24.04.2013 Views

The Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius Scholasticus - Coptic ...

The Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius Scholasticus - Coptic ...

The Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius Scholasticus - Coptic ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

20<br />

EVAGRIUS<br />

it is not named explicitly after Nestorius, but they say it is now called the<br />

monastery <strong>of</strong> Euprepius, which we know in truth to lie outside <strong>The</strong>opolis,<br />

at a distance <strong>of</strong> no more than two stades. 57 Nestorius himself, then, says<br />

that he spent a period <strong>of</strong> four years there and received every honour and<br />

enjoyed all privileges, and that when <strong>The</strong>odosius passed another decree<br />

he was banished to the place called Oasis. But the speci¢c occasion he<br />

kept secret. For not even when he was here did he abandon his particular<br />

blasphemy, so that even John, the prelate <strong>of</strong> the Antiochene Church,<br />

denounced this, and Nestorius was condemned to perpetual exile. 58<br />

He also wrote another work in dialogue form concerning his exile to<br />

Oasis, supposedly concocted for some Egyptian, in which he speaks<br />

about these things more fully. 59 But what befell him on account <strong>of</strong> the<br />

blasphemies conceived by him, since he was unable to escape the allseeing<br />

eye, may be gathered from other writings which he produced for<br />

57 A stade is roughly equivalent to a furlong, 200 metres. According to Downey, Antioch<br />

465 n. 65, the monastery is not otherwise known; the statement <strong>of</strong> <strong>Evagrius</strong>, a local resident,<br />

is presumably correct.<br />

58 Cf. <strong>The</strong>ophanes 91:12^17; Zonaras xiii.22.43^4; Socrates vii.34.10. <strong>The</strong>ophanes<br />

records that John was concerned that many prominent Antiochenes were being seduced by<br />

Nestorius’ teaching (Barhadbeshabba ch. 27, p. 564, accuses John <strong>of</strong> jealousy). <strong>The</strong>re was<br />

still considerable support for Nestorius among the eastern bishops: the in£uential <strong>The</strong>odoret<br />

<strong>of</strong> Cyrrhus was only coerced most reluctantly in 435 into abandoning him and returning<br />

to communion with John; Irenaeus and Photius were banished to the solitude <strong>of</strong> Petra (ACO<br />

I.iv, nos. 277^8); Alexander <strong>of</strong> Hierapolis and fourteen other staunch Nestorians resisted all<br />

pressure, and were deposed or punished in various ways in the same year (ACO I.iv, no.<br />

279). Apart from Nestorius’ banishment, for which Petra was the original location (ACO<br />

I.i.3, no. 110, p. 67:22^6), <strong>The</strong>odosius ordered the destruction <strong>of</strong> Nestorian works and deprived<br />

his followers <strong>of</strong> the name <strong>of</strong> Christians, specifying that henceforth they be known as<br />

Simonians (Cod. <strong>The</strong>od. xvi.5.66).<br />

<strong>The</strong> Great Oasis was a succession <strong>of</strong> watered areas, about 100 miles long and mostly<br />

about 15 miles wide, in the desert 100 miles to the west <strong>of</strong> the Nile, which for administrative<br />

purposes was attached to the <strong>The</strong>baid; Olympiodorus, fr. 32, provides a description, especially<br />

<strong>of</strong> the wells. Cf. Socrates ii.28.11 for the Great Oasis in upper Egypt as a place <strong>of</strong><br />

banishment; Zonaras xiii.22.43 locates the Oasis in Arabia, probably through con£ation<br />

with Petra, and calls it a vile place at the mercy <strong>of</strong> pestilential winds. <strong>The</strong>re were various<br />

monasteries at the Oasis, and Nestorius was presumably kept at one <strong>of</strong> them.<br />

59 A reference to the Bazaar <strong>of</strong> Heracleides, <strong>of</strong> which much survives; parts <strong>of</strong> it are cast<br />

in the form <strong>of</strong> a dialogue with a critic named Sophronius. Festugie' re translated <strong>Evagrius</strong>’<br />

description <strong>of</strong> the book (dialektiko“ B) as ‘a work using logical arguments’, but dialectical<br />

rigour is not characteristic <strong>of</strong> Nestorius’ arguments, which, rather, tend to ramble around<br />

the point; BEL translated as ‘a formal discourse’, though also noting (264 n. 1) that Valesius<br />

was perhaps correct to render ‘in the manner <strong>of</strong> a dialogue’.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!