Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T22:36:39.836Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Βεσήχανα πόλις: ad BSOAS., XIV, 512, n. 6

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 December 2009

W. B. Henning
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Hardly had the article ‘A Farewell to the Khagan of the Aq-Aqatärān’ been printed, when my eye fell on a passage in Pliny which settles the problem posed by Mšyk. Shapur, it will be recalled, defeated the Roman army, under Gordianus (who fell in the battle), at Mšyk = MHCIXICH and MICIXH, and renamed the town (and district) Pērōz-Šabūr. The ancient name, in a form which precisely corresponds with the Parthian spelling Mšyk, is mentioned by Pliny, v, 21, 4 (§ 90): scinditur Euphrates a Zeugmate dlxxxxiv mp. circa vicum Massicen, et parte laeva in Mesopotamiam vadit per ipsam Seleuciam, circa eam praefluenti infusus Tigri; dexteriore autem alveo Babylonem … petit; a later passage, vi, 30, 3 (§ 120), indicates that the left branch referred to is the Narmalchas, the ‘Royal River’. The identity of Massice with Pēroz-Šabūr could have been recognized, even without the help of the inscription, by comparing Pliny with Ammianus Marcellinus, who made a statement in similar terms, xxiv, 2, 7, hinc pars fluminis scinditur … ducens ad tractus Babylonos interiores …, alia Naarmalcha nomine … Ctesiphonta praetermeat; the latter branch was crossed by the Roman army, which immediately came upon Pirisabora.

Type
Notes and Communications
Information
Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies , Volume 15 , Issue 2 , June 1953 , pp. 392 - 393
Copyright
Copyright © School of Oriental and African Studies 1953

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 392 note 6 A.-J. de Saint-Martin came very close to recognizing it (see Lebeau-Saint-Martin, , Hist. du Bas-Empire, iii, 83 n. 1).Google Scholar

page 392 note 7 Zosimus, (iii, 16–17)Google Scholar does not give the name of the διρυξ, which, leading towards the Tigris, separated the Roman army from Βηρσαβώρα (but see iii, 19 and 24).

page 393 note 1 I am alive to the considerable difficulties inherent in the further identity (demanded by reliable authorities) of Pērōz-Šabūr with Anbār, which lay over eight leagues (acc. to Ibn Serapion) upstream from the head of the ‘Royal River’ (perhaps this name was given to different channels in different periods).

page 393 note 2 Very doubtful; before the other versions became available I had read twn'dy and identified it with Tyana, which has now been confirmed.

page 393 note 3 Originally I misread this name as klwny'y (BSOS., ix, 842).Google Scholar

page 393 note 4 Originally I mistook another name for Caesarea: mzknwl [, BSOS., ix, 841.Google Scholar That name can now be read as follows: Greek Μυὼν πόλις (Sprengling wrongly Μυον), Pahlavi, mzdnpl(ws)[y]Google Scholar or mgdnpl(ws)[y] (with inverse -gd- ?, see BSOAS. xiv, 511Google Scholar, n. 4), Parthian mzdnprws (on z/g, cf. ibidem, 513, n. 2).