Of Leo III and 'Umar II: Traces of an Early Christian Arabic Apologetic Work
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Cecilia Palombo The “correspondence” of Leo III and ‘Umar II: traces of an early Christian Arabic apologetic work Abstract: This article compares and revisits the corpus of texts pertainingtothe so- called “correspondence” between the Byzantine emperor LeoIII and the caliph ‘Umar b. ‘Abdal-‘Azīz. By adducing textual, philological and palaeographic argu- ments, Isuggest thatall the extant versions of the “correspondence” ultimatelyde- rive from an original Arabic Christian apologetic work, composed probablyinmid- eighth century,inthe monastic circlesofSyria-Palestine. While acknowledging the importance of previous research on the subject, this article hopes to provide an orig- inal explanation thatmight finallyaccount for both the similarities and the differen- ces between the various extant versions of the “correspondence”.Besides clarifying the origin and transmission history of this text,the results of this studyhavebroader implications for the history of Muslim-Christian relations in the earlyIslamic period, for the creation of aChristian Arabic culture, and for the circulation of literarytexts between the Dāral-Islām and Byzantium in the earlyMiddle Ages. The so-called “correspondence” of Leo III (r.717– 41)and ‘Umar II (r.717– 720CE/99– 101 H)¹ is arguably one of the most interesting texts of the Christian-Muslim debate from the earlyIslamic period. Because of its singular transmission history,itisalso a text thathas lent itself to manymisinterpretations. The dating of the “correspond- ence”,its authorship, its audience and function, as well as its original languageof composition, are all problematic issues. Several hypotheses have been formulated over the years, but none of them seems conclusive or thoroughlypersuasive.This is partlyaresultofthe reference to the emperorLeo,which has long sidetracked re- searchers,and partlyitderivesfrom the fact that very different versions of the “cor- respondence” exist,written in different languages and in different historical con- texts.This linguistic barrier has often led to too specialized, narrow analyses that have prioritized one version over the others. This paper will aim at combiningthe information provided by the various ver- sions of this source, in order to suggest anew explanation of their origin, which mayaccount for boththeir similarities and their variations.The most recent contri- butions to the studyofthe “correspondence” will be acknowledged, and the main hypotheses advanced by scholars recapitulated. At the sametime, it is the hope of this paper to contributetothe discussion by radicallyshifting perspective and intro- The hijrī date(H) will be givenalongwith the year of the CommonEra (CE) onlywith referenceto Muslim leaders,ortohistorical figureswho livedunder the caliphate. Authenticated | [email protected] author's copy Download Date | 12/2/15 5:15 PM 232 Cecilia Palombo ducinganew interpretation,inawaythatmight enhance our understandingofthis complex source. In general, scholarship has tendedtoemphasise either the Byzan- tine or,morerecently, the Islamic nature and origin of the “correspondence”;itwill be argued that,inboth cases, this has led to adownplaying of relevant issues, and that either hypothesis is vulnerable to counter-arguments. Instead, Iwould liketo put forward anew explanation concerning the nature of this source, the environment in which it was created, and its implications for the historical context. 1. Indirect references to the “correspondence” The earliest mention of an epistolary exchangebetween the emperor LeoIII and the caliph ‘Umar b. ‘Abdal-‘Azīzisfound in the Chronicle of Theophanes (d. 818),² under the entry for Anno Mundi 6210 (717/18CE): In the same year,aviolent earthquakehavinghit Syria, ‘Umar banned [the use of]wine fromthe cities,and forcedChristians to become Magaritai (magarizein).³ Those whobecame Magaritai, he made them exempt [from taxes?], while those whorefused, he killed them. He caused manymartyrs [to die]. He also decreed that the testimonyofaChristian against aSaracen would not be accepted. And he composed (epoiēse)aletter about doctrine (epistolēndogmatik- ēn)addressed to the emperor Leo,supposing to persuade him of Islam (peisein auton tou mag- arisai).⁴ ‘Umar’sletter is thus included among alist of measures taken by the new “masterof the Arabs” (kratēsas tōnArabōn)inrelation to the Christians.⁵ It is noteworthythat ‘Umar’sepistle is characterised as dogmatikē,probablyhinting at its religious mes- Ed. Carl G. De Boor, TheophanisChronographia (Leipzig:B.G.Teubneri, –). All following quotations of Theophanes’ workwill depend on this edition. See also Cyril Mango,Roger Scott, TheChronicle of Theophanes Confessor:Byzantine and Near-Eastern history, A.D. – (Oxford: Clarendon Press, ); and Andreas Kaplony, Konstantinopel und Damaskus.Gesandtschaften und Verträgezwischen Kaisern und Kalifen – (Berlin: K. Schwarz, ), p. By magarizein,Theophanes probablymeans conversions to Islam. It is not easy,however,toassess what “conversion” exactlyimplied at that time. The term probablyreferred to formal and informal practices of acculturation and, most importantly, social assimilation that would hardly be rendered by the modern “to convert”. Magaritai,moreover,does not preciselycorrespond to “Muslim”,asit reflects the author’spolemicalstance, as wellas, probably, the Eastern origin of his source on these events. This name, in fact,islikelytoreproduce the earlyadaptation in Greek of an original Arabic term (muḥājirūn). It appears in seventh- and eighth-century Greek documents,and it is attest- ed also in aSyriac form (mhggrāyē). In other passages, Theophanes prefers the Greek Sarakenoi or Hagarenoi. See Robert G. Hoyland, “New Documentary Texts and the EarlyIslamic State”,BSOAS (), – (–); Robert G. Hoyland, Seeing Islam as OthersSaw it: aSurvey and Eval- uation of Christian, Jewishand Zoroastrian Writings on Early Islam (PrincetonNJ: Darwin Press, ), pp. –,p. and n. ,pp. – and nn. –;Patricia Crone, “The First-Century Con- cept of Hiğra”, Arabica / (), – (–). Theophanes, Chron.,p..Cf. Mango’stranslation (cf. fn. ), p. Theophanes, Chron. pp. –. Authenticated | [email protected] author's copy Download Date | 12/2/15 5:15 PM “Correspondence” of Leo III and ‘Umar II 233 sage, and that it was aimed at persuading Leo.⁶ The last sentence mayinfactmean that ‘Umar was trying to convert the emperor, which is indeedhow manytranslators rendered magarizein.⁷ This readingisconsistent with the iconophile topos of Leo’s “philo-Islamic” behaviour,which can be found elsewhereinTheophanes, as well as in the canons of the Councilof787.⁸ On the other hand,the meaning might also be that ‘Umar was defending the act of magarisai,that is the doctrines and prac- tices associated with Islam.⁹ As it will be shown in what follows, the content of the “correspondence” seems to corroborate this second interpretation. Notably, Theo- phanes does not sayexplicitlythat ‘Umar sent aletter to the emperor,nor that Leo replied to it; this is aremarkable detail, as it is doubtful that anyletterwas ever actually sent. Theophanes’ referencetothe “correspondence” is the onlyone that occurs in Greek literature, with the exception of George Kedrenos (mid-eleventh century), who, however,depends on the Chronography and cannot thus be considered an in- dependent attestation.¹⁰ Outside of Byzantium, asimilar account was givenbyMah- būbb.Qūṣṭānṭīn, bishop of Manbij(Mabbug), better known as Agapius (d. 941or942 CE/329 H).¹¹ Like Theophanes, Agapius mentions the earthquake and aseries of Cf. Kaplony(cf. fn. ), p. Thus Mango(cf. fn. ), p. ;Hoyland (cf. fn. ), p. ;Arthur Jeffery, “Ghevond’sText of the Correspondencebetween ‘Umar II and LeoIII”,HThR / (), – (); Ilse Rochow, “Zu den diplomatischen Beziehungenzwischen Byzanz und dem Kalifat”,in: Claudia Sode, Sarolta Takàcs (eds.), Novum Millennium. Studies in Byzantine Historyand Culture. Dedicated to Paul Speck. (Aldershot: Ashgate, ), pp. – (). Theophanes, Chron.,p.;Giovan DomenicoMansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum novaetamplissima collectio (Paris,Leipzig:Welter, –), vol. XIII ,pp. E, D. This passage in the Acts of the Council of Nicaea, however,was possiblyinterpolated; see Stephen Gero, Byzantine Iconoclasm during the ReignofLeo III (Louvain: Corpussco, ), pp. – (esp. –); John Haldon, Leslie Brubaker, Byzantium in the Iconoclast Era(ca. –). AHistory (Cambridge:Cambridge Univer- sity Press, ), p. and n. ,based on Paul Speck, Ich bin’snicht, Kaiser Konstantin ist es gewesen:Die Legenden vom Einfluss des Teufels,des Juden und des Moslem auf den Ikonoklasmus (Bonn: Habelt, ). This translation is implied by Gero’ssummary of the passage: “Theophanes merely notesthat ‘Umar wrote to Leo,toconvince the emperor of the truth of Islam [italics added]”,in: cf. fn. ,p.. Gero(cf. fn. ), p. On this author,see Mark Swanson, “Mahbūbb.Qūṣṭānṭīnal-Manbijī”,in: David Thomas,Alex Mallett (eds.), Christian-Muslim Relations.ABibliographical History. Volume (–)[hence- forth CMR ](Leiden, Boston: Brill, ), pp. –;see also Kaplony(cf. fn. ), p. ; Alexander D. Beihammer, Nachrichten zumbyzantinischen Urkundenweseninarabischen Quellen (–) (Bonn: R. Habelt, ), pp. –.Agapius’ universal history survivesintwo manu- scripts from the library of St Catherine at Sinai (Ar. and Ar. ,uncertain dating), containingthe history of the world until the Incarnation, and in one manuscript preserved at the Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana (FlorenceOr. , ). The latter is the onlyone that contains the second part of the work, edited by Alexandre Vasiliev in PatrologiaOrientalis