The Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius Scholasticus - Coptic ...

68
EVAGRIUS
and that he unjustly deposed us and [44] e¡ected terrible things on
us; we will do this once your sacred and adored instructions are
sent to the holy and ecumenical Synod of the bishops, most
beloved by God, to the e¡ect that they should listen carefully to
us and the aforesaid Dioscorus, and refer all the transactions to
the cognizance of your piety, in accordance with the opinion of
your immortal supremacy. And if we obtain this we shall send
up incessant prayers on behalf of your eternal might, most
sacred emperors.
After this, by common petition of Dioscorus and Eusebius the transactions
in the second conclave in Ephesus were read out in public. 39 As
for the detailed version of these, which is extended at great length but
also encompassed in the proceedings at Chalcedon, I have appended
this to the present book of the history, lest I seem to be long-winded to
those who are eager for the end of the events; 40 thereby I have given an
opportunity to those who wish to know everything minutely both to
peruse them and to form an accurate impression of everything. But, to
run over more important matters, I state that Dioscorus was discovered
to have rejected the letter of Leo, the bishop of elder Rome, and in addition
on a single day to have e¡ected the deposition of Flavian, the
bishop of New Rome, after arranging for the assembled bishops to
subscribe to a blank sheet that actually contained the deposition of
Flavian. For these reasons the men of the senatorial council decreed as
follows: 41
Concerning the orthodox and universal faith we resolve to make a
more precise investigation on the next day when the assembly is
more complete. 42 But as for Flavian of pious memory and
39 ACO II.i.1, p. 67:20^6.
40 A summary of proceedings at Second Ephesus is included at ii.18, pp. 69:25^72:6. Cf.
Zachariah ii.1 p. 18, iv.6 p. 73, for apologies for appearing wearisome and omission of material
that could readily be found elsewhere.
41 ACO II.i.1, p. 195:10^24, with some deviations noted in Bidez^Parmentier’s apparatus.
42 The point, perhaps, was that because the reading of the whole of the proceedings of
Second Ephesus, coupled with several interruptions of rival chanting, had taken a very long
time, some bishops had slipped away. Evagrius has omitted Dioscorus’ complaints about
the participation of Theodoret (ACO II.i.1, pp. 96:28^97:14), though they are included in
the longer summary at ii.18 (pp. 71:29^72:6): Theodoret, though reinstated at Chalcedon,
was not part of the neo-Chalcedonian pantheon, having subsequently been jettisoned by