e demanded a private audience, and was conducted to
the Emperor's tent, where he made proposals which were coldly rejected,
and he was given to understand that he must regard his crown as
forfeited. It was further required of him that, to prevent false rumors,
he should present himself a second time at the Emperor's tribunal,
prefer his requests openly, and hear the Imperial decision. The Parthian
consented. With a boldness worthy of his high descent, he affirmed that
he had neither been defeated nor made prisoner, but had come of his
own free will to hold a conference with the Roman chief, in the full
expectation of receiving from him, as Tiridates had received from Nero,
the crown of Armenia, confident, moreover, that in any case he would
"suffer no wrong, but be allowed to depart in safety." Trajan answered
that he did not intend to give the crown of Armenia to any one--the
country belonged to the Romans, and should have a Roman governor. As
for Parthamasiris, he was free to go whithersoever he pleased, and his
Parthian attendants might accompany him. The Armenians, however, must
remain. They were Roman subjects, and owed no allegiance to Parthia.

The tale thus told, with no appearance of shame, by the Roman historian,
Dio Cassius, is sufficiently disgraceful to Trajan, but it does not
reveal to us the entire baseness of his conduct. We learn from other
writers, two of them contemporary with the events, that the pompous
dismissal of Parthamasiris, with leave to go wherever he chose, was
a mere pretence. Trajan had come to the conclusion, if not before
the interview, at any rate in the course of it, that the youth was
dangerous, and could not be allowed to live. He therefore sent troops to
arrest him as he rode off from the camp, and when he offered resistance
caused him to be set upon and slain. This conduct he afterwards strove
to justify by accusing the young prince of having violated the agreement
made at the interview; but even the debased moral sense of his age was
revolted by this act, and declared the grounds whereon he excused it
insufficient. Good faith and honor had been sacrificed (it was said)
to expediency--the reputation of Rome had been tarnished--it would have
been better, even if Parthamasiris were guilty, to have let him escape,
than to have punished him at the cost of a public scandal. So strongly
was the disgrace felt that some (it seems) endeavored to exonerate
Trajan from the responsibility of h