The Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius Scholasticus - Coptic ...

ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY: BOOK I 5
Since subsequent events, which are not far inferior to these, have not
obtained any sort of sequential account, 3 I decided, even though I am
not expert at such matters, to undertake the labour for their sake and to
make these into an account, putting full trust in Him who both gave
wisdom to ¢shermen and changed an unreasoning tongue into articulate
eloquence. 4 I decided to resurrect deeds already deadened by oblivion,
to bring them to life in word, and to make them immortal in memory, 5
so that each of the readers may be able to know the what, when, where,
[6] how, to whom, and by whom things happened up to our time, 6 so
stopped in 428, i.e. before the appointment of Nestorius with whose Christological views he
had considerable sympathy, and Socrates ¢nished his narrative in 439. Evagrius declines to
name the Arian Philostorgius, whose church history (now fragmentary) also continued Eusebius’
account to the middle of Theodosius’ reign.
Ps.-Zachariah (ii.1) has a similar allusion to the sequence of Eusebius, Socrates and Theodoret,
which extended to the 32nd year of Theodosius II (i.e. 439/40).
For discussion of the contents of church histories, see introduction; also Markus, ‘Church
History’; Chesnut, Historians; Allen, Evagrius ch. 3. At v.24 Evagrius provides an extended
review of the historiographical tradition in which he placed himself.
3 There were at least two continuators in Greek to this sequence of ecclesiastical historians,
Theodore Lector, whose work, of which only fragments now survive, extended to the
accession of Justin I (518), and Zachariah of Mitylene whose work terminated at the accession
of Anastasius (491); an abridged version of Zachariah survives in a sixth-century Syriac
church history (pseudo-Zachariah). Althoughthere is no evidence that Evagrius knewTheodore’s
work, he certainly used Zachariah but refused to accord this Monophysite writer a
place in the canonical sequence of church historians. For the importance of the orderly sequence
of church history, see Markus, ‘Church History’ 8, and Allen, Evagrius 47^8.
4 A reference to the miracle of Pentecost (Acts 2:1^4). An apology for lack of literary
competence was traditional, and parallels can be found in secular as well as ecclesiastical
history, hagiography and panegyric: e.g. Agathias, Hist. preface 12^13; Menander Protector
fr. 1:2; Theophylact, Hist. preface 16; Socrates vi pref. 1^5; Sozomen i.1.10; Theodoret,
EH i.1.; ps.-Zachariah ii.1; Life of Daniel 1; Life of Euthymius, dedication, p. 6:17^21; Paul
the Silentiary, Ecphrasis 99^114.
5 Fear of oblivion is also traditional: e.g. Procopius, Wars i.1.1; Agathias, Hist. preface
1^2; John of Epiphania 1; Theodoret, EH i.1.2, p. 4:13; Life of Euthymius 1, p. 8:14^17. The
need to remember important deeds can be traced back to the preface of Herodotus, and is
present in Diodorus Siculus i.2, the most in£uential of all historical prefaces on later Greek
authors; in secular authors remembrance is often associated with the didactic function of
history (e.g. the prefaces to Diodorus or Agathias), but this theme is not exploited by ecclesiastical
historians.
For a speci¢c example of the preservation of information by Evagrius, see i.7, p. 12:16^19.
6 It may be signi¢cant that this list does not include causation, the ‘why’, an element
which is prominent in secular historians.