Cambridge Ancient Hi.. - Index of

818 27. the definition and enforcement of orthodoxy
of Alexandria and Constantinople, at the perceived perfidy of Acacius, and
at the jurisdiction which the patriarch of the capital had arrogated to
himself in other matters. Alerted by the strict Chalcedonian Sleepless
Monks in Constantinople, in 484 pope Felix III excommunicated Acacius,
and demanded that the emperor Zeno choose between the apostle Peter
and Peter Mongus. 20 This was the beginning of the Acacian schism
between east and west, which was to last until the reign of Justin I.
v. anastasius i
On his accession to the throne after the death of Zeno in April 491,
Anastasius I (491–518) determined to use the Henotikon as an oecumenical
tool, interpreting the document as being in no way an annulment of
Chalcedon. In working towards restoring relations with Rome as well,
Anastasius tried to make the Henotikon the basis of negotiation. However,
since he aimed primarily at ecclesiastical peace rather than at a uniform
belief, the new emperor was usually willing to allow cities that were predominantly
of one persuasion or another to be governed by bishops sympathetic
to their cause. This policy caused confusion and polarization,
according to the sixth-century church historian Evagrius, who identifies
three groupings: (1) rigorous anti-Chalcedonians who were satisfied only
with a condemnation of Chalcedon and Leo’s Tome; (2) rigorous, uncompromising
defenders of Chalcedon; (3) Chalcedonians and anti-
Chalcedonians who abided by the Henotikon. 21 The emperor’s enforcement
of the Henotikon as the basis for negotiation is demonstrated clearly also by
the deposition and exile of the Chalcedonian patriarch of Constantinople,
Euphemius (490–6), who did not support the Henotikon. On the other
hand, adherence to the document availed a patriarch nothing if, like Flavian
of Antioch (498–512), he was unable to deal with unrest within his jurisdiction.
The reign of Anastasius is decisive for the history of opposition to
Chalcedonian orthodoxy in that, as well as proving the failure of compromise
documents like the Henotikon, this period produced two of the greatest
theologians of the anti-Chalcedonian ‘one nature’ (Monophysite)
christology – Philoxenus of Mabbug and Severus of Antioch, both of
whom tried to enforce an anti-Chalcedonian interpretation of the
Henotikon. Philoxenus not only induced the monastic body at Antioch to
oppose the Chalcedonian patriarch Flavian, but also persuaded Anastasius
to have Euphemius’ successor Macedonius summon the home synod,
where a confession of faith was composed (507?) in which the Antiochene
and Leonine tradition as evident in Chalcedon was condemned. In 509, at
20 Felix, Ep. 8, in Schwartz (1934) 81, lines 24ff. 21 Evagr. HE iii.30.
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008