The Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius Scholasticus - Coptic ...

xl
EVAGRIUS
aspects of ¢fth-century Councils, Evagrius contributed to the creation of
a plausible past to ¢t his contemporary neo-Chalcedonian needs, though
he did not attempt to obscure all evidence for doctrinal disputes. 68
Emperors who worked for tolerance and reconciliation are praised:
Anastasius is credited with attempting to preserve the tranquillity of the
Church by tolerating the existence of divergent opinions (iii.30), a favourable
judgement which ignores the emperor’s determined attempt to
remove opponents of Monophysite views; Zeno, who is harshly criticized
by Evagrius for his avarice and deceit, is handled much more sympathetically
with regard to Church matters, because of the compromise
attempted in his Henoticon whose sentiments on the triviality of doctrinal
divisions are remarkably close to Evagrius’ own language.
On the other hand, Justinian, who laboured long and hard for a
unifying doctrinal formula, is singled out for criticism because of the
disruption which his ecclesiastical policies, and especially his ¢nal
Aphthartodocete initiative, caused (iv.10, 39^40). Although the Fifth
Ecumenical Council (553) turned out advantageously, this was entirely
the result of God’s goodness since the meeting was the product of
human scheming and rivalries. There are very substantial omissions in
Evagrius’ account of doctrinal issues in the sixth century: he does not
mention the discussions with Monophysites in 532, Justinian’s Theopaschite
Edict in 533, the anti-Origenist Edict of 543, the initial Three
Chapters Edict of 544, the discussions with Pope Vigilius which led to
his acceptance of the Three Chapters Edict in 548, or Justinian’s Declaration
of Faith in 551 which attempted to make an Ecumenical Council
unnecessary. Granted that Justinian’s doctrinal initiatives had created
the framework for the imperial neo-Chalcedonian stance of the late
sixth century, and that all of his major Edicts should have been among
the documents preserved in the Antioch patriarchate, Evagrius’ presentation
points to his strong disapproval of the emperor.
Evagrius and contemporary disputes
Evagrius is noticeably reticent about contemporary ecclesiastical
disputes. He has been criticized for this silence by Allen, who suggests as
68 Gray, ‘Noah’, argues that Chalcedonians in Justinian’s reign desired a stable past.
Evagrius certainly indulges in selective emphasis, but he does not obliterate all evidence
for past changes of mind (e.g. the tergiversation in iii.4^9).