The Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius Scholasticus - Coptic ...

xxx
EVAGRIUS
following Procopius, and then clearly turns to di¡erent sources for a
description of the piety of the victorious general, Narses: ‘Now those
who accompanied Narses say that . . .’ (iv.24, p. 171:13^14). 49 Over three
books of Procopius about these Italian campaigns have been reduced to
two-and-a-half pages of Evagrius’ text.
Evagrius switches to Wars ii for a summary of Khusro’s invasion of
the eastern provinces in 540, with no indication that he is leaping back
in time by more than a decade (iv.25); here he interweaves some of his
own information on the behaviour of the bishops Ephrem of Antioch
and Thomas of Apamea, with the change of source revealed by the introductory
‘He is said . . .’, and ‘And they say . . .’ (iv.25, p. 172:13, 27). The
miracle of the Holy Cross at Apamea, though reported by Procopius
(Wars ii.11.16^20), is introduced as Evagrius’ own contribution, since he
had personally witnessed the event (iv.26). The last of the Procopian
chapters deals with Khusro’s attack on Edessa (iv.27), where Procopius
provides much of the information, though not the account of the intervention
of the acheiropoietos icon. Evagrius fails to make clear that the
Persians had attacked Edessa twice, in 540 (which he ignores) and then
in 544. His introduction to the narrative of the 544 siege, ‘But I will tell
you what happened’ (p. 174:19), might suggest that he has something to
say which is slightly di¡erent from Procopius, but his account opens
with the Persian siege mound as described by Procopius; the acheiropoietos
miracle is then inserted, quite smoothly, at the point where Procopius
describes the defenders’ problems with igniting the material in their
mine. Evagrius’ paraphrase excludes many elements of Procopius’
account of the siege in order to focus on the destruction of the mound,
and even in this section, in his eagerness to highlight the contribution of
the icon, he is less than clear about what the defenders did in order to
prepare the ¢ring of the mound. Thereafter Evagrius does narrate other
incidents covered by Procopius ^ the attack on Sergiopolis in 542 and
the Great Plague (iv.28^9) ^ but without noting that Procopius had
described the events or suggesting that he was using Procopian information.
In each case Evagrius had his own story to tell.
To summarize this analysis of Evagrius’ use of Procopius, in most
instances his switching of sources is su⁄ciently mechanical to be clear,
as is the transition from verbatim quotation to paraphrase, though there
are exceptions to each. Minor errors intrude, which a more attentive
49 Allen, Evagrius 186, strangely asserts that there is no indication of the change.