Tondrakians

← Encyclopedia

The Tondrakians (also Tondrakites) were a medieval Armenian religious movement, active from roughly the mid-ninth century to the mid-eleventh, condemned and finally destroyed by the Armenian Church as the gravest heresy of its age. The name comes from T’ondrak, a village in the district of Apahunik in the Armenian highlands, north of Lake Van, where the movement had its center; the hostile tradition names as its founder a certain Smbat of Zarehavan, who came out of the district of Tsalkotn in the ninth century and taught, in the church’s own summary of his offense, that the whole apparatus of the Christian rite was an empty thing.

The tenth-century Armenian cathedral of the Holy Cross on Akhtamar Island in Lake Van, in the highland country where the Tondrakian movement took root — the sacramental church the movement refused. — Rupen Janbazian, via Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 4.0)

What survives of them is almost entirely an accusation. No Tondrakian wrote a creed that has come down under that name; no church of theirs left a stone inscription, a liturgy, a roll of its dead. The movement is legible only in the writings of the men who set out to extinguish it, and so the historian who would describe what the Tondrakians taught is in the position of reconstructing a fire from the shape of the scorch. This is the hardest source problem in the study of Armenian dissent, harder than the Paulician case, where at least the Key of Truth supplies a contested voice. For the Tondrakians there is only the prosecution, and the prosecution is eloquent.

T’ondrak and Smbat of Zarehavan

The village that gave the movement its name lay in the borderlands of Greater Armenia, in country that passed in those centuries between the Bagratid kings, the Arab emirs of the region, and the slow westward pressure of the Byzantine Empire. It was poor, mountainous, peripheral country — exactly the kind of ground where a church’s reach thinned and a teacher could gather a following the catholicos at the center heard about only as rumor.

Lake Van and its surrounding highland districts; the village of T’ondrak lay in the district of Apahunik, to the north of the lake. — Dogu Ari, via Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 4.0)

The hostile tradition fixes the beginning on a single man, Smbat of Zarehavan, sometime in the first half of the ninth century, and credits him with a teaching that abolished the rites of the Church wholesale. Later polemicists would extend the line, naming a succession of heads who carried the sect down through the generations to its destruction; the names are recorded by enemies who had every reason to make the heresy look like an organized counter-church with apostolic pretensions of its own, and how far the succession is real and how far it is a heresiographic device cannot now be recovered.

To call Smbat the founder is already to accept the church’s framing. A teacher who tells villagers that the consecrated bread is bread and the font is a basin of water is not founding a religion so much as refusing one, and the movement the sources describe looks less like a new institution than like a steady, local subtraction — the withdrawal of assent from the things the Church claimed to do. That it acquired a name, a center, and a reputation that outlasted four generations of suppression suggests the subtraction was durable, and that it answered to something the official church was not supplying in the highland villages where it took root.

The hostile record

The witnesses are churchmen of the tenth and eleventh centuries, and they are worth naming because the weight of every claim rests on which of them is speaking. The earliest and most celebrated is Gregory of Narek, the great mystical poet of the Armenian Church, author of the Book of Lamentations, who about the year 1000 wrote a Letter to the Abbot of Kchaw Concerning the Refutation of the Accursed Tondrakians — a refutation addressed to a monastery suspected of harboring the contagion, which tells us that by his day the heresy had reached inside the cloister walls.

Gregory of Narek, the mystical poet whose letter against the Tondrakians is the earliest doctrinal catalog of the movement; manuscript miniature from a 1173 copy of his works (Matenadaran MS 1568). — via Wikimedia Commons (public domain)

Gregory’s letter is the nearest thing to a doctrinal catalog: he reports that the Tondrakians held the communion bread to be common bread, the water of baptism to be no more than the water of a bath, the Lord’s day to be a day like any other, and that they threw out the laying on of hands, the bending of the knee, the cross as an object of honor, and the rite of marriage. The shape of the list matters as much as its contents. Each item is a thing the priest does and the layman cannot, and the denial of each is a denial that the priest, in doing it, accomplishes anything at all.

The second witness is the man who ended them. Gregory Magistros — Grigor Magistros Pahlavuni, prince, philologist, one of the most learned men of his age — governed the eastern provinces for the Byzantine emperor in the middle of the eleventh century, and in three surviving letters set down both his campaign against the sect and his account of its teaching. His correspondence, later edited and translated by Conybeare, is the fullest narrative source and the most explicitly hostile: he writes as the official charged with stamping the heresy out, and he names the destruction of its strongholds as an accomplished labor. The third is the historian Aristakes of Lastivert, whose History, composed in the 1070s, devotes a chapter to the evil sect of the Tondrakians as it broke out in the district of Hark’, and tells the story of a bishop named Yakob who fell under the suspicion of it — an ascetic in hairshirt and bare feet who was tried, condemned, and, in the historian’s telling, branded on the forehead with the mark of a fox. That a bishop could be taken for a Tondrakian is the most revealing detail in the whole dossier: the line between the movement and a severe, sacrament-skeptical strain inside the Church itself was not always easy to draw.

Behind these three stand earlier Armenian voices against sectarian dissent — John of Otzun, the eighth-century catholicos who legislated against heretics of the region, among them — so that the Tondrakians arrive in the record already filed under an existing category of error. None of these men was a neutral reporter. Each wrote to refute, to govern, or to warn, and the portrait they jointly produced is the portrait the prosecution needed.

The charges as a single refusal

Stripped of the polemic, the reported teaching has a hard internal coherence, and it is the coherence of a single proposition driven through every institution of the Church. The proposition is that salvation is not mediated — that no rite, no object, no building, and no ordained man stands between the believer and God as a necessary channel of grace.

From that one denial the rest follows. If grace is not channeled through the sacraments, then baptism washes nothing the water cannot reach and the eucharist is the bread it visibly is. If holiness does not inhere in matter, then the cross is a shape of wood and the consecrated building is a building, owed no reverence the open hillside is not also owed — a refusal of the asceticism of place that the monastic centers of Armenia had made the geography of the holy. If the priesthood confers no power the layman lacks, then the whole hierarchy, from village presbyter to catholicos, is an office without a sacred function, and the wealth and lands that supported it are wealth and lands without a sacred warrant. This last inference gave the movement a social edge that its modern interpreters, above all the scholars writing in Soviet Armenia, fastened on: a church stripped of its mediating claim is also a church stripped of its standing as the largest landholder in the country, and a teaching that leveled priest and layman before God could be heard, in the feudal society of the highland districts, as a teaching that leveled lord and peasant as well. The sources credit the Tondrakians with defending the property of the poor and with an equality between men and women unusual in their world. How much of this is the movement’s own program and how much is later reconstruction is a real question; what is not in doubt is that the denial of mediation, followed to its end, was a denial of the order that mediation underwrote.

One charge that travels with all the others deserves to be set aside. The reports are studded with accusations of secret depravity — nocturnal gatherings, ritual license, the usual catalog of the things heretics are always said to do in the dark. This is the standard furniture of medieval heresiology, the same charge laid against the Bogomils, the Cathars, and the Christians of pagan Rome before any of them, and it carries no information about the Tondrakians except that their accusers wished them to be seen as monstrous. Scholarship discounts it as a matter of course.

The disputed Paulician relation

The Tondrakians are almost always discussed in the same breath as the Paulicians, the older heresy of the Byzantine-Armenian frontier, and several medieval writers — Aristakes and Gregory Magistros among them — simply identified the two as one body under two names. The temptation to merge them is strong, because the surface of the two teachings rhymes: both refused the cross, the sacraments, the cult of the saints, the visible church. But the cases are not the same. The Paulicians of the Greek sources are described as dualists, holding a good God of the world to come against an evil maker of the present one — a two-principle cosmology that the Byzantine heresiologists assimilated to Manichaeism and to the demoted creator of the old gnostic systems. The Tondrakian sources, by contrast, say little that requires a dualist metaphysics at all. What they describe is a rejection of mediation, which can rest on a low view of the material world but does not have to, and need imply no second god.

So the question of descent splits in two. Did the Tondrakians inherit Paulician doctrine — an actual dualist cosmology passed from one Armenian sect to the next — or did they inherit only the Paulician reputation, the readymade label that an Armenian churchman reached for whenever he met a group that threw out the sacraments? The label was available, it was already condemned, and applying it spared the polemicist the labor of describing an unfamiliar error on its own terms. Nina Garsoïan’s study of the Paulicians argued exactly this for the parent movement — that much of the dualism ascribed to it is the residue of Byzantine propaganda rather than a report of what was taught — and the caution travels to the daughter movement with full force. The Tondrakians may have been the Paulicians’ heirs in the flesh, the same communities under a new name; or the two may have been distinct refusals of the same church, joined only by the single category their enemies filed them under. The connection is asserted by men who had an interest in asserting it, and the evidence does not let it be settled.

Suppression and afterlife

Gregory Magistros brought the organized movement to an end. Governing the region for Byzantium around the middle of the eleventh century, he led a campaign against the Tondrakian settlements, razed their centers, and — by his own account — forced more than a thousand of their people to renounce the teaching and return to the Church. T’ondrak itself was destroyed. After that the Tondrakians vanish from the record as an organized body, and for seven centuries the name belongs only to the polemicists who had used it.

Then it surfaced again, in the most unexpected place. In 1837 the ecclesiastical authorities of Russian Armenia, tracing a knot of village dissidents, found among them beliefs they recognized — or chose to recognize — as the old Tondrakian error: the same refusal of the sacraments, the same flat denial that the priest’s office held any power. Villagers were investigated as Tondrakians reborn, as though the eleventh-century heresy had simply gone quiet and waited. And in 1891 the Oxford Armenologist Frederick Conybeare found, in the library at Edjmiatsin, a manuscript dated 1782 that he took to be the lost service-book of this underground church. He published it in 1898 as The Key of Truth: A Manual of the Paulician Church of Armenia. Its theology is adoptionist: Christ is not the eternal Son but a man upon whom sonship descends at his baptism, which the Key accordingly defers to the maturity of the believer, holding that the rite cannot mean anything performed on an infant who cannot believe. Conybeare presented the book as the continuous voice of the Paulician-Tondrakian tradition, surviving in the Armenian highlands across eight hundred years of silence.

Whether it is that, or something much later, is the live question. The hand is of the eighteenth century, and the doctrine it teaches — adoptionist, anti- sacramental, hostile to infant baptism — could as easily belong to a sect shaped by the Protestant currents reaching the Caucasus in the modern period as to an unbroken medieval descent. Most scholars now grant that the Key comes out of a Paulician-derived milieu while holding that the surviving text postdates the medieval movement by a wide margin, and that it cannot be read back, line for line, as the catechism Smbat of Zarehavan taught.

Sources and the modern study

Everything that can be said about the Tondrakians rests on a short shelf of hostile texts and a long shelf of attempts to read past them. The medieval witnesses survive in the Armenian tradition: Gregory of Narek’s letter against the Tondrakians, the three anti-Tondrakian letters of Gregory Magistros, and the chapter in Aristakes of Lastivert’s History. The letters of Magistros were first opened to Western readers in the nineteenth century and have since had a dedicated philological study, Grigor Magistros Pahlawuni’s Letters against the T‘ondrakians, which sets the rhetoric of the prince-governor’s prosecution against the little that can be confirmed of the sect’s actual teaching.

The modern study begins with Frederick Conybeare’s The Key of Truth: A Manual of the Paulician Church of Armenia (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1898), the edition and translation of the 1782 Edjmiatsin manuscript with its long introduction and its nine appendices of historical sources — the work that first put a putative Tondrakian voice, however late, beside the polemic (catalog record). The standard critical reassessment is Nina G. Garsoïan’s The Paulician Heresy: A Study of the Origin and Development of Paulicianism in Armenia and the Eastern Provinces of the Byzantine Empire (Paris: Mouton, 1967), which separated the Armenian sources from the Greek and argued that much of the dualism the Byzantine authors ascribed to the Paulician-Tondrakian milieu is the residue of their own propaganda. Vrej Nersessian’s The Tondrakian Movement (London: Kahn & Averill, 1987) is the fullest treatment of the sect in its own right and presses the social and anti-feudal reading hardest. Recent scholarship, including the survey by James Cartledge and Carl Griffin of the heretical Paulician and Tondrakian movements on the Byzantine periphery, extends Garsoïan’s caution and treats the very category of an organized dualist counter-church as partly an artifact of the heresy-hunters’ own habits of classification.

The movement and its readers

What the Tondrakians were has always depended on who was looking. To Gregory of Narek they were the accursed, a contagion in the cloister; to Gregory Magistros a problem of governance to be solved by fire; to the nineteenth-century investigators a heresy resurfacing on schedule. In the modern study of them three readings recur. One sees a proto-Protestant reform five centuries early — the laity reclaiming Scripture and conscience from a corrupt priesthood, kindred to the later Lollards of England in their flat refusal of the sacramental machine, though no line of contact joins them. A second sees an anti-feudal revolt of the Armenian peasantry, the religious idiom of a class refusing the church-lord who owned its fields. A third sees simply the latest face of the Paulicians, an Armenian dualism wearing a new village name. Each reading finds its warrant in the same scorched dossier, and each draws its evidence from the witness of men who had set out to leave no movement standing to answer back.

This is the precise shape of what a movement leaves when it is remembered only by the institution it refused: a clean and consistent outline of the refusal — the bread that was only bread, the font that was only water, the priest who could do nothing the believer could not — drawn entirely by the hand that wished it gone, with everything the refusers might have said in their own voice burned at T’ondrak alongside their houses.

→ Related: Paulicianism · Bogomilism · Heresy · Middle Ages · Catharism · Dualism · Christianity · Baptism · Sacrament · Asceticism · Gnosticism · Mani · Byzantine Empire · Lollards