Introduction
This short article arises from perusal of a rare book, Deux ans de séjour en Abyssinie, par le R.P. Dimothéos, Légat de Sa Béatitude le Patriarche arménien auprès de Théodore Roi d’Abyssinie, published in 1871 by the Armenian Press at Saint James’s Monastery in Jerusalem.Footnote 1 The journey described was undertaken by Dimothéos and a higher-ranking compatriot, Isaac, described interchangeably as bishop or archbishop.Footnote 2 On the engraved frontispiece, their portraits are labelled “P. Timothée” and “Isaac, Evêque” respectively.
A feature of the book, to which I am not aware of previously published references, is its prominent and grandiloquent dedication to Queen Victoria, whose Royal Arms feature on the engraved title-page. This dedication, by Isaiah (Isaïe), Armenian Patriarch in Jerusalem, is supported by several translated letters demonstrating that relevant permission had been requested through the Foreign Office in London, and formally granted.Footnote 3
Bibliographic Evaluation of the Principal Source
The book’s entire text is in French, the title-page indicating that it was translated (presumably from an Armenian original) “by order of His Beatitude Isaiah, Armenian Patriarch in Jerusalem.”Footnote 4 The French seems competent but sometimes stilted and convoluted, perhaps following rather too closely the syntax of the original.Footnote 5 Confusion, as noted above, is apparent between the titles Bishop and Archbishop. Contemporary international practice designating the British government as English is often followed. Personal names and toponyms, presumably originally recorded in Armenian and then transliterated into French, take unfamiliar forms (e.g., “Vagchem-Govazi” for Wagshum Gobezie, “Thègri” for Tigray). Dates are stated with disappointing infrequency and lack of clarity, due to use of both Armenian and Western calendars further exacerbated by imprecision and occasional mis-prints.
Apart from recent facsimile reprints of the 1871 French-language edition, the only other publication of which I am aware is a German translation, issued in Leipzig in 1888.Footnote 6 The German edition sometimes appears in library catalogues under Timoteos or Saprichean: this last was the author’s family name, such as was not then regularly employed by members of the Armenian priesthood.Footnote 7
The book’s opening paragraphs include the no-longer-valid statement that “Readers already know the prime aim of our journey to Abyssinia,” and proceed to discussion of the British envoys and other Europeans held prisoner until two years previously by the Abyssinian king Tewodros (Theodore) at his mountain fortress of Maqdala.Footnote 8 It is noted that “The English government did not fail to do everything possible by peaceful means to secure the freedom of the prisoners.”
Background
The possibility that the Armenian patriarch in Jerusalem might prove able to influence Tewodros had apparently been brought to the attention of Lord Lyons, British Ambassador to the Sublime Porte in Constantinople, 1865–1867.Footnote 9 A similar suggestion, apparently derived from an Armenian source, was relayed to London in December 1866 by the British Ambassador in St. Petersburg.Footnote 10 The nature of this possible involvement remains unclear, although it was mentioned that the Abyssinians in Jerusalem came “under the jurisdiction of the Armenian Patriarch.”Footnote 11 The claim seems to have been based on the fact that the Abyssinians in Jerusalem “were heavily dependent on the Armenian patriarchate which (…) is said to have provided its African co-religionists with daily rations of food since around 1700.”Footnote 12
Although Dimothéos’s book contains no explicit statement to that effect, there seems little doubt that the initial focus of the two Armenians’ journey to Abyssinia was to seek the release of the British envoys and other Europeans held captive at Maqdala by King Tewodros, and that it was made with at least tacit connivence from the British government. In turn, it appears that the Armenian Patriarch in Jerusalem sought British support for his claimed authority over the Abyssinian monastic community at the Holy Sepulchre. On a different level was the desire to exploit Abyssinian dissatisfaction with their reliance on the Coptic Alexandrian (but Cairo-based) patriarchate for the appointment of an abuna as head of their own church.Footnote 13
Assessment of the Journey
Scholarly attention to Dimothéos’s book, at least in recent years, has been largely restricted to its mention of the two Armenians’ visit to Aksum on their return journey in 1869 when, through the good offices of Dejazmatch Kassa (the future King Yohannes IV) and “le colonel Anglais Ser Kerkham,” they prevailed upon priests of Maryam Tsion to show them the Mosaic Tablets of the Law.Footnote 14 Passing references by Sven Rubenson relate to incidental details in the narrative.Footnote 15 The brief note on Dimothéos in the Encyclopaedia Aethiopica is confusingly alphabetized under “Sapricean, Timoteos Vardapet.”Footnote 16
What may be the only Ethiopian document mentioning the Armenians’ presence in that country is an Amharic letter (now in the Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris) written late in 1868 by dabtera Assaggahen to Antoine d’Abbadie.Footnote 17 This records the writer’s meeting during the closing months of 1868 with an Armenian who claimed to be a bishop brought to Abyssinia by Tewodros, on an occasion that seems compatible with the contemporary situation described by Dimothéos.Footnote 18
Armenians were on several occasions engaged by Ethiopians in political and ecclesiastical contexts.Footnote 19 The trust placed on them may be due to their supposed independence from internal partisan pressures and to their adherence to an ancient non-Chalcedonian form of Christianity that was neither Ethiopian nor Coptic. This last point was particularly relevant to the uncertainties surrounding the appointment of an abuna. Trust in Armenian intermediaries may primarily be recognized in two areas. Ethiopian rulers from at least the sixteenth to the nineteenth centuries had employed Armenian overseas emissaries.Footnote 20 In the 1830s, Sebagadis and his successor rulers of Tigray had involved an Armenian in a mission to urge the Coptic patriarch to appoint an abuna; again, in February 1868, Terso Gobezie (a rebel against Tewodros in Begemdir) threatened to offer the post of abuna to the Armenian Isaac, perhaps in the hope that this might expedite appointment of a Copt to that position.Footnote 21 Since a valid coronation could only be performed by an undisputed abuna, the presence and loyalty of such a functionary was indispensible to any regal contender.Footnote 22 Additional commissions were not infrequently linked with the difficulty and expense encountered when requesting a replacement for a deceased abuna and with dissatisfaction over an abuna who took office, often after a long and inconvenient period when the seat was vacant.
This background permits the visit to Abyssinia by Isaac and Dimothéos to be viewed with an expanded perspective. Salama, appointed abuna by the Coptic patriarch of Alexandria, had arrived in Ethiopia to fill a long-vacant position in 1841.Footnote 23 After a difficult period of political turmoil, he crowned Dejazmatch Kasa Haylu as King of Kings Tewodros in 1855. Amity was, however, short-lived: Tewodros imprisoned Salama in 1864 at Maqdala, where he died in October 1867.Footnote 24 Tewodros’s own suicide some five months later intensified a jostling over succession to the paramountcy that was already festering. In officiating at the coronation, Salama had in effect ratified Tewodros in that position, but there was now no abuna to provide a similar service for his successor. Isaac and Dimothéos, overtaken by events in their aim to secure the Maqdala prisoners’ release, immediately transferred to Wagshum Gobezie (who, as ruler of Lasta, then appeared the most likely contender to succeed Tewodros) their efforts to press Isaac’s candidature.Footnote 25 Isaac flaunted his archepiscopal robes before an Abyssinian audience, when their grandeur was compared with those of Salama, to the latter’s disadvantage.Footnote 26
Conclusion
In retrospect, the Armenians’ visit to Ethiopia achieved little. Their late arrival and lack of access to TewodrosFootnote 27 meant that they took no part in the release of the prisoners. The appointment of an abuna following Salama’s death was made in the time-honored way, following nomination by the Alexandrian Patriarch. In Jerusalem, the relationship between the Armenian and Ethiopian communities remained essentially unchanged. Some of these threads are reflected in a letter dated 13 June 1869 sent from Adwa on the homeward journey by “Isaac, Archbishop of Jerusalem” to the British Consul-General in Cairo, expressing thanks for the (unspecified) support of “Her Glorious Majesty Victoria, Queen of Great Britain.”Footnote 28 In the event, it seems that no more lasting benefit accrued to Her Glorious Majesty than to any of the other parties involved.
It may be concluded that several factors combined to support the visit to Ethiopia by Isaac and Dimothéos. Some were of long standing, but their emphasis fluctuated with the rapidly changing circumstances surrounding the reign and fall of Tewodros. Within Ethiopia, affairs of church and state were almost inextricably intertwined but, in both fields and in their inter-relationship, the complexities changed with bewildering rapidity. The Armenian presence introduced a new factor, not previously appreciated.
This brief and incomplete study serves to emphasize the importance of considering the intentions of those responsible for the creation of written records. I have already emphasized this point in connection with Aksumite stone inscriptions of the fourth century AD.Footnote 29 Widely but not invariably recognized, it is even more relevant when a document, like Dimothéos’s book, has many layers of intention and meaning, only some of which have been recognized by readers, and not all of which may have been appreciated by its author.
David W. Phillipson is an Africanist archaeologist who retired in 2006 from the University of Cambridge where he had been for twenty-five years Director of the Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, latterly serving concurrently as Professor of African Archaeology. For the first fifteen years of his professional career he was employed in Africa, first in Zambia and then in Kenya. In Britain, he has been President of the British Institute in Eastern Africa and also Treasurer of the Society of Antiquaries of London. He is a Fellow of the British Academy and an Associate Fellow of the Ethiopian Academy of Sciences. His research interests focus on later African archaeology, with a recent emphasis on Ethiopia. E-mail: dw.l.phillipson@btinternet.com
