Pope Matthew I

Overview

Pope Matthew I was the eighty-seventh patriarch of the See of Saint Mark, holding office from 1378 to 1409. Better known as Matta al-Miskin, or Matthew the Poor, he came from Bani Ruh in the district of al-Ashmunayn in Upper Egypt. The Coptic Encyclopedia identifies his feast day as 7 Kiyakh, while its list of saints describes him as an ascetic and a fourteenth- to fifteenth-century patriarch of Alexandria.¹²

His biography brings together several distinct aspects of his life: a childhood in an agricultural household, an early commitment to monastic life, priestly service, journeys to monasteries and Jerusalem, and a patriarchate involving both internal church disputes and relations with Muslim rulers. The account also preserves stories in which his conduct or apparent foreknowledge was understood as evidence of holiness.^3811121315

History and origins

Family and childhood in Upper Egypt

Matthew was born into a family of limited means whose occupation was agriculture. As a boy, he looked after his parents’ sheep. His later monastic life initially continued this familiar work rather than immediately replacing it with a different form of service.³⁵

The biographical account presents his religious inclination as evident in childhood. It recounts that he played at ecclesiastical ceremonies, assigning other children the ranks of deacon and presbyter, laying hands on them, and pronouncing axios, meaning “worthy,” three times. This is described as a childhood game, not as an actual conferral of clerical orders.⁴

The encyclopedia explicitly compares the story with an episode concerning the young Athanasius I, the Apostolic, who was discovered by Alexander I baptizing other children on the seashore. The comparison places Matthew’s childhood story alongside an earlier patriarchal narrative in which religious activity among children foreshadowed a subsequent ecclesiastical vocation.⁴

Entry into monastic life

At fourteen, Matthew left home for one of the neighboring monasteries in Upper Egypt. There he continued as a shepherd, caring for the monastery’s sheep. Those who knew him reportedly admired both his courage and what they understood as his spiritual ability to keep wild animals and hyenas from harming the flock.⁵

The account describes his outward simplicity in concrete terms: he wore little clothing and used a plain rope as a girdle. It also records an unusual response to unwanted admiration. When a girl praised his eyebrows, he shaved them off and presented them to her while pretending to be mad, with the stated purpose of discouraging her attention.⁶

These episodes emphasize different dimensions of his early religious character. His care for the flock is associated with courage and spiritual protection, while the story of the eyebrows portrays a deliberately unsettling rejection of personal admiration. Both belong to the biography’s presentation of Matthew before his elevation to the patriarchate.⁵⁶

Priesthood and the bishop’s judgment

Matthew’s bishop recognized his qualities and ordained him to the priesthood at the age of eighteen. When criticized for ordaining someone so young, the bishop answered that Matthew was suited not merely to the priesthood but also to the patriarchate. The account thus introduces an explicit anticipation of his later office at the beginning of his clerical life.⁷

The bishop’s name is not given in the supplied account. Its emphasis rests instead on his discernment of Matthew’s fitness for ministry and his defense of the young priest against criticism.⁷

Saint Antony’s monastery, Jerusalem, and Qusqam

After becoming a priest, Matthew went to the Monastery of Saint Antony, identified in the encyclopedia as Dayr Anba Antuniyus. There he concealed his priestly status and acted as a deacon. The episode distinguishes the office he had received from the less prominent role he chose to perform within the monastery.⁸

After a period in that wilderness, he traveled to Jerusalem. His time there was devoted to ardent prayer, fasting, and service to others. On returning to Egypt, he headed for Qusqam and the Monastery of Our Lady. The surviving extract breaks off during this part of the narrative, but the patriarchal chronology separately records his provenance as al-Muharraq.⁸⁹

The patriarchate, 1378–1409

Place in the succession

The patriarchal table lists Matthew as number eighty-seven, following Gabriel IV, whose tenure is given as 1370–1378, and preceding Gabriel V, whose tenure is given as 1409–1427. Both Gabriel IV and Matthew are assigned an al-Muharraq provenance; Gabriel V is listed as coming from Qalamun.⁹

The dates in the table agree with the encyclopedia’s principal biographical entry: Matthew’s patriarchate extended from the late fourteenth century into the opening years of the fifteenth. His immediate predecessor and successor provide the chronological frame for his administration, although the supplied extracts do not narrate his election or consecration.¹⁹

Political setting

The chronology places a succession of rulers alongside Matthew’s patriarchate: al-Mansur, with the dates 1377–1381; al-Salih al-Din Hajji in 1382; Barquq in 1383–1389; Salah Hajji in 1389–1390; Barquq again in 1390–1398; al-Nasir Faraj in 1398–1405; al-Mansur ‘Abd al-‘Aziz in 1405; and al-Nasir Faraj again in 1406–1412. These are the ruler names and dates as presented in the supplied table.¹⁰

The narrative gives particular attention to Matthew’s connection with Barquq. It describes him as enjoying the sultan’s favor, yet also states that his relationship with the Muslim administration could become precarious. The combination is important: access to a ruler and usefulness in diplomacy did not remove the dangers posed by political change or hostile accusations.¹¹¹⁵

Diplomacy and relations with the authorities

The letter to Ethiopia

Sultan Barquq asked Matthew to write on his behalf to the Ethiopian sovereign in order to establish peaceful and friendly relations between the two countries. In this episode, the patriarch served as an intermediary in a diplomatic initiative requested by the Egyptian ruler.¹¹

The account draws attention to the letter’s addressee. Matthew addressed it to Dawud, the brother of the sovereign then reigning. By the time the letter reached the Ethiopian capital, Dawud had deposed his brother and taken the crown. The encyclopedia reports that this sequence led people to regard Matthew as possessing prophetic qualities.¹¹

The episode therefore has two meanings within the biography. It records a practical diplomatic service intended to promote peaceful relations, and it preserves a religious interpretation of the letter’s unexpectedly appropriate address. The prophetic interpretation is presented as the judgment made about Matthew, rather than as an independently demonstrated explanation of the event.¹¹

Political reversal and the accusation about treasure

Matthew’s favorable relationship with Barquq also forms the background to a more threatening episode. The account states that Barquq was defeated by the Mamluk amir Mintash, after which Matthew retired to the Karak. A dissident member of the Coptic community then falsely informed Mintash that Barquq had entrusted his treasure to the patriarch.¹⁵

The source calls the information fraudulent. It thus portrays the danger as arising not simply from a change of ruler, but from an accusation made by someone within Matthew’s own community during that political reversal. The supplied passage ends before explaining the consequences, so it does not establish how the accusation was investigated or resolved.¹⁵

Pastoral conduct and the remembrance of holiness

The two monks seeking ordination

The encyclopedia notes that difficulties during Matthew’s patriarchate arose both from Muslim amirs and from members of his own church. One account concerns two Coptic monks who sought admission to the priesthood. Matthew refused them because he judged them unfit, after which they attempted to discredit him before the administration.¹²

When their report was dismissed, the monks confronted him personally. They demanded that one of them replace him as patriarch and that the other become a bishop. Matthew is described as smiling and telling them to wait forty days, after which they could return and take his seat. He also prayed for them and gave them Holy Communion.¹²

Both monks died within thirty days. The account says that their deaths were regarded as a miracle associated with a holy man. Its narrative combines Matthew’s refusal to confer priestly office on unsuitable candidates with prayer and Communion for those who opposed him, followed by an outcome interpreted as vindication of his holiness.¹²

Prayer rather than a curse

Another episode concerns a monk who rebelled against Matthew, converted to Islam, and enlisted in the Muslim army. Members of the congregation asked the patriarch to curse him. Matthew instead prayed for the monk and for his return to the Christian faith.¹³

The monk subsequently returned to Christianity and suffered martyrdom. The encyclopedia reports that this outcome, too, was regarded as a miracle. Unlike the preceding episode, the central pastoral action here is an explicit refusal to answer estrangement with a curse: Matthew sought the man’s restoration through prayer.¹³

Taken together, these accounts present holiness through the exercise of pastoral judgment as well as through extraordinary outcomes. Matthew is portrayed as maintaining a boundary around ordination while still praying for opponents, and as seeking the return of a former monk rather than complying with the congregation’s demand for condemnation.¹²¹³

Martyrdom during his patriarchate

The account places the returning monk’s death within a broader pattern. It states that numerous people who had converted to Islam returned to Christianity during Matthew’s patriarchate and suffered martyrdom. The Islamic historian al-Maqrizi is said to mention several specific cases.¹⁴

The History of the Patriarchs supplies a particular figure: forty-nine martyrs were beheaded as the penalty for withdrawing from Islam after their conversion to it. The encyclopedia distinguishes the named historian’s reports of individual cases from the numerical total attributed to the patriarchal history.¹⁴

This material connects the biography’s account of Matthew’s intercessory prayer with the serious consequences faced by those returning to Christianity. The story celebrates restoration to the faith, but does not represent that restoration as bringing worldly safety.¹³¹⁴

Commemoration, names, and terminology

Feast day

The principal biographical entry gives Matthew’s feast as 7 Kiyakh. The separate saints list gives the same day with the spelling 7 Kiyahk, identifying him as “Matthew I the Poor.” These are spelling variants in the supplied sources, not different commemorative dates.¹²

Matthew the Poor and Matta al-Miskin

The encyclopedia explicitly equates Matta al-Miskin with Matthew the Poor, describing this as the title by which Matthew I is better known. His biography also supplies concrete descriptions of material simplicity: his family’s limited means, his sparse clothing, and his rope girdle. It does not, however, explain when or through what particular event the title became attached to him.¹³⁶

The term axios occurs in the childhood story. The source translates it as “worthy” and says that Matthew pronounced it three times while playing at the bestowal of ecclesiastical ranks. The passage preserves this specific ceremonial vocabulary without supplying a complete rite or attributing any liturgical composition to him.⁴

Sources and distinctions from similarly named figures

Evidence for his life

The encyclopedia states that Matthew’s life is better known than those of his immediate predecessors. It identifies the History of the Patriarchs as containing ample information about his actions and movements, and notes that he also appears in Islamic sources from the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries.¹⁶

The supplied material reflects both historical and devotional interests. It records places, ages, dates, rulers, diplomatic correspondence, and ecclesiastical disputes, while also describing events interpreted as miracles or signs of prophecy. Preserving those attributions makes it possible to explain how Matthew was remembered without treating every reported interpretation as an independently verified event.^15711121314

Not Matthew II

Matthew I should be distinguished from Matthew II, the ninetieth patriarch, whose tenure is given as 1452–1465. Matthew II also had an association with al-Muharraq and appears in the History of the Patriarchs under the name Mattawus, but his patriarchate belongs to a later period.⁹¹⁷

Not the early-eighth-century Matthew the Poor

The encyclopedia also contains a separate entry for Saint Matthew the Poor, an early-eighth-century holy man. That entry associates him with traditions about Asfun or Bishnay, describes him as a fisherman and anchorite, and discusses a monastery connected with his memory near Isna. These details belong to that earlier figure, not to the patriarch from Bani Ruh.¹¹⁸

The distinction is especially important because the earlier saint’s entry also gives 7 Kiyahk as his feast day. The shared designation “Matthew the Poor” and shared calendar date do not erase the encyclopedia’s clear distinction between an early-eighth-century holy man and the patriarch who served from 1378 to 1409.¹¹⁸