Cambridge Ancient Hi.. - Index of

816 27. the definition and enforcement of orthodoxy
spelling out the defence of Chalcedon. Timothy’s position had become
untenable, and partly through the efforts of the convinced Chalcedonian
Gennadius, the successor of patriarch Anatolius in Constantinople, he was
removed from Alexandria at the end of 459 or the beginning of 460. In his
exile, however, Timothy wrote influential works condemning Chalcedon.
Meanwhile Antioch was becoming increasingly anti-Chalcedonian, 14
particularly under the leadership of Peter the Fuller, a presbyter whose
theology was Cyrillian. Seemingly with help from the Isaurian general
Zeno, Peter was consecrated patriarch of Antioch in the absence of the
Chalcedonian patriarch, Martyrius. In particular Peter strove to make an
anti-Chalcedonian addition to the liturgical hymn known as the Trishagion
(Thrice-holy), which properly speaking ran: ‘Holy God, Holy Strong One,
Holy Immortal One, have mercy on us.’ The proposed addition of the
words ‘who was crucified for us’ before ‘have mercy on us’ would have
involved a phrase which was used as an anti-Chalcedonian slogan and was
seen by Chalcedonians as theopaschite i.e. as proposing that God, although
impassible and eternal, had died on the cross. Because of the unrest which
this phrase occasioned in Antioch, the emperor Leo intervened, and in 471
Peter was removed. 15
iv. zeno and basiliscus
The Isaurian Zeno became emperor on 17 November 474, but the following
year was compelled to flee Constantinople because of a palace intrigue,
and to see Leo’s brother-in-law Basiliscus take his place. The usurper cast
his lot with the anti-Chalcedonians: 16 Timothy Aelurus and Peter the Fuller
were recalled to their sees, and Basiliscus composed an encyclical,
addressed primarily to Timothy, in which the Tome of Leo and the ‘innovation’
of Chalcedon were anathematized, and the creeds and Councils of
Nicaea, Constantinople (381) and Ephesus I and II were upheld. 17 In the
conflict concerning Chalcedon this is the first of a series of imperial interventions
imposing by force a doctrinal interpretation on the subjects of the
empire. 18 Although during Basiliscus’ regency the sees of Ephesus,
Antioch and Jerusalem were anti-Chalcedonian, there was opposition to
the encyclical in Constantinople itself, where patriarch Acacius considered
that the rights conferred on his patriarchate by Chalcedon had been rendered
ambiguous. Basiliscus was forced to retract his edict in favour of an
14 Where possible, the term ‘anti-Chalcedonian’ is to be preferred to the pejorative and incorrect
word ‘Monophysite’ in referring to the opponents of the council of 451. See Allen (1993).
15 Theod. Lect. HE ed. Hansen 110.14–15.
16 For speculations on Basiliscus’ motives in this move see Frend, Monophysite Movement 169–70.
17 Zach. Rh. HE v.1–2;Evagr.HE iii.4; Schwartz (1927) 49–51.
18 See Meyendorff, Imperial Unity 195–6, and 196 n. 46 for a list of these imperial statements down
to the seventh century.
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008