CONSTANTINOPLE AND THE EASTERN EMPIREif so, how, Christ had two natures. Cyril seemed to emphasize the divine,
while Nestorius emphasized the human. Much later effort, especially in the
sixth century, was to go into trying to reconcile the teachings of Cyril with
the fi ndings of the Council of Chalcedon. There was hot dispute at Ephesus I
over the exact implications of the title Theotokos (‘bearer of God’), which had
been applied to Mary already but which now became a key issue; was she the
mother of God, or only of Christ? This period also marked a distinct stage
in the development of the cult of the Virgin, which was intensifi ed by the
debate over her title.^30 However, other issues were also in play including the
rivalry between the more literal interpretation of Christianity associated with
Antioch and the traditional position of Alexandria. The proceedings dragged
on, with separate meetings held by Cyril’s group and the Antiochenes, but
after much argument and counter-argument, imperial manoeuvring, strong-
arm tactics and intervention by Egyptian supporters of Cyril, the latter got the
better of it and Nestorius was condemned and exiled.^31 Nestorius’ own justi-
fi catory account survives in a sixth-century Syriac translation and is known as
the Bazaar, or Book, of Heraclides (c. 450).^32 He went into prolonged exile, in 448
his books were ordered to be burned and his name became synonymous with
heresy; it was later attached to the ‘Nestorian’ church (better, the Church of
the East, for which see Chapter 9), laying stress on Christ’s human rather than
divine nature, which later established itself especially in the Sasanian empire,
and spread eastwards from there as far as China.
The divisions continued, and the Antiochenes, especially Theodoret of
Cyrrhus in northern Syria, did not easily accept Ephesus I; Cyril himself died in
444, and in 448 Eutyches, a monk in Constantinople and vociferous opponent
of Nestorius, was condemned by the ‘standing synod’ of the city, the emperor
called a new council and the proceedings against Eutyches were themselves
challenged. The pope now intervened with a forceful document (the ‘Tome
of Leo’, 449) asserting two natures, and a second council was held at Ephe-
sus under the control of Cyril’s successor Dioscorus. The Second Council of
Ephesus in 449 ignored the Roman opposition, reinstated Eutyches and with
the emperor’s approval condemned Theodoret, Domnus of Antioch and Ibas
(Hiba) of Edessa among others, including Flavian of Constantinople, who had
gained the support of Pope Leo.^33 Such a reversal could not last, and Ephesus
II became known as the ‘Robber Council’. Theodosius died in 450, his sister
Pulcheria chose and married Marcian, a suitable though elderly husband, and
through him summoned a new council at Chalcedon in 451.
This was a very different affair.^34 The fi nal defi nition of the Council of
Chalcedon was signed by some 452 bishops, though the pope himself was not
present; it condemned both Nestorius and Eutyches and drew on the argu-
ments of both Cyril and Pope Leo. The Chalcedonian formula, asserting the
two natures of Christ, became and remains fundamental to both the western
and eastern churches. It developed and clarifi ed the creed of Nicaea, accord-
ing to which God was Father, Son and Holy Spirit, by further proclaiming that
Christ was at all times after the Incarnation fully God and fully human: ‘to