DIOSCURUS
19
DIOSCURUS
Dioscurus, Bishop of Alexandria (also written
Diosi'OKUS; Dioscurus from the analogy of Dioscuri),
(late of birth unknown; d. at Gangra, in Asia Minor,
11 Sept., 454. He had been archdeacon under St.
Cyril, whom he succeeded in 444. Soon afterwards
Theodoret, who had been on good terms with Cyril
since 4.33, wrote him a polite letter, in which he
speaks of the report of Diosourus's virtues and his
modesty. In such a letter no contraiy report would
be mentioned, and we cannot infer much from these
vague expressions. The peace established between
John of Antioch and Cyril seems to have continued
between their successors until 448, when Doranus, the
successor and nephew of John, had to judge the case
of Ibas, Bishop of Edessa, who was accused of heresy
and many crimes by the Cyrillian party. Domnus ac-
quitted Ibas. The Cyrillian monks of Osrhoene were
furious, and betook themselves to Dioscurus as their
natural protector. Dioscurus wrote to Domnus, com-
plaining that he championed the Nestorian Ibas and
Theodoret. Domnus and Theodoret both replied
defending themselves, and showing their perfect or-
thodoxy. The accusers of Ibas went to the court at
Constantinople, where the feeble Theodosius II was
only too ready to mix in ecclesiastical quarrels. From
him the Cyrillians obtained a decree against the Nes-
torians, and in particular against Irenaeus, who had
befriended the Nestorians at the Council of Ephesus,
where he was in authority as imperial representative;
he was now deposed from the Bishopric of Tyre which
he had obtained. Theodoret was forbidden to leave
his Diocese of Cyrrhus. In September a new Bishop
of Tyre was appointed, and the Patriarch Domnus,
feeling that Dioscurus was about to triumph, wrote to
Flavian of Constantinople in order to get his support.
Alexandria had of old been the first see of the East and
was now only surpassed in power by the imperial city.
The Egyptian patriarch had vast civil and political
influence, as well as an almost autocratic sway over
a hundred bishops and a great army of monks, who
were heart and soul devoted to the memory of Cyril,
and rather fervent than discriminating in their ortho-
doxy. Constantinople had been granted the next
dignity after Rome by the great Council of 381, and
this humiliation of Alexandria had embittered the
long-standing rivalry between the two sees. Antioch
had always tended to support Constantinople, and
Domnus was now ready to grant precedence to Fla-
vian. Dioscurus, ' he said, had already complained
that he, Domnus, was betraying the rights of Antioch
and Alexandria in admitting the canon of 381, which
had never been accepted by Alexandria or Rome.
But Flavian was not a helpful ally, for he had ne-
glected to obtain the favour of the eunuch Chrysa-
phius, who was all-powerful at court. An unforeseen
incident was now to set the world in a blaze. At a
council held by Flavian in November of the same year,
448, Eusebius of Doryloeum accused the Archiman-
drite Eutyches of teaching one nature only in Christ.
He was treated with all consideration, but his obsti-
nacy made it unavoidable that he .should be deposed
and excommunicated. Now Eutyches was godfather
to Chrysaphius, and "one nature" was precisely the
unfortunate expression of St. Cyril, which his fol-
lowers were already interpreting in a heretical sense.
Eutyches therefore at once became the martyr of
Cyrillianism ; and though he was not a writer nor a
theologian, he has given his name to the Monophysite
heresy, into which the whole Cyrillian party now
plunged once for all.
The Cyrillians were further incensed by the failure of their second attempt to convict Ibas. They had procured an order from the emperor, 2.5 Oct., 448, for a fresh trial. The bishops who met for this purpose at Tyre in Feb., 449. were obliged by the violence of the Eastern monks to transfer some of their sittings to Berytus. At the end of the month Ibas was excul-
pated, though the emperor was known to be against
him. Dioscurus and his party replied by an unex-
pected stroke ; in March they induced the emperor to
issue an invitation to all the greater bishops to attend
with their suffragans a general council to be held at
Ephesus in .\ugust. It was indeed not unreasonable
to desire some permanent settlement of the intermits
tent war, and the pope, St. Leo I, warmly accepted
the emperor's proposition, or rather order. Eutyches
had written to him, pretending that he had appealed
at the time of his condemnation, and promising to
abide by his judgment. He wrote also to other
bishops, and we still possess the reply sent to him by
St. Peter Chrysologus, Bishop of Ravenna, where the
corn-t of Valentinian III, the Western emperor, had its
head-quarters. St. Peter tells him to await the decision
of the pope, who alone can judge a case concerning the
Faith. St. Leo at first complained that the matter
had not at once been referred to him, then, on finding
that a full account sent by St. Flavian had been acci-
dentally delayed, wrote a compendious explanation
of the whole doctrine involved, and sent it to St.
Flavian as a formal and authoritative decision of the
question. He reproves Flavian's council for want of
severity to an expression of Eutyches, but adds that
the archimandrite may be restored if he repent. This
letter, the most famous of all Christian antiquity, is
known as "St. Leo's Tome". He sent as legates to
the council a bishop named Julius, a priest, Renatus
(he died on the way), and the deacon Hilarus, after-
wards pope. St. Leo expresses his regret that the
shortness of the notice must prevent the presence of
any other bishop of the West. It is probable that this
difficulty had been anticipated by Dioscurus, who had
answered an appeal from Eutyches in a different
strain. He regarded him as a down-trodden disciple
of the great Cyril, persecuted by the Nestorian Flavian.
As his predecessor Peter had appointed a bishop for
Constantinople, and as Theophilu.s had judged St.
Chrysostom, so Dioscurus, with the air of a superior,
actually declared Eutyches absolved and restored.
In April Eutyches obtained a slight revision of the
Acts of the coimcil which had condemned him. In
the same month the case of Ibas was again exam-
ined, by the emperor's order, this time at Edessa it-
self, and by a lay inquisitor, Cherceas, the Governor of
Osrhoene. The people received him with shouts
against Ibas. No defence was heard. On the arrival
of Cheraeas's report, the emperor wrote commanding
the presence of Ibas's most furious accuser, the monk
Bar Tsaouma (Barsumas), and other monks at the
approaching council. In all this we see the influence
of Dioscurus dominant. In March Theodosius had
prohibited Theodoret from coming to the council. On
6 August he shows some fear that his order may be
disregarded, in a letter in which he constitutes Dio-
scurus president of the synod.
The council met at Ephesus on 8 Aug., 449. It was to have been oecumenical in authority, but it was dubbed by St. Leo a latrocinium, and " The Robber Council" has been its title ever since. A full history of it would be out of place here (.see Ephe.sus, Robber Council of). It is only necessary to say that the assembly was wholly dominated by Dioscurus. Flavian was not allowed to sit as a bishop, but was on his trial. When Stephen, Bishop of Ephesus, wished to give Communion to Flavian's clergy, he was at- tacked by soldiers and monks of Eutyches, 300 in num- ber, who cried out that Stephen was the enemy of the emperor, since he received the emperor's enemies. Eutyches was admitted to defend himself, but the other side was only so far heard that the .\cts of the council which had condemned him were read in full. Not content with restoring Eutyches, Dioscurus pro- ceeded to the deposition of Flavian. This bold meas- ure could only be carried by terrorism. The soldiers and monks were brought into the council, and many
