The Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius Scholasticus - Coptic ...

ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY: BOOK VI 305
2,000 in number, on couches improvised on the grass, and returned home
on the following day. It was resolved that they should assemble wherever
they might choose. Accordingly he sent for Philippicus, who was staying
at Tarsus in Cilicia while hastening towards the imperial city, and he
provided a report about these matters to the imperial power and sent
the army’s requests concerning Philippicus. Accordingly, once Philippicus
had come to the city of the Theopolitans, they met him and, taking
as their helpers in the petition those who had been deemed worthy of the
sacred rebirth, they prostrated themselves before him. 53 After receiving
pledges of amnesty they returned to campaigning with him. Thus indeed
did these events proceed.
14 There was a certain Sittas, one of the junior o⁄cers at Martyropolis,
who had a grievance against one of the military commanders there; he
betrayed the city, having watched for the departure of the soldiers who
occupied it. By introducing a contingent of Persians as if [232] they were
Romans he gained control of the city, which was most strategically situated
for the Romans; he kept inside the majority of women in the prime
of life, but expelled everyone else except for a few slaves. 54 Therefore
53 The identity of their ‘helpers’ in this petition is unclear. They could be the army’s 2,000
delegates who had recently received communion from Gregory at Litarba; as Andrew
Louth has pointed out in correspondence, they had received absolution from Gregory and
for that reason might have been regarded as restored to their baptismal state (rebirth,
paliggenesi¤ a, often denotes baptism and its consequences). But, one might have expected
these men to be the main presenters of the army’s case rather than helpers. Granted Gregory’s
involvement as peace-broker, some reference to clergy would not be out of place,
and their participation in the petition would have helped the process of reconciliation; in
this case, Evagrius would be referring, obscurely, to those quali¢ed to administer communion,
perhaps to clergy attached to the army.
54 There is a clearer and more accurate narrative in Theophylact, iii.5.11^16 (for
comparison of the two, see Higgins, Persian War 33^5). Martyropolis was betrayed to the
Persians early in the campaign season of 589, when Sittas brought 400 Persians into the city
under the pretence that they were deserters. Sittas is literally described as a dekada¤ rwon,‘a
commander of ten men’; Festugie're (459) translates this as decurion, i.e. a member of the
local council, but Evagrius’ term implies a military position (Theophylact does not record
Sittas’ status). Thereafter Philippicus invested the city, but was replaced later in 589 by
Comentiolus after failing to prevent the Persians from introducing reinforcements.
Evagrius, whose favouritism towards Philippicus has already been clearly stated (vi.3),
made the most of Philippicus’ e¡orts in the siege and created a Roman victory out of what
was certainly a Persian tactical success (cf. n. 56 below); one consequence of this rewriting is
that Evagrius extended Philippicus’ involvement at Martyropolis right through to the end of
the 590 campaign (Philippicus withdraws twice into winter quarters, whereas he was