Patriarch and People: Peter Mongus of Alexandria and Episcopal Leadership in the Late Fifth Century

Haas, Christopher, Patriarch and People: Peter Mongus of Alexandria and Episcopal Leadership in the Late Fifth Century , Journal of Early Christian Studies, 1 (1993) p.297

Patriarch and People: Peter Mangus of Alexandria and · Episcopal Leadership in the Late Fifth Century~CHRISTOPHER HAAS Peter Mongus, patriarch of Alexandria (477-490) is best known for his role _ in the Monophysite controversy of the fifth century and his support for the Henotikon of the emperor Zeno. He is often disparaged by ancient writers and modern scholars for his seeming vacillation in doctrinal matters. On closer examination, his theological stance is shown to be a calculated response to various social and religious conflicts in fifth-century Alexandria. His policies towards Alexandrian schismatics and intransigent pagans were expressions of a more fundamental program of furthering the local authority of the patriarchate, even when these local interests came into conflict with imperial directives.

The last quarter of the fifth century was a watershed in the cultural history of the Mediterranean world. The Roman Empire in the west was breaking up into the Germanic (or sub-Roman) kingdoms of t~e early Middle Ages. In Gaul, a young Clovis had become king of the Salian Franks. In Italy, Odovacer consolidated his kingdom following the deposition of the boyemperor Romulus Augustulus. Both Cassiodorus and Boethius, the great intermediaries who conveyed so much of the Classical heritage to the Medieval world, were born during this decade, as was Benedict of Nursia who conceived a new vision of Christian society. In the East, the Codex Theodosianus had been providing the imperial realms with a magisterial summation of Christian Roman law for over fifty years. The Council of "'I wish to thank the following individuals who have offered their kind comments on earlier drafts of this essay: Elzbieta and Mieczyslaw Radziewicz, Bill Barry, Roger Bagnall, John Fine, John Eadie, Ray Van Dam, Gary Johnson, and Barbara Haas. Journal of Early Christian Studies 1:3 297-316 © 1993 The johns Hopkins University Press.

Copyright (c) 2004 ProQuest Information and Learning Company Copyright (c) Johns Hopkins University Press

298

JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES

Chalcedon had taken place in the previous generation, and a series of emperors attef11pted to impose some sort of unity on an often-fractious church. Rabbis in Palestine and Mesopotamia were bringing to completion their respective versions of the Talmud. Near the eastern Serbian town of Naissus (modern Nis), the wife of a Romanized Thracian gave birth in 482 to a boy named Petrus Sabbatius. He later became the emperor Justinian. Ecclesiastical history in the late fifth century frequently has been examined solely with reference to the complicated doctrinal and political issues surrounding the Monophysite controversy. Yet, this same period witnessed other developments which bore far-reaching implications for the future evolution of the major episcopal sees, both in the east and in the west: Leo I's concerted efforts to extend papal jurisdiction over the western churches, Gelasius' justly famous formulation concerning the relation between ecclesiastical and secular authority, the outbreak of the so-called Acacian schism (the first major schism between east and west), and the further estrangement of the Syrian, Palestinian, and Egyptian churches from the authorities in the imperial capital-as well as from the Pope and the westem churches. All of these episodes were played out against a backdrop of usurpation and civil war in the east, and the final dissolution of Roman imperial power in the west. Although the development of episcopal leadership in both the Old and New Rome has been studied in great detail, the evolution of the Alexandrian patriarchate between the deposition of Dioscorus in 451 and the Arab conquest of 642 tends to be ignored by modern scholars who have often viewed this period as one of unbroken Monophysite opposition to imperial religious policy. 1 While all of the bishops who sat on the episcopal throne once occupied by Athanasius and Cyril consciously sought to consolidate their position in the face of threats to their authority, they employed a broad range of tactics with respect to their changing opponents and supporters within Alexandria itself. A close examination of the patriarchate of Peter Mongus, one of the better known disputants in the wider Monophysite controversy, reveals a resourceful community leader who grappled with various local interest groups-pagans, schismatics, and sec1. E. Hardy, Christian Egypt: Church and People. Christianity and Nationalism in the Patriarchate of Alexandria (New York, 1952); and C. W. Griggs, Early Egyptian Christianity {Leiden, 1990)-useful for Coptic sources, but heavily dependent on Hardy. The wider context of episcopal influence in the cities of the eastern Mediterranean is surveyed in R. Lizzi, II potere episcopate neli'Oriente Romano {Rome, 1987); idem, Vesco!Ji e strutture ecclesiastiche nella citta tardoantica (Como, 1989); and P. Brown, Power and Persuasion in Late Antiquity {Madison, 1992).

Copyright (c) 2004 ProQuest Information and Learning Company Copyright (c) Johns Hopkins University Press

HAAS/PETER MONGUS OF ALEXANDRIA

299

ular authorities. The literary evidence concerning his patriarchate underscores the primacy of local disputes in determining Peter's stance towards empire-wide issues-especially his reaction to the Henotikon espoused by the emperor Zeno. In the period immediately following the deposition of Dioscorus, (revered by much of the Egyptian church as "the militant Father"), Chalcedonians and Monophysites began to emerge as self-conscious parties within the Alexandrian church-a process marked by violence and intense political jockeying. 2 By 457, the imperial replacement for Dioscorus' patriarchal throne, Proterius, had been assassinated. Proterius' death came after months of bloody street battles between ecclesiastical factions. Eventually, an unnamed soldier of the Roman dux had decided to end the slaughter. On Maundy Thursday 457, he lured Proterius into the street and stabbed him, after which he displayed the bishop's mutilated body in the agora.J 2. Severus ibn al-Muqaffa' History of the Patriarchs (ed. and trans. B. Evetts, PO 1. 4), p. 445 [181]; Evagrius h.e. 2. 5. A useful analysis of the events in Alexandria is provided by T. E. Gregory, Vox Populi (Columbus, Ohio, 1979), pp. 163-201. Two works foundational to any study of this period are W. H. C. Frend, The Rise of the Monophysite Movement (Cambridge, 1972) and the collection of articles in A. Grillmeier and H. Bacht, Das Konzil von Chalkedon: Geschichte und Gegenwart, 3 vols. (Wiirzburg, 1953-1962). On Dioscorus, seeM. P. Roncaglia, "Dioscorus" in The Coptic Encyclopedia 3 (New York, 1991: hereafter CoptEncy), 912-915. 3. Evagrius h.e. 2. 8; Zachariah of Mitylene h.e. 4. 2; Theophanes chron. AM 5950; Eutychius (Sa'id ibn Batriq) annales 101-103 (PG 111. 1055). Eutychius adds the detail that Proterius' body was later burned in the hippodrome (annales 108, col. 1056). Although various works of Zachariah are basic to the discussion here presented, his identity and career have been matters of dispute. Evagrius refers to a Monophysite history of the Church composed by a Zachariah Rhetor, surveying the period 450-491. This Zachariah is generally held to be identical to the Zachariah who studied with Severus of Antioch and later wrote his biography. He likewise composed a vita of a Monophysite monk named lsaiah.ls this the same Zachariah who, in 536, is listed as the Chalcedonian bishop of Mitylene and attended a synod at Constantinople? The current consensus, which I follow here, argues for this identification and for Zachariah's conversion to Chalcedonian theology sometime in the first quarter of the sixth century. The texts and translations of Zachariah's works are frequently cited with a variety of appellations (Rhetor, Scholasticus, of Mitylene, etc.). In the notes that follow, I will provide the citation as given by each editor, though in subsequent notes, I will simply abbreviate him as Zach. or Zach. Mityl. The Historia Ecclesiastica, in its surviving Syriac epitome, is edited and given a Latin translation by E. W. Brooks in CSCO, Scriptores Syri, ser. 3, vols. 5-6 (Louvain- Paris, 1921-1929). There is also an English translation by Brooks and F. J. Hamilton, The Syriac Chronicle known as that of Zachariah of Mitylene (London, 1899). Books 3-6 of the h.e. seem to be preserved intact by the epitomizer, and as they are the principal sources for my discussion, I do not feel the need to distinguish between Zachariah and the epitomizer-normally referred to as ps.-Zachariah. On Zachariah, see E. Honigmann, "Patristic Studies," StudTest 173 (1953): 194-

Copyright (c) 2004 ProQuest Information and Learning Company Copyright (c) Johns Hopkins University Press

300

JOURNAL

OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STYDIES

This incident did not put an end to factional conflict in Alexandria. Shortly before the death of Proterius, the supporters of Dioscorus had elevated their own candidate to the episcopal throne, Timothy (popularly called Aelurus-that is, the "cat" or "weasel" -due to his emaciated countenance from prolonged fasting). 4 The Alexandrians were mistaken, however, in assuming that the new emperor, Leo, would take no action upon hearing of Proterius' murder. Once Leo was able to assert his own authority in the empire, he naturally turned his attention to the troubles in Alexandria. By late 459, Timothy was arrested and exiled to Gangra, a town in northern Anatolia.s Many of Timothy's clergy either were exiled or fled before their arrest. Among these was a young deacon named Peter who had been appointed by Dioscorus. 6 In place of Timothy Aelurus, the supporters of the murdered Proterius chose as their patriarch a monk from a Pachomian monastery located in one of Alexandria's suburbs. Unfortunately for those trying to unravel this complicated skein of events, this Chalcedonian monk's name is also Timothy, though distinguished from his Monophysite namesake by his common appellation Salophacialos"wobble-hat. " 7 For nearly fifteen years, Timothy Salophacialos attempted to govern the faction-ridden church of Alexandria. He was, however, ill-suited to the task of trying to win the allegiance of the Alexandrians, most of whom remained loyal to Timothy Aelurus and looked upon Timothy Salophacialos as an intruder. It was at this time that he earned his appellation of wobblehat, for the patriarchal mitre indeed sat weakly upon his head. Zachariah of Mirylene tells us that Timothy was "soft in his manners and feeble in his actions," bdng afraid to take forceful measures against the partisans of 204; K. Wegenast, "Zacharias Scholastikos" in R·E 9. 2 (1967), cols. 2212-2216; Frend, Monophysite Movement, p. 202 n. 5; P. Allen, "Zachariah Scholasticus and rhe Historia Ecclesiastica ofEvagriusScholasticus," ]ThS n.s. 31.2 (1980): 471-488; R. A. Darling Young, "Zacharias: The Life of Severus," in Ascetic Behavior in Greco-Roman Antiquity, ed. V. L. Wimbush (Minneapolis, 1990), pp. 312-328. 4. Evagrius h.e. 2. 8; "Life of Timothy Aelurus," ed. and trans. H. G. Evelyn White, The Monasteries of the Wadi' n Natritn, Part 1: New Coptic Texts from the Monastery of Saint Macarius (New York, 1926), pp. 164-165. There is, to my knowledge, no careful study of Aelurus' patriarchate, though useful material may be found in J. Lebon, "La Chris cologie de Timothee Aelure," RHE 9 (1908): 677 -702; R. Y. Ebied and L. R. Wickham, "A Collection of Unpublished Syriac Letters of Timotheus Aelurus," ]ThS n.s. 21 (1970): 321-369; and Frend, Monophysite Movement, pp. 154-176. An insightful summary with full bibliography may be found in D. B. Spanel, "Timothy II Aelurus" in CoptEncy 7 (1991): 2263-2268. 5. "Life of Timothy Aelurus," pp. 166-167; Theophanes chron. AM 5951-2. 6. Eutychius annales 105, col. 1056; Liberatus brev. 16 (in ACO 2.5":98-141). 7. Evagrius h.e. 2. 11.

Copyright (c) 2004 ProQuest Information and Learning Company Copyright (c) Johns Hopkins University Press

HAAS/PETER MONGUS OF ALEXANDRIA

301

Aelurus. 8 Though he desperately courted popularity among the Alexandrians and urged them to lay aside their theological differences, Salophacialos took the precaution of never appearing in public without a guard of imperial troops-"because he dreaded the fate of Proterius. "9ln one final bid for support among the urban populace, Salophacialos inscribed the name of the Monophysite Dioscorus in his liturgical Diptych. Unfortunately, all he gained thereby was a writ of excommunication from Pope Leo I. Despite his best intentions, Salophacialos had never mastered the art of dispensing patriarchal patronage within the complicated social mosaic which made up Late Antique Alexandria. Previous patriarchs like Athanasius and Cyril had honed these methods of cultivating support, and shrewdly employed the social, economic, and religious patronage at the church's disposal in their struggles against various opponents in the city. If their examples were too distant, Salophacialos could have taken a lesson from Timothy Aelurus, who proved himself to be as adept as his predecessors in dispensing patronage. 10 Prior to his ejection from Alexandria by imperial troops, Aelurus gave lavish gifts of money to the poor, provided for the city's widows, and supplied the city's numerous pilgrim hostels. Perhaps one reason for Aelurus's exile was the suspicion that some of these charitable funds had been diverted from their original destination-the imperial treasury in the form of tax revenues. 11 Disputes of jurisdiction over the Alexandrian grain dole and other public charities had been a constant irritant in patriarchal/imperial relations since the days of Athanasius.t2 Aelurus' opposition to imperial tax collectors can further be seen after his restoration to Alexandria in 4 75, when he presented honorific grants of grain to "the great men and rulers of the city" and even sent gifts to the emperor himself-while at the same time, he deliberately 8. Zach. Mityl. 4. 10. 9. Ibid. 10. Timothy Aelurus was supported in his bid for the patriarchal throne by a broadly based coalition of Alexandrian dignitaries (axiomatikor), magistrates (politeuomenoi), monks, the urban demos, and the naukleroi of the grain fleet, {Evagrius h.e. 2. 9). The text of Evagrius is edited by]. Bidez and L. Parmentier, The Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius with the Scholia {London, 1898). On Evagrius, see P. Allen, Evagrius Scholasticus the Church Historian (Louvain, 1981). 11. Zach. Mityl. 4. 3. A vivid picture of the patterns of episcopal beneficence may be found in A. Natali, "Eglise et evergetisme a Antioche a Ia fin du ive siecle d'apres Jean Chrysostome," SP 17.3 {Oxford, 1982), pp. 1176-1184. 12. Athan. apol. contra Ar. 18 (PG 25.277b}; hist. ar. 31 {PG 25.728c}. See also T. D. Barnes, Athanasius and Constantius (Cambridge, Mass., 1993) and the discussion in C. J. Haas, Late Roman Alexandria (Baltimore, forthcoming), chap. 3.

Copyright (c) 2004 ProQuest Information and Learning Company Copyright (c) Johns Hopkins University Press

302

JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES

snubbed the imperial tax officials. 13 These methods helped to endear Aelurus to both the Alexandrian commons and the civic aristocracy.I4 Aelurus buttressed his support yet further by bringing back the bones of the revered Dioscorus for a solemn funeral, and by conspicuously providing a small pension for Salophacialos when the latter was forced to return to his monastic retirement. IS Timothy Aelurus was swept back into the Alexandrian patriarchate on the wi_nds of change in imperial politics. The emperor Leo had died early in 4 74 and was succeeded by his Isaurian magister militum and son-in-law, Zeno. 16 Zeno's hold on the imperial purple was tenuous at best, and he was almost immediately faced with a serious revolt led by the former emperor's brother-in-law, Basiliscus. 17 Basiliscus only remained in power for twenty months, but during that time he sought to overturn the decisions at Chalcedon and restore Monophysite bishops to their sees13. Zach. Mityl. 5. 4. 14. Some measure of Aelurus's popularity can be gleaned from Zachariah's account of his return to Alexandria: "Timothy arrived in Alexandria, and he was received with great state, with torches, and also songs of praise by the various peoples and languages the.re, and even by the members of the Proterian party, who beheld the affection for him displayed by the citizens. But the band of the priests, and the monks, and the sisters in Christ, and all the people in a body, chanting their hymns, and saying, 'Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord,' conducted him into the Great Church," (Zach. Miryl. 5. 4 [trans., E. W. Brooks, p. 11 0 ]). In his otherwise lucid analysis of factionalism in fifth-century Alexandria, T. E. Gregory interprets the division of the Alexandrian population during the Christological controversies as one determined almost exclusively by socio-economic class. Despite his assertion that "the rich of the city generally supported Proterius, while the majority of the population remained loyal to Dioscorus" (Vox Populi, p. 190), there are clear indications that a Monophysite patriarch like Timothy Aelurus was able to gain enthusiastic support among the upper classes (Zach. Miry!. 4. 3). 15. Zach. Mityl. 5. 4. 16. Theophanes chron. AM 5965-66;John Malalas chron. 376; Malchus fr. 16 (ed., Blockley); Evagrius h.e. 2. 17. On Zeno and his reign, see the exhaustive study of A. Lippold in R-E, 2nd ser., 19 (1972) cols. 149-213; and the judicious reconstruction of the sources by E. W. Brooks, "The Emperor Zeno and the lsaurians," EHR 30 (1893): 209-238. His career is outlined with full references in PLRE 2, s.v., "Fl. Zenon 7," and in W. Barth, Kaiser Zeno (Basel, 1894). 17. Theophanes chron. AM 5967; Malchus fr. 8-11 (ed., Blockley); John Malalas chron. 377-378; Evagrius h.e. 3. 3; Zach. Miry!. 5. 1. See also Lippold, cols. 160-162; Brooks, "Emperor Zeno," pp. 216-218; and G. M. Bersanetti, "Basi lisco e 1'imperatore Leone 1," RAP, ser. 3, 20 (1943-44): 331-346. E. Schwartz, Publizistische Sammlungen zum Acacianischen Schisma, Abhandlungen der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschften, n.s., 10 (Munich, 1934) has a relevance far beyond that suggested by its tide. Besides collecting the major texts concerned with inter-episcopal relations, Schwartz also provides an extensive background discussion which frequently casts light on political affairs. On Zeno and Basiliscus, see pp. 181-185.

Copyright (c) 2004 ProQuest Information and Learning Company Copyright (c) Johns Hopkins University Press

HAAS/PETER MONGUS OF ALEXANDRIA

303

among them Timothy Aelurus. 18 Basiliscus' coalition of military supporters soon broke down, and by August of 476, Zeno was once again emperor in Constantinople. 1 9 Among his first acts, Zeno deposed the antiChalcedonian bishops of Ephesus and Antioch. 20 Apparently, Zeno did not feel powerful enough to eject the recently-restored Alexandrian bishop, Timothy Aelurus. The emperor had to content himself with "uttering severe threats against Timothy." Before Zeno could take any more substantive steps, Timothy Aelurus died in July of 477. Timothy was laid to rest beside his patriarchal predecessors, the solemn rites performed by his trusted deacon, Peter Mongus.2I Peter was consecrated patriarch and then awaited the expected reaction from Constantinople.22 He lacked the political stature of Aelurus, and the announcement of Peter's election to the patriarchate "exasperated Zeno, who judged him to have incurred the penalty of death. "23 Before the year was out, Zeno sent orders that Timothy Salophacialos should be recalled from his monastic retirement in the Alexandrian suburb of Canopus, and that Peter should be arrested. 24 Word of these decisions reached Peter, and before the imperial Prefect could apprehend him, he went into hiding within the city, "moving about from one house to another"-in the same manner that Athanasius had concealed himself nearly 150 years earlier.25 Apparently Peter's support among the Alexandrian populace was great enough that he did not consider it necessary to find a monastic retreat in the desert, and as a result, he was in a strategic position to organize resistance to Salophacialos. The restored Chalcedonian found Peter to be such an irritant that he wrote letters to Zeno in which he pleaded that Peter be

18. Evagrius h.e. 3. 4-6; Zach. Mityl. 5. 1-4. Schwartz, Acacianische Schisma, pp. 185-189. The relation between imperial authority and episcopal selection is ably surveyed in W. Eck, "Der Einfluss der konstanrinischen Wende auf die Auswahl der Bischofe im 4. and 5. Jahrhundert," Chiron 8 (1978): 561-585. 19. John Malalas chron. 379-380; chron. pasch. (ed. Dindorf, 1832), pp. 600-602. 20. Zach. Mityl. 5. 5; Evagrius h.e. 3. 8; John Malalas chron. 380. Schwartz, Acacianische Schisma, pp. 189-193. 21. Zach. Mityl. 5. 5; Evagrius h.e. 3. 11; Severus ibn ai-Muquaffa' hist.patr. p. 445 [181]. 22. Severus ibn al-Muquaffa' hist.patr. [181] p. 445; Zach. Mityl. 5. 5. 23. (Hoper eis Zenana diaban exetaraxe kai to men ho Zenon thanatou zemian prosetimese) Evagrius h.e. 3. 11, (trans., E. Walford); see also Frend, Monophysite Movement, p. 180. Zeno's relations with the Alexandrian patriarchs are discussed in Lippold, cols. 180-184. 24. Evagrius h.e. 3. 11; Zach. Mityl. 5. 5; Severus ibn al-Muquaffa' hist.patr. [183] p. 447; Theophanes chron. AM 5969. 25. Zach. Mityl. 5. 5.

Copyright (c) 2004 ProQuest Information and Learning Company Copyright (c) Johns Hopkins University Press

304

JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES

formally sent into exile, "because he lay concealed in Alexandria, and plotted against the church. "26 During this second tenure as patriarch, Timothy Salophacialos had no more success in winning over the allegiance of the Alexandrians than he had when he was previously installed in opposition to Aelurus. His initial entrance into the so-called Great Church (or patriarchal cathedral) was marked by rioting and bloodshed. Once again, Salophacialos sought to placate the Alexandrian populace with half measures: anathematizing heretics like Nestorius and Eutyches, inserting into the Diptychs the names of Cyril and Dioscorus-but to no avail.2 7 Zachariah of Mitylene tells us that "not one believer would consent to hold communion with Timothy and his followers." 28 Here, Zachariah at least concedes that Salophacialos did have certain followers. Who were they? While there was some sympathy to the Chalcedonian cause among the wealthy of the city (who had been roughly treated by the Monophysite Dioscorus), Salophacialos' principal support came from a tightly-organized faction of clergy and monks centered on the Pachomian monastery at Canopus, some 17 km. east of the city. Founded during the patriarchate of Theophilus, this monastery called Metanoia (Repentance) came to attract recruits from diverse regions, so much so that Jerome was asked to translate monastic books for the monastery's "many Latins, who did not know the Egyptian and Greek languages in which the precepts of Pachomius, Theodore, and Horsiesios were written. "29 Largely owing to these overseas connections, Metanoia adhered closely to imperial religious policy throughout Late Antiquity, even when such a policy led to conflict with the local hierarchy.Jo Early in the patriarchate of Dioscorus, a major rift had developed between Dioscorus and the monks at Canopus. One of Dioscorus' most outspoken accusers at the Council of Chalcedon was a presbyter named Athanasius, who later took refuge among the monks at Canopus.JI Salophacialos himself hailed from this monastery. 32 26. (quia latitabat Alexandriae et insidiabatur ecclesiae), Liberatus brev. 16. 27. Zach. Mityl. 5. 5. 28. 5. 6. (trans. Brooks, p. 116). 29. Jerome praef.reg.pachom. 1. On Metanoia, see now the thorough treatmenc by J. Gascou, "Metanoia," in CoptEncy 5 (1991): 1608-1611. 30. This is questioned by Gascou ("Metanoia," p. 1609) on the grounds that there are traces of Monophysite opinion at Metanoia. However, most of this evidence comes from the sixth and seventh centuries, and simply reflects the changing fashions of imperial theology. 31. Mansi 6.1021-1029 contains Arhanasius' accusation against Dioscorus. Cf. Liberatus brev. 13; Evagrius h.e. 2. 18. 32. Theophartes chron. AM 5967.

Copyright (c) 2004 ProQuest Information and Learning Company Copyright (c) Johns Hopkins University Press

HAAS/PETER MONGUS OF ALEXANDRIA

305

And when Salophacialos' health began to fail in 481, the Chalcedonian monks at Canopus sent a delegation to the emperor requesting that one of their own party be consecrated as successor to the ailing bishop. This petition was taken to Zeno by a presbyter namedJoh~, who is also identified in our sources as one of the Pachomian monks from Canopus.JJ After his return from Constantinople and the subsequent death of Salophacialos in February of 482, John the presbyter intrigued with the Prefect to bring about his own elevation to the patriarchate.J 4 John's brief tenure during the spring and early summer of 482 was cut short by new directives from the emperor Zeno. John's was not the only delegation to visit Constantinople in the previous year. Another group of monks, accompanied by some loquacious rhetoricians, had been canvassing support for Peter Mangus throughout the major cities of the east.35 The presence of these rhetoricians doubtless convinced Zeno that this was more than just another monastic faction, given that rhetoricians frequently served as official ambassadors of cities during Late Antiquity. Their embassy before Zeno proved to be well-timed, since the emperor along with his court bishop, Acacius of Constantinople, had begun to seek out some sort of compromise solution with the Monophysites.J6 I suspect that Peter, who was still in hiding within Alexandria, was using this civic delegation to negotiate indirectly with the authorities in the capital. The newly forged compromise was the so-called Henotikon, and Zeno pinned his hopes for religious concord upon its reception in Alexandria and upon the conciliatory attitude of the still-popular Peter Mongus.J7 Even before the new directives had reached Alexandria, John fled and took refuge with Simplicius in Rome, there to stir up animosity between the Pope and Peter Mangus' new imperial supporters, Zeno and Acacius. 38 33. Zach. Mityl. 5. 6; Evagrius h.e. 3. 12. Theophanes chron. AM 5973 adds the biographical detail that John was oikonomos of the Alexandrian church-undoubtedly during the patriarchate of Salophaciolos. 34. Death of Salophacialos: Simplicius ep. 17. John and the Prefect: Severus ibn alMuquaffa' hist.patr. [183] p. 447; Zach. Mityl. 5. 6. 35. Zach. Mityl. 5. 6. 36. By 482, Zeno desperately needed to restore religious unity since he was faced with the twin challenges of Illus' imminent rebellion and the incursions of Theodoric and his Goths in Thessaly and Macedonia. Illus: Liberatus brev. 17; Evagrius h.e. 3. 27; Theophanes chron. AM 5972. Theoderic: John of Antioch fr. 213; Marcellinus comes chron. s.a. 481, 482; Michael the Syrian chron. 9. 6. 37. Various texts of the Henotikon may be found in Liberatus brev. 17; Nicephorus Callistus h.e. 16. 12; Zach. Miryl. 5. 8; Evagrius h.e. 3. 14. See also W. H. C. Frend, "Henoticon" in CoptEncy 4 (1991): 1217-1219. On Zeno's religious policies, see Lippold, cols. 201-204. 38. Liberatus brev. 18; Evagriush.e. 3. 15; Zach. Mityl. 5. 9. OnJohn'scareer, see the

Copyright (c) 2004 ProQuest Information and Learning Company Copyright (c) Johns Hopkins University Press

306

JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES

Eventually, John had to content himself with receiving the bishopric of Nola from the hand of Simplicius. In the meantime, Peter Mongus came out from his seclusion and was accorded a thunderous public reception by the Alexandrians. 39 The Chalcedonian party (or Proterians as they are sometimes called) abandoned their control of the Alexandrian churches and withdrew to Canopus under the leadership of a presbyter named Cyrus. 40 Zeno entrusted the implementation of the Henotikon to Pergamius, the newly-appointed Praefectus Augustalis, and to a new military dux, Apollonius. Though they were also instructed to expel John, Pergamius and Apollonius discovered upon their arrival in Alexandria that John had fled and that Peter was securely in possession of his see.41 However, even though a successor of Dioscorus now sat unchallenged upon the episcopal throne as sole patriarch for the first time in twenty-two years, factionalism still rent the Alexandrian church. Zeno, in looking to Peter Mongus and Pergamius, had found two astute individuals who were well able to manipulate urban power politics and employ every symbol in the repertoire of Late Antique ceremony to bring about religious unity within Alexandria. Both Monophysite and Chalcedonian historians relate how the patriarch and Prefect chose the occasion of a public festival to announce the new formula of reunion. In accordance with the protocol of Late Antique urban ceremonies, the entire Christian populace was assembled together, "the chief men, and the clergy, and the monks, and the sisters, and the believing people," and they accompanied Peter to the Great Church to hear his festival sermon. 42 Peter then read out the Henotikon, and offered his own interpretation of the documentproclaiming that this dogmatic formula tacitly condemned Chalcedon and the Tome of Leo. He concluded his sermon by exhorting the Alexandrians to prayers and thanksgivings on Zeno's behalf, saying, "Now, beloved thorough study of C. Pietri, "D'Alexandrie a Rome: Jean Tala'ia, emule d' Athanase au V(e) siecle," in Alexandrina: Hellenisme, judai'sme et christianisme a Alexandrie: Melanges offerts au P. Claude Mondesert, I'Institut des Sources Chretiennes (Paris, 1987), pp. 277-295; and Schwartz, Acacianische Schisma, pp. 195-198. 39. Severus ibn ai-Muquaffa< hist.patr.· [183] p. 447. 40. Zach. Miryl. 5. 9. Though at one time a supporter of Dioscorus, Cyrus went over to the Chalcedonian faction and bitterly opposed Dioscorus and his successors. Popular opinion in Alexandria held that Cyrus switched loyalties due to his ambition for ecclesiastical office and for his adulterous behavior, (Zach. Miry I. 5. 7). 41. Evagrius h.e. 3. 13. 42. Evagrius h.e. 3. 13; Zach. Miryl. 5. 7. For the context of urban ritual in Alexandria, see C. Haas, Late Roman Alexandria (Baltimore: forthcoming), chap. 3; and idem, "Alexandria's Via Canopica: Urban Topography and Social Structure from Augustus to