The Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius Scholasticus - Coptic ...

INTRODUCTION xliii
visited the shrine in the late sixth century; 73 the monastery is not among
those named in the context of Monophysite discussions in 567/8. 74 The
de¢nitive change may have occurred during the Arab invasions, when
the monastery was raided in the aftermath of the battle of Yarmuk
(636) on the day of the saint’s feast; the Monophysite Michael the
Syrian commented that this was a just punishment for the orgies and
drunkenness which accompanied these festivals, an indication that he
did not approve of the way the shrine was being run at the time. 75 The
a⁄liation of the monks at Qalat Seman cannot be used to support the
theory that Chalcedonian patriarchs at Antioch had become detached
from their rural hinterland. Another important religious centre which
seems to have been accessible to both Christological parties was the
shrine of Sergius at Resafa. 76
One factor relevant to Evagrius’ silence on such disputes is a common
tendency of ecclesiastical historians to shy away from contemporary
disputes: of the historians of Theodosius II’s reign, Sozomen and Theodoret
found it politic not to attempt to cover the start of the Nestorian
dispute and First Ephesus, while Socrates’ approach to Nestorius was
very moderate. It took time for issues to become clear, and the cautious
author would avoid becoming embroiled in arguments whose outcome
was still obscure. 77 By evading mention of Justinian’s various initiatives,
73 Discussion in P. Peeters, Orient et Byzance: le tre¤fonds oriental de l’hagiographie
byzantine, Subsidia Hagiographica (Brussels, 1950) 134^6 (also, ‘L’e¤glise ge¤orgienne du
Clibanon au Mont Admirable’, AB 46 (1928), 241^86, at 250^4), who argues against an
early switch to Monophysite control, but does not specify a date. H. G. Beck, Kirche und
theologische Literatur im byzantinischen Reich, Hanbuch der Altertumswissenschaft
12.II.1 (Munich, 1959), 206^7, though citing Peeters, is much more con¢dent about an early
takeover (the other discussions cited by Beck deal with the architecture of the monastic
complex and are irrelevant to the control of the site). In turn Frend, Rise 166 n. 5, cites Beck
for change of control on Symeon’s death in 459; Kennedy and Liebeschuetz, ‘Antioch’ 82,
then cite Frend for the ‘certainty’that Symeon’s monastery soon became anti-Chalcedonian.
74 A. Chaquot in Tchalenko, Villages III. 63^85.
75 Michael the Syrian xi.6, II. p. 422. Michael, however, also attempted to portray
Symeon as an opponent of the Council of Chalcedon by quoting an apocryphal letter
(viii.12, II. p. 92).
76 Cf. Elizabeth Fowden, Plain 156^7.
77 This only applies to writers from the ‘orthodox’ camp; schismatics or heretics de¢ned
themselves in opposition to the faults of the currently dominant orthodoxy, and so must
naturally devote space to contemporary doctrinal arguments. Thus John of Ephesus’ Ecclesiastical
History records the tribulations of the Monophysites at the hands of Chalcedonians
in the 570s, and also the internal splits within the Monophysite community.