SYNEISAKTISM IN EARLY ARMENIAN *

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 – 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, , 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 ” (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 . 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 ”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 , 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. The extant evidence also suggests that syneisaktism did not attract many followers in Armenia and all the information found in medi- eval texts appears to be a reference to the aforementioned occupation of the patriarchal see of Armenia by the Syrian priests Brkišo and Šmuel in the first half of the fifth century.

2. The Armenian Term

In the early Christian and medieval Armenian texts the main term that was used to refer to a woman that dwelled with a celibate man was tantikin (տանտիկին). Interestingly, in Armenian tantikin in the first place denoted the wife or the mother of the head of the patriarchal family, ‘the mistress of the house’, and corresponded to Greek οἰκοδέσποινα, as well as to Latin materfamilias24, and Old Iranian katak-bānūk25. As its equivalents in other languages, the Armenian word is a compound noun with tan- being genitive of tun from Proto-Indo-European *dṓm ‘house’26, which later acquired the additional meaning of ‘clan’, and tikin consisting of ti- ‘division, share, plot of land’ and kin ‘woman’, much the same as the English ‘landlady’27.

20 Valavanolickal, Aphrahat, Demonstrations, 6:4. 21 The alternative spelling is bnay qyāmâ. This term referred to the “sons of the cov- enant”, men who dedicated themselves to Christ and led an ascetic lifestyle. For more details see, for instance, Jarkins, Aphrahat the Persian Sage, p. 81-89. 22 Vööbus, Syriac and Arabic Documents, p. 36. 23 Vööbus, Syriac and Arabic Documents, p. 37. The bnāt qyāmâ were the “daughters of the covenant”, the female counterparts of the bnay qyāmâ (see Jarkins, Aphrahat the Persian Sage, p. 89-94). 24 NBHL, 2:844. 25 See Perikhanian, Iranian Society and Law, p. 641. 26 Martirosyan, Etymological Dictionary, p. 618. 27 Dowsett, Armenian Tēr, Tikin, Tiezerk‘, p. 139, 141, and 145. The alternative ety- mology of the word tikin is *tē- ‘great’ and kin ‘woman’ (Ačaṙyan, Armenian Etymological Dictionary, p. 406). SYNEISAKTISM IN EARLY ARMENIAN CHRISTIANITY 127

As Robert Thomson has observed28, in the Armenian version of Euse- bius of Caesarea’s Ecclesiastical History the phrase συνεισάκτους γυναῖκας is rendered as k‘ors tantiknays29 (literally, “sisters, mistresses of the house”; tantiknays being the accusative plural of tantikin – D.Z.). In addition, Thomson points to Canon I attributed to Epiphanius of Sala- mis30 in the Armenian Book of Canons, in which the word tantikin is found within a similar context31. It is worth mentioning that another term, albeit not attested elsewhere with the same meaning, is deployed in the History of the by Movsēs Xorenac‘i32, who chooses the phrase kanayk‘ tnkaluč‘k‘ (կանայք տնկալուչք) to refer to the συνεισάκτους γυναῖκας of the Syrian clergy33. Here συνείσακτος is rendered by the word tnkaluč‘ (tun ‘house’ + kal ‘to keep’ + agent-noun suffix -uč‘), which primarily means ‘housekeeper’ cor- responding to Greek οἱκουρός34. Interestingly, the Armenian historian and catholicos Yovhannēs Drasxanakertc‘i (9th-10th c.), who in the first part of his strongly relies on Movsēs Xorenac‘i’s work, relates the same episode but uses the more commonly attested phrase tan- tikin kanayk‘35. These observations suggest that, unlike in Greek, there was no special term in Armenian for women who committed themselves to syneisaktism. The words that were used seemed to reflect the function and role of these women in the household which they shared with celibate men, that is the management of the domestic affairs, whereas the Greek ἀγαπηταί and συνείσακτοι rendered the nature of their relations.

28 ŁP, p. 61 n. 4. 29 Eusebius, The Ecclesiastical History, vii.30.12. The clause τὰς δὲ συνεισάκτους αὐτοῦ γυναῖκας, ὡς Ἀντιοχεῖς ὀνομάζουσιν is translated into Armenian as zkanaysn` orpēs Antiok‘ac‘ik‘ koč‘en, k‘ors tantiknays (զկանայսն՝ որպէս Անտիոքացիք կոչեն, քորս տանտիկնայս). In his quotation Thomson has omitted the word k‘ors and instead has kanaysn tantiknays. 30 The Armenian Book of Canons contains several canons that are attributed to Epipha- nius of Cyprus (Salamis) (KH II, p. 62-63 and 268-280). However, the Greek originals of these canons are not known, which is why the attribution to Epiphanius seems to be more than tenuous. 31 KH II, p. 62: [ե]պիսկոպոս կամ երէց կամ սարկաւագ որ տանտիկին ունիցի ի տանն ըստ հեթանոսական սովորութեանց, լուծցին յիրաքանչիւր աշտիճանէ, բայց ի հանւոյ կամ ի մաւրէ կամ ի քերց ([i]f a bishop or a priest or a deacon following pagan traditions keeps a mistress of the house that is not [his] grandmother, mother or sisters, he shall be stripped of all his ranks). 32 The date of the composition of the History has not been established with certainty but dates from 5th to mid-8th centuries have been suggested. 33 Movsēs Xorenac‘i, Hayoc‘ Patmut‘iwn, III:64. 34 NBHL, 2:884. 35 T‘osunyan, Drasxanakertc‘i, Hayoc‘ Patmut‘iwn, p. 60. 128 d. zakarian

3. Syneisaktism in Early Christian Armenia: The Šahapivan Canon XIV

Shortly after the Syriac control of the patriarchate was removed, a large council attended by both the Armenian Church leaders and the representa- tives of noble families was summoned at the village of Šahapivan (444)36. As the prologue37 to the list of twenty canons of the council states, it was an urgent necessity, for “[t]hose who committed lewdness and displayed deviant behaviour multiplied … and the number of the Messalians and other evildoers … increased in the land of Armenia”38. What is pertinent to our discussion is found in Canon XIV, which alongside the aforemen- tioned Canon I attributed to Epiphanius, seems to have been modelled on the Nicene Canon III39 and Canon XIX40 of the Council of Ancyra41: Let no bishop, priest, deacon or anyone from amongst the clergy or congre- gation keep a tantikin woman, as is the custom among the Messalians. But if anyone does, and evidence regarding it emerges, then, irrespective of his position, he shall be stripped of [his rank] and be denounced as unrighteous and as a tax collector, for the Holy Church and the Lord’s Holy Communion welcome the pure in order that the impure be redeemed with the help of the pure42.

Šahapivan Canon XIV attacked syneisaktism as an iniquitous practice of the group called Messalians, whose name had a Syriac provenance43. In early Christian literature it was applied not only to the followers of this

36 KH I, p. 427-429. 37 As it was demonstrated by Akinean (The Canons of Šahapivan Council, p. 89-91), the prologue was edited perhaps at the end of the seventh and the beginning of the eighth century, when more information was added to the existing text. I therefore rely on the passages that are believed by most scholars to belong to the original version of the text. See KH I, p. 627-630. 38 KH I, p. 425-426: Բազմանային որք յաճախէին ի գործս պղծութեան եւ յետս ընդդէմ գնացից … եւ լինէր յաճախումն մծղնէից եւ այլոց չարեաց … յաշխարհիս Հայոց. 39 KH II, p. lii. 40 In KH I it appears as Canon XX, p. 166-167. 41 Nerses Akinean (The Canons of Šahapivan Council, p. 127) was the first to suggest that the Šahapivan Canon XIV was modelled on the Nicene Canon III and Canon XIX (in KH I it is Canon XX, p. 166-167) of the Council of Ancyra. 42 KH I, p. 450: Եպիսկոպոս ոք կամ երէց կամ սարկաւագ կամ ով եւ իցէ ոք ի պաշտաւնէից կամ յուխտէ, տանտիկին կին զոք մի՜ իշխեսցէ ունել, որպէս եւ սովորութիւն է մծղնէից: Ապա եթէ ոք ունիցի եւ վկայութեամբ յայտնեսցեն, ի կարգէն յորում եւ իցէ, մերժեսցի ի բաց եւ համարեալ եղիցի, որպէս զամպարիշտ, որպէս զմաքսաւոր, զի սուրբ եկեղեցի եւ սուրբ խորհուրդ տէրունական զանարատսն ընդունի, զի արատաւորք ի ձեռն անարատիցն փրկեսցին (my italics). 43 See Stewart, Working the Earth of the Heart, p. 15-16. As Epiphanius of Salamis explains in Adversus Haereses, Μασσαλιανοὶ δὲ οὗτοι καλοῦνται, ἑρμηνευόμενοι εὐχόμενοι (They are called Messalians, which means those who pray) (PG 42, col. 756; CPG 3745, vol. 2, p. 325). SYNEISAKTISM IN EARLY ARMENIAN CHRISTIANITY 129 movement, but it was also used pejoratively and indiscriminately to condemn persons holding opinions at odds with the official position of the ecclesiastical authorities44. In Armenian, too, the adjective mcłneac‘ (Messalian) gradually became synonymous to “filthy, profane, impious” and was associated with a variety of condemned by the Armenian Church45. However, Nina Garsoïan, concurring with Step‘an Melik‘-Baxšyan’s earlier suggestion, has challenged the attribution of the practice of syn- eisaktism to the Messalians and believes that the word mcłneac‘ in the Šahapivan Canon XIV is used with its meaning “Filthy ones” and most likely refers to the Paulician heresy46. One of the main arguments put forward is that there is no direct evidence of the Messalians practising spiritual marriage. I, nevertheless, believe that the Armenian ecclesiastical authorities had compelling reasons for accusing the Messalians of syneis­ aktism, although it does not necessarily mean that they indeed practised it. On the one hand, these charges appear to have been prompted by the allegations of promiscuous sexual behaviour made by various contempo- rary authors against the Messalians. Epiphanius of Salamis (c. 315-403), for instance, expressed his indignation that the Messalians “all sleep together, men with women, and women with men”, even though they believe in Christ and have renounced the earthly pleasures47. Moreover, many scholars think that has the Messalians in mind in his De virginitate when denouncing the practice of syneisaktism, even though there is no direct mention of their name in that work48. On the other hand, the Armenians had direct experience of the Mes- salian movement, which originated and flourished in and adjacent territories at the end of the fourth century49. As attested by Theodoret of Cyrus (c. 393-458), the Messalians were causing serious concerns to the ecclesiastical authorities in Byzantine-controlled Armenia Minor shortly before the Šahapivan Council, which urged the bishop of Melitene, Litoios, to implement drastic measures against them50. At the beginning of the fifth

44 Stewart, Working the Earth of the Heart, p. 3. 45 NBHL, 2:284. 46 Garsoïan, The Paulician , p. 209. 47 PG 42, col. 760 (CPG 3745, vol. 2, p. 325): δοκοῦσι τοίνυν οὗτοι ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ ἄνδρες τε καὶ γυναῖκες δῆθεν εἰς Χριστὸν πεπιστευκέναι λέγοντες, ὡς ἀποταξάμενοι τῷ κόσμῳ καὶ τῶν ἰδίων ἀνακεχωρηκότες, ὁμοῦ δὲ ἀναμὶξ ἄνδρες ἅμα γυναιξὶ καὶ γυναῖκες ἅμα ἀνδράσιν ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ καθεύδοντες … 48 See above n. 19 and Van der Sypt, Are there Messalian Syneisakts, p. 705 and 709. 49 Stewart, Working the Earth of the Heart, p. 12. 50 PG 82, col. 1144 (CPG 6222, vol. 3, p. 209): Λητώϊος μὲν οὖν ὁ τὴν Μελιτηνῶν ἐκκλησίαν ἰθύνας, ἀνὴρ ζήλῳ θείῳ κοσμούμενος, πολλὰ τῆς νόσου ταύτης σπάσαντα 130 d. zakarian century along with other non-orthodox movements the ecclesiastical author- ities made numerous such attempts to suppress the Messalians but their efforts were apparently fruitless51.

4. Canon III of the Council of Nicaea

The surviving evidence suggests that the practice of syneisaktism had grown in popularity in Armenia not long before the Council of Šahapivan. The first piece of information that should be discussed in this respect is the Armenian translation of the canons of the Council of Nicaea (325), which was made in the first half of the fifth century52. The version of the Armenian text that has reached us is generally not identical to the extant Greek one53. In particular, Canon III that interests us here has the follow- ing notable discrepancy: in its Greek version it condemns syneisaktism declaring that “[t]he great Synod has stringently forbidden any bishop, presbyter, deacon, or any one of the clergy whatever, to have a subintro- ducta dwelling with him, except only a mother, or sister, or aunt, or such persons only as are beyond all suspicion”54. The Armenian canon, how- ever, is an elaboration of 2 Tim. 5.22 instead55, warning about the peril of ordaining unworthy persons. According to Aram Mardirossian this

θεασάμενος μοναστήρια, μᾶλλον δὲ σπήλαια λῃστρικά, ἐνέπρησε ταῦτα καὶ τοὺς λύκους ἐκ τῆς ποίμνης ἐξήλασεν (Litoios, the leader of the Church of Melitene, a man adorned with divine zeal, having witnessed that many monasteries, or, better to say, pirates’ caves, were struck by this disease [i.e. the Messalian heresy – D.Z.], burnt them and drove out the wolves from the flock). 51 See Vööbus, History of the , p. 127-139. For more details, see Stewart, Working the Earth of the Heart, p. 24-52. 52 Abełyan et al., Koriwn, Life of Maštoc‘, XIX: Որոց յետ այնորիկ հաստատուն աւրինակաւք աստուածատուր գրոցն եւ բազում շնորհագիր հարց յետ այնր աւանդութեամբք, եւ Նիկիական եւ Եփեսոսական կանոնաւք, գային [թարգմանիչք] երեւելով աշխարհին Հայոց, եւ առաջի դնէին հարցն զբերեալ կտակարանսն եկեղեցւոյ սրբոյ (Then they [the translators] came to the land of Armenia, having brought authentic copies of the God- given book and many subsequent traditions of the worthy church fathers, along with the canons of Nicaea and Ephesus, and placed before the fathers the testaments of the Holy Church which they had brought with them). The mention of the canons of Ephesus seems to suggest that these events took place after 431. However, in this passage Koriwn describes the second phase of rendering religious texts into Armenian, during which, as he claims, “the blessed ones turned their attention to the improvement and refinement of the litera- ture of their nation” (Abełyan et al., Koriwn, Life of Maštoc‘, XIX). This is why the possibility that the Nicene canons had been translated into Armenian earlier should not be ruled out. 53 For more details on divergent rendering of the original Greek text of the canons, see KH I, p. 560-568. 54 The First , p. 11. 55 KH I, p. 118. SYNEISAKTISM IN EARLY ARMENIAN CHRISTIANITY 131 alteration was made, for an unknown reason, in the seventh century by the prominent Armenian Julianist theologian Yovhannēs Mayragomec‘i56, whose writings had a profound influence on Catholicos Yovhannēs Ōjnec‘i’s Book of Canons57. I am, nonetheless, inclined to believe that the modification was intro- duced in the initial translation of the canons, which was made before the Syrian priests occupied the patriarchal see of Armenia58. The primary rea- son for this supposition lies in the fact that the Šahapivan Council adopted a canon that denounced syneisaktism a decade or so after the canons of Nicaea had been translated into Armenian: if in 444 the Armenian clergy had had in their possession the Armenian translation of the original Nicene Canon III, they would hardly have considered it essential to dedicate to the same issue one out of the twenty canons that they eventually promulgated. In addition, the prologue to the Šahapivan canons explicitly states that the following canons were to be applied along with the Apostolic and Nicene ones in order to address those local problems and issues which were not sufficiently covered by the two59. Thus, it seems reasonable to suggest that at Šahapivan the Armenian clergy did not have at their disposal the Arme- nian translation of the Nicene Canon III and for that reason they were compelled to address the issue of spiritual marriage, which caused serious concern, by adding Canon XIV.

56 Mardirossian, Le livre des canons arméniens, p. 363. 57 Mardirossian, Le livre des canons arméniens, p. 21. 58 That the Armenian ecclesiastical authorities introduced certain amendments to the text of the Nicene canons at an earlier period (first half of the 4th c.) is also attested by Agat‘angełos (Agat‘angełos §885): Իսկ երանելին Արիստակէս` գայր պայծառ ծագեալ հաւատովքն եւ հաստատուն աստուածահաճոյ Նիկիական կանոնօքն երեւել ի Հայաստան երկրին… Որով սրբոյն Գրիգորի ի նոյն լուսաւոր կանոնսն յաւելեալ, առաւել եւս զիւր վիճակն, զՀայաստան երկիրն, պայծառացուցեալ, հանդերձ միաբանութեամբ արքային Տրդատայ՝ զամենայն աւուրս կենաց իւրոց լուսաւորէր (The blessed Aristakēs returned and appeared in Armenia with the glorious faith and the confirmed and pleasing- to-God Nicene canons… Then Saint Gregory made additions to these illuminating canons, making still more glorious his own see, the land of Armenia, which with the assistance of King Trdat he illuminated all the days of his life). Such modifications were not unusual: for specific examples and reasons why changes were introduced into the Armenian trans- lation of Greek canons, see Mardirossian, Le livre des canons arméniens, p. 108- 113. 59 KH I, p. 428-429: Եւ զայս ասացեալ միաբան քահանայապետիցն, եթէ` «Առաքելական եւ Նիկիական կանոն[ք]ն հաստատուն կացցեն եւ մեք հնազանդեալ եմք, բայց որ ինչ պիտոյ է ի լրութիւն ի նոյն կանոնս, եւ մանաւանդ ի մէջ տանս Թորգոմայ եւ կողմանս արեւելեայցս» (And this is what the concordant high priests said, “May the Apostolic and Nicene canons be firmly established and we shall obey [them], but some additions to them are required, especially in the house of T‘orgom [i.e. Armenia – D.Z.] and in the eastern regions)”. 132 d. zakarian

5. Łazar P‘arpec‘i’s History

Another important source that enables us to expand our understand- ing of the practice of spiritual marriage in fifth-century Armenia is the historical narrative by Łazar P‘arpec‘i (floruit at the end of the fifth and beginning of the sixth century), in which he speaks about how syneis­ aktism, a widespread phenomenon amongst the Syrian clergy, entered Armenia: Then the Armenian princes sought from the court a Catholicos for them- selves, and king Vṙam gave them a certain Brkišo, a Syrian. He came to Armenia with his compatriots. They lived a dissolute life, having brought wives [tantiknōk‘ – D.Z.] with them from Syria according to the custom of their land. They did not live in accordance with the holy and unsullied religion that the saintly champion Gregory60 had established and organised in all the churches of Armenia61.

This extract describes the previously mentioned events which fol- lowed the dethronement of the last Arsacid King of Armenia Artašēs at the request of the Armenian magnates, as well as the deposition of patriarch St Sahak, which preceded the Council of Šahapivan by several years. In the footnote62 Thomson clarifies that the word “wives”, by which he has rendered tantiknōk‘ (instrumental plural of tantikin – D.Z.) here actually refers to συνεισάκτους γυναῖκας. However, it may be argued that Łazar’s account of the arrival of Syrian priests and their “wives” in Armenia merely reflected recent develop- ments in the (eastern Syrian Church), and Łazar simply projected them on to the events he related, for in 486, not long before he composed his History, the Synod of Seleucia–Ctesiphon validated the mar- riage of the clergy, “even at the episcopal rank and even in the instance of widowhood”63. In contrast to this, fifth-century sources indicate that after the death of St Sahak in 438 the Armenian Church authorities sought to

60 Łazar refers to the first patriarch of Armenia, St Gregory the Illuminator, who according to Agat‘’ History of Armenia (c. 460s) converted the Armenian King Trdat at the beginning of the fourth century and the country officially became Christian. 61 ŁP, p. 61 [26]: Խնդրեցին այնուհետեւ իւրեանց նախարարքն Հայոց յարքունուստ կաթողիկոս, եւ թագաւորն Վռամ ետ նոցա զԲրքիշոյ զոմն անուն, այր յազգէ Ասորւոց. Որ եկեալ յաշխարհն Հայոց իւրովք գաւառակցօք, որք կէին լոյծ կրօնիւք, եկեալք ընդ նմա յԱսորեստանէ, ըստ սովորութեան իւրեանց աշխարհին` տանտիկնօք. եւ ոչ կէին ըստ սուրբ եւ ամբիծ կրօնիցն, զոր եդեալ էր եւ կարգեալ յամենայն եկեղեցիս Հայոց` սրբոյն նահատակին Գրիգորի. 62 ŁP, p. 61 n. 4. 63 Ashbrook Harvey, , p. 646. SYNEISAKTISM IN EARLY ARMENIAN CHRISTIANITY 133 make celibacy for bishops and high-ranking clergy mandatory64. Not- withstanding these opposing developments in two Churches, there is no explicit or implicit criticism directed at the marriage of the clergy in Łazar’s History, and Łazar himself, without a note of disapproval, attests to the fact that even the Armenian patriarchs were known to be married and have children65. Furthermore, on several occasions66 Łazar uses the common word for wife – kin – to describe the bonds of matrimony, whereas tantikin is only found in the present context. This allows us to conclude that Łazar, indeed, had the συνεισάκτους γυναῖκας in mind in the discussed passage. Łazar’s discourse on syneisaktism is distinctly negative. His dismissal of it as “the custom of their land” implies that within circa two gen- erations since its arrival in Armenia the spiritual marriage was still per- ceived as an unpopular practice of Syrian provenance. It also concurs with and, perhaps, reflects Canon XIV of Šahapivan, which links syneis­ aktism with the Messalians, who, as mentioned earlier, originally flour- ished in Syria. Thus, Łazar’s account and Canon XIV of Šahapivan complement each other: the former covers the situation in Armenia during the reign of anti- patriarchs Surmak, Brkišo, and Šmuel, whereas the latter provides infor- mation about the measures that the Armenian ecclesiastical authorities took to deal with its consequences. The image that emerges suggests that when the Nicene canons were first translated into Armenian, syneisaktism was a rare, or perhaps a non-existent, practice in the country and it was deemed more practical to substitute its condemnation by the mention of a more contentious issue. In the subsequent decades the rise of the Mes- salian movement in the region and the active practice of syneisaktism by the Syrian clergy who assumed control over the Armenian patriarchate encouraged the spread of this practice in Armenia. When in 444 the throne of the patriarch was returned to the Armenian clergy, the leaders of the Church felt obliged to address immediately the issue of spiritual marriage by direct legislative intervention.

64 Mardirossian, Le livre des canons arméniens, p. 118. 65 With regard to St Sahak, Łazar writes: Եւ վասն զի ոչ գոյր իւր արու որդի, բայց միայն դուստր մի, զոր էր տուեալ կնութեան Համազասպայ տեառն Մամիկոնէից եւ Հայոց սպարապետի, որ ծնաւ ի Համազասպայ երիս արու որդիս, զսուրբն Վարդան եւ զսուրբն Հմայեակ եւ զերանելին Համազասպեան ... (He had no male son but only a daughter, whom he had given in marriage to Hamazasp, lord of the Mamikonean and sparapet of Armenia. She bore to Hamazasp three sons: saint Vardan, saint Hmayeak, and the blessed Hamaza- spean) (ŁP, p. 73 [37]). 66 See, for instance, ŁP, p. 88 [50], 90 [51], 91 [52], 96 [56], 129 [83], and 162 [110]. 134 d. zakarian

6. In Lieu of a Conclusion

It remains to see whether the practice of syneisaktism continued in Armenia as it did in other parts of the Christian world despite the outcry of the ecclesiastical authorities. The extant evidence suggests that synei- saktism did not thrive among the Armenian clergy and did not cause the ecclesiastical authorities serious concerns in the ensuing centuries. Except for the references to the fifth-century events discussed above, no mention of the συνείσακτοι γυναῖκες is made in medieval Armenian texts. More- over, besides Canon XIV of the Council of Šahapivan no other measure against spiritual marriage is found in Yovhannēs Ōjnec‘i’s Book of Can- ons67. Only in the subsequent redaction of this collection in tenth-eleventh centuries do we encounter two more references to continent women shar- ing dwelling with continent men: one, in a canon attributed to Epiphanius of Salamis68, while the second is a paraphrase of the Nicene Canon III69. It is likely that the incorporation of these canons in the Book of Canons were prompted by the necessity to address the resurgence of the practice of spiritual marriage in Armenia. There is, however, no evidence whether it indeed happened: it may as well be that these canon groups were added to the existing collection to further raise its status, or simply to enrich it. Whatever the reason, neither the influential twelfth-century lawcode of Mxit‘ar Goš, nor the thirteenth-century lawcode of Smbat Sparapet, both of which contained canons on secular and religious matters, and were widely used in Armenian-speaking communities, discuss συνεισάκτους γυναῖκας70. One may wonder why the practice of spiritual marriage did not thrive in Armenia as it did elsewhere. I would suggest the following explanation. As mentioned at the beginning of this article, the συνείσακτοι γυναῖκες were ascetic women who lived with men that had also rejected the pleas- ures of this world. Spiritual marriage was therefore closely related to female asceticism and was one of the options available to women in the times when monasticism, as we perceive it nowadays, was gradually tak- ing shape of an important Christian institution71. In the Armenian tradition, however, despite the efforts of the Armenian patriarch St Nersēs in the

67 Mardirossian, Le livre des canons arméniens, p. 363. 68 See above n. 30. 69 KH II, p. 74. 70 See Thomson, The Lawcode, and Galstian, Sudebnik. 71 For the early history of monasticism, see, for instance, Rubenson, Asceticism and Monasticism. SYNEISAKTISM IN EARLY ARMENIAN CHRISTIANITY 135 second half of the fourth century72, female asceticism did not flourish and no trace of female monastic establishments can be revealed after the fifth century73, at least not until more recent times. Thus, it seems reasonable to conclude that alongside the measures taken by the Church authorities, the disappearance of female ascetic communities was undoubtedly highly con- ducive to the decline of syneisaktism in Armenia.

Bibliography

Abełyan et al., Koriwn, Life of Maštoc‘ = M. Abełyan (ed. and transl. into modern Armenian) – K.H. Maksoudian (ed.) – B. Norehad (transl. into English), Koriwn, Vark‘ Mashtots‘i [Life of Maštoc‘], A photoreprod. of ed. (1941), Delmar, NY, 1985. Abełyan et al., Movsēs Xorenac‘i, Hayoc‘ Patmut‘iwn = m. Abełyan – S. harut‘yunyan – S. Malxasyan (eds.), Movsēs Xorenac‘i, Hayoc‘ Patmut‘iwn [History of the Armenians], Yerevan, 1981. Ačaṙyan, Armenian Etymological Dictionary = H. Ačaṙyan, Hayeren Armata- kan Baṙaran [Armenian Etymological Dictionary], vol. 4, Yerevan, 1979. Achelis, Agapētæ = H. Achelis, Agapētæ, in J. Hastings (ed.), Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, Edinburgh, 1908, p. 177-180. Achelis, Virgines subintroductae = H. Achelis, Virgines subintroductae: ein Beitrag zu I. Kor. VII, Leipzig, 1902. Adontz, Armenia in the Period of Justinian = N. Adontz, Armenia in the Period of Justinian: The Political Conditions Based on the Naxarar Sys- tem. Translated with partial revisions, a bibliographical note and appendices by N.G. Garsoïan, Lisbon, 1970. Agat‘angełos = G. Tēr-Mkrtč‘ean – St. Kanayeanc‘ (eds.), Agat‘angełos, Patmut‘iwn Hayoc‘ [History of the Armenians], facs. reprod. of 1909 Tiflis ed., introd. R.W. Thomson, Delmar, N.Y., 1979; R.W. Thomson (ed. and transl.), The Lives of Saint Gregory: The Armenian, Greek, Arabic, and Syriac Versions of the History Attributed to Agathangelos, Ann Arbor, MI, 2010. Akinean, The Canons of Šahapivan Council = N. Akinean, Šahapivani Žołovin Kanonnerǝ: Matenagrakan Usumnasirut‘iwn Art‘iw 1500ameay Taredarjin (444-1944) [The Canons of Šahapivan Council: Manuscript Studies Dedi- cated to the 1500th Anniversary (444-1944)], in Handēs Amsoreay, 4-12 (1949), p. 79-170. Ashbrook Harvey, Nestorianism = S. Ashbrook Harvey, Nestorianism, in E. Ferguson (ed.), Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, , IL, 1990, p. 644-647.

72 See Garsoïan, The Epic Histories, V.xxxi, and Pogossian, Female Asceticism, p. 184-190. 73 For the discussion of a combination of circumstances that led to decline of female monasticism in Armenia in late antiquity, see Pogossian, Female Asceticism. 136 d. zakarian

Aubineau, Grégoire de Nysse, Traité de la virginité = m. Aubineau (éd. et trad.), Grégoire de Nysse, Traité de la virginité (Sources chrétiennes, 119), Paris, 1966. Clark, John Chrysostom = E.A. Clark, John Chrysostom and the “subintro- ductae”, in Church History, 46 (1977), p. 171-185. CPG = Clavis Patrum Graecorum. CSCO = Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium. de Labriolle, Le «mariage spirituel» = P. de Labriolle, Le «mariage spirituel» dans l’antiquité chrétienne, in Revue Historique, 137 (1921), p. 204-225. Dowsett, Armenian Tēr, Tikin, Tiezerk‘ = C.J.F. Dowsett, Armenian Tēr, Tikin, Tiezerk‘, in Mémorial du cinquantenaire: 1914-1964 (Travaux de l’Institut catholique de Paris, 10), Paris, 1964. Dumortier, Saint Jean Chrysostome = J. Dumortier (éd. et trad.), Saint Jean Chrysostome, Les cohabitations suspectes. Comment observer la virginité (Nouvelle collection de textes et documents), Paris, 1955. Elliott, Spiritual Marriage = D. Elliott, Spiritual Marriage: Sexual Abstinence in Medieval Wedlock, Princeton, NJ, 1993. Eusebius, The Ecclesiastical History = K. Lake (transl.), Eusebius, The Ecclesias- tical History, London, 1926-1932; A.V. Čarean (ed.), Eusebius, Patmut‘iwn Ekełec‘woy [The Ecclesiastical History], Venice, 1877. Galstian, Sudebnik = A.G. Galstian (ed. and transl.), Smbat Sparapet: Sudebnik [Smbat Sparapet: The Lawcode], Yerevan, 1958. Garsoïan, Armeno-Iranian Relations = N.G. Garsoïan, Armeno-Iranian Rela- tions in the Pre-Islamic Period, in Encyclopaedia Iranica, 2004, Online edition (accessed 29 Oct. 2014). Garsoïan, The Epic Histories = N.G. Garsoïan (transl.), The Epic Histories Attributed to P‘awstos Buzand (Buzandaran Patmut‘iwnk‘), Cambridge, MA, 1989. Garsoïan, The Paulician Heresy = N.G. Garsoïan, The Paulician Heresy: A Study of the Origin and Development of in Armenia and the Eastern Provinces of the , The Hague, 1967. Jarkins, Aphrahat the Persian Sage = S.K.S. Jarkins, Aphrahat the Persian Sage and the Temple of God: A Study of Early Syriac Theological Anthro- pology (Gorgias Dissertations, 36; Early Christian Studies, 8), Piscataway, NJ, 2008. Joannou, Discipline générale antique = P.P. Joannou, Discipline générale antique (Pontificia commissione per la redazione del codice di diritto cano- nico orientale. Fonti, fasc. IX), 4 vols., Rome, 1962-1964. KH I = Kanonagirk‘ Hayoc‘ [The Armenian Book of Canons], V. Hakobyan (ed.), vol. 1, Yerevan, 1964. KH II = Kanonagirk‘ Hayoc‘ [The Armenian Book of Canons], V. Hakobyan (ed.), vol. 2, Yerevan, 1971. ŁP = Łazar P‘arpec‘i, Patmut‘iwn Hayoc‘ = G. Tēr-Mkrtčean – S. Malxasean (eds.), Łazar P‘arpec‘i, Patmut‘iwn Hayoc‘ ew t‘ułt‘ aṙ Vahan Mamiko- nean [History of Armenia and Letter to Vahan Mamikonean], Tbilisi, 1904; R.W. Thomson (transl.), History of Łazar P‘arpec‘i (Suren D. Fesjian Aca- demic Publications, 4. Occasional Papers and Proceedings), Atlanta, GA, 1991. SYNEISAKTISM IN EARLY ARMENIAN CHRISTIANITY 137

Mardirossian, Le livre des canons arméniens = A. Mardirossian, Le livre des canons arméniens (Kanonagirk‘ Hayoc‘) de Yovhannēs Awjnec‘i: Église, droit et société en Arménie du IVe au VIIIe siècle (CSCO, 606; Subsidia, 116), Leuven, 2004. Martirosyan, Etymological Dictionary = H.K. Martirosyan, Etymological Dictionary of the Armenian Inherited Lexicon (Leiden Indo-European Ety- mological Dictionary Series, 8), Leiden, 2010. Miller, Women in Early Christianity = P.C. Miller (ed.), Women in Early Christianity: Translations from Greek Texts, Washington, DC, 2005. NBHL = G. Awetik‘ean et al (eds.), Nor Baṙgirk‘ Haykazean Lezui [New Dic- tionary of the Armenian Language], 2 vols., Yerevan, 1979-1981 [Venice, 1836-1837]. NRSV = M.D. Coogan (ed.), The First Letter of Paul to the Corinthians, in The New Oxford Annotated Bible: New Revised Standard Version with the Apocrypha, 4th edition, Oxford, 2010, p. 1999-2023. Ormanian, The Church of Armenia = M. Ormanian, The Church of Armenia: Her History, Doctrine, Rule, Discipline, Liturgy, Literature, and Existing Condition, 2nd rev. ed., M.G. Gregor (transl.), T. Poladian (ed.), London, 1955. Perikhanian, Iranian Society and Law = A.G. Perikhanian, Iranian Society and Law, in E. Yarshater (ed.), The Cambridge History of Iran, Vol. 3.2. The Seleucid, Parthian and Sasanian periods, Cambridge, 1983, p. 627- 680. Peters, Spiritual Marriage = G. Peters, Spiritual Marriage in Early Christian- ity: 1 Cor 7:25-38 in Modern Exegesis and the Earliest Church, in Journal, 23 (2002), p. 211-224. PG = Patrologiae Cursus Completus: Series Graeca. Pogossian, Female Asceticism = Z. Pogossian, Female Asceticism in Early , in Le Muséon, 125 (2012), p. 169-213. Stewart, Working the Earth of the Heart = C. Stewart, Working the Earth of the Heart: The Messalian Controversy in History, Texts, and Language to AD 431 (Oxford Theological Monographs), Oxford, 1991. Reynolds, Virgines subintroductae = R. Reynolds, Virgines subintroductae in Celtic Christianity, in Harvard Theological Review, 61 (1968), p. 547-566. Rubenson, Asceticism and Monasticism = S. Rubenson, Asceticism and Monas- ticism, I: Varieties of Eastern Monasticism, in A. Casiday – F.W. Norris (eds.), The Cambridge , Vol. 2. Constantine to c. 600, Cambridge, 2007, p. 637-668. The First Ecumenical Council = The First Ecumenical Council: The First Council of Nice, A.D. 325, in Ph. Schaff – H. Wace (eds.), The Seven Ecumenical Councils, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd series, vol. 14, Peabody, MA, 1995, p. 1-56. Thomson, The Fathers = R.W. Thomson, The Fathers in Early Armenian Litera- ture, in E.A. Livingstone (ed.), Papers Presented to the Sixth Interna- tional Conference on Patristic Studies. Studia Patristica, XII (Texte und Untersuchungen, 115), , 1975, p. 457-470; repr. in Idem, Studies in and Christianity (Collected Studies Series, 451), Aldershot, 1994. 138 d. zakarian

Thomson, The Lawcode = The Lawcode [Datastanagirk‘] of Mxit‘ar Goš. Translated and with Commentary and Indices by R.W. Thomson (Dutch Studies in Armenian Language and Literature, 6), Amsterdam, 2000. T‘osunyan, Drasxanakertc‘i, Hayoc‘ Patmut‘iwn = G.B. t‘osunyan (ed.), Y. Drasxanakertc‘i, Hayoc‘ Patmut‘iwn [History of Armenia], Yerevan, 1996. Valavanolickal, Aphrahat, Demonstrations = K. Valavanolickal (transl. from Syriac and introd. by), Aphrahat, Demonstrations, I (Catholic Theo- logical Studies of India, 3), Kerala, 1999. Van der Sypt, Are there Messalian Syneisakts = L. Van der Sypt, Are there Messalian Syneisakts in Gregory of Nyssa’s De virginitate 23,4?, in J. Leemans – M. Cassin (eds.), Gregory of Nyssa: Contra Eunomium III. An English Translation with Commentary and Supporting Studies. Proceed- ings of the 12th International Colloquium on Gregory of Nyssa (Leuven, 14–17 September 2010), (Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae, 124), Lei- den, 2014, p. 704-717. Vööbus, History of the Asceticism = A. Vööbus, History of the Asceticism in the Syrian Orient: A Contribution to the History of Culture in the Near East, II. Early Monasticism in Mesopotamia and Syria (CSCO, 197; Sub- sidia, 17), Louvain, 1960. Vööbus, Syriac and Arabic Documents = A. Vööbus (ed. and transl.), Syriac and Arabic Documents Regarding Legislation Relative to Syrian Asceticism (Papers of the Estonian Theological Society in Exile, 11), Stockholm, 1960.

University of Oxford David Zakarian Faculty of Oriental Studies Pusey Lane Oxford, OX1 2LE, UK [email protected]

Abstract — Despite the fact that ecclesiastical authorities strongly condemned it, syneisaktism or spiritual marriage was present in most early Christian ascetic communities. This article discusses references to the practice in the Armenian sources of the fifth century and attempts to establish how widespread syneisaktism was in Armenia, where it came from, and how it was perceived in ecclesiastical circles. The main focus of the paper is the evidence provided by two contemporary sources – the canons of the Šahapivan Council (AD 444) and Łazar P‘arpec‘i’s History of Armenia (c. AD 495-505).