Athanasius, Saint

ATHANASIUS, Saint. - Bishop of Alexandria, Father and Doctor of the Church.

1. LIFE

As troubled as can be, it is intertwined and almost entirely merged with the history of the Arian controversy of the 4th century. It is easy to establish its periods: there is scant reliable information before his episcopate; the nearly fifty years of that episcopate (248-73) are interrupted by five different exiles for which we have precise data, and these can therefore serve to divide our summary biography.

A. is said to have been born around 295 in Alexandria or its surroundings, and he is said to have come from a Greek family because of the name A. and that of his brother Peter (but A. also spoke and wrote in Coptic). Certainly he was born of Christian parents and received a careful Greek education, both classical and Christian.

In his youth he seems to have frequented the patriarch of the solitaries, St. Anthony, whose life he later wrote, clearly asserting that he had been his disciple. Early on he consecrated himself to the service of the Church; we know that he was a deacon when the Arian controversy arose in the autumn of 323 and that by that date he had already composed his first work, a treatise of apologetics, and the two books Contra Gentiles and De Incarnatione Verbi. As a deacon he accompanied his bishop, Alexander, to Nicaea (325).

When Alexander died on 17 April 328, A. was called to succeed him. We do not know how his election took place, about which very contradictory accounts circulate. The Church of Alexandria was at that time divided by a double schism: that of Arius and that of Meletius of Lycopolis (v.). According to various sources the two schismatic groups each presented a candidate, but the great majority of the Egyptian bishops declared for A., who was elected on 8 June 328. One can understand how difficult was the task of a bishop amid so many divisions; and from as early as 331 the intrigues of the Arian court bishops began against him, led by Eusebius of Nicomedia. They sought first of all to make him lose the emperor's esteem by ordering him to receive into his communion the bishops who were friends of Arius. But A. refused. Then the Meletians accused him before Constantine of having imposed on the Egyptians a tribute of linen cloths; and furthermore of the fact that one of his priests had, by his order, broken the chalice of the Meletian bishop Ischyras and sent a purse of gold to a certain Philumenus, suspected of high treason. Summoned to the emperor's tribunal at Nicomedia, A. appeared and cleared himself of all the false charges, returning to Alexandria in March 332 with a letter from Constantine, full of praise for him, but very harsh toward his enemies. Encouraged by this success, A. acted energetically against the Meletians, who took revenge by accusing him of having murdered Arsenius, the Meletian bishop of Hypsele. This, however, only added disgrace to the enemies, since Arsenius was found alive at Tyre, and the Eusebians, who had already assembled a Council at Caesarea to condemn A. (333), had to disband without having concluded anything. The accused was again rehabilitated by a letter of the emperor, who reproached his enemies. The Arians, however, did not give up and persuaded their leader Arius to subscribe to an equivocal formula of faith. Constantine was satisfied with it and ordered the bishops to receive him into their communion. A. again refused, and then the Arians and Meletians asked the emperor to convene a great Council to settle the Egyptian questions definitively. This met at Tyre in August 335, but only the bishops designated by the Eusebians, almost all enemies of A., were officially convoked.

A. arrived with fifty of his own, who, however, were not received. Of all the accusations brought against him, only the affair of Ischyras was ultimately retained, and even that was so muddled that an investigative commission had to be sent to Mareotis. This was composed of the worst enemies of the accused, who did not wait for its return to leave the assembly and go to Constantinople to defend himself before Constantine himself. The latter, at first favorable to A., ended by approving the sentence of deposition meanwhile pronounced at Tyre. An imperial decree of 7 November 335 relegated A. to Trier, in the Gauls, without naming a successor for them. This was the first exile, and it lasted until the death of Constantine (22 May 337). Constantine II already on 7 June 337 sent the exile back to Alexandria, where A. did not enter until 23 November, after having met at Viminacium and then at Caesarea of Cappadocia the new emperor of the East, Constantius. His exile had lasted 28 months and 2 days.

The Eusebians, being able for now to hope for nothing from the civil power, brought the affair of A. before Pope Julius, not without having first recognized as bishop of Alexandria a certain Pistos, appointed by the Arians (338). Having been informed of this maneuver by the Pontiff himself, A. assembled his bishops in synod, who drafted a long circular in his favor. Then Julius summoned the two parties to Rome, to a plenary council. A. was faithful to the appeal, but the Eusebians did not present themselves; indeed, sure of the support of Constantius, emperor of the East, they had Pistos replaced by Gregory of Cappadocia in the see of Alexandria. The prefect of Egypt, Philagrius, had the churches of the city forcibly occupied in order to hand them over to the intruder, and A., forced to leave Egypt from as early as 16 April 339, took the road to Rome after having protested with an encyclical letter (PG 25, 221-40). Thus began his second exile, which lasted until 20 October 346.

During these six years many events followed one another. At Rome, A. saw his innocence recognized by a council (autumn 340 or spring 341). He then attended the Council of Sardica (343), where he was again rehabilitated by the Catholic group. During his stay in the West he initiated the Westerners into the monastic life as it was practiced in Egypt. He traveled a great deal. At Easter of 345 he was at Aquileia with Constans I, who obtained from his brother Constantius his return to Alexandria. This recall became official after the death of the intruder Gregory of Cappadocia (25 June 345); but the exile did not hasten to take advantage of Constantius's favor, too many being the reasons for distrust. Having obtained an audience with Constans, he came to Rome where he received a letter from the Pope for the clergy and faithful of Alexandria. From Rome he went to Adrianople, then to Antioch, where Constantius received him and provided him with a letter of recommendation for the Catholic clergy and the civil authorities in Egypt; and on 21 October 346 he made his triumphal entry into Alexandria.

There followed for A. ten years of relative peace, and he took advantage of them to compose dogmatic works or works of personal apology. It was also in this time that he concerned himself with the conversion of Abyssinia (v. ETIOPIA).

But as early as 351 the intrigues of the Arians began again, and they succeeded in stirring up even the episcopate of the West against him. At the Council of Arles (354) and at that of Milan (355) everyone declared against him, except for a few bishops such as Liberius, Eusebius of Vercelli, and Lucifer of Cagliari. Even Liberius in 357 ended up abandoning him. These defections filled the holy bishop with bitterness, and he prepared himself for his third exile by writing an Apologia ad Constantium (PG 25, 595-642). On the night between 8 and 9 February 356, the church of Theonas where A. was officiating was invaded by troops; but the bishop managed to flee into the desert, where the monks surrounded him with attentions and kept him hidden from all searches. With the monks A. spent the eight years of his third exile, until the beginning of 362; years that were fruitful both from the apostolic and from the literary point of view. From his solitude he continued to govern his Church, and it was then that he wrote the Orationes contra Arianos and the Letters to Serapion, which form his glory as a doctor of the Most Holy Trinity. He also wrote certain works of personal apology such as: Apologia de fuga sua (PG 25, 643-680) and Historia arianorum ad monachos (ibid., 691-796). In October 358, after the riot that forced the Arian bishop George of Cappadocia to flee, he was able to repair secretly to Alexandria for a few days, but the definitive return did not take place until 21 February 362, after Constantius had died (2 December 361), George had been massacred by the crowd, and Julian the Apostate had ascended the throne, whose first act was to recall the bishops exiled by his predecessor.

It was A.'s care, as soon as he returned to Alexandria, to re-establish Nicene orthodoxy and to combat the official Arianism that had triumphed at the Councils of Seleucia and Rimini (359). Having convened a council, decisions inspired by mercy were taken toward all those who had given themselves over to Arianism through ignorance, and even on the dogmatic ground there was generosity and tolerance for everything that was pure terminology or quibbling over words. The Christological dogma was quite clearly defined against the opposing errors of Apollinarianism and Nestorianism, which were beginning to raise their heads, and A. clearly summarized these important decisions in a brief writing entitled Tomus ad Antiochenos (PG 25, 795-810).

So much activity directed at procuring Catholic unity could not be looked upon favorably by the apostate Julian, intent on re-establishing paganism. A decree of March 363 ordered the expulsion of A. On 23 October he left his see for the fourth time, but only for a few months, because Julian died on 26 June 363 and was replaced on the throne by the Catholic Jovian, who immediately recalled the persecuted man to Alexandria. Before going there, A. wished to stop at Antioch to have conversations with the emperor and to attempt once again to re-establish religious concord; but his efforts again proved vain. Only on 14 or 20 February 364 did he appear among his faithful, but only briefly, because in the meantime Jovian died (17 February) and the empire was divided between his two brothers, Valentinian and Valens, the West falling to the former and the East to the latter. Unfortunately Valens was favorable to Arianism, and on 4 or 5 May 365 he sent back into exile all the bishops recalled by Julian. It seemed that A. would escape proscription, having been recalled by Jovian; but however much the Egyptians exerted themselves in his favor, he had to go into hiding a fifth time from 5 October 365, though remaining on the outskirts of the city. After four months, Valens, in order to win the sympathy of the Egyptians, recalled him, and on 1 February 366 A. returned to his see, never to leave it again until his death, which occurred on the night of 2 or 3 May 373.

His last years passed peacefully, employed for the general good of the Church, in close communion with the whole West. He intervened in the West to put the bishops on guard against the partisans of the formula of Rimini, and it was at his instigation that Pope Damasus deposed Auxentius of Milan (369). In a Letter to the Africans A. recommends that they remain faithful to the formula of Nicaea in order to avoid the snares of heresy, since the Christological errors that would be called Apollinarianism, Nestorianism, and Eutychianism were beginning to spread. A., who had already condemned them in his Tomus ad Antiochenos, sought to combat them, without naming the authors, in three dogmatic letters: Ad Epictetum, Ad Adelphium, Ad Maximum (PG 26, 1049-90).

History gave A. the title of "Great," well merited for the indomitable firmness of his character. He was a man of government, and as such he had at times to be harsh; but he also knew how to show himself fatherly and benevolent. A. was not quarrelsome, but a man of great good sense and broad views; in questions of doctrine he held more to substance than to form.

II. WRITINGS AND DOCTRINE

The literary legacy of St. Athanasius is still far from being established, as emerges from the recent research undertaken for the critical edition of his works by H. G. Opitz (Untersuchungen zur Überlieferung der Schriften des Athanasius, Berlin-Leipzig 1935). Besides numerous apocryphal writings attributed to him, there are the doubtful works, whose number has sometimes been increased without sufficient reason. Especially the translations into Armenian, Syriac, Coptic, etc., seem bound to hold more than one surprise in store for us.

St. Athanasius wrote few works of long breath, but his numerous opuscules can be arranged in the three following groups: a) apologetic and dogmatic works; b) historical works and works of personal apology; c) pastoral and ascetic works; to which, given their character, the exegetical writings may be joined. A brief mention will be needed of the apocryphal or doubtfully authentic writings.

1. Apologetic and dogmatic works

The first known writing of Athanasius, composed around 318-20, is an apology of the Christian religion divided into two parts: 1st The Treatise against the Greeks, in which he combats paganism and indicates the two ways by which one can arrive at the knowledge of God, namely the soul and the exterior world; 2nd The Treatise on the Incarnation of the Word, which maintains the moral necessity of the Incarnation in order to redeem man and demonstrates the divinity of Christianity (PG 25, 3-198). The ideas developed by Athanasius have become classic. Attempts were wrongly made to contest the authenticity of this apology, although not everything has been done for the criticism of the text (cf. J. Lebon, in Revue d'histoire ecclésiastique, 21 [1925], pp. 524-30; and 23 [1927], pp. 18, 31, 761, note 2).

The dogmatic writings properly so called refer to the two mysteries of the Trinity and of the Incarnation. Athanasius defends the divinity of the Word in the three Treatises or Discourses against the Arians (PG 24, 11-467); that of the Holy Spirit in the four Letters to Serapion, bishop of Thmuis (ibid. 529-676). These writings, which are the most important, date in all likelihood from his third exile in the years 356-62. A fourth treatise against the Arians (PG 26, 467-526) is probably to be attributed to Apollinaris of Laodicea, there being good reasons for not ascribing it to Athanasius. The following opuscules likewise refer to the Trinitarian controversy: 1st Expositio Fidei (PG 25, 199-208); 2nd Epistle on the decrees of Nicaea (ibid. 415-76); 3rd Fragment on the text of St. Matthew, 11, 27: "Omnia mihi tradita sunt, etc." (ibid. 207-20); 4th Letter on the doctrine of Dionysius (ibid. 479-522), in which Athanasius defends the orthodoxy of his predecessor accused of Sabellianism (around 350-53); 5th Treatise on the Synods of Rimini and Seleucia (PG 24, 681-794), composed in 359 when these councils gave hope of the triumph of Nicene orthodoxy before their capitulation in the face of Constantius and the signing of the Homoian formula, and finished shortly after those events; 6th De Incarnatione et contra arianos, later than 362 (ibid. 983-1028); 7th Letter to Jovian, an exposition of the Catholic faith (ibid. 813-24), of 363; 8th Letter to the bishops of Africa of 368 (ibid. 1029-48), to put them on their guard against the Arian heresy.

Athanasius's doctrine on the Trinity is above all positive and based on the texts of Holy Scripture. Athanasius is not a slave to a formula, and if he remains faithful to the Nicene consubstantial (ὁμοούσιος), he also knows how to employ equivalent expressions. He was ready to extend a hand to Basil of Ancyra and his Homoians, and he held logomachies in horror. The following expressions are found in him: ὅμοιος κατ' οὐσίαν, κατὰ πάντα; ὅμοιος, ὁμογενὴς τῇ φύσει (the Son like the Father according to essence, in all things, by nature). At the Council of Alexandria of 362, he even consented to give the word ὑπόστασις the sense of person instead of that of essence and substance habitually used. This imprecision in terminology does not in him harm the clarity of the doctrine, and is explained by the fact that in his time the Trinitarian and Christological formulas were in formation and had not yet assumed their definitive form.

After having expounded in the Treatise on the Incarnation of the Word the mystery of the Redemption, which he presents to us above all as a divinization of humanity through the contact of the incarnate Word with our nature, Athanasius was led in his last years to occupy himself with the Christological dogma properly so called, which was beginning to be the object of dangerous speculations. As has already been said, from as early as 362 he had clearly condemned the nascent Christological errors (Apollinarianism, Nestorianism, Docetism, Eutychianism). Particular attention must be paid to the condemnation of Apollinarianism, both in the Tomus ad Antiochenos and in the letter to Epictetus, because Athanasius has been accused of having taught such an error, given his habit of indicating the humanity of the Savior with the words body and flesh. In good time, moreover, the Apollinarians falsified several of his works such as the celebrated epistle to Epictetus (cf. J. Lebon, Altération doctrinale de la lettre à Epictète, in Revue d'histoire ecclésiastique, 31 [1935], pp. 713-61), where they sought to pass off their own productions under his name. Athanasius, far from being an Apollinarian, clearly affirms the substantial union of the Word with human nature and the unity of subject in Christ. He gives the Blessed Virgin the title of θεοτόκος and refutes in advance Diodore of Tarsus, Theodore of Mopsuestia and Nestorius, although he employs terms that seem to favor the error, the Christological terminology not yet being well fixed in his time. Likewise the human will and freedom of Jesus remain in the shadows.

2. Historical works and works of personal apology

Persecuted, calumniated, attacked in every way, Athanasius knew how to defend himself vigorously with the pen, convinced that his cause was intimately united with that of orthodoxy. The personal apologies are also historical documents in which absolute impartiality cannot be demanded. For the most part they were composed during the third exile (356-62).

Here they are in their chronological order: 1st The encyclical letter, written in 339 as he was departing for the second exile, in order to protest against his expulsion and against the intrusion of the Arian Gregory of Cappadocia (PG 25, 221-40); 2nd The apology against the Arians of 348, a collection of official documents on the persecutions suffered from 330 to 348, on the Councils of Tyre and Sardica: an incomplete collection because only the documents favorable to him appear (ibid. 240-410); 3rd The letter to the bishops of Egypt and Libya (ibid. 537-94), written in 356-57, on departing for the third exile, in order to put the bishops on their guard against an Arian formula and to encourage them in the struggle; 4th The apology for his flight of 356 (ibid. 643-80), written in 357. Athanasius justifies his flight and denounces with indignation the villainies committed by George of Cappadocia and his followers; 5th The apology to the emperor Constantius (ibid. 595-642), perhaps begun even before 355 and finished in 357; a fine example of careful rhetoric, written in a calm tone, where the official praises given to the emperor have somewhat the savor of irony; 6th The history of the Arians to the monks (ibid. 691-796), of 358, where he narrates to the solitaries, in a vivid and picturesque style, his adventures as a persecuted man and the infamies committed by his enemies, sparing no one, not even the emperor Constantius, whom he compares to the Antichrist and whose caesaropapism he condemns; 7th The letter to Serapion on the death of Arius (ibid. 685-90), written ca. 358 and in which he recounts the last moments of the heresiarch.

3. Pastoral, ascetic and exegetical works

A. was not only a theologian of great worth and a tireless fighter, but also a pastor full of zeal. He took particular care of chosen souls, monks and virgins; and this office of director of souls, hitherto little known, has been brought to light by recent discoveries. And it is more for edification than to do work of scientific exegesis that A. commented on certain texts of Holy Scripture.

As properly pastoral works, his Festal Letters must be noted, which each year he addressed to the faithful of his city to announce to them the date of Easter and exhort them to the practice of the Christian virtues. Of these letters only 15 (from 329 to 348) have come down to us in Syriac translation (translated into Latin in PG 26, 1360-1433). There are also some fragments, among which one from the 39th letter, which has come down to us in the original text, is particularly important, because it gives us the biblical canon of the Church of Alexandria (ibid., 1176-80, 1436-40). This canon corresponds to the Catholic one for the New Testament, while, for the Old, A. recognizes only the Hebrew canon, though pointing out and recommending the deuterocanonical books as books for reading, with the exception of the book of Maccabees, and adding to them the Didaché of the Apostles and the Shepherd of Hermas.

Most of the discourses, or fragments of discourses, that have come down to us under his name are apocryphal; others are doubtful, and we must await the critical edition of his works to know what can be considered authentic (PG 28, 133-250, 501-1114). Various letters addressed to monks are of an ascetic and edifying character. We have already mentioned the Letter to Dracontius (PG 25, 523-34); the Letter to Amun (ibid. 26, 1169-78) and the Letters to Orsisius and to the monks (ibid. 26, 977-80, 1185-90) should also be noted. The celebrated Letter to Marcellinus on the Psalms (ibid. 27, 11-46) is regarded as the introduction to a Commentary on the Psalms, of which long fragments remain, considered authentic at least in their entirety (ibid. 27, 55-590). On the other hand, the De Titulis Psalmorum, which has been placed under the name of A., must be attributed to Hesychius of Jerusalem (ibid. 27, 649-1344). Photius also attributes to him a Commentary on Ecclesiastes and one on the Song of Songs. While in the writings of dogmatic controversy A. adheres to the literal sense of Scripture, in the commentary on the Psalms he strives to give in particular the moral sense.

The Life of St. Anthony, written around 350 (PG 26, 838-976), is not only a biography of the great Egyptian, but also an account of his spiritual doctrine, and it exercised a great influence both in the West and in the East. Evagrius, a priest, then bishop of Antioch, published, more than a translation, a reworking of it in Latin before 388.

The authenticity of the small treatise On Virginity (critical ed. by Ed. von der Goltz in the Texte und Untersuchungen of 1905), certainly written after 362, was contested without sufficient grounds. It is a true manual of spiritual life for the use of the Christian virgin, full of good sense and discretion. The same qualities are found in three letters or treatises on the same subject, recently edited, two in Syriac version (by J. Lebon, in Muséon, 40 [1927], pp. 205-48; 41 [1928], pp. 169-216) and another in Coptic (by C. Th. Lefort, ibid., 42 [1929], pp. 179-274, with French translation). This was cited by Ephrem of Antioch (Photius, Bibliotheca, cod. 229; PG 103, 993) and used by Shenoute (v.) and especially by St. Ambrose in his De Virginibus, II (cf. Lefort, in Muséon, 48 [1935], pp. 55-73). It is incomplete, but contains a magnificent eulogy of virginity. We thus possess the four treatises on virginity of which a Coptic fragment of the Chronicle of the patriarchs of Alexandria speaks at the beginning of the catalogue of the works of St. A.

A fine treatise of spirituality is also the Letter of St. A. on fraternal charity and on temperance, edited in Coptic, with French translation, by A. Van Lantschoot, in Muséon, 40 (1927), pp. 265-92. Such discoveries reveal the importance of St. A. as an ascetic doctor and master of the spiritual life; and it is very probable that his ascetic works were written in Greek and in Coptic.

4. Doubtful or apocryphal works

From the earliest times attempts were made to pass off under the name of A. writings of Apollinaris or of his disciples, while his authentic writings were falsified, especially by the moderate group of the sect of the Apollinarians. Thus it happened with the letter to Epictetus.

The following are by Apollinaris: 1° De Incarnatione Verbi Dei (PG 28, 25-30, 89-96); 2° Quod unus sit Christus (ibid. 121-32); 3° perhaps the fourth discourse against the Arians (PG 26, 467-526).

The following do not belong to A.: 1° the two books against Apollinaris (PG 26, 1093-1166); 2° the Quaestiones ad Antiochum (PG 28, 1-137, 597-700); 3° the Quicumque symbol, which is of Latin origin (v. ATANASIANO [PSEUDO] SIMBOLO).

The most complete collection of the works is in PG 25-28 (edition of the Maurists J. Lepin and B. de Montfaucon with some more recent additions). The critical edition of H. G. Opitz (Berlin Corpus) is still at its first fascicles (they appeared in the years 1934-41 and contain the personal apologies). - For the particular editions of certain works, and the special studies made on them, v. O. Bardenhewer, Geschichte der althöflichen Literatur, III, Freiburg im Br. 1923, pp. 44-79. - Among the numerous monographs on St. A. the following are noted the following: H. Voigt, Die Lehre des hl. Athanasius von Alexandrien, Bremen 1861; L. Atzberger, Die Logoslehre des hl. Athanasius, ihre Gegner und ihre unmittelbaren Vorläufer, Munich 1880; G. A. Pell, Die Lehre des hl. Athanasius von der Sünde und Erlösung, Bessavia 1888; Fr. Lauchert, Die Lehre des hl. Athanasius des Grossen, Leipzig 1895; G. Voisin, La doctrine christologique de saint Athanase, in Revue d'histoire ecclésiastique, 1 (1900), pp. 226-48; E. Weigl, Untersuchungen zur Christologie des hl. Athanasius, Paderborn 1914; A. Gaudel, La théorie du Logos chez saint Athanase, in Revue des sciences religieuses, 19 (1929), pp. 524-39; 21 (1931), pp. 1-26; J. Berchem, L'incarnation dans la plan divin d'après saint Athanase, in Echos d'Orient, 33 (1934), pp. 316-30; id., Le Christ Santificateur d'après saint Athanase, in Angelicum, 15 (1938), pp. 201-32, 515-58; J. Lebon, Saint Athanase a-t-il employé l'expression ὁ νοημαὸς ἰνθρώπης?, in Revue d'histoire ecclésiastique, 31 (1935), pp. 307-29; Ch. Hauret, Comment le défenseur de Nicée a-t-il compris le dogme de Nicée, Bruges 1936.

Martin Jugie

III. IN ART

Compared with the importance that A. has in the history of the Church, his images appear scarce; the oldest, a fresco of the 8th century in S. Maria Antiqua in Rome, shows him standing, of humble appearance, with a scroll, similar to many other Eastern saints lined up beside Christ. Apart from some relatively late frescoes of the monasteries of Athos, Byzantine mosaicists represented A. together with the other doctors of the Eastern Church, and dressed in rich pontifical vestments, in St. Mark's in Venice and in the cathedrals of Palermo and Monreale. In Western medieval painting his figure is not found; later Fra Angelico painted him in the Chapel of Nicholas V (Vatican) and Signorelli in an altarpiece of the Uffizi. In the Baroque era A. was depicted by Domenichino (Abbey of Grottaferrata) and by Bernini, who, on the advice of Urban VIII, placed him among the four doctors of the universal Church who support the chair of St. Peter.

Kurt Rathe