The Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius Scholasticus - Coptic ...

INTRODUCTION xxix
description of the Moorish battle array (Wars iii.8.25^8), which is
entirely omitted. It would be special pleading to explain this through
scribal error in the process of the transmission of Evagrius’ History, and
it is unnecessary to do so, since immediately after the omitted passage
Evagrius includes a resumptive ‘as he says’ (p. 165:24); for the vigilant,
armed with the text of Procopius, this can be taken as an admission of a
slight gap. In the following chapter (iv.16), Evagrius erroneously attributes
to Justinian a vision which, according to Procopius, was seen by a
bishop. He then clearly marks the start of a verbatim quotation, again
quite accurate, about the martyr Cyprian; the concluding analysis of the
prediction of the overthrow of the Vandals reverts to a paraphrase,
though this is not signalled ^ the only indication is in the somewhat
impersonal tone in which the vindication of the prophecy is analysed,
but the shift requires inside knowledge to detect. The following chapter
(iv.17) deals with Belisarius’ Vandal triumph, in part a paraphrase of
Procopius, 47 though in the middle Evagrius indicates that he is alluding
to his own account of the Vandal sack of Rome in 455 (ii.7) before
reverting clearly to Procopius. The last of the Vandal chapters (iv.18)
again combines Procopius with other material: in the Procopian section,
Evagrius incorrectly asserts that Procopius claimed to have read an
inscription that recorded the £ight of the Moors from Palestine; he then
reveals the end of his reliance on Procopius’ Vandal narrative by introducing
the section on Justinian’s constructions in Africa with ‘Justinian is
said . . .’ (p. 168:23^4). 48
Next he moves to Procopius’ account of the Gothic Wars, paraphrasing
the background and early stages very brie£y (iv.19): there are
two errors, with Amalsuintha being described as wife of Theoderic and
excessive emphasis placed on the youth of Atalarich. Evagrius then
becomes even more selective in his use of Procopius, with accounts of
the Christianization of various tribal groups (iv.20, 22^3) and a perfunctory
version of Belisarius’ success in terminating the ¢rst phase of the
Gothic War (iv.21); information about Gothic incursions into the
empire is transposed from the ¢fth century to the reign of Justinian
(iv.23). In the next chapter he notes the conclusion of the Gothic War,
47 Allen, Evagrius 186, states that it purports to be a verbatim report, but this is incorrect.
48 This material was not derived from Procopius’ Buildings, a work of which Evagrius
shows no knowledge.