The Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius Scholasticus - Coptic ...

100
EVAGRIUS
Leo, son of his own daughter Ariadne and Zeno, although he was an
infant. After him his father Zeno donned the purple garb, since Verina,
the wife of Leo, collaborated with her son-in-law. When the child died
after a short time, Zeno remained alone in control of the sovereignty. 152
As to what was done by him or against him, and everything else that
happened, what ensues will reveal, if the higher power assents.
End of the second book
18 The enactments at the Synod convened in Chalcedon are, as it were in
epitome, as follows: 153
Bishops Pascasinus and Lucensius and presbyter Boniface deputized
for Leo, archbishop of the elder Rome; Anatolius who was prelate of
the city of Constantine and Dioscorus Bishop of the Alexandrians’ city,
and in turn Maximus of Antioch and Juvenal of Jerusalem, and their
attendant bishops; present with these were those who occupy the
eminences of the exalted senate. To these Leo’s deputies said that
Dioscorus ought not to be seated with them, for this Leo had enjoined
on them; or if this did not happen, they themselves would move outside
152 Leo I died on 18 January 474; his grandson, Leo II, who was born in 467, had already
been proclaimed Caesar in October 473, but died in November 474. In the Life of Daniel the
Stylite (67), the senate is credited with the initiative in Zeno’s elevation.
153 The following epitome of the Chalcedonian acta, occupying 26 pages of the Greek
text, is devoted mainly to the ¢rst six sessions of the Council, though the major events of the
later sessions are brie£y noted. The intention was to emphasize that Dioscorus was deposed
justly (here Evagrius repeats three important conciliar texts already quoted in ii.4), and that
the Chalcedonian doctrinal formula was in accord with Cyril of Alexandria’s views and
had, after much debate, received widespread and voluntary support.
Allen, ‘Zachariah’ 485 and Evagrius 113^18, claimed that Zachariah’s Ecclesiastical
History originally contained an analogous epitome of proceedings in an appendix. The
only evidence for this is in the chapter headings to the Syriac epitome (ps.-Zachariah),
where Book iii is accorded a thirteenth chapter which is not preserved in the text (see Hamilton
and Brooks p. 40 n. 2). Brooks, however, correctly dismissed this entry as a duplicate
for the heading to iii.1 (in CSCO 87, p. 101 n. 3). The epitome of Chalcedon at Michael the
Syrian viii.10, II. pp. 37^69, in fact undermines Allen’s argument (Evagrius 116): Michael’s
chapter begins with a section explicitly attributed to Zachariah (viii.10.1, pp. 37^8), but the
remainder diverges from Zachariah’s presentation (e.g. Dioscorus’ letter to Secundinus,
prominent in Zach. iii.1, is not mentioned); the next chapter (viii.11) provides a version of
Rufus’ Plerophories, after which Michael signals his return to Zachariah (viii.12, p. 88).
Michael’s summary makes the most of procedural wrangles at the Council to damage its
collective authority, defends Dioscorus, and insists on the need to preserve the decisions of
Nicaea without change.