The Provinces of the Roman Empire 57

The Provinces of the Roman Empire 57

It throws no light on the position of the Armenians, that in

descriptions otherwise thoroughly apocryphal (_vita Valer._ 6; _vita

Aurel._ 37, 28) the Armenians after the catastrophe of Valerian keep to

the Persians, and appear in the last crisis of the Palmyrenes as allies

of Zenobia by the side of the Persians; both are obvious consequences

from the general position of things. That Aurelian did not subdue

Armenia any more than Mesopotamia, is supported in this case partly by

the silence of the authorities, partly by the account of Synesius (_de

regno_, p. 17) that the emperor Carinus (rather Carus) had in Armenia,

close to the frontier of the Persian territory, summarily dismissed

a Persian embassy, and that the young Persian king, alarmed by its

report, had declared himself ready for any concession. I do not see

how this narrative can be referred to Probus, as von Gutschmid thinks

(_Zeitschr. d. deutsch. morgenl. Gesell._ xxxi. 50); on the other hand

it suits very well the Persian expedition of Carus.

 

[118] The reconquest of Mesopotamia is reported only by the biographer,

c. 8; but at the outbreak of the Persian war under Diocletian it is

Roman. There is mention at the same place of internal troubles in the

Persian empire; also in a discourse held in the year 289 (_Paneg._

iii. c. 17) there is mention of the war, which is waged against the

king of Persia--this was Bahram II.--by his own brother Ormies or

rather Hormizd _adscitis Sacis et Ruffis (?) et Gellis_ (comp. Nöldeke,

_Tabarî_, p. 479). We have altogether only some detached notices as to

this important campaign.

 

[119] This is stated clearly by Mamertinus (_Paneg._ ii. 7, comp.

ii. 10, iii. 6) in the oration held in 289: _Syriam velut amplexu

suo tegebat Euphrates antequam Diocletiano sponte_ (that is, without

Diocletian needing to have recourse to arms, as is then further set

forth) _se dederent regna Persarum_; and further by another panegyrist

of the year 296 (_Paneg._ v. 3): _Partho ultra Tigrim reducto_. Turns

like that in Victor, _Caes._ xxxix. 33, that Galerius _relictis

finibus_ had marched to Mesopotamia, or that Narseh, according to

Rufius Festus, c. 25, ceded Mesopotamia in peace, cannot on the other

hand be urged; and as little, that Oriental authorities place the Roman

occupation of Nisibis in 609 Sel. = A.D. 297/8 (Nöldeke, _Tabarî_, p.

50). If this were correct, the exact account as to the negotiations

for peace of 297 in Petrus Patricius, _fr._ 14, could not possibly be

silent as to the cession of Mesopotamia and merely make mention of the

regulation of the frontier-traffic.

 

[120] That Narseh broke into Armenia at that time Roman, is stated

by Ammianus, xxiii. 5, 11; for Mesopotamia the same follows from

Eutropius, ix. 24. On the 1st March 296 peace was still subsisting,

or at any rate the declaration of war was not yet known in the west

(_Paneg._ v. 10).

 

[121] The differences in the exceptionally good accounts, particularly

of Petrus Patricius, _fr._ 14, and Ammianus, xxv. 7, 9, are probably

only of a formal kind. The fact that the Tigris was to be the proper

boundary of the empire, as Priscus says, does not exclude, especially

considering the peculiar character of its upper course, the possibility

of the boundary there partially going beyond it; on the contrary, the

five districts previously named in Petrus appear to be adduced just

as beyond the Tigris, and to be excepted from the following general

definition. The districts adduced by Priscus here and, expressly as

beyond the Tigris, by Ammianus--these are in both Arzanene, Carduene,

and Zabdicene, in Priscus Sophene and Intilene (“rather Ingilene, in

Armenia Angel, now Egil”; Kiepert), in Ammianus Moxoene and Rehimene

(?)--cannot possibly all have been looked on by the Romans as Persian

before the peace, when at any rate Armenia was already _Romano iuri

obnoxia_ (Ammianus, xxiii. 5, 11); beyond doubt the more westerly of

them already then formed a part of Roman Armenia, and stand here only

in so far as they were, in consequence of the peace, incorporated with

the empire as the satrapy of Sophene. That the question here concerned

not the boundary of the cession, but that of the territory directly

imperial, is shown by the conclusion, which settles the boundary

between Armenia and Media.

 

[122] We cannot exactly determine the standing quarters of the Syrian

legions; yet what is here said is substantially assured. Under Nero the

10th legion lay at Raphaneae, north-west from Hamath (Josephus, _Bell.

Jud._ vii. 1, 3); and at that same place, or at any rate nearly in

this region under Tiberius the 6th (Tacitus, _Ann._ ii. 79); probably

in or near Antioch the 12th under Nero (Josephus, _Bell. Jud._ ii. 18,

19). At least one legion lay on the Euphrates; for the time before the

annexation of Commagene Josephus attests this (_Bell. Jud._ vii. 1,

3), and subsequently one of the Syrian legions had its headquarters

in Samosata (Ptolemaeus, v. 15, 11; inscription from the time of

Severus, _C. I. L._ vi. 1409; _Itin. Antonini_, p. 186). Probably the

staffs of most of the Syrian legions had their seat in the western

districts, and the ever-recurring complaint that encamping in the towns

disorganised the Syrian army, applies chiefly to this arrangement. It

is doubtful whether in the better times there existed headquarters

proper of the legions on the edge of the desert; at the frontier-posts

there detachments of the legions were employed, and in particular the

specially disturbed district between Damascus and Bostra was strongly

furnished with legionaries provided on the one hand by the command of

Syria, on the other by that of Arabia after its institution by Trajan.

 

[123] There is a coin of Byblus from the time of Augustus with a Greek

and Phoenician legend (Imhoof-Blumer, _Monnaies grecques_, 1883, p.

443).

 

[124] Johannes Chrysostomus of Antioch († 407) points on several

occasions (_de sanctis martyr._ Opp. ed. Paris, 1718, vol. ii. p. 651;

_Homil._ xix. _ibid._ p. 188) to the ἑτεροφωνία, the βάρβαρος φωνή of

the λαός in contrast to the language of the cultured.

 

[125] The extract of Photius from the romance of Jamblichus, c. 17,

which erroneously makes the author a Babylonian, is essentially

corrected and supplemented by the _scholion_ upon it. The private

secretary of the great-king, who comes among Trajan’s captives to

Syria, becomes there tutor of Jamblichus, and instructs him in the

“barbarian wisdom,” is naturally a figure of the romance running its

course in Babylon, which Jamblichus professes to have heard from

this his instructor; but characteristic of the time is the Armenian

court-man-of-letters and princes’ tutor (for it was doubtless as “good

rhetor” that he was called by Sohaemus to Valarshapat) himself, who in

virtue of his magical art not merely understands the charming of flies

and the conjuring of spirits, but also predicts to Verus the victory

over Vologasus, and at the same time narrates in Greek to the Greeks

stories such as might stand in the _Thousand and One Nights_.

 

[126] Syriac literature consists almost exclusively of translations of

Greek works. Among profane writings treatises of Aristotle and Plutarch

stand in the first rank, then practical writings of a juristic or

agronomic character, and books of popular entertainment, such as the

romance of Alexander, the fables of Aesop, the sentences of Menander.

 

[127] The Syriac translation of the New Testament, the oldest text of

the Syriac language known to us, probably originated in Edessa; the

στρατιῶται of the Acts of the Apostles are here called “Romans.”

 

[128] This is said by Diodorus, xx. 47, of the forerunner of Antioch,

the town of Antigonea, situated about five miles farther up the river.

Antioch was for the Syria of antiquity nearly what Aleppo is for the

Syria of the present day, the rendezvous of inland traffic; only that,

in the case of that foundation, as the contemporary construction of the

port of Seleucia shows, the immediate connection with the Mediterranean

was designed, and hence the town was laid out farther to the west.

 

[129] The space between Antioch and Daphne was filled with

country-houses and villas (Libanius, _pro rhetor._ ii. p. 213 Reiske),

and there was also here a suburb Heraclea or else Daphne (O. Müller,

_Antiq. Antioch_, p. 44; comp. _vita Veri_, 7); but when Tacitus,

_Ann._ ii. 83, names this suburb Epidaphne, this is one of his most

singular blunders. Plinius, _H. N._ v. 27, 79, says correctly:

_Antiochia Epidaphnes cognominata_.

 

[130] “That wherein we especially beat all,” says the Antiochene

Libanius, in the Panegyric on his home delivered under Constantius

(i. 354 R.), after having described the springs of Daphne and the

aqueducts thence to the city, “is the water-supply of our city; if in

other respects any one may compete with us, all give way so soon as

we come to speak of the water, its abundance and its excellence. In

the public baths every stream has the proportions of a river, in the

private several have the like, and the rest not much less. He who has

the means of laying out a new bath does so without concern about a

sufficient flow of water, and has no need to fear that, when ready,

it will remain dry. Therefore every district of the city (there were

eighteen of these) carefully provides for the special elegance of its

bathing-establishment; these district-bathing-establishments are so

much finer than the general ones, as they are smaller than these are,

and the inhabitants of the district strive to surpass one another. One

measures the abundance of running water by the number of the (good)

dwelling-houses; for as many as are the dwelling-houses, so many are

also the running waters, nay there are even in individual houses

often several; and the majority of the workshops have also the same

advantage. Therefore we have no fighting at the public wells as to who

shall come first to draw--an evil, under which so many considerable

towns suffer, when there is a violent crowding round the wells and

outcry over the broken jars. With us the public fountains flow for

ornament, since every one has water within his doors. And this water is

so clear that the pail appears empty, and so pleasant that it invites

us to drink.”

 

[131] “Other lights,” says the same orator, p. 363, “take the place

of the sun’s light, lamps which leave the Egyptian festival of

illumination far behind; and with us night is distinguished from

day only by the difference of the lighting; diligent hands find no

difference and forge on, and he who will sings and dances, so that

Hephaestos and Aphrodite here share the night between them.” In the

street-sport which the prince Gallus indulged in, the lamps of Antioch

were very inconvenient to him (Ammianus, xiv. 1, 9).

 

[132] The remarkable description of the empire from the time of

Constantius (Müller, _Geog. Min._ ii. p. 213 ff.), the only writing

of the kind in which the state of industry meets with a certain

consideration, says of Syria in this respect: “Antioch has everything

that one desires in abundance, but especially its races. Laodicea,

Berytus, Tyre, Caesarea (in Palestine) have races also. Laodicea

sends abroad jockeys, Tyre and Berytus actors, Caesarea dancers

(_pantomimi_), Heliopolis on Lebanon flute-players (_choraulae_), Gaza

musicians (_auditores_, by which ἀκροάματα is incorrectly rendered),

Ascalon wrestlers (_athletae_), Castabala (strictly speaking in Cilicia) boxers.”