The Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius Scholasticus - Coptic ...

INTRODUCTION liii
though it can be worked out by reference to the information in Evagrius’
¢nal chapter (vi.24).
Such precision, however, is uncommon. Expressions such as ‘At this
period’, ‘In the same times’, ‘At the same time’, ‘During these times’,
‘After some time’ or ‘While these things were going on’ are standard, so
that the time sequence often remains very vague. 96 In part, the responsibility
lies with Evagrius’ sources, since, for example, much of Malalas’
information on the ¢fth century was only imprecisely dated and caused
problems to other historians who tried to follow it; 97 Eustathius, too,
may sometimes have failed to o¡er a clear chronology, since Evagrius
had no notion of the relative dates of the sequence of revolts against
Zeno, though in this case Theophanes presented the information more
accurately. 98 Evagrius, however, also did not make use of what chronological
information was readily available: thus in his paraphrase of Procopius,
there are regnal year dates for the start of the Vandal expedition and
the ¢rst capture of Rome (iv.16, 19), but the long-delayed conclusion of
the Italian campaign is not dated, and there is no attempt to synchronize
events in the West and on the Persian front; 99 Khusro’s 540 invasion of
Syria is dated by a regnal year (iv.25), but the implication is that his subsequent
rebu¡s at Edessa (544) and Sergiopolis (542) occurred in the same
year, and these two attacks are presented in the wrong order (iv.27^8).
Evagrius’ chronological weakness is most apparent in the events of
his own life. On occasions there are simply no indications of the passage
of time: the notice of episcopal succession that precedes the account of
the Fifth Ecumenical Council in 553 (iv.37^8) contains no dates, or
lengths of o⁄ce, so that the single most important ecclesiastical event of
Evagrius’ life is left undated, while his uncertainty about the date of
Eustochius’ accession at Jerusalem distorts his narrative of the embassies
which preceded the Council. 100 It is not surprising that events of the
96 E.g. i.17, 19, 20; iii.43; iv.39; vi.16, 20, 23.
97 E.g. i.20, the material on the marriage of Theodosius, and Eudocia’s visits to the Holy
Land.
98 Evagrius iii.14^27, with cross-references to Theophanes in the notes ad loc.
99 See iv n. 62 below.
100 See iv nn. 119, 121 below. Even his reuse of an account of episcopal succession from
Zachariah displays some uncertainty, since at the end of a dense passage he apologized,
‘I have had to link these together in sequence for the sake of clarity and comprehension’
(iii.23); a more plausible explanation might be that Evagrius lacked the knowledge to
divide up the information.