« 前へ次へ »
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 introduction 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 SAPort I. (Xaraopms or Xaśćpms), 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 Walerian; 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 passes in the Taurus, laid Tarsus in ashes, and took Caesareia
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 years of the reign of Shapur offer nothing of importance 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. 3. HoRMUz or HoRMisDAs I. ("Opuso?as or ‘Opuso?ms), the son of the preceding, an excellent man, reigned only one year, and died in A. D. 274. 4. BAHRAM or BAHARAM, VARANEs or WARARANEs I. (OJapávns or Oupapávns), 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 good: ness 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. NARs or NARSEs (Nápons), who reigned from A. d. 29.4—303. He carried on a formidable war against the emperor Diocletian, which arose out of the state of Armenian affairs. As early as
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 commanded the Roman army. In the first campaign in 296, he sustained most signal defeats in Mesopotamia, and fled 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 Diocletian and Galerius received Apharban, the ambassador 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 conclude a final peace, of which they dictated the conditions. Probus was not immediately admitted to the presence of Narses, who obliged the ambassador 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, however, that famous treaty was made in which Narses ceded to Diocletian Mesopotamia (the northern and north-western portions as far down as Circesium at the junction of the Chaboras and Euphrates), 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 supremacy over Iberia, the kings of which were henceforth under the protection of Rome. Narses, disabled 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 thatboth Narses and Diocletian, the vanquished and the victor, were, through quite opposite causes, filled with disgust 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 year, 303. 8. HoRMUz or HoRMisdas II., the son of Narses, reigned from A. D. 303—310. During his eign nothing of importance happened regarding Rome. His successor was his son 9. Shapur or SAPort II. Postumus, 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
mother. This 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, who bore his father's name Hormuz, or Hormisdas, 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 corroborated by the Persian historians. Once, long before the birth of Sapor, and during the reign of
Hormisdas II., Prince Hormisdas, then heir-apparent 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 with 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 sometimes inflicted in the administration of the criminal law in Persia. This explains the election of an unborn baby, and also the fate of Prince Hormisdas, 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. Constans received him well, and he afterwards appears as an important person on the stage of events. (Suidas, s. v. Mapaisas, relates the same story, and speaks of it as a well-known fact: jiaotopla &#Am.) The minority of Sapor passed without any remarkable event regarding Rome. We must presume that the Persian aristocracy employed their time well in augmenting their power during that minority. In this time also falls the pretended conquest of Ctesiphon by Thair, an Arabic or Himyaritic 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 offensive 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 between 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
were perpetrated against the Christians in that country also ; and the hostility which had existed between Rome and Persia ever since the death of Constantine, was now changed into a war of extermination. An account of these wars has been given in the lives of the emperors Constantius II. and his successors. We shall therefore only mention a few additional facts. Prince Hormisdas mentioned above was in the Roman army, and fought valiantly against his countrymen, whence we may conclude that, had Constantius reaped laurels instead of thistles in this war, he would have put the fugitive prince on the throne of Persia. Sapor, although victorious in the open field, could do nothing against the strong bulwarks of Nisibis and other fortresses, and consequently derived no advantages from his victories. The conquest of Armenia was his only trophy; in his bloody zeal against the Christians in that country, he went so far as to order all Armenian and Greek books to be burnt, but even the barbarous murder of his (only P) son, who had accidentally been made a prisoner by the Romans, and was put to death by order of Constantius, could not justify the still more savage conduct of Sapor against so many innocent and defenceless Christians. In 358, Constantius sued for peace, but was startled when the Persian ambassador, Narses, delivered in Constantinople the conditions of Sapor, who demanded only Mesopotamia, Armenia, and the five provinces beyond the Tigris, although as the legitimate successor of Cyrus, he said that he had a right to all Asia and Europe as far as the river Strymon in Macedonia. Constantius endeavoured to obtain better terms; but the negotiations of his ambassadors in Persia were frustrated through intrigue and perfidy; and the war was continued as before, and with the same disadvantage to the Romans. In 359, Sapor took Amida by storm, and Singara, Berabde, and other places yielded to him in the following year. The death of Constantius and the accession of Julian made no change. The fate of Julian is known. He might have avoided it by accepting the proposals of peace which Sapor made him immediately after his accession, but he nobly rejected them, and caused his ruin although he did not deserve it. Jovian, to secure his own accession, made that famous treaty with Sapor for which he has been blamed so much, and ceded to him the five provinces beyond the Tigris, and the fortresses of Nisibis, Singara, &c. Iberia and Armenia were left to their fate; and were completely reduced by Sapor in 365, and the following year. A war with the Caucasian nations, occasioned through the subjugation of Armenia, and another with the Arsacidae in distant Bactria, which might have had its cause in the same circumstance, filled the latter years of the reign of Sapor, who died in 381. Sapor has been surnamed the Great, and no Persian king had ever caused such terror to Rome as this monarch. 10. ARDISHIR or ARTAxERxes II., the successor of Sapor the Great, reigned from A. p. 381 –385. He was a prince of royal blood, but his descent is doubtful, and he was decidedly no son of Sapor. The peace of 363 being strictly kept by the Romans, he had no pretext for making war upon them, if he felt inclined to do so, and we pass on to 11. Shapur or SAPort III., who reigned from A. D. 385–390. According to Agathias (iv. p. 136, ed. Paris) he was the son of Sapor the
Great; but according to the Persian historians, who, in matters of genealogy, deserve full credit, he was the son of one Shapur Zulaktaf, a royal prince. Shapur was anxious to be on good terms with the emperor Theodosius the Great, and sent a solemn embassy with splendid presents to him at Constantinople, which was returned by a Greek embassy headed by Stilicho going to Persia. Owing to these diplomatic transactions, an arrangement was made in 384, according to which Armenia and Iberia recovered their independence. 12. BAHRAM or VARANEs IV., reigned from A. D. 390–404, or perhaps not so long. He was the brother of Sapor III., and founded Kermanshah, still a flourishing town. This is recorded in an inscription on a monument near Kermanshah, which has been copied by European travellers, and translated by Silvestre de Sacy. 13, YEzdijird, or JEspigerd I. ("Ia8ryépôms), surnamed ULATHIM, or the Sn NER, the son or brother of the preceding, reigned from A. D. 404, or earlier, to 420 or 421. He is commonly called Yesdigerd. He stood on friendly terms with the emperor Arcadius, who, it is said, appointed him the guardian of his infant son and successor, Theodosius the Younger. We refer to the life of Arcadius for more information respecting this strange story. Yesdigerd is described by the Eastern writers as a cruel and extravagant man, whose death was hailed by his subjects as a bless. ing, but the Western writers speak of him as a model of wisdom and moderation. If the latter are right, they had perhaps in view the peace of a hundred years, which, through the instrumentality of the empress Pulcheria, Arcadius is said to have concluded with him. But if we admit the correctness of the former opinion, we are at a loss to explain it, unless we presume that the Persian fireworshippers cast disgrace upon the name of their sovereign because he showed himself cruel against the Christians, and this we can hardly admit. It is more probable that he was represented as a tyrant, in consequence of having dealt severely with the powerful aristocratic party. As to the Christians, he was for several years their decided friend, till Abdas, bishop of Susa, wantonly destroyed a firetemple, and haughtily refused to rebuild it when the king ordered him to do so. His punishment was death, and one or two (Sozom. ix. 4) persecutions ensued against the Christians. 14. BAHRAM or VARANEs W., surnamed Gour, or the “Wild Ass,” on account of his passion for the chase of that animal, reigned from A. D. 420 or 421 till 440. He was the eldest son of Yesdigerd I., and inherited from him the hatred of the aristocracy, who tried, but in vain, to fix the diadem on the head of Chosroes or Khosrew, a royal prince. In their civil contest Bahram was victorious. The persecutions against the Christians were continued by him to such an extent, that thousands of his subjects took refuge within the Roman dominions. He showed the same intolerant and fanatical spirit towards the Arsacid Ardishir or Artaxerxes, whom he had put on the throne of Armenia, and whom he endeavoured to convert by compulsion. Seeing his dominions depopulated by a constant tide of emigration, he claimed his fugitive subjects back from Constantinople, a demand which Theodosius nobly declined to comply with. The consequence was a war, which broke out in 421, or at least shortly after
the accession of Bahram. In the province of Arzarene the Persian army under Narses was completely routed, and the courier (Palladius) brought the joyful tidings in three (?) days from the Tigris to the Bosporus. The Greeks, however, failed in the siege of Nisibis, and the Persians in their turn were driven back from the walls of Amida, whose bishop, Acacius, set a generous example to the patriotism of its inhabitants. The chief source for the history of this war is an ecclesiastical writer, Socrates, whence we naturally find it mixed up with a great number of wonders and marvellous tales, so that we at once proceed to its termination, by the famous peace of one hundred years, which lasted till the twelfth year of thereign of the emperor Anastasius. This peace was negotiated by Maximinus and Procopius on the part of the Greeks, and Bahram bound himself to molest the Christians no further, but his promise was not strictly kept by his successors. During his reign Armenia was divided between the Romans and the Persians, whose portion received the name of Persarmenia. The latter years of the reign of this king were occupied by great wars against the Huns, Turks, and Indians, in which Bahram is said to have achieved those valorous deeds for which he has ever since continued to be a favourite hero in Persian poetry. The Eastern writers relate several stories of him, some of which are contained in Malcolm's work quoted below, to whom we refer the student, for they are well worth reading. - Bahram was accidentally drowned in a deep well together with his horse, and neither man nor beast ever rose again from the fathomless pit. This is historical, and the well was visited by Sir John Malcolm, and proved fatal to a soldier of his retinue.
15, YEzpulad II., the son of the preceding, reigned from A. D. 448 till 458. He was surnamed “SIPAHDosT,” or “The Soldier's Friend.” The persecutions against the Christians were renewed by him with unheard of cruelty, especially in Persarmenia, where 700 Magi discharged the duties of missionaries with sword in hand. The Armenians nevertheless resisted bravely, and Christianity, though persecuted, was never rooted out. His relations with Rome were peaceful.
16. HoRMuz, or Hormisdas III., and 17. FrRoes, or PERoses(IIepáčns, IIepéans, or IIeportris), sons of the preceding, claimed the succession, and rosein arms against each other. Peroses gained the throne by the assistance of the White Huns, against whom he turned his sword in after years. He perished in a great battle with them in 484, or as late as 488, together with all of his sons except Kobad, or, perhaps, only some of them. Peroses was accompanied on this expedition by an ambassador of the emperor Zeno. (Procop. Bell. Pers. i. 3–6.)
18. PALAsh or PALLAs (IIáAAas), who reigned from A. D. 484 till 488, was, according to the Fastern writers, a son of Peroses, and had to contest the throne with Cobades, who was a son of Peroses, according to both Eastern and Western sources. Terrible internal revolutions took place during his short reign. The Christians were no longer persecuted because they were not fire-worshippers. However, the Nestorians only were protected, and the other Christians were compelled to become Nestorians if they would live in peace. Pallas perished in a battle with his brother Cobades in 488.
19. Koban, or ConADRs (Kočáðns), reigned from A. D. 488 to 498, and again from 501 or 502 till 531. The years from 498 till 502 were filled up by the short reign of, 20. JAMAspes or ZAMEs. According to the Eastern authorities, he was the brother of Cobades, whom he dethroned, and compelled to fly to the Huns, with whose assistance Cobades recovered his throne about 502. Cobades divided his kingdom in four great divisions: an eastern, a western, a northern, and a southern, and made many wise regulations. Under him rose the religio-political sect of the Mazdakites, so named from Mazdar, their founder, and whom we may compare to the modern Communists, or Socialists. Their principles were democratical, and their rise may be considered as a re-action against the overwhelming influence of the aristocracy. Cobades was for some time an adherent of Mazdak, but he afterwards turned against him, in order to gain the aristocratical party. The Mazdakites accordingly rose in arms, and offered the diadem to Phtasurus, a son of Cobades, but the king seized their leaders by a stratagem, and great numbers of the sectarians were massacred. Procopius (Bell. Pers. i. 11) says, that Cobades entreated the emperor Justin to adopt his son Khosrew or Chosroes, afterwards Nushirwan, in order thus to secure the succession to him through the assistance of the Romans. But this smacks very much of the tale of Arcadius having appointed king Yesdigerd the guardian of his son Theodosius. The same author relates that Cobades had four sons, Cuases, Zames, Chosroes, and Phtasurus, whence it would seem as if the above Jamaspes or Zames had rebelled against his father, and not against his brother. But as Cobades reigned forty-three years, it seems incredible that he should have had an adult son at the beginning of his reign, and this is an additional reason to put greater confidence in the Eastern writers in matters of genealogy. We now proceed to the great war between Cobades and the emperor Anastasius. It appears that according to the terms of the peace of one hundred years concluded between Theodosius the Younger and Bahram W., the Romans were obliged to pay annually a certain sum of money to the Persian king, and Cobades having sent in his request for the purpose, was answered by Anastasius, that he would lend him money, but would not pay any. Cobades declared war, and his arms were victorious. The Roman generals Hypacius and Patricius Phrygius were defeated, the fortified towns in Mesopotamia were conquered by the Persians, and even the great fortress of Amida was carried by storm, its inhabitants becoming the victims to the fury of the besiegers. Arabic and Hunnic hordes served under the Persian banner. The Huns, however, turned against Cobades, and made so powerful a diversion in the North, that he listened to the proposals of Anastasius, to whom he granted peace in 505, on receiving 11,000 pounds of gold as an indemnity. He also restored Mesopotamia and his other conquests to the Romans, being unable to maintain his authority there on account of the protracted war with the Huns. About this time the Romans constructed the fortress of Dara, the strongest bulwark against Persia, and situated in the very face of Ctesiphon, on the spot where the traveller descends from the mountainous portion of Mesopotamia into the plains of the South. Cobades, in
his turn, seized upon the great defiles of the Caucasus and fortified them, although less as a precaution against the Romans than the Huns and other northern barbarians. These are the celebrated Iberian and Albanian gates, the latter of which are now called Demir Kapu, “the Iron Gates,” or the gates of Derbend. The war with Constantinople was renewed in 521, in the reign of the emperor Justin I., and success was rather on the side of the Persians, till Narses and his brothers, all of whom were among the most distinguished generals of Cobades, deserted their master for political motives which it is not the place here to discuss, and joined the army of Justin. The great Belisarius appears in these wars as a skilful and successful general. Cobades left several sons, but bequeathed his empire to his favourite son ChosItoes. 21. Khosru, or Khosr Ew I., called ChosRoes I. (Xoopóms) by the Greeks, surnamed ANushirwan (Nushirwan), or “the generous mind,” one of the greatest monarchs of Persia, reigned from A. D. 531 till 579. He inherited the war against the Greeks. We have spoken above of the strange story that Khosrew was to be adopted by Justin. He was already on his way to Constantinople, when he was informed that the quaestor Proclus had raised objections of so grave a nature against the adoption that the ceremony could not take place. Khosrew consequently returned, and it is said that he felt the insult so deeply as to seek revenge in carrying destruction over the Roman empire. The first war was finished in 532 or 533, Justinian having purchased peace by an annual tribute of 440,000 pieces of gold. One of the conditions of Khosrew was, that seven Greek, but Pagan, sages or philosophers who had stayed some time at the Persian court, should be allowed to live in the Roman empire without being subject to the imperial laws against Pagans. This reflects great credit upon the king. The conquests of Belisarius excited the jealousy of Khosrew, and although he received a considerable portion of the treasures which the Greek found at Carthage, he thought it prudent to draw the Greek arms into a field where laurels were not so easily gained as in Africa. To this effect he roused the Arab Almondar, king of Hira, to make an inroad into the empire, and as he supported him, hostilities soon broke out between Constantinople and Ctesiphon also. The details of this war, which lasted from 540 to 561, have been given in the life of Justinian I. The emperor promised an annual tribute of 40,000 pieces of gold, and received the cession of the Persian claims upon Colchis and Lazica. The third war arose out of the conquest of Yemen and other parts of Arabia, from which country the Persians drove out an Abyssinian usurper, and placed a king of the ancient royal family on the Homeritic throne, who remained consequently a vassal of Khosrew. The power of the Persian king was already sufficiently great to inspire fear to the emperor Justin II., and as the conquest of Arabia afforded Khosrew an opportunity of continually annoying Syria and Mesopotamia by means of the roving tribes on the northern borders of Arabia, the emperor resolved upon war. Turks of Central Asia, and Abyssinians from the sources of the Nile, were his allies. At the same time (569) the Persarmenians drove their Persian governors
out, and put themselves under the authority of the emperor, so that Khosrew also had a fair pretext for war. This war, of which Khosrew did not see the end, broke out in 571, and as its details are given in the lives of the emperors Justin II., Tiberius II., Mauritius, and of Justinian, the second son of Germanus, we shall not dwell further upon these topics. We must consider Khosrew as one of the greatest kings of Persia. In his protracted wars with the Romans he disputed the field with the conquerors of Africa and Italy, and with those very generals, Tiberius and Mauritius, who brought Persia to the brink of ruin but a few years after his death. His empire extended from the Indus to the Red Sea, and large tracts in Central Asia, perhaps a portion of eastern Europe, recognised him for a time as their sovereign. He received embassies and presents from the remotest kings of Asia and Africa. His internal government was despotic and cruel, but of that firm description which pleases Orientals, so that he still lives in the memory of the Persians as a model of justice. The communist Mazdak was put to death by his order, after his doctrines had caused a dangerous revolution in the habits and minds of the people, as is shown by the fact that his doctrine of community of women, so utterly adverse to the views of the Oriental nations, had taken a firm root among the Persians. His heart bled when Nushirad, his son by a Christian woman, and a Christian himself, rose in arms against him, but he quelled the rebellion vigorously, and Nushirad perished. The administration of Khosrew provided for all the wants of his subjects; and agriculture, trade, and learning were equally protected by him. He bestowed the greatest care upon re-populating ravaged provinces, and rebuilding destroyed cities and villages; so that every body could be happy in Persia, provided he obeyed the king's will without opposition. At Gondi Sapor, near Susa, he founded an academy apparently on the model of the Greek schools at Athens, Alexandria, &c. He caused the best Greek, Latin, and Indian works to be translated into Persian ; and had he been an Arsacid instead of a Sassanid, Persia might have become under him an Eastern Greece. 22. HoRMUz or IIon MisdAs IV., the son of Khosrew, reigned from A. D.579 till 590. He carried on his father's war with the Greeks, to the disadvantage, though not to the disgrace, of Persia. Some time before Khosrew died, the general Justinian had advanced as far as the Caspian, which he explored by means of a Greek navy, the first that was seen on those waters since the time of Seleucus Nicator and Antiochus I. Soter, kings of Syria, whose admiral Patrocles first displayed the Greek flag on the Caspian. Seventy thousand prisoners were sent by Justinian to Cyprus, where they settled. Upon this Justinian penetrated into Assyria. In consequence of a defeat sustained by the Persian Tamchosroes, Justinian was recalled, and replaced by Mauritius, who soon retrieved the fortune of the Greek arms, and in the very year when Chosroes died (579) he took up his winterquarters in Mesopotamia, from whence, in the following year, he penetrated into lower Mesopotamia and routed a Persian army. He gained another victory in 581, and Tamchosroes perished in the battle. But Maurice having succeeded the emperor Tiberius in that year, his general in the East,