The Armenian Episcopacy in Mamluk Jerusalem in the Aftermath of the Council of Sis (1307) * SERGIO LA PORTA From the earliest days of Christianity in Armenia, Jerusalem was an important centre of pilgrimage, culture, and faith. An Armenian hierarchy free from the authority of the Imperial Greek church had existed in Jerusalem possibly from the time of Justinian and an Armenian episcopacy from the time of the Arab conquests. 1 According to Armenian tradition, first recorded in M. ˇ C‘amˇ c‘ian’s History of the Armenians, in 1311 Bishop Sargis of Jerusalem (sed. 1281–1313) dramatically changed the nature of that office, when he declared himself and his entire charge independent of both the spiritual overlordship of the Catholicossate of Sis and the political protection of the Armenian kingdom founded in Cilicia. 2 The catalyst for the rupture was the Cilician Church’s decision in favour of union with Rome taken with the encouragement of the Armenian monarchy at the Council of Sis in 1307. According to ˇ C‘amˇ c‘ian, Bishop Sargis, rejecting the Armenian kingdom’s demands of obedience, turned to the Mamluk Sultan of Egypt and received from him an edict declaring that henceforth the Armenian bishop of Jerusalem would be able to exercise full Patriarchal rights, namely, the ability to appoint bishops and to use the red patriarchal seal to ratify documents. T1 ˇ C‘amˇ c‘ian’s depiction of events was followed by the Armenian historians of Jerusalem, T. Savalaneanc‘ and A. Yovhann¯ eseanc‘ as well as by other scholars. 3 C. Mutafian in a ∗ I would like to extend my gratitude to Professor Reuven Amitai of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem for his invaluable help with the translation of Arabic sources, his useful suggestions, and the pleasure of many fruitful discussions about Mongol-Mamluk relations in the thirteenth to fourteenth centuries. I would also like to thank the anonymous reader of this article who offered helpful and stimulating comments. 1 See, for example, A. Sanjian, The Armenian Communities in Syria under Ottoman Dominion (Cambridge, 1965), pp. 96–7; cf. T. Nersoyan, Armenian Church Historical Studies: Matters of Doctrine and Administration, (New York, 1996), p. 85, who posits that Armenians in Jerusalem were numerous enough to warrant their own bishop during the period immediately following the Arab invasions in the seventh century. 2 M. ˇ C‘amˇ c‘ian, (History of the Armenians), III vols. (Venice, 1784; reprint, Erevan, 1984), III:313. The information is repeated in A. Yovhann¯ eseanc’, (History of Jerusalem), II vols. (Jerusalem,1890; reprinted as 2 vols. in 1, Jerusalem, 1999), I:201; T. Savalaneanc‘, (History of Jerusalem), II vols., (Jerusalem,1931; reprinted as 1 vol., Jerusalem, 2000), p. 509; M. ¯ Ormanian, (National History), III vols. (Constantinople, Jerusalem, 1913–1927), II:col. 1262. It occurs thereafter in a number of modern studies; Sanjian, op. cit. (n.i), pp. 98–9; G. Bournoutian, A Concise History of the Armenian People (Costa Mesa, CA), 2003, p. 104; J. M´ erc´ erian, Histoire et Institutions de l’ ´ Eglise Arm´ enienne (Beirut, 1965), p. 328. D. Bundy, in his “Armenian Relations with the Papacy after the Mongol Invasions,” The Patristic and Byzantine Review V,1 (1986), p. 30, relying on F. Tournebize, Histoire Politique et religieuse de l’Arm´ enie depuis les origines des Arm´ eniens jusqu’` a la mort de leur dernier roil (l’an 1393) (Paris, 1910), p. 311, claims that the Egyptians “saw an opportunity to undercut the Cilician government by establishing a Patriarchate at Jerusalem (which they held) to preserve the ‘true’ Armenian traditions.” C. Mutafian, in his La Cilicie au Carrefour des Empires, II vols. (Paris, 1988), I:467, also repeats this assertion, although he later refutes it in another article, see below n.iv. 3 See above, n. ii. JRAS, Series 3, 17, 2 (2007), pp. 1–16 C  The Royal Asiatic Society 2007 doi:10.1017/S1356186307007110 Printed in the United Kingdom