THE EMPIRE AND CHRISTIANITY
The reorganisation of the Empire, begun by Diocletian, had been
continued along the same lines by Constantine the Great. There were
still further developments under their successors, but these two were
the real founders of the Imperial system which was to subsist in the
eastern half of the Empire for more than eleven hundred years. In other
words, Diocletian and Constantine gave the Empire, if not a new lease of
life, at least a new impetus and a new start, and we may here present a
brief sketch of the reforms which they introduced into practically every
sphere of governmental activity.
We have already seen how profoundly changed was the position of the
Emperor himself. He was no longer essentially a Roman Imperator, a
supreme War-Lord, a soldier Chief of State. He had become a King in a
palace, secluded from the gaze of the vulgar, surrounded with all the
attributes and ornaments of an eastern monarch, and robed in gorgeous
vestments stiff with gold and jewels. Men were taught to speak and think
of him as superhuman and sacrosanct, to approach him with genuflexion
and adoration, to regard every office, however menial, attached to his
person, as sacred. In speaking of the Emperor language was strained to
the pitch of the ridiculous; flattery became so grotesque that it must
have ceased to flatter. When Nazarius, for example, speaks of the
Emperor’s heart as “the stupendous shrine of mighty virtues” (_ingentium
virtutum stupenda penetralia_), and such language as this became the
recognised mode of addressing the reigning Sovereign, we see how far we
have travelled not only from Republican simplicity, but even from the
times of Domitian. The Emperor, in brief, was absolute monarch, autocrat
of the entire Roman world, and his will and nod were law.
He stood at the head of a hierarchy of court and administrative
officials, most minutely organised from the highest to the lowest. For
purposes of Imperial administration, those next to the throne were the
four Prætorian præfects, each one supreme, under the Emperor, in his
quarter of the world. The Empire had been divided by Diocletian into
twelve dioceses and these again into ninety-six provinces; Constantine
accepted this division but apportioned the twelve dioceses into four
præfectures, those of the Orient, Illyria, Italy, and Gaul. The four
Prætorian præfects stood in relation to the Emperor—so Eusebius tells
us—as God the Son stood in relation to God the Father. They wore—though
not perhaps in the days of Constantine—robes of purple reaching to the
knee; they rode in lofty chariots, and among the insignia of their
office were a colossal silver inkstand and gold pen-cases of a hundred
pounds in weight. Their functions were practically unlimited, save for
the all-important exception that they exercised no military command.
They had an exchequer of their own, through which passed all the
Imperial taxes from their provinces; they had absolute control over the
vicars of the dioceses beneath them, whom, if they did not actually
appoint they at least recommended for appointment to the Emperor. In
their own præfectures they formed the final court of appeal, and
Constantine expressly enacted that there should be no appeal from them
to the throne. They even had a limited power of issuing edicts. Thus in
all administrative, financial, and judicial matters the four Prætorian
præfects were supreme, occupying a position very similar to that of the
Viceroys of the great provinces of China, save that they had no control
over the troops within their territories.
Below these four præfects came the vicars of the twelve dioceses of the
Oriens, Pontica, Asiana, Thracia, Mœsia, Pannonia, Britanniæ, Galliæ,
Viennenses, Italia, Hispaniæ, and Africa. Egypt continued to hold an
unique position; its governor was almost independent of the præfect of
the Orient, and was always a direct nominee of the Emperor. Then, below
the twelve vicars came the governors of the provinces, the number of
which constantly tended to increase, but by further subdivision rather
than by conquest of new territory. Various names were given to these
governors; they were _rectores_ and _correctores_ in some provinces,
_præsides_ in many more, _consulares_ in a few of the more important
ones, such as Africa and Italia. Each had his own entourage of minor
officials, and the hierarchical principle was observed as rigidly on the
lowest rungs of the ladder as on the topmost. Autocrats are obliged to
rule through a bureaucracy, a broad-based pyramid of officialdom which
usually weighs heavily upon the unfortunate taxpayer who has to support
the entire structure.
[Illustration: AUREUS OF CARAUSIUS.]
[Illustration: AUREUS OF ALLECTUS.]
[Illustration: SOLIDUS OF HELENA.]
[Illustration: SOLIDUS OF GALERIUS.]
[Illustration: SOLIDUS OF SEVERUS II.]
A similar hierarchy of officials prevailed in the palace and the court,
from the grand chamberlain down through a host of Imperial secretaries
to the head scullion. The tendency of each was to magnify his office
into a department, and to be the master of a set of underlings. And it
was the policy of Constantine, as it had been the policy of Augustus, to
invent new offices in order to increase the number of officials who
looked to the Emperor as their benefactor.[146]
-----
Footnote 146:
εἰς γὰρ τὸ πλείονας τιμᾶν διαφόρους ἐπενόει βασιλεὺς αξιάς (_De Vita
Const._, iv., 1).
-----
In the conduct of State affairs the Emperor was assisted by an Imperial
council, known as the _consistorium principis_. It included the four
Prætorian præfects of whom we have spoken; the quæstor of the palace, a
kind of general secretary of state; the master of the offices (_magister
officiorum_), one of whose principal duties was to act as minister of
police; the grand chamberlain (_præpositus sacri cubiculi_); two
ministers of finance, and two ministers for war. One of the finance
ministers was dignified with the title of count of the sacred largesses
(_comes sacrarum largitionum_); the other was count of the private purse
(_comes rerum privatarum_). The distinction was similar to the old one
between the _ærarium_ and the _fiscus_, between, that is to say, the
State treasury and the Emperor’s privy purse. One of the two ministers
for war had supreme charge of the infantry of the Empire; the other was
responsible for the cavalry. Both also exercised judicial functions and
sat as a court of appeal in all military cases wherein the State was
interested, either as plaintiff or defendant.
There were still consuls in Rome, who continued to give their names to
the year. All their political power had vanished, but their dignity
remained unimpaired, though it was now derived not from the intrinsic
importance of their office so much as from its extrinsic ornaments. To
be consul had become the ambition not of the boldest but of the vainest.
(_In consulatu honos sine labore suscipitur._) The prætorship had
similarly fallen, but it still entailed upon the holder the expensive
and sometimes ruinous privilege of providing shows for the amusement of
the Roman populace. The number of prætors had fallen to two in
Constantine’s day: he raised it to eight, in accordance with his general
regardlessness of expense, so long as there was outward magnificence. It
is doubtful whether, during the reign of Constantine, there were consuls
and prætors in Constantinople. Certainly there was no urban præfect
appointed in that city until twenty years after his death, and it seems
probable that the Emperor did not set up in his new capital quite such a
pedantically perfect imitation of the official machinery of Rome as has
sometimes been supposed. His successors, however, were not long in
completing what he had begun.
We pass to the senate and the senatorial order, with their various
degrees of dignity, which Constantine and those who came after him
delighted to elaborate. Every member of the senate was naturally a
member of the senatorial order, but it by no means followed that every
member of the order had a seat in the senate. The new senate of
Constantinople, like its prototype at Rome, had little or no political
power. It merely registered the decrees of the Emperor, and its function
seems to have been one principally of dignity and ceremony. Membership
of the senatorial order was a social distinction that might be held by a
man living in any part of the Empire and was gained by virtue of having
held office. The order was an aristocracy of officials and ex-officials,
distinguished by resplendent titles, involving additional burdens in the
way of taxation—the price of added dignity. A few of these titles are
worth brief consideration. To the Emperor there were reserved the
grandiloquent names of Your Majesty, Your Eternity, Your Divinity.
Members of the reigning house were Most Noble (_Nobilissimi_). To the
members of the senate, including the officials of the very highest rank,
viz., the consuls, proconsuls, and præfects, there was reserved the
title of Most Distinguished (_Clarissimi_), while officers of lower
rank, members of the senatorial order but not of the senate, were Most
Perfect (_Perfectissimi_) and Egregious (_Egregii_), the former being of
a higher class than the latter. Such was the order of precedence in
Constantine’s reign, but there was a constant tendency for these
honourable orders to expand, due, no doubt, entirely to the exigencies
of the treasury. Thus the high rank of _Clarissimi_ was bestowed on
those who previously had been only _Perfectissimi_ and _Egregii_, and
two still higher orders of _Illustres_ and _Spectabiles_ were created
for the old _Clarissimi_ and _Perfectissimi_. The two topmost classes
were thus given an upward step.
Such was the new official aristocracy, while a rigid line of division,
quite unknown to Republican and early Imperial Rome, was drawn between
the civil and the military officers of the Empire. The military forces
themselves were organised into two great divisions, (1) the troops
kept permanently upon the frontiers, and (2) the soldiers of the line.
The first were known as _Limitanei_ (Borderers) or _Riparienses_
(Guardians of the Shore), the second name being specially applied to
the soldiers of the Rhine and the Danube. All these troops were
stationed in permanent camps and forts, which often developed into
townships, and it was a rare thing for a legion to be moved to another
quarter of the Empire. Boys grew up and followed their fathers in the
profession of arms in the same camp, and were themselves succeeded by
their own sons. The term of service was twenty-four years, and these
_Limitanei_ were not only soldiers but tillers of the soil, playing a
part precisely similar to the soldier colonists of Russia in her Far
Eastern provinces. The soldiers of the line (_Numeri_), on the other
hand, served for the shorter period of twenty years. They included the
_Palatini_,—practically the successors of the old Prætorian Guard,—the
crack corps of the army, who were divided into regiments bearing such
titles as _Scholares_, _Protectores_, and _Domestici_, and enjoyed the
privilege of guarding the Emperor’s person. Most of the legions of the
line were known as the _Comitatenses_. These were employed in the
interior garrisons of the Empire, and Zosimus—whether justly or not,
it is impossible to say—accuses Constantine of having dangerously
weakened the frontier garrisons and withdrawn too many troops into the
interior. The control of the army, under the Emperor and his two
ministers for war, was vested by the end of the fourth century in
thirty-five commanders bearing the titles of dukes and counts,—the
latter being the higher of the two. Three of these were stationed in
Britain, six in Gaul, one each in Spain and Italy, four in Africa,
three in Egypt, eight in Asia and Syria, and nine along the upper and
lower reaches of the Danube.
Such was the structure which rested upon the purse of the taxpayer and
upon a system of finance inherently vicious and wasteful. The main
support of the treasury was still, as it had always been, the land tax,
known as the _capitatio terrena_, the old _tributum soli_. It was the
landed proprietor (_possessor_) who found the wherewithal to keep the
Empire on its feet. Diocletian had reorganised the census, and, in the
interests of the treasury, had caused a new survey and inventory to be
made of practically every acre of land in every province. By an
ingenious device he had established a system of taxable units (_jugum_
or _caput_), each of which paid the round sum of 100,000 sesterces or
1000 aurei. The unit might be made up of all sorts of land—arable,
pasture, or forest—the value of each being estimated on a regular scale.
Thus five acres of vineyard constituted a unit and were held to be
equivalent to twenty acres of the best arable land, forty acres of
second-class land, and sixty of third-class. Nothing escaped: even the
roughest woodland or moorland was assessed at the rate of four hundred
and fifty acres to the unit. The Emperor and his finance ministers
estimated every year how much was required for the current expenses of
the Empire. When the amount was fixed, they sent word throughout the
provinces, and the various municipal curiæ, or town senates, knew what
their share would be, for each town and district was assessed at so many
thousand units, and each curia or senate was responsible for the money
being raised. The curia was composed of a number of the richest
landowners, who had to collect the tax from themselves and their
neighbours as best they could. If, therefore, any _possessor_ became
bankrupt, the others had to make up the shortage between them. Those who
were solvent had to pay for the insolvent. All loopholes of evasion were
carefully closed. Landowners were not permitted to quit their district
without special leave from the governor; they could not join the army or
enter the civil service. When it was found that large numbers were
becoming ordained in the Christian Church to escape their obligations,
an edict was issued forbidding it. Once a decurion always a decurion.
The provincial country landowner and the small farmer were almost taxed
out of existence by this monstrous system. Every ten or fifteen years,
it is true, a revision of the assessments took place, and there were
certain officials, with the significant name of _defensores_, whose duty
it was to prevent the provincials from being fleeced too flagrantly. But
a man might easily be reduced to beggary by a succession of bad harvests
before the year of revision came round, and the _defensor’s_ office was
a sinecure except in the rare occasions when he knew that he would be
backed at the headquarters of the diocese. During Constantine’s reign,
or at least during its closing years, there is overpowering evidence
that the provincial governors were allowed to plunder at discretion.
They imitated the reckless prodigality of their sovereign, who, in 331,
was compelled to issue an edict to restrain the peculation of his
officers. There is a very striking phrase in Ammianus Marcellinus who
says that while Constantine started the practice of opening the greedy
jaws of his favourites, his son, Constantius, fattened them up on the
very marrow of the provinces.[147] Evidently, the incidence of this land
tax inflicted great hardships and had the mischievous result of draining
the province of capital, and of dragging down to ruin the independent
cultivator of the land. Hence districts were constantly in arrears of
payment, and the remission of outstanding debt to the treasury was
usually the first step taken by an Emperor to court popularity with his
subjects.
-----
Footnote 147:
_Proximorum fauces aperuit primus omnium Consiantinus sed eos medullis
provinciarum saginavit Constantius_ (xvi., c. 8, 12).
-----
In short, the fiscal system of the Empire, so far as its most important
item, the land tax, was concerned, seemed expressly designed to exhaust
the wealth of the provinces. It helped to introduce a system of caste,
which became more rigid and cramping as the years passed by and the
necessities of the treasury became more urgent. It also powerfully
contributed to crush out of existence the yeoman farmer, whose
insolvency was followed, if not by slavery, at any rate by a serfdom
which just as effectually robbed him of freedom of movement. The
_colonus_ having lost the title-deeds of his own land became the
hireling of another, paying in kind a fixed proportion of his stock and
crops, and obliged to give personal service for so many days on that
part of the estate where his master resided. The position of the poor
_colonus_, in fact, became precisely similar to that of a slave who had
not obtained full freedom but had reached the intermediate state of
serfdom, in which he was permanently attached to a certain estate as, so
to speak, part of the fixtures. He was said to be “ascribed to the land”
(_ascripticius_), and he had no opportunity of bettering his social
position or enabling his sons to better theirs, unless they were
recruited for the legions.
[Illustration: SOLIDUS OF MAXIMIN DAZA.]
[Illustration: SOLIDUS OF LICINIUS I.]
[Illustration: SOLIDUS OF LICINIUS II.]
[Illustration: DOUBLE SOLIDUS OF CONSTANTINE THE GREAT.]
The land tax, of course, was not the only one, for the theory of
Imperial finance was that everybody and everything should pay.
Constantine did not spare his new aristocracy. Every member of the
senatorial order paid a property tax known as “the senatorial purse”
(_follis senatoria_), and another imposition bearing the name of _aurum
oblaticium_, which was none the more palatable because it was supposed
to be a voluntary offering. Any senator, moreover, might be summoned to
the capital to serve as prætor and provide a costly entertainment—a
convenient weapon in the hands of autocracy to clip the wings of an
obnoxious ex-official. Another ostensibly voluntary contribution to the
Emperor was the _aurum coronarium_, or its equivalent of a thousand or
two thousand pieces of gold, which each city of importance was obliged
to offer to the sovereign on festival occasions, such as the celebration
of five or ten complete years of rule. Every five years, also, there was
a _lustralis collatio_ to be paid by all shopkeepers and usurers,
according to their means. This was usually spoken of as “the
gold-silver” (_chrysargyrum_), and, like “the senatorial purse,” is said
by some authorities to have been the invention of Constantine himself.
Zosimus, in a very bitter attack on the fiscal measures of the Emperor,
declares that even the courtesans and the beggars were not exempt from
the extortion of the treasury officials, and that whenever the tribute
had to be paid, nothing was heard but groaning and lamentation. The
scourge was brought into play for the persuasion of reluctant taxpayers;
women were driven to sell their sons, and fathers their daughters. Then
there were the _capitatio humana_, a sort of poll-tax on all labourers;
the old five per cent. succession duty; an elaborate system of octroi
(_portoria_), and many other indirect taxes. We need not, perhaps,
believe the very worst pictures of human misery drawn by the historians,
for, in fairness to the Emperors, we must take some note of the roseate
accounts of the official rhetoricians. Nazarius, for example, explicitly
declares that Constantine had given the Empire “peace abroad, prosperity
at home, abundant harvests, and cheap food.”[148] Eusebius again and
again conjures up a vision of prosperous and contented peoples, living
not in fear of the tax-collector, but in the enjoyment of their
sovereign’s bounty. But we fear that the sombre view is nearer the truth
than the radiant one, and that the subsequent financial ruin, which
overtook the western even more than the eastern provinces, was largely
due to the oppressive and wasteful fiscal system introduced and
developed by Diocletian and Constantine, and to the old standing defect
of Roman administration, that the civil governor was also the judge, and
thus administrative and judicial functions were combined in the same
hands.
-----
Footnote 148:
_Omnia foris placida, domi prospera; annonæ ubertas, fructuum copia_
(_Pan. Vet._, x., 38).
-----
Here, indeed, lay one of the strongest elements of disintegration in the
reorganised Empire, but there were other powerful solvents at work, at
which we may briefly glance. One was slavery, the evil results of which
had been steadily accumulating for centuries, and if these were
mitigated to some extent by the increasing scarcity of slaves, the
degradation of the poor freeman to the position of a _colonus_ more than
counterbalanced the resultant good. Population, so far from increasing,
was going back, and, in order to fill the gaps, the authorities had
recourse to the dangerous expedient of inviting in the barbarian. The
land was starving for want of capital and labour, and the barbarian
_colonus_ was introduced, as we have seen in an earlier chapter, not, if
the authorities are to be trusted, by tens, but by hundreds of
thousands, “to lighten the tribute by the fruits of his toil and to
relieve the Roman citizens of military service.” This was the principal
and certainly the original reason why recourse was had to the barbarian;
the idea that the German or the Goth was less dangerous inside than
outside the frontier, and would help to bear the brunt of the pressure
from his kinsmen, came later. The result, however, of importing a strong
Germanic and Gothic element into the Empire was one of active
disintegration. Though they occupied but a humble position industrially,
as tillers of the soil, they formed the best troops in the Imperial
armies. The boast which Tacitus put into the mouth of a Gallic soldier
in the first century, that the alien trooper was the backbone of the
Roman army,[149] was now an undoubted truth, and the spirit which these
strangers brought with them was that of freedom, quite antagonistic to
the absolutism of the Empire.
-----
Footnote 149:
_Nihil in exercitibus validum nisi externum._
-----
There was yet another great solvent at work,—in its cumulative effects
the greatest of them all,—the solvent of Christianity, dissociating, as
it did, spiritual from temporal authority, and introducing the
absolutely novel idea of a divine law that in every particular took
precedence of mundane law. The growth of the power of the Church, as a
body entirely distinct from the State and claiming a superior moral
sanction, was a new force introduced into the Roman Empire, which,
beyond question, weakened its powers of resistance to outside enemies,
inasmuch as it caused internal dissensions and divisions. The furious
hatreds between Christianity and paganism which lasted in the West down
to the fall of Rome, and the equally furious hatreds within the Church
which continued both in East and West for long centuries, can only be
considered a source of serious weakness. No one disputes that the
desperate and murderous struggle between Catholic and Huguenot retarded
the development of France and weakened her in the face of the enemy, and
it stands to reason that a nation which is torn by intestinal quarrel
cannot present an effective front to foreign aggression. It wastes
against members of its own household part of the energy which should be
infused into the blows which it delivers at its foe.
Christianity has always tended to break down distinctions and prejudices
of race. It has never done so wholly and never will, but the tendency is
forever at work, and, as such, in the days of the Empire, it was opposed
both to the Roman and to the Greek spirit. For though there had already
sprung up a feeling of cosmopolitanism within the Empire, it cannot be
said to have extended to those without the Empire, who were still
barbarians in the eyes not only of Greek or Roman, but of the Romanised
Celt and Iberian, whose civilisation was no longer a thin veneer. When
we say that Christianity was a disintegrating element in this respect,
the term is by no means wholly one of reproach. For it also implies that
Christianity assisted the partial fusion which took place when at length
the frontier barriers gave way and the West was rushed by the Germanic
races. These races were themselves Christianised to a certain extent.
They, too, worshipped the Cross and the Christ, and this circumstance
alone must, to a very considerable degree, have mitigated for the Roman
provinces the terrors and disasters of invasion. It is true that the
invaders were for the most part Arians,—though it is a manifest
absurdity to suppose that the free Germans from beyond the Rhine
understood even the elements of a controversy so metaphysical and so
purely Greek,—and, when Arian and Catholic fought, they tipped their
barbs with poison. “I never yet,” said Ammianus Marcellinus, “found wild
beasts so savagely hostile to men, as most of the Christians are to one
another.”[150] But the fact remains that the German and Gothic
conquerors, who settled where they had conquered, accepted the
civilisation of the vanquished even though they modified it to their own
needs; they did not wipe it out and substitute their own, as did the
Turk and the Moor when they appeared, later on, at the head of their
devastating hordes. If, therefore, Christianity tended to weaken, it
also tended to assimilate, and we are not sure that the latter process
was not fully as important as the former. The Roman Empire, as a
universal power, had long been doomed; Christianity, in this respect,
simply accelerated its pace down the slippery slope.
-----
Footnote 150:
_Nullas infestas hominibus bestias ut sunt sibi ferales plerique
Christianorum expertus_ (xxii., 5).
-----
But other and more specific charges have been brought against
Christianity. One is that it contributed largely to the depopulation of
the Empire, which, from the point of view of the State, was an evil of
the very greatest magnitude. The indictment cannot be refuted wholly. In
the name of Christianity extravagant and pernicious doctrines were
preached of which it would be difficult to speak with patience, did we
not remember that violent disorders need violent remedies. No one can
doubt the unutterable depravity and viciousness which were rampant and
unashamed in the Roman Empire, especially in the East. If there was a
public conscience at all, it was silent. Decent, clean-living people
held fastidiously aloof and tolerated the existence of evils which they
did nothing to combat. A strong protest was needed; it was supplied by
Christianity. But many of those who took upon themselves to denounce the
sins of the age felt compelled to school themselves to a rigid
asceticism which made few allowances not only for the weaknesses but
even for the natural instincts of human nature. The more fanatical among
them grudgingly admitted that marriage was honourable, but rose to
enthusiastic frenzy in the contemplation of virginity, which, if they
dared not command, they could and did commend with all the eloquence of
which they were capable. One cannot think without pity of all the
self-torture and agonising which this new asceticism—new, at least, in
this aggravated form—brought upon hundreds and thousands of men and
women, whose services the State needed and would have done well to
possess, but who cut themselves off from mundane affairs, and withdrew
into solitudes, not to learn there how to help their fellowmen but
consumed only with a selfish anxiety to escape from the wrath to come.
They thought of nothing but the salvation of their own souls. It is
impossible to see how these wild hermits, who peopled the Libyan
deserts, were acceptable in the sight either of themselves, their
fellows, or their God. Simon Stylites, starving sleepless on his pillar
in the posture of prayer for weeks, remains for all time as a monument
of grotesque futility. If charity regards him with pity, it can only
regard with contempt those who imputed his insane endurance unto him for
righteousness. No one can estimate the amount of unnecessary misery and
sufferings caused by these extreme fanatics, who broke up homes without
remorse, played on the fears and harrowed the minds of impressionable
men and women, and debased the human soul in their frantic endeavour to
fit it for the presence of its Maker. They stand in the same category as
the gaunt skeletons who drag themselves on their knees from end to end
of India in the hope of placating a mild but irresponsive god. Man’s
first duty may be towards God; but not to the exclusion of his duty
towards the State.
It is not to be supposed, of course, that the majority of Christians
were led to renounce the world and family life. The weaker brethren are
always in a majority, and we do not doubt that most of the Christian
priests were of like mind with their flock in taking a less heroic but
far more common-sense view. It is also to be noted that the practical
Roman temper speedily modified the extravagances of the eastern
fanatics, and the asceticism of monks and nuns living in religious
communities in the midst of their fellow-citizens, and working to heal
their bodies as well as to save their souls, stands on a very different
plane from the entirely self-centred eremitism associated with Egypt. By
doing the work of good Samaritans the members of these communities acted
the part of good citizens. Succeeding Emperors, whose Christianity was
unimpeachable, looked with cold suspicion on the recluses of the
deserts. Valens, for example, regarding their retirement as an evasion
of their civic duties, published an edict ordering that they should be
brought back; Theodosius with cynical wisdom said that as they had
deliberately chosen to dwell in the desert, he would take care that they
stopped there. But it is easy to exaggerate the influence wielded by
extreme men, whose doctrines and professions only emerge from obscurity
because of their extravagances. We must not, therefore, lay too much
stress on the constant exhortations to celibacy and virginity which we
find even in the writings of such men as Jerome and Ambrose. However
zealously they plied the pitchfork, human nature just as persistently
came back, and the extraordinary outspokenness of Jerome, for example,
in his letters to girls who had pledged themselves to virginity—an
outspokenness based on the confident assumption that human, and more
especially womanly, nature is weak and liable to err—shews that he was
profoundly diffident of the success of his preaching. Nevertheless, when
the counsel of perfection offered by the Church was the avoidance of
marriage, it is a just charge against Christianity that it was in this
respect anti-civic and anti-social.
[Illustration: DOUBLE SOLIDUS OF CONSTANTINE THE GREAT.]
[Illustration: DOUBLE SOLIDUS OF FAUSTA.]
[Illustration: DOUBLE SOLIDUS OF CRISPUS.]
[Illustration: DOUBLE SOLIDUS OF CONSTANTIUS II. AS CÆSAR.]
On the other hand, it is to be remembered that this avoidance of
marriage and its responsibilities was no new thing in the Roman Empire.
For centuries the State had been alarmed at the growth of an
unwillingness, manifested especially in the higher orders of society, to
undertake the duties of parentage. Special bounties and immunities from
taxation were offered to the fathers even of three children; checks were
placed upon divorce; taxes were levied upon the obstinate bachelor and
widower who clung to what he called the blessings of detached
irresponsibility (_præmia orbitatis_). These laws were all based on the
theory that it is a man’s civic duty to marry and give sons and
daughters to the service of his country, and we find one of the
Panegyrists declaring them to be the very foundation of the State,
because they supply a nursery of youth and a constant flow of manly
vigour to the Roman armies.[151] Yet so powerful were the attractions of
a childless life (_prævalida orbitate_—_Tac._, _Ann._, iii., 25) that
the whole series of Julian laws on this subject had proved of little
value, and Tacitus had declared that the remedy was worse than the
disease. The motives of the luxurious voluptuary or the fastidious cynic
were widely different from those of the Christian enthusiast for bodily
purity, but by a curious irony they were directed towards the same
object—the avoidance of matrimony.
-----
Footnote 151:
_Vere dicuntar esse fundamenta rei publicæ, quia seminarium juventutis
et quasi fontem humani roboris semper Romanis exercitibus
ministrarunt_ (_Pan. Vet._, vi., 2).
-----
There was also brought against Christianity the charge that it
discouraged military service and looked askance upon the profession of
arms. The accusation is true within certain limits. Christianity was and
is a gospel of peace. Ideally, therefore, it is always antagonistic to
war as a general principle, and there is always a considerable section
of Christian opinion which is opposed, irrespective of the justice of
the quarrel, to an appeal to arms. That section of Christian opinion was
naturally at its strongest when the Roman Empire was pagan, and when it
was practically impossible for a Christian to be a soldier without
finding himself compelled to worship, at the altars of Rome, the Roman
Emperor and the Roman gods. _Omnis militia est religio_, Seneca had said
most truly. There was a permanent altar fixed before the _prætorium_ of
every camp. That being the case, one can understand that the army was
regarded with abhorrence by every Christian at a time when Christianity
was a proscribed, or barely tolerated, religion, and hence the violent
denunciations of the army and military service to be found in some of
the early Fathers. Hence too the number of Christian soldier martyrs,
who had been converted while serving in the ranks. But the whole case
was changed when the Roman Emperor was a Christian, and the army took
its oath to a champion and no longer to an enemy of the Church. The
bishops at once changed front—they could not help themselves—and at the
Council of Arles we have seen the Gallican bishops passing a canon
anathematising any Christian who flung down his arms in time of peace.
There were still extremists, as there are to-day, who denounced war with
indiscriminate censure; there must have been a much larger number who
acquiesced in standing armies as a necessary evil, but themselves
carefully kept aloof from service; the majority, as to-day, would
recognise that the security of a State rests ultimately upon force, and
would pray that their cause might be just whenever that force had to be
put into operation. It is not Tertullian with his dangerous doctrine
that politics have no interest for the Christian (_nec ulla magis res
aliena quam publica_), that the Christian has no country but the world,
and that Christ had bidden the nations disarm when he bade Peter put up
his sword—it is not Tertullian who is the typical representative of the
Church in its relations with the State and mundane affairs, but the
broad-minded Augustine who, when nervous Christians appealed to him to
say whether a Christian could serve God as a soldier, said that a man
might do his duty to his God and his Emperor as well in a camp as
elsewhere.
God-fearing men could spend their days in the legions without peril to
their souls, but the atmosphere of a Roman camp, full as it was of
barbarians and semi-barbarians, naturally cannot have been congenial to
the Christian religion. In spite of the Labarum, service in the army was
discountenanced by the more zealous Christian bishops. Yet nothing could
be more unfair than to charge Christianity with having introduced into
the Roman world the reluctance to carry arms. That reluctance dated back
to the latter days of the Republic. Christianity merely intensified it.
Christianity, again, may be acquitted of having caused the decadence of
literature and the arts. That decadence was of long standing. There had
been a steady decline from the brilliant circle of Augustan poets and
prose writers to the days of the Antonines. The third century had been
utterly barren of great names. Literature had become imitation;
originality was lost. Society was literary in tone; grammarians and
rhetoricians flourished; learning was not dead but active; yet the
results, so far as creative work was concerned, were miserably small.
But if Christianity cannot be held responsible for the poverty of
imagination in the ranks of pagan society, it must be held responsible
for its own shortcomings. It often assumed an attitude of open hostility
to the ancient literature, which was to be explained—and, so long as
paganism was a living force, might be justified—by the fact that the
poetry of Rome was steeped in pagan associations. Men to whom Jupiter
was a false deity or demon; to whom the radiance of Apollo was hateful
because it was a snare to the unwary; to whom the purity of Diana, the
cold stateliness of Minerva, the beauty of Venus, and the bountifulness
of Ceres, were all treacherous delusions and masks of sin, and all
equally pernicious to the soul, found in the very charm of style and the
seductiveness of language of the old poetry another reason for keeping
it out of the hands of their children and for themselves eschewing its
dangerous delights. It is difficult to blame them. Protestants and
Catholics even of the present day are studiously ignorant of the special
literatures of the other, and if the Christian eschewed the classical
poets, the educated pagan was grotesquely ignorant of the Christian’s
“Holy Books.”
But this point must not be pursued too far. Education itself was based
on the ancient literature of Greece and Rome—there was, indeed, nothing
else on which to base it—and in the ablest and most cultured of the
Christian writers the influence of the classical authors is evident on
every page. Jerome dreamt that an angel came to rebuke him for his love
of the rounded periods of Cicero—_Ciceronianus es, non Christianus_.
Augustine bewails the tears he had wasted on the moving story of the
Fall of Troy, while his heart was insensible to the sufferings of the
Son of God. Lines and half lines from Virgil, or the choice of a
Virgilian epithet, betray the ineradicable influence of the Mantuan over
Ambrose. Even the author of the _De Mortibus Persecutorum_, despite his
ferocious hatred of paganism, takes evident pleasure in the Ciceronian
flavour of his maledictions. Do what he would, the cultured and educated
Christian could not escape from the spell of the poets of antiquity.
There were, of course, narrow-minded fanatics in plenty who would
cheerfully have burned the contents of every pagan library and have
imagined that they were offering an acceptable sacrifice, and there were
doubtless many more who, without vindictiveness towards the classics,
were quite content with want of culture, deeming that ignorance was more
becoming to Christian simplicity (_Simplex sermo veritatis._) The
tendencies of Christianity, as compared with paganism, were not towards
what we call the humanities and a liberal education, for the dominant
feeling was that there was only one book in the world which really
mattered, and that was the Bible. There was, it is true, a slight
literary renaissance starting at the close of the fourth century, with
which we associate the names of Ausonius, Paulinus of Nola, Prudentius,
and Claudian. This was mainly Christian. Ausonius strictly followed
classical models; the graceful yet vigorous hymns of Prudentius were an
original and valuable contribution to literature; Claudian stands
neutral. “The last of the classics,” as Mr. Mackail has well said,[152]
“he is, at the same time, the earliest and one of the most distinguished
of the classicists. It might seem a mere chance whether his poetry
belonged to the fourth or to the sixteenth century.” This literary
renaissance, however, was a last flicker, and while we have to thank the
Church for preserving the Latin tongue, we owe it little thanks—compared
with the paganism it had overthrown—for its services to culture and the
humanities. In the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries the classics had to
be rediscovered and relearnt: the dead spirit of humanism had to be
quickened to a new birth.
-----
Footnote 152:
_History of Latin Literature_, Bk. III., c. 7.
-----
Hard things have been said of Christianity and its influence upon the
Roman Empire, harder perhaps than the facts warrant, though the
bitterness of many of the critics has been directly provoked by the
boundless assumptions of the Christian apologists. Looking back
dispassionately upon the period with which we have been dealing, it is
not difficult to see why the Church triumphed and why the nations
acquiesced as readily as they did in the downfall of paganism. The
reason is that the world had grown stale. It had outlived all its old
ideals. It was sick of doubt, weary of bloodshed and strife, and
nervously apprehensive, we can hardly question, of the cataclysm that
was to burst upon the West and submerge it before another century was
over. The philosophies were worn out. The gods themselves had grown
grey. There was a general atmosphere of numbness and decrepitude. Men
wanted consolation and hope. Christianity alone could supply it, and
though Christianity itself had lost its early joyousness, freshness, and
simplicity, it retained unimpaired its marvellous powers to console. To
a world tired of questioning and search it returned an answer for which
it claimed the sanction of absolute Truth. The old spirit was not wholly
dead. One may see it revive from time to time in the various heresies
which split the Church. But it was ruthlessly suppressed, and humanity
had to purchase back its liberty of thought at a great price, ten or
more centuries later, when the world realised that her ancient deliverer
had herself become a tyrant. Nevertheless, few can seriously doubt that
the triumph of the Christian Church was an unspeakable boon to mankind.
The Roman Empire was doomed. Its downfall was certain and, on the whole,
was even to be desired, so long as its civilisation was not wholly wiped
out and the genius of past generations was not wholly destroyed.
[Illustration]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Illustration]
INDEX
A
Achillas, 190
_Acts of Pilate, The_, anti-Christian pamphlet, 145, 146
Adrianople, battle of, 128, 158
Ælianus, Proconsul of Africa, 172, 173
Alemanni defeated by Crispus, 124
Alexander, a Phrygian, leads revolt in Africa, 76
Alexander of Alexandria, holds Arius in high esteem, 190;
becomes involved in controversy with Arius, 192 _ff._;
summons provincial synod, 195;
denounces Arians, 201 _ff._;
attacks Eusebius of Nicomedia, 203;
at Council of Nicæa, 214;
influenced by Athanasius, 215;
prayer for the truth in regard to Arius, 274, 298;
death, 286;
refuses to admit Arius to communion, 298
Amandus, Admiral, defeated by Crispus, 129
Ambrose, St., exhortations to avoid marriage, 348;
influenced by Virgil, 353.
Ammianus Marcellinus, quoted, 345
Anastasia, half-sister to Constantine, 120
Anastasis, Church of, dedicated,3 11
Ancyra, Council of, canons, 153
Annibalianus, son-in-law of Constantine, 309
Antony, Saint, 147, 297
Anulinus, proconsul of Africa, letter from Constantine to, 167, 168
Apollo, statue of, 270, 271
Arcadius, rebuilds walls of Constantinople, 266
Arch of Constantine, 91
Arian controversy, 189 _ff._, 223 _ff._;
Canon Bright on, 194;
Gibbon on, 194
Arianism, origin, 189 _ff._;
leading tenet, 193 _ff._, 198, 223, 224;
Canon Bright on, 194;
class to which it appealed, 197 _ff._;
claims, 198 _ff._;
formal condemnation of, 229
Arians, edicts against, 286;
and Constantia, 289;
paramount at Imperial Court, 290;
plot against Athanasius, 290
“Ariomaniacs,” 206
Aristaces repeats Nicene Creed to his father, 285
Arius, a power in Alexandria, 190;
character, 190, 191;
preaching strange doctrine, 191;
starts controversy, 192 _ff._;
denounces Alexander, 193;
defends his doctrine before synod, 195 _ff._;
excommunicated, 196, 231, 236;
finds champion in Eusebius of Nicomedia, 200 _ff._;
synod of Bithynian bishops sympathises with, 202 _ff._;
_Thalia_, 204 _ff._, 222, 231;
Constantine intervenes between Alexander and, 207 _ff._;
at Council of Nicæa, 214, 221, 231, 236;
and Eusebian party, 229 _ff._;
recalled from exile, 287, 288;
Constantine’s attack on, 288;
pronounced a true Catholic by Council of Tyre, 295;
returns to Alexandria, 297;
questioned as to his faith, by Constantine, 297;
seeks admission to Church at Constantinople, 298, 299;
death, 299, 300
Arles, Council of, 173-176;
canons of, 177, 178, 351
Armenia, recovered for Rome, 6;
Saint Gregory in, 27
Arsenius, legend of withered hand, 293
Athanasians and baptism of Constantine, 315
Athanasius, Saint, on help given to persecuted Christians, 28;
_First Discourse against the Arians_, quoted, 204, 205;
influence on Alexander, 214, 215;
leader of Trinitarians, 221;
on Council of Nicæa, 222-224;
in Arian controversy, 227;
condemnation of, 231, 295;
banished, 239, 296;
elected bishop, 286;
plot against, 290;
refuses to restore Arius to communion, 291;
Constantine threatens, 291, 292;
campaign of calumny against, 292;
refuses to attend trial at Cæsarea, 293;
trial at Council of Tyre, 293-295;
appeals to Constantine, 294, 295
Augustæum, the, 268, 269
Augustine, Saint, Bishop of Hippo, on Botrus and Celestius, 164;
on Donatists, 181, 182;
on the Circumcelliones, 186;
and the Donatist schism, 187;
on Constantine, 329;
on Christian duty, 351;
and ancient literature, 353
Aurelian, Emperor, recovers Britain and Gaul, 3;
murdered, 4;
persecution of Christians, 13;
influence on Galerius, 17;
subdues Goths and Sarmatæ, 123
Ausonius, 354
B
Bassianus, 120
Botrus, deacon, 164
Bright, Canon, quoted, on Arianism, 194, 199;
on philosophy and the Church, 227
Britain, Carausius ruler of, 6;
Constantius ruler of, 8;
Constantine ruler of, 51, 56, 76, 82;
Constantius recovers, 52, 53;
Crispus ruler of, 124
Burnt Pillar, the, 270
Bury, Professor, quoted, on Constantine, 328
Byzantium, capitulation of, 115, 128;
naval battle at, 129, 259;
advantages of position, 259, 261;
chosen by Constantine as site for a new city, 259, 260;
renowned, 2 61;
withstandsPhilip of Macedon, 262;
Polybius on, 262;
prosperity, 262, 263
Byzas, the Megarian, founder of Byzantium, 261
C
Cæcilianus, rebukes Lucilla, 163;
elected bishop, 164;
position challenged, 165, 166, 170, 171, 173, 178;
letter from Constantine to, 166, 167;
summoned to Rome, 180, 181;
Constantine’s verdict on, 182;
Donatists refuse to obey, 184
Cæsarea, Council of, 292, 293
Caius, 238
Candidianus executed, 119
Carausius, 6, 65
Carinus, son of Carus, Empire divided between Numerian and, 4;
death, 5
Carnuntum, conference at, 63, 64
Carthage sacked, 76
Carthage, Council of, 188
Carus devastates Persia, 4
Catholic Party, 165 _ff._; 297
Celestius, deacon, 164
“Champions of the Lord,” the, 185
Chrestus, Bishop of Syracuse, 175
Christian martyrs, 15, 17 _ff._, 28, 30 _ff._, 136 _ff._, 147, 157
Christian schools of Antioch and Alexandria, 213
Christianity, rapid spread, 12;
embraced by Constantine, 93 _ff._, 306, 312 _ff._;
element in disintegration of Empire, 343, 344, 346;
element of assimilation, 345;
tendency to depopulate Empire, 346-350;
and asceticism, 346-348;
and military service, 350-352;
and literature and art, 352-354;
influence upon Roman Empire, 355, 356
Christians, persecution of, 12 _ff._, 27, 134 _ff._;
erect church at Nicomedia, 13;
and Neo-Platonists, 19, 20
Chrysopolis, battle of, 130, 158
Church, the, condition in reign of Diocletian, 12-14, 16;
persecution of, 12 _ff._, 134 _ff._;
and State, 13, 14, 158, 234, 343, 344;
schisms in, 153, 159 _ff._, 189; 211 _ff._;
triumph of, 236, 355, 356;
persecution ended, 285;
and marriage, 349
Cibalis, battle of, 121
Circumcelliones, a religious sect, 185, 186
Cirta, capital of Numidia, sacked, 76;
renamed, 186
Cirta, synod of, 161, 162
Cistern of Philoxenos, 273
Claudian, 354
Claudius subdues Goths and Sarmatæ, 3, 123
Coins, 239, 314, 318
_Colonus_, the, condition, 340, 342, 343
Column of Constantine, 270
Constans, son of Constantine, 238, 309
Constantia, wife of Licinius, pleads for his life 131;
influence, 200, 230, 239, 289
Constantina, daughter of Constantine, 309
Constantina, new name of Cirta, 186
Constantine, Emperor, birth and parentage, 43, 44;
birthplace, 44, 260;
early life and characteristics, 45;
ambitions, 46;
escape from Galerius, 47;
joins his father, 48;
saluted as Augustus by the troops, 49;
declares himself Emperor, 50;
acknowledged as Cæsar by Galerius, 50;
Cæsar of the West, 51;
victory over the Franks, 53-55;
attitude toward Galerius, 60;
marriage, 61;
alliance of Maximian and Maxentius with, 62;
relations with Diocletian, 64;
acknowledged as Augustus by Galerius, 66;
recognises Maximian, 67;
expedition against the Franks, 67, 68;
quells Maximian, 69;
plots against, 70, 71;
his domain, 76;
alliance of Licinius with, 79;
war with Maxentius, 80 _ff._;
battle of Milvian Bridge, 86, 87;
triumphal procession in Rome, 88;
disbands Prætorians, 89;
acts of conciliation, 90;
games and festivals in honour of, 91;
vision of the Cross and conversion, 92, 95 _ff._;
issues Edict of Milan, 107 _ff._;
and Licinius share Roman Empire, 120;
war with Licinius, 120 _ff._;
defeats Licinius at Cibalis, 121;
defeats Licinius at Mardia, 121;
treaty with Licinius, 122;
appoints Crispus as Cæsar,1 22;
his sons, 123;
rupture with Licinius, 123 _ff._, 154;
triumphs of, 124;
champion of the Church, 126, 127;
defeats Licinius at Adrianople, 128;
victory at Byzantium, 129;
generalship of, 130;
victory at Chrysopolis, 130;
treatment of Licinius, 131, 132;
signs edict of toleration, 140;
overthrow of Maxentius, 153;
recalls exiled Christians, 158;
and the Donatists, 159 _ff._;
African bishops appeal to, 159;
presents money to African clergy, 166;
letter to Cæcilianus, 166;
letter to Anulinus, 167;
party of Majorinus appeal to, 169;
letter to Miltiades, 169;
letter to Ælianus, 172-174;
letter to Chrestus, 175;
letter to Council of Arles, 178-180;
summons Cæcilianus to Rome, 180;
letter to Donatist bishops, 180;
letter to Probianus, 181;
passes judgment on Cæcilianus, 182;
change of policy, 183;
ignores African Church, 185;
letter to the Catholics and his opinion of the Donatists, 187;
and Arian controversy, 189, 207-210, 285-297;
calls Council of Nicæa, 211;
opens the Council, 217-219;
and Nicene Creed, 230;
celebrates his Vicennalia, 232, 233, 239, 322;
farewell speech to Council of Nicæa, 233, 234;
letter “To the Churches,” 235;
family, 237;
mother’s influence upon, 238, 239;
and Procession of the Knights, 240;
edict to his subjects, 241;
turns against Crispus, 242;
murder of Crispus, Licinianus, and Fausta, 243-247;
repentance, 247, 249;
donation of, 248, 249;
baptism, 248, 249;
builds churches, 249, 251, 318, 319;
campaigns against the Goths and Sarmatæ, 252, 253;
confession of faith, 254, 255;
relations with Persia, 254-256;
founder of Constantinople, 257 _ff._;
edicts against the Arians, 286;
character, 301 _ff._;
passion for building, 302, 303;
division of the Empire, 307-311;
education of his sons, 308;
celebrates Tricennalia, 311;
fatal malady, 312, 313;
death and burial, 256, 313, 314;
and religious parties, 316;
daily religious life, 317;
edict for observance of Lord’s day, 319;
prayer, 319;
policy toward old religion, 320 _ff._;
edict giving religious freedom, 321;
Pontifex Maximus, 322 _ff._;
and divination, 326;
edict to abolish gladiatorial shows, 327;
reforms, 330;
attitude of subjects to, 331;
organisation of Empire, 331;
fiscal system of, 339-342
Constantine, son of the Emperor Constantine, 296, 309
Constantinople, foundation of, 257 _ff._;
called “New Rome,” 258;
and Napoleon, 259;
part rebuilt, 266;
called Septicollis, 266;
dedication, 267;
plan and buildings, 269;
forum, 269;
palaces, 272;
aqueducts, 273;
Hippodrome, 274, 276;
churches, 274-276
Constantinus, son of Constantine, 309, 314
Constantius, son of Constantine, persecution of Christians, 134;
birth, 238;
appointed Cæsar of Gaul, 242;
named consul, 243
Constantius Chlorus, Cæsar, 5;
goes to Britain, 6;
domain, 8;
character, 16, 328;
attitude toward Christians, 16, 26;
becomes emperor, 40;
ancestry, 44;
marriage, 44;
loyalty, 46;
death, 49
Consuls, 334
“Council of the 318,” the, 212
Crispus, son of Constantine, becomes Cæsar, 122;
victory over Alemanni, 124, 125;
victory over Amandus, 129;
heir to throne, 237;
victories, 237;
and Fausta, 238;
Constantine turns against, 242, 243;
death, 243
Curia, the, 338
D
Dalmatius, 310
Damasus, Pope, 152
Datianus, 29
Decius, Emperor, persecution of the Christians, 13
Diocletian, Emperor, accession, 5, 45;
chooses colleagues, 5;
recovers Armenia for Rome 6;
attitude toward Galerius, 7, 8;
controlling spirit in the Empire, 8;
locates his capital, 8, 57;
domain, 8;
changes introduced by, 9;
decentralisation in the provinces, 10;
prosperous reign, 11;
persecution of the Christians, 12, 24 _ff._, 79, 160;
wife and daughters, 13;
neutrality toward the Church, 14;
neutralitychanged to antagonism, 16, 19;
influenced by Galerius, 16, 25, 70, 74;
edict against the Manichæans, 22, 23;
and Galerius, 23;
edicts against the Christians, 26, 99, 134;
motive for persecution, 38;
abdication, 39, 41, 43;
chooses new Cæsars, 40, 41;
retires to private life, 40, 46;
system of organisation, 50, 65, 66, 74, 123, 242, 311, 330, 331, 337;
recognises Carausius, 51;
invited to conference at Carnuntum, 63, 64;
relations with Constantine, 64;
treatment of the Senate, 90;
declinesin vitation to wedding of Constantine’s sister, 106;
wife and daughter, 118, 119;
wishes daughter to live with him, 119;
celebrates Vicennalia, 134, 239, 240;
proclaims amnesty, 134
Donatist schism, 159-188
Donatists, 159-188;
Constantine’s letter to, 180;
_raison d’etre_, 183;
increase in numbers, 185
Donatus Magnus, leader of Donatist schism, 166, 173, 184, 185
Donatus of Casæ Nigræ, 165
Donatus of Mascula, 161
E
Easter, celebration, 231, 232
Education, basis of, 353;
and Christianity, 354
Eusebian party, rise, 221;
and Nicene Creed, 229, 230;
in favour at Imperial Court, 290;
confounded at Arius’s death, 299
Eusebius of Cæsarea, on Constantine’s conversion, 93 _ff._;
letter of Constantine to, 158;
friend of Arius, 196, 214;
teachings, 200;
on Arian controversy, 206;
supports middle party at Council of Nicæa, 221;
creed of, 224, 225;
signs Nicene Creed, 229, 230;
on Constantine’s baptism, death, and burial, 312, 315;
on Constantine’s daily life, 317;
on Constantine’s religious policy, 320 _ff._
Eusebius of Nicomedia, as historian, 25;
_History of the Church_, 27, 71, 97;
_Life of Constantine_, 27, 97;
champion of Arius, 200 _ff._, 214;
calls a synod of Bithynian bishops, 202;
attacked by Alexander, 203;
leader of middle party at Council of Nicæa, 221;
character, 222;
and the word “Homoousion,” 224;
signs Nicene Creed, 231;
exiled, 231, 236;
recalled, 287, 288;
succeeds Hosius as adviser to Constantine, 290, 300, 316;
attack on Athanasius, 291 _ff._;
attempt to restore Arius, 291;
baptises Constantine, 313
Eustathius, Bishop of Antioch, charges against, 291
Eutropius, on Constantine’s character, 306, 307
F
Fausta, wife of Constantine, reveals conspiracy against Constantine,
71;
sons, 123;
attitude toward Crispus, 238, 243, 244;
death, 244, 245, 247
Felix, Bishop of Aptunga, 164, 165, 173
Finance, system of, under Diocletian, 337-339, 342;
under Constantine, 339-342
Firmilianus, Governor of Palestine, persecution of Christians, 136
Franks, 1, 5, 54, 253
G
Galerius, Emperor, becomes Cæsar, 5, 39;
entrusted with command of Parthia, 6;
victory over Parthians, 7, 74;
and Diocletian, 8;
domain, 8;
capital at Sirmium, 8;
character and influence, 16, 25;
mother’s influence, 16;
persecution of Christians, 17-19, 23-25, 74;
becomes Augustus, 40;
nominates new Cæsars, 41, 42;
attitude toward Constantine, 42, 46, 60;
sends Constantine to his father, 47, 48;
acknowledges Constantine as Cæsar, 50;
extends the census, 57;
relations with Severus, 59;
invasion of Italy, 60-62, 76, 81;
calls a conference at Carnuntum, 63;
and Diocletian, 63;
appoints Licinius as Augustus, 64, 65;
relations with Maximin Daza, 65, 66;
recognises Maximin as Augustus, 66;
death, 73, 74, 138;
estimate of the man, 74, 75;
nominates his successor, 75;
edicts, 79, 99;
aims carried out, 89;
leaves wife to care of Maximin, 118;
edict of toleration, 138-140
Gallienus, and senatorial order, 9;
issues edicts of toleration, 13
Gaul, devastated by Franks, 1;
recovered by Aurelian, 3;
at Diocletian’s accession, 6;
Constantius ruler of, 8, 52;
Constantine in, 51, 56, 76, 82;
Crispus in, 124, 242
Gibbon on the Circumcelliones, 186;
on the Arian controversy, 194;
on Constantinople, 263, 264;
on Annibalianus, 309
Goths, invade Roman Empire, 123, 124;
war with Constantine, 252
Gregory of Nyssa on Arian controversy, 206
Gregory, Saint, in Armenia, 27
Gregory, the Illuminator of Armenia, and the Nicene Creed, 285
Grosvenor, Mr., quoted on Constantinople, 273, 275, 278, 281
H
Helena, mother of Constantine, ancestry, 43, 44;
honoured by Constantine, 239;
and death of Crispus, 245;
pilgrimage, 249-251;
legend of finding of the Cross, 250, 251;
death, 252
Heraclea, siege of, 115
Heraclius, elected bishop, 152
Herculius, 8
Hermogenes, 228
Hierocles, author of _The Friend of Truth_, 20
Holy Apostles, Church of, 275
Holy Trinity, Church of, 275
Horses of Lysippus, 283
Hosius, Bishop of Cordova, commissioned to mediate between Alexander
and Arius, 207;
advises Constantine, 211;
at Council of Nicæa, 212, 221, 228;
falls from favour, 290, 316
I
Imperial Council, 333
Italy, invasion of, 73 _ff._
J
Jerome, Saint, exhortations against marriage, 348, 349;
dream of, 353
Jovius, adopted name of Diocletian, 8
Julian, _Banquet of the Cæsars_, 77
Julian, Emperor, on Constantine, 124, 303-305;
on Constantinople, 268
Julian laws on marriage, 350
Justinian, statue of, 269;
builds Church of St. Sophia, 274, 276
L
Lactantius, estimate of, as historian, 40-42, 47
Land tax, 337 _ff._
Licinianus, becomes Cæsar, 122;
attitude of Constantine toward, 125;
life spared, 133;
death, 243
Licinius, Emperor, at conference of Carnuntum, 63;
becomes Augustus, 64-66;
successor of Galerius, 75;
and Maximin Daza in eastern half of Empire, 76;
attitude to Maximin Daza, 79, 80;
alliance with Constantine, 79;
marriage, 79, 106;
and Edict of Milan, 107 _ff._;
other edicts, 109;
downfall, 115 _ff._;
at Milan, 115;
victory over Maximin Daza, 116, 117;
angel’s revelation to, 116;
execution of Maximin Daza’s family, 118, 119;
execution of Candidianus, 119;
and Constantine share Empire, 120;
war with Constantine, 120;
defeated at Cibalis, 121;
defeated at Mardia, 121;
treaty with Constantine, 122;
appoints Licinianus as Cæsar, 122;
gives up important provinces, 122;
rupture with Constantine, 123, 125-127, 154, 157;
religious policy, 126, 127;
defeated at Adrianople, 128;
defeated at Chrysopolis, 130;
pleads for his life, 131;
death, 132;
character, 132;
edict of toleration, 138-140;
defeats Maximin, 153;
anti-Christian campaign, 154, 155, 157;
throws over Edict of Milan, 155;
exile, 158
Literature, anti-Christian, 145;
decadence of, 352;
character of pagan, 352;
basis of education, 353;
renaissance of, 354
Lucian of Antioch, famous teacher, 200, 201
Lucilla, censured by Church of Carthage, 162-164;
intrigues of, 188
Ludi Cereales, 36
Lycians, petition of, 142, 143
M
Mackail, Mr., _History of Latin Literature_, quoted, 354
Majorinus, elected bishop, 165;
death, 165;
not recognised by the churches, 166
Mamertinus, eulogy on Maximian, 52
Manichæanism, rise, 22, 23;
chief characteristic, 22
Marcellus, elected bishop, 151;
exile and death, 152
Mardia, battle of, 121
Maris of Chalcedon, and Nicene Creed, 230, 231;
exiled, 231
Marriage, Jerome exhorts against, 348, 349;
and the State and Church, 349
Martinianus, becomes Cæsar, 130;
death, 133
Maxentius, Emperor, son of Maximian, claims heritage of Cæsar, 56;
character, 56, 77-79;
marriage, 57;
master of Rome, 57, 58;
resumes title of Augustus, 59;
and Maximian besiege Severus, 59, 60;
and Maximian in alliance with Constantine, 60;
and Maximian in possession of Italy, 62;
rupture with Maximian, 62, 63, 67, 70;
domain, 76;
treatment of African cities, 76;
loss of popularity, 76;
restores property to Christians, 79, 152;
attitude to other Augusti, 79;
alliance with Maximin Daza, 80;
war with Constantine, 80 _ff._;
overthrow, 82 _ff._, 110, 154;
Italy wrested from, 85;
death, 87;
head carried in triumphal procession, 88;
seeks good-will of Christians, 151;
exiles bishops, 152;
libel against, 163
Maximian, Emperor, becomes Cæsar, 5;
becomes Augustus, 5;
ruler of the West, 6, 8;
fights the Moors, 6;
recognises Carausius, 6, 51;
styles himself Herculius, 8;
character, 14, 15;
persecution of the Christians, 15-19, 160;
celebrates the Ludi Cereales, 36;
abdication, 40, 56;
restores peace to Gaul, 51;
eulogised by Mamertinus, 52;
locates his Court at Milan, 57;
resumes title of Augustus, 59;
victory over Severus, 59, 60;
and Maxentius in alliance with Constantine, 60, 62;
gives his daughter in marriage to Constantine, 61, 62;
and Maxentius in possession of Italy, 62;
rupture with Maxentius, 62, 63, 67, 70;
expelled from Italy, 63;
at conference of Carnuntum, 63, 65;
ex-Augustus, 65, 66;
returns to Gaul, 67;
plots against Constantine, 68, 69;
stripped of his titles, 69;
further plots against Constantine, 70, 71;
death, 71, 72
Maximin Daza, Emperor, becomes Cæsar, 40, 57;
nominated by Galerius, 41, 42;
domain, 65, 75;
claims title of Augustus, 66;
claims title of senior Augustus, 75;
and Licinius in eastern half of Empire, 76;
alliance with Maxentius, 79, 80, 148;
in opposition to Licinius, 80, 107;
invades territory of Licinius, 115, 148;
defeated, 116, 117, 148, 153;
flight, 117, 118, 148;
commits suicide, 118, 151;
province falls into hands of Licinius, 118;
family slain, 118;
treatment of Prisca and Valeria, 118, 119;
persecution of Christians, 135-137, 141-143, 145-147;
act of toleration, 137, 149-151;
restores privileges to Christians, 140, 149, 150;
character, 146, 147;
eminent victims of, 147;
war with Tiridates, 148;
final edict, 149, 150
Maximus, Governor of Cilicia, 30
Maximus, Governor of Moesia, 17, 18
Meletian schismatics checked, 297
Meletians recognised as orthodox, 295
Meletius, Bishop of Lycopolis, condemned by Egyptian bishops, 190
Mensurius, Bishop of Carthage and Primate of Africa, trick to save Holy
Books, 160;
summoned to Rome, 164;
death, 164
Milan, conference at, 106
Milan, Edict of, issued, 107, 115;
important clauses, 107, 108;
principles and motives of, 109, 110 _ff._;
hailed by the Christians, 153;
thrown over by Licinius, 155
Military forces, organisation of, 336, 337
Miltiades elected bishop, 152
Milvian Bridge, battle of, 86, 87, 92
Minervina, first wife of Constantine, son of, 122, 123
Moesia, given over to Constantine, 122;
invaded by Goths and Sarmatæ, 123
Montanism, in Northern Africa, 159
N
Naissus, birthplace of Constantine, 44, 260
Narses sues for peace, 7
Neo-Platonists, influence, 19, 197;
discussions of interest to, 216
“New Rome,” 259
Newman, Cardinal, quoted, on death of Arius, 300
Nicæa, Canons of, 231, 232
Nicæa, Council of, called by Constantine, 211;
members, 212-214;
language, 213;
great interest aroused in, 215;
Constantine opens the Council, 217-220;
splits up into parties, 221 _ff._;
proceedings, 221 _ff._;
adopts Nicene Creed, 228;
excommunicates Arius, 231;
decision in regard to Easter, 231;
draws up Canons of Nicæa, 231;
farewell address by Constantine, 233;
dismissed, 234
Nicene Creed adopted, 228 _ff._
Nicomedia, capital of Diocletian, 8, 39, 258, 260;
Christian church erected at, 13;
church at, razed, 24
Novatianism in Northern Africa, 159
Numerian, son of Carus, Empire divided between Carinus and, 4;
death, 5
P
Pagan clergy, 146
Pamphylians, petition of, 142, 143
Pannonia, given over to Constantine, 122;
invaded by Goths and Sarmatæ, 123
Paphnutius, 232, 233
Parthia, war with Rome, 7
Parthians, 2
“Passion of the Saints,” 35, 36
Paulinus of Nola, 354
Paulinus of Tyre, treatment of Arius, 196;
letter from Eusebius of Nicomedia, 202
Persia, relations with Constantine, 254-256
Philostorgius, on Fausta, 244
Philoxenos, 273
Polybius, quoted, on Byzantium, 262
Porphyry, Neo-Platonist philosopher, 19
Porphyry Pillar, the, 270
Prætorian præfects, 331, 332
Prætorians, mutiny at Rome, 57;
camps abolished, 58;
rule Rome, 77, 78;
disbanded, 89
Prætors, 334
Prisca, wife of Diocletian, a Christian, 13;
exiled, 118, 119;
death, 120, 132
Probus, 4, 17
Prudentius, 354
Purpurius, Bishop of Limata, 161
R
Roman Empire, threatened fall in third century, 1 _ff._;
turn of fortune, 3;
under Diocletian, 5 _ff._, 330;
divided into twelve dioceses, 10, 331;
prosperity, 11;
population, 12;
shared by Constantine and Licinius, 120;
invaded by Goths and Sarmatæ, 123, 124;
united, 133;
peace, 252;
war with Goths and Sarmatæ, 252;
reorganisation under Constantine, 330 _ff._;
disintegration, 342 _ff._
Rome, 57, 258
Rome, Council of, 176
Ruricius Pompeianus, holds Verona, 83;
killed, 85
S
Sabinus, præfect, 140, 143
St. Irene, Church of, description of, 274, 275
St. Sophia, Church of, 274
St. Stephen, Church of, 278
Sapor, king of Persia, relations with Constantine, 254-256
Sarmatæ, invade Roman Empire, 123;
turn to Constantine for help, 253
Saturninus, speech of, 3
Secundus, Bishop of Tigisis, president of synod at Cirta, 161, 162, 165
Secundus of Ptolemais, Bishop, friend of Arius, 196
Senate, 335, 336
Seneca, quoted, 350
Senecio, 120
Severus, Emperor, becomes Cæsar, 40, 56, 57;
nominated by Galerius, 41, 59;
domain, 56;
besieges Rome, 59;
besieged by Maximian and Maxentius, 59-60;
is given choice of death, 72
Simon Stylites, 347
Sirmium, capital of Galerius, 8
Slavery, 342
Socrates, quoted, 216, 220, 287, 288, 298, 299
Sopater, pagan philosopher, in favour with Constantine, 324
Sotades of Crete, pagan poet, 204
Sozomen, quoted, 216
Stanley, Dean, _History of the Eastern Church_, quoted, 226
Sylvanus, Bishop, 162
Sylvester, Bishop of Rome, sends representatives to Council of Arles,
175;
letter to, from Council of Arles, 176, 177;
absent from Council of Nicæa, 212, 213;
baptises Constantine, 248;
legends concerning Constantine and, 248, 249
T
Tacitus, rule of, 4;
on childless life, 349
Taxation, 337-342
Temporal Power, legend of origin, 248, 249
Terminalia, Festival of, 24
Tertullian and his doctrine, 351
Theban Legion, legend of its massacre, 14, 15
Theodora, wife of Constantius Chlorus, 44
Theodoretus, rival of Arius, 190;
on the Council of Nicæa, 220, 223
Theodosius II., rebuilds walls of Constantinople, 266;
attitude toward recluses, 348
Theodotus of Ancyra, 30
Theognis of Nicæa, and Nicene Creed, 230, 231;
exiled, 231;
recalled, 287, 288
Theonas, Bishop of Marmorica, friend of Arius, 196
Theotecnus, Governor of Antioch, 142;
invented new deity, 145
Thessalonica, naval harbour, 127
Tiridates, ruler of Armenia, 6
Tithe lands, 1
Trinitarians _vs._ Arians, 221, 223-226
Twelfth Legion, soldiers of, martyrs, 156
Tyre, Council of, trial of Athanasius, 293-295
U
Urbanus, Governor of Palestine, 136
V
Valens, appointed Cæsar, 122;
recalls recluses from the desert, 348
Valentinianus, the Curator, 161
Valeria, daughter of Diocletian, a Christian, 13;
widow of Galerius, 118;
Maximin proposes marriage to, 118;
exiled, 119
Valerian, Emperor, taken prisoner, 2;
persecution of the Christians, 13
Victor of Russicas, 161
Z
Zosimus on Constantine’s character, 303
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transcriber’s Note
Lapses of punctuation in the Index have been resolved without further
notice.
Where possible, Greek passages have been checked against Winkelmann's
edition at http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/books/eusebius/vc/gr/index.htm#.
As noted below, a typesetting error in the footnotes, over a few pages,
resulted in the Greek ‘καὶ’ as ‘κὰι’.
The Greek passage in footnote #f136# has been corrected to eliminate a
wide spacing, supplying the first two characters of ‘[πρ]έποντας’ (_De
Vit. Const._, iv., 62.)
The final two words of a Greek passage (‘ἐννοεῖ δῆτα ὁποῖον, δέοι θέον
ἐπιγράψασθαι βοηθὸν’) have been reversed, but are retained.
Other errors deemed most likely to be the printer’s have been corrected,
and are noted here. The references are to the page and line in the
original or to the page, (renumbered) note, and line.
8.10 A long line of fortresses was Inserted.
estab[l]ished
11.6 since the days of the Antonines[,/.] Replaced.
19.9 from [h/H]is lofty throne Replaced for
consistency.
21.21 a menace to the established Replaced.
authorities[,/.]
33.1 culpable w[ake/eak]ness. Transposed.
45.23 high-spir[i]ted Inserted.
52.16 [“]thanks to Maximian, Added.
110.25 ἐστι θειότης κ[ὰι\αὶ] οὐρανίου πράγματος Replaced.
130.n64.1 τὸ σωτήριον κ[ὰι\αὶ] ζωοποιὸν Replaced.
130.n64.2 ὥσπερ τι φόβητρον κ[ὰι\αὶ] κακῶν Replaced.
ἀμυντήριον.
148.n70.1 Εὐσεβεῖς τε κ[ὰι\αὶ] μόνους θεοσεβεῖς Replaced.
216.n95.1 πίστει κ[ὰι\αὶ] καλοῖς ἔργοις Replaced.
φυλαττομένην.
227.15 of her debt to the wise.[”] Added.
232.n100.1 τίμιον εἵναι κ[ὰι\αὶ] τὴν κόιτην Replaced.
κ[ὰι\αὶ] αὐτὸν
233.n102.1 κλίμακα κ[ὰι/αὶ] μόνος ἀνάβηθι εἰς τὸν Replaced.
οὐρανόν
234.n103.1 κ[ὰι/αὶ] σπάνιος αὖ τῆς ἀληθείας φίλος. Replaced.
274.14 the world-renow[n]ed St. Sophia Inserted.
307.12 adding to their dignity.[”] Added.
313.136.1 θεσμὸυς ἤδη βίου θεῷ [πρ]έποντας Inserted.
359.33 Christian marty[r]s Inserted.