University of Virginia Library

NOTE.

Piso, it will be observed, makes no mention of, or allusion
to the story recorded by the historian Zosimus, of the Queen's
public accusation of Longinus and the other principal persons
of Palmyra, as authors of the rebellion, in order to save her
own life. It is well known that Zenobia, chiefly on the authority
of this historian, has been charged with having laid
upon Longinus, and her other councillors, 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 Zenobiam cum suis complicibus pro tribunali
stitit. Illa causas exponens, et culpa semet eximens multos alios
in medium protulit, qui eam veluti fæminam seduxissent; quorum
in numero et Longinus erat. — Itidem alii quos Zenobia detulerat
suppliciis adficiebatur.'

This is suspicious upon the face of it. As if Aurelian
needed a formal tribunal and the testimony of Zenobia 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 Zenobia. But if there was a formal tribunal, then
evidence was heard — and not upon one side only, but both
If, therefore, the statements of Zenobia 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 (Zenobiæ) vitam conservassem nisi eam 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, viz., 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 Zenobia) and Vopiscus
(the biographer of Aurelian) and Zonaras all silent respecting
so remarkable a point of the history of Zenobia? 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 passed over in
silence the unutterable baseness of Zenobia 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 circumstances is good evidence
that it came to him not so well vouched — that is, not vouched
at all.

Supposing Zenobia 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 accord

ing to some,[1] 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 Zenobia. 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 patriæ suæ 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;

`Aurelianus Aug: Mallio Chiloni. Occidi passus 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 patriæ 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 Zenobia, 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 Zenobie mesme
qui'se déchargea sur eux des choses dont on l'accusoit, (ce qui répondroit
bien mal a cette grandeur d'ame qu'on luy 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 Zenobia 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 107. 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.

On page 153, 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 cum Valeriano captus est, huic signum (cognomen) exercitus
apposuerat `Manus ad ferrum,' &c.

Page 248. 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 incogmitum
Romanis moribus videbatur, usus est.'

On the same page, in the account of the triumph, a chariot of
Zenobia 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 Zenobia
composuerat sperans se urbem Romanam cum eo visuram;
quod eam non fefellit, nam cum eo urbem ingressa est victa
et triumphata.' — Tr.