International congress of byzantine studies belgrade, 22 27 august 2016

Nicholas Matheou
University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom; 
[e-mail]
Heresy and Society in East Roman Caucasia, c. 1000-1071 
Re-Imagining ‘Paulicianism’ and the ‘T‘ondrakian Movement’
The ‘T‘ondrakian movement’ has been typically analysed as a moment in the longer history 
of ‘Paulicianism,’ the regional offshoot of coherent practices and beliefs like the Balkan ‘Bogomil 
heresy.’ Traditionally seen as dualist, in her magisterial 1967 monograph Nina Garsoïan employed 
T‘ondrakian sources to argue that Paulicianism was an adoptionist creed that became dualist on 
imperial territory, remaining unchanged in Caucasia. Conversely Vrej Nerssesian’s 1989 study of the 
tenth- and eleventh-century ‘T‘ondrakian movement’ emphasised their distinction from Paulicians, 
also providing a socio-political explanation for this alleged movement, though unfortunately 
through an uncritical Marxism. More recently Seta Dadoyan, in her ground-breaking re-situation 
of medieval Armenianness in its borderland and Islamic contexts, emphasised heterodoxy as 
a prominent, even defining feature. Nevertheless her analysis still operated within a frame of 
‘Armenian orthodoxy’ versus ‘sectarian dissidence.’
Thus these issues are ripe for re-consideration – particularly the question of heterodox 
practices and beliefs as necessarily embedded in theologically coherent, strongly bounded, and 
self-reproducing ‘heretical groups.’ This communication, therefore, begins a re-imagining of 
‘Paulicianism’ through the eleventh-century Armenian sources for T‘ondrakians in East Roman 
Caucasia. In Aristakes of Lastivert’s History, written c. 1072-79 near Theodosioupolis, the vardapet 
provides two chapters detailing the spread of heresy in the theme of Iberia. Though highly literary 
and purposeful, these chapters remain the only witnesses to specific eleventh-century actors 
identified as T‘ondrakian. As such they are essential for imagining the actual figures (re)producing 
and propagating heterodox practices and beliefs. These are revealed as fully integrated into broader 
networks and power structures, including bishops, local magnates, and monastics – important 
actors with sway over whole regions and communities.
Aristakes’ testimony can be compared and contrasted with the letters of Grigor Pahlavuni 
magistros, proud Armenian Christian, aristocrat and doux of Mesopotamia c. 1048-1054. Responding 
to a letter from the Syriac patriarch of Antioch, whom refugee T‘ondrakians had approached for 
sanctuary, Grigor details how he drove these ‘New Manicheans’ from the ‘holy kingdom of the 
Romans.’ In another letter addressed to the exiles he emphasises their total separation from the 
Armenians, their Church, and its traditions. In conjunction with Aristakes’ chapters, these texts 
provide important evidence for the nature of heterodoxy in eleventh-century Caucasia, including 
the supposed heretics’ self-image as well as the strategies used to exclude them – even involving 
imperial judges. Crucially, these sources reveal that so-called T‘ondrakians represented themselves 
as Armenian Christians in the tradition of Grigor the Illuminator. Thus the challenge of opponents 
was not to uncover some distinct ‘sect,’ but to create a salient boundary for the exclusion of heterodox 
actors and networks within Armenian Christianity’s mainstream.

---

800
Ultimately, therefore, this communication outlines a theoretical model for understanding 
heresy-in-society, able to situate the T‘ondrakians in their proper context as products of their social 
system. I propose a constructivist and network-based model that allows for the (re)production 
of truly heterodox practices and beliefs, able to coalesce into bounded groupness under certain 
conditions, without pre-supposing coherence or dogma as a permanent reality.