The Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius Scholasticus - Coptic ...

xlii
EVAGRIUS
was controlled by Chalcedonians, and force was used against the obstinate.
How far Monophysites could maintain their position under energetic
Chalcedonian leaders like Ephrem of Antioch, and in the face of
subsequent pressure from Justin’s successor Justinian, is doubtful: we
naturally hear of the enthusiasts who su¡ered for their beliefs, but the
views of the majority of the population cannot be reconstructed from
the polemics of either side in the dispute. The construction of a separate
Monophysite hierarchy, towards the end of Justinian’s reign, stabilized
their in£uence in certain areas, but their bishops, numbering no more
than three dozen or so, did not reside in, or control, the cities; some
indeed, like John of Ephesus, may rarely have gone anywhere near their
titular see. In the Antiochene patriarchate, Monophysite in£uence was
strongest in the eastern parts, and especially in monasteries, su⁄ciently
remote from the metropolitan gaze to be ignored, but these communities
were also extremely fragmented; their self-destructive strife was a major
concern for John of Ephesus. 72 In this light, Evagrius’ presentation of
Chalcedon and its aftermath might re£ect con¢dence in the views which
he and his patriarch espoused.
An instructive example of religious allegiance is the fate of the
monastery at Qalat Seman, the site of Symeon Stylites the Elder’s pillar.
It was probably still in Chalcedonian hands in 517 when Severus’ opponents
assembled there; granted that Severus £ed from Antioch in 518,
there was little time for him to use his power as patriarch to e¡ect a
change of allegiance. In the 520s, however, Severus stated that he had
heard that its monks were planning to imitate the brethren at Teleda in
response to imperial pressure (Letters v.9, pp. 323^4), namely to go into
exile, which might indicate that some monks now rejected Chalcedon.
But Symeon was still regarded as a Chalcedonian, since Severus had to
defend his involvement with the saint, in particular the fact that he had
pronounced an encomium for him: Severus’ defence was that he had
used the speech to demonstrate that Symeon had rejected Theodoret of
Cyrrhus, Nestorians and Chalcedon (Letters v.11, pp. 334^5). When the
monastery came under secure Monophysite control is unknown:
assumptions that this occurred during the sixth century are unsafe, and
it is quite possible that Chalcedonians were in charge when Evagrius
72 Cf. Frend, Rise 283^95. For analysis of the evidence for monasteries under Monophysite
control in 567^8, primarily on the eastern slopes of the Limestone Massif behind
Antioch, see A. Chaquot in Tchalenko, Villages III. 63^85.