________________
82
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
MAY, 1927
found in Ittap's History (Malayalam), pp. 88-91, brought in the Catholicus of Jerusalem and Yustedi as of Antioch? Swanston mentions Eustathius of Antioch. Now Eustathius of Antioch was deposed in the Council of Antioch in A.D. 330, and died in exile at Trajanopolis in Thrace in A.D. 360. Cf. Bardenhower, Patrolovy, 1908, pp. 246 ; 262. Ittúp's Yust&dius appears to be Eustathius pronounced in English fashion, which does not improve the situation. Did he find the name in Swanston ? How did Swanston obtain it ? Have we merely a belated effort here to connect the primitive Church of Malabar with Antioch? A passage quoted from Buchanan in favour of a pre-Portuguese connection with Antioch (Trau. Man., II. 124) is unauthenticated.
16 Their bishops and merchants. Land misunderstood this passage. He speaks of conditions in India, instead of at Edessa.
10 Thomas of Jerusalem. Why is Thomas said to have been of Jerusalem ? The Portuguese writers always call him Capaneo, without commenting on Canaan or Cana. At times they call him a merchant. They do not speak of the Bishop of Edessa and his vision, nor of a migration, which makes me suspicious about the later stories.
Is Thomas called 'of Jerusalem ' because he had been on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem ?
I look with the greatest suspicion on the mention of Jerusalem and Antioch in this affair and at this dato. If, as Fr. Monserrato says (1679), Thomas Cana came a first time to India via Ormuz (and by what other route do wo suppose him to have come!), we do not expect him to have communicated with any one else than the Bishop of Edessa. All running to and fro between Edessa, Jerusalem and Antioch for the sake of the Bishop of Edessa's vision or dream must appear fanciful, or inspired by party-spirit. The same for the permission granted by Antioch to the Bishop of Edessa to visit India.
30 A.D. 345. The Brahmans of Calicut calculated that the last Chéraman Perumal, with whom the Christians connected their Thomas Cana, ceased to reign in A.D. 347, and Bishop Roz gives March 1, 346 as the date of his death. There is, therefore, some consensus here, which we should think is not accidental.
214 The Thomas Cana copper-plates still in Malabar. This is a sample of Matthew's inventions. To us who try our utmost to rediscover these plates, Matthew's information is an intolerable hoax. The Christians of 1599 were already complaining that the Cranganore plates had been lost through the carelessness of the Portuguese factor of Cochin.
Kuramaklar. This can be no other place than Cranganore, Curangulugu, as Monserrate spelt it in 1579.
36 Sapor and Pirul in A.D. 823. Bishop Roz puts down their arrival as 100 years after the founda. tion of Quilon (therefore in A.D. 925). Cf. Cath. Encycl., New York, XIV, 681b. Gouvea (Jornada, fol. 4v) says they came not many years after the foundation of Quilon, which he set down in A.D. 1602-780 or A.D. 822. We expect 777 instead of 780. In his Jornada, fol. 94v col. 1, he says of Mar Xabro and Mar Prodh that they received favours from "the then King of Coullo, soven hundred and thirty-three years ago." This makes A.D. 1602–733 or A.D. 869. Raulin's 879 (p. 434) is the result of a bad subtraction. Le Quien's "about 880" should drop out on this account alao. Anaemani's 922 would be based on Gouves's 822 for the foundation of Quilon and Roz' " 100 years later." (OJ. Raulin, p. 5n.) Scaliger gives 907 for the beginning of the Calicut era, not for the foundation of Quilon: the stranger is the mistake of du Perron, who gives 825 for the foundation of Calicut. Cf. Paulinus, Ind. Or. Christ, pp. 11-12. Paulinus has 825 for the arrival of Thomas Cana, and 925 for the arrival of Mar Sapor and his companion (ibid., XXII; 19-20). His 925 is founded on de Souza's Or. Cong., which is based in this matter on the very words of Bishop Roz. Roz' A.D. 825+100=925, is sus. peot because of a round figure. If the plates of the Quilon Tarisa church are dated in 4D. 824, 48 was gene. rally thought, it may well be that the era of Quilon is due to the Christians.
Zaleski (Les origines du Christianisme oux Indes, p. 438) says that the following wrong dates have beon given for Thomas Cans : 745, 825, 855, 907. We have 800 for Thomas Cana in Assemani and Raulin (Raulin, P. 434). We know what to think of 825 and 907; 855 is probably Raulin's c. A.D. 850 for the arrival of Mar Xabro and Mar Prodh. Who is responsible for 745 ? Visscher, translating an account by Mar Gabriel. (cf. Gormann, p. 91, who rejects it).
26 Sebarjeru. The Portuguese often speak of the two Armenian brothers, Bishops, or of Sapor and Prodh; but who is responsible for Saul and Ambrose ? Maruvân Sabir 146 (Sbaryeshu) is mentioned in the Quilon Tarisa copper-plates (of A.D. 824 +). Is it established that he is different from Mar Sapor ? As for Prodh, may he not be the Budh Periodeutes who under Patriarch Ezechiel, c. A.D. 570, had charge of the Christians of Persia and the neighbouring countries of the Indies, and who translated an Indian book, Calilagh and Damnagh, into Syriac ? Assem., B.O., III, Pt. I, 219.
The Romo-Syrian churches now dedicated to Sts. Gervasius and Protasius wero before de Menezes dedicated to Mar Sapor and Prodh.
37 Sakirbirti. "In a Syriac extract, which is however modern, in Land's Anecdota Syriaca (Latin, I. 125 ; Syriac, p. 27), it is stated that three Syrian Missionaries came to Kaulam in A.D. 823, and got leave
