ANTIOCHIA DI SIRIA

ANTIOCHIA of Syria. – A city in the fertile valley of the Orontes River, 25 km from the sea, today Antakiyeh.

SUMMARY.: I. A. in the Bible. – II. A. in Christian archaeology. –

III. The patriarchate of A

IV. The councils of A

V. The school of A

VI. The ancient rite

VII. A. of the Maronites. – VIII. A. of the Melkites. – IX. A. of the Syrians.

I. A. in the Bible. – A. was the capital of the Seleucid kingdom, founded in 300 B.C. by Seleucus I Nicator, who named it in honor of his father Antiochus. Thanks to the port of Seleucia and its position at the crossroads of routes from the Euphrates to the Mediterranean and from Syria to Asia Minor, it held great commercial importance, but was also a center of corruption. A cosmopolitan city, at the beginning of the common era it had about 300,000 inhabitants, besides slaves (about 200,000). In 64 B.C. Pompey reduced Syria (q.v.) to a Roman province, with A. as its capital, making it the largest city in the Roman Empire after Rome and Alexandria.

A. played a significant role in the early spread of Christianity. Its evangelization began shortly after the death of Stephen, through Jewish converts expelled from Jerusalem; soon Barnabas (q.v.) joined them and called Saul (Paul) to his aid: the community quickly prospered, and there the disciples of Christ were first called Christians (Acts 11:19-26). A. was the starting point and destination of Paul’s first and second missionary journeys (Acts 13:1–14:27; 15:35–18:22), and the third also began there (Acts 18:23). The dispute over the relationship between legal observances and the new religion arose in A. (Acts 14:26–15:1); thus the solution given by the Apostles gathered in Jerusalem for this purpose was first communicated to A. (Acts 15:2-32). There we also find St. Peter (Gal. 2:11) as head of that community (Eusebius, Hist. ecc., 3, 36; PG 20, 228), though we do not know the date or duration of his leadership.

Important excavations have been carried out since 1932 by the American University of Princeton: C. S. Fisher, F. O. Waage, J. Lassus, *Antioch on the Orontes, The Excavations of 1932*, Princeton 1934; R. Stillwell (with others), II, 11; *The Excavations of 1933-36*, 11; R. Stillwell (with others), II, 11; *The Excavations of 1933-36*, 11; R., A. Campbell, *The Third Season of Excavations at Antioch on the Orontes*, in *American Journal of Archaeology*, 40 (1936), pp. 1-10; R. J. Braidwood, *Mounds in the Plain of Antioch: An Archaeological Survey*, Chicago 1937; C. R. Morey, *The Mosaics of Antioch*, London 1938; G. M. A. Kaufmann, *Notes on the Mosaics from Antioch*, in *Amer. J. of Archaeology*, 43 (1939), pp. 220-46; G. Downey, *The Gate of the Cherubim at Antioch*, in *Jewish Quarterly Review*, 29 (1938-39), pp. 167-177; cf. R. Krautheimer, in *Riv. di Archeologia Cristiana*, 16 (1939), pp. 129-32.
II. A. IN CHRISTIAN ARCHAEOLOGY. - A., immediately after Rome, is the city that offers the greatest evidence for the development of the cult of the martyrs. The city seems, by divine grace, to be fortified all around by the relics of the Saints, as it were externally. John Chrysostom (In geometrielli appellationem, 1; PG 49, 393). The so-called sermon of pseudo-Eusebius (BHO, 70), the Syriac Martyrology of the year 411, and the Hieronymian Martyrology allow us to reconstruct the calendar of the Church of A. with the list of its bishops and martyrs. Great promoters of the cult of the martyrs were Bishop Flavian, builder of churches in their honor, and, with their sermons, John Chrysostom and Patriarch Severus. A characteristic of A. is also the frequency of the translations of the bodies of the martyrs, carried out with solemn processions that went to receive the relics, even traveling great distances from the city. Thus are documented the translations of the remains of many martyrs, such as St. Ignatius, St. Biblia, St. Meletius, St. Eustathius, St. Simeon Stylites, etc.

The birthdays of the martyrs were solemnly celebrated in A. with prayers, songs, readings, night vigils, panegyrics, and banquets (Eusebius: PG 21, 1066; St. John Chrysostom: PG 50, 587; Theodore: PG 83, 1033). St. John Chrysostom advises the faithful to pray at the tombs of the martyrs, embracing the sacred coffins (PG 50, 665); this was the custom practiced at the
ANTIOCHIA — Archaeological plan.

The names Babila, Gioventino and Massimino, Bercince and Prosdocce, Barlaam occur. Unfortunately, the wealth of the documentation is not matched by that of the surviving monuments.

The Christian community of A. had several cemeteries outside the city. A very extensive one lay in the open in a walled area on the road to Daphne; in its centre stood a sumptuous round mausoleum, surrounded by a peribolos, containing the tombs of many martyrs (St John Chrysostom: PG 49, 393, 541). There in the year 392 St Jerome venerated the relics of St Ignatius (De viris illustr., 16); there too were deposited the martyrs Babila, bishop in the time of Decius, Gioventino and Massimino, in a single sarcophagus (St John Chrysostom: PG 50, 571), and Julian of Cilicia, the virgin Drosis (St John Chrysostom: PG 50, 685). In the sixth century it was still in use, for Bishop Domnus III transferred to it from Emesa the relics of the local martyr St Thomas.

Another cemetery was situated outside the Roman Gate; after being for a time usurped by heretics, Bishop Meletius transferred the martyrs’ bodies to the upper church, covering over the rest (St John Chrysostom, In Ascens., I: PG 50, 442).

Recently, beyond St Paul’s Gate and near the city walls, numerous Christian tombs have been discovered, covered by a portico in front of a fifth-century church; there are also tombs of monks from the ninth and tenth centuries (J. Lassus, Sanctuaires Chrétiens de Syrie, Paris 1947).

As for the places of worship in A., the Chronicon Paschale (ed. Bonn, p. 584) records that the Christians gathered in a very spacious place called παλατά, which Theodoret calls the Apostolic (Hist. eccl., 38: PG 82, 110) and Malalas places near the Pantheon, in the street of Singon (Chronicon, ed. Bonn, p. 42).

Eusebius has left a description of the sumptuous octagon erected by Constantine, a building unique in its grandeur and splendour, worthy of the city (Vita Const., 3, 50). In a vast enclosure, large porticoes led to the typical octagonal structure, entirely of stone, with external hemicycles and alternating curved and rectangular niches within. The mass rose to a great height by means of two superimposed storeys and was clearly visible on the horizon from afar. The interior gleamed with the reflections of gold, bronze and other precious materials. Eusebius (De laude Const.: PG 20, 1109) recalls the richness of the pavement, the wall inlays, the columns supporting the gilded dome (Theophanes, Chronogr.: PG 108, 111); St Jerome therefore calls the building dominicum aureum; it was dedicated to Christ by Constantius II on the day of Epiphany in the year 341, whence also its name of the Lord’s Octagon (Theophanes, Chronogr.: PG 86, 2468). The altar, contrary to custom, faced westwards (Socrates, Hist. eccl., 5, 22).

J. Lassus, by means of the depiction on a mosaic pavement dating from around 470, discovered in 1932, recognizes that the Constantinian octagon was located on the island formed by the Orontes River, in the new city, near the Taurian Gate, not far from the imperial palace (J. Lassus, *Antioch on the Orontes*, I, Princeton 1932, pp. 114-28).

Grabar holds that Constantine began the construction after his victory over Licinius and the union of the West with the East; in this sense, therefore, he explains the name given to the octagon in some documents: *δμονλα*, *concordia*. The church was closed in 362 by the emperor Julian; severe damage was caused to it by the earthquake of the year 526; the architect Ephrem restored it, but rebuilt the roof in wood, using the cypresses from the sacred grove of Daphne.

Other churches include: the Church of St. Ignatius; Theodosius II (405-50) transformed the temple of Fortune (*τυχαῖον*) into a sauro and transferred the relics of the holy bishop there; the Church of the Theotokos, erected by the unforgettable Justinian; the Church of St. Peter on the hill; the Church of the Protomartyr St. Stephen in the western part of the city; the Church of SS. Cosmas and Damian; the Church of St. Thecla; the Church containing the relics of the Seven Maccabees, mentioned by St. John Chrysostom (BHC 1008, 1009) and by the itinerary of the Pseudo-Antoninus of Piacenza (*Itin. Hieros.*, ed. Geyer, Vienna 1898, p. 190); the Church of St. Barlaam, erected by Bishop Flavian (H. Delehaye, *S. Barlaam martyr à Antioche*, in *Analecta Bollandiana*, 22 (1903), pp. 129-45); the Church of St. Romanus, a deacon of a church near Caesarea, but martyred in Antioch in 303 and celebrated by St. John Chrysostom, Prudentius, and Severus; the Church of St. Leontius, built in 507 on the site of the destroyed synagogue; the Church of St. Simeon.

Great veneration was also accorded in Antioch to the two young martyrs Drosis and Pelagia, celebrated by St. John Chrysostom, and to the two priest-martyrs Lucian and Theodore.

To the urban cult buildings must be added those outside the city. Among these, the Church of St BABILAS stands out, identified by J. Lassus at Kaoussié, three hundred metres beyond the River Orontes. It was in the form of a cross with four equal arms of 25 x 11 m (called εξέδαι), extending from a central square of 16 m on each side. It was built by Bishop Meletius in the year 381 to contain the relics of St Babylas. But the remains of the holy bishop had already been removed from the cemetery of A. by Gallo Cesare (351-54) to be placed in Daphne in the basilica specially erected in his honour; the oracle had then fallen silent, so that in 362 the Emperor Julian had ordered the relics of the martyr to be taken back to the cemetery of A. Bishop Meletius was buried in the same sarcophagus as St Babylas (St John Chrysostom: PG 50, 544). His successor Flavian adorned the floor with mosaics bearing the date of the year 387. Slightly later is the baptistery with three adjoining halls. There is then the Basilica containing the relics of St Julian, martyr of Cilicia. It was erected by Bishop Flavian; there were also deposited the martyr Marino and the holy ascetics Aftate, Theodosius and Macedonius (Theodoret, Relig. Hist., 10, 1199; 13, 1215; Malalas, Chronogr., 18).

The Church of St John called τοῦ προδόμου σου with its annexed baptistery in the vicus Tiberinus; the Church of St Martha; the Church of St Michael where the bodies of SS Phocas and Procopius lay; the church outside the Gate of St Paul at a place called Ma'šukā, discovered in 1936, divided into three naves by columns, with a mosaic floor and preceded by a narthex (D. Levi, Antioch Mosaic Pavements, Princeton 1947, p. 368 and pls. 140-41). Even more distant were the churches of St Symeon the Stylite, end of the 5th cent., on the Gebel between A. and Aleppo (v. QAL'AT SIM'ĀN). Finally: St Symeon the Stylite of the Wonderful Mountain, between A. and Seleucia. An octagonal church of the end of the 6th cent., without a dome, an enlargement of architectural schemes imagined for domes and vaults.

From literary sources and the not inconsiderable monumental remains some have recognised in A. a pre-eminent importance as a centre of artistic formations that passed into Western art. In this way the Constantinian octagon of A. would have inspired the octagon of St Vitale in Ravenna (Strzygowski, Morey). A characteristic of Antiochene work would be the treatment of ornament, the polychrome effects. As early as 1902 Strzygowski proposed to recognise as products of Antiochene art the two pillars of the little square of St Mark and some capitals in St Mark’s in Venice; the ivory throne of Maximian in Ravenna, which Morey, however, considers a product of Alexandrian artists living in Constantinople. Strzygowski also believed that the Sidamara-type sarcophagi, with niches and columns, had A. as their centre of production, a claim that cannot be proved.

Certo A. fu la capitale della cultura dell'Asia Minor; il fattore siro-palestinese nello stile e nella iconografia si è formato non in Gerusalemme ma in A. Gli elementi decorativi dei musicai pavimentati d'A. (recentemente editi da D. Levi e da J. Lassus) ritornano nelle miniature della Genesi di Vienna, della topografia di Cosma Indicolpeuste, nell'evangelista s. Marco e nell'ultima Cena del Codice purpureo di Rossano, negli evangeliani di Entschmidzian e di Rabula; c'è insomma un'influenza degli Scriptoria antiochiani sulla serie di miniature con scene del Vecchio Testamento e dei Vangeli. Così pure, secondo il Morey, nei musicai ravennati, specie nello sfondo architettonico del palazzo di Teodorico, nella fenice e nei pavoni della cattedra di Massimiano. Così negli intarsi del battistero degli ortodossi di Ravenna si è vista una derivazione di quelli dell'ottagono di A. descritti da Eusebio.

Un'intera letteratura si è riunita per il cosiddetto argomento calice di A., che si dice scoperto in un pozzo presso l'Oronte nel 1910, ora nella collezione Fahim-Kouchak-Kji a Nuova York; ma la provenienza da A. venne infiormata da Ch. Diehl e dal Woolley. Differenti ipotesi datano questo prodotto dell'arte siracica dal 50-70 d. C. (Strzygowski) al sec. VI (de Jerphanion). La decorazione cesellata a sbalzo rappresenta tralci vitine sui quali sono assisi in cattedra due volte Cristo e gli Apostoli; il piede è sproporzionato alla coppa. Contro l'autenticità ha scritto G. Wilpert con argomenti ritenuti insufficienti dal Redenvaldt e da altri. Sarebbe desiderabile un'analisi chimica, secondo la proposta del Dussad. Il Brehier e il Diehl hanno proposto di riconoscere come prodotto da A. un gruppo di tesori di argenteria siriaca, tra i quali lo scudo argento di Teodosio e il cofano d'argento di s. Nazzaro.

Per l'arte in A.: G. Strzygowski, Antiochische Kunst, in Oriens Christianus, 2 (1902), pp. 421, 433; 15 (1915), pp. 83-110; id., in Denkschriften der K. K. Akademie der Wissenschaften, Vienna 1905, p. 169; id., A sarcophagus of the Sidamara type, in Journal of Hellenic Studies, 27 (1907), pp. 99-122; H. C. Butler, nel rendiconto dell'American Archaeological Expedition to Syria in 1899-1900, parte II: Architecture and other arts, Nuova York 1903; id., nel rendiconto della Princeton University Archaeological Expedition to Syria in 1904-1905, Division II: Ancient Architecture in Syria, Leida 1908; O. Wulff, Altchristliche und Byzantinische Kunst, Berlino 1918; id., Biblio-graphisch-kritischer Nachtrag, Potsdam 1935, pp. 24-36; C. R. Morey, Early Christian Art, Princeton 1942; D. Levi, Antioch Mosaic Pavements, 2 voll., ivi 1947.

Per il calice di A.: G. A. Eisen, The great chalice of Antio-chie, Nuova York 1923; G. de Jerphanion, Le calice d'Antioch.

III. THE PATRIARCHATE OF ANTIOCH — I. From the Introduction of Christianity until the Council of Chalcedon (451)

A. became a center for the expansion of Christianity toward Asia Minor, Armenia, and even toward Osrhoene. Despite persecution, Christianity flourished there particularly, and, above all after the destruction of Jerusalem, A. was the most important Christian see in the Near East. At this time the figure of St. IGNATIUS (v. IGNATIUS of A) stands out; he was bishop of A., arrested by the provincial governor and sent with two companions, Rufus and Zosimus, to Rome where he suffered martyrdom under Trajan. Also renowned among the apologists is the bishop of A., Theophilus, and later St. Demetrianus, deported to Persia by Shapur I. Among the Antiochene martyrs we note SS. Babylas and Cyril under Decius and Diocletian, the deacon Romanus of Caesarea, and the virgin Drosis. After Rome, A. is the city that boasts the greatest number of known martyrs, as Delchaye has emphasized.

At the Council of Nicaea (325), where the Antiochene bishop St. Eustathius was present—one of the most valiant champions of orthodoxy against Arius—the sixth canon sanctioned the privileged position that A. enjoyed, as its bishop exercised metropolitan rights not only over the twenty-two bishops of Coele-Syria but also over those of Cilicia, Mesopotamia, Palestine, and Cyprus. This patriarchal preeminence was reaffirmed by the Council of Constantinople (381) in its second canon and by the Council of Ephesus (431), which, however, removed Cyprus from A.’s jurisdiction.

In the second half of the 4th century, A. was disturbed by the schism of Meletius, which divided the Westerners and the Alexandrians from the majority of the Orientals. The deposition of St. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM (v. CHRYSOSTOM) provoked another schism until his successors, in agreement with Pope Innocent, inserted his name into the diptychs.

At the Council of Ephesus, the Antiochenes, led by Bishop John—who was somewhat friendly toward Nestorius—though not sharing his errors, did not immediately accept the actions of St. Cyril and the orthodox party; indeed, they held a conciliabulum to condemn them. After lengthy negotiations they made peace with St. Cyril in 433; yet some lingering aversion to the “dyophysite” language remained among certain Antiochenes. Nevertheless, the Council of Chalcedon (451), by elevating the patriarchate of Constantinople to the first see of the East at the expense even of ancient Antiochene glories, did not meet with a favorable reception among many in Syria. Gradually monophysitism infiltrated, so that an heretical patriarchal see was eventually established in A., at the head of the so-called “Jacobite” Church, named after James Baradaeus (v.), the propagator of the errors.

Religious struggles within the 6th century, the Arab invasion of Syria in the 7th, Byzantine victory (569-1098), rule by the Latins (1098-1268) and by the Mamelukes of Egypt. — After the Council of Chalcedon the decline of the Greek patriarchate begins; until the middle of the 6th century it was at times Monophysite and at times orthodox, whereas from then on two hierarchies are found side by side: one Monophysite and the other orthodox. This decline had already been prepared in the Christological struggles surrounding Nestorius, and in part by the Meletian schism. From 512 to 518 Severus the Monophysite was patriarch of A.; he was deposed by the Emperor Justin I and later lived in Alexandria, where he died in 538. The patriarchs and writers who were faithful to the Council of Chalcedon were Ephrem (529-45) and Anastasius I (559-99), exiled by the Emperor Justinian because he had opposed the latter’s Aphthartodocetism, but he was able to return to his see following the intervention of Pope Gregory the Great. Anastasius II (599-609) translated into Greek the Regula Pastoralis of St Gregory the Great. Propagandists of Monophysitism were, besides James Baradaeus, the Syrian Bar-

Of Syriac origin and language, PETER THE FULLER, patriarch of A. (470-71) by the grace of the governor of Syria, the future emperor Zeno, and JOHN CODONATUS (478, deposed after three months) after the second patriarchate of Peter the Fuller. STEPHEN II (478-81), Catholic patriarch, died a martyr for the faith. Other internal struggles followed, fueled by the patriarch ACACIUS of Constantinople. Peter the Fuller succeeded a third time, until his death (488), in occupying the see of A.; he was succeeded by PALLADIUS, also a heretic. Against ST. FLAVIAN (498-512) many rallied, especially the monk SEVERUS, the future patriarch as we have already said, and organizer of the Jacobite Church, which by the middle of the 6th century was already constituted; about half of the inhabitants of Syria (total number of these ca. 4 million) adhered to the Monophysite Church.

Another serious detriment to the Greek Church of A. came from the Arab occupation of Syria (638-969). While the Jacobites, being natives, received favors from the new Muslim rulers, the faithful of the Greek Church found themselves in a sad situation. During the 7th century the see of A. was often vacant; in times of calm heretics such as ATHANASIUS, MACEDONIUS, and GEORGE held the dignity of patriarch. The patriarch MACARIUS was deposed by the Sixth Ecumenical Council. From the beginning of the 8th century the see of A. was vacant for 40 years. In these times the schism of the Maronites probably occurred. In the iconoclastic struggles of the 8th century the patriarch of A. defended Catholic orthodoxy: as in the Seventh Council so also in the Seventh Ecumenical Council the patriarch was represented and was in agreement with the Pope.

Byzantine rule brought better times to the Greek Church of A.; yet the subjection of the patriarch of A. to the "ecumenical" patriarch of Constantinople became even more pronounced. We know that JOHN II (996-1029) recited the Pope's name in the diptychs; under him Greece, which had been in close relation with A. since the end of the 5th century, gained greater autonomy. PETER III (1052-56) communicated his appointment as patriarch to Pope LEO IX and, as Michel has recently shown, adopted a pacifying stance between East and West, using strong and courageous language toward the patriarch CERULARIUS of Constantinople.

At the time of the Crusades, the Greek Patriarch John V (1006–1100) was able to remain in his position for some time. Only after his departure for Constantinople was the Latin Patriarch of A. appointed. Prince Bohemond III brought back the Greek Patriarch Athanasius to A., who blessed the marriage of Emperor Manuel Comnenus with Bohemond’s younger sister at Christmas 1161. Already in 1137, Raymond of A. seems to have taken a similar step. Theodore III Balsamon (1185–95) is known as a canonist. Patriarch Simeon took part in the religious disputes between the delegates of Pope Gregory IX and the Greeks at Nif near Smyrna in 1234. Pope Innocent IV sent a bull to Patriarch David, perhaps a Catholic, on 9 August 1246, recommending his legate Laurence, a Franciscan (Potthast, 1224); the following year he sought to win over the bishops of A. to the cause of the Catholic Church (Potthast, 1263; E. Berger, *Les registres d’Innocent IV*, II, Paris 1887, nos. 4051–53). The Greek patriarchs of A. often held their residence in Constantinople not only under Latin rule but also for an indeterminate period under Mamluk governance. Under the latter, the two well-known union councils were held at Lyon (1274) and Florence (1438–45). Patriarch Theodosius of A., residing in Constantinople, seems to have been favorable to the union of Lyon. Patriarch Dorotheus was represented at the Council of Florence but did not remain steadfast to the decisions of this union beyond the year 1443.

3. The dissident Greek Patriarch of A. under Turkish rule (1517–1920). Under the Turks, the decline of the dissident Greek Church of A. continued. Internal discord, which manifested itself especially during the election of patriarchs, financial difficulties, and also internal religious strife greatly disturbed ecclesiastical life. Patriarchs Joachim V (1584–87) and Macarius II (1647–72) undertook journeys to Russia to seek alms; the latter—accompanied by his son, the archdeacon Paul of Aleppo, who left us a valuable account—departed from Damascus on 9 July 1652, stayed for more than a year in Moldavia, well received by the princes; on 26 January 1655 he entered Moscow and, soon received by Emperor Alexis, remained in that empire until 21 August 1656 before returning to Moldavia and thence to Wallachia. He returned to Aleppo on 7 May 1661.

At the end of the 16th century a Jacobite patriarch of A., Namat Allah, was favorable to the union of his Church with the Catholic Church; an union which in the 17th and 18th centuries, with the effective aid of Latin missionaries, became in part an accomplished fact, and there arose the Syrian-rite Church with a patriarch. Alongside this movement of union there arose the origin of the Melkite Catholic Church, effectively prepared in the 17th century and established in the first half of the 18th century. These two most important facts (especially the union of the Melkites) had profound repercussions on the Greek patriarchate of A., indeed they gave occasion for a common action of the dissident Greek patriarchs in synods (cf. Mansi, XXXVII) and in steps, which unfortunately met with success, before the Ottoman government against Catholic missionary activity.

When in the year 1860 the Druses massacred Christians, not only Catholics (for example those beatified by Pope Pius XI), but also the subjects of the dissident patriarch of A. suffered. On this occasion the patriarchal church of Damascus, with its treasure and library, was completely destroyed. The present state of the dissident patriarchate will be mentioned further below.

4. The Catholic Church of the Melkite Rite under the Turks

We are well informed about the development of the union of the Melkites, thanks especially to the investigations of the Rev. Cyril Korolevskij and of Monsignor Ludovico Petit, and to several still unpublished documents. Not a few are the documents written by the Greek patriarchs of Antioch to the Supreme Pontiffs in the 17th century. The first of these hitherto known is the letter of Patriarch Ignatius (recently noted in *Orientalia Christiana Periodica*, 9 [1943], p. 311), dated 4 July 1625; this is not a profession of Catholic faith, but nonetheless it is very important for understanding the mentality then prevailing among the leaders of the Greek Church of Antioch and for better comprehending the origins of the Catholic Church of the Melkite Rite. He complains of the sufferings he must endure at the hands of “alien” people of Arabia (he probably means the Muslim rulers), but even more he laments against Patriarch Cyril Lukaris of Constantinople “who is the ruin of our Church” (“more than 40,000 crosses”). Evidently this document is first and foremost a plea to receive financial aid from the Pope, but it is very instructive. It cannot be said whether this patriarch had knowledge of Leonardo Abel, envoy of Pope Gregory XIII to the East, and of the relations of this ambassador with the Greek patriarch of Antioch, Michael VII, then resigned and retired in Aleppo. Of Patriarch Euthymius III there is reported (v. *Statistica con cenni storici della gerarchia e dei fedeli di rito orientale*, p. 139) a profession of faith, sent to Rome in 1634. He—as we know from a letter of the Jesuit Girolamo Queyrot to the Father General Muzio Vitelleschi, from Berea (Aleppo), Syria, of 12 Sept. 1640—invited the father to come to Damascus, the patriarch’s residence, to give instruction (“he declared that he had no learned man in his Church”). After repeated requests and consultation with his brethren, Fr Queyrot indeed went to Damascus on 12 May 1641, and took up residence from the day of his arrival, 23 May, in the patriarch’s house; though he was not able to celebrate Holy Mass. The above-mentioned Patriarch Macarius II (1647–72) maintained good relations with the Latin missionaries (and a letter addressed to him from the Pope Alexan

Pope Clement VII, in the bull issued on 22 July 1662 and published in full by Grumel, but given his almost simultaneous relations with the dissident Greeks (participation in the Synod of 13 March 1663), one must be cautious in counting him among the genuine friends of Rome. The personality of Patriarch Athanasius III Dabbas, despite his letters to the Roman Curia, also invites scrutiny; he was anti-patriarch (1685–94) and patriarch after the death of the true patriarch Cyril V Zaim (1720–24). Cyril V, won over to the Catholic cause by his friend Poullard, French consul at Sidon, sent his profession of faith to Rome in 1716. An indigenous apostle of union was then Euthymius Saifi, metropolitan of Tyre and Sidon (d. 1722). His nephew Cyril VI Tanas became Catholic patriarch of the Melkite rite in 1722 and, despite fierce resistance from the dissident Greek patriarch Sylvester of Cyprus and others, was able to preserve the “indigenous” Greek-Catholic Church. While the Melkite Catholics scattered in the two patriarchates of Alexandria and Jerusalem remained for about half a century under the jurisdiction of the Custody of the Holy Land, the Melkite patriarch residing at that time in Lebanon received, by the decree of Propaganda of 13 July 1775, also the administration of those communities. Patriarch Maximos III Mazloum, elected in 1832, took advantage of the Egyptian invasion to establish his residence in Damascus. He received the title of Patriarch of Jerusalem and Alexandria from Pope Gregory XVI, a title which in fact his successors also add to that of Patriarch of Antioch. Gregory II Youssef (1864–1897) distinguished himself by his great zeal and pastoral prudence. Leo XIII in 1894 subjected all Melkites in the Ottoman Empire to the jurisdiction of the Melkite patriarch. Under his successors many conversions were obtained in the regions of Tripoli, Homs, and Transjordan. At this time the Society of Melkite Missionaries of St Paul earned special merits.

The seminary of St Anne in Jerusalem, run by the White Fathers, has worked with admirable zeal since 1882 for the formation of priests of the Melkite Catholic Church. Between 1882 and 1923 the total number of its students was 946. In the Oriental Seminary entrusted to Saint Joseph University under the direction of the Jesuits in Beirut there were, in the academic year 1930–31, 18 Greek Melkites.

The active life of the Melkite Church is also shown in the synods held between 1761 and 1902, whose acts were published by Msgr. Petit in the large volume (XLVI) entirely devoted to them in the Mansi collection.

IV. I CONCILI di A

Tra i numerosi concili e conciliaboli che si celebrano in sé si possono menzionare i seguenti:

1. I concili contro Paolo di Samosata, vescovo di A. nel 264 e nel 268. - I critici discutono ancora sul loro numero: Tillemont, Duchesne, Harnack ne distinguono tre, mentre Baronio, F. A. Zaccaria, G. Bardy ne ammettono solamente due, opinione che sembra la più soddisfacente. Differenti pure sono le opinioni, che si riscontrano negli autori, circa la loro data; ciò nonostante, si può dire che oggi l'accordo, se non completamente, è almeno in gran parte raggiunto. Il primo ebbe luogo nel 264 ed il secondo nell'autunno del 268. Lo scopo precipuo di questi due concili fu di combattere gli errori di Paolo (v.) di Samosata, successore di Demetriano nel seggio antiocheno, verso il 260. Infatti Paolo, negando insieme i misteri della Trinità e dell'Incarnazione, si costituiva uno dei principali eretici dell'antica Chiesa, qual vero precursore di Ario e di Nestorio.

The first Council was perhaps convoked through the efforts of Helenus of Tarsus, and a great number of bishops from Syria, Palestine, Phoenicia, Arabia, Cappadocia and Pontus took part in II. Dionysius of Alexandria was also invited, but he declined the invitation with a letter addressed to the community of A., in which he openly notified his opposition to the errors of Paul of Samosata. Firmilian of Caesarea was the most prominent figure at the meeting, and it is therefore to be believed that he himself presided over II. Paul

of Samosata, summoned to justify himself, managed, by dint of sophistical skill, to make his orthodoxy appear credible, and promised to avoid equivocal expressions. The Fathers gave credence to his promises and separated without reaching any conclusion: they were well aware, moreover, that the heretic enjoyed esteem and protection from Zenobia, queen of Palmyra, who had then reached the height of her power. Under this powerful aegis, Paul, heedless of the warnings addressed to him by many bishops of the region, did not in any way change his conduct. It then seemed opportune to all to convene a new council, in order to put an end to the scandal given by the bishop, who openly denied the fundamental truths of Christianity.

In the autumn of about 268, eighty members gathered again under the presidency of Helenus of Tarsus; Firmilian died while on his way to the Council. This time Paul, hard pressed by the dialectical skill of a certain Malchion, was forced to acknowledge his errors fully, and was deposed and replaced by Domnus. As was customary, the Fathers, before separating, wrote a synodal letter and sent it to all Catholic bishops. The historian Eusebius has handed down long fragments of this important document, but unfortunately omitted the principal passages of a dogmatic nature (Eusebius, Hist. eccl., VII, 30, 2).

It is known that Paul made light of the sentence, refusing to hand over to the Catholics the “house of the Church,” that is, the church and the adjoining episcopal residence, property of the Christian community, and did not leave the see until the intervention of the police of the emperor Aurelian, who was then passing through A. (271).

5. THE COUNCILS DURING THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY

a) A synod, called the Synod of the Dedication in Encaenia, was held in the summer of 341 in the presence of the emperor Constantius II on the occasion of the consecration of the great church of A., built by order of Constantine and which was called the “Golden Church.”

The assembly numbered as many as 97 bishops, all Eastern, mostly dependent on A. and for the most part Orthodox. There was a small representation of Arianizers, among whom was the aged Eusebius of Nicomedia, who had recently taken up residence in Constantinople (339); and it was in fact the Eusebians who directed the Council. They secured confirmation of the deposition of Athanasius and, while pretending to be Orthodox, used respectful words about the Council of Nicaea, while omitting the term “consubstantial,” *homoousios*, in the four professions of faith which they drew up. These professions, preserved for us by St. Athanasius (*De Synodis*, 22-25), reject pure Arianism and are capable of an Orthodox interpretation; St. Hilary, moreover, explicitly approved two of them (*De Synodis*, 29-32): yet here and there an ambiguity peeps through. The third, composed by Theophronius of Tyana, expressly condemns Marcellus of Ancyra and his masked Sabellianism. Only the fourth, addressed to the Emperor Constantius, is the most Orthodox, but, like the others, it does not speak at all of consubstantiality or subsistence; hence it is permissible to conclude that these formulas herald the so-called “homoianism,” and the Synod became famous more for the twenty-five disciplinary canons which it formulated than for these creeds.

Soon both East and West accepted these canons as “the work of the holy Fathers.” The 4th and 5th were cited even in the Council of Chalcedon, and Popes Zachary and Leo IV also made use of them. The title *Synodis Sanctorum Patrum* gave rise to doubts regarding their authenticity as the work of the Council of 341. Critics, indeed, advance various hypotheses on this point, which Hefele expounds at length in *Histoire des Conciles* (Hefele-Lecleerq, I, pp. 706-14). One may agree with him that these canons, some of which reveal the influence of the Eusebians, were formulated by the present council.

Canons 4 and 12 are particularly directed against the Roman Synod of 340 and against the right of appeal to the Holy See; besides, their legislation was an excellent work and explains how readily it was accepted both in the East and in the West.

b) Another council was convoked in 363, at the beginning of the reign of the Emperor Jovian, by Acacius of Caesarea. Hitherto a zealous Arian, he had then turned to Orthodoxy to please the new sovereign and adhered to the Nicene Synod with Meletius of A. and twenty-five other bishops. In the synodal letter addressed to Jovian, the Fathers gave an explanation, certainly Orthodox, of the term *homoousios*, yet not without ambiguity where it is said that the Son is like the Father as to substance, *homoousios*, bishops (cf. Athanasius, *De Synodis*, 41; Socrates, *Hist. eccl.*, III, 25).

c) At a third Council, which met in September 379, nine months after the death of St. Basil, 146 Fathers participated. They attempted, though in vain, to extinguish the schism of Antioch and gave fresh impetus to the triumph of the Church over Arianism, which shortly before had lost, in the person of Valens, a great protector. They also subscribed, adding some clauses, to the tome of the Roman Council of 369 and sent a letter to the bishops of Italy and the Gauls.

6. Other councils

Among the principal ones may be recalled: a) The provincial council of 389, reported by Sozomen in Hist. eccl., VII, 15, which forbade the sons of Marcellus of Apamea in Syria from avenging the death of their father, who had been martyred by pagans and who, by order of the Emperor Theodosius, had caused many of their temples to be destroyed.

b) The council of 424, which many place in 418. No further details are known about it apart from the expulsion of Pelagius from Antioch and the condemnation of his doctrine (Mansi, IV, cols. 474-75).

c) The Monophysite conciliabulum of 521, which installed in Antioch the famous Severus, hence called Severus of Antioch.

d) The Latin council of 1139, convened over the case of Raoul of Domfront. He, previously bishop of Mamistra or Mopsuestia, was then elected by popular acclamation as patriarch of Antioch after the death of Bernard of Valence (1134-35). During the schism of Anacletus II (Pierleone), Raoul, refusing to receive the pallium from the legitimate Pope Innocent II, took it for himself upon the altar. Meanwhile, two canons of Antioch, who had opposed his election and complained about him, appealed to Rome. The Pope then delegated Alberic, cardinal of Ostia, to conduct an inquiry on the spot. He convened a council in the months of November-December 1139 and deposed Raoul for irregular election, simony, and incontinence. It should be noted, however, that Prince Raymond, hostile to the patriarch, also contributed to imposing such a severe sentence. Raoul, however, managed to escape and reached Rome, where he was doubtless able to justify himself.

V. THE SCHOOL OF ANTIOCH

I. General notion

By the name School of Antioch, it is customary to designate a certain number of Fathers and ecclesiastical writers of the 3rd, 4th, and 5th centuries, originating from Antioch and its surroundings, or even from other places, who do not share a common school or teachers, nor teach the same philosophical and theological doctrine, but who employ a similar method in interpreting Sacred Scripture.

Posterior to the so-called School of Alexandria, the School of Antioch is known as its opponent. The Alexandrians, especially from the time of Origen onwards, under the undoubted influence of Philo and Neoplatonic philosophy, had fallen, in biblical interpretation, into an excessive and truly harmful allegorism. In reaction, from the end of the 3rd century, and especially in the 4th, the Antiochenes established as their guiding principle that, in interpreting the sacred books, one must above all seek the literal, grammatical, historical sense, and for this purpose employ the means suited to discover it, first of all procuring the best possible text, that which has the good fortune to reproduce the original text or to approach it most closely. They did not therefore reject the spiritual or typical sense, but rightly affirmed that this typical sense, in order not to be a mere product of the imagination, had to be based on the literal sense, to have a foundation in Sacred Scripture itself or to derive from it normally. Diodorus of Tarsus designates this typical sense by the word θεωρία (theoria), which he opposes to the allegory (ἀλληγορία) of the Alexandrians. Although his work on the subject has been lost, the rules he laid down for the investigation of θεωρία can nevertheless be reconstructed (A. Vaccari, *La θεωρία nella scuola esegetica di A.*, in *Biblica*, I [1920], pp. 3-36). A question debated among historians is whether the early Antiochenes were influenced by the exegetical schools of Babylon and Syria.

Although one cannot speak of a unity of philosophical doctrine in the group under discussion, it is undeniable that it tends toward Aristotelianism rather than Platonism. In theology, the realistic spirit of the school seeks to emphasize the distinction of the divine persons among themselves and, with regard to the mystery of the Incarnation, to insist on the humanity of the Saviour and its integrity. Diodorus of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia will attempt to explain the manner of the union of the two natures, divine and human. This attempt will prove unfortunate and betray a rationalist tendency. The polemic against Arianism and Apollinarianism will naturally lead to an emphasis, on the one hand, on the transcendence of the Word, and on the other, on the most realistic manifestations of the human nature which He assumed. They will soon be accused of wishing to revive the Adoptionism of Paul of Samosata.

7. Historical profile

The rationalist Paul of Samosata had disciples during his lifetime and after his death. At Antioch itself a small community of Paulianists maintained itself for some time. According to an opinion commonly held, but today

They promised to keep his memory and formed groups around Arius, one of them, when he revealed his heresy. And the group of the Collucianists, a term used by Arius himself in his Letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia (cf. Theodoret, Historia ecclesiastica, I, 5, 4). The principal figures were: Eusebius of Nicomedia, Mari of Chalcedon, Theognis of Nicaea, Asterius the Sophist, Athanasius of Anazarbus. If one were to believe these disciples, St. Lucian would be the true father of Arianism. Without admitting this judgment, one may think that the master used, at least at a certain time, unfortunate words, equivocal expressions regarding the divinity of the Word (cf. LUCIAN of A.).

The question arises whether the Lucian spoken of by St. Alexander of Alexandria in his letters to Alexander of Byzantium (Theodoret, Historia ecclesiastica, I, 4, 46) is the same as the martyr of Nicomedia. R. Ceillier, F. Loofs, and recently G. Bardy (Recherches sur s. Lucien d'Antioche et son École, Paris 1936, pp. 47-60) deny this identification and adduce serious reasons, though they do not provide certainty.

It is certain that the martyr St. Lucian was in Antioch, toward the end of the 3rd century and the beginning of the 4th, a most renowned teacher of exegesis, to whom is owed a recension of the entire Bible based on the original texts. Although he wrote almost nothing, reliable indications allow one to affirm that in interpreting the sacred books he sought above all to clarify the literal and grammatical sense. For this reason, he can be considered the first representative of the School of Antioch. He had numerous disciples, on whom he exercised considerable influence; however, some of them

Only a considerable time after the death of St. Lucian, around the year 360, the true theorist of the school, Diodorus of Tarsus, gathered around himself, in the monastery which he had founded at Antioch, a certain number of disciples, two of the most illustrious of whom were St. John Chrysostom and Theodore of Mopsuestia. If to these three names are added those of Nestorius and Theodoretus, one will have the most important representatives for their writings, the most celebrated for the part they played and for the influence they exerted. Unfortunately, this influence has not always been of good quality. Diodorus is regarded as the one who sowed the first seeds of the heresy which bears the name of Nestorius. Theodore developed and expounded it in detail. Nestorius did not hesitate to preach it at Constantinople, and thereby incurred his solemn condemnation at the Council of Ephesus. More circumspect, and doubtless always orthodox

Theodoret suffered much in his reputation through the controversies with the adversaries of Nestorius and Theodore. Theodore is the most heterodox of all, although he was not condemned during his lifetime. But his heterodoxy does not so much concern the method he employed, which was excellent, as his systematic spirit (for he had an entire theological system), his contempt for ecclesiastical tradition, his rationalistic tendencies. For some centuries he was the doctor of the Nestorian Church, which gave him the title of “interpreter” par excellence, Mefasqanā.

The school of Antioch died for the Church with the condemnation of Nestorian heresy. After the closing of the school of Edessa by Zeno (489), it took refuge in Persia, where the works of Theodore were expounded. But its infancy did not end with this. The writings of St. John Chrysostom, of Theodore, and of some others, preserved in the Church the primacy of literal exegesis. From the 6th century onward the catenists gave it preference in the East over Alexandrian allegorism. Its glory is to have inaugurated scientific exegesis.

Bnl.: H. Kihn, Die Bedeutung der antiochischen Schule auf dem exegetischen Gebiete, nebst einer Abhandlung über die ältesten christlichen Schulen. Bibliologie. Hermeneutik und Exegetik der antiochischen Schule, 2 voll., Weissenburg 1866; id., Über die Bedeutung und Anwendung der vorliegenden hermeneutischen Schriften der antiochischen, in Tübingen, Quaritschrift, 1880, pp. 531-582; A. Harrent, Les écoles d'Antiochée, Parigi 1898; Ph. de Barbjeun, L'Ecole exégétique d'Antiochée, 1890 (troppo pieno di elogi per Teodoro di Mopsuestia); L. Pirot, L'œuvre exégétique de Théodore de Mopsuestia, Roma 1913, pp. 1-141; N. Fetissov, Diodoro di Tarsos (in russo), Kiev 1915; R. Nelz, Die theologische Schulen der morgenländischen Kirchen, Bonn 1916, con un'ambizione bibliografica; A. Vaccari, La scuola nella scuola eseguita di A., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di A., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di B., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di C., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di D., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di E., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di F., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di G., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di H., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di I., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di J., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di K., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di L., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di M., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di N., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di O., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di P., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di Q., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di R., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di S., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di T., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di U., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di V., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di W., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di X., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di Y., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di Z., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di A., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di B., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di C., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di D., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di E., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di F., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di G., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di H., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di I., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di J., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di K., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di L., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di M., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di N., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di O., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di P., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di Q., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di R., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di S., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di T., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di U., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di V., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di W., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di X., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di Y., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di Z., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di A., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di B., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di C., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di D., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di E., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di F., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di G., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di H., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di I., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di J., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di K., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di L., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di M., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di N., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di O., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di P., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di Q., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di R., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di S., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di T., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di U., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di V., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di W., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di X., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di Y., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di Z., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di A., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di B., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di C., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di D., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di E., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di F., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di G., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di H., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di I., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di J., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di K., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di L., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di M., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di N., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di O., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di P., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di Q., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di R., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di S., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di T., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di U., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di V., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di W., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di X., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di Y., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di Z., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di A., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di B., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di C., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di D., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di E., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di F., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di G., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di H., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di I., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di J., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di K., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di L., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di M., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di N., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di O., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di P., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di Q., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di R., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di S., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di T., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di U., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di V., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di W., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di X., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di Y., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di Z., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di A., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di B., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di C., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di D., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di E., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di F., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di G., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di H., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di I., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di J., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di K., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di L., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di M., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di N., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di O., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di P., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di Q., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di R., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di S., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di T., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di U., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di V., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di W., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di X., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di Y., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di Z., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di A., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di B., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di C., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di D., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di E., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di F., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di G., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di H., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di I., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di J., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di K., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di L., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di M., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di N., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di O., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di P., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di Q., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di R., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di S., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di T., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di U., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di V., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di W., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di X., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di Y., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di Z., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di A., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di B., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di C., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di D., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di E., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di F., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di G., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di H., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di I., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di J., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di K., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di L., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di M., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di N., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di O., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di P., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di Q., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di R., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di S., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di T., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di U., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di V., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di W., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di X., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di Y., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di Z., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di A., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di B., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di C., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di D., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di E., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di F., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di G., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di H., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di I., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di J., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di K., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di L., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di M., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di N., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di O., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di P., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di Q., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di R., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di S., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di T., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di U., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di V., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di W., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di X., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di Y., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di Z., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di A., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di B., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di C., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria esegitica di D., in Biblica, 1 (1920), pp. 3-36; id., La teoria

Even today the Byzantine liturgy is used by all the dissident churches.

The reconquest of Syria in the 10th century by Byzantium temporarily strengthened Hellenism in the Melkite patriarchate of Antioch and marked the beginning of the fourth and final period, that of complete Byzantinization. After the Crusades the patriarchs left their see and took refuge in Constantinople. One of them, the famous canonist Theodore Balsamon, answering about 1195 a question of his colleague Mark of Alexandria, declared that the use of their own liturgies, those of St Mark and St James, was illicit and should give way to those of St John Chrysostom and St Basil (cf. PG 138, 953). Thus disappeared the proper rite of the patriarchate of Antioch.

Another particular feature of the Antiochene rite deserves special mention: its liturgical language. At first this was Greek. But probably already in the 4th and 5th centuries, first in the countryside and then in the monasteries, translations into Syriac began to appear, though on a small scale. An example is provided by a rite of ordination preserved in Palestinian Syriac (cf. M. Black, Rituale Melchitarum, Stuttgart 1938, and the analysis made by H. Engberding, Eine neuerheschlossene bedeutsame Urkunde zur Geschichte der östlichen Weiheriten, in Oriens Christianus, 3rd series, 14 [1939], pp. 38-54). It was not until the 10th-11th centuries, however, that there was a renaissance of Syriac in the Melkite rite, which lasted until the 15th century. To the two hundred documents listed by C. Korolevskij others may be added (cf. A. Baumstark, Neue handschriftliche Denkmäler melchitischer Liturgie, in Oriens Christ., new series, 10-11 [1923], pp. 157-58). Few of these texts still belong to the Antiochene rite; others mark a period of transition; the majority already represent the text of the Byzantine rite.

Finally, a third language, Arabic, introduced into Palestine and Syria after the Muslim conquest, was used fairly early, though in a restricted way, in the liturgy. The Calendar of al-Birūnī, from the 11th century, is not yet Byzantinized (cf. A. Baumstark, *Untersuchungen des vorbyzantinischen Heiligenkalenders von Jerusalem*, in *Orientalia Christiana Periodica*, 2 [1936], pp. 129-44), nor is the rite of funerals, preserved in two manuscripts from the 11th-12th centuries (cf. A. Baumstark, *Neue handschriftliche Denkmäler*, op. cit.). The oldest version of the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, in a codex from 1260, has a very simple *ciphresis* and ignores the rite of the *seon* (cf. C. Bacha, *Version arabe inédite de la Liturgie de st. Jean Chrysostome*, in *Chrysostomica*, Rome 1908, pp. 405-71). On the other hand, a Calendar found in codex Vat. ar. 76 from the year 1068 is already completely Byzantine. These Arabic texts have sometimes served as the original for a Syriac version. The use of Arabic received formal approval from Balsamon (PG 138, 957). However, it progressed very slowly until, in the 15th century, it began to prevail, and from the 17th century onward, it almost entirely excluded any other language. But all this no longer belongs to the history of the Antiochene rite of the Orthodox, having been absorbed and definitively replaced by the Byzantine rite (v.) already from the 13th century.

47. ENCICLOPEDIA CATTOLICA

I.

VII. A. The Maronites. - Patriarchate, residential see.

The Maronites organized themselves into a hierarchy with a patriarch and bishops in 685. This tradition, fixed by St. al-Duwayhī, patriarch from 1670 to 1704, who cites earlier documents (P. Dib, *L'Église Maronite*, Paris 1931, pp. 147-48 and Le Quien, *Oriens Christ.*, III, Paris 1740, pp. 50-76), is confirmed by Dionysius of Tell Maḥrē (d. 845) in the *Chronicle of Michael the Syrian* (ed. J. B. Chabot, II, Paris 1901, p. 511). At that time, the Catholic see of A. had long been vacant (L. Duchesne, *L'Église au VIe siècle*, Paris 1925, pp. 372-73). The Maronite patriarchs always bore the title of A., as is evident from two

Antonella — Silver cup, known as the "Cup of A.," dated by G. de Jerphanion to the 6th century — New York, Fahim-Kouchak-Kji Collection.

Documents respectively from 1141 and 1154 (G. S. Assemani, *Bibliotheca Orientalis*, I, Rome 1719, pp. 307 sg.). The bull of Innocent III, *Quia Divinae*, of 1215 recognizes this title for them. Their see, which was always in Lebanon, changed location until the Lebanese Synod of 1736 fixed it at Qambulī, and then that of Bekorki in 1790 at Bekorki itself near Beirut (*Codif. can. orientale*, XII, nn. 1391 and 1155), which is today the winter residence, while the summer residence is at ad-Dimān.

To this patriarchate belong the residential sees of Aleppo, Baalbek, Beirut, Cyprus, Damascus, Gibali-Ba-trun, Sidon, Tyre, Tripoli (formerly of Syria and now of Lebanon) and Cairo. According to the *Statistica... della gerarchia e dei fedeli di rito orientale* (Vatican City 1932) the faithful number 322,715, while those scattered in other regions of the world amount to 43,300. The secular clergy consists of 1,012 priests; the regular clergy exceeds 700.

Pietro Sfair VIII. A. Dei Melkiti. — The Melkite Catholic patriarch of A. has his residence in Duma, Cairo, Alexandria. To the patriarchate belong 12 residential sees: Tyre, Ptolemais, Sidon, Caesarea Philippi, Tripoli (Syria), Aleppo, Bosra, Damascus, Baalbek, Zahle, Beirut, Homs; 5 patriarchal vicariates: Alexandria, Cairo, Sudan, Jerusalem, Constantinople. Moreover, there are 5 titular bishops. Male religious institutes are the Basilian Melkites of the Most Holy Saviour, Basilians of St John of Suvari, Alpine Basilian Melkites, as well as the ecclesiastical Congregation of the Society of Melkite Missionaries of St Paul. Female religious institutes of the Eastern rite are the Basilian Nuns of Suvari, the Nuns of the Saviour, the Alpine Basilian Nuns, the Sisters of Charity of Besançon (Melkite branch), a religious Congregation recently founded by Palestinians.

The number of the faithful in the patriarchal territory was in 1932: 150,155, in the United States 13,559, in other places ca. 2,500, in total 166,214. The number of secular priests is 167; of the regular clergy (priests and deacons): Basilian Melkites of the Saviour, 180, Suvariotes 100, Aleppines 50; Melkite Missionaries of St Paul 7. Schools and charitable institutes are numerous.

The dissident Greek patriarchate of A. numbered in 1934: 5 dioceses in Syria and 6 in Lebanon, and the district of Laodicea (residence Latakie), with a total number of 230,000 faithful. To these are added the emigrants: 10,000 in the United States, Canada and Mexico; 120,000 in South America; and 41,000 elsewhere. In all: ca. 500,000.

It should be noted that since the end of the last century the dissident patriarchates of A. are no longer Greek, but Arab. This change occurred because of very serious difficulties. Another schism lasting two years (12 Dec. 1928 – 29 Jan. 1933) under two simultaneous patriarchs originated from the conflict between the two religious parties, namely those of Damascus and Lebanon, on the occasion of the death of Patriarch Gregory IV Haddad (12 Dec. 1928), and despite the intervention of the three Greek Eastern patriarchs who had pronounced in favor of the new patriarch elected by the minority (Damascus), namely Alexander Tahhan, it could only be resolved by the death of the other patriarch, Arsenius Haddad (9 Jan. 1933).

IX. A. DEI SIRI. - Residential See. The Syriac Catholics who separated from the Jacobites elected their first patriarch in 1661, but the uninterrupted series begins only with Patriarch Garwah, who was elected in 1783 and fixed the see at Mardin. In 1830 the see was transferred to Aleppo, but in 1850 it was brought back to Mardin. During the patriarchate of Rahmāni (1898–1929), it was moved to Beirut. Sarfah is the summer residence.

To this patriarchate belong the residential sees of Baghdad, Mosul, Aleppo, Beirut, Damascus, Emesa, Mardin, and Amida, as well as two vicariates in Egypt and Palestine. In these dioceses there are about 50,000 Catholic faithful served by 150 priests, among 174,000 Jacobites. Outside these territories there are a further 14,535 Catholics and about 25,000 Jacobites.

A. I, son of Seleucus I, was called Sōtēr (Saviour) for his victory over the Galatians; he reigned from 280 to 261 B.C.; he directed the First Syrian War against Ptolemy. I, son of Sōtēr, was elected by Ptolemy.

A. II (261-246 a. C.), figlio e successore di A. I, detto Theós (Dio) per aver liberato Mileto dal tiranno Timarchos, combatté per sette anni contro Tolo. I figlio di Timarchos, combatté per sette anni contro Tolo. I figlio di Timarchos, combatté per sette, anni contro Tolo. I figlio di Timarchos, combatté per sette, anni contro Tolo. I figlio di Tolo. I figlio di Timarchos, combatté per sette, anni contro Tolo. I figlio di Timarchs, combatté per sette, anni contro Tolo. I figlio di Timarchs, combatté per sette, anni contra Tolo. I figlio di Timarchs, combatté per sette, anni contra Tolo. I figlio di Timarchos, combatté per sette, anni contra Tolo. I figlio di Timarchos, combatté per sette, anni contro Tolo. I figlio di Timarchos, combatté per sette, anni contra Tolo. I figlio di Timarchs, combatté per sette, anni contra Tolo. I figlio di Timarchos, combatté per sette, anni contra Tolo. I figlio di Timarchos, combatté per sette, anni contro Tolo. I figlio di Timarchos, combatté per sette, anni contra Tolo. I figlio di Timarchs, combatté per sette, anni contra Tolo. I figlio di Timarchos, combatté per sette, anni contra Tolo. I figlio di Timarchos, combatté per sette, anni contro Tolo. I figlio di Timarchos, combatté per sette, anni contra Tolo. I figlio di Timarchs, combatté per sette, anni contra Tolo. I figlio di Timarchos, combatté per sette, anni contra Tolo. I figlio di Timarchos, combatté per sette, anni contro Tolo. I figlio di Timarchos, combatté per sette, anni contra Tolo. I figlio di Timarchs, combatté per sette, anni contra Tolo. I figlio di Timarchos, combatté per sette, anni contra Tolo. I figlio di Timarchos, combatté per sette, anni contro Tolo. I figlio di Timarchos, combatté per sette, anni contra Tolo. I figlio di Timarchs, combatté per sette, anni contra Tolo. I figlio di Timarchos, combatté per sette, anni contra Tolo. I figlio di Timarchos, combatté per sette, anni contro Tolo. I figlio di Timarchos, combatté per sette, anni contra Tolo. I figlio di Timarchs, combatté per sette, anni contra Tolo. I figlio di Timarchos, combatté per sette, anni contra Tolo. I figlio di Timarchos, combatté per sette, anni contro Tolo. I figlio di Timarchos, combatté per sette, anni contra Tolo. I figlio di Timarchs, combatté per sette, anni contra Tolo. I figlio di Timarchos, combatté per sette, anni contra Tolo. I figlio di Timarchos, combatté per sette, anni contro Tolo. I figlio di Timarchos, combatté per sette, anni contra Tolo. I figlio di Timarchs, combatté per sette, anni contra Tolo. I figlio di Timarchos, combatté per sette, anni contra Tolo. I figlio di Timarchos, combatté per sette, anni contro Tolo. I figlio di Timarchos, combatté per sette, anni contra Tolo. I figlio di Timarchs, combatté per sette, anni contra Tolo. I figlio di Timarchos, combatté per sette, anni contra Tolo. I figlio di Timarchos, combatté per sette, anni contro Tolo. I figlio di Timarchos, combatté per sette, anni contra Tolo. I son of Timarchs fought for seven years against Tolo. I son of Timarchos fought for seven years against Tolo. I son of Timarchos fought for seven years against Tolo. I son of Timarchos fought for seven years against Tolo. I son of Timarchs fought for seven years against Tolo. I son of Timarchos fought for seven years against Tolo. I son of Timarchos fought for seven years against Tolo. I son of Timarchos fought for seven years against Tolo. I son of Timarchs fought for seven years against Tolo. I son of Timarchos fought for seven years against Tolo. I son of Timarchos fought for seven years against Tolo. I son of Timarchos fought for seven years against Tolo. I son of Timarchs fought for seven years against Tolo. I son of Timarchos fought for seven years against Tolo. I son of Timarchos fought for seven years against Tolo. I son of Timarchs fought for seven years against Tolo. I son of Timarchos fought for seven years against Tolo. I son of Timarchos fought for seven years against Tolo. I son of Timarchs fought for seven years against Tolo. I son of Timarchos fought for seven years against Tolo. I son of Timarchos fought for seven years against Tolo. I son of Timarchs fought for seven years against Tolo. I son of Timarchos fought for seven years against Tolo. I son of Timarchos fought for seven years against Tolo. I son of Timarchs fought for seven years against Tolo. I son of Timarchos fought for seven years against Tolo. I son of Timarchos fought for seven years against Tolo.The son of Timarchos fought for seven years against Tolo. The son of Timarchos fought for seven years against Tolo. The son of Timarchos fought for seven years against Tolo. The son of Timarchs fought for seven years against Tolo. The son of Timarchos fought for seven years against Tolo. The son of Timarchos fought for seven years against Tolo. The son of Timarchs fought for seven years against Tolo. The son of Timarchos fought for seven years against Tolo. The son of Timarchos fought for seven years against Tolo. The son of Timarchos fought for seven years against Tolo. The son of Timarchs fought for seven years against Tolo. The son of Timarchos fought for seven years against Tolo. The son of Timarchos fought for seven years against Tolo. The son of Timarchs fought for seven years against Tolo. The son of Timarchos fought for seven years against Tolo. The son of Timarchos fought for seven years against Tolo. The son of Timarchs fought for seven years against Tolo. The son of Timarchos fought for seven years against Tolo. The son of Timarchos fought for seven years against Tolo. The son of Timarchs fought for seven years against Tolo. The son of Timarchos fought for seven years against Tolo. The son of Timarchos fought for seven years against Tolo.The son of Timarchos fought for seven years against Tolo. The son of Timarchos fought for seven years against Tolo. The son of Timarchos fought for seven years against Tolo. The son of Timarchos fought for seven years against Tolo. The son of Timarchos fought for seven years against Tolo. The son of Timarchos fought for seven years against Tolo. The son of Timarchos fought for seven years against Tolo. The son of Timarchos fought for seven years against Tolo. The son of Timarchos fought for seven years against Tolo. The son of Timarchos fought for seven years against Tolo. The son of Timarchos fought for seven years against Tolo. The son of Timarchos fought for seven years against Tolo. The son of Timarchos fought for seven years against Tolo. The son of Timarchos fought for seven years against Tolo. The son of Timarchos fought for seven years against Tolo. The son of Timarchos fought for seven years against Tolo. The son of Timarchos fought for seven years against Tolo. The son of Timarchos fought for seven years against Tolo. The son of Timarchos fought for seven years against Tolo. The son of Timarchos fought for seven years against Tolo. The son of Timarchos fought for seven years against Tolo. The son of Timarchos fought for seven years against Tolo. The son of Timarchos fought for seven years against Tolo. The son of Timarchos fought for seven years against Tolo. The son of Timarchos fought for seven years against Tolo. The son of Timarchos fought for seven years against Tolo. The son of Timarchos fought for seven years against Tolo. The son of Timarchos fought for seven years against Tolo. The son of Timarchos fought for seven years against Tolo. The son of Timarchos fought for seven years against Tolo. The son of Timarchos fought for seven years against Tolo. The son of Timarchos fought for seven years against Tolo. The son of Timarchos fought for seven years against Tolo. The son of Timarchos fought for seven years against Tolo. The son of Timarchos fought for seven years against Tolo. The son of Timarchos fought for seven years against Tolo. The son of Timarchos fought for seven years against Tolo. The son of Timarchos fought for seven years against Tolo. The son of Timarchos fought for seven years against Tolo. The son of Timarchos fought for seven years against Tolo.The son of Timarchos, fought for seven years against Tolo. The son of Timarchs, fought for seven years against Tolo. The son of Timarchos, fought for seven years against Tolo. The son of Timarchos, fought for seven years against Tolo. The son of Timarchos, fought for seven years against Tolo. The son of Timarchs, fought for seven years against Tolo. The son of Timarchos, fought for seven years against Tolo. The son of Timarchos, fought for seven years against Tolo. The son of Timarchos, fought for seven years against Tolo. The son of Timarchs, fought for seven years against Tolo. The son of Timarchos, fought for seven years against Tolo. The son of Timarchos, fought for seven years against Tolo. The son of Timarchos, fought for seven years against Tolo. The son of Timarchs, fought for seven years against Tolo. The son of Timarchos, fought for seven years against Tolo. The son of Timarchos, fought for seven years against Tolo. The son of Timarchos, fought for seven years against Tolo. The son of Timarchs, fought for seven years against Tolo. The son of Timarchos, fought for seven years against Tolo. The son of Timarchos, fought for seven years against Tolo.The son of Timarchs fought for seven years against Tolo. The son of Timarchos fought for seven years against Tolo. The son of Timarchos fought for seven years against Tolo. The son of Timarchos fought for seven years against Tolo. The son of Timarchs fought for seven years against Tolo. The son of Timarchos fought for seven years against Tolo. The son of Timarchos fought for seven years against Tolo. The son of Timarchos fought for seven years against Tolo. The son of Timarchs fought for seven years against Tolo. The son of Timarchos fought for seven years against Tolo. The son of Timarchos fought for seven years against Tolo. The son of Timarchos fought for seven years against Tolo. The son of Timarchs fought for seven years against Tolo. The son of Timarchos fought for seven years against Tolo. The son of Timarchos fought for seven years against Tolo. The son

He took Ptolemy V prisoner. Jason, whom Antiochus had replaced with Menelaus in the high priesthood, profited from Antiochus’s absence, attacked his rival and besieged him in the city of Jerusalem. But Antiochus, returning victorious from Egypt in 169 BC, fell upon the holy city and began to treat the Jews as seditious rebels. Led by Menelaus, he entered the Temple and plundered it; he left Menelaus in office, surrounded by Syrian officers who slaughtered forty thousand Jews (1 Macc 1:20–29; 2 Macc 5:11–21; Flavius Josephus, Antiquitates Iudaicae, XII, 5, 3; C. Apiomen, 2, 7).

In a second campaign (168 BC), Antiochus was on the verge of seizing Egypt when the Roman legate Popilius Laenas drew a circle in the sand around him and ordered him to decide immediately: “Take your answer within this circle.” Antiochus submitted (T. Livy, XLIV, 19; XLV, 12), but returned in a rage, determined to hold Coele Syria and Palestine. He built a fortress in Jerusalem (see Arca) to suppress every insurrection.

Firm in his political and philosophical principle (2 Macc 6:1) of eradicating Yahwism, Antiochus, through his governors of Coele Syria and special envoys, pursued the apostasy of the Jews with violence and method, aiming to reduce them to the religion, culture and politics of his kingdom. By an edict he charged Apollonius (see) with imposing Hellenization by force: circumcision, the Sabbath and sacred festivals were forbidden, and death was decreed for those who observed the Mosaic law. Pagan altars rose throughout Judea. On the twenty-fifth of Chislev (mid-December 168 BC) the Temple was formally profaned when the altar of burnt offerings was consecrated to pagan deities and sacrifices were offered to Olympian Jupiter (see ABOMINAZIONE DELLA DESOLAZIONE).

With Antiochus IV the iniquity reached its height. Almost all the gentile kings had persecuted Israel, yet in Antiochus IV the motive was more than political calculation: it was a frenzied assault on the one true God. Moral corruption spread from the baths, theaters and gymnasia, with the connivance of wealthy Jews “of broad views.” Many Jews apostatized or wavered. Yet the heroism of the martyrs shone forth. From Modein the rising of Mattathias and his five sons—later called Maccabees from Judas—began.

When the Jewish revolt grew threatening, Antiochus, engaged in his disastrous campaign against the Parthians (1 Macc 3:31), entrusted the war in Judea to Lysias. There his Syrian generals Nicanor and Gorgias were defeated.

La morte di A. è narrata in modo diverso: I Mach. 6, 1-16 e II Mach. 9, 1-28 concordano; la narrazione di II Mach. 2, 10-17 è errata, ma si tratta di mera citazione (J. Döller). Dopo aver tentato di saccheggiare un tempio d'Arte, nelle Elem, nei pressi di Ecbatana (II Mach. 9, 3; F. X. Kugler: Aspadana, oggi Ispahan), fu colto da crisi viscerale, cadde dal carro, e morì tra le montagne (II Mach. 9, 28) nella vicina Tabae di Persia (Poliobio, XXXI, 11 [9]), che lo dice impazzito [ἀκμόνισμα] e forse colpito da «castigo divino»; Flavio Giuseppe, Antig. Iud., XII, 9, 1, l'anno 149 dell'era dei Seleucidi, 164-163 a. C. (probabilmente fra il 17 marzo e il 4 apr. 164 a. C.). Tacito sintetizza (Hist., V, 8): «Il re A., risoluto a estirpare la superstizione e a impiantare la civiltà greca, fu impedito dalla guerra dei Parti di migliorare una razza infetta». Era invece la vittoria della fede e di Dio (II Mach. 6, 12-17).

— A. IV, il nemico di Dio, è profeticamente descritto in Dan. 7, 20-25; 8, 1-27; (9, 24-27 [2]); 11, 36-45; 12, 1-11. L'apocalittica imiterà Daniele: (III) Enoch etiop., 83-90. Il tardivo Megillath Antiochos esprimerà l'esecrazione rabbinica, incurante peraltro della sto-ria. In II Thess. 2, 3-11 si ha «la riproduzione cristiana della descrizione giudaica di A. Epif., mostro d'empietyà» (B. Rigaux, p. 289). I Padri quindi vedono in A. ANTICRISTO (v.); cf. Gilolamo, In Dan. 7-12.

— A. V, Epatore («di nobile padre»), figlio del precedente, cui successe a 9 o 12 anni, regnò due anni (164-162 a. C.) LISANIA (v.).

Presenting the difficulty of the succession, Father A. IV had entrusted him to the tutelage of General Filippo; but the latter was detained with the army in the East.

The Romans burst into Syria; their legate Cneo Ottavio was slaughtered and Lysias had to answer for the consequences. In 162 Lysias moved again against the Jews; these, routed at Beit-Zakaria (14 km. south of Bethlehem), withdrew to Jerusalem. Meanwhile, since his rival Filippo had returned to Antioch, Lysias had to raise the siege and make peace with Judas Maccabeus, granting the Jews full religious freedom (1 Mach. 6, 57-63; 2 Mach. 13, 23-26), and defeated Filippo (according to Flavius Josephus, Ant. Jud., XII, 9, 7, he killed him). But soon A. V and Lysias were killed by the troops on the orders of his cousin Demetrius I, who had escaped from Rome and been proclaimed king (1 Mach. 6, 17-7, 4; 2 Mach. 10, 1-14, 2; Flavius Josephus, Ant. Jud., XII, 9, 2, 3; Polybius, XXXI, 12).

— A. VI, Epiphanes Dionysus, son of Alexander Balas (q.v.), to whom the Jews professed gratitude (1 Mach. 10, 47), and of Cleopatra Thea, received strong support from her in the struggle he had to wage during the three years of his reign (145-142 B.C.) against the rival Demetrius II Nicator.

From Arabia, where he lived after his father's assassination, he was brought back as a child by an officer of Balas, Diototus surnamed Tryphon (q.v.), who proclaimed him king at Antioch, opposing him to the legitimate but cruel king Demetrius II. The latter had used Jonathan Maccabeus to suppress a rebellion, but violated the agreements and promises made to him; so that the Jews went over to the side of A. VI and Tryphon. The latter appointed Jonathan governor of the region; but after Demetrius II had been captured by the Parthians, at Ptolemais he treacherously killed Jonathan (143 B.C.). Returning to Syria, Tryphon killed the young A., his ward, with the complicity of the physicians (1 Mach. 11, 39-74; 12, 24-13, 32; Diodorus, XXXII, 4; Flavius Josephus, Ant. Jud., XIII, 5, 1, 3, 5).

— A. VII, Sidetes (because born and raised at Side in Pamphylia) or Evergetes («the Benefactor»), brother of Demetrius II, and last king of Syria (139-129 B.C.) mentioned in the Maccabees. Having Mitridates I (Arsaces VI) imprisoned Demetrius II, A. set out from the island of Rhodes,

proclaimed himself king at Tripoli and married Cleopatra Thaïs, who had been the wife of Alexander Balas and of Demetrius II. From the islands he wrote to Simon Maccabeus to seek his friendship, confirming to him the privileges granted by Demetrius II, including that of minting coinage. But once he had gained control of the situation, after defeating the usurper Tryphon, he turned hostile to the Jews.

— A. VII imposed on Simon the restitution of Gaza, Joppe, the fortress of the Acra, even exacting a fine of 500 talents. In 138 he sent Cendebeus with an army against the Jews; but John Hyrcanus, Simon’s son, defeated him (1 Mach. 15, 26-41; 16, 1-10: the last event recorded in the Old Testament).

Under the successor of Simon, John Hyrcanus I, Antiochus himself marched against the Jews, and after a long siege captured Jerusalem (134 B.C.). Having entered Jerusalem, Antiochus VII was rather lenient: he imposed a tribute on the recently subdued cities, more than 500 talents for war expenses, and had the walls of Jerusalem destroyed (Flavius Josephus, *Antiquitates Judaicae*, XIII, 8, 2 sqq.). He respected the religion and the Temple, to which, indeed, during the siege he had sent victims for sacrifices. Perhaps to this homage of a Gentile king alludes the *Testament of Benjamin*, IX, 2.

Valorous and ambitious, in 130 he marched against the Parthians to free his brother Demetrius II and reconquer the provinces of Upper Asia. After defeating him four times, the Parthians sent Antiochus back to Antioch, but shortly afterward they killed him (according to some, Antiochus killed himself). Cf. Justin, XXXVI, 1-3; XXXVIII, 10; Diodorus, XXXIII, 4 and 28; Appian, *Syriaca*, 68.

For the other six Seleucid kings named Antiochus, V. SELEUCIDS.

Antonio Romo