Open main menu

Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 10.djvu/191

This page needs to be proofread.


MELCHIZEDECK


161


MELETIUS


Arabs in tongue. Their rite is that of Constantinople, almost always celeljrated in Araljic with a few versi- cles and exclamations (irp6<rxw/iief <ro0ia opSoi, etc.) in Greek. But on certain solemn occasions the liturgy is celebrated entirely in Greek.

The sees of the patriarchate are: the patriarchate itself, to which is joined Damascus, administered by a vicar; then two metropolitan dioceses. Tyre and Aleppo; two archdioceses, Bosra with Hauran, and Horus with Hama; seven bLshoprics, Sidon, Beirut (with Jebail), Tripolis, Acre, Furzul (with Zahle), and the Beqaa, Paneas, and Baalbek. The patriarchates of Jerusalem and Alexandria are administered for the patriarch by vicars. The total number of Melchites is estimated at 130,000 (Silbernagl) or 114,080 (Wer- ner).

For the origin and history see any history of the Monophysite heresy. Ne.\le, Historit of the Holy Eastern. Church (London, 1847-1S50), IV and V: The Patriarchate of Alexandria— auppXe- mentary volume: The Patriarchate of Antioch, ed. Williams (Ixjndon, 1873): Charon, Histoire des Patriarcats Melkites (Rome, in course of pubUcation), a most valuable work; Rab- BATH, Documents inedits pourservirh I'histoire du Christianisme en Orient (3 vols., Paris, 1907); Lb Qdien, Oriens ChHstianus (Paris, 1740), II, 385-512 (Alexandrine Patriarchs), 699-730 (Antioch), III, 137-527 (Jerusalem).

For the present constitution: Silbernagl, Verfassung u. gegenwariiger Bestand samilicher Kirchen des Orients (Ratisbon, 1904), 334-341; Werner. OrbisTerrarumCatholicus (Freiburg. 1890), 151-155; Echos d'Orient (Paris, since 1897). articles by Charon and others; Kohler. Die Katfiolischen Kirchen des Morgenlandes (Darmstadt, 1896), 124-128; Charon, Le Rite byzantin dans les Patriarcats Melkites {extrait des Chrysostomika) (Rome, 1908) ; Rebgurs. Traite de Psaltique, Theorie et Pratique du Chant dans I'Eglise Grecque (Paris, 1906).

A. FoRTESCUE.

Melchizedeck. See Melchisedech. Melendez Vald^s, Ju.\n, Spanish poet and politi- cian, b. at Riljera del Fresno (Badajoz) 11 March, 1754; d. in exile at Montpellier, France, 24 May, 1817. He studied law at Salamanca and while there, began his poetical career. In 1780, with his "Batilo", he

, won a prize offered by the Spanish Academy for the best eclogue on the pleasures of life in the country. In 1781 he went to Madrid where he made the acquaint- ance of the minister and author, Jovellanos, whose fa- vour he enjoyed, and who had him appointed to a chair in the University of Salamanca. In 1784 Melen- dez was one of over fifty competitors for a prize offered by the city of Madrid for the best dramatic composi- tion. His comedy, "Las bodas de Camacho el rico" founded on the famous story of Cervantes, was awarded the prize and presented, but, as a stage pro- duction, it was not successful. This failure gave his detractors opportunity for much unfavourable criti- cism. Mel6ndez answered by publishing in 17S5 the first volume of his poems which met with such success that it quickly ran through several editions and firmly established his literary reputation. He now entered upon a political career which was to prove his ruin. Through the favour of his friend Jovellanos, he ob- tained the posts successively of judge of the court of Saragossa in 1789, judicial chancellor at Valladolid in 1791, and fiscal of the supreme court in Madrid in 1797. On the fall of Jovellanos, MeMndez was or- dered to leave Madrid, and after brief stays in Medina del Campo antl Zamora, he finally established his resi- dence at Salamanca. After the revolution of 1808, Melendez accepted from the government of Joseph Bonaparte the post of councillor of state, and late that of minister of public instruction. This lack of patriotism naturally involved him in trouble with his countrymen, so that when the Spaniards returned to power in 181.3, he was compelled to flee to France. Here he passed four years amid misery and misfor- tune, and died at Montpellier poor and neglected in his sixty-fourth year.

Though Melendez cannot be considered a great poet, he was not lacking in talent. His poems are charac- terized by delicacy of expression and grace, rather

^ than by vigour andgreat flights of fancy. He shows to

I X.— 11


best advantage in his eclogues and romances, which are distinguished for their easy flow and facility. In spite of the fact that he is but little read to-day, he undenia- bly exercised some influence in the literary restoration during the reign of Charles III, and has sometimes been called by admiring Spaniards "Restaurador del Parnaso" (Restorer of Parnassus). Besides the works already mentioned, Melendez wrote a lyric poem on the creation, an epic entitled "La Caida de Luzbel", an ode to Winter, and a translation of the jEneid. Complete editions of the poems of Melen- dez, with a life of the author by Quintana, were pul> lished in Madrid in 1820 (4 volumes), and in Barce- lona in 1838. "La Bibhoteca de Autores Espanoles" (LXIII) reproduces the poems.

Q01NT.UJA. Notice sur la vie de Melendez Yaldis (prefixed to the edition of the poet's works published at Madrid, 1820); Poesias inedilas In Revv£ hispanique (Paris, 1894-97).

Ventura Fuentes.

Meletian Schism. See Meletius of Antioch; Meletius of Lycofolis.

Meletius of Antioch, Bishop, b. in MeUtene, Les- ser Armenia; d. at Antioch, 3S1. Before occupying the see of Antioch he had been Bishop of Sebaste, capi- tal of Armenia Prima. Socrates supposes a transfer from Sebaste to Beroea and thence to Antioch ; his ele- vation to Sebaste may date from the year 358 or 359. His sojourn in that city was short and not free from vexations owing to popular attachment to his prede- cessor Eustathius. Asia Minor and Syria were troub- led at the time by theological disputes of an Arian, or semi-Arian character. Under Eustathius (324-330) Antioch had been one of the centres of Nicene ortho- do.xy. This great man was set aside, and liis first suc- cessors, Paulinus and Eulalius held the see but a short time (330-332). Others followed, most of them un- equal to their task, and the Church of Antioch was rent in twain by scfiism. The Eustathians remained an ardent and ungovernable minority in the orthodo.x camp, but details of this division escape us until the election of Leontius (344-358). His sympathy for the Arian heresy was open, and his disciple ^Etius preached pure Arianism wliich did not hinder his being ordained deacon. This was too much for the patience of the orthodox under the leadership of Flavius and Diodorus. iEtius had to be removed. On the death of Leontius, Eudoxius of Germanicia, one of the most influential Arians, speedily repaired to Antioch, and by intrigue secured his appointment to the vacant see. He held it only a short time, was banished to Armenia, and in 359 the Council of Seleucia appointed a successor named Annanius, who was scarcely installed when he was exiled. Eudoxius was restored to favour in 360, and made Bishop of Constantinople, whereby the An- tiochene episcopal succession was re-opened. From all sides bishops assembled for the election. The Aca- cians were the dominant party. Nevertheless the choice seems to have been a compromise. Meletius, who had resigned his see of Sebaste and who was a per- sonal friend of Acacius. was elected. The choice was generally satisfactory, for Meletius had made promises to both parties so that orthodox and Arians thought him to be on their side.

Meletius doubtless believed that truth lay in deli- cate distinctions, but his formula was so indefinite that even to-day, it is difficult to seize it with precision. He was neither a thorough Nicene nor a decided Arian. Meanwhile he pas.sed alternately for an Anoniean, an Homoiousian, an Homoian, or a Neo-Nicene, seeking always to remain outside any inflexible classification. It is possible that he was yet uncertain and that he ex- pected from the contemporary theological ferment some new and ingenious doctrinal combination, satis- factory to him.self, but above all non-committal. For- tune had favoured him thus far; he was absent from Antioch when elected, and hadnot been even sounded concerning his doctrinal leanings. Men were weary of