•i"* S. V. 126,, May 22. '58.] 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



409 



LONDON, SATURDAY, MAY 22. 1888. 



ON THE AFRICAN CONFESSORS WHOSE TONGUES 

 WERE MUTILATED BY ORDER OF HUNNERIC THB 

 VANDAL, A. D. 484. * 



Dean Milinan, in his History of Latin Christi- 

 anity, has suggested what appears to be a satisfac- 

 tory explanation of the power of speech attributed 

 to the Athanasian Christians, whose tongues were 

 mutilated at Tipasa in Africa by the command of 

 Hunneric the Vandal. For the sake of compres- 

 sion in a history extending over such a long period 

 of time, the documents which justify that explana- 

 tion were not published at full length. It has, 

 however, been deemed advisable that they should 

 all remain separately on record in a connected 

 form : and they will, accordingly, be set forth in 

 the following observations. 



In order to render them intelligible, it may be 

 proper to remind or acquaint the reader that there 

 is distinct evidence for the statement that the 

 Athanasian Confessors were able to speak as well 

 as they had done previously, after their tongues 

 had been cut out or torn out by the roots. The 

 evidence on this point is collected and published 

 in Ruinart's edition of the History of the Vandal 

 Persecution, written by Victor Vitensis, a contem- 

 porary African bishop. It is likewise fairly re- 

 ferred to, and the sources of information on the 

 subject are indicated, by Gibbon in the thirty- 

 seventh chapter of his History; and as direct 

 testimony to the fact, he quotes in the text a 

 striking passage from Victor Vitensis, and also 

 one from ^neas Gaza, another contemporary of 

 the persecution. Gibbon ends, however, with the 

 following remarks : — 



" This supernatural gift of the African Confessors, who 

 spoke without tongues, will command the assent of those, 

 and of those only, who already believe that their language 

 was pure and orthodox. But the stubborn mind of an 

 infidel is guarded by secret incuiablfe suspicion, and the 

 Arian or Socinian who has seriously rejected the doctrine 

 of the Trinity will not be shaken by the most plausible 

 evidence of an Athanasian miracle." 



On the other hand, the subject has been re- 

 garded from a different point of view by a long 

 series of ecclesiastical writers ; and, in particular. 

 Dr. Newman, in bis Essay on Miracles recorded 

 in the Ecclesiastical History of Early Ages, pub- 

 lished at Oxford in a. d. 1843, has devoted about 

 twelve octavo pages to establishing the certainty, 

 and insisting on the significance of the fact in 

 question, which he assumes to be miraculous. In 

 his remarks, he lays stress upon the variety of the 

 witnesses, and on the consistency and unity of 

 their testimony in all material points. And as 

 striking features in the Miracle, he dwells on its 

 completeness, on its permanence, on the number 

 of persons on whom it was wrought, and on its 



carrying its full case with it to every beholder. 

 It is the miracle with which he concludes his 

 Essay ; and the argument in its behalf is perhaps 

 somewhat more elaborate than for any one of the 

 others in which he expresses his belief. 



It seems that no counter-explanation of the 

 supposed facts had been offered, when Dean Mil- 

 man in his History of Latin Christianity quoted 

 in a Note the following passage from Colonel 

 Churchill's Lebanon, vol. iii. p. 384., in reference 

 to cruelties committed by Djezzar Pacha on cer- 

 tain Emirs : — 



" Each Emir was held down in a squatting position 

 with his hands tied behind him, and his face turned up- 

 wards. The officiating tefeketehy now approached his 

 victim, and standing over him, as if about to extract a 

 tooth, forced open his mouth, and darting a hook through 

 the top of the tongue, pulled it out until the root was ex- 

 posed ; one or two passes of a razor sufficed to cut it out. 

 It is a curious fact, however, that the tongues grew again 

 sufficiently for the purposes of speech." 



It is to be observed that in this passage Colonel 

 Churchill does not distinctly say that he himself 

 heard the Emirs in question speak ; nor does he 

 mention his authority for the statement that their 

 tongues grew. If, however, the Emirs were able 

 to speak, Colonel Churchill, as a resident in the 

 country, had the amplest opportunities for be- 

 coming acquainted with the fact, and with the 

 current explanation of it. 



Subsequently, the following passage was noticed 

 in Sir John Malcolm's Sketches of Persia. Sir 

 John Malcolm had been Ambassador of the East 

 India Company on a special mission to Persia, and 

 the book was published during his lifetime, though, 

 from ideas of official propriety, without his name. 

 (John Murray, Albemarle Street, London, 1828.) 

 In the account of his stay at Teheran, speaking of 

 Zal Khan of Khisht, the writer says : — 



" This remarkable man had established a great name 

 in his native mountains, between Abusheher and Shiraz ; 

 and he was long distinguished as one of the bravest and 

 most attached followers of the Zend family. When the 

 death of Lootf Ali Khan terminated its power, he, along 

 with the other governors of provinces and districts in 

 Ears, submitted to Aga Mahomed Khan. That cautious 

 and cruel monarch, dreading the ability and doubtful of 

 the allegiance of this chief, ordered his eyes to be put 

 out ; an appeal for the recall of this sentence being treated 

 with disdain, Zal Khan loaded the tyrant with curses. 

 ' Cut out his tongue,' was the second order. This man- 

 date was imperfectly executed ; and the loss of half this 

 member deprived him of speech. Being afterwards per- 

 suaded that its being cut close to the root would enable 

 him to speak so as to be understood, he submitted to the 

 operation, and the effect has been that his voice, though 

 indistinct and thick, is yet intelligible to persons accus- 

 tomed to converse with him. This I experienced from 

 daily intercourse. He often spoke to me of his suflferings, 

 and of the humanity of the present king, Who had re- 

 stored him to his situation, as head of his tribe and 

 governor of Khisht. 



" I am not an anatomist, and cannot, therefore, give a 

 reason why a man who could not articulate with half a 

 tongue, should speak when he had none at all ; but the 



