The Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius Scholasticus - Coptic ...

80
EVAGRIUS
instructing that all who had been appointed by Theodosius should be
ejected. 82
Next, after the arrival of Juvenal, there were many unholy occurrences
as those from one side or the other proceeded with whatever their
rage suggested to them: 83 the envious and God-hating Devil thus wickedly
devised and misinterpreted a change of a single letter, so that,
whereas the utterance of one of these absolutely thereby introduces the
other one, [53] by most people the di¡erence is considered to be great
and their meanings to be in outright antithetical opposition and to be
exclusive of each other. 84 For he who confesses Christ in two natures
82 It probably took Marcian over a year to authorize the return of Juvenal with su⁄cient
support to coerce the hostile population of the province. Before that both Marcian and Pulcheria
had responded to appeals from the Palestinian rebels by explaining the orthodoxy of
the Chalcedonian de¢nition, while conceding that the novelty of the two natures formulation,
which was not in the Creed of Nicaea, might cause concern; they also urged the reacceptance
of Juvenal, and promised the correction of certain speci¢c grievances concerning
the Samaritans and the billetting of soldiers on monasteries (ACO II.i.3, pp. 124:25^129:22).
In view of the strength of feeling in the province, the situation was delicate, and Marcian was
prepared to present a conciliatory faµade which contrasted his reluctance to coerce opponents
with the violence employed by the anti-Chalcedonian monks (ACO II.i.3, p. 127.6^
12). Another important consideration was the need to detach the empress Eudocia from
the rebels, which was achieved through the diplomacy of Pope Leo and an appeal from her
son-in-law, Valentinian III (Honigmann, ‘Juvenal’ 251^5).
83 Theophanes, 107:23^4, records that Theodosius held the see for twenty months.
Juvenal eventually returned in summer 453, accompanied by comes Dorotheus, who was
charged with the task of capturing Theodosius and removing his supporters from their bishoprics;
Rufus, Plerophories 8, records a prediction of exile for the orthodox after Chalcedon,
and e.g. 29 for its realization. Monastic leaders were imprisoned at Antioch, Bishop
Theodosius was captured and taken to Constantinople, where he died in 457 (this was miraculously
announced to Peter the Iberian: Rufus, Plerophories 54), and some monks were
allegedly martyred when they persisted in rejecting Chalcedon: Zachariah iii.5^9; Honigmann,
‘Juvenal’ 256^7.
84 For the sentiment, cf. i.1 with i. nn. 12^13. This exposition of the essential identity
between the Chalcedonian (‘in two’) and Monophysite (‘from two’) de¢nitions of faith was
fundamental to Evagrius’ stance as a neo-Chalcedonian (Allen, Evagrius 104^5). For a
logical and elegant demonstration of the fundamental convergence of views, see Anastasius
of Antioch’s dialogue with a Tritheist, Uthemann, ‘Anastasius’.
Socrates (i.23.6) had complained that the disputants in the homoousios dispute were ¢ghting
each other in the dark, since neither side really understood the reasons for their disagreement.
In 452 Marcian legislated to restrict discussion of the decisions of Chalcedon, with
speci¢c penalties for clergy, imperial employees and inhabitants of Constantinople (Cod.
Iust. i.1.4). On the rise of negative attitudes towards public debate, see Lim, Discussion
chs. 6^7.