E.  L. Woodward, Christianity and Nationalism in the Later Roman Empire (London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1916), ch. 3

(NB - I have translated the French, Greek, and Latin quotations.)

CHAPTER III

HERESY AND NATIONALISM IN EGYPT AND SYRIA

EAST Of the province of Africa lay the patriarchate of Alexandria. The western borders of the Alexandrian patriarchate--the Pentapolis--can be passed over; its geographical isolation, the trade rivalry of Alexandria, and the unrest of the desert hinterland had been the downfall of Cyrene. Synesius describes the people as stay-at-home and inert, and as looking to the bureaucracy for protection against the Church.

The dominant factor in the see of Alexandria as Egypt, and the dominant factor in Egypt was Alexandria. The Empire had in Egypt taken over intact the civil service and whole governmental stem of the Ptolemies.' Egypt influenced Rome more than Rome influenced Egypt: the deep appeal of an ancient ritual, of magnificent processions and liturgic dramas, had popularised through the Empire the worship of Isis and Serapis: the doctrine of Immortality helped to transform pagan theology: [42] the idea of the consoling Mother-goddess and her young child illustrates the line of developement taken by popular Christian religion. Alexandria herself, with enormous quays, a lighthouse and a library that were the wonder of the world, with her school of philosophy and mathematics, her incurably turbulent and cosmopolitan inhabitants,' claimed to stand above Antioch and on an equality with Rome. Her mathematical fame gave her the privilege of settling the time for Easter: her philosophy found a new outlet in the school of theology which possessed such famous names as Origen and Clement, though its often far-fetched allegorical interpretations and its bold speculations were from the first tinged with heresy.

The patriarch of Alexandria ruled over a diocese compact and strong in national feeling, and, on the whole, obedient; he was often called Pope. S. Leo speaks of him as a second Pharaoh. Justinian conferred the office of prefect and patriarch upon the same person. Beneath the patriarch's charge, a valuable if impetuous support, were the monks of the desert, while his authority extended to Aethiopia and Nubia.

The patriarchs of Alexandria deposed three [43] patriarchs of Constantinople--Chrysostom, Nestorius, and Flavian. They seized every opportunity--such as the ambition of the bishops of Jerusalem to transform their see into an autonomous patriarchate--to depress the see of Antioch. Alexandria was very jealous of the upstart power of Constantinople. Doctrinally, Theophilus (patriarch of Alexandria from 385-412), who supported Epiphanius with vigour in his anti-Origenist campaign, seems to have been himself an Origenist, and to have used the anti-Origenist zeal largely as a means of humiliating Constantinople and S. John Chrysostom. On the other hand, the condemnation of Eutyches in 448 was not only a victory of the true faith over error, but, incidentally, a vindication--and not a very successful vindication--of the authority of Constantinople against the domineering attitude of Alexandria.

But it is only after Alexandria had definitely taken up the wrong side in the Monophysite controversy 11 that the feud became of general political importance.

It must, however, in justice to the bishops of Alexandria in the century from 350-450, be pointed out that we cannot understand the history of that century unless we read into it those factors the working of which can clearly be discerned after Chalcedon. The ambitions of particular people, [44] when isolated from their environment, and the environment itself when studied against the white background of the categorical imperative, look very drab; but those who apply harsh epithets to the aims, as well as to certain particular actions, of S. Cyril or of Dioscuros, often use a very different standard of criticism when judging the separatist movements of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.

Further a chronicler of mass movements is bound to point out the deleterious influence of a crowd upon its leaders. Croiset,' after speaking of the striking vitality of Christian literature in the fourth century, speaks of the mischievous effect exercised upon it by the very intensity and popularity of the subjects discussed. 'The lively spirits, the ambitious and energetic characters threw themselves into this melee and they lost.  In the midst of these clamors and these subtle disputes, good sense was obliterated, the disinterested pursuit of truth disappeared.'

Monophysitism was adopted by Alexandria and Egypt as a national creed ; it was held to be the teaching of the national hero S. Cyril, whose honour had, so Alexandria thought, been insulted at Chalcedon in 451. The Emperor Marcian made the faith of Chalcedon the law of the Empire. This only strengthened the allegiance of Egypt to S. Cyril, and the deposition of Dioscuros aroused a fierce opposition to Constantinople. The orthodox party were regarded as anti-national, and their nominee to [45] the vacant patriarchate, Proterius, found nearly the whole people--especially the lower classes and the monks--against him; two thousand soldiers from Constantinople could scarcely suppress the riots in Alexandria.

On Dioscuros' death in 454 his party elected a successor--Timothy Aelurus.  Three years later, in the prolonged absence of the commander of the troops, Proterius was murdered, the ' Chalcedonians ' expelled, and a national Monophysite Church was organised.  Three years later again the loyalist party, aided by the government, expelled Timothy Aelurus and put in his place Timothy Salophacioaus, whom some (the Monophysites) called Basiliscus [Imperialist], says Evagrius, pointing out the nationalism of the party. The anti-imperialist party branded their opponents as Melchites (Melek = King); they themselves used the native tongue in their liturgies just as the Arian Cyrila at the Council of Carthage made a point of not understanding Latin--while the Melchites used Greek.

The government alternated between persecution and compromise; but persecution only embittered [46] the nationalists, and compromise seemed mere weakness. The Monophysites would feel, like the Catholics when they received toleration from Gunthamund of Burgundy, 'perhaps any heretic can rule.'  Therefore the Henotikon of Zeno was of no more avail than the toleration of Anastasius. But the Monophysite sympathies of Anastasius had two results: they caused a schism with the West, and they encouraged the spread of Monophysitism. by Alexandrian missionaries in the districts outside the patriarchate. Justin was naturally anti-Monophysite, as opposed to Anastasius. Justinian, desiring the friendship of the Western Church, was bound to conciliate orthodoxy by taking measures against heretics. It was in his reign that the political and religious conflict became crucial, but before studying it, it is necessary to consider Antioch and Syria.

Seeck points out in an interesting way that the stream of progress, which slowly froze throughout the Empire, kept its warmth longest in the regions where the Semitic element predominated. If Syria is considered, the theory does not even express the whole truth, for the prosperity and culture of the period increased as time went on. The sixth century marks [47] the apogee, in M. Diehl's phrase, of the Syrian provinces and also of Armenia.

We have already noticed the prominence of Armenians in the imperial forces, and seen how their feudal gentry formed a useful counterpoise to the Goths. Syria proper gave birth to capable soldiers: the great Solomon came from Daras. In the sphere of literature and the arts Syria produced historians like Procopius, John of Ephesus, Evagrius, and Malalas; the law school of Berytus had a cosmopolitan reputation, and it seems to have learnt how to produce in the minds of men like Procopius much of the old Roman spirit. Northern Syria is fall of Christian Churches of a really original type of architecture; Antioch, the capital, was a city of 300,000 inhabitants.

The religious situation in Syria bore some relation to that in Egypt. Both countries had strong Christian traditions-Antioch even more than Alexandria ; the peoples of both countries were nationalist, and therefore anti-imperial in character ; both patriarchs had churches outside the empire under their superintendence ; Antioch had a school of theology, prone, like the Alexandrian school, to heresy; there was a small pagan opposition in Syria as in Egypt. [48] Both sees included a large number of monks, many of whom, in their 'singular habitude,' like S. Simon Stylites abandoning 'the beaten path which the Saints had trodden,' must have been a difficulty to the bishop.

But the Alexandrian diocese was more compact than the Antiochene ; the latter included many different races and languages, and it lost Cyprus and Jerusalem. After the Council of Ephesus nearly all the eastern part of the patriarchate remained Nestorian; persecution only drove the church and school of Edessa to Nisibis, where the King of Persia gladly welcomed a Christianity that was not imperial. Monophysitism also, as antiimperial, gained a great hold, many in Western Syria refusing allegiance to the decree of Chalcedon. The Armenian Church, which was under a Catholicos of its own, and which remained united after the partition of Armenia in 440, held to Monophysitism. They had first adopted it out of opposition to Persian Christianity and out of friendship for the Empire. They used it finally as a barrier to defend their nationality; for this purpose they kept also certain peculiarities of ritual.

Anastasius had adopted the policy of non-interference, in the hope that the toleration he had allowed and the knowledge that he was himself a [49] Monophysite would gradually bring about a quiet settlement. But toleration had the opposite effect. Individual bishops could do as they chose ; the result was that the Eastern Churches were divided into factions, and finally had no friendly intercourse with Africa and the West. Anastasius was therefore compelled to abandon his policy of non-intervention, and to remove the extremists on either side. This again led to continuous intrigues in Syria in which the monks were very vehement. On one occasion they rushed in a body into Antioch, and a wild street conflict ensued.

In the East, as in Egypt, the rise to power and subsequent accession of Justinian marked a reaction; the revolt of Vitalian in 514 had shown that such a, reaction would find support.