The Religious Identity of Alexandria in

www.degruyter.
com uses cookies, tags, and tracking settings to store information that help give you the very best browsing experience.
To understand more about cookies, tags, and tracking, see our Privacy Statement
I accept all cookies for the De Gruyter Online site
(0)
L’historiographie tardoantique et la transmission des savoirs
Ed. by Blaudeau, Philippe / Nuffelen, Peter
Series: MillenniumStudien / Millennium Studies 55
109,95 € / $154.00 / £82.99*
ADD TO CART
eBook (PDF)
Publication Date: July 2015
ISBN 9783110409239
 See all formats and pricing 
 Print Flyer
Overview 
Table of Contents  
Get Access to EPUB 
Contact Persons 
Frontmatter
Pages iiv
 FREE ACCESS
 DOWNLOAD FULL TEXT PDF

www.degruyter.com uses cookies, tags, and tracking settings to store information that help give you the very best browsing experience.
Acknowledgements
Pages vvi
 GET ACCESS TO FULL TEXT
Contents
Pages viix
 FREE ACCESS
 DOWNLOAD FULL TEXT PDF
List of Abbreviations
Pages xixii
Présentation du thème
Blaudeau, Philippe
Pages 110
Introduction: Historiography as a cultural practice
Nuffelen, Peter Van
Pages 1120
 I: Se documenter pour transmettre: la question des sources
Les actes pontificaux comme sources des historiens et des chroniqueurs de l’Antiquité
tardive
Moreau, Dominic
Pages 2354
Andronicus et son influence sur la présentation de l’histoire postdiluvienne et pré
abrahamique dans la Chronique syriaque anonyme jusqu’à l’année 1234
Hilkens, Andy
Pages 5582
 II: S’identifier pour transmettre? Logiques d’appartenance et projet historiographique
The religious identity of Alexandria in some ecclesiastical histories of Late Antique Egypt
Camplani, Alberto
Pages 85120
Théodore le Lecteur et son épitomateur anonyme du VIIe s.
Greatrex, Geoffrey
Pages 121142
 III: Composer pour transmettre: Autour de la nature des genres historiographiques
La Vida de Porfirio de Gaza de Marco el Diácono: ¿Hagiografía histórica o invención
hagiográfica?
Teja, Ramon
Pages 145152
Tradition et innovation dans la première historiographie arménienne
Traina, Giusto
Pages 153164
La Nouvelle Histoire au VIIe s.: l’Historia Wambae de Julien de Tolède
Deswarte, Thomas
Pages 165188

 IV: Penser l’héritage à transmettre: le statut des connaissances issues des savoirs anciens
Débat cosmologique et discours historique dans l’Histoire ecclésiastique de Philostorge
Meyer, Doris
Pages 191208
Teosofia pagana e cronaca universale cristiana: Giovanni Malala e Giovanni di Antiochia
Roberto, Umberto
Pages 209226
Die Notizen des Photios zu Philostorgios im Kontext seiner Behandlung der spätantiken
Historiographie und seiner Bildungsinteressen
Bleckmann, Bruno
Pages 227246
 V: Modéliser pour transmettre: figures et contrefigures passées de l’autorité dans les récits
historiographiques
La mort d’Hérode: un palimpseste historiographique (IerIVe siècles)
Parmentier, Edith / Barone, Francesca Prometea
Pages 249258
Portraits d’empereurs dans l’Histoire Auguste: de l’empereur en animal à l’image de Typhon
GaillardSeux, Patricia
Pages 259282
Constantin, „législateur chrétien“. Aux origines d’un topos de l’histoire ecclésiastique
Huck, Olivier
Pages 283318
La riche mémoire d’un évêque de Rome méconnu, Silvestre
Wirbelauer, Eckhard
Pages 319332
Olympiodor und Constantius III.
Stickler, Timo
Pages 333348
Jean d’Antioche et les débuts de la révolte de Vitalien
Laniado, Avshalom
Pages 349370
Index
Pages 371380
 Comments (0)
LIBRARIES TRADE AUTHORS SOCIETIES TEXTBOOKS PRESS
OPEN ACCESS
 ABOUT DE GRUYTER
 EPRODUCTS & SERVICES
 IMPRINTS AND PUBLISHER PARTNERS
 HELP & CONTACT INFORMATION
 NEWS
Alberto Camplani
The religious identity of Alexandria in some
ecclesiastical histories of Late Antique Egypt
This paper is a further step in a long-term research which began in 2000 and is based
at present in the universities of Hamburg¹ and Rome (“Sapienza”)² about the docu-
mentation, the archives, and the self-presentation of the see of Alexandria as referred
to in the histories produced within the bishopric or in the circles close to it. The start-
ing point of this research was the identification by Alessandro Bausi of a historical
narrative, enriched with documents and list of names, within an ancient canonical
collection attested by an Ethiopic manuscript. This narrative turned out to be paral-
leled, at least in part, by three already-known documents concerning the church of
Alexandria, preserved in a Latin collection. In addition, the whole was easily proven
to belong to a lost Greek History of the Episcopate of Alexandria³, to be distinguished
from both the later Coptic History of the Church and Copto-Arabic History of the Pat-
riarchs of Alexandria ⁴.
 Asien-Afrika-Institut, Hiob Ludolf Zentrum für Äthiopistik.

 Dipartimento di Storia, culture, religioni.
 The list of our preliminary studies on this text is now considerable. The first official announcement
of the discovery was made in Bausi 2002 and 2006. Some portions of my commentary, in preparation,
can be consulted in the following publications: Camplani 2004, 2006a, 2006b, 2007, 2009, 2011a,
2011b, Bausi / Camplani 2013. At the base of this research is the work of four scholars. The first of
them is Tito Orlandi, who devoted several contributions, commentaries, and editions to the history
of the church written in Coptic (CHC) as well as to other texts, such as the Apologia secunda of Atha-
nasius and the History of the Patriarchs. The second is Annick Martin, whose historical commentary
on the Historia acephala is a point of reference for the reconstruction of the historiography of the pat-
riarchate and its ideological position (Martin 1985). The third is Ewa Wipszycka whose contributions
to the institutional church in Egypt and to the staff of the patriarch made possible a comprehension
of the milieu which produced these histories. The fourth is Philippe Blaudeau whose book about Alex-
andria and Constantinople has provided the theoretical frame in which my contribution finds its
place (Blaudeau 2006). In particular, the notion of “geo-ecclesiology” proves to be productive of
new results in the study of the histories written in the episcopal circles. In J.-M. Carrié’s introduction
to Blaudeau’s book (Blaudeau 2006, xiv) we find this interesting judgment about this concept: “Ce
terme de géo-ecclésiologie par lequel l’auteur désigne sa perspective de recherche n’est pas un simple
jeu métaphorique, pour faire “chic”, encore moins un jeu de mots: c’est en réalité un modèle de lec-
ture de la confrontation entre chrétientés orientales qui mobilise et guide toute une stratégie hermé-
neutique. Il permet d’appliquer à des questions historiques souvent traitées et débattues une grille de
questionnement productive, expérimentée et validée par les résultats. Par sa dynamique, le concept
mobilise toute une géographie (cartes à l’appui) des espaces de présence et d’intervention en fonction
des objectifs jugés stratégiques, des zones de tension et des théâtres d’opération”.
 See reference bibliography in the notes to the paragraphs concerned with each of these histories.
The following abbreviations will be used:
HEpA = History of the Episcopate of Alexandria
CHC = Church History in Coptic
Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

Angemeldet
Heruntergeladen am | 09.09.15 15:52
86 Alberto Camplani
In my current activity of commenting on the HEpA and comparing it with the his-
toriographical fragments of Timothy Aelurus, the CHC, and the HP (while the Chroni-
cle by John of Nikiu⁵ and the Annales by Sa‘īd ibn Batrīq⁶ are for the moment left
aside), I am investigating the changing role of the historical documentation from
the fourth to the seventh centuries. A progressive loss of references to real documents
can be observed, along with the growth of pious narratives concerning clerics,
monks, cultic buildings, and a focus on their impact on the urban visibility of Chris-
tianity. This is true for what concerns the frequent allusions to local traditions about
saints and their shrines, in particular those shrines whose construction was financed
by groups of Alexandrian believers eager to give a visible urban identity to their con-
gregation. In a conference held in Jerusalem in 2010 I discussed some passages of
the CHC, the Martyrium Petri Alexandrini, and other hagiographical texts, preserving
the traces of an editorial activity to be attributed to monastic movements (Pachomian
in particular) and lay groups, the so-called philoponoi who wanted to stress the sig-
nificance of their presence in the Alexandrian history through the mention of their
activity within certain episodes of the Alexandria history⁷. On that occasion I empha-
sized that these historical texts were the expression not simply of an individual au-
thor, but rather of a net of church relations, in which multiple voices tried to emerge.
These were the voices of different groups defending their interests, their traditions,
and their contribution to the life of the local church.
This volume gives me the opportunity to locate our philological and historical
inquiry into the HEpA within the Christian Alexandrian tradition of historical writing.
Of course, one of the main problems, which will remain in the background of my
essay, is the relation of this work and other narratives to what we call historiography,
or better, to what we have come to identify as the different genres of transmitting his-
tory⁸. As we will see later, these works, though tied to each other by themes and sym-
bols, are different in style and refer to different literary models of historiography. The
aim of the conference was not so much to address the problem of the reconstruction
of historiographical texts, or to treat their relationship with real events, but to look
into the variety of genres that we qualify today as historiography and understand
their function in the overall process of the transmission of knowledge in late antiq-
uity. For this reason, we will study our documentation under the perspective of two
main themes of the conference, concerning the selection of sources with the purpose
HP = History of the Patriarchs.

 Zotenberg 1877– 1879; English translation in Charles 1916. On the character of this history see Carile
1981.
 The Antiochene recension is edited in Cheiko / Carra de Vaux / Zayyat 1906 – 1909, while the more
archaic one is edited in Breydy 1985. On the text see Griffith 2004. For a general presentation of both
histories within the framework of Egyptian historical writing see Witakowski 2012.
 Camplani 2013.
 For this issue Van Nuffelen 2004 is an important reference, and now Burgess / Kulikowski 2013.

Angemeldet
The religious identity of Alexandria in some ecclesiastical histories 87
of their transmission (I), and the ideological parti pris in its relation to historiograph-
ical writing (II)⁹.
Therefore I would like to look at this production from the point of view of both
the documentation it exhibits (and therefore the knowledge it transmits) and the geo-
ecclesiological coordinates it promotes. In the histories we are exploring, documents
and facts are intended to inform the reader not only about the “histoire événemen-
tielle” of a city or a region, or about the action of the divine Providence in history, but
also about the religious and cultural identities of a specific bishopric, that of Alex-
andria, thus presenting the outline of the culture, ecclesiological orientation, and ge-
opolitics of a church milieu¹⁰. Therefore, the correlation will be explored between, on
the one hand, the documentation quoted or alluded to, and, on the other, the geo-
ecclesiological dimension. The latter includes the models of relationship between
Alexandria and each of the other patriarchal sees of the Mediterranean sea, as
well as Alexandria’s attitude toward the empire. Among the important elements
that, in our histories, contribute to outline their political and social views are differ-
ent types of relations with the various levels of political power, as well as the paint-
ing of an ideal picture of the Christian emperor.
How can the relationship between any history and its underlying documentation
be envisioned? I would like to tackle this issue in a very practical manner, by illus-
trating four possibilities concerning the status of documents within the historical
narrative: documents quoted within the historical text; documents alluded to explic-
itly in the text, but not quoted; documents not explicitly mentioned, whose use, how-
ever, is to be assumed for the composition of the historical narrative; traditions de-
riving from documents the compiler does not know. In this way we will explore the
process that leads from the archival activity of the bishopric to the production of leg-
ends, traditions, and histories drawing upon the documentation preserved in the ar-
chives, but endowed with their own life, images, and grammar.
1. Methodological issues and compositional

models
1.1 The archives of the bishopric
At the beginning of our inquiry an important issue should be discussed: that of the
church archives that could serve as a reference for writing history. It is worth pointing
out the existence of archives in Late-Antique Egypt preserving different kinds of
church documentation. All the papyrologists know that the archives of Abraham,
 See the introduction.

 About the geo-ecclesiology emerging in the HEpA and later works produced in Alexandria, see
Martin 1985, 34– 67, Martin 1996, 241– 253, Blaudeau 2006, chap. 3.

Angemeldet
88 Alberto Camplani
the bishop of Hermonthis, and Pisenthios, bishop of Keft (6th – 7th centuries) are the
most important collections of texts providing information on the institutional church
in Byzantine Egypt¹¹. Archaeologists have discovered in the ruins of monasteries the
archive of the episcopal chancellery, containing documents written on tablets of
limestone or on papyrus, such as copies of circulars addressed to the clergy or to
the faithful, appointments of members of the clergy, letters to and from the bishop.
From these archives it is apparent that in the process of forming its institutions “the
church imitated both the state administration and that of the large estates. It took
over from them the habit of putting all sorts of matters in writing. The chancellery
of the bishop produced Greek and Coptic documents” recording the various activities
of the church. “When the bishop ordained presbyters or deacons, they gave him writ-
ten declarations by which they pledged themselves not to leave their diocese, to take
care of the church which had been entrusted to them, to fast on the prescribed days,
to learn by heart some Biblical texts (the Gospels, Paul’s Epistles, the Psalms), and so
on. In some cases the newly ordained presbyters or deacons handed to the bishop
written declarations signed by local notables who vouched for their future good be-
haviour. When charging one of his subordinates with visiting a church, the bishop
gave him a warrant” ¹².
For what concerns Alexandria and other great cities, we do not have these ar-
chives, but their existence may be proven by comparing literary works such as the
histories or other kinds of documentation. From there we can deduce the existence
of archivia preserving information about the clergy, the buildings, the economy, the
daily life of the church, and above all the great inter-diocesan affairs and the rela-
tionship with the political sphere¹³. We know that synods of bishops began already
in the third century to leave trace of their activity through the compilation of mem-
oranda and synodical letters and the drafting of canons, on the basis of the steno-
graphic transcription of actual discussions. Later their decisions became part of
the canon law of the church. Also this kind of documentation was preserved in
the archives of the most important cities. How can we understand that documents
occurring in Christian writings or narratives inside a chronicle may be attributed
to a church archive? This question is not simple, and a high degree of subjectivity
is involved in this kind of research. First of all we have to address the claims
made by authors, editors, and scribes to the effect that a certain piece of information
derives from an archivium. Not all of these claims are to be trusted, because they are
often made to give authority to a certain text. However, we are often in the position to
judge their credibility by way of comparison: if certain documents (better yet if ar-
ranged in a sequence) occur, or are alluded to, in similar ways but independently
 Fundamental in this discussion is Ewa Wipszycka’s essay about the institutions of the church in
Late-Antique Egypt: Wipszycka 2007, 334– 338. See also, for the bibliography about archives (papyri
and ostraka), Schmelz 2002, 1– 27.
 Wipszycka 2007, 343.
 On Rome see now Martello 2012.

Angemeldet
in more than one historiographical writing or canonical collection, then its connec-
tion to official or private archives, where these documents were preserved according
to a certain order, is highly likely.
The same method can be applied to the church of Alexandria. From the style of
the chronicles and the documents they mention we can infer the existence of very
sophisticated archives. For example, there are passages in the Index to the Festal Let-
ters of Athanasius or in the Historia acephala where it is clear that the compiler or a
later scribe had at his disposal a number of documents which he decided to quote or
not to quote, whose existence is pointed out to the reader, and is otherwise demon-
strated not only by their preservation in manuscripts attesting the works of Athana-
sius, but also by their being referred to in the Church History of Sozomen and in Cop-
tic fragments of lost works¹⁴. In other passages we find the detailed account of the
movements of presbyters and bishops hour by hour, as well as the information
about new consuls and prefects, which remind us of the way in which provincial of-
ficers reported their daily activity (commentaria). The attention to buildings and nat-
ural events is easily explained with the dependence on ephemerides¹⁵. We can add to
this the ancient information about Alexandrian archives and their staff, which
speaks of various functions performed by personnel of the chancellery: kankellarios,
nomikos, ekklesiekdikos, primicerius of the notarioi, and bibliophylax ¹⁶.
A final methodological note about archives seems appropriate. One of the issues
when dealing with historical compilations quoting documents, or composed as a se-
quence of documents, is the theoretical distinction between an archive and the text
of a historical work. We have to keep in mind that the episcopal archives could be
richer than a historical compilation allows us to understand. In other words, when
recovering the form of a fragmentary work of this kind, we have to be cautious
about attributing to it any document that we think was present in the episcopal ar-
chive. We also need to consider that a historical compilation is always the result of a
selection, whose criteria should be subject to a careful investigation.
1.2 The Athanasian paradigm

Not all the texts we are going to investigate can be classified as historiography, at
least in its traditional meaning. Although the clergy composing our histories might
have been aware of Eusebius’ historiographical works¹⁷, we should not draw too
hasty conclusions about this connection. If our intention is to place the histories
within the Alexandrian written production linked to the episcopate, we need to con-
sider that two of the writings composed by Athanasius of Alexandria, Apologia se-
 The existence of the archives of Alexandria is discussed in Martin 1985, 20 – 21 and 69 – 73.
 Camplani 2003, 87– 108.
 All the data are collected in Wipszycka 2008.
 See now the impressive introduction to Eusebius’ historical works: Morlet / Perrone 2012.

Angemeldet
90 Alberto Camplani
cunda contra Arianos and Historia arianorum were deeply tied with documents pre-
served in the archives, and extremely influential upon the composition of all subse-
quent histories or ecclesiastical pamphlets. The Apology is a personal defense by
Athanasius against charges laid against him by his opponents, while the History
has been qualified as “historiographie engagée”¹⁸, a “manifesto against Constan-
tius”, “a fierce pamphlet”, “political satire”, “opposition literature”, written as an ac-
count of the church and imperial persecution against himself ¹⁹.
Here I would just like to notice some features of the two works, and in particular
of the Apologia ²⁰: 1) the quotation of a multiplicity of documents, ecclesiastical and
civil in character, whose function is to bolster Athanasius’ case against his enemies;
2) the list of bishops, in particular the one concerning the Synod of Serdica (chapter
49), which aims at showing the large number of bishops in communion with Atha-
nasius; 3) the presence of short notes separating the documents in the first part of
the Apology, while the second part contains more expanded narrative sections,
where documents are fewer in number. These two kinds of insertions will be imitated
in later histories.
A more violent tone is used in the History, where the documents are few: the let-
ter by which Constantine II recalls Athanasius from his first exile (8,2 = Ap. 87,4– 7);
the two letters by Constantius accompanying Athanasius’ return from his second
exile (23,1 and 23,3 = Ap. 54,1– 5 and 54,5 – 55,7); and two letters by the bishops Ur-
sacius and Valens (26,3 and 26,4 = Ap. 58,1– 4 and 58,4– 5). The History contains long
 Kannengiesser 2001, 130.

 Barnes 1993, 126. Barnes has compared the History with Synesius’ On Kingship or Procopius’ Se-
cret History. “Like them, it is opposition literature in an age of panegyric and ceremonial laudations.
(…) Athanasius had shown his talent for such writing in miniature when he wrote to Serapion of
Thmuis long before to tell him how Arius died. (…) The underlying assumption of the HA is that Atha-
nasius is a victim of a systematic policy of persecution mounted by the Arians against Christ and his
true believers ever since the days of Constantine, and that this policy has been rendered possible only
by secular support. (…) But it is Constantius above all who has fostered the persecution of orthodoxy
and interfered improperly in the affairs of the Christian church. Athanasius denounces the emperor
as enemy of Christ, as Antichrist, worse than the biblical villains Saul, Ahab, and Pontius Pilate (…)
His actions, toward his family as well as toward the church, show that he is an unjust ruler with
wicked subordinates. (…). His constant complaint that the emperor interferes in the affairs of the
church is not in fact directed against interference as such, but against imperial actions of which
he disapproves (…) Athanasius implicitly asserts that emperors have a right to overrule church coun-
cils – provided that they do so in the interest of orthodoxy rather than heresy.”
 In Portmann 2011a we find the following judgment: «Die beiden Hauptteile sind von durchaus
unterschiedlichem Charakter. Der erste Teil (Kap. 3 – 58) besteht fast ausschließlich aus dem Text
der zitierten Dokumente, die Bemerkungen des Athanasius dienen nur als kurze Überleitungen. Im
zweiten Teil (Kap. 59 – 88) sind die Dokumente von – allerdings nicht sehr langen – historischen Er-
läuterungen des Bischofs begleitet. Der Unterschied ergibt sich aus des unterschiedlichen Intention:
Der erste Teil will die schon geschehenen Entscheidungen für Athanasius mitteilen, der zweite Teil
rollt das Vorgehen gegen Athanasius seit dessen Übernahme des alexandrinischen Stuhls 328 bis
zur Synode von Tyrus auf und zitiert Dokumente als Indizien in diesem Verfahren». On the Apologia
see also Barnard 1992 and Martin 1996, 458 – 464.

Angemeldet
pieces of polemics, in which Constantius is denounced as the Antichrist and is com-

pared to such Biblical figures as Saul, Ahab, and Pontius Pilate²¹. In other sections
events are recorded and historical figures are described in a more historical fashion.
So, the History of the Arians on the one hand incorporates official documents and
letters that serve the function of giving authority and reliability to the narrative,
and on the other exhibits apocalyptic tones and exemplary Biblical stories.
In both Apology and History, thus, we find documents of ecclesiastical character
and epistles written by civil authorities, whose function is to give an ex parte witness
to the vicissitudes in which the church (and Athanasius in particular) is involved.
Historical notations and comments are typical in both writings, although a different
tone is used in each. Among these notations connecting the documents there are in
the Apologia a few that are closer to history than to a pamphlet. At the junction of the
two main sections of the Apology, we find what we could call a piece of history:
59. Peter was Bishop among us before the persecution, and during the course of it he suffered
martyrdom. When Meletius, who held the title of bishop in Egypt, was convicted of many crimes,
and among the rest of offering sacrifice to idols, Peter deposed him in a general council of the
bishops. Whereupon Meletius did not appeal to another council, or attempt to justify himself be-
fore those who should come after, but made a schism, so that they who espoused his cause are
even yet called Meletians instead of Christians. He began immediately to revile the bishops, and
made false accusations, first against Peter himself, and against his successor Achillas, and after
Achillas, against Alexander. And he thus practiced craftily, following the example of Absalom,
to the end that, as he was disgraced by his deposition, he might by his calumnies mislead the
simple. While Meletius was thus employed, the Arian heresy also had arisen. But in the Council
of Nicæa, while the heresy was anathematized, and the Arians were cast out, the Meletians on
whatever grounds (for it is not necessary now to mention the reason) were received. Five months
however had not yet passed when, the blessed Alexander having died, the Meletians, who ought
to have remained quiet, and to have been grateful that they were received on any terms, like
dogs unable to forget their vomit, were again troubling the Churches. Upon learning this, Euse-
bius, who had the lead in the Arian heresy, sends and buys the Meletians with large promises,
becomes their secret friend, and arranges with them for their assistance on any occasion when
he might wish for it. At first he sent to me, urging me to admit Arius and his fellows to commu-
nion, and threatened me in his verbal communications, while in his letters he [merely] made a
request. And when I refused, declaring that it was not right that those who had invented heresy
contrary to the truth, and had been anathematized by the Ecumenical Council, should be admit-
ted to communion, he caused the Emperor also, Constantine, of blessed memory, to write to me,
threatening me, in case I should not receive Arius and his fellows, with those afflictions, which I
have before undergone, and which I am still suffering²².
As the reader can easily understand from these declarations, we are confronted here
with a partisan account which is guided by a historical consideration of a long period
of time, exceeding the boundaries of the career of Athanasius: it is no more a person-
al defense, but an engaged history of Alexandria. The following tradition of historical
 Portmann 2011b.
 Translation in Robertson 1891; the text is edited in Opitz 1934– 1941, 139 – 140.

Angemeldet
92 Alberto Camplani
writing will develop both the “engaged” annotations and the use of documents com-
ing both from the Church and the political power.
2. The Egyptian histories: reconstruction,

ideological tendencies, documentation,
authorship
2.1. The History of the Episcopate of Alexandria: reconstruction,
ideological outline, geo-ecclesiology
The HEpA exists only in fragments and partial paraphrases. The scattered remnants
of this official history of the Alexandrian see concerning the period corresponding to
the 3rd and 4th centuries have been only progressively identified by modern scholar-
ship. The first source of the HEpA was found within a group of textual pieces pre-
served in an ancient Latin manuscript, the 8th-century Codex Veronensis LX(58)
and published by Scipione Maffei²³; other paraphrases were recognized in later his-
toriographical and hagiographical sources; to these it is now to be added the histor-
ical text that Alessandro Bausi has identified in the Ethiopic collection, which is the
most important of the surviving fragments and the source of passages for later his-
toriographical and hagiographical traditions on Alexandrian Church affairs²⁴.
The textual fragments and paraphrases offered by this variety of witnesses coin-
cide only in part, and can be sorted in such a way as to reconstruct the outline of this
complex history. For example, it is the Latin Codex Veronensis LX alone – and not the
new Ethiopic manuscript – that preserve the famous Historia Acephala or Historia
 Maffei 1742, 254– 262.

 Today the following sources are recognized as preserving fragments or paraphrases of the HEpA:
1) some items of the Codex Veronensis LX (58) (published in Kettler 1936; Turner 1939; Martin / Albert
1985; Brennecke / Heil / von Stockhausen / Wintjes 2007); 2) Sozomen, Historia ecclesiastica I 15, con-
cerning Melitius and the young Arius, and other passages which are drawn from the section of the
HEpA concerning the Council of Serdica and the life of Athanasius (IV 9,6 – 9; IV 10,8 – 12; V 7,2– 3;
VI 5,1– 4; VI 12,5 – 6); on Sozomen’s dependence on HEpA see Martin 1985, 25 – 27; 3) an allusion
by Timothy Aelurus in his Liber historiarum to the Melitian schism (Camplani 2011b); 4) the introduc-
tion written by the hagiographer Guarimpotus (at Naples in the second half of the 9th century) to his
Latin translation of the Martyrdom of Peter of Alexandria (see Bibliotheca Hagiographica Latina
nos. 6692– 6693 and Devos 1958: the text is in Patrologia Graeca 18, c. 453 – 460, and Bibliotheca Ca-
sinensis seu Codicum manuscriptorum qui in tabulario Casinensi asservantur, vol. III, Ex Typographia
Cassinensi, Montecassino 1887, «Florilegium cassinense», 187– 191); 5) an eclectic hagiographical text
in Ethiopic, which is entitled The Martyrdom of St. Peter Archbishop of Alexandria (Getatchew Haile
1980); 6) the Ethiopic manuscript, with the aksumite collection (Bausi 2006). The issue concerning
what pieces preserved in later histories could be added to this dossier is debated: see for instance
Van Nuffelen 2002.

Angemeldet
Athanasii, a detailed narrative of Athanasius’ last twenty years of episcopate²⁵. Other

sections of this same Codex deal with the birth and initial development of the Meli-
tian schism under the episcopate of Peter I²⁶, and with the documents coming from
the councils of Nicaea (325) and Serdica (343). However, some of the contents of the
new Ethiopic collection, especially in its second section, were already known from
the Codex Veronensis LX. These are the letter by Phileas and the other bishop-martyrs
to Melitius; the letter by Peter of Alexandria to the Alexandrian Christians; and a
short intervening narrative²⁷. However, this same manuscript preserves additional
texts and historical information, such as a first section concerning the history of
the patriarchs of Alexandria and the rules governing their election; long lists of
pre-Nicene Egyptian bishops; and a third section relating Arius’ return amongst
the clergy through the intervention of Achillas and Alexander, and offering a final
exhortation in favour of the institutional church and against heresy and schism.
As can be seen from what survives, this historical compilation seems to have
been a mixture of different elements: ecclesiastical and civil documents that were
preserved in the archives of the Alexandrian see; short, or very short, polemical nar-
ratives written by compilers who probably were members of the Alexandrian clergy;
and historical data such as lists of bishops and information concerning buildings
and natural events, which could be drawn from the Alexandrine archives. We do
not know how this compilation grew over time. The main nucleus (the Melitian
schism, Athanasius, and the councils of Nicaea and Serdica) was most likely com-
posed in the last quarter of the 4th century, during the episcopate of Theophilus
(385 – 412), and certainly before the activity of the historian Sozomen, who quotes
some passages from it²⁸, and its transmission to Carthago by Cyril of Alexandria
(420). Other parts could be attributed to this same hand, or to an author belonging
to a later period. In fact it is to be questioned if the brief paragraphs about the early
patriarchs and the system of their election are the product of the same milieu / au-
thor responsible for the narrative about Melitius and Arius. Alternatively, they could
be attributed to a later stage of the development of the text (5th-6th centuries? 7th-8th
centuries?), not later than the Neapolitan hagiographer Guarimpotus (second half of
the 9th century), who apparently knows the complete form of the text²⁹. If the latter
view should be accepted, a new issue would need to be discussed in considering the
HEpA as a whole: do the initial brief paragraphs concerning the early patriarchs pre-
suppose the first patriarchal biographies of the HP – provided that a chance can be
granted to the hypothesis that these have been written by one of the Coptic authors
 Martin / Albert 1985, 138 – 213.

 Kettler 1936, 155 – 192.
 Kettler 1936; Turner 1939, 625 – 626.
 Martin / Albert 1985, 25 – 27.
 This impression is based on the mere fact that we find two accounts about the life of Peter: the
second one is written as a standard narrative, the first one follows the typical scheme used to de-
scribe the early patriarchs.

Angemeldet
94 Alberto Camplani
active in the prehistory of HP (for instance George, 7th – 8th century, or John, 8th cen-
tury) and not by Mawhub, the final author – or, on the contrary, are the short biogra-
phies of HEpA the source of the first ones in HP? The question cannot be settled with-
out further research. We only need to consider the possibility of an evolution in time
of our history, testified to by Liberatus of Carthago³⁰, who apparently knows a chroni-
cle concerning the period after Theophilus, which could be interpreted as a contin-
uation of the HEpA³¹: nectens temporum illa quae in Graeco Alexandriae scripto acce-
pi.
What kind of “historiographical” style do we find in the HEpA? The initial sec-
tion of the text, preserved only in the Ethiopic codex, begins with the account of the
evangelization of Alexandria and the establishment of the patriarchate, both descri-
bed with few, assertive sentences. This section, with its foundational character, re-
minds us of the ktiseis accounting for the origins of Greek cities. The record of the
rule, given by the evangelist Mark, plays a central role. It regulates the choice of
the new patriarch, elected by a college of twelve presbyters assembled in the pres-
ence of the corpse of the deceased bishop. The text claims that this system was in
use until the time of Peter I³². Then the early Alexandrian patriarchs are introduced
according to a scheme that is similar to the one used in the Roman Liber pontificalis,
or of one of its sources, the Chronograph of 354³³. We find, in a sequence, the length of
their episcopate; the date of their death; their ordination of bishops in Egypt, and
other less important information. This means that for each patriarch we have a list
of Egyptian bishops elected by him and in communion with him. This information
is of course not only intended to make known the names of ancient bishops, but
also to show the growth of the institutional church, the founding of new dioceses,
and the chain of ordinations in each diocese. From those lists the believers were al-
lowed to learn which bishops were to be considered as orthodox and under the ju-
risdiction of the see of Alexandria.
There follows the account of the schism of Melitius of Lycopolis, with the quota-
tion of documents preserved also in Latin (Codex Veronensis LX). So we find:
– the letter that four bishop-martyrs wrote to Melitius so as to invite him to cease
his activities;
– the historical narrative describing Melitius’ arrival in Alexandria and his alliance
with two lay persons, Isidore and Arius;
– the letter written by Peter to the Alexandrians in which Melitius is temporarily
excommunicated³⁴.
 Schwartz (éd.) (1936c), 98 l. 2– 99 l. 2.

 Bleckmann 2010.
 Martin 1996, 187– 193; Camplani 2011a.
 Duchesne (ed.) 1886 – 1892. On the Chronograph of 354 see now Burgess 2013.
 Published in Kettler 1936 and Turner 1939, 625 – 629.

Angemeldet
After this letter, while the Codex Veronensis LX interrupts its selection of documents
and narratives from the HEpA, in the Ethiopic manuscript we find the rest of the first
part of the HEpA. It consists in a confused account (partly paralleled by Sozomen,
h.e. I 15, Timothy Aelurus, and Guarimpotus) of the acceptance of Arius, by now a
defector of the Melitians, into the Alexandrian clergy, followed by his further ousting
by the bishop Peter in reason of his persistent hidden sympathies for the schismatic
movement. Then, the beginnings of the Arian heresy are briefly narrated through the
vicissitudes of Arius’s “new” clerical career.
It is clear that these documents are significant not only for the light they shed on
the historical events, but also for the function they attribute, at least ideally, to the
see of Alexandria. In the letter of the bishop-martyrs it is explicitly claimed that all
Egyptian bishops depend on the bishop of Alexandria. This is a way to show how the
jurisdiction of Alexandria on the whole Egypt had been accepted by Egyptian bish-
ops, before the Council of Nicaea³⁵. On the other hand, also the historical narrative is
not written with the mere aim of illustrating the history of Melitianism or Arianism.
From the narrative, we learn that Peter of Alexandria fought the Melitian schism, and
was responsible for removing the Melitian Arius from the clergy. Although the narra-
tive is far from clear on this point, the compiler wants his readers to think that this
Arius, follower of Melitius, and the Arius who provoked the great dogmatic crisis of
the 4th century are one and the same person. Since such a possibility is excluded by a
series of historical and critical considerations that I have set forth elsewhere³⁶, it
seems important to emphasize how an intentional matching of two figures having
the same name gave rise to traditions exalting the discernment displayed by Peter
in excommunicating the future heretic³⁷. The aim of this identification suggested
by the HEpA, and subsequently reworked by other, later texts, is manifest: Peter re-
moves the future heresiarch Arius from the clergy precisely because he foresees in
him the Arian heresy and is able to condemn it twenty years before the Council of
Nicaea. In other words, Peter unites in his person martyrdom, ecclesiastical rigour,
the defence of canonical rules, and that of the orthodox faith. These characteristics
give Alexandria the right to take up a leading role in the religious world of the Med-
iterranean East.
After the account of Peter’s martyrdom (311) and the rise of the Arian heresy, an
exhortation concludes the first part of the HEpA, whose last page has been discov-
ered in 2011. Here the defense of the ecclesiastical tradition, founded on the episco-
pal successions, appears to be a religious duty: the universal Church will be not de-
feated by heretics and schismatics, says the text. The correct election and ordination
is the one which the universal church has established, as was the case for Moses and
Aaron in ancient times. In the final exhortation, the church situation is expressed
 Camplani 2006a.
 Camplani 2006b
 Camplani 2009.

Angemeldet
96 Alberto Camplani
through biblical figures and metaphors: e. g. the vicissitude of Qore, example of the
schismatic who is inspired by the search for power in the church (Numbers 16); the
parable of the weeds (Matthew 13:30); the image of foxes in the vineyard (Canticle
2:15)³⁸.
The second part of the HEpA is not preserved in its entirety, but a good selection
of it is offered by the Codex Veronensis LX. This codex consists of two series of docu-
ments related to the Council of Nicaea and the Council of Serdica, each preceded by
a short historical introduction³⁹. They are followed by the account, supported by a
certain number of documents (in part preserved and in part omitted by the scribal
tradition), of the episcopal career of Athanasius after 343⁴⁰. This account is founded,
as the Index of the Festal Letters, on a series of documents and on the ephemerides
kept in the archives of the bishopric. Despite its apparent objectivity, also this second
part of the HEpA is intended to exalt the religious leadership of Alexandria in the
East. The Christian congregation of this metropolis has been at the center of two
great councils such as those of Nicea and Serdica. Alexandria has remained faithful
to orthodoxy, unlike Constantinople and Antioch, where the Arian heresy is present
in its various forms, as duly documented through the quotation of a long Arian dec-
laration of faith coming from Antioch. Annick Martin has condensed in a few points
the main characteristics of this section of the HEpA⁴¹:
Les centres d’intérêt d’une telle Histoire peuvent être dégagés de la manière suivante: 1. la réf-
érence fondamentale à l’orthodoxie nicéenne constamment défendue en Orient par l’évêque d’A-
lexandrie; 2. la confirmation de la toute-puissance de ce dernier sur l’ensemble des Églises d’É-
 See our commentary on the HEpA, which locates these images in the church culture of the 4th
century.
 See for example the one preceding the materials from the Serdican council: f. 71v: «Tunc temporis
ingerebantur molestiae imperatoribus synodum convocare, ut insidiarentur Paulo episcopo Constan-
tinupolitano per suasionem Eusebii Acacii Theodori Valentis Stephani et sociorum ipsorum, et con-
gregata est synodus consolatu Constantii III et Constantis II (Constantini et Constantini, cod.) aput
Sardicam. Explicit Deo gratias. Amen».
 So we find:
– the creed and canons of Nicaea (version of Caecilian),(ff. 37r-42v), preceded by a short narra-
tive introduction;
– a unique Latin version of the synodal letter of the council of Nicaea to the churches of Egypt,
without paschal section (ff. 70r-71v);
– a brief narrative section about the Council of Serdica (f. 71v.);
– The unique text of an epistle of Athanasius written from Serdica to the church of Alexandria
(ff. 99v-102r);
– The unique text of an epistle from some bishops at the Western council of Serdica to the
church of the Mareotis (ff. 102r-103r);
– The unique text of a letter written by Athanasius after the synod of Serdica, addressed to the
churches of the Mareotis (ff. 103r-105r);
– Vita Athanasii from 343 AD until his death and the mention of his successors Peter II, Timothy
and Theophilus (ff. 105r-112r). See Martin 1985.
 Martin 1985, 33.

Angemeldet
gypte, de Libye et de Pentapole par le même concile de Nicée (canon 6); 3. l’absence de condam-
nation d’Athanase par un quelconque concile orthodoxe (on aura remarqué, à cet égard, le si-
lence total de la collection concernant le concile de Tyr, responsable de cette condamnation); 4.
les décisions impériales (sans qu’il soit fait référence à aucun concile) à l’origine des trois der-
niers exils d’Athanase, rapportés conjointement et constituant l’axe de la vie d’Athanase depuis
346; 5. enfin l’affirmation sous-jacente de la supériorité incontestée d’Alexandrie sur Constanti-
nople où triomphent pendant ce temps les Macédoniens et les Anoméens, ainsi que sur Antio-
che, dans la défense de l’orthodoxie.
Near the end of the Codex Veronensis we find the Melitian documents preceded by
two imperial epistles:
– A unique Latin version of the epistle of Constantine from Nicaea to the church of
Alexandria (ff. 112v-113v).
– A unique Latin version of the ‘Porphyrian decree’ of Constantine against Arian-
ism (f. 113v).
The original position of these documents is not the one they assume in the Codex
Veronensis LX. Probably they were placed between the section of the Council of Ni-
caea and that of the Council of Serdica. The meaning of these quotations is easy to
understand. Here Constantine is represented not as the responsible for the first exile
of Athanasius, or for the readmission of Arius into the Church. Rather, he is por-
trayed as the Emperor who supported the Council of Nicaea, which excommunicated
Arius, and who directly attacked him and his writings. His personal support for or-
thodoxy is therefore particularly emphasized. This attitude, shown by the text, is in
line with Athanasius’ representation of Constantine in Apology and History. There he
blamed the bishop’s vicissitudes on his inimical fellow churchmen, supported by the
heretic emperor Constantius, and not on political power per se. The way is open for a
new relationship between church and state: that typical of the Theodosian age.
I wish to draw the reader’s attention to the fact that the HEpA, so reconstructed,
shows a peculiar articulation of Alexandrian history around some great ideological
values, whose origins must be sought in a set of historical and cultural circumstances
which are to be located after the death of Athanasius (373), as I have proposed some
years ago⁴². From a comparison of the HEpA with the works of the bishop we can
deduce that the representation of the past of Christian Alexandria has undergone
some changes, even a reconfiguration, in the period between the two. In Athanasius’
writings we will search in vain for an outline of the Christian history of Alexandria,
but from some statements scattered in the large corpus of his works we are able to
guess which are the key moments and figures of this history: 1) the Council of Nicaea,
which already appears in all its authority in the Synodical Letter of the Council of the
Egyptian church of 338 (quoted in Apologia 3 – 19), is destined to become, over the
years, and particularly since the fifties of the 4th century, a central point of reference
 Camplani 2006a.

Angemeldet
98 Alberto Camplani
mainly for theological reasons; 2) the Council of Serdica assumes great importance,
especially for its defense of the bishops attacked and persecuted by the “Arian”
party; 3) the figure of Constantine, responsible for Athanasius’ first exile, after his
death is projected in the realm of myth, frequently opposed to Constantius; 4) the
figure of his predecessor Alexander of Alexandria is mentioned more than once,
and, in general, Athanasius shows to have a positive opinion of the Alexandrian
theological tradition, particularly as it relates to the catechetical school (Origen, Di-
onysius and Theodotus). On the other hand, mentions of Peter of Alexandria (Apolo-
gy 59.1) are always placed in the context of the anti-Melitian controversy; no allusion
is made to the evangelization of Mark and the foundation of the hierarchy; and no
mention is preserved of the Nicene canons in which the position of Alexandria within
the Christian cities is established.
If we compare the HEpA with Athanasius’ writings, we perceive the permanence
of some motifs, but also some substantial changes of perspective. Two events and a
figure of the civil power are given a central role in the HEpA (as in Athanasius): the
Council of Nicea, the Council of Serdica, and the emperor Constantine. On the other
hand, the Alexandrian theological tradition receives a very marginal role, and in this
it is possible to see the trace of the Origenist crisis occurred during the episcopate of
Theophilus. New values are stressed, such as the figure of the evangelist Mark, dis-
ciple of the apostle Peter, founder of the hierarchy; and that of the martyr Peter of
Alexandria, of whom the HEpA not only preserves the historical memory (like Atha-
nasius), but also documents supporting the identity, rights, and prestige of the epis-
copal see of Alexandria. The new system of values does not mean a downgrading of
the Councils of Nicaea and Serdica, which indeed hold a position of prestige; the in-
sistence on the evangelist Mark and the bishop Peter of Alexandria, however, means
a reinterpretation of these events and their position within a longer tradition. All the
documents are used to support the prestige of Alexandria as an eminently Christian
city, whose episcopal see is of apostolic origin (thanks to the mediation of the evan-
gelist Mark); has suffered martyrdom and persecution through its most illustrious
representatives (Peter I and Athanasius); and has always been devoted to orthodoxy.
This image has been promoted in opposition to two major episcopal sees, Antioch
and Constantinople, keeping in sight the competition over religious leadership in
the Eastern Roman Empire.
In addition to this new vision of the past, the other focus of the text is the issue
of ordination and consecration. The initial list of patriarchs, the lists of Egyptian
bishops, the history of Melitius, and the letters concerning his rebellion serve the
main function of defining the true church, the institution which have resisted the per-
secutions and the heresies: the true church is based on the correct election and or-
dination of its clergy.
And the question of the authorship of this history is strictly tied to this last issue.
The compilation seems to be the result of the activities of two “authors”: the bishops
of Alexandria, on the one hand, who set the theological and political agenda; the
members of the chancellery, on the other, who put in order both the issues commu-

Angemeldet
nicated by the bishops and the documents preserved in the archives, selected by the
bishop and preserved by his assistants. Who are these assistants? The frequency with
which the priests of Alexandria are mentioned in the HEpA is remarkable. This is no
coincidence, just like it is no coincidence that the expression “presbyters and dea-
cons” has been presumably interpolated into the intermediate historical narrative
among the letters of the bishop-martyrs⁴³. With that expression the priests of Alexan-
dria wish to remind the readers that they, too, with their loyalty to the throne of Alex-
andria, were martyrs during the persecution.
Now we have to come to a conclusion, asking ourselves how we are to evaluate
the relation of HEpA to literary genres transmitting history. Cyril of Alexandria refers
to this work as ecclesiastica historia ⁴⁴, and a connection between HEpA and histor-
ical writing should not be denied. A more difficult task, however, is that of determin-
ing which historiographical genre is closest to its style and could be considered as a
model for its composition, at least in some phases of its redactional history. The an-
swer is not univocal. First of all we have to acknowledge the founding act that pro-
duced this text: the selection of materials drawn from the episcopal archives, their
sorting, and their glossing⁴⁵. These documents, which have been selected and
which play a main role in the text, are mixed with notes about local events, build-
ings, natural phenomena, and rites, probably preserved in the ephemerides.
We know that one of the features of Eusebius’s historiographical activity is the
inclusion of documents⁴⁶. However, it is commonly recognized that the compilation
of documents was one of the forms of other ecclesiastical histories too, as well as of
other genres connected to history. Therefore, while we do not exclude that the au-
thors of HEpA might have had some awareness of the Eusebian history, the real
model for them were the works written by Athanasius for his personal defence or
his attack against Constantius, with their interweaving of documents and polemical
passages. By expanding their chronological scope as well as the social milieu they
concerned (now identified with the entire Alexandrian church), it was easy to turn
that defense into an apology of a whole church tradition. The result was a work
that is actually closer to the ecclesiastical histories than to its original model, the
apology.
The antiquarian interests of ancient historians, as well as the attention to local
peculiarities typical of the so-called ktiseis, could be other additional sources of in-
spiration of some sections of the HEpA, in particular the first part concerning the
 See Kettler 1936, 161, where we grasp an interpolated mention of priests and deacons thanks to
the Ethiopic version in course of publication: «omnibus autem his episcopis {presbyteris ac diaconi-
bus Alexandriae} apud carcerem martyrium passis» (braces in the text are mine).
 Concilia Africae A. 345 – A. 525, ed. C. Munier (CCL 149), Turnhout 1974, 162.
 Van Nuffelen 2004, 163 has proven that in ecclesiastical historiography we can find a plurality of
forms, including the collection of documents: «la compilation, la monographie restreinte, ou l’his-
toire ecclésiastique locale».
 Prinzivalli 2012; Andrei 2012.

Angemeldet
100 Alberto Camplani
early patriarchs. In reading some passages of the HEpA the comparison becomes un-
avoidable with the style of Commentaria written by office-holders, as well as with the
antiquarian erudition dealing with myths of foundation, which were an important
part of the ancient (Greek and Roman) city’s self-representation. In the latter kind
of history, we find other elements typical of the HEpA: the chronology of the past
of the city, the places consecrated by civic tradition, the origins of rites and customs
still observed⁴⁷. Also the disposition of the narrative and the documents about the
careers of each bishop have a long tradition⁴⁸. The HEpA tends to revolve around in-
dividual bishops, organizing the historical information conveyed to its audience
around them, although we are not yet in front of a real succession of vitae, as in
the later Arabic HP (or its Coptic lost sources).
2.2 The History by Timothy Aelurus, the Athanasian paradigm,

and the HEpA
Timothy Aelurus wrote about church history, especially that of his own times⁴⁹, re-
counting the events that occurred from the first Council of Ephesus in 431 to the
death of Marcian in 457. The situation of Timothy Aelurus’ History is dramatic. Re-
peatedly in the sources we find a reference to a teš‘itā composed by him (the Plero-
phories and other Syriac collections), but it is not clear whether they come from one
single work or a plurality of works treating different events. A long fragment publish-
ed by Nau recalls the major events of the period from the first to the second Council
of Ephesus (431– 449). It also recounts the vicissitudes following the accession of
Marcian to the throne and the circulation of pope Leo’s Tome, leading to the catas-
trophe of the Council of Chalcedon (451), where bishop Dioscorus was condemned
and sent into exile⁵⁰.
Some of the preserved fragments mark a connection between the Council of
Chalcedon and the contemporary devastation of Rome⁵¹. The writer would like to
lead his readers to believe that the impiety of the council had both caused the Vandal
invasion of 455 and announced the coming of the Antichrist and the end of times,
like Athanasius in his History of the Arians. It is particularly in the fragments reported
in the Plerophories⁵² that we find the most tragic tones, and an explicit connection
between pope Leo’s Tome and the Vandal invasion of the city of Rome, the city in
which the Tome was written. Here again the Council of Chalcedon is interpreted as
the sign of the coming of the Antichrist, while Timothy’s church is portrayed as
 Bravo 2007, 517– 518.

 Harding 2007.
 The fragments belonging to the History by Timothy are published in Nau 1919, 202– 217 and, as
quoted in the Plerophories, in Nau 1912, 11– 136.
 Nau 1919, 202– 217.
 Nau 1919, 215 – 216.
 Plerophories, 89 (Nau 1912, 152– 154).

Angemeldet
the orthodox minority, persecuted by a political power that has succumbed to a her-
esy already condemned at the first Council of Ephesus. To the true believers of the
persecuted church the bishop and historian offers a theological interpretation of on-
going and recent developments, as pointed out by Watts⁵³.
The events of the Council of Chalcedon have destroyed that balance of powers
that was typical of the previous age, when in Alexandria there were patriarchs
such as Cyril and Dioscorus, and the empire was ruled by Theodosius the younger:
At this time, with the permission and the will of God, it happened that, because of our many
sins, our venerable Emperor Theodosius died, a year after the Second Council of Ephesus. His
successor did not follow his burning zeal for the faith. Therefore, all the affairs of the church
were troubled and their outcome was contrary to the law which had been made by the Venerable
Theodosius, worthy of remembrance, against the heretics, from then until now. The god-fearing
are persecuted and in fact every blasphemous and rebellious tongue can speak against Christ
with freedom of speech. (Plerophoriae 36)⁵⁴.
Timothy shows how the evaluation of Marcian’s reign and religious policy is contro-
versial:
(the Chalcedonians) proclaim him (= Marcian) a believer and God-fearing, as one equipped with
the zeal of piety, he that only at the end (of his life) and with difficulty was made worthy of the
Empire by God. That he possessed the zeal of piety (they say) meaning obliquely that the blessed
Theodosius did not think in an orthodox manner, he and those before him who were orthodox
emperors, up to the time when Marcian took the kingdom, at the end (of his life) and with dif-
ficulty⁵⁵.
The age of two Theodosii (I and II), and therefore of the patriarchs Theophilus, Cyril,
and Dioscorus, is qualified as a golden age, when relations between church and state
were fruitful, as both parties, according to their different competences, supported the
true faith. It is in this context that heresy could be removed and heretics exiled: the
civil and ecclesiastical punishment of Nestorius was approved by God, who inflicted
to him a terrible and exemplar death. The image of his tongue rotten and reduced to
pieces⁵⁶ has an equivalent in the guts of Arius scattered on the ground in the story
narrated by Athanasius⁵⁷, from whom Timothy has drawn the narrative style. On the
other hand, the judgment on Marcian’s reign shows an awareness of those traditions
concerning Marcian’s late accession to the power and his relationship with Pulche-
 For a presentation of Timothy’s historiography and his considerations about the situation of
Christianity after the council of Chalcedon, see Watts 2009, 92– 96, and Watts 2010, 134– 135.
 Nau 1912, 83 [483].
 Nau 1919, 216.
 Nau 1912, 84– 85.
 The story is narrated in Epistula ad Serapionem de morte Arii, and in Ad episcopos Aegyptii et Ly-
biae 19. On the evolution of the myth of the death of Arius, see Martin 1989.

Angemeldet
ria⁵⁸ destined to be reworked in the hagiography written in the patriarchate’s envi-

ronment, such as the Vita Dioscori⁵⁹ and the Panegyric of Makarius of Tkow⁶⁰.
Was Timothy’s History limited to the recent vicissitudes, in which he was in-
volved? I have recently published a fragment of this work in which he speaks
about Melitius in the same terms used in the HEpA, with a clear allusion to the
same documentation. This is a very important acquisition, because it is a sign that
for Timothy the use of official documents was part of his polemical and historio-
graphical agenda, following the example of Athanasius and the HEpA⁶¹:
the holy Timothy, the one after Dioscorus, teaches in the Book of histories that it was not for her-
esy that he (= Arius) was expelled from the Church, but because he was angry for the reason that
the holy Peter had excommunicated the Melitians from the Church for the great multitude of
their misdeeds and Peter had not accepted their baptism. On the other hand, Melitius was
not charged with heresy in that time, but for having dared to make impositions of hands in
the dioceses of others, during a period of persecution, without authorization, and again, after
this action had been prohibited by the bishops of these dioceses who were imprisoned to be-
come martyrs, for having dared to usurp for himself the throne of the blessed Peter when this
one was in life, and for other crimes.
So Timothy took over the previous tradition, bending it to a new meaning. Peter and
Athanasius, the persecuted, are part of the history of that same church which is now
being persecuted. Following the Athanasian model, Timothy uses the documenta-
tion, but is also eager to leave space to the biblical images of the end of times
and the Antichrist. By doing so, he intends to give his readers the impression that
a new age is beginning: one of persecution of the true believers before the final in-
tervention of divine providence in history⁶².
2.3 The Church History in Coptic: the changing role of the

documentation and the hagiographic accounts
The Church History preserved in Coptic (= CHC) ⁶³, but originally written in Greek, has
been recovered from fragmentary manuscripts and other witnesses, in particular the
parallel passages of the Arabic HP, and studied from the point of view of both its
sources (official documents, homilies, hagiographical legends) and historical signif-
 Burgess 1993 – 1994; Scott 2012.

 Edited in Nau 1903; see also, on the Arabic version, Moawad 2011.
 Edited in Johnson 1980; the Arabic version is edited and commented in Moawad 2010.
 Camplani 2011b, 220.
 A theme that could be traced back to Eusebius’ influence.
 Edition of the second part, from Peter to Timothy, in Orlandi 1968 – 1970. To it are to be added the
new fragments (Johnson 1976; Orlandi 1985). A provisional edition of the first and second part is pub-
lished on the web site of the Corpus dei manoscritti copti letterari.

Angemeldet
icance by scholars such as Zoega, von Lemm, Crum, Johnson, Orlandi, and den Heij-
er⁶⁴.
The fragments of the last part of the codices speak of the career of Timothy Ae-
lurus (d. 477), whose episcopate is therefore to be considered as the terminus post
quem for the composition of the CHC. From the fragments of two Coptic manuscripts
we can deduce that this work was divided into two parts: a first part, poorly pre-
served, containing a translation of (at least) some sections of Eusebius’ History of
the church, and concerning the period until the Diocletianic persecution; a second
part, obviously not connected with Eusebius, and completely original, narrating
the events from Peter I to Timothy Aelurus.
From both an index to a section of the text and a colophon we learn that the
work was further divided into twelve books, each called “history of the church” (his-
toria nte-ekklêsia), accompanied by a numerical identification. The influence of Eu-
sebian historiography is not limited to this formal mark or to the presence of passag-
es translated from Eusebius’ History of the Church. The rare mention of documents
(whose quality will be discussed below), the attention to the literary production of
the protagonists of the narrative, and the lists of works composed by ecclesiastical
writers are the unmistakable signs of a deliberate reference to the great historian, al-
though this does not mean that the author of CHC did really understand his meth-
od⁶⁵.
In comparison with HEpA, the scope of CHC is broader, as its focus extends to
the whole eastern Mediterranean, even if the starting point is Alexandria. This is pro-
ven both by the use of Eusebius in the first part, for periods and events in which
Alexandria has no role to play, and by the attention paid to the situation of the
church in the whole East in the second part.
Despite sporadic allusions to a documentation akin of that preserved in the ar-
chives of the bishopric, CHC’s way of referring to documents shows important differ-
ences from that of the HEpA, being more implicit and mixed in character, since the
documentary hints are mingled with legends and pious traditions. An analysis of cer-
tain passages can give the reader an idea of the transformations that have occurred
in history-writing from Timothy Aelurus to the author of CHC, who uses Timothy as
his reference for the ideological framework of his work. For example, in the treat-
ment of Peter and Melitius, we have already stressed that Timothy’s intention is to
show that Peter did not combat Arius’ heresy, but only his insubordination when
he was a follower of Melitius. This appears to be in contradiction with both the Mar-
tyrium Petri⁶⁶ and the CHC⁶⁷:
 For the history of studies see Orlandi 2007. In the last forty years the following essays deserve a
special mention: Orlandi 1968; Gribomont 1971; Johnson 1973; Brakmann 1974; Devos 1977; Johnson
1977; den Heijer 1992.
 Orlandi 2007; Boud’hors / Morlet 2012.
 On this text and its ideology, see Camplani 2009.
 Orlandi 1968 – 1970, vol. I, 18 – 20.

Angemeldet
[…] When Peter was told that Melitius was with Arius as Achitofel with Abishalom, he excom-
municated them both immediately and declared them foreign to the entire order (literally, the
entire canon) of the Church with those who were with him, because they did not stay within
the limit that Peter had established for them. On the contrary, those who remained and did
not return in communion with Melitius, nor followed him, – they who had received his ordina-
tion before the excommunication – the Church received them. However, those who went with
him again, they were not received, nor were accepted in the communion, but were called here-
tics so that they were separated up to this day. So Peter, after he was captured, was imprisoned
for the crown of martyrdom by order of the emperor and saw a vision in which the Saviour said
to him, «Behold I have prepared the crown of martyrdom in addition to the crown of the arch-
diocese. Command therefore in my name that Achillas should receive your throne, and then
Alexander, the archpriest, and command to them … Arius … people for whom I have given
my blood». Peter, as he was commanded, called Alexander and Achillas, and ordered them ev-
erything that the Lord had said. Peter died according to the words of the Lord and received the
crown of eternal life.
The author of the CHC seems to be familiar with some official documents of the Alex-
andrian Church. A few years ago I proposed to see in Peter’s decree mentioned in this
passage the trace of the decisions of the synod convened by Peter to judge the entire
question of Melitius⁶⁸. Today I would be more cautious, since we cannot exclude an
anachronistic allusion to the Epistle sent twenty years later by the Nicaean Council to
the Church of Alexandria, whose contents could have been adapted by the author to
the circumstances of Peter’s activity. However, since this letter too was preserved in
the archives and quoted in the HEpA, also according to this new interpretation of the
passage we have to admit the possibility of an implicit reference to some documents.
On the other hand, however, it is evident that the author, at the end of the fragment,
is quoting a hagiographical text, the Martyrium Petri, which seems to have the same
value of the previous document. In particular, he quotes the words pronounced by
Christ in Peter’s vision, in which it is recommended that Arius be expelled forever
because he is potentially a heretic. The anti-Arian tone of the passage, as well as
the use of the label of heresy to qualify both Melitius and Arius, are unmistakable
signs of the author’s tendency to present the Melitian crisis as a phenomenon antici-
pating the Arian crisis, in a way similar to the Martyrium Petri. On the contrary, this
attitude seems to be different from the perspective of both Timothy and the HEpA,
although they are laying the ground for that interpretation of facts⁶⁹.
Also with regard to chronology some transformations have occurred. The story of
the relationship between Constantine and Arius is broken into two parts, so as to at-
tribute the excommunication of the heretic to Constantine, and his readmission to
his son Constantius, against what is said in the historical documentation⁷⁰. Original-
 The synod is alluded to in Athanasius, Apologia 59, 1. See Camplani 2007 for an analysis of the
passage in the CHC.
 See Camplani 2004.
 The CHC introduces a speech by Alexander, interesting in many respects. Alexander says: «For,
the Emperor your father signed his (Arius’) excommunication and subjected it to the prefect, and,

Angemeldet
ly this ideologically-driven split served the double function of defending Constantine

from the accusation of having supported Arius and blaming Constantius for his com-
promise with heresy⁷¹. This tendency, already at play in Athanasius, was further de-
veloped in HEpA through the omission of some documents and the quotation of
some others that bolstered the author’s view. This technique was destined to grow
during the 4th and 5th centuries. In the CHC it has resulted into the destructuration
of the chronology of the 4th century.
This does not mean that any reference to documentation is lacking in the CHC.
The history of the Nestorian crisis, for example, is retold also through a selection of
passages from the correspondence between Cyril and Nestorius. The comparison of
these excerpta with the documentation in our possession, however, is disappointing.
The main role in the historiographical presentation of CHC is played not by the doc-
umentation, but by the recounting of traditions. In Orlandi’s words, “the allure re-
mains more hagiographical than chronological”⁷². Inter alia we can mention the tra-
ditions concerning the apparition of the cross light in the sky over Jerusalem during
the episcopacy of Cyril of Jerusalem; the anti-Christian politics and death of Julian
the Apostate, murdered by the ghost of Saint Mercurius; the buildings made by The-
ophilus; the (revised) history of John Chrysostom; the vicissitudes of the monk Arsen-
ius in his function as Arcadius’s and Honorius’s tutor; the obstinacy of Nestorius in
his error; the battle of Cyril for orthodoxy; and the decay of the Christian world dur-
ing and after the Council of Chalcedon. These traditions are presented without an ex-
plicit or implicit reference to the documentation preserved in the archives, although
in one case explicit mention is made of a literary text from which the information of
the CHC has been drawn⁷³.
In relation to Theophilus, we need to notice the attention to traditions concern-
ing the most important cultic buildings, especially when monks and lay confraterni-
ties (the so-called philoponoi) were involved. Such memories were tied to the origins
of the Christian community itself, to its worship and places, so that for these groups
a mention in a historical narrative was a way to enhance their own prestige among
the congregation. I have recently proposed that the philoponoi and the Pachomian
monks induced those transmitting the text of the CHC to add a reference to their ac-
if you investigate, you will find the document (hypomnema). As for me, it would be not a little danger
to cancel a decree which was established by the emperor. Especially because your own father attend-
ed to his (Arius’) excommunication at the Council which gathered us at Nicaea» (ed. Orlandi 1968 –
1970, vol. I, 22 [text], 58 [translation]). The reference to the documentation is noteworthy, but the au-
thor’s real knowledge of all the Nicaean documents appears questionable, just like his familiarity
with the bureaucratic background of the Council, which seems fictional.
 Thus, Arius’ vicissitudes and death are placed under Constantius, obviously through the account
written by Athanasius’ in his Letter to Serapion. It is not clear if the author had access directly to this
letter, or to the traditions to which it gave birth.
 Orlandi 2007, 20.
 See the allusion to the Relatio Theophili in CHC, ed. Orlandi 1968 – 1970, vol. II, 16 (text), 63 (trans-
lation).

Angemeldet
tivities⁷⁴. A famous episode is connected with Athanasius’ desire to build in his pos-
session a martyrion for John the Baptist, a desire he expressed in front of monks and
philoponoi⁷⁵. This project is accomplished by Theophilus in a context deserving a full
quotation:
Theophilus gave (to the Pachomians) the garden of his father Athanasius, which the church had
inherited with the rest of his estate. The brothers, having received the garden, made (of it?) a
settlement and in it they built the church. However, they left this one with the garden on its
own side, south of the church. Theophilus remembered the speech that his father had made
about the shrine of John the Baptist. He had acquired great wealth. The Emperor had ordered
to give him the key of the temples and he had found great wealth. And according to the word
of God and the will of his servant Athanasius, he built the martyrion facing the garden of Atha-
nasius and adorned it with large ornaments, with the help of the emperors and the nobles of
Egypt, who sent him gifts, gold, silver and precious stones for the construction of the shrine.
And they rejoiced with him in every region, especially the great merchants who were in India
and in remote regions, who brought him everything necessary. After it had been finished, he
moved there the bones of John the Baptist, and great miracles occurred during the translation
of the bones of the precursor of Christ⁷⁶.
We do not know the name of the author of CHC, but from this episode, as well as
from other pages of the CHC, we are able to guess his connection to the monastic
world and the milieu of the lay confraternities loyal to the episcopate, but eager to
highlight their support for it. They assert their right to participate in a sort of corpo-
rate authorship of the CHC, by virtue of their personal, financial, and religious con-
tribution to the edification of the Church.
In this passage too emerges a particular representation of political power, which
is not criticized as such, since it can be used for very positive goals, such as the con-
struction of cultic buildings and the fight against the heretics. The task of the polit-
ical power is to support the activities of the church and remove from society both the
error of the pagan religions and the danger of heresy. However, not all his represen-
tatives are worthy of their position. Constantius is hopelessly afflicted with the dis-
ease of heresy, but it is especially women that lose self-control in the exercise of
power. This is the case, for instance, for Eudoxia, the wife of Arcadius, an evil, greedy
woman, feared by all notables and by the clergy. The CHC pitifully explains Theophi-
lus’ attitude towards John Chrysostom with his intention to contain the wrath of the
queen and thus defend the church⁷⁷. On the other hand, Theodosius II in the CHC, as
well as in Timothy Aelurus’s History, is the symbol of the good emperor, worthy of his
office. He has a sister who helps him in the reign more than his own wife. His sup-
port for Cyril is unconditional in the latter’s fight against Julian’s paganism, ex-
pressed in his writings, and the heresy of Nestorius. However, also in this case the
 See Camplani 2013.

 Orlandi 1968 – 1970, vol. I, 46−47 (text), 66−67 (translation).
 Orlandi 1968 – 1970, vol. II, 14−16 (text); 62−63 (translation).
 Orlandi 1968 – 1970, vol. II, 34−36 (text), 72−76 (translation).

Angemeldet
positive function of the emperor is afflicted by potential dangers: the lack of sons
and Pulcheria’s ambition have the responsibility for the greatest catastrophe for
the Egyptian church, the Council of Chalcedon⁷⁸.
Also when dealing with the struggles following the heretic council of Chalcedon,
the CHC tries to give an original vision of things, which seems to me a proof of a cer-
tain chronological distance in time from the real events it narrates:
Dioscorus, about to die in exile, had recommended that saint Timothy should become bishop in
his place. He was a man of God, full of the wisdom of God, who had love for the orthodox faith.
After he sat on the throne and became archbishop of Alexandria, Leo became emperor after Mar-
cian. He was [heretic], and sent words to Saint Timothy: “If you want to stay on your throne, [you
must adhere to the synod of Chalcedon.” And after Timothy refused], the emperor sent him into
exile and placed Pshoi as bishop, that is Timothy. This one … … in the reign of Leo, and many
communicated with him, because they knew he was orthodox. But many did not communicate
with him because he sat on the throne of Timothy while the latter was still alive. Pshoi sent
many gifts to Timothy in exile, acknowledging: “Thine is the throne, and I’m under you.”⁷⁹
This strangely irenic and inconsistent representation of the coexistence of the two
Timothei, Aelurus and Salofaciolus (this latter described as intimately orthodox),
is produced in a moment, preceding the Justinianic era, when the possibility was
felt of reaching the unity of the church, despite the Council of Chalcedon and the
murder of Proterius, followed by the other tragic vicissitudes of this conflict. This
kind of representation of the conflict can be seen also in some passages of Liberatus
of Carthage in which, as demonstrated by Bleckmann⁸⁰, he is reliant upon an Alex-
andrian archival source. However, the Coptic text goes much further, in that it trans-
forms the name “Timothy” into a symbol of coexistence and peace between the two
factions.
In conclusion, the CHC, unlike the HEpA, is not a history that speaks through the
documents it exhibits. The CHC undoubtedly contains references to documents, but
its core is the reworking of accounts and themes found in literary works of hagio-
graphic character or in the oral tradition. Also the scope has changed: when reading
the CHC, we move from a local chronicle to an international history (although the
perspective in unequivocally Alexandrian).
 Orlandi 1968 – 1970, vol. II, 36 (text), 76 (translation): «(Theodosius) had no sons in his days and
he was suffering for this fact. His sister Porcheria / Pulcheria was a virgin dwelling with him in the
palace. And it was she who supported the reign with his wife. However Pulcheria / Porcheria had
more power than the wife of the emperor».
 Orlandi 1968 – 1970, vol. II, 50 – 57 (text), 89 – 90 (translation); Orlandi 1985, 363 – 383.
 Bleckmann 2010.

Angemeldet
2.4 The History of the Patriarchs

CHC is one of the sources used by Mawhūb b. Mansūr b. Mufarrij to compose the His-
tory of Patriarchs ⁸¹. This long work, which heavily depends on previous historical
writings, is structured as a sequence of lives of patriarchs, as indicated by its Arabic
title: Siyar al-Bi‘ah al-Muqaddasah (“biographies of the Holy Church”). Along the bi-
ography of each patriarch, all kinds of events are recorded, including those of polit-
ical, social, and ethnic interest, in a format that varies according to the tastes of the
original authors from whom the final editor draws his materials.
HP has two forms, the first one qualified as “vulgate”, edited twice and translat-
ed to English by Evetts⁸², and the second one more archaic, partially edited, but not
translated⁸³. This work can be considered “a tradition of historical writing”⁸⁴ more
than a coherent book. Characterized by a variety of layers of composition, it has un-
dergone a number of editorial additions over time, similarly to the Roman Liber pon-
tificalis. The early historians in this series wrote in Coptic, and their successors from
the eleventh century on wrote in Arabic. So, it can be considered as one of the his-
toriographical monuments of the Medieval Near East not only because of our de-
pendence on it for reconstructing the Medieval history of Egyptian Christianity,
but also because it combines and translates a number of no-longer-extant histories
originally written in Coptic: 1) the CHC (partially preserved, as we have seen); 2) a
chronicon written in Coptic for the period 412– 700, attributed to the archdeacon
George, spiritual son of the 40th patriarch, John III (677– 686), scribe of the 42nd,
Simon I (689 – 701), and spiritual father of Cosmas, the 44th patriarch (730 – 731); 3)
a text written by a monk named John (middle of the 8th cent.); 4) a history composed
by another John (865 – 66); 5) a text written by Michael, bishop of Tinnis, in 1051 or
1058. To this Coptic material translated into Arabic, collated with more than one
manuscript, and reworked, the last compiler added the biographies of Christodoulos
and Cyril III, composed directly in Arabic. This composite text in turn underwent
minor additions and alterations in the course of time, which have led to the vulgate
form of the HP⁸⁵.
The main ideology of the HP is that of the Patriarchate, since the authors of its
Coptic sources were part of circles close to the Coptic institutional church. However,
when we read the work, we have to take into account a plurality of ideological lines,
 Editions of the version qualified as “vulgata”: Evetts 1904– 1915, Seybold 1904– 1910. The ms. of
Hamburg, which testifies to a more archaic state of the text, is edited in C.F. Seybold 1912. On the
relationship between HP and the CHC, see T. Orlandi 1968, 53 – 86; D.W. Johnson 1973. The reference
work for this history now is J. den Heijer 1989, 1996, 2003. Perrine Pilette has presented her disserta-
tion on the philological and linguistic aspects of the work in the Catholic University of Louvain-la-
Neuve in August 2014, under the direction of J. den Heijer: see den Hejier / Pilette 2011, 2013.
 Evetts 1904– 1915; Seybold 1904– 1010.
 Seybold 1912.
 Den Heijer 1991, 1238.
 Den Heijer 1989, 81– 116.

Angemeldet
which are interwoven but not always blended together: 1) the line of the CHC; 2) the
perspectives of the other later sources; 3) the opinions of the final compiler, Mawhub.
Let us take a look at the first part. Before the section depending on the CHC, we
find three texts, probably introduced by the last compiler: the treatise on the Priest-
hood of Christ, the Life of Saint Mark, and the Martyrdom of Saint Mark, containing
episodes and traditions giving the Coptic Church a strong sense of its own identity.
As we have already said, Mark in the HEpA, but also in CHC, is one of the great sym-
bols of the Christian history of Alexandria. This tradition has been received and re-
worked by the final compiler.
There follows a series of brief biographies of the early patriarchs, which unfortu-
nately is not paralleled by the CHC for the simple reason that the two Coptic manu-
scripts are incomplete at the beginning. Are these short biographies an original fab-
rication of the last compiler of the HP, or a reworking of previous materials, among
which the CHC and the HEpA? The second solution seems to be more probable, in
light of some parallels between the HP and the HEpA about some chronological in-
formation, as well as in a short yet very important passage about the earliest episco-
pal consecrations in Egypt⁸⁶. It seems impossible, however, to determine whether
these materials were part of the CHC, which is partially preserved, or are of different
origin. The possibility that the last compiler used the method of combining the sour-
ces is well demonstrated in other situations. When, for example, one reads the life of
Demetrius⁸⁷, it becomes absolutely clear that a later editor has inserted a homiletic
text into the historical account of the CHC, translated from Eusebius’s History.
Also for the lives of Alexander and Athanasius Orlandi has proposed the hypothesis
of the combination of two sources, one of which is the CHC, while the other is uncer-
tain (I would exclude that it is the HEpA)⁸⁸.
Among the sources used by the compiler, some have their own interest, like one
of the lives of Athanasius in which the Council of Nicea is recorded in the following
terms:
The four sees were assembled on his account at Nicaea: Eusebius for Rome, Alexander for Alex-
andria, Ephesus and Antioch. Constantine, the believing prince, sat with them. So when they
settled the orthodox faith, and the time of the fast and the Easter, the prince said to them: “I
pray you to make the city of Constantinople a patriarchal see, because it is the seat of the prince,
 For the patriarchs Cerdon and Eumenes, the date of the death of the HEpA is different from all
other sources, apart from a variant reading proposed by Mawhub (Seybold 1912, 12 ll. 12– 14, 13,
ll. 2– 4). As for the common sentence, see HP: «So they laid their hands upon him (Julian), and ap-
pointed him patriarch. He composed homilies and sermons on the saints; and he continued in the see
ten years. After this patriarch, the bishop of Alexandria did not remain always in that city, but issued
thence secretly, and ordained priests in every place, as Saint Mark, the evangelist, had done. Julian
went to his rest on the 8th of Barmahat, or on the 12th of Babah, as some say, in the fifth year of
the reign of Severus the prince»: Evetts 1904– 1915, PO 1, 153– 154.
 Evetts 1904– 1915, PO 1, 154– 162.
 Orlandi 1968, 63 – 74.

Angemeldet
and likewise Jerusalem, because it is the city of the Saviour, the heavenly prince”. So when they
saw his humility, they did this as he prayed them. Then they cut off Arius, by the command of
the prince, and Constantine wrote the excommunication of Arius by his own hand.⁸⁹
Despite some inconsistencies, especially the anachronism of the reference to a not-

yet-existing Constantinople, the text foreshadows the ideal of pentarchy and advo-
cates the subordination of the political power to the council. This text could have
been written only when Alexandria had accepted the patriarchal status of the see
of Constantinople – an acceptance that can be dated to the epoch of Acacius, bishop
of Constantinople, linked in the Coptic memory with the patriarch Peter Mongus.
If we want to judge this first Arabic reworking of the CHC, we can observe that 1)
it adds sources of legendary character, with edifying tales, to the account of CHC, 2) it
is attentive to the balance of the episcopal seats; 3) it maintains the geo-ecclesiology
of CHC, with particular attention to the political power, 4) it eliminates the most
problematic aspects of the Alexandrian history, such as Theophilus’ responsibilities
in the exile of John Chrysostom; 5) it gives some insight into the religious controver-
sies, but the reference to the documentation plays a very minimal role, when com-
pared to HEpA.
When we turn to the account of Peter Mongus’ life (n. 27), the Coptic source chos-
en by the Arabic compiler is not the CHC, but the history written by George under the
Arab domination concerning the period from Peter Mongus to his own time (7th – 8th
centuries). The attitude towards historical actors of the post-Chalcedonian era has
changed dramatically, as can be gleaned from the following passage, concerning
the bishops of Alexandria and Constantinople:
So when Timothy went to the Lord, Peter the priest was ordained by command of God in the
church of Alexandria, and was made patriarch. But the empire of the Romans remained estab-
lished upon the ever-renewed memory of the impure council of Chalcedon; for it was not built
upon the foundation of the firm Rock, which belongs to God the Word who is Jesus Christ. And,
after the consecration of Peter, patriarch of Alexandria, Acacius, patriarch of Constantinople,
wrote to him many epistles which he sent to him, and letters to ask him to receive him to him-
self; for he rejected the council of Chalcedon, the members of which he called heretics, and the
blasphemous Tome of Leo; and he likewise rejected the doctrine of Nestorius. Therefore Peter
wrote letters to Acacius in order that he might be assured that his doctrine was sound to the
core. And when they came to him he accepted them with joy and gladness, and showed them
to those that wished among the believers in the orthodox faith; and then he wrote a synodical
epistle and sent it to the blessed Peter⁹⁰.
 This translation of the Hamburg recension of the HP is by Reda Hammad, who has presented a
PhD dissertation about the HP in Sapienza University of Rome (December 2014), under the guidance
of Tito Orlandi, Alberto Camplani, Johannes den Hejier. The text corresponds to Evetts 1904– 1915, PO
1, 406 – 407.
 Evetts 1904– 1915, PO 1, 445 – 446.

Angemeldet
After the Council of Chalcedon, the empire has become a negative entity, marked by
its constant adherence to the Christological heresy. We have to consider that George
is writing under the Arab rule, in a context of not easy relations between Church and
State. At the same time, the Byzantine Empire has become a political system opposed
to the Arab rule in Egypt and afflicted by the Chalcedonian heresy. However, accord-
ing to the author, other episcopal sees show signs of a more positive attitude towards
Alexandria. Of course, this representation is related to works such as the fictitious
exchange of letters between Peter Mongus and Acacius of Constantinople, which
place Constantinople in a situation of dependence upon those who hold the true
faith, that is Alexandria.
The real geo-ecclesiological change in the perspectives of the HP is represented
by Severus of Antioch (Life 30), a man originally foreign to Egypt (despite his youth
spent in Alexandrian universities), who, according to the HP (and probably to
George), occupies the same episcopal throne of Ignatius of Antioch. The Coptic au-
thor has chosen a very significant antecedent for Severus, presented as combining
in himself orthodoxy and martyrdom, in a way reminiscent of the example of
Peter of Alexandria. The emperor Justinian would like to convince Severus to sign
Leo’s Tome, bringing together several times the bishops (Life 32). But Severus resists,
while continuing to fight the heresies, such as that of Julian of Halicarnassus, born
within the anti-Chalcedonian movement. The Coptic author is aware of the fact that
Severus has introduced a new life into the Egyptian intellectual and religious activ-
ities, and for that reason deserves a place among the great figures of reference of the
Alexandrian history.
The same persecution against Severus is patiently tolerated by Theodosius, who
can resist the lure of the imperial power. In his speech delivered in front of Justinian
he proposes the great symbols of the history of Alexandria, such as Mark, Athana-
sius, Cyril, Timothy (Life 33)⁹¹.
Of course the attitude towards Antioch is not different from that towards Con-
stantinople. This episcopal see becomes an ally of Alexandria only when it accepts
the Christological and Trinitarian orthodoxy of the Egyptian patriarch. For that rea-
son, the schism between the miaphysite churches of Antioch and Alexandria is due,
according to the HP, only to the doctrinal mistakes of the Antiochene patriarch Peter
of Callinicum. Peter, who engaged in a controversy with Damian (Life 35), is held re-
sponsible for introducing a division between two congregations originally in peace,
heirs respectively of Cyril and John Chrysostom (Life 34).
The new union under the patriarch Anastasius in celebrated in noteworthy terms
by the Antiochene Athanasius:
“Know that the world today rejoices in peace and love, because the Chalcedonian darkness has
passed away, and there has remained this one light-giving and fruit-bearing branch of the true
vine, which is the see of Mark the evangelist, and the province of Egypt. For we have been her-
 Evetts 1904– 1915, PO 1, 463 – 464.

Angemeldet
etics and schismatics since the patriarch Severus, who was to us a guide and a way of salvation.
And you know that Peter the apostle and Mark the evangelist had one gospel which they preach-
ed; and so also Severus and Theodosius had one faith, and lived in unity, and endured exile and
conflicts to the end”⁹².
Here Antioch is represented while confessing the great symbols of the Alexandrian
identity, Mark and Theodosius, and at the same time emphasizing those of the Anti-
ochene identity, such as Peter the apostle and Severus, who are becoming so impor-
tant also for Alexandria.
The HP and its source, the compilation by George, are part of a long tradition of
historical writing, in which the modern scholar can grasp a line of evolution. While
the main figures of the Alexandrian history (such as Mark the evangelist, Peter of
Alexandria, and Athanasius) remain, a new one (Severus of Antioch) is introduced,
because thanks to him the more advanced orthodoxy of the Justinianic era is being
built. For an archdeacon writing under the Arab domination it is quite obvious that
the Byzantine empire has become something foreign, marked by the Christological
heresy. Although traces of the Justinianic ideal of pentarchy are perceptible, it is
clear for the author that Antioch and Constantinople can be accepted as Christian
cities only if they conform to Alexandrian orthodoxy. The relationship with the doc-
umentation of the archives is the same that we have seen in CHC: the documents are
evoked, used, but almost never quoted.
3. Conclusions
HEpA, the CHC, and the HP, composed within the chancellery of the episcopate or in
the environments close to it, are quite different from one another, and their belong-
ing to what we call “historical writing” must be assessed case by case. The HEpA can
be defined a historiographical work only in a problematic way. The fact that Cyril re-
fers to it with the term historia makes this possibility worth considering. It should be
noted that the fundamental reference models are the works written by Athanasius,
polemical and apologetic in character and therefore not properly historiographical,
in particular for their use of the documentation glossed with polemical comments
and narratives. At the same time, in a few cases the apology expands its scope in
time, space, and social depth, so as to become a defense of an ecclesiastical tradition
carried out through the documentation it comments upon. The HEpA, therefore, can
also fall, at least partially, in the category of historical writing, to which its local
focus and use of documents, found also in standard historiographical texts, do
not prevent it from belonging.
Also Timothy Aelurus’s History is problematic to evaluate. Here we have the pas-
sionate defense of a theological and ecclesial tradition, not exclusively Alexandrian,
 Evetts 1904– 1915, PO 1, 481.

Angemeldet
through the use of controversy, the recounting of episodes, and the quotation of theo-
logical assertions and historical documents. It can be considered an engaged history,
which intends to transmit an ex parte vision of the facts and forces in the field: a geo-
ecclesiology centered on Alexandria, founded on the basis of florilegia and docu-
ments.
An explicit reference, more formal than substantial, to Eusebian historiography
is found in the CHC, where the use of the documents declines greatly. While some
reference to them should not be denied, they play a very marginal role, especially
since oral traditions and hagiographic texts seem to receive more space. The geo-
graphic scope of this history is apparently the Eastern Mediterranean, but the
point of reference remains Alexandria.
The structure of HP (which in its first part translates, at least partially, the CHC)
is different. This work has some aspects in common with the HEpA, e. g. in its being
organized around the biographies of the patriarchs. Throughout this paper I have ex-
amined HP especially in its sections independent of CHC, with the aim of investigat-
ing the passages that could provide hints about its geo-ecclesiological and political
views. The new historical situation in which the Coptic source of the HP is written
requires a reference to increasingly strong traditions of identity, while documenta-
tion, e. g. that relative to the intra-miaphysite Christological controversies, is used
only when readily available.
What are the ideological elements and values of this historiographical tradition?
From the fourth to the seventh century a number of historical paradigms have
changed, as well as the way of organizing the documentation:
1) The idea remains that an exceptional destiny is reserved to Alexandria from
the political and religious point of view, even if civil and ecclesiastical values are
changing;
2) The good relations with the political power, not always worthily represented
by those who occupy the highest positions, gradually suffers setbacks; the theme
of persecution of the true church is accompanied by that of the demonization of Jus-
tinian; under the Arab domination the political power, when it is not the enemy, be-
comes incomprehensible, although the HP signals the search for a relationship with
the State.
3) Constantinople can be an ally of Alexandria if it accepts the doctrinal ortho-
doxy of the latter, but at some point it ceases to be the reference. Only the unstable
Antioch can be an ally, when the doctrinal and historical tradition of Alexandria is
received.
4) In the stretch of time between Athanasius and the composition of the HEpA
new articulations of the Alexandrian history are developing, in particular through
the emergence of the figures of Mark the evangelist and Peter the bishop as epitomiz-
ing from then on the system of religious values; to these are added the new heroes of
the doctrinal fights (such as Cyril), especially if they unite orthodoxy and martyrdom,
as in the case of Dioscorus and Timothy Aelurus. The novelty, with the breakup of the

Angemeldet
empire of the Romans, is the entrance of Severus of Antioch, bishop in the same city
of the martyr Ignatius and a revalued John Chrysostom.
The authors of these histories, except in the case of Timothy Aelurus, are un-
known and fade in the background of their milieu. The author of the HEpA clearly
belongs to the clergy, in particular the priestly ranks of Alexandria, while there is
no mention of monks. In the CHC it is evident that new actors are active in the
Church: in addition to the clergy, we perceive the presence of both Pachomian mo-
nasticism and the lay confraternities. Clergy and monks are also behind the history
produced by George, and translated by Mawhub, a deacon and a high official in the
Muslim administration, living in a medieval context very different from Late Antique
Egypt.
Bibliography
Andrei, Osvalda (2012), „Canons chronologiques et Histoire ecclésiastique“, in: Morlet / Perrone
(eds.) 2012, 33 – 82.
Barnard, Leslie (1992), Studies in Athanasius’ Apologia secunda (European University Studies,
series XXIII, Band 467).
Barnes, Timothy D. (1993), Athanasius and Constantius. Theology and Politics in the Constantinian
Empire, Cambridge/MA–London
Barns, John / Chadwick Henry (1973), „A Letter Ascribed to Peter of Alexandria “, in: The Journal
of Theological Studies 24, 443 – 455.
Batiffol Pierre (1901), „Le Synodikon de S. Athanase“, in: Byzantinische Zeitschrift 10, 128 – 143.
Bausi, Alessandro (2002), „New Egyptian Texts in Ethiopia“, in: Adamantius 8 (2002), 146 – 51.
Bausi, Alessandro (2006), „La Collezione aksumita canonico-liturgica“, in: Adamantius 12, 43 – 70.
Bausi, Alessandro / Camplani, Alberto (2013), New Ethiopic Documents for the History of Christian
Egypt, in: Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum 17 (2013), 215 – 247.
Blaudeau, Philippe (2001), „Pierre et Marc. Remarques sur la revendication d’une relation
fondatrice entre sièges romain et alexandrin dans la seconde moitié du Ve siècle“, in: Pietro
e Paolo. Il loro rapporto con Roma nelle testimonianze antiche. XXIX incontro di studiosi
dell’antichità cristiana, Roma 4 – 6 maggio 2000, Roma, 577 – 591.
Blaudeau, Philippe (2006), Alexandrie et Constantinople (451 – 491). De l’histoire à la
géo-ecclésiologie (Bibliothèque des Écoles Françaises d’Athène et de Rome, 327), Rome.
Blaudeau, Philippe (2012), Le siège de Rome et l’Orient (448 – 536), Étude géo-ecclésiologique
(Collection de l’École française de Rome, 460), Rome.
Bleckmann, Bruno (2010), „Tendenziöse Historiographie bei Liberatus: von Proterius bis
Athanasios II.“, in: Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum 14, 166 – 95.
Boud’hors, Anne / Morlet, Sébastien, „La version copte de l’Histoire ecclésiastique“, in: Morlet /
Perrone (eds.) 2012, 267 – 270.
Brakmann, Heinzgerd (1977), „Eine oder zwei koptische Kirchengeschichte?“, in: Le Muséon 87,
129 – 142.
Bravo, Benedetto (2007), „Antiquarianism and History“, in: Marincola 2007, 515 – 527.
Brennecke, Hanns C. / Heil, Uta / von Stockhausen, Annette / Wintjes, Angelika (eds.) (2007),
Athanasius Werke. Dritter Band, Erster Teil: Dokumente zur Geschichte des arianischen
Streites, 3. Lieferung: Bis zur Ekthesis makrostichos, Berlin–New York.

Angemeldet
Breydy, Michael (1985), Das Annalenwerk des Eutychios von Alexandrien. Ausgewählte Geschichten
und Legenden kompiliert von Sa‘id ibn Batrª°k um 935 A.D. (Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum
Orientalium, 471 – 472, Scriptores Arabici 44 – 45), Lovanii.
Burgess, Richard W. (1993 – 1994), „The Accession of Marcian in the Light of Chalcedonian
Apologetic and Monophysite Polemic“, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 86, 747 – 68.
Burgess, Richard W. / Kulikowski, Michael, Mosaics of time. The Latin Chronicle Traditions from
the First Century BC to the Sixth Century AD. Volume I: A Historical Introduction to the
Chronicle Genre from its Origins to the High Middle Ages (Studies in the Early Middle Ages,
33), Turnhout.
Burgess, Richard W. (2013), „The Chronograph of 354: Its Manuscripts, Contents, and History”,
Journal of Late Antiquity 5, 345 – 396.
Camplani, Alberto (2003), Atanasio di Alessandria: Lettere festali. Anonimo: Indice delle lettere
festali (Letture cristiane per il primo millennnio, 34), Milano.
Camplani, Alberto (2004), „L’autorappresentazione dell’episcopato di Alessandria tra IV e V
secolo: questioni di metodo“, in: Annali di storia dell’esegesi 21, 147 – 185.
Camplani, Alberto (2006a), „Lettere episcopali, storiografia patriarcale e letteratura canonica: a
proposito del Codex veronensis LX (58)“, in: Rivista di storia del cristianesimo 3, 117 – 164.
Camplani, Alberto (2006b), “L’identità del patriarcato alessandrino, tra storia e rappresentazione
storiografica”, in: Adamantius 12, 8 – 42.
Camplani, Alberto (2007), „L’Historia ecclesiastica en copte et l’historiographie du siège
épiscopale d’Alexandrie. A propos d’un passage sur Mélitios de Lycopolis“, in: Nathalie
Bosson / Anne Boud’hors (eds.), Actes du huitième Congrès International d’Étude Coptes.
Paris, 28 Juin – 3 Juillet 2004, Leuven-Paris-Dudley/MA, 417 – 424.
Camplani, Alberto (2009), „Pietro di Alessandria tra documentazione d’archivio e agiografia
popolare“, in: Heike Grieser / Andreas Merkt (eds.), Volksglaube im antiken Christentum.
Prof. Dr. Theofried Baumeister OFM zur Emeritierung, Darmstadt, 138 – 156.
Camplani, Alberto (2011a), „Un’antica teoria della successione patriarcale in Alessandria“, in:
Paola Buzi / Daniela Picchi / Marco Zecchi (eds.), Aegyptiaca et Coptica. Studi in onore di
Sergio Pernigotti, Oxford, 138−56.
Camplani, Alberto (2011b), „A Syriac fragment from the Liber historiarum by Timothy Aelurus (CPG
5486), the Coptic Church History, and the archives of the bishopric of Alexandria “, in: Paola
Buzi / Alberto Camplani (eds.), Christianity in Egypt: Literary Production and Intellectual
Trends. Studies in Honor of Tito Orlandi (Studia Ephemeridis Augustinianum 125), Roma, 205
−226.
Camplani, Alberto (2013), „The Transmission of Early Christian Memories in Late Antiquity: The
Editorial Activity of Laymen and Philoponoi“, in: Brouria Ashkelony / Lorenzo Perrone (ed.),
Between Personal and Institutional Religion. Self, Doctrine, and Practice in Late Antique
Eastern Christianity, 129 – 154.
Carile, Antonio (1981), „Giovanni di Nikius, cronista bizantino-copto del VII secolo“, in: Felix
Ravenna 4, 103−155.
Charles, Robert Henry (1916), The Chronicle of John, Bishop of Nikiu, London / Oxford 1916.
Cheiko, Louis / Carra de Vaux, Bernard / Zayyat, Habib (1906 – 1909), Eutychii Patriarchae
Alexandrini Annales. Pars Prior – Pars posterior (Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum
Orientalium, A Series tertia, 6 – 7) Beryti-Parisiis; (CSCO.A Series tertia, 7) Beryti-Parisiis
1909.
Crum, Walter Ewig (1902), „Eusebius and Coptic Church Histories“, in: Proceedings of the Society
of Biblical Archaeology 24, 71 – 72.
Den Heijer, Johannes (1989), Mawhūb ibn Mansūr ibn Mufarrig et l’historiographie copto-arabe.
Étude sur la composition de l’Histoire des Patriarches d’Alexandrie (Corpus Scriptorum
Christianorum Orientalium, 513; Subsidia, 53), Lovanii.

Angemeldet
Den Heijer, Johannes (1991), „History of the Patriarchs of Alexandria “, in: Aziz S. Atiya (ed.),
Coptic Encyclopedia, vol. 4, New York, 1238 – 1242.
Den Heijer, Johannes (1992), „À propos de la traduction copte de l’Histoire ecclésiastique
d’Eusèbe de Césarée: nouvelle remarques sur les parties perdues“, in: Marguerite
Rassart-Debergh / Julien Ries (eds.), Actes du IVe Congrès international d’études coptes,
Louvain, vol. 2, 185 – 193.
Den Heijer, Johannes (1996), „Coptic Historiography in the Fātimid, Ayyūbid and Early Mamlūk
Periods“, in: Medieval Encounters 2, 67 – 98.
den Heijer, Johannes (2003), „Wadi al-Natrun and the History of the Patriarchs “, in: Coptica 2,
24 – 42.
Den Heijer, Johannes / Pilette, Perrine (2011), „Murqus Simaika (1864 – 1944) et l’historiographie
copto-arabe: à propos du manuscrit Musée Copte, Hist. 1“, in: Paola Buzi / Alberto Camplani
(eds.), Christianity in Egypt: Literary Production and Intellectual Trends. Studies in Honor of
Tito Orlandi (Studia Ephemeridis Augustinianum, 125), Roma, 227 – 250.
Den Heijer, Johannes / Pilette, Perrine (2013), „Transmission et diffusion de l’historiographie
copto-arabe. Nouvelles remarques sur les recensions primitive et vulgate de l’ Histoire des
Patriarches d’Alexandrie“, in: Sofía Torallas Tovar / Juan Pedro Monferrer-Sala (eds.), Cultures
in Contact. Transfer of Knowledge in the Mediterranean Context. Selected Papers, Cordoba –
Beirut, 103 – 140.
Devos, Paul (1958), „L’oeuvre de Guarimpotus, hagiographe napolitain“, in: Analecta Bollandiana
76, 151 – 187.
Devos, Paul (1977), „Note sur l’Histoire ecclesiastique copte“, in: Analecta Bollandiana 95,
144 – 151.
Duchesne, Louis (ed.) (1886 – 1892), Le Liber Pontificalis. Texte, introduction et commentaire, Paris.
Evetts, Basil T.A. (1904 – 1915), History of the Patriarchs of the Coptic Church of Alexandria, Paris:
Patrologia Orientalis 1,2: 99 – 214; 1,4: 381 – 619; 5,1: 1 – 215; 10,5: 357 – 551.
Gemeinhardt, Peter (ed.) (2011), Athanasius Handbuch, Tübingen.
Getatchew Haile (1980), „The Martyrdom of St. Peter Archbishop of Alexandria (EMML 1763,
ff. 79r-80v)“, in: Analecta Bollandiana 98, 85 – 92.
Gribomont, Jean, (1971), „L’historiographie du trône d’Alexandrie avec quelques remarques sur S.
Mercure, S. Basile et S. Eusèbe de Samosate“, in: Rivista di Storia e Letteratura Religiosa 7,
478 – 490.
Griffith, Sidney H. (2004), „Apologetics and Historiography in the Annals of Eutychios of
Alexandria: Christian Self-Definition in the World of Islam“, in Rifaat Ebied / Herman Teule
(eds.), Studies on the Christian Arabic Heritage in Honour of Father Prof. Dr. Samir Khalil
Samir S.I. at the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday, Leuven-Paris-Dudley (MA) 2004, 65 – 89.
Harding, Philip (2007), „Local History and Atthidography“, in: Marincola (ed.) 2007, 180 – 188.
Johnson, David W. (1973), Coptic Sources of the History of the Patriarchs of Alexandria,
Dissertation Catholic University of America, Washington.
Johnson, David W. (1976), „Further Fragments of a Coptic History of the Church. Cambridge
Or. 1699R“, in: Enchoria 6, 7 – 18.
Johnson, David W. (1980), A Panegyric on Macarius, Bishop of Tkôw, Attributed to Dioscorus of
Alexandria (CSCO 415 – 416, Scriptores Coptici 41 – 42), Louvain.
Kannengiesser, Charles (2001), „L’Histoire des ariens d’Athanase d’Alexandrie: une historiographie
de combat au IVe siècle“, in: Bernard Pouderon / Yves-Marie Duval, L’Historiographie de
l’Église des Premiers Siècles (Théologie Historique 114), Paris, 127 – 138.
Kettler, Franz H. (1936), „Der melitianische Streit in Ägypten“, in: Zeitschrift für die
neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 35, 155 – 193.

Angemeldet
Maffei, Scipione (1742), Istoria Teologica delle dottrine e delle opinioni Corse ne’ cinque primi
secoli della Chiesa in proposito della divina Grazia, del libero arbitrio, e della
Predestinazione, Trento.
Marincola, John (ed.) (2007), A Companion to Greek and Roman Historiography, Malden
Martello, Fabrizio (2012), All’ombra di Gregorio Magno. Il notaio Paterio e il Liber testimoniorum,
Roma.
Martin, Annick (1985), „Introduction“, in: Martin / Albert 1985.
Martin, Annick / Albert, Micheline (eds.) (1985), Histoire «acéphale» et index syriaque des lettres
festales d’Athanase d’Alexandrie (Sources Chrétiennes 317), Paris.
Martin, Annick (1989), „Le fil d’Arius: 325 – 335“, in: Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique 84, 297 – 333.
Martin, Annick (1996), Athanase d’Alexandrie et l’Église d’Égypte au IVe siècle (328 – 373)
(Collection de l’École Française de Rome, 216), Rome.
Moawad, Samuel (2010), Untersuchungen zum Panegyrikos auf Makarios von Tkōou und zu seiner
Überlieferung (Sprachen und Kulturen des christlichen Orients, 18), Wiesbaden
Moawad, Samuel (2011), „Die arabische Version der Vita Dioscori“, Le Muséon 124, 149 – 180,
Morlet, Sébastien / Perrone, Lorenzo (eds.) (2012), Eusèbe de Césarée. Histoire ecclésiastique.
Commentaire. Tome I. Études d’introductions, Paris.
Munier, Charles (1974), Concilia Africae A. 345 – A. 525 (Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina, 149),
Turnhout.
Nau, François (1903), „Histoire de Dioscore, patriarche d’Alexandrie, écrite par son disciple
Théopiste“, in: Journal Asiatique 10, 5 – 108, 241 – 310.
Nau, François (1912), Jean Rufus, évêque de Maïouma, Plérophories (Patrologia Orientalis, 8),
Paris, 11 – 136.
Nau, François (1919), Documents pour servir à l’histoire de l’église nestorienne (Patrologia
Orientalis, 13), Paris, 202 – 217.
Neri, Valerio (2012), „Les éditions de l’Histoire ecclésiastique (livres VIII-IX): bilan critique et
perspectives de la recherche“, in: Morlet / Perrone 2012, 151 – 183.
Opitz, Hans-Georg (ed.) (1934 – 1941), Athanasius Werke, II. – Bd. 2: Die Apologien, Hg. im
Auftrage der Kirchenväter-Kommission der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften,
Berlin.
Orlandi, Tito (1968), Studi Copti. 1. Un encomio di Marco Evangelista, 2. Le fonti copte della Storia
dei Patriarchi di Alessandria, 3. La leggenda di S. Mercurio, Milano-Varese.
Orlandi, Tito (ed.) (1968 – 1970), Storia della Chiesa di Alessandria, I-II (Testi e documenti per lo
studio dell’antichità 17, 31), Milano–Varese.
Orlandi, Tito (1974), „Ricerche su una storia ecclesiastica alessandrina del IV secolo“, in: Vetera
Christianorum 11, 269 – 312.
Orlandi, Tito (1985), „Nuovi frammenti della Historia Ecclesiastica copta“, in: Sandro F. Bondì et
alii (eds.), Studi in onore di Edda Bresciani, Pisa, 363 – 384.
Orlandi, Tito (1994), „La traduzione copta di Eusebio di Cesarea, Historia Ecclesiastica“, in: Atti
dell’Accademia nazionale dei Lincei, Rendiconti della Classe di scienze morali, storiche e
filologiche, serie 9, vol. V, 399 – 456.
Orlandi, Tito (2007), „The Coptic Ecclesiastical History: A Survey“, in: James E. Goehring / Janet A.
Timbie (eds.), The World of Early Egyptian Christianity. Language, Literature, and Social
Context. Essays in Honor of David W. Johnson, Washington, 3 – 24.
Portmann, Werner (2011a), „Apologia secunda contra Arianos “, in: Gemeinhardt 2011, 179 – 184.
Portmann, Werner (2011b), „Historia arianorum“, in: Gemeinhardt 2011, 184 – 188.
Prinzivalli, Emanuela (2012), „Le genre historiographique de l’Histoire ecclésiastique“, in: Morlet /
Perrone (eds.) 2012, 83 – 111.

Angemeldet
Robertson, Archibald (1891), Select Writings and Letters of Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria (A
Select Library of nicene and Post-Nicene fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series, 4),
Grand Rapids/MI.
Schmelz, Georg (2002), Kirchliche Amtsträger im spätantiken Ägypten nach den Aussagen der
griechischen und koptischen Papyri und Ostraka (Archiv für Papyrusforschung, 13), Leipzig.
Schwartz, Eduard (1905), „Zur Geschichte des Athanasius. V“, in: Nachrichten von der königlichen
Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen. Philologisch-historische Klasse, Göttingen,
164 – 187.
Schwartz, Eduard (1936a), „Über die Sammlung des Cod. Veronensis LX“, in: Zeitschrift für die
neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 35, 1 – 23.
Schwartz, Eduard (1936b), „Die Kanonessammlungen der alten Reichkirche“, in: Zeitschrift der
Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte. Kanonistische Abteilung 25, Wien, 1 – 114 = Eduard
Schwartz (1960), Zur Geschichte der alten Kirche und ihres Rechts, Gesammelte Schriften.
Vierter Band, Berlin, 159 – 275.
Schwartz, Eduard (ed.) (1936c), Liberati Breviarium causae nestorianorum et eytychianorum, in
Concilium universale chalcedonense. Volumen quintum: Collectio sangermanensis (ACO II, 5),
Berolini et Lipsiae, 98 – 141.
Scott, Roger (2012), „From Propaganda to History to Literature: The Byzantine Stories of
Theodosius’ Apple and Marcian’s Eagles“, in Roger Scott, Byzantine Chronicles and the Sixth
Century, Farnham, Surrey – Burlington 2012, n. XVI (published in R. Macrides (ed.), History as
Literature in Byzantium, Aldershot 2010, 115 – 131).
Seybold, Christian Friedrich (1904 – 1910), Severus Ben al-Muqaffa‘. Historia patriarcharum
Alexandrinorum (Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, Scriptores arabici, Series
tertia, 9), Beryti-Parisiis.
Seybold, Christian Friedrich (1912), Severus ibn al-Muqaffa‘. Alexandrinische Patriarchatgeschichte
von S. Marcus bis Michael (61 – 767), nach dem ältesten 1266 geschriebenen Hamburger
Handschrift im arabischen Urtext heraugegeben, Hamburg
Telfer, Walter (1943), „The Codex Verona LX (58)“, in: Harvard Theological Review 36, 169 – 246.
Turner, Cuthbert H. (1939), Ecclesiae Occidentalis Monumenta Iuris Antiquissima. Canonum et
conciliorum graecorum interpretationes latinae. Tomi prioris fasciculi alterius pars quarta:
Supplementum Nicaeno-alexandrinum sive Conciliorum Nicaeni et Serdicensis Sylloge a
Theodosio Diacono [Carthaginensi] adservata secundum codicem unicum veronensem
bibliothecae capitularis LX (58) saec. VII-VIII, Opus postumum, Oxonii.
Van Nuffelen, Peter (2002), „La tête de l’ “histoire acéphale”“, in: Klio 84, 125–140.
Van Nuffelen, Peter (2004), Un héritage de paix et de piété. Étude sur les histoires ecclésiastiques
de Socrate et de Sozomène (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta, 142), Louvain–Paris–Dudely/MA.
Vivian, Tim (1988), Saint Peter of Alexandria Bishop and Martyr, Philadephia.
Watts, Edward J. (2009), „Interpreting Catastrophe: Disasters in the Works of Pseudo-Joshua the
Stylite, Socrates Scholasticus, Philostorgius, and Timothy Aelurus “, in: Journal of Late
Antiquity 2, 79 – 98.
Watts, Edward J. (2010), Riot in Alexandria: Tradition and Group Dynamics in Late Antique Pagan
and Christian Communities Berkeley–Los Angeles–London.
Watts, Edward J. (2011), „John Rufus, Timothy Aelurus and the Fall of the Western Roman Empire“,
in: Ralph Mathisen / Danuta Shanzer (eds.), Romans, Barbarians, and the Transformation of
the Roman World. Cultural Interaction and the Creation of Identity in Late Antiquity,
Farnham/UK – Burlington/VT, 97 – 106.
Wipszycka, Ewa (2007), „The Institutional Church“, in: Roger S. Bagnall (ed.), Egypt in the
Byzantine World, 300 – 700, Cambridge–New York–Melbourne–Madrid, 331 – 349.
Wipszycka, Ewa (2008), „Les gens du patriarche alexandrin“, in: Christian Décobert / Jean-Yves
Empereur (eds.), Alexandrie médiévale 3 (Études alexandrines, 16), Cairo, 89−114.

Angemeldet
Witakowski, Witold (2012), „Coptic and Ethiopic Historical Writing“, in: Sarah Foote / Chase
Robinson / Ian Hesketh (eds.), The Oxford History of Historical Writing, Volume 2: 400 – 1400,
Oxford, 138 – 154.
Whitby, Michael (2003), „The Church Historians and Chalcedon“, in: Gabriele Marasco (ed.), Greek
and Roman Historiography in Late Antiquity, Leiden, 449 – 495.
Zotenberg, Hermann (1877 – 1879), „Mémoires sur la chronique byzantine de Jean, évêque de
Nikiou“, in: Journal Asiatique 10 (1877) 451 – 517; 12 (1878) 245 – 347; 13 (1879) 291 – 386.

Angemeldet
Angemeldet

The Religious Identity of Alexandria in

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Religious Identity of Alexandria in

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Religious Identity of Alexandria in

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

www.degruyter.

 See all formats and pricing 

 DOWNLOAD FULL TEXT PDF

 GET ACCESS TO FULL TEXT

 DOWNLOAD FULL TEXT PDF

 GET ACCESS TO FULL TEXT

 GET ACCESS TO FULL TEXT

 GET ACCESS TO FULL TEXT

 GET ACCESS TO FULL TEXT

 GET ACCESS TO FULL TEXT

 GET ACCESS TO FULL TEXT

 GET ACCESS TO FULL TEXT

 GET ACCESS TO FULL TEXT

 GET ACCESS TO FULL TEXT

 GET ACCESS TO FULL TEXT

 GET ACCESS TO FULL TEXT

 GET ACCESS TO FULL TEXT

 GET ACCESS TO FULL TEXT

 GET ACCESS TO FULL TEXT

 GET ACCESS TO FULL TEXT

 GET ACCESS TO FULL TEXT

 GET ACCESS TO FULL TEXT

 GET ACCESS TO FULL TEXT

LIBRARIES TRADE AUTHORS SOCIETIES TEXTBOOKS PRESS

 Asien-Afrika-Institut, Hiob Ludolf Zentrum für Äthiopistik.

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

HP = History of the Patriarchs.

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

1. Methodological issues and compositional

 See the introduction.

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

1.2 The Athanasian paradigm

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

 Kannengiesser 2001, 130.

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

pieces of polemics, in which Constantius is denounced as the Antichrist and is com-

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

2. The Egyptian histories: reconstruction,

 Maffei 1742, 254– 262.

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

Athanasii, a detailed narrative of Athanasius’ last twenty years of episcopate²⁵. Other

 Martin / Albert 1985, 138 – 213.

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

 Schwartz (éd.) (1936c), 98 l. 2– 99 l. 2.

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

2.2 The History by Timothy Aelurus, the Athanasian paradigm,

 Bravo 2007, 517– 518.

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS

ria⁵⁸ destined to be reworked in the hagiography written in the patriarchate’s envi-

2.3 The Church History in Coptic: the changing role of the

 Burgess 1993 – 1994; Scott 2012.

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCS