The Deposition of Patriarch Eutychius of Constantinople in 565 and the Aphthartodocetic Edict of Justinian

THE DEPOSITION OF PATRIARCH EUTYCHIUS OF CONSTANTINOPLE IN 565 AND THE APHTHARTODOCETIC EDICT OF JUSTINIAN

Introduction

Justinian was a highly active emperor in the field of religious policy; he showed interest in doctrinal questions throughout his reign, starting already at the accession of his uncle Justin I in 518. In the decades until his death in 565, he issued numerous edicts on religious topics, hosted meetings between adherents of opposing Christian creeds, and convoked the fifth ecumenical council in 553. He presented himself as a promotor of the Chalcedonian faith; in this, he was mainly opposed to the Miaphysites, who rejected the decisions of Chalcedon as heretical.1 However, at the very end of his reign, in 564/565, he published the so-called aphthartodocetic edict, which seems to contradict his usual ­christological convictions and to show his rapprochement to the miaphysite subgroup of the Julianists.2 Julian of Halicarnassus taught in the early sixth century that the body of Christ had been, because of his divine nature, already before his resurrection impassible to suffering and decay, to which humans are exposed; however, whilst incorruptible (ἄφθαρτος), Christ vol- untarily subjected himself to the wanting human condition and experienced, for example, hunger and thirst, in order to liberate humanity from them. This

1 This article is the extended version of an essay which I wrote in Oxford under the super- vision of Phil Booth in spring 2017; I would like to express my great appreciation to him and to Bryan Ward-Perkins for their valuable suggestions and useful critiques during the develop- ment of this essay. For an outline and a good overview of the aims of Justinian’s religious policy, see M. Maas, The Cambridge companion to the Age of Justinian, Cambridge, 2005, pp. 215-266, and the introduction of R. Price, The acts of the Council of Constantinople of 553, Liverpool, 2009. 2 Evagrius, 4,39-41, translated by M. Whitby, The ecclesiastical history of Evagrius Scho- lasticus, Liverpool, 2000; Life of Eutychius, ll. 930-1038, edited by C. Laga, Eustratii Presbyteri Vita Eutychii Patriarchae Constantinopolitani (CCSG, 25), Turnhout – Louvain, 1992; John of Nikiu, 94,1-15, translated by R. Charles, The Chronicle of John, Bishop of Nikiu, London, 1916; Theophanes, a.m. 6057, translated by C. Mango – R. Scott, The chronicle of Theophanes Confessor, Oxford, 1997; Michael the Syrian, 9,34, edited by J.-B. Chabot, Chronique de Michel le Syrien, II, Paris, 1901; Chronicle of Zuqnin, 884, translated by A. Harrak, The Chronicle of Zuqnin, parts III and IV, Toronto, 1999; Zonaras, 14,9 (p. 284), edited by L. Din- dorf, Ioannis Zonarae Epitome Historiarum, III, Leipzig, 1870.

Byzantion 89, 433-446. doi: 10.2143/BYZ.89.0.3287079 © 2019 by Byzantion. All rights reserved. 434 SILVIO ROGGO was a staunchly miaphysite point of view, denying the more mainstream belief that Christ had fully experienced human sensations due to his human nature; they claimed that he had assumed a perfect form of humanity, incomparable to ours. Those who followed his doctrine were called Aph- thartodocetics or Aphthartics.3 The sources attest much resistance against this edict; all the patriarchs refused to sign it.4 The common reconstruction of the events is that Justinian therefore deposed and exiled Eutychius, the patriarch of Constantinople, in January 565 and replaced him with John Scholasticus, while Anastasius, the patriarch of Antioch, having presided over a council consisting of allegedly 195 bishops which examined the imperial edict and found it unorthodox, was only prevented from losing his see by Justinian’s death in November 565 and the ensuing end of the aph- thartic project under his successor Justin II.5 Modern scholarship has not yet found a wholly convincing explanation for what appears to be a major and very sudden shift in Justinian’s beliefs nor for how the fate of Eutychius and Anastasius in 565 was connected to their refusal to sign the edict. It is puzzling that the two patriarchs who, to our knowledge, put up the fiercest resistance against the edict were not treated equally: Eutychius was deposed very quickly, whereas Anastasius was only threatened with deposition several months later. Furthermore, it is equally peculiar that John Scholasticus, the apocrisiarius of the patriarch of Antioch in Constantinople, became Eutychius’ successor, since he seems to have par- ticipated in the opposition against the aphthartodocetic edict and, conse- quently, cannot have been helpful to the emperor in promoting this view.6

3 For Julianist theology and its emergence, see R. Draguet, Julien d’Halicarnasse et sa controverse avec Sévère d’Antioche sur l’incorruptibilité du corps du Christ, Louvain, 1924; A. Grillmeier, Christ in Christian Tradition, Vol. 2,2, Atlanta, 1995, pp. 81-88 and 103-107; A. Kofsky, Julianism after Julian of Halicarnassus, in B. Bitton-Ashkelony – L. Perrone (eds), Between personal and institutional religion: self, doctrine, and practice in late antique Eastern Christianity, Turnhout, 2013, pp. 263-278; Y. Moss, Incorruptible Bodies: Christology, Society, and Authority in Late Antiquity, Oakland, 2017, pp. 31-36. 4 Life of Eutychius, ll. 1175ff; Evagrius, 4,39. Michael the Syrian, 9,34 (p. 272), mentions the resistance of the patriarchs of Alexandria, Jerusalem, Constantinople, and Antioch, omitting the one of Rome. 5 G. Weiss, Studia Anastasiana I, München, 1965, pp. 15-18; F. Carcione, L’“Aftarto- docetismo” di Giustiniano: una mistificazione strumentale del dissenso politico-religioso, in Studi sull’oriente cristiano, 7 (1984), pp. 71-73; A. Cameron, Eustratius’ Life of the Patriarch Eutychius and the Fifth Ecumenical Council, in Kathegetria. Essays presented to Joan Hussey for her 80th birthday, Camberley, 1988, pp. 233f; Grillmeier, 1995, pp. 468f. The most detailed account of the council and a full-length quotation of the letter addressed to Justinian containing its decisions is provided by Michael the Syrian, 9,34 (pp. 272-281), who was drawing on John of Ephesus. 6 Proof of John’s opposition is preserved in John of Nikiu, 94,11f; see below pp. 11f. Moreover, Evagrius, 4,39, claims that the whole clergy awaited Anastasius’ decision whether or not to accept the edict. Cf. P. Van den Ven, L’accession de Jean le Scholastique au siège THE DEPOSITION OF PATRIARCH EUTYCHIUS OF CONSTANTINOPLE IN 565 435

The aim of this article is to deal with these difficulties, to examine them from different angles, not restricted to a merely doctrinal viewpoint, and thus to reach a more complete understanding of the changes in religious policy and of their background at the end of Justinian’s reign. This will allow us to better situate the deposition of Eutychius within the tense atmosphere of the court of the aged Justinian, which was dominated by power struggle between different factions seeking to remove their respective opponents.

The Testimonies of Evagrius and Eustratius

The two main sources for the deposition of Eutychius are the late-sixth- century Church History of the Syrian Evagrius Scholasticus, who was closely connected to the patriarchate of Antioch, and the Life of Eutychius by his presbyter Eustratius, commonly assumed to have been read out in Constan- tinople in 583, at the first anniversary of Eutychius’ death.7 Both narrate the events differently and seem to contradict each other. In book four, in his description of the end of Justinian’s reign, Evagrius mentions Eutychius’ deposition and includes some chapters dealing with the issue of the aphthar- todocetic edict; however, he presents the two actions as independent from each other.8 He merely states Eutychius’ replacement without explaining it and stresses afterwards the role of Anastasius in the resistance against Aphthartism. This conspicuous silence regarding Eutychius has been best explained as reflecting his wish to emphasise the role of Anastasius, with whom he had personal connections, and a desire not to stress that John Scholasticus, Anastasius’ apocrisiarius, had benefitted from the deposition of an orthodox predecessor and from a heresy against which Anastasius was actively engaged.9 The order of events in Evagrius prompted Van den Ven to argue that Eutychius had been deposed before the edict was actually published, Eutychius having only seen a draft of the later issued version.10 This explanation is, however, unsatisfactory, since it leaves no room for the possibility that Evagrius deliberately decided to disconnect the deposition and the edict for the abovementioned reasons.

patriarcal de Constantinople en 565, in Byz, 35 (1965), pp. 337-341. Cameron, 1988, p. 234, however, supposes that John was compelled to accept the edict. 7 For Evagrius, see the introduction of Whitby, 2000, pp. xiii-xx; for Eustratius, see Cameron, 1988, pp. 243-245. 8 Evagrius, 4,38f (pp. 249-252). 9 Cameron, 1988, pp. 236f. 10 Van den Ven, 1965, pp. 342f. 436 SILVIO ROGGO

The Life of Eutychius, in contrast, introduces first Eutychius’ opposition to the aphthartic doctrine, and has him arrested and deposed thereafter, “sophists of evil” having urged the emperor to take such a step after his refusal to sign the document about Aphthartism.11 Hence, there is a clear implication that his downfall was the consequence of his resistance. How- ever, the ensuing enumeration of the charges which his accusers produced in order to justify his deposition after his arrest does not include doctrinal issues at all, but mere pretexts, “that he had himself oiled, that he ate liver pate of small birds with figs, and that he spent long hours on his knees whilst praying”.12 Van den Ven explained this in the framework of his theory that Eutychius had only seen a draft; since the edict was, according to his simplistic reading of Evagrius, not yet published, it was also not pos- sible for the emperor to depose the patriarch for resistance to it, thus, he had to resort to such pretexts for his removal.13 Another explanation, put forward by Whitby, builds on the assumption that Eustratius was unwilling to depict Eutychius as openly opposing an imperial edict.14 According to this view, Eustratius instead chose to list some pretexts which were perhaps invented by Eutychius’ enemies, whereby he was also able to highlight how ridicu- lous the charges against the patriarch had been. This is a strong argument, given that Eustratius throughout the Life writes in very respectful terms about Justinian and also explains his turn to Aphthartism with reference to the harmful influence of some men around him. In the Life, however, the

11 Life of Eutychius, ll. 930-1146; for the “sophists of evil” see ll. 1039-1047: […] οἱ τῶν κακῶν σοφισταί […] συναχθέντες καὶ εἰσελθόντες εἰς τὸ ἀκροατήριον […] τὸν βασιλέα πείθουσιν ἔξω μὲν ποιῆσαι τοῦ θρόνου τὸν πάσαις ἀρεταῖς κεκοσμημένον ἄνδρα, ποιῆσαί τε ἄλλον ὀφείλοντα πρὸς τὸν σκοπὸν αὐτῶν διαγίνεσθαι· [...]. “The sophists of evil […], having come together and entered the audience room, […] persuaded the emperor to depose the man adorned with every virtue from his throne and to appoint another one, who ought to act according to their aim.” These “sophists of evil” are described earlier in the Life, in ll. 979f, as “followers of Origen the Fool, Euagrius, and Didymus [Euagrius Ponticus and Didymus of Alexandria, two adherents of Origen’s teachings]” (ἀντιποιούμενοι Ὼριγένους τοῦ λῆρου Εὐαγρίου τε καὶ Διδύμου). This allegedly decisive involvement of Origenists in Eutychius’ downfall is not attested in any other source and improbable since, as I shall point out below (pp. 7ff), Eustra- tius himself later in his text (ll. 2130-2138; see the quote in note 28 below) attributes the main responsibility for the plot against Eutychius to the influential senators Aetherius and Addaeus and does not speak of Origenists again. The unique mention in this place is, in my view, nothing more than a malicious allegation against the persecuted followers of Origen, whose doctrines had been condemned at the council of Constantinople in 553 (cf. Price, 2009, Vol. II, pp. 270-280; for a short overview of the Origenist controversy in the time of Justinian with references to further literature, see Meier, 2003, pp. 280ff.). 12 Life of Eutychius, ll. 1089-1091: […] ὅτι ἠλείψατο, ὅτι συκοτόκοιλα ὀρνιθίων ἔφαγεν, καὶ ὅτι πολλὰς ὥρας γονυκλισίας ποιῶν ηὔχετο […]. 13 Van den Ven, 1965, pp. 342f. 14 Whitby, 2000, p. 249, n. 135. THE DEPOSITION OF PATRIARCH EUTYCHIUS OF CONSTANTINOPLE IN 565 437 arrest and deposition of Eutychius follow directly upon his stance against Aphthartism in a way which makes it evident that Eustratius himself, though mocking the bizarre nature of the charges, saw Eutychius’ fall nevertheless as somehow connected to his involvement in the debate on Aphthartism. Since he had blamed the emergence of the aphthartic debate on a circle of evil men manipulating Justinian, attributing Eutychius’ downfall to resist- ance against the edict would not have been an act of direct opposition to Justinian; the edict would already have been devalued as composed under devilish influence and, hence, as not reflecting the real wish of the emperor. Thus, Eustratius’ choice not to mention Eutychius’ stance against Aphthartism among the charges may serve as an indication that the affair was not as simple a conflict as it has often been supposed to be and that there were in fact more elements involved in his downfall.15

The Reasons for Eutychius’ Fall

The Life depicts Eutychius as an unswervingly orthodox patriarch; hence, it claims, he also happily accepted exile and was ready to undergo persecution for his faith.16 It is, however, well known that the Life is a highly selective source, omitting several episodes in which the position of Eutychius was very controversial.17 The Church History of John of Ephesus suggests that Eutychius was, in the second part of his patriarchate, after his return from exile in 577, on several occasions at the centre of theological conflicts and found himself in opposition to the emperor, Tiberius. Eutychius planned to change the Trisagion hymn18, to introduce a new antiphon19, and he seems to have approached a tritheistic position denying the resurrection of the bodies.20

15 Cf. Carcione, 1984, p. 76, who also supposes that the fictitious accusations point against Aphthartism as the sole reason for his deposition. 16 Life of Eutychius, ll. 1156-1160. 17 For a discussion of the Life, see Cameron, 1988, pp. 225-247. 18 John of Ephesus, 2,52/3,19, translated by J. Schönfelder, Die Kirchengeschichte des Johannes von Ephesus, München, 1862. 19 John of Ephesus, 2,40. Eutychius’ attempt to introduce a new antiphon is probably connected to his criticism of an eucharistic hymn, the Cherubikon of Maundy Thursday, which had been introduced by Justin II in 573/574. Cf. Eutychius’ only surviving homily On the Pascha and the most holy Eucharist (CPG 6939), and the discussion in R. Taft, The Great Entrance. A History of the Transfer of Gifts and other Pre-Anaphoral Rites of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom (OCA, 200), Rome, 1975, pp. 84-86, 98, and P. Allen, Reconstruct- ing Pre-Paschal Liturgies in Constantinople: Some Sixth Century Homiletic Evidence, in A. Schoors – P. Van Deun (eds.), Philohistôr. Miscellanea in honorem Caroli Laga septua- genarii (OLA, 60), Leuven, 1994, pp. 220-228. 20 John of Ephesus, 2,36/51/3,17. See also Gregory the Great, Moralia in Iob 14,56,72-74, edited by M. Adriaen, Moralia in Iob libri X-XXII, Turnhout, 1979, who was disputing with 438 SILVIO ROGGO

In all these cases, he was, however, unsuccessful in establishing his view. These examples, most of them not mentioned by Eustratius, indicate that Eutychius was not a patriarch who obediently followed imperial orders, but that he developed his own theological convictions, which he attempted to introduce into the Constantinopolitan church. He was not afraid of contra- dicting the emperor and, aware of his position at the head of the imperial church, did not give in easily when confronted with ideas contrary to his own;21 there is no reason to suppose that this was different when he was facing the aphthartic challenge in 565. Confirmation for his self-conception as a powerful church leader is found in the Life’s mentioning of how strictly he insisted, after his arrest, on being treated with all the privileges befitting a patriarch of Constantinople until he was sent into exile.22 Furthermore, his behaviour after his return to Constantinople in 577 shows the extent of his desire to regain the patriarchal throne; according to John of Ephesus, he did not await a formal inquiry into the legitimacy of his and John Scholasticus’ patriarchates, as had been suggested, but forbade it. He did not want the issue to be discussed since he was concerned that his deposition in 565 would be deemed legally valid and he thus would have no right to reoccupy the position as patriarch.23 All these points, portraying Eutychius as a strong and rather opinionated office holder, give reason to suppose that his swift removal from the throne of the Constantinopolitan church in 565 was indeed to some extent connected to the doctrinal conflict; however, as will be shown in the following part, it would be wrong to reduce the reason for his downfall to a theological dis- agreement. First of all, with regard to Aphthartism, this christological view was not exclusively held by miaphysite groups. Leontius of Byzantium attests that there was also an influential faction of Chalcedonians adhering to aphthartic positions, and Justinian’s Aphthartism can be understood by

Eutychius about this issue and mentions that the conflict went so far that the emperor even ordered Eutychius’ books on the subject to be burnt. All these controversies are glossed over by Eustratius, with the exception of this last one, see Life of Eutychius, ll. 2449-2502, where he denies that Eutychius ever doubted the resurrection of the bodies, stating that those who accused him were men of childish intellect (νηπιόφρονες, l. 2458) who misunderstood him. For the controversy between Gregory and Eutychius, see Y.-M. Duval, La discussion entre l’apocrisiaire Grégoire et le patriarche Eutychios au sujet de la résurrection de la chair: l’arrière-plan doctrinal et occidental, in J. Fontaine – R. Gillet – S. Pellistrandi (eds), Grégoire le Grand, Paris, 1986, pp. 349-358. 21 Cf. also Life of Eutychius, ll. 560-563, indicating that he was sometimes disobedient. However, such statements are a commonplace in hagiography and should only be used very carefully for a reconstruction of Eutychius’ character. 22 Life of Eutychius, ll. 1093-1117. 23 John of Ephesus, 2,32-34/3,17. THE DEPOSITION OF PATRIARCH EUTYCHIUS OF CONSTANTINOPLE IN 565 439 locating it within the framework of Chalcedon.24 This means that there was not necessarily a complete turn of his religious policy to an open favouritism of a version of Miaphysitism; by moving towards Aphthartism, he was addressing the Julianists and could hope that he would find a way to reconcile this miaphysite subgroup with Chalcedon.25 Michael the Syrian, a chronicler from the twelfth century using now lost parts of John of Ephesus’ Church History, records that Justinian had met the Julianist bishop of Joppa and been influenced by his doctrine. Since Michael refers to this meeting in the same chapter in which he also in detail discusses the aphthartodocetic edict and the council which gathered around Anastasius, it has been dated to about 560 or some years afterwards.26 If Michael’s information is correct, this attests that Justinian was interested in establishing contact with Julianists; even though this cannot be proven, he might have been inspired to issue the edict after he had recognised the possibilities for a rapprochement which were opened by this meeting.27

24 Leontius of Byzantium, Dialogus contra aphthartodocetas (PG 86, 1316D-1356C); see also the discussion in Grillmeier, 1995, pp. 213-229; Kofsky, 2013, pp. 278-281. 25 There are very strong indications that Justinian always remained Chalcedonian; Malalas, 18,142, translated by E. Jeffreys – M. Jeffreys – R. Scott, The Chronicle of John Malalas, Melbourne, 1986, mentions the issue of a religious edict in November 562 directed against Miaphysites. Possible fragments of this edict are extant and were edited by M. Amelotti – L. Zingale, Scritti teologici ed ecclesiastici di Giustiniano, Milano, 1977, pp. 193f. Another point against a complete conversion to miaphysite/Julianist positions is the arrest of the Julianist patriarch Elpidius of Alexandria in 565 (Theophanes, a.m. 6057). He was ordered to Constantinople, but died on the way. See Carcione, 1984, pp. 74-77; Grillmeier, 1995, pp. 467f; M. van Esbroeck, The Aphthartodocetic Edict of Justinian and its Armenian Back- ground, in Studia Patristica, 33 (1997), p. 579; K.-H. Uthemann, Kaiser Justinian als Kirch- enpolitiker und Theologe, in Augustinianum, 39 (1999), pp. 79-81; M. Meier, Das andere Zeitalter Justinians: Kontingenzerfahrung und Kontingenzbewältigung im 6. Jahrhundert n.Chr., Göttingen, 2003, pp. 290ff; Maas, 2005, p. 254; Kofsky, 2013, pp. 254/282-285; M. Meier, Liturgisierung und Hypersakralisierung. Zum Bedeutungsverlust kaiserlicher Frömmigkeit in Konstantinopel zwischen dem 6. und 7. Jahrhundert n.Chr., in N. Schmidt – N. Schmid – A. Neuwirth (eds), Denkraum Spätantike. Reflexionen von Antiken im Umfeld des Koran, Wiesbaden, 2016, pp. 91f; P. Booth, Towards the Coptic Church: The Making of the Severan Episcopate, in Milllennium 17 (2017), p. 14. However, Van den Ven, 1965, p. 324; Duval, 1986, p. 349; K. Adshead, Justinian and Aphthartodocetism, in S. Mitchell – G. Greatrex (eds), Ethnicity and culture in Late Antiquity, London, 2000, pp. 331-333 do not doubt that Justinian indeed turned to miaphysite Aphthartism. 26 Michael the Syrian, 9,34 (p. 272). See Carcione, 1984, p. 71; Grillmeier, 1995, p. 468; Uthemann, 1999, p. 80; Kofsky, 2013, p. 283. 27 Cf. also the convincing hypothesis put forth in Meier, 2016, pp. 90-93; he understands Justinian’s move towards Aphthartism as the last, consequent action in the process of Justinian’s assimilation to Christ. Beginning in the 540s, Justinian increasingly enhanced his imperial sanctity and created an image of invulnerability of the imperial body by putting himself on the same level as Christ (“Hyper-sacralisation”). The imperial body having thus become incorruptible and immortal in the imperial propaganda by the end of his reign, it must only have been logical to Justinian to claim the same qualities for Christ’s body, with whom he ruled jointly over the empire. 440 SILVIO ROGGO

Eutychius, however, argued strongly against the new imperial doctrine and was not ready to accept it – nor were numerous other bishops and patri- archs, but he alone was quickly arrested and sentenced. This oddity is a strong indicator of additional reasons for his downfall. A clue can be found in the Life; it mentions explicitly the central role of two high-ranking senators, Aetherius, curator of the palace of Antiochus, and Addaeus, the city prefect, in his deposition, describing their actions against Eutychius as plotting.28 It was Aetherius who personally led the soldiers into the church of the palace of Hormisdas to arrest Eutychius.29 Both senators had acquired some notoriety for their involvement in conspiracies; this is especially true for Aetherius who, according to the chronicles of John Malalas and Theo­ phanes the Confessor, had been engaged in complots against Justinian already in 560 and 562.30 The latter occasion, the so-called conspiracy of Marcellus, was an attempt to murder the emperor. One of the known plotters was Aetherius’ nephew Sergius, but Aetherius himself and other officials with important posts are mentioned by the chroniclers as supporters and organis- ers of the machination. However, the suspicion proved not to be harmful for his career and he was further elevated in rank; only the men who would have executed the attack were punished, whereas the ones who had con- cocted the scheme were never prosecuted and managed instead to cast some doubt on the integrity of Belisarius, probably in the successful attempt to

28 Life of Eutychius, ll. 2130-2138: […] ἡ ἀποκατάστασις ἐν ἡμέρᾳ κυριακῇ καὶ μηνὶ Ὀκτωβρίῳ τρίτῃ γεγένηται, ἐν ᾗ καὶ οἱ τὴν κατ’αὐτοῦ συσκευὴν τυρεύσαντες ἀπετμήθη­ σαν, Αἰθέριός φημι καὶ Ἀδδαῖος. […] Καὶ ὥσπερ ἀμφότεροι τὴν σκαιωρίαν ἤτοι ἐκβολὴν τοῦ ὁσίου καὶ τὴν ἄτακτον χειροτονίαν πεποιήκασιν, οὕτως ἄμφω περὶ ὧν εἰργάσαντο καὶ τοὺς μισθοὺς ἐκαρπώσαντο. “His restoration [to the patriarchate of Constantinople in 577] happened on a Sunday, on the third of October, on the same day on which those who had planned the plot against him, I am speaking of Aetherius and Addaeus, had been executed. […] Just as both had organized the mischief, or the banishment of the holy man and the irregular election, so both reaped the payment of their misdeeds.” For an overview on Addaeus, see PLRE, Vol. IIIa, pp. 14f; on Aetherius ibidem, pp. 21f. For their role in the deposition, see Van den Ven, 1965, pp. 326f; Cameron, 1988, pp. 234f. 29 Life of Eutychius, ll. 1072-1076: […] ἐπέστη μετὰ μαχαιρῶν καὶ ξύλων ὁ μέγας θὴρ Αἰθέριος μετὰ πολλῆς βοηθείας στρατιωτικῆς· καὶ λαβὼν τὸν ὅσιον γυμνὸν καὶ μηδὲν ἔχοντα ἀπήγαγεν εἰς τὸ μοναστήριον τὸ Χωρακοῦδιν οὕτω λεγόμενον. “[…] The great beast Aetherius attacked him with swords and sticks, supported by numerous soldiers; having seized the unprotected holy man, who had no assistance, he led him away to the monastery called Chorakoudis.” For the church of the palace of Hormisdas, where Eutychius was apprehended, see Life of Eutychius, ll. 1047-1049. This church within the palace complex can be identified as the one of SS. Sergius and Bacchus, built by Justinian in the 520s. Cf. B. Croke, Justinian, Theodora, and the Church of Saints Sergius and Bacchus, in DOP, 60 (2006), pp. 25-63. 30 Malalas, 18,141; Theophanes, a.m. 6053 and 6055. See Meier, 2003, pp. 264-269; the malign schemes of Aetherius and Addaeus are also mentioned in John of Nikiu, 90,54-60, where they unsuccessfully attempted to achieve that Justinian placed his trust to a magician. THE DEPOSITION OF PATRIARCH EUTYCHIUS OF CONSTANTINOPLE IN 565 441 clear themselves.31 Evagrius and Theophanes both state that Aetherius and Addaeus were finally executed in 566 after having tried another coup against Justin II; their final conspiracy is also mentioned in the Life.32 With Aetherius and Addaeus, known for their engagement in plots, play- ing a prominent role in the downfall of Eutychius, one begins to suspect that the action against him is to be seen as part of a similar plan. The Life registers that there were “not only the preeminent among the powerful men around the emperor, but also notables among the priesthood, and leaders of prominent churches” responsible for Eutychius’ deposition.33 One person who welcomed the end of Eutychius’ patriarchate was undoubtedly his suc- cessor, the Syrian John Scholasticus, who may be understood as a “notable among the priesthood”. Concerning his accession to the patriarchal throne, it is conspicuous that he was a close ally of the later emperor Justin II, Jus- tinian’s nephew. This is highlighted and explained by the narration in the Life of Saint Simeon the Younger: when John was on his way from Antioch to Constantinople to accede to his post as apocrisiarius, he visited Simeon, who told him that he would become patriarch of Constantinople, and Justin emperor.34 The hagiographer claims that it was John’s announcement of this news to Justin that united the two men; irrespective of how exactly their alliance was formed, this story and the following chapters of Simeon’s Life provide evidence that John and Justin were in close contact and supported each other.35 This is all the more important because Justinian’s succession was not settled and Justin could not be sure that his claim to the imperial throne would prevail.36 In this uncertainty, it was crucial to have the support of key figures in Constantinople such as the patriarch; and John as an ally of Justin would have been a secure pillar for his imperial aspirations.37

31 See Meier, 2003, pp. 264-266; Malalas, 18,141, names Aetherius explicitly as connected to the conspiracy; Theophanes, a.m. 6055. 32 Evagrius, 5,3; Life of Eutychius, ll. 2130-2133; Theophanes, a.m. 6059. See also the allusions to them as conspirators against the emperor and to their violent death in Corippus, In laud. Iust. 1,60f and 4,347-350, edited by A. Cameron, In laudem Iustini Augusti minoris libri IV, London, 1976; cf. Cameron’s commentary ibidem on pp. 131/210f. 33 Life of Eutychius, ll. 996-999: […] οὐ μόνον οἱ περὶ τὸν βασιλέα τῶν δυναστευόντων ἐξέχοντες, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν ἐν ἱερεῦσι τελούντων ἐπίσημοι καὶ περιφανῶν ἐκκλησιῶν ἄρχον­ τες […]. 34 Life of Simeon, 202-206, edited by P. Van den Ven, La vie ancienne de s. Syméon Stylite le Jeune, 521-592, Brussels, 1962. 35 The chapters of Simeon’s Life dealing with the connection between John and Justin are 202-211. See Van den Ven, 1965, pp. 321-323. 36 See Van den Ven, 1965, pp. 340f, for the influence of the unclear imperial succession on the conspiracy. 37 For the importance of different groups and persons, among others the patriarch, for imperial successions, see P. Booth, Shades of Blues and Greens in the Chronicle of John of Nikiou, in BZ, 104/2 (2012), pp. 573f. 442 SILVIO ROGGO

There are thus indications that Justin had an interest in replacing Eutychius with another, more favourable patriarch. The alliance between Justin and John is, due to the testimony of Simeon’s Life, beyond doubt; it is not dif- ficult to link their aspirations with the well-attested ones of Aetherius and Addaeus. The fact that the two senators were executed in the subsequent year on Justin’s orders does not mean that they had not collaborated with him previously. Hence, a confluence of evidence suggests that Eutychius’ deposition was not due simply to his resistance to Justinian’s Aphthartism, but was further bound up with the political machinations connected to the uncertain, and no doubt imminent, imperial succession. Moreover, it has, because of the crucial role of Aetherius and Addaeus, to be located within the senatorial opposition to Justinian, an opposition that remained strong throughout his reign and wished to replace him with an emperor who would take their interests more into account.38

Justinian’s Last Years and the Execution of the Plot

If we examine the available information about Justinian’s style of gov- ernment towards the end of his life, we find additional hints that Eutychius’ downfall was caused by a conspiracy of figures striving to influence the succession. The common tendency in existing scholarship about the conflict between Eutychius and the emperor is to depict Justinian as actively engaged in politics until his death. According to this view, it was he who, having encountered Eutychius’ resistance, decided to depose him and, in Van den Ven’s analysis of the events, to invent pretexts to justify this step.39 However, this image of Justinian’s independence – albeit, as usually was the case, in a certain degree influenced by circles at court – comes up against evidence for the late period of his reign, where he is presented as far more passive and less assertive. In this regard, the main sources for his last years are the chronicles of Malalas and, dependent on him, Theophanes. It is telling that the chronicles point to a rise in city riots; at several instances, uprisings are reported, with the emperor hardly interfering and not being able to resolve the problems decisively.40 Especially in 565, there was hard fighting in Con- stantinople, when members of the green faction killed soldiers and openly

38 For a brief overview of the – mainly administrative and fiscal – elements of Justinian’s policy which were directed against senatorial interests and the resistance he encountered from influential senatorial groups and families from the very beginning of his reign, see P. Sarris, Empires of Faith, Oxford, 2011, pp. 147-153. 39 Van den Ven, 1965, p. 343; Kofsky, 2013, pp. 282f. See also the titles listed above in n. 5. 40 Malalas, 18,138f/146f/150f; Theophanes, a.m. 6054f. THE DEPOSITION OF PATRIARCH EUTYCHIUS OF CONSTANTINOPLE IN 565 443 challenged the authority of the state; according to Malalas, the situation was only won back under control when the new city prefect Julian took very severe measures against the rioters over a period of ten months.41 Malalas attributes the merit of having restored peace to Julian alone and does not mention Justinian at all; even though he was directly challenged in the cap- ital of his empire, he apparently remained entirely passive, leaving Julian at liberty to treat the insurgents as he wished. The sources do not allow us to draw any connection between this uprising and the deposition of the patriarch or the unsettled succession, which might both have caused some turmoil in the city. However, it is noticeable that the factional strife ceased after Justin had become emperor; he seems to have successfully conveyed the message that with him, a new rule had begun and that he would neither accept such insurgencies anymore nor favour a certain faction.42 Hence, the increase in unrest witnessed for Justinian’s last years might indicate that the imperial rule had partly lost its force, and that the aged emperor did not react as harshly as he had done after, for example, the Nika revolt in 532.43 A similar impression of imperial inaction and lack of strength is evident in Justinian’s reaction on the conspiracy of Marcellus in 562. Even though it was, according to Malalas, clear that the true masterminds had not been caught, there were no steps taken to uncover the crime directed against the life of the emperor. Justinian seems to have contented himself with the punishment of the men who were supposed to execute the attack and was induced by court officials to accept the version that Belisarius was involved and consequently exiled him, even though his return a few months there­after indicates that he was soon found to be not guilty.44

41 Malalas, 18,151: […] ἐχρήσατο τοῖς δημόταις, ἐξαιρέτως τοῖς τοῦ πρασίνου μέρους, πικρῶς ἐπὶ μῆνας ιʹ καὶ προσκαίων καὶ κοντεύων καὶ ἀποτέμνων καὶ παρὰ μέλη ποιῶν αὐτούς, […] καὶ ἔμεινεν ἐναρμοσάμενος αὐτοῖς, ὡς ἐχρῆν. καὶ οὕτως διὰ τοῦ Ἰουλιανοῦ ἐπάρχου τῆς πόλεως ἔλαβεν ἡ πόλις κατάστασιν, καὶ πάντες ἐλευθερίως καὶ ἀφόβως προήρχοντο καὶ ἐθεραπεύοντο. “He [Justin] treated the faction members, especially the Greens, harshly over a period of ten months, burning, impaling, castrating and dismembering them […]. He continued to keep them in order, as was necessary. So it was through the city prefect Julian that the city was restored to its former state, and everyone went about freely and without fear and were reconciled.” See also Victor of Tunna, 39th year of Justinian (p. 205), edited by T. Mommsen, Chronica minora saec. IV. V. VI. VII., Vol. II, Berlin, 1894, and the discussion of Meier, 2003, pp. 259f. 42 See Theophanes, a.m. 6061, n. 1. Justin II took the interests of the senate more into account than his predecessor, cf. Sarris, 2011, pp. 177f; the relative quietness in Constan- tinople at the start of his reign can accordingly also be connected to a decrease of senatorial agitation against the emperor. However, as the final conspiracy and execution of Aetherius and Addaeus in 566 show, this period did not last long. 43 See Meier, 2003, pp. 291f, for the decreasing activity of Justinian and its consequences. 44 Malalas, 18,141/147; Theophanes, a.m. 6055; see especially the discussion in Meier, 2003, pp. 269-273, for the lack of imperial action. 444 SILVIO ROGGO

Considering these events, overlooked by scholars dealing solely with the religious side of the conflict, it is difficult to credit Justinian with the active role hitherto assigned to him in Eutychius’ downfall. Even though Van den Ven mentioned the decisive role of a power struggle at court and the prob- ability of influence being exerted on Justinian, he did not regard any of the above evidence for Justinian’s relative inactivity but, overall, still saw him as an independent player and assumed that he was the inventor of the charges against Eutychius.45 If we leave, however, room open for the pos- sibility that Justinian was no longer the resourceful emperor he had been, this also changes our understanding of the consequences of his move towards Aphthartism. Whilst there is no reason to doubt that Justinian had sincere feelings for the aphthartic doctrine and that, by adopting it, he might have perceived a possibility to win back parts of the Miaphysites, we have seen that there was a circle of powerful men from senate and church aiming at installing a patriarch loyal to Justin in order to foster his imperial succession. They seized the opportunity which Eutychius’ resistance to the aphtharto- docetic edict offered them and plotted against the patriarch, suggesting his replacement.46 The Life states that they stormed the patriarchal palace and forced some of his servants to inform against him, in order to find additional pretexts for his deposition – his resistance against Aphthartism alone does not seem to have been sufficient for this.47 Subsequently, they had him arrested and, within a few days only, John, Justin’s ally, was installed as new patriarch.48 More information about this quick succession is transmitted in the seventh-century chronicle of the Egyptian John of Nikiu; according to this source, John was appointed patriarch after he had promised Justinian that he would support Aphthartism. If this account is true, it indicates that

45 Van den Ven, 1965, pp. 326f/343/347. Cf. Cameron, 1988, pp. 234f, who also pointed at the importance of power struggle in these events. 46 Life of Eutychius, ll. 1038-1047. 47 Life of Eutychius, ll. 1047-1055: Συνάξεως γὰρ οὔσης τοῦ ἁγίου Τιμοθέου ἐν τοῖς Ὁρμίσδα ἐν τῷ νέῳ παλατίῳ, καὶ ποιοῦντος τοῦ ὁσίου Εὐτυχίου τὴν θείαν λειτουργίαν, ἐπέβησαν εἰς τὸ εὐαγὲς ἐπισκοπεῖον […] συλλαμβάνοντες καὶ σύροντες τοὺς τῆς ὑπηρε­ σίας τοῦ ἁγίου ἀνδρός, ὀφείλοντας αὐτοῦ καταμαρτυρῆσαι, ἵνα δείξωσι μετ’εὐλόγου δῆθεν προφάσεως αὐτὸν τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς ἐξεοῦν. “At the time of the service of Saint Timotheus [22 January] in Hormisdas, in the new palace, when the holy Eutychios was celebrating the divine liturgy, they invaded the holy patriarchal palace […], seizing and apprehending the servants of the holy man, who then had to give evidence against him, so that they would be able to show that they were deposing him from his see on a justifiable pretext.” 48 Life of Eutychius, ll. 1081-1083: Καὶ μηδέπω ζητήσαντες τὰ περὶ αὐτοῦ, εἴτε ἄξιός ἐστιν ἔξω τοῦ θρόνου γενέσθαι εἴτε καὶ μή, ποιήσαντες ἄτακτον χειροτονίαν […]. “Without having enquired into his case, whether or not he deserved to be deposed, they held an irregular election.” THE DEPOSITION OF PATRIARCH EUTYCHIUS OF CONSTANTINOPLE IN 565 445 the plotters were indeed taking advantage of the doctrinal conflict to elevate their candidate to the patriarchal see. John, however, seems not to have kept his word; John of Nikiu claims that he had deceived the emperor about his true doctrinal position and nevertheless refused to promote Aphthartism, without this having had any further consequences, since Justinian was reluc- tant to depose the patriarch he had just appointed.49 It can indeed be excluded that a doctrinal change leading to more unrest in Constantinople had ever been a goal of the conspirators. They wanted to install a patriarch who was a valuable supporter of their cause; if, however, John had really accepted Aphthartism, this would only have weakened Jus- tin’s position among the majority of non-aphthartic Chalcedonians in the city, since we can assume that their connection was commonly known.50 Therefore, the council, which gathered around Anastasius at some point before Justinian’s death in November 565 to discuss the doctrine, and its negative verdict were certainly welcome to John, since it put him in a strong position to refuse to accept the edict.51 It is unclear whether Justinian aban- doned his aphthartic beliefs after the council or not; Evagrius and Michael the Syrian do not state the same in this regard.52 In either case, since there are no other retributions known against the numerous clerics who did not implement the edict, John successfully delayed any further measures until Justinian’s death put a definite end to the whole affair and Justin, acting immediately after the decease of his predecessor and benefitting from the absence of his rival to the imperial throne, managed to install himself as the new emperor.53

49 John of Nikiu, 94,11ff. 50 See above p. 441f. 51 The sources – Evagrius, 4,39f, and Michael the Syrian, 9,34 (p. 273) – give contradicting information about who ordered the bishops to assemble, with the former suggesting Anastasius and the latter mentioning an imperial order. Irrespective of who it was, John had a strong interest to convince Justinian that the matter should be discussed at this council; although some church leaders were doubting whether or not to accept the edict, its negative verdict hardly was a surprise. See Evagrius, 4,40, mentioning that a few clerics obeyed the imperial wish and accepted the edict; Weiss, 1965, pp. 16f. Cf. Van den Ven, 1965, pp. 342f, for John retarding the implementation of the edict. 52 According to Evagrius, 4,40f, he remained in this heresy until his death and planned to depose Anastasius, whom he could thus depict as prepared to take even exile upon himself in the defence of his faith; Michael the Syrian, 9,34 (p. 281), registers that it was unknown whether the emperor had changed his mind after the council or not. 53 Justin’s main rival to the throne was a successful general with the same name, cf. PLRE, Vol. IIIa, pp. 750ff (Iustinus 4). As this namesake was with his troops on the Danube when Justinian died, he was not able to effectively claim the imperial throne. He was killed in 566, probably on the orders of the new emperor. A source directly dealing with Justinian’s death, the imperial succession of Justin, and his installation as emperor is Corippus, In laud Iust.; cf. the commentary provided in the edition of Cameron (see note 32). 446 SILVIO ROGGO

Conclusions

All the studies hitherto written on the aphthartodocetic edict have seen the events around the deposition of Eutychius primarily as a conflict between Justinian and a church leader resisting his latest doctrinal idea. However, this approach solely focusses on religious policy and does not take the com- plex power struggle in the highest imperial circles around the aged Justinian into account. It is misleading, as has been shown in this article, to assume only Justinian and Eutychius as the main actors; for the last years of Justin- ian, there is ample proof of competing and plotting factions engaged in an ongoing struggle for influence at court around an increasingly inactive emperor. This competition for power was connected to Justinian’s unsettled succession, which rendered the usual in-fighting more intense. Eutychius was perceived as an opponent by a circle around the future emperor Justin and became the victim of a carefully staged plot. The conspirators took advantage of the doctrinal discord between emperor and patriarch and came up with fictitious charges and feigned support for the aphthartodocetic edict in order to achieve Eutychius’ removal and his replacement with Justin’s ally John Scholasticus.

Silvio Roggo Trinity College, Cambridge [email protected]

Summary

Die Absetzung des Patriarchen Eutychios von Konstantinopel durch Justinian im Jahre 565 ist bisher in erster Linie als theologischer Konflikt zwischen Kaiser und Patriarch über ein von ersterem veröffentlichtes Dekret mit einer überraschenden Hinwendung zu aphthartodoketischen Lehren gedeutet worden. Dieser Artikel zeigt demgegenüber jedoch auf, dass sich die Vorgänge nicht lediglich als religionspoli- tische Maßnahmen erklären lassen, sondern sie vielmehr im breiteren Kontext von Machtkämpfen am Hofe des alternden und zunehmend inaktiven Justinian zu ver- stehen sind. Die Nachfolgefrage war nicht geregelt; aus diesem Grunde ergriff eine Clique machthungriger Angehöriger der Elite, darunter der spätere Kaiser Justin II., die Gelegenheit, Eutychios durch den ihren eigenen Ambitionen wohlgesinnten Johannes Scholastikus zu ersetzen. Sie benutzten den Widerstand des Patriarchen gegen Justinians Dekret, um gegen ihn zu intrigieren und seine Absetzung zu verlan- gen, ohne danach aber weiterhin für diese religiösen Neuerungen einzutreten, wodurch deutlich wird, dass sie diese bloß als Vorwand benutzten, um Eutychios aus seiner für die allgemeine Anerkennung Justins als imperialer Nachfolger zentralen Stellung entfernen zu können.