Bogomils

AUGUSTINE CASIDAY

“In the reign of the good Christian Tsar Peter ^927–69 there was a priest called Bogomil, (meaning: worthy of God’s compassion) but in reality Bogunemil (unworthy of God’s compassion), who started for the first time to preach heresy in the country of Bulgaria” – thus, Cosmas the Presbyter describes the matter in his 10th-century Discourse (Hamilton and Hamilton 1998: 114–34). But a problem immediately confronted Cosmas and other observers, and it continues to confront modern scholars, because in order to evaluate and criticize Bogomil’s heresy, Cosmas and others instinctively turned to categories that derived from classical denunciations of earlier heresies. The framework of those denunciations will be considered before we turn to evidence about Bogomil’s teachings, and then to the history of Bogomil’s communities.

The major heresy invoked to understand the Bogomils was dualism, a pronounced insistence on the substantial existence of two fundamental and opposed principles: good and evil. A typical dualist identifies evil with matter and good with spirit, and so regards creation as a domain in which evil and good intersect. The best-known dualist movement was Manichaeism, with the result that Byzantine Christians used the word “Manichaean” indiscrimi­nately to describe any and every sort of dualistic spirituality. We can see this process at work in the Synodikon of Orthodoxy, where Bogomil is anathematized in these terms: “Anathema to papa Bogomil who, in the reign of Peter of Bulgaria, stirred up this Manichaean heresy and spread it through every town and countryside.” Another dualist Christianity known as Paulicianism was a recent precursor of Bogomil’s teachings that originated in Armenia and moved into Bulgaria (Runciman 1947: 26–62; Hamilton and Hamilton 1998: 5–25). The extent to which Bogomil’s teachings are actually related to Manichaeism and Paulicianism is debatable and one’s position in that debate will largely determine how historical details are integrated in the attempt to describe Bogomilism.

Similarly, a common label attached by the Byzantines to any form of Christian asceti­cism that was deemed suspect is “Messalian.” This term signals a rejection of the institu­tional church and its sacraments in favor of intense prayer leading to a personal relationship with God, often cultivated privately within a monastery (Obolensky 1948: 48–52). The 12th-century commenta­tor Euthymius Zigabenus asserts the connec­tion between Messalianism and Bogomilism in his Dogmatic Panoply (Hamilton and Hamilton 1998: 180–207): “The heresy of the Bogomils ... is part of the Messalian heresy, and for the most part shares their doctrines, but with some additional points which increase the pollution.” It is interest­ing to note that, when Bogomilism made its appearance on Mount Athos, both the

Bogomils and the Hesychasts were accused of Messalianism (Rigo 1989). In any case, because Bogomilism is refracted in the earliest records through other rejected systems of belief and practice, a high degree of prudence is needed in any attempt to account for Bogomil’s actual teachings.

What does seem reasonably clear is that Bogomils were pacifist ascetics, unlike the war-like Paulicians. According to Cosmas, Euthymius, and Anna Comnena, the Bogomils rejected the cult of saints, did not venerate the cross or icons, and disavowed Orthodox liturgical prayers, using exclusively the Our Father. They had no use for clerical orders, heavily reinterpreted key passages used in Orthodox tradition to validate the sacra­ments, and practiced confession to one another without regard to gender or clergy. But they were willing to feign Orthodox devotions to avoid detection: “They do not baptize in faith, but make game of holy baptism ... saying to their disciples that it is water and oil” (Hamilton and Hamilton 1998: 149). Dissenting from traditional worship is a straightforward option in religious non­conformity. What is more surprising is that the Bogomils identify Satan as the brother of God the Word. As Euthymius reports, “They say that the demon whom the Saviour called Satan is himself also a son of God the Father, called Satanael; he came before the Son, the Word, and is stronger, as befits the first­born; that they are brothers one of the other” (Hamilton and Hamilton 1998: 183). Euthymius also relates how the Bogomils iden­tify Satan(ael) as creator of the visible world.

The subjugation of Satan to God the Father has led some scholars to con­clude that Bogomil theology evolved from strict dualism into a Monarchian theology in which God the Father is the ultimate source of all and Satan is, so to speak, a fallen prince (thus, Runciman 1947: 74–5, 81–6; but see the critique in Obolensky 1948: 158–62, 271–4). Whether such a message, delivered some two centu­ries after Bogomil’s death, is true to Bogomil’s original preaching cannot be said with certainty. But what is clear is that the movement bearing his name spread from Bulgaria into Constantinople and Rus’ to the East and also found an audience in Bosnia and further west along the Mediterranean basin. Again, the historical connection between the Paterenes of Italy and the Cathars or Albigensians of France on the one hand and the Bogomils on the other cannot be established with precision. But it is at the very least suggestive that the Cathars’ Council of Saint-Felix (ca. 1170), which settled the boundaries of dioceses in Italy and France and attempted to bring those dioceses to a strict dualist theology, was presided over by Niquinta or Nicetas, the “Pope of Constantinople,” who is traditionally identified as a Bogomil (Hamilton and Hamilton 1998: 250–3).

Because Bogomil preached during the very early days of organized Christianity in Bulgaria, it seems likely that his message spoke to disenfranchised and poor Chris­tians (perhaps by retrieving themes from pre-Christian belief, though this is by no means certain). Like other forms of medieval dualist Christianity, Bogomilism attempted a reform of the church in a direction that was popularly accessible on the basis of apocryphal texts and a deep instinct that something is profoundly wrong in the world. For those reasons and for its aberrant theological perspective on matter, the Bogomil church was regularly condemned by the relevant Orthodox authorities and its members were on occa­sion legally persecuted by the secular arm. However, it was less this rejection that brought about the end for the Bogomils. Instead, prevalent social circumstances that gave rise to and made sense of that message were wiped away in the East by the advances of the Turks.

SEE ALSO: Asceticism; Bulgaria, Patriarchal Orthodox Church of; Confession; Hesychasm; Icons

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS

Hamilton, B. and Hamilton, J. (1998) Christian Dualist Heresies in the Byzantine World, c. 650-c. 1450: Selected Sources. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Obolensky,D. (1948) The Bogomils: A Study inBalkan Neo-Manichaeism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rigo, A. (1989) Monaci esicasti e monaci bogomili. Florence: Olschki.

Runciman, S. (1947) The Medieval Manichee. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.