quote:

---

A Reading from St. Melito of Sardis on Pascha
d. 190AD (Feast Day: 1 April)


The Lord made advance preparation for his own suffering, in the patriarchs and in the prophets and in the whole people; through the law and the prophets he sealed them. That which more recently and most excellently came to pass he arranged from of old. For when it would come to pass it would find faith, having been foreseen of old.

Thus the mystery of the Lord, prefigured from of old through the vision of a type, is today fulfilled and has found faith, even though people think it something new. For the mystery of the Lord is both new and old; old with respect to the law, but new with respect to grace. But if you scrutinize the type through its outcome you will discern him.

Thus if you wish to see the mystery of the Lord, look at Abel who is likewise slain, at Isaac who is likewise tied up, at Joseph who is likewise traded, at Moses who is likewise exposed, at David who is likewise hunted down, at the prophets who likewise suffer for the sake of Christ.

And look at the sheep, slaughtered in the land of Egypt, which saved Israel through its blood whilst Egypt was struck down. The mystery of the Lord is proclaimed through the prophetic voice... Isaiah says: “Like a sheep he was led to slaughter and like a silent lamb before its shearer he does not open his mouth; who shall tell of his generation?” Many other things were proclaimed by many prophets concerning the mystery of Pascha, who is Christ, to whom be the glory forever. Amen...

The Lord clothed himself with humanity, and with suffering on behalf of the suffering one, and bound on behalf of the one constrained, and judged on behalf of the one convicted, and buried on behalf of the one entombed, rose from the dead and cried out aloud: “Who takes issue with me? Let him stand before me. I set free the condemned. I gave life to the dead. I raise up the entombed. Who will contradict me?” “It is I”, says the Christ, “I am he who destroys death, and triumphs over the enemy, and crushes Hades, and binds the strong man, and bears humanity off to the heavenly heights.” “It is I,” says the Christ. “So come all families of people, adulterated with sin, and receive forgiveness of sins. For I am your freedom. I am the Passover of salvation, I am the lamb slaughtered for you, I am your ransom, I am your life, I am your salvation, I am your resurrection, I am your king. I shall raise you up by my right hand, I will lead you to the heights of heaven, there shall I show you the everlasting Father.”

He it is who made the heaven and the earth, and formed humanity in the beginning, who was proclaimed through the law and the prophets, who took flesh from a virgin, who was hung on a tree, who was buried in the earth, who was raised from the dead, and ascended to the heights of heaven, who sits at the right hand of the Father, who has power to save all things, through whom the Father acted from the beginning and forever.

This is the Alpha and Omega, this is the beginning and the end, the ineffable beginning and the incomprehensible end. This is the Christ, this is the King, this is Jesus, this is the Commander, this is the Lord, this is He who rose from the dead, this is He who sits at the right hand of the Father, he bears the Father and is borne by him. To Him be the glory and the might forever. Amen.

---

quote:

---

2nd Reading from the Office of Readings of the Liturgy of the Hours for Monday within the Octave of Easter

From an Easter homily by Melito of Sardis, bishop



THE EASTER PRAISE OF CHRIST

We should understand, beloved, that the paschal mystery is at once old and new, transitory and eternal, corruptible and incorruptible, mortal and immortal. In terms of the Law it is old, in terms of the Word it is new. In its figure it is passing, in its grace it is eternal. It is corruptible in the sacrifice of the lamb, incorruptible in the eternal life of the Lord. It is mortal in his burial in the earth, immortal in his resurrection from the dead.

The Law indeed is old, but the Word is new. The type is transitory, but grace is eternal. The lamb was corruptible, but the Lord is incorruptible. He was slain as a lamb; he rose again as God. He was led like a sheep to the slaughter, yet he was not a sheep. He was silent as a lamb, yet he was not a lamb. The type has passed away; the reality has come. The lamb gives place to God, the sheep gives place to a man, and the man is Christ, who fills the whole of creation. The sacrifice of the lamb, the celebration of the Passover, and the prescriptions of the Law have been fulfilled in Jesus Christ. Under the old Law, and still more under the new dispensation, everything pointed toward him.

Both the Law and the Word came forth from Zion and Jerusalem, but now the Law has given place to the Word, the old to the new. The commandment has become grace, the type a reality. The lamb has become a Son, the sheep a man, and man, God.

The Lord, though he was God, became man. He suffered for the sake of those who suffer, he was bound for those in bonds, condemned for the guilty, buried for those who lie in the grave; but he rose from the dead, and cried aloud: Who will contend with me? Let him confront me. I have freed the condemned, brought the dead back to life, raised men from their graves. Who has anything to say against me? I, he said, am the Christ; I have destroyed death, triumphed over the enemy, trampled hell underfoot, bound the strong one, and taken men up to the heights of heaven: I am the Christ.

Come, then, all you nations of men, receive forgiveness for the sins that defile you. I am your forgiveness. I am the Passover that brings salvation. I am the lamb who was immolated for you. I am your ransom, your life, your resurrection, your light, I am your salvation and your king. I will bring you to the heights of heaven. With my own right hand I will raise you up, and I will show you the eternal Father.




RESPONSORY
By raising Jesus to life,
God has been true to the promise
he made to our fathers.
--It is Christ himself whom God has appointed
to be judge of the living and the dead, alleluia.

God has made him Lord and Messiah:
this Jesus whom you nailed to the cross.
--It is Christ...

PRAYER

Father,
you give your Church constant growth
by adding new members to your family.
Help us put into action in our lives
the baptism we have received with faith.

We ask this through our Lord Jesus Christ, your Son,
who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit,
one God, for ever and ever.

---

quote:

---

Homily on Pascha

Melito, Bishop of Sardis (d. ca. 190)

The Lord, having put on human nature, and having suffered for him who suffered, having been bound for him who was bound, and having been buried for him who was buried, is risen from the dead, and loudly proclaims this message:

Who will contend against me? Let him stand before me. It is I who delivered the condemned. It is I who gave life to the dead. It is I who raised up the buried. Who will argue with me? It is I, says Christ, who destroyed death. It is I who triumphed over the enemy, and having trod down Hades, and bound the Strong Man, and have snatched mankind up to the heights of heaven. It is I, says Christ. So then, come here all you families of men, weighed down by your sins and recieve pardon for your misdeeds. For I am your pardon. I am the Passover which brings salvation. I am the Lamb slain for you. I am your lustral bath. I am your life. I am your resurrection. I am your light, I am your salvation, I am your King. It is I who brings you up to the heights of heaven. It is I who will give you the resurrection there. I will show you the Eternal Father. I will raise you up with my own right hand.

---

quote:

---

Commentary: The text is partly unique and represents an independent textual tradition of one of the oldest of Christian texts. This is the only fragment in the Akhmimic dialect. Melito, bishop of Sardis (d. ca. 190), was one of the earliest of Christian writers, and addressed his Apologia to emperor Marcus Aurelius. His great book, Peri tou Pascha, equating the Jewish Passover with the Christian Easter, was recorded by Eusebius in the 4th c., but no copy was known until ca. 1940.

..................................

MELITO OF SARDIS: PERI PASCHA, CH. 10-13 AND 15-17, QUOTING EXODUS 12:5 - 11


MS in the Akhmimic dialect of Coptic on papyrus, Upper Egypt, 4th c., 1 partial papyrus, 17x7 cm, 1 column remaining (14x5 cm, column width 5 cm), 18+19 lines in Coptic half uncial.

Context: 9 early MSS or fragments of Melito's text are extant: 3 in Greek, 1 in Syriac, 1 in Sahidic (MS 193) and 4 fragments in Coptic. This MS supplies an important part of the missing text from the Crosby-Schøyen codex, MS 193, text 4. For another text in Akhmimic, see MS 089/ 77.

Provenance: 1. Monastery in Upper Egypt, Wadi Natrun or Dishna?, Egypt (4th c.); 2. Bookseller, Amsterdam (ca. 1970); 3. Stephen Tabor, Dawson's Book Shop, Los Angeles (ca. 1970); 4. Robert X. Bruce, Balbos, California (ca. 1970-1996); 5. Bruce Ferrini, Akron, Ohio.

---

quote:

---

A Completely Different Reading of Melito’s Peri Pascha

by Todd Russell Hanneken


Studies of early Jewish-Christian relations often focus on the origins of anti-Semitism. Many early Christian works have been reinterpreted and used to legitimize anti-Semitic sentiments in a much later context. Nevertheless, "anti-Semitism" is a very simplistic way of understanding the complex and subtle issues that came up as two Second-Temple movements slowly came to define themselves against each other. Melito of Sardis’ homily on Passover and the passion of Christ first appears to many as raving anti-Judaism. Indeed, it is not without foundation that Melito has been called the poet of deicide. The homily, composed around 190 C.E. in Sardis, is very deeply concerned with guilt for the sin of killing Christ. On one hand, in many periods the Jews have been blamed for the death of Christ, not only historically but eternally. On the other hand, the current Catechism of the Catholic Church blames the death on "the sins of all men" (paragraph 312). The following proposes that Melito follows neither of these interpretations. Melito’s theology is not entirely abstract. He is concerned with the historical death at the hands of the Jews and the inherited culpability, but he does not define Jew as "other," or at least not without reasonable doubt.

There are those who understand Christianity as essentially new, and those who understand it as the logical continuation of the history of Israel. The question of anti-Judaism in Melito hinges upon his understanding of the "otherness" of Judaism. In attempting to reevaluate anti-Judaism in Melito we begin with an analysis of anti-Judaism. Anti-Judaism levels accusative guilt, Judaism levels reflexive guilt. Anti-Judaism convicts, Judaism calls for repentance with compassion. Anti-Judaism asserts identity through destructive identity distinctions, Judaism calls for a new progression in a constructive manner. Anti-Judaism condemns what Judaism is, Judaism condemns what Judaism has come to be, and calls for a return to the better, glorified past. Prophets and Sages are no less harsh, but because they claim part of the tradition they condemn, we assume they do so with sincere compassion. As for the Christians who fail to completely break with Judaism, the line becomes more blurred. Considering that the term "Christian" as opposed to "Jew" was so undefined in the formative period following the destruction of the second temple, we have no warrant to jump to conclusions. The "in-between" status of those who defy our categories makes it difficult to understand where Judaism ends and anti-Judaism begins. In attempting to reevaluate anti-Judaism in Melito’s theology I begin with a review of the few external historical sources on Melito.

It is clear from Eusebius that Melito celebrates Easter on the fourteenth of Nisan, rather than the Sunday following (Eusebius HE 5.24). It is not clear, however, what can be determined from that fact. The apparently earlier practice of celebrating Passover and Easter together on the date determined by the Jewish calender was eventually abandoned in favor of emphasizing the Sunday cult and independence from rabbinic authorities in determining the church calender. Evidence does not confirm, however, that the dating system debate had any connotation of Jewish relations in Melito’s time. Shortly after the death of Melito in the second century a bishop of Rome ordered the Eastern churches to follow the Roman dating system, but without mention of Jewish affinity (Eusebius HE 5.24). The order seems more concerned with unifying the church under Roman authority than cutting ties with the pre-Christ origins of the holiday. The claim that quartodecimians mingle too close to Jews doesn’t come explicitly until the fourth century, and even then there is no reason to believe that the quartodecimians took this as a serious fault in their tradition, which they traced to the Gospel of John (Eusebius HE 5.24). Melito may simply have been following the convention he inherited, or may have followed the gospel of John without thinking about the implications for Jewish relations.

It is no less plausible, however, that Melito and those of his time were concerned about the Jewishness of quartodecimianism. S. G. Wilson has suggested that if Melito had other reasons for following the Jewish calender and was aware of the criticism, he may have been under pressure to avoid the charge of Judaizing (Wilson 1985: p. 350). On the other hand, if the criticism reflects historical reality, Melito may actually have been Judaizing. If Melito were indeed anti-Judaic, one wonders why Melito would have stood up for a practice associated with Judaizing. Another source, not referring to Melito specifically, enhances our understanding of the quartodecimian relationship to Judaism. Didascalia and Epiphaneus preserve that the quartodecimians fasted on behalf of the Jews as part of their Pascha, "When they feast, mourn ye for them with fasting, for they crucified Christ on the day of the feast" (Epiphaneus Heresies 70.11). While this clearly does present the element of guilt, it also contains the subtle element of compassion that will become central later in the discussion.

Eusebius preserves two other interesting bits of knowledge about Melito. A letter of Melito’s reveals not only his particular interest in the Hebrew Bible, but also that he traveled to Palestine to study Bible, apparently in Hebrew (Eusebius HE 4.26). Without conclusiveness, this may contribute to the possibility that Melito saw more to the Jewish roots of Christianity than irony. More convincingly, in a letter to the Roman emperor, Melito states, "The philosophy which we profess, first indeed, flourished among the barbarians [Jews]" (Eusebius HE 4.26). One may be so cynical as to consider this an insincere attempt to make a Christian claim to Judaism’s age and consequent status as a permitted religion. Nevertheless, such an argument did not have to be used if one believed that Judaism was the complete antithesis of Christianity.

More evidence that Melito had a deep interest and affinity to Judaism will appear in our reading of the text itself. As for the external evidence determining our approach going into the text, we take a modest assessment of what we really know about Melito. The balance of factors suggests that Melito considered himself a continuation of the Jewish tradition in scripture, language, and history, despite a crucial point dividing those who kept the faith by changing with it, and those who lost the faith. Even the latter, however, he approaches with compassion by fasting for them.

Salvation History

Melito starts from the beginning, God created man and placed him in the garden. From that very beginning, however, man sinned and left an inheritance for his children of sin, suffering, death, and slavery—both literal slavery and slavery to the flesh (27-49). Patricide and incest ruled the earth, and the human soul was damned to Hades (51-52, 55). Nevertheless, God, Christ in particular, guarded over his chosen people like a father from the time of the Patriarchs through the captivity in Egypt (83-84). As part of the design of salvation, God brings salvation to the suffering and punishment to the oppressors. Therefore, God punished the faithless, sinful Egyptians and brought salvation for the initiated, leading them and nurturing them in the desert (84-85). There He gave them a new inheritance to replace the inheritance of sin and slavery from Adam (85). This inheritance was precious, but narrow (45).

In order to fulfill the design of salvation and undo the sin from Adam, a new sacrifice, modeled on the former, had to be accomplished (56-57). This would have entirely ended suffering, death, crime, injustice, and slavery of the flesh (102). Such a salvation would overturn the "strangest and most terrible thing that occurred on earth" (52), i.e. incest, as well as patricide and fratricide that occurred from the sin of Adam.

Such a thing was indeed accomplished, but a new sin, an "unprecedented crime" replaced the old and led to even greater suffering (97). The crime was patricide (81-86) and regicide (91-91), but with a twist. A just man suffered a cruel and unjust death (74). An ungrateful child rejected the compassion and signs of its guardians (87 ff.). The child was Israel itself, who more than anyone else should have known better (81-82). From that time the inheritance again becomes a worthless one of guilt, sin, and suffering, as in the days following Adam.

Such is generally the Rabbinic explanation of the events that followed. "On account of the sin of [innocent] bloodshed God’s Presence departs and the Temple is defiled." (Tosefta Yoma 1:12). Jerusalem is destroyed, with suffering only escalating in the Bar Kochba revolt. In the wake of this, Melito writes, "It was a terrible spectacle to watch... mothers with hair undone, fathers with minds undone, dreadfully wailing...." (29). In referring to the suffering of the Egyptians, he implicitly refers to the suffering of the Jews in his own day and in recent memory. Melito’s theodicy, his explanation for suffering, echoes that of the Biblical prophets and the Sages. Suffering results from faithlessness and unjust oppressiveness, precisely following the model of the Egyptians. In times of suffering, Melito offers a promise of hope, that God has ultimate power over the physical enemy and even over death (102). Also similar to the Exile Prophets, as well as the Rabbinic Sages of his own time, Melito calls for repentance and faithfulness to their God from whom they turned. Melito closes his oration with the plea, "Come then, all you families of men who are compounded with sins, and get forgiveness of sins." (103) With the call to repentance comes the hope of salvation: "I will raise you up by my right hand." (103)

Continuity

Melito recognizes some crucial division between those who accept Christ and those who do not. It is equally clear, however, that he makes no distinction between Christ and the God of Israel. Furthermore, besides the apologetic letter mentioned in the introduction, the homily itself rejects the division between Christianity and traditional Judaism made in his time. The mystery of the Lord on the cross is mistakenly "considered new by men." (58) For Melito, the claim to be the true faithful, the true Israel, is not merely a claim, but a sincere perception of the progression of history through the Scriptures. For Melito, as well as the Prophets, the relevant division is not between Christian and Jew, but faithful and faithless. It may appear from a modern perspective that those who make the lesser change are the faithful, and those who introduce something new are the deviants. Melito doesn’t seem to think that way. As in the Prophets, the criticism is for being "stiff-necked" (17) when signs indicate the time for something new. Melito defines "Israel" as those who "see God," who recognize the Lord. Implicitly, those who recognize the divinity of Christ would be the true Israel. In calling out to those who do not recognize Christ, Melito attempts to avoid the appellation "Israel," instead preferring suggestive phrases such as "the uninitiated", "the hostile," and "the faithless." Given a new, but continuous, preordained and prefigured turning point in salvation history, it becomes clear that in Melito’s understanding, those who recognize the God of Israel on the cross are the faithful Jews; and that the stiff-necked faithless are the ones in need of repentance. The difference between the faithful and the "other" in Melito lies not in culpability, but in the distinction between the repentant and the unrepentant.

Old and New

Among the most easily misunderstood elements of Melito’s perspective is his conception of the relationship between the old and the new. Melito states that "the mystery of the lord is new and old" (58). In that sense the term appears to be used without pejorative connotation. It is clear that the same loving, saving God that was crucified was present throughout Jewish history. The terms would seem to suggest inherent superiority, yet the "old" appears as indispensable for understanding the "new." In contrast to those who present Christ as the key to understanding the Hebrew Scriptures, Melito praises the Hebrew Scriptures as the key to understanding Christ. Stating the principal repeatedly with numerous examples, Melito says, "If you wish to see the mystery of the Lord, look at Abel who is similarly murdered, at Isaac who is similarly bound..." (59). And again, "the mystery of the Lord is proclaimed by the prophetic voice" (61). Following this principal, sections 57-65 and 69-71 expound the meaning of the gospels from evidence in the Hebrew Bible. These discussions may on one level be considered "prooftexts." Yet with careful attention it becomes clear that the passages Melito selects seldom center on the prophetic heralding of the coming of Christ. It would be too cynical to generalize Biblical typology as a tool to prove the divinity of Christ based on Hebrew Scriptures. It appears that Melito sincerely appreciates the "old," and finds therein exegetical inspiration for understanding the Christian myth, and vice versa.

Nevertheless, Melito’s emphasis on the supersession of the old by the new surpasses the minimum warranted by his concept of salvation history. Melito goes beyond constructive praise of the new to say "the model was abolished when the Lord was revealed, and today, things once precious have become worthless, since the really precious things have been revealed." (43) What exactly is "the model?" Judaism? The Hebrew Scriptures? Melito makes no use of the former category, and clearly holds high respect for the later. To understand Melito, we owe it to him to read the next two sections in which he enumerates exactly what has become worthless: "The slaying of the sheep," "the death of the sheep," "the blood of the sheep," "the temple," "the Jerusalem below," "the narrow inheritance." (44,45) The temple cult and the city of Jerusalem are all things that had been lost in the period preceding the homily. The passage serves as a consolation, and continues with the optimistic note that all those beloved things we lost, we don’t really need anyway because, "for it is not in one place nor in a little plot that the glory of God is established."

Ben Zakkai and the Rabbinic tradition following him are not quite as prepared to devalue the temple past, yet they do emphasize that the old things can be fulfilled in a new form, and that life must move on. Everyone in the second century who felt a continuity with pre-destruction Judaism had to deal with the loss in some way or another. In comparing Melito to the sages, one might think that Melito’s "new" is newer than the way of life proposed at Yavneh, but the modern reader again has to overcome the retrospective that Rabbinic Judaism is the logical continuation of Temple Judaism, and Christianity is not. Objectively speaking, the idea of Torah study as replacement for sacrifice is no more logical than a cosmic sacrifice built on the model of temple sacrifice. More importantly, even if we are to assume the term "Judaism," a text can not be labeled "anti-Judaism" if it operates from the same motivation as the Tannaim. There cannot be anti-Judaism without anti-Judaic intent.

Anti-Judaism

We introduced this reading with a discussion of what anti-Judaism is and is not. In conclusion, we find Melito to be closer to the Prophets and the Sages than modern anti-Judaism. Melito identifies himself within the same tradition as those he criticizes, and he calls them to repentance with compassion. The sin of rejecting God is not hereditary, an inherent and accusative guilt, but a contemporary sin of the faithless who fail to repent for the common sin of the past. In introducing something new (although he emphasizes continuity over novelty) he uses constructive and hopeful language. The negative language appears not as an attack on any kind of "Judaism" in his own time, but as a weaning off of the unattainable past. Well predating the redaction of the Mishnah, it is not entirely clear how aware Melito was of the Tannaitic alternative attempt to maintain continuity with the temple tradition. Particularly with regard to the Paschal tradition, there is no evidence that a Rabbinic tradition even existed before Melito. Although some have presented Melito as parodying the Rabbinic Haggada, more recent scholars have pointed out that certain elements of the Haggada are more likely borrowed from Christianity than vice-versa.1 The homily presents a glorified portrayal of Israel in Egypt, and contrasts that to the present faithlessness both as a call to repentance and a theodicy explaining why the once saving God has apparently abandoned his people. This exact same technique appears often in the Hebrew Bible and one might well assume that a Hebrew Bible scholar such as Melito might have borrowed directly therefrom.

The scope of this paper has not included all possible comparisons between Melito and Biblical Prophecy. Besides Melito’s fluid use of Biblical references, even his literary style echoes the parallelism and structure of Biblical poetry. Further studies could very well show more links between Melito and canonical Judaism, and thereby support further Melito’s affinity for the tradition he has been accused of hating. However Melito understood his relationship to the Biblical Jewish tradition he knew and acknowledged, his passions are undeniably strong, and we have seen how easily love can be mistaken for hate. One need not rely entirely on comparisons with the traditions of the Bible and Rabbinic commentaries. The love of a parent for a child does not depend on constantly speaking rosy words. In speaking of anti-Judaism in any context, it is important not to polarize a dichotomy between gratuitous laud and anti-Judaism.

Is Christianity essentially anti-Jewish? One could argue that the very similarities made a painful cleft inevitable. This reading of Melito suggests that a certain amount of naive innocence makes it possible to delay the inevitable, and develop a rich theology that offers continuity at times when history demands innovation in one way or another.

Notes

1 For the former view see S. G. Hall, "Melito in the Light of the Passover Haggadah," Journal of Theological Studies 22 (1971). Both Israel Yuval and David Satran have argued the later case in seminars at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, without publications to my knowledge. Their arguments are based on several points, including: (1) the earliest evidence for a Rabbinic context of certain disputed portions comes significantly later than Christian evidence; (2) the disputed passages fit better in the Christian context; (3) the origins of terms such as "afikomen" fit the Christian etymology better than a Rabbinic one.

Bibliography

Eusebius of Caesarea, The Ecclesiastical History, ed.-tr. by Kirsopp Lake, New York, Putnam: 1946.

Epiphanius, Saint, Bp. of Constantia in Cyprus. Panarion. translated by Frank Williams. Brill, New York: 1994.

Melito of Sardis, On Pascha and Fragments, ed.-tr. by S. G. Hall, Oxford: 1979. 3-61.

Tosefta Yoma, translation my own.



Catechism of the Catholic Church Liberia Editrice Vaticana: 1994.

Efroymson, D. P., "The Patristic Connection" in A. T. Davies, ed., Anti-Semitism and the Foundations of Christianity. New York: 1979.

Gager, J.G., The Origins of Anti-Semitism. New York: 1985.

Hall, S.G., "Melito in the Light of the Passover Haggadah," Journal of Theological Studies 22 (1971) 29-46

Hirshman, M., A Rivalry of Genius. Jewish and Christian Biblical Interpretation in Late Antiquity. SUNY Judaica Series, Albany, 1986.

Satran, D., "Anti-Jewish Polemic in the Peri Pascha of Melito of Sardis: the Problem of Social Context" in Limor, O., and Stroumsa, G. G. (eds.), Contra Iudaeos: Ancient and Medieval Polemics Between Jews and Christians, Tubigen: 1996. 49-58.

Wilson, S. G., "Passover, Easter, and Anti-Judaism: Melito of Sardis and Others" in Neusner, J., and Frerichs, E. S., eds.), "To See Ourselves as Others See Us." Christians, Jews, "Others" in Late Antiquity, Chico, CA: 1985. 337-355.

——, ed., Anti-Judaism in Early Christianity. Volume 2, Separatoin and Polemic, Waterloo, Ontario: 1986.

---