5. Attempts at Peace

But the day of Timotheus was nearly over, although Antioch and Jerusalem were occupied by Monophysite bishops. Acacius was absolutely firm, and did all he could to arouse the capital against the usurper. The populace responded to his efforts; a great ecclesiastical demonstration was arranged, and Dan iel the Stylite came down from his pillar to bear witness to the orthodox faith. Ba siliscus was forced to abandon the city, and Zeno, gathering strength as he came, approached. A last means of averting the counter-revolution was tried in the recall of the encyclical; but it was of no avail, and Zeno, resuming the throne, annulled the acts of his opponent (Dec. 17, 476). The bishops of Asia Minor made haste to declare with the utmost penitence that their assent to the encyclical had been extorted from them by force. Pope Simplicius had already written to Basiliscus, and now wrote again to Zeno, to demand the deposition of Timo theus Nlurus; but Timothy died July 31, 477. The Monophysite party elected Petrus Mongus, then archdeacon, to succeed him, but the government restored Timotheus Salophaciolus by military force. Feeling his end approaching, he was urgent with the emperor that only an orthodox bishop should be chosen to succeed him. When he died (prob ably in June, 482) his aconommus John Talaja con trived to secure the succession; but it was not long before Zeno saw fit to restore Petrus Mongus, on condition of his assenting to the document (after ward so famous under the name of Henottcon) put forth by Acacius with the view of securing peace.

Acacius was an accomplished politician, as is sufficiently proved by his ability to maintain himself for eighteen years (471-489) amid all

6. The Henoticon

the changes and conflicts of the times. Unfortunately the sources are unsatisfying on the preliminaries to the issue of the Henoticon; but there must have been negotiations in which Acacius endeavored to secure the good-will of Petrus Mongus, evidently his candidate for Alexandria and like himself a politician. The formula of unidn, addressed to the bishops, clergy, monks, and people of Alexandria, Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis, is a masterpiece of tactical skill. It is avowedly based on the faith of Nioa'a, Constantinople, and Ephesus, condemns Nestorius and Eutyches, adopting the twelve articles of Cyril against the latter, and while not expressly repudia. ting the decisions of Chalcedon, rejects the statements of " anyone who now or at any time, in Chalcedon or elsewhere, has thought or thinks otherwise." On the positive side, it asserts the consubstantiality of the Son of God with both the Father and man, going on to insist that it was one and the same person who wrought wonders and endured suffering-thus virtually accepting the "God crucified" of the Monophysites. It repudiated all separation as confusion (of the natures, although the term is carefully avoided), as well as anything like

476

Docetism. The first result was the settlement of the Alexandrian difficulties, as far as could be expected in the heated state of the popular mind. Petrus'e position was not an easy one, and he got through only by some very adroit juggling with terms. Even then an irreconcilable party remained, led by a certain Nephelius, who did all possible to keep up the disturbance; but the majority were content, and, what was of greatest importance, Constantinople and Alexandria werd once more on good terms. In Antioch also the situation seemed to improve. Peter the Fuller had been deposed after the downfall of Basiliscus; and when the next incumbent but one, Stephen, had been assassinated, Acacius availed himself of the opportunity to appoint of his own motion a certain Calandion as patriarch (probably at the end of 481). Calandion soon entered into an alliance with the Chalcedonian opponents of the Henoticon and with Rome. He was in consequence deposed in 485, and Petrus returned for the third time, it is said amid great enthusiasm, accepting the Henoticon, as did also Martyrius of Jerusalem-so that the leading rulers of the Eastern Church seemed now to be at one.

But they were reckoning without Rome. The pope was offended not only by the disregard of his wishes in Alexandria but by the arbitrary action of Aeacius in the appointment of Calandion. In the latter case, he was appeased by the 7. The assurance that it had been done merely Breach out of necessity, by the subsequent with Rome. calling of a synod, and by the formal notification of the choice on the part of Calandion and his suffragans. It is uncertain whether Simplicius had heard of the Henoticon; his last extant letter complains merely of Acacius' silence in regard to what was happening in Alexandria. He died Mar. 10, 483, and was succeeded by the more determined and successful Felix III., who at once sent two long epistles to Constantinople. He warned Zeno not to lay rash hands on the faith of Peter and to bear in mind the fate of Baailiscus; he admonished Acacius in the tone of a superior not to remain recalcitrant but to atone for past misdeeds by redoubled zeal. The letters, however, had scarcely been despatched when he learned through John Talaja, who on his expulsion had finally come to seek support in Rome, more of the Eastern situation. In great displeasure he sent off fresh letters citing Acacius to appear in Rome and informing the emperor of this prodding. But Acacius got hold of the papal envoys and either overawed or cajoled them. Felix made haste to call a synod in which he deposed his untrustworthy legates, excommunicated Acacius, and notified the people of Constantinople on July 28, 484, as well as the emperor on Aug. 1. Acacius took no notice of the sentence except to retaliate by striking out the name of Felix from the diptychs, and the breach was complete between Rome and so much of the Eastern Church as remained in communion with him. It is usual to represent this breach and the thirty-five-year schism which followed as the result of the Henoticon, and this document as a thoroughly harmful measure. Superficially, of course,

this view is correct; if the decrees of Chalcedon had been adhered to and submission had been rendered to the directions of Rome, there would have been no schism. But it is by no means certain that such an unconditional surrender to the will of Rome would have been either possible or desirable. It is evident from Felix's letters that he held a startling conviction of the supremacy of the pope which was in irreconcilable conflict with the solution of the Eastern precedence question set forth in canon xxviu. of Chalcedon and Zeno's edict of 476, in which he had strongly confirmed the prerogatives of the patriarch of Constantinople. The development of this prelate's power had been accepted with complacency in the East, and a patriarch who attached so much importance to it as did Acacius was likely to regard it as more vital than the maintenance of a good understanding with Rome. He was in a position to carry his point as long as the government of Constantinople was absorbed in securing its position in the East; it was only when, a generation later, the imperial ambition attempted to embrace the whole known world that the question of reunion with Rome became pressing-for whoever wished to rule in the West was obliged to take the pope into account. In the mean time, however, the main thing was to establish ecclesiastical and dogmatic unity between the great sees of the East. This could be done neither by a formula which should center around the definition of Chalcedon, nor by an absolute rejection of the definition and the council. The method adopted in the Henoticon was thus the only practicable one, although not without its difficulties; it was no use trying to reconcile the fanatical extreme Monophysites, and on the other wing the orthodox opposition in Constantinople was kept in line by the monasteries, accessible to Roman influence and supplying the pope constantly with information on current events; while the successors of Acacius were not equal to their task, and threw many obstacles in the way of the imperial union

Acacius died probably at the end of 489. .His

successor Fravitas (probably a Goth) notified Petrua

Mongus of his election in a letter which definitely adheres to the status quo, and wrote to 8. Eastern Felix in the usual way, although, it Support appears from Felix's answer, without of the making any distinct pledges as to his Henoticon. future conduct. His incumbency of the patriarchal see, however, lasted but four months. His successor was Euphemius, who took his stand outspokenly among those who wished to place as orthodox a construction as pos

sible upon the Henoticon, if not to drop it alto

gether. This brought him into conflict with Petrus

Mongus, whom he was apparently preparing to depose in a synod when Petrus died, being suc ceeded by Athanasius II. Euphemius announced

hi§ elevation to the pope, who refused recognition on the ground that he had not struck the names of Acacius and Fravitas out of the diptychs. About

a year later (Apr. 9, 491) the Emperor Zeno died,

and the throne was occupied by the former ailenr

tiaraua Anastasius, who set out to follow in Zeno's

477

path and maintain the Henoticon and the same unyielding attitude toward Rome. Personally a convinced Monophysite, he was led, especially toward the end of his reign, into unreasoning subjection to the extreme wing of the party. But at first Euphemius opposed his elevation to the imperial throne, and succeeded in forcing him to sign an undertaking to introduce no innovations and to recognize the decisions of Chalcedon. During the Isaurian war, the patriarch entered into treasonable communications with the enemy, and thus gave the emperor an excuse to depose him and banish him to Euchaita in Pontus (probably in the summer of 496). The new patriarch was Macedonius, a grandson of Gennadius. He was compelled to sign the Henoticon, but his Heart was on the other side, and it took only a little pressure from the orthodox monks to range him definitely with them.