have thought that they formed a triumph over Rome which deserved to be commemorated.

The character of Varahran IV. is represented variously by the native authorities. According to some of them, his temper was mild, and his conduct irreproachable.1 Others say that he was a hard man, and so neglected the duties of his station that he would not even read the petitions or complaints which were addressed to him.2 It would seem that there must have been some ground for these latter representations, since it is generally agreed that the cause of his death was a revolt of his troops, who surrounded him and shot at him with arrows. One shaft, better directed than the rest, struck him in a vital part, and he fell and instantly expired. Thus perished, in A.D. 399, the third son of the Great Sapor, after a reign of eleven years.

deposition would fall into the year A.D. 389, the year after the accession of Varahran. But it is more probable that they date from the commencement of his sole reign, which was two years later, A.D. 386.

1 Mirkhond, Hist. des Sassanides,

p. 320.

2 Modjmel-al-Tewarikh, as translated by M. Mohl in the Journal Asiatique for 1841, p. 513.

3

Tabari, vol. ii. p. 103; Mirkhond, l.s.c.; Malcolm, Hist. of Persia, vol. i. p. 113.

CHAPTER XIII.

Accession of Isdigerd I. Peaceful Character of his Reign. His Alleged
Guardianship of Theodosius II.
consequent Unpopularity with his
Persecution of the Christians.

His Leaning towards Christianity, and
Subjects. His Change of View and
His Relations with Armenia. His

Coins. His Personal Character. His Death.

...

Ἐπὶ τούτοις Ισδιγέρδης . . . τὴν Περσικὴν ἡγεμονίαν παραλαμβάνει, ὁ πολὺς παρὰ Ῥωμαίοις καὶ περιλάλητος.—ΑΘΑΤΗΙΑS, iv. 26; p. 136, C.

VARAHRAN IV. was succeeded (A.D. 399) by his son, Izdikerti,1 or Isdigerd I.,2 whom the soldiers, though they had murdered his father, permitted to ascend the throne without difficulty. He is said, at his accession, to have borne a good character for prudence and moderation, a character which he sought to confirm by the utterance on various occasions of high-sounding moral sentiments. The general tenor of his reign was

1 The name upon his coins is read as '". The Greek writers call him Isdigerdes,' the Armenian 'Yazgerd.' Eutychius (vol. i. p. 548; vol. ii. p. 79) uses the form Yasdejerd.'

2 Mordtmann interpolates after Varabran IV. a monarch whom he calls Isdigerd I.' to whom he assigns a reign of a year over a portion of Persia (Zeitschrift, vol. viii. p. 63). This prince he makes succeeded by his son, Isdigerd II., who is the Isdigerd I.' of all other writers. I cannot find any sufficient reason for this interpolation. (The numismatic evidence does, perhaps, show that an Isdigerd, distinct from the three

known Persian monarchs, once reigned in Seistan; but there is nothing to fix the time of this reign.)

That Varahran IV. was the father of Isdigerd is asserted by Eutychius (vol. i. p. 548), Tabari (ii. p. 103), Abu Obeïdah (quoted by Maçoudi, vol. ii. p. 238), Sépêos (p. 20), and others. Lazare de Parbe makes him the brother of Isdigerd (p. 33). Agathias (iv. 26) is ambiguous. Mirkhond (p. 321) and Tabari (1.8.c.) mention both views.

Mirkhond, 1.s.c.; Tabari, l.s.c. 5 Several of these are given by Mirkhond (pp. 321-2). If authentic, they would be remarkable as

peaceful;1 and we may conclude therefore that he was of an unwarlike temper, since the circumstances of the time were such as would naturally have induced a prince of any military capacity to resume hostilities against the Romans. After the arrangement made with Rome by Sapor III. in A.D. 384, a terrible series of calamities had befallen the empire.2 Invasions of Ostrogoths and Franks signalised the years A.D. 386 and 388; in A.D. 387 the revolt of Maximus seriously endangered the western moiety of the Roman state; in the same year occurred an outburst of sedition at Antioch, which was followed shortly by the more dangerous sedition, and the terrible massacre of Thessalonica; Argobastes and Eugenius headed a rebellion in A.D. 392; Gildo the Moor detached Africa from the empire in A.D. 386, and maintained a separate dominion on the southern shores of the Mediterranean for twelve years, from A.D. 386 to 398; in A.D. 395 the Gothic warriors within and without the Roman frontier took arms, and under the redoubtable Alaric threatened at once the East and the West, ravaged Greece, captured Corinth, Argos, and Sparta, and from the coasts of the Adriatic already marked for their prey the smiling fields of Italy. The rulers of the East and West, Arcadius and Honorius, were alike weak and unenterprising; and further, they were not even on good terms, nor was either likely to trouble himself very greatly about attacks upon the territories of the other. Isdigerd might have crossed

indicating a consciousness that there lay in his disposition the germs of evil, which the possession of supreme power would be likely to develope.

πώποτε κατὰ Ῥωμαίων ἤρατο πόλεμον

ἀλλὰ μεμένηκεν ἐσαεὶ εὔνους τε or kai ɛipnyaîog (Agath. iv. 26; p. 137, B).

2 See Tillemont, Hist. des Em1 Εἰρήνῃ ἀφθόνῳ χρώμενος διαγές pereurs, tom. r. pp. 1046, 211-221; γονεν ἐν Ῥωμαίοις τὸν πάντα χρόνον | Gibbon, Decline and Fall, vol. iii. (Procop. De Bell. Pers. i, 2). Ovõiva pp. 351-402; vol. iv. pp. 23–31.

the Euphrates, and overrun or conquered the Asiatic provinces of the Eastern Empire, without causing Honorius a pang, or inducing him to stir from Milan. It is true that Western Rome possessed at this time the rare treasure of a capable general; but Stilicho was looked upon with fear and aversion by the emperor of the East,1 and was moreover fully occupied with the defence of his own master's territories. Had Isdigerd, on ascending the throne in A.D. 399, unsheathed the sword and resumed the bold designs of his grandfather, Sapor II., he could scarcely have met with any serious or prolonged resistance. He would have found the East governed practically by the eunuch Eutropius, a plunderer and oppressor, universally hated and feared; 2 he would have had opposed to him nothing but distracted counsels and disorganised forces; Asia Minor was in possession of the Ostrogoths, who, under the leadership of Tribigild, were ravaging and destroying far and wide; the armies of the State were commanded by Gainas, the Goth, and Leo, the wool-comber, of whom the one was incompetent, and the other unfaithful; there was nothing, apparently, that could have prevented him from overrunning Roman Armenia, Mesopotamia, and Syria, or even from extending his ravages, or his dominion, to the shores of the Egean. But the opportunity was either not seen, or was not regarded as having any attractions. Isdigerd remained tranquil and at rest within the walls of his capital. Assuming as his special title the characteristic epithet of Ramashtras,' 'the

1 Gibbon, vol. iv. pp. 29, 57, &c.; Tillemont, tom. v. p. 193.

2 Gibbon, vol. iv. pp. 140-6. The death of Eutropius occurred in the same year with the accession of Isdigerd (Clinton, F. R. vol. i.

5

pp. 542-6). It probably fell late
in the year.

3 Gibbon, vol. iv. pp. 144-6.
4 Ibid. p. 145.

5 See Mordtmann in the Zeitschrift, vol. viii. pp. 64-7. The

most quiet,' or 'the most firm,' he justified his assumption of it by a complete abstinence from all military expeditions.

When Isdigerd had reigned peaceably for the space of nine years, he is said to have received a compliment of an unusual character. Arcadius, the emperor of the East, finding his end approaching, and anxious to secure a protector for his son Theodosius, a boy of tender age, instead of committing him to the charge of his uncle Honorius, or selecting a guardian for him from among his own subjects, by a formal testamentary act, we are told,1 placed his child under the protection of the Persian monarch. He accompanied the appointment by a solemn appeal to the magnanimity of Isdigerd, whom he exhorted at some length to defend with all his force, and guide with his best wisdom, the young king and his kingdom.2 According to one writer, he further appended to this trust a valuable legacy-no less than a thousand pounds weight of pure gold, which he begged his Persian brother to accept as a token of his goodwill. When Arcadius died, and the testament was opened, information of its contents was sent to Isdigerd, who at once accepted the charge assigned to him, and addressed a letter to the Senate of Constantinople, in which he declared his determination to punish any attempt against his ward with the extremest severity. Unable to watch over his charge in person, he selected. for his guide and instructor a learned eunuch of his

title 'Ramashtras' is wholly new when Isdigerd takes it. Mordtmann regards it as a superlative form, equivalent to 'Quietissimus.'

1 Procop. De Bell. Pers. i. 2; Agath. iv. 26; p. 136, C, D; Theophan. Chronograph. p. 69, A, B.

• Πολλὰ ἐν ταῖς διαθήκαις ἐπέσκηψε, Θεοδοσίῳ τὴν βασιλείαν σθένει τε καὶ προνοίᾳ πάσῃ συνδιασώσασθαι. (Procop. l.s.c.)

Cedrenus, p. 334, C.
Theophan. p. 69, B.