physites. Heraclius' victory over the Persian Empire had again turned the scale in favour of the orthodox. The Monophysites were deprived both of the churches they had acquired and of their own. Bitter feelings prevailed. The Monothelite compromise put forward by the Emperor did not heal the breach. Probably hoping to conciliate Sophronius, the Emperor appointed him Patriarch of Jerusalem. But Sophronius refused to be bought, and continued to oppose the Monothelite doctrine. Again the Emperor was driven to persecution in order to carry out his scheme of a reunited Church. The statement of Abu l-Faraj (Bar Hebræus) gives the judgement of a Monophysite of much later date, but probably reflects something of the feelings which prevailed at the time. "When our people complained to Heraclius", he says, "he gave no answer. Therefore the God of vengeance delivered us out of the hands of Romans by means of the Arabs. Then although our churches were not restored to us since under Arab rule each Christian community retained its actual possessions, still it profited us not a little to be saved from the cruelty of the Romans and their bitter hatred towards us." ¹ Add to this that a large number of the Monophysites of Syria and the neighbouring territory were Arabs by race, and we will not expect their opposition to the Arab advance to have been very whole-hearted.

That it was sometimes less than half-hearted, there are many indications. Butler defends the

Copts of Egypt from the charge of having actively aided the Arab invaders in that country, and lays the blame of the surrender largely upon Cyrus the Patriarch, whom he identifies with the Muqauqas of Moslem tradition. But he does so by pointing out that they had been reduced by Cyrus's persecution to a condition in which they were incapable of independent action and could only watch events with a gloomy apathy. Something of the same feelings must have prevailed in Syria. The impression one derives from the accounts of the conquests of the various towns (given, for instance, by Baladhuri) is that the resistance of the general population was not very great. Emesa (Rims), for instance, seems to have capitulated practically without a struggle. This indeed was after resistance had been discouraged by the failure of Heraclius and the success of the Moslems in the field, but before the great battle of the Yarmuk had finally decided the fate of Syria. Damascus also fell early in the struggle. Accounts differ as to what actually happened, but they mostly agree that a Christian bishop (or perhaps the abbot of a monastery) played a part in it. The most circumstantial and probable story is as follows:¹ After the battle of Marj as-Suffar, the suburbs of Damascus were taken by storm. The people retired within the walls and the city itself was invested. Khalid b. al-Walid, the commander-in-chief (or at any rate one of the commanders, for there is some doubt as to his actual position at this time) of the Moslem army took up his residence in a