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 invited128 ‘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), iAn 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 quoted132 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. ProbablyAn 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