5988 Aram 16 03 Lupieri

ARAM, 16 (2004) 25-46 E. LUPIERI 25

FRIAR IGNATIUS OF JESUS (CARLO LEONELLI) AND THE FIRST “SCHOLARLY” BOOK ON MANDAEANISM (1652)

EDMONDO LUPIERI (University of Udine, Italy)

One of the most interesting cultural achievements of the 17th century Carmelite mission in Basra1 was Carlo Leonelli’s book entitled “Narration of the Origin, the Rituals, and the Errors of the Christians of St. John.” The only book in those years fully dedicated to the Mandaeans, it remained for two further centuries the best source of indirect knowledge of Mandaea- nism available in the West.2 Though perhaps not so “scholarly” in a contem- porary way of thinking and certainly flawed by factual mistakes and intellec- tual misunderstandings, nevertheless it was the most important attempt by the European Christianity of those days to understand the relatively new and still very mysterious reality of Mandaeanism. But who was this Carlo Leonelli (better knows as Fr. Ignatius of Jesus), what was he doing in Basra, and why did he write such a book? What is his book really about? And, finally, what importance does it hold for us today?

Carlo was born in 1596, the fifth of six siblings, in a rich and semi-noble Italian family, the Leonelli Sorbolonghi, of Fossombrone, a small town not far from Pesaro, in central Italy. His mother was a very pious person and this was not without its influence on her children. One of Carlo’s three sisters became a nun, while the first brother, following in his father’s footsteps, studied law,3

1 First hand testimony may be found in H. Gollancz, (ed.), Chronicle of Events between the Years 1623 and 1733 Relating to the Settlement of the Order of the Carmelites in Mesopotamia, (London, 1927) (Latin text and English translation of the history of the mission, written by con- temporary Carmelites); useful, but not too reliable, is the Anonymous (H. Chick), A Chronicle of the Carmelites in Persia and the Papal Mission of the XVIIth and XVIIIth Centuries, 2 vols., (London, 1939). In general, see my The Mandaeans: the Last Gnostics, ch. 2: “The Mandaeans and the West: A History of Interaction”, (Grand Rapids – Cambridge, 2002), pp. 61-126. 2 For the 19th century the following are noteworthy: H. Petermann, Reisen im Orient, (Leip- zig, 18652), vol. 2, ch. xvii, pp. 83-137, and the lengthy n. 46, pp. 445-465, (with a report of Petermann’s trip of 1854), and (notwithstanding some naivety) N. Siouffi, Études sur la religion des Soubbas ou Sabéens, leurs dogmes, leurs moeurs, (Paris, 1880). 3 He was also able to conduct a successful life at the papal court in Rome, despite some tran- sient economical problems, which caused his temporary excommunication. 26 FRIAR IGNATIUS OF JESUS (CARLO LEONELLI) AND THE FIRST “SCHOLARLY”

His second brother, Innocenzo, had a very peculiar experience. He was a sol- dier with intense spiritual sentiments and vowed to fight only against the en- emies of his Catholic faith.4 He finally adopted the life of a beggar and a her- mit near Brescia, in Northern Italy, and changed his name to that of Tiburzio Lazzari, thus cancelling any trace of his past richness and nobility. After several years of deprivation, Innocenzo-Tiburzio fell sick, refused all cures and asked to be brought to a “hospital”, to die poor among the derelicts. And upon his death in 1625, his very body had to be protected by the bishop of Brescia from the hordes of the faithful, desirous of collecting his relics. At first Carlo seemed little affected by the post-Tridentine atmosphere of his family: he successfully studied civil and canon law, had a brilliant career before him, and was deeply involved in worldly activities with his friends. How- ever, at a certain point he disappeared and when his friends heard of him again, he had already decided to become a Barefooted Carmelite. He took vows on Feb. 27, 1623, at the age of 27, and received the name of Ignatius of Jesus. In 1629 he was sent to Isfahan, where he quickly learned the neo-Persian language, and began his long activity as a missionary. In 1634 he was in Shiraz and finally, in 1641, he received the authorization to return to Italy, but later that same year was sent to Basra instead, where he remained until 1652. Once again he was authorized to go back to Italy, and he started his trip full of the hope of seeing his homeland again, but along the way was asked to stay in Lebanon, where he remained for twelve years, until 1664. Finally, old and sick, he was able to come back to Rome, after 35 years spent in the Middle East; he died in Rome, on Feb. 21, 1667, at the age of 71.5

Ignatius spent his life during the so-called “Siglo de oro”, the “Golden Century” of imperial Spain. From 1580, when Philip II of Spain was able to assume the crown of Portugal, the Iberian branch of the Habsburgs was at the head of the largest super-power ever seen on the planet, and was effectively the only super-power of that period.6 Mesopotamia and the Persian Gulf soon

4 It was not a difficult task in those years since he decided to take part in the crusades against the “heretics” in Bohemia and Hungary. He returned to Italy in 1620. 5 On Ignatius’ life and works, G. Mastandrea, Ignazio di Gesù (1596-1667): Missionario Carmelitano in Medio Oriente, unpublished dissertation, University of Udine (Italy), academic year 1993/94, pp. 315. 6 This fact certainly allowed for the existence of a “golden century” in Spanish history, but was also one of the reasons for a never-ending global war, fought on earth and sea, from the Phil- ippines to Africa, to the Americas, and throughout Europe. The French, English, Dutch and other Protestant powers, such as the Swedes, could not accept this Catholic Spanish-Portuguese su- premacy and succeeded in the end in obtaining a reversal of the world political balance, a reversal which became manifest in the years Ignatius was in the Middle East. A turning point was E. LUPIERI 27 became the center of conflicting international interests, as they were vital for the control of the commercial lines to and from the East. The Portuguese, from their bases in India (Diu, Goa, the Malabaric coast) and Ceylon, were a constant threat to the Islamic powers of the region, since they were able to play a destabilizing role between Turkey and Persia, and especially among their various vassals in Mesopotamia and Southern Persia and the Arabic tribes, whose instability, both political and religious,7 could determine the future balance of the whole region. The scene changed dramatically on April 22, 1622, when Imam Quli Khan, in the name of the Shah ‘Abbas and with the help of the Dutch and English, took the Portuguese island of Hormuz. And in 1623, Imam Quli Khan built Bandar ‘Abbas, the Harbour of ‘Abbas, on the mainland, in the very place of the Portuguese harbour of Gombrun. The backlash for the Portuguese was heavy and they were obliged to look to Basra, where the local Pasha was afraid of Persian expansionism and ready to welcome Christian help. Two Catholic missions were opened in Basra: a Carmelite one, on April 30, 1623, and an Augustinian one,8 shortly thereafter. In 1624 five men-of-war of the Portuguese fleet saved the independence of Basra’s pashaliq, by repelling a Persian attack. But even among the Catholics, things were not going as smoothly as they should have been. The very fact that there were two missions in the town of Basra was the result of a jurisdictional conflict present in the whole Catholic world. In the first years after the great geographical discoveries of the Spanish and the Portuguese,9 the two Catholic powers10 sought to reach a legal agreement to avoid an internecine war. After all, both considered themselves to be the official heirs of the Roman legal tradition. Thus they reached a rather simple legal solution, which was based solidly on theological ground. The whole world, including the Earth, belongs to God, who exerts His power through

1640, when the Duke of Bragança proclaimed himself king of Portugal, with the name of John IV (only fully recognized, also by the Pope and by Spain, in 1668), but the slow crumbling of Span- ish international power was a long phenomenon, which seemed to come to a standstill only in 1700, when Charles II died childless, leaving Spain in the hands of a French dynasty, the Bour- bons, after having lost all the European dominions outside of Spain itself (the Netherlands, Bel- gium, part of Northern France, Alsace, Milan, Southern Italy, Sicily…). The new king of Spain was another Philip, the grandson of Louis XIV, the Sun King of France (who died in 1715), and France had also begun its involvement in the worldly affairs of the Catholic Church, as would continue to be evident until the end of the 19th century. 7 They were all islamicized, but unequally divided between Sunna and Shiia. 8 For the history of this Augustinian mission among the Mandaeans, see C. Alonso, O.S.A., Los Mandeos y las Misiones Católicas en la primera mitad del s. XVII (Orientalia Christiana Analecta, 179, Rome, 1967). 9 In 1492 the Spaniards reached America and in 1498 the Portuguese reached India, after having circumnavigated Africa. 10 Needless to say, the Reformation had not yet taken place. 28 FRIAR IGNATIUS OF JESUS (CARLO LEONELLI) AND THE FIRST “SCHOLARLY”

Christ, His Son and King of the universe. During the time preceding the end of the world and His triumphant comeback, the Pope is His earthly vicar and therefore he11 has the legal authority to decide in the name of Christ who is entitled to administer the various parts of the Earth. In this way, the Pope entrusted the Catholic sovereigns with the newly discovered regions, receiving the solemn commitment to convert the various populations to the true faith. To do so, the Catholic kings promised to favor and protect, or “patronize”, the Catholic missions in all the lands they had already conquered or would have conquered in the future. As an essential part of the agreement, the pope allowed the kings to decide who were to be appointed missionaries in their colo- nies. The conflicts of interests became immediately evident, as the kings of Spain and Portugal attempted to send only those monks and priests who were under them and who would create as little trouble as possible. However, without the knowledge of which lands were still to be conquered, and by whom, it was difficult to decide who should be sent as a missionary to these lands not yet under the military control of a Christian king. Also it became clear that the spiritual interests of the Church, especially after the Council of Trent (1545-63), were increasingly on a collision course with those of the crown, since the colonizing powers were more interested in exploiting and possibly enslaving the indigenous people than in saving their souls. Finally, on Jan. 6, 1622, the pope in Rome established the Sacred Con- gregation de Propaganda Fide. Its goal was to organise the missionary activity in all the countries not directly controlled by the “patronate” of the king and to keep it fully in the hands of Roman cardinals, directly under the control of the pope and independent from any more or less Catholic monarch. The Carmelite mission in Basra was started under the auspices of Rome, the Augustinian one had been organized in Goa, by the archbishop (another Au- gustinian), under his own jurisdiction, as his bishopric formally extended from the African coast to the Far East (all the lands the Portuguese may have conquered in the future…).

In spite of jurisdictional conflicts,12 there were enough reasons for all the Catholics involved, laymen and priests, to hope to find or to make “good

11 Unfortunately, in those years the pope was Alexander VI, of the Spanish family of the Borgias. 12 There are several letters written by the Carmelite Fr. Basil of St. Francis, asking the Vati- can to stop the Augustinians of Basra from impeding him from administering the sacraments: it is quite clear that the Augustinians, sent by their archbishop of Goa, considered the mission of the Carmelites to be an illegal intrusion. Years later, a dramatic letter by our Fr. Ignatius depicts the attempt of Portuguese Carmelites to evict the Italian Carmelites from all the missions of Asia: at a certain point they even resorted to using guns and at least one monk was critically wounded. E. LUPIERI 29

Christians” in Southern Mesopotamia, so as to fully justify their own presence. Something very auspicious had already happened in India, where the Portuguese had discovered the “Christians of Saint Thomas.” Gradually brought to full communion with the Roman church, those Christians became the guarantee for the survival of the Portuguese and Catholic presence in a country otherwise dominated by Muslims and Hindus. In 1555 the Portuguese Jesuits of Hormuz discovered the existence near Basra of a persecuted religious minority, the Mandaeans, who were willing to free themselves from their Muslim lords and seemed to be ready to play the same role (in the Persian Gulf) as the Christians of Saint Thomas in India. The “John” they spoke of, was believed to be the Evangelist and Disciple of the Lord. Like Thomas the Disciple, who supposedly went to evangelize India, so John the Disciple was supposed to have visited and evangelized some part of “Asia”. Therefore the Mandaeans were called “Christians of Saint John” and were believed to descend from an ancient and apostolic Christianity. Although their beliefs had been “corrupted” by centuries of separation and Muslim persecution, the Portuguese were willing to think that the “Christians of Saint John” were now ready to return again to the bosom of their mother church.13 At the beginning of the 17th century, the discovery that the John of the Mandaeans was not the Evangelist, but the Baptist, created some problems for the Europeans. John the Baptist had died in Palestine, killed by Herod Antipas, and would have been unable to reach the shores of the Persian Gulf to convert the Mandaeans. Therefore it seemed reasonable to the Portuguese to suppose that the “Christians of Saint John”, after their conversion by John on the river Jordan, had migrated to the East, possibly to avoid some Islamic persecution. More refined scholars,14 at the papal court in Rome, did notice the contradiction: a group of Palestinian and observant Jews, although baptized by John, could not transform itself into a supposedly Christian Mesopotamian group, which despised circumcision and Judaism and which, theologically speaking, was not even Christian. But the Portuguese, desirous of allies in the Basra region, were ready to embrace the Mandaeans as a Christian group, which was needy of help and ready to help. And indeed Mandaeans were ready to help: they were used to serving as soldiers in the different armies “of the Moors”.15 What better occasion, for the

13 For this “rediscovery” of Mandaeanism by the Jesuits, see the English translation of the original texts in my Mandaeans, pp. 69-73 14 Abraham Ecchellensis explicitly criticizes Ignatius at pp. 334-335 of his work quoted in n. 69. 15 Strange as it sounds today, it was normal in those times to find Mandaeans serving in the army. The idea I express here, comes from a long letter written by Fr. Basil of St. Francis, sent from Basra on Feb. 22, 1630 (Archive of Propaganda Fide, Scritture Riferite, vol. 115, f. 415- 416). Any military activity was later forbidden for the Mandaeans, as it is clearly stated already by Petermann, Reisen, p. 121. 30 FRIAR IGNATIUS OF JESUS (CARLO LEONELLI) AND THE FIRST “SCHOLARLY” waning fortunes of the Portuguese, than finding a friendly Christian population on the spot, ready to be incorporated into a Christian Army? The founder of the Carmelite mission in Basra, Fr. Basil of St. Francis, and his successor, our Fr. Ignatius, were the two monks who worked the hardest for the project, even attempting to organize a relocation of all the Mandaeans to Christian lands. The attempt failed. Many hundreds of Mandaeans were sent over the years to Goa and Ceylon, but the relocation of the whole ethnic group did not take place and most Mandaeans remained in Persia and Mesopotamia. This failure was the result of a series of insurmountable political and military difficulties, including the distrust of Mandaean loyalty by the Iberian court and the rebellion of Arabic tribes in Masqat, and at times simply bad luck. The missionaries saw the hand of the Devil hindering their plans.16

Even worse than the political failure, was the spiritual one, at least from the perspective of the Catholic Church. The Mandaeans did not convert. In spite of some famous, but isolated cases,17 they were able to resist the Catholic religious penetration, adopting at times a veneer of Christian life, but usually re- taining their old faith to their deathbed.18 While other missionaries, even other Carmelites, had understood that there was no real hope to convert the Mandaeans to the Catholic faith, Ignatius was the one who refused to abandon hope. He was ever unable to accept a failure which he felt would have voided his missionary vocation. All his writings,19 his extant letters, the books he wrote, both those now lost and the ones con- served as manuscripts in the Roman archives, were all oriented toward the mission in the Middle East.20 He also maintained his faith that the Mandaeans,

16 This is the idea of Philip of the Holy Trinity, another Italian Barefooted Carmelite, who writes a chapter De Sobbis, sive Mendais in his book entitled Itinerarium orientale R. P. F. Philippi a Ssma Trinitate Carmelitae Discalceati… and published the first time in Lyon in 1649 (pp. 273 and 377-380). In his Narration, Ignatius also reports the opinion of his fictitious partner, the Mandaean priest Baram, who says: “Unfortunately enough, I found in our books of divination and horoscopes that in this year this transmigration is not promised to us” (Narration, p. 181). It seems quite logical that a Mandaean priest would consult his copy of the Spar Maluasia, which in any case would appear to the Christian missionaries to be nothing other than a diabolic text. The astrological ability of Mandaean priests was renown and it is meaningful, then, that Ignatius wrote a lenghty confutation of astrology and divination (pp. 181-186). 17 See further the story of the two Mandaean brothers sent to Rome by Ignatius. 18 We have very dramatic anecdotes on this subject, told by the missionaries (see esp. Gollancz, Chronicle). Quite obviously, for the missionaries the behavior of such acting-Chris- tian-Mandaeans is simply considered hypocritical and false, and certainly not a way to preserve their own cultural and religious identity. 19 He published not only his Narration, in 1652, but also, always in Rome and by Propaganda Fide, a Persian Grammar in 1661. This was the third Persian grammar ever published in the West (and like the first one was published in Italy and written by an Italian). 20 It was usual in those years to find missionaries who were learned in Eastern languages and who composed grammar books and dictionaries. Ignatius wanted to write “handbooks” for other E. LUPIERI 31 one day in the future, would become Christian. His book on the Mandaeans, written in Latin, was accepted for publication by Propaganda Fide in Rome. Convinced that its reading could help some Mandaeans to find the right way toward Christianity, he translated it into Persian and worked on its Arabic version.21 Basically, though, the Narration is a practical handbook for missionaries, completely written from a Western and Catholic perspective.

The printed book22 has a lengthy title: Narration of the Origin, the Rituals, and the Errors of the Christians of Saint John. Followed by a Discourse in the Form of a Dialogue in Which 34 Errors of These People are Confuted.23 From the title, we can see that the book has two parts, a descriptive treatise and a dialogue. The treatise24 provides a rich 17th. century Catholic perspective into the world of this ancient people. The first fourteen chapters25 are a general intro- duction to the Mandaeans and Mandaeanism, beginning with the explanation of their name and origin, information concerning their number and their whereabouts and way of life, including their religious authorities. Then Ignatius describes and explains the four “sacraments” used by the Mandaeans, namely the baptism, a kind of mass with a form of Eucharist, the ordination of their priests and bishops, and the wedding ceremonies for the marriage of lay people. From the ninth chapter on, basing his description also on a scroll which he calls a Diuan Mandaeorum and is in his possession, Ignatius talks about the spiritual world of the Mandaeans, from the presumed veneration of and future missionaries. He prepared a Latin-Persian dictionary, with sentences useful for the everyday life of a Catholic missionary, always with Latin transliteration and spoken pronunciation of each word. For the missionaries who were going to learn Persian, he put together a special edition of Card. Bellarmine’s Doctrina Christiana. This work was an expression of the Catholic “Counter-reformation” and its ideals and was used as an instrument of international propaganda. Ignatius provides the Italian text, the Persian translation with the transliteration in Latin characters of the Persian between the lines of the text, and finally the literal, word by word, Latin translation of the Persian. He also composed multilingual dictionaries, and, possibly, one Mandaic dictionary, unfortunately lost. 21 It is not clear whether he ever finished the Arabic translation. In any case, both the Persian version, which certainly existed as a manuscript, and the Arabic one seem to be lost today. 22 In the Roman General Archive of the Barefooted Carmelites there is also one of the manuscript copies prepared by Ignatius. This copy had already been completed by 1647 (Archivio Generale O. C. D., # 295b). 23 The Latin title-page is printed as follows: Narratio Originis, Rituum, & Errorum Chris- tianorum Sancti Ioannis. Cui adiungitur Discursus Per modum Dialogi In quo confutantur XXXIIII Errores eiusdem Nationis. Autore P[atre]. F[ratre]. Ignatio à Iesu Carmelita Discal- ceato, Missionario & Vicario Domus Sanctae Mariae de Remedijs in Bassora Mesopotamiae. Romae, Typis Sac[rae] Cong[regationis] Prop[agandae] Fidei. 1652. 24 It occupies the first 80 pages of the book, which altogether extends over 192 pages 25 Which fill 61 pages. 32 FRIAR IGNATIUS OF JESUS (CARLO LEONELLI) AND THE FIRST “SCHOLARLY” the Christian cross to their ideas about creation, the other world, angels, de- mons, their hatred of Islam and the colour blue. Chapter 1526 contains a list with a summary of all the “errors” professed by the Mandaeans and therefore we understand that the whole treatise had been carefully constructed in accordance with this logical series of beliefs, which could only be considered errors by the missionary. The Dialogue27 which follows is a common literary device in the missionary literature of that period. It is in fact a fictitious dialogue between the same Fr. Ignatius and a Mandaean priest, called Scech Baram.28 This last figure is an “idealized Mandaean”, polite, acculturated, accustomed to discussing with Westerners and using a Western way of thinking. No wonder Scech Baram declares his willingness to abandon all his errors and to convert to the true Christian religion, the Catholicism announced by the Carmelite.29 We notice immediately that the content of the dialogue faithfully follows that of the Narration and of Ch. 15: the same thirty four “errors” are now discussed and, at least in Ignatius’ opinion, convincingly confuted. This gives a somewhat artificial tone to the construction, but it is clear that we have two connected works, the Narration and the Dialogue, both of them constructed by Ignatius from the only material he had access to: his personal experience, a Relation written by the Augustinian De Gouvea and published in 1611,30 and the scroll in his possession, a copy of the Diuan Abatur, with its interpreta- tions, now in the Vatican library.31

Some excerpts from Ignatius’ work will provide us with an insight into his way of dealing with the various subjects he discusses, and also into the useful-

26 De Erroribus Christianorm Sancti Ioannis; it is the largest chapter, running to almost 20 pages. 27 The printed title (at p. 81 of the book) is: Discursus In quo confutantur Errores Christiano- rum Sancti Ioannis, Inter P[atrem] Ignatium à Iesu, & Scech Baram. This dialogue (pp. 81-192), is the largest section of the book and this very fact shows where Ignatius’ real interests lie. 28 The manuscript alternates Baram, Baran, and even Baron. It is the rendering of Sheik (Shaykh) Bahram. Bahram or Bihram is quite a common name among the Mandaeans, as it is the name of a celestial being, who is considered the author of the Mandaean baptism. About its ancient Indian origin and its importance in Mandaeanism, see my Giovanni Battista fra storia e leggenda, (Brescia, 1988), pp. 293-294, esp. no. 56. 29 Also this readiness to convert and become a Catholic is a usual aspect in the missionary dialogues of that time. 30 Relaçam, em que se tratam as guerras e grandes victorias que alcançou o grande Rey de Persia Xá Abbas… Composto pello Padre F. Antonio de Gouvea…, (Lisboa, 1611). 31 For a reproduction of the Vatican manuscript, including Ignatius’ notes, see Mandäischer Diwan nach photographischen Aufnahme von Dr. B. Poertner, mitgeteilt von Julius Euting, (Straß- burg, 1904); for Mand. text, Engl. transl. and reproduction of other ms, see E. S. Drower, Diwan Abatur or Progress Through the Purgatories: Text with Translation, Notes and Appendices (Studi e Testi, 151, Vatican City, 1950). E. LUPIERI 33 ness the Narration still holds today for the reconstruction of the early interaction between Mandaeanism and the West. a) THE NAMES OF THE MANDAEANS The first chapter, right after the dedication (to the cardinals of Propaganda Fide) and the index, is fully devoted to “the different names, given to them by different people” (pp. 11-12). Coherent with his idea that the Mandaeans in the past were part of the Christian Church of Syria, Ignatius first of all says that they are called “by some of us, Chaldaeans, and… by some others, Syr- ians”. “However, as about 170 years before this time, they had separated themselves from the obedience to the Patriarch of Babylon”, this name was “abandoned”. The confusion of the name and the idea of a schism from the church of Syria, seem to derive directly from De Gouvea’s Relation. De Gouvea, however, said the separation had taken place “150 years before” him (1611); did Ignatius update the figure?32 Ignatius then continues: “The Arabs and the Persians call them Sabbi.33 Among themselves, and in their books, they call themselves Mendai34 and at times also Mendai Iaia, which means Disciple or Follower of John the Baptist”. Iaia is clearly Yahya, the Arabic and recent Mandaean name for John (the oldest one being Iuhana), but the expression “Mendai Iaia” is quite surprising, since it is not reported by any other source, and given the fact that the translation proposed by Ignatius makes little sense. I think it is an example of a reciprocal, and reciprocally sought after, misunderstanding. The Mandaeans wanted to present themselves as disciples of John and the Christian missionaries wanted them to be such; therefore even their name, “at times” (which actually means: “when they talk with the Chris- tian fathers”), becomes Mendai Iaia.35 After this, Ignatius closes his chapter with the following sentence: “But we usually call them Christians of Saint John, because they say that they received the faith, the books (even the magic ones) which are by them, the rites and whatever they have, from Saint John the Baptist”. Here too, in spite of the as- sertion that “they say” this, the language is christianized, as can be seen by the expression “to receive the faith”. Nevertheless we have “their” opinion, that the whole of the Mandaean religion derives from John the Baptist. And this, again, seems to me to be nothing more than a “pious fraud” on the side of the

32 Needless to say, there is no trace of such a “schism” in the history of the Church of Syria. 33 This is fairly correct, as the Mandaeans are and were usually called Subba, the “Baptiz- ers”. However, as they were usually confused with the Sabaeans of Harran, and as the vowels may not be always clearly pronounced (at least for Western ears), we have many ancient texts reporting them as being called Sabi or Sabbi (see my Mandaeans, pp. 84-85). 34 Mendai instead of Mandai is normal in ancient European sources. At times it could be spelled Menday or Mendaí, but the pronunciation was the same. 35 On the “political” importance of such a name for Ignatius, see his pp. 14-15, where he also develops the analogy with the “Christians of Saint Thomas”. 34 FRIAR IGNATIUS OF JESUS (CARLO LEONELLI) AND THE FIRST “SCHOLARLY”

Mandaean informants, since John is never considered by the Mandaeans to be the founder of their religion nor the author of their books. b) THE LANGUAGE OF THE MANDAEANS “Bescemeon Edaí Rabbí Cadmaí Nocraí Men Haleme Ednure Ietírí Edelauí Colleon Ouadí”. As odd as it can sound today, this Mandaean sentence36 was the first one ever read or heard of in Rome. Ignatius’ translation37 may help: “In the Name of the Lord himself, the First, the Last, from the World of Para- dise, Higher than any Highness, Creator of all things”. In Ignatius’ opinion, this was the baptismal formula, used by the Mandaean priests for the baptizing of an infant.38 Its function in the treatise is clear: the Mandaeans do have a baptismal formula and it is a monotheistic one. Therefore Ignatius must have thought that their baptism was not a valid Catholic one, since they did not mention the Trinity, but also that the religiously ambiguous mention of “the Lord” could have well derived from an “almost Christian” baptism (as the baptism of John must have been) or even be the deformation (caused by igno- rance and/or fear of Islamic monotheism) of a Trinitarian baptismal formula, as used by the Church of Syria. c) NUMBER AND ORIGINS OF THE MANDAEANS, AND THEIR CON- NECTION WITH JOHN THE BAPTIST, INCLUDING THEIR VENERA- TION OF HIS RELICS Ignatius discusses these arguments at length,39 since they all are essential for the support of his missionary activity among the Mandaeans and for the justifi- cation of the political project of their relocation in a territory controlled by the Portuguese. The number of the Mandaeans was very important for the Portuguese in the East, since they hoped to make soldiers out of them, as well as for the Church of Rome, since the missionaries hoped to make good Catholics out of them.

36 Narration, p. 25. 37 Narration, p. 26. The Latin translation (“In Nomine Ipsius Domini primi Novissimi ex Mundo Paradisi Altioris omni Altitudinis omnium Creatoris”) is most of all an explanation of the concepts. In this way, the Great Life becomes “the Lord himself” and the World of Light becomes “the World of Paradise” 38 Although distorted by a non-scholarly phonetic rendering of the words in Mandaic, the text is a faithful reproduction of the beginning of the most common and famous Mandaean formula, the one which stands at the beginning of the “Canonical Prayerbook”, before prayer no. 1. See E. S. Drower, The Canonical Prayerbook of the Mandaeans, Leiden, 1959, p. 1 of the Mand. text and p. 1 of the Engl. transl. In modern rendering, the text looks as follows: “Bsumaihun d-hiia rbia qadmaiia nukraiia mn almia d-nhura iatiria d-‘lauia kulhun ‘ubadia.” For this segment, Drower’s translation sounds: “In the name of the Great First Other-Worldly Life! From far-off worlds of light that are above all works.” 39 See esp. Narration, pp. 13-21; 75; 164; 166-167. E. LUPIERI 35

And it was important for the Mandaeans too, since they hoped to be taken into serious consideration by the Catholic Portuguese. Thus, in the first known official contact between the Mandaeans and the Portuguese, in a Jesuit college of Hormuz, around Christmas 1555, the first Mandaean who talks to the Jesuits tells them that there are about 40,000 families of Mandaeans, all good Chris- tians, so good that in the past they even used to receive their bishops from the patriarch of the Syrian Church…40 40,000 families means at least 200,000 people, a number which even today would be exaggerated.41 The missionaries in Basra did have a more correct, although always vague, idea about their numbers. Fr. Basil said there were about 1,200 families42 and Ignatius, in a letter of his of Dec. 19, 1646, tells that the total number of their families should be between 15,000 and 20,000.43 But then in the book (p. 21) he writes: “And all of them… reach the number of about twenty or twenty five thousand families”. It seems probable to me that these figures were inten- tionally exaggerated in order to stress the political importance of the Mandaeans. Also essential to Ignatius’ theory are the origins of the Mandaeans and their connection with John the Baptist. On this subject he is quite clear and intellec- tually honest: the Mandaeans “lost all their books and authentic scriptures”,44 and therefore “about their origin… it is necessary to say whatever can be put together from their own traditions and from other conjectures” (my italics). In this way he tries, firstly, to collect their traditions and from these he “conjectures (conijcitur)… that they derive from the descendants of those who were baptized by John in the Jordan” (p. 17; cf. 15 and 16).45 On this first conjec-

40 The text says “from the patriarch of Armenia”, since this was the official title of the patriarch of the (Chaldaean) Church of Syria under Ottoman rule and had little to do with Mandaean bishops coming from Armenia (contrary to what J. H. Crehan, “The Mandaeans and Christian Infiltration”, JThS, NS 19 [1968], pp. 623-626, writes. I too originally believed this, prior to reading the original text, as I wrote in Giovanni Battista, n. 12, p. 204. Now see my Mandaeans, n. 18, p. 71). 41 It is still difficult to estimate how many Mandeans there are, in Iraq, Iran, and abroad. Nowadays, the figures vary from 30,000 to 100,000; the truth must lie somewhere in between. 42 In a long letter dated April 29, 1627 (Archivio Generale O. C. D., # 241g [12]; Anony- mous, Chronicle, p. 326). It may be a mistake for 12,000. 43 Archivio Generale O. C. D., # 241m. In those years, Fr. Matthew of St. Joseph (see further n. 65) drew a map of the area around Basra, including southern Persia. He reports the number of Mandaean families for each village, reaching the total of 3,279 (This is very probably the map published by Melchisedech Thévenot, Relations de divers voyages curieux, qui n’ont point esté publiees…, [Paris, 1663], to be found only in some copies and/or editions of the book, under the title: Vera Delineatio Civitatis Bassorae. Nec non Fluuiorum, Insularum Oppidorum pagorum et terrarum ei adiacentium, inquibus passim habitant familiae Sabaorum Siue Mendaiorum, qui Vulgo vocantur Christiani S.ti Joannis. I found it in a Roman copy of the Paris edition of 1666; from which I derive the number of families. See also S. A. Pallis, Mandaean Bibliography 1560- 1930, [Amsterdam, 1974 = Copenhagen, 1933], p. 75). 44 He means their Christian scriptures; see p. 13. 45 Ignatius repeats the sentence three times, almost verbatim. 36 FRIAR IGNATIUS OF JESUS (CARLO LEONELLI) AND THE FIRST “SCHOLARLY” ture, Ignatius then builds his second one: “If one asks why and when they transmigrated from those parts to these regions…, I will say that the reason for this transmigration was the terrible persecutions they suffered at the time of Muhammad” (p. 17, the italics are mine). Then he further specifies: “They suffered terrible persecutions from ‘Omar, Muhammad’s companion, and for this reason they were obliged to flee from their regions to these, where they now live” (p. 18). As far as I know, this is the first systematic attempt to explain historically the origins of the Mandaeans in the West and their presence in Southern Mesopotamia and Iran in Ignatius’ time. The most striking aspect of it, though, is the conjectural one. Ignatius was not able to find any written or oral Mandaean tradition concerning a) their descendance from the Jews baptized by John and b) their transmigration from Palestine in early Islamic times. He could not possibly know that both these ideas are contradicted by the most ancient written Mandaean sources. Indeed, some among the Mandaean texts and traditions say that the disciples of John46 were killed by the Jews in Jerusalem and for this reason Jerusalem was destroyed.47 In later traditions, though, it could be said and written that all (and only) those Mandaeans who adhered to a certain schism (that of Qiqil)48 were the descendants of the Jewish seed brought into Mandaeanism by the Jews converted by John. But this is only an anti-heretical polemic and is quite clearly a fictitious reconstruction with no historical basis. Furthermore, concerning the persecution at the time of Muhammad or of the second Caliph, the Haran Gauaita states clearly that the head of the Mandaeans, Anus bar Danqa, was able to obtain the status of “people of the book” for them by the first Islamic rulers when they occupied Mesopotamia,

46 The existence of these disciples of John, whose traditional number is 360, 365 or even 366, seems to be the result of a conflation with another legend; see texts and discussion in my Giovanni Battista, pp. 285-288; 296-298; 308-309; 336-341; 353-354; 369-370. 47 See passages quoted above. Only in one oral testimony, collected in the Sixties, 365 disciples escape the massacre in Jerusalem and reach the other Mandaeans who live by the “waters of Supat” (here, probably, the Euphrates); R. Macuch, Anfänge der Mandäer. Versuch eines ge- schichtliches Bildes bis zur früh-islamischen Zeit, in F. Altheim – R. Stiehl, (ed.), Die Araber in der Alten Welt, Vol 2: „Bis zur Reichstrennung“, (Berlin, 1965), pp. 188-190. 48 Qiqil appears in the Haran Gauaita, where he seems to have been active “280 years after” John the Baptist (pp. 11-12). For the English translation of the Haran Gauaita, see E. S. Drower (ed.), The Haran Gawaita and the Baptism of Hibil Ziwa (Studi e Testi, 176, Vatican City, 1953). The Appendix offers the reproduction of the text of one of the two manuscripts Lady Drower used for her edition, DC (Drower Collection) 9; the other one, DC 36, is reproduced in the Ap- pendix of E. S. Drower (ed.), The Thousand and Twelve Questions (Alf Trisar Suialia) (Deutsche Akad. der Wiss. zu Berlin, Institut für Orientforschung, Veröffentlichung 32, Berlin, 1960), ll. 2495-end. Qiqil is mentioned also by Petermann’s informer by the name of Kekal. The informer thought Kekal was active 250 years after John (Petermann, Reisen, 457). From the same passages of Haran Gauaita, however, it looks like the schism took place 86 years before the Is- lamic occupation of Mesopotamia; this would mean that there are 366 years (!) between John and Muhammad (see my Giovanni Battista, n. 79, p. 302). E. LUPIERI 37 where the Mandaeans were already residing at the time of the Islamic inva- sion.49 But let us now see what the “traditions” are on which Ignatius builds the first part of his theory, i.e. the genetic connection of the Mandaeans with the disciples of John. The first element is the name Mendai Iaia, which he thinks the Mandaeans “at times” use to call themselves and concerning which we have already discussed. The second one is that they do practice baptism, and only in a river. On this subject Ignatius recalls particularly “the most famous” of their festivals “which they call ‘haid pengia’, which means ‘the five day festival’” (p. 16); in his opinion they do so to “re-enact” the baptism of John and to “imitate him” (ibid.). The third one is the one actually derived “from their… traditions and legends”50 and concerns some extraordinary relics of John, which the Mandaeans proudly claim to own. The last one is a particularly important subject for Ignatius, who announces it in the treatise (pp. 16-17) and develops it in the dialogue with Scech Baram (pp. 164-167). The Mandaean Scech says, among other things, that according to Mandaean traditions, John the Baptist died “a natural death” in the “city of Shustar of Persia”. “And he was buried in a certain field of the same city of Shustar, in a miraculously built crystal tomb, in a certain house, near to which a certain river flows, which is called Jordan, where in the past Saint John the Baptist used to teach and baptize” (p. 164). Ignatius reacts in a very rational way: John the Baptist lived and died in Palestine and the river Jordan flows near Jerusalem and into the Dead Sea and therefore the Mandaeans are wrong.51 Scech Baram is easily convinced and his lengthy answer is worth a full quotation: “As can be gathered from clues and conjectures,52 it seems to me that our people transmigrated from those regions in Judaea to these regions in Persia and Arabia. However, since these our people with greatest love ven- erate Saint John the Baptist, his tomb, the river Jordan and the other things pertaining to this Saint, and since they could not take those things with them, when they came here, because of their devotion, they gave the same names of those things to the things in this region. And therefore they think they are still in those places where our forefathers were at the beginning”.53

49 Haran Gauaita, pp. 15-16. Ignatius is more or less aware of Haran Gauaita’s content, but he sees no contradiction: see his p. 18. In any case, it is quite strange that a whole Christian group abandons a territory occupied by ‘Omar to take refuge in another territory, equally occupied and controlled by the same ‘Omar (who reigned from 634 to 644 C.E.). 50 “Ex ipsorum… traditionibus & fabellis”: p. 16. 51 Ignatius must have known that there were (and still are) many official relics of St. John, including his ashes in Genua and a certain number of heads. The head in Damascus is an object of equal veneration by Muslims and Christians. We must say to his honour that he avoided the subject. See especially p. 166. 52 “Ut colligitur ex inditiis & coniecturis”. 53 “Et ideo putant se adhuc esse in illis locis, in quibus primitus manebant nostri praede- cessores,” p. 167. 38 FRIAR IGNATIUS OF JESUS (CARLO LEONELLI) AND THE FIRST “SCHOLARLY”

The two sentences I put in italics are very enlightening. The first one, although from the mouth of Scech Baram, sounds very much like the ones Ignatius used for his own conjectural reasoning on this subject. And the last one tells us that in Ignatius’ time the Mandaeans he knew did believe that they came from nowhere else than those places where they presently were – with the obvious exception of his fictional and “conjectural” Scech Baram. d) THE CHRISTIAN CROSS (AND JOHN THE BAPTIST) What follows is another clear example of ambiguity in the cultural interaction between the Mandaeans and the missionaries. The discussion concerns the importance of the Christian cross in Mandaean cult and lore. We now know that the whole subject is nonsense, but in those days, with the missionaries still discussing the Christian essence of Mandaeanism, the presence and function of the cross of Jesus was a very important point in the discussions. Ignatius han- dles the matter in different contexts of his work, namely on pages 38-40, 53, 75, 143-144, and 164-165. Almost everything he says is astonishing to us. First of all, we find the explanation of the drapsa. This is an explanation which was quite common in those days among the missionaries and especially in accordance with their hopes: the drapsa is a disguised Christian cross, cov- ered by a white cloth54 and collapsible, in such a way that it can disappear when the Muslims come. But in Ignatius we have more. He had at hand a copy of a “scroll” he calls a Diuan, where “among other things two boats are painted, which they claim represent respectively the one sailed by the sun and the one sailed by the moon” (p. 39). As we have the self same scroll Ignatius had, we can still clearly see the two stylised drapsia, with the function of the mainmasts in both boats.55 And here follows Ignatius’ explanation: “They say that very early in the morning Angels take the Cross [of Jesus] and plant it in the centre of the sun, and the sun gets its brilliance from it, and [the sun] illu- minates the world thanks to the brilliance of the Cross: and they say the same of the moon” (ibid.; cf. pp. 53 and 70).56 Ignatius responds in a very rational and biblical way: the idea that the whole world is enlightened by the light of the Cross of Christ must not have displeased him, but the fact is that God created the sun and the moon during the fourth day of Creation, therefore long before the Incarnation of His Son. Thus it is impossible that the sun and the

54 Similar, we may say, to many Christian representations of the cross with the symbols of crucifixion, including the shroud. 55 See the picture of the moon boat, taken from the reproduction of the Diuan Abatur in Lady Drower’s edition, quoted in n. 31. 56 An echo of this myth in Petermann, Reisen, p. 452. It looks like Ignatius asked many details from his informant(s). Even the fringes of the drapsia are explained, as “little bells” hang- ing from the crosses… (p. 39; there is a close similarity between Ignatius’ words in his book and his own captions written on the margin of the manuscript, as can be seen in Mandäischer Diwan quoted in n. 31). E. LUPIERI 39 moon used the light of the Cross to physically enlighten this physical world. And if there is a light in the Christian Cross, this is a “spiritual light which enlightens the mind” and does not come from the Cross per se but rather from the Lord Christ (pp. 143-144). All this sounds quite convincing to Scech Baram who at this point of the Dialogue declares his willingness to “walk… the way of salvation” (p. 145). The veneration of the Cross by the Mandaean priests seems to be an obvious reality to Ignatius. He tells us that “the priests of these people wear a small cross embroidered on their undershirt, and this is the sign of their priesthood”.57 In addition, some of them showed it to him, and “kissed it to show me their devotion and reverence for the Cross” (ibid.).58 This does not necessi- tate our commenting and Ignatius, as it was in no way an “error”, decided not to criticize such a habit in his Dialogue. However, the most astonishing of all the stories concerning the cross and the crucifixion of Christ, is the following one, considered by Ignatius to be the 25th “error” of the Mandaeans. John the Baptist, who died a natural death, “or- dered his disciples to crucify him after his death, so that he would become similar to Christ, of whom he was a cousin” (pp. 74-75 and 164; cf. 165-166). In the multifaceted world of Christian and post-Christian legends on John the Baptist and his relationship with his more famous “cousin”, to my knowledge this post mortem crucifixion is quite unique.59 And it remained unique: centuries later, asked by European scholars about this subject, the learned Mandaeans just laughed. Possibly the reaction by the missionaries did not en- courage the survival of a story which seems to me to have been concocted for Christian ears. e) THE SACRIFICE AMONG THE MANDAEANS Like all Christian missionaries, Ignatius considers the taking of pihta and the drinking of hamra60 to be a kind of mass, “but, following the judgment of 57 “Istarum gentium Sacerdotes gerunt in subucula paruulam Crucem acu depicta: & hoc est signum Sacerdotij,” p. 40. 58 “Quam Crucem… mihi ostenderunt deosculantes eam, ut demonstrarent mihi deuotionem, & reuerentiam, quam habent erga Crucem”. 59 See my Giovanni e Gesù. Storia di un antagonismo, (Milano, 1990). The crucifixion of John, executed by the Jews because he was “the teacher of Jesus”, appears once in a fragment of Toledot Yesu, now in Cambridge; see W. Horbury, “The Trial of Jesus in Jewish Tradition”, in E. Bammel, (ed.), The Trial of Jesus. Cambridge Studies in hon. of C.F.D. Moule (Studies in Biblical Theology, Sec. Ser. 13, London 1970), pp. 103-121. 60 A summarized description of this ritual in my Mandaeans, pp. 23-24 (which derives from E. S. Drower, The Mandaeans of Iraq and Iran. Their Cults, Customs, Magic, Legends, and Folklore, [Oxford, 1937; reprints Leiden, 1962 and now 2002]). Like the other missionaries, Ignatius is struck by the superficial analogies with bread and wine of the Catholic mass, and considers the hamra (obtained “from dried grapes soaked in water for a period of time”, Narration, p. 27) to be a surrogate for the wine. He is also convinced that this “wine” is adopted by the Mandaeans “for the Consecration of the Blood of Christ” (p. 27). The same idea is expressed by 40 FRIAR IGNATIUS OF JESUS (CARLO LEONELLI) AND THE FIRST “SCHOLARLY”

God, which is beyond human justice, they [the Mandaeans] reached such blindness of mind that they appear to have transformed the most Holy and most sacred Sacrifice of the Mass into a ridiculous killing and superstitious Sacrifice of a hen” (p. 27). Ignatius describes in great detail the whole ceremony, including the priestly garb and the words he pronounces while killing the fowl: “In the name of God this meat be pure for all who are going to eat from it” (p. 29).61 He was obviously looking for some consecrating formula, similar to those of the Catholic mass. Ignatius’ western attitude is quite evident here. He underlines the fact that only priests – and only those born from a woman who was virgin when she was married – are allowed to “kill the hen”. His surprise that women cannot even “kill a hen” is great: “And if someone would ask them whether among them women are allowed to kill the hen, they [the Mandaeans] are surprised and burst into laughing, in the same way a Catholic would be surprised among us, if someone asked him whether women could celebrate the most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass” (p. 28). Women priesthood was certainly not an issue in the Catholic Church of those days and Ignatius cannot even think of any cultural analogy between Mandaeanism and Catholicism on the subject. His intention in including the sentence about the surprise of the Catholic faithful was not to create any parallels between the Catholic mass and “the killing of a hen”, but just to show how “ridiculous” the Mandaean behaviour was. Furthermore, the Mandaeans “consider all women impure and, when they still had Churches, [women] were barred from entering a church” (p. 80).62 The impurity of women is the thirty fourth “error” of the Mandaeans.63

Scech Baram, who also explains the existence of hamra as a subterfuge to get around the Islamic prohibition of wine consumption. Quite strikingly for us – but quite logically for Ignatius – Scech Baram justifies the Mandaean decision to prepare hamra, instead of using wine and therefore facing persecution, by quoting one of the pillars of Roman law: “Ad impossibilia nemo tenetur” (p. 118). No one seems interested in even mentioning mambuha, the pure water used in most rituals (in the Dialogue, the discussion of Mandaean “Mass” is understandably long: pp. 110-125). 61 The description of what he calls “Eucharist” occupies pp. 26 and 27; the “ridiculous killing of the hen” is to be found at pp. 28-30 (with the sacrifice of the ram at p. 30). 62 The fact that all Mandaean “churches” had been destroyed by the Muslims, is a leitmotif in the book: pp. 19; 26; 30; 7; and 187. Ignatius does not seem to have ever seen a mandi. 63 Ignatius’ discussion seems to me to constitute strong evidence against the theories of women priesthood in Mandaeanism. Certainly, this is not impossible, also given the fact that in the Book of John, 22, Miriai, the Jewish heroine who converts to Mandaeanism, appears in priestly garb and attributes. Nevertheless, it seems to me very improbable that there ever were women priests among the Mandaeans. My principal reasons for doubts on this subject are: a) the ritual for the consecration of a new tarmida (priest) is totally oriented towards a male candidate, to the point that involves a “mystical marriage” with a female spiritual counterpart from the Lightworld (J. J. Buckley, The Mandaeans: Ancient Texts and Modern People, Oxford, 2002, p. 102); b) the same ritual requires the candidate to be physically male, to the point that his per- fection has to be checked (in a state of nudity) by the officiating (male) priests and his legs (not “her legs”) have to be washed by two women who have already passed their fertile age, so as to avoid any risk of contamination; c) the rules of purity for candidates for priesthood apply exclu- sively to males, like the ones defining the purifications from impurity deriving from nocturnal E. LUPIERI 41 f) WOMEN AMONG THE MANDAEANS European and “modern” thinking emerges clearly in Ignatius’ indignation against the traditional Mandaean concept of the impurity of women. He says that the Mandaeans are worse than the Jews on this subject, as not even the Law of Moses, now superseded by the coming of Christ, considered them impure, except for short periods and only every once in a while (see esp. pp. 30 and 191-192). Not only this, but our scandalized Ignatius is also convinced that from the Jews the Mandaeans took the habit of checking the virginity of each and every bride (esp. p. 131). In his opinion the Mandaean wedding ceremony contains four major errors. First of all, there is no “mutual consent” by both the bridegroom and the bride; therefore the wedding lacks its form and the marriage is invalid.64 Fur- ther there are three more errors, all concerning “the poor woman” (p. 131 and 136): firstly, she is obliged to swear to her virginity; secondly, “the wife of the Minister, together with some other women, goes to the same bride and checks whether she is a virgin”; thirdly, her possible non-virginity is immediately made known to everyone. If this is the case, only a “minor minister” can celebrate the wedding, and this mark causes “great shame for the spouses and infamy for their whole life” (pp. 68-69). Ignatius discusses at length the wedding costoms of the Mandaeans, both in the Treatise (pp. 33-37) and in the Dialogue (pp. 131-141). He is concerned with the “unjust”65 treatment of the bride and underlines all its negative aspects, bringing in his biblical, legal and logical arguments against it. He even has Scech Baram introduce the sad story of a father killing his own daughter after she had been found deflowered at the examination. It may not be a case that Ignatius decided to end his book precisely with the discussion on the general impurity of women. After Scech Baram’s reaffirma- tion of women’s impurity and their exclusion from Mandaean “churches”, here too Ignatius lists a series of objections. After the aforementioned explana- seminal emission or caused by the menstruation of the candidate’s mother or wife (!); d) no rules seem to exist for female impurity, which would necessarily occur (at least twice) during the period of consecration, which lasts for sixty-eight days (unless we want to add to the first hypothesis a second one, that women could be consecrated only after their menopause – but there is no evidence whatever for this view). Clearly, J. J. Buckley (The Evidence for Women Priests in Madaeaism, JNES 59/2, 2000, pp. 93-106) is right to point to the fact that in the prayer “Our First Forefathers” (CP 170) there is the memory of two woman’s names among the ganzibria (high priests or “bishops”) and of one among the ris amia (heads of the people or ethnarchs), all from the early Islamic period, but all the evidence collected from the colophons seems indecisive to me, since the expression “son/daughter of (a female name)” can very well and logically refer to physical motherhood and not to priestly initiation, while the fact that some women are told to have owned or even copied manuscripts does not necessarily mean that they were priests. 64 It is error no. 15 in the list: see p. 69. 65 “Contra justitiam”: p. 133. 42 FRIAR IGNATIUS OF JESUS (CARLO LEONELLI) AND THE FIRST “SCHOLARLY” tion of the law of Moses and of the fact that now women “must be purer… because the Lord Christ with his death purified us from our sins”, Ignatius moves to medical arguments: “if women are impure, even men are impure, because men are born from women, and everyone remains nine months in the womb of a woman, and everyone is conceived from the blood and the seed of a woman”. Then he goes back to the Bible, or better, to history: if Eve was impure, “even our first father Adam was impure, because God made her from a rib taken from Adam’s body”. And finally, “God said of man and wife: The two of them will be only one flesh, ergo, if man and woman are one flesh, it is impossible that one and the same flesh be pure and impure”. These are the last words of the book. It may not be chance either, that in this case there is no answer by Scech Baram. Probably Ignatius was sure that any thinking Mandaean at that point would have been won over and convinced. Therefore we have Scech Baram’s silence, which also leaves the last word to Ignatius. Or did Ignatius perhaps have some sort of awareness that the cultural diversity would not have been so easy to overcome?

“Thirty years [have passed] with great diligence on the part of the Augustin- ian fathers and our own; not even now [however] has a real Christian been made among this Nation… Besides they make fools of everyone, of us in par- ticular, and say they would sooner become Turks… than Roman Christians… And anyone who writes the contrary to the Sacred Congregation [of Propa- ganda Fide] is living a lie and seeks flattery. This is the pure truth.” These embittered words of Matthew of Saint Joseph66 come from a letter written in Basra when in Rome Ignatius’ book was published and leave no space for doubts about Matthew’s judgment of the situation. Nevertheless, from the end of 1652 to the beginning of 1654, two Mandaean brothers, sent by Ignatius, were in Rome, where they solemnly received the baptism in the ancient basilica of St. John Lateran, the cathedral of the pope as bishop of 66 Another Italian, he was born Matteo Foglia in Marcianise (Caserta) in 1612. A doctor, botanist, arabist and even a draughtsman, Matthew arrived in Basra in 1649 and was immediately involved in the mission among the Mandaeans. He also compiled a Mandaean dictionary with a grammar, the manuscript of which is still extant, and at least one pamphlet in Arabic, addressed to the Mandaeans, with the hope of convincing them to convert to Christianity. He was also the author of a Mandaic-Arabic-Latin-Persian-Turkish dictionary, an anonymous manuscript quoted, but not identified by R. Macuch, Neumandäische Chrestomatie mit grammatischer Skizze, Kommentierter Übersetzung und Glossar (Porta Linguarum Orientalium, n. s. 18, Wiesbaden, 1989). On his figure, life and works, M. Taglioli, Padre Matteo di San Giuseppe: medico, botanico e missionario seicentesco, unpublished dissertation, University of Udine (Italy), academic year 1996/97, pp. 120-xcvi and 66 pictures. On the “pentaglot” dictionary, R. Borghero, Un glossario manoscritto del xvii secolo in latino-mandaico-arabo-turco-persiano, unpublished dissertation, University of Turin (Italy), academic year 1999/2000, pp. 178 and 4 tables, and “A 17th Century Glossary of Mandaic”, ARAM, 11-12 (1999-2000), pp. 311-319. E. LUPIERI 43

Rome. The two Mandaeans, whose Arabic names are known,67 received the Christian names of Isidoro Pamphili (from Pope Innocent X’s family name) and Giovanni Battista Orsini (from Cardinal Orsini’s family name) and were reason for much hope, especially among the Carmelites. We even have a letter from another Carmelite missionary, proposing to the Propaganda Fide that Isidoro be named Catholic bishop of Hoveyzeh, in Persia. In Rome, however, they were entrusted to Abraham Ecchellensis, a Maronite from Lebanon, one of the most learned people of his time.68 As he relates in a book of his published in 1660,69 he was not only able to discuss religious subjects with them,70 but also to read the books they had brought with them or which were in Rome in those years.71 He is acquainted with the Ginza, the Book of John, and the Book of the Zodiac.72 Abraham is fully aware that Mandaeanism is a Gnostic

67 They were Abdelsaid (‘Abd al-Sa‘id) and Abdelahed (‘Abd al-Ahad). 68 Ecchellensis is the Latin rendering of al-Haqili, as he was born in the small village of Haqil, Lebanon, in 1605. Professor of Arabic and Syriac at the universities of Rome and Paris, he was engaged in the Latin translation of the works of the Eastern Fathers, in monumental projects such a polyglot Bible and an Arabic Bible, and in defending the Catholic orthodoxy of the ancient oriental ecclesiastical writers, against the different opinions of Protestant orientalists. 69 De origine nominis Papae nec non de illius proprietate in Romano Pontifice adeoque de eiusdem Primatu, etc. (vol. 2 of Eutychius Patriarcha Alexandrinus Vindicatus, et suis restitutus Orientalibus. Sive Responsio ad Ioannis Seldeni Origines, etc.), (Rome, 1660), n. 10, pp. 310- 336. 70 When he relates the Mandaean version of the anti-Jewish history of Abraham’s circumcision (De origine nominis, pp. 323-225), without naming them explicitly, he quotes as his source not books, which he does not have, but his friendly conversations and frequent discussions with “many” Mandaeans (“Haec non ex eorum excerpsimus libris, aut monumentis, quae nobis non extant, sed oratenus a quampluribus illorum, quibuscum familiarissime conversati sumus, ac saepissime disputavimus”; pp. 324-325). I suppose these conversations and discussions cannot have taken place anywhere else but in Rome and with our two brothers. 71 Propaganda Fide had asked Ignatius to provide as many Mandaean books as possibile. The Diuan Abatur in the Vatican Library (see no. 31) is the most famous scroll sent by Ignatius, but in his letters he always talks of books, using the plural. It is certain that there were several Mandaean texts in Rome, by the middle of the XVII Century (see next note). 72 Concerning the Ginza, Abraham says its title is Sedra Ladam, which according to him should be translated as “Ordo sive Liber Adamo” (De origine nominis, p. 328), “because [the Mandaeans] say it was not written by Adam, but given to Adam by God” (p. 329). It is divided in 21 “parts or tomes” (p. 329; this would correspond to the 18 “books” of the Right Ginza and the 3 of the Left Ginza, but Ecchellensis does not seem to be aware of the existence of the two large sections nor to have ever seen the whole book) and he has in his possession the first chapter, “written in Mandaean characters, together with an alphabet” (“Sabaitarum characteribus exara- tum, quemadmodum et Alphabetum”: p. 333). Concerning the Book of John (“Drascia Diahia”), he says it is divided into two sections (“partes”). In his opinion, the first one should be considered a “meditation” since it begins with “Iahia meditated at night, Ihana (sic) in the evening of the night”; the second one is a dispute of John with Jesus, when the latter wanted to be baptized (p. 333). Ecchellensis says the first part is absolutely peculiar, with the whole story of John, from his conception to his funeral, including the description of his tomb (“ipsum monumentum, ac tumulum”: p. 334). Ecchellensis relates something also of the dispute: John is surprised by the fact that Jesus is so wise in spite of his young age. Ecchellensis explains that the Mandaeans think Jesus was fourteen when he was baptized (p. 333). All this is quite surprising to us. The life and deeds of John are contained in “chapters” 18-33 of the Book of John (concerning the “chapters” on John the Baptist in the Book of John, their origin and meaning in literary Mandaean tra- 44 FRIAR IGNATIUS OF JESUS (CARLO LEONELLI) AND THE FIRST “SCHOLARLY” religious belief, with decisive dualistic aspects,73 and therefore not only strongly criticizes Ignatius in his work, but also quashes the episcopal plans of the two brothers and blocks their passports for Portugal (where they had hoped to go, to obtain imperial favours). Isidoro and Giovanni Battista did not abandon their projects. Not having obtained the status of bishops, they asked to be knighted and finally to be appointed as official missionaries by Propaganda Fide. In the end, with many Christian books in Arabic and very many letters of recommendation, they set sail for the East. Captured by pirates, they were ransomed by an Armenian Christian from Cyprus; in Aleppo they managed to be guests of the French consul and to receive financial help from Propaganda Fide; in Lebanon they tried (in vain) to be ordained bishop and priest by the Maronite patriarch. They reappear in our sources around 1655. At that moment, Mandaeans and other religious minorities were facing a wave of persecution by the shah of Persia and by the pasha of Basra. Our two brothers were thus busy convincing relatives and other Mandaeans to convert to Christianity. But this is the last time they seem to act as Christians; years later, another Carmelite relates about Isidoro-Abdelsaid’s “relapse” into Mandaeanism.74 ditions, see my Giovanni Battista, esp. pp. 212-230 and 244-278), but their content is not so organized as it appears from Ecchellensis’ presentation (and he does not seem to know anything concerning the rest of the Book, which does not pertain to John). Furthermore, in the Book of John, as it is today, there is no description of his sepulture nor his tomb. The sentence Ecchellensis quotes, then, appears 14 times in the Book of John, at the beginning of 14 out of the 16 chapters on John, but not at the beginning of the first (the one with the announcement of his conception). And finally, the surprise of John (because of the young age of the boy who wants to be baptized) is not to be found in the Book of John, but in the Ginza, where the young person (three years and one day old), is not Jesus, but Manda dHiia (on this see my Giovanni Battista, Appendix 6, pp. 413-416, and pp. 325-326; it is worth mentioning that a) Siouffi’s informant thought that Jesus was baptized by John at twelve [Siouffi, Études, p. 138] and b) in a Chinese Nestorian text, the so-called “Jesus-Messiah Sûtra” [l. 166], Jesus is baptized “when he was over twelve years old”: P. Y. Saeki, The Nestorian Documents and Relics in China, [Tokio, 1937], pp. 141 and 158. All this seems to be related to Lc. 2,42). In any case, also concerning the Book of John, Ecchellensis says he has the first chapter at hand (De origine nominis, p. 335). Regard- ing the book he calls Sphar Maluasce, he is mostly interested in the way the Mandaeans decide the astrological name of children and in their constant use of the matronymic. This time we do not know whether he had any text in Mandaic before him. It is not clear where those written Mandaean texts are now. As such, they are not listed among the Codices Ecchellenses, in the Bibliotheca Orientalis Clementino-vaticana etc., tomus primus “De Scriptoribus Syris Orthodoxis”, published in Rome, 1719, by another very learned Maronite from Lebanon, Joseph Simon Assemani. It is not impossible that they ended up in the private library of the same Assemani, who writes about Mandaeans and Mandaeanism in 1728 (Bibliotheca, tomi tertii pars secunda, cap. V: “De Sabaeis etc.”, pp. dcix-dcxiv, where he also strongly criticizes Ignatius’ historical hypothesis). Unfortunately, Assemani’s library perished in a fire few months after his death (1768). 73 “Duo illi rerum creatarum principia tenent”: De origine nominis, p. 325. 74 For more details on the history of the two brothers, see my Mandaeans, pp. 100; 104; 107- 108. E. LUPIERI 45

8. Ignatius’ dreams were a complete failure. The relocation of the Mandaeans did not take place, their conversion did not become reality, his scholarly work was strongly criticized in Rome, in books published by that same Propaganda Fide which had published his own book in 1652. If we had to draw a balance and if we used such elements for our judgment, it would have to be a negative one. But this is not the case. Though Ignatius was a man of his time and even if he may not have cor- rectly interpreted the contradictions in his missionary project, nevertheless, thanks to his personal and passionate involvement, we have not only the most extensive among the oldest descriptions of Mandaeanism, but also we have the testimony of the deepest attempt to understand Mandaeanism in those years. Certainly not detached or “politically correct” as we would expect from, say, a university professor, Ignatius’ work shows that there is still a possibility of dialogue, and of personal and human involvement, even if the aim is conversion.

JThS: Journal of Theological Studies (Oxford). 46 FRIAR IGNATIUS OF JESUS (CARLO LEONELLI) AND THE FIRST “SCHOLARLY”

Fig. 1: See note 55