Procopius, De bello Persico 1.2.6—10 94
(6) When Arcadius, although he was in general not very shrewd, was in this troublesome situation,95 he devised a plan that guaranteed him both his son and his rule without problems, either after conversations with certain experts (and there tend to be many of such royal advisors) or after having had some divine inspiration. (7) For when he wrote down his will he determined that his son would be the successor to his rule but he designated the Persian king Yazdgard (I) to be his guardian;96 in this will he urged the king many times to preserve the empire for Theodosius with all his energy and foresight. (8) Having taken care of the succession and also of his domestic affairs in this way Arcadius died. When the Persian king Yazdgard (I) saw this will, which was indeed delivered to him, he (who was already very famous for his extraordinary greatness of mind) displayed a virtue both amazing and praiseworthy. (9) For he did not neglect Arcadius’ wishes in any way but established and always kept a profound peace with the Romans and preserved the empire for Theodosius. (io) Immediately, he wrote a letter to the Roman Senate saying that he was not refusing to become the guardian of the emperor Theodosius but that he was threatening war against anyone who would attempt to form a plot against him.
Agathias 1v.26.3-j
(3) After that Yazdgard (I), the son of Sapiir (II) took over rule in Persia, a man who was held in high esteem by the Romans and much talked about. For they say that when the emperor Arcadius was on the point of death and making arrangements regarding his will, as is only human, he made the king guardian and protector of his son Theodosius and of the entire Roman state. (4) For a long time this story has been widely told among us, handed down from generation to generation, and up to the present day it is circulated among both the elite and the common people. However, I have not found this in any document or in any of the historians, and have not even found it in those who give an account of Arcadius’ death, with the only exception of the works of the rhetorical writer Procopius. It is not surprising, I think, that he, who was very learned and had read practically every historical work there is, includes a tale that someone else had written up earlier but that I (who knows very little if anything at all) have not come across it anywhere. (5) But I find it very surprising that in his account of this story he does not simply state what was known but that he praises Arcadius and glorifies him as having made such a wonderful decision. For he says that in general Arcadius was not that shrewd but that in this particular situation he proved himself to be sound of mind and to have greatest foresight. (6) It seems to me that whoever admires this does not judge and express praise on the basis of the decision as such but in light of what happened later. For how could it have been right to hand over what is dearest to you to a foreigner, to a barbarian, to the ruler ofthe most hostile people, to someone whose attitude towards trust and justice was unknown and to someone who on top of everything else erred and held strange opinions in religious matters?293 (7) If the small child did not take any harm but his rule remained safe and sound because it was protected by his guardian (this was the rule of someone who had not yet been weaned off the breast), one should rather praise the king for his courtesy rather than Arcadius for his plan. However, everybody may form his opinion on this matter depending on his personal views and criteria.
To our surprise, Arcadius’ decision to approach the Sasanian king for help in preserving his son’s rule is not attested in detail before the sixth century. There are no references in the contemporary authors, although such an intimate cooperation between the Byzantine emperor and his Persian archenemy must have raised great attention at the time. It is possible that in retrospect an arrangement of this kind seemed unacceptable when the relations between East and West deteriorated once more during the later part of Yazdgard I’s reign (399—421). However, when the two sides grew closer again afterwards, this episode could be revived and found its way into the literature of a later period.294 Both Procopius and Agathias tell us that the Roman emperor Arcadius asked Yazdgard I to assume the guardianship for his infant son Theodosius, an episode which certainly underlines the good relations between Byzantium and Persia during this period.295 In spite of his usual negative attitude towards the Roman emperor, Procopius praises Arcadius for his decision. The historian also expresses his admiration for Yazdgard I, who, from a Roman perspective, had already displayed his greatness of mind when he allowed the Christians in Persia to practise their religion, a gesture which earned him the title ‘the infidel’ in Arab and Persian historiography.296 Procopius views Yazdgard I’s willingness to grant Arcadius his wish and to maintain peace with the Romans during his reign as the means by which Theodosius acceded to the throne. The chronicle of Theophanes, which was composed between 8io/ii and 814, further informs us that Yazdgard sent the Persian eunuch Antiochus to the court at Constantinople to make sure that Theodosius would indeed succeed to the throne.297
Agathias comments on the events very differently. It looks as if he questions the authenticity of the arrangements of Arcadius’ written testament as Procopius describes them, primarily because, as he points out, they are not confirmed by any other source. In any case, he criticises Procopius for praising Arcadius.298 Agathias is convinced that the emperor’s plan was not wise at all even if Yazdgard in the end did not attempt to attack Theodosius’ sovereignty. Regardless of any verdict on Arcadius, in fact no military conflicts between Rome and Persia took place during the entire reign of Yazdgard I.
In the course of relations between the two rival powers, Procopius’ episode is not unique (12). Towards the end of the sixth century we observe a father-son relationship between the Roman emperor Maurice and the Sasanian king Xusro II Parvez; in this case Byzantium supported the Persian king in his attempts to secure his throne against the rebel Bahram VI (Cobin.103 Here the fictitious family relation between the emperor and the ‘King of kings’ was no longer a moral category but a forceful political factor.
World History
