a man who talked humanity and philosophy in a most engaging manner, but with treacherous intent, and who never failed to take advantage of his opponents after he had lulled their suspicions by an outward show of sympathy and benevolence.[1] Whatever his individual inclination may have been in 539 as to the expediency of entering on a war with the Empire, ample incitement from without was not wanting to induce him to bend his mind intently to the question. While Vitigis was struggling to retain his kingdom the natives of Roman Armenia were in revolt against Justinian's newly imposed taxes and stricter system of local government.[2] Hoping to divert the armaments of the Emperor from themselves, both parties successively sent legations to Chosroes urging that in his own interest he should make war on their oppressor. If he did not take up arms in time, they argued, his encroachments would continue unchecked, and Persia would shortly find that no option was left to her but that of being devoured last. To such representations the Persian monarch was quickly responsive, and in each instance the emissaries departed feeling satisfied that their object had been attained.[3]
- ↑ Procopius, De Bel. Pers., ii, 9. The veneration of the Persians for truth has been referred to in a former chapter, but in actual fact deceitfulness was a prominent characteristic of the nation. Thus Horace alludes to the "lying Persians" ("infidi Persae," Od., iv, 15) as the verdict of common experience. Truth was rare and precious in Persia, and esteemed accordingly. The opinions of modern travellers coincide. See Müller, Encycl. Brit., xxii, p. 663; cf. Palgrave, Ibid., ii, p. 248.
- ↑ In this rebellion they managed to kill Sittas, Theodora's brother-in-law, and, it was said, by the hand of Artabanes, who joined the Imperial service soon after, and so much distinguished himself in Africa. See p. 522.
- ↑ Procopius, De Bel. Pers., ii, 2, 3, whence the narrative proceeds as below.
