Cambridge Ancient Hi.. - Index of

38 2. the eastern empire: theodosius to anastasius
the Virgin Mary was Christotokos (‘Mother of Christ’) rather than the traditional
title of Theotokos (‘Mother of God’) with its implicit emphasis on
Christ’s divinity. In an attempt to resolve the ensuing controversy which this
aroused with Cyril, patriarch of Alexandria (412–44), Theodosius intervened
and called a council at Ephesus (431), in the expectation that it would
uphold Nestorius, for whose abilities Theodosius had great respect. In fact,
the council took the view that his teaching effectively proposed the existence
of a human Christ and a separate divine Christ, and condemned Nestorius.
Despite the council’s serious procedural irregularities, Theodosius executed
a volte-face and approved the verdict.
The controversy did not, however, go away. In the late 440s a prominent
Constantinopolitan monk, Eutyches, who had been teaching his version of
Cyril’s views in the capital, was condemned for denying Christ’s humanity
by a local council convened by the bishop, Flavian (448). Cyril’s successor
at Alexandria, Dioscorus (444–51), was outraged and induced Theodosius
to convene a second council at Ephesus (449), at which the condemnation
of Eutyches was reversed and Flavian and other supposed Nestorian sympathizers
were condemned. The proceedings were, however, accompanied
by intimidation and violence on the part of Dioscorus’ supporters,
prompting pope Leo to denounce the whole occasion as ‘brigandage’ and
demand a fresh gathering under his own presidency. Theodosius, however,
was not at all enthusiastic about this proposal. 36
Although these disagreements were in the first instance doctrinal in character,
the vehemence of the feelings and behaviour they aroused betrays the
existence of important non-theological dimensions as well. For example, it
was difficult for Antioch, Alexandria and Constantinople to disentangle the
debate about orthodoxy from questions of ecclesiastical rivalry and prestige,
37 and the support of some western Anatolian bishops for Cyril’s condemnation
of Nestorius was motivated by resentment at encroachments on
their independence by the patriarchate of Constantinople. 38 Imperial
actions were likewise swayed by political considerations. Theodosius initially
resisted the idea of calling a council in 430 until public disturbances in
Constantinople persuaded him otherwise; his reluctant abandonment of
Nestorius in 431 seems to have been induced by his realization of the extent
of popular opposition to the bishop; and his behaviour in the late 440s
reflected the loyalty of Chrysaphius, then the key figure at court, to
Eutyches, who happened to be his godfather. 39 This goes a long way
towards explaining Theodosius’ cool response to Leo’s demand for a fresh
36 For a succinct but magisterial exposition of the theological issues and historical context of the
events outlined in this and the preceding paragraph, see Chadwick (1983). For more detailed discussions,
see Gregory (1979) chs. 4–5; Young (1983) 229–89; Frend, Monophysite Movement ch. 1 (to be read
with Wickham (1973)). 37 Baynes (1955). 38 Gregory (1979) 102.
39 Gregory (1979) 100–1, 108–14, 134–41.
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008