Pope John I

Overview

Pope John I, surnamed Hemula, was a saint and the twenty-ninth patriarch of the See of Saint Mark, holding office from 494 to 503. Before becoming patriarch, he had been a monk of the Monastery of Saint Macarius, also identified in the sources as Dayr Anba Maqar. His feast day is 4 Bashans.¹²

The surviving account supplied here emphasizes two features of his patriarchate: the growing importance of desert monasteries in the selection of Alexandrian patriarchs, and the distinction between opposition to the Council of Chalcedon and the conditions imposed for ecclesiastical communion. John was firmly anti-Chalcedonian, yet he did not require a formal condemnation of Chalcedon from Christians who accepted Emperor Zeno’s Henoticon.³⁵

History and origins

Monastic background

John’s connection with Saint Macarius is stated both in his encyclopedia biography and in the chronological table of patriarchs, which records his provenance as “Anba Maqar.” The biography describes him as a former monk of that monastery and presents his accession as marking the beginning of a movement toward selecting patriarchs from desert monasteries rather than from the learned clergy of Alexandria.³⁴

That characterization concerns a change in the source of patriarchal leadership, but it requires some qualification when compared with the chronological table. The same table gives “Anba Maqar” as the provenance of Cyril of Alexandria, whose patriarchate it dates to 412–444, well before John’s. Consequently, the biographical statement should not be expanded into an unqualified claim that John was the first Alexandrian patriarch with a connection to Saint Macarius; the supplied sources do not explain precisely how the earlier connection relates to the change attributed to John.³⁹

Accession and chronological setting

John followed Athanasius II, the twenty-eighth patriarch, whose tenure is dated to 488–494. He was succeeded by John II in 503. The patriarchal table places John I’s entire tenure within the reign of Emperor Anastasius, dated there to 491–518.⁴

The account of Athanasius II provides a limited picture of the period immediately preceding John. It describes Athanasius’s reign as uneventful and quotes the History of the Patriarchs as saying that there was “no disorder or persecution in the holy church” during his days. The encyclopedia cautiously suggests that the confusion associated with Chalcedon had subsided by that time; John’s own entry nevertheless shows that divisions over the terms of communion remained unresolved during his patriarchate.¹⁰⁵

These accounts concern different aspects of church life rather than necessarily contradicting one another. The report of relative peace under Athanasius does not amount to a statement that doctrinal divisions had disappeared, while the account of John specifically identifies the continuing schism of the Acephaloi.¹⁰⁵

Gifts for Saint Macarius

According to the History of the Patriarchs, as summarized in John’s encyclopedia entry, he secured gifts of wheat, wine, and oil for his former monastery from Emperor Zeno. This is the principal practical action attributed to him in the supplied biography, linking his personal monastic background with material assistance to Saint Macarius.³

The chronology of this assistance must be distinguished from the dates of his patriarchate. The entry dates Zeno’s reign to 474–491 and John’s patriarchate to 494–503; on those dates, assistance obtained from Zeno preceded John’s accession. The passage does not specify when the gifts were secured or John’s position at the time, so they cannot securely be described as a transaction undertaken while he was patriarch.¹³

Theology and meaning

Opposition to Chalcedon and the terms of communion

The encyclopedia explicitly describes John as “firmly anti-Chalcedonian.” At the same time, it states that he remained in communion with those who accepted Zeno’s Henoticon without imposing a formal anathema on Chalcedon. His policy therefore distinguished his own opposition to the council from the additional declarations he required of others as a condition of communion.⁵

This distinction is central to understanding the account. John’s willingness to maintain communion is not presented as acceptance of Chalcedon. Instead, the entry describes an anti-Chalcedonian patriarch who accepted the Henoticon as a basis for continuing relations without demanding an explicit condemnation of the council from every party involved.⁵

The supplied passage characterizes the Henoticon as conciliatory but does not reproduce its text. It therefore establishes John’s practical stance toward its adherents without providing enough material for a detailed account of the document’s doctrinal wording or of John’s own theological formulations.⁵

The continuing division of the Acephaloi

John’s approach did not reconcile all opponents of Chalcedon. The encyclopedia connects his refusal to require a formal anathema with the persistence of the Acephaloi schism. It describes this group as bitterly hostile to Chalcedon and opposed to the conciliatory character of Zeno’s Henoticon.⁵

The disagreement was thus not simply between supporters and opponents of Chalcedon. In the account provided, John and the Acephaloi both opposed the council, but they differed over whether the Henoticon offered an acceptable basis for communion. Their shared opposition did not produce agreement about how reconciliation should be pursued or what explicit condemnations it required.⁵

The entry also explains that the Acephaloi received their name because they had no conspicuous leader. That explanation concerns the group’s leadership, whereas the immediate reason given for its continued separation under John concerns his policy toward the Henoticon and anathemas against Chalcedon.⁵

Connected figures and historical developments

John II: a relative and successor

John’s successor, John II, surnamed Niciota, was his relative and had been a hermit and monk of the Enaton monastery. His patriarchate is dated to 503–515. The account does not specify the degree of kinship between the two patriarchs.⁶

John II took a stronger position than John I in expecting an anathema against Chalcedon from those with whom he was in communion. The comparison makes the distinctive feature of John I’s policy especially clear: the difference lay in the explicit condemnation demanded as a condition of communion, rather than in a reported acceptance of Chalcedon by John I.⁵⁶

The successor’s experience also shows the difficulties surrounding this question. John II did not obtain the desired condemnation from Constantinople, whose patriarch Timothy is described as taking one position at home and another through his representatives in Alexandria. John II’s tolerance of that discrepancy displeased Severus of Antioch, with whom he exchanged letters in 512. These later events belong to John II’s patriarchate, but they illustrate the continuing dispute over communion requirements after John I’s tenure.⁶

Distinguishing other figures named John

The Alexandrian John I must be distinguished from the Pope John I mentioned in the account of Emperor Justin. That pope visited Constantinople in 526 as an emissary of Theodoric the Ostrogoth and was permitted to crown the emperor. The episode falls after the Alexandrian John I’s recorded patriarchate of 494–503 and is not an event in his career.⁴⁷

He is also distinct from Saint John, bishop of Armant. The encyclopedia’s saints list identifies John I as a patriarch commemorated on 4 Bashans, while the bishop of Armant is commemorated on 7 Kiyahk. The separate names, offices, and feast days should be preserved rather than combining their biographies.²⁸

Liturgical commemoration and terminology

The direct evidence for John’s liturgical remembrance is his feast on 4 Bashans. The encyclopedia’s saints list identifies him as a fifth-century patriarch of Alexandria; the more detailed chronological table dates his tenure to 494–503, extending across the end of the fifth century into the beginning of the sixth.²⁴

Several names and terms are important for reading the account:

• Hemula is the surname supplied for John I.¹
• Dayr Anba Maqar is the name given alongside the Monastery of Saint Macarius, his former monastery.³
• Henoticon denotes Zeno’s conciliatory document, acceptance of which John treated as compatible with continued communion without a formal anathema against Chalcedon.⁵
• Acephaloi identifies the group whose opposition to both Chalcedon and the Henoticon’s conciliatory approach sustained its separation during John’s patriarchate; the entry explains the name by the absence of a conspicuous leader.⁵

Taken together, the passages preserve a compact but distinctive account of John: a monastic patriarch remembered as a saint, a benefactor of Saint Macarius, and an anti-Chalcedonian church leader whose approach to communion did not satisfy the stricter demands of the Acephaloi. His successor’s stronger requirement for an explicit anathema further clarifies the particular ecclesiastical policy associated with his tenure.¹²³⁵⁶