sloth, till their degradation reached its deepest point in the person of their last king Sardanapalus, who passed his time in his palace unseen by any of his subjects, dressed in female apparel, surrounded by concubines, and indulging in every species of licentiousness and effeminacy. At length Arbaces, satrap of Media, was admitted into the presence of the sovereign, and was so disgusted with what he saw, that he resolved to throw off his allegiance to such a worthless monarch. Supported by Belesys, the noblest of the Chaldaean priests, Arbaces advanced at the head of a formidable army against Sardanapalus. But all of a sudden the effeminate prince threw off his luxurious habits, and appeared an undaunted warrior. Placing himself at the head of his troops, he twice defeated the rebels, but was at length worsted and obliged to shut himself up in Nineveh. Here he sustained a siege for two years, till at length, finding it impossible to hold out any longer, he collected all his treasures, wives, and concubines, and placing them on an immense pile which he had constructed, set it on fire, and thus destroyed both himself and them. The enemies then obtained possession of the city. The account of Ctesias has been given at some length in Diodorus Siculus (ii. 23-27), and his statements respecting the Assyrian monarchy were followed by most subsequent writers and chronologists. (Comp. Justin, i. 1-3; Athen. xii. pp. 529, 530.) Justin places the death of Sardanapalus in the first half of the ninth century before the Christian aera, and according to his chronology Ninus therefore falls in the twenty-second century. Clinton gives B. c. 2182 for the commencement, and B. c. 876 for the close of the Assyrian empire.

to have lasted 1306 years; but Herodotus says
(i. 95) that the Assyrians had ruled over Upper
Asia for 520 years, when the Medes revolted
from them. This statement is in accordance with
that in the Armenian translation of Eusebius, in
which it is recorded that Assyrian kings ruled over
Babylon for 526 years. Herodotus says, in the
passage already referred to, that other nations
imitated the example of the Medes, and revolted
from the Assyrians, and among these other nations
we are doubtless to understand the Babylonians.
This revolt of the Medes occurred in the latter
half of the eighth century, probably about B. c. 710.
According to Herodotus, however, an Assyrian
kingdom, of which Nineveh was the capital, still
continued to exist, and was not destroyed till the
capture of Nineveh by the Median king Cyaxares,
about B. c. 606, that is, nearly three hundred years
after the date assigned to its overthrow by Ctesias
(Herod. i. 106; Clinton, F. H. vol. i. p. 218).
Further, the writers of the Old Testament repre-
sent the Assyrian empire in its glory in the eighth
century before the Christian aera. It was during
this period that Pul, Tiglath-pileser, Shalmaneser,
and Sennacherib, appear as powerful kings of As-
syria, who, not contented with their previous
dominions, subdued Israel, Phoenicia, and the
surrounding countries. In order to reconcile these
statements with those of Ctesias, modern writers
have invented two Assyrian kingdoms at Nineveh,
one which was destroyed on the death of Sarda-
napalus, and another which was established after
that event, and fell on the capture of Nineveh by
Cyaxares. But this is a purely gratuitous assump-
tion, unsupported by any evidence. We have only
records of one Assyrian empire, and of one de-
struction of Nineveh. On this point some good
remarks are made by Loebell, Weltgeschichte, vol. i.

SA'RNACUS, a Greek architect, who wrote on the orders of architecture, praecepta symmetriarum. (Vitruv. vii. Praef. § 14.) [P.S.]

Owing to the detailed accounts in Diodorus, many modern writers have repeated his history with full confidence, though they have been not app. 152, 555-558. little puzzled to reconcile it with the conflicting SARDO (Zapd), a daughter of Sthenelus, statements of other authorities. But the whole from whom the city of Sardes was said to have narrative of Ctesias is purely mythical, and cannot derived its name. (Hygin. Fab. 275.) [L. S.] for one moment be received as a genuine history. SARDUS (Zapdos), a son of Maceris, and Ctesias, it must be recollected, is the only autho-leader of a colony from Libya to Sardinia, which rity on which the whole rests, and as he lived at was believed to have derived its name from him. the beginning of the fourth century before the (Paus. x. 17. § 1.) [L. S.] Christian aera, that is, nearly 500 years after the events which he professes to describe, his account will not appear of much value to those who are acquainted with the laws of historical evidence. The fact of thirty effeminate kings reigning in succession, from father to son, for such an immense period of time, is of itself sufficient to prove the fabulous nature of the account; and the legend of Sardanapalus, who so strangely appears at one time sunk in the lowest effeminacy, and immediately afterwards an heroic warrior, has probably arisen from his being the same with the god Sandon, who was worshipped extensively in Asia, both as an heroic and a female divinity. The identity between the god Sandon and the king Sardanapalus was first asserted by K. O. Müller, in a very ingenious essay (Sandon und Sardanapal in Rheinisches Museum for 1829, pp. 22-39, reprinted in Kleine Schriften, vol. ii. pp. 100-113), and has been supported with further arguments by Movers (Die Phönizier, p. 458, &c.).

The account of Ctesias, besides its inherent improbability, is in direct contradiction to Herodotus and the writers of the Old Testament. We have seen that Ctesias makes the Assyrian empire

SARON (Zápwv), a mythical king of Troezene, who built a sanctuary of Artemis Saronia on the sea-coast. Once while chasing a stag into the sea he was drowned, and his body, which was washed on shore in the grove of Artemis, was buried there, and the gulf between Attica and Argolis was, from this circumstance, called the Saronic Gulf. (Paus. ii. 30. § 7.) Near Troezene there was a little town called Saron (Steph. Byz. s. v.), and Troezene itself is said at one time to have been called Saronia. (Eustath. ad Hom. p. 287; comp. Schol. ad Eurip. Hipp. 1190.) [L. S.]

SARO'NIS (Zapwvis), a surname of Artemis at Troezene, where an annual festival was celebrated in honour of her under the name of Saronia. (Paus. ii. 30. § 7, 32. § 9; SARON.) [L. S.]

SARPE DON (Zaprýdwv) 1. A son of Zeus by Europa, and a brother of Minos and Rhadamanthys. Being involved in a quarrel with Minos about Miletus, he took refuge with Cilix, whom he assisted against the Lycians; and afterwards he became king of the Lycians, and Zeus

hand a stag by its horns, and in the left a spear.
The obverse of the second represents the head of
Pavor, and the reverse a biga, which one man
drives at full speed, while the other is fighting
from behind. On the obverse of the third is the
head of Venus, and on the reverse Victory. The
heads of Pallor and Pavor are introduced, because
the Hostilii claimed descent from Tullus Hostilius,
the third king of Rome, who is said to have vowed
temples to Pallor and Pavor in his battle with the
Veientes (Liv. i. 27). Hence Lactantius says
(i. 20) that this king was the first who figured
Pallor and Pavor, and introduced their worship.
(Eckhel, vol. v. p. 226.)

SASSANIDAE, the name of a dynasty which reigned in Persia from A. D. 226 to A. D. 651.

|

Sassanian dynasty. Defeated in two other battles, Artabanus surrendered to his rival, and was put to acknowledged throughout the whole extent of the death; whereupon the authority of Ardishir was Parthian, now again the Persian, empire. One of his first legislative acts was the restoration of the pure religion of Zoroaster and the worship of fire, in consequence of which the numerous Christians in Persia had to suffer many vexations, but the real persecutions against them began only at a later period. Arsacidae was exterminated, but some collateral The reigning branch of the Parthian branches were suffered to live and to enjoy the privileges of Persian grandees, who, along with the Magi, formed a sort of senate; and the Arsacidae who ruled in Bactria and Armenia remained for I. ARDISHIR or ARDSHIR, the ARTAXERXES some time in the undisturbed possession of their (Apratépens) of the Romans and Greeks, the sovereign power. Ardishir having thus succeeded founder of the dynasty of the Sassanidae, reigned in establishing his authority at home, turned his from A. D. 226-240. He was a son of one Babek, views abroad, and began with a display of overan inferior officer, who was the son of Sassan, per- bearing insolence almost unparalleled in history. haps a person of some consequence, since his royal He sent a menacing embassy to Constantinople, descendants chose to call themselves after him. demanding from the emperor Alexander Severus The Persian Zínut-al-Tuarikh makes Sassan a the immediate cession of all those portions of the descendant from Bahman, who was in his turn de- Roman empire that had belonged to Persia in the scended from one Isfendear, who lived many cen- time of Cyrus and Xerxes, that is, the whole of turies before Ardishir; but these statements cannot the Roman possessions in Asia, as well as Egypt. be regarded as historical. Some assign a very low Modesty, perhaps, prevented him from claiming origin to Ardishir, but it seems that his family was the plain of Marathon and the sea of Salamis rather above than below the middle classes. They also. This absurd demand is remarkable, in were natives of, and settled in the province of Fars, so far as it showed the national pride of the or Persia Proper, and they professed the ancient Persians, and the power of their historical refaith of Zoroaster and his priests, the Magi. These collections. An immediate war between the circumstances are of great importance in the life of two empires was the direct consequence. As Ardishir, as will be seen hereafter. Ardishir the leading events of this war are related in the served with distinction in the army of Artabanus, life of Alexander Severus [SEVERUS] we need only the king of Parthia, was rewarded with ingratitude, mention here that, notwithstanding an army comand took revenge in revolt. He obtained assistance posed, in addition to infantry, of 170,000 horsemen, from several grandees, and having met with suc- clad in armour, 700 elephants, with towers and cess, claimed the throne on the plea of being de- archers, and 1800 war-chariots, bristling with scended from the ancient kings of Persia, the scythes, the great king was unable to subdue the progeny of the great Cyrus. His lofty scheme Romans; nor could Alexander Severus do more became popular, and deserved to be so. During the than preserve his own dominions. After a severe long rule of the Arsacidae, and in consequence of contest and much bloodshed and devastation, peace their intimate connections with the West, Greek was restored, shortly after the murder of Alexcustoms, principles, arts, literature, and fashions, in ander in 237, each nation retaining the possessions short a Greek civilisation had gradually spread which they held before the breaking out of the over the Persian, or, as it was then called from war. However, the war against king Chosroes of the ruling tribe, the Parthian empire. This new Armenia, the ally of the Romans, was carried on as spirit introduced itself even into the religion, for before, till the death of Ardishir in 240. Eastern although the Arsacidae of Parthia publicly confessed and Western writers coincide in stating that Arthe creed of Zoroaster, their faith, and that of the dishir was an extraordinary man, and much could court party was mixed up with the principles of the be said of his wisdom and kingly qualities, were it Greek religion and philosophy. The people, how-consistent with the plan of this work to give more ever, were still firm adherents of the faith, the laws, and the customs of their forefathers, and the new spirit which came from the West was looked upon by them with the same dislike and hatred as, in modern times, European civilisation is detested and despised by the modern Orientals. Ardishir appealed to the sympathy of the people, and he gained his great object. It seems that he spent many years in warlike efforts against Artabanus, till at last his progress became so alarming that the king took the field against him with all his forces. In A. D. 226 Artabanus was defeated, in a decisive battle, in the plain of Hormuz, not far from the Persian Gulf; and Ardishir thereupon assumed the pompous, but national title of Shahinshah, or "King of Kings." That year is consequently considered as the beginning of the new

than condensed sketches of the lives of the Persian kings. His reign, however, offers so many subjects for reflection, and is so startling an event in the history of Roman and Greek influence in the East, as to deserve the particular attention of the student, who must henceforth be prepared to witness the decline of that refined and beautiful spirit whose progress beyond the Euphrates he has followed with delight ever since the conquest of Alexander the Great. To sum up the leading facts of this decline, the writer quotes the observations which he has made in another work. (Biograph. Diction. of the U. K. S. s. v. Arsaces, xxviii.)

"The accession of Artaxerxes forms a new aera in the history of Persia. During the long reign of the Arsacidae the influence of Greek civilisation which was introduced by Alexander and his suc

13. Yezdijird I. Ulathim (the Sinner), or Yezdigerd, son or brother of Bahram IV., A. D. 404–420.

14. Bahram or Varanes V., surnamed Gour, or the Wild Ass, A. D, 420-448.

21. Khosrew or Chosroes I., surnamed Nushírwán, A. d. 531—579.

22. Hormúz or Hormisdas IV., a. D. 579–590, murdered.

23. Bahram or Varanes VI., a prince of royal blood, usurps the throne, A. D. 590—59..

24. Khosrew or Chosroes II., Purwíz, son of Hormúz IV., A. D. 591–628.

30. Kesra, said to be a Sassanid, put to death.

31. Ferokhzád, said to be a son of Chosroes Purwíz, put to death.

32. Yezdijird or Yesdegerd, murdered A. D. 651, last of the dynasty, but neither he nor Nos. 29.

and 30. were Sassanidae in the male line.

in Cappadocia through the treachery of a physician, and after a long and gallant resistance from its commander, the brave Demosthenes, who succeeded in cutting his way through the enemy. But Shapur did not keep his conquests long. A hero and a heroine, Odenathus and Zenobia, arose in the very desert, drove the king back beyond the Euphrates, and founded a new empire, over which they ruled at Palmyra. Rome was thus saved; and the last portance for Roman history. An event, however, took place in Persia at this period which must not be passed over in silence here. We allude to the new doctrine of the celebrated Mani, who, endeavouring to amalgamate the Christian and Zoroastrian religions, gave rise to the famous sect of the Manichaeans, who spread over the whole East, exposing themselves to most sanguinary persecutions from both Christians and fire-worshippers. Shapur I. died in 273.

cessors, became conspicuous among the Parthians and those kindred nations which they had subdued, and at the court as well as among the nobles, the Greek language seems to have been cultivated with success, and became, in some degree, the official language of the country. The fact of so many Parthian princes and nobles having been educated, or having lived for a long time among the Greeks and at Rome, where Greek was cultivated by all educated men, likewise contributed to the intro-years of the reign of Shapur offer nothing of imduction of Greek civilisation in Parthia during the reign of the Arsacidae. The Parthian coins of the Arsacidae have all Greek inscriptions with nailed letters, and the design is evidently after Greek models. With the accession of the first Sassanid the Greek influence was stopped; the new dynasty was in every respect a national dynasty. The Sassanian coins are a proof of this great change: the Greek inscriptions disappear and give place to Persian inscriptions in Arianian characters, as Wilson calls them; the design also becomes gradually more barbarous, and the costume of the kings is different from that on the coins of the Arsacidae. The change of the alphabet, however, which was used for the inscription, was not sudden. Some coins which have portraits of a Sassanian character have names and titles in Nagari letters; some have bilingual inscriptions. Great numbers of Sassanian coins of different periods, though very few only of the earliest period, have been, and are still found, at Kabul and at other places in Afghanistan."

2. SHAPUR or Sapor I. (Σañúpns or Za6wpns), the son and successor of Ardishir I., reigned from A. D. 240-273. Soon after his succession a war broke out with the Romans, which was occasioned by the hostile conduct of Shapur against Armenia. The Romans, commanded by the emperor Gordian, were at first successful, but afterwards suffered some defeats, and the murder of Gordian, in 244, put a check to their further progress. On the other hand the Persians were unable to subdue Armenia, which was nobly defended by king Chosroes, who, however, was assassinated after a resistance of nearly thirty years. Shapur had contrived this murder. His son, Tiridates, being an infant, the Armenians implored the assistance of the emperor Valerian; but before the Romans appeared in the field, Armenia was subdued, and Shapur conquered Mesopotamia (258). Upon this Valerian put himself at the head of his army. He met Sapor near Edessa, on the Euphrates, and a pitched battle was fought, in which, owing to the perfidy or incapacity of the Roman minister Macrianus, the Persians carried the day. Valerian sought refuge within his fortified camp, but was finally obliged to surrender with his army, Shapur having refused to accept the enormous ransom offered to him (260). The conduct of Shapur against Valerian, who died in captivity, is not to be discussed here; but his political conduct offers a bold stroke of policy. He caused one Cyriades, a miserable fugitive of Antioch, to be proclaimed Roman emperor, and acknowledged him as such, for the purpose, as it seems, of having a proper person to sign a treaty of peace, through which he hoped to gain legal possession of the provinces beyond the Taurus. He consequently pushed on to obtain possession of them, destroyed Antioch, conquered Syria, and having made himself master of the passos in the Taurus, laid Tarsus in ashes, and took Caesareia

3. HORMUZ or HORMISDAS I. ('Opuiodas or 'Opuíodns), the son of the preceding, an excellent man, reigned only one year, and died in a. D. 274.

4. BAHRAM or BAHARAM, VARANES or VARARANES I. (Ovapávns or Oúpapávns), the son of Hormuz I., reigned from A. D. 274-277. He carried on unprofitable wars against Zenobia, and, after her captivity, was involved in a contest with the victorious emperor Aurelian, which, however, was not attended with any serious results on account of the sudden death of Aurelian in 275. Under him the celebrated Mani (who, be it said here, was also a distinguished painter) was put to death, and both Manichaeans and Christians were cruelly persecuted. He was succeeded by his son

5. BAHRAM or VARANES II., who reigned A. D. 277-294. Bahram was engaged in a war with his turbulent neighbours in the north-east, towards the sources of the Indus, when he was called to the west by a formidable invasion of the emperor Carus. It was near the river Euphrates that the old hero received a Persian embassy, to whom he gave audience whilst sitting on the turf and dressed in the garb of a common soldier. His language, however, soon convinced the luxurious Orientals that this mean-looking person, who was making his dinner upon some pease and a piece of bacon, was a monarch of no less power than their own Shahinshah. He told them that if the king did not recognise the superiority of the Roman empire, he would make Persia as naked of trees as his own head was destitute of hair; and the Persians being little inclined to make peace on such conditions, he began in earnest to show the goodness of his word. Seleucia and Ctesiphon both yielded to him, and Bahram being compelled to keep most of his troops on the Indian frontier was only saved by the sudden death of Carus (283). The sons and successors of Carus, Carinus and Numerianus, retreated in consternation, and Diocletian, who soon wrested the power from them, was too busily engaged in the north to follow up the success of Carus. Bahram II. died in 294.

6. BAHRAM or VARANES III., the elder son and successor of the preceding, died after a reign of eight months only, A. D. 294, and was succeeded by his younger brother.

7. NARSI or NARSES (Nápons), who reigned from A. D. 294-303. He carried on a formidable war against the emperor Diocletian, which arose out of the state of Armenian affairs. As early as