Bishop Of Constantinople Anatolius
Bishop Of Constantinople Anatolius [1]
Anatolius , bp. of Constantinople, 449 A.D., through the influence of Dioscorus of Alexandria with Theodosius Ii., after the deposition of Flavian by the "Robber Council," having previously been the "apocrisiarius" or representative of Dioscorus at Constantinople (Zon. Ann. iii.). After his consecration, being under suspicion of Eutychianism (Leo, Epp. ad. Theod. 33 ad Pulch. 35), he publicly condemned the heresies both of Eutyches and Nestorius, signing the letters of Cyril against Nestorius and of Leo against Eutyches (Leo, Epp. 40, 41, 48). In conjunction with Leo of Rome, according to Zonaras ( Ann. iii.), he requested the emperor Marcian to summon a general council against Dioscorus and the Eutychians; but the imperial letter directing Anatolius to make preparations for the council at Chalcedon speaks only of Leo (Labbe, Conc. Max. Tom. iv.). In this council Anatolius presided in conjunction with the Roman legates (Labbe, Conc. Max. iv.; Evagr. H. E. ii. 4, 18; Niceph. H. E. xv. 18). By the famous 28th canon, passed at the conclusion of the council, equal dignity was ascribed to Constantinople with Rome (Labbe, iv. 796; Evagr. ii. 18). Hence arose the controversy between Anatolius and the Roman pontiff. Leo complained to Marcian ( Ep. 54) and to Pulcheria ( Ep. 55) that Anatolius had outstepped his jurisdiction, by consecrating Maximus to the see of Antioch; and he remonstrated with Anatolius ( Ep. 53). After the council of Chalcedon some Egyptian bishops wrote to Anatolius, earnestly asking his assistance against Timotheus, who was usurping the episcopal throne at Alexandria (Labbe, Conc. Max. iv. iii. 23, p. 897). Anatolius wrote strongly to the emperor Leo against Timotheus (Labbe, iii. 26, p. 905). The circular of the emperor requesting the advice of Anatolius on the turbulent state of Alexandria is given by Evagrius ( H. E. ii. 9), and by Nicephorus ( H. E. xv. 18). The crowning of Leo on his accession by Anatolius is said (Gibbon, iii. 313) to be the first instance of the kind on record (Theoph. Chron. 95 Par. ).
[[[I.G.S.]]]
