diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'old/68703-0.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | old/68703-0.txt | 11727 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 11727 deletions
diff --git a/old/68703-0.txt b/old/68703-0.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 1253b31..0000000 --- a/old/68703-0.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,11727 +0,0 @@ -The Project Gutenberg eBook of Constantine the Great, by John -Benjamin Firth - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and -most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions -whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms -of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at -www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you -will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before -using this eBook. - -Title: Constantine the Great - The reorganization of the Empire and the triumph of the Church - -Author: John Benjamin Firth - -Release Date: August 6, 2022 [eBook #68703] - -Language: English - -Produced by: KD Weeks, Turgut Dincer and the Online Distributed - Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was - produced from images generously made available by The - Internet Archive) - -*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK CONSTANTINE THE GREAT *** - - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - Transcriber’s Note: - -This version of the text cannot represent certain typographical effects. -Italics are delimited with the ‘_’ character as _italic_. - -Footnotes have been moved to follow the paragraphs in which they are -referenced. - -Minor errors, attributable to the printer, have been corrected. Please -see the transcriber’s note at the end of this text for details regarding -the handling of any textual issues encountered during its preparation. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- - -Heroes of the Nations - - EDITED BY - - =H. W. Carless Davis, M.A.= -FELLOW OF BALLIOL COLLEGE, OXFORD - - - - FACTA DUCIS VIVENT OPEROSAQUE - GLORIA RERUM.—OVID, IN LIVIAM, 265. - - THE HERO’S DEEDS AND HARD-WON - FAME SHALL LIVE. - - - - - - - - - CONSTANTINE - - - - -[Illustration: - - CONSTANTINE THE GREAT. - FROM THE BRITISH MUSEUM PRINT ROOM. _Frontispiece._ -] - - CONSTANTINE - THE GREAT - - THE REORGANISATION OF THE EMPIRE AND - THE TRIUMPH OF THE CHURCH - - - - - - - - - BY - - JOHN B. FIRTH - - (SOMETIME SCHOLAR OF QUEEN’S COLLEGE, OXFORD) - - AUTHOR OF “AUGUSTUS CÆSAR,” “A TRANSLATION OF PLINY’S LETTERS,” ETC. - - - - - --- - - - - - G. P. PUTNAM’S SONS - -NEW YORK -27 WEST TWENTY-THIRD STREET - -LONDON -24 BEDFORD STREET, STRAND - - - =The Knickerbocker Press= - - 1905 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - COPYRIGHT, 1904 - - BY - - G. P. PUTNAM’S SONS - - ---------- - - Published, January, 1905 - - - - - - - - - =The Knickerbocker Press, New York= - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- - -[Illustration] - - PREFACE - - -In the following chapters, my object has been to tell the story of the -Life and Times of Constantine the Great. Whether he deserves the epithet -my readers will judge for themselves; certainly his place in the select -list of the immortals is not among the highest. But whether he himself -was “great” or not, under his auspices one of the most momentous changes -in the history of the world was accomplished, and it is the first -conversion of a Roman Emperor to Christianity, with all that such -conversion entailed, which makes his period so important and so well -worth studying. - -I have tried to write with impartiality—a virtue which one admires the -more after a close reading of original authorities who, practically -without exception, were bitter and malevolent partisans. The truth, -therefore, is not always easily recognised, nor has recognition been -made the easier by the polemical writers of succeeding centuries who -have dealt with that side of Constantine’s career which belongs more -particularly to ecclesiastical history. In narrating the course of the -Arian Controversy and the proceedings of the Council of Nicæa I have -been content to record facts—as I have seen them—and to explain the -causes of quarrel rather than act as judge between the disputants. And -though in this branch of my subject I have consulted all the original -authorities who describe the growth of the controversy, I have not -deemed it necessary to read, still less to add to, the endless strife of -words to which the discussion of the theological and metaphysical issues -involved has given rise. On this point I am greatly indebted to, and -have made liberal use of, the admirable chapters in the late Canon -Bright’s _The Age of the Fathers_. - -Other authorities, which have been most useful to me, are Boissier’s _La -Fin du Paganisme_, Allard’s _La Persécution de Dioclétien et le Triomphe -de l’Eglise_, Duruy’s _Histoire Romaine_, and Grosvenor’s -_Constantinople_. - - J. B. FIRTH. - - LONDON, October, 1904. - -[Illustration] - - CONTENTS - - CHAPTER I. - - PAGE - - THE EMPIRE UNDER DIOCLETIAN 1 - - CHAPTER II. - - THE PERSECUTION OF THE CHURCH 12 - - CHAPTER III. - - THE ABDICATION OF DIOCLETIAN AND THE SUCCESSION OF 39 - CONSTANTINE - - CHAPTER IV. - - CONSTANTINE AND HIS COLLEAGUES 56 - - CHAPTER V. - - THE INVASION OF ITALY 73 - - CHAPTER VI. - - THE VISION OF THE CROSS AND THE EDICT OF MILAN 92 - - CHAPTER VII. - - THE DOWNFALL OF LICINIUS 115 - - CHAPTER VIII. - - LAST DAYS OF PERSECUTION 134 - - CHAPTER IX. - - CONSTANTINE AND THE DONATISTS 159 - - CHAPTER X. - - THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY 189 - - CHAPTER XI. - - THE COUNCIL OF NICÆA 211 - - CHAPTER XII. - - THE MURDERS OF CRISPUS AND FAUSTA 237 - - CHAPTER XIII. - - THE FOUNDATION OF CONSTANTINOPLE 257 - - CHAPTER XIV. - - ARIUS AND ATHANASIUS 285 - - CHAPTER XV. - - CONSTANTINE’S DEATH AND CHARACTER 301 - - CHAPTER XVI. - - THE EMPIRE AND CHRISTIANITY 330 - - INDEX 357 - -[Illustration] - - ILLUSTRATIONS - - - PAGE - - CONSTANTINE THE GREAT _Frontispiece_ - - From the British Museum Print Room. - - BUST OF DIOCLETIAN 22 - - CONSTANTINE THE GREAT 40 - - From Grosvenor’s _Constantinople_. - - THE GOLDEN GATE OF DIOCLETIAN’S PALACE AT SALONA 60 - (SPALATO) - - BUST OF MAXIMIAN AT ROME 62 - - Photograph by Alinari. - - FRAGMENT OF 4TH CENTURY EGYPTIAN POTTERY BOWL 70 - - Showing an early portrait of Christ, with - busts of the Emperor Constantine and the - Empress Fausta. From the British Museum. - - THE BATTLE OF THE MILVIAN BRIDGE, BY RAPHAEL 86 - - In the Vatican. Photograph by Alinari. - - THE ARCH OF CONSTANTINE AT ROME 90 - - Photograph by Alinari. - - CONSTANTINE’S VISION OF THE CROSS, BY RAPHAEL 94 - - In the Vatican. Photograph by Alinari. - - THE WESTERN SIDE OF A PEDESTAL, SHOWING THE HOMAGE OF 126 - THE VANQUISHED GOTHS - - From Grosvenor’s _Constantinople_. - - THE AMPHITHEATRE AT ARLES 168 - - Exterior view. Present day. - - THE AMPHITHEATRE AT ARLES AS IT APPEARED IN 1686 172 - - From an old print. - - STATUE OF CONSTANTINE FROM THE PORCH OF SAN GIOVANNI 188 - IN LATERAN, AT ROME - - GATE OF ST. ANDREW AT AUTUN 212 - - “CONSTANTINE THE GREAT AND HIS MOTHER, ST. HELENA, 238 - HOLY, EQUAL TO THE APOSTLES” - - From a picture discovered 1845, in an old - church of Mesembria. From Grosvenor’s - _Constantinople_. - - THE DONATION OF CONSTANTINE 248 - - From the painting by Raphael in the Vatican. - Photograph by Alinari. - - ST. HELENA’S VISION OF THE CROSS 250 - - By Paul Veronese. National Gallery, London. - - CHART OF THE EASTERN SECTION OF MEDIÆVAL 258 - CONSTANTINOPLE - - From Grosvenor’s _Constantinople_. - - BAPTISTERY OF SAN GIOVANNI IN LATERAN, ROME 262 - - Photograph by Alinari. - - ST. HELENA AND THE CROSS 268 - - By Cranach. Lichtenstein Gallery, Vienna. - - COLUMN OF CONSTANTINE THE GREAT 270 - - From Grosvenor’s _Constantinople_. - - THE THREE EXISTING MONUMENTS OF THE HIPPODROME 276 - - From Grosvenor’s _Constantinople_. - - PLAN OF THE HIPPODROME 278 - - From Grosvenor’s _Constantinople_. - - THE SERPENT OF DELPHI 280 - - From Grosvenor’s _Constantinople_. - - ST. ATHANASIUS 288 - - From the British Museum Print Room. - - BASILICA OF CONSTANTINE AT ROME 302 - - From _Rome of To-Day and Yesterday_, by John - Dennie. - - THE SUPPOSED SARCOPHAGI OF CONSTANTINE THE GREAT AND 314 - THEODOSIUS THE GREAT - - From Grosvenor’s _Constantinople_. - - - LIST OF COINS - - COPPER DENARIUS OF CONSTANTINE THE GREAT, SHOWING THE 324 - LABARUM - - DOUBLE SOLIDUS OF CONSTANTIUS II., WITH THE LABARUM 324 - - DOUBLE SOLIDUS OF DIOCLETIAN 324 - - SOLIDUS OF MAXIMIAN 324 - - AUREUS OF CARAUSIUS 332 - - AUREUS OF ALLECTUS 332 - - SOLIDUS OF HELENA 332 - - SOLIDUS OF GALERIUS 332 - - SOLIDUS OF SEVERUS II. 332 - - SOLIDUS OF MAXIMIN DAZA 340 - - SOLIDUS OF LICINIUS I. 340 - - SOLIDUS OF LICINIUS II. 340 - - DOUBLE SOLIDUS OF CONSTANTINE THE GREAT 340 - - DOUBLE SOLIDUS OF CONSTANTINE THE GREAT 348 - - DOUBLE SOLIDUS OF FAUSTA 348 - - DOUBLE SOLIDUS OF CRISPUS 348 - - DOUBLE SOLIDUS OF CONSTANTIUS II. AS CÆSAR 348 - -[Illustration] - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - CONSTANTIUS CHLORUS - m. (1) Helena - (2) Theodora (d. of Emperor Maximian) - -(1) Constantius = Helena (2) Constantius = Theodora - | | - Constantine the Great | - m. (1) Minervina | - (2) Fausta (d. of Emperor Maximian) | - | -(1) Constantine = Minervina (2) Constantine = Fausta | - | | | - Crispus | | - (killed in 326) | | - | | - +--------------+-------------+----------+--------+ | - | | | | | | - | Constantius II. | Constantina | | - Constantine II. (d. 361) Constans Helena | - (killed in 340) | (killed in 350) m. | - A daughter Julian | - | - +---------+----------+---------------+---------+-------+ - | | | | | | - Constantine | Constantius | | | -(killed in 337) | (killed, 337) | Anastasia | - Dalmatius m. (1) Galla Constantia m. Eutropia - Annibalianus (2) Basilina m. Bassianus m. - | | Emperor (Cæsar) Nepotianus - +--------+------+ | Licinius | - | | | | - Dalmatius Annibalianus | Licinianus Flavius Popilius - (Cæsar in 335; (King of Pontus; | killed in 326) Nepotianus - killed in 337) killed in 337) | (killed in 390) - | - (1) Constantius = Galla (2) Constantius = Basilina - | | - +--------+-------+ | - | | | - A son, Gallus Julian - (killed in 337) (killed in 354) (Emperor, 361) - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- - -[Illustration] - - Constantine - - - ---------- - - - - - CHAPTER I - THE EMPIRE UNDER DIOCLETIAN - - -The catastrophe of the fall of Rome, with all that its fall signified to -the fifth century, came very near to accomplishment in the third. There -was a long period when it seemed as though nothing could save the -Empire. Her prestige sank to the vanishing point. Her armies had -forgotten what it was to win a victory over a foreign enemy. Her -Emperors were worthless and incapable. On every side the frontiers were -being pierced and the barriers were giving way. - -The Franks swept over Gaul and laid it waste. They penetrated into -Spain; besieged Toledo; and, seizing the galleys which they found in the -Spanish ports, boldly crossed into Mauretanian Africa. Other -confederations of free barbarians from southern Germany had burst -through the wall of Hadrian which protected the Tithe Lands (_Decumates -agri_), and had followed the ancient route of invasion over the Alps. -Pannonia had been ravaged by the Sarmatæ and the Quadi. In successive -invasions the Goths had overrun Dacia; had poured round the Black Sea or -crossed it on shipboard; had sacked Trebizond and Chalcedon, and, after -traversing Bithynia, had reached the coast at Ephesus. Others had -advanced into Greece and Macedonia and challenged the Roman navies for -the possession of Crete. - -Not only was Armenia lost, but the Parthians had passed the Euphrates, -vanquished and taken prisoner the Emperor Valerian, and surprised the -city of Antioch while the inhabitants were idly gathered in the theatre. -Valerian, chained and robed in purple, was kept alive to act as Sapor’s -footstool; when he died his skin was tanned and stuffed with straw and -set to grace a Parthian temple. Egypt was in the hands of a rebel who -had cut off the grain supply. And as if such misfortunes were not -enough, there was a succession of terrifying and destructive -earthquakes, which wrought their worst havoc in Asia, though they were -felt in Rome and Egypt. These too were followed by a pestilence which -raged for fifteen years and, according to Eutropius, claimed, when at -its height, as many as five thousand victims in a single day. - -It looked, indeed, as though the Roman Empire were past praying for and -its destruction certain.[1] The armies were in wide-spread revolt. Rebel -usurpers succeeded one another so fast that the period came to be known -as that of the Thirty Tyrants, many of whom were elected, worshipped, -and murdered by their soldiers within the space of a few weeks or -months. “You little know, my friends,” said Saturninus, one of the more -candid of these phantom monarchs, when his troops a few years later -insisted that he should pit himself against Aurelian, “you little know -what a poor thing it is to be an Emperor. Swords hang over our necks; on -every side is the menace of spear and dart. We go in fear of our guards, -in terror of our household troops. We cannot eat what we like, fight -when we would, or take up arms for our pleasure. Moreover, whatever an -Emperor’s age, it is never what it should be. Is he a grey beard? Then -he is past his prime. Is he young? He has the mad recklessness of youth. -You insist on making me Emperor; you are dragging me to inevitable -death. But I have at least this consolation in dying, that I shall not -be able to die alone.”[2] In that celebrated speech, vibrating with -bitter irony, we have the middle of the third century in epitome. - ------ - -Footnote 1: - - _Jam desperatis rebus et deleto pæne imperio Romano_ (Eutropius, iv., - c. 9). - -Footnote 2: - - _Nescitis, amici, quid mali sit imperare_ (Vopiscus, Saturninus, c. - 10). - ------ - -But then the usual miracle of good fortune intervened to save Rome from -herself. The Empire fell into the strong hands of Claudius, who in two -years smote the Goths by land and sea, and of Aurelian, who recovered -Britain and Gaul, restored the northern frontiers, and threw to the -ground the kingdom over which Zenobia ruled from Palmyra. The Empire was -thus restored once more by the genius of two Pannonian peasants, who had -found in the army a career open to talent. The murder of Aurelian, in -275, was followed by an interregnum of seven months, during which the -army seemed to repent of having slain its general and paid to the Senate -a deference which effectually turned the head—never strong—of that -assembly. Vopiscus quotes a letter written by one senator to another at -this period, begging him to return to Rome and tear himself away from -the amusements of Baiæ and Puteoli. “The Senate,” he says,[3] “has -returned to its ancient status. It is we who make Emperors; it is our -order which has the distribution of offices. Come back to the city and -the Senate House. Rome is flourishing; the whole State is flourishing. -We give Emperors; we make Princes; and we who have begun to create, can -also restrain.” The pleasant delusion was soon dispelled. The legions -speedily re-assumed the rôle of king-makers. Tacitus, the senatorial -nominee, ruled only for a year, and another series of soldier Emperors -succeeded. Probus, in six years of incessant fighting, repeated the -triumphs of Aurelian, and carried his successful arms east, west, and -north. Carus, despite his sixty years, crossed the Tigris and made -good—at any rate in part—his threat to render Persia as naked of trees -as his own bald head was bare of hairs. But Carus’s reign was brief, and -at his death the Empire was divided between his two sons, Carinus and -Numerian. The former was a voluptuary; the latter, a youth of retiring -and scholarly disposition, quite unfitted for a soldier’s life, was soon -slain by his Prætorian præfect, Arrius Aper. But the choice of the army -fell upon Diocletian, and he, after stabbing to the heart the man who -had cleared his way to the throne, gathered up into his strong hands the -reins of power in the autumn of 284. He met in battle the army of -Carinus at Margus, in Moesia, during the spring of 285. Carinus was -slain by his officers and Diocletian reigned alone. - ------ - -Footnote 3: - - Vopiscus, Florianus, c. 6. - ------ - -But he soon found that he needed a colleague to halve with him the -dangers and the responsibilities of empire. He, therefore, raised his -lieutenant, Maximian, to the purple, with the title of Cæsar, and a -twelvemonth later gave him the full name and honours of Augustus. There -were thus two armies, two sets of court officials, and two palaces, but -the edicts ran in the joint name of both Augusti. Then, when still -further division seemed advisable, the principle of imperial partnership -was extended, and it was decided that each Augustus should have a Cæsar -attached to him. Galerius was promoted to be the Cæsar of Diocletian; -Constantius to be the Cæsar of Maximian. Each married the daughter of -his patron, and looked forward to becoming Augustus as soon as his -superior should die. The plan was by no means perfect, but there was -much to be said in its favour. An Emperor like Diocletian, the nominee -of the eastern army alone and the son of a Dalmatian slave, had few, if -any, claims upon the natural loyalty of his subjects. Himself a -successful adventurer, he knew that other adventurers would rise to -challenge his position, if they could find an army to back them. By -entrusting Maximian with the sovereignty of the West, he forestalled -Maximian’s almost certain rivalry, and the four great frontiers each -required the presence of a powerful army and an able commander-in-chief. -By having three colleagues, each of whom might hope in time to become -the senior Augustus, Diocletian secured himself, so far as security was -possible, against military rebellion. - -Unquestionably, too, this decentralisation tended towards general -efficiency. It was more than one man’s task, whatever his capacity, to -hold together the Empire as Diocletian found it. Gaul was ablaze from -end to end with a peasants’ war. Carausius ruled for eight years in -Britain, which he temporarily detached from the Empire, and, secure in -his naval strength, forced Diocletian and Maximian, much to their -disgust, to recognise him as a brother Augustus. This archpirate, as -they called him, was crushed at last, but whenever Constantius crossed -into Britain it was necessary for Maximian to move up to the vacant -frontier of the Rhine and mount guard in his place. We hear, too, of -Maximian fighting the Moors in Mauretania. War was thus incessant in the -West. In the East, Diocletian recovered Armenia for Roman influence in -287 by placing his nominee, Tiridates, on the throne. This was done -without a breach with Parthia, but in 296 Tiridates was expelled and war -ensued. Diocletian summoned Galerius from the Danube and entrusted him -with the command. But Galerius committed the same blunder which Crassus -had made three centuries and a half before. He led his troops into the -wastes of the Mesopotamian desert and suffered the inevitable disaster. -When he returned with the survivors of his army to Antioch, Diocletian, -it is said, rode forth to meet him; received him with cold displeasure; -and, instead of taking him up into his chariot, compelled him to march -alongside on foot, in spite of his purple robe. However, in the -following year, 297, Galerius faced the Parthian with a new army, took -the longer but less hazardous route through Armenia, and utterly -overwhelmed the enemy in a night attack. The victory was so complete -that Narses sued for peace, paying for the boon no less a price than the -whole of Mesopotamia and five provinces in the valley of the Tigris, and -renouncing all claim to the sovereignty of Armenia. - -This was the greatest victory which Rome had won in the East since the -campaigns of Trajan and Vespasian. It was followed by fifty years of -profound peace; and the ancient feud between Rome and Parthia was not -renewed until the closing days of the reign of Constantine. Lactantius, -of whose credibility as a historian we shall speak later on, sneers at -the victory of Galerius, which he says was “easily won”[4] over an enemy -encumbered by baggage, and he represents him as being so elated with his -success that when Diocletian addressed him in a letter of congratulation -by the name of Cæsar, he exclaimed,[5] with glowing eyes and a voice of -thunder, “How long shall I be merely Cæsar?” But there is no word of -corroboration from any other source. On the contrary, we can see that -Diocletian, whose forte was diplomacy rather than generalship, was on -the best of terms with his son-in-law, Galerius, who regarded him not -with contempt, but with the most profound respect. Diocletian and -Galerius, for their lifetime at any rate, had settled the Eastern -question on a footing entirely satisfactory and honourable to Rome. A -long line of fortresses was established on the new frontier, within -which there was perfect security for trade and commerce, and the result -was a rapid recovery from the havoc caused by the Gothic and Parthian -irruptions. - ------ - -Footnote 4: - - _De Mort. Persec._, c. 9: _Non difficiliter oppressit._ - -Footnote 5: - - _Truci vultu ac voce terribili, Quousque tandem Cæsar?_ - ------ - -Though Diocletian had divided the supreme power, he was still the moving -and controlling spirit, by whose nod all things were governed.[6] He had -chosen for his own special domain Asia, Syria, and Egypt, fixing his -capital at Nicomedia, which he had filled with stately palaces, temples, -and public buildings, for he indulged the dream of making his city the -rival of Rome. Galerius ruled the Danubian provinces with Greece and -Illyricum from his capital at Sirmium. Maximian, the Augustus of the -West, ruled over Italy, Africa, and Spain from Milan; Constantius -watched over Gaul and Britain, with headquarters at Treves and at York. -But everywhere the writ of Diocletian ran. He took the majestic name of -Jovius, while Maximian styled himself Herculius; and it stands as a -marvellous tribute to his commanding influence that we hear of no -friction between the four masters of the world. - ------ - -Footnote 6: - - _Cujus nutu omnia gubernabantur._ - ------ - -Diocletian profoundly modified the character of the Roman Principate. He -orientalised it, adopting frankly and openly the symbols and -paraphernalia of royalty which had been so repugnant to the Roman -temper. Hitherto the Roman Emperors had been, first and foremost, -Imperators, heads of the army, soldiers in the purple. Diocletian became -a King, clad in sumptuous robes, stiff with embroidery and jewels. -Instead of approaching with the old military salute, those who came into -his presence bent the knee and prostrated themselves in adoration. The -monarch surrounded himself, not with military præfects, but with -chamberlains and court officials, the hierarchy of the palace, not of -the camp. We cannot wholly impute this change to vanity or to that -littleness of mind which is pleased with pomp and elaborate ceremonial. -Diocletian was too great a man to be swayed by paltry motives. It was -rather that his subjects had abdicated their old claim to be called a -free and sovereign people, and were ready to be slaves. The whole -senatorial order had been debarred by Gallienus from entering the army, -and had acquiesced without apparent protest in an edict which closed to -its members the profession of arms. Diocletian thought that his throne -would be safer by removing it from the ken of the outside world, by -screening it from vulgar approach, by deepening the mystery and -impressiveness attaching to palaces, by elaborating the court -ceremonial, and exalting even the simplest of domestic services into the -dignity of a liturgy. It may be that these changes intensified the -servility of the subject, and sapped still further the manhood and -self-respect of the race. Let it not be forgotten, however, that the -ceremonial of the modern courts of Europe may be traced directly back to -the changes introduced by Diocletian, and also that the ceremonial, -which the older school of Romans would have thought degrading and -effeminate, was, perhaps, calculated to impress by its stateliness, -beauty, and dignity the barbarous nations which were supplying the Roman -armies with troops. - -We will reserve to a later chapter some account of the remodelled -administration, which Constantine for the most part accepted without -demur. Here we may briefly mention the decentralisation which Diocletian -carried out in the provinces. Lactantius[7] says that “he carved the -provinces up into little fragments that he might fill the earth with -terror,” and suggests that he multiplied officials in order to wring -more money out of his subjects. That is an enemy’s perversion of a wise -statesman’s plan for securing efficiency by lessening the administrative -areas, and bringing them within working limits. Diocletian split up the -Empire into twelve great dioceses. Each diocese again was subdivided -into provinces. There were fifty-seven of these when he came to the -throne; when he quitted it there were ninety-six. The system had grave -faults, for the principles on which the finances of the Empire rested -were thoroughly mischievous and unsound. But the reign of Diocletian was -one of rapid recuperation and great prosperity, such as the Roman world -had not enjoyed since the days of the Antonines. - ------ - -Footnote 7: - - _Et, ut omnia terrore complerentur, provinciæ quoque in frusta - concisæ_ (_De Mort. Persec._, c. 7). - ------ - -[Illustration] - - -[Illustration] - - - - - CHAPTER II - THE PERSECUTION OF THE CHURCH - - -Unfortunately for the fame of Diocletian there is one indelible blot -upon the record of his reign. He attached his name to the edicts whereby -was let loose upon the Christian Church the last and—in certain -provinces—the fiercest of the persecutions. Inasmuch as the affairs of -the Christian Church will demand so large a share of our attention in -dealing with the religious policy of Constantine, it will be well here -to describe, as briefly as possible, its condition in the reign of -Diocletian. It has been computed that towards the end of the third -century the population of the Roman Empire numbered about a hundred -millions. What proportion were Christians? No one can say with -certainty, but they were far more numerous in the East than in the West, -among the Greek-speaking peoples of Asia than among the Latin-speaking -peoples of Europe. Perhaps if we reckon them at a twelfth of the whole -we shall rather underestimate than overestimate their number, while in -certain portions of Asia and Syria they were probably at least one in -five. Christianity had spread with amazing rapidity since the days of -Domitian. There had been spasmodic outbreaks of fierce persecution under -Decius,—“that execrable beast,” as Lactantius calls him,—under Valerian, -and under Aurelian. But Aurelian’s reign was short and he had been too -busy fighting to spare much time for religious persecution. The tempest -quickly blew over. For fully half a century, with brief interludes of -terror, the Church had been gathering strength and boldness. - -The policy of the State towards it was one of indifference. Gallienus, -indeed, the worthless son of Valerian, had issued edicts of toleration, -which might be considered cancelled by the later edicts of Aurelian or -might not. If the State wished to be savage, it could invoke the one -set; if to be mild, it could invoke the other. There was, therefore, no -absolute security for the Church, but the general feeling was one of -confidence. The army contained a large number of Christians, of all -ranks and conditions, officers, centurions, and private soldiers. Many -of the officials of the civil service were Christians. The court and the -palace were full of them. Diocletian’s wife, Prisca, was a Christian; so -was Valeria, his daughter. So, too, were many of his chamberlains, -secretaries, and eunuchs. If Christianity had been a proscribed -religion, if the Christians had anticipated another storm, is it -conceivable that they would have dared to erect at Nicomedia, within -full view of the palace windows, a large church situated upon an -eminence in the centre of the city, and evidently one of its most -conspicuous structures? No, Christianity in the East felt tolerably safe -and was advancing from strength to strength, conscious of its increasing -powers and of the benevolent neutrality of Diocletian. Christians who -took office were relieved from the necessity of offering incense or -presiding at the games. The State looked the other way; the Church was -inclined to let them off with the infliction of some nominal penance. -Nor was there much difficulty about service in the army. Probably few -enlisted in the legions after they had become Christians; against this -the Church set her face. But she permitted the converted soldier to -remain true to his military oath, for she did not wish to become -embroiled with the State. In a word, there was deep religious peace, at -any rate in Diocletian’s special sphere of influence, Asia, Egypt, and -Syria. - -It is to be remembered, however, that there were four rulers, men of -very different characters and each, therefore, certain to regard -Christianity from a different standpoint. Thus there might be religious -peace in Asia and persecution in the West, as, indeed, there was—partial -and spasmodic, but still persecution. Maximian was cruel and ambitious, -an able soldier of the hard Roman type, no respecter of persons, and -careless of human life. Very few modern historians have accepted the -story of the massacre of the Theban Legion at Agauna, near Lake Leman, -for refusal to offer sacrifice and take the oath to the Emperor. -According to the legend, the legion was twice decimated and then cut to -pieces. But it is impossible to believe that there could have been a -legion or even a company of troops from Thebes in Egypt, wholly composed -of Christians, and, even supposing the facts to have been as stated, -their refusal to march in obedience to the Emperor’s orders and rejoin -the main army at a moment when an active campaign was in progress, -simply invited the stroke of doom. Maximian was not the man to tolerate -mutiny in the face of the enemy. - -But still there were many Christian victims of Maximian wherever he took -up his quarters—at Rome, Aquileia, Marseilles—mostly soldiers whose -refusal to sacrifice brought down upon them the arm of the law. Maximian -is described in the “Passion of St. Victor” as “a great dragon,” but the -story, even as told by the hagiologist, scarcely justifies the epithet. -Just as the military præfects, before whom Victor was first taken, -begged him to reconsider his position, so Maximian, after ordering a -priest to bring an altar of Jupiter, turned to Victor and said[8]: “Just -offer a few grains of incense; placate Jupiter and be our friend.” -Victor’s answer was to dash the altar to the ground from the hands of -the priest and place his foot triumphantly upon it. We may admire the -fortitude of the martyr, but the martyrdom was self-inflicted, and the -anger of the Emperor not wholly unwarranted. “Be our friend,” he had -said, and his overtures were spurned with contempt. - ------ - -Footnote 8: - - _Pone thura: placa Jovem et noster amicus esto._ - ------ - -We may suspect, indeed, that this partial persecution was due rather to -the insistence of the martyrs themselves than to deliberate policy on -the part of Maximian. When enthusiastic Christians thrust their -Christianity upon the official notice of the authorities, insulted the -Emperor or the gods, and refused to take the oath or sacrifice on -ceremonial occasions, then martyrdom was the result, and little notice -was taken, for life was cheap. Diocletian, as we have seen, rather -patronised than persecuted Christianity. Maximian’s inclinations towards -cruelty were kept in check by the known wishes of his senior colleague. -Constantius, the Cæsar of Gaul, was one of those refined characters, -tolerant and sympathetic by nature, to whom the idea of persecution for -the sake of religion was intensely repugnant; and Galerius, the Cæsar of -Pannonia, the most fanatical pagan of the group, was not likely, at any -rate during the first few years after his elevation, to run counter to -the wishes of his patron. - -What was it, then, that wrought the fatal change in the mind of -Diocletian and turned him from benevolent neutrality to fierce -antagonism? Lactantius attributes it solely to the baleful influence of -Galerius, whom he paints in the very blackest colours. He was a wild -beast, a savage barbarian of alien blood, tall in stature, a mountain of -flesh, abnormally bloated, terrifying to look at, and with a voice that -made men shiver.[9] Behind this monster stood his mother, a barbarian -woman from beyond the Danube, priestess of some wild deity of the -mountains, imbued with a fanatical hatred of the Christians, which she -was for ever instilling into her son. When we have stripped away the -obvious exaggeration of this onslaught we may still accept the main -statement and admit that Galerius was the most active and unsparing -enemy of the Christians in the Imperial circle. This rough soldier, -trained in the school of two such martinets as Aurelian and Probus, who -enforced military discipline by the most pitiless methods, would not -stay to reason with a soldier’s religious prejudices. Unhesitating -obedience or death—that was the only choice he gave to those who served -under him, and when, after his great victory over the Parthians, his -position and prestige in the East were beyond challenge, we find -Christian martyrdoms in the track of his armies, in the Anti-Taurus, in -Cœle-Syria, in Samosata. - ------ - -Footnote 9: - - _De Mort. Persec._, c. 9. - ------ - -Galerius began to purge his army of Christians. Unless they would -sacrifice, officers were to lose their rank and private soldiers to be -dismissed ignominiously without the privileges of long service. Several -were put to death in Moesia, where a certain Maximus was Governor. Among -them was a veteran named Julius, who had served in the legion for -twenty-six years, and fought in seven campaigns, without a single black -mark having been entered against his name for any military offence. -Maximus did his best to get him off. “Julius,” he said, “I see that you -are a man of sense and wisdom. Suffer yourself to be persuaded and -sacrifice to the gods.” “I will not,” was the reply, “do what you ask. I -will not incur by an act of sin eternal punishment.” “But,” said the -Governor, “I take the sin upon myself. I will use compulsion so that you -may not seem to act voluntarily. Then you will be able to return in -peace to your house. You will receive the bounty of ten denarii and no -one will molest you.” Evidently, Maximus was heartily sorry that such a -fine old soldier should take up a position which seemed to him so -grotesquely indefensible. But what was Julius’s reply? “Neither this -Devil’s money nor your specious words shall cause me to lose eternal -God. I cannot deny Him. Condemn me as a Christian.” After the -interrogation had gone on for some time, Maximus said: “I pity you, and -I beg you to sacrifice, so that you may live with us.” “To live with you -would be death for me,” rejoined Julius, “but if I die, I shall live.” -“Listen to me and sacrifice; if not, I shall have to keep my word and -order you to death.” “I have often prayed that I might merit such an -end.” “Then you have chosen to die?” “I have chosen a temporary death, -but an eternal life.” Maximus then passed sentence, and the law took its -course. - -On another occasion the Governor said to two Christians, named Nicander -and Marcian, who had proved themselves equally resolute, “It is not I -whom you resist; it is not I who persecute you. My hands are unstained -by your blood. If you know that you will fare well on your journey, I -congratulate you.[10] Let your desire be accomplished.” “Peace be with -you, merciful judge,” cried both the martyrs as the sentence was -pronounced. - ------ - -Footnote 10: - - _Si autem scitis vos bene ituros, gratulor vobis._ - ------ - -The movement seems gradually to have spread from the provinces of -Galerius to those of Maximian. At Tangiers, Marcellus, a centurion of -the Legion of Trajan, threw down his centurion’s staff and belt and -refused to serve any longer. He did so in the face of the whole army -assembled to sacrifice in honour of Maximian’s birthday. A similar scene -took place in Spain at Calahorra, near Tarraco, where two soldiers cast -off their arms exclaiming, “We are called to serve in the shining -company of angels. There Christ commands His cohorts, clothed in white, -and from His lofty throne condemns your infamous gods, and you, who are -the creatures of these gods, or, we should say, these ridiculous -monsters.” Death followed as a matter of course. Looking at the evidence -with absolute impartiality, one begins to suspect that the process of -clearing the Christians out of the army was due quite as much to the -fanaticism of certain Christian soldiers eager for martyrdom, as to any -lust for blood on the part even of Galerius and Maximian. - -But what we have to account for is the rise of a fierce anti-Christian -spirit which induced Diocletian—for even Lactantius admits that he was -not easily persuaded—to take active measures against the Christians. It -is certainly noteworthy that about this time the only school of -philosophy which was alive, active, and at all original, was definitely -anti-Christian. We refer, of course, to the Neo-Platonists of -Alexandria. Their principal exponent was the philosopher Porphyry, who -carried on a violent anti-Christian propaganda, though he seems to have -borrowed from Christianity, and more especially from the rigorously -ascetic form which Christianity had assumed in Egypt, many of his -leading tenets. The morality which Porphyry inculcated was elevated and -pure; his religion was mystical to such a degree that none but an expert -philosopher could follow him into the refinements of his abstractions; -but he had for the Christian Church a “theological hatred” of -extraordinary bitterness. The treatise—in fifteen books—in which he -assailed the Divinity of Christ apparently set a fashion in -anti-Christian literature. We hear, for example, of another unnamed -philosopher who “vomited three books against the Christian religion,” -and the violence with which Lactantius denounces him as “an accomplished -hypocrite” makes one suspect that his work had a considerable success. -Still better known was Hierocles, Governor at one time of Palmyra, and -then transferred to the royal province of Bithynia, who wrote a book to -which he gave the name of _The Friend of Truth_, and addressed it, “To -the Christians.” Its interest lies chiefly in the fact that its author -compares with the miracles wrought by Christ those attributed to -Apollonius of Tyana, and denies divinity to both. Lactantius tells us -that this Hierocles was “author and counsellor of the persecution,”[11] -and we may judge, therefore, that there existed among the pagans a -powerful party bitterly opposed to Christianity, carrying on a vigorous -campaign against it, and urging upon the Emperors the advisability of a -sharp repressive policy. - ------ - -Footnote 11: - - _De Mort. Persec._, c. 16. - ------ - -They would have no difficulty in making out a case against the -Christians which on the face of it seemed plausible and overwhelming. -They would point to the fanatical spirit manifested, as we have seen, by -a large number of Christian soldiers in the army, which led them to -throw down their arms, blaspheme the gods, and deny the Emperors. They -would point to the anti-social movement, which was especially marked in -Egypt, where the example of St. Antony was drawing crowds of men and -women away into the desert to live out their lives, either in solitary -cells as hermits, or as members of religious communities equally -ascetic, and almost equally solitary. They would point to the aloofness -even of the ordinary Christian in city or in town from its common life, -and to his avoidance of office and public duties. They would point to -the extraordinary closeness of the ties which bound Christians together, -to their elaborate organisation, to the implicit and ready obedience -they paid to their bishops, and would ask whether so powerful a secret -society, with ramifications everywhere throughout the Empire, was not -inevitably a menace to the established authorities. The Christians were -peaceable enough. To accuse them of plotting rebellion was hardly -possible, though the most outrageous calumnies against them and their -rites were sedulously fostered in order to inflame the minds of the -rabble, just as they were against the Jews in the Middle Ages, and are, -even at the present day, in certain parts of the Continent of Europe. -But, at bottom, the real strength of the case against the Christians lay -in the fact that the more enlightened pagans saw that Christianity was -the solvent which was bound to loosen all that held pagan society -together. They instinctively felt what was coming, and were sensible of -approaching doom. Christianity was the enemy, the proclaimed enemy, of -their religion, of their point of view of this life as well as of the -next, of their customs, of their pleasures, of their arts. Paganism was -fighting for existence. What wonder that it snatched at any weapon -wherewith to strike? - -[Illustration: BUST OF DIOCLETIAN.] - -The personal attitude of Diocletian towards religion in general is best -seen in the edict which he issued against the Manichæans. The date is -somewhat uncertain, but it undoubtedly preceded the anti-Christian -edicts. Manichæanism took its rise in Persia, its principal -characteristic being the practice of thaumaturgy, and it spread fast -throughout the East. Diocletian ordered the chiefs of the sect to be -burned to death; their followers were to have their goods confiscated -and to suffer capital punishment unless they recanted; while persons of -rank who had disgraced themselves by joining such a shameful and -infamous set of men were to lose their patrimony and be sent to the -mines. These were savage enactments, and it is important to see how the -Emperor justified them. Fortunately his language is most explicit. “The -gods,” he says, “have determined what is just and true; the wisest of -mankind, by counsel and by deed, have proved and firmly established -their principles. It is not, therefore, lawful to oppose their divine -and human wisdom, or to pretend that a new religion can correct the old -one. To wish to change the institutions of our ancestors is the greatest -of crimes.” Nothing could be clearer. It is the old official defence of -the State religion, that men are not wiser than their fathers, and that -innovation in worship is likely to bring down the wrath of the gods. -Moreover, as the edict points out, this Manichæanism came from Persia, -the traditional enemy of Rome, and threatened to corrupt the “modest and -tranquil Roman people” with the detestable manners and infamous laws of -the Orient. “Modest and tranquil” are not the epithets which posterity -has chosen to apply to the Roman people of the Empire, but Diocletian’s -point is obvious. Manichæanism was a device of the enemy; it must be -poison, therefore, to the good Roman. Such an argument was born of -prejudice rather than of reason; we shall see it applied yet again to -the Christians, and applied even by the Christian Church to its own -schismatics and heretics. - -It was during the winter of 302 that the question was carefully debated -by Diocletian and Galerius—the latter was staying with the senior -Augustus at Nicomedia—whether it was advisable to take repressive -measures against the Christians. According to Lactantius, Galerius -clamoured for blood, while Diocletian represented how mischievous it -would be to throw the whole world into a ferment, and how the Christians -were wont to welcome martyrdom. He argued, therefore, that it would be -quite enough if they purged the court and the army. Then, as neither -would give way, a Council was called, which sided with Galerius rather -than with Diocletian, and it was decided to consult the oracle of Apollo -at Miletus. Apollo returned the strange answer that there were just men -on the earth who prevented him from speaking the truth, and gave that as -the reason why the oracles which proceeded from his tripods were false. -The “just men” were, of course, the Christians. Diocletian yielded, only -stipulating that there should be no bloodshed, while Galerius was for -burning all Christians alive. Such is Lactantius’s story, and it does -credit to Diocletian, inasmuch as it shews his profound reluctance to -disturb the internal peace which his own wise policy had established. As -a propitious day, the Festival of the Terminalia, February 23, 303, was -chosen for the inauguration of the anti-Christian campaign. The church -at Nicomedia was levelled to the ground by the Imperial troops and, on -the following day, an edict was issued depriving Christians of their -privileges as full Roman citizens. They were to be deprived of all their -honours and distinctions, whatever their rank; they were to be liable to -torture; they were to be penalised in the courts by not being allowed to -prosecute for assault, adultery, and theft. Lactantius well says[12] -that they were to lose their liberty and their right of speech. The -penalties extended even to slaves. If a Christian slave refused to -renounce his religion he was never to receive his freedom. The churches, -moreover, were to be destroyed and Christians were forbidden to meet -together. No bloodshed was threatened, as Diocletian had stipulated, but -the Christian was reduced to the condition of a pariah. The edict was no -sooner posted up than, with a bitter jibe at the Emperors, some bold, -indignant Christian tore it down. He was immediately arrested, tortured, -racked, and burnt at the stake. Diocletian had been right. The -Christians made willing martyrs. - ------ - -Footnote 12: - - _Libertatem denique ac vocem non haberent_ (_De Mort. Persec._, c. - 13). - ------ - -Soon afterwards there was an outbreak of fire at the palace. Lactantius -accuses Galerius of having contrived it himself so that he might throw -the odium upon the Christians, and he adds that Galerius so worked upon -the fears of Diocletian that he gave leave to every official in the -palace to use the rack in the hope of getting at the truth. Nothing was -discovered, but fifteen days later there was another mysterious -outbreak. Galerius, protesting that he would stay no longer to be burnt -alive, quitted the palace at once, though it was bad weather for -travelling. Then, says Lactantius, Diocletian allowed his blind terrors -to get the better of him, and the persecution began in earnest. He -forced his wife and daughter to recant; he purged the palace, and put to -death some of his most powerful eunuchs, while the Bishop of Nicomedia -was beheaded, and crowds of less distinguished victims were thrown into -prison. Whether there was incendiarism or not, no one can say. Eusebius, -indeed, tells us that Constantine, who was living in the palace at the -time, declared years afterwards to the bishops at the Council of Nicæa -that he had seen with his own eyes the lightning descend and set fire to -the abode of the godless Emperor. But neither Constantine nor Eusebius -was to be believed implicitly when it was a question of some -supernatural occurrence between earth and heaven. The double -conflagration is certainly suspicious, but tyrants do not, as a rule, -set fire to their own palaces when they themselves are in residence, -however strong may be their animus against some obnoxious party in the -State. - -A few months passed and Diocletian published a second edict ordering the -arrest of all bishops and clergy who refused to surrender their “holy -books” to the civil officers. Then, in the following year, came a third, -offering freedom to all in prison if they consented to sacrifice, and -instructing magistrates to use every possible means to compel the -obstinate to abandon their faith. These edicts provoked a frenzy of -persecution, and Gaul and Britain alone enjoyed comparative immunity. -Constantius could not, indeed, entirely disregard an order which bore -the joint names of the two Augusti, but he took care that there was no -over-zealousness, and, according to a well-known passage of Lactantius, -he allowed the meeting-places of the Christians, the buildings of wood -and stone which could easily be restored, to be torn down, but preserved -in safety the true temple of God, viz., the bodies of His -worshippers.[13] Elsewhere the persecution may be traced from province -to province and from city to city in the mournful and poignant documents -known as the _Passions of the Martyrs_. Naturally it varied in intensity -according to local conditions and according to the personal -predilections of the magistrates. Where the populace was fiercely -anti-Christian or where the pagan priests were zealous, there the -Christians suffered severely. Their churches would be razed to the -ground and the prisons would be full. Some of the weaker brethren would -recant; others would hide themselves or quit the district; others again -would suffer martyrdom. In more fortunate districts, where public -opinion was with the Christians, the churches might not be destroyed, -though they stood empty and silent. - ------ - -Footnote 13: - - _Verum autem Dei templum, quod est in hominibus, incolume servavit._ - (_De Mort. Persec._, c. 15). - ------ - -The fiercest persecution seems to have taken place in Asia Minor. There -had been a partial revolt of the troops at Antioch, easily suppressed by -the Antiochenes themselves, but Diocletian apparently connected it in -some way with the Christians and let his hand fall heavily upon them. -Just at this time, moreover, in the neighbouring kingdom of Armenia, -Saint Gregory the Illuminator was preaching the gospel with marvellous -success, and the Christians of Cappadocia, just over the border, paid -the penalty for the uneasiness which this ferment caused to their -rulers. We hear, for example, in Phrygia of a whole Christian community -being extirpated. Magistrates, senators, and people—Christians all—had -taken refuge in their principal church, to which the troops set fire. -Eusebius, in his _History of the Church_, paints a lamentable picture of -the persecution which he himself witnessed in Palestine and Syria, and, -in his _Life of Constantine_, he says[14] that even the barbarians -across the frontier were so touched by the sufferings of the Christian -fugitives that they gave them shelter. Athanasius, too, declares that he -often heard survivors of the persecution say that many pagans risked the -loss of their goods and the chance of imprisonment in order to hide -Christians from the officers of the law. There is no question of -exaggeration. The most horrible tortures were invented; the most -barbarous and degrading punishments were devised. The victim who was -simply ordered to be decapitated or drowned was highly favoured. In a -very large number of cases death was delayed as long as possible. The -sufferer, after being tortured on the rack, or having eyes or tongue -torn out, or foot or hand struck off, was taken back to prison to -recover for a second examination. - -Footnote 14: - - _Vita Const._, ii., 53. - ------ - -Even when the victim was dead the law frequently pursued the corpse with -its futile vengeance. It was no uncommon thing for a body to be thrown -to the dogs, or to be chopped into fragments and cast into the sea, or -to be burnt and the ashes flung upon running water. He was counted a -merciful judge who allowed the friends of the martyr to bear away the -body to decent burial and lay it in the grave. At Augsburg, when the -magistrate heard that the mother and three servants of a converted -courtesan, named Afra, had placed her body in a tomb, he ordered all -four to be enclosed in one grave with the corpse and burnt alive. - -It is, of course, quite impossible to compute the number of the victims, -but it was unquestionably very large. We do not, perhaps, hear of as -many bishops and priests being put to death as might have been expected, -but if the extreme rigour of the law had been enforced the Empire would -have been turned into a shambles. The fact is, as we have said, that -very much depended upon the personal character of the Governors and the -local magistrates. In some places altars were put up in the law courts -and no one was allowed either to bring or defend a suit without offering -sacrifice. In other towns they were erected in the market squares and by -the side of the public fountains, so that one could neither buy nor -sell, nor even draw water, without being challenged to do homage to the -gods. Some Governors, such as Datianus in Spain, Theotecnus in Galatia, -Urbanus of Palestine, and Hierocles of Bithynia and Egypt, were noted -for the ferocity with which they carried out the edicts; others—and, -when the evidence is carefully examined, the humane judges seem to have -formed the majority—presided with reluctance at these lamentable trials. -Many exhausted every means in their power to convert the prisoners back -to the old religion, partly from motives of humanity, and partly, no -doubt, because their success in this respect gained them the notice and -favour of their superiors. - -We hear of magistrates who ordered the attendants of the court to place -by force a few grains of incense in the hands of the prisoner and make -him sprinkle it upon the altar, or to thrust into his mouth a portion of -the sacrificial meat. The victim would protest against his involuntary -defilement, but the magistrate would declare that the offering had been -made. Often, the judge sought to bribe the accused into apostasy. “If -you obey the Governor,” St. Victor of Galatia was told, “you shall have -the title of ‘Friend of Cæsar’ and a post in the palace.” Theotecnus -promised Theodotus of Ancyra “the favour of the Emperors, the highest -municipal dignities, and the priesthood of Apollo.” The bribe was great, -but it was withstood. The steadfast confessor gloried in replying to -every fresh taunt, entreaty, or bribe, “I am a Christian.” It was to him -the only, as well as the highest argument. - -Sometimes the kindest-hearted judges were driven to exasperation by -their total inability to make the slightest impression upon the -Christians. “Do abandon your foolish boasting,” said Maximus, the -Governor of Cilicia, to Andronicus, “and listen to me as you would -listen to your father. Those who have played the madman before you have -gained nothing by it. Pay honour to our Princes and our fathers and -submit yourself to the gods.” “You do well,” came the reply, “to call -them your fathers, for you are the sons of Satan, the sons of the Devil, -whose works you perform.” A few more remarks passed between judge and -prisoner and then Maximus lost his temper. “I will make you die by -inches,” he exclaimed. “I despise,” retorted Andronicus, “your threats -and your menaces.” While an old man of sixty-five was being led to the -torture, a friendly centurion said to him, “Have pity on yourself and -sacrifice.” “Get thee from me, minister of Satan,” was the reply. The -main feeling uppermost in the mind of the confessor was one of -exultation that he had been found worthy to suffer. Such a spirit could -neither be bent nor broken. - -Of active disloyalty to the Emperor there is absolutely no trace. Many -Christian soldiers boasted of their long and honourable service in the -army; civilians were willing to pay unto Cæsar the things that were -Cæsar’s. But Christ was their King. “There is but one God,” cried -Alphæus and Zachæus at Cæsarea, “and only one King and Lord, who is -Jesus Christ.” To the pagan judge this was not merely blasphemy against -the gods, but treason against the Emperor. Sometimes, but not often, the -martyr’s feelings got the better of him and he cursed the Emperor. “May -you be punished,” cried the dauntless Andronicus to Maximus, when the -officers of the court had thrust between his lips the bread and meat of -sacrifice, “may you be punished, bloody tyrant, you and they who have -given you the power to defile me with your impious sacrifices. One day -you will know what you have done to the servants of God.” “Accursed -scoundrel,” said the judge, “dare you curse the Emperors who have given -the world such long and profound peace?” “I have cursed them and I will -curse them,” replied Andronicus, “these public scourges, these drinkers -of blood, who have turned the world upside down. May the immortal hand -of God tolerate them no longer and punish their cruel amusements, that -they may learn and know the evil they have done to God’s servants.” No -doubt, most Christians agreed with the sentiments expressed by -Andronicus, but they rarely gave expression to them. “I have obeyed the -Emperors all the years of my life,” said Bishop Philippus of Heraclea, -“and, when their commands are just, I hasten to obey. For the Holy -Scripture has ordered me to render to God what is due to God and to -Cæsar what is due to Cæsar. I have kept this commandment without flaw -down to the present time, and it only remains for me to give preference -to the things of heaven over the attractions of this world. Remember -what I have already said several times, that I am a Christian and that I -refuse to sacrifice to your gods.” Nothing could be more dignified or -explicit. It is the Emperor-God and his fellow deities of Olympus, not -the Emperor, to whom the Christian refuses homage. During a trial at -Catania in Sicily the judge, Calvisianus, said to a Christian, “Unhappy -man, adore the gods, render homage to Mars, Apollo, and Æsculapius.” The -answer came without a second’s hesitation: “I adore the Father, Son, and -Holy Ghost—the Holy Trinity—beyond whom there is no God. Perish the gods -who have not made heaven and earth and all that they contain. I am a -Christian.” From first to last, in Spain as in Africa, in Italy as in -Sicily, this is the alpha and the omega of the Christian position, -“_Christianus sum_.” - -To what extent was the martyrdom self-inflicted? How far did the -Christians pile with their own hands the faggots round the stakes to -which they were tied? It is significant that some churches found it -necessary to condemn the extraordinary exaltation of spirit which drove -men and women to force themselves upon the notice of the authorities and -led them to regard flight from danger as culpable weakness. They not -only did not encourage but strictly forbade the overthrowing of pagan -statues or altars by zealous Christians anxious to testify to their -faith. They did not wish, that is to say, to provoke certain reprisals. -Yet, in spite of all their efforts, martyrdom was constantly courted by -rash and excitable natures in the frenzy of religious fanaticism, like -that which impelled Theodorus of Amasia in Pontus to set fire to a -temple of Cybele in the middle of the city and then boast openly of the -deed. Often, however, such martyrs were mere children. Such was Eulalia -of Merida, a girl of twelve, whose parents, suspecting her intention, -had taken her into the country to be out of harm’s way. She escaped -their vigilance, returned to the city, and, standing before the tribunal -of the judge, proclaimed herself a Christian. - - ”_Mane superba tribunal adit, - Fascibus adstat et in mediis._“ - -The judge, instead of bidding the officials remove the child, began to -argue with her, and the argument ended in Eulalia spitting in his face -and overturning the statue which had been brought for her to worship. -Then came torture and the stake, a martyred saint, and in later -centuries a stately church, flower festivals, and a charming poem from -the Christian poet, Prudentius. But even his graceful verses do not -reconcile us to the pitiful futility of such child-martyrdom as that of -Eulalia of Merida or Agnes of Rome. - -Or take, again, the pathetic inscription found at Testur, in Northern -Africa; - - “_Sanctæ Tres; - Maxima, - Donatilla - Et Secunda, - Bona Puella._” - -These were three martyrs of Thuburbo. Two of them, Maxima and Donatilla, -had been denounced to the judge by another woman. Secunda, a child of -twelve, saw her friends from a window in her father’s house, as they -were being dragged off to prison. “Do not abandon me, my sisters,” she -cried. They tried to wave her back. She insisted. They warned her of the -cruel fate which was certain to await her; Secunda declared her -confidence in Him who comforts and consoles the little ones. In the end -they let her accompany them. All three were sentenced to be torn by the -wild beasts of the amphitheatre, but when they stood up to face that -cruel death, a wild bear came and lay at their feet. The judge, -Anulinus, then ordered them to be decapitated. Such is the story that -lies behind those simple and touching words, “_Secunda, Bona Puella_.” - -Nor were young men backward in their zeal for the martyr’s crown. -Eusebius tells us of a band of eight Christian youths at Cæsarea, who -confronted the Governor, Urbanus, in a body shouting, “We are -Christians,” and of another youth named Aphianus, who, while reading the -Scriptures, heard the voice of the heralds summoning the people to -sacrifice. He at once made his way to the Governor’s house, and, just as -Urbanus was in the act of offering libation, Aphianus caught his arm and -upbraided him for his idolatry. He simply flung his life away. - -In this connection may be mentioned the five martyred statuary workers -belonging to a Pannonian marble quarry. They had been converted by the -exhortations of Bishop Cyril, of Antioch, who had been condemned to -labour in their quarry, and, once having become Christians, their -calling gave them great searching of heart. Did not the Scriptures -forbid them to make idols or graven images of false gods? When, -therefore, they refused to undertake a statue of Æsculapius, they were -challenged as Christians, and sentenced to death. Yet they had not -thought it wrong to carve figures of Victory and Cupid, and they seem to -have executed without scruple a marble group showing the sun in a -chariot, doubtless satisfying themselves that these were merely -decorative pieces, which did not necessarily involve the idea of -worship. But they preferred to die rather than make a god for a temple, -even though that god were the gentle Æsculapius, the Healer. - -We might dwell at much greater length upon this absorbing subject of the -persecution of Diocletian, and draw upon the _Passions of the Saints_ -for further examples of the marvellous fortitude with which so many of -the Christians endured the most fiendish tortures for the sake of their -faith. “I only ask one favour,” said the intrepid Asterius: “it is that -you will not leave unlacerated a single part of my body.” In the -presence of such splendid fidelity and such unswerving faith, which made -even the weakest strong and able to endure, one sees why the eventual -triumph of the Church was certain and assured. One can also understand -why the memory and the relics of the martyrs were preserved with such -passionate devotion; why their graves were considered holy and credited -with powers of healing; and why, too, the names of their persecutors -were remembered with such furious hatred. It may be too much to expect -the early chroniclers of the Church to be fair to those who framed and -those who put into execution the edicts of persecution, but we, at -least, after so many centuries, and after so many persecutions framed -and directed by the Churches themselves, must try to look at the -question from both sides and take note of the absolute refusal of the -Christian Church to consent to the slightest compromise in its attitude -of hostility to the religious system which it had already dangerously -undermined. - -It is not easy from a study of the _Passions of the Saints_ to draw any -sweeping generalisations as to what the public at large thought of the -torture and execution of Christians. We get a glimpse, indeed, of the -ferocity of the populace at Rome when Maximian went thither to celebrate -the Ludi Cereales in 304. The “Passion of St. Savinus” shews an excited -crowd gathered in the Circus Maximus, roaring for blood and repeating -twelve times over the savage cry, “Away with the Christians and our -happiness is complete. By the head of Augustus let not a Christian -survive.”[15] Then, when they caught sight of Hermogenianus, the city -præfect, they called ten times over to the Emperor, “May you conquer, -Augustus! Ask the præfect what it is we are shouting.” Such a scene was -natural enough in the Circus of Rome; was it typical of the Empire? -Doubtless in all the great cities, such as Alexandria, Antioch, Ephesus, -Carthage, the “baser sort” would be quite ready to shout, “Away with the -Christians.” But it is to be remembered that we find no trace anywhere -in this persecution of a massacre on the scale of that of St. -Bartholomew or the Sicilian Vespers. On the contrary, we see that though -the prisons were full, the relations of the Christians were usually -allowed to visit them, take them food, and listen to their exhortations. -Pamphilus of Cæsarea, who was in jail for two years, not only received -his friends during that period, but was able to go on making copies of -the Scriptures! - ------ - -Footnote 15: - - _Christiani tollantur et voluptas constat; Per caput Augusti - Christiani non sint._ - ------ - -We rarely hear of the courts being packed with anti-Christian crowds, or -of the judges being incited by popular clamour to pass the death -sentence. The reports of the trials shew us silent, orderly courts, with -the judges anxious not so much to condemn to death as to make a convert. -If Diocletian had wanted blood he could have had it in rivers, not in -streams. But he did not. He wished to eradicate what he believed to be -an impious, mischievous, and, from the point of view of the State’s -security, a dangerous superstition. There was no talk of persecuting for -the sake of saving the souls of heretics; that lamentable theory was -reserved for a later day. Diocletian persecuted for what he considered -to be the good of the State. He lived to witness the full extent of his -failure, and to realise the appalling crime which he had committed -against humanity, amid the general overthrow of the political system -which he had so laboriously set up. - -[Illustration] - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - -[Illustration] - - - - - CHAPTER III - THE ABDICATION OF DIOCLETIAN AND THE SUCCESSION - OF CONSTANTINE - - -On the 1st of May, in the year 305, Diocletian, by an act of unexampled -abnegation, resigned the purple and retired into private life. The -renunciation was publicly performed, not in Rome, for Rome had ceased to -be the centre of the political world, but on a broad plain in Bithynia, -three miles from Nicomedia, which long had been the Emperor’s favourite -residence. In the centre of the plain rose a little hill, upon which -stood a column surmounted by a statue of Jupiter. There, years before, -Diocletian had with his own hands invested Galerius with the symbols of -power; there he was now to perform the last act of a ruler by nominating -those whom he thought most fit to succeed him. A large platform had been -constructed; the soldiers of the legions had been ordered to assemble in -soldier’s meeting and listen to their chief’s farewell. Diocletian took -leave of them in few words. He was old, he said, and infirm. He craved -for rest after a life of toil. The Empire needed stronger and more -youthful hands than his. His work was done. It was time for him to go. - -The two Augusti were laying down their powers simultaneously, for -Maximian was performing a similar act of renunciation at Milan. The two -Cæsars, Constantius and Galerius, would thus automatically move up into -the empty places and become Augusti in their stead. It had been -necessary, therefore, to select two new Cæsars, and these Diocletian was -about to present to the loyalty of the legions. We are told that the -secret had been well kept, and that the soldiers waited with suppressed -excitement until Diocletian suddenly announced that his choice had -fallen upon Severus, one of his trusted generals, and upon Maximin Daza, -a nephew of Galerius. Severus had already been sent to Milan to be -invested by Maximian; Maximin was present on the tribunal and was then -and there robed in the purple. The ceremony over, Diocletian—a private -citizen once more, though he still retained the title of Augustus—drove -back to Nicomedia and at once set out for Salona, on the Adriatic, where -he had built a sumptuous palace for his retirement. - -[Illustration: - - CONSTANTINE THE GREAT. - FROM GROSVENOR’S “CONSTANTINOPLE.” -] - -The scene which we have depicted is described most fully and most -graphically by a historian whose testimony, unfortunately, is entirely -suspect in matters of detail. The author of _The Deaths of the -Persecutors_—it is very doubtful whether Lactantius, to whom the work -has long been attributed, really wrote it, but for the sake of -convenience of reference we may credit him with it—is at once the most -untrustworthy and the most vigorous and attractive writer of the period. -His object throughout is to blacken the characters of the Emperors who -persecuted the Christian Church, and he does not scruple to distort -their actions, pervert their motives, and even invent, with well -calculated malice, stories to their discredit. Lactantius knows, or -pretends to know, all that takes place even in the most secret recesses -of the palace; he recounts all that passes at the most confidential -conferences; and with consummate artistry he throws in circumstantial -details and touches of local colour which give an appearance of truth, -but are really the most convincing proofs of falsehood. Lactantius -represents the abdication of Diocletian as the act of an old man, -shattered in health, and even in mind, by a distressing malady sent by -Heaven as the just punishment of his crimes. He depicts him cowering in -tears before the impatient insolence of Galerius, now peremptorily -clamouring for the succession with threats of civil war. They discuss -who shall be the new Cæsars. “Whom shall we appoint?” asks Diocletian. -“Severus,” says Galerius. “What?” says the other, “that drunken sot of a -dancer who turns night into day and day into night?” “He is worthy,” -replies Galerius, “for he has proved a faithful general, and I have sent -him to Maximian to be invested.” “Well, well,” says the old man, “who is -the second choice?” “He is here,” says Galerius, indicating his nephew, -a young semi-barbarian named Maximin Daza. “Why, who is this you offer -me?” “He is my kinsman,” is the reply. Then said Diocletian, with a -groan, “These are not fit men to whom to entrust the care of the State.” -“I have proved them,” said Galerius. “Well, you must look to it,” -rejoins Diocletian, “you who are about to assume the reins of the -Empire. I have toiled enough. While I ruled, I took care that the State -stood safe. If any harm now befalls, the fault is not mine.”[16] - ------ - -Footnote 16: - - Lactant., _De Mort. Persec._, c. 18. - ------ - -Such is a characteristic specimen of Lactantius’s history, and so, when -he comes to describe the ceremony of abdication, he makes Galerius draw -Maximin Daza to the front of the group of imperial officials by whom -Diocletian is surrounded, and represents the soldiers as staring in -surprise at their new Cæsar, as at one whom they had never seen before. -Yet a favourite nephew of Galerius can scarcely have been a stranger to -the troops of Nicomedia. Galerius not only—according to Lactantius—drew -forward Maximin Daza, but at the same time rudely thrust back into the -throng the son of Constantius, the senior of the two new Augusti. This -was young Constantine, the future Emperor, who for some years past had -been living at the Court of Diocletian. - -But it was no broken down Emperor in his dotage, passing, according to -the spasms of his malady, from sanity to insanity, who resigned the -throne on the plain of Nicomedia. Diocletian was but fifty-nine years of -age. He had just recovered, it is true, from a very severe illness, -which, even on the testimony of Lactantius, had caused “grief in the -palace, sadness and tears among his guards, and anxious suspense -throughout the whole State.”[17] But his brain was never clearer than -when he took final leave of his troops. His abdication was the -culminating point of his policy. He had planned it twenty years before. -He had kept it before his eyes throughout a long and busy reign. It was -the completion of, the finishing touch to his great political system. It -would have been perfectly easy for Diocletian to forswear himself. -Probably very few of his contemporaries believed that he would fulfil -his promise to abdicate after twenty years of reign. Kings talk of the -allurements of retirement, but they usually cling to power as -tenaciously as to life. The first Augustus had delighted to mystify his -Ministers of State by speaking of restoring the Republic. He died an -Emperor. Diocletian, alone of the Roman Emperors, laid down the sceptre -when he was at the height of his glory. It was a hazardous experiment, -but he was faithful to his principles. He thought it best for the world -that its master should not grow old and feeble on the throne. - ------ - -Footnote 17: - - _De Mort. Persec._, c. 17. - ------ - -Constantine, of whom we have just caught a glimpse at the abdication of -Diocletian, was born either in 273 or 274. The uncertainty attaching to -the year of his birth attaches even more to its place. No one now -believes that he was born in Britain—a pleasing fiction which was -invented by English monks, who delighted to represent his mother Helena -as the daughter of a British King, though they were quite at a loss -where to locate his kingdom. The only foundation for this was a passage -in one of the Panegyrists, who said that Constantine had bestowed lustre -upon Britain “_illic oriundo_.” But the words are now taken as referring -to his accession and not to his birth. He was certainly proclaimed -Emperor in Britain, and might thus be said to have “sprung thence.” -Constantine’s birth-place seems to have been either Naissus, a city in -Upper Moesia, or Drepanum, a city near Nicomedia. The balance of -evidence, though none of it is very trustworthy, inclines to the former. - -His father was Constantius Chlorus, afterwards Cæsar and Augustus, but -at the time of Constantine’s birth merely a promising officer in the -Roman army. Constantius belonged to one of the leading families of -Moesia and his mother was a niece of the capable and soldierly Claudius, -the conqueror of the Goths. Claudius had only been dead four years when -Constantine was born, and we may suppose that it was his influence which -had set Constantius in the way of rapid promotion. He had formed one of -those secondary marriages which were recognised by Roman law, when the -wife was not of the same social standing as the husband. Helena is said -to have been the daughter of an innkeeper of Drepanum, and Constantine’s -enemies lost no opportunity of dwelling upon the obscurity of his -ancestry upon his mother’s side. But that he was born in wedlock is -beyond question. Had the relationship between Constantius and Helena -been an irregular one, there would have been no need for Maximian to -insist on a divorce when he ratified Constantius’s elevation to the -purple by giving him the hand of his daughter, Theodora. - -Of Constantine’s early years we know nothing, though we may suppose that -they were spent in the eastern half of the Empire. Constantius served -with the eastern legions in the campaigns which preceded the accession -of Diocletian in 284, and it is as a young officer in the entourage of -that Emperor that Constantine makes his earliest appearance in history. -Eusebius tells us[18] that he first saw the future champion of -Christianity in the train of Diocletian during one of the latter’s -visits to Palestine. He recalls his vivid remembrance of the young -Prince standing at the Emperor’s right hand and attracting the gaze of -all beholders by the beauty of his person and the imposing air which -betokened his consciousness of having been born to rule. Eusebius adds -that while Constantine’s physical strength extorted the respectful -admiration of his younger associates, his remarkable qualities of -prudence and wisdom aroused the jealousy and excited the apprehensions -of his chiefs. However, the recollections of the Bishop of Cæsarea, with -half a century of interval, are somewhat suspect, and we need see no -more than a high-spirited, handsome, and keen-witted Prince in -Eusebius’s “paragon of bodily strength, physical beauty, and mental -distinction.” As for Diocletian’s jealous fears, they are best refuted -by the fact that Constantine was promoted to be a tribune of the first -rank and saw considerable military service. The foolish stories that his -superiors set him to fight a gigantic Sarmatian in single combat, and -dared him to contend against ferocious wild beasts, in the hope that his -pride and courage might be his undoing, may be dismissed as childish. If -Diocletian had feared Constantine, Constantine would never have survived -his residence in the palace. - ------ - -Footnote 18: - - _De Vita Const._, i., 19. - ------ - -It is certainly remarkable that we should know so little, not only of -the youth but of the early manhood of Constantine, who was at least in -his thirty-first year when Diocletian retired into private life. Why had -he spent all those years in the East instead of sharing with his father -the dangers and glories of his Gallic and British campaigns? The answer -is doubtless to be found in the fact that it was no part of Diocletian’s -system for the son to succeed the father. Constantius’s loyalty was -never in doubt, but Constantine, if Zosimus[19] can be trusted, had -already given evidence of consuming ambition to rule. However that may -be, it is obvious that his position became much more hazardous when -Galerius succeeded Diocletian as supreme ruler in the palace of -Nicomedia. One can understand Galerius wondering whether the capable -young Prince, who slept under his roof, was destined to cross his path, -and the anxiety of Constantius, conscious of declining strength, that -his long-absent son should join him. Constantine himself might well be -uneasy, and scheme to quit a place where he could not hope to satisfy -his natural ambitions. We need not doubt, therefore, that Constantius -repeatedly sent messages to Galerius asking that his son might come to -him, or that the son was eager to comply. - ------ - -Footnote 19: - - Zosimus, ii., 8. περιφανὴς γὰρ ἦν ἤδη πολλοῖς ὁ κατέχων ὰυτὸυ ἔρως τῆς - βασιλέιας. - ------ - -Lactantius,[20] who does his best to make history romantic and exciting, -describes the eventual escape of Constantine in one of his most graphic -chapters. He shows us Galerius in his palace reluctantly signing an -order which authorised Constantine to travel post across the Continent -of Europe. He only consented to do so, we are told, because he could -find no pretext for further delay, and he gave the order to Constantine -late in the afternoon, on the understanding that he should see him again -in the morning to receive his final instructions. Yet all the time, says -Lactantius, Galerius was scheming to find some excuse for keeping him in -Nicomedia, or contemplated sending a message to Severus, asking him to -delay Constantine when he reached the border of northern Italy. Galerius -then took dinner, retired for the night, and slept so well and -deliberately that he did not wake until the following midday (_Cum -consulto ad medium diem usque dormisset_). He then sent for Constantine -to come to his apartment. But Constantine was already gone, scouring the -roads as fast as the post horses could carry him, and so anxious to -increase the distance between himself and Galerius that he caused the -tired beasts to be hamstrung at every stage. He had waited for Galerius -to retire and had then slipped away, lest the Emperor should change his -mind. Galerius was furious when he found that he had been outwitted. He -ordered pursuit. His servants came back to tell him that the fugitive -had swept the stables clear of horses. And then Galerius could scarce -restrain his tears (_Vix lacrimas tenebat_). - ------ - -Footnote 20: - - _De Mort. Persec._, c. 24. - ------ - -It is a story which does infinite credit to Lactanius’s feeling for -strong melodramatic situation. No picturesque detail is omitted—the -setting sun, the tyrant plotting vengeance over dinner, his resolve to -sleep long, his baffled triumph, the escaping hero, and the butchery of -the horses. Yet we question if there is more than a shred of truth in -the whole story. Galerius would not have given Constantine the sealed -order overnight had he intended to take it back the next morning. A word -to the officer of the watch in the palace and to the officer on duty at -the city gate would have prevented Constantine from quitting Nicomedia. -The imperial post service must have been very much underhorsed if the -Emperor’s servants could not find mounts for the effective pursuit of a -single fugitive. Galerius may very well have been unwilling for -Constantine to go, and Constantine doubtless covered the early stages of -his long journey at express speed, in order to minimise the chance of -recall, but the lurid details of Lactantius are probably simply the -outcome of his own lively imagination. - -Constantine seems to have found his father at the port of Gessoriacum -(Boulogne), just waiting for a favourable wind to carry him across the -Channel into Britain. Constantius was ill, and welcomed with great joy -the son whom he had not seen for many years. We do not know what time -elapsed before Constantius died at York,—apparently it was after the -conclusion of a campaign in Scotland,—but before he died he commended to -Constantine the welfare of his young half-brothers and half-sisters, the -eldest of whom was no more than thirteen years of age, and he also -evidently commended Constantine himself to the loyalty of his legions. -The Emperor, we are informed both by Lactantius and by the author of the -Seventh Panegyric, died with a mind at rest because he was sure of his -heir and successor—Jupiter himself, says the pagan orator,[21] stretched -out his right hand and welcomed him among the gods. Clearly, the ground -had been well prepared, for no sooner was the breath out of -Constantius’s body than the troops saluted Constantine with the title of -Augustus. Aurelius Victor adds the interesting detail that he had no -stouter supporter than Erocus, a Germanic King, who was serving as an -auxiliary in the Roman army. Constantine was nothing loth, though, as -usual in such circumstances, he may have feigned a reluctance which he -did not feel. His panegyrist, indeed, represents him as putting spurs to -his horse to enable him to shake off the robe which the soldiers sought -to throw over his shoulders, and suggests that it had been Constantine’s -intention to write “to the senior Princes” and consult their wishes as -to the choice of a successor. Had he done so, he knew very well that -Galerius would have sent over to Britain some trusted lieutenant of his -own to take command and Constantine would have received peremptory -orders to return. Instead of that, Constantine assumed the insignia of -an Emperor, and wrote to Galerius announcing his elevation. Galerius, it -is said, hesitated long as to the course he should adopt. That the news -angered him we may be sure. Apart from all personal considerations, this -choice of an Emperor by an army on active service was a return to the -bad old days of military rule, from which Diocletian had rescued the -Empire, and was a clear warning that the new system had not been -established on a permanent basis. The only alternative, however, before -Galerius was acceptance or war. For the latter he was hardly prepared, -and moreover, there was no reply to the argument that Constantius had -been senior Augustus, and, therefore, had been fully entitled to have -his word in the appointment of a successor. Galerius gave way. He -accepted the laurelled bust which Constantine had sent to him and, -instead of throwing it into the fire with the officer who had brought -it—which, according to Lactantius, had been his first impulse,--he sent -the messenger back with a purple robe to his master as a sign that he -frankly admitted his claims to partnership in the Empire. - ------ - -Footnote 21: - - _Pan. Vet._, vii., 7. - ------ - -But while he acknowledged Constantine as Cæsar, he refused him the full -title of Augustus, which he bestowed upon the Cæsar Severus. This has -been represented as an act of petty spite. In reality, it was simply the -automatic working of the system of Diocletian. The latest winner of -imperial dignity naturally took the fourth place. Constantine accepted -the check without demur. He had not spent so many years by the side of -Diocletian and Galerius without discovering that if it came to war, it -was the master of the best army who was sure to be the winner and -survivor, whether his title were Cæsar or Augustus. Thus, in July, 306, -Constantine commenced his eventful reign as the Cæsar of the West, -overlord of Gaul, Spain, and Britain, and commander of the Army of the -Rhine, and, for the next six years, down to his invasion of Italy in -312, he spent most of his time in the Gallic provinces, where he gained -the reputation of being a capable soldier and a generous Prince. - -Gaul was slowly recovering from chaos and ruin. During the anarchy which -had preceded the accession of Diocletian, she had lain at the mercy of -the Germanic tribes across the Rhine. The Roman watch on the river had -been almost abandoned; the legions and the garrisons had been so -weakened as to be powerless to keep the invader in check. The Gallic -provinces were, in the striking words of the Panegyrist, “maddened by -their injuries of the years gone by.”[22] The result had been the -peasant rising of the Bagaudæ, ruthlessly suppressed by Maximian in 285, -but the desperate condition of the country may be inferred from the fact -that Diocletian and Maximian felt compelled to recognise the pretensions -of Carausius in the province of Britain, which, for some years, was -practically severed from the Empire. And, moreover, the peace of Gaul, -which Maximian laboriously restored, was punctuated by invasion from the -Germans across the Rhine. In the Panegyric of Mamertinus there occurs a -curious passage, which shows with what eyes the Romans regarded that -river. The orator is eulogising Maximian in his most fulsome strain for -restoring tranquillity, and then says: “Was there ever an Emperor before -our day who did not congratulate himself that the Gallic provinces were -protected by the Rhine? When did the Rhine shrink in its channel after a -long spell of fine weather without making us shiver with fear? When did -it ever swell to a flood without giving us an extra sense of -security?”[23] In other words, the danger of invasion rose and fell with -the rising and falling of the Rhine. But now, continues the Panegyrist, -“thanks thanks to Maximian, all our fears are gone. The Rhine may dry up -and shrink until it can scarce roll the smooth pebbles in its limpid -shallows, and none will be afraid. As far as I can see beyond the Rhine, -all is Roman” (_Quicquid ultra Rhenum prospicio, Romanum est_). Rarely -has a court rhetorician uttered a more audacious lie. - ------ - -Footnote 22: - - _Gallias priorum temporum injuriis efferatas_, _Pan._, vi., 8. - -Footnote 23: - - _Pan. Vet._, ii., 7. - ------ - -There was no quality of permanence in the Gallic peace. Constantius took -advantage of a temporary lull to recover Britain, but in 301 he was -again fighting the invading Germans and Franks, winning victories which -had to be repeated in the following summer, and making good the dearth -of labourers on the devastated lands of Gaul by the captives he had -taken in battle. There is a remarkable passage in the Fifth Panegyric in -which the author refers to the long columns of captives which he had -seen on the march in Gaul, men, women, and children on their way to the -desert regions assigned to them, there to bring back to fertility by -their labour as slaves the very countryside which in their freedom they -had pillaged and laid waste. He recalled the familiar sight of these -savage barbarians tamed to surprising quiescence, and waiting in the -public places of the Æduan cities until they were told off to their new -masters. Gaul had suffered so long from these roving ruffians from over -the Rhine that the orator broke out into a pæan of exultation at the -thought that the once dreaded Chamavan or Frisian now tilled his estates -for him, and that the vagabond freebooter had become an agricultural -labourer, who drove his stock to the Gallic markets and cheapened the -price of commodities by increasing the sources of supply. - -Full allowance must be made for exaggeration. The tribes, which are -described as having been extirpated, reappear later on in the same -numbers as before, and there was security only so long as the Emperor -and his legions were on the spot. When Constantius crossed to Britain on -the expedition which terminated with his death, the Franks took -advantage of his absence to “violate the peace.”[24] The words would -seem to imply that there had been a treaty between Constantius and the -Kings Ascaricus and Regaisus. They crossed the Rhine and Constantine, -the new Cæsar, hastened back from Britain to confront them. Where the -battle took place is not known, but both Kings were captured and, -together with a multitude of their followers, flung to the wild beasts -in the amphitheatre at Treves. Constantine, who prided himself upon his -clemency to a Roman foe, whose sensitive soul was harrowed when even a -wicked enemy perished,[25] inflicted a fearful punishment. - - “Those slain in battle were beyond numbers; very many more were taken - prisoners. All their flocks were carried off or butchered; all their - villages burnt with fire; all their young men, who were too - treacherous to be admitted into the Roman army, and too brutal to act - as slaves, were thrown to the wild beasts, and fatigued the ravening - creatures because there were so many of them to kill.”[26] - ------ - -Footnote 24: - - _Pan._, vii., 10. - -Footnote 25: - - _Gravate apud animum tuum etiam mali pereunt._—_Pan._, x., 8. - -Footnote 26: - - _Pan._, vii., 12. - ------ - -Those atrocious sentences—written in praise, not in -condemnation—assuredly throw some light upon the “perpetual hatreds and -inextinguishable rage”[27] of the Franks. The common herd, says the -rhetorician, may be slaughtered by the hundred without their becoming -aware of the slaughter; it saves time and trouble to slay the leaders of -an enemy whom you wish to conquer.[28] The effect for the moment was -decisive, even if we refuse to believe that the castles and strong -places, set at intervals along the banks of the Rhine, were henceforth -regarded rather as ornaments to the frontier than as a source of -protection. The bridge, too, which Constantine built at Cologne, was -likewise built for business and not, as the orator suggests, for the -glory of the Empire and the beauty of the landscape. When we read of the -war galleys, which ceaselessly patrolled the waters of the Rhine, and of -the soldiery stationed along its banks from source to mouth,[29] we may -judge how anxiously the watch was kept, how nervously alert the Cæsar or -Augustus of the West required to be to guard the frontier, and how -profound a respect he entertained for the free German whom he called -barbarian. - ------ - -Footnote 27: - - _Odia perpetua et inexpiabiles iras._ - -Footnote 28: - - _Compendium est devincendorum hostium duces sustulisse._—_Pan._, vii., - 11. - -Footnote 29: - - _Pan._, vii., 13. - ------ - -[Illustration] - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - -[Illustration] - - - - - CHAPTER IV - CONSTANTINE AND HIS COLLEAGUES - - -While Constantine thus peacefully succeeded his father in the command of -Gaul, Spain, and Britain, Italy was the scene of continued disturbance -and of a successful usurpation. We have seen how Severus, an officer of -the eastern army and a trusted friend of Galerius, had been chosen to -take over the command which Maximian so unwillingly laid down at Milan. -He was proclaimed Cæsar, with Italy and Africa for his portion, and the -administration passed into his hands. But he preferred, apparently, to -remain on the Illyrian border rather than shew himself in Rome, and, in -his absence, Maxentius, a son of Maximian, took the opportunity of -claiming the heritage of which he considered himself to have been -robbed. - -No single historian has had a good word to say for Maxentius, who is -described by Lactantius as “a man of depraved mind, so consumed with -pride and stubbornness that he paid no deference or respect either to -his father or his father-in-law and was in consequence hated by -both.”[30] He had married a daughter of Galerius, but had been thrust on -one side at the choosing of the new Cæsars, and Severus and Maximin Daza -had been preferred to him. He owed his elevation to the purple to a -successful mutiny on the part of the Prætorians at Rome, and to the -general discontent of the Roman population. It is evident that Rome -watched with anger and jealousy the loss of her old exclusive and -imperial position. The Emperors no longer resided on the Palatine, and -ignored and disdained the city on the Tiber. Diocletian had preferred -Nicomedia; Maximian had fixed his Court at Milan. The imperial trappings -at Rome were becoming a mockery. When, in addition to neglect, it was -ordered that Italy should no longer be exempt from the census, and that -the sacred Saturnian soil should submit to the exactions of the -tax-gatherer, public opinion was ripe for revolt. - ------ - -Footnote 30: - - _De Mort. Persec._, c. 18. - ------ - -Lactantius affects to see in the extension of the census to Rome a -crowning example of Galerius’s rapacity. He speaks of the Emperor -“devouring the whole world,” and declares that his madness carried him -to such outrageous lengths that he would not suffer even the Roman -people to escape bondage. But Galerius was thoroughly justified in the -step he took. The immunity of Rome from taxation had been a monstrous -piece of fiscal injustice to the rest of the world, designed merely to -flatter the pride and purse of the Roman citizen. Galerius, moreover, -had disbanded some of the Prætorians—who were at once the Household -Troops and the permanent garrison of the capital; but now that the -Emperor and the Court had quitted Rome, their _raison d’être_ was gone. -The vast expenditure on their pay and their barracks was money thrown -away. Galerius, therefore, abolished the Prætorian camps. Such an act -would give clear warning that the absence of the Emperors was not merely -temporary, but permanent, that the shifting of the capital had been due -not merely to personal predilections, but to abiding political reasons. - -That the Prætorians themselves received the order with sullen anger may -well be understood. For three centuries they had been the _corps -d’élite_ of the Roman army, enjoying special pay and special advantages. -They had made and unmade Emperors. They had repeatedly held the fortunes -of the Empire in their hands. The traditions of their regiments fostered -pride and arrogance, for they had seen little active service in their -long history, and the severest conflicts they had had to face were -tumults in the imperial city. Now their privileges were destroyed by a -stroke of the pen, and needing but little instigation to rebellion, they -offered the purple to Maxentius, who gladly accepted it. Nor, it is -said, were the people unfavourable to his cause, for Maxentius’s agents -had already been busy among them, and so, after Abellius, the præfect of -the city, had been murdered, Maxentius made himself master of Rome -without a struggle. His position, however, was very precarious. He had -practically no army and he knew that neither Galerius nor Severus would -recognise his pretensions. The latter had already taken over the command -of the armies of Maximian, and was the nominee of Galerius, who at once -incited his colleague to march upon Rome. Maxentius saw that his only -chance of success was to corrupt his father’s old legions, and with this -object in view he sent a purple robe to Maximian, urging him to resume -his place and title of Augustus. Maximian agreed with alacrity. He had -been spending his enforced leisure not in amateur gardening and -contentment, like his colleague at Salona, but in his Campanian villa, -chafing at his lost dignity. Hence he eagerly responded to the summons -of his son and resumed the purple, not so much as Maxentius’s supporter, -but as the senior acting Augustus. - -Severus marched straight down the Italian peninsula and laid siege to -Rome, only to find himself deserted by his soldiers. According to -Zosimus, the troops which first played him false were a Moorish -contingent fresh from Africa. Then, when the treachery spread, Severus -hastily retired on Ravenna, where he could maintain touch with Galerius -in Illyria, and was there besieged by Maximian and Maxentius. Doubtless, -if he had waited, Galerius would have sent him reinforcements or come in -person to his assistance, for his own prestige was deeply involved in -that of Severus. But the latter seems to have allowed himself to be -enticed out of his strong refuge by the plausible overtures of his -rivals. He set out for Rome, prepared to resign the throne on condition -of receiving honourable treatment, but on reaching a spot named “The -Three Taverns,” on the Appian Road, he was seized and thrown into -chains. The only consideration he received from his captors was that -they allowed him to choose his own way of relieving them of his -presence. He opened his veins. So gentle a death in those violent times -was considered “good.”[31] - ------ - -Footnote 31: - - _Nihil aliud impetravit nisi bonam mortem._—_De Mort. Persec._, c. 26. - ------ - -This victory over Severus, gained with such astonishing ease, speaks -well for the popularity of Maximian with his old soldiers. Galerius -prepared to avenge the defeat and murder of his friend and invaded Italy -at the head of a large army. He too, like Severus, marched down the -peninsula, but he got no nearer to Rome than Narnia, sixty miles -distant. There he halted, despite the fact that no opposition was being -offered to his advance. Why? The reason is undoubtedly to be found in -the attitude of Constantine, who had mobilised his army upon the Gallic -frontier and was waiting on events. There was no love lost between -Constantine and Galerius. If Constantine crossed the Alps and followed -down on the track of Galerius, the latter would find himself between two -fires. Galerius is represented by Zosimus as being suspicious of the -loyalty of his troops; it is more probable that he decided to retreat as -soon as he heard that Constantine had thrown in his lot with Maximian -and Maxentius. Maximian had been sedulously trying to secure alliances -for himself and his son. He had made overtures to the recluse of Salona. -But Diocletian had turned a deaf ear. Even if he had hankered after -power again, he would hardly have declared himself in opposition to the -ruler of Illyria, while he was dwelling within reach of Galerius. With -Constantine, however, Maximian had better success. He gave him his -daughter Fausta in marriage and incited him to attack Galerius, who at -once drew his troops off into Illyria, after laying waste the -Transpadane region with fire and sword. - -[Illustration: THE GOLDEN GATE OF DIOCLETIAN’S PALACE AT SALONA -(SPALATO).] - -Some very curious stories are told in connection with this expedition of -Galerius. Lactantius declares that he invaded Italy with the intention -of extinguishing the Senate and butchering the people of Rome; that he -found the gates of all the cities shut against him; and discovered that -he had not brought sufficient troops with him to attempt a siege of the -capital. “He had never seen Rome,” says Lactantius naïvely, “and thought -it was not much bigger than the cities with which he was familiar.” -Galerius was, it is true, a rough soldier of the camp, but it is -ludicrous to suppose that he was not fully cognisant of the topography -and the fortifications of Rome. Then we are told that some of the -legions were afflicted with scruples at the idea of being called to -fight for a father-in-law against his son-in-law—as though there were -prohibited degrees in hatreds—and shrank as Roman soldiers from the -thought of moving to the assault of Rome. And, as a finishing touch to -this most extraordinary canvas, Lactantius paints into it the figure of -Galerius kneeling at the feet of his soldiers, praying them not to -betray him, and offering them large rewards. We do not recognise -Galerius in such a guise. Again, an unknown historian, of whose work -only a few fragments survive, says that when Galerius reached Narnia he -opened communications with Maximian and proposed to treat for peace, but -that his overtures were contemptuously spurned. This does not violate -the probabilities like the reckless malevolence of Lactantius, but, -after all, the simplest explanation is the one which we have given -above. Galerius halted and then retired when he heard that Constantine -had come to an understanding with Maximian, had married his daughter, -and was waiting and watching on the Gallic border. No pursuit seems to -have been attempted. - -Maximian and Maxentius were thus left in undisputed possession of Italy. -They were clearly in alliance with Constantine, but their relations with -one another were exceedingly anomalous. Both are represented in equally -odious colours. Eutropius describes the father as “embittered and -brutal, faithless, troublesome, and utterly devoid of good manners”; -Aurelius Victor says of the son that no one ever liked him, not even his -own father. Indeed, the scandal-mongers of the day denied the parentage -of Maxentius and said that he was the son of some low-born Syrian and -had been foisted upon Maximian by his wife as her own child. Public -opinion, however, was inclined to throw the blame of the rupture, which -speedily took place between Maximian and Maxentius, upon the older man, -who is depicted as a restless and mischievous intriguer. In Rome, at any -rate, the army looked to the son as its chief, and as there was but one -army, there was no room for two Emperors. Lactantius tells the story -that Maximian called a great mass meeting of citizens and soldiers, -dilated at length upon the evils of the situation, and then, turning to -his son, declared that he was the cause of all the trouble and snatched -the purple from his shoulders. But Maximian had the mortification of -seeing Maxentius sheltered instead of slaughtered by the soldiers, and -it was he himself who was driven with ignominy from the city, like a -second Tarquin the Proud. - -[Illustration: - - BUST OF MAXIMIAN AT ROME. - PHOTOGRAPH BY ALINARI. -] - -Whether these circumstantial details are to be accepted or not, there is -no doubt as to the sequel. Maximian was expelled from Rome and Italy, -and began a series of wanderings which were only to end with his death. -He seems first of all to have fled into Gaul and thrown himself upon the -protection of his son-in-law, Constantine, and then to have opened up -negotiations with Galerius, who must naturally have desired to establish -some _modus vivendi_ between all the rival Emperors. Galerius called a -conference at Carnuntum on the Danube and invited the presence of -Diocletian. Maximian was there; so too was Licinius, an old -companion-in-arms of Galerius and his most trusted lieutenant. Of the -debates which took place no word has survived. But the fact that -Diocletian was invited to attend is clear proof that Galerius regarded -him with the profound respect that was due to the senior Augustus and -the founder of the system which had broken down so badly. Galerius -wished the old man to suggest a way out of the _impasse_ which had been -reached, to devise some plan whereby his dilapidated fabric might still -be patched up. Even in his retirement the practical wisdom of Diocletian -was gladly recognised, and three years later we find one of the -Panegyrists sounding his praises in the presence of Constantine. This -shews that Diocletian and Constantine were on friendly terms, else -Diocletian would only have been mentioned with abuse, or would have been -passed over in significant silence. The passage deserves quotation: - - “That divine statesman, who was the first to share his Empire with - others and the first to lay it down, does not regret the step he took, - nor thinks that he has lost what he voluntarily resigned; nay, he is - truly blessed and happy, since, even in his retirement, such mighty - Princes as you offer him the protection of your deep respect. He is - upheld by a multiplicity of Empires; he rejoices in the cover of your - shade.”[32] - ------ - -Footnote 32: - - _Sed et ille multijugo fultus imperio et vestro lætus tegitur - umbraculo._—_Pan. Vet._, vii., 15. - ------ - -Diocletian would not have been called to Carnuntum, or, if called, he -would scarcely have undertaken so tedious a journey, had there not been -affairs of the highest moment to be discussed. We know of only one -certain result of this strange council of Emperors. It is that a new -Augustus was created by Galerius without passing through the -intermediate stage of being a Cæsar. He was found in Licinius, to whom -was assigned the administration of Illyria with the command of the -Danubian legions, and the status of second rank in the hierarchy of the -Augusti, or rather of the Augusti in active life. Galerius, we may -infer, was sensible of the approaching breakdown of his health and -wished his friend Licinius to be ready to step into his place. -Apparently, a genuine attempt was made to restore to something like its -old position the system of Diocletian. Perhaps as reasonable a -supposition as any is that it was decided at the conference that -Diocletian and Maximian should again be relegated to the ranks of -retired Augusti, that Galerius and Licinius should be the two active -Augusti, and Constantine and Maximin the two Cæsars. Maximian had -unquestionably gone to Carnuntum with the hope of fishing in troubled -waters and Lactantius[33] even attributes to him a wild scheme for -assassinating Galerius. It is, at any rate, certain that he left the -conference in a fury of disappointment. The ambitious and restless old -man had received no encouragement to his hopes of again being supreme -over part of the Empire. - ------ - -Footnote 33: - - _De Mort. Persec._, c. 29. - ------ - -But what then of Maxentius, who was in possession of Italy and Africa? -If the theory we have propounded be right, he must have been studiously -ignored and treated as a usurper, to be thrown out—just as Carausius had -been—at a favourable opportunity. There is a passage in Lactantius which -seems to corroborate this suggestion. That author says that Maximin -Daza, the Cæsar of Egypt and Syria and the old protégé of Galerius, -heard with anger that Licinius had been promoted over his head to be -Augustus and hold the second place in the charmed circle of Emperors. He -sent angry remonstrances; Galerius returned a soft answer. Maximin an -even more aggressive bearing (_tollit audacius cornua_), urged more -peremptorily than ever his superior right, and spurned Galerius’s -entreaties and commands. Then,—Lactantius goes on to say,—overborne by -Maximin’s stubborn obstinacy, Galerius offered a compromise, by naming -himself and Licinius as Augusti and Maximin and Constantine as Sons of -the Augusti, instead of simple Cæsars. - -But Maximin was obdurate and wrote saying that his soldiers had taken -the law into their own hands and had already saluted him as Augustus. -Galerius therefore, in the face of the accomplished fact, gave way and -recognised not only Maximin but Constantine also as full Augusti. Such -is the story of Lactantius. It will be noted that the name of Maxentius -is not mentioned. He is treated as non-existent. There need be no -surprise that nothing is said of Diocletian and Maximian, for they were -ex-Augusti, so to speak, though still bearing the courtesy title. But if -Maxentius had been recognised as one of the “Imperial Brothers” at the -conference of Carnuntum, the omission of his name by Lactantius is -exceedingly strange. From his account we should judge that the policy -decided upon at Carnuntum was to restore the fourfold system of -Diocletian in the persons of Galerius, Licinius, Maximin, and -Constantine, taking precedence in the order named. When Maximin refused -to be content with his old title of Cæsar or to accept the new one of -Son of Augustus, and insisted on being acknowledged as Augustus, the -system broke down anew. At the beginning of 308, there were no fewer -than seven who bore the name of Augustus. And of these Diocletian alone -had outlived his ambitions. - -Maximian returned to Gaul, where he received cordial welcome from -Constantine. He had resigned his pretensions not—as says Lactantius, -cognisant as ever of the secret motives of his enemies—that he might the -more easily deceive Constantine, but because it had been so decided at -Carnuntum. He was thus a private citizen once more; he had neither army, -nor official status, nothing beyond the prestige attaching to one who -had, so to speak, “passed the chair.” There can be little doubt that his -second resignation was as reluctant as the first, but as he was at open -enmity with his son, Maxentius, he had only Constantine to look to for -protection and the means of livelihood. And Constantine, according to -the author of the Seventh Panegyric, gave him all the honours due to his -exalted rank. He assigned to him the place of honour on his right hand; -put at his disposal the stables of the palace; and ordered his servants -to pay to Maximian the same deference that they paid to himself. The -orator declares that the gossip of the day spoke of Constantine as -wearing the robe of office, while Maximian wielded its powers. Evidently -Constantine had no fear that Maximian would play him false. - -His confidence, however, soon received a rude shock. The Franks were -restless and threatened invasion. Constantine marched north with his -army, leaving Maximian at Arles. He did not take his entire forces with -him, for a considerable number remained in the south of Gaul—no doubt to -guard the frontier against danger from Maxentius, though Lactantius -explains it otherwise. Maximian waited till sufficient time had elapsed -for Constantine to be well across the Rhine, and then began to spread -rumours of his having been defeated and slain in battle. For the third -time, therefore, he assumed the purple, seized the State treasuries, and -took command of the legions, offering them a large donative, and -appealing to their old loyalty. The usurpation was entirely successful -for the moment, but when Constantine heard of the treachery he hurried -back, leaving the affairs of the frontier to settle themselves. - -Constantine knew the military value of mobility, and his soldiers -eagerly made his quarrel their own. There is an amusing passage in the -Seventh Panegyric[34] in which the orator says that the troops shewed -their devotion by refusing the offer of special travelling-money -(_viatica_) on the ground that it would hamper them on the march. Their -generous pay, they said, was more than sufficient, though no Roman army -before this time had ever been known to refuse money. Then he describes -how they marched from the Rhine to the Aar without rest, yet with -unwearied bodies; how at Chalons (Cabillonum) they were placed on board -river boats, but found the current too sluggish for their impetuous -eagerness to come to conclusions with the traitor, and cried out that -they were standing still; and how, even when they entered the rapid -current of the Rhone, its pace scarcely satisfied their ardour. Such, -according to the Court rhetorician, was the enthusiasm of the soldiers -for their young leader. When, at length, Arles was reached, it was found -that Maximian had fled to Marseilles and had shut himself up within that -strongly fortified town. His power had crumbled away. The legions, which -had sworn allegiance to him, withdrew it again as soon as they found -that he had lied to them of Constantine’s death; even the soldiers he -had with him in Marseilles only waited for the appearance of Constantine -before the walls to open the gates. The picture which Lactantius draws -of Constantine reproaching Maximian for his ingratitude while the -latter—from the summit of the wall—heaps curses on his head (_ingerebat -maledicta de muris_), or the companion picture of the anonymous -rhetorician, who shews us the scaling ladders falling short of the top -of the battlements and the devoted soldiers climbing up on their -comrades’ backs, are vivid but unconvincing. What emerges from their -doubtful narratives is that Marseilles was captured without a siege, and -that Maximian fell into the hands of his justly angry son-in-law, who -stripped him of his titles but vouchsafed to him his life. - ------ - -Footnote 34: - - C. 18. - ------ - -Was Maximian in league with his son, Maxentius, in this usurpation? Had -they made up their old quarrel in order to turn their united weapons -against Constantine? There were those who thought so at the time, as -Lactantius says,[35] the theory being that the old man only pretended -violent enmity towards his son in order to carry out his treacherous -designs against Constantine and the other Emperors. - ------ - -Footnote 35: - - _De Mort. Persec._, c. 43. - ------ - -Lactantius himself denies this supposition bluntly (_Sed id falsum -fuit_) and then goes on to say[36] that Maximian’s real motive was to -get rid both of Maxentius and the rest, and restore Diocletian and -himself to power. Even for Lactantius, this is an extraordinarily wild -theory. It runs counter to all that we know of Diocletian’s wishes -during his retirement, and it speaks of the “extinction of Maxentius and -the rest” as though it only needed an order to a centurion and the deed -was done. It is much more probable that Maximian had actually re-entered -into negotiations with Maxentius and had offered, as the price of -reconciliation, the support of the legions which he had treacherously -won from Constantine. The impetuous haste with which Constantine flew -back from the Rhine indicates that the crisis was one of extreme -gravity. - ------ - -Footnote 36: - - _Nam id propositi habebat, ut et filio et ceteris extinctis se ac - Diocletianum restitueret in regnum._ - ------ - -Maximian did not long survive his degradation. That he died a violent -death is certain; the circumstances attending it are in doubt. -Lactantius gives a minute narrative which would carry greater conviction -if the details had not been so manifestly borrowed from the chronicles -of the East. He says that Maximian, tiring of his humiliating position, -engaged in new plots against Constantine, and tempted Fausta, his -daughter, to betray her husband by the promise of a worthier spouse. Her -part in the conspiracy was to secure the removal of the guards from -Constantine’s sleeping apartment. Fausta laid the whole scheme before -her husband, who ordered one of his eunuchs to sleep in the royal -chamber. Maximian, rising in the dead of night, told the sentries that -he had dreamed an important dream which he wished at once to communicate -to his son-in-law and thus gained entrance to the room. Drawing his -sword, he cut off the eunuch’s head and rushed out boasting that he had -slain Constantine—only to be confronted by Constantine himself at the -head of a troop of armed men. The corpse was brought out; the -self-convicted murderer stood “speechless as Marpesian flint.” -Constantine upbraided him with his treachery, gave him permission to -choose his own mode of dying, and Maximian hanged himself, “drawing”—as -Virgil had said—“from the lofty beam the noose of shameful death.” - -[Illustration: - - FRAGMENT OF 4TH CENTURY EGYPTIAN POTTERY BOWL - SHOWING AN EARLY PORTRAIT OF CHRIST, WITH BUSTS OF THE EMPEROR - CONSTANTINE - AND THE EMPRESS FAUSTA. (FROM THE BRITISH MUSEUM.) -] - -Such is the story of Lactantius; it could scarcely be more -circumstantial. But if this had been the manner of Maximian’s death, it -is hardly possible that the other historians would have passed it by in -silence. Eusebius, in his _Ecclesiastical History_, simply says that -Maximian strangled himself; Aurelius Victor that he justly perished -(_jure perierat_). The author of the Seventh Panegyric declares that, -though Constantine offered him his life, Maximian deemed himself -unworthy of the boon and committed suicide.[37] Eutropius, evidently -borrowing from Lactantius, remarks that Maximian paid the penalty for -his crimes. There is little doubt, therefore, that Constantine ordered -his execution and gave him choice of death, just as Maxentius had given -similar choice to Severus. Officially it would be announced that -Maximian had committed suicide. At the time, public opinion was shocked -by the manner of his death, though it was generally conceded that his -life was justly forfeit. - ------ - -Footnote 37: - - _Nec se dignum vita judicavit, cum per te liceret ut viveret._—_Pan. - Vet._, vii., 20. - ------ - -[Illustration] - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - -[Illustration] - - - - - CHAPTER V - THE INVASION OF ITALY - - -The tragic end of his old colleague must have raised many disquieting -thoughts in the mind of Diocletian, already beginning to be anxious lest -his successors should think that he was living too long. While Galerius -flourished he was sure of a protector, but Galerius died in 311. In the -eighteenth year of his rule he had been stricken with an incurable and -loathsome malady, into the details of which Lactantius enters with a -morbid but lively enjoyment, affecting to see in the torture of the -dying Emperor the visitation of an angry Providence. He describes -minutely the progress of the cancer and the “appalling odour of the -festering wound which spread not only through the palace but through the -city.” He shews us the unhappy patient raising piercing cries and -calling for mercy from the God of the Christians whom he had persecuted, -vowing under the stress of physical anguish that he would make -reparation; and, finally, when at the very point of death (_jam -deficiens_), dictating the edict which stayed the persecution and gave -the Christians full liberty to worship in their own way. It will be more -convenient to discuss in another place this remarkable document, the -forerunner, so to speak, of the famous Edict of Milan. It was -promulgated at Nicomedia on the thirtieth of April, 311, and a few days -later Galerius’s torments were mercifully ended by death. - -The death of Galerius gave another blow to the already tottering system -of Diocletian. It had been his intention to retire, as Diocletian had -done, at the end of his twentieth year of sovereignty, and make way for -a younger man, and there can be little doubt that he would have been as -good as his word. Galerius has not received fair treatment at the hands -of posterity. Lactantius, his bitter enemy, describes him as a violent -ruffian and a hectoring bully, an object of terror and fear to all -around him in word, deed, and aspect. Lactantius belittles the -importance of his victory over Narses, the Persian King, by saying that -the Persian army marched encumbered with baggage and that victory was -easily won. He makes Galerius the leading spirit of the Persecution; -represents him as having goaded Diocletian into signing the fatal -edicts; accuses him of having fired the palace at Nicomedia in order to -work on the terrors of his chief; charges him with having invented new -and horrible tortures; and declares that he never dined or supped -without whetting his appetite with the sight of human blood. No one -would gather from Lactantius that Galerius was a fine soldier, a -hard-working and capable Emperor, and a loyal successor to a great -political chief. Eutropius does him no more than justice when he -describes him as a man of high principle and a consummate general.[38] -Aurelius Victor fills in the light and shade. Galerius was, he says, a -Prince worthy of all praise; just if unpolished and untutored; of -handsome presence; and an accomplished and fortunate general. He had -risen from the ranks; in his young days he had been a herd boy, and the -name of _Armentarius_ clung to him through life. This rough and ready -Pannonian spent too energetic and busy a career to have time for -culture. He came from a province where, in the forceful phrase of one of -the Panegyrists, “life was all hard knocks and fighting.”[39] - ------ - -Footnote 38: - - _Vir et probe moratus et egregius re militari._ - -Footnote 39: - - _In quibus omnis vita militia est._ - ------ - -Galerius had already nominated Licinius as his successor, but Licinius -was far away in Pannonia and did not cross over at once into Asia to -take command of Galerius’s army—no doubt because it was not safe for him -to leave his post. In the meantime, Maximin Daza, the Augustus of Syria -and Egypt, had been preparing to march on Nicomedia as soon as Galerius -breathed his last, for he claimed, as we have seen, that by seniority of -rule he had a better right than Licinius to the title of senior -Augustus. While, therefore, Licinius remained in Europe, Maximin Daza -advanced from Syria across the Taurus and entered Bithynia, where, to -curry favour with the people, he abolished the census. It was expected -that the two Emperors would fight out their quarrel, but an -accommodation was arrived at, and they agreed that the Hellespont should -form the boundary between them. Maximin, by his promptitude, had thus -materially increased his sovereignty, and, at the beginning of 312, the -eastern half of the Empire was divided between Licinius and Maximin -Daza, while Constantine ruled in Great Britain, Spain, and Gaul, and -Maxentius was master of Italy and Africa. - -Whether or not his position had been recognised by the other Emperors at -the conference of Carnuntum, Maxentius had remained in undisturbed -possession of Italy since the hurried retreat of the invading army of -Galerius. In Africa, indeed, a general named Alexander, who, according -to Zosimus, was a Phrygian by descent, and timid and advanced in years, -raised the standard of revolt. Maxentius commissioned one of his -lieutenants to attack the usurper and Alexander was captured and -strangled. There would have been nothing to distinguish this -insurrection from any other, had it not been for the ruthless severity -with which the African cities were treated by the conqueror. Carthage -and Cirta were pillaged and sacked; the countryside was laid desolate; -many of the leading citizens were executed; still more were reduced to -beggary. The ruin of Africa was so complete that it excited against -Maxentius the public opinion of the Roman world. He had begun his reign, -as will be remembered, as the special champion of the Prætorians and of -the privileges of Rome, but he soon lost his early popularity, and -rapidly developed into a cruel and bloodthirsty tyrant. His profligacy -was shameless and excessive, even for those licentious times. Eusebius -tells the story of how Sophronia, the Christian wife of the city -præfect, stabbed herself in order to escape his embraces, when the -imperial messengers came to summon her to the palace. - -If Maxentius had been accused of all the vices only on the authority of -the Christian authors and the official panegyrists of Constantine, their -statements might have been received with some suspicion—for a fallen -Roman Emperor had no friends. Zosimus, however, is almost as severe upon -him as Lactantius, and Julian, in the _Banquet of the Cæsars_, excludes -him from the feast as one utterly unworthy of a place in honourable -society. According to Aurelius Victor, he was the first to start the -practice of exacting from the senators large sums of money in the guise -of free gifts (_munerum specie_) on the flimsiest pretexts of public -necessity, or as payment for the bestowal of office or civil -distinction. Moreover, knowing that, sooner or later, he would find -himself at war with one or other of his brother Augusti, Maxentius -amassed great stores of corn and wealth and took no heed of a morrow -which he knew that he might not live to witness. He despoiled the -temples,—says the author of the Ninth Panegyric,—butchered the Senate, -and starved the people of Rome. The Praetorians—who had placed and kept -him on the throne—ruled the city. Zosimus tells the curious story of -how, in the course of a great fire in Rome, the Temple of Fortune was -burned down and one of the soldiers looking on spoke blasphemous and -disrespectful words of the goddess. Immediately the mob attacked him. -His comrades went to his assistance and a serious riot ensued, during -which the Prætorians would have massacred the citizens had they not been -with difficulty restrained. All the authorities, indeed, agree that a -perfect reign of terror prevailed at Rome after Maxentius’s victory over -Alexander in Africa, while Maxentius himself is depicted as a second -Commodus or Nero. - -One of the most vivid pictures of the tyrant is given in the Panegyric -already quoted. The orator speaks of Maxentius as a “stupid and -worthless wild-beast” (_stultumet nequam animal_) skulking for ever -within the walls of the palace and not daring to leave the precincts. -Fancy, he exclaims, an indoor Emperor, who considers that he has made a -journey and achieved an expedition if he has so much as visited the -Gardens of Sallust! Whenever he addressed his soldiers, he would boast -that, though he had colleagues in the Empire, he alone was the real -Emperor; for he ruled while they kept the frontiers safe and did his -fighting for him. And then he would dismiss them with the three words: -“_Fruimini! Dissipate! Prodigite!_” Such an invitation to drunkenness, -riot, and debauch would not be unwelcome to the swaggering Prætorians -and to the numerous bands of mercenaries which Maxentius had collected -from all parts of the world. - -We ought not, perhaps, to take this scathing invective quite literally. -For all his vices, Maxentius was probably not quite the hopeless -debauchee he is represented to have been. It is at least worth remark -that it was this Emperor, of whom no one has a charitable word to say, -who restored to the Christians at Rome the church buildings and property -which had been confiscated to the State by the edicts of Diocletian and -Galerius. Neither Eusebius nor Lactantius mentions this, but the fact is -clear from a passage in St. Augustine, who says that the first act of -the Roman Christians on regaining possession of their cemetery was to -bring back the body of Bishop Eusebius, who had died in exile in Sicily. -Nor did Maxentius’s political attitude towards the other Augusti betray -indications of incompetence or want of will. He was ambitious—a trait -common to most Roman Emperors and certainly shared by all his -colleagues. There was no cohesion among the four Augusti; there was no -one much superior to the others in influence and prestige. Constantine -and Maxentius feared and suspected each other in the West, just as -Licinius and Maximin Daza feared and suspected each other in the East. -When the two latter agreed that the Hellespont should divide their -territories, Licinius, who had lost Asia Minor by the bargain, made -overtures of alliance to Constantine. It was arranged that Licinius -should marry Constantia, the sister of the Augustus of Gaul. Naturally, -therefore, Maximin Daza turned towards Maxentius and sent envoys asking -for alliance and friendship. Lactantius adds the curious phrase that -Maximin’s letter was couched in a tone of familiarity[40] and says that -Maxentius was as eager to accept as Maximin had been to offer. He hailed -it, we are told, as a god-sent help, for he had already declared war -against Constantine on the pretext of avenging his father’s murder. - ------ - -Footnote 40: - - _Scribit etiam familiariter._ - ------ - -The outbreak of this war, which was fraught with such momentous -consequences to the whole course of civilisation, found the Empire -strangely divided. The Emperor of Italy and Africa was allied with the -Emperor of Egypt, Syria, and Asia Minor, against the rulers of the -armies of the Danube and the Rhine. We shall see that the alliance -was—at any rate, in result—defensive rather than offensive. Licinius and -Maximin never moved; they simply neutralised one another, though the -advantage clearly lay with Constantine and Licinius, for Maxentius was -absolutely isolated, so far as receiving help on the landward side was -concerned. We need not look far to find the real cause of quarrel -between Constantine and Maxentius, whatever pretexts were assigned. -Maxentius would never have risked his Empire for the sake of a father -whom he detested; nor would Constantine have jeopardised his throne in -order to avenge an insult. Each aspired to rule over the entire West; -neither would acquiesce in the pretensions of the other. Both had been -actively preparing for a struggle which became inevitable when neither -took any radical steps to avoid it. We have already seen that -Constantine kept the larger part of the army of Gaul stationed in the -south near Arelate and Lugdunum, in order to watch the Alpine passes; we -shall find that Maxentius had also posted his main armies in the north -of Italy from Susa on the one side, where he was threatened by -Constantine, to Venice on the other, where he was on guard against -Licinius. There is a curious reference in one of the authorities to a -plan formed by Maxentius of invading Gaul through Rhaetia,—no doubt -because Constantine had made the Alpine passes practically -unassailable,—while Lactantius tells us that he had drawn every -available man from Africa to swell his armies in Italy. - -Constantine acted with the extreme rapidity for which he was already -famous. He hurried his army down from the Rhine, and was through the -passes and attacking the walled city of Susa before Maxentius had -certain knowledge of his movements. That he was embarking on an -exceedingly hazardous expedition seems to have been recognised by -himself and his captains. The author of the Ninth Panegyric says quite -bluntly that his principal officers not only muttered their fears in -secret, but expressed them openly,[41] and adds that his councillors and -haruspices warned him to desist. A similar campaign had cost Severus his -life and had been found too hazardous even by Galerius. Superiority of -numbers lay not with him, but with his rival. Constantine was gravely -handicapped by the fact that he had to safeguard the Rhine behind him -against the Germanic tribes, which he knew would seize the first -opportunity to pass the river. Zosimus gives a detailed account[42] of -the numbers which the rivals placed in the field. Maxentius, he says, -had 170,000 foot and 18,000 horse under his command, including 80,000 -levies from Rome and Italy, and 40,000 from Carthage and Africa. -Constantine, on the other hand, even after vigorous recruiting in -Britain and Gaul, could only muster 90,000 foot and 8000 horse. The -author of the Ninth Panegyric, in a casual phrase, says that Constantine -could hardly employ a fourth of his Gallic army against the 100,000 men -in the ranks of Maxentius, on account of the dangers of the Rhine. -Ancient authorities, however, are never trustworthy where numbers are -concerned; we only know that Maxentius had by far the larger force, and -that Constantine’s army of invasion was probably under 40,000 strong. -Whether the numerical supremacy of the former was not counterbalanced by -the necessity under which Maxentius laboured of guarding against -Licinius, is a question to which the historians have paid no heed. - ------ - -Footnote 41: - - _Non solum tacite mussantibus sed eteiam aperte timentibus._—_Pan. - Vet._, ix., 2. - -Footnote 42: - - Zosimus, ii., 15. - ------ - -Marching along the chief military highroad from Lugdunum to Italy, which -crossed the Alps at Mont Cenis, Constantine suddenly appeared before the -walls of Susa, a strongly garrisoned post, and took it by storm, -escalading the walls and burning the gates. The town caught fire; -Constantine set his soldiers to put out the flames, a more difficult -task, says Nazarius, than had been the actual assault. From Susa the -victor advanced to Turin, which opened its gates to him after the -cavalry of Maxentius had been routed in the plains. These were troops -clad in ponderous but cleverly jointed armour, and the weight of their -onslaught was calculated to crush either horse or foot upon which it was -directed. But Constantine disposed his forces so as to avoid their -charge and render their weight useless, and when these horsemen fled for -shelter to Turin they found the gates closed against them and perished -almost to a man. Milan, by far the most important city in the -Transpadane region, next received Constantine, who entered amid the -plaudits of the citizens, and charmed the eyes of the Milanese ladies, -says the Panegyrist, without causing them anxieties for their virtue. -Milan, indeed, welcomed him with open arms; other cities sent -deputations similar to the one which, according to the epitomist -Zonaras, had already reached him from Rome itself, praying him to come -as its liberator. It seemed, indeed, that he had already won not only -the Transpadane region, but Rome itself.[43] - ------ - -Footnote 43: - - _Pan. Vet._, ix., 7. - ------ - -Constantine, however, had still to meet and overthrow the chief armies -of Maxentius in the north of Italy. These were under the command of -Ruricius Pompeianus, a general as stubborn as he was loyal, and of -well-tried capacity. Pompeianus held Verona in force. He had thrown out -a large body of cavalry towards Brescia to reconnoitre and check -Constantine’s advance, but these were routed with some slaughter and -retired in confusion. If we may interpret the presence of Pompeianus at -Verona as indicating that Maxentius had feared attack by Licinius more -than by Constantine, this would explain the comparative absence of -troops in Lombardy and the concentration in Venetia, though it is -strange that we do not hear of Licinius taking any steps to assist his -ally. Verona was a strongly fortified city resting upon the Adige, which -encircled its walls for three-quarters of their circumference. -Constantine managed to effect a crossing at some distance from the city -and laid siege in regular fashion. Pompeianus tried several ineffectual -sorties, and then, secretly escaping through the lines, he brought up -the rest of his army to offer pitched battle or compel Constantine to -raise the siege. A fierce engagement followed. We are told[44] that -Constantine had drawn up his men in double lines, when, noticing that -the enemy outnumbered him and threatened to overlap either flank, he -ordered his troops to extend and present a wider front. He distinguished -himself that day by pressing into the thickest of the fight, “like a -mountain torrent in spate that tears away by their roots the trees on -its banks and rolls down rocks and stones.” The orator depicts for us -the scene as Constantine’s lieutenants and captains receive him on his -return from the fray, panting with his exertion and with blood dripping -from his hands. With tears in their eyes, they chide him for his -rashness in imperilling the hopes of the world. “It does not beseem an -Emperor,” they say, “to strike down an enemy with his own sword. It does -not become him to sweat with the toil of battle.[45]” In simpler -language, Constantine fought bravely at the head of his men and won the -day. Pompeianus was slain; Verona opened her gates, and so many -prisoners fell into the hands of the conqueror that Constantine made his -armourers forge chains and manacles from the iron of the captives’ -swords. In accordance with his usual policy, he conciliated the favour -of those whom he had defeated by sparing the city from pillage, and -shewed an equal clemency to Aquileia and the other cities of Venetia, -all of which speedily submitted on the capitulation of Verona. - ------ - -Footnote 44: - - _Pan. Vet._, ix., 9. - -Footnote 45: - - _Immo non decet laborare._ - ------ - -With the entire north of Italy thus wrested from Maxentius, Constantine -could turn his face towards Rome. He encountered no opposition on the -march. Maxentius did not even contest the passage of the Apennines; the -Umbrian passes were left open; and if the historians are to be -trusted—and they speak with unanimity on the point—the Italian Emperor -simply waited for his doom to come upon him, as Nero had done, and made -no really serious effort to defend his throne. This slave in the purple -(_vernula purpuratus_), as the author of the Ninth Panegyric calls him, -cowered trembling in his palace, paralysed with fear because he had been -deserted by the Divine Intelligence and the Eternal Majesty of Rome, -which had transferred themselves from the tyrant to the side of his -rival. We are told, indeed, that a few days before the appearance of -Constantine, Maxentius quitted the palace with his wife and son and took -up his abode in a private house, not being able to endure the terrible -dreams that came to him by night and the spectres of the victims which -haunted his crime-stained halls. Constantine moved swiftly down from the -north of Italy along the Flaminian Way, and in less than two months -after the fall of Verona, he was at Saxa Rubra, only nine miles from -Rome, with an army eager for battle and confident of victory. There he -found the troops of Maxentius drawn up in battle array, but posted in a -position which none but a fool or a madman would have selected. The -probabilities are that Maxentius could not trust the citizens of Rome -and therefore dared not stand a siege within the ramparts of Aurelian. -Then, having decided to offer battle, he allowed his army to cross the -Tiber and take up ground whence, if defeated, their only roads of escape -lay over the narrow Milvian Bridge and a flimsy bridge of boats, one -probably on either flank. - -It is said that Maxentius had not intended to be present in person when -the issue was decided. He was holding festival within the city, -celebrating his birthday with the usual games and pretending that the -proximity of Constantine caused him no alarm. The populace began to -taunt him with cowardice, and uttered the ominous shout that Constantine -was invincible. Maxentius’s fears grew as the clamour swelled in volume. -He hurriedly called for the Sibylline Books and ordered them to be -consulted. These gave answer that on that very day the enemy of the -Romans should perish—a characteristically safe reply. Such ambiguity of -diction had usually portended the death of the consulting Prince, but -Lactantius says that the hopes with which the words inspired Maxentius -led him to put on his armour and ride out of Rome. - -[Illustration: - - THE BATTLE OF THE MILVIAN BRIDGE, BY RAPHAEL. - IN THE VATICAN. PHOTOGRAPH BY ALINARI. -] - -The issue was decided at the first encounter. Constantine charged at the -head of his Gallic horse—now accustomed to and certain of victory—into -the cavalry of Maxentius, which broke and ran in disorder from the -field. Only the Prætorians made a gallant and stubborn resistance and -fell where they had stood, knowing that it was they who had raised -Maxentius to the throne and that their destruction was involved in his. -While these fought valiantly with the courage of despair, their comrades -were crowding in panic towards the already choked bridges. At the -Milvian Bridge the passage was jammed, and the pursuers wrought great -execution. The pontoon bridge collapsed, owing to the treachery of those -who had cut or loosened its supports. All the reports agree that there -was a sickening slaughter, and that hundreds were drowned in the Tiber -in their vain effort to escape. Among the victims was Maxentius himself. -He was either thrust into the river by the press of frenzied fugitives -or was drowned in trying to scale the high bank on the opposite shore, -when weighed down by his heavy armour. His corpse was recovered later -from the stream, which the Panegyrists hailed in ecstatic terms as the -co-saviour of Rome with Constantine and the partner of his triumph.[46] - ------ - -Footnote 46: - - _Pan. Vet._, ix., 18. - ------ - -The victor entered Rome. He had won the prize which he sought—the -mastery of the West—and, like scores of Roman conquerors before him, he -marched through the famous streets. His triumphal procession was graced, -says Nazarius, not by captive chiefs or barbarians in chains, but by -senators who now tasted the joy of freedom again, and by consulars whose -prison doors had been opened by Constantine’s victory—in a word, by a -Free Rome.[47] Only the head of Maxentius, whose features still wore the -savage, threatening look which even death itself had not been able to -obliterate, was carried on the point of a spear behind Constantine amid -the jeers and insults of the crowd. Another Panegyrist gives us a very -lively picture of the throngs as they waited for the Emperor to pass, -describing how they crowded at the rear of the procession and swept up -to the palace, almost venturing to cross the sacred threshold itself, -and how, when Constantine appeared in the streets on the succeeding -days, they sought to unhorse his carriage and draw it along with their -hands. One of the conqueror’s first acts was to extirpate the family of -his fallen rival. Maxentius’s elder son, Romulus, who for a short time -had borne the name of Cæsar, was already dead; the younger son, and -probably the wife too, were now quietly removed. There were other -victims, who had committed themselves too deeply to Maxentius’ fortunes -to escape. Rome, says Nazarius,[48] was reconstituted afresh on a -lasting basis by the complete destruction of those who might have given -trouble. But still the victims were comparatively few, so few, in the -estimation of public opinion, that the victory was regarded as a -bloodless one, and Constantine’s clemency was the theme and admiration -of all. When the people clamoured for more victims—doubtless the most -hated instruments of Maxentius’s tyranny—and when the informer pressed -forward to offer his deadly services, Constantine refused to listen. He -was resolved to let bygones be bygones. The laws of the period -immediately succeeding his victory, as they appear in the Theodosian -Code, amply confirm what might otherwise be the suspect eulogies of the -Panegyrists. A general act of amnesty was passed, and the ghastly head -of Maxentius was sent to Africa to allay the terrors of the population -and convince them that their oppressor would trouble them no more. -There, it is to be supposed, it found a final burial-place. - ------ - -Footnote 47: - - _Pan. Vet._, x., 31. - -Footnote 48: - - _Ibid._, x., 6. - ------ - -Another early act of Constantine was to disband the Prætorians, thus -carrying out the intention and decrees of Galerius. The survivors of -these long-famous regiments were marched out of Rome away from the -Circus, the Theatre of Pompeius, and the Baths, and were set to do their -share in the guarding of the Rhine and the Danube. Whether they bore the -change as voluntarily as the Panegyrist suggests[49] is doubtful, and we -may question whether they so soon forgot in their rude cantonments the -fleshpots and “_deliciæ_” of the capital. But the expulsion was final. -The Prætorians ceased to exist. Rome may have been glad to see the empty -barracks, for the Prætorians had been hated and feared. But the vacant -quarters also spoke eloquently of the fact that Rome was no longer the -mistress of the world. The “_domina gentium_,” the “_regina terrarum_” -without her Prætorians, was a thing unthinkable. - ------ - -Footnote 49: - - _Pan. Vet._, ix., 21. - ------ - -Constantine only stayed two months in Rome, but in that short time, says -Nazarius, he cured all the maladies which the six years’ savage tyranny -of Maxentius had brought upon the city. He restored to their confiscated -estates all who had been exiled or deprived of their property during the -recent reign of terror. He shewed himself easy of approach; his ears -were the most patient of listeners; he charmed all by his kindliness, -dignity, and good humour. To the Senate he shewed unwonted deference. -Diocletian, during his solitary visit to Rome just prior to his -retirement, had treated the senators with brusqueness, and hardly -concealed his contempt for their mouldy dignities. Constantine preferred -to conciliate them. According to Nazarius, he invested with senatorial -rank a number of representative provincials, so that the Senate once -more became a dignified body in reality as well as in name, now that it -consisted of the flower of the whole world.[50] Probably this signifies -little more than that Constantine filled up the vacancies with -respectable nominees, spoke the Senate fair, and swore to maintain its -ancient rights and privileges. The Emperor certainly entertained no such -quixotic idea as that of giving the Senate a vestige of real governing -power or a share in the administration of the Empire. In return for his -consideration, the Senate bestowed upon him the title of Senior -Augustus, and a golden statue, adorned, according to the Ninth -Panegyrist (c. 25), with the attributes of a god, while all Italy -subscribed for the shield and the crown. - ------ - -Footnote 50: - - _Cum ex totius orbis flore constaret._ - ------ - -[Illustration: - - THE ARCH OF CONSTANTINE AT ROME. - PHOTOGRAPH BY ALINARI. -] - -The Senate also instituted games and festivals in honour of -Constantine’s victory, and voted him the triumphal arch which still -survives as one of the most imposing ruins of Imperial Rome and a -lasting monument to the outrageous vandalism which stripped the Arch of -Titus of its sculptures to grace the memorial of his successor. Under -the central arch on the one side is the dedication, “To the Liberator of -the City,” on the other, “To the Founder of Our Repose” (_Fundatori -quietis_). Above stands the famous inscription[51] in which the Senate -and people of Rome dedicate this triumphal arch to Constantine “because, -at the suggestion of the divinity (_instinctu divinitatis_), and at the -prompting of his own magnanimity, he and his army had vindicated the -Republic by striking down the tyrant and all his satellites at a single -blow.” “At the suggestion of the divinity!” The words lead us naturally -to discuss the conversion of Constantine and the Vision of the Cross. - ------ - -Footnote 51: - - The inscription on the Arch of Constantine runs as follows: - - “_Imp. Cæs. Fl. Constantino Maximo - P. F. Augusto S. P. Q. R. - Quod instinctu divinitatis mentis - Magnitudine cum exercitu suo - Tam de tyranno quam de omni ejus - Factione uno tempore justis - Rempublicam ultus est armis - Arcum triumphis insignem dicavit._” - ------ - - -[Illustration] - - - - - CHAPTER VI - THE VISION OF THE CROSS AND THE EDICT OF - MILAN - - -It was during the course of the successful invasion of Italy, which -culminated in the battle of the Milvian Bridge and the capture of Rome, -that there took place—or was said to have taken place—the famous vision -of the cross, surrounded by the words, “Conquer by This,” which -accompanied the triumph of Constantine’s arms. There are two main -authorities for the legend, Eusebius and Lactantius, both, of course, -Christians and uncompromising champions of Constantine, with whom they -were in close personal contact. A third, though he makes no mention of -the cross, is Nazarius, the author of the Tenth Panegyric. The -variations which subsequent writers introduce into the story relate -merely to details, or are obvious embroideries upon an original legend, -such, for example, as the statement of Philostorgius that the words of -promise around the cross were written in stars. We need not trouble, -therefore, with the much later versions of Sozomen, Socrates, Gregory of -Nazianzen, and Nicephorus; it will be enough to study the more or less -contemporary statements of Eusebius, Lactantius, and Nazarius. And of -these by far the fullest and most important is that of Eusebius, Bishop -of Cæsarea, who explicitly declares that he is repeating the story as it -was told to him by Constantine himself. - -Eusebius shews us the Emperor of Gaul anxiously debating within his own -mind whether his forces were equal to the dangerous enterprise upon -which he had embarked. Maxentius had a formidable army. He had also -laboured to bring over to his side the powers of heaven and hell. -Constantine’s information from Rome apprised him that Maxentius was -assiduously employing all the black arts of magic and wizardry to gain -the favour of the gods. And Constantine grew uneasy and apprehensive, -for no one then disbelieved in the efficacy of magic, and he considered -whether he might not counterbalance this undue advantage which Maxentius -was obtaining by securing the protecting services of some equally potent -deity. Such is the only possible meaning of Eusebius’s words, ἐννοεῖ -δῆτα ὁποῖον δέοι θέον ἐπιγράψασθαι βοηθὸν—words which seem strange in -the twentieth century, but were natural enough in the fourth. “He -thought in his own mind what sort of god he ought to secure as ally.” -And then, says his biographer, the idea occurred to him that though his -predecessors in the purple had believed in a multiplicity of gods, the -great majority of them had perished miserably. The gods, at whose altars -they had offered rich sacrifice and plenteous libation, had deserted -them in their hour of trouble, and had looked on unmoved while they and -their families were exterminated from off the face of the earth, leaving -scarcely so much as a name or a recollection behind them. The gods had -cheated them and lured them to their doom with suave promises of -treacherous oracles. Whereas, on the other hand, his father, -Constantius, had believed in but one god, and had marvellously prospered -throughout his life, helped and protected by this single deity who had -showered every blessing upon his head. From such a contrast, what other -deduction could be drawn than that the god of Constantius was the deity -for Constantius’s son to honour? Constantine resolved that it would be -folly to waste time or thought upon deities who were of no account (περὶ -τούς μηδὲν ὄντας θεοὺς). He would worship no other god than the god of -his father. - -Such, according to Eusebius, is the first phase of the Emperor’s -conversion, a conviction not of sin, but of the folly of worshipping -gods who cannot or will not do anything for their votaries. But this god -of his father, this single unnamed divinity, who was it? Was it one of -the gods of the Roman Pantheon, Jupiter, or Apollo, or Hercules, whose -special protection Constantine had claimed for himself, as Augustus had -claimed that of Apollo, and Diocletian that of Jupiter? Or was it the -vague spirit of deity itself, the τὸ θειον of the Greek philosophers, -the _divinitas_ of the cultured Roman, whose delicacy was offended by -the grossness of the exceedingly human passions of the Roman gods and -goddesses? Obviously, it must be the latter, and Eusebius tells us that -Constantine offered up a prayer to this god of his father, beseeching -him, “to declare himself who he was,” and to stretch forth his right -hand to help. “To declare himself who he was!” (φῆναι αὐτῷ ἑαυτόν ὅστις -εἴη). That had ever been the stumbling-block in the way of the -acceptance by the masses of the immaterial principles propounded by the -philosophers. Constantine must have a god with a name, and he must have -a sign from heaven in visible proof. Many have asked for such a sign -just as importunately (λιπαρῶς ἱκετεύοντι) as Constantine, but without -success. To him it was vouchsafed. - -[Illustration: - - CONSTANTINE’S VISION OF THE CROSS, BY RAPHAEL. - IN THE VATICAN. PHOTOGRAPH BY ALINARI. -] - -The answer came one afternoon, when the sun had just passed its zenith -and was beginning to decline. Lifting his eyes, the Emperor saw in the -heavens just above the sun the figure of a cross, a cross of radiant -light, and attached to it was the inscription, “Conquer by This” (τούτῳ -νίκα). Eusebius admits that if any one else had told the story it would -not have been easy to believe it, but it was told to him by the Emperor -himself, who had confirmed his words with a royal oath. How then was it -possible to doubt? Constantine was awe-struck at the vision, which -Eusebius expressly declares was seen also by the entire army. All that -afternoon the Emperor pondered long upon the significance of the words, -and night fell while he was still asking himself what they could mean. -Then, as he slept, Christ appeared to him in a dream, bearing with Him -the sign that had flamed in the sky, and bade the sleeper make a copy of -it and use it as a talisman whenever he gave battle. As soon as dawn -broke, Constantine summoned his friends and told them of the message he -had received. Workers in gold and precious stones were hastily sent for, -and, sitting in the midst of them, Constantine carefully described the -outline of the vision and bade them execute a replica of it in their -most precious materials. This was the famous Labarum, fashioned from a -long gilded spear and a transverse bar. Above was a crown of gold, with -jewels encircling the monogram of Christ, and from the bar depended a -rich purple cloth, heavily embroidered with gold, blazing with jewels, -and bearing the busts of Constantine and his sons. It suggested the -Cross just as much but no more than did the ordinary cavalry standards -of the Roman armies; the sacred monogram alone indicated the supreme -change which had come over the Emperor, who, in answer to his prayer, -had thus found that the single Deity which his father, Constantius, had -worshipped was none other than Christ, the God of the Christians. For -the Emperor, desiring to know more of the Cross and the Christ, summoned -certain Christian teachers in his camp to explain these things more -fully to him, and they told him that “Christ was God, the only begotten -Son of the one true God, and that the vision he had seen was the symbol -of immortality and of the victory which Christ had won over death.” -Such, according to Eusebius, was the conversion of Constantine, and such -was the Emperor’s own account of the circumstances which led up to it. -This was the official story, as it might have appeared in a Roman Court -Circular at the time when Eusebius wrote. - -But when did Eusebius write _The Life of Constantine_, from which we -have taken this narrative? Not until Constantine himself was dead, not, -that is to say, until after 337, fully a quarter of a century after the -event described. The date is important. In twenty-five years a story may -be transfigured out of all knowledge through constant repetition by the -narrator, to say nothing of the changes it suffers if it passes in -active circulation from mouth to mouth. Has this been the fate of the -story of the Vision of the Cross? _The Life of Constantine_ was not the -first volume of contemporary history published by Eusebius. He had -already written a _History of the Church_, which he issued to the world -in 326. What, then, had the author to say in that year about this -marvellous vision? Nothing. There is not a word about the flaming cross, -or the coming of Christ to Constantine in a dream, or the fashioning of -the Labarum. All Eusebius says, in his _History_, of the conversion of -Constantine, is that the Emperor “piously called to his aid the God of -Heaven and his son Jesus Christ.” It is a strange silence. If the -heavenly cross had been seen by the whole army; if the current version -of the story had been the same in 326 as it was in 337, it is at least -difficult to understand why Eusebius omitted all mention of an event -which must have been the talk of the whole Roman world and must have -made the heart of every Christian exult. Such manifest signs from Heaven -were scarcely so common in the opening of the fourth century that an -ecclesiastical historian would think any allusion to it unnecessary. The -argument from silence is never absolutely conclusive, but the reticence -of Eusebius in 326 at least warrants a strong suspicion that the legend -had not then crystallised itself into its final shape. - -Of even greater importance are the extraordinary discrepancies between -the versions of Eusebius and Lactantius. Lactantius wrote his treatise -_On the Deaths of the Persecutors_ very shortly after the battle of the -Milvian Bridge, and it has a special value, therefore, as containing the -earliest account of the vision. The author, who was the tutor of the -Emperor’s son, Crispus, must have known all there was to be known of the -incident, for he lived in the closest intimacy with the court circle. We -should confidently expect, therefore, that the author who retails -verbatim the conversation of Diocletian and Galerius in the penetralia -of the palace of Nicomedia would be fully aware of what took place in -full view of Constantine’s army. - -What then is the version of Lactantius? It is that just before the -battle of the Milvian Bridge, Constantine was warned in a dream to have -the divine sign of the cross (_cœleste signum_) inscribed on the shields -of his soldiers before leading them to the attack. He did as he was -bidden, and the letter ASTERISK, with one of the bars slightly -bent—thus, ASTERISK—to form the sacred monogram, was placed upon his -legionaries’ shields. Such is the legend in its earliest guise. There is -not a word about Constantine’s anxiety and searching of soul. The event -is placed, not at the opening of the campaign, as Eusebius would seem to -suggest though he does not expressly say so, but on the eve of the -decisive battle. There is nothing about the cross flaming in the -afternoon sky, nothing of the inscription, “Conquer by This,” nothing of -the entire army being witness of the portent. Constantine simply has a -dream and is warned (_commonitus_) to place the initial of Christ on his -soldiers’ shields. It is not even said who gave the warning; there is -not a hint that it was Christ Himself—as in the story of Eusebius—who -appeared to Constantine; there is no mention of the Labarum. Obviously, -Lactantius was aware of no triumphant answer to Constantine’s prayer for -a sign. According to him, the Emperor was merely warned in a dream that -victory would reward him if he dedicated his weapons to the honour and -service of Christ. - -We come back, therefore, to the official version of Eusebius somewhat -shaken in our belief of its literal accuracy. Let us note, too, the -extreme vagueness of the time and the place where the incident is -reported to have taken place, and remember that one who had dwelt with -Diocletian and Galerius when they signed the edicts of persecution could -not possibly have been ignorant of the principles of Christianity, which -was no longer the religion of an obscure sect. We need not, indeed, find -any difficulty in accepting the first part of the story of Eusebius in -so far as it represents Constantine anxiously enquiring after divine -protection. It has been urged, very shrewdly, that the story would have -been idealised if it had been altogether invented. Constantine was -afraid that he had rashly committed himself and that Maxentius had -already secured the favour of the Roman gods. His objective, too, was -Rome, still regarded with superstitious dread and reverence throughout -the world, and reverenced all the more, no doubt, in proportion as -distance lent enchantment to the view. What then more natural than that -he should take for granted that, if ever the gods of Rome had interfered -in mortal affairs, they would do so now on behalf of Maxentius, who had -been raised to empire as Rome’s champion? Constantine was not one of -those rarer and choicer spirits, who seek truth for its own sake without -regard for material advantage. Conversion in his case did not mean some -sudden or even gradual change permanently altering his outlook upon -life, and refining and transmuting personal character. It merely meant -worshipping at another shrine, entering another temple, reciting another -formula. His ruling motive was ambition. He would worship the god who -should bring victory to his arms. The intensity of his conviction was to -be measured by the extent of his success and by the height to which he -carried his fortunes. - -But what of the second part of the story—the vision of the cross flaming -in the sky in full view of Constantine and his army? Even those who -admit miracles into critical history allow that the evidence for this -one is exceedingly inconclusive. We need not doubt that Eusebius related -the story just as it was told to him by Constantine, though the Bishop, -if there were choice of versions, would unhesitatingly accept the one -which contained most of the miraculous and the abnormal. Nor does the -oath which Constantine swore in support of his story add anything to its -credibility. It was his habit to swear an oath when he wished to be -emphatic. Are we, then, to consider that the whole legend was an -invention of the Emperor’s from beginning to end? In this connection it -is important to take into account the narrative of Nazarius, a -rhetorician who delivered a formal panegyric upon Constantine on the -anniversary of his tenth year of rule, and took the opportunity of -reviewing the whole campaign against Maxentius. Nazarius was a pagan; -what then was the pagan version, if any, of the miracle described by -Eusebius and the Emperor? Did the pagans attribute divine assistance to -Constantine throughout this critical campaign? The answer is -unmistakable. They did so most unequivocally. Nazarius tells us[52] that -all Gaul was talking with awe and wonder of the marvels which had taken -place, how the soldiers of Constantine had seen in the sky celestial -armies marching in battle array and had been dazzled by their flashing -shields and glittering armour. Not only had the dull eyes of earthly men -for once availed to look upon heavenly brightness; Constantine’s -soldiery had also heard the shouts of these armies in the sky, “We seek -Constantine; we are marching to the aid of Constantine.”[53] Clearly the -pagan as well as the Christian world insisted upon attributing divine -assistance to Constantine and had its own version of how that succour -came. Nazarius’s explanation was simple. According to him, it was -Constantius Chlorus, the deified Emperor, who was leading up the hosts -of heaven, and such miraculous intervention was due to the supreme -virtue of the father, which had descended to the son. - ------ - -Footnote 52: - - _Pan. Vet._, x., 14. - -Footnote 53: - - _Constantinum petimus: Constantino imus auxilio._ - ------ - -The question at once arises whether this is merely a pagan version of -the Christian legend. Unable to deny the miracle, did the pagans, in -order to rob the Christians of this wonderful testimony to the truth of -their religion, invent the story of Constantius and the heavenly hosts? -Such a theory is absolutely untenable. It leaves out of sight the -all-important fact that public opinion in the fourth century—as indeed -for many centuries both before and after—was not only willing to believe -in supernatural intervention at moments of great crisis, but actually -insisted that there should be such intervention. The greater the crisis, -the more entirely reasonable it was that some deity or deities should -make their influence especially felt and turn the scale to one side or -the other. Every Roman believed that Castor and Pollux had fought for -Rome in the supreme struggle against Hannibal. Julius believed that the -favour of Venus Genetrix, the special patroness of the Julian House, had -helped him to win the battle of Pharsalus. Augustus was just as certain -that Apollo had fought on his side at Philippi and at Actium. It was -easy—and modest—for the winner to believe in his protecting deity’s -strength of arm. - -One curious phrase employed by Nazarius is worth noting. It is that in -which he claims that the special interference of Heaven on behalf of -Constantine was not merely an extraordinary and gratifying tribute to -the Emperor’s virtues, but that it was no more than his due. In short, -the crisis was so tremendous that Heaven would have stood convicted of a -strange failure to see events in their just proportion if it had not -done “some great thing,” and wrought some corresponding wonder. Such was -the idea at the back of Nazarius’s mind; we suspect that it was not -wanting in the mind of Eusebius or of Constantine. We may put the matter -paradoxically and say that a miracle in those days was not much -considered unless it was a very great one. People who were accustomed to -see—or to think that they saw—statues sweating blood, and to hear words -proceeding from lips of bronze or marble, and were accustomed to treat -such untoward events merely as portents denoting that something unusual -was about to happen, must have been difficult people to surprise. -Naturally, therefore, legends grew more and more marvellous with -repetition after the event. The oftener a man told such a story the less -appeal it would make to his own wonder, unless he fortified it with some -new incident. But to impress one’s auditors it is above all things -necessary to be impressed oneself. Hence the well-garnished narrative of -Nazarius. The idea of armies marching along the sky was common enough. -Any one can imagine he sees the glint of weapons as the sun strikes the -clouds. But this does not satisfy the professional rhetorician. He bids -us see the proud look in the faces of the heavenly hosts, and -distinguish the cries with which they move to battle. But if Nazarius is -suspect, why not Eusebius and Constantine? Unless, indeed, there is to -be one standard for pagan and another for Christian miracles! - -But was there some unusual manifestation in the sky which was the common -basis of the stories of Eusebius and Nazarius? It is not unreasonable to -suppose so. Scientists say that the natural phenomenon known as the -parhelion not infrequently assumes the shape of a cross, and Dean -Stanley, while discussing this possible explanation in his _Lectures on -the Eastern Church_, instanced the extraordinary impression made upon -the minds of the vulgar by the aurora borealis of November, 1848. He -recalled how, throughout France, the people thought they saw in the sky -the letters L. N.—the initials of Louis Napoleon—and took them as a -clear indication from Heaven of how they ought to vote at the impending -Presidential election, and as an omen of the result. That was the -interpretation in France. In Rome—where the people knew and cared -nothing for Louis Napoleon—no one saw the Napoleonic initials. The lurid -gleam in the sky was there thought to be the blood of the murdered -Rossi, which had risen to heaven and was calling for vengeance. In -Oporto, on the other hand, the conscience-stricken populace thought the -fire was coming down from heaven to punish them for their profligacy. If -such varying interpretations of a natural if rare phenomenon were -possible in the middle of the nineteenth century, what interpretation -was not possible in the fourth? The world was profoundly superstitious. -When people believe in manifest signs they usually see them. Some -Polonius, gifted either with better vision or livelier imagination than -his fellows, declares that he can distinguish clear and definite shapes -amid the vague outline of the clouds; the report spreads; the legend -grows. And when legends are found to serve a useful purpose the -authorities lend them countenance, guarantee their accuracy, and even -take to themselves the credit of their authorship. At the outbreak of -the Russo-Japanese war a strange story came from St. Petersburg that the -Russian moujiks were passing on from village to village the legend that -St. George had been seen in the skies leading his hosts to the Far East -against the infidel Japanese. Had Russian victories followed, what -better “proof” of celestial aid could have been desired? But as disaster -ensued, it is to be supposed that St. George remembered midway that he -also had interests in the Anglo-Japanese alliance, and remained strictly -neutral. - -But though we may be justly sceptical of the circumstances attending the -conversion of Constantine, there is no room to doubt the conversion -itself. We do not believe that he fought the battle of the Milvian -Bridge as the avowed champion of Christianity, but the probabilities are -that he had made up his mind to become a Christian when he fought it. -The miraculous vision in the heavens, the dream in the quiet of the -night, the appearance of Christ by the bedside of the Emperor—as to -these things we may keep an open mind, but the fashioning of the -Labarum—the sacred standard which was preserved for so many centuries as -the most precious of imperial heirlooms and was seen and described as -late as the ninth century—this was the outward and visible proof of the -change which had come over the Emperor. He had abandoned Apollo for -Christ. The sun-god had been the favourite deity of his youth and early -manhood, as it had been of Augustus Cæsar, the founder of the Empire, -and the originator of the close association between the worship of -Apollo and the worship of the reigning Cæsar. Constantine would not fail -to note that many of the most gracious attributes of Apollo belonged -also to Christ. - -He soon manifested the sincerity of his conversion. After a short stay -in Rome, he went north to Milan, where he gave the hand of his sister, -Constantia, to his ally, Licinius. Diocletian was invited, but declined -to make the journey. The two Emperors, no doubt, desired to secure the -prestige of his moral support in their mutual hostility to the Emperor -of the East, and the benefit of his counsel in their deliberations upon -the state of the Empire. But even if Diocletian had been tempted to -leave his cabbages to join in the marriage festivities and the political -conference at Milan, we imagine that he would still have declined if he -had been given any hint of the intentions of Constantine and Licinius -with respect to the great question of religious toleration or -persecution. He might have been candid enough to admit the failure of -his policy, but he would still have shrunk from proclaiming it with his -own lips. For, before the festivities at Milan were interrupted by the -news that Maximin had thrown down the gage of battle, Constantine and -Licinius issued in their joint names the famous Edict of Milan, which -proclaimed for the first time in its absolute entirety the noble -principle of complete religious toleration. Despite their length, it -will be well to give in full the more important clauses. They are found -in the text which has been happily preserved by Lactantius[54] in the -original Latin, while we also have the edict in Greek in the -_Ecclesiastical History_ of Eusebius (x. 5). It runs as follows: - - “Inasmuch as we, Constantine Augustus and Licinius Augustus, have met - together at Milan on a joyful occasion, and have discussed all that - appertains to the public advantage and safety, we have come to the - conclusion that, among the steps likely to profit the majority of - mankind and demanding immediate attention, nothing is more necessary - than to regulate the worship of the Divinity. - - “We have decided, therefore, to grant both to the Christians and to - all others perfect freedom to practise the religion which each has - thought best for himself, that so whatever Divinity resides in heaven - may be placated, and rendered propitious to us and to all who have - been placed under our authority. Consequently, we have thought this to - be the policy demanded alike by healthy and sound reason—that no one, - on any pretext whatever, should be denied freedom to choose his - religion, whether he prefers the Christian religion or any other that - seems most suited to him, in order that the Supreme Divinity, whose - observance we obey with free minds, may in all things vouchsafe to us - its usual favours and benevolences. - - “Wherefore, it is expedient for your Excellency to know that we have - resolved to abolish every one of the stipulations contained in all - previous edicts sent to you with respect to the Christians, on the - ground that they now seem to us to be unjust and alien from the spirit - of our clemency. - - “Henceforth, in perfect and absolute freedom, each and every person - who chooses to belong to and practise the Christian religion shall be - at liberty to do so without let or hindrance in any shape or form. - - “We have thought it best to explain this to your Excellency in the - fullest possible manner that you may know that we have accorded to - these same Christians a free and absolutely unrestricted right to - practise their own religion. - - “And inasmuch as you see that we have granted this indulgence to the - Christians, your Excellency will understand that a similarly free and - unrestricted right, conformable to the peace of our times, is granted - to all others equally to practise the religion of their choice. We - have resolved upon this course that no one and no religion may seem to - be robbed of the honour that is their due.” - ------ - -Footnote 54: - - _De Mort. Persec._, c. 48. - ------ - -Then follow the most explicit instructions for the restoration to the -Christians of the properties of which they had been robbed during the -persecutions, though the robbery had been committed in accordance with -imperial command. Whether a property had been simply confiscated, or -sold, or given away, it was to be handed back without the slightest cost -and without any delays or ambiguities (_Postposita omni frustratione -atque ambiguitate_). Purchasers who had bought such properties in good -faith were to be indemnified from the public treasury by grace of the -Emperor. - -But the abiding interest of this celebrated edict lies in the general -principles there clearly enunciated. Every man, without distinction of -rank or nationality, is to have absolute freedom to choose and practise -the religion which he deems most suited to his needs (_Libera atque -absoluta colendæ religionis suæ facultas_). The phrase is repeated with -almost wearisome iteration, but the principle was novel and strange, and -one can see the anxiety of the framers of this edict that there shall be -no possible loophole for misunderstanding. Everybody is to have free -choice; all previous anti-Christian enactments are annulled; not only is -no compulsion to be employed against the Christian, he is not even to be -troubled or annoyed (_Citra ullam inquietudinem ac molestiam_). The -novelty lay not so much in the toleration of the existence of -Christianity,—both Constantine and Licinius had two years before signed -the edict whereby Galerius put an end to the persecution,—but in its -formal official recognition by the State. - -What motives, then, are assigned by the Emperors for this notable change -of policy? Certainly not humanity. Nothing is said of the terrors of the -late persecutions and the horrible sufferings of the Christians—there is -merely a bald reference to previous edicts which the Emperors consider -“unjust and alien from the spirit of our clemency” (_Sinistra et a -nostra clementia aliena esse_). There is no appeal to political -necessity, such as the exhaustion of the world and its palpable need of -rest. The motives assigned are purely religious. The Emperors proclaim -religious toleration in order that they and their subjects may continue -to receive the blessings of Heaven. One of them at least had just -emerged victoriously from the manifold hazards of an invasion of Italy. -Surely we can trace a reference to the battle of the Milvian Bridge and -the overthrow of Maxentius in the mention of “the Divine favour towards -us, which we have experienced in affairs of the highest moment” -(_Divinus juxta nos favor quem in tantis sumus rebus experti_). What -Constantine and Licinius hope to secure is a continuance of the favour -and benevolence of the Supreme Divinity, the patronage of the ruling -powers of the sky. The phraseology is important. The name of God is not -mentioned—only the vague “_Summa Divinitas_,“ ”_Divinus favor_,” and the -still more curious and non-committal phrase, “_Quicquid est Divinitatis -in sede cœlesti_.” In Eusebius the same phrase appears in a form still -more nebulous (ὅτι ποτέ ἐστι θειότης καὶ οὐρανίου πράγματος). A pagan -philosopher, more than half sceptical as to the existence of a personal -God, might well employ such language, but it reads strangely in an -official edict. - -But then this edict was to bear the joint names of Constantine and -Licinius. Constantine might be a Christian, but Licinius was still a -pagan, and Licinius was not his vassal, but his equal. He would -certainly not have been prepared to set his name to an edict which -pledged him to personal adherence to the Christian faith. Constantine, -in the flush of triumph, would insist that the persecution of the -Christians should cease, and that the Christian religion should be -officially recognised. Licinius would raise no objection. But they would -speedily find, when it came to drafting a joint edict, that the only -religious ground common to them both was very limited in extent, and -that the only way to preserve a semblance of unity was to employ the -vaguest phraseology which each might interpret in his own fashion. If we -can imagine the Pope and the Caliph drafting a joint appeal to mankind -which necessitated the mention of the Higher Power, they would find -themselves driven to use words as cloudy and indistinct as the “Whatever -Divinity there is and heavenly substance” of Eusebius. No, it was not -that Constantine’s mind was in the transitional stage; it was rather -that he had to find a common platform for himself and Licinius. - -But to have converted Licinius at all to an official recognition of the -Christians and complete toleration was a great achievement, for the -principle, as we have said, was entirely new. M. Gaston Boissier, in -discussing this point, recalls how even the broad-minded Plato had found -no place in his ideal republic for those who disbelieved in the gods of -their fatherland and of the city of their birth. Even if they kept their -opinions to themselves and did not seek to disturb the faith of others, -Plato insisted upon their being placed in a House of Correction—it is -true he calls it a Sophronisterion, or House of Wisdom—for five years, -where they were to listen to a sermon every day; while, if they were -zealous propagandists of their pernicious doctrines, he proposed to keep -them all their lives in horrible dungeons and deny their bodies after -death the right of sepulture. How, one wonders, would Socrates have -fared in such a state? No better, we fancy, than he fared in his own -city of Athens. But, throughout antiquity, every lawgiver took the same -view, that a good citizen must accept without question the gods of his -native place who had been the gods of his fathers; and it was a simple -step from that position to the stern refusal to allow a man, in the -vigorous words of the Old Testament, to go a-whoring after other gods. -“For I, thy God, am a jealous God.” The God of the Jews was not more -jealous than the gods of the Assyrians, the Egyptians, the Greeks, or -the Romans would like to have been, had they had the same power of -concise expression. - -What was the theory of the State religion in Rome? Cicero tells us in a -well-known passage in his treatise _On the Laws_, where he quotes the -ancient formula, “Let no man have separate gods of his own: nor let -people privately worship new gods or alien gods, unless they have been -publicly admitted.”[55] Nothing could be more explicit. But theory and -practice in Rome had a habit of becoming divorced from one another. It -is a notorious fact that, as Rome’s conquering eagles flew farther -afield, the legions and the merchants who followed in their track -brought all manner of strange gods back to the city, where every -wandering Chaldæan thaumaturgist, magician, or soothsayer found welcome -and profit, and every stray goddess—especially if her rites had -mysteries attached to them—received a comfortable home. In a word, Rome -found new religions just as fascinating—for a season or two—as do the -capitals of the modern world, and these new religions were certainly not -“publicly admitted” by the _Pontifex Maximus_ and the representatives of -the State religion. Occasionally, usually after some outbreak of -pestilence or because an Emperor was nervous at the presence of so many -swarthy charlatans devoting themselves to the Black Arts, an order of -expulsion would be issued and there would be a fluttering of the -dove-cotes. But they came creeping back one by one, as the storm blew -over. While, therefore, in theory the gods of Rome were jealous, in -practice they were not so. The easy scepticism or eclecticism of the -cultured Roman was conducive to tolerance. Cicero’s famous sentence in -the _Pro Flacco_, “Each state has its own religion, Lælius: we have -ours,” shews how little of the religious fanatic there was in the -average Roman, who stole the gods of the people he conquered and made -them his own, so that they might acquiesce in the Roman domination. The -Roman was tolerant enough in private life towards other people’s -religious convictions: all he asked was reciprocity, and that was -precisely what the Christian would not and could not give him. If the -Christian would have sacrificed at the altars of the State gods, the -Roman would never have objected to his worship of Christ for his own -private satisfaction. There lies the secret of the persecutions, and of -the fierce anti-Christian hatreds. - -Constantine and Licinius, by their edict of recognition and toleration, -“publicly admitted” into the Roman worship the God of the Christians. - ------ - -Footnote 55: - - _Separatim nemo habessit deos: neve novos, sive advenas, nisi publice - adscitos privatim colunto._—_De Leg._, ii., 8. - ------ - -[Illustration] - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - -[Illustration] - - - CHAPTER VII - THE DOWNFALL OF LICINIUS - - -It will be convenient in this chapter to present a connected narrative -of the course of political events from the Edict of Milan in 313 down to -the overthrow of Licinius by Constantine in 324. We have seen that -Maximin Daza never moved a single soldier to help his ally, Maxentius, -during Constantine’s invasion of Italy, though he soon gave practical -proof that his hostility had not abated by invading the territory of -Licinius. The attack was clearly not expected. Licinius was still at -Milan, and his troops had probably been drawn off into winter quarters, -when the news came that Maximin had collected a powerful army in Syria, -had marched through to Bithynia regardless of the sufferings of his -legions and the havoc caused in the ranks by the severity of the season, -and had succeeded in crossing the Bosphorus. Apparently, Maximin was -besieging Byzantium before Licinius was ready to move from Italy to -confront him. - -Byzantium capitulated after a siege of eleven days and Heraclea did not -offer a prolonged resistance. By this time, however, Licinius was -getting within touch of the invader and preparations were made on both -sides for a pitched battle. The numbers of Licinius’s army were scarcely -half those of his rival, but Maximin was completely routed on a plain -called Serenus, near the city of Adrianople, and fled for his life, -leaving his broken battalions to shift for themselves. Lactantius, in -describing the engagement,[56] represents it as having been a duel to -the death between Christianity and paganism. He says that Maximin had -vowed to eradicate the very name of the Christians if Jupiter favoured -his arms; while Licinius had been warned by an angel of God in a dream -that, if he wished to make infallibly sure of victory, he and his army -had only to recite a prayer to Almighty God which the angel would -dictate to him. Licinius at once sent for a secretary and the prayer was -taken down. It ran as follows: - - “God most High, we call upon Thee; Holy God, we call upon Thee. We - commend to Thee all justice; we commend to Thee our safety; we commend - to Thee our sovereignty. Through Thee we live; through Thee we gain - victory and happiness. Most High and Holy God, hear our prayers. We - stretch out our arms to Thee. Hear us, Most High and Holy God.” - ------ - -Footnote 56: - - _De Mort. Persec._, c. 46. - ------ - -Such was the talismanic prayer of which the Emperor’s secretary made -hurried copies, distributing them to the general officers and the -tribunes of the legions, with instructions that the troops were at once -to get the words off by heart. When the armies moved against one another -in battle array, the legions of Licinius at a given signal laid down -their shields, removed their helmets, and, lifting their hands to -heaven, recited in unison these rhythmic sentences with their strangely -effective repetitions. Lactantius tells us that the murmur of the prayer -was borne upon the ears of the doomed army of the enemy. Then, after a -brief colloquy between the rivals, in which Maximin refused to offer or -agree to any concession, because he believed that the soldiers of -Licinius would come over to him in a body, the armies charged and the -standard of Maximin went down. - -It is a striking story, and we may easily understand that Licinius, -fresh from his meeting with Constantine and with vivid recollection of -how valiantly this _Summus Deus_ had fought for his ally against -Maxentius, would be ready to believe beforehand in the efficacy of any -supernatural warning conveyed by any supernatural “minister of grace.” -We may note, too, the splendid vagueness of the Deity invoked in the -prayer. Lactantius, of course, claims that this Most High and Holy God -is none other than the God of the Christians, but there was nothing to -prevent the votary of Jupiter, of Apollo, of Mithra, of Baal, or of -Balenus, from thinking that he was imploring the aid of his own familiar -deity. - -Maximin fled from the scene of carnage as though he had been pursued by -all the Cabiri. Throwing aside his purple and assuming the garb of a -slave—it is Lactantius, however, who is speaking—he crossed the -Bosphorus, and, within twenty-four hours of quitting the field, reached -once more the palace of Nicomedia—a distance of a hundred and sixty -miles. Taking his wife and children with him, he hurried through the -defiles of the Taurus, summoned to his side whatever troops he had left -behind in Syria and Egypt, and awaited the oncoming of Licinius, who -followed at leisure in his tracks. The end was not long delayed. -Maximin’s soldiers regarded his cause as lost, and despairing of -clemency, he took his own life at Tarsus. His provinces passed without a -struggle into the hands of Licinius, who butchered every surviving -member of Maximin’s family. - -Nor had the victor pity even for two ladies of imperial rank, whose -misfortunes and sufferings excited the deepest compassion in that -stony-hearted age. These were Prisca, the wife of Diocletian, and her -daughter Valeria, the widow of the Emperor Galerius. On his death-bed -Galerius had entrusted his wife to the care and the gratitude of -Maximin, whom he had raised from obscurity to a throne. Maximin repaid -his confidence by pressing Valeria to marry him and offering to divorce -his own wife. Valeria returned an indignant and high-spirited refusal. -She would never think of marriage, she said,[57] while still wearing -mourning for a husband whose ashes were not yet cold. It was monstrous -that Maximin should seek to divorce a faithful wife, and, even if she -assented to his proposal, she had clear warning of what was likely to be -her own fate. Finally, it was not becoming that the daughter of -Diocletian and the widow of Galerius should stoop to a second marriage. -Maximin took a bitter revenge. He reduced Valeria to penury, marked down -all her friends for ruin, and finally drove her into exile with her -mother, Prisca, who nobly shared the sufferings of the daughter whom she -could not shield. Lactantius tells us that the two imperial ladies -wandered miserably through the Syrian wastes, while Maximin took delight -in spurning the overtures of the aged Diocletian, who sent repeated -messages begging that his daughter might be allowed to go and live with -him at Salona. Maximin refused even when Diocletian sent one of his -relatives to remind him of past benefits, and the two unfortunate ladies -knew no alleviation of their troubles. When the tyrant fell, they -probably thought that the implacable hatred with which Maximin had -pursued them would be their best recommendation to the favour of -Licinius. Again, however, they were disappointed, for Licinius, in his -jealous anxiety to spare no one connected with the families of his -predecessors in the purple, ordered the execution of Candidianus, a -natural son of Galerius, who had been brought up by Valeria as her own -child. In despair, therefore, the two ladies, who had boldly gone to -Nicomedia, fled from the scene and “wandered for fifteen months, -disguised as plebeians, through various provinces,”[58] until they had -the misfortune to be recognised at Thessalonica. They were at once -beheaded and their bodies thrown into the sea, amid the pitying sympathy -of a vast throng which dared not lift a hand to save them. - ------ - -Footnote 57: - - _De Mort. Persec._, c. 39. - -Footnote 58: - - _De Mort Persec._, c. 51. - ------ - -Constantine and Licinius now shared between them the whole of the Roman -Empire. They were allies, but their alliance did not long stand the -strain of their respective ambitions. Each had won an easy victory over -his antagonist, and each was confident that his legions would suffice to -win him undivided empire. We know very little of the pretexts assigned -for the quarrel which culminated in the war of 316. Zosimus throws the -blame upon Constantine, whom he accuses of not keeping faith and of -trying to filch from Licinius some of his provinces. But as the -sympathies of Zosimus were strongly pagan and as he invariably imputed -the worst possible motive to Constantine, it is fairest and most -reasonable to suppose that the two Emperors simply quarrelled over the -division of the Empire. Constantine had given the hand of his -half-sister Anastasia to one of his generals, named Bassianus, whom he -had raised to the dignity of a Cæsar. But for some reason left -unexplained—possibly because Constantine granted only the title, without -the legions and the provinces, of a Cæsar—Bassianus became discontented -with his position and entered into an intrigue with Licinius. -Constantine discovered the plot, put Bassianus to death, and demanded -from Licinius the surrender of Senecio, a brother of the victim and a -relative of Licinius. The demand was refused; some statues of -Constantine were demolished by Licinius’s orders at Æmona (Laybach) and -war ensued. - -The armies met in the autumn of 316 near Cibalis, in Pannonia, between -the rivers Drave and Save. Neither Emperor led into the field anything -approaching the full strength he was able to muster; Licinius is said to -have had only 35,000 men and Constantine no more than 20,000. From -Zosimus’s highly rhetorical account of the battle[59] we gather that -Constantine chose a position between a steep hill and an impassable -morass, and repulsed the charge of the legions of Licinius. Then as he -advanced into the plain in pursuit of the enemy, he was checked by some -fresh troops which Licinius brought up, and a long and stubborn contest -lasted until nightfall, when Constantine decided the fortunes of the day -by an irresistible charge. Licinius is said to have lost 20,000 men in -this encounter, more than fifty per cent. of his entire force, and he -beat a hurried retreat, leaving his camp to be plundered by the victor, -whose own losses must also have been severe. - ------ - -Footnote 59: - - Zosimus, ii., 19. - ------ - -A few weeks later the battle was renewed on the plain of Mardia in -Thrace. Licinius had evidently been strongly reinforced from Asia, for, -though he was again defeated after a hotly contested battle, he was able -to effect an orderly retreat and draw off his beaten troops without -disorder—a rare thing in the annals of Roman warfare, where defeat -usually involved destruction. Constantine is said to have owed his -victory to his superior generalship and to the skill with which he timed -a surprise attack of five thousand of his men upon the rear of the -enemy. Yet we may be certain that he would not have consented to treat -with Licinius for peace had he not had considerable cause for anxiety -about the final issue of the campaign. However, his two victories, while -not sufficiently decisive to enable him to dictate any terms he chose, -at least gave him the authoritative word in the negotiations which -ensued, and sealed the doom of the unfortunate Valens, whom Licinius had -just appointed Cæsar. When Licinius’s envoy spoke of his two imperial -masters, Licinius and Valens, Constantine retorted that he recognised -but one, and bluntly stated that he had not endured tedious marches and -won a succession of victories, only to share the prize with a -contemptible slave. Licinius sacrificed his lieutenant without -compunction and consented to hand over to Constantine Illyria and its -legions, with the important provinces of Pannonia, Dalmatia, Moesia, and -Dacia. The only foothold left him on the Continent of Europe, out of all -that had previously been included in the eastern half of the Empire, was -the province of Thrace. - -At the same time, the two Emperors agreed to elevate their sons to the -rank of Cæsar. Constantine bestowed the dignity upon Crispus, the son of -his first marriage with Minervina. Crispus was now in the promise of -early manhood, and had proved his valour, and won his spurs in the -recent campaign. Licinius gave the title to his son Licinianus, an -infant no more than twenty months old. These appointments are important, -for they shew how completely the system of Diocletian had broken down. -The Emperors appointed Cæsars out of deference to the letter of that -constitution, but they outrageously violated its spirit by appointing -their own sons, and when the choice fell on an infant, insult was added -to injury. It was plain warning to all the world that Constantine and -Licinius meant to keep power in their own hands. When, a few years -later, three sons were born to Constantine and Fausta in quick -succession, the eldest, who was given the name of his father, was -created Cæsar shortly after his birth. No doubt the Empress—herself an -Emperor’s daughter—demanded that her son should enjoy equal rank with -the son of the low-born Minervina, and the probabilities are that -Constantine already looked forward to providing the young Princes with -patrimonies carved out of the territory of Licinius. However, there was -no actual rupture between the two Emperors until 323, though relations -had long been strained. - -We know comparatively little of what took place in the intervening -years. They were not, however, years of unbroken peace. There was -fighting both on the Danube and the Rhine. The Goths and the Sarmatæ, -who had been taught such a severe lesson by Claudius and Aurelian that -they had left the Danubian frontier undisturbed for half a century, -again surged forward and swept over Moesia and Pannonia. We hear of -several hard-fought battles along the course of the river, and then, -when Constantine, at the head of his legions, had driven out the -invader, he himself crossed the Danube and compelled the barbarians to -assent to a peace whereby they pledged themselves to supply the Roman -armies, when required, with forty thousand auxiliaries. The details of -this campaign are exceedingly obscure and untrustworthy. The Panegyrists -of the Emperor claimed that he had repeated the triumphs of Trajan. -Constantine himself is represented by the mocking Julian as boasting -that he was a greater general than Trajan, because it is a finer thing -to win back what you have lost than to conquer something which was not -yours before. The probabilities are that there took place one of those -alarming barbarian movements from which the Roman Empire was never long -secure, that Constantine beat it back successfully, and gained victories -which were decisive enough at the moment, but in which there was no real -finality, because no finality was possible. Probably it was the -seriousness of these Gothic and Sarmatian campaigns which was chiefly -responsible for the years of peace between Constantine and Licinius. -Until the barbarian danger had been repelled, Constantine was perforce -obliged to remain on tolerable terms with the Emperor of the East. - -While the father was thus engaged on the Danube, the son was similarly -employed on the Rhine. The young Cæsar, Crispus, already entrusted with -the administration of Gaul and Britain and the command of the Rhine -legions, won a victory over the Alemanni in a winter campaign and -distinguished himself by the skill and rapidity with which he executed a -long forced march despite the icy rigours of a severe season. It is -Nazarius, the Panegyrist, who refers[60] in glowing sentences to this -admirable performance—carried through, he says, with “incredibly -youthful verve” (_incredibili juvenilitate confecit_),—and praises -Crispus to the skies as “the most noble Cæsar of his august father.” -When that speech was delivered on the day of the Quinquennalia of the -Cæsars in 321, Constantine’s ears did not yet grudge to listen to the -eulogies of his gallant son. - ------ - -Footnote 60: - - _Pan. Vet._, x., 36. - ------ - -But there is one omission from the speech which is exceedingly -significant. It contains no mention of Licinius, and no one reading the -oration would gather that there were two Emperors or that the Empire was -divided. Evidently, Constantine and Licinius were no longer on good -terms, and none knew better than the Panegyrists of the Court the art of -suppressing the slightest word or reference that might bring a frown to -the brow of their imperial auditor. But even two years before, in 319, -the names of Licinius and the boy, Cæsar Licinianus, had ceased to -figure on the consular Fasti—a straw which pointed very clearly in which -direction the wind was blowing. - -Zosimus attributes the war to the ambition of Constantine; Eutropius -roundly accuses[61] him of having set his heart upon acquiring the -sovereignty of the whole world. On the other hand, Eusebius[62] depicts -Constantine as a magnanimous monarch, the very pattern of humanity, long -suffering of injury, and forgiving to the point of seventy times seven -the ungrateful intrigues of the black-hearted Licinius. According to the -Bishop of Cæsarea, Constantine had been the benefactor of Licinius, who, -conscious of his inferiority, plotted in secret until he was driven into -open enmity. But it is very evident that the reason of Eusebius’s enmity -to Licinius was the anti-Christian policy into which the Emperor had -drifted, as soon as he became estranged from Constantine. A more -detailed description of Licinius’s religious policy and of the new -persecution which broke out in his provinces will be found in another -chapter; here we need only point out Eusebius’s anxiety to represent the -cause of the quarrel between the Emperors as being in the main a -religious one. He tells us[63] that Licinius regarded as traitors to -himself those who were friendly to his rival, and savagely attacked the -bishops, who, as he judged, were his most bitter opponents. The phrase, -not without reason, has given rise to the suspicion that the Christian -bishops of the East were regarded as head centres of political -disaffection, and Licinius evidently suspected them of preaching treason -and acting as the agents of Constantine. We have not sufficient data to -enable us to draw any sure inference, but the bishops could not help -contrasting the liberality of Constantine to the Church, of which he was -the open champion, with the reactionary policy of Licinius, which had at -length culminated in active persecution. - ------ - -Footnote 61: - - Eutropius, x., 5: _Principatum totius orbis adfectans._ - -Footnote 62: - - Euseb., _De Vita Const._, i., 50. - -Footnote 63: - - _Ibid._, i., 56. - ------ - -[Illustration: - - THE WESTERN SIDE OF A PEDESTAL, SHOWING THE HOMAGE OF THE VANQUISHED - GOTHS. - FROM GROSVENOR’S “CONSTANTINOPLE.” -] - -But the dominant cause of this war is to be found in political ambitions -rather than in religious passions, and if we must declare who of the two -was the aggressor, it is difficult to escape throwing the blame upon -Constantine. Licinius was advancing in years. Even if he had not -outlived his ambitions, he can at least have had little taste for a -campaign in which he put all to the venture. Constantine, on the other -hand, was in the prime of life, and the master of a well tried, -disciplined, and victorious army. The odds were on his side. He had all -the legions which could be spared from the Rhine and the Danube, and all -the auxiliaries from the Illyrian and Pannonian provinces—the best -recruiting grounds in the Empire—to oppose to the legions of Syria and -Egypt. Constantine doubtless seemed to the bishops to be entering the -field as the champion of the Church, but the real prize which drew him -on was universal dominion. - -This time both Emperors exerted themselves to make tremendous -preparations for the struggle. Zosimus describes how Constantine began a -new naval harbour at Thessalonica to accommodate the two hundred war -galleys and two thousand transports which he had ordered to be built in -his dock-yards. He mobilised, if Zosimus is to be trusted, 120,000 -infantry and 10,000 marines and cavalry. Licinius, on the other hand, is -said to have collected 150,000 foot and 15,000 horse. Whether these -numbers are trustworthy or not, it is evident that the two Emperors did -their best to throw every available man into the plain of Adrianople, -where the two hosts were separated by the river Hebrus. Some days were -spent in skirmishing and manœuvring; then on July 3, 323, a decisive -action was brought on, which ended in the rout of the army of Licinius. -Constantine, whose tactical dispositions seem to have been more skilful -than those of Licinius, secretly detached a force of 5000 archers to -occupy a position in the rear of the enemy, and these used their bows -with overwhelming effect at a critical moment of the action, when -Constantine himself, at the head of another detachment, succeeded in -forcing a passage of the river. Constantine received a slight wound in -the thigh, but he had the satisfaction of seeing the enemy driven from -their fortified camp and betake themselves in hurried flight to the -sheltering walls of Byzantium, leaving 34,000 dead and wounded on the -field of battle. - -Byzantium was a stronghold which had fallen before Maximin after a siege -of eleven days, but we may suppose that Licinius had looked well to its -fortifications with a view to such an emergency as that in which he now -found himself. He placed, however, his chief reliance in his fleet, -which was nearly twice as numerous as that of Constantine. Licinius had -assembled 350 ships of war, levied, in accordance with the practice of -Rome, from the maritime countries of Asia and Egypt. No fewer than 130 -came from Egypt and Libya, 110 from Phœnicia and Cyprus, and a similar -quota from the ports of Cilicia, Ionia, and Bithynia. The galleys were -probably in good fighting trim, but the service was not a willing one, -and the fleet was as badly handled as it was badly stationed. Amandus, -the admiral of Licinius, had kept his ships cooped up in the narrow -Hellespont, thus acting weakly on the defensive instead of boldly -seeking out the enemy. Constantine entrusted the chief command of his -various squadrons to his son Crispus, whose only experience of naval -matters had probably been obtained from the manœuvres of the war galleys -on the Rhine. But a Roman general was supposed to be able to take -command on either element as circumstances required. In the present case -Crispus more than justified his father’s choice. He was ordered to -attack and destroy Amandus, and the peremptoriness of the order was -doubtless due to the difficulty of obtaining supplies for so large an -army by land transport only. Two actions were fought on two successive -days. In the first Amandus had both wind and current in his favour and -made a drawn battle of it. The next day the wind had veered round to the -south, and Crispus, closing with the enemy, destroyed 130 of their -vessels and 5000 of their crews. The passage of the Hellespont was -forced; Amandus with the remainder of his fleet fled back to the shelter -of Byzantium, and the straits were open for the passage of Constantine’s -transports. - -The Emperor pushed the siege with energy, and plied the walls so -vigorously with his engines that Licinius, aware that the capitulation -of Byzantium could not long be postponed, crossed over into Asia to -escape being involved in its fate. Even then he was not utterly -despondent of success, for he raised one of his lieutenants, -Martinianus, to the dignity of Cæsar or Augustus—a perilous distinction -for any recipient with the short shrift of Valens before his eyes—and, -collecting what troops he could, he set his fleet and army to oppose the -crossing of Constantine when Byzantium had fallen. But holding as he did -the command of the sea, the victor found no difficulty in effecting a -landing at Chrysopolis, and Licinius’s last gallant effort to drive back -the invader was repulsed with a loss of 25,000 men. Eusebius, in an -exceptionally foolish chapter, declares that Licinius harangued his -troops before the battle, bidding them carefully keep out of the way of -the sacred Labarum, under which Constantine moved to never-failing -victory, or, if they had the mischance to come near it in the press of -battle, not to look heedlessly upon it. He then goes on to ascribe the -victory not to the superior tactical dispositions of his chief or to the -valour of his men, but simply and solely to the fact that Constantine -was “clad in the breastplate of reverence and had ranged over against -the numbers of the enemy the salutary and life-giving sign, to inspire -his foes with terror and shield himself from harm.”[64] We suspect, -indeed, that far too little justice has been done to the good -generalship of Constantine, who, by his latest victory, brought to a -close a brilliant and entirely successful campaign over an Emperor whose -stubborn powers of resistance and dauntless energy even in defeat -rendered him a most formidable opponent. - ------ - -Footnote 64: - - _De Vita Const._, ii., 16. τὸ σωτήριον καὶ ζωοποιὸν σημεῖον, ὥσπερ τι - φόβητρον καὶ κακῶν ἀμυντήριον. - ------ - -Licinius fell back upon Nicomedia. His army was gone. There was no time -to beat up new recruits, for the conqueror was hard upon his heels. He -had to choose, therefore, between suicide, submission, and flight. He -would perhaps have best consulted his fame had he chosen the proud Roman -way out of irreparable disaster and taken his life. Instead he begged -that life might be spared him. The request would have been hopeless, and -would probably never have been made, had he not possessed in his wife, -Constantia, a very powerful advocate with her brother. Constantia’s -pleadings were effectual: Constantine consented to see his beaten -antagonist, who came humbly into his presence, laid his purple at the -victor’s feet, and sued for life from the compassion of his master. It -was a humiliating and an un-Roman scene. Constantine promised -forgiveness, admitted the suppliant to the Imperial table, and then -relegated him to Thessalonica to spend the remainder of his days in -obscurity. Licinius did not long survive. Later historians, anxious to -clear Constantine’s character of every stain, accused Licinius of -plotting against the generous Emperor who had spared him. Others -declared that he fell in a soldiers’ brawl: one even says that the -Senate passed a decree devoting him to death. It is infinitely more -probable that Constantine repented of his clemency. No Roman Emperor -seems to have been able to endure for long the existence of a discrowned -rival, however impotent to harm. Eutropius expressly states that -Licinius was put to death in violation of the oath which Constantine had -sworn to him.[65] Eusebius says not a word of Licinius’s life having -been promised him; he only remarks, “Then Constantine, dealing with the -accursed of GOD and his associates according to the rules of war, handed -them over to fitting punishment.”[66] A pretty euphemism for an act of -assassination! - ------ - -Footnote 65: - - _Contra religionem sacramenti occisus est_, x., 6. - -Footnote 66: - - _De Vita Const._, ii., 18. - ------ - -So died Licinius, unregretted by any save the zealous advocates of -paganism, in the city where he himself had put to death those two -hapless ladies, Prisca and Valeria. The best character sketch of him is -found in Aurelius Victor, who describes him as grasping and avaricious, -rough in manners and of excessively hasty temper, and a sworn foe to -culture, which he used to say was a public poison and pest (_virus et -pestem publicum_), notably the culture associated with the study and -practice of the law. Himself of the humblest origin, he was a good -friend to the small farmers’ interests; while he was a martinet of the -strictest type in all that related to the army. He detested the -paraphernalia of a court, in which Constantine delighted, and Aurelius -Victor says that he made a clean sweep (_vehemens domitor_) of all -eunuchs and chamberlains, whom he described as the moths and shrew-mice -of the palace (_tineas soricesque palatii_). Of his religious policy we -shall speak elsewhere; of his reign there is little to be said. It has -left no impress upon history, and Licinius is only remembered as the -Emperor whose misfortune it was to stand in the way of Constantine and -his ambitions. Constantine threw down his statues; revoked his edicts; -and if he spared his young son, the Cæsar Licinianus, the clemency was -due to affection for the mother, not to pity for the child. Martinianus, -the Emperor at most of a few weeks, had been put to death after the -defeat of Chrysopolis, and Constantine reigned alone with his sons. The -Roman Empire was united once more. - -[Illustration] - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - -[Illustration] - - - - - CHAPTER VIII - LAST DAYS OF PERSECUTION - - -In a previous chapter we gave a brief account of the terrible sufferings -inflicted upon the Church during the persecution which followed the -edicts of Diocletian. They continued for many years almost without -interruption, but with varying intensity. When, for example, Diocletian -celebrated his Vicennalia a general amnesty was proclaimed which must -have opened the prison doors to many thousands of Christians. Eusebius -expressly states that the amnesty was for “all who were in prison the -world over,” and there is no hint that liberty was made conditional upon -apostasy. None the less, it is certain that a great number of Christians -were still kept in the cells—on the pretext that they were specially -obnoxious to the civil power—by governors of strong anti-Christian bias. -The sword of persecution was speedily resumed and wielded as vigorously -as before down to the abdication of Diocletian and Maximian. - -Then came another lull. With Constantius as the senior Augustus the -persecution came to an end in the West, and even in the East there was -an interval of peace. For Maximin, who was soon to develop into the most -ferocious of all the persecutors,—so St. Jerome speaks of him in -comparison with Decius and Diocletian,—gave a brief respite to the -Christians in his provinces of Egypt, Cilicia, Palestine, and Syria. - - “When I first visited the East,” Maximin wrote,[67] some years later, - in referring to his accession, “I found that a great number of persons - who might have been useful to the State had been exiled to various - places by the judges. I ordered each one of these judges no longer to - press hardly upon the provincials, but rather to exhort them by kindly - words to return to the worship of the gods. While my orders were - obeyed by the magistrates, no one in the countries of the East was - exiled or ill-treated, but the provincials, won over by kindness, - returned to the worship of the gods.” - ------ - -Footnote 67: - - Eusebius, _Hist. Eccles._, ix., 9. - ------ - -Direct contradiction is given to this boast as to the number of -Christian apostates by the fact that, within a twelvemonth, the new -Cæsar grew tired of seeking to kill Christianity by kindness and revoked -his recent rescript of leniency. Maximin developed into a furious bigot. -He fell wholly under the influence of the more fanatical priests and -became increasingly devoted to magic, divination, and the black arts. -Lactantius declares that not a joint appeared at his table which had not -been taken from some victim sacrificed by a priest at an altar and -drenched with the wine of libation. Edict followed edict in rapid -succession, until, in the middle of 306, what Eusebius describes as “a -second declaration of war” was issued, which ordered every magistrate to -compel all who lived within his jurisdiction to sacrifice to the gods on -pain of being burnt alive. House to house visitations were set on foot -that no creature might escape, and the common informer was encouraged by -large rewards to be active in his detestable occupation. It would seem -indeed as if the Christians in the provinces of Maximin suffered far -more severely than any of their brethren. The most frightful bodily -mutilations were practised. Batches of Christians were sentenced to work -in the porphyry mines of Egypt or the copper mines of Phænos in -Palestine, after being hamstrung and having their right eyes burnt out -with hot irons. The evidence of Lactantius, who says that the confessors -had their eyes dug out, their hands and feet amputated, and their -nostrils and ears cut off, is corroborated by Eusebius and the authors -of the _Passions_. - -Palestine seems to have had two peculiarly brutal governors, Urbanus and -Firmilianus. The latter in a single day presided at the execution of -twelve Christians, pilgrims from Egypt on their way to succour the -unfortunate convicts in the copper mines of Palestine, whose deplorable -condition had awakened the active sympathy of the Christian East. These -bands of pilgrims had to pass through Cæsarea, where the officers of -Firmilianus were on the watch for them, and as soon as they confessed -that they were Christians they were haled before the tribunal, where -their doom was certain. A distinguishing feature of the persecution in -the provinces of Maximin was the frequency of outrages upon Christian -women and the fortitude with which many of the victims committed suicide -rather than suffer pollution. The story of St. Pelagia of Antioch is -typical. Maximin sent some soldiers to conduct her to his palace. They -found her alone in her house and announced their errand. With perfect -composure this girl of fifteen asked permission to retire in order to -change her dress, and then, mounting to the roof, threw herself down -into the street below. Eusebius, himself an eye-witness of this -persecution, gives many a vivid story of the fury of Maximin and his -officials, and of the cold-blooded calculation with which he sought to -draw new victims into the net of the law. In 308 he issued an edict -ordering every city and village thoroughly to repair any temple which, -for whatever reason, had been allowed to fall into ruins. He increased -tenfold the number of priesthoods, and insisted upon daily sacrifices. -The magistrates were again strictly enjoined to compel men, women, -children, and slaves alike to offer sacrifice and partake of the -sacrificial food. All goods exposed for sale in the public markets were -to be sprinkled with lustral water, and even at the entrance to the -public baths, officials were to be placed to see that no one passed -through the doors without throwing a few grains of incense on the altar. -Maximin, in short, was a religious bigot, who combined with a zealous -observance of pagan ritual a consuming hatred of Christianity. - -There are not many records of what was taking place in the provinces of -Galerius, while Maximin was thus terrorising Syria and Egypt. But the -Emperor had begun to see that the persecution, upon which he had entered -with such zest some years before, was bound to end in failure. The -terrible malady which attacked him in 310 would tend to confirm his -forebodings. Like Antiochus Epiphanius, Herod the Great, and Herod -Agrippa, Galerius became, before death released him from his agony, a -putrescent and loathsome spectacle. His physicians could do nothing for -him. Imploring deputations were sent to beg the aid of Apollo and -Æsculapius. Apollo prescribed a remedy, but the application only left -the patient worse, and Lactantius quotes with powerful effect the lines -from Virgil which describe Laocoon in the toils of the serpents, raising -horror-stricken cries to Heaven, like some wounded bull as it flies -bellowing from the altar. Was it when broken by a year’s constant -anguish that Galerius exclaimed that he would restore the temple of God -and make amends for his sin? Was he, as Lactantius says, “compelled to -confess GOD”? Whether that be so or not, here is the remarkable edict -which the shattered Emperor found strength to dictate. It deserves to be -given in full: - - “Among the measures which we have constantly taken for the well-being - and advantage of the State, we had wished to regulate everything - according to the ancient laws and public discipline of the Romans, and - especially to provide that the Christians, who had abandoned the - religion of their ancestors, should return to a better frame of mind. - - “For, from whatever reason, these Christians were the victims of such - wilfulness and folly that they not only refused to follow the ancient - customs, which very likely their own forefathers had instituted, but - they made laws for themselves according to their fancy and caprice, - and gathered together all kinds of people in different places. - - “Eventually, when our commands had been published that they should - conform to long established custom, many submitted from fear, and many - more under the compulsion of punishment. - - “But since the majority have obstinately held out and we see that they - neither give the gods their worship and due, nor yet adore the God of - the Christians, we have taken into consideration our unexampled - clemency and followed the dictation of the invariable mercifulness, - which we shew to all men. - - “We have, therefore, thought it best to extend even to these people - our fullest indulgence and to give[68] them leave once more to be - Christians, and rebuild their meeting places, provided that they do - nothing contrary to discipline. - - “In another letter we shall make clear to the magistrates the course - which they should pursue. - - “In return for our indulgence the Christians will, in duty bound, pray - to their God for our safety, for their own, and for that of the State, - that so the State may everywhere be safe and prosperous, and that they - themselves may dwell in security in their homes.” - -This extraordinary edict was issued at Nicomedia on the last day of -April, 311. It is as abject a confession of failure as could be expected -from an Emperor. Galerius admits that the majority of Christians have -stubbornly held to their faith in spite of bitter persecution, and now, -as they are determined to sin against the light and follow their own -caprice, more in sorrow than in anger, he will recognise their status as -Christians and give them the right of assembly, provided they do not -offend against public discipline. But the special interest of this edict -lies in the Emperor’s request that the Christians will pray for him, in -the despairing hope that Christ may succeed, where Apollo has failed, in -finding a remedy for his grievous case. Galerius was ready to clutch at -any passing straw. - ------ - -Footnote 68: - - _Ut denuo sint Christiani et conventicula componant, ita ut ne quid - contra disciplinam agant._ - ------ - -The edict bore the names of Galerius, of Constantine, and of Licinius. -Maxentius, who at this time ruled Italy, was not recognised by Galerius, -so the absence of his name causes no surprise. Maximin’s name is also -absent, but we find one of his præfects, Sabinus, addressing shortly -afterwards a circular letter to all the Governors of Cilicia, Syria, and -Egypt, in which the signal was given to stop the persecution. Like -Galerius, Maximin declared that the sole object of the Emperors had been -to lead all men back to a pious and regular life, and to restore to the -gods those who had embraced alien rites contrary to the spirit of the -institutions of Rome. Then the letter continued: - - “But since the mad obstinacy of certain people has reached such a - pitch that they are not to be shaken in their resolution either by the - justice of the imperial command or by the fear of imminent punishment, - and since, actuated by these motives, a very large number have brought - themselves into positions of extreme peril, it has pleased their - Majesties in their great pity and compassion to send this letter to - your Excellency. - - “Their instructions are that if any Christian has been apprehended, - while observing the religion of his sect, you are to deliver him from - all molestation and annoyance and not to inflict any penalty upon him, - for a very long experience has convinced the Emperors that there is no - method of turning these people from their madness. - - “Your Excellency will therefore write to the magistrates, to the - commander of the forces, and to the town provosts, in each city, that - they may know for the future that they are not to interfere with the - Christians any more.” - -In other words, the prisons were to be emptied and the mad sectaries to -be let alone. The bigot was obliged to bow, however reluctantly, to the -wishes and commands of the senior Augustus, even though Galerius was a -broken and dying man. - -Nevertheless, within six months we find Maximin devising new schemes for -troubling the Christians. Eusebius tells us with what joy the edict of -toleration had been welcomed, with what triumph the Christians had -quitted their prisons, and with what enthusiastic exultation the bands -of Christian confessors, returning from the mines to their own towns and -villages, were received by the Christian communities in the places -through which they passed. Those whose testimony to their faith had not -been so sure and clear, those who had bowed the knee to Baal under the -shadow of torture and death, humbly approached their stouter-hearted -brethren and implored their intercession. The Church rose from the -persecution proudly and confidently, and with incredible speed renewed -its suspended services and repaired its broken organisation. Maximin -issued an order forbidding Christians to assemble after dark in their -cemeteries, as they had been in the habit of doing, in order to -celebrate the victory of their martyrs over death. Such assemblies, the -Emperor said, were subversive of morality: they were to be allowed no -more. This must have warned the Christians how little reliance was to be -placed in the promises of Maximin, and shortly afterwards they had -another warning. Maximin made a tour through his provinces and in -several cities received petitions in which he was urged to give an order -for the absolute expulsion of all Christians. No doubt it was known that -such a request would be well pleasing to Maximin, but at the same time -it undoubtedly points to the existence of a strong anti-Christian -feeling. At Antioch, which was under the governorship of Theotecnus, the -petitioners, according to Eusebius, said that the expulsion of the -Christians would be the greatest boon the Emperor could confer upon -them, but the full text of one of these petitions has been found among -the ruins of a small Lycian township of the name of Aricanda. It runs as -follows: - - “To the Saviours of the entire human race, to the august Cæsars, - Galerius Valerius Maximinus, Flavius Valerius Constantinus, Valerius - Licinianus Licinius, this petition is addressed by the people of the - Lycians and the Pamphylians. - - “Inasmuch as the gods, your congeners, O divine Emperor, have always - crowned with their manifest favours those who have their religion at - heart and offer prayers to them for the perpetual safety of our - invincible masters, we have thought it well to approach your immortal - Majesty and to ask that the Christians, who for years have been - impious and do not cease to be so, may be finally suppressed and - transgress no longer, by their wicked and innovating cult, the respect - that is owing to the gods. - - “This result would be attained if their impious rites were forbidden - and suppressed by your divine and eternal decree, and if they were - compelled to practise the cult of the gods, your congeners, and pray - to them on behalf of your eternal and incorruptible Majesty. This - would clearly be to the advantage and profit of all your subjects.” - -Eusebius records two replies of the Emperor to petitions of this -character. One is contained in a letter to his præfect, Sabinus, and -relates to Nicomedia. The other is a document copied by Eusebius from a -bronze tablet set up on a column in Tyre. Maximin expatiates at great -length on the debt, which men owe to the gods, and especially to -Jupiter, the presiding deity of Tyre, for the ordered succession of the -seasons, and for keeping within their appointed bounds the overwhelming -forces of Nature. If there have been calamities and cataclysms, to what -else, he asks, can they be attributed than to the “vain and pestilential -errors of the villainous Christians?” Those who have apostatised and -have been delivered from their blindness are like people who have -escaped from a furious storm or have been cured of some deadly malady. -To them life offers once more its bounteous blessings. Then the Emperor -continues: - - “But if they still persist in their detestable errors, they shall be - banished, in accordance with your petition, far from your city and - your territory, that so this city of Tyre, completely purified, as you - most properly desire it to be, may yield itself wholly to the worship - of the gods. - - “But that you may know how agreeable your petition has been to us, and - how, even without petition on your part, we are disposed to heap - favours upon you, we grant you in advance any favour you shall ask, - however great, in reward for your piety. - - “Ask, therefore, and receive, and do so without hesitation. The - benefit which shall accrue to your city will be a perpetual witness of - your devotion to the gods.” - -Evidently the Christians had not yet come to the end of their troubles. -Those who read this circular letter, for it seems to have been sent -round from city to city, must have expected the persecution to break out -anew at any moment. We do not know to what extent the edict was -observed. If it had been generally acted upon, we should certainly have -heard more of it, inasmuch as it must have entailed a widespread exodus -from the provinces of Maximin. But of this there is no evidence. We -imagine rather that this circular was merely a preliminary sharpening of -the sword in order to keep the Christians in a due state of -apprehension. - -Maximin, however, continued his anti-Christian propaganda with unabated -zeal, and with greater cunning and better devised system than before. -His court at Antioch was the gathering place of all the priests, -magicians, and thaumaturgists of the East, who found in him a generous -patron. We hear of a new deity being invented by Theotecnus, or rather -of an old deity being invested with new attributes. Zeus Philios, or -Jupiter the Friendly was the name of this god, to whom a splendid statue -was erected in Antioch, and to whose shrine a new priesthood, with new -rites, was solemnly dedicated. The god was provided with an attendant -oracle to speak in his name; what more natural than that the first -response should order the banishment of all Christians from the city? -Very noteworthy, too, was the re-appearance of a vigorous anti-Christian -literature. Maximin set on his pamphleteers to write libellous parodies -of the Christian doctrines and encouraged the more serious -controversialists on the pagan side to attack the Christian religion -wherever it was most vulnerable. The most famous of these productions -was one which bore the name of _The Acts of Pilate_ and purported to be -a relation by Pilate himself of the life and conduct of Christ. It was -really an old pamphlet rewritten and brought up to date, full, as -Eusebius says, of all conceivable blasphemy against Christ and reducing -Him to the level of a common malefactor. Maximin welcomed it with -delight. He had thousands of copies written and distributed; extracts -were cut on brass and stone and posted up in conspicuous places; the -work was appointed to be read frequently in public, and—what shews most -of all the fury and cunning of Maximin—it was appointed to be used as a -text-book in schools throughout Asia and Egypt. There was no more subtle -method of training bigots and poisoning the minds of the younger -generation amongst Christianity. Some of the Emperor’s devices, however, -were much more crude. For example, the military commandant of Damascus -arrested half a dozen notorious women of the town and threatened them -with torture if they did not confess that they were Christians, and that -they had been present at ceremonies of the grossest impurity in the -Christian assemblies. Maximin ordered the precious confession thus -extorted to be set up in a prominent place in every township. - -But the Emperor was not merely a furious bigot. There is evidence that -he fully recognised the wonderful strength of the Christian -ecclesiastical organisation and contrasted it with the essential -weakness of the pagan system. In this he anticipated the Emperor Julian. -Paganism was anything but a church. Its framework was loose and -disconnected. There were various colleges of priests, some of which were -powerful and had branches throughout the Empire, but there was little -connection between them save that of a common ritual. There was also -little doctrine save in the special mysteries, where membership was -preceded by formal initiation. Maximin sought to institute a pagan -clergy based upon the Christian model, with a definite hierarchy from -the highest to the lowest. There were already chief priests of the -various provinces, who had borne for long the titles of Asiarch, -Pontarch, Galatarch, and Ciliciarch in their respective provinces. -Maximin developed their powers on the model of those of the Christian -bishops, giving them authority over subordinates and entrusting them -with the duty of seeing that the sacrifices were duly and regularly -offered. He tried to raise the standard of the priesthood by choosing -its members from the best families, by insisting on the priests wearing -white flowing robes, by giving them a guard of soldiers and full powers -of search and arrest. - -Evidently, Maximin was something more than the lustful, bloodthirsty -tyrant who appears in the pages of Lactantius and the ecclesiastical -historians. He dealt the Church much shrewder—though not less -ineffectual—blows than his colleagues in persecution. With such an -Emperor another appeal to the faggot and the sword was inevitable, and -the death of Galerius was the signal for a renewal of the persecution. -This time Maximin struck directly at the most conspicuous figures in the -Christian Church and counted among his victims Peter, the Patriarch of -Alexandria, and three other Egyptian bishops—Methodus, Bishop of Tyre, -Basiliscus, Bishop of Comana in Bithynia, and Silvanus, Bishop of Emesa -in Phœnicia. In Egypt the persecution was so sharp that it drew Saint -Antony from his hermit’s cell in the desert to succour the unfortunate -in Alexandria. He escaped with his life, probably because he was -overlooked or disdained, or because the mighty influence which he was to -exercise upon the Church had not yet declared itself. This persecution -was followed by a terrible drought, famine, and pestilence. -Eusebius,[69] in a vigorous chapter, describes how parents were driven -by hunger to sell not only their lands but also their children, how -whole families were wiped out, how the pestilence seemed to mark down -the rich for its special vengeance, and how in certain townships the -inhabitants were driven to kill all the dogs within their walls that -they might not feed on the bodies of the unburied dead. Amid these -horrors the Christians alone remained calm. They alone displayed the -supreme virtue of charity in tending the suffering and ministering to -the dying. From the pagans themselves, says Eusebius, was wrung the -unwilling admission that none but the Christians, in the sharp test of -adversity, shewed real piety and genuine worship of God.[70] - ------ - -Footnote 69: - - _Hist. Eccles._, ix., 8. - -Footnote 70: - - Εὐσεβεῖς τε καὶ μόνους θεοσεβεῖς τούτους ἀληθῶς, πρὸς αυτῶν - ἐλεγχθέντας τῶν πραγμάτων, ὁμολογεῖν. - ------ - -Maximin’s reign, however, was fast drawing to a close. After becoming -involved in a war with Tiridates of Armenia, from which he emerged with -little credit to himself, he entered into an alliance with Maxentius, -the ruler of Italy, against Constantine and Licinius, but did not invade -the territory of the latter until Maxentius had already been overthrown. -As we have seen, Maximin was utterly routed and, after a hurried flight -to beyond the Taurus, he there, according to Eusebius,[71] gathered -together his erstwhile trusted priests, thaumaturgists, and soothsayers, -and slew them for the proved falsehood of their prophecy. More -significant still, when he found that his doom was certain, he issued a -last religious edict in the vain hope of appeasing the resentment of the -Christians and their God. The document is worth giving in full: - - “The Emperor Cæsar Caius Valerius Maximinus, Germanicus, Sarmaticus, - pious, happy, invincible, august. - - “We have always endeavoured by all means in our power to secure the - advantage of those who dwell in our provinces, and to contribute by - our benefits at once to the prosperity of the State and to the - well-being of every citizen. Nobody can be ignorant of this, and we - are confident that each one who puts his memory to the test, is - persuaded of its truth. - - “We found, however, some time ago that, in virtue of the edict - published by our divine parents, Diocletian and Maximian, ordering the - destruction of the places where the Christians were in the habit of - assembling, many excesses and acts of violence had been committed by - our public servants and that the evil was being increasingly felt by - our subjects every day, inasmuch as their goods were, under this - pretext, unwarrantably seized. - - “Consequently, we declared last year by letters addressed to the - Governors of the Provinces that if any one wished to attach himself to - this sect and practise this religion, he should be allowed to please - himself without interference and no one should say him nay, and the - Christians should enjoy complete liberty and be sheltered from all - fear and all suspicion. - - “However, we have not been able entirely to shut our eyes to the fact - that certain of the magistrates misunderstood our instructions, with - the result that our subjects distrusted our words and were nervous - about resuming the religion of their choice. That is why, in order to - do away with all disquietude and equivocation for the future, we have - resolved to publish this edict, by which all are to understand that - those who wish to follow this sect have full liberty to do so, and - that, by the indulgence of our Majesty, each man may practise the - religion he prefers or that to which he is accustomed. - - “It is also permitted to them to rebuild the houses of the LORD. - Moreover, so that there may be no mistake about the scope of our - indulgence, we have been pleased to order that all houses and places, - formerly belonging to the Christians, which have either been - confiscated by the order of our divine parents, or occupied by any - municipality, or sold or given away, shall return to their original - ownership, so that all men may recognise our piety and our - solicitude.” - ------ - -Footnote 71: - - _Hist. Eccles._, ix., 10. - ------ - -The bigot must have been brought very low and reduced to the last depths -of despair before he set his seal to such a document as this. One can -see that it was drawn up by Maximin with a copy of the Edict of Milan -before him, and that he hoped, by this tardy and clumsy recognition of -the principle of absolute liberty of conscience for all men, to make the -Christians forget his brutalities. Doubtless, the Christians of Cilicia -and Syria looked to Constantine in far off Gaul as a model prince and -emperor, and heard with joy of the steady advance of Constantine’s ally, -Licinius. The latter would come in their eyes in the guise of a -liberator, and prayers for his success would be offered up in every -Christian church of the persecuted East. Maximin sought to repurchase -their loyalty: it was too late. His absurd pretext that his orders had -been misunderstood by his provincial governors would deceive no one. He -had been the shrewdest enemy with whom the Church had had to cope; his -edict of recantation was read with chilly suspicion or cold contempt, -which was changed into hymns of rejoicing when the Christians heard that -the tyrant had poisoned himself and died in agony, while his conqueror, -Licinius, had drowned the fallen Empress in the Orontes and put to death -her children, a boy of eight and a girl of seven. Those who had suffered -persecution for ten years may be pardoned their exultation that there -was no one left alive to perpetuate the names of their persecutors.[72] - ------ - -Footnote 72: - - _Hoc modo deus universos persecutores nominis sui debellavit, ut eorum - nec stirps nec radix ulla remaneret._—_De Mort. Persec._, c. 49. - ------ - -Throughout this time the West had escaped very lightly. Even Maxentius -had begun his reign by seeking to secure the good-will of the -Christians. Eusebius, indeed, makes the incredible statement[73] that in -order to please and flatter the Roman people he pretended to embrace the -Christian faith and “assumed the mask of piety.” Probably all he did was -to leave the Christians of Rome in peace. The chair of St. Peter had -remained empty for four years after the death of Bishop Marcellinus. In -308 Marcellus was elected to fill it and the Church was organised -afresh. But it was rent with internal dissensions. There was a large -section which insisted that the brethren who had been found weak during -the recent persecution should be received back into the fold without -penance and reproach. Marcellus stood out for discipline; the quarrel -became so exacerbated that Maxentius exiled the Bishop, who shortly -afterwards died. A priest named Eusebius was then chosen Pontiff, but -the schismatics elected a Pontiff of their own, Heraclius by name, and -the rival partisans quarrelled and fought in the streets. Maxentius, -with strict impartiality, exiled both. The record of this schism is -preserved in the curious epitaph composed by Pope Damasus for the tomb -of Eusebius: - - “Heraclius forbade the lapsed to bewail their sins; Eusebius taught - them to repent and weep for their wrong-doing. The people were divided - into factions, raging and furious: then came sedition, bloodshed, war, - discord, strife.[74] Forthwith both were driven away by the cruelty of - the tyrant. While the Bishop preserved intact the bonds of peace, he - endured his exile gladly on the Trinacrian shores, knowing that God - was his judge, and so passed from this world and from life.” - ------ - -Footnote 73: - - _Hist. Eccles._, viii., 14. - -Footnote 74: - - _Scinditur in partes populus gliscente furore; Seditio, cædes, bellum, - discordia, lites._ - ------ - -On the confession of Damasus himself, the state of the Roman Church -warranted the interference of Maxentius if it resulted in “sedition, -bloodshed, war, discord, and strife,” and the “cruelty of the tyrant” in -this particular case is not proven. Eusebius died in Sicily in 310; in -the following year Miltiades was elected Bishop, and Maxentius restored -to the Roman Christians their churches and cemeteries, which for eight -years had been in the hands of the civil authorities. - -The overthrow of Maxentius by Constantine, the destruction of Maximin by -Licinius, the publication of the Edict of Milan, and the apparent -sincerity of the two Emperors in their anxiety to restore peace and -security, were naturally hailed by the Christians throughout the Empire -with the liveliest joy. On every side stately churches began to rise -from the ground, and as the triumph of Christianity over its enemies was -incontestable, converts came flocking in by the thousand to receive what -Eusebius calls “the mysterious signs of the Saviour’s Passion.” The only -troublers of the Church were members of the Church herself, like the -extravagant Donatists in Africa. The canons of the Council of Ancyra, -which was held soon after the death of Maximin, shew how the -ecclesiastical authorities imposed varying penances upon those who had -shrunk from their duty as soldiers of Christ in the recent persecution, -varying, that is to say, according to the extent of their shortcomings. -Some had apostatised and themselves turned persecutors; some had -sacrificed at the first command; some had endured prison, but had shrunk -from torture; some had suffered torture, but quailed before the stake; -some had bribed the executioners only to make a show of torturing them; -some had attended the sacrificial feasts, but had substituted other -meats. The punishments range from ten years of probation and every -degree of penance, down to a few months’ deprivation of the comforts and -communions of the Church. - -New dangers, however, speedily threatened. Constantine and Licinius -quarrelled between themselves and, after two stubborn battles, agreed -upon a fresh division of the world. For eight years, from 315 to 323, -this partition lasted, but, as the Emperors again drifted apart, -Licinius became more and more anti-Christian. His rivalry with -Constantine accounts for the change. Licinius suspected Constantine of -intriguing with his Christian subjects just as Constantine regarded the -pagan element in his own provinces as the natural focus of disaffection -against his rule. Licinius had no definite Christian beliefs; he had -been the friend and nominee of Galerius; and, like Galerius, he never -got rid of the suspicion that the Christian assemblies were a danger to -the public security. The Christians had aided him against Maximin: he -thought they would do the same for Constantine against himself. -Eusebius[75] likens him to a twisted snake, wriggling along and -concealing its poisoned fangs, not daring to attack the Church openly -for fear of Constantine, but dealing it constant and insidious blows. - ------ - -Footnote 75: - - _De Vita Constant._, ii., 1. - ------ - -The simile was well chosen. Licinius seems to have opened his campaign -against the Christians by forbidding the bishops in his provinces to -leave their dioceses and take part in their usual synods and councils. -They were to remain at home, he said, and mind their own business and -not plot treason against their Emperor under the pretext of perfecting -the discipline of the Church. Another edict, which came with poor grace -from a man whose own excesses were notorious, forbade Christian men and -women to meet for common worship in their churches: they were to worship -apart, so that their morals might not be exposed to danger. On the same -pretext, bishops and priests were only allowed to give teaching and -consolation to their own sex; Christian women must find women teachers -and advisers. Eusebius tells us[76] that these edicts excited universal -ridicule. It was too late to revive the old stories of gross immorality -taking place at the communion services, and there was fresh cause for -mocking laughter when Licinius forbade the Christians to assemble in -their churches within the towns and ordered them to go outside the gates -and meet, if they must meet, in the open air. This was necessary, he -said, on the grounds of public health; the atmosphere beyond the gates -was purer. Licinius’s theory of hygiene was perfectly sound; its -application was ludicrous. - ------ - -Footnote 76: - - _De Vita Constant._, i., 53. - ------ - -These were the first steps leading, as his subjects must have known only -too well, straight to persecution. After a time Licinius threw over -bodily the Edict of Milan. He purged his court and his army in the old -way. The choice was sacrifice or dismissal, and some pretext was usually -made to tack on to official dismissal a confiscation of goods. Licinius, -says Eusebius, thirsted for gold like a very Tantalus. Aurelius Victor -says[77] he had all the mean, sordid avarice of a peasant. And the -Christians, of course, were fair game. He pillaged their churches, -robbed them of their goods, sentenced them to exile and to the mines, or -ruined them just as effectually by insisting on their becoming -magistrates. Bloodshed followed, and Licinius aimed his severest blows -at the bishops. He accused them of omitting his name in their prayers -for the welfare of the Emperor and the State, though they carefully -remembered that of Constantine; and, if none were actually put to death, -many suffered imprisonment, torture, and mutilation. The story of the -martyrs and confessors in the Licinian persecution is very like that of -those who suffered under Diocletian and Maximin. But the fate of the -forty soldier martyrs of the Twelfth Legion (_Fulminata_) deserves -special mention. They had refused to sacrifice, and, by order of their -general, were stripped naked and ordered to remain throughout a winter’s -night upon a frozen pond, exposed to the elements. At the side of the -pond was a building, where the water for the town baths was heated. -Apparently no guard was kept. The martyrs were free to make their way to -the warmth and shelter if they wished it, but only at the price of -apostasy. One of them, after enduring bravely for many hours, crawled -towards the warmth, but died of exhaustion as soon as he had crossed the -threshold. The sight so affected the pagan attendant of the bath that he -flung off his clothes in uncontrollable emotion, and with the shout, “I -too am a Christian,” took the place of the weak brother who had just -lost the martyr’s crown. In the morning the forty were found dead and -their bodies were burnt at the stake. It was said that one of them was -found to be still breathing, and the executioners put him apart from the -rest. His mother, afraid lest he should miss entering heaven by the side -of his brave companions in glory, herself placed him in the cart to be -borne to the stake. - ------ - -Footnote 77: - - _Huic parcimonia et ea quidem agrestis._ - ------ - -Another moving story of the Licinian persecution is that of Gordius of -Cæsarea, in Cappadocia. He had fled from his home to live the life of a -hermit among the mountains, when suddenly an impulse came upon him to -return and testify to the truth. The people were all assembled in the -Circus, intent upon some public spectacle, when an uncouth figure was -seen to move slowly down the marble steps and then pass out into the -centre of the arena. A hush fell upon the multitude, as the hermit was -recognised and dragged before the tribunal of the Governor. “I have -come,” he said, “to shew how little I think of your edicts and to -confess my faith in Jesus Christ, and I have chosen this moment, O -Governor, because I know your cruelty, which surpasses that of all other -men.” They put him to the torture: he delighted in his pain. “The more -you torture me,” he said, “the greater will be my reward. There is a -bargain between God and us. Each pang and torment that we suffer here -will be rewarded there by increased glory and happiness.” - -Licinius had thus, like Maximin, made himself the champion of the old -religion and the religious reactionaries. When in 323 war again broke -out between himself and Constantine, it was as the professed enemy of -Christianity and its God that he took the field. The war was a war of -ambition on both sides, but it was also a war between the two religions. -We have mentioned elsewhere the oath which Licinius took before the -battle, when he vowed that if the gods gave him the victory he would -extirpate root and branch the Christian religion. Fate gave him no -opportunity to fulfil his promise. Defeated at Adrianople and at -Chrysopolis, and then exiled to Thessalonica, Licinius had not many -months to live. Before he died he saw his pagan councillors pay for -their folly with their lives and heard the rejoicings of the Christians -of the East at the fall of the last of their pagan persecutors. The -Church at last had won her freedom and was to suffer at the hands of the -State no more. Eusebius has fortunately preserved for us the text of the -edict addressed by Constantine after his victory to the inhabitants of -Palestine, recalling from exile, from the mines, and from servitude the -Christian victims of the recent persecution, restoring their property to -those who had suffered confiscation, offering to soldiers who had been -expelled in disgrace from the army either a return to their old rank or -the certificate of honourable discharge, and giving back to the churches -without diminution the corporate possessions of which they had been -robbed. Constantine not merely passed the sponge over the administrative -acts of Licinius: he granted large subsidies to the bishops who had -suffered at the hands of “the dragon,” and himself wrote to “his dearest -beloved brother,” Eusebius of Cæsarea, urging him to see that the -bishops, elders, and deacons in his neighbourhood were “active and -enthusiastic in the work of the Church.”[78] - ------ - -Footnote 78: - - σπουδάζειν περὶ τὰ ἔργα τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν.—_De Vita Const._, ii., 46. - ------ - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - -[Illustration] - - - - - CHAPTER IX - CONSTANTINE AND THE DONATISTS - - -If Constantine hoped that by the Edict of Milan he had stilled the voice -of religious controversy, he was speedily disillusioned. He was now to -find the peace of the Church violently disturbed by those belonging to -her communions, and the hatreds of Christians against one another almost -as menacing to the tranquillity of the imperial rule as had been the -bitter strife of pagan and Christian. In the same year (313) he received -an appeal from certain African bishops imploring him to appoint a -commission of Gallican bishops to settle certain difficulties which had -arisen in Africa. The Donatist schism, which was destined to last for -more than a century, had begun. - -Its rise may be traced in a few words. Northern Africa had long been the -home of a perfervid religious fanaticism. Montanism and Novatianism had -found there their most violent adherents, to whom there was something -peculiarly attractive in extravagant protest against the laxity or the -liberalism of the Church elsewhere, and in emphatic insistence on the -narrowness of the way which leads to salvation. Those who set up the -most impossible standard of attainment; those who demanded from the -Christian the most absolute spotlessness of life; those who insisted -most strenuously on the enormity of sin and made fewest allowances for -the weakness of humanity—these were surest of being heard most gladly in -northern Africa. During the persecution of Diocletian and Maximian many -of the African Christians had ostentatiously courted martyrdom. -According to Catholic authors, such martyrdom had been sought not only -by saints, but by men of immoral and dissolute life, who thought to -purge the stains of a sinful career by dying in the odour of sanctity. -Others, again, while not prepared to die for the faith, were not -unwilling to suffer imprisonment for it, inasmuch as their -fellow-Christians looked well after the creature comforts of those who -languished in gaol. Mensurius, Bishop of Carthage and Primate of Africa, -strongly disapproved of these proceedings. He discountenanced the -fanaticism, which he knew to be the besetting weakness of his people; -refused to recognise as martyrs those who had provoked death; and -checked, as far as possible, the indiscriminate charity of his flock. If -his critics are to be believed, Mensurius had resort to a trick in order -to save the Holy Books of his own cathedral and thus escape the choice -of being a _traditor_ or of suffering for conscience’ sake. It was said -that when the officers of the civil power demanded the Holy Books in his -keeping, he handed over to them a number of heretical volumes, which -were at once burnt, while the Sacred Scriptures were carefully -concealed. It is not surprising, therefore, to find that Mensurius was -charged with actual persecution of those Christians who had a sterner -sense of duty than himself. - -It is manifest, however, from what took place at a synod of bishops held -in Cirta in 305 that many of the natural leaders of the African Church -had quailed before the persecution of Diocletian. They had assembled, -under the presidency of Secundus, Bishop of Tigisis and Primate of -Numidia, in order to fill the vacant see of Cirta. Secundus opened the -proceedings by inviting all present to clear themselves of the charge of -having surrendered their Holy Books, and began to put the question -directly to each in turn. Donatus of Mascula returned an evasive answer, -and said that he was responsible only to God. Many pleaded that they had -substituted other books for the Scriptures; Victor of Russicas alone -confessed that he had handed over the Four Gospels. “Valentinianus, the -Curator, himself compelled me to send them,” he said; “pardon me this -fault, even as God pardons me.” Then came the turn of Purpurius, Bishop -of Limata. Secundus accused him not of being a _traditor_, but of the -murder of two of his nephews. Purpurius stormed with rage. He vowed that -he would not be browbeaten, and declared that Secundus was no better -than his fellows and had purchased his own immunity, like the rest of -them, by surrendering the Scriptures. As for murdering his nephews, the -charge was true. “I did kill them,” he said, “and I kill all who stand -in my way.” This candid avowal seems to have occasioned no surprise -among the members of this extraordinary synod; they were all too -indignant with Secundus for raising inconvenient questions and -pretending to a sanctity beyond his colleagues. Eventually, another -nephew of Secundus threatened that they would all withdraw from his -communion and make a schism (_recedere et schisma facere_), unless he -let the matter drop. “What business is it of yours what each has done?” -asked the outspoken nephew. “It is to God that each must tender his -account.” The president thereupon drew in his horns, pronounced the -acquittal of the accused, and with a general murmur of “_Deo gratias_,” -they proceeded to the election of a bishop. Their choice fell upon -Sylvanus, himself a _traditor_, much, it is said, to the indignation of -the people of Cirta, who raised cries of, “He is a _traditor_: let -another be elected. We want our bishop to be pure and upright.” Sylvanus -had surrendered, without even a show of compulsion, one of the sacred -silver lamps from the altar of his church. It is more than possible that -the report of the proceedings at this synod, which is found only in -works written specifically—but by episcopal hands—against the Donatists, -is highly exaggerated. Among the bishops present at Cirta were those -who, a few years later, were the principal leaders of the Donatist -schism. But, even when all allowances are made for party colouring, the -picture it gives of the Numidian Church is far from flattering. - -During the life of Mensurius overt schism was avoided, though the Church -of Carthage was by no means untroubled. For even before the persecution -broke out, a certain lady named Lucilla had fallen under the censure of -the ecclesiastical authorities, and had left the fold in high dudgeon. -She became the lady patroness of the malcontent Christians of Carthage -and the prime mover in any ecclesiastical intrigue that was afoot. She -had been wont, before taking the Eucharist, to kiss the doubtful relic -of a martyr, and she had set greater store on the efficacy of this -unregistered bone than on the virtues of the sacred chalice. It was not, -of course, for relic worship that Cæcilianus, the Archdeacon, rebuked -her, for the early Church everywhere acknowledged its intercessional -value, and it was the usual practice for an officiating priest, before -celebrating, to kiss the relics that were placed on the high altar. -Lucilla was reproved because her relic was not recognised by the -Church.[79] It was doubtful whether it had belonged to a martyr at all, -and, in any case, its identity had not been duly authenticated. But -before Mensurius could deal with this revolted daughter the tempest of -persecution broke over Africa. The angry and insulting epithets with -which the Catholic historians have loaded Lucilla are perhaps the best -testimony to her ability and influence. She was very rich and a born -intriguante (_pecuniosissima et factiosissima_), and as she had what she -considered to be a personal insult to avenge, she was as willing as she -was competent to cause trouble and mischief. - ------ - -Footnote 79: - - _Os nescio cujus hominis mortui, et si martyris, sed necdum - vindicati._ - ------ - -Shortly before the overthrow of Maxentius, one of Mensurius’s deacons -issued a defamatory libel against the Emperor and then took sanctuary at -Carthage. The Bishop refused to surrender him and was peremptorily -summoned to Rome. Evidently expecting that the Emperor would condemn him -and order the confiscation of the holy vessels of his church, Mensurius -secretly handed them over to the custody of certain elders in whose -honesty he thought he could place implicit reliance. But he took the -precaution—a wise one, as it subsequently proved—to make an inventory, -which he gave to an old woman, with instructions that if he did not -return she was to hand it to his lawfully appointed successor. Mensurius -then went to Rome, succeeded in convincing Maxentius of his innocence, -but died on the way home, in 311 A.D. As soon as the news of his death -reached Carthage, the round of intrigue began. According to Optatus, two -deacons named Botrus and Celestius, each hoping to secure his own -elevation, hurried on the election, in which the Numidian bishops were -not invited to take part. The passage is obscure, for Optatus goes on to -say that the choice fell upon Cæcilianus, who was elected “by the -suffrages of the whole people,” and was consecrated in due form by -Felix, Bishop of Aptunga. When Cæcilianus called upon the elders to -restore the Church ornaments, they quitted the Church—the suggestion of -the Catholic historian is that they had hoped to steal them—and attached -themselves to the faction of Lucilla, together with Botrus and -Celestius, whom St. Augustine roundly denounces as “impious and -sacrilegious thieves.” The schism was now complete. It had its origin, -says Optatus,[80] in the fury of a headstrong woman; it was nurtured by -intrigue and drew its strength from jealous greed. - ------ - -Footnote 80: - - _Schisma igitur illo tempore confusæ mulieris iracundia peperit, - ambitus nutrivit, avaritia roboravit._ - ------ - -Cæcilianus’ position was speedily challenged. The malcontents appealed -to the Numidian bishops, urging them to declare in synod whether the -election was valid. Accordingly, the Numidian Primate, Secundus of -Tigisis, came with seventy other bishops to the capital, where they were -received with open arms by the opposition party. Cæcilianus seated -himself on his throne in the cathedral and waited for the bishops to -appear. When they did not come he sent a message saying, “If any one has -any accusation to bring against me, let him come to make good the -charge.”, But the Numidian bishops preferred to meet elsewhere within -closed doors and finally declared the election of Cæcilianus invalid on -the ground that he had been consecrated by a _traditor_. To this -Cæcilianus replied that, if they thought Felix of Aptunga had been a -_traditor_, they had better consecrate him themselves, as though he were -still a simple deacon—a sarcasm which roused the violent Purpurius to -exclaim: “Let him come here to receive the laying on of hands, and we -will strike off his head by way of penance.” They then elected -Majorinus, who had been one of Cæcilianus’ readers and was now a member -of Lucilla’s household. There were thus two rival bishops of Carthage. -Those who supported Cæcilianus called themselves the Catholic party; -their rivals, until the death of Majorinus in 315, were known as the -party of Majorinus, though their moving spirit seems to have been, -first, Donatus, the Bishop of Casæ Nigræ, and, afterwards, Donatus, -surnamed Magnus, who gave his name to the schism. - -Though Africa was thus split into two camps, there is no evidence that -Majorinus was recognised by any of the churches of Europe, Egypt, or -Asia. These all looked to Cæcilianus as the rightful bishop, and so, -when Constantine, fresh from his victory over Maxentius, wrote to the -African churches in 312 to announce his intention of making a handsome -present of money to their clergy, it was to Cæcilianus that the letter -was addressed, and the schismatics were rebuked in the sharpest terms. -The letter ran as follows: - - “CONSTANTINE AUGUSTUS TO CÆCILIANUS, BISHOP OF - CARTHAGE. - - “Inasmuch as it has pleased us to contribute something towards the - necessary expenses of certain ministers of the lawful and most holy - Catholic religion throughout all the provinces of Africa, Numidia, and - both Mauretanias, I have sent letters to Ursus, the most noble - governor of Africa, and have instructed him to see that three thousand - purses are paid over to your Reverence. When, therefore, you have - received the above mentioned sum, you will take care that the money is - divided among the clergy already spoken of according to the - instructions sent to you by Hosius. - - “If you consider this amount insufficient for the purpose of - testifying my regard for all of you in Africa, you are to ask without - delay Heraclidas, the procurator of the imperial domains, for whatever - you may think necessary. For I have personally instructed him that - whatever sum your Reverence asks for is to be paid without hesitation. - - “And since I have heard that certain persons of ill-balanced mind - (_quosdam non satis compositæ mentis_) are acting in such a manner as - to corrupt the people of the most holy and Catholic Church with wicked - and adulterous falsehoods (_improba et adulterina falsitate_), I would - have you know that I have given verbal instructions to Anulinus, the - proconsul, and to Patricius, the vicar of the præfects, to include - among their other duties a sharp lookout in this matter, and, if this - movement continues, not to neglect or ignore it. - - “Consequently, if you find persons of this character persevering in - their mad folly (_in hac amentia perseverare_) you will at once - approach the above mentioned judges and lay the matter before them, - that they may punish the culprits (_in eos animadvertant_) in - accordance with my personal instructions. - - “May the divinity of the Supreme God (_Divinitas summi Dei_) preserve - you for many years.” - -In conjunction with this must be taken the letter addressed by -Constantine to Anulinus, the proconsul of Africa: - - “Greetings to our best beloved Anulinus! Inasmuch as it is abundantly - proven that the neglect of the religion which preserves the greatest - reverence for divine majesty has reduced the State to the direst - peril, while its careful and due observance has brought the most - splendid prosperity to the Roman name and unspeakable felicity to all - things mortal, thanks to divine goodness, we have resolved, best - beloved Anulinus, that those, who with due righteousness of life and - continual observance of the law, perform their ministry in this divine - religion shall reap the reward of their labours. - - “Wherefore, it is our wish that all who, in the province under your - care and in the Catholic Church over which Cæcilianus presides, - minister to this most holy religion—those, viz., whom people are wont - to call the clergy—shall be absolved[81] from all public duties of any - kind, lest, by some slip or grave mischance, they may be distracted - from the duties they owe to the Supreme Divinity, and that they may do - the better service to their own ritual without any disturbing - influences. - - “Inasmuch as these people display the deepest reverence for the Divine - Will, it seems to me that they ought to receive the greatest reward - the State can bestow.” - ------ - -Footnote 81: - - _Ab omnibus omnino publicis functionibus immunes volumus conservari._ - ------ - -[Illustration: - - THE AMPHITHEATRE AT ARLES. - EXTERIOR VIEW. PRESENT DAY. -] - -These are two remarkable letters. They clearly prove that the schism in -the African Church was making a stir outside Africa, and that the -Emperor had been instructed in the main points at issue. The new convert -had cast his all-powerful influence upon the Catholic side—an Emperor -would naturally be biassed against schism—and he was prepared to utilise -the civil power in order to compel the return of the schismatics to -obedience. So little observant was he of his own edict of toleration -that he was prepared to use force to secure uniformity within the -Church! Constantine, indeed, reveals himself not merely as a Christian, -but as a Catholic Christian; his bounty is reserved for the Catholic -clergy, and the immunity from public duties involving heavy expense is -reserved similarly for them alone. Nevertheless, the party of Majorinus -petitioned the Emperor to appoint a commission of Gallican bishops to -enquire into and report upon their quarrel with the Bishop of Carthage. - - “We appeal to you, Constantine, best of Emperors, since you come of a - just stock, for your father was alone among his colleagues in not - putting the persecution into force, and Gaul was thus spared that - frightful crime. Strife has arisen between us and other African - bishops, and we pray that your piety may lead you to grant us judges - from Gaul.” - - (Signed by Lucianus, Dignus, Nasutius, Capito, Fidentius, and other - bishops of the party of Majorinus.) - -This petition was forwarded by Anulinus, the proconsul, whose covering -letter, dated April, 313, describes the opponents of Cæcilianus as being -resolute in refusing obedience. The Emperor, who was in Gaul when the -petition reached him, granted the desired commission and instructed the -bishops of Cologne, Autun, and Arles to repair to Rome. Cæcilianus was -instructed to attend with the bishops belonging to his party; ten of the -rival bishops attached to Majorinus were to appear in the character of -accusers, and for judges there were to be Miltiades, Bishop of Rome, the -three Gallican bishops, and fifteen other Italian bishops selected by -Miltiades from all parts of the peninsula. They met in October in the -palace of the Empress Fausta, on the Lateran. Constantine had already -written a letter to Miltiades, in which he deplored the existence of -such serious schism in the populous African provinces, which, he said, -had spontaneously surrendered to him, under the influence of divine -Providence, as a reward for his devotion to religion. He, therefore, -looked to the bishops to find a reasonable solution. - -At the first sitting the credentials of the accusers of Cæcilianus were -examined, and some were disqualified on the score of bad character. -Then, when the witnesses were called, those who had been brought to Rome -by Majorinus and Donatus avowed that they had nothing to say against -Cæcilianus. The case of the petitioners practically collapsed, for the -judges refused to listen to unsubstantiated gossip and scandal, and -Donatus in the end declined to attend the enquiry, fearing lest he -should be condemned on his own admissions. Later on, a second list of -charges was handed in, but was not supported by a single witness, and -then finally the commission passed on to enquire into the proceedings of -the Council of the seventy bishops who had declared the election of -Cæcilianus invalid. They had no difficulty in reaching a general -decision. - -The accusations against Cæcilianus had clearly broken down and the -verdict of Miltiades began in the following terms: “Inasmuch as it is -shewn that Cæcilianus is not accused by those who came with Donatus, as -they had promised to do, and Donatus has in no particular established -his charges against him, I find that Cæcilianus should be maintained in -the communion of his church with all his privileges intact.” St. -Augustine warmly eulogises the admirable moderation displayed by -Miltiades, who, in the hope of restoring unity, offered to send letters -of communion to all who had been consecrated by Majorinus, proposing -that where there were two rival bishops, the senior in time of -consecration should be confirmed in the appointment, while another see -should be found for the other. But the Donatists would listen to no -compromise. They appealed again to the Emperor, who, with a very -pardonable outburst of wrath, denounced the rabid and implacable hatreds -of these turbulent Africans. - -Knowing that the quarrel would be resumed in full blast if Cæcilianus -and Donatus returned to Africa, Constantine detained them both in Italy. -Two Italian bishops, Eunomius and Olympius, were meanwhile sent to -Carthage to act as peacemakers and explain to the African congregations -which was the true Catholic Church. It was none other, they said, than -the Church which was diffused throughout the whole world, and they -insisted that the judgment of the nineteen bishops was one from which -there could be no appeal. The Donatists, however, retorted that if the -verdict of nineteen bishops was sacred, a verdict of seventy must be -even more so. They resisted the overtures of their visitors, and thus, -when Donatus and Cæcilianus in turn reappeared on the scene, the fires -of partisanship did not lack for fuel. It was no longer possible for the -Donatists to press for a rehearing on the ground of the personal -character of Cæcilianus. They had had their chance in Rome to impugn the -Primate’s character, and had failed. They now shifted their ground and -based their claim upon the fact that Felix of Aptunga, who had -consecrated Cæcilianus, was a _traditor_, and the consecration was, -therefore, invalid. - -But was Felix a _traditor_? This was a plain, straightforward question, -involving no disputed point of doctrine. Constantine, therefore, wrote -to Ælianus, Anulinus’s successor as proconsul of Africa, instructing him -to hold a public enquiry into the life and character of Felix of -Aptunga. Part of the official report has come down to us. Among the -witnesses were those who had been the chief magistrates of Aptunga at -the time of the persecution. These must all have been acutely conscious -of the curiously anomalous position in which they stood. If they found -that Felix had delivered up the Holy Books and utensils of the church, -their verdict would acquit him of having broken the law of Diocletian, -but would convict him of being a _traditor_, and would, therefore, be -most unwelcome to the reigning sovereign. If they decided that Felix was -not a _traditor_, they would convict him of having broken the law of -Diocletian and convict themselves of having been lax administrators. The -favour of a living Prince, however, outweighed consideration for the -edicts of the dead, and the finding of the court was that “no volumes of -Holy Scripture had been discovered at Aptunga, or had been defiled, or -burnt.” It went on to say that Felix was not present in the city at the -time and that he had not temporised with his conscience (_neque -conscientiam accommodaverit_). He had been, in short, a godly bishop -(_religiosum episcopum_). The character of Felix was, therefore, -entirely rehabilitated and the validity of the consecration of -Cæcilianus was unimpaired. - -[Illustration: - - THE AMPHITHEATRE AT ARLES AS IT APPEARED IN 1686. - FROM AN OLD PRINT. -] - -Then follows the Council of Arles in 314. With a forbearance rarely -displayed by a Roman emperor to inveterate and unreasoning opposition, -Constantine yielded to the clamour of the Donatists for a new council on -a broader and more authoritative scale than the commission of Italian -and Gallic bishops. But his disappointment and disgust are plainly to be -seen in his letter to the proconsul of Africa. Constantine began by -saying that he had fully expected that the decision of a commission of -bishops “of the very highest probity and competence” would have -commanded universal respect. He found, however, that the enemies of -Cæcilianus were as dogged and obstinate as ever, for they declared that -the bishops had simply shut themselves up in a room and judged the case -according to their personal predilections. They clamoured for another -council: he would grant them one which was to meet at Arles. Ælianus, -therefore, was to see that the public posting service throughout Africa -and Mauretania was placed at the disposal of Cæcilianus and his party -and of Donatus and his party, that they might travel with despatch and -cross into Spain by the quickest passage. Then the letter continued: - - “You will provide each separate Bishop with imperial letters entitling - him to necessaries _en route_ (_tractorias litteras_) that he may - arrive at Arles by the first of August, and you will also give all the - bishops to understand that, before they leave their dioceses, they - must make arrangements whereby, during their absence, reasonable - discipline may be preserved and no chance revolt against authority or - private altercations arise, for these bring the Church into great - disgrace. - - “On the other matters at issue, I wish the enquiry to be full and - complete, and an end to be reached,[82] as I hope it may be, when all - those who are known to be at variance meet together in person. The - quarrel may thus come to its natural and timely conclusion. - - “For as I am well assured that you are a worshipper of the supreme - God, I confess to your Excellency that I consider it by no means - lawful for me to ignore disputes and quarrels of such a nature as may - excite the supreme Divinity to wrath, not only against the human race - but against myself personally, into whose charge the Divinity by its - Divine will has committed the governance of all that is on earth. In - its just indignation, it might decree some ill against me. - - “And then only can I feel really and absolutely secure, and hope for - an unfailing supply of all the richest blessings that flow from the - instant goodness of Almighty God, when I shall see all mankind - reverencing most Holy God in brotherly singleness of worship and in - the lawful rites of our Catholic religion.”[83] - ------ - -Footnote 82: - - _De cætero plena cognitione suscepta finis adhibeatur._ - -Footnote 83: - - _Tunc enim revera et plenissime securus potero esse, cum universos - sensero debito cultu catholicæ religionis sanctissimum Deum concordi - observantiæ fraternitate venerari._ - ------ - -Not only did Constantine write in this evidently sincere strain to the -proconsul of Africa; he also sent personal letters to the bishops whose -presence he desired. Eusebius has preserved the text of one of these, -which was addressed to Chrestus, Bishop of Syracuse, in which the -Emperor instructs him not to fail to reach Arles by August 1st, and bids -him secure a public vehicle from Latronianus, the Governor of Sicily, -and bring with him two presbyters of the second rank and three personal -servants. In obedience to Constantine’s wishes the bishops assembled at -Arles by the appointed day. It is not known how many were present. On -the fullest list of those who signed the canons there agreed to are -found the names of thirty-three bishops, thirteen presbyters, -twenty-three deacons, two readers, seven exorcists, and four -representatives of the Bishop of Rome. But from the extreme importance -attached to the council in later times it is certain that many more -attended, and the numbers have been variously estimated at from two to -six hundred. Not a single Eastern bishop was present. It was a council -of the West, representing the various provinces of Africa and Gaul, -Spain, Britain, Italy, Sicily, and Sardinia. From Britain came Eborius -of York, Restitutus of London, and Adelfius, the Bishop of a diocese -which has been variously interpreted as that of Colchester, Lincoln, and -Caerleon on Usk, with a presbyter named Sacerdos and a deacon called -Arminius. The Bishop of Rome, Sylvester, sent two presbyters and two -deacons. - -The Council investigated with great minuteness the points raised by the -Donatists, but it is clear from the report sent to Sylvester that the -Donatists were no better supplied with evidence than they had been at -Rome. They simply repeated the old, unsubstantiated charge against -Cæcilianus that, as deacon, he had forcibly prevented the members of the -Church of Carthage from succouring their brethren in prison during the -persecution of Diocletian, and the disproved accusation against the -bishop who consecrated him that he had been a _traditor_. In a word, -they had absolutely no case and the Council of Arles endorsed the -verdict of the Council of Rome. The synodal letter to Sylvester began as -follows: - - “We, assembled in the city of Arles at the bidding of our most pious - Emperor, in the common bonds of charity and unity, and knitted - together by the ties of the mother Catholic Church, salute you, most - holy Pope, with all due reverence. We have endured to listen to the - accusations of desperate men, who have wrought grave injury to our law - and tradition, men whom the present authority of our God and the rule - of truth have so utterly disowned that there was no reason in their - speeches, no bounds to the charges they brought, and no evidence or - proof. And so, in the judgment of God and the Mother Church, which has - known and attests them, they stand either condemned or rejected. Would - that you, dearest brother, had found it possible to take part in such - a gathering. We verily believe that in that case a more severe - sentence would have been passed upon them, while if your judgment had - coincided with ours, the joy of our assembly would have been - intensified. But since you found it impossible to leave the chosen - place where the Apostles make their daily home, and where their blood - testifies ceaselessly to the glory of God, we thought, dearest - brother, that we ought not simply to take in hand the subject for the - discussion of which we had been called together, but also to consider - other matters on our own account, and, as we have come from diverse - provinces, diverse are the topics on which it seemed good to us to - take counsel.” - -The letter then enumerates the canons to which the signatories had -agreed and transmits them with the remark that as the Bishop of Rome’s -dioceses were wider than those of any other bishop, he was the most -suitable person to press the acceptance of these canons upon the Church. - -It does not fall within the province of this book to discuss these -twenty-two canons; it will suffice to indicate the more important in the -briefest outline. The first suggested that Easter should be celebrated -on the same day throughout the whole world; the second insisted on the -clergy residing in the places to which they were ordained; the third -threatened with excommunication deserters from the army in times of -peace (_qui arma projiciunt in pace_). Of special importance in -connection with the questions raised by the Donatists were the canons -which prohibited the rebaptism of heretics if they had been baptised in -the name of the Holy Trinity; which recognised the validity of baptism -conferred by heretics, if conferred in the proper form; which ordered -that a new bishop should be consecrated by seven, or at least three, -bishops and never by a single one; which removed from the ministry all -those who were clearly proved to have been _traditores_ or to have -denounced their brother clergy, though, if these had ordained any others -to the ministry, the validity of the ordination was not to be -challenged. Worthy also of note is the canon removing from the communion -of the faithful all those engaged in any calling connected with the -arena or the stage, such as charioteers, jockeys, actors, pantomimists, -and the like, as long as they continue in professions which, in the eyes -of the Church, tend to the subversion of public morals; the canon which -excommunicated those of the clergy who practised usury, and the canon -exhorting those whose wives had been unfaithful not to marry again, as -they were legally entitled to do, during the lifetime of their guilty -partners. - -If the Council of Arles was exceptionally fruitful in respect of new -rules passed for the improvement of ecclesiastical discipline, it proved -an entire failure in its primary object, that of putting an end to the -Donatist schism. The African malcontents still refused to acknowledge -Cæcilianus and had the effrontery to appeal to Constantine for yet -another investigation. As the bishops of the West were obstinately -prejudiced against them, they desired the Emperor to be gracious enough -to take charge of the enquiry himself. Constantine did not conceal his -anger in the important letter which he addressed to the bishops at -Arles, thanking them for their labours and giving them leave to return -to their homes. He wrote: - - “Certainly I cannot describe or enumerate the blessings which God in - His heavenly bounty has bestowed upon me, His servant. I rejoice - exceedingly, therefore, that after this most just enquiry you have - recalled to better hope and future those whom the malignity of the - Devil seemed to have seduced away by his miserable persuasion from the - clearest light of the Catholic law. O truly conquering Providence of - Christ, our Saviour, solicitous even for these who have deserted and - turned their weapons against the truth, and joined themselves to the - heathen. Yet even now, if they will truly believe and obey His most - holy law, they will be able to see what forethought has been taken in - their behalf by the will of God. - - “And I hoped, most holy brethren, to find such a disposition even in - the stubbornest breasts. For not without just cause will the clemency - of Christ depart from those, in whom it shines with a light so clear - that we may perceive they are regarded with loathing by the Divine - Providence. Such men must be bereft of reason, since with incredible - arrogance they persuade themselves of the truth of things, of which it - is neither meet to speak nor hear others speak, abandoning the - righteous decisions which have been laid down. So persistent and - ineradicable is their malignity. How often already have they - shamelessly approached me, only to be crushed with the fitting - response! Now they clamour for a judgment from me, who myself await - the judgment of Christ. For I say that, as far as the truth is - concerned, a judgment delivered by priests ought to be considered as - valid as though Christ Himself were present and delivering - judgment.[84] For priests can form no thought or judgment, unless what - they are taught to utter by the admonitory voice of Christ. - - “What, then, can these malignant creatures be thinking of, creatures - of the Devil, as I have truly said? They seek the things of this - world, abandoning the things of Heaven. What sheer, rabid madness - possesses them, that they have entered an appeal, as is wont to be - done in mundane lawsuits?... What do these detractors of the law think - of Christ their Saviour, if they refuse to acknowledge the judgment of - Heaven and demand judgment from me? They are proven traitors; they - have themselves convicted themselves of their crimes, without need of - closer enquiry into them.... Do you, however, dearest brothers, return - to your own homes, and be ye mindful of me that our Saviour may ever - have mercy upon me.” - ------ - -Footnote 84: - - _Meum judicium postulant qui judicium Christi expecto. Dico enim, ut - se veritas habet, sacerdotum judicium ita debet haberi ac si ipse - Dominus residens judicet._ - ------ - -It is not a little difficult to understand why an Emperor who wrote such -a letter as the above should have again acceded to the Donatist demand -for a rehearing. Possibly the Donatists had powerful friends at court of -whom we know nothing, some member, it may be, of the Imperial Family, or -perhaps the case against them was not so one-sided as the Catholic -authorities agree in representing. At any rate, Constantine summoned -Cæcilianus to appear before him in Rome. Here is the letter which he -wrote to the Donatist bishops to apprise them of his determination: - - “A few days ago I had decided to accede to your request and permit you - to return to Africa, that the case which you think you have - established against Cæcilianus might be fully investigated and brought - to a proper conclusion. But, after long and careful consideration, I - have deemed the following arrangement best. Knowing, as I do, that - certain of you are of a decidedly turbulent nature and obstinately - reject a right verdict and the reasoning of absolute truth, it might - conceivably happen, if the case were heard in Africa, that the - conclusion reached would not be a fitting one, or in accordance with - the dictates of truth. In that event, owing to your exceeding - obstinacy, something might occur which would greatly displease the - Heavenly Divinity and do serious injury to my reputation, which I - desire ever to maintain unimpaired. I have decided therefore, as I - have said, that it is better for Cæcilianus to come here and I think - he will speedily arrive. - - “But I pledge you my word that if, in his presence, you shall succeed - in proving a single one of the crimes and misdeeds which you lay to - his charge, it shall have as much weight with me as if you had proved - every accusation you bring forward. May God Almighty keep you safe for - ever.” - -At the same time Constantine wrote to Probianus, the successor of -Ælianus in the governorship of Africa, instructing him to send under -guard to Italy certain witnesses who had been imprisoned for forging -documents purporting to shew that Felix of Aptunga was a _traditor_. -Cæcilianus failed to appear at the appointed time, for some reason which -is unknown to St. Augustine, who gives a brief account of the sequence -of events.[85] The Donatists demanded that judgment should be given -against the absent bishop by default, but Constantine refused and -ordered them to follow him to Milan, where affairs of state necessitated -his presence. If Augustine is to be trusted, the Emperor secured the -attendance of the Donatists by clapping them under guard (_ab -officialibus custoditos_). This time Cæcilianus did not fail his patron. -Constantine, who was strongly averse from taking upon himself to revise, -as it were, the judgments passed by so many bishops in council, -deprecated their possible resentment by assuring them that his sole -desire was to close the mouths of the Donatists. - ------ - -Footnote 85: - - _Epist._, 43. - ------ - -After hearing the case all over again, Constantine pronounced judgment -on Nov. 16, 316. St. Augustine says that the Emperor’s letters prove his -diligence, caution, and forethought. The praise may be deserved, but it -is evident that he had made up his mind beforehand. He re-affirmed the -absolute innocence of Cæcilianus and the shamelessness of his accusers. -In an interesting fragment of a letter written by the Emperor to -Eumalius, one of his vicars, occurs this sentence: “I saw in Cæcilianus -a man of spotless innocence, one who observed the proper duties of -religion and served it as he ought, nor did it appear that guilt could -be found in him, as had been charged against him in his absence by the -malice of his enemies.” The publication of the Emperor’s verdict was -followed by an edict prescribing penalties against the schismatics. St. -Augustine speaks of a “most severe law against the party of -Donatus,”[86] and, from other scattered references, we learn that their -churches were confiscated and that they were fined for non-obedience. -The author of the Edict of Milan, who had promised absolute freedom of -conscience to all, was so soon obliged to invoke the arm of the temporal -authority for the correction of religious disunion! - ------ - -Footnote 86: - - _Epist._, 105. - ------ - -But the Donatists, whose only _raison d’être_ was their passionate -insistence upon the obligation of the Christian to make no compromise -with conscience, however sharp the edge of the persecutor’s sword, were -obviously not the kind of people to be overawed by so mild a punishment -as confiscation of property. The Emperor’s edicts were fruitless, and in -320, only four years later, we find Constantine trying a change of -policy and recommending the African bishops to see once more what -toleration would do. Active repression only made martyrs, and martyrdom -was the goal of the fanatical Donatist’s ambition. Hence the terms in -which the Emperor addresses the Catholic Church of Africa. After -enumerating the repeated efforts he has made in order to restore unity, -and dwelling upon the deliberate and abandoned wickedness of those who -have rendered his intervention nugatory, he continues: - - “We must hope, therefore, that Almighty God may shew pity and - gentleness to his people, as this schism is the work of a few. For it - is to God that we should look for a remedy, since all good vows and - deeds are requited. But until the healing comes from above, it behoves - us to moderate our councils, to practise patience, and to bear with - the virtue of calmness any assault or attack which the depravity of - these people prompts them to deliver. - - “Let there be no paying back injury with injury: for it is only the - fool who takes into his usurping hands the vengeance which he ought to - reserve for God.[87] Our faith should be strong enough to feel full - confidence that, whatever we have to endure from the fury of men like - these, will avail with God with all the grace of martyrdom. For what - is it in this world to conquer in the name of God, unless it be to - bear with fortitude the disordered attack of men who trouble the - peaceful followers of the law! - - “If you observe my will, you will speedily find that, thanks to the - supreme power, the designs of the presumptuous standard-bearers of - this wretched faction will languish, and all men will recognise that - they ought not to listen to the persuasion of a few and perish - everlastingly, when, by the grace of penitence, they may correct their - errors and be restored to eternal life.” - ------ - -Footnote 87: - - _Nihil ex reciproco reponatur injuriæ: Vindictam enim, quam Deo - servare debemus, insipientis est manibus usurpare._ - ------ - -Patience, leniency, and toleration, however, were as futile as force in -dealing with the Donatists, who bluntly told the Emperor that his -protégé, Cæcilianus, was a “worthless rascal” (_antistiti ejus -nebuloni_), and refused to obey his injunctions. Donatus, surnamed the -Great in order to distinguish him from the other Donatus, who had been -Bishop of Casæ Nigræ, had by this time succeeded to the leadership of -the schism on the death of Majorinus, and the extraordinary ascendency -which he obtained over his followers, in spite of the powerful Imperial -influence which was always at the support of Cæcilianus, warrants the -belief that he was a man of marked ability. Learned, eloquent, and -irreproachable in private life, he is said to have ruled his party with -an imperious hand, and to have treated his bishops like lackeys. Yet his -authority was so unbounded and unquestioned that his followers swore by -his name and grey hairs, and, at his death, ascribed to him the honours -paid only to martyrs. - -Under his leadership the Donatists rapidly increased in numbers. They -were schismatics rather than heretics. They had no great distinctive -tenet; what they seem to have insisted upon chiefly was absolute purity -within the Church and freedom from worldly taint. That was their ideal, -as it has been the ideal of many other wild sectaries since their day. -They claimed special revelations of the Divine Will; they insisted upon -rebaptising their converts, compelling even holy virgins to take fresh -vows on joining their communion, which they boasted was that of the one -true Church. Such a sect naturally attracted to itself all the fanatical -extremists of Africa and all those who had any grievance against the -Catholic authorities. It became the refuge of the revolutionary, the -bankrupt, and the criminal, and thus, inside the Donatist movement -proper, there grew up a kind of anarchist movement against property, -which had little or no connection with religious principles. - -Constantine, during the remainder of his reign, practically ignored the -African Church. He had done what he could and he wiped his hands of it. -There soon arose an extravagant sect which took the name of -Circumcelliones, from their practice of begging food from cell to cell, -or cottage to cottage. They renounced the ordinary routine of daily -life. Forming themselves into bands, and styling themselves the -Champions of the Lord (ἀγωνιστικόι), they roamed through the -countryside, which they kept in a state of abject terror. St. Augustine, -in a well-known passage, declares that when their shout of “Praise be to -God!” was heard, it was more dreaded than the roar of a lion. They were -armed with wooden clubs, which they named “Israels,” and these they did -not scruple to use upon the Catholics, whose churches they entered and -plundered, committing the most violent excesses, though they were -pledged to celibacy. Gibbon justly compares them to the Camisards of -Languedoc at the commencement of the 18th century, and others have -likened them to the Syrian Assassins at the time of the Crusades and the -Jewish Sicarii of Palestine during the first century of the Christian -era. They formed, it seems, a sort of Christian Jacquerie, possessed in -their wilder moments with a frantic passion for martyrdom and imploring -those whom they met to kill them. The best of them were fit only for a -madhouse; the worst were fit only for a gaol. Probably they had little -connection with the respectable Donatists in the cities, whose -organisation was precisely the same as that of the Catholics, and their -operations were mainly restricted to the thinly populated districts on -the borders of the desert. - -On one occasion, however, Constantine was obliged to interfere. The -Donatists in Cirta,—the capital of Numidia,—which had been renamed -Constantina in honour of the Emperor, had forcibly seized the church of -the Catholics, that had been built at Constantine’s command. The -Catholics, therefore, appealed to the Emperor, and knowing that he was -pledged to a policy of non-interference, they did not ask for punishment -against the Donatists, or even for the restoration of the church in -question, but simply that a new site might be given them out of public -moneys. The Emperor granted their request, ordering that the building as -well as the site should be paid for by the State, and granting immunity -from all public offices to the Catholic clergy of the town. In his -letter Constantine does not mince his language with respect to the -Donatists. - - “They are adherents,” he says, “of the Devil, who is their father; - they are insane, traitors, irreligious, profane, ranged against God - and enemies of the Holy Church. Would to Heaven!” he concludes, “that - these heretics or schismatics might have regard even now for their own - salvation, and, brushing aside the darkness, turn their eyes to see - the true light, leaving the Devil, and flying for refuge, late though - it be, to the one and true God, who is the judge of all! But since - they are set upon remaining in their wickedness and wish to die in - their iniquities, our warning and our previous long continued - exhortations must suffice. For if they had been willing to obey our - commandments, they would now be free from all evil.” - -Evidently the Emperor was thoroughly weary of the whole controversy, and -disgusted at such unreasoning contumacy. The same feelings find powerful -expression in the letters and manifestoes of St. Augustine, a century -later, when the great Bishop of Hippo constituted himself the champion -of the Catholic Church and played the foremost part in the stormy -debates which preceded the final disappearance of the Donatist schism, -after the Council of Carthage in 410. Then the momentous decision was -reached that all bishops who, after three appeals to them to return to -the Church, still refused submission, should be brought back to the -Catholic fold by force. The point in dispute was still just what it had -been in the days of Constantine, whether a Christian Church could be -considered worthy of the name if it had admitted faithless and unworthy -members, or if the ministers had been ordained by bishops who had -temporised with their consciences and fallen short of the loftiest ideal -of duty. That was the great underlying principle at stake in the -Donatist controversy, though, as in all such controversies, the personal -element was paramount when the schism began, and was still the cause of -the bitterness and fury with which the quarrel was conducted long after -the intrigues of Lucilla and the personal animosities between Cæcilianus -and the Numidian bishops had ceased to be of interest or moment to the -living Church. And it is interesting to note that while it was the -Donatists themselves who had made the first appeal unto Cæsar by asking -Constantine to judge between them and Cæcilianus, in St. Augustine’s day -the Donatists hotly denied the capacity of the State to take cognisance -of spiritual things. What, they asked, has an Emperor to do with the -Church? _Quid est Imperatori cum Ecclesia?_ - -[Illustration: STATUE OF CONSTANTINE FROM THE PORCH OF SAN GIOVANNI IN -LATERAN, AT ROME.] - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - -[Illustration] - - - - - CHAPTER X - THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY - - -If Constantine beheld with impatience the irreconcilable fury of the -Donatists, who refused either to respect his wishes for Christian unity -or to obey the bishops of the Western Church; if he angrily washed his -hands of their stubborn factiousness and committed them in despair to -the judgment of God, we may imagine with what bitterness of soul he -beheld the gathering of the storm of violent controversy which is -associated with the two great names of Arius and Athanasius. This was a -controversy, and Arianism was a heresy, which, unlike the Donatist -schism, were confined to no single province of the Empire, but spread -like a flood over the Eastern Church, raising issues of tremendous -importance, vital to the very existence of Christianity. It started in -Alexandria. No birthplace could have been more appropriate to a system -of theology which was professedly based upon pure reason than the great -university city where East and West met, the home of Neo-Platonism, the -inheritor of the Hellenic tradition, and the chief exponent of -Hellenism, as understood and professed by Greeks who for centuries had -been subject to and profoundly modified by Oriental ideas and thought. - -We must deal very briefly with its origin. Arius was born in the third -quarter of the third century, according to some accounts in Libya, -according to others in Alexandria. He was ordained deacon by the -Patriarch Peter and presbyter by Achillas, who appointed him to the -church called Baucalis, the oldest and one of the most important of the -city churches of Alexandria. Arius had been in schism in his earlier -years. He had joined the party of Meletius, Bishop of Lycopolis, who was -condemned by a synod of Egyptian bishops in 306 for insubordination and -irregularity of conduct; but he had made submission to Achillas, and -during the latter’s short tenure of the see, Arius became a power in -Alexandria. We are told, indeed, that on the death of Achillas in 312 or -313 Arius was a candidate for the vacant throne, and Theodoretus states -that he was greatly mortified at being passed over in favour of -Alexander. But there is no indication of personal animosity or quarrel -between the bishop and the parish priest until five or six years later. -On the contrary, Alexander is said to have held Arius in high esteem, -and the fame of the priest of Baucalis spread abroad through the city as -that of an earnest worker, a strict and ascetic liver, and a powerful -preacher who dealt boldly and frankly with the great principles of the -faith. In person, Arius was of tall and striking presence, conspicuous -wherever he moved by his sleeveless tunic and narrow cloak, and gifted -with great conversational powers and charm of manner. He was also -capable of infecting others with the enthusiasm which he felt himself. -Arius has been described for us mainly by his enemies, who considered -him a very anti-Christ, and attributed his remarkable success to the -direct help of the Evil One. We may be sure that, like all the great -religious leaders of the world,—among whom, heretic though he was, he -deserves a place,—he was fanatically sincere and the doctrine which he -preached was vital and fecund, even though the vitality and fecundity -were those of error. - -It was not, apparently, until the year 319 that serious disturbance -began in the Christian circles of Alexandria. There would first of all -be whispers that Arius was preaching strange doctrine and handling the -great mysteries somewhat boldly and dogmatically. Many would doubt the -wisdom of such outspokenness, quite apart from the question whether the -doctrine taught was sound; others would exhibit the ordinary distrust of -innovation; others would welcome this new kindling of theological -interest from the mere pleasure of debate and controversy. We do not -suppose that any one, not even Arius himself, foresaw—at any rate, at -first—the extraordinary and lamentable consequences that were to follow -from his teaching. The Patriarch Alexander has been blamed for not -crushing the infant heresy at its birth, for not stopping the mouth of -Arius before the mischief was done. It is easy to be wise after the -event. Doubtless Alexander did not appreciate the danger; possibly also -he thought that if he waited, the movement would subside of itself. He -may very well have believed that this popular preacher would lose his -hold, that some one else would take his place as the fashionable -clergyman of the hour, that the extravagance of his doctrines would -speedily be forgotten. Moreover, Arius was a zealous priest, doing good -work in his own way, and long experience has shewn that it is wise for -ecclesiastical superiors to give able men of marked power and -originality considerable latitude in the expression of their views. - -As time went on, however, it became clear that Alexander must intervene. -Arius was now the enthusiastic advocate of theories which aimed at the -very root of the Christian religion, inasmuch as they denied the -essential Godhead of Christ. It was no longer a case of a daring thinker -tentatively hinting at doctrines which were hardly in accord with -established belief. Arius was devoting himself just to those points -where he was at variance with his fellows, was insisting upon them in -season and out of season, and was treating them as the very essence of -Christianity. He had issued his challenge; Alexander was compelled to -take it up. The Patriarch sent for him privately. He wished either to -convince him of his error or to induce him to be silent. But the -interview was of no avail. Arius simply preached the more. Alexander -then summoned a meeting of the clergy of Alexandria, and brought forward -for discussion the accepted doctrine of the Holy Trinity which Arius had -challenged. Arius and his sympathisers were present and the controversy -was so prolonged that the meeting had to be adjourned; when it -reassembled, the Patriarch endeavoured to bring the debate to a close by -restating the doctrine of the Holy Trinity in a form which he hoped -would be unanimously approved. But this merely precipitated an open -rupture. For Arius immediately rose and denounced Alexander for falling -into the heresy of Sabellianism and reducing the Second Person in the -Trinity to a mere manifestation of the First. - -It is to be remembered that the doctrine of the Holy Trinity—difficult -as it is even now, after centuries of discussion, to state in terms that -are free from all equivocation—must have been far more difficult to -state then, before the Arian controversy had, so to speak, crystallised -the exact meaning of the terms employed. It seems quite clear, moreover, -from what subsequently took place, that Alexander was no match for Arius -in dialectical subtlety and that Arius found it easy to twist his -chief’s unskilful arguments and expressions into bearing an -interpretation which Alexander had not intended. At any rate the -inevitable result of the conference was that both sides parted in anger, -and Arius continued as before to preach the doctrine that the Son of God -was a creature. For this was the leading tenet of Arianism and the basis -of the whole heresy, that the Son of God was a creature, the first of -all creatures, it is true, and created before the angels and archangels, -ineffably superior to all other creatures, yet still a creature and, as -such, ineffably inferior to the Creator, God the Father Himself. - -It does not fall within the scope of this book to discuss in detail the -theological conceptions of Arius and the mysteries of the Holy Trinity. -But it is necessary to say a few words about this new doctrine which was -to shake the world, and to shew how it came into being. Arius started -from the Sonship of Christ, and argued thus: If Christ be really, and -not simply metaphorically, the Son of God, and if the Divine Sonship is -to be interpreted in the same way as the relationship between human -father and son, then the Divine Father must have existed before the -Divine Son. Therefore, there must have been a time when the Son did not -exist. Therefore, the Son was a creature composed of an essence or being -which had previously not been existent. And inasmuch as the Father was -in essence eternal and ever existent, the Son could not be of the same -essence as the Father. Such was the Arian theory stated in the fewest -possible words. “Its essential propositions,” as Canon Bright has -said,[88] “were these two, that the Son had not existed from eternity -and that he differed from other creatures in degree and not in kind.” -There can be nothing more misleading than to represent the Arian -controversy as a futile logomachy, a mere quarrel about words, about a -single vowel even, as Gibbon has done in a famous passage. It was a -vital controversy upon a vital dogma of the Christian Church. - ------ - -Footnote 88: - - _The Age of the Fathers_, chap. v. - ------ - -Two years seem to have passed before Bishop Alexander, finding that -Arius was growing bolder in declared opposition, felt compelled to make -an attempt to enforce discipline within his diocese. The insubordinate -priest of Baucalis had rejected the personal appeal of his bishop and -disregarded the wishes of a majority of the Alexandrian clergy, and we -may reasonably suppose that his polemics would grow all the more bitter -as he became aware of the rapidly deepening estrangement. He would -sharpen the edge of his sarcasm upon the logical obtuseness of his -nominal superiors, for his appeal was always to reason and to logic. -Given my premises, he would say, where is the flaw in my deductions, and -wherein do my syllogisms break down? By the year 321 Arius was the -typical rebellious priest, profoundly self-confident, rejoicing in -controversy, dealing hard blows all around him, and prepared to stoop to -any artifice in order to gain adherents. To win over the mob, he was -ready to degrade his principles to the mob’s understanding. - -Alexander summoned a provincial synod of a hundred Egyptian and Libyan -bishops to pronounce judgment upon the doctrines and the person of -Arius. Attended by his principal supporters, Arius appeared before the -synod and boldly stood to his guns. He maintained, that is to say, that -God had not always been Father; that the Word was the creature and -handiwork of the Father; that the Son was not like the Father according -to substance and was neither the true Word nor the true Wisdom, having -been created by the Word and Wisdom which are in God; that by His nature -He was subject to change like all other rational creatures; that the Son -does not perfectly know either the Father or His own essence, and that -Jesus Christ is not true God. The majority of the bishops listened with -horror as Arius thus unfolded his daring and, in their ears, blasphemous -creed. One of them at length put a searching test question. “If,” he -asked, “the Word of God is subject to change, would it have been -possible for the Word to change, as Satan had changed, from goodness to -wickedness?” “Yes,” came the answer. Thereupon the synod promptly -excommunicated Arius and his friends, including two bishops, Secundus of -Ptolemais in the Pentapolis and Theonas of Marmorica, together with six -priests and six deacons. The synod also anathematised his doctrines. The -Arian heresy had formally begun. - -Arius quitted Alexandria and betook himself to Palestine, where he and -his companions received hospitable treatment at the hands of some of the -bishops, notably Eusebius of Cæsarea and Paulinus of Tyre. He bore -himself very modestly, assuming the rôle not of a rebel against -authority, but of one who had been deeply wronged, because he had been -grievously misunderstood. He was no longer the turbulent priest, strong -in the knowledge of his intellectual superiority over his bishop, but a -minister of the Church who had been cast out from among the faithful and -whose one absorbing desire was to be restored to communion. He did not -ask his kindly hosts to associate themselves with him. He merely begged -that they should use their good offices with Alexander to effect a -reconciliation, and that they should not refuse to treat him as a true -member of the Church. A few, like Macarius of Jerusalem, rejected his -overtures, but a large number of bishops in the Province—if we may so -term it—of the Patriarch Antioch acceded to his wishes. No doubt Arius -presented his case, when he was suing for recognition and favour, in a -very different form from that in which he had presented it from the -rostrum of his church at Baucalis. He was as subtle in his knowledge of -the ways of the world as in his knowledge of the processes of logic. -Nevertheless, he cannot possibly have disguised the main doctrine which -he had preached for years—the doctrine, that is to say, that the Son was -inferior to the Father and had been created by the Father out of a -substance other than His own—and the fact that the champion of such a -doctrine received recognition at the hands of so many bishops seems to -prove that the Church had not yet formulated her belief in respect of -this mystery with anything like precision; that theories similar to -those advocated by Arius were rife throughout the East and were by no -means repugnant to the general tendency of its thought. - -Arianism would naturally, and did actually, make a most potent appeal to -minds of very varying quality and calibre. It appealed, for example, to -those Christians who had not quite succeeded in throwing off the -influences of the paganism around them, a class obviously large and -comprising within it alike the educated who were under the spell of the -religious philosophy of the Neo-Platonists, and the uneducated and -illiterate who believed, or at any rate spoke as if they believed, in a -multiplicity of gods. To minds, therefore, still insensibly thinking in -terms of polytheism one can understand the attraction of the leading -thought of Arianism, viz., one supreme, eternal, omnipotent God, God the -Father, and a secondary God, God the Son, God and creature in one, and -therefore the better fitted to be intermediary between the -unapproachable God and fallen humanity. For how many long centuries had -not the world believed in demi-gods as it had believed in gods? -Arianism, on one side of its character, enabled men to cast a lingering -look behind on an outworn creed which had not been wholly gross and -which had not been too exacting for human frailty. Moreover, there were -many texts in Holy Scripture which seemed in the most explicit language -to corroborate the truth of Arius’s teaching. “My Father is greater than -I,” so Christ had Himself said, and the obvious and literal meaning of -the words seemed entirely inconsistent with any essential co-equality of -Son and Father. The text, of course, is subject to another—if more -recondite—interpretation, but the history of religion has shewn that the -origin of most sects has been due to people fastening upon individual -texts and founding upon them doctrines both great and small. - -Again,—and perhaps this was the strongest claim that Arianism could put -forward,—it appealed to men’s pride and belief in the adequacy of their -reason. Mankind has always hungered after a religious system based on -reason, founded in reason; secure against all objectors, something -four-square and solid against all possible assailants. Arianism claimed -to provide such a system, and it unquestionably had the greater -appearance—at any rate to a superficial view—of being based upon -irrefutable argument. Canon Bright put the case very well where he -wrote[89]: - - “Arianism would appeal to not a few minds by adopting a position - virtually rationalistic, and by promising to secure a Christianity - which should stand clear of philosophical objections, and Catholics - would answer by insisting that the truths pertaining to the Divine - Nature must be pre-eminently matter of adoring faith, that it was rash - to speculate beyond the limit of revelation, and that the Arian - position was itself open to criticism from reason’s own point of view. - Arians would call on Catholics to ‘be logical’; to admit the prior - existence of the Father as involved in the very primary notion of - fatherhood; to halt no more between a premiss and a conclusion, to - exchange their sentimental pietism for convictions sustainable by - argument. And Catholics would bid them in turn remember the inevitably - limited scope of human logic in regard to things divine and would - point out the sublime uniqueness of the divine relation called - Fatherhood.” - ------ - -Footnote 89: - - _The Age of the Fathers_, chap. vi. - ------ - -If we consider the subsequent history of the Arian doctrine, its -continual rebirth, the permanent appeal which, in at least some of its -phases, it makes to certain types of intellect including some of the -loftiest and shrewdest, there can be no reason for surprise that Arius -met with so much recognition and sympathy, even among those who refused -him their active and definite support. Alexander was both troubled and -annoyed to find that so many of the Eastern bishops took Arius’s part, -and he sent round a circular letter of remonstrance which had the effect -of arousing some of these kindly ecclesiastics to a sense of the danger -which lurked in the Arian doctrine. But Arius was soon to find his -ablest and most influential champion in the person of another Eusebius, -Bishop of Nicomedia in Bithynia. This Eusebius had been Bishop of -Berytus (Beyrout), and it has been thought that he owed his translation -from that see to the more important one of Nicomedia to the influence of -Constantia, sister of Constantine and wife of Licinius. He had, at any -rate, been sufficiently astute to obtain the good-will of Constantine on -the fall of his old patron and he stood well with the court circle. - -He and Arius were old friends, for they had been fellow-pupils of the -famous Lucian of Antioch. It has been suggested that Eusebius was rather -the teacher than the pupil of Arius, but probably neither word expresses -the true relationship. They were simply old friends who thought very -much alike. Arius’s letter to Eusebius asking for his help is one of the -most interesting documents of the period. Arius writes with hot -indignation of the persecution to which he has been subjected by -Alexander, who, he says, had expelled him and his friends from -Alexandria as impious atheists because they had refused to subscribe to -the outrageous doctrines which the Bishop professed. He then gives in -brief his version of Alexander’s teaching and of his own, which he -declares is that of Eusebius of Cæsarea and all the Eastern bishops, -with the exception of a few. “We are persecuted,” he continues, “because -we have said, ‘the Son has a beginning, but God is without a beginning,’ -and ‘the Son is made of that which is not,’ and ‘the Son is not part of -God nor is he of any substance.’” It is the letter of a man angry at -what he conceives to be the harsh treatment meted out to him, and it has -the ring of honesty about it, for even though it distorts the views put -forward by Alexander, there never yet was a convinced theologian who -stated his opponent’s case precisely as that opponent would state it for -himself. - -We have not Eusebius’s answer to this letter, the closing sentence of -which begged him as “a true fellow-pupil of Lucian” not to fail him. But -we know at least that it was favourable, for we next find Arius at -Nicomedia itself, under the wing of the popular and powerful Bishop, who -vigorously stood up for his friend. Eusebius wrote more than once to -Alexander pleading the cause of the banished presbyter, and Arius -himself also wrote to his old Bishop, restating his convictions and -reopening the entire question in a temperate form. The tone of that -letter certainly compares most favourably with that of the famous -document which Alexander addressed to his namesake at Byzantium, warning -him to be on guard against Arius and his friends. He can find no -epithets strong enough in which to describe them. They are possessed of -the Devil, who dwells in them and goads them to fury; they are jugglers -and tricksters, clever conjurors with seductive words; they are brigands -who have built lairs for themselves wherein day and night they curse -Christ and the faithful; they are no better than the Jews or Greeks or -pagans, whose good opinion they eagerly covet, joining them in scoffing -at the Catholic doctrine and stirring up faction and persecution. The -Bishop in his fury even declares that the Arians are threatening -lawsuits against the Church at the instance of disorderly women whom -they have led astray, and accuses them of seeking to make proselytes -through the agency of the loose young women of the town. In short, they -have torn the unbroken tunic of Christ. And so on throughout the letter. - -The historians of the Church have done the cause of truth a poor service -in concealing or glossing over the outrageous language employed by the -Patriarch, whose violence raises the suspicion that he must have been -conscious of the weakness of his own dialectical power in thus -disqualifying his opponents and ruling them out of court as a set of -frantic madmen. “What impious arrogance,” he exclaims. “What measureless -madness! What vainglorious melancholy! What a devilish spirit it is that -indurates their unholy souls!” Even when every allowance is made, this -method of conducting a controversy creates prejudice against the person -employing it. It is, moreover, in the very sharpest contrast with the -method employed by Arius, and with the tenor of the letter written by -Eusebius of Nicomedia to Paulinus of Tyre, praying him to write to “My -lord, Alexander.” Eusebius hotly resented the tone of the Patriarch’s -letter, and, summoning a synod of Bithynian bishops, laid the whole -matter before them for discussion. Sympathising with Arius, these -bishops addressed a circular letter “to all the bishops throughout the -Empire,” begging them not to deny communion to the Arians and also to -seek to induce Alexander to do the same. Alexander, however, stood out -for unconditional surrender. - -Arius returned to Palestine, where three bishops permitted him to hold -services for his followers, and the wordy war continued. Alexander drew -up a long encyclical which he addressed “to all his fellow-workers of -the universal Catholic Church,” couched in language not quite so violent -as that which he had employed in writing to the Bishop of Byzantium, yet -denouncing the Arians in no measured terms as “lawless men and fighters -against Christ, teaching an apostasy which one may rightly describe as -preparing the way for anti-Christ.” In it he attacks Eusebius of -Nicomedia by name, accusing him of “believing that the welfare of the -Church depended upon his nod,” and of championing the cause of Arius not -because he sincerely believed the Arian doctrine so much as in order to -further his own ambitious interests. Evidently, this was not the first -time that the two prelates had been at variance, and private animosities -accentuated their doctrinal differences. The more closely the original -authorities are studied, the more evident is the need for caution in -accepting the traditional character sketches of Arius and Eusebius of -Nicomedia. Alexander declares that he is prostrated with sorrow at the -thought that Arius and his friends are eternally lost, after having once -known the truth and denied it. But he adds, “I am not surprised. Did not -Judas betray his Master after being a disciple?” We are sceptical of -Alexander’s sorrow. He closes his letter with a plea for the absolute -excommunication of the Arians. Christians must have nothing to do with -the enemies of Christ and the destroyers of souls. They must not even -offer them the compliment of a morning salutation. To say “Good-morning” -to an Arian was to hold communication with the lost. Such a manifesto -merely added fuel to the fire, and the two parties drew farther and -farther apart. - -Nor was Arius idle. It must have been about this time that he composed -the notorious poem, _Thalia_, in which he embodied his doctrines. He -selected the metre of a pagan poet, Sotades of Crete, of whom we know -nothing save that his verses had the reputation of being exceedingly -licentious. Arius did this of deliberate purpose. His object was to -popularise his doctrines. Sotades had a vogue; Arius desired one. What -he did was precisely similar to what in our own time the Salvation Army -has done in setting its hymns to the popular tunes and music-hall -ditties of the day. This was at first a cause of scandal to many worthy -people, who now admit the cleverness and admire the shrewdness of the -idea. Similarly, Arius got people to sing his doctrines to the very -tunes to which they had previously sung the indecencies of Sotades. He -wrote ballads, so we are told by Philostorgius—the one Arian historian -who has survived—for sailors, millers, and travellers. But it is -certainly difficult to understand their popularity, judging from the -isolated fragments which are quoted by Athanasius in his _First -Discourse Against the Arians_ (chap. xi.). According to Athanasius, the -_Thalia_ opened as follows: - - “According to faith of God’s elect, God’s prudent ones, - Holy children, rightly dividing, God’s Holy Spirit receiving, - Have I learned this from the partakers of wisdom, - Accomplished, divinely taught, and wise in all things. - Along their track have I been walking, with like opinions. - I am very famous, the much suffering for God’s glory, - And taught of God, I have acquired wisdom and knowledge.” - -It is rather the unspeakable tediousness and frigidity of this exordium -than its arrogant impiety that strike the modern reader. Athanasius then -proceeds to quote examples of Arius’s “repulsive and most impious -mockeries.” For example, “God was not always a Father; there was once a -time when God was alone and was not yet a Father. But afterwards He -became a Father.” Or, “the Son was not always,” or “the Word is not very -God, but by participation in Grace, He, as all others, is God only in -name.” If these are good specimens of what Athanasius calls “the fables -to be found in Arius’s jocose composition,” the standard of the jocose -or the ridiculous must have altered greatly. Why such a poem should have -been called the _Thalia_ or “Merrymaking,” it is hard to conceive. - -Yet, one can understand how the ribald wits of Alexandria gladly seized -upon this portentous controversy and twisted its prominent phrases into -the catch-words of the day. There is a passage in Gregory of Nyssa -bearing on this subject which has frequently been quoted. - - “Every corner of Constantinople,” he says, “was full of their - discussions, the streets, the market-place, the shops of the - money-changers and the victuallers. Ask a tradesman how many obols he - wants for some article in his shop, and he replies with a disquisition - on generated and ungenerated being. Ask the price of bread to-day, and - the baker tells you, ‘The Son is subordinate to the Father.’ Ask your - servant if the bath is ready and he makes answer, ‘The Son arose out - of nothing.’ ‘Great is the only Begotten,’ declared the Catholics, and - the Arians rejoined, ‘But greater is He that begot.’” - -It was a subject that lent itself to irreverent jesting and cheap -profanity. The baser sort of Arians appealed to boys to tell them -whether there were one or two Ingenerates, and to women to say whether a -son could exist before he was born. Even in the present day, any -theological doctrine which has the misfortune to become the subject of -excited popular debate is inevitably dragged through the mire by the -ignorant partisanship and gross scurrilities of the contending factions. -We may be sure that the “Ariomaniacs”—as they are called—were neither -worse nor better than the champions of the Catholic side, and the result -was tumult and disorder. In fact, says Eusebius of Cæsarea, - - “in every city bishops were engaged in obstinate conflict with - bishops, people rose against people, and almost, like the fabled - Symplegades, came into violent collision with each other. Nay, some - were so far transported beyond the bounds of reason as to be guilty of - reckless and outrageous conduct and even to insult the statues of the - Emperor.” - -Constantine felt obliged to intervene and addressed a long letter to -Alexander and Arius, which he confided to the care of his spiritual -adviser, Hosius, Bishop of Cordova, bidding him go to Alexandria in -person and do what he could to mediate between the disputants. We need -not give the text in full. Constantine began with his usual exordium. -His consuming passion, he said, was for unity of religious opinion, as -the precursor and best guarantee of peace. Deeply disappointed by -Africa, he had hoped for better things from “the bosom of the East,” -whence had arisen the dawn of divine light. Then he continues: - - “But Ah! glorious and Divine Providence, what a wound was inflicted - not alone on my ears but on my heart, when I heard that divisions - existed among yourselves, even more grievous than those of Africa, so - that you, through whose agency I hoped to bring healing to others, - need a remedy worse than they. And yet, after making careful enquiry - into the origin of these discussions, I find that the cause is quite - insignificant and entirely disproportionate to such a quarrel.[90]... - I gather then that the present controversy originated as follows. For - when you, Alexander, asked each of the presbyters what he thought - about a certain passage in the Scriptures, or rather what he thought - about a certain aspect of a foolish question, and you, Arius, without - due consideration laid down propositions which never ought to have - been conceived at all, or, if conceived, ought to have been buried in - silence, dissension arose between you; communion was forbidden; and - the most holy people, torn in twain, no longer preserved the unity of - a common body.” - ------ - -Footnote 90: - - ἄγαν εὐτελὴς καὶ οὐδαμῶς ἀξία της τοιαύτης φιλονεικίας ἡ πρόφασις. - ------ - -The Emperor then exhorts them to let both the unguarded question and the -inconsiderate answer be forgotten and forgiven. The subject, he says, -never ought to have been broached, but there is always mischief found -for idle hands to do and idle brains to think. The difference between -you, he insists, has not arisen on any cardinal doctrine laid down in -the Scriptures, nor has any new doctrine been introduced. “You hold one -and the same view”;[91] reunion, therefore, is easily possible. So -little does the Emperor appreciate the importance of the questions at -issue, that he goes on to quote the example of the pagan philosophers -who agree to disagree on details, while holding the same general -principles. How then, he asks, can it be right for brethren to behave -towards one another like enemies because of mere trifling and verbal -differences?[92] “Such conduct is vulgar, childish, and petulant, -ill-befitting priests of God and men of sense. It is a wile and -temptation of the Devil. Let us have done with it. If we cannot all -think alike on all topics, we can at least all be united on the great -essentials. As far as regards divine Providence, let there be one faith -and one understanding, one united opinion in reference to God.” And then -the letter concludes with the passionate outburst: - - “Restore me then my quiet days and untroubled nights, that I may - retain my joy in the pure light and, for the rest of my days, enjoy - the gladness of a peaceful life. Else I needs must groan and be - diffused wholly in tears, and know no comfort of mind till I die. For - while the people of God, my fellow-servants, are thus torn asunder in - unlawful and pernicious controversy, how can I be of tranquil mind?” - ------ - -Footnote 91: - - άλλ’ ἕνα καὶ τὸν αὐτὸν ἕχετε λογισμὸν. - -Footnote 92: - - δι’ ολίγας καὶ ματαίας ῥημάτων ἐν ἡμῖν φιλονεικίας. - ------ - -Some have seen in this letter proof of the Emperor’s consummate wisdom, -and have described its language as golden and the triumph of common -sense. It seems to us a complete exposure of his profound ignorance of -the subject in which he had interfered. It was easy to say that the -question should not have been raised. “_Quieta non movere_” is an -excellent motto in theology as in politics. But this was precisely one -of those questions which, when once raised, are bound to go forward to -an issue. The time was ripe for it. It suited the taste and temper of -the age, and the resultant storm of controversy, so easily stirred up, -was not easily allayed. For Constantine to tell Alexander and Arius that -theirs was merely a verbal quarrel on an insignificant and non-essential -point, or that they were really of one and the same mind, and held one -and the same view on all essentials, was grotesquely absurd. The -question at issue was none other than the Divine Nature of the Son of -God. If theology is of any value or importance at all, it is impossible -to conceive a more essential problem. - -[Illustration] - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - -[Illustration] - - - - - CHAPTER XI - THE COUNCIL OF NICÆA - - -Constantine’s letter was fruitless. Hosius sought to play the peacemaker -in vain. Neither Alexander nor Arius desired peace except at the price -of the other’s submission, and neither was prepared to submit. Hosius, -therefore, did not remain long in Alexandria, and, returning to -Constantine, recommended him to summon a Council of the Church. The -advice pleased the Emperor, who at once issued letters calling upon the -bishops to assemble at Nicæa, in Bithynia, in the month of June, 325. -The invitations were accepted with alacrity, for Constantine placed at -the disposal of the bishops the posting system of the Empire, thus -enabling them to travel comfortably, expeditiously, and at no cost to -themselves. - - “They were impelled,” says Eusebius,[93] “by the anticipation of a - happy result to the conference, by the hope of enjoying present peace, - and by the desire of beholding something new and strange in the person - of so admirable an Emperor. And when they were all assembled, it - appeared evident that the proceeding was the work of God, inasmuch as - men, who had been most widely separated not merely in sentiment but by - differences of country, place, and nation, were here brought together - within the walls of a single city, forming as it were a vast garland - of priests, composed of a variety of the choicest flowers.” - ------ - -Footnote 93: - - _De Vita Constant._, iii., 6. - ------ - -The Council of Nicæa was the first of the great Œcumenical Councils of -the Church. There had been nothing like it before; nor could there have -been, for no pagan Emperor would have tolerated such an assembly. The -exact number of those present is not known. Eusebius, with irritating -and unnecessary vagueness, says that “the bishops exceeded two hundred -and fifty, while the number of the presbyters and deacons in their train -and the crowd of acolytes and other attendants was altogether beyond -computation.” There are sundry lists of names recorded by the -ecclesiastical historians, but unfortunately all are incomplete. -However, as a confident legend grew up within fifty years of the Council -that the bishops were 318 in number, and as the Council itself became -known as “The Council of the 318,” we may accept that figure without -much demur. Very few came from the West. Hosius of Cordova seems to have -been the only representative of the Spanish Church, and Nacasius of -Divio the only representative of Gaul. The Bishops of Arles, Autun, -Lyons, Treves, Narbonne, Marseilles, Toulouse—all cities of first-class -importance—were absent. Eustorgius came from Milan; Marcus from -Calabria; Capito from Sicily. The aged Sylvester of Rome would have -attended, had his physical infirmities permitted, but he sent two -presbyters to speak for him, Vito and Vincentius. Bishop Domnus of -Stridon represented Pannonia, and Theophilus the Goth came on behalf of -the northern barbarians—probably to listen rather than to speak. -Evidently, then, the composition of the Council was overwhelmingly -Eastern. Greek, not Latin, was the language spoken, and certainly Greek, -not Latin, was the heresy under discussion, for the Arian controversy -could not have arisen in the western half of the Empire. For all -practical purposes the Council of Nicæa was a well-attended synod of the -Syrian and Egyptian Churches. The opinions there expounded were the -opinions of the Christian schools of Antioch and Alexandria. - -[Illustration: GATE OF ST. ANDREW AT AUTUN.] - -We may take the names of a few of the bishops as they pass through the -gates of Nicæa, each accompanied by at least two presbyters and three -slaves, riding on horseback or in carriages, with a train of baggage -animals following. Alexander was there, bringing with him fourteen -bishops from the valley of the Nile and five from Libya. The most -conspicuous of these were Potammon of Heracleopolis and Paphnutius from -the Thebaid, both of whom had lost an eye in the late persecution, while -Paphnutius limped painfully, for he had been hamstrung. Eustathius, the -Patriarch of Antioch, came at the head of the Syrian and Palestinian -bishops, some of whom, like Eusebius of Cæsarea, were gravely suspected -of being unsound in the Faith and of having been influenced by the -seductions of Arianism, while others, like Macarius of Jerusalem, were -staunch supporters of Alexander. Another group hailed from the far -Euphrates and Armenia—John of Persia, James of Nisibis in Mesopotamia, -Aitallaha of Edessa, and Paul of Neo-Cæsarea, the tendons of whose -wrists had been seared with hot irons. Another group came from near at -hand, the bishops of what we now call Asia Minor, within the sphere of -influence of the imperial city of Nicomedia and of its Bishop, Eusebius. -He, too, was there with his friends, Theognis of Nicæa, Menophantus of -Ephesus, and Maris of Chalcedon, all committed to the cause and to the -doctrines of Arius. Then there were a group of Thracian, Macedonian, and -Greek bishops, a few from the islands, and Cæcilianus from Carthage. - -Arius, too, was present with his few faithful henchmen from Egypt, -proudly self-confident as ever, but trusting mainly to the advocacy of -Eusebius of Nicomedia and to the influence of the moderates, like -Eusebius of Cæsarea. But during the years that he had been absent from -Alexandria a new protagonist had arisen among the ranks of his -opponents. Alexander, so runs the legend, had one day seen from the -windows of his house a group of boys playing at “church.” Thinking that -the imitation was too close to the reality and that the lads were -carrying the game too far, the Bishop went out to check them and got -into conversation with the boy who was taking the lead in their serious -sport. Impressed by his earnestness, he took him into his house and -trained him for the ministry. It was Athanasius, who now, as a young -deacon of twenty-five, accompanied Alexander to Nicæa, having already by -his cleverness and zeal gained a remarkable ascendency over the mind of -his superior. This slip of a man—for he was of very slender build and -insignificant stature—was to lay at Nicæa the sure foundations of his -extraordinary and unparalleled fame as the champion of the Catholic -Faith. - -So the Council assembled in the June of 325 in the charming city of -Nicæa, on the shores of the Ascanian lake. The intense interest which it -aroused was not confined to those who were to take part in it, or even -to the Christian population of the city and district. It spread, so we -are expressly told, to those who still clung to the old religion. -Debates on the nature of the Fatherhood of God and the Sonship of Christ -would be almost as welcome and absorbing to a Neo-Platonist philosopher -as to a Christian bishop. His pleasure in the intellectual exercise was -marred by no anxiety lest it should result in disturbance of happy and -settled belief. When Greek met Greek they began forthwith to argue, and -so, without waiting for the Council formally to open, the early arrivals -at Nicæa commenced their discussions with all comers on the question of -the hour. - -The story of one of these informal encounters is told by most of the -ecclesiastical writers. A certain pagan philosopher was holding forth -with great fluency and making mock of the Christian mysteries, to the -amusement of a number of bystanders. Finally, his challenge of -contradiction was accepted by “a simple old man, one of the confessors -of the persecution,” who knew nothing of dialectics. As he moved forward -to answer the scoffer there was a burst of laughter from some of those -present, while the Christians trembled lest their unskilled champion -should be turned to ridicule by his practised opponent. Their anxiety, -however, was soon set at rest. “In the name of Jesus Christ, O -philosopher, listen!” Such was the old man’s exordium, and the burden of -his few unstudied words was to restate his “artless, unquestioning -belief”[94] in the cardinal truths of Christianity. There was no -argument. “If you believe,” he said, “tell me so.” “I believe,” said the -philosopher, compelled, as he afterwards explained it, to become a -Christian by some marvellous power. Such is the version of Sozomen; -according to Socrates the old man said, “Christ and the apostles -committed to us no dialectical art and no vain deception, but plain, -bare doctrine, which is guarded by faith and good works.”[95] When we -consider the endless floods of dialectical subtlety which were poured -out during and after the Council of Nicæa by those engaged in the Arian -controversy, it seems rather biting irony that a pagan philosopher -should have been thus easily and rapidly converted from darkness to -light. - ------ - -Footnote 94: - - ἀπεριέργως πιστείομεν. - -Footnote 95: - - γυμνὴν γνώμην, πίστει καὶ καλοῖς ἔργοις φυλαττομένην.—Socrates, i., 8. - ------ - -It is certain, however, that many of the bishops collected at Nicæa -belonged to the same class as this “simple old man,” peasants who had -had no theological training and owed their elevation—by the suffrages of -their congregations—to the conspicuous uprightness of their lives. Such -a one was Spyridion, of Cyprus, a shepherd in mind, speech, and dress, -but with a turn for rustic humour. Around his name many legends have -gathered, and none is more delightful than that which tells how he and -his deacon set out for Nicæa mounted on two mules, a white and a -chestnut. On the journey they came to an inn where they found a number -of other bishops bound on the same errand. These prelates feared that so -rustic a figure as Spyridion would bring discredit on their religion and -appear in grotesque contrast with the splendour of the Imperial Court. -So during the night they caused the two mules to be decapitated, -thinking that they would thus prevent Spyridion from resuming his -journey. The good Bishop was aroused before daybreak by his deacon, who -told him of the disaster. Spyridion simply bade him attach the heads to -the dead bodies, and, on this being done, the mules rose to their feet -as though nothing unusual had happened. When day broke, it was found -that the deacon had attached the heads to the wrong shoulders; the white -mule now sported a chestnut head and the chestnut a white. Still, it was -not thought necessary to repeat the miracle and change the heads, for -the mules apparently suffered no inconvenience. - -The preliminary meetings of the Council were held in the principal -church of Nicæa and continued until the arrival of the Emperor, which -was not until after July 3rd, the anniversary of his victory over -Licinius. Then the state opening took place in the great hall of the -palace. Eusebius gives us a graphic account of the memorable scene.[96] -Special invitations had been sent to all whose presence was desired, and -these had entered and taken their places in grave and orderly fashion on -either side of the hall. Then expectant silence fell upon the company. -As the moment for the Emperor’s entry approached, some of the members of -his immediate entourage began to arrive, but Eusebius is careful to -mention that there were no guards or officers in armour, “only friends -who avowed the faith of Christ.” At the signal that Constantine was at -hand, the whole assembly swept to its feet, and the Emperor passed -through their midst like “some heavenly angel of God, clad in glittering -raiment that seemed to gleam and flash with bright effulgent rays of -light, encrusted as it was with gold and precious stones.” Yet, though -Constantine was thus dazzling in externals, it was evident—at-least to -the penetrating eye of the courtier bishop—that his mind was “beautified -by pity and godly fear.” For was not this revealed by his downcast eyes, -his heightened colour, and his modest bearing? Advancing to the upper -end of the hall, Constantine stood facing the assembly, while a low -golden stool was brought for him, and then, when the bishops motioned to -him to be seated, he took his seat, and the whole audience followed his -example. Beyond doubt, most of the bishops then gazed for the first time -upon the Emperor to whom they could not be sufficiently grateful for all -he had done for the Church, and Constantine himself might well be -flattered and pleased at the homage, evidently sincere, that was being -offered to him, as well as a little nervous at the thought that these -were the principal ministers and representatives of the God to whom he -had tendered allegiance. There would have been no downcast eye, no -blush, no marked modesty of carriage, we may suspect, if it had been a -council of augurs and flamens that Constantine had summoned. In that -case the Emperor would have been perfectly at his ease as he advanced up -the hall, conscious that he was the supreme head of all the priesthoods -represented in his presence, and that he was not only worshipper but -worshipped. - ------ - -Footnote 96: - - _De Vita Constant._, iii., 10. - ------ - -Then, says Eusebius, after a few introductory words of welcome had been -spoken, the Emperor rose and delivered a brief address in Latin which -was presently translated into Greek. He expressed his delight at finding -himself in the presence of such a Council, “united in a common harmony -of sentiment,” and prayed that no malignant enemy might avail to disturb -it, for “internal dissensions in the Church of God were far more to be -feared than any battle or war.” In well chosen language he explained the -overwhelming importance of unity and implored his hearers as “dear -friends, as ministers of God, and as faithful servants of their common -Lord and Saviour,” to begin from that moment to “discard the causes of -dissension which had existed among them and loosen the knots of -controversy by the laws of peace.” The excellent impression created by -this speech was intensified by the next act of the Emperor. On his -arrival at Nicæa he had found awaiting him a great number of petitions -addressed to him by the bishops accusing one another of heresy, or -political intrigue, or too strenuous activity on behalf of the fallen -Licinius. Socrates, indeed, says that “the majority of the Bishops” were -levelling charges against one another. But they received no -encouragement from Constantine. Seated there among them he produced the -incriminatory documents from the folds of his toga, called for a -brazier, and threw the rolls upon the fire, protesting with an oath that -not one of them had been opened or read. “Christ,” he said, “bids him -who hopes for forgiveness forgive an erring brother.” It was a dignified -and noble rebuke. The story reads best in this, its simplest form. -Theodoretus amplifies the Emperor’s rebuke and puts into his mouth the -dangerous doctrine that, if bishops sin, their offences ought to be -hushed up, lest their flock be scandalised or be encouraged to follow -their example. He would even, he said, throw his own purple over an -offending bishop to avoid the evils and contagion of publicity. - -Such was the opening of the Council. The Emperor had scored a great -personal triumph and had set the bishops a notable example of -magnanimity. But it was not imitated. No sooner had the actual business -of the Council begun than the flood-gates of controversy were opened. -According to Eusebius, the Emperor remained to listen to their mutual -recriminations, giving ear patiently to all sides, and doing what he -could to assuage animosities by making the most of everything that -seemed to tend towards compromise. Unfortunately, the reports of the -Council are strangely incomplete. It is not even explicitly stated who -presided. The presidency of the Emperor was one only of honour; the -actual presidents were probably the legates of Pope Sylvester, viz., -Hosius of Cordova and the two presbyters, Vito and Vincentius. But into -the controversy which rages round this point we need not enter. - -The general feeling of the Council was not long in declaring itself. -Arius, who was regarded as a defendant on his trial, made his position -absolutely clear. He did not envelop himself, as he might have done, in -a cloud of metaphysics from which it would have been difficult to gather -his precise meaning. On the contrary, he seems to have come prepared -with a résumé of his doctrines, and to have been ready to defend his -outposts as resolutely as his citadel. Immediately, therefore, the -Council became split up into contending parties. There were the -out-and-out Arians, few but formidable, and the out-and-out -Trinitarians, led with great ability by the young Athanasius, whose -reputation steadily rose as the days passed by. There was also a middle -party, led by Eusebius of Nicomedia and supported by Eusebius of -Cæsarea, whose intellectual and personal sympathies lay with Arius -rather than with Athanasius, though they saw that the great majority of -the Council were against them, and that Arius and his opinions were sure -of excommunication. Theirs was what we may call the “cross-bench mind.” -They doubtless felt, what many who approach this controversy at the -present day feel, that if once appeal is made to Reason, there must be -no further appeal beyond that to Faith, as to a higher Court. Those who -invoke Reason must not turn round, when they find themselves driven into -an ugly corner, and condemn “the Pride of Reason.” In our view, Eusebius -of Nicomedia was not the malignant, self-seeking, and entirely worldly -prelate he is so often represented as having been, but a Bishop who -honestly regretted that this question had been raised at all, inasmuch -as he foresaw that it must rend the Church in twain. He would have -preferred, that is to say, that the exact nature of the Sonship of -Christ should not be made a matter of close definition, should not be -made a point of doctrine whereon salvation depended, should not be -inserted in a creed, but left rather to the individual conscience or to -the individual intellect. Once the question was raised, his intellectual -honesty led him to side with Arius, but he considered that to tear the -indivisible garment of Christ was a crime to be avoided at any cost. -Eusebius was bent upon a compromise. Arius was his old friend, and his -patron, the Emperor, passionately desired unity. The personal wish of -the monarch would be sure to have some, though we cannot say precisely -how much, weight with him in determining his policy. - -Some of the sessions of the Council were marked by uproar and violence. -Athanasius declares that when the bishops heard extracts read from the -_Thalia_ of Arius, they raised the cry of “impious,” and closed their -eyes and shut their ears tight against the admission of such appalling -blasphemy. There is a legend, indeed, that St. Nicholas, Bishop of Myra, -was so carried away by his indignation that he smote Arius a terrific -blow upon the jaw for daring to give utterance to words so vile. -Theodoretus declares that the Arians drew up the draft of a creed which -they were willing to subscribe and had it read before the Council. But -it was at once denounced as a “bastard and vile-begotten document” and -torn to pieces. Then a praiseworthy attempt was made to begin at the -beginning. The proposition was put forward that the Son was from God. -“Agreed,” said the Trinitarians; “Agreed,” said the Arians, on the -authority of such texts as “There is but one God, the Father, of whom -are all things,” and “All things are become new and all things are of -God.” “But will you agree,” asked the Trinitarians, “that the Son is the -true Power and Image of the Father, like to Him in all things, His -eternal Image, undivided from Him and unalterable?” “Yes,” said the -Arians after some discussion among themselves, and they quoted the -texts: “Man is the glory and image of God,” “For we which live are -always delivered unto death for Jesus’ sake,” and “In him we live and -move and have our being.” “But will you admit,” continued the -Trinitarians, “that the Son is Very God?” “Yes,” replied the Arians, -“for he is Very God if he has been made so.” Athanasius tells us that -while these strange questions and answers were being tossed from one -side of the Council to the other, he saw the Arians “whispering and -making signals one to the other with their eyes.” It is to be regretted -that we have no independent account. The savage abuse with which -Athanasius attacks the Arians in his “Letter to the African Bishops” -makes his version of what took place at the Council exceedingly suspect. -He speaks of their “wiliness,” and delivers himself of the sarcasm that -as they were cradled in ordure their arguments also partook of a similar -character.[97] Most of the vilification in the opening stages of the -Arian controversy—at any rate most of that which has survived—seems to -have been on the Trinitarian side. - ------ - -Footnote 97: - - αὐτὸι μὲν ὥς ἐκ κοπρίας ὄντες ἐλαλησαν ἀληθῶς ἀπο γῆς. - ------ - -The word “Homoousion” had at length been uttered and, strangely enough, -by Eusebius of Nicomedia, though it was soon to become the rallying cry -of his opponents. He had employed it, apparently, to clinch the argument -against the Trinitarians, for, he said, if they declared the Son to be -Very God, that was tantamount to declaring that the Son was of one -substance with the Father. Greatly, no doubt, to his surprise, it was -seized upon by his opponents as the word which, of all others, precisely -crystallised their position and their objections to Arianism. But before -the fight began to rage round this word, the moderates came forward with -another suggestion of compromise. Eusebius of Cæsarea read before the -Council the confession of faith which was in use in his diocese, after -having been handed down from bishop to bishop. The Emperor had read it -and approved; perhaps, he urged, it might similarly commend itself to -the acceptance of all parties in the Council. The creed began as -follows: - - “I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of all things both - visible and invisible, and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, - God of God, Light of Light, Life of Life, the only-begotten Son, the - First-born of every creature, begotten of the Father before all - worlds, by whom also all things were made. Who for our salvation was - made flesh and lived amongst men, and suffered, and rose again on the - third day, and ascended to the Father, and shall come in glory to - judge the quick and the dead. And I believe in the Holy Ghost.” - -Eusebius, in writing later to the people of his diocese, said that when -this creed was read out, - - “no room for contradiction appeared; but our most pious Emperor, - before any one else, testified that it comprised most orthodox - statements. He confessed, moreover, that such were his sentiments, and - he advised all present to agree to it, and subscribe to its articles - with the insertion of the single word ‘one in substance.’” - -Indeed, little objection could be taken to the creed of Eusebius, which -might have been subscribed to with equal sincerity by Arius and -Alexander. But the great problem, which had brought the Council -together, would have remained entirely unsettled. The creed was not -sufficiently precise. It left openings for all kinds of heresies. The -Trinitarians, therefore, insisted upon inserting a few words which -should more precisely define the relationship between the Father and the -Son and their real nature and substance, and should retain undiminished -the majesty and Godhead of the Son. They put forward the simple -antithesis “begotten not made” in reference to the Son, whereby the -Arian doctrine that the Son was a creature was effectually negatived. -And they also adopted as their own the word which has made the Council -famous alike with believers and with sceptics—the word “Homoousion.” - -Dean Stanley, in his _History of the Eastern Church_,[98] has well said -that this is “one of those remarkable words which creep into the -language of philosophy and theology and then suddenly acquire a -permanent hold on the minds of men.” It was a word with a notable, if -not a very remote past. It had been orthodox and heretical by turns, a -fact which is not surprising when we consider the vagueness of the term -“ousia” and the looseness with which it had been employed by -philosophical writers. - - “It first distinctly appeared,” says Dean Stanley, “in the statement, - given by Irenæus, of the doctrines of Valentius; then for a moment it - acquired a more orthodox reputation in the writings of Dionysius and - Theognostus of Alexandria; then it was coloured with a dark shade by - association with the teaching of Manes; next proposed as a test of - orthodoxy at the Council of Antioch against Paul of Samosata, and then - by that same Council was condemned as Sabellian.” - -Obviously, therefore, it was not a word to command instantaneous -acceptance; its old associations lent a certain specious weight to the -repeated accusation of the Arians that the Trinitarians were importing -into the Church fantastic subtleties borrowed from Greek philosophy, and -were encrusting the simple faith and the simple language of Christ and -the apostles with alien thoughts and formulæ. Athanasius meets that -argument with a “_tu quoque_,” asking where in Scripture one can find -the phrases which Arius had made his own. Modern theologians have -replied with much greater force that this importation of philosophy into -the Christian religion was inevitable. - ------ - -Footnote 98: - - Lecture iv. - ------ - - “The Church,” says Canon Bright,[99] “had come out into the open, had - been obliged to construct a theological position against the - tremendous attacks of Gnosticism and to provide for educated enquirers - in the great centres of Greek learning. She had become conscious of - her debt to the wise.” - -Elsewhere, in the same chapter, he says: “It would, indeed, have been -childish to attempt to banish metaphysics from theology. Any religion -with a doctrine about God or man must, as such, be metaphysical.” And -for the Arians to complain of the borrowing of technical terms from -philosophy by their opponents was palpably absurd. The whole _raison -d’être_ of the Arian movement was its professed rationalism, its appeal -to reason and logic, its consciousness, in other words, “of its debt to -the wise,” and its desire to be able to debate boldly with the enemy in -the gate. Really, therefore, the adoption of such a term was of great -practical convenience, especially when once its meaning was rigidly -defined. The Homoousion, whereby the Word or the Son was declared to be -of one essence or substance with the Father, asserted the undiminished -Divinity of the Son of God, through whom salvation came into the world. - ------ - -Footnote 99: - - _Age of the Fathers_, chap. vi. - ------ - -It is for theologians to expand upon such a text, but it needs no -theologian to point out the obvious truth that any diminution of the -majesty of the Son of God must have impaired the vitality and converting -power of Christianity. The word, therefore, was eagerly adopted by those -who had been commissioned to draw up a creed to meet the views of the -orthodox majority of the Council. That creed was at length decided upon; -Hosius of Cordova announced its completion; and it was read aloud for -the first time to the Council, apparently by Hermogenes, subsequently -Bishop of Cæsarea in Cappadocia. It ran as follows: - - “We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things both - visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, - begotten of the Father, only begotten, that is from the substance of - the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten - not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things - were made, both in heaven and earth. Who for us men and for our - salvation came down and was made flesh, and was made man, suffered and - rose on the third day, ascended into the heavens and will come again - to judge the quick and the dead. And we believe in the Holy Ghost.” - -Such was the text of the famous document which ever since has borne the -title of the Nicene Creed. It has been added to during the centuries. It -has even lost one or two of its qualifying and explanatory sentences. -But these modifications have not touched its central theses, and, above -all, the Homoousion remains. - -In order to make the position absolutely clear and preclude even the -most subtle from placing an heretical interpretation upon the words -employed, there was added a special anathema of the Arian doctrines. - - “But those who say, ‘Once He was not,’ and ‘Before He was begotten, He - was not,’ and ‘He came into existence out of what was not,’ or those - who profess that the Son of God is of a different ‘person’ or - ‘substance,’ or that He was ‘made,’ or is ‘changeable’ or - ‘mutable’—all these are anathematised by the Catholic Church.” - -This was the formal condemnation of Arianism in all the Protean shapes -it was capable of assuming, and the vast majority of the bishops -cordially approved. - -But what of Arius and his friends, and what of the Eusebian party? -Interest centred in the action of the latter. Would they accept the text -and sign? Or would they hold fast to the condemned doctrines? They -loudly protested, of course, against the anathema, and the Homoousion in -the creed itself was repugnant to their intellect. Eusebius of Cæsarea -asked for a day in which to consider the matter. Then he signed, and -wrote a letter to his flock at Cæsarea excusing and justifying his -conduct, and explaining in what sense he could conscientiously subscribe -to the Homoousion. He bowed to the clear verdict of the majority and to -the passionate wish of the Emperor. Constantine insisted that the creed -should be accepted as the final expression of Catholic belief, though he -would have been just as ready to accept the creed of Eusebius himself. -The presence or absence of the Homoousion was of little consequence to -him. What he wanted was unity, and he was determined to have it, for he -was already threatening recalcitrants with banishment. Eusebius of -Cæsarea signed. He submitted, in other words, when the Church, meeting -in Council, had spoken. The Palestinian and Syrian bishops who had -supported him in the debates followed his example, complying, we are -told, with eagerness and alacrity. - -Eusebius of Nicomedia, Theognis of Nicæa, and Maris of Chalcedon made a -rather more resolute stand. According to one account, they consulted -Constantia, the Emperor’s sister, and she persuaded them to sign on the -ground that they ought to merge their individual scruples in the will of -the majority, lest the Emperor should throw over Christianity in disgust -at the dissension among the Christians. According to another story, -Constantia recommended them to insert an “iota” into the text of the -creed, and thus change the Homoousion into the Homoiousion, to which -they could subscribe without violence to their consciences. They could -admit, that is to say, that the Son was of “like” substance to the -Father when they could not admit that He was of the “same” substance. -The story is obviously a fiction and part of the campaign of calumny -against Eusebius of Nicomedia. He and his two friends signed the -creed—not fraudulently or with mental reservations as the story -suggests—but for precisely the same reason that Eusebius of Cæsarea had -signed it. It was the Emperor’s wish and they were willing to accept the -decision of the Council, but they still stood out against signing the -anathema. Two of them, Eusebius and Theognis, were deprived of their -sees and sent into exile. Whether their degradation and exile were due -wholly to this refusal is doubtful, though as an interesting parallel it -may be pointed out that Eusebius, Bishop of Vercellæ, and Dionysius, -Bishop of Milan, were exiled by the Emperor Valens in 355 because they -refused to subscribe the condemnation of Athanasius at the Third Council -of Milan. Arius and his two most faithful supporters were excommunicated -and banished and their writings, notably the _Thalia_, were burnt with -ignominy. - -The labours of the Council were not yet concluded. The Bishops decided -that Easter should be observed simultaneously throughout the Church, and -that the Judaic time should give way to the Christian. They then drew up -what are known as the Canons of Nicæa. We may indicate some of the more -important, as, for example, the fifth, which provided that all questions -of excommunication should be discussed in provincial councils to be held -twice a year; the fourth, that there should be no less than three -bishops present at the consecration of every bishop, and the fifteenth, -which prohibited absolutely the translation of any bishop, presbyter, or -deacon from one city to another. Some of the canons, such as the -twentieth, which prohibited kneeling during church worship on Sundays -and between Easter and Pentecost; and the eighteenth, which rebuked the -presumption of deacons, have merely an antiquarian interest. The -seventeenth forbade all usury on the part of the clergy; the third -enacted that no minister of the Church, whatever his rank, should have -with him in his house a woman of any kind, unless it were a mother, a -sister, or an aunt, or some one quite beyond suspicion. While this canon -was under discussion, one of the most exciting debates of the Council -took place. The proposal was made that all the married clergy should be -required to separate from their wives, and this received a considerable -measure of support. But the opposition was led by the confessor -Paphnutius, whose words carried the more weight from the fact that he -himself had been a lifelong celibate. He debated the subject with great -warmth, maintaining at the top of his shrill voice that marriage was -honourable and the bed undefiled,[100] and so brought a majority of the -assembly round to his way of thinking. - ------ - -Footnote 100: - - τίμιον εἵναι καὶ τὴν κόιτην καὶ αὐτὸν ἀμίαντον τὸν γάμον. - ------ - -Then at last this historic Council was ready to break up. But before the -bishops separated, the Emperor celebrated the completion of his -twentieth year of reign by inviting them all to a great banquet. - - “Not one of them,” says Eusebius,[101] “was missing and the scene was - of great splendour. Detachments of the bodyguard and other troops - surrounded the entrance of the palace with drawn swords and through - their midst the men of God proceeded without fear into the innermost - apartments, in which were some of the Emperor’s own companions at - table, while others reclined on couches laid on either side.” - -He gave gifts to each according to his rank, singling out a few for -special favour. Among these was Paphnutius. Socrates says that the -Emperor had often sent for him to the palace and kissed the vacant eye -socket of the maimed and crippled confessor. Acesius the Novatian was -another, though he steadily refused to abate one jot or tittle of his -old convictions. Constantine listened without offence, as the old man -declared his passionate belief that those who after baptism had -committed a sin were unworthy to participate in the divine mysteries, -and merely remarked, with sportive irony, “Plant a ladder, then, -Acesius, and climb up to Heaven alone!”[102] - ------ - -Footnote 101: - - _De Vita Constant._, iii., 15. - -Footnote 102: - - θὲς, ὦ Ἀκέσιε, κλίμακα καὶ μόνος ἀνάβηθι εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν. - ------ - -At the closing session the Emperor delivered a short farewell speech, in -which his theme was again the urgent need of unity and uniformity within -the Christian Church. He implored the bishops to forget and forgive past -offences and live in peace, not envying one another’s excellencies, but -regarding the special merit of each as contributing to the total merit -of all. They should leave judgment to God; when they quarrelled among -themselves they simply gave their enemies an opportunity to blaspheme. -How were they to convert the world, he asked, if not by the force of -their example? And then he went on to speak plain common sense. Men do -not become converts, he said, from their zeal for the truth. Some join -for what they can get, some for preferment, some to secure charitable -help, some for friendship’s sake. “But the true lovers of true argument -are very few: scarce, indeed, is the friend of truth.”[103] Therefore, -he concluded, Christians should be like physicians, and prescribe for -each according to his ailments. They must not be fanatics: they must be -accommodating. Constantine could not possibly have given sounder advice -to a body of men whose besetting sin was likely to be fanaticism and not -laxity of doctrine. The passage, therefore, is not without significance. -The Church had already begun to act upon the State; here was the State -palpably beginning to react upon the Church—in the direction of -reasonableness, compromise, and an accommodating temper. Then, after -begging the bishops to remember him in their prayers, he dismissed them -to their homes, and they left Nicæa, says Eusebius, glad at heart and -rejoicing in the conviction that, in the presence of their Emperor, the -Church, after long division, had been united once more. - ------ - -Footnote 103: - - καὶ σπάνιος αὖ τῆς ἀληθείας φίλος. - ------ - -Constantine evidently shared the same conviction. He had no doubt -whatever that the Arian heresy was finally silenced. So we find him -writing to the church at Alexandria, declaring that all points which -seemed to be open to different interpretations have been thoroughly -discussed and settled. All must abide by the _chose jugée_. Arius had -been proved to be a servant of the Devil. Three hundred bishops had said -it, and “that which has commended itself to the judgment of three -hundred bishops cannot be other than the doctrine of God, seeing that -the Holy Spirit, dwelling in the minds of so many honourable men, must -have thoroughly enlightened them as to the will of God.”[104] He took -for granted, therefore, that, those who had been led away by Arius would -return at once to the Catholic fold. The Emperor also wrote another -letter, which he addressed “To the Churches,” in which he declared that -each question at issue had been discussed until a decision was arrived -at “acceptable to Him who is the inspector of all things,” and added -that nothing was henceforth left for dissension or controversy in -matters of faith.[105] Most of the letter, indeed, consists of argument -shewing the desirability of a uniform celebration of Easter, but one can -see that the leading thought in the writer’s mind is that the last word -had at length been uttered on the cardinal doctrines of the Christian -Faith. The Council had been a brilliant success. The three hundred -bishops announced to the Catholic Church the decisions of their “great -and holy Synod,” with the explicit declaration that “all heresy has been -cut out of the Church.”[106] Arius was banished and Eusebius of -Nicomedia with him. The triumph of orthodoxy seemed finally assured. - ------ - -Footnote 104: - - ὅ γὰρ τοῖς τριακοσίοις ἐπισκόποις ἤρεσεν οὔδεν ἔστιν ἕτερον ἤ τοῦ θεοῦ - γνώμη (Soc., i., 9). - -Footnote 105: - - ὡς μηδὲν ἔτι πρὸς διχόνοιαν ἢ πίστεως αμφισβητησιν ὑπολείπεσθαι - (_ibidem_). - -Footnote 106: - - ἐπὶ τὸ πὰσαν αἵρεσιν ἐκκοπῆναι (Soc., i., 9). - ------ - -[Illustration] - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - -[Illustration] - - - - - CHAPTER XII - THE MURDERS OF CRISPUS AND FAUSTA - - -We saw in the last chapter how Constantine presided over the -deliberations of the bishops at Nicæa, mild, benignant, gracious, and -condescending. It is a very different being whom we see at Rome in 326, -suspicious, morose, and striking down in blind fury his own gallant son. -The contrast is startling, the cause obscure and mysterious, but if the -secret is to be discovered at all, it is probably to be found in the -jealousies which raged in the Imperial House. - -We must look a little closer at the family of Constantine. The Emperor -himself was in the very prime of middle age, just turning his fiftieth -year. His eldest son, by his first marriage with Minervina, was the hope -of the Empire. Crispus, as we have seen, had won distinction on the -Rhine, and had just given signal proof of his capacity by his victories -over the navy of Licinius in the Hellespont, which had facilitated the -capture of Byzantium. He was immensely popular, and the Empire looked to -him, as it had looked to Tiberius and Drusus three centuries before, as -to a strong pillar of the Imperial throne. But Crispus—if the usually -accepted theory be right—had a bitter and implacable enemy in the -Empress Fausta, who regarded him as standing in the path of her own -children, and menacing their interests by his proved merit and -abilities. The eldest of her sons, who bore his father’s name, was not -yet in his teens; the second, Constantius, had been born in 319; the -third, Constans, was a year younger. Her three daughters were infants or -not yet born. These three young princes, like Caius and Lucius,—to -pursue the Augustan parallel,—threatened rivalry to Crispus as they grew -up, the more so, perhaps, because Constantine had always possessed the -domestic virtues which were rare in a Roman Emperor. In his young days -one of the court Panegyrists had eulogised him as a latter-day miracle—a -prince who had never sowed any wild oats, who had actually had a taste -for matrimony while still young, and, following the example of his -father, Constantius, had displayed true piety by consenting to become a -father.[107] Another Panegyrist praised him for “yielding himself to the -laws of matrimony as soon as he ceased to be a boy,” and Eusebius, more -than once, emphasises his virtues as a husband and parent. Constantine, -we suspect, was a man easily swayed by a strong-minded woman, ambitious -to oust a step-son from his father’s favour. - ------ - -Footnote 107: - - _Novum jam tum miraculum juvenis uxorius_ (_Pan. Vet._, vi., c. 2 et - 4). - ------ - -[Illustration: - - “CONSTANTINE THE GREAT AND HIS MOTHER, ST. - HELENA, HOLY, EQUAL TO THE APOSTLES.” - - FROM A PICTURE DISCOVERED 1845, IN AN OLD CHURCH OF MESEMBRIA. - FROM GROSVENOR’S “CONSTANTINOPLE.” -] - -There was yet another great lady of the reigning house whose influence -upon the Emperor has to be taken into account. This was his mother, -Helena, now nearly eighty years of age, but still vigorous and active -enough in mind and body to undergo the fatigues of a journey to -Jerusalem. Eusebius[108] dwells upon the estimation in which Constantine -held his mother, to whom full Imperial honours were paid. Golden coins -were struck in her honour, bearing her effigy and the inscription, -“Flavia Helena Augusta.” She amassed great riches, and although it is -impossible directly to trace her influence upon State affairs, there is -reason to believe that Helena, who owed her conversion, according to -Eusebius, to the persuasion of her son, was a woman of pronounced and -decided character and a great power at court. - ------ - -Footnote 108: - - _De Vita Const._, iii., p. 47. - ------ - -There was also Constantine’s half-sister, Constantia, the widow of -Licinius, whose intercession with her brother had secured for her -defeated husband an ill-kept promise of pardon and protection. -Constantia was to exhibit even more striking proof of her influence a -little later on by her skilful advocacy of the cause of Arius and -Eusebius of Nicomedia, and her share in procuring the banishment of -Athanasius. These great ladies move in shadowy outline across the stage; -we can scarcely distinguish their features or their form; but we think -we can see their handiwork most unmistakably in the appalling tragedies -which we now have to narrate. - -In 326 Constantine went to Rome to celebrate the completion of his -twentieth year of reign. Diocletian had done the same—the only occasion -upon which that great Emperor had ever set foot in the ancient capital, -and even then he made all possible haste to quit it. But whereas -Diocletian had travelled thither with the intention of abdicating -immediately afterwards, Constantine had no such act of self-abnegation -in his mind. Yet he was in no festival mood. Not long after his arrival, -there took place the ancient ceremony known as the Procession of the -Knights, who rode to the Capitol to pay their vows to Jupiter—the -religious ceremony which attended the annual revision of the equestrian -lists. Constantine contemptuously stayed within his palace on the day -and disdained to watch the Knights ride by. His absence was made the -pretext for some street rioting, which, we can hardly doubt, had been -carefully engineered beforehand. Rome, still overwhelmingly pagan in its -sympathies, had doubtless heard with bitter anger how the Emperor, the -head of the old national religion, had been taking part in a General -Council of the Christian Church, had admitted bishops and confessors to -the intimacy of his table, and had boldly declared himself the champion -of Christianity. Constantine’s pointed refusal to countenance a -time-honoured ceremony which, while itself of no extraordinary -importance, might yet be taken as typical of the ancient order of -things, would easily serve as pretext for a hostile demonstration. -Demonstrations in Rome no longer menaced the throne now that the -barracks of the Prætorians were empty, but the incident would serve to -confirm the suspicions already clouding the mind of the Emperor. - -We can read those suspicions most plainly in an edict which he had -issued at Nicomedia a few months before. It was addressed to his -subjects in every province (_Ad Universos Provinciales_), and in it the -Emperor invited all and sundry to come forward boldly and keep him well -informed of any secret plotting of which they happened to be cognisant. -No matter how lofty the station of the conspirator might be, whether -governor of a province, officer of the army, or even friend and -associate of the Emperor, if any one discovered anything he was to tell -what he knew, and the Emperor would not be lacking either in gratitude -or substantial reward. “Let him come without fear,” ran the edict, “and -let him address himself to me! I will listen to all: I will myself -conduct the investigation[109]: and if the accuser does but prove his -charge, I will vindicate my wrongs. Only let him speak boldly and be -sure of his case!” - ------ - -Footnote 109: - - _Intrepidus et securus accedat: interpellet me. Ipse audiam omnia, - ipse cognoscam._ - ------ - -The hand which wrote this was the hand which had flung unread into the -brazier at Nicæa the incriminating petitions of the bishops. What had -taken place in the interval that he should issue an edict worthy of a -Domitian? The authorities give not the slightest hint. Was there some -great conspiracy afoot, in the meshes of which Constantine feared to -become entangled, but so cunningly contrived that the Emperor could only -be sensible of its existence, without being able to lay hands on the -intriguers? Was paganism restless in the East as we have seen it -restless in Rome, at the triumph of its once-despised and always -detested rival? We do not know. Quite possibly it was, though with the -downfall of Licinius its prospects seemed hopeless. Unless, indeed, -there was some member of the Imperial Family upon whom paganism rested -its hopes and to whom it looked as its future deliverer! Was Crispus -such a prince? Again we do not know. There is not a scrap of evidence to -bear out a theory which has only been framed as a possible explanation -of the dark mystery of his fate. - -Eutropius, whose character sketches, for all their brevity, usually -tally well with known facts, calls Crispus a prince of the highest merit -(_virum egregium_). Why then did Constantine turn against him? We may, -perhaps, see the first sign of the changed relationship in the fact that -in 323 the Cæsarship of Gaul was taken from Crispus and given to the -young Constantius, then a child of seven. So far as is known, no -compensating title or command was offered in exchange, which looks as -though Constantine was disinclined to trust his eldest son any longer -and preferred to keep him in surveillance by his side. The father may -have been jealous of the prowess and popularity of the son; the son may -have been ambitious, as Constantine himself had been in his young days, -and have deemed that his services merited elevation to the rank of an -Augustus. According to the system of Diocletian, twenty years of -sovereignty were held to be long enough for the welfare alike of -sovereign and of the Empire. Constantine’s term was running out. The -system was not yet formally abandoned; is it unreasonable to suppose -that Crispus considered he had claims to rule, or that Constantine, -resolved to keep what he had won, became estranged from one whom he knew -he was not treating with generosity or with justice? - -As we have said, there is no evidence of any disloyalty on the part of -Crispus, but he may have let incautious expressions fall from his lips -which would be carried to the ears of his father, and he may have chafed -to see himself supplanted by the young princes, his half-brothers. The -boy Cæsar, Constantius, was named consul with his father for the -festival year 326, a distinction which Crispus may justly have thought -to belong by right to himself, and he may have seen in this another -proof of the ill-will of the Empress Fausta, and of her influence over -the Emperor. Possibly Crispus was goaded by anger into some indiscreet -action, which confirmed Constantine’s suspicions; possibly even he -committed some act of disobedience which gave Constantine the excuse he -sought for. At any rate, in the July or August of 326, Crispus was -arrested in Rome and summarily banished to Pola in Istria. Tidings of -his death soon followed. Whatever the manner of his death, whether he -was beheaded or was poisoned or committed suicide, all the authorities -agree that he came to a violent end and that the responsibility rests -upon his father, Constantine. Nor was Crispus the only victim. With him -fell Licinianus, the son of Licinius and Constantia. He was a promising -lad (_commodæ indolis_, says Eutropius) who could not have been more -than twelve years of age and could not, therefore, have been guilty of -any crime or intrigue against his uncle. - -One cannot pass by altogether without mention the story of Zosimus that -the reason of Fausta’s implacable hatred of Crispus was not ambition for -her own children, but a still more ungovernable and much less pardonable -passion. Zosimus declares that Fausta was enamoured of her step-son, who -rejected her overtures, and so fell a victim, like another Hippolytus, -to the vengeance of this Roman Phædra. Most modern historians have -rejected the story, as emanating from the lively imagination of a Greek -at a loss for a plausible explanation of a mysterious crime, and we may, -with tolerable certainty, acquit Fausta of so disgraceful a passion. If, -as we suppose, she was the untiring enemy of Crispus, it is at once more -charitable and more probable to suppose that the motive of her hate was -her fierce ambition for her own sons. For the moment the Empress -conquered. But her triumph did not last long. Eutropius tells us that -soon afterwards—_mox_—a vague word equally applicable to a period of -days, weeks, or even months—Fausta herself was put to death by -Constantine. What was her offence? Philostorgius[110] declares that she -was discovered in an intrigue with a groom of the stables—an amour -worthy of Messalina herself. But the story stands suspect, especially -when taken in conjunction with the legend of her passion for Crispus. -The one seems invented to bolster up the other and add to its -verisimilitude. The truth is that nothing is known for certain; and the -whole episode was probably kept as a profound palace secret. One -circumstance, however, mentioned by Aurelius Victor and by Zosimus, -merits attention. Both declare that the Empress-mother, Helena, was -furious at the murder of Crispus. Zosimus says that she was greatly -distressed at her grandson’s suffering, and could hardly contain herself -at the news of his death (ἀσχέτως τὴν ἀναίρεσιν τοῦ νέου φερούσης). -Aurelius Victor adds that the aged Empress bitterly reproached her son -for his cruelty (_Cum eum mater Helena nimio dolore nepotis -increparet_). Evidently, Helena favoured Crispus, the son of -Minervina—who, like herself, had been forced by the exigencies of State -to quit her husband’s house, and make room for an Emperor’s daughter,—in -preference to the children of Constantine and Fausta; evidently -therefore, Helena and Fausta were rival influences at court, each -striving for ascendency. If Crispus’s death betokened that Fausta had -gained the upper hand, the death of Fausta shewed that Helena had -succeeded in turning the tables. When Helena violently reproached her -son for slaying Crispus, we may be sure that she was aiming her shafts -through Constantine at Fausta, and that when she succeeded in rousing -the Emperor to remorse she succeeded also in kindling his resentment -against his wife. It is said that Fausta was suffocated in a hot bath, -but every detail is open to challenge. Eusebius passes over the entire -episode without a word. He is not only silent as to the death of Fausta -but also as to the death of Crispus. The courtly Bishop refuses to turn -even a single look towards the crime-stained Palatine, on whose gates -some lampoon writer had set a paper with the bitter epigram: - - _Saturni aurea sæcula quis requiret? - Sunt hæc gemmea, sed Neroniana._ - -(“Who will care to seek the golden age of Saturn? Ours is the age of -jewels, but jewels of Nero’s setting.”) If Constantine, like Saturn, had -devoured his children and had lapsed for the moment into a savage tyrant -of Nero’s pattern, it was not for Eusebius to judge him. He was writing -for edification. Constantine had averred his willingness to cast his -cloak over a sinning bishop lest scandal should arise; ought not an -ecclesiastical historian to cast the cloak of charitable silence over -the crimes of a most Christian Emperor? When, therefore, Eusebius -describes[111] how, after the death of Licinius, men cast aside all -their former fears, and dared to raise their long-downcast eyes and look -up with a smile on their faces and brightness in their glance; how they -honoured the Emperor in all the beauty of victory and “his most orderly -sons and Heaven-beloved Cæsars”; and how they straightway forgot their -old troubles and all unrighteousness, and gave themselves up to an -enjoyment of their present good things and their hope of others to come; -it is a healthy corrective to recall the murderous outbreak of -ungovernable wrath which made Rome shudder as it listened to the -whispered tale of what was taking place in the recesses of the Palatine. -The entire subject is one on which it is as fascinating as it is easy to -speculate. On the whole, it seems most likely that Constantine’s fears -had been worked upon to such an extent that he believed himself -surrounded by traitors in his own family, that the Empress Fausta had -been the leading spirit in the plot to ruin Crispus, and that when the -Emperor discovered his mistake he turned in fury upon his wife. It may -be, as Eutropius suggests, that his mental balance had been upset by his -extraordinary success, that his prosperity and the adulation of the -world had been too much for him.[112] That is a charitable theory which, -in default of a better, we, too, may as well adopt. - ------ - -Footnote 110: - - ii., c. 4. - -Footnote 111: - - _De Vita Const._, ii., p. 19. - -Footnote 112: - - _Verum insolentia rerum secundarum aliquantum Constantinus ex illa - favorabili animi docilitate mutavit_ (x., p. 6). - ------ - -We need not doubt the sincerity of his repentance. Zosimus depicts the -Emperor remorsefully begging the priests of the old religion to purify -him from his crime, and says that when they sternly refused, Constantine -turned to accept the soothing offices of a wandering Egyptian from -Spain. Another account, current among pagans, was that he applied for -comfort to the philosopher, Sopater, who would have nothing to say to so -heinous a sinner, and that he then fell in with certain Christian -bishops, who promised him full forgiveness at the price of repentance -and baptism. The motive of these legends is as obvious as their falsity. -The pagans, in defiance of chronology, sought to explain the Emperor’s -conversion to Christianity as a result of the murders that lay heavy -upon his soul, murders so revolting as only to admit of pardon in the -eyes of Christians. Among the late legends of the Byzantine writer -Codinus, we find the story that Constantine raised to the memory of -Crispus a golden statue, which bore the inscription, “To the son whom I -unjustly condemned,” and that he fasted and refused the comforts of life -for forty days. Of even greater interest is the legend that Constantine -was baptised by Sylvester, the Bishop of Rome, and, in gratitude for the -promise of pardon, bestowed upon the see of Rome the _damnosa hæreditas_ -of the Temporal Power. - -There is no necessity to discuss at length the once famous, but now -simply notorious, Donation of Constantine. The legend is so grotesque -that one wonders it ever imposed on the credulity even of the most -ignorant. For it represented Constantine as being smitten with leprosy -for having persecuted the Church and for having driven the good Pope -Sylvester into exile. The Emperor consulted soothsayers, priests, and -physicians in turn, and was at last informed that his only chance of -cure lay in bathing in the blood of little children. Forthwith, a number -of children were collected for this dreadful purpose, but their cries -awoke the pity of Constantine and he gave them respite. Then, as he -slept, Peter and Paul appeared to him in a dream and bade him let the -children go free, recall Sylvester from exile, and submit at his hands -to the rite of baptism. This was done; the baptism was administered; -Constantine was cured of the leprosy, and in return he made over to -Sylvester and his successors full temporal dominion over the city of -Rome, the greater part of Italy, and certain other provinces. Such is -the story, which was long accepted without demur and confidently -appealed to as the origin of the Temporal Power. It is now universally -admitted that the whole legend is a fraud and the letter of Constantine -to Sylvester announcing the Donation a forgery of the eighth century. -Constantine never persecuted the Church; he never had leprosy; he never -contemplated bathing in infants’ blood; he did not receive the rite of -baptism until he was on his death-bed, and he did not hand over to the -Pope the fee simple and title deeds of Rome and Italy. The Donation of -Constantine belongs to the museum of historical forgeries.[113] - ------ - -Footnote 113: - - We may quote the most striking sentence in the document: _Ecce tam - palatium nostrum quam urbem Romam, et omnes totius Italiæ et - occidentalium regionum provincias, loca et civitates, præfato - beatissimo Pontifici nostra Sylvestro, universali papæ, concedimus - atque relinquimus._ The forger forged boldly, and then went on to add - that Constantine withdrew to Constantinople, because it was not just - that an earthly monarch (_terrenus imperator_) should exercise - sovereignty in the city where the Head of the Christian religion had - been installed by the Lord of Heaven (_ab imperatore cælesti_). - ------ - -[Illustration: - - THE DONATION OF CONSTANTINE. - FROM THE PAINTING BY RAPHAEL IN THE VATICAN. PHOTOGRAPH BY ALINARI. -] - -But if the repentance of Constantine did not take the form of stupendous -endowments for the Bishop of Rome, we may be tolerably sure that it did -manifest itself in the increased zeal of the Emperor for the building of -churches, and especially in his munificence to the Christians of Rome. -It is tempting, also, to connect with Constantine’s remorse and his -mother’s sorrow for the murder of her grandson the pilgrimage of Helena -to Palestine and Jerusalem, which followed almost immediately. Around -that visit there clustered many legends which, as time went on, -multiplied amazingly. Of these the most famous is that which is known as -the Invention of the Cross. This, in its fullest form many centuries -after the event, ran something as follows: When Helena reached Jerusalem -she asked to be shown the Holy Sepulchre. But no one could tell her -where the exact spot was. Buildings had been erected upon Mount Calvary -and the adjoining land; a temple of Venus was still standing near the -place where the body of Christ must have been laid. Helena instituted a -careful search, and the authority of the Emperor’s mother would be -warrant sufficient for the disturbance of the occupiers. At first their -toil met with no success. Then a very clever Jew came forward with a -story that he had heard of an old tradition that the site of the -Sepulchre lay in such and such a spot; the direction of the excavation -was entrusted to him; and the searchers were soon rewarded by finding -not only the cave where Christ had lain, but also three crosses. These, -it was at once determined, must have been the crosses on which Christ -and the two malefactors had suffered. But which had borne the Saviour? -There was nothing to show, but so sacred an object was sure to be -invested with wonder-working powers, and the test was, therefore, easy. -So they brought to the spot a dying woman—according to one version, she -was already dead—and touched her with the wood of the three crosses. At -contact with the first two no change was visible; but the touch of the -third recalled her to sensibility and perfect health, and the true Cross -stood at once revealed to the adoring worship of all believers. In the -wood were two nails. Helena had them carefully sent to Constantine, and -he, we are told, had one of them inserted—as something far more precious -than rubies—in the Imperial crown, while from the other he fashioned a -bit for his horse. - -[Illustration: - - ST. HELENA’S VISION OF THE CROSS. - BY CALIARI (PAOLO VERONESE). - NATIONAL GALLERY, LONDON. -] - -Such is the legend in its most complete form. It directly associates the -finding of the Cross with Helena’s visit to Jerusalem, and attributes -also to her the magnificent church which was raised in the latter part -of the reign of Constantine on the site of the Holy Sepulchre. But it -must also be added that the first historical mention of the “Invention” -is seventy years after the discovery was supposed to have taken place. -Eusebius, in describing Helena’s pilgrimage,[114] knows nothing of the -finding of the Cross, and, while he speaks of the discovery of the -Sepulchre, he does not associate it with Helena, though he attributes to -her piety the new church at Bethlehem. It was Constantine, according to -Eusebius, who built the church on the site of the Holy Sepulchre, and -beautified the cave of Bethlehem and the site of the Ascension, but of -the finding of the Cross there is not a word—a significant silence, -which can only mean that the legend was not yet current when Eusebius -composed his “Life” of Constantine. What cannot well be doubted is that -the site of the Sepulchre was discovered and cleared in Constantine’s -reign. The Emperor built upon it one of his finest churches, but popular -tradition, with a sure eye for the romantic and the extraordinary, -preferred to attribute the origin of the noblest shrine in Palestine to -the pious enthusiasm of the aged Helena. Her pilgrimage over, Helena -died not long afterwards, and was buried by Constantine with full -military honours “in the royal tombs of the reigning city.” The phrase -points clearly to Constantinople as the place of burial, though Rome -also claims this honour. - ------ - -Footnote 114: - - _De Vita Const._, iii., p. 44, _seq._ - ------ - -History is silent as to the events of the next few years. But as the -Empire had been free both from civil and foreign war since the downfall -of Licinius, we may accept the general statement of Eusebius “that all -men enjoyed quiet and untroubled days.”[115] Peace was always the -greatest interest of the Roman Empire, but it was rarely of long -continuance, and in 330 and the two following years we find the Emperor -campaigning in person against the Goths and the Sarmatæ. The account of -these wars in the authorities of the period is so confused and -contradictory that it is impossible to obtain a connected narrative. - ------ - -Footnote 115: - - _De Vita Const._, iv., c. 14. - ------ - -It was the old familiar story over again. The barbarians had come -raiding over the borders. There seems to have been fighting along the -entire north-eastern frontier, from the great bend of the Danube to the -Tauric Chersonese. Constantine and the legions drove the enemy back, won -victories chequered by minor reverses, and finally the Emperor was glad -enough in 332 to come to terms with the chiefs of the Gothic nation. -Mention is made of a handsome subsidy paid by Constantine to the Gothic -kings, which certainly does not suggest the overwhelming triumph of the -Roman arms of which Eusebius speaks when he says that the Emperor was -the first to bring them under the yoke and taught them to acknowledge -the Romans as their masters.[116] As for the Sarmatæ, Eusebius -declares[117] that they had been obliged to arm their slaves for their -assistance against the attacks of the Scythians, that the slaves had -revolted against their old masters, and that in despair the Sarmatæ -turned to Constantine and asked for shelter on Roman territory. Some of -them, says Eusebius, were received into the legions; others were -distributed as farmers and tillers of the soil throughout the frontier -provinces; and all, he declares, confessed that their misfortunes had -really been a blessing in disguise, inasmuch as it had enabled them to -exchange their old state of barbarian savagery for the Roman freedom. -Probably we shall not be far wrong if we place a different -interpretation on the words of Eusebius, and see in the transference of -these Sarmatians to the Roman provinces a confession of weakness on the -part of Constantine. They were not captives of war. They were rather -invited over the borders to keep their kinsmen out, and the Roman -Emperor paid for his new subjects in the shape of a handsome subsidy. -There can be no other meaning of the curious words of Eutropius that -Constantine left behind him a tremendous reputation for generosity with -the barbaric nations (_Ingentemque apud barbaras gentes memoriæ gratiam -collocavit._—x., 7). Money was not so plentiful in Constantine’s -exchequer that he gave subsidies for nothing. The suggestion is not that -he suffered defeat and bought off hostility; it is rather that he -thought it worth while, after vindicating the honour of the Roman arms, -to pay for the friendship of the vanquished. - ------ - -Footnote 116: - - _De Vita Const._, iv., p. 5. - -Footnote 117: - - _Ibid._, iv., p. 6. - ------ - -On the Eastern frontier peace had remained unbroken throughout -Constantine’s long reign. Persia had been so shattered by Galerius that -King Narses made no attempt to renounce the humiliating treaty which had -been imposed upon him. His son, Hormisdas, had likewise acquiesced in -the loss of Armenia and what were known as the five provinces beyond the -Tigris, and when Hormisdas died, leaving a son still unborn, there was a -long regency during which no aggressive movement was made from the -Persian side. However, this son, Sapor, proved to be a high-spirited, -patriotic, and capable monarch, who was determined to uphold and assert -the rights of Persia. It is not known how the peaceful relationship, -which had so long subsisted between his country and Rome, came to be -broken. According to Eusebius,[118] Sapor sent an embassy to the -Emperor, which was received with the utmost cordiality, and Constantine, -we are told, took the opportunity of sending back by these same envoys a -letter commending to his favourable regard the Christians of Persia. The -document contained a very tedious and involved confession of faith by -the Emperor, who affirmed his devotion to God and declared his horror at -the sight and smell of the blood of sacrifice. “The God I serve,” said -Constantine, “demands from His worshippers nothing but a pure mind and a -spirit undefiled.” Then he reminded Sapor how the persecutors of the -Church had been destroyed root and branch, and how one of them, -Valerian, had graced the triumph of a Persian king. He, therefore, -confidently committed the Christians, who “honoured by their presence -some of the fairest regions of Persia,” to the generosity and protection -of their sovereign. - ------ - -Footnote 118: - - _De Vita Const._, iv., p. 8. - ------ - -This remarkable letter suggests that Sapor had been alarmed at the -growth of Christianity in his dominions, and by no means looked upon his -Christian subjects as lending lustre and distinction to his realm. -Whether he replied to what he may well have regarded as a veiled threat, -we do not know, but in 335 we hear of what Eusebius calls “an -insurrection of barbarians in the East,”[119] and Constantine prepared -for war against Persia. In other words, Sapor had fomented an -insurrection in the provinces beyond the Tigris and was claiming his -lost heritage. Constantine laid his military plans before the bishops of -his court. These declared their intention of accompanying him into the -field, to the great delight, we are assured, of the Emperor, who ordered -a tent to be made for his service in the shape of a church, while Sapor, -in alarm, sent envoys to sue for a peace which the most peaceful-minded -of kings (ἐιρηνικώτατος βασιλὲυς) was only too ready to grant. Such is -the story of Eusebius, but it is evident that the Eastern legions had -been carefully mobilised, and, whether such a peace was granted or not, -the death of Constantine in 337 was the signal for a renewal of the old -conflict between the two great empires of the world, and for a war which -lasted without intermission through the reigns of Constantine’s sons and -that of his nephew Julian. - ------ - -Footnote 119: - - _De Vita Const._, iv., p. 56. - ------ - -[Illustration] - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - -[Illustration] - - - - - CHAPTER XIII - THE FOUNDATION OF CONSTANTINOPLE - - -We come now to the greatest political achievement of Constantine’s -reign—the foundation of a new Rome. Let us ask at the outset what led -him to take a step so decisive as the transference of the world’s -metropolis from the Italian peninsula to the borders of Europe and Asia. -The assignation of merely personal motives will not suffice. We are told -by Zosimus that Rome was distasteful to Constantine, because it reminded -him of the son and the wife who had fallen victims to his savage -resentment. He was uneasy in the palace on the Palatine, whose very -stones suggested murder and sudden death, and whose walls were cognisant -of unnumbered treasons. What Zosimus says may very well be true. -Constantine’s conscience was likely to give him less peace in Rome than -elsewhere. But the personal wishes of even the greatest men cannot bind -the generations which come after them. There have been cities founded by -the caprice of royal tyrants which have flourished for a season and then -vanished. Seleucia is perhaps the most striking example, and scarcely a -mound remains to mark its site. But most of the historic cities of the -world owe their greatness and their permanence not to the whims of royal -founders, but to geographical and strategic position. Rome was not -uncrowned by Constantine because he could not forget within its walls -the crimes which had stained his hands with blood. - -It is also to be remembered that others had already set the example of -despoiling of her dignities the ancient Queen of the Nations. We have -seen how in the western half of the Empire great Imperial cities had -been rising within easy reach of the frontiers. In far-off Britain -London might be the most opulent city, but York was the chief residence -of the Cæsar of the West when he visited the island. In Gaul Treves had -outstripped Lyons in dignity and wealth, and was now the centre of -military and administrative power. Even in Italy Milan had grown at the -expense of Rome; it was nearer to the frontier and, therefore, nearer to -the armies. Rome lay out of the way. Diocletian, again, had favoured -Nicomedia in Bithynia. In other words, Rome was ceasing to be the one -centre of gravity of the ancient world, or, to express the same truth in -another form, the Roman world was ceasing to be one. Diocletian had -practically acknowledged this when he founded his system of Augusti and -Cæsars. With the subdivision of administrative and executive power there -naturally ceases to be one supreme metropolis. It would be a mistake to -suppose that Constantine, in founding a new Rome, deliberately hastened -the rapid tendency towards separation. The very name of “New Rome” which -he gave his city indicates his belief that he was merely moving Rome -from the Tiber to the Bosphorus—merely changing to a more convenient -site. But the fact that this name dropped out of use almost at once, and -that the city was called after him, not in Latin but in Greek, shews how -strongly the current was flowing towards political division. - -[Illustration: - - THE GOLDEN HORN - THE BOSPHORUS - THE MARMORA - - CHART OF THE EASTERN SECTION OF MEDIÆVAL CONSTANTINOPLE. - FROM GROSVENOR’S “CONSTANTINOPLE.” -] - -But what attracted Constantine towards Byzantium? Precisely, of course, -those advantages of situation which have attracted modern statesmen. -Every one knows the story of how, after the Peace of Tilsit, the Tsar -Alexander constantly pressed Napoleon to allow him to take -Constantinople. Napoleon at length told his secretary, M. de Méneval, to -bring him the largest map of Europe which he could procure, and, after -poring over it for some time, he looked up and exclaimed, -“Constantinople! Never! It is the Empire of the world.” Was Napoleon -right? The publicists of to-day return different answers. The -Mediterranean is not the all-important sea it once was, and the -strategical importance of Constantinople has been greatly modified by -the Suez Canal and the British occupation of Egypt. But if Napoleon’s -exclamation seems rather theatrical to us, it would not have seemed so -to Constantine, whose world was so much smaller than ours and presented -such different strategical problems calling for solution. Constantine -had won the world when he defeated Licinius and captured Byzantium: he -determined to keep it where he had won it. - -It is said by some of the late historians that he was long in coming to -a decision, and that he carefully weighed the rival claims of other -cities. There was his birthplace, Naissus, in Pannonia, though we cannot -suppose that Constantine seriously thought of making this his -metropolis. There was Sardica on the Danube, the modern Belgrade and -capital of Servia, a city well adapted by its position for playing an -important rôle in history, and conveniently near the most dangerous -frontier of the Empire. “My Rome is at Sardica,” Constantine was fond of -declaring at one period of his career, according to a tradition which -was perpetuated by the Byzantine historians. Another possible choice was -Nicomedia, which had commended itself to Diocletian, and, finally, there -was Salonica, which even now has only to fall into capable hands to -become one of the most prosperous cities of eastern Europe. - -According to Zosimus, even when Constantine had determined to found his -new city at the point where Europe and Asia are divided by the narrow -straits, he selected first the Asiatic side. The historian says that he -actually began to build and that the foundations of the abandoned city -were still to be seen in his day between Troy and Pergamum. But the -story is more than doubtful. Legend has naturally been busy with the -circumstances attending the Emperor’s final choice of Byzantium. Was it -inspired, as some say, by the flight of an eagle from Chrysopolis -towards Byzantium? Or, while Constantine slept in Byzantium, did the -aged tutelar genius of the place appear to him in a dream and then -become transformed into a beautiful maiden, to whom he offered the -insignia of royalty? Interesting as these legends are, we need seek no -further explanation of Constantine’s choice than his own good judgment -and experience. He was fully aware of the extraordinary natural strength -of Byzantium, for his armies had found great difficulty in taking it by -assault; the supreme beauty of the site and its many other -qualifications for becoming a great capital were manifest to his eyes -every time he approached it. Byzantium had long been one of the most -renowned cities of antiquity. Even in the remotest times the imagination -of the Greeks had been powerfully affected by the stormy Euxine that lay -in what was to them the far north-east, guarding the Golden Fleece and -the Apples of the Hesperidæ, a wild region of big rivers, savage lands, -and boisterous seas. Daring seamen of Megara, in the seventh century -B.C., had effected a landing at the mouth of the Bosphorus, where Io had -fled across from Europe to Asia, turning their galleys up the smooth -estuary that still bears its ancient name of the Golden Horn. Apollo had -told them to fix their habitation “over against the city of the blind,” -and this they had rightly judged could be no other than Chalcedon, for -men must needs have been blind to choose the Asiatic in preference to -the European shore. - -The little colony founded by Byzas, the Megarian, had prospered -marvellously, though it had experienced to the full all the vicissitudes -of fortune. It had fallen before the Persian King Darius; it had been -wrested from him after a long siege by Pausanias, the hero of Platæa, -when the Greeks rolled back the tide of invasion. In turn the subject -and successful rival of Athens, Byzantium gained new glory by -withstanding for two years the assaults of Philip of Macedon. Thanks to -the eloquence of Demosthenes, Athens sent help in the shape of ships and -men, and, in commemoration of a night attack of the Macedonians -successfully foiled by the opportune rising of the moon, Byzantium -placed upon her coins the crescent and the star, which for four -centuries and a half have been the familiar symbols of Turkish -sovereignty. Byzantium grew rich on commerce. It was the port of call at -which every ship entering or leaving the Bosphorus was bound to touch; -no craft sailed the Euxine without paying dues to the city at its mouth. -Polybius, in a very interesting passage,[120] points out how Byzantium -occupied “the most secure and advantageous position of any city in our -quarter of the world, as far as the sea is concerned.” Then he -continues: - - “The Pontus, therefore, being rich in what the rest of the world - requires to support life, the Byzantines are absolute masters in this - respect. For the first necessaries of existence, cattle and slaves, - are admittedly supplied by the region of the Pontus in better quality - and greater profusion than elsewhere. In the matter of luxuries, they - supply us with honey, wax, and salt fish, while they take our - superfluous olive oil and wines.” - ------ - -Footnote 120: - - Bk. IV., c. 38, _seq._ - ------ - -It was Byzantium, therefore, which kept open the straits, and Polybius -speaks of the city as a common benefactor of the Greeks. When the Romans -began to appear on the scene as a world-power, Byzantium made terms with -the Senate. It well suited the Roman policy to have a powerful ally on -the Bosphorus, strong in the ships in which Rome was usually deficient. -As a _libera et fœderata civitas_, Byzantium enjoyed a more or less -prosperous history until the days of Vespasian, who stripped it of its -privileges. These were restored, but a shattering blow overtook the city -at the close of the second century, when Septimus Severus took it by -storm. Angry at its long resistance, Severus levelled its fortifications -to the ground,—a work of endless toil, for the stones and blocks had -been so clamped together that the walls were one solid mass. However, -before he died, he repented him of the destruction which he had wrought -and gave orders for the walls to be built anew. It was the Byzantium as -rebuilt by Severus that Constantine determined to refound on a far more -splendid scale. - -[Illustration: - - BAPTISTERY OF SAN GIOVANNI IN LATERAN, ROME. - PHOTOGRAPH BY ALINARI. -] - -No subsequent historian has improved upon the glowing passage in which -Gibbon summarises the incomparable advantages of its site, which -appears, as he well says, to have been “founded by Nature for the centre -and capital of a great monarchy.” We may quote the passage in full from -his seventeenth chapter: - - “Situated in the forty-first degree of latitude—practically the same, - it may be noted, as that of Rome, Madrid, and New York—the imperial - city commanded from her seven hills the opposite shores of Europe and - Asia; the climate was healthy and temperate; the soil fertile; the - harbour secure and capacious; and the approach on the side of the - continent was of small extent and easy of defence. The Bosphorus and - Hellespont may be considered as the two gates of Constantinople; and - the prince who procured those important passages could always shut - them against a naval enemy and open them to the fleets of commerce. - The preservation of the Eastern provinces may, in some degree, be - ascribed to the policy of Constantine, as the barbarians of the - Euxine, who, in the preceding age, had poured down their armaments - into the heart of the Mediterranean, soon desisted from the exercise - of piracy and despaired of facing this insurmountable barrier. When - the gates of the Hellespont and Bosphorus were shut, the capital still - enjoyed, within their spacious inclosure, every production which could - supply the wants, or gratify the luxury, of its numerous inhabitants. - The seacoasts of Thrace and Bithynia, which languish under the weight - of Turkish oppression, still exhibit a rich prospect of vineyards, of - gardens and plentiful harvests; and the Propontis has ever been - renowned for an inexhaustible store of the most exquisite fish, that - are taken in their stated seasons without skill and almost without - labour. But, when the passages of the Straits were thrown open for - trade, they alternately admitted the natural and artificial riches of - the North and South, of the Euxine and the Mediterranean. Whatever - rude commodities were collected in the forests of Germany and Scythia, - as far as the sources of the Tanais and the Borysthenes, whatever was - manufactured by the skill of Europe and of Asia, the corn of Egypt and - the gems and spices of the farthest India, were brought by the varying - winds into the port of Constantinople, which, for many ages, attracted - the commerce of the ancient world.” - -From a strategical point of view, it was of inestimable advantage that -the capital and military centre of the Empire should be within striking -distance of the route taken by the nomad populations of the East as they -pressed towards the West, at the head of the Euxine. The Scythians, the -Goths, and the Sarmatæ had all crossed that great region; the Huns were -to cross it in the coming centuries. Placed on shipboard at -Constantinople, the legions of the Empire could be swiftly conveyed into -the Euxine, and could penetrate up the Danube, Tanais, or Borysthenes to -confront the invaders where the danger threatened most. - -The story of how Constantine marked out the boundaries of his new -capital is well known. Not content with the narrow limits of the ancient -city—which included little more than the district now known as Seraglio -Point—Constantine crossed the old boundary, spear in hand, and walked -with his attendants along the shores of the Propontis, tracing the line -as he went. His companions expressed astonishment that he continued so -far afield, and respectfully drew the Emperor’s attention to the -enormous circuit which the walls would have to enclose. Constantine -rebuked them. “I shall still advance,” he said, “until He, the invisible -guide who marches before me, thinks it right to stop.” The legend is -first found in Philostorgius, and it is not of much importance. But -Constantine, as usual, took care to foster the belief that his will was -God’s will, even in the matter of founding Constantinople, and that he -had but obeyed the clearly expressed command of Heaven. In one of his -edicts he incidentally refers to Constantinople as the city which he -founded in obedience to the mandate of God (_Jubente Deo_). It is a -phrase which has meant much or little according to the character of the -kings who have employed it. With Constantine it meant much, and, above -all, he wished it to mean much to his subjects. - -Archæologists have not found it an easy task to trace the line of the -walls of Constantine, especially on the landward side. It followed the -coast of the Propontis from Seraglio Point, the Emperor adding height -and strength to the wall of Severus and extending it to the gate of St. -Æmilianus, which formed the south-west limit of his city. This section -was thrown down by an earthquake and had to be rebuilt by Arcadius and -Theodosius II. From St. Æmilianus the landward wall, with seven gates -and ninety-five towers, stretched across from the waters of the -Propontis to those of the Golden Horn, which was reached, it is -supposed, at a point near the modern Djubali Kapou. This was demolished -when the city had outgrown it, and Theodosius erected the new great wall -which still stands almost unimpaired. The course of the old one can -hardly be traced, but it is generally assumed that it did not include -all the seven hills of Constantinople, though New Rome, like Old Rome, -delighted in the epithet of Septicollis—the Seven-Hilled. Along the -Golden Horn no wall was built until five centuries had elapsed. On this -side Constantine considered that the city was adequately protected by -the waters of the estuary, closed against the attack of an enemy by a -huge iron chain, supported on floats, which stretched from the Acropolis -of St. Demetrius across to the modern Galata. Confidence in the -chain—some links of which are still preserved in the Turkish -arsenal—seems to have been thoroughly justified. Only once in all the -many sieges of Constantinople was it successfully pierced, when, in -1203, the Crusading Latins burst in upon the capital of the East. - -Within the area we have described, great if compared with the original -Byzantium, but small in comparison with the size to which it grew by the -reign of Theodosius II., Constantine planned his city. Probably no great -capital has ever been built so rapidly. It was finished, or so nearly -finished that it was possible to hold a solemn service of dedication, by -May, 330—that is to say, within four years. Throughout that period -Constantine seems to have had no thought for anything else. He urged on -the work with an enthusiasm equal to that which Dido had manifested in -encouraging her Tyrians to raise the walls of Carthage,—_Instans operi -regnisque futuris._ - -The passion for bricks and mortar consumed him. Like Augustus, he -thought that a great imperial city could not be too lavishly adorned as -a visible proof of present magnificence and a guarantee of future -permanence. Nor was it in Constantinople alone that he built. Throughout -his reign new public buildings kept rising in Rome, Jerusalem, Antioch, -and the cities of Gaul. His impatience manifested itself in his letters -to his provincial governors. “Send me word,” he wrote imperiously to one -of them, “not that work has been started on your buildings, but that the -buildings are finished.” To build Constantinople he ransacked the entire -world, first for architects and builders, and then for art treasures. -With such impetuous haste there was sure to be scamped work. Some of the -buildings crumbled at the first slight tremor of earthquake or did not -even require that impulse from without to collapse into ruin. It is by -no means impossible that the havoc which seems to have been wrought in -Constantinople by earthquakes during the next two or three centuries was -largely due, not to the violence of the seismic disturbances but to -insecure foundations and bad materials. The cynical Julian compared the -city of Constantine to the fabled gardens of Adonis, which were planted -afresh each morning and withered anew each night. Doubtless there was a -substantial basis of fact for that bitter jibe. - -Yet, when all allowances are made, it was a marvellous city which -Constantine watched as it rose from its foundation. Those who study the -archæology of Constantinople in the rich remains which have survived in -spite of Time and the Turk, are surprised to find how constantly the -history of the particular spot which they are studying takes them -straight back to Constantine. Despite the multitude of Emperors and -Sultans who have succeeded him, each anxious to leave his mark behind -him in stone, or brick, or marble, Constantinople is still the city of -Constantine. In the centre, he laid out the Augustæum, the ancient -equivalent, as it has well been pointed out, of the modern “Place -Imperiale.” It was a large open space, paved throughout in marble, but -of unknown shape, and historians have disagreed upon the probability of -its having been circular, square, or of the shape of a narrow rectangle. -It was full of noble statuary, and was surrounded by an imposing pile of -stately buildings. To the north lay the great church of Sancta Sophia; -on the east the Senate House of the Augustæum, so called to distinguish -it from the Senate House of the Forum; on the south lay the palace, -entered by an enormous brazen gate, called Chalce, the palace end of the -Hippodrome, and the Baths of Zeuxippus. The street connecting the -Augustæum with the Forum of Constantine was known as Μέση, or -Middle-street, and was entered on the western side. In the Augustæum, -which later Emperors filled with famous statues, there stood in -Constantine’s day a single marble column known as the Milion—from which -were measured distances throughout the Empire,—a marble group -representing Constantine and Helena standing on either side of a -gigantic cross, and a second statue of Helena upon a pedestal of -porphyry. It was in this Augustæum, moreover, that was to stand for a -thousand years the huge equestrian statue of Justinian, known through -all the world and described by many a traveller before the capture of -the city by the Turks, who broke it into a thousand pieces. - -[Illustration: - - ST. HELENA AND THE CROSS. - BY CRANACH. LICHTENSTEIN GALLERY, VIENNA. -] - -To the west of the Augustæum lay the Forum of Constantine, elliptical in -form and surrounded by noble colonnades, which terminated at either end -in a spacious portico in the shape of a triumphal arch. In the centre, -which, according to an old tradition, marked the very spot on which -Constantine had pitched his camp when besieging Licinius, stood, and -still stands, though in sadly mutilated and shattered guise, the Column -of Constantine, which has long been known either as the Burnt Pillar, -owing to the damage which it has suffered by fire, or as the Porphyry -Pillar, because of the material of which it was composed. There were -eight drums of porphyry in all, brought specially from Rome, each about -ten feet in height, bound with wide bands of brass wrought into the -shape of laurel wreaths. These rested upon a stylobate of white marble, -some nineteen feet high, which in turn stood upon a stereobate of -similar height composed of four spacious steps. Sacred relics were -enclosed—or are said to have been enclosed—within this pediment, -including things so precious as Mary Magdalene’s alabaster box, the -crosses of the two thieves who had suffered with Christ upon Mount -Calvary, the adze with which Noah had fashioned the Ark out of rough, -primeval timber, and—in strange company—the very Palladium of ancient -Rome, transported from the Capitol to an alien and a rival soil. At the -foot of the column there was placed the following inscription: “O -Christ, Ruler and Master of the world, to Thee have I now consecrated -this obedient city and this sceptre and the power of Rome. Guard and -deliver it from every harm.” - -[Illustration: - - COLUMN OF CONSTANTINE THE GREAT. - FROM GROSVENOR’S “CONSTANTINOPLE.” -] - -At the summit of the column was a colossal statue of Apollo in bronze, -filched from Athens, where it was believed to be a genuine example of -Pheidias. But before the statue had been raised into position, it -suffered unworthy mutilation. The head of Apollo was removed and -replaced by a head of Constantine. This may be interpreted as a -confession of the sculptors of the day that they were unable to produce -a statue worthy of their great Emperor; but the fact that a statue of -Apollo was chosen for this doubtful honour of mutilation is worth at -least passing remark, when we remember that before his conversion -Constantine had selected Apollo for special reverence. It is certainly -strange that the first Christian Emperor should have been willing to be -represented, on the site which was ever afterwards to be associated with -his name, by a statue round which clustered so many pagan associations. -He did not even disdain the pagan inscription, “To Constantine shining -like the Sun”; nor did he reject the pagan attribute of a radiated crown -around the head. In the right hand of Apollo the old Greek artist had -placed a lance; in the left a globe. That globe was now surmounted by a -cross and lo! Apollo had become Constantine; the most radiant of the -gods of Olympus had become the champion of Christ upon earth. The fate -of this statue—which was held in such superstitious reverence that for -centuries all horsemen dismounted before passing it, while below it, on -every first day of September, Emperor, Patriarch, and clergy assembled -to chant hymns of prayer and praise—may be briefly told. In 477 the -globe was thrown down by an earthquake. The lance suffered a like fate -in 541, while the statue itself came crashing to earth in 1105, killing -a number of persons in its fall. The column was then surmounted by a -cross, and fire and time have reduced it to its present almost shapeless -and unrecognisable mass. - -Close to the Augustæum there began to rise the stately magnificence of -the Imperial Palace, the Great Palace, τὸ μέγα παλάτιον, as it was -called to distinguish it from all others. This was really a cluster of -palaces spread over an enormous area, a self-contained city within -itself, strongly protected with towers and walls. Here were the Imperial -residences, gardens, churches, barracks, and baths, and for eight -hundred years, until this quarter was forsaken for the palace of -Blachernæ in another region of the city, Emperors continued to build and -rebuild on this favoured site. In later years the Great Palace consisted -of an interconnected group of buildings bearing such names as -Chrysotriklinon, Trikonchon, Daphne,—so called from a diviner’s column -brought to Constantinople from the Grove of Daphne near Antioch,—Chalce, -Boucoleon, and Manavra. One at least of these dated back to Constantine. -This was the Porphyry Palace, with a high pyramidal roof, constructed of -porphyry brought especially from Rome. It was dedicated to the service -of the ladies of the Imperial Family, who retired thither to be away -from the vexations, intrigues, and anxieties of every-day life during -the time of their pregnancy. In the seclusion of this Porphyry Palace -they were undisturbed and secure, and the children born within walls -thus sacred to Imperial maternity were distinguished by the title of -“Porphyrogeniti,” which plays so prominent a part in Byzantine history. - -Constantine built below ground as well as above. One of the principal -drawbacks—perhaps the only one—to the perfect suitability of the site of -Constantinople was that it contained very few natural springs. Water, -therefore, had to be brought into the town by gigantic aqueducts and -stored in cisterns, some small, some of enormous size, which must have -cost fabulous sums. The two greatest of these are still in good -preservation after nearly sixteen centuries of use. One is the Cistern -of Philoxenos, called by the Turks Bin Bir Derek, or the Thousand and -One Columns. The columns stand in sixteen rows of fourteen columns each, -each column consisting of three shafts, and each shaft being eighteen -feet in height, though all the lower and most of the middle tiers have -long been hidden by masses of impacted earth. Philoxenos, whose name is -thus immortalised in this stupendous work, came to Constantinople from -Rome at the request of the Emperor, and lavished his fortune upon the -construction of this cistern in proof of his public spirit and in order -to please his master. Assistance was also invited from the public. And -just as in our own day subscriptions are often coaxed out of reluctant -purses by deft appeal to the harmless vanity which delights to see one’s -own name inscribed upon a foundation stone, so in this Cistern of -Philoxenos there are still to be deciphered upon the columns the names -of the donors, names, as Mr. Grosvenor points out in his most -interesting account of these cisterns, which are wholly Greek. “It is a -striking evidence,” he says, “how little Roman was the Romanised -capital, that every inscription is in Greek.” The second great cistern -is the Royal or Basilike Cistern, begun by Constantine and restored by -Justinian, which is called by the Turks Yeri Batan Serai, or the -Underground Palace. This is supported by three hundred and thirty-six -columns, standing twelve feet apart in twenty-eight symmetrical rows. -The cistern is three hundred and ninety feet long and a hundred and -seventy-four feet wide, and still supplies water from the Aqueduct of -Valens as fresh as when its first stone was laid. - -The chief glories of Constantinople, however, were the Hippodrome and -the churches. With the latter we may deal very briefly, the more so -because the world-renowned St. Sophia is not the St. Sophia which -Constantine built, but the work of Justinian. Constantine’s church, on -which he and many of his successors lavished their treasures, was burnt -to the ground and utterly consumed in the tumult of the Nika which laid -half the city in ashes. Nor had St. Sophia been intended to be the -metropolitan church. That distinction belonged to the church which -Constantine had dedicated not to the Wisdom but to the Peace of God, to -St. Irene. It, too, shared the fate of the sister church in the tumult -of the Nika, and was similarly rebuilt by Justinian. This was regarded -as the Patriarchal church and called by that name, for here the -Patriarch conducted the daily services, since the church had no clergy -of its own. It was at the high altar of St. Irene that the Patriarch -Alexander in 335 prayed day and night that God would choose between -himself and Arius; while the answer—or what was taken for the answer—was -delivered at the foot of Constantine’s Column. It was in this church -nearly half a century later that the great Arian controversy was ended -in 381, and here that the Holy Spirit was declared equal to the Father -and the Son. Since the Ottoman conquest this church—the sole survivor of -all that in Byzantine times once stood in the region of what is now the -Seraglio—has been used as an arsenal and military museum. On its walls -hang suits of armour, helmets, maces, spears, and swords of a bygone -age, while the ground floor is stacked with modern rifles. The temple of -“the Peace that Passeth Understanding” has been transformed into a -temple of war. Mr. Grosvenor well sums up its history in the fine -phrase, “Saint Irene is a prodigious hearthstone, on which all the ashes -of religion and of triumph and surrender have grown cold.” - -There is yet another church in Constantinople which calls for notice. It -is the one which Constantine dedicated to the Holy Trinity, though its -name was soon afterwards changed to that of the Holy Apostles, in honour -of the remains of Timothy, Andrew, and Luke, the body of St. Mathias, -the head of James, the brother of Jesus, and the head of St. Euphemia, -which were enshrined under the great High Altar. So rich a store of -relics was held to justify the change of name. It was from the pulpit of -this Church of the Holy Apostles that John Chrysostom denounced the -Empress Eudoxia, but the chief title of the building to remembrance is -that it was for centuries the Mausoleum of Constantinople’s Emperors and -Patriarchs. None but members of the reigning house, or the supreme Heads -of the Eastern Church, were accorded burial within its walls. -Constantine built a splendid Heroon at the entrance, just as Augustus -had built a magnificent Mausoleum on the Field of Mars. When it could -hold no more, Justinian built another. Each monarch, robed and crowned -in death as in life, had a marble sarcophagus of his own; no one church -in the world’s history can ever have contained the dust of so much -royalty, sanctity, and orthodoxy. Apart from the rest lay the tombs of -Julian the Apostate and the four Arian Emperors, as though cut off from -communion with their fellows, and removed as far outside the pale as the -respect due to an anointed Emperor would permit. It was not the -conquering Ottoman but the Latin Crusaders, the robbers of the West, who -pillaged the sacred tombs, stole their golden ornaments, and flung aside -the bones which had reposed there during the centuries. - -[Illustration: - - THE THREE EXISTING MONUMENTS OF THE HIPPODROME. - FROM GROSVENOR’S “CONSTANTINOPLE.” -] - -We pass from the churches to the Hippodrome, a Campus Martius and -Coliseum combined, which now bears the Turkish name of Atmeidan, a -translation of its ancient Greek name. Its glories have passed away. It -has shrunk to little more than a third of its original proportions, and -is merely a rough exercise ground surrounded by houses. But it preserves -within its attenuated frame three of the most famous monuments of -antiquity, around which it is possible to recreate its ancient -splendours. These three monuments are the Egyptian obelisk, the Serpent -Pillar, and a crumbling column that looks as though it must snap and -fall in the first storm that blows. They preserve for us the exact line -of the old spina, round which the charioteers used to drive their steeds -in furious rivalry. The obelisk stood exactly in the centre of the -building, which was shaped like a narrow magnet with long arms. From the -obelisk to the middle of the sphendone—that is to say, the curving top -of a magnet, or the loop of a sling—was 691 feet, while the width was -395 feet. The Hippodrome, therefore, was nearly 1400 feet long by 400 -wide, the proportions of three and a half to one being those of the -Circus Maximus at Rome. It lay north-north-east, conforming in shape to -the Augustæum. The Hippodrome had been begun in 203 by Severus, to whom -belongs the credit of having conceived its stupendous plan, but it had -remained uncompleted for a century and a quarter. - -At the northern end, reaching straight across from side to side, was a -lofty structure, raised upon pillars and enclosed within gates. Here -were the stables and storehouses, known to the Romans by the name of -Carceres and to the Greeks as Mangana. Above was a broad tribunal, in -the centre of which, and supported by marble pillars, stood the -Kathisma, with the throne of the Emperor well in front. This, in modern -parlance, was the Royal Box, and, when the Emperor was present, the -tribunal below was thronged with the high dignitaries of State and the -Imperial Bodyguard, while, in front of the throne, but at a rather lower -level, was the pillared platform, called the Pi, where stood the royal -standard-bearers. Behind this entire structure, fully three hundred feet -wide and so spacious that it was dignified with the name of palace and -contained long suites of royal apartments, was the Church of St. -Stephen, through which, by means of a spiral stairway, access was -obtained to the Kathisma. It was always used by the Emperor on his -visits to the Hippodrome, and was considered to be profaned if trodden -by meaner mortals. The palace, raised as it was over the stables of the -Hippodrome and looking down the entire length of the arena, had no -communication with the body of the building, and on either side the long -arms of the Hippodrome terminated in blank walls. The first tier of -seats, known as the Bouleutikon or Podium, was raised thirteen feet -above the arena. This was the place of distinction. At the back rose -tier upon tier, broken half-way by a wide passage, while at the very top -of all was a broad promenade running right round the building from pole -to pole of the magnet. This was forty feet above the ground, and the -benches and promenades were composed of gleaming marble raised upon -arches of brick. There was room here for eighty thousand spectators to -assemble in comfort, and one seems to hear ringing down the ages the -frenzied shouts of the multitudes which for centuries continued to -throng this mighty building, of which now scarce one stone stands upon -another. Mr. Grosvenor very justly says that - - “no theatre, no palace, no public building has to-day a promenade so - magnificent.... Within was all the pomp and pageantry of all possible - imperial and popular contest and display; without, piled high around, - were the countless imposing structures ‘of that city which for more - than half a thousand years was the most elegant, the most civilised, - almost the only civilised and polished city in the world.’ Beyond was - the Golden Horn, crowded with shipping; the Bosphorus in its winding - beauty; the Marmora, studded with islands and fringing the Asiatic - coast, the long line of the Arganthonius Mountains and the peaks of - the Bithynian Olympus, glittering with eternal snow—all combining in a - panorama which even now no other city of mankind can rival.” - -[Illustration: - - PLAN OF THE HIPPODROME. - FROM GROSVENOR’S “CONSTANTINOPLE.” -] - -In the middle of the arena stood the spina, a marble wall, four feet -high and six hundred feet long, with the Goal of the Blues at the -northern end facing the throne, and that of the Greens facing the -sphendone. The spina was decorated with the choicest statuary, including -the three surviving monuments. Of these the Egyptian obelisk, belonging -to the reign of Thotmes III., had already stood for more centuries in -Egypt than have elapsed since Constantine transported it to his new -capital. When it arrived, the engineers could not raise it into position -and it remained prone until, in 381, one Proclus, a præfect of the city, -succeeded in erecting it upon copper cubes. The shattered column belongs -to a much later epoch than that of Constantine. It was set up by -Constantine VIII. Porphyrogenitus, and once glittered in the sun, for it -was covered with plates of burnished brass. The third, and by far the -most interesting monument of the three, is the famous column of twisted -serpents from Delphi. Its romantic history never grows dull by -repetition. For this is that serpent column of Corinthian brass which -was dedicated to Apollo by the thankful and exultant Greeks after the -battle of Platæa, when the hosts of the Persian Xerxes were thrust back -from the soil of Greece never to return. It bears upon its coils the -names of the thirty-one Greek cities which fought for freedom, and there -is still to be seen, inscribed in slightly larger characters than the -rest, the name of the Tenians, who, as Herodotus tells us, succeeded in -proving to the satisfaction of their sister states that they deserved -inclusion in so honourable a memorial. The history of this column from -the fifth century before the Christian era down to the present time is -to be read in a long succession of Greek, Roman, mediæval, and modern -historians; and as late as the beginning of the eighteenth century the -three heads of the serpents were still in their place. But even in its -mutilated state there is perhaps no relic of antiquity which can vie in -interest with this column, associated as it was in the day of its -fashioning with Pausanias and Themistocles, with Xerxes and with -Mardonius. We have then to think of it standing for seven centuries in -the holiest place of all Hellas, the shrine of Apollo at Delphi. There -it was surmounted by a golden tripod, on which sat the priestess who -uttered the oracles which, in important crises, prompted the policy and -guided the development of the cities of Greece. The column is hollow, -and it is possible that the mephitic exhalations, which are supposed to -have stupefied the priestess when she was possessed by the god, mounted -up the interior of the spiral. The golden tripod was stolen during the -wars with Philip of Macedon; Constantine replaced it by another when he -brought the column from Delphi to Constantinople. And there, surviving -all the vicissitudes through which the city has passed, still stands the -column, still fixed to the pedestal upon which Constantine mounted it, -many feet below the present level of the Atmeidan, still an object of -superstition to Christian as well as to the Turk, and owing, no doubt, -its marvellous preservation to the indefinable awe which clings, even in -ruin, to the sacred relics of a discredited religion. - -[Illustration: - - THE SERPENT OF DELPHI. - FROM GROSVENOR’S “CONSTANTINOPLE.” -] - -To the Hippodrome itself there were four principal entrances. The gate -of the Blues was close by the Carceres or Mangana, on the western side, -with the gate of the Greens facing it. At the other end, just where the -long straight line was broken and the building began to curve into the -sphendone, was a gate on the eastern side which bore the ill-omened name -of the Gate of the Dead, opposite another, the name of which is not -known. The gate of the Blues—the royal faction—was the grand entrance -for all state processions. - -Such was the outward form of the famous Hippodrome, and Mr. Grosvenor -justly dwells on the imposing vastness and beauty of its external -appearance. - - “The walls were of brick, laid in arches and faced by a row of - Corinthian pillars. What confronted the spectator’s eye was a wall in - superposed and continuous arches, seen through an endless colonnade. - Seventeen columns were still erect upon their bases in 1529. Gyllius, - who saw them, says that their diameter was three and eleven-twelfths - feet. Each was twenty-eight feet high, and pedestal and capital added - seven feet more. They stood eleven feet apart. Hence, deducting for - the gates, towers, and palace, at least two hundred and sixty columns - would be required in the circuit. If one, with the curiosity of a - traveller, wished to journey round the entire perimeter, he must - continue on through a distance of three thousand and fifteen feet, - before his pilgrimage ended at the spot where it had begun; and ever, - as he toiled along, there loomed into the air that prodigious mass, - forty feet above his head. No wonder that there remained, even in the - time of the Sultan Souleiman, enough to construct that most superb of - mosques, the Souleimanieh, from the fallen columns, the splintered - marbles, the brick and stone of the Hippodrome.” - -But it was not merely the shell of the Hippodrome that was imposing by -reason of its size and magnificence. It was filled with the choicest art -treasures of the ancient world. Constantine stole masterpieces with the -catholicity of taste, the excellence of artistic judgment, and the -callous indifference to the rights of ownership which characterised -Napoleon. He stripped the world naked of its treasures, as St. Jerome -neatly remarked.[121] Rome and its conquering proconsuls and proprætors -had done the same. Constantine now robbed Rome and took whatever Rome -had left. Greece was still a fruitful quarry. We have already spoken of -the Serpent Column, which was torn from Delphi. The historians have -preserved for us the names of a number of other famous works of art -which adorned the spina and the promenade of the Hippodrome. There was a -Brazen Eagle, clutching a withing snake in its talons and rising in the -air with wings outspread; the Hercules of Lysippus, of a size so heroic -that it measured six feet from the foot to the knee; the Brazen Ass and -its driver, a mere copy of which Augustus had offered to his own city of -Nicopolis founded on the shores of Actium; the Poisoned Bull; the Angry -Elephant; the gigantic figure of a woman holding in her hand a horse and -its rider of life size; the Calydonian Boar; eight Sphinxes, and last, -but by no means least, the Horses of Lysippus. These horses have a -history with which no other specimens of equine statuary can compare. -They first adorned a temple at Corinth. Taken to Rome by Memmius when he -laid Corinth in ashes, they were placed before the Senate House. Nero -removed them that they might grace his triumphal arch; Trajan, with -juster excuse, did the same. Constantine had them sent to -Constantinople. Then, after nearly nine centuries had passed, they were -again packed up and transported back to Italy. The aged Dandolo had -claimed them as part of his share of the booty and sent them to Venice. -There they remained for almost six centuries more until Napoleon cast -covetous eyes upon them and had them taken to Paris to adorn his Arc de -Triomphe. On his downfall Paris was compelled to restore them to Venice -and the horses of Lysippus paw the air once more above the roof of St. -Mark’s Cathedral. - ------ - -Footnote 121: - - _Constantinopolis dedicatur pæne omnium urbium nuditate._ - ------ - -We have thus briefly enumerated the most magnificent public buildings -with which Constantine adorned his new capital, and the choicest works -of art with which these were further embellished. The Emperor pressed on -the work with extraordinary activity. No one believes the story of -Codinus that only nine months elapsed between the laying of the first -stone and the formal dedication which took place in the Hippodrome on -May 11th, 330, but it is only less wonderful that so much should have -been done in four years. The same untrustworthy author also tells a -strange story of how Constantine took advantage of the absence of some -of his officers on public business to build exact models of their Roman -mansions in Constantinople, and transport all their household -belongings, families, and households to be ready for them on their -return as a pleasant surprise. What is beyond doubt is that the Emperor -did offer the very greatest inducements to the leading men of Rome to -leave Rome for good and make Constantinople their home. He even -published an edict that no one dwelling in Asia Minor should be allowed -to enter the Imperial service unless he built himself a house in -Constantinople. Peter the Great issued a like order when he founded St. -Petersburg and opened a window looking on Europe. The Emperor changed -the destination of the corn ships of Egypt from Rome to Constantinople, -established a lavish system of distributions of wheat and oil and even -of money and wine, and created at the cost of the treasury an idle and -corrupt proletariate. He thus transported to his new capital all the -luxuries and vices of the old. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - -[Illustration] - - - - - CHAPTER XIV - ARIUS AND ATHANASIUS - - -We have seen how, at the conclusion of the Council of Nicæa, it looked -as if the Church had entered into her rest. The day of persecution was -over; Christianity had found in the Emperor an ardent and impetuous -champion; a creed had been framed which seemed to establish upon a sure -foundation the deepest mysteries of the faith; heresy not only lay under -anathema, but had been reduced to silence. Throughout the East—the West -had remained practically untroubled—the feeling was one of confidence -and joy. Constantine rejoiced as though he had won a personal victory; -his subjects, we are told,[122] thought the kingdom of Christ had -already begun. When Gregory, the Illuminator of Armenia, met his son, -Aristaces, returning from Nicæa and heard from his lips the text of the -new creed, he at once exclaimed: “Yea, we glorify Him who was before the -ages, by adoring the Holy Trinity and the one Godhead of the Father, and -of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, now and for ever, through ages and -ages.” - ------ - -Footnote 122: - - _De Vita Const._, iii., c. 14. - ------ - -Moreover, the Emperor’s violent edicts against the Arians, and the -banishment of Eusebius and Theognis, all indicated a settled and rooted -conviction which nothing could shake, while the death of the Patriarch -Alexander of Alexandria and the election of Athanasius in his stead must -have strengthened enormously the Catholic party in Egypt and, indeed, -throughout the East. Alexander had died within a few months of his -return from Nicæa, in the early part of 326. He is said, when on his -death-bed, to have foretold the elevation of Athanasius and the trials -which lay before him. He had called for Athanasius—who at the moment was -away from Egypt—and another Athanasius, who was present in the room, -answered for the absent one. The dying man, however, was not deceived -and said: “Athanasius, you think you have escaped, but you will not; you -cannot.” We need not recount the stories which the malignity of his -enemies invented in order to cast discredit upon Athanasius’ election. -There is no reason to doubt either its validity or its overwhelming -popularity in Alexandria, where, while the Egyptian bishops were in -session, the Catholics outside the building kept up the unceasing cry: -“Give us Athanasius, the good, the holy, the ascetic.” The election was -not unanimous. Evidently some thought the situation required a -conciliatory demeanour towards the beaten Arians. But that was not the -view of the majority, who, by choosing Athanasius, set the best fighting -man on their side upon the throne of St. Mark. They did wisely. -Tolerance was not properly understood in the fourth century. - -The outward peace lasted little more than two years. Unfortunately, we -are almost entirely in the dark as to what took place during that time, -beyond the certain fact of the recall of Arius, Eusebius, and Theognis. -Arius had been banished to Galatia; then we read of the sentence being -partially revoked, and the only embargo placed upon his freedom of -movement was that he was forbidden to return to Alexandria. Did this -take place before the recall of Eusebius and Theognis? Socrates gives -the text of a strange letter written by these two prelates to the -principal bishops of the Church, in which they definitely say that, -inasmuch as Arius has been recalled from exile, they hope the bishops -will use their influence with the Emperor on their behalf. - - “After closely studying the question of the Homoousion,” they say, “we - are wholly intent on preserving peace and we have been seduced by no - heresy. We subscribed to the Creed, after suggesting what we thought - best for the Church, but we refused to sign the anathema, not because - we had any fault to find with the Creed, but because we did not - consider Arius to be what he was represented as being. The letters we - had received from him and the discourses we had heard him deliver - compelled us to form a totally different estimate of his character.” - -The authenticity of this letter has been sharply called in question, for -there is no other scrap of evidence confirming the statement that Arius -was recalled before Eusebius and Theognis—in itself a most improbable -step. Constantine had issued an edict that any one concealing a copy of -the writings of Arius and not instantly handing it over to the -authorities to be burnt, should be put to death, and it is much more -probable that Arius was recalled after, rather than before, Eusebius of -Nicomedia. The “History” of Socrates contains many letters of doubtful -authenticity and some which are, beyond dispute, forgeries. Among the -latter we may certainly include the portentously long document in which -Constantine is represented as making a grossly personal attack on the -banished Arius. We will content ourselves with quoting the most -vituperative passage: - - “Look! Look all of you! See what wretched cries he utters, writhing in - pain from the bite of the serpent’s tooth! See how his veins and flesh - are poison-tainted and what agonised convulsions they excite! See how - his body is wasted away with disease and squalor, with dirt and - lamentation, with pallor and horror! See how he is withered up with a - thousand evils! See how horrible to look upon is his filthy tangled - head of hair; how he is half dead from top to toe; how languid is the - aspect of his haggard, bloodless face; how madness, fury, and vanity, - swooping down upon him together, have reduced him to what he is—a - savage and wild beast! He does not even recognise the horrible - situation he is in. ‘I am beside myself with joy’; he says, ‘I dance - and leap with glee; I fly; I am a happy boy again.’” - -[Illustration: - - ST. ATHANASIUS. - FROM THE BRITISH MUSEUM PRINT ROOM. -] - -Assuredly this raving production never came from the pen of Constantine, -and it bears no resemblance to his ordinary style. The resounding -platitude with which it opens, “An evil interpreter is really the image -and counterpart of the Devil,” leads us confidently to acquit the -Emperor of its authorship and ascribe it to some anonymous and unknown -ecclesiastic desirous at once of edifying and terrifying the faithful. - -We can only surmise the circumstances which worked upon the Emperor’s -mind and caused his complete change of front with respect to Arianism -and its exponents. Sozomen, indeed, attributes it wholly to the -influence of his sister, Constantia. According to an Arian legend quoted -by that historian, it was revealed to the Princess in “a vision from -God” that it was the exiled bishops who held the true orthodox doctrine -and, therefore, that they had been unjustly banished. She worked upon -the impressionable mind of her brother, and the two bishops were -recalled. When Constantine asked whether they still held the Nicene -doctrines to which they had subscribed, they replied that they had -assented, not from conviction, but from the fear lest the Emperor should -be disgusted at the dissensions among the Christians, and revert to -paganism. This curious story certainly tends to confirm the tradition -that it was Constantia who was the court patroness of the Arians. She -had been for years Empress in the palace of Nicomedia, and it is easy to -suppose that the very able Bishop of that city had established a strong -ascendency over her mind, long before the Arian controversy arose. - -The upshot of the whole matter—however the change was brought about—was -that in the year 329, the Arian and Eusebian party was paramount at the -Imperial Court. They had persuaded the Emperor that theirs was the party -of reason, and that those who persisted in troubling the peace of the -Church by holding extreme views and seeking to impose rigorous tests -were the followers of the new Patriarch of Alexandria. They had -subscribed to the Nicene Creed or to a Creed which—so they persuaded the -Emperor—was practically indistinguishable from it, and they now plotted, -with great skill and adroitness, to undermine the position of -Athanasius. How they conducted the intrigue we do not know, but it is -significant that after the break up of the Council of Nicæa we hear no -more, during Constantine’s lifetime, of his long-trusted adviser Hosius, -Bishop of Cordova. The dreadful tragedies in the Imperial Family had -taken place at Rome in the summer of 326. It is possible that Hosius -made no secret of his horror at these monstrous crimes and retired to -his Spanish bishopric, and that Eusebius of Nicomedia, when brought into -communication with Constantine, was not so exacting in his demand for a -show of penitence and proved more skilful in allaying the Emperor’s -remorse. Be that as it may, as soon as Eusebius felt assured of his -position, he lost no time in prosecuting a vigorous campaign against -those who had triumphed over him at Nicæa. The first blow was directed -against Eustathius, the Bishop of Antioch, who was charged with heresy, -profligacy, and tyranny by the two Eusebii and a number of other -bishops, then on their way to Jerusalem. Whether the charges were well -founded or not, the tribunal was a prejudiced one and the sentence of -deprivation and banishment passed upon Eustathius was bitterly resented -in Antioch. - -After certain other bishops had met with a like fate, the Eusebii flew -at higher game and attacked Athanasius. They had already entered into an -understanding with the Meletian faction in Egypt, who carefully kept -alive the charges against Athanasius, and now they again took up the -cudgels on behalf of Arius. Eusebius wrote to the Patriarch asking him -to restore Arius to communion on the ground that he had been grievously -misrepresented. Athanasius bluntly refused. Arius, he said, had started -a deadly heresy: he had been anathematised by an Œcumenical Council: -how, then, could he be restored to communion? Eusebius and Arius -appealed to the Emperor. Constantine, who had previously ordered Arius -to attend at court and promised him signal proof of his regard and -permission to return to Alexandria, sent a peremptory message to -Athanasius bidding him admit Arius. When Athanasius, on the score of -conscience, returned a steady refusal, the Emperor angrily threatened -that, if he did not throw open his church doors to all who desired to -enter, he would send an officer to turn him out of his church and expel -him from Alexandria. “Now that you have full knowledge of my will,” he -added, “see that you provide uninterrupted entry to all who wish to -enter the church. If I hear that you have prevented any one from joining -the services, or have shut the doors in their faces, I will at once -despatch some one to deport you from Alexandria.” The threat did not -terrify Athanasius, who declared that there could be no fellowship -between heretics and true believers. Nor was the Imperial officer sent. - -Then began an extraordinary campaign of calumny against the Patriarch, -who was accused of taxing Egypt in order to buy a supply of linen -garments, called “sticharia,” for his church; of instigating one -Macarius to upset a communion table and break a sacred chalice; of -murdering a Meletian bishop named Arsenius, who was presently found -alive and well; and of other crimes equally preposterous and unfounded. -It was the Meletian irreconcilables in Egypt who brought these calumnies -forward, but Athanasius had no doubt that the moving spirit was none -other than Eusebius himself. And his enemies, whoever they were, were -untiring and implacable. As soon as one calumny was refuted, they were -ready with another, and all this time there was Eusebius at the -Emperor’s side, continually suggesting that with so much smoke there -needs must be some fire, and that Athanasius ought to be called upon to -clear himself, lest the scandal should do injury to the Church. -Constantine summoned a council to try Athanasius in 333, and fixed the -place of meeting in Cæsarea,—a tolerably certain proof that the two -Eusebii were acting in concert. For some reason not stated the bishops -did not assemble until the following year, and then Athanasius refused -to attend. Not until 335 did Athanasius stand before his episcopal -judges at Tyre. - -Accompanied by some fifty of his suffragans, Athanasius had made the -journey, only to find himself confronted by a packed council. All his -bitterest enemies were there; all the old unsubstantiated charges were -resuscitated. His election was said to be uncanonical; he was charged -with personal unchastity and with cruelty towards certain Meletian -bishops and priests; and, most curious of all, the ancient calumnies of -“The Broken Chalice” and “The Dead Man’s Hand” were revived and pressed, -as though they had never been confuted. With respect to the latter -charge, Athanasius enjoyed one moment of signal triumph. After his -accusers had caused a thrill of horror to pass through the Council by -producing a blackened and withered hand, which they declared to belong -to the missing Bishop Arsenius, who was supposed to have suffered foul -play, Athanasius asked whether any of those present had known Arsenius -personally. A number of bishops claimed acquaintance, and then -Athanasius gave the signal for a man, who was standing by closely -muffled in a cloak, to come forward. “Lift up your head!” said -Athanasius. The unknown did so, and lo! it was none other than Arsenius -himself. Athanasius drew aside the cloak, first from one hand and then -from the other. “Has God given to any man,” he asked quietly, “more -hands than two?” His enemies were silenced, but only for the moment. One -of them, cleverer than the rest, immediately exclaimed that this was -mere sorcery and devil’s work; the man was not Arsenius; in fact, he was -not even a man at all, but a mere counterfeit, an illusion of the senses -produced by Athanasius’ horrible proficiency in the black art. And we -are told that this ingenious explanation proved so convincing to the -assembly, and created such a fury of resentment against Athanasius, that -Dionysius, the Imperial officer who had been deputed by Constantine to -represent him at the Council, had to hurry Athanasius on shipboard to -save him from personal violence. - -There was clearly so little corroborative evidence against Athanasius -that the Council dared not convict him. But, as they were equally -determined not to acquit him, they appointed a commission of enquiry to -collect testimony on the spot in the Mareotis district of Egypt with -respect to the story of the Broken Chalice. The six commissioners were -chosen in secret session by the anti-Athanasian faction. Athanasius -protested without avail against the selection: they were all, he said, -his private enemies. The commission sailed for Egypt, and Athanasius -determined, with characteristic boldness, to go to Constantinople, -confront the Emperor, and appeal for justice and a fair trial at the -fountainhead. Athanasius met the Emperor as he was riding into the city, -and stood before him in his path. What followed is best told by -Constantine himself in a letter which he wrote to the Bishop of -Tyre.[123] Here are his own words: - - “As I was returning on horseback to the city which bears my name, - Athanasius, the Bishop, presented himself so unexpectedly in the - middle of the highway, with certain individuals who accompanied him, - that I felt exceedingly surprised on beholding him. God, who sees all, - is my witness that at first I did not know who he was, but some of my - attendants, having ascertained this and the subject of his complaint, - gave me the necessary information. I did not accord him an interview, - but he persevered in requesting an audience, and, although I refused - him and was on the point of ordering that he should be removed from my - presence, he told me, with greater boldness than he had previously - manifested, that he sought no other favour of me than that I should - summon you hither, in order that he might, in your presence, complain - of the injustice that had been done to him.” - ------ - -Footnote 123: - - Sozomen II., 28. - ------ - -Such boldness had the success it deserved. Constantine evidently made -enquires from Count Dionysius, and, discovering that the Council at Tyre -was a mere travesty of justice, ordered the bishops to come forthwith to -Constantinople. But before these instructions reached them they had -received the report of the Egyptian commissioners, and, on the strength -of it, had condemned Athanasius by a majority of votes, recognised the -Meletians as orthodox, and, adjourning to Jerusalem for the dedication -of the new church, had there pronounced Arius to be a true Catholic and -in full communion with the Church. The Emperor’s letter, which began -with a reference to the “tumults and disorders” which had marked their -sessions, was a plain intimation that he disapproved of their -proceedings, and only six bishops, the two Eusebii and four others, -travelled up to Constantinople. Arrived there, they changed their -tactics, and recognising that the old charges against Athanasius had -fallen helplessly to the ground, they invented another which was much -more likely to have weight with the Emperor. They accused him of seeking -to prevent the Alexandrian corn ships from sailing to Constantinople. -Egypt was the granary of the new Rome as well as of the old, and upon -the regular arrival of the Egyptian wheat cargoes the tranquillity of -Constantinople largely depended. Athanasius protested that he had -entertained no such designs. He was, he said, simply a bishop of the -Church, a poor man with no political ambition or taste for intrigue. His -enemies retorted that he was not poor, but wealthy, and that he had -gained a dangerous ascendency over the turbulent people of Alexandria. -Constantine abruptly ended the dispute by banishing Athanasius to -Treves, and the Patriarch had no choice but to obey. He arrived at his -city of exile in 336, and was received with all honour by the Emperor’s -son Constantine, then installed in the Gallic capital as the Cæsar of -the West. This is tolerably certain proof that the Emperor did not -regard him as a very dangerous political opponent, but banished him -rather for the sake of religious peace. Constantine was weary of such -interminable disputations and such intractable disputants. - -The exile of Athanasius was of course a signal victory for the Eusebians -and for Arius. With the Patriarch of Alexandria thus safely out of the -way, they might look forward with confidence to gaining the entire court -over to their side and still further consolidating their position in the -East. Arius returned in triumph to Alexandria, where he had not set foot -for many years. But his presence was the signal for renewed popular -disturbance. The Catholics remained faithful to their Bishop in -exile—St. Antony repeatedly wrote to Constantine, praying for -Athanasius’ recall—and Alexandria was in tumult. Constantine refused to -reconsider the sentence of banishment on Athanasius, but he checked the -violence of the Meletian schismatics by banishing John Arcaph from -Alexandria, and he hurriedly recalled Arius to Constantinople. The -heresiarch was summoned into the presence of the Emperor, who by this -time was once more uneasy in his mind. Constantine asked him point blank -whether he held the Faith of the Catholic Church. “Can I trust you?” he -said; “are you really of the true Faith?” Arius solemnly affirmed that -he was and recited his profession of belief. “Have you abjured the -errors you used to hold in Alexandria?” continued the Emperor; “will you -swear it before God?” Arius took the required oath, and the Emperor was -satisfied. “Go,” said he, “and if your Faith be not sound, may God -punish you for your perjury.” - -This strange scene is described by Athanasius himself, who had been told -the details by an eyewitness, a priest called Macarius. According to -Socrates, Arius subscribed the declaration of the Faith in Constantine’s -presence, and the historian goes on to recount the foolish legend that -Arius wrote down his real opinions on paper, which he carried under his -arm, and so could truly swear that he “held” the sentiments he had -written. Arius then demanded to be admitted to communion with the Church -at Constantinople, as public testimony to his orthodoxy, and the -Patriarch Alexander was ordered to receive him. Alexander was a feeble -old man of ninety-eight but he did not lack moral courage. He told the -Emperor that his conscience would not allow him to offer the sacraments -to one whom, in spite of the recent declarations of the bishops at -Jerusalem, he still regarded as an arch-heretic. He was not troubled, -says Socrates,[124] at the thought of his own deposition; what he feared -was the subversion of the principles of the Faith, of which he regarded -himself as the constituted guardian. Locking himself up within his -church—the Church of St. Eirene—he lay prostrate before the high altar -and remained there in earnest supplication for many days and nights. And -the burden of his prayer was that if Arius’s opinions were right he -(Alexander) might not live to see him enter the church to receive the -sacrament, but that, if he himself held the true Faith, Arius the -impious might be punished for his impiety. - ------ - -Footnote 124: - - Socrates, i., 37. - ------ - -The aged Bishop was still calling upon Heaven to judge between Arius and -himself and declare the truth by some manifest sign, when the time -appointed for Arius to be received into communion was at hand. Arius was -on his way to St. Eirene. He had quitted the palace—says -Socrates—attended by a crowd of Eusebian partisans, and was passing -through the centre of the city, the observed of all observers.[125] He -was in high spirits—as well he might be, for it was the hour of his -supreme triumph. Then the blow fell. As he drew near the Porphyry Pillar -in the Forum of Constantine he was suddenly taken ill. There was a -public lavatory close by and he withdrew to it. When he did not return -his friends became alarmed. Entering the place, they found him dead of a -violent hæmorrhage, with bowels protruding and burst asunder, like the -traitor Judas in the Field of Blood. One can imagine the extraordinary -sensation which the news must have caused in Constantinople as it flew -from mouth to mouth. Not only the Patriarch Alexander, but all the -orthodox, attributed Arius’ sudden and awful end to the direct -interposition of Providence in answer to their prayers. In an instant, -we are told, the churches were crowded with excited worshippers and were -ablaze with lights as for some happy festival. - ------ - -Footnote 125: - - περίοπτος. - ------ - -On the superstitious mind of the Emperor so tragic a death naturally -made a deep impression. He was, says Athanasius, amazed. Doubtless he -believed that Arius had deceived him and that God had answered his -prayer to punish the perjurer. The Eusebians were “greatly confounded.” -Some hinted at poison, others at magic; others were content to look no -further than natural causes. The general verdict of antiquity, however, -was almost unanimous in ascribing the death of Arius to the anger of an -offended Deity. It is a view which still finds adherents. Cardinal -Newman, for example, declares: - - “Under the circumstances a thoughtful mind cannot but account this as - one of those remarkable interpositions of power by which Divine - Providence urges on the consciences of men in the natural course of - things, what their reason from the first acknowledges, that He is not - indifferent to human conduct. To say that these do not fall within the - ordinary course of His governance is merely to say that they are - judgments, which in the common meaning of the word stand for events - extraordinary and unexpected.” - -But that is a matter which need not be discussed here. What is more -important to our purpose is to point out that the death of Arius does -not seem to have affected the state of religious parties at -Constantinople. It did not shake the position of Eusebius of Nicomedia, -who continued to enjoy the confidence of the Emperor and to act as the -keeper of his conscience. - -[Illustration] - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- - -[Illustration] - - - - - CHAPTER XV - CONSTANTINE’S DEATH AND CHARACTER - -It seems incontestable that Constantine degenerated as he grew older. -Certainly his popularity tended to decrease. This, however, is the usual -penalty of length of reign, and in itself would not count for much. But -one cannot overlook the cumulative evidence which is to be found in the -authorities of the period. Eusebius himself admits[126] that -unscrupulous men often took advantage of the piety and generosity of the -Emperor, and many of the stories which he tells in Constantine’s praise -prepare us for the charges which were brought against him by the pagan -historians. For example, Eusebius declares that whenever the Emperor -heard a civil appeal, he used to make up out of his private purse the -amount in which the losing party was mulcted, on the extraordinary -principle that both the winner and the loser ought to leave their -sovereign’s presence equally satisfied. Such a theory would speedily -beggar the richest treasury. Aurelius Victor preserves a popular saying -which shews the general estimation in which Constantine’s memory was -held. Men used to say that for the first ten years of his reign he was a -model sovereign (_præstantissimus_), for the next twelve he was a -brigand (_latro_), and for the last ten a spendthrift heir, so called -because of his preposterous extravagance (_pupillus ob profusiones -immodicas_). He was nicknamed _Trachala_, the obvious reference of which -would be to his short, thick neck; but Aurelius Victor appears to -associate it in some way with the meaning of “scoffer” (_irrisor_). - ------ - -Footnote 126: - - _De Vita Const._, iv., 54. - ------ - -[Illustration: - - BASILICA OF CONSTANTINE AT ROME. - FROM “ROME OF TO-DAY AND YESTERDAY,” BY JOHN DENNIE. -] - -In greater detail Zosimus[127] accuses Constantine of wasting the public -money on useless buildings. As a pagan, he would naturally regard -expenditure upon the construction of sumptuous Christian churches as -money thrown away, but it is perfectly certain that the state of the -Imperial resources did not justify the Emperor in lavishing vast sums -upon churches in all parts of the Empire. If we consider what must have -been the capital cost of his churches in Rome, Constantinople, -Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Mamre, and Antioch,—to mention only a few -places,—and remember that he was constantly urging the bishops to keep -building and constantly sending instructions to his vicars to make -handsome subsidies out of the State funds, we cannot but conclude that -the grumbling of the pagan tax payer was thoroughly well justified. -Constantine, indeed, seems to have been as _entêté_ in the matter of -building churches as was in our day the mad King Ludwig of Bavaria in -the building of royal castles. Nor was this the only form in which the -passion for bricks and mortar—_il mal di pietra_—seized him. He built a -new basilica even in Rome—though he rarely set foot in the city. In -Constantinople he must have sunk millions of unproductive capital, which -were far more urgently required for the development of agriculture and -commerce. In one epigrammatic sentence Zosimus sums up his indictment by -saying that Constantine thought to gain distinction by lavish -outlay.[128] He also wasted the public revenue on unworthy and useless -favourites,[129] whom he taught, in the phrase of Ammianus Marcellinus, -to open their greedy jaws (_fauces aperuit_). Zosimus says bluntly that -in his opinion it was Constantine who sowed the seeds of the ruinous -waste and destruction that prevailed when he wrote his history, and he -roundly declares that the Emperor devoted his life to his own selfish -pleasures.[130] - ------ - -Footnote 127: - - ii., 32, 35. - -Footnote 128: - - τὴν γὰρ ἀσωτίαν ἡγεῖτο φιλοτιμίαν (ii., 38). - -Footnote 129: - - εἰς ἀναξίους καὶ ἀνωφελεῖς ἀνθρώπονς τοὺς φορους ἐκδαπανῶν. - -Footnote 130: - - καὶ τρυφῇ τὸν βίον ἐκδοίς (ii., 32). - ------ - -There is another character sketch of Constantine which has survived for -us, drawn by an even more bitter enemy than the historian Zosimus. It is -to be found in that amusing and extraordinary _jeu d’esprit_ which bears -the name of _The Cæsars_, from the pen of the Emperor Julian. Julian -detested the very memory of Constantine the Great, whom he regarded as -the arch-apostate from the ancient religion, and, thus, when he -introduced him into the presence of the deities of Olympus, it was -really to pour ridicule and contempt upon his pretensions. Julian -describes him, at the first mention of his name, as a man who has seen -considerable fighting, but has become soft through self-indulgence and -luxury.[131] The deities of heaven are represented as sitting in -conclave, while the deified Emperors approach to join in their councils. -Julian runs over the list of the great Emperors, introducing them one by -one and making each sit by the side of the god whom he most resembles in -character. But when Constantine’s turn comes, it is found that he has no -such archetype. No god will own him as his protégé or pupil, and so, -after some hesitation, Constantine runs up to the Goddess of Luxury -(Τρύφη), who embraces him as her own darling, dresses him up in fine -clothes, and, when she has made him smart, hands him over to her sister, -the Goddess of Extravagance (Ἀσώτια). The irony was bitter, and the -shaft sped home. - ------ - -Footnote 131: - - ἄνδρα ουκ ἀπόλεμον μὲν, ἡδονῇ δε καὶ ἀπολαύσει χειροηθέστερον (c. 15). - ------ - -The ascetic Julian does not spare his august relative, whose title to -the epithet of “Great” he would have laughed to scorn. He declares that -Constantine’s victories over the barbarians were victories _pour rire_; -he represents him as a crazy being in love with the moon, like that -half-witted Emperor of the Claudian house, who used to stand at night in -the colonnades of his palace and beg the gracious Queen of the Sky to -come down to him as she had come down to Endymion. Julian puts into his -mouth a grotesque speech in which he makes Constantine claim to have -been a greater general than Alexander because he fought with Romans, -Germans, and Scythians and not with mere Asiatics; greater than Julius -Cæsar or than Augustus because he fought not with bad men but with good; -and greater even than Trajan, because it is a finer thing to win back -what you have lost than merely to acquire something new. The speech was -received with ridicule by the gods, and then Hermes pointedly asked -Constantine in the Socratic manner, “How would you define your ideal?” -(τὶ καλὸν ἐνόμισας;) “To have great riches,” was Constantine’s reply, -“and to be able to give away lavishly, and satisfy all one’s own desires -and those of one’s friends.” The answer is significant. Julian, like -Constantine’s other critics, keeps harping on the same string. It is the -luxury, extravagance, and self-indulgence of the Emperor that he singles -out as the most glaring defect of his character and his squandering of -the Imperial resources upon effeminate and un-Roman pomps, useless -buildings, and greedy and unworthy favourites. Silenus, the bibulous -buffoon of Olympus, a moral rebuke from whose lips would be received -with shouts of laughter, tells Constantine with mock gravity that he has -led a life fit only for a cook or a lady’s-maid (ὀψοποίος καὶ -κομμώτρια), and so the episode ends. We cannot doubt that there was -quite sufficient of truth in these accusations to make the sharp-witted -Greeks of the Empire, for whom Julian principally wrote, thoroughly -enjoy his biting sarcasms. - -But we must be careful not to push too far any argument based upon this -lampoon of Julian or upon the obvious bias of Zosimus. They disclose to -us, undoubtedly, the least worthy side of Constantine’s character, viz., -a tendency to effeminacy and luxury, and it is morally certain that no -one who had given way to his worst passions, as Constantine had done in -Rome in the year 326, could ever be quite the same man again. He had on -his conscience the assassination of his son and wife. These were but two -out of a terribly long list of victims, which included his -father-in-law, Maximian; his brother-in-law, Licinius, and Licinius’s -young son, Licinianus; another brother-in-law, the Cæsar Bassus; and -many more besides. Some fell for reasons of State—“it is only the -winner,” as Marcus Antonius had said three centuries before, “who sees -length of days”—but there was also the memory, even in the case of some -of these, of broken promises and ill-kept faith. Constantine’s -Christianity was not of the kind which permeates a man’s every action -and influences his entire life; or, if that be claimed for him, it must -at least be admitted that there were periods in his career when he -suffered most desperate lapses from grace. - -On the whole perhaps the general statement of Eutropius, which we have -already quoted, that Constantine degenerated somewhat (_aliquantum -mutavit_) as he grew older, fairly meets the case. It is worth while, -indeed, to quote the reasoned estimate which this excellent epitomist -gives of the Emperor’s character. He says[132]: - - “At the opening of his reign Constantine was a man who challenged - comparison with the best of Princes; at its close he merited - comparison with those of average merit and demerit. Both mentally and - physically his good points were beyond computation and conspicuous to - all. He was passionately set on winning military glory; and in his - campaigns good fortune attended him, though not more than his zealous - industry deserved.... He was devoted to the arts of peace and to the - humanities, and he sought to win from all men their sincere affection - by his generosity and his tractability, never losing an opportunity of - enriching his friends and adding to their dignity.” - ------ - -Footnote 132: - - Eutropius, x., 7. - ------ - -This estimate agrees in its main particulars with that of Aurelius -Victor, who, after speaking of his wonderful good luck in war (_mira -bellorum felicitate_) and his avidity for praise, eulogises his -exceptional versatility (_commodissimus rebus multis_), his zeal for -literature and the arts, and the patient ear which he was always ready -to lend to any provincial deputation or complaint. - -We have spoken of a marked degeneracy observable in Constantine as his -life drew to a close. Perhaps the clearest proof of this is to be found -in a momentous step taken by him in 335, when he divided the sovereignty -of the world among his heirs. Such a partition meant the stultification -of his political career, for he thus destroyed at a blow the political -unity which he had so laboriously restored out of the wreck of the -system of Diocletian. - -Eusebius gives us the truth in a single sentence when he says that -Constantine treated the Empire for the purposes of this division as -though he were apportioning his private patrimony among members of his -own family.[133] He was much more concerned to make handsome provision -for his sons and nephews than to secure the peace and well-being of his -subjects. Crispus had now been dead nine years, and the three sons of -Constantine and Fausta were still young, the eldest being only just -twenty-one. Eusebius tells us how carefully they had been trained. They -had been instructed in all martial exercises, and special professors had -been engaged to make them proficient in political affairs and a -knowledge of the laws. Their religious education had been personally -supervised by their father, who zealously sowed “the seeds of godly -reverence” and impressed upon them that “a knowledge of God, who is the -king of all things, and true piety were more deserving of honour than -riches or even than sovereignty itself.” Admirable precepts and Eusebius -declares again and again that this “Trinity of Princes”—so he calls them -in one place—were models of deportment, modesty, and piety. -Unfortunately, we know how emphatically their future careers belied -their early promise and the eulogies of the Bishop of Cæsarea. We do not -doubt his statement that Constantine spared no effort to educate them -aright, but it was most unfortunate that the remarkable success of their -father’s political career bore testimony rather to the efficacy of -ambition without scruple than of “godly reverence and true piety.” - ------ - -Footnote 133: - - οἷα τινα πατρώαν οὐσίαν τοὶς αὐτõυ κληροδοτῶν φιλτάτοις. - ------ - -In this new partition of the Empire the Cæsarship of the West, including -Gaul, Britain, and Spain, fell to Constantine, the eldest of the three -princes. To the second, Constantius, were assigned the rich provinces of -the East, including the seaboard provinces of Asia Minor, together with -Syria and Egypt. Constans, the youngest, received as his share Italy, -Illyria, and Africa. But there was still a goodly heritage left over, -sufficient to make a handsome dowry for a favourite daughter. This was -Constantina, eldest of the three daughters of Constantine and Fausta, -and she had been married to her half-cousin, Annibalianus, whose father -had been the second son of Constantius Chlorus and Theodora. To support -worthily the dignity of his new position as son-in-law of Constantine, -the new title of _Nobilissimus_ was created in his honour, and a kingdom -was made for him out of the provinces of Pontus, Cappadocia, and Lesser -Armenia. Gibbon expresses surprise that Annibalianus, “of the whole -series of Roman Princes in any age of the Empire,” should have been the -only one to bear the name of _Rex_, and says that he can scarcely admit -its accuracy even on the joint authority of Imperial medals and -contemporary writers. The explanation is surely to be found in the fact -that Pontus, Cappadocia, and Lesser Armenia had for centuries been -accustomed to be ruled by a king and that, in creating a new kingdom, -Constantine simply retained the title which would be most familiar to -the subjects over whom Annibalianus was to rule. Annibalianus was -himself a second son: his elder brother, Dalmatius, was raised to the -full title of Cæsar and given command over the important provinces of -Thrace and Macedonia, with Greece thrown in as a make-weight. The -position was a very important one, for it fell to the Cæsar of Thrace to -guard the frontier chiefly threatened by the Goths, and we may suppose, -therefore, with some probability that Dalmatius—who had been consul in -333—had given proof of military talent. - -But to what extent, we may ask, was this a real partition? In what -sense were the Cæsars independent of Constantine himself? Eusebius -expressly tells us[134] that each was provided with a complete -establishment—βασιλικὴ παρασκευὴ,—with a court, that is to say, which -was in every respect a miniature copy of the court at Constantinople. -Each had his own legions, bodyguards, and auxiliaries, with their due -complement of officers chosen, we are told, by the Emperor for their -knowledge of war and for their loyalty to their chiefs. It is hardly -to be supposed that Constantine contemplated retirement: had he done -so, he would have retired at the Tricennalia which he celebrated in -the following year. In all probability, he did not intend that his -supreme power should be one whit abated, though he was content to -delegate his administrative authority to others acting under his -strict supervision. His Cæsars, in short, were really viceroys, though -it is difficult to understand how such an arrangement can have worked -harmoniously without some modification of the powers of the four -Prætorian præfects. But the division, as we have said, was not made in -the interests of the Empire but in the interests of the Princes of the -Blood, and it was one which could not possibly endure. As soon as -Constantine died chaos and civil war were bound to ensue, and, as a -matter of fact, did ensue. For there is no evidence that the Emperor -made any arrangement as to who should succeed him on the throne. -Constantinople itself lay in the territory assigned to Dalmatius; yet -it was entirely unreasonable to suppose that the three sons of -Constantine would acquiesce in leaving the capital to the quiet -possession of their cousin. The division of the Empire, therefore, in -335 carried with it the early ripening seeds of civil war, bloodshed, -and anarchy. If the system of Diocletian had proved unworkable, -because it took no account of the natural desire of a son to succeed -his father, the system of Constantine was even worse. It was -absolutely certain that of the five heirs the three sons would combine -against the two cousins, whom they would regard as interlopers, and -that then the three brothers would quarrel among themselves, until -only one was left. - ------ - -Footnote 134: - - _De Vita Const._, iv., 51. - ------ - -Constantine’s reign was now hastening to its end. In 336 he celebrated -his Tricennalia, and his courtiers would not fail to remind him that he -alone, of all the successors of the great Augustus, had borne such -length of days in his left hand and such glory in his right. The -principal event of the festival seems to have been the dedication at -Jerusalem of the sumptuous Church of the Anastasis on the site of the -Holy Sepulchre. As we have seen in another chapter, the year was one of -acute religious contention, rendered specially memorable by the -awe-inspiring death of Arius, and the Emperor’s last months of life must -have been embittered by the thought that, despite all his efforts, -religious unity within the Church seemed as far as ever from -realisation. - -Eusebius tells us[135] that Constantine sought to find a remedy in the -hot baths of Constantinople for the disorder from which he was -suffering, and then, obtaining no relief, crossed the straits to -Drepanum, or Helenopolis, as it was now called in honour of the -Emperor’s mother. There his malady grew worse and special prayers were -offered for his recovery in the Church of Lucian the Martyr. - ------ - -Footnote 135: - - _De Vita Const._, iv., 61. - ------ - -But Constantine had a presentiment that the end was near, and he -determined, therefore, that the time had come for him formally to become -a member of the Christian Church and so obtain purification for the sins -which he had committed in life. Falling upon his knees on the church -floor, he confessed his sins, received the laying-on of hands, and so -became a catechumen. Then, travelling down to the palace which stood on -the outskirts of Nicomedia, the now dying Emperor summoned to his side a -number of bishops and made confession of his faith. He told them that -the moment for which he had thirsted and prayed had come at last, the -moment when he might receive “the seal which confers immortality.” He -had hoped, he said, to be baptised in Jordan: God had willed otherwise -and he bowed to His will. But he assured them that his resolve was not -due to any passing whim. He had fully made up his mind, that even if -recovery were vouchsafed him, he would set before himself such rules and -conduct of life[136] as would be becoming to God. - ------ - -Footnote 136: - - θεσμὸυς ἤδη βίου θεῷ πρέποντας ἐμαυτῷ διατετάξομαι. - ------ - -Eusebius of Nicomedia then performed the rite of baptism. Constantine, -clad in garments of shining white, lay upon a white bed, and, down to -the hour of his death, refused to touch the purple robes he had worn in -life. “Now,” he exclaimed, with all the fervour of a neophyte, “now I -know in very truth that I am blessed; now I have confidence that I am a -partaker of divine light.” When his captains came to take leave of him -and wept at the thought of losing their chief, he told them that he had -the assurance of having been found worthy of eternal life, and that his -only anxiety was to hasten his journey to God. He wished to die, and the -wish was soon granted. Constantine drew his last breath on May 22d, 337. - -They bore the body, enclosed in a golden coffin covered by a purple -pall, from Nicomedia to Constantinople and placed it with great pomp in -the throne room of the palace. There the dead Emperor lay in state, -guarded night and day by the chief officers of the army and the highest -officials of the court. Even in death, says Eusebius, he still was king, -and all the elaborate bowings and genuflexions with which men had -entered his presence in his lifetime were still observed. Constantine’s -illness had declared itself very suddenly, and had run its course so -quickly that not one of his sons was at hand to take up the reins of -administration. It looks too as though the Emperor had made no -preparations with a view to his demise, but had left his three sons and -his two nephews to determine among themselves who should be supreme. His -second son, Constantius, was the first to arrive at Constantinople, and -it was he who arranged the obsequies of his father. We are told that the -Roman Senate earnestly desired the body of the Emperor to be laid to -rest in the old capital and sent deputations begging that this last -honour should not be denied them. But it had been Constantine’s express -wish to be buried in the Church of the Apostles, at Constantinople, -where he had prepared a splendid sarcophagus, and there can have been no -hesitation as to the choice of a resting-place. The body was borne with -an imposing military pageant to the Church. Constantius was the chief -mourner, but he and his soldiers quitted the sanctuary before a word of -the burial-service was spoken or a note of music sounded. He was not a -baptised Christian and, therefore, could not be present as the last -rites were performed. The great Emperor was buried by the bishops, -priests, and Christian populace, whose zealous champion he had been and -to whose undying gratitude he had established an overwhelming title. -Coins were struck bearing on one side the figure of the Emperor with his -head closely veiled, and, on the other, representing Constantine seated -in a four-horse chariot, and being drawn up to heaven by a celestial -hand stretched out to him from the clouds. It was a device which could -offend neither Christian nor pagan. To the former it would recall the -triumphant ascent of Elijah; the latter would regard it as the token of -a natural apotheosis. The hand might equally well be the hand of God or -of Jupiter. - -[Illustration: - - THE SUPPOSED SARCOPHAGI OF CONSTANTINE THE GREAT AND THEODOSIUS - THE GREAT. - FROM GROSVENOR’S “CONSTANTINOPLE.”] -] - -Such is the story of the Emperor’s baptism, death, and burial as -recounted by Eusebius. There is, however, one important detail to be -added and one important question to be asked. Constantine was baptised -by an Arian bishop. To the Athanasian party and to the ecclesiastical -historians of succeeding ages this was a lamentable circumstance which -greatly exercised and troubled their minds. It sorely grieved them to -think that their patron Constantine should have been admitted into the -communion of the faithful by the dangerous heretic who had been the -bitterest enemy of their idol, Athanasius. But with a forbearance to -which they were usually strangers, they agreed to pass over the episode -in comparative silence and remember not the shortcomings but the virtues -of the first Christian Emperor. - -It still remains to be asked why Constantine did not formally enter the -Church until he was on his death-bed. There had been no lukewarmness -about his Christianity. He was not one to be afflicted with doubts. -There had never been any danger of his reverting to paganism. In the -last few years, indeed, he had been distracted by the clamour of Arians -and Athanasians, and his was a mind upon which a clever and acute -ecclesiastic, who enjoyed his confidence, could play at will. When -Hosius of Cordova stood by his side he was the champion of the Catholic -party; when Hosius fell from favour and Eusebius of Nicomedia took his -place Constantine strongly inclined to the Arian side. But in neither -case was there any doubt of his Christianity. Why then did he not become -a member of the Church? Was it because the rite of baptism conferred -immediate forgiveness of sin and therefore a death-bed baptism -infallibly opened the gate of Heaven? By putting off entrance into the -Church until the hour had come after which it was hardly possible to -commit sin, did Constantine count upon making sure of eternal happiness? -Such is the motive assigned by some historians. It certainly is not a -lofty one. Yet the idea may very well have presented itself to -Constantine’s mind and the impression left by Eusebius’s narrative is -that Constantine only determined to receive the rite because he felt his -end to be near and dared not put it off any longer. On the other hand, -Constantine’s statement that his ambition had been to be baptised in -Jordan is rather against this theory. Possibly, too, he was to some -degree influenced by the wish not to alienate entirely the support of -his pagan subjects, especially the more fanatical of them, who would -bitterly resent their Chief Pontiff becoming a baptised member of the -Christian Church. No one can say, but we shall be the better able to -form an opinion if we look a little more closely at the religious life -and policy of Constantine. - -Eusebius represents the daily life of the Emperor on its religious side -to have been almost that of a monk or of a saint. Every day, we are -told, he used to retire for private meditation and prayer. He delighted -in delivering sermons and addresses to his courtiers, Bible in hand. He -would begin by exposing the errors of polytheism and by proving the -superstition of the Gentiles to be a mere fraud and cloak for impiety, -and would then expound his theory of the sole sovereignty of God, the -workings of Providence, and the sureness of the Judgment, invariably -concluding with his favourite moral that God had given to him the -sovereignty of the whole world. Such a discourse could not possibly be -short, but Constantine liked his religious exercises long. He once -insisted on standing throughout the reading of an elaborate disquisition -by Eusebius himself, who evidently tired of the exertion and begged that -the Emperor would not fatigue himself further. But Constantine was -resolved to hear it out, and the courtier Bishop, while profoundly -flattered at the compliment, ruefully admitted that the thesis was very -long. Probably the courtiers found it interminable. But it was their -duty to listen, applaud, and appear duly impressed when, for example, -Constantine traced on the ground the dimensions of a coffin, and -solemnly warned them against covetousness by the reminder that six feet -of earth was the utmost they could hope to enjoy after death, and they -might not even get so much as that if burial were refused them or they -were burnt or lost at sea. No one ever accused Constantine of -covetousness; his failing was reckless extravagance, and we fear he is -to be numbered among those who - - “Compound for sins they are inclined to - By damning those they have no mind to.” - -Constantine ordered all the bishops throughout the Empire to offer up -daily prayers for him; he had coins struck at the Imperial mints which -depicted him with eyes uplifted to heaven, and he had pictures of -himself—probably in mosaic—set over the gates of his palaces, in which -he was seen standing erect with hands in the attitude of prayer. For our -part we like better the chapters in which Eusebius describes the -Emperor’s open-handed generosity to the poor and needy and to the orphan -and the widow, extols the kind-heartedness which was carried to such a -length as to raise the question whether such clemency was not excessive, -and claims that his most distinctive and characteristic virtue was the -love of his fellow-men, his φιλανθρώπια, a virtue which the typical -Roman rarely developed to his full capacity. - -Constantine’s whole career testified to the zeal with which he had -embraced Christianity. We have seen the enthusiasm with which he set to -work to build churches throughout the Empire. In Rome there are ascribed -to him the Church of Saint Agnes, the Church of St. John Lateran, and -another which stood on part of the site of the present St. Peter’s. In -Constantinople he built the Churches of the Apostles, St. Eirene, and -St. Sophia. In Jerusalem he built the Church of the Anastasis as the -crowning memorial of his thirty years of reign, and in Antioch, -Nicomedia, and a score of other cities his purse was constantly at the -service of the Faith. The building of churches was a passion with him, -and he also took care that they were provided with the Scriptures. -Eusebius[137] gives the text of a letter written to him by the Emperor -ordering fifty copies of the Scriptures to be executed without delay. -Constantine published an edict commanding that the Lord’s day should be -scrupulously observed and honoured, and that every facility should be -given to Christian soldiers to enable them to attend the services. Even -his pagan soldiers were to keep that day holy by offering up a prayer to -the “King of Heaven,” in which they addressed him as the “Giver of -Victory, their Preserver, Guardian, and Helper.” - - “Thee alone we know to be God; Thee alone we recognise as King; Thee - we invoke as Helper; from Thee we have gained our victories; through - Thee we are superior to our enemies. To Thee we give thanks for the - benefits we now enjoy; from Thee we look for our benefits to come. All - of us are Thy suppliants: and we pray that Thou wilt guard our King - Constantine and his pious sons long, long to reign over us in safety - and victory.” - ------ - -Footnote 137: - - _De Vita Const._, iv., 36. - ------ - -No pagan soldier could be offended at being required to offer this -prayer to the King of Heaven. If he were sincere in his faith he would -hope that it might reach the throne of Jupiter; Constantine evidently -expected that, as it was addressed to the King of Heaven, it would be -intercepted in midcourse and wafted to the throne of God. He was at any -rate determined that no soldier of his, whether pagan or Christian, -should wear on his shield any other sign than that of the Cross—“the -salutary trophy.” - -But what was Constantine’s policy towards the old religion? Let us look -first at the explicit statements of Eusebius. He says in one place[138] -that “the doors of idolatry were shut throughout the whole Roman Empire -for both laity and military alike, and every form of sacrifice was -forbidden.” In another passage[139] he says that edicts were issued -“forbidding sacrifice to idols, the mischievous practice of divination, -the putting up of wooden images, the observance of secret rites, and the -pollution of cities by the sanguinary combats of gladiators.” In a third -passage[140] he speaks of Constantine’s having “utterly destroyed -polytheism in all its variety of foolishness.” Eusebius also tells us -that Constantine was careful to choose, whenever possible, Christian -governors for the provinces, while he forbade those with Hellenistic, -_i. e._, pagan, sympathies to offer sacrifice. He also ordered that the -synodal decrees of bishops should not be interfered with by the -provincial authorities, for, adds Eusebius, he considered a priest of -God to be more entitled to honour than a judge. The same authority -expressly states[141] that Constantinople was kept perfectly free from -idolatry in every shape and form, and was never polluted with the blood -or smoke of sacrifice, and the general impression which he leaves upon -the reader’s mind is that paganism was proscribed and the practice of -the old religion declared to be a crime. - ------ - -Footnote 138: - - _De Vita Const._, iv., 23. - -Footnote 139: - - _Ibid._, c. 25. - -Footnote 140: - - μόνου τε πᾶδαν πολίθεον πλάνην καθελόντος (_ibid._, c. 75). - -Footnote 141: - - _Ibid._, c. 27. - ------ - -It is evident, however, that this was not the case. Eusebius, as usual, -supplies the corrective to his own exaggerations. He quotes, for -example, in full the text of an edict which Constantine addressed to the -governors of the East, wherein it is unequivocally laid down that -complete religious freedom is to be the standing rule throughout the -Empire. He beseeches all his subjects to become Christians, but he will -not compel them. “Let no one interfere with his neighbour. Let each man -do what his soul desires.”[142] This edict was issued after the -overthrow of Licinius and is remarkable chiefly for the fervent -profession of Christianity which the Emperor makes in it. “I am most -firmly convinced,” he says, “that I owe to the most High God my whole -soul, my every breath, my most secret and inmost thoughts.” And then he -continues: “Therefore, I have dedicated my soul to Thee, in pure blend -of love and fear.[143] For I truly adore Thy name, while I reverence Thy -power which Thou hast manifested by many proofs and made my faith the -surer.” - ------ - -Footnote 142: - - μηδεὶς τὸν ἕτερον παρενοχλεὶτω: ἕκαστος ὅπερ ἠ ψυχὴ βούλεται τοῦτο καὶ - πραττέτω (_De Vita Const._, ii., 56). - -Footnote 143: - - διὰ ταῦτά τοι ἀνέθηκα σοί τὴν ἐμαυτοῦ ψύχην ἔρωτι καὶ φόβῳ καθαρῶς - ἀνακραθεῖσαν (_ibid._, c. 55). - ------ - -But did Constantine maintain this attitude of strict neutrality, only -tempered by ardent prayer that his pagan subjects might be brought to a -knowledge of the truth? In its entirety he certainly did not, and it was -impossible that so zealous a convert should. When the smiles of Imperial -favour were withdrawn from the old religion it was inevitable that the -Imperial arm which protected it should grow slack in its defence. Yet, -throughout his reign Constantine never forgot that the majority of his -subjects were still pagan, despite the hosts of conversions which -followed his own, and he took care not to press too hardly upon them and -not to goad the more fanatical upholders of the old régime to the -recklessness of despair. We have seen how the Emperor refused to witness -the procession of the Knights in Rome at the time of his Vicennalia. He -also forbade his statue or image to be placed in a pagan temple. But he, -nevertheless, retained through life the office of _Pontifex Maximus_, -and as such continued to be supreme head of the pagan religion. Nor was -it until the time of Gratian fifty years afterwards that this title—no -doubt in deference to the repeated representations of the bishops—was -dropped by the Christian Emperors. Some historians have expressed -surprise that so enthusiastic a convert to Christianity should have been -willing to remain Chief Pontiff; a few have even been genuinely -concerned to explain and excuse his conduct. But Constantine was -statesman as well as convert. If he had resigned the Chief Pontificate -that office might conceivably have passed into dangerous hands. By -holding it as an absolute sinecure, by never performing its ceremonial -duties or wearing its distinctive robes, Constantine did far more to -destroy its influence than if he had resigned it. Imperial titles, -moreover, sometimes signify very little. Every one knows the gibe of -Voltaire at the Holy Roman Empire which was neither holy, nor Roman, nor -an Empire. For centuries after the loss of Calais the lilies of France -were quartered on the Royal arms of Great Britain, and the coins of our -Protestant monarch still bear the F. D. bestowed by the Pope upon the -eighth Henry. The King of Portugal is still Lord of All the Indies. It -is not titles that count but actions. Whether or not Constantine’s -ecclesiastical friends were troubled by his retaining the title, we may -be sure the question never troubled the Emperor himself, as the title of -“Supreme Head of the English Church” is said to have troubled the -scrupulous conscience of James II. after he became a convert to Rome. -But in the latter case the practical advantages of retention outweighed -the shock to consistency in the eyes of those whom James consulted. - -Constantine helped forward the conversion of the Empire with true -statesmanlike caution, desirous above all things to avoid political -disturbance. He abolished outright, we are told, certain of the more -offensive and degraded pagan rites, to which it was possible to take -grave exception on the score of decency and morality. For example, some -Phœnician temples at Heliopolis and Aphaca, where the worship of Venus -was attended with shameless prostitution, were ordered to be pulled -down. The same fate befell a temple of Æsculapius at Ægææ, and a college -of effeminate priests in Egypt, associated with the worship of the Nile, -was disbanded and its members, according to Eusebius, were all put to -death. But these are the only specific examples of repression instanced -by Eusebius,[144] and they assuredly do not suggest any general -proscription of paganism. Eusebius is notoriously untrustworthy. He -distinctly says that Constantine determined to purify his new capital of -all idolatry, so that there should not be found within its walls either -statue or altar of any false god. Yet we know that the philosopher -Sopater was present at the ceremony of dedication and that he enjoyed -for a time the high favour of the Emperor, though he was subsequently -put to death on the accusation of the præfect Ablavius, who charged him -with delaying the arrival of the Egyptian corn ships by his magical -arts. We know too that there were temples of Cybele and Fortuna in the -city, and Zosimus expressly declares that the Emperor constructed a -temple and precincts for the Dioscuri, Castor and Pollux. At Rome the -temple of Concord was rebuilt towards the close of his reign, and -inscriptions shew that the consuls of the year still dedicated without -hindrance altars to their favourite deities. The famous altar of -Victory, around which a furious controversy was to rage in the reign of -Valentinian, at the close of the fourth century, still stood in the -Roman Curia, and in the two great centres of Eastern Christianity, -Antioch and Alexandria, the worship of Apollo and Serapis continued -without intermission in their world-renowned temples. - ------ - -Footnote 144: - - _De Vita Const._, iii., 48, iv., 25. - ------ - -[Illustration: - - COPPER DENARIUS OF CONSTANTINE THE GREAT. - SHOWING THE LABARUM. -] - -[Illustration: - - DOUBLE SOLIDUS OF CONSTANTIUS II. - WITH THE LABARUM. -] - -[Illustration: DOUBLE SOLIDUS OF DIOCLETIAN.] - -[Illustration: SOLIDUS OF MAXIMIAN.] - -No doubt in districts where the Christians were in a marked majority and -paganism found only lukewarm adherents, there was occasional violence -shewn to the old temples and statues, especially if the governor -happened to be a Christian. Ornaments might be stolen, treasures -ransacked, and probably few questions were asked. Christianity had been -persecuted so long and so savagely that when the day of revenge came, -the temptation was too strong for human frailty to resist, and as long -as there was no serious civil disturbance the authorities probably made -light of the occurrence. Paganism was a dying creed; where it had to -struggle hard to keep its head above water, the end was not long -delayed. The case would be different where the temples were possessed of -great wealth and where there were powerful priestly corporations to -defend their vested interests. There can be no greater mistake than to -suppose that Constantine declared war on the old religion. He did -nothing of the kind. When he showered favours on the Christian clergy, -what he did in effect was merely to raise them to the same status as -that already enjoyed by the pagan priesthood. He did not take away the -privileges of the colleges: and inscriptions have been found which tend -to shew that, he allowed new colleges to be founded which bore his name. -In short, to the old State-established and State-endowed religion he -added another, that of Christianity, reserving his special favour for -the new but not actively repressing the ancient. He had hoped to convert -the world by his own example; but, though he failed in this, he never -contemplated a resort to violence. His religious policy, throughout his -reign, may fairly be described as one of toleration. That is what -Symmachus meant when he said, half a century later, that Constantine had -belonged to both religions. - -There was one exception to this rule. Constantine came down with a heavy -hand on secret divination and the practice of magic and the black arts. -But other Emperors before him had done the same, Emperors whose loyalty -to the Roman religion had never been questioned—for these mysterious -rites formed no part of the established worship. They might be employed -to the harm of the State; they might portend danger to the Emperor’s -life and throne. It was not for private individuals to experiment with -and let loose the powers of darkness, for, as a rule, beneficent deities -had no part or lot in these dark mysteries. As a Christian, Constantine -would have a double satisfaction in issuing edicts against the -wonder-working charlatans who abounded in the great cities; but the -point is that in attacking them he was not technically attacking the old -State religion. The public and official haruspices were not interfered -with; if any devout pagan still desired to consult an oracle, no -obstacle was placed in his way; and, as a tribute to the universal -superstition of the age from which he himself was not free, even private -divination was permitted when the object was a good one, such as the -restoration of a sick person to health or the protection of crops -against hail. But it is evident that Constantine and his bishops were -far more apprehensive of evil from the unchaining of the Devil than -expectant of good from the favour of the ministers of grace. They were -terrified of the one: they indulged but a pious hope of the other. Nor -was the Emperor successful in stamping out the private thaumaturgist. -Human nature was too strong for him. _Sileat perpetuo divinandi -curiositas_, ordered one of his successors in 358. But the curiosity to -divine the future continued to defy both civil and ecclesiastical law. - -A much bolder act, however, than the closing of a few temples on the -score of public decency or the forbidding of private divination was the -edict of 325, in which Constantine ordered the abolition of the -gladiatorial shows. “Such blood-stained spectacles,” he said, “in the -midst of civil peace and domestic quiet are repugnant to our taste.” He -ordained, therefore, that in future all criminals who were usually -condemned to be gladiators should be sent to work in the mines, that -they might expiate their offences without shedding of blood. But it was -one thing to issue an edict and another to enforce it. Whether -Constantine insisted on the observance of this particular edict, we -cannot say, but his successors certainly did not, for the gladiatorial -spectacles at Rome were in full swing in the days of Symmachus, who -ransacked the world for good swordsmen and strange animals. The -“_cruenta spectacula_” as Constantine called them, were not finally -abolished until the reign of Honorius. - -To sum up. The only reasonable view to take of the religious character -of Constantine is that he was a sincere and convinced Christian. This is -borne out alike by his passionate professions of faith and by the clear -testimony of his actions. There are, it is true, many historians who -hold that he was really indifferent to religion, and others who credit -him with an easy capacity for finding truth in all religions alike. -Professor Bury, for example, says that “the evidence seems to shew that -his religion was a syncretistic monotheism; that he was content to see -the deity in the Sun, in Mithras, or in the God of the Hebrews.” Such a -description would suit the character of Constantius Chlorus perfectly, -and it may very well have suited Constantine himself before the -overthrow of Maxentius. There is a passage in the Ninth Panegyric which -seems to have been uttered by one holding these views, and it is worth -quotation, for it is an invocation to the supreme deity to bless the -Emperor Constantine. It runs as follows: - - Wherefore we pray and beseech thee to keep our Prince safe for all - eternity, thee, the supreme creator of all things, whose names are as - manifold as it has been thy will that nations should have tongues. We - cannot tell by what title it is thy pleasure that we should address - thee, whether thou art a divine force and mind permeating the whole - world and mingled with all the elements, and moving of thine own - motive power without impulse from without, or whether thou art some - Power above all Heaven who lookest down upon this thy handiwork from - some loftier arch of Nature. - -Such a deity may have satisfied the philosophers, but it certainly was -not the deity whom Constantine worshipped throughout his reign. Had he -been indifferent to religion, or indifferent to Christianity, had he -even been anxious only to hold the balance between the rival creeds, he -would never have surrounded himself by episcopal advisers; never have -set his hand to such edicts as those we have quoted; never have -abolished the use of the cross for the execution of criminals or have -forbidden Jews to own Christian slaves; never have called the whole -world time and again to witness his zeal for Christ; never have lavished -the resources of the Empire upon the building of sumptuous churches; -never have listened with such extraordinary forbearance to the -wranglings of the Donatists and the subtleties of Arians and -Athanasians; never have summoned or presided at the Council of Nicæa; -and certainly never have made the welfare of non-Roman Christians the -subject of entreaty with the King of Persia. Constantine was prone to -superstition. He was grossly material in his religious views, and his -own worldly success remained still in his eyes the crowning proof of the -Christian verities. But the sincerity of his convictions is none the -less apparent, and even the atrocious crimes with which he sullied his -fair fame cannot rob him of the name of Christian. It was a name, says -St. Augustine,[145] in which he manifestly delighted to boast, mindful -of the hope which he reposed in Christ (_Plane Christiano nomine -gloriosus, memor spei quam gerebat in Christo_). - ------ - -Footnote 145: - - _Contra Lit. Petil._, ii., 205. - ------ - - -[Illustration] - - - - - CHAPTER XVI - THE EMPIRE AND CHRISTIANITY - - -The reorganisation of the Empire, begun by Diocletian, had been -continued along the same lines by Constantine the Great. There were -still further developments under their successors, but these two were -the real founders of the Imperial system which was to subsist in the -eastern half of the Empire for more than eleven hundred years. In other -words, Diocletian and Constantine gave the Empire, if not a new lease of -life, at least a new impetus and a new start, and we may here present a -brief sketch of the reforms which they introduced into practically every -sphere of governmental activity. - -We have already seen how profoundly changed was the position of the -Emperor himself. He was no longer essentially a Roman Imperator, a -supreme War-Lord, a soldier Chief of State. He had become a King in a -palace, secluded from the gaze of the vulgar, surrounded with all the -attributes and ornaments of an eastern monarch, and robed in gorgeous -vestments stiff with gold and jewels. Men were taught to speak and think -of him as superhuman and sacrosanct, to approach him with genuflexion -and adoration, to regard every office, however menial, attached to his -person, as sacred. In speaking of the Emperor language was strained to -the pitch of the ridiculous; flattery became so grotesque that it must -have ceased to flatter. When Nazarius, for example, speaks of the -Emperor’s heart as “the stupendous shrine of mighty virtues” (_ingentium -virtutum stupenda penetralia_), and such language as this became the -recognised mode of addressing the reigning Sovereign, we see how far we -have travelled not only from Republican simplicity, but even from the -times of Domitian. The Emperor, in brief, was absolute monarch, autocrat -of the entire Roman world, and his will and nod were law. - -He stood at the head of a hierarchy of court and administrative -officials, most minutely organised from the highest to the lowest. For -purposes of Imperial administration, those next to the throne were the -four Prætorian præfects, each one supreme, under the Emperor, in his -quarter of the world. The Empire had been divided by Diocletian into -twelve dioceses and these again into ninety-six provinces; Constantine -accepted this division but apportioned the twelve dioceses into four -præfectures, those of the Orient, Illyria, Italy, and Gaul. The four -Prætorian præfects stood in relation to the Emperor—so Eusebius tells -us—as God the Son stood in relation to God the Father. They wore—though -not perhaps in the days of Constantine—robes of purple reaching to the -knee; they rode in lofty chariots, and among the insignia of their -office were a colossal silver inkstand and gold pen-cases of a hundred -pounds in weight. Their functions were practically unlimited, save for -the all-important exception that they exercised no military command. -They had an exchequer of their own, through which passed all the -Imperial taxes from their provinces; they had absolute control over the -vicars of the dioceses beneath them, whom, if they did not actually -appoint they at least recommended for appointment to the Emperor. In -their own præfectures they formed the final court of appeal, and -Constantine expressly enacted that there should be no appeal from them -to the throne. They even had a limited power of issuing edicts. Thus in -all administrative, financial, and judicial matters the four Prætorian -præfects were supreme, occupying a position very similar to that of the -Viceroys of the great provinces of China, save that they had no control -over the troops within their territories. - -Below these four præfects came the vicars of the twelve dioceses of the -Oriens, Pontica, Asiana, Thracia, Mœsia, Pannonia, Britanniæ, Galliæ, -Viennenses, Italia, Hispaniæ, and Africa. Egypt continued to hold an -unique position; its governor was almost independent of the præfect of -the Orient, and was always a direct nominee of the Emperor. Then, below -the twelve vicars came the governors of the provinces, the number of -which constantly tended to increase, but by further subdivision rather -than by conquest of new territory. Various names were given to these -governors; they were _rectores_ and _correctores_ in some provinces, -_præsides_ in many more, _consulares_ in a few of the more important -ones, such as Africa and Italia. Each had his own entourage of minor -officials, and the hierarchical principle was observed as rigidly on the -lowest rungs of the ladder as on the topmost. Autocrats are obliged to -rule through a bureaucracy, a broad-based pyramid of officialdom which -usually weighs heavily upon the unfortunate taxpayer who has to support -the entire structure. - -[Illustration: AUREUS OF CARAUSIUS.] - -[Illustration: AUREUS OF ALLECTUS.] - -[Illustration: SOLIDUS OF HELENA.] - -[Illustration: SOLIDUS OF GALERIUS.] - -[Illustration: SOLIDUS OF SEVERUS II.] - -A similar hierarchy of officials prevailed in the palace and the court, -from the grand chamberlain down through a host of Imperial secretaries -to the head scullion. The tendency of each was to magnify his office -into a department, and to be the master of a set of underlings. And it -was the policy of Constantine, as it had been the policy of Augustus, to -invent new offices in order to increase the number of officials who -looked to the Emperor as their benefactor.[146] - ------ - -Footnote 146: - - εἰς γὰρ τὸ πλείονας τιμᾶν διαφόρους ἐπενόει βασιλεὺς αξιάς (_De Vita - Const._, iv., 1). - ------ - -In the conduct of State affairs the Emperor was assisted by an Imperial -council, known as the _consistorium principis_. It included the four -Prætorian præfects of whom we have spoken; the quæstor of the palace, a -kind of general secretary of state; the master of the offices (_magister -officiorum_), one of whose principal duties was to act as minister of -police; the grand chamberlain (_præpositus sacri cubiculi_); two -ministers of finance, and two ministers for war. One of the finance -ministers was dignified with the title of count of the sacred largesses -(_comes sacrarum largitionum_); the other was count of the private purse -(_comes rerum privatarum_). The distinction was similar to the old one -between the _ærarium_ and the _fiscus_, between, that is to say, the -State treasury and the Emperor’s privy purse. One of the two ministers -for war had supreme charge of the infantry of the Empire; the other was -responsible for the cavalry. Both also exercised judicial functions and -sat as a court of appeal in all military cases wherein the State was -interested, either as plaintiff or defendant. - -There were still consuls in Rome, who continued to give their names to -the year. All their political power had vanished, but their dignity -remained unimpaired, though it was now derived not from the intrinsic -importance of their office so much as from its extrinsic ornaments. To -be consul had become the ambition not of the boldest but of the vainest. -(_In consulatu honos sine labore suscipitur._) The prætorship had -similarly fallen, but it still entailed upon the holder the expensive -and sometimes ruinous privilege of providing shows for the amusement of -the Roman populace. The number of prætors had fallen to two in -Constantine’s day: he raised it to eight, in accordance with his general -regardlessness of expense, so long as there was outward magnificence. It -is doubtful whether, during the reign of Constantine, there were consuls -and prætors in Constantinople. Certainly there was no urban præfect -appointed in that city until twenty years after his death, and it seems -probable that the Emperor did not set up in his new capital quite such a -pedantically perfect imitation of the official machinery of Rome as has -sometimes been supposed. His successors, however, were not long in -completing what he had begun. - -We pass to the senate and the senatorial order, with their various -degrees of dignity, which Constantine and those who came after him -delighted to elaborate. Every member of the senate was naturally a -member of the senatorial order, but it by no means followed that every -member of the order had a seat in the senate. The new senate of -Constantinople, like its prototype at Rome, had little or no political -power. It merely registered the decrees of the Emperor, and its function -seems to have been one principally of dignity and ceremony. Membership -of the senatorial order was a social distinction that might be held by a -man living in any part of the Empire and was gained by virtue of having -held office. The order was an aristocracy of officials and ex-officials, -distinguished by resplendent titles, involving additional burdens in the -way of taxation—the price of added dignity. A few of these titles are -worth brief consideration. To the Emperor there were reserved the -grandiloquent names of Your Majesty, Your Eternity, Your Divinity. -Members of the reigning house were Most Noble (_Nobilissimi_). To the -members of the senate, including the officials of the very highest rank, -viz., the consuls, proconsuls, and præfects, there was reserved the -title of Most Distinguished (_Clarissimi_), while officers of lower -rank, members of the senatorial order but not of the senate, were Most -Perfect (_Perfectissimi_) and Egregious (_Egregii_), the former being of -a higher class than the latter. Such was the order of precedence in -Constantine’s reign, but there was a constant tendency for these -honourable orders to expand, due, no doubt, entirely to the exigencies -of the treasury. Thus the high rank of _Clarissimi_ was bestowed on -those who previously had been only _Perfectissimi_ and _Egregii_, and -two still higher orders of _Illustres_ and _Spectabiles_ were created -for the old _Clarissimi_ and _Perfectissimi_. The two topmost classes -were thus given an upward step. - -Such was the new official aristocracy, while a rigid line of division, -quite unknown to Republican and early Imperial Rome, was drawn between -the civil and the military officers of the Empire. The military forces -themselves were organised into two great divisions, (1) the troops -kept permanently upon the frontiers, and (2) the soldiers of the line. -The first were known as _Limitanei_ (Borderers) or _Riparienses_ -(Guardians of the Shore), the second name being specially applied to -the soldiers of the Rhine and the Danube. All these troops were -stationed in permanent camps and forts, which often developed into -townships, and it was a rare thing for a legion to be moved to another -quarter of the Empire. Boys grew up and followed their fathers in the -profession of arms in the same camp, and were themselves succeeded by -their own sons. The term of service was twenty-four years, and these -_Limitanei_ were not only soldiers but tillers of the soil, playing a -part precisely similar to the soldier colonists of Russia in her Far -Eastern provinces. The soldiers of the line (_Numeri_), on the other -hand, served for the shorter period of twenty years. They included the -_Palatini_,—practically the successors of the old Prætorian Guard,—the -crack corps of the army, who were divided into regiments bearing such -titles as _Scholares_, _Protectores_, and _Domestici_, and enjoyed the -privilege of guarding the Emperor’s person. Most of the legions of the -line were known as the _Comitatenses_. These were employed in the -interior garrisons of the Empire, and Zosimus—whether justly or not, -it is impossible to say—accuses Constantine of having dangerously -weakened the frontier garrisons and withdrawn too many troops into the -interior. The control of the army, under the Emperor and his two -ministers for war, was vested by the end of the fourth century in -thirty-five commanders bearing the titles of dukes and counts,—the -latter being the higher of the two. Three of these were stationed in -Britain, six in Gaul, one each in Spain and Italy, four in Africa, -three in Egypt, eight in Asia and Syria, and nine along the upper and -lower reaches of the Danube. - -Such was the structure which rested upon the purse of the taxpayer and -upon a system of finance inherently vicious and wasteful. The main -support of the treasury was still, as it had always been, the land tax, -known as the _capitatio terrena_, the old _tributum soli_. It was the -landed proprietor (_possessor_) who found the wherewithal to keep the -Empire on its feet. Diocletian had reorganised the census, and, in the -interests of the treasury, had caused a new survey and inventory to be -made of practically every acre of land in every province. By an -ingenious device he had established a system of taxable units (_jugum_ -or _caput_), each of which paid the round sum of 100,000 sesterces or -1000 aurei. The unit might be made up of all sorts of land—arable, -pasture, or forest—the value of each being estimated on a regular scale. -Thus five acres of vineyard constituted a unit and were held to be -equivalent to twenty acres of the best arable land, forty acres of -second-class land, and sixty of third-class. Nothing escaped: even the -roughest woodland or moorland was assessed at the rate of four hundred -and fifty acres to the unit. The Emperor and his finance ministers -estimated every year how much was required for the current expenses of -the Empire. When the amount was fixed, they sent word throughout the -provinces, and the various municipal curiæ, or town senates, knew what -their share would be, for each town and district was assessed at so many -thousand units, and each curia or senate was responsible for the money -being raised. The curia was composed of a number of the richest -landowners, who had to collect the tax from themselves and their -neighbours as best they could. If, therefore, any _possessor_ became -bankrupt, the others had to make up the shortage between them. Those who -were solvent had to pay for the insolvent. All loopholes of evasion were -carefully closed. Landowners were not permitted to quit their district -without special leave from the governor; they could not join the army or -enter the civil service. When it was found that large numbers were -becoming ordained in the Christian Church to escape their obligations, -an edict was issued forbidding it. Once a decurion always a decurion. - -The provincial country landowner and the small farmer were almost taxed -out of existence by this monstrous system. Every ten or fifteen years, -it is true, a revision of the assessments took place, and there were -certain officials, with the significant name of _defensores_, whose duty -it was to prevent the provincials from being fleeced too flagrantly. But -a man might easily be reduced to beggary by a succession of bad harvests -before the year of revision came round, and the _defensor’s_ office was -a sinecure except in the rare occasions when he knew that he would be -backed at the headquarters of the diocese. During Constantine’s reign, -or at least during its closing years, there is overpowering evidence -that the provincial governors were allowed to plunder at discretion. -They imitated the reckless prodigality of their sovereign, who, in 331, -was compelled to issue an edict to restrain the peculation of his -officers. There is a very striking phrase in Ammianus Marcellinus who -says that while Constantine started the practice of opening the greedy -jaws of his favourites, his son, Constantius, fattened them up on the -very marrow of the provinces.[147] Evidently, the incidence of this land -tax inflicted great hardships and had the mischievous result of draining -the province of capital, and of dragging down to ruin the independent -cultivator of the land. Hence districts were constantly in arrears of -payment, and the remission of outstanding debt to the treasury was -usually the first step taken by an Emperor to court popularity with his -subjects. - ------ - -Footnote 147: - - _Proximorum fauces aperuit primus omnium Consiantinus sed eos medullis - provinciarum saginavit Constantius_ (xvi., c. 8, 12). - ------ - -In short, the fiscal system of the Empire, so far as its most important -item, the land tax, was concerned, seemed expressly designed to exhaust -the wealth of the provinces. It helped to introduce a system of caste, -which became more rigid and cramping as the years passed by and the -necessities of the treasury became more urgent. It also powerfully -contributed to crush out of existence the yeoman farmer, whose -insolvency was followed, if not by slavery, at any rate by a serfdom -which just as effectually robbed him of freedom of movement. The -_colonus_ having lost the title-deeds of his own land became the -hireling of another, paying in kind a fixed proportion of his stock and -crops, and obliged to give personal service for so many days on that -part of the estate where his master resided. The position of the poor -_colonus_, in fact, became precisely similar to that of a slave who had -not obtained full freedom but had reached the intermediate state of -serfdom, in which he was permanently attached to a certain estate as, so -to speak, part of the fixtures. He was said to be “ascribed to the land” -(_ascripticius_), and he had no opportunity of bettering his social -position or enabling his sons to better theirs, unless they were -recruited for the legions. - -[Illustration: SOLIDUS OF MAXIMIN DAZA.] - -[Illustration: SOLIDUS OF LICINIUS I.] - -[Illustration: SOLIDUS OF LICINIUS II.] - -[Illustration: DOUBLE SOLIDUS OF CONSTANTINE THE GREAT.] - -The land tax, of course, was not the only one, for the theory of -Imperial finance was that everybody and everything should pay. -Constantine did not spare his new aristocracy. Every member of the -senatorial order paid a property tax known as “the senatorial purse” -(_follis senatoria_), and another imposition bearing the name of _aurum -oblaticium_, which was none the more palatable because it was supposed -to be a voluntary offering. Any senator, moreover, might be summoned to -the capital to serve as prætor and provide a costly entertainment—a -convenient weapon in the hands of autocracy to clip the wings of an -obnoxious ex-official. Another ostensibly voluntary contribution to the -Emperor was the _aurum coronarium_, or its equivalent of a thousand or -two thousand pieces of gold, which each city of importance was obliged -to offer to the sovereign on festival occasions, such as the celebration -of five or ten complete years of rule. Every five years, also, there was -a _lustralis collatio_ to be paid by all shopkeepers and usurers, -according to their means. This was usually spoken of as “the -gold-silver” (_chrysargyrum_), and, like “the senatorial purse,” is said -by some authorities to have been the invention of Constantine himself. -Zosimus, in a very bitter attack on the fiscal measures of the Emperor, -declares that even the courtesans and the beggars were not exempt from -the extortion of the treasury officials, and that whenever the tribute -had to be paid, nothing was heard but groaning and lamentation. The -scourge was brought into play for the persuasion of reluctant taxpayers; -women were driven to sell their sons, and fathers their daughters. Then -there were the _capitatio humana_, a sort of poll-tax on all labourers; -the old five per cent. succession duty; an elaborate system of octroi -(_portoria_), and many other indirect taxes. We need not, perhaps, -believe the very worst pictures of human misery drawn by the historians, -for, in fairness to the Emperors, we must take some note of the roseate -accounts of the official rhetoricians. Nazarius, for example, explicitly -declares that Constantine had given the Empire “peace abroad, prosperity -at home, abundant harvests, and cheap food.”[148] Eusebius again and -again conjures up a vision of prosperous and contented peoples, living -not in fear of the tax-collector, but in the enjoyment of their -sovereign’s bounty. But we fear that the sombre view is nearer the truth -than the radiant one, and that the subsequent financial ruin, which -overtook the western even more than the eastern provinces, was largely -due to the oppressive and wasteful fiscal system introduced and -developed by Diocletian and Constantine, and to the old standing defect -of Roman administration, that the civil governor was also the judge, and -thus administrative and judicial functions were combined in the same -hands. - ------ - -Footnote 148: - - _Omnia foris placida, domi prospera; annonæ ubertas, fructuum copia_ - (_Pan. Vet._, x., 38). - ------ - -Here, indeed, lay one of the strongest elements of disintegration in the -reorganised Empire, but there were other powerful solvents at work, at -which we may briefly glance. One was slavery, the evil results of which -had been steadily accumulating for centuries, and if these were -mitigated to some extent by the increasing scarcity of slaves, the -degradation of the poor freeman to the position of a _colonus_ more than -counterbalanced the resultant good. Population, so far from increasing, -was going back, and, in order to fill the gaps, the authorities had -recourse to the dangerous expedient of inviting in the barbarian. The -land was starving for want of capital and labour, and the barbarian -_colonus_ was introduced, as we have seen in an earlier chapter, not, if -the authorities are to be trusted, by tens, but by hundreds of -thousands, “to lighten the tribute by the fruits of his toil and to -relieve the Roman citizens of military service.” This was the principal -and certainly the original reason why recourse was had to the barbarian; -the idea that the German or the Goth was less dangerous inside than -outside the frontier, and would help to bear the brunt of the pressure -from his kinsmen, came later. The result, however, of importing a strong -Germanic and Gothic element into the Empire was one of active -disintegration. Though they occupied but a humble position industrially, -as tillers of the soil, they formed the best troops in the Imperial -armies. The boast which Tacitus put into the mouth of a Gallic soldier -in the first century, that the alien trooper was the backbone of the -Roman army,[149] was now an undoubted truth, and the spirit which these -strangers brought with them was that of freedom, quite antagonistic to -the absolutism of the Empire. - ------ - -Footnote 149: - - _Nihil in exercitibus validum nisi externum._ - ------ - -There was yet another great solvent at work,—in its cumulative effects -the greatest of them all,—the solvent of Christianity, dissociating, as -it did, spiritual from temporal authority, and introducing the -absolutely novel idea of a divine law that in every particular took -precedence of mundane law. The growth of the power of the Church, as a -body entirely distinct from the State and claiming a superior moral -sanction, was a new force introduced into the Roman Empire, which, -beyond question, weakened its powers of resistance to outside enemies, -inasmuch as it caused internal dissensions and divisions. The furious -hatreds between Christianity and paganism which lasted in the West down -to the fall of Rome, and the equally furious hatreds within the Church -which continued both in East and West for long centuries, can only be -considered a source of serious weakness. No one disputes that the -desperate and murderous struggle between Catholic and Huguenot retarded -the development of France and weakened her in the face of the enemy, and -it stands to reason that a nation which is torn by intestinal quarrel -cannot present an effective front to foreign aggression. It wastes -against members of its own household part of the energy which should be -infused into the blows which it delivers at its foe. - -Christianity has always tended to break down distinctions and prejudices -of race. It has never done so wholly and never will, but the tendency is -forever at work, and, as such, in the days of the Empire, it was opposed -both to the Roman and to the Greek spirit. For though there had already -sprung up a feeling of cosmopolitanism within the Empire, it cannot be -said to have extended to those without the Empire, who were still -barbarians in the eyes not only of Greek or Roman, but of the Romanised -Celt and Iberian, whose civilisation was no longer a thin veneer. When -we say that Christianity was a disintegrating element in this respect, -the term is by no means wholly one of reproach. For it also implies that -Christianity assisted the partial fusion which took place when at length -the frontier barriers gave way and the West was rushed by the Germanic -races. These races were themselves Christianised to a certain extent. -They, too, worshipped the Cross and the Christ, and this circumstance -alone must, to a very considerable degree, have mitigated for the Roman -provinces the terrors and disasters of invasion. It is true that the -invaders were for the most part Arians,—though it is a manifest -absurdity to suppose that the free Germans from beyond the Rhine -understood even the elements of a controversy so metaphysical and so -purely Greek,—and, when Arian and Catholic fought, they tipped their -barbs with poison. “I never yet,” said Ammianus Marcellinus, “found wild -beasts so savagely hostile to men, as most of the Christians are to one -another.”[150] But the fact remains that the German and Gothic -conquerors, who settled where they had conquered, accepted the -civilisation of the vanquished even though they modified it to their own -needs; they did not wipe it out and substitute their own, as did the -Turk and the Moor when they appeared, later on, at the head of their -devastating hordes. If, therefore, Christianity tended to weaken, it -also tended to assimilate, and we are not sure that the latter process -was not fully as important as the former. The Roman Empire, as a -universal power, had long been doomed; Christianity, in this respect, -simply accelerated its pace down the slippery slope. - ------ - -Footnote 150: - - _Nullas infestas hominibus bestias ut sunt sibi ferales plerique - Christianorum expertus_ (xxii., 5). - ------ - -But other and more specific charges have been brought against -Christianity. One is that it contributed largely to the depopulation of -the Empire, which, from the point of view of the State, was an evil of -the very greatest magnitude. The indictment cannot be refuted wholly. In -the name of Christianity extravagant and pernicious doctrines were -preached of which it would be difficult to speak with patience, did we -not remember that violent disorders need violent remedies. No one can -doubt the unutterable depravity and viciousness which were rampant and -unashamed in the Roman Empire, especially in the East. If there was a -public conscience at all, it was silent. Decent, clean-living people -held fastidiously aloof and tolerated the existence of evils which they -did nothing to combat. A strong protest was needed; it was supplied by -Christianity. But many of those who took upon themselves to denounce the -sins of the age felt compelled to school themselves to a rigid -asceticism which made few allowances not only for the weaknesses but -even for the natural instincts of human nature. The more fanatical among -them grudgingly admitted that marriage was honourable, but rose to -enthusiastic frenzy in the contemplation of virginity, which, if they -dared not command, they could and did commend with all the eloquence of -which they were capable. One cannot think without pity of all the -self-torture and agonising which this new asceticism—new, at least, in -this aggravated form—brought upon hundreds and thousands of men and -women, whose services the State needed and would have done well to -possess, but who cut themselves off from mundane affairs, and withdrew -into solitudes, not to learn there how to help their fellowmen but -consumed only with a selfish anxiety to escape from the wrath to come. -They thought of nothing but the salvation of their own souls. It is -impossible to see how these wild hermits, who peopled the Libyan -deserts, were acceptable in the sight either of themselves, their -fellows, or their God. Simon Stylites, starving sleepless on his pillar -in the posture of prayer for weeks, remains for all time as a monument -of grotesque futility. If charity regards him with pity, it can only -regard with contempt those who imputed his insane endurance unto him for -righteousness. No one can estimate the amount of unnecessary misery and -sufferings caused by these extreme fanatics, who broke up homes without -remorse, played on the fears and harrowed the minds of impressionable -men and women, and debased the human soul in their frantic endeavour to -fit it for the presence of its Maker. They stand in the same category as -the gaunt skeletons who drag themselves on their knees from end to end -of India in the hope of placating a mild but irresponsive god. Man’s -first duty may be towards God; but not to the exclusion of his duty -towards the State. - -It is not to be supposed, of course, that the majority of Christians -were led to renounce the world and family life. The weaker brethren are -always in a majority, and we do not doubt that most of the Christian -priests were of like mind with their flock in taking a less heroic but -far more common-sense view. It is also to be noted that the practical -Roman temper speedily modified the extravagances of the eastern -fanatics, and the asceticism of monks and nuns living in religious -communities in the midst of their fellow-citizens, and working to heal -their bodies as well as to save their souls, stands on a very different -plane from the entirely self-centred eremitism associated with Egypt. By -doing the work of good Samaritans the members of these communities acted -the part of good citizens. Succeeding Emperors, whose Christianity was -unimpeachable, looked with cold suspicion on the recluses of the -deserts. Valens, for example, regarding their retirement as an evasion -of their civic duties, published an edict ordering that they should be -brought back; Theodosius with cynical wisdom said that as they had -deliberately chosen to dwell in the desert, he would take care that they -stopped there. But it is easy to exaggerate the influence wielded by -extreme men, whose doctrines and professions only emerge from obscurity -because of their extravagances. We must not, therefore, lay too much -stress on the constant exhortations to celibacy and virginity which we -find even in the writings of such men as Jerome and Ambrose. However -zealously they plied the pitchfork, human nature just as persistently -came back, and the extraordinary outspokenness of Jerome, for example, -in his letters to girls who had pledged themselves to virginity—an -outspokenness based on the confident assumption that human, and more -especially womanly, nature is weak and liable to err—shews that he was -profoundly diffident of the success of his preaching. Nevertheless, when -the counsel of perfection offered by the Church was the avoidance of -marriage, it is a just charge against Christianity that it was in this -respect anti-civic and anti-social. - -[Illustration: DOUBLE SOLIDUS OF CONSTANTINE THE GREAT.] - -[Illustration: DOUBLE SOLIDUS OF FAUSTA.] - -[Illustration: DOUBLE SOLIDUS OF CRISPUS.] - -[Illustration: DOUBLE SOLIDUS OF CONSTANTIUS II. AS CÆSAR.] - -On the other hand, it is to be remembered that this avoidance of -marriage and its responsibilities was no new thing in the Roman Empire. -For centuries the State had been alarmed at the growth of an -unwillingness, manifested especially in the higher orders of society, to -undertake the duties of parentage. Special bounties and immunities from -taxation were offered to the fathers even of three children; checks were -placed upon divorce; taxes were levied upon the obstinate bachelor and -widower who clung to what he called the blessings of detached -irresponsibility (_præmia orbitatis_). These laws were all based on the -theory that it is a man’s civic duty to marry and give sons and -daughters to the service of his country, and we find one of the -Panegyrists declaring them to be the very foundation of the State, -because they supply a nursery of youth and a constant flow of manly -vigour to the Roman armies.[151] Yet so powerful were the attractions of -a childless life (_prævalida orbitate_—_Tac._, _Ann._, iii., 25) that -the whole series of Julian laws on this subject had proved of little -value, and Tacitus had declared that the remedy was worse than the -disease. The motives of the luxurious voluptuary or the fastidious cynic -were widely different from those of the Christian enthusiast for bodily -purity, but by a curious irony they were directed towards the same -object—the avoidance of matrimony. - ------ - -Footnote 151: - - _Vere dicuntar esse fundamenta rei publicæ, quia seminarium juventutis - et quasi fontem humani roboris semper Romanis exercitibus - ministrarunt_ (_Pan. Vet._, vi., 2). - ------ - -There was also brought against Christianity the charge that it -discouraged military service and looked askance upon the profession of -arms. The accusation is true within certain limits. Christianity was and -is a gospel of peace. Ideally, therefore, it is always antagonistic to -war as a general principle, and there is always a considerable section -of Christian opinion which is opposed, irrespective of the justice of -the quarrel, to an appeal to arms. That section of Christian opinion was -naturally at its strongest when the Roman Empire was pagan, and when it -was practically impossible for a Christian to be a soldier without -finding himself compelled to worship, at the altars of Rome, the Roman -Emperor and the Roman gods. _Omnis militia est religio_, Seneca had said -most truly. There was a permanent altar fixed before the _prætorium_ of -every camp. That being the case, one can understand that the army was -regarded with abhorrence by every Christian at a time when Christianity -was a proscribed, or barely tolerated, religion, and hence the violent -denunciations of the army and military service to be found in some of -the early Fathers. Hence too the number of Christian soldier martyrs, -who had been converted while serving in the ranks. But the whole case -was changed when the Roman Emperor was a Christian, and the army took -its oath to a champion and no longer to an enemy of the Church. The -bishops at once changed front—they could not help themselves—and at the -Council of Arles we have seen the Gallican bishops passing a canon -anathematising any Christian who flung down his arms in time of peace. -There were still extremists, as there are to-day, who denounced war with -indiscriminate censure; there must have been a much larger number who -acquiesced in standing armies as a necessary evil, but themselves -carefully kept aloof from service; the majority, as to-day, would -recognise that the security of a State rests ultimately upon force, and -would pray that their cause might be just whenever that force had to be -put into operation. It is not Tertullian with his dangerous doctrine -that politics have no interest for the Christian (_nec ulla magis res -aliena quam publica_), that the Christian has no country but the world, -and that Christ had bidden the nations disarm when he bade Peter put up -his sword—it is not Tertullian who is the typical representative of the -Church in its relations with the State and mundane affairs, but the -broad-minded Augustine who, when nervous Christians appealed to him to -say whether a Christian could serve God as a soldier, said that a man -might do his duty to his God and his Emperor as well in a camp as -elsewhere. - -God-fearing men could spend their days in the legions without peril to -their souls, but the atmosphere of a Roman camp, full as it was of -barbarians and semi-barbarians, naturally cannot have been congenial to -the Christian religion. In spite of the Labarum, service in the army was -discountenanced by the more zealous Christian bishops. Yet nothing could -be more unfair than to charge Christianity with having introduced into -the Roman world the reluctance to carry arms. That reluctance dated back -to the latter days of the Republic. Christianity merely intensified it. - -Christianity, again, may be acquitted of having caused the decadence of -literature and the arts. That decadence was of long standing. There had -been a steady decline from the brilliant circle of Augustan poets and -prose writers to the days of the Antonines. The third century had been -utterly barren of great names. Literature had become imitation; -originality was lost. Society was literary in tone; grammarians and -rhetoricians flourished; learning was not dead but active; yet the -results, so far as creative work was concerned, were miserably small. -But if Christianity cannot be held responsible for the poverty of -imagination in the ranks of pagan society, it must be held responsible -for its own shortcomings. It often assumed an attitude of open hostility -to the ancient literature, which was to be explained—and, so long as -paganism was a living force, might be justified—by the fact that the -poetry of Rome was steeped in pagan associations. Men to whom Jupiter -was a false deity or demon; to whom the radiance of Apollo was hateful -because it was a snare to the unwary; to whom the purity of Diana, the -cold stateliness of Minerva, the beauty of Venus, and the bountifulness -of Ceres, were all treacherous delusions and masks of sin, and all -equally pernicious to the soul, found in the very charm of style and the -seductiveness of language of the old poetry another reason for keeping -it out of the hands of their children and for themselves eschewing its -dangerous delights. It is difficult to blame them. Protestants and -Catholics even of the present day are studiously ignorant of the special -literatures of the other, and if the Christian eschewed the classical -poets, the educated pagan was grotesquely ignorant of the Christian’s -“Holy Books.” - -But this point must not be pursued too far. Education itself was based -on the ancient literature of Greece and Rome—there was, indeed, nothing -else on which to base it—and in the ablest and most cultured of the -Christian writers the influence of the classical authors is evident on -every page. Jerome dreamt that an angel came to rebuke him for his love -of the rounded periods of Cicero—_Ciceronianus es, non Christianus_. -Augustine bewails the tears he had wasted on the moving story of the -Fall of Troy, while his heart was insensible to the sufferings of the -Son of God. Lines and half lines from Virgil, or the choice of a -Virgilian epithet, betray the ineradicable influence of the Mantuan over -Ambrose. Even the author of the _De Mortibus Persecutorum_, despite his -ferocious hatred of paganism, takes evident pleasure in the Ciceronian -flavour of his maledictions. Do what he would, the cultured and educated -Christian could not escape from the spell of the poets of antiquity. -There were, of course, narrow-minded fanatics in plenty who would -cheerfully have burned the contents of every pagan library and have -imagined that they were offering an acceptable sacrifice, and there were -doubtless many more who, without vindictiveness towards the classics, -were quite content with want of culture, deeming that ignorance was more -becoming to Christian simplicity (_Simplex sermo veritatis._) The -tendencies of Christianity, as compared with paganism, were not towards -what we call the humanities and a liberal education, for the dominant -feeling was that there was only one book in the world which really -mattered, and that was the Bible. There was, it is true, a slight -literary renaissance starting at the close of the fourth century, with -which we associate the names of Ausonius, Paulinus of Nola, Prudentius, -and Claudian. This was mainly Christian. Ausonius strictly followed -classical models; the graceful yet vigorous hymns of Prudentius were an -original and valuable contribution to literature; Claudian stands -neutral. “The last of the classics,” as Mr. Mackail has well said,[152] -“he is, at the same time, the earliest and one of the most distinguished -of the classicists. It might seem a mere chance whether his poetry -belonged to the fourth or to the sixteenth century.” This literary -renaissance, however, was a last flicker, and while we have to thank the -Church for preserving the Latin tongue, we owe it little thanks—compared -with the paganism it had overthrown—for its services to culture and the -humanities. In the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries the classics had to -be rediscovered and relearnt: the dead spirit of humanism had to be -quickened to a new birth. - ------ - -Footnote 152: - - _History of Latin Literature_, Bk. III., c. 7. - ------ - -Hard things have been said of Christianity and its influence upon the -Roman Empire, harder perhaps than the facts warrant, though the -bitterness of many of the critics has been directly provoked by the -boundless assumptions of the Christian apologists. Looking back -dispassionately upon the period with which we have been dealing, it is -not difficult to see why the Church triumphed and why the nations -acquiesced as readily as they did in the downfall of paganism. The -reason is that the world had grown stale. It had outlived all its old -ideals. It was sick of doubt, weary of bloodshed and strife, and -nervously apprehensive, we can hardly question, of the cataclysm that -was to burst upon the West and submerge it before another century was -over. The philosophies were worn out. The gods themselves had grown -grey. There was a general atmosphere of numbness and decrepitude. Men -wanted consolation and hope. Christianity alone could supply it, and -though Christianity itself had lost its early joyousness, freshness, and -simplicity, it retained unimpaired its marvellous powers to console. To -a world tired of questioning and search it returned an answer for which -it claimed the sanction of absolute Truth. The old spirit was not wholly -dead. One may see it revive from time to time in the various heresies -which split the Church. But it was ruthlessly suppressed, and humanity -had to purchase back its liberty of thought at a great price, ten or -more centuries later, when the world realised that her ancient deliverer -had herself become a tyrant. Nevertheless, few can seriously doubt that -the triumph of the Christian Church was an unspeakable boon to mankind. -The Roman Empire was doomed. Its downfall was certain and, on the whole, -was even to be desired, so long as its civilisation was not wholly wiped -out and the genius of past generations was not wholly destroyed. - -[Illustration] - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - -[Illustration] - - - - INDEX - - - A - - Achillas, 190 - _Acts of Pilate, The_, anti-Christian pamphlet, 145, 146 - Adrianople, battle of, 128, 158 - Ælianus, Proconsul of Africa, 172, 173 - Alemanni defeated by Crispus, 124 - Alexander, a Phrygian, leads revolt in Africa, 76 - Alexander of Alexandria, holds Arius in high esteem, 190; - becomes involved in controversy with Arius, 192 _ff._; - summons provincial synod, 195; - denounces Arians, 201 _ff._; - attacks Eusebius of Nicomedia, 203; - at Council of Nicæa, 214; - influenced by Athanasius, 215; - prayer for the truth in regard to Arius, 274, 298; - death, 286; - refuses to admit Arius to communion, 298 - Amandus, Admiral, defeated by Crispus, 129 - Ambrose, St., exhortations to avoid marriage, 348; - influenced by Virgil, 353. - Ammianus Marcellinus, quoted, 345 - Anastasia, half-sister to Constantine, 120 - Anastasis, Church of, dedicated,3 11 - Ancyra, Council of, canons, 153 - Annibalianus, son-in-law of Constantine, 309 - Antony, Saint, 147, 297 - Anulinus, proconsul of Africa, letter from Constantine to, 167, 168 - Apollo, statue of, 270, 271 - Arcadius, rebuilds walls of Constantinople, 266 - Arch of Constantine, 91 - Arian controversy, 189 _ff._, 223 _ff._; - Canon Bright on, 194; - Gibbon on, 194 - Arianism, origin, 189 _ff._; - leading tenet, 193 _ff._, 198, 223, 224; - Canon Bright on, 194; - class to which it appealed, 197 _ff._; - claims, 198 _ff._; - formal condemnation of, 229 - - Arians, edicts against, 286; - and Constantia, 289; - paramount at Imperial Court, 290; - plot against Athanasius, 290 - - “Ariomaniacs,” 206 - - Aristaces repeats Nicene Creed to his father, 285 - - Arius, a power in Alexandria, 190; - character, 190, 191; - preaching strange doctrine, 191; - starts controversy, 192 _ff._; - denounces Alexander, 193; - defends his doctrine before synod, 195 _ff._; - excommunicated, 196, 231, 236; - finds champion in Eusebius of Nicomedia, 200 _ff._; - synod of Bithynian bishops sympathises with, 202 _ff._; - _Thalia_, 204 _ff._, 222, 231; - Constantine intervenes between Alexander and, 207 _ff._; - at Council of Nicæa, 214, 221, 231, 236; - and Eusebian party, 229 _ff._; - recalled from exile, 287, 288; - Constantine’s attack on, 288; - pronounced a true Catholic by Council of Tyre, 295; - returns to Alexandria, 297; - questioned as to his faith, by Constantine, 297; - seeks admission to Church at Constantinople, 298, 299; - death, 299, 300 - - Arles, Council of, 173-176; - canons of, 177, 178, 351 - - Armenia, recovered for Rome, 6; - Saint Gregory in, 27 - - Arsenius, legend of withered hand, 293 - - Athanasians and baptism of Constantine, 315 - - Athanasius, Saint, on help given to persecuted Christians, 28; - _First Discourse against the Arians_, quoted, 204, 205; - influence on Alexander, 214, 215; - leader of Trinitarians, 221; - on Council of Nicæa, 222-224; - in Arian controversy, 227; - condemnation of, 231, 295; - banished, 239, 296; - elected bishop, 286; - plot against, 290; - refuses to restore Arius to communion, 291; - Constantine threatens, 291, 292; - campaign of calumny against, 292; - refuses to attend trial at Cæsarea, 293; - trial at Council of Tyre, 293-295; - appeals to Constantine, 294, 295 - - Augustæum, the, 268, 269 - - Augustine, Saint, Bishop of Hippo, on Botrus and Celestius, 164; - on Donatists, 181, 182; - on the Circumcelliones, 186; - and the Donatist schism, 187; - on Constantine, 329; - on Christian duty, 351; - and ancient literature, 353 - - Aurelian, Emperor, recovers Britain and Gaul, 3; - murdered, 4; - persecution of Christians, 13; - influence on Galerius, 17; - subdues Goths and Sarmatæ, 123 - - Ausonius, 354 - - B - - Bassianus, 120 - - Botrus, deacon, 164 - - Bright, Canon, quoted, on Arianism, 194, 199; - on philosophy and the Church, 227 - - Britain, Carausius ruler of, 6; - Constantius ruler of, 8; - Constantine ruler of, 51, 56, 76, 82; - Constantius recovers, 52, 53; - Crispus ruler of, 124 - - Burnt Pillar, the, 270 - - Bury, Professor, quoted, on Constantine, 328 - - Byzantium, capitulation of, 115, 128; - naval battle at, 129, 259; - advantages of position, 259, 261; - chosen by Constantine as site for a new city, 259, 260; - renowned, 2 61; - withstandsPhilip of Macedon, 262; - Polybius on, 262; - prosperity, 262, 263 - - Byzas, the Megarian, founder of Byzantium, 261 - - C - - Cæcilianus, rebukes Lucilla, 163; - elected bishop, 164; - position challenged, 165, 166, 170, 171, 173, 178; - letter from Constantine to, 166, 167; - summoned to Rome, 180, 181; - Constantine’s verdict on, 182; - Donatists refuse to obey, 184 - - Cæsarea, Council of, 292, 293 - - Caius, 238 - - Candidianus executed, 119 - - Carausius, 6, 65 - - Carinus, son of Carus, Empire divided between Numerian and, 4; - death, 5 - - Carnuntum, conference at, 63, 64 - - Carthage sacked, 76 - - Carthage, Council of, 188 - - Carus devastates Persia, 4 - - Catholic Party, 165 _ff._; 297 - - Celestius, deacon, 164 - - “Champions of the Lord,” the, 185 - - Chrestus, Bishop of Syracuse, 175 - - Christian martyrs, 15, 17 _ff._, 28, 30 _ff._, 136 _ff._, 147, 157 - - Christian schools of Antioch and Alexandria, 213 - - Christianity, rapid spread, 12; - embraced by Constantine, 93 _ff._, 306, 312 _ff._; - element in disintegration of Empire, 343, 344, 346; - element of assimilation, 345; - tendency to depopulate Empire, 346-350; - and asceticism, 346-348; - and military service, 350-352; - and literature and art, 352-354; - influence upon Roman Empire, 355, 356 - - Christians, persecution of, 12 _ff._, 27, 134 _ff._; - erect church at Nicomedia, 13; - and Neo-Platonists, 19, 20 - - Chrysopolis, battle of, 130, 158 - - Church, the, condition in reign of Diocletian, 12-14, 16; - persecution of, 12 _ff._, 134 _ff._; - and State, 13, 14, 158, 234, 343, 344; - schisms in, 153, 159 _ff._, 189; 211 _ff._; - triumph of, 236, 355, 356; - persecution ended, 285; - and marriage, 349 - - Cibalis, battle of, 121 - - Circumcelliones, a religious sect, 185, 186 - - Cirta, capital of Numidia, sacked, 76; - renamed, 186 - - Cirta, synod of, 161, 162 - - Cistern of Philoxenos, 273 - - Claudian, 354 - - Claudius subdues Goths and Sarmatæ, 3, 123 - - Coins, 239, 314, 318 - - _Colonus_, the, condition, 340, 342, 343 - - Column of Constantine, 270 - - Constans, son of Constantine, 238, 309 - - Constantia, wife of Licinius, pleads for his life 131; - influence, 200, 230, 239, 289 - - Constantina, daughter of Constantine, 309 - - Constantina, new name of Cirta, 186 - - Constantine, Emperor, birth and parentage, 43, 44; - birthplace, 44, 260; - early life and characteristics, 45; - ambitions, 46; - escape from Galerius, 47; - joins his father, 48; - saluted as Augustus by the troops, 49; - declares himself Emperor, 50; - acknowledged as Cæsar by Galerius, 50; - Cæsar of the West, 51; - victory over the Franks, 53-55; - attitude toward Galerius, 60; - marriage, 61; - alliance of Maximian and Maxentius with, 62; - relations with Diocletian, 64; - acknowledged as Augustus by Galerius, 66; - recognises Maximian, 67; - expedition against the Franks, 67, 68; - quells Maximian, 69; - plots against, 70, 71; - his domain, 76; - alliance of Licinius with, 79; - war with Maxentius, 80 _ff._; - battle of Milvian Bridge, 86, 87; - triumphal procession in Rome, 88; - disbands Prætorians, 89; - acts of conciliation, 90; - games and festivals in honour of, 91; - vision of the Cross and conversion, 92, 95 _ff._; - issues Edict of Milan, 107 _ff._; - and Licinius share Roman Empire, 120; - war with Licinius, 120 _ff._; - defeats Licinius at Cibalis, 121; - defeats Licinius at Mardia, 121; - treaty with Licinius, 122; - appoints Crispus as Cæsar,1 22; - his sons, 123; - rupture with Licinius, 123 _ff._, 154; - triumphs of, 124; - champion of the Church, 126, 127; - defeats Licinius at Adrianople, 128; - victory at Byzantium, 129; - generalship of, 130; - victory at Chrysopolis, 130; - treatment of Licinius, 131, 132; - signs edict of toleration, 140; - overthrow of Maxentius, 153; - recalls exiled Christians, 158; - and the Donatists, 159 _ff._; - African bishops appeal to, 159; - presents money to African clergy, 166; - letter to Cæcilianus, 166; - letter to Anulinus, 167; - party of Majorinus appeal to, 169; - letter to Miltiades, 169; - letter to Ælianus, 172-174; - letter to Chrestus, 175; - letter to Council of Arles, 178-180; - summons Cæcilianus to Rome, 180; - letter to Donatist bishops, 180; - letter to Probianus, 181; - passes judgment on Cæcilianus, 182; - change of policy, 183; - ignores African Church, 185; - letter to the Catholics and his opinion of the Donatists, 187; - and Arian controversy, 189, 207-210, 285-297; - calls Council of Nicæa, 211; - opens the Council, 217-219; - and Nicene Creed, 230; - celebrates his Vicennalia, 232, 233, 239, 322; - farewell speech to Council of Nicæa, 233, 234; - letter “To the Churches,” 235; - family, 237; - mother’s influence upon, 238, 239; - and Procession of the Knights, 240; - edict to his subjects, 241; - turns against Crispus, 242; - murder of Crispus, Licinianus, and Fausta, 243-247; - repentance, 247, 249; - donation of, 248, 249; - baptism, 248, 249; - builds churches, 249, 251, 318, 319; - campaigns against the Goths and Sarmatæ, 252, 253; - confession of faith, 254, 255; - relations with Persia, 254-256; - founder of Constantinople, 257 _ff._; - edicts against the Arians, 286; - character, 301 _ff._; - passion for building, 302, 303; - division of the Empire, 307-311; - education of his sons, 308; - celebrates Tricennalia, 311; - fatal malady, 312, 313; - death and burial, 256, 313, 314; - and religious parties, 316; - daily religious life, 317; - edict for observance of Lord’s day, 319; - prayer, 319; - policy toward old religion, 320 _ff._; - edict giving religious freedom, 321; - Pontifex Maximus, 322 _ff._; - and divination, 326; - edict to abolish gladiatorial shows, 327; - reforms, 330; - attitude of subjects to, 331; - organisation of Empire, 331; - fiscal system of, 339-342 - - Constantine, son of the Emperor Constantine, 296, 309 - - Constantinople, foundation of, 257 _ff._; - called “New Rome,” 258; - and Napoleon, 259; - part rebuilt, 266; - called Septicollis, 266; - dedication, 267; - plan and buildings, 269; - forum, 269; - palaces, 272; - aqueducts, 273; - Hippodrome, 274, 276; - churches, 274-276 - - Constantinus, son of Constantine, 309, 314 - - Constantius, son of Constantine, persecution of Christians, 134; - birth, 238; - appointed Cæsar of Gaul, 242; - named consul, 243 - - Constantius Chlorus, Cæsar, 5; - goes to Britain, 6; - domain, 8; - character, 16, 328; - attitude toward Christians, 16, 26; - becomes emperor, 40; - ancestry, 44; - marriage, 44; - loyalty, 46; - death, 49 - - Consuls, 334 - - “Council of the 318,” the, 212 - - Crispus, son of Constantine, becomes Cæsar, 122; - victory over Alemanni, 124, 125; - victory over Amandus, 129; - heir to throne, 237; - victories, 237; - and Fausta, 238; - Constantine turns against, 242, 243; - death, 243 - - Curia, the, 338 - - D - - Dalmatius, 310 - - Damasus, Pope, 152 - - Datianus, 29 - - Decius, Emperor, persecution of the Christians, 13 - - Diocletian, Emperor, accession, 5, 45; - chooses colleagues, 5; - recovers Armenia for Rome 6; - attitude toward Galerius, 7, 8; - controlling spirit in the Empire, 8; - locates his capital, 8, 57; - domain, 8; - changes introduced by, 9; - decentralisation in the provinces, 10; - prosperous reign, 11; - persecution of the Christians, 12, 24 _ff._, 79, 160; - wife and daughters, 13; - neutrality toward the Church, 14; - neutralitychanged to antagonism, 16, 19; - influenced by Galerius, 16, 25, 70, 74; - edict against the Manichæans, 22, 23; - and Galerius, 23; - edicts against the Christians, 26, 99, 134; - motive for persecution, 38; - abdication, 39, 41, 43; - chooses new Cæsars, 40, 41; - retires to private life, 40, 46; - system of organisation, 50, 65, 66, 74, 123, 242, 311, 330, 331, 337; - recognises Carausius, 51; - invited to conference at Carnuntum, 63, 64; - relations with Constantine, 64; - treatment of the Senate, 90; - declinesin vitation to wedding of Constantine’s sister, 106; - wife and daughter, 118, 119; - wishes daughter to live with him, 119; - celebrates Vicennalia, 134, 239, 240; - proclaims amnesty, 134 - - Donatist schism, 159-188 - - Donatists, 159-188; - Constantine’s letter to, 180; - _raison d’etre_, 183; - increase in numbers, 185 - - Donatus Magnus, leader of Donatist schism, 166, 173, 184, 185 - - Donatus of Casæ Nigræ, 165 - - Donatus of Mascula, 161 - - E - - Easter, celebration, 231, 232 - - Education, basis of, 353; - and Christianity, 354 - - Eusebian party, rise, 221; - and Nicene Creed, 229, 230; - in favour at Imperial Court, 290; - confounded at Arius’s death, 299 - - Eusebius of Cæsarea, on Constantine’s conversion, 93 _ff._; - letter of Constantine to, 158; - friend of Arius, 196, 214; - teachings, 200; - on Arian controversy, 206; - supports middle party at Council of Nicæa, 221; - creed of, 224, 225; - signs Nicene Creed, 229, 230; - on Constantine’s baptism, death, and burial, 312, 315; - on Constantine’s daily life, 317; - on Constantine’s religious policy, 320 _ff._ - - Eusebius of Nicomedia, as historian, 25; - _History of the Church_, 27, 71, 97; - _Life of Constantine_, 27, 97; - champion of Arius, 200 _ff._, 214; - calls a synod of Bithynian bishops, 202; - attacked by Alexander, 203; - leader of middle party at Council of Nicæa, 221; - character, 222; - and the word “Homoousion,” 224; - signs Nicene Creed, 231; - exiled, 231, 236; - recalled, 287, 288; - succeeds Hosius as adviser to Constantine, 290, 300, 316; - attack on Athanasius, 291 _ff._; - attempt to restore Arius, 291; - baptises Constantine, 313 - - Eustathius, Bishop of Antioch, charges against, 291 - - Eutropius, on Constantine’s character, 306, 307 - - F - - Fausta, wife of Constantine, reveals conspiracy against Constantine, - 71; - sons, 123; - attitude toward Crispus, 238, 243, 244; - death, 244, 245, 247 - - Felix, Bishop of Aptunga, 164, 165, 173 - - Finance, system of, under Diocletian, 337-339, 342; - under Constantine, 339-342 - - Firmilianus, Governor of Palestine, persecution of Christians, 136 - - Franks, 1, 5, 54, 253 - - G - - Galerius, Emperor, becomes Cæsar, 5, 39; - entrusted with command of Parthia, 6; - victory over Parthians, 7, 74; - and Diocletian, 8; - domain, 8; - capital at Sirmium, 8; - character and influence, 16, 25; - mother’s influence, 16; - persecution of Christians, 17-19, 23-25, 74; - becomes Augustus, 40; - nominates new Cæsars, 41, 42; - attitude toward Constantine, 42, 46, 60; - sends Constantine to his father, 47, 48; - acknowledges Constantine as Cæsar, 50; - extends the census, 57; - relations with Severus, 59; - invasion of Italy, 60-62, 76, 81; - calls a conference at Carnuntum, 63; - and Diocletian, 63; - appoints Licinius as Augustus, 64, 65; - relations with Maximin Daza, 65, 66; - recognises Maximin as Augustus, 66; - death, 73, 74, 138; - estimate of the man, 74, 75; - nominates his successor, 75; - edicts, 79, 99; - aims carried out, 89; - leaves wife to care of Maximin, 118; - edict of toleration, 138-140 - - Gallienus, and senatorial order, 9; - issues edicts of toleration, 13 - - Gaul, devastated by Franks, 1; - recovered by Aurelian, 3; - at Diocletian’s accession, 6; - Constantius ruler of, 8, 52; - Constantine in, 51, 56, 76, 82; - Crispus in, 124, 242 - - Gibbon on the Circumcelliones, 186; - on the Arian controversy, 194; - on Constantinople, 263, 264; - on Annibalianus, 309 - - Goths, invade Roman Empire, 123, 124; - war with Constantine, 252 - - Gregory of Nyssa on Arian controversy, 206 - - Gregory, Saint, in Armenia, 27 - - Gregory, the Illuminator of Armenia, and the Nicene Creed, 285 - - Grosvenor, Mr., quoted on Constantinople, 273, 275, 278, 281 - - H - - Helena, mother of Constantine, ancestry, 43, 44; - honoured by Constantine, 239; - and death of Crispus, 245; - pilgrimage, 249-251; - legend of finding of the Cross, 250, 251; - death, 252 - - Heraclea, siege of, 115 - - Heraclius, elected bishop, 152 - - Herculius, 8 - - Hermogenes, 228 - - Hierocles, author of _The Friend of Truth_, 20 - - Holy Apostles, Church of, 275 - - Holy Trinity, Church of, 275 - - Horses of Lysippus, 283 - - Hosius, Bishop of Cordova, commissioned to mediate between Alexander - and Arius, 207; - advises Constantine, 211; - at Council of Nicæa, 212, 221, 228; - falls from favour, 290, 316 - - I - - Imperial Council, 333 - - Italy, invasion of, 73 _ff._ - - J - - Jerome, Saint, exhortations against marriage, 348, 349; - dream of, 353 - - Jovius, adopted name of Diocletian, 8 - - Julian, _Banquet of the Cæsars_, 77 - - Julian, Emperor, on Constantine, 124, 303-305; - on Constantinople, 268 - - Julian laws on marriage, 350 - - Justinian, statue of, 269; - builds Church of St. Sophia, 274, 276 - - L - - Lactantius, estimate of, as historian, 40-42, 47 - - Land tax, 337 _ff._ - - Licinianus, becomes Cæsar, 122; - attitude of Constantine toward, 125; - life spared, 133; - death, 243 - - Licinius, Emperor, at conference of Carnuntum, 63; - becomes Augustus, 64-66; - successor of Galerius, 75; - and Maximin Daza in eastern half of Empire, 76; - attitude to Maximin Daza, 79, 80; - alliance with Constantine, 79; - marriage, 79, 106; - and Edict of Milan, 107 _ff._; - other edicts, 109; - downfall, 115 _ff._; - at Milan, 115; - victory over Maximin Daza, 116, 117; - angel’s revelation to, 116; - execution of Maximin Daza’s family, 118, 119; - execution of Candidianus, 119; - and Constantine share Empire, 120; - war with Constantine, 120; - defeated at Cibalis, 121; - defeated at Mardia, 121; - treaty with Constantine, 122; - appoints Licinianus as Cæsar, 122; - gives up important provinces, 122; - rupture with Constantine, 123, 125-127, 154, 157; - religious policy, 126, 127; - defeated at Adrianople, 128; - defeated at Chrysopolis, 130; - pleads for his life, 131; - death, 132; - character, 132; - edict of toleration, 138-140; - defeats Maximin, 153; - anti-Christian campaign, 154, 155, 157; - throws over Edict of Milan, 155; - exile, 158 - - Literature, anti-Christian, 145; - decadence of, 352; - character of pagan, 352; - basis of education, 353; - renaissance of, 354 - - Lucian of Antioch, famous teacher, 200, 201 - - Lucilla, censured by Church of Carthage, 162-164; - intrigues of, 188 - - Ludi Cereales, 36 - - Lycians, petition of, 142, 143 - - M - - Mackail, Mr., _History of Latin Literature_, quoted, 354 - - Majorinus, elected bishop, 165; - death, 165; - not recognised by the churches, 166 - - Mamertinus, eulogy on Maximian, 52 - - Manichæanism, rise, 22, 23; - chief characteristic, 22 - - Marcellus, elected bishop, 151; - exile and death, 152 - - Mardia, battle of, 121 - - Maris of Chalcedon, and Nicene Creed, 230, 231; - exiled, 231 - - Marriage, Jerome exhorts against, 348, 349; - and the State and Church, 349 - - Martinianus, becomes Cæsar, 130; - death, 133 - - Maxentius, Emperor, son of Maximian, claims heritage of Cæsar, 56; - character, 56, 77-79; - marriage, 57; - master of Rome, 57, 58; - resumes title of Augustus, 59; - and Maximian besiege Severus, 59, 60; - and Maximian in alliance with Constantine, 60; - and Maximian in possession of Italy, 62; - rupture with Maximian, 62, 63, 67, 70; - domain, 76; - treatment of African cities, 76; - loss of popularity, 76; - restores property to Christians, 79, 152; - attitude to other Augusti, 79; - alliance with Maximin Daza, 80; - war with Constantine, 80 _ff._; - overthrow, 82 _ff._, 110, 154; - Italy wrested from, 85; - death, 87; - head carried in triumphal procession, 88; - seeks good-will of Christians, 151; - exiles bishops, 152; - libel against, 163 - - Maximian, Emperor, becomes Cæsar, 5; - becomes Augustus, 5; - ruler of the West, 6, 8; - fights the Moors, 6; - recognises Carausius, 6, 51; - styles himself Herculius, 8; - character, 14, 15; - persecution of the Christians, 15-19, 160; - celebrates the Ludi Cereales, 36; - abdication, 40, 56; - restores peace to Gaul, 51; - eulogised by Mamertinus, 52; - locates his Court at Milan, 57; - resumes title of Augustus, 59; - victory over Severus, 59, 60; - and Maxentius in alliance with Constantine, 60, 62; - gives his daughter in marriage to Constantine, 61, 62; - and Maxentius in possession of Italy, 62; - rupture with Maxentius, 62, 63, 67, 70; - expelled from Italy, 63; - at conference of Carnuntum, 63, 65; - ex-Augustus, 65, 66; - returns to Gaul, 67; - plots against Constantine, 68, 69; - stripped of his titles, 69; - further plots against Constantine, 70, 71; - death, 71, 72 - - Maximin Daza, Emperor, becomes Cæsar, 40, 57; - nominated by Galerius, 41, 42; - domain, 65, 75; - claims title of Augustus, 66; - claims title of senior Augustus, 75; - and Licinius in eastern half of Empire, 76; - alliance with Maxentius, 79, 80, 148; - in opposition to Licinius, 80, 107; - invades territory of Licinius, 115, 148; - defeated, 116, 117, 148, 153; - flight, 117, 118, 148; - commits suicide, 118, 151; - province falls into hands of Licinius, 118; - family slain, 118; - treatment of Prisca and Valeria, 118, 119; - persecution of Christians, 135-137, 141-143, 145-147; - act of toleration, 137, 149-151; - restores privileges to Christians, 140, 149, 150; - character, 146, 147; - eminent victims of, 147; - war with Tiridates, 148; - final edict, 149, 150 - - Maximus, Governor of Cilicia, 30 - - Maximus, Governor of Moesia, 17, 18 - - Meletian schismatics checked, 297 - - Meletians recognised as orthodox, 295 - - Meletius, Bishop of Lycopolis, condemned by Egyptian bishops, 190 - - Mensurius, Bishop of Carthage and Primate of Africa, trick to save Holy - Books, 160; - summoned to Rome, 164; - death, 164 - - Milan, conference at, 106 - - Milan, Edict of, issued, 107, 115; - important clauses, 107, 108; - principles and motives of, 109, 110 _ff._; - hailed by the Christians, 153; - thrown over by Licinius, 155 - - Military forces, organisation of, 336, 337 - - Miltiades elected bishop, 152 - - Milvian Bridge, battle of, 86, 87, 92 - - Minervina, first wife of Constantine, son of, 122, 123 - - Moesia, given over to Constantine, 122; - invaded by Goths and Sarmatæ, 123 - - Montanism, in Northern Africa, 159 - - N - - Naissus, birthplace of Constantine, 44, 260 - - Narses sues for peace, 7 - - Neo-Platonists, influence, 19, 197; - discussions of interest to, 216 - - “New Rome,” 259 - - Newman, Cardinal, quoted, on death of Arius, 300 - - Nicæa, Canons of, 231, 232 - - Nicæa, Council of, called by Constantine, 211; - members, 212-214; - language, 213; - great interest aroused in, 215; - Constantine opens the Council, 217-220; - splits up into parties, 221 _ff._; - proceedings, 221 _ff._; - adopts Nicene Creed, 228; - excommunicates Arius, 231; - decision in regard to Easter, 231; - draws up Canons of Nicæa, 231; - farewell address by Constantine, 233; - dismissed, 234 - - Nicene Creed adopted, 228 _ff._ - - Nicomedia, capital of Diocletian, 8, 39, 258, 260; - Christian church erected at, 13; - church at, razed, 24 - - Novatianism in Northern Africa, 159 - - Numerian, son of Carus, Empire divided between Carinus and, 4; - death, 5 - - P - - Pagan clergy, 146 - - Pamphylians, petition of, 142, 143 - - Pannonia, given over to Constantine, 122; - invaded by Goths and Sarmatæ, 123 - - Paphnutius, 232, 233 - - Parthia, war with Rome, 7 - - Parthians, 2 - - “Passion of the Saints,” 35, 36 - - Paulinus of Nola, 354 - - Paulinus of Tyre, treatment of Arius, 196; - letter from Eusebius of Nicomedia, 202 - - Persia, relations with Constantine, 254-256 - - Philostorgius, on Fausta, 244 - - Philoxenos, 273 - - Polybius, quoted, on Byzantium, 262 - - Porphyry, Neo-Platonist philosopher, 19 - - Porphyry Pillar, the, 270 - - Prætorian præfects, 331, 332 - - Prætorians, mutiny at Rome, 57; - camps abolished, 58; - rule Rome, 77, 78; - disbanded, 89 - - Prætors, 334 - - Prisca, wife of Diocletian, a Christian, 13; - exiled, 118, 119; - death, 120, 132 - - Probus, 4, 17 - - Prudentius, 354 - - Purpurius, Bishop of Limata, 161 - - R - - Roman Empire, threatened fall in third century, 1 _ff._; - turn of fortune, 3; - under Diocletian, 5 _ff._, 330; - divided into twelve dioceses, 10, 331; - prosperity, 11; - population, 12; - shared by Constantine and Licinius, 120; - invaded by Goths and Sarmatæ, 123, 124; - united, 133; - peace, 252; - war with Goths and Sarmatæ, 252; - reorganisation under Constantine, 330 _ff._; - disintegration, 342 _ff._ - - Rome, 57, 258 - - Rome, Council of, 176 - - Ruricius Pompeianus, holds Verona, 83; - killed, 85 - - S - - Sabinus, præfect, 140, 143 - - St. Irene, Church of, description of, 274, 275 - - St. Sophia, Church of, 274 - - St. Stephen, Church of, 278 - - Sapor, king of Persia, relations with Constantine, 254-256 - - Sarmatæ, invade Roman Empire, 123; - turn to Constantine for help, 253 - - Saturninus, speech of, 3 - - Secundus, Bishop of Tigisis, president of synod at Cirta, 161, 162, 165 - - Secundus of Ptolemais, Bishop, friend of Arius, 196 - - Senate, 335, 336 - - Seneca, quoted, 350 - - Senecio, 120 - - Severus, Emperor, becomes Cæsar, 40, 56, 57; - nominated by Galerius, 41, 59; - domain, 56; - besieges Rome, 59; - besieged by Maximian and Maxentius, 59-60; - is given choice of death, 72 - - Simon Stylites, 347 - - Sirmium, capital of Galerius, 8 - - Slavery, 342 - - Socrates, quoted, 216, 220, 287, 288, 298, 299 - - Sopater, pagan philosopher, in favour with Constantine, 324 - - Sotades of Crete, pagan poet, 204 - - Sozomen, quoted, 216 - - Stanley, Dean, _History of the Eastern Church_, quoted, 226 - - Sylvanus, Bishop, 162 - - Sylvester, Bishop of Rome, sends representatives to Council of Arles, - 175; - letter to, from Council of Arles, 176, 177; - absent from Council of Nicæa, 212, 213; - baptises Constantine, 248; - legends concerning Constantine and, 248, 249 - - T - - Tacitus, rule of, 4; - on childless life, 349 - - Taxation, 337-342 - - Temporal Power, legend of origin, 248, 249 - - Terminalia, Festival of, 24 - - Tertullian and his doctrine, 351 - - Theban Legion, legend of its massacre, 14, 15 - - Theodora, wife of Constantius Chlorus, 44 - - Theodoretus, rival of Arius, 190; - on the Council of Nicæa, 220, 223 - - Theodosius II., rebuilds walls of Constantinople, 266; - attitude toward recluses, 348 - - Theodotus of Ancyra, 30 - - Theognis of Nicæa, and Nicene Creed, 230, 231; - exiled, 231; - recalled, 287, 288 - - Theonas, Bishop of Marmorica, friend of Arius, 196 - - Theotecnus, Governor of Antioch, 142; - invented new deity, 145 - - Thessalonica, naval harbour, 127 - - Tiridates, ruler of Armenia, 6 - - Tithe lands, 1 - - Trinitarians _vs._ Arians, 221, 223-226 - - Twelfth Legion, soldiers of, martyrs, 156 - - Tyre, Council of, trial of Athanasius, 293-295 - - U - - Urbanus, Governor of Palestine, 136 - - V - - Valens, appointed Cæsar, 122; - recalls recluses from the desert, 348 - - Valentinianus, the Curator, 161 - - Valeria, daughter of Diocletian, a Christian, 13; - widow of Galerius, 118; - Maximin proposes marriage to, 118; - exiled, 119 - - Valerian, Emperor, taken prisoner, 2; - persecution of the Christians, 13 - - Victor of Russicas, 161 - - Z - - Zosimus on Constantine’s character, 303 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - Transcriber’s Note - -Lapses of punctuation in the Index have been resolved without further -notice. - -Where possible, Greek passages have been checked against Winkelmann's -edition at http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/books/eusebius/vc/gr/index.htm#. - -As noted below, a typesetting error in the footnotes, over a few pages, -resulted in the Greek ‘καὶ’ as ‘κὰι’. - -The Greek passage in footnote #f136# has been corrected to eliminate a -wide spacing, supplying the first two characters of ‘[πρ]έποντας’ (_De -Vit. Const._, iv., 62.) - -The final two words of a Greek passage (‘ἐννοεῖ δῆτα ὁποῖον, δέοι θέον -ἐπιγράψασθαι βοηθὸν’) have been reversed, but are retained. - -Other errors deemed most likely to be the printer’s have been corrected, -and are noted here. The references are to the page and line in the -original or to the page, (renumbered) note, and line. - - 8.10 A long line of fortresses was Inserted. - estab[l]ished - 11.6 since the days of the Antonines[,/.] Replaced. - 19.9 from [h/H]is lofty throne Replaced for - consistency. - 21.21 a menace to the established Replaced. - authorities[,/.] - 33.1 culpable w[ake/eak]ness. Transposed. - 45.23 high-spir[i]ted Inserted. - 52.16 [“]thanks to Maximian, Added. - 110.25 ἐστι θειότης κ[ὰι\αὶ] οὐρανίου πράγματος Replaced. - 130.n64.1 τὸ σωτήριον κ[ὰι\αὶ] ζωοποιὸν Replaced. - 130.n64.2 ὥσπερ τι φόβητρον κ[ὰι\αὶ] κακῶν Replaced. - ἀμυντήριον. - 148.n70.1 Εὐσεβεῖς τε κ[ὰι\αὶ] μόνους θεοσεβεῖς Replaced. - 216.n95.1 πίστει κ[ὰι\αὶ] καλοῖς ἔργοις Replaced. - φυλαττομένην. - 227.15 of her debt to the wise.[”] Added. - 232.n100.1 τίμιον εἵναι κ[ὰι\αὶ] τὴν κόιτην Replaced. - κ[ὰι\αὶ] αὐτὸν - 233.n102.1 κλίμακα κ[ὰι/αὶ] μόνος ἀνάβηθι εἰς τὸν Replaced. - οὐρανόν - 234.n103.1 κ[ὰι/αὶ] σπάνιος αὖ τῆς ἀληθείας φίλος. Replaced. - 274.14 the world-renow[n]ed St. Sophia Inserted. - 307.12 adding to their dignity.[”] Added. - 313.136.1 θεσμὸυς ἤδη βίου θεῷ [πρ]έποντας Inserted. - 359.33 Christian marty[r]s Inserted. - -*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK CONSTANTINE THE GREAT *** - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will -be renamed. - -Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, -so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the -United States without permission and without paying copyright -royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part -of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following -the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use -of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for -copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very -easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation -of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project -Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away--you may -do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected -by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark -license, especially commercial redistribution. - -START: FULL LICENSE - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full -Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license. - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or -destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound -by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the -person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph -1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the -Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual -works in the collection are in the public domain in the United -States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the -United States and you are located in the United States, we do not -claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, -displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as -all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope -that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily -comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the -same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when -you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are -in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, -check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this -agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, -distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any -other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country other than the United States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work -on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, -performed, viewed, copied or distributed: - - This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and - most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no - restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it - under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this - eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the - United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where - you are located before using this eBook. - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not -contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the -copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in -the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are -redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply -either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or -obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any -additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms -will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including -any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access -to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format -other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm website -(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense -to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means -of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain -Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the -full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -provided that: - -* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has - agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid - within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are - legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty - payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in - Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg - Literary Archive Foundation." - -* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all - copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue - all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm - works. - -* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of - any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of - receipt of the work. - -* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of -the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the Foundation as set -forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project -Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may -contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate -or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other -intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or -other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or -cannot be read by your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium -with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you -with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in -lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person -or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second -opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If -the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing -without further opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO -OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT -LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of -damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement -violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the -agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or -limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or -unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the -remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, -including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of -the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this -or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any -Defect you cause. - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of -computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It -exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations -from people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future -generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see -Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at -www.gutenberg.org - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by -U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, -Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up -to date contact information can be found at the Foundation's website -and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without -widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND -DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular -state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To -donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support. - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in -the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not -necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper -edition. - -Most people start at our website which has the main PG search -facility: www.gutenberg.org - -This website includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. |