The Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius Scholasticus - Coptic ...

92
EVAGRIUS
the Synod at Chalcedon and the letter of Leo. 117 The transcripts of these
are preserved in the so-called Encyclicals, but they have been passed
over by me so as not to introduce bulk into the present work. 118 And
while the bishops of the other cities stood by what had been formulated
at Chalcedon and condemned by a unanimous vote the ordination of
Timothy, Amphilochius of Side alone wrote a letter to the emperor
clamouring against the ordination of Timothy but not accepting the
Synod at Chalcedon. These matters indeed have been worked over by
Zachariah the rhetor, who has also incorporated the said letter of Amphilochius
in his compilation. 119 Symeon of holy estate also wrote [62] two
letters about these events to the emperor Leo and to Basil, who was
bishop of the city of Antiochus. Of these I have included in my composition
the one to Basil as being succinct; 120 it runs something like this:
To my master the most holy and most saintly God-loving archbishop
Basil, the sinful and wretched Symeon sends greetings in
the Lord.
117 Zachariah (iv.6) preserves most of the reply: in addition to £attering the emperor and
protesting his own loyalty, Timothy anathematized both Apollinarius and Nestorius and
proclaimed his adherence to the faith of Nicaea, which required no correction ^ but he also
explicitly disagreed with the decisions of Chalcedon. See Blaudeau, ‘Timothe¤ e’ 125^7.
118 Emperor Leo issued a collection of documents relevant to the position of Timothy in
the so-called codex encyclius, though, not surprisingly, it did not contain Timothy’s response
to Pope Leo’s accusations, as Evagrius seems to imply; a sixth-century Latin translation
of most of this collection survives (Collectio Sangermanensis, ACO II.v, pp. 11^98:2).
There is a list of 65 addressees (62 metropolitans and three monks), and responses from a
further two addressees survive in the Coll. Sangermanensis which presents 43 replies signed
by about 280 bishops and monks. Photius states that 470 clerics subscribed (Bibl. cod. 229;
vol. iv. 142, Henry), a number rounded up to 500 in the imperial collection (ACO II.v, p. 98).
In view of its length and repetitiveness, Evagrius sensibly chose to omit this material, but cf.
also ii.4, p. 44:11^17 with n. 40 above, for his desire not to overload the narrative.
119 The abbreviated Syriac version of Zachariah paraphrases, but does not preserve, the
letter (iv.7); Allen, ‘Zachariah’ 476, was con¢dent that Evagrius correctly reported Zachariah’s
contents, but this cannot be proved. The Latin translation of the codex encyclius, not
surprisingly, omits this anti-Chalcedonian response; extracts are quoted by Michael the
Syrian, ix.5, II. pp. 145^8. For Monophysites, Amphilochius’ subscription to any part of
Leo’s letter was tantamount to acceptance of the Council: Rufus, Plerophories 85, records a
vision of Epictetus, a Pamphylian archimandrite,who saw Amphilochius and Epiphanius of
Perge immersed in mud up to their necks as punishment for their adherence to the Council.
120 This letter was not a direct response to the emperor, and so was excluded from the
codex encyclius; Evagrius probably derived it from the patriarchal records at Antioch
(Allen, Evagrius 110; though other aspects of this discussion of the monks’ letters are confused).