The Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius Scholasticus - Coptic ...

xlvi
EVAGRIUS
more £exible. Evagrius chose not to highlight the contemporary dispute,
but there is no doubt about where his loyalties lay: Chalcedon was the
great treasure which Marcian bequeathed to the world (ii.8); Zachariah
was a partisan reporter of events even though he may have been correct
about the tergiversations of the bishops of Asia (ii.8; iii.9); Severus of
Antioch is accused, wrongly, of boasting about his dealings with
Anthimus of Constantinople (iv.11); Timothy of Alexandria is implicated
in the murder of his rival Proterius and his own standing with his
Monophysite followers is misrepresented (ii.8; iii.6).
Evagrius’ comments on the question of Church unity are not entirely
consistent. Although he approved of the eirenic policy of Anastasius, he
also admitted that the lack of communion between churches in di¡erent
provinces was absurd (iii.30). The situation might appear to have been
recti¢ed by Justinian’s resolute action in expelling the Monophysites
Severus and Anthimus, whereafter ‘the Synod of Chalcedon was publicly
proclaimed in all the churches’ (iv.11, p. 161:19^20); the Synod was no
longer anathematized, opponents were coerced in various ways, and the
churches were reunited, with the patriarchs now in agreement and the
bishops following their leaders (iv.11). But this focus on unity at a
purely formal level, achieved through the imposition of imperially
approved patriarchs, is undermined by the admission that Severus’ anti-
Chalcedonian writings remained in£uential, ‘and from there many
disputes have arisen for the Church, and the most faithful populace has
been divided’ (iv.4, p. 154:30^2); the enthusiastic support of Empress
Theodora for the anti-Chalcedonians is also acknowledged (iv.10). In
his own lifetime, Evagrius admitted that the Church was not united:
commenting on the e¡ect of the doctrinal edict issued by Justin II, he
observes, ‘everyone consented to this edict, saying that its expressions
were orthodox; but none of the parts that had broken o¡ was completely
united . . .’ (v.4, p. 201:13^14); Chalcedon was not to be anathematized,
and this prevented full reunion. But his only reference to contemporary
Monophysites locates them in the empire’s desert frontier regions,
‘where the doctrines of Severus are particularly prevalent’ (vi.22, p.
238:25); Patriarch Gregory’s exposition of Chalcedonian doctrine is
said to have brought many back to the orthodox fold. Looking outwards
from Chalcedonian Antioch, a similar view to that of Symeon the
Younger, the lack of complete unity was undoubtedly distressing, since
it demonstrated that the Devil’s strategy of a dispute over a single letter
was still e¡ective. But to highlight the disagreement would simply play