The Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius Scholasticus - Coptic ...

278
EVAGRIUS
prelate of the said city, and he frequently visited him, both to discuss his
a¡airs and [213] to solicit even greater power through his links with
him. 61 This man was caught in the act of sacri¢cing, and on being
summoned to account he was discovered to be an abomination, a
sorcerer, a man entangled in countless barbarities. But he bribed the
governor of the East and came close to being set free along with his
associates ^ for he had others too of similar habits who were apprehended
as well ^ but for the fact that the populace rose up, threw everything
into commotion and disrupted the scheme. 62 They also chanted
against the priest, declaring that he too was associated with the plan.
Some disruptive and malignant Devil persuaded some people that he
had also participated in the sacri¢ces with Anatolius, and as a result
Gregory came into extreme danger, since great attacks were made on
him by the people. 63 The suspicion was raised to such an extent that
61 The subsequent events are also recorded by John of Ephesus, in greater detail but with
a pronounced Monophysite interest (EH iii.27^34). Although Evagrius’ narrative might
appear to deserve credence because he would have had access to numerous ¢rst-hand
accounts, and may well have been in Antioch during the disturbances, John refers to the
o⁄cial records of the case and his greater circumstantial information about the development
of the incident inthe East is credible.Evagrius hastreated the initial stages of the scandal very
sketchily, to focus on what interested him, the threat to Gregory, the miraculous icon and the
eventual punishment of the pagans which was validated by various divine signs.
In contrast to his praise of Patriarch Anastasius (iv.40, pp. 190:31^191:6; also Maurice:
v.19, pp. 214:33^215:3), Evagrius does not compliment Gregory on discernment in selecting
his associates (v.6): Anatolius would be an example of his poor choice; see also Whitby, ‘Patriarchs’.
John describes Anatolius as a governor, presumably of Osrhoene since his o⁄cial residence
was at Edessa, and deputy to the prefect, i.e. the praetorian prefect of the East (cf.
PLRE III. 72^3, s.v. Anatolius 8). The incident is discussed in Rochow ‘Heidenprozesse’,
and Trombley, ‘Transition’ 168^79.
62 In John of Ephesus (EH iii.27^8) the sequence of events is much more complicated.
The a¡air began at Heliopolis (Baalbek), a notoriously pagan city where Christians had
found it impossible to break the local monopoly of power exercised by rich pagans; an imperial
representative, Theophilus, conducted an investigation which revealed several
names, including that of a certain high priest Ru¢nus, who resided at Antioch; when men
were sent to Antioch to arrest him, they were told that he was at Edessa, staying with the
local governor and prefectal vicar, Anatolius. At Edessa, Theophilus’ emissaries came upon
a pagan celebration in Anatolius’ house; most of the celebrants escaped, but Ru¢nus committed
suicide, while Anatolius, in spite of a clever attempt to establish an alibi, was arrested
and bailed to answer the charge of pagan practice at Antioch.
63 Evagrius has already provided some evidence for popular disturbances at Antioch
(v.9, p. 206:11^12), and this further account of hostility towards the patriarch undermines