E-Offprint of the Author with Publisher's Permission

Beyond Conflicts Cultural and Religious Cohabitations in Alexandria and Egypt between the 1st and the 6th Century CE edited by Luca Arcari Mohr Siebeck E-Offprint of the Author with Publisher’s Permission Luca Arcari, born 1977; 2005 PhD in Ancient History; 2007–2012 Post-Doctoral Researcher at the University of Naples Federico II, the Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, and the “Michele Pellegrino” Foundation (University of Turin); currently Assistant Professor of History of Ancient Christianity and History of Religions at the University of Naples Federico II. ISBN 978-3-16-155144-4 ISSN 1436-3003 (Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum) Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2017 by Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, Germany. www.mohr.de This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher’s written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was printed by Laupp & Göbel in Gomaringen on non-aging paper and bound by Buchbinderei Nädele in Nehren. Printed in Germany. E-Offprint of the Author with Publisher’s Permission Table of Contents VII Table of Contents Acknowledgements ....................................................................................... V Abbreviations ............................................................................................... XI Introduction Luca Arcari Cultural and Religious Cohabitations in Alexandria and Egypt between the 1st and the 6th Cent. CE ........................................................................... 1 Part One Use, (Re-)Invention and (Re-)Definition of Discursive Practices Tobias Nicklas Jewish, Christian, Greek? The Apocalypse of Peter as a Witness of Early 2nd-Cent. Christianity in Alexandria .............................................. 27 Philippe Matthey The Once and Future King of Egypt: Egyptian “Messianism” and the Construction of the Alexander Romance ...................................................... 47 Antonio Sena Demonology between Celsus and Origen: A Theoretical Model of Religious Cohabitation? ............................................................................... 73 Daniele Tripaldi “Basilides” and “the Egyptian Wisdom:” Some Remarks on a Peculiar Heresiological Notice (Ps.-Hipp. Haer. 7.20–27) ......................................... 87 Thomas J. Kraus Demosthenes and (Late) Ancient Miniature Books from Egypt: Reflections on a Category, Physical Features, Purpose and Use.....................................115 Paola Buzi Remains of Gnomic Anthologies and Pagan Wisdom Literature in the Coptic Tradition .................................................................................................... 131 E-Offprint of the Author with Publisher’s Permission VIII Table of Contents Part Two Ideological Debates as Images of Cultural and Religious Cohabitations Bernard Pouderon “Jewish,” “Christian” and “Gnostic” Groups in Alexandria during the 2nd Cent.: Between Approval and Expulsion ....................................... 155 Adele Monaci Castagno Messengers from Heaven: Divine Men and God’s Men in the Alexandrian Platonism (2nd–4th Cent.) ......................................................................... 177 Mark J. Edwards Late Antique Alexandria and the “Orient” .................................................. 195 Ewa Wipszycka How Insurmountable was the Chasm between Monophysites and Chalcedonians? ........................................................................................... 207 Philippe Blaudeau Vel si non tibi communicamus, tamen amamus te. Remarques sur la description par Liberatus de Carthage des rapports entre Miaphysites et Chalcédoniens à Alexandrie (milieu Ve–milieu VIe s.) ........................... 227 Part Three Cults and Practices as Spaces for Encounters and Interactions Sofía Torallas Tovar Love and Hate? Again on Dionysos in the Eyes of the Alexandrian Jews .. 247 Francesco Massa Devotees of Serapis and Christ? A Literary Representation of Religious Cohabitations in the 4th Cent. .................................................................... 263 Mariangela Monaca Between Cyril and Isis: Some Remarks on the Iatromantic Cults in 5th-Cent. Alexandria............................................................................... 283 E-Offprint of the Author with Publisher’s Permission Table of Contents IX Part Four “Open” and “Closed” Groups Marie-Françoise Baslez Open-air Festivals and Cultural Cohabitation in Late Hellenistic Alexandria .................................................................................................. 307 Livia Capponi The Common Roots of Egyptians and Jews: Life and Meaning of an Ancient Stereotype ..................................................................................... 323 Hugo Lundhaug The Nag Hammadi Codices in the Complex World of 4th- and 5th-Cent. Egypt .......................................................................................................... 339 Part Five The Construction of Authority in Philosophical and Religious Schools Carmine Pisano Moses “Prophet” of God in the Works of Philo, or How to Use Otherness to Construct Selfness .................................................................................. 361 Giulia Sfameni Gasparro Alexandria in the Mirror of Origen’s didaskaleion: Between the Great Church, Heretics and Philosophers ............................................................. 377 Marco Rizzi Cultural and Religious Exchanges in Alexandria: The Transformation of Philosopy and Exegesis in the 3rd Cent. in the Mirror of Origen ............... 399 Index of Ancient Sources ............................................................................ 415 Index of Modern Authors ........................................................................... 439 Index of Main Topics .................................................................................. 453 List of Contributors .................................................................................... 459 E-Offprint of the Author with Publisher’s Permission How Insurmountable was the Chasm? 207 How Insurmountable was the Chasm between Monophysites and Chalcedonians?* Ewa Wipszycka When reading the writings of those who took part in the Christological controversy, one has the impression that there is just a single, clear and simple answer to the question formulated in the title of my paper: the chasm was so deep that it could not have been overcome by anyone except for those who performed a public, therefore painful, act of conversion. The polemic literature written after the Council of Chalcedon is extremely malicious as it presents its opponents as instruments of Satan and handles those who have doubts as rough and ignorant people who can only hope to receive the necessary help to get back on the “righteous” track towards Christ. The historiography of the 19th and 20th cent. has accepted a vision of a Christian world deeply divided from this controversy for a long time since it could not find enough information to contest it in its sources. This concept is especially conveyed by Egyptian anti-Chalcedonian texts. The Monophysite Church built its historical self-awareness with great attention and efficacy through the help of polemic writings. Fighting against its opponents who could count on the support of the state, it needed to legitimate its hierarchy as well as to prove itself to be the only heir of the past of the Alexandrine Church, starting from Mark the Evangelist and Peter “the last of the martyrs.” In addition, for obvious reasons the Egyptian Monophysite literature was much better preserved than the Chalcedonian one. The Egyptian orthodox Church only speaks to us through those works that have been preserved by the Byzantine as part of their culture (such as the texts written by John Moschus and Sophronius and the Lives of John the Almsgiver). The rest of Chalcedonian literature disappeared very soon. There is one exception, the Chronicon by Eutychius, patriarch of Alexandria in 933–939/940. However, this particular work has not been preserved in Egypt, but in the Chalcedonian monastery of Saint Catherine on Mount Sinai, thanks to the fact that it was resumed and continued in Syrian by Yahya ibn Sa’id of Antioch, who wrote in the time period from 1010 to 1034.1 This paper is a revised version of the last chapter of my book The Alexandrian Church. People and Institutions. The Journal of Juristic Papyrology. Supplement 25. Warsaw: Journal of Juristic Papyrology, 2015. 1 Breydy 1983. * E-Offprint of the Author with Publisher’s Permission 208 Ewa Wipszycka The papyrological documents, which in other fields can be confronted with the literary evidence, cannot be used for this purpose in this particular field. They do not provide useful information for the study of religious divisions. For instance, they provide the names of the saints who were worshipped in that or the other city or village but they do not specify whether this or that martyrion was owned by the Chalcedonians or anti-Chalcedonians. This limitation of the usefulness of papyrological documents is well-known to me because of a very unpleasant personal experience. Many years ago, I wrote a book about the resources and the economical activities of the Egyptian Church. There, in the Introduction, I mentioned the Christological controversy only once.2 I was at peace with myself, considering that my research did not concern Alexandria and that the papyrological documents that were the basis of my book never mentioned the dogmatic divisions. Today, having read again and again the literary sources that had long been available and having had the possibility to study many literary sources newly published, I find myself to be in a better situation. Moreover, many recent researches done by others on hagiographic (for instance those by A. Papaconstantinou3) or historiographic texts (above all those by A. Camplani4) have shown how to read literary works written in Egypt – or concerning Egypt – and how to decode their message about the Church’s past, its heroes and its bêtes noires. Finally, my work on ecclesiastical and monastic institutions has given me the occasion to look for such details that did not match the conception of a deeply divided Christianity. What I intend to present in this paper is a set of isolated pieces of information I was able to find, and of hypotheses based on them. I am aware that I am putting forward mere hypotheses, but I hope they will trigger further research. Taking the risk to formulate new hypotheses is better than sticking to the idea that there is nothing to look for. Unfortunately, the materials that I have managed to find did not allow me to build a detailed and coherent picture. So, the only possible strategy that I can follow in this paper consists of reviewing what I found in each category of sources. 1. Historiographical sources Let me then start with the historiographical sources. The most interesting information is offered by the Chronicon of John of Nikiu (Nikiu was a city of average size on the Nile Delta). The author lived in the second half of the 7th cent., Wipszycka 1972: 33. Papaconstantinou 2004; 2006a; 2006b; 2007. 4 Camplani 2015. See also Camplani 2004, 2006, 2009. On the symbolic meaning of this ritual gesture, see Camplani 2011. 2 3 E-Offprint of the Author with Publisher’s Permission How Insurmountable was the Chasm? 209 a time when Egypt was already under Arab domination.5 Besides providing information obtained from the Byzantine chronicles (above all the one by John Malalas) and mostly concerning emperors, usurpers, and wars, John of Nikiu extensively speak about the most important (in his opinion) events which took place in Egypt. He addresses the dispute between the cities of the Delta (known as the riot in Aykelah, the Greek Metelis), which took place at the beginning of the 7th cent., as well as Niketas’ conquest of Egypt (previously ruled by Phokas), and above all the Arabic conquest, which he narrates in detail.6 There are no doubts about the fact that concerning Egypt, his account is clearly based upon a local tradition of which there is no trace in Byzantine historiography. John of Nikiu’s Chronicon is not much used by late-ancient Egypt scholars because the text, which underwent two translations – from Greek or Coptic to Arabic and from Arabic to Ethiopian – is in lamentable condition. Since the scholars who know Ethiopian are very few, this work is often ignored. In order to be able to properly study it, one should have a deep knowledge of Ethiopian language. Almost 120 years after its publication by H. Zotenberg, studies related to the content of this chronicle are very rare (except for the studies concerning the Arab conquest). Despite being aware of the obstacles which make it difficult to use this text, I will use those sections of it that relate to events inside Egypt: these are very important to me, because I believe they allow us to get an idea of how the elite of the cities in the Nile Delta worked and of how the military operations, led by local chiefs, were carried out. In John of Nikiu’s account on the various divisions inside the society in the Nile Delta, doctrinal divisions rarely appear. The author mentions two Chalcedonian patriarchs, Eulogius and Theodorus Skribon, because of their attitude towards the conflicts in the area of the Delta and in Alexandria, but he does not express a negative judgment on them, he just gives information.7 Of course he talks about Benjamin, a Monophysite patriarch, but he does it only towards the end of the Chronicon (chapter 121) and this passage is also brief and contains 5 Zotenberg 1883. The English translation generally cited is Charles 1916 (however it is not very good). It needs to be checked by comparing it with the French translation by Zotenberg: see Booth 2011. See also J. Jarry’s papers published in 1964 and 1974. 6 I am referring to chapters 97 (riot in Aykelah), 105 (riot in Achmin), 107–109 (riot against Phokas in Egypt), 111–122 (Arab conquest of Egypt). About the events which took place in the Delta, see Jarry 1964 and 1974. 7 Zotenberg 1883: 97.11: Eulogius reaches an agreement with the rebellious leaders of Aykelah; 107.6: Theodorus Skribon learns about the conspiracy against Phokas and, together with the governor of Alexandria and the leader of the wheat barns, he writes a letter to the Emperor to inform him of the imminent betrayal; 107.16: during the civil disorders that exploded, when Niketas, appointed chief of the army by Heraclius, enters the city of Alexandria, Theodorus hides in a church. Instead, Theodorus’ killing is not mentioned: probably, this fact did not seem relevant to the chronicler. E-Offprint of the Author with Publisher’s Permission 210 Ewa Wipszycka no judgment.8 The synod of bishops belonging to both churches that Cyrus managed to arrange in 634, is not mentioned at all. The author could have used this episode to condemn the betrayal of Monophysite bishops but he chose not do it. The part of the Chronicon that depicts the role of Cyrus (a Chalcedonian man) during the final phase of the Arab conquest is noteworthy. When Cyrus, exiled by Heraclius who had been dissatisfied by his negotiations with the Arabs, comes back to Alexandria after the emperor’s death, having been entrusted by Empress Marina with the task of making peace with the Arab leader, “elderly and young people, men and women” greet him. He retires in a monastery together with the high officials in order to decide what to do. Then, when he goes in a solemn procession to the Kaisareion (Alexandria’s most important church), people cover the streets with carpets and mill around to see the patriarch who carries the Holy Cross taken from the Tabennesiots’ monastery. The first meeting between Cyrus and Amr in Babylon (an important fortress in Memphis) is described with respect and sympathy. Having obtained peace, the patriarch goes back to Alexandria and is paid homage by the chiefs of the army. When they learn about the tax level established by the peace treaty, a part of the city’s inhabitants rebelled. With tears in his eyes, Cyrus tries to pacify them by stating that he has accepted the agreement with the Arabs to save them and their children. When the Greeks sailed away from Alexandria, Cyrus remained in the city. Sometime later he died (643?) disheartened by the attitude of the Arabs, who had not complied with the conditions of the treaty. In other texts written by Monophysites (for instance, in the Life of Samuel of Kalamun9), Cyrus is described as “a bloodthirsty beast,” whereas in John of Nikiu’s Chronicon he is described in a matter-of-fact way with perhaps even a hint of sympathy. In the eyes of this chronicler, doctrinal conflicts do not seem to be decisive for the destiny of Egypt. It is true that the great attention he dedicates to local wars can be explained as an effect of the literary model he follows (that is, the chronicle genre). Yet it is a fact that his representation of Egyptian society does not put the religious conflicts into the foreground. We have to keep in mind that he is a Monophysite bishop. While the doctrinal division is not so evident in his Chronicon, the role of “the colours,” i.e. the “green” and “blue” groups which we know from the horse rides in hippodromes, is emphasised. What their nature was within the conditions of Egypt at that time is not entirely clear (the evidence is scanty) but one thing is certain: they did not correspond to a doctrinal division. According 8 “And abba Benjamin, the patriarch of Egyptians, returned to the city of Alexandria in the thirteenth year after his flight from the Romans, and he went to the Churches and inspected all of them. And every one said: ‘This expulsion (of the Romans) and victory of Moslems is due to the wickedness of the Emperor Heraclius and his persecution of the Orthodox through the Patriarch Cyrus’.” 9 Alcock 1983. E-Offprint of the Author with Publisher’s Permission How Insurmountable was the Chasm? 211 to what we know about the behavior of the “colours” in Constantinople and Antioch, we can also suppose that in certain situations in Egypt these groups supported Chalcedonians or Monophysites. However, they are never, even in Constantinople, associated with one or the other ecclesiastical hierarchy. The best hypothesis about the nature of these groups is perhaps one that considers them as groups of interests of the local elite.10 While John of Nikiu’s Chronicon is useful to me, the works belonging to the genre of ecclesiastical history do not offer much relevant information relating to my subject. Engaged in Christological controversies, their authors were unable to perceive any fact that did not conform to the pattern determined by their doctrinal option. The work that, being of Egyptian origin, could be expected to yield the greatest amount of relevant information, i.e. the History of the Coptic Patriarchs of Alexandria, is in fact a passionate apology of the Severian tendency – one of the tendencies inside Monophysitism – and it is completely lacking any element of self-criticism. Despite having a wider historical perspective than the one in the History of the Coptic Patriarchs, two non-Egyptian authors, Zacharias of Mythilenes and John of Ephesus, also do not give us enough information to evaluate the extent of the dogmatic division. Liberatus of Carthage, the author of a Breviarium in between polemic and historiography, offers much information about the development of Christological controversies (especially those in Egypt), but he does not mention anything that lets us understand the way in which the controversies affected common people. All these authors are “professionals of the doctrinal polemic” and their representation of historical reality is subordinated to this purpose. 2. Hagiographical texts and sanctuarial contexts Very interesting data is contained in hagiographic texts linked to sanctuaries that had a wide range of clientele, not an entirely local one. We have four Egyptian dossiers belonging to this genre: the miracula, recounted in the already mentioned work by Sophronius; the miracula and the enkomia of Saint Menas, worshipped in Abu Mena, a small town in the Libic desert 40 km west of Al- 10 See Booth 2011. This article rejects the interpretation of the “colours” proposed by A. Cameron in his famous book published in 1976. Cameron was definitely contrary to the idea of associating the “colours” with groups organised for political purposes; he wanted to find an explanation of their meaning in the sphere of hippodrome spectacles, by confronting them with modern football supporters’ groups. In fear of possible criticisms from Cameron, historians have avoided discussing the issue for a long time. Booth 2011 analyses John of Nikiu’s work with great attention and, in my opinion, in a very convincing way. E-Offprint of the Author with Publisher’s Permission 212 Ewa Wipszycka exandria;11 the enkomia in honour of Saint Claudius,12 spoken in his sanctuary situated in Pohe, a village nearby Lykopolis; the miracula and the enkomia of Saint Kollouthos, worshipped in Antinoe and in Pneuit nearby Panopolis.13 If we put aside the case of the martyrion of Cyrus and John for a moment, we can say that in these dossiers neither Chalecedonians nor Monophysites are mentioned. Instead, there is information about special cases of Jewish, Samaritan, Melitian, pagan, and Zoroastrian pilgrims who have been miraculously healed by Saints. If we could not read anything but these three dossiers, then we would not be able to know about the main doctrinal conflict of that time, the conflict between the Monophysites and the Chalcedonians. In these texts, the stance of the clergy of a given sanctuary is not made clear. Certainly, they would not be neutral and their stances must have been known to the faithful, since it was revealed by the reading of the diptychs during the mass (that is, by the reading of the list of both living and dead bishops and patriarchs belonging to one doctrinal option). Moreover, those who frequently attended a sanctuary used to know which bishops visited it. However, for those who arrived to ask for the intervention of a saint (or the saints), the knowledge of these facts was Drescher 1946; Jaritz 1993 (see especially chapter 4.5: “Andersgläubige,” 305–307). Godron 1970. 13 Schenke 2013; Godron 1970. See also Grossmann 2010 and 2012. Grossmann tries to find an explanation for the coexistence of two worship centres linked to St. Kollouthos: one in Antinoe and the other in Pneuit, a village situated 20 km north of Panopolis. We know them thanks to the enkomia written by two bishops, Phoibammon of Panopolis and Isaak of Antinoe (about the first we know that he was active during 30’s and the 40’s of the 6th cent., the years of patriarch Timothy III; about the second, we do not know anything and the enkomion written by him is to be imprecisely dated in a period of time that goes from the 5th to the 7th cent.). Grossmann is convinced that the coexistence of those two centres is due to doctrinal conflicts: in his opinion the sanctuary of Antinoe was probably Chalcedonian while that of Pneuit was probably Monophysite. He writes (Grossmann 2012: 91–92): “Da im Hinblick auf die bis in die Spätantike wirksame Entstehungsgeschichte der Stadt Antinoopolis damit zu rechnen ist, daß die Mehrheit der Bevölkerung das griechische bzw. alexandrinische Bürgerrecht besaß und damit mehrheitlich wohl auch zu den Anhängern des chalkedonischen Bekenntnisses zu zählen ist, dürfte sich das Kolluthosheiligtum der Stadt im Besitz der chalkedonischen Kirche, also der von den Kopten als melkitisch (‘kaiserlich’) geschmähten Kirche, befunden haben. Die monophysitischen Kopten hätten sich damit bei gegebenen Anlässen an ein ihrem Glauben fremdes dyophysitisches Heilungszentrum wenden müssen, was sicher auch dem monophysitischen Klerus nicht gefiel. Um das zu ändern, hat daher Phoibammon in seiner Diözese ein Heilungszentrum geschaffen, an das sich bei Bedarf die Monophysiten wenden konnten.” Grossmann’s statements are not based on the sources; they are conclusions drawn from the preconceived opinion that the conflict between the worshipers of the two churches was too harsh for them to pray in the same place and to ask for healing. The coexistence of one or more sanctuaries related to a popular Saint is too frequent a phenomenon for Grossman’s argument to be considered as valid. In the enkomion spoken in the sanctuary of Pneuit, there is no reference to the presence of the Saint’s relics while it is said that drops of the Saint’s blood were poured in the water contained in the tank from where the pilgrims used to drink. 11 12 E-Offprint of the Author with Publisher’s Permission How Insurmountable was the Chasm? 213 probably not so important. I believe that, at that time, clear-cut differencies in the liturgical field did not exist. The two sanctuaries in Northern Egypt that were previously mentioned (that of Saint Claudius and that of Saint Kollouthos), were certainly Monophysite. The texts available relating to them were written by Monophysite bishops who are well known to us. The case of Abu Mena is much more complicated. The enkomion in honour of Saint Menas, an important source for the history of this sanctuary, mentions, among those who most contributed to its development, the Monophysite patriarch Timothy Ailouros, Damian and Emperor Zeno, who supported, to a certain extent, the Monophysites. This could seem enough to identify the stance of Abu Mena’s clergy. However, it is legitimate to have some doubts. The enkomion in question was probably written by a Monophysite patriarch of Alexandria, John III (677–686). I wonder whether the anti-Chalcedonian genealogy drawn by him was consistent with the truth or was invented as a defence against the Chalcedonians who claimed that the sanctuary had belonged to them before the Arab conquest. This question seems justified since this enkomion, in its entirety, is not a very reliable source. Could it be that Abu Mena’s clergy changed positions? I would not exclude that the chiefs of this wealthy and powerful sanctuary, which had a large clientele (even from outside of Egypt), had their own policy according to the situation. When the Chalcedonians asked Marwan II (the last Umayyad Caliph, 744–750) for the restitution of the sanctuary, the caliph passed the request along to the governor of Egypt Abd el-Malik. The Chalcedonian patriarch Cosmas I (742–768) and the antiChalcedonian patriarch Michael I (743–767) confronted each other in front of Abd el-Malik and an Islamic judge chosen by him. The Arab authorities treated the question in a serious way. The case was won by the Monophysites, who were definitely stronger at that time. As appears from the findings of Saint Menas’ ampoules, which contained blessed oil, the sanctuary of Abu Menas was known in Italy, southern Gaul and also on the west coast of the Black Sea – wherever ships departing from Alexandria arrived.14 The pilgrims who came from far away must have been indifferent concerning the doctrinal stance of the sanctuary. Whether they were Monophysite or Chalcedonian, the clergy of this sanctuary were not holding doctrinal confrontations within its walls. East of Alexandria, approximately 24 km from the city, there was another important sanctuary that attracted ill people: the sanctuary in which the relics of Cyrus and John were kept and where ill people subjected themselves to the rite of incubation. Not all of the devote pilgrims were Chalcedonians. We for- 14 It is odd to notice that the recovery of these ampoules is extremely rare in Egypt except for Alexandria and the coast. Scholars do not usually mention this fact. I do not know how to explain it. Certainly, we cannot suppose that the cult of Saint Menas’ was not widely spread in Egypt: its diffusion is abundantly documented. E-Offprint of the Author with Publisher’s Permission 214 Ewa Wipszycka tunately possess an extensive text which allows us to see how this sanctuary worked: the Miracula composed by Sophronius, a fervent Chalcedonian, who later became the patriarch of Jerusalem. Sophronius knew this sanctuary thanks to his personal experience: he declares that it was there that he had been healed from an eye disease during his stay in Alexandria (610–620).15 Sophronius is positive: according to him, the efficacy of the miraculous therapy depended on whether the ill person followed the Chalcedonian creed (and of course also on whether he/she observed the principles of Christian morals). It was the Saints themselves who asked the Monophysite pilgrims for conversion, posing this as a condition for the healing, in which the Eucharist offering (the true one, not tainted by heretics) would played a fundamental role. The Saints threatened the ill with punishment in case of disobedience, or they inflicted them pain, sometimes they swore that the Chalcedonian creed was the only orthodox one and that its opponents would enter heaven. Can we, from these lively accounts, conclude that the sanctuary’s clergy demanded the conversion of its non-Chalcedonian visitors? This is not evident at all. We have a good reason to think that Sophronius’ work reflects his own beliefs rather than the actual behavior of the sanctuary’s clergy. Vincent Déroche has recently published an account of miracula which is independent from Sophronius’, was written in the same sanctuary between 615 and 641/642, and has been preserved in a Byzantine menologium from the 10th cent.16 In this account of five miracles, the idea that a Monophysite pilgrim had to convert if he wanted to obtain a miracle is not mentioned at all. Instead, there is the idea that if a pilgrim does not obtain the hoped for miracle from the Saints, it is because he doubted their capabilities. Sophronius was not only a fervent defender of Chalcedonian faith, he also was a narrator of paradoxical cases that can be relevant for my research. In the 12th Miraculum, he tells the story of a Monophysite Alexandrian notable who had been healed by the Saints and had converted, but because of shame had hesitated to manifest his faith publicly by partaking in the Eucharist offering with the Chalcedonians. To push him towards a full conversion, the Saints lured him into a trap. They suggested that on Christmas day, he should go to the church consecrated to Mary, called the Church of Theonas (the most ancient and prestigious church of Alexandria), stay there until the end of the reading of the Gospels, go out before the Eucharist offering, and then, after the end of the mass and after everybody left the Church, return there to take part in the Eucharist offering without being seen by everybody. He followed the instructions but, in the moment he was taking the Eucharist offering, a hundred of Gaianite presby15 Edition: Fernández Marcos 1975. A French translation with a wide and important commentary is Gascou 2006. See also Gascou 2008 and Booth 2014: 44–89 (chapter “Sophronius and the Miracles”). 16 Déroche 2012. E-Offprint of the Author with Publisher’s Permission How Insurmountable was the Chasm? 215 ters17 (supporters of Julian of Halicarnassus, members of a group internal to the Monophysites) entered the church to pray, “as they used to do:” in this way, his conversion stopped being a secret. It is interesting to notice that these Gaianites did not refrain from attending a Chalcedonian Church although they did not take part in the Eucharist offering. From their point of view, the Chalcedonian Eucharist offering was not the real one, but if they wanted to pray they had to use a Church even if this was being held by heretics. Certainly, this line of thought may seem incoherent, but it was quite typical in the world of Late Antiquity. The protagonist of the 36th account is a man who persisted in his heretic faith despite the numerous admonitions that the Saints lavished upon him in his dreams. At a certain point (36.14–15), the Saints, who appear in a dream as a deacon, invite him to enter a baptismal chamber where the Eucharist is preserved, but he says: No, I will not enter because I follow a doctrine which is not that of the Church. I am waiting for my mother to bring me the Eucharist offering. Until then, while the gates of the sepulcher are opened, please allow me to take the oil for the lamp.” In fact, many of those who do not commune with us follow this practice: they take the oil which burns in the lamp of the Saints instead of Christ’s holy body. In my opinion, they are not aware of what they do and they do not acknowledge the seriousness of the offence. Another episode, in 38.5–6: a Monophysite named Stephen, warned by the saints in his dreams, converted and was then healed. Sometime later, “although he was a barbarian” his servant converted too. The devil then tried to ruin the actions of the Saints: After his healing of the soul and of the body and after both of them recovered their sight, while still in the sanctuary the servant asked Stephen: “Master, having obeyed the orders of the Saints, we became members of the Catholic Church. But when we will, with the help of God, return to the place where we belong will we have to remain faithful to those orders or will we have to go back to our previous condition.” His master replied “While we are here, let us do what seems good to the martyrs but when we will leave, we will resume our previous faith, the one that our fathers have given to us.” Obviously, Stephen is first punished and then forgiven. 3. The Synodikon of the West Syrian Church (1204) We still have another text that allows us to get a sense of the behavior of people following different doctrines when they happened to live together. This specific 17 It is significant that Sophronius imagines these Gaianites entering the church as presbyters and not as simple worshipers. The number – a hundred – is totally unrealistic (in those years, the entire sect did not reach such a high number of presbyters). E-Offprint of the Author with Publisher’s Permission 216 Ewa Wipszycka text has not been used by students of Church history, therefore I believe it is appropriate to quote long passages from it. This is one of the texts that compose the Synodikon of the West Syrian Church, preserved in a manuscript written in 1204. The text has the following title: “The ecclesiastical canons which were given by the holy Fathers during the time of persecution.” The persecution to which the title alludes to is one ordered by Justinian against the Monophysites.18 In the beginning, all the bishops from whom these canons originated are listed: Qōnstantīnā, Antūnīnā, Tūmā, Pelag, Eustat, holy bishops who, during the persecution, were in the town of Alexandria during the life of the late Patriarch Mār Severus and when Patriarch Theodosius was on his throne, in the thirteenth year that is called ‘Indiction’ by the Greeks.19 The bishops mentioned here can be identified thanks to the fact that their names appear in Severus’ correspondence during his years in Antioch (512–518).20 They had escaped into Egypt to avoid the persecutions organised by the Chalcedonians just as many other ecclesiastical men, known for their anti-Chalcedonian attitude, had done. The text was destined to the Syrian Monophysite Church. It is written in the form of questions and answers. Here is part of these: Question 2: “Is it allowed for orthodox monks who are persecuted – since they do not have monasteries – to go and dwell in the martyries kept by those of two natures? Is it proper to perform services there?.” The answer: “When these friends of God, persecuted monks, are in want of lodging and enter and dwell in these martyries of which you speak, they shall make their services (there) – for not even a single violation occurs to the ecclesiastical canon on this account.” This canon is surprising. We have to consider that if the Monophysites celebrated Mass in a martyrion held by the Chalcedonians, they could not do it in secret since they needed the consent (explicit or implicit) of the Chalcedonian chiefs of the sanctuary or even that of the Chalcedonian bishop. Question 3: “It occurs, indeed, in the martyries kept by the orthodox that at the time when orthodox clerics complete the sacred mysteries, there are present persons who join without distinction the adherence of the Council of Chalcedon and (also) join in participating in the holy mysteries celebrated by one of the orthodox priests; it even occurs that they bring in the Vööbus 1975: 159–163. As we can see, the document was written in a moment when there were two patriarchs operating at the same time, Severus of Antioch and Theodosius of Alexandria (both exiled), hence between 535 (the date in which Theodosius was appointed as bishop) and 538 (the date in which Severus died). Between these two dates, the 13th indiction falls in the period from September 534 to September 535. The information about the indiction in this document guarantees that the writers of the Synodikon had either the document itself or a text of the same period in their hands. Usually, in works such as these canons we do not find dates indicated. These dates were useful in circular letters. The writers who put together collections of canons usually skipped dates as well as the names of the people to whom circular letters were addressed. 20 See Alpi 2009 (for the prosopographical repertory, see vol. 2:114–176). 18 19 E-Offprint of the Author with Publisher’s Permission How Insurmountable was the Chasm? 217 tenth or that which is called offerings; (we desire) to learn whether it is proper to give them of the sacred mysteries and whether the orthodox may receive any thing which they bring.” The answer: “The exact canon of the church remains (valid); they cannot without distinction receive those who have fellowship with the heretics, and their holy offering cannot be given to them by the orthodox priests and they shall also not receive anything that they bring. But since the orthodox have difficulties in making distinction between them because of the multitude of the people, even as in times past, in the days of the holy fathers, as they saw that they were not able to distinguish the orthodox because of the multitude of the people, they regulated this matter with prudence as they could. So you shall also regulate this matter as you can (in such a way) that you will not be accused of neglecting strictness and so that you will not give cause for trouble and commotion (among the crowd).” A similar strategy can be observed in the canons following this one. If in the martyria there are ill people who are not able to distinguish the orthodox Eucharist from the heretic one, and if disorders or damages are to be expected in case they are not allowed to take part in the Eucharist offering, then they must also be allowed to take part in it; however, the priest has to warn them that, after their healing, they will have to remain in the orthodox community (that is, the anti-Chalcedonian one). We can imagine that the possible “disorders and damages” could have been caused by the protests of the families of the ill people deprived of the Eucharist offering. What is more, these protests could have been backed up by the crowd present in the sanctuary. Characterised by pragmatism, the suggestions of these canons are in contrast with the rigorous principles expressed by normative texts. Timothy I, patriarch of Alexandria (380–385), in his canonical answer states that the heretics cannot be present at the Eucharist offering.21 In the apocryphal and very popular Questions and Answers to Antiochus, a work attributed – undoubtedly wrongly – to Athanasius, people who receive communion from heretic priests or administer it to heretics are sharply condemned (“do not give what is holy to the dogs, says the Lord”).22 The canons of the Syrian Synodikon were created to be used in the Syrian Monophysite Church but it is legitimate to think that they could have been useful in Egypt as well. Let us remember that their authors were men belonging to the entourage of Severus, who, ever since he was deprived of Antioch’s throne, lived in Egypt and enjoyed there a great prestige. He had a deep knowledge of Egyptian customs thanks to his numerous journeys throughout the country. It was probably in Egypt that his opinion about the strategy to follow in mixed communities was developed. I think that the strategy suggested by the canons Joannou 1963: 245–246. Joannou 1963: 81. Composed in the form of answers and questions, this work has been written little by little: probably, various pieces were added to the original core during the 5th cent. and, again, during the 7th cent. This forces us to consider every single piece separately. As regards the piece I am quoting, the terminus ante quem for its dating is obtained from the fact that it was included in the Canons of the Holy Fathers. 21 22 E-Offprint of the Author with Publisher’s Permission 218 Ewa Wipszycka of the Syrian Synodikon could have been influenced by what happened in the two large sanctuaries nearby Alexandria, that of Abu Mena and that of Cyrus and John. In the big martyria and in the churches of the biggest cities, then, the principle of exclusion of believers of a different faith did not apply. Did things work differently in the churches of small communities, where everybody knew each other and those who took part in the cult were always the same people? A tiny archive of documents coming from a small ensemble of hermitages named Labla, situated near the pyramid of Hawara (in Fayyum), warns against making premature conclusions.23 In a pot buried in a corner of a room, archaeologists found three documents from the first years of the 6th cent. that regulated the legal situation of a hermitage that had to be used as a pledge for a loan. The parts of the loan contract are a Melitian monk who had converted to “orthodoxy” (we cannot know what this term indicated in the Fayyum area at the beginning of the 6th cent. since all Christians called themselves orthodox) and some other Melitian monks (among which is a presbyter). The witnesses of the contract are two presbyters: a Melitian one and an “orthodox” one, both exerting their functions in their respective katholike ekklesia (parish church) within the monasterion of Labla. What katholikai ekklesiai were within a small ensemble of hermitages presents a problem. As for my own reflections, what is relevant is the fact that all the monks appearing in these documents used to live together in Labla, and their belonging to two different faiths did not seem to create any difficulties. These three documents are also important from another point of view: they remind us of the fact that small religious groups professing a faith which is not that of the majority of the society in which they live, can persist for a very long time.24 For this reason, it is very difficult for me to believe that in Egypt, in regions where, according to Monophysite sources, the Monophysites had completely won, there were not any groups of Chalcedonians left. I came to the same conclusion after reading Mikhail 2014, which is extremely useful because it illustrates the problems of Egyptian history in an Arab (not Byzantine) perspective and it examines Arab sources in a critical and original way. In many passages of the book, the author shows facts that prove the strength of pro-Chalcedonian circles during the Arab period. These were a minority and were getting narrower as time passed, yet they persisted for a much longer period than we used to think. However, as the author points out, our knowledge in this sector is limited to the area of the Delta; for Middle and Southern Egypt we do not have any information. P.Dubl. 32–34; see my comment in Wipszycka 2009. While I was writing these words, in August 2014, the world’s public opinion was realising the existence, in North Iraq, of very small religious communities. These had been living there since ancient times until nowadays – until Islamic extremists committed to their extermination arose. This information is instructive for a historian of the Church. 23 24 E-Offprint of the Author with Publisher’s Permission How Insurmountable was the Chasm? 219 4. At the same table? Monastic environments and doctrinal controversies One of the practical difficulties that arose in the relationships between followers of different doctrines consisted in taking part in meals, especially solemn meals. The Canons of Basil (canon 67) report a norm that had been established before: the presbyters could not accept invitations to eat from heretics.25 Yet the authors of the Synodikon have a different approach towards invitations: It is not right particularly for the orthodox clerics to eat with the heretical clerics and with the laymen. But it is good also for the orthodox laymen to avoid eating with those. If, however, it happens and (an occasion of) necessity which they cannot avoid obliges them to eat, the orthodox shall take it upon themselves to make no prayer with the heretics, not even that one called the benediction over the food and drink placed before them. It is obvious that the monastic environments were particularly engaged in doctrinal controversies and showed a clear tendency towards extreme stances. Even if not all of them did, it was usually the monks who put pressure upon the bishops so that they did not accept any compromise. It was them who provoked tumults within the churches, and them who went out into the streets and fought their opponents. The history of the conflicts in Alexandria linked to the Christological question shows that they arose in the outskirts full of monasteries. Impressed by the intensity and the frequency of the conflicts in which the Monophysite monks were involved, scholars are convinced that in the neighborhood of Alexandria, apart from the Pachomian monastery in Canopus, orthodox monasticism was almost nonexistent. Yet actually the situation was not that simple. During the years in which he was living in Alexandria (beginning of the 7th cent.), John Moschus, the famous author of the Leimonarion, friend of Sophronius and defender of the Chalcedonian orthodoxy, had relationships with many particularly pious monks belonging to monastic communities located in the outskirts. In particular, he found interlocutors in the monastery of Enaton, the “community of the ninth mile,” the place where more than one Monophysite patriarch stayed.26 (Enaton was a huge monastic complex, made of various laurai and autonomous monasteries; it used to have a chief, who was endowed with prestige, but not with the power to guide the monks). It is therefore clear that groups following different doctrines as well as groups who did not want to take part in doctrinal conflicts could live together in the same monastic centre. Riedel 1900: 267. The Enaton is mentioned in chapters 145, 146, 147, 148, 184. The only (very poor) edition of the Pratum is in PG 87/3:2852–3112. English translation: Wortley 1998. About the work of John Moschos, as a source for the history of Alexandrian monasticism, see Haas 2002. I do not agree with Ch. Haas for what concerns the dimensions of the groups of Chalcedonian monks in the area surrounding Alexandria. 25 26 E-Offprint of the Author with Publisher’s Permission 220 Ewa Wipszycka The number of non-Chalcedonians in the monastery of Enaton must have been quite remarkable, otherwise the Monophysite majority would have made them to leave: they would not have used violent methods but they would have simply created an unfriendly atmosphere that would have impelled the Monophysites to leave. We have to bear in mind that the Egyptian monks did not consider the stability of the place as a binding rule. The fact that non-Monophysites were present in the monastery of Enaton can be also learned from the information provided by the anonymous Vita of the Chalcedonian patriarch John, known as John the Almsgiver. In order to assist Palestine, invaded by Persians, he sent a considerable amount of money together with wheat, wine, oil and clothes to Ctesippus, who according to the text was the “chief of Enaton.”27 Certainly, this monk could not have managed the whole monastery; he probably was the Archimandrite of one of the monasteries in Enaton – a Chalcedonian monastery. (For some time, I took into consideration the possibility that Ctesippus was a Monophysite known for his honesty, but I later persuaded myself that the patriarch John– who, despite not being a fanatic, was a fervent Chalcedonian– would have never chosen a Monophysite for this mission). The monastic milieu of Alexandria’s immediate surroundings was not the only one taking an active part in Christological conflicts. The big monasteries in the interior of the country, having a long tradition and good libraries and being aware of their prestige and thus convinced of having a mission towards the less active brothers, were inclined to manifest their beliefs in a violent way. A text concerning the 6th-cent. Pachomian monks, recently published by Goehring, gives us a sense of what used to happen in Pabau, in the most important Pachomian monastery, a place shaken by internal conflicts.28 The abbot of Pabau, Abraham of Farshut, a convinced Monophysite, had to deal with the opposition of a group of monks in his monastery that eventually force the local authorities to arrest him and to send him to Costantinople under an armed guard. Justinian tried in vain to obtain his conversion to the Chalcedonian creed. Removed from his role as abbot, Abraham went back to Egypt and, with the help of two monks who had left Pabau, he managed to establish a new monastery in his native village of Farshut. The management of the monastery of Pabau was committed to one of the opponents of the ex-abbot. The new monastic community established by Abraham was not persecuted in any way, despite the fact that it was a Monophysite community and that Justinian still ruled the Empire. As we see, in Pabau it was an internal conflict at the monastery that made it possible for the state authorities to intervene and to remove a Monophyiste abbot without putting the existence of the community at risk. This is confirmed by the fact that the Monophysite monastery of Shenoute in Sohag – the so27 28 See Delehaye 1927: 10.23. Goehring 2012. E-Offprint of the Author with Publisher’s Permission How Insurmountable was the Chasm? 221 called White Monastery – did not undergo any oppression: its internal cohesion did not allow the authorities to intervene. Probably, the other anti-Monophysite persecutions to which our sources refer to used to happen in analogous situations as the one described in the monastery of Pabau – apart from the cases in which riotous individuals caused revolts in the streets of Alexandria and had to be punished. The Pachomian monastery of Canopus, called the monastery of Metanoia or monastery of the Tabennesiots (from the name of the village of Tabennese, in which Pachomius established the first of his monasteries), is generally considered as Chalcedonian. It was from this community that three of the most important Chalcedonian patriarchs came: Timothy Salophakiolos, John Talaia and Paul Tabennesiotes. However, the Metanoia is mentioned in a definitely anti-Chalcedonian text, the Panegyricus in honour of Macarius of Tkow (Antaiopolis), which, according to the statements that it contains, was written by the patriarch Dioscorus in person. In this Panegyricus, we are told that Paphnutius, Archimandrite of the Pachomian congregation, stayed in the Metanoia monastery for a year while waiting for the return of Macarius from Costantinople (Shenoute the Great had told him that in order to be healed from gout he had to put his feet in Macarius’s sandals). When, after the Chalcedonian council, the Saint comes back to Alexandria on a ship belonging to the monastery of Tabennesiots, Paphnutius persuades him to go with him to Canopus. This text is a product of the anti-Chalcedonian propaganda and was written during the 6th cent., probably in the second half of the century.29 As we can see at that time, a fervent Monophysite does not hold any grudge against the Monastery of Canopus, rather he considers it a friendly place. In a passage from the Vita of Severus of Antioch (clearly a Monophysite text) where he describes the Alexandrine student environment, Zacharias states that Peter Mongus asked the monks in Metanoia to help a group of philoponoi students to destroy a pagan site in Menouthis (in a year between 482 and 489).30 When he came to own a precious relic (allegedly the piece of cloth with which Christ had dried the feet of the Apostles), the Monophysite patriarch Timothy III (517–535) brought it to the church of the Tabennesiots.31 We have to ask ourselves: do these facts which imply the existence of good relationships between Monophysite patriarchs and the monastery of Metanoia 29 Johnson 1980: 15.116–119 (text); 90–93 (translation). The opinion on the relevance of this text for my research depends on how this text is dated. Its editor denied that it had been written by Dioskoros and tried to prove that it had been actually written in 6th cent. Later, Moawad 2007 and 2010: 210–212, he stated that the Urtext had to be associated with the name of Dioscorus despite the fact that it contained many passages that could have not been written around the half of the 5th cent. This opinion does not seem very convincing to me. 30 PO 2/1.6:27. 31 John of Nikiu, Chronicon, 91. E-Offprint of the Author with Publisher’s Permission 222 Ewa Wipszycka also testify to temporary changes in the doctrinal stance of the monastery? Jean Gascou, who studied the history of the Alexandrine Church in particular, suggested this hypothesis.32 However, I think that it is possible to explain these facts in a different way. The participation of state officials in the persecution of Monophysite monastic communities does not necessarily mean that the relationships between the state and the Monophysites were always bad. Sometimes, Monophysite bishops were treated with immense respect by the imperial authorities. 5. Homilies and panegyrics In one of the last years of the 6th cent. or the first years of the 7th cent., the Monophysite patriarch Damian preached a solemn sermon in the most important church of Alexandria. The sermon was pronounced in the presence of a special delegate of Emperor Maurice – the logothetes Constantine Ladrys – and Amantius, a powerful eunuch in the Palatine hierarchy.33 (The Emperor had sent his dignitaries to arrest the leaders of the riots in the cities of the Nile Delta.) A large crowd took part in the ceremony, including the elite of the city. Much is surprising: the Emperor is a Chalcedonian, Alexandria’s katholike church belongs to the Chalcedonians and there is a Chalcedonian patriarch in Alexandria, Eulogius. Nonetheless, the sermon is pronounced by the Monophysite patriarch. We are certainly dealing with a political gesture originating from a previous agreement between the two parts. (Had Eulogius compromised himself during the riot of the Delta and had he thus been forced to carry out this gesture? This just a possibility, nothing more). In the History of the Coptic Patriarchs of Alexandria, we can find a similar case:34 according to this text the Monophysite patriarch Anastasius preached a homily in the church of John the Baptist, an extremely prestigious church in the hands of the Chalcedonians. In his homily he cursed Phokas, and this information reached the usurper through the witness of the Chalcedonian Eulogius. Due to this episode, the church of Saints Cosmas and Damian was taken away from the Monophysites. I am not able to evaluate the reliability of this account, but in any case, it is interesting to note that the author who was the primary source of this part of the History of the Coptic Patriarchs of Alexandria and who wrote at the beginning of the 8th cent., did not find it strange that a Monophysite had preached a homily in one of the main Chalcedonian churches of the city. Gascou 2007: 278–279. Crum 1913, no..7. The designation of Constantine Ladrys as governor of Alexandria is mentioned by John of Nikiu, Chron. 97.27. In the text, he says that Constantine arrested a few people. This happened at the end of the riot in Aykelah. 34 PO 1:479. 32 33 E-Offprint of the Author with Publisher’s Permission How Insurmountable was the Chasm? 223 The colophon of the manuscript of the first Panegyric in honour of Saint Claudius, written by Constantine, a Monophysite bishop of Lykopolis, reports that during a celebration at the sanctuary in which the inhabitants of three cities (Panopolis, Hermopolis and Lykopolis) took part, there were the eparchos and the stratelates (the dux?) of the Thebaid and a magistrianos sent by the Emperor with “letters of peace.” The colophon of the manuscript of the second Panegyric, written by the same author, mentions the presence of the patriarch’s vicar Andronicus: on his return to Alexandria the vicar made a report of the miracles that had happened thanks to Saint Claudius. The Bishop Constantine who had been appointed by Damian (578–605/607) lived until 640.35 We do not know what was contained in the “letters of peace;” neither do we know whether the emperor was Phokas (602–610) or Heraclius (614–641). The second Panegyric must have been written in 619, when the Alexandrine throne was already taken by Andronicus but before the Persians came from northern Egypt: this happened in 619 but in the text there is no allusion to an imminent danger and the vicar easily returns to Alexandria. At that time, the empire was governed by a particularly fervent emperor who had committed himself to a holy war against the Persians in order to gain back lost territories as well as the true Cross. Another example is provided by the colophon of the enkomion written by Phoibammon, Bishop of Panopolis, in honour of the martyr Kollouthos. This enkomion was spoken by him in the sanctuary of Kollouthos in Pneuit (see above). The great eparchos of Antinoe and Hermopolis and some officials from Panopolis were attending the ceremony.36 6. Conclusions Let us review the considerations thus far. If the traditional opinion according to which there was an insuperable chasm between Chalcedonians and Monophysites were held to be true, some of the various facts that I have listed would be considered as anomalies. Actually, these facts show that the situation concerning the relationships between the representatives of the two Churches in Egypt during the 6th–7th cent. was indeed very fluid and depended on the Garitte 1950: 287–304. See also Orlandi 2010. This text has been published by Schenke 2013: 161–164. In Schenke’s opinion, the great eparchos of Antinoe and of Hermopolis was the governor of the province of Thebais. This seems a bit surprising to me. When talking about someone else, the author of the colophon used the term dux: why would he, in this case, have called the dux of Thebais in this way? I think it is more probable that he was referring to the pagarch of two cities close to each other. In John of Nikiu’s Chronicon, in 97.409, there can be found a reference to a case in which a single person is the pagarch of two nomoi. 35 36 E-Offprint of the Author with Publisher’s Permission 224 Ewa Wipszycka line-up of the social forces (not just ecclesiastical ones) in a certain place, at a certain historical time. Ecclesiastical leaders and state officials did not all have to show the same behavior in Alexandria as in Lykopolis, in Oxyrhynchos as in Arsinoe etc. The traditional view ignores these differences and this distorts our perception of historical reality. In many occasion, Monophysites and Chalcedonians reached compromises as we have seen in some of the examples within this paper. This is normal in social life. Also, it is normal that those who obtained the final victory did not want preserve the memory of such compromises when they wrote literary works meant to create an image of the past that would be favorable for the Monophysite Church. Bibliography Alcock, Anthony (Ed.). The Life of Samuel of Kalamun by Isaac the Presbyter. Warminster: Aris and Phillips, 1983. Alpi, Frédéric. La route royale: Sévère d’Antioche et les Églises d’Orient (512–518). Vols. 1–2. Beirut: Institut français du Proche-Orient, 2009. Booth, Phil. “Shades of Blues and Greens in the Chronicle of John of Nikiou.” Byzantinische Zeitschrift 104 (2011): 555–601. Booth, Phil. Crisis of Empire. Doctrine and Dissent at the End of Late Antiquity. Transformation of the Classical Heritage 52. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2014. Breydy, Michel. Études sur Sa’id ibn Batriq et ses sources. Corpus scriptorum christianorum orientalium: subsidia 69. Leuven: Peeters, 1983. Cameron, Alan. Circus Factions: Blues and Greens at Rome and Byzantium. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976. Camplani, Alberto. “L’autorappresentazione dell’episcopato di Alessandria tra IV e V secolo: questioni di metodo.” Annali di storia dell’esegesi 21 (2004): 147–185. Camplani, Alberto. “Lettere episcopali, storiografia patriarcale e letteratura canonica: a proposito del Codex Veronensis LX (58).” Rivista di storia del cristianesimo 3 (2006): 117–164. Camplani, Alberto. “Pietro di Alessandria tra documentazione d’archivio e agiografia popolare.” Pages 138–156 in Volksglaube im antiken Christentum. Prof. Dr. Theofried Baumeister OFM zur Emeritierung. Edited by Heike Grieser, Andreas Merkt. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2009. Camplani, Alberto. “Un’antica teoria della successione patriarcale in Alessandria.” Pages 59–68 in Aegyptiaca and Coptica. Studi in onore di Sergio Pernigotti. Edited by Paola Buzi, Daniela Picchi, Marco Zecchi. British Archaeological Reports International Series 2264. Oxford: Archaeopress, 2011. Camplani, Alberto. “The Religious Identity in Some Ecclesiastical Histories of Late Antique Egypt.” Pages 85–119 in L’historiographie tardo-antique et la transmission des savoirs. Edited by Philippe Blaudeau, Peter Van Nuffelen. Millennium Studies 55. Berlin–New York: W. de Gruyter, 2015. Charles, Robert H. (Ed.). The Chronicle of John, Coptic Bishop of Nikiu. London: APA–Philo Press, 1916. Crum, Walter E. Theological Texts from Coptic Papyri. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913. Delehaye, Hippolythe. “Une vie inédite de Saint Jean l’Aumônier.” Analecta Bollandiana 45 (1927): 5–74. Déroche, Vincent. “Un recueil inédit de Miracles de Cyr et Jean dans le Koutloumousiou 37.” Rivista di studi bizantini e neoellenici 49 (2012): 199–220. E-Offprint of the Author with Publisher’s Permission How Insurmountable was the Chasm? 225 Drescher, James (Ed.). Apa Mena. A Selection of Coptic Texts Relating to Saint Menas, Edited with Translation and Commentary. Cairo: IFAO, 1946. Fernández Marcos, Natalio. Los Thaumata de Sofronio. Contribución al estudio de la incubatio cristiana. Manuales y anejos de “Emerita” 31. Madrid: Instituto Antonio de Nebrija, 1975. Garitte, Gérard. “Constantin évêque d’Assiout.” Pages 287–304 in Coptic Studies in Honor of Walter E. Crum. The Bulletin of Byzantine Institute 2. Boston: The Byzantine Institute, 1950. Gascou, Jean (Ed.). Sophrone de Jerusalem. Miracles des saints Cyr et Jean (BHG I 477–479). Traduction commentee. Collections de l’Université Marc-Bloch-Strasbourg. Paris: De Boccard, 2006. Gascou, Jean. “Les origines du culte des Saints Cyr et Jean.” Analecta Bollandiana 125 (2007): 241–281. Gascou, Jean. “Religion et identité communautaire à Alexandrie à la fin de l’époque byzantine d’après le Miracles des saints Cyr et Jean.” Pages 68–88 in Alexandrie médiévale 3. Edited by Jean-Yves Empereur, Christian Décobert. Collection des études alexandrines 16. Cairo: IFAO, 2008. Godron, Gérard. Textes coptes relatifs à Saint Claude d’Antioche. PO 35. Turnhout: Brepols, 1970. Goehring, James E. Politics, Monasticism and Miracles in Sixth Century Egypt: A Critical Edition and Translation of the Coptic Texts on Abraham of Farshut. Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum 69. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr Siebeck, 2012. Grossmann, Peter. “Phoibammon von Panopolis und Kolluthos martyrium in Pnewit.” Journal of Coptic Studies 12 (2010): 19–31. Grossmann, Peter. “Nachtrag mit Korrekturen zum Phoibammon encomium.” Journal of Coptic Studies 14 (2012): 85–95. Haas, Christopher. “John Moschos and Late Antique Alexandria.” Pages 47–59 in Alexandrie Médiévale 2. Edited by Christian Décobert. Collection des études alexandrines 8. Cairo: IFAO, 2002. Jaritz, Felicitas. Die arabischen Quellen zum Heiligen Menas. Heidelberg: Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, 1993. Jarry, Jacques. “La révolte dite d’Aykelâh.” Bulletin de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale 62 (1964): 187–206. Jarry, Jacques. “Cosmas, fils de Samuel, et les dernières décades de l’Égypte byzantine.” Bulletin de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale 74 (1974): 85–91. Joannou, Périclés-Pierre. Discipline générale antique (IVe–IXe s.). Les Canons des Pères Grecs. Rome: Tipografia italo-orientale, 1963. Johnson, David W. (Ed.). A Panegyric on Macarius Bishop of Tkôw Attributed to Dioskoros of Alexandria. Corpus scriptorum christianorum orientalium. Scriptores coptici 415. Leuven: Peeters, 1980. Mikhail, Maged S.A. From Byzantine to Islamic Egypt. Religion, Identity and Politics after the Arab Conquest. New York: I.B. Tauris, 2014. Moawad, Samuel. “Zur Datierung des Panegyrikos auf Makarios von Tkôou.” Orientalia Lovaniensia analecta 163 (2007): 549–562. Moawad, Samuel. Untersuchungen zum Panegyrikos auf Makarios von Tkōou und zu seiner Überlieferung. Sprachen und Kulturen des christlichen Orients 18. Wiesbaden: ISD, 2010. Orlandi, Tito. “Costantino di Siut.” Col. 1227 in Nuovo Dizionario patristico e di antichità cristiane. Edited by Angelo Di Berardino. Vol. 1. Genoa: Marietti, 2010. Papaconstantinou, Arietta. “‘Je suis noire, mais belle’: le double langage de la Vie de Théodora d’Alexandrie, alias abba Théodore.” Lalies 24 (2004): 63–87. Papaconstantinou, Arietta. “Au-delà de l’hagiographie: réflexions sur les sources de l’histoire du culte des saints à Byzance.” Pages 329–340 in Pèlerinages et lieux saints dans l’Antiquité et E-Offprint of the Author with Publisher’s Permission 226 Ewa Wipszycka le Moyen Âge: mélanges offerts à Pierre Maraval. Edited by Béatrice Caseau, Jean-Claude Cheynet, Vincent Déroche. Centre de recherche d’histoire et civilisation de Bysance, monographies 23. Paris: Association des amis du centre d’histoire et civilisation de Byzance, 2006. Papaconstantinou, Arietta. “Historiography, Hagiography, and the Making of the Coptic ‘Church of the Martyrs’ in Early Islamic Egypt.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 60 (2006): 65–86. Papaconstantinou, Arietta. “The Cult of Saints: a Haven of Continuity in a Changing World?” Pages 350–367 in Egypt in the Byzantine World, 300–700. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Riedel, Wilhelm J. Die Kirchenrechtsquellen des Patriarchats Alexandrien. Leipzig: A. Deichert, 1900. Schenke, Gesa. Das koptisch hagiographische Dossier des Heiligen Kollouthos, Arzt, Märtyrer, und Wunderheiler. Corpus scriptorum christianorum orientalium. Subsidia. Leuven: ISD, 2013. Vööbus, Arthur. The Synodicon in the West Syrian Tradition. Vols. 1–2. Corpus scriptorum christianorum orientalium. Scriptores Syri 161–164. Leuven: Peeters, 1975–1976. Wipszycka, Ewa. Les ressources et les activités économiques des églises en Égypte du IVe au VIIIe siècle. Papyrologica Bruxellensia 10. Brussels: Fondation Égyptologique Reine Élisabeth, 1972. Wipszycka, Ewa. “Monks and Monastic Dwellings. P. Dubl, 32–34, P.Kru 105 and BL MS.Or. 6201–6206 Revisited.” Pages 236–243 in Monastic Estates in Late Antique and Early Islamic Egypt. Ostraca, Papyri, and Essays in Memory of Sarah Clackson. Edited by Anne Boud’hors. American Studies in Papyrology 46. Cinnicinati: American Society of Papyrologists, 2009. Wortley, John. The Spiritual Meadow of John of Schythopolis. Introduction, Translation and Notes. Cistercian Studies Series 139. Kalamazoo: Cistercian Publications, 1998. Zotenberg, Hermann (Ed.). Chronique de Jean, évêque de Nikiou. Texte éthiopien publié et traduit. Paris: Impr. Nationale, 1883 E-Offprint of the Author with Publisher’s Permission