tory. The number of delegates to this council was very large; the Pope sent legates to represent him at the Council.

The Council condemned the acts of the Robber Council of Ephesus and deposed Dioscorus. Then it worked out a new religious formula completely rejecting the doctrine of the Monophysites, and wholly according with the views of the Pope of Rome. The council affirmed "one and the same Christ in two natures without confusion or change, division or separation." The dogmas approved by this council of Chalcedon, triumphantly confirming the main doctrines of the first two ecumenical councils, became the basis of the religious teachings of the orthodox church.

The decisions of the council of Chalcedon were also of great political significance in Byzantine history. The Byzantine government, by openly opposing Monophysitism in the fifth century, alienated the eastern provinces, Syria and Egypt, where the majority of the population was Monophysitic. The Monophysites remained true to their religious doctrines even after the condemnations of the council of 451 and were unwilling to make any compromises. The Egyptian church abolished the use of Greek in its services and introduced the native Egyptian (Coptic) language. The religious disturbances in Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch caused by the forced introduction of the decisions of the council assumed the character of serious national revolts and could be suppressed by the civil and military authorities only after much bloodshed. The suppression of these revolts did not, however, settle the fundamental problems of the period. Against the background of the conflicting religious disputes, more and more acute, began to appear clearly defined racial contradictions, particularly in Syria and Egypt. The Egyptian and Syrian native populations were gradually becoming convinced of the desirability of seceding from the Byzantine Empire. The religious disturbances in the eastern provinces, aided by the composition of the population, created toward the seventh century conditions which facilitated the transfer of these rich and civilized districts first into the hands of the Persians, and later of the Arabs.

The twenty-eighth canon of the council of Chalcedon, which called forth a correspondence between the Emperor and the Pope,

was also of great importance; this canon was not confirmed by the latter, but was generally accepted in the East. The question raised by it was about the rank of the Patriarch of Constaninople in relation to the Pope of Rome, that is, the question already decided by the third canon of the second Ecumenical Council. Following the decision of the latter council, the twenty-eighth canon of the Chalceden council gave "equal privileges to the most holy throne of New Rome, rightly judging that the city which is honored with the Sovereignty and the Senate and enjoys equal privileges with the old Imperial Rome should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she is, and rank next after her."115 Furthermore, the same canon grants the archbishop of Constantinople the right to ordain bishops for the provinces of Pontus, Asia, and Thrace, inhabited by people of various tribes. "It is sufficient to recall," says Th. I. Uspensky, "that the three above names embraced all the Christian missions in the East, in southern Russia, and in the Balkan peninsula, as well as all those acquisitions of the eastern clergy which could eventually be made in the indicated districts. At least, this is the opinion of later Greek canonists who defended the rights of the Constantinopolitan patriarch. Such, in brief, is the universal historical significance of the twenty-eighth canon."116

We can readily see that both Marcian and Leo I were emperors of strict orthodox mind.

Zeno (474-91). The Isaurians. Odovacar and Theoderic the Ostrogoth. The Henoticon.-After the death of Leo I (474) the throne passed to his six-year-old grandson, Leo, who died in the same year, having succeeded in conferring the imperial rank upon his father, Zeno. After the death of his son, Zeno became sole emperor (474-91). His accession to the throne marks the change of the former Germanic influence at the court by a new barbarian influence, namely, that of the Isaurians, of which savage race he was a member. The Isaurians now occupied the best positions and the most responsible posts in the capital. Very soon Zeno became aware that even among his own people there were men plotting against him, and he showed much determination in quelling the revolt in 115 Mansi, Amplissima Collectio Conciliorum (Florentiae, 1762), VII, 445. 116 Th. I. Uspensky, History of the Byzantine Empire, I, 276 (in Russian).

mountainous Isauria, ordering the inhabitants to pull down the greater part of their fortifications. The dominance of Isaurians in the Empire continued, however, throughout Zeno's lifetime.

During the period of Zeno's reign very significant events took place in Italy. In the second half of the fifth century the importance of the leaders of German troops increased very greatly. They reached the point where their will was almost decisive in making and deposing Roman emperors in the West. In the year 476 one of these barbarian chiefs, Odovacar, deposed the last western emperor, the young Romulus Augustulus, and himself became the ruler of Italy; but in order to make his rule in Italy more secure, he sent ambassadors to Zeno from the Roman Senate with the assurance that Italy needed no separate emperor and that Zeno might be the ruler of the entire empire. At the same time Odovacar asked Zeno to confer upon him the rank of Roman patrician and to intrust the administration of Italy to him. This request was granted and Odovacar became the legally appointed ruler of Italy. Formerly the year 476 was considered the year of the fall of the Western Roman Empire; but this is not correct, because in the fifth century there was still no separate Western Roman Empire; there was, as before, one Roman Empire ruled by two emperors, one in the eastern, the other in the western, part. In the year 476 there was again only one emperor in the Empire, namely, Zeno, the ruler of the eastern part.

Upon becoming the ruler of Italy, Odovacar assumed a very independent attitude. Zeno was fully aware of it; yet unable to struggle against Odovacar openly, he decided to act through the Ostrogoths. The latter, after the collapse of the power of Attila, remained in Pannonia, and, under the leadership of their king, Theoderic, carried on devastating raids in the Balkan peninsula, menacing even the capital of the Empire. Zeno succeeded in directing the attention of Theoderic to the rich provinces of Italy, thus attaining a double aim: he got rid of his dangerous northern neighbors and settled his disagreements with the undesirable ruler of Italy through the efforts of an outside party. In any event, Theoderic in Italy was less of a menace to Zeno than he would have been had he remained in the Balkan peninsula.

Theoderic moved on to Italy, defeated Odovacar, seized his

principal city, Ravenna, and founded on Italian territory, after Zeno's death, his Ostrogothic kingdom with the capital at Ravenna. The Balkan peninsula was thus definitely freed from the Ostrogothic menace.

The main internal problem during the reign of Zeno was the religious problem, which still continued to cause many disturbances within the Empire in view of varied religious developments. In Egypt and Syria, and partly in Palestine and Asia Minor, the population held on firmly to the doctrine of one nature. The firm orthodox policy of the two emperors who preceded Zeno was little applauded in the eastern provinces. The leaders of the church were fully aware of the seriousness of the situation, and the Patriarch of Constantinople, Acacius, who favored at first the decisions of Chalcedon, was particularly anxious to find some way of reconciling the dissenting parties in the church. He proposed to Zeno that he attempt to reach some mutual agreement by means of compromises on both sides. Zeno accepted this proposal and issued in 482 the Act of Union, or the Henoticon (èvшTIKÓν), addressed to the churches subject to the Patriarch of Alexandria. He tried, in this act, above all, to avoid any sign of disrespect, either toward the orthodox or the Monophysitic teachings about the union in Jesus Christ of two natures, the divine and the human. The Henoticon recognized as entirely sufficient the religious foundations developed at the first and second ecumenical councils and ratified at the third council; it anathematized Nestorius and Eutyches, as well as all their followers, and stated that Jesus Christ was "of the same nature with the Father in the Godhead and also of the same nature with us in the manhood," yet it obviously avoided the use of the phrases "one nature" or "two natures" and did not mention the statement of the council of Chalcedon in regard to the union of two natures in Christ. The council of Chalcedon is mentioned in the Henoticon only once, in the following statement: "And here we anathematise all who have held, or hold now or at any time, whether in Chalcedon or in any other synod whatsoever, any different belief."117

117 Evagrii, Historia Ecclesiastica, III, 14 (ed. Bidez-Parmentier [London, 1898], p. 113). The Syriac Chronicle, known as that of Zachariah of Mitylene, V, 8, translated by Hamilton and E. W. Brooks (London, 1899), p. 123.

At first the Henoticon seemed to bring about a more desirable condition in Alexandria, but it did not in the long run satisfy either the orthodox or the Monophysites. The former could not become reconciled to the concessions made to the Monophysites; the latter, in view of the lack of clarity in the statements of the Henoticon, considered the concessions insufficient; and new complications were thus introduced into the religious life of the Byzantine Empire. The number of religious parties increased. Part of the clergy favored the idea of reconciliation and supported the Act of Union, while the extremists in both the orthodox and the Monophysitic movements were unwilling to make any compromise. These firmly orthodox men were called the Akoimetoi, i.e., "The Sleepless," because the services in their monasteries were held continuously during the day and night, so that they had to divide their groups into three relays; the extreme Monophysites were called the Akephaloi, i.e., "The Headless," because they did not recognize the leadership of the Alexandrian Patriarch who accepted the Henoticon. The Pope of Rome also protested against the Henoticon. He analyzed the complaints of the eastern clergy, dissatisfied with the decree, then studied the Act of Union itself and decided to excommunicate and anathematize the Patriarch of Constantinople, Acacius, at a council gathered in Rome. In reply to this action of the Pope, Acacius ceased to mention the Pope in his prayers. This was in reality the first breach between the Eastern and Western churches, which continued until the year 518, when Justin I ascended the throne. Thus, the political breach of the eastern and western parts of the Empire, quite in evidence since the founding in the fifth century of the barbarian Germanic kingdoms in the West, became wider during the reign of Zeno because of the religious secession.

ANASTASIUS I (491-518)

The settlement of the Isaurian problem. The Persian War. Bulgarian and Slavic attacks. The Long Wall. Relations with the West. Following the death of Zeno, his widow, Ariadne, chose the aged Anastasius, a native of Dyrrachium, who held the rather minor court position of silentiary (silentiarius).118 Anastasius was crowned

118 The silentiarii were the ushers who kept guard at the doors during meetings of the imperial council and imperial audiences.