The Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius Scholasticus - Coptic ...

ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY: BOOK III 141
and the people of the imperial city on the grounds that Basiliscus was
heretical; 27 and that the latter in turn repudiated the Encyclicals,
composed an ordinance to the e¡ect that what had been done in haste
was completely void, and sent out Counter-Encyclicals which
commended the Synod at Chalcedon. 28 And he has passed over these,
which he terms Counter-Encyclicals, since he composed his whole work
from a biased standpoint, but they were as follows, in these words: [107]
Counter-Encyclicals of Basiliscus
The emperors, Caesars, Basiliscus and Marcus. The apostolic and
orthodox faith which prevailed in the universal churches from
aforetime and from the beginning, which both prevailed up to
our reign and prevails under our reign and ought to prevail unto
eternity, in which we were baptized and trust, we decree that it
alone prevails, as it does indeed prevail, unwounded and unshaken
and that it eternally should hold authority in all the universal
and apostolic churches of the orthodox, and that nothing else be
sought. For, on this account, we also enjoin that whatever has
against him would be convened at Jerusalem. Acacius was not an ardent supporter of Chalcedon
doctrinally (Theodore Lector 406), and he had little or no theological objection to
Basiliscus’ Encyclical; his main concerns were for the status of his see, which had been guaranteed
at Chalcedon, and his own position since the in£uential Theopompus (for whom see
n. 8 above) had been mentioned as a replacement.
27 A detailed narrative is contained in the Life of Daniel the Stylite 70^85: after an
attempt by Basiliscus to secure the holy man’s support failed, Acacius sent some of the monastic
leaders to beg Daniel to descend from his column and come to the city to rescue the
Church; Daniel agreed, and then led a tumultuous procession from S. Sophia to the palace
at the Hebdomon and back, during which numerous miracles occurred; the intensity of
popular opposition induced Basiliscus to come to S. Sophia and stage a public reconciliation
with Acacius and Daniel. Acacius also appealed for support to Rome, and Pope Simplicius
responded with letters to the presbyters and archimandrites of Constantinople,
Acacius and Basiliscus (Epist. Avell. 56^7, 59).
28 The Counter-Encyclical does not, in fact, contain any commendation of Chalcedon,
except in the sense that by cancelling the Encyclical, which had anathematized Chalcedon,
the legitimacy of the Council was reinstated (it is interpreted in this sense by Rufus, Plerophories
82^4, 86; cf. John of Nikiu 88.34). The version of the Counter-Encyclical preserved in
Vaticanus gr. 1431 contains a ¢nal sentence in which doctrinal a⁄liation is left up to the
individual (Schwartz, ‘Codex’ p. 52:17^20; other minor variants noted by Festugie're 485^
6), which made Basiliscus’ doctrinal neutrality absolutely clear; Allen, Evagrius 126^7,
speculates that this was deliberately omitted at some stage by a pro-Chalcedonian, in
order to increase the impression of a Chalcedonian triumph.