On False Gods

Now that we understand Euhemerism we can look at Ælfric of Eynsham's example of it in his essay De falsis deis ("On false gods"). A handful of manuscripts survive, at least one of which is a translation from Anglo-Saxon to Old Norse.

Ælfric's goal was to explain away all the heathen stories of gods and legends and put the world into a Christian context. Archbishop Wulfstan of York (previously mentioned here) "borrowed" Ælfric's writing for his own homilies, also known as De falsis deis as well as Homily XII. Wulfstan's became very well-known and copied throughout the island. From him we have more complete versions.

Of course the problem of heathens is caused by the devil:

Alas, it is because of the devil that many things went wrong long ago, and mankind disobeyed God too greatly, and heathenism altogether did harm too greatly and still does widespread harm. However, we do not read anywhere in books that man established any idolatry anywhere in the world in the time before Noah's flood.

Then they also took it as wisdom, through the devil's teaching, to worship the sun and moon for gods because of their shiny brightness, and they made sacrifices to them that they did not know before, but learned through devil's teaching,

Some men also said that the shiny stars were gods and began some believed gods were also in fire because of the sudden heat, some also believed there were gods in water, and some believed gods were in the earth, because she nourishes all things.

Yet heathens would not be restricted to as few gods as they had before, but took to worshipping various giants and violent men of the world who became mighty in worldly powers and were awe-inspiring while they lived, and they foully followed their own desires.

He then becomes very specific:

One man was in former days living on the island that is called Crete, and he was named Saturn, and he was so savage that he did away with his own children, all except one, and unlike a father he destroyed their lives in their youth.

He nevertheless reluctantly left one alive (though he did away with his brothers) who he was called Jove, and he became a savage fiend. He expelled his own father from the same aforementioned island called Crete, and he would have destroyed him eagerly if he could. This Jove became so wanton that he took his own sister as his wife; she was named Juno, and she became a greatly exalted goddess according to heathen reckoning.

He continues to explain away the named deities of the Classical Era:

There was also a man called Mercury, he was very crafty and deceitful in deed and trickeries, though his speech was fully clever. The heathens made him a renowned god for themselves; ... This false god was honored among the heathens in that day, and he is also called by the name Odin in the Danish manner. Now some of the Danish men say in their error that he, whom they call Thor, was Jove, the son of Mercury, whom they call Odin—but they are not right, for we read in books, both in heathen and in Christian ones, that the evil Jove is, in truth, Saturn's son. 

There was also a woman named Venus; she was Jove's daughter and she was so foul and wicked in lust that she copulated with her own brother, or so the men say, through the devil's teaching, and the heathens also worshipped that evil woman as an exalted woman.

Wulfstan's copying of Æfric's work was only fair, since Ælfric himself based his version on a 6th-century sermon by Martin of Braga. Let's check out Martin tomorrow and see what else he did.

Euhemerism

I said yesterday that I was going to talk about the writings of Ælfric of Eynsham, and I will, but I want to explain the term Euhemerism first. Euhemerism is an attempt to shed light on mythology by interpreting it as springing from actual historical events. Or, in the words of an American historian, it is "the taking of a cosmic god and placing him at a definite point in history as an actual person who was later deified." 

It assumes that real events became exaggerated and fictionalized in the oral transmission. The term comes from a late 4th-century BCE Greek, Euhemerus, who tried to rationalize mythology. Many early Greek philosophers were in agreement. In Plato's Phaedrus, Socrates offers an explanation of the story of an Athenian princess "taken away" by the north wind, Boreas. Socrates points out the place where there is a temple to Boreas where a wind might have knocked a young woman off her feet and onto rocks where she was killed.

Early Christian apologists used Euhemerism against paganism by declaring:

That those are no gods whom the common people worship, is known from this: they were formerly kings, who on account of their royal memory subsequently began to be adored by their people even in death. Thence temples were founded to them; thence images were sculptured to retain the countenances of the deceased by the likeness; and men sacrificed victims, and celebrated festal days, by way of giving them honour. Thence to posterity those rites became sacred, which at first had been adopted as a consolation.[from St. Cyprian]

The Middle Ages, and writers like Vincent of Beauvais and Roger Bacon, were willing to believe that supernatural beings were not imaginary, but were part of the natural order of things created by God. Men like Marsilius Ficino produced encyclopedic works to explain the hierarchy of demons, spirits, angels, archangels, etc., in God's creation.

Snorri Sturluson's Prose Edda (c.1220) paints the Norse gods as great leaders and kings, tracing back to that great foundation of so much medieval culture, the Trojan War.

The Modern Era also sometimes looks for historic origins of legendary characters, exaggerating them. Dracula, Paul Bunyan, Robin Hood—searching for the kernel of truth that grew into a legend.

But tomorrow we'll talk about Ælfric of Eynsham. Promise.

Ælfric of Eynsham

The oldest sample in writing of Old Dutch happens to be scrawled in the margin of a manuscript stored in the Bodleian Library in Oxford. The manuscript in which it sits is a copy of the Homilies of Ælfric of Eynsham.

Ælfric (c. 955 – c. 1010) was English and educated as a Benedictine. When the Abbey of Cerne was finished, Ælfric was sent to teach the Benedictine monks there. While there he became friends with the abbey's chief benefactor, the ealdorman Æthelmær the Stout, and Æthelmær's father, Æthelweard.

While at Cerne, Ælfric thought to write a series of homilies, he says because he found errors in existing writings.

I Ælfric, monk and mass-priest, ..., was sent, in king Æthelred's day, from bishop Ælfeah, Æthelwold's successor, to a minster which is called Cerne, at the prayer of Æthelmær the thane, whose birth and goodness are known everywhere. Then it occurred to my mind, I trust through God's grace, that I would turn this book from the Latin language into the English tongue; not from confidence of great learning, but because I have seen and heard of much error in many English books, which unlearned men, through their simplicity, have esteemed as great wisdom: and I regretted that they knew not nor had not the evangelical doctrines among their writings...

After writing two series of homilies, he wrote three works to help students learn Latin, basing a Latin grammar on the works of Priscian and Donatus. He wrote a grammar, a glossary (with words in groups by subject, not alphabetical order), and a colloquy, a conversational work to help students learn to speak Latin naturally.

He then wrote a Lives of the Saints, attached to which are two more homilies, including De falsis deis ("on false gods"). This work discusses the ongoing battle between Christianity and the religious beliefs of the native Anglo-Saxons and the Danish invaders. It tries to put the pagan beliefs into a Christian framework.

The "of Eynsham" that is usually attached to his name came about when Æthelmær asked him in 1005 to become the first abbot of a new monastery created by Æthelmær, at Eynsham in Oxfordshire.

Tomorrow I want to share some of the details in his writings. In the meantime, you can read some yourself with the Latin and a Modern English translation side-by-side at the Gutenberg Project.

Bodleian: Hebban olla vogala

"Hebban olla vogala" is not the name of a manuscript in the Bodleian Library of Oxford. It is part of a single line scribbled in the margin of a larger manuscript. In 1933, Kenneth Sisam, professor of Anglo-Saxon linguistics at Oxford, looked at a probatio pennae that had been jotted down on a manuscript page sometime before 1100. The manuscript was from St. Andrew's Church in Rochester, Kent. (Some trivia: one of Sisam's students was J.R.R.Tolkien.)

A probatio pennae is done to test a quill pen (see more here). This one was just a scribble. Although faded, this particular "test" is considered to be:

Hebban olla uogala nestas hagunnan hinase hic enda thu uuat unbidan uue nu

Directly above it is written a Latin translation:

(H)abent omnes uolucres nidos inceptos nisi ego et tu quid expectamus nu(nc)

which (to us) means:

All birds have begun nests, except me and you – what are we waiting for now?

Sisam recognized that 1) This was a line from a love song, and 2) it was not Old English, or (as originally assumed) Flemish, but instead was the earliest line in Old Dutch so far discovered. The line is not "pure" Old Dutch. The spelling suggests that the unknown monk working on the manuscript was likely from Flanders, working in Kent, and influenced by the Latin and Old English texts he was constantly copying.

The Dutch language was well-developed, but we have nothing of note earlier than this example.

The manuscript on which this "scribble" is found is a a collection of Old English sermons by Ælfric of Eynsham, who has been mentioned before, but not in great detail. Since it's sitting in the Bodleian, I think it's fair game to talk about these homilies and Ælfric next time. See you tomorrow.

Bodleian: The Book of Glendalough

Two things may be said about the Book of Glendalough. One is that it resides in the Bodleian Library in Oxford. The second thing? That we don't know for certain what or where the Book of Glendalough is. Let me explain.

First let's look at the obvious facts about the catalog entry known as MS Rawlinson B 502. It is a 166-page vellum manuscript that was composed between 1100 and 1130 CE in Glendalough in the County Wicklow. It is written in Middle Irish and Latin, and has later notes added by owners and scholars and scribes through whose hands it passed. There are two parts to it: separate works that were bound together in the 1600s. Three different scribal hands can be detected. One of the scribes seems to have been the one designated "H," the same who wrote notes into the Book of the Dun Cow.

The subject matter of the first manuscript is the Annals of Tigernach, a history of early Ireland. The second manuscript includes religious poems, a revised edition of a history called "The Six Ages of the World," a poem called a "Song for Columcille" (Columba), and more.

The reason for the uncertain identity? The Book of Glendalough was referenced by other manuscripts, with referrals to some of the texts that we find contained in MS Rawlinson B 502. But MS Rawlinson B 502's provenance and history are not carved in stone. Determining that this manuscript was the same Book of Glendalough that other manuscripts quoted has left room for debate.

Adding to the confusion is that the title "Book of Glendalough" (I am using the English translation of the Gaelic Lebar Glinne Dá Locha) was used to refer to what is now universally known as the Book of Leinster.

Taken at face value, the manuscript has been called "most important and most beautiful ... undoubtedly the most magnificent" of medieval Irish manuscripts by the 20th-century scholar Brian Ó Cuív. For more on the debate, you can read here (requires special access).

From the same century as the Book of Glendalough, tomorrow let us look at a true one-of-a-kind manuscript, the only known example in existence of the Old Dutch language, the Hebban olla vogala. See you then.

Bodleian: Cædmon's Hymn

Our first foray into the special medieval holdings of the Bodleian Library is "Cædmon's Hymn."

Bede wrote that Cædmon was an illiterate man in the late 7th century who cared for the cows at what is now Whitby Abbey. One night, in a dream, he was approached by "someone" who asked him to sing about the beginning of the world. In the dream he first refused, then created a poem.

When he woke up the next morning, he wrote down the remembered poem. Taking it to (we think) Abbess Hilda of Whitby (658–80), it was declared a gift from God. They gave him a test to make a new poem, which he did so well that they had him join the abbey and take monastic vows. They taught him history and doctrine, after which he would compose beautiful poems. (This was all in Anglo-Saxon.)

"Cædmon's Hymn" is considered the oldest surviving English poem, and one of the oldest surviving samples of Germanic alliterative verse. It is also the second most numerous of surviving manuscripts, with 22 extant.

The Bodleian Library has four copies. One is from the first half of the 10th century, two from the mid-11th century, and one from the first quarter of the 12th century. (The illustration is Hatton 43, from the mid-11th.) Below is one translation (made in 2011 by American poet Harvey Shapiro):

Guardian of heaven      whom we come to praise
who mapped creation      in His thought's sinews
Glory-Father who     worked out each wonder
began with broad earth      a gift for His children
first roofed it with heaven      the Holy Shaper
established it forever     as in the beginning
called it middle kingdom      fenced it with angels
created a habitation for man     to praise His splendor.

Tomorrow we will look at the Book of Glendalough, from pre-Norman Ireland.

The Bodleian Library

The Bodleian Library in Oxford is actually not from the Middle Ages. It was founded in 1602 by Sir Thomas Bodley (1545 - 1613), an English diplomat and scholar. What he accomplished, however, was the salvation of what had existed in the Middle Ages.

The first library at Oxford was a collection of books left by Bishop Thomas Cobham of Worcester (died 1327). Those books were chained to tables for research, not for lending.

Between 1435 and 1437, the brother of King Henry V, Humphrey, 1st Duke of Gloucester, donated 281 manuscripts. The space where Cobham's books were stored was too small to accommodate the influx of material. A room above the Divinity School was built (finished in 1488) to store them all. That space is still known as Duke Humfrey's [sic] Library.

The Reformation (1550) saw the ruin of the library (not the building) in order to destroy any vestige of Roman Catholicism. Some books were removed by sympathetic people and hidden to keep them safe. The furniture was removed in 1556. Only three books from the original collection are there now. One was re-acquired only in the last few years.

Thomas Bodley began the restoring of Duke Humfrey's in 1598. Over the next decades, two wings were added, the east wing (Arts End) and west wing (Selden End), creating an "H" shape. It contains collections of art, maps, music, theology, and Western manuscripts.

Now there are five buildings that comprise the Bodleian, with off-site storage near Swindon. Its catalog includes over 13,000,000 items, the second largest collection in England after the British Library. It is one of a handful of "legal deposit" libraries (the British Library is another) to which a copy of all published works must be given.

Although he had access to wealth through his wife and father, Bodley recognized that donations would be needed to maintain the library, and he created the idea of a Benefactors' Book that would record every donation and be kept on display. In it we can see that Sir Walter Raleigh donated £50 in 1603, and Francis Bacon donated a copy of his book  The Advancement of Learning in 1605.

Tomorrow I'll tell you about some of the medieval works that exist inside the Bodleian.

Isaac of Nineveh

Isaac of Nineveh was a 7th-century Syriac Christian, born c.613 in eastern Arabia (Qatar), an area that spoke Arabic and Syrian. He was ordained Bishop of Nineveh in 676, but one record says he left that position not long after starting it. He is often referred to as Isaac the Syrian.

The reason may simply have been the desire to live the life of an ascetic. We are told he retired to a mountain in a province of Iran, and then joined a monastery called Rabban Shapur where he concentrated his energy on writing on Christian mysticism. It is said that his devotion to study was so great that at the time of his death he was nearly blind. (Of course, eyes naturally age as we grow older, and the invention of eyeglasses was centuries away.)

He wrote extensively on theology and asceticism. A later Syriac writer claimed that Isaac wrote seven volumes. They are discussed as three "Parts."  The First Part was translated first into Greek and then into other languages. It is the best known of the Parts, and was translated into English in 1923. It is a collection of homilies whose number and order vary depending on which manuscript one reads.

The Second Part was unknown until 1983, when a British Syriac scholar was reading a manuscript in the Bodleian Library that had been donated by an Assyrian priest who had lived and preached in Flint, Michigan. It contain 41 chapters, but one of the chapters, entitled "Headings on Spiritual Knowledge," has 400 chapters of its own. It was identified by matching it with quotations in other early manuscripts that were known to be by Isaac. Since then, other manuscripts have been identified as version of the Second Part.

The Third part is only known by a 1903 copy of a 14th-century manuscript that has since been lost.

If other Parts still exist, they have not been identified.

Isaac's writings suggest the idea of universal salvation, that all human beings can and will be restored to a proper relationship with God. In his writings we find sentences that claim "God will not abandon anyone." and "There was a time when sin did not exist, and there will be a time when it will not exist." He offers an analogy:

As a handful of sand thrown into the ocean, so are the sins of all flesh as compared with the mind of God; as a fountain that flows abundantly is not dammed by a handful of earth, so the compassion of the Creator is not overcome by the wickedness of the creatures... If He is compassionate here, we believe that there will be no change in Him; far be it from us that we should wickedly think that God could not possibly be compassionate; God's properties are not liable to variations as those of mortals.

Isaac died c.700 in Umayyad Iran. He is considered a saint in the Church of the East.

The Bodleian Library (as no doubt many other major research libraries in the world) contains donations that have not all been examined closely. Treasures lie within. Let's take a look next time at the Bodleian, and especially at its precursors in Oxford.

Syriac

The Syriac alphabet is a set of 22 consonants; there are no vowels. It was created in the 1st century CE as an offshoot of cursive Aramaic.

Written from right to left, (and occasionally vertically), the vowel sounds were implied by context. In the 8th century, diacritical marks were introduced to represent vowel sounds.

There were three variations of the script, one of which, the oldest and classical version called "Estrangela" is shown here. As the oldest version, Estrangela does not usually adopt the diacritical marks, and is therefore "pure" classical Syriac.

Looking at the table here, one might notice the first letter, ālep̄, and say "Isn't that the vowel "a"? It is actually a glottal stop, so not the same. Just below it on the table, Waw is the consonant "w" but can create the sounds of "o" and "u" when spoken. Yöt on the second row is the letter 'y' but can also create a vowel sound for "I" and "e."

Across the Middle East, Syriac was a major vernacular, literary, and religious language. It ha also been called Edessan, the Mesopotamian, and Aramaic. It was the main language of the early Christian era. As Syriac Christianity spread, the language became known as far as India and China. By the end of the Middle Ages, it became less a daily language and more reserved for liturgical use.

Syriac is still around. In fact, you can order a book designed to teach it to children.

While it flourished, however, it was used by several major authors of the early era. Jacob of Serugh (c.451 - 521) composed hundreds of homilies in verse. The poet Narsai (c.399 - 502) was nicknamed the "Tongue of the East" for his writings that influenced East Syrian liturgical theology. Jacob of Edessa (c.640 - 708) created the first formal Syriac grammar and translated Greek philosophical works into Syriac.

Then there was Isaac of Nineveh, also known as Isaac the Syrian, whose Syriac writings on mysticism were so popular that they were translated from Syriac into Arabic, Ethiopic, and Greek. We'll talk about him more tomorrow.

The Elimination of Grief

After Muhammad's death, the Muslim world expanded its reach quickly. Within a century, its reach extended from modern-day Afghanistan and India in the east to the southern border of France (and all around the Mediterranean).

One result of this influence was the adoption of Arabic by Christian writers. Christian authors wrote explanations of their faith in Arabic to reach a wider audience.

The 11th-century Nestorian Archbishop Elijah of Nisibis was one of these, choosing to write several works in Arabic as well as other languages. His best-known is a history called Opus Chronologicum in Latin ("Work of chronology") and Kitāb al-Azmina in Arabic. He modeled it on the Ecclesiastical History of the 4th-century Eusebius of Caesarea. It includes information taken from works written in earlier centuries that are now lost. He also includes tables for calculating Persian and Syriac new years as well as Zoroastrian calendars.

A lesser-known work by Elijah that has survived is the Kitāb dafʿ al-hamm ("The Book of Elimination of Grief"). It blends Christian theology and Islamic ethical philosophy to offer practical and spiritual strategies for overcoming sorrow and anxiety. 

Though Christian, Elijah shows a deep understanding of traditional Islamic thought. The work includes several quotations from the Hadith (the collection of Muhammad's sayings), and refers to the writings of early Islamic Sufi mystics.

The second chapter emphasizes the cultivation of gratitude to combat grief and anxiety. He advises the reader to actively appreciate divine blessings to counter the tendency of humans to lean toward despair.

The work, which survives today (though I cannot locate an English-language edition), is part of a tradition that started earlier with writers like the 9th-century al-Kindi.

Another work of Elijah's was a dictionary and grammar for learning the Syriac language, which was his primary language. Tomorrow, let's take a dive into something really different: Syriac.

Elijah of Nisibis

Thank heavens for people in the past who took the time to write down what they knew—although, to be fair, we have very few means to independently verify the truth of what they wrote. The best we can hope for is to compare what they wrote to the records of others, examine as best we can at this remove what political or religious or personal motives they might have had, and then make a case for their truthfulness.

Elijah of Nisibis was a member of the Church of the East, which is also known as the Assyrian Church, or the Nestorian Church, or even the Babylonian Church. It was different from the Chalcedonian Church, from which modern Roman Catholicism (and therefore Protestantism) and Eastern Orthodoxy descend.

He was originally known as Elijah Bar Shinajah, meaning "Elijah, son of Šena." Šena was not his father, but a reference to a town near what is present-day Al-Zab, Iraq. Born in 975, he was ordained a priest in 994, made a bishop in 1002, and became archbishop of Nisibis in 1008.

A fulfilling life for him, certainly, but he is important to us because of his desire to write and explain, and his desire to have intellectual discussion with non-Christians.

His reputation extended not only among Christian scholars and theologians of his era but also Muslim mutakallimūn and intellectuals. This recognition stemmed not only from his profound knowledge spanning medicine, mathematics, philosophy, Arabic and Syriac philology, ethics, Christian theology, and Islamic Kalām, but also from his adeptness at enculturating his philosophical and theological doctrines within the Islamic world through the adoption of Islamic language and terminology. [source]

(The illustration is part of one of his works written in Arabic script.) While at Nisibis, he met with the Muslim vizier Abū al-Qāsim al-Maġribī for discussions on various topics of mutual interest, and to enable both to learn about the other's faith. The two remained in contact, and a few letters between the two from the following year exist.

The visits, from 15 to 29 July 1026, are called the "Seven Sessions." They were initiated by the vizier himself after he experienced a miraculous cure at the hands of a Christian monk. They were written up by Elijah and covered the following topics:

• God's unity (because of the Trinity, Christianity was considered polytheistic and therefore "false")
• Jesus's incarnation of two natures (divine and human)
• Quranic support for considering some forms of Christianity as monotheistic
• Logical and miraculous justifications for various Christian doctrines
• Elijah's own profession of monotheism
• Language, and considerations of its importance in theology
• Christian perspectives on astrology, Islam, and the soul

Tomorrow I'd like to start exploring some of Elijah's writings. See you then.

Muawiyah I

In the early days of Muhammad (c.570 - 632 CE), the founder of Islam, not everyone in that part of the world automatically agreed with him. A distant kinsman of Muhammad's, Abu Sufyan of the Umayyad clan, opposed the new religious leader. The Battle of Badr had Muhammad's followers on one side and Abu Sufyan on the other. Abu Sufyan's eldest son and father-in-law were killed at the battle.

Then Muhammad married Abu Sufyan's widowed sister in 629 and entered Mecca in 630, whereupon Abu Sufyan became a follower and took a role in the new Muslim state. (The illustration shows Abu Sufyan and other leaders making a pledge to support the new Muslim order.)

Abu Sufyan had two sons, Yazid and Muawiyah, who each were granted command roles in the province. Yazid became governor of Damascus, Jordan, and Palestine. This was under the Rashidun Caliphate. Muawiyah went on to start his own caliphate, the Umayyad Caliphate.

Muawiyah became one of Muhammad's scribes first, moving up the ranks until he became the governor of Syria. There was a powerful tribe, the Banu Kalb, with which Muawiyah formed an alliance. Muawiyah became a leader in the campaigns against the Byzantine Empire.

His duties were not just military, of course. He organized the local government and established a chancellery and postal routes. The Muslim conquest of Ifriqiya (Northern Africa) was begun by him. When the last Rashidun Caliph, Uthman, was assassinated, Muawiyah was chosen to replace him. Muawiyah was the first caliph of the Umayyad Dynasty.

He was different from other caliphs, however, treating himself more as a king above others rather than a first among equals. He was criticized for having a throne that put him physically higher than others. A 9th-century Arab Muslim historian, al-Ya'qubi, described him as:

...the first to have a bodyguard, police-force and chamberlains ... He had somebody walk in front of him with a spear, took alms out of the stipends and sat on a throne with the people below him ... He used forced labour for his building projects ... He was the first to turn this matter [the caliphate] into mere kingship.

There is another anecdote, however, that makes him a little more kind to his subjects. One anecdote, in which he is questioned for letting someone criticize him, has him respond "I do not insert myself between the people and their tongue, so long as they do not insert themselves between us and our sovereignty."

Another supposed saying of his was "I never use my voice if I can use my money, never my whip if I can use my voice, never my sword if I can use my whip; but, if I have to use my sword, I will."

He died in the spring of 680 CE, having caused a controversy by naming his son as his successor rather than having a successor be chosen by his followers. Some of what we know about him comes from a Nestorian chronicler named Elijah of Nisibis, whom I will tell you about tomorrow.

The End of Constans

Constans II came to the imperial throne as a child, but upon gaining his majority he proved to be capable and even ambitious. His (fruitless) attempt to resolve the Monothelitism controversy has already been discussed, and how he had the Pope himself arrested and sent to Constantinople for trial.

Concerned about delays of traffic on the Silk Road, he sent emissaries to China to discuss with Emperor Taizong of Tang China how to better manage the tribal conflicts in the Turkic Khaganate that were causing disruption. Chinese histories talk of the meetings in which Constans II sent gifts such as red and green gems.

The same Chinese records that tell of emissaries from Constans also record that Arabs besieged Constantinople. History identifies the Arab leader as Muawiyah I, who became the first Umayyad caliph, starting a dynasty that replaced the Rashidun Caliphate. Constans had fought the Rashidun Caliphate for years, and might have lost the empire to the Umayyads completely except for a civil war in the Islamic community that disrupted their westward advance. Muawiyah made a truce with Constans (but would clash with his son, Constantine IV).

Constans wanted to re-establish the unity of the Western Roman and Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire. To that end, he visited Rome, the first emperor from Constantinople to do so since the fall of the Western Empire to the Goths. He also thought it a good idea to move the center of imperial power to a more central location.

Syracuse in Sicily would be his new home. Traveling to Italy, he fought with the Lombards who were all over much of the peninsula. Once in Rome, he started stripping buildings of their facades, sending sculptures of stone and bronze back to Constantinople. (This action would in some ways be reversed in 1204.) Understandably, this angered the Italians.

The illustration shows his end. He was killed by a chamberlain in Syracuse while taking a bath. He was either stabbed or beaten with a heavy object. Details are unclear.

As I mentioned, during this time the Umayyad Caliphate was created, starting with Muawiyah I. Let's learn more about him tomorrow.

Constans and Monothelitism

So Constans II survived the attempt by Valentinus to become emperor in 644, and ruled for another 22 years, accomplishing a few "firsts" for an eastern Roman (Byzantine) Emperor. 

He was the first Byzantine Emperor to visit Rome (in 663) since the fall of the Western Empire in 476. Pope Vitalian greeted him warmly (since 476, the emperor in Constantinople was also the emperor of the entire Roman Empire, west as well as east, and so the pope's secular lord). Constans, however, did not respect Rome: he took (stole) treasures from several buildings, including the Pantheon, to be sent back to Constantinople.

Three years later, he declared that the pope did not have authority over the Archbishop of Ravenna, since Ravenna was the city of Constans' representative, the Exarch. The Exarchate of Ravenna was an administrative district that owed allegiance to Constantinople, not Rome. It was the Exarch Theodore I Calliopas in 652 who arrested Pope Martin I on Constans' orders, dragging him from the Lateran and putting him on a ship to Constantinople for trial, for daring to get involved in Constans' decree about Monothelitism.

The other victim of this move was Maximus the Confessor. Maximus had been an important figure in the administration of Constans' grandfather, Heraclius, rising to the position of protoasekretis (literally "first secretary"; the top notary in the government). Later in life he chose the contemplative lifestyle of a monk. He went to Rome to debate against Monothelitism. When Maximus' arguments helped 105 bishops in a synod to condemn Monothelitism, Constans order him arrested. Put on trial in Constantinople, he was convicted of heresy.

The aftermath was that his tongue was cut out and his right hand cut off so that he could neither speak nor write anything heretical. (The illustration shows his tongue being removed on the right while others on the left bow before the emperor.) Pope Martin and Maximus would both be vindicated by the Sixth Ecumenical Council in 680 that found that Christ had both a human and divine will.

By that time, however, the emperor that championed Monothelitism would be dead, and not of natural causes. I'll tell you about his untimely and ignoble death tomorrow.

Valentinus Turns Traitor

He was trusted by Emperor Heraclius to support the emperor's son, Constans II, and he did, even going so far as to eliminate the young emperor's rivals. A few years later, however, Valentinus decided that the power he had used to be "king-maker" could be used to be "king" himself.

Valentinus started as an administrative officer in the army. Heraclius had sent him over two million gold solidi to pay to the army to ensure their loyalty. The attempted takeover after Heraclius' death by his step-mother and step-brother did not last long, and Constans became emperor at a young age.

His age required him to be guided by a regency council. Valentinus was the most prominent member of that council, and became the most powerful man in the empire by 642. Valentinus had titles, and contemporary sources say he was allowed to wear imperial purple.

In a further sign of his connection to the emperor, Constans married Valentinus' daughter, Fausta, in 642. Then the first signs of greater ambition appeared in Valentinus. He suggested that the pre-teen Constans needed an adult to rule along with him, and suggested that Valentinus be made co-emperor.

The general population was against this, and Valentinus was named (possibly as a consolation prize) commander-in-chief of the Byzantine army.

A couple years later, however, in 644, Valentinus again attempted to be made emperor. He had soldiers loyal to him who followed him to Constantinople (the illustration is what the city might have looked like at the time) where he demanded to be made emperor. Not only the general population but also leading authorities like the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople opposed this idea.

His demand led to a revolt. Contemporary sources make clear that the mob simply set upon him and killed him. His betrayal did not affect his daughter's standing, and she and Constans had children that continued the Heraclian Dynasty, of which I'll say more tomorrow.

Valentinus to the Rescue

Constantine's arrangement and gift of money to Valentinus for the army, to support Constantine's son in the line of succession, was almost prescient. Constantine died three months after becoming emperor, leaving his step-brother Heraclonas in charge.

Valentinus and troops from Asia Minor went on the march. When they reached the strait across from Constantinople, Heraclonas wisely confirmed his nephew Constans II as co-emperor. This was in September of 641, and Constans was ten years old to Heraclonas' 17 years. (The illustration is a gold solidus with Constans' image.)

Of course, it was Heraclonas' mother, Martina, who had guided her son and tried to contradict the authority of Constantine. The known adversarial relationship Marina had with the son of her husband's first marriage led to rumors that she had poisoned Constantine.

In November of 641, Valentinus and the army crossed to Constantinople, arrested Martina, Heraclonas, and Martina's other sons David and Marinos. The sons were castrated and their noses were cut off, Martina's tongue was slit; all were exiled to Rhodes. After this, they all fall out of the public record.

Constans was too young not to be guided by a regency council. During his reign, Byantines withdrew from Egypt, and the Rashidun Caliphate attempted to expand into the Mediterranean and Aegean Seas. Constans took a different approach to Monothelitism than his father, preferring not to take sides. His Typos of Constans of 648 was an edict forbidding the topic to be debated. This, of course, solved nothing and satisfied no one. (His son, Constantine IV, would call the Sixth Ecumenical Council that would settle the matter officially.)

There was a serious hiccup in his reign early on, however, brought about by the man who saved him originally. Tomorrow we'll talk about how Valentinus thought maybe he should be emperor. See you then.

Constantine and Heroclonas

When Emperor Heraclius died on 11 February 641, he left two of his sons in charge. Each was from a different mother.

Constantine, his son by his first wife, Fabia Eudokia, had been crowned co-emperor on 22 January 613, when the child was only eight months old. This honorary title was a way to ensure succession in the event of the father's death, but did not give him the emperor's authority while his father lived. (The illustration shows a gold solidus with father and son displayed.)

Heraclonas, his son by Martina, had been made a caesar (a royal title but not the same as emperor) at the age of six years, on 1 January 632. On that same day, Constantine was given a consulship, which made him one of the highest-ranking men in the empire with actual authority. Heroclonas was named "Augustus" and essentially a co-emperor on 4 July 638.

Heraclius' favoring of Martina, who naturally tried to promote her own children over that of her step-son, led to a weakening of Constantine's roles.

At Heraclius' death, however, Constantine became senior emperor. Constantine promoted his own son, Constans (who was only 10 years old) to caesar, ignoring Martina's other sons. Because Heraclonas was so young, Martina made decisions on his behalf, often arguing with Constantine.

Some of Constantine's supporters feared that Martina and Heraclonas would try to overthrow him, and advised him to make sure the army was loyal. Constantine sent two million solidi to Valentinus, to ensure that the army would support Constans.

Constantine died within a few months of becoming emperor. The cause is assumed to be tuberculosis, although rumors that he was poisoned by Martina persisted. That's when the money sent to Valentinus came in handy, as I'll explain tomorrow.

The Heraclian Dynasty

For a century (610 - 711), Heraclius and his descendants were emperors of the Eastern Roman Empire, ruling over the Byzantines from Constantinople. To get these descendants, he had two marriages.

The first was to Fabia Eudokia, betrothed to him before he became emperor. She and her mother were kidnapped by the previous emperor, Phocas, to try to prevent Heraclius from attacking Constantinople. They were released by members of the Greens, who favored Heraclius in his revolt. Once they were safely with Heraclius, he was able to enter Constantinople. Heraclius and Fabia married on the same day he was crowned emperor, 5 October 610, and she was given the title Augusta. Their son was Constantine III, who would succeed Heraclius.

Fabia died on 13 August 612. Heraclius then married Martina in 613. Her mother was Maria, Heraclius' sister, making him her uncle.

There have been several times in history when laws of consanguinity were proposed, suggesting various degrees of relatedness that were prohibited. Marriage to your niece was certainly one of these prohibited unions, whichever set of rules you chose to apply. The crime of incest, and the respect for the deceased Fabia Eudokia, led to disapproval by the population of this new marriage. Heraclius' own family rejected this choice; his brother Theodore frequently condemned it.

Heraclius kept Martina with him on campaigns, but military failures were attributed to her and the inappropriate marriage. The couple had several children:

• Constantine, who died young
• Fabius, who had a paralyzed neck and died young
• Theodosius, born deaf-mute

These children may have suffered due to the inbreeding of Heraclius with a close relative. The population pointed fingers at this "evidence" that the marriage was cursed.

There were children who survived and became rulers themselves, however. When Heraclius was on his deathbed, he asked that his son by Fabia, Constantine, and a son by Martina, Heraclonas, be honored. Constantine and Martina did not get along, however, which was going to cause trouble in the near future. See you tomorrow. (The illustration is a much later coin struck to commemorate Heraclius.)

Emperor Heraclius

Byzantine Emperor Heraclius (reigned 610 - 641) was mentioned here when he tried to make the whole empire follow Monothelitism. The idea that Jesus had only a single "energy" and not two (the human and the divine) was not well-received by everyone. That was not the only issue of Heraclius' reign.

Born c.575 in (we think) Armenia, his father (Heraclius the Elder) was a general under Emperor Maurice during the time of Bahram Chobin's revolt against the Iranian emperors Hormizd IV and his son, Khosrow II. Maurice made Heraclius the Elder the Exarch (regional governor) of Africa.

In 608, Heraclius the Elder and his son led a revolt against Emperor Phocas (reigned 602 to 610). Phocas had overthrown Maurice years earlier, but was so unpopular that when the younger Heraclius approached Constantinople, the elite imperial guard that was led by Phocas' son-in-law defected to Heraclius. The son-in-law, Priscus, supported the overthrow and was later given a command against the Persians. Another group in favor of change that supported the revolt was the Greens.

Heraclius the Younger became emperor. The illustration shows him sentencing Phocas, although a generation later an historian said Heraclius slew Phocas himself without any formality. The Elder was still securing Egypt. When news came that his son was made emperor, the father is said to have rejoiced. He died shortly after, however.

Heraclius was crowned on 5 October 610. Much of his reign was spent dealing with the danger from the east. War with the Sassanian Empire (602 - 628) lost him Syria and Egypt. When Khosrow II was overthrown by his son, Kavad II, Kavad II wanted peace. The war against the Persians ended, but the military losses on both sides were significant.

As a sign of good faith, Kavad offered the True Cross to Heraclius in 628. Heraclius returned it to Jerusalem a year or two later.

Unfortunately, here was another enemy to the East, the Rashidun Caliphate, who conquered the Sassanian Empire first and then came for the West, taking Armenia, Egypt, and Mesopotamia. What was gained from Persian Zoroastrians was lost to Arab Muslims.

He established the Heraclian dynasty that lasted a century. There was a problem with his descendants, however, and that was the problem of incest. I'll explain more tomorrow.

Khosrow and Shirin, Part 3

We left off two days ago (because of the Farhad Tarash interlude) with the "wrong" ending of their love story, one we know didn't happen because we know when the two lovers lived and died. The idea that Khosrow's son kills Khosrow in order to marry Shirin, and Shirin killing herself to avoid this, does not fit the few facts we know.

The fact is that the two were married. Shirin was a Christian, and her presence in his life was likely an influence on his tolerance for the various Christian offshoots, although he did take sides. The ongoing conflict between Monophysite (Jesus had only one nature) and Nestorian (Jesus had a human and divine nature) Christians led Khosrow to favor his wife's version and declare that Monophysitism should be followed by Christians in his empire.

Shirin bore a son, Mardanshah, whom she would have liked to be Khosrow's successor.

Also, despite the part of the story that has Shirin also romantically interested in the sculptor Farhad, she lives on in legend as a faithful wife. She played a more public role than Gordiya (the sister of Khosrow's one-time enemy, Bahram Chobin), or Mariam (said to be the daughter of the Byzantine Emperor Maurice). Each of his wives bore him sons. It was a son of Mariam who was to cause the greatest grief for the couple.

During the Persian-Turkic War of 627-629, the Turks captured Khosrow's home in Dastagird, whereupon Khosrow fled to the capital of Ctesiphon. Once he reached Ctesiphon, Khosrow intended to recognize Mardanshah as his heir. Hearing this, Sheroe sent a message to a general who once led opposition to Khosrow. Sheroe promised to promote conspirators, increase the army's salaries, and end the war with the Byzantine Empire.

With those assurances, the general arranged for a coup d'état in favor of Sheroe, who started calling himself Kavad II as a regnal name. This was in 628.

Sheroe had his father imprisoned, and a list of accusations was made against him for mis-management and corruption. Khosrow dismissed the accusations. Kavad then had all his siblings rounded up and executed. He then had an Iranian nobleman kill Khosrow, after which he had the nobleman killed. Khosrow's daughters criticized their brother. Shirin is also said to have died in 628, but the idea that she committed suicide because her step-son wants to marry her was unlikely. (The illustration is a carved capital that depicts Khosrow.)

To end the war, Kavad would have to deal with Byzantine Emperor Heraclius. Let's meet him tomorrow.

Farhad Tarash

I mentioned yesterday a sculptor named Farhad who was punished by Khosrow II for becoming a rival for the love of Shirin. He was given the impossible task to carve steps into the cliffs of Mount Behistun.

As it happens, if you go to Mount Behistun in western Iran you'll find a long smooth section carved into the stone that is decidedly not natural. Called the Farhād Tarāsh, it is 30 meters high and 200 meters long.

Its origin is unknown. A medieval geographer named Istakhri, who died in 957, had no idea whence it came. Near the Farhād Tarāsh are several hundred dressed stone blocks that would be suitable for the start of a wall or a building's foundation. They have been dated to the same era as the wall carving.

Farhad is only known from Nizami Ganjavi's famous tragic romance Khosrow and Shirin, which he started writing in c. 1180. Did Nizami Ganjavi know something about the history of Mount Behistun? Or did he simply take a mystery and come up with a fiction that explained it and added a tragic note to his story? (In the story, Farhad threw himself off the cliff when he was told that Shirin was dead.)

One archaeologist thought the stone face was created to be the frame for an inscription by Darius the Great (reigned 522-486 BCE). Another theorized it was the beginning of a planned palace by Khosrow II, and that the literary link to his reign was evidence of such. Khosrow also reigned over a Golden Age of sorts before the Muslim conquest of Iran.

None of the theories can be proven, but it makes for an interesting footnote to the romance of Khosrow and Shirin, which we will get back to tomorrow.

Khosrow and Shirin, Part 2

Yesterday we started the romance of Khosrow and Shirin, in which the two lovers separate when Khosrow goes to Constantinopole to get help from Roman Emperor Maurice. Khosrow had been dethroned by Bahram Chobin, and Maurice would lend him soldiers if Khosrow agreed to marry Maurice's daughter Mariam. He also had to promise to marry no one else whilst Mariam lived, which would put a wrinkle in his plans to be married to Shirin.

Khosrow and Mariam are wed. She will give birth to a son, Shiroyeh. Time passes.

While Khosrow was in Constantinople, a sculptor named Farhad was falling for Shirin. Shirin was returning the interest. (The illustration is of Shirin visiting Farhad.) Back in power, Khosrow sends Farhad away with the task of carving steps into Behistun Mountain. While Farhad is attempting this task, Khosrow sends him word that Shirin has died. Farhad's grief is so great that he throws himself from the mountain and dies.

Khosrow sends a message to Shirin, informing her that Farhad is dead and expressing regret. Eventually, Mariam dies. A 10th-century Persian poet who wrote the Shahnameh, Ferdowsi, says Shirin poisoned her, after which Shirin sends Khosrow a letter expressing regret sarcastically, in revenge for the death of Farhad.

The two lovers are now free to marry, but Khosrow has a dalliance with another woman named Shekar; this delays the union of the two. Then, a drunk Khosrow goes to Shirin's castle to see her, but she won't let him in because of his affair with Shekar, and he returns to his own castle.

Several more incidents occur before Shirin agrees to marry Khosrow, but yet another wrinkle appears: Shiroyeh has fallen in love with Shirin. Shiroyeh kills Khosrow and writes to Shirin, saying that he will marry her in one week. She kills herself instead, and she and Khosrow are buried together.

Didn't happen.

What did happen is worth telling, but first we have to talk about Farhad, the likely fictitious sculptor given an impossible task. At Behistun there is a carving with his name attached to it, and it's worth looking at. See you tomorrow. 

Khosrow and Shirin, Part 1

Once the rebellions were finished, the reign of Khosrow II (590 - 628) experienced a golden age in some respects. One facet of his reign was his tolerance of Christians, which may have had something to do with undoing the persecutions in the times of his immediate ancestors, and also to do with one of his wives, Shirin.

Shirin was a Christian, a member of the Church of the East and later a member of the Syriac Orthodox Church. When Jerusalem was conquered in 614 by the Sassanians and the True Cross was captured, it was brought to Ctesiphon where Shirin took possession of it.

How Khosrow came to be married to a Christian is the subject of speculation, and many varying accounts were created over the years. One is that she was a servant in a Persian home he used to visit when he was young. A 12th-century Persian poet, Nizami Ganjavi, wrote a very popular poem called "Khosrow and Shirin" in which he tells the beautiful (and no doubt extremely fictional) story of the two lovers.

Nizami paints Shirin as the flawlessly beautiful niece of an Armenian queen. A friend of Khosrow travels at his behest to find Shirin and show her a picture of Khosrow, with whom she falls in love. She decides to flee her home to go to find Khosrow. Ironically, Khosrow at the time decided to flee his father's anger and go to Armenia to find Shirin.

Coincidentally, Khosrow (disguised as a peasant) sees a young woman bathing in a river. It is Shirin, who does not recognize him because of his disguise. He does not realize that she is the woman he seeks, so he continues. They miss each other several times in the story, until he flees to Armenia after his overthrow by Bahram Chobin. He finally meets Shirin, but leaves her in Armenia to travel to Constantinople to get help from the Byzantine Emperor Maurice against Bahram Chobin.

Maurice agrees to help, but on the condition that Khosrow marry his daughter Mariam, and to marry no one else so long as Mariam is alive. To further complicate things, a sculptor named Farhad falls in love with Shirin.

The romance of Khosrow and Shirin was known long before Nizami, but he turned it into a famous Iranian epic. Tomorrow we'll find out what happened to the lovers.

Gordiya

The woman whose name keeps showing up in the last few posts was the wife of three powerful men in 6th-century Iran, one of whom was her brother.

Born to one of the Seven Great Houses of Iran, Gordiya's father was a military officer under Emperor Khosrow I (531 - 579). She had three brothers, one of whom was Bahram Chobin, who later started a civil war against Khosrow's son (Hormizd IV) and then grandson, Khosrow II. She was married to Bahram; it is not known for certain, but they may have been half-siblings from different mothers.

Not much is known of Gordiya's early life. After Bahram's death in 590, when Khosrow II's uncle Vistahm rebelled against his nephew and created his own principality in eastern Iran, Gordiya saw a chance to be connected again to a powerful man and married Vistahm. This increased his authority with her brother's former followers.

Vistahm, however, was not going to be allowed to run his independent mini-kingdom, and ultimately Khosrow sent an army to conquer him. Vistahm was killed either by a supporter of Khosrow's or by Gordiya herself. Whether she was responsible is not able to be proven, but the identity of her third husband might shed some light on the incident.

She married Khosrow II.

If it is possible that Khosrow made a secret offer to her to make her his empress, then that could be sufficient motivation for her—a woman who saw marriage to powerful men as a way to gain status—to eliminate Vistahm.

Dinawari, a 9th-century Iranian polymath, wrote a history that mentions Gordiya giving Khosrow a son, Juvanshir, who was briefly a king of Iran in 630. If that were the case, however, there is no other evidence, neither written records nor coins minted with his information on them.

Let's get back to Khosrow II; with rebellions suppressed, we can now find out what else was significant about his reign, starting tomorrow.

Uncle Vistahm

An uncle willing to kill your father might not be the best person in whom to put your faith. Vistahm and his brother Vinduyih killed Iranian Emperor Hormizd IV (they had revenge reasons) and put his son on the throne as Khosrow II.

They had helped Khosrow during a civil war against his enemy, Bahram Chobin, but eventually he had to order them executed to distance himself from their murder of his father. Vinduyih was caught up with and killed, but Vistahm found enough supporters—including supporters of Bahram Chobin when Bahram's sister Gordiya married Vistahm—to create a little kingdom for himself inside Persian territory.

Because of the coins Vistahm was printing with his name and dates (see illustration), we know that he was ruling that area for seven years. Khosrow sent soldiers several times to capture and kill Vistahm, but Vistahm's following was too great. Ultimately, however, Vistahm had to flee to the mountainous province of Gilan.

Although some Armenian sections of Khosrow's army defected to Vistahm, he was finally tracked down and captured by forces led by an Armenian Prince, Smbat IV Bagratuni. Vistahm was killed, but there are two stories about that. One is that, at Khosrow's request, a prince of Transoxiana, Pariowk, killed him. The other is that the urging came from Gordiya herself.

Why would his wife be involved, whose brother was killed by forces of which Vistahm was originally part? She seems to have had a good head for figuring out where her best future options lay. Once it looked like Vistahm was no longer going to be successful, she was willing to abandon him for something else.

What was that "something else"? Would you be surprised to know that her next husband was a younger man, a powerful man; in fact, that his name was Khosrow II?

Maybe it's time to learn more about Gordiya. See you tomorrow.

Dealing with the Uncles

So Khosrow II had regained his throne and the usurper Bahram Chobin had fled and been killed. Order was restored in the Iranian Empire. Khosrow had originally been put on the throne when his two uncles on his mother's side, Vistahm and Vinduyih, who absolutely hated Khosrow's father, Hormizd IV (who had persecuted aristocratic clans to have more control himself and had killed their father), deposed Hormizd.

During the approach of Bahram's army to Ctesiphon, when Khosrow fled to Azerbaijan, Vinduyih even pretended to be Khosrow when Bahram's force caught up with them, and allowed himself to be captured in order to save his nephew.

Both uncles were rewarded handsomely with money and positions. Vinduyih became the royal treasurer. Vistahm took over his father's title of military chief in the east. 

The shadow of Hormizd's murder hung over Khosrow's reign, however. In order to distance himself from any complicity, Khosrow chose to have his uncles executed. Vinduyih tried to flee to Vistahm, but was captured and killed.

Then Vistahm (understandably) rebelled against Khosrow, sending him a message:

You are not worthier to rule than I am. Indeed, I am more deserving on account of my descent from Darius, son of Darius, who fought Alexander. You Sassanians deceitfully gained superiority over us and usurped our right, and treated us with injustice. Your ancestor Sasan was no more than a shepherd.

There was plenty of support for Vistahm, aided by an unexpected marriage. Bahram's sister, the influential noblewoman Gordiya (see illustration), went to Vistahm and married him. This brought many of Bahram's supporters to Vistahm's side.

Vistahm managed to carve out a very nice principality for himself, thumbing his nose at Khosrow. The estimates of his reign are from 590 to c.594/5. If he had stayed quiet, he might have lasted longer, but he decided to expand toward Khosrow-controlled territory. This set up a more serious clash between the two, about which I will say more tomorrow.

Khosrow II and Bahram

After Hormizd IV was strangled with his own turban by his own followers in 590, his son, now Iranian Emperor Khosrow II, faced the threat of the civil war leader Bahram Chobin heading his way. Khosrow sent a message to Bahram with a gentle warning:

Khosrow, kings of kings, ruler over the ruling, lord of the peoples, prince of peace, salvation of men, among gods the good and eternally living man, among men the most esteemed god, the highly illustrious, the victor, the one who rises with the sun and who lends the night his eyesight, the one famed through his ancestors, the king who hates, the benefactor who engaged the Sassanians and saved the Iranians their kingship—to Bahram, the general of the Iranians, our friend.... We have also taken over the royal throne in a lawful manner and have upset no Iranian customs.... We have so firmly decided not to take off the diadem that we even expected to rule over other worlds, if this were possible.... If you wish your welfare, think about what is to be done.

Bahram continued his march to the capital of Ctesiphon. Khosrow's loyalists initially held off Bahram's forces, despite being outnumbered, but were eventually worn down. Khosrow, his wives, his uncles Vistahm and Vinduyih (who had killed Hormizd) and 30 nobles fled west to lands controlled by the Byzantine Empire.

Bahram declared himself emperor in the summer of 590. Bahram supported his claim by linking his existence and success to a Zoroastrian legend of a savior (mentioned here). He proceeded to do what rulers do: minting his own gold coins (illustration) with his name and likeness on them.

Khosrow, meanwhile, made the desperate move of writing to the Byzantine Emperor Maurice (mentioned here) to ask for help regaining his throne. Despite the frequent Byzantine/Persian clashing, Maurice agreed, in exchange for the return of some cities to Byzantine possession and Iran stopping interfering with Iberia and Armenia.

Some vicious fighting followed, as Khosrow and his people attacked Bahram-controlled territory. General Narses made enough progress into Bahram's territory that Khosrow was again declared king there. Vistahm and Vinduyih also were making progress. Bahram was sufficiently defeated that he fled eastward where he found refuge with the Khagan of the Turks.

Khosrow was back on the throne after having ruled for less than a year and then been exiled for less than a year. Understanding that Bahram was very popular and could still pose a threat, Khosrow sent men to execute him. It would be convenient to say that Bahram's legacy no longer intertwined with Khosrow's, but history doesn't always tie up loose ends neatly. Tomorrow we'll look at Khosrow's reign, new/old threats, and a surprise marriage.

The End of Hormizd IV

So Hormizd IV was dealing with a civil war when a successful military leader decided he was destined to lead the Iranian Empire. Hormizd asked his general Farrukhan to go put down the rebellion. Before setting out, Farrukhan requested that Hormizd release a political prisoner, Zadspram, a military leader whom Farrukhan considered important to success. Zadspram was released.

The armies of Hormizd under Farrukhan faced the army of Bahram Chobin across the River Zab. Neither wanted to be the first to try crossing the river and putting themselves into a vulnerable position. Farrukhan might also have delayed in hopes that the rebellion would dissolve over time.

Unfortunately, Zadspram deserted Farrukhan. This desertion demoralized the army. Two of Farrukhan's officers killed Farrukhan, and the loyalist army fell apart.

Meanwhile, Hormizd was in Ctesiphon, the Iranian royal capital for over 800 years. Enter Vistahm and Vinduyih. They were Hormizd's brothers-in-law, and they hated him. They decided to get Hormizd off the throne, so they blinded him with a red-hot needle in 590. The brothers elevated his son, their nephew Khosrow II (born c.570), to the position of emperor. Not long after, the two dealt with Hormizd permanently by strangling him with his own turban.

Accounts written later disagree on whether Khosrow II was involved in the murder of his father. A few years after the event, Khosrow executed both uncles for the murder of his father, along with others he considered co-conspirators. (More own this in the next few days.)

With the news of the death of Hormizd, Bahram Chobin continued his march to the capital under the public pretext of avenging the assassination of the emperor. Now, however, he was Khosrow II's problem. Whether this would make Khosrow II's reign a short one will be seen tomorrow.

Hormizd IV

Iranian Emperor Khosrow I maintained a level of religious tolerance (except for Mazdakism), during his reign (531 - 579). His son was also tolerant.

Hormizd IV (reigned 579 - 590) turned down requests by the Zoroastrian clergy to persecute Christians. His explanation was:

Just as our royal throne cannot stand on its two front legs without the two back ones, our kingdom cannot stand or endure firmly if we cause the Christians and adherents of other faiths, who differ in belief from ourselves, to become hostile to us. So refrain from harming the Christians and become assiduous in good works, so that the Christians and the adherents of other faiths may see this, praise you for it, and feel themselves drawn toward your religion.

He wanted all living within the empire to be treated as citizens of the empire. One of Hormizd's wives was a Christian, and he is said to have prayed to St. Sergius, a 4th-century Christian soldier.

The Zoroastrian clergy were not okay with this, and treated him with hostility. Hormizd felt it prudent to deal with their threat by executing Zoroastrian clergy who opposed him. There was another Zoroastrian threat, however, that did not come from the clergy.

Bahram Chobin was a military leader from one of the Seven Great Houses of the Sassanian Iranian Empire. He started a civil war against Hormizd. The religious element came from a Zoroastrian holy book that predicted:

...a man shall come from the frontiers of Kavulistan, with whom there will be glory, also of the royal family, whom they will name Kay Bahram; and all men will return with him, and he will rule even over India, Rome, and Turkistan, over all the frontiers.

Bahram's activities were near the end of the millennium of Zoroaster (which had to have started with the Seleucids in 312 BCE to make this work). Bahram began to be hailed by some as the fulfillment of a prophecy. Bahram himself claimed to be the personification of the fire of Mithra.

Hormizd, of course, had his own army, and the two forces faced each other across a river, neither wanting to make the first move and become vulnerable while trying to cross. Tomorrow I'll tell you what ended the civil war about to take place.