chpater three

EDESSA AND CONSTANTINOPLE

Two interesting stories about the Image of Edessa are told by Theophy- lact Simocatta, who wrote in the early seventh century about what had happened during the twenty-year reign of the emperor Maurice (582– 602). Not much is known about the historian’s life, although the name Simocatta probably means “snub-nosed cat” and could be taken as a reference to his physical appearance.1 In Book ii.3.4–6, Theophylact recounts the Battle of Solachon, which took place in 586. Just when the Persian army came into view, the Roman commander Philippicus displayed the image of God incarnate, which was not made by human hands or painted. He “stripped it of its sacred coverings and paraded it through the ranks, thereby inspiring the army with a greater and irresistible courage”.2 Shortly before Easter in 588, as told by Theophylact in book iii.1.10– 12 of his history, Priscus was appointed commander in the east, replac- ing Philippicus. He did not respect any of the usual traditions that the army were used to, and as a result a mass of soldiers gathered round his tent, willing to express their discontent with swords and stones. Priscus enquired as to the cause of the commotion, and in answer was told, “the unity of the whole array has been overthrown, the camp is leaderless”.3 The general had no idea what to do, and tried to calm the soldiers down by having the image of God inacarnate, the )ειρ π ιτ ς Image of Edessa carried among them. The plan did not produce the desired effect however, and the soldiers even threw stones at the Image. The image that Philippicus paraded before his soldiers is not specifi- cally referred to as the Image of Edessa (Whitby suggests it could either be the Edessa icon or the Camouliana one), although it is named as

1 Cf. Michael Whitby, The History of Theophylact Simocatta (Oxford 1986), xiii. 2 Michael Whitby, The History of Theophylact Simocatta (Oxford 1986), 46. For the critical edition of the text cf. C. de Boor, Theophylacti Simocatta Historiae (Leipzig 1887). 3 Michael Whitby, The History of Theophylact Simocatta (Oxford 1986), 73. 178 edessa and constantinople

)ειρ π ητ ς when Priscus tried the same method under different circumstances, and furthermore, the setting of the story is near Edessa, making it highly unlikely that the image in question was not the Image of Edessa. The language used to describe the image in each case is virtually identical, and it is stretching the imagination to think that Theophylact was in fact referring to two different objects. After the Muslim conquest of Edessa, the Image of Edessa was unique in that it was the only significant icon that had not been taken to Constantinople, and in fact was now in a small provincial city that was outside the Byzantine Empire. Its fame grew beyond all expectations when the Iconoclastic crisis broke out with the decree of Leo the Isaurian during the period of 726 to 730. It was John of Damascus (John Damascene) who took up the challenge to defend the cause of icons, and used one of the best examples, the Image of Edessa, to do so. If this image had been made by Jesus himself, then how could there be any objections to icons? Apart from by John himself, the Image was used in later argu- ments in favour of icons. Nicephorus the Patriarch4 tells the story, and Theodore Studites used the legend to show that Christ wished his own features to be recorded: ZΙνα δG ,μν ριδλως κα% 8 #ε ς πιστε2 ιτ )αρακτρ, α4τ ς 8 τ +τ ν Dπ δbς σωτ1ρ ,μν τ1ν τ + κε υ πρ σEπ υ μ ρ!1ν τ2πωσ τε κα% πεικ"νισεν ν )ρ τ + a6κ υς _ψ6μεν ς κα% τ Α4γ6ρω ατσαντι, ν1ρ δG iτ ς πιστ ς κα% κατ’ QΕδεσσαν πρτ ς, κππ μ!εν. In order to make our faith in the divine form clearer, our Saviour put it on and by touching the surface of a cloth imprinted an image of his form onto it. He then sent it to Abgar, who had asked for it—Abgar was a believer, the first among the citizens of Edessa. Before 787, in the documents about the Second Nicene Council, a certain Leo Anagnostes saw the image in the city of Edessa:5 Λων 8 … ναγνEστης τ&ς μεγ6λης κκλησας τ&ς ασιλδ ς Κ νσταντι- ν υπ"λεως εHπεR Κγe 8 ν6.ι ς Dμν δ +λ ς ,νκα κατην ες Συραν μετ= τν ασιλικν π κρισαρων γεν"μην ν /ΕδσσTη κα% τ1ν $ερ=ν τ1ν )ειρ π ητ ν εκ"να τε#αμαι Dπ πιστν τιμωμνην τε κα% πρ σκυν μ- νην.

4 Antirrhetica, Migne, Patrologia Graeca 100: 461. 5 Cf. Mansi 13, 192 C, text quoted in Ilaria Ramelli, ‘Dal Mandilion di Edessa a la sindone’, Ilu. Revista de Ciencias de las Religiones (1999), 177–178.