Page:Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology (1870) - Volume 3.djvu/729

Rh SASSANIDAE. 286, in the reign of Bahram II., Diocletian had put Tiridates, the fugitive son of King Chosroes, of Armenia, on the throne of his forefathers, and kept him there by his assistance, although not without an obstinate resistance on the part of the Persians. Narses succeeded in expelling Tiridates, and re-united his kingdom with Persia. This led to an immediate war with Diocletian, who took proper measures to put a final check on Persian ambition in that quarter. Galerius Caesar com- manded the Roman army. In the first campaign in 296, he sustained most signal defeats in Meso- potamia, and fied in disgrace to Antioch. In the second campaign Narses was the loser, and among the trophies of Galerius was the harem of the Persian king, a triumph which the Western arms had perhaps not obtained over the Persians since the victory of Alexander over Darius at Issus. In his conduct to his female captives. Galerius acted as nobly as Alexander. At Nisibis Diocle- tian and Galerius received Apharban, the ambas- sador of Narses, who sued for peace with a dignity becoming the representative of a great, though vanquished monarch, and the Romans sent Sicorius Probus to the camp of Narses with power to con- clude a final peace, of which they dictated the conditions. Probus was not immediately admitted to the presence of Narses, who obliged the ambas- sador to follow him on various excursions, and caused a considerable delay to the negotiations for the evident purpose of collecting his dispersed forces, and either avoiding the peace altogether, or obtaining more favourable conditions. At last, how- ever, that famous treaty was made in which Narses ceded to Diocletian Mesopotamia (the northern and north-western portions as far down as Cir- cesium at the junction of the Chaboras and Eu- phrates), five small provinces beyond the Tigris on the Persian side, the kingdom of Armenia, and some adjacent Median districts, over which Tiridates was re-established as king, and lastly, the supre- macy over Iberia, the kings of which were hence- forth under the protection of Rome. Narses, dis abled from thinking of further conquests west of the Tigris, seems to have occupied himself during the last year of his reign with domestic affairs, and in 303 he abdicated in favour of his son. It is a strange coincidence of circumstances that both Narses and Diocletian, the vanquished and the victor, were, through quite opposite causes, filled with dis- gust at absolute power, and retreated into private life. Narses, who, notwithstanding his defeats and the inglorious peace of 297, was a man of no common means and character, died soon after his abdication in the same j'^ear, 303. 8. HoRMUz or HoRMiSDAS IT., the son of Narses, reigned from a. d. 303 — 310. During his reign nothing of importance happened regarding Rome. His successor was his son 9. Shapur or Sapor II. Postumur, who reigned from a. D. 310 — 381, and was crowned in his mother's womb. His father dying without issue, but leaving his queen pregnant, the princes of the collateral branches of the royal house were elated with hopes of the succession. The Magi, however, discovered by means only known to them, that the queen was pregnant with a male child, and they prevailed upon the grandees to acknowledge the unborn child as their lawful sovereign, and the diadem destined to adorn the future king was placed with great solemnity upon the body of his SASSANIDAE. 717 mother. Tliis is a strange story, yet we cannot but admit it as an historical fact. Agathias, the only Western historian who mentions it (iv. p. 135, ed. Paris), took it from Eastern sources ; and those Persian historians who are known to us, relate the story with all its details (see Malcolm, quoted below). Zosimus (ii. p. 100, &c. ed. Oxon, 1679) does not mention the coronation of an unborn child, but only of a younger son of Hormuz, the elder, wlio bore his father's name Hormuz, or Hor- misdas, having been excluded from the succession. Now this Hormuz is again a well-known historical person, but we must presume that he was a prince of royal blood, and not the elder brother of the infant Shapur. Hormisdas was one of the causes of the great struggle that took place afterwards between Sapor and the emperor Constantius, and the matter came to pass in the following way. Zosimus is here a valuable source, and he is corro- borated by the Persian historians. Once, long before the birth of Sapor, and during the reign of Kormisdas II., Prince Hormisdas, then heir-ap- parent as it seems, spoke of some grandees in a very contemptuous manner, menacing them with the fate of Marsyas when he should be their king. Unacquainted Avith Greek mythology, the nobles inquired who Marsyas was, and were greatly alarmed when they heard that they might expect to be flayed alive, a punishment which was some- times inflicted in the administration of the criminal law in Persia. This explains the election of an unborn baby, and also the fate of Prince Hor- misdas, who was thrown into a dungeon as soon as King Hormisdas was dead. After a captivity of many years, he gained his liberty through a stratagem of his wife, who sent him a fish in which she had hidden a file, the most welcome present to any prisoner who finds nothing between himself and liberty but a couple of iron bars. Hormisdas accordingly escaped and fled to the court of the emperor Constans, whither young Sapor generously sent his wife after him. Con- stans received him well, and he afterwards appears as an important person on the stage of events. (Suidas, s. v. Mapavas, relates the same story, and speaks of it as a well-known fact : tj lurTopia St^At/.) The minority of Sapor passed without any remark- able event regarding Rome. We must presume that the Persian aristocracy employed their time well in augmenting their power during that mi- nority. In this time also falls the pretended con- quest of Ctesiphon by Thair, an Arabic or Himy- aritic king of Yemen; and the minister of Sapor issued cruel edicts against the Christians, who, tired of the state of oppression in which they lived, sought for an amelioration of their condition by addressing themselves to Constantius. For this step they were punished by Sapor, who, however, contented himself with imposing a heavy tax upon them. Symeon, bishop of Seleucia, complained of this additional burthen in so haughty and ofi^ensive a manner as to arouse the king's anger, and orders were accordingly given to shut up the Christian churches, confiscate the ecclesiastical property, and put the priest to death. Some years afterwards, in 344, the choice was left to the Christians be- tween fire worship and death, and during fifty years the cross lay prostrate in blood and ashes till it was once more erected by the Nestorians. After the death of King Tiridates and the conquest of his kingdom by Sapor in 342, the same cruelties