In the following pages we shall attempt to sketch this preliminary

history of the alliance between state and church. More than a mere

sketch, in which headings take the place of detailed statements, is out

of the question, since detailed statements would involve voluminous

treatment of the subject; but anyone familiar with the historical facts

will be able easily to fill in the brief outline. Our principal task will

be to show how the line of development in the Christian church during

the first three centuries tended towards conformity with the state; and

in conclusion we shall point out in a few brief touches how the state on

its part, as it developed, drew towards the church.

I

The Christians of the first century felt themselves aliens in the

world, and consequently in the state likewise. They had put faith in

a supernatural message which told them that they were citizens of a

heavenly kingdom, that this world would shortly come to an end, and the

new kingdom, the visible reign of God upon earth, begin. What further

interest could they take in things temporal or in the state? Yet the

state was not a mere matter of indifference to them. Since it protected

idolaters and enforced the worship of idols, it was obviously under

the influence of demons; and, being the strongest prop of polytheism,

was manifestly the chief seat of the devil. The whole world “lieth in

wickedness,” and the state no less. Between church and state, between

Christ and Belial, there could be no fellowship. Such, for example, is

the spirit in which John wrote his _Revelation_.

But from the very beginning this simple and confident view was traversed

in the minds of many Christians by other views which seemed no less

certain: such as (1) this same state, with the emperor at its head,

punishes evil-doers and checks injustice in countless instances; (2) this

same state not unfrequently protects Christians, the friends of God,

against outbreaks of savage hatred on the part of the godless people of

the Jews: (3) by the destruction of Jerusalem and of the temple this same

state has accomplished the judgment pronounced upon the Jewish nation

by the prophets and Christ, and wreaked vengeance upon it for Christ’s

death; (4) Jesus and his Apostles did not permit men to revolt against

the state, but rather commanded them to obey it and to submit willingly

to the punishment it imposed: nay, the Apostles actually commanded that

men should pray for the emperor and the magistrates by him appointed.

The early Christians thus occupied an anomalous position towards the

state: they judged it to be the chief seat of demons on the one hand,

and on the other “the minister of God”; they abhorred it and prayed for

it; they besought God that “this world might pass away” and prayed for

the continuance of the emperor’s sovereignty. It was as though they had

been commanded to adopt different views alternately. They must also have

watched with varying feelings the extension of the empire over the “whole

world.” When they saw, after the time of Augustus, how one ruler was

reverenced upon earth and glorified as king and saviour, nay, as Lord

and God, when they were led away to death because they would not worship

his image, how could they fail to conclude that here the mystery of sin

was revealed and Satan sat upon the throne of God? And yet, on the other

hand, was not this rule of a single monarch on earth a type of the rule

of God in heaven, the blessed conjunction of all men in one body, the

victory over the divisions and animosities of the nations?

And how about the culture of this same state, with its precepts,

institutions, and usages? At first sight it all seemed reprehensible,

since it was everywhere permeated with idolatry, and not least in

philosophy and literature. “Be ye not seduced by philosophy” was the

Christian watchword; nay, men went a step further, saying that the

Christian had no need of inquiry and learning; in his religion he

possessed all things and held the key to the riddles of the world. He was

to shut up his reason in prison and despise the lore of the heathen;

he was to read the Holy Scriptures, but no worldly books. And yet, does

not this same lore teach much that religion teaches? Was nothing but

lies to be met with in Socrates, Plato, and the poets? Nay, more, is

there not a natural knowledge of God, a natural grasp of truth, and

has not every soul obtained a spark of the eternal light? Has it not

received knowledge, freedom, and immortality from God? Or are these

false doctrines? Yet if they be false, how is it possible to lead men to

God? But if they are not lies, a man must read and learn what poets and

philosophers have written, and study the inner life that he may learn to

know the soul and see what God the creator has bestowed upon it.

Thus here again we have a hesitating “yes,” side by side with an

uncompromising “no.” That which but now seemed to be the darkness that

opposed itself against the light appears in another aspect as itself a

dim degree of light--nay, as the early twilight before the rising sun.

Nevertheless, during the first two or three generations the spirit of

repudiation was in the ascendant. We can only see that hidden at the

heart of things were the germs destined to bring about a change of

opinion. A religion which claims to be not national but universal cannot

permanently take up a wholly negative attitude towards the history of

the human race, nor can it persist in recognising its own preliminary

history only along the narrow line of the history of a few prophets or a

single small nation. Paul, the great Apostle of the Gentiles, had taught

that God had everywhere manifested his being and his will, and in moments

of lofty inspiration and joy had proclaimed to the little flock of his

brother converts, “All things are yours.”

II

In the second century of the existence of Christian communities (_circa_

130-230) the development of a tendency towards reconciliation with the

state and society is apparent in every direction. This I will proceed

to demonstrate as regards (1) the constitution and organisation of the

communities; (2) their life; (3) their doctrine; (4) their literature;

(5) their form of worship; and (6) their estimate of the state.

(1) As early as the year 140 most Christian communities possessed a

system of government widely different from their original organisation.

The question of how it came into being is one upon which we cannot

enter here. It appears as a combination of monarchical and collegiate

government. At the head of the community stood the bishop, with the

college of presbyters--in some cases on an equal footing with him and

in others his subordinates--at his side; the assistant and executive

officers were the deacons. The duties and rights of these clergy extended

to matters of discipline, financial administration, the care of souls and

the relief of the poor, doctrine, and public worship. The officers were

elected by the community, but nevertheless formed a superior class which,

decade by decade, assumed more and more the guardianship of the “lay

people.” Thus, out of a communion in which the “Spirit” and brotherly

love alone were to bear sway, there had arisen a legally constituted

community with ordinances in many points analogous to those of municipal

administration. The community acquired property and administered it; the

officers, under the superintendence of the bishop, cared for the needy;

and, together with the oversight of discipline, it exercised a certain

amount of jurisdiction in family affairs.

But statutory organisation was not confined to the individual community;

the various communities of one province joined in closer bonds and formed

a larger confederation. Provincial synods arose, corresponding to the

diet of the provinces, met once or twice a year, and dealt with matters

of common interest under the direction of a president (the metropolitan).

But even this association did not suffice. From the very beginning

Christians were conscious of belonging to one great and holy fellowship,

to one universal brotherhood. Conceived of, in the first instance, as

something ideal and supernatural, it had nevertheless been held with

strong and lively convictions, and at this stage the attempt was made

to realise it upon earth. The outward conditions were in its favour;

Christian doctrine had assumed many forms, a large number of which

appeared very questionable in the eyes of the bishops and the majority of

the church, and they consequently desired to define their own position

in contradistinction to these “pseudo-Christians.” Hence after the end

of the second century a great number of communities in the West and East

joined to form a single confederation, and presently asserted that only

those who belonged to this confederation, the one Holy Catholic church,

were real Christians. At the beginning of the third century there was no

longer only a heavenly church,--the children of God scattered throughout

the world and waiting for the revelation of the kingdom of which they

were citizens,--but a visible church extending from the Euphrates to

Spain, resting upon fixed laws and ordinances, and thus constituting a

political organisation within boundaries that coincided roughly with the

frontiers of the Roman Empire.

By this development the church approximated to the state--as its rival

in the first instance, it is true; but rivals may become friends. The

decisive factor was that Christianity had assumed definite political form.

(2) The Christian life was to be “unspotted from the world.” Most

Christians of primitive times interpreted this to mean that they should

have as little as possible to do with “the world.” Nor was this a

difficult matter, for the greater number of them were people in humble

life whose conduct was subject to little outward control if only they

performed the hard work required of them. Few of them were “in society”;

and hence it was of no consequence what religion they professed or what

manner of life they led.

By degrees, however, the situation changed, and the labours of

missionaries drew men of all ranks into the church. As early as the

reign of Hadrian and Antoninus Pius, Christians were numerous in every

class, even among officials and scholars and men of rank and wealth. The

question of the attitude one should assume towards the world, which had

hitherto been a difficult problem only in individual cases, now became

pressing to the whole community. In addition to this the state police

and the public (especially the mob) took far more heed of Christianity

than before. Any man who made an open confession of Christianity exposed

himself to great danger, nay, to death itself. What was the church to do?

Should she say to the faithful: “You must confess your faith under all

circumstances, and avoid all contact, even the most superficial, with

idolatry”? The consequences were obvious: the soldier would be bound

to leave his colours, for they bore a heathen emblem; the magistrate

to resign his office, for he could not protest against the worship of

the emperor; the teacher to cease to teach, for he could not avoid

mythological subjects; the tiler to abandon his handicraft, since he

could not work on the roof of a temple; the goldsmith, the joiner,

the merchant--they all ran the risk of abetting idolatry. The austere

members of the communities did actually insist that every Christian ought

to renounce his calling if it rendered him liable to the risk of the

remotest contact with idolatry. Tertullian explicitly makes this demand

in his pamphlet, _De Idololatria_, nor did he suffer himself to be

confounded by the retort: “We shall die of starvation.”--“Who is he that

hath promised ye shall live?”

But the great majority of Christians, and first and foremost the bishops

their leaders, decided otherwise. It was enough for a man to keep God

in his heart and to confess him when open confession was required by

magisterial authority--it was enough to refrain from actual idolatry;

for the rest the Christian might abide in any honest calling, might

come, in the pursuit of it, in contact with the externals of idolatry,

and ought to conduct himself prudently and discreetly so as neither

to defile himself nor call down persecution upon himself and others.

The church everywhere adopted this attitude after the beginning of

the third century; and the state thus became the richer by numbers of

peaceable, law-abiding, and conscientious citizens, who, far from placing

difficulties in its way, were pillars of order and peace in society. The

fact that the Christians were remarkable for morality was acknowledged by

Galen, the famous physician, as early as the reign of Marcus Aurelius.

Thus, by abandoning her attitude of uncompromising repudiation of the

“world,” the church developed into a force that made for public order.

(3) There was nothing in Christian doctrine, considered on its merits,

that either was dangerous to the state or was bound to be judged

dangerous by it, except its exclusiveness. The utterances of Christians

concerning Christ their “king” might, indeed, have a revolutionary sound;

but the fact that they were harmless was soon patent to all observers.

It was not what Christianity taught but what it precluded--tolerance

of other religions and the worship of the emperors--that roused

well-grounded objections. For the rest, Christian doctrine showed

a double face, so to speak, to the Greeks and Romans. Its teaching

concerning God, the world, the creation, divine providence, immortality,

and the freedom, dignity, and responsibility of man, was both sublime

and akin to the loftiest intuitions of the honoured philosophers of

old; but mixed up with it was much that sounded to them like myth or

fable, or seemed actually repulsive. Such, above all, was the history of

Christ (his birth of a virgin, miracles, crucifixion, and ascension).

Ordinary Christians laid stress upon the latter element, and hence their

religion appeared “outlandish,” absurd, and full of lies. After the

time of Hadrian, however, there arose men who expounded and brought to

light the philosophico-religious element in Christianity,--monotheism

more particularly,--and endeavoured to remove the offence excited by

the history and worship of Christ by conceiving of him as the corporeal

manifestation of the _Logos_, the existence and operation of which was

recognised by many of the Greeks. At the same time they endeavoured to

force their opponents to accept the facts of his history by demonstrating

them to be the fulfilment of prophecy; for that which has been prophesied

is brought about by God himself, and human criticism must keep silent in

face thereof.

During the course of the second century Christian doctrine did not

abandon its peculiar character, but it assimilated more and more the

ideas of Greek philosophy and so rendered itself more intelligible. At

the beginning of the third century a great Greek philosopher testified

of Origen, the most eminent teacher of the church, that concerning God

and the world he thought like a Greek; the philosopher only deplored the

intermixture of alien fables. When this same Origen is invited to lecture

upon immortality before the queen-mother at Antioch, when another doctor

of the church corresponds with an empress upon religious questions, and

the emperor Alexander Severus listens with admiring attention to the

words of Christ, we cannot but see how “doctrine” is becoming by degrees

a connecting link between Hellenism and Christianity. Such a fact could

not be devoid of consequences as regards the relations between state and

church, for no state can permanently maintain a hostile attitude towards

a spiritual movement which is held in high esteem by large bodies of its

citizens.

(4) Nor must literature be ignored in this connection. Christianity was

never altogether without literature, nay, rather, it possessed from the

outset a literary work of the highest rank in the Old Testament, of which

it had usurped possession. But its title to ownership was contested by

the Jews and the heathen, and moreover early Christians produced the

impression that they were unlettered folk. This made their claims appear

singularly presumptuous and unjustifiable. But the beginning of the

second century witnessed a change; the Christians, who at first would

have nothing to do with the scribbling art--for why should one write if

the end is at hand?--began to make use of this method.

Even in the first century brief writings, gospels, epistles, and

apocalypses, had been drawn up for the edification of the congregation,

but, being regarded as _memorabilia_ to keep the truth in remembrance and

in a measure as a gift of the Holy Ghost, they differed in plan and style

from what was known as “literature.” Now, however, works began to be

composed in which Christianity was endued with the garment of literature.

Between the years 140 and 170 the smaller Christian party which is known

as the Gnostic party all at once began to avail itself of every literary

form, scientific monograph, commentary, systematic statement, scientific

dialogue, didactic epistle, polemic, historical description, the novel,

the tale, the ode, the hymn, etc. The great church, less apt and more

cautious, gave place to this development slowly and hesitatingly. She was

fully conscious of her responsibility; she was not blind to the lurking

danger--the danger, that is, of the profanation of religion; nevertheless

she gradually admitted one literary form after another, until, at the

beginning of the third century, she also had a Christian literature,

with every means of expression that Greek art and learning had created

at command. But the fact that she was thus equipped with literary forms

could not but have some bearing on the relations between state and

church, for no state can persist in regarding a movement which has taken

literature into its service as a negligible quantity. Through the medium

of literature it influences all political conditions, and in so far as

the state itself is the exponent of culture, and not merely of law and

authority, such a spiritual movement becomes a part of it by the mere

fact of its literary existence.

(5) Though public worship is essentially esoteric and the private concern

of any particular religion, yet we must here take its development into

consideration. As long as Christian worship consisted only in homely

prayers, rude psalmody, and preaching, and in the simple celebration of

the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, it differed so widely from other

forms of worship that the adversaries of Christianity did not regard

it as worship at all. A few Greeks, it is true, were impressed by this

purely spiritual worship, but the great multitude despised it. They

saw no images, and consequently concluded that the Christians were

“atheists”; they saw no priests, and felt that their worship lacked

legitimate authority, solemnity, and dignity; they saw no sacrifice,

and consequently doubted its efficacy with the Deity. Many of them held

that the Christians had other religious services which they carefully

concealed from other men, and that there they exhibited the secret

“Sacra,” held wild orgies, and feasted at horrible banquets. There were,

as a matter of fact, a few small Christian communities which practised

evil rites in secret. But it is unlikely that these constituted the

starting-point of the vile aspersions cast upon all Christians; they

arose rather from the evil tendency, prevalent in all ages, to regard

adherents of an alien faith as persons of evil life and to say the worst

that can be said concerning both them and their assemblies. The populace

takes every religion which differs from its own and which it does not

understand for devil worship.

This view of Christian worship underwent no great change in the second

century, but towards the end of that period the preliminary signs of

change set in, and the development of Christian worship met the change

halfway. Three great alterations were made in the services, and brought

it nearer to the comprehension of the Græco-Roman mind: (1) after _circa_

190 a separate class of priests arose (under that title) in the Christian

church; (2) the Lord’s Supper was elaborated into a solemn sacrificial

rite; (3) the Lord’s Supper and certain other acts of public worship

were invested with the glamour of mysteries. By these developments,

which are to be accounted for by the unconscious influence of the world

around, Christian worship approximated to the ceremonials of the Greeks

and Romans. The absence of image worship, it is true, still marked the

distinction between them, but there was no lack of pictures of saints

and symbols of holy things. Already there began to grow up about the

sacramental elements, the water of baptism, the sign of the cross, etc.,

a superstition second to none of the fancies of the heathen, and the

sensuous element steadily encroached upon the spiritual. These changes

were likewise bound to exercise a certain though indirect influence on

the relations between state and church, the Christian religion adapted

itself to conditions in which it could act upon the widest possible

circle, and in the process modified the exclusiveness it had resolved to

maintain.

(6) But perhaps the point best worth noticing is the way in which, in

spite of persecution, the Christian estimate of the state grew more

favourable in the course of the second century--not indeed in the

whole body, by a long way, but among the most influential teachers. It

is true that the suspicion that the Roman Empire was the kingdom of

antichrist never wholly died away, and that it still came to the surface

occasionally; but a succession of admirable emperors--Trajan, Hadrian,

Pius, and Marcus Aurelius--made a profound impression upon Christians,

and the world-wide monarchy of which Augustus had laid the foundations

bore the aspect of peace, and hence of a fulfilment of the divine will.

Justin was convinced--as was even Tertullian--that the “good” emperors

could not have been and were not unfriendly to Christians; both believed

that none but the wicked were really the adversaries of the Christian

religion, and that nothing but better information was required to make

the emperors extend toleration to their faith. It is possible that even

Luke had a dim sense of a certain solidarity between the empire and

Christianity, between Augustus and Christ; the apologists of the age of

the Antonines were more decided in their utterances, the most decided

of all being Bishop Melito of Sardis. In the _Apology for Christianity_

which he dedicates to Marcus Aurelius, he writes:

“This our philosophy did indeed first flourish among an alien people. But

when it began to prosper in the provinces of thy empire under the rule

of thy mighty predecessor Augustus it brought a rich blessing upon thy

empire in singular wise. For from that time forth the Roman Empire hath

ever increased in greatness and glory, whereof thou art and wilt be the

desired ruler, even as thy son also, if thou wilt protect this philosophy

which began under Augustus and hath grown with the growth of the empire,

and which thy forefathers likewise held in honour among other religions.

And the strongest proof that our religion hath arisen together with the

monarchy so happily begun and for the benefit of the same is supplied by

the fact that since the reign of Augustus the latter hath been smitten

by no calamity, but on the contrary, all things have but augmented the

fame and glory thereof, according to the desires of all men. The only

emperors who, led away by malicious men, strove to cry down our religion

were Nero and Domitian, and from their time forward calumnious falsehoods

concerning the Christians have been propagated abroad by the evil custom

of the common people, who believe all rumours without examination.”

We read these words with amazement, for they imply nothing less

than an assertion that the empire and the Christian religion are

fellow-institutions. God himself, so this bishop teaches, joined them

together, for he has brought them into being at the same time as

brethren, as it were; and to Christianity is due the greatness and glory

of the monarchy! True, we must not forget that these are the words of

an apologist, and of an Asiatic apologist to boot--and emperor worship

flourished in Asia more than elsewhere; but the fact that he should

have gone so far in his bold and flattering historical speculation is

in the highest degree remarkable. “God,” “Saviour,” “Prince of Peace,”

were titles bestowed upon the emperor in Asia, and his appearance was

there spoken of as an epiphany of the Deity. Hence Melito deduced the

conclusion that a “pre-established harmony” existed between the emperor

and Christ, to whom these same titles were applied. His “philosophy of

history” was an augury of the future.

We have seen that down to the reign of the emperor Alexander Severus the

church approximated to the state along every line of development; but

in practical life the two were still remote from each other. The state

firmly upheld the opinion that it was impossible, on principle, to extend

toleration to the intolerant Christian religion--though many governors

and some emperors tolerated it tacitly; while the church was still far

from taking Melito’s idea seriously.

III

In the seventy years that elapsed between the death of the emperor

Alexander Severus and the rise of Constantine, the affairs of the church

continued to develop in the same direction as they had taken during the

preceding century. This I shall again proceed to prove from (1) its

constitution, (2) life, (3) doctrine, (4) literature, (5) worship, and

(6) its estimate of the state.

(1) The political organisation of the church attained its complete

development, and the result was a structure so stable, homogeneous, and

comprehensive that no other association within the empire could vie with

it. While the framework of the state grew looser and looser, and the

several parts began to exhibit symptoms of falling apart, the edifice of

the church grew steadily firmer and stronger. The bishops, as successors

of the Apostles, everywhere concentrated the power in their own hands

and suppressed all other forms of authority; the church became an

episcopal church. But the bishops were not only united among themselves

by provincial synods, they kept up an active and intimate correspondence

throughout the whole empire by means of letters and emissaries, and even

at this time all matters of importance were settled by common consent.

If we take the provincial synods as corresponding to the diets of the

provinces, the organisation of the church had advanced a step beyond

the latter. As early as the second half of the third century synods

were held at Rome to which bishops came from every part of Italy, and

sixty years before the Council of Nicæa a synod sat at Antioch to which

bishops flocked from all the countries between the Halys and the Nile.

Thus the episcopal confederation which ruled the Christian communities

was a state within a state. The fact could not be hidden from the chiefs

of the state. Under Maximinus Thrax the bishops had borne the brunt of

persecution; Decius is reported to have said that he could sooner endure

a rival emperor in Rome than a Christian bishop; and the persecutions of

Gallus, Valerian, Diocletian, Galerius, and Maximinus Daza were directed

in the first instance against the bishops. Gallienus and Aurelian

addressed letters to the bishops, the former to those of Egypt, the

latter to those of Syria, and thus made it plain that they were well

aware of the authoritative position of the bishops in the churches.

More than this, Aurelian appreciated the value of the episcopate which

had Rome for its centre as a conservative and patriotic element in the

state; for when a quarrel was raging at Antioch as to the ecclesiastical

party to which the church buildings, and consequently the church

property, belonged of right, he ignored the theoretical disqualifications

of the church before the law and decided that possession was due to that

party which was “in epistolary correspondence with the bishops of Italy

and the city of Rome.” That is to say, he was already using the church

to reinforce the Roman spirit in the East. But what warrant had he to

interfere? Thus much: the disputant parties in the church had themselves

applied to him to decide their quarrel. Thus, forty years before the time

of Constantine the church had appealed to the emperor to arbitrate in a

question of canon law, and the emperor had practically acknowledged the

existence of the church and its value as a pillar of imperial authority.

If, in addition to this, we consider that the church already possessed

buildings, land, and property in every province of the empire; that the

clergy, in the large towns, at least, were very numerous and represented

a strictly organised scale of hierarchical degrees; that by their

assistance the bishops directed and superintended all the affairs of

the communities in even the most trivial details; that each community

was likewise an effective organisation for the relief of the poor; and,

finally, that in many provinces the country districts were overspread

by a close network of provincial bishoprics and parishes, we shall no

longer be surprised that even the emperor Alexander regarded the system

of church government with envious eyes.

The civil and military system of the empire was falling into decay,

the legions were permanent centres of revolution, the generals born

pretenders; but the _milites Christi_ were everywhere united in compact

squadrons, and, though many internal dissensions might prevail amongst

these troops, they confronted the state as a single army. The state

had no other alternative than to try and destroy this army, as Decius,

Valerian, Diocletian, and Maximinus Daza would fain have done, or to

enter into alliance with it, as Constantine did. After the middle

of the third century a policy of _laissez-aller_ or weak toleration

was an impossibility. The church seems also to have been numerically

strong--though this is a point which has not been exhaustively examined

as yet. As early as the year 251 the Roman bishop Cornelius wrote:

“Besides the one bishop, there are at Rome forty-six priests, seven

deacons, seven sub-deacons, forty-two acolytes, fifty-two exorcists,

lectors, and ostiarii, and more than fifteen hundred widows and needy

persons, all of whom are maintained by the grace and goodness of the

Lord.”

(2) During the last decades of the third century Christian life underwent

a virtual amalgamation with that of the world. The Christian who desired

to live a life apart from the world became a member of a distinct class,

the ascetics, or withdrew into the desert; the rest--_i.e._, the vast

majority, had come to terms with the world. There was no class, from

senators to artisans, in which Christians were not to be found, and in

each class they fulfilled the obligations of their station. They were,

indeed, bound to eschew certain callings (_e.g._, municipal appointments,

which were all too closely bound up with “idolatry,” the theatrical

profession, etc.), but the admonitions and penalties which were

promulgated and denounced against the infringement of these prohibitions

show that they were not always regarded. Certain facts, such as that, in

the year 255, a Christian bishop in Spain was at the same time a member

of a pagan society and had his children interred in the burying-ground of

the said society; that a Syrian presbyter was director of the imperial

purple-dye factory at Tyre; that a metropolitan bishop of Antioch was a

_ducenarius_; that not a few of the clergy engaged in trade and travelled

to the annual fairs--give us a clear insight into the amalgamation of

Christian life with the life of the world. And it is very significant

that Origen, in his pamphlet against Celsus, draws a comparison between

Christian and municipal communities in order to commend the moral

advantage of the former, and merely demands an admission of their

superiority. That is, he insists on a difference of degree only, and

refrains from contrasting the Christian communities with the municipal

communities, like light with darkness.

Thus Christianity was no longer separated from the “world” in practical

life, as every persecution made abundantly plain, for at first the

number of apostates always exceeded that of confessors. The Christians

only gathered strength as the persecutions proceeded. They were

practically “exclusive” no longer, except in matters of religion in

the strict sense of the word. Why should not the state tolerate them?

The malicious aspersions on their moral character had died away into

silence. Was it not madness on the part of the government to continue

to persecute people, who were more conscientious and peaceable citizens

than many others, and did not disturb the organisation and functions of

public life? If they would not give up their exclusive faith, then the

government must give them leave to hold it--a way out of the difficulty

so simple that it would have been adopted long before the time of

Constantine if the Christians, on their part, had not stipulated for

certain conditions. Their God was not to be merely tolerated, he was to

reign alone in the sphere of belief. With the world they had already come

to terms.

(3) With regard to doctrine, the astounding labours of Origen brought

the preparatory work of earlier Christian theologians to a kind of

conclusion in the East; in the West, doctrine and learning never played

more than a subordinate part. Origen worked the doctrines of Christianity

up into a religious system which was able to vie with the systems of

the neo-Platonists and give them battle upon equal terms. His schools

at Alexandria and Cæsarea were attended by even pagan young men, and

continued to flourish after his death; his pupils and their pupils

occupied the episcopal sees of the most important cities. It was no

longer possible to esteem Christianity a religion for mechanics, slaves,

and old women. The Christian “mythology” which gave so much offence was

not actually altered, but it was spiritualised by the application of

the allegoric method. In this form the majority of philosophers and men

of culture found it endurable; for they were accustomed to employ the

allegoric method in the interpretation of their own religious traditions,

and to transmute base images and repulsive tales into sublime conceptions

and the history of ideas. Even the solemn confession of Jesus Christ

was so expressed by philosophical bishops that it sounded like a brief

philosophical dissertation.

Strictly speaking, there were only three points on which Christian

dogma differed essentially from the neo-Platonic which was then in the

ascendant; the former taught the creation of the world in time, the

incarnation of the _Logos_, and the resurrection of the flesh; the

latter rejected all these three doctrines. Nevertheless the pupils of

Origen conceived of these theological propositions in such wise that

the assertion was very like a denial, and they made common cause with

the neo-Platonists in their contest with the dualistic-pessimistic

school of philosophy. Christian philosophy was in the mid-current of the

intellectual movement, and it was therefore a singular anachronism that

the state could not as yet bring itself to place those who professed it

upon the same footing as other citizens.

(4) The literature produced and read by Christians was by this time

hardly to be distinguished from literature in general. It differed only

in name; the spirit was the same, if we leave out of consideration the

texts of Scripture which the Christians interwove in their books. The

legends of Apostles and Martyrs took the place of the old stories of

gods and heroes, and adopted from the latter whatever element of fiction

they could make serve their turn. The forms of epistolary and literary

correspondence had already won full acceptance among Christians; their

dedications, plots, titles, and headings were those of pagan literature.

In this last connection we note particularly how ceremonious the

“brethren” have become. Finally, educated Christians were familiar with

the whole body of profane scholastic literature, derived their culture

from it and used it for example and quotation. The shoot of Christian

literature had been grafted on the stock of Hellenism, and the sap of it

streamed through the new branch.

(5) With regard to public worship we note the following changes during

the sixty years before the time of Constantine. In the first place the

ritual became more solemn and mysterious; the prayers more studied and

rhetorical; symbols and symbolic acts were multiplied; and secondly,

there was an increased tendency to meet halfway the polytheistic leanings

which swayed the Christian masses. This is indicated, on the one hand, by

the constantly increasing importance attached to “intercessors” (angels,

saints, and martyrs) both in public worship and in private life; and, on

the other, by the “naturalisation” and differentiation of religious rites

after the manner of pagan ceremonials. An observer watching a Christian

religious service about the year 300 would hardly have realised that

these Christians were monotheists, and in words proudly professed their

monotheism and spiritual worship. Except the bloody sacrifice, they had

adopted almost every part and form of pagan ritual ceremonial; and, in

fact, the bloody sacrifice was not lacking, for the death of Christ and

the celebration of the Lord’s Supper were dealt with in materialistic

fashion as bloody sacrifices. They were fond of appealing to the Old

Testament to warrant the innovations, and in virtue of this appeal nearly

the whole pagan system of worship could be dragged into the church.

Chapels were dedicated to angels, saints, and martyrs and decorated on

their festivals; a habit grew up of sleeping in churches or chapels

in the expectation of holy dreams or miraculous cures; holydays were

multiplied and differentiated more and more; superstitious ceremonies,

usually associated with the holy cross or consecrated bread, were woven

into the tenor of ordinary life; nor were charms in the name of Jesus or

of holy men, nor even amulets wanting; wakes and banquets for the dead

were celebrated; the relics of saints were collected and adored, etc.

What more was lacking to complete the analogy with heathen cults? Was not

a sagacious Roman statesman bound to confess that this church, with the

form of divine worship it had adopted, met every religious need? And how

then could he fail to wish that the senseless state of war that prevailed

between state and church should come to an end? A monotheistic form of

doctrine, combined with a worship so diversified, so adapted to every

need--no better device could possibly be invented.

(6) In considering the church’s estimate of the state there are two

points of importance to be observed. In the first place we note that

Christians now began to profess that those emperors who had not shown

active hostility towards the church, or whose personal piety had borne

a certain kindred likeness to that of Christians, had really been

Christians in secret. Bishop Dionysius of Alexandria (about 260 A.D.)

merely repeats an opinion widely received when he states that Alexander

Severus and Philip the Arab were Christians; of Philip it was even

reported that he had on one occasion done penance at the bidding of a

bishop.

Such legends are eloquent; they disclose the daring wishes of the

Christians and show that they no longer thought the empire and

Christianity incompatible. This is likewise evident from the fact that

this same Dionysius does not shrink from applying a Messianic prophecy in

the Old Testament to the emperor Valerian. Gallienus had cancelled his

father’s writ for the persecution of Christians, and Dionysius therefore

applies to him the prophecy of Isaiah, and styles him, moreover, “our

sanctified emperor, well-pleasing in God’s sight.” This is the very

language which Christian bishops used of Constantine sixty years later.

Secondly, it is a significant token of change that Origen, in his great

work against Celsus, written towards the end of his life, in the reign

of the emperor Philip, expressed the hope that by gradual advances

Christianity would attain to victory in this world. This is the exact

opposite of what primitive Christians had believed and hoped. Origen

could not have put the anticipation into words, unless, in spite of all

the differences which still subsisted between state and church, these two

great powers had drawn considerably nearer to each other. At bottom the

only question was that of the removal of “misunderstandings”; in actual

fact, nothing blocked the way to the conclusion of peace except the

church’s demand not for mere toleration but for exclusive recognition.

IV

In the foregoing pages we have shown how the church, as it developed,

drew nearer to the state; all that now remains to be done is to point out

how, in the second century, and still more in the third, the state, on

its part, drew nearer to the Christian religion and to the church. I will

confine myself to a few suggestive indications.

(1) During the imperial period the Roman state wielded no real influence

upon the religious life of the citizens of its domains, except by

means of the worship of the emperors; the other Roman cults were of

local importance only, and were perpetually being thrust into the

background by alien religions. Under these circumstances the state had

made an attempt to develop emperor worship into the actual universal

religion of the empire. Sagacious statesmen and religious politicians

were, however, constrained to own that this cult, the adoration of the

_secunda majestas_, was not enough. The state accordingly had recourse

to the expedient of officially recognising as many alien religions as

it possibly could (indeed, it was in a manner forced to accord them

recognition), in order that these alien religions might not constitute a

barrier between it and its subjects. By this means there gradually arose

a medley and diversity of religions in the empire which was bewildering

and rendered a sound religious policy impossible.

A single, new, universal religion was the crying need of the hour. It

seemed that this need might be met in various ways. Elagabalus, Alexander

Severus, and Maximinus Daza were the emperors who tried to strike out a

fresh line before the time of Constantine. Elagabalus wished to do this

by exalting one Syrian divinity to the position of Supreme God of the

empire and giving a subordinate place to all other cults; Alexander, by

endeavouring to discover the common element in all religious doctrines

and forms of worship and uniting them in peaceful conjunction (as all,

at bottom, meaning the same thing); Maximinus Daza by making regulations

for the administrative union of all the religions and cults of a single

province under one high priest appointed by the state, and for the

control of these priests by the civil government. These were all attempts

to create a new church, and an established church to boot, and must all

be regarded as preliminaries to Constantine’s achievement.

A certain bias towards monotheism was involved in the case of Elagabalus

and Alexander; towards an oriental monotheism in the former. Diocletian,

indeed, attempted once more to make the old Roman religious system serve

the purpose; but as he had placed the political administration and

government of the empire on an entirely new basis, and introduced a new

oriental and despotic system after the dissolution of the ancient state,

his reactionary religious policy was a grave error. It was foredoomed

to utter failure--the new state could not possibly rest upon the scanty

foundations of the old cults; and Constantine, who witnessed its

collapse, drew from it the only correct inference. The new basis of the

state must be a monotheistic religion--an oriental monotheism. So much

the third century had taught.

(2) The Roman state approximated to Christianity and the church by a

steady process of levelling up from within and by its transformation

from a Roman state into a state of provinces. Caracalla bestowed the

rights of Roman citizenship on the inhabitants of all the provinces;

the influence of the old Roman aristocracy steadily declined, the state

became really cosmopolitan. But the church was cosmopolitan likewise;

indeed, Christianity was at bottom the only really universal religion. It

was not bound up with Judaism, like the religion of the Old Testament;

nor with Egypt, like Isis-worship; nor with Persia, like Mithras-worship;

it had shaken itself free from all national elements. Hence every step by

which the state lost something of its exclusively Roman character brought

it nearer to the church.

(3) The legislation begun by Nerva and Trajan and continued by the

Antonines and the emperors of the first half of the third century under

the guidance of great jurists marked an enormous advance in the sphere

of law. The Stoic ideas of the “rights of man” and the leavening of law

by morality were introduced into legislation and operated by countless

wholesome ordinances. By this means the state met halfway the feeling

which prevailed in the church as a matter of principle. By the beginning

of the fourth century there were but few points in Roman civil law to

which the church (which, it must be owned, had somewhat lowered its

moral standard) could fairly take objection, and many, on the other hand,

which it hailed with joyful assent. Thus the development of Roman law

must be recognised as a preliminary step to the amalgamation of state and

church.

(4) At first sight it seems as though after the middle of the third

century the state had met the church in a far more hostile spirit and had

therefore been far less capable of appreciating it than in the preceding

epoch. But although it is true that the systematic persecution of the

church first began under Decius, yet the conclusion that therefore

the state cannot have appreciated the church does not hold good in

fact. Rather, the persecutions of Decius and Valerian prove, as has

been suggested before, that these emperors realised the danger the old

political system implied in the existence of the church more clearly than

their predecessors had done. They accordingly endeavoured to extirpate

the church, as Diocletian’s co-emperor did likewise. But these attempts

must be regarded as desperate and (with the exception of the last

named) short-lived experiments. During the early years of the reign of

Valerian and from 260 to 302 the church enjoyed almost absolute peace

within the empire; and, above all, the imperial government recognised

the importance of the bishops and the ecclesiastical hierarchy. This is

proved not only by the persecutory edicts, but, as has been said above,

by peaceful acts. Gallienus and Aurelian wrote letters to the bishops,

and the latter even tried by peaceful means to use their influence to

strengthen Roman dominion; nay, Maximinus Daza actually attempted to

copy the constitution of the church and to organise the pagan system of

worship in similar fashion. Under the circumstances it was much simpler

to ally the hierarchy of the church itself with the state than to make

any such attempt. That the strength of the church lay in the hierarchy

the despots had long recognised. Accordingly as soon as he had decided in

favour of Christianity, Constantine joined hands with the bishops. He not

only joined hands with them, but he honoured them and bestowed privileges

upon them, for he was anxious to secure their power for the state. His

success was immediate; the hierarchy put itself--unreservedly, we may

say--at his disposal when once he had set the cross upon his standard.

Thus the state within the state was abolished; the strongest political

force then existent, to wit, the church, was made the cornerstone of

the state. Both parties, the emperor and the bishops, were equally well

pleased; history seldom has a conclusion of peace like this to record,

in which both contracting parties broke forth into rejoicings. And both

were fully justified in their rejoicing, for a thing for which a way had

been slowly made ready now had come to light; the empire gained a strong

support and the church was delivered from an undignified position, in

which she could not avail herself freely of the forces at her disposal.

The church of the fourth century not only accomplished much more than the

church of the period between 250 and 325, but she brought forth men of

greater distinction and more commanding character.

[Illustration]

BRIEF REFERENCE-LIST OF AUTHORITIES BY CHAPTERS

[The letter [a] is reserved for Editorial Matter]

CHAPTER XXIX.

[b] GEORG WEBER, _Allgemeine Weltgeschichte_.

[c] VICTOR GARDTHAUSEN, _Augustus und seine Zeit_.

[d] JOACHIM MARQUARDT (in collab. with Theodor Mommsen), _Römische

Staatsverwaltung_.

[e] CHARLES MERIVALE, _A History of the Romans under the Empire_.

CHAPTER XXX.

[b] F. C. SCHLOSSER, _Weltgeschichte für das Deutsche Volk_.

[c] GEORG WEBER, _op. cit._

[d] EDUARD MEYER, _Untersuchungen über die Schlacht im Teutoberger Walde_.

[e] CAIUS VELLEIUS PATERCULUS, _Compendium of the History of Rome_

(translated from the Latin by J. S. Watson).

[f] FLORUS, _Epitome of Roman History_ (translated from the Latin by J.

S. Watson).

[g] CORNELIUS TACITUS, _Annales_.

CHAPTER XXXI.

[b] VICTOR GARDTHAUSEN, _op. cit._

[c] GEORG WEBER, _op. cit._

[d] KARL HOECK, _Römische Geschichte vom Verfall der Republik bis zur

Vollendung der Monarchie unter Constantin_.

[e] _Monumentum Ancyranum._

[f] JOHANN HEINRICH KARL FRIEDRICH HERMANN SCHILLER, _Geschichte der

römischen Kaiserzeit bis auf Theodosius den Grossen_.

[g] CHARLES MERIVALE, _op. cit._

[h] B. G. NIEBUHR, _The History of Rome_ (translated from the German by

J. C. Hare, C. Thirlwall, W. Smith, and L. Schmitz).

[i] H. TAINE, _Essai sur Tite Live_.

CHAPTER XXXII.

[b] GEORG WEBER, _op. cit._

[c] CAIUS SUETONIUS TRANQUILLUS, _The Lives of the Twelve Cæsars_

(translated from the Latin by A. Thomson).

[d] THOMAS ARNOLD, _History of the Later Roman Commonwealth_.

[e] VICTOR GARDTHAUSEN, _op. cit._

CHAPTER XXXIII.

[b] VICTOR DURUY, _Histoire Romaine jusqu’à l’invasion des barbares_.

[c] CAIUS SUETONIUS TRANQUILLUS, _op. cit._

[d] CORNELIUS TACITUS, _op. cit._

[e] THOMAS KEIGHTLEY, _The History of Rome to the End of the Republic_.

[f] CHARLES MERIVALE, _op. cit._

[g] CAIUS VELLEIUS PATERCULUS, _op. cit._

[h] FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS, _The Works of Josephus_ (translated from the Greek

by William Whiston).

[i] HERENNIUS BYBLIUS PHILON, Περὶ τῆς Βασιλείας.

[j] DION-CASSIUS COCCEIANUS, Ῥωμαϊκή ἱστορία.

[k] PLINIUS SECUNDUS, _Historia Naturalis_.

[l] LUCIUS ANNÆUS SENECA, _Apocolocyntosis_.

[m] G. F. HERTZBERG, _Geschichte der Römer im Alterthum_.

[n] TARVER, _Tiberius_.

CHAPTER XXXIV.

[b] VICTOR DURUY, _op. cit._

[c] CORNELIUS TACITUS, _op. cit._

[d] CAIUS SUETONIUS TRANQUILLUS, _op. cit._

[e] CHARLES MERIVALE, _op. cit._

[f] THOMAS KEIGHTLEY, _op. cit._

CHAPTER XXXV.

[b] OLIVER GOLDSMITH, _History of Rome_.

[c] CAIUS SUETONIUS TRANQUILLUS, _op. cit._

[d] F. C. SCHLOSSER, _op. cit._

[e] THOMAS KEIGHTLEY, _op. cit._

[f] DION-CASSIUS COCCEIANUS, _op. cit._

[g] PLINIUS, _op. cit._

[h] WILLIAM GELL (in collab. with John P. Gandy), _Pompeiana: the

Topography, Edifices, and Ornaments of Pompeii_.

[i] CORNELIUS TACITUS, _Historiæ_.

[j] ARTHUR MURPHY, in the Appendix to Book V of his translation of _The

Works of Cornelius Tacitus_.

[k] CHARLES MERIVALE, _op. cit._

[l] FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS, _op. cit._

[m] G. W. BOTSFORD, _A History of Rome_.

[n] V. DURUY, _op. cit._

CHAPTER XXXVI.

[b] OLIVER GOLDSMITH, _op. cit._

[c] VICTOR DURUY, _op. cit._

[d] J. ERNEST RENAN, _Histoire des origines du Christianisme_.

[e] EDWARD GIBBON, _The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman

Empire_.

[f] F. C. SCHLOSSER, _op. cit._

[g] DION-CASSIUS COCCEIANUS, _op. cit._

[h] XIPHILINUS, Ἐπιτωμή τῆς Δίωνος Νικαέως ῥωμαϊκῆς ἱστορίας.

[i] R. W. BROWN, _History of Roman Classical Literature_.

[j] PLINIUS, _op. cit._

[k] R. BURN, _Old Rome: a Handbook to the Ruins of the City and the

Campagna_.

[l] CHARLES MERIVALE, _op. cit._

[m] G. F. HERTZBERG, _op. cit._

[n] J. B. BURY, _Student’s Roman Empire_.

CHAPTER XXXVII.

[b] JEAN-FRANÇOIS DENIS, _Histoire des théories et des idées morales de

l’antiquité_.

[c] EDWARD GIBBON, _op. cit._

[d] BENJAMIN AUBE, _Les Chrétiens dans l’empire romain_.

[e] DION-CASSIUS COCCEIANUS, _op. cit._

[f] EPICTETUS, in Arrian’s Διατριβαὶ Ἐπικτὴτου and Ἐγχειρίδιον Ἐπικτήτου.

[g] COCCEIANUS DION CHRYSOSTOM, Δόγοι περὶ βασιλείας.

[h] SENECA, _Opera_.

[i] MARCUS AURELIUS, Μάρκου Ἀντωνίνου το αὐτοκρατορος τῶν εἰς ἐαυτὸν

Βιβλία ιβ (translated from the Greek by Jeremy Collier).

[j] PLINIUS MINOR, _Epistolæ_.

[k] CORNELIUS TACITUS, _op. cit._

CHAPTER XXXVIII.

[b] J. ERNEST RENAN, _op. cit._

[c] CHARLES MERIVALE, _op. cit._

[d] AULUS GELLIUS, _Noctes Atticæ_.

[e] M. L. G. BOISSIER, _L’Opposition sous les Césars_.

[f] JOACHIM MARQUARDT, _op. cit._

[g] A. BOUCHE-LECLERCQ, _Manuel des institutions romaines_.

[h] M. L. G. BOISSIER, _La religion romaine d’Auguste aux Antonins_.

[i] J. Y. SHEPPARD, _The Fall of Rome and the Rise of New Nationalities_.

[j] H. S. WILLIAMS, _History of the Art of Writing_.

[k] VALERIUS MAXIMUS, _De Factis Dictisque Memorabilibus Libri IX_.

[l] W. A. BECKER, _Gallus, oder römische Scenen aus der Zeit Augusts_.

CHAPTER XXXIX.

[b] G. F. HERTZBERG, _op. cit._

[c] THOMAS KEIGHTLEY, _op. cit._

[d] HERODIANUS, Ἡρωδιανοῦ τῆς μετὰ Μάρκον Βασιλείας ἱστοριῶν βιβλὶα ὀκτώ.

[e] DION-CASSIUS COCCEIANUS, _op. cit._

[f] AUGUSTAN HISTORY (_Historiæ Augustæ Scriptores_).

[g] HENRY FYNES CLINTON, _Fasti Romani_.

[h] ZOSIMUS, _The History of Count Zosimus_ (translated from the Greek).

[i] XIPHILINUS, _op. cit._

[j] J. ERNEST RENAN, _op. cit._

CHAPTER XL.

[b] G. F. HERTZBERG, _op. cit._

[c] THOMAS KEIGHTLEY, _op. cit._

[d] ZOSIMUS, _op. cit._

[e] JOHANNES ZONARAS, Χρονικόν (_Annales_).

CHAPTER XLI.

[b] F. C. SCHLOSSER, _op. cit._

[c] EDWARD GIBBON, _op. cit._

[d] ZOSIMUS, _op. cit._

[e] THOMAS HODGKIN, _Italy and her Invaders_.

CHAPTER XLII.

[b] EDWARD GIBBON, _op. cit._

[c] S. REINHARDT, _Der Perserkrieg des Kaisers Julian_.

[d] AMMIANUS MARCELLINUS, _The Roman History of Ammianus Marcellinus_

(translated from the Latin by C. D. Yonge).

[e] THOMAS KEIGHTLEY, _op. cit._

CHAPTER XLIII.

[b] EDWARD GIBBON, _op. cit._

[c] VICTOR DURUY, _op. cit._

[d] AMMIANUS MARCELLINUS, _op. cit._

[e] THOMAS KEIGHTLEY, _op. cit._

CHAPTER XLIV.

[b] EDWARD GIBBON, _op. cit._

[c] F. C. SCHLOSSER, _op. cit._

CHAPTER XLV.

[b] EDWARD GIBBON, _op. cit._

CHAPTER XLVI.

[b] EDWARD GIBBON, _op. cit._

[c] THOMAS HODGKIN, _Italy and her Invaders_.

[d] JORDANES, _De Getarum origine et rebus gestis_.

CHAPTER XLVII.

[b] T. HODGKIN, article “Vandals,” in the Ninth Edition of the

_Encyclopædia Britannica_.

[c] EDWARD GIBBON, _op. cit._

[d] R. H. WRIGHTSON, _The Sancta Republica Romana_.

[e] EDUARD VON WIETERSHEIM, _Geschichte der Völkerwanderung_.

[f] AMÉDÉE THIERRY, _Récits de l’histoire romaine au cinquème siécle_.

[g] T. HODGKIN, _Italy and her Invaders_.

[h] KURT BREYSIG, _Kulturgeschichte der Neuzeit_.

A GENERAL BIBLIOGRAPHY OF ROMAN HISTORY

BASED CHIEFLY UPON THE WORKS QUOTED, CITED, OR CONSULTED IN THE

PREPARATION OF THE PRESENT WORK; WITH CRITICAL AND BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES

[For convenience of reference, the Byzantine historians are

included here, though their work has to do chiefly with the

period treated in vol. VII. Further notes on many of the Roman

historians may be found above (p. 15), and in vols. V (p. 25)

and VII (p. 1)].

_A. Classical and Later Latin Works_

=Ælianus=, Claudius, Ποικίλη Ἱστορία, edited by Perizonius, Leyden, 1701;

translated from the Greek by A. Fleming, The Variable History of Ælian,

London, 1576. (A biographical notice of this writer has been given in

vol. I, p. 295.)--=Agobardus=, Works, edited by Baluze, Paris, 1666;

edited by Migne, in his Patrologiæ Latine, vol. CIV, Paris, 1844-1855;

edited by Chevallard, Lyons, 1869.--=Ammianus Marcellinus=, Rerum

Gestarum Libri XXXI, edited by Accorsi, Augsburg, 1532, 5 vols.; edited

by Wagner and Erfurdt, Leipsic, 1808, 3 vols.; English translation by C.

D. Yonge, The Roman History of Ammianus Marcellinus, London, 1862.

_Ammianus Marcellinus_, by birth a Syrian Greek, served many

years in the imperial bodyguards. His history covered a period

of 282 years, from the accession of Nerva, 96 A.D., to the

death of Valens, 378 A.D. Of its thirty-one books the last

eighteen have been preserved. These include the transactions

of twenty-five years only, but they are valuable as a source

because of the author’s conscientious effort to be truthful and

of his first-hand knowledge of the events he describes.

=Anastasius=, see Liber Pontificalis.--=Annales Alamannici= (741-779),

founded on Annales Mosellani.--=Annales S. Amandi= (708-810), founded

on Annales Mosellani.--=Annales Fuldenses=, records of the monastery

of Fulda.--=Annales Guelferbytani=, or Wolfenbüttel Codex (741-805),

founded on Annales Mosellani.--=Annales Laurissenses= or =Laureshamenses=

(741-829), composed at Lorsch.--=Annales Maximiani= (710-811), founded on

Annales Mosellani.--=Annales Mettenses=, composed at Metz or Laon about

the end of the tenth century.--=Annales Mosellani= (703-797), composed at

the monastery of St. Martin in Cologne.--=Annales Nazariani= (741-790),

founded on Annales Mosellani.--=Annales Petaviani= (708-799), founded on

Annales Mosellani; original from 717-799.

The foregoing annals of the German monasteries possess varying

historical value. They have all been edited by Pertz, in

Monumenta Germaniæ Historica, Hanover, 1819, in progress.

=Appianus Alexandrinus=, Πωμαϊκὴ ἱστορία, edited by Schweighauser,

Leipsic, 1785, 3 vols.; translated from the Greek by J. D(ancer),“The

History of Appian of Alexandria,” London, 1679. (See Introduction, vol.

V.)--=Apuleius=, Lucius, Metamorphoseon seu de Asino Aureo Libri XI,

edited by Andrew, bishop of Aleria, Rome, 1469; translated from the Latin

by Thomas Tylor, London, 1822; and by Sir G. Head, The Metamorphoses of

Apuleius, London, 1851.--=Augustan History=, Historiæ Augustæ Scriptores

(Ælius Spartianus, Julius Capitolinus, Ælius Lampridius, Vulcatius

Gallicanus, Trebellius Pollio and Flavius Vopiscus), Milan, 1475; Venice,

1489; edited by Casarabon, Paris, 1603; by Salmasius, Paris, 1620; by

Schrevelius, Leyden, 1671; by Jordan and Eyssenhardt, Berlin, 1863. (See

also Dirksen, Paucker and Plew.)

_Augustan History_ is the title given to a series of

biographies of the Roman emperors from Hadrian to Carinus,

ostensibly written by the six authors above mentioned in the

time of Diocletian and Constantine. The most recent research

tends to show that the collection, at least, in the form in

which we have it, is a compilation of the end of the fourth

or beginning of the fifth century and that the authors’

names formerly attached to it are entirely fictitious. The

authenticity of the official documents contained in it is also

questioned. It is, nevertheless, an important, for many facts

almost the only, source of our knowledge of imperial Rome.

=Augustine=, Saint, De Civitate Dei, Paris, 1679-1700: reprint,

1836-1838. Edited by Strange, Cologne, 1850-1851, 2 vols.; by Dombart,

Leipsic, 1877.

* * * * *

=Cæsar=, Caius Julius, Commentarii de bello Gallico; Commentarii de

bello civili, Rome, 1440; edited by Jungerman, Frankfort, 1606; by C.

E. Moberly, with English notes, 1871-1872; 1877; 1882 (translated by

Edmunds); Cæsar’s Commentaries, on the Gallic and Civil Wars, London,

1609 (translated by W. H. McDevitte and W. S. Bohn, London, 1857).

_Julius Cæsar_, who shares with Alexander and Napoleon the

honours of unapproachable military genius, was born on July

12th, B.C. 100, or according to Mommsen, in B.C. 102. His

merits and demerits as a soldier and statesman have been

fully dealt with in volume V. Here note need only be taken

of his celebrated writings--the _Commentaries_--which relate

the history of the first seven years of the Gallic War, and

the progress of the Civil War up to the Alexandrine, and the

main object of which was the justification of the author’s

course in war and in politics. The opening words of _De bello

Gallico_ are often noted as a model of literary perspicuity,

and throughout the whole work there is a rigorous exclusion of

every expression for the use of which no standard authority

could be found. It is the utterance of a man who, knowing

precisely what he means to say, says it with directness and

lucidity. The _Commentaries_ may indeed be regarded as a kind

of high-class classical journalism, written down, as we have

reason to assume, from day to day from the dictation of the

chief actor in the events narrated.

=Capitolinus=, Julius, see Augustan History.--=Cassiodorus=, Senator

Magnus Aurelius, Variarum (Epistolarum) Libri XII; Libri XII De Rebus

Gestis Gothorum, Augsburg, 1533; Paris, 1584; Rouen, 1679, 2 vols.

_Magnus Aurelius Cassiodorus_ (about 480-575 A.D.), although

a scion of a noble Roman family, spent the best part of his

long life in the service of the Gothic kings, and filled the

most important offices under Theodoric and his successors.

In his later years, after retirement to a monastery, he was

no less active as a writer and a protector of learning. His

most important work, _De Rebus Gestis Gothorum_, is preserved

only in the barbarous version of Jordanes. The _Variarum_, a

collection of letters and official documents, forms the best

source of information concerning the kingdom of the Ostrogoths

in Italy.

=Chronicle= of Moissiac (Chronicon Moissiacense), in the Monumenta

Germaniæ Historica, Hanover, 1819-1904, in progress.

The _Chronicle of Moissiac_, which seems to have had its origin

in Aquitaine, is of some value for the history of southern Gaul

in the early part of the ninth century.

=Chronicon Cuspiniani=, Basel, 1552.

These annals, an outgrowth of the consular _fasti_ and more

recently known as _Fasti Vindobonenses_ or _Consularia

Italica_, are important for their accurate chronological data

of the fourth and fifth centuries.

=Cicero=, Marcus Tullius, Orationes (Pro Sex. Roscio Amerino), edited

by Andrew, bishop of Aleria, Rome, 1471; German translation by Klotz,

Leipsic, 1835, 3 vols.; English translation by Wm. Guthrie, London,

1806, 2 vols.; and by C. D. Yonge, London, 1851-1852, 4 vols. Cicero’s

writings, though not primarily historical, furnish valuable material for

the historian.--=Claudian(us)=, Claudius, Opera, Vincenza, 1482; Vienna,

1510; edited by Palmannus, Antwerp, 1571; by Burmann, Amsterdam, 1760;

English translation by A. Hawkins, London, 1817, 2 vols.

_Claudian_ was the last Latin classic poet. He was a native

of Alexandria, but came to Rome about the end of the fourth

century. He enjoyed the patronage of Stilicho, who granted

him wealth and honours, but probably shared his patron’s ruin

in 408. Claudian wrote numerous panegyrical poems, three

historical epics, and many occasional verses. His epics are not

without value as historical sources, as they follow the facts

of history closely.

=Cluverius= (Cluver), Philip, Germania Antiqua, Leyden,

1616.--=Cochtaens=, Joannes, Vita Theodorici regis Ostrogothorum et

Italiæ, annotated by J. Peringskiöld, Stockholm, 1699.--=Codex Carolinus=

(Letters from the Popes to Frankish Kings), edited by Philip Jaffé in his

Monumenta Carolina, Berlin, 1867.

The _Codex Carolinus_, Letters from the Popes to the Frankish

Kings, collected by the order of Charlemagne, is one of the

most important of historical sources.

=Codex Gothanus=, edited by Waitz, in Monumenta Germaniæ, Historica,

Scriptores rerum Langobardicarum et Italicarum, Hanover, 1819, in

progress.

Composed probably about 810, and prefixed to a manuscript of

Lombard laws now in the Ducal Library at Gotha.

=Codex Theodosianus=, Paris, 1686; edited by Hanel in the Corpus Juris

Antejustinia neum, vol. II, Bonn, 1842.

A compilation in the year 438, of the constitutions of the

Roman emperors from Constantine the Great to Theodosius II. It

formed the basis for the Code of Justinian, and is the great

authority for the social and political history of the period.

These decrees with their appendices were officially recognised

in the eastern empire, but in the west they had force only in

an abbreviated version. The original work was in sixteen books,

arranged chronologically by subjects, but at least a third of

the entire work exists only in the abbreviated form.

* * * * *

=Dion Cassius Cocceianus=, Ῥωμαϊκὴ ἱστορία; Latin translation by N.

Leonicenus, Venice, 1526; edited by Leunclavius, Frankfort, 1592; by J.

A. Fabricius and H. S. Reimarus, Hamburg, 1750-1752, 2 vols.; by Sturz,

Leipsic, 1824, 8 vols.; English translation by Manning, The History of

Dion-Cassius, London, 1704, 8 vols.

_Dion Cassius Cocceianus_, born 155 A.D. at Nicæa, in Bithynia,

was a grandson of Dion Chrysostom. He held many official

positions under different Roman emperors from Commodus to

Alexander Severus, but about 230 returned to Nicæa where he

passed the remainder of his life. His great work consists of 80

books, divided into decades. It originally covered the whole

history of Rome from the landing of Æneas in Italy down to 229

A.D., but unfortunately only a small portion of it has come

down to us entire. We have books 36-54 complete, but of all the

rest of the work only fragments and abridgments are extant. It

was compiled with great diligence and judgment, and is one of

the most important sources for the later republic and the first

centuries of the empire. We have had occasion to quote the

abridgment of Xiphilinus.

=Dion Chrysostomos Cocceianus=, λόγοι περὶ βασιλείας, edited by D.

Paravisinus, Milan, 1476; and by Reiske, Leipsic, 1784, 2 vols.

_Dion Chrysostom_ one of the most eminent rhetoricians and

sophists, was born at Prusa, in Bithynia, about 50 A.D. His

first visit to Rome was cut short by an edict of Domitian

expelling all philosophers. After extended travels through

Thrace and Scythia, he returned to Rome in the reign of Trajan,

who showed him marked favour. He died at Rome about 117 A.D.

Eighty of his orations are still extant, all the production of

his later years. They possess only the form of orations, being

in reality essays on moral, political, and religious subjects.

They are distinguished for their refined and elegant style,

being modelled upon the best writers of classic Greece.

=Dionysius Halicarnassensis=, Ῥωμαϊκὴ Ἀρχαιολογία, edited by F. Sylburg,

Frankfort, 1586, 2 vols.; Latin translation by L. Biragus, Treviso, 1480;

translated into English from the Greek by Edward Spelman, under the

title of The Roman Antiquities of Dionysius Halicarnassensis, London,

1758.--=Duchesne=, André, Historiæ Francorum scriptores coetanei ab

ipsius gentis origine ad Philippi IV tempora, Paris, 1636-1649, 5 vols.

* * * * *

=Edictum Theodorici Regis=, in Nivellius’ edition of Cassiodorus, Paris,

1579.--=Eugippius=, Vita Sancti Severini, in vol. I of Kirschengeschichte

Deutschlands, also in vol. I of Auctores Antiquissimi, in the Monumenta

Germaniæ Historica.

_Eugippius_ was abbot of the monastery of St. Severinus in the

sixth century. His work is valuable as a picture of life in the

Roman provinces after the barbarian invasions.

=Eusebius=, ἐκκλησιαστικὴ ἱστορία, edited by Valesius, with Latin

translation, Paris, 1659; edited by Dindorf, Leipsic, 1871; English

translation by Hanmer, 1584; by C. F. Cruse, New York, 1865; Χρόνικόν,

edited by A. Schone, Berlin, 1866; 1875.

_Eusebius_, who has been called the “Father of Church History,”

was born in Palestine about 260 A.D.; died at Cæsarea in 340.

He was made bishop of Cæsarea in 313, and became one of the

leaders of the Arians, and a conspicuous figure in the church

in the time of Constantine. Both his _Ecclesiastical History_

and his _Chronicle_ are important sources.

=Eutropius=, Breviarium Historiæ Romanæ, Rome, 1471; Basel, 1546-1552;

edited by Grosse, Leipsic, 1825; translated from the Latin by J. S.

Watson, under the title of Abridgement of Roman History.

_Flavius Eutropius_, a Latin historian of the fourth century,

was a secretary of Constantine the Great, and accompanied

Julian in his Persian expedition. He wrote an abridgment of

Roman history, in ten books, from the founding of the city

to the accession of Valens, 364 A.D., by whose command it

was composed, and to whom it is inscribed. Its merits are

impartiality, brevity, and clearness, but it possesses little

independent value.

* * * * *

=Fabretti=, Raphael, Corpus Inscriptionum Italicarum, Rome,

1699.--=Fabricius=, Johannes Albert, Bibliotheca Latina, sive Notitia

Auctorum Veterum Latinorum, quorumcunque scripta ad nos pervenerunt,

Hamburg, 1697, 3 vols.; Bibliotheca Latina mediæ et infirmæ ætatis,

Hamburg, 1734-1736, 5 vols.; Bibliotheca Græca, sive Notitia Scriptorum

Veterum Græcorum, quorumcunque Monumenta integra aut fragmenta edita

extant, tum plerorumque ex manuscriptis ac deperditis, Hamburg,

1705-1728, 14 vols.; edited by Harless, 1790-1809.--=Florus=, Lucius

Annæus, Rerum Romanorum Libri IV (Epitome de Gestis Romanorum), Paris,

1471; translated from the Latin by J. S. Watson, Epitome of Roman

History, London, 1861.

The identity of this author is unsettled. The work is of

scarcely any value as a source.

=Frontinus=, Sextus Julius, De Aquæductibus Urbis Romæ Libri II, edited

by Bucheler, Leipsic, 1858.

_Sectus Julius Frontinus_ was governor of Britain from 75-78

A.D. In 97 he was appointed _curator aquæum_. He died about

106. Frontinus was possessed of considerable engineering

knowledge, and is the main authority upon the water system of

ancient Rome.

* * * * *

=Herodianus=, or Herodian, Τῆς μετὰ Μάρκον βασιλείας ἱστοριῶν βιβλία

ὀκτώ, edited by Irmish, Leipsic, 1789-1805, 5 vols.; and by F. A. Wolf,

Halle, 1792.

Born about 170 (?) A.D., died about 240 A.D.; a Greek

historian, resident in Italy, author of a Roman history for the

period 180-238 A.D. (Commodus to Gordian).

=Historia, Miscella=, in Monumenta Germaniæ Historica, Hanover, 1819, in

progress.

A compilation in three parts; the first a version of Eutropius,

ascribed to Paulus Diaconus, the second and third are credited

to Landulf the Wise (eleventh century). It includes extracts

from the annalists as well as from Jordanes and Orosius.

=Hormisdas=, Pope, Epistolæ, in Migne’s Patrologiæ latine, vol. LXIII,

Paris, 1844-1855, 221 vols.

* * * * *

=Isidorus Hispalensis=, Historia Gothorum, Paris, 1580; Rome, 1797-1803,

7 vols., Chronicon, Turin, 1593.

_Isidore_, bishop of Seville, was born 560 A.D. at Carthagena,

or Seville; died at the latter city April 4, 636. He was a man

of extensive scholarship and was zealously concerned for the

maintenance and spread of the learning of classical times. To

this end he compiled his _Originum seu etymologiarum libri

XX_, a sort of encyclopædia of the sciences as known to his

day. His historical works comprise a _Chronicon_, or series

of chronological tables, from the creation to the year 627;

_Historia Gothorum, Vandalorum et Suevorum_.

* * * * *

=Jaffé=, Philip, Monumenta Carolina, Berlin, 1867; Bibliotheca rerum

Germanicarum, Berlin, 1864-1873, 6 vols.; Regesta pontificum Romanorum ad

annum 1198, Leipsic, 1881-1886.--=Jerome=, Saint, De Viris Illustribus,

s. de Scriptoribus ecclesiasticis; in Migne’s Patrologiæ latine,

Paris, 1844-1855; edited by Herding, Leipsic, 1879; Epistolæ, Basel,

1516-1520.--=Jordanes= (Jornandes), De Getarum origine actibusque,

Augsburg, 1515; Paris, 1679; edited by Mommsen, Berlin, 1882; De Regnorum

ac temporum Successione, edited by Grotius, Amsterdam, 1655.

Very little is known of the personal history of Jordanes except

that he was a Goth, perhaps of Alanic descent, that he was a

notary and afterwards became a monk. His _De Getarum origine

actibusque_, largely taken from the lost history of Cassidorus,

is highly important for our knowledge of the Gothic kingdom in

Italy. The other work cited above possesses scarcely any value.

=Josephus=, Flavius, Περὶ τοῦ Ἰουδαϊκοῦ ἢ Ἰουδαϊκῆς ἱστορίας περὶ

ἁλώσεως (History of the Jewish War) and Ἰουδαϊκὴ ἀρχαιολογία (Jewish

Antiquities), Augsburg, 1470; Basel, 1544; edited by Hudson, Oxford,

1720; translated from the Greek by William Whiston, The Works of

Josephus, London, 1737, 2 vols. A biographical note upon this author will

be found in vol. II, p. 232.

* * * * *

=Lambert=, von Hersfeld (or Aschaffenburg), Annales, edited by Hesse,

in vol. V of Monumenta Germaniæ Historica, Scriptores, Hanover, 1819,

in progress.--=Lampridius=, Ælius, see Augustan History.--=Libanius=,

Λόγοι, edited by Reiske, Altenberg, 1791-1797, 4 vols.--=Livius=, Titus,

Annales, Rome, 1469; edited by Drakenborch, Leyden, 1738-1746, 7 vols.;

English translation by Philemon Holland, History of Rome, London, 1600;

English translation, The Romaine History written in Latine, London, 1686,

English translation by D. Spillan, C. Edmunds, and W. A. McDevitte,

London, 1849, 4 vols. (See vol. V, Introduction.)--=Lucanus=, M. Annæus,

Pharsalia, edited by Andrew, bishop of Aleria, Rome, 1469; by C. F.

Weber, Leipsic, 1821-1831; by C. E. Haskins, with English notes, and

introduction by W. E. Heitland, London, 1887.

* * * * *

=Marcellinus=, Comes, Chronikon, Paris, 1696.

_Marcellinus_ was an officer of the court of Justinian in the

sixth century. His chronicle covers the years 379-534 and deals

chiefly with affairs of the Eastern Empire.

=Monumentum Ancyranum=. (This is the title of an inscription preserved

at Ancyra, of which the text has been published by Mommsen, 1865; and

Bergk, 1873, for which see these authors in the third section of the

bibliography, pages 661, 667.) The text also appears in the _Delphin

Classics_, London, 1827.

* * * * *

=Notitia= dignitatum omnium, tam civilium quam militarium, in partibus

orientis et occidentis, edited by E. Bocking, Bonn, 1839-1853.

This work is an official directory and army list of the Roman

Empire, compiled about the end of the fifth century, and was

preserved in a (now lost) Codex Spirensis.

* * * * *

=Olympiodorus=, Ἱστορικοὶ λόγοι, abridgment edited by Ph. Labbé, in his

Eclogæ Historicorum de Rebus Byzantinis, included in D. Hoeschelius’

Excerpta de Legationibus, Paris, 1645.

_Olympiodorus_, a native of Thebes, in Egypt, lived in the

fifth century. His history which is preserved only in the

abridgment of Photius was in 22 books, and dealt with the

Western Empire under Honorius from 407 to 425. It was a

compilation of historical material, rather than a history.

Olympiodorus wrote a continuation of Eunapius, one of the

Byzantine historians.

=Origo Gentis Longobardorum=, edited by F. Bluhme, in Monumenta Germaniæ

Historica, Hanover, 1819, in progress.

The oldest document for the history of the Lombards, prefixed

to the code of King Rothari.

=Orosius=, Paulus, Historiarum adversus Paganos Libri VII: Vienna, 1471;

edited by Havercamp, Leyden, 1738; English translation edited by D.

Barrington and J. R. Foster, with the Anglo-Saxon, by Alfred the Great,

London, 1773.

_Paulus Orosius_, born probably at Tarrayonce in Spain: lived

in the first part of the fifth century, A.D. At the request of

the Bishop of Hippo (St. Augustine) Orosius in early manhood

compiled a history of the world, remembered partly because

Alfred the Great translated it into Anglo-Saxon.

* * * * *

=Panegyrici Veteres= latine, edited by H. J. Arntzenius, Utrecht, 1790;

edited by Bährens, Leipsic, 1874. A collection of eleven complimentary

orations delivered at Rome, in praise of different emperors. While these

orations are notable examples of rhetorical skill, they are naturally

valueless for historical study, being coloured and distorted to suit the

occasion.--=Paterculus=, Caius Velleius, Historiæ Romanæ, ad M. Vinicium

Cos. Libri II, Basel, 1520; Leyden, 1789; (translated by J. S. Watson,

London, 1861).

_Caius Velleius Paterculus_, born about 19 B.C.; died after

30 A.D., contemporary with Augustus and Tiberius. The work of

Paterculus, apparently the only one he ever wrote, appears

to have been written in 30 A.D. The beginning of the work is

wanting, and there is also a portion lost after the eighth

chapter of the first book. It commenced apparently with the

destruction of Troy, and ended with the year 30 A.D.

=Paulus Diaconus=, Historia Langobardorum, edited by Lappenburg, in the

Monumenta Germaniæ Historica, Hanover, 1819, in progress.

_Paulus Diaconus_, “Paul the Deacon,” born about 720-725

A.D.: died at Monte Cassino, Italy, before 800 A.D. The first

important historian of the Middle Ages. His chief works are

a _History of the Lombards_, and a continuation of the Roman

history of Eutropius.

=Philostorgius=, Ἐκκλησιαστική ἱστορία, abstract, edited by J. Godefroi,

Geneva, 1643; by H. Valesius, Paris, 1673.

_Philostorgius_ was born in Borissus, Cappadocia, 358 A.D. His

history of the church, from the heresy of Arius, 300 A.D., to

the accession of Valentinian III, 425 A.D., exists only in an

abstract by Photius. He possessed considerable learning but was

strongly prejudiced in favour of the Arians and Eunomians, and

unsparing in abuse of their opponents.

=Plinius= (Minor), C. Cæcilius Secundus, Epistolæ, Venice, 1485;

Amsterdam, 1734; edited by W. Keil, Leipsic, 1853; 1873; English

translation by W. Melmoth, _The Letters of Pliny the Younger_, 1746; 1878.

_Pliny “The Younger” (Caius Plinius Cæcilius Secundus)_. Born

at Como, Italy, 62 A.D.; died 113. Nephew of the elder Pliny.

He was a consul in 100, and later (111 or 112) governor of

Bithynia and Pontica. He was a friend of Trajan and Tacitus.

His _Epistles_ and a eulogy of Trajan have been preserved. The

most celebrated of his letters is one to Trajan concerning the

treatment of the Christians in his province.

=Plinius= (Major), Secundus C., Historia Naturalis, Venice, 1469; edited

by Sillig, Leipsic, 1831-1836, 5 vols.; edited by D. Detlefsen, Berlin,

1866-1873; 1882, 5 vols.; (translated into English by Philemon Holland,

London), 1601.--=Polybius=, Καθολικὴ, κοινη ἱστορία, Paris, 1609; English

translation by H. Shears, The History of Polybius the Megalopolitan;

containing a General Account of the Transactions of the World, and

Principally of the Roman People, during the First and Second Punick Wars,

London, 1693, 2 vols.; by James Hampton, The General History of Polybius,

London, 1772, 2 vols. For notes on _Polybius_, see the study of the

sources, in volume V.--=Possidius=, Vita Augustini, Rome, 1731; 2nd ed.

Augsburg, 1768.

_Possidius_ or _Possidonius_ was bishop of Calama, in Africa.

He gives an account of the siege of Hippo by the Vandals in 430.

=Prosper Aquitanicus=, Chronicon, edited by LeBrun and Mangeant, Paris,

1711.

_Prosper Aquitanicus_, born in Aquitania, probably in the last

decade of the fourth century. Died at Rome, date unknown. His

Chronicle is in two parts; the first, to the year 378, is an

extract from Eusebius, Jerome, and Augustine; the second, to

455, is original.

* * * * *

=Sallustius=, Caius Crispus, Bellum Catilinarum, Bellum Jugurthinum,

Rome, 1470; edited by W. W. Capes, with English notes, London, 1884;

(translated into English by J. S. Watson, The Conspiracy of Cataline;

The Jugurthine War, London, 1861).--=Salvianus=, of Marseilles, De

Gubernatione Dei, 1530, edited by C. Halm, Berlin, 1878.

_Salvianus_, an accomplished ecclesiastical writer of the fifth

century, was born near Trèves, and passed the most of his life

at Marseilles. His writings are mainly theological, but are

valuable for their portraiture of the life and morals of the

period.

=Seneca=, Lucius Annæus, Opera, Naples, 1475, edited by Gronovius,

Leyden, 1649-1658, 4 vols.; by Ruhkopf, Leipsic, 1797-1811, 5 vols.;

English translation, The Works of L. Annæus Seneca, both Morall

and Naturall, translated by T. Lodge, D. in Physicke, London,

1614.--=Sidonius, Apollinaris= (C. Sollius), Epistolarum Libri IX, Paris,

1652; Berlin, 1887.

_Sidonius_ was born at Lyons about 431 A.D. He became the

son-in-law of the emperor Avitus, and afterwards a favourite of

Anthemius, who raised him to senatorial rank, made him prefect

of Rome, and placed his statue in the library of Trajan. In

472, though not a priest, he was made bishop of Clermont

in Auvergne. His writings afford considerable historical

information.

=Solinus= (Grammaticus), C. Julius Polyhistor, Venice, 1473; Salmasius,

Utrecht, 1689; English translation. The excellent and pleasant works of

_Julius Solinus Polyhistor_, containing the noble actions of humaine

creatures, the Secretes and Providence of Nature, the description of

Countries, the manners of the People etc. etc. (translated out of Latin

by Arthur Golding, Gent.), London, 1587. (The work consists mainly of

selections from the _Natural History_ of Pliny, the additions of the

author being practically worthless.)

=Sozomenos=, Ecclesiastical History, edited by Valesius, Paris, 1659.

The history of Sozomenos extends from 323 to 439.

=Spartianus=, Ælius, see Augustan History.--=Suetonius=, Caius

Tranquillus, Vitæ duodecim Cæsarum, Rome, 1470; English translation by

Philemon Holland, London, 1606; English translation by A. Thompson, The

Lives of the Twelve Cæsars, London, 1796; 1855.--=Suidas=, Lexicon,

edited by Kuster, Cambridge, 1705; by Gainsford, Oxford, 1834.

Nothing is known of Suidas’ life, but he probably lived in

the tenth or eleventh century. His _Lexicon_ is a sort of

encyclopædia of biography, literature, geography, etc. Under

the head of “Adam,” he gives a chronology which extends to the

tenth century.

=Symmachus=, Epistolarum Libri IX, edited by Seeck, Berlin, 1883.

_A. Aurelius Symmachus_ was a distinguished scholar and orator

of the fourth century, and a strong adherent of the ancient

pagan religion of Rome. His letters furnish much minor detail

of the life of the period.

* * * * *

=Tacitus=, C., Cornelius, Annales, Agricola, Germania, Historiæ, Venice,

1470; Zurich and Berlin, 1859-1884, 5 vols.; Agricola and Germania,

edited by A. J. Church and W. J. Brodribb, with English notes, London,

1882; Annales, edited by H. Furneaux, with English notes, London, 1883;

English translation by Greenway (Annals and Germany), London, 1598;

English translation by Saville (Histories and Agricola), London, 1598.

_C. Cornelius Tacitus_ was born about 61 A.D., died probably

after 117 A.D. Nothing is known of Tacitus’ ancestry. He tells

us in the first chapter of his history that “his advancement

was begun by Vespasian, forwarded by Titus, and carried to a

far greater height by Domitian.” His first employment is said

to have been as procurator in Gaul. Upon his return to Rome,

Titus advanced him to a quæstorship, and we have Tacitus’ own

testimony that he was made prætor by Domitian. He became consul

under Nerva. Little further is known of his life, except his

marriage to Julia, daughter of Agricola, whose life he wrote.

We learn from the _Epistles_ of Pliny the Younger, the great

respect and veneration paid to Tacitus by his contemporaries,

and above all by Pliny himself.

=Thietmar of Merseburg=, Chronicon, edited by Lappenberg, in the

Monumenta Germaniæ Historica, vol. III, Hanover, 1819 in progress; German

translation by Laurent, 1849.

_Thietmar of Merseburg_ was born July 25th, 976, died December

1, 1018. Became bishop of Merseburg in 1009. The last four

books of his chronicle comprising the reign of Henry II

(1002-1018) are especially important.

=Trebellius Pollio=, see Augustan History.

* * * * *

=Valerius=, Maximus, De factis dictisque memorabilibus Libri IX,

Strasburg, 1470; edited by Terrenius, Leyden, 1726; by C. Kempf,

Leipsic, 1889; English translation by W. Speed, The History of the Acts

and Sayings of the Ancient Romans, London, 1678.--=Valesian Fragment

(Anonymus Valesii).= This title is derived from Henricus Valesius (Henri

de Valois, 1603-1767) who was the first to publish the fragmentary

writings which bear this name. They generally form an appendix to

editions of Ammianus Marcelinus and have for subject the history of

Constantine the Great and that of Italy between the years 474 and

526.--=Valesius= (Valois, Adrien de), Gesta Francorum, seu de rebus

Fransicis, Paris, 1646-1658, 3 vols.

_Valesius_’ history begins with the year 254 and ends with 752.

It is written with care and in elegant Latin, but is more of a

commentary upon ancient writers than a history.

=Victor=, Sextus Aurelius, De Cæsaribus, Amsterdam, 1733; edited by

Schröter, Leipsic, 1831.

_Sextus Aurelius Victor_, a Latin writer of the fourth century,

who rose to distinction by his literary ability. He was made

governor of Pannonia by Julian, prefect of Constantinople by

Theodosius, and is perhaps the Sextus Aurelius Victor who was

consul in 373.

=Victor Tunnunensis=, Chronicon; edited by Scaliger, in Thesaurus

Tempori Eusebii, vol. II, Amsterdam, 1658.--=Victor Vitensis=, Historia

persecutionis Africanæ sub Genserico et Hunnerico, in Ruinart’s Historia

Persecutionis Vandalicæ, Paris, 1694; edited by Petschenig, Vienna,

1881.--=Virgilius, P.=, or =Vergilius Maro=, Opera, Rome, 1469; Venice,

1501.

* * * * *

=Walafried Strabus=, De exordiis et incrementis rerum ecclesiasticarum,

in Hittorp’s Scriptores de officiis divinis, Cologne, 1568.

_Walafried Strabus_ was of German birth, and in 842 A.D. became

abbot of Reichenau. He died July 17, 849. A very prolific

writer on both ecclesiastical and historical subjects.

=Wipo=, Gesta Chuonradi II, imperatoris, in Pistorius’ Scriptores Rerum

Germanicarum, Basel, 1582-1607, 3 vols.--=Wittekind=, Res gestæ Saxonicæ.

_B. The Byzantine or Later Greek Histories_

=Agathias=, Ἱστορία Ε, edited by B. Vulcanius, Leyden, 1594.

_Agathias_, of Myrina, in Ætolia, was born about 536 A.D., and

died about 580 A.D. He was an epigrammatist, edited a poetical

anthology, and extended and repeated the history of Procopius

for the years 553 to 558, a brief but remarkable period,

comprising the exploits of Narses and Belisarius, the beginning

of the wars with the Franks and with the Persians, the

rebuilding of St. Sophia, the earthquakes of 554 and 557, and

the great plague of 558, all related in a pleasant, diffuse,

and impartial manner, but without much display of general

knowledge. It is the work of a man practically acquainted with

the affairs of his age, presented with poetical reminiscences,

but never going below the surface. This work was continued by

Menander Protector.

=Acropolita=, Georgius, Χρονικὸν, edited by Theodorus Douza, with a Latin

translation, Leyden, 1614; edited by Leo Allatius, Paris, 1651 (included

in the Venice reprint, 1729).

_Georgius Acropolita_ was born at Constantinople in 1220. He

studied at Nicæa under distinguished scholars, and was employed

as a diplomat under the emperor, John Vatatzes Ducas. His

history begins with the taking of Constantinople in 1204, to

its delivery in 1261, the sequence of events being afterwards

taken up by Pachymeres. Acropolita appears to have prepared his

history for educational purposes.

=Anagnostes=, Joannes, Διήγησις περί τῆς τελευταίας ἁλώσεως τῆς

Θεσσαλονίκης συντεθεῖσα πρός τινα τῶν ἀξιολόγων πολλάκις αἰτλήσαντα περὶ

ταύτης, εν ἐπιτόμῳ, edited by Leo Allatius, in his Σύμμικτα, with a Latin

translation, Rome, 1653.

_Anagnostes_, of whose life little is known, was present at the

siege of his native city, Thessalonica, in 1430 A.D., and wrote

an account of its conquest by Murad II.

=Anonymous=,

Ἡ βασιλὶς τῶν πόλεων πῶς Ιταλοῖς ἑάλω

Καὶ τοῖς Ῥωμαίοις ὕστερον τῶς ἀπεδὸθη πάλιν,

Ἐγράφη κατ’ ἀκρίβειαν, εἰ σὺ δὲ βούλῃ, μάθοις.

The poem, in 749 “political” verses, generally designated by

quoting the first three lines, as above, gives an account of

the fall and recapture of Constantinople and other events up

to the year 1282, the author stating in the course of the

poem that it was composed in 1392. The facts as recorded are

based upon Nicetas Acominatus and Georgius Acropolita, and are

related in a picturesque manner. The work has been published

by Bekker, in the _Abhandlungen_ of the Berlin Academy, 1841,

and by J. A. Buchon, in his _Recherches historiques sur la

principauté française de Morée_, Paris, 1845.

=Attaliata=, Michael, Ἱστορία ἐκτεθεῖσα παρὰ Μιχαὴλ αἰδεσιμωτάτου κριτοῦ

ἐπὶ τοῦ ἱπποδρόμου καὶ τοῦ Ἀτταλειάτου, translated into Latin by M.

Freheri, Frankfort, 1596.

_Michael Attaliata_, a native of Attalia, served as a judge and

proconsul under the emperor, Michael Ducas, by whose command

he prepared a legal digest. His history treats of the period

1034-1079, a time notable for the fall of the Macedonian

dynasty and the rise of the family of Comnenus and Ducas,

palace revolutions and feminine intrigues playing a large part

in these events.

* * * * *

=Bryennius=, Nicephorus, Ὕλη ἡιστορίας, edited by P. Poussines, Paris,

1661.

_Bryennius_, born at Orestias in Macedonia, in the middle

of the eleventh century, was the husband of Anna Comnena,

daughter of the emperor Alexis. Distinguished for his physical

and mental gifts, Bryennius took an active part against the

Crusaders. The design of his history was to deal with the

reigns of the emperors from Isaac Comnenus, and so far as it

extends,--to Michael VII Ducas,--it affords a lucid narrative,

written with all the judgment and directness of a leader and

eye-witness of the times. His work was continued by his wife.

=Byzantinæ Historiæ Scriptores.= Paris, 1644-1711. 42 vols.

The first collective edition of Byzantine historians, edited by

Labbé, Fabrotus, Combefisius, and others. It was republished at

Venice, 1729-1733, but is now superseded by the Bonn “Corpus,”

_q.v._

* * * * *

=Cameniata=, Joannes, Ἰωάννου κλερικοῦ καὶ κουβουκλεισίου τοῦ Καμενιάτου

εἰς τὴν ἅλωσιν τῆς Θεσσαλονίκης (De excidio Thessalonicensi), edited by

Leo Allatius, with a Latin translation, in his Σύμμικτα, Rome, 1653.

_Joannes Cameniata_, a crosier-bearer to the bishop of

Thessalonica, witnessed the taking of that city by the Arabs on

July 31st, 904. Cameniata was himself carried away to Tarsus,

and while held there as a prisoner for exchange, he wrote an

account of the fall of Thessalonica, a narrative at once lively

and valuable.

=Candidus Isaurus=, Ἱστορία, fragments as preserved by Photius and

Suidas, edited by Labbé in his Eclogæ Historicorum de Rebus Byzantinis,

in D. Hoeschelius’ Excerpta de Legationibus, Paris, 1648.

_Candidus Isaurus_, whose Byzantine history exists now only in

fragments, was a native of Isauria, and lived in the reign of

the emperor Anastasius (491-518). His history appears to have

related to the period 407-491.

=Cecaumenus= Περὶ παραδρομῆς πολέμου, edited by V. Vasiljevskij, in

his article “Ratschläge und Erzählungen (Sovêty i razskazy) eines

byzantinischen Magnaten des 11. Jahrhunderts,” in the Žurnal ministerstva

narodnago prosvješčenija, St. Petersburg, 1881, vols. 215-216.

_Cecaumenus_ was a Byzantine aristocrat of the eleventh

century, who late in life devoted himself to writing a

treatise, presumably in imitation of Leo Diaconus, dealing

with military tactics, morals, household economy, and an

ethnological and historical account of the Byzantine Empire

from the times of Basilius II to Romanus Diogenes.

=Cedrenus=, Georgius, Σύνοψις ἱστοριῶν (Compendium Historiarum ab Orbe

Condita ad Isaacum Comnenum), edited by G. Xylander, Basel, 1566.

_Georgius Cedrenus_, a Greek monk, lived in the eleventh

century, and compiled, largely from the synopsis of Joannes

Scylitzes, an historical work which extends from the creation

of the world to the year 1057 A.D. He was very deficient in

historical knowledge and his work should be used with great

caution.

=Chalcondyles=, Laonicus (Nicolaus), Ἰστορία, edited by J. R. Baumbach,

with a Latin translation, Geneva, 1615.

_Chalcondyles_ was a native of Athens, but little is known of

his life except that during the siege of Constantinople, in

1446, he was sent by the emperor, John VII, as an ambassador to

the Sultan. The ten books of his history deal with the Turks

and the later period of the Byzantine Empire, from 1298 to the

conquest of Corinth in 1463. The author has chosen a difficult

period to describe, when Byzantine affairs were being merged in

those of the Turks, Franks, Slavs, and of the Greek despots,

and Constantinople no longer formed the chief centre about

which events grouped themselves. The book is one of the most

important sources for the history of the time. The style is

interesting, but the matter is not well arranged. Extraneous

observations are frequently introduced, and the author’s

knowledge of European geography is amusingly deficient.

England, according to his account, consists of three islands

united under one government, with a flourishing metropolis,

Λονδύνη; her inhabitants being courageous, and her bowmen the

finest in the world. Their manners and habits, he says, were

exactly like the French, and their speech had no affinity to

any other language.

=Cinnamus=, Joannes, Ἐπιτομὴ τῶν κατορθωμάτων τῷ μακαρ ίτῃ βασιλεῖ καί

πορφυρογευνήτῳ κυρῷ Ἰωάννῃ τῷ Κομνηνῷ και ἀφήγησις τῶν πραχθέντων τῷ

ἀοιδίμῳ υἱῷ αὐτοῦ τῷ βασιλεῖ καὶ πορφυρογεννήτῳ κυρῷ Μανουὴλ τῷ Κομνηνῷ

πονηθεῖσα. Ἰοὰννῃ βασιλικῷ γραμματικῷ τῷ Κιννάμῳ, edited by Cornelius

Tollius, with a Latin translation, Utrecht, 1652.

_Joannes Cinnamus_ lived in the twelfth century. He was engaged

as an imperial notary under Manuel Comnenus, who reigned

from 1143 to 1180, and accompanied him on his many military

expeditions in Europe and Asia, the office of notary being

equivalent to that of a modern secretary of state. His history

of the reign of Manuel and of his father, Colo-Joannes, is one

of the best of the Byzantine histories.

=Comnena=, Anna, Ἀλεξίας, Augsburg, 1610.