Syneisaktism in Early Armenian Christianity* 1
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
SYNEISAKTISM IN EARLY ARMENIAN CHRISTIANITY* 1. Introduction Rightfully described as “one of the most fascinating groups of women encountered anywhere in the annals of church history”1, the συνείσακτοι (Latin subintroductae) have attracted the attention of scholars since the beginning of the twentieth century2. Occasionally referred to as ἀγαπηταί, the συνείσακτοι formed a special group of “female Christian ascetics who lived together with men, although both parties had taken the vow of con- tinency, and were animated with the earnest desire to keep it”3. Despite the fact that the Church Fathers vehemently condemned this practice4, a large number of references to syneisaktism5 in early Christian (c. AD 2nd- 6th centuries) as well as much later sources bespeak the ubiquitous nature of this practice in virtually all corners of the Christian world6. The present paper examines the representation of syneisaktism in early Christian Armenian texts7 by focusing particularly on the evidence provided by two fifth-century sources – the canons of the Šahapivan Council (444), preserved in the Armenian Book of Canons (Kanonagirk‘ Hayoc‘)8, and Łazar P‘arpec‘i’s History of Armenia – which attest to the * This article expands considerably on my brief discussion of syneisaktism in a section of my doctoral dissertation. The translations from Ancient Greek and Classical Armenian are mine unless otherwise stated. 1 CLARK, John Chrysostom, p. 171. 2 See, for instance, AcHELIS, Virgines subintroductae, and IDEM, Agapētæ; DE LABRIOLLE, Le “mariage spirituel”; REYNOLDS, Virgines subintroductae; MILLER, Women in Early Christianity, p. 117-150. 3 AcHELIS, Agapētæ, p. 177; also quoted in CLARK, John Chrysostom, p. 171. 4 See CLARK, John Chrysostom, p. 171-175. 5 Hereinafter, the terms “syneisaktism” or “spiritual marriage” commonly used in contemporary scholarly literature will be applied interchangeably to refer to this practice. 6 See AcHELIS, Virgines subintroductae, p. vii-viii. According to Achelis, “the custom [of syneisaktism] was widespread during the whole of Christian antiquity”, and its traces can still be found “till late in the Middle Ages” (AcHELIS, Agapētæ, p. 177). For references to studies covering different periods and geographic areas, see CLARK, John Chrysostom, p. 173, especially, n. 23-27, and ELLIOTT, Spiritual Marriage, p. 32-50. 7 By “Armenian texts” I hereinafter refer to written sources that were originally com- posed in Armenian in Greater Armenia in the fifth century after the creation of the Arme- nian alphabet in c. AD 405 by the monk Maštoc‘. For more details regarding the political division of Armenia in this period, see ADONTZ, Armenia in the Period of Justinian, p. 7-74. 8 The Armenian Book of Canons was compiled at the beginning of the eighth cen- tury by Catholicos Yovhannēs Ōjnec‘i (John of Ojun) (r. 717-728) and was edited in Le Muséon 130 (1-2), 123-138. doi: 10.2143/MUS.130.1.3214927 - Tous droits réservés. © Le Muséon, 2017. 124 d. Zakarian presence of this practice in Greater Armenia in the first half of the fifth century. This analysis will enable us to explore how widespread spiritual marriage was among the Armenian clergy, where it came from, and how it was perceived in ecclesiastical circles in early Christian Armenia. Before examining the extant references to syneisaktism, some back- ground information should be provided about the historical period, in which the appearance of spiritual marriage in Armenia is first attested. After the abolition of the Arsacid Armenian Kingdom in 428, a larger part of the country passed under the control of the Sasanian Empire. It was followed by a deposition of the Armenian patriarch St Sahak Part‘ew (the Parthian) by the Persian King Vṙam (Bahrām V Gōr, r. 420-438) and a temporary (until 440s) transfer of the administration of the patri- archal see first to an Armenian priest called Surmak and subsequently to Syrian priests Brkišo and Šmuel9. The King of Kings appointed a governor (marzpan) over Armenia to represent his authority there, though the Arme- nian magnates (the naxarars) continued to enjoy their semi-independent status10. After the restoration of the patriarchal see to the Armenian clergy the role of the Church in society began to grow steadily. In part, it was attri butable to the fact that the Armenian bishops came from and represented prominent noble families and their interests11. Moreover, in the absence of a centralised government the Church exercised effective control over the public discourse, for the Armenian alphabet was created in religious circles which sponsored and supervised the first schools that provided education in Armenian12. As a result, all the literary and theological texts of the fifth century, as well as the translations from Greek and Syriac, were authored by clerics. The writings of the Greek and Syriac Fathers of the Church had a dis- cernible effect on the formation and development of the Christian Arme- nian religious thought. It is therefore important to include a brief discussion of their approach to spiritual marriage. the tenth-eleventh centuries by a number of anonymous authors (KH II, p. vii, xviii-xxv). For a recent study of this important document of medieval Christian law, see MARDIROS- SIAN, Le livre des canons arméniens. 9 See ORMANIAN, The Church of Armenia, p. 20-21. For a primary source, see ŁP, p. 60-62 [25-26]. (The standard citation format for this text is used here: the page of the English translation is followed by the page of the Armenian critical edition in square brackets). 10 For more details on the Marzpanate, see ADONTZ, Armenia in the Period of Justinian, p. 165-182. 11 GARSOÏAN, Armeno-Iranian Relations. 12 See AbełYAN et al., Koriwn, Life of Maštoc‘, VIII-XII. SYNEISAKTISM IN EARLY ARMENIAN CHRISTIANITY 125 A number of scholars have argued that the practice of syneisaktism may already be observed in the earliest Christian communities13. This view has primarily been based on a specific interpretation of St Paul’s words in 1 Cor. 7:25-38, in particular in the verses 36-3814, in which the apostle allegedly speaks approvingly of the possibility for a couple to live a chaste life under the same roof. This interpretation, however, does not seem to have been endorsed by the ecclesiastical authorities and, most importantly, by the Fathers of the Church in subsequent centuries. As highlighted by Elizabeth A. Clark, “[a]t least six church councils of the fourth century, including the famous Council of Nicaea in 325, banned the practice, which must nonetheless have continued to flourish, for decrees were pronounced against it into the early middle ages”15. Moreover, as Clark discusses in the same article, the practice of syneisaktism was heavily criticised by John Chrysostom16, whose works are known to have extended profound influence on the development of the Christian Armenian thought17. The three Cappadocian Fathers, whose works were also very popular in Arme- nia and were among the first ones to be translated into Armenian18, adopted a similar negative approach to syneisaktism19. The attitude of influential Syriac writers was not different either. For instance, Aphrahat, the ‘Persian sage’ (mid-4th century) strongly advised against men and women cohabiting together if they had taken the vow of 13 For a discussion of the existing scholarship on this topic, see PETERS, Spiritual Marriage. 14 “If anyone thinks that he is not behaving properly toward his fiancée, if his passions are strong, and so it has to be, let him marry as he wishes; it is no sin. Let them marry. But if someone stands firm in his resolve, being under no necessity but having his own desire under control, and has determined in his own mind to keep her as his fiancée, he will do well. So then, he who marries his fiancée does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better” (NRSV, p. 2010). The alternative reading for ‘fiancée’ in this passage is ‘virgin’, for the Greek word used by Paul is παρθένος. 15 CLARK, John Chrysostom, p. 173. 16 Clark, in particular, analyses John Chrysostom’s “Adversus eos qui apud se habent subintroductas virgines”, PG 47, col. 495-514 (CPG 4311, vol. 2, p. 494), and “Quod regulares feminae viris cohabitare non debeant”, PG 47, col. 514-532 (CPG 4312, vol. 2, p. 494); for the critical edition of the Greek texts and their translation into French, see DUMORTIER, Saint Jean Chrysostome. 17 See, for instance, THOMSON, The Fathers, p. 460-461, 464-465, and 467-468. 18 See THOMSON, The Fathers, p. 460-461. 19 AUBINEAU, Grégoire de Nysse, Traité de la virginité, XXIII, 4, p. 538-540; Gregory of Nazianzus, “Epigrammata”, PG 38, col. 86-92 (CPG 3039, vol. 2, p. 192); Basil of Caesarea, “Epistola LV”, PG 32, col. 401, 404 (CPG 2900, vol. 2, p. 161; for a more recent edition accompanied by a French translation of the epistle, see JOANNOU, Disci- pline générale antique, vol. 2, p. 169-172). For a discussion of the representation of syn- eisaktism in these and other contemporary sources, see VAN DER SYpT, Are there Mes- salian Syneisakts. 126 d. Zakarian continence20. Likewise, the monastic rules attributed to Rabbūlā, Bishop of Edessa (d. 436), echoing the Nicene Canon III, which will be discussed below, stated that “[n]o one of the periodeutae or priests or deacons or benai qeiāmā21 shall live with women – except with his mother or sister or daughter – and they shall not make households for these (women) out- side their own (dwelling-places) and be constantly with them”22. Another rule in the same collection forbade priests and deacons to keep female servants, especially if they were bnāt qyāmâ23. Bearing this in mind, it is not surprising that the Armenian sources, too, adopted a highly negative stance towards the practice of spiritual marriage.