The earliest well authenticated statement about the numerical strength of the St. Thomas Christians of Kerala is from a Syriac letter sent by four Chaldean bishops ordained for India, viz. Mar Yahballaha, Mar Denha, Mar Jacob and Mar Thomas to the Catholicos and Patriarch of the East (Babylon), Mar Elijah. The letter dated 1504, reports about 30,000 Christian families in Malabar. The original Syriac letter is reproduced with a Latin translation by Joseph Simonius Assemanns in 1725 (Bibliotheca Orientalis Clementino Vaticana, 1725, Volume 3, Issue 1, pp. 590-594). Similarly, one of the first reports that specify the number of churches in Malabar, is provided by P. Francisci Dionysios, rector of the Jesuit college of Cochin on the St. Thomas Christians. According to his narrative dated Cochin, 4 January 1578, the St. Thomas Christians have 50 large settlements and many houses, and over 60 churches and almost 80,000 Christian souls, scattered around Malabar (in Josef Wicki, Documenta Indica, vol. XI, p. 140).
The names of some churches in the original Portuguese text differ significantly from the way it is spelled in modern Malayalam. Pius Malekandathil has addressed this issue elegantly and the footnotes provided by him would be much helpful in identification of the sites. Following are some of the really tough ones -compare the names in Jornada with their corresponding modern names given in the brackets:
Batimena (Venmony)
Calecoulao (Kayamkulam)
Cheguree (Chowara)
Corico-Langare (Cheppad)
Ignhaperi or Ignhapeli (Elanji)
Iratur (Aruvitura)
Marta (Karunagapally)
Marubuli (Muthalakodam)
Maruquitil (Manarkad)
Muricale (Moozhikkulam)
Nagpili (Muttuchira)
Nhagrica (Njarakkal)
Prouto (Piravom)
Fr. Bernard Thoma Alenchery, the renowned church historian of St. Thomas Christians, was the first to compile a list of churches existed at the time of the Synod of Diamper based on the churches mentioned in Jornada and the traditional information available (Mar Thoma Christianikal, 1921, vol. 2). According to him, the Synod of Diamper was attended by 153 priests and 671 lay delegates from 168 places. He enumerates a total of 105 churches at the time of the Synod, of which, he claims, 77 churches are mentioned in Jornada and these are again classified into 3 categories:
I) Churches visited by Menezes before the Synod of Diamper-24churches
II) Churches visited by Menezes after the Synod of Diamper-44 churches
III) Churches mentioned in Jornada, but not visited by Menezes-9 churches
He further adds 28 churches that supposedly existed at the time of Menezes, but not described in Jornada (IV). However, he doesn’t provide the source for this data, but makes a casual note that their existence were well known. It would also be interesting to know how he arrived at the figure of 168 Christian congregations at the time of the Synod.
I am hereby reproducing the full list of churches compiled by Bernard Thoma. Note that the + sign assigned here refers to the churches visited by Menezes before the Synod of Diamper, and revisited afterwards as well. I have included the names of the churches as it appears in the original Portuguese text of Jornada (1606) in the last column. The identification of the churches are primarily based on Pius Malekandathil’s footnotes.
I-Churches visited by Menezes before the Synod of Diamper
6*-In Chennamangalam, there was also a Seminary & a Kurishupally (Oratory) says Bernard
II-Churches visited by Menezes after the Synod of Diamper
III-Churches not visited by Menezes but mentioned in Jornada
IV-Churches not mentioned in Jornada
CHURCH LIST OF ST THOMAS CHRISTIANS AT THE TIME OF THE SYNOD OF DIAMPER BASED ON 'JORNADA'-UPDATIONS & CORRECTIONS.
It is an important achievement that Fr. Bernard has been able to compile a list of churches from 'Jornada'. This is significant especially when you consider that copies of the original Portuguese volume of Jornada are rare, and English translations were not available even in the early decades of 20th century, when he wrote his Magnum Opus on St Thomas Christians in Malayalam. Having said so, Bernad's list has its own limitations.The list omits a number of churches that are originally mentioned in Jornada. Similarly, a few churches, which Bernard quotes from Jornada, are however, not listed in it. Likewise, sometimes, the names of local kingdoms or sites without a reference to a church are included in the list. In addition, he has a few names mistakenly identified. In this study, I have addressed these issues and hereby propose a modified and corrected list of churches. As per Bernard, Jornada has 77 churches, of which 68 were visited by the Archbishop either before or after the Synod of Diamper, and 9 were not visited by him, but mentioned in Jornada. Also, 17 churches visited before the Synod were also revisited afterwards. Interestingly, out of the 77 churches which Bernard enumerates from Jornada, six are actually not mentioned in it at all!
1) Chennamangalam Thekkepally (7)
2) Kolenchery (58)
3) Kadamattom (61)
4) Kothamangalam Cheriyapally (63)
5) Thaliparambu (66)
6) Vaipur Pazhayapally (74)
In the case of Codemangalao (Kothamangalam), a church dedicated to Virgin Mary (the Valiapally) is highlighted in Jornada, but the more popular Cheriapally is excluded.
It is true that, there are frequent references to the lands and king of Karunagapally or Marta-the abbreviated form of Marutukulangara (23) and Tecancute (68) in Jornada, but churches existing on these specific sites are not mentioned in Jornada. Bernard believes that the church of Tecancuttu is North Kuthiathodu. Likewise, he claims in Baiqueta or Vaikom (67) was a church visited by Menezes, but Gouvea only depicts the place as a Brahminic settlement where the majority of the Christians of Pallipuram (South) church lived. Another interesting church is Athirampuzha (28), which Bernard identifies with the 'little Diamper' mentioned in Jornada near Kudamaloor. It is noticeable that the church at Trauancor (Thiruvithancode) included in category II (visited after the synod) was actually not visited by Menezes, whereas Iratur (Aruvithura) church in category III (i.e. not visited by Menezes), was in fact visited by him after the synod. Additionally, it is clearly stated in Jornada that Ignhaperi or Ignhapeli (identified as Elanji by Malekandathil) was visited by the Archbishop both before and after the synod, however, Bernard’s list places it under category IV (i. e. not mentioned in Jornada). Similarly, although Bernard enlists churches of Edapally, Koratty, Moozhikkulam and Poonjar under category IV, the names, however, do appear in Jornada only as the title of local chiefs-Caimal of Corugeyra or Curugeira (Koratty), Kings of Muricale (Moozhikkulam), Punhatil (Poonjar).and Repelim (Edappally).
Let us now see the churches mentioned in Jornada which failed to enter Bernard's list. There are 8 churches in this category.
1) Paru (North Paravur)
Gouvea mentions two churches in Parur, one dedicated to the ‘glorious Saint Thomas’ and the other to the “two Nestorians, whom they used to call the two Saints, whom the Archbishop gave the name of All Saints”. The first church dedicated to St. Thomas is the Jacobite church and the latter is the ancient church of Paravur, thought to be established by the Apostle and currently under the Catholics. Bernard does not list the church dedicated to St. Thomas.
2) Collegeyra Mangalao or Colligeira Mangalao (Kulasekharamangalam)
This church in Wadakkenkur kingdom, identified as Kulasekharamangalam, was visited by Menezes twice-before and after the synod; and surprisingly, it doesn’t appear in any of the church lists of 18th century, and in Bernard’s enlisting. Pius Malekandathil believes that it was probably destroyed by the 18th century. I believe Collegeyra Mangalao is Kulasekharamangalam-the village in Kottayam district, 2 km south of Chembu/Chempu. In fact, according to traditional accounts, the first church of Chembu was established at Kulashekaramangalam before being shifted to the current location. Since a church at Chembu appears in the lists of Raulin (1745), Du Perron (1771) and Paulinus (1794), it can be safely assumed that Kulasekharamangalam church became extinct before the 18th century.
3) Periate (Vandiperiyar)
Another church that Bernard excludes from his list is Periate- A church according to Jornada, dedicated to the Archangel Saint Michael established for Malleas (Mala Arayans). Pius Malekandathil identifies Periate with Vandiperiyar
4) Vaipim (Vypin)
A church dedicated to Virgin Mary at Vypin is mentioned in Jornada, which Bernard skips from his list
5) Carathnarat (Ramaparum)
According to Gouvea, at Carathnarat, in the lands of the King of Canerate, Menezes ordered to build a church dedicated to St. Augustine and appointed a vicar. Pius Malekandathil identifies Carathnarat with Ramapuram and Canerate with Kadanad.
6) Molecalao (Mulakkulam)
Jornada describes about Molecalao church, a league away from Prouto (Piravom) in the lands of King Muricale, where lived many Christians, and where Menezes established a new church in the name of Santo Aleixo. Molecalao is identified with Mulakkulam and Muricale with Moozhikkulam.
7) Callecoulao (Kayamkulam)
Gouvea writes about two churches in Kayamkulam: 1) a destroyed church belonging to the Bishopric of Cochin, located on a beach under the territory of the king of Calecoulao, and served by the Franciscans from Coulao (Kollam); 2) A very old church interior to Callecoulao, dedicated to “the two Nestorians, who are called Mar Xabro and Mar Prohd” (Mar Sabor and Mar Aphrot). We know that the latter is the modern Kadeesha Orthodox Cathedral of Kayamkulam, but it not clear which among the two is included by Bernard in his list.
8) A Church near Mangate (Alengad)
There is a church near Mangate, which the Portuguese text of Jornada describes as “Ermida da inuocacam de Santa Cruz, situada no altode ha monte junto do Magnate” (or Shrine of the Invocation of the Holy Cross situated at the summit of a hill near Mangate). It is most probably the modern Kunnel Alengad Infant Jesus church which also appears as the oratory of Mangatte church in the 18th century lists of Du Perron and Paulinus.
Further, we have in Jornada, the names of the kings of Charua (Chavara?), Canerate (Kadanad), Muterte (Arthunkal) and Triuilar (Thiruvalla) mentioned. Interestingly, today, all these places except Kadanad boasts of having a church at the time of Menezes.
To summarize, what we have discussed so far: Out of the 77 churches that Bernard enumerates from Jornada, six are not mentioned in it (Chennamangalam Thekkepally, Kolenchery, Kadamattom, Kothamangalam Cheriyapally, Thaliparambu, Vaipur Pazhayapally); three are listed in Jornada, but not as churches (Karunagapally, Tecancute and Vaikom); and one [Ignhaperi/Ignhapeli (Elanji)] which Bernard excludes in his list, is actually mentioned by Gouvea. Alternatively, Bernard’s list does not include eight churches from Jornada [Paru (North Paravur)-Jacobite, Collegeyra Mangalao or Colligeira Mangalao (Kulasekharamangalam), Periate (Vandiperiyar), Vaipim (Vypin), Carathnarat (Ramaparum), Molecalao (Mulakkulam), Callecoulao (Kayamkulam)-Franciscan, A church near Mangate (Kunnel Alengad)]. Thus, we can safely conclude that, based on Jornada, at least 77 churches [(77) - (6) - (3) + (1) + (8)] existed at the time of the Synod of Diamper (1599). However, it is important to note that, Jornada only describes about the churches visited by Archbishop Menezes during his stay in Malabar, and it is certain that there were many more churches in the interior of the lands which he has not visited or heard of.
UPDATED & CORRECTED LIST OF ST THOMAS CHRISTIAN CHURCHES BASED ON 'JORNADA (Churches are arrranged alphabetically).
|
No. |
The
list of churches mentioned in ‘Jornada’ |
|
1 |
Akaparambu (Agaparambim) |
|
2 |
Alangad (Mangate) |
|
3 |
Angamaly-1 (Angamalle) |
|
4 |
Angamaly-2 (Angamalle) |
|
5 |
Angamaly-3 (Angamalle) |
|
6 |
Arakuzha (Aracore) |
|
7 |
Arthat-Kunnamkulam (Chatacolangare) |
|
8 |
Aruvithura (Iratur) |
|
9 |
Athirampuzha (Diamper-2) |
|
10 |
Changanassery
(Changanagere) |
|
11 |
Chendamangalam
(Vaipincotta) |
|
12 |
Chengannur (Chenganor) |
|
13 |
Cheppad (Corico-Langare) |
|
14 |
Chowara (Cheguree) |
|
15 |
Chungam (Turguli or
Turubule) |
|
16 |
Elanji (Ignhaperi or
Ignhapeli) |
|
17 |
Enammavu (Anamaque) |
|
18 |
Kadambanad (Caramanate) |
|
19 |
Kaduthuruthy-1 (Carturte) |
|
20 |
Kaduthuruthy-2 (Carturte) |
|
21 |
Kallada (Calare) |
|
22 |
Kallooppara (Calupare) |
|
23 |
Kalloorkkadu (Calucate) |
|
24 |
Kanjirapally (Canharapily) |
|
25 |
Kanjoor (Canhur) |
|
26 |
Kannur (Cannanore) |
|
27 |
Karthikapally (Catiapeli) |
|
28 |
Kayamkulam-1 (Calecoulao) |
|
29 |
Kayamkulam-2 (Calaecoulao) |
|
30 |
Kochi (Cochin) |
|
31 |
Kodungallur-1 (Cranganor) |
|
32 |
Kodungallur-2 (Cranganor) |
|
33 |
Kollam-1 (Coulao) |
|
34 |
Kollam-2 (Coulao) |
|
35 |
Kothamangalam
(Codemangalao) |
|
36 |
Kottayam-1 (Cotette) |
|
37 |
Kottayam-2 (Cotette) |
|
38 |
Kozhikode (Calecut) |
|
39 |
Kudamaloor (Coramallu) |
|
40 |
Kulasekharamangalam
(Collegeyra Mangalao) |
|
41 |
Kundara (Gundara) |
|
42 |
Kunnel Alengad (Monte
Mangate) |
|
43 |
Kuravilangadu
(Corolengate) |
|
44 |
Malayattoor (Maleatur) |
|
45 |
Manarcad (Maruquitil) |
|
46 |
Mattam (Mutem) |
|
47 |
Mattancherry (Cochim de
Cima or Mattancher) |
|
48 |
Mavelikkara (Podiagabo or
Mauelicare) |
|
49 |
Mulakkulam (Molecalao) |
|
50 |
Mulanthuruthy (Molandurte) |
|
51 |
Muthalakkodam (Marubuli) |
|
52 |
Muttam (Muttao) |
|
53 |
Muttuchira (Nagpili) |
|
54 |
Mylacombu (Malucompil) |
|
55 |
Niranam (Naranao) |
|
56 |
Njarakkal (Nhagrica) |
|
57 |
North Paravur-1 (Paru) |
|
58 |
North Paravur-2 (Paru) |
|
59 |
Pala (Palla) |
|
60 |
Palayur (Pallur) |
|
61 |
Pallipuram (Palliporao) |
|
62 |
Palluruthy (Palurte) |
|
63 |
Piravom (Prouto) |
|
64 |
Pulinkunnu (Poligunde) |
|
65 |
Purakkad (Porca) |
|
66 |
Ramapuram (Carathnarat) |
|
67 |
South Paravoor (Paru
Pequeno) |
|
68 |
Thevalakkara (Teualecare) |
|
69 |
Thiruvithancode
(Trauancor) |
|
70 |
Thodamala (Todamalla) |
|
71 |
Thrippunithura (Narame) |
|
72 |
Thumpamon (Tuumpone) |
|
73 |
Udayamperoor (Diamper-1) |
|
74 |
Vadakara (Baragore) |
|
75 |
Vandiperiyar (Periate) |
|
76 |
Venmony (Batimena) |
|
77 |
Vypin (Vaipim) |
|
No. |
Places or names mentioned in ‘Jornada’, but not as a
church |
|
1 |
Arthunkal (Muterte) |
|
2 |
Chavara (Charua) |
|
3 |
Edappally (Repelim) |
|
4 |
Kadanad (Canerate) |
|
5 |
Karunagapally (Marta) |
|
6 |
Koratty (Corugeyra or
Curugeira) |
|
7 |
Kuthiathodu (Tecancute) |
|
8 |
Moozhikkulam (Muricale) |
|
9 |
Poonjar (Punhatil) |
|
10 |
Thiruvalla (Triuilar) |
|
11 |
Vaikom (Baiqueta) |
In brackets are the names of churches in original Portuguese language as they appear in Jornada. The identification of churches here are based mainly on the inferences made by Bernard and Malekandathil, but alternate views are also available. For instance, the church at Ignhaperi/Ignhapeli is identified as Elanji by Malekandathil (2003, p. 439), but Muttuchira by T. K. Joseph (Hosten, 1936, p. 362). Given that Ighnhaperi was dedicated to Holy Spirit (Malekandathil, p. 439) and situated a league away from Carturte/Kaduthuruthy (Malekandathil, p. 440), T. K. Joseph is more convincing. Similarly, Manarkad by Bernard is considered to be Maramon by others (Malekandathil, 2003, p. 424).
ReplyDeleteReally appreciate the painstaking work behind this post to present the relevant facts in a really simple and organised manner. Since the list presented includes churches like Kannur and Kozhikode, I think it would be nice if you could add a separate list (or an indication) for Latin churches that existed at the time of the synod and mentioned in Jornada for a better understanding.
Also, I had read that the synod of Diamper divided Angamaly diocese into 72 parishes by decree no. 1 of session VIII. Are those parishes specifically named somewhere? If a list exists we could be certain that at least those churches existed at the time and adhered to the synod.
Since the list is based on Fr. Bernard's interpretation of Jornada, it would be reasonable to ask what he thought about the Latin-Syrian classification of the churches. Bernard writes in detail about this issue in his Magnum Opus, Marthoma Christianikal [Second Edition (1982), pp. pp.398-402, 443, 605-609], and according to him only 8 churches in the list were Latin, viz. Kannur, Kozhikkode, Kodungallur (2 churches), Kochi (St. Thomas church), Mattancherry, Todamala, Kollam (1 out of 2 churches). However, he argues that except for a church in Kollam which was taken over by the Portuguese before the synod, the rest all remained Syrian until at least the Coonan Cross Oath (1653). Likewise, he believes that the churches at Kannur and Kozhikode were also Syrian and not Latin at the time of the synod. His major rational was that since the Chaldean bishops who wrote the famous Syriac letter of 1504 spent at Cananor (Kannur) for 2.5 months, they might have stayed at a Syrian church there. Ironically, the letter does not give the faintest hint of a Syrian Christian community in Kannur, but only depicts the presence of a small Portuguese congregation of 20 individuals who maintained a beautiful oratory in the town, where they were also allowed to celebrate the Holy Sacrifice in their own rite! Moreover, the letter also clearly states that it was with the Franks (Portuguese) that the Chaldeans stayed for 2.5 months. Interestingly, in the same letter there is no reference to a Christian community in Kozhikode either, as evident from the statement "great and rich town of Calicut, where idolaters are living". Had there been Syrian Christian communities in these towns, the Chaldean bishops would have definitely mentioned about that in the letter. The only Christian settlements cited in the letter are the “famous and strong Crangol (Kodungallur), Palor (Palayur) and Colam (Kollam)”. Similarly, when the Portuguese arrived at Malabar they did not find a Christian community at Calicut, instead their presence in Cochin, Cranganore and Quilon are reported. Hence, at least in the case of Kannur and Kozhikode, we are certain that there were no Syrian Christian community in the early 16th century.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the 72 parishes formed after the Synod, to the best of my knowledge, we don’t have such a list available. What is interesting though is that number varies in multiple reports. In fact, we don’t find this estimate in the Session VIII of the ‘Acts of the Synod of Diamper’, which deals with ‘of the Reformation of Church Affairs’. It is in the last Decree of the final Session (of the Reformation of Manners), i.e. Session IX, Decree XXV, we read about the division of parishes. The original Portuguese text of Gouvea’s ‘Synodo Dioceasno.. da India Oriental’ (1606) says: “After the Decrees were read, the Bishopric was divided into 75 parishes”. This figure is attested by Bishop Francisco Roz, who accompanied Archbishop Menezes in his journeys through Malabar, in his ‘Relacao Sobre a Serra’ (1603)-remember Jornada was published in 1606 only, and Michael Geddes (1694), Thomas Whitehouse (1873) etc. There is even an earlier report-a letter written just 6 months after the Synod of Diamper, by Jesuit missionaries, Fr. Nicolas Pimenta to Fr. Claudius Aquaviva, dated December 21, 1599, which suggests that Menezes established 80 parishes. However, in the Malayalam translations of the ‘Acts of the Synod of Diamper’, the number of parishes becomes 72 distributed to 72 vicars [Scaria Zacharia (1976, 1998), Daniel K. N. (1952) etc.].
Thank you very much for the detailed clarifications. I had in fact always suspected that 72 (as in 72 parishes) was a cooked up number by the Malayalam authors since the number is featured very prominently in the traditional accounts of syrian christians like martyrdom of St. Thomas in AD 72, migration of 72 families under Thomas of Cana etc! Maybe the Malayalam authors simply deducted the 8 Latin churches visited by Archbishop Menezes from the number of parishes reported by Fr. Pimenta (80) to arrive at the number of 72 parishes (80-8= 72).
ReplyDeleteSince the diocese of Cochin for Latin christians was already in existence from 1557, it is not logical to include those 8 Latin churches in the total number of syrian parishes obtained after the division of the diocese of Angamali. Thus it is certain that the number of reported parishes 80 / 75, after the bifurcation of Angamali diocese were exclusively syrian churches. If the 8 Latin churches were excluded from the total 77 churches enumerated in Jornada, only 69 syrian churches are left. Even if the least number of syrian parishes after the synod is taken as 75, it is ascertained that at least six (75-69 =6) syrian churches existing at the time were not named in the Jornada and also not visited by the Archbishop. It would be interesting to explore why some of the existing churches failed to get a mention in the Jornada. At least in the case of Edappally, some later authors wrote that the archbishop couldn’t visit the church due to the strong opposition to him at the place.
If 105 churches were existing at the time as mentioned by Fr. Bernard, why was the number of parishes limited to 75 / 80, which i find most interesting. Of course, are examples for multiple churches being administered as a single parish. The discrepancy between the total number of churches and the parishes is thus really intriguing and an explanation would be most welcome.
First of all, the list is a reproduction of what Fr. Bernard has compiled and the classification is his own. He believed that all the 8 Latin churches included in the list existed before the arrival of Portuguese, and hence was not necessary to exclude them from the list. In other words, Bernard considered that they existed as Syrian churches, much before the Diocese of Cochin was formed. Now, whether his arguments are valid or not is a different issue. More importantly, the list is based on the churches of Kerala mentioned in Jornada distributed from Kannur to Thiruvithancode. However, the 75 parishes that were formed by Menezes after the synod, were meant for administrative convenience of the Bishopric of Angamale and need not represent all the churches in Kerala. Nevertheless, in certain translations (Malayalam), it appears as if the classification was applied to the whole church. Anyway, in the same decree (XXV of Session IX), we find that small churches that were not able to maintain a vicar were united to larger parishes, and therefore these numbers need not be an exact representation of all the churches at the time of the synod.
ReplyDeleteThere is no doubt that Menezes couldn’t visit many churches, and from Jornada itself, we learn around 10 churches in this category. Why didn’t he? The reasons could be many-accessibility (interior and remote lands), weather (harsh monsoon), time (he was in Kerala for 11 months only) and surely the strong opposition he had to face from the Archdeacon and his supporters. It is true that Menezes didn’t visit some of the very prominent churches like Edapally, and in this case, as you also suggested, the reason could be the resistance from the rival group. Interestingly, the name Edapally is mentioned once in Jornada, while describing the location of St. Thomas church of Calupare (Kallooppara), namely “in the lands of king of Repelim” (Rapolim, Rapolin, Rapolini etc. are other forms for Edapally).
Well, It was Bernard’s treatment of those 8 Latin churches as syrian at the time of the synod caused me the confusion. Thanks for the detailed clarification.
ReplyDeleteYou have made a mistake in interpreting Maruquitil. It is Maramon church, not Manarcad
ReplyDeleteI think you missed the last paragraph where I have addressed this issue. This post is specifically about Fr. Bernard Thomas' list of 105 churches at the time of the Synod of Diamper, and their identification solely based on the inferences made by the author (Bernard Thoma) and footnotes provided by Pius Malekandathil in his English translation of Jornada. I have not included the other suggestions as it will expand the already much lengthy post.
DeleteIn this case, Maruquitil is identified as Manarkad by Bernard, whereas Malekandathil does provide the alternate suggestion of Maramon in his footnote (see also the end of the original post). In Jornada, Maruquitil church is in honour of Virgin Mary and more importantly it's location is given as one league (c. 5 km) from Changanor (Chengannur). Therefore Maramon which is nearer to Chengannur has a better probability of being the site than the far away Mannarkad. Strangely, Maruquitil does not come up in any of the 18th century church lists of Raulin, Du Perron and Paulinus. However Maramon (Moramanor, Maramanil and Maramanil) and Mannarkkad (Manirgat, Manargate and Manargada) appear in these lists, both dedicated to Virgin Mary and in the Thekkumkur kingdom.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHi Lijo? Why are you giving importance to the list by Bernard Thoma of 1921? If he claims the list is from Jornada of 1604AD, he must not add churches into this list at his leisure.Also, why add the churches mentioned in Pius Malekandathil's introduction part. The introduction part written by him is not of guevea's book of Jornada.
ReplyDeleteWhat are these people's evidences of including other churches into the list.How can he prove they exist at the time of Diamper synod without any evidence?
Tradition or assumptions are not history. And Portugeese were available in Malankara from 1499 AD. There was ample time to show up in their records, nazrani churches. If you want the Jornada list of churches, why don't you read chapter wise? I am pretty sure the overall church count is below 40 only. And the other fact is that, the majority churches Menezis visited or mentioned by Guevea currently are held by the Puthenkoor faction. So the question arises - When was the parishes that syro malabar church/Pazhamkoor faction that claim to be old parishes were built. Were they built in the time period of 150 years after coonan cross revolt? Why there are no much churches mentioned in between Angamaly to Kunnamkulam eventhough the portugeese station was near. It was not that far interior, or was it? For the portugeese, the interior churches were in the south. But many churches are mentioned just when they took a roundabout journey through them. Why this paradox!
Part II
ReplyDeleteIf you look carefully at the 77 churches in the list (see table at the end of my post), around 30 of them are Puthenkoot and remaining are Pazhayakoot churches today. Hence your observation that the majority of churches visited by Menezes are held currently by the Puthenkoot group is not correct.
Jornada has the names of at least 4 churches north to Angamaly: Enammavu, Mattam, Chattukulangara (Arthat) and Paloor (Palayur). Therefore, your assumption that no churches are mentioned in Jornada between Angamaly and Kunnamkulam is also wrong.
I don't think any serious scholar would believe that Jornada has listed all the churches in Kerala at the 16th century or that Menezes has been to all the known churches in Kerala. So the absence of a church mentioned in Jornada does not necessarily mean it's nonexistence. Unfortunately, very few churches can go beyond Jornada to prove its historicity, yet there are several churches both Puthenkoot and Pazhayakoot that claim pre Portuguese origin, all based on traditions and legendary assumptions!
I have come across more than 200 church sites in Kerala that claim for a pre-1600 origin! Interestingly, almost none of them can produce a 16th century or early document to prove such tall claims. Yes, traditions and assumptions are not direct historical records, but if you exclude them from Kerala's church history you are left with almost no data (this is same with every Puthenkoor and Pazhayakoor churches). If you believe that there are ample church documents before 1498 to prove the antiquity of the St Thomas Christian churches, you will be heavily disappointed. Jornada of the early 17th century is still one of the oldest record where most of the churches in Kerala can go to the farthest. Even the much acclaimed list of 7 churches established by St Thomas have no documentary support before 18th century (that is to say, before 18th century we don’t find a list of churches established by St Thomas in any documents)!
The churches listed by Bernard and Malekandathil outside Jornada are based on traditions and old documents available to them and both are not claiming that they are from pre-Portuguese (before 1498) primary records. In Malekandathil’s list of 58 churches in his introduction to Jornada, 37 of the names are mentioned in Jornada; and 14 churches are now under the Puthenkoor faction. In the list of 28 churches by Bernard outside Jornada, at least 4 are under Puthenkoor now. Your blunt statement that these authors have added churches leisurely and they are biased seems a bit too far-fetched. However, if your yardstick demands primary records for the dates of establishment of churches in Kerala, then you have to discard almost every St Thomas Christian Church that claim a pre-1500 origin, as there are hardly any such documents available before 1500 AD. Again this is same for every Puthenkoor and Pazhayakoor pre-1500 churches, with a rare exception of maybe one or two. Therefore, if you outrightly discard every oral tradition by calling them assumptions and unhistorical, then what is left for the churches in Kerala, at least for those that claim pre-1500 origin is a huge vacuum!
Lastly, my name is 'Laju' and not 'Lijo' Paul
You can write to me at lajupaulk4@gmail.com if you feel more lengthy discussions are required.
Laju Paul
Let me add my response in two parts as it’s a bit too long to go in one comment.
ReplyDeletePart I
I think you have certain misunderstandings regarding the list of churches here. The list is about the St Thomas Christian churches mentioned in Jornada (written in 1603) and not about Pazhayakoor and Puthenkoor classification. I am sure you will agree that there was no such grouping at the time of writing of the Jornada. I disagree with your conclusion that the number of churches mentioned in Jornada is below 40. How did you arrive at this number? I have gone through the full text (yes, page-wise) of Jornada (English translation, 2003) and corroborated the names with the original version (Portuguese, published in 1606), and can assure you that at least 77 churches are mentioned by their names in Jornada. If you are not convinced, just go through the index in Jornada (2003-English Translation) and look for the churches mentioned in the main text and see that the numbers are way above 40.
Why Fr. Bernard Alencherry and Fr Pius Malekandathil?
I have used Bernard’s list (105 churches) as a base for this study because he was the first to compile the individual churches mentioned in Jornada to a list. This should not appear trivial to you, because Jornada was not available in English at the time of his writing and he had to access original Portuguese, or non-English translations, which were all rare. Once this is achieved, he had to go through the entire text to identify the churches and then form a list. Remember Jornada does not give a separate church list, but their names have to be retrieved from the text. Bernard finds 77 churches in Jornada which is certainly an important achievement given the circumstances under which he accomplished this task. The remaining 28 churches (105-77 churches) are based on the traditions known to him and he clearly states that they are not from Jornada. I have included them anyway if someone would be interested to know about them. Pius Malekandathil gave us the first English translation of Jornada in 2003. The translation of such an important work took 400 years to appear is rather unbelievable and it is undoubtedly a significant achievement. It is true that Malekandathil has listed 58 churches in the introduction of Jornada, but I have not discussed them in this post. I fail to understand why you believe so.
Although, Bernard’s list has 77 churches, 9 of them are not mentioned in Jornada, he also has certain omissions. After incorporating the corrections, I have provided an updated list of churches at the end of this post. The modified list also consists of 77 churches, of which, 68 churches appear in Bernard’s list, the remaining 9 churches are added based on this study, and yes, all of them are mentioned in Jornada.