The Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius Scholasticus - Coptic ...

INTRODUCTION lv
long-winded to those who are eager for the end of the events; thereby I
have given an opportunity to those who wish to know everything
minutely both to peruse them and to form an accurate impression of
everything’ (ii.4, p. 44:11^17). On two occasions, Evagrius’ refusal to
provide full information has a clear defensive purpose: those interested
in the explanation for Eudocia’s trips to Jerusalem are referred to ‘the
historians, even though they do not seem to me to be truthful’ (i.21, p.
29:20^1), while there is even stronger condemnation of the inaccuracies
of writers who might relate the actions of Philippicus while in charge of
the eastern army (vi.3, p. 224:14^18).
EVAGRIUS AS AUTHOR
Patriarch Photius (cod. 29), in his brief assessment of Evagrius, o¡ered
the judgement that ‘his style is not without charm, even if it sometimes
seems to be somewhat excessive’. 104 Of his predecessors in the tradition
of ecclesiastical historiography, Socrates’ deliberately plain style
received the comment that there was nothing remarkable in it (cod. 28),
Sozomen was regarded as superior to Socrates (cod. 30), and only Theodoret
was accorded a complimentary notice ^ he employed the appropriate
style, clear, elevated and restrained, though occasionally his
metaphors were excessive (cod. 31). Evagrius himself praised elegance
of style in other writers, and, whatever the traditionally modest protestations
of his introduction, 105 he clearly hoped that his narrative would
strike its readers as a pleasant interweaving of materials. 106 Evagrius’
attention to stylistic matters has been seen as one of the indications that
he was departing from the conventions of ecclesiastical historiography
and adopting the habits of secular historians, 107 but the precedent of
Theodoret and the stylistic polemic of Socrates ^ both defensive in
respect to his own work (vi.1) and critical of the lost history by Philip of
Side (vii.27) ^ indicate that Evagrius was not, in fact, being innovative
in this respect.
Diversity of subject matter was a factor in Evagrius’ literary organization,
and he presents a blend of ecclesiastical documentation and
104 The most complete discussion of Evagrius’ linguistic and stylistic practice is Thurmayr,
Studien; Caires, ‘Evagrius’, makes a number of useful observations.
105 Priscus (i.17), Eustathius (i.19), Procopius (iv.12).
106 The weaving image is employed at i.1; iv.11, 29.
107 Allen, Evagrius 51^2; ‘Aspects’ 377^81.