INTRODUCTION
THE AUTHOR Michael the Great was born in Melitene in the year 1126 within a Syriac1 Orthodox priestly family, for his father was a priest, his uncle Athanasius Zachai was a bishop, and some of his brothers and nephews rose to bishopric ranks. He became a monk at the distinguished Monastery of Mōr-Barṣawmō,2 located in the region of Melitene, the mention of which occurs almost in every folio of his Chronicle that has been edited and translated in the present book. The monastery was the patriarchal seat between the 11th and the 13th centuries, before its transfer to another prestigious monastery, that of Mōr-Ḥananiō. This monastery, commonly known as Dayr al-Zaʿfarān (Saffron), is located near the city of Mārdīn in eastern Turkey and was the patriarchal seat from 1293 to First War I.3 Michael became the abbot of the Monastery of Mōr-Barṣawmō4 for ten years and in 1166 he was elected patriarch in a most instable period, politically, militarily and ecclesiastically. Politically, there were countless ruling entities that fought against each other to impose their hegemonies over lands in Anatolia, including Crusaders (always called frangōyē “Franks”),5 Turks, Arabs (always called Ṭāyyōyē), and
1 In this book, the term Syriac refers to the Orthodox Church, literature and authors, while the term Syrian refers to the Orthodox Christians in general. 2 Mōr-Barṣawmō was a monk and abbot during the turbulent years of the Christological disputes (essentially mid-5th century). His popularity among the Syrian Orthodox is immense, and the relic of his right arm placed in the monastery bearing his name was greatly venerated and was also the source of healings as Michael reported. On the holy man, see L. Van Rompay, “Barṣawmo,” Gorgias Encyclopedia, p. 59. 3 See G. Kiraz, “al-Zaʿfarān, Dayr,” Gorgias Encyclopedia, p. 449. 4 On the Monastery of Barṣawmō see E. Honigmann, Le couvent de Barṣauma et le patriarcat jacobite d’Antioche et de Syrie, CSCO 146 (Leuven: Peeters, 1967). See also H. Takahashi, “Barṣawmo, Dayro d-Mor,” Gorgias Encyclopedia, pp. 60–61. On the ruins of the monastery, see A. Badwi and F. Baroudy, “Le couvent de Barsauma: Redécouverte du site,” ParOr 31 (2006), pp. 243–56. 5 This is also true in Ibn-Athīr, al-Kāmil, and in other medieval sources. The highly pejorative (if not sectarian) term ṣalībiyyūn “Cross-carrying people” seems to be a creation of the late 19th century to refer to Europeans in general.
ix x THE CHRONICLE OF MICHAEL THE GREAT: BOOKS XV TO XXI
Armenians. Militarily, Melitene, near which the Monastery of Mōr-Barṣawmō was located, was ransacked several times, and its monks deported. Even Edessa, “the Blessed City,” was not spared violence, having been conquered by Zangi (†1174), casting doubt on the belief among all Christians that it would never be subdued as promised by Christ.6 Ecclesiastically, the Syriac Orthodox Church during Michael’s patriarchate was marred by rebellious bishops and anti-patriarchs, problems that were partially due to the great insecurity that the Turkish invasion of Anatolia had created among the natives. Notwithstanding the prevailing violence in the society and his sometimes contested patriarchate, Michael the Great found time, clarity of mind, and determination to write a voluminous world chronicle, which he completed four years before he died in November 7, 1199. Michael the Great was probably not aware that his Chronicle would enjoy wide circulation, unlike, for example, the Chronicle of Zuqnīn or that of Dionysius of Tell-Maḥrē. It was copied a number of times, translated into Arabic (Garshuni) and into Armenian, and served as a major source for the polymath Metropolitan7 Bar- Hebraeus (1226–1286). And in this age of digitization, his Chronicle has been also digitized, and thus, its survival has become secure.
THE ORGANIZATION OF THE CHRONICLE Unlike Bar-Hebraeus who wrote church and world histories in two separate volumes,8 Michael’s Chronicle combines these two histories in one large volume in two separate columns.9 He added a third column containing what we may call ‘natural history’ (usually referred to as variae), which includes celestial observations, earthquake reports, and meteorological conditions. He included chronological synchronistic tables placed at or near the beginning of each Book and in between chapters. He listed in these tables dates and names of ruling dynasties, including Turkish, Arab Caliphal, Frankish and Greek, using different computation systems: Seleucid, Nativity, the Olympiad and the Hegira, with the latter always associated with caliphal rulers. He added at the end of dynasties “sums of years,” that is the total years calculated periodically according to the Seleucid and Nativity
6 The belief is based on an apocryphal letter, said to have been sent by Jesus to Abgar, king of Edessa; see G. Howard, The Teaching of Addai, Texts and Translations 16 (Chico: SBL, 1981), p. 9. 7 The term Metropolitan ܘ is attested in inscriptions until the turn of the second millennium, and thereafter, the term maphryōnō (√ܝ ) replaced it; Harrak, Syriac and Garshuni inscriptions, in EA.01.01 (possible 9th century) and EA.01.04 and FA.01.12 (year between 887 and 904) the title is Metropolitan, and in FA.02.13 (year 1123/4), the title is maphryōnō. For convenience, the term Metropolitan is systematically used in the present book. 8 See the ecclesiastical history in Barheb. Eccl. Hist., Barheb. Chr. Syr. 9 The Edessa-Aleppo Syriac Codex of the Chronicle of Michael the Great, edited by Gregorios Yuhanna Ibrahim, Text Summary by Sebastian P. Brock, Photographs Provided by Hill Museum & Manuscripts Library (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2009); hereafter Mich. Syr. INTRODUCTION xi computation systems. The Seleucid system begins in 311 BC and the Nativity began, according to Michael, when “our Lord was born on the 25th of First Kōnūn (December), the year 316,”10 which corresponds to the year AD 5! In the same table,11 he dates the first AD year to Sel. 317, which corresponds to AD 6 and Olympiad 195. With such evident miscalculation in dating the Nativity, even the 16th century Edessan copyist of Michael’s Chronicle was shocked, for he added a note below a chronological table12 as follows: “Know O brother that the computation of the years of Christ is entirely erroneous; I do not know if it is due to the copyist before us or to the author; pray for me.” The error appears to be Michael’s since he also miscalculated the Seleucid and the Hegira dating systems. The structure of the Chronicle and its historical contents were discussed in great detail by Dorothea Weltecke in a monograph.13 The chronological tables are reminiscent of the canones set by the 4th century Eusebius of Caesarea, which were expanded by Jacob of Edessa (640–708)14 to nearly the end of the 7th century. The tables were extended by Michael the Great from where Jacob of Edessa had stopped to the end of the 12th century. Jacob of Edessa likely inspired Michael in presenting chronology. Jacob and the Latin and Armenian versions of Eusebius’s canones,15 placed the chronological tables in the middle of each page on both sides of which basic information of interest to church and ‘natural’ histories is added. Eusebius concentrated his attention to ancient rulers mostly west of the Euphrates, while Jacob of Edessa was the first to also include Persian and later Arab (caliphal) rulers, a practice that was adopted by other Syriac chroniclers to cover later centuries. These chroniclers also adopted the computation systems of Eusebius, namely the Olympiad and the Seleucid, which they extended to the 12th century.
10 Mich. Syr. p. 91 column 3 (left): ̄ ܕ ܢ ̄ ܢ ܬܐܘ. 11 Mich. Syr., p. 91 (bottom). 12 Mich. Syr., p. 116 (column 3, bottom): .ܘܗ̄ ܕ ܕ̈ ܕ ܢ ܐ ܥܕ ܨ ܘܗ݁ ܘܐ݁ ܕ ܘܗ̄ ܘ ܥ ݁ . 13 D. Weltecke, Die «Beschreibung der Zeiten» von Mōr Michael dem Grossen (1126–1199): Eine Studie zu ihrem historischen und historiographiegeschichtlichen Kontext, CSCO 595 (Leuven: Peeters, 2003). See also J. van Ginkel, “Michael the Great and his sources,” Journal of the CSSS 6 (2006), pp. 53–60. 14 The manuscript was edited by E.W. Brooks, “Chronicon Jacobi Edesseni,” in E.W. Brooks, I. Guidi, I.-B. Chabot, Chronica minora, vol. III (CSCO 5/Syr. 5; Paris 1905), pp. 261–330, and was translated into Latin by Brooks in id. (CSCO 6/Syr. 6; Paris 1905), pp. 197–258. See also E.W. Brooks, “The Chronological Canon of James of Edessa,” ZDMG 53 (1899), pp. 261–327; 54 (1900), pp. 100–2. 15 See subsequently Rudolph Helm, Eusebius Caesariensis Werke, Band 7: Die Chronik des Hieronymus, Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte 47 (Berlin: Academy-Verlag, 1956; repr. De Gruyter, 2012); Josef Karst, Die Chronik: aus dem Armenischen ubersetzẗ mit textkritischem Commentar, Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte 20 (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung, 1911). xii THE CHRONICLE OF MICHAEL THE GREAT: BOOKS XV TO XXI
The innovation of Michael the Great consists of inserting the tables, not in continuity as in the canones, but in sections, and not in the middle of the page but at the bottom, after the titles of Books or within chapters. As with Eusebius and Jacob of Edessa, Michael gave the sums of years in Olympiad, Seleucid and Nativity, all placed after the listing of rulers, and added the sums of years in Hegira after the ruling caliph. The present edition its translation include these chronological tables in Syriac and English renderings. As an example, the following table16 explains how the Chronicler organised his dates, beginning with those on the right side:
The Olympiad computation 4 3 2 1 4 = Sequence of a ruler within system is associated with the Turkish and Frankish Olympic Games of ancient dynasties. The following Greece, which began in 776 numbers are yearly compute of BC, and counted every four each rule.
years thereafter. Olympiad 481 Yearly compute of the ruling caliph, followed by the sum of
Eusebius used the Olympiad system in his canones until the Hegira years (italics mine). middle of the 4th century; 4 3 2 1 95, 45 = The first digit is the total Jacob of Edessa brought it to Greek imperial rule; the second the end of the 7th century, and is the sequence of the named Michael the Great expanded it emperor in rule. Then yearly even more, to the end of the compute. th 12 century: Olympiad 494 Sums of years = The first, in = Seleucid 1505 (=AD 1195). regular font, is the Seleucid era;
the following (italics mine), is the corresponding Anno Domini (AD). To convert Seleucid to AD, deduct 311 from the first— in this Table the first conversion should be AD 1124!
As noted by the copyist’s note above and then by Chabot,17 the calculations of Michael the Great are often erroneous. The meticulous French scholar placed at the end of his three volumes of translation long tables in which he gave all the dates found in the Chronicle, along with corrections, which he marked in bold. Chabot quoted the dates as they appeared in the 1888 hand copy of the Edessa manuscript (see below), where the Syriac script is not only tiny but often carelessly traced and sometimes even illegible. It is beyond the scope of the present book to collate the chronological data of the 1888 copy against the Edessan version, to assess the validity of the former’s dates.
16 See p. 214. 17 J. B. Chabot, Michel le Syrien patriarche jacobite d’Antioche (1166–1199), vol. III (Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1905), p. 414; for his list of corrections see pp. 415–425. Hereafter Chabot, Michel. INTRODUCTION xiii
COPIES OF THE CHRONICLE The autographon of the Chronicle of Michael the Great is not extant, lost probably during one of the catastrophies that befell the Monastery of Mōr-Barṣawmō. A copy of the Chronicle was produced nearly four centuries after the death of the author, traced by a monk who left his name more than once in short colophons, one of which says: “This account is also completed. Let the reader pray in love for the frail and sinner Michael son of Barṣawmō of ‘Urbish; he wrote it as much as his lacking and weak strength allowed him. This was in the year 1909 of the perfidious and corrupt Greeks.”18 The Seleucid year in the above quotation corresponds to AD 1598. The copyist was an outstanding calligrapher, whose Serto script is clear and elegant. His notes about erroneous dates and misspellings tell that he copied not the autographon, which is not extant, but a copy of it (copy of a copy). Unlike some copyists who never hesitated to correct erroneous spellings or even changing dates and unclear passages,19 Michael of ‘Urbish simply marked them and corrected them in the margins. In case of questionable readings, he placed in the margins ܘܐ݁ “or (such and 20 such”); when he confirmed readings he placed ܬ or (for ܬ or ܳ “correct;” same folio), and when he made corrections he placed ̄ (for ܪܗ ܳ “illumination”). He copied sometimes large notes placed inside borders, probably as they were originally found in the autographon, because the notes are written in the first person. Lastly, he made sure to write in red at the end of accounts “the account is completed,” or “this account is completed—Lord, forgive the sins of the poor copyist.” When he wrote these colophons in Arabic, he expressed himself colloquially. The copyist’s manuscript became the property of Edessa, and when the Christians of this city abandoned this hub of Syriac Christianity in 1924, they brought it with them and was kept in the Church of St. George (Mār-Jirjis) in Ḥayy- al-Suryān (Syrian Quarter) in Aleppo. Thanks to the magnanimity of Aleppo’s current Bishop Yuḥannā Ibrāhīm (alas still in captivity!) and the permission of majlis al-millī “Church Council,” the manuscript was digitized by the Hill Museum and Manuscript Library in 2008 and then published by Gorgias Press in facsimile in
18 See p. 74. Here (and in some other manuscripts), the phrase “perfidious Greeks” replaces the more frequent “blessed Greeks.” Was the copyist influenced by Michael the Great who often blamed his contemporary Greeks of their mistreatment of the Syrians on Christological grounds? 19 Different hands changed dates and terms in the Codex Zuqninensis, clearly detectable by different ink colours; A. Harrak, The Chronicle of Zuqnīn Parts I and II: From the Creation to the Year 506/7 AD, Gorgias Chronicles of Late Antiquity 2 (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2017), p. 96 and n. 274. 20 See p. 429 and n. 1152. xiv THE CHRONICLE OF MICHAEL THE GREAT: BOOKS XV TO XXI
1999.21 This manuscript is by far much better than its copy, which was executed in Edessa in 1888 by Deacon Gabriel on behalf of Chabot.22 The present edition is based on the noted Edessan manuscript. The Chronicle of Michael the Great enjoyed wide circulation as early as the 13th century. It was one of the major sources used by Bar-Hebraeus in his ecclesiastical and world chronicles, quoting it sometimes verbatim. The Armenians, who lived side by side with the Syrian Orthodox in eastern Anatolia, produced two abridged translations of the Chronicle: one in 1246 by the priest Yēshūʿ of Ḥasan- Keph, and another in 1248 by Vardan Areveltsi, whose contents were introduced to Europe through a French translation.23 An Arabic translation was made in 1759 by Yuḥanōn Shuqayr of Ṣadad, Bishop of Damascus, of which a number of copies still exist. Although its Arabic is colloquial, it is valuable since it helps in understanding and sometimes in solving obscure passages in the Syriac version.24 Finally, Hidemi Takahashi25 drew the attention to two manuscripts containing excerpts from the Chronicle, Sachau 61 (Berlin) and Yale, Syriac 7; one excerpt dealing with disagreement on the dates of Lent and Easter in AD 1102 (Book XV Chapter 8), and the other with the confusion of the date of Easter in AD 570 (Book X Chapter 3). These quite minor variants are not taken into consideration in the present edition. Chabot’s translation of the Chronicle is still the only one known to and used by modern scholarship. Less known is the Arabic rather free translation made by Bishop Ṣalībā Shimʿūn of Mosul,26 which also lacks annotations. More recently, Matti Mousa published the first English translation of the entire Chronicle,27 leaving aside chronological tables.
21 G. Kiraz, “Acknowledgements,” Mich. Syr., p. xiii. 22 Chabot, Michel. 23 Translation of the Armenian version: Ara E. Dostourian, Armenia and the Crusades: Tenth to Twelfth Centuries: The Chronicle of Matthew of Edessa (Lanham, 1993); hereafter Mat. Edess. On Armenian manuscripts, see A. Schmidt, “Manuscrits arméniens de la chronique du Michel le Syrien dans le fond patriarcal à Jérusalem,” in C. Mutafian and G. Dédéyan (ed.), La Méditerranée des Arméniens (XI–XVe siècle), Paris (in print). 24 The various translations of the Chronicle are reprinted By Gorgias Press: https://www.gorgiaspress.com/syriac-texts-and-translations-of-the-chronicle-of-michael- the-great-volumes-1-4-4-volume-set. 25 H. Takahashi “Excerpts from the Chronicle of Patriarch Michael I in Mss. Berlin Sachau 81 and Yale Syriac 7,” Michel. Syr., p. xxxiii. 26 Mār Grīgōriōs Ṣalībā Shamʿūn, Tārīkh Mār Mīkhā’īl al-Suryānī al-Kabīr [The History of the Syriac Mār Michael the Great], vols. I–III (Aleppo: Dār Mardīn, 1996). 27 Michael Rabo (The Great): A Universal History from the Creation, translation and Introduction by Matti Moosa (Teaneck, NJ: Beth Antioch Press, 2014). INTRODUCTION xv
HIGHLIGHTS IN BOOKS XV TO XXI
Secular History “Everything happened and will happen with His knowledge, through His will, His command, or His desertion.”28 Michael the Great is an important source concerning the rise of the Turks and of the Crusaders, and about nearly two centuries of wars between many powers, all coveting the extensive and rich land of Anatolia, then under Byzantine control. The Turks, called by the Chronicler the “sons of Gog (coming) from the north,” appeared on the political-military scene around the year 1050, led by their leader Ṭughrul-beg. In 1067 they had invaded inner Syria, beginning with Aleppo, and by 1078 they had conquered all of Armenia, Antioch, and the region as far Nicea and Nicomedia, a victory that won Alp-Arslan the title of Sultan, conferred to him by the Caliph of Baghdad. They also defeated Fatimid Egypt, snatching from them Damascus, Jerusalem, and the whole of Palestine, in addition to Tyre and Sidon. But the Turks were by no means united enough to have a durable hegemony over the lands they conquered, for though their invasion of Upper Syria was executed sometimes by disparate military lords, the illustrious among them would be supported by the Caliph of Baghdad. This explains why the Crusaders, after warring first with Constantinople between 1090 and 1098, had free hand to capture Antioch, Edessa, and then Jerusalem, while the Armenians exploited the military vacuums to impose their hegemony over their homeland, Greater Armenia. During the 11th century, the Greeks were still in partial control of Anatolia, which the Turks little by little snatched away from them militarily. Having lost their grip over once Byzantine lands, they supported anti-Turkish rebellions often led by Armenians, as in the case of Philaretus who ruled over most of Greater Armenia and as far as Edessa and even Antioch. The Chronicler sheds much light on the many antagonistic powers in Anatolia, who were driven above all by self-interests, sometimes warring against enemies and in other times allying themselves with them. Turks and Arabs were often in conflicts against each other, as was the case of Zangi, the governor of Mosul, who captured Aleppo in 1135 (in fact it was in 1128) and gouged the eyes of its Arab governor whom he later sent to Mosul.29 He also persecuted the Arabs elsewhere, capturing Saif-al-dawla Dubays in Palestine and deporting him to Mosul.30 The Crusaders, too, allied themselves with their archenemies, the Turks, against Saladin of Egypt:
28 p. 268. 29 p. 172. 30 pp. 178–180. xvi THE CHRONICLE OF MICHAEL THE GREAT: BOOKS XV TO XXI
“The citizens of Aleppo sought refuge especially in the Franks, who dispatched Reginald, the one who came out of captivity, and the Lord gave him victory, having destroyed most of his (Saladin) forces.”31 Troubled by this Crusader-Turkish alliance, Saladin besieged and captured the former’s capital and stronghold, Jerusalem. The mighty Saladin was challenged by Franks coming from Europe and had no choice other than to negotiate with them. Crusaders also allied themselves with Turkish factions fighting against each other, but made the local Christians pay a very heavy price. The Turkish lord of Ḥiṣn-Ziyād sought refuge in Joscelin II, Count of Edessa, who gave him the fortress of Bēt-Bula to fight Zangi of Mosul, and in the past Joscelin had helped Sultan Masʿūd, governor of Ḥiṣ-Kipha, against Zangi. Thus, when the Frankish governor went to Antioch, the people of Ḥarrān, who were archenemies of Edessa, informed Zangi that Edessa was without an army, enticing him to gather an immense army that besieged and vanquished the “Blessed City” in 1145. He first negotiated with the Edessans to surrender their city lest it be destroyed, but Hugh, the Frankish Archbishop of Edessa, counting on the arrival of the crusading army to assist the besieged city, refused to negotiate. Thus, Zangi crushed Edessa and its shrines, while its inhabitants, Greek, Armenian and Syriac, suffered unspeakable atrocities. Touched by the massacre of the people, Zangi stopped the war, and in that mayhem, asked the Syriac Orthodox archbishop Basil to rebuild the city in people and services. Michael the Great blamed Joscelin, who did not understand that he had no advantage to quarrel with Turks on account of Turks, as he put it. The fall of Edessa shocked its Christian inhabitants because of the general belief that Christ promised King Abgar that his city would not be overtaken by the enemy. Sometimes religious animosity among Christians led to their demise militarily.32 When the Greek Emperor Romanos Diogenes was about to fight the Turks in Greater Armenia, the Armenian forces in his army gave up the fight, because he pressured them to accept their “Christological heresy,” a fact that explains his defeat at the hands of the Turks. Michael the Great contrasted between the two leaders: While violent Diogenes planned to burn the Turkish commander if he won the war, the victorious but merciful Turkish commander sent him back to Constantinople after his capture. Even worse: Upon the emperor’s return to Constantinople, his eyes were gouged and he died shortly thereafter. The perpetrator was Michael VII Ducas, who, after hearing that Diogenes was captured by the enemy, seized the imperial throne. The Chronicler is also an important source about the Crusaders, who first targeted Constantinople in war for eight years, and only thereafter they directed their attention to Antioch and Edessa before taking over Jerusalem. He seemingly was fascinated by these European warriors, for he devoted a long account to the Templars and their strict fraternity regulations, highlighting their asceticism, total
31 p. 380. 32 p. 28. INTRODUCTION xvii obedience to their superiors, and staunch Christian faith. At a time of famine, the Templars proved to be so generous that they shared with the poor the last grains they had, and as a reward, a miracle happened, for the granaries were suddenly found filled to capacity with wheat, barley, wine and grain, and they were flowing.33 He always ascribed the victories of the Crusaders against Turks and Fatimids to the help of God, but attributed their defeats to the iniquities of their kings. He clearly preferred Crusaders over the Chalcedonian Greeks, especially for their inclusive attitude, but also their disdain of the Greeks: “While during this time the Franks ruled Palestine and Syria, having with them bishops in their churches, they never argued with regard to the Faith and (in defense of) one doctrine for all the Christian nations and tongues; on the contrary, they acknowledged anyone who paid homage to the Cross as Christian without inquiry and examination.”34 Even the Turks are better than the Greeks, as far as the Chronicler was concerned: “Even the Turks who dominate most of the territories of their own and who do not know the holy sacrament—for this reason they consider Christianity an error—do not have any law whatsoever to investigate religions or to persecute on account of doctrines, unlike the Greeks, an evil and heretical nation.”35 The Chronicler bitterly reported the killing of Sa‘īd son of Ṣābūnī, the Syriac Orthodox Metropolitan of Melitene, at the hand of this city’s governor, the Greek Chalcedonian Gabriel. He seems to report gladly how in Antioch the Crusaders “ousted the Greeks from the great churches and expelled their bishops,” who were replaced in the city and in the rest of Syria and Palestine by Frankish bishops. Later, the Chronicler changed his positive attitude toward the Crusaders to negative one for three reasons: First, Edessa’s invasion by ʿImād-al-dīn Zangi of Mosul, which he considered to be due to military mismanagement by the Crusaders who left no army in the city of Abgar to resist hostilities. Second, in 1146, with Zangi dead, Joscelin (II) and Baldwin thought that they had free hand to regain their control over Edessa. Although they lacked military power, they nevertheless attacked it. As a result, a great number of Turks, coming from everywhere “like locusts” defeated them, because “the support of God departed from them (=Crusaders).” The atrocities against the people of Edessa this time were so hurtful that they wished to have died during the first destruction of their city!36
33 p. 114. 34 p. 144. 35 p. 144. 36 p. 238. xviii THE CHRONICLE OF MICHAEL THE GREAT: BOOKS XV TO XXI
Third, Joscelin II sacked the monastery of Mōr-Barṣawmō in 1148.37 Because the Chronicler was the abbot of this monastery, he discussed the ransacking of this stronghold of Syriac Orthodoxy in great detail, likening it to Nebuchadnezzar’s sacking of Jerusalem. Joscelin pillaged everything in the monastic church, including even the sanctuary veils; worse, he broke a golden ceremonial cross into pieces and distributed the pieces among his soldiers. Even the Muslim ruler of Melitene, Dawlā son Emir Ghāzī, mocked Joscelin: “thus, you have no Christian faith.” The Chronicler talked about Armenian military attempts that proved to be temporarily successful to control Armenian lands within Greater Armenia and beyond. Around the year 1085,38 Philaretus, a gang chief, took away most of Cilicia from the Turks, in addition to such important cities as Antioch, Edessa, and Melitene, aided militarily by Byzantium. The power of Philaretus was short-lived, as it was soon challenged by the Turkish powerful military machine. To keep up his hegemony over the regions he subjected, Philaretus went to the caliph in Persia for help. The Armenian chronicler Matthew of Edessa39 is exceptionally critical of this man, just like our Chronicler, for both informed that he apostatised in Persia, given his inability to contain the Turkish power in Anatolia. Some Armenian dynasties, among them the Rupen, administered Cilician cities. Near the end of 11th century, Armenians controlled mountainous regions inaccessible to invaders in Cilicia, Samosata, Keshum, and mountains near the Monastery of Mōr-Barṣawmō. Armenian families took control of these regions, including the Rupen and the Sanbil who were Syrians, and the Basils, including Kogh Basil and Dgha-Basil. Sometimes conflicts occurred between Armenians and Syrians, instigated by individual men of authority like Kourtig, who worked under the Basils. Finally, with the constant information provided by the Chronicler about the city of Melitene, two centuries of history pertaining to this city and its region can be written. This is understandable since the Chronicler was native of Melitene and, moreover, the Monastery of Mōr-Barṣawmō was located near it. The city was devastated first in 1125: “[A] strife took place between the Lord of Ḥiṣn-Ziyād and that of Melitene, an open door opened for Emir Ghāzī son of Tanushman, the Lord of Sebastea, to take Melitene. In Ḥezīrōn (June) 13 of the year 1436 (AD 1125) … He ordered them to strike the city every day, especially its gates, and not to let anyone to go in and go out. Thereafter, distress befell its inhabitants because of bitter famine.”40 The Chronicler added that the inhabitants, mostly Christian, suffered three bitter rods … a sword outside … an unbearable hunger inside, and evil rulers using
37 p. 262–264. 38 p. 38. 39 Mt. Edess. 137–139; on this chief see C. J. Yarnley, “Philaretos: Armenian Bandit or Byzantine General,” REA 9 (1972), pp. 331–353. 40 p. 138. INTRODUCTION xix torture in prison, and beatings to collect money.41 In 1143, Sultan Masʿūd “besieged Melitene, and after he installed siege engines to fight, stupor befell him and thus did not steer the battle,” apparently as a result of sorcery!42
Ecclesiastical History “When I was called to this awesome (patriarchal) service, I was diligent that I must observe and fight on behalf of the holy canons!”43 Expectedly, administrative issues fill most of the second column, which is devoted to ecclesiastical history. Geography sometimes underlay these problems, given the fact that the Syriac Orthodox Church extended as far as Takrit and beyond in the East, to the Mediterranean in the West, and to eastern Anatolia, including Ṭūr- ʿAbdīn, to the North. Athanasius was elected patriarch in 1058, but because this was done without the agreement of the eastern bishops, these bishops went as far as electing Mōr-John the son of Shoshan as a second patriarch in Āmid. Such an anomaly was usually solved when one of the two patriarchs died or gave up his rank, as was the case of Mōr-John. The latter, a prolific writer and ascetic of conducts, canonically became patriarch in 1063 after the death of Athanasius. When Mōr-John died after serving just one year as patriarch, he was followed in 1074 by the Monk Basil of the Monastery of Mōr-Barṣawmō, but when the latter died after a year and a half in service, troubles began. The Monk ʿAbdūn bribed secular leaders, including the afore-mentioned Philaretus, to become patriarch, but was eventually anathematized and banished. Administrative troubles generated lawlessness in which, for example, John, the metropolitan of Takrit, unlawfully extended his power to Nisibis and even to Ṭūr-ʿAbdīn. The Chronicler confessed that “the believers experienced unbearable anguish because of the destruction of ecclesiastical orders, and many went as far losing hope concerning the faith that is belittled.”44 Sometimes minor issues erupted into major problems. Patriarch Athanasius bitterly conflicted with the bishop of Edessa Bar-Ṣābūnī, because of “lectionaries of the Gospels that were the property of the patriarchate.” Manuscripts were in antiquity and medieval times part of material wealth, and if they were liturgical, they were deemed priceless. This explains why the rebellious Bar-ʿAbdūn used the lectionaries “plated with silver and gold”45 as a pledge when he borrowed money to bribe governors in his favour, as mentioned above. Even the Crusaders were never able to solve the strife between these two major administrators!46 Relations between the Syriac Orthodox Church with other Christological Churches are also discussed. Michael’s unequivocal application of ecclesiastical
41 p. 140. 42 p. 204. 43 p. 364. 44 p. 48. 45 p. 84. 46 pp. 116–117. xx THE CHRONICLE OF MICHAEL THE GREAT: BOOKS XV TO XXI canons put him at odds even with Armenian Church leaders, whom he accused of nepotism: “because their priestly leadership did not follow the way that the Apostles had traced; if only (their leadership) was in the likeness of just kings and not of tyrannical ones!”47 During the 11th century, the Greeks were still the masters of Anatolia, and thus frictions were dominant between Orthodox and Chalcedonians. The first always denigrated the latter as “heretics” and the latter kept pressuring the former to accept the Council of Chalcedon, while the Turks were viciously attacking both: “The Christians are persecuted outside by pillaging and despoiling by Turks, and are even more oppressed inside by the Chalcedonians!”48 In Antioch, around the year 1054, some Syrians joined the Chalcedonians because of inner quarrels among the Orthodox, and thus a church newly built there by the Orthodox was confiscated. Worse, still at the time of the Turkish invasion, the Syriac patriarch and bishops, along with some Armenian counterparts, were summoned to Constantinople to explain their doctrines, which were summed up by the Syriac polyglot Ignatius, the metropolitan of Melitene, who was among the detainees. The Chronicler contrasted between the harassing “heretics” and the Crusaders, who “agreed with and loved all who paid homage to the Cross.”49 By contrast, the relations between Syriacs and Copts, both called ṭrīṣay šubḥō “Orthodox,” were always very friendly; when a new patriarch was appointed, he would send his confession of faith to the other. If the patriarch was Coptic, he would send the profession written in Coptic but accompanied by a translation in Arabic. The Syriac patriarch would presumably send his confession of faith in Syriac with a translation in Arabic. Michael the Great always called the Syriac Orthodox srīdē “remainder,” possibly because the Orthodox were spread out over a very extensive region as mentioned above, and thus had no fixed ‘land,” compared for example with the Armenians and Greater Armenia. The Orthodox were also decimated by the Arabs in the east and by the invading Turks in the north and in the west. Compared with the Armenians who were involved militarily and administratively, the Orthodox, who had no civil administration and an army to protect them, seemed rather passive. This Orthodox attitude is known as early as the 9th century, when Patriarch Dionysius of Tell-Maḥrē said to Caliph al-Maʾmūn: “O just king … Your wisdom knows well that there are between you and us promises and pacts and writings authenticated by signatures and seals of caliphs who conquered the cities and under whose authority we submitted to you…”50 Patriarch Dionysius’s statement conceals a general belief among the Orthodox that Christianity as a religion was not limited to an ethnic land but was
47 p. 358. 48 p. 22. 49 p. 104. 50 A. Harrak, “Dionysius of Tell-Maḥrē: Patriarch, Diplomat, and an Inquisitive Chronicler,” in M. Doerfler, A. Fiano, and K. Smith (eds.), Syriac Encounters, Eastern Christian Studies 20 (Leuven: Peeters, 2015), pp. 215–235. INTRODUCTION xxi universal, a belief echoed by the Chronicler when he talked about the Crusaders, in that paying homage to the Cross united all kinds of Christians. Finally, Michael the Great believed that Divinity, not temporal power, controlled human destiny. Faithfulness toward Christian ideals brought success, but any related failure, whether personal or administrative, is attributed to meštabqōnūtō “(divine) abandonment.” Nothing changed from ancient times in Mesopotamia, when diseases and other failures were thought to be the consequences of divine desertion!
‘Natural’ History “A terrible sign in the likeness of a lance was seen after sunset in the west. It remained for three hours (a day) and was seen for seven days. It was said that it indicated blood.”51 The third column reports earthquakes, swarms of locusts, eclipses, comets, and such other natural phenomena of unusual characteristics. Interestingly, the Chronicler scorned more than once astrologers who went wrong in their predictions of natural phenomena as a result of gathering of planets: “For many years, the astrologers began to say that in the month Īlōl (September) of this year (=AD 1186), the following seven stars called ‘wandering’ (=planets): The sun, the moon, Saturn (Kronos), Jupiter, Mars (=Ares), Mercury, and Venus will gather together and meet in one zodiac sign, that of Libra. They said that this gathering together of the seven in one sign never happened before except in the days of Noah, at which time they gathered together in the sign of Pisces which is rainy, and that is why there was the Deluge. Now then, while the gathering together will be in Libra, they claimed that there will be a deluge by a storm…”52 Ironically, when the day came, the weather was reported to be serene and the air pure, and this pleasant weather is said to have lasted for months, contrary to the claim of the astrologers. Michael’s scorn is understandable, since for him, God, not the stars, is the master of Creation, and only divine desertion can negatively affect human and natural activities. Tremor reports suggest that they frequently occurred in the Mediterranean, especially along its shores, which caused Antioch and Damascus, among other places, to collapse. Earthquakes also happened in inner Anatolia, in its eastern and western regions, causing Constantinople and other cities to fall. Comets are no longer called qūmiṭīs, a loanword from Greek komētēs, but mostly kawkbō ṣūṣīnō, literally “curly star.” This Syriac phrase is indeed a translation of the Greek term komētēs, which literally means “(star with) a flock of hair” or “long-haired (star)”. The coining of this descriptive name must not be the Chronicler’s since it occurs in
51 p. 218. 52 p. 438. xxii THE CHRONICLE OF MICHAEL THE GREAT: BOOKS XV TO XXI one of his sources for the year 1106; in the Chronicle of Zuqnīn, the term ṣūṣīntō “curl” appears along with makneštō “broom” in the year 768/9.
SYRIAC WRITING OF MICHAEL THE GREAT The Syriac language of the Chronicler is highly professional, as well as traditional. It also seems that it was his spoken language, as would have been the case in Syriac monasteries and elsewhere. This is demonstrated by his mastery of expression, whether in religious or in administrative context. He also knew Arabic, and could conduct serious conversations in it, as was the case with Emir Sayf-al-dīn of Nisibis concerning the rebellion of Evanius Denḥō, Bishop of Callinicum.53 He could read books in Arabic,54 since he consulted sources in this language, as he did on the rulers of Aleppo of the 11th century. It seems that not all ecclesiastical leaders were conversant in Arabic, for he especially commended those who spoke this language before Arab officials. For example, after Zangi stormed Edessa, the latter realized that Bishop Basil was “talking intelligibly in the Arabic languages,” and thus he discussed with him the return of the stricken citizens to their tormented city. In the year 1194, the Coptic Patriarch Evanius sent his confession of faith to Patriarch Michael the Great written in both Coptic and Arabic as indicated earlier.55 With regard to geography, the Chronicler systematically used ancient names and not current ones. Although the author is a top ecclesiastical leader, and hence versed in the biblical language, these names are not drawn from the Old Testament, but possibly from his awareness that such names as Assyria, Nineveh, and Babylonia were his ancestral lands. The following list illustrates his naming of lands:
Syriac Location Traditional Remarks Toponyms Arabic ,Not to be taken literally اﻟﺠﺰﯾﺮة Northern Syria to the Mediterranean Antioch being the patriarchal seat there -Possibly biblical Aram ﺟﺰﯾﺮة اﺑﻦ ﻋﻤﺮ Ḥābūrō-Khābūr ܬ region naharaim and presumably a rendering of Arabic Jazīrā ܪܘܬܐ Heartland of Assyria Aramaic-speaking rural region; bread-basket of the North Seemingly the region Diocesan name, versus of two monasteries, Takrit Mōr-Mattai and Mōr- Behnām
53 p. 364. 54 p. 366. 55 p. 466. INTRODUCTION xxiii
ܘ ܪܘܬܐ Iraq as a whole, north and south ܪܐ Greater Armenia north of Cappadocia
The Chronicler distinguishes between Mosul, Nineveh and Assyria (spelled Ātōr). The toponym “Mawṣel” (Mosul) is specifically mentioned as the seat of Turkish governors, including Zangi. Although the 12th–13th century Yāqūt56 associated Nineveh with Mosul, he adds: “God knows!” which means he was not sure. For Michael the Great, Nineveh is different from Mosul: “the people of the East had a law that it was the metropolitan of Takrit who used to ordain metropolitans for Nineveh and Mosul”57 (italics are mine). It seems that Nineveh is not a city but rather the name of the chora of Mosul: “villagers of the region of Nineveh;” and “the monastery of Mōr-Mattai in the chora of Mosul and Nineveh.” “Nineveh” contains several Christian towns and villages, in addition to the large Monastery of Mōr- Mattai, where the inhabitants were essentially farmers, speaking Aramaic as a mother tongue. Assyria is the north of Mesopotamia, the heartland of ancient Assyria: “This chastisement happened not only in Assyria, Bēt-nahrīn, and Syrian…;” “roads of circulation in all of Syria, Bēt-nahrīn, and Assyria;” “the Christian people of Assyria and Bēt-nahrīn suffered a blow.” The term Anatolia is never encountered and the Chronicler used Byzantine districts and provincial names like Cappadocia, Nicaea, Nicomedia, which were still in use during the Turkish invasion of these regions. The Chronicler’s historiographical language is largely clear and lucid, despite the appearance of a few obscure passages or words in the 16th-century copy of the Chronicle. It is not known whether or not such passages are by the author. However, it appears that the 16th-century copyist noticed them and attempted to correct them in the margins. The Arabic translation, despite its colloquial nature, also helps in solving ambiguities. The following lists of some terms might shed some light on the author’s linguistic expression. The first list contains Arabisms, the usage of which tells that the author was aware of the subtleties of Arabic:
Arabism Syriac Rendering Syriac Cognate Meaning
Storks أﺑﻮاﻟﺤﺪﯾﺞ ̈ܐ (Green (Church (ﻛﻨﯿﺴﺔ) اﻟﺨﻀﺮاء ܬ ( ܪ perhaps) ܕ Mule ﺑﻐﻞ ܕ ̈ (…Fortress (of ﻗﻠﻌﺔ ܬ < > To throw away طﺎح√ ”Lays siege“ ﺣﺎﺻﺮ ܟ ܼܿ ܪ ܿ To sneak away ﻣﺮق√ ܼ ̣
56 Yāqūt, Mu‘jam I, p. 92. 57 p. 310. xxiv THE CHRONICLE OF MICHAEL THE GREAT: BOOKS XV TO XXI
Mosque of the Rock ﺻﺨﺮة ܰ ܰ To conquer ﻓَﺘَ َﺢ ܐ ܚ (Brass (toponym ﺻﻔﺮ ܨ Partridge ﻗﺒﺞ ̈ < ̈ > (To set out (for a place طﻠﺐ (ﻣﻜﺎﻧﺎ) ܠ ,To keep busy ﺷﻐﻞ occupied
The Arabic term for “storks” suggests that he used an Arabic source about a curious account concerning two kinds of birds who launched a “battle” against each other, resulting in heavy casualties on both quarreling sides! The spelling galʿa is for qalʿa; while there is qōf in Syriac, its spelling with gomal suggests that it was colloquial. Although the term ܕ is possibly from Syriac ܬ , it is probably an Arabism: in the sense of ̣ ܚ .in reference to the “Green Church” of Takrit ,(اﻟﺨﻀﺮ) ܪ “to conquer” is clearly an Arabism where the author could have used √ ܐ. The second list contains loanwords from Greek, Armenian, or Latin:
Loanword Syriac Rendering Syriac Cognate Meaning
լիճ ܒܙ ܘ Lake (region) ἀκολουθία ܬ ܐ Sequence, order αίρεσιώτης ܐ Heretics ἀννῶνας ܤ ܐ Allowance αὐθεντία ܬܘܐ ܬ - Authority ἀννῶνας ܤ ܐ Allowance γεωμέτρης ܘ Geometry δαρεικός, δαρικός, ܕ̣ Darics (Old Persian) δαριχός κειμήλιον ܢܘ ܬ ܨ̈ Property (valuable) κομήτης ܨܘܨ Comet Κοντάριον ܘܪ Lance φούρνος ܢܘܪ ܪ ܬ Oven μήτατον Income Portion ὄργᾰνον ܢ ܪܘܐ Agent πυργίσϰος ܕ ܘ ܨ Chest, armoire πίναξ ̣ Board Σημεῖον ܢ ܬܐ Sign (atmospheric) χαράκωμα ̈ Engine (military) Χώρα ܪ ܪܬܐ District (rural) Castrum; káστρων ܬ Clausura Shut passes in Divine اﻟﺪاوﯾﺔ = ܕܐܘ Divina Ibn-Athīr, al- INTRODUCTION xxv
Kāmil X, 258.
The striking side of this list is his systematic use of ‘archaic’ terminology where he could have used current terms even as loanwords. Thus, ecclesiastical domains are always called ōṯanṭiyyā and rural regions are systematically called kōrā, instead of atrā. The same is true for drīkūnē, an Old Persian term referring to “coins, currency,” rendered in Greek as δραχμά and Arabic dirham. The third list includes administrative terms used during the two centuries or so, covered by the present book:
Foreign Administrative Term Syriac Rendering Syriac Cognate Meaning
Eὐνοῦχος ܘܐ Eunuch ἡγεμών ܐ - Governor Σύγκελλος; syncellus ̣ Attendant Asbaslar (Turkish) ܐ ܪ Commander Atabeg (Turkish) ܬܐ Educator/governor ܿ ̈ վարդապետ ܪܬ ܼ Doctors ժամ Քէ րէ լ ܐ ܡ ܬ ܨ ܚ (Nickname) Կատապան ; κατεπάνω Curopalates (Palatial) Minister ܘܙ وزﯾﺮ Chamberlain ܒ ﺣﺎﺟﺐ (Theologian (Islam ̈ ﻓﻘﯿﮫ ̈ colloquial Arabic) Casual worker) ﻓﯿﻌﻞ Governor - ܙ (Persian) ﻣﺮزﺑﺎن Tabellarius Messenger Legatus Legate
Some of the administrative terms are multilingual, reflecting the ethnic, religious and administrative complexities of Anatolia in the first two centuries of the second millennium AD. The terms are also highly technical and had no counterparts in Syriac, and thus, they had to be transliterated from Greek, Latin, Armenian, and Arabic originals. Nevertheless, in some cases, the Chronicler applied ‘outdated’ terms to refer to positions or administrative names that were currently used in his own time. He systematically used ʾigmūnō, Greek ἡγεμών, to refer to an Arab or Turkish “governor,” whereas he could have used Syriac šalīṭō, or medabrōnō, or even Arabic ʿāmil. The term feʿlōtō referred to casual workers in general, and it must be a rendering of Classical Arabic faʿalat(un) and colloquial Arabic fēʿel, in reference to labourers in general. There is of course the Syriac ̈ , which means the same, but is masculine plural, whereas feʿlōtō is feminine plural. In any case the Chronicler did not use Syriac ̈ . Finally, the term ōnūksō, Greek Eὐνοῦχος, has a cognate in Syriac used quite often by the Chronicler, , from Akkadian ša rēši “that (who stands) near (the king).” It is quite possible that the eunuch in question was referred to by xxvi THE CHRONICLE OF MICHAEL THE GREAT: BOOKS XV TO XXI his Greek title Eὐνοῦχος “The Eunuch,” but the Chronicler, writing in Syriac for Syriac-speaking readers, could have employed the familiar Syriac term instead. It is not clear why the Chronicler opted for archaic geographical names, ancient administrative titles and foreign vocabulary, instead of using current counterparts. He certainly encountered ancient titles and foreign vocabulary in old chronicles, which he quoted or compiled while producing his voluminous Chronicle, and he possibly considered them as part of the Syriac “chronographic language.” But he also knew that his Syrian Orthodox community was distinct from other communities, and this may have inspired him to use ancient names to highlight the identity of his people, who were not Greeks or Armenians or Arabs. Already in the 8th century, the Chronicler of Zuqnin spoke of “the land of the Aramaic-speaking sons of Ārām,”58 in reference to Northern Syria and to the Aramaic-speaking people living there.
SOURCES OF BOOKS XV TO XXI Michael the Great rarely mentions his sources for the period covering the years from AD 1050 to AD 1195. It appears that he relied on his memory and that of his oral sources, and he was likely a witness to the events he described. Sometimes he inserted long texts written by authors whom he named, to make a point relevant to events he treated. The following authors are quoted by the Chronicler:
Jacob of Edessa (died in 708) While discussing the destruction of Edessa, Michael the Great quotes Jacob of Edessa as follows: “Jacob of Edessa said about its destruction.” This destruction is dated to the time of Sennacherib when he was marching to capture Jerusalem.59 The very ancient history of Edessa probably comes from Jacob of Edessa too: “Nimrud… was the first king after the Deluge… He built three cities: Erech (=Uruk), Ur, Cala(ḥ), that is Urhoy (=Edessa), Nisibis and Seleu(cia).”60 Jacob must have relied on Ephrem the Syrian who also associated Edessa with Erech. Jacob was thus the Chronicler’s main source regarding the period before the 7th century.61
Dionysius of Tell-Maḥrē (died in 845) His non-extant chronicle is a major source for Michael the Great for the period before the 9th century. He is quoted with regard to a tradition according to which the metropolitan of Takrit was to ordain metropolitans “for Nineveh and Mosul,” as
58 A. Harrak, The Chronicle of Zuqnīn: Parts III and IV A.D. 488–775, Mediaeval Sources in Translation 36 (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1999), p. 225. 59 p. 254. 60 Mich. Syr., 10 (right; middle of the column). 61 On the ancient history of Edessa see my forthcoming “Reconstructing the Chronicle of Edessa.” INTRODUCTION xxvii follows: “The book of Dionysius of Tell-Maḥrē shows that the beginning of this custom was from the time of Patriarch Cyriacus” (died in 817).62
Basil Bar-Shumōnō (died in 1169) This Metropolitan of Edessa wrote a history of Edessa in which he also traced the city’s fabulous beginnings as follows: “After the Flood that took place in the days of Noah, the king Nimrod, from among the sons of Canaan, built Urhoy and called it Ur, that is Quriat “city” in which the Chaldeans dwelled. He added -hoy, which means the Quriat of the Chaldeans, just as Ur-šlem means ‘the city of Šlem.’ It was prosperous for a long time but was then destroyed.” This is of course a folk etymology, since the ancient name of Edessa was not Urhoy but Adme attested in cuneiform sources.63 Basil quoted Jacob of Edessa partially, since the folk etymology is that of Basil. Michael the Great quoted Basil about the Cumans as a witness: “The Cumans are in part Turks and their tongue is Turkish. They do not know Moses or the prophets, or Christ our Lord, or Muḥammad, and wherever they go, their wives, children and luggage are with them.”64 The Chronicler comments on Basil’s writings: “Then Basil, the Metropolitan of Edessa, wrote three mīmrō-discourses in the metre of Mōr-Jacob on Edessa, because he was present in both periods (of the destruction of Edessa).” He referred readers to these five mīmrē-discourses,” which means that they were accessible.65 The account on the second destruction of Edessa in the year AD 1147, includes the following lamentation: “O cloud of anger and day without mercy, in which the rod of intensive fury doubled on the miserable Edessans! O night of death, morning of hell and day of destruction that overtook the children of the desirable city …”66 This does not come from Michael the Great, who by that year must have been still young.
Dionysius (Bar-Ṣalībī) Bishop of Āmid (died in 1171) With regards to the destruction of Edessa, Dionysius wrote two works: a) a Discourse on account of Edessa, and b) an Admonishing discourse in the account
62 p. 310. 63 See A. Harrak, “The Ancient Name of Edessa,” JNES 51 (1992), pp. 209–2014, and on the general history of the city J. B. Segal, Edessa the Blessed City (Oxford: Clarendon, 1979). 64 p. 112. 65 p. 230. 66 p. 238. xxviii THE CHRONICLE OF MICHAEL THE GREAT: BOOKS XV TO XXI of the destruction of Edessa.67 The Chronicler went out of his way to praise Dionysius as an exceptional writer:68 “He is fit to be called Laborious like Jacob of Edessa, because he very much excelled in the labour of instruction. He gathered (writings) and composed very trustworthy books: Commentaries of all the prophetic books, I mean all of the Old Testament; glorious commentaries on the Gospel, the Epistles, and the Acts that he produced; (commentaries) on the teachings of Gregory the Theologian, the books of Basil, Dionysius, Gregory of Nyssa, the books of the holy Severus; those of Peter of Callinicum, and of the Centuries of Evagrius the Ascetic. He also composed a disputation book against all the heresies and religions that oppose our Orthodox faith, and commentary books of dialectics of such foreign authors as Aristotle and others. He wrote a book on theology, a chronicle, and a collection of letters and mīmrē-hymns. He compiled and produced a major book containing all the melodies of our Church.” Dionysius wrote a chronicle possibly used by Michael the Great to describe the destruction of Edessa by Zangi.
Patriarch John Bar-Shoshan (died in 1073) Michael the Great does not quote this author specifically but the fact he reported his works implies that he drew information from him: “He wrote twenty-four canons … He filled the universe with his letters and volumes filled with sound instruction, commentaries and sweet admonitions... And in most of the books that he wrote, he paid attention to the teachings of Mōr-Ephrem and Mōr-Isaac (of Antioch), which he compiled in one book that he wrote with his own hands in his old age.” (581) Elsewhere, the Chronicler added, “Bar-Shoshan, who is Mōr-John, wrote four mīmrē-discourses on the destruction of Melitene, two according to the metre of Mōr-Ephrem and two according to the metre of Mōr-Balai.”69
Joseph the Monk (mid-11th century) He wrote “three mīmrē-discourses on this event (Turkish invasion of Melitene), and on the same happening.” His writing could have been used by the Chronicler in writing about the invasion of Melitene in AD 1050.70
67 p. 300. 68 p. 338. 69 p. 32. 70 p. 6. INTRODUCTION xxix
Ignatius Metropolitan of Melitene (died in 1094) Michael the Great quoted this author at length concerning his departure to Constantinople to be interrogated about his Syriac Orthodox faith before the Greek Chalcedonian patriarch.71
Evanius of Keshum (died in 1171) Michael the Great noted: “We wrote very diligently this book of chronicle, compiling (accounts) from many and varied sources,” one of them was by Evanius.72 He refuted the bishop of Mārdīn who claimed that “temptations strike the righteous ones entirely without the will of God,” thus undermining divine providence.
Arabic Sources Michael the Great acknowledged on more than on occasion that he used Arabic sources, although he did not name them. The following are the specific references to the Arabic sources: “We found in the books of the Arabs that the name of the sultan who defeated the Romans was Abū-al-Fatḥ, and that the war between the Romans and the Turks was near Āmid. Perhaps the name “Alp-Arslan” was given to him by the caliph as a title when he established him as sultan.73 “It is declared in Arabic books written in Assyria and Babylon that in the year five hundred of the Arabs (AD 1106/7), while al-Mustaẓhir was the Caliph of the Arabs in Baghdad and Ghiāth-al-dīn was the Sultan of Khorasan, the Ismaelis killed the latter’s vizier whose name was Abū-al-Muḍaffar.”74 In the following quotation, he said that he wrote a whole chapter again on the basis of an unspecified Arabic source: “We have written down this entire chapter, which is classified at the end of the present mīmrō-chapter, drawn on a book written in the Arabic language. It contains accounts dated before the present time, and this is for two reasons: First, the Arabs calculate lunar years, and the second, we found this Arabic book lately. Therefore, the reader has to understand that the account written below on Najm- al-dīn the Artukid, who reigned over Aleppo, precedes the one concerning Belek, which is written above, because Belek reigned over Aleppo after Najm-al-dīn had died.”75
71 p. 24. 72 p. 210. 73 p. 310. 74 p. 126. 75 p. 126. xxx THE CHRONICLE OF MICHAEL THE GREAT: BOOKS XV TO XXI
It is not clear if Michael the Great consulted the writings of the Arab historian Ibn- Athīr, his contemporary for a time (Ibn-Athīr was born in 1160 and died in 1233), if he indeed produced his major opus before 1195. The establishment of a new governor of Takrit is described by both the Chronicler and Ibn-Athīr in al Kāmil, (vol. IX, p. 100), as follows: Michael the Great: “In this same year, five hundred of the Arabs (=AD 1106/7),
THE PRESENT PARTIAL EDITION The present edition and its translation begin with Book XV and end with Book XXI, the last Book in the Chronicle, thereby covering more than 160 years, from AD 1031 to AD 1195. Book XVIII misses at least nineteen folios, and thus probably 80% or so of its content. Chabot, in his French translation, filled the gaps from the Ecclesiastical History of Bar-Hebraeus, irrespective of whether or not the large quotations from this author were a replica of the missing part in Book XVIII. This has not been done in this edition and its translation, and the reader can refer to the writings of Bar-Hebraeus to directly draw information.
76 p. 128. INTRODUCTION xxxi
The digital Syriac text was kindly provided by Dr. Kristian Heal of Brigham Young University. It needed to be collated against the 16th century Edessan manuscript since it contained countless typos, missing lines, and often wrong diacritical marks and other symbols. Also the chronological tables had to be drawn more or less the way they look in the manuscript. All these tasks required extensive time and vivid attention, but were necessary so that readers may compare between the Syriac text and its translation. As mentioned earlier, the chronicle of Michael the Great is divided mostly into three columns, and these are numbered in the present edition and in the translation as follows: 1) The central column, which contains secular history; 2) the right column, which deals with ecclesiastical history; and 3) the left column, which records natural events, including seismic activities, climate catastrophies, appearances in the sky, and other features of relevance to nature. Sometimes this order is interrupted by the insertions of additional texts of relevance to what is discussed in one of the columns. The order is also not strict as topics often intermingle and thus the numbering in this edition aims simply at facilitating the reading of the Chronicler. The English translation follows the Syriac as closely as English allows it, to give the flavour of the Syriac text. The footnotes concentrate on parallel accounts found in other Syriac sources, namely Chronicle 1234 and Bar-Hebraeus. Sometimes the Arabic Garshuni version of Michael’s Chronicle is consulted as quoted by Chabot, in order to clarify difficult or unclear passages in the Syriac version. For comparative purposes, the Chronicle of Mathews of Edessa and the History of Ibn-Athīr are consulted despite their shortcomings; Mathews is more homiletic than Michael and the objectivity of Ibn- Athīr is sometimes questionable—each time he mentions al-Franja “the Franks” he adds “may they be cursed!” Michael the Great too sometimes labelled the Greeks as accursed and heretic! Notes in the Syriac edition deal with linguistic matters, including identifying verbal roots, improving confusing passages, and explaining etymologies. I am indebted to Professor Arman Akopian of Yerevan University for his help in dealing with Armenian etymologies and terms, and am also grateful to Dr. Khalid Dinno, Colin S. Clarke, MISt, and Reagan Patrick for going through the English translation. Last but not least, I am grateful to my family, my son Ryan and my wife Sarah, for their moral help necessary to complete this publication project.
EDITORIAL ABBREVIATIONS Arab. Arabic AD Anno Domini (Gregorian calendar) BC Before Christ Akk. Akkadian Arm. Armenian ca. circa F Folio H Hegira Ms. Manuscript (Edessan) xxxii THE CHRONICLE OF MICHAEL THE GREAT: BOOKS XV TO XXI n. Note p. Page Sel. Seleucid Era s.a. sub anno s.v. sub voce (see under) Syr. Syriac
< > Enclosed portion is a correction made on the manuscript ( - ) Enclosed portion is Anno Mundi or Seleucid date converted into AD ( ) Enclosed portion is a supplied word or words […] Small portion of uncertain length missing [… …] Long portion of uncertain length missing [ ] Enclosed portion is a reconstruction [F000] Folio number ! Conjecture reading or translation (caution must be used) √ Root of a verb ┌ Enclosed portion discussed in a footnote.