The Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius Scholasticus - Coptic ...

ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY: BOOK I 27
come, and when he did arrive he was caught as follows, 83 for he had said:
‘I confess that before the union our Lord originated out of two natures,
but after the union I confess one nature.’ 84 He said that not even the
body of the Lord was consubstantial with us. 85 He was deposed, 86 but
when his petitions came to Theodosius, on the grounds that the records
compiled had been fabricated by Flavian, ¢rst there was assembled at
Constantinople a Synod of local people, and Flavian was judged by it
and by some of the o⁄cials. And when the records had been corroborated
as true, 87 the second Synod at Ephesus was convened. 88
10 Dioscorus, the bishop of Alexandria after Cyril, was appointed as
head of this Synod since Chrysaphius, who at that time was master of
the palace, contrived this out of hostility against Flavian. 89 There
83 The investigation of Eutyches opened on 12 November (ACO II.i.1, no. 238), but Eutyches
found various reasons to be absent from sessions on 15, 16 and 17 November before
receiving an ultimatum to appear on 22 November (ACO II.i.1, no. 444); he attended this
meeting, accompanied by numerous soldiers, o⁄cials and monastic supporters, and proceedings
were supervised by the ex-prefect Florentius to attempt to secure the emperor’s
will (ACO II.i.1, nos. 463^4, 468). The records of the debate are preserved as part of the
acta of Chalcedon, along with various interjections by the discordant parties at Chalcedon
(ACO II.i.1, pp. 138^47). Detailed discussion in Schwartz, Prozess.
84 ACO II.i.1, no. 527.
85 ACO II.i.1, nos. 511^22, esp. 516.
86 ACO II.i.1, no. 551.
87 Theodosius’ support for Eutyches and hostility towards Flavian had been made clear
in an encounter in S. Sophia in the week before Easter (27 March 449), when the emperor
withdrew from communion with the patriarch (Bazaar 341^2). The summons of a Council
under the presidency of Dioscorus of Alexandria was further proof of his attitude, and then
in April imperial o⁄cials convened three meetings against Flavian: on 8 April Eutyches
attempted to prove that there had been irregularities in his condemnation (ACO II.i.1, nos.
556^8), on 13 April the records of the meeting of 22 November were thoroughly veri¢ed
(ACO II.i.1, nos. 555, 560^828), while on 27 April Eutyches failed to demonstrate that the
sentence against him had been composed in advance of the 22 November meeting (ACO
II.i.1, nos. 829^49; and cf. Bazaar 343^4). Eutyches had also appealed to Pope Leo and
other patriarchs, but Flavian eventually secured the pope’s support (ACO II.ii.1, nos. 3^6).
88 ACO II.i.1, no. 24; the imperial order was dispatched on 30 March 449 (p. 69:7^8),
convening the Council for 1 August (p. 68:28).
89 Cyril had died in 444; it is notable that Evagrius did not record the accession of the
turbulent Dioscorus at the appropriate chronological place (e.g. ch. 8 where the record of
the succession at Constantinople could have been broadened to include other major sees).
Rati¢cation of Dioscorus’ presidency, though with prominence accorded to Juvenal of Jerusalem
and Thalassius of Caesarea: ACO II.i.1, p. 74:16^24. For Chrysaphius, cf. n. 81
above. Another indication of Theodosius’ attitude was that the Syrian monk Barsauma, a
¢erce opponent of Nestorius, was permitted to attend (ACO II.i.1, nos. 47^8).