Cambridge Ancient Hi.. - Index of

zeno and basiliscus 817
antencyclical condemning Nestorius and Eutyches and reaffirming the
rights of the patriarchate of Constantinople, and eventually had to leave
the capital on the return of Zeno in 476.
On Zeno’s return Basiliscus’ edicts were promptly rescinded, the ecclesiastical
status quo was restored, and Acacius’ position reinforced. The
prominent anti-Chalcedonians Peter the Fuller and Paul of Ephesus were
exiled, but Timothy Aelurus died on 31 July 477 before he could be banished.
There were obstacles to this restoration, however, and, indeed, to the
unity of church and of empire. To begin with, although consecrated irregularly
in Timothy Aelurus’ stead, Peter Mongus was regarded in Alexandria
as the true patriarch. Furthermore the people of Antioch were anti-
Chalcedonian, even if Chalcedonian bishops were appointed there and
Peter the Fuller was still in exile. It was, in fact, because of the murder of a
new Chalcedonian bishop in Antioch that Acacius of Constantinople
wrote to pope Simplicius roundly condemning Peter Mongus. In
Jerusalem, meanwhile, an uneasy modus vivendi existed between the overwhelmingly
anti-Chalcedonian monks and the patriarch. It was precisely
the compromise in Jerusalem which seems to have inspired the edict promulgated
by Zeno in 482 in an attempt to effect religious unity. The Henotikon
(document of union), as it came to be called, was addressed to the church
of Alexandria, Egypt and Cyrenaica; only later when it was enforced generally
throughout the empire did it acquire universal relevance. While the
edict did not anathematize the Tome, Chalcedon or the formula ‘in two
natures’, stress was placed on the need for unity of belief according to the
one and only definition of faith, i.e. that of Nicaea. 19 Apart from Nicaea,
the Councils of Constantinople and Ephesus I were acknowledged, and
Cyril’s Twelve Chapters accepted. Chalcedon was mentioned only in the
following crucial sentence: ‘Everyone who has held or holds any other
opinion, either at present or at another time, whether at Chalcedon or in
any synod whatever, we anathematize.’ The Henotikon was a masterpiece of
imperial diplomacy, in which the patriarch Acacius had had a considerable
hand, and nominally at least it united Constantinople and Alexandria, while
bringing the major eastern sees into communion. In the long run, however,
it was to be unsuccessful. For extreme anti-Chalcedonians, especially the
monks in Egypt, euphemistically called Diakrinomenoi or Hesitants, only an
outright condemnation of the Tome and Chalcedon would suffice. In fact
the rigorists in Alexandria later separated, being known first as Aposchistai
(Separatists), and subsequently as Akephaloi or Headless Ones, a reference
to their seemingly anonymous leadership. But some Chalcedonians too,
like Calandion of Antioch, found the edict unacceptable. Rome was also
unhappy at the recognition of Peter Mongus inherent in the reconciliation
19 Zach. Rh. HE v.8;Evagr.HE iii.14; Schwartz (1927) 133.
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008