Saint Cyril of Alexandria (the Hierarhical Authority) and

Abba Shenoute of Atripe (the Ascetic Authority):

a Case of Interaction of the Century V

DANIEL LEMENI
University of Timişoara, Faculty of Letters, History and Theology

1. Ascetic authority vs. Episcopal authority in the Late Christian

Antiquity
Late antique Egypt is characterized not only by a variety of types of
monasticism, but also by the occasional power struggle between bishops,
representing ecclesiastical authority, and monks, representing spiritual
authority independent of church structures. Among the many controversies
and struggles that occurred during Athanasius’s career as bishop of
Alexandria, his attempt to include the monastic movement, both solitary and
communal, within the church institution had important consequences for
Christianity. As a result of this maneuver, Athanasius could enlist the
powerful monks—whose holiness granted them a say in theological and
church matters, and who were infamous for their willingness to riot—to help
him pursue his own goal of a unified Church.1 Three different forms of
monasticism, solitary monasticism (Anthony), communal monasticism
(Pachomius), and that composed of female ascetics (in Alexandria), were all
part of Athanasius’s strategy. The first was described in his Life of Anthony,
which limited Anthony’s authority to the moral realm, in order to exclude
him from exercising power in doctrinal decisions: “This ethical mode of
authority could co-exist peacefully with the political, doctrinal and
sacramental authority of bishops and priests”.2 Athanasius’s presentation of
Anthony as a model for imitation both drew on the role of the saint as
exemplar in late antique thinking and reflected Athanasius’s own belief that
Christians should use past figures as models for their own lives.3 Thus,
Athanasius’s description of Anthony as a paradigmatic figure in his
hagiography had both a social and a theological function within
Athanasius’s agenda. Likewise, Athanasius visited the Pachomian

1
This is the main point of D. BRAKKE, as he summarizes in Athanasius and the Politics
of Ascetism, Oxford University Press, 1995, p. 16. See also ELM, “Virgins of God”: The
Making of Ascetism in Late Antiquity, Oxford: Clarendon, 1994, ch. 11, for a discussion
similar issues.
2
BRAKKE, Athanasius, p. 261.
3
For the role of the exemplar in Late Antiquity, see BRAKKE, Athanasius, p. 261. For
Athanasius’s program of formation of the self, see IBIDEM, p. 245.
164
communities in the south in order to establish ecclesiastical control over
them, an intrusion that Pachomius was at first reluctant to accept.4
Athanasius and Pachomius’s eventual cooperation unified ecclesiastical and
communal monastic authority within the institution of the orthodox Church.
In the next generation, the key figures were Cyril as patriarch of Alexandria
and Shenoute as head of the White Monastery, two men who at times
worked together to promote Egyptian Christianity.
In short, the Church of century IV-V was characterized not only by a
variety of types of monasticism, but also an ambiguous relationship,
sometimes strained, between the authority of ascetic and authority of bishop.
If we accept the existence of two types of authority then you must
accept that ascetics were not always under the control of episcopal authority,
but rather they were an independent source of spiritual authority in the
Church in this period.
In these lines we propose to explore two types of authority from, so
that we will starting from the relationship between St. Cyril and the Abbot
of White Monastery.5 Before we see how the two interacted we give a brief
characterization of the two types of authority.
The ascetic authority was represented by ascetic monks, and it
consists of ascetic spiritual experience, experience which he gained from a
long ascetic lifestyle.
The monasticism during this period was less structured and non-
hierarchical,6 so that the ascetic authority was largely independent of the
official structures of the Church.7 Conversely, hierarchical or episcopal

4
BRAKKE, Athanasius, p. 120.
5
The name White Monastery is modern, referring to the walls of the church building
(which are white, as opposed to the red walls of another nearby monastery). Shenoute
seems to have called the monastery simply “the congregations.” Archaeologists now tend to
call it the “Monastery of Apa Shenoute.”
6
In this respect we should be noted that the monastic movement, although it was an anti-
hierarchical, but it did not involve a rejection of all the world hierarchy and its institutions,
including here Christian institutions (see W. FREND, Martyrodom and Persecution in the
Early Church, New York: N.Y. University Press, 1967, p. 138).
7
For the development of episcopal and monastery’institutions, see H. CHADWICK,
Bishops and Monks, în “Studia Patristica”, 24, 1993, p. 45-61; CONRAD LEYSER,
Authority and Ascetism from Augustin to Gregory the Great, Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2000. Also, for the role of bishop or monk-bishop in the Early Byzantium, see H.A.
DRAKE, Constantine and the Bishops: The Politics of Intolerance, Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins University Press, 2000; S. ELM, “Virgins of God”: The Making of Ascetism in
Late Antiquity, Oxford: Clarendon, 1994; A. STERK, Renouncing the World Yet Leading
the Church. The Monk-Bishop in Late Antiquity, Cambridge, Massachusetts, London
Harvard University Press, 2004; PH. ROUSSEAU, The Spiritual Authority of the «Monk-
Bishops»: Eastern Elements in Some Western Hagiography of the Fourth and Fifth
Centuries, în “Journal Theological Studies”, n.s. 23 (1971), p. 380-419; GILBERT
165
authority was represented by bishops, and it also have an institutional
character.
In other words, the episcopal authority is rooted in the apostolic
succesion, which means that the authority of a bishop derives primarily from
its status as a successor of the apostles.8
In the century IV-V often bishops have tried to involve ascetics (the
ascetic authority) in their strategies on Trinitarian and Christological
heresies and controversies in order to build a united and undived Church of
schisms and heresies.9
And, indeed, the theory of apostolic succession was often used to
marginalize deviations and theological schisms of all sorts, theory
reinforced later ecclesiastical hierarchy position in this period. This position
was clear that the bishop ordained in secret endowed with pastoral authority,
authority under which he expressed as the guid of his flock. But since the
fourth century communities of ascetics in Egypt and elsewhere (Palestine,
Syria) understood the experience of ascetic and no ordination to the supreme
criterion for the spiritual authority. Thus, with the emancipation of
experience of ascetic of the fourth century we are facing a new form of
exercise of spiritual authority in the Church. In short, it is ascetic or
monastic authority that bishops often appeal their struggles against schisms
and heresies affecting the unit of Church of century IV-V.
From this perspective, the most representative cases for how they
interacted with two types of authority are given by the relationship of
Athanasius with Abba Anthony, or the relationship of St. Cyril of
Alexandria with Abba Shenoute, the Abbot of the White Monastery.10

DRAGON, Naissance d’une capitale. Constantinopole et ses institutions de 330 à 451,

Paris, PUF, 1974; CAVALCANTI (ed.), Vescovi e pastori in epoca teodosiana, XXV
Incontro di Studiosi dell’antichità cristiana. Studia Ephemerides Augustinianum 58, 2 vol.,
Rome: Institutum Patristicum Augustinianum, 1997.
8
In the century IV-V, the theory of succession apostolic was used to marginalize the
theological deviations and schisms of all sorts, which means that ordination was understood
as the ultimate criterion of spiritual authority. In this context recall that in Early Byzantium,
this power to bind and loose, especially in its most extreme form of excomunication, has
become one of the most powerful weapons in the exercise of episcopal authority over
believers and political or theological opponents.
9
This opinion was expressed by D. BRAKKE in the work Athanasius and the Politics of
Ascetism, Oxford University Press, 1995, p. 16. For a similar view, see also S. ELM,
“Virgins of God”. The Making of Ascetism in Late Antiquity, Oxford University Press,
1994, p. 11. We known attempt of St. Athanasius to include ascetic movement (hermitic or
cenobitic) in the institutional Church. In this way the authority of monks – whose holiness
was a milestone in the theological and ecclesiastical issues – were made of the Alexandrian
bishop to serve its primary objective, namely the achievement of a united church.
10
Exegetes say that St. Athanasius and St. Cyril are the most remarkable ecclesiastical
figures who fought to maintain the alliance between monks and bishops in the Church. For
166
 And, indeed, both St. Athanasius and Cyril were aware of this silent
power ascetic movement, highly attractive to the masses of Christians, so
that the two Alexandrian bishops have tried to engage the ascetics a
“strategy of inclusion” (D. Brakke) in those very heated dispute with Arius,
respectively Nestorius.
Thus, the relationship between the church of hierarchy and ascetics
was (re)negotiated depending on the historical circumstances in which the
two interacted authorities in the Church. For example, the description that
makes St. Athanasius in the biography of Abba Anthony have had both a
social and political role (the involvement ascetic prestige of saint in the
condemning the Arian heresy) and one theological (the Christian saint as a
model worthy of imitation for every believer).
Similarly, Cyril will use the prestige enjoyed by Abba Shenoute in
dispute with Nestorius at the Council of Ephesus (431).
Thus, an important aspect of cyrillian theology has to do with
extremely close ties that Alexandrian bishop has had to monasticism. Let us
remember that young Cyril spent about five years with nitriots monks in
desert,11 and after his election as bishop, he called at the Alexandria nearly
five hundred monks of the desert to assist in its attempt to impose its
authority dispute with the prefect Orestes.12
The most significant moment for how Cyril worked with the
monasticism we believe it was his relationship with Shenoute of Atripe,
especially the Council of Ephesus (431).13

example, W. Griggs says that the strategies and tactics of St. Athanasius were, in many
ways, renewed during the episcopate of Cyril, so we can say that Cyril was a faithful
follower of St. Athanasius (see W. GRIGGS, Early Egyptian Christianity from its Origins
to 451 CE, Brill, Leiden, 2000).
11
“... from an early age I was taught by the Orthodox Fathers” (see Epistola 1,3). These
“Holy Fathers” could be that his uncle Theophilus, Didymus of the Blind (d. 398) and those
teachers of Alexandria (didaskaloi), but as well the phrase could refer to ascetics of Nitria
and Kellia, such Macarius of Alexandrian, Evagrius Ponticus and Ammonius.
12
Exegetes say that St. Athanasius and St. Cyril are the most remarkable ecclesiastical
figures who fought to maintain the alliance between monks and bishops in within Church.
The tactics and strategies of St. Athanasius were in many ways renewed during the
episcopate of Cyril. Also, this happened not only in doctrinal issues, but also in political or
social ones. Thus, St. Cyril is characterized by Frend as a bishop who tried to attract the
monks against his opponents, such as pagans and Jews of Alexandria (see FREND, The
Rise of the Monophysite Movement, 2008, p. 16).
13
The collaboration between St. Cyril and Shenoute will lead ultimately to victory and
affirmation Cyrillian theology at the Council of Ephesus (cf. FREND, op. cit., p. 138-139).

167
2. The relationship of St. Cyril (the episcopal authority) with Shenoute
(the ascetic authority)
Shenoute is the most famous Coptic monk14 in the second period of
Egyptian monasticism, but the importance of this spiritual leader was
ignored by classic texts.15
Shenoute rose to prominence when Alexandria was one of the most
important cities in the Mediterranean world and its patriarch had become
one of the most powerful church leaders. He was involved in the
controversies of his day, even traveling to the ecumenical Council of
Ephesus in 431 to defend Alexandrian theology in the christological
controversy.16 His numerous writings appeared only a century after Coptic
emerged as a normalized language. As the first great author in Coptic,
Shenoute was never surpassed for his literary contribution as a prolific
author and for applying the principles of Alexandrian theology and Greek
rhetoric to Egyptian monasticism.17 Why, then, is Shenoute’s name virtually
unknown, and why are his life and writings largely ignored by studies of
antiquity? Shenoute’s absence from the Greek and Latin sources that
dominate the study of Egypt in Late Antiquity is one reason for his
obscurity. Also, after the Council of Chalcedon in 451, Egyptian
Christianity separated from Catholic Christianity, and so from the future of
either Catholicism in the West or Orthodoxy in Byzantium. But even within
the African Monophysite context, Shenoute’s writings, which were copied
by monks in the monastery for centuries after his death, eventually ceased to
be transmitted, even as the remaining manuscripts fell into disuse and
decay.18 Coptic had ceased to be a living language by about 1000 CE, and
Shenoute’s works, which are rhetorically elaborate and difficult to read,
14
Shenoute’s life is the only text that has been preserved in acceptable conditions, and this
text is attributed to Besa, the disicple and successor at the head of the White Monastery.
15
Shenoute’s writings consist of two groups of texts: Canons, i.e a set of nine collections of
letters to the monks who were under his spiritual guidance and speeche (logoi), i.e a set of
public sermons that he kept Shenoute as the Abbot of the White Monastery. Unfortunately,
these writings have been preserved only in a form very damaged and very difficult to
decipher, so we have until now no critical edition and much less translated. In any case,
catechesis, his speeches and sermons of Shenoute allowed to maintain a cultural tradition of
Egyptian monasticism, and for this reason he was regarded, rightly, one of the brilliant
writers of Coptic literature.
16
In addition to traveling with Cyril, Shenoute had contact with Timothy I, Theophilus,
Dioscurus, and “probably also Timothy II” in Alexandria (EMMEL, “Corpus” 4–5). One
ripe area of research is the relationship between Shenoute and the ecclesiastical authorities
in Egypt. It is clear that Shenoute supported Alexandrian theology in the various disputes of
the fourth and fifth century, but beyond that not much is known.
17
EMMEL, “Corpus” 2, in STEPHEN EMMEL, “Shenoute’s Literary Corpus” (Ph.D.
diss., Yale University, 1993).
18
See EMMEL, “Corpus” 14–15.
168
were understandably neglected as middle Arabic became the literary vehicle
of Christianity in Egypt. The recent publication of an English translation of
the hagiographic life of Shenoute has helped revive his name among
historians of Christianity.19 His own writings, however, remain in disarray
and, for the most part, unknown and even inaccessible to historians of
ancient Christianity and indeed even to Coptic monks who continue to live
in the White Monastery today.20
The study of ancient history is often intertwined with technical
questions of documentation and nowhere is that more true than the current
state of study on Shenoute. The historian encounters two enormous
problems when studying Shenoute’s works. First, there is no critical edition
of any of Shenoute’s writings, of which many remain unpublished.
Shenoute collected his literary works to be transmitted in two large units: (1)
nine collections (Canons) of letters, which he wrote either to the whole
monastery, to the men’s or women’s communities, or to individuals; and (2)
public sermons (Discourses, or Logoi), which he preached throughout his
tenure as archimandrite of the White Monastery.21
Thus, Shenoute of Atripe (348-464), the Abbot of the White
Monastery22 remains one of the most revered figures in the Coptic Church.
Shenoute’s biography allows us to make some considerations on the
relationship of Coptic monasticism and clerical caste, especially
ecclesiastical hierarchy. A first observation can be made in the monastic
respect for hierarchical authoriy and respect which best reflects the reason

19
BESA, The Life of Shenoute, introd., trans., and notes by David N. Bell, Kalamazoo,
Mich: Cistercian Publications, 1983.
20
These monks have only returned to the White Monastery in recent years as part of the
Coptic Orthodox Church’s effort to repopulate its historical spaces.
21
STEPHEN EMMEL (“Corpus” 104) has reconstructed the transmission and structure of
the Canons and Discourses. The name “Canon” derives from the appellation in the
manuscripts themselves; “Discourse” is Emmel’s preferred translation but others use the
Greek “Logoi” to refer to these collections. My work is based entirely on letters from the
Canons. My corpus of thirteen letters depends on Emmel’s reconstruction, most notably
Canon 2. Emmel assigns English titles to Shenoute’s works, based on the incipit of the
complete text.
22
The White Monastery was located near the Western wall of the Nile Valley, 250 miles
south of Cairo and about 90 miles north of Luxor. The nearest modern village is Sohag,
which lies across the river from Achmin (ancient Shmin). In the fourth and fifth centuries it
was in the Panopolite nome, with a metropolis of Panopolis. The complex of monastery
buildings does not survive intact and the site, which is located at the edge of the desert, has
not yet been fully excavated. The church building still stands and its fortress-like structure
suggested a militaristic interpretation to Johannes Leipoldt. Its white walls are the source of
the modern name of the monastery.
169
for obedience.23
Thus, we see Shenoute’s life at a time ripe the Abbot wants to avoid
a meeting with a bishop, but thanks to a miraculous intervention of God he
changes his mind and stops to talk to the bishop in question.24 Message sent
by Besa is clear: the invitation monks to listen and respect the ecclesiastical
hierarchy, obedience, he practiced it himself.
Thus, the life in Shenoute’s monastery resembled one in the
Pachomian system,25 so that the shenoutian’s monasticism is a crucial
development from the first period of Egyptian monasticism as he reflects on
the Life of Antony or Pachomius.26
In other words, Shenoute was ordained a monk, so that he
celebrated the eucharist in church, guided the monastic community under
his care, but at the same time was open to the laity.
From this perspective, we admit together with F. Vecoli that both
Cyril as bishop of Alexandria and Shenoute of Atripe, the central figure of
the fifth century of Coptic monasticism, have stepped up efforts to assert
their predecessors Christian uniformity Egypt in the fifth century.27
Like other Christian leaders of late antiquity, Shenoute was involved

23
In this context we mention that the White Monastery is placed during the development of
monasticism as an institution (V century). If monasticism in Anthony’s time in the
foreground is very personal relationship between an Abba and his disciples at the Shenoute
of Atripe this personal relationship was replaced with the performance of spiritual leader, as
the abbot who manages a written Rule. In short, the Rule has replaced the personal
relationship between a specific Abba and his disciples desert with more general guidance of
Abbot administering a rule written in a monastery. Natural consequence of the
institutionalization of this program was the emphasis on the virtue of obedience (see, in this
sense, his argument of P. BROWN in Power and Persuasion in Late Antiquity: Towards a
Christian Empire, Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1992, p. 140). And, indeed, the
rule and institutionalization program of monasticism in which she was part is affected
monasticism in different ways, but the most profound change is reflected in the way
authoritarian figure became monastic type other than Abba or Old Man. Now, the supreme
authority has become the Rule, so that the capacity of cenobitic monastery function as an
“institution” to support the monks adherence to common rules.
24
The Life of Shenoute 71.
25
For a reconstruction of daily life in Shenoute’s monastery, see REBECCA KRAWIEC,
Shenoute and the Women of the White Monastery, New York: oxford University Press,
2002.
26
See BROWN, Power and Persuasion in Late Antiquity: Towards a Christian Empire,
University of Wisconsin Press, 1992, p.140–41, for a portrayal of Shenoute as civic patron;
see also DAVID BRAKKE, Athanasius and the Politics of Asceticism (Oxford University
Press, 1995), p. 208–13, for Anthony as spiritual patron; Besa makes Shenoute’s deeds
more a spiritual patronage by associating charity, hospitality, and so forth with Shenoute’s
mystic abilities.
27
F. VECOLI, Lo Spirito soffia nel deserto. Carismi, discernimento e autorita nel
monachesimo egiyiano antico, Morcelliana, Brescia, 2006, p. 169.
170
in civic affairs in his vicinity.28 His role in the non-monastic community has
interested scholars of Egypt in late antiquity, but his place in the
development and history of monasticism has been largely ignored29. He was
an advocate for the poor, willing to speak on their behalf to both Christian
and pagan civic leaders.30 His monastery provided bread for the hungry31
and shelter for refugees during military raids by foreigners.8 He linked
Upper Egypt to the hierarchies of Alexandria, both civil and ecclesiastical.9
He was also a violent opponent of native Egyptian religion in his area.32
Shenoute was not simply a spiritual patron, as Athanasius portrayed
Anthony, but a civic and economic one as well. In his leadership of the
monastery also, Shenoute was a man of extremes, which at times aggravated
his followers and yet did not hinder the growth of his monastic community.
28
As PETER BROWN argues in Power and Persuasion in Late Antiquity: Towards a
Christian Empire (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1992), p. 140.
29
In Power, Brown focuses on Shenoute’s role as a civic patron, as does Bowman,
although he also discusses Shenoute’s relationship with the survival of pagan practices in
the area (ALAN K. BOWMAN, Egypt after the Pharaohs, 332BC–AD 642 [Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1986], p. 51, 192, 196). Bagnall’s description of Shenoute is
one of the few that considers his role as monastic leader, though his real concern is the
character of local Egyptian peasantry: “Shenoute had serious problems controlling [his
monks]. . . . Egyptian peasants were famously given to resisting authority through sullen
avoidance and passive denial of demands placed on them” (ROGER BAGNALL, Egypt in
Late Antiquity [Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993], p. 302). The most notable
exception to Shenoute’s usual neglect in studies of monasticism is Elm’s recent work on
female monasticism in Asia Minor and Egypt (SUSANNA ELM, “Virgins of God”: The
Making of Asceticism in Late Antiquity [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994], 296–
310). Another recent exception is Cloke’s inclusion of one of Shenoute’s letters in his
analysis of the spiritual power of female ascetics in late antiquity (GILLIAN CLOKE,
“This Female Man of God”: Women and Patristic Spiritual Power in the Patristic Age, AD
350–450 [New York: Routledge, 1995], p. 202–3). Shenoute’s writings are usually only
studied by Coptologists because to date his importance lies in the complexity of his
language.
30
As a spiritual leader, Shenoute not only vehemently opposed the Egyptian pagan religion
(here the likeness with Abba Anthony remains), but he was also an economic and civic
leader (cf. P. BROWN, Power…p. 140-141). For Anthony as spiritual leader, see D.
BRAKKE, Athanasius and the Politics of Ascetism, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995,
p. 208-213. Also, in many ways the monastic of life in Shenoute’s monastery resembles in
many respects to that of Pachomian’s monasteries. Thus, St. Pachomius was not, therefore,
the only organizer of monastic communities of Egyptian ascetic, becuase Shenoute
developed a similar organization a pachomian system within the White Monastery. For a
reconstruction of daily life in the Monastery of Shenoute, see REBECCA KRAWIEC,
Shenoute and the Women of the White Monastery, Oxford University Press, 2002.
31
According to Besa’s description, these acts of charity were also occasionally
accompanied by miracles. See BESA, Life of Shenoute, trans. David Bell (Kalamazoo,
Mich.: Cistercian, 1983), p. 138–43, 144–50. Reference is to sections of the work, not page
numbers.
32
BESA, Life …, p. 89–90, 107–8, 135–37.
171
 Shenoute is a difficult figure to assess. Armand Veilleux, an expert
on Pachomian literature, reads Shenoute in the darkest terms: as
“authoritarian, harsh, and violent”; as one “whose spirituality, lacking any
mystical dimension, his best specialist (J. Leipoldt) describes as <Christ-
less>”; as “a volcano in perpetual eruption”.33 This assessment seems
imbalanced, if not unfair, in light of recent research. We mention many
times that Shenoute was seen by commentators as being similar Vetero-
Testament prophets, namely he was likened to the prophet Elijah, one of the
most violent opponents of the cult of Baal.34
John McGuckin has suggested that Shenoute was seen by Besa, his
biographer, as a prophet like Elijah. Thus, according to John McGuckin “the
archetypal biblical prophet, who attack the priests of Baal, is undoubtedly
the biography of Shenoute and probably based on his own understanding of
monasticism”.35 In Old Testament narratives, Elijah is portrayed not only as
a prophet and wonder worker, but also as a violent opponent of the cult of
Baal. According to McGuckin, “This biblical archetype of the wonder-
working prophet who was jealous for the honor of his God and thus attacked
the priests of Baal undoubtedly is behind much of Shenoute’s hagiography
and likely behind most of his own understanding of the monastic state and
his own place within it”.36 Recent research indicates that Besa’s view
reflects Shenoute’s self-understanding. Shenoute saw himself as a divinely
appointed prophet, a “suffering servant”, and a medium both of God’s
33
Veilleux, preface to DAVID N. BELL, BESA, The Life of Shenoute, CS 73, Kalamazoo,
Mich. Cistercian Publications, 1983, V and XI.
34
For perception of Shenoute as a prophet – his Letters of Shenoute, concerning Shenoute’s
spiritual authority as a prophetic nature – and holy man, gifted with powers and charismata
unique, see R. KRAWIEC, op. cit., p. 55-56. Thus, Shenoute of Atripe falls into the
category of holy man of Late Antiquity, i.e the spiritual leader in terms of P. Brown, acting
both as a spiritual patron and civic patron for the wider community of belivers. A fact less
explored in specialized exegesis should consider one of the reasons that extend the
authority outside the monastery during this period due the reduction of ecclesiastical
authority in the wider secular world. If spiritual authority consists in a set of spiritual
charismata that monk acquires from an ascetic labor, together with D. Brake admit that the
status quo was not always honored at the episcopal throne (cf. D. BRAKKE, op. cit., 1995,
p. 62). This inevitably lead to some tensions in terms of acting as a spiritual father of the
faithful practice of spiritual guidance, tension has become acute since the days of St.
Athanasius of Great. Moreover, the conflict between Arius ans Athanasius embodies the
old tension between traditional “academic” charismatic teacher and tradition of “church” as
a bishop in apostolic doctrine supervisor (cf. WILLIAMS, op.cit., 1987, p. 91).
35
JOHN MCGUCKIN, “Shenoute of Atripe”, în Encycopledia of Monasticism, ed. William
W. Johnston, Chicago, 2000, 2:II61.
36
JOHN MCGUCKIN, “Shenoute of Atripe”, in Encyclopedia of Monasticism, ed. William
W. Johnston, Chicago, 2000, 2:II61. See, also M. DUNN, The Emmergence of
Monasticism. From the Desert Fathers to the Early Middle Ages, Blackwell, 2000, p. 33-
34.
172
message and of God’s judgment.37
Shenoute did more than preach against paganism. He and his monks
moved about the countryside as a sort of mobile wrecking crew, dismantling
old pagan temples. Other times, he and his monks would “purify” temples,
stripping them of their hieroglyphs and reconsecrating them for Christian
worship. In a sermon delivered outside an old temple, he pointed to the
ancient hieroglyphes – “the likenesses of the snakes and scorpions, the dogs
and cats, the crocodiles and frogs” – and speaks of them as “prescriptions
for murdering man’s soul”. His sermon celebrated the temple’s
reconsecration for Christian use: “At the site of a shrine to an unclean spirit,
it will henceforth be a shrine to the Holy Spirit. And at the site of sacrificing
to Satan and worshipping and fearing him, Christ will henceforth be served
there, and He will be worshipped, bowed down to and feared. And where
there are blasphemings, it is blessings and hymns that will henceforth be
there”.38
As noted R. Krawiec, many of Shenoute’s tropes for issues of
authority, monastic, unity, family, and gender reflect Paul’s own language.
That is, like other late antique Christian writers, Shenoute’s rhetoric is
infused with references to, and interpretations of, Scripture.39
In addition, both men were physically distant from the communities
they address; both sought to establish themselves as the proper moral and
religious authority to that community, often against challenges to them; both
shared a similar understanding of their closeness to God and the knowledge
that relationship affords them; both can be frustratingly obscure about the
details of the situation that has led them to write;40 and both have complex
rhetorical structures in the presentation of their authority. Finally, each man
needed a discourse to create power in his particular circumstances. Elizabeth
Castelli has compared the power Paul created through his discourse to
Foucault’s definition of “pastoral power”: a power that exists to lead
followers to salvation; in which the holder of the power is willing to
sacrifice himself for the good of the community; that addresses individuals
as well as the group; and that requires full confession of those under his
care.41
Shenoute’s power, in its goals and its functions, shares many of

37
KRAWIEC, Shenoute and the Women, p. 55-72.
38
Shenoute of Atripe, from an unedited sermon, quoted in D. FRANKFURTER, Religion
in Roman Egypt, p. 265.
39
R. KRAWIEC, op. cit., p. 7.
40
Elm has noted that “Shenoute’s language is not always as precise as we would like”
(ELM, Virgins, p. 300 n. 47).
41
ELISABETH A. CASTELLI, Imitating Paul: A Discourse of Power, Louisville:
Westminster/John Knox, 1991.
173
these same qualities and so shapes his letters much as “pastoral power”
shapes Paul’s. Shenoute of Atripe, after St. Cyril, was noted as one who has
contributed decisively to the violent dismemberment of paganism. As we
learn from his biography, Shenoute and monks of his community moved
from rural areas into major political centers in the crumbling old pagan
temples, and sometimes we see how anti-pagan religion “cleansing” by
deleting temples hieroglyphs and their dedication Christian worship. For
example, in a sermon delivered before a pagan temple, he pointed out that
the old hieroglyphs resemble snakes and scorpions, cats and dogs, the frogs
and crocodiles, talking about them as some “inscriptions to kill the soul”.
His sermon was celebrated as a Christian reconsacrate of a pagan temple, so
that he asserts that “the altar of evil spirit henceforth will be the altar of the
Holy Spirit and Satan made sacrifices will now be made to Christ”.42
Shenoute also opposed various schisms and heresies. His own
writings speak against various groups: Manichees, Melitians, Arians, and
Origenists. Scholars are not sure whether all of these were still vital groups
in his era or whether his verbal onslaughts may have targeted some who had
already faded from the scene. There were still Origenistes, apparently. We
have a letter ascribed to Dioscorus of Alexandria warning Shenoute to expel
some Origenist monk who sought shelter in Upper Egypt. Shenoute also
accompanied Cyril to the Council of Ephesus. Besa even claims that
Shenoute attacked Nestorius physically, slapping him. In his own writings,
Shenoute seems to display little mastery of the intricacies of the
Christological debate.
Shenoute rose to prominence when Alexandria was one of the most
important cities in the Mediterranean world and its patriarch had become
one of the most powerful church leaders. He was involved in the
controversies of his day, even traveling to the ecumenical Council of
Ephesus in 431 to defend Alexandrian theology in the christological
controversy.43

42
In this regard it is noteworthy that his Shenoute’s rhetoric resembles in many ways with
the St. Paul’s speech. And indeed, as some commentators have noted, Shenoute, like Paul,
are developing their speech to different circumstances have power in particular. Elisabeth
Castelli have compared, for example, the power of speech paulin with what M. Foucault
called “pastoral power” (cf. CASTELLI, Imitating Paull: A Discourse of Power, 1991).
43
In addition to traveling with Cyril, Shenoute had contact with Timothy I, Theophilus,
Dioscurus, and “probably also Timothy II” in Alexandria (EMMEL, “Corpus” 4–5). One
ripe area of research is the relationship between Shenoute and the ecclesiastical authorities
in Egypt. It is clear that Shenoute supported Alexandrian theology in the various disputes of
the fourth and fifth century, but beyond that not much is known.

174
3. The Council of Ephesus (431) or imposition of the episcopal authority
Shenoute’s long life intersected with three periods of theological
controversy in the history of the Egyptian church. His childhood and early
adulthood coincided with the final decades of the Arian Controversy and its
resolution at the Council of Constantinople in 381. Early in his tenure as
head of the White Monastery, during the last decade of the fourth century
and into the fifth, a debate over the influence of Origen’s theology raged in
bishoprics and in monastic communities throughout Egypt.44 Finally, the
last decades of his life saw the rise of the Nestorian Controversy and the
ongoing christological disagreements leading up to and following the
Council of Chalcedon in 451.45
In his sermons and treatises, Shenoute engages with each of these
controversial contexts, but it was the latter two—Origenism and
Nestorianism—that proved to be especially live issues for him in his
leadership of the White Monastery during the middle decades of the Wfth
century. During the earlier patriarchate of Theophilus of Alexandria (385–
412), Egyptian monasteries had become centres for theological debate and
division over the propriety of Origen’s more speculative writings, especially
his views on the incorporeal image of God and on the nature of
resurrection.46 Thus, while some monks embraced Origen’s views on divine
incorporeality for example, others rejected this teaching as a threat to their
daily liturgical piety, in which anthropomorphic images were used in

44
Moreover, as is well known, even during the episcopate of Teophilus (385-412) Egyptian
monasteries became centers of theological debate and the environments in which monks
were divided on the writings of Origen. Fidelity to Origen’s ideas continued to exist during
the episcopate of Cyril (412-414) and Dioscurus (444-454). In Upper Egypt, monks
origenists remained quite active even in the last decade of his life of Shenoute. For
example, in a letter of Dioscurus we see how bishop Shenoute exhorts followers to make a
treatment origenists monks of monasteries located near the city Panopolis, located to the
east of the White Monastery.
45
The third period (the last decades of his life of Shenoute) coincides with the appearance
of Nestorian controversy, or dispute the famous Cyril to Nestorius, who led the Council of
Ephesus (431).
In this sense we find sufficient evidence in the writings of Shenoute certifying that he
accompanied St. Cyril at the Council of Ephesus. In general, Egyptian monks have
responded the Trinitarian or Christological of crisis with a passionate involvement, which is
why we see Shenoute joining him St. Cyril at the Council of Ephesus (cf. The State of
Research on the Career of Shenoute, în A. BIRGER, PEARSON, The Roots of Egyptian, p.
260). This extremely close relationship between monks and bishops has its ultimate the
model in the collaboration between St. Athanasius and Abba Anthony.
46
ELIZABETH CLARK, The Origenist Controversy: The Cultural Construction of an
Early Christian Debate, Princeton Universiy Press (1992); see also S. DAVIS, Early Coptic
Papacy. The Egyptian Church and Its Leadership in Late Antiquity, The American
University in Cairo Press, 2004, p. 63–70.
175
monastic churches as visual aids in the worship of God. By the end of
Theophilus’ episcopal tenure—during which he had moved strenuously to
suppress Origenist views in the monasteries—the initial storm of the
controversy had passed. However, devotion to Origen’s ideas continued
unabated in some circles under Theophilus’ successors, Cyril (412–44) and
Dioscorus (444–54). In Upper Egypt, monks with an aYnity for Origen’s
writings remained active even during the last decade of Shenoute’s life.
Indeed, a Coptic letter written by Dioscorus survives, in which the patriarch
urges Shenoute to conduct a purge of Origenist belief in the monasteries
around the city of Panopolis (Shmin), just east of the White Monastery
across the Nile.
Shenoute’s opposition to Nestorius’ theology in his treatise, I Am
Amazed, and in his sermon, And It Happened One Day, was also motivated
by personal and local concerns connected with Shenoute’s tenure as
monastic leader. Evidence from Shenoute’s own writings confirms the fact
that Shenoute attended the Council of Ephesus (431) at which Nestorius’
theology was condemned. The hagiographical Life of Shenoute, purportedly
written by his successor Besa, preserves a colourful story that represents
Shenoute as the defender of the faith par excellence at that council. In the
Life, Shenoute approaches Nestorius, publicly rebukes him, and then
punches him in the chest to get him to sit down!.47
Thus, Besa reports that at the Synod called to repudiate Nestorianism
Shenoute attacked Nestorius, who in turn rebuked the monk: What is your
business in the presence of this synod? For to be sure you are neither a
bishop nor an archimandrite nor even an administrator, but you are a
monk”.48 Shenoute responded that he was sent by God (he is “messenger” or
“voice” of God), implying that such authority superseded any ecclesiastical
or administrative authority which men could obtain or confer.49 It was after
Shenoute's response to Nestorius, as the text continues, that Cyril laid hands
on Shenoute's head, kissed him, gave him the tokens of authority, and made

47
Life of Shenoute 128-130. Following this episode, Shenoute became perhaps the most
famous monks of the Council of Ephesus.
48
IBIDEM, p. 129.
49
Although this episode may incorrectly in all its details, we believe that it shows how the
two types of authority, the ascetic, respectively ecclesiastical have interacted within the
Council of Ephesus. Moreover, if before he could talk to some tension between the two
authorities, the gesture of Cyril was undoubtedly some major effects in the ambiguous
relationship between the authority of monk and bishop. One of the major effects was the
fact that he set the tone for mutual cooperation of ascetics and bishops in promoting of
Nicene orthodoxy, and thus a divided by schisms and heresies of Church. We do not think
it’s no coincidence that monks will perform a wide henceforth influence bishops, and this
we can deduce of eloquent massive of presence archimandrits at the Council of Chalcedon
(Cf. WIPSZYCKA 1996, p. 281-336).
176
him archimandrite on the spot. Although the action may have been
performed as an immediate response to the monk's attack on Nestorius,
there can be no doubt that it had the further effect of bringing the powerful
monk and the monasteries which responded to his charisma and leadership
into a closer relationship to the ecclesiastical organization and its equally
powerful leader.
This narrative account of Shenoute’s role at that gathering is
probably apocryphal, but it may have embellished upon a particular detail in
Shenoute’s own writings. In I Am Amazed, Shenoute reports on Nestorius’
failure to ‘stand firm at all against the synod that took place in Ephesus
under the blessed and God-loving bishops’.50 I Am Amazed was probably
written around the year 445, in the aftermath of Nestorius’ condemnation at
the Council of Ephesus, but before the Council of Chalcedon. Shenoute’s
sermon, And It Happened One Day was probably composed a decade later,
around the year 455. In that sermon, Shenoute’s opposition to Nestorius’
Christology may have been motivated by a new concern: the recent physical
proximity of Nestorius himself. After his condemnation at the Council of
Ephesus (431), Nestorius was exiled to the Kharga Oasis, which lies only
170 km south-west of the White Monastery in the Western Desert, and
while in exile he almost certainly spent time in transit in the Nile Valley
around Panopolis.51 Shenoute preached his sermon, And It Happened One
Day, sometime after Nestorius’ death in exile (c.453). Even as Shenoute
quotes and condemns Nestorius’ writings in this text, he seems intent on
silencing his voice and relegating him to the grave: thus, Nestorius is
described as the one ‘whose tongue has swollen’ and ‘who died in exile’.52
Further evidence that each leader was quite autonomous in his own
realm is contained in the account of Cyril inviting Shenoute to attend a
service in Alexandria. The abbot at first refused to go, and finally was
persuaded only by the threat of damnation and excommunication extended
by the bishop. He then made a perfunctory visit north and quickly returned
to his monasteries.53
Thus, Shenoute was also anti-Neslorian, and Cyril asked him to
accompany the bishop's entourage to the Council of Ephesus in 431.
Although the monks who accompanied Cyril effectively represented the
Alexandrian cause which saw Nestorius deposed, a curious tale is given by
Besa concerning the return journey. He relates that Cyril's servants would
not allow the monk to go aboard the ship to go home, and the abbot had to

50
SHENOUTE, I am Amazed 464, apud GRIGGS, op.cit., p. 63.
51
EMMEL, Shenoute’s Literary Corpus, 10, apud GRIGGS, op.cit., p. 63.
52
SHENOUTE, And It Happened One Day 84, apud GRIGGS, op.cit., p. 63.
53
IBIDEM, 70-72.
177
depend on a miraculous means of getting to Egypt, which God fortunately
provided.54 This suggestion that some difficulty existed between Shenoule
and the bishop is especially strange, since most evidence indicates strong
support of one for the other. It almost appears from this account (possibly
not correct in details) that Cyril's association with Shenoute is based
primarily upon the usefulness of the monastic power in the bishop's
programs.
As noted W. Griggs “The monasteries were beginning to resemble
the Church in organization and doctrinal definition, but the reticence for the
monastic communities to embrace the Church fully is still evident in the
fifth century”.55
Shenoute's influence in the monastic movement is best illustrated by
the power and prestige he enjoyed in the world about him. Shenoute was not
only Abbot of White Monastery, but also the time he acquired great fame
and authority and outside the monastery, becoming one of the landmarks of
reference for the region. In short, he was like other religious leaders actively
involved in affairs of community both ascetic and in the non-ascetic.
Monks and laity came to him, rather than to the bishop, to receive
counsel and blessings. Besa also recounts a visit to the monastery by a
senator. An account with miraculous elements is given, stating that
Shenoute received a letter from the Emperor Theodosius inviting him to
travel to Constantinople. Shenoute did not wish to go, but was transported to
the capital in vision and visited with the emperor before being returned to
Egypt. Generals on their way to war stopped at the monastery for the
archimandrite's blessing, according to Besa, and when captives were in the
area near the monasteries Shenoute tells how much food and assistance was
given to them. Allowing for exaggeration in amounts of food dispensed and
inflation in the economy, the point is made that the monasteries were seen as
a major part of Egyptian society by the fifth century, so that groups as well
as individuals could turn to them for assistance. One can understand easily
why Cyril, who was autocratic and overbearing in the Church, needed to
cultivate a good relationship with his equally autocratic and violent
counterpart in the burgeoning monastic system. According to W. Griggs, “If
Shenoute had been as gentle as Pachomius, the Church may have
completely absorbed the monasteries in the time of Cyril, but a close
association was all that could be achieved by the time of Chalcedon”.56
In the later sessions of Chalcedon, the bishops voted agreement to
canons which would subordinate the monastic movement even more to the

54
IBIDEM, 17-21.
55
GRIGGS, op.cit., p. 200.
56
W. GRIGGS, op.cit., p. 201.
178
rule of the bishops. No monasteries could be built without consent from the
diocesan bishop, monks were to be subject to their bishops, and they were
not to enlist fugitive slaves as monks. 309 The purpose of these enactments,
states Frend, was to strengthen the authority of the episcopal government
against the growing power of the monks.310 When one remembers the role
of the monks in assisting the Alexandrian bishop achieve his conciliar aims,
especially Shenoute in the Council of Ephesus in 431 and the Syrian monks
in the so-called Latrocinium of 449, an additional dimension is added to the
canons of Chalcedon, so that “Monasticism was clearly a formidable power
which must be tethered by the very ecclesiastical authority it might
otherwise overcome”.57
In short, meanwhile, within Egypt monasticism was organized more
authoritatively than before under an autocratic and violent leader, Shenoute.
Well beyond the entreaties of Athanasius to the monks in his Festal letters to
hold fast to the Catholic canon and doctrines were the activities of Shenoute,
who aggressively attacked the heterodox and pagan elements yet remaining
within Egyptian monasticism, and Christianity in general. The friendship of
Shenoute with the equally autocratic bishop of Alexandria, Cyril, further
cemented the bond of the monastic movement which was intensely loyal to
Shenoute, to the ecclesiastical Church.58
This episod embodied the old tension between the ‘academic’
tradition of the charismatic spiritual teacher and the ‘catholic’ tradition of
the episcopal guardian of apostolic doctrine (Williams 1987: 91), so that we
deal with the increasingly monarchical role of the bishop of Alexandria.
With Cyril all administrative and teaching authority is finally
concentrated in the hands of the hierarch: the ‘academic’ tradition of the
Alexandrian spiritual teachers is absorbed into the ‘catholic’ tradition of the
successor of the apostles.

Conclusions
This study aims to highlight the essential role that was played St. Cyril (the
episcopal authority) and Shenoute of Atripe (the ascetic authority) in the
conciliar debates of century V.
Thus, the relationship between Alexandrian bishop and abbot of the
White Monastery involved among other engagement of the monastic
authority in the strategy of St. Cyril. In addition to attracting monks against
pagans and Jews of Alexandria, at the height of cooperation between the
two authorities is reached in the Council of Ephesus (as we have seen,
Shenoute attacked Nestorius in the Council of Ephesus).

57
IBIDEM, p. 209.
58
IBIDEM, p. 230.
179
 Furthermore, we believe that the gesture of St. Cyril ordains
Shenoute as Archimandrite have generated a number of effects on
subsequent relationship between monasticism and Alexandrian episcopate.
The most obvious effect is to approximate authority of monastery and monk
of the ecclesiastical hierarchy and also of its leader Cyril. Shenoute’s
influence is best illustrated by the power and prestige he enjoyed in the
monastic world and beyond its. Monks and laymen rather he came for
advice and blessings than the bishop. Moreover, in the IV-V century, the
authority of monk was directly responsible for the spiritual guidance of
monks and laity. In any case, his friendship of Shenoute with autocrat of
Alexandrian bishop, further cimented the relationship between monastic
movement – which was intensely loyal to Shenoute – and ecclesiastical
hierarchy. This fact prompted Griggs to conclude that the strategy of the
monks of St. Athanasius in the fourth century was renewed during the
episcopate of Cyril.59
Moreover, since St.Cyril the roles of charismatic monk and
ecclesiastical oficiant met a single person, namely the Alexandrian bishop.
According to N. Russell, with St. Cyril, the Alexandrian tradition followed a
new path in terms of the fifth century of christological disputes, and this
way is directly related to the increasing growth of the central role of the
bishop of Alexandria.
Therefore, from St. Cyril entire administrative and teaching of
authority was concentrated in the hands the Alexandrine hierarch, finally.
In short, the traditional “academic” of spiritual teacher from
Alexandria, and the authority of monk (represented by Shenoute of Atripe)
was absorbed by the tradition of “church” successor of apostles, that the
episcopal authority.
Therefore, we believe that with St. Athanasius, St. Cyril of
Alexandria was one of the bishops who had a theological strategy regarding
unification of the Alexandrian Church, and this strategy has used it in the
most obvious way possible in the Council of Ephesus (431). If monasticism
emerged as a movement that tended to separate from the official Church, as
wee seen, the tehology of St. Cyril was the sign realization concrete of
successive efforts Alexandrian bishops to bring effective monasticism not
only theoretically under their control. Thus, while Cyril was not the greatest
bishop of Alexandria, it marks the end of an era and the beginning of
another era. In short, it is a gradual increase of an Alexandrian bishop’s role

59
It seems that sometimes the Alexandrian bishops have used various practices (the most
famous of them being the ordinationof monks) in order to ensure a close link between the
Church and monasticism and in order to minimize the tendency of theology has become an
movement of independent and non-ecclesiastical.
180
in theological debates of all kinds. In this context, the collaboration between
St. Cyril and Shenoute will eventually lead to victory and afirmation
Cyrillians theology at the Council of Ephesus. But the importance of
Shenoute in the Christological disputes greatly increased when Alexandria
became one of the most important centers of the Mediterranean world and
its bishop one of the important leaders of the Church.
All that remained was for strong and autocratic personalities to arise
in both the monastic and ecclesiastical realms of Christianity, and the early
undifferentiated Christian religion of Egypt would face a certain demise.
The two leaders did arise, in the person of Cyril for the church and of
Shenoute for the monks. The final act leading to the establishment of a
national church was about to take place.

181