Zenobia or the Fall of Palmyra Part 33

Piso, it will be observed, makes no mention of, nor allusion to, the story recorded by the historian Zosimus, of the Queen's public accusation of Longinus and the other princ.i.p.al persons of Palmyra, as authors of the rebellion, in order to save her own life. It is well known that Zen.o.bia, chiefly on the authority of this historian, has been charged with having laid upon Longinus and her other counsellors, all the blame of the revolt, as if she had been driven by them against her will into the course she pursued. The words of Zosimus are as follows:

'Emisam rediit et Zen.o.biam c.u.m suis complicibus pro tribunali st.i.tit. Illa causas exponens, et eulpa semet eximens multos alios in medium protulit, qui cam veluti faeminam seduxissent; quorum in numero et Longinus erat.--Itidem alii quos Zen.o.bia detulerat suppliciis adficiebatur.'

This is suspicious upon the face of it. As if Aurelian needed a formal tribunal and the testimony of Zen.o.bia to inform him who the great men of Palmyra were, and her chief advisers. Longinus, at least, we may suppose, was as well known as Zen.o.bia. But if there was a formal tribunal, then evidence was heard--and not upon one side only, but both. If therefore the statements of Zen.o.bia were false, there were Longinus and the other accused persons, with their witnesses, to make it appear so. If they were true--if she had been overruled--led--or driven--by her advisers, then it was not unreasonable that punishment--if some must suffer--should fall where it did.

But against Zosimus may be arrayed the words of Aurelian himself, in a letter addressed to the Roman senate, and preserved by Pollio. He says,

'Nec ego illi (Zen.o.biae) vitam conserva.s.sem nisi cam scissem multum Rom: Reip. profuisse, quum sibi vel liberis suis Orientis servaret imperium.'

Aurelian here says that he would not have spared her life but for one reason, namely, that she had done such signal service to the republic, when either for herself or for her children she had saved the empire in the East. Aurelian spared her life, if he himself is to be believed, because of services rendered to Rome, NOT because by the accusation of others she had cleared herself of the charge of rebellion. Her life was never in any danger, if this be true; and unless it were, she of course had no motive to criminate Longinus in the manner related by Zosimus.

Longinus and his companions suffered therefore, not in consequence of any special accusation--it was not needed for their condemnation--but as a matter of course, because they were leaders and directors of the revolt. It was the usage of war.

Why are Pollio (the biographer of Zen.o.bia) and Vopiscus (the biographer of Aurelian) and Zonaras all silent respecting so remarkable a point of the history of Zen.o.bia? Pollio does not hesitate to say that she had been thought by some to have been partner in the crime of murdering Odenatus and his son Herod--a charge which never found credit in any quarter. Such a biographer surely would not have pa.s.sed over in silence the unutterable baseness of Zen.o.bia in the accusation of Longinus, if he had ever heard of it and had esteemed it to have come to him as well vouched at least as the other story. Omission under such circ.u.mstances is good evidence that it came to him not so well vouched--that is, not vouched at all.

Supposing Zen.o.bia to have been guilty of the crime laid to her charge, could Aurelian have treated her afterwards in the way he did? He not only took her to Rome and gave her a palace at Tibur, and the state of a Queen, but according to some, [Footnote: Filiam (Zen.o.biae) unam uxorem duxisse Aurellanum; caeteras n.o.bilibus Romanis despondisee.--Zonoras, lib. xii. p. 480.] married one of her daughters. Could he have done all this had she been the mean, base and wicked woman Zosimus makes her out to be? The history of this same eastern expedition furnishes a case somewhat in point, and which may serve to show in what light he would probably have regarded Zen.o.bia. Tyana, a city of Asia Minor, for a long time resisted all his attempts to reduce it. At length it was betrayed into his hands by one of its chief citizens, Heraclammon. How did Aurelian receive and treat him after entering the city? Let Vopiscus reply: 'Nam et Heraclammon proditorem patriae suse sapiens victor occidit.'--'Heraclammon who betrayed his country the conqueror wisely slew.' But this historian has preserved a letter of Aurelian, in which he speaks of this same traitor:

'Aurelia.n.u.s Aug: Mallio Chiloni. Occidi pa.s.sus sum cujus quasi beneficio Tyanam recepi. Ego vero proditorem amare non potui; et libenter tuli quod eum milites occiderunt: neque enim mihi fidem servare potuisset qui patriae non pepercit,' etc. He permits Heraclammon to be slain because he could not love a traitor, and because one who had betrayed his country could not be trusted--while Zen.o.bia, if Zosimus is to be believed, whose act was of the same kind--only infinitely more base--he receives and crowns with distinguished honor, and marries her daughter!

'Zosime pretend,' says Tillemont, 'que ce fut Zen.o.bie mesme qui se dechargea sur eux des choses don't on l'accusoit, (ce qui repondroit bien mal a cette grandeur d'ame qu'on lay attribue.')--Hist, des Emp. t. II. p. 212.

The evidence of Zosimus is not of so high a character as justly to weigh against a strong internal improbability, or the silence of other historians. Gibbon says of him, 'In good policy we must use the service of Zosimus without esteeming him or trusting him,' and repeatedly designates him as 'credulous,' 'partial,' 'disingenuous.' By Tillemont he is called a 'bad authority.'

Nothing would seem to be plainer, than that Aurelian spared Zen.o.bia because she was a woman; because she was a beautiful and every way remarkable woman; and as he himself says, because she had protected and saved the empire in the East; and that he sacrificed Longinus and the other chief men of Palmyra, because such was the usage of war.

Page 122. Piso speaks of the prowess of Aurelian, and of the songs sung in the camp in honor of him. Vopiscus has preserved one of these.

'Mille mille, mille, decollavimus, Unus h.o.m.o mille decollavimus, Mille vivat qui mille occidit.

Tantum vini habet nemo Quantum fudit sanguinis.

'Mille Sarmatas, mille Francos Semel et semel occidimus Mille Persas quaerimus.'

The two letters on pages 135 and 137, it will be observed, are nearly the same as those found in Vopiscus.

On page 172, Aurelian is designated by a soldier under the nick-name of 'Hand-to-his-Sword.' Vopiscus also mentions this as a name by which he was known in the army. 'Nam quum essent in exercitu duo Aureliani tribuni, hic, et alius qui c.u.m Valeriano captus est, huic signum (cognomen) exercitus apposuerat "Mannus ad ferrum,"' &c.

Page 280. Piso represents Aurelian as wearing a crown. He was the first since the Tarquins who had dared to invest his brow with that symbol of tyranny. So says Aurelius Victor. 'Iste primus apud Romanos Diadema capiti innexuit; gemmisque et aurata omni veste, quod adhuc fere incognitum Romanis moribus videbatur, usus est.'

On the same page, in the account of the triumph, a chariot of Zen.o.bia is stated to have been exhibited, in which it was her belief that she should enter Rome in triumph, which indeed had been made for that very purpose. This singular fact is confirmed by Vopiscus--'tertius, (currus) quem sibi Zen.o.bia composuerat sperans se urbem Romanam c.u.m eo visuram; quod eam non fefellit, nam c.u.m eo urbem ingressa est victa et triumphata.'