The Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius Scholasticus - Coptic ...

76
EVAGRIUS
other matters were raised, which, as I said before, have been recorded
after this history. 70 And it was also decided that the throne of New
Rome, though in second place to the elder Rome, should take precedence
over the rest. 71
5 After this Dioscorus was condemned to live in the city of the Paphlagonian
Gangrans, while Proterius was appointed bishop by common
vote of the synod of the Alexandrians. [51] When he had occupied his
own throne, a very great and irresistible commotion arose among the
people, who were whipped up over di¡erent opinions. For some missed
Dioscorus, just as usually happens on such occasions, while others
supported Proterius most vigorously, so that there were many pernicious
consequences. 72 Thus Priscus the rhetor narrates that, at the time he
came to Alexandria from the district of the Thebaid, 73 he saw the people
70 Episcopal disputes at Ephesus, in Bithynia, and at Perrha, occupied much of the next
two sessions of the Council, 29^30 October: ACO II.i.3, pp. 42^83.
71 The highly contentious Canon 28 of Chalcedon, passed on 31 October, which introduced
a millennium of rivalry between Rome and Constantinople, since the Pope objected
to the pretensions of the New Rome (ACO II.i.3, pp. 88:13^99:22). In fact the Canon was no
more than a restatement of the decision of the Council of Constantinople in 381, but this
con¢rmation raised hackles: the papal legates protested that the Canon contravened the
hierarchy established at the Council of Nicaea, which was true but disingenuous since
Constantinople had not existed as a city in 325. See further Meyendor¡, Unity 179^84;
de Halleux, ‘Canon’; Daley, ‘Position’.
72 Gangra: modern ·ankiri (about 130 km north of Ankara). Proterius had been left by
Dioscorus to keep control of ecclesiastical a¡airs at Alexandria during his absence at the
Council, and so was an obvious successor. Trouble was inevitable, however, since many
still regarded Dioscorus as their rightful bishop, so that any replacement was unacceptable
during his life, while Proterius, to gain the recognition of pope and emperor, had to subscribe
to the decisions of Chalcedon. The reference to his election by ‘the synod of the Alexandrians’
is meant to suggest that he enjoyed considerable support. The choice of a new
patriarch at Alexandria might be debated by a meeting of the province’s bishops, as in 328
when 54 assembled to discuss the succession to Alexander, but decisions were more often
taken by a small group or pre-empted by actions of the previous incumbent. Proterius was
consecrated by the four Egyptian bishops who returned from Chalcedon in favour of the
Council, and it is most unlikely that he received the support of an open meeting.
According to Zachariah (iii.2), Proterius was harsh and violent in punishing his
opponents: see also Gregory, Vox 181^8. Rufus, Plerophories 66, 68^9 has various predictions
(including two by Proterius himself) in which Dioscorus’ successor as patriarch is
represented as a wolf, heretic or the Antichrist.
73 The MSS reading here does not make sense, ‘to Alexandria of the district of the
Thebaid’, and so most scholars (though not Bidez^Parmentier, introduction ix) follow the
paraphrase of Nicephorus Callistus and insert e ’k to signify that Priscus was coming from