MARONITI

MARONITES. – A Christian people of Syrian origin, especially distributed in the Republic of Lebanon, in Syria, Palestine, Cyprus, and Egypt.

I. ST MARO

Of St Maro it is known that he lived as an anchorite on a mountain probably located in the region of Apamea. The gift of miracles spread his fame and drew people to his hermitage. At his death, a fierce dispute arose among the nearby villages over possession of his venerated body; the inhabitants of the largest village prevailed and built around that precious relic a very sumptuous church (Theodoret, *Religiosa hist.*: PG 82, 1418). Here St Maro is called “the Great,” “the Supreme,” “the Divine” (loc. cit., 1395, 1431, 1454, 1491). St John Chrysostom sent him a letter written, as is evident from its contents, between 404 and 407, and Theodoret, writing his work between 423 and 458, speaks of a church of St Maro already become very sumptuous and of the cult paid to him, which makes it reasonable to hold that St Maro died about 410. The date of his birth remains unknown.

II. THE MONASTERY OF ST MARO

Many saints are called by Theodoret disciples of St Maro. It was probably around the aforesaid church that a monastery was erected, for after Theodoret no further mention is made of that church, whereas many documents speak of the monastery. Abū l-Fidā’ (d. 1331), in his pre-Islamic history (ed. H. Fleischer, Leipzig 1831, p. 113), says that the monastery of St Maro was enlarged by Marcian in 452. Abū l-Fidā’, who governed Homs, had near or within the bounds of his jurisdiction the region of Apamea where the monastery was located. According to Procopius of Caesarea (*De aedificiis Dn. Iustiniani*, V, Venice 1729, p. 9), Justinian carried out some restorations in the same monastery, and according to Eutychius, patriarch of Alexandria, Heraclius in 628 visited it and bequeathed goods to it (PG 111, 1089). During the reign of Heraclius, many Jacobite churches passed to Maronite monks, and Heraclius refused to have them returned (Bar Hebraeus, *Chron. Eccl.*, I, Louvain 1872, pp. 270–74). In the London Brit. Mus. ms. add. 17,169, f. 126ʳ, it is recorded that it was acquired in 745 for the monastery of St Maro (cf. F. Nau, *Bulletin de St. Louis des maronites*, 1903, 3469). Timothy I, Nestorian patriarch, wrote in 791 a long letter to the monks of St Maro (Vat. Borgiano 81). The Jacobite patriarch Dionysius of Tellmahrē (d. 845) says: “the M[aronites] remained as they are today: they ordain their patriarch and bishops from their monastery” (*Chronique de Michel le Syrien*, trans. J.-B. Chabot, II, Paris 1910, p. 511).

There are letters published by Mansi (vol. VIII), whose date ranges between 517 and 536, in which the place or wording of the signatures of archimandrites or monks of St Maro proves that that monastery in Second Syria was the principal or the exarch. From the foregoing it appears that, from the mid-fifth to the mid-ninth century, the monastery of St Maro flourished and held pre-eminence.

Thomas, bishop of Kefartab (11th cent.), says that this monastery stood on the banks of the Orontes and housed 800 monks (Syriac ms. of Paris 203, f. 97 V. in *al-Manārah*, 7 [1936], p. 97). Al-Masʿūdī says the same, but elsewhere specifies that it was situated east of Hama and Sajzar, today Sajgar (*Le livre de l’avertissement et de la revision*, trans. Carra de Vaux, Paris 1897, p. 211). An ancient manuscript published by F. Nau (Opuscules Maronites, II, Paris 1900, p. 22) confirms this. The monastery “consisted of a grand building surrounded by more than three hundred rooms inhabited by monks, and possessed gold, silver, and precious stones in great quantity. It was destroyed by Arab raids and the injustice of the sultan” (Masʿūdī, loc. cit.).

A note in the British Museum ms. add. 17,169, which according to Wright was added between the ninth and tenth centuries, states that it, previously in the possession of the monks of the monastery, was donated to the Church of the Syrians in the desert of Lower Egypt. It is presumed that the monastery was destroyed beforehand. No trace of it remains. Regarding the head of St Maro preserved in the cathedral of Foligno, V. P. Sfair, *La Messa M.* (Rome 1946, p. 114).

III. EXPANSION OF THE MARONITES

The monastery of St Maro and others dependent on it gave their name to those Aramaic-speaking Christians who began to form a compact community around them (H. Lammens, in *al-Masʿūdī*, 6 [1903], p. 131). According to al-Masʿūdī (loc. cit.) they first spread to Apamea, Sajzar, Homs, and Hama, and according to Bar Hebraeus (*Chron. eccl.*, I, pp. 270–74) and Eutychius (PG 111, 1078) also to Hierapolis, Qinnašrīn, and al-ʿAwājim. In the second half of the seventh century the Maronites began to emigrate to Lebanon because of strong rivalries with the Jacobites (H. Lammens, in *al-Masʿūdī*, 2 [1899], p. 267). Later the caliphs also persecuted them (Dionysius of Tellmahrē, in *Chronique de Michel le Syrien*, II, p. 511). At first they must have dwelt in the district of Batrūn, whence they spread into that of Jubayl, and were numerous, as attested by the churches they built in the eighth, ninth, and tenth centuries. There they found and absorbed many Christians who, like them, spoke Syriac and had been evangelized by the monks of St Maro (H. Lammens, in *al-Masʿūdī*, 4 [1901], pp. 728, 1018; PG 82, 1428). In Aleppo too the Maronites are very ancient; the Jacobite Dionysius of Tellmahrē (loc. cit., pp. 429–96) speaks of a struggle between them and the Melkites. Soon they were also to be found in Mesopotamia. Bar Hebraeus (*Taʾrīkh muḥtaṣar ad-duwal*, ed. Sāliḥānī, Beirut 1890, pp. 219–220) speaks of the Maronite Theophilus of Edessa, head of the astrologers of al-Mahdī (775–85) in Baghdad, who wrote a history and translated the Iliad and the Odyssey into Syriac; and Ricoldo de Monte Crucis (*Peregrinationes Medii Aevi quatuor*, ed. Laurent, Leipzig 1873, p. 126), a thirteenth-century writer, met between Mosul and Baghdad a Maronite community headed by an archbishop. As for Cyprus, there are two inscriptions, one of 1141 and the other of 1154, concerning the Maronites of that island (M. Le Quien, in *Oriens Christianus*, 3 [1740], pp. 49–76). According to L. Macheras (*Chron. de Chypre*, Fr. trans., Paris 1882, pp. 15, 16) they came to populate thirty villages there.

From Jerusalem, where they had been numerous and had several churches, the Maronites emigrated to Cyprus, as has been said, to Rhodes in 1310, and to Malta in 1530 (P. Masʿad, *ad-Durr al-manzūm*, Lebanon 1863, p. 158; H. Lammens, in *al-Maʿriq*, 6 [1903], p. 170).

IV. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE PATRIARCHATE

In 688 the Maronites elected their first patriarch. This is attested by the Maronite patriarch al-Duwayhī, elected in 1670 (on whose authority or otherwise cf. P. Sfair, *La Messa siro-maronita*, pp. 120 ff.), and confirmed by the text cited in the annals of Dionysius of Tellmahrē (d. 845), largely preserved in the chronicle of Michael the Syrian (ed. cit.), which was discovered in 1887. The Maronite patriarch bore the title “of Antioch” before Innocent III, as is evident from a passage in the bull *Quia divinae* of 1215 (but on the title of the Maronite patriarch cf. P. Chebli, in *Rev. de l’Orient chrétien*, 8 [1903], pp. 138–39; G. Dib, in *DTHC*, X, col. 28).

As for the see, between the year of its establishment and 1440 the patriarchs changed it thirteen times (*Synodus Montis Libani*, anno 1736, III, VI, 5). From that year onward the see was Qannūbīn, first in fact and later by decree of the aforesaid Synod of 1736. The Synod of Bikfayya in 1790 transferred it to that same monastery, and the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda Fide confirmed this decision on 11 June 1793 (P. Sfair, *Codificazione can. orientale. Fonti*, 1a serie, XII, n. 1155).

V. UNDER THE CRUSADERS

Having occupied Tripoli in 1098, the Crusaders asked the Syrian faithful of that part of Mount Lebanon, who had come down to congratulate them, what was the best road to reach Jerusalem, and thus they followed the coastal route under the guidance of some of those faithful (William of Tyre, in PL 201, 198-99). As has been seen, these faithful could only have been the M., and William himself elsewhere (PL 201, 855) calls them M., adding: «... and they were strong and valiant men in battle... and were most useful to us». Once established in Jerusalem, the Crusaders endeavored to occupy the coastal cities they had passed without taking. In the occupation of Tripoli and Beirut, they were aided by the M. (H. Lammens, in al-Ma'riq, 6 [1903], p. 214; G. Darjan, Nabdat t'rihiyiah, Beirut 1919, pp. 79-80, where he cites Arab authors). Under the Crusaders, the M. lived in peace, built churches and monasteries (H. Lammens, in al-Ma'riq, 4 [1901], p. 170; id., La Syrie, Beirut 1922, pp. 261-262; E. Renan, Mission de Phénicie, Paris 1864, p. 227) and began to use bells (G. de Vitry, Historia Hierosolimitana, I, 1094; ad-Duwajhī, Annals, 1112), and their bishops to wear mitres, croziers, and pectoral crosses (G. de Vitry, ibid.). In Lebanon, the Crusaders found the feudal system and maintained it (G. Darjan, loc. cit., pp. 81-82). When the Crusader kingdom declined, «a wretched remnant of the clergy and faithful people withdrew into the inaccessible heights of Lebanon inhabited by Catholic M.... Patriarch Simon lovingly welcomed the lost flock, wrote to Alexander IV, and obtained from him the title of Antiochene» (B. Terzi, Siria sacra, Rome 1695, p. 52). Benedict XIV, in the consistory of 13 July 1744, spoke in the same sense.

VI. IN THE MAMLUK PERIOD

Under the Mamluks (1291-1516), Syria and Lebanon together were divided into five parts called vice-royalties. In Lebanon, in every major center of habitation, there was a Maronite muqaddam (prefect), who governed under the authority of the nā'ib or viceroy of Tripoli. The muqaddamīn (pl. of muqaddam) were almost independent among their faithful, received the subdiaconate, and held the first place in church after the priest. From this one can understand the importance that the patriarch then had. Fearful of a return of the Crusaders, until the mid-15th century the Mamluks kept watch over the coasts; this made relations with the Holy See difficult (ad-Duwajhī, Annals, 1439 and Kitāb al-ihṭīgā, of which there is a Latin translation in ms. Vat. lat. 7411, ch. 11, under the title Vindicia Mavonitarum). Later, it seems that the situation changed, and Fra Gryphon was among the M. as papal legate from 1450 to 1475.

VII. AFTER THE TURKISH OCCUPATION

In 1516 Selim I occupied Lebanon. In 1527 the patriarch and the episcopate invited Charles V to liberate the country, promising him the aid of 50,000 fighters, but in vain (A. Rabbath, Documents inédits, II, Paris 1910, pp. 616-23). From Jubayl downward, Lebanon was divided into three parts governed by three non-Christian princes. In 1585, Fakhr ad-Dīn II of the Ma'ns obtained the governorship of the Shūf, but he succeeded in extending the territory under his control from Antioch to Aglūn and then took under his protection districts governed by the Maronite family Hāzin, who had educated him, and others besides. This prince had convents built for the Capuchins in the Shūf (A. Rabbath, op. cit., pp. 464, 494), and Abū Nawfīl Hāzin built the first Jesuit house in Lebanon at 'Ajntūrā (Keserwan: Lettres édifiantes et curieuses, I, Paris 1829, pp. 221-23, 232 ff.).

The Ma'ns were almost entirely independent, with Turkey contenting itself with tribute. There were, however, some persecutions, but not from the Ma'ns, who ruled until 1697, rather from the Turkish pashas of Tripoli. Thus the most influential Maronite notables, Abū Karam al-Hadati (1640) and Jūnis Abū Rizq (1697), mounted the scaffold after repeatedly refusing to apostatize (ad-Duwajhī, Annals, 1640 and 1697; J. De la Roque, Voyage de Syrie..., II, Paris 1722, p. 263). In 1695 the Order of the Maronite Antonines arose, and in 1700 that of the Antonines of St. Isaiah.

When the Ma'ns declined, they were succeeded by the Muslim Shihābs, who governed Lebanon until 1841. Under them, who employed M. as ministers, advisors, secretaries, etc., the M. enjoyed peace and security (C.-F. Volney, Voyage en Syrie et en Egypte, I, Paris 1825, p. 467). The Melkites converted to Catholicism in Aleppo in 1725, Patriarch Tanās in 1726, and the Syriac Patriarch Ārāwāh in 1783 took refuge in Lebanon to escape persecution. The Armenian Catholic patriarchs from 1739 until the second half of the 19th century resided in Keserwan. In 1736 the Maronite Synod was held, whose acts are to this day the official code of the patriarch. Benedict XIV approved it in a special form in 1742. It contains the decree that the patriarch in his synod elect the bishops, and the order of Innocent III (Quia divinae, 3 Jan. 1215) that priests use Latin vestments.

After the Shihābs fell, Turkey established in Lebanon two prefectures (qa'immagamati), one Druze and the other Maronite. But there were disturbances, which culminated in 1860 in massacres of Christians, including the three Massabkī brothers beatified by Pius XI (10 July 1926). In 1861, following the intervention of the European powers, Lebanon was given a new organic statute, by which the M. lived in peace until the First World War.

In 1865 the Congregation of Lebanese Missionaries, also called Kramites from their place of origin, was founded. For the present state V. LEBANON.

VIII. THE QUESTION OF THE ORTHODOXY OF THE M.

The thesis that made the M. in antiquity defenders of Monophysitism has now been abandoned. Indeed, to say nothing of «monks of St. Maron» put to death by the Severian Monophysites in 517 (v. Mansi, VIII, 426), letters from the 6th century (ed. F. Nau, op. cit., pp. 343 ff., 307 ff.) are preserved in which Monophysite monks call the M. «shoots of Leo» and adherents of the Council of Chalcedon. Moreover, Bar Hebraeus in his Ecclesiastical Chronicle, p. 269 ff., drawing on Dionysius of Tellmahrê (d. 845), speaks of disputes between M. and Monophysites.

There are, however, still many scholars who admit that the M. were once adherents of Monothelitism. It seems, though, that the witnesses cited are not so strong and that the counter-proofs carry weight.

Si adduce Timoteo of Constantinople (PG 86, 65), who however wrote: «The year 600, that is before monotheletism flared up: he makes the M. opponents also of the Fourth Council, which cannot be true, as has been seen. In the same assertion St. Germanus of Constantinople agrees, who then contradicts himself by admitting that the M. reject the Fifth and Sixth Councils, yet admit the Fourth.» It is added that the author, an ultranonagenarian (PG 98, 82), wrote these recollections in prison without the aid of writings. St. John Damascene swears that he will have nothing to do with heterodox persons, especially the M. (PG 94, 1432), and in a letter, alluding to «qui crucifixus est», says: «We maronize if we add...» (PG 95, 33). It is strange, however, that the same author in his list of over 100 heresies (PG 84, 679-80) does not mention the M. Moreover the first citation seems little consonant with the context (v. S. Assemani, Bibl. iuris orientalis canonici et civilis, V, Rome 1766, p. 502), and the second is reported in Paris mss. 1826 and 2442 and in the manuscript used for the Basel edition with the transgression of «delirium» instead of magosviosque. Still less security is offered by the dubious testimony of Abû Qurrah, not free from contradictions and handed down in a copy made in 1735 by the Melchite bishop B. Finan (ed. C. Bâšâ, Beirut 1904). Of small account is then that of Eutyches (Sa'id ibn al-Bitrîq; cf. PG 111, 1078), from whom William of Tyre (PG 201, 212) and many later writers derive, who mixes evident errors about the M. (PG 201, 845-56), converted according to him in 1181, precisely when the Latin kingdom was declining. Innocent III, in the bull Quia divinae (3 Jan. 1215), speaks instead of the conversion of the M. in 1203 before Cardinal Peter. The M. would have admitted the primacy of the Pope, the Filioque (but no one ever attributed to the M. the heresies opposed to these dogmas); the two wills, etc. It should be noted, however, that this bull is addressed together to the Greeks and the M. Nor is it to be excluded that at that time the popes were not well informed about the doctrine of the M. (v. G. Dandini, Missione al Patriarca e M. del Monte Libano, Cesena 1656, p. 98). The Bl. U. de Romanis, Master General of the Dominicans, in an encyclical addressed to the Order in 1256, reports that the Dominicans had converted the M. many years before as schismatics (B. M. Reichart, Monumenta Ordinis Praedicatorum historica, Rome 1897). Thus there would be three conversions in less than a generation! As regards the Annals of Dionysius of Tellmahrê (op. cit., II, p. 412), it has been sought to accept (cf. S. Vaillhé, L'Eglise maronite du Ve au IXe siècle, in Echos d'Orient, 9 [1906], p. 261) that Heraclius proposed to the Jacobite patriarch Athanasius the Camel-driver (d. 631) the acceptance of the Ekthesis at the Synod of Mabûg, obtaining it also from the M. monks. It should be noted, however, the anachronism, since the Ekthesis was promulgated in 638. Bar Hebraeus, on the other hand, depending on the same Dionysius, states that Heraclius obtained from them adherence to the Fourth Council (Chron. eccl., col. 274).

What is learned from the sources is that dyotheletism penetrated only in 727 and not officially in Lebanon, which was occupied by the Arabs and had no communication with Constantinople before then, and that there was a certain misunderstanding between the M. and the Maximites, because the latter were accused by the former as upholders in Christ of two wills capable of discord, while the thesis of the M. emphasized the moral unity of the wills without detriment to their physical duality. Such is the doctrine, p. 235, of the celebrated Kitâb al-hudâ (ed. P. Jahed, Ğunjah 1935), the true code of the M. during the Middle Ages.

IX. PRINCIPAL WRITERS

H. Lammens (La Syrie, p. 111) asserts that the document concerning the dispute between M. and Jacobites before Mu'âwijah, published by Th. Nöldeke (Mansi, VIII, 426), is the oldest of Maronite literature. But there is the letter of the M. monks to Pope St. Hormisdas also cited. From the aforementioned letter of Timothy I it also appears that the M. monks had written to him, and that before him they had been in correspondence with his predecessor. All these letters have been lost, as have the works of Theophilus of Edessa mentioned by Bar Hebraeus (loc. cit.) and those of Qajs, of which al-Mas'ûdî speaks (loc. cit.). Also belonging to Maronite literature is the aforementioned Kitâb al-hudâ, translated in 1058 but written earlier by an unknown author who is described in the translator’s preface as «the holy father», the cited Ten Chapters of Thomas of Kêfartâb, the works of G. Ibn Qilâ'î (d. 1516) Farhât (v.). The Maronite College in Rome (v. COLLEGI ECCLESIASTICI) made a great contribution to culture with such figures as the patriarch S. ad-Duwaḥî (d. 1704), Abraham Ecchellensis, P. BENEDETTINI (v.) or Mubârak, the Assemani Fausto Nairon (d. 1711) and many others. Of the 19th–20th centuries mention should be made of Fares Sidjâq, the Bustânîs, the Sartûnîs, the Carmelite Father Anastasius (Anistâs), the bishops G. Debs and G. Darjân, Ğ. Ğubrân and A. Rihânî.

X. THE MARONITE RITE

It is a branch of the West Syrian rite. In its origin a particular rite of the monastery founded at the tomb of St. Maron, at the beginning of the 5th century it developed similarly to the rite of the ancient region; but remaining orthodox during the christological struggles, in the midst of many monasteries that had passed to Monophysitism, it had to preserve its own character. From these ancient times there has been handed down a proper anaphora for the Maronites, called from its first word: Sarar, published in the Missal of 1592–94 with the full text, and used from the edition of 1716 onwards on Good Friday in the Mass of the Presentificati (cf. the study of the text by H. Engberding, Urgestalt, Eigenart und Entwicklung eines altantiohenischen eucharistischen Hochgebetes, in Oriens Christianus, 7 [1931], pp. 32–48); also probably the properly Maronite recension of the anaphora of the Twelve Apostles (cf. A. Raes–A. Rücker, Anaphorae Syriacae, I, Rome 1940, pp. 205–27).

It is certain that this rite did not become Byzantinized like that of the Melkites, but as regards formulae, gestures, and the structure of offices it regulated itself according to the usage, long in evolution, of the West Syrian rite. Documents to trace this development are lacking. In the 12th century, in contact with the Crusaders, it underwent the first Latin infiltrations, easily recognizable: form of Baptism, Confirmation reserved to the bishop, mitre and ring for bishops, amice for priests, use of bells (cf. the bull of Innocent III of 1215, Quia divinae sapientiae and other documents in T. Anaissi, Bullarium Maronitarum, Rome 1911).

Manuscript liturgical sources from the 15th and 16th centuries show a marked influence of the Syriac rite, evidenced by a series of prayers and hymns in various offices that make dual use of ancient formulas (especially in the Pontifical). From the 16th century onward, following the foundation of the Maronite College in Rome and the training of priests in Western seminaries, a new Latin influence emerged: for example, the confiteor in the Mass, the words of consecration translated literally from the Roman Mass, changes in the episcopal consecration that obscured its primitive meaning, the introduction of new feasts in the calendar, the blessing of a church distinct from its consecration, the use of the corporal and the pall, the composition of a new, shorter anaphora inspired in some of its prayers by the Roman Canon and thus titled by its author A. Isacdar as the *Anafora of the Roman Church*. The Synod of Mount Lebanon in 1736, following those of 1580 and 1596, despite a feeble attempt at correction—attributed, among others, to Patriarch ad-Duwajhi—was unable to halt this movement. It has only been in recent years that courageous men, imbued with liturgical spirit, have worked under the guidance of the hierarchy to effect a radical change in direction; proof of this is the *Rituale* of Beirut (1942), which restores the rite largely in accordance with ancient manuscripts. The edition of the Pontifical and Missal according to the same principles is in preparation.

The general structure of the Mass and many of its customary formulas and gestures are identical to those of the West Syrian rite. The *Ordo communis* or fixed parts, however, are proper to the Maronites (cf. E. Renaudot, *Liturgiarum Orientalium collatione*, II, Paris 1716, pp. 12–20); the opening is somewhat intact; there are only two scriptural readings; the use of eight antiphons, with forms in the latest editions; the prayer of fraction is separated from the fraction itself and placed after the Pater noster, as in the Latin rite; communion of the faithful under one species, with unleavened bread like that of the Latins, though this particularity may be ancient.

For the Sacraments, there are often formulary texts proper to the Maronites, even if the structure of the office resembles that of the Syriacs.

The Divine Office, divided into seven hours, consists of few psalms and many poetic compositions belonging to the same genre as those of the Syriac tradition: *qāla*, *bavāta*, *madrāta*, *sāgita*. A festal office exists, printed only once and only in part, and a ferial office, frequently printed and used for private recitation of the Breviary, though it contains only a few offices. A comparison of a calendar from 1673 (cf. R. Griveau, *Un ancien calendrier de l'Église maronite*, in PO 10, 345–56) with the current calendar (cf. N. Nilles, *Kalendarium utriusque Ecclesiae*, I, Innsbruck 1896, pp. 485–89) reveals how today many, though not all, days of the ecclesiastical year are filled with saints. The liturgical year is divided into periods like that of the Syriacs. The primary liturgical language is Syriac, with Arabic as the secondary language, at least in theory (v. the legislation of the Synod of 1736, in Mansi, XXXVIII, 120, part 2, ch. 13, n. 11).

The Missal and the *Sēhīmtā* (= ferial office) have had many editions; the other liturgical books far fewer; the Pontifical, the Lenten Proper, and the *Teśmēšt* (which contains about fifty offices for feasts) have yet to be published.