Page:Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire vol 3 (1897).djvu/526

 504 APPENDIX later writers ; Sidonius means that the Goths declared themselves ready to exchange this coast district (including towns of Narbo, Tolosa, Baeterrse, Nemausus, Luteva) for Arverni. Ba^terrae was a town of the Septimani ; hence Septimania. 24. RATE OF TRAVELLING BY SEA— (P. 359) In connexion with Gibbon's note on the length of journeys by sea in the reign of Arcadius, I have found some contemporary data in the Life of Porphyry of Gaza by the deacon Marcus. (1) From Ascalon, in Palestine, to Thessalonica : 13 days, p. 6, ed. Teubner. (2) Back from Thessalonica to Ascalon : 12 days, p. 7. (3) From Gaza to Constantinople : 20 days, p. 24. (4) Back from Constantinople to Gaza : 10 days, p. 25. (5) From Cffisarea (Falsest.) to Rhodes : 10 days in winter, p. 30. (6) From Rhodes to Constantinople : 10 days, winter, p. 33. (7) From Constantinople (starting 18th April) to Rhodes : 5 days, p. 47. It must be remembered that we are not informed about intermediate stoppages. These references may be added to those in Friedlander's Sittengeschichte, ii. 13-17. With a good Avind one could sail 11 or 12 hundred stadia in 24 hours. 25. ARJIENIAN AFFAIRS— (P. 392, 393) Gibbon wrongly places the division of the Armenian kingdom into Roman and Persian Armenia in the fifth century. This division was arranged between Theodosius the Great and the Persian King. See Saint Martin, M^moires, p. 316. Persarmenia was at least two-thirds of the whole kingdom. Arsaces, who had already reigned 5 years over all Armenia, continued after the division to rule over Roman Armenia for 2i years ; while Chosrov (a Christian) was appointed by Persia as king of Persian Armenia. On the death of Ars/ces, Theodosius committed the rule of the Roman part to a native general, who was induced to recognize the authority of Chosrov ; while Chosrov, in order to 4ecure his position in Roman Armenia, acknowledged the suzerainty of the Roman Empire. This did not please Persia, and Jezdegird, son of the Persian king, over- threw him, after he had reigned 5 j-ears. Jezdegird then gave Armenia to Chosrov's brother ; but Chosrov was subsequent!}' restored through the in- fluence of the archbishop Isaac, and reigned about a year. He was succeeded by Sapor, a royal prince of Persia, who made himself hated and attempted to proselytize the Armenians. On his father's death he returned to Persia, endeavoured to win the crown, failed, and perished. After an interval Ardeshir (Gibbon's Artasires) was appointed — the last of the Armenian kings. His deposition is described by Gibbon. The government was then placed in the hands of Persian marzbans. 26. PROCOPIAN LEGENDS- (P. 408, 478) (1) BojrrFACK and Aettus ; (2) VALEK'^^^AN and Maxiitus. In his Italy and her Invaders, vol. ii. (p. 206 sqq., ed. 2) Mr. Hodgkin has discussed and rejected the romantic story connected with the death of Valen- tinian, the elevation of Maximus and his marriage with Eudoxia. The story is told by Procopius (de B. V. i. 4) ; and, in accordance with Gibbon's criticism that "Procopius is a fabulous writer for the events which precede his own memory," Mr. Hodgkin relegates it to "the fables of Procopius ". In the English Historical Review for July, 1887 (p. 417-465), Mr. Freeman published a long criticism of the historical material for the careers of Aetius and Boniface. He held the accoimt of Procopius (B. V. i. 3) to be "legend of the sixth century and not trustworthy history of the fifth," and tried to "recover the true story as it may be put together from the annalists, the writings of St. Augustine, and other more trustworthy authorities ". In this case I^Ir. Hodgkin takes a completely different view and argues (ih., vol. i. p. 889 sqq., ed. 2) that the Procopian legend "has still a reasonable claim to be accepted as history," while admitting that in some points it has been shaken by Mr. Freeman.