The present work is an analysis of information about the campaign of the Roman emperor Julian the Apostate (361-363) against Sasanian Iran (363) in the Western and Eastern literature of late antiquity and the Middle Ages. The study makes it possible to identify historical traditions of narration about this event, to establish their sources and interrelation. Based on the materials of reports about the campaign, you can trace how a large-scale event is imprinted in historical memory.

The history of the Middle East region in the third and seventh centuries was marked by the confrontation between the Roman (later Byzantine) Empire and Sasanian Iran. The Sassanids led a systematic onslaught on the west and in the ancient world were presented as the successors of Xerxes, who moved the Asian hordes to Hellas. In turn, the Romans successfully resisted the Persians, occasionally striking daggers deep into the enemy's territory.

An important milestone in the history of this long-standing confrontation was the campaign against Persia, undertaken in 363 by the Emperor Julian the Apostate. According to sources, both Julian and his associates believed that the campaign would be the strongest, and possibly even the most destructive, blow to the Sasanian state. Julian's closest friend, the sophist Livanius (d. 393), begins his epitaph for the emperor: "It should have been ... as I and everyone else hoped, so that the matter would be put to an end, the power of the Persians collapsed, their lands were ruled instead of satraps by Roman archons, according to our laws, and our temples were decorated with trophies [brought] from there" [Libanii..., 1904, p. 236-237].

Julian really dealt a powerful blow to the Sasanian state. The emperor's army of many thousands, moving from Manbij down the Euphrates river with the support of the fleet, won a series of victories over the Persian forces. Having captured the key fortress in the middle reaches of the Euphrates - Peroz-Shapur 1, the emperor's troops came very close to the Sassanid capital of Ctesiphon. With a decisive and successful maneuver, the Romans crossed the Tigris and, having defeated the Persians, drove them to the very walls of the city. However, soon after, Julian was suddenly killed in a skirmish with the enemy (June 26, 363), after which the Roman offensive stopped.

Such a significant event could not, of course, remain without the attention of ancient and medieval authors. There are many accounts of Julian's Persian campaign that have come down to us, among which the most valuable is information that goes back to the people who were then in the Roman army. Of these, the letter of Julian to Livanius, written at Manbij, the epitaph of the same Livanius, already mentioned, where much information about the campaign is found, and, of course, the narrative of Ammianus Marcellinus. In addition, other authors refer to the stories of the participants of the campaign. Thus, the narrative of John Malala (VI century) is based on the reports of Magna 2

1 In Arabic times-al-Anbar.

2 It remains unclear whether he can be identified with the Tribune Magnus, who, according to Ammianus Marcellinus, distinguished himself during the storming of one of the cities [Ammiani Marcellini..., 1835, p. 320].

page 13
Karrsky 3 and Eutychian of Cappadocia, who fought in the ranks of the soldiers of Julian, and then left memories of the campaign [Ioannis Malalae..., 1831, p. 329-332]. Socrates Scholasticus (writing in the 40s of the fifth century) in his Ecclesiastical History refers to Callistus , one of Julian's closest associates, who later wrote a history about him in verse (Socrates..., 1893, p. 163) .4
This information is the main and most valuable part of what we know about the campaign. In using them, however, we must bear in mind that these authors, who were personally involved in the events they describe, are often influenced by their own impressions or beliefs. This is very clearly shown by the way in which the sources describe those actions of Julian, the legality of which seemed controversial. It is known that when the Roman army descended the Euphrates and captured Peroz-Shapur, crossed the Tigris and approached Ctesiphon, the emperor decided not to storm the enemy's well-fortified capital. Trusting to the Persian defectors (who later turned out to be spies), he moved his army south and, to facilitate its march, ordered all but twelve ships to be burned. This decision caused a mixed reaction in the army. Ammianus Marcellinus, for example, regrets this decision, although he does not leave out his usual calm narrative style and mentions only the "ill-fated torch of Bellona" [5 Ammiani Marcellini..., 1835, p. 328 - 329]. Livanius, on the other hand, defends Julian, arguing that in the current situation this decision was the only possible one, "so if those who are worthy of punishment for this burning are to be condemned, then the Persian will be blamed" [Libanii..., 1904, p. 350-351]. Strictly speaking, the epitaph of Livanius is a frank apology for Julian, who in the image of the sophist easily endures hardships as a soldier, sets an example for the army and makes the right decisions as a commander, and is called in the text "the savior of the army" because he correctly chose the path of its movement [Libanii..., 1904, p. 337].

During the hundreds of years that followed the death of Julian, the most important works of church history were created - the works of Philostorgus, Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Socrates Scholasticus, Hermias Sozomen. These authors apparently had relatively fresh and reliable information (Socrates Scholasticus, as shown above, used the story of Callistus, and also knew the writings of Livanius, which is also noticeable in Sozomen). In general, the account of the history of the campaign in church histories corresponds to what we read in the stories of its participants. At the same time, in this case, the author's position had a noticeable impact on his narrative. Julian, who led the persecution of Christians before going to Persia and was going to resume it on his return, appears in church stories in negative tones. The sharp condemnation of the emperor also applies to his actions as a commander. In the story of Theodoret, the Roman army finds itself in the desert and experiences want and deprivation (which is mainly characteristic of the end of the campaign after the death of Julian) primarily because of the emperor's strategic mistakes: "the soldiers, who were in need of food and drink and found themselves without generals to lead them, wandered through the desert, knowing rashness [actions] of the wise emperor" [Theodoreti..., 1854, p. 289]. We read almost the same thing in Socrates Scholasticus, who also emphasizes the emperor's mistakes: "the whole army reproached him (Juliana-D. M.) for his careless ardor and blamed him for the loss of land, 6 since, being deceived by a Persian defector, he burned the ships that brought supplies along the river, as a result of which the army it suffered from hunger" [Socrates..., 1893, p. 164]. The defector episode takes center stage in SOHR-

3 Karri is the ancient name of modern Harran.

4 According to other sources, Callistus also compiled the history of Jovian, the successor of the Emperor Julian (see below) [Chronique..., 1899, p. 291].

5 Roman goddess of war, sister of Mars.

6 Refers to the subsequent cession of part of the Roman possessions to the Persians (see below).

page 14
According to the description of the campaign from the book of Philostorgius [Philostorgius, 1913, S. 100 - 101], it is pointed out by Sozomeni [Sozomeni..., 1860, p. 527-528] and another prominent Christian historian, Prosper of Aquitaine (c. 390-between 455 and 463) [Sancti Prosperi Aquitani..., 1734, p. 424].

Later, this story was repeated by Byzantine historians. George the Monk (writing in the middle of the ninth century), whose text in this part is similar to Theodoret's account, reports that Julian believed a certain Persian who promised him to bring the army to Babylon in three days [Georgii Monachi..., 1904, p. 544-545]. George Kedrin (XI c.) tells us that a false horse-bearer led the Romans to the desert lands, where they began to suffer hardships [Georgii Cedreni..., 1838, p. 438]. The story of John Zonara (d. after 1118) is very interesting in this respect.Being a compiler, and quite late (XII century), this author had, however, very good sources about the time of late antiquity; we know, for example, the similarity of his history with the text of the Successor of Dion Cassius. And in this case, his narrative is very close to the late Antique stories (the texts of Ammianus Marcellinus and Zosimus), and in detail John Zonara even surpasses them; only in him, for example, there is an indication of the number of Roman fleets moving along the Euphrates and subsequently burned (with the exception of twelve ships). The reported facts, however, highlight the fallacy of Julian's actions: "this sinner trusted them (false witnesses. - D. M.) as a madman" [Ioannis Zonarae..., 1870, p. 214].

While strongly condemning Julian, the authors of ecclesiastical histories are also very sympathetic to his successor, Jovian. There were reasons for this: being a Christian, Jovian stopped the persecution that developed under Julian. At the same time, Jovian, who came to power almost immediately after the death of Julian, concluded peace with Shapur, agreeing to unprecedented territorial concessions (Nisibin and Singara, as well as some other areas) and pledging not to support the opponents of the Persians in Armenia. The terms of peace aroused general indignation; we know that the inhabitants of Antioch met Jovian with angry verses and lampoons, condemning him for the surrender of Nisibinus [Fragmenta..., 1860, p. 607]. Even the usually reserved Ammianus Marcellinus considered the peace treaty an "inglorious charter" [Ammiani Marcellini..., 1835, p. 351]. In contrast, the authors of ecclesiastical histories usually defend Jovian, pointing out that peace was necessary as a result of a campaign that was unsuccessful due to Julian's fault.7 The phrase about the need to conclude a contract can be found in almost any church history. For example, in Paul Orosius (writing in 417) we read: "he (Jovian. - D. M.) made a treaty with Sapor8, the king of the Persians, although not very worthy, as some believe, but very necessary" [Pavel Orosiy, 2003, p. 316 (Latin text), p. 182 (Russian translation)]. Or in Socrates Scholasticus: "For the glory of the Romans [this] the peace treaty was inappropriate, but it was necessary for the situation of that time" [Socrates..., 1893, p. 163] 9.

Jovian's apology is most clearly expressed in the Epistle of Apollinaris , a detailed history of Julian's Persian campaign in Syriac. The study of this source should be emphasized in particular. In this work, the pious Christian Jovian is opposed to the tyrant Julian, and in each case, when a worldview duel is tied between them, he comes out victorious. At the same time, Jovian acts not only in the interests of the Christian community (although, according to the author, he was appointed to command the troops sent to Nisibis,

7 Sozomen best emphasizes the connection between the need to conclude peace and the erroneous actions of Julian: "In a situation of danger and confusion caused by the strategy of Julian, when the army was exhausted from lack of supplies, he (Jovian. - D. M.) found it necessary to conclude peace" [Sozomeni..., 1860, p. 536].

8 Sapores, i.e. Shapur.

9 According to Philostorgius, Jovian agreed to make peace because he had to save the army, which was only one-tenth of its personnel (Philostorgius, 1913, p. 104).

page 15
he provided Christians with freedom of religion, despite the orders of the emperor) [Iulianos..., 1880, p. 153]); he is endowed with such talents and moral qualities that make him irreplaceable for the state. Even a friendly correspondence with the enemy-the supreme mobed, called Arimichr or Armichr, who, we note, in one place explicitly declares that Jovian is worthy of the throne [Iulianos..., 1880, p. 103], does not deprive the latter of the image of a positive hero. On the contrary, according to the Epistle, Julian, after reading the intercepted letter from Mobedes, became so convinced of Jovian's loyalty that he returned him to a high post, from which he had recently dismissed him for patronizing Christians, and subsequently appointed him commander-in-chief [Iulianos..., 1880, p.157, 160]. Before his death, Julian advises those close to him to proclaim Jovian as emperor [Iulianos..., 1880, p. 186].

The famous orientalist T. Neldeke studied the Epistle. Although Neldeke's work on this source appeared even before the critical edition of the text itself, many of the conclusions formulated in it do not lose their relevance to this day. In particular, it is difficult to argue with the conclusion that the" Message " is a fake, despite the fact that the author knew many historical facts well. Indeed, although the text is titled as a letter from a Jovian dignitary named Apollinaris 10, who says that he wrote everything as it was, without adding or omitting anything [Iulianos..., 1880, p. 241], there are many stories in the text that do not correspond to the stories of the participants of the campaign and therefore they can hardly be attributed to an imperial confidant. For example, according to the stories of the participants of the campaign, Julian's army crossed the Euphrates and then went down its course, while in the "Message" the campaign begins with the crossing of the Tigris [Iulianos..., 1880, p. 162]. Although the goal of the campaign was the Persian capital of Ctesiphon, from the accounts of Roman and Byzantine authors, it can be concluded that Julian did not even try to storm the city.11 In the Epistle, we read that after the death of Julian, Jovian and Shapur met in person, while Roman and Byzantine sources speak only of an exchange of embassies (see below). Finally, the information about Jovian is very distorted. We know that Jovianus was the head of the Emperor's personal guard, but not the commander-in-chief. Generally speaking, the role of Jovian in the campaign is not visible at all. Ammianus Marcellinus sees no reason for electing Jovian emperor, except for the merits of his father, and even then only to a certain extent [Ammiani Marcellini..., 1835, p. 346].

Some of Neldeke's conclusions, however, need to be corrected. Thus, the date of the "Epistle" proposed by him is not indisputable. Neldeke is based on the story of Jovian's vision, where he receives the following revelation:-

10 I accept the conjecture of the publisher of the text, I. Hoffmann [Iulianos..., 1880, S. III, 59].

11 Ctesiphon here refers to the part of the agglomeration in which the royal palace was located. Ammianus Marcellinus speaks directly about the refusal of the Romans to besiege Ctesiphon, according to which the military council decided not to storm it: "it was done according to the will of some, who believed that it was reckless and untimely to go to it (the city), since the city is protected by the terrain (where it is located). which makes it impregnable, and the tsar (Shapur. - D. M.), as was believed, was soon to approach with a huge army "[Ammiani Marcellini..., 1835, p. 331]. Very eloquent is the silence of Livanius, who, as noted above, tried in every possible way to present Julian in the most favorable light and described in detail all his successes. It seems that Livanius would not have failed to mention the capture of Ctesiphon if it had actually happened. Sources from late antiquity allow only the following. The Romans were stationed on the outskirts of Ctesiphon, as may be inferred from the news of Eunapius of Sardis (c. 346-c. 414) that they had taken possession of a great number of supplies there [Dexippi..., 1829, p. 68]. Ammianus Marcellinus mentions in one place that there were rumors in the camp that Julian was besieging Ctesiphon with a large force [Ammiani Marcellini..., 1835, p. 331]. It seems that some of this was the basis for the reports of Socrates Scholasticus and John Zonaras about the siege of Ctesiphon by the Romans. Mention in the Russian translation of passages in the history of Eunapius of Sardis about the prophecy given to Julian while he was in Ctesiphon [Byzantine Historians, 2003, p. 99], is a mistake: the original text reads "near Ctesiphon" [Dexippi..., 1829, p. 108].

page 16
for fourteen weeks, 12 the Persians will have supremacy over the Romans and take tribute from them, then the Romans will be freed and there will be seven weeks of peace, then the Persians will have turmoil, the world will be broken, and war will begin, after which, finally, the Romans will win, and for ten years the Persians will become their tributaries [Iulianos..., 1880, S. 179]. According to Nöldeke, this fragment reflects the author's aspirations for the near future and therefore should be dated to the period 502-532 (Nöldeke, 1874, pp. 281-283). But it is risky to draw such far-reaching conclusions on the basis of such "weekly" prophecies. A similar prophecy is found, for example, in Theophylact Simokatta (writing in the first half of the seventh century) in the story of the struggle of the Sasanian king Khosrov Parviz with the usurper Varahran (Bahram) Chubin. In the mouth of the king, the phrase is inserted that the Babylonian tribe will prevail over the Romans for three weeks, after which the rule of the latter will be established for five weeks [Theophylacti..., 1834, p. 234]; cf. [Georgii Cedreni..., 1838, p.696; Ioannis Zonarae..., 1870, p. 294]. But it is hardly possible to make assumptions about the dating of the treatise of Theophylact Simocatta on the basis of this fragment: if we accept the dating of the prophecy, the rule of the" Babylonian tribe " over the Romans should have lasted from 591 (the year when Khosrov Parviz came to power) to 612 (despite the fact that in 614 the Persians captured Jerusalem, in 619-Egypt Roman rule lasted until 647 (this period also includes the time after the Arab conquest). Similarly, we see historical inaccuracies in the prediction that Jovian received, according to the Epistle. Whatever derogatory characterizations may be given to the peace treaty he concluded, sources do not say that he also agreed to pay tribute. Moreover, at the end of 364, a new peace treaty was signed for a period of seven years. According to John Malala, from whom we learn this, the Persians ceded half of Nisibis to the Romans by treaty..., 1831, p. 538]. Although the recapture of the city is not confirmed by other sources, the account of John Malala suggests that the Romans negotiated "from a position of strength"; it is unlikely that under such circumstances they would have agreed to recognize the supremacy of the Persians and pay them tribute. The end dates of the prophecy are equally questionable. If you follow it, the peace should have lasted from 461, when fourteen weeks expired from 363, to 510, but even if you do not take into account small-scale conflicts, the peace was broken earlier than this date: already in 501, the Sasanian king Kavad with a large army invaded the Byzantine borders [The Chronicle, 1882, p. 44-45 (English text), 37 (English translation)]. If the author of the Epistle had written after 502, as Neldeke suggests, it is difficult to explain why this large-scale event, which is mentioned in many sources, including Syriac ones, remains unnoticed.

The dating of the Epistle to the first third of the sixth century also raises logical questions. The clearly apologetic nature of the work, coupled with the fact that the author passed it off as the work of a Roman dignitary to give it greater credibility, shows that the author had a considerable need to rehabilitate Jovian, at least in the eyes of people who read Syriac. It seems that this need only decreased over time, as the relevance of the topic gradually faded. Therefore, the date of the creation of the "Message" is all the more likely, the closer it is to the campaign and the accession of Jovian. Most likely, the "Epistle of Apollinaris" was created during the first hundred years after the end of the campaign, since at the end of this period two major events were to occur - the liberation of the Romans from the rule of the Persians and the return of Nisibinus, who, according to the text, was transferred to the Persians for a hundred years.13 However, neither of these things happened. Thus, it is more accurate to assume that the " Ambassador-

12 In this context, a week is a period of seven years.

13 This information is unique and only appears in the "Message". However, the idea that the city was handed over to the Persians only for a while is not alien to Syrian literature. For example, according to Yesh Stilit, Nisibin was handed over to the Persians for one hundred and twenty years, and the refusal to return the city subsequently caused a conflict [The Chronicle..., 1882, p. 8-9 (English text), 7 (English translation)].

page 17
It was written before the end of the specified time frame, when there was at least a theoretical possibility that such events would occur.

The tone of the" Message " leaves no doubt that it was created in a Christian, most likely ecclesiastical, environment. The author's reinterpretation of some events that we know about from other sources is noteworthy. The most significant episode is one that took place during Julian's stay in Carrhae. Ammianus Marcellinus reports that while in this city, Julian sent an army of thirty thousand men to northern Mesopotamia to join up with the Armenian allies and continue to serve as a reserve force. As the emperor was mounting his horse the next morning, he began to have abdominal pains and fell down from the sudden pain. Julian, however, remained in good spirits, and said that the fall of the horse (whose name was the Babylonian) it is an omen of the imminent collapse of the enemy [Ammiani Marcellini..., 1835, p. 281]. The Epistle presents this episode in a different way. As the emperor was leaving Karra, a crown suddenly fell from his head. Turning to the priests for an explanation of what happened, Julian received this explanation: there is no need to be afraid, since the gods have already prepared him for victory, and the problem in reality is that there are many Christians in the army who are risky to rely on. Julian ordered the Christian soldiers to return home, and twenty-two thousand men left the camp. Julian, wishing he had destroyed them, decided to give chase and mounted his horse. The latter, however, did not move (the analogy with Balaam's donkey is obvious here), and then fell to the ground and died [Iulianos..., 1880, S. 146-147]. It is interesting to note that the story that we find in the Epistle circulated precisely in the Christian literature of the Near East, and not only in the Syriac literature; a fragment of it is found, for example, in the Arabic history of Agapius of Manbij (X century) [Kitab al-'Unvan, 1911, p. 580].

The same can be said about another episode, which received much more fame. According to the Epistle, Julian, having been wounded, shouted a curse, threw drops of blood to the sky and exclaimed:" Be full, Jesus, be full at last. You are now given royal power along with divinity " [Iulianos..., 1880, p. 186]. This story is very similar to that of Philostorgus, where Julian says "Get your fill!" (Philostorgius, 1913, p. 103) .14 This tradition, which is thus common to Eastern and Western ecclesiastical history, is strikingly different from the account of Livanius. According to the latter, Julian, having fallen from his horse from a blow, got back into the saddle and shouted that the wound was not fatal and that such a thing could happen to anyone [Libanii..., 1904, p. 354]. This, of course, does not mean that the story of the Epistle or Philostorg is a tendentious fake that contradicts the original sources. Livanius, who was not a warrior, was unlikely to have been near Julian at the time of the fight, and therefore relied on the stories of others. In addition, Livanius ' desire to present the emperor as a hero is clearly reflected here: according to the sophist, he finds the strength to climb back into the saddle, which, we note, Ammianus does not have

14 The history of Philostorg was created in the first half of the fifth century. At the same time, another story appears in church history, which is very similar to the one described above, but ascribes different words to Julian: "You have won, Galilean!" [Theodoreti..., 1854, p. 290]. This story has become widely used; it is found in the works of Georgii Monachi [Georgii Monachi..., 1904, p. 545] and other authors (see below). Nevertheless, the version of the Epistle and Philostorgus did not disappear from the literature. It is interesting to note that it is found in John Zonara, who, as mentioned above, was well provided with data from early sources. At the same time, in church history, the selected traditions were not considered as mutually exclusive, but their synthesis was possible. In George Kedrin's text, Julian says: "You have won, Christ, be filled, Galilean!" [Georgii Cedreni..., 1838, p. 538]. Leo's grammar is almost the same, although "Galilean" is replaced by "Nazarene" [Leonis Grammatici..., 1842, p. 93]. In the later histories of Michael the Syrian (1126-1199) and Barhebraei (1225-1286), the first phrase is like that of Theodoret, the second - as in the "Epistle" [Gregorii Barhebraei..., 1890, p. 64; Chronique..., 1899, p. 281].

page 18
Marcellina [Ammiani Marcellini..., 1835, p. 337] 15. But there can hardly be any doubt that the story we see in the Epistle is based on a message that was common among Christians and was later translated into both Syriac and Greek sources.

This observation leads us to study the question of what was the source of information for the author of the "Message". It is interesting to compare the "Message" with the Arab-Muslim tradition of covering the campaign of Julian. It would be more correct, however, to say "with one of the traditions", because there are two of them. One of them is represented in the Arabic histories of ad-Dinawari (d. 895/896), al-Ya'qubi (d. 897 or 905), at-Tabari (839-923), his translator Balami (d. 974), and his followers Ibn Miskawayh (d. 1030), Ibn al-Asir (1160-1234), Abu'l-Fida (1273-1331), as well as in Persian works: Fars - nameh Ibn al-Balkhi (wrote at the beginning of the XII century) and the history of Mirkhond (1433-1498). There are many direct parallels between them and the "Message". Thus, in a number of Arabic histories, we read that Roman troops captured Ctesiphon, where they seized the treasury of Shapur [Abu-l-Fida, 1870, p. 51; Ibn-el-Athiri..., 1867, p. 283; The Tajarib..., 1909, p. 138; Tarikh-i-Balami, 1962/63, p. 912; Annales..., 1964, p. 842; Ibn..., 1969, p. 182] 16. This fully corresponds to the data of late Syriac sources [Chronique..., 1899, p. 281; Chronicon..., 1937, p. 130]. According to another version, the Romans captured Ctesiphon, but did not take the well-fortified palace [Al-Akhbar..., 1960, p. 50].

This similarity is even better seen in the example of news about the relationship between Shapur and Jovian. According to al-Dinawari, there was "friendship and friendship" between them [Al-Akhbar..., 1960, p. 50], which, if it does not correspond to the story of correspondence with Armihr in the "Message", then, in any case, goes in the same direction with it.

It is this friendship that explains ad-Dinawari's next episode. Shapur and a small detachment went to investigate, but the soldiers sent ahead were captured and told the head of the Roman vanguard (according to this version, it was Jovian) that the king was very close. Jovian warned Shapur about the danger of being captured, which saved the king [Abu-l-Fida, 1870, p. 51; Ibn-el-Athiri..., 1867, p. 283; The Tajarib..., 1909, p. 138; The Fársnáma..., 1921, p. 70; Al-Akhbar..., 1960, pp. 50-51; Annales..., 1964, p. 841]. In the Epistle, this motif is also present, although with a number of details unknown to Muslim historians. Jovian has a vision, according to which he should soon receive a letter from Armihr, where it will be said that Shapur with a small detachment is in one of the nearby villages. However, you should not have used this transparent hint: Jovian wasn't supposed to be Mobed's tool. The hour of Shapur's death has not yet come. Indeed, a letter from Armichrusus was delivered to Jovian some time later, informing him that spies in disguise had been sent to the Roman camp. The latter, however, were more likely to be messengers; it was necessary to seize them and, during the interrogation, tell them what was necessary to pass on to Shapur. Acting in accordance with the vision, Iovian released the scouts, passing with them a warning to Shapur about the impending danger [Iulianos..., 1880, S. 178-181].

This case is notable because there is a textual similarity between the Arabic sources and the Epistle. In the" Message", Jovian tells the captive scouts of Shapur to convey the following words to the king: "Behold, today I have given you a gift

15 It is interesting to note that, according to Ammianus Marcellinus, Julian, after lying down for a while in a tent, demanded a horse [Ammiani Marcellini..., 1835, p. 337]. These words of the emperor Livanius may well have heard, and they are probably included in his story.

16 In one of the Arabic broadcasts of this version, Ibn al-Asir clarified: Ctesiphon refers to the eastern (i.e., located on the eastern bank of the Tigris) part of the agglomeration [Ibn-el-Athiri..., 1867, p. 283]. Thus, the analogy with Seleucia is excluded, which, judging by one remark of Ammianus Marcellinus, was abandoned by the inhabitants [Ammiani Marcellini..., 1835, p. 323] and, apparently, really fell into the hands of the Romans. It can be concluded that the Arabic authors are talking about Ctesiphon proper, and not about the agglomeration as a whole.

page 19
life. I had you in my arms that night. And if I had wanted you dead or wanted to take you alive, you probably would have been captured by now and were in captivity with the emperor's prisoners" [Iulianos..., 1880, p. 181]. Almost the same thing is reported by Abu'l-Fida: "And he (Jovian. - DM) informed him (Shapur. - D. M.), that he found out about him (Shapure. - D. M.) and could have captured him" [Abu-l-Fida, 1870, p. 51].

After learning of the death of Julian, Shapur, according to the accounts of Muslim authors, demanded in a letter to the Romans that they proclaim Jovian as emperor, threatening otherwise to continue the war until the Roman army was completely destroyed [The Tajarib..., 1909, p. 139; The Fársnáma..., 1921, p. 71; Tarikh-i- Balami, 1962/63, p. 913; Annales..., 1964, p. 843]. The" Epistle " contains the text (obviously apocryphal) of Shapur's letter, where the king explicitly points out the desirability of Jovian's accession to the throne [Iulianos..., 1880, S. 193-194]. When the Roman generals proclaim Jovian emperor, he goes to negotiate in the camp of the Persians, where Shapur receives him so warmly that they even embrace. This motif is also common to the "Message" and the stories of Muslim historians [Ibn-el-Athiri..., 1867, p. 283; Abu-l-Fida, 1870, p. 51; Iulianos..., 1880, p. 212; The Tajarib..., 1909, p. 140; Tarikh-i-Balami, 1962/63, p. 914; Annales..., 1964, p. 843].

How can this similarity be explained? Nöldeke believed that the" Message " was directly or indirectly known to the Arab authors [Nöldeke, 1874, pp. 291-2]. But it would probably be wrong to ascribe the stories of Muslim authors to the "Message". There are reasons why these narratives diverge. The most notable difference is that in the Epistle, as in later Syriac sources, Julian is mortally wounded in battle [Iulianos..., 1880, p. 185]; cf. [Gregorii Barhebraei..., 1890, p. 64; Chronique..., 1899, p. 281; Chronicon..., 1937, p. 131], while according to at-Tabari and his followers, the emperor was struck by a stray arrow while he was in his tent or, in any case, in the camp of the Romans [Ibn-el-Athiri..., 1867, p. 283; Abu-l-Fida, 1870, p. 51; The Tajarib..., 1909, p. 139; Tarikh-i-Balami, 1962/63, p. 913; Annales..., 1964, p. 842]. Apparently, it is hardly correct to consider the stories of Muslim authors derived from the "Message"; it is more legitimate to talk about some common source.

What could be such a source? Although the account of the campaign in the writings of Muslim authors belongs to the cycle of stories about the Sasanian kings, it is unlikely that the information in question dates back to the Persian annals. Persian storytellers had no reason to invent stories about the capture of their capital, which, moreover, did not actually take place; even less did the compilers of the official Sasanian annals need it. It seems that the original source was some Syriac story that appeared soon after the campaign among Christians in the Middle East. This is indirectly indicated by an episode that would hardly have appeared in the Arabic and Persian stories if they were based on a different tradition (note that it is not found in Western pagan authors). According to Muslim historians, when Roman military leaders called Jovian to become emperor, he refused, saying that as a Christian he would be different in religion from his subjects. The generals and dignitaries replied that they were also Christians, and only then did Jovian agree to take the throne [Ibn-el-Athiri..., 1867, p. 283; Abu-l-Fida, 1870, p. 51; The Tajarib..., 1909, p. 139; Al-Akhbar..., 1960, p. 50; Annales..., 1964, p. 842]. This story is very similar to the reports of church histories [Theodoreti..., 1854, p. 294-295; Sozomeni..., 1860, p. 536; Socrates..., 1893, p. 163]; cf. [Chronicon Paschale, 1832, p. 552], but at the same time, we note, it differs from the story "Messages", in which Jovian leaves the location of the army and hides in the area of Bet Garmai, i.e. actually in the area of modern Kirkuk17, after which he is searched for some time and found only with the help of one monk [Iulianos..., 1880, S. 195-200]. It should be noted that

17 This obviously unrealistic detail underscores the legendary nature of this Message.

page 20
in later Syriac sources, the account of this episode is closer to the narratives of Muslim authors and, in any case, does not include the story of the search for Jovian, which is mentioned in the Epistle [Gregorii Barhebraei..., 1890, p. 64; Chronique..., 1899, p. 290; Chronicon..., 1937, p. 131].

The description of this episode in the Epistle and in Muslim authors is significant in the following respect. In the Arabic and Syriac treatises, as well as in the church histories, it occupies only a few lines, while in the Epistle it occupies five pages. It seems that the initial text was shorter and simpler than the "Epistle", in which many details that are no longer found in any other sources were added directly by its author, in his own religious interpretation. Apparently, this is how the original vault turned into a novel, as Neldeke rightly calls it. Muslim authors combined the original message with stories about Shapur's struggle with the Arabs, which they usually place before the news of Julian's campaign (which is not typical for Syrian sources). The bridge between these plots is usually the words that the Arabs joined Julian, wanting to take revenge on Shapur for the cruelty with which he fought them [Ibn-el-Athiri..., 1867, p. 283; Abu-l-Fida, 1870, p. 51; The Tajarib..., 1909, p. 137; Tarikh-i-Balami, 1962/63, pp. 910-911; Annales..., 1964, p. 840 - 841]. Some Muslim authors even go so far as to attribute the victory over Shapur to the Arabs [The Fársnáma..., 1921, p. 70; Annales..., 1964, p. 841 - 842; Ibn..., 1969, p. 182]. It is also interesting to note the differences between the Epistle and the works of Muslim authors in estimating the size of Julian's army. The author of the Epistle believed that Julian brought a huge army to Persia - 395 thousand people [Iulianos..., 1880, p. 162]. This obviously overestimated figure was known later; we find it in the works of Michael of Syria [Chronique..., 1899, p. 281] and Barhebraei [Gregorii Barhebraei..., 1890, p. 63]. The Muslim tradition, however, ignores it and instead names the number of Arabs as 170,000 [Histoire..., 1843, p. 203; The Tajarib..., 1909, p. 137; Tarikh-i-Balami, 1962/63, p. 911; Annales..., 1964, p.841].

Numerous inconsistencies in the accounts of the participants in the campaign make the authenticity of the original Syrian story, as well as its derivatives, rather doubtful. You should be especially careful when they mention heads of State. For example, in eastern sources, one can read that the Persian army that tried to restrain the Romans on the approaches to Ctesiphon was commanded by Shapur himself [Ibn-el-Athiri..., 1867, p. 283; Abu-l-Fida, 1870, p. 51; The Tajarib..., 1909, p. 138; Al-Akhbar..., 1960, p. 50; Annales..., 1964, p. 842]. We know, however, that the tsar at that time was quite far from the capital; the army was commanded by his son [Ammiani Marcellini..., 1835, p. 322] and generals. Similarly, Jovian did not personally meet Shapur. From Roman and Byzantine sources, we know that an embassy headed by the Prefect Sallust and the patrician Arintheus traveled to the Persian camp for negotiations [Ioannis Malalae..., 1831, p. 335; Chronicon Paschale, 1832, p. 553; Ammiani Marcellini..., 1835, p. 350; Zosimi..., 1837, p .167]; cp. [Libanii..., 1904, p. 350 - 522]. Apparently, the author of the original Syrian report, who did not personally participate in the campaign, connected all the events known to him with the "first persons" - perhaps because they were expected to tell him about them. It is possible that the author's manner should also explain the news of the fall of Ctesiphon, which is most likely based on the story of how the Romans captured a fortified city with a battle.18
18 This city may have been Peroz Shapur. The reason for this identification is provided by the similarity of the descriptions of the siege. According to the Epistle, the Romans slaughtered many of the Persian soldiers and citizens with swords, spears and arrows, and then took possession of part of the wall and climbed it. Convinced of the hopelessness of the situation, the townspeople surrendered [Iulianos..., 1880, S. 168-169]. Almost the same situation developed at Peroz Shapur, where, according to sources, there were two rows of walls. After a fierce skirmish, in which arrows, spears and stones fell in a hail, the Persians left the outer wall and went behind the stronger inner one, i.e. to the citadel. When the Romans built a huge siege engine, the Persians surrendered [Ammiani Marcellini..., 1835, p. 311-314; Zosimi..., 1837, p. 148-150; Libanii..., 1904, p. 335]. There is no closer analogy in the sources.

page 21
Much more widespread in Eastern literature is another tradition, which can be described as legendary. According to it, Shapur, wanting to inquire about the state of affairs of the enemy, incognito visited the Roman Empire and even appeared at a feast to the emperor, but was identified and captured. The Romans sewed Shapur into the skin of a bull (in some versions - a donkey) and placed him in the wagon train of the army going on a campaign against Persia. When the Romans reached Gundishapur, the king managed to get out and escape to the city. Standing at the head of the troops, Shapur made a sortie, completely defeated the Romans and captured the emperor, who was subjected to all sorts of mockery. Captured Roman soldiers were planted on the ground and subsequently introduced the Persians to the culture of olive cultivation [Histoire..., 1900, p. 522-528; Tabakat..., 1923/24, p. 158; Muruj..., 1927/28, p. 159-160; Ferdowsi's Shahname, 1935, p. 2036-2054; Tarikh-i- Gardizi, 1984/85, p. 72; The Book..., 1962, p. 161-162; cf. Mudjmal, 2000, p. 54] 19.

The unreliability of this report is obvious, but we can observe a different mechanism for the formation of a medieval legend in its example. This story seems like a bizarre synthesis of two independent traditions. From the Syriac-Christian tradition discussed above, the plot about the unsuccessful exploration of Shapur is probably borrowed, which is inserted here in a different storyline. The legend of the victory over the Romans and the capture of the emperor is based on reports that in 260 AD, the Sasanian king Shapur I defeated the Roman army of Emperor Valerian (253-260) and captured him. In Persian lore, as noted by the Muslim historian Hamza Ispahani (d. 961-971), kings with the same names were often confused [Hamzae Ispahanensis..., 1844, p. 18]. Apparently, something similar happened in this case. It seems that something happened that we often see in materials of a legendary nature. Over time, the image of earlier characters is gradually forgotten, and information about them is transferred to later characters, whose memories are still fresh in the people's memory. It is interesting to note that this tradition has preserved some details that are actually found in early sources. For example, what legend says was done to Shapur finds an analogy in one fragment of a story attributed to Julius Capitolinus about the Emperor Maximin I (235-238), who, according to this source, imprisoned convicts in the bodies of recently killed animals [The Scriptores..., 1993, p. 330 - 331]. It is possible that the legend goes back to the story of some miraculously freed Persian prisoner, information about which was later transferred to Shapur. It should be noted that unlike the Syrian tradition discussed above, there is nothing Christian in this legend. It could hardly have originated in a Christian environment. Apparently, in this case we are dealing with a purely Persian tradition, but not an official one, dating back to the palace annals, but rather a literary one.

At the same time, it should be taken into account that for the Romans Peroz-Shapur was the second most important city after Ctesiphon, as can be seen from the words of Zosimi [Zosimi..., 1837, p. 150], and in addition, it was called by the name of the king (which is especially mentioned by Libanii [Libanii..., 1904, p. 335]), i.e. in this sense it could be called "the city of Shapur". In the broadcast, especially orally, the difference between the "city of Shapur "and the" royal city", i.e., the capital, was small. Thus, if we assume that in the "Message" Ctesiphon is confused with some other city, it is difficult to find a better candidate for identification than Peroz-Shapur.

19 This story is also found in authors who adhere to the first of the selected traditions. It is interesting to note that the ideas about the relationship of these stories were very different. At-Tabari and Ibn al-Asir include these stories in their works as separate independent news, prefixing the corresponding fragments with phrases that some of the historians say so [Ibn-el-Athiri..., 1867, p. 284; Annales..., 1964, p. 844-845]. On the contrary, in Balami, the events described in this story take place after the conclusion of peace (the Romans refuse to give Shapur their Arab allies, after which the king decides to start a war and goes to investigate in the country of the Romans) [Tarikh-i-Balami, 1962/63, p. 915-917], and Mirkhond's-before this event (the campaign of the Romans itself is presented in this version as revenge for the capture of the emperor) [Histoire..., 1843, p. 201-203]. It is not difficult to understand that such constructions, in which different legends are mechanically combined, also made up of heterogeneous elements, reflect only the ideas of their authors.

page 22
The campaign of Julian gives us an interesting example of how major events of antiquity were imprinted in historical memory and reflected in literature. The desire to preserve for posterity information about a large-scale event, supported, undoubtedly, by a broad public interest, caused the appearance of a whole series of memories of the participants of the campaign. At the same time, the attitude to the events that took place both among their participants and in society as a whole was ambiguous. Supporters and friends of Julian fiercely defended him, finding excuses for controversial decisions. Christians who were persecuted, on the other hand, considered Julian an apostate and a sinner who did wrong in this case, as we can see in church histories, where the emperor's strategic mistakes are particularly emphasized. For obvious reasons, this approach was later inherited by Byzantine historiography.

Julian's campaign was also remembered in the East. The Persian historiographical tradition has not come down to us; it seems to have perished along with the Sasanian state. But memories of the campaign were preserved among the inhabitants of those areas where the confrontation between Rome and Persia unfolded. The tradition created there was probably based not on the reports of participants in the campaign, but on the stories of people who were near the battle sites (for example, merchants who accompanied the army, etc.). This seems to explain the inaccuracies in the presentation of facts, the tendency to attribute all known events to the first persons of states and capitals. In addition, the formation of this tradition was also influenced by the Christian worldview of the people who created and transmitted it.

Circulating in the vast Christian milieu of the Middle East region, this tradition has become widespread; fragments of it are found in both Greek and Syriac sources. Its programs could be different, up to the detailed text of the "Epistle of Apollinaris", which was colored with many colorful episodes. Later, it was accepted by Muslim historians, who preserved it in a form close to the original, but connected it with the Arab traditions about the wars with Shapur II.

For the East, this tradition was not the only one; along with it, there was a Persian legend about the victory of King Shapur over the emperor. Originating, as we have seen, after the victory of Shapur I over the Emperor Valerian, this tradition was later mixed with other traditions and transferred to the later Shapur II. The story of the glorious victory over the Romans prevailed among the Persians even after the Arab conquest and firmly took its place in medieval Muslim literature.

list of literature

Byzantine historians. Dexippus, Eunapius, Olympiodorus, Malchus, Peter the Patrician, Menander, Candide, Nonnos, and Theophanes the Byzantine. Athenaeum. Feasting sophists. Ryazan: Aleksandriya Publ., 2003.

Paul Orosius. History against the pagans. Books VI-VII. St. Petersburg: Aleteya Publ., 2003.

Ammiani Marcellini Quae supersunt. Leipzig, 1835.

Annales quos scripsit Abu Djafar Mohammed Ibn Djarir at-Tabari. Prima series, II. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1964.

Chronicon anonymum ad A.D. 819. Chronicon anonymum ad annum Christi 1234 pertinens. Louvain: Officina orientalis et scientifica, 1937.

Chronicon Paschale. Vol. I. Bonn, 1832.

Chronique de Michel le Syrien Patriarche jacobite d'Antioche. T. 1. Paris, 1899.

Dexippi, Eunapii, Petri Patricii, Prisci, Malchi, Menandri Quae supersunt. Bonn, 1829.

Ferdowsi's Shahname. 7th vol. Teheran: Beroukhim, 1935.

Fragmenta historicorum graecorum. Vol. IV. Paris, 1860.

Georgii Monachi Chronicon. Vol. 2. Stuttgart, 1904.

Georgii Cedreni Compendium historiarum. Bonn, 1838.

Gregorii Barhebraei Chronicon syriacum. Paris, 1890.

Hamzae Ispahanensis Annalium libri X. St. Petersburg, Leipzig, 1844.

page 23
Histoire des rois des Persespar Abou Mansour 'Abdal-Malik Ibn Mohammad Ibn Ismâ'il al-Tha 'âlibî. Paris, 1900.

Histoire des Sassanides par Mirkhond. Paris, 1843.

Ibn-el-Athiri Chronicon quod perfectissimum inscribitur. Vol. I. Leiden, 1867.

Historiae Pars prior historiam ante-islamicam continens. qui dicitur Ibn Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1969.

Ioannis Malalae Chronographia. Bonn, 1831.

Ioannis Zonarae Epitome historiarum. Vol. III. Leipzig, 1870.

Iulianos der Abtruennige. Syrische Erzaehlungen. Leiden, 1880.

Kitab al- 'Unvan. Histoire universelle ecrite par Agapius (Mahboub) de Menbidj. Seconde partie, fasc. 1 // Patrologia Orientalis, t. VII. Paris, 1911.

Leonis Grammatici Chronographia. Bonn, 1842.

Libanii Opera. Vol. I. Leipzig, 1903. Vol. II. Leipzig, 1904.

wa-l-qisas. Einepersische Geschichte aus dem 12 Jahrhundert.Mudj mal Edingen-Neckarhausen: Deux Mondes, 2000.

Nöldeke Th. Ueber den syrischen Roman von Kaiser Julian // Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft. T. 28. 1874.

Philostorgius. Kirchengeschichte. Leipzig, 1913.

Sancti Prosperi Aquitani... Opera omnia. T. 1. Venezia, 1734.

Socrates' Ecclesiastical History. Oxford, 1893.

Sozomeni Ecclesiastica historia. T. II. Oxford, 1860.

The Book of Creation and History by Motahhar b. Tahir al-Maqdisi. Vol. 3. Teheran: M.H. Asadi, 1962.

The Chronicle of Joshua the Stylite. Cambridge, 1882.

The Fársnáma of Ibnu'l Balkhi. Cambridge: University Press, 1921.

The Scriptores Historiae Augustae. Vol. II. Cambridge (Massachusetts), L.: Harvard University Press, 1993.

The Tajárib al-Vmam or History of Ibn Miskawayh. Vol. I. Leyden, London, 1909.

The Works of the Emperor Julian. Vol. 1. L.: William Heinemann, N. Y.: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1923.

Theodoreti episcopi cyri Eccleasiasticae historiae libri quinque. Oxford, 1854.

Theophylacti Symocattae Historiarum libri octo. Bonn, 1834.

Zosimi... Historiae. Bonn, 1837.

Abu-l-Fida. Tarikh [History], Vol. 1. Constantinople, 1870.

Al-Akhbar at-Tival. Taalif ... ad-Dinawari (Long messages. Essay... ad-Dinawari). Cairo: Vizarat al-saqafa wa-l-irshad al-qaumi, al-Idara al-amma li-s-saqafa, 1960.

Muruj al-Zahab wa maadin al-jawhar fi-t-tarikh. Talif ... al-Masudi. (Gold washes and gemstone mines. Essay... al-Masudi). Part 1. Cairo, 1927/28.

Табакат-и-насири Таалиф ... Qadi Minhaj Siraj (Nasir ranks. Essay... Judges of Minhaj Siraj). Vol. 1. Kabul: Anjoman-i-tarikh-i-Afghanistan, 1963/64.

Tarikh-i-Balami (History of Balami). Tehran: Chapkhane-i-daneshkida, 1962/63.

Tarikh-i-Gardizi (History of Gardizi). Talif Abu Said Abd al-Hayy bin Dahhak bin Mahmoud Gardizi. Tehran: Donya-i-kitab, 1984/85.

Permanent link to this publication: