No More Learning

lower
aruse
to the
eccles
hare
Atha
more
Atha
be w
forni


## p. 1019 (#1035) ##########################################

MELETIUS.
1019
MELETIUS.
which is very doubtful, charges him with hypocrisy. | (which left him the title of bishop, though it de-
He enjoyed the friendship of Basil and other lead- prived him of the power to ordain) would have
ing men of the orthodox party. Epiphanius bas dealt so leniently with him. The Council allowed
spoken favourably of him, but Jerome is less fa- those whom he had ordained to retain the priestly
vourable, owing, probably, to his connection with office, on condition of re-ordination, and of their
Paulinus. A part of the first sermon preached by 1 yielding precedence to those whose first ordination
Meletius at Antioch has been preserved by Epi- had been regular. The schism begun in prison
phanius, and is given in the Bibliotheca Patrum of was continued in the mines of Phaenon, in Arabia
Galland, vol. v. A synodical epistle to the emperor | Petraea, to which Meletius and others were ba-
Jovian, given by Socrates (H. E. iii. 25), and So- nished, and after their release. Meletius ordained
zomen (H. E. vi. 4), and reprinted in the Concilia, bishops, presbyters, and deacons, and kept his fol-
vol. i. col. 741, ed. Hardouin, and in the Biblio- lowers a distinct body, under the title of the
theca of Galland, vol. v. , mny perhaps be ascribed Church of the Martyrs. " He even extended his
to him. The Greek Church honours his memory sect into Palestine, where he visited Jerusalem,
on February the 12th, and the Latin Church at Eleutheropolis, and Gaza, and ordained many in
last received him into the calendar on the same those towns to the priesthood. In this state
day.
matters remained till the Nicene Council (A. D.
Meletius was succeeded in the see of Antioch 325), the sentence of which has been already
by Flavian [FLAVIANUS, No. 1], under whom the mentioned. The synodical letter to the Egyptian
Eustathian schism was at length healed, and the clergy, which notities the sentence, gives no in-
suppression of the Arians under Theodosius the formation as to the origin of the schism: it de-
Great restored for a while the unity of the see. scribes, indeed, Meletius as disorderly, hasty, and
(Socrates, H. E. ii. 43, 44, iii. 6, 9, iv. 2, v. 3, 5, headstrong ; characteristics more in harmony with
9 ; Sozomen, H. E. iv. 25, 28, v. 12, 13, vi. 7, the conduct ascribed to him by Epiphanius, than
vii. 3, 7, 8, 10; Theodoret. H. E. ii. 3), iii. 3, 4, with the charges of Athanasius.
iv. 13. 25, v. 3, 8; Philostorg. H. E. v. 1,5; There is no dispute that the theological senti-
Greg. Nyssen. Orat. in Fun. Meletii habita ; Basil. ments of the Meletians were at first what is deemed
Epistolae, d. lvi. Ivii. Iviii. lix. lxiv. cclxxiii. cccxxi. orthodox ; and, according to Epiphanius, Meletius
cccxxv. cccxlix. editt. vett. , or lvii. lxvii. lxviii. lxxxix. was the first to detect the heretical teachings of
cxx. cxxix. ccx. ccxiv. cclviii. cclxvi. edit. Benedict. ; Arius, and to report them to Alexander, bishop of
Epiph. Haeres. lxxiii. 28—35; Hieron. in Chra | Alexandria. Meletius died very shortly after the
nico ; Concilia, vol. i. p. 731, 741, ed. Hardouin ; Council of Nice, for Alexander, who himself only
Tillemont, Mémoires, vol. viii. p. 341, &c. ; Cave, survived the council about five months, lived long
Hist. Litt. ad ann. 360, vol. i. p. 223, ed. Oxford, enough to persecute the followers of Meletius after
1740—43; Fabric. Bibl. Graec. vol. ix. p. 304 ; their leader's death, because, deeming Meletius ill-
Galland. Biblioth. Patrum. Proleg. ad Vol. V. c. created, they would not accept the terms of recon-
ll; Le Quien, Oriens Christian. vol. i. col. 423, ciliation offered by the Council. The schism con-
vol. ii. col. 713, &c. , 781. )
tinued under the leadership of John Arcaph, whom
2. IATROSOPHISTA. [No. 6. ]
Meletius had appointed to succeed him (JOANNES,
3. Of LYCOPOLIS, a schismatical bishop of the No. 16); and the Meletians co-operated with the
third and fourth centuries. There is a remarkable Arians in their hostility to Athanasius [ATHA-
discrepancy in the accounts given of this person. NASIUS] ; an alliance more conducive to the grati-
According to Athanasius, whose contests with the fication of their revenge than to the maintenance
Meletians render his testimony less trustworthy, of their orthodoxy. (Athanas. A pol. contra Arian,
Meletius, who was bishop of Lycopolis in Upper c. 59; Epiphan. Haeres. lxviii. 1-5 ; Socrat. H.
Egypt at the time of the persecution under Diocle- E. i. 6, 9 ; Sozomen, H. E. i. 24, ii. 21 ; Theo-
tian and his successors, yielded to fear and sacri- doret. H. E. i. 9; Tillemont, Mémoires, vol. v. p.
ficed to idols ; and being subsequently deposed, on 453, &c. ; Le Quien, Oriens Christian, vol. ii. col.
this and other charges, in a synod, over which 598. )
Petrus or Peter, bishop of Alexandria, presided, 4. Of MELITENE. [No. 1. ]
determined to separate from the church, and to 5. Medicus. [See below. ]
constitute with his followers a separate community. 6. MONACHUS, the Monk. (See below. ]
Epiphanius, on the other hand, relates that both 7. Of Mopsvestia, an ardent supporter of the
Peter and Meletius being in confinement for the unfortunate Nestorius (NESTORIUS], of Constanti-
faith, differed concerning the treatment to be used nople. He succeeded the celebrated Theodore as
toward those who, after renouncing their Christian bishop of Mopsuestia, in Cilicia (THEODORUS Mop-
profession, became penitent and wished to be re- SUESTENUS), probably in or about A. D. 427. He
stored to the communion of the Church. He states supported John, patriarch of Antioch (JOANNES,
that Peter, who was willing to receive them, was No. 9), in his opposition to the hasty and unjust
opposed by Meletius, who was next to Peter in deposition of Nestorius by Cyril of Alexandria
influence, and had, in fact, the larger number of fol- and his party (CYRILLUS, St. of ALEXANDRIA),
lowers on this question: and the schism which in the third general (Ephesian) council, a. D. 431 :
arose on this account he represents as owing rather and when John was induced to come to terms with
to the former than to the latter. Although the Cyril and to join in condemning Nestorius, Mele-
ecclesiastical historians Socrates and Theodoret tius persisted in supporting the cause of the deposed
have adopted, wholly or partially, the account of patriarch, and refused to hold communion with
Athanasius, the statement of Epiphanius is the either Cyril or John, denouncing such communion
more probable. Had Meletius been convicted, as as diabolical ; and when the latter sent a con-
Athanasius states, it is hardly probable that either ciliatory letter to him, he threw it in the mes-
he would have been able to raise and keep up so senger's face. Being forcibly expelled from his see
forraidable a schism, or that the Council of Nice by the einperor Theodosius II. , at the desire of
He
3
.
ܐ܀ ܀
* JP
the batt


## p. 1020 (#1036) ##########################################

1020
MELETIUS.
MELETUS.
sbich it
makes hi
on earth
He was 1
(Atten.
by Epicra
Sudas is
1
no doubt
and pers:
The c
and Ann
bed, fra
arà proti
grosa
T
Aristopka
Lis excess
materie
John, on account of his pertinacious stipport of mained unpublished till 1836, when Dr. Cramer in.
Nestorius, he induced many persons to secede from serted it in the third volume of his “ Anecdota
the church, and, forming them into separate com Graeca," 8vo. Oxon. It is badly edited, and the text
munities, continued to exercise the priestly office contains numerous errors, some arising from the
among them. This being regarded as an aggra- editor's evident ignorance of the subject-matter
vation of his offence, he was banished by the em- of the treatise, and others apparently from haste and
peror's order, issued at John's instigation, to Melitene carelessless.
The beginning of the work was pub-
in Armenia Minor, and placed in the charge of lished by Fred. Ritschel
, Vratislav. 4to. 1837 ;
Acacius, bishop of that city, from whom he endured and there is an essay by L. E. Bachmann, entitled
much hard usage. In this exile Meletius died, re-Quaestio de Meletio Graece inedito, ejusque La-
taining his zeal for the cause of Nestorius till the tino Interprete Nic. Petreio," Rostoch. 4to. 1833.
last. Various epistles of Meletius were published It is uncertain whether this is the same person
in a Latin version, in the Ad Ephesinum Concilium who wrote a commentary on the Aphorisms of Hip-
Variorum Patrum Epistolae of Christianus Lupus pocrates, some extracts from which are inserted by
of Ypres, 4to. Louvain, 1682 ; and were re-pub-Dietz in the second volume of his “Scholia in Hip-
lished by Baluzius, in his Nova Concilior. Collectio, pocratem et Galenum," Regim. Pruss. Evo. 1834.
by Garnier, in his Auctarium Theodoreti, fol. Paris, It is indeed doubtful whether the commentary
1684, and by Schulze, in his edition of Theodoret, is the work of Meletius or Stephanus Atheniensis.
5 vols. 8vo. , Halae, 1769–1774. From these One of the letters of St. Basil, dated A. D. 375
letters of Meletius, and from other letters in the (Epist. 193, vol. iii. p. 285, ed. Bened. ) is ad-
same collection, the foregoing facts of his history are dressed to a physician named Meletius, who is
derived. The letters of Meletius are contained in called by the title Archiater, but of whom no par-
Cap. seu Epist. 92 (not 82, ns Cave has it), 119, ticulars are known.
(W. A. G. )
124, 141, 145, 155, 158, 163, 171, 174, and 177, MELETUS (Méantos), an obscure tragic poet,
in the work of Lupus. The memorandum of his but notorious as one of the accusers of Socrates,
death is in Cap. 190. In the editions of Garnier was an Athenian, of the Pitthean demus (Plat.
and Schulze they are Epist. 76, 101, 105, 121, 125, Euthyph. p. 2, b. ). At the time of the accusation
133, 136, 141, 149, 152, 155. The memorandum of Socrates, he is spoken of by Plato (l. c. ) as
of Meletius' death is inserted after Epist. 164. young and obscure (comp. Apol. p. 25, d. , 26, e. ).
(Cave, Hist
. Litt. ad ann. 428, vol. i. p. 414 ; Le But the fact that he was mentioned by Aristophanes
Quien, Oriens Christianus, vol ii. col. 891 ; Fabric. in the rewpyoi, gives rise to a difficulty (Schol, in
Biblioth. Graec. vol. ix. p. 305, vol. x. p. 348 ; Plat. Apol. p. 330, Bekker). For the rewpyou
Tillemont, Mémoires, vol. xiv. )
was evidently acted during the life of Nicias (Plut.
8. PhiloSOPHUS. (See below. )
Nic. 8); and not only so, but the passage cited by
9. SCRIPTOR DE AZYMIS. There are extant Plutarch seems to have been rightly understood
two short treatises, Tepi Twv açúuwv, De Azymis, by hini, as referring to the affair of Sphacteria,
one of them being a compendium or abridgment of and on this and other grounds Meineke assigns the
the other, which in the MSS. are ascribed to play to the year B. C. 425 (Frag. Com. Graec. vol.
Joannes Damascenus (DAMASCENUS], and are con- ii. pp. 983—985). Supposing Meletus to have
sequently inserted by Le Quien in his edition of been only twenty at this time, he must have been
the works of that father (Opera Damasceni, fol. upwards of forty-five when he accused Socrates.
Paris, 1712, vol. i. p. 647. ) But Le Quien has ob- Meineke attempts to get rid of the difficulty, by a
served that they are not his: they distinctly deny slight change in the text of the scholiash, which
the general tradition of the fathers, that our Lord would then imply that Meletus was still a boy
celebrated the passover with his disciples the day when alluded to in the rewpgol (Frag. Com.
before the regular time, which tradition Damascenus Graec. vol. ii. p. 993). At all events, if the Me-
certainly held. But this is not the only evidence ; letus thus referred to was really the same person as
an anonymous preface to the larger tract states, the accuser of Socrates, he must at the latter period
that it was written by “one Meletius, a pious have been between thirty and forty,; and in that
man (Jeopópos), and a diligent student of the case he might still have been called veos by Socrates.
Scriptures," and was addressed to one Syncellus, In fact, though the attack upon Socrates was his
who had asked his opinion on the subject. Of the first essay as a public politician, and was indeed
time or place where this Meletius lived nothing is made, as Plato insinuates, in order to bring himself
known. (Fabric. Biblioth. Graec. vol. ix. p. 307. ) into some notoriety (Euthyph. pp. 2, 3, A pol. p. 25,
10. Of TIBERIOPOLIS. [See below. ] (J. C. M. ] d. ), yet it is clear from Plato himself that Meletus
MELE'TIUS (Mexétius), the author of a short was already known as a poet ; for he imputes to
Greek work, entitled Tepl tñs Toù 'Avopcómov Ka-Meletus, as another motive for the accusation, the
TAO Kevñs, De Natura (or Fabrica) Hominis. He resentment felt by him and the other poets for the
appears from the inscription at the beginning of the strictures made upon them by Socrates (Apol. p.
work to have been a Christian and a monk, and to 23, e. ; Diog. Laërt. ii. 39). Besides, when Plato
have belonged to the city of Tiberiopolis in Phrygia calls him dyvus, he perhaps refers rather to his
Magna. The time at which he lived is unknown, being a man of no merit than to his being altogether
but he probably cannot be placed earlier than the unknown in the city. With respect to his tra-
sixth or seventh century after Christ. His work gedies, we are informed by the scholiast on Plato
(the subject matter of which is sufficiently indi-ſl. c. ), on the authority of Aristotle in the Didas-
cated by the title) is interesting, and evidently caliae, that Meletus brought out his oio. Todela in
written by a religious man, but is of no particular the same year in which Aristophanes brought out
value in a physiological point of view. It was first his llenapol, but we know nothing of the date of
published in a Latin translation by Nicolaus Pe- that play. His Scolia are referred to in the Frays
treius, Venet. 1552, 40. The Greek text, though |(1302), B. C. 405 ; and in the Inpuráòns, which
existing in MS. in several European libraries, re- was probably acted a few years after the Frogs, to
sarcas,
the Frog
ért 5962
TEOPTIKEY"
Aristopha
of Laius,
allesion to
inte a ch
od loc. , F
Misled by
hin a son
Ford from
mas Melet
on the aut
deed of ac
served in t
40). The
tephanes, i
allades to
In the
who laid
leus; but
of the accu
was bribed
the affair.
Soon after
repented of
to death as
Laërt. ii. 4
it may here
a
is a mass
mining up
Melissas of
There is
El ser of so
letus who
profanation
of the Her
partizan of
tioner of th
lamis, and
behalf, and
of Andocid
B. C. 400 (
Xen. Hell.
consistent
a
abore respec
good groun
a
though the
certainty.
Respectio
almost unit


## p. 1021 (#1037) ##########################################

MELETUS.
1021
MELINNO.
which it was similar in its argument, Aristophanes | though Welcker defends Méactos. For the argu-
makes him one of the ambassadors sent by the poets ments on both sides, and respecting Meletus in
on earth to the poets in Hades (Athen. xii. p. 551). general, see Clinton, F. H. vol. ii. p. xxxvi. ; Welcker,
He was also ridiculed by Sannyrion in his réaws die Griech. Trag. pp. 872–874 ; Kayser, Hist.
(Athen. I. c. ); and his erotic poetry was referred to Crit. Trag. Gruec. pp. 284, 285. Plato makes
by Epicrates in his 'Avridats (Athen. xiii. p. 605, e. ). Socrates pun upon the name several times in the
Suidas (s. v. ) calls him an orator as well as a poet, Apology (p. 24, c. d. , 25, c.