The European Association for the Study of Religions (EASR)

Tartu, June 2019

Continuations and Disruptions in the History of the Islamic World - 28/Jun/2019 - Philosophicum 111

An Ignored Arabic Account of a Byzantine Royal Woman

Hadi Taqavi, Ehsan Roohi, Hadi Sabouhi, University of California-Irvine , hsabouhi@uci.edu
Introduction
Literature Review
 Byzantine imperial and aristocratic women had a wide variety of
roles with a spectrum of importance. (Elizabeth Jeffrey, 2008; Lynda Garland,
1999):
 mere attendance in the imperial ceremonies,
 managing women’s quarters in the palace,
 acting as co-ruling regents, or
 reigning as autocratic sovereigns.

 Current research has shown great interest in the lives of Byzantine

empresses and the so-called porphyrogennetoi (Born in Purple)
princesses. (Kenneth G. Holum, 1989; Judith Herrin, 2001; L. Garland and S. Tougher, 2007)
Introduction
Literature Review
 Much less attention has been devoted to the lower category of
Byzantine elite women, who were not purple-born princesses. (Adelbert
Davids, 1995).

 One possible way to enrich the information on these royal women is to

consult the historical and cultural heritage of Byzantium’s adjacent
territories.
 Shī’ī ḥadīth collections may not be an obvious source of information.
However, relevant pieces of evidence may be collected even the most
unlikely of places.
 The primary aim of this paper is to trace Byzantine women in Shī’ī
ḥadīth literature, alleged autobiogrphy of a heretofore unidentified
Roman princess named Malīka.
Malīka’s Autobiography
 The earliest and most related account mentioning Malīka occurs
in Kamāl al-dīn wa tamām al-ni‘ma, by the 10th century Persian
scholar, Ibn Bābawayh (991) (M. McDermott, 1978; N. Calder et al.,2012; Alfred
F. Landon Beeston, et al., 1983).

 Ibn Bābawayh relates the tale of a certain Bishr ibn al-Sulaymān –

al-Hadī’s (828-868) trustworthy disciple and neighbor in Samarrā.
 According to al-Hadī, the girl was captured in a mid-9th century
war between Rūm and the Abbasids, brought to Baghdad, later
moved to Samarrā in present-day Iraq.
 In Samarrā, she married an Arab nobleman, Hasan al-Askarī, a
descendant of the Prophet Muḥammad and the 12th Shī’ī Imām.
(H. Nasr, 1975)
The Arabic Narration By Malīka
 Malīka provides an autobiography of herself, when Bishr confronts the girl:
 I am Malīka, daughter of Yashū‘ā, son of Ghayṣar Malik al-Rūm.
 My mother is a descendant of Jesus’s disciples (Ḥawārīyyīn), from the
bloodline of Sham‘ūn, the executor (waṣī) of Jesus.
 My forefather Caesar decided to marry me to his brother’s son, when I was a
girl of 13.
 300 invitees gathered from the descendants of the disciples of Jesus, monks
and Christian priests, also 700 from the grandee and nobles, as well as 4000
from the commanders of the army, chieftains of the military, and leaders of
the armed forces.
The Arabic Narration By Malīka

 A magnificent throne from the reception hall of the palace was erected.

 The groom stepped higher up on the seat, the crosses placed round about the

throne and the bishops stood to pay him honour and opened the scripture to

read it.

 Suddenly, the crosses collapsed, and the pillars (of the throne) crumbled and

crashed to the floor.

 The groom fell on his face unconscious, and the bishops changed whey-faced

and their chests trembled.

The Arabic Narration By Malīka
 The chief of the bishops, turned to my forefather saying: Oh my Lord! Exempt
us from this; it is a sign of the deterioration of Christianity.
 The Caesar, however, did not reconsidered his decision and ordered, ‘raise the
columns and set the throne up again’.
 The groom’s brother was summoned to sit on the throne and to marry me but
the earthquake disturbs the ceremony for the second time.
 The ceremony terminated but the scandal ruined Caesar’s reputation.
 Then Malīka narrated her flight from the palace, being captured,
arriving in Arab lands, and eventually meeting of Bishr ibn al-
Sulaymān, while she concealed her identity and introducing herself as
‘Narjis’. (al-Ṭabarī, 489)
Modern Studies

 Donaldson in the mid-20th century was the first orientalist to show

interest in Malīka’s account, merely translating Ibn Bābawayh’s
narrative into English.
 Amir-Moezzi, in his book ‘Divine Guide in Early Shi'ism: The Sources
of Esotericism in Islam” describes Malīka’s report, without proof or
researched conjecture, as ‘legendary and hagiographic’.
 In the ‘Between History and Hagiography. The Mothers of the Imams
in Imami Historical Memory,’ (Oxford University Press), Michael
Dann in his study of the lives mothers of Shī’ī Imāms, discusses
several accounts on Narjis, Hasan al-Askarī’s famous slave girl.
Modern Studies
 For Dann, the central part attributed to Narjis in the events following al-Askarī’s
death is only partly historically accurate.
 Furthermore, Dann contends that, of all the ḥadīths preserved in Shī’ī
collections concerning Narjis, the autobiographical account ascribed to her ‘is
perhaps the least useful in determining anything concrete about Hasan al-
Askarī’s concubine’. Rejecting her Roman provenance as legendary, Dann further
avers that nothing certain is known about Narjis’ place of origin.
 Among the few scholarly attempts made by Muslims to identify the paternal
ancestry of Malīka, the work of Kamāl al-Sayyid is, perhaps, the most notable,
the book “Mother of Mahdī’ Enteẓāri mow‘ūd”.
 Unlike his Western counterparts, Kamāl al-Sayyid assumes the authenticity of
Malīka’s report as fact. Al-Sayyid’s hypothesis that Malīka’s grandfather was
Caesar Bardas, however, is not more than a conjectural assertion, for which he
does not provide the reader with historical testimonies.
Our Approach and Argument

 This Arabic material on Byzantium in an official chronicle than a

religious collection, and that is why the account’s potential
historical value has escaped the notice of previous Byzantinists.
 Far from a typical historical account, Malīka’s narrative is of a
clearly supernatural nature, quite different from other Arabic
accounts on Byzantine affairs.
 Its details may well be dismissed as ‘legendary and hagiographic’
by a modern scholar. The hagiographic character of the account.
 It is worth attempting to go beyond the account’s seemingly
questionable content, and unearth certain historical facts
contained within.
Our Approach and Argument
 After all, the occurrence of ‘literary and non- historical motifs’ in
the sources does not entail that their every detail is a sheer
invention.
 Unlike typical historical account, Malīka’s narrative is of a clearly
supernatural nature, quite different from other Arabic accounts
on Byzantine affairs.
 It may be dismissed as ‘legendary and hagiographic’ by a modern
scholar. It is worth attempting to go beyond the account’s
seemingly questionable content, and unearth certain historical
facts contained within.
 The primary aim of this paper is to trace Byzantine women in Shī’ī
ḥadīth literature.
Our Approach and Argument
 To ensure relations with foreign rulers, and as a non-violent means of
extending Byzantium’s influence, marriage alliances were often made
between Byzantine royal family and neighbouring empires. (R. Macrides;
J. Shepard & S. Franklin, 1992).

 The female members of the royal court occasionally travelled abroad.

However, the occurrence of Malīka’s autobiography in a source from
the Shī’ī ḥadīth tradition is both particular and striking.
 Our quest for recovering the historical data from this hagiographic
account can be justified as it displays affinity with Byzantine internal
affairs, a resemblance that can hardly be accidental.
 In other words, our analysis of the account would be a critical one,
carried out with an awareness of the hagiographic nature of the
narrative.
Our Approach and Argument
 Malīka provides a detailed description of her own biography and
that of her grandfather, calling for a broad, intertextual study
between the Arab and Byzantine historical texts in order to
corroborate or invalidate her testimony.
 The present study seeks to shed light on the identification of
Malīka and her grandfather, based on the historical allusions
embedded in Malīka’s account on one hand, and the biographies
of the relevant Byzantine rulers from early 840 to 867on the
other.
 The identification of the Ghayṣar in Malīka’s report among the
9th century Byzantine noblemen is a first step in retrieving a
kernel of historical truth.
Ghayṣar’s Ruling Period
 The events in Malīka’s account end with her captivity, attending
to al-Hadī in Samarrā, and marrying his son, Hasan al-Askarī.
Therefore, the span of al-Hadī’s life in Samarrā provides us a good
indication of Ghayṣar’s ruling period.
 Having spent his early life in Medina, al-Hadī was summoned in
847 by the Abbasid Caliph al-Mutawakkil to Samarrā and to be
kept under strict surveillance by the caliph.
 The Imām lived the remaining years of his life in the same city
and passed away in 868.
 This date serves as the terminus ante quem for the beginning of
the Ghayṣar‘s ruling period.
Ghayṣar’s Ruling Period
 Put another way, Byzantine rulers during 848 - 868 are likely
candidates for the identity of Malīka’s grandfather.
 Nevertheless, we may wonder why this 20-year period should not
be extended, for instance, to some 28 years (from 840 to 868).
 For Malīka’s initial retreat from the Byzantine court may have
preceded her eventual arrival in Samarrā by a few years.
 Considering chronological inaccuracy in our sources, as well as
the long-distance journey Malīka took from Constantinople to
Abbasid lands, the ruling time of Malīka’s grandfather would be
as briefly preceding al-Hadī’s residence in Samarrā (i.e., 848). This
ensures us a broader range for possible identification.
Rulers of Byzantium Within 848 - 868
 In our Arabic account three designations were ascribed to Malīka’s
grandfather: ‘Ghayṣar ’, ‘Malik al-Rūm’ and ‘Ghayṣar Malik al-Rūm.’
(Ibn al-Babawayh, Kamāl al-Dīn)

 The third title does not seem to have an exact Byzantine equivalent,
and a glance at medieval Arabic sources reveal that the term ‘Ghayṣar
Malik al-Rūm’ was used synonymously with ‘Malik’ or ‘emperor.’ (al-
Bīrūnī, al-āthār al-bāqiya; ; Ibn al-Faqīh, al-Buldān; Ibn Asākir, Tarīkh madīnat Dimashq)

 ‘Malik’ and ‘Ghayṣar’ were two separate titles translated respectively

as ‘emperor’ and ‘Caesar.’
 The former (‘Malik’) was reserved for the supreme ruler of Byzantium,
while the latter (‘Ghayṣar’) was commonly bestowed to the emperor’s
heir-apparent. (John B. Bury, 1911; Alexander P. Kazhdan, 2005)
Rulers of Byzantium Within 848 - 868

 One cannot rule out the possibility that the confusion of Malīka’s
grandfather’s title stems from later transmitters. So, the medieval
Arab authors do not usually distinguish between these two titles.

 Malīka portrays her grandfather as a man of great power and

authority, a description that suggests he may have been the

emperor of Byzantium.

 It will become clear later, Byzantine Caesars circa the mid-9th

century may also be identifiable with Ghayṣar Malik al-Rūm.
Identification Factors For Malīka’s Forefather
 The autobiography of Malīka sets forth certain requirements :
a. The Ghayṣar had a granddaughter of marriageable age, a distinctive feature
that rules out the majority of possible candidates.
Apart from those who performed substantial roles, the lives of the children
and grandchildren of Byzantine Caesars are vague. So, it is not sensible to
rely solely on this principle.
b. The Ghayṣar had a brother and a nephew. The Ghayṣar took part in person
in military expeditions against the Arabs.
c. He had a great zeal in education and scholarship.
During the course of Bishr ibn Sulaymān’s conversation with Malīka, he
realizes that she is fully acquainted with the Arabic language and asks her
why she can understand and speak Arabic so well. ‘This is due to my
forefather’s passion and eagerness towards education (wulū‘i Jaddī ‘alā al-
ta‘allum),’ answers Malīka, ‘so every morning and night he would send a
lady, his own translator, to teach me Arabic till I became used to it’.
Byzantine Rulers circa Mid-9th Century
 Theophilus (842):
 The first monarch whose rule falls within our period of interest. As far as
our comparative survey is concerned, one observes a particularly striking
feature is his life, viz., a passionate enthusiasm for secular studies.
 Theophilus received extensive education from John VII the Grammarian
(the Patriarch of Constantinople from 837-842), and was an admirer of
culture and art. (Warren Treadgold, 1979). Despite this apparent similarity
between Theophilus and Malīka’s grandfather, one central point detracts
from the likelihood that they were one and the same.
 On the 20th of January 842, he died at just near 30 years old. His son,
Michael III, was 3 years old, and, at this age, would have been unable to
marry, let alone have a daughter of marriageable age. (C. Mango, 1967)

 Theophilus could not have been the ruler mentioned by Malīka.

Byzantine Rulers circa Mid-9th Century
 Michael III:
 Theophilus was succeeded by his son, Michael III, who was crowned the
emperor of Byzantium in 842 at his father’s hand.
 Her mother, Theodora, and her favourite minister, Theoktistus, ruled in
Michael’s name until he reached adulthood. The last Amorian emperor’s reign
was terminated prematurely by an assassination plotted and carried out by
Basil the Macedonian. (L. Garland, 2002; J. Herrin, 2002)
 We are told by Ibn al-Bābawayh that Malīka was nearly thirteen when her
grandfather gave her away in marriage. This renders the identification of
Michael III with Ghayṣar Malik al-Rūm impossible, for Michael III is not
reported to have had a granddaughter, nor did he have a brother whose son he
would have married to a girl of his own progeny.


Michael’s death at the age of 27, along with his childless marriage with Eudokia
Dekapolitissa, demonstrates that he must be distinct from Malīka’s grandfather.
Byzantine Rulers circa Mid-9th Century
 Basil:
 Basil the Macedonian, who ordered the assassination of Michael III, had four
sons: Constantine, Leo, Stephen and Alexander–of whom the eldest was
Constantine (S. Tougher, 1999).
 The exact date of Constantine’s birth is not known, but the source material
implies that he must have reached a marriageable age when his father
ascended the throne. We are told that in 868, Basil, seeking alliance with Louis
II of Italy, decided to marry off Constantine to Louis’ daughter. It is certain that
Constantine would not have fathered a thirteen-year-old girl by the end of 868
.(Barbara M. Kreutz, 2011; S. Tougher, 1999)

  Basil and Malīka’s grandfather could not have been the same person.
 So, none of the emperors mentioned fulfills the requirements contained in Malīka’s
autobiography.
Byzantine Rulers circa Mid-9th Century
 Our focus turns then to the Caesars of or near the time frame.

 There were only two Caesars during the mid-9th century: Caesar

Alexius Mousele and Caesar Bardas. (Juan S. Codoñer, 2014)

 The former, Caesar Alexius Mousele, should be ruled out

predominantly because of his childless marriage with Maria,

presumably the youngest of the emperor Theophilus’ five
daughters.
 So, we are left with only one candidate who fits within our time

period; Caesar Bardas.

Byzantine Rulers circa Mid-9th Century
 Caesar Bardas (Reign 856-866)
 ‘Caesar Bardas’ or simply ‘the Caesar,’ was born into an Armenian
family in Paphlahonia around 800. He was the brother of Empress
Theodora and Patrikios Petronas. (Leslie Brubaker, John Haldon, 2011)
 He lived through a period of three different emperors–Michael II,
Theophilus, and Michael III–but it was only during Michael III’s reign
that Bardas found the opportunity to demonstrate his outstanding
abilities.
 Along with Magister Manuel and Logothete Theoktistus, Bardas was
appointed by Emperor Theophilus to assist Theodora after
Theophilus’ death.(P. Karlin-Hayter, 2011; C. Sode & S. Takács, 2015)
Byzantine Rulers circa Mid-9th Century
 Caesar Bardas (Reign 856-866)

 Bardas was subsequently elevated to the rank of Magistros,

Domestic of the Schools, as well as appointed to the dignity of
Curopalates.

 He was eventually crowned Caesar in 862 (Lynda Garland, 1999).

 His dominant position was further established by the

appointments of his two sons as Domestic of the Schools and

as the Commander of several Western Themes. (J.B. Bury, 2014)
Caesar Bardas and Ghayṣar: A Comparison of Biographical Information
 Bardas married twice, but little is known about his first wife, who left him an
unnamed son. His son Antigonus and daughter Irene were also from this
marriage.
 Bardas’ son, most likely the eldest, had already been married by 857; it is
therefore possible that Bardas might have had a granddaughter of
marriageable age. Antigonus was teenager then and could not have had a
thirteen-year-old daughter. (Garland and Tougher, 2007)
 Bardas’ eldest son, whose life is little known, might be identified with
Malīka’s father. So, it is conceivable that a Byzantine high-ranking officer like
Bardas’ first son had a girl of whom the historians made no mention.
 Bardas is reported to have a brother and a nephew, respectively, Petronas
and Marianos.
 Petronas was the Strategos of Therakesian Theme 860 to 863. (J.B. Bury, 2014)
Caesar Bardas and Ghayṣar: A Comparison of Biographical Information

 Petronas commanded Byzantine troops, specifically the battle of

Poson. (John Haldon, 2003)
 Despite the lack of direct evidence, there is no reason to doubt that
Bardas might have decided to marry off his granddaughter to the son
of Petronas .
 Bardas’ biographical details display close affinity with Ghayṣar .
 We are aware that this biographical information is not intended to
settle the problem of the Ghayṣar’s identification, it merely renders
the identification plausible.
 We shall thus examine to what extent Caesar Bardas’ life is in keeping
with Malīka’s narrative.
Caesar Bardas: the de facto Ruler of Byzantium
 Malīka introduced her grandfather with the rather ambiguous title, Ghayṣar Malik
al-Rūm.
 For instance, we might assume that those who passed on the anecdote from Malīka
to Ibn al-Bābawayh may have changed the word ‘Ghayṣar’ to ‘Ghayṣar Malik al-
Rūm.’
 Bardas was, if not the de jure, then at least the de facto ruler (or Malik) of the
empire. So, the attribution of ‘Ghayṣar Malik al-Rūm’ or ‘Malik al-Rūm’ to him
seems to be in complete accordance with Byzantine sources.
 Michael III sought his uncle Bardas’ assistance during the second half of his rule
(856-866), as a 16 year-old Michael was not mature enough to govern one of the
then fiercest and sophisticated empires. (Romilly Jenkins, 1987)
 Bardas’ authority is attested in al-Ṭabarī’s account of the mission of the Abbasid
envoy, Nasr ibn al-azhar al-Shī’ī, who was sent by Caliph al-Mutawakkil to negotiate
the exchange of captives.
Caesar Bardas: the de facto Ruler of Byzantium
 ‘When I went to Constantinople,’ narrates Nasr, ‘I visited [emperor] Michael’s palace
with my black robe, sword, dagger, and cap. I had a discussion with the maternal
uncle of the ruler, [B-t-r-n-ā-s (Petronas)], who was in charge of the affairs of the
realm (huwa l-qayyim bi sha’ni l-malik.’
 Elsewhere Nasr is reported: ‘[Just to assure they would be liable for the exchange of
prisoners] I asked that the emperor’s maternal uncle swear, whereupon he did so on
behalf of Michael. I said, ‘O king, your maternal uncle has sworn an oath to me.
Does this oath bind you?’ He responded affirmatively with a nod. I did not hear him
utter a word from the time I entered Byzantine territory until I left. Only the
interpreter would speak, and he would listen and then nod yes or no without
talking. His maternal uncle administered his affairs.’ (al-Tabarī; Joel L. Kraemer, 1989).
 As the ‘empire’s foremost general,’ Petronas had mainly been in charge of military,
rather than administrative, affairs. (T. E. Gregory, 2005)
Caesar Bardas: The de facto Ruler of Byzantium
 In his book, “Eastern Roman Empire: From the Fall of Irene to the Accession of Basil”, Bury
suggests that Bardas, rather than Petronas, was the uncle referred to by Nasr: ‘I suspect that
Nasr wrote “his uncle” (…) and that Ṭabarī added Petronas.’ (Cambridge University Press, 2015)
 Kraemer is of the same opinion: Bury’s argument, he says, makes sense given that Caesar
Bardas was ‘virtually the supreme authority in the empire.’
 Another piece of evidence of Bardas’ authority occurs in Photius’ Epistles. After Caesar
Bardas’ death, Photius wrote to the emperor Michael III. Bardas is described in the letter as
one who had shared with Michael the rule ‘in all but name [though] had now lost
everything.’ This shows Caesar Bardas was likely not just in charge of the empire, but
effectively occupied the position of the emperor.
 Looking though several modern Byzantine researchers’ work, such as Jenkins’, Bradbury’s
and Whittow’s works further assert Bardas’ ten-year period of de facto rule was one of the
most successful in Byzantine history.
 This point may further verifies the fact that Malīka’s grandfather, the Roman Emperor
(Malik), would be in accordance with some Byzantine reports.
Caesar Bardas: Chief of all forces
 Bardas’ military achievements make his identification with the Ghayṣar
more reasonable.
 In the statement of her captivity at the hands of a Muslim group, Malīka
provides us with important information on the military authority of her
forefather.
 The Ghayṣar is said to have sent the legions to battle the Muslims (yasīru
Juyūshan ilā qitali’ l-muslimīn). This reveals that her grandfather must have
had a position of military command within Byzantine force.
 According to Byzantine sources, as the commander-in-chief of all forces,
Bardas had both Eastern and Western frontiers of the empire. He achieved
multiple victories over the Arabs and within 3 years the Byzantines joined
Moravia and Bulgaria. (Romilly Jenkins, 1987; Marius Telea, 2015)
Caesar Bardas: A Passionate Adherent of Learning And Scholarship
 Byzantine sources further reveal striking resemblances between Ghayṣar Malik al-Rūm and
Caesar Bardas, including a fondness for education and scholarship.
 By the age of thirteen, an Arab translator (imra’a tarjumāna) was employed as Malīka’s
Arabic tutor. Ghayṣar’s emphasis on Malīka’s multilingual education was grounded in his
wulū‘– an eager desire for education. (Ibn al-Babawayh)
 Bardas likewise enjoyed the reputation of being an adherent of scholarship. He contributed
to the revival of secular learning through re-establishing the imperial school of the
Magnaura, and acting as patron for such scholars as Photius and Leo the Mathematician.
(John Duffy, 2002; Athanasios Markopoulos, 2013)

 To mention a caveat: the Caesar entrusting an Arab woman with the task of teaching his
granddaughter might appear rather odd, as one may expect to learn Greek, rather than
Arabic.
 However, it is the Caesar’s wulū‘ for scholarship that particularly strikes us, not a Byzantine
elite woman’s purported acquaintance with the Arabic. Malīka’s familiarity with the
language of her new master, Hasan al-Askarī, is an essential element of a miraculous
narrative and does not speak against the account’s having a genuine core.
Independent Evidence In Favour of The Identification
 The book al-Hidāya al-Kubrā, most likely of the mid-10th century, by al-Husayn ibn Hamdān
al-Khasībī (957), contains an irreplaceable account to reveal the identification of the
missing Ghayṣar.
 It includes ḥadīths of a doctrinal and historical natures concerning the Prophet Muḥammad
and the twelve Shī’ī Imāms. Though the leader of al-Nusayrīyya–a Shī’ī ghulāt sect that
broke with the mainstream Twelver Shī’īs–al-Khasībī writes al-Hidāya on the basis of Shī’ī
view. (Yaron Friedman, 2011 & 2011)
 The death of the eleventh Imām, Hasan al-Askarī, confronted Shī’ī masses with an
unprecedented crisis of succession. (al-Khasībī, 2002)
 Dealing with such circumstances, al-Khasībī writes:
“Upon Hasan’s death, his brother, Ja‘far al-Kadhdhāb (the Great Fabricator), appears
before the governor of Samarrā and gossips: ‘At the time my brother died, he had no sons,
and the only thing left from him is a fetus his slave girl is pregnant with.’ The governor
sends his agents to Hasan’s house and Narjis and Wardās al-kitābīya were detained. They
were imprisoned for two years. However, once it became clear that Ja‘far’s claim about
Narjis and the other slave girl was not true, they were both released.”
Independent Evidence In Favour of The Identification
 Interestingly, one of al-Askarī’s slave girls is said to have been al-kitābīya, belonging to the
People of the Book, who could have been a Christian convert
 The occurrence of ‘Wardās,’ is striking: an alternative dialect of ‘Bardas,’ is no coincidence.
This word has no clear meaning in Arabic, nor does it occur, as far the present authors are
aware, in any Shī’ī text. The name ‘Bardas’ is of Armenian roots. (Peter Charanis, 1963)
 We may conclude that the slave girl in al-Askarī’s household was likely of an Armenian line
in Byzantium.
 A key aspect of this problem remains unaccounted for. Why does the jāria or slave girl of al-
Askarī bear the male name ‘Bardas’?
 In the 8th and 9th century Byzantium, family names of the elite were commonly taken from
the father’s name or of a more remote ancestor, particularly those of a great reputation.
(Eleonora Kountoura-Galake, 2004).

 For instance, Eudokia Ingerina was the daughter of Inger, or members of the Martinakios
family, including Leo VI’s first wife, Theophano, were offspring of Anastasius Martinakes.
(Garland and Tougher, 2007)
Independent Evidence In Favour of The Identification
 Accordingly, a credible explanation for the name ‘Wardās’ is that al-Askarī’s slave girl
carried the name of the great Caesar Bardas. The fact that ‘Wardās’ was one of al-Askarī’s
handmaidens, along with her being al-kitābīya provides a reasonable assertion that Caesar
Bardas was the Ghayṣar.
 Al-Askarī’s Byzantine slave girl is given various names in Shī’ī traditions: Malīka, Narjis,
Ṣaqīl, Sawsan, and Rayhāna. (Michael H Dann, 2015)
 According to the account transmitted by Bishr ibn Sulaymān, she was called ‘Narjis’ in the
slave market. Additionally, she introduces herself as ‘Malīka.’
 The mystery that surrounds her name is closely related to the political circumstances under
which Hasan al-Askarī lived: He was kept in a ‘state of semi-captivity’ for the majority of his
life.
 Shī’ī sources maintain that the Abbasid governor, desperately anxious over al-Askarī’s
successor, sought to murder the children of any of al-Askarī’s jārias who might bear the
next Imām. We are told by al-Kulaynī, Ibn Bābawayh and al-Khasībī that after al-Askarī’s
death, al-Mu‘tamid detained and inspected his jāria or, according to another account,
jāriatā (two slave girls) whom they suspected to be pregnant.
Independent Evidence In Favour of The Identification
 The bitter dispute between Hasan and his brother, Ja‘far, should be considered as well.
Though refuted by the majority of the Shī’ī community, Ja‘far claimed succession to the
Imāmate after their father al-Hādī’s death. (Amir-Moezzi, 1994)
 To secure his succession after the death of his brother, Ja‘far turned Hasan’s slave girl(s)
over to the Abbasids. Ja‘far’s concern was the possibility of Hasan’s having offspring who
might challenge his own claim to succession.
 So it is sensible that Hasan al-Askarī would have concealed the identity of a high-born
Byzantine jāria like Malīka (or Narjis).
 To accomplish this, differing names were attributed to Malīka, or, at times, other, less
prominent slave girls may have been called Malīka or Narjis: we have seen above Malīka
that kept her name secret from the slave trader, Umar ibn Yazīd, suggesting that she
attempted to keep her identity secret.
 This may reasonably have been the case. With this in mind, it is unsurprising that al-Khasībī
would distinguish between Narjis and Wardās al-kitābīya, despite their being one and the
same.
Independent Evidence In Favour of The Identification
 One should note well the importance of al-Khasībī and his al-Hidāya. as al-Khasībī’s sole
surviving work written, according to Shī’ī–as opposed to Nusayrī doctrine – al-Hidāya
contains crucial material from this period.
 However, there is considerable controversy among Shī’ī scholars over the reliability of al-
Khasībī’s works, but what concerns us is the authenticity of al-Khasībī’s historical, rather
that doctrinal, traditions, as he has preserved a wealth of historical material on certain
figures such as Narjis, the 11th and 12th Imāms.
 Thanks to the isnād, a chain of transmitters precedes each hadīth, so we know where al-
Khasībī’s reports come from. It is worth noting that al-Khasībī’s sources are Imāms’
disciples. Therefore, they are contemporary with, if not eyewitness of the events they
describe. The shuyūkh (teachers) of al-Khasībī are responsible for transmitting certain
traditions regarding Narjis.
 One prominent text is narrated by more than 50 disciples, the residents of Samarrā
(mujāwirīn al-imāmayn). Given the tense atmosphere of Samarrā, the transmitters might
have been the Imāms’ devoted disciples. An instance of such information among al-Askarī’s
close circles of companions is the previous account on Wardās al-kitābīya.
The Identification of Malīka in Byzantine Sources
 The lack of reference to a Byzantine princess who left her country, as is the case for
empress Theophano, the emperor Otto II’s wife, is ‘typical of the Byzantine world-view.’
One would expect Malīka, likewise, to be absent from Byzantine sources. (Odilo Engels, 1995)
 There is a possibility that the vague term ‘Malīka’ is not the name of al-Askarī’s jāria, but
her royal rank. The sentence ‘ana Malīka’ (I am Malīka) could thus be translated, ‘I am a
princess.’
 The fact that neither the name Malīka, nor other names associated with her among Arab
texts, were common among aristocratic women of ninth-century Byzantium, leads us to
consider this might be the case. (PBE: ‘Index of Women’; Dwight M. Donaldson, 1980)
 It initially seems difficult to find a Byzantine candidate identifiable with Malīka. However, a
ninth-century lead seal, whose heretofore unidentified owner, Maria, appears to be
identifiable with Malīka.
 The seal’s inscription reads: ‘Theotokos (Mother of God) aid your servant, Maria, the
daughter of the Kaiser’. (PBE ‘Maria 9’; ‘Θεοτόκε βοήθει τῇ σῇ δούλῃ Μαρίᾳ θυγατρὶ τοῦ Καίσαρος.’, PmbZ,
no. 4743)
The Identification of Malīka in Byzantine Sources
 This suggestion seems to have a rational basis. Unlike Bardas, Alexius had a childless
marriage. We shall consider then corroborative evidence in favour of Maria’s identification
with Bardas’ offspring.
 Regarding the Byzantine lead seal, the role of Θεοτόκε is prominent in the autobiography of
Malīka. The latter speaks of Malīka having a severe illness and praying to Jesus and his
mother (rajawtu an yahaba li al-masīḥ wa ummuhū ’āfiyatan wa shifā’). ). In search of a
cure, the autobiography adds, Malīka’s forefather summoned skilled physicians from all
across the country. (Ibn al-Babawayh, Kamāl al-Dīn)
 Maria is described as ‘θυγατρὶ τοῦ Καίσαρος’. Malīka once calls the Caesar his ‘grandfather’
(Jadd) while elsewhere introduces herself as the ‘daughter’ of the ruler of Rūm (ibnatu
malik al-Rūm). reckoning the word ‘daughter’ is used metaphorically.
 It is conceivable thus that the word ‘θυγατρὶ’ in the seal has likewise been used in the
metaphorical sense, similar to its Arabic counterpart. Maria then could be the
‘granddaughter’ rather than ‘daughter’ of the Caesar.
The Identification of Malīka in Byzantine Sources
 The most persuasive piece of evidence is, perhaps, the occurrence of the name
‘Maria’ (Mārīya) in a Shī’ī report. According to a tradition concerning the birth of
al-Askarī’s son, Mārīya was one of al-Askarī’s handmaidens.
 Though nothing is known about Mārīyah’s identity, her name strongly suggests a
Christian background. As mentioned, al-Askarī’s Byzantine slave girl had many
names, one which may well have been Mārīyah. (Ibn al-Babawayh)
 With the exception of Maria the Copt, the Prophet Muḥammad’s jāria, the name
Maria is rarely seen in Shī’ī ḥadīths; its occurrence here can hardly be a
coincidence.
 On one level, none of the mentioned pieces of evidence appears to be conclusive
for the identification of Maria as al-Askarī’s Byzantine slave girl. Taken together,
however, they prove persuasive. Her Christian background, her prayer of
supplication to the Holy Virgin, and above all, her being a (grand)daughter of a
ninth-century Caesar, bear testimony that Maria, the owner of the lead seal, is
Malīka.
 Conclusion

 Though closely interwoven with miraculous elements, Malīka’s story has a historical core.
The limited amount of research on this autobiographical source has been so preoccupied
with supernatural features that the historical value has been ignored.

 Recently, an attempt has been made by Dann to identify such truths. Rejecting the
historicity of Malīka’s narrative, Dann suggests that the attribution of royal lineage to al-
Askarī’s slave girl is an example of a well-established topos in the Shī‘ī hagiographical
tradition.

 Her account, maintains Dann, is not entirely devoid of concrete facts, but constitutes ‘an
invaluable resource for historians of female slavery in the early Abbasid Era.’
 Conclusion

 Thanks to a comparative analysis of the extant Arabic and Byzantine sources, we are now
in a position to assert that the genuine core of Malīka’s autobiography is far more
extensive than previous scholarship suggested.

 This evidence bears witness to a Byzantine princess’ journey from the land of her
predecessors to the heart of Islamic empire. Put differently, the testimonies presented
thus far speak in favour of the argument that what we have here is a core of authentic
information that belongs rather to the realm of history than that of literature.

 There is nothing inherently problematic with the notion that a mass of hagiographic
elements would have been woven around what the historians may identify as the
historical kernel of an event.
 Conclusion

 Formidable though the task of a historian may be to reconstruct the incident as it

took place, we should not abandon the attempt to uncover as much truths as
possible from such hagiographical traditions as Malīka’s autobiography.

 The otherwise assumed topos of ‘royal lineage’ seems to have a historical basis:
not only is Malīka’s portrayal of the Ghayṣar in keeping with biographical evidence
of Bardas, but it also resembles Byzantine accounts of his military authority,
administrative position, and scholarly activities. This is a strong indication of
Malīka’s close proximity to Byzantine court life.
 Conclusion

 We should bear in mind that even the greatest Arabic historians, such as al-Ṭabarī and al-
Mas’udi, provide us merely with a limited, if not rudimentary information concerning the
Byzantine internal affairs. That is perhaps why the name of Bardas is nowhere mentioned
in the renowned Arabic chronicles (there is only a passing mention of Petronas in al-
Ṭabarī’s magnum opus, which the scholars almost unanimously take to be al-Tabari’s
misunderstanding, as Bardas, rather than Petronas, was intended).

 Given the greatest Arabic historians’ scant acquaintance with the names, let alone the
biographical details, of Byzantine elites, the occurrence of the name ‘Wardās’ in a Shī’ī
tradition, along with the close correspondence between Malīka’s grandfather and Bardas,
cannot be rejected as sheer coincidence.
 Conclusion

 As far as Byzantine sources are concerned, it is still not clear why and how Malīka
left her birthplace and ended up in Arab lands. In absence of such evidence from
Byzantine sources, we are left only with our Arabic account, which speaks to her
captivity in war. Bardas’ decade of administration witnessed several fierce battles,
including those of Dazimon and Poson, in which Malīka may have been taken
captive.

 The uncertainties and supernatural elements aside, Malīka’s autobiography

appears capable of shedding light on the history of the late Amorian dynasty.
 Conclusion

 For example, her account makes reference to a great earthquake that shook the

Caesar’s palace, possibly the earthquake occurring in Constantinople in 860 or,

according to another view, in 862.

 She further details the nuptial rites of a Byzantine royal wedding.

 Ultimately, this underutilized source opens a way to understand Bardas’ ruling

period from a new viewpoint, being a counter-narrative to Byzantine historians’

portrayal of his decade-long administration.

Continuities and Disruptions in Ritual Practices - 25/Jun/2019 - Philosophicum - 217

Ceremonials and Rites of Byzantine Royal Marriages

Hadi Taqavi, Ehsan Roohi, Hadi Sabouhi, University of California-Irvine , hsabouhi@uci.edu
 To have a copy of this presentation,
please send an email to:

Hadi Sabouhi, University of California-Irvine ,

hsabouhi@uci.edu