Editing Basiliscus (section)

===Religious policies===
During the 5th century, a central religious issue was the debate concerning how the human and divine nature of [[Jesus Christ]] were associated, following the [[Arian controversy]]. The [[Catechetical School of Alexandria|School of Alexandria]], including theologians such as [[Athanasius]], asserted the equality of Christ and God, and therefore focused upon the divinity of Christ. The [[School of Antioch]], including theologians such as [[Theodore of Mopsuestia]], determined not to lose the human aspect of Christ, focused upon his humanity.{{sfn|Lee|2013|p=137}} Shortly before Marcian had become emperor, the [[Second Council of Ephesus]] was held in 449. The council stated that Jesus had one divine united nature, called {{lang|la|[[miaphysitism|miaphysis]]}}; this was rejected by the [[Pope]] and the Patriarch of Constantinople because of disputes on the matter of [[Christology]], as the Pope and Patriarch of Constantinople saw the belief in miaphysis as [[heretical]].{{sfn|Lee|2013|p=145}}{{sfn|Vasiliev|1980|pp=99 & 105}}{{sfn|Davis|2004|p=81}} Marcian convened the [[Council of Chalcedon]] in October 451, attended by about 500 bishops, most of them Eastern Roman.{{sfn|Lee|2013|p=145}}{{sfn|Gallagher|2008|p=585}}{{sfn|Whitworth|2017|p=360}} This council condemned the Second Council of Ephesus and agreed that Jesus had a divine nature ({{lang|la|[[physis]]}}) and a human nature, united in one person ({{lang|la|[[Hypostasis (philosophy and religion)|hypostasis]]}}), "without confusion, change, division, or separation."{{sfn|Lee|2013|p=146}} The council also repeated the importance of the [[See of Constantinople]] in Canon 28, placing it firmly in second place behind the See of Rome, and giving it the right to appoint bishops in the Eastern Roman Empire, placing it over the Sees of [[See of Alexandria|Alexandria]], [[Early bishops of Jerusalem|Jerusalem]], and [[See of Antioch|Antioch]].{{sfn|Nathan|1998}}{{sfn|Osequeda|2018|p=106}}{{sfn|Lee|2013|p=147}}{{sfn|Lee|2001|p=814}}

Basiliscus rose to power during a time when the miaphysite faction was growing in power, and his attempts to ally them to himself backfired severely.{{sfn|Bonner|2020|p=131}}{{sfn|Ostrogorsky|1956|p=64}} Historian [[Jason Osequeda]] posits that Basiliscus's mistake was "appearing as the member of one sphere attempting to intrude into the other, rather than using influence and negotiation to achieve his platform", and that he was unaware of his outsider status, causing him to be viewed as "attempting to usurp not only an earthly crown but a spiritual one too."{{sfn|Osequeda|2018|pp=186–187}} Some historians view it likely that Zenonis influenced Basiliscus towards miaphysitism.{{sfn|Herrin|2016|pp=22–23}} Basiliscus had [[Theoctistus (miaphysite)|Theoctistus]], a miaphysite, made {{lang|la|magister officiorum}},{{sfn|Jones|Martindale|Morris|1980|p=1066}} and he received the miaphysite patriarch [[Pope Timothy II of Alexandria|Timothy Ailuros]], who returned from his exile in [[Crimea]] after the death of Leo. By them Basiliscus was persuaded to attack the tenets of Chalcedonianism.{{sfn|Kulikowski|2019|p=245}} Basiliscus had Timothy Ailuros restored as the [[Patriarch of Alexandria]], and [[Peter the Fuller]] as [[Patriarch of Antioch]].{{sfn|Kulikowski|2019|p=248}} Under his reign the [[Third Council of Ephesus]] was held in 475, presided over by Timothy Ailuros, which officially condemned the Council of Chalcedon, and a synodical letter was sent to Basiliscus requesting that Patriarch Acacius be stripped of his role.{{sfn|Osequeda|2018|pp=105–106}} Historian [[Richard Price (historian)|Richard Price]] argues that Basiliscus' association with Timothy Ailuros also reduced his support as some rumors suggested that Timothy had a role in the murder of [[Proterius of Alexandria]], a Chalcedonian, and his ties to Timothy were seen as tacit approval of this murder.{{sfn|Osequeda|2018|p=185}}

Basiliscus issued an [[Encyclical of Basiliscus|encyclical]] on 9 April 475,{{efn|[[Otto Seeck]] gives the date as [[Easter]] (6 April).{{Sfn|Seeck|1919|p=421}}{{sfn|Greatrex|2011|p=177}}}}{{sfn|Elton|1998}}{{sfn|Bonner|2020|p=131}}{{sfn|Frend|1988|p=193}}{{sfn|Jones|Martindale|Morris|1980|p=852}} which promoted the first three ecumenical councils of the church: [[First Council of Nicaea|Nicaea]], [[First Council of Constantinople|Constantinople]], and [[Council of Ephesus|Ephesus]], and condemned the Council of Chalcedon and the [[Tome of Leo]].{{sfn|Ostrogorsky|1956|p=64}}{{sfn|Lee|2013|p=149}}{{sfn|Osequeda|2018|p=184}} While enthusiastically received in [[Ephesus]] and Egypt, it resulted in outrage from the monasteries as well as alienating Patriarch Acacius, and the heavily Chalcedonian population of the capital.{{sfn|Kulikowski|2019|p=245}}{{sfn|Bonner|2020|p=131}}{{sfn|Osequeda|2018|p=107}}{{sfn|Jones|1966|p=93}} Repudiating the Council of Chalcedon invalidated Canon 28 of it, ending Acacius's control over the Eastern sees,{{sfn|Osequeda|2018|p=106}}{{sfn|Stearn|2020|p=199}}{{sfn|Bury|1923|p=403}} and as such Acacius refused to sign it.{{sfn|Osequeda|2018|p=106}}{{sfn|Lee|2013|p=149}} Acacius draped the Church of St. Sophia in black,{{efn|Some sources say all the churches of Constantinople were draped in black, rather than just the Church of St. Sophia.{{sfn|Osequeda|2018|p=184}}}}{{sfn|Bury|1923|p=391}}{{sfn|Kulikowski|2019|p=245}}{{sfn|Osequeda|2018|p=106}} and lead a congregation in mourning. This caused Basiliscus to leave the city,{{sfn|Bury|1923|p=391}}{{sfn|Kulikowski|2019|p=245}}{{sfn|Osequeda|2018|p=106}} and a significant portion of the city to support Zeno's return.{{sfn|Kulikowski|2019|p=245}} The popular {{lang|la|[[stylite]]}} (pillar monk) [[Daniel the Stylite]], whom Basiliscus had been attempting to sway to his side, rejected his efforts after the publication of the encyclical, and descended from his pillar to pray alongside Acacius, branding Basiliscus as a "second [[Diocletian]]" for his attacks on the church.{{sfn|Lee|2013|p=149}}{{sfn|Osequeda|2018|pp=106 & 186}}

There is some debate over the differences between the encyclical presented by Evagrius Scholasticus and that of [[Pseudo-Zacharias Rhetor]]. Notably, Evagrius' version does not contain some of the references to the Council of Nicaea and the Second Council of Ephesus, making it less extreme. [[Philippe Blaudeau]] suggests that the one presented by Evagrius was a modified version presented to Acacius, as it would be more palatable to him; as well as that the language of the original would have made [[Eutychians]] believe that Timothy and Basiliscus agreed with them, and the subsequent document clarified their positions.{{sfn|Greatrex|2011|p=177}}{{sfn|Blaudeau|2006|pp=177–179}} The current consensus among historians is that Evagrius' version was the original, made more extreme after the Third Council of Ephesus.{{sfn|Greatrex|2011|p=177}} Some arguments have been made by [[Eduard Schwartz]], [[Hanns Brennecke]], and [[René Draguet]] that Basiliscus approved Evagrius' text, but that the more extreme version was written by [[Paul the Sophist]].{{sfn|Greatrex|2011|p=177}}{{sfn|Schwartz|1934|p=186 n. 4}}{{sfn|Brennecke|1988|p=35}}{{sfn|Draguet|1924|pp=55–59}} Whatever the case, Basiliscus soon voided his encyclical, issuing a new letter dubbed the "[[Anti-encyclical of Basiliscus|anti-encyclical]]",{{efn|Some sources put this concurrent to Zeno's march to Constantinople, stating that the events took place after Basiliscus was made aware of the defection of Armatus, causing him to quickly revoke his ecclesiastical edicts, and attempt to placate Patriarch Acacius and the people.{{sfn|Bury|1923|p=393}}{{Sfn|Friell|Williams|2005|pp=185–186}}}}{{sfn|Stearn|2020|p=199}}{{sfn|Bury|1923|p=403}} revoking his previous encyclical, reaffirming condemnation of heresy, and restoring the rights of Canon 28 to Acacius, but did not explicitly mention the Council of Chalcedon.{{sfn|Osequeda|2018|p=185}}{{sfn|Kazhdan|1991|p=696}} Notably, the first encyclical also asserted the right for an emperor to dictate and judge theological doctrine, subsuming the function of an [[Ecumenical Council]],{{sfn|Bury|1923|p=403}} and is worded much like an imperial edict.{{sfn|Greatrex|2011|p=177}} Although Acacius and Basiliscus had feuded since the first months of his reign, Daniel later played the part of a diplomat, reconciling them near the end of the latter's reign, before Zeno retook Constantinople.{{sfn|Osequeda|2018|p=187}} All of Basiliscus' religious edicts were annulled by the {{lang|la|[[praetorian prefect]]}} [[Sebastianos]] in December 477, by order of Zeno.{{sfn|Osequeda|2018|p=188}}