VI THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON: CONSTANTINOPLE AND ALEXANDRIA Toward a New Policy The episcopal throne of Constantinople stood vacant for some time after the deposition and death of Flavian.1 Probably in March or April of 450, Theodosius II called together a number of clerics who elected Anatolius, an Egyptian deacon and apocrisiarius, as bishop.2 Someone less loyal to the decisions of the Latrocinium might not have been trusted to deal with affairs in the capital. In the letter he sent to the pope, Anatolius made no profession of faith. In July of 450, Leo wrote to the orthodox archimandrites and clerics of Constantinople, saying that he was surprised by the lack of candor on the part of the new bishop. Not only had he failed to give an account of his own beliefs, but he had not even mentioned the scandal which had infected the church of Constantinople. Accordingly, Leo informed the archimandrites, he was sending the bishops Abundius and Aetius and the presbyters Basil and Senator to Constantinople, armed with a collection of appropriate texts from the Fathers. These men, together with the archimandrites themselves, would attempt to correct all those who had been led astray through force or their own simplicity3. The pope expressed similar sentiments in contemporary letters addressed to Pul­ cheria and Theodosius.4 The letter destined for the emperor was never delivered. For on July 26, 450, Theodosius fell from his horse while hunting near the River Lycus. He suffered a serious injury, and two days later he died5. Valentinian III was the sole living augustus, and in constitutional theory the rule of the entire empire should have devolved upon him. But Pulcheria, the elder sister of Theodosius, was in a position to seize power in Constantinople; according to one tradition, the emperor had entrusted the affairs of state 163 164 Vox Populi to her just before he died.6 Realizing that she would need the aid o fa man in maintaining her power, Pulcheria called upon Marcian, a distinguished Illyrian (or Thracian) army officer and senator.7 The empress agreed to marry him, on condition that he honor her vow of perpetua lvirginity, and on August 25 she crowned him augustus in the palace of Hebdomon.8 Not long after his succession, Marcian summoned the Council of Chalcedon, which ultimately reversed the decisions made at the Robber Synod. Scholars usually assign this drastic change in imperial religious policy to the sudden death of Theodosius and the coronation o fMarcian: Theodosius was a monophysite while Marcian supported the theology of the two natures.9 There is undoubtedly some truth in this reconstruction, at least as it applies to Marcian. Yet, there is evidence which suggests that the change in imperial policy began even before the death of Theodosius and that Marcian only carried out a design that his predecessor had envisioned late in his life. Our principal authority for this view is Theophanes. In 450, he reports that Theodosius "reconsidered" (έπιλογισάμενος) the events of the past few years and came to the conclusion that Chrysaphius had deceived him "concerning the impiety of Flavian." Accordingly, he had the eunuch exiled to a certain island. He further decided that Eudocia was the cause of all the evils besetting him, and especially of the disgrace of Pulcheria, and he ordered his wife to retire to Jerusalem.10 Theodosius then recalled Pulcheria from her retreat in the Hebdomon and she arranged a solemn procession to honor the remains of Flavian, which were deposited in the church of the Holy Apostles.11 Paul Goubert has discussed at some length the evidence for these events. In the end, he concluded that the account of Theophanes is probably correct, although he was a little disturbed by the failure of any contemporary source (such as Leo or Liberatus) to mention the change in the emperor's theological position. Such a silence is, however, not surprising. Since the recall of Pulcheria occurred only a short time before the death of Theodosius, the pope probably did not hear of it until after the accession of Marcian. After that event, the wisest course for the orthodox was to impute the change to the ruling emperor. The story— which is found in Malalas and those who follow him—that Theodosius called his sister to his bedside indicates that an account of Pulcheria's early return (and hence a change in imperial religious policy) was known at least as early as the mid-sixth century.13 The recall of Pulcheria must be seen as part o fa fundamental change in imperial policy, and we must ask ourselves what caused Theodosius to contemplate such a turnabout. In the first place, we should observe that this change was not unprecedented in the reign of Theodosius II—we have already discussed several similar examples which are usually inter­ The Council of Chalcedon 165 preted as evidence of the weak will of the emperor. As Goubert observed, it is unlikely that the news of the scandalous activities at Ephesus and the death of Flavian were enough to change the emperor's mind. Several letters from the imperial chancery, still controlled by Chrysaphius, show that at least as late as spring of 450 Theodosius continued to support the actions of the Robber Synod. Goubert suggested that Pulcheria, strength­ ened by the resolve of the papacy and the Western court and encouraged by dissident army officers in Constantinople itself, forced her will upon the weak resolve of her brother.14 In fact, one need not refer to the weakness of Theodosius to explain his change of policy. He merely had to "reconsider"—Theophanes' έπιλογισάμενο$—the ecclesiastical and political situation in Constanti­ nople to arrive at this conclusion. For, in the months following the Latrocinium, the foreign and domestic situation of the Eastern empire had deteriorated dramatically. This, of course, strengthened the position of those who opposed imperial policy—both secular and religious—and it must have caused the emperor to review that policy. According to Theophanes, early in 450 the East was again seriously threatened by incursions of both the Huns and the Vandals.15 In the spring of that year, the government of Theodosius negotiated a surprisingly favorable peace with Attila, and this danger seemed alleviated.16 But, at about the same time, a more serious threat arose to frighten the emperor. It will be remembered that the magister militum Zeno had joined with Attila in demanding the life of Chrysaphius. By 450 the ambitions of the Isaurian had reached a higher plane: Theodosius suspected him of seeking the throne for himself. As John of Antioch tells us, Theodosius was always willing to forgive any other fault, but he was an implacable enemy of anyone who plotted revolution. In his wrath against Zeno, the emperor dispatched land and sea forces to Isauria; unfortunately, we are ignorant of the outcome of this expedition, although Daniel and Baudon, otherwise unknown to us, were implicated in the revolt and killed by the agents of the emperor1.7 Finally, to complete the demoralizing picture, severe natural disasters again struck Constantinople in the twelve months following the Latrocinium.18 As we have seen, the dyophysite opposition in Constantinople wa swell organized around the clergy and monks of the capital, and it included many wealthy individuals. In the aggravated conditions of late spring and early summer of 450, Theodosius must have feared a repetition of the disturbances which had followed the deposition of Eutyches in 448, and he may have turned a more receptive ear to the followers of Flavian. As he had done two years earlier—and at many other times during his reign—the emperor undermined the coalition of his enemies by acceding to the demands of some of them. The opponents of the Robber Synod 166 Vox Populi may not have favored the revolt of Zeno, but their resistance to imperial religious policy made them dangerous natural allies of the usurper. The rehabilitation of Flavian eliminated one source of dissatisfaction and allowed Theodosius to devote his attention to other problems. Of course, it is impossible to be certain what the emperor would have done had he lived. But one might speculate that his policy would have included the "restoration" of Flavian to a place of honor and the condemnation of Eutyches—which most of the later monophysites accepted. However, he probably would not have called another ecumenical council and imposed a strict dyophysite theology. Nevertheless, it would seem that Theodosius did abandon his support of the decisions of the Robber Synod, and his characterization as a monophysite emperor must be seriously ques­ tioned.19 Further, it is interesting to speculate on the changes in the fate of the empire had Theodosius been successful in imposing a compromise instead of the divisive theology of Chalcedon. Marcian was well aware of the forces which had disturbed the reign of Theodosius, and immediately after his coronation he set about to deal with them. As indicated above, discontent in Constantinople—in both religious and secular matters—was greatest among the upper classes. The senators and wealthy landowners complained most bitterly about the financial exactions of the state, and they were most active in leading the opposition to the decrees of the Robber Synod. Marcian was himself of senatorial rank, and we should expect him naturally to sympathize with the interests of his peers, but the fear of opposition must also have induced the new emperor to follow a policy more consistently favorable to the wealthy of the empire.20 Marcian clearly realized what the heart of such a policy must be: a return to orthodoxy and a reduction of the huge tribute paid yearly to Attila. With the determination (or rashness?) which characterized his whole reign, Marcian dispatched a message to Attila, informing him that the empire would no longer pay any of the tribute demanded2.1 The removal of this huge drain on the imperial treasury made possible several other measures designed to win the support of the upper classes. Perhaps the most important of these were the remission of all tax arrears for the years 437-4722 and the abolition of the tax on the property of senators (the collatio glebalis orfollis), which had been collected since the time of Constantine.23 The execution of Chrysaphius, which Marcian ordered almost immediately, also pleased these same individuals.24 As part of this general policy, Marcian openly demonstrated his opposition to the decisions of the Robber Synod. He recalled those who had been exiled for their support of Flavian, and Pulcheria prepared a grand reception for some of them in Constantinople2.5 Late in 450, both the emperor and the empress wrote to Pope Leo, reporting the arrival of The Council of Chalcedon 167 his legates and offering to hold a new council in the East.26 Pulcheria described the ceremonial return she had arranged for the remains of Flavian and informed the pope that Anatolius had finally agreed to sign the Tome and accept the theology of Leo.27 Efforts must have been made to convert the Eutychians, and in June of 451, Leo was able to write to Pulcheria rejoicing in the catholic faith of the priests and people of Constantinople.28 In the same letter, the pope requested that Eutyches be removed from his position as archimandrite and that he be replaced by a monk of correct theological views. Given the ecclesiastical situation in Constantinople, this was a perfectly reasonable request, and one might wonder why this had not been done much earlier. But the reasons the pope gave for his request are particularly interesting, and they provide us with our first piece of evidence since the Latrocinium about the supporters of Eutyches. Concerning Eutyches, the author of all scandal and perversity, may your clemency [PulcheriaJ order that he be taken away from that place [his monastery], which is too close to the city of Constantinople. For it is to be feared that he will make use {utatur) of his heretical disciples who come often to console him (frequentioribus solatiis).29 The meaning of this statement is clear. The pope feared that the supporters of Eutyches—presumably his monks—would spread heretical ideas throughout the city, nullifying the efforts he and the empress had been making among the inhabitants of the capital. In order to avoid such difficulties, the pope advised Pulcheria to remove Eutyches from his monastery, which was "too close to the city of Constantinople." At about the same time eighteen orthodox archimandrites presented a petition to the emperor, requesting him to allow them to deal with the heretics in whatever way they should see fit.30 Presumably the monks wished to use persuasion and argumentation in hopes of converting the ordinary adherents of the theology of Eutyches. But there was a class of heretics whom the archimandrites considered more dangerous. These were the memoritai—hermits who lived in the shrines of martyrs (martyria) rather than in regular coenobitic monasteries.31 Either because the churches and monasteries of Constantinople had been closed to them, or because the hermits of the capital generally supported Eutyches, these martyria had become the centers of Eutychianism in Constantinople. In particular, there was one "cave" (σπηλαΐον) where these "savage men live and every day blaspheme Christ, the savior of all."32 The monks asked the emperor to close this place immediately. The Eutychian monks, in the meantime, had not been idle. They also presented a petition to the emperor, which was later read into the acta of the Council of Chalcedon.33 In this document, they complained that while 168 Vox Populi there was dissension among the Christians of Constantinople, Jews and pagans were left in peace. It was the duty of the emperor, they claimed, to secure harmony and agreement among all Christians. Such a solution would surely result from the forthcoming ecumenical council, but until that body met, the emperor should take measures against those who were persecuting the Eutychians. Their enemies, the monks contended, were inciting disturbances (staseis) and forcing them to sign anti-Eutychian statements. They closed their petition with an appeal that no one be driven "either from monastery, or church, or martyr's shrine" until the council could settle the matter once and for all. Apparently, force was being used against the supporters of Eutyches in Constantinople. This petition, and that of the orthodox monks discussed above, provide us with no evidence with which to identify the persecutors. It is likely that the orthodox ecclesiastical party—made up primarily of monks, but by this time including the bishop of the city and the emissaries of the pope—would have been most concerned to secure signatures to an anti-Eutychian creed. And it is not impossible that the officials of the court had begun to persecute the "heretics." But the terrorism directed against the Eutychian monks may also have been a reaction on the part of the faithful of Constantinople. Most of the clergy o fthe city had remained loyal to Flavian and now, with the emperor and the bishop on their side, they were freely able to use their position to condemn the Eutychians. Spontaneous crowd action against the heretics may well have followed. At Chalcedon, the Eutychian monks delivered their petition in person; they were accompanied by the eunuch Kalopodias and the Syrian archimandrite Barsumas. The fathers of the council had some doubt about the status of the Eutychians, and they called upon the orthodox monks to identify their adversaries. The orthodox agreed that three of the Eutychians were archimandrites as they had claimed. Seven of them they could not identify,34 and another seven they declared to be memoritai rather than regular monks. The charge that these men were the inhab­ tants of martyria rather than ordinary monasteries was obviously meant to detract from the testimony of the Eutychians. One must suppose from this testimony that monastic organization in Constantinople had become firm and regularized in the second quarter of the fifth century.35 A certain number of would-be monks either refused to join the regular establishments or were excluded from them, and the regular monks looked with scorn on their more independent colleagues. It is significant that this split in the monastic movement corresponded to the division of opinion which we witnessed in the beginning of the Eutychian controversy. It is also interesting that the focus of this more independent monastic tradition was the martyrium. Tombs of the martyrs had, of course, been important points of Christian assembly from an early period, The Council of Chalcedon 169 and great ascetics such as Hypatius and Daniel the Stylite had inhabited tombs in more recent times. Nevertheless, there was always the danger of excess, and Gregory of Nazianzus complained that the martyria had become places of banqueting and merrymaking: At one time those who wished to gain the favor of demons celebrated impure banquets for them. We Christians abolished this practice and established spiritual assemblies for our martyrs. But now a certain dread has seized me. Listen, you who love banquets! You desert us for the rites of demons.36 I bear witness, prize-winners and martyrs, the belly-lovers (φιλογαστορίδαι) have converted your honors into licentiousness. You do not desire a sweet- smelling table or cooks; but they honor you with belching rather than righteousness.37 Thus those associated with the martyria were accused of excess and scandal; further, if one accepts the testimony of Gregory, the shrines of the martyrs had become centers for the continuation of openly pagan practices.38 H. Bacht has stressed a social distinction between the memoritai and the rest of the monastic community of the capital, suggesting that the memoritai were poor and generally of the lower classes. Certainly, the social status of the latter cannot be compared to that of the leaders of the regular monasteries, such as Faustos; one of the memoritai was identified as a former bear trainer—the same lowly occupation as that practiced by the empress Theodora's father.39 Yet, we should be careful of such an assessment where there is simply very little evidence. Further, it is difficult to know what to make of the information that three of the memoritai had several "names," either in the Xylokerkos or in the Philippou, two of the racecourses in the city; thus, Hypses had "two or three 'names' in the Xylokerkos," while Kallinikos had "ten 'names' in a martyr's shrine in the Xylokerkos."40 Hefele-Leclercq translated the former of these as "celui-ci habite au cirque de bois avec deux ou trois compagnons qui il appelle ses moines."41 The names may therefore refer simply to the monks which each of these memoritai had under his authority. Even so, it is certainly surprising to find monks living in two of the racecourses of the capital, which were regarded as the centers of much of the disreputable activity in the city.42 Everything considered, no one would claim that popular opinion was the determining factor in the summoning of the Council of Chalcedon. Pulcheria and Marcian were both personally committed to a reversal of the decisions of the Latrocinium, and they acted accordingly. Neverthe­ less, the strong feelings which had divided the capital in 449 and 450 may well have played a role in the changes in policy made by Theodosius just before his death—changes which led to the recall of Pulcheria and the 170 Vox Populi ultimate elevation of Marcian. Further, there was no popular outcry against the religious policies of the new emperor, and popular sentiment in Constantinople can only have strengthened Marcian in his resolve. Supporters of Eutyches, and even the archimandrite himself, continued to live in the city, and there was some concern that they would spread their doctrines among the population. The leadership of Anatolius, however, was half-hearted, and the supporters of Flavian undoubtedly retained their positions within the urban hierarchy. This control of the public voice of the church and the opposition of the monasteries to the Latrocinium must have been important factors in the failure of the Eutychians to generate any favorable climate of opinion in Constan­ tinople. Not only did the monasteries add prestige to the cause of Pulcheria and Marcian, but they and their supporters actively and violently persecuted the Eutychian monks whom they regarded not only as heretics, but also as renegades who had divorced themselves from the proper traditions of the monastic movement. The Meeting of the Council On May 23, 451, Marcian sent a letter to all the bishops of the empire, asking them to assemble before the first of September in Nicaea to attend an ecumenical council.43 The emperor promised to appear in person unless the necessities of war prevented him from doing so. During the late summer of 451, the bishops began to assemble in Nicaea, but the Hunnic raids in Illyria demanded the attention of the emperor and he did not appear on the appointed date. The bishops did not dare to begin the council without him—the papal legates were also still in Constantinople. But they wrote to him, complaining that the delay was difficult, especially for the aged and sickly among them. Marcian replied, asking them to wait until he should be able to come to Nicaea4.4 Probably at about the same time Pulcheria wrote to a military commander in Bithynia, instructing him concerning the situation in Nicaea. It had come to the attention of the court, she remarked, that certain clerics, monks, and laymen intent on creating a disturbance (θορυβείν έπιχειροΟσι) were mingling with the bishops. Pulcheria ordered that with all firmness you shall cast out o tfhe city, and all the area around it, those [who are there] without our summons or the permission of their own bishops, whether these be clerics who live there (αυτόθι ενδημούντες κληρικοί) ,45 both those of a regular rank and those who are not in communion with their bishops, or monks, or laymen who have no business at a counci4l6. In closing, the empress warned the imperial official that he would be held responsible should any of the local troublemakers (τΙς του λοιπόν των θορυβοποίών ένδημών) make an appearance.47 The Council of Chalcedon 171 It seems reasonable to assume that those who were threatening to disturb the council were supporters of Dioscorus and Eutyches. It is interesting, therefore, to note that some of the lower clergy of Nicaea and the surrounding territory appear to have supported Eutyches. Remember­ ing the care taken by Theodosius II to secure order at his councils, and anticipating the importance of the imperial officials at Chalcedon, it hardly seems likely that the letter of Pulcheria represents the first thought the court gave to security at the forthcoming council. It may be that the letter to the military official in Nicaea was either a "reminder" to him or an indication that events in the city had already progressed beyond a point at which an ordinary show of force was enough to control the discontented crowd. In fact, the unstable conditions in Nicaea may have had something to do with the emperor's decision not to come to the city and to move the council to nearby Chalcedon, where the unruly crowd might be controlled more easily.48 Atticus, a deacon of the church of Constantinople, however, reported to the emperor that the bishops were unwilling to go to Chalcedon, since they feared some violence from the partisans of Eutyches: Those who agree with Eutyches, or some other person, are undertaking to carry out violence (stasis) or some other disturbance (thorybos).49 Marcian replied in a longer letter, pleading with the bishops and assuring them that they need fear no violence even though they would be close to Constantinople. "For we hope . . . that each of you will be able to return without any disturbance or riot" (tarache or thorybos).50 Unfortunately, we have no information as to the identity of these supporters of Eutyches, whose reputation for violence reached even the bishops assembled in Nicaea. But it is probable that they were—or were led by—the monks and memoritai mentioned above. On October 8, 451, the Council of Chalcedon opened in the church of St. Euphemia.51 Representing the emperor were a large number of imperial officials (archontes), including the patrician and ex-consul Anatolius, the praetorian prefect Palladius, the prefect of the city Tatianos, Vincomalus the magister officiorum, and Sporacius the comes domesticorum. Representing the Senate were a number of other illus­ trious men, including the patricians Florentius and Nomus, several ex- prefects, and two former praepositi sacri cubiculi.52 Bishop Paschasinus of Lilybaeum, in Sicily, represented Pope Leo and, together with the imperial officials, he presided over the council. From the beginning, the assembly was divided into two hostile camps: those who supported Dioscorus, and those who accepted the theology of Leo and Flavian.53 Since Marcian had made clear his own position, the Eutychians were on the defensive. At the first meeting, the opposing sides hurled violent invectives at one another, each side accusing the other of 172 Vox Populi illegality, either at the Latrocinium or at the present council.54 The reading of the minutes of the synod in Constantinople (448) and the Robber Council occupied most of the day. When the officials closed the assembly with the Trisagion, it was already dark.55 The second meeting of the council, held on October 105,6 concerned itself more fully with matters of doctrine, but no agreement could be reached. The officials suggested that the council adjourn for five days, during which the more important bishops would gather in an attempt to find some grounds for reconciliation.57 The synod met again on October 13 in the martyrion of the church of St. Euphemia.58 Dioscorus and the imperial representatives were absent. Aetius, the archdeacon of Constantinople, effectively directed the session, although Paschasinus still held the place of greatest honor. Eusebius of Dorylaeum, appearing in his familiar role of accuser, brought forward a complaint against Dioscorus. Although he mentioned the alleged heresy of the bishop's views, the emphasis of his statement concerned the violence and illegality Dioscorus had perpetrated at the second Council of Ephesus.59 Eusebius demanded that he be allowed to confront Dioscorus personally, and Paschasinus sent clerics to summon the bishop. Dioscorus, however, had an excuse ready for every occasion, and he refused to make an appearance.60 When the canonical three summonses had failed to bring Dioscorus to the assembly, several of the bishops declared that he should be deposed because of his unjust and illegal actions.61 The papal legates accordingly declared Dioscorus deprived of his ecclesiastical rank, and over three hundred bishops indicated their agreement by placing their signatures at the end of the minutes of the session6.2 The council then sent a brief notice to Dioscorus, informing him that he had been deposed because of his action "against the divine canons" and his refusal to obey the summons to appear before the council. The bishops made no mention of his heretical theology.63 They sent a similar note to the clergy of the church of Alexandria who were then in Chalcedon, mentioning by name the oikonomos Charmosynus who was presumably then regarded as the leader of the delegation. The council advised the Egyptians of the deposition of their bishop—again without mentioning any doctrinal difficulty—and warned them to take care of the property of the church, as they would be required to give account for it to a new bishop.64 Soon after this, the council learned that Dioscorus was spreading a rumor throughout Chalcedon and Constantinople. He claimed that his deposition was a mistake and predicted that he would soon be re­ instated.65 Dioscorus' purpose in circulating this rumor must have been to encourage his supporters and perhaps even to incite them to his active