The Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius Scholasticus - Coptic ...

xxiv
EVAGRIUS
Counter-Encyclical which Zachariah had omitted. 30 Where Evagrius
had supplementary information he introduced this to correct, or
balance, Zachariah’s presentation: with regard to the death of Proterius
of Alexandria, Evagrius quotes at length from a letter of the Egyptian
bishops and clergy, of which a Latin version survives in the acta of Chalcedon,
after which he brie£y notes Zachariah’s alternative emphasis
without comment; 31 on the deposition of Acacius, Evagrius bluntly
states that Zachariah has related muddled hearsay (iii.18), and then
proceeds to exploit the documentation from the Roman synod of 484
which he had discovered for himself. Once, however, Evagrius expresses
a willingness to accept Zachariah’s views, with regard to the bishops of
Asia who successively petitioned Basiliscus and Acacius to contradictory
ends, with solemn assertions ¢rst that their petition to Basiliscus was
entirely voluntary and then that it was submitted under duress (iii.9). 32
Pauline Allen suggested that the existence of Zachariah’s anti-
Chalcedonian narrative was one reason for Evagrius to compose an
orthodox response. One Chalcedonian alternative had in fact been
produced by Theodore Lector at the end of Anastasius’ reign. There is no
sign that Evagrius knew his work,though he would have found its virulent
hostility to Anastasius uncongenial. Zachariah was a most convenient
starting point, since he provided a structure to Evagrius’ ecclesiastical
narrative for the relevant period (Evagrius ii.1^iii.29); 33 furthermore, he
preserved a number of useful documents. One minor indication of
Evagrius’ dependence on Zachariah is that, when he attempted to construct
an episcopal succession for the early part of Justinian’s reign, he
made Epiphanius the successor rather than predecessor of Anthimus at
Constantinople (iv.11); presumably the Antiochene records had the
correct sequence, and it is probable that Evagrius was relying on his
faulty memory since he repeats the error when dealing with the ante-
30 ii.2, p. 39:17, with ii n. 21 below; iii.7, p. 106:30. The third passage cited by Allen,
Evagrius 8 n. 49, relates to Zosimus (iii.39, p. 139:4).
31 ii.8; Allen, Evagrius 9, suggests that Evagrius was prepared to acknowledge the veracity
of Zachariah’s version, and it is true that Evagrius does not explicitly contradict
Zachariah; on the other hand, the relative length of the two presentations indicates where
Evagrius’ preference lies.
32 Evagrius also takes over, without comment, Zachariah’s unfavourable depiction of
the Chalcedonian patriarch of Alexandria, John Talaia, who is accorded a positive presentation
in Theodore Lector.
33 Evagrius 9, 119^20; also ‘Zachariah’. On Theodore Lector, see Whitby, ‘Council’.