At the same time the condition of affairs in the East seemed to invite his interference. Mithridates ruled his new conquests with some strictness,1 suspecting, probably, their fidelity, and determined that he would not by any remissness allow them to escape from his grasp. The native inhabitants could scarcely be much attached to the Syro-Macedonians, who had certainly not treated them very tenderly; 2 but a possession of 170 years' duration confers prestige in the East, and a strange yoke may have galled more than one to whose pressure they had become accustomed. Moreover, all the provinces which Parthia took from Syria contained Greek towns, and their inhabitants might at all times. be depended on to side with their countrymen against the Asiatics. At the present conjuncture, too, the number of the malcontents was swelled by the addition of the recently subdued Bactrians, who hated the Parthian yoke, and longed earnestly for a chance of recovering their freedom.

Thus when Demetrius II., anxious to escape the reproach of inertness, determined to make an expedition against the great Parthian monarch, he found himself welcomed as a deliverer by a considerable number of his enemy's subjects, whom the harshness, or the novelty, of the Parthian rule had offended.1 The malcontents joined his standard as he advanced; and supported, as he thus was, by Persian, Elymæan, and Bactrian contingents, he engaged and defeated the Parthians in several battles.5

Upon this, Mithridates,

perio admoti, novi populi superbiam indigne ferebant.' (Justin, xxxvi. 1, § 3.)

5 Cùm et Persarum, et Elymæorum, et Bactrianorum auxiliis juvaretur, multis proeliis Parthos fudit.' (Ib. § 4. Compare xxxviii.

Quòd veteri Macedonum im- | 9, § 2.)

finding himself inferior in strength, had recourse to stratagem, and having put Demetrius off his guard by proposals of peace,1 attacked him, defeated him, and took him prisoner. The invading army appears to have been destroyed.3 The captive monarch was, in the first instance, conveyed about to the several nations which had revolted, and paraded before each in turn, as a proof to them of their folly in lending him aid; 4 but afterwards he was treated in a manner befitting his rank and the high character of his captor.5 Assigned a residence in Hyrcania, he was maintained in princely state, and was even promised by Mithridates the hand of his daughter, Rhodoguné. The Parthian monarch, it is probable, had the design of conquering Syria, and thought it possible that he might find it of advantage to have a Syrian prince in his camp, well-disposed towards him, connected by marriage, and thus fitted for the position of tributary monarch. But the schemes of Mithridates proved abortive. His career had now reached its close. Attacked by illness not very long after his capture of Demetrius, his strength proved insufficient to bear up against the malady, and he died after a glorious reign of about thirty-eight years,

CHAPTER VI.

System of government established by Mithridates I. Constitution of the Parthians. Government of the Provinces. Laws and Institutions. Character of Mithridates I.

'Rex, magno et regio animo.'—Justin, xxxviii., 9, § 3.

THE Parthian institutions possessed great simplicity; and it is probable that they took a shape in the reign of Arsaces I., or, at any rate, of Tiridates, which was not greatly altered afterwards. Permanency is the law of Oriental governments; and in a monarchy which lasted less than five hundred years, it is not likely that many changes occurred. The Parthian institutions are referred to Mithridates I., rather than to Tiridates, because in the reign of Mithridates Parthia entered upon a new phase of her existence-became an empire instead of a mere monarchy; and the sovereign of the time could not but have reviewed the circumstances of his State, and have determined either to adopt the previous institutions of his country, or to reject them. Mithridates I. had attained a position which entitled and enabled him to settle the Parthian constitution as he thought best; and, if he maintained an earlier arrangement, which is uncertain, he must have done so of his own free will, simply because he preferred the existing Parthian institutions to any other. Thus the institutions may be regarded as starting from him, since he approved them, and made them those of the Parthian EMPIRE.

Like most sovereignties which have arisen out of an

association of chiefs banding themselves together for warlike purposes under a single head, the Parthian monarchy was limited. The king was permanently advised by two councils, consisting of persons not of his own nomination, whom rights, conferred by birth or office, entitled to their seats. One of these was a family conclave (concilium domesticum), or assembly of the full-grown males of the Royal House; the other was a Senate comprising both the spiritual and the temporal chiefs of the nation, the Sophi, or 'Wise Men,' and the Magi, or Priests.'1 Together these two bodies constituted the Megistanes, the Nobles' or 'Great Men ’— the privileged class which to a considerable extent checked and controlled the monarch. The monarchy was elective, but only in the house of the Arsacidæ ; and the concurrent vote of both councils was necessary in the appointment of a new king. Practically, the ordinary law of hereditary descent appears to have been followed, unless in the case where a king left no son of sufficient age to exercise the royal office. Under such circumstances, the Megistanes usually nominated the late king's next brother to succeed him,2 or, if he had left behind him no brother, went back to an uncle.3 When the line of succession had once been changed, the right of the elder branch was lost, and did not revive unless the branch preferred died out or possessed no member qualified to rule. When a king had been duly nominated by the two councils, the right of placing the

1 Posidonius ap. Strab. xi. 9, § 3. Τῶν Παρθυαίων συνέδριόν φησιν | εἶναι Ποσειδώνιος διττόν, τὸ μὲν συγγενῶν, τὸ δὲ σοφῶν καὶ μάγων, ἐξ ὧν ἀμφοῖν τοὺς βασιλεῖς καθίστασθαι.

2 There are five instances of brothers succeeding-viz., those of

Mithridates I., Orodes I., Gotarzes, Chosroes, and Artabanus III. One of these, however, that of Mithridates I., is ascribed to the will of the previous monarch.

3 As in the case of Artabanus I., the successor of Phraates II.

diadem upon his head belonged to the Surena,1 the 'Field-Marshal,' or 'Commander in Chief of the Parthian armies.' The Megistanes further claimed and sometimes exercised the right of deposing a monarch whose conduct displeased them; but an attempt to exercise this privilege was sure to be followed by a civil war, no monarch accepting his deposition without a struggle; and force, not right, practically determining whether he should remain king or no.

After a king was once elected and firmly fixed upon the throne, his power appears to have been nearly despotic. At any rate, he could put to death without trial whomsoever he chose; and adult members of the Royal House, who provoked the reigning monarch's jealousy, were constantly so treated. Probably it would have been more dangerous to arouse the fears of the 'Sophi' and 'Magi.' The latter especially were a powerful body, consisting of an organised hierarchy, which had come down from ancient times, and was feared and venerated by all classes of the people. Their numbers at the close of the Empire, counting adult males only, are reckoned at eighty thousand; they possessed considerable tracts of fertile land,5 and were the sole inhabitants of many large towns or villages, which they were permitted to govern as they pleased. The arbitrary power of the monarchs must, in practice, have been largely checked by the privileges