Cambridge Ancient Hi.. - Index of

aftermath of chalcedon 815
iii. aftermath of chalcedon
The edict of 7 February 452, by which the emperors Marcian and
Valentinian III enjoined their subjects to obey decisions of the council, 9
was promulgated amid turbulence in Palestine, Egypt and Antioch in the
aftermath of the council. That monks and people also defined and
enforced orthdoxy at this time is clear from such cases as that of Juvenal
of Jerusalem, who lost the support of the influential monks in his see, and
on his return to Jerusalem after the council was forced to flee in the face of
their determined opposition. The amount of popular literature written in
the century after Chalcedon both for and against the council demonstrated
that reaction to the perceived issues was not confined to the imperial or
patriarchal level.
While Marcian had Juvenal restored by force, similar trouble was
brewing in Alexandria, where Dioscorus, condemned and excommunicated
at Chalcedon, was replaced by his trusted priest Proterius who,
however, accepted the council. Since the people and monks remained loyal
to Dioscorus and refused to recognize his successor, Proterius could not
consolidate his position, despite banishing his chief opponents, the deacon
Peter Mongus and the priest Timothy, nicknamed by his opponents
Aelurus, ‘the Cat’ or ‘the Weasel’, because he was so emaciated from ascetic
practices. 10 In 455 Marcian was forced to intervene by issuing another
edict, prescribing penalties for those who adhered to the docetic heresies
of Apollinaris of Laodicea and Eutyches, 11 i.e. those who refused to accept
the Chalcedonian definition of Christ’s true humanity and true divinity.
Subsequently Proterius was kept in power by a military presence. When, on
the emperor’s death on 26 January 457, feeling against Proterius heightened,
Timothy Aelurus was brought back secretly to Alexandria and consecrated
patriarch. Two months later the people lynched Proterius. It was
the energetic leadership of Timothy Aelurus, who suppressed or removed
bishops who adhered to Chalcedon, 12 which ostensibly prompted
Marcian’s successor Leo and the ambitious patriarch of Constantinople,
Anatolius, to despatch in 457 to Leo of Rome, metropolitans and eminent
ascetics in the east a codex encyclius, canvassing their opinion on the consecration
of Timothy Aelurus and on the status of Chalcedon. The replies
which have come down to us reject Timothy, and only one bishop,
Amphilochius of Side, seems to have declined to accept the council, possibly
because at the gathering itself he had been hit on the head to encourage
him to subscribe the conciliar statement. 13 In reaction to these positive
replies, Leo of Rome wrote his letter 165, the so-called Second Tome,
9 ACO ii.2.2,no.8 (Latin) and ii.1.3,no.23 (Greek). 10 Zach. Rh. HE iv.1. 11 CJ i.5.8.
12 Zach. Rh. HE iii.10–iv.2;Evagr.HE ii.8.
13 ACO ii.5.9–98. For the alleged coercion of Amphilochius see Zach. Rh. HE iii.1.
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008