Studies on the Melitian Schism in Egypt (AD 306–335) 9781351219563, 1351219561

Citation preview

Also in the Variorum Collected Studies Series:

LESLIE S.B. MACCOULL Documenting Christianity in Egypt, Sixth to Fourteenth Centuries

NEILMCLYNN Christian Politics and Religious Culture in Late Antiquity

ROGERS. BAGNALL Hellenistic and Roman Egypt Sources and Approaches

SEBASTIAN BROCK Fire from Heaven Studies in Syriac Theology and Liturgy

HENRY CHADWICK Studies on Ancient Christianity

MARK VESSEY Latin Christian Writers in Late Antiquity and their Texts

ROGERS. BAGNALL Later Roman Egypt: Society, Religion, Economy and Administration

W.H.C. FREND Orthodoxy, Paganism and Dissent in the Early Christian Centuries

SEBASTIAN BROCK From Ephrem to Romanos Interactions between Syriac and Greek in Late Antiquity

BRENT D. SHAW Rulers, Nomads, and Christians in Roman North Africa

HAN J.W. DRIJVERS History and Religion in Late Antique Syria

LESLIE S.B. MACCOULL Coptic Perspectives on Late Antiquity

HENRY CHADWICK History and Thought of the Early Church

VARIORUM COLLECTED STUDIES SERIES

Studies on the Melitian Schism in Egypt (AD 306-335)

Hans Hauben

Hans Hauben

Studies on the Melitian Schism in Egypt (AD 306-335)

Edited by Peter Van Nuffelen

~l

~~

Routledge Taylor & Francis Group

LONDON AND NEW YORK

First published 2012 by Ashgate Publishing Published 2016 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017, USA Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business

This edition © 2012 by Hans Hauben Hans Hauben has asserted his moral right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as the author of this work. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrievals ystem, without permission in writing from the publishers. Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Hauben, Hans Studies on the Melitian schism in Egypt (AD 306-335). - (Variorum collected studies series ; CS 1001) 1. Egypt - Church history. 2. Church history - Primitive and early church, ca. 30-600. 3. Melitius, Bishop of Lycopolis. 4. Christian heresies - History - Early church, ca. 30-600. 5. Council ofNicaea (1st: 325) I. Title II. Series III. Nuffelen, Peter van. 276.2'01-dc23

ISBN 9781409439424 (hbk)

Library of Congress Control Number: 2011945182

VARIORUM COLLECTED STUDIES SERIES CSlO0l

CONTENTS Acknowledgements

vm

Preface

lX-X

Introduction: The Melitian Schism: Development, Sources, and Interpretation, by Peter Van Nuffelen (includes abbreviations and select bibliography) 1. STUDIES I

ON THE MELITIAN

.

Xl-XXXVl

.

SCHISM

On the Melitians in P. London VI (P. Jews) 1914: The problem of papas Heraiscus

447-456

Proceedings of the Sixteenth International Congress of Papyrology, New York, 24-31 July 1980 (American Studies in Papyrology 23), eds R.S. Bagnall, G.M Browne, A.E. Hanson, and L. Koenen, Chico, CA, 1981

II

La reordination du clerge melitien imposee par le Concile de Nicee

203-207

Ancient Society 18, 1987

III

La premiere annee du schisme melitien (305/306)

267-280

Ancient Society 20, 1989

IV

Le catalogue melitien reexamine

155-167

Opes Atticae. Miscellanea philologica et historica Raymondo Bogaert et Hermanno Van Looy oblata (Sacris Erudiri 31), eds M Geerard, J. Desmet, and R. Vander Plaetse. Bruges, 1989-1990

V

Jean Arkhaph, eveque de Memphis, dans le catalogue melitien Philohistor: Miscellanea in honorem Caroli Laga septuagenarii (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 60), eds A. Schoors and P. Van Deun. Leuven, 1994

23-33

vi

VI

CONTENTS

Review of Le lettere Jes tali di Atanasio di Alessandria. Studio storico-critico, by A. Camplani (Unione Accademica N azionale. Corpus dei Manoscritti Copti Letterari), Roma, 1989

281-285

Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica 25, 1994

VII

The Melitian 'Church of the Martyrs': Christian dissenters in Ancient Egypt

329-349

Ancient History in a Modern University. Proceedings of a Conference held at Macquarie University, 8-13 July 199 3 to mark twenty-five years of the teaching of Ancient History at Macquarie University and the retirement from the Chair of Professor Edwin Judge. Vol. 2, Early Christianity, Late Antiquity and Beyond, eds T W Hillard, R.A. Kearsley, C.E. V.Nixon, and A.M Nobbs. Macquarie University, NSW, Grand Rapids, Ml, and Cambridge, UK, 1998

VIII

JohnArkhaph and 'the Bishop' (Athan., Apo!. sec. 71.6): a reassessment

271-275

Ancient Society 30, 2000

IX

Das Konzil von Nicaea (325) zur Wiederaufnahme der Melitianer: Versuch einer Text- und Strukturanalyse

357-379

Timai Ioannou Triantaphyllopoulou, eds J. VelissaropoulouKarakosta, S.N. Troianos, K.A. Bourdara, MP. Stathopoulos, and N. Klamaris. Athens, 2000

X

Le Papyrus London VI (P. Jews) 1914 dans son contexte historique (mai 335)

605-618

Atti def XXII Congresso lnternazionale di Papirologia, Florence, 23-29 August 1998. Vol. 1, eds I. Andorlini, G. Bastianini, M Manfredi, and G. Menci. Florence, 2001

XI

Aurelios Pageus, alias Apa Paieous, et le monastere melitien d'Hathor

337-352

Ancient Society 32, 2002

XII

Catholiques et Melitiens Synode de Tyr (335)

aAlexandrie ala veille du

Coptic Studies on the Threshold of a New Millennium. Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress of Coptic Studies, Leiden, 27 August-2 September 2000. Vol. 2 (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 133), eds M Immerzeel, J. van der Vliet et al. Leuven, Paris, and Dudley, MA, 2004

905-921

CONTENTS

XIII

Heraiscus as Melitian bishop of Heracleopolis Magna and the Alexandrian see

vii

51-70

The Journal of Juristic Papyrology 34, 2004

XIV

Epiphane de Salamine sur le schisme melitien

737-770

Storiografia e Agiografia nella Tarda Antichita. Alla ricerca de/le radici cristiane dell 'Europa. Atti del Convegno de/la Facolta di Lettere Classiche e Cristiane dell'Universita Pontificia Salesiana (Rome, 21-22 January 2005) (Salesianum 67), eds B. Amata and G. Marasco. Rome, 2005

2.

RELATED STUDIES

XV

The Alexandrian patriarch as pharaoh: from biblical metaphor to scholarly topos

1341-1352

Egyptian Religion: The Last Thousand Years. Studies Dedicated to the Memory of Jan Quaegebeur. Part 2 (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 85), eds W Cla,ysse, A. Schoors, and H. Willems. Leuven, 1998

XVI

On the invocation of the 'Holy and Consubstantial Trinity' in Byzantine oath and dating formulas

158-160

Zeitschriftfur Papyrologie und Epigraphik 139, 2002

XVII Christ versus Apollo in early Byzantine Kourion? With a note on the so-called Panayia Aphroditissa in Paphos

269-284

Philomathestatos. Studies in Greek Patristic and Byzantine Texts Presented to Jacques Naret for his Sixty-Fifth Birthday (Orienta/ta Lovaniensia Analecta 137), eds B. Janssens, B. Roosen, and P Van Deun. Leuven, Paris, and Dudley, MA, 2004

1-8

Index

This volume contains xxxvi + 256 pages

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Grateful acknowledgement is made to the following persons, institutions, journals and publishers for their kind permission to reproduce the papers included in this volume: American Studies in Papyrology Monographs, American Society of Papyrologists, Durham, US-NC (for chapter I); Peeters Publishers, Leuven, Belgium (II, III, V, VI, VIII, XI, XII, XV, XVII); Brepols Publishers NV, Tumhout, Belgium (IV); Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, US-MI (VII); Ant. N. Sakkoulas Publishers, Athens, Greece (IX); Istituto Papirologico 'G. Vitelli', Florence, Italy (X); The Journal of Juristic Papyrology, Warsaw University: Department of Papyrology (Institute of Archaeology) and Chair of Roman and Antique Law (Faculty of Law and Administration); The Raphael Taubenschlag Foundation, Poland (XIII); Salesianum, Editrice LAS, Pubblicazioni dell'Universita Pontificia Salesiana, Rome, Italy (XIV); Habelt-Verlag, Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH, Bonn, Germany (XVI) Every effort has been made to trace all the copyright holders, but if any have been inadvertently overlooked the publishers will be pleased to make the necessary arrangement at the first opportunity.

PUBLISHER'S NOTE

The articles in this volume, as in all others in the Variorum Collected Studies Series, have not been given a new, continuous pagination. In order to avoid confusion, and to facilitate their use where these same studies have been referred to elsewhere, the original pagination has been maintained wherever possible. Each article has been given a Roman number in order of appearance, as listed in the Contents. This number is repeated on each page and is quoted in the index entries.

PREFACE

Ceux qui disent qu 'un pretre doit s 'en tenir a l'Eglise.

a la priere

n 'ont rien compris

Joseph Card. Zen Ze-kiun, Archbishop of Hong Kong

Le Monde, 26 December 2006:10

The 'schism of Melitius' or 'Melitian schism' was one of the manifold controversies that shook the early Church. It arose in 306, at the height of the Diocletianic persecution (303-312), when a zealous bishop of Middle-Egypt resolved to defy his senior colleague in Alexandria. In spite of a relatively rich documentation, Melitius' deeper motives for his actions against bishop Peter (300-311) remain difficult to explain, as do the sect's striking popularity and wide dissemination during the first decades of its existence. When Melitianism enjoyed its heyday, the Church had barely left the 'catacombs'. Confronted in her own ranks with serious disciplinary and doctrinal dissent, she became increasingly intertwined with the rising Byzantine state and its expanding bureaucratic machinery. Constantine the Great, for whom doctrinal purism mattered less than the internal cohesion of both Church and Empire, was inclined to show some leniency. Athanasius, however, the new bishop of Alexandria (328-373), adding doctrinal inflexibility to strong leadership, decided to stand firm using all available means, albeit with varying success. The fierce statement of Hong Kong's archbishop quoted above, could have been one made by his Alexandrian predecessor. The latter's Melitian opponent was now John Arkhaph of Memphis, Melitius' successor as head of the parallel church. Like many comparable movements in history and despite Athanasius' continuous efforts, the Melitian schism would prove extremely tenacious. Virtually extinct, though never formally settled, it would come to an obviously violent end about the middle of the eighth century. During my career as researcher and professor of Ancient History at the Catholic University of Leuven since the early seventies of the past century, I have mainly been working in the fields of papyrology and Hellenistic (especially Ptolemaic) history. My interest in religious and Church history was stimulated

X

PREFACE

by a few eminent professors such as Frans Neirynck (Leuven), Gilles Quispel (Utrecht), Edwin Judge (Macquarie) and Ewa Wipszycka (Warsaw). They have never realized, I presume, how much I owe to them, thanks respectively to their inspiring courses (N), conferences and informal conversations (Q, J, W). My former student Peter Van Nuffelen, having become a friend in the meantime, took the initiative to collect my articles on the Melitian schism. They were published in the course of twenty-five years in disparate volumes and journals. As they reflect the evolution ofmy thoughts on several aspects of the problem, they were reproduced in a strict chronological order and without any correction. Peter was so kind as to write an introductory synthesis on the topic, accompanied by a select but representative bibliography. The fourteen Melitian studies are followed by three articles on related early Christian subjects. Apart from Peter, my sincere thanks are due to the Ashgate Publishing Group and especially to Dr. John Smedley and his staff, for their kind support and willingness to accept these studies in the Variorum Collected Studies Series. Over the years my wife Lut had to endure my physical and mental absences. Never will I be able to adequately express my appreciation. Having reached the status not only of emeritus, but of grandfather as well, I am happy to dedicate this volume to my grandchildren, though there is barely a chance that any of them will ever read a single one of these essays: Indra, Alexander, Elena, Stan, Sarah, Roderick, Anastasia, Simon and Ame. HANS HAUBEN Emeritus Professor Catholic University of Leuven, Belgium 31 October 2011

Introduction The Melitian Schism: Development, Sources and Interpretation.

The Melitian schism, named after its founder, Melitius bishop of Lycopolis, is one of the early Christian schismatic groups that originated in the context of a persecution. Although discussed at the Council of Nicaea (325), it is not as well-studied as the two most famous schisms of this sort: the Novatians, who split from the church in Rome during the persecution of Decius (249-251 ), and the Donatists, who challenged the authority of Caecilian of Carthage in AD 311. Nor is the schism well-understood: even recent studies perpetuate the erroneous views that it was primarily a dispute about the reintegration of the lapsi 1 and that it was a mainly Coptic movement representing the autochthonous inhabitants of Egypt. 2 In fact, the schism deserves more attention, for its origins and early phase are unusually well-documented. Besides the information gleaned from traditional sources, such as the writings of Athanasius of Alexandria (328-373) and the fifth-century church historians Socrates, Sozomen and Theodoretus, we possess a series of documents that can be traced back to the archives of the church of Alexandria and several papyri that shed light on the mood among the followers ofMelitius in the period after the Council ofNicaea. The studies collected in this volume offer an in-depth account of this early period: in them, Hans Hauben, professor emeritus at the Catholic University ofLeuven, draws on his skills as a historian and a papyrologist to off er meticulous assessments of the value of the documents so as to come to a balanced reconstruction and interpretation of the schism. The richness of the documentation, and its peculiar character, renders unambiguous interpretation often difficult and these collected studies hence contain revisions of earlier positions. Together they can be read as a synthesis of the origins and the development of the Melitian schism, especially until the Synod of Tyre (335), after which date our information peters out. The present introduction serves as a general guide to the schism, its development, sources and interpretations and hopes to offer background and context that will make Hauben's studies more accessible. The bibliography at the end of this introduction, containing all publications relevant for the history of the schism, hopes to provide a useful tool for further study of the schism.

1

Norris 2007:74-75.

2

Watts 2010:173.

xii

INTRODUCTION

Development

The Melitian schism started in the year 306, when the Diocletianic persecution was still in full swing. Melitius, bishop ofLycopolis since 304, had intervened in the dioceses of four imprisoned bishops from the Delta and had performed ordinations there, probably in 305.3 Questioning Peter of Alexandria's rather meek attitude towards the civil authorities, Melitius also obtruded in Alexandria whilst Peter was in hiding (February 306). The root of the conflict thus lies in Melitius' high view of the role of a Christian bishop in times of persecution, which he apparently thought incompatible with flight and accommodation. Melitius' predecessor had been deposed for idolatry,4 and it would have required from Melitius a good dose of self-confidence and esteem for the function of bishop to have accepted an ordination during a persecution. Scholars have long tended to accept Epiphanius' account, which points to different attitudes towards the reintegration of lapsi (Christians who had complied with the authorities) as the root of the conflict.5 Yet Epiphanius reflects a later pro-Melitian view, which moreover assimilates the Melitians to a schism similar to Donatism and Novatianism. In fact, Peter's and Melitius' attitude towards the lapsi differed in degree rather than in substance, with the former favouring lighter penalties and an immediate start of the period of penance, even before the persecution had ended. 6 Yet it became very soon an important issue, besides the usurpation of authority, and one that further poisoned the relationship between Melitius and Peter. Probably shortly before Easter 306, Melitius himself was arrested and deported to the quarries of the Thebaid. In the Easter period, Peter provisionally excommunicated Melitius with a letter to the Alexandrians, and he also set out his own policy towards the lapsi - thus laying the ground for an intensification of the conflict with Melitius. At around the same time, Peter called a synod that excommunicated Melitius. Melitius did not back down. Deported by the authorities to Palestine, he organised his own so-called 'Church of Martyrs', for which he ordained presbyters, deacons as well as bishops, 7 something he may have done already when held captive in the Thebaid. 8 This act closed off the possibility of an easy

3

See Hauben 1989 = III in this volume. Barns and Chadwick 1973. Vivian 1988:27 n. 90 lists those who do so. See also note 1. 6 Vivian 1988:35; Carroll 1989:78-79. 7 Epiphanius, Panarion 68.3.6-8. Cf. Papaconstantinou 2006:80. 8 There is an inscription referring to 'the catholic church ofMelitius' in the quarries of Mons Porphyrites, which may stem from Melitius' activities there: SEC 8 (1937) 647 with Hauben 2005: 4

INTRODUCTION

Xlll

reconciliation with Peter. It was one thing for Melitius to take onto himself the tasks that other bishops performed inadequately in his eyes. To create his own hierarchy, however, radically questioned the legitimacy of Peter and his bishops. Moreover, the denomination 'Church of Martyrs' indicates the selfconfident, rigorous stance that seems to characterise Melitius' actions. Little is known about what happened after the end of the persecution, suggesting that the deadlock simply continued with Melitius going his own way. Both sides could claim that the persecution had boosted their authority: Peter had, after all, suffered martyrdom in 311, whereas Melitius had spent many years in forced labour. Yet, ifEpiphanius is to be believed, relations with Alexander of Alexandria, the successor of Peter after the ephemeral Achillas, were not all that bad. 9 It is probably in this period that the Melitians started to form the monastic communities that the papyri attest for the years 330350s. It has been argued that the Melitians created an alternative monastic ideal, different from that of the Pachomian and Antonian strands in Egyptian monasticism. 10 The period of relative calm may indeed have helped the Melitians to institutionalise their movement. The rise of Arianism, being, among other things, another challenge to the authority of the bishop of Alexandria, probably troubled the uneasy coexistence that may have existed for a while. The anti-Arian polemic stemming from the Alexandrian patriarchate tends to link Melitians and Arians, 11 but it is unclear to what extent this coalition already existed before the Council of Nicaea (325) and the election of Athanasius (328), if at all. The primary importance of Arianism for the history of the Melitian schism is not so much this later coalition than the fact that Arianism rekindled the passions that had lain dormant for a while. Arianism also gave the Melitian schism an international dimension, as the case of Melitius and his followers was now discussed at the Council of Nicaea (325). The proposed solution aimed at reintegrating the bishops of the schism into the orthodox church. 12 Its leader, Melitius, was confined to Lycopolis and only allowed to retain the title of bishop, but he was not to exercise any episcopal functions anymore. The rest of the bishops retained their title and were to become second in rank in their diocese after the Nicene bishop. They could not act without the consent of that bishop. At the death of the Nicene bishop, succession was not automatic: Melitians first

764 n. 111 = XIV in this volume and Lajtar and Wipszycka 1994:75-85. 9 Epiphanius, Panarion 68.3.9. 10 Goehring 1993 and 1997; Martin 2007:20-21. 11 Arianism was a fractured and multifacetted movement. In this period it may be better designated as 'Eusebians', although that is also a polemical construct: cf. Gwynn 2007. 12

Athanasius,De DecretisNicaenaeSynodi 36. See Hauben 2000b = IX in this volume.

INTRODUCTION

XlV

had to be judged to see if they were worthy of that honour and they had to be accepted by the people and the bishop of Alexandria. In order to facilitate the process of reintegration, Melitius had to hand over a list of bishops to Alexander of Alexandria, a list that is preserved by Athanasius. 13 That list also indicates that John Arkhaph should remain in Alexandria with Alexander to be the direct interlocutor of the bishop of Alexandria. 14 On top of all this, Nicaea ordered that the reintegration of bishops could only happen at the condition of a 'more mystical ordination' (mystikotera cheirotonia). Views about the exact meaning of this diverge: traditionally this has been interpreted as a symbolic imposition of hands as a sign of reconciliation, 15 but Hans Hauben has argued for a stronger interpretation. 16 In his view, Nicaea imposed a re-ordination of all Melitian clerics. The interpretation of this condition is not without importance. On the former view, Nicaea imposed rather lenient conditions on the Melitians, who could retain their rank and whose ordinations were recognised as valid. On Hauben's interpretation, the Council of Nicaea was more stringent: although it could not reject the value of the ordinations, it clearly considered them inadequate. In combination with the fact that the Melitian bishops could not automatically lay claim to their see when its Nicene incumbent died, this suggests that, whilst at the surface Nicaea seemed to preach leniency, in fact the conditions were rather unfavourable for the Melitians. This could explain why the success of this agreement was short-lived. Another cause for the breakdown of the agreement was the erratic behaviour of Melitius. At first he acquiesced in the decisions of Nicaea: he handed over the libel/us with his bishops, shortly after the return of Alexander from the council. 17 Towards the end of his life (ca. 326-327), however, Melitius backed away from the agreement, and he appointed John Arkhaph as his successor at the head of the schism. 18 The reasons for this change in attitude are impossible to gauge, but several factors may have played a role. As said, the conditions imposed at Nicaea may have been experienced as too harsh. In addition, Epiphanius reports a persecution ofMelitians by Alexander after Melitius' death. Given Epiphanius' generally confused account, it may be difficult to determine what was cause and what was effect: Alexander may have wished to force the agreement so as to bring the schism to a speedy end,

13

Athanasius, Apologia Secunda 71.6. See Hauben 1989-1990 = IV in this volume. Hauben 1994 = VI in this volume and Hauben 2000b = IX in this volume. 15 Restated, against Hauben 1987 = II in this volume, by Martin 1989a. 16 Hauben 1987 = II in this volume and Hauben 2000b = IX in this volume. 17 Van Nuffelen 2005. 18 Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History 2.21.1-2. Hauben 1994a = VI in this volume and Hauben 2000b = IX in this volume. 14

INTRODUCTION

xv

thus upsetting the Melitians, or the persecution may have been the result of the Melitian withdrawal from the agreement. 19 An additional element may have been that the years 326-327 are precisely the time when it was becoming increasingly clear that the decisions ofNicaea regarding the Arians were being subverted with imperial acquiescence. 20 Melitius may have considered it to be an injustice that only his followers should not get the rehabilitation that was being prepared for the Arians. 21 At any rate, the rise of resistance against the Council of Nicaea, and the fact that Constantine was not willing to enforce them at all costs, may have generated the view that the decisions of the Council were open for revision. Whatever the precise reasons for the renewal of the conflict, it is clear that tensions in the church of Egypt were at a high when Alexander died in 328. The election of Athanasius as his successor would be another, and final, turning point in the history of the schism. Again, the facts are not easy to assess. In line with the recent tendency to correct the hagiographical image of Athanasius with the critical views of his enemies, scholars have tended to lend credence to the Arian version recorded by Sozomen, 22 according to which Melitian and Nicene bishops swore to choose a common candidate to succeed Alexander. Yet seven bishops broke that agreement and Athanasius was ordained by them. 23 Athanasius thus stands accused of squandering the last chance at unification. As we have seen, things were much more complicated than that: in the face of the tensions that existed in the last years of Alexander's life, so much irenism is suspect. If there is a historical core in the irenic Arian account, then it might be that there was a sense among the Egyptian bishops that a less strict person than Athanasius would be better suited to deal with the current problems. Yet one must also note that if Athanasius had indeed been ordained against the will of the vast majority of bishops, it remains remarkable that no firmer action was taken against such an usurpation of the see, as we know could happen in other disputed elections (such as that of Damasus in Rome in 366). Even the Melitians themselves did not elect a counter-bishop, 24 nor did the Arians. All of this suggests that Athanasius already had or very soon acquired the firm 19

Epiphanius, Panarion 68.5.1-2. Van Nuffelen 2004:330-346. 21 Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History 2.21.3 establishes the opposite causal relationship: the Arians are spurred into action by the revisionism ofMelitius. Given the fact that Arian revisionism does not start in Egypt but with Eusebius of Nicomedia, this is unlikely to be correct. Sozomen may be reflecting the Alexandrian polemical association of Melitius and Arius. 22 Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History 2.17.4. 23 Barnes 1993:18; Parvis 2006:111; Isele 2010:131-136. See Martin 1996:321-338 for a close analysis of the texts. 20

24

Hauben2004c= XIII in this volume.

INTRODUCTION

XVI

backing of (a crucial part of) his episcopate and the presbyters in Alexandria. At any rate, after Melitius had rejected Nicaea with the appointment of John Arkhaph and after Athanasius had been elected, there was no room anymore for compromise: Arians and Melitians, now allied against their common foe, would be the continuous target of Athanasius' polemic and sometimes violent action. In this context, it is understandable that both groups, even if theologically different, 25 would start to collaborate more closely against their common enemy,26 as they did to have Athanasius deposed at the Synod of Tyre (335). The tensions that such actions and Athanasius' reprisals generated in Alexandria can be very well sensed in the letters from the archive of Paieous. 27 After the middle of the fourth century, information about the Melitians rapidly declines. Although they continue to surface in works of heresiology, 28 the anonymous author of the Syntagma on the Council of Nicaea, written around 475, clearly had little idea about the Melitians beyond what he had read in Theodoretus' church history.29 Theodoretus accuses them of adopting Jewish and Samaritan customs, 30 in what sounds like a blanket accusation. In Egyptian sources they continue to surface until the patriarchate of Michael (744-768). 31

Sources

For the early history of the schism we are relatively well documented. Four groups of sources can be distinguished. The first source, and the most influential one in Late Antiquity, is the polemical writings of Athanasius of Alexandria. The successor of Alexander shaped himself as the great fighter against Arianism and defender ofNicaea, 32 and one way of defeating his opponents was the publication of a series of polemical works, such as the De Decretis Nicaenae Synodi, HistoriaArianorum and Apologia Secunda. The genre of these works can be defined as 'collections 25

Choat 2006:128-131 argues that there is no trace of Arianism in the extant Melitian papyri. Martin 1996:341-389; Parvis 2006:218 and 258. The account of Parvis is to be used with caution. 27 Hauben 2001 = X in this volume and Hauben 2004a = XII in this volume. 28 Timothy the Presbyter, PG 86.40. 29 Anonymus of Cyzicus, Ecclesiastical History 2.34. l. 30 Theodoretus, Ecclesiastical History 1.9.14. 31 History of the Patriarchs of Alexandria, PO 5:198-199. See also The Life of Parnin (Amelineau 1895:737-741; Lucchesi 1980) and Constantine, The second Panegyric on Saint Claudius of Antioch, PO 35:592-669. For further references and discussion, see Camplani 1990 and Hauben 1998a = VII in this volume. 32 Barnes 1981 and Martin 1996. 26

INTRODUCTION

xvii

of documents', that is they gather objective proofs, mainly letters from official bodies such as councils and secular officials, to show the truth of Athanasius' position. The letters are inserted into a narrative argument which is developed in usually brief sections that link together the various documents. Such collections thus combine a great semblance of objectivity with a profoundly partisan context and interpretation.33 The impact of Athanasius' writings cannot be underestimated. Particularly important is that they provided indirectly and directly the outline for the story of Arianism and Melitianism as told by the fifth-century church historians, Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoretus. These historians used Athanasius directly, whilst at the same time using a number of complementary sources. Some of the latter were, in tum, also influenced by Athanasius. 34 Notwithstanding their partisan nature, Athanasius' works preserve for us important documents, such as the catalogue of bishops Melitius handed over to Alexander after Nicaea. 35 The second main source is constituted by the remnants of what has been called 'the History of the Alexandrian Episcopate' and which was probably composed in the early fifth century (before 419).36 Some of its parts have been known for a long time: the Codex veronensis LX (58) contains Latin translations of the so-called Fundamentalurkunden (a letter to Melitius by four imprisoned bishops and his excommunication by Peter, together with short narratives linking the texts)37 and the Historia acephala; 38 Sozomen used a fuller version of the Historia acephala for events in Alexandria, 39 traces of which can be detected in the Ecclesiastical History ofTheodoretus too.40 Later hagiographical sources have drawn on this source too, possibly indirectly: the Latin version of the Martyrium Petri Alexandrini, composed in the ninth century in Naples by Guarimpotus,41 as well as a similar Ethiopic text, show up important parallels with the works just listed.42 Recently, a new Ethiopic witness to the History of the Alexandrian Episcopate has been discovered.43 33

For further literature about this genre, see Van Nuffelen 2002.

34

Van Nuffelen 2004. Athanasius, Apologia Secunda 71.6. Cf. Hauben 1989-1990 = IV in this volume.

35 36

It is to be distinguished from the so-called Coptic Ecclesiastical History, which was produced at least half a century later. 37 Kettler 1936. 38 Martin and Albert 1985. 39 Especially Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History 1.15. For a full list of parallels see Van Nuffelen 2002 and 2004. 40 41

Van Nuffelen 2002. BHL 6692-6693= PG 18:453-460.

42

Haile 1980.

43

Bausi 2006.

xviii

INTRODUCTION

The importance of this new text for the Melitian schism seems to lie in the fact that it adds to the documents and narratives already known from the Codex veronensis some new narrative material and a list of bishops ordained by Peter I of Alexandria. 44 Publication has been announced several times but is still awaited. Given the fact that we already knew much of what this history relates about the Melitian schism, the new witness will probably not revolutionise the study of the schism. Yet it does invite us to revisit the early origins of the schism. It is important to emphasise that, notwithstanding its value, the reconstructed History of the Alexandrian Episcopate is not an objective source. It has in fact been argued that it was not a church history in the traditional sense of the word, but a collection of documents. 45 The History of the Alexandrian Episcopate thus resembled more the polemical works of Athanasius than it did the church history of Socrates or Sozomen: it provides a selection of documents and facts designed to put the enemies of the church of Alexandria, the Arians and the Melitians, in a bad light.46 In that way, this second source for the Melitian schism is fairly similar to the first one. Epiphanius of Salamis (ca. 310/20-402) included the Melitians in chapter 68 of his Panarion, just before the chapter on the Arians. Because of its synthetic character and easy access, it has long been the main source for the study of the schism. Yet it needs to be handled with care. Not only is it - as much of what Epiphanius wrote - rather confused, he also includes apparently pro-Melitian information (possibly drawn from eye witnesses) in a fundamentally anti-Melitian argument. Whereas some historical data can be gleaned from his account, it must be used with caution. 47 The fourth source, papyrus documents composed by Melitians, give us a much more immediate access to the Melitian community. There are four groups of documents relevant for the history of the schism:48 ( 1) The archive of Paieous (ca. 330-340); 49 (2) The correspondence of Paphnutius (mid-fourth century); 50 (3) The archive of Nepheros (around 350-360); 51 (4) an archive relating to Melitian monks at the monastery of Lab la (511-513 ).52 The evidence for the Melitian nature of the archive of N epheros is circumstantial but is now

44 45 46

47 48 49

50 51 52

Orlandi 1974; Camplani 2004, 2006a, 2006b, 2007 and 2009. Van Nuffelen 2002. See already Williams 1986. Hauben 2004c = XIII in this volume; Hauben 2005 = XIV in this volume. See Choat 2006:128-129 and Hauben 1998:330 n. 8 = VII in this volume. Bell 1924:38-99=P.Lond VI 1913-1922;Crum 1927. Bell 1924:I0O-l20=P.Lond. VI 1923-1929. Kramer, Shelton and Browne 1987 = P.Neph.

McGing 1990.

INTRODUCTION

xix

widely accepted. 53 These documents are virtually the only ones to inform us on the self-understanding of the Melitians. It is therefore interesting to note that in the documents from Labia, in the sixth century, the Melitians referred to themselves with that name. The archive of Paieous is of particular interest as it provides a direct insight in the Melitian community shortly before the crucial Synod of Tyre, when Arians and Melitians combined forces to have Athanasius deposed. 54

Interpretation For a long time it has been asserted that the Melitian schism constituted a rebellion of the autochthonous, Coptic population against the Greek patriarchate. 55 The idea that heresies and schisms were national movements in disguise has now been convincingly rebutted: for the Melitian schism, one cannot see a difference in background and origin between its adherents and those of the Nicene church. 56 The interpretation of the schism as a national movement has now been replaced by a more subtle model, one that is, however, not wholly different from the preceding. It has been emphasised that the early fourth century is the period when the bishop of Alexandria started to expand his authority so as to become the supreme head of the Egyptian Church. Especially in Alexandria this generated tensions, as the local presbyters traditionally wielded important power in their districts and had a strong say in who was to become the bishop of the city.57 Melitius, as well as Arius, rebelled against this transition from a more collegiate mode of governance to a more monarchic one - not to say, in the case of Egypt, the transition to almost absolute power for the bishop of Alexandria. 58 It is undoubtedly correct to set the way the Alexandrian

53

It has been doubted by Martin 1996:43--47 but re-affirmed by Hauben 2001 = X in this volume; Wipszycka 2009:82. 54 Hauben 1981 = I in this volume, Hauben 200 I = X in this volume, Hauben 2002b = XI in this volume, Hauben 2004a = XII in this volume. 55 Barnard 1973:188-189; Frend 1974; Vivian 1988:37-38; Griggs 1990:117-130; Carroll 1989. 56 Wipszycka 1996:51-52; Martin 1981:43; Hauben 1989-1990:165 = IV in this volume; Camplani 1990:329. See the classic paper of Jones 1959. 57 Wipszycka 2006 with further references. 58 Martin 1986:267; Williams 1986:51-52; Camplani 1990:318; Pietri 1995:256. Wipszycka 2006:89 suggests, for example, that the Melitians continued the old practice of election and ordination of presbyters and bishops by presbyters. Given the fact that at a later stage in the schism we only know of Melitian presbyters, ordination of presbyters by presbyters is indeed likely. Yet

xx

INTRODUCTION

patriarch dealt with the Melitian schism in the context of the development of his authority: in particular Athanasius exploited the possibilities offered by the presence of two internal enemies to enhance his own position and extend control over all aspects of church life in Egypt, including monasticism. Yet, it is questionable whether the rise of monarchic episcopate in Alexandria actually constituted a cause of Melitius' actions. 59 Leaving aside the fact that we know very little about the power balance in the church of Egypt under Peter I, it must be noted that Melitius challenged Peter for being too weak a man. Usurping the functions of Peter in Alexandria when the bishop was in hiding, Melitius stepped in to fill a lack of authority, to set the example that Peter should have set. It used to be thought that Melitius aimed at usurping the position of Alexander and occupying the see of Alexandria. 60 Yet this was not the case. In fact, it is now established that the Melitians never elected a counter-bishop in Alexandria: 61 whatever the precise reasons for this, it suggests that a direct challenge of the position of the bishop of Alexandria was not their first concern. More fundamentally, an interpretation that sees the Melitian schism as a response to an extension of the authority of the bishop of Alexandria, inverses the agency and suggests that the prime cause of the events were not Melitius' actions but the power drive of the bishop of Alexandria. This stands in line with the tendency of current scholarship to rightly question the triumphalist narratives stemming from the Alexandrian church and to revaluate the fate of the victims of its power drive. If we use this model as a single fundamental explanation, however, we risk not only to misunderstand the origins of the schism, but also to despoil Melitius of his honest convictions. Rather than wishing to propose a single explanatory model for the entire history of the schism, we should try to develop a more dynamic understanding. Indeed, the first decades of the fourth century are marked by many fluctuations and sudden changes in the church: persecution, 'triumph' of the church, doctrinal troubles with the rise of Arianism, and erratic imperial involvement. The aims of Melitius and the causes for his actions at different moments in the history of the schism may well have been influenced by the changes in the wider context. During the persecution, Melitius was primarily concerned with maintaining the integrity of the church, in two senses: as an institution, against the onslaught of the secular powers; and spiritually, against the weakness of this custom may have arisen out of need and does not have to be a conscious return to an hallowed Egyptian tradition. 59 See already Hauben 2004c:63 n. 50 = XIII in this volume. 60 Telfer 1955. See the critique ofWipszycka 1992:147. 61 Hauben 1981 = I in this volume still thought the Melitians had ordained a bishop for Alexandria, but that view is corrected by van Minnen 2001. Hauben 2004c = XIII in this volume

spells out the consequencesof this fact.

INTRODUCTION

xxi

its current leaders. His strong convictions express themselves in his challenge of the authority of Peter and in his insistence on a more rigorist line in dealing with lapsi. His community could hence present itself as more pure than the rest of the church of Egypt. Circumstances changed profoundly after the end of the persecutions and the conversion of Constantine. Contrary to what Melitius may have thought in 306, the Egyptian church emerged quite strong from the persecutions: not only could the official church boast the crown of martyrdom for Peter, thus establishing beyond doubt his credentials against Melitius' doubts, but the ensuing peace allowed the church to re-establish and re-assert itself. Path-dependency probably ensured that Melitius continued to lead his own church, but if the absence of reports on the period 311-325 suggests anything, it is that both sides were content to let matters rest. Things changed with the rise of Arianism. Because of its international dimension and the doctrinal nature of the difference (contrary to the disciplinary one that characterised Melitianism), it was a much more serious problem than Melitianism for Alexander of Alexandria. For both sides in the conflict, it probably meant the end of the armistice. There is no evidence regarding the role of the Melitians in the run-up to Nicaea: anti-Melitian sources, in particular the so-called History of the Alexandrian Patriarchate, stress the life-long connection between Arianism and Melitianism; yet, our only source to report a pro-Melitian version, Epiphanius, stresses the initial hostility of the Melitians towards the Arians. 62 Wherever the truth lies, the rise of Arianism offered opportunities to both sides. The Melitians may have sensed a possibility to improve their position. For Alexander of Alexandria, the difficulty in settling the Arian dispute amicably may have demonstrated the need to set his house in order. It may or may not have been his desire to extend his power in taking on both Melitians and Arians, yet it is obvious that his success at Nicaea did so. If handled well, conflict can indeed establish one's power base. The rise of Arianism is thus crucial for the history of the Melitian schism after its initial establishment during the persecution, as also later events show: Melitius tries to wriggle out of the agreements of Nicaea at the same time as the Arians did, and both groups would form strong alliances in the run-up to the Synod of Tyre where they challenged Athanasius. What the Melitians hoped to gain by this is not clear, but one suspects that they hoped that an Arian bishop would leave them alone and permit them to have their own churches. By now, having started out as a movement that cared for the integrity of the church, Melitianism had developed into one that cared for its own integrity - a not uncommon nor surprising development.

62

Epiphanius, Panarion 68.4.1-2.

INTRODUCTION

XXII

The distinct customs that sources allege for the Melitians, 63 probably originated at this time. Just as accusations symbolically excluded the Melitians from the body of the church, such customs helped to define their own identity. Yet many of such customs, such as the use of apocryphal texts and divination, and the practice of irregular ordinations, are attested in hostile sources, 64 and it must be asked if the practices that for example Athanasius accuses the Melitians of, are not rather polemical disqualifications. Athanasius' Festal Letter for the year 369, for example, accuses the Arians and Melitians of mummifying and exposing the bodies of martyrs. This is, in fact, an Egyptian custom, 65 and rather than singling out a specific custom of heretics in Egypt, Athanasius is polemically linking his enemies to forbidden customs. He thus succeeds in accusing the heretics of illegitimate and pagan practices whilst also showing to his orthodox flock that adherence to these practices makes them run the risk of being accused of heresy. 66 Such polemical strategies make it very difficult for any study of the schism to see how they developed their own identity. The interpretation suggested here tries to lift the Melitian schism out of a single interpretative model, namely that of a rebellion against the extension of the power of the bishop of Alexandria, and to reposition it in the complex historical events of the early fourth century. Rather than seeing it as a response to one factor outside itself, it was the result of the interaction between internal and external elements - just as all historical events.

List of abbreviations BHL = 1898-1901. Bibliotheca hagiographica Latina. 2 vols. Brussels. PG= Migne, J.P. 1857-1866. Patrologia Graeca. Paris. PO= Graffin, F., et al., eds. 1903-. Patrologia Orienta/is. Paris and Turnhout, B. SEC= Hondius, J.J.E., et al., eds. 1923-. Supplementum epigraphicum graecum. Leiden, Amsterdam, and Boston.

For abbreviations of papyrus collections, see the Checklist of Editions of Greek, Latin, Demotic, and Coptic Papyri, Ostraca and Tablets (http://library. duke.edu/rubenstein/scriptorium/papyrus/texts/ clist.html). For abbreviations of journal titles used in the articles republished in this volume, see for the most 63

There is no evidence for heretical theological views, notwithstanding Simonetti 1990. Camplani 1990:332; Carroll 1989; Hauben 1998a = VII in this volume. 65 Athanasius, Life of Antonius 90. Cf. Camplani 1990:335; Martin 1996:700- 702. 66 For further references to later polemical accounts, see Camplani 1990:343; Hauben 1998 = VII in this volume. 64

INTRODUCTION

XXlll

part the list drawn up by L'Annee philologique (J. Marouzeau et al. 1927-. L 'Annee philologique. Bibliographie critique et analytique de l 'antiquite greco-latine. Paris; http:/ /www.annee-philologique.com/aph/).

Bibliography Aalders, G.J.D. 1979. De grote vergissing. Kerk en Staat in het begin van de vierde eeuw. Kampen, NL. Alberigo, J. [G.] et al., eds. 1973. Conciliorum Oecumenicorum Decreta. 3rd edition. Bologna. Amann, E. 1928. 'Melece.' Dictionnaire de theologie catholique 10:531-6. Amann, E. 1937. 'Reordinations.' Dictionnaire de theologie catholique 13.2:2385-2431. Amelineau, E. 1895. Monuments pour servir al 'histoire de l 'Egypte chretienne aux IV, V, Vieet VIJesiecles. Memoires publies par les membres de la Mission archeologique frarn;aise au Caire, vol. 4, pt. 2. Paris. Amidon, Ph.R. 1990. The Panarion of St. Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis. Selected Passages. New York and Oxford. Andresen, C., and A.M. Ritter. 1993. Geschichte des Christentums. Vol. 1.1, Altertum. Stuttgart. Arnold, D.W.-H. 1989. 'Sir Harold Idris Bell and Athanasius: A Reconsideration of London Papyrus 1914.' Studia Patristica 21:377-83. Arnold, D.W.-H. 1991. The Early Episcopal Career of Athanasius of Alexandria. Notre Dame, IN, and London. Bagnall, R.S. 1993. Egypt in Late Antiquity, Princeton, NJ. Barison, P. 1938. 'Ricerche sui monasteri dell 'Egitto bizantino ed arabo secondo i documenti dei papiri greci.' Aegyptus 18:29-148. Barnard, L.W. 1973. 'Athanasius and the Meletian Schism in Egypt.' Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 5 9: 181-9. Barnard, L.W. 1975. 'Some Notes on the Meletian Schism in Egypt.' Studia Patristica 12.1 :339-405. Barnard, L.W 1992. Studies inAthanasius'ApologiaSecunda. European University Studies XXIII 467. Bern. Barnes, T.D. 1981. Constantine and Eusebius. Cambridge, MA, and London. Barnes, T.D. 1993. Athanasius and Constantius. Theology and Politics in the Constantinian Empire. Cambridge, MA, and London. Barns, J., and H. Chadwick. 1973. 'A Letter Ascribed to Peter of Alexandria.' Journal of Theological Studies 24:443-55.

XXIV

INTRODUCTION

Baumeister, Th. 1972. Martyr invictus. Der Martyrer als Sinnbild der Erlosung in der Legende und im Kult der fruhen koptischen Kirche. Zur Kontinuitiit des iigyptischen Denkens. Munster. Baus, K., and E. Ewig. 1973. Die Reichskirche nach Konstantin dem Grossen. Die Kirche von Nikaia bis Chalkedon. Handbuch der Kirchengeschichte, edited by H. Jedin, vol. 2, pt. 1. Freiburg, Basel, and Vienna. Bausi, A. 2006. 'La collezione aksumita canonico-liturgica.'Adamantius 12:43-70. Baynes, N.H. 1924. Review of Bell 1924. Journal of Hellenic Studies 44:311-3. Baynes, N.H. 1948. 'Sozomenl.15.' Journal ofTheological Studies 49:165-8. Bell, H.I. 1924. Jews and Christians in Egypt. The Jewish Troubles in Alexandria and the Athanasian Controversy. With Three Coptic Texts edited by WE. Crum. London [= P.Jews = P.London VI]. Bell, H.I. 1925. 'Bibliography. Graeco-Roman Egypt. Papyri (1923-1924).' Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 11:84-124. Bienert, W.A. 1995. 'Epiphanios v. Salamis.' Lexikonfiir Theologie und Kirche 3:723-5. Bradshaw, P.F. 1995. 'Ordination IV.I.' Theologische Realenzyklopiidie 25:343-5. Brakke, D. 1994. 'Canon Formation and Social Conflict in Fourth-Century Egypt: Athanasius of Alexandria's Thirty-Ninth Festal Letter.' Harvard Theological Review 87:395-419. Brakke, D. 1995. Athanasius and the Politics of Ascetism. Oxford. Brakmann,H. 1979.'Alexandreiaund die Kanonesdes Hippolyt.'Jahrbuchfiir Antike und Christentum 22:139-49. Cabrol, F. 1907. 'Alexandrie. Election du patriarche.' Dictionnaire d 'archeologie chretienne et de liturgie 1: 1204--10. Camplani, A. 1989. Le lettere festali di Atanasio di Alessandria. Studio storicocritico. Rome. Camplani, A. 1990. 'In margine alla storia dei Meliziani.' Augustinianum 30:313-51. Camplani, A., ed. 1997. L 'Egitto cristiano. Aspetti e problemi in eta tardoantica. Studia Ephemeridis Augustinianum 56. Rome. Camplani, A. 1999. Review of Martin 1996. Augustinianum 39:187-222. Camplani, A., ed. 2003. Atanasio di Alessandria, Lettere Festali. Anonimo, Indice delle Lettere Festali. Introduzione, traduzione e note. Letture cristiane del primo millennia 34. Milan. Camplani, A. 2004. 'L' autorappresentazione dell' episcopato di Alessandria tra IV e V secolo: questioni di metodo.' Annali di storia dell'esegesi 21 :147-85. Camplani, A. 2006a. 'L'identita del patriarcato di Alessandria tra storia e rappresentazione storiografica.' Adamantius 12:8-42.

INTRODUCTION

XXV

Camplani, A. 2006b. 'Lettere episcopali, storiografia patriarcale e letteratura canonica: a proposito del Codex veronensis LX (58).' Rivista di storia de/ cristianesimo 3: 117-64. Camplani, A. 2007. 'L'Historia ecclesiastica en copte et l'historiographie du siege episcopal d' Alexandrie. A propos d'un passage sur Melitios de Lycopolis.' In Actes du Huitieme Congres international d'Etudes coptes, Paris, 28 juin - 3 Jui/let 2004, 2 vols., edited by N. Bosson and A. Boud'hors, 417-24. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 163. Leuven, Paris, and Dudley, MA. Camplani, A. 2009. 'Pietro di Alessandria tra documentazione d'archivio e agiografia popolare.' In: Volksglaube im antiken Christentum, edited by H. Grieser and A. Merkt, 138-56. Darmstadt. Camplani, A. Forthcoming. 'Melitianer.' Rea/lexicon far Antike und Christentum. Munster. Carroll, S.T. 1989. The Melitian Schism: Coptic Christianity and the Egyptian Church. Ph.D. diss., Miami University. Oxford, OH. Choat, M. 2002. 'The Development of Usage of Terms for "Monks" in Late Antique Egypt.' Jahrbuch fur Antike und Christentum 45 :5-23. Choat, M. 2006. Belief and Cult in Fourth-Century Papyri. Studia Antiqua Australiensia 1. Tumhout, B. Corcoran, S. 1996. The Empire of the Tetrarchs. Imperial Pronouncements and Government AD 284-324. Oxford. Cramer, W. 1999. 'Peleus, N eilos, Patermuthios u. Elias.' Lexikon fiir Theologie und Kirche 8:13. Crum, W.E. 1927. 'Some Further Melitian Documents.' Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 13: 19-26. Deissmann,A. 1923. Lichtvom Osten. Das Neue Testamentund die neuentdeckten Texte der hellenistisch-romischen Welt. 4th ed. Tiibingen. Delehaye, H. 1922. 'Les martyrs d'Egypte.' Analecta Bollandiana 40:5-154. Derda, T., and E. Wipszycka. 1994. 'L'emploi des titres abba, apa et papas dans l'Egypte byzantine.' Journal of Juristic Papyrology 24:23-56. Devos, P. 1965. 'Une passion grecque inedite de S. Pierre d' Alexandrie.' Analecta Bollandiana 83:157-87. DiMaio, M. 1996. 'Imago veritatis aut verba in speculo: Athanasius, the Meletian Schism, and Linguistic Frontiers in Fourth-Century Egypt.' In Shifting Frontiers in Late Antiquity. Papers from the 1st Interdisciplinary Conference on Late Antiquity, the University of Kansas, March 1995, edited by R.W. Mathisen and H.S. Sivan, 277-84. Aldershot. DiMaio, M., and D.W.-H. Arnold. 1992. 'Per vim, per caedem, per helium: A Study of Murder and Ecclesiastical Politics in the Year 337 A.D.' Byzantion 62: 158-211.

xxvi

INTRODUCTION

Doelger, F.J. 1934. 'Klingeln, Tanz und Handeklatschen im Gottesdienst der christlichen Melitianer in Aegypten.' Antike und Christentum. Kultur- und religionsgeschichtliche Studien 4:245-65. Milnster. Drake, H.A. 1986. 'Athanasius' First Exile.' Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 27: 193-204. Drake, H.A. 2000. Constantine and the Bishops. The Politics of Intolerance. Baltimore. Duchesne, L. 1911. Histoire ancienne de l 'Eglise, vol. 2. 5th edition. Paris. Dilnzi, F. 1998. 'Melitios v. Lykopolis.' Lexikonfar Theologie und Kirche 7:86. Duval, A. et al., eds. 1994. Les Conciles oecumeniques. Les decrets. Vol. 1.2, Nicee I aLatran V. Paris. Elliott, T.G. 1992. 'Constantine and the "Arian Reaction after Nicaea".' Journal of Ecclesiastical History 43: 169-94. Elliott, T.G. 1996. The Christianity of Constantine the Great. New York. Ensslin, W. 1934. 'Theonas 5.' RE 5A:2085. Faivre, J. 1914. 'Alexandrie.' Dictionnaire d'histoire et de geographie ecclesiastiques 2:289-369. Falivene, M.R. 1998. The Herakleopolite Nome. A Catalogue of the Toponyms with Introduction and Commentary. American Studies in Papyrology 37. Atlanta, GA. Fedalto, G. 1984. 'Liste vescovili del patriarcato di Alessandria.' Studia Patristica 31 :249-323. Fernandez Hernandez, G. 1984. 'El cisma meleciano en la Iglesia egipcia.' Gerion 2:155-80. Fernandez Hernandez, G. 1985. 'La elecci6n episcopal deAtanasio deAlejandria segun Filostorgio.' Gerion 3:211-29. Fischer, J.A. 1987. 'Die Synode zu Alexandrien im Jahr 306.' Archivum Historiae Concilio rum 19:62- 70. Fliche A., and V. Martin. 1950. His to ire de l 'Eglise depuis !es origines jusqu 'a nosjours. Vol. 3, De la paix constantinienne ala mort de Theodose, by J.R. Palanque, G. Bardy, and P. de Labriolle. Paris. Frankfurter, D. 1993. Elijah in Upper Egypt. The Apocalypse of Elijah and Early Egyptian Christianity. Minneapolis, MN. Frend, W.H.C. 1965. Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church. Oxford. Frend, W.H.C. 1972. 'Heresy and Schism as Social and National Movements.' In: Schism, Heresy, and Religious Protest, edited by D. Baker, 37-56. Cambridge. Frend, W.H.C. 1974. 'Athanasius as an Egyptian Christian Leader in the Fourth Century.' New College Bulletin (Edinburgh) 8.1 :20-37. Reprinted in Religion Popular and Unpopular in the Early Christian Centuries, XVI. London 1976.

INTRODUCTION

xxvii

Frend, W.H.C. 1984. The Rise of Christianity. London. Frend, W.H.C. 1989. 'The Church in the Reign of Constantius II (337-361). Mission-Monasticism-Worship.' In L 'Eglise et I 'Empire au IV siecle, edited by A. Dible, 73-112. Entretiens Hardt 34. Geneve. Galtier, P. 1930. 'Imposition des mains.' Dictionnaire de theologie catholique 7.2: 1302-1425. Gelzer, H. 1893. 'Ungedruckte und wenig bekannte Bistiimerverzeichnisse der orientalischen Kirche II.' Byzantinische Zeitschr(ft 2:22-70. Ghedini, G. 1925a. 'Luci nuove dai papiri sullo scisma meleziano e il monachismo in Egitto.' La Scuola Cattolica 53 (Ser. VI, vol. VI): 261-80. Ghedini, G. 1925b. Review ofBell 1924. Aegyptus 6:273-7. Ghedini, G. 1936. 'Paganesimo e cristianesimo nelle lettere papiracee greche dei primi secoli d.Cr.' In Atti del IV Congresso Jnternazionale di Papirologia, Firenze, 28 aprile - 2 maggio 1935, 333-50. Aegyptus. Serie Scientifica 5. Milan. Girardet, K.M. 1975. Kaisergericht und Bisschofsgericht. Studien zu den Anfiingen des Donatistenstreites 313-315 und zum Prozess des Athanasius von Alexandrien 328-346. Antiquitas I 21. Bonn. Goehring, J.E. 1993. 'Melitian Monastic Organization: A Challenge to Pachomian Originality.' Studia Patristica 25:388-95. Reprinted in Goehring 1999, 18795. Goehring, J.E. 1997. 'Monastic Diversity and Ideological Boundaries in FourthCentury Christian Egypt.' Journal of Early Christian Studies 5:61-84. Reprinted in Goehring 1999, 196-218. Goehring, J.E. 1999. Ascetics, Society, and the Desert. Studies in Early Egyptian Monasticism. Harrisburg, PA. Greenslade, S.L. 1953. Schism in the Early Church. London. Griggs, C.W. 1990. Early Egyptian Christianity. From its Origins to 451 C.E. Coptic Studies 2. Leiden. Gryson, R. 1973. 'Les elections ecclesiastiques au Ille siecle.' Revue d'histoire ecclesiastique 68:353-404. Gryson, R. 1979. 'Les elections episcopal es en Orient au IVe siecle.' Revue d'histoire ecclesiastique 74:301-45. Gwatkin, H.M. 1900. Studies of Arianism. 2nd ed. Cambridge. Gwynn, D.M. 2007. The Eusebians: The Polemic of Athanasius of Alexandria and the Construction of the 'Arian controversy'. Oxford. Haas, C. 1991. 'The Alexandrian Riots of 356 and George of Cappadocia.' Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 32:281-301. Haas, C. 1993. 'The Arians of Alexandria.' Vigiliae Christianae 47:234-45. Haas, C. 1997. Alexandria in Late Antiquity. Topography and Social Conflict. Baltimore and London.

xxvm

INTRODUCTION

Hahn, J. 2004. Gewalt und religioser Konfiikt. Studien zu den Auseinandersetzungen zwischen Christen, Heiden und Juden im Osten des Romischen Reiches (von Konstantin bis Theodosius II). Klio Beihefte NF 8. Berlin. Haile, G. 1980. 'The Martyrdom of St. Peter Archbishop of Alexandria.' Analecta Bollandiana 98:85-92. Halkin, F. 1963. 'L' "Apologie" du martyr Phileas de Thmuis (Papyrus Bodmer XX) et les Actes latins de Phileas et Philoromus.' Analecta Bollandiana 81:5-27. Hanson, R.P.C. 1988. The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy 318-381. Edinburgh. Hardy, E.R. 1952. Christian Egypt: Church and People. Christianity and Nationalism in the Patriarchate of Alexandria. New York. Hauben, H. 1981. 'On the Melitians in P. London VI (P. Jews) 1914: The Problem of Papas Heraiscus.' In Proceedings of the Sixteenth International Congress of Papyrology, New York, 24-31 July 1980, edited by L. Koenen, R.S. Bagnall, G.M. Browne, and A.E. Hanson, 447-56. American Studies in Papyrology 23. Chico, CA(= I in this volume). Hauben, H. 1987. 'La reordination du clerge melitien imposee par le Concile de Nicee.' Ancient Society 18:203-7 (= II in this volume). Hauben, H. 1989. 'La premiere annee du schisme melitien (305/306).' Ancient Society 20:267-80 (= III in this volume). Hauben, H. 1989-1990. 'Le catalogue melitien reexamine.' In Opes Atticae. Miscellanea philologica et historica Raymondo Bogaert et Hermanno Van Looy oblata, edited by M. Geerard, J. Desmet, and R. Vander Plaetse, 15567. Sacris Erudiri 31. Bruges (= IV in this volume). Hauben, H. 1994a. 'Jean Arkhaph, eveque de Memphis, dans le catalogue melitien.' In Philohist6r. Miscellanea in honorem Caroli Laga septuagenarii, edited by A. Schoors and P. Van Deun, 23-33. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 60. Leuven (=Vin this volume). Hauben, H. 1994b. Review of Le lettere festali di Atanasio di Alessandria. Studio storico-critico, by A. Camplani. Unione Accademica Nazionale. Corpus dei Manoscritti Copti Letterari. Roma 1989. Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica 25:281-5 (= VI in this volume). Hauben, H. 1998a. 'The Melitian "Church of the Martyrs". Christian Dissenters in Ancient Egypt.' In Ancient History in a Modern University. Proceedings of a Conference held at Macquarie University, 8-13 July 1993 to mark twenty-:fiveyears ~fthe teaching of Ancient History at Macquarie University and the retirement from the Chair of Professor Edwin Judge. Vol. 2, Early Christianity, Late Antiquity and Beyond, edited by. T.W. Hillard, R.A. Kearsley, C.E.V. Nixon, and A.M. Nobbs, 329-49. Macquarie University, NSW, Grand Rapids, MI, and Cambridge, UK(= VII in this volume).

INTRODUCTION

XXIX

Hauben, H. 1998b. 'The Alexandrian Patriarch as Pharaoh. From Biblical Metaphor to Scholarly Topos.' In Egyptian Religion. The Last Thousand Years. Studies Dedicated to the Mem01y qf Jan Quaegebeur. Part 2, edited by W. Clarysse, A. Schoors, and H. Willems, 1341-52. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 85. Leuven (= XV in this volume). Hauben, H. 2000a. 'John Arkhaph and "the Bishop" (Athan., Apo!. sec. 71.6). A Reassessment.' Ancient Society 30:271-5 (= VIII in this volume). Hauben, H. 2000b. 'Das Konzil von Nicaea (325) zur Wiederaufnahme der Melitianer. Versuch einer Text- und Strukturanalyse.' In Timai loannou Triantaphyllopoulou, edited by J. Velissaropoulou-Karakosta, S.N. Troianos, K.A. Bourdara, M.P. Stathopoulos, and N. Klamaris, 357-79. Athens(= IX in this volume). Hauben, H. 2001. 'Le Papyrus London VI (P. Jews) 1914 dans son contexte historique (mai 335).' In Atti de! XX/I Congresso lnternazionale di Papirologia, Firenze, 23-29 agosto 1998. Vol. 1, edited by I. Andorlini, G. Bastianini, M. Manfredi, and G. Menci, 605--18. Florence(= X in this volume). Hauben, H. 2002a. 'On the Invocation of the "Holy and Consubstantial Trinity" in Byzantine Oath and Dating Formulas.' Zeitschrift for Papyrologie und Epigraphik 139:158-60 (= XVI in this volume). Hauben, H. 2002b. 'Aurelios Pageus, alias Apa Paieous, et le monastere melitien d'Hathor.' Ancient Society 32:337-52 (= XI in this volume). Hauben, H. 2004a. 'Catholiques et Melitiens aAlexandrie ala veille du Synode de Tyr (335).' In Coptic Studies on the Threshold of a New Millennium. Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress of Coptic Studies, Leiden, 27 August - 2 September 2000. Vol. 2, edited by M. Immerzeel, J. van der Vliet, et al., 905-21. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 133. Leuven, Paris, and Dudley, MA(= XII in this volume). Hauben, H. 2004b. 'Christ versus Apollo in Early Byzantine Kourion? With a note on the so-called "Panayia Aphroditissa" in Paphos.' In Philomathestatos. Studies in Greek Patristic and Byzantine Texts Presented to Jacques Naret for his Sixty-Fifth Birthday, edited by B. Janssens, B. Roosen, and P. Van Deun, 269-84. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 137. Leuven, Paris, and Dudley, MA(= XVII in this volume). Hauben, H. 2004c. 'Heraiscus as Melitian Bishop ofHeracleopolis Magna and the Alexandrian See.' Journal of Juristic Papyrology 34:51-70 (= XIII in this volume). Hauben, H. 2005. 'Epiphane de Salamine sur le schisme melitien.' In Storiogra.fia e Agiogra.fia nella Tarda Antichita. Alla ricerca de/le radici cristiane dell'Europa. Atti def Convegno de/la Facolta di Lettere Classiche e Cristiane dell 'Universita Ponti.ficia Salesiana (Roma, 21-22 gennaio

XXX

INTRODUCTION

2005), edited by B. Amata and G. Marasco, 737-70. Salesianum 67.4. Rome (= XIV in this volume). von Hefele, C.J., and H. Leclercq. 1907. Histoire des conciles d'apres les documents originaux. Vol. 1, pt. 1. Paris. Holl, K. 1925. 'Die Bedeutung der neuveroffentlichten melitianischen Urkunden fur die Kirchengeschichte.' Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philos.-hist. K/.:18-31. Reprinted in Gesammelte Aifsiitze zur Kirchengeschichte. Vol. 2, Der Osten, Ttibingen 1928, 283-97. Isele, B. 2010. Kampf um Kirchen: Religiose Gewalt, heiliger Raum und christliche Topographie in Alexandria und Konstantinopel (4. Jh). Mlinster. Jones, A.H.M. 1959. 'Were Ancient Heresies National or Social Movements in Disguise?' Journal of Theological Studies 10:280-98. Judge, E.A. 1977. 'The Earliest Use of Monachos for "Monk" (P. Coll. Youtie 77) and the Origins of Monasticism.' Jahrbuch far Antike und Christentum 20:72-89. Judge, E.A., and S.R. Pickering. 1977. 'Papyrus Documentation of Church and Community in Egypt to the Mid-Fourth Century.' Jahrbuchfur Antike und Christentum 20:47-71. Keil, V. 1989. Quellensammlung zur Religionspolitik Konstantins des Grossen. Darmstadt. Kemp, E.W. 1955. 'Bishops and Presbyters at Alexandria.' Journal of Ecclesiastical History 6: 125-42. Kettler, F.H. 1936. 'Der melitianische Streit in Aegypten.' Zeitschrift fur die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 35: 155-93. Kidd, B.J. 1922. A History of the Church to A.D. 461. 3 vols. Oxford. Klein, M.J. 1988. Untersuchungen zu den kaiserlichen Steinbruchen an Mons Porphyrites und Mons Claudianus in der 6stlichen Wuste A.gyptens. Habelts Dissertationsdrucke. Reihe Alte Geschichte 26. Ph.D. diss., Frankfurt University. Bonn. Kortekaas, G .A.A. 1987. 'Acta Phileae' and 'Commento agli "Acta Phileae".' In Atti e passioni dei martiri, edited by A.A.R. Bastiaensen et al., 247-337 and 498-581. Kortekaas, G.A.A. 1988. 'De Acta van Phileas.' In De heiligenverering in de eerste eeuwen van het christendom, edited by A. Hilhorst, 136-50. Nijmegen. Kramer, B. 1993. 'Neuere Papyri zum friihen Monchtum in Agypten.' In Philanthropia kai Eusebeia. Festschrift fur Albrecht Dihle zum 70. Geburtstag, edited by G.W. Most, H. Petersmann, andA.M. Ritter, 217-33. Gottingen.

INTRODUCTION

XXXI

Kramer, B., J.C. Shelton, and G.M. Browne, 1987. Das Archiv von Nepheros und verwandte Texte. Aegyptiaca Treverensia 4. Mainz. Krause, M. 1981. 'Das christliche Alexandrien und seine Beziehungen zum koptischen Aegypten.' In Alexandrien. Kulturbegegnungen dreier Jahrtausende im Schmeltztiegel einer mediterranen Gro/Jstadt, edited by N. Hinske et al., 53-62. Aegyptiaca Treverensia 1. Mainz. Lajtar, A., and E. Wipszycka. 1994. 'Deux katholikai ekklesiai dans le Mons Porphyrites.' Journal of Juristic Papyrology 24:71-85. Lallemand, J. 1964. L'administration civile de l'Egypte de l'avenement de Diocletien a la creation du diocese (284-382). Contribution a l'etude des rapports entre l'Egypte et !'Empire ala.fin du Ille et au IV' siecle. Academie Royale de Belgique. Classe des Lettres. Memoires 57 .2. Brussels. Lietzmann, H. 1975. Geschichte der a/ten Kirche. 4th-5th edition(= reprint of the 3rd-4th edition 1961 = 1937-1944). Berlin and New York. Litinas, N. 1994. 'Villages and Place-Names of the Cynopolite Nome.' Archiv far Papyrusforschung 40:157-64. Lorenz, K. 1979. 'Das Problem der Nachsynode von Nicaa (327).' Zeitschrift far Kirchengeschichte 90:22-40. Lucchesi, E. 1980. 'Un fragment inedit de la vie copte de Parnin.' Analecta Bollandiana 98:422. Luibheid, C. 1983. 'The Alleged Second Session of the Council of Nicaea.' Journal of Ecclesiastical History 34: 165-74. McGing, B.C. 1990. 'Melitian Monks at Labia.' Tyche 5 :67-94. McGing, B.C. 1995. Greek Papyri from Dublin. Bonn. [P.Dubl.] Maehler, H. 1976. 'Zur Amtszeit des Prafekten Sossianus Hierocles.' In Collectanea Papyrologica. Textspublished in honor of H. C. Youtie, edited by A.E. Hanson. Vol. 2, 527-33. Bonn. Maraval, P. 1995. 'Alexandrie et l'Egypte.' In Histoire du christianisme des origines a nos }ours. Vol. 2, Naissance d'une chretiente (250-430), edited by C. and L. Pietri, 863-901. Paris. Martin, A. 1974. 'Athanase et les Melitiens (325-335).' In Politique et theologie chez Athanase d'Alexandrie. Actes du Colloque de Chantilly, 23-25 septembre 1973, edited by Ch. Kannengiesser, 31-61. Theologie historique 27. Paris. Martin, A. 1979. 'L'Eglise et la khora egyptienne au 1ve siecle.' Revue des etudes augustiniennes 25:3-26. Martin, A. 1981. 'Aux origines de l'Eglise Copte: l'implantation et le developpement du christianisme en Egypte (ie-rve siecles).' Revue des etudes anciennes 83:35-56. Martin, A. 1986. 'La reconciliation des lapsi en Egypte.' Rivista di storia e letteratura religiosa 12:256-89.

xxxn

INTRODUCTION

Martin, A. 1989a. 'Les conditions de la readmission du clerge melitien par le Concile de Nicee.' Ancient Society 20:281-90. Martin, A. 1989b. 'Le fil d' Arius: 325-335.' Revue d'histoire ecclesiastique 84:297-333. Martin, A. 1989c. 'Les relations entre Arius et Melitios dans la tradition alexandrine. Une histoire polemique.' Journal of Theological Studies 40:401-13. Martin, A. 1996. Athanase d'Alexandrie et l'Eglise d'Egypte au IV siecle (328-373). Collection de l'Ecole frarn;aise de Rome 216. Rome. Martin, A. 2003. 'Aux origines de l 'Alexandrie chretienne: topographie, liturgie, institutions.' In Origeniana octava. Origen and the Alexandrian Tradition. Papers of the 8th International Origen Congress, Pisa, 27-31 August 2001, edited by L. Perrone et al., vol. 1, 105-20. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 164. Leuven. Martin, A. 2007. 'Les relations entre le monachisme egyptien et }'institution ecclesiastique au Ive siecle.' In Foundation of Power and Conflict of Authority in Late Antique Monasticism, edited by A. Camplani and G. Filoramo, 13-46. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 157. Leuven. Martin, A., and M. Albert, eds. and trans. 1985. Histoire 'acephale' et Index syriaque des Lettres fest ales. Sources chretiennes 317. Paris. Merkel, F. 1985. 'Handauflegung II.' Theologische Realenzyklopadie 14:42228. Naldini, M. 1998. Il Cristianesimo in Egitto. Lettere private nei papiri dei secoli II-IV. 2nd edition. Fiesole. Nautin, P. 1963. 'Epiphane de Salamine.' Dictionnaire d'histoire et de geographie ecclesiastiques 15:617-31. Norris, F.W. 2007. 'Greek Christianities.' In The Cambridge History of Christianity. Vol. 2, Constantine to c. 600, edited by A. Casiday and F.W. Norris, 70-117. Cambridge. Norton, P. 2007. Episcopal Elections 250-600. Hierarchy and Popular Will in Late Antiquity. Oxford. Orlandi, T. 1974. 'Ricerche su una storia ecclesiastica alessandrina del IV secolo.' Vetera Christianorum 11:257-96. Orlandi, T. 1975. 'Sull'Apologia (contraArianos) di Atanasio di Alessandria.' Augustinianum 15:49-79. Papaconstantinou, A. 2006. 'Historiography, Hagiography, and the Making of the Coptic "Church of the Martyrs" in Early Islamic Egypt.' Dumbarton Oaks Papers 60:65-86. Parvis, S. 2006. Marcellus of Ancyra and the Lost Years of the Arian Controversy 325-345. Oxford.

INTRODUCTION

xxxm

Pearson, B.A., and J.E. Goehring, eds. 1986. The Roots of Egyptian Christianity. Philadelphia. Peeters, P. 1925. Review of Bell 1924. Analecta Bollandiana 43: 140-3. Pietri, C. 1995. 'L'epanouissement du debat theologique et ses difficultes sous Constantin: Arius et le Concile de Nicee'. In Histoire du christianisme des origines a nos jours. Vol. 2, Naissance d'une chretiente (250-430), edited by C. and L. Pietri, 249-68. Paris. Pourkier, A. 1992. L 'heresiologie chez Epiphane de Sa/amine. Paris. Rousseau, Ph. 1985. Pachomius. The Making of a Community in FourthCentury Egypt. Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London. Saltet, L. 1907. Les reordinations. Etude sur le sacrement de l'ordre. Paris. Sayce, A.H. 1890. 'Deux contrats grecs du Fayoum.' Revue des etudes grecques 3:131-44. Schebler, A. 1936. Die Reordinationen in der 'altkatholischen' Kirche

unter besonderer Berilcksichtigung der Anschauungen Rudolph Sohms. Kanonistische Studien und Texte 10. Bonn. Schmelz, G. 2002. Kirchliche Amtstriiger im spiitantiken Agypten nach den Aussagen der griechischen und koptischen Papyri und Ostraka. Archiv fiir Papyrusforschung. Beiheft 13. Munich and Leipzig. Schneemelcher, W. 1962. 'Epiphanius von Salamis.' Reallexikon far Antike und Christentum 5:909-27. Schubart, W. 1925. Review of Bell 1924. Gnomon 1:23-35. Schwartz, E. 1959. Gesammelte Schriften. Vol. 3, Zur Geschichte des Athanasius. Berlin. Seeck, 0. 1921. Geschichte des Untergangs der antiken Welt. 6 vols. 2nd edition. Stuttgart. Sheridan, M. 1997. 'II mondo spirituale e intellettuale del primo monachesimo egiziano.' In Camplani 1997, 177-216. Silli, P., ed. 1987. Testi costantiniani nelle fonti letterarie. Materiali per una palingenesi delle costituzioni tardo-imperiali 3. Milan. Simonetti, M. 1975. La crisi ariana nel IV secolo. Rome. Simonetti, M. 1990. '11concilio di Alessandria ►), 582 (pas de réordination), 583-584 n.4, in.fine (mais un peu plus haut il est quand même question d'une «ordination plus sainte>►). 10 Voir surtout P. ÜALTIER,art. Imposition des mains, in Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique VII 2, Paris 1930, col. 1302-1425, spéc. 1329 et 1397-1408. Voir aussi les observations de Schebler (p. 50-51) et de Greenslade (p. 150-151 et n. 15). 11 Annik MARTIN,Athanase el les Mélitiens (325-335), in Ch. KANNENGIESSER (éd.), Politique et théologie chez Athanase d'Alexandrie, Paris 1974, p. 31-61, spéc. 33-36: «nous serions tentés, pour notre part, de voir dans ce geste, au-delà du signe de réconciliation, la nécessité pour chaque évêque mélitien désireux de rentrer dans l'Église, de se reconnaître lié à l'unique chef de l'Église d'Égypte, ... ». 12 Ewa WJPSZYCKA,p. 189 n. 15.

II LA RÉORDINA TION DU CLERGÉ MÉLITIEN

205

comparatif», 13 je crois que c'est précisément là qu'il faut chercher la clé de la solution. En effet, le comparatif renvoie à une 'imposition des mains' antérieure, qui, logiquement, doit avoir été de la même nature que la présente. Or, la première imposition des mains n'ayant aucun sens en tant que pure bénédiction ou geste de réconciliation, il s'ensuit qu'également dans le second rite il s'agit essentiellement d'une ordination, 14 d'autant plus que cette fois-ci le rite était qualitativement supérieur au premier. Évidemment, rien n'empêche de voir dans cette seconde ordination, mais alors de façon purement subsidiaire, un signe de réconciliation et d'allégeance au pape d'Alexandrie. 15 Si le sens de l'adjectif µucrnK6ç est en soi assez obscur, il semble toutefois que, combiné avec la notion 'ordination', la traduction 'sacramentel' soit la plus plausible. 16 À notre avis, il faut donc comprendre «l'imposition des mains plus mystique» comme une «ordination plus sacramentelle», 17 ce qui revient à une réordination. Selon la synodale, elle devait se faire lors de la réception dans l'Église catholique. Comme l'écrit Annik Martin, 18 il n'est nullement question de réordination au moment où l'évêque mélitien succède à son homologue catholique. La lettre ne parle que des clercs 'établis' - et sans doute entend elle par là 'ordonnés' 19 - par Mélitios. On peut se demander avec Annik 13

E. AMANN, art. Réordinations, col. 2391. Voir d'ailleurs L. SALTET, p. 42, dans un contexte analogue: «Comment compléter leur ordination (c.-à-d. celle des hérétiques)? On a hésité quelque temps ... Puis, en l'absence de tout rite propre à cette fin, on s'est décidé à réitérer l'imposition des mains de l'ordination: c'était réitérer l'ordination elle-même. Au cours de l'histoire de l'Église, mainte tentative pour compléter ou guérir une ordination faite extra Ecclesiam a abouti, pour ce motif, à de vraies réordinations». Dans cet ordre d'idées, nous ne voyons pas pourquoi l'auteur ne veut pas voir dans la µucrnKrotépa xupornvia des Mélitiens une réelle ordination. (voir n. 9 et 28). 15 Cf. p.ex. A. SCHEBLER, p.49, sur la réordination du clergé novatien: «ihre 'Weihe' muss wiederholt werden. Dass hiermit gleichzeitig ein 'rekonziliatorischer Ritus' gegeben ist, braucht nicht gesagt zu werden». Une considération analogue pourrait être formulée pour les Mélitiens. L'important c'est que le rite constituait essentiellement une ordination. 16 Voir G. W. LAMPE, p. 891-894, s.v. µucr't11ptov F («sacrament>►) et µucrwcoç B (spéc. 5). 17 C'est ce qu'a déjà entrevu S. L. GREENSLADE, p. 151 et n. 16: «they were to be ordained µucrnKro'tép~ XEtpowvi~ pic;pmro0évmç: Literally, •confirmed by a more mystical election'; but µl> tp1-

ànef3À~9ricmvÈK aKovta Kai fü;Ètrov ô.m:8Eix,9ricmvaipenKoi Kai tfiç ÈKKÀT)criaç Kpicreroçnao-riç tiiç oiKouµev1Kfjçcruvo8ou. Cf. E. SCHWARTZ, in Gesamme/te Schriften III. Zur Geschichte des Athanasius, Berlin 1959, p. 101 et n. 1 ( = Nachr. der K. Gesel/sch. Wiss. Gottingen, Phil-Hist. KI. 1905, p. 175); F.H. KETTLER,Der melitianische Streit in HERAegypten, ZNTW 35 (1936), p. 155-193, spéc. p. 176-177 et n. 61; G. FERNANDEZ NANDEZ (n. 4), p. 160 et 164. 6 Athanasius, Apo/. sec. 59.l. Dans le même sens, Socrates, HE I 6.37 (fü' liÀÀaçtE îTIV1t10"t1V, È1ti8ucr&v) et 1tOÀÀÙÇ aitiaç, Kat µaÀicrta O'tl ÈVtq> füroyµq>Ô.pVflcraµEVOÇ Theodoretus, HE I 9.1 (tni ncrt napavoµimç): voir F.H. KETTLER(n. 5), p. 176 n. 59; T. VIVIAN(n. l), p. 34 n. 112. 7 J. STEVENSON-W.H.C. FREND,A New Eusebius. Documents illustrating the History of the Church to A.D. 337, London 19872 , p. 357.

III LA PREMIÈRE ANNÉE DU SCHISME MÉLITIEN

269

council of the bishops. Whereupon Melitius did not appeal to another council, or attempt to justify himself before th ose who should corne after. He made a schism instead and they who espoused his cause are even yet called Melitians instead of Christians».

Ceci implique que, d'après le témoignage d' Athanase, la déposition de Melitios et sa rupture avec la grande église eurent lieu au cours de l'année 305/306 et que les 1tapavoµim s'étaient produites quelque temps auparavant. Or, selon l'état présent de nos connaissances, les origines du schisme seraient doubles. Tandis que l'accusation de 0ucria n'est pas prise au sérieux 8 , on retient, d'une part, les interférences et ordinations illicites de Melitios dans quatre diocèses du Delta et dans celui de Pierre et, de l'autre, la controverse entre les deux protagonistes concernant la réadmission des lapsi repentants. On ne saurait dire, toutefois, si ce dernier conflit constitue vraiment une «cause» au sens strict du mot ou si, par contre, il doit être considéré déjà comme une conséquence du schisme. Nous y reviendrons. Sur les interventions illicites nous sommes renseignés par ce que l'on appelle les «documents de base» ou «Fundamentalurkunden» ( = FU) 9 et c'est sans doute à ces immixtions que fait allusion Athanase quand il parle de 1tapavoµia1 1 0 • Quant à la controverse concernant les /apsi, nous devons nous fier au récit romancé d'Épiphane de Salamine, qui ne nous fournit aucun repère chronologique sûr et qui, en outre, s'étant basé en partie sur des sources mélitiennes, ignore complètement les incursions illicites de l'évêque rebelle 11 • Heureusement, nous disposons encore de la lettre canonique de Pierre concernant les conditions de réadmission des lapsi 12 • Nous savons qu'elle fut promulguée vers Pâques (14 avril) 306 13 , c.-à-d. au cours de cette mêmé année 305/306 qui vit le début du schisme. 8

Cf. F.H. KETTLER(n. 5), p. 175-176; T. V1v1AN(n. 1), p. 20-21, n. 59. On trouve une édition critique chez F.H. KETTLER(n. 5), p. 159-163. La traduction de J. STEVENSON - W.H.C. FREND (n. 7), p. 275-278, n 05 242-244, est à utiliser avec prudence. 10 Les interférences allant à l'encontre de la «lex patrum et propatrum constituta secundum diuinum et ecclesiasticum ordinem» (FU 1.3). Cf. F.H. KETTLER(n. 5), p. 175. 11 Panarion 68.1-3. Voir surtout F.H. KETTLER (n. 5), passim et T. V1v1AN (n. 1), 9

passim. 12

Voir T. V1v1AN(n. 1), p. 139-219: «The Canonical Letter». Canon 1: tttap-rnv iiôll 1tétcrxaèm1eattiÀ.TJv(«this is now our fourth Easter under persecution», T. V1v1AN [n. 1), p. 185). Cf. VIVIAN, p. 140 et 196: « this sentence dates the canons to Eastertime 306, but it cannot be determined whether they 13

III 270

Le contenu de la lettre canonique ne nous permet pas de dire si, oui ou non, elle fut une réponse aux positions prises par Melitios et les siens dans la question des lapsi 14 • Mais soit qu'elle constituât une réaction, soit que ce fût elle qui en suscita une dans le milieu des confesseurs, il ne fait aucun doute que l'intervalle entre la protestation de Melitios et la lettre canonique de Pierre (ou inversement) a dû être fort réduit. Car si la controverse était née dès avant la publication de la lettre canonique de Pierre, on peut imaginer que celui-ci n'aurait pas tardé à réagir et, dans le cas contraire, il paraît normal qu'une telle lettre aurait suscité tout de suite l'inquiétude et le mécontentement de bon nombre de confesseurs et surtout d'un homme impulsifl 5 comme Melitios. Le fait même de la controverse prouve qu'il y avait assez bien de lapsi qui voulaient rejoindre l'Église et que la persécution avait donc temporairement perdu de sa violence. Cette situation devait permettre aussi bien à Pierre qu'à Melitios d'intervenir sans délai, où qu'ils se trouvassent 16 • On peut donc dater la controverse sur les lapsi de la même époque que la lettre canonique de Pierre 1 7 , c.-à-d. vers Pâques 306 ou, en d'autres termes, vers le milieu de l'année égyptienne 305/306. Cela signifie que la controverse date de la même année que la déposition de Melitios et le début du schisme, mais, comme nous l'avons déjà fait remarquer, nous ne savons pas si elle les précédait ou si elle les suivait 18 • Passons aux «documents de base». Ils sont au nombre de trois: 1. Une lettre adressée à Melitios par Hësychios, Pachymios, Theodôros et Phileas 19 , quatre évêques, dont le dernier est le célèbre martyr qui avait son siège à Thmouis, ce qui justifie l'hypothèse que les diocèses des autres se trouvaient également dans le Delta 20 • Ils se plaignent du fait que Melitios avait profité de leur absence - due à leur arrestation - pour entrer dans leurs diocèses et, sans leur permission were written before or after Easter». Pour la date de Pâques, voir V. GRUMEL, Traité d'études byzantines, 1. La Chronologie, Paris 1958, p. 310. (La date 18 avril, proposée par W.H.C. FREND, The Rise of Christianity, London 1984, p. 508 n. 2, est à corriger). 14 Cf. T. V1v1AN (n. 1), p. 34. 15 Pour l'impulsivité de Melitios, voir l'appréciation des Pères de Nicée, qui, là, ne se sont pas trompés: to 1tp6x,etpov Kai 1tpo1tettç t'Îlque les collègues de Phileas furent exécutés (plus ou moins) en même temps. Dans le présent débat, la déportation aux mines de Melitios constitue un élément fort important. D'après la chronologie établie jusqu'ici, elle eut lieu entre le 4 février 306 (mort de Phileas) et la période pascale (avant ou après le 14 avril) de la même année (début de la controverse Voir, p. ex., E. SCHWARTZ(n. 5), p. 103 ( = p. 177); F. HALKIN, in Analecta Bollandiana 81 (1963), p. 5 n. 1. Cf. G.A.A. KoRTEKAAS,in Atti e Passioni (n. 34), p. 250 («verosimilmente nell'ultimo anno del governo di Culciano ... 306»); ID., in Hei/igenverering (n. 34), p. 136. 42 Dans ce sens, p. ex., G.A.A. KORTEKAAS, in Atti e Passioni (n. 34), p. 250 n. 2: «In teoria, Culciano poteva essere in carica ancora net 307, cosi che l'esecuzione potrebbe anche avere avuto luogo in quell' anno». 43 Voir T. VIVIAN(n. l), p. 16. 44 Hieronymus, De viris illustribus 78. Voir G.A.A. KoRTEKAAS, in Heiligenverering (n. 34), p. 147 Il. 5. 45 Voir, p. ex., art. Lucian of Antioch, in The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (edd. F.L. CRoss-F.A. LIVINGSTONE), London 1974, p. 841. 46 Pour les données chronologiques concernant ce personnage, voir, e.a., A. LIPPOLD, art. M aximinus 1, in Der Kleine Pau/y III ( 1969), col. 1111. Pour les persécutions sous son règne, voir W.H.C. PREND, Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church, Oxford 1965, p. 505-521,passim. 41

III LA PREMIÈRE ANNÉE DU SCHISME MÉLITIEN

277

sur les lapsl). Or, les premières condamnations aux mines de cuivre de Phaeno en Palestine dont nous parle Eusèbe, se situent au début du mois d'avril de la cinquième année de la persécution (307/308)47 , c.-à-d. sûrement en 30748 • Elles furent suivies d'autres déportations au mois de novembre 49 • En outre, Eusèbe nous apprend que «vers» (Eiç) la sixième année de la persécution (févr. 308 - févr. 309) et en tout cas avant le 25 juillet 308 50 , beaucoup de confesseurs qui se trouvaient déjà antérieurement (1tpo toutou) «dans la mine de Thébaïde, qui porte le nom de la pierre de porphyre qu'elle produit» 51 , furent transportés en Palestine et, après mutilation, envoyés aux mines de cette région 5 2 • En vue de toutes ces données chronologiques, il est assez probable 53 qu'après son emprisonnement, Melitios ait été d'abord déporté aux carrières de porphyre de Thébaïde et que in metallo 54 fasse précisément allusion à cet épisode 5 5 • Ce ne doit avoir été que par après, peut-être lors du 47

Le début de la persécution (cf. n. 43) se situe au cours de l'année égyptienne août 302- août 303, mais Eusèbe ne compte pas de la sorte, car dans son récit, avril et novembre se suivent au cours de la même année: voir Mart. Pa/est. VII l et 3; cf. VIII 1, où commence l'année suivante. La cinquième année couvre donc la période entre février 307 et février 308, c,-à-d., pratiquement l'année 307. 48 Eusebius, Mart. Pa/est. VII 1-2. Cf. le commentaire de G. BARDY, Eusèbe de Césarée. Histoire ecclésiastique, Livres VIII-X, et Les Martyrs en Palestine (Sources Chrétiennes, n° 55), Paris 1958, p. 141 n. 3 et p. 27 n. 9. Voir aussi F.H. KETTLER(n. 5), p. 190 n. 135; G. FERNANDEZHERNANDEZ (n. 4), p. 160-161. 49 Eusebius, Mart. Pa/est. VII 3-4. so Cf. Eusebius, Mart. Pa/est. VIII 12. 5 1 Pour les carrières de porphyre en Thébaïde et les damnati ad metalla qui y travaillaient, voir M.J. KLEIN, Untersuchungen zu den kaiser/ichen Steinbrüchen an Mons Porphyrites und Mons Claudianus in der ostlichen Wüste Aegyptens, diss. Bonn 1988, surtout p. 41-42 et 108. H. WILSDORF(Zur Historia Christianorum ad metalla damnatorum, in Studien zur Alt en Geschichte Siegfried Lauffer ... , edd. H. KALCYK- Brigitte GULLATH A. GRAEBER, III, Roma 1986, p. 1031-1048) nous fournit une bonne raison pour les transferts de Thébaïde en Palestine: «Allenfalls kann man geltend machen, dass man den Verkehr der Bestraften mit Angehôrigen und Glaubensgenossen strikt unterbinden wollte» (p. 1040 n. 33). 52 Eusebius, Mart. Pa/est. VIII l. 53 Il n'y a pas de certitude absolue à ce sujet: une déportation immédiate à Phaeno n'est pas tout à fait à exclure, puisqu'Eusèbe ne dit pas explicitement que les transports d'avril 307 vers la Palestine (Mart. Pa/est. VII 1-2), étaient les premiers vers cette région. 54 Notons avec M.J. KLEIN (n. 51), p. 41, que «in der Antike verstand man unter metalla sowohl Bergwerke ais auch Steinbrüche». 55 C'est aussi l'avis de F.H. KEITLER (n. 5), p. 188 et 190 n. 135. Il se peut qu'une inscription trouvée sur un bloc de granit à côté d'une route menant à des carrières du Mons Porphyrites et mentionnant une 1ea80Â.tKT1 èKlCÂ.T)uia MeÂ.1tiou ,:c(p«t),:t(ooitou)(?) (A. BERNAND,Pan du Désert, Leiden 1977, n° 28) concerne une église mélitienne et ait trait au séjour de Melitios (voir Annick MARTIN,L'Église et la khôra égyptienneau IP siècle,

III 278

transport qui eut lieu au cours de la première moitié de 308, qu'il fut conduit à Phaeno, ainsi que le décrit Épiphane 56 quoique dans un contexte chronologique erroné. En tout cas, le fait que Melitios fut envoyé (aux carrières et) aux mines au lieu d'être exécuté, indique que nous nous trouvons sans doute dans un stade relativement avancé de la persécution et peut corroborer notre datation des événements mentionnés plus haut sous 2 à 8. Car ce ne fut qu'après un certain temps que les autorités, «lassées de tuer, rassasiées et dégoûtées du sang versé» avaient décidé, par «philanthropie», de remplacer la peine de mort par des mutilations suivies de travaux forcés 57 • Nous voici arrivés au point où nous pouvons proposer un nouveau tableau chronologique, dans lequel nous avons converti en chronologie absolue la chronologie relative donnée plus haut, tout en gardant la numérotation des événements: 1. printemps/été 303 - fin 305 (et sans doute au début de cette période): arrestation des quatre évêques; 2. fin 305: incursion de Melitios dans les quatre évêchés; 3. fin 305 - début 306: lettre des quatre évêques à Melitios; 4. 4 février 306: exécution à Alexandrie de Phileas et, simultanément ou vers la même date, de ses trois collègues; 5. février 306: entrée de Melitios à Alexandrie; 6. février-période pascale (Pâques = 14 avril) 306: arrestation de Melitios et ordination d'un Alexandrin en prison; Rev. Ét. August. 25 (1979), p. 3-26, spéc. p. 6 et n. 21; EAD., Aux origines de l'É!lise copte ... , REA 83 (1981), p. 35-56, spéc. p. 44 et n. 64), mais c'est loin d'être certain. Voir également M.J. KLEIN (n. 51), p. 108, d'après qui l'église serait érigée après la fin de la persécution. so Epiphanius, Panarion 68.3.6-8. 57 Eusebius, HE VIII 12.8-10. Eusèbe parle de «mines de cuivre de chaque province» (toîç K«'t' tnapxiav xaÂ.KOÙ µt:tClÀÀotç),mais il s'agit sans doute d'une indication générale - les mines de cuivre étant les plus importantes - n'excluant pas les carrières de porphyre en Thébaïde. Il est intéressant de citer dans ce contexte H. DELEHA YE (n. 39), p. 29 (où la chronologie du préfet Hierocles doit évidemment être adaptée): «Il est bien vrai qu'en 307 on est entré dans une nouvelle phase, que les exécutions capitales sont le plus souvent remplacées par le travail des mines dans des conditions particulièrement cruelles. Ce fut en vertu d'une mesure générale (Eusèbe, Hist. eccl., VIII, 12.8), d'où on aurait tort de conclure qu'avant ce moment aucun confesseur n'avait été condamné à cette peine, qui ne fut point établie alors pour la première fois, ... ». Cette dernière assertion est juste, sans doute, mais la première partie du texte cité exige quelques nuances, malgré que la teneur en soit probablement correcte: D. combine deux passages différents d'Eusèbe, Mari. Pa/est. VII 1-2 et HE VIII 12.8-10, où dans le premier il n'est pas dit explicitement qu'il s'agissait des premières déportations à Phaeno (voir supra, n. 53) et dans le second il n'y a pas d'indication chronologique absolue.

III LA PREMIÈRE ANNÉE DU SCHISME MÉLITIEN

279

7. ensuite, dans la même période: déportation de Melitios, sans doute aux carrières de Thébaïde, et ordination d'un Alexandrin; 8. ensuite, dans la même période: lettre de Pierre aux Alexandrins et excommunication provisoire de Melitios; 9. période pascale (Pâques = 14 avril) 306: a. avant ou après Pâques, pouvant coïncider avec 6-7-8: lettre canonique de Pierre concernant la réconciliation des lapsi; b. peu de temps avant ou après la lettre canonique (9a), mais sûrement après la lettre aux Alexandrins (8): controverse entre Pierre et Melitios concernant les lapsi; 1O. février - 28 août 306, avant ou après la période pascale (9), mais en tout cas après la lettre de Pierre aux Alexandrins (8) 5 8 : déposition et excommunication de Melitios lors d'un synode; début formel du schisme. Notons que Melitios fut condamné in absentia, pendant qu'il se trouvait dans les mines 59 • Rien n'indique d'ailleurs qu'il soit retourné à Alexandrie avant son départ pour la Palestine 60 . Et répétons que nous ne pouvons établir si son excommunication fut décrétée avant ou après la lettre canonique et/ou le différend sur les /apsi 61 • Les conclusions sont assez simples. Depuis le premier incident (2) jusqu'au différend concernant les lapsi (9b) et la condamnation de Melitios (10), tout s'est passé en moins d'une année: entre la fin de 305 et la fin août 306 au plus tard. Nous nous trouvons en présence d'une suite ininterrompue, voire d'une vraie escalade, de malentendus. Si nous pouvons sans hésitation considérer les incursions de Melitios dans les diocèses du nord comme cause «primaire» du schisme (sans vouloir nous prononcer sur les motifs «profonds» des protagonistes), nous avons plus de difficulté à interpréter son opposition dans la question F.H. KETILER (n. 5), p. 189, pense au «Sommer 306», ce qui est tout à fait possible, mais improuvable. Il ne semble d'ailleurs pas exclure une date avant la lettre canonique. 59 Dans ce sens, F.H. KETILER (n. 5), p. 188-189; W. TELFER, Me/etius of Lycopo/is and Episcopal Succession in Egypt, in HTR 48 (1955), p. 227-237, spéc. p. 230 (rejeté à tort par T. VIVIAN (n. 1), p. 35-36 Il. 120). 60 Il n'y a, non plus, aucune preuve que Melitios et Pierre se soient rencontrés à Alexandrie en 305/306, comme le croit à tort T. VIVIAN (n. l), p. 35. Probablement, Melitios n'a pas regagné l'Égypte avant le mois d'avril de 311: voir F.H. KETILER (n. 5), p. 191. 61 -Les 1tapavoµiai dont parle Athanase et qui nous font penser spontanément aux interventions illicites de Melitios dans le Delta et à Alexandrie, n'excluent évidemment pas des marques de résistance ouverte de sa part à la lettre canonique de Pierre, mais à elles seules, ces interventions constituaient déjà assez de «paranomies» pour mériter une 58

excommunication:voir supraet n. 10.

III 280 des lapsi. S'agit-il d'une cause «secondaire» ou plutôt d'une conséquence immédiate du schisme? Nous ne saurions le dire. Si Épiphane, qui s'est fait l'écho de la tradition ultérieure, n'a retenu que l'affaire des lapsi comme l'unique cause du schisme, on peut évidemment tout d'abord en chercher la raison dans ses sources mélitiennes 62 • Mais en plus il faut tenir compte de la rapidité avec laquelle se sont succédé les événements, dont on a sans doute assez vite oublié l'ordre exact. On peut, enfin, alléguer avec Tim Vivian le contexte historique de l'époque, où la question de la réadmission des lapsi était un point de litige majeur dans beaucoup de communautés chrétiennes: «It is probably not an exaggeration to say that the conflict over penance dramatized by Epiphanius was the single most pressing and divisive ecclesiastical issue (if we regard the christological controversies as theological) in the early church» 63 • En effet, la gravité du problème a dû, après un certain temps, complètement éclipser le conflit original, de sorte que le différend entre Pierre et Melitios concernant les /apsi a été considéré et est sans doute aussi devenu en réalité, le vrai brandon de discorde entre catholiques et mélitîens de la première génération 64 • Quoi qu'il en soit, les deux révoltes de Melitios ne sont en fait que des aspects d'un seul mouvement d'opposition. Car il y a plus qu'un enchaînement purement chronologique. Il y a aussi et surtout un lien psychologique, chacune des révoltes procédant d'une même mentalité rigoriste, puritaine et zélatrice, qui entra en conflit avec l'attitude sage et conciliante, mais néanmoins inébranlable, d'un grand chef d'église 65 •

62

Cf. supra et n. 11. VIVIAN (n. 1), p. 32. 64 Ce qu'écrit T. V1v1AN (n. 1) (p. 33; dans le même sens mais p]us nuancé, p. 35): «Undoubtedly, it was the last difference (]a question des laps,) that led to forma] schism (and was remembered)», n'est pas impossible, mais reste improuvable, ainsi que nous l'avons démontré. 65 Je tiens à remercier Monsieur R. VANVOORDEN, qui a bien voulu relire mon texte 63

T.

français et en corriger le style.

IV

Le catalogue mélitien réexaminé

En exécution d'une décision prise par le Concile de Nicée visant à réintégrer l'église mélitienne à la communauté catholique1, l'évêque Alexandre d'Alexandrie reçut Melitios de Lykopolis, chef de file du mouvement schismatique, accompagné de son clergé2, en audience officielle. La réception eut lieu quelque temps après la clôture du Concile (25 juillet 325), soit à une date mal déterminable entre cette clôture et novembre 327 (mais plutôt dans la première moitié de cette période), soit au cours de ce même mois de novembre 3273•

1 Pour Melitios et le mouvement schismatique portant son nom, voir les références bibliographiques dans H. HAUBEN,La réordination du clergé mélitien imposée par le Concile de Nicée, in AncSoc 18 (1987), pp. 203-207, spéc. p. 203 n. 2. Y ajouter le livre récent de T. VrvrAN, St. Peter of Alexandria, Bishop and Martyr, Philadelphia 1988, surtout pp. 15-40 ('"The Beginning of the Melitian Schism: 304-6") et 53. Pour les modalités de la réintégration, voir Annick MARTIN, Athanase el les Mélitiens (325-335), in Politique et Théologie Paris 1974, PP: 31-61, spéc. chez Athanase d'Alexandrie (ed. Ch. KANNENGtESSER), pp. 33-36; cf. H. HAUBEN,art. cil. 2 Athanase, Apol. sec. 72. 1: toûto-uc; Mc1'ittoc; iccû ncx.pôvtcx.c;ncx.péfü.>iccv 'AÂc~cxvc5pc., t~ èntaicônc.,. 3 Le problème de la datation est étroitement lié à celui de l'historicité de la supposée seconde session du Concile de Nicée en 327. Il dépend également de l'interprétation du passage chez Athanase (Apol. sec. 59.3) concernant les "cinq mois" avant la mort d'Alexandre survenue le 17 avril 328, à compter à partir de la réception des mélitiens et/ou de la supposée seconde session: cf., p. ex., J. STEVENSON , A New Eusebius. Documents illustrative of the history of the Church to A.D. 337, London 1975 (=1957), p. 380. S'il y eut effectivement une "Nachsynode" (ainsi R. LORENZ,Das Problem der Nachsynode von Nici:ia (327), in ZKG 90,1979, pp. 22-40, avec bibliographie antérieure et état de la question), il y a deux scénarios possibles: 1. Audience de Melitios après le Concile de 325, sans qu'il y ait lieu de supposer un délai trop long; échec de la réconciliation; nouvelle réconciliation à la "Nachsynode" (cinq mois comptés à partir de la seconde session et de la nouvelle réconciliation, mais non de la grande audience où eut lieu la transmission du catalogue mélitien); 2. Audience de Melitios n'ayant lieu qu'après la réconciliation intervenue à la "Nachsynode", donc en novembre 327 (cinq mois comptés à partir de la "Nachsynode" et de la grande audience).

IV 156 Pour éviter qu'il ne gonflât subrepticement ses effectifs 4, Melitios dut présenter à cette occasion une liste avec les noms de ses évêques ainsi que de son clergé travaillant dans la capitale. En voici le texte5, comme il a été transmis par Athanase6 et édité par Opitz7• La liste épiscopale du Concile de Nicée mise à part, il s'agit du plus ancien catalogue d'évêques égyptiens8• (p. 149)

BpÉ:Pco'\1 ôo9È\1nOlpcxMEÂHÎou •AÂrr,_écvôp~té;>Èmm:6n~

1 2 3 4 5 6

7 8

9

Èyw MrÀcnoç È'J/\ uK:é;> /\OUl:LOÇÈ'J •A \1tl'JOOU ocotÂEÙç è" 'Epµoun6M;c 'AXLÀÂEÙÇÈ'J KouaOlÎÇ •AµµW'\1LOÇ È\1~LOOJtOÀEL < . . . > È:'\1IllOÂEµOltÔL TIOlxuµflÇ È'\1TE'\1lUpoccç < . . . > È'\1MOl';tµLOl'\10UJtOÂEt er68wpoç È'\1K6m~

20

(p. 150)

5

Si, par contre, on n'admet pas l'historicité d'une seconde session du Concile, il n'y a pas de doute possible: dans ce cas, l'audience doit certainement avoir eu lieu au cours du mois de novembre 327 (la période de cinq mois ne pouvant avoir comme point de départ que la réception des mélitiens), c.-à-d. plus de deux ans après la clôture du Concile: voir, dans ce sens, Annick Athanasius and the Meletian MARTIN,Athanase (n. 1), p. 37; cf. L.W. BARNARD, Schism in Egypt, in JEA 59 (1973), pp. 181-189, spéc. p. 184; G. FERNANDEZEl cisma meleciano en la I glesia egipcia, in Geribn 2 (1984), pp. HERNANDEZ, 155-180, spéc. p. 167; T. VIVIAN(n. 1), p. 37. Il s'ensuit que le terminus post quem de la mort de Melitios, mort qu'on situe généralement en 327-328 (après la soumission du catalogue et avant la mort d'Alexandre: voir Annick MARTlN, Athanase , p. 37 et n. 14), pourrait, à la rigueur, être situé environ deux ans plus tôt. 4 Athanase, Apol. sec. 71.5, mettant malicieusement en doute l'honnêteté de son adversaire. 5 "Breviarium a Melitio datum Alexandro episcopo", enregistré sous le n° 2955 XOl dans le TLG: voir L. BERKOWrTZ- K.A. SQUrTIER, Thesaurus Linguae Graecae. Canon of Greek Authors and Works, New York - Oxford 19862, p. 217. 6 Athanase, Apol. sec. 71.6. 7 H.G. ÜPCTZ,Athanasius. Werke II 1, Berlin-Leipzig 1935, pp. 149-151 (= J.P. MrGNE,PG XXV, col. 376-377). 8 Voir St. TIMM, Das christlich-koptische Aegypten in arabischer Zeit [Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients, Reihe B,41] I, Wiesbaden 1984, pp. 2 et 14 nn. 11-12.

IV 157

LE CATALOGUE MÉLITIEN

10 KaÂT)çÈ'J 'Epµt0t 11 KOÀÀOU9oç('J tn &vw Kuvéi'> 12 TIEÀù'.ytoçÈ:'J'Ot upuyx~ 13 TIÉtpoç Èv 'HpOlKÀÉouç 14 0Éw'J Èv NttÂounoÀrt 15 'JaOlèiK: È:'JÂT)tOÛÇ 16 'HpOlK'ÀELOîlÇ f.'J NtK'LOUÇ 17 ')aOlèiK' f.'J KÀEOITOltptÔL 18 MÉÂOlÇf.'J 'Apat'JOLîTI 19 < ... > Èv 'HÀLOUÇ 20 Aµwç f.'J /\rovtw'J 21 'Iaiw'J È'J 'A0ptPi 22 < . . . > ('J OlpPtBéi'> 23 'ApnoK:pOlttW'Jr'J Boup&at~

24 25 26 27 28

MWOT)Çf.'JOltcOUOOlÎÇ

10

15

20

KOlÀÀL'JtlCOÇ ('J TIT)ÀOUOL~ Eùoaiµw'J È:'JT&'Jtt 'EcppOltµf.'J 0µoui < . . . > Èv I:oci 29 'EpµOltW'J(\) Ku'Jéi'>lCOlL Bouatpt 30 LWîT\PLXOÇ f.'\) l:tPE'J'JUt~ 31 TIL'JL'JOU8f1Ç ('J SE'JEYU . 32 Kpo'Jcoç r.'J MrtftÀt 33 'A yoce&µµw" È:'Jt\Ï 'AÂrtOl'JôpÉw'J xwpÇt 34 È:'JMɵcpt 'Jwù'.'J'JT)Ç ktÂEUa0dç nOlpèi toü '30latÀÉWÇ EÎ'JOlt µnèi tOÜ 'JOÇ nptaPutrpoç ~Lù'.K'O'JOL

25

30

(p. 151)

5

39 Ttµ69roç fü&t::o'Joç 40 'A 'Jt{'JOOÇoLCXlCO'JOÇ 41 'HcpOlLOîLW'J ôt&tcO'JOÇ lCOlL 42 MOlK:CXPLOÇ nptaPutEpoç ttiç TTOlptµPo7'riç

Le catalogue, bien connu de tous ceux qui s'occupent de l'histoire de rÉglise en Égypte, a déjà fait l'objet d'une intéressante analyse, provisoire il est vrai, par Annick Martin9• Dans les pages 9 Annick

MARTIN,

Athanase (n. 1), pp. 32-40, passim.

IV 158 qui suivent, je voudrais me limiter à quelques remarques supplémentaires, qui, à mon avis, sont indispensables pour une bonne évaluation du schisme mélitien à un moment crucial de son histoire. Afin de pouvoir interpréter le document de façon correcte, il faut tout d'abord se rendre compte de sa structure à la fois hiérarchique, géographique et administrative. Il se compose de deux parties: A. les évêques de la khôra égyptienne; B. le clergé subalterne de la métropole (qui, elle, n'avait juridiquement jamais fait partie de rÉgypte proprement dite). La bipartition est bien indiquée par la formulation de la l. 32, p. 150. La partie A commence par Melitios lui-même (n° 1), suivi des autres évêques, qui se succèdent plus ou moins - nous nous expliquerons par la suite - dans un ordre géographique allant du sud vers le nord. Elle se termine par la mention de Jean, évêque de Memphis (n° 34). La partie B énumère 4 prêtres (n05 35-38) et 3 diacres (n°5 39-41) à Alexandrie, suivi du prêtre - l'aumônier 10 mélitien pour ainsi dire - de la Parembolë , le camp militaire de Nikopolis (n° 42) 11• Il s'ensuit qu'il n'y avait pas d'évêque mélitien dans la capitale et, à en croire Athanase, que le fameux Iskhyras ne faisait, à ce moment, pas partie du clergé mélitien, la région de Maréote tombant directement sous la juridiction du siège alexandrin 12• La partie B ne posant pour le reste pas de problèmes, concentrons-nous sur la partie A, l'épiscopat de la khora. Remarquons tout d'abord que dans la série des évêques, il manque cinq ou six noms: ceux de Ptolemaïs (n° 6), Maximianoupolis (n° 8), Hëliopolis (n° 19), Pharbaithos (n° 22), Saïs (n° 28) et, sans doute, celui de Thèbes (p. 150, l. 5): ou bien leurs noms ont disparu durant la transmission du texte au cours des siècles, ou bien il est question elle n'est pas de sièges vacants 13• Quant à la mention t'J en~cx18L, très claire. Certes, il peut s'agir d'une ..Randbemerkung" 14, d'une ..Unterschrift" ou "Überschrift ..15 ou même d'une "correction"

lO Cf. C.J. fuFELE, Histoire des Conciles I 1, Paris 1907, p. 502 (355]. 11 Cf. A. CALDERINl,Dizionario dei nomi geografici e topografici del/' Egitto greco-romano I 1, Le Caire 1935, p. 134. 12 Voir Annick MARTIN, Athanase (n. 1), p. 48 et n. 41; St. ÎIMM (n. 8) IV (1988), pp. 1594-1595. 13 Cette dernière interprétation est préconisée par St. ÎIMM (n. 8) IV (1988), pp. 1625 et 1626 n. 3. 14 Ainsi H.G. ÛPITZ (n. 7) dans son commentaire (mais dans ce cas elle ne concerne pas seulement les lignes 1-6 de la page 150 comme il écrit, mais bien les n 08 1-10). lS St. ÎIMM (n. 8) I (1984), p. 175 n. 2: "Ob dieses 'en Thëbaidi' ais Unterschrift unter den vorangegangenen Listentext (von Lyko(polis) bis Koptos)

IV LE CATALOGUE MÉLITIEN

159

ultérieure 16• Il me semble plus logique, toutefois, d'y voir le siège de Thèbes (Diospolis magna). En effet, de même que le nom du nome est parfois utilisé pour désigner l'évêché17, ainsi il est plausible que dans ce cas le nom de la région ou de la province soit mentionné au lieu de la ville la plus prestigieuse, dont elle avait dérivé son nom 18, d'autant plus que la mention se trouverait exactement à sa place: entre Koptos et Hermônthis 19• Pour mieux s'orienter, on pourrait faire appel à la carte 6 B ("Die von Meletius v. Lycopolis eingesetzten Bischôfe") de l'Atlas zur Kirchengeschichte 20• Malheureusement, elle n'est pas tout à fait correcte. Ainsi il faut rayer Latopolis et Hypsëlis. Comme on le verra, Isaak était évêque à Lëtopolis (Wasïm) et non à Latopolis (Isna). Pour ce qui est du siège d'Hypsëlis, en 332 Athanase fut faussement accusé d'avoir fait assassiner l'évêque Arsenios, qui faisait preuve de sympathies mélitiennes. A ce moment, Arsenios devait déjà avoir été en fonction depuis plusieurs années, mais rien

oder als Überschrif t über das folgende: Hermethis gehôrt. ist noch nicht entschieden". 16 Il s•agirait alors d•une note additionnelle faisant écho à è" Ahunt..ciKLSOTL ou8ev etxev 33 ('He also concerned himself with the church and faith, for, as 134have TTap11>..>..ayµevov said repeatedly, he was in no respect at variance'), dogmatic stagnation being for many in those days already the seal of the true faith. It is one of the reasons why the heresiographer is barely able to conceal certain feelings of sympathy for these schismatics, who, as he says, had even shown evidence of 'hyperorthodoxy'.3 5 In the given circumstances, it would imply that they were at least considered anti-subordinationists and anti-Origenists.36 A scholar like Fernandez Hernandez, who suspects that the schism also had doctrinal backgrounds,37 even sees in Melitius the spokesman of the monarchian tendency within Egyptian Christendom, a current mainly supported by the less educated, i.e. the less Hellenized, part of the population.38 As such, he would have been a doctrinal opponent not only of Arius, but also of Peter and Alexander, who in this respect seem to have followed a middle course. 39 Whatever the case, after the death of Melitius, some time before the Synod of Tyre (335), the Melitians made common cause with the famous Eusebius of Nicomedia, the leader of the Arian party, against Athanasius. Although a purely tactical alliance, in keeping with the welltried principle: the enemies of my enemies are my friends, 40 it did not miss its effect on the Melitians• doctrinal position. 41 If we may believe Athanasius, 4 2 many of them, recently 32 Epiphanius, Panarion 68. I. I; 1. 4; 3. 9. See also Theodoret, Haeretic. Jab. comp. IV 7 (PG 83, col.425); cf. F.J. Doelger, 'KJingeln, Tanz und Handeklatschen im Gottesdienst der christlichen Melitianer in Aegypten', in Antike und Christentum. Kultur- und Religionsgeschichtliche Studien IV (Miinster 1934) 245265 esp. 245-246. 33Panarion 68. 3. 9; translation by P.R. Amidon, The Panarion of St. Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis. Selected Passages (New York/Oxford 1990) 249. 34 Wrongly translated by Vivian (86) as 'he said'. Cf., for that matter, Migne's correct translation in PG 42, col.190 B: 'ut saepe dixi'. 35 Panarion 68. 6. 4 and 5: oi TT)V dKpo6LKmoovvriv TJlS d).:110Elas dva6e6eyµEVOL - oi Ka0apeuovTES TTOTE Kat dKpo6(KaLOtTU ni'.crTet. 36 Not without reason might one see in the Melitians of the first generation the precursors, at least on the doctrinal level, of the Egyptian monophysites, whose theology resulted from Cyrillian orthodoxy. 37 Fernandez Hernandez 156: 'Sin embargo, existe en la genesis de] cisma meleciano un elemento doctrinal'. 38 Fernandez Hernandez 159: 'el monarquianismo era la ideologfa propria de los cristianos menos helenizados de la poblaci6n'. 39 Fernandez Hernandez 156-159 and 161-162. 40 Bell (41) even speaks of a 'cynical alliance'. Cf. Fernandez Hernandez 172: 'este frente, antinatural desde el punto de vista ideol6gico'; Carroll 166: 'surprising hypocrisy'. 41 The process is Javishly described by Epiphanius, Panarion 68. 6. 4-6. See also Sozomen, HE II 21 (B. Grillet et al., Sozomene. Histoire ecclesiastique. Livres I-II [SC 306, Paris 1983)); Theodoret, Haeretic. Jab. comp. IV 7. Cf. Bell 41-42 (with further references); Crum 22. 42 Athanasius, Hist. Arian. 78 (Opitz, II 1. 8 [Berlin 1940]; English translation in Carroll 210-211). See Doelger 247.

VII The Melitian 'Church of the Martyrs'

335

converted and insufficiently instructed pagans, found themselves without any spiritual defence against the Arian heresy, and that precisely in a period when it could often rely on the active support of the civil authorities. Whereas up to then the Orthodox could neatly distinguish the schismaticMelitians from the heretical Arians, 43 both terms gradually became synonyms, so that in Egypt Arians were henceforth popularly labeled 'Melitians' 44 and Melitians 'heretics' or 'schismatics belonging to a heresy'.45 That is not to say that the actual situation was always so clear, any more than it is to us today. Epiphanius tells us that up to his time some Melitians had remained orthodox in their faith, 46 and according to Theodoret (t 458), the 'Arian' Melitians (p~rhaps as a result of political changes) had readopted doctrinal orthodoxy. 47 Obviously, Melitian Christological doctrine was neither uniform nor constant. It seems in any case an exaggeration to hold, as does Carroll, 48 that 'there is no indication that (the Melitians) ever accepted Arian theology' and that they probably always 'maintained an orthodox Nicaean Christology'. 49 Carroll, to be sure, refers to two documents from the Paieous archive that give apparent evidence of sound orthodoxy. 50 But these texts are relatively early (c. 330-340). In the correspondence of Paphnutius, on the other hand, which dates from the mid-fourth century, there is a letter displaying what Ghedini called 'sapore ariano' and 'imprecisione teologica'.51 And Arian traits are also found in two documents of the Nepheros archive 52 (about 360), with which, as already noted, Carroll was not yet acquainted. Needless to say that a fresh and comprehensive investigation of these matters would be more than welcome. The strange thing about all this is that by adopting Arian views, the Melitians, or at least some of them, turned towards doctrines of Greek origin and Neoplatonic inspiration,53 fundamentally opposed to those they had defended up to then and which would be adopted later by the Coptic Church. On the other hand, the subordinationist currents represented former stages in the development of theological reflection and can therefore be defined as conservative. 54 Yet it is questionable whether the Melitians were conscious of all these implications. Obviously, they were only conforming to the doctrine whose advocates at a 43

So Athanasius, Ep. ad Episc. Aeg. et Lib. 22 (PG 25, col.589) (in retrospect); cf. Bell 41 n.4; Fernandez Hernandez 164. 44 Sozomen, HE II 21. See also Athanasius, Hist. Arian. 78, and the letter of Shenoute (late 4th - 5th cent.), P.Rainer Cent. 9, where the Melitians are associated with the Arians. Cf. Bell 41 with n. 5; Fernandez Hernandez 173. 4 5 See Bell 41 n.8. Cf. Athanasius' Festal Letter 39 (English translation in Carroll 208-209). Socrates (HE I 6. 32 [PG 67, col.53]) even calls Melitius a alpecncipx11s-! 46 Epiphanius, Panarion 68. 6. 6. 47 Theodoret, Hae retie. Jab. comp. IV 7. Cf. Bell 42 n. l; Doelger 245. 48 Carroll 165-168. According to the same author, it would appear that after 451 the Melitians 'were Chalcedonian in their theology', which 'put them in conflict with the vast majority of monophysite Christians'. 4 9 Compare the more balanced view of Barnard 184~185, who distinguishes between puritanical 'semiCoptic Meletian monks in a rural milieu' and 'those in close association with the Eusebian party' with 'an inclination to Arianism'. 50 P.London VI 1917 and 1919: Carroll 166. Cf. already Barnard 184. 5 I P.London VI 1929. See G. Ghedini, 'Paganesimo e cristianesimo nelle lettere papiracee greche dei primi secoli d. Cr.', in Atti del IV Congresso lnternazionale di Papirologia (Milano 1936) 333-350, esp. 343; cf. Naldini 4 n. 4. 52 Kramer and Shelton, no.5 ll.24-26; no.6 l.8; cf. pp.21 and 52-53. 53 See, e.g .. Fernandez Hernandez 157-159; Carroll 16-17. 54 See, e.g., E.P. Meijering and W.H.C. Frend, in L'Eglise et l'Empire au /Ve siecle (cf. supra, n.29) 69.

VII 336

given time had the upper hand at court and in the empire.55 In other words, at least in later Melitianism, i.e. after the death of its founder, Christological doctrine was not a major issue with respect to its self-identification. b) Ecclesiology What really mattered was a slightly different understanding of the Church and its organization, in particular with respect to the exercise of power and the role of the hierarchy. Due to a lack of systematic treatises, the Melitians' concept can only be inferred from Melitius' actual attitude towards the successive bishops of Alexandria and his stance in the lapsi controversy, as well as from the concrete way in which he and his followers organized their community. More than half a century ago the basic analysis was made by Franz Heinrich Kettler, 56and recently Scott Carroll 57 has offered fresh views on the matter. First of all, it appears that from the outset the Melitians opposed the nearly absolute powers the Alexandrian bishops had gradually arrogated to themselves and which in 325, partly perhaps as a reaction to Melitius' behaviour, 58 were ratified by the Nicene Fathers. From a certain moment, if not from the outset, the Melitians obviously wanted to disconnect the leadership of the Church from the episcopacy of Alexandria.59 One further has the impression, insofar as the meagre evidence allows any conclusion in this respect, that after the death of their founder they developed a more collegiate, even more liberal, 60 conception of their own hierarchical system: John Arkhaph, Melitius' successor, does not seem to have exercised authority in an equally monarchical manner. It is very probable that Melitius' views were gradually and empirically elaborated according to circumstances, rather than theoretically founded. His initial rebellion against Peter, when he usurped the latter's authority by performing illegal ordinations, was apparently dictated by indignation. In his eyes the bishop of Alexandria had forfeited his rights:6 1 not only had he abandoned his own flock, but he had also failed to assist the four suffragan Delta dioceses whose bishops had been arrested and executed. Peter's alleged laxity and weakness probably induced Melitius to replace him as head of the Church. But did he content himself with the see of Lycopolis or did he initially also want to take over the throne of Saint Mark? That at least is what the four Delta bishops are suggesting in their letter to Melitius, what Peter without any doubt is asserting in his missive to the Christians of 55 That was also Athanasius' opinion, who even compares them to chameleons (Hist. Arian. 79): 'if the emperor should command them to adopt any other profession, they are ready to change again to that also' (ibid. 78; translation by Carroll 210). 56 Kettler, passim. 57 Carroll, esp. 67-68, 73, 77, 79, 97, 105, l 11~112, 119-120, 168~170. 58 See the discussion in Carroll 111,.112. 59 Cf. Hauben, 'Melitians' 454-455 section 2: 'The See of St. Mark in the Eyes of the Melitians' (where some statements should be modified in the second paragraph: as I shall show funher on, 'the epicenter of their following' was not significantly linked to the Egyptian chora; moreover, it seems a bit exaggerated to say that 'one of the causes of the schism lay in their rejection of the claims of the Alexandrian pope': in all likelihood, this fundamental rejection must have been, at least in part, a consequence of the concrete incidents - and later developments - that occurred after Melitius' illicit descent into the Delta and Alexandria) and 455-456 section 3: 'The Appointment of a Melitian Pope of Alexandria as the Final Stage in the Development of the Schism'. 60 This thesis is now also upheld by Carroll 111 and 169. 6 I Thus Kettler 170: 'fiir Melitius ist der Inhaber des alexandrinischen Stuhles iiberhaupt nicht mehr vorhanden. Melitius betrachtet sich selbst als Leiter der ligyptischen Kirche durchzusetzen'. Cf. 174: 'In seinen Augen hatte Petrus sein Amt verwirkt'.

VII The Melitian 'Church of the Martyrs'

337

Alexandria, 62 and what was later generally believed.6 3 The hypothesis cannot be proved but, as Kettler states, is not completely to be discarded: during Melitius' lifetime there were several Melitian priests and deacons in Alexandria, but no Melitian bishop. 64 Be that as it may, the fact is that very soon after his 'invasion' of Alexandria Melitius was arrested and did not have the opportunity to have himself recognized, either as the leader of the whole Christian community in Egypt, 65 or - if that had really been his intention - as bishop of the metropolis. Anyway, it looks as though he made no (further) effort to obtain the see in question or to have himself proclaimed 'Melitian' (anti-)bishop of Alexandria after his return from the Palestinian mines (311) and Peter's death, when he seems to have stayed in the capital for a fairly long period, perhaps until the Council of Nicaea (325). His successor, John Arkhaph, who was the Melitian bishop of Memphis, had nothing to do with the see of Saint Mark. 66 Under his leadership at least two Melitians occupied the episcopal throne of Alexandria: Theonas immediately after the death of Alexander and before Athanasius' election (328), and Heraiscus, mentioned as anti-pope in 335, during the latter's episcopacy.67 They were subordinate to John and, as far as we know, neither played a role comparable to that of any of their Catholic counterparts.68 We must keep in mind, moreover, that we know only two heads of the Melitian Church: Melitius and his successor John Arkhaph. Melitius himself appointed John shortly before his death: it was the rebellious bishop's ultimate challenge to the Alexandrian see. His act, which in fact perpetuated the break, 69 was in direct opposition to the measures concerning his person and the reintegration of the Melitian Church taken by the Council of Nicaea.70 After the Synod of Tyre (335) John was exiled by Constantine. From then on not only do we lose any further trace of him, but all subsequent evidence for any leading Melitian bishops

62 We have to do here with the so-called 'Fundamentalurkunden', the well-known 'Veronese fragments' from the Codex Veronensis LX (cf. Annick Martin, Histoire 'acephale' et index syriaque des lettres festales d'Athanase d'Alexandrie [Paris 1985] 25-27); translation in Carroll 189-193: cf. the discussion in Hauben, 'Premiere annee', esp. 272. The four bishops are rather vague ('aliut sperans') but Peter is more concrete in accusing Melitius of 'cupiditas in principatu'. From the second, anonymous fragment, it can safely be deduced that the 'principatus' aspired to was indeed the Alexandrian see: the 'cupiditas' of Melitius is connected with two Alexandrians' envy of the 'pontificatus beati Petri'; cf. Kettler 170-171. 63 See esp. the seventh-century (?) Coptic Encomium on Saint Peter attributed to Alexander of Alexandria (cf. Vivian 9 with n.4): H. Hyvemat, Les actes des Martyrs de l'Egypte tires des manuscrits copies I (Paris 1886 = Hildesheim/New York 1977) 260; English translation in Vivian 78-84, esp. 83: 'for there was a certain Melitius, a bishop of Lycopolis - he wished to seize the archbishopric. Now, he saw an opportunity while Abba Peter was in flight, (and) went to Alexandria and sat on the (episcopal) chair'. Cf. Crum 21-22 no. l. (That Melitius was driven away by Peter, as the Encomium asserts, is incorrect: he was arrested by the civil authorities.) Cf. Carroll 62 with n.99. 64 Kettler 170-175. 65 Cf. Kettler 174 ('Er konnte es nur noch zu einem Schisma bringen'). 66 Cf. Carroll 169: 'He ... chose not to make Alexandria the headquarters of his movement'. By choosing a bishop from Memphis as his successor, he 'established the authority for the schism in non-Alexandrian areas.' And according to the same scholar he 'never (my italics) attempted to usurp the bishopric in Alexandria'. 67 Cf. Carroll 117 and 119. Carroll thinks that Theonas may already have been elevated by Melitius in 325, but this is extremely unlikely: his name does not appear in the Melitian catalogue (cf. Hauben, 'Catalogue melitien'). 68 Cf. Hauben, 'Melitians' 453-456. 69 See Hauben, 'Melitians' 455. 70 Cf. Hauben, 'Reordination'; 'Jean Arkhaph', passim.

VII 338

is lacking as well.7 1 We are therefore unable to form a precise idea of the dissident church's hierarchical structure and ecclesiology after the·period of Constantine. Did they maintain their parallel network at every level ? Or did they also follow in this respect the Arians, who often tried to supplant the Catholic bishops without developing a completely independent organization? On this hypothesis the Melitians, for a certain time, would simply have rejoined the Arian ranks, redu~ing their own identity to a strict minimum. Whatever the case, everything seems to indicate that for the Melitians, at least until the end of the period of Constantine, the leadership of the Church had to be entrusted to the best and most worthy person and not to the one who happened to occupy the see of Saint Mark. This was a more charismatic, in a certain way less clerical and in any event more traditional perception (as it returned to an earlier stage in Church history) of the power structure in the Christian community, and perfectly consistent with the sect's severe, strict and demanding character already discovered elsewhere. 72 A second major peculiarity of Melitian ecclesiology, already revealed by their Church's name, concerns the privileged position granted to the confessors. From the controversy regarding the lapsi it can be deduced that the Melitians apparently wanted to maintain the confessors' traditional intercessory role against the influence and growing powers of the statutory clergy which threatened to result in increasing legalism and centralization. Until then the confessors had been fully entitled to grant or to refuse absolution to, and to impose penance on, repentant lapsi. This right was completely ignored, and as a matter of fact abolished, by Peter in his Canonical Letter, an encyclical on penance written before or after Easter 306. 73 To many confessors it must have been a serious blow. 74 All this indicates once again a more traditional and charismatic as well as less clerical and hierarchical conception of the Church. One should nevertheless reread the very nuanced pages by Kettler, 75 which show that, no more than Peter's canons, the rules of Melitius were not such that in the long run the confessors' prerogatives would remain safeguarded. But the fact that he opposed Peter's measures, considered too lax, must at any rate have ensured him of the support of most of the confessors. He needed their recognition in his struggle against Peter, which on the other hand considerably strengthened their prevalence within the parallel Church. It is evident, as Kettler says, 'daB Melitius durch sein Bi.indnis mit den Bekennern allmahlich in ein radikaleres Fahrwasser gekommen ist'. 76 Over the years, and particularly after the Synod of Tyre (335), the ecclesiological peculiarities of the Melitians, which at the outset were of decisive importance, must have lost their sharpness. This was largely due, of course, to John Arkhaph's exile and the progressive decomposition of the Melitian Church on the one hand, and to the gradual vanishing of those who had experienced the torments of the Great Persecution on the other. But it can be taken for granted that the internal organization of the Melitian Church, insofar as it subsisted, remained more free and less centralized than that of the Catholic Church: it is 71 Cf. Annick Martin, 'Athanase et les Melitiens (325-335)' in Ch. Kannengiesser (ed.), Politique et theologie chez Athanase d' Alexandrie (Paris 1974) 31-61, esp. 58: '(Jean) disparaft definitivement de la scene, laissant les siens sans chef.' 72 Cf. the very nuanced discussion in Kettler 17 I. 73 For this document, see Vivian 139-219. 74 See the fundamental discussion in Kettler 177-188; Vivian 33-35; Carroll 65-79 and 97. 75 Kettler 177 and 185-187. 76 Kettler 187.

VII The Melitian 'Church of the Martyrs'

339

possible that the Melitians, obviously splitting up in small communities that fell back ever more on their monasteries, no longer had a supreme central authority. c) Discipline Very important too was the difference of opinion that arose around Easter 306, 77 between Peter on the one hand and Melitius with numerous confessors on the other, concerning the conditions for readmission of the lapsi to the Church. The point at issue was 'the immediacy with which penance was to begin and the mildness of the penance assigned'. 78 In principle, the disagreement was by no means insurmountable and surely less serious than Epiphanius79 would have us believe. It was merely a question of degree, the Melitians being more harsh than the Catholics (who, for that matter, could hardly be accused of laxness), but milder than the Novatianists and Donatists. However, for the parties involved the gap proved unbridgeable. 80 It was the outburst of this conflict, of which Epiphanius paints a dramatic and suggestive picture,81 historically false but essentially true,8 2 that sealed the rupture and was later mistakenly remembered as the sole cause of the schism. 83 This issue, indeed, 'marked the central disagreement'. 84 It not only reveals the Melitians' rigorousness and puritanism, but also their unshakeable intransigence. But after the persecution, questions of this kind must also have gradually lost their importance. d) Monasticism Very early - the oldest evidence goes back to 334 85 but presupposes a lengthy preceding evolution as the system was then already fully developed 86 - the Melitians, in contrast with the Donatists8 7 this time; could rely on a well-organized network of monastic settlements88 (with non-monastic followers living in their vicinity),89 that highly fostered internal communication. According to Carroll, 'the Melitian development parallels if it does not precede the famous Pachomian foundations'. 90 The term monachos,9 1 for that matter,

77 For more details, see Hauben, 'Premiere annee', passim.

78 Vivian 35. 79Panarion 68. 2-3. 80 For this question, see Kettler 175-190; Vivian 139-219; Carroll 65-79 and 96-97. 81 Panarion 68. 3. 3-4. 8 2 Cf. Vivian 27 with n.90 (but it is not 'patent [that] the prison story comes initially from Melitian

sources': its origin is rather to be sought in Catholic circles: see Kettler 184), and 32; Carroll 75-76. 83 Cf. Vivian 23, 26-27; 31-35; Hauben, 'Premiere annee' 280. 84 Carroll 78. Cf. Vivian 35: 'the question of the lapsed was remembered as the crucial difference between the orthodox and the Melitians' (but it remains unsure whether it was only with this conflict that formal schism came about: cf. Hauben, 'Premiere annee' 280 n.64). 85 P.London VI 1913. 86 Cf. Carroll 182. 87 Cf. Frend, RAC 4 (1959), col.144; Schindler 676. 88 On the Melitian monasteries, see Bell 38-99, passim; Kramer and Shelton 11-20; Carroll 15-16, 31, 182-185 (very important but in part obsolete as he did not yet know the previous publication); McGing, passim. The four Melitian archives known to date (cf. supra, n.8), all originate from monastic circles. 89 Cf. Carroll 183. 90 Carroll 182. 91 On the meaning of this rather problematical term, see e.g. E.A. Judge, in G.H.R. Horsley, New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity I (North Ryde N.S.W. 1981) 126, and Horsley 128, with further

VII 340

already occurs in the earliest dated document ( 19 March 334) of the Paieous archive92 from Hathor monastery, 93 exactly ten years after its.first appearance in the sources.94 The papyri prove without any contest that the Melitian monasteries and their superiors, like Paieous95 and Nepheros, enjoyed great prestige not only among their fellow believers96 but also, at least in the 330s, in official circles and at Court. For whereas Paieous of Hathor was invited 'by sacred Imperial letters' to attend the Synod of Caesarea (334) together with 'bishops and priests and many others', 97 even the Melitian bishop of Alexandria, Heraiscus, probably stayed away from the Synod of Tyre, held the next year.98 Now that our documentary evidence has increased considerably, it would seem worth while to investigate whether the Catholic monasteries were equally popular in their own circles as were those of the Melitians. It is in any event typical that, until the mid-fourth century, the central monastic figures of the Melitians, Paieous and Paphnutius, were confessors, 99 which must of course have held a special attraction for the common people. No wonder that they were the object of numerous requests for intercessory prayers, not only for spiritual but also for very specific corporal needs, which appears to have been a typically Melitian feature. I oo Whereas it was formerly taken for granted that the monastery of Hathor was of the Pachomian type, 101 the editors of the Nepheros archive, after a meticulous examination of both the Paieous and the Nepheros papers, came to the conclusion that we have to do with a kind of laura system, an older and intermediate stage between Antonian anchorites and Pachomian coenobitism. 102 Obviously, a large measure of autonomy was left to the different houses and clusters within the same settlement 103as well as to the individual monks, who were allowed to possess private property and travel around to keep in touch with like-minded groups. Besides, contrary to what was believed before, 104it has now been established that Paieous, just like Nepheros, was not the general superior of all the Melitian monasteries.105 Once again, these features point to a certain conservatism as well as to a more decentralized view of Christian community life. In such a system charismatic figures and strong personalities can of course come more easily to the fore. On the other hand, the great

references; cf. Kramer and Shelton 10 with n.36, and 16-17 ('wodurch sich ein µovaxos von anderen Monchen unterscheidet, ist bisher nicht geklart'). 92 P.London VI 1913. 93 On the Hathor monastery, see Kramer and Shelton 11-21. 94 'The earliest attested monk' (so Judge, in Horsley 124-126 no.81) is Isak of Karanis (P.Coll.Youtie 77, 6 June 324). 95 On Paieous, see now Kramer and Shelton 9-10. 96 Cf. Martin, 'Athanase' 60; Kramer and Shelton 21. 97 P.London VI 1913; translation by Bell. 98 Cf. Hauben, 'Melitians' 455. 99 Paieous: P.London VI 1920, verso; Paphnutius: Epiphanius, Panarion 68.5.3 (cf. Hauben, 'Jean Arkh&fh' 25 n.16). l See Kramer and Shelton 21-24; cf. infra. 101 Thus still Carroll, esp. 183. 102Kramer and Shelton 11-20, esp. 18-19; 131. (But 'wie alle Zwischenstufen ist ein solches Stadium schwer zu beschreiben': 19; cf. McGing 71). Cf. Blume 187-188; Treu 113; McGing 77. 103 Cf. Kramer and Shelton 20: '(ein) lockerer ZusammenschluB von einzeln oder gruppenweise angelegten Einsiedeleien'. 104 Cf. Hauben, 'Melitians' 448 with n.7. 105 Kramer and Shelton 10.

VII The Melitian 'Church of the Martyrs'

341

importance attached by the Melitians to monasticism, i.e. to asceticism, perfection and selfsanctification, agrees with the picture we have already formed of Melitius and his fellow confessors. During the last centuries of its existence, Melitianism seems to have evolved into a tiny, basically monastic, movement. At any rate, 'the later evidence for the Melitians is exclusively monastic', which allows the probable conclusion that the monasteries became 'the last vestiges of Melitian resistance'.I06 Sometimes Melitian and Catholic monks lived together in large settlements. That was the case, for example, in the early sixth century at Labia (in the outskirts of Arsinoe), also a monastic establishment of the laura type 107 but apparently with a much looser organization 108 (even giving an impression of decadence) than the one we find two centuries before at Hathor, which, all in all, is clearly closer to the Pachomian type. It would be very interesting, of course, to make a thorough comparison between both monasteries but the question is to what extent the mixed settlement of Labia can be considered typically Melitian. e) Popular Religion, Religious Practices and Rituals Via papyri and authors much fragmentary information has come down to us about all kinds of popular beliefs, religious practices and rituals, which must have gradually taken shape and by which the Melitians differentiated themselves more and more from the other Christians. 109 According to Carroll, some of these particularities could perhaps already have been present in the first few years, 110but, apart from the martyr cult, this is highly unlikely as Melitius' integrity in matters of doctrine was particularly stressed by Epiphanius. Anyway, while emphasizing the dissident Church's identity, especially at a time when the old ecclesiological and disciplinary controversies with the Catholics were being relegated to the background and a number of Melitians had joined Arian Christology, these opinions and practices did not fail to reinforce its sectarian character 111 (which, for that matter, is also revealed by the development of many specific expressions found only in Melitian correspondence).l 12 But Carroll has rightly observed that, for all their strangeness, some of these were eventually adopted by the main Churches.113 The Melitians, who according to Athanasius used apocryphal writings, 114may have been the first to develop, partially with pagan ingredients, the doctrine of the Virgin Mary's bodily assumption,115 a doctrine later accepted by the Egyptian 116 and Ethiopian 117 Copts and 106 Carroll 185. . 107 See the commentary of McGing, passim. 108 Cf. McGing 70. 109 See, e.g., Bell 42; Crum 22-24; Kramer and Shelton 20-24; Carroll 163-187, passim. 110 Carroll 174-175. 111Cf. Th. Baumeister, Martyr invictus. Der Martyrer als Sinnbild der Erlosung in der Legende und im Kult der fruhen koptischen Kirche. Zur Kontinuitiit des iigyptischen Denkens (Munster 1972) 78: 'Wie oft in Splittergruppen verstli.rkte sich bei ihnen das volksttimliche Element und damit der Einflu6 heidnischer Brli.uche und Vorstellungen .... Da das Volksttimliche sich meist gegen den Purismus durchsetzt, kann man in den Meletianem die Schrittmacher der spli.terenkoptischen Volksreligion sehen' (see also ibid., n.121). 112See Kramer and Shelton 21. 113 Carroll 163, 180, 186. 114 See Crum 23; Annick Martin, 'Aux origines de l'Eglise copte', REA ~3 (1981) 35-56, esp. 54; Carroll 177-179. 115Cf. Crum 22; see the suggestive discussion in Carroll 179-182, who, howev~r. at a certain moment (186) confuses the 'assumption' with the 'dormition', which are in fact two different interpretations of Mary's

VII 342

proclaimed a dogma in the Roman Catholic Church. They observed their own fast-days,118 prepared their own ritual bread, 119 sang their own hymns 120 and followed deviant eucharistic practices, thus offending the Catholics. 121 In their liturgy, which apparently took on an exuberant character, several elements were adopted from Egyptian pagan cults: ritual dance, bell-ringing and hand-clapping. 122 This is reported in the fifth century by Theodoret, 123but situated explicitly in the days of Athanasius who opposed it continuously. Nevertheless these or similar practices persist to this day in the Church of Ethiopia 124and, except for the ritual dance and hand-clapping, in the Coptic liturgy of Egypt (where rhythmic instruments - cymbals and triangles - are used) as well.125 Viewed in themselves, most of these peculiarities were of course of secondary importance, but to both parties, they actually assumed a great, sometimes even paramount, symbolic value, reminiscent of the situation in North Africa, where the Donatists let themselves be similarly inspired by local traditions. 126 It cannot be ruled out that the Melitians upheld the custom of the agape (love meal), 127if at least we are allowed to attach this sense to the tenn as it is used in P.London VI 19141. 28 (A.D. 335), which is not completely sure. 128 But if so, it would prove once again the basically conservative and 'antique' nature of Melitianism, for at that time the agape was already falling into disuse in the East 129 (although it is still attested in Egypt in the fifth

transition to heaven. (Nor does he realize [ 181-182] that the dogma of the Immaculate Conception has nothing whatsoever to do with the conception and/or birth of Jesus.) In Egypt, the feast of Mary's assumption is celebrated on 22 August. 116 See Carroll 180-181. 117See P. Krueger, 'Maria', in J. Assfalg and P. Krueger, Kleines Worterbuch des christlichen Orients (Wiesbaden 1975) esp. 253. 118According to Shenoute, who considers these practices heretical: P.Rainer Cent. 9. Cf. Kramer and Shelton 23 n.5. 119Kramer and Shelton 20-21 and 39. l 20 See Crum 22. l 21 Cf. Crum 22. For an extensive survey, see Carroll 170-177. 122 See in particular the article of Doelger (supra, n.32), a basic study unfortunately not known to Carroll 174 (cf. 217). Cf. R. MacMullen, 'Conversion: A Historian's View', The Secor.d Century 5 (1985-86) 67-89, esp. 76-77 (with bibliographical references), showing that, in late Antiquity, ritual dance, as a direct descendant of Egyptian and Greco-Roman paganism and as still liturgically practised in modem Ethiopia, was perfonned in many Christian congregations in both East and West, often to the great annoyance of the Church Fathers. 123Theodoret, Haeretic.fab. comp. IV 7. 124 Doelger 253 and 259-260; cf. also Femlindez Hem1ndez 178-179 ('La prolongaci6n del melecianismo en Etiopia', perhaps a bit far-fetched?). As to these elements in the Ethiopian liturgy today, see e.g. E.C. Suttner, 'Pladoyer ftir eine Orientalistik im Dienst der Oekumene', Der Christliche Osten 44 (1989), 228-244, esp. 230-231 ('Bei bestimmten Teilen des Gottesdienstes werden manche Gesange von Trommel, Sistron und rhythmischer Bewegung begleitet, bei Festgottesdiensten auch, getreu den wiederholten Aufforderungen in den Psalmen Davids, von Tanz und Handeklatschen'). l 25 See P. Vitovec, 'Der liturgische Gesang der Ostkirchen VI. Der Gesang der agyptisch-koptischen Kirche', Der Christliche Osten 34 (1979) 104-105, also making the link with pharaonic traditions. For an example of a clapper used in the Coptic Church, see Emma Brunner-Traut and H. Brunner, Osiris, Kreuz und Halbrrwnd. Die drei Religionen Aegyptens (Mainz 1984) 190 no.160 (cf. 60 no.47). 126 Cf. Frend, RAC 4 (1959), col.136-140. 127That is also the opinion of Carroll (173), on the basis of other evidence. 128I intend to discuss this passage elsewhere. 129Cf. Frend, in L'Eglise et !'Empire au /Ve siecle (cf. supra, n.29) 107.

VII The Melitian 'Church of the Martyrs'

343

century)_l30 Also, the Donatists, known for their conservatism in liturgical matters, had kept to that ancient Christian practice.131 Highly significant, because they highlight the movement's charismatic features, are the specific and efficacious healing powers attributed to the intercessory prayers of certain Melitian priests and monks, an attribution possibly based on a literal interpretation of the epistle of James, 5.14-15. Requests for such prayers are attested in the Paphnutius and Nepheros archives. According to the editors of the latter collection, these practices did not exist in Catholic circles and are otherwise only met with in the legends of the Saints. 132 The feature, however, by which the Melitians must have most strikingly distinguished themselves from the Catholics and, contrary to the other peculiarities, already at a very early stage in the development of the schism (just as with the Donatists),133 was their 'apparent unprecedented preoccupation with martyr worship' 134including the veneration of relics. It would not be surprising if they had given it pride of place already under Melitius, considering the composition of the first generation of adherents, the religious authority vested by the founder in the confessors, and the name given by him to his new Church. 135 The authorities of the Catholic Church vigorously opposed such practices, as many of its elements were derived from ancient Egyptian funerary cults and evoked paganism too suggestively. Like Athanasius in his 41st Festal Letter (369),136they more than once reproached the Melitians with their sacrilegious traffic with martyr relics. But it would be to no avail, as the Melitian practices very soon became widespread among the other Christians, before eventually being sanctioned by the Coptic Church.137 It is odd to see how the initially rigorous and 'hyperorthodox' Melitians, while on the Christological side soon compromising themselves with the Arians, proved largely open to indigenous pagan influences on many other issues like liturgy and cult. Does this mean, then, that in their majority they belonged to the lower, less educated, popular classes? This brings us automatically to the next level, that of Society.

2. Society To many modem historians the conflict between Catholics and Melitians was not confined to the strictly ecclesiastical leveI. 138 Scholars like Hardy,139 Bamard, 140 Frend, 141 Griggs,142

130See W.D. Hauschild, TRE 1 (1977) 752. 13l Frend, RAC 4 (1959), col.143; id., in L'Eglise et l'Empire au /Ve siecle (cf. supra, n. 29) 105-106. 132Kramer and Shelton 21-24; 65-69 no.IO. 133Cf. supra, n.29. 134Carroll 170. 135 Cf. Carroll 169-170. 136 CSCO 151, 41-45 (cf. supra, n.13); cf. Crum 23-24. 137 Cf. Baumeister 52, 63-64, 72-73, 78, 84. 138 Cf. Hauben, 'Catalogue melitien' 164 with n.50. 139 Hardy 53. l40 Barnard 185. 141 W.H.C. Frend, 'Athanasius as an Egyptian Christian Leader in the Fourth Century', in id., Religion Popular und Unpopular in the Early Christian Centuries (London 1976) 20-37, passim (cf. Hauben, 'Catalogue melitien' 164 n.50). 142C.W. Griggs, Early Egyptian Christianity from its origins to 451 C.E. (Leiden 1990) 122 and 130131: 'One sees in the Melitian movement, ... , one of the best available examples of a local Egyptian sect resisting the encroachment of an outside religious power.'

VII 344

Fernandez Hemandez, 143Vivian, 144Carroll, 145and McGing, 146 have also interpreted it, in a more or less nuanced way, in terms of national and cultural oppositions, which, in view of the specific situation in Egypt, were closely entwined with social antagonisms. That means that the Melitians would have been the first indigenous, popular movement within the Christian community of Egypt, the first Christian expression of Egyptian nationalism and Coptic self-affirmation, thus prefiguring in a certain way the national Coptic Church.147 The idea is tempting. Egyptian nationalism (if we may call it so), profoundly imbued with economic and social aspirations (or vice versa), had been simmering ever since early Ptolemaic times, regularly producing serious outbursts. Moreover, Donatism could offer once again an attractive parallelism: whereas the Roman or Romanized minority is believed to have remained loyal to the Catholic Church, the native masses - in a kind of late revenge, so to speak, on the part of Punic Carthage - would have turned to its Donatist counterpart, 148 whose successes reflect, without any doubt, grave social tensions. 149 However, as we shall see, there is practically nothing, in connection with the Melitians, to justify such assertions. 150 Recently, for that matter, some scholars have even questioned, or at least relativized, the nationalistic (and social) interpretation of both the Donatist 151 and Coptic152 Churches.153 As far as we know, and the conclusion surely holds for the first few decades of the Melitian movement, there were no geographic, ethnic or linguistic differences between the two Churches. It really looks as if Catholics and Melitians displayed the same cultural physiognomy. A recent analysis of the Melitian catalogue (July 325 - November 327, or 143 Fernandez Hernandez 155: 'un movimiento de protesta antialejandrino, que encubrfa una rebeli6n racial [sic!} advetsa al helenismo desde el punto de vista cultural y hostil polfticamente al Imperio Romano'; 162 and 180. 144Vivian 36-39 (very important pages). 145 Carroll,passim, esp. 121-162; cf. his very nuanced approach 121-122. 146McGing 77: 'they were one original voice of indigenous Egyptian Christianity'. 147But see at any rate Carroll 122: 'Coptic nationalism was not a revival of ancient Egyptian culture which was in opposition to Greco-Roman influence. Coptic nationalism was a distinct by-product of Christianity forged by the hammer of Roman persecution and of later imperial economic oppression. The Melitians protested the emerging authority of the Alexandrian Patriarch, whose political power was reinforced by the imperial government.' 148 Frend, RAC 4 (1959), col.132-133. 149Ibid., col.134-136. 150The nationalistic interpretation of the Melitian schism has recently also been rejected by Camplani 329-330, and by Wipszycka, 'Nationalisme' 119-120. 15l Fevrier 174-175: 'Le conflit religieux ne peut se reduire ou justifier son developpement a des antagonismes sociaux ou ethniques, voire a des oppositions regionales .... Et comme, dans cette societe, tout est religieux, il est normal que les antagonismes se revelent par cette voie'. See also A.H.M. Jones, 'Were ancient heresies national or social movements in disguise?', JThS NS 10 (1959) 280-298, passim; Krie~baum, esp. 42-43. l 2 Wipszycka, 'Nationalisme-',passim, a fundamental and thorough contribution referring to basic studies in this respect, those of J. Maspero, 'Horapollon et la fin du paganisme egyptien', BIFAO l l (1914), 187188, and A.H.M. Jones (cf. n.151). 153 Compare also, with respect to the Christianization of Egypt and the relations between pagans and Christians, Ewa Wipszycka, 'La christianisation de l'Egypte aux IVe-Vle siecles. Aspects sociaux et ethniques', Aegyptus 68 (1988) 117-165, showing that there was no 'correlation entre la division religieuse et Jes divisions economique, sociale, culturelle et ethnique' (154 n.55) and that 'la division de la societe en pai"ens et chretiens etait une division verticale' (159).

VII The Melitian 'Church of the Martyrs'

345

November 327, shortly before Melitius' death 154) 155shows that the proportion between the number of dioceses in the (northern) province of Aegyptus 156 and that in the (southern) province of Thebais was at that time exactly the same for the Church in general as for the Melitian Church in particular. It is simply not true, in my opinion, that the Melitian Church was more deeply anchored in the South than in the North: 157to speak of the Melitian schism in terms of opposition or antagonism between Upper and Lower Egypt (or, as we shall see below, between Alexandria and the countryside) 158is unjustified or at least over-simplified. Furthermore, there is a remarkable parallelism between Catholics and Melitians in their recruitment of both clergy and monks. The clergy of both Churches was predominantly Greek or Hellenized, whereas the monasteries were filled, not exclusively, to be sure, 159 but for the most part, with indigenous, i.e. Coptic-speaking, people.160

It is really striking that in the Melitian archives, stemming from monastic and thus popular milieus, documents written in Coptic are 'quantite negligeable' (Paieous and Nepherosl61 archives) or even entirely absent (Paphnutius archive 162 ). 163 What a glaring contrast, apparently, with the Pachomian monks of the Catholic Church, where even bilingualism was an exception! 164 Should one not say, strictly speaking, that the Melitian monasteries were more Hellenized than that of Saint Pachomius? Be that as it may, there is nothing with the Melitians that could point to a rejection of Greek civilization. On the contrary. Just think of the excellent relationship - however calculated it may have been - between the leaders of the Melitian Church and prominent personalities of Greek culture like Eusebius of Nicomedia and his namesake of Caesarea. Think also of the Arian doctrines adopted by the Melitians or a number of them, doctrines which had nothing whatsoever to do with indigenous traditions. One could, of course, argue that the Melitians opposed the overwhelming powers of the Alexandrian see. But should we see in that opposition, at least in its initial phase, anything more than a merely ecclesiastical rebellion, induced by fortuitous circumstances and finding, 154Cf. Hauben, 'Catalogue melitien' 155-156 with n 3. l55 Hauben, 'Catalogue melitien', esp. 163-167. 156 It was generally accepted that the Delta was more Hellenized than the Thebaid (cf. also Hauben, 'Catalogue melitien' 165), but see now Wipszycka, 'Nationalisme' 105. At any rate, Egyptian resistance against the Ptolemies and Romans was always stronger in the South than in the North (cf. Hauben, ibid. 164 with n.51). 157See the discussion in Hauben, 'Catalogue melitien' 165-166. 158Thus suggested, to a certain extent, e.g., by Hardy 53; Barnard 185; Frend, 'Athanasius', passim; Vivian 36-39 ('Behind such a precipitous move [i.e. of Melitius] may have lain years - and even centuries of dissatisfaction on the part of the upper Egyptians with the way things were done in the north. Recent scholarship has emphasized the difference between upper and lower Egypt, ...' [36]); Carroll 131-132 (where map 2, if it aims to show the spread of Melitianism throughout Egypt, does not seem adequate as it practically omits the Melitian bishoprics in the Delta). 159 See the interesting observations of Wipszycka, 'Nationalisme' 115-116. 160 Cf. Hauben, 'Catalogue melitien' 166-167 (referring to Annick Martin). l6l Cf. Kramer and Shelton 18; 33-34 (Coptic monk writing bad Greek); 80 (Nepheros was probably a bilingual Copt). See also Blume 187. Hi2 Cf. Bell 102 (not accepting the Melitian origin of the archive): 'the Paphnutius letters reveal a cultivated circle, with no trace of Coptic affinities.' l63 Cf. Baumeister 78 n.119: 'Ftir die erste Zeit kann man nicht von einem Ueberwiegen des koptischen Elements bei den Melitianern sprechen.' 164 Cf. Kramer and Shelton 18 with n.10; S.R. Llewelyn and R.A. Kearsley, New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity VI (Macquarie University 1992) 184.

VII 346

without doubt only later, its justification in a more collegiate and charismatic Church tradition? Furthermore, as I have already pointed out, it is not wholly excluded that Melitius himself nursed Alexandrian ambitions. Whatever the case, there is nothing here to suggest 'anti-Alexandrianism' of the Potter's Oracle-type (which, nonetheless, must have persisted at least until the third century A.D.).165 As for Alexandria itself, the Greek metropolis 'par excellence', Meiitians could be found there from the outset. Having left the four Delta dioceses, where he started his campaign, Melitius immediately proceeded to Alexandria, and there is not the slightest hint that he would have addressed the Egyptian part of the population in particular. At the time of the Catalogue (325-327), he could rely there on four priests and three deacons, a priest in the Camp of Nicopolis not included. 166 In 328 the Melitians were able to elect an Alexandrian bishop, and seven years later they still had many adherents in the capital in spite of sharp persecutions by Athanasius. They kept a solid footing in the Camp, a footing which, according to the Nepheros archive, still existed one generation later (c. 360). 167 Indeed, it is not impossible, although to a large extent speculative, that the Melitian clergy had at that time retired from the city.16 8 But if so, the development cannot surprise: Athanasius' successive reinstallations must have rendered their position in that city rather precarious. All in all, then, the situation of the Melitians in Alexandria shows nothing abnormal. Their (initial) penetration there does not seem to have been any stronger or weaker than in the rest of the country. Was there a shift in the recruitment of the Melitian clergy from the mid-fourth century on? It is difficult to say. I have already drawn attention to the fact that, according to Athanasius, 169 quite a lot of pagans had been directly converted to Melitianism at a time when the Arians held sway. Among these people, who had not always received sufficient instruction, bishops were also chosen. We cannot say whether all or most of them belonged to the Coptic or to the (more) Hellenized part of the population. It is, for that matter, not always an easy task to draw a sharp distinction between these two segments of fourthcentury society in Egypt. Whatever the case, in their ranks one could encounter many adherents (owing to opportunism or ignorance) of Arianizing (and therefore Hellenizing) doctrines, as well as a number of high officials (and therefore not from the lower classes). The only real problem seems to be posed by the liturgical, cultic and other religious peculiarities discussed above, some of which, eliciting sharp criticism from Catholic Church leaders, were already borrowed from Egyptian paganism in the course of the fourth century. May we speak in this respect of an antagonism between two civilizations or rather between two cultural and social spheres? It is not in itself impossible that Melitianism, which certainly made a more popular and (at least in the beginning) a more radical impression, exerted a great attraction on socially lower, less educated and therefore less Hellenized people (although their monastic archives apparently point to the contrary). But let us not exaggerate. The rapid conversion of the popular masses subjected the Church - Catholics just as much as Melitians - to great pressure. If the Catholics had been able to resist the Egypto-pagan 165Copies of the Potter's Oracle were still being made at that time. For the references and a translation, see S.M. Burstein, The Hellenistic Age from the battle of lpsos to the death of Kleopatra VII (Cambridge 1985) 136-139 no.106. 166 See Hauben, 'Catalogue melitien' 158 and 165-166. 167See Kramer and Shelton 56-60 no.8; 27. See now also the interesting remarks of B.C. McGing, ZPE 82 (1990) 119-120. 168See Kramer and Shelton 23-24. l69 Cf. supra, n.42.

VII The Melitian 'Church of the Martyrs'

347

tide, it was only for a certain time and thanks to personalities like Saint Athanasius, a kind of figure no longer found among the Melitians after the death of their founder. We have seen, for that matter, that certain Melitian bishops would have been ill-prepared for their task. Moreover, the adoption of practices and rituals like those in connection with the martyr cult can to a large extent be explained by the genesis and the very essence of the Melitian Church. It is a matter of course that the martyrs were venerated by them with a greater fervour than by the Catholics and that the modes of expression could be most easily found in Egyptian tradition. Finally, the tenacious opposition of the Catholic leaders gave them the opportunity to assume a sharper profile by fostering or even by stressing these distinctive usages. On the other hand, if Athanasius made objections, it was not because the rites or opinions in question were of Egyptian origin - his cordial relations with the native people are wellknown - but because they were pagan.170 Let us, therefore, be extremely cautious when trying to detect social, cultural, national or even nationalistic oppositions in the Melitian question. In the same line of thought, it seems unwarranted to interpret the Melitian schism as a precursor of the indigenous Coptic Church (of which the 'nationalist' character, as we have seen, is very questionable) just because the latter adopted 171some Melitian practices. As I have already pointed gut, we get the impression that, from the fifth century on, the Meli ti ans entrenched themselves in a number of monastic centres in the Egyptian chora. By then, of course, their Church must have taken on an essentially 'indigenous' character, now exclusively turned towards the lower classes. But at that moment it had lost all influence, and was no longer capable of playing any leading role at all.

3. The Empire In this section we will try to answer the question whether, and if so, to what extent, Catholics and Melitians differed from each other in their attitude towards the Emperor, the central authorities in Constantinople, and the administrative machinery and government officials in Egypt. According to several modem scholars who advocate the national(ist) interpretation 172of the Melitian schism, the latter would have also been, in contrast with the Catholic Church, but like Donatism 173 and, later on, the Coptic Church, profoundly antiimperiaI.174Let us take a closer look at these assertions. That the Melitians opposed the Emperor at the time of the Great Persecution is quite normal. In this respect their attitude was in considerable measure similar to that of the Catholics. The only difference was that the Melitians were more inclined to defy the authorities openly, whereas the Catholic leaders showed more caution, as the conflict between Melitius and Peter shows.

170It is conceivable, of course, that, being a 'Greek' (cf. Wipszycka, 'Natiooalisme' 111-114) as well as an intellectual, he was the more offended as those kinds of practice were completely unfamiliar to him. I 71 See also the quotation from Baumeister, supra, n.11 l. 172In this connection Wipszycka ('Christianisation' 161-162) rightly warns that anti-imperial feelings in themselves had nothing to do with anti-Greek resentments: 'on pouvait ha"irles autorites de Constantinople, les hauls fonctionnaires, mais cela n'entrainait pas une haine de la culture grecque'. 173Cf. Frend, RAC 4 (1959), col.144: 'die Donatisten [behauptetenJ ... LA.av0pwrr(asTOU MEALTLOUKat TWV aµa auT0 UiTEp0.AT')0E(asKat (tjAOU('Peter's words were on the side of mercy and kindness, and those of Melitius and his party on that of truth and zeal'). 184 To the honest Christian, the choice was anything but easy.

178Cf. Epiphanius, Panarion 68.3.3. mi0os. l79 Cf., e.g., Theodoret, Haeretic.fab. comp. IV 7: q>t>-..apx(as 180Cf. Vivian 39; Carroll 62. 181For this letter, see supra, n.62. 182Cf. supra, n.26 and Hauben, 'Reordination', passim. 183Kettler 178. 184Epiphanius, Panarion 68.3.2; translation by Amidon 248.

VIII

JOHN ARKHAPH AND «THE BISHOP» (ATHAN., APOL. SEC. 71.6) A REASSESSMENT Some years ago I discussed the position held by John Arkhaph in 325/327 as it could be deduced from the so-called Breviarium Melitii 1• It was the repentent rebel Melitius himself who, in the presence of his clergy2 and as a sign of reconciliation, handed over the Catalogue to Alexander, the bishop of Alexandria and general leader of the Catholic Church in Egypt. John was the Melitian bishop of Memphis, whom Melitius, sensing his end was near, would soon appoint as his successor at the head of the Melitian Church, thus disrupting the precarious peace process3• I argued that Melitius' conduct, for all its irregularity, was not at all surprising. For already before his formal nomination and his predecessor's death, the Catalogue evidenced some recognition of John as Melitius' representative and as the movement's spokesman to the Alexandrian see, earning him a special position among the Melitian clergy as well as within the Christian community. I relied on two observations. First, instead of being listed among his colleagues of Middle Egypt, John is singled out and, contrary to the geographical structure of the document, inserted at the very end of the bishops' list, as a kind of counterpart to Melitius, who opens the row. Secondly, according to a «cryptic phrase» 4 added to his name, John

1

H. HAUBEN, Jean Arkhaph, eveque de Memphis, dans le catalogue melitien, in Philohistor. Miscellanea in honorem Caroli Laga septuagenarii, edd. A. SCHOORS P. VAN DEUN (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta, 60), Leuven 1994, p. 23-33. Breviarium Melitii: Athan., Apo/. sec. 71.6 = P.G. 25, 376-377 = H.-G. OPITZ, Athanasius. Werke, Il 1, Berlin-Leipzig 1938; p. 149-151; cf. H. HAUBEN, Le catalogue melitien reexamine, in Opes Atticae. Miscellanea philologica et historica Raymondo Bogaert et Hermanno Van Looy oblata, edd. M. GEERARD e.a., Brugge 1990 (= Sacris Erudiri 31, 1989-1990), p. 155-167; L.W. BARNARD, Studies in Athanasius' Apologia Secunda (European University Studies, XXIII 467), Bern 1992, p. 118-122. On the date, see Jean Arkhaph, p. 24. 2 Athan., Apol. sec. 72.1. 3 On the Melitian schism, see H. HAUBEN, The Melitian «Church of the Martyrs». Christian Dissenters in Ancient Egypt, in Ancient History in a Modern University, Vol. 2. Early Christianity, Late Antiquity and Beyond. Proceedings of a Conference held at Macquarie University, 8-13 July 1993, edd. T.W. HILLARD e.a., Macquarie University (N.S.W.) - Grand Rapids (Mich.) - Cambridge (U.K.) 1998, p. 329-349. 4 L.W. BARNARD,Studies in Athanasius'ApologiaSecunda,p. 120.

VIII 272 «was ordered by the Emperor to be with the archbishop» 5• I explained why, in my opinion, the «archbishop» was not Melitius nor Athanasius but Alexander and why the short note was written neither by Melitius nor by an anonymous commentator but should be considered an editorial addition by Athanasius. In the meantime my interpretation has been challenged by Annick Martin, compelling me to reconsider my stand. Shortly after the publication of my article, the French scholar sent me a kind letter (dated June 26, 1994) agreeing that the note was added by Athanasius but disagreeing with practically all my other statements including my conclusions p. 31-32. Like some others 6, she contends that the note is a clear reference to Constantine's elated letter quoted by Athanasius some chapters before (Apo/. sec. 70.2 7), in which John is congratulated by the emperor on his reconciliation with bishop Athanasius 8 after the provisional denouement of the Arsenius vaudeville and invited to court. In reality, the reconciliation proved very shortlived9. Martin continues: «En 'editant' ainsi le catalogue que cloture le nom de Jean, chef de l 'Eglise melitienne, c 'est pour Athanase une maniere de montrer 1'echec de la tentative de Melitios de se survivre dans son successeur». Her most important point, however, is that one should read µeta tou t1ttcr1e61touinstead of µeta toG dpx1e1ttcr1e61tou, «lecture choisie a tort par Opitz»: dpxte1ttcr1e61touis a later copyist's correction, whereas the codex Scorialensis X (13th century; «0» in Opitz' edition) rightly has S1ttcr1e61tou.That means that John did not have to be with an «archbishop» but with a «bishop», and that bishop

5

Athan., Apol. sec. 71.6 (34); translation by L.W. BARNARD, Athanasius and the Meletian Schism in Egypt, in JEA 59 (1973), p. 181-189, esp. 185. 6 See H. HAUBEN, Jean Arkhaph, p. 27 and 29. 7 See P. SILLI (ed.), Testi costantiniani nelle fonti letterarie (Materiali per una palingenesi de/le costituzioni tardo-imperiali, 3), Milano 1987, p. 179-180 no. 46. Cf. L.W. BARNARD, Studies in Athanasius' Apologia Secunda, p. 115. 8 eyvrov yap ... 1tiicmvµtv µ1KpO'lfUX.iav S1t1mc61tq> sc;ta. µaAlO''taelc;6µovo10,vSA0dv. 9 According to K. HOLL, Die Bedeutung der neuveroffentlichten melitianischen Urkunden fur die Kirchengeschichte (1925], in Gesammelte Aufsiitze zur Kirchengeschichte. II. Der Osten, Tiibingen 1928, p. 283-297, esp. 284 with n. 2, John would in fact have deluded the emperor by feigning that a full reconciliation was already reached: «er stellt es dem Kaiser so dar, als ob er zum Frieden mit Athanasius geneigt ware, ja diesen Frieden von sich aus schon geschlossen hatte, und erlangt dadurch eine Einladung an den Hof».

VIII 273

JOHN ARKHAPH AND «THE BISHOP»

was, according to Martin, none other than Athanasius himself. « Qui plus est, Alexandre ne pouvait accepter qu'il y eut un 'porte-parole' de l'Eglise melitienne aupres de lui. C'etait lui demander de reconnaitre l'existence d'une Eglise separee, ce qu'aucun eveque d' Alexandrie n'a jamais accepte ». Martin expanded these ideas in her impressive study on Athanasius and the Egyptian Church 10 : «Athanase rappelle a cet endroit que Constantin lui a ordonne de se soumettre a l 'eveque d 'Alexandrie, KEAeucr0d~ no.pa.tou ~a.crtA.fao~dva.t µeta. tou S1ttcrK61tou,corrige par un copiste en dpx,te1ttcrK61tou (lecture choisie, a tort, par Opitz), faisant allusion, par la, a la lettre que l 'empereur a adressee a Jean et que l' auteur de l'Apologie a retranscrite au paragraphe precedent, 70, 2, Opitz 2, p. 148» 11• Elsewhere we read to the same extent: «Ceci est une remarque introduite par Athanase, faisant allusion a la lettre que l 'empereur a adressee a Jean et que l' auteur de l 'Apologie a retranscrite au paragraphe precedent, etc. Ceci explique que le siege de Memphis, qui devrait normalement figurer entre Niloupolis (15) et Letopolis (16), ait ete deplace» 12• What to think of this? Let us start with the additional note. First of all, dva.t µe--ra can hardly be translated by «se soumettre». It rather means «to be with» or «to assist» 13• On the other hand, I perhaps too hastily rejected the meaning «to agree with» 14, although that sense does not seem very obvious 15 • Whatever the case, I think one should rather emphasize the word KEA.Eucr0ei~that is used here. Of course, we know 16 of instances in which the emperor ordered (SKEAEUcrEv) or asked (SKUA.Et,na.peKaAEcre)17 religious opponents to agree with each other 18, but in Constantine's letter to John there is no question at all of such an order or urge: there are only congratulations on an already assumed or 10

we

Annick MARTIN,Athanase d'Alexandrie et l'Eglise d'Egypte au siecle (328373), Rome 1996, p. 56 with n. 137, 314 with n. 19. 11 A. MARTIN, Athanase, p. 56 n. 137. Cf. p. 266-267 n. 156 (about the reading S1tunc61tou,to be preferred to the unjustly corrected dpX,tt1ttmc61tou).On p. 58, however, she still translates (in contradiction with her own proposal): «Jean a qui l'empereur a ordonne de se soumettre a l' archeveque ( !) ». 12 P. 58 n. 5. 13 H. HAUBEN, Jean Arkhaph, p. 27. 14 H. HAUBEN, Jean Arkhaph, p. 29. 15 Cf. the objections formulated in P.G. 25, col. 376. 16 Sozomenus, HE I 16. 3. 17 Sozomenus, HE II 22. 9. 18 Cf. A. MARTIN,Athanase, p. 351 n. 40.

VIII 274

realized reconciliation 19• That is a major reason why I stick to my opinion that, despite some appearances, the note in the Breviarium has nothing to do with Constantine's letter. As for John's conspicuous place in the Catalogue, should Athanasius (and not Melitius, as I stated) be held responsible for it? It cannot be ruled out, but the reason Martin gives in her letter (and which she did not repeat in her book), makes little sense. And would the mere insertion of an editorial note be sufficient reason for displacing a name in a wellstructured list? Concerning the archiepiskopos/episkopos issue, Martin is completely right. I should have seen it and have properly corrected Opitz. It would have much simplified the discussion. At the same time the correct reading implies that Melitius' list is no longer «la piu antica testimonianza letteraria» of the title of archbishop used for the bishop of Alexandria, as was until recently assumed20 • But the question remains: who was «the bishop» (mind the article) «with whom John had to be»? Contrary to Martin, I think that in the context of the Catalogue there is but one possibility, the only 'full' (and apart from that, ecclesiastically 'clean') episkopos being the bishop of Alexandria, whose name and title are explicitly mentioned in the tcp 81ttcr1C61tcp. heading: ~pe~tOV oo0ev 1tapa MEAttiou ~AAE~avc>p

>,Epigraphica Anatolica 9 ( 1987), S. 29-36. 2 P.Tebt. 15, Z. 207-220:;:; C. Ord. Ptol. 53 = P.W. Pestman, The New Papym-

IX 358

Da eine leicht korrumpierte Kopie dieses den jeweiligen Befugnisbereich der Chrematisten- bzw. Laokritengerichte betreffenden Erlasses auf uns gekommen ist, war man stets von einer nachlässigen Formulierung ausgegangen und nie über einigermaßen gezwungene Schlußfolgerungen hinausgekommen. Im Bereich der Kirchengeschichte bietet der Katalog des Melitios (zwischen Ende Juli 325 und November 327 oder November 327 zu datieren) ein gutes Beispiel. Schon allein die Analyse der Struktur des Dokumentes führt zu einigen Erkenntnissen sowohl hinsichtlich der Anzahl der melitianischen Bistümer als auch der hierarchischen Beziehungen innerhalb dieser schismatischen Kirche 3 • In dem hier folgenden Beitrag möchte ich gerade im Zusammenhang mit den Melitiancrn die Aufmerksamkeit auf einen bekannten Passus aus dem Synodalbrief lenken, den das ökumenische Konzil von Nicaea im Jahre 325 «an die Kirche der Alexandriner, heilig und groß durch Gottes Gnade, und an die geliebten Brüder in Ägypten, Libyen und in der Pentapolis» sandte. Konkret geht es um den Abschnitt, in dem die Modalitäten bekanntgegeben werden, denen zufolge Mc]itios und sein Klerus (wieder) in die katholische Kirche aufgenommen werden können. Der Text zeichnet sich durch auffallend nuancierte Wortwahl und ausgewogene Struktur aus. VieHeicht kann eine erneute Prüfung dieser beiden Aspekte zu einem besseren Verständnis der darin enthaltenen Maßnahmen führen. So möge diese bescheidene Studie über das erste große Konzil der gesamten Christenheit logical Primer. Leiden 1990, Nr. 8: s. P.W. Pestman, «The Competence of Greek and Egyptian Tribunalsaccordingto the Decree of 118B.C.»,Bull. Am. Soc. Papymlogi.w:22 (1985), s. 265-269. 3 H. Hauben,«Le cataloguemelitien reexamine»,Opes Atticae. Miscellaneaphi/ologica et hi.ttoricaRaymondoBogaert et Henna11noVanLooy oblata (Hrsg. M. Geernrd e.a.), Brugge 1990(Sacris Emdiri 31, 1989-1990),S. 155-167;«Jean Arkhaph,eveque de Memphis, dans le cataloguemelitien»,Philohistor.Miscellaneain honorcm Carolila!(a septuagenarii (Hrsg. A. Schoors - P. Van Dcun) (OrientalinLovaniensia Analecta 60), Leuven 1994,S. 23-33.Zur melitianischenKirche s. die in diesen beiden Veröffentlichungen angegebeneLiteratur,u.a. S.T.Carroll, The Melitian Schi.mi: Coptic Christianit_yancl t/rc Egyptia11Churc:h,diss. Miami University,Oxford (Ohio) 1989. S. auch H. Hauben, Oricntalia Lovaniensia Periodica 25 (1994), S. 284-285; «The Melitian 'Church of the Martyrs'. ChristianDissentersin AncientEgypt»,Ancie/JIHistOIJ'in a Modem Univer.'iity, Vol. 2. Early Christia,iit)~Late Antiquity and Beyond. Proceedingsof a Co11fere11ce hehl at Macquarie University, 8-/3 J11f.v/993 (Hrsg. T.W. Hillarde.a.), Macquarie University (N.S.W.)- Grand Rapids (Mich.)-Cambridge (U.K.) 1998,S. 329-349. Nicht zu vergessen das magnwn opus von Annkk Martin,Atha11ased'A/e.mndrie et l'Egli.'ie,/'Egypte au /Ve siede (328-373) (Coll. Ec. Fr. de Rome 216), Rome 1996,passim (ein beeindruckendes Werk von hoherQualitätmit einer aktuellen Bibliographie,in dem jedoch - wie Argumentation und Fußnotenzeigen - ein beträchtlicherTeil der rezentenLiteraturnicht mehr in die Diskussioneingearbeitetwerdenkonnte).

IX Das Konzil von Nicaea (325) zur Wiederaufnahme der Melitianer

359

auch als eine persönliche Ehrenbekundung für einen Gelehrten verstanden werden, der seine aufrechte Liebe zu Kirche und Vaterland stets und in vollendeter Form mit einem wirklich offenen Geist und einer ökumenischen Gesinnung in Einklang zu bringen wußte. Für die Beschlüsse des Konzils von Nicaea konsultiere man vor allem die dritte Edition der kommentierten Ausgabe von J. Alberigo e.a., die der Ausgabe von N.P. Tanner e.a. und von P. Duval e.a. zugrundeliegt 4 • Neben dem bekannten Glaubensbekenntnis sind darin 20 Kanones und der oben erwähnte Synodalbrief enthalten, welcher seinerseits zwei « wichtige und spezifische Mitteilungen» für die Kirche von Ägypten beinhaltet. Die erste Mitteilung betrifft den Arius und seine Ketzerei. Die zweite zitiert nach einem kurzen Übergangstext und schön eingeleitet durch das traditionelle föo;Ev den den Melitios und die Seinen betreffenden Beschluß, dem wir uns im Weiteren widmen werden. Am Schluß folgt nach einem kurzen abrundenden Passus noch ein Hinweis auf den Konsens, der im Zusammenhang mit dem Osterdatum erreicht wurde. Der Text des Synodalbricfcs ist überliefert bei Athanasius, De decreti.\· Nicaenae synodi 36 sowie - mit einigen Varianten - bei verschiedenen anderen Autoren, vor allem Socrates (HE I 9, 1-14), Thcodorctus (HE 1 9, 2-13) und Gelasius (HE II 34, 2-14 ). Sozomcnus bietet eine stark verkürzte und teilweise abweichende Version (HE I 24). Eine kritische Ausgabe mit vollständigem Apparat finden wir bei H.-G. Opitz~. Übersetzungen bieten die oben erwähnten Ausgaben von Tanner und Duval. Außerdem sei hingewiesen auf die Übersetzungen von Bamard (tcilwcise) 6 , Carroll 7 und Martin (teilweise}". Rezente Kommentare, insbesondere zu dem hier besprochenen Teil, bieten Carroll 9, Martin 10 und u.a. auch Barnes 11• Spezifische 4

J. [= G.] Alberigo e.a., Conciliorum Oecwnenicorwn Decreta, Bologna 19733, S. 1-19; N.P. Tanner e.a., Decrees of the Emmenical Cmmci/.,;, Vol. One. Nicaea I to Lateran V,London-Washington 1990, S. 1-19; A. Duval c.a .• Les Concile.,· ouumeriiques. Les decrets. Tome 11-1.Nicee l a Ullt"OII V, Paris 1994, S. 27-63. 5 H.-G. Opitz, Atha11a.,;ius Werke II, 1. Die Apologien: i. De decrctis Nicae,ia,· synodi, Berlin-Leipzig 1935, S. 35-36; III, 1. Urkunden zur Ge.,;c/1ic/11e des aria11i,,;cl,enStreites 3 /8-328, Berlin-Leipzig 1934. S. 47-51, Nr. 23. lt6'tEQOV XLVT}0ElOT}; ti\; cruv6öou 12

H. Hauben, «La reordination du clerge melitien imposee par le Concile de Nicee», AncSoc 18 (1987), S. 203-207; Annick Martin, «Lcs conditions de la readmission du clerge melitien par le Concile de Nicee». AncSoc 20 ( 1989), S. 281-290. 13 Martin, Athanase, S. 290-298 (cf. S. 257), die diese Frage sogar weitgehend in ihre Bedeutung herunterspielt. 14 H. Hauben. «La premiere annee du schisme melitien (305/306)». AncSoc 20 ( 1989), s. 267-280. l!i s. unseren weiter oben vermeldeten Beitrag «The Melitian 'Church of the Martyrs'». 16 «Rejoicing then in these successes and in the common peacc (das aus der hellenistischen Zeit so wohl bekannte xmviJ ElQi)VT}!) and harmony andin the cutting oll of all heresy,...» (englischeÜbersetzungin Tanner.S. 19).

IX Das Konzil von Nicaea (325) zur Wiederaufnahme der Melitianer

361

xa-ccxYCXQ 'tÖVClXQL~tj A6yov OUÖEµtäsouyyvwµ11c;a;ws ~V - µtvEI.Vtv 'tfi tmrcoü 1t6Ä.EL xai µ11ötµ(av t!;ouoiav EXELV JlrJ'tEJtQOXELQitEo8m µiJ-cEXELQOßEtElVµi)tt tv XWQV -co'fiXA.lJQOU xui. ÖÄ; 1t► glaubt hinweisen zu müssen, die seiner Ansicht nach « se rencontrent indistinctement» ); C. Vogel, «Chirotonie et chirothesie. lmportance et relativite du geste de l 'imposition des mains dans la collation des ordres», /renikori 45 (1972), S. 7-21 und 207-238, bes. S. 211212; M. Metzger, Les Constitutions apostoliques, Tome II. Livres III-V/ (Sources Chretiennes 329), Paris 1986,S. 77-78. S. auch F. Merkel, s.v. «Handauflegung» II, in Tl,eofogisclreRealenzyklopädie14 (1985), Sp. 422-428, bes. 422-423; P.F. Bradshaw, s.v. «Ordination» IV. 1, in Theologische Realenzyklopädie, 25 (1995), Sp. 343-345.

IX 365

Das Konzil von Nicaea (325) zur Wiederaufnahmeder Melitianer

'tovri0tvtE~ betreffe, d.h. die « durch Melitios (Eingesetzten

30

und) Geweihten», mit anderen Worten den Klerus, wie Martin hier zurecht bemerkt. Auf Grund der Befugnisse, die im Weiteren zur Sprache kommen, konnten eigentlich nur Bischöfe gemeint sein 32. XELQO'tOVEtvkann an dieser Stelle nichts anderes bedeuten als 'weihen'. Allein aus diesem Wortgebrauch müßte man logischerweise ableiten, daß die 'mystischere' cheiroto11ia aus demselben Dokument vom Konzil auch als eine Weihe (in diesem Fatl also eine Neuweihe) aufgefaßt wurde. Es wäre allzu inkonsequent gewesen, hätte man in so kurzem Abstand voneinander zweimal denselben Terminus mit verschiedener Bedeutung verwandt. Die Schlußfolgerung daraus hat Martin leider nicht gezogen. Ihre Übersetzung dieser Passage 33 ( « Ceux qui ont etc ctablis par [Melitios]. aprcs avoir eteaffermis par une imposition des mains plus spirituelle / mystique» ), ist deshalb willkürlich und scheint eher im Dienste ihrer eigenen Interpretation zu stehen als umgekehrt. Auch die Übersetzung von µuot1.xo>tEQaist einigermaßen irreführend (welche Bedeutung könnte sie im übrigen in dem gegebenen Kontext haben?), da dem griechischen µuoniQLOVoft das Lateinische sacramentum (Sakrament) entspricht, was von der Bedeutung her hier ausgezeichnet paßt 34 . Mir sind in ihrer Übersetzung noch einige andere Ungenauigkeiten aufgefallen: « (ils) ont etc admis a la communion a ces conditions, apres quoi ils conservent la dignite et la fonction» . Zunächst besteht kein Grund, dem Aorist KOLVO>vri6f)vm, abhängig von föo1;ev(!)·u einen konkreten Tempuswert beizumessen. Die Übersetzung muß daher lauten: « (il a ete dccidc qu') ils sont (seront) admis ala communion». Die (hypothetische) Übersetzung « il a ete decide qu'ils ont ete admis» ergäbe gar keinen Sinn. An anderer Stelle hat Martin diesen Satz übrigens richtig übersetzt 36 • Weiterhin steht bei. 'tOUtOL~ nicht in Beziehung zu dem Vorhergehenden (cheirotonia), 31

30

Das toü~ öt iin' airtoü xata0ta8tvta~ ein paar Zeilen weiter unten verweist natürlich auf das tV i,n' airtoü XELQOtOVT)Otvtwv aus dem Übergangstext. Die beiden Termini dürfen in diesem Kontext praktisch als Synonyme betrachtet werden (wobei jeweils ein anderer Aspekt der Einsetzung betont werden soll: Einsetzung [eher im Sinne der Gesamtheit von Ernennung und Weihe] und Weihe), wie übrigens in Kanon 4 in Zusammenhang mit den Bischofsweihen (xa0icnao8m und XELQOtoviav1tOlEl· oOm). Cf. auch Hauben, «Reordination», S. 205 und Anm. 19. .ll «Readmission», S. 284: « La Synodale, ... , ne se preoccupe que du cas des clercs melitiens» . 32 s. auch weiter unten. 33 «Readmission», S. 281 ~ Atha11ase,S. 254. Hauben, «Reordination», S. 205. Von Martin hier offensichtlich übersehen.

Martin, «Athanaseet les Melitiens»,S. 34.

IX 366

sondern zu dem Folgenden, wo es um die Beibehaltung des (Bischofs-) ranges einerseits, das Zurückgedrängtwerden in eine zweitrangige Position andererseits geht. Das Einverständnis mit diesen beiden Modalitäten. nicht die cheirotonia 31, ist die (unmittelbare) Bedingung für ein Leben in communio (d.h. in voller kirchlicher Gemeinschaft) mit den katholischen Amtskollegen. Wer sich an diese Spielregeln nicht halten will, kann also nicht auf die communio mit den Katholiken rechnen, selbst wenn er die neue cheirotonia erhalten hat. Die cheirotonia ihrerseits stellt die (unmittelbare) Bedingung für den Verbleib im Klerus dar. d.h. für die Aufnahme in den katholischen Klerus 38. Wer sie nicht empfängt, kann diesem Klerus nicht angehören; in diesem Falle stellt sich das Problem der communio überhaupt nicht. Deshalb kann die cheirotonia zwar als eine absolute Vorbedingung - eine 'conditio sine qua non' - für die communio gehen. diese ihrerseits jedoch in der Praxis erst dann eintreten. wenn andere unmittelbare Bedingungen erfüllt sind. Die dem tcp'q>tE folgende Konstruktion expliziert (dargelegt mit µtv und öt) die durch bei toütOL~ angekündigten Bedingungen, wobei tcp'q>n keinen Tempuswert hat (also schwerlich durch «apres quoi» übersetzt werden kann). Die Übersetzungen in den Ausgaben von Tanner 39 und Duval 40 scheinen mir in diesem Punkt geglückter. Durch eine sakramentalere Weihe konfirmiert sollen die Melitiancr also von den katholischen Bischöfen zu der communio zugelassen werden unter der Bedingung, daß sie sich mit ihrer untergeordneten Stellung zufrieden geben. Das ist gemeint. Soweit zur cheirotonia im Synodalbrief. Nun kommt in diesem Brief und zwar im Zusammenhang mit Melitios selbst das Verb XEt.Q00nEtv vor, eine Handlung, die ihm in der Folge untersagt sein soll. Es ist äußerst ver37

Wie Martin fälschlicherweise annimmt: «Readmission», S. 285 (« cette chirotonie a pour finde leur rendre d' abord la communion») und 286 ( « cette « chirotonie plus spirituelle» est la seule condition imposee A la readmission des Melitiens dans l'Eglise»). 38 Eine entsprechende Konstruktion (allerdings mit einem anderen Inhalt) finden wir im 19. Kanondie Paulianisten betreffend: ava~amu:J8tvte~XELQOtOVEi.a9 xkiJQ~>.Hier spielt nicht allein der Wortsinn eine Rolle, sondern auch das Partizip Präsens. Weiter unten im Text ist die Rede von X,ElQOtovri8tvtE~. Dem Kontext zufolge geht es in diesem Fall zweifellos um 'Geweihte', also Kleriker, was wiederum in Übereinstimmung ist mit der Bedeutung von cheirotonia in den anderen Konzilsdokumentcn. Logisch wäre nun, daß mit dem ersten Terminus (XELQ0OEtouµtvou~) etwas anderes gemeint ist und Personen bezeichnet werden, die nur eine Handauflegung bekommen; jedoch hat uns der Synodalbrief gelehrt, daß dies nicht unbedingt so sein muß: der Kontext ließ uns dort vermuten, daß mit X,ElQOOnEtvin der Tat (auch) Weihen gemeint waren. Mit anderen Worten: im Falle der Novatianer sind bei 'XElQOOEtou~tEvou~ ' beide Wortbedeutungen möglich: entweder mußten ihre Kleriker neu geweiht werden bei ihrem Überwechseln in die katholische Kirche (was bedeuten würde, daß man die novatianischen Weihen überhaupt nicht anerkannte; wir finden auch keinen Komparativ wie bei den Melitianern) oder aber die Novatianer empfingen eine Handauflegung als Zeichen der Versöhnung, wie Martin sie zu Unrecht bei den Melitianern annimmt (was hieße, daß ihre Weihen vom Konzil durchaus als gültig anerkannt wurden). Ein solches Ritual wäre keineswegs undenkbar: es wurde auch in der römischen Kirche angewandt 46 • Bedauerlicherweise ist in dieser Frage kein sicherer Schluß möglich, ansonsten hätten auch wir eine Art Rangordnung aufstellen können von Novatianern (gültige Weihe und Handautlegung ohne Reordination oder ungültige Weihe und 'vollständige' Reordination). Melitianem ('halbgültige' Weihe und 'sakramentalere' Reordination) und Paulianisten (ungültige Weihe und 'vollständige' Reordination) und wüßten, wie groß man jeweils den Abstand zwischen den einzelnen Dissi46

Cf. z.B. C. Andresen- A.M. Ritter, Geschichte des Christentums. III. Altertum. Stuttgart 1993, S. 46 (Handauflegung bei der Reintegrierung von Schismatikern).

IX Das Konzil von Nicaea (325) zur Wiederaufnahme der Melitianer

369

dentengruppen und der Mutterkirche einschätzte 47 • Jedoch dürfen wir die Wertigkeit des Partizips (XELQ08E'totJµtvotJ~) nicht vergessen. Auch hier kann ich der Interpretation von Martin 48 nicht folgen. Sie übersetzt den weiter oben zitierten Passus folgendermaßen: « le ... synode a decide que s'ils sont ordonnes, ils (oder: ceux qui sonl ordonnes) ... restent ainsi dans le clerge» 49 • Sie versteht XELQ00EtEi:v demnach als 'ordonner' und 'die Geweihten' sind die bereits vorher in der novatianischen Kirche Geweihten, die jetzt zur katholischen Kirche übergehen wollen. Laut Martin ist also bei diesem Überwechseln keinerlei Rede von einer Handauflegung oder einer (neuen) Weihe, wie ansonsten allgemein (und auch weiter oben) angenommen wird. Daraus müßte man folgern, dal\ das Konzil die novatianischen Weihen nicht nur vollkommen anerkannt, sondern darüber hinaus nicht einmal einen Handauflegungsritus mit Vcrsöhnungscharaktcr für notwendig erachtet hätte. Die einzige Forderung lüitte dann in einer schriftlichen Erklärung vorab bestanden, in der die Novatianer die katholische Lehre im Zusammenhang mit den lapsi und den Personen, die eine zweite Ehe eingegangen waren, anerkannten 50 . Unter diesen Umständen müßte man a fortiori den Schluß ziehen. daß auch die Weihen der ebenfalls rechtgläubigen Melitianer - die nicht einmal eine schriftliche Erklärung in Zusammenhang mit Kirchendisziplinfragcn ablegen mußten - anerkannt wurden und die cheimtonia, der sie sich zu unterziehen hatten, auf keinen Fall eine Rcordination beinhaltete. Wir haben den Eindruck, daß Martin dem Partizip Präsens (nicht etwa Perfekt oder Aorist) einen falschen Tempuswert zuweist 51• Es ist nämlich nicht die Rede von (novatianischen) 'Geweihten' (Klerikern) (so wie im Falle der XELQOtovriOtv'tE~ weiter unten), die 'im Klerus bleiben dürfen' (mit anderen Worten in den katholischen Klerus aufgenommen werden), sondern von Kleriker (was nicht explizit gesagt wird, aber aus dem Kontext [µtvtiv] hervorgeht), die in der novatianischen Kirche selbstverständlich bereits die Weihe empfangen hatten und die beim Übergang (das Präsens drückt die Gleichzeitigkeit und Wiederholung aus) eine Handauflegung erhalten und sogar vielleicht (s.o.) (neu) geweiht werden, um Mitglieder des Klerus bleiben zu können (mit anderen Worten in den katholischen Klerus Einige Gedankenhierzubei Martin,«Reordination ►>, S. 284-285. «Readmission»,passim;Athanase, S. 256-259. Die von ihr vertreteneInterpretationwurdebereitszurückgewiesenin Hefelc-Leclcrcq,S. 583. 49 Martin,«Readmission>>, S. 283; Atha11ase,S. 257. 47

411

50

s. Martin,«Readmission»,S. 283-288, passim. Ihre diesbezüglicheArgumentationin «Rcadmission»,S. 283, Anm. 6 verstehe ich auch nicht recht:sie scheintgenaugegen ihre Interpretationzu sprechen. 51

IX 370

aufgenommen werden zu können). Unseres Erachtens war bei der (Wieder)aufnahme der novatianischen Geistlichen also sehr wohl eine rituelle Handlung erforderlich 12 . Wir wissen nur nicht genau, welche Bedeutung ihr zukam. Aus dem bisher Gesagten ergibt sich, daß der Sprachgebrauch des Konzils von Nicaea im Hinblick auf die von uns untersuchten Tennini in hohem Maße, vielleicht sogar vollständig stimmig ist. Wir glaubten, in der Linie des Kommentars in der Duval-Ausgabe einerseits feststellen zu können, daß mit cheirotonia immer eine echte Weihe gemeint ist (die in bestimmten Fällen auf eine Neuweihe hinausläuft). Bei cheirothesia jedoch befinden wir uns eher in einer Grauzone, obwohl ich vermute, daß auch hier der Sprachgebrauch konsequent ist. Möglicherweise besaß dieser Terminus für die Konzilsväter die eher allgemeine Bedeutung von Handauflegung, wobei eine Weihe nicht unbedingt ausgeschlossen werden muß. Darin liegt aber für uns Heutige gerade das Problematische. Denn wir können nicht wissen, wie weit in jedem einzelnen Fall das XEtQ00Eu.iv reichte und ob in den Fällen, in denen XEtQOOEn:ivfast sicher eine Weihe beinhaltet, wie in dem Brief an die Ägypter, auch sozusagen 'gewöhnlichere' Handauflegungen mitgemeint waren. Falls man auf diese Frage eine bejahende Antwort geben könnte, wäre jeder Zweifel im Hinblick auf die genaue Sprachregelung des Konzils ausgeräumt.

* *

*

Betrachten wir nun den Melitianerbeschluß in seiner Gesamtheit. Er gliedert sich in ein Beginn- (A), Mittel- (B) und Endstück (C). Es fällt auf, daß positive und negative Bestimmungen jeweils wie Gegenpole gegenübergestellt werden, offenbar in der Absicht, die einzelnen Beschlüsse stärker zu profilieren. Inwieweit dieses Mittel bewußt verwandt wurde, bleibe dahingestellt. Immerhin können wir aus dem viel fach antithetischen Aufbau der Struktur viel über die Absichten des Konzils lernen. Sowohl in A wie in C geht es um die Position des Melitios. Allein dadurch wird mehr als deutlich, daß er es ist, um dessen Person sich alles ~2

In ihrer Argumentation zugunsten ihrer Interpretation von XElQOOnouJttvou~ als 'Klerus' weist Martin darauf hin, daß der die Novatianer betreffende Kanon sich an diese Gruppe in ihrer Gesamtheit richtete, während der Mclitianerbeschluß nur den Klerus betraf. Dies ist streng genommen richtig, doch ist es eigentlich selbstverständlich, daß man auch in dem die Novatianer betreffenden Kanon zuerst an den Klerus dachte und sozusagen spontan überging von dem Begriff 'Gruppe' zu dem Begriff 'Klerus'. Da die Novatianer keine wirklichen Ketzer waren, konnte im übrigen die Rückkehr ihrer Gemeinschaften in die katholische Kirche vollständig durch ihren Klerus geregelt werden.

IX Das Konzil von Nicaea (325) zur Wiederaufnahme der Melitianer

371

dreht, den man scheinbar schonen will, indem man ihm den Bischofstitel beläßt, den man allerdings ansonsten vollkommen mundtot macht. Der Gesamttenor in Teil A ist positiv (er darf in Lykopolis residieren und seinen Titel behalten, obwohl er dies streng genommen nicht verdient), der in Teil C jedoch negativ, wobei der Inhalt von C im Lichte der Konzessionen zu sehen ist, die man gegenüber den anderen melitianischen Bischöfen im Mittelstück B einräumt. In den Teilen A und C stehen sich jeweils positive und negative Bestimmungen gegenüber. Zur Verdeutlichung folgt hier eine Darstellung der einzelnen Abschnitte von A und C:

Teil A: Das Konzil hat beschlossen, daß Melitios 1)

2)

3)

4)

JttvELVtv tfi tautou m>AEL µ11ÖEJ1iav t~ouoiav EXElV - µ'ltE 1tQOXElQLtEo0m - µiJtE XElQOOEtEiV

- µ'ltE tv xo>mi - µ'ltE tv n:6AElEtEQ~l cpai.vt:oOmtavtT)c;tijc; 1tQoq:>ClOEW~ EVEXtatov oi (womit in unserem Kontext [les P. Nepheros] sicher auch Klosterangehorige gemeint sind)". Il est d'ailleurs remarquable que l'officier qui présenta ses excuses et qui n'était pas chrétien (1. 26-28), parle de wùç ètoEÀq>ouç,comme s'il s'agissait d'un terme technique. 68 Ceci peut être déduit de la formulation à la 1. 4. 69 Voir l'interprétation convaincante de BELL, Jews and Christians, p. 63, 1. 4, comm. 70 Voir les remarques judicieuses de KRAMER-SHELTON, Nepheros, p. 10. 71 E. WIPSZYCKA, Les clercs dans les communautés monastiques d'Egypte, in Journal of Juristic Papyrology, 26 (1996), p. 135-166, spéc. 142. 66

XII CATHOLIQUES ET MÉLITIENS À ALEXANDRIE

917

concerne P. Lond. 1914, nous ne savons pas lesquelles parmi les personnes mentionnées dans la partie de la lettre contenant les salutations, appartiennent au milieu monastique, lesquelles sont des membres du groupe mélitien mais vivent 'dans le monde'; nous ne savons donc pas si le diacre Théon et le lecteur Paul sont des moines ou non". A mon avis, cette ambiguïté vaut pour l'ensemble du document: les adelphoi, qui, dans une large mesure dominent la scène mélitienne à Alexandrie et auxquels semble avoir appartenu notre Kallistos, n'y échappent pas complètement. 72 La venue de tous ces 'frères' à Alexandrie, peut, elle aussi, être expliquée à la lumière du Synode de Tyr, malgré que le papyrus donne l'impression que l'hébergement de moines mélitiens y était déjà pratique courante. On imagine qu'ils voulaient prêter une assistance matérielle, morale ou spirituelle à ceux qui allaient partir. Certains avaient peut-être l'intention d'accompagner en personne tel ou tel évêque, ou même de participer au synode en leur propre nom. 73 Les 'frères' mélitiens s'avéraient particulièrement menaçants pour le parti catholique, qui, lui, autant que nous sachions, ne pouvait pas faire appel à des groupes d'ascètes dans la capitale. En 335, celle-ci n'abritait pas encore des monastères catholiques et, d'autre part, nous n'apprenons rien à propos de sympathisants venus de l'extérieur à la rescousse de leur évêque, comme ce serait le cas trois ans plus tard, en juillet-août 338, quand Saint Antoine vint visiter Athanase pendant deux jours afin de lui assurer l'allégeance de ses moines, tout en ralliant la population citadine autour de son évêque. 74 Mais en 335, celui-ci n'avait rien à 'préparer' ou à organiser, puisqu'il ne s'était pas encore décidé si, oui ou non, il participerait au synode. Entretemps, les 'frères', en principe moins vulnérables et saisissables que les clercs, étaient omniprésents, disposaient de sympathisants au sein de l'armée et pouvaient retomber sur tout un réseau qui les supportait, les cachait si nécessaire et par lequel les messages pouvaient être conviés. En outre, leur courage, leur enthousiasme, voire leur fanatisme, risquait d'influencer les hésitants, surtout à un moment où la position du chef catholique devenait de moins 72

Il faut d'ailleurs remarquer que durant la première partie du quatrième siècle, les moines n'étaient pas toujours faciles à distinguer des autres ascètes et chrétiens engagés: voir E. WIPSZYCKA, Quand a-t-on commencé à voir les moines comme un groupe à part?, in Journal of Juristic Papyrology, 27 (1997), p. 83-92. 73 Le P. London VI 1913 nous apprend qu'au Synode de Césarée (334) non seulement des évêques étaient invités, mais également "des prêtres et beaucoup d'autres" (l. 5). 74 Cf. C. HAAs,Alexandria in Late Antiquity. Topography and Social Conflict, Baltimore-London, 1997, p. 185. Pour la chronologie, voir DIMAIO-ARNOLD, Murder, p. 201203.

XII 918 en moins sûre. Bref, tandis qu 'Athanase se voyait de moins en moins soutenu par des autorités qui commençaient à perdre patience, les Mélitiens lui donnaient le sentiment de ne plus être maître dans sa propre ville. Cela aussi explique la violence de ses réactions. Le plus important des moines mélitiens était sans aucun doute le prêtre Paiêous du monastère d'Hathor, déjà mentionné. 75 Il semble avoir été en contact avec d'autres établissements monastiques mélitiens 76 et ses émissaires le tenaient au courant de tout ce qui se passait dans la capitale. Florissant toujours vingt ans plus tard sous Nepherôs, Hathor fonctionnait comme un centre de communications et de 'dispatching' au service de l'église dissidente. Mais en premier lieu, c'était évidemment un centre de spiritualité et d'ascèse, dont l'influence sur les habitants de la région est difficile à évaluer. Nous savons à quel point les Mélitiens tenaient en estime leurs ascètes, tout comme ils avaient vénéré leurs martyrs et confesseurs. Pensons à des 'saints' comme Nepherôs ou encore à l'anachorète Paphnoutios (selon nous le même que l'envoyé de 327/328), dont les archives, qui datent du milieu du 4e siècle environ, sont aujourd'hui reconnues par plusieurs savants comme mélitiennes. 77 Notre Paiêous aussi était considéré comme un saint homme. Les gens lui demandaient de l'aide et se fiaient à ses prières. 78 Son autorité spirituelle, son influence sur les moines qui parcouraient les rues d 'Alexandrie ainsi que le contrôle qu'il exerçait sur le 'réseau mélitien', faisaient de lui un des protagonistes de son église, malgré qu'il se trouvât loin de la scène où on décida de son avenir. L'année précédente, à la suite d'une invitation impériale, le même Paiêous avait fait ses préparatifs pour assister au Synode de Césarée. 79 A cette occasion, le caractère éminent de sa position avait été reconnu de façon officielle. Cette fois-ci, par contre, il n'y a rien qui puisse suggérer sa participation: la lettre de Kallistos prouve qu'il n'était pas à Alexandrie et la documentation concernant le synode reste muette à son 75

Voir supra, n. 5. Voir GoEHRING, Monastic Organization, p. 390-391. 77 Voir, p.ex., HAUBEN, Church of the Martyrs, p. 330, n. 8; Le Papyrus London VI, n. 7-13 et 17; GOEHRING, Monastic Diversity, p. 68. Cf. supra, n. 59. On trouvera une excellente discussion de ces archives dans D. BRAKKE, Athanasius and the Politics of Ascetism, Oxford, 1995, p. 210-212 et 252-253, mais l'auteur ne se doute aucunement de leur possible caractère mélitien. Par contre, il a pleinement raison où il conclut qu'entre sa consécration (328) et son premier exil (335) (et contrairement aux périodes ultérieures de sa vie), Athanase "had few direct dealings with ascetic Christians" (p. 267). A cette époque, les ascètes jouaient déjà un rôle considérable dans l'Eglise mélitienne. 78 P. ex. P. London VI 1917. 79 P. London VI 1913. 76

XII CATHOLIQUESET MÉLITIENSÀ ALEXANDRIE

919

égard. Son influence morale, on imagine, n'en fut pas moins sensible, mais elle s'exerçait à l'arrière-plan. L'Eglise mélitienne, telle qu'elle se présente à Alexandrie à la veille du Synode de Tyr, répond parfaitement à l'image globale que les savants s'en sont formée au cours des dernières décennies. Relevons quelques caractéristiques remarquables. Contrairement à ce qui se passait chez les catholiques, où le pouvoir était fermement concentré entre les mains de l'évêque d'Alexandrie, dont certains modernes ont même cru à tort qu'on le surnommait couramment 'pharaon' pour faire allusion à son pouvoir quasi-monarchique, 80 le 'leadership' dans l'Eglise mélitienne était devenu, surtout après la mort du fondateur, moins centralisé, moins prononcé aussi. Déconnecté du siège de Saint Marc, il semble avoir été en principe réservé au meilleur, au plus digne, au plus compétent, pour ne pas dire au plus 'charismatique' des évêques. Le siège d'Alexandrie, par contre, bien que porteur d'une grande valeur symbolique, n'occupait plus une place particulière dans le système mélitien. Ainsi, l' arkhaph 81 Jean de Memphis restait le supérieur du papas (1. 25) Hêraïskos de la métropole. Mais le départ, d'ailleurs sans retour, de Jean pour la Syrie avant même le début des délibérations à Alexandrie, ne devait pas rester sans conséquences. Tout naturellement, il offrit à certains évêques l'occasion de se profiler comme dirigeants. De plus, les tracasseries athanasiennes dont ils avaient été les victimes, leur procuraient une auréole de confesseurs. De toute façon, la disparition de Jean a dû hâter le processus de décomposition des structures hiérarchiques. Tout porte à croire qu'après lui, les Mélitiens n'ont plus nommé d'évêque suprême. Il se peut que, pour un certain temps, ils aient considéré le remplaçant (arien) d' Athanase comme le chef légal d'une Eglise à leurs yeux rétablie, mais en réalité nous n'en savons rien. En tout cas, petit à petit leur hiérarchie a disparu. C'est dans les monastères que le mélitianisme survivra. Pendant des siècles, des groupuscules d'ascètes mélitiens connaîtront une existence 80

Voir H. HAUBEN,The Alexandrian Patriarch as Pharaoh. From Biblical Metaphor to Scholarly Topos, in Egyptian Religion. The Last Thousand Years. Studies Dedicated to the Memory of Jan Quaegebeur. Part Il (edd. W. CLARYSSE-A.SCHOORS-H.WILLEMS) (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta, 85), Leuven, 1998, p. 1341-1352 (où, à la n. 2, il faut ajouter aux références: MARTIN,Athanase, p. 289). 81 Contrairement à ce que croit MARTIN(Athanase, p. 314 n. 19) et malgré les doutes de L.W. BARNARD (Athanasius and the Meletian Schism, in Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, 59, 1973, p. 181-189, spéc. 185), le sens du surnom de Jean ('père suprème') me semble assez transparent: voir W. TELFER,Meletius of Lycopolis and Episcopal Succession in Egypt, in Harvard Theological Review, 48 (1955), p. 227-237, spéc. 236.

XII 920 tranquille, plus ou moins cachée, à côté et parfois parmi d'autres moines. 82 Au lieu d'évoluer vers une église monastique à l'irlandaise, le mouvement s'est doucement ratatiné en tant que curiosité religieuse longtemps dépassée, avant d'être éliminé vers le milieu du huitième siècle. 83 Le profond impact qu'avait le monachisme sur les Mélitiens saute aux yeux dès les premières lignes de la lettre de Kallistos. Ce qui est particulièrement saillant, c'est que, chez eux, il avait trouvé si tôt son plein essor, constituant déjà à cette époque l'épine dorsale de leur église. Celle-ci manifestait encore une vitalité éclatante, recevant ses impulsions de groupes d'ascètes non moins enthousiastes. Autorité diffuse et décentralisée, omniprésence de moines bien organisés. Rien de tout cela chez les catholiques. Eux n'ont qu'un seul chef et leurs moines ne se manifestent encore guère. Les clercs dont nous entendons parler - les malheureux émissaires d 'Athanase - ne sont que leur 'master' s voice'. Malgré ou, plutôt, à cause de leur organisation monolithique, les catholiques sont en quelque sorte plus vulnérables: il suffit d'ébranler la position d' Athanase pour mettre en danger les structures ecclésiastiques. Mais la décentralisation des Mélitiens présente également ses propres inconvénients: menacés par les Athanasiens, ils se sentent provisoirement unis contre l'ennemi commun, solidaires les uns des autres, mais bientôt commencera la désintégration. Sans stratégie commune, la majorité sera, à terme, récupérée par la grande Eglise. Ne soyons pas trop enthousiastes non plus quant au succès précoce des monastères. L 'histoire nous apprend que de tels mouvements, par définition 'extrémistes', exigent toujours un contrôle suivi de la part de la hiérarchie. Faute de quoi, ils risquent de dévier ou même de supplanter l'église dont ils sont issus. Les mouvements ascétiques au sein de l'Eglise novatienne d'Asie Mineure en sont un bon exemple. 84 C'est précisément ce qui est arrivé aux Mélitiens: en quelque sorte, les moines y ont 'mangé' l'église. Mais au printemps de 335, les Mélitiens avaient, malgré les apparences, les meilleurs atouts. En l'absence de leur chef et gémissant sous la répression athanasienne, ils pouvaient compter sur toute une gamme 82

Voir à ce propos les considérations intéressantes de GOEHRING, Monastic Diversity, p. 65-73. 83 Pour la fin tragique des derniers Mélitiens, voir les références dans HAUBEN, Church of the Martyrs, p. 329-330. 84 Voir le tableau suggestif qu'en brosse St. MITCHELL, Anatolia. Land, Men and Gods in Asia Minor. Volume II. The Rise of the Church, Oxford, 1993, p. 96-108,passim.

XII CATHOLIQUES ET MÉLITIENS À ALEXANDRIE

921

de fidèles, laïcs, moines, diacres, prêtres, évêques, qui, par leur ardeur et loyauté, furent capables de "REÇISTER". 85 Les épreuves subies ne faisaient que renforcer leur détermination à chasser Athanase, surtout dès qu'ils se rendaient compte à quel point son crédit avait diminué en dehors des frontières égyptiennes et à quel degré il se sentait lui-même incertain et en danger. Ainsi, le découragement que reflète encore la lettre de Kallistos a dû céder bien vite pour faire place à un certain aplomb. On savait que beaucoup dépendrait de l'attitude de l'empereur et de son entourage, ainsi que de celle de l'épiscopat international. A ce niveau la situation était en train de bouger, grâce aux intrigues d'Eusèbe de Nicomédie et à l'influence d'évêques respectables comme Eusèbe de Césarée. Mais on pouvait toujours essayer d'influencer directement les dirigeants du synode ou les autres participants. Ici surtout les Mélitiens avaient pris de l'avance. Toute leur église était mobilisée et moralement préparée à la confrontation. Avant d'être emprisonnés, dispersés et chassés d'Alexandrie, ils avaient sans doute eu l'occasion, ne fût-ce que brièvement, de se consulter en vue du synode. En même temps, à Antioche, Jean de Memphis agissait sur les hautes autorités civiles et ecclésiastiques, tout en s'efforçant de contrôler les mouvements des collaborateurs de son rival alexandrin, qui, lui, avait trop longtemps compté sur la bienveillance de l'empereur et la fidélité des autorités locales. Entêté, puis indécis, Athanase refusait toujours de se rendre au synode, qu'il considérait comme illégal et qu'il croyait encore pouvoir torpiller. Son attitude eut pour effet que ses partisans n'étaient pas suffisamment prêts à affronter les violentes attaques que le synode lancerait contre lui. On ne s'étonne donc point que l'issue fut désastreuse. La lettre que nous avons étudiée montre à quel degré l'Eglise d'Egypte était déchirée. Ce climat de perpétuelle dissension, qui s'était déjà manifesté avant le Concile de Nicée, lors de la crise arienne et durant la première phase de la crise mélitienne, avait entraîné l'Eglise entière d'Orient dans des conflits locaux qui se jouaient en partie dans les rues de l'ancienne ville lumière. Ils ne pouvaient que nuire au prestige de la chrétienté d'Egypte et trouveraient leur apogée dramatique dans la crise chalcédonienne.

85

Inscription trouvée dans la Tour de Constance (Aigues-Mortes, France) et attribuée à Marie Durand, qui y fut incarcérée pendant 38 ans (1730-1768) à cause de sa fidélité au culte réformé. Le mot se reporte à plusieurs passages du Nouveau Testament.

XIII

HERAISCUS AS MELITIAN BISHOP OF HERACLEOPOLIS MAGNA AND THE ALEXANDRIAN SEE

1. HERAISCUS AND THE THEONAS QUESTION

Peter van Minnen has recently pointed out that the Heracleopolitan bishop Heraiscus mentioned in P.Ha"auer 482 {late fourth/early fifth century) as the original owner of a plot of land somewhere in the 320s or 330s must be none other than the key figure in the well known P.LondonVI 1914.3 This letter, "one of the most important documents ever published", as Van Minnen rightly claims, was written in Alexandria on the 23rd of May,33;, during a semi-official persecution of Melitians who were hanging around in the streets and suburbs. Pressurized by the ecclesiastical, military and judicial

W

ITH

HIS CHARACTERISTIC

SERENDIPITY·,

1

1

P. VANM1NNEN,"P. Harrauer 48 and the Problem of papasHeraiscus in P. Lond. vr 1914", 1ycht 16 (2001), pp. 103-105. 2

Edited with commentary by Franziska BEUTI.ER-KltANZL [in:} Wimer Papyri11/s Festgal,t Gtburtstagvon lhrmlZ1lnH41"1"111Ur, ed. B. PAIME,Wien 2001, pp. 147-152. Bishop Heraiscus is mentioned on 1.16.

zum 60. 3

On this text, see our recent studies (with bibliography), in need of some updating now: "Le Papyrus London VI (P. Jews) 1914 dans son contexte historique (mai 335)" [in:} Atti dtl XX/1 CongrtssoInttnl4%ionlllt di Papirologia, Firmu, 23-29 agosto1998, cdd. Isabella ANOORLINI,G. BASTIANINI, M. MANFREDIb Giovanna MENCi, Vol. I, Firenze 2001, pp. 6os-618; "Catholiqucs et Melitiens a Alcxandrie a la veille du Synode de Tyr (335)"[in:]

XIII 52

authorities they had a great deal to suffer from thugs and drunken soldiers. The incidents took place - as we can surmise - on the occasion of a general (albeit rather informal)4 meeting of Melitian dignitaries and monks convened in order to prepare the Synod of Tyre. At the moment the letter was written,papas Heraiscus 5 was still under arrest. Contrary to the established opinion, gradually made up during the last decades,6 the latter, instead of being the Melitian 'antipope' of Alexandria in Athanasius' early days, now appears as the local bishop of Heracleopolis Magna having just come to the capital in order to join the meeting. Although Van Minnen's identification cannot be proved beyond doubt, the coincidence is too striking to be dismissed. The author of the letter, a certain Callistus, was a devout Melitian (perhaps a priest or monk) connected with the monastery of Hathor, a locality belonging at least in 334 to the Upper Cynopolite nome, but situated so close to the border of the Heracleopolite nome that in other periods it was reckoned to the latter. 7 All this implies, according to Van CopticStudieson the Thresholdof a New Millennium.Proceedings of the Seventh International J. VANDER Congressof CopticStudies,Leiden,27 August- 2 September2000, edd. M. IMMERZEEL, VLIET b al. (= OrientaliaLovaniensiaAnalecta 133), Leuven 2004, pp. 905-921. That the Heraiscus of P Londonv1 1914 was without any doubt a bishop is proved by the context: see H. HAUBEN,"On the Melitians in P. London VI (P.Jews) 1914: The Problem of Papas of the Sixteenth InternationalCongressof Papyrology,New York, Heraiscus" (in:] Proceedings G. M. BROWNEb Ann E. HANSON(=Amer24-31July 1980, edd. L. KOENEN,R. S. BAGNALL, icanStudiesin Papyrology23), Chico (CA) 1981, pp. 447-456, esp. 450-453. 4

Informal, not only because there was apparently no organized assembly, but also because we notice some striking absences: HAUBEN,"Catholiques et Melitiens" (cit. n. 3), pp. 9 13-9 15· 5 On the title of papas (exclusively given to members of the clergy), see T. DERDAb Ewa W1PSZYCKA, "l!emploi des titres abha,apa et papasdans l'Egypte byzantine",Journal of Juristic Papyrology24 (1994), pp. 23-56, esp. 54-56. '' See e. g. HAUBEN,"On the Melitians" (cit. n. 3),passim;R. P .C. HANSON,The Search for the ChristianDoctrineof God.TheArian Controversy3I8-381, Edinburgh 1988, p. 253 ("perhaps the Melitian archbishop of Alexandria''); Annick MARTIN,Athanased'Alexandrieet /'Egli.red'Egypteau IV siecle(328-373), Rome 1996 (= Coll Ee.Fr.de Rome 216), pp. 359-361 (Heraiscus as Melitian bishop of the Military Camp near Alexandria; cf. the Index, p. 900 ["eveque melitien de Nikopolis (Alexandrie)"]); pp. 359-360 n. 72, p. 387 n. 189 (Heraiscus as Melitian bishop of Alexandria); HAUBEN,"Le Papyrus London VI" (cit. n. 3), pp. 609-610 n. 38 (with further references); "Catholiques et Melitiens" (cit. n. 3), p. 912. 7

See H.

HAUBEN,

''AureliosPageus, alias Apa Paieous, et le monastere melitien

XIII HERAISCUS AS MELITIAN BISHOP

53

Minnen, that "P.Lond v1 1914 should be read from a more parochial, local, perspective. The letter ... was written from the perspective of the correspondents, who would have been most interested in their own bishop". It is indeed conceivable that Callistus and/or the monastery were in one way or another under the jurisdiction of the Heracleopolitan bishop, 8 in whose vicissitudes they were of course particularly interested. We can even imagine that Heraiscus and Callistus, accompanied by their 'brothers' (1. 4), made the trip to Alexandria together before being harassed by the Athanasians. As Heraiscus does not appear in the Melitian Catalogue,9 he must have been appointed after 325/327(possibly even after Melitius' death, which occurred shortly after the handing over of that list), 10 presumably as successor of Petrus, 11 who in that case cannot be identified with the Melitian bishop Petrus (-Emis) referred to in 1.48 of the London papyrus. d'Hathor", Ancient Society32 (2002), pp. 337-352, esp. 341-343; cf. G. ScHMEIZ,Kirch/icbe Amtstriiger im spiitantikenA°gyptennach den Aussagender griechischenund koptischenPapyri und Ostraka, Miinchen - Leipzig 2002 (• Archiv for Papyrusforschung,Beiheft 13), pp. 6-7, 28. 8 Rather than (or jointly?) under that of Colluthus of Cynopolis superior? This Colluthus was the Melitian bishop there at the time of the Council of Nicaea, his Catholic counterpart being Adamantius: see St. TIMM,Das christlicb-koptische A°gyptenin arabischer Zeit, Wiesbaden 1991 (Beiheftezum TubingerAtlas des l-ordtrenOrients,Reihe B, Nr. 41), V, pp. 2133-2134; K. A. WoRP, "A Checklist of Bishops in Byzantine Egypt (A. D. 325 c. 750)", ZPE 100 (1994), pp. 283-318, esp. 301; c£ HAUBEN, "Catholiques et Melitiens" (cit.

n. 3), p. 911 n. 31. 9

On that Melitian bishops' list, see H. HAUBEN, "Le catalogue melitien reexamine", philologicaet historicaRaymondoBogaertet HermannoWinLooy [in:} OpesAtticae. Miscellanea oblata, edd. M. GEERARD,J.DESMETb R. VANDER PLAETSE, Brugge 1990 (= SacrisErudiri 31 [1989-1990)), pp. 155-167; cf. ID., ':Jean Arkhaph, eveque de Memphis, clans le catalogue melitien", [in:] Philohistor.Miscellaneain bonoremCaroliLagaseptuagenarii,edd. A. ScHooRS b P. VAN DEUN (= OrientaliaLovaniensiaAnalecta 60), Leuven 1994, pp. 23-33; "John Arkhaph and «the Bishop» (Athan.,Apol sec.71. 6.). A Reassessment", Ancient Society30 (2000), pp. 271-275. 10 On the chronology of the presentation of the catalogue and Melitius' subsequent death, see HAUBEN, "Catalogue" (cit. n. 9), pp. 155-156 n. 3; "Jean Arkhaph" (cit. n. 9), p. 24. 11 On the identification problems concerning that bishop, see HAUBEN, "Catholiques et Melitiens" (cit. n. 3), pp. 910-911 with n. 27-31. At present, it becomes conceivable again that Petrus of Heracleopolis Magna was reconciled with the Catholic community shortly after the Council of Nicaea (before being replaced between 325/327and 335by the Melit-

XIII 54

Heraiscus' vanishing as Melitian bishop of Alexandria has a number of consequences, most of which were already stated by Van Minnen in his short but impressive article. Moreover, it alters the general perspective in which the issue of Melitian leadership should be interpreted, reopening questions that were thought to have been definitely settled. Let us reconsider them with fresh eyes. The first target is the somewhat shadowy Theonas. According to Epiphanius in his chapter on the Melitian schism, 12 the Melitians promptly put one Theonas on the Alexandrian throne after Alexander's death (328). Fortunately the poor man died after three months, just in time to let Athanasius return smoothly from a mission at court. 13 The heresiologist explains that, contrary to the situation in other cities - apparently referring to the parallel Melitian clergy established all over Egypt 14 - there had never been two rival bishops in the capital. This statement dearly includes the situation immediately following Alexander's decease, 15 for although designated by the latter as his successor, Athanasius was not formally elected and consecrated until after Theonas had passed away.As told, the story implies that the Melitians did not see Theonas as the exclusive leader of their own group but rather as the true successor to the Catholic Alexander and sole bishop of the whole Christian community, Catholics as well as Melitians (who, since several months, were officially reconciled). Although Epiphanius is at times comparatively well-informed when speaking about Melitian issues, the whole matter arouses suspicion as no other author makes mention of it. Theonas is unknown, not even occurring in the Melitian Catalogue, which was drawn up only shortly before. ian Heraiscus) and that it was this Petrus who (as advocated by MARTIN, Athanase{cit. n. 6) pp. 316, 317,362 n. 75, 366 with n. 97, 379) was one of Athanasius' firm supporters at Tyre. Yet, in view of the name's frequency, caution is still recommended. 12

Epiphanius, Panarion68.7.2-68.7.4. Which is, strictly speaking, in contradiction with real chronology but quite understandable if each month concerned is reckoned fully:in fact Athanasius was installed Oune 8th, 328) less than two months after Alexander's death (April 17th, 328); cf. MARTIN, Athanase (cit. n. 6), p. 325. 14 See MARTIN, Athanase(cit. n. 6), p. 325 n. 10. 13

15

Which is also made clear by the use of yap in Epiphanius, Panarion68.7.3.

XIII HERAISCUS AS MELITIAN BISHOP

55

If he had really held the Alexandrian episcopal see, we would expect to find him there, if not among the Melitian bishops of Egypt, at least among the Melitian clergy of Alexandria. Besides three deacons the list mentions five presbyters, including one in the Camp, but none with that name. 16 We know that up to that time Alexandrian bishops were normally chosen not only by the presbyteral college of Alexandria but also from that board. 17 Another strong counter-indication could be Athanasius' silence at the Synod of Tyre (335)about his supposed - unexpected if not illegal - immediate predecessor: 18 in Tyre the validity of his own election in that notorious year 328was under strong debate. Still more confusing is the fact that when treating the Arian heresy in the next chapter of his PanarionEpiphanius tells us a similar story about a certain Achillas, an equally questionable figure. Because of Athanasius' absence, it is said, he was elected in a kind of emergency procedure. Like Theonas in the 'Melitian version', Achillas (died and?)19 was succeeded by Athanasius after only three months. In the ½.rian version', however, Theonas is intervening as well: he is said to have been established by the Melitians apparently about the same time as Achillas was elected, whereas his death remains unmentioned. 20 The implication is 16

We also have a list before Alexander's death. with the name Theonas, however, to the Catholic

of Alexandrian clergy going back to ea. 319, about nine years Among the 36 presbyters and 44 deacons there are two deacons one in the city, the other in the Mareotis region. They belong, clergy: see H.-G. OPITZ,Athanasiw ~rke III, 1.1. Urkundenzur GeJChichte desarianischmStreitesJI8-328, Berlin - Leipzig 1934, 4b, 21 (pp. 10-n). In addition, six Arian presbyters and six deacons are attested, none of them with the said name: ibid., 4b, 6 (p. 7). 17 See MARTIN,Athanase(cit. n. 6), pp. 328-329, with an orderly table on p. 339. As a deacon Athanasius was soon to become an exception to the (informal and not always applied: cf. HANSON,Search[cit. n. 6}, p. 249) rule. 18 Another possible explanation is suggested by MARTIN,Athanase (cit. n. 6), p. 331

n.36. 19

His death is not recorded but the implication seems obvious (cf. n. 21). Since according to Epiphanius' story Achillas' election had been fully legal, he could only have been replaced after resignation or decease (the latter being the most 'normal' and self-evident explanation). 20 Epiphanius, Panarion69.n.4-69.n.6. Both versions, the 'Melitian' and the ~rian', are conveniently juxtaposed by MARTIN,'~thanase" (cit. n. 6), p. 324. See also HANSON,Search (cit. n. 6), pp. 247-248.

XII 56

clear: according to this 'fuller' account Theonas has to be regarded as a purely sectarian 'anti-bishop' in opposition to the apparently regularly (albeit not in accordance with Alexander's will) appointed Achillas.21 Up to now the documentarily evidenced existence of a Melitian antibishop in Alexandria by the time of the Synod of Tyre (335)could support the historicity of Epiphanius' Theonas only seven years before (328), whereas the story of Achillas was easily dismissed as a kin~ of doublet. 22 But in view of Heraiscus' disappearance from the Alexandrian scene, there is no longer any particular reason to maintain the historical reality of his alleged predecessor against the objections put forward above. So for lack of additional data we may safely assume that the (Melitian) 'archbishop'23 Theonas, like his counterpart Achillas (obviously orthodox albeit 'second-choice' in the eyes of the Catholics), belongs to fiction. 24 In all probability the characters of the two (competing) excellencies were inspired by their earlier historical namesakes on the Alexandrian episcopal throne. 25 In some respects the models were rather obscure per21

It is a mistake to see in this (probably fictional) Achillas an Arian creature, as I once did C'On the Melitians" (cit. n. 3], p. 454) and others before me (thus H. M. GwATKIN, Studiesof Arianism, Cambridge 1900 2, p. 70 n. 2;J. FAIVRE, art. "Alexandrie" {in:} Dictionnaire d'Histoirt et dt Glogn,phieecdisiastiques,II, Paris 1914, col. 289-369, esp. 307; B. J. Kmo, A Historyof the ChurchtoAD 461, Oxford 1922, II, p. 51), although his character seems inspired by his allegedly pro-Arian predecessor (c£ infra).A correct rendering of Epiphanius' ~rian version' is provided by R. GRYSON, "Les elections episcopales en Orient au IV siecle", Revued'Hist.Beel 74 (1979), pp. 301-345, esp. 322: "D'apres Epiphane, ... on choisit uncertain Achillas. De leur cote, les meleciens profiterent de ce que le siege etait vacant pour tenter de s'en emparer, et ils opposerent a Achillas un nomme Theonas. Les deux eveques rivaux moururent peu de temps apres [see suprawith n. 19], et c'est ainsi que le siege revint a Athanase." 22

See HAUBEN, "On the Melitians" (cit. n. 3), p. 449 n. 15;pp. 453-454 (in particular n. 19 and 30). 23 This anachronistic terminology (c£ HAUBEN, "Jean Ark.haph" [cit. n. 9], pp. 27-28; c£ "John Arkhaph" [cit. n. 9},passim)is used here and elsewhere in this article merely for the sake of convenience. 24 To this extent, see already F. H. KErn.ER, "Der melitianische Streit in Aegypten", Zeitsebriftfordie NeutestammtlieheWissenschaft 35 (1936),pp. 155-193,esp. 171n. 45 (still one of the most fundamental studies on the origins of the Melitian schism). 25 Theonas (181-300, between Maximus and Peter); Achillas 0ate 311 or 312 [possibly after an interregnum] - May(June 311or 313,between Peter and Alexander): C. W. GRIGGS,

XIII HERAISCUS AS MELITIAN BISHOP

57

sons too, and, in the case of Achillas, just as ephemeral (and to some extent even a little suspicious to the orthodox because of the latter's supposed sympathies for Arius). By considering Alexander as Peter's immediate diadochos,Epiphanius strikingly ignores the historical Achillas.26 So it is conceivable that in his confusion he transferred the latter to a later date, thus filling up the unusually long vacancy between Alexander and Athanasius. 27 Probably we will never know what exactly is underlying Epiphanius' strange reports. Apart from the heresiologist's characteristic propensity to make errors, they seem to reflect the fierce 'electoral struggle' that arose after the death of Alexander. Did they originate in Catholic circles, eager to 'reinterpret' the sharp opposition raised by Alexander's imposition of Athanasius' candidature? 28 Was it perhaps a way to excuse and cover up his possibly uncanonical election and consecration? For if the Catholics could make credible that not they, but the Melitians, by establishing their own candidate without the consent of the other party, had broken up the union with the Church, either transgressing the recent Nicene regulations - according to which the Melitians were not even entitled to put forward their own candidates without the consent of their Catholic colleagues29 - or violating a specific preliminary electoral agree-

EarlyEgyptianChristianityfrom its Originsto 451 C.E., Leiden 1990, p. 97, 119-120; MARTIN, AthanaJt (cit. n ..6), pp. 325-326with n. 12; p. 339.C£ Annik MARTIN,"Athanase et les Melitiens (325-335)"[in:] Po/itiqutet thiologiechezAthanased'Alexandrie. Actesdu Colloquede Chantilly, 23-25 septemhre1973,ed. Ch. KANNENGl~ER,Paris 1974, pp. 31-61, esp. 40-41 n. 24; '~ux origines de l'Alexandrie chretienne: topographic, liturgie, institutions" [in:] Origeniana octava.Origenand theAlexandrianTradition.Papersof the ,. Inttrnationa/OrigenConb al.(= BihliothecaEphemtridumTheologicarum gress,Pisa,27-31August2001, edd. L. PERRONE Lovaniensium164), vol. I, Leuven 2003, pp. 105-120, esp. 115and 117. 26 Panarion68.3.5. 27

Obviously because of this confusion J. A. F1SCHER C'Die Synode zu Alexandrien im Jahr 306", ArchivumHistoriaeConciliorum19 (1987], pp. 61-70, esp. 67 n. 40 [but see p. 691) mistakenly considers Epiphanius' Melitian Theonas as an opponent to the historical Achillas, Alexander's predecessor. 28 Thus, although accepting the historicity of Theonas, MARTIN, AthanaJe(cit. n. 6), pp. 325-326 (cf. p. 331n. 36; p. 360 n. 72). 29 On these stipulations, see H. HAUBEN, "Das Konzil von Nicaea (315)zur Wiederaufnahme der Melitianer. Versuch einer Text- und Strukturanalyse" [in:] TIMAI J.Trianta-

XIII 58 30

ment, Athanasius' exclusive election by the Catholic clergy became fully legal and acceptable. Now that there is a serious chance that the stories are fake, the thesis of the canonical (or at least 'moral? irregularity of Athanasius' election becomes more believable. 31 Be that as it may, it appears that there is no longer any convincing proof for the existence of a Melitian 'anti-pope' in Alexandria, no more than there is any indication that a Melitian ever succeeded in conquering the throne of Saint Mark as leader of the whole Christian community. A fortiori, we no longer have any ground for assuming that such a putative Melitian bishop of Alexandria (in contrast with the 'patriarch' of the Catholics) would have played, in fact or on principle (i.e. according to Melitian ecclesiology), a second-class role within the (Melitian) hierarchy. In this respect we will have to reconsider our view of Melitian ecclesiological doctrine:u On the other hand, we are faced with the disconcerting fact that the significant and influential Melitian colony in the capital, equipped with a staff of presbyters and deacons - a limited one, but a staff nevertheless - continued to be deprived of a real and full leader, whereas many cities by the time of the Nicene Council had their own Melitian (anti-)bishop. This requires some explanation, for such an absence cannot possibly have been accidental.

phyllopoulos,edd.

J. VELISSAROPOULOU-KARAKOSTA,

Sp. TROIANOS, M. P. STATHOPOULOS Kalliopi A. BouRoARA b N. KLAMARIS, Athina 2000, pp. 357-3j9. 30 Such an agreement between Melitians and Catholics is mentioned by Sozomen, HE II 17. 4. According to Athanasius' enemies seven Catholic bishops had broken it when they consecrated Athanasius by surprise. 31 On Athanasius' election, see e.g. HANSON, Search (cit. n. 6), pp. 247-248; MARTIN, Athanase (cit. n. 6), pp. 331-337. 32 On this view and its implications, see H. HAUBEN, "The Melitian 'Church of the Martyrs'. Christian Dissenters in Ancient Egypt" [in:] AncientHistoryin a Modern University. Proceedings of a Conference heldat MacquarieUniversity,8-13July 1993to marktwenty-five

years of the teachingof Ancient History at MacquarieUniversityand the retirementfrom the Chair of ProfessorEdwin Judge, Vol. 2. Early Christianity, Late Antiquity and Beyond, c the Schism of Melitius the Egyptian"); T. VIVIAN,St. PeterofAlexandria,BishopandMarryr,Philadelphia 1988, pp. 84-86. 34 Annick MARTIN,Athanase d'Alexandrie,p. 222. 35 Cfr., p. ex., F. WILLIAMS,The Panarion,Book l, p. xvi. 32

XIV EpiphanedeSalaminesur le schismemélitien 745

1. Introduction: caractéristiques et position du schisme mélitien (§ 1, 1-4) 2. Les origines du schisme (§ 1, 5 - § 3, 8) a) dispute entre Mélitios et Pierre, incarcérés en Egypte, et leurs partisans respectifs concernant la réadmission des lapsi repentants, aboutissant à la scission de l'Eglise (§ 1, 5 - § 3, 4) b) martyre de Pierre et avènement d'Alexandre (§ 3, 5) c) déportation de Mélitios à Phaeno, son action en Palestine et consolidation du schisme; libération des captifs (§ 3, 6-8) 3. Séjour de Mélitios à Alexandrie et prolongement du schisme sous Alexandre; dénonciation d' Arius par Mélitios (§ 3, 9 - § 4, 1) 4. Première digression sur Arius (§ 4, 2-8) 5. Alexandre et les Mélitiens après la mort de Mélitios (§ 5 - § 6, 6) a) mesures d'Alexandre et troubles mélitiens (§ 5, 1) b) première mission mélitienne à Constantinople et alliance entre les Mélitiens d'une part, et Eusèbe de Nicomédie et les Ariens de l'autre (§ 5, 2 - § 6, 6) 6. Seconde digression sur Arius (§ 6, 7-9) 7. D'Alexandre à Athanase: mort d'Alexandre, élection et mort du mélitien Théonas, élection d'Athanase (§ 7, 1-4) 8. Athanase et les Mélitiens jusqu'à la convocation du Synode de Tyr (§ 7, 5-9) a) l'affaire Ischyras 36 (§ 7, 5-8) b) l'affaire Arsénios (§ 7, 9) 9. Le Synode de Tyr(§ 8 - § 9) a) convocation et composition du synode; altercation entre Potamon d'Héracléopolis parva et Eusèbe de Césarée (§ 8) b) envoi d'une commission d'enquête en Egypte(§ 9, 1-3) c) fuite d'Athanase à Constantinople, entrevue avec Constantin et exil (§ 9, 4-6) 10. Dénouement de l'affaire Arsénios (§ 10, 1-2) 11. Développement ultérieur de la carrière d' Athanase (§ 10, 3 - § 11, 5) 12. Considérations finales (§ 11, 6-8)

36

Epiphane parle de l'incident et de ses sequelles sans toutefois révéler le nom du protagoniste.

XIV 746

Annick Martin distingue nettement une coupure entre 1-3 (§ 1 - § 4, 1) d'une part, et 5-12 (§ 5 - § 11) de l'autre, la dénonciation d'Arius par Mélitios (§ 4, 1) (et la première digression sur Arius: 4 = § 4, 2-8) constituant le lien entre les deux parties. 37 Quelque séduisante que soit cette thèse, il faut tenir compte du fait qu'en réalité les choses sont sans doute un peu plus compliquées. 38 En tout cas, notre aperçu démontre qu'Epiphane a voulu mettre l'accent sur quelques épisodes: d'une part, les origines et les premières années du schisme à l'époque de la grande persécution, englobant les péripéties palestiniennes des confesseurs, et, de l'autre, le conflit grandissant entre Mélitiens et catholiques au début de la carrière d' Athanase, conflit atteignant son point culminant lors du Synode de Tyr. Ces deux épisodes correspondent en partie avec ceux sur lesquels Epiphane devait être, en principe, le mieux informé. Par contre, nous apprenons relativement peu de choses sur l'évolution du schisme sous Alexandre (312/313-328). L'auteur se laisse emporter à tel point par son aversion presque viscérale pour Arius et l'arianisme, qu'à deux reprises il semble complètement oublier son réel sujet pour se concentrer exclusivement sur les impostures et la triste fin de l'hérésiarque. En voulant démontrer que, si Mélitios fut bien le dénonciateur d' Arius, les Mélitiens, succombant aux intrigues d'Eusèbe de Nicomédie, ne s'étaient pas moins liés de bonne heure aux Ariens, Epiphane perd fatalement le fil de son exposé. Ainsi, quand il fait mention du Concile de Nicée, c'est uniquement pour dire que l'hérésie d'Arius y fut frappée d'anathème (§ 4, 5). De la lettre des Pères adressée à l'Eglise d'Egypte, lettre où étaient exposées les modalités de réintégration des Mélitiens, 39 il ne souffle mot, pas plus que du catalogue mélitien ou de l'entrevue qu'eut Mélitios avec Aleabtcôv 41 (§ 5, xandre. 40 Et bien qu'il nomme Jean (Arkhaph) btto1eonoç 1:CÔv 37 Aruùck

MARTIN,Athanase d'Alexandrie,p. 222 et n. 16; p. 285. Pour Annick MARTIN, la première partie (environ un tiers de l'exposé) serait d'inspiration mélitienne, tandis que l'autre, d'inspiration 'alexandrine', renouerait "avec le fil d'une histoire déjà rapportée par Athanase dans ses écrits apologétiques" (Athanased'Alexandrie,p. 222). Mais des traits nettement 'pro-catholiques' apparaissent dans la 'partie mélitienne' et vice-versa: voir plus loin. 39 Voir H. HAUBEN, Das Konzjl vonNicaea (325) zur Wiederaufnahme derMelitianer.Versuch einerText- und Strukturanafyse,in: J. VELISSAROPOULOU-KARAKOSTA e.a (edd.), TIMAI]. Triantapf?yllopoulos, Athina 2000, pp. 357-379. 40 Voir H. HAUBEN, Le catalogue mélitienréexaminé, passim. 38

XIV EpiphanedeSa/aminesur le schismemélitien 747

3), il ne dit nulle part qu'il s'agit du successeur de Mélitios à la tête de l'église schismatique. De même, Epiphane reste muet au sujet de l'histoire du mélitianisme après le Synode de Tyr, passant de la sorte sous silence une période cruciale de plus de quarante ans, entre l'hiver de 335/336 et l'époque de la rédaction du Panarion.Cette fois, il s'est apparemment égaré à cause du caractère compliqué et mouvementé de la carrière d' Athanase à partir de son premier exil. C'est cet aspect-là qui absorbe maintenant toute son attention. Mais ce n'est pas uniquement une question de manque de structure ou d'omission d'éléments essentiels. Le texte contient une série d'inexactitudes chronologiques et d'erreurs objectives. Nous nous limiterons à quelques exemples. 4. Un polémiste mal informé

Tout d'abord, il y a la question des origines du schisme. Grâce à ce qu'on appelle les 'Fundamentalurkunden', les 'documents de base', 42 qui comportent une lettre adressée à Mélitios par les quatre évêques du Delta incarcérés à Alexandrie, une lettre de Pierre à ses ouailles, ainsi qu'un texte reliant les deux documents, nous savons de façon pertinente que le conflit entre Pierre et Mélitios avait ses racines dans des actes illicites commis par l'évêque de Lycopolis. En procédant à des ordinations illégitimes dans les quatre diocèses, sur lesquels il n'avait aucune autorité, en exhortant ensuite certains fidèles de la métropole à se séparer de leur chef, il avait suscité la colère de celui-ci. Dès lors il est remarquable qu'à ce propos Epiphane (§ 1 - § 3) garde le silence le plus complet. 43 Les premières ordina41

Ph.R. AMIDON (Panarion,p. 250) et F. WILLIAMS (The Panan·on,Books II and III, p. 319) traduisent: "one of their bishops", mais on pourrait y voir également: "évêque des mêmes(= des Mélitiens)", ce qui sonne déjà un peu différent. Cfr. H. HAUBEN, Heraiscus, n. 58. 42 Voir F.H. KETILE~ Dermelitianische Streit,pp. 159-163. 43 A plusieurs reprises, Epiphane s'est rendu lui-même coupable d'immixtion injustifiable dans les affaires internes d'autres diocèses (intervention brutale contre le culte des images à Anablata en Palestine [entre 387 et 393]; prédication antiorigénienne à Jérusalem, dirigée contre l'évêque Jean, considéré par lui comme hérétique (393]; ordination de Paulinien, le frère de Jérôme, pour le monastère de Bethléem [394]; action contre Jean Chrysostome et ordination d'un diacre à Constantinople [printemps 402]), mais toutes ces interventions sont postérieures à la rédaction du Panarion:voir W. SCHNEEMELCHER,

XIV 748

tions qu'il attribue à Mélitios et dont il fait état dans son troisième paragraphe, eurent lieu aprèsle début formel du schisme. Pour lui, la véritable (et l'unique) cause du schisme était la question des lapsi,qui semble donc avoir éclipsé celle des ordinations illégitimes. L'auteur nous dépeint comment, lors d'une séance mouvementée, en pleine prison et au milieu des autres confesseurs, eut lieu l'ultime confrontation entre les deux protagonistes, aboutissant à une fatale iti,oin partes. Une telle rupture à un moment crucial dans l'existence de l'Eglise devait être largement ressentie comme étant en flagrante contradiction avec l'idéal d'unité et d'harmonie, idéal dont les confesseurs, au moment où ils devaient témoigner de leur foi, étaient censés se porter garants. 44 Le récit d'Epiphane en devient d'autant plus poignant: au lieu de promouvoir la paix et de contribuer à la réconciliation, les futurs martyrs s'occupaient à déchirer l'Eglise. Or, telle qu'elle est présentée par Epiphane, la scène ne peut correspondre à la réalité historique. Au moment où Mélitios se trouvait en prison (306), Pierre se tenait plus ou moins à l'écart. Par contre, lorsque celui-ci fut arrêté (novembre 311), son opposant (qui, alors, avait sans doute déjà quitté Phaeno pour l'Egypte) était apparemment de nouveau en liberté. Bien que de telles situations dramatiques aient sûrement dû se produire dans les prisons et les carrières, révélant de la sorte les profondes dissensions qui régnaient au sein du peuple chrétien et de l'élite ecclésiastique, Pierre et Mélitios ne peuvent s'y être rencontrés. La chronologie proposée par Epiphane est d'ailleurs complètement erronée: d'après lui, les deux protagonistes ne se seraient trouvés ensemble en captivité que peu avant l'exécution de Pierre et ce n'aurait été que par après que Mélitios fut déporté en Palestine. 45 Epiphaniusvon Salamis, col. 912-913, 925; P. NAUTIN,Epiphanede Salamine,col. 622-624 (dont nous suivons la chronologie). Il n'y a donc aucune raison patente de voir là l'explication de son silence. N'empêche qu'un tel comportement trahit une mentalité fort semblable à celle de Mélitios (voir plus loin, sub 5). 44 Voir K. ROSEN,Martyrer-ZeugenderEinheit im G/auben,in: W. AMELING(ed.), Martyrerund Martyrerakten(Altertumswissenschaftliches Kolloquium, Band 6), Stuttgart 2002, pp. 13-17: "Manche Martyrer nutzten die Zeit bis zur Hinrichtung, um Frieden zwischen den Parteien zu stiften, oder sie wurden wahrend der Haft als Friedensstifter angerufen, deren Worte um so schwerer wogen, ais sie fast schon aus demJenseits kamen" (p. 15). Les Montanistes y faisaient exception (p. 16). 45 Voir l'article fondamental de F.H. KETILER, Der me/itianische Streit, pp. 177, 183185, 188, 191. Selon Kettler, une telle scène se serait déroulée (toutefois sans Pierre) à

XIV Epiphanede Salaminesur le schismemélitien 749

C'est également dans ce contexte, qu'Epiphane prétend que Mélitios passait pour l'adjoint de Pierre, une sorte de vice-patriarche, ayant la préséance sur les autres évêques d'Egypte (§ 1, 5-6).46 Or, il est clair, à la lumière des 'Fundamentalurkunden', qu'une telle allégation est totalement fausse.47 Mais il y a encore bien d'autres inexactitudes. Ainsi Epiphane exagère la différence qui existait entre les points de vue de Pierre et de Mélitios sur la réadmission des lapsi.48 Contrairement à ce que prétend l'auteur (§ 3, 1), Pierre, en principe, ne voulait, pas plus que Mélitios, rétablir dans leur rang les clercs apostats. 49 N'empêche que le lecteur attentif déduira de l'exposé que les divergences n'étaient, en fin de compte, pas insurmontables(§ 2 - § 3, 2). D'autre part, Epiphane n'a sans doute pas compris qu'au fond, Pierre voulait briser le monopole qu'exerçaient les confesseurs envers les lapsirepentants en matière d'admission à la pénitence. 50 Relatant la disposition de Pierre à rétablir les clercs apostats repentis, Epiphane ajoute: roç b ë'1çf1µâçËÀ.9rovÀ.6yoç1tEp1txE1. Pour Williams,51qui traduit "or so I have been

l'époque où Mélitios se trouvait dans les carrières de Thébaïde (et non dans une prison à Alexandrie, comme le suggère Epiphane); cfr. H. HAUBEN,Premièreannée,passim;'Church ofthe Martyrs',pp. 329, 331, 336-337, 339 Oa scène dramatique y est caractérisée comme "historically false but essentially true''). Voir aussi Annick MARTIN,Athanase d'Alexandrie, pp. 267-276. 46 Cfr. EPIPHANIUS,Panarion69, § 3, 3-4, où Mélitios est nommé archevêque sous Alexandre: "Melitius, the archbishop in Egypt but supposed to be under Alexander' s jurisdiction" (F. WILLIAMS,ThePanarion,BooksII and III, p. 327). 47 Voir F.H. KETTLER,Der melitianische Streit,pp. 166-167; Ewa WIPSZYCKA, La ChieLe struttureecclesiastiche (1983), in: Etudessur le christianisme dansl'Esa nell'EgittodelIV secolo: gyptede /'Antiquité tardive(Studia Ephemeridis Augustinianum 52), Roma 1996, pp. 139in Egitto dalla.ftnedelIII 156, spéc. pp. 144-145 et n. 14; cfr. EAD., Le istituzjoniecclesiastiche Aspetti eproblemiin età tarall'inizjodell'VIII secolo,in: A. CAMPLANI(ed.), L'Egitto cristiano. do-antica(Studia Ephemeridis Augustinianum 56), Roma 1997, pp. 219-271, spéc. pp. 238-241; Annick MARTIN,Athanased'Alexandrie,pp. 262-267, 286-289. 48 Cfr. H. HAUBEN, 'ChurchoftheMartyrs',p. 339. 49 Voir T. VIVIAN, St. Peter,pp. 144, 146, 160-161, 189-190, 202-203; Annick MARTIN, Athanase d'Alexandrie,pp. 272-275; cfr. pp. 293-296 (interprétation plus nuancée, où apparaît quand même une légère différence d'opinion entre Pierre et Mélitios en ce qui concerne la réadmission des clercs apostats repentis). 50 Sur le rôle prééminent des confesseurs dans la réadmission des lapsi repentants, voir F.H. KETILER, Der melitianische Streit, pp. 177, 185-187; cfr. H. HAUBEN, 'Churchof theMartyrs',p. 338. 51 F. WILLIAMS,The Panarion,BooksII and III, p. 317.

XIV 750 told", ces mots renvoient à une tradition orale qui lui serait parvenue. 52 A la limite, ils pourraient exprimer un certain doute ou une distanciation par rapport à cette tradition. Les traductions d'Amidon et de Martin vont dans le même sens que celle de Williams: "so the report we received has it"; 53 "comme le récit qui nous est parvenu le contient". 54 Or, l'interprétation de Vivian me semble plus appropriée. Mettant ces mots dans la bouche de Pierre, l'auteur y décèle un renvoi à un coll'..mandement divin: "since the Word has corne tous and embraces us". 55 A mon avis, on pourrait penser à une traduction comme: "as the (divine) Word [c.-à-d. les Saintes Ecritures], which has corne tous, has it" (faisant allusion à la miséricorde chrétienne et à l'obligation de pardonner). Il s'agit en effet de mots qui semblent faire partie intégrante d'une opinion exprimée par Pierre, plutôt que de constituer une interjection de la part d'Epiphane. Quelques lignes plus loin, d'ailleurs, le discours de Pierre renvoie à un passage scriptuaire approprié (Hébr.12, 13).

Pour Epiphane, Alexandre était le successeur immédiat de Pierre (§ 3, 5). Ainsi l'éphémère Achillas (311/312-312/313) 56 se voit gommé de l'histoire. Celui-ci semble réapparaître dans l'exposé sur les Ariens, quoique sous un étrange déguisement: en 328, il aurait été le successeur d'Alexandre, tout aussi éphémère d'ailleurs que son modèle. 57 D'autre part, dans le présent traité, aussi bien que dans celui des Ariens, Epiphane met en scène un certain Théonas, un Mélitien qui aurait joué un rôle (non identique mais) analogue (§ 7, 3). Il faut le considérer sans doute comme un doublet de son homonyme qui fut évêque d'Alexandrie de 282 à 300. D'après nos connaissances actuelles, il paraît qu'aucun des deux personnages tels qu'ils nous sont présentés, n'ait réellement existé. Tout au plus, ces histoires reflètent les graves dissensions surgies au cours de la 'lutte électorale' après la mort d'Alexandre. 58 Rappelons encore qu'Epiphane confond le premier (335/336-337 /338) et le second (338/339-346) 59 exil d'Athanase (respectivement à Trèves et à 52

F. WIILIAMS,The Panarion,Books II and III, p. 315 n. 1: "Epiphanius has other sources [than Athanasius' ApologiaSecunda],including oral ones (cfr. 3,1; 8)". 53 Ph.R. AMIDON, Panarion, p. 248. 54 Annick MARTIN,Athanase d'Alexandrie,p. 270 et, surtout, p. 223 (pensant à une source mélitienne, écrite ou orale). 55 T. VMAN, St. Peter,p. 85. 56 Voir H. HAUBEN,Heraiscus, pp. 56-57 n. 25. 57 EUSEBIUS, Panarion69, § 11, 4-6. Pour ce problème, voir H. HAUBEN,Heraiscus. 8 5 Voir H. HAUBEN,Heraiscus, pp. 57-58. 59 Dans quelques études récentes, P. VAN NUFFELENa fixé le retour d'Athanase à Alexandrie après son premier exil, au 23 novembre 338 (au lieu de 337). Dans ce cas, il faut situer les deux premiers exils respectivement de 336 à 338 et de 339 à 346: voir Les Lettres festales d'Athanased'Alexandrie:les "emurs" chronologiques de l'index syriaque, «Re-

XIV EpiphanedeSalaminesur Jeschismemélitien 751

Rome) et qu'il en présente un rapport plutôt désordonné et parfois inexact (§ 9, 6; § 10, 3-4; cf. § 11, 1). La chronologie du dernier acte du vaudeville où Arsénios tenait la vedette (personnage tenu à tort, par confusion avec Ischyras, pour un prêtre de Maréotis [§ 7, 9]) est également fausse, ces événements étant erronément situés après le départ d'Athanase (§ 10, 1-2). C'est donc dire qu'Epiphane, malgré son apparente érudition et sa connaissance de cinq langues - connaissance assez superficielle d'ailleurs n'avait pas du tout la stature d'un historien, voire d'un intellectuel accompli.60Ses esquisses ressemblent plutôt à des pamphlets. Sa position privilégiée dont nous parlions, ne l'a pas protégé contre une série de malentendus. Apparemment, il ne se donne pas la peine de contrôler les rumeurs qui circulent, de compléter sa documentation déficiente ou de trier les renseignements souvent incorrects ou partiaux dont il dispose. Esprit confus et émotif, il semble incapable de discerner l'essentiel du superflu ou de brosser un tableau net et précis d'une situation donnée. Esprit étroit et bigot, plein de préjugés, il se manifeste avant tout comme hérésiologue, 61 défendant de manière frénétique le point de vue catholique et nicéen et ayant de l'orthodoxie une idée bien fondée, il est vrai,62 mais extrêmement bornée. 63 Mais ce qu'il faut lui accorder de toute manière, c'est qu'à plusieurs reprises il se montre excellent narrateur, capable de séduire ses lecteurs. 64 C'est surtout le cas dans les premiers paragraphes de son exposé sur les vue des Etudes Augustiniennes» 47 (2001), pp. 85-95; La têtede /"'histoireacéphale", «Kl.io» 84 (2002), pp. 125-140, spéc. pp. 129-135. 6 Cfr. Aline POURKJER, L'hérésiologie chezEpiphanedeSalamine,pp. 29-30. 61 Pour l'hérésiologie en tant que genre littéraire, voir Aline POURKIER, L'hérésiologie chezEpiphanedeSalamine,pp. 20-23; cfr. F. WILLIAMS, The Panarion,Book I, pp. xvi-xviii. 62 Voir F. WILLIAMS, The Panarion,BooksII and III, pp. ix-xiii, brossant d'Epiphane un tableau beaucoup plus nuancé, voire positif, qu'on ne le fait d'habitude: "He was a 'rough diamond', untrained in the Greek classics and with little or no background in philosophy'' (p. xii), mais qui avait une profonde connaissance des Ecritures, de l'exégèse et de la théologie chrétienne. 63 Voir la bonne caractérisation de Frances YOUNG (FromNicaeato Chalcedon, p. 133), où elle compare la mentalité d'Eusèbe de Césarée à celle d'Epiphane: "where Eusebius looked for truth, Epiphanius hunted out error, believing that KaKomotta (bad belief) is worse than àmotta (lack of belief)". 64 Voir F. WILLIAMS, The Panarion, BooksII andIII, p. xii: ''To Epiphanius' credit is his lively imagination. Sects 68 ~a nôtre] and the beginnings of 64 and 69 are examples of the verve with which he tells a story".

°

XIV 752

Mélitiens, où, précisément, il raconte les circonstances dans lesquelles le mouvement aurait vu le jour. Dès lors, on peut imaginer à quel point il pouvait, en tant que prédicateur et homme