Download PDF | Ambassadors, Artists, Theologians Byzantine Relations with the Near East from the Ninth to the Thirteenth Centuries, -Germanischen Zentralmuseums , 2019.
24 Pages
Nicolas Drocourt
Arabic-speaking Ambassadors in the Byzantine Empire (from the Ninth to Eleventh Centuries)
In the framework of the conference held in Mainz, Arabic-speaking ambassadors deserve special attention. This paper will focus on the frst three centuries of the period under consideration (i. e. between the ninth and eleventh centuries). Offcial emissaries were already present within the Byzantine Empire during the previous centuries, since the very beginning of Islam. The period of the rāšidūn caliphs and then the entire Umayyad period soon demonstrated that military contacts were only one side of a much more complex reality of relations between the Arab Near East and Byzantium. Peaceful relations also prevailed. Arabic-speaking ambassadors – as well as Byzantine emissaries sent to Damascus and then to Baghdad – were at the heart of these relations. Various studies by Marius Canard or, more recently, those by Andreas Kaplony and Alexander Beihammer, among others, have focused on these frst decades and centuries of offcial and diplomatic relations1. They have demonstrated notably that many Arab ambassadors stayed in the Byzantine Empire – even if the ebb and fow of their movements did not follow a regular pattern, depending on geopolitical circumstances2. The case of Arabic-speaking ambassadors sent to Byzantium during the subsequent centuries, until the beginning of the Crusades, can be analyzed. As such, the subject raises many questions. First of all, who are the ambassadors under consideration? What is their social and political profle? What are their conditions of travel and stay within the Empire? But we also have to deal with the political and cultural consequences of their stay in the Byzantine Empire – an aspect which will be considered in the third part of this paper. As a whole, the place and infuence of these ambassadors compared to that of other individuals (monks, merchants or artists) between Byzantium and the Arab Near East can also be considered within the context of this overview. Part of an Elite? Social Profle and Reasons for the Choice of Arab Ambassadors Thanks to the written sources, scholars usually posit that ambassadors formed part of an elite during the Middle Ages – and this is not only true for Arab ambassadors sent to the Byzantine Empire 3. But this seems particularly true for these emissaries, and, more generally, for the ones who moved from the Muslim to the Christian world and vice versa 4. Indeed, they have to be considered as part of a social as well as a military and political elite, even if this assertion cannot be checked for each case of diplomatic contact known to us. A few examples tend to prove this fact. First of all, the notable Abū ʿUmayr ʿAdī b. Ahmad b. ʿAbd al-Bāqī al-Aḏanī is impressive in that sense. He represents a case which requires careful thought. In the frst part of the tenth century, ʿAbd al-Bāqī held offcial administrative functions on the Abbasid Syrian frontier with Byzantium. He was an Arab from the Tamīm tribe originating from the Cilician city of Adana5. He is known to us notably because of his personal relations with one of the greatest Arab geographers of this century: al-Masʿūdī. The latter presents him as a commander of the Syrian borderlands (šayḫ aṯ-ṯuġūr aš-šāmīya)6, while al-Ḫaṭīb al-Baġdādi calls him a raʾīs of the same ṯuġūr7. He appears to have played a central role in the diplomatic contacts between Byzantium and the Abbasid Caliphate. Indeed, if he reached Constantinople in May 946 to meet Constantine VII in the name of the caliph8, he was already an offcial mediator in 924, when he escorted a Byzantine embassy to Baghdad9. Furthermore, at the beginning of the summer of 917 his name is also mentioned in Arabic sources for the role he played in the reception of another Byzantine embassy in order to prepare an exchange of prisoners10. Known through Arabic and Greek sources, ʿAbd al-Bāqī has not surprisingly attracted the attention of historians of Arab-Byzantine relations11. We should also note that, for the beginning of the tenth century, Greek chroniclers mention the arrival of a man known as Abelbakēs in Constantinople for diplomatic reasons. Some scholars suggest he might be our ʿAbd al-Bāqī, and, therefore, this diplomatic mission could have been the frst of numerous offcial contacts for the raʾīs of the borderlands12. However, these views are not shared by other historians13. The long »career« of Abū ʿUmar ʿAdī b. ʿAbd al-Bāqī should not conceal another Arab ambassador known thanks to the famous historian aṭ-Ṭabarī. The name of this envoy clearly indicates a family link with the one just presented. Aṭ-Ṭabarī indeed mentions an offcial emissary whose name was Yaḥyā ibn ʿAbd al-Bāqī. In 896 the latter also took part in a diplomatic mission between Baghdad and Constantinople. Sent by the Ṭūlūnid amīr Ibn Ḫumārawayh, he also prepared a major exchange of prisoners14. The precise nature of the family links between the two Ibn ʿAbd al-Bāqī remains unknown15. Nevertheless, these two ambassadors remind us that different members of the same family can lead offcial delegations to Byzantium to defend the diplomatic interests of the Abbasid Caliphate16. What is signifcant for our purpose is the fact that the Arabic term šayḫ can be associated with other offcial emissaries – thus confrming their political and social importance. Two cases prove this during the eleventh century, frstly with the šayḫ ʿAbd al-Ġānī ibn Saʿīd. He was sent to Constantinople during the year 404 H. (13.7.1013 /1.7.1014) by the Fatimid caliph al-Ḥākim. The famous Arabic and Egyptian historian al-Maqrīzī specifes that he was Sunni17. His aim was certainly to renew the offcial peace treaty between the Byzantines and the Fatimids – a treaty already signed at the end of the year 1000 or beginning of the following year18. At the end of the year 1060, the new Mirdāsid amīr of Aleppo also sent a šayḫ to Constantinople, ʿAbd Allāh b. Muḥammad al-Hafāǧī, asking the basileus for military aid against another Mirdāsid faction19. But other eminent Arab persons with local roles should be evoked as diplomatic agents. In May or June 1062, while military tensions were high with the Byzantines, the amīr Timāl b. Ṣāliḥ decided to send from Aleppo one of the notables of this city, Šāfʿ b. ʿAǧāl b. as-Sūfī. Representing an amīr and city in a strong position, he succeeded in his diplomatic mission20. But if the choice of notables can be a guarantee of success, it does not necessarily equate to a strong Arab position. Exactly one century before, at the end of 962, the same inhabitants of Aleppo sent some of the most distinguished men to negotiate the surrender of their city with Emperor Nikephoros Phokas, who was besieging it21. Historians can fnd other examples of such surrenders negotiated by eminent members of Syrian cities at the time of the Byzantine conquest in the 970s22. This role of members of the elite of cities and the administration is thus entirely confrmed by the ranks, functions or dignities occupied by a few Arab ambassadors whose names and functions have been recorded in our sources. Some qāḍīs, for example, can be found among these temporary diplomats. The fight of Bardas Skleros to Baghdad gave rise to numerous exchanges of embassies and ambassadors between Constantinople and the Abbasid capital. Among them, the coming of Abū Bākr al-Bāqillānī to Byzantium in 980/981, in the name of the Būyid ʿAḍud ad-Dawla, has to be mentioned23. He was, at that time, a qāḍī, but also a famous jurist and theologian as Ibn Ḫallikān describes him in his Biographical Dictionary24. The same author also mentions another qāḍī who acted as an envoy of the Fatimid caliph al-Mustansir. Indeed, a man known as al-Qudāʿī led a mission to the Bosphorus in the mid-eleventh century. As a member of an intellectual elite, he wrote books which served as sources for subsequent Egyptian historians – such as al-Maqrīzī, who confrms his diplomatic role25. If we trust Kamāl ad-Dīn, he led a second embassy in the name of the Fatimids to the emperor Romanos IV in 106826. Even a vizier can act as an ambassador. Abū-l Qāsim alḤusayn b. ʿAlī al-Maġribī, vizier and envoy of Sayf ad-Dawla, negotiated an exchange of prisoners with the Byzantines in 96627. In the mid-eleventh century, the vizier, poet and ambassador Abū Naṣr al-Manazī (d. 437/1045) frequently traveled to Constantinople, where he purchased a great number of books28. Finally, one should not forget the cases of diplomatic contacts with the court of Constantinople in which the amīrs, mainly understood here as autonomous princes governing an emirate, come to the Empire themselves to meet the emperor and to negotiate with him. These cases are numerous. The circumstances explaining such a choice are different from one case to the next. An amīr can negotiate and conclude an exchange of prisoners. The presence in Constantinople of the one called Delemikēs by the De ceremoniis, at the end of the summer of 946, provides a good example of this29. The coming of an amīr can be a mark of allegiance – such as the case of Abū Ḥafṣ, amīr of Melitene at the end of the year 93130. It is all the more obvious since the contact occurs while the emperor himself is on a military campaign which appears to be successful: the famous chronicler Yaḥya al-Anṭākī depicts it as taking place during the military presence in Syria in 995, for example31. In September 1032, an important diplomatic negotiation took place in Constantinople concerning notably the oriental frontier of Byzantium and, thus, the fate of various emirates which were concerned with that frontier32. Among the representatives who were present, it is not surprising to fnd one of these amīrs himself, Ḥassān ibn al Mufarriǧ al-Ǧarrāh, amīr of Tripoli33. Less than thirty years later, in 1056/1057 (H. 448), the Seljuk sultan Tuġril Beg sent rich gifts to the Byzantine emperor through two eminent emissaries: the amīr Quṭb ad-Dawla and a man known as al-Ḥasanī presented as a šarīf, an Arabic term which means that al-Ḥasanī was considered a descendant of the Prophet34. This last example defnitely convinces us that Arab ambassadors were above all members of the political and social elite of the Arabs. The presence of amīrs reminds us of the importance attached to offcial contacts with Byzantium, as well as the need to be represented before the emperor in the best way possible, which means with the most suitable men. Beyond this frst overview of the social profle of our ambassadors, a few other explanations should be given. Why were these men chosen and not others who may have had the same profle? The choice of an ambassador remains based on a feeling of confdence. This confdence concerns, of course, the sovereign who sends an envoy and the latter, but also, to a lesser degree, the trust between the envoy and the sovereign who receives him (here the basileus). An ambassador should be reliable for the sovereign that he represents abroad35. As such, it is not surprising that caliphs or amīrs sent the closest person of their entourage and political circle. Abū Ishāq Ibn Šahrām, for his second stay in the Byzantine Empire in the name of the Abbasid caliph and Būyid amīr ʿAḍud ad-Dawla, is thus presented as »one of the trustworthy men« of the latter by Yaḥya al-Anṭākī36. Their choice can be directed to their own relatives. The presence of one of the sons of amīrs, for example, is frequently observed in our sources, and it is confrmed by Arabic as well as Greek sources. It seems, however, that this practice was more frequent, if not exclusive, during the eleventh century. To my knowledge we don’t fnd caliphs sending their own sons. But it frequently appears during the frst half of the eleventh century with other sovereigns. Mirdāsid’s amīr from Aleppo or amīr Ḥassān b. al-Mufarriǧ sent their sons to Constantinople to request Byzantine titles and stipends. This seems to be a signifcant change in the way Arab and Muslim sovereigns conceived their diplomatic representation to the emperor. It is also certainly a consequence of close ties between Constantinople and these new Muslim frontier lords, the latter sometimes taking the role of representatives and dignitaries of the Byzantine Empire – as recently summarized by Alexander Beihammer 37. It seems clear that this practice also corresponds to a period when the Byzantine Empire still had a strong infuence on its eastern neighbours. Among these trustworthy persons around the Abbasid caliphs, one should observe that the eunuchs are less present than other persons in this diplomatic role. As is well known, they played an important role in the frst political circle of different caliphs, as D. Ayalon has demonstrated38. Nevertheless, they were rarely chosen as ambassadors to the basileus. Thanks to the Syriac author Bar Hebraeus one can be found, in the mid-ninth century, received by Empress Theodora to prepare an exchange of prisoners39. It remains true that eunuchs regularly appear in negotiations that take place in the borderlands, notably to prepare and carry out the well-known exchanges of prisoners between Byzantium and the Arabs40. The choice of an ambassador is also the choice of a person who will be able to discuss and negotiate specifc points. Since these diplomatic discussions concern the borderlands, it is not surprising to fnd residents of these areas chosen as offcial envoys, especially when they are part of the local political and military elite. Their names are indicative of their origins, and thus of their choice. Abū ʿUmayr ʿAdī b. Ahmad b. ʿAbd al-Bāqī al-Aḏanī, already presented, is a signifcant case41. We can add to him another envoy, acting for the Fatimid caliph on the eve of the battle of Manzikert. According to an Arabic text, his name was Abū l-Faḍl Ibrāhīm b. ʿAlī al-Kafartābī42. Here again, this nisba – an adjective indicating a person’s place of origin used at the end of the name – indicates a man originating from Northern Syria (Kafartāb) who is at the heart of Byzantine-Muslim negotiations43. Another question seems important: the capacity of these men to ratify treaties or peace conventions. It is not only a question of trust between the sovereign involved in these negotiations and his ambassador. It is also a question of knowledge of the law. This is an aspect that can explain the presence of qāḍīs or judges at the head of Arab embassies. Reading the account given by Abū Šuǧaʿ about Ibn Šahrām’s embassy in 372 AH helps us to understand how long and hard these negotiations were, and how they could stumble over the written and fnal resolution – even if the re-writing by Abū Šuǧaʿ is not to be ignored44. Ambassadors have to be aware of these legal aspects before negotiating and even concluding any treaty or truce45. Of course, linguistic skills should not be forgotten. If translators and interpreters existed at the imperial court of Constantinople, and if scholars hypothesize that there was an Arabic department in the Byzantine imperial chancery46, the knowledge of the Greek language was certainly another criterion in the choice of Arab and Muslim sovereigns. Here again, not surprisingly, we fnd Arab emissaries originating from the borderlands where bilingualism was a reality. As such, the case of ʿAbd al-Bāqī in the frst part of the tenth century is really symptomatic of this tendency: coming from the borderlands, being a high status offcer, acting several times as ambassador and intermediary between Constantinople and Baghdad, and speaking Greek fuently if we trust Arabic testimonies. In 917, he acted in Baghdad as the offcial interpreter of the Byzantine emissaries coming to the Abbasid capital47, a function that he held one more time seven years later48. In the second part of the same century, the famous Arab geographer al-Muqaddasī explained that in different ribāṭāt of the south Syrian coast numerous persons speaking Greek could also be sent to Byzantium as members of an embassy49. Last but not least, another criterion concerning the choice of Arab ambassadors is the fact that some of them are also Christian50. One has to note that it seems that most of these Arab and Christian ambassadors were above all Melkites. Three examples are signifcant. At the conclusion of the tenth century, a man known as Malkūṯā as-Suryānī offers a frst example. He was twice sent to Emperor Basil II 51. He was also a merchant, the only one I could fnd among the ambassadors, whose activities were certainly concerned with the fate of Arab-Byzantines borderlands. But the two most signifcant cases were the two patriarchs of Jerusalem, Orestes52 and then Nikephoros53, who acted as envoys of the Fatimid caliphs in the frst part of the next century. Beyond their great respectability – an important aspect for their reception in Byzantium – one should not forget that the former also had personal and familial links with the Fatimid caliph, being an uncle of the latter.
Link
Press Here
0 التعليقات :
إرسال تعليق