The Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius Scholasticus - Coptic ...

ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY: BOOK IV 225
But at his departure Chosroes contravened what had been agreed,
since it seemed right at the time, and did other things which accorded
with his unsteady and unstable character, [174] but which were quite
unsuitable for a rational man and still less for a king who keeps account
of what has been agreed. 69
27 The same Procopius also records what is narrated by men of old
concerning Edessa and Agbar, and that Christ wrote to Abgar, and then
that Chosroes settled down to another siege attack on the Edessenes,
with the intention of annulling what was rumoured by the faithful,
namely that Edessa would never come into enemy control: this is not
included in what was written to Agbar by Christ our God, as the enthusiastic
can grasp from the narratives of Eusebius son of Pamphilus, who
quoted the actual letter verbatim. But thus is it celebrated and believed
by the faithful, and it then received ful¢lment, as faith brought about an
accomplishment of prophecy. 70 For after the attack on the city when
Chosroes e¡ected innumerable assaults, and piled up a great mound so
Constantinople; after ¢erce local objections he had to settle for half, though the other half
was also removed to the capital after Adarmahan burnt the city in 573 (Menander fr. [17];
Michael the Syrian, x.1, II p. 285).
Granted that Khusro thoroughly pillaged Apamea, the allusion to the inhabitants’ salvation
is optimistic; they were not, however, massacred or transported into exile.
69 According to Procopius (Wars ii.11.24^7), it was immediately on entering the city that
Khusro forgot the agreements under which he had been allowed into the city without a ¢ght,
and ordered the bishop to collect all valuables within the city.
For other unstable royal ¢gures, cf. Geiseric (ii.7, p. 54:24) and Zeno (iii.1); by contrast
Maurice had the personal stability to cope with external instability (vi.17).
70 The story of Abgar of Edessa occupies much of Wars ii.12, with the account of the
letter at 12.20^30. The earliest version of the letter is in Eusebius, EH i.13, which is described
as an exact translation from the Syriac: this promised Abgar that one of Christ’s disciples
would come to Edessa and cure his a¥iction (gout), but did not include the promise of the
city’s safety. Procopius, too, knew that the promise was a later addition, but suggested that
God felt an obligation to preserve the trust which believers placed in the alleged undertaking.
For Procopius, the letter explained the citizens’ con¢dence in the face of Khusro’s
approach in 540; the Persian army ¢rst lost its way, and then Khusro’s face swelled up
when he eventually managed to approach the city; as a result, he was content to accept a
ransom of 200 pounds of gold (without starting a siege) and continue his journey back to
Persia.
The protecting letter is also mentioned in the context of Kavadh’s attack on the city in
503, when the sceptical Arab leader Numan also su¡ered from a swollen face, from which
he died (Joshua the Stylite ch. 58; cf. also ch. 5).