The Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius Scholasticus - Coptic ...

246
EVAGRIUS
Now when a ¢rst question was raised as to whether it was right for
the dead to be encompassed by anathemas, Eutychius was present. He
was trained to the highest degree in sacred scripture though, while
Menas was still alive, he was not one of the more prominent: for he
was serving as apocrisarius to the bishop of Amasea. He looked at the
gathering not only with self-con¢dence but also contempt, 123 and
clearly stated that this did not require any consideration, for Josiah
the king had long ago not only slain the living priests of the demons,
but had also dug up the tombs of those who had long been dead. This
seemed to everyone to have been spoken appositely. When Justinian
heard this, he raised him to the throne of the royal city immediately
after Menas’ death. 124
Now Vigilius assented in writing, but did not choose to attend. 125
Justinian asked the assembled Synod what it thought about Theodore
and what Theodoret had said against Cyril and his Twelve Chapters,
For clear discussions, see Bury, History II. 383^9; Bre¤ hier, in Fliche and Martin IV. 460^
72; Meyendor¡, Unity 234^40; Grillmeier, Christ II.2 419^29.
123 Eutychius, a monk from Amasea, was representing his bishop in the capital as apocrisarius.
The antithesis of fronZ¤ mati / katafronZ¤ mati goes back to Thucydides (ii.62.3),
though it had become a cliche¤ .
124 The same story of Eutychius’ timely intervention in a debate, presumably at a local
gathering of bishops at Constantinople, is recorded in the Life by Eustratius 613^38 (Laga =
PG 86, chs. 22^3). Menas died on 24 August 552, and Justinian required a doctrinally reliable
successor to supervise the deliberations of the Council. Discussion in Averil Cameron,
‘Models’ 213^14.
Allen, Evagrius 203, claims that this information about Eutychius must have been supplied
by Domitian of Melitene, but there is no basis for this speculation. Eutychius’ elevation
was quite dramatic, and the circumstances were probably widely known.
125 Vigilius’ written assent probably refers to his letter of 6 January 553, which was read
out on the ¢rst day of the Council (ACO IV.1, pp. 16:17^18:14). On 14 May 553, after refusing
two requests to attend, partly on grounds of ill health, partly because there were not
enough Italian bishops present, Vigilius issued a Constitutum in which he condemned a
wide range of the views of Theodore of Mopsuestia, but refused to condemn a person who
was, at his death, an accepted member of the Church; he also refused to condemn Theodoret
(though he did list, without attribution, ¢ve of the errors ascribed to him) and Ibas, since
this would be to overturn the decisions of Chalcedon, which had cleared them of all suspicion
of Nestorian views. Evagrius glosses over the determined opposition of Vigilius to the
proceedings. Vigilius ¢nally assented to the Council’s condemnation of the Three Chapters
in a letter to Eutychius on 8 December: Grillmeier, Christ II.2 441^2.
The Life of Eutychius, 799^815 (Laga = PG 86, ch. 28), claimed that Vigilius did attend,
but for the considerable distortions of this source, see Cameron, ‘Eustratius’ 230^2.