulos, Catholicos, 557 Jacob, Mar, in Kerala ca. 15031549, 80, 88 Jerusalem, xiv, 12, 36, 40, 41, 45, 52, 67, 121, 123, 133, 134, 171, 176, 211, 242, 244, 268, 292, 317, 368, 369, 451, 452, 460, 480, 532 John Baptist Mary of St Theresa, 153 John of Antioch, 42 John Paul II, Pope of Rome, 31, 39, 49, 52, 58, 572 John, Archcantor, 164 Johnson, William, 539 Joseph IV, Chaldean Patriarch, 88, 255, 256 Joseph Mar Athanasios, MISC Metropolitan, xvi, 490, 549, 550, 551, 552, 553, 554, 559, 588 Joseph Mar Barnabas (Mar Thoma bishop), 579 Joseph V, Chaldean Patriarch, 485 Joseph, Mar, East Syrian bishop in Kerala, 88, 89 Jovian, 27 Joy, Dr K.T., 1, 466 Juhanon Mar Thoma, xviii, 60, 137, 201, 312, 375, 411, 538,

627 539, 545, 566, 567, 568, 569, 572 Julius III, Pope of Rome, 37, 97 Kandanat, 175, 177, 178, 181, 182, 186, 189, 204, 221, 235, 239, 266, 288, 303, 313, 326, 332, 437, 441, 442, 443, 452 Kariattil, Joseph, 198, 199, 218, 250, 251, 252, 253, 255, 256, 291, 584 Karthoka Thirunal Rama Varma, 21 Kattadi Paulose Ramban, 228 Kattakayathil, Abraham, 258, 262 Kattumangattu family, 143–45 Kayamkulam, 20, 202, 265 Kerr, Richard Hall, xv, 114, 138, 298, 299, 306, 307 Khalifat movement, 560 Kodakachira, Antony, 479 Konat (family), 287, 336, 440 Konat MS sources, 288 Konat, Abraham, 335, 440, 441, 442, 443 Konat, Mathen, 287 Konat, Matta, 226, 289 Koorilose I, xv, xlv, 179, 185, 193, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 205, 206, 208, 210, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 218, 219, 220, 221, 223, 224, 226, 227, 228, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 242, 243, 244, 245, 247, 248, 249, 250, 252, 253, 254, 263, 264, 269, 272, 273, 274, 275, 278, 279, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 288, 289, 290, 291, 292, 294, 295, 297, 302, 311, 324, 325, 334,

628

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

335, 337, 347, 359, 368, 369, 370, 378, 381, 404, 405, 444, 469, 476, 527, 536, 537, 570, 576, 583, 585 Koorilose II, xlii, 178, 270, 274, 278, 288, 290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 584 Koorilose III, xv, xvi, 377, 379, 380, 381, 382, 383, 396, 397, 398, 409, 410, 438, 439, 440, 442, 443, 455, 460, 462, 463, 464, 466, 468, 469, 476, 547, 574 Koorilose IV, xvi, 275, 463, 466, 468, 470, 471, 472, 481, 482, 484, 486, 487, 488, 489, 490, 527, 528, 529, 533, 536, 546, 547, 553, 562 Koorilose IX, xviii, xix, xlii, xlv, 2, 95, 264, 269, 271, 304, 326, 374, 466, 486, 487, 488, 570, 573, 574, 575, 576, 577, 578, 579, 580, 582, 587 Koorilose V, xvi, xvii, 272, 547, 549, 551, 558, 559, 560, 561, 562, 563, 564, 565 Koorilose VI, xviii, 565, 566, 567, 574 Koorilose VII, xviii, 567, 568, 569, 574 Koorilose VIII, xviii, 574, 575, 576, 579 Kottayam, xv, xvi, xvii, xxxv, xlvi, xlvii, 4, 14, 31, 39, 54, 58, 60, 62, 67, 69, 78, 87, 88, 116, 121, 128, 159, 177, 180, 183, 187, 203, 269, 277, 286, 288, 292, 303, 310, 324, 326, 328, 331, 333, 338, 339, 341, 342, 348, 355, 356, 359, 360,

364, 365, 366, 367,
368, 371, 374, 382, 384, 398, 399, 403, 406, 411, 413, 414, 415, 417, 421, 434, 440, 441, 444, 446, 450, 452, 454, 458, 459, 462, 477, 483, 487, 488, 530, 536, 540, 541, 544, 549, 556, 557, 558, 560, 571, 610 Kuruvilangad, xiv, 248, 313, 483 Lee, Samuel, 116, 154 Lisbon, 89, 91, 123, 218, 251 Luigi Martini, Vicar Apostolic, 479 Luigio Maria (Aloysios Mary), Vicar Apostolic, 209, 221, 237, 244, 258 Lusitanian Church, 552 Macaulay, Colin, xv, 112, 113, 215, 296, 297, 298, 301, 302, 304, 307, 310, 311, 315, 329, 332, 343 Mackworth, Digby, 103, 113, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359, 402, 403, 488 Macleod, Major, 112 Madras (Chennai), xv, xxxv, xl, 6, 13, 16, 60, 98, 109, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 149, 153, 211, 279, 280, 281, 307, 309, 311, 315, 316, 321, 327, 333, 339, 343, 344, 354, 363, 367, 394, 395, 407, 414, 415, 416, 421, 423, 431, 437, 443, 445, 446, 461, 467, 470, 487, 488, 531, 533, 534, 541, 546, 562, 568, 575, 579, 610 Makattayam (patrilineal descent), 16 Malabar Independent Syrian Church (MISC), xvi, xvii,

INDEX xviii, xix, xxxvi, xxxix, xl, xli, xlv, xlvi, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 17, 18, 20, 21, 25, 27, 41, 47, 50, 52, 54, 55, 62, 66, 68, 74, 79, 83, 95, 99, 101, 103, 104, 106, 109, 113, 127, 134, 137, 143, 144, 147, 149, 153, 157, 160, 162, 163, 170, 171, 174, 184, 190, 201, 202, 203, 206, 236, 242, 271, 272, 273, 274, 284, 289, 375, 377, 384, 402, 412, 414, 415, 447, 458, 462, 466, 471, 485, 490, 545, 546, 547, 548, 549, 551, 557, 558, 559, 560, 565, 568, 569, 570, 572, 573, 574, 575, 576, 577, 578, 579, 580, 581, 583, 585, 586, 587, 588, 589, 590 Malankara Orthodox Church, 49, 60, 62, 147, 430, 588 Manuel de S. Joaquin Neves, 316 Maphrian, 45, 50, 51, 52, 121, 145, 146, 150, 156, 157, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 193, 196, 205, 211, 213, 214, 215, 216, 219, 221, 223, 224, 225, 227, 234, 237, 241, 245, 249, 265, 266, 267, 269, 285, 290, 307, 308, 310, 319, 357, 369, 370, 401, 406, 424, 442, 455, 476, 557, 581, 582 Maphrian (office of), 52 Mapilla Rebellion, 560–61 Mar Dinkha IV, Catholicos of Church of the East, 33, 39, 484

629 Mar Thoma I (Archdeacon Thomas), 128, 129, 130, 132, 136, 139, 231, 232 Mar Thoma II, 139, 140, 142, 143, 248 Mar Thoma III, 147, 149 Mar Thoma IV, 149, 150, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 181, 240, 447 Mar Thoma IX, 323, 324 Mar Thoma Syrian Church, xlv, 1, 23, 60, 353, 411, 545, 565, 588 Mar Thoma V, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 166, 169, 170, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 184, 188, 189, 190, 191, 194, 211, 216, 222, 223, 241, 245, 248, 317, 361, 370, 456 Mar Thoma VI (see also Dionysios I), xiv, 179, 191, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 199, 200, 201, 204, 208, 211, 212, 214, 216, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 232, 233, 234, 237, 239, 241, 243, 248, 249, 295, 405 Mar Thoma VII, 310, 311, 313, 314, 326, 338 Mar Thoma VIII, 122, 146, 150, 208, 304, 310, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 321, 322, 323, 324, 326, 331, 332, 333, 334, 344, 349, 350, 362, 398, 403, 404, 406, 409, 423, 444 Marcian, Emperor, 42 Marco Polo, 84 Mari, 31

630

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

Martanda Varma, Rajah of Travancore, 21, 105, 107, 110, 180, 181, 189, 234, 240 Expands territory, 19–21 Martyn, Henry, 387 Marumakattayam (matrilineal descent), 15 Matancherry, 122, 123, 205, 438, 471 Mathen Kizhakethalakal, 548 Mathews Mar Athanasios, xv, xvi, xlv, 4, 270, 287, 303, 335, 413, 416, 423, 430, 434, 435, 438, 439, 440, 444, 447, 450, 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 457, 458, 459, 460, 462, 463, 464, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471, 474, 475, 476, 477, 478, 480, 482, 484, 485, 486, 487, 527, 528, 529, 530, 532, 533, 535, 536, 537, 538, 539, 540, 541, 543, 556, 563, 566, 567, 568 Commitment to West Syrian practices, 444–45, 453–59 Defends independence of MISC, 463–69 Final years, 538–41 Journey to Patriarch, 419–22 Ministry in Mosul, 422–24, 433–36 Proclaimed Malankara Metropolitan, 449–50 Relations with CMS missionaries, 414–19, 445–46 Relations with Peter III and Canterbury, 533–35 Time with Patriarch and consecration, 424–33

Mavelikara, 202, 300, 304, 309, 397, 399, 400, 406, 408, 412, 414, 437, 442, 443, 444, 446, 487, 602 Mellus, Mar Elia, 482, 483, 485 Menezes, Alexis de, Archbishop of Cranganore, 76, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 130, 144, 185, 302, 320, 397 Middleton, Thomas, Bishop of Calcutta, 113, 115, 116, 218, 219, 334, 353, 354, 362, 393, 401, 604 Mill, William Hodge, 116, 173, 195, 197, 207, 213, 219, 234, 282, 290, 333, 334, 335, 336, 359, 360, 403, 404, 409 Milman, Robert, Bishop of Calcutta, 136, 137, 530, 539, 540 Moens, Adrian, Dutch Governor, 19, 105, 106, 158, 159, 161, 172, 174, 175, 180, 188, 189, 191, 215, 216, 217, 245, 246 Mosul, 12, 37, 38, 46, 47, 51, 52, 133, 145, 171, 178, 256, 267, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 429, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 452, 455, 459, 480 Mulanthuruthy, 130, 144, 145, 150, 163, 178, 179, 180, 185, 200, 201, 202, 206, 208, 209, 216, 222, 228, 229, 230, 231, 240, 245, 264, 266, 288, 289, 293, 294, 322, 423, 424, 427, 475, 476, 535, 542, 544, 552, 556, 577

INDEX Munro, John, xv, 106, 113, 208, 261, 277, 314, 315, 319, 321, 322, 323, 324, 327, 328, 329, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 336, 337, 338, 339, 341, 342, 343, 344, 350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 371, 386, 390, 391, 393, 396, 398, 401, 403, 405, 406, 407, 409, 410, 459, 460, 534 Murdoch Brown, 273, 280, 296 Mylapore, 63, 65, 69, 78, 101, 121, 122, 134 Mysore, 325 Nambudiri Brahmins, 14 Nayar, 15, 18, 20, 21 Nero, 18 Nestorius, Patriarch of Constantinople, 30, 32, 33, 42, 135, 185, 246, 299 Newall, Colonel, 364, 365, 367, 392 Newton, John, 387 Nicaea, Council of, 325 AD, 30, 31, 41, 454 Nineveh, 51, 67 Nisibis, 26, 28, 33, 53, 54, 473 Norton, Thomas, 309, 338, 339, 340, 341, 351, 352, 353 Osrhoene, 25, 26, 28 Padroado, 86, 87, 91, 100, 101, 130, 140, 141, 151, 153, 167, 247, 251, 252, 255, 264, 331, 477, 478, 482 Pakalomattom, 66, 72, 73, 92, 102, 119, 129, 131, 148, 149, 157, 158, 181, 199, 239, 242, 247, 249, 260, 261, 295, 302, 308, 311, 313, 316, 318, 319,

631 320, 321, 322, 324, 329, 336, 405, 459, 528, 544, 583 Pandari, Mar Abraham Paulose, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260, 262, 268, 477, 478 Paramel Iyyu Ittoop, 548 Paremmakkal, Thommam, 100, 198, 217, 218, 248, 252, 253, 254, 608 Paul IV, Pope of Rome, 87 Paulinus a S. Bartolomeo, 13, 106, 107, 123, 124, 127, 130, 135, 137, 139, 140, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 149, 150, 153, 154, 158, 159, 162, 163, 165, 189, 190, 195, 197, 200, 204, 205, 206, 212, 220, 244, 252, 253, 254, 255, 259, 261, 276, 277, 283, 296, 310, 311 Paulose Mar Athanasios, xvii, 558, 560, 562, 563, 564, 565 Paulose Mar Paulose (Church of the East bishop), xix, xlii, 486, 576 Pazhayakuttukar, xiii, 136, 138, 140, 143, 146, 151, 153, 154, 155, 160, 167, 186, 188, 200, 209, 210, 240, 247, 249, 254, 255, 257, 262, 264, 275, 283, 295, 309, 312, 325, 329, 330, 335, 341, 356, 372, 379, 390, 391, 392, 401, 406, 408, 460, 477, 478, 482, 485, 486, 543, 550, 555, 571 Peet, Joseph, 393, 394, 395, 410, 411, 417, 433, 440, 441, 442, 445, 453, 454, 541 pepper, 19, 64, 68, 79, 86, 104, 105

632

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

Persia, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 38, 42, 45, 50, 62, 64, 69, 71, 80, 91, 117, 121, 126, 172, 460 Peshitta, 27, 28 Peter III, Patriarch of Antioch, 76, 426, 427, 448, 530, 531, 532, 533, 535, 538, 540, 542, 552, 553 Peter of Apamea, 43 Peter, Apostle, 41, 176, 397 Philoxenos I, xv, 293, 294, 295, 322, 349, 584 Philoxenos II, MISC and Malankara Metropolitan, xv, xvi, 114, 208, 219, 237, 275, 322, 323, 333, 336, 347, 348, 349, 350, 351, 352, 353, 358, 359, 360, 361, 365, 366, 367, 369, 371, 373, 374, 377, 379, 380, 381, 401, 405, 409, 425, 440, 444, 445, 455, 488, 527, 537, 548, 552, 584, 585, 588 Philoxenos III, xviii, 272, 284, 569, 570, 572, 574, 576, 579 Philoxenos of Mabbugh, 293 Pius VI, Pope of Rome, 198 Pius VIII, Pope of Rome, 38 Pius XI, Pope of Rome, 571 Porkulam, 471, 472, 486, 559, 560, 564, 569, 579 Pratt, Josiah, 285, 338, 417, 433, 436, 437, 443, 446 Propaganda Fide, Congregation of, 130, 141, 143, 149, 153, 181, 186, 198, 217, 247, 250, 251, 253, 263, 478 Pulcheria, Empress, 42 Pulikottil, Joseph, Ramban (later Mar Dionysios II), 208, 244, 261, 262, 270, 271, 282, 283,

289, 290, 293, 313, 314, 316, 317, 318, 319, 320, 321, 322, 323, 325, 326, 327, 329, 330, 332, 333, 336, 344, 349, 350, 372, 398, 406, 444, 527 Punnathra Chandappilla, 548 Purakkad, 20 Puthencavu, 201, 295, 310, 323 Puthenkuttukar, 136, 138, 140, 141, 146, 148, 151, 154, 156, 159, 167, 169, 174, 175, 186, 187, 188, 191, 200, 207, 210, 218, 219, 220, 222, 223, 225, 226, 230, 231, 239, 240, 246, 247, 249, 254, 255, 257, 258, 259, 260, 262, 263, 264, 275, 282, 283, 285, 286, 287, 290,
295, 297, 300, 302, 305, 307, 308, 312, 317, 318, 320, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 328, 329, 330, 331, 335, 336, 337, 339, 342, 344, 345, 350, 356, 371, 372, 379, 381, 389, 390, 391, 392, 393, 399, 400, 402, 408, 409, 410, 415, 430, 431, 433, 440, 444, 446, 447, 452, 454, 456, 457, 459, 460, 471, 475, 477, 483, 485, 486, 527, 528, 530, 536, 537, 539, 543, 544, 549, 550, 552, 553, 556, 557, 568, 571, 572, 584, 585, 589 Qudshanis, 38, 482 Quilon, xliii, 19, 63, 64, 68, 70, 84, 276, 324, 350, 367, 425, 431, 449, 450 rabies, 273, 490 Reformed Episcopal Church, 552

INDEX Ribeiro, John, Archbishop of Crangnore, 152, 153, 154 Richards, W.J., 539 Robert, Francis, 245 Robinson, Thomas, 98, 116, 149, 197, 211, 212, 219, 221, 237, 244, 342, 363, 367, 385 Rokos, Mar Thoma, 480, 481, 482, 484, 485 Rome, xiii, xiv, 1, 24, 31, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 41, 48, 57, 62, 72, 84, 85, 86, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 96, 97, 98, 99, 102, 105, 120, 121, 123, 124, 125, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 138, 141, 142, 143, 149, 152, 153, 155, 157, 158, 164, 166,
167, 175, 181, 186, 188, 198, 199, 201, 209, 218, 220, 223, 238, 239, 246, 247, 249, 250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 268, 278, 284, 290, 295, 296, 301, 302, 303, 304, 306, 308, 329, 356, 390, 393, 400, 406, 408, 434, 457, 460, 477, 479, 480, 481, 482, 483, 485, 486, 545, 555, 571, 572, 573, 574, 577, 584, 600, 612 Ros, Francis, Archbishop of Cranganore, 93, 100, 101, 102, 459 Runcie, Robert, Archbishop of Canterbury, 576 Sebastiani, Joseph, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 152, 231 Seleucia-Ctesiphon, 29 Seleucus, xliii, 41

633 Seringapatam, 111, 112, 279, 315 Seton, Edward, 275, 276, 279, 489 Shem’un, East Syrian bishop in Kerala, 152 Shenouda III, Coptic Patriarch, 55, 71, 551 Shimun IV, East Syrian Patriarch, 80, 89 Shimun VI Bar Mama, Patriarch of Church of the East, 36 Shukr Allah, Basilios, Maphrian, 135, 150, 155, 157, 159, 169, 170, 172, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 193, 203, 205, 206, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 219, 220, 221, 222, 224, 227, 234, 235, 241, 244, 246, 265, 266, 267,
269, 284, 285, 290, 294, 307, 308, 319, 337, 347, 357, 405, 442, 455, 476, 581, 582 Shultz, Abraham, 245 Simeon, Charles, 117, 387, 388 Soledade, Joseph de, 253, 254, 255, 256, 278, 302 Southgate, Horatio, 38, 47, 306, 424, 425, 426, 428, 434, 435, 478, 480 Spanish Reformed Episcopal Church, 552 Srambikal, 322 Stephanos Mar Athanasios, 450, 451, 484, 527 Sulaqa, Yuhanna Shem'un, Chaldean Patriarch, 36, 37, 88, 97, 256

634

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

Syriac (language), 24–25 Syrian Catholic Church, 48, 429, 483 Syrian Orthodox Church, xxxix, 23, 24, 28, 40, 41, 44, 48, 50, 52, 54, 57, 60, 61, 66, 79, 80, 89, 118, 124, 131, 132, 133, 136, 137, 139, 144, 145, 146, 150, 160, 164, 165, 170, 171, 173, 175, 179, 180, 184, 188, 189, 191, 194, 203, 205, 235, 245, 260, 262, 282, 295, 306, 310,
313, 314, 323, 324, 325, 361, 375, 397, 399, 423, 448, 456, 459, 460, 474, 476, 532, 536, 537, 556, 557, 572, 580, 589 Syro-Malabar Church, 6, 7, 23, 137, 167, 477, 485, 555, 572 Syro-Malankara Church, xviii, 23, 52, 457, 572, 573, 574, 581 Tait, Archibald, Archbishop of Canterbury, 448, 450, 531, 532, 533, 534, 535, 536 Thachil, Mathew, 261 Thekkamukur, 20 Theodora, Empress, 43 Theodosios of Alexandria, 43 Theophilos bar Ma’anu (father of Jacob Baradaeus), 43 Theophilos, Alexander, 568, 569 Theophilos, Bishop of Thiruvalla, 571 Theophilos, Zacharias (Mar Thoma bishop), 576 Theotokos, 32 Thevanal, xiv, 202, 203, 204, 208, 220, 237, 238, 241, 257,

264, 265, 266, 269, 270, 271, 272, 290, 291, 369 Thomas Mar Athanasios (Mar Thoma bishop), 568, 569, 574, 575 Thomas Mar Athanasios, Malankara Metropolitan, xvi, xvii, 456, 457, 471, 483, 529, 530, 534, 540, 541, 542, 543, 544, 545, 546, 547, 548, 553 Thomas, Apostle, tradition of missionary work in India, 66 Thozhiyur, xv, xvi, xvii, xviii, xxxvi, xlii, xlvi, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 68, 110, 133, 146, 184, 187, 202, 228, 232, 236, 245, 260, 266, 269, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 281, 284, 287, 288, 290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 307, 318, 322, 323, 324, 331, 333, 336, 347, 349, 350, 353, 359, 360, 363, 367, 369, 371, 374, 375, 377, 378, 381, 382, 383, 390, 397, 398, 400, 405, 409, 414, 430, 438, 439, 440, 442, 443, 444, 450, 452, 454, 455, 460, 461, 462, 463, 465, 466, 468, 469, 471, 472, 477, 481, 485, 487, 488, 490, 491, 527, 529, 533, 534, 536, 537, 545, 547, 548, 549, 550, 551, 553, 554, 557, 559, 560, 562, 563, 565, 567, 568, 570, 572, 573, 574, 576, 577, 579, 581, 584, 585, 586, 587, 588 Tiberius, 18 Tibet, 34, 80, 87 Timur Lane, 35, 46

INDEX Tippu Sultan, 109, 110, 111, 112, 276, 277, 279, 282, 283, 298, 325, 386, 461, 488 Titus I Mar Thoma, xvi, xvii, 527, 553, 556, 563, 586 Titus II Mar Thoma, xvii, xviii, 563, 565 tonsure, xiii, xvii, 95, 173, 174, 181, 198, 458, 589 Tovey, Phillip, xlvi, 54, 155, 203, 411, 574, 577 Travancore, xv, xxxv, xxxvi, xl, xli, 9, 11, 14, 15, 17, 19, 20, 21, 78, 87, 105, 106, 107, 109, 111, 112, 113, 117, 166, 175, 180, 189, 196, 197, 200, 204, 206, 213, 214, 219, 220, 233, 234, 237, 238, 240, 242, 255, 261, 262, 275, 276, 280, 281, 290, 295, 297, 298,
312, 315, 316, 328, 333, 334, 335, 338, 339, 343, 350, 352, 355, 358, 361, 364, 367, 378, 383, 410, 431, 439, 442, 449, 450, 453, 461, 465, 469, 474, 527, 531, 533, 535, 538, 542, 543, 544, 573 Trichur (Thrissur), xli, 20, 60, 110, 125, 148, 271, 358, 477, 483, 484, 485, 555, 576 Trivandrum (Thiruvananthapuram), xli Tucker, John, 6, 395, 396, 411, 414, 417, 418, 421, 428, 433, 434, 435, 437, 440, 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 453, 454, 462, 541 Turner, Derek, xlvi Udiamperoor. See Diamper Urban VIII, Pope of Rome, 258

635 Utrecht, 38, 551 Vadakkumkur, 20 Vaipukotta, 92 van Angelbeek, Johan, Dutch Governor, 77 van Rheede, Hendrik, 140, 141 Varghese, Zac, xlvi Varlet, Dominic Marie, Bishop of Babylon, 38 Verapoly (Verapuzha), xli, 127, 130, 149, 161, 167, 186, 235, 262, 302, 316, 330, 331, 344, 390, 391, 401, 438, 439, 477, 478, 479, 482, 486 Vilatte, Rene, 553 Visscher, Jacob, 101, 131, 138, 150, 151, 155, 246, 320, 391 Walker, Thomas, 558, 559 Weston, Andrea, xlvi Williams, Rowan, Archbishop of Canterbury, 582 Wilson, Daniel, Bishop of Calcutta, 64, 98, 116, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 395, 397, 398, 542 Woodcock, W., 394, 395 World Council of Churches, 572 Wrede, F., 77, 137, 297, 298, 299 Yahballaha III, 34 Yaldo, Basilios, 145, 146, 150, 177, 178, 242 Yoakim Mar Koorilose, 195, 447, 449, 450, 451, 458, 460, 463, 465, 466, 467, 468, 469, 470, 471, 472, 473, 474, 475, 476, 481, 484, 527, 529, 531 Yonan, Rabban. monk of Church of the East, 54

636

THE FORGOTTEN BISHOPS

Yuhannan Hormuz, Chaldean Patriarch, 38, 268, 478 Zacharias Mar Anthonios (Malankara Orthodox bishop), 580

Zamorin of Calicut, xl, 18, 20, 21, 84, 85, 103, 104, 110, 112, 272, 274, 278, 279, 325, 327, 489 Zoroastrianism, 29, 106