East Syrian Identity in the Early Qajar Period (Early 19th c.)

The nineteenth century was a turning point in the history of the Christian communities of the Middle East, both in the Ottoman Empire and in Qajar Iran. It was the period of political and military instability in Northern Mesopotamia and the Southern Caucasus, because of the continuing rivalry between the two Muslim empires and the appearance in the region of another major imperialist power, the Russian Empire. A significant factor in redrawing the religious map of the region was the expansion of Western Christian missions of all sorts: Roman Catholic, Protestant, and Russian Orthodox. As a result of the missions’ ever-expanding activities, many traditional Christian confessions of the two Muslim empires began to lose ground, demographically and culturally. Another important development was the rise of nationalist ideologies among various minorities of the Middle East, both Christians and Muslims. The new political and socio-confessional circumstances posed a serious challenge that led many Christians of the region to rethink and readjust their traditional identity repertoire.2

For a general picture, see B. Heyberger, Les chrétiens au Proche-Orient: de la compassion à la compréhension (Manuels Payot; Paris: Payot & Rivages, 2013); contributions in B. Heyberger (ed.), Les chrétiens de tradition syriaque à l’époque ottomane (Études syriaques 17; Paris: Paul Geuthner, 2020). On Muslim-Christian relations during this period, see J.L. Joseph, Muslim-Christian Relations and Inter-Christian Rivalries in the Middle East: The Case of the Jacobites in an Age of Transition (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1983); J. Jakob, Ostsyrische Christen und Kurden im Osmanischen Reich des 19. und frühen 20. Jahrhunderts (Orientalia ‒ Patristica ‒ Oecumenica 7; Wien: LIT, 2014); D.R. Thomas and J. Chesworth (eds.), Christian-Muslim Relations: A Bibliographical History. Volume 18: The Ottoman Empire (1800‒1914) (History of Christian-Muslim Relations 44; Leiden: Brill, 2021). On the impact of Western missions, see C.A. Frazee, Catholics and Sultans: The Church and the Ottoman Empire, 1453–1923 (London: Cambridge University Press, 1983); A. Schlicht, Frankreich und die syrischen Christen 1799–1861: Minoritäten und europäischer Imperialismus im Vorderen Orient (Islamkundliche Untersuchungen 61; Berlin: Klaus Schwarz, 1981); J.F. Coakley, The Church of the East and the Church of England: A History of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Assyrian Mission (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992); T.S.R. O Flynn, The Western Christian Presence in the Russias and Qājār Persia, c. 1760–c. 1870 (Studies in Christian Mission 47; Leiden: Brill, 2017); D. Hopwood, The Russian Presence in Syria and Palestine, 1843–1914: Church and Politics in the Near East (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969); I.M. Okkenhaug and K.S. Summerer (eds.), Christian Missions and Humanitarianism in the Middle East, 1850–1950: Ideologies, Rhetoric, and Practices (Leiden Studies in Islam and Society 11; Leiden: Brill, 2020).

Affected by all these developments, East Syrian Christians were not exceptional in adjusting to the new reality.3

For a general introduction into identity politics of Syriac Christians during the modern period, see H.L. Murre-van den Berg, “Syriac Identity in the Modern Era,” in: D. King (ed.), The Syriac World (Routledge Worlds; London: Routledge, 2019), 770-782. For discussions that focus on East Syrian identity, see H.L. Murre-van den Berg, From a Spoken to a Written Language: The Introduction and Development of Literary Urmia Aramaic in the Nineteenth Century (Publications of the ‘De Goeje Fund’ 28; Leiden: Brill, 1999); A.H. Becker, Revival and Awakening: American Evangelical Missionaries in Iran and the Origins of Assyrian Nationalism (Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press, 2015); M. Tamcke, “Nestorianisch, syrisch oder assyrisch? Beobachtungen zum Selbstverständnis der lutherischen Nestorianer in der Periode von 1875-1915,” in: U. Pietruschka (ed.), Hermeneutik und Exegese: Verstehenslehre und Verstehensdeutung im regionalen System koexistierender Religionsgemeinschaften im Orient, Leucorea-Konferenz 2005 (Hallesche Beiträge zur Orientwissenschaft 43; Halle an der Salle: Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg, 2009), 159-169.

In this article, I would like to deepen our understanding of the development of the collective self-understanding of Syriac Christians during this transitional period by bringing into discussion the relevant evidence found in the Book of the Rule, a hitherto unpublished and unstudied literary composition, produced by a member of the Church of the East in Iranian Azerbaijan during the early decades of the nineteenth century.

1. The Book of the Rule: general information

The text of the work entitled the Book of the Rule, composed and transmitted in the Classical Syriac language, is attested in the three following manuscripts:

• A – Cambridge University Library, Add. 2052;4

  See W. Wright, A Catalogue of the Syriac Manuscripts Preserved in the Library of the University of Cambridge. 2 vols (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1901), vol. 2, 1188-1189.

  produced in 1829.
• B – Cambridge University Library, Add. 2051;5

  See Wright, Catalogue of the Syriac Manuscripts, vol. 2, 1185-1188.

  copied in 1842, by the deacon Lazar, son of the priest Sāḇā.
• C – Library of the Museum Association of Urmia College, 58.6

  See O. Sarau and W.A. Shedd, Catalogue of Syriac Manuscripts in the Library of the Museum Association of Oroomiah College (Oroomiah, Persia: [s.n.], 1898) [in Syriac], 12.

  According to the information provided by the cataloguers, it was produced in 1829 by the same Lazar, son of the priest Sāḇā. Unfortunately, it seems that the manuscript is now lost, together with many other manuscripts of the Library of Urmia College, which was plundered by bandits around 1918 during the flight of Christians from the city and the surrounding area in the wake of World War I.7

  See W.F. Macomber, “The Oldest Known Text of the Anaphora of the Apostles Addai and Mari,” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 32 (1966), 335-371 (335, n. 2).

In what follows, I offer an overview of the Book’s content, accompanied by a brief discussion of its authorship, date, and message. This discussion is based on the Syriac text of the composition as it is presented in ms. A, i.e., Cambridge University Library, Add. 2052, considered by William Wright to be the autograph.

The Book is introduced with the following title on f. 1r:

ܥܠ ܚܝܠܗ ܕܡܪܢ ܝܫܘܥ ܡܫܝܚܐ ܡܫܪܝܢܢ ܠܡܟܬܒ ܟܬܒܐ ܕܗܝܡܢܘܬܐ ܕܣܘܖ̈ܝܝܐ ܕܡܬܩܪܐ ܟܢܘܢܬܐ. ܡܛܠ ܐܝܟ ܕܒܟܢܘܢܬܐ ܡܗܕܐ ܠܟܪܝܣܛܝܢܐ ܬܪܝܨܐܝܬ ܒܐܘܪܚܗ ܕܡܫܝܚܐ ܡܪܢ. ܕܠܗ ܫܘܒܚܐ ܘܥܠܝܢ ܖ̈ܚܡܘܗܝ ܐܡܝܢ. ܕܟܢܫܗ ܡܢ ܟܬܒ̈ܐ ܩ̈ܕܝܫܐ ܗܘ ܓܒܪܐ ܡܚܝܠܐ ܟܬܘܒܐ ܣܒܐ ܩܫܝܫܘܢܐ.

Translation:

By the power of Our Lord Jesus Christ, we begin to write the book of the faith of the Syriacs, which is called the “Rule,” because, like with a rule, it correctly guides the Christian on the path of Our Lord Christ, to whom be glory and whose mercy be upon us. Amen. Scribe Sāḇā, the weak man and insignificant priest, assembled it from the holy books.

The main body of the Book can be divided into the following sections (some of them are written in prose and some in verse), which are marked with subtitles and concluding sentences written in red ink:

• (1) ff. 1r–3r: a brief discussion of the origins of the Syriac nation and their language; in prose.
• (2) ff. 3r–19v: an extended exposition of the Christological doctrine; in verse.
• (3) ff. 19v–27r: an extended exposition of the seven sacraments; in verse.
• (4) ff. 27r–32v: an exposition on the “holy oil”; in prose.
• (5) ff. 32v–36v: an exposition on the practice of confession; in prose.
• (6) ff. 36v–44r: an exposition on the sign of the Cross; in prose.
• (7) ff. 44r–47r: an explanation of the fatherhood of the priest; in prose.
• (8) ff. 47r–55v: a poem (‛ōnīṯā) on the deceit of this world.
• (9) ff. 55v–60r: a poem on the soul’s repentance.
• (10) ff. 60r–63r: another poem (‛ōnīṯā) on the soul’s repentance.

At the conclusion of the Book, the following colophon is provided (ff. 63r–64v):

ܫܠܡ ܟܬܒܐ ܕܡܬܩܪܐ ܟܢܘܢܬܐ. ܕܟܢܫܗ ܡܚܝܠܐ ܣܒܘܢܐ ܡܢ |f. 63v| ܟܬܒ̈ܐ ܩ̈ܕܝܫܐ ܘܥܒܕܗ ܠܖ̈ܚܡܝ ܝܘܠܦܢܐ ܕܡܫܝܚܐ ܡܪܢ ܕܠܗ ܫܘܒܚܐ ܠܥܠܡ ܥܠܡܝܢ ܐܡܝܢ. ܒܥܝܢܐ ܡܢ ܐܒܗ̈ܝ ܩܖ̈ܘܝܐ ܚܣ̈ܝܐ ܘܐ̈ܚܝ ܫܡܘ̈ܥܐ ܓܒ̈ܝܐ. ܕܠܐ ܢܥܕܠܘܢܢܝ ܕܥܒܕܬ ܡܪܚܘܬܐ ܗܕܐ. ܐܦܢ ܢܬܗܕܘܢ ܒܡܚܝܠܘܬ ܝܘܠܦܢܝ ܒܣܘܖ̈ܛܐ ܗ̈ܠܝܢ ܒ̈ܠܝܠܐ ܕܟܬܒܘܢܢ ܗܢܐ ܐܠܐ ܛܢܬ ܒܐܢ̈ܫܐ ܕܝܠܢ ܣ̈ܟܠܐ ܕܡܚܝܠܝܢ ܠܡܥܡܠܘ ܒܒܝܬܐ ܪܘܚܢܝܐ ܕܐܒܗ̈ܝܢ ܐܖ̈ܬܕܘܟܣܐ ܕܒܢܘ ܠܢ ܪܘܚܢܐܝܬ. ܕܐܝܬ ܒܗ ܛܘ̈ܒܐ ܖ̈ܘܚܢܝܐ ܕܠܐ ܡܬܚܙܝܢ ܒܥܝܢ̈ܐ ܘܦܬܘܪܐ ܕܡܠܐ ܒܘ̈ܣܡܐ ܫܡܝܢܐ. ܗ̇ܢܘܢ ܣ̈ܟܠܐ ܡܛܠ ܡܚܝܠܘܬܗܘܢ ܦܗܝܢ ܒܒ̈ܬܐ ܢܘܟܖ̈ܝܐ ܦܓܪܢܐܝܬ |f. 64r| ܕܥܕܬܐ ܡܗܝܡܢܬܐ. ܘܡܕܒܪܢܐ ܕܟܪܣܛܝܢܘܬܐ. ܘܫܘܡܠܝܐ ܕܟܗܢܘܬܐ. ܘܡܘܠܝܐ ܕܙܕܝܩܘܬܐ. ܡܠܐܟܐ ܦܓܪܢܐ ܘܣܪܦܐ ܒܣܪܢܐ. ܘܥܝܪܐ ܓܘܫܡܢܐ. ܘܬܐܘܦܘܪܘܤ ܩܕܝܫܐ. ܡ̇ܫܚ ܟܗ̈ܢܐ ܠܩܘܕܫܐ. ܡܪܝ ܫܡܥܘܢ ܩܬܘܠܝܩܐ ܦܛܪܝܪܟܝܤ ܕܡܕܢܚܐ. ܢܬܩܝܡ ܟܘܪܣܝܗ ܒܥܠܡ. ܠܫܘܒܗܪܐ ܕܥ̈ܕܬܐ ܕܟܪܣܛܝܢܘܬܐ. ܐܡܝܢ.

ܥܒܕܗ ܩܕܡܐܝܬ ܟܬܒܐ ܗܢܐ. ܡܚܝܠܐ ܩܫܝܫܐ ܣܒܐ. ܒܫܢܬ ܐܐܩܡ ܕܝܘ̈ܢܝܐ ܒܖ̈ܝܟܐ. ܘܒܗ̇ܝ ܫܢܬܐ ܐܬܘ ܐܘ̇ܖܹ̈ܣܢܵܝܹܐ ܘܫܩܠܘ ܐܬܖ̈ܘܬܐ ܕܐܕܘܪܒܝܓ̰ܢ ܘܝܬܒܘ ܒܗܘܢ ܚܕܐ ܫܢܬܐ. ܒܬܪܟܢ ܐܬܪܥܝܘ ܥܡ ܡܠܟܐ ܕܦܖ̈ܣܝܐ ܘܫܩܠܘ ܡܢܗ ܟܣܦܐ ܣܓܝܐܐ. ܘܝܗܒܠܗ8ܘܝܗܒܘܠܗ ܐܬܖ̈ܘܬܐ ܕܡܢ ܐܪܨ ܘܠܟܐ. ܘܡܢ ܐܪܨ |f. 64v| ܘܠܗܠ ܠܐ ܝܗܒ9ܝܗܒܘ ܠܗ. ܐܠܐ ܐܘܒܠܘ ܣܓܝ ܐܖ̈ܡܢܝܛܐ. ܘܚܕܚܕܢ̈ܐ ܡܢ ܣܘܖ̈ܝܝܐ ܠܗ̇ܢܘܢ ܐܬܖ̈ܘܬܐ. ܘܫܥܒܕܘ ܐܢܘܢ ܥܕܡܐ ܠܝܘܡܢܐ. ܘܒܚܪܬܐ ܐܠܗܐ ܝܕܥ ܫܘ [ܒܚܐ] ܠܫܡܗ ܐܝܢ ܘܐܡܝܢ.

Translation:

Completed is the book called the “Rule” that the poor Sāḇūnā assembled from the holy books and made for the lovers of the teaching of Our Lord Christ, to whom be glory unto the ages of ages, Amen. I beseech my fathers, the pious readers, and my brothers, the eminent listeners, not to blame me for this audacity, even if they may be guided by my scanty learning in these confused scribbles of this little book of ours. But I have been moved with indignation against the foolish people among us, who are too weak to take care of the spiritual home that our orthodox fathers have built for us spiritually, wherein there are spiritual goods that are not seen by the eyes and the heavenly table, full of delights. Because of their weakness, those fools wander bodily in the foreign houses <…>10

<…> of the believing Church, and the leader of Christianity, the perfection of priesthood and fullness of righteousness, the bodily angel and seraph in the flesh, the corporeal watcher and holy God-bearer, who consecrates priests to the sanctuary, Mār Šem‘ōn Catholicos and Patriarch of the East, let his seat be established forever, for the glory of the Christian churches, Amen.

The poor priest Sāḇā made this book first in the year 2140 of the blessed Greeks (i.e., 1828 or 1829). And in this year the Russians came and took over the lands in Azerbaijan and dwelt in them for one year. After that, they made an agreement with the king of the Persians and took a lot of money from him. And they gave him the lands from the river Aras up to here,11 and (those) from Aras up to there they did not give him. Moreover, they led away many Armenians and some from among the Syriacs to those lands, and brought them into subjection until this day. And God knows the end, glory be to His name, so be it, Amen.

As one can infer from the work’s title and the manuscript’s colophon, the Book of the Rule was composed by a priest named Sāḇā. Although in its surviving form ms. A provides no clues about its geographical provenance,12 the colophon of ms. B, produced by Sāḇā’s son Lazar thirteen years later, indicates that the book was copied “in the blessed village of Ūlā” (ܒܩܪܝܬܐ ܒܪܝܟܬܐ ܐܘ̣ܠܵܐ).13

For the Syriac text, see Wright, Catalogue of the Syriac Manuscripts, vol. 2, 1187. This colophon is shorter than that of A, and does not repeat its information.

One can conclude with a considerable degree of certainty that not only Lazar, but his father Sāḇā as well, lived in the village of Ūlā in the Salmas district of the Urmī region, which now forms a part of the West Azerbaijan province of Iran.14The Ecclesiastical Organisation of the Church of the East, 1318–1913

Undoubtedly, the Book’s author was a member of the traditional faction of the East Syrian community. This point can be inferred from the laudatory mention in the colophon of the patriarch Mār Šem‘ōn XVII Oraham (r. 1820–1860), as well as from the content and apologetic purpose of the Book itself (on which see below). The Book appears to be the only significant literary composition produced by Sāḇā.15dūrekṯāScribes and Scriptures: The Church of the East in the Eastern Ottoman Provinces (1500‒1850)

The Book is written in the Classical Syriac language. While reading it, however, one comes across a number of elements that deviate from the classical standards. Even though this subject should be discussed only after the work’s complete text has been edited, it seems helpful to point out some elements in the colophon and sections published below. Some of such non-standard variants can be explained as a result of formal constraints or inadvertent mistakes. For example, in the poetic part, the author uses the shortened pronominal forms ܗܢ and ܗܕ alongside the regular ܗܢܐ and ܗܕܐ, apparently for metrical reasons. At the same time, the singular verbal forms ܝܗܒܠܗ and ܝܗܒ, which in the context should be plural, can be explained as a lapsus calami, with the scribe omitting the silent final waw.

Other instances of non-classical usage seem to be due to the interference from the author’s everyday language, most likely one of the Northeastern Neo-Aramaic dialects.16

For a similar phenomenon in another East Syrian literary work, see S. Minov, The Marvels Found in the Great Cities and in the Seas and on the Islands: A Representative of ‘Aǧā’ib Literature in Syriac (Cambridge Semitic Languages and Cultures 6; Cambridge: Open Book Publishers, 2021), 16.

Among the salient Neo-Aramaic elements, one can point out the use of inflectional L-suffixes in some verbal forms and constructions, such as ܦܲܫܠܹܐ instead of ܦܫ ܠܗ (this classical construction is used as well), and ܐܝܬܘܵܠܹܐ instead of the standard ܐܝܬ ܗܘܐ ܠܗ.17

On this suffix, see G. Khan, The Neo-Aramaic Dialect of the Assyrian Christians of Urmi. 4 vols (Studies in Semitic Languages and Linguistics 86; Leiden: Brill, 2016), vol. 1, 265.

The spelling of the 3m.sg. imperfect of the verb ܣܛܐ as ܢܨܛܐ instead of the standard ܢܣܛܐ probably also belongs to this category. The appearance of the consonant /ṣ/ instead of /s/ in this form seems to reflect a phonological shift that took place in some Neo-Aramaic dialects, during which the historical emphatic phoneme *ṣ lost the feature of pharyngalization and merged with historical *s, resulting in one phoneme /s/.18

See Khan, Neo-Aramaic Dialect, vol. 1, 107.

A word should be said about the remarkable historical circumstances in which the Book was composed. The colophon of ms. A states that it was produced in the year 1828/1829. The scribe informs us further that during this time the region of Iranian Azerbaijan was invaded by the Russian army, which held it under its control for one year. The Russians withdrew after making a peace agreement with the king of Persians, as a result of which the latter had to pay them a considerable monetary contribution and concede Persian territories to the north of the river Aras. This description refers to historical events that are well documented, namely the second Russo-Persian war (1826–1828), the last major military conflict between the Russian Empire and Qajar Iran, which ended with the defeat of Persia and the signing of the humiliating Treaty of Turkmenchay on 10 February 1828.19

For the Russian text of the treaty, see Ц.П. Агаян, В.А. Дилоян, and А.В. Алексанян, Присоединение Восточной Армении к России: Сборник документов. Том II (1814–1830) (Материалы по истории армянского народа 17; Ереван: Издательство Академии наук Армянской ССР, 1978), 446-451; on its historical and political context, see Б.П. Балаян, Дипломатическая история русско-иранских войн и присоединения Восточной Армении к России (Ереван: Издательство Академии наук Армянской ССР, 1988), 179-211. On the course of military operations, see J.F. Baddeley, The Russian Conquest of the Caucasus (London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1908), 152-181.

In the course of this military campaign, the Russian troops occupied for one year the Urmī region of Iranian Azerbaijan, including the district of Salmas, where Sāḇā lived.

The colophon adds that when the Russians left the region, they took “many Armenians” and some “Syriacs” with them. This statement agrees well with what we know about the policy pursued by the Russian military administration of the Urmī region. The Russians encouraged the local Christians to immigrate en masse to the territory of Eastern Armenia, which would remain under their control after the army’s withdrawal beyond the newly established border line of the river Aras.20

For the Russian official documents that shed light on this project, see Агаян et alii, Присоединение Восточной Армении. For a discussion, see D.L. Sherry, Imperial Alchemy: Resettlement, Ethnicity, and Governance in the Russian Caucasus, 1828–1865 (Ph.D. dissertation; University of California, 2007); F. Shafiyev, Resettling the Borderlands: State Relocations and Ethnic Conflict in the South Caucasus (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2018), 43-95.

Approved by the Tsarist government, the policy of resettlement was implemented by the Russian general Ivan Paskevich and his special envoy for this mission Lazar Lazarev, a Russian army colonel of Armenian descent. As a result of their efforts, a relatively large number of Armenians seized this opportunity and moved to the Russian-controlled part of the Southern Caucasus, where they were settled in the regions of Erivan, Karabakh, and Nakhichevan.21

The number of the Armenian settlers is reported to be as high as 8,000 families or about 40,000 people; see Shafiyev, Resettling the Borderlands, 60.

However, the number of East Syrians who followed their example was relatively modest.22

Modern scholars estimate it around 100 families; see J. Dum-Tragut, “Assyrians in Armenia – An Interdisciplinary Survey,” in: L. Tang and D.W. Winkler (eds.), From the Oxus River to the Chinese Shores: Studies on East Syriac Christianity in China and Central Asia (Orientalia ‒ Patristica ‒ Oecumenica 5; Zürich: LIT Verlag, 2013), 341-353 (342).

They settled in what is now the territory of the Republic of Armenia, where they established the village of Koylasar (modern Dimitrov). This group became the first wave of East Syrian émigrés to move to the Russian Empire’s territory due to political and military upheavals in the Ottoman-Persian borderlands during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.23

On the history of the Assyrian diaspora in Russia, see К.П. Матвеев, “К истории переселения ассирийцев в Россию,” Народы Азии и Африки 5 (1980), 165-168; И.Ю. Зая, “Ассирийцы и Россия (вторая половина XIX – начало XX в.),” Восток 4 (1997), 23-36; С. Садо, Материалы к биографическому словарю ассирийцев в России (XIX – середина XX века) (С.-Петербург: Издательство Олега Абышко, 2006).

It is noteworthy that Sāḇā describes the experience of the Christian émigrés in negative terms, saying that the Russians “led them away” and brought them into a state of “subjection” in their new homeland. This description contradicts the Russian government’s general policy, according to which the resettlement of Christian population from the Iranian territories was supposed to occur purely on a voluntary basis.24On the Religious Frontier: Tsarist Russia and Islam in the CaucasusПрисоединение Восточной АрменииПрисоединение Восточной Армении At the same time, we know that the Russian initiative of resettling the Christian subjects of Persia to their territory was met with resistance not only from the Qajar authorities, but also from some among the local Christian hierarchs. Thus, from the exchange of letters between the pro-Russian Armenian bishop Nerses and Paskevich, we learn about Izrail, the Armenian bishop of Albāgh in the Salmas district, who campaigned actively among the local Armenians against immigration to the Russian Empire.25

For the Russian text, see Агаян et alii, Присоединение Восточной Армении, 474-475. For more information on the pro-Persian stand of some members of the Armenian clergy, see G.A. Bournoutian, Eastern Armenia in the Last Decades of Persian Rule, 1807–1828: A Political and Socioeconomic Study of the Khanate of Erevan on the Eve of the Russian Conquest (Malibu, California: Undena Publications, 1982), 35-40.

There may have been an even more pronounced resistance to the Russian policy on the side of Persia’s Syriac Christians. In his report from 1 May 1828, Lazarev informs Paskevich that his efforts aimed at persuading “Nestorians” from the Urmī region to follow the example of those Armenians eagerly moving to Russian territory were met without much enthusiasm and ascribes such reluctance to the detrimental influence of Catholicos Mār Šem‘ōn based in Kurdistan, who was approached by the Qajar prince ‘Abbās Mīrzā with gifts and promises of future privileges in order to prevent his subjects from leaving Persia.26

For the Russian text, see Агаян et alii, Присоединение Восточной Армении, 491-493. Cf. also his report from 12 April 1828, in which he complains to Paskevich about the lack of sincere desire to resettle among the Assyrians of the Urmī region; Агаян et alii, Присоединение Восточной Армении, 486-487.

Moreover, according to Lazarev’s report from 2 April 1828, Persian officials were spreading rumors among Christians of the Urmī region that those who would immigrate to Russian territory were going to suffer there from the lousy climate, hunger, and enslavement.27

“В Урмии нашел я много препятствий действиям моим и нелепых слухов, распространенных Персидским правительством на счет нас. Для устрашения переселенцев уверяют их что за Араксом ожидает их дурной климат, голод и что подданные государя продаются.”; Агаян et alii, Присоединение Восточной Армении, 481. Cf. also Lazarev’s letter to the Armenians of Persia from 30 March 1828, in which he rebuffs such rumors; Агаян et alii, Присоединение Восточной Армении, 479-480.

These allegations were, in fact, at least partially true since some of the Christian settlers did find themselves in dire straits when the Russian administration failed to keep the promise of allocating them appropriate agricultural lands and providing sufficient monetary stipends.28

Cf. the letter of complaint by Armenian settlers to Catholicos Efrem from 8 September 1828 in Агаян et alii, Присоединение Восточной Армении, 541-542. See also Sherry, Imperial Alchemy, 44-48.

It appears then that by making the vague references to the hardships inflicted upon the Christian émigrés, whether real or imagined, Sāḇā sided with the negative attitude toward the Russian project of resettlement adopted by Catholicos Mār Šem‘ōn. Sāḇā’s support of the patriarch’s policy could also be inferred from the simple fact that he did not leave his village and move to Russian territory, even when he had such an opportunity during the Russian occupation of the Salmas district.

Another aspect of Sāḇā’s literary project, crucial for understanding its social and cultural circumstances, is its apologetic dimension. The Book’s content could be roughly divided into three main parts: a brief historical introduction (Section 1), a theological part (Sections 2–7), and a devotional part (Sections 8–10). Sāḇā’s primary goal, stated explicitly in the title, was to offer his community a concise and accessible handbook explaining the basics of Christian life. Yet, as one reads through the Book, it becomes clear that the author composed it to protect his audience from the lure of Western Christianity.

The apologetic purpose of the Book is made explicit in the colophon, where Sāḇā points out that in composing his work, he was moved not only by the desire to provide a guide-book for Christian living but by a strong feeling of disapproval aimed against those among his fellow “Syriacs” who neglect their “spiritual home,” that is the East Syrian ecclesiastical tradition, and seek guidance “in the foreign houses”. Similar statements are found in the main body of the Book as well. For example, in Section 2, which deals with Christology, the author castigates this group of Syriacs, while referring to them as “that people who have separated from us, abrogated our authority and our law, and engaged in controversy with us, while taking our name.”29ܗ̇ܢ ܥܡܐ ܕܦܪܫ ܡܢܢ. ܒܛܠ ܫܘܠܛܢܢ ܘܕܝܢܢ. ܘܥܒܕ ܚܪܝܢܐ ܥܡܢ. ܕܫܩܠ ܫܘܡܗܐ ܕܝܠܢ

Although he does not name this separatist group, it seems almost certain that Sāḇā’s animosity in these passages is aimed against Chaldean Syrians. This faction group within the East Syrian community, whose entangled history could be traced back to the sixteenth century, had broken their allegiance to the Church of the East and entered into full communion with the Roman Catholic Church.30

See on them M. Tamcke, “Assyro-Chaldean Christians,” in: M. Raheb and M.A. Lamport (eds.), The Rowman & Littlefield Handbook of Christianity in the Middle East (The Rowman & Littlefield Handbook Series; Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2021), 237-243; H.G.B. Teule, Les Assyro-chaldéens: chrétiens d’Irak, d’Iran et de Turquie (Fils d’Abraham; Turnhout: Brepols, 2008); L. Parker, “The Ambiguities of Belief and Belonging: Catholicism and the Church of the East in the Sixteenth Century,” English Historical Review 133:565 (2018), 1420-1445.

While the apologetic agenda of the Book requires further, detailed investigation, the kind which cannot be carried out in the framework of this article, it is safe to posit at this point that a considerable part of its author’s efforts is devoted to defending the doctrines and practices of the Church of the East against those of the Roman Catholic Church. This concern seems to be a primary rationale behind Section 2, where Sāḇā goes to a considerable length to make the traditional language of East Syrian Christology more accessible to his audience. Furthermore, this aspect comes to the fore in Section 5, where he expounds upon the practice of confession among the “Eastern Syriacs.” At the beginning of this exposition, the author expresses his disagreement with the opinion of “the men from other nations, who are saying that confession is one of the seven sacraments of the Church,”31ܐܝܬ ܐܢ̈ܫܐ ܕܡܢ ܥܡ̈ܡܐ ܐܚܖ̈ܢܐ ܕܐܡܪܝܢ ܡܘܕܝܢܘܬܐ ܚܕ ܐܪܙܐ ܐܝܬܝܗ̇ ܡܢ ܫܒܥܐ ܐܖ̈ܙܐ ܕܥܕܬܐ and argues that penance cannot be considered a proper sacrament.32

On the practice and theology of penance among the East Syrians, see W. de Vries, Sakramententheologie bei den Nestorianern (Orientalia Christiana Analecta 133; Roma: Pontificium Institutum Orientalium Studiorum, 1947), 265-280.

It is most likely that this passage is directed against the Roman Catholic tradition of regarding confession as one of the seven sacraments that Chaldean Syrians also adopted.

In order to understand better Sāḇā’s rhetoric, one should analyze it against the background of the shift in socio-confessional dynamics that took place among the Christians of Iranian Azerbaijan during the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Roman Catholic missionaries started to make their first inroads into this region several centuries before his time.33Ecclesiastical OrganisationWestern Christian Presence The history of Catholic presence in the district of Salmas can be traced back to 1318 when a Franciscan mission had been established in Khosrōwā. This village, located just about four kilometers north of Ūlā, eventually became a major center of Roman Catholic missionary activity. According to David Wilmshurst, there was a decisive demographic shift in favor of Catholicism in the Salmas district during the last quarter of the eighteenth century as a result of the efforts of the metropolitan Īšō‘yahb Šem‘ōn (ob. 1789).34Ecclesiastical Organisation After he entered into communion with the Catholic Joseph line at Amid,35

On Joseph and his successors, see Wilmshurst, Ecclesiastical Organisation, 57-60; L. Parker, “Yawsep I of Amida (d. 1707) and the Invention of the Chaldeans,” in: B. Heyberger (ed.), Les chrétiens de tradition syriaque à l’époque ottomane (Études syriaques 17; Paris: Paul Geuthner, 2020), 121-152.

most of the East Syrians of the region were incorporated into the Roman Catholic fold. That portion of Sāḇā’s community that still kept its allegiance to the East Syrian patriarch Mār Šem‘ōn were, most likely, outnumbered by their Chaldean neighbors. In light of these circumstances, Sāḇā’s concern with the influence that Catholicism might have had on members of his flock, which finds expression in the apologetic stance of the Book, becomes quite understandable.

2. The Book of the Rule on Syriac language and ethnicity

Turning now to the article’s main subject, I will discuss what Sāḇā has to say about Syriac language and ethnicity and how he makes these two markers of the East Syrian identity to serve his apologetic agenda. With that goal in mind, I would like to present, first, the original Syriac text and an English translation of two main parts of the Book, in which he addresses these topics: Section 1, written in prose, and the opening part of Section 2, written in verse. The Syriac text follows that of ms. A, i.e. Cambridge University Library, Add. 2052. A few significant variants from ms. B are given in the apparatus.

3. Conclusion

Completed in the aftermath of the short-term conquest of the Urmī region of Iranian Azerbaijan by Russian troops in 1828–1829, the Book of the Rule was written during a difficult time for the local East Syrian community, to which its author, the parish priest Sāḇā, belonged. On the one hand, the author and his flock were embroiled in the political and social upheavals caused by the military conflict between the Russian and Qajar empires. In this confrontation, some of the local Armenian and Syriac Christians seriously considered leaving their homeland and resettling in Russian territory.

On the other hand, an even more serious and long-term danger that threatened the existence of Sāḇā’s community was posed by the increasing pressure from Western missionaries, especially the Roman Catholics. As a result of their efforts, many members of the Church of the East in the district of Salmas had forsaken their traditional ecclesiastical affiliation and joined the ranks of the Assyro-Chaldean Church. It is, first and foremost, in response to this threat that Sāḇā composed his work, which was meant not only to provide his community with spiritual guidance but also to strengthen their self-confidence. With that goal in mind, Sāḇā starts the Book by offering his audience a condensed exposition of the origins and early history of the Syriac people and their language. Blending traditional and innovative elements, he forges a new vision of Syriac collective identity that asserts the superiority of the East Syrian ethno-religious community over other Christian denominations.

Sāḇā’s work provides us with a unique insight into the dynamic evolution of the traditional repertoire of East Syrian collective identity, just before the process of its “Assyrianization” was set in motion as a result of the discovery of the rich archaeological and textual legacy of the Assyrian empire by Western scholars.84Revival and AwakeningA Companion to Assyria In his vision, the superiority of the East Syrian Christians stems, first and foremost, from the fact that they speak Syriac, the language of Adam, Abraham, and Jesus himself. It receives additional support in the claim that Jesus was a part of the Syriac nation by way of his human nature. As has been demonstrated, in making these claims, Sāḇā stands at the end of the centuries-long process of localization and indigenization of the biblical history of salvation by Syriac Christians.85Antiquity in Antiquity: Jewish and Christian Pasts in the Greco-Roman WorldMemory and Identity A remarkable development in itself, this identity strategy deserves further investigation, including its role in the emergence of a nationalist discourse among Syriac Christians during the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries.86Revival and Awakening