The Development of a Chalcedonian Identity in Byzantium (–)
Richard Price
Abstract The Byzantine Church adopted a Chalcedonian identity only slowly. At first the majority even of Chalcedonians played down the significance of the council, claiming that it did little more than repeat the teaching of the Nicene Creed. Down to committed Chal- cedonians, strongly upholding the teaching of the council, were vocal, but few. It is with Justin I (–) and his nephew Justinian I (–) that State and Church came to insist on the council. Justinian’s commitment to it has sometimes been doubted because of his repeated attempts to win back the non-Chalcedonians (Miaphysites) to the imperial Church by inviting them back without requiring subscription to the Chalcedonian Defini- tion. He was motivated by a desire that even the Miaphysites would look to him as their patron, as required for the maintenance of the unity of the empire. But his theological writ- ings make it clear that he was convinced of the truth of the teaching of Chalcedon. The age of Justinian thus saw the attainment of a truly Chalcedonian identity in the imperial Church. This was a matter of official doctrine. In the sphere of popular piety Chalcedon had less impact. The affirmation of Chalcedon shaped Byzantine communal identity less than the rejection of Chalcedon shaped that of Miaphysite Syria and Egypt.
Keywords Byzantine Orthodox Church; Council of Chalcedon; identity; Justin I; Justinian I.
From the time of the Arab conquest of Syria and Egypt, we can talk of three defined ecclesial blocks in the Christian East—Chalcedonian, non-Chalce- donian (or ‘Miaphysite’), and pre-Ephesian (the Church of the East)—which had no thought of reunion, and defined themselves, to some extent at least, over against one another.1 The situation in the preceding period was more
1) The Church of the East was the least negative in its self-definition. Its synodal decrees from the fifth to the seventh centuries ignore developments in the imperial Church, rather than react against them; see Jean-Baptiste Chabot, Synodicon Orientale ou Recueil de Synodes Nestoriens (Paris, ). Richard Price complex. The question that will be addressed in this paper is how, andatwhat pace, a Chalcedonian identity developed in the imperial Church between and . In my conclusion I shall touch on Chalcedon’s importance, or lack of importance, in the self-identity of later Byzantium.
–: Chalcedon Downplayed The document which more than any other reveals how the Fathers ofChal- cedon evaluated their work in retrospect is the Codex Encyclius of –, a reply to a consultation by the new Emperor Leo I after both the death of Marcian, the architect of Chalcedon, and the lynching in Alexandria of the pro-Chalcedonian Patriarch Proterius.2 Not one of the extant replies shows an appreciation of the significance of what was new and distinctive in Chalcedo- nian Christology (called by Alois Grillmeier the ‘Chalcedonian novum’), not even those from the Diocese of the Orient. The reply from Syria I stresses the finality and comprehensiveness of the teaching on Christology of the Council of Nicaea; it picks up from Chalcedon the dual consubstantiality of Christ, but makes no mention of the council’s famous formulae of ‘in two natures’ and ‘one person and hypostasis’. The longest of the replies, that from Basil of Seleucia in Isauria, who had himself coined the ‘acknowledged in two natures’ formula that Chalcedon had adopted,3 likewise makes no mention of the coun- cil’s key formulae: the Definition is interpreted as confirming Nicaea under the guidance of the Cyrillian documents approved at Ephesus, and adding simply a condemnation of Eutyches. Basil rightly points out that the last paragraph of the Definition, condemning the production of new creeds, canonizes not itself but the Creed of Nicaea.4 This lacklustre response to the emperor’s con- sultation was not due to tact or a spirit of appeasement, for the bishops treated Proterius’ murder as a crime that deserved no mercy, rather than as evidence
2) The Encyclia (or Codex Encyclius) can be found in Eduard Schwartz, Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum . (ACO) (Berlin–Leipzig, ), pp. –. For a full analysis, see Alois Grillmeier, Christ in Christian Tradition .. Reception and Contradiction: The Development of the Discussion about Chalcedon from to the Beginning of the Reign of Justinian (London, ), pp. –. The two responses I single out here are in ACO ., pp. – (Syria I) and – (Basil of Seleucia). 3) See the presence of the formula in several utterances by Basil, predating but preserved in the Acts of Chalcedon ., , (ACO ., pp. –, ). 4) ACO ., pp. –. See Grillmeier, Christ in Christian Tradition ., pp. –, –.