The Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius Scholasticus - Coptic ...

12
EVAGRIUS
which the life-giving Spirit came to visit us, as the appointed day of the
gathering. 28
And since Ephesus was no great distance from the city of Constantine,
Nestorius arrived before everyone else. Cyril too and his associates
had appeared before the publicized day. But John, the prelate of the Antiochene
church, together with his associates, failed to make the designated
day, 29 not deliberately, as appears from his numerous justi¢cations, but
because he was unable to assemble his associates with great speed. For
from what was formerly Antioch, but is now referred to as Theopolis, 30
their cities are distant a journey of twelve days for a swift traveller, and
for some even more, while the city of Ephesus is about thirty days
distant from that of Antioch: 31 John asserted that he could never
in£uence in the province of Asia, and Nestorius had already shown a willingness to interfere
in Asia during his persecution of heretics (Holum, Empresses 164; Gregory, Vox 102), so
that the current bishop, Memnon, was a natural ally for Cyril. Nestorius’ supporters belatedly
realized their error over the location, and suggested Constantinople or Nicomedia
as alternative sites: ACO I.i.5, pp. 130:29^34, 134:19^28.
28 7 June 431. It was presumably hoped that the Holy Spirit would also inspire the assembled
bishops. For a clear narrative of events, see McGuckin, Cyril 53^107.
29 The arrival of the delegations is described by Socrates (vii.34.2^3); Juvenal of Jerusalem
also arrived late, but only by ¢ve days.
30 Antioch was renamed in 528, after a sequence of natural disasters (Malalas 443:16^
17).
31 John and the Eastern bishops, who were strong supporters of Nestorius, might have
been suspected of delay in order to undermine the local ascendancy achieved by Cyril and
Memnon, and were later accused of devious motives in the report of the Council sent to
Pope Celestine (ACO I.i.3, p. 6:8^11). While en route John had written to Cyril, stating
that he had been on the road for 30 days and suggesting that he had a further ¢ve or six
days to go; he was travelling as fast as the strength of his bishops and their pack animals
allowed (ACO I.i.1, no. 30). This letter reached Cyril on 21 June, being delivered by two of
John’s party, Alexander of Apamea and Alexander of Hierapolis, who were made to say
that John authorized the Council to proceed if there should be any further delay (ACO
I.i.3, p. 6:17^21): John had presumably meant any delay beyond the additional ¢ve or six
days of his journey, as is suggested by the reference to a further four days’ wait in the
formal objection which Candidianus made when the Council convened (ACO I.iv, p.
32:17^21), but the bishops’ statement was twisted against John in the report to Celestine
and used to justify an immediate start. The Eastern bishops subsequently defended their
late arrival in a letter to Theodosius; they had travelled overland, but as fast as possible
and without any breaks, and the journey had taken 40 days (ACO I.i.5, no. 153; = Bazaar
269). Evagrius presumably extracted the notion of a journey of 30 days from John’s letter,
and then used his own experience of episcopal travel in the diocese of Antioch to provide the
additional twelve days for local assembly.