Beate Dignas & Engelbert Winter - Kaveh Farrokh

274 Appendix 3
over Arianism. According to Arius, a cleric from Antioch, Christ was not
truly divine. In contrast, Alexandrian theologians announced that God the
Father and Jesus were of one substance. The controversy escalated, and
Constantine the Great, concerned about the unity of the empire, convened
the Council of Nicaea (325), which condemned Arius and prescribed the
Alexandrian doctrine. The Council of Constantinople (381) confirmed this
conclusion and ended the dispute, which was labelled ‘Trinitarian’ according
to the three natures of the divine. Shortly after, the controversy flared
up again, this time with much greater consequences. It revolved around
the nature of Christ, the relationship between the human and the divine in
Christ. The patriarch of Constantinople, Nestorius, refused to call the Virgin
Mary ‘the bearer of God’ (theotokos) and clearly distinguished between
two natures in Christ (so called extreme dyophysitism). In contrast, the
patriarch of Alexandria, Cyril I (412–44), proclaimed that Christ was of
one nature and that in him god and man had become one (monophysitism).
Another Council took place at Ephesus in 431 and condemned Nestorius as
a heretic. Under Dioscurus (444–54) the power of the patriarch of Alexandria
appeared to be at its zenith. However, new Christological controversies
erupted. The archimandrite Eutyches, an adherent of the Alexandrian doctrine
at Constantinople, took Cyril’s doctrine a step further and argued that
after his incarnation the two natures of Christ became one divine nature.
At the so-called Robber Synod of Ephesus (449) Dioscurus was once more
able to promote monophysitism successfully. Under the emperor Marcian
(450–7), however, a different religious policy began. The Council of Chalcedon
(451) brought about a famous and final decision on the Christological
dispute, by way of defining Christ as both god and man, two natures that
were inconvertible but also inseparable (so called moderate dyophysitism).
This formula repudiated both Nestorianism and monophysitism. All later
attempts to integrate the positions failed.
clibanarii
Very similar to the catafractarii, these mailed cavalry units were additionally
protected by a cuirass made of small plates that covered the whole body.
They are attested from the third century ad onwards.
comes
In late antiquity this was the rank of leading officials employed at the imperial
court and in the provinces, in both the civil and military administration
of the Roman Empire. The comes commerciorum was responsible for the