Cambridge Ancient Hi.. - Index of

824 27. the definition and enforcement of orthodoxy
Anthimus, to become patriarch of Constantinople. In Alexandria vociferous
opposition to Theodosius’ accession was roused by the Gaianites, an
offshoot of the Julianists, and the patriarch had to be kept in power by the
intervention of imperial troops. When Theodosius was summoned to
Constantinople, an imperial invitation was extended to Severus to come to
the capital to discuss christological matters with Anthimus. The upshot was
that Severus, Anthimus and Theodosius communicated with each other, 45
thereby bringing unity and strength to the anti-Chalcedonians and threatening
the Chalcedonian position in the east. Strict Chalcedonians in
Palestine and Syria expressed their concern to Rome. At the demand of
pope Agapitus, Anthimus was deposed, and an imperial edict was promulgated
(536) anathematizing Severus, Anthimus and their followers, and
ordering that Severus’ works be burnt. 46 Severus himself retreated again to
Egypt, where he died on 2 August 538.
Under the protection of Theodora, Theodosius took over Severus’ role
as leader of the anti-Chalcedonian party and began ordaining Monophysite
bishops. Between 536 and 538 the empress had attempted to have the anathemata
against the Monophysite leaders revoked by using her influence on
Vigilius, the papal legate in Constantinople, and even by contriving his
appointment as pope (29 March 537). This ploy, however, was unsuccessful,
and in 540 Vigilius was forced by Justinian to ratify the anathemata of
536.
The reign of Justinian witnessed the rise of yet another christological
controversy, which apparently posed a threat both to Chalcedonian and
anti-Chalcedonian perceptions of orthodoxy, when in the 530s the
Monophysite deacon Themistius, who came from the anti-Julianist party in
Alexandria, promulgated in Constantinople his doctrine concerning the
ignorance of Christ. Just as Christ’s body was subject to death and corruption,
so too, argued Themistius, was his human mind finite and subject to
ignorance. While this was a logical progression in the opposition to the supposed
ideas of Julian of Halicarnassus, the doctrine caused a furore within
anti-Chalcedonian circles, and Themistius and his followers were soon
awarded the sobriquet Agnoetai (those who do not know). The debate certainly
lasted to the end of the sixth century. It seems as if Chalcedonians
too were attracted to Themistius’ ideas, and that Justinian was led to pass
an edict against Agnoetic teaching. 47 Like Julianism before it, this debate
both shows the shortcomings of Monophysite christology, the expression
of which produced an increasing number of splinter groups, and points to
a certain common ground between pro- and anti-Chalcedonians.
While on the Chalcedonian side a concerted defence of Chalcedonian
orthodoxy was being made by such writers as Leontius of Byzantium and
45 Zach. Rh. HE ix.19. 46 Nov. 42. 47 Brock (1985) 38–9; Van Roey and Allen (1994) 8–9.
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008