[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.136 Lambert, Medieval heresy, pp.55 61.43 CHRISTIAN DUALIST HERESIESthe Cathar bishops of Northern and Southern France and Lombardy.He reconsoled all the Cathar perfect present, reconsecrated the bishops,and consecrated three additional bishops for the southern Frenchcommunities.He recommended that the churches should define theirdiocesan boundaries in the interests of future harmony, claiming thatthat was the practice of the churches of the East [37(a)].All western sources show that the Cathars who traced their descent fromNicetas and the ordo of Drugonthia were absolute dualists, like thePaulicians, but they were not Paulicians because they shared with themembers of the Bulgarian ordo an ascetic way of life and a common formof worship and of organization, which indicates that both groups had acommon origin.137 Drugonthia and its many variations are westernattempts to render the name Dragovitia, which as Duj%0Å„ev has showndesignates the region of the Rhodope mountains to the south ofPhilippopolis.138 There was a strong Paulician presence in twelfth-century Philippopolis, and it is possible that Paulician converts toBogomilism may have been responsible for the adoption of absolutedualist beliefs by the Church of Dragovitia/Drugonthia.139 Zigabenusand earlier Byzantine sources knew nothing of this schism, which musthave developed between c.1100 and c.1170 when Nicetas came to theWest, by which time the Dragovitian ordo had been adopted by theBogomil church of Constantinople.Before the schism occurred, but after Zigabenus wrote his account ofthem, the Bogomils adopted a distinctive form of episcopal government,in which each diocesan bishop was assisted by two coadjutors, known ashis elder and younger sons, who had rights of succession.This systemclosely resembles the Bogomil teaching about God and his two sons.The first known Cathar bishop was tried at Cologne in 1143,140 but thefirst known Bogomil bishop is Simon, or Symeon, of Drugonthia, theconsecrator of Nicetas [37(b)].Whether this form of government firstdeveloped among the Cathars or the Bogomils, it antedated the schism,because both moderate and absolute dualist Bogomils practised it.The Saint-Félix document preserves a list of five Bogomil Churcheswhich it attributes to Nicetas: Rome, Dragometia (that is Dragovitia),137 Hamilton, The origins of the dualist church of Drugunthia , pp.115 24; Nelli, LaPhilosophie du catharisme.See also Nelson, Religion in histoire totale , pp.67 70;Angold, Church and society in Byzantium, pp.490 5.138 Duj%0Å„ev, Dragvitsa Dragovitia , pp.218 19.139 Hamilton, The Cathars and the Seven churches of Asia , pp.282 3; Obolensky, Papa Nicetas.P140 Appendix to the Letters of St Bernard, no.CDXXXII (PL 182, 679).44 HISTORICAL INTRODUCTIONMelenguia, Bulgaria and Dalmatia [37(a)].Any Byzantine Greek, andNicetas, to judge from his name, was a Greek and not a Slav, would haveunderstood the word Roman to mean Byzantine, and the Ecclesia Romanaof which he spoke must be the Bogomil Church of the Byzantine Em-pire, ruled from Constantinople, over which he himself presided.TheChurch of Dragovitia was the Bogomil Church of the Philippopolisregion.The Church of Bulgaria was the mother-church founded by popBogomil.The Church of Melenguia can only, as Dossat pointed out,relate to the Slav tribe of the Milingui, who lived on the Taygetus rangein the southern Peloponnese.141 This people, who remained Slav-speaking and effectively self-governing into the thirteenth century,142would have formed a sympathetic audience for Bogomil preachers, andBogomilism was already established in Thessaly and Hellas.TheChurch of Dalmatia is the earliest mention of what later became knownas the Church of Bosnia [39].There seem to be gaps in Nicetas list: nomention is made of Anatolia or of Thessaly and central Greece, al-though there are known to have been Bogomil communities in boththose areas, which were too distant from the capital to have come underNicetas jurisdiction.Some years after Nicetas visit the Bogomil Church of Bulgaria sent anenvoy named Petracius to the Cathars of Lombardy, who reported thatBishop Symeon of Dragovitia, who had consecrated Nicetas, had falleninto mortal sin, and that all the consolings which derived from him weretherefore invalid.This news produced a schism among the Cathars ofnorthern and central Italy which was never subsequently healed.TheCathars of Desenzano remained true to the absolute dualism of Nicetas(as did those of southern France) and sent their bishop-elect toDragovitia to be consecrated; but the other Cathars reverted to moder-ate dualism and turned for guidance either to the Church of Bulgaria orto that of Bosnia [37(b)].During this period apocryphal writings used bythe Bogomils were translated into Latin and circulated among theCathars [38].141 Dossat, À propos du concile cathare de Saint-Félix , pp.209 14; he argued that thissupported his view that the document was a seventeenth-century forgery.Forcounter-arguments that have been generally accepted see Hamilton, The Catharcouncil of Saint-Félix reconsidered , pp.23 53.Nelson, Religion in histoiretotale , pp.67 70; Moore, The origins on European dissent, pp.212 15; Lambert,Medieval heresy, pp.126 8.142 Lurier, tr., Crusaders as conquerors, pp.159 60.Cf.Constantine Porphyrogenitus, Deadministrando imperio, c.50, pp.232 5.45 CHRISTIAN DUALIST HERESIESThe success of the western missions and the close links which the ItalianCathars maintained with the Balkan Bogomils are sure signs of howvigorous Bogomilism was in the second half of the twelfth century.Thisis borne out by Theodore Balsamon, who remarked how whole townsand villages in the provinces were given over to Bogomilism, and noattempt was made to stamp it out.143 Moreover, Bogomils were still to befound in the capital in the later years of Manuel s reign.This is known from the Adversus Patherenos, a tract against the Bogomilswritten by Hugh Eteriano, a Pisan living in Constantinople, who wasone of Manuel I s advisers on western Church affairs [36].He was wellestablished in Constantinople by 1166, and so this tract must have beenwritten between c.1160 and Manuel s death in 1180, most probably inthe 1170s.It has not been published before.144 Hugh was writing aboutByzantine Bogomils, not Cathars living among the western residents inConstantinople: the whole tenor of his work makes this plain, particu-larly his references to the Orthodox churches and relics of the city andthe cult of the icons.The tract was written at the request of unnamednoblemen in order to persuade the emperor to impose the death penaltyon the Bogomils.Hugh s chief concern is therefore to supply his patronswith authorities which they can cite against Bogomil practices.Thecharges which he brings against the Bogomils are familiar ones, exceptthat of their refusal to swear oaths
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]