suggestions. Piety apart, they would naturally desire peace and unity,
and also freedom from Alexandrian interference. Rumour said that
Dioscorus was plotting against them. This may be false, though the
friendly relations between the Monophysites and the exiled widow-
Empress Eudocia might render such a suggestion not improbable. But
on the other hand the Emperor and Empress were not likely to avoid
Scylla in order to fall into Charybdis — to liberate their ecclesiastical
policy from Alexandrian dictation merely to bow beneath the yoke of
Rome. With regard to the appointment of Anatolius, Leo had, by the
appointment of a patriarch of Constantinople, attacked the independence
of the Emperor as well as the dignity of the patriarch himself. A
Council must be called, Leo or his legate might preside, and his Tome
might serve as basis for a confession of faith. But the Council must be
held in the East, not, as Leo now vainly requested, in the West, and
measures must be taken in it to secure the prestige of the Byzantine see
against that of either St Mark or St Peter. This policy however was
not all to be declared at once.
The Council was summoned to assemble at Nicaea, the orthodox associations of that place being of good omen. It was to be larger and more representative than any hitherto held, comprising as many as six hundred and thirty-six bishops (twice as many as those at Nicaea), though the Emperor and Empress took strong measures to exclude a concourse of unauthorised persons, who might come to make a disturb- ance. Seeing, however, that military and civil exigencies prevented Marcian from attending meetings at a distance from his capital, he adjourned the Council to Chalcedon. The wisdom of this step soon became evident. Chalcedon was sufficiently near to Constantinople to allow a committee of imperial Ministers, with some distinguished members of the Byzantine Senate, to undertake the general control of affairs, and the Emperor and Empress were able, at least once, to attend in state, as well as to watch proceedings throughout.
When we consider the composition of the Council of Chalcedon and the state of parties at the time, we are surprised less at its failure to secure ecclesiastical unity than at its success in accomplishing any business at all. It can hardly be said that anyone wished for unity except on conditions that some others would pronounce intolerable. On the one hand were the ex-Nestorian bishops, Theodoret of Cyrus and Ibas of Edessa, who, though they had repudiated Nestorius himself, were strongly attached to the school from which he had sprung, and had suffered on many occasions, but worst at the Robber Council, from the injustice and violence of the Eutychian party. These, being dis- possessed, could not of course take part in the proceedings till they had been reinstated, but they had been summoned to the spot, and their very presence was very likely to inflame the passions of their opponents. At the opposite extreme was Dioscorus, supported but feebly by the bishops
