Chapter XVI: The Empire and Christianity

The reorganisation of the Empire, begun by Diocletian, had been continued along the same lines by Constantine the Great. There were still further developments under their successors, but these two were the real founders of the Imperial system which was to subsist in the eastern half of the Empire for more than eleven hundred years. In other words, Diocletian and Constantine gave the Empire, if not a new lease of life, at least a new impetus and a new start, and we may here present a brief sketch of the reforms which they introduced into practically every sphere of governmental activity.

We have already seen how profoundly changed was the position of the Emperor himself. He was no longer essentially a Roman Imperator, a supreme War-Lord, a soldier Chief of State. He had become a King in a palace, secluded from the gaze of the vulgar, surrounded with all the attributes and ornaments of an eastern monarch, and robed in gorgeous vestments stiff with gold and jewels. Men were taught to speak and think of him as superhuman and sacrosanct, to approach him with genuflexion and adoration, to regard every office, however menial, attached to his person, as sacred. In speaking of the Emperor language was strained to the pitch of the ridiculous; flattery became so grotesque that it must have ceased to flatter. When Nazarius, for example, speaks of the Emperor’s heart as “the stupendous shrine of mighty virtues” (_ingentium virtutum stupenda penetralia_), and such language as this became the recognised mode of addressing the reigning Sovereign, we see how far we have travelled not only from Republican simplicity, but even from the times of Domitian. The Emperor, in brief, was absolute monarch, autocrat of the entire Roman world, and his will and nod were law.

He stood at the head of a hierarchy of court and administrative officials, most minutely organised from the highest to the lowest. For purposes of Imperial administration, those next to the throne were the four Prætorian præfects, each one supreme, under the Emperor, in his quarter of the world. The Empire had been divided by Diocletian into twelve dioceses and these again into ninety-six provinces; Constantine accepted this division but apportioned the twelve dioceses into four præfectures, those of the Orient, Illyria, Italy, and Gaul. The four Prætorian præfects stood in relation to the Emperor—so Eusebius tells us—as God the Son stood in relation to God the Father. They wore—though not perhaps in the days of Constantine—robes of purple reaching to the knee; they rode in lofty chariots, and among the insignia of their office were a colossal silver inkstand and gold pen-cases of a hundred pounds in weight. Their functions were practically unlimited, save for the all-important exception that they exercised no military command. They had an exchequer of their own, through which passed all the Imperial taxes from their provinces; they had absolute control over the vicars of the dioceses beneath them, whom, if they did not actually appoint they at least recommended for appointment to the Emperor. In their own præfectures they formed the final court of appeal, and Constantine expressly enacted that there should be no appeal from them to the throne. They even had a limited power of issuing edicts. Thus in all administrative, financial, and judicial matters the four Prætorian præfects were supreme, occupying a position very similar to that of the Viceroys of the great provinces of China, save that they had no control over the troops within their territories.

Below these four præfects came the vicars of the twelve dioceses of the Oriens, Pontica, Asiana, Thracia, Mœsia, Pannonia, Britanniæ, Galliæ, Viennenses, Italia, Hispaniæ, and Africa. Egypt continued to hold an unique position; its governor was almost independent of the præfect of the Orient, and was always a direct nominee of the Emperor. Then, below the twelve vicars came the governors of the provinces, the number of which constantly tended to increase, but by further subdivision rather than by conquest of new territory. Various names were given to these governors; they were _rectores_ and _correctores_ in some provinces, _præsides_ in many more, _consulares_ in a few of the more important ones, such as Africa and Italia. Each had his own entourage of minor officials, and the hierarchical principle was observed as rigidly on the lowest rungs of the ladder as on the topmost. Autocrats are obliged to rule through a bureaucracy, a broad-based pyramid of officialdom which usually weighs heavily upon the unfortunate taxpayer who has to support the entire structure.

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.

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.

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.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.