The Tome of Leo and the Council of Chalcedon

The Tome of Leo and the Council of Chalcedon

(Acts of Chalcedon, Introduction, pp. 25-33)

448: The trial of Eutyches

The uneasy truce between Christological factions, already unravelling in the mid-440s, shattered in the autumn of 448 when formal charges of heresy were brought against the archimandrite Eutyches. The elderly ascetic, once a follower of the late Dalmatius, had for the past several decades presided over a community of some 300 monks on the outskirts of Constantinople. He enjoyed considerable prominence both in and outside the capital.⁸⁴ Cyril had corresponded with him and sent him a personalized copy of the Acts of Ephesus.⁸⁵ Eutyches was a spiritual adviser to the emperor himself, and godfather to the powerful eunuch Chrysaphius, a dominant figure at the imperial court since at least 443.⁸⁶ By the late 440s, Eutyches had become known throughout the east as a prominent exponent of an extreme miaphysite theology that, opponents charged, denied the humanity of Christ. Theodoret of Cyrrhus’ polemical dialogue Eranistes (c.447), though it does not mention Eutyches by name, was understood to condemn his ideas. But his complaints against Eutyches backfired, due to Theodosius II’s respect for the monk and mistrust of the ‘Nestorian’ tendencies of Antiochene teaching. In February of 448 the emperor responded by reiterating a harsh condemnation of ‘Nestorianism’, deposing Irenaeus, Nestorius’ old friend and now bishop of Tyre, and ordering the burning of Nestorius’ writings.⁸⁷

In November of 448, Bishop Eusebius of Dorylaeum – once a layman who had been among the first to denounce Nestorius – interrupted a meeting of Constantinople’s Home Synod to present a bill of indictment formally accusing Eutyches of heresy. Bishop Flavian of Constantinople, himself also a believer in a two-nature Christology, nevertheless made a show of trying to dissuade his colleague from pursuing such a prominent and influential figure. Eusebius, a zealous accuser, insisted on pressing a legalistic and adversarial case against the abbot on the basis of heretical statements already made, while the more cautious Flavian preferred to speak in terms of friendly paternalistic correction and promised that all would be forgiven if Eutyches renounced his errors.⁸⁸ Eusebius, not without reason, feared retaliation from Eutyches’ powerful friends and repeatedly demanded assurances that the case would not be dropped.⁸⁹

Over several days, clerics accompanied by notaries were sent three times to deliver formal summonses to Eutyches. The emissaries conveyed his refusals back to the synod. According to the notaries’ reports, while conversing with the clerics Eutyches made various statements, which the bishops at the synod found heretical.⁹⁰ Meanwhile, Eusebius presented additional evidence that Eutyches had been circulating statements of faith among the other abbots and had attempted to rally them in opposition to Flavian.⁹¹ Some of the monks supported Eutyches, but others appeared at the synod to speak against him and sign his condemnation – testimony to a developing split within Constantinople’s powerful monastic movement that had not been apparent in previous controversies.⁹² Eutyches, like any defendant facing a forum dominated by his enemies, was understandably reluctant to appear. He offered varying excuses for his absence, at one point citing a vow never to leave his monastery, and at another time pleading illness.⁹³ But knowing that refusal of a third summons would mean condemnation by default, after several delays he finally promised to present himself.

The case of Eutyches occupied the Home Synod in seven different sessions spread out over two weeks. The sequence of events was as follows [citations in brackets are to Chalcedon’s first session]:

1. Monday 8 November: Eusebius of Dorylaeum presents and reads the formal indictment; John and Andrew sent to deliver the first summons to Eutyches. [I. 223–35]

2. Friday 12 November: Reading of Cyril’s letters from Ephesus I; statements of faith by each bishop present. [I. 238–53]

3. Monday 15 November: John and Andrew report on their visit to Eutyches. Mamas and Theophilus sent to deliver the second summons. Eusebius presents evidence that Eutyches has been inciting dissent among the other monasteries of Constantinople. Mamas and Theophilus return and report. Memnon, Epiphanius and Germanus sent with the third summons. [I. 354–404]

4. Tuesday 16 November: Monks from Eutyches’ monastery arrive, report his illness, and ask for leniency. [I. 405–19]

5. Wednesday 17 November: Memnon, Epiphanius and Germanus return and report. Eutyches promises to appear next Monday. Other monasteries and abbots report back with additional stories of Eutyches’ incitements. [I. 420–44]

6. Saturday 20 November: Eusebius requests the presence of various witnesses. Mamas and Theophilus interrogated about alleged heretical statements made by Eutyches during their visit of 15 November. [I. 445–57]

7. Monday 22 November: Eutyches finally arrives, accompanied by silentiary Magnus. Patrician Florentius invited to sit in. Eutyches interrogated about his faith and condemned. Formal sentence read and signatures of bishops and archimandrites appended. [I. 458–552]

When Eutyches finally appeared before the synod, he brought with him deliberate reminders of his connections to power. The silentiary Magnus accompanied him along with an escort of soldiers. By imperial request, the patrician and ex-prefect Florentius sat in on the session ‘lest harm come to orthodoxy’ – an unsubtle hint that the emperor had little faith in the ability of Flavian and his colleagues to prevent such harm.⁹⁴ When the bishops demanded a statement from him of his own beliefs, Eutyches demurred, claiming that it was enough to profess faith in the creed of Nicaea and in the teachings of Cyril and Ephesus I. The aged monk sought to present himself as a simple and unlearned man of faith with little knowledge of or patience for the theological sophistries employed by interrogators who sought to trap him in heresy. Appearing to defer to his questioners – ‘Before I did not say this … but now, since Your Sacredness has said it, I say it’⁹⁵ – he was in fact laying a trap of his own, allowing the bishops to go on record with statements that would later be turned against them at Ephesus.⁹⁶ His repeated insistence on Nicaea as the only acceptable basis for faith – and his concomitant horror of ‘innovation’ – was a conviction that would be shared by Dioscorus and his colleagues at the imminent general council, and would also underlie much of the later opposition to Chalcedon. For his refusal to concede that Christ existed in two natures after the incarnation, and for his audacious defiance of episcopal authority, the bishops of the Home Synod pronounced judgement against him.⁹⁷ In an unusual move, the abbots of Constantinople who had refused to support Eutyches were invited to append their signatures after those of the bishops.⁹⁸

Eutyches did not go quietly. Amid the chaos that apparently ensued after the reading of the verdict, he called out an appeal to a ‘council’ of the bishops of Rome, Alexandria, Jerusalem and Thessalonica – a statement that the official minutes mysteriously failed to record.⁹⁹ He followed up with letters to the bishops of these major sees, asking that his case be judged by an ecumenical synod. The appeal did not go unheard. Within four months, the emperor himself would give orders for the convocation of a general council.¹⁰⁰ The November 448 synod was itself put on trial in a hearing held the following April at the behest of Eutyches’ supporters.¹⁰¹ That inquiry was characterized by intense examination and contestation of the documentary record, a process largely responsible for the complicated and confusing nature of the acta later read into the record at the first session of Chalcedon. Eutyches’ supporters charged Flavian’s notaries with falsification and corruption, alleging that they had altered the record in order to manufacture incriminating statements that Eutyches now denied having made. To back up their claims, the Eutychians produced their own transcripts of the synodal proceedings and demanded that these be compared with the official versions taken by Flavian’s notaries. Their attack upon the acta of Flavian’s synod earned them a new hearing, which took place in accordance with the emperor’s orders on 13 April 449.¹⁰² At this session, the transcripts from the Home Synod were read back, line by line, and frequently challenged by Eutyches’ representatives. The notaries were summoned, interrogated, and threatened, and they indignantly defended themselves while at the same time offering excuses as to why the transcription of spoken words was something less than an exact science.¹⁰³ Additional testimony given two weeks later, in an appeal before the Master of Divine Offices Flavius Martialis, brought forward the accusation that Eutyches’ written condemnation had been drawn up by Flavian after the second summons and in advance of the monk’s appearance, and that he could have had no hope of a fair hearing.¹⁰⁴ Although the appeal did not produce a definitive result – it was decided to defer the matter to the new council scheduled to meet at Ephesus later that year – it succeeded in casting considerable doubt upon the substantive and procedural legitimacy of Flavian’s synod.

Flavian had sent an immediate report to Pope Leo regarding the condemnation of Eutyches, but Leo somehow did not receive it until months later.¹⁰⁵ His response – the famous Tome of Leo – came in June of 449. In this lengthy letter the pope agreed with Flavian, condemned the doctrines of Eutyches, and laid down a firmly two-nature understanding of Christology.¹⁰⁶ Leo intended the Tome as a definitive pronouncement on the faith, and instructed his envoys to present it at the imminent council at Ephesus. But Dioscorus and his allies manoeuvred to keep it off the agenda at Ephesus’ first session.¹⁰⁷ Two years later, at Chalcedon’s second session, it would finally be read and acclaimed by the assembled bishops.

The ‘Robber Council’: Ephesus II

The second gathering of bishops in Ephesus took place in 449. This was a council effectively dominated by Alexandria, under the presidency of its ruthless and ambitious patriarch Dioscorus, who had been Cyril’s archdeacon before the latter’s death in 444. Upon taking office, Dioscorus efficiently purged relatives of Cyril from positions of influence and stripped them of the wealth and property they had managed to accumulate under the previous episcopacy. Cyril’s dispossessed and disgruntled relations were in large part the source of the complaints of abuse brought against Dioscorus at Chalcedon’s third session. Dioscorus quickly distinguished himself as an ardent proponent of Alexandrian one-nature Christology and as a bitter adversary of anything ‘Nestorian’ or Antiochene.

Background to Ephesus II

For several years prior to the council, Dioscorus had conspired with likeminded bishops, clerics and monastic leaders in the eastern provinces in a campaign to foment opposition to the ‘heretical’ bishops associated with Antioch. Domnus, lightweight nephew of John of Antioch, who succeeded his uncle in 441 but by all accounts did not match his leadership, was in little position to mount an effective defence.¹⁰⁸ By the late 440s, groups of militant monks and clerics were in more or less open revolt against several Syrian bishops. The controversial Ibas of Edessa had been the subject of a series of investigations into complaints by his disgruntled clergy going back to 445. In April of 449, the count Chaereas visited Edessa to be met by crowds chanting slogans against Ibas.¹⁰⁹ Theodoret of Cyrrhus was ordered by a harshly worded imperial edict to be confined to his see, kept away from the council, and to have ‘no freedom of speech’.¹¹⁰ Known as an intellectual leader of the Antiochenes and a fierce critic of Cyril, Theodoret aroused a virulent hatred among the Alexandrians, who would later object loudly to his presence at Chalcedon.

Scholars have often stressed the key role of the court eunuch Chrysaphius, a backer of Eutyches and of the Alexandrians, who had risen in influence in the early 440s even as the once powerful empress Pulcheria had fallen out of favour.¹¹¹ But too much focus on the emperor’s advisers perhaps unfairly minimizes the priorities and prejudices of Theodosius himself, who had by now turned bitterly against Nestorius and everything associated with him. His distrust of the Antiochenes was such that he was willing to countenance an open assault on the principles of episcopal hierarchy by encouraging zealous monastic leaders such as the militant Syrian Barsaumas to defy their bishops and be seated in their own right at the council.¹¹² The purpose of the new council, according to Theodosius, was to reiterate, confirm and strengthen the faith of Nicaea and the teachings of Cyril as articulated at the prior council of Ephesus. Its mandate was not to consider doctrinal questions or write new definitions but simply to ‘root out’ the remnants of Nestorian heresy, the case against Flavian and the Antiochene bishops being essentially prejudged.¹¹³

The Second Council of Ephesus

Dioscorus of Alexandria, in collaboration with Juvenal of Jerusalem, Thalassius of Caesarea and several other prominent bishops, was able to set the agenda and control the course of events at the council.¹¹⁴ Pursuing the same strategy as Cyril had done 18 years previously, he brought militant Egyptian monks with him to Ephesus to intimidate dissident bishops. This time, with the full backing of the emperor, Dioscorus faced no effective opposition in the immediate term. But his failure to secure the support of the pope, as Cyril had done, meant that the council would never command universal acceptance. Although the reality of the Second Council of Ephesus is sometimes difficult to distinguish from its later caricature as a ‘Robber Council’, fortunately its documentary record has survived in detail. The first session of Ephesus, itself incorporating transcripts from the earlier trial of Eutyches, was in turn read back at Chalcedon’s opening session and thus survives as part of the official Greek acts of the latter. But according to testimony later given at Chalcedon, Dioscorus’ notaries at Ephesus deliberately excluded dissenting voices and even used violence to prevent any other scribes from making an independent record. Chalcedon would feature numerous examples of bishops disowning or repudiating statements attributed to them in the record from Ephesus, or instead claiming that those statements had been extracted by force.¹¹⁵ But while two years later many sought to evade responsibility by pinning sole responsibility on Dioscorus, a close reading of the record suggests that a substantial majority of the bishops present went along willingly or even enthusiastically.¹¹⁶

At the first session, which commenced on 8 August 449 with 135 bishops present, Dioscorus moved quickly to secure his supremacy by marginalizing the papal envoys, already handicapped by the necessity of speaking and listening through translators. Pope Leo’s dyophysite Tome would hardly have been helpful to Dioscorus’ cause – so he made sure that Leo’s letter introducing it was ‘received’ but never read to the assembled bishops or entered into the documentary record.¹¹⁷ The synod then turned to its main business, the hearing of Eutyches’ appeal. The ensuing reexamination of his case effectively turned the tables and put Flavian’s synod on trial. Transcripts first of the 448 Home Synod and then of the April 449 inquiry were read back, punctuated by frequent interruptions denouncing Flavian and Eusebius of Dorylaeum as Nestorians and heretics for their documented insistence on ‘two natures’. Then Dioscorus sprung his trap. After ordering a reading of the acts from Ephesus I relating to its seventh canon, and asking the bishops to reaffirm the rule condemning anyone who taught a creed ‘different from that of Nicaea’, he abruptly declared Flavian and Eusebius guilty of innovation and pronounced them deposed.¹¹⁸ At that point the synod seems to have erupted into chaos. The protests of Flavian and the papal legates were overruled, and soldiers and club-wielding monks allegedly entered and threatened the bishops in order to coerce their assent. The papal envoys fled, the deacon and future Pope Hilary thanking the saints for his harrowing escape.¹¹⁹ Flavian, imprisoned and apparently handled roughly, died under suspicious circumstances soon afterward.¹²⁰

⁸⁴ On Eutyches and Constantinopolitan monasticism, cf. Dagron 1970, Bacht 1951.

⁸⁵ So Eutyches claimed in his petition to Ephesus II: I. 157.

⁸⁶ On Chrysaphius, see Goubert 1951; PLRE 2 ‘Chrysaphius’.

⁸⁷ ACO 1.1.4 pp. 66–7.

⁸⁸ Chalcedon, I. 417. For Flavian’s role see further, p. 116 below.

⁸⁹ See, e.g., I. 477–86. If Eusebius failed to prove the case he could in turn be prosecuted as a false accuser.

⁹⁰ At, e.g., I. 445–57, but the veracity of the record was later contested, e.g. I. 695–8.

⁹¹ I. 381–97, 432–44.

⁹² As Dagron 1970 points out.

⁹³ I. 359 and 397, referring to the vow; I. 414, claiming illness.

⁹⁴ On Florentius, see PLRE 2 ‘Florentius 7’. The emperor’s letter introducing him is at I. 468.

⁹⁵ I. 522, in response to their demand that he affirm that the Son was consubstantial with us.

⁹⁶ Thus I. 535, apparently in response to Flavian’s demand (I. 788, somehow not recorded in the official minutes) that he concede two natures after the incarnation: ‘Since Your Sacredness teaches it, I say it … but I have not found it clearly stated in the scriptures, nor did all the fathers say it. If I anathematize … I anathematize my fathers.’

⁹⁷ The actual sentence against Eutyches, pronounced by Flavian and read into the minutes at I. 551, is vague as to the exact nature of his heresy. It refers only to ‘heresies of Valentinus and Apollinarius’, fairly generic accusations, and makes no clear reference to anything actually said by Eutyches at the synod – so it could indeed, as later alleged (I. 838) have been written up in advance of the trial.

⁹⁸ I. 552.31–53. But while the bishops’ subscriptions read, ‘I have given my sentence and signed’, the abbots said only ‘I have signed’. Eutyches later complained, in his appeal presented to the council at Ephesus (I. 185) that in an ‘unprecedented’ manner the condemnation had been circulated among the monasteries and signatures demanded from the other monks.

⁹⁹ I. 818–9, testified to by the deacon Constantine and the patrician Florentius. Eutyches hoped in vain that Leo of Rome might take his side (cf. Leo, ep. 20) but he found strong allies in Dioscorus of Alexandria and Juvenal of Jerusalem. Bishop Anastasius of Thessalonica was not present at either Ephesus II or Chalcedon, in both cases being represented by Quintillus of Heraclea, and did not play any significant role in the controversies.

¹⁰⁰ Ordered on 30 March 449, to convene at Ephesus that August. Theodosius’ letter of invitation to Dioscorus is given at I. 24.

¹⁰¹ Eutyches himself was not present at the April 449 hearings, but was represented by the monks Constantine, Eleusinius and Constantius.

¹⁰² The transcripts of this inquiry were in turn read back at Ephesus, and again finally at Chalcedon: I. 555–828. An earlier session on 8 April, presided over by Thalassius of Caesarea, is referred to at I. 558–9 but not recorded in our acta.

¹⁰³ I. 576–614, 644, 721–5, 767, 778–82.

¹⁰⁴ On 27 April: I. 829–49, esp. 838. The testimony was given by the silentiary Magnus.

¹⁰⁵ Flavian’s letter: Leo, ep. 22; cf. ep. 26. Cf. Leo’s letter to Flavian of 18 February 449 (Leo, ep. 23) complaining that Flavian had not yet sent him a ‘full account’ of the proceedings against Eutyches. Ironically, Eutyches had been the first to appeal to the pope, even before his trial writing to ask Leo’s support in condemning ‘Nestorian’ heretics. Cf. Leo’s cursory response at ep. 20. Eutyches appealed again (Leo, ep. 21) to protest his condemnation by Flavian.

¹⁰⁶ Dated 13 June 449; Leo, ep. 28. Translated below at II. 22.

¹⁰⁷ Cf. I. 82–6, referring not to the Tome itself but to Leo’s letter to the council (Leo, ep. 33 of 13 June 449), which was intended to preface it; see also I. 87–106, inquiries at Chalcedon as to why the letter had not been read. See discussion below.

¹⁰⁸ Domnus had come from the monastery of Euthymius in Palestine, and would return there after 449: Cyril of Scythopolis, Life of Euthymius 16, 20.

¹⁰⁹ Chaereas’ reports were read at the second session of Ephesus II and are recorded in the Syriac Acts: Syriac Acts, ed. Flemming, 14–61. See discussion below.

¹¹⁰ Edict of 30 March 449, read at I. 24. The direction of an imperial edict against a specific individual who had not already been formally condemned for heresy seems to have been quite unprecedented.

¹¹¹ Cf. Goubert 1951; Holum 1982, 191–207.

¹¹² Theodosius’ letter of invitation to Barsaumas is at I. 48; cf. I. 47. At the end of the session, Barsaumas pronounced sentence and signed along with the bishops, in last place: I. 1066.

¹¹³ Thus Theodosius’ mandate to Elpidius, at I. 49, explaining that he had summoned the council ‘to completely excise the root of evil’.

¹¹⁴ At the end of the first session of Chalcedon, the imperial commissioners deposed Dioscorus, Juvenal, Thalassius of Caesarea, Eusebius of Ancyra, Eustathius of Berytus, and Basil of Isaurian Seleucia, indicating that these six were seen as the ringleaders: I. 1068.

¹¹⁵ I. 54–65, 121–34, 149–50, 167–78, 323–9, 496–7, 530, 851–2.

¹¹⁶ I. 62: Opponents of Dioscorus complained, ‘We were one hundred and thirty-five in all; forty-two were ordered to keep silent; the rest were Dioscorus and Juvenal and the disorderly mob; that left only fifteen of us. What could we do?’

¹¹⁷ I. 82–6; with later complaints at Chalcedon, I. 87–106. The letter mentioned here would have been Leo, ep. 33, addressed directly to the council; if the pope’s envoys had been allowed to present it, they would next have gone on to introduce the Tome.

¹¹⁸ These acts (from Ephesus I’s session of 22 July 431, discussed above) were read back and acclaimed at I. 911–61; Dioscorus pronounced the unexpected sentence on Flavian at I. 962.

¹¹⁹ Upon his return to Rome, the grateful Hilary (later pope, 461–8) left the inscription liberatori suo beato Iohanni (‘to his liberator, the blessed John’) in the baptistery of St John Lateran in Rome. It is published in Diehl, Inscriptiones Latinae Christianae Veteres, 980.

¹²⁰ On the uncertain circumstances of Flavian’s death, which might have occurred as late as several months after the council, see Chadwick 1955.