The Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius Scholasticus - Coptic ...

324
(2) Chrysostomides alleges a gross contradiction in the description
of the igniting of the mound: the timbers are said to have been
reduced to ashes (p. 175:15^16), but then the Evagrian narrative
switches back to the Procopian account in which the mound only
gradually catches ¢re and the defenders have to prevent the Persians
from realizing what is happening. 4 This objection can be evaded by
clarifying what was probably happening underneath the mound. The
defenders constructed a long tunnel with a sizeable burning chamber
at its end, whose roof was supported on timbers to prevent the mound
collapsing prematurely, and the inside of the mine was ¢lled with a
variety of combustible material: this is clear in Procopius (Wars
ii.27.4), but has been obscured in Evagrius’ abbreviation of his source.
There were then problems in igniting the material, which Procopius
admits (Wars ii.27.7); Evagrius had more exciting information about
this development and so departed from Procopius’ story. After the
intervention of the icon it was the material introduced by the defenders
and those few Persian timbers in the immediate vicinity which were
rapidly reduced to ashes; this generated enough heat to initiate the
much more gradual process whereby the ¢re ate its way through the
rest of the Persian mound above (where the binding timbers would
gradually be burnt away). Experience of burning turves on a garden
bon¢re would suggest that Evagrius has accurately described two
distinct stages, an initial blaze deep inside the mound followed by a
slower smouldering process; on the other hand, the process of
combining Procopius with his own miraculous story has led to some
lack of clarity in exactly what was being burnt, and when.
(3) Evagrius does not cite his source for the story of the icon. Evagrius
often, though not invariably, cites his written sources, especially if he is
paraphrasing their material or disagrees with their presentation, but he
is much more haphazard with regard to oral material. In the very next
chapter (iv.28) he does not cite his source for the miracle at Sergiopolis,
which secured for that city a comparable delivery from Khusro’s attentions.
So, the lack of a citation for the acheiropoietos story is not
‘contrary to his usual habit’. 5 In fact Evagrius does suggest that he has
his own information to present about Edessa, since, after referring to
4 ‘Investigation’ xxvi.
5 Chrysostomides, ‘Investigation’ xxi.
APPENDIX II