The Dark Ages Collection - David Hume

Скачать книгу

a year); Sergius, A.D. 517, April 1-Dec. 1 (C.J. V.27.6; II.7.24).

      The Prefects of uncertain date are Armenius, Arcadius, Leontius (ib. XII.50.23; XII.37.7; VII.39.6), and Marinus. As to Leontius, he held office after 500 (cp. ib. VII.39.5, and John Lyd. III.17). For the Prefecture of Marinus we have the limits 498 (John Lyd. III.36) and 515, in which year he was ex-Pr. Pr. (John Mal. XVI pp403, 405, 407). He was influential with Anastasius in the Prefecture of Zoticus (Cyrillus, loc. cit.), and it is to be noted that Zacharias of Mytilene (VII.9), speaking of him as the Emperor’s friend and confidant, describes him as a chartularius (A.D. 511). The people of Constantinople held him as partly responsible for the ecclesiastical measures which caused the riot of Nov. 512, and his house was burnt down (Marcell. Chron., sub a.). On the whole, I would conjecture that he became Prefect in that year, having succeeded Zoticus. It does not follow from John Lyd. loc. cit. (as Borghesi supposes) that he immediately succeeded Polycarpus. In the latter part of his reign, Anastasius appointed only Scholastici (ῥήτορες, λογικοί) to the Prefecture (John Lyd. III.50; Priscian, Pan. 246-251), in accordance with the old tradition of the civil service. For the training of the scholasticus cp. Macarius, Hom. 15.42, in Migne, P.G. XXXIV.604. — Marinus is meant by the Μαριανός who is mentioned in Justinian, Nov. 96 § 15, as is evident from the context. He was Praetorian Prefect again under Justin A.D. 519 (C.J. V.27.7; II.7.25). — There is a slight difficulty about Appion, though John Malalas (source: Eustathius of Epiphania) says expressly that the patrician Appion was appointed ἔπαρχος πραιτωρίων ἀνατολῆς and sent to the East on the outbreak of the Persian War. This seems to harmonise with Joshua Styl. LV p44, who states that Appion the hyparch was at Edessa in May 503. But it would be very strange for a Praet. Prefect to proceed himself to the seat of war to supervise the commissariat, and we should naturally take hyparch to mean the officer called prefect of the camp, ὁ τοῦ στρατοπέδου ἔπαρχος (Procopius, B.V. I.11), both here and ib. LXX, where we learn that Calliopius became hyparch in May 504, an office which he occupied till 506, ib. XCIX. We cannot suppose Calliopius to have been Praet. Prefect, as the post was held by Constantine and Eustathius in 505-506, and it is a little difficult to interpret hyparch differently in the two cases. But we have to take into consideration the statement of John Lyd. III.17 that Anastasius was “moved with anger against Appion,” ἀνδρὸς ἐξοχωτάτου καὶ κοινωνήσαντος αὐτῷ τῆς βασιλείας ὅτε Κωάδης ὁ Πέρσης ἐφλέγμαινε, Λεοντίου τὴν ἐπαρχότητα διέποντος. This seems to mean that Apion was Praet. Pref. at the outbreak of the Persian War, but fell into disfavour and was succeeded by Leontius, and establishes the Prefecture of Appion. I am inclined to think that Joshua’s Appion was a different person.

      — End of Volume 1 —

      § 1. Relations with Persia in the Fifth Century

      THE rulers of Constantinople would hardly have steered their section of the Empire with even such success as they achieved through the dangers which beset it in the fifth century, had it not been that from the reign of Arcadius to that of Anastasius their peaceful relations with the Sassanid kings of Persia were only twice interrupted by brief hostilities. The unusually long duration of this period of peace, notwithstanding the fact that the conditions in Armenia constantly supplied provocations or pretexts for war, was in a great measure due to the occupation of Persia with savage and dangerous enemies who threatened her north-eastern frontier, the Ephthalites or White Huns, but there was a contributory cause in the fact that the power of the Sassanid kings at this time was steadily declining. It is significant that when, at the end of the fifth century, a monarch arose who was able to hold his own against the encroachments of the Zoroastrian priesthood and the nobility, grave hostilities immediately ensued which were to last with few and uneasy intervals for a hundred and thirty years.

      At the accession of Arcadius, Varahran IV was on the Persian throne, but was succeeded in A.D. 399 by Yezdegerd I. The policy of this sovran was favourable to his Christian subjects, who had been allowed to recover from the violent persecution which they had suffered at the hands of Sapor, the conqueror of Julian; and he was an object of veneration to Christian historians,1 while the Magi and the chroniclers of his own kingdom detested his name. After the death of Arcadius there were negotiations between the courts of Constantinople and Ctesiphon, but it is difficult to discover precisely what occurred. There is a record, which can hardly fail to have some foundation, that in his last illness Arcadius was fretted by the fear that the Persians might take advantage of his son’s infancy to attack the Empire, and that he drew up a testament in which he requested the Great King to act as guardian of his son.2 There seems no reason not to accept this statement, provided we do not press the legal sense of guardian,3 and take the act of Arcadius to have been simply a recommendation of Theodosius to the protection and goodwill of Yezdegerd. The communication of this request would naturally be entrusted to the embassy, which, according to the traditional etiquette, announced the accession of a new Emperor at the Persian court.4 Yezdegerd took the wish of his “brother” as a compliment and declared that the enemies of Theodosius would have to deal with him.

      Whatever be the truth about this record, which is not mentioned by contemporary writers,5 there is no doubt that there were transactions between the two governments at this juncture, and either a new treaty or some less formal arrangement seems to have been concluded, bearing chiefly on the position of Persian Christians and perhaps also on commerce. The Imperial Government employed the good offices of Maruthas, bishop of Martyropolis,6 who, partly on account of his medical knowledge, enjoyed much credit with Yezdegerd, to persuade the king to protect his Christian subjects. Yezdegerd inaugurated a new policy, and for the next twelve years the Christians of Persia possessed complete ecclesiastical freedom.7

      It is possible that at the same time the commercial relations between the two realms were under discussion. It was the policy of both powers alike to restrict the interchange of merchandise to a few places close to the frontier. Persian merchants never came to Constantinople, Roman merchants never went to Ctesiphon. The governments feared espionage under the guise of trade, and everything was done to discourage free intercourse between the two states. Before the treaty of Jovian, Nisibis was the only Roman town in which Persian merchants were allowed to trade.8 After the loss of Nisibis, Callinicum seems to have become the Roman market for Persian merchandise, but we hear nothing of the new arrangements until the year 408-409, when an Imperial edict was issued for the direction of the governors of the frontier provinces.9 From it we learn that the two governments had agreed that the Persian towns of Nisibis and Artaxata and the Imperial town of Callinicum should be the only places to which Persian and Roman traders might bring their wares and resort to transact business. Taken in connection with the fact that the two governments had been engaged in negotiations, this promulgation of the edict at this time suggests that if a new compact regarding commercial relations was not concluded, an old agreement, which may have been laxly executed, was confirmed.10

      At the very end of Yezdegerd’s reign the friendly understanding was clouded. All might have gone well if the Christian clergy had been content to be tolerated and to enjoy their religious liberty. But they engaged in an active campaign of proselytism and were so successful in converting Persians to Christianity that the king became seriously alarmed.11 It was perfectly natural that he should not have been disposed to allow the Zoroastrian religion to be endangered by the propagation of a hostile creed. It is quite certain that if there had been fanatical Zoroastrians12 in the Roman Empire and they had undertaken to convert Christians, the Christian government would have stopped at nothing to avert the danger. Given the ideas which then prevailed on the importance of State religions, we cannot be surprised that Yezdegerd should have permitted acts of persecution. Some of the Christians fled to Roman territory. The Imperial government refused to surrender them (A.D. 420) and prepared for the event of

Скачать книгу