_Accession of Isdigerd I. Peaceful Character of his Reign. His Alleged
Guardianship of Theodosius II. His leaning towards Christianity, and
consequent Unpopularity with his Subjects. His Change of view and
Persecution of the Christians. His relations with Armenia. II. Coins.
His Personal Character. His Death._
Varahran IV. was succeeded (A.D. 399) by his son, Izdikerti or Isdigerd
I. 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
peaceful; 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.
Invasions of Ostrogoths and Franks signalized 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. 393; 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 the Euphrates, and overrun or conquered the
Asiatic provinces of the Eastern Empire, without causing Honorious 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, 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; he would have had opposed to him nothing but distracted counsels
and disorganized 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 AEgean. 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 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, 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. 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 court, by name Antiochus, and sent him to Constantinople, where for
several years he was the young prince’s constant companion. Even after
his death or expulsion, which took place in consequence of the intrigues
of Pulcheria, Theodosius’s elder sister, the Persian monarch continued
faithful to his engagements. During the whole of his reign he not only
remained at peace with the Romans, but avoided every act that they could
have regarded as in the least degree unfriendly.
Such is the narrative which has come down to us on the authority of
historians, the earliest of whom wrote a century and a half after
Arcadius’s death. Modern criticism has, in general, rejected the entire
story, on this account, regarding the silence of the earlier writers
as outweighing the positive statements of the later ones. It should,
however, be borne in mind, first that the earlier writers are few in
number, and that their histories are very meagre and scanty; secondly,
that the fact, if fact it were, was one not very palatable to
Christians; and thirdly, that, as the results, so far as Rome was
concerned, were negative, the event might not have seemed to be one of
much importance, or that required notice. The character of Procopius,
with whom the story originates, should also be taken into consideration,
and the special credit allowed him by Agathias for careful and
diligent research. It may be added, that one of the main points of the
narrative--the position of Antiochus at Constantinople during the early
years of Theodosius--is corroborated by the testimony of a contemporary,
the bishop Synesius, who speaks of a man of this name, recently in the
service of a Persian, as all-powerful with the Eastern emperor. It has
been supposed by one writer that the whole story grew out of this fact;
but the basis scarcely seems to be sufficient; and it is perhaps most
probable that Arcadius did really by his will commend his son to the
kind consideration of the Persian monarch, and that that monarch in
consequence sent him an adviser, though the formal character of the
testamentary act, and the power and position of Antiochus at the court
of Constantinople, may have been overstated. Theodosius no doubt owed
his quiet possession of the throne rather to the good disposition
towards him of his own subjects than to the protection of a foreigner;
and Isdigerd refrained from all attack on the territories of the young
prince, rather by reason of his own pacific temper than in consequence
of the will of Arcadius.
The friendly relations established, under whatever circumstances,
between Isdigerd and the Roman empire of the East seemed to have
inclined the Persian monarch, during a portion of his reign, to take the
Christians into his favor, and even to have induced him to contemplate
seeking admission into the Church by the door of baptism. Antiochus, his
representative at the Court of Arcadius, openly wrote in favor of the
persecuted sect; and the encouragement received from this high quarter
rapidly increased the number of professing Christians in the Persian
territories. The sectaries, though oppressed, had long been allowed to
have their bishops; and Isdigerd is said to have listened with approval
to the teaching of two of them, Marutha, bishop of Mesopotamia, and
Abdaas, bishop of Ctesiphon. Convinced of the truth of Christianity, but
unhappily an alien from its spirit, he commenced a persecution of the
Magians and their most powerful adherents, which caused him to be held
in detestation by his subjects, and has helped to attach to his name the
epithets of “Al-Khasha,” “the Harsh,” and “Al-Athim,” “the Wicked.” But
the’ persecution did not continue long. The excessive zeal of Abdaas
after a while provoked a reaction; and Isdigerd, deserting the cause
which he had for a time espoused, threw himself (with all the zeal of
one who, after nearly embracing truth, relapses into error) into the
arms of the opposite party. Abdaas had ventured to burn down the great
Fire-Temple of Ctesiphon, and had then refused to rebuild it. Isdigerd
authorized the Magian hierarchy to retaliate by a general destruction
of the Christian churches throughout the Persian dominions, and by
the arrest and punishment of all those who acknowledged themselves to
believe the Gospel. A fearful slaughter of the Christians in Pergia
followed during five years; some, eager for the earthly glory and the
heavenly rewards of martyrdom, were forward to proclaim themselves
members of the obnoxious sect; others, less courageous or less inclined
to self-assertion, sought rather to conceal their creed; but these
latter were carefully sought out, both in the towns and in the country
districts, and when convicted were relentlessly put to death. Nor was
mere death regarded as enough. The victims were subjected, besides,
to cruel sufferings of various kinds, and the greater number of them
expired under torture. Thus Isdigerd alternately oppressed the two
religious professions, to one or other of which belonged the great mass
of his subjects; and, having in this way given both parties reason to
hate him, earned and acquired a unanimity of execration which has but
seldom been the lot of persecuting monarchs.
At the same time that Isdigerd allowed this violent persecution of the
Christians in his own kingdom of Persia, he also sanctioned an
attempt to extirpate Christianity in the dependent country of Armenia.
Varahran-Sapor, the successor of Chosroes, had ruled the territory
quietly and peaceably for twenty-one years. He died A.D. 413, leaving
behind him a single son, Artases, who was at his father’s death aged no
more than ten years. Under these circumstances, Isaac, the Metropolitan
of Armenia, proceeded to the court of Ctesiphon, and petitioned Isdigerd
to replace on the Armenian throne the prince who had been deposed
twenty-one years earlier, and who was still a prisoner on parole in the
“Castle of Oblivion”--viz. Chosroes. Isdigerd acceded to the request;
and Chosroes was released from confinement and restored to the throne
from which he had been expelled by Varahran IV. in A.D. 391. He,
however, survived his elevation only a year. Upon his decease, A.D.
413, Isdigerd selected for the viceroyship, not an Arsacid, not even
an Armenian, but his own son, Sapor, whom he forced upon the reluctant
provincials, compelling them to acknowledge him as monarch (A.D.
413-414). Sapor was instructed to ingratiate himself with the Armenian
nobles, by inviting them to visit him, by feasting them, making them
presents, holding friendly converse with them, hunting with them; and
was bidden to use such influence as he might obtain to convert the
chiefs from Christianity to Zoroastrianism. The young prince appears
to have done his best; but the Armenians were obstinate, resisted his
blandishments, and remained Christians in spite of all his efforts. He
reigned from A.D. 414 to 418, at the end of which time, learning that
his father had fallen into ill health, he quitted Armenia and returned
to the Persian court, in order to press his claims to the succession.
Isdigerd died soon afterwards (A.D. 419 or 420); and Sapor made an
attempt to seize the throne; but there was another pretender
whose partisans had more strength, and the viceroy of Armenia was
treacherously assassinated in the palace of his father. Armenia remained
for three years in a state of anarchy; and it was not till Varahran V.
had been for some time established upon the Persian throne that Artases
was made viceroy, under the name of Artasiris or Artaxerxes.
The coins of Isdigerd I. are not remarkable as works of art; but they
possess some features of interest. They are numerous, and appear to have
been issued from various mints, but all bear a head of the same type.
[PLATE XXI., Fig. 1.] It is that of a middle-aged man, with a short
beard and hair gathered behind the head in a cluster of curls. The
distinguishing mark is the headdress, which has the usual inflated ball
above a fragment of the old mural crown, and further bears a crescent in
front. The reverse has the usual fire-altar with supporters, and is
for the most part very rudely executed. The ordinary legend is, on the
obverse, _“Mazdisn bag ramashtras Izdikerti, malkan malka Airan,”_ or
“the Ormazd-worshipping divine most peaceful Isdigerd, king of the kings
of Iran;” and on the reverse, _Ramashtras Izdikerti,_ “the most peaceful
Isdigerd.” In some cases, there is a second name, associated with that
of the monarch, on the reverse, a name which reads either “Ardashatri”
(Artaxerxes) or, “Varahran.” It has been conjectured that, where the
name of “Artaxerxes” occurs, the reference is to the founder of the
empire; while it is admitted that the “Varahran” intended is almost
certainly Isdigerd’s son and successor, Varahran V., the “Bahram-Grur”
of the modern Persians. Perhaps a more reasonable account of the matter
would be that Isdigerd had originally a son Artaxerxes, whom he intended
to make his successor, but that this son died or offended him, and that
then he gave his place to Varahran.
[Illustration: PLATE 21.]
The character of Isdigerd is variously represented. According to the
Oriental writers, he had by nature an excellent disposition, and at the
time of his accession was generally regarded as eminently sage, prudent,
and virtuous; but his conduct after he became king disappointed all
the hopes that had been entertained of him. He was violent, cruel, and
pleasure-seeking; he broke all laws human and divine; he plundered the
rich, ill-used the poor, despised learning, left those who did him a
service unrewarded, suspected everybody. He wandered continually about
his vast empire, not to benefit his subjects, but to make them all
suffer equally. In curious contrast with these accounts is the picture
drawn of him by the Western authors, who celebrate his magnanimity
and his virtue, his peaceful temper, his faithful guardianship of
Theodosius, and even his exemplary piety. A modern writer has suggested
that he was in fact a wise and tolerant prince, whose very mildness and
indulgence offended the bigots of his own country, and caused them to
represent his character in the most odious light, and do their utmost
to blacken his memory. But this can scarcely be accepted as the true
explanation of the discrepancy. It appears from the ecclesiastical
historians that, whatever other good qualities Isdigerd may have
possessed, tolerance at any rate was not among his virtues. Induced
at one time by Christian bishops almost to embrace Christianity, he
violently persecuted the professors of the old Persian religion. Alarmed
at a later period by the excessive zeal of his Christian preceptors, and
probably fearful of provoking rebellion among his Zoroastrian subjects,
he turned around upon his late friends, and treated them with a cruelty
even exceeding that previously exhibited towards their adversaries. It
was probably this twofold persecution that, offending both professions,
attached to Isdigerd in his own country the character of a harsh and
bad monarch. Foreigners, who did not suffer from his caprices or his
violence, might deem him magnanimous and a model of virtue. His own
subjects with reason detested his rule, and branded his memory with the
well-deserved epithet of Al-Athim, “the Wicked.”
A curious tale is told as to the death of Isdigerd. He was still in
the full vigor of manhood when one day a horse of rare beauty, without
bridle or caparison, came of its own accord and stopped before the gate
of his palace. The news was told to the king, who gave orders that the
strange steed should be saddled and bridled, and prepared to mount it.
But the animal reared and kicked, and would not allow any one to come
near, till the king himself approached, when the creature totally
changed its mood, appeared gentle and docile, stood perfectly still,
and allowed both saddle and bridle to be put on. The crupper, however,
needed some arrangement, and Isdigerd in full confidence proceeded to
complete his task, when suddenly the horse lashed out with one of his
hind legs, and dealt the unfortunate prince a blow which killed him on
the spot. The animal then set off at speed, disembarrassed itself of its
accoutrements, and galloping away was never seen any more. The modern
historian of Persia compresses the tale into a single phrase, and tells
us that “Isdigerd died from the kick of a horse:” but the Persians of
the time regarded the occurrence as an answer to their prayers, and saw
in the wild steed an angel sent by God.