Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T19:21:48.441Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Eastern Christian Sect: The Athinganoi

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2012

Joshua Starr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

‘All heresies issue out of your midst,’ said Liutprand to the emperor and his court at Constantinople, and the statement was essentially correct. But he went too far in implying that they flourished without interference by the orthodox regime, so that it was left to the Latins to exterminate them in the course of their westward spread. One could draw up a fairly long catalogue of sects which are known to have existed on Byzantine soil for a time, only to succumb to official persecution or to become extinct in some unrecorded manner. Practically all of these have passed on leaving no tangible trace of their peculiar beliefs or practices, yet a study of any one of them offers the opportunity of filling in to some extent the picture of life in the variegated Eastern Empire. The subject of this study is the latest of the several sects which arose in Phrygia, and despite a brief and limited history, did not disappear without having an emperor credited to it, nor without perpetuating its name in the variants whereunder the gypsies are known in Europe to the present day.

Type
Research Article
Information
Harvard Theological Review , Volume 29 , Issue 2 , April 1936 , pp. 93 - 106
Copyright
Copyright © President and Fellows of Harvard College 1936

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Relatio de legatione constantinopolitana, xxii, ed. Becker, J.Google Scholar. Die Werke Liudprands von Cremona, 3rd ed., Hannover, 1915, 186 f.Google Scholar

2 Theophanes, Chronographia, ed. de Boor, K., Leipzig, 1883, 488, A. M. 6303Google Scholar: τῶν τῶν δὲ Μανιχαίων, τῶν ΙΙαυλικιάνων καλουμένων, καὶ ΄Αθιγγάνων….ϕίλος ἧν διάπυρος, χρησμοῖς καὶ τελεταῖς αὐτῶν ἐπιχαίρων….Cf. Kedrénos (12th c.), Synopsis historion, Migne, , Patrologia Graeca, CXXI, 924Google Scholar; Zonaras, , Epitome historion, vol. III, ed. Büttner-Wobst, T., Bonn, 1897, 308Google Scholar. The latter expressly shows that Theophanes' epithet, ‘Manichees,’ does not apply to the Athinganoi.

3 See Bury, J. B., A history of the Eastern Roman Empire, London, 1912, 38Google Scholar; Vasiliev, A., Histoire de l'empire byzantin, Paris, 1932, I, 373Google Scholar.

4 Theophanes, 494 f., A. M. 6304. Ignatios, likewise a contemporary, states that a tract written by the patriarch influenced the emperor (presumably Michael I) to suppress the religions of the Jews, the Phrygians, and the Manichees. See the biography, ed. de Boor, with the Opuscula historica of Nikephoros, Leipzig, 1880, 158 f.Google Scholar Bury, op. cit., 40.

5 See Martin, E. J., A history of the Iconoclastic movement, London, 1932, 156Google Scholar. This writer takes the peculiar position that it was the patriarch who dissuaded the emperor from taking such extreme measures.

6 See Dobroklonski, A. P., Prep. Theodor ispovyednik i igumen Studiiskii, Odessa, 1914, I, 715Google Scholar, with reference to PG, XCIX, 1485Google Scholar.

7 Theophanes, 497.

8 Genésios, , Basileiai, PG, CIX, 1025–8Google Scholar: οὐχ ἦττον δὲ καὶ ἐπίμωμος ἀπό τε τῆς πατρίδος αὐτοῦ ΄Αθιγγάνων πληθὺν ἐκτρεϕούσης. (Written ca. 950.) Bury, op. cit., 79 f. Based on this passage are the slightly later notices in Theophanes continuatus, PG, CIX, 57–9, 65Google Scholar; cf. also, Kedrénos, 953–6, and Zonaras, 337 f. The theory of Grégoire, H., Byzantion, IX, 1934, 202Google Scholar, that Genesios and Theop. cont. are dependent on a common source, has yet to be proved.

9 Dobroklonski, op. cit., 849; Vasiliev, op. cit., 376.

10 l.c., 56. Unlike Bury, op. cit., 78, Martin, op. cit., 199, interprets the passage to mean that the sect in question was a third group intermediate to the Jews and Athinganoi. It is true that the chronicler's language does not preclude this view, but why look for precision in such a work? Ephraim, author of a rhymed chronicle in the 13th c., makes the emperor to have been only a friend of the Athinganoi; PG, CXLIII, 93Google Scholar, line 2195.

11 l.c., 1072 f.

12 l.c., 61. Cf. the suspicion expressed by Dölger, P., Die Frage der Judensteuer in Byzanz, Vierteljahrschrift für Sozial und Wirtschaftsgeschichte, XXVI, 1933, 11Google Scholar.

13 p. 339. Figuratively and literally orthodox writers believed that the instigators of the iconoclastic movement were Jews. See Martin, op. cit., 24, and Starr, J., An iconodulic legend and its historical basis, Speculum, VIII, 1933, 501–3Google Scholar.

14 Makhtebhānūth zabhnē (Chronique), ed. and tr. J. B. Chabot. Paris, 1899–1924, IV, 522; tr. III, 72. Copied by Hebraeus, Bar, Makhtebhānūth zabhnē, ed. Bedjan, P., Paris, 1890, 141Google Scholar. (Comparison with the former shows that qashīsh here cannot signify ‘priest’ as in the translation of Budge, E. A. W., The chronography of Gregory Abū'l Faraj, London, 1932, 129.Google Scholar)

15 Pre-eminently, Caro, G., Ein jüdischer Proselyt (?) auf dem Thron von Byzanz, Monatschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judenthums, LIII, 1909, 576–80Google Scholar; Krauss, S., Studien zur byzantinisch-jüdischen Geschichte, Vienna, 1914, 41Google Scholar. Both limited to the account of the anonymous chronicler (n. 10).

16 Latin version of the life, ed. Pien, J., Acta Sanctorum, Aug., III, 1867, 170Google Scholar. Cf. Loparev, C., Vizantiiski Vremennik, XIX (1915), 81Google Scholar; Bréhier, L., Byzantion, I, 1924, 186 f.Google Scholar On Athanasia see Rémy, F. in Dictionnaire d'histoire et de géographie ecclésiastique, IV, 1930, 1400Google Scholar.

17 See Wellnhofer, M., Byzantinische Zeitschrift, XXX, 1930, 481Google Scholar.

18 See Vasiliev, A. A., Byzance et les Arabes, Brussels, 1935, I, 57Google Scholar.

19 Ficker, G., Erlasse des Patriarchen von Konstantinopel Alexios Studites, Kiel, 1911, 22Google Scholar, n. The body of the tract without the portion cited here is printed under false authorship in PG, CXXVII, 879–84Google Scholar. For certain reasons Ficker preferred to identify δεσπότου Κωνσταντίνου καὶ αὐτοκράτορος τοῦ Πορϕυρογεννήτου as Constantine VIII (1025–8), since there is a contemporary writer named Demetrios, who was shortly thereafter appointed to the same metropolitanship. But the identification, which is surprisingly late for the Athinganoi as a living sect, has, because of the terms in which the emperor is addressed, not met with approval. See Petit, L., Dict. de Théol. cath., IV, 264 f.Google Scholar (1911); R. Janin, l.c., XII, 60 (1933).

20 PG, CVI, 1033–6Google Scholar. For an old Slavic tr. of the 12th c. see Dimitrievski, A. A., Bogoslushenie v russkoi tserkvi v XVI v. Kazan, 1884, I, 55 f.Google Scholar Cited by Beneshevich, V. N. in Evreiskaya Misl, II, 1926, 212, n.Google Scholar

21 These are stereotyped statements, like several others omitted here, common to the several formulas. See Ermoni, V. V., Abjurations, in Dictionnaire d'Archéologie chrétienne et de Liturgie, I, pt. 1, 98–103 (1907)Google Scholar.

22 Text in Ficker, G., Eine Sammlung von Abschwörungsformeln, Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte, XXVII, 1906, 450–2Google Scholar. Overlooked by Bardy, G., Revue Biblique, XXXVI, 1927, 88Google Scholar, who gives an abridged tr. from the ms.

23 See Pliny, , Historia Naturalis, XXX, ii, 2Google Scholar. Cf. Summers, M., The geography of witchcraft, New York, 1927, 9Google Scholar.

24 It is surprising that neither in this nor in the preceding document is the verb θιγγάνειν employed, as it is in Col. 2: 21. The present writer doubts whether the etymology given is trustworthy.

25 See, e.g., Amann, E. in Dictionnaire de Théologie catholique, XI, 840 (1931)Google Scholar. Herein may lie the explanation for the statement that Michael II was a Sabbatian, made in the life of the patriarch Ignatios by Niktétas Paphlagōn, PG, CV, 493. (For the disputed dating of this writing see Iorga, N., Histoire de la Vie byzantine, Bucharest, 1934, III, 202.Google Scholar) Cf., however, Martin, op. cit., 199, n. 5.

26 See his Russian article referred to in n. 20.

27 Mélanges de la Faculté orientale de l'Université St. Joseph, VI, 1913, 488–90Google Scholar.

28 See the references in Ficker, l.c., 46–53; Beneshevich, l.c., ib. The Vatican ms. bears the rubric of a writing by the patriarch Methodios (843-7), printed in PG, C, 1300–25Google Scholar. (See Goar's note 1.) Unaware of the scribe's error, the authorship was so accepted by Miklosich, F., Über die Mundarten und Wanderungen der Zigeuner Europas, vi, Denkschriften of the Vienna K. Akademie der Wiss., phil.-hist. Classe, XXVI, 1877, 57 f.Google Scholar

29 PG, LXXXVI, pt. 1, 33; tr. Bardy, l.c., 37.

30 See the note of Combefis, F., PG, LXXXVIGoogle Scholar, pt. 1, 11, n. 1. Cf. Bardenhewer, O., Geschichte der altchristliche Literatur, Berlin, 1932, V, 26Google Scholar.

31 Ficker, l.c.; Beneshevich, l.c., 201, contended that the author of this work was really Nikon of Raithu (ca. 1050), without attempting to prove the point. In view of the fact that the latter had compiled a table of contents to this work of Timotheos (PG, LXXXVI, pt. 1, 70), the idea seems untenable.

32 The anonymous chronicler (n. 10), however, charges Michael II not with resting on the Jewish Sabbath but with declaring it a fast-day. In Ephraim, l.c., line 2199, this becomes ‘he delighted in Sabbaths and New Moons.’ But it is nowhere stated that he decreed Sabbath-observance in the Jewish sense, as is said by Bréhier, L., La querelle des images, Paris, 1904, 45Google Scholar.

33 See Conybeare, F. C., The key of truth, Oxford, 1898, xxxiv, xlviiiGoogle Scholar.

34 E.g., Bart, G. in Eleutheroudake Enkyklopaidikion Lexikon, I, 405 (1928)Google Scholar. Another writer represents the Athinganoi as revering Melkisedek as an ascetic hero; Wuttke, G., Melchisedech der Priesterkönig von Salem, Giessen, 1927, 35Google Scholar.

35 See Bardy, l.c., 35 f.

36 von Döllinger, I., Beiträge zur Sektengeschichte des Mittelalters, Munich, 1890, I, 31–3Google Scholar; Bardy, , Rev. Bib., XXXVI, 36, 39Google Scholar.

37 See Wellnhofer, l.c., ib.

38 Epiphanios. Panarion haireseōn, ix, 3, x, 13, xxx, 2, ed. Holl, K., Epiphanius, Ancoratus und Panarion, Leipzig, 1915, I, 200, 205 f.Google Scholar, 334. Well analyzed by Thomas, J., Les Ebionites Baptistes, Revue d'histoire ecclésiastique, XXX, 1934, 270–5Google Scholar. See also Kohler, K., Dositheus the Samaritan heresiarch, American Journal of Theology, XV, 1911, 413, 419 f.Google Scholar, 434. For the Semitic evidence (especially Koran 20: 97) respecting the Samaritans, see Goldziher, I., Lā Misāsa, Revue Africaine, LII, 1908, 23–8Google Scholar; Heller, B., Al-Sāmiri, , Encyclopedia of Islam, IV, 135 f. (1925)Google Scholar.

39 See the life of Giorgi Mthatsmidel of Mt. Athos cited in a translation from the Georgian by Brosset, M., Histoire de la Géorgie, Petrograd, 1849, I, 338Google Scholar. Cf. Miklosich, l.c., 58 (Period of Constantine IX, 1042–55). However, the allusion to Simon Magus accounts for the condemnation of these gypsies as Samaritans. An earlier date (855) for the first appearance of the gypsies in the empire was proposed by de Goeje, M. J., Mémoire sur les migrations des Tsiganes à travers l'Asie, Leyden, 1903, 74 f.Google Scholar But this has not been accepted; see Sampson, J., On the origin and early migrations of the Gypsies, Journal of the Gypsy Lore Society, 3rd s., II, 1923, 157Google Scholar.

40 Halévy, J., Les Samaritains dan s le Coran, Revue Sémitique, XVI, 1908, 428 f.Google Scholar (in reply to Goldziher, l.c.; overlooked by Heller, l.c.).

41 See the remark of Michael Psellos (11th c.), PG, CXXII, 877Google Scholar. Cf. Svoboda, K., La démonologie de Michel Psellos, Brno, 1927, 34 f.Google Scholar

42 The third one, Ἄρχε = ἌΑρχαι, seems to be nothing more than a common term used in the special sense of ‘demon-chiefs.’

43 Drexl, F., Das Traumbuch des Patriarchen Nikephoros, Festgabe A. Ehrhardzum 60. Geburtstag, Bonn-Leipzig, 1922, 101Google Scholar, line 4: ΄Αθιγγάνους νόησον δαίμονας πέλειν. Erroneously taken as a reference to the gypsies, by Kattenbusch, F., Theologische Literaturzeitung, XLVIII, 1923, 201 f.Google Scholar

44 See Wellnhofer, l.c.

45 Contra de Goeje, op. cit., 75, who accounts for the transfer on the ground that the gypsies were ‘étrangers d'aspect et de moeurs singuliers, dont on évitait le contact.’ Sampson, l.c., 167, supposes that it was due to the fact that the new group came in by way of Phrygia. See also L. Wiener, Gypsies as fortune-tellers and as blacksmiths, l.c., 2nd s., III, 1909, 15 f.; Walker, J., Nūrī, Enc. of Islam, III, 963Google Scholar.

46 See Paparregopoulos, K., Historia tou Hellenikou ethnous, 5th ed., Athens, 1925, IVGoogle Scholar, pt. 1, 48.

47 PG, CXXXVII, 720 f.Google Scholar, 741. Cf. Oeconomos, L., La vie religieuse dans l'empire byzantin au temps des Comnenes et des Anges, Paris, 1918, 223Google Scholar, n. 3. On the other hand Ficker took this as proof of the late survival of the sect, Die Phundiagiagiten, Leipzig, 1908, 272Google Scholar, n. 1. On the ‘hermits,’ see Wiener, l.c., 275 f.

48 With respect to the Hypsistarioi of Cappadocia, see, e.g., Bareille, G., Dict. de Théol. cath., VII, 572 (1922)Google Scholar. Canon 29 of the Council of Laodicea (ca. 380) forbade ‘Judaizing and resting on the Sabbath’; Hefele, C. J. and Leclerq, , Histoire des conciles, Paris, 1907, I, 1015Google Scholar.

49 A similar view with respect to the West is expressed by Vogelstein, H. and Rieger, P., Geschichte der Juden in Rom, Berlin, 1896, I, 1691Google Scholar.

50 For the earlier expressions of this theory see Pluquet, F. A. A., Dictionnaire des Hérésies, Paris, 1847, I, 470 f.Google Scholar; Blunt, J. H., Dictionary of sects, heresies, ecclesiastical parties, and schools of religious thought, Philadelphia, 1874, 58Google Scholar. More recently, e.g., Bréhier, , Dict. d'hist. et de géog. eccl., V, 51 (1931)Google Scholar. With reference to the anonymous chronicler's description (n. 10), Dobroklonski, op. cit., 849 f., n., simply substitutes the name of the Paulician sect, apparently due to the fact that the original signification of the term Athinganoi was not clear in his mind; cf. ib., 710.

51 496. Bréhier, , La querelle, 40Google Scholar. Cf. Martin, op. cit., 157, who, however, misrenders the passage: ‘The two Iconoclastic heresies of the Paulicians and the Athinganoi.’ On this agreement between the groups in question see also ib., 275–8.

52 Vasiliev, op. cit., 380.