mark" of Bar-soma's power. He had become head of his Church, and he had bent it to his will. It had declared itself opposed theologically to "the West"—to the Church of the Emperor and his Henoticon; it was independent and separate, and friendly to the King of Persia, and Bar-soma was its ruler. No doubt he had won this position not only as bishop, but also as warden of the marches. The people and clergy were willing to go with him, but if not he had military as well as theological arguments to urge! The story of extensive massacres of "the faithful," given by Bar-Hebraeus, one may put on one side without hesitation, as on a par with that historian's orphanages; but the fact that Bar-soma's admirer, Amr,[1] hints at some bloodshed, makes it probable that force was sometimes used. Still, as Shimun of B. Arsham, that very hostile contemporary writer (who must have been a young man, at or near Seleucia, at the time), who knows the career of Bar-soma well enough to be able to give us his school nickname yet knows nothing of any slaughter, we may conclude confidently that if there was any, it was insignificant in amount. It must be remembered that nobody would be shocked at the fact of Bar-soma's making an episcopal tour with an escort drawn from the frontier corps that he seems to have commanded, or much shocked if blood should be shed. Orientals like to have proof that the "Hukumet" is behind the man they are willing to obey. They revere power; and its concrete embodiment in a few soldiers does not strike them as at all unepiscopal. Of course his opponents would exclaim at the sacrilege—and would imitate it, if they got the chance!
Though there is no doubt that the great majority
- ↑ Liber Turris. It is about the only reliable statement in that account.
