Name-ye Iran-e Bastiin 1211-2 (2014): 67-90

Christians and Zoroastrians

in the Fifty-Years Peace Treaty

Antonio Panaino
University of Bologna-Branch of Ravenna

The Greek version of the peace agreement signed between Byzantines and
Sasan ians (561 -562) 1 after a number of violent struggles for the control of
the Lazica has been preserved by Menander the Guardsman in one of the
extant excerpta (fr. 6, 1)2 of his History. These negotiations, which finally
produced a masterpiece of Late Antiquity diplomacy3, were long, detailed
and very cmnplicated. Not only every single point of the thirteen items
inserted into the final document was the object of deep evaluations carefully
developed under the supervision of the two leaders of both diplomatic
delegations, the Persian chamberlain Zig Y azdgusnasp 4 and the Byzantine

1. There is a discussion about the exact date of the final ratification of this treaty; Stein
(1919: 28, n. 3) assumed that it was signed before the end of the year 561, while Bury (1929,
II: 120-23) and Gilterbock ( 1906: 104) placed it in 562. A larger version of this contribution
has been published in 2009 (Panaino 2009a), see also Panaino (2011 ).
2. Text and translation by Blockley 1985: 54-75. The final document with its 13 points
can be read at pp. 70-75. See also MUiier 1851: 212-13 ; Greatrex & Lieu 2002: 132-33. A
useful and careful presentation of the treaty is given by Winter & Dignas 2002: 164-77, and
2007: 138-48. Cf. Angeli Bertinelli 1989: 129-32 . About the Excerpta de legationibus
Romanorum ad gentes, and the Excerpta de legationibus gentium ad Romanos, see Verosta
1966: 601, n. 1. Cf. also Gray 1930: 147-52.
3. See Verosta 1966: 597-611. Cf. Winter 1987: 67-72.
4. In the Greek text, attested, for instance, like 6 Zix 6 · l£cr8qouova<p.
68 Antonio Panaino

magister militum praesentalis Peter 5, but also the final text, written in Greek
and Middle-Persian, was carefully analysed by two bilingual groups of
scribes, each one composed by six translators, of course one on behalf of the
Persians, the latter on behalf of the Byzantines 6 . The modernity of this way
of working presents us with an interesting scenario, where both diplomatic
staffs tried to reciprocally gain, as good as they could, their own advantages,
but also accepting some conditions that mutually limited their own
sovereignty and power, obviously also in the case of some particular internal
affairs. This agreement did not only demonstrate that both powers had equal
rights and dignities 7 , but also showed that a certain level of co-operation
between the two Empires was expected 8 .
The main subject I would like to discuss m this occas10n does not
concern the whole document but just a separate addendum to the whole
ratified agreement, specifically dedicated to the status of the Christians in

5. See Menander in Bekker & Niebuhr 1829: 360; Muller 1851: 212; Blockley 1985: 70-
71. Cf. Guterbock 1906: 57-105 ; Bury 1929, vol. 2: 121-23; Turtledove 1983. Cf. Winter &
Dignas 2007: 143.
6. See the complex procedure of mutual control on the two versions in Persian and Greek
of the final treaty, carefully described by Menander (fr. 6,1 , 408-523; cf. Blockley 1985: 76-
77; Muller 1851: 213-14). In particular, Menander underlines that both texts used a language
of equivalent force, and that facsimiles of both versions were prepared. The originals were
also rolled up and secured by seals both of wax and of other substance used by the Persians,
and finally were impressed by the signets of the envoys and of the twelve interpreters. Only at
this moment, the two sides exchanged the official documents in this order: Zikh [= Pahl. Zig]
handed the one in Persian to Peter, and Peter handed the one in Greek to Zikh. Then , Zikh
received an unsealed translation of the Greek original in Persian, and Peter was given a Greek
translation of the Persian text. Before this final phase, during the various steps of the
negotiation, the terms "were translated into Persian and into Greek, and the Greek declaration
was translated into Persian , the Persian into Greek. [ ... ] After the declarations from both sides
had been fixed they were compared to see whether they corresponded in wording and
meaning" (Blockley 1986: 70-71 ; Winter & Dignas 2007: 141 ). Cf. again Verosta 1965 ;
1966: 603-605 ; Synelli 1986. For the importance of the titles assumed by Xusraw in thi s
official document see Panaino 2004b, and Panaino 2009.
7. In this respect, Higgins ' opinion regarding the fact that Justinian would have proceeded
on the assumption that he could treat the Persians like any barbarian, is probably reductive
( 1941: 296, passim), while his idea that Tiberius tried to transform his rivals into partners
deserves to be investigated and developed in depth.
8. Verosta 1966: 606.
 Christians and Zoroastrians in ... 69

the framework of the Persian Empire (lit. 1a m~pi 1&v tv IlEpcri8t

Xpwnav&v), a kind of regulation that for several reasons has been rightly
considered as the first (clearly attested) international agreement regarding
the tolerant treatment of a religious 1ninority9. The presence of this appendix
(EK10~ tvoµicr011) is extremely interesting in many regards. In particular, it
demonstrates that Justinian's delegation asked special conditions for the
Eastern Christians and that the Persian diplomats did not refuse such
requests. This situation implicitly means that the religious problem was well
considered by both diplomatic staffs, which finally found a reasonable
mediation. The exclusion from the main points of the definitive Peace
Treaty 10 shows, on the other hand, that such a religious question was not an
essential argument in the political agenda, and was not treated as a conditio
sine qua non for the application of the general agreement, but it is not clear
if any potential violation of such an additional condition was considerable or
not as an actual infringement of the whole treaty. In fact, Gi.iterbock
11
considered the fonnula used in the text, tvoµicr011, to be one that could
bind the contractors, in paiiicular Xusraw, who would have been compelled
to respect also this side of the agreement. In favour of Gi.iterbock' s
interpretation, we may remark that, although the litterae sacrae 12 were
exchanged before 13 , the original texts of the treaty in Greek and Middle-
Persian were sealed only after all these additional matters had been properly
discussed as well. Then, we probably can observe again the final result of a
complex mediation: the Persians accepted on a diplomatic level such an
interference in their own internal affairs - a fact that established an
interesting innovation in the relations between neighbouring Empires with

9. As explicitly declared by Schmidt (2002: 131) in a remark quoted also by Winter &
Dignas 2007: 226, who rightly note that this apparent "record" is only due to a lack of
transmission (with a clear reference, for instance, to the foedus of year 422). On the other
hand, it is the general framework of this agreement that results to be extremely significant
and, for a certain extent, it seems to represent an innovation.
I 0. Sako ( I 986: 24-25) presents this additional protocol as it were part of the official
agreement, a statement which is substantially incorrect.
I I. I 906 : 97.
12. Blockley 1985 : 258, n. 66.
13. Blockley 1985: 74-75, 397; MOiier 1851 : 213.
70 Antonio Panaino

regard to the status of a religious minority 14 - but obtained the advantage

that this particular item was not properly part of the main body of the treaty,
being only an additional protocol 15 , which Menander described as follows
(fr. 6, 1, 398-407) 16 :

TOUT<DV 8t 8o~CXVTCDV Kai iaxuporro111etv-rwv EKToc; £VO~Lia011 TU 7rcpi TWV EV

I1£pa(8t Xptanav&v, warn Kai vsmc; oiKo8oµdv Kai sm0s1at;s1v mpac; a8s&c;
Kai Touc; xaptcr-r11piouc; uµvouc;, Ka0a. vsv6µtcrTat ~~Liv, <XKWAUTWc; £7rlT£A£lV,
a11.'Aa. yap µ17-rs KaTavayKat;sa0m de; µaytK~v µsntvm 0p11aK£iav µ17T£ µ~v
0soK11.urniv aKouaiwc; -rouc; rrapa. M17801c; v£voµ1aµtvouc; 0£ouc;, Kai oi
Xptcrnavoi 8t, waT£ iiKtcrTa Kai o'i8£ TOA~t0£V ~L£Tan0tvm ~t6.youc; sc; n7v Ka0 '
11µac; 86~av. EKpCXTl7<>£ 8t warn Kai Touc; 0v17aKOVTac; Tote; Xptcrnavoic; srr'
n
E~ouaiac; dvm 0a7rT£lV EV TCX<potc;, V£v6µtcrTat nap' ~µiv.

When these matters had been agreed and ratified, they turned to a separate
consideration of the status of the Christians in Persia. It was agreed that they
could build churches and worship freely and without hindrance sing their
hymns of praise, as is our custom 17 • Furthermore, they would not be
compelled to take part in Magian worship nor against their will to pray to the
gods that the Medes believe in. For their part, the Christians would not
venture to convert Magians to our beliefs. It was also agreed that the
Christians would be permitted to bury their dead in graves, as is our custom.

The Byzantine negotiators asked and obtained the following rights for
the Christians in Persia:
1) freedom of erecting churches;
2) freedom of worshipping and, in particular, of singing their hymns;

14. Verosta 1966: 124.

15. This is the idea suggested with various arguments by Blockley (1985: 259, n. 66),
who also raised (1992: 52, 201 , n. 40) an interesting comparison with the agreement
established in 422 between Theodosius and Wahram, where also some regulations about
religious freedom were established.
16. Text and translation by Blockley 1985: 74-77; MUiier 1851 : 213 . Cf. Greatrex & Lieu
2002: 133-34. See also Guillaumont 1969-70: 49 ; Winter & Dignas 2001: 249, and 2007:
225-27.
17. Such an explicit reference to "our customs" cannot be considered part of the original
protocol , being, of course, unacceptable from the Persian side. This, as other elements, shows
that Menander presented the original sources, but that he, at least partly, adapted them with
comments of his own.
 Christians and Zoroastrians in . .. 71

3) abstention from any forced participation to Mazdean rituals and

prayers in honour of the yazadan;
4) freedom of burials in graves.
In exchange, the Persians obtained the clause that the Christians should
abandon any attempt of conversion of the Mciyoi, a condition that we should
discuss, because its debated explanation implies diverging results.
This protocol could be apparently taken as a kind of a loss by the Persian
side, which accepted a heavy intromission in its internal religious affairs
apparently without asking anything similar in exchange, as Blackley remarks in
his commentary 18 , particularly when he emphasizes 19 the fact that "The use of
annexes would have had a double purpose: to reduce the stigma of permitting the
other side interference in domestic affairs, and to make non-adherence to this
part of the agreement not a breach of the treaty oaths and thus not a casus belli".
Then, the -situation results much more intricate than it apparently seems
to be. Furthermore we must consider that, if the force of this treaty did not
cover also Persarmenia, but only the inner Imperial territory, as again
Gtiterbock noted 20 , it did not contain any real damage for the Mazdeans
living in the Western lands, which were covered by other agreements.
Contrariwise, it is peculiar that, according to Menander's report, the
Persians would have not pretended (at least a fonnal) protection for the
Zoroastrians living inside the Roman limes, although there their nmnber and
impact should have been politically insignificant (with the exception of
Annenia, where other regulations were established). Formal reciprocity in
these matters is a basic rule in diplomatic affairs, and the presentation of the
protocol according to Menander's version seems to be unilateral or, in any
case, not complete. This suspect is supported by the presence of some
statements, mentioned in the protocol, which do not appear so transparent
and clear as we could think after a superficial reading of the docmnent.
For example, as I noted before, Menander's reference to the condition
asked by the Persians that "the Christians would not venture to convert
Magians to our beliefs" (010£ TOA~tq'}Ev µ£-ran0tvai µciyouc; £<; -r11v Ka0' 11~tfi<;

18. 1985: 239, n. 67.

19. 1992: 201, n. 40.
20. 1908: 97, 1.
72 Antonio Panaino

21
86~av) is not so simple as it may appear. Gtiterbock was actually
convinced that µayouc; "bedeutet hier nicht Magi er, Priester (Mobedhs ),
sondem alle Mazdaverehrer der µaytK11 8p110x£ia". In this case, he is
22
followed also by Verosta , who assumed that Menander was referring by
23
µayou~ to all the Zoroastrians and not only to their clergymen . In order to
24
support his suggestion, Gtiterbock made reference to the use of ~tayo~ , to
be generically interpreted as "Mazdean" in a particular passage reported by
5
Priscus (frg. 41, 1.3 )2 , concerning a Persian embassy sent by Per6z to Leo
in 464/5 because of the turmoil produced by the Kidarite Huns in the
Caspian area, which runs as follows:

CX(j)lKETO 8s Kai rrapa tOU Ilcpcr&v µovapxou, TWV TE rrap' aUTOU<;

KaTacpEuy6vTwv EK Tou crcpETEpou ESvou<; ahiav txoucra Kai T&v Maywv [Kai]
t&v EV tfj 'Pw~taiwv yfj EK rraAatWV oiKOUVTWV xp6vwv, cb<; arr<iyclV aUTOU<;
T&v rraTpiwv E0&v Kai v6µwv E00.. ovt£<; Kai n1<; rrEpi TO 0dov ay1crtEia<;
rrapEVOXAOU<Jl tE Kai E<; aci avaKaiscrem Kata tOV 0£<J~lOV OU cruyxwpou<Jl to
rrap' autOt<; acrpscrtOV KaAOUµEVOV rrup .

An embassy also arrived from the Persian monarch which complained to the
Romans both about those of their people who were fleeing to them (the
Romans) and about the Magi who had lived from old in Roman territory. The
embassy alleged that the Romans, wishing to turn the Magi from their
ancestral customs, laws and rites of worship, harassed them and did not allow
the fire, which they called unquenchable, to be kept burning continually
according to their law.

This passage as the other one attested few lines below m the same
fragment of Priscus (i1t£ yap qmya8a~ dvat napa mpicn µirr£
nap£voxAd08a1 tou~ Mayou~ tf1~ 8p110x£ia~ ntpt [ ... ]. "They [i.e. the
Romans] claimed that there were no fugitives amongst them and that the
Magi were not harassed on account of their religion [ ... ]")2 6 cannot be

21. 1906: 96, n. 4, 98, n. 6.

22. 1966: 608-609 .
23 . See also Guillaumont 1969-70: 49 .
24. See Guterbock 1906: 98, n. 6, where the fragment is quoted with number 31, 1.
25. MUiier 1851: 105. I follow the text and the translation edited by Blackley ( 1983: 344-
47); this translation is followed also by Greatrex & Lieu 2002: 57.
26. MUiler 1851: 105. Blockley 1983 : 346-4 7, lines 20-21.
 Christians and Zoroastrians in ... 73

fittingly used to demonstrate that the word ~uiyo~ did not mean "(Mazdean)
priest", but simply Zoroastrian. Not only this kind of generic meaning is
unknown in the Greek standard use, but also Priscus clearly refers to
performances proper of the priestly function, in particular those concerning
the inextinguishable fire, which was not attended by common Zoroastrians.
We can admit a negative and generic meaning of µayo~ as "wizard,
27
magician, soothsayer" , while that of simple "Mazdean" is peculiar,
because it would have been sufficient to mention the ethnic denomination of
"Persian" (without any other qualification) to make reference to the religion
of the Magians. Also, Gliterbock's reference to the expression used by
Menander with reference to the protocol, µaytKll 8p17crKEia, is very weak in
itself. In fact, here, the µaytKll 8p17crKEia is nothing but the good and real
µay£ia, already known from the times of the Alcibiades Major, 121 E-l 22A,
as the "worship of the gods" (0c:&v 0c:panEia) properly offered by the Magi.
Menander simply shows that also in an official document the i1nage of the
~tayda, here presented as µaytKll 8p17crKEia, was considered in its neutral,
technical value, and not like a kind of witchcraft. The proper ritual was
doubtless perfonned by the Mayot, or by the Mobediin, and by no other
unqualified person. If the text was revised also by the Persian interpreters, as
we know, it is difficult to believe that they might accept a designation of all
the Mazdeans as Mayot. On the other hand, the protocol contains, as we
underlined, a strong and evident asymmetry, which appears questionable in
the framework of such an international treaty.
We must also recall that such an agreement was not imposed by force
after a definitive victory by the Romans, but it was the fruit of a bilateral
decision, taken in the interests of both sides. Then, the problem we are
focussing on is real, and not i1naginary. Apparently, from this docmnent, we
can deduce two options: or the Christians should have been protected in
Persia and they would have been authorized to expand their own religion,
just abstaining from converting the Mazdean priests and the members of
their families, or (second possibility) they should abstain from any attempt
of conversion. The first solution seems acceptable both for the Persian and
the Byzantine sides, the latter patently negative for the Byzantines. But

27. See Panaino (2010b).

74 Antonio Panaino

before to conclude this controversial aspect of our investigation we must

focus on another interesting witness: in fact, we cannot avoid noting that
Gi.iterbock omitted the only piece of evidence supporting his interpretation
of the protocol. In the proposal of agreement discussed between Nik 'or
V shnaspdat, as envoy of the Sasanian king Valaxs (484-488), and the
Armenian leader Vahan Mamikonian, we actually find that among the most
important conditions for peace asked by the Christians in the peace of
Nuarsak (484) there was the one that no Armenian should be made a
"Magian" (mag), i.e. converted to Zoroastrianism28 . Actually, in Armenian
sources we doubtless find a double use of mag and magpet, both with
reference to the Persians and to the Sasanian clergy, whose "priesthood" is
also called magut 'iwn 29 (while the common Armenian word for "non-
Christian priest" was k 'urm , le 'rmapet "high priest")3°. Then, an example of
this semantic shift is attested, but it is doubtful if the Byzantines and the
Persians would have agreed to make use of such a generic expression in the
framework of an official negotiation. A certain ambiguity remains and the
implications appear much more intriguing.
I think, however, that an explanation can be gained if we admit that
Menander should have simply resumed the contents of a longer and
probably much more detailed protocol. From the Persian side, in fact, the
most dangerous conversions, which produced persecutions, trials and in
most cases also capital executions, were those of the nobles and of the
priests. We may suppose that this interdiction was mostly requested by the
Persian delegation in exchange for the protection assured to the Christians.

28. This is the passage attested in the Histo ry of the Armenians by Lazar P ' arpec ' i: ew
zhay ayr zok' mi mag oc' afnek', ew umek ' yalags mogut'ean gah ew patiw c'tayk' [ ... ] "and
do not make any Armenian "Magus" (i .e. "follower of Zoroastrianism") and do not give to
anybody seat and honour because of his function of magus (mo gut 'ean)". Text according to
the edition by Ter Mkrtc'ean & Malxasean 1904: 161 (chap. 89). I would like to thank my
colleague Prof. G. Uluhogian for her kind help in the anal ysis of this source. See also Lazar
P ' arpec ' i, in Langloi s 1869, ll: 354-55. Cf. Gray 1930: 146-47. Dr. B. Zekiyan kindly
attracted my attention on the fact that this treaty, in any case, does not compel "Zoroastrians"
to accept any forced conversion to Christianity.
29. The term mazdezk · is also attested with the meaning of "Mazdeism"; see Garso'ian
1989: 392, s.v. Mogk' .
30. Russell 1987: 299.
 Christians and Zoroastrians in . . . 75

Probably, the protocol was much longer, and it contained a general request
of abstention from proselytis1n of all the Mazdeans, in particular those
belonging to priestly families, who should have been the religious subject
that the Zoroastrian clergy desired in particular to protect through the action
of the royal diplomacy. This probably means that Christian missionaries,
having now a larger community, directed their efforts towards priestly and
noble families, whose conversion produced indeed a larger impression and,
probably, a higher influence. It is also reasonable to suppose that the
Persians should have asked, at least formally, a sort of correspondent
advantage for their compatriots and coreligionists living on the borders or
outside of the Persian Empire. In support of the hypothesis that the report
given by Menander was resumed and abbreviated, we can put forward
another striking evidence thanks to TabarT31 , whose Ta 'r1kh preserves an
interesting passage referred to Xusraw II Parwez, but partly concerning also
32
Xusraw I. It runs as follows :

Abarwiz, meanwhile, journeyed to al-Mada'in after he had distributed twenty

million [dirhams] among the Byzantine troops and had sent them back to
Mawriq. It is said that Abarwiz wrote a letter to the Christians giving them
permission to establish their churches [ 'imarat biya 'ihim] and allowing
anyone who wished, with the exception of the Zoroastrians [but note that
Noldeke translated: "Magier"], to adopt their faith. In this connection he
adduced the fact that Arn1sharwan had made a peace agreement with [kana
hadana] Qay~ar regarding the tribute that he exacted from the Byzantine
ruler, and had stipulated that those of his [Zoroastrian] compatriots who were
in the Byzantine ruler's land should be kindly treated and that the monarch

31. Noldeke 1879: 287-88. See also Gray 1930: 151 , n. 1.

32. Bosworth 1999: 314-15. Different in some minor, but relevant, details is Noldeke's
translation ( 1879: 287-88) that I quote in extenso: "Parwez aber zog nach Madain, nachdem
er unter die romischen Truppen 20 Millionen (Dirham) vertheilt und sie dem Mauricius
zuri.ickgesandt hatte. Wie man sagt, stellte Parwez den Christen ein Schreiben aus, worin er
ihnen erlaubte, dass sie ihre Kirchen herstellten und dass zu ihrer Religion ilbergehn konnte,
wer da wolle, mit Ausnahme der Magier. Er begrilndete dies damit, <lass An6sarwan beim
Abschluss des Vertrages -Uber den Tribut dem Kaiser die Bedingung auferlegt habe, seine im
kaiserlichen Gebiet befindlichen Landsleute gut zu behandeln und daselbst (fur sie)
Feuertempel zu errichten, und <lass der Kaiser schon damals die entsprechenden Bedingungen
fur die Christen gestellt habe". The original orthography has been respected.
76 Antonio Panaino

should build fire temples for them in his lands. Qay~ar, for his part, had made
a similar stipulation in regard to the Christians [in the Persian lands].

This brief excursus given by TabarT patently contains a reference to the

Middle-Persian version of the same agreement reported by Menander 33 , or
more precisely the way in which the Sasanian propaganda presented it inside
the Empire. In other words, we may presume that, when the official
documents were signed, they were absolutely correspondent, more or less as
a literal translation, but what was made of public dominion was probably
manipulated and resumed in some parts. It is difficult to believe that
Justinian had authorized the divulgation of a protocol stating the formal
protection of Persian pagans in his territory, but TabarT clearly mentions
such a condition. Also the idea that it was possible for a Persian to be
converted to Christianity with the exceptions of the Magi (and of all the
persons belonging to their "clan", a fact that makes this group much larger
than an uninformed Wes tern reader could immediately understand), as
Noldeke assumed following literally the Arabic text 34 , is probably
confirmed. Unfortunately, in Arabic majiis, pl. of miig, miibad (like the
abstract majiissiya "Mazdeism") can mean both "Magus" and "Mazdean"
( or "Zoroastrian" as well)3 5 . Then, it is impossible to gain a compelling
evidence from this particular source. The same semantic ambiguity is
attested not only in Arabic, but also in later Aramaic. Thus, we can

33. See Noldeke 1879: 288-99, n. 2. Russell (I 987: 140, 152, n. 110) suggests that this
treaty would have concerned also Armenian lands, but it is not clear what is the evidence for
such a statement.
34. See Noldeke in De Goeje 1881-82, p. 1000 of the Arabic text, end of line 17; man
gayru 'l-majfis .
35. See the Arabic- Persian Mediaeval thematic dictionary by Al-Zamal]sarT (1342-1343/ 1963-
64-1964-95 , I: 275), where under the entry majiisiyy, we find mug, nntbad, pl.: majiis; in the
Arabic- Persian Mediaeval dictionary by Al-SaJzT ( 1364/1985-86: 299): we find majiisiyy: gabr. The
monolingual Arabic dictionary AI-Munjid fl al-Luga ( 1986: 749, sub the radical mjs) explains that
majiis is a collective name, referring to the peoples who worships the sun and the fire; sg. maji'is iyy;
al-majiisiyy is "wise, witchcraft of such a people". Cf also Monnot 1986: 82-122, passim. We may
also note that in Syriac mgusa is "magus, religionis Persamm assecta, incantator, Persamm religionis
cultor", etc. ; mgus "magismus, religio Persamm" (Payne Smith 1901: 2008-2009; 2003). Cf also
Klein 1916: 64 with reference to the Gospel of Matthew. I must thank Dr. Daniele Guizzo for his
help in the investigation of the Arabic lexicography.
 Christians and Zoroastrians in ... 77

prudently conclude this overview of the whole problem suggesting that the
protocol was shortened in the Menander's quotation, with a possible
omission of the clause containing the mention of the corresponding rights
attributed to the Zoroastrians living m the Western territories.
Unfortunately, we remain in doubt about the reference to the Magi
(documented in the Greek version), and to the majus, in the Arabic
quotation. In fact, it is clear that a strong restriction for the Christian
missionary activity was requested and obtained by Xusraw's delegation in
any case. But, if we assume that the mention of the Magi meant that the
access to the whole Zoroastrian community was forbidden, we should infer
that the Christian Emperor accepted a strong loss against the rights of the
Christian Church of Persia. I am slightly doubtful about this radical
interpretation, because it is unclear why Justinian should have accepted such
a general interruption of the missionary activity in Iran, which would have
been presently forbidden in force of an international agreement (in
particular if we think that such a protocol was requested by the part which,
according to this interpretation, would have suffered more damages than
before). We cannot forget that Justinian was trying to submit the
independent Church of Persia, and such a diplomatic solution would have
been a political suicide with respect to the power of the Eastern Church. On
the contrary, the possibility that this protocol stressed in particular the
intangibility of the Magi could simply attest Zoroastrians' fear that in
particular clergymen (with their families) could be converted; at the same
time, a potential oversimplification of the whole Mazdean community (with
a general mention of the most important pars pro toto only) would be
reasonable also in the light of the Armenian antecedent 36 . The ambiguity
remains and we cannot exclude that it gave room to different interpretations
according to the different parts who were asked to apply the protocol, but
we can doubt that the complete text contained the radical obligation for the
Christian side to abandon any missionary activity in Iran. We know, in fact,
that, as it happened also in the case of the Roman and Byzantine laws

36. We may recall that the Annenian Christians pretended that the Magi should not be
given special honours, that the fire-temples should be removed, and that the Christian Church
should not be harmed by them. See Gray 1930: 146.
78 Antonio Panaino

regarding religious rights and freedom, rules were strictly applied only in
case of political convenience. In other words, they were an instrument of
power always at disposal, but not systematically used or abused, as the
patent case of the life of Mar Aba himself shows.
It is also interesting to recall, as also Blockley37, followed by Winter and
38
Dignas , has noted, that another probable antecedent of this protocol was
represented by some clauses, probably annexed, as in this case, to the formal
treaty signed by Byzantines and Persians in 422. Various Christian sources 39
actually insist on the fact that the Persians agreed to allow Christians to meet
together and perform their cult, but the Romans should answer such an
obligation in a reciprocal way respecting the freedom of the Zoroastrian
communities living within Roman territory, "eine Konzession ohne praktischen
Wert", as, in my opinion, Schippmann correctly wrote40 . In any case, also this
agreement did not compel Mazdeans to become Christians by force.
Now we can enter other aspects of this remarkable document. With
regard to the bilateral relations Blackley has also suggested 41 : "Apparently
Khosro was prepared to take seriously the conviction of the Roman Emperor
that he was responsible of all Christians. On the other hand, how Justinian
was able to guarantee the behaviour of Persian Christians, especially
N estorians, is not clear" 42 .
The addendum, being outside of the main agreement, was per se a kind of
Persian political concession to Justinian, but, in reality, it had no compelling
force apart from the personal promise given by Xusraw; practically, no special
forms or arbitration or of legal mediations were established with regard to the
Christian community. According to the martyrdom of Sfrfn, it see1ns, for
instance, that the Byzantine ambassador tried to help her43, but she was deported
in order to avoid this external interference. Thus, without proper rules and

37. 1992: 52, 201 , n. 40.

38. 2007: 226.
39. See Blockley 1992: 201 , n. 40; Sako 1986: 78-80. Cf. Stein 1958, I, 1: 281 ; I, 2: 564,
n. 144.
40. 1990: 42 ; Winter & Dignas 2007: 137.
41. Ibidem.
42. A similar prudent remark was made also by Higgins 1941 : 290, n. 31.
43. Devos 1946: 90.
 Christians and Zoroastrians in ... 79

institutions, the religious protection was only a nominal assumption of

responsibility, and it was possible to proceed against Christians with many legal
argwnents. In fact, as Blockley underlines, Justinian had no real instrument to
enforce this side of the agreement with the exception of a kind of 1noral
obligation by the part of Xusraw to maintain it. But, if something happened in
times of war, as probably it was the case of the sad story of STrTn, which has been
11
dated on the 2s1 February 559 (but it could also have taken place later, in 572)44,
no particular institution was at disposal, apart from the inviolable role of the
45
ambassadors . In addition, we must also take into serious consideration the fact
that, although Xusraw had accepted the role of the Byzantine Emperor as
46
"protector" or, perhaps better, "benefactor" , of the Christians in Iran, would the
Dyophysite Christians seriously accept him, and without fear, as their Lord-
protector? We may reasonably doubt of this! Notwithstanding a number of
problems between the Persian Church and the Mazdean hierarchy, Xusraw's
kingdom was not particularly intolerant with the Dyophysites, and, for instance,
47
Mar Aba , their katholik6s, was strongly protected by the king hiinself against
various persecutions enacted by the Mobedan Mobad. All the synodoi were held
48
under his protection and authority , and Xusraw was wished as "the second
49
Cyrus", i.e. just like Cyrus the Great" , who was the "Lord's anointed"
(Deutero-Jsaiah, 45, 1). Churches were neither destroyed nor Christians
forbidden to attend the mass or pray and sing. Contrariwise, we may suspect that
the independent and schismatic Persian Church would have suffered 1nuch 1nore
if Justinian had been actually in condition to extend his direct authority over the
"heretic" Dyophysites.
If we reflect again on the special protocol obtained by the Rhomaioi,
we have the impression that they did not gain substantial advantages apart

44. Devos 1946 : 92. Again Devos ( 1966: 217), without any explanation, suggests that the
date of her martyrdom was on the 28th February 559.
45. Verosta 1966: 602.
46. As Verosta (1966: 607) explicitly suggested.
47. See Ti sserant 1931: 179-80; Peeters 1946; Devos 1966: 215-16 ; Labourt 1904: 181-
92 ; cf. Guillaumont 1969-70: 44-46, who mentions the relations between Justinian and Mar
Aba. See also Asmussen 1962: 6-7; Hutter 2003 ; Panaino 2004a.
48 . Russell 1991: 525.
49. Brock 1982: 11.
80 Antonio Panaino

from a sort of moral diplomatic success, whose force was ambiguous, as

we noted before. Thus, we may suggest that, although Menander's report
presented this addendum as an effective act of protection concerning
apparently all Christians, it remains that not all of them were ready to
accept its potential consequences. Actually, any discrimination among the
different Christian communities in a formal document signed together
with the Persians would have been unacceptable from the side of the
Byzantines, who probably did not like to emphasize the unhappy evidence
that the majority of their brethren in Persia was not so friendly with them.
As I tried to explain in another contribution regarding the identity of the
Persian Christians in the late Sasanian Empire 50 , it is doubtful that they
were so willing to be dominated by the Romans. An argument supporting
this statement can be deduced from what happened when Justinian, after
the ratification of the Peace Treaty, tried to organize a doctrinal
conference, where both Persian and Byzantine theologians were invited 51 •
Xusraw himself authorized the Persian delegation 52, where we find
prominent thinkers like Paul, metropolitan of Nisibis, Iso~yahb, the future
katholik6s, and Babai, bishop of Sigar, to join the meeting. But this
attempt of reconciliation produced only a deeper fracture between the two
Churches, and the Persians, in particular, strongly endured in the defence
of their Christology. Furthermore, the recent condemnation of all the
books written by the highest authorities of the Church of the East, such as
Theodorus of Mopsuestia, Ibas and Theodoretus, just ordered by Justinian
during the fifth Council held in 553 53 in order to obtain the favour of the
Monophysites, did not produce very positive results on both fronts. The
Monophysites did not approach Justinian's side, while the Persians, whose
theological authorities were so severely condemned and offended, kept
their distances , although a proper reaction to this particular provocation
54
was expressly fonnulated only during the Synodos of year 5 85 . Although

50. Panaino (201 0a).

51. See Guillaumont 1969-70: 50-62, 62-66.
52. See the Chronicle of Seert, VU, (Scher 1909: 187); cf. Sako 198 : 92-93.
53. Guillaumont I 969- 70: 53-56.
54. Guillaumont 1969-70: 55 .
 Christians and Zoroastrians in .. . 81

some scholars think that the already mentioned conference with the
Persian delegation was held in an earlier period, i.e. in the year 533 55, or
between 546-54 i 6
, when a five-years peace between Xusraw and
Justinian was established 57 , the situation does not change with regard to
this particular problem. In any case, it is probable that Xusraw had
allowed his Christian subjects to meet Justinian and his theologians also in
force of this protocol signed in 562, as Guillaumont has shown 58 , and that
Justinian tried to use his fresh role of benefactor in order to reduce the
Eastern rebels to obedience. Unfortunately, we do not know if Xusraw
was afraid of this possibility, but it is also probable that he had been
earlier convinced by the same Christian authorities in Persia that such a
reconciliation would have never happened. We cannot forget that, as
already N. Garsoi'an underlined 59 , the Codex Thedosianus 60 and the Codex
Iustinianus did not recognize to the Persian heretics a number of civil
rights and that the Byzantine ecclesiastic authorities did not tolerate
them 6 1. It is useful to recall that in the sixth century, when Sebokhth62 , a
Christian envoy, was sent by Xusraw I to Constantinople in order to avoid
war with Justin II 63 , he openly stated that the Persian Christians would
have fought for their own country, if the Roman E1nperor would have
entered the Persian territory. Thus, "Rome in championing Christianity
would be attacking Christians", as fittingly Higgins remarked 64 .

55. See the bibliography given by Sako 1986: 93 .

56. Sako 1986: 93-94.
57. Cf. Gray 1930: 147.
58. 1969-70: 51.
59. 1973: 137; 1971: 349, n. 27.
60. C. Th. , XVI, 5; see GarsoYan 1971: 349, n. 27.
61. Guillaumont ( 1969-70: 50) underlines the contradictory picture deriving from the
protocol , where Justinian apparently obtained for the "Nestorians" the right to build up
churches, while this possibility was forbidden by law in the Roman Empire. See in particular
Schoell & Kroll , 1928: 662-63 , Novellae 131 , 14.
62. About this Christian ambassador see Sako 1986 : 96-97.
63. Higgins (1941: 293) insists on the fact that Justin desired to vindicate the honour of
Rome and heal its wounded prestige. See also Turtledove 1983: 299-300.
64. See again Menander the Guardsman in MOiler 1851: 239; Blockl ey 1985 : 152-55 . Cf.
Higg ins 1941 : 287, 292, 301 , n. 6 I.
82 Antonio Panaino

We may note that, m particular during the kingdom of Xusraw,

persecutions and forced attempts of abjuration from Christianity do not
appear so relevant, with the exceptions of special cases, where nobles and
members of priestly families were directly involved. In this respect, the
condition imposed by Persian negotiators, that Christians would not try to
convert Mazdean priests, seems, at least in part, to be a good point in favour
of the Zoroastrian authorities, who had a fresh argument in order to
persecute those Mazdeans of upper priestly class who dared to accept
Christianity and their converters as well. On the other hand, if Menander' s
report is accurate (although partial), and thus if we must read it literally,
Christians were not allowed to convert priests and obviously also the
members of their families, but no additional preclusion seems to have been
inserted with regard to the other Mazdean believers; on this point also
TabarT's report is very sharp. In any case we must consider the suggestive
hypothesis advanced by Verosta65 in order to explain Xusraw's generosity:
this special protocol would have been used by the king himself as an
instrument against any new attempt of persecution, promoted by the most
zealous Mobed(czn) without a direct royal authorization and, we may add, it
reasonably promoted Christian cooperation with the Sasanian crown. In fact,
since the ratification of that protocol, what was originally a religious
problem placed under the 1nain authority of the Mazdean hierarchy now
became a subject of international politics and of respect of international

65 . Verosta suggested ( 1966: 124) also that article 6 of the general treaty, a point
concerning fugitives of war and refugees (Winter & Dignas 2007: 142, 146-47), was strictly
connected with the special agreement regarding the Christian minority, because it allowed
those w ho moved out of their homeland during the war to come back without any harm, but
also ordered that all the persons w ho fl ed during peace-times should be repatriated to their
country without exception. In this respect Verosta fo llows Higgins (1941: 290-9 I ), who, in
fact, noted that this point of the treaty was later considered by Justin II as an insult for the ro le
of the Roman C hristian Empire. Thus, when a religious revolt took place in Armenia in late
summer of 571 because of the construction of a fire-temple in Dvin, Justin foun d a good
opportunity to assert his right to protect Christians and openly invited them to his capital
against Persians' w ill (Turtledove 1983: 299). It is useful to recall that also Guillaumont
(1969-70 : 49-5 0) stressed the fact that this article of the treaty was a strong (and peculiar)
concession by Justinian in favour of Xusraw, who was authorized to summon back all the
Christians refugees.
 Christians and Zoroastrians in ... 83

rights (although its juridical force was not so strictly compelling, as we

noted before). Then, this dangerous matter passed for some extent under the
direct jurisdiction of the Siihiin Siih. Furthermore, Christians missionaries
would have been compelled to search new fellows also outside of the
Persian borders, thus supporting the political interest of the Great King.
Such an interpretation can be neither definitely proved nor disproved, but it
seems in agreement with Xusraw's politics of inner stability and of good
relations with the autokephalous Persian Church against any violent
zelotism by the Mazdean priests. For instance, we cannot forget that also
Christians supported Xusraw against Mazdak, and that Xusraw in his tum
th
helped the Church of Persia to resolve the schism happened during the 34
year of Kawad's (521-522) reign after an irregular election of the katholik6s.
Xusraw, in fact, finally dismissed the katholik6s Eliseus and imposed Paul,
66
the archbishop of Susa, on the highest see of the Church, in 535 . We may
also recall that Xusraw authorized Mar Aba, who was dying, to consecrate a
new bishop, who was sent to the Ephtalites 67 , a decision that should have
had also a political meaning for the Sasanians. Furthennore, as Higgins 68
wrote: "the sixth century Syriac historian, John of Ephesus 69 , has nothing
but golden opinions for the broad and humane tolerance of Chosroes,
however cautiously expressed".
Coming back to the additional protocol, it is worth noting that there we
do not find any mention of the most important problems raised by Christian
Persian authorities (also in their legal sources)7°, just like that of the
interdiction of incestual marriages, or the protection of the me111bers of the
hierarchy, although belonging to noble Persian families. Probably, also
Justinian was not so interested to protect Persian nobles, although they were
Christians, and Xusraw had no need of offending the Mazdean Church
offering something really too generous. Also with regard to the matter of the
burials explicitly mentioned in the protocol, it is necessary to clarify that

66. See Tisserant 1931 : 178-79.

67. Peeters 1946: 108-109.
68. 1941 : 285 , 301 , n. 61.
69. See Brocks 1936: 240-42.
70. Panaino 2008.
84 Antonio Panaino

such a subject has been uncritically over-emphasized in commentaries 7 1, and

that its importance could be only another mirage. We know, in fact, that,
although orthodox Zoroastrianism imposed the exposition of the dead
bodies, many persons did not follow such a custom, as archaeological
sources show for the Sasanian Period as well as for the earlier phases of
Persian history 72 .

In conclusion, this appendix to the official Peace Treaty was an apparent

concession to the Byzantine pride and desire to protect Christianity also
outside of its Imperial borders. But the weakness of its force and the
vagueness of the allowances mentioned there imply that such a protocol was
unsubstantial for the Persians and that both sides probably pennitted its
redaction mostly for internal reasons of propaganda. The Byzantines
probably were in condition to emphasize the role of Justinian, although we
cannot exclude that they thought to use this document in order to obtain a
gratitude (in my opinion, unnecessary) by the Christians in Persia with the
hope of their submission. The Persians explicitly fixed certain limits both to
the expansion of Christianity and to the zelotism of their own clergy, but
also acted as a good-willing and co-operative part. Anyway, in order to
avoid proble1ns, no sharp distinction regarding the different Christian
communities living in Iran was mentioned into the agreement, while no
reference to the official Church of Persia was attested or introduced under
any form. It is clear that from the Roman point of view, only one form of
Christianity was acceptable, and that the other variants were simply
heresies. The following conference organized by Justinian failed, because it
was based on such an assumption, and also the Mazdean king knew this side
of the game well. What was asked in the protocol was already current inside

71. As it appears also in Blockley's remarks (ibidem). Guillaumont ( 1969-70: 49, n. 50)
insists on this aspect of the protocol, recalling also the fact that, at the death of Mar Aba,
some Mazdeans tried to rob his corpse in order to expose it to the animals (Peeters 1946: I 11-
12). The relevance of this event for the general picture remains in any case doubtful (if it was
true or not is another problem, the katholikos being under the protection of the king) , because
his funeral had a political meaning, and was not a private ceremony.
72. About this problem see Callieri 2002a, 2002b, 2002c. See also Russell (1987 : 336-40)
with regard to the Armenian situation.
 Christians and Zoroastrians in ... 85

the Sasanian Empire, apart from special cases, while the Persians obtained a
kind of official protection of their clergy from inopportune attempts of
conversion. In this respect Xusraw gained a good argument in order to
satisfy his priests, whose religious intolerance was now put under a more
complex net of diplomatic implications. We may also suppose that Xusraw
did not renounce at all his authority on the Church of the East and on the
Persian Christians, while Justinian was made content with a generic
protection of the Christians in Persia, many of whom did neither see hin1 as
their saviour nor his Western Church as their own. On the other hand, it is
true that the Christian problem was officially recognized by the Persian side,
and the status of such a minority taken into consideration on a diplomatic
level of discussion. Its prudent (and li1nited) treatment shows a high degree
of realism on both sides, and confinns that Persian kindness in this matter
was not properly so generous to allow unlimited interferences.
However, diplomacy is nevertheless diplomacy, and both sides might
claim to have been satisfied until another war did explode. Thus, the hope
for a "Perpetual Peace" was unfortunately stopped only ten years later, in
572. The main struggle was located in Armenia and religious matters were,
once again, a casus belli. Three years later a new agreement was signed but
its effects were limited. On the other hand, the politics of Justin II was quite
different, and only Tiberius tried to restore, although with many difficulties
and some failures, a more reasonable diplomatic recognition of his ene1nies.
Also Mauricius, in his turn, substantially continued this politics of
negotiation and dialogue between the two Empires, which became, in the
words attributed to Xusraw II by Theophylact Simocatta 73 , as it were "two
eyes to shine on the world", both created by the same Divinity 74 .

73 . IV, 11 , 2 (Bekker 1834: 180); Engl. transl. by Whi tby 1997: 11 7. Cf. Higgins 194 1:
309.
74. It is very remarkable that in this letter sent by Xusraw II , the ro le of the divinity seems
to be referred to as if he were common to Christians and Mazdeans. We must also consider
that in the framework of the Peace T reaty of 562 (Blockley 1985: 74-75), accord ing to the
twelfth point, both parts invoke God 's witness, as he were one and the same for Persians and
Romans - although we do not know how this remarkab le concept was formulated in the
M iddle-Persian version. This subj ect should be investigated in fu ture studies. See also
Verosta 1966: 11 9-20.
86 Antonio Panaino

It is a pity that two great Empires, two societies so evolved and civilized
to establish the basic pillars of modem diplomacy, as this treaty shows, were
incapable to find the road to a durable peace. Although the Byzantines will
gain the endgame, both Empires will be so exhausted that the raising star of
the Islamic world will find its own road open against both earlier enemies.
We may rightly wonder if at least, as Verosta suggested 75 , the basic ideas,
contained in this special protocol of protection of the Christian minority,
had a far impact also on the Muslim conquerors, who spared Christians and
Jews, and tolerated Zoroastrians. In any case, its existence was not a
negative achievement in the complex history of diplomacy and human
rights, although we do not properly understand all its controversial political
(inner and international) implications.

Bibliographical References
Asmussen, J. P., 1962, "Das Christentum in Iran und sem Verhaltniss zur
Zoroastrismus", Studia Theologica, 16, (Arhus), pp. 1-22.
Angeli Bertinelli, M. G., 1989, "Al confine tra l'impero romano e la Persia in eta
tardoantica: la questione della Lazica", Quaderni catanesi di studi classici e
medievali, 1, pp. 117-46.
Bekker, I., 1834, Theophylacti Simocattae Historiarum Libri octo recognovit
Immanuel Bekkerus, Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae editio emendatior
et copiosior consilio B. G. Niebuhrii C. F. instituta auctoritate Academiae
Litterarum Borussicae continuata, Theophylactus Simocatta, Genesius, Bonnae.
Bekker, I. & Niebuhr, B. G., 1829, Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae,
Deixippi, Eunapii, Petri Patrici, Prisci, Ma/chi, Menandri historiarum quae
supersunt e recensione I, Bekkeri et B. G. Niebuhri, Berolini.
Blackley, R. C., 1983, The Fragmentary Classicising Historians of the Later Roman
Empire, Eunapius, Olympiodorus, Priscus and Malchus, Vol. II, Text,
Translation and Historiographical Notes, Formation and Conduct from Diocletian
to Anastasius, Liverpool.
- - , 1985, The History of Menander the Guardsman, Introductory Essay, Text,
Translation, and Historiographical Notes, Liverpool.
_ _ , 1992, East Roman Foreign Policy, Formation and Conduct from Diocletian to
Anastasius, Leeds.
Boor, C. de, 1972, Theophylacti Simocattae Historiae, Edidit C. De Boor, editionem

75 . 1966: 610.
 Christians and Zoroastrians in ... 87

correctiorem curavit explicationibusque recentioribus adomavit P . Wirth,

Stutgardiae.
Bosworth, C. E., 1999, The History of al-Tabar, (Ta 'rTkh al-rusil wa 'I miiluk), Vol.
V, The Sascmids, the Byzantines, the Lakhmids, and Yemen, New York.
Brooks, E. W., 1936, "John of Ephesus, Historia ecclesiastica", Corpus scriptorum
Christianorum orientalium editum consilio Universitatis Catholicae Americae et
Universitatis Catholicae Lovaniensis, Scriptores Syri. Ser. III, 3, Louvain.
Brock, S., 1982, "Christians in the Sasanian Empire: A Case of Divided Loyalties",
in St. Mews, ed., Religion and National Identity. Studies in Church History
XVIII, pp.1-19,Oxford.
Bury, J.B., 1929, History of the Later Roman Empire from the Death o_[Theodosius
I to the Death of Justinian. 2 vols, New York.
Callieri, P., 2002a, "L'architettura. Caratteri e modelli. Iran, L'architettura
funeraria", in II mondo dell 'archeologia (Enciclopedia Archeologica), Istituto
dell'Enciclopedia Italiana, Vol. II, pp. 220-22, Roma.
- - , 2002b, "Le aree e le tipologie sepolcrali, i corredi e i riti funerari. Iran. Le aree
funerarie: struttura e organizzazione", in II mondo dell 'archeologia (Enciclopedia
Archeologica), Istituto dell'Enciclopedia Italiana, Vol. II, pp. 520-22, Roma.
- - , 2002c, "Le aree e le tipologie sepolcrali, i corredi e i riti funerari", in II
mondo dell 'archeologia (Enciclopedia Archeologica), Istituto dell 'Enciclopedia
ltaliana. Vol. II, pp. 523-24, Roma.
Chabot, J. B., 1902, Synodicon Orientale ou Recueil de Synodes nestoriens, publie,
traduit et annote par J.B. Chabot, Paris.
Chrysos, E. K., 1976, "Some Aspects of Roman-Persian Legal Relations",
Kleronomia , 8, pp. 1-48.
Colvin, I., 2003, Procopius and Agathias on Roman and Sasanian intervention in
Lazika in the sixth century, D. Phil. Thesis, Oxford.
De Goeje, J., 1881-1882, Anna/es quos scripsit Abu Djafar Mohammed lbn Djarir
At-Tabari cum aliis edidit M . J. De Goeje, Prima Series, II, Recensuerunt J.
Barth et Th. Noldeke, Lugduni Batavorum.
Devos, P., 1946, "Sainte Sirin martyre sous Khosrau ier Anosarvan (sic!)", Analecta
Bollandiana, 64, pp. 87-131.
- - , 1966, "Les martyrs persans a traver leurs Actes syriaques", in Atti def
Convegno sul Terna: La Persia ed il Mondo Greco-Romano (Roma 11-14 aprile
1965), Accademia nazionale dei Lincei . Problemi attuali di scienza e di cultura
76, pp. 213-25, Roma.
Garsoi'an, N., 1971, "Armenian in the Fourth Century: An Attempt to Redefine the
Concepts "Armenian" and "Loyalty"", Revue des Etudes Armeniennes, n.s. 8,
pp . 341-52.
88 Antonio Panaino

_ _ , 1973, "Le role de l 'hierarchie chretienne dans les rapports diplomatiques

entre Byzance et les Sassanides", Revue des Etudes Armeniennes, n.s. 10, 1973 ,
pp. 119-38.
- - , 1989, Th e Epic Histories (Buzandaran Patmut'iwnk') , Translation and
Commentary by N. GarsoYan, Cambridge (Massachusetts).
Gray, L. H. , 1930, "Fonnal Peace-Negotiations and Peace-treaties between Pre~
Muhammadan Persia and Other States", in Modi Memorial Volume, Papers on
Inda-Iranian and Other Subjects, ed. by The Dr. Modi Memorial Volume
Editorial Board, pp. 136-53 , Bombay.
Greatrex, G. & Lieu, S. N. C., 2002, The Roman Eastern Frontier and the Persian
Wars, Part II, AD 363-630 . A narrative sourcebook, London and New York.
Guillaumont, A. , I 969-70, "Justinien et l' eglise de Perse", Dumbarton Oaks Papers,
23-24, pp. 41-66.
Gilterbock, K. , 1906, Byzanz und Persien in ihren diplomatisch-volkerrechtlichen
Beziehung im Zeitalter Justinians , Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Volkerrechts,
Berlin.
Higgins, M. J. , 1941 , "International Relations at the Close of the Sixth Century", Th e
Catholic Historical Review, 27, pp. 279-315 .
Hutter, M. , 2003 , "Mar Aba and the Impact of Zoroastrianism on Christianity in the
6 th century", in C. Cereti, M. Maggi, E. Provasi, eds, Religious themes and texts
of pre-Islamic Iran and Central Asia: studies in honour of Prof essor Gherardo
Gnoli on the occasion of his 65 th birthday on 6 December 2002, Beitrage zur
Iranistik 24, pp . 167-73 , Wiesbaden.
Klein, 0., 1916, Sy risch-Griechisches Worterbuch zu den Vier Kan onischen
Evangelien nebst einleitenden Untersuschungen , Giessen.
Labourt, J ., 1904, Le Christianisme dans I 'empire perse sous la dynastie sassanide, Paris.
Langlois, V. , 1869, Collection des historiens anciens et modernes de l'A rmenie, 2
Vols, Paris.
Monnot, G. , 1986, Islam et religions. Islam d ' hier et d'aujourd'hui, Collection
dirigee par A.-M. Turki , 27, Paris.
Milller, C. , 1851 , Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum, Herausgegeben von C.
Millier, Band IV, Paris.
Noldeke, Th. , 1879, Geschichte der Perser und Araber zur Zeit der Sasaniden, Aus
der arabischen Chronik des Tabari ilbersetzt und mit ausfiihrlichen Erlauterungen
und Erganzungen versehn, Leiden.
Panaino, A. , 2004a, "La Chiesa di Persia e l'Impero Sasanide. Conflitto e
Integrazione", in Cristianita d 'Occidente e Cristianita d'Oriente (seco li VI-XI),
24-30 aprile 2003, LI Settimana di Studio della Fondazione CISAM, pp . 765-
863 , Spoleto.
 Christians and Zoroastrians in ... 89

_ _ , 2004b, "Astral Characters of Kingship in the Sasanian and Byzantine

Worlds", in Convegno internazionale: La Persia e Bisanzio (Roma, 14-18
Ottobre 2002), pp. 555-94, Roma.
_ _ , 2008, "The Zoroastrian Incestuous Unions in Christian Sources and
Canonical Laws: Their (distorted) Aetiology and some Other Problems", in Ch.
Jullien, ed ., Controverses des Chretiens dans I 'Iran sassanide, Chretiens en terre
d'Iran, vol. 2, Studia Iranica, Cahier 36, pp. 69-87, Paris.
- - , 2009, "The King and the Gods in Sasanian Royal Ideology", in R. Gyselen,
ed., Sources pour I 'histoire et la geographie du monde iranien (224-710), Res
Orientales, 18, pp. 209-56, Bures-sur-Yvette.
_ _ , 2009a, "Il duplice vol to del protocollo aggiuntivo sulle minoranze religiose
nella 'Pace dei 50 anni' ", Bizantinistica XI (A proposito delle relazioni tra
Persia e Bisanzio: II Trattato dell Lazica. Atti della giornata di studio -
Ravenna, 24 marzo 2010), pp. 273-99.
_ _ , 201 0a, "The "Persian" Identity in Religious Controversies: Again on the case
of "divided loyalty" in Sasanian Iran", in C. G. Cereti, ed., Iranian Identity in the
Course of History, Proceedings of the Conference Held in Rome, 21-24,
Orientalia Romana, 9, pp. 227-40, Roma.
- - , 2010b, "I Magi in Occidente", in G. Cazzaniga, ed., L 'Esoterismo, Annali
della Storia d'Italia, XXI, pp. 50-76, Torino.
- - , 2011, "Secondo l'uso antico", A proposito del Calendario comune adottato
nel XIII punto del Trattato di Pace del 561 tra Sasanidi e Romani. Bizantinistica
XII, pp. 115-48 .
Payne Smith, R., 1901 , Thesaurus Syriacus collegerunt St. M. Quatremere, G. H.
Bernstein, D.S. Margoliouth, J. . Payne Smith Margoliouth, Auxit digessit
exposuit edidit R. Payne Smith, Tomus II, Oxonii.
Peeters, P., 1946, "Observations sur la Vie syriaque de Mar Aba, Catholicos de
l'eglise perse (540-552)", in Miscellanea Giovanni Mercati. Studi e Testi, 125,
Storia ecclesiastica-diritto, Vol. 5, pp. 69-112, Citta del Vaticano.
Russell, J., 1987, Zoroastrianism in Armenia. Harvard Iranian Series. Vol. 5,
Cambridge (Massachusetts) and London.
_ _ , 1991, "Christianity. i. In Pre-Islamic Persia: Literary sources", in E.
Yarshater, ed., Encyclopcedia lranica, V/5, pp. 523-28, New York.
Al-SaJzI, 1364/ 1985-86, Muhaddib al-Asma', Ed. by M. If Mo~tafavi, Tehran.
Sako, L., 1986, Le role de la hierarchie syriaque orientale dans /es rapports
diplomatiques entre la Perse et Byzance aux V-Vlr siecles, Paris.
Scher, A., 1909, His to ire nestorienne inedite ( Chronique de Seert), text arabe et
traduction fra9aise par A. Scher. Patrologia Orientalis, VII, 2, pp. 95-203, Paris.
Schmidt, K., 2002, Friede durch Vertrag. Der Friedensvertrag von Kadesch von
90 Antonio Panaino

1270 v. Chr. , der Friede des Antalkidas van 386 v. Chr. und der Friedensvertrag
zwischen Byzanz und Persien van 562 n. Chr, Frankfurt am Main.
Schoell, R. & Kroll, G., 1928, Corpus Juris Civilis. Editio sterotypa quinta.
Volumen tertium, Novellae, recognovit R . Schoell. Opus Schoellii morte
interceptum absolvit G. Kroll, Berlin.
Stein, E., 1919, Studien zur Geschichte des byzantinischen Reiches vornehmlich
unter den Kaisern Justinus II und Tiberius Constantinus, Stuttgart.
_ _ , 1959, Histoire du Bas-Empire. Tome premier. De l'Etat romain a l 'Etat
byzantin. I. Texte. Tome premier. II. Notes et Cartes, Ed. franc;aise par J. -R.
Palanque, Paris-Bruges (reprint Amsterdam 1968).
Synelli, K., 1986, Oi Jm:J...wµa.r1Kc<; ClX£Clcl<; Bv(a.vrfov Km flcpClfa.c; twc; Clr ' a.iwva.,
Athens.
Ter Mkrtc'ean, G. & Malxasean, St. (eds.), 1904, lazaray P 'arpec 'way Patmut 'iwn
Hayoc' ew T'ult' ar Vahan Mamikonean, asxatut'eamb G. Ter Mkrtc'ean ew St.
Malxasean. Tp'lis (Aradatip Mnac'akan Martiroseanc'i). [= Lazar P 1 arpets\
History of the Armenians by and the Letter to Vahan Mamikonean], Tiflis (A
Photographic Reproduction of the 1904 Tiflis edition with a new introduction
and critical bibliography by D. Kouymjian, New York 1985)].
Tisserant, E. & Amann, E., 1931, "L'Eglise Nestorienne", in Dictionnaire de
theologie catholique. XI, 1, pp. 157-323 , Paris.
Turtledove, H., 1983, "Justin Il's observance of Justinian's Persian Treaty of 562",
Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 76, pp.292-301.
Verosta, S., 1965, "Die ostromisch-persischen Vertrage von 562 n. Chr. und ihre
Bedeutung fiir das Volkerrecht", Anzeiger der 6sterreichischen Akademie der
Wissenschaften, Philologisch-historische Klasse, 102, pp. 153-56.
- - , 1966, International Law in Europe and Western Asia between 100 and 650
AD. Recueil des cours de l 'Academie de droit international de La Haye, 1-113 ,
1964-III, pp. 485-630, Leyde.
Whitby, Michael & Whitby, Mary, 1997, The History of Theophylact Simocatta. An
English Translation with Introduction and Notes by Michael and Mary Whitby,
Oxford [first ed. 1986].
Winter, E., 1987, "Handel und Wirtschaft in Sasanidisch-(Ost-) Romischen
Vertragen und Abkomrnen", Munstersche Beitrage zur Antiken
Handelsgeschichte, 6/2, pp. 46-74.
Winter, E. & Dignas, B., 2001, Rom und das Perserreich, Zwei Weltmachte
zwischen Konfrontation und Koexistenz, Berlin.
- - , 2007, Rome and Persia in Late Antiquity, Neighbours and Rivals, Cambridge.
Al-ZamabsarI, I 342- l 343/l 963-64-1964-95, Muqaddimat al-Adah, Seyyed
Mobammad Ka?em Emam, ed., 3 vols., Tehran.