Mnemosyne 73 (2020) 501-509

brill.com/mnem

Hormisdas and the Romano-Persian Treaty of 363

David Woods University College Cork, Department of Classics, Western Road, Cork, Ireland [email protected]

Received September 2019 | Accepted October 2019

What happened to Hormisdas (to call him by the Greek version of his name), eponymous son of the Persian king Hormizd II (303-309), and brother of his next three successors in turn, Adur Narseh (309), Shapur II (309-379), and Ardashir II (379-383), following his participation on the Roman side during the emperor Julian’s ill-fated Persian expedition in 363?1 Was he killed in battle during the final stages of this expedition as the Roman army sought to retreat from Persian territory? Or did he manage to return in safety to Roman terri- tory to die in peaceful obscurity sometime shortly thereafter? Unfortunately, none of the often quite detailed accounts of Julian’s Persian expedition men- tion his death, or explain what happened to him subsequently. Perhaps this is a casual oversight on the part of the authors of these sources, but his general prominence at the Roman imperial court, the importance of his role during the Persian expedition itself, and the continued importance of his family after 363 suggest the possibility of studied omission instead. Zosimus reports that Hormisdas defected to the Roman empire during the reign of Constantine I (306-337) following a daring escape from a Persian jail, and that Constantine treated him with due respect to his royal status subsequently.2 Unfortunately, little is known about his treatment or activity under Constantius II (337-361). Zonaras claims that he fought for Constantius in his wars against the Persians and was wounded during the same, while Ammianus reports that he accompanied Constantius to the Forum of Trajan

1 PLRE I, 443, s.v. Hormisdas 2. 2 Zos. HN 2.27. Cf. Zon. 13.5.17-34; John of Antioch, fr. 178 (ed. Müller). Ammianus (16.10.16) reveals that he had described Hormisdas’ departure from Persia in an earlier, now lost, book. For a discussion of the difficulties in reconciling the details of the three main surviving ac- counts of the flight of Hormisdas to the Roman empire, see Mosig-Walburg 2000.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2019 | doi:10.1163/1568525X-12342811 502 Woods at Rome in 357 where he joked rather freely with him.3 Julian certainly trusted Hormisdas with a senior military role during his invasion of Persia in 363, and it is even possible that he may have hoped to install him as a friendly ruler upon the Persian throne if all had gone well.4 To be more specific, Ammianus and Zosimus agree that Julian placed Hormisdas in joint-command of the cavalry with Arintheus as he began his march down the Euphrates.5 However, Ammianus alone (24.1.8) reports that he was instrumental in persuading the defenders of the island fortress of Anatha to surrender without a siege. Ammianus and Zosimus agree once more that, when Julian had reached the town of Ozogadana/Zaragardia without meeting any resistance, he sent Hormisdas ahead of his main force on a scouting mission, and that he was almost killed in an ambush.6 They agree also that Julian sent Hormisdas to talk with the defenders of Pirisabora when they had demanded to consult with him as if they had wanted to negotiate their surrender, but that they had then sim- ply insulted him as a traitor and deserter.7 Finally, Libanius alone (Or. 18.258) reveals that, when Roman troops had crossed the Tigris and were encamped near Ctesiphon, Shapur II sent an envoy to the Roman camp in the hope of negotiating peace, that this envoy sought out Hormisdas and asked him to ar- range an interview with Julian for him, but that Julian refused to meet with the envoy and even ordered Hormisdas to keep the real reason for the envoy’s visit a secret. While Libanius’ description of Hormisdas’ reception of the Persian envoy while near Ctesiphon is the last clear reference to him as alive and well still, Zosimus preserves a final somewhat ambiguous reference to him that suggests that he probably even survived until after the death of Julian. In this passage, he is describing the continuation of the fighting between the Persians and the Romans after the fatally injured Julian has been taken to his tent:

ἐπεὶ δὲ ἡ τοῦ βασιλέως καταφανὴς ἐγένετο τελευτὴ καὶ ἀνέστρεψαν οἱ πολλοὶ ἐπὶ τὴν σκηνὴν ἔνθα νεκρὸς ἔκειτο, ἔτι μὲν ἔνιοι Ῥωμαίων ἐμάχοντο καὶ τῶν

3 Zon. 13.5.34; Amm. 16.10.16. For discussion of the latter episode, see e.g. Edbrooke 1975; Cameron 1989. 4 Libanius (Ep. 1402) claims that Julian had intended to install him on the Persian throne. 5 Amm. 24.1.2; Zos. HN 3.13.3-4. On the vexed question of the relationship between Ammianus’ and Zosimus’ descriptions of Julian’s Persian expedition, see Fornara 1991. They clearly draw on the same ultimate source for much of their material, but there is no agreement as to the nature (oral or written?) or identity (Eunapius, Oribasius, Magnus of Carrhae?) of this source. 6 Amm. 24.2.4; Zos. HN 3.15.4-6. 7 Amm. 24.2.11; Zos. HN 3.18.1.

Mnemosyne 73 (2020) 501-509