The Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius Scholasticus - Coptic ...

ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY: BOOK IV 251
the priests in all places to assent to this. And so all said that they were
waiting for Anastasius, Bishop of Antioch, and diverted the initial
attempt. 140
40 Now Anastasius was especially skilled in sacred matters, as well as
being strict in his habits and lifestyle, so that he paid attention even to
extremely minute matters and in no way diverged from what was
upright and established, and especially not in signi¢cant matters and
ones which related to the Divinity itself. His character was so well
balanced that he was neither vulnerable to what was unsuitable by being
approachable and accessible, nor by being austere [191] and merciless
was he inaccessible for what was necessary. And so in serious matters
his ear was ready and his tongue £uent, straightaway resolving questions,
but in trivial matters his ears were completely shut and a bridle checked
of Halicarnassus, who was a prominent Monophysite opponent of Severus of Antioch; he
taught that Christ’s body was not susceptible to corruption or su¡ering, but that Christ had
voluntarily accepted su¡ering and death to save humanity. The doctrine was intended to
counter the excessive emphasis on a distinction between Christ’s humanity, which experienced
human emotions and su¡erings, and His divinity, which performed the miracles. It
was not incompatible with the Chalcedonian position (van Esbroeck, ‘Edict’), but because
it had been formulated by leading opponents of Chalcedon, such as Timothy Aelurus, it had
acquired the label of anti-Chalcedonian.
Earlier in Justinian’s reign Leontius of Byzantium had complained that some Chalcedonians,
seduced by the word aphtharsia, ‘incorruptibility’, of which they approved, had gone
over to the teachings of Severus and Julian (PG 86, col. 1317C^D); Justinian undoubtedly
continued to see himself as a Chalcedonian, and probably hoped that his adoption of the
belief would attract Julianists back to the mainstream fold. Carcione, ‘Giustiniano’, disputes
this interpretation on the grounds that Justinian had, as recently as 562, ordered the
arrest of the Alexandrian patriarch Elpidius, who then died en route to Constantinople
(Theophanes 241.6^10), events which would have antagonized Monophysites. But, in all
his doctrinal discussions, Justinian had tried to bring relevant leaders to Constantinople
where pressure to compromise could best be applied, and Elpidius was a Gaianist (an adherent
of Patriarch Gaianus, on whom see n. 27 above) who espoused the Christological
views towards which Justinian was now moving. Theophanes’ notice of Elpidius’ death
does not suggest that it was the result of his arrest.
140 Eutychius of Constantinople was, inevitably, the ¢rst patriarch to have to respond to
Justinian’s new doctrinal demands. Anastasius of Antioch summoned a meeting of the
bishops in his patriarchate, and it was these who sheltered behind him. The Life of Eutychius,
1175^82 (Laga = PG 86, ch. 41), singles Anastasius out for special praise, though Eutychius
himself naturally took the lead; as an inhabitant of Antioch, Evagrius focuses on
Anastasius and virtually ignores Eutychius: cf. Averil Cameron, ‘Eustratius’ 236^7.