Syrian and Armenian Christianity in Northern Macedonia from the middle of the eighth to the middle of the ninth century

The present study will be focused on a phenomenon known relatively long ago but still not fully appreciated — Syrian and Armenian compact communities, not just diaspora appeared in the middle of the eighth century in the northern Macedonia. Now I will not exhaust this topic either. I hope, nevertheless, to provide a “critical mass” of data demonstrating that the relevance of the phenomenon we are dealing with was so far underestimated. The nature of the earliest Bulgarian Christianity is not understandable without its background in local communities of Syrian and Armenian Christians.

The archaeologists and historians of architecture were the first ones to notice the relevance of these communities for the local architecture and, therefore, pointed to some literary witnesses related to their appearance in the lands of the modern Republic of Macedonia. Nevertheless, according to the a priori supposition held by the consensus of historians, any somewhat important Church building in the territory devastated by the Avars ca 580 and belonged to the Bulgarian kingdom in the time of its conversion in the 860s could not be dated to the period in between these dates.

Oddly enough, I have never met an archaeological study where a possibility of dating a church construction in Macedonia to the eighth or the first part of the ninth century would have been taken seriously. Neither have I met an explicit statement substantiating impossibility of such dating for the territories of the modern state of Macedonia, which were a part of a Christian Empire before the 830s. Such a possibility is never disproved but simply never discussed. The simple question where are the churches of the resettled there Syrians and Armenians is so far never formulated.

My present purpose is, after having summarised the findings and conclusions proposed so far by archaeologists and architecture historians, to review the relevant historical witnesses in an exhaustive manner.

2.    The Palaces in Pliska and Their Architects

In 1968, Anatoly Leopol’dovich Yakobson (1906—1984) published a seminal paper on the influence of the Syrian and Armenian architectural traditions on the earliest architecture in the Bulgarian Kingdom1. Then, he was dealing mostly with the early ninth-century palaces in Pliska: Yakobson noticed that these palaces had the closest parallels in palaces constructed in Armenia during the seventh century; these palaces were then recently excavated and not widely known.

Realising that his data are severely limited, Yakobson formulated his conclusion as a new hypothesis but the most plausible among the available ones. His ideas were adopted by Stancho Vaklinov (1921—1978) in his influential book (Vaklinov 1977: 108—109) and by Rasho Rashev in his definitive monograph on the excavations in Pliska2, but still without any additional substantiation.

The main conclusion by Yakobson is worth to be quoted in extenso :

МАИАСК № 10. 2018

Syrian and Armenian Christianity in Northern Macedonia from the Middle of the Eighth to the Middle of the Ninth Century

Therefore, a direct communication of the Bulgarians with Armenians and Syrians (incidentally, the born masons) would have occurred (and, undoubtedly, did happen) precisely during the period of intensive construction works in the Bulgarian capital Pliska. Direct participation in this construction of Armenian and Syrian architects is more than probable3.

According to Yakobson, these Armenians and Syrians who were in contact with the Bulgarian khan’s court were the people resettled under Constantine Copronymus (741—775) (Yakobson 1968: 205—206). He did not discuss the manner in which such contacts would have been effectuated—through the inter-state border between the Byzantine Empire and the Bulgarian Kingdom. These Armenians and Syrians would have hardly been subjects of the khan already in the epoch of Khan Krum (803—814); their territories were conquered by Bulgarians under Khan Presian in the late 830s4, that is, certainly later than the palaces in Pliska were built.

Yakobson died in 1984, in the same year when Blaga Aleksova (1922—2007) discovered the two churches in Krupište, Macedonia, near the river Bregalnica and at the site that she identified with that of the city of Raven known from the Legend of Thessalonica only⁵. This finding was calling for revisiting Yakobson’s hypothesis but neither Aleksova nor few other archaeologists who studied these churches after her recalled Yakobson’s 1968 paper.

The new findings in Macedonia substantiate Yakobson’s claim very much. Indeed, these “born masons” who constructed palaces for a foreign pagan ruler would have certainly constructed churches for themselves. All Macedonian churches datable archaeologically to the period from the eighth to the tenth century must be investigated as possibly constructed by these Syrians and Armenians in the late eighth or in the first half of the ninth century. For our present study, however, only two localities with three such churches are especially interesting: Strumica with one church and the site of Krupište with two churches.

Apparently without knowing Yakobson’s hypothesis, Blaga Aleksova recognised a Syrian pattern in the plan of one church in Krupište and even provided a close parallel with a church in Maipherkat.

The bigger church from two churches in Krupište (Aleksova called it “cathedral church”) has a very similar plan to that of the early seventh-century Theotokos church in Maipherkat6. Aleksova, who discovered this church in 1984, and some archaeologists after her (Mikulchiќ 1996: 347—348) considered this church as a late ninth- or early tenth-century Bulgarian/Slavic construction. They were facing the choice between a pre-Avaric (pre-580) Byzantine construction and a Bulgarian one. Given that a pre-Avaric date was excluded on archaeological grounds, the Bulgarian alternative was chosen.

In fact, there is a need to take into account the third possibility—that there were some constructions remained from the late eighth- and ninth-century activity of the Armenian and Syrian immigrants. The “cathedral” church in Krupište could be interpreted as a building made not only after the common pattern with that of the church in Maipherkat but also by the descendants of the Byzantine Armenia themselves (Maipherkat/Martyropolis was the second centre of the former

МАИАСК № 10. 2018

Byzantine province Great Armenia after its capital Theodosioupolis/Karin, modern Erzurum). According to the purely archaeological considerations, this church is now dated to the eighth or ninth century (Natsev 2013: 281) which is in the perfect accord with this possibility.

Indeed, a possibility that some post-Byzantine Christian buildings in Macedonia are constructed by these Armenians and Syrians during the century preceding the conversion of Bulgaria in the 860s, is not limited to a unique church, and it should be checked properly by specialists. Let us add that it is still hard to explain why these churches are constructed after nonByzantine Syrian patterns if they would have been constructed after the conversion of Bulgaria into the Byzantine Christianity.

These observations corroborates Yakobson’s hypothesis on Syrians and Armenians as the constructors of the palaces in Pliska. These palaces, if they were constructed by the masters who belonged to Syrians and Armenians resettled in Macedonia, must have corresponded to some monuments in Macedonia. Not palaces, of course—because there was no need in palaces there,— but what was the most necessary for masters’ own use, that is, churches.

Thus, one can figure out how much Yakobson would have enjoyed Aleksova’s publications on Krupište were he alive then.

3.    The Literary Sources

The available literary sources are mostly related to the events of 752/754 (there are some problems with precise dating)—the resettlement of Christian Armenian and Syrian population from two regions of the Arab Caliphate to the depopulated region of the Byzantine Empire near the Bulgarian border. Nevertheless, a part of the sources refers to the early ninth-century situation of the resettled people.

3.1.    Theodosioupolis

Theodosioupolis, the former capital of the Roman Armenia, was the most important locality dealt with in our sources.

According to the often-quoted passage of Theophanes the Confessor under AM 6247 = AD 754/7557, the following took place:

ὁ δὲ βασιλεὺς Κωνσταντῖνος Σύρους τε καὶ Ἀρμενίους, οὓς ἤγαγεν ἀπὸ Θεοδοσιουπόλεως καὶ Μελιτηνῆς, εἰς τὴν Θρᾴκην μετῴκισεν, ἐξ ὧν καὶ ἐπλατύνθη ἡ αἵρεσις τῶν Παυλικιάνων8.

The emperor Constantine transferred to Thrace the Syrians and Armenians whom he had brought from Theodosioupolis and Melitene and, through them, the heresy of the Paulicians spread about9.

There are parallel communications in Nicephorus of Constantinople, which add some little details to Theophanes10; we will return to them later.

МАИАСК № 10. 2018

Syrian and Armenian Christianity in Northern Macedonia from the Middle of the Eighth to the Middle of the Ninth Century

Theophanes was writing in the early 810s using the materials collected by his friend and another Byzantine chronographer Georges Synkellos11. This means that the temporal distance from the events described was not especially big; however, the geographical and cultural distance was substantial. The Byzantine authors were certainly well informed about the locality where these migrants were settled within the Byzantine territory. However, we need a help of eastern historians in order to look at the event from an “eastern” point of view evaluating the scale of this migration.

The eastern chronographers said about the devastation of Theodosioupolis and, at least, a very serious damage to Melitene. They form two groups, Syrian and Armenian.

The representatives of the Syrian group wrote in different languages (Syriac and Arabic) and belonged to different faiths (the Melkite dyothelete and the Severian anti-Chalcedonian) but were not mutually independent. For the period we are interested in their data go back to the lost Syriac chronicle of a Syrian scholar, a court astrologer of the caliph, Theophilus of Edessa¹². He belonged to the Syrian Melkites (Chalcedonian dyothelete, that is, he accepted the Sixth Ecumenical Council of 680/681¹³) and died ca 785 at the age of ninety. The earliest preserved witness of his work is the world chronicle by Agapius († 941/942; Ἀγάπιος is the Greek calque of his Arabic name Maḥbūb), who was a Melkite (Chalcedonian) bishop of the Syrian Hierapolis (Arabic Manbiǧ, Syriac Mabbug) and wrote in Arabic.

The main point which is interesting for us in these sources is the claim that the population of the city of Theodosioupolis was removed totally. Thus, we read in Agapius:

Then Constantine, the king of Rome, attacked Qālīqlā [Arabic name of تم ان قسطنطین ملك الروم غزا قالیقلا وفتحھا Theodosioupolis] and conquered it and took in captivity its population.                                  .14وسبا اھلھا

Then the Arabs soon (in 756/75715) rebuilt the ruined Theodosioupolis (Vasiliev 1912: 279).

The parallel passage, also depending on Theophilus of Edessa, is preserved in the Syriac chronicle by the Jacobite (Severian anti-Chalcedonian) patriarch of Antioch Michael the Great († 1199), book XI, ch. 25. He is more precise in an important detail: Emperor Constantine attacked Theodosioupolis and, then, Vasiliev

„.and, after having submitted it, he took in captivity the whole its               mn^xo .^^^ ml^X ^z. ох^ л^о population and left it deserted17.                                                                       . ^X^^

Thus, the whole population of the city was taken to Byzantium. Michael the Great, writing in the same language as his source, used a disambiguating wording.

МАИАСК № 10. 2018

The destiny of Theodosioupolis in these events occupied chapter 29 of the History by the Armenian vardapet (priest and monk in the non-Chalcedonian Armenian Church) Łewond. He was writing in non-Byzantine Armenia (independent or in some dependence on the Arabs), probably, in the late ninth century¹⁸. Expectedly his account is the most detailed, even though not necessarily the most trustworthy. The relevant part of chapter 34 (29).16—21, is the following:

Եւ իբրեւ յական թօթափել կործանէր զդղեակ պարիսպ ամրոցին արքայն Կոստանդին , որ էր որդի Լեւոնի : Եւ բացեալ զտուն գանձուցն բառնայր բազում կշիռ ոսկւոյ եւ արծաթոյ , գտանէր ի գանձի անդ զնշան տէրունեան խաչին , զոր առեալ տանէր ընդ ինքեան : Նա եւ [ զ ] զօրսն քաղաքին եւ զբնակեալսն ի նմա Սառակինոսս բառնայր նոցին ընտանեաւք յաշխարհն Յունաց : Եւ բազումք ի բնակչաց գաւառացն խնդրեալ յարքա [ յ ] էն , զի ընկեսցեն զանուր լծոյ ծառա [ յ ] ութեանն Իսմայելի յանձանց եւ գնասցեն զկնի նորա :

Upon arrival they destroyed the walls of the citadel and Emperor Constantine, son of Leo, opened the treasury and withdrew a large amount of gold and silver. He also found in that treasury a fragment of the Lord's Cross, which he removed and took with him. He also took to Greek territory the city's troops and Saracen population with their families. Many residents of the surroundings [ գաւառ in plural ] beseeched the emperor to remove their yoke of servitude to the Ismaelites. And they too departed along with him.

Receiving [the emperor's] permission they quickly prepared their belongings, taking strength from the power of the Lord's Cross and the emperor's glory. They left their birthplace and, separating [from their own people], joined the pious emperor's side20.

Եւ նորա տուեալ հրաման , վաղվաղակի հանդերձեալ զաղխս իւրեանց՝ խաղացին յառաջ , ապաւինեալք ի զաւրութիւն տէրունեան խաչին եւ ի փառս արքա [ յ ] ին : Թողին զերկիր ծննդեան իւրեանց , եւ հատուածեալք անկան ի կողմն արքա [ յ ] ին բարեպաշտի ¹⁹:

It is important that Łewond, being independent from Theophilus of Edessa, confirmed his account of migration of the entire Christian population of Theodosioupolis and its neighbourhood, regardless of whether Łewond’s information about resettlement of a part of the local Muslims is true or not. It is also interesting that Łewond described resettlement of Christians as a free act initiated by themselves. For an anti-Chalcedonian Łewond, the Chalcedonian Constantine is, nevertheless, a “pious emperor”21. The Syrian chronicles, which authors were also sympathetic to Constantine, called this operation as “taking in captivity”, thus emphasising its forcible character.

МАИАСК № 10. 2018

Syrian and Armenian Christianity in Northern Macedonia from the Middle of the Eighth to the Middle of the Ninth Century

Nicephorus of Constantinople—albeit in his later work only—described the same events in a heavily biased manner: according to him, Constantine never led wars against the non-Christians (although earlier Nicephorus himself described such wars against the pagan Bulgarians (Nicephorus, Breviarium , 73 (Mango 1990: 144/145) txt/tr)), and, therefore, he attacked these cities of Armenians and Syrians only because they were Christian. (Thus, Nicephorus denied even the obvious fact that this military operation was directed against the Caliphate.) Constantine persuaded these Christians to accept his troops peacefully and, then, broke his oaths and forcibly took the captive population to Thrace. “I think that for breaking these oaths the Thracian region is taking revenge today (ὧν τῆς παραβασίας δίκας τὸ Θρακικὸν πέδον, ̰ὡς οἶμαι, τιννύει τὸ σήμερον)”, concluded Nicephoros with an allusion to the ongoing or quite recent wars with Bulgaria (807— 815) (Nicephorus, Antirrheticus III, 72; PG 100, 508 D—509 A). One has to mark that the reference to the current warfare theatre in Thrace makes clear that the removed people were settled in the basin of the river Struma (Strymon) or nearby.

Indeed, Nicephorus’ whole later account looks as an anti-iconoclastic mythology, especially in the light of Nicephorus’ own information in the Breviarium . However, this Nicephorus’ opinion could reflect a Byzantine view on the presence of Armenians and Syrians among the population of the theatre of the Byzantino-Bulgarian wars in the first third of the ninth century.

Łewond’s picture of the resettlement of the entire Christian population of Theodosioupolis and its neighbourhood taking with them a part of the True Cross is certainly a translatio urbis . It is somewhat at odds with not only the Byzantine but also the Syrian chronographers who considered this operation as forcible. Łewond’s ultimate sources, however, would have been the closest to the resettled population itself—at least, in its Armenian part.

3.2.    Melitene… and Theodosioupolis again

For the operation against the Melitene, we have witnesses of Syrian historians; Łewond did not mention it.

Agapius said about the raid against Melitene in the same terms as about the raid against Theodosioupolis, almost verbatim, whereas, for his source, it was a different and somewhat earlier campaign (placed chronologically earlier than the iconoclast council in Constantinople, 754, and dated by the modern historians to either 751 (Hoyland 2011: 289) or 752 (Ter-Gevondyan 1978: 100):

…the king of Rome attacked Malaṭyā [= Melitene] and conquered it                غزا ملك الروم ملطیة وفتحھا وسبى اھلھا ورجع and took in captivity its population and returned. And in the same year, وفى ھذه السنة أخذ كوسان جاثلیق الارمن عامّة أھل ارمینیة

وأدخلھم بلاد الروم22.                                       Kusān [= Gusan in Armenian] the Armenian Catholicos took the majority of the people of Armenia and transported them to the land of Rome.

In fact, Gusan was a layman, the Byzantine general of Armenian origin who led the Byzantine campaign against the Armenian territories occupied by the Caliphate23. A similar account (about

МАИАСК № 10. 2018

both Melitene and Theodosioupolis), ultimately going back to the same Theophilus of Edessa, is preserved in Arabic by the Muslim historian Aḥmad ibn Yaḥyā al-Balādhurī (died ca. 892)²⁴.

The Syriac chronographers (two for this event: Michael the Great once more and the later anonymous compiler of the so-called Chronicle to 1234 , also a Jacobite²⁵) provide some details concerning the prise of Melitene (without, however, such detail as the name of the general) but their accounts are a bit confused in the part we are most interested in, the destiny of the captive population. Thus, Michael the Great said (XI, 24):

He led into exile and took captive the people of Claudia and all the      ^i^ ^.ml^Xo ^.зоУпз ^якУ ^^o ,a1^o villages of Fourth Armenia27.                                                             • ^^г^з ^з^

Fourth Armenia is the ancient Roman province east of Melitene, but the toponym Claudia is problematic, although repeated by both Gregory Bar Hebraeus (1226—1286)²⁸, who was writing his Chronicle until the moment of his death and was following Michael the Great almost verbatim, and—what is more important—anonymous author of the Chronicle to 1234 (ch. 183):

He led into exile the Christian inhabitants of the villages and took captives in the region of Claudia and Armenia. He set fire to Claudia. <…> The Romans burned Armenia and led into exile its inhabitants to the land of the Romans30.

^axo .^.зопз г^лх^^з^ г^Чп^А ,оУ^^о ^.зоУоУ mXo .^хяз^о ^.зоУпз ^з^^ ^xzoi соозоо^о <. ..> .^залл 300^ ❖ ^•яозз ^^з^ т.зо^^ 0x1^0 .^хяз^

Indeed, there was a small town Κλαυδιάς near Melitene³¹, which would have been known to Syrian historiographers. However, its destiny would have hardy worth to be reported at the same level as that of Melitene. It is also somewhat alarming that Michael the Syrian did not mention Theodosioupolis in the same passage where he mentioned Melitene, and, in his account, it looks that there were two different campaigns of Constantine Copronymus in different years, one against Melitene and “Claudia” and later another one against Theodosioupolis. As to the Chronicle to 1234 , it knew only one campaign, against Melitene and “Claudia”, without knowing anything about Theodosioupolis. Michael and the anonymous author of the Chronicle to 1234 were certainly sharing a common source on Melitene and “Claudia”³², whereas, most probably, Michael used as

МАИАСК № 10. 2018

Syrian and Armenian Christianity in Northern Macedonia from the Middle of the Eighth to the Middle of the Ninth Century well some other source on Theodosioupolis33, which was ultimately going back to Theophilus of Edessa.

Such an exaggeration of the role of the modest town Claudias in featuring the resettled population becomes especially striking if we accept—as Stephen Gerö does³⁴ — Chabot’s emendation of г<зол to rejoin in the account of the failed Constantine Copronymus’ attempt to conclude a Church union with “the captive inhabitants of Claudia [ ms ^^o^ ]” (Chabot 1901: 523, n. 2; cf. vol. 4, 473 inner column), where the two sides allegedly discovered that, at least, they share the same faith³⁵. Here the entire resettled population is equated with the inhabitants of “Claudia” tout court . Even if this is a metonymical pars pro toto , such a metonymy would have had some reason to become understandable to the readers. In fact, if there was a unique city that would have had right to be chosen for naming the homeland of the migrants, it was certainly Theodosioupolis. Nevertheless, there is a serious reason to suppose that the correct emendation of ^^o^ would be лил “Mar'as”, that is, Germanicia Caesarea; we will discuss this possibility later (section 3.4).

To my opinion, “Claudia” (^ oir ) appeared here as a corruption of the Syriac equivalent of the Arabic name of Theodosioupolis—or maybe it is a corruption of the original Syriac toponym for Karin that has been later preserved in Arabic; the Arabic name of the city would have been borrowed in Syriac. Indeed, Arabic ^a^J/а would correspond to Syriac vU'C ¹ These forms, especially the latter, would have been easily corrupted to rejoin , especially in the mind of a Syrian writer who knew well the Melitene region and was interested in it rather than that of Theodosioupolis. The name of Theodosioupolis is perfectly fitting with the context. Nevertheless, this “Claudia” appeared as a corruption of a source ultimately going back to the same Theophilus of Edessa.

3.3.    The Faith of the Resettled People

Theophanes’ mention of the Paulicians is not without interest to us, because it might reveal some tensions in religious matters with the population mentioned, although we know that it was in a large part Chalcedonian. Nina Garsoïan did not object to this Theophanes’ opinion on the penetration of Paulicianism into the Balkans, although without, of course, considering this resettlement as the only or the principal way (Garsoïan 1960: 46, fn. 77 et passim ). Indeed, it is quite likely that, among the resettled people, there were some Paulicians. Nevertheless, in Armenia, the Paulicians were a minority. Regardless of the possible contribution of these hypothetical Paulicians resettled in the Balkans by Copronymus, the majority of the resettled population was sharing the main confessions of their homeland. These confessions were Severian Monophysitism and Monothelete Chalcedonism.

Theodosioupolis/Karin became in 631 the place of another (after 591) epochal council when the mainstream Armenian Church headed by Catholicos Ezra accepted the union with the Byzantines and the Council of Chalcedon37. This Theodosioupolis council became a major event in

МАИАСК № 10. 2018

the Monothelete strategy by Emperor Heraclius38. In 701, Theodosioupolis fell to the Arabs. Theodosioupolis will be never regained by the Byzantines until the successful siege by general John Kourkouas in 94939. These historical facts mean that, to the time of Theophanes, the population of Theodosioupolis never received a proper “anti-Monothelete treatment”, which the population of Byzantium received, at least, after the final condemnation of the Monotheletism in 71440. It is also obvious that some part of these resettled population belonged to some “monophysite” factions (at least, to the Severian Jacobite, but some other are not to be excluded41). Thus, the population removed from Theodosioupolis and Melitene was certainly problematic from the viewpoint of Theophanes’ Byzantine Orthodoxy.

Another Byzantine chronographer, Gregory the Monk (“Hamartolos”) who wrote after Theophanes without being especially depending on him and often following the same source (Theophilus of Edessa) more carefully42 preserved, as it seems, a more realistic approach, when the resettled people were considered simply as Christians, without any dogmatic charges, and their resettlement was evaluated as a positive act, despite the overall negative attitude toward Constantine Copronymus. All this means that, if not for George himself, then, at least, for his source (presumably, Theophilus of Edessa), this resettled population was mostly orthodox.

However, such an approach is featuring only the original Gregory’s text written between 845 and 847 and now preserved only in a unique eleventh-century manuscript Coislinianus 305⁴³. A very similar (for this part of the Chronicle ) recension is preserved also in a fourteenth-century South Slavic (Bulgarian?) translation⁴⁴, which original was the second recension of the Chronicle datable to the period from 847 to 867 and completely lost in Greek. The two earlier recensions were replaced, in Byzantium, with the third one, the so-called Vulgate⁴⁵ , which became extremely popular. It is datable to the period shortly after 867, most probably before 886⁴⁶. Here, a dogmatic charge appeared but it is limited to the standard Monophysitism. It is especially interesting to us that the Byzantine editor referred to the Armenian and Syrian Monophysites in Thrace as his contemporaneous.

Original Text of Gregory the Monk [with Variant Readings in Slavonic]

The Vulgate Text of the Chronicle

Τῶν δέ γε Σαρακηνῶν κατ’ ἀλλήλων μαχομένων ἀκούσας ἐκστρατεύει πρὸς τὰ μέρη τῆς Συρίας καὶ διὰ τὴν τοιαύτην πρόφασίν τε καὶ ἄδειαν προσλαβόμενος λόγῳ τοὺς συγγενεῖς αὐτοῦ Ἀρμενίους καὶ Σύρους αἱρετικοὺς εἰς τὸ Βυζάντιον μετῴκισεν, ὧν οἱ πλείους οἰκοῦντες ἐν τῇ

εἰ δέ τι μικρὸν καὶ οὐ πάνυ ἀξιόλογον [и не зѣлω достоино оукоризнѣ] ἔδρασεν, τοῦτό ἐστιν. τοὺς γὰρ πρὸς ἀνατολὰς οἰκοῦντας βαρβάρους ἀκηκοὠς περὶ τοὺς οἰκείους ἡγεμόνας διαστασιάζοντας καὶ πρὸς τὸν ἐμφύλιον πόλεμον ἀσχολουμένους, λῃστρικώτερόν πως μᾶλλον ἢ στρατηγικώτερον ὡς λήσων ἐπιὠν τοῖς τῆς Ἀρμενίας χωρίοις τῶν ἐκείνη φρουρίων αἴρει ὁμολογίᾳ τῶν προσοικούντων· οὐ γὰρ ἐχθρῶν ἀλλοφύλῳ ὑπηντήκει πώποτε,

МАИАСК № 10. 2018

Syrian and Armenian Christianity in Northern Macedonia from the Middle of the Eighth to the Middle of the Ninth Century

ἀλλὰ τούτους αὐτοὺς Ἀρμενίους καὶ Σύρους χριστιανοὺς ὑπάρχοντας διὰ λόγου καὶ ὁρκομοσίας ἐπὶ τὴν Θρᾴκην μετήγαγεν.

Nevertheless, if he accomplished (, at least,) anything insignificant and not especially remarkable [ Slavic: and not quite worthy of disapproval], it is the following. After having heard that the barbarians living in the east are quarrelling about their leaders and are preoccupied with the civil war, he somewhat like a robber rather than a warrior, as if hiding himself, came upon regions of Armenia, overtaking the guards therein with approval of the local population. Thus, he did never confront foreign enemies, but (, instead,), (operating) with word and oaths⁴⁷, he translated to Thrace these Armenians and Syrians themselves, who were Christians⁴⁸.

Θρᾴκῃ μέχρι νῦν Θεοπασχῖται κατὰ Πέτρον εἰσὶ τὸν δείλαιον.

But after having heard that the Saracens were fighting between themselves, he marches out to areas of Syria, and taking advantage of the situation and safety, took his relatives Armenians and Syrians, heretics and resettled them in Byzantium. Many of them are living in Thrace until now, being Theopaschites according to Peter the cursed49.

The anonymous editor of the Vulgate provides us with a realistic picture of how the resettled population looked like in the eyes of a ninth-century Byzantine anti-iconoclast. Macedonia was conquered by Bulgarians in the early 840s, and so, this point of view was rather a remoted one. Nevertheless, the anonymous author, unlike his Byzantine followers, did not claim that the heresies of the migrants in Macedonia and of Constantine were the same (this claim occurred for the first time in the paraphrase of this Vulgate passage in the Chronicle of Symeon the Logothete [ch. 122, 5], composed after 948 and certainly before 1013⁵⁰, and then became often repeated in Byzantine historiographical works).

The authentic George provided, however, much more positive picture, going to an account closer to the events of the 750s.

For the sake of completeness, it is interesting to quote one more witness of Nicephorus, from his post-815 work, pertaining to the faith of the resettled people:

γιναῖκες γάρ τινες, κατὰ τὴν Ἀράβων χώραν τυγχάνουσαι, οἷα δὴ ἀμύηται τῆς παρ’ἡμῖν ἱερουργουμένης μυσταγωγίας τὸν τρόπον, καὶ δογμάτων θείων ἀμέτοχοι, ἐπ’ὀνόματι τῆς ἁγίας παρθένου θεομήτορος κολλυρίδα προσέφερον· αἳ δὲ ἐκ τῆς Θρᾳκῴας γῆς, μεταναστᾶσαι ἐκεῖθεν, συμμετήγαγον τὸ ματαιοπόνημα καὶ τοῦτο ἐν εἰδωλοποιῖας εἴδει γινόμενον ὑπετόπαζεν.

There are some women, in the country of the Arabs, who despite being uninitiated to the mode of our sacred mysterious liturgy and with no knowledge of the divine doctrines, produce, nevertheless, eye lap in the name of the saint virgin Mother of God. Thus, the people of the Thracian land who were resettled from there [ sc. , the country of the Arabs], join them in this vain practice, and this falls under the notion of idolatry.

…However, continued Nicephorus, we do not practice anything similar, and, therefore, the charges of idolatry to us are unfounded51. This passage is interesting in respect of popular, low level religiosity, which has been, too, somewhat different.

МАИАСК № 10. 2018

3.4.    Germanicia of Caesarea?

In his paraphrase of the relevant passage of the Vulgate of George the Monk, Symeon Logothete added a detail that must be taken into account in the light of the difficult place in Michael the Syrian, which we have discussed earlier (section 3.2). To the list of the localities from where the migrants were gathered (forcibly, according to this author) for resettling in Macedonia, one toponym is added, Γερμανίκεια, mentioned along with “Syria”: τὰ μέρη τῆς Συρίας καὶ Γερμανίκειαν⁵².

This ancient (already Luwian) city was especially important between 645 and 962, when it was under the Arabs. Then, it was one of the principal cities at the Arab side of the Byzantino-Arabian border, having been many times attacked by the Byzantine army53. Therefore, the phrase “Syria and Germanicia” would have been rather natural in the mouth of a Byzantine author of the tenth century. Later, it could be discarded as having appeared by accident.

The passage in Michael the Great mentioning some г<за^ ( mwr ’ ) makes the situation not as simple as that. It could be easier emended to ^w^ “Mar'as” (Germanicia, Turkish Mara§ or, since 1973, Kahramanmara§) rather than to rejoin “Claudia”. This reading is still compatible with Syria, which is a necessary condition, because, at the end of the account, the same people are called “those of Melitene” and considered as potential representatives of all their Syrian coreligionists:

And the emperor was properly ready himself to make a union with the ^^а.з» л^зз .^1^ o_m Х.^та ^^^o men from the land of Melitene, and, though the instrumentality of ^a^.i.^=o , '.^1^ з ^i^ ^з ^аз™ ^ these exiles, with all of Syria⁵⁵. . 5 ⁴ ^.iom chl^ ^ ^.ol^ ^жХтз

Here, the enigmatic mwrʾ turns out to be an equivalent of Melitene as a designation of the homeland for migrants.

It is clear that the author of the source quoted by Michael—most probably, according to Gerö’s identification of the source of Michael’s inner column, Ignatius of Melitene—was interested in Syrians only, thus ignoring Armenians. The ultimate source of Ignatius, for this passage, is unknown: were it Theophilus of Edessa, it would be hardly overlooked by the Byzantine anti-iconoclastic authors.

Given that mwrʾ is somewhat identical—on the level of metonymy—with Melitene, it must be another important locality of a neighbouring region of Syria. Indeed, Germanicia is a good candidate, given that it was the centre of a no less important Syrian Jacobite diocese than Melitene.

The balance of probabilities leads me to the conclusion that, for Ignatius of Melitene and his source, the people resettled in Macedonia were Syrians from the regions of Melitene and Germanicia of Caesarea; ^та is to be emended to ^u^ . Historically, some migration from the region of Germanicia under Constantine Copronymus is not to be excluded. However, we still do not have any reliable source on it. Ignatius of Melitene lived in the eleventh century, and even his source would have been relatively late. If this source has been shared with Symeon Logothete, it must be roughly datable to ca 900. The temporal gap with the 750s was sufficient for replacing, out

МАИАСК № 10. 2018

Syrian and Armenian Christianity in Northern Macedonia from the Middle of the Eighth to the Middle of the Ninth Century purely ideological or Church political reasons56, the Armenian region of Theodosioupolis with another Syrian region.

• 3.5.    Translatio urbis

From the eastern chronographers is becomes clear that the population of the Theodosioupolis and Melitene regions was resettled without dissolution within the local people but preserved as compact groups. Nicephorus confirmed this impression saying that they created new cities in “Thrace”, which Emperor Constantine successfully defended against Bulgarian attacks⁵⁷. This place is especially important to us and needs to be quoted in more details. As a historical source, the Breviarium of Nicephorus is reliable. Here we have a witness that the immigrants to Macedonia established new towns (in plural):

…Κωνσταντῖνος ἦρξε δομεῖσθαι τὰ ἐπὶ Θρᾴκης πολίσματα, ἐν οἷς οἰκίζει Σύρους καὶ Ἀρμενίους, οὓς ἔκ τε Μελιτηναίων πόλεως καὶ Θεοδοσιουπόλεως μετανάστας πεποίηκε, τὰ εἰς τὴν χρείαν αὐτοῖς ἀνήκοντα φιλοτίμως δωρησάμενος. ταῦτα τοίνυν οἱ Βούλγαροιὡς ἐπολίζοντο θεασάμενοι, φόρους ᾔτουν παρὰ βασιλεῖ δέξασθαι.

…Constantine started building towns in Thrace in which he settled Syrians and Armenians, whom he had transferred from Melitene and Theodosioupolis and bountifully endowed with all necessities. When the Bulgarians saw these towns founded, they demanded taxes from the emperor.

What follows is the history of the successful war led by Constantine against the Bulgarians for defending these towns. It will be never recalled by Nicephorus in his post-815 polemical works.

Nicephorus mentioned “towns”, in plural, which were constructed in “Thrace” for the resettled Armenians and Syrians. Moreover, he added that Emperor Constantine “bountifully endowed” these towns “with all necessities” (τὰ εἰς τὴν χρείαν αὐτοῖς ἀνήκοντα φιλοτίμως δωρησάμενος). A. L. Yakobson aptly pointed out that Nicephorus said here about “towns” (πολίσματα) but not “fortresses” (κάστρα) (Yakobson 1968: 206, fn. 41). It is simply impossible that these towns were without stony churches that would have been no less “bountifully endowed”. The earliest postByzantine churches in Macedonia patterned after Oriental prototypes are certainly to be attributed to these Syrians and Armenians and not to Slavs and Bulgarians. The dates of their construction must be later than the 750s but not later than 850s and probably even no later than the late 830s (when northern Macedonia became a part of the pagan Bulgarian kingdom).

Theophanes in the parallel place (de Boor 1883/1963: 429) mentioned κάστρα—however, without attributing their construction specifically to the needs of the immigrants. These fortresses were certainly build without any φιλοτιμία (“bountifulness”). Therefore, these accounts of Nicephorus and Theophanes are only partially overlapping and referring to different types of settlements.

The meaning for the Bulgarian culture of the towns mentioned by Nicephorus was especially undermined due to Vasil Zlatarsky who one-sidedly followed Theophanes and, therefore, considered these Syrian and Armenian immigrants to be Paulicians resettled on border fortresses58. Zlastarsky’s approach to the data related to these Syrian and Armenian immigrants contributed to the marginalisation of their historical role in the eyes of the modern historians.

МАИАСК № 10. 2018

4.    Concluding Remarks: Translatio cultus

The translatio urbis , in our case, is applied to Theodosioupolis and not Melitene. Only the population of Theodosioupolis is reported to be removed in full. Even the Syrian chronographers, not only Łewond, acknowledged the preponderance of Theodosioupolis people within the resettled groups. We have to conclude that a “New Theodosioupolis” must have been appeared in Macedonia shortly after 754.

In such circumstances, we have to expect the local cults of Theodosioupolis and Melitene reappeared and reshaped in Macedonia. There is no room here to discuss this ample topic, but one observation should be provided.

An important local cult in Macedonia is that of the Fifteen Martyrs of Theodosioupolis. This Macedonian Theodosioupolis is localised in the modern city of Strumica. According to their Passion épique BHG 1149, the leader of their group was some Bishop Theodore (without his see being named), and their commemoration date is November 28⁵⁹. However, in the calendar of Constantinople that is traceable back to the year 900 approximately, on this day is commemorated Theodore, the bishop of Theodosioupolis in the Great Armenia (Delehaye 1902: col. 264). This fact alone is sufficient to demonstrate that the “new” Theodosioupolis in Macedonia was a replica of the “old” Theodosioupolis in the Great Armenia (Karin, Erzurum) and not any of the two Theodosioupoleis in Asia Minor, as it was thought previously. The local cult of Bishop Theodore of Theodosioupolis in the Roman Armenia, the main figure of the Council of Theodosioupolis in 591, when the Armenian Chalcedonian Church was established and its first Catholicos John was elected⁶⁰, was transmitted to northern Macedonia, where it became the kernel of the new local cult of the Fifteen Martyrs of Theodosioupolis/Strumica.

The cult of the Fifteen Martyrs of Strumica is a complicated phenomenon that must be studied per se . However, the above data are sufficiently representative to say that this new cult appeared as a tree planted in the grounds of the earlier cult of Theodore of Theodosioupolis/Karin translated from the Great Armenia to Macedonia.