APPENDIX 519 (1) First Armenia = part of old First Armenia (Theodosiopolis, Colonea, Satala, Nicopolis) + part of Pontus Polemoniacus (Trapezus and Cerasus). (2) Second Armenia = rest of old First Armenia 4- part of Pontus Pole- moniacus (Comana, Zela and Brisa). (3) Third Armenia = old Second Armenia. (4) Fourth Armenia = Sophanene, district beyond Euphrates, east of Third Armenia (capital, Martyropolis).2 The rest of Pontus Polemoniacus was united with the old Helenopontus to form a new Helenopontus under a governor with the title of moderator. Simi- larly Honorias and the old Paphlagonia were united into a new Paphlagonia under a praetor. The Armenian provinces were reorganized and the nomenclature changed by Maurice, in consequence of the cessions made by Chosroes II. on his accession. (1) Maurice's First Armenia = Justinian's Third Armenia. (2) ,, Second ,, = ,, Second ,, (3) ,, Great ,, = ,, First ,, 3 (4) „ Fourth includes the districts of Sophene, Digisene, Anzitene, Orzianine, Lluzuron. (5) Maurice's Mesopotamia includes Justinian's Fourth Armenia + Arzanene. See the Dcscriptio of George the Cypriote (c. 600 a.d. ), ed. Gelzer, p. 46-49, and Gelzer's preface, p. 1. and p. lix.-lxi., where the notices of Armenian writers are reviewed. The territories handed over to Maurice by Chosroes were (1) Ar- zanene and the northern part of Mesopotamia (including Daras) as far as Nisibis, and (2) part of Armenia, as far as Dovin. The former districts were added to Justinian's Fourth Armenia, and the whole province named Mesopotamia ; the latter were formed into a new Fourth Armenia. Thus the cities of Nisibis in the south, and Dovin in the north, were just outside the Roman frontiers. 5. THE RACE OF HERACLIUS AND NICETAS— (P. 66, 67, 68) The story of the friendly race for empire between Heraclius and Nicetas did not awaken the scepticism of Gibbon. It rests on the authority of Nicephorus (p. 3, ed. de Boor) and Theophanes (sub ann. 6101, p. 297, ed. de Boor), who doubtless derived it from the same source. On political grounds, the story seems improbable, but the geographical implications compel us to reject it as a legend. The story requires us to believe that Nicetas, starting from Carthage at the same time as Heraclius and marching overland, had the smallest chance of reaching Constantinople before his competitor's fleet. There can be no doubt, I think, that the elevation of Nicetas was not con- templated by the two fathers — if it were not as an " imderstudy " to Heraclius in case anything befell him. The part assigned to Nicetas in the enterprise was not to race Heraclius, but to occupy Egypt, and then to support Heraclius so far as was necessary ; and doubtless Nicetas started to perform his work before Heraclius put forth to sea. The possession of Egypt, the granary of the Empire, was of the utmost importance for a pretender to the throne ; and its occupation was probably the first care of the African generals. In this connexion it seems to me that a notice of Sebaeos deserves attention. This historian states that ' ' the general Heraclius revolted against Phocas, with his army, in the regions of Alexandria, and wresting Egypt from him reigned therein " (c. 21, p. 79-80 in Patkanian's Russ. tr. ) ; and the order of his narrative 2 Procopius speaks of this as rj aW-q 'pixevCa (Aed. 3, i). It was previously administered partly by native satraps, partly by Roman officers called satraps. On the limits of the pro- vince, see H. Kiepert, Monatsberichte der Berliner Akademie, 1873, p. 192 sqq. 3 It is possible, but not certain, that (as the Armenian historian John Catholicus asserts) the parts of Pontus which Justinian included in his Armenia I. were separated and made a distinct province. See Gelzer, Georgius Cyprius, p. Ivii., lix.
