ABSTRACT
The literary record of the usurper emperor Basiliscus’ reign (475–476) is imbued with the rhetoric of persecution. Some authors describe Basiliscus as a persecuting tyrant while others say he was actually the victim of persecution. This disparity arises from each author’s stance on the dyophysite doctrine of the Council of Chalcedon (451) and Basiliscus’ Encyclicon, which annulled the council. The discourse contained in the body of literature ultimately served not only to further debates on the prerogative of an emperor to define doctrine, but can be situated within broader disputes about orthodoxy and imperial legitimacy.
