Editing Basiliscus (section)

==Reign==
[[File:Cnidus Aphrodite Altemps Inv8619.jpg|right|thumb|A copy of the ''[[Aphrodite of Knidos]]'', whose original was destroyed in the fire of 475/476|alt=a marble copy of the Cnidian Aphrodite statue]]
Basiliscus quickly lost support in Constantinople, through a combination of heavy taxes and heretical ecclesiastical policies, as well as a natural disaster.{{sfn|Elton|1998}} A large fire broke out in the quarter of [[Chalkoprateia]] in 475/476, before quickly spreading.{{sfn|Bury|1923|p=393}} The fire destroyed the [[Basilica (library)|Basilica]], a library containing 120,000 books, as well as the [[Palace of Lausus]], the ''[[Aphrodite of Knidos]]'', the [[Lindian Athene]], and the [[Samian Here]].{{sfn|Bury|1923|p=394}} Bury remarks that, as is common with "accidents in superstitious ages", the fire was reputed to be supernatural in origin.{{sfn|Bury|1923|p=393}} Many at the time viewed it as a symbol of divine wrath against Basiliscus.{{sfn|Kazhdan|1991|p=267}}

While Basiliscus's rise was not illegal, as usurpations confirmed by the senate were generally considered legitimate, such had not happened for over a century in the Eastern Roman Empire. Additionally, he was politically incompetent and temperamental, alienating much of his support.{{Sfn|Friell|Williams|2005|p=185}} While Basiliscus was supported initially by the elites of the Eastern Roman Empire, he never gained much popularity amongst the common people, weakening his legitimacy; his conflicts with Acacius reduced his support from the people of Constantinople, who were heavily Chalcedonian.{{sfn|Osequeda|2018|pp=107 & 184}} The near-bankruptcy of the empire forced Basiliscus to levy extensive taxes and to sell off public positions for money. He utilized the {{lang|la|[[praefectus urbi]]}} [[Epinicus (prefect)|Epinicus]], a former ally of Verina, to extort money from the church.{{Sfn|Friell|Williams|2005|p=185}} Verina turned against Basiliscus after the execution of her lover and began to plot to return Zeno to power,{{sfn|Kulikowski|2019|p=245}}{{sfn|Twardowska|2014|pp=19–20}} and sought refuge in [[Blachernae]]. It is not known if she fled because of her support or began to support Zeno after she fled, as the source, Candidus, is unclear, but the [[Vita Danielis Stylite]] states that she remained there until after Basiliscus died.{{sfn|Twardowska|2014|pp=19–20}}

Basiliscus had Armatus made {{lang|la|magister militum praesentalis}}, allegedly at the insistence of Zenonis. This turned Theoderic Strabo against him, as he hated Armatus.{{sfn|Bury|1923|p=392}}{{sfn|Jones|Martindale|Morris|1980|pp=1074–1075}} Armatus was also made consul in 476, alongside Basiliscus himself.{{sfn|Jones|Martindale|Morris|1980|p=1244}} Illus and Trocundes, laying siege to Zeno in his native lands, defected to him.{{sfn|Elton|1998}}{{sfn|Bury|1923|pp=392–393}}{{sfn|Jones|Martindale|Morris|1980|pp=149, 567, & 1127}}{{Sfn|Friell|Williams|2005|pp=185–186}}{{sfn|Leszka|2013|pp=50–51}} This has usually been ascribed to a failure to fulfill unspecified promises made to them, as given by [[Theophanes the Confessor]], which many historians identify as a promise to make them both {{lang|la|magister militum}}, but Leszka challenges this, arguing that Theophanes does not specify the promises because he invented them as the most likely explanation. Leszka questions that Basiliscus would entrust military command to men he had lied to, and argues that they were motivated instead by fear that Basiliscus would be overthrown, or else religious opposition.{{sfn|Leszka|2013|pp=50–51}} From February/March 476, Basiliscus remained in the [[Hebdomon]], out of fear of the capital's populace; this news may have motivated them,{{sfn|Leszka|2013|p=51}}{{sfn|Redies|1997|p=218}}{{sfn|Kosiński|2010|p=78}} along with letters received from ministers of the capital. These letters informed them that the city was now ready to restore Zeno, as the people had become even less supportive of Basiliscus due to the "fiscal rapacity of his ministers", as Bury puts it. Illus, possibly buoyed by his hold over Zeno, by way of his imprisonment of his brother, arranged to ally him and they began to march towards Constantinople with their combined forces.{{sfn|Bury|1923|pp=392–393}}{{sfn|Jones|Martindale|Morris|1980|pp=149, 567, & 1127}}{{Sfn|Friell|Williams|2005|pp=185–186}}{{sfn|Leszka|2013|p=51}}

Basiliscus ordered Armatus to take command of all the troops in [[Thrace]] and Constantinople, as well as the palace guard, and lead them against the three. In spite of his oath of loyalty, Armatus betrayed Basiliscus when Zeno offered to have him made {{lang|la|magister militum praesentalis}} for life, and his son, [[Basiliscus (Caesar)|Basiliscus]], crowned as {{lang|la|caesar}}. He allowed Zeno to pass to Constantinople unhindered,{{sfn|Elton|1998}}{{sfn|Bury|1923|p=393}}{{Sfn|Friell|Williams|2005|pp=185–186}}{{sfn|Jones|Martindale|Morris|1980|p=149}} deliberately traveling on a different road than the one used by Zeno's army, and marched instead into Isaura. Zeno entered Constantinople unopposed in August 476.{{sfn|Elton|1998}}{{sfn|Bury|1923|p=393}}{{Sfn|Friell|Williams|2005|pp=185–186}} Basiliscus and his family fled and took refuge in a church, only leaving once Zeno promised not to execute them. Zeno exiled them to [[Limnae (Cappadocia)|Limnae]] in [[Cappadocia]],{{efn|[[Victor of Tunnuna]] gives the location as Sasima, and [[Evagrius Scholasticus]] and [[J. B. Bury]] give the location as Cucusus.{{sfn|Jones|Martindale|Morris|1980|p=214}}}}{{sfn|Elton|1998}}{{sfn|Jones|Martindale|Morris|1980|p=214}} where they were imprisoned in a dried-up cistern, and left to starve to death.{{sfn|Elton|1998}}{{sfn|Jones|Martindale|Morris|1980|p=214}} According to some sources, they were instead beheaded.{{sfn|Bury|1923|p=393}}

===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}}