The Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius Scholasticus - Coptic ...

ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY: BOOK V 257
he knew absolutely nothing about this. And so both had their heads cut
o¡, with Addaeus stating at the moment of execution that, although he
had been falsely accused in these matters, he was justly su¡ering at the
hands of Justice which watches over whatever is done: for he had slain
Theodotus, the prefect of the palace, by witchcraft. Whether this was
the case I am unable to say, but they were both sinners, Addaeus as a
paederast, Aetherius because he had used every type of false accusation
and pillaged the property of both the living and the dead in the name of
the imperial household, of which he was in charge under Justinian. And
this matter ended thus. 8
4 Justin issued a proclamation to the Christians everywhere, in these
very words: 9
In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, our God, the emperor
Caesar Flavius Justin, faithful in Christ, mild, greatest, bene¢cent,
Alamanicus, Gothicus, Germanicus, Anticus, Francicus,
8 For details of their careers, see PLRE III. 21^2, s.v. Aetherius 2, and 14^15: Addaeus
was currently city prefect, while Aetherius was curator of the domus of Antiochus, an important
unit of imperial properties. Aetherius had been accused of involvement in plots
against Justinian in 560 and 562, though proof was lacking on each occasion; in January
565 the two had collaborated in removing Patriarch Eutychius from o⁄ce (the Life of Eutychius
naturally saw their fate as punishment: 2121^71, Laga, = PG 86 chs. 76^7). Theodotus
had died in o⁄ce as praetorian prefect in 548; according to John of Nikiu (90.55^9)
Addaeus and Aetherius once o¡ered Justinian the help of a magician whom they highly
esteemed.
Allen, Evagrius 211^12, suggested that their treason against Justin II may have involved
support for his cousin, so that the various deaths in 566 were linked; this is possible, but
unprovable.
9 The following doctrinal edict was the culmination of a series of protracted discussions
between di¡erent Monophysite groups, and between Monophysites and Chalcedonians in
the early years of Justin II’s reign. A ¢rst attempt at reconciliation had been rejected at a
rowdy meeting of Monophysite monks at Callinicum on the Euphrates, probably in 568;
discussions were continued in Constantinople, where Justin permitted Monophysite
bishops to suggest emendations to a draft of this edict; agreement was tantalizingly close
and some Monophysites agreed to subscribe to the edict, on the understanding that there
would be a public anathema on the Council of Chalcedon, but they were seriously embarrassed
when this was not forthcoming (John of Ephesus, EH i.19^25). Justin then issued the
edict, probably in 571: Evagrius has failed to make this lapse of time clear. See Allen, Evagrius
22^6, 212^14; Averil Cameron, ‘Policies’ 62^4; Frend, Rise 316^23. Evagrius is the
only Greek source for the edict, which is also preserved in Michael the Syrian x.4, II. pp.
295^9.