_Short Reigns of Artaxerxes II. and Sapor III. Obscurity of their
History. Their Relations with Armenia. Monument of Sapor III. at
Tdkht-i-Bostan. Coins of Artaxerxes II. and Sapor III. Reign of Varahran
IV. His Signets. His Dealings with Armenia. His Death._
The glorious reign of Sapor II., which carried the New Persian Empire
to the highest point whereto it had yet attained, is followed by a time
which offers to that remarkable reign a most complete contrast. Sapor
had occupied the Persian throne for a space approaching nearly to
three-quarters of a century; the reigns of his next three successors
amounted to no more than twenty years in the aggregate. Sapor had been
engaged in perpetual wars, had spread the terror of the Persian arms on
all sides, and ruled more gloriously than any of his predecessors. The
kings who followed him were pacific and unenterprising; they were almost
unknown to their neighbors, and are among the least distinguished of the
Sassanian monarchs. More especially does this character attach to the
two immediate successors of Sapor II., viz. Artaxerxes II. and Sapor
III. They reigned respectively four and five years; and their annals
during this period are almost a blank. Artaxerxes II., who is called by
some the brother of Sapor II., was more probably his son. He succeeded
his father in A.D. 379, and died at Ctesiphon in A.D. 383. He left a
character for kindness and amiability behind him, and is known to
the Persians as Nihoukar, or “the Beneficent,” and to the Arabs as Al
Djemil, “the Virtuous.” According to the “Modjmel-al-Tewarikh,” he
took no taxes from his subjects during the four years of his reign, and
thereby secured to himself their affection and gratitude. He seems to
have received overtures from the Armenians soon after his accession, and
for a time to have been acknowledged by the turbulent mountaineers as
their sovereign. After the murder of Bab, or Para, the Romans had set
up, as king over Armenia, a certain Varaztad (Pharasdates), a member
of the Arsacid family, but no near relation of the recent monarchs,
assigning at the same time the real direction of affairs to an Armenian
noble named Moushegh, who belonged to the illustrious family of the
Mamigonians. Moushegh ruled Armenia with vigor, but was suspected of
maintaining over-friendly relations with the Roman emperor, Valens, and
of designing to undermine and supplant his master. Varaztad, after a
while, having been worked on by his counsellors, grew suspicious of him,
and caused him to be executed at a banquet. This treachery roused the
indignation of Moushegh’s brother Manuel, who raised a rebellion against
Varaztad, defeated him in open fight, and drove him from his kingdom.
Manuel then brought forward the princess Zermandueht, widow of the late
king Para, together with her two young sons, Arsaces and Valarsaces,
and, surrounding all three with royal pomp, gave to the two princes the
name of king, while he took care to retain in his own hands the real
government of the country. Under these circumstances he naturally
dreaded the hostility of the Roman emperor, who was not likely to see
with patience a monarch, whom he had set upon the throne, deprived of
his kingdom by a subject. To maintain the position which he had assumed,
it was necessary that he should contract some important alliance; and
the alliance always open to Armenia when she had quarrelled with Rome
was with the Persians. It seems to have been soon after Artaxerxes II.
succeeded his father, that Manuel sent an embassy to him, with letters
and rich gifts, offering, in return for his protection, to acknowledge
him as lord-paramount of Armenia, and promising him unshakable fidelity.
The offer was, of course, received with extreme satisfaction; and terms
were speedily arranged. Armenia was to pay a fixed tribute, to receive
a garrison of ten thousand Persians and to provide adequately for their
support, to allow a Persian satrap to divide with Manuel the actual
government of the country, and to furnish him with all that was
necessary for his court and table. On the other hand, Arsacos and
Valarsaces, together (apparently) with their mother, Zermandueht, were
to be allowed the royal title and,honors; Armenia was to be protected
in case of invasion; and Manuel was to be maintained in his office of
Sparapet or generalissimo of the Armenian forces. We cannot say with
certainty how long this arrangement remained undisturbed; most probably,
however, it did not continue in force more than a few years. It was most
likely while Artaxerxes still ruled Persia, that the rupture described
by Faustus occurred. A certain Meroujan, an Armenian, noble, jealous
of the power and prosperity of Manuel, persuaded him that the Persian
commandant in Armenia was about to seize his person, and either to send
him a prisoner to Artaxerxes, or else to put him to death. Manuel, who
was so credulous as to believe the information, thought it necessary for
his own safety to anticipate the designs of his enemies, and, falling
upon the ten thousand Persians with the whole of the Armenian army,
succeeded in putting them all to the sword, except their commander,
whom he allowed to escape. War followed between Persia and Armenia with
varied success, but on the whole Manuel had the advantage; he repulsed
several Persian invasions, and maintained the independence and integrity
of Armenia till his death, without calling in the aid of Rome. When,
however, Manuel died, about A.D. 383, Armenian affairs fell into
confusion; the Romans were summoned to give help to one party, the
Persians to render assistance to the other; Armenia became once more the
battle-ground between the two great powers, and it seemed as if the old
contest, fraught with so many calamities, was to be at once renewed. But
the circumstances of the time were such that neither Rome nor Persia
now desired to reopen the contest. Persia was in the hands of weak and
unwarlike sovereigns, and was perhaps already threatened by Scythic
hordes upon the east. Rome was in the agonies of a struggle with the
ever-increasing power of the Goths; and though, in the course of the
years A.D. 379-382, the Great Theodosius had established peace in the
tract under his rule, and delivered the central provinces of Macedonia
and Thrace from the intolerable ravages of the barbaric invaders, yet
the deliverance had been effected at the cost of introducing large
bodies of Goths into the heart of the empire, while still along the
northern frontier lay a threatening cloud, from which devastation and
ruin might at any time burst forth and overspread the provinces upon the
Lower Danube. Thus both the Roman emperor and the Persian king were well
disposed towards peace. An arrangement was consequently made, and in
A.D. 384, five years after he had ascended the throne, Theodosius gave
audience in Constantinople to envoys from the court of Persepolis, and
concluded with them a treaty whereby matters in Armenia were placed on
a footing which fairly satisfied both sides, and the tranquillity of the
East was assured. The high contracting powers agreed that Armenia should
be partitioned between them. After detaching from the kingdom various
outlying districts, which could be conveniently absorbed into their
own territories, they divided the rest of the country into two unequal
portions. The smaller of these, which comprised the more western
districts, was placed under the protection of Rome, and was committed by
Theodosius to the Arsaces who had been made king by Manuel, the son
of the unfortunate Bab, or Para, and the grandson of the Arsaces
contemporary with Julian. The larger portion, which consisted of the
regions lying towards the east, passed under the suzerainty of Persia,
and was confided by Sapor III., who had succeeded Artaxerxes II., to an
Arsacid, named Chosroes, a Christian, who was given the title of king,
and received in marriage at the same time one of Sapor’s sisters.
Such were the terms on which Rome and Persia brought their contention
respecting Armenia to a conclusion. Friendly relations were in this way
established between the two crowns, which continued undisturbed for the
long space of thirty-six years (A.D. 384-420).
Sapor III. appears to have succeeded his brother Artaxerxes in A.D. 383,
the year before the conclusion of the treaty. It is uncertain whether
Artaxerxes vacated the throne by death, or was deposed in consequence of
cruelties whereof he was guilty towards the priests and nobles. Tabari
and Macoudi, who relate his deposition, are authors on whom much
reliance cannot be placed; and the cruelties reported accord but ill
with the epithets of “the Beneficent” and “the Virtuous,” assigned to
this monarch by others. Perhaps it is most probable that he held the
throne till his death, according to the statements of Agathias and
Eutychius. Of Sapor III., his brother and successor, two facts only are
recorded--his conclusion of the treaty with the Romans in A.D. 384, and
his war with the Arabs of the tribe of Yad, which must have followed
shortly afterwards. It must have been in consequence of his contest with
the latter, whom he attacked in their own country, that he received from
his countrymen the appellation of “the Warlike,” an appellation better
deserved by either of the other monarchs who had borne the same name.
Sapor III. left behind him a sculptured memorial, which is still to be
seen in the vicinity of Kermanshah. [PLATE XX.] It consists of two very
similar figures, looking towards each other, and standing in an arched
frame. On either side of the figures are inscriptions in the Old
Pehlevi character, whereby we are enabled to identify the individuals
represented with the second and the third Sapor. The inscriptions run
thus:--_“Pathkell zani mazdisn shahia Shahpuhri, malkan malJca Allan ve
Anilan, minuchitli min yazdan, bari mazdisn shahia Auhr-mazdi, malkan
malka Allan ve Anilan, minuchitli min yazdan, napi shahia Narshehi
malkan malka;”_ and _“Pathkeli mazdisn shahia Shahpuhri, malkan mallca
Allan ve Anilan, minuchitli min yazdan, bari mazdisn shahia Shahpuhri,
malkan malka Allan ve Anilan, minuchitli min yazdan, napi shahia
Auhrmazdi, malkan malka.”_ They are, it will be seen, identical in form,
with the exception that the names in the right-hand inscription are
“Sapor, Hormisdas, Narses,” while those in the left-hand one are
“Sapor, Sapor, Hormisdas.” It has been supposed that the right-hand
figure was erected by Sapor II., and the other afterwards added by Sapor
III.; but the unity of the whole sculpture, and its inclusion under a
single arch, seem to indicate that it was set up by a single sovereign,
and was the fruit of a single conception. If this be so, we must
necessarily ascribe it to the later of the two monarchs commemorated,
i.e. to Sapor III., who must be supposed to have possessed more than
usual filial piety, since the commemoration of their predecessors upon
the throne is very rare among the Sassanians.
[Illustration: PLATE 20]
The taste of the monument is questionable. An elaborate finish of all
the details of the costume compensates but ill for a clumsiness of
contour and a want of contrast and variety, which indicate a low
condition of art, and compare unfavorably with the earlier performances
of the Neo-Persian sculptors. It may be doubted whether, among all the
reliefs of the Sassanians, there is one which is so entirely devoid of
artistic merit as this coarse and dull production.
The coins of Sapor III. and his predecessor, Artaxerxes II., have little
about them that is remarkable. Those of Artaxerxes bear a head which
is surmounted with the usual inflated ball, and has the diadem, but is
without a crown--a deficiency in which some see an indication that the
prince thus represented was regent rather than monarch of Persia. [PLATE
XIX. Fig. 2.] The legends upon the coins are, however, in the usual
style of royal epigraphs, running commonly--_“Mazdisn bag Artah-shetri
malkan malka Air an ve Aniran,”_ or “the Ormazd-worshipping divine
Artaxerxes, king of the kings of Iran and Turan.” They are easily
distinguishable from those of Artaxerxes I., both by the profile, which
is far less marked, and by the fire-altar on the reverse, which has
always two supporters, looking towards the altar. The coins of Sapor
III. present some unusual types. [PLATE XIX. Fig. 6.] On some of them
the king has his hair bound with a simple diadem, without crown or cap
of any kind. On others he wears a cap of a very peculiar character,
which has been compared to a biretta, but is really altogether _sui
generis_. The cap is surmounted by the ordinary inflated ball, is
ornamented with jewels, and is bound round at bottom with the usual
diadem. The legend upon the obverse of Sapor’s coins is of the customary
character; but the reverse bears usually, besides the name of the king,
the word _atur_, which has been supposed to stand for Aturia or Assyria;
this explanation, however, is very doubtful.
The coins of both kings exhibit marks of decline, especially on the
reverse, where the drawing of the figures that support the altar is very
inferior to that which we observe on the coins of the kings from Sapor
I. to Sapor II. The characters on both obverse and reverse are also
carelessly rendered, and can only with much difficulty be deciphered.
Sapor III. died A.D. 388, after reigning a little more than five
years. He was a man of simple tastes, and is said to have been fond of
exchanging the magnificence and dreary etiquette of the court for the
freedom and ease of a life under tents. On an occasion when he was thus
enjoying himself, it happened that one of those violent hurricanes, to
which Persia is subject, arose, and, falling in full force on the royal
encampment, blew down the tent wherein he was sitting. It happened
unfortunately that the main tent-pole struck him, as it fell, in a vital
part, and Sapor died from the blow. Such at least was the account
given by those who had accompanied him, and generally believed by his
subjects. There were not, however, wanting persons to whisper that
the story was untrue--that the real cause of the catastrophe which had
overtaken the unhappy monarch was a conspiracy of his nobles, or his
guards, who had overthrown his tent purposely, and murdered him ere he
could escape from them.
The successor of Sapor III. was Varahran IV., whom some authorities call
his brother and others his son. This prince is known to the oriental
writers as “Varahran Kerm-an-sh-ah,” or “Varahran, king of Carmania.”
Agathias tells us that during the lifetime of his father he was
established as governor over Kerman or Carmania, and thus obtained the
appellation which pertinaciously adhered to him. A curious relic of
antiquity, fortunately preserved to modern times amid so much that has
been lost, confirms this statement. It is the seal of Varahran before
he ascended the Persian throne, and contains, besides his portrait,
beautifully cut, an inscription, which is read as follows:--_“Varahran
Kerman malka, bari mazdisn bag Shahpuh-rimalkan malka Axran ve Aniran,
minuchitri min yazclan,”_ or “Varahran, king of Kerman, son of the
Ormazd-worshipping divine Sapor, king of the kings of Iran and Turan,
heaven-descended of the race of the gods.” [PLATE XIX. Fig. 5.] Another
seal, belonging to him probably after he had become monarch of Persia,
contains his full-length portrait, and exhibits him as trampling under
foot a prostrate figure, supposed to represent a Roman, by which it
would appear that he claimed to have gained victories or advantages
over Rome. [PLATE XIX. Figs. 3 and 4.] It is not altogether easy to
understand how this could have been. Not only do the Roman writers
mention no war between the Romans and Persians at this time, but they
expressly declare that the East remained in profound repose during
the entire reign of Varahran, and that Rome and Persia continued to
be friends. The difficulty may, however, be perhaps explained by a
consideration of the condition of affairs in Armenia at this time; for
in Armenia Rome and Persia had still conflicting interests, and, without
having recourse to arms, triumphs might be obtained in this quarter by
the one over the other.
On the division of Armenia between Arsaces and Chosroes, a really good
understanding had been established, which had lasted for about six
years. Arsaces had died two years after he became a Roman feudatory;
and, at his death, Rome had absorbed his territories into her empire,
and placed the new province under the government of a count. No
objection to the arrangement had been made by Persia, and the whole of
Armenia had remained for four years tranquil and without disturbance.
But, about A.D. 390, Chosroes became dissatisfied with his position, and
entered into relations with Rome which greatly displeased the Armenian
monarch. Chosroes obtained from Theodosius his own appointment to the
Armenian countship, and thus succeeded in uniting both Roman and Persian
Armenia under his government. Elated with this success, he proceeded
further to venture on administrative acts which trenched, according
to Persian views, on the rights of the lord paramount. Finally, when
Varahran addressed to him a remonstrance, he replied in insulting terms,
and, renouncing his authority, placed the whole Armenian kingdom under
the suzerainty and protection of Rome. War between the two great powers
must now have seemed imminent, and could indeed only have been avoided
by great moderation and self-restraint on the one side or the other.
Under these circumstances it was Rome that drew back. Theodosius
declined to receive the submission which Chosroes tendered, and refused
to lift a finger in his defence. The unfortunate prince was forced to
give himself up to Varahan, who consigned him to the Castle of Oblivion,
and placed his brother, Varabran-Sapor, upon the Armenian throne. These
events seem to have fallen into the year A.D. 391, the third year of
Varahran, who may well have felt proud of them, and 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. 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. 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.