the Sassanids was one of the causes of the spread of the Church in "the East"; and in the times of their later kings, a cause of the extension of Monophysitism within its bounds. We have no means of telling which of the numerous captivities are referred to here; but there is no impossibility in the supposition that they date back to Sapor I, one hundred and eighty years previously. A captivity—even when settled in its new home—will retain its identity for centuries, particularly if its religion be also of a distinctive character. The Jews of Babylon are, of course, an instance of this, but other proofs can be given from much more modern times. The present Jewish colony in Mosul declare that they have been there since the days of Nebuchadnezzar, if not from the time of Sargon; and Julfa, a suburb of Ispahan, is populated still by the descendants of an Armenian captivity, brought from Erivan and Julfa on the river Aras in the time of our Queen Elizabeth. There is nothing impossible, then, in Roman captivities having a distinct existence in Persia.[1]
Early in this period of quiet Isaac the Catholicos passed away. The exact date of his death is not known; but it is clear that Yahb-Alaha[2] was elected Catholicos in 415–416, and at least a year or two must be allowed for the tenure of the see by Akha, immediate successor of Isaac. We shall probably, therefore, not be far from the truth if we place the death of Isaac in the year 412.
- ↑ If the fact of violent transportation be condoned, captives were generally well treated in their new homes, and even their supposed whims consulted. Thus, Chosroes I built his "New Antioch" exactly on the lines of the city on the Orontes; and the shah who transported the Armenians to Ispahan was anxious to bring the Cathedral of Etchmiadzin with them—and would have done it, but for his captives' petition!
- ↑ Syn. Or., 276, note.
