An Tard, 8, 2000, p. 127 & 136
PROCOPIUS AND EDESSA
ANDREW PALMER
Procope et esse
Procope nous parled’Edesse a plusieurs reprises. Dans les Guertes il garde V'ordre chronologique,
‘mais dans les Esdifices il ne donne pas de date. Dans le second ouvrage, il dit quelle solution Justinien
a trouvée au probléme de l’inondation périodique d’Edesse et quelles améliorations il a apportées a
Venceinte ainsi qu’aue batiments (y compris une nouvelle église); dans le premier ilraconte les dew:
descentes de Khusro sur Edesse, en 540 et en 544, en sémerveillant du fait que cete petit ville ait pu
résistr @ un ennemi pourtant si désireus de la prendre, ce qu doit avoir @faire avec Uhistoire du roi
Abgar et la promesse d'immunitéattribuée au Seigneur. Procope semble se faire I'écho de la propa-
‘gande d’Edesse, qui, pour s'assurer que l'Empire chrétien ne la négligerait point, soulignait la vic-
tore idéologique que représenterait pour l'empire zoroastrien la prise d'une ville que le Christ aurait
‘promis de protéger. On pourrait croire que les travaux décrits dans les Edifices aient été accomplis,
tout au début du regne de Justinien, n’était le silence problématique de la Chronique d’Edesse, datant
de 540 et qui met accent justement sur letalond’Achille de la ville «imprenable> : la vallée a l'Ouest.
‘qui pousse de temps en temps une quantité énorme d’eaucx contre lenceinte, ce qui conduisit, en
‘avril 525, dune catastrophe, a quatrigme de la sorte depuis ’Ascension du Christ, date de la christia~
nisation d’Edesse, c’es-a-dire ~ ironie du sort — depuis qu'elle s‘appelait ela Ville Bénie». L’auteur
{fait appel d un hymne contemporain sur la cathédrale d’Edesse pour conforter Vhypothese (nécessi-
16e parla silence de la chronique syriaque) selon laquelle les travaux impériaue a Edesse, commencés
en 525 mais bientot abandonnés, n’auraient été repris qu’en 540, sous le choc de la premiére descente
de Chosroes (et peut-tre aussi sous Vinfluence de a propaganded'Edesse,exprimée dans une péti-
tion qui aura laissé ses traces sur la Chronique comme sur le texte de Procope), pour s‘accomplir
‘avant lesidge de 544. i une telle reconstruction est juste, on ne peut passe fier & Procope quand il se
sert de Vadverbe « immédiatement »! [Auteur]
fed in it and would feel betrayed by Him if their city
| Procopius has several stories to tell about Mesopotamian bel
Edessa, Some arise in his account of the Persian Wars. He
fellsof the letter writen by Jesus to Abgar, the king of Edessa,
This story was known from Eusebius, but Eusebius said
nothing of Jesus's promise to protect Abgar’s city against
itsenemies. In 503 the Persians had taken Amida, but Edessa
Jhad not surrendered to them. In 540, after sacking Antioch,
the Persian army advanced to Edessa, but did not attack it.
‘Again in $44 the Persians came. This ime they did besiege
the city, but they did not take it. (This siege is described at
length, Bella 2,27, 4. Each time the city paid the Persians a
sum of money and they went away. How did this small city
come to escape the awful fate of so many greater ones?
Pethaps the promise of immunity, although a forgery, was
upheld by Christ, because He saw thatthe people of Edessa
was taken? Procopius is cynical enough to accuse former
generations of pious fraud, yet credulous enough to imagine
that this fraud, by its very success, may effectively have
forced the hand of the One who decides the outcome of all,
‘wars, He is also God-fearing enough to sense that it may not
be safe to assert this without dsclaiming blasphemy (Bella
2, 12, 6-30).
‘Another story about King Abgar told by Procopius inthis
connection is that he went to Rome to visit the Emperor
Augustus, who detained him there (Persian Wars 2,12, 8-
19). Abgar was at liberty to go hunting in the hills around
Rome and he collected a number of live animals together
‘with a quantity of earth from each locality where an animal
‘was taken. He then staged a spectacle in the circus and invited128 ‘ANDREW PALMER
‘Augustus to watch. The earth from each locality was dumped
ina different place, then the animals were released into the
arena; each homed in on the smell of its native earth. ‘This
parable gave force to the argument that Augustus should at
last allow Abgar to return to his native land. The Emperor
was so impressed that he not only released Abgar, but also
promised Edessa a Roman circus. This story may relate to
actual events, but in another reign. The git ofa circus/hip-
ppodrome may actually have been made by Septimius Severus,
‘whom King Abgar VIII of Edessa visited in Rome with great
pomp. Dio reported this visit ina lost part of his history; and
the same author says that Caracalla brought Abgar IX to
Rome under false pretences and detained him there. The
son of this Abgar, who was also called Abgar, died in Rome,
where his tombstone has been found, Before the second
century A.D. Edessa had been Parthian, though somewhat
hellenized, But Abgar VIII was a Roman citizen (he issued
‘coins stamped with the names Actius Aurelius Septimius
Abgaros) and, according to Dio, Abgar IX was an oppres-
sive romanizer. There certainly was a hippodrome of the
‘Roman type on the plain o the west of Edessa, butt has not
been excavated and its date is unknown, The Syriac story
about the diversion of the river by the apostle Addai (cited
below) calls the place where the river was tuned aside « the
Valley of the Stadium »!, Inboth these cases Procopius shows
awareness of the mythical history of Edessa.
In the Secret History (18.38, written, around 550)
Procopius wrote that « the Skirtos River, by overflowing
Edessa, became the author of countless calamities to the
people ofthat region, as will be written by me ina following,
book » (tf. Dewing). That book must be the Buildings (written
in the 550s) which is the only place in Procopius’s works
where the flood-problem of Edessa is treated at length,
although he does not refer to « countless » other floods.
In the Buildings (De Aed. 2, 7, 2-16) Procopius describes
how the river Skirtos flooded and damaged both the outer
defences and the finest buildings, together with one third of|
the population of Edessa. « The Emperor Justinian
immediately not only restored all the ruined pars of the city,
{including the church ofthe Christians and the structure called
“Antiphoros, but also made effective provision that such a
calamity should not occur again.» (tr. Dewing) He goes on
to say thatthe emperor cut through the ill tothe left of the
stream and built dyke to lead the excess water (though not
the river itself) behind the hippodrome into this cutting end
so away from the eity. He also reshaped the course of the
river through the city, rebuilt the main wall andthe outworks,
1. Dio 77, 12, 1a and 79, 16; Historia Augusta, Severus 18, 1;
“Herodianus 3,95 CIG 6196 = Kaibel ICI 1315; IGR 1, 179;G.F.
Hil, The Mints of Roman Arabia and Mesopotamia, in IRS, 6,
1916, p. 135-69: p. 159; Procopius, DeAed. 2, 7,9: Chronicle of
1234, p. 124 (translated below).
‘An Tard 8, 2000
and replaced the makeshift wall around the hill which
overlooks Edessa from the south side with a stronger wall
con the crest of the hill connected with the circuit-wall on
either side, (See the sketch-map.)
If Procopius exaggerates a little, that would not be
surprising; but it will stil be useful to look at what he says
bout Edessa, because there are other sources which give us
the measure of his exaggeration there. If, for example, inthe
case of Edessa, Procopius obscures a delay of over fifteen
years between the flood and Justinian’s restoration with the
‘word « immediately », then we need not hesitate to discount
this word, or words like it, in other places. That is one reason
why it is important to establish the date of Justinian’s works
at Edessa, insofar as Procopius truthfully attributes these
‘works o him. If this date can be established, it will only be,
by a close study of the Syriac sources, unless perhaps!
someone does an archaeological dig.
‘Tue sive
“The modem Kurdish own of Urfa (or Shanli-Urfa), which
belongs to the Turkish Republic, has not yet sprawled over
everything, although the channel through the mountain has
been tured into tunnel inthe middle, covering what seemed
to be a Roman bridge. The dyke is still partially exposed,
‘The foundations ofthe hippodrome must lie partly under,
the road between the dyke and the north-west corner of the
citadel ill. Most ofthe top of this hill, presumably the ancient}
acropolis, is till bare. The crest of the other hill tothe south
ofthe city, where Justinian is said to have built a wall, is a
heap of runs covered with grass, with two great columns)
still standing on it; under the ground must be a fascinating|
record of occupation since Abgar VIM built his winter pa-
Jace there right up to the time of the First Crusade and
‘beyond. The foundations ofthe fort (formerly the royal pa-
lace) in the south-west corner of the city and of the cathedrall
church should lie somewhere under the pleasure-gardens
\which surround the famous fish-pools fed by the sources of
Edessa. |
‘The ancient settlement of Orhay was situated near the
abundant sources of water which still grace Urfa\
Unfortunately, the sources rise at the foot of a vertical
On the other side the ground slopes downward slightly
before climbing again tothe crest of the hills which streteHl
southwards into the plain of Harran. Ifthe city had been|
built on that precipitous height it would have been ve
toilsome forthe inhabitants to fetch their water. The low hill
to the north ofthe springs was preferable. It is precipitou
‘onthe westside, but slopes down gently towards the springs,
‘The ancient citadel must have been on the crest of this hill
just south of the cemetery. Between this citadel and)
springs runs the ancient course of the river, the only natura
‘outlet for the rainwater which runs off all the hills to ¢f
west Asa nue this rivers hardly worthy of the naxigh BR
‘when there is a great deal of rain in the hills, the torrent cah‘An Tard, 8, 2000
PROCOPIUS AND EDESSA 129
suddenly swell, An alluvial plain to the west of the citadel-
hill bears witness to frequent flooding through the ages. For
this reason the stream was called in Syriac « the Leaper »
(Daysan), a name made famous in that of the Edessene phi
Iosopher Bardesanes (Bar Daysan = the Son of the Leaper).
‘The Greeks at first called it Kallirrhoé (the end of which
has some phonetic similarity to Orhay, the Syriac name of
Edessa); but by the sixth century they were calling it Skirtos,
a translation of Daysan.
‘Tue FLoops
‘Thie flood of 201
So long asthe settlement remained unfortfied (or fo
only o the north ofthe river) drainage was no problem. The
line ofthe wall built by Seleukos I Nikator around the citadel
has not been established. But by the time of King Abgar
‘VII of Edessa the city-wall crossed the bed of the river and
took in the springs to the south of it; and there the king's
palace was built. In November A.D. 201, as a result of
torrential rain in the hills to the west of the city, there was a
flood. First, fed by underground channels, the springs rose
‘up, flooding the King’s palace and forcing him to evacuate
welling. Then, inthe night which followed, the torrent
Edessa
after 303
«lcapt» up. Before the sleeping populace realised what was
hhappening a lake hed formed outside the western wall of the
city. When the king saw this, he ordered the sluices to be
‘opened; but the pressure ofthe deep water undermined the
wall as it rushed through. The buildings on the other side,
including the king’s palace and the Christian church, were
destroyed. Many people who were steeping near the riverbed
‘were drowned. Afterwards the king ordered a wider bed to
be dug forthe river with high embankments and a watch to
bbe kept on the western wall throughout the winter months
2, The Chronicle of Edessa opens withthe record of the flood of
201, which the first editor, .S. Assemani, moved to eighth place
inthe order of notices. This is where it is placed, therefore, by
BB. H. Cowper, who translated the chronicle ito English in the
Journal of Sacred Literature, n 5, 1864, . 28-45. With the excep-
tion of the flood of 201, events are recorded in chronological
‘order, it is sufficient to know the year tobe able to find them.
‘Toconvertthe date AD tothe Seleucid date used by Syriac authors
add 311 (or 312, ifthe event occurred aftr 1 October). This
chronicle is the only source which mentions the floods of
November 201, May 303 and 18 March 413. It identifies this
last correctly as a Tuesday.130 ANDREW PALMER
‘The flood of 303
For a time all was well; but in May 303 disaster struck
again, No detailed record of this flood has been preserved,
‘beyond a note in the Chronicle of Edessa, but we know that
itbrought down the city-wall again. It must have been at this
time that a channel was dug through the spine of rock on
‘which Edessa was built just where it forms a low saddle to
the north of the citadel, and a dyke constructed on the plain
tothe westof the citadel to divert the worst ofthe floodwaters
into this man-made riverbed. These events appear to have
evolved, atan unknown date, into another story about Abgar
preserved in the Syriac Chronicle of 1234 (ed. Chabot, p.
124); according to this the cutting around the northern wall
of the city, which diverted the river safely away from the
city was the work of Nimrod and Seleucus, the successive
founders of the city. When it got silted up it had gone back
into its old bed, but the apostle Addai cleared the channel
nd, with the financial support of King Abgar, built a dyke
and so averted the danger of flooding from the cit
«At this time, when the apostle Addai was in Edessa, he
saw the valley by which the floodwaters always used to come
and enter the city by breaching the walls on the west and,
entering, used to destroy many houses and tear down all the
buildings which lay in the pathway ofthe water, because the
pathway and outlet which had been made by Scleucus and
Nimrod [had become blocked. This] had been built,
‘moreover, before ths time with stones and great, wide vaults
[constituting] three pathways on two levels, through which
the floodwaters used to pass without causing any damage.
But this had been filled up with sand and [
from the inundations of many years.
‘energetically; and with the energy, help and financial assis-
tance of King Abgar, a great dyke made of great stones was
constructed at the head of the valley which is outside the
western wall of the city and is called the Valley of the
Stadium; and he placed foundations along its length and
breadth, using great stones, and he poured lime and mortar
veri. And they dug in the ground and deepened the channel
until it communicated with that cutting which encircles the
city outside the walls along the whole of its northern side.
‘And in this way, from that time onwards, the city was saved
from violent inundation, until the dyke decayed and the soil
accumulated and the water began to come up over the dyke
from time to time » (tz. Palmer, for this paper)
‘Although tis story is fiction, itis modelled on the physical
realities.
The flood of 413
‘The channel dug in 303 must have silted up quickly, for
by 384, when Egeria, a Christian pilgrim from the west,
ied Edessa, it was completely dry and the river was
flowing again in its old bed near the springs inside the city
(lsinerarium Egeriae 19, 7, 11-12). In March 413, disaster
struck for the third time (Chronicle of Edessa).
An Tard, 8, 2000
‘The flood of 525
‘The fourth flood took place in April 525, under Justin;
Procopius, here as elsewhere, attributes the restoration of,
the city to Justin’s successor, listing a series of achievements.
The inauguration hymn
Firstly, he says that Justinian restored « the church ofthe
CCiristians ». Can this be reconciled with the second verse
ofthe Syriac inauguration anthem of that church, which says
(addressing God): «a glorious temple has been built for Thee
in Orhay by Amidhanos, Asaph and Addai » ? The first and
the last names are those of bishops of Edessa. The second
name should probably be read as « Asqleph », the Syriac
form of Asklepios, which was the name of the bishop in of-
fice atthe time of the flood (Chronicle of Edessa, under the
Seleucid years 833 and following). He survived the flood
but died on 27 June of the same year, $25, in Antioch, He
‘was succeeded, eight months later, by Paul (his predecessor,
‘who had been deposed and was now reinstated), but in
‘another eight months (30 October, 526) Paul was dead and
‘Andrew became bishop in his place. Andrew died in
December, 532, and was succeeded by Addai during whose
time the Chronicle of Edessa (the source for these dates)
‘was composed. After 540 we have to rely on other sources,
especially on the chronicle of Michael the Syrian, which
incorporates notices from others. There (Michael, Chronicle,
1X 28, on p. 310 of the Syriac text) we read that Jacob was
ordained anti-Chaleedonian bishop for Edessa in 542/3,
«although the Chalcedonians had a bishop in Edessa, the
38th [in succession]: Amazon, who built and decorated the
‘great church in that city ». Amazon (Amazonios) is therefore
the Amidhanos of the anthem and he succeeded to Addai
between S40 and 543. Amazonios ismentioned first, because
he was alive a the time of the inauguration and thus took
‘most ofthe credit asthe notice in Michael's chronicle shows.
The other bishops are named in chronological order,
Although theres no reference to the emperor, either here ot
elsewhere inthe anthem, Mas‘udi, an Arab geographer of
the tenth century, says that Justinian built the church of
Edessa, « which is one of the wonders of the world »‘,
Perhaps like the apostle inthe Syriac legend about the dyke,
the bishop acted « withthe energy help and financial assis-
tance » of his overlord, who might, by convention, take the
credit For Justinian taking the credit for ehurches built under
his rule, see Aed. 1,8, 5
3. Palmer and Rosey, withthe literature cited in 20m p. 1176;
see also the cometion othe taslaton of the fourth verse in
BMGS, 14,1980, p. 247288
4: Les Prairies d'Or. B. de Meynard et li, 2, Beira
p.512, 331), iAn Tard, 8, 2000
The Chronicle of Michael
‘The description of the flood in the Chronicle of Michiel,
although it says nothing about the building in question,
suggests that Asklepios himself cannot have done much
towards replacing the ruined church:
‘cn the year 836 (A.D, 525) a great destruction caught
‘up with the eity of Edessa, the metropol
while Asklepios was bishop there and was
constrain the faithful to agree to the iniquitous synod of
‘Chalcedon; an had arrested twenty solitary monks and was
torturing them pititessly to make them agree tothe necursed
synod; and afterwards had imprisoned them in guol; that
very same night at the third hour there occurred a flood of
‘water; and when violent water-masses had been added to
the river Daysan, suddenly the wall was breached atthe top,
[owhere] it had shut out and held back the floodwaters, and
‘these gushed in ful force and rose to fill all the streets ofthe
city, which was inundated. Then both people and livestock
«drowned and possessions were carried off bythe water. Those
‘who found themselves in places above the level of the
floodwaters tried to leave through the gates of the city, but
found the floodwaters coming in at the gates. And when [the
city] had filed up like a lake, suddenly the [eastern] wall
‘was breached in three places, being unable to sustain the
pressure ofthe floodwaters, and the towers were undermined;
and suddenly the floodwaters rushed forwards, dragging,
‘corpses with them as if to dishonour them. And whole
courtyards and households floated down as far as the
Euphrates. Days later, when the flood had ceased and
subsided, all those who were left cried out that God had
‘grown angry with the city on account of the imprisonment
‘of the holy men, and they took up stones in order to lynch
Asklepios. But he escaped secretly to Antioch to Euphrusios
[the patriarch}, who took Asklepios up into the bema with
him and said to the people, « Come and see the latter-day’
Noah, another man who has been saved from a flood, as if
in the Ark! » Those who were left in Edessa, who had been
rescued from the floodwaters, were also rescued from the
wickedness of Chalcedon, because the wrath [of God] caught
up with Asklepios in Antioch and he never agnin returned to
Edessa.» (Michael, Chronicle 9, 16ctr, Palmer fortis paper,
from the manuscript inthe church of St George in Aleppo,
‘hich belongs tothe Syrian Orthodox who emigrated from
Edessa in 1924, whom I thank fr the privitege of seeing it
inJune 1997).
‘The author of this notice reports that 30, 000 corpses were
brought for burial; he also states that Asklepios died in the
earthquake which, according to Malalas, ravaged Antioch
in the same year, 525. He seems to be contradicting the
Chronicle of Edessa, which agrees that Asklepios had to
flee to Antioch (though it does not say why), but dates the
earthquake to May, 526, after Asklepios’s death, The truth
may lie between these two extremes: Malalas says the
earthquake was in May of Justin’s seventh year, which puts
ita month before the death of Asklepi
PROCOPIUS AND EDESSA 131
‘The Chronicle of Matatas
“The description of the flood at Ed
not have an exnet date; is listed in the same y
Anwaarbos was destroyed. "The destruction of Anazarbos is
dated by the same chronicler one year after three other
disasters, These are not separately dated either, but they
follow an entry under the date 520/1, each being introduced
with the words « in that year ». Strictly speaking, then,
Malas dates the flood to 52/3, but only by a chain of
conection with events elsewhere, The correct date, 525, is
given in the Chronicle of Edessa, the author of which had
access tothe official annals ofthe city; and we find it again
in the report from Michael's chronicle, which is translated
above, That it occurred in the month of April seems to follow
from the Chronicle of Edessa’ statement that Asklepios was
in Antioch for nbout 70 days before dying on 27 June, This
{show Matals tells the story:
‘«In that year Edessa, a great city in the province of
Osthoene, was engulfed one evening by the wrath of God in
the form of riveravater, from the river known as Skirtos which
flows through the middle of the city. The inhabitants perished
together with their houses. The survivors and inhabitants of|
the city used to say thatthe river had flooded the city on
another occasion but had not caused such destruction. For
‘we have learned, they said, that the same thing has happened
on other occasions. After the anger had ceased, there was
found by the buildings near the river, when they Were having,
their foundations cleaned out, large stone tablet, on which
‘was carved the follo jon: The river Skirtos
(Leaper) will leap terrible leapings forthe citizens. The city
‘of Exessa was built by Scleukos Nikator, who fortified it,
Seleukos, who was a Macedonian, had it named Antioch the
Half-barbarian and, after is first calamity, it was renamed
Exessa, The emperor gave much to each city, renewing them
‘with many beautiful works and giving generously to the
survivors, He renamed Edessa Justinoupolis. » (Malalas
4186, tr, Jettreys etal, p. 237)
‘That iswhat Matalss writes to read Procopius, you would
think that the flood had occurred during the reign of Justinian
and that the new name should have been «dustinianoupols».
He gives no date for the flood, which he says happened « at
a certain time » (pote). He excludes any idea thatthe city
had already been restored, by writing: « the main wall of
Edlessa and its outworks had suffered from the passage of
time no less than they had from the flood and for the most
part were fit only to be called ruins. Therefore the Emperor
[stan] rebuilt both of them » (tr. Dewing). But Malalas
cannot be so easily discounted. The date of composition of |
this part of his work is thought to be 527, which is when the
reign of Justin ended and that of Justinian began, AS a cti=
zen of Antioch and a speaker of Syriac, John Malalas was
able to obtain information about the flood at firsthand, He
quotes the words of the inhabitants of Edessa, When
translated, word for word, into Syriac, the inscription quoted132 ANDREW PALMER,
by this oral source reudss Neus felt Days / dave dilé
abnay maint, which isa velve-syllabl tine with a enesurn
ifter the fourth and the eighth syllables, the metre favoured
boy an ealy sixth-century Syrine poet, Jucob of Serugh,
Malalas combine this ist-hand information with weitten
soutees, Eusebius had recorded the foundation by Seleukos
nd! the name « Antioch on the Kalle» i attested by
coins, though Antiacheia Mixobarbaros Is not and must
surely bew nickname, Stephanas of Byzantium says Edessa
that it is « w city of Syria so ealled because of the Foree of
the waters; from that in Macedonia » and although Malalas
probably wrote before Stephanos, we may assume tha the
etymology (Elessn = water + strength) was already in
currency’, ‘This gives extra point to the notice on the
foundation of Edessa: the flood which happened in his time
was a recurrent phenomenon, as the Edessenes told him,
‘nl, what is more, this phenomenon explained the name of
their city, as the waterfalls of Macedonian Edessa explain
the name of that town, The official annals of Edessa are
mostly lost to us, but the Chronicle of Edessa certainly had
‘access fo them and this Syriac source tells us (atthe beginning
ofits final summing-up) that the lood of A.D. 201 was the
first recorded since Chrst’s Ascension into heaven. That
leaves open the possibility that history recorded floods before
then. It is more likely that Malalas and Stephanos, having,
decided that « Edessa» denotes the destructive force of water,
deduced from the mere fact thatthe ity was s0 gamed that
it had suffered from Mooding already in the Macedonian
period. After al, Malalas does not uote the annals of Edessa,
but only what the inhabitants had learned about thet history.
‘The reference to the first founcler of Edessa also prepares
the reader to see Justin as the second founder of the city
‘now named Justinoupols, as Constantinoupolis proclaims
that Constantine was its second founder,
‘The way this notice by Malalasflaters Justin makes it
likely that it was written before he died. The name
Justinoupolis would only be justified by a major programme
‘of restoration. On the other hand, this name is not otherwise
attested, It is possible that Justin, in naming the city
Justinoupolis, vaingloriously anticipated a more extensive
programme of restoration than he was actually able to
complete before his death in $27. If Justinian completed the
work begun by his predecessor immediately after the lood
inthe years immediately following 527 and if what was done
under his government was more than what had been
‘completed inthe previous reign, then Procopius’s omission
of Justin's name is understandable and his statement that
Justinian restored the city immediately is only a slight
‘exaggeration, especially since Justinian was already involved
in the government of the Empire before Justin's death,
5K, Brodetsen, Appians Abris der Selewkidengeschicht (Syriake
45, 232-70, 369): Text und Kommentar, Manchen, 1989 Syriake,
Minchener Arbeiten zur alten Geschichte, 1), p. 152, . 1
An Tard, 8, 2000)
The Chronlete of &
he obstuelo to this theory Is the sllence of the Chironete
of Edessa. ‘This Syrlac text, whleh haw alrondy been
repeatedly cited avn souree, records the destruction wrought
by successive floods, ending with that of 525, und 1 conte
rues up to 540, when the Perslan asm, rearing. fromthe
suck of Antioch, left dessin untouelied, But i records n0
restoration of the elty, either by Justin, or by Justinian, The
author iy n Chalcedonian and well-disposed towards
Justinian, whom he calls «a friend of God », Procoplus's
neglect of Justin is obviously duc to his dese to flatter
Justinian; but i Justinian could in any way elaim the eredit
for whote-scule restoration an! a solution tothe recurrent
problem of flooding, the fuet would surely have been
‘mentioned inthe Chronicle of Edessa. Thissource does not
Just ist selected extracts from the city-annals from the se=
cond century B.C. up to A.D, 540 in chronological order,
bout begins, out of chronological order, with a long extract
from the royal archives on the flood of A.D. 201 and ends
witha recapitulation of the four floods whieh have brought
down the walls ofthe ety since the Ascension, that of 201,
that of 303, that of 413 and that of 525,
A theory which would account for the silence of the
Chronicle of Edessa, is that Justin's netual
Edlessa (as opposed tothe project which would have justified
the name Justinoupolis) was in fact negligible, and that
Justinian, at his accession in 527, shelved the ambitious pans
‘hich had therefore not been completed when the Chronicle
was composed in 540, In describing the sioge of Edessa in
$544 Procopius does not say whether Justinian’s works had
been completed before that time, but his narrative implies
that at least the fortifications had been rebuilt. To see this
we only have to set his contemptuous description of the
defences of the ety before Justinian rebuilt them (in the
Buildings) beside his account of the siege (in the Persian
Wars), Had those former defences withstood the determined
attacks ofthe Persians, they could not have been described
as « fit only t be called ruins » and « easy to eapture even
for children playing at storming a wall», Ifthe Persians had
been able to take the hill to the south of the city, « wl
stood very close by and commanded the city spread out
beneath it», they would not have had to construct a great
siegesmound from which to shoot down on the defender
That hill, therefore, was already defended by Justinian’s wall,
which was proof against serious attack.
‘The idea that work on the restoration began immediately
after the flood in 525 and was then shelved, only tobe revived
in $40, in response to the renewed Persian threat, provides a
solution to another problem. Why does the inauguration
anthem of the cathedral name only Asklepios, who died in
525 (for no other explanation ofthe name Asaph in the MS
seems plausible), Addai, who became bishop in August $33
and died shorty after $40, and Amazonios, who was bishop
by 5432 Paul (525-6) and Andrew (527-532) evidently did
nothing to advance the building-programme. ProbablyAn Tard, 8, 2000
‘Asklepios did very little, as we have seen, though he may
have negotiated with the emperor for funds by leter from
Antioch before his death, Since the church at Edessa was
surrounded by water, it is likely to have been planned in
consultation with the hydraulic engineer employed by the
emperor to diver the floodwaters (pethaps the master-bulder
CChryses of Alexandria, on whom see below)
By helping the Chaleedonian Amazonios to finish the
‘cathedral so soon after his inauguration Justinian perhaps
hoped to make him popular with the people of the city, at a
time of increasing tension. The opponents of Chalcedon were
1a force to be reckoned with at that time. They had just
sueceeded, as we have seen, in having @ rival anti-
Chalcedonian bishop ordained for Edessa with the support
of the Empress Theodora, in $42/3, This was the formida-
ble Jacob Baradaeus (Syriac «Burd‘ana>). There was a
religious issue connected with the problem of flooding,
because — asthe passage quoted above from Michael shows —
Asklepios was blamed by the opponents of Chalcedon for
the flood of 525. The Chalcedonian party in the city will
have answered those who blamed Asklepios by saying that
the flood was due to natural causes. They will have added
that the problem occurred several times before the Council
‘of Chalcedon and so could not, even ifit expressed the wrath
‘of God, be blamed on that Councilor its supporters. After
Justinian’s work they could say that Edessa had a
‘Chalcedonian emperor to thank for a solution to the problem
and for much else besides.
Pethaps itis because Justinian had opened up an outlet
for the floodwaters which had, in the past, harmed the city,
that the author ofthe inauguration anthem forthe cathedral
mentioned the otherwise unremarkable fact that the roof of
the dome was covered in lead, « lest it be harmed by
downpours of rain » (verse 10). This building with a dome
like the firmament and a moat like the encircling « Ocean »
was pregnant with symbols. What the bishop did for the
cathedral and Justinian forthe city was what, onthe spiritual
plane, Orthodoxy was doing for the whole of the Christian
‘ikoumene, namely, protecting it against harm. What harmed
building was water: what harmed the Christian world was
heresy. Whatever God may have intended by allowing the
flood of 525, it was not to punish Asklepios, or so the party
of Chalcedon must have reasoned; for Asklepios appeared
on the patriarch's bema (a sort of « boat » in the middle of
the church) like Noah atthe prow of the Ark. The impli
tion is that the blame should be placed on the victims (if on
anyone), many of whom, no doubt, were anti-Chalcedonians.
‘THE FUNCTION OF THE CHRONICLE
fJustinian’s solution othe problem of flooding a Edessa
‘was found just after $40, when the Chronicle of Edessa was
‘composed, then it came as the answer to the cri du eaeur in
‘the summing-up of that chronicle. There we rea:
«As we learn from the former histories, behold the wa
ters have four times broken down the walls of the blessed
PROCOPIUS AND EDESSA 133
[city] and overthrown its towers, and choked its children,
since Messiah ascended to his glorious Father » (tr. Cowper).
Edessa was called the « blessed (city) » by virtue of the
letter sent by Jesus to its king, which began, « Blessed are
you, Abgar». The nature of the blessing came to be
‘understood as perpetual immunity to enemy attack and by
the time Egeria visited Edessa, this had been made explicit
by an addition atthe end of the letter, which was notin the
text known to Eusebius nor in that caried back tothe west
by earlier pilgrims (Itinerarium Egeriae XIX 9 and 19). In
a fifth-century Syriac retelling of the legend known as The
Teaching of Addai the promise takes the form of a verbal
message brought back by the courier Hannan: « Your city
will be blessed. No enemy will ever have power over her® ».
Jesus said this just before his Crucifixion and after his As~
cension he told Thomas to send Addai to Edessa. This legend
rust be the reason wy the Chronicle of Edessa takes the
Ascension asa starting-point in counting the numberof times
the « Blessed City » has suffered badly from the flooding of
the Daysan. To say this isto say thatthe Blessed City has
been destroyed by flooding four times since, by receiving
the teaching of Addai, Edessa earned the promised blessing.
It is a roundabout way of saying that this promise of
immunity, though effective against the Persians, iso no avail
against the floodwaters, the consequences of which are
almost as devastating as capture by the enemy.
‘The author ofthe Chronicle of Edessa was a contemporary
‘of Procopius, who (as we have seen) is sceptical about the
divine guarantee of immunity. For those who entertained
such doubts the fat that Edessa was vulnerable to flood
‘meant that it was also vulnerable to siege, especially after a
‘major flood. The fall of Edessa would be a disaster for the
Christian Empire quite out of proportion with the size of the
city. The Persians would make capital out of the fact that the
promise of immunity had proved ineffective, The Edessene
author of the so-called Chronicle of Joshua the Stylite, who
witnessed the unsuccessful siege of Edessa in 503, built up
the tension in his narrative ofthat event by saying that the
King of Kings was particularly anxious to take Edessa for
the sake ofthis ideological victory. The same thought is put
into the Shah’s head by Procopius. It derives, surely, from
the propaganda directed by Edessa towards the government
of the Roman Empire. The government may perhaps be
sceptical about the promise, went the argument, but it must
remember that many believe init and that fact alone makes
it imperative that Edessa, of all cities, should be well
defended’.
6.A, Desreumaux, Histoire du roi Abgar et de Jésus : Présenta
tion et traduction du texte syriaque intégral de La Doctrine
Addai, Turahout, 1993, p. $9.
17. The Chronicle of Joshua the Stlte,ed. Wright, p. $8 and 61;
Procopius, Bella 2, 12, 6f. and 31 (cf. 2, 13,7), 2,26, l-tand 12
Evagrius, Church History, 4,27.134 ‘ANDREW PALMER
‘The Chronicle of Edessa reflects the urgent propaganda
put out by the city in $40. It may even have been compiled
as groundwork fora petition tothe emperor. There was much
competition for resources at all times, but especially after
the sack of Antioch and other ities by the Persians, The
Chronicle of Edessa makes the fact tha the Persians spared
Edessa in $03 and again in $40 sound like a miracle (« by
the grace of God »}; and so does Procopius, There may be
‘other echoes in his work of Edessan propaganda, Procopius
retails the story about King Abgarand the Emperor Augustus,
but it was surely at Edessa that it was composed. Whoever
composed it knew Africanus’s report (in the Cesti) of the
hhunting prowess of Abgar VIII and Dio’s reports of the same
king's visit to Severus andl of Caracalla’s detention of Abgar
IXat Rome, ot other sources of the same genuine historical
information. To what purpose was such learning and
ingenuity mobilised’? Perhaps for a speech which invited the
emperor to commit resources to Edessa in imitation of
Augustus
‘To modern readers may seem too far-fetched to imagine
‘petition to the emperor on a practical matter using such
exotic arguments drawn from a mythical past; but this
almost certainly an anachronistic judgement ! The elaborate
claims and embellishments in the Buildings should serve as
‘reminder ofthe terms in which such matters were presented.
approach to the Chronicle may offer us a valuable
ht into the ehetoric ofthe court, and approaches tothe
emperor, against which Procopius” rhetoric seems far less
outlandish,
It was important not to be too direct in suggesting what
the emperor should do. One bishop of Edessa made that
mistake when he was presenting a petition to Anastasius,
who rebuked the bishop, saying that God would surely put it
in he emperor's mind, if anything needed to be done forthe
Blessed City. This is recorded in the so-called Chronicle of
Joshua the Style. A close reading of this chronicle shows
that it was written at Bdessa in 506 (a note being added at
the end after the death of Anastasius) by one of the two
stewards of the cathedral, who probably heard what the
‘emperor said from the bishop himself
8. A. Palmer, Who wrote the Chronicle of Joshua the Stylite?, in
Ri, Schulzand M, Garg (ed), Lingua restiuta orientalis: Festgabe
{fir Julius Assfalg, Wiesbaden, 1990 (Agypten und Altes Testa-
20), p. 272-284; the petition to Anastasius is under the
‘Seleucid year 816 [A.D 504/5]:« Inthis year My Lord Peter the
bishop went up again to see the King in order to persuade him to
remit the tribute, bu the King answered him harshly and rebuked
him for abandoning his duty towards the poor at such a time to
‘come up and see him, For he sai that God Himself would have
put itinto hisheart without aay persuasion ifitwas right that one
should do some good thing forthe Blessed City. But while the
bishop was sll there, the King sent a remission forthe whole of
Mesopotamia by the hand of someone else without his
knowledge.»
An Tard, 8, 2000
‘There is another text which shows how tactful courtiers
were about suggesting ideas to theoretically all-knowing
emperor. In Buildings 2, 3 Procopius writes:
«I shall now relate how he brought it about that this city
[Dara] should never again suffer such damage from th ri
ver, a matter in which God manifestly assisted his effort,
‘There was a certain Chryses of Alexandra, a skilful master-
builder, who served the Emperor in his building operations
and built most ofthe structures erected in Daras and in the
rest of the country...» (here Procopius relates how Chryses,
sent the emperor a sketch of a dam, the idea of which had
ben revealed to him in a dream, and how, before his letter
arrived, the emperor heard the solutions which the master-
builders Anthemios and Isidoros proposed.) « But the
Emperor, obviously moved by a divine inspiration which
cameo him, though he had not yet seen the liter of Chryses,
devised and sketched out ifhis own head, strange to say, the
very plan ofthe dream...» (three days later the letter arrived
and the emperor told Anthemios and Isidoros thatthe same
fea which had occurred to him had been revealed ina dream
to Chryses) « and caused them to marvel greatly, as they
‘considered how God becomes a partner to this Emperor in
all matters which will benefit the State. So the Emperor's
plan won the day, while the wisdom and skill of the master-
builders yielded place to it » (tr. Dewing).
Like the passage from the Chronicle of Joshua the Sty-
lite, this shows that the emperor liked his courtiers to
acknowledge that he was in direct communication withthe
Almighty.
‘The skill ofthe petition from Edessa will have been to
sive the emperor all the clues and to let him discover the
answer, 0 that the fiction could be maintained that he did
not need tobe told what to do. How exactly it was put together
‘cannot now be known. Ifthe instructions of a handbook were
followed, praise of the emperor wll have come frst, followed
by a history ofthe city, leading up to the appeal for help in
maintaining its fabric (Menander Rhetor, 12, p. 178-81).
Perhaps the petitioner, after praising Justinian as a Christian
king in the tradition of Abgar the Black, told first the well
known story of the letters exchanged by Abgar and Jesus;
then the history ofthe city thus blessed (this isthe part for
which the Chronicle of Edessa might have done the
groundwork), ending with the statement that the Blessed City
had four times been destroyed by floods since the Ascen-
ion; and finally the story of Augustus and Abgar and the
imperial benefaction to Edessa (a clear int that a benefaction
was now being requested). He might also have used the ar-
‘gument (echoed by Procopius) that the Persians were
particularly keen to take Edessa and so prove that the God
of the Christians was unable to keep his promises; and that,
by helping Edessa now, the emperor would be taking the
sting out ofthe local opposition to his religious policy (the
Chronicle of Edessa implicitly contradicts the propaganda
of the anti-Chalcedonians, who said that Asklepios had died
inthe earthquake at Antioch).
i,An Tard, 8, 2000
‘The Abgar with whom the Chronicte of Edessa begins is,
inthis mystical perspective, also an inheritor of the blessing
‘anda forerunner of Constantine the Great, Justinian was no
doubt invited to identify with Abgar VIL who took effec-
tive measures to prevent a recurrence of the flood in his
time. The first few entries in the chronological sequence are
suggestive, too, First, the ancient lineage of the kings of
Edessa, going back to 132/1 B.C; then the beginnings of
‘the Roman Empire under Augustus in 44 B.C; then the birth
of Jesus in 2 B.C, then the construction of King Abgar’s
‘mausoleum in A.D. 889. From these jt
extrapolate the following argument: the kings of Edessa are
comparable with the emperors of Rome; one of those kings
became a Christian; he is comparable with the Christian
‘emperors of Rome, Supposing some of the contents of the
Chronicle of Edessa to have been included, along with the
story about Abgar’s sojourn in Rome, ina petition presented
to Justinian (perhaps by Bishop Addai), then that emperor
rust have been subtly invited to identify with both Augustus
‘and King Abgarand so led to see himself as the heir to both.
‘There was another reason forthe emperor to identify wit
the first Christian king, who foreshadowed the Christian
Empire: Justinian was the inhertor of the blessing and he
had a special responsibility, as Abgar’s «suecessor», for
Edess
‘9. The legend which tells how the spostle Adda cleared the outlet
‘and built the dam (and the first church at Edessa) with the help
‘of King Abgar might also serve the purpose of sucha petition.S.
Brock has remarked (A brief outline of Syriac literature,
Kottayam, 1997 [Moran Etho, 9}, p45) onthe fact thatthe apostle
Addai is conspicuous by his absence from the Chronicle of
Edessa, which has several notices about the relics of Thomas.
Perhaps Bishop Addai, who reigned in Edessa atthe time the
‘chronicle was composed and who may indeed be is author, since
it uses the episcopal archives, was one of those who believed
‘Saint Thomas had been the apostle of Edess, not Addai. Certainly
this is what Egeria was told; but that was before the publication
‘of Eusebius in Syriac and in Latin. No author ofthe ith or sixth
‘century rejects the authority of Eusebius and his Syriac source,
which called the apostle Thaddseus; and they accepted the iden-
tification of Thaddacus with Addai. One inseripton iden
‘Thomas with Thaddaeus, but Eusebius’s narrative makes Tho-
ras delegate the mission to Thaddseus. On balance I am not
inclined to take the silence of the chronicle on this subject 0
imply rejection ofthis tradition, IF the chronicle formed part of
‘the groundwork forthe petition, then the explanation forthe si-
lence about Addai may bethat he wes going to feature prominently
in-a separate section of that petition. AS we have seen, the
reference tothe Ascension near the end of the chronicle is rather
puzzling on its own and it may have been followed by aretelling
‘of the mission of Addai to Edessa and of his delivery ofthe pro-
rise of immunity, which happened jus aftr the Ascension. The
reference at the end ofthe tory in the Chronicle of 1234 tothe
‘gradual decay of the dyke and the accumulation of soil around
could have been added by a later compiler.
PROCOPIUS AND EDESSA 135
ConcLusion
Whatever is here said about the structure ofthe petition
is speculative. That the commitment of resources to Edessa
‘was made asa result ofa petition from the city seems likely
Inthe earlier period studied by Fergus Millar, that was how
the emperor made most decisions: passively, in reaction to
appeals from the competing cities". He was rarely proactive
in the way Procopius describes him being proactive about
Dara, though he liked to foster the image that he had a
personal channel tothe all-seeing wisdom of God. The pro-
bable argument of the petition which won Justinian’s
commitment to Edessa can be extrapolated from various
sources, but especially from the Chronicle of Edessa, The
need to persuade him that Edessa had a good claim on
imperial resources at that time explains the omission of any
reference in that chronicle to Justin’s restoration of Edessa,
hich may in any case have been less extensive than the
short-lived name Justinoupolis implies. The bitter irony in
saying that the Blessed City has four times been destroyed
and her children drowned by floods since the Ascension
comes right at the end of the chronicle and seems designed
to lead up to the question why. The answer required by the
context isnot religious one (that would play into the hands
of the opponents of Chalcedon); itis that no one has yet
devised the means to prevent these natural disasters from
‘occurring. The theory of the petition answers well to that.
Moreover, if it is correc, it offers an important suggestion
aso the kind of document which may have been available
10 Procopius.
In any case, whether or not the theory of the petition is
accepted, the silence of the Chironicle of Edessa on the
subject of building operations at Edessa inthe period which
elapsed between the flood of 525 and the invasion of 540
‘cannot be overridden in favour of Procopius’s testimony that
Justinian acted immediately. The actions of Justinian are far
too pertinent to the central concerns of the author to have
‘been omitted by him from the chronicle. The works described
by Procopius were not done before the latter date. The
cathedral, which is one of them, was built, according to its
inauguration anthem, under three bishops, one of whom died
shortly aftr the flood in 525, while the second reigned from
533 to about 542 and the third succeeded him. The defences,
too, may fave been rebuilt in these two stages. As forthe
diversion ofthe floodwaters away from the city, that smacks
of the genius of Chryses of Alexandria, who designed the
dam above Dara, Some of Procopius’s distortions are
pardonable, He wrongly made Justinian the first person to
have diverted the floodwaters through a man-made channel
10. Millar, The emperor in the Roman world 31 B.C. 0 A.D.
337, London, 1977.136 ANDREW PALMER,
to the north of the city, but he may have been honestly
mistaken about this. He attributed the cathedral to Just
whereas the builders are elsewhere named as three bishops
of the city; but this may be allowed by convention, But the
statement that Justinian intervened at Edessa immediately
after the city was damaged by the flood is intentionally
misleading, This conclusion seriously undermines the
An Tard, 8, 2000
credibility of the Buildings. Archaeologists should not take
this book as a guide; they are more likely'to be able to put
the record straight by making independent deductions from
the structures they unearth.
University of Southampton
‘and Central European University, Budapest